LIGO-P070082-03 1

LIGO: The Laser InterferometerGravitational-Wave Observatory

The LIGO Scientific CollaborationThe goal of the Laser Interferometric Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO)is to detect and study gravitational waves of astrophysical origin. Direct detec-tion of gravitational waves holds the promise of testing general relativity in thestrong-field regime, of providing a new probe of exotic objects such as blackhole and neutron stars, and of uncovering unanticipated new astrophysics.LIGO, a joint Caltech-MIT project supported by the National Science Foun-dation, operates three multi-kilometer interferometers at two widely separatedsites in the United States. These detectors are the result of decades of world-wide technology development, design, construction, and commissioning. Theyare now operating at their design sensitivity, and are sensitive to gravitationalwave strains as small as 1 part in 1021. With this unprecedented sensitivity,the data are being analyzed for gravitational waves from a variety of potentialastrophysical sources.

The prediction of gravitational waves (GWs), oscillations in the space-time metric that prop-agate at the speed of light, is one of the most profound differences between Einstein’s generaltheory of relativity and the Newtonian theory of gravity that it replaced. GWs remained a theo-retical prediction for more than 50 years until the first observational evidence for their existencecame with the discovery of the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16, a system of two neutron stars thatorbit each other with a period of 7.75 hours. Precise timing of radio pulses emitted by one ofthe neutron stars shows that their orbital period is slowly decreasing at just the rate predictedfor the general-relativistic emission of GWs (1).

GWs are generated by accelerating aspherical mass distributions. However, because gravityis very weak compared with other fundamental forces, the direct detection of GWs will requirevery strong sources – extremely large masses moving with large accelerations in strong gravita-tional fields. The goal of LIGO, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (2)is just that: to detect and study GWs of astrophysical origin. Achieving this goal will mark theopening of a new window on the universe, with the promise of new physics and astrophysics.In physics, GW detection could provide information about strong-field gravitation, the untesteddomain of strongly curved space where Newtonian gravitation is no longer even a poor approx-imation. In astrophysics, the sources of GWs that LIGO might detect (3) include binary neutronstars (like PSR 1913+16 but much later in their evolution); binary systems where a black holereplaces one or both of the neutron stars; a stellar core collapse which triggers a Type II su-

LIGO-P070082-03 2

pernova; rapidly rotating, non-axisymmetric neutron stars; and possibly processes in the earlyuniverse that produce a stochastic background of GWs.

A GW causes a time-dependent strain in space, with an oscillating quadrupolar strain patternthat is transverse to the wave’s propagation direction, expanding space in one direction whilecontracting it along the orthogonal direction. This strain pattern is well matched by a Michelsoninterferometer, which makes a very sensitive comparison of the lengths of its two orthogonalarms. LIGO utilizes three specialized Michelson interferometers, located at two sites: an obser-vatory at Hanford, Washington houses two interferometers, the 4 km-long H1 and 2 km-long H2detectors; and an observatory at Livingston Parish, Louisiana houses the 4 km-long L1 detector.Other than the half-length of H2, the three interferometers are essentially identical. Multipledetectors at separated sites are crucial for rejecting instrumental artifacts in the data, by enforc-ing coincident detections in the analysis. Also, because the antenna pattern of an interferometeris quite wide, source directions must be located by triangulation using separated detectors.

The initial LIGO detectors were designed to be sensitive to GWs in the frequency band40 – 7000 Hz, and capable of detecting a GW strain amplitude as small as 10−21 (2). Withfunding from the National Science Foundation, the LIGO sites and detectors were designedby scientists and engineers from the California Institute of Technology and the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, constructed in the late 1990s, and commissioned over the first 5 years ofthis decade. They are now operating at their design sensitivity in a continuous data-taking mode,and their data are being analyzed for a variety of GW signals by a group of researchers known asthe LIGO Scientific Collaboration (4). At the most sensitive frequencies, the instrument strainnoise has reached an unprecedented level of 3× 10−22 rms in a 100 Hz band.

Detector description. It is important to appreciate that the interferometers respond directlyto GW amplitude rather than GW power; therefore the volume of space that is probed forpotential sources increases as the cube of the strain sensitivity. The challenge is thus to makethe instrument as sensitive as possible: at the targeted strain sensitivity of 10−21, the resultingarm length change is only ∼10−18 m, a thousand times smaller than the diameter of a proton.

To increase the interferometer sensitivity, several refinements to the basic Michelson ge-ometry have been made (5), some of which are shown in Fig. 1. First, each arm contains aresonant Fabry-Perot optical cavity, made up of two mirrors that also serve as the gravitationaltest masses: a partially transmitting mirror (input test mass) and a high reflector (end test mass).These cavities increase the light phase shift for a given strain amplitude, in this case by a factorof 100 for a GW frequency of 100 Hz. Second, another partially transmitting mirror is addedbetween the laser source and the beamsplitter to implement a technique known as power recy-cling. This takes advantage of the destructive interference at the output port of the beamsplitter(labelled AS, or anti-symmetric port, in Fig. 1), which sends nearly all the power incident on

LIGO-P070082-03 3

ETM

ITM

BSPRM

4 km

IO

MC

ETM = End test massITM = Input test massBS = 50/50 beamsplitterPRM = Power recycling mirrorMC = Mode cleanerFI = Faraday isolatorIO = Input optics

AS = Anti-symmetric portPO = Pick-off portREF = Reflection port

ASPOREF

10 W

5 W

250

W

15 k

W

RF length detectorRF alignment detectorQuadrant detector

Laser FI

Figure 1: Optical and sensing configuration of the LIGO 4 km interferometers (the laser powernumbers here are generic; specific power levels are given in Table 1). The IO block includeslaser frequency and amplitude stabilization, and electro-optic modulators. The power recyclingcavity is formed between the PRM and the two ITMs, and contains the BS. The inset photoshows an end test mass mirror in its pendulum suspension. The near face is the high-reflectingsurface, through which one can see mirror actuators arranged in a square pattern near the mirrorperimeter, and optics for handling the transmitted beam behind the mirror.

the beamsplitter back towards the laser source. By matching the transmission of the recyclingmirror to the optical losses in the Michelson, and resonating this recycling cavity, the laserpower stored in the interferometer can be significantly increased. Finally, the two arms areintentionally slightly asymmetric: the path length from the beamsplitter to the input test massis approximately 30 cm greater in one arm than the other. This is done as part of the readoutscheme, as described below.

