Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

SummarydProspects with Advanced Gravitational Wave
detectors
Michał Was
˛
for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo collaboration
Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules

YITP

Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

1 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

SummarydOutline
LIGO/Virgo
Detectors
Result highlights
Gamma-ray bursts
Supernovae
Summary

Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

2 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

SummarydHanford (4km)

KAGRA

GEO (600m)

10 ms

26 ms

Virgo (3km)

Livingston (4km)

GW same everywhere but propagation delayed⇒ Reject spurious non-Gaussian glitches
3 omnidirectional detectors→ sky localization by triangulation
antenna response
Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

3 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

Summaryd

A network of detectors – 2009/2010

Sei
c
smi
se
noi

tn
ho

ois

e

S

Thermal noise

Most sensitive for GW in [50, 500] Hz band
(Abadie et al., 2012e)
Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

4 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

SummarydWhat have we not seen?

Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

5 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

SummarydResults - binary coalescence
10−3

Search for coalescence of binary
neutron star and/or black hole (Abadie
et al., 2012d)

2005-2010 upper limits 2 orders ofmagnitude above expectation
advanced detectors→ ×103 increase in sensitive volume

Rate Estimates Mpc−3yr−1



10−4
10−5
10−6
10−7
10−8
10−9

10−10
BNS

NSBH

BBH

40 yr−1 detections expected (Abadie et al., 2010)
Large errors on astrophysical predictions: 0.4 − 400 yr−1
I Based on binary pulsars observation / population synthesis
I

Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

6 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

SummarydResults - isolated neutron stars
Young pulsars (neutron stars)
Crab (SN 1054)
Vela (SN ∼ 104 yr ago)
I ...

I
I

spin frequency is precisely observed in radio
The rotation period is decreasing→ loss of rotational energy
less than 1% of Crab energy loss is due to GW
emission (Aasi et al., 2013a)
less than 10% of Vela energy loss is due to GW
emission (Aasi et al., 2013a)
Without any radio observation the limits onenergy loss higher by ∼ 102 − 103 (Abadie et al.,
2011)

⇒ EM observation enhance GW searches
sensitivity
Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

7 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

SummarydResults - unmodeled GW bursts

Search for generic bursts of GWs (2009-2010) (Abadie et al., 2012a)
Binary mergers
Stellar collapse
I ...
I
I

Sensitivity in terms of EGW emitted at 10 kpc
Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

8 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

Summaryd

Network of “Advanced” detectors
Advanced LIGO

x10

Advanced Virgo

3 Advanced LIGO / Advanced Virgo → 2015
factor ∼ 10 improvement in sensitivity

factor ∼ 103 improvement in volume within reach
Reaching design sensitivity will take a few years

KAGRA construction underway → 5 detectors ∼ 2020
Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

9 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

Summaryd

Reaching design will take time
Advanced LIGO

strain noise amplitude (Hz−1/2)

−22

10

−23

10

−24

10

Advanced Virgo−21

Early (2015, 40 − 80 Mpc)
Mid (2016−17, 80 − 120 Mpc)
Late (2017−18, 120 − 170 Mpc)
Design (2019, 200 Mpc)
BNS−optimized (215 Mpc)

10
strain noise amplitude (Hz−1/2)

−21

10

Early (2016−17, 20 − 60 Mpc)
Mid (2017−18, 60 − 85 Mpc)
Late (2018−20, 65 − 115 Mpc)
Design (2021, 130 Mpc)
BNS−optimized (145 Mpc)

−22

10

−23

10

−24

1

2

10

10
frequency (Hz)

3

10

10

1

10

2

10
frequency (Hz)3

10Best guesses(Aasi et al., 2013b)

Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

10 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

Summaryd

A fourth detector site helps with sky localization

Third Advanced LIGO detector planned in India 2020-2022(Aasi et al., 2013b)

Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

11 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

SummarydGamma-ray bursts

Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

12 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

SummarydGamma-ray bursts
Observational definition → a burst of γ-rays (10 keV − 1 MeV)

Discovered in the 70’s by nuclear bomb test surveillance satellites

short GRB 2 sec
T90 - duration of 90% of photon
counts (∼ 15 − 300 keV)Two observational populations:short-hard GRBs T90 . 2 sspectrum peaks at higher
energyI long-soft GRBs T
90 & 2 s
spectrum peaks at lower energy
Ilong GRBBATSE 4B catalog

Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

13 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

SummarydGamma-ray burst models
Long GRBs⇒ Massive rapidly spinning star collapse andexplosion
Short GRBs
⇒ Coalescence of a neutron star and acompact object
Both cases: asymmetric, compact,
relativistic ⇒ good GW source
typical GRB distance ∼ 10 Gpc

Potential lessons from GW-GRB detection
Confirm the binary coalescence model for short GRBs
Learn more about central engine of long GRBs
I

black hole or magnetar?

