Directional limits on persistent gravitational waves from Advanced LIGO’s first observing run B. P. Abbott,1 R. Abbott,1 T. D. Abbott,2 M. R. Abernathy,3 F. Acernese,4,5 K. Ackley,6 C. Adams,7 T. Adams,8 P. Addesso,9 R. X. Adhikari,1 V. B. Adya,10 C. Affeldt,10 M. Agathos,11 K. Agatsuma,11 N. Aggarwal,12 O. D. Aguiar,13 L. Aiello,14,15 A. Ain,16 P. Ajith,17 B. Allen,10,18,19 A. Allocca,20,21 P. A. Altin,22 A. Ananyeva,1 S. B. Anderson,1 W. G. Anderson,18 S. Appert,1 K. Arai,1M. C. Araya,1 J. S. Areeda,23 N. Arnaud,24 K. G. Arun,25 S. Ascenzi,26,15 G. Ashton,10 M. Ast,27 S. M. Aston,7 P. Astone,28 P. Aufmuth,19 C. Aulbert,10 A. Avila-Alvarez,23 S. Babak,29 P. Bacon,30 M. K. M. Bader,11 P. T. Baker,31 F. Baldaccini,32,33 G. Ballardin,34 S. W. Ballmer,35 J. C. Barayoga,1 S. E. Barclay,36 B. C. Barish,1 D. Barker,37 F. Barone,4,5 B. Barr,36 L. Barsotti,12 M. Barsuglia,30 D. Barta,38 J. Bartlett,37 I. Bartos,39 R. Bassiri,40 A. Basti,20,21 J. C. Batch,37 C. Baune,10 V. Bavigadda,34 M. Bazzan,41,42 C. Beer,10 M. Bejger,43 I. Belahcene,24 M. Belgin,44 A. S. Bell,36 B. K. Berger,1 G. Bergmann,10 C. P. L. Berry,45 D. Bersanetti,46,47 A. Bertolini,11 J. Betzwieser,7 S. Bhagwat,35 R. Bhandare,48 I. A. Bilenko,49 G. Billingsley,1 C. R. Billman,6 J. Birch,7 R. Birney,50 O. Birnholtz,10 S. Biscans,12,1 A. S. Biscoveanu,74 A. Bisht,19 M. Bitossi,34 C. Biwer,35 M. A. Bizouard,24 J. K. Blackburn,1 J. Blackman,51 C. D. Blair,52 D. G. Blair,52 R. M. Blair,37 S. Bloemen,53 O. Bock,10 M. Boer,54 G. Bogaert,54 A. Bohe,29 F. Bondu,55 R. Bonnand,8 B. A. Boom,11 R. Bork,1 V. Boschi,20,21 S. Bose,56,16 Y. Bouffanais,30 A. Bozzi,34 C. Bradaschia,21 P. R. Brady,18 V. B. Braginsky∗,49 M. Branchesi,57,58 J. E. Brau,59 T. Briant,60 A. Brillet,54 M. Brinkmann,10 V. Brisson,24 P. Brockill,18 J. E. Broida,61 A. F. Brooks,1 D. A. Brown,35 D. D. Brown,45 N. M. Brown,12 S. Brunett,1 C. C. Buchanan,2 A. Buikema,12 T. Bulik,62 H. J. Bulten,63,11 A. Buonanno,29,64 D. Buskulic,8 C. Buy,30 R. L. Byer,40 M. Cabero,10 L. Cadonati,44 G. Cagnoli,65,66 C. Cahillane,1 J. Calderón Bustillo,44 T. A. Callister,1 E. Calloni,67,5 J. B. Camp,68 W. Campbell,120 M. Canepa,46,47 K. C. Cannon,69 H. Cao,70 J. Cao,71 C. D. Capano,10 E. Capocasa,30 F. Carbognani,34 S. Caride,72 J. Casanueva Diaz,24 C. Casentini,26,15 S. Caudill,18 M. Cavaglià,73 F. Cavalier,24 R. Cavalieri,34 G. Cella,21 C. B. Cepeda,1 L. Cerboni Baiardi,57,58 G. Cerretani,20,21 E. Cesarini,26,15 S. J. Chamberlin,74 M. Chan,36 S. Chao,75 P. Charlton,76 E. Chassande-Mottin,30 B. D. Cheeseboro,31 H. Y. Chen,77 Y. Chen,51 H.-P. Cheng,6 A. Chincarini,47 A. Chiummo,34 T. Chmiel,78 H. S. Cho,79 M. Cho,64 J. H. Chow,22 N. Christensen,61 Q. Chu,52 A. J. K. Chua,80 S. Chua,60 S. Chung,52 G. Ciani,6 F. Clara,37 J. A. Clark,44 F. Cleva,54 C. Cocchieri,73 E. Coccia,14,15 P.-F. Cohadon,60 A. Colla,81,28 C. G. Collette,82 L. Cominsky,83 M. Constancio Jr.,13 L. Conti,42 S. J. Cooper,45 T. R. Corbitt,2 N. Cornish,84 A. Corsi,72 S. Cortese,34 C. A. Costa,13 E. Coughlin,61 M. W. Coughlin,61 S. B. Coughlin,85 J.-P. Coulon,54 S. T. Countryman,39 P. Couvares,1 P. B. Covas,86 E. E. Cowan,44 D. M. Coward,52 M. J. Cowart,7 D. C. Coyne,1 R. Coyne,72 J. D. E. Creighton,18 T. D. Creighton,87 J. Cripe,2 S. G. Crowder,88 T. J. Cullen,23 A. Cumming,36 L. Cunningham,36 E. Cuoco,34 T. Dal Canton,68 S. L. Danilishin,36 S. D’Antonio,15 K. Danzmann,19,10 A. Dasgupta,89 C. F. Da Silva Costa,6 V. Dattilo,34 I. Dave,48 M. Davier,24 G. S. Davies,36 D. Davis,35 E. J. Daw,90 B. Day,44 R. Day,34 S. De,35 D. DeBra,40 G. Debreczeni,38 J. Degallaix,65 M. De Laurentis,67,5 S. Deléglise,60 W. Del Pozzo,45 T. Denker,10 T. Dent,10 V. Dergachev,29 R. De Rosa,67,5 R. T. DeRosa,7 R. DeSalvo,91 J. Devenson,50 R. C. Devine,31 S. Dhurandhar,16 M. C. Dı́az,87 L. Di Fiore,5 M. Di Giovanni,92,93 T. Di Girolamo,67,5 A. Di Lieto,20,21 S. Di Pace,81,28 I. Di Palma,29,81,28 A. Di Virgilio,21 Z. Doctor,77 V. Dolique,65 F. Donovan,12 K. L. Dooley,73 S. Doravari,10 I. Dorrington,94 R. Douglas,36 M. Dovale Álvarez,45 T. P. Downes,18 M. Drago,10 R. W. P. Drever,1 J. C. Driggers,37 Z. Du,71 M. Ducrot,8 S. E. Dwyer,37 T. B. Edo,90 M. C. Edwards,61 A. Effler,7 H.-B. Eggenstein,10 P. Ehrens,1 J. Eichholz,1 S. S. Eikenberry,6 R. C. Essick,12 Z. Etienne,31 T. Etzel,1 M. Evans,12 T. M. Evans,7 R. Everett,74 M. Factourovich,39 V. Fafone,26,15,14 H. Fair,35 S. Fairhurst,94 X. Fan,71 S. Farinon,47 B. Farr,77 W. M. Farr,45 E. J. Fauchon-Jones,94 M. Favata,95 M. Fays,94 H. Fehrmann,10 M. M. Fejer,40 A. Fernández Galiana,12I. Ferrante,20,21 E. C. Ferreira,13 F. Ferrini,34 F. Fidecaro,20,21 I. Fiori,34 D. Fiorucci,30 R. P. Fisher,35 R. Flaminio,65,96 M. Fletcher,36 H. Fong,97 S. S. Forsyth,44 J.-D. Fournier,54 S. Frasca,81,28 F. Frasconi,21 Z. Frei,98 A. Freise,45 R. Frey,59 V. Frey,24 E. M. Fries,1 P. Fritschel,12 V. V. Frolov,7 P. Fulda,6,68 M. Fyffe,7 H. Gabbard,10 B. U. Gadre,16 S. M. Gaebel,45 J. R. Gair,99 L. Gammaitoni,32 S. G. Gaonkar,16 F. Garufi,67,5 G. Gaur,100 V. Gayathri,101 N. Gehrels,68 G. Gemme,47 E. Genin,34 A. Gennai,21 J. George,48 L. Gergely,102 V. Germain,8 S. Ghonge,17 Abhirup Ghosh,17 Archisman Ghosh,11,17 S. Ghosh,53,11 J. A. Giaime,2,7 K. D. Giardina,7 A. Giazotto,21 K. Gill,103 A. Glaefke,36 E. Goetz,10 R. Goetz,6 L. Gondan,98 G. González,2 J. M. Gonzalez Castro,20,21 A. Gopakumar,104 M. L. Gorodetsky,49 S. E. Gossan,1 M. Gosselin,34 ar X iv :1 61 2. 02 03 0v 4 [ gr -q c] 3 0 Ja n 20 17 2 R. Gouaty,8 A. Grado,105,5 C. Graef,36 M. Granata,65 A. Grant,36 S. Gras,12 C. Gray,37 G. Greco,57,58 A. C. Green,45 P. Groot,53 H. Grote,10 S. Grunewald,29 G. M. Guidi,57,58 X. Guo,71 A. Gupta,16 M. K. Gupta,89 K. E. Gushwa,1 E. K. Gustafson,1 R. Gustafson,106 J. J. Hacker,23 B. R. Hall,56 E. D. Hall,1 G. Hammond,36 M. Haney,104 M. M. Hanke,10 J. Hanks,37 C. Hanna,74 M. D. Hannam,94 J. Hanson,7 T. Hardwick,2 J. Harms,57,58 G. M. Harry,3 I. W. Harry,29 M. J. Hart,36 M. T. Hartman,6 C.-J. Haster,45,97 K. Haughian,36 J. Healy,107 A. Heidmann,60 M. C. Heintze,7 H. Heitmann,54 P. Hello,24 G. Hemming,34 M. Hendry,36 I. S. Heng,36 J. Hennig,36 J. Henry,107 A. W. Heptonstall,1 M. Heurs,10,19 S. Hild,36 D. Hoak,34 D. Hofman,65 K. Holt,7 D. E. Holz,77 P. Hopkins,94 J. Hough,36 E. A. Houston,36 E. J. Howell,52 Y. M. Hu,10 E. A. Huerta,108 D. Huet,24 B. Hughey,103 S. Husa,86 S. H. Huttner,36 T. Huynh-Dinh,7 N. Indik,10 D. R. Ingram,37 R. Inta,72 H. N. Isa,36 J.-M. Isac,60 M. Isi,1 T. Isogai,12 B. R. Iyer,17 K. Izumi,37 T. Jacqmin,60 K. Jani,44 P. Jaranowski,109 S. Jawahar,110 F. Jiménez-Forteza,86 W. W. Johnson,2 D. I. Jones,111 R. Jones,36 R. J. G. Jonker,11 L. Ju,52 J. Junker,10 C. V. Kalaghatgi,94 V. Kalogera,85 S. Kandhasamy,73 G. Kang,79 J. B. Kanner,1 S. Karki,59 K. S. Karvinen,10M. Kasprzack,2 E. Katsavounidis,12 W. Katzman,7 S. Kaufer,19 T. Kaur,52 K. Kawabe,37 F. Kéfélian,54 D. Keitel,86 D. B. Kelley,35 R. Kennedy,90 J. S. Key,112 F. Y. Khalili,49 I. Khan,14 S. Khan,94 Z. Khan,89 E. A. Khazanov,113 N. Kijbunchoo,37 Chunglee Kim,114 J. C. Kim,115 Whansun Kim,116 W. Kim,70 Y.-M. Kim,117,114 S. J. Kimbrell,44 E. J. King,70 P. J. King,37 R. Kirchhoff,10 J. S. Kissel,37 B. Klein,85 L. Kleybolte,27 S. Klimenko,6 P. Koch,10 S. M. Koehlenbeck,10 S. Koley,11 V. Kondrashov,1 A. Kontos,12 M. Korobko,27 W. Z. Korth,1 I. Kowalska,62 D. B. Kozak,1 C. Krämer,10 V. Kringel,10 A. Królak,118,119 G. Kuehn,10 P. Kumar,97 R. Kumar,89 L. Kuo,75 A. Kutynia,118 B. D. Lackey,29,35 M. Landry,37 R. N. Lang,18 J. Lange,107 B. Lantz,40 R. K. Lanza,12 A. Lartaux-Vollard,24 P. D. Lasky,120 M. Laxen,7 A. Lazzarini,1 C. Lazzaro,42 P. Leaci,81,28 S. Leavey,36 E. O. Lebigot,30 C. H. Lee,117 H. K. Lee,121 H. M. Lee,114 K. Lee,36 J. Lehmann,10 A. Lenon,31 M. Leonardi,92,93 J. R. Leong,10 N. Leroy,24 N. Letendre,8 Y. Levin,120 T. G. F. Li,122 A. Libson,12 T. B. Littenberg,123 J. Liu,52 N. A. Lockerbie,110 A. L. Lombardi,44 L. T. London,94 J. E. Lord,35 M. Lorenzini,14,15 V. Loriette,124 M. Lormand,7 G. Losurdo,21 J. D. Lough,10,19 G. Lovelace,23 H. Lück,19,10 A. P. Lundgren,10 R. Lynch,12 Y. Ma,51 S. Macfoy,50 B. Machenschalk,10 M. MacInnis,12 D. M. Macleod,2 F. Magaña-Sandoval,35 E. Majorana,28 I. Maksimovic,124 V. Malvezzi,26,15 N. Man,54 V. Mandic,125 V. Mangano,36 G. L. Mansell,22 M. Manske,18 M. Mantovani,34 F. Marchesoni,126,33 F. Marion,8 S. Márka,39 Z. Márka,39 