The laser source is a diode-pumped, Nd:YAG master oscillator and power amplifier sys-tem, and emits 10 W in a single frequency, at wavelength 1064 nm (6). The laser amplitudeand frequency are actively stabilized (the latter with respect to a reference cavity), and pas-sively filtered with a transmissive ring cavity. The beam is weakly phase-modulated with tworadio-frequency (RF) sine waves, producing, to first-order, two pairs of sideband fields aroundthe carrier field; the RF sideband fields are used in a heterodyne detection system to sensethe relative positions and angles of the interferometer optics. The beam then passes through

LIGO-P070082-03 4

Arm length, H1/L1/H2 4000 m / 4000 m / 2000 m

Arm finesse, storage time 220, τs = 0.95 msec

Laser type and wavelength Nd:YAG, λ = 1064 nm

Input power at recycling mirror, H1/L1/H2 4.5 W / 4.5 W / 2.0 W

Recycling gain, H1/L1/H2 60 / 45 / 70

Arm cavities stored power, H1/L1/H2 20 kW / 15 kW / 10 kW

Test mass size & mass φ25cm× 10cm, 10.7 kg

Beam radius (1/e2, H1 and L1), ITM/ETM 3.6 cm / 4.5 cm

Test mass pendulum frequency 0.76 Hz

Table 1: Parameters of the LIGO interferometers. H1 and H2 refer to the interferometers atHanford, Washington, and L1 is the interferometer at Livingston Parish, Louisiana.

an in-vacuum, vibrationally-isolated ring cavity (mode cleaner, MC); the MC provides a sta-ble, diffraction-limited beam, additional filtering of laser noise, and serves as an intermediatereference for frequency stabilization.

The interferometer optics, including the test masses, are fused-silica substrates with multi-layer dielectric coatings, manufactured to be extremely low-loss. The substrates are polished sothat the surface deviation from a spherical figure, over the central 80 mm diameter, is typically5 angstroms or smaller, and the surface microroughness is typically less than 2 angstroms (7).The absorption level in the coatings is generally a few parts-per-million (ppm) or less (8), andthe total scatter loss from a mirror surface is estimated to be 60 – 70 ppm.

The main optical components and beam paths – including the long arms – are enclosed inan ultra-high vacuum system (10−8 – 10−9 torr) for acoustical isolation and to reduce phasefluctuations from light scattering off residual gas. The 1.2 m diameter beam tubes containmultiple baffles to trap scattered light.

Each optic is suspended as a pendulum by a loop of steel wire. The position and orienta-tion of an optic can be controlled by electromagnetic actuators: small magnets are bonded tothe optic and coils are mounted to the suspension support structure, positioned to maximizethe magnetic force and minimize ground noise coupling. The pendulum allows free move-ment of a test mass in the GW frequency band, and provides f−2 vibration isolation above itseigenfrequencies. The bulk of the vibration isolation in the GW band is provided by four-layermass-spring isolation stacks, on which the pendulums are mounted; these stacks provide ap-proximately f−8 isolation above ∼ 10 Hz (9). In addition, the L1 detector, subject to higherenvironmental ground motion than the Hanford detectors, employs seismic pre-isolators be-

LIGO-P070082-03 5

tween the ground and the stacks. These active isolators employ a collection of motion sensors,hydraulic actuators, and servo controls; the pre-isolators actively suppress vibrations in the band0.1− 10 Hz, by as much as a factor of 10 in the middle of the band (10).

Various global feedback systems maintain the interferometer at the proper working point.For the carrier light, the Michelson interferometer output is operated on a dark fringe, the armcavities and the power recycling cavity are on resonance, and stringent alignment levels aremaintained; these conditions produce maximal power buildup in the interferometer. The RFsideband fields resonate differently. One pair of RF sidebands is not resonant and simply re-flects from the recycling mirror. The other pair is resonant in the recycling cavity but not inthe arm cavities. The Michelson asymmetry couples most of the power in these sidebands tothe anti-symmetric (AS) port. Error signals that determine the proper global operating point aregenerated by heterodyne detection of the light at the three output ports shown in Fig. 1; singleelement detectors are used for the length degrees-of-freedom and quadrant detectors are used forthe alignment. The controls are implemented digitally, with the photodetector signals sampledand processed at either 16384 samples/sec (length detectors) or 2048 samples/sec (alignmentdetectors). Feedback signals are applied directly to the optics through their coil-magnet actu-ators, with slow corrections applied with longer-range actuators that move the whole isolationstack.

Differential disturbances between the arms, including those due to GWs, show up at the ASport. The total AS port power is typically 200 – 250 mW, and is a mixture of RF sidebands, serv-ing as the local oscillator power, and carrier light coming from spatially imperfect interferenceat the beamsplitter. The light is divided equally between four length photodetectors, keepingthe power on each at a detectable level of 50 – 60 mW. About 1% of the beam is directed to analignment detector that controls the differential alignment of the ETMs. The four length detec-tor signals are summed and filtered digitally, and the feedback signal is applied differentiallyto the end test masses. This differential-arm servo loop has a unity-gain bandwidth of approx-imately 200 Hz, suppressing fluctuations in the arm lengths to a residual level of ∼ 10−14 mrms.

