Sensitivity comparison of searches for binary black hole coalescences with ground-based gravitational-wave detectors

Searches for gravitational-wave transients from binary black hole coalescences typically rely on one of two approaches: matched filtering with templates and morphology-independent excess power searches. Multiple algorithmic implementations in the analysis of data from the first generation of ground-based gravitational-wave interferometers have used different strategies for the suppression of non-Gaussian noise transients and have targeted different regions of the binary black hole parameter space. In this paper we compare the sensitivity of three such algorithms: matched filtering with full coalescence templates, matched filtering with ringdown templates, and a morphology-independent excess power search. The comparison is performed at a fixed false alarm rate and relies on Monte Carlo simulations of binary black hole coalescences for spinning, nonprecessing systems with a total mass of $25–350{\mathrm{M}}_{\odot }$, which covers a portion of the parameter space of stellar mass and intermediate mass black hole binaries. We find that in the mass range of $25–100{\mathrm{M}}_{\odot }$, the sensitive distance of the search, marginalized over source parameters, is the best with matched filtering to full waveform templates, which is within 10% of the next most sensitive search of morphology-independent excess power algorithm, at a false alarm rate of 3 events/year. In the mass range of $100–350{\mathrm{M}}_{\odot }$, the same comparison favors the morphology-independent excess power search within 20% of matched filtering with ringdown templates. The dependence on mass and spin is also explored.

Figure 1

Sensitivity of the detectors during the period of data in this study. The color shaded region indicates the 5th to 95th amplitude spectral density percentiles.

Figure 2

Expected range (Mpc) as a function of $m$ vs $q$. This quantity is estimated from the network SNR threshold of 12 and is marginalized over the spin parameter, sky position, and orientation of the binary system. The color scale is saturated at 200 Mpc for comparison with Figs. 6, 7, 10, and 11.

Figure 3

Expected range (Mpc) as a function of $m$ vs ${\chi }_s$. This quantity is estimated at a network SNR threshold of 12 and is marginalized over mass ratio, sky position, and orientation of the black hole binary system.

Figure 4

Efficiency curves at a false alarm rate of 3 events per year, averaged over total mass, mass ratio, spin parameter, sky position, and inclination of the source. (a) Total mass $25–100{\mathrm{M}}_{\odot }$. (b) Total mass $100–350{\mathrm{M}}_{\odot }$.

Figure 5

Mean sensitive distance as a function of false alarm rate. (a) Total mass $25–100{\mathrm{M}}_{\odot }$. (b) Total mass $100–350{\mathrm{M}}_{\odot }$.

Figure 6

Sensitive distance for systems with total mass $25–100{\mathrm{M}}_{\odot }$ as a function of total mass $m$ and mass ratio $q$ at a false alarm rate of 3 events per year. (a) Matched filter to IMR templates. (b) Coherent WaveBurst template-less search. (c) Matched filter to ringdowns.

Figure 7

Sensitive distance for systems with total mass $25–100{\mathrm{M}}_{\odot }$ as a function of total mass $m$ and mass ratio ${\chi }_s$ at a false alarm rate of 3 events per year. (a) Matched filter to IMR templates. (b) Coherent WaveBurst template-less search. (c) Matched filter to ringdowns.

Figure 8

Sensitive volume ratio for systems with total mass $25–100{\mathrm{M}}_{\odot }$ as a function of $m$ and $q$ at a false alarm rate of 3 events per year. (a) IMR templates/Coherent WaveBurst. (b) IMR templates/ringdown.

Figure 9

Sensitive volume ratio for systems with total mass $25–100{\mathrm{M}}_{\odot }$ as a function of $m$ vs ${\chi }_s$ at a false alarm rate of 3 events per year. (a) IMR templates/Coherent WaveBurst. (b) IMR templates/ringdown.

Figure 10

Sensitive distance for systems with total mass $100–350{\mathrm{M}}_{\odot }$ as a function of $m$ and $q$ at a false alarm rate of 3 events per year. (a) Coherent WaveBurst template-less search. (b) Matched filter to ringdowns.

Figure 11

Sensitive distance for systems with total mass $100–350{\mathrm{M}}_{\odot }$ as a function of $m$ and ${\chi }_s$ at a false alarm rate of 3 events per year. (a) Coherent WaveBurst template-less search. (b) Matched filter to ringdowns.

Figure 12

Sensitive volume ratio for systems with total mass $100–350{\mathrm{M}}_{\odot }$ as a function of $m$ and $q$, and $m$ and ${\chi }_s$ at a false alarm rate of 3 events per year. (a) Coherent WaveBurst/ringdown. (b) Coherent WaveBurst/ringdown.