A. S. Markosyan,40 E. Maros,1 F. Martelli,57,58 L. Martellini,54 I. W. Martin,36 D. V. Martynov,12 K. Mason,12 A. Masserot,8 T. J. Massinger,1 M. Masso-Reid,36 S. Mastrogiovanni,81,28 A. Matas,125 F. Matichard,12,1 L. Matone,39 N. Mavalvala,12 N. Mazumder,56 R. McCarthy,37 D. E. McClelland,22 S. McCormick,7 C. McGrath,18 S. C. McGuire,127 G. McIntyre,1 J. McIver,1 D. J. McManus,22 T. McRae,22 S. T. McWilliams,31 D. Meacher,54,74 G. D. Meadors,29,10 J. Meidam,11 A. Melatos,128 G. Mendell,37 D. Mendoza-Gandara,10 R. A. Mercer,18 E. L. Merilh,37 M. Merzougui,54 S. Meshkov,1 C. Messenger,36 C. Messick,74 R. Metzdorff,60 P. M. Meyers,125 F. Mezzani,28,81 H. Miao,45 C. Michel,65 H. Middleton,45 E. E. Mikhailov,129 L. Milano,67,5 A. L. Miller,6,81,28 A. Miller,85 B. B. Miller,85 J. Miller,12 M. Millhouse,84 Y. Minenkov,15 J. Ming,29 S. Mirshekari,130 C. Mishra,17 S. Mitra,16 V. P. Mitrofanov,49 G. Mitselmakher,6 R. Mittleman,12 A. Moggi,21 M. Mohan,34 S. R. P. Mohapatra,12 M. Montani,57,58 B. C. Moore,95 C. J. Moore,80 D. Moraru,37 G. Moreno,37 S. R. Morriss,87 B. Mours,8 C. M. Mow-Lowry,45 G. Mueller,6 A. W. Muir,94 Arunava Mukherjee,17 D. Mukherjee,18 S. Mukherjee,87 N. Mukund,16 A. Mullavey,7 J. Munch,70 E. A. M. Muniz,23 P. G. Murray,36 A. Mytidis,6 K. Napier,44 I. Nardecchia,26,15 L. Naticchioni,81,28 G. Nelemans,53,11 T. J. N. Nelson,7 M. Neri,46,47 M. Nery,10 A. Neunzert,106 J. M. Newport,3 G. Newton,36 T. T. Nguyen,22 A. B. Nielsen,10 S. Nissanke,53,11 A. Nitz,10 A. Noack,10 F. Nocera,34 D. Nolting,7 M. E. N. Normandin,87 L. K. Nuttall,35 J. Oberling,37 E. Ochsner,18 E. Oelker,12 G. H. Ogin,131 J. J. Oh,116 S. H. Oh,116 F. Ohme,94,10 M. Oliver,86 P. Oppermann,10 Richard J. Oram,7 B. O’Reilly,7 R. O’Shaughnessy,107 D. J. Ottaway,70 H. Overmier,7 B. J. Owen,72 A. E. Pace,74 J. Page,123 A. Pai,101 S. A. Pai,48 J. R. Palamos,59 O. Palashov,113 C. Palomba,28 A. Pal-Singh,27 H. Pan,75 C. Pankow,85 F. Pannarale,94 B. C. Pant,48 F. Paoletti,34,21 A. Paoli,34 M. A. Papa,29,18,10 H. R. Paris,40 W. Parker,7 D. Pascucci,36 A. Pasqualetti,34 R. Passaquieti,20,21 D. Passuello,21 B. Patricelli,20,21 B. L. Pearlstone,36 M. Pedraza,1 R. Pedurand,65,132 L. Pekowsky,35 A. Pele,7 S. Penn,133 C. J. Perez,37 A. Perreca,1 L. M. Perri,85 H. P. Pfeiffer,97 M. Phelps,36 O. J. Piccinni,81,28 M. Pichot,54 F. Piergiovanni,57,58 V. Pierro,9 G. Pillant,34 L. Pinard,65 I. M. Pinto,9 M. Pitkin,36 M. Poe,18 R. Poggiani,20,21 P. Popolizio,34 A. Post,10 J. Powell,36 J. Prasad,16 J. W. W. Pratt,103 V. Predoi,94 T. Prestegard,125,18 M. Prijatelj,10,34 M. Principe,9 S. Privitera,29 3 G. A. Prodi,92,93 L. G. Prokhorov,49 O. Puncken,10 M. Punturo,33 P. Puppo,28 M. Pürrer,29 H. Qi,18 J. Qin,52 S. Qiu,120 V. Quetschke,87 E. A. Quintero,1 R. Quitzow-James,59 F. J. Raab,37 D. S. Rabeling,22 H. Radkins,37 P. Raffai,98 S. Raja,48 C. Rajan,48 M. Rakhmanov,87 P. Rapagnani,81,28 V. Raymond,29 M. Razzano,20,21 V. Re,26 J. Read,23 T. Regimbau,54 L. Rei,47 S. Reid,50 D. H. Reitze,1,6 H. Rew,129 S. D. Reyes,35 E. Rhoades,103 F. Ricci,81,28 K. Riles,106 M. Rizzo,107 N. A. Robertson,1,36 R. Robie,36 F. Robinet,24 A. Rocchi,15 L. Rolland,8 J. G. Rollins,1 V. J. Roma,59 J. D. Romano,87 R. Romano,4,5 J. H. Romie,7 D. Rosińska,134,43 S. Rowan,36 A. Rüdiger,10 P. Ruggi,34 K. Ryan,37 S. Sachdev,1 T. Sadecki,37 L. Sadeghian,18 M. Sakellariadou,135 L. Salconi,34 M. Saleem,101 F. Salemi,10 A. Samajdar,136 L. Sammut,120 L. M. Sampson,85 E. J. Sanchez,1 V. Sandberg,37 J. R. Sanders,35 B. Sassolas,65 B. S. Sathyaprakash,74,94 P. R. Saulson,35 O. Sauter,106 R. L. Savage,37 A. Sawadsky,19 P. Schale,59 J. Scheuer,85 S. Schlassa,61 E. Schmidt,103 J. Schmidt,10 P. Schmidt,1,51 R. Schnabel,27 R. M. S. Schofield,59 A. Schönbeck,27 E. Schreiber,10 D. Schuette,10,19 B. F. Schutz,94,29 S. G. Schwalbe,103 J. Scott,36 S. M. Scott,22 D. Sellers,7 A. S. Sengupta,137 D. Sentenac,34 V. Sequino,26,15 A. Sergeev,113 Y. Setyawati,53,11 D. A. Shaddock,22 T. J. Shaffer,37 M. S. Shahriar,85 B. Shapiro,40 P. Shawhan,64 A. Sheperd,18 D. H. Shoemaker,12 D. M. Shoemaker,44 K. Siellez,44 X. Siemens,18 M. Sieniawska,43 D. Sigg,37 A. D. Silva,13 A. Singer,1 L. P. Singer,68 A. Singh,29,10,19 R. Singh,2 A. Singhal,14 A. M. Sintes,86 B. J. J. Slagmolen,22 B. Smith,7 J. R. Smith,23 R. J. E. Smith,1 E. J. Son,116 B. Sorazu,36 F. Sorrentino,47 T. Souradeep,16 A. P. Spencer,36 A. K. Srivastava,89 A. Staley,39 M. Steinke,10 J. Steinlechner,36 S. Steinlechner,27,36 D. Steinmeyer,10,19 B. C. Stephens,18 S. P. Stevenson,45 R. Stone,87 K. A. Strain,36 N. Straniero,65 G. Stratta,57,58 S. E. Strigin,49 R. Sturani,130 A. L. Stuver,7 T. Z. Summerscales,138 L. Sun,128 S. Sunil,89 P. J. Sutton,94 B. L. Swinkels,34 M. J. Szczepańczyk,103 M. Tacca,30 D. Talukder,59 D. B. Tanner,6 D. Tao,61 M. Tápai,102 A. Taracchini,29 R. Taylor,1 T. Theeg,10 E. G. Thomas,45 M. Thomas,7 P. Thomas,37 K. A. Thorne,7 E. Thrane,120 T. Tippens,44 S. Tiwari,14,93 V. Tiwari,94 K. V. Tokmakov,110 K. Toland,36 C. Tomlinson,90 M. Tonelli,20,21 Z. Tornasi,36 C. I. Torrie,1 D. Töyrä,45 F. Travasso,32,33 G. Traylor,7 D. Trifirò,73 J. Trinastic,6 M. C. Tringali,92,93 L. Trozzo,139,21 M. Tse,12 R. Tso,1 M. Turconi,54 D. Tuyenbayev,87 D. Ugolini,140 C. S. Unnikrishnan,104 A. L. Urban,1 S. A. Usman,94 H. Vahlbruch,19 G. Vajente,1 G. Valdes,87N. van Bakel,11 M. van Beuzekom,11 J. F. J. van den Brand,63,11 C. Van Den Broeck,11 D. C. Vander-Hyde,35 L. van der Schaaf,11 J. V. van Heijningen,11 A. A. van Veggel,36 M. Vardaro,41,42 V. Varma,51 S. Vass,1 M. Vasúth,38 A. Vecchio,45 G. Vedovato,42 J. Veitch,45 P. J. Veitch,70 K. Venkateswara,141 G. Venugopalan,1 D. Verkindt,8 F. Vetrano,57,58 A. Viceré,57,58 A. D. Viets,18 S. Vinciguerra,45 D. J. Vine,50 J.-Y. Vinet,54 S. Vitale,12 T. Vo,35 H. Vocca,32,33 C. Vorvick,37 D. V. Voss,6 W. D. Vousden,45 S. P. Vyatchanin,49 A. R. Wade,1 L. E. Wade,78 M. Wade,78 M. Walker,2 L. Wallace,1 S. Walsh,29,10 G. Wang,14,58 H. Wang,45 M. Wang,45 Y. Wang,52 R. L. Ward,22 J. Warner,37 M. Was,8 J. Watchi,82 B. Weaver,37 L.-W. Wei,54 M. Weinert,10 A. J. Weinstein,1 R. Weiss,12 L. Wen,52 P. Weßels,10 T. Westphal,10 K. Wette,10 J. T. Whelan,107 B. F. Whiting,6 C. Whittle,120 D. Williams,36 R. D. Williams,1 A. R. Williamson,94 J. L. Willis,142 B. Willke,19,10 M. H. Wimmer,10,19 W. Winkler,10 C. C. Wipf,1 H. Wittel,10,19 G. Woan,36 J. Woehler,10 J. Worden,37 J. L. Wright,36 D. S. Wu,10 G. Wu,7 W. Yam,12 H. Yamamoto,1 C. C. Yancey,64 M. J. Yap,22 Hang Yu,12 Haocun Yu,12 M. Yvert,8 A. Zadrożny,118 L. Zangrando,42 M. Zanolin,103 J.-P. Zendri,42 M. Zevin,85 L. Zhang,1 M. Zhang,129 T. Zhang,36 Y. Zhang,107 C. Zhao,52 M. Zhou,85 Z. Zhou,85 S. J. Zhu,29,10X. J. Zhu,52 M. E. Zucker,1,12 and J. Zweizig1 (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) ∗Deceased, March 2016. 1LIGO, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA 2Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA 3American University, Washington, D.C. 20016, USA 4Università di Salerno, Fisciano, I-84084 Salerno, Italy 5INFN, Sezione di Napoli, Complesso Universitario di Monte S.Angelo, I-80126 Napoli, Italy 6University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA 7LIGO Livingston Observatory, Livingston, LA 70754, USA 8Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules (LAPP), Université Savoie Mont Blanc, CNRS/IN2P3, F-74941 Annecy-le-Vieux, France 9University of Sannio at Benevento, I-82100 Benevento, Italy and INFN, Sezione di Napoli, I-80100 Napoli, Italy 10Albert-Einstein-Institut, Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik, D-30167 Hannover, Germany 11Nikhef, Science Park, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands 4 12LIGO, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA 13Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, 12227-010 São José dos Campos, São Paulo, Brazil 14INFN, Gran Sasso Science Institute, I-67100 L’Aquila, Italy 15INFN, Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata, I-00133 Roma, Italy 16Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pune 411007, India 17International Centre for Theoretical Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru 560089, India 18University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA 19Leibniz Universität Hannover, D-30167 Hannover, Germany 20Università di Pisa, I-56127 Pisa, Italy 21INFN, Sezione di Pisa, I-56127 Pisa, Italy 22Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 0200, Australia 23California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, CA 92831, USA 24LAL, Univ. Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Université Paris-Saclay, F-91898 Orsay, France 25Chennai Mathematical Institute, Chennai 603103, India 26Università di Roma Tor Vergata, I-00133 Roma, Italy 27Universität Hamburg, D-22761 Hamburg, Germany 28INFN, Sezione di Roma, I-00185 Roma, Italy 29Albert-Einstein-Institut, Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik, D-14476 Potsdam-Golm, Germany 30APC, AstroParticule et Cosmologie, Université Paris Diderot, CNRS/IN2P3, CEA/Irfu, Observatoire de Paris, Sorbonne Paris Cité, F-75205 Paris Cedex 13, France 31West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA 32Università di Perugia, I-06123 Perugia, Italy 33INFN, Sezione di Perugia, I-06123 Perugia, Italy 34European Gravitational Observatory (EGO), I-56021 Cascina, Pisa, Italy 35Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA 36SUPA, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom 37LIGO Hanford Observatory, Richland, WA 99352, USA 38Wigner RCP, RMKI, H-1121 Budapest, Konkoly Thege Miklós út 29-33, Hungary 39Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA 40Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA 41Università di Padova, Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, I-35131 Padova, Italy 42INFN, Sezione di Padova, I-35131 Padova, Italy 43Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomical Center, Polish Academy of Sciences, 00-716, Warsaw, Poland 44Center for Relativistic Astrophysics and School of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA 45University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom 46Università degli Studi di Genova, I-16146 Genova, Italy 47INFN, Sezione di Genova, I-16146 Genova, Italy 48RRCAT, Indore MP 452013, India 49Faculty of Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow 119991, Russia 50SUPA, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley PA1 2BE, United Kingdom 51Caltech CaRT, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA 52University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia 53Department of Astrophysics/IMAPP, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, The Netherlands 54Artemis, Université Côte d’Azur, CNRS, Observatoire Côte d’Azur, CS 34229, F-06304 Nice Cedex 4, France 55Institut de Physique de Rennes, CNRS, Université de Rennes 1, F-35042 Rennes, France 56Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA 57Università degli Studi di Urbino ’Carlo Bo’, I-61029 Urbino, Italy 58INFN, Sezione di Firenze, I-50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Firenze, Italy 59University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA 60Laboratoire Kastler Brossel, UPMC-Sorbonne Universités, CNRS, ENS-PSL Research University, Collège de France, F-75005 Paris, France 61Carleton College, Northfield, MN 55057, USA 62Astronomical Observatory Warsaw University, 00-478 Warsaw, Poland 63VU University Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands 64University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA 65Laboratoire des Matériaux Avancés (LMA), CNRS/IN2P3, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France 66Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France 67Università di Napoli ’Federico II’, Complesso Universitario di Monte S.Angelo, I-80126 Napoli, Italy 68NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA 69RESCEU, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan. 70University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia 5 71Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China 72Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA 73The University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677, USA 74The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA 75National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu City, 30013 Taiwan, Republic of China 76Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales 2678, Australia 77University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA 78Kenyon College, Gambier, OH 43022, USA 79Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon 305-806, Korea 80University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, United Kingdom 81Università di Roma ’La Sapienza’, I-00185 Roma, Italy 82University of Brussels, Brussels 1050, Belgium 83Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA 94928, USA 84Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA 85Center for Interdisciplinary Exploration & Research in Astrophysics (CIERA), Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA 86Universitat de les Illes Balears, IAC3—IEEC, E-07122 Palma de Mallorca, Spain 87The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Brownsville, TX 78520, USA 88Bellevue College, Bellevue, WA 98007, USA 89Institute for Plasma Research, Bhat, Gandhinagar 382428, India 90The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, United Kingdom 91California State University, Los Angeles, 5154 State University Dr, Los Angeles, CA 90032, USA 92Università di Trento, Dipartimento di Fisica, I-38123 Povo, Trento, Italy 93INFN, Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Applications, I-38123 Povo, Trento, Italy 94Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 3AA, United Kingdom 95Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ 07043, USA 96National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan 97Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3H8, Canada 98MTA Eötvös University, “Lendulet” Astrophysics Research Group, Budapest 1117, Hungary 99School of Mathematics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FD, United Kingdom 100University and Institute of Advanced Research, Gandhinagar, Gujarat 382007, India 101IISER-TVM, CET Campus, Trivandrum Kerala 695016, India 102University of Szeged, Dóm tér 9, Szeged 6720, Hungary 103Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Prescott, AZ 86301, USA 104Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai 400005, India 105INAF, Osservatorio Astronomico di Capodimonte, I-80131, Napoli, Italy 106University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA 107Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA 108NCSA, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA 109University of Bia lystok, 15-424 Bia lystok, Poland 110SUPA, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G1 1XQ, United Kingdom 111University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom 112University of Washington Bothell, 18115 Campus Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011, USA 113Institute of Applied Physics, Nizhny Novgorod, 603950, Russia 114Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, Korea 115Inje University Gimhae, 621-749 South Gyeongsang, Korea 116National Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Daejeon 305-390, Korea 117Pusan National University, Busan 609-735, Korea 118NCBJ, 05-400 Świerk-Otwock, Poland 119Institute of Mathematics, Polish Academy of Sciences, 00656 Warsaw, Poland 120The School of Physics & Astronomy, Monash University, Clayton 3800, Victoria, Australia 121Hanyang University, Seoul 133-791, Korea 122The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong 123University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA 124ESPCI, CNRS, F-75005 Paris, France 125University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA 126Università di Camerino, Dipartimento di Fisica, I-62032 Camerino, Italy 127Southern University and A&M College, Baton Rouge, LA 70813, USA 128The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia 129College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA 23187, USA 130Instituto de F́ısica Teórica, University Estadual Paulista/ICTP South American Institute for Fundamental Research, São Paulo SP 01140-070, Brazil 131Whitman College, 345 Boyer Avenue, Walla Walla, WA 99362 USA 6 132Université de Lyon, F-69361 Lyon, France 133Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY 14456, USA 134Janusz Gil Institute of Astronomy, University of Zielona Góra, 65-265 Zielona Góra, Poland 135King’s College