Precise measurement of GW speed, ∆v /c ∼ 10−16

Measure of Hubble’s constant independent of cosmic ladderMichał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

14 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

SummarydGravitational sources – quadrupolar approximation
Approximation: far field + slow moving source
Dominant source: mass distribution quadrupolar moment
hjkTT =

2G
rc 4
|{z}

1/distance

top view

Pjkmn| {z }

Ï mn (t − cr )| {z }

projection quadrupolar moment

circular polarizationh+ = ±ih×orbital planeside view
Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)

linear polarizationh+ 6= 0, h× = 0
2013 October 30

15 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

Summaryd

GW emission - coalescence scenario
Binary system of two compact objects (NSNS or NSBH)

Lose energy by GW radiation
GW emission enters sensitive band (& 50 Hz) < 50 s before
coalescence
NS needs to be disrupted → MBH < 20 M (Duez, 2009)→ negligible GW S/N at merger, ringdown
Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

16 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

Summaryd

GW emission - coalescence scenario
GRB central engine formed in . 1 s
γ-ray emission delayed by . T90 ∼ 2 s⇒ coalescence time [−5, 1] s prior to GRB observation
GRB observed → rotation axis points at observer⇒ GW well known and circularly polarized
up to inclination of 60°→ loose constraint(jet opening angle . 30°)

top view
orbital plane

Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

17 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

Summaryd

GW emission - stellar collapse scenario
Neutron staral

SN explosion

If rot
pro ationa
fi
l

iv

ck
ho

v
re

S

e

c
Iron

ore

aps
coll

Evolved massive
star

No

sh

Proto neutron star
Stalled shock
AccretionockMagnetar GRB

ade le isBlack holequatethrough fallback

Collapsar GRB(type II)

re
v

iv
a

Black holel

BH formation"Collapsar"

Depends on therotational profile

Collapsar GRB

Magnetar central engine / Proto neutron starII

bar mode instability in the star (Shibata et al., 2003)
neutron star core fragmentation (Davies et al., 2002; Kobayashi and Mészáros, 2003)

Black hole and accretion disk
I
I

Disk fragmentation (Piro and Pfahl, 2007)
Disk precession (Romero et al., 2010)⇒ circular polarization along rotation axis
⇒ Emitted GW energy . 10−2 M c2
Other emission mechanism but no prospects for extra-galactic reachI
I

Out of frequency band (Neutrino, normal modes, ...)
Too small amplitude (Core bounce, SASI, ...)

Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

18 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

Summaryd

GW vs GRB time of arrival - stellar collapse
Time window
600s

≋GW!
max(T90,60s)

300s
≋GW!

≋GW!
≲100s

precursor
γ light curve

γ-ray burst

precursor jet?

≲100s

collapse

≲100s

PNS

jet launch

≋GW!

≋GW!

Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)

Internal
shocks ?

precursor γ?
BH formation?
≲100s

jet break-out
Main γ emission
2013 October 30

19 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

Summaryd

Two complementary searches – (Abadie et al., 2012c)
Broad in scope – covers most possibilities“burst” searching method – any signal shapes
Limited to 60 − 500 Hz band, . 1 s duration
I Assumes circular polarization
I Loose time coincidence between γ-rays and GW
TGW − Tγ ∈ [−600, max(T90 , 60)] s
I More sensitive than blind search by factor ∼ 2
II

Focused on short GRBs – binary coalesence
Inspiral waveform templates, NS-NS and NS-BH
Tight time coincidence between γ-rays and GW inspiral end time
TGW, coalescene − Tγ ∈ [−5, 1] s
I More sensitive to inspiral signals by factor ∼ 2

