Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
several searches were carried out to find the neutrino background. We will neglect the possibility that different
counterpart of GW discoveries [30–32]. A separate search messengers from distinct astrophysical signals coincide as
was carried out to find joint events for which neither the this is highly unlikely given our low signal rate.
GW nor the neutrino signal could be independently con- For GWs we use the following observational informa-
firmed to be astrophysical [REF O1]. tion for the search: (i) detection time tgw ; (ii) recon-
Most of these searches were based on the analysis structed sky location probability density Pgw = Pgw (Ω),
method developed by Baret et al. [20]. This method called the skymap, where Ω is the source sky location;
combines GW amplitude, neutrino reconstructed energy, and (iii) GW statistic ρgw , which is a measure of the
temporal coincidence and directional coincidence to sep- GW signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and the event’s consis-
arate astrophysical events from chance coincidences. The tency with background expectations [60]. We define a
method aims to be emission model agnostic and does not vector containing the measured properties of a GW trig-
impose constraints on the source properties except by ger as
assuming that higher neutrino energy is more likely to
indicate an astrophysical signal. xgw = {tgw , Pgw , ρgw }. (1)
Following the success of the search method by Baret et For multiple source types, an additional variable could be
al. [20] spanning over a decade, it is time to upgrade it to the source-dependent gravitational waveform. We omit
enhance its sensitivity and aid newly relevant real-time this as a factor in the following description.
searches. Two particular motivations for the upgrade For high-energy neutrinos, we assume that a single
are to facilitate the incorporation of astrophysical infor- neutrino is observed. The used observational informa-
mation and detector characteristics in the search. Re- tion for this neutrino includes (i) its detection time tν ;
garding astrophysical information, while it is beneficial (ii) its reconstructed sky location probability density
to keep the search largely model independent, in many Pν = Pν (Ω); and (iii) the reconstructed neutrino energy
cases signal constraints can be specified that do not de- ǫν . As high-energy neutrinos are not directly observed,
pend strongly on particular model. Regarding detector the observed energy of the lepton produced in the neu-
characteristics, a more complex detector model will im- trino interaction is taken as ǫν . We assume that the
prove sensitivity and accuracy, but requires the incorpo- reconstructed sky location can be described as a Gaus-
ration of prior information on these characteristics to the sian distribution centered at reconstructed neutrino di-
search. rection Ων , with reconstructed uncertainty σν . We define
In this paper, we present a new search algorithm for a vector containing the measured properties of a neutrino
common sources of GWs and high-energy neutrinos based trigger as
on Bayesian hypothesis testing. A Bayesian framework
is a natural choice to incorporate prior astrophysical and xν = {tν , Ων , σν , ǫν }. (2)
detector information. Bayesian solutions are becoming
We define a vector containing our model parameters
more common in GW [50–53] and more recently multi-
for the signal hypothesis as
messenger data analysis [54–59].
The paper is organized as follows. The general idea θ = {ts , r, Ω, Egw , Eν }, (3)
for this analysis is described in Sec II, following by prob-
abilities describing signal hypothesis in Sec III, null hy- where ts is the reference time, r is the luminosity dis-
pothesis in Sec IV and chance coincidence hypothesis in tance, Ω is the sky location, Egw is the isotropic-
Sec V. We define the use of odds ratios in Section VI. We equivalent total GW energy, and Eν is the isotropic-
conclude in Section VII. equivalent total high-energy neutrino energy emitted
from the astrophysical event. The reference time can be
thought of as the time of a relevant astrophysical event
II. MULTI-MESSENGER SEARCH METHOD
to which we compare the other times of arrival, delayed
by the travel time of information to Earth at the speed of
light. The neutrino energies considered here render the
To determine whether a multi-messenger coincident neutrino travel time practically the same as travel time
signal is a real event or a random coincidence, we for- at the speed of light.
mulate the problem in the context of Bayesian hypothesis
testing. We further incorporate detector and background
characteristics as well as astrophysical information of the III. SIGNAL HYPOTHESIS
messenger particle and its source.