London, University of London, London WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom 136IISER-Kolkata, Mohanpur, West Bengal 741252, India 137Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar Ahmedabad Gujarat 382424, India 138Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI 49104, USA 139Università di Siena, I-53100 Siena, Italy 140Trinity University, San Antonio, TX 78212, USA 141University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA 142Abilene Christian University, Abilene, TX 79699, USA We employ gravitational-wave radiometry to map the gravitational waves stochastic background expected from a variety of contributing mechanisms and test the assumption of isotropy us- ing data from Advanced LIGO’s first observing run. We also search for persistent gravita- tional waves from point sources with only minimal assumptions over the 20 - 1726 Hz frequency band. Finding no evidence of gravitational waves from either point sources or a stochastic back- ground, we set limits at 90% confidence. For broadband point sources, we report upper limits on the gravitational wave energy flux per unit frequency in the range Fα,Θ(f) < (0.1 − 56) × 10−8 erg cm−2 s−1 Hz−1(f/25 Hz)α−1 depending on the sky location Θ and the spectral power in- dex α. For extended sources, we report upper limits on the fractional gravitational wave energy density required to close the Universe of Ω(f,Θ) < (0.39−7.6)×10−8 sr−1(f/25 Hz)α depending on Θ and α. Directed searches for narrowband gravitational waves from astrophysically interesting ob- jects (Scorpius X-1, Supernova 1987 A, and the Galactic Center) yield median frequency-dependent limits on strain amplitude of h0 < (6.7, 5.5, and 7.0) × 10−25 respectively, at the most sensitive detector frequencies between 130 – 175 Hz. This represents a mean improvement of a factor of 2 across the band compared to previous searches of this kind for these sky locations, considering the different quantities of strain constrained in each case. Introduction.—A stochastic gravitational-wave back- ground (SGWB) is expected from a variety of mech- anisms [1–5]. Given the recent observations of binary black hole mergers GW150914 and GW151226 [6, 7], we expect the SGWB to be nearly isotropic [8] and domi- nated [9] by compact binary coalescences [10–12]. The LIGO and Virgo Collaborations have pursued the search for an isotropic stochastic background from LIGO’s first observational run [13]. Here, we adopt an eyes-wide-open philosophy and relax the assumption of isotropy in order to allow for the greater range of possible signals. We search for an anisotropic background, which could indi- cate a richer, more interesting cosmology than current models. We present the results of a generalized search for a stochastic signal with an arbitrary angular distri- bution mapped over all directions in the sky. Our search has three components. First, we utilize a broadband radiometer analysis [14, 15], optimized for de- tecting a small number of resolvable point sources. This method is not applicable to extended sources. Second, we employ a spherical harmonic decomposition [16, 17], which can be employed for point sources but is better suited to extended sources. Last, we carry out a nar- rowband radiometer search directed at the sky position of three astrophysically interesting objects: Scorpius X-1 (Sco X-1) [18, 19], Supernova 1987 A (SN 1987A) [20, 21], and the Galactic Center (GC) [22]. These three search methods are capable of detecting a wide range of possible signals with only minimal assump- tions about the signal morphology. We find no evidence of persistent gravitational waves, and set limits on broad- band emission of gravitational waves as a function of sky position. We also set narrowband limits as a function of frequency for the three selected sky positions. Data.—We analyze data from Advanced LIGO’s 4 km detectors in Hanford, WA (H1) and Livingston, LA (L1) during the first observing run (O1), from 15:00 UTC, Sep 18, 2015 – 16:00 UTC, Jan 12, 2016. During O1, the detectors reached an instantaneous strain sensitivity of 7× 10−24 Hz−1/2 in the most sensitive region between 100 – 300 Hz , and collected 49.67 days of coincident H1L1 data. The O1 observing run saw the first direct detection of gravitational waves and the first direct observation of merging black holes [6, 7]. For our analysis, the time-series data are down- sampled to 4096 Hz from 16 kHz, and divided into 192 s, 50% overlapping, Hann-windowed segments, which are high-pass filtered with a 16th order Butterworth digital filter with knee frequency of 11 Hz (following [13, 23]). We apply data quality cuts in the time domain in or- der to remove segments associated with instrumental ar- tifacts and hardware injections used for signal valida- tion [24, 25]. We also exclude segments containing known gravitational-wave signals. Finally, we apply a standard non-stationarity cut (see, e.g., [26]), to eliminate seg- ments that do not behave as Gaussian noise. These cuts remove 35% of the data. With all vetoes applied, the total live time for 192 s segments is 29.85 days. The data segments are Fourier transformed and coarse- grained to produce power spectra with a resolution 7 of 1/32 Hz. This is a finer frequency resolution than the 1/4 Hz used in previous LIGO/Virgo stochastic searches [15, 17] in order to remove many finely spaced in- strumental lines occurring at low frequencies. Frequency bins associated with known instrumental artifacts includ- ing suspension violin modes [27], calibration lines, elec- tronic lines, correlated combs, and signal injections of persistent, monochromatic, gravitational waves are not included in the analysis. These frequency domain cuts remove 21% of the observing band. For a detailed de- scription of data quality studies performed for this anal- ysis, see the supplement [28] of [13]. The broadband searches include frequencies from 20 – 500 Hz which more than cover the regions of 99% sensi- tivity for each of the spectral bands (see Table 1 of [13]). The narrowband analysis covers the full 20 – 1726 Hz band. Method.— The main goal of a stochastic search is to estimate the fractional contribution of the energy density in gravitational waves Ωgw to the total energy density needed to close the Universe ρc. This is defined by Ωgw(f) = f ρc dρgw df (1) where f is frequency and dρgw represents the energy den- sity between f and f + df [29]. For a stationary and unpolarized signal, ρgw can be factored into an angular power P(Θ) and a spectral shape H(f) [30], such that Ωgw(f) = 2π2 3H2 0 f3H(f) ∫ dΘ P(Θ), (2) with Hubble constant H0 = 68 km s−1 Mpc−1 from [31]. The angular power P(Θ) represents the gravitational wave power at each point in the sky. To express this in terms of the fractional energy density, we define the energy density spectrum as a function of sky position Ω(f,Θ) = 2π2 3H2 0 f3H(f)P(Θ). (3) We define a similar quantity for the energy flux, where F(f,Θ) = c3π 4G f2H(f)P(Θ) (4) has units of erg cm−2 s−1 Hz−1 sr−1 [15, 16], c is the speed of light and G is Newton’s gravitational constant. Point sources versus extended sources.—We employ two different methods to estimate P(Θ) based on the cross-correlation of data streams from a pair of detectors [17, 29]. The radiometer method [14, 15] assumes that the cross-correlation signal is dominated by a small num- ber of resolvable point sources. The point source power is given by PΘ0 and the angular power spectrum is then P(Θ) ≡ PΘ0 δ2(Θ,Θ0). (5) Although the radiometer method provides the opti- mal method for detecting resolvable point sources, it is not well-suited for describing diffuse or extended sources, which may have an arbitrary angular distribu- tion. Hence, we also implement a complementary spher- ical harmonic decomposition (SHD) algorithm, in which the sky map is decomposed into components Ylm(Θ) with coefficients Plm [16]: P(Θ) ≡ ∑ lm PlmYlm(Θ). (6) Here, the sum over l runs from 0 to lmax and −l ≤ m ≤ l. We discuss the choice of lmax below. While the SHD algo- rithm has comparably worse sensitivity to point sources than the radiometer algorithm, it accounts for the detec- tor response, producing more accurate sky maps. Spectral models.