Common-mode length fluctuations of the arms are essentially equivalent to laser frequencyfluctuations, and show up at the reflected port, where photodetection at either RF modulationfrequency can be used to detect them. Taking advantage of the high fractional stability of thelong arms, this common-mode channel is used in the final level of laser frequency stabilization(11). Feedback is applied to the MC, either directly to a MC mirror position (at low frequencies),or to the error point of the MC servo loop (at high frequencies). The MC servo then impressesthe corrections onto the laser frequency. The three cascaded frequency loops – the referencecavity pre-stabilization; the MC loop; and the common mode loop – together provide 160 dB offrequency noise reduction at 100 Hz, and achieve a frequency stability of 5 µHz rms in a 100 Hz

LIGO-P070082-03 6

bandwidth.The GW channel is the digital error point of the differential-arm servo loop. To calibrate it in

strain, the effect of the feedback loop is divided out, and the response to a differential arm strainis factored in (12). The absolute scale is established using the laser wavelength, by measuringthe mirror drive signal required to move through an interference fringe. The calibration istracked during operation with sine waves injected into the differential-arm loop. The uncertaintyin the amplitude calibration is approximately ±5%. Timing of the GW channel is derived fromthe Global Positioning System; the absolute timing accuracy of each interferometer is betterthan ±10 µsec.

Optimal interferometer alignment is maintained, to within∼10−8 rad rms per optic, througha hierarchy of feedback loops. Optic orientation fluctuations at the pendulum and first stackeigenfrequencies are suppressed locally at each optic, using optical lever angle sensors. Globalalignment is established with four quadrant RF detectors, which together provide linearly in-dependent combinations of the optics’ angular deviations from optimal global alignment (13).A multiple-input multiple-output control scheme uses these signals to maintain simultaneousalignment of all angles. Slower servos also hold the beam centered on the optics. In the ver-tex area this is done using light scattered from the BS face, and at the arm ends with quadrantdetectors that receive the leakage through the ETMs.

At full power operation, with 10 – 20 kW in each arm cavity and 200 – 300 W in the re-cycling cavity, 20 – 60 mW of the beam is absorbed in each ITM, depending on their specificabsorption levels. This creates a weak, though not insignificant thermal lens in the ITM sub-strates, which changes the shape of the optical mode supported by the recycling cavity. Themode shape affects the optical gain, which is optimized for a specific level of absorption in eachITM (approximately 50 mW). To achieve the optimum mode over the range of ITM absorptionand stored power levels, each ITM’s thermal lens is actively controlled by directing additionalheating beams, generated from CO2 lasers, onto each ITM (14). The power and shape–either agaussian or annular radial profile–of the heating beams are controlled to maximize the interfer-ometer optical gain and sensitivity.

Instrument performance. During the commissioning period, as the interferometer sensitiv-ity was improved, several short science data-taking runs were made, culminating when theinterferometers approached the sensitivity design goal and began the fifth science run (S5) inNovember 2005. The S5 run will collect full year of coincident interferometer data, lasting untilfall of 2007. Since the interferometers detect GW strain amplitude, their performance is typi-cally characterized by an amplitude spectral density (the square root of the power spectrum) ofdetector noise, expressed in equivalent GW strain. Typical high-sensitivity strain noise spectraare shown in Fig. 2. Since the beginning of S5 the strain sensitivity of each interferometer has

LIGO-P070082-03 7

102

103

10−23

10−22

10−21

10−20

10−19

Frequency (Hz)

Equ

ival

ent s

trai

n no

ise

(Hz−

1/2 )

Figure 2: Strain sensitivities, expressed as amplitude spectral densities of detector noise con-verted to equivalent GW strain. The vertical axis denotes the rms strain noise in 1 Hz of band-width. Shown are typical high sensitivity spectra for each of the three interferometers (red: H1;blue: H2; green: L1), along with the design goal for the 4-km detectors (dashed grey).

been improved, by up to 40%, through a series of incremental improvements to the instruments.The primary noise sources contributing to the H1 strain spectrum are shown in Fig. 3. Un-

derstanding and controlling these instrumental noise components has been the major technicalchallenge in the development of the detectors. The noise terms can be broadly divided into twoclasses: force noise and sensing noise. Force noises are those that cause motions of the testmasses or their mirrored surfaces. Sensing noises, on the other hand, are phenomena that limitthe ability to measure those motions; they are present even in the absence of test mass motion(e.g., in the limit the mirrors had infinite mass).

Sensing noises are shown in the lower panel of Fig. 3. By design, the dominant noisesource above 100 Hz is shot noise in the photodetection, as determined by the Poisson statisticsof photon detection. The ideal shot-noise limited strain noise density, h(f), for this type ofinterferometer is (15):

h(f) =

√πhλ

ηPBSc

√1 + (4πfτs)2

4πτs

, (1)

LIGO-P070082-03 8

40 100 20010

−24

10−23

10−22

10−21

10−20

10−19

Frequency (Hz)

Str

ain

nois

e (H

z−1/

2 )

c p

pp

MIRRORTHERMAL

SEISMIC

SUSPENSIONTHERMAL

ANGLECONTROL

AUXILIARYLENGTHS

ACTUATOR

100 100010

−24

10−23

10−22

10−21

10−20

Frequency (Hz)

Str

ain

nois

e (H

z−1/

2 )

pp

p

s

s

s

s

c

c

m

SHOT

DARK

LASER AMPLITUDE

LASERFREQUENCY

RF LOCALOSCILLATOR

Figure 3: Primary known contributors to the H1 detector noise spectrum. The upper panel showsthe force noise components, while the lower panel shows sensing noises (note the differentfrequency scales). In both panels, the black curve is the measured strain noise (same spectrumas in Fig. 2), the dashed gray curve is the design goal, and the cyan curve is the root-square-sum of all known contributors (both sensing and force noises). The labelled component curvesare described in the text. The known noise sources explain the observed noise very well atfrequencies above 150 Hz, and to within a factor of 2 in the 40 – 100 Hz band. Spectral peaks areidentified as follows: c, calibration line; p, power line harmonic; s, suspension wire vibrationalmode; m, mirror (test mass) vibrational mode.

