Abstract
There was an error in equation (7) of Evans et al. (2016). That equation contains the normalising term N_{P}, which is the total number of pixels in the gravitational wave (GW) localisation probability map. The paper states: “N_{P} is the number of pixels in the map, and L_{tot} is the total catalogued galaxy luminosity within the GW volume, so ^{L}_{L}^{g}_{tot}^{NP} gives the ratio of the actual luminosity in pixel p compared to that expected if the galaxies were homogeniously distributed on the sky, i.e. the relative probability of this pixel hosting a merger event compared to any other pixel.”. While this is true, it results in an incorrect overall normalization of the probability that the GW event is in a known galaxy (= P_{gal} =_{p}(P_{gal,p})) compared to not being in such a galaxy (= P_{nogal} =_{p}(P_{nogal,p}); P refers to the total probability, P_{p} is the probability in pixel p). The correct formulation should result in P_{gal} = C,^{¯} P_{nogal} = 1 − C^{¯} , where C^{¯} is the mean completeness of the galaxy catalogue employed at the distance of the GW event. Since P_{gal} is simply the sum over all pixels, p, of equation (7) in Evans et al. (2016), one should find: (Farmula Presented) (Figure Presented) The impact of this error is modest. The incorrect formulation resulted in the overemphasis of catalogued galaxies within the GW error region. The only GWevent to date for which this may have had an impact was GW170817 (e.g. Abbott et al. 2017), for which the GWmerger was in a catalogued galaxy, thus this error if anything aided the search. Fig. 1 demonstrates quantitatively the impact of the error. Here we show the cumulative probability in the galaxyconvolved skymap as a function of area enclosed (summing over pixels in decreasing probability order). The original equation (7) shown in black clearly overestimates the enclosed probability as a function of area; the discrepency being worse as the fractional probability enclosed becomes high.
Original language  English (US) 

Pages (fromto)  23622363 
Number of pages  2 
Journal  Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 
Volume  484 
Issue number  2 
DOIs 

State  Published  Jan 1 2019 
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
 Astronomy and Astrophysics
 Space and Planetary Science
Cite this
}
Erratum : Swift followup of gravitational wave triggers: Results from the first aLIGO run and optimisation for the future (Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (2016) 462 (1591) DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stw1746). / Evans, P. A.; Kennea, J. A.; Palmer, D. M.; Bilicki, M.; Osborne, J. P.; O'Brien, P. T.; Tanvir, N. R.; Lien, A. Y.; Barthelmy, S. D.; Burrows, D. N.; Campana, S.; Cenko, S. B.; D'Elia, V.; Gehrels, N.; Marshall, F. E.; Page, K. L.; Perri, M.; Sbarufatti, B.; Siegel, M. H.; Tagliaferri, G.; Troja, E.
In: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 484, No. 2, 01.01.2019, p. 23622363.Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate
TY  JOUR
T1  Erratum
T2  Swift followup of gravitational wave triggers: Results from the first aLIGO run and optimisation for the future (Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (2016) 462 (1591) DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stw1746)
AU  Evans, P. A.
AU  Kennea, J. A.
AU  Palmer, D. M.
AU  Bilicki, M.
AU  Osborne, J. P.
AU  O'Brien, P. T.
AU  Tanvir, N. R.
AU  Lien, A. Y.
AU  Barthelmy, S. D.
AU  Burrows, D. N.
AU  Campana, S.
AU  Cenko, S. B.
AU  D'Elia, V.
AU  Gehrels, N.
AU  Marshall, F. E.
AU  Page, K. L.
AU  Perri, M.
AU  Sbarufatti, B.
AU  Siegel, M. H.
AU  Tagliaferri, G.
AU  Troja, E.
PY  2019/1/1
Y1  2019/1/1
N2  There was an error in equation (7) of Evans et al. (2016). That equation contains the normalising term NP, which is the total number of pixels in the gravitational wave (GW) localisation probability map. The paper states: “NP is the number of pixels in the map, and Ltot is the total catalogued galaxy luminosity within the GW volume, so LLgtotNP gives the ratio of the actual luminosity in pixel p compared to that expected if the galaxies were homogeniously distributed on the sky, i.e. the relative probability of this pixel hosting a merger event compared to any other pixel.”. While this is true, it results in an incorrect overall normalization of the probability that the GW event is in a known galaxy (= Pgal =p(Pgal,p)) compared to not being in such a galaxy (= Pnogal =p(Pnogal,p); P refers to the total probability, Pp is the probability in pixel p). The correct formulation should result in Pgal = C,¯ Pnogal = 1 − C¯ , where C¯ is the mean completeness of the galaxy catalogue employed at the distance of the GW event. Since Pgal is simply the sum over all pixels, p, of equation (7) in Evans et al. (2016), one should find: (Farmula Presented) (Figure Presented) The impact of this error is modest. The incorrect formulation resulted in the overemphasis of catalogued galaxies within the GW error region. The only GWevent to date for which this may have had an impact was GW170817 (e.g. Abbott et al. 2017), for which the GWmerger was in a catalogued galaxy, thus this error if anything aided the search. Fig. 1 demonstrates quantitatively the impact of the error. Here we show the cumulative probability in the galaxyconvolved skymap as a function of area enclosed (summing over pixels in decreasing probability order). The original equation (7) shown in black clearly overestimates the enclosed probability as a function of area; the discrepency being worse as the fractional probability enclosed becomes high.
AB  There was an error in equation (7) of Evans et al. (2016). That equation contains the normalising term NP, which is the total number of pixels in the gravitational wave (GW) localisation probability map. The paper states: “NP is the number of pixels in the map, and Ltot is the total catalogued galaxy luminosity within the GW volume, so LLgtotNP gives the ratio of the actual luminosity in pixel p compared to that expected if the galaxies were homogeniously distributed on the sky, i.e. the relative probability of this pixel hosting a merger event compared to any other pixel.”. While this is true, it results in an incorrect overall normalization of the probability that the GW event is in a known galaxy (= Pgal =p(Pgal,p)) compared to not being in such a galaxy (= Pnogal =p(Pnogal,p); P refers to the total probability, Pp is the probability in pixel p). The correct formulation should result in Pgal = C,¯ Pnogal = 1 − C¯ , where C¯ is the mean completeness of the galaxy catalogue employed at the distance of the GW event. Since Pgal is simply the sum over all pixels, p, of equation (7) in Evans et al. (2016), one should find: (Farmula Presented) (Figure Presented) The impact of this error is modest. The incorrect formulation resulted in the overemphasis of catalogued galaxies within the GW error region. The only GWevent to date for which this may have had an impact was GW170817 (e.g. Abbott et al. 2017), for which the GWmerger was in a catalogued galaxy, thus this error if anything aided the search. Fig. 1 demonstrates quantitatively the impact of the error. Here we show the cumulative probability in the galaxyconvolved skymap as a function of area enclosed (summing over pixels in decreasing probability order). The original equation (7) shown in black clearly overestimates the enclosed probability as a function of area; the discrepency being worse as the fractional probability enclosed becomes high.
UR  http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063384615&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR  http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85063384615&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2  10.1093/mnras/stz113
DO  10.1093/mnras/stz113
M3  Comment/debate
AN  SCOPUS:85063384615
VL  484
SP  2362
EP  2363
JO  Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
JF  Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
SN  00358711
IS  2
ER 