IIBoth combine data coherently from ≥ 2 detectors

Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

20 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

Summaryd

2009-2010, GW non detection consequences
GRB progenitor distance exclusion
Unmodeled GW bursts
with EGW = 10−2 M c2

Binary system coalescence
8

45
40

NS-NS
NS-BH

CSG 150Hz
CSG 300Hz

7
6
number of GRBs

number of GRBs

35
30
25
20
15

4
3
2

10

1

5
0 −1
10

5

0

1

10
10
exclusion distance (Mpc)

median (Mpc)

210burst 150Hz
17

0 −1
10

burst 300Hz
7

0

1

10
10
exclusion distance (Mpc)

NS-NS
16

2

10

NS-BH
28

(Abadie et al., 2012c)
Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

21 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

Summaryd

GRB070201 / GRB051103
GRB070201 error box (Mazets et al., 2008)

Significant previous non detections
Short GRBs,
GRB070201 sky location overlap with M31,
(Andromeda 770 kpc)
I GRB051103 sky location overlap with M81(∼ 3.6 Mpc)
I

no GW found⇒ Binary coalescence in M31 excluded at>99% confidence level (Abbott et al., 2008)⇒ Binary coalescence in M81 excluded at 98%
confidence level (Abadie et al., 2012b)

GRB051103 error box (Hurley et al., 2010)

Compatible with
Neutron star quake in M31/M81(Soft gamma-repeater)
I Coalescence in galaxy behind M31/M81
I

Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

22 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

Summaryd

Expectations & Prospects
2009-2010 results
Unmodeled GW bursts

Binary coalescence

Prospects for advanced detectors (Abadie et al., 2012c)
×10 sensitivity, ×5 number of GRBs ⇐ γ-ray satellite coverage
long GRBs, possible if optimistic GW emission
I short GRBs, quite possible, especially if significant NS-BH fraction
I

I

Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

23 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

Summaryd

Supernovae prospects
rule of thumb for GW sensitivity

Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

24 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

Summaryd

GW sensitivity

x10

smallest observable GW amplitude ∝ S(f ) × S/Nthreshold
Astrophysical triggers, GW models, etc ... changes search parameter
space⇒ S/Nthreshold depends on the search hypothesis
Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

25 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

Summaryd

Triggered search in Gaussian noise
3

10

2

10

1

Rate [yr−1]

10

Smaller parameter space(by 5 orders of magnitude)

0

10

−1

10

−2

10

−3

10

−4

10

Lower SNR threshold
8

9

10

11
12
coherent SNR

13

14

few minutes−5
Localization in time:
few months ∼ 10
⇒ Improves sensitivity by 15%, 50% in volume
Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

26 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

Summaryd2Well cleaned real noise (inspiral + χ test) (Aasi et al., 2013b)
3

10

inspiralGaussian2

101

X: 9.2
Y: 6.90

Smaller parameter space(by 5 orders of magnitude)

Rate [yr−1]

10
10

−1

10

−2

10

−3

10

−4

10

X: 11
Y: 6.2e−05

8
9
10
11
12
Lower SNR threshold coherent SNR

13

14

few minutes−5
Localization in time:∼ short GRB casefew months ∼ 10
⇒ Improves sensitivity by 20%, 70% in volume
Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

27 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

SummarydReal data, no GW model (Aasi et al., 2013b)
3

10

2

10

1

Rate [yr−1]

10

0

10

X: 8.3
Y: 32

Gaussian
inspiralburst >200Hz
burst <200Hz
Smaller parameter space(by 2 orders of magnitude)
X: 13
Y: 0.18

−1

10

−2

10

−3

10

−4

10

8
9
10
11
12
Lower SNR threshold coherent SNR

13

14

1 day
−2
Localization in time:∼ long GRB casefew months ∼ 10
⇒ Improves sensitivity by 60%, factor 4 in volume
Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

28 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

SummarydRule of thumb for GW detectability (Sutton, 2013)
GW amplitude (rss – root-sum-square)sZ∞
2 (t) + h2 (t)]dt
hrss =[h+×−∞