LIGO-P070082-03 9

where λ is the laser wavelength, h is the reduced Planck constant, c is the speed of light, τs is thearm cavity storage time, f is the GW frequency, PBS is the power incident on the beamsplitter,and η is the photodetector quantum efficiency. For the estimated effective power of ηPBS =

0.9 · 250 W, the ideal shot-noise limit is h = 1.0 × 10−23/√

Hz at 100 Hz. The shot-noiseestimate in Fig. 3 is based on measured photocurrents in the AS port detectors; the resultingvalue, h(100Hz) = 1.3× 10−23/

√Hz, is higher than the ideal limit due to inefficiencies in the

heterodyne detection process.Many noise contributors are estimated using stimulus-response tests, where a sine-wave

or broadband noise is injected into an auxiliary channel to measure its coupling to the GWchannel. This method is used for the laser frequency and amplitude noise estimates, the RFoscillator phase noise contribution, and also for the angular control and auxiliary length noiseterms described below. Although laser noise is nominally common-mode, it couples to the GWchannel through small, unavoidable differences in the arm cavity mirrors (16). For frequencynoise, the stimulus-response measurements indicate that the coupling is due to a difference inthe resonant reflectivity of the arm cavities of about 0.5%, arising from a loss difference of tensof ppm between the arms. For amplitude noise, the coupling is through an effective dark fringeoffset of ∼1 picometer, due to mode shape differences between the arms.

Force noises are shown in the upper panel of Fig. 3. At the lowest frequencies the largestsuch noise is seismic noise – motions of the earth’s surface driven by wind, ocean waves, hu-man activity, and low-level earthquakes – filtered by the isolation stacks and pendulums. Theseismic contribution is estimated using accelerometers to measure the vibration at the isolationstack support points, and propagating this motion to the test masses using modeled transferfunctions of the stack and pendulum. The seismic wall frequency, below which seismic noisedominates, is approximately 45 Hz, a bit higher than the goal of 40 Hz, as the actual environ-mental vibrations around these frequencies are ∼ 10 times higher than was estimated in thedesign.

Mechanical thermal noise is a more fundamental effect, arising from finite losses present inall mechanical systems, and is governed by the fluctuation-dissipation theorem (17). It causesarm length noise through thermal excitation of the test mass pendulums (suspension thermalnoise) (18), and thermal acoustic waves that perturb the test mass mirror surface (mirror thermalnoise) (19). Most of the thermal energy is concentrated at the resonant frequencies, which aredesigned (as far as possible) to be outside the detection band. Away from the resonances,the level of thermal motion is proportional to the mechanical dissipation associated with themotion. Designing the mirror and its pendulum to have very low mechanical dissipation reducesthe detection-band thermal noise. It is difficult, however, to accurately and unambiguouslyestablish the level of broadband thermal noise in-situ; instead, the thermal noise curves in Fig. 3are calculated from models of the suspension and test masses, with mechanical loss parameters

LIGO-P070082-03 10

taken from independent characterizations of the materials.The auxiliary length noise term refers to noise in the Michelson and power recycling cavity

servo loops; the former couples directly to the GW channel and latter couples similarly tofrequency noise. Above ∼ 50 Hz these loops are dominated by shot noise; furthermore, loopbandwidths of ∼ 100 Hz are needed to adequately suppress these degrees of freedom, so thatthe shot noise is effectively added onto their motion. Their noise infiltration to the GW channel,however, is mitigated by appropriately filtering and scaling their digital control signals andadding them to the differential-arm control signal as a type of feed-forward noise suppression.These correction paths reduce the coupling to the GW channel by 10 – 40 dB.

Angular control noise is minimized by a combination of filtering and parameter tuning.Angle control bandwidths are 10 Hz or less, so low-pass filtering is applied in the GW band.In addition, the angular coupling to the GW channel is minimized by adjusting the relativeweighting of the angle control signals sent to the four actuators on each optic, with typicalresidual coupling levels around 10−4 m/rad.

The actuator noise term includes the electronics, starting with the digital-to-analog convert-ers, that produce the coil currents keeping the interferometer locked and aligned. The noise inthese circuits is driven largely by the required control ranges; e.g., at low frequency the testmass control range is typically ±0.4 mrad in angle and ±5 µm in position.

In the 50 – 100 Hz band, the known noise sources typically do not fully explain the mea-sured noise. Additional noise mechanisms have been identified, though not quantitatively es-tablished. Two potentially significant candidates are nonlinear conversion of low frequencyactuator coil currents to broadband noise (upconversion), and electric charge build-up on thetest masses. A variety of experiments have shown that the upconversion occurs in the magnetsof the coil-magnet actuators, and produces a broadband force noise, with a f−2 spectral slope.The nonlinearity is small but not negligible given the dynamic range involved: 0.1 mN of low-frequency (below a few Hertz) actuator force upconverts of order 10−11 N rms of force noise inthe 40 – 80 Hz octave. This noise mechanism is significant primarily below 80 Hz, and variesin amplitude with the level of ground motion at the observatories. Regarding the second mech-anism, mechanical contact of a test mass with its nearby mechanical limit-stops, as happensduring a large earthquake, can produce electric charge build-up between the two objects. Suchcharge distributions are not stationary; they will tend to redistribute on the surface to reducelocal charge density. This produces a fluctuating force on the test mass, with an expected f−1

spectral slope. The level at which this mechanism currently occurs in the interferometers is notknown, but an occurrence on L1, where the strain noise in the 50 – 100 Hz band went down byabout 20% after a vacuum vent and pumpout cycle, is attributed to charge reduction on one ofthe test masses.

In addition to these broadband noises, there are a variety of periodic or quasi-periodic pro-

LIGO-P070082-03 11

cesses that produce lines or narrow features in the spectrum. The sources of most of thesespectral peaks are identified in Fig. 3. The groups of lines around 350 Hz, 700 Hz, ... are vibra-tional modes of the wires that suspend the test masses, thermally excited with kT of energy ineach mode. The power line harmonics, at 60 Hz, 120 Hz, 180 Hz ..., infiltrate the interferometerin a variety of ways; the 60 Hz line, e.g., is primarily due to the power line’s magnetic fieldcoupling directly to the test mass magnets. As all these lines are fairly stable in frequency, theyoccupy only a small fraction of the instrument spectral bandwidth.