—In both the radiometer algorithm and the spherical harmonic decomposition algorithm, we must choose a spectral shape H(f). We model the spec- tral dependence of Ωgw(f) as a power law: H(f) = ( f fref )α−3 , (7) where fref is an arbitrary reference frequency and α is the spectral index (see also [13]). The spectral model will also affect the angular power spectrum, so P(Θ) is implicitly a function of α. We can rewrite the energy density map Ω(f,Θ) to em- phasize the spectral properties, such that Ω(f,Θ) = Ωα(Θ) ( f fref )α , (8) where Ωα(Θ) = 2π2 3H2 0 f3 refP(Θ) (9) has units of fractional energy density per steradian Ωgw sr−1. The spherical harmonic analysis presents skymaps of Ωα(Θ). Note that when P(Θ) = P00 (the monopole moment), we recover a measurement for the energy density of the isotropic gravitational wave back- ground. Similarly, the gravitational wave energy flux can be expressed as F(f,Θ) = Fα(Θ) ( f fref )α−1 , (10) where Fα(Θ) = c3π 4G f2 refP(Θ). (11) In the radiometer case we calculate the flux in each di- rection Fα,Θ0 = c3π 4G f2 refPΘ0 , (12) 8 which is obtained by integrating Equation 11 over the sphere for the point-source signal model de- scribed in Equation 5. This quantity has units of erg cm−2 s−1 Hz−1. Following [13, 32], we choose fref = 25 Hz, corresponding to the most sensitive frequency in the spectral band for a stochastic search with the Ad- vanced LIGO network at design sensitivity. We consider three spectral indices: α = 0, correspond- ing to a flat energy density spectrum (expected from models of a cosmological background), α = 2/3, cor- responding to the expected shape from a population of compact binary coalescences, and α = 3, corresponding to a flat strain power spectral density spectrum [17, 32]. The different spectral models are summarized in Table I. Cross Correlation.— A stochastic background would induce low-level correlation between the two LIGO de- tectors. Although the signal is expected to be buried in the detector noise, the cross-correlation signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) grows with the square root of integration time [29]. The cross correlation between two detectors, with (one-sided strain) power spectral density Pi(f, t) for detector i, is encoded in what is known as “the dirty map” [16]: Xν = ∑ ft γ∗ν(f, t) H(f) P1(f, t)P2(f, t) C(f, t). (13) Here, ν is an index, which can refer to either individual points on the sky (the pixel basis) or different lm indices (the spherical harmonic basis). The variable C(f, t) is the cross-power spectral density measured between the two LIGO detectors at some segment time t. The sum runs over all segment times and all frequency bins. The variable γν(f, t) is a generalization of the overlap reduc- tion function, which is a function of the separation and relative orientation between the detectors, and charac- terizes the frequency response of the detector pair [33]; see [16] for an exact definition. We can think of Xν as a sky map representation of the raw cross-correlation measurement before deconvolv- ing the detector response. The associated uncertainty is encoded in the Fisher matrix: Γµν = ∑ ft γ∗µ(f, t) H2(f) P1(f, t)P2(f, t) γν(f, t), (14) where ∗ denotes complex conjugation. Once Xν and Γµν are calculated, we have the ingredi- ents to calculate both the radiometer map and the SHD map. However, the inversion of Γµν is required to cal- culate the maximum likelihood estimators of GW power P̂µ = Γ−1 µνXν [16]. For the radiometer, the correlations between neighbouring pixels can be ignored. The ra- diometer map is given by P̂Θ =(ΓΘΘ)−1XΘ σrad Θ =(ΓΘΘ)−1/2, (15) where the standard deviation σrad Θ is the uncertainty as- sociated with the point source amplitude estimator P̂Θ, and ΓΘΘ is a diagonal entry of the Fisher matrix for a pointlike signal. For the SHD analysis, the full Fisher matrix Γµν must be taken into account, which includes singular eigenvalues associated with modes to which the detector pair is insensitive. The inversion of Γµν is simpli- fied by a singular value decomposition regularization. In this decomposition, modes associated with the smallest eigenvalues contribute the least sensitivity to the detec- tor network. Removing a fraction of the lowest eigen- modes “regularizes” Γµν without significantly affecting the sensitivity (see [16]). The estimator for the SHD and corresponding standard deviation are given by P̂lm = ∑ l′m′ (Γ−1 R )lm,l′m′Xl′m′ σSHD lm = [ (Γ−1 R )lm,lm ]1/2 , (16) where ΓR is the regularized Fisher matrix. We remove 1/3 of the lowest eigenvalues following [16, 17]. Angular scale.—In order to carry out the calculation in Eq. 16, we must determine a suitable angular scale, which will depend on the angular resolution of the detector net- work and vary with spectral index α. The diffraction- limited spot size on the sky θ (in radians) is given by θ = c 2df ≈ 50 Hz fα , (17) where d = 3000 km is the separation of the LIGO detec- tors. The frequency fα corresponds to the most sensitive frequency in the detector band for a power law with spec- tral index α given the detector noise power spectra [15]. In order to determine fα we find the frequency at which a power-law with index α is tangent to the single-detector “power-law integrated curve” [34]. The angular resolu- tion scale is set by the maximum spherical harmonic or- der lmax, which we can express as a function of α since lmax = π θ ≈ πfα 50Hz . (18) The values of fα, θ, and lmax for three different values of α are shown in Table I. As the spectral index increases, so does fα, decreasing the angular resolution limit, thus increasing lmax. Angular power spectra.—For the SHD map, we calcu- late the angular power spectra Cl, which describe the angular scale of structure in the clean map, using an un- biased estimator [16, 17] Ĉl ≡ 1 2l + 1 ∑ m [ |P̂lm|2 − (Γ−1 R )lm,lm ] . (19) Narrowband radiometer.—The radiometer algorithm can be applied to the detection of persistent gravitational waves from narrowband point sources associated with a 9 All-sky (broadband) Results Max SNR (% p-value) Upper limit range α Ωgw H(f) fα (Hz) θ (deg) lmax BBR SHD BBR (×10−8) SHD (×10−8) 0 constant ∝ f−3 52.50 55 3 3.32 (7) 2.69 (18) 10 – 56 2.5 – 7.6 2/3 ∝ f2/3 ∝ f−7/3 65.75 44 4 3.31 (12) 3.06 (11) 5.1 – 33 2.0 – 5.9 3 ∝ f3 constant 256.50 11 16 3.43 (47) 3.86 (11) 0.1 – 0.9 0.4 – 2.8 TABLE I. Values of the power-law index α investigated in this analysis, the shape of the energy density and strain power spectrum. The characteristic frequency fα, angular resolution θ (Eq. 17), and corresponding harmonic order lmax (Eq. 18) for each α are also shown. The right hand section of the table shows the maximum SNR, associated significance (p-value) and best upper limit values from the broadband radiometer (BBR) and the spherical harmonic decomposition (SHD). The BBR sets upper limits on energy flux [erg cm−2 s−1 Hz−1(f/25 Hz)α−1] while the SHD sets upper limits on the normalized energy density [sr−1(f/25 Hz)α] of the SGWB. given sky position [15, 17]. We “point” the radiometer in the direction of three interesting sky locations: Sco X-1, the Galactic Center, and the remnant of supernova SN 1987A. Scorpius X-1 (Sco X-1) is a low-mass X-ray binary be- lieved to host a neutron star that is potentially spun up through accretion, in which gravitational wave emission may provide a balancing spin-down torque [18, 19, 35, 36]. The frequency of the gravitational wave signal is expected to spread due to the orbital motion of the neu- tron star. At frequencies below ∼930 Hz this Doppler line broadening effect is less than 1/4 Hz, the frequency bin width selected in past analyses [15, 17]. At higher frequencies, the signal is certain to span multiple bins. We therefore combine multiple 1/32 Hz frequency bins to form optimally sized combined bins at each frequency, accounting for the expected signal broadening due to the combination of the motion of the Earth around the Sun, the binary orbital motion, and any other intrinsic modu- lation. For more detail on the method of combining bins, see the technical supplement to this paper [37]. The possibility of a young neutron star in SN 1987A [20, 21] and the likelihood of many unknown, isolated neutron stars in the Galactic Center region [22] indicate potentially interesting candidates for persistent gravita- tional wave emission. We combine bins to include the signal spread due to Earth’s modulation. For SN 1987A, we choose a combined bin size of 0.09 Hz. We would be sensitive to spin modulations up to |ν̇| < 9×10−9 Hz s−1 within our O1 observation time spanning 116 days. The Galactic Center is at a lower declination with respect to the orbital plane of the Earth. The Earth modulation term is therefore more significant so for the Galactic Cen- ter we choose combined bins of 0.53 Hz across the band. In this case we are sensitive to a frequency modulation in the range |ν̇| < 5.3× 10−8 Hz s−1. Significance.