We will compare multiple hypotheses. Our signal hy- We first introduce our signal hypothesis Hs . Given the
pothesis, Hs , is that all considered messengers originated observational data, the probability of the signal hypothe-
from the same astrophysical source. Our null hypothe- sis being true can be written as P (Hs |xgw , xν ). We apply
sis, H0 , is that triggers in all messengers arose from the Bayes’ rule to express this probability as
background. Additionally, we will consider a chance co-
incidence hypothesis, Hc , that one of the triggers is astro- P (xgw , xν |Hs )P (Hs )
P (Hs |xgw , xν ) = , (4)
physical, but the others are random coincidences from the P (xgw , xν )
3
Since we are interested in the ratio of such probabilities volume in space in the distance range [r, r + dr]
for different hypotheses, the denominator above will can- is ∝ r2 dr, but the probability of detecting a neu-
cel out. We therefore omit its computation. To obtain trino from the source falls as r−2 . This uniform
the first term in the numerator, we write distribution is valid up to the GW distance range
Z r0 fA (Ω, tGW ) beyond which sources are not de-
P (xgw , xν |Hs ) = P (xgw , xν |θ, Hs )P (θ|Hs )dθ (5) tected. Here, r0 is the GW detection range for op-
timal source direction, and fA (Ω, tGW ) is the an-
tenna pattern of the GW detector network. The
Since xgw and xν are both dependent on θ but are latter is the ratio of the projected GW amplitude
otherwise can be considered independent of each other, in the detector and the actual amplitude at Earth.
we can write The range r0 satisfies r0 (Egw ) ∝ Egw .
1/2
Z Eν+ Z +
Egw Z Z r0 (Egw )fA (Ω,tgw )
−1
Rdet = ṅgw+ν fb,ν dEν dEgw P (Egw , Eν |Hs ) dΩ dr r2 [1 − Poiss(0, hnν (Eν , r)i)] (11)
Eν− −
Egw 0
where the dΩ integral is over the whole sky, ṅgw+ν is and Poiss(k, λ) is the Poisson probability density function
a constant such that ṅgw+ν P (Egw , Eν |Hs ) corresponds with λ mean and k observed events. Although the rate
to the differential rate density of GW+neutrino events, seems to be dependent on detection time, it isn’t due to
4
the fact that time only rotates the antenna pattern and t− +
gw and tgw and is zero elsewhere:
we integrate over the whole sky. The prior probability (
will be (t+ − −1
if tgw − ts ∈ [t− +
gw − tgw ) gw , tgw ]
P (tgw |ts , Hs ) =
0 otherwise
1 (14)
P (Hs ) = Rdet (12) For example, previous GW+neutrino searches used pa-
N2
rameters t+ −
gw = −tgw = 250 s [14, 20, 28, 30–32]. We as-
sume that the other source parameters are independent
of tgw .
with suitable normalization constant N2 . This constant To understand the second term on the right hand side
will be the same for our null hypothesis and will be can- of Eq. 13, we make use of the fact that ρgw on av-
celled out, therefore its actual value is not relevant. erage is proportional to the GW signal’s amplitude at
Earth, characterized by the root-sum-squared GW strain
hrss . Assuming here for simplicity that all gravitational
waveforms are similar, the GW strain is fully determined
by r, Egw , Ω and tgw . The time dependence comes
in due to Earth’s rotation if we measure sky location
in equatorial coordinates. Assuming that ρgw precisely
B. Gravitational waves (Hs )
describes hrss , this term represents a constraint on the
source parameters, which need to be such that they pro-
duce at Earth the hrss value that corresponds to the
We now consider the probability P (xgw |θ, Hs ). We measured ρgw value. This means that only the combina-
assume that the GW observables are only connected 1/2
through the source parameters and are otherwise inde- tion Egw r−1 fA (Ω, tgw ) is constrained, where fA (Ω, tgw )
pendent. This assumption is valid if we neglect the vari- is the direction-dependent antenna pattern of the GW
ation of the GW antenna pattern within the GW skymap. detector network. This combination is proportional to
While this is only approximately true for most cases and the measured GW strain amplitude.