While Figs. 2 and 3 show high-sensitivity strain noise spectra, the interferometers exhibitboth long- and short-term variation in sensitivity due to improvements made to the detectors,seasonal and daily variations in the seismic environment, operational problems, and the like.One indicator of the sensitivity variation over the run is shown in Fig. 4, which histograms thesensitivity of each interferometer to a particular astrophysical source of GWs that is describedin the next section: the inspiral of a binary neutron star system. The histogram shows thehorizon, which is the maximum distance at which such an event could be detected with goodsignal-to-noise ratio; this figure-of-merit depends on the detector noise primarily in the band of70 – 200 Hz. Another significant statistical figure-of-merit is the interferometer duty cycle, thefraction of time that detectors are operating and taking science data. For the period 14 Nov. 2005to 31 July 2007, the individual interferometer duty cycles were 78%, 78%, and 66% for H1, H2,and L1, respectively; for double-coincidence between Livingston and Hanford the duty cyclewas 60%; and for triple-coincidence of all three interferometers the duty cycle was 52%. Thesefigures include scheduled maintenance and instrument tuning periods, as well as unintendedlosses of operation.

Astrophysical reach. Because there is great uncertainty about the strength and/or rate of oc-currence of astrophysical sources of gravitational waves, LIGO was designed so that its datacould be searched for GWs from many different sources. Sources can be broadly characterizedas either transient or continuous in nature, and for each type, the analysis techniques depend onwhether the gravitational waveforms can be accurately modeled or whether only less specificspectral characterizations are possible. Table 2 gives the sensitivity of the S5 instruments tovarious GW sources, and reference (20) contains all the LIGO observational publications.

The best understood transient sources are the final stages of binary inspirals (21), whereeach component of the binary may be a neutron star (NS) or a stellar-mass black hole (BH).GWs emitted by these systems release gravitational potential energy, moving the objects closertogether and increasing the frequency of their orbit. The final stages occur rapidly, with thesystem sweeping in frequency across the LIGO band in a few to tens of seconds, depending onthe mass of the system. The waveform can be calculated with reasonable precision and dependson a relatively small number of parameters. The analysis is done by matched-filtering the data

LIGO-P070082-03 12

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Horizon Range (Mpc)

Expo

sure

(Day

s/M

pc)

H1L1H2

Figure 4: Detection horizon for the inspiral of a double neutron star system (1.4 solar-masseach), for each LIGO interferometer, over the period 14 November 2005 to 31 July 2007. Thelower range peaks in each histogram date from the first∼100 days of the run, around which timesensitivity improvements were made to all interferometers. Typical range variations over dailyand weekly time scales are ±5% about the mean. The range is given in mega-parsecs (Mpc),3.3 million light years; for reference, the center of the Virgo cluster of galaxies is approximately16 Mpc from Earth.

LIGO-P070082-03 13

Transient ContinuousSource Modeled Un-modeled Modeled Un-modeledType Waveforms Waveforms Waveforms Waveforms

Examples Final inspiral Core collapse Non-axisymmetric Cosmologicalof sources binary compact supernova, pulsar neutron stars stochastic

objects rotation glitch background

Astrophysical NS-NS (1.4-1.4 M): 3× 10−8Mc2 ε ≤ 2.3× 10−6 for Ω0 ≤reach 31 Mpc, 250L10 at 10 kpc; 200 Hz pulsar 4.4× 10−6

BH-BH (10-10 M): 0.1Mc2 at 20 Mpc at 2.5 kpc125 Mpc, 20, 000L10

Table 2: Projected sensitivities to various GW sources, based on the S5 interferometer noisespectra. The inspiral horizon distances and luminosities correspond to the effective sensitivityof the interferometer array during the first calendar year of S5; L10 is 1010 times the blue lightluminosity of the Sun. Note that because the horizon is the maximum detection distance, theeffective search volume radius is approximately

√5 times smaller than the horizon distance.

The un-modeled burst energies assume isotropic emission, concentrated around 150 Hz. Thepulsar and stochastic background sensitivities are the levels at which a 90% confidence levelupper limit could be set, projected for 1 year of data (the stochastic limit assumes a Hubbleconstant of 72 km/sec/Mpc).

LIGO-P070082-03 14

for a set of waveforms that span a chosen parameter space. We characterize the astrophysicalreach for inspirals in terms of the “horizon”, the distance at which an optimally oriented andlocated binary system would be detected, using matched filtering, with an amplitude signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio of 8. The horizon distance defines a volume in the universe, and the blue-lightluminosity of galaxies within that volume is believed to be a good tracer of the compact binarypopulation (22). Therefore we also characterize the astrophysical reach in terms of the totalblue luminosity in the search volume; horizon distances and luminosities for two systems withmasses representative of NS-NS and BH-BH systems are given in Table 2. Our own Milky Waygalaxy has roughly 1.7× 1010 blue solar luminosities, so for NS-NS inspirals, the search coversapproximately 150 galaxies like our own.

Other astrophysical systems, such as core-collapse supernovae (23), black-hole mergers,and neutron star quakes, may produce GW bursts that can only be modeled imperfectly, if atall. When optimal filtering is not feasible, such bursts may still be detected, albeit at reducedsensitivity, using methods that identify excess power in the GW data streams and/or transientcorrelations between data from different detectors. The detectability of a particular GW burstsignal depends primarily on the frequency content and duration of the signal, and the astro-physical reach can be characterized by the distance that a given energy emission in gravitationalwaves might be detected.

An example of a continuous source of GWs with a well-modeled waveform is a spinningneutron star (e.g., a pulsar) that is not perfectly symmetric about its rotation axis (24). TheGWs will be sinusoidal with a very slowly decreasing frequency due to energy loss. If theneutron star is observed as a radio pulsar then the frequency and rate of change of frequencywill be known; otherwise, a bank of templates will be needed to search over these parameters.For these sources, the astrophysical reach is the minimum equatorial ellipticity ε that could bedetected at a typical galactic distance.

Processes operating in the early universe could have produced a background of GWs that iscontinuous but stochastic (25). The astrophysical reach for such a background is characterizedin terms of the spectrum ΩGW(f) = (f/ρc)(dρGW/df), where dρGW is the energy density ofGWs contained in the frequency range f to f + df , and ρc is the critical energy density of theUniverse. Searches for such a background are performed by cross-correlating the outputs of apair of detectors, typically assuming a constant frequency spectrum ΩGW(f) = Ω0. Using thestrain power spectra of two detectors, we can evaluate the minimum value of Ω0 that would bedetected with a given confidence level over a given integration time.