—To assess the significance of the SNR in the combined bins of the narrowband radiometer spectra, we simulate many realizations of the strain power consis- tent with Gaussian noise in each individual frequency bin. Combining these in the same way as the actual analysis leaves us with a distribution of maximum SNR values across the whole frequency band for many simulations of noise. For a map of the whole sky, the distribution of maxi- mum SNR is complicated by the many dependent trials due to covariances between different pixels (or patches) on the sky. We calculate this distribution numerically by simulating many realizations of the dirty map Xν with expected covariances described by the Fisher matrix Γµν (cf. Eqs. 13 and 14, respectively). This distribution is then used to calculate the significance (or p-value) of a given SNR recovered from the sky maps [17]. We take a p-value of 0.01 or less to indicate a significant result. The absence of any significant events indicates the data are consistent with no signal being detected, in which case we quote Bayesian upper limits at 90% confidence [15, 17] Results—The search yields four data products: Radiometer sky maps, optimized for broadband point sources, are shown in Fig. 1. The top row shows the SNR. Each column corresponds to a different spec- tral index, α = 0, 2/3 and 3, from left to right, respec- tively. The maximum SNRs are respectively 3.32, 3.31, and 3.43 corresponding to false-alarm probabilities typi- cal of what would be expected from Gaussian noise; see Table I. We find no evidence of a signal, and so set limits on gravitational-wave energy flux, which are provided in the bottom row of Fig. 1 and summarized in Table I. SHD sky maps, suitable for characterizing an anisotropic stochastic background, are shown in Fig. 2. The top row shows the SNR and each column corre- sponds to a different spectral index (α = 0, 2/3 and 3, respectively). The maximum SNRs are 2.96, 3.06, and 3.86 corresponding to false-alarm probabilities typical of those expected from Gaussian noise; see Table I. Failing evidence of a signal, we set limits on energy density per unit solid angle, which are provided in the bottom row of Fig. 2 and summarised in Table I. Interactive visualiza- tions of the SNR and upper limit maps are also available online [38]. Angular power spectra are derived from the SHD sky maps. We present upper limits at 90% confidence on the angular power spectrum indices Cl from the spherical 10 FIG. 1. All-sky radiometer maps for point-like sources showing SNR (top) and upper limits at 90% confidence on energy flux Fα,Θ0 [erg cm−2 s−1 Hz−1] (bottom) for three different power-law indices, α = 0, 2/3 and 3, from left to right, respectively. The p-values associated with the maximum SNR are (from left to right) p = 7%, p = 12%, p = 47% (see Table I). FIG. 2. All-sky spherical harmonic decomposition maps for extended sources showing SNR (top) and upper limits at 90 % confidence on the energy density of the gravitational wave background Ωα [ sr−1] (bottom) for three different power-law indices α = 0, 2/3 and 3, from left to right, respectively. The p-values associated with the maximum SNR are (from left to right) p = 18%, p = 11%, p = 11% (see Table I). harmonic analysis in Figure 3. FIG. 3. Upper limits on Cl at 90% confidence vs l for the SHD analyses for α = 0 (top, blue squares), α = 2/3 (middle, red circles) and α = 3 (bottom, green triangles). Radiometer spectra, suitable for the detection of a narrowband point source associated with a given sky position, are given in Fig. 4, the main results of which are summarised in Table II. For the three sky locations (Sco X-1, SN 1987A and the Galactic Center), we calculate the SNR in appropriately sized combined bins across the LIGO band. For Sco X-1, the loudest observed SNR is 4.58, which is consistent with Gaussian noise. For SN 1987A and the Galactic Center, we observe maximum SNRs of 4.07 and 3.92 respectively, corresponding to false alarm probabilities consistent with noise; see Table II. Since we observe no statistically significant signal, we set 90% confidence limits on the peak strain amplitude h0 for each optimally sized frequency bin. Upper limits were set using a Bayesian methodology with the constraint that h0 > 0 and validated with software injection studies. The upper limit procedure is described in more detail in the technical supplement [37], while the subsequent software injection validation is detailed in [39]. The results of the narrowband radiometer search for the three sky locations are shown in Fig. 4. To avoid setting limits associated with downward noise fluctua- tions, we take the median upper limit from the most sensitive 1 Hz band as our best strain upper limit. We obtain 90% confidence upper limits on the gravitational wave strain of h0 < 6.7 × 10−25 at 134 Hz , h0 < 7.0 × 11 Narrowband Radiometer Results Direction Max SNR p-value (%) Frequency band (Hz) Best UL (×10−25) Frequency band (Hz) Sco X-1 4.58 10 616− 617 6.7 134− 135 SN1987A 4.07 63 195− 196 5.5 172− 173 Galactic Center 3.92 87 1347− 1348 7.0 172− 173 TABLE II. Results for the narrowband radiometer showing the maximum SNR, corresponding p-value and 1 Hz frequency band as well as the 90% gravitational wave strain upper limits, and corresponding frequency band, for three sky locations of interest. The best upper limits are taken as the median of the most sensitive 1 Hz band. 10−25 at 172 Hz and h0 < 5.5×10−25 at 172 Hz from Sco X-1, SN 1987A and the Galactic Center respectively in the most sensitive part of the LIGO band Conclusions. We find no evidence to support the de- tection of either point-like or extended sources and set upper limits on the energy flux and energy density of the anisotropic gravitational wave sky. We assume three dif- ferent power law models for the gravitational wave back- ground spectrum. Our mean upper limits present an im- provement over initial LIGO results of a factor of 8 in flux for the α = 3 broadband radiometer and factors of 60 and 4 for the spherical harmonic decomposition method for α = 0 and 3 respectively [17, 40]. We present the first up- per limits for an anisotropic stochastic background dom- inated by compact binary inspirals (with an Ωgw ∝ f2/3 spectrum) of Ω2/3(Θ) < 2 − 6 × 10−8 sr−1 depending on sky position. We can directly compare the monopole moment of the spherical harmonic decomposition to the isotropic search point estimate Ω2/3 = (3.5± 4.4)× 10−8 from [13]. We obtain Ω2/3 = (2π2/3H2 0 )f3 ref √ 4πP00 = (4.4± 6.4)× 10−8. The two results are statistically con- sistent. Our spherical harmonic estimate of Ω2/3 has a larger uncertainty than the dedicated isotropic search be- cause of the larger number of (covariant) parameters es- timated when lmax > 0. We also set upper limits on the gravitational wave strain from point sources located in the directions of Sco X-1, the Galactic Center and Supernova 1987A. The narrowband results improve on previous limits of the same kind by more than a factor of 10 in strain at frequencies below 50 Hz and above 300 Hz, with a mean improvement of a factor of 2 across the band [17]. Acknowledgments.