its accuracy decreases for larger skymaps, this assump- We therefore write the probability as a constraint
tion simplifies the calculations below. For independent h
1/2 −1
i
variables, we have: P (ρgw |θ, Hs ) = δ ρgw − κ0 Egw r fA (Ω, tgw ) (15)
Where δ is the Dirac-delta and κ0 is an appropriate con-
stant that depends on the GW search algorithm and
P (xgw |θ, Hs ) = P (tgw |θ, Hs )P (ρgw |θ, Hs )P (Pgw |θ, Hs ) needs to be empirically determined.
(13) Next, we look at the term P (Pgw |θ, Hs ). Using Bayes’
theorem, we write
(
Pgw (Ω) P (Egw , Eν |Hs ) if r ≤ r0 (Egw )fA (Ω, tgw )
P (θ|Pgw , Hs ) = , (17)
Tobs N1 0 otherwise
since the skymap determines the probability of the signal Regarding P (Pgw |Hs ), we assume that the distribution
coming from a given sky location Ω. We assumed that of Pgw is independent of the underlying hypothesis, i.e.
no parameter other than Ω is constrained by the GW P (Pgw |Hs ) = P (Pgw ). This term appears for the alter-
skymap. The distance term here arises similarly to as it native hypothesis as well, it cancels out and therefore we
did for P (θ|Hs ) in Eq. 9. can ignore it here.
Putting everything together, we have for the GW term
5
(
h
1/2 −1
i (t+ − −1
gw − tgw ) if tgw − ts ∈ [t− +
gw , tgw ]
P (xgw |θ, Hs ) = δ ρgw − κ0 Egw r fA (Ω, tgw ) Pgw (Ω) · (18)
0 otherwise
C. High-energy neutrinos (Hs ) The neutrino energy reconstruction does not depend on
the reconstructed direction since the angular distance be-
tween Ων and Ω is expected to be small compared to the
We now turn our attention to the high-energy neutrino
scale on which energy dependence is relevant. Therefore,
term P (xν |θ, Hs ) in Eq. 6. We treat the temporal term
the first term on the right in Eq. 20 does not depend on
similarly to the GW case. We assume that the time dif-
Ων .
ference tν − ts is the only relevant temporal value. We
Given the source direction as a parameter, the prob-
further use a uniform probability density within the time
ability of reconstructing ǫν for a detected neutrino de-
interval [t− +
ν ,tν ], and 0 outside: pends on the energy- and direction-dependent effective
( area Aeff (ǫν , Ω) of the neutrino detector, as well as the
(t+ − −1
if tν − ts ∈ [t−
ν − tν )
+
ν , tν ]
source power spectral density. Here we ignore the differ-
P (tν |ts , Hs ) = . ence between true and reconstructed energy when calcu-
0 otherwise
lating the effective area as this should not significantly
(19) change its value. We take the neutrino spectral density
The remaining neutrino observables, Ων , σν and ǫν , are to be dNν /dǫν ∝ ǫ−2 ν , which is the standard spectrum
not independent. The sensitivity of neutrino detectors expected from Fermi processes [62]. With these depen-
varies with both energy and sky location, and localization dences, we write
accuracy depends on source direction and energy.
1
Let us take the remaining neutrino term P (ǫν |Ων , Ω, Hs ) = Aeff (ǫν , Ω)ǫ−2
ν , (21)
P (Ων , σν , ǫν |r, Ω, Eν , Hs ). We assume that the sig- Nǫ
where
nal distribution of ǫν follows a power law, therefore the
neutrino spectrum is independent of the source distance.