In addition to the GW channel, all searches rely on a host of ancillary signals to distinguishinstrumental artifacts from potential GW signals. These channels monitor both the instrument(dozens of non-GW degrees-of-freedom) and its environment (magnetic fields, seismic andacoustic vibrations, etc.).

LIGO-P070082-03 15

Networks and collaborations. Although in principle LIGO can detect and study GWs byitself, its potential to do astrophysics can be quantitatively and qualitatively enhanced by op-eration in a more extensive network. For example, the direction of travel of the GWs and thecomplete polarization information carried by the waves can only be extracted by a network ofdetectors. Early in its operation, LIGO joined with the GEO project, a German-British projectoperating a 600 m long interferometer near Hannover (26). Although with its shorter length theGEO 600 detector is not as sensitive as the LIGO detectors, for strong sources it can provideadded confidence and directional/polarization information.

In May 2007, the Virgo detector began observations; a French-Italian project, the Virgodetector is similar to LIGO’s, with 3 km arms (27). The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and theVirgo Collaboration have negotiated an agreement that provides that all data collected from thatdate will be analyzed and published jointly. This agreement is hoped to serve as the model foran eventual world-wide network.

Future directions. From its inception, LIGO was envisioned not as a single experiment, butas an on-going observatory. The facilities and infrastructure construction were specified, asmuch as possible, to accommodate detectors with much higher sensitivity, as experience andtechnology come together to enable improvements.

We have identified a set of relatively minor improvements to the current instruments (28)that can yield a factor of 2 increase in strain sensitivity and a corresponding factor of 8 increasein the probed volume of the universe. These improvements will be implemented following theend of S5, followed by another one-to-two year science run.

Even greater sensitivity improvements are possible with more extensive upgrades. Ad-vanced LIGO will replace the interferometers with significantly improved technology, to achievea factor of at least 10 in sensitivity (a factor of 1000 in volume) over the initial LIGO interfer-ometers and to lower the seismic wall frequency down to 10 Hz (29), (30). Its operation willtransform the field from GW detection to GW astrophysics. Advanced LIGO has been ap-proved for construction by the National Science Board and is waiting to be funded. Installationof Advanced LIGO could start as early as mid-2010.

References

1. J. M. Weisberg, J. H. Taylor, in Binary Radio Pulsars, F. Rasio and I. Stairs, Eds. (Astro-nomical Society of the Pacific, San Francisco, 2005), p. 25.

2. A. Abramovici, et al., Science 256, 5325 (1992).

LIGO-P070082-03 16

3. C. Cutler, K. S. Thorne, in Proceedings of GR16, N. T. Bishop and S. D. Maharaj, Eds.(World Scientific, Singapore, 2002).

4. Homepage of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration, http://www.ligo.org

5. A nice introduction to interferometric detector design is: P. Saulson, Fundamentals of In-terferometric Gravitational Wave Detectors (World Scientific, Singapore, 1994).

6. R. L. Savage, Jr., P. J. King, S. U. Seel, Laser Phys. 8, 679 (1998).

7. C. J. Walsh, A. J. Leistner, J. Seckold, B. F. Oreb, D. I. Farrant, Appl. Opt. 38, 2870 (1999).

8. D. Ottaway, J. Betzwieser, S. Ballmer, S. Waldman, W. Kells, Opt. Lett. 31, 450 (2006).

9. J. Giaime, P. Saha, D. Shoemaker, L. Sievers, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 67, 208 (1996).

10. C. Hardham, et al., Class. Quantum Grav. 21, S915 (2004).

11. R. Adhikari, Ph. D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2004).

12. A. Dietz, et al.,“Calibration of the LIGO Detectors for S4” (LIGO Tech. Rep. T050262,2006; http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/T/T050262-01.pdf).

13. P. Fritschel, et al., Appl. Opt. 37, 6734 (1998).

14. S. Ballmer et al., “Thermal Compensation System Description” (LIGO Tech. Rep.T050064, 2005; http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/T/T050064-00.pdf).

15. B. J. Meers, Phys. Rev. D 38, 2317 (1988).

16. D. Sigg, Ed., “Frequency Response of the LIGO Interferometer” (LIGO Tech. Rep.T970084, 1997; http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/T/T970084-00.pdf).

17. P. R. Saulson, Phys. Rev. D 42, 2437 (1990).

18. G. Gonzalez, Class. Quantum Grav. 17, 4409 (2000).

19. G. M. Harry et al., Class. Quantum Grav. 19, 897 (2002).

20. Links to all published observational results from LIGO can be found at http://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/ppcomm/Papers.html

21. K. Belczynski, V. Kalogera, T. Bulik, Astrophys. J. 572, 407 (2002).

22. E. S. Phinney, Astrophys. J. 380, 117 (1991).

LIGO-P070082-03 17

23. H. Dimmelmeier, J. A. Font, E. Muller, Astrophys. J. Lett. 560, L163 (2001).

24. P. Jaranowski, A. Krolak, B.F. Schutz, Phys. Rev. D 58, 063001 (1998).

25. M. Maggiore, Phys. Rep. 331, 283 (2000).

26. H. Luck et al., Class. Quantum Grav. 23 S71 (2006).

27. F. Acernese et al., Class. Quantum Grav. 23 S635 (2006).

28. R. Adhikari, P. Fritschel, S. Waldman, “Enhanced LIGO” (LIGO Tech. Rep. T060156,2006; http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/T/T060156-01.pdf).

29. P. Fritschel, in Gravitational-Wave Detection, M. Cruise, P. Saulson, Eds. (SPIE Proc.,2003), vol. 4856, p. 282.

30. “Advanced LIGO Reference Design” (LIGO Tech. Rep. M060056, 2007;http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/M/M060056-08/M060056-08.pdf).

31. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the United States National ScienceFoundation for the construction and operation of the LIGO Laboratory and the ParticlePhysics and Astronomy Research Council of the United Kingdom, the Max-Planck-Societyand the State of Niedersachsen/Germany for support of the construction and operation ofthe GEO 600 detector. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the support of the researchby these agencies and by the Australian Research Council, the Natural Sciences and En-gineering Research Council of Canada, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Researchof India, the Department of Science and Technology of India, the Spanish Ministerio deEducacion y Ciencia, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the John Si-mon Guggenheim Foundation, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the LeverhulmeTrust, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Research Corporation, and the AlfredP. Sloan Foundation.