Energetics for signal at frequency f0
EGW =

α
|{z}

π2 c 3 2 2 2r f0 hrss
Gemission geometrics

Signal to Noise Ratio
ρ2 =

Θ2
|{z}

antenna geometrics

2
hrss
S(f0 )2

Volume where S/N above threshold ρdet
1/2 √
G
EGW
R'
2
3
2π c
S(f0 )f0 ρdet
Almost independent of emission polarization
Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

29 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

SummarydValue of ρdet in practice (Sutton, 2013)
R'

G
2π 2 c 3

1/2

√

EGW
S(f0 )f0 ρdet
−2

10

E

GW

(M

sun

)

−4

10

−6

10

(d)
−8

10

1

10
x10

2

3

10
10
frequency (Hz)410

⇒ ρdet ' 20
Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

30 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

SummarydRange frequency dependence,
EGW = 10−8 M c2 ' 1046 erg
neutrino/optical observation
factor ~2 gain

2

10

Range (kpc)

1

10advanced detectors

0

LIGO

10

Virgo

−1

10

GEO

−2

10

1

10

Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)

2

10

3

10

2013 October 30

31 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

SummarydRange frequency dependence,
EGW = 10−8 M c2 ' 1046 erg
2

10galactic center

Range (kpc)

1

10

0

10

Betelgeuse

−1

10

−2

10

1

10

Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)

2

10

3

10

2013 October 30

32 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

SummarydRange frequency dependence,
EGW = 10−8 M c2 ' 1046 erg
new interesting band

2

10

pessimistic band

Range (kpc)

1

10

0

10

−1

10

−2

10

1

10

Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)

2

10

3

10

2013 October 30

33 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

Summarydpessimistic SN range (1 kHz) – history
2

10

1

Range (kpc)

10

0

10

galactic center
LIGO
Virgo
Betelguese

−1

10

GEO

−2

10

Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)

2010

now

2012

2014
2016
Time (year)

2018

2020
2013 October 30

34 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

Summarydpessimistic SN range (1 kHz) – future (Aasi et al., 2013b)
2

10

1

Range (kpc)

10

0

10

galactic center

aLIGO

LIGO

adVirgo
?
A
GR
A
K

Virgo
−1

10

GEO

−2

10

Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)

2010

now

2012

2014
2016
Time (year)

2018

2020
2013 October 30

35 / 36

Outline

LIGO/Virgo

Gamma-ray bursts

Supernovae

SummarydSummary
Good prospects for first detection with advanced detectors & 2015
Binary coalescences
Gamma-ray bursts
I Pulsars
I Galactic supernova
I
I

2

10
2

10

1

Range (kpc)

Range (kpc)

10galactic center

1

10

0

10

Betelgeuse

−1

10

0

10

galactic center
LIGO

1

10

adVirgo
?
A
GR
A
K

Virgo
−1

10

GEO

−2

10

aLIGO

2

10
Frequency (Hz)

3

10

−2

10

2010

now

2012

2014
2016
Time (year)

2018

2020

Is EGW ∼ 10−8 M c2 ' 1046 erg a good rule of thumb?
Are energetics flat with frequency?
Higher GW emission efficiency at high frequency?
Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

36 / 36Referencesd

Be careful with energy plots

Figure 8 of Müller et al. (2013), with aLIGO sensitivity at 10 kpc
Caveat: stappled plot last night
Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

iReferencesd

Low and high frequency as importantMüller et al. (2013)
Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

iiReferencesd

Measuring Hubble’s constant with GWs
All potential GWs sources z . 0.1:


H0 = czDLA(t; (1 + z)M) (1 + cos2 ι) cos(Ψ(t))
h+ (t)=h× (t)
2 cos ι sin(Ψ(t))
DL
|
{z
}|
{z
}
enveloppe

polarized oscillations

A(t; (1 + z)M) - GW shape sets
absolute amplitude of the waveform
DL - luminosity distanceι - binary inclination angle - degeneratewith luminosity distance (polarization is
hard to measure)z - redshift - degenerate with the mass ofthe binary
Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

iii

Referencesd

Measuring Hubble’s constant with GWsA(t; (1 + z)M) (1 + cos2 ι) cos(Ψ(t))
h+ (t)=h× (t)
2 cos ι sin(Ψ(t))
DL

Several approaches
Combine GW and GRB observation (Nissanke et al., 2010)
redshift given by EM observations
GW shape yields absolute amplitude→ Measure DL from GW amplitude
I γ-ray observation means binary close to face-on→ helps breaking the DL vs inclination degeneracy
I
I