—The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the United States National Science Founda- tion (NSF) for the construction and operation of the LIGO Laboratory and Advanced LIGO as well as the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) of the United Kingdom, the Max-Planck-Society (MPS), and the State of Niedersach- sen/Germany for support of the construction of Advanced LIGO and construction and operation of the GEO600 detec- tor. Additional support for Advanced LIGO was provided by the Australian Research Council. The authors gratefully acknowledge the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucle- are (INFN), the French Centre National de la Recherche Sci- entifique (CNRS) and the Foundation for Fundamental Re- search on Matter supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, for the construction and operation of the Virgo detector and the creation and support of the EGO consortium. The authors also gratefully acknowledge research support from these agencies as well as by the Council of Scien- tific and Industrial Research of India, Department of Science and Technology, India, Science & Engineering Research Board (SERB), India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, India, the Spanish Ministerio de Economı́a y Competitividad, the Conselleria d’Economia i Competitivitat and Conselleria d’Educació, Cultura i Universitats of the Govern de les Illes Balears, the National Science Centre of Poland, the European Commission, the Royal Society, the Scottish Funding Council, the Scottish Universities Physics Alliance, the Hungarian Sci- entific Research Fund (OTKA), the Lyon Institute of Origins (LIO), the National Research Foundation of Korea, Industry Canada and the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation, the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council Canada, Canadian Insti- tute for Advanced Research, the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation, Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP), Russian Foundation for Basic Research, the Leverhulme Trust, the Research Corpo- ration, Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Taiwan and the Kavli Foundation. The authors gratefully acknowl- edge the support of the NSF, STFC, MPS, INFN, CNRS and the State of Niedersachsen/Germany for provision of compu- tational resources. This is LIGO document LIGO-P1600259. [1] M. Maggiore, Phys. Rep. 331, 283 (2000). [2] B. Allen, in Relativistic Gravitation and Gravitational Radiation, edited by J.-A. Marck and J.-P. Lasota (1997) p. 373, gr-qc/9604033. [3] V. Mandic and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D 73, 063008 (2006). [4] X.-J. Zhu, X.-L. Fan, and Z.-H. Zhu, Astrophys. J. 729, 59 (2011). [5] X. Siemens, V. Mandic, and J. Creighton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 111101 (2007). [6] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.. 116, 061102 (2016). [7] B. P. Abbott and others. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241103 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(99)00102-7 http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9604033 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.73.063008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.73.063008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/59 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/59 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.111101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.111101 http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103 12 FIG. 4. Radiometer 90% upper limits on dimensionless strain amplitude (h0) as a function of frequency for Sco X-1 (left), SN1987A (middle) and the Galactic Center (right) for the O1 observing run (gray band) and standard deviation σ (black line). The large spikes correspond to harmonics of the 60 Hz power mains, calibration lines and suspension-wire resonances. (2016). [8] D. Meacher, E. Thrane, and T. Regimbau, Phys. Rev. D 89, 084063 (2014). [9] T. Callister, L. Sammut, S. Qiu, I. Mandel, and E. Thrane, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031018 (2016). [10] T. Regimbau and B. Chauvineau, Class. Quantum Grav- ity 24, S627 (2007). [11] C. Wu, V. Mandic, and T. Regimbau, Phys. Rev. D 85, 104024 (2012). [12] X.-J. Zhu, E. J. Howell, D. G. Blair, and Z.-H. Zhu, Mon. Not. R. Astron Soc. 431, 882 (2013). [13] The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collab- oration, ArXiv e-prints (2016), arXiv:1612.02029 [gr-qc]. [14] S. W. Ballmer, Class. Quantum Gravity 23, S179 (2006). [15] B. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. D 76, 082003 (2007). [16] E. Thrane, S. Ballmer, J. D. Romano, S. Mitra, D. Talukder, S. Bose, and V. Mandic, Phys. Rev. D 80, 122002 (2009). [17] J. Abadie et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 271102 (2011). [18] J. Aasi et al., Phys. Rev. D 91, 062008 (2015). [19] C. Messenger et al., Phys. Rev. D 92, 023006 (2015). [20] C. T. Y. Chung, A. Melatos, B. Krishnan, and J. T. Whelan, Mon. Not. R. Astron Soc. 414, 2650 (2011). [21] L. Sun, A. Melatos, P. D. Lasky, C. T. Y. Chung, and N. S. Darman, Phys. Rev. D 94, 082004 (2016). [22] J. Aasi et al., Phys. Rev. D 88, 102002 (2013). [23] B. Abbott et al., Astrophys. J. 659, 918 (2007). [24] B. P. Abbott et al., Class. Quantum Gravity 33, 134001 (2016). [25] C. Biwer et al., “Validating gravitational-wave detec- tions: The Advanced LIGO hardware injection system,” LIGO Document P1600285 (2016), in preparation. [26] B. P. Abbott et al., Nature 460, 990 (2009). [27] S. M. Aston et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity 29, 235004 (2012). [28] See Supplemental Material at https://dcc.ligo.org/ LIGO-P1600258 for more detail on the data quality stud- ies performed during this analysis. [29] B. Allen and J. D. Romano, Phys. Rev. D 59, 102001 (1999). [30] B. Allen and A. C. Ottewill, Phys. Rev. D 56, 545 (1997). [31] Planck Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade, et al., Astron. As- trophys. 571, A1 (2014). [32] B. P. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 131102 (2016). [33] N. Christensen, Phys. Rev. D 46, 5250 (1992). [34] E. Thrane and J. D. Romano, Phys. Rev. D 88, 124032 (2013). [35] L. Bildsten, Astrophys. J. Lett. 501, L89 (1998). [36] B. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. D 76, 082001 (2007). [37] See Supplemental Material at https://dcc.ligo.org/ LIGO-P1600259 for details on the directed narrowband radiometer procedure to calcuate upper limits on the gravitational wave strain amplitude. [38] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), “Mapping a stochastic gravita- tional wave background,” (2016), https://dcc.ligo. org/public/0139/G1602343/002/index.html. [39] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), “O1 stochastic narrowband ra- diometer injection recovery summary,” (2016), https: //dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1600563. [40] The spherical harmonic analysis uses different values of the maximum order lmax than those used in [17]. The lmax value was decreased by a factor of 2 for α = 0 and increased by 30% for α = 3. The harmonic order resem- bles extra degrees of freedom, meaning that larger values of lmax tend to reduce the sensitivity in Ωgw by increasing uncertainty in estimates of the angular power P(Θ). [41] C. Messenger, “Understanding the sensitivity of the stochastic radiometer analysis in terms of the strain tensor amplitude,” LIGO Document T1000195 (2010), https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1000195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.084063 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.084063 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.6.031018 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/24/19/S25 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/24/19/S25 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.104024 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.104024 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt207 http://arxiv.org/abs/1612.02029 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/23/8/S23 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.082003 http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.122002 http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.122002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.271102 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.062008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.023006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18585.x http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.082004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.102002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/511329 