LIGO-P070082-03 18

S5 LIGO Scientific Collaboration Author ListGenerated from Author Database Revision: 1.12 Date: 2007/06/23 19:51:04 Name: S5-V02B. Abbott14, R. Abbott14, R. Adhikari14, J. Agresti14, P. Ajith2, B. Allen2, 51, R. Amin18,S. B. Anderson14, W. G. Anderson51, M. Arain39, M. Araya14, H. Armandula14, M. Ashley4,S. Aston38, P. Aufmuth36, C. Aulbert1, S. Babak1, S. Ballmer14, H. Bantilan8, B. C. Barish14,C. Barker15, D. Barker15, B. Barr40, P. Barriga50, M. A. Barton40, K. Bayer17, J. Betzwieser17,P. T. Beyersdorf27, B. Bhawal14, I. A. Bilenko21, G. Billingsley14, R. Biswas51, E. Black14,K. Blackburn14, L. Blackburn17, D. Blair50, B. Bland15, J. Bogenstahl40, L. Bogue16, R. Bork14,V. Boschi14, S. Bose52, P. R. Brady51, V. B. Braginsky21, J. E. Brau43, M. Brinkmann2, A. Brooks37,D. A. Brown14, 6, A. Bullington30, A. Bunkowski2, A. Buonanno41, O. Burmeister2, D. Busby14,R. L. Byer30, L. Cadonati17, G. Cagnoli40, J. B. Camp22, J. Cannizzo22, K. Cannon51, C. A. Cantley40,J. Cao17, L. Cardenas14, G. Castaldi46, C. Cepeda14, E. Chalkey40, P. Charlton9, S. Chatterji14,S. Chelkowski2, Y. Chen1, F. Chiadini45, N. Christensen8, J. Clark40, P. Cochrane2, T. Cokelaer7,R. Coldwell39, R. Conte45, D. Cook15, T. Corbitt17, D. Coyne14, J. D. E. Creighton51, R. P. Croce46,D. R. M. Crooks40, A. M. Cruise38, A. Cumming40, J. Dalrymple31, E. D’Ambrosio14, K. Danzmann36, 2,G. Davies7, D. DeBra30, J. Degallaix50, M. Degree30, T. Demma46, V. Dergachev42, S. Desai32,R. DeSalvo14, S. Dhurandhar13, M. Dıaz33, J. Dickson4, A. Di Credico31, G. Diederichs36,A. Dietz7, E. E. Doomes29, R. W. P. Drever5, J.-C. Dumas50, R. J. Dupuis14, J. G. Dwyer10,P. Ehrens14, E. Espinoza14, T. Etzel14, M. Evans14, T. Evans16, S. Fairhurst7, 14, Y. Fan50,D. Fazi14, M. M. Fejer30, L. S. Finn32, V. Fiumara45, N. Fotopoulos51, A. Franzen36, K. Y. Franzen39,A. Freise38, R. Frey43, T. Fricke44, P. Fritschel17, V. V. Frolov16, M. Fyffe16, V. Galdi46, J. Garofoli15,I. Gholami1, J. A. Giaime16, 18, S. Giampanis44, K. D. Giardina16, K. Goda17, E. Goetz42,L. Goggin14, G. Gonzalez18, S. Gossler4, A. Grant40, S. Gras50, C. Gray15, M. Gray4, J. Greenhalgh26,A. M. Gretarsson11, R. Grosso33, H. Grote2, S. Grunewald1, M. Guenther15, R. Gustafson42,B. Hage36, D. Hammer51, C. Hanna18, J. Hanson16, J. Harms2, G. Harry17, E. Harstad43,T. Hayler26, J. Heefner14, I. S. Heng40, A. Heptonstall40, M. Heurs2, M. Hewitson2, S. Hild36,E. Hirose31, D. Hoak16, D. Hosken37, J. Hough40, D. Hoyland38, S. H. Huttner40, D. Ingram15,E. Innerhofer17, M. Ito43, Y. Itoh51, A. Ivanov14, B. Johnson15, W. W. Johnson18, D. I. Jones47,G. Jones7, R. Jones40, L. Ju50, P. Kalmus10, V. Kalogera24, D. Kasprzyk38, E. Katsavounidis17,K. Kawabe15, S. Kawamura23, F. Kawazoe23, W. Kells14, D. G. Keppel14, F. Ya. Khalili21,C. Kim24, P. King14, J. S. Kissel18, S. Klimenko39, K. Kokeyama23, V. Kondrashov14, R. K. Kopparapu18,D. Kozak14, B. Krishnan1, P. Kwee36, P. K. Lam4, M. Landry15, B. Lantz30, A. Lazzarini14,M. Lei14, J. Leiner52, V. Leonhardt23, I. Leonor43, K. Libbrecht14, P. Lindquist14, N. A. Lockerbie48,M. Longo45, M. Lormand16, M. Lubinski15, H. Luck36, 2, B. Machenschalk1, M. MacInnis17,M. Mageswaran14, K. Mailand14, M. Malec36, V. Mandic14, S. Marano45, S. Marka10, J. Markowitz17,E. Maros14, I. Martin40, J. N. Marx14, K. Mason17, L. Matone10, V. Matta45, N. Mavalvala17,R. McCarthy15, D. E. McClelland4, S. C. McGuire29, M. McHugh20, K. McKenzie4, S. McWilliams22,