Use GW information alone (Taylor et al., 2012)
Assume M known - binary neutron star system→ Measure redshift from GW shapeI GW shape yields absolute amplitude→ Measure DL from GW amplitude
I Dozens of events per year
→ helps breaking the DL vs inclination degeneracy
I

In both cases ∼ 10% precision on H0
Measurement independent of cosmic ladderMichał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30

iv

ReferencesdReferences
Aasi, J. et al. (2013a). Gravitational waves from known pulsars: results from the initial detector era. arXiv:1309.4027.
Aasi, J. et al. (2013b). Prospects for localization of gravitational wave transients by the Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo observatories.
arXiv:1304.0670.
Abadie, J. et al. (2010). Predictions for the rates of compact binary coalescences observable by ground-based gravitational-wave detectors. Class.
Quantum Grav., 27:173001.
Abadie, J. et al. (2011). All-sky search for periodic gravitational waves in the full S5 LIGO data. Astrophys. J., 737:93.
Abadie, J. et al. (2012a). All-sky search for gravitational-wave bursts in the second joint LIGO-Virgo run. Phys. Rev. D, 85:122007.
Abadie, J. et al. (2012b). Implications for the Origin Of GRB 051103 From LIGO Observations. Astrophys. J., 755:2.
Abadie, J. et al. (2012c). Search for gravitational waves associated with gamma-ray bursts during LIGO science run 6 and Virgo science run 2 and 3.
Astrophys. J., 760:12.
Abadie, J. et al. (2012d). Search for Gravitational Waves from Low Mass Compact Binary Coalescence in LIGO’s Sixth Science Run and Virgo’s Science
Runs 2 and 3. Phys. Rev. D, 85:082002.
Abadie, J. et al. (2012e). Sensitivity achieved by the LIGO and Virgo gravitational wave detectors during LIGO’s sixth and Virgo’s second and thirdscience runs. LIGO-T1100338. arXiv:1203.2674.
Abbott, B. P. et al. (2008). Implications for the origin of GRB 070201 from LIGO observations. Astrophys. J, 681:1419.
Davies, M. B., King, A., Rosswog, S., and Wynn, G. (2002). Gamma-ray bursts, supernova kicks, and gravitational radiation. Astrophys. J. Lett., 579:L63.
Duez, M. D. (2009). Numerical relativity confronts compact neutron star binaries: a review and status report. Class. Quantum Grav., 27:114002.
Hurley, H. et al. (2010). A new analysis of the short-duration, hard-spectrum GRB 051103, a possible extragalactic soft gamma repeater giant flare.
Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 403:342.
Kobayashi, S. and Mészáros, P. (2003). Gravitational radiation from gamma-ray burst progenitors. Astrophys. J., 589:861.
Mazets, E. P. et al. (2008). A giant flare from a soft gamma repeater in the andromeda galaxy (m31). Astrophys. J., 680:545.
Müller, B., Janka, H.-T., and Marek, A. (2013). A new multi-dimensional general relativistic neutrino hydrodynamics code of core-collapse supernovae III.
gravitational wave signals from supernova explosion models. Astrophys. J., 766:43.
Nissanke, S. et al. (2010). Exploring short gamma-ray bursts as gravitational-wave standard sirens. Astrophys. J., 725:496.
Piro, A. L. and Pfahl, E. (2007). Fragmentation of collapsar disks and the production of gravitational waves. Astrophys. J., 658:1173.
Romero, G. E., Reynoso, M. M., and Christiansen, H. R. (2010). Gravitational radiation from precessing accretion disks in gamma-ray bursts. Astron.
Astrophys., 524:A4.
Shibata, M., Karino, S., and Eriguchi, Y. (2003). Dynamical bar-mode instability of differentially rotating stars: effects of equations of state and velocity
profiles. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 343:619.
Sutton, P. J. (2013). A rule of thumb for the detectability of gravitational-wave bursts. arXiv:1304.0210.
Taylor, S. R., Gair, J. R., and Mandel, I. (2012). Cosmology using advanced gravitational-wave detectors alone. Phys. Rev. D, 85:023535.
Michał Was
˛ (Gxxx)2013 October 30v