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/33/13/134001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/33/13/134001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature08278 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/29/23/235004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/29/23/235004 https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1600258 https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1600258 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.59.102001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.59.102001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.56.545 http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201321529 http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201321529 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.131102 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.46.5250 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.124032 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.124032 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/311440 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.082001 https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1600259 https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1600259 https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0139/G1602343/002/index.html https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0139/G1602343/002/index.html https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1600563 https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1600563 https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1000195 13 SUPPLEMENT–DIRECTIONAL LIMITS ON PERSISTENT GRAVITATIONAL WAVES FROM ADVANCED LIGO’S FIRST OBSERVING RUN In this supplement we describe how we use the nar- rowband, directed radiometer search[14] to make a state- ment on the gravitational wave (GW) strain amplitude h0 of a persistent source given some power described by our cross correlation statistic. We take into account the expected modulation of the quasi-monochromatic source frequency over the duration of the observation. We do this by combining individual search frequency bins into combined bins that cover the extent of the possible mod- ulation. Source Model.—We can relate GW frequency emitted in the source frame fs to the observed frequency in the detector frame fd using the relation fd = [1−A(t)−B(t)− C(t)]fs (20) where A(t) takes into account the modulation of the sig- nal due to Earth’s motion with respect to the source, B(t) takes into account the orbital modulation for a source in a binary orbit, and C(t) takes into account any other modulation due to intrinsic properties of the source (for example any spin-down terms for isolated neutron stars). The Earth modulation term is given by A(t) = ~vE(t) · k̂ c (21) where ~vE is the velocity of the Earth. In equatorial co- ordinates: ~vE(t) = ωR [sin θ(t)û− cos θ(t) cosφv̂ − cos θ(t) sinφŵ] , (22) in which R is the mean distance between Earth and the Sun, ω is the angular velocity of the Earth around the Sun and φ = 23◦, 26 min, 21.406 sec is the obliquity of the ecliptic. The time dependent phase angle θ(t) is given by θ(t) = 2π(t − TVE)/Tyear, where Tyear is the number of seconds in a year and TVE is the time at the Vernal equinox. The unit vector k̂ pointing from the source to the earth is given by k̂ = − cos δ cosαû − cos δ sinαv̂ − sin δŵ, where δ is the declination and α is the right as- cension of the source on the sky. In the case of a source in a binary system, the binary term (for a circular orbit) is given by B(t) = 2π Porb a sin i× cos ( 2π t− Tasc Porb ) (23) where a sin i is the projection of the semi-major axis (in units of light seconds) of the binary orbit on the line of sight, Tasc is the time of the orbital ascending node and Porb is the binary orbital period. In the case of an isolated source we set B(t) = 0, while C(t) can take into account any spin modulation expected to occur during an observation time. In the absence of a model for this behaviour, a statement can be made on the maximum allowable spin modulation that can be tolerated by our search. Search.—The narrowband radiometer search is run with 192 s segments and 1/32 Hz frequency bins. For each 1/32 Hz frequency bin we combine the number of bins required to account for the extent of any signal fre- quency modulation The source frequency fs is taken as the center of a frequency bin. We calculate the minimum and maximum detector frequency fd over the time of the analysis corresponding to the respective edges of the bin in order to define our combined bins. We combine the detection statistic Yi and variance σY,i into a new combined statistic Yc for each representative frequency bin via Yc = a∑ i=−b Yi and σ2 Y,c = a∑ i=−b σ2 Y,i , (24) where i represents the index for each of the frequency bins we want to combine. If we assign i = 0 to the bin where the source frequency falls, then a and b are the number of frequency bins we want to combine above and below the source frequency bin, respectively. The overlapping bins, which ensure we do not lose signal due to edge effects, create correlations between our combined bins. Significance.—To establish significance, we assume that the strain power in each frequency bin is consis- tent with Gaussian noise and simulate > 1000 noise re- alizations. For each realization, we generate values of Yi in each frequency bin i by drawing from a Gaus- sian distribution with σ = σY,i. We then combine these bins into combined bins as we do in the actual analysis and calculate the maximum of the signal to noise ratio, SNR = Yc/σY,c, across all of the combined bins. We use the distribution of maximum SNR to establish the significance of our results. Upper limits.—In the absence of a significant detection statistic, we set upper limits on the tensor strain ampli- tude h0 of a gravitational wave source with frequency fs. To take into account the unknown parameters of the sys- tem, such as the polarization ψ and inclination angle ι, and consider reduced sensitivity to signals that are not circularly polarized, we calculate a direction-dependent and time-averaged value µι,ψ. This value represents a scaling between the true value of the amplitude h0 and what we would measure with our search, and is given by µι,ψ = ∑M j=1 [ (A+/h0)2F+ dj + (A×/h0)2F×dj ] ( F+ dj + F×dj ) ∑M j=1 ( F+ dj + F×dj )2 (25) for each time segment j. Here A+ = 1 2 h0(1 + cos2 ι) and A× = h0 cos ι , (26) 14 and ψ dependence is implicit in FAdj = FA1jF A 2j , where A indicates (+ or ×) polarization and the response func- tions FA1j and FA2j for the LIGO detectors are defined in [29] (see also [41]). We calculate µι,ψ many times for a uniform distribution of cos ι and ψ, and then marginalize over it. We also marginalize over calibration uncertainty, where we assume (as in the past) that calibration uncer- tainty is manifest in a multiplicative factor (l + 1) > 0 where l is normally distributed around 0 with uncertainty given by the calibration uncertainty, σl = 0.18. The full expression for our posterior distribution given a measure- ment, Y and its uncertainty σY in a single combined bin is given by p(h0|Y, σY ) = ∫ 1 −1 d(cos ι) ∫ π/4 −π/4 dψ ∫ ∞ −1 dl eL(l), (27) where L(l) = −1 2 {( l σl )2 + [ Y (l + 1)− µι,ψh2 0 σY (l + 1) ]2 } . (28) We set upper limits on h0 at a 90% credible level for frequencies within each combined bin that correspond to each source frequency fs. Denoted hUL 0 , upper limits are calculated via 0.9 = ∫ hUL 0 0 dh0 p(h0|Y, σY ). Frequency Notches.—For frequency bins flagged to be removed from the analysis due to instrumental artifacts, we set our statistic to zero, so they will not contribute to the combined statistics described in Eq 24. We re- quire that more than half of the frequency bins are still available when generating a combined bin. When setting upper limits, the noise σY,c in any combined bin that contained notched frequency bins is rescaled to account for the missing bins to provide a more accurate represen- tation of the true sensitivity in that combined bin. Directional limits on persistent gravitational waves from Advanced LIGO's first observing run Abstract References Supplement–Directional limits on persistent gravitational waves from Advanced LIGO's first observing run