Z Z ∞
(
2
1 1 − |Ων2σ−Ω| (t+ − −1
ν − tν ) if tν − ts ∈ [t− +
ν , tν ]
P (xν |θ, Hs ) = Aeff (ǫν , Ω)ǫ−2
ν e 2
ν · (24)
Nǫ 2πσν2 0 otherwise
1 1
P (xgw , xν |H0 )P (H0 ) P (H0 ) = Rbg,det = Rgw,bg Rν,bg (t+ + − −
gw +tν −tgw −tν ),
P (H0 |xgw , xν ) = , (25) N2 N2
P (xgw , xν ) (30)
where Rbg,det is the expected false multi-messenger de-
The denominator here will cancel out with the same de- tection rate from background events. The normalization
nominator in the signal hypothesis, therefore we do not factor N2 will cancel out with the same factor in the sig-
need to further consider it. To compute the first term in nal hypothesis, see Eq. 12.
the numerator on the right-hand side, we write
Z B. Gravitational waves (H0 )
P (xgw , xν |H0 ) = P (xgw , xν |θ0 , H0 )P (θ0 |H0 )dθ 0 ,
(26) We now consider the GW component P (xgw |θ0 , H0 ).
where the parameter vector for our null hypothesis only We assume that the measured GW parameters for the
has one parameter, the time of the background event: background are independent. We can then define the
probabilities of measuring each parameter independently:
θ0 = {t0 }. (27) P (xgw |θ0 , H0 ) =
(31)
P (tgw |θ0 ,H0 )P (Pgw |θ0 , H0 )P (ρgw |θ 0 , H0 )
Since the background events for GW and neutrino obser-
vations are independent, we can write Starting with the first term on the right-hand side, we
expect the probability distribution of detection time for
P (xgw , xν |θ 0 , H0 ) = P (xgw |θ0 , H0 )P (xν |θ0 , H0 ) (28) a background event to be independent of time, therefore
we adopt a uniform distribution within the allowed time
window. The allowed time window is defined by what
We will now specify the independent elements of Eqs. 25, time difference between a GW and neutrino signal can-
26 and 28 in the context of our background model. didate we analyze for coincidence. We therefore have
(
(t+ − −1
gw − tgw ) if tgw − t0 ∈ [t− +
gw , tgw ]
P (tgw |t0 , H0 ) =
0 otherwise
A. Parameter priors (H0 )
(32)
Since we considered a signal model which also assumes
There are two prior probabilities that we need to com- uniform distribution within the allowed time window, we
pute in our null hypothesis: P (θ0 |H0 ) and P (H0 ). have P (tgw |t0 , H0 ) = P (tgw |ts , Hs ).
We first discuss the prior probability distribution of the The distribution of ρgw depends on the detector prop-
parameters, P (θ0 |H0 ), which appears in Eq. 26 above. erties as well as the properties of the reconstruction al-
We assume that a background event is equally likely to gorithm. We therefore estimate this distribution empiri-
occur at any time during the observation period. This cally, using observed ρgw from the background, obtained
gives us by time shifting data between multiple GW observato-
ries and carrying out the full analysis algorithm over this
1 time shifted data. We denote the empirically established
P (t0 |H0 ) = . (29) distribution of ρgw with Pemp (ρgw |H0 ).