LIGO-P070082-03 19

T. Meier36, A. Melissinos44, G. Mendell15, R. A. Mercer39, S. Meshkov14, E. Messaritaki14,C. J. Messenger40, D. Meyers14, E. Mikhailov17, S. Mitra13, V. P. Mitrofanov21, G. Mitselmakher39,R. Mittleman17, O. Miyakawa14, S. Mohanty33, G. Moreno15, K. Mossavi2, C. MowLowry4,A. Moylan4, D. Mudge37, G. Mueller39, S. Mukherjee33, H. Muller-Ebhardt2, J. Munch37,P. Murray40, E. Myers15, J. Myers15, T. Nash14, G. Newton40, A. Nishizawa23, K. Numata22,B. O’Reilly16, R. O’Shaughnessy24, D. J. Ottaway17, H. Overmier16, B. J. Owen32, Y. Pan41,M. A. Papa1, 51, V. Parameshwaraiah15, P. Patel14, M. Pedraza14, S. Penn12, V. Pierro46, I. M. Pinto46,M. Pitkin40, H. Pletsch2, M. V. Plissi40, F. Postiglione45, R. Prix1, V. Quetschke39, F. Raab15,D. Rabeling4, H. Radkins15, R. Rahkola43, N. Rainer2, M. Rakhmanov32, M. Ramsunder32,S. Ray-Majumder51, V. Re38, H. Rehbein2, S. Reid40, D. H. Reitze39, L. Ribichini2, R. Riesen16,K. Riles42, B. Rivera15, N. A. Robertson14, 40, C. Robinson7, E. L. Robinson38, S. Roddy16,A. Rodriguez18, A. M. Rogan52, J. Rollins10, J. D. Romano7, J. Romie16, R. Route30, S. Rowan40,A. Rudiger2, L. Ruet17, P. Russell14, K. Ryan15, S. Sakata23, M. Samidi14, L. Sancho de la Jordana35,V. Sandberg15, V. Sannibale14, S. Saraf25, P. Sarin17, B. S. Sathyaprakash7, S. Sato23, P. R. Saulson31,R. Savage15, P. Savov6, S. Schediwy50, R. Schilling2, R. Schnabel2, R. Schofield43, B. F. Schutz1, 7,P. Schwinberg15, S. M. Scott4, A. C. Searle4, B. Sears14, F. Seifert2, D. Sellers16, A. S. Sengupta7,P. Shawhan41, D. H. Shoemaker17, A. Sibley16, J. A. Sidles49, X. Siemens14, 6, D. Sigg15,S. Sinha30, A. M. Sintes35, 1, B. J. J. Slagmolen4, J. Slutsky18, J. R. Smith2, M. R. Smith14,K. Somiya2, 1, K. A. Strain40, D. M. Strom43, A. Stuver32, T. Z. Summerscales3, K.-X. Sun30,M. Sung18, P. J. Sutton14, H. Takahashi1, D. B. Tanner39, R. Taylor14, R. Taylor40, J. Thacker16,K. A. Thorne32, K. S. Thorne6, A. Thuring36, K. V. Tokmakov40, C. Torres33, C. Torrie40,G. Traylor16, M. Trias35, W. Tyler14, D. Ugolini34, K. Urbanek30, H. Vahlbruch36, M. Vallisneri6,C. Van Den Broeck7, M. Varvella14, S. Vass14, A. Vecchio38, J. Veitch40, P. Veitch37, A. Villar14,C. Vorvick15, S. P. Vyachanin21, S. J. Waldman14, L. Wallace14, H. Ward40, R. Ward14, K. Watts16,A. Weidner2, M. Weinert2, A. Weinstein14, R. Weiss17, S. Wen18, K. Wette4, J. T. Whelan1,S. E. Whitcomb14, B. F. Whiting39, C. Wilkinson15, P. A. Willems14, L. Williams39, B. Willke36, 2,I. Wilmut26, W. Winkler2, C. C. Wipf17, S. Wise39, A. G. Wiseman51, G. Woan40, D. Woods51,R. Wooley16, J. Worden15, W. Wu39, I. Yakushin16, H. Yamamoto14, Z. Yan50, S. Yoshida28,N. Yunes32, M. Zanolin17, J. Zhang42, L. Zhang14, C. Zhao50, N. Zotov19, M. Zucker17, H. zur Muhlen36,J. Zweizig141Albert-Einstein-Institut, Max-Planck-Institut fur Gravitationsphysik, D-14476 Golm,Germany 2Albert-Einstein-Institut, Max-Planck-Institut fur Gravitationsphysik, D-30167 Han-nover, Germany 3Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI 49104 USA 4Australian NationalUniversity, Canberra, 0200, Australia 5California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125,USA 6Caltech-CaRT, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA 7Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF24 3AA,United Kingdom 8Carleton College, Northfield, MN 55057, USA 9Charles Sturt University,Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia 10Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA11Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Prescott, AZ 86301 USA 12Hobart and William Smith

LIGO-P070082-03 20

Colleges, Geneva, NY 14456, USA 13Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics,Pune - 411007, India 14LIGO - California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA15LIGO Hanford Observatory, Richland, WA 99352, USA 16LIGO Livingston Observatory,Livingston, LA 70754, USA 17LIGO - Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,MA 02139, USA 18Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA 19LouisianaTech University, Ruston, LA 71272, USA 20Loyola University, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA21Moscow State University, Moscow, 119992, Russia 22NASA/Goddard Space Flight Cen-ter, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA 23National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan 24Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA 25Rochester Institute ofTechnology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA 26Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot,Oxon OX11 0QX United Kingdom 27San Jose State University, San Jose, CA 95192, USA28Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, LA 70402, USA 29Southern University andA&M College, Baton Rouge, LA 70813, USA 30Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305,USA 31Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA 32The Pennsylvania State University,University Park, PA 16802, USA 33The University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas South-most College, Brownsville, TX 78520, USA 34Trinity University, San Antonio, TX 78212, USA35Universitat de les Illes Balears, E-07122 Palma de Mallorca, Spain 36Universitat Hannover, D-30167 Hannover, Germany 37University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia 38Universityof Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom 39University of Florida, Gainesville,FL 32611, USA 40University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, United Kingdom 41Universityof Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 USA 42University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109,USA 43University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA 44University of Rochester, Rochester,NY 14627, USA 45University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano (Salerno), Italy 46University of Sannioat Benevento, I-82100 Benevento, Italy 47University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ,United Kingdom 48University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, G1 1XQ, United Kingdom 49Universityof Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195 50University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Aus-tralia 51University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA 52Washington StateUniversity, Pullman, WA 99164, USA