REVIEW 1 cited by
Deep Residual Networks for Gravitational Wave Detection
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Traditionally, gravitational waves are detected with techniques such as matched filtering or unmodeled searches based on wavelets. However, in the case of generic black hole binaries with non-aligned spins, if one wants to explore the whole parameter space, matched filtering can become impractical, which sets severe restrictions on the sensitivity and computational efficiency of gravitational-wave searches. Here, we use a novel combination of machine-learning algorithms and arrive at sensitive distances that surpass traditional techniques in a specific setting. Moreover, the computational cost is only a small fraction of the computational cost of matched filtering. The main ingredients are a 54-layer deep residual network (ResNet), a Deep Adaptive Input Normalization (DAIN), a dynamic dataset augmentation, and curriculum learning, based on an empirical relation for the signal-to-noise ratio. We compare the algorithm's sensitivity with two traditional algorithms on a dataset consisting of a large number of injected waveforms of non-aligned binary black hole mergers in real LIGO O3a noise samples. Our machine-learning algorithm can be used in upcoming rapid online searches of gravitational-wave events in a sizeable portion of the astrophysically interesting parameter space. We make our code, AResGW, and detailed results publicly available at https://github.com/vivinousi/gw-detection-deep-learning .
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Robustness of Sensitivity Evaluations for Gravitational Wave Detection Algorithms
AresGW model 1's injection detection count at a false-alarm rate of 1/month varies with noise dataset by up to 39% coefficient of variation, while sensitive distance varies by only a few percent.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.