Tobs
Considering the term P (Pgw |θ0 , H0 ), the GW skymap
should not depend on the time of the event. In addi-
which is the same as our Eq. 7 for the corresponding tion, we do not have any prior information on P (Pgw |H0 ),
prior in the signal hypothesis. therefore we assume that it is independent of Pgw . Since
Next, we consider P (H0 ). This probability depends on there is a similar term in our signal hypothesis, these two
the expected detection rate of background events, which cancel out. We therefore ignore this term in the follow-
in turn is a combination of the rate of GW and neutrino ing.
background events separately. Considering background Putting everything together, we have for the back-
rates for the GW and neutrino channel to be Rgw,bg and ground GW term
(
(t+ − −1
gw − tgw ) if tgw − t0 ∈ [t− +
gw , tgw ]
P (xgw |θ0 , H0 ) = Pemp (ρgw |H0 ) (33)
0 otherwise
7
C. High-energy neutrinos (H0 ) background events, this probability can be estimated em-
pirically using observed data. Let {Ων,i , ǫν,i }, i ∈ Nν,obs
Next, we examine P (xν |θ0 , H0 ) in Eq. 28. We first be the reconstructed parameters observed set of Nν,obs
separate the temporal term which we assume to be in- neutrino candidates. We then have the empirical esti-
dependent of the other parameters. We assume that the mate
time of arrival of a background neutrino signal is time-
independent, and take a uniform probability distribution (max) (min)
1 4 ǫν − ǫν
within the allowed time window. The allowed time win- Pemp (Ων , ǫν |H0 ) = 2
Nν,obs ∆Ω 2∆ǫ
dow is defined by what time difference between a neutrino X (35)
signal candidate we analyze for coincidence. We therefore [|Ων − Ων,i | < ∆Ω & |ǫν − ǫν,i | < ∆ǫ ] ,
have i∈Nν,obs
(
(t+ − −1
ν − tν ) if tν − t0 ∈ [t− +
ν , tν ]
P (tν |t0 , H0 ) = (34) where we use here the bracket notation such that [P ] is 1
0 otherwise if P is true and 0 if P is false. We further introduced con-
stants ∆Ω and ∆ǫ , which should be selected such that the
Since our signal model also considers a uniform dis- uncertainty on the probability estimate is minimal. The
tribution within the allowed time window, we have values ǫν
(max)
and ǫν
(min)
correspond to the maximum and
P (tν |t0 , H0 ) = P (tν |ts , Hs ). minimum values of the detectors sensitive energy band,
The remaining measured parameters will not be inde- respectively.
pendent of each other. In particular, the reconstructed
neutrino direction and energy are interconnected. For For detectors such as IceCube, one can effectively treat
simplicity, we ignore the directional uncertainty parame- the reconstructed energy dependent only on the recon-
ter σν , as it is essentially determined by the reconstructed structed declination, and not the right ascension. This
direction and the reconstructed neutrino energy. simplifies the above empirical probability density.
We therefore need to examine the probability Putting everything together, we have for the back-
P (Ων , ǫν |θ 0 , H0 ). Given a sufficient number of observed ground neutrino term
(
(t+ − −1
ν − tν ) if tν − t0 ∈ [t− +
ν , tν ]
P (xν |θ0 , H0 ) = Pemp (Ων , ǫν |H0 ) (36)
0 otherwise.
D. Combination of probabilities (H0 ) ground neutrino event denoted by Hcν . Since these two
cases are mutually exclusive and complementary to each
We can combine the above results to obtain the prob- other for the chance coincidence hypothesis we can write
ability of the joint event being from the background by P (Hc |xgw , xν ) = P (Hcgw |xgw , xν ) + P (Hcν |xgw , xν ). We
taking Eqs. 33 and 36 and substituting them into Eq. again apply Bayes’ rule
28. Then Eq. 28 along with Eq. 29 should be substi- P (Hc |xgw , xν ) = P (Hcgw |xgw , xν ) + P (Hcν |xgw , xν )
tuted into Eq. 26. Finally, Eq. 26 and Eq. 30 should be
substituted into Eq. 25. Eq. 25 will miss a normalization P (xgw , xν |Hcgw )P (Hcgw ) + P (xgw , xν |Hcν )P (Hcν )
=
factor both from Eq. 30 and from the denominator on P (xgw , xν )
the right side, both of which cancel out upon calculating (37)
the Bayes factor.
Here the denominator again cancels out with the same
denominator in the signal and null hypotheses. Now con-
sider the first term in the numerator
V. CHANCE COINCIDENCE HYPOTHESIS
P (xgw , xν |Hcgw ) =
(38)
Z
We finally calculate the probability for the chance co- P (xgw , xν |θgw gw gw gw gw
c , Hc )P (θ c |Hc )dθ c
incidence hypothesis Hc . Given the observational data
the probability of the chance coincidence hypothesis be-
where
ing true can be written as P (Hc |xgw , xν ). Hc can be
separated into two parts, one of which considers a back- θgw gw
c = {tc , r, Ω, Egw } (39)
ground neutrino event and a foreground gravitational
wave event denoted by Hcgw ; and the other one consid- Here, tgw
c is the time of the GW signal and the other
ers a background gravitational wave event and a fore- parameters are the same as defined in Section III. Since
8
P (xgw , xν |θgw gw gw gw gw
c , Hc ) = P (xgw |θ c , Hc )P (xν |θ c , Hc )
gw
(40)
Similarly for the second term in Eq. 37 Here our prior P (θ|Hcgw ) is the same P (θ|Hs ) in Sec-
Z tion III A, since both only depend on the gravitational
P (xgw , xν |Hc ) = P (xgw , xν |θνc , Hcν )P (θ νc |Hcν )dθνc
ν wave signal parameters and not the neutrino parameters:
(41)
+
Egw r0 (Egw )fA (Ω,tgw )
1
Z Z Z
P (Hcgw ) = Rν,bg (t+ + − −
gw + tν − tgw − tν )ṅgw+ν dEgw P (Egw |Hs ) dΩ dr r2 . (45)
N2 −
Egw 0
B. Parameter priors (Hcν ) astrophysical neutrinos coming from beyond this distance
are in effect background. While there is no actual GW
Similar to Eq. 7 we have uniform probability in time source in the hypothesis Hcν , we are not concerned with
neutrinos from sources beyond the GW horizon distance
1 here as they are not relevant for the joint search. In the
P (tνc |Hcν ) = (46) same limiting case, P (θνc |Hcν ) does not depend on Eν .
Tobs
Overall we have
In the limiting case in which the expected number of (
P (Eν )
detected neutrinos from a source is ≪ 1, the probability ν ν if r ≤ rν,max
P (θc |Hc ) = Tobs N3 (47)
of detecting a source is proportional to r−2 . Since the 0 otherwise
number of sources within a [r, r + dr] shell is proportional
to r2 , these two factors cancel out and P (r|Hcν ) = const. with suitable N3 normalization constant.
We consider this uniform distribution up to a maximum Next we consider P (Hcν ), which depends on the rate
value rν,max , which corresponds to the maximum distance of chance coincidence of nearby astrophysical neutrinos
at which sources could be detectable via GWs, therefore and false gravitational wave detection rate Rgw,bg :
Eν+ rν,max
1
Z Z
P (Hcν ) = Rgw,bg ṅgw+ν fb−1 (t+ + − −
gw + tν − tgw − tν ) dEν P (Eν |Hs ) dr4π r2 [1 − Poiss(0, hNν (Eν , r)i)] (48)
N2 Eν− 0
C. Gravitational waves (Hcgw ) the coincident neutrino in the two cases, cancels out.
since in both cases there is a background neutrino event, to [O1 paper]. This background comparison also allows
and neither term depends on the GW signal. us to determine a false alarm
rate for the given event, which can be reported to ini-
tiate electromagnetic follow-up observations.
E. Gravitational waves (Hcν )
The term P (xgw |θνc , Hcν ) is equal to the same term for VII. CONCLUSIONS
our background hypothesis, i.e. P (xgw |θ0 , H0 ) (see Eq.
33), since in both cases there is a GW false detection We presented a search algorithm for common sources
from the background, and neither term depends on the of GWs and high-energy neutrinos based on Bayesian
neutrino signal. hypothesis testing. This algorithm upgrades the method
of Baret et al. [20] that was used in most prior joint
searches. The main advantages of the new method are
F. High Energy neutrinos (Hcν ) that (i) it incorporates astrophysical priors about the
source that help differentiate between signal and back-
The term P (xν |θνc , Hcν ) is equal to the same term for ground, while being largely independent of the specific
our signal hypothesis, i.e. P (xν |θ, Hs ) (see Eq. 24), since astrophysical model in consideration; (ii) it incorporates
in both cases there is a detected astrophysical neutrino, a more realistic model of the detector background, for
and neither term depends on the GW signal. example by taking into account the direction dependent
background rate and energy distribution. These detector
properties are straightforward to establish empirically,
G. Combination of probabilities (Hc ) and the method presents a straightforward way to in-
corporate them as priors.
This is done similarly to the signal and null hypothesis In the presentation of the method, we made simplifi-
cases. cations that make the algorithm easier to implement and
can make the computation faster. As an example, we as-
sumed that all GW and neutrino sources emit the same
VI. ODDS RATIO energy. It will be useful to study how these simplifica-
tions affect the sensitivity of the search, and how much
We test our signal hypothesis using odds ratios. We model dependence they introduce. This will be carried
compare our signal hypothesis against both null and co- out in a future work.
incident hypotheses
[1] B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, [4] R. Seaman, R. Williams, A. Allan, S. Barthelmy,
K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Ad- J. Bloom, M. Graham, F. Hessman, S. Marka, A. Rots,
hikari, V. B. Adya, and et al., ApJ 848, L12 (2017), C. Stoughton, T. Vestrand, R. White, and P. Woz-
arXiv:1710.05833 [astro-ph.HE]. niak, “Sky Event Reporting Metadata (VOEvent) Ver-
[2] IceCube, Fermi-LAT, MAGIC, AGILE, ASAS-SN, sion 1.11,” IVOA Recommendation 1 November 2006
HAWC, H. E. S. S, INTEGRAL, Kanata, Kiso, Kapteyn, (2006).
L. telescope, Subaru, Swift/NuSTAR, VERITAS, [5] S. Marka and LIGO Scientific Collaboration, in American
and VLA/17B-403 teams, Science 361, eaat1378 (2018), Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Bulletin of the
arXiv:1807.08816 [astro-ph.HE]. American Astronomical Society, Vol. 39 (2007) p. 868.
[3] Zsuzsa Mrka, Yoichi Aso, John Dwyer, Szabolcs Mrka, [6] Y. Aso, C. Finley, Z. Marka, J. Dwyer, K. Kotake, and
and Chad Finley, (2006), LIGO Document G060660. S. Marka, in APS April Meeting Abstracts (2008) p.
10
[36] K. Murase, K. Ioka, S. Nagataki, and T. Nakamura, [48] IceCube-Gen2 Collaboration, :, M. G. Aartsen, M. Ack-
ApJ 651, L5 (2006), astro-ph/0607104. ermann, J. Adams, J. A. Aguilar, M. Ahlers, M. Ahrens,
[37] P. Mészáros, Astroparticle Physics 43, 134 (2013), D. Altmann, T. Anderson, and et al., ArXiv e-prints
arXiv:1204.1897 [astro-ph.HE]. (2014), arXiv:1412.5106 [astro-ph.HE].
[38] S. S. Kimura, K. Murase, I. Bartos, K. Ioka, I. S. [49] S. Adrián-Martı́nez, M. Ageron, F. Aharonian,
Heng, and P. Mészáros, ArXiv e-prints (2018), S. Aiello, A. Albert, F. Ameli, E. Anassontzis,
arXiv:1805.11613 [astro-ph.HE]. M. Andre, G. Androulakis, M. Anghinolfi, and et al.,
[39] S. S. Kimura, K. Murase, P. Mészáros, and K. Kiuchi, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics 43, 084001 (2016),
ApJ 848, L4 (2017), arXiv:1708.07075 [astro-ph.HE]. arXiv:1601.07459 [astro-ph.IM].
[40] K. Ioka, S. Razzaque, S. Kobayashi, and P. Mészáros, [50] J. Veitch and A. Vecchio,
ApJ 633, 1013 (2005), astro-ph/0503279. Phys. Rev. D 81, 062003 (2010), arXiv:0911.3820.
[41] D. Murphy, M. Tse, P. Raffai, I. Bartos, [51] R. J. Dupuis and G. Woan,
R. Khan, Z. Márka, L. Matone, K. Redwine, Phys. Rev. D 72, 102002 (2005), gr-qc/0508096.
and S. Márka, Phys. Rev. D 87, 103008 (2013), [52] N. J. Cornish and T. B. Littenberg,
arXiv:1302.3915 [astro-ph.IM]. Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 135012 (2015),
[42] LIGO Scientific Collaboration, J. Aasi, B. P. Ab- arXiv:1410.3835 [gr-qc].
bott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, [53] L. P. Singer and L. R. Price,
K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, Phys. Rev. D 93, 024013 (2016),
and et al., Class. Quantum Grav. 32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1508.03634 [gr-qc].
arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]. [54] T. Budavári and A. S. Szalay, ApJ 679, 301 (2008),
[43] F. Acernese, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, arXiv:0707.1611.
D. Aisa, N. Allemandou, A. Allocca, J. Amarni, [55] G. Ashton, E. Burns, T. Dal Canton, T. Dent,
P. Astone, G. Balestri, G. Ballardin, and H.-B. Eggenstein, A. B. Nielsen, R. Prix,
et al., Class. Quantum Grav. 32, 024001 (2015), M. Was, and S. J. Zhu, ApJ 860, 6 (2018),
arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]. arXiv:1712.05392 [astro-ph.HE].
[44] M. G. Aartsen, M. Ackermann, J. Adams, J. A. [56] G. J. Babu and E. D. Feigelson, eds., Statistical Chal-
Aguilar, M. Ahlers, M. Ahrens, D. Altmann, lenges in Modern Astronomy II (1997).
K. Andeen, T. Anderson, I. Ansseau, and et al., [57] T. Naylor, P. S. Broos, and E. D. Feigelson,
Journal of Instrumentation 12, P03012 (2017), ApJS 209, 30 (2013), arXiv:1309.4491 [astro-ph.SR].
arXiv:1612.05093 [astro-ph.IM]. [58] X. Fan, C. Messenger, and I. S. Heng,
[45] M. Ageron, J. A. Aguilar, I. Al Samarai, A. Al- ApJ 795, 43 (2014), arXiv:1406.1544 [astro-ph.HE].
bert, F. Ameli, M. André, M. Anghinolfi, [59] X. Fan, C. Messenger, and I. S. Heng,
G. Anton, S. Anvar, M. Ardid, and et al., Physical Review Letters 119, 181102 (2017),
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 656, 11arXiv:1706.05639
(2011), [astro-ph.HE].
arXiv:1104.1607 [astro-ph.IM]. [60] LIGO and Virgo Collaborations,
[46] The Pierre Auger Collaboration, ArXiv e-prints (2015), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016).
arXiv:1502.01323 [astro-ph.IM]. [61] J. Abadie et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 173001 (2010),
[47] B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. arXiv:1003.2480 [astro-ph.HE].
Abernathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, [62] E. Waxman and J. Bahcall,
T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, and Physical Review Letters 78, 2292 (1997),
et al., Living Reviews in Relativity 21, 3 (2018), astro-ph/9701231.
arXiv:1304.0670 [gr-qc]. [63] J. Braun, J. Dumm, F. De Palma, C. Finley, A. Karle,
and T. Montaruli, Astroparticle Physics 29, 299 (2008),
arXiv:0801.1604.