pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23816 · v1 · pith:AWLZF62Cnew · submitted 2026-06-22 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.HE· astro-ph.IM· hep-ph

A thorough investigation of cross-correlation estimators for stochastic gravitational-wave background searches in ground-based detector data

Haowen Zhong , Joseph D. Romano , Vuk Mandic , Shivaraj Kandhasamy , Arianna I. Renzini This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 07:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMhep-ph
keywords stochastic gravitational-wave backgroundcross-correlation estimatorsnarrowband estimatorsfrequency domain analysisparameter estimationBayesian model selectionground-based gravitational wave detectors
0
0 comments X

The pith

Reformulating cross-correlation estimators in the frequency domain for stochastic gravitational-wave background searches yields new narrowband expressions whose covariances differ from prior usage, yet the older expressions produce correct

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper re-derives the cross-correlation method for detecting stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds directly in the frequency domain. It addresses complications from data windowing and overlapping that create non-zero covariances between frequency bins. New expressions are given for the narrowband estimators and their covariances. The work demonstrates that widely used older expressions still give accurate results for estimating signal parameters and comparing models. This provides a clearer theoretical basis for analyzing signals in specific frequency ranges.

Core claim

The central claim is that a frequency-domain reformulation of the cross-correlation method resolves issues with covariances induced by time-domain windowing and overlapping, producing new expressions for narrowband estimators, but that the previously used expressions nevertheless yield correct posterior distributions for parameter estimation and correct log-Bayes factors for model selection.

What carries the argument

The frequency-domain narrowband cross-correlation estimators, with explicit accounting for covariances from windowing and overlapping of data segments.

If this is right

  • Analyses can now use narrowband estimators with a robust theoretical foundation for characterizing the energy density in specific frequency bins.
  • More accurate and physically insightful interpretations of stochastic gravitational-wave background observations become possible.
  • The framework lays a foundation for current and future research in stochastic gravitational-wave background searches.
  • Parameter estimation and model selection remain reliable even when using the previously standard expressions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The validation of old expressions suggests that past searches for stochastic backgrounds may not need re-analysis for their inference results.
  • Future work could test the new expressions on simulated data to quantify any practical differences in narrowband cases.
  • Similar reformulations might apply to other signal searches that use cross-correlations in ground-based detectors.

Load-bearing premise

That the non-zero covariances induced by windowing and overlapping of data in the time domain are the main unresolved issue when formulating narrowband estimators in the frequency domain.

What would settle it

A direct comparison on real or simulated detector data showing whether posterior distributions or log-Bayes factors differ when using the new versus old covariance expressions for narrowband estimators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23816 by Arianna I. Renzini, Haowen Zhong, Joseph D. Romano, Shivaraj Kandhasamy, Vuk Mandic.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Normalized correlation matrix for the band-limited white noise example, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Noise power spectral densities for O4, Cosmic Explorer, and the unresolved background from a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Flowchart comparing the approach adopted in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Frequency-domain representation of a Hann window of duration 192 sec. We show the behavior [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. ¯σ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. A schematic illustration of how the time-domain data are segmented with overlap between neigh [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Left panel: Ratio between the empirically estimated standard deviation of the optimal narrowband [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Ratios between the diagonal elements [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Ratio between the absolute difference of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The joint posterior distributions of Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p050_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Bootstrap validation of the bias factor. Gray histograms show the bootstrap distributions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Detecting a stochastic gravitational-wave background represents a crucial yet challenging objective within the field of gravitational-wave astronomy. Ground-based detectors currently rely almost exclusively on cross-correlation methods to detect stochastic gravitational-wave background signals. Traditionally, these methods define and optimize a broadband estimator initially constructed in the time domain. However, a growing number of analyses require precise narrowband estimators to accurately characterize the energy density of the underlying signal in specific frequency bins. Transitioning from time-domain broadband estimators to frequency-domain narrowband estimators introduces significant complexities that have not yet been fully explored in the existing literature. In this study, we systematically revisit and rigorously reformulate the cross-correlation method in the frequency domain, explicitly addressing and resolving issues related to non-zero covariances induced by windowing and overlapping of data in the time domain. We provide new expressions for the narrowband estimators and their covariances, which differ from those used in past searches. Fortunately, we show that the expressions that have been widely used in the field nonetheless lead to correct posterior distributions for parameter estimation and correct log-Bayes factors for model selection. By establishing a robust theoretical framework, our work facilitates more accurate and physically insightful interpretations of stochastic gravitational-wave background observations, laying an essential foundation for current and future research in this field.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reformulates the cross-correlation method for stochastic gravitational-wave background (SGWB) searches from the time domain to the frequency domain. It derives new expressions for narrowband estimators and their covariances that explicitly resolve non-zero covariances induced by windowing and overlapping of data segments. These new expressions differ from those used in past searches, but the authors demonstrate that the legacy expressions nonetheless produce correct posterior distributions for parameter estimation and correct log-Bayes factors for model selection.

Significance. If the central derivations and equivalence demonstrations hold, the work is significant for SGWB analyses in LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA data. It supplies a rigorous frequency-domain framework that clarifies why existing narrowband pipelines remain valid for inference while enabling more precise physical interpretations of energy-density spectra. The explicit validation of legacy methods for posteriors and Bayes factors strengthens confidence in published results without requiring reanalysis of existing datasets.

minor comments (3)
  1. [§3] §3 (or equivalent derivation section): the transition from the time-domain broadband estimator to the frequency-domain narrowband form would benefit from an explicit side-by-side comparison table of the legacy versus new covariance expressions to make the differences immediately visible to readers.
  2. [Figure 2] Figure 2 (or the figure showing covariance matrices): axis labels and color-bar scaling should be clarified so that the off-diagonal terms induced by overlap are quantitatively readable without reference to the text.
  3. [§5] The statement that the legacy expressions 'lead to correct posterior distributions' would be strengthened by a brief remark on the precise sense in which 'correct' is defined (e.g., identical to the new expressions up to a normalization factor that cancels in the likelihood ratio).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive and accurate summary of our manuscript, as well as for recommending acceptance. The referee correctly identifies the central result: new frequency-domain expressions for narrowband estimators and covariances, together with the demonstration that legacy expressions remain valid for posterior inference and model selection.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper performs a direct mathematical reformulation of time-domain broadband cross-correlation estimators into frequency-domain narrowband estimators, explicitly deriving new expressions for the estimators and their covariances to account for windowing-induced correlations. It then demonstrates that the legacy expressions remain valid for posterior inference and Bayes factors. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or definitional equivalence; the central results are independent derivations from the underlying time-domain statistics. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks with no circular reduction exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms listed. Relies on standard domain assumptions of stationary Gaussian noise and uncorrelated detector noise common to SGWB cross-correlation analyses.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Detector noise is stationary and Gaussian with known power spectral densities
    Implicit foundation for all cross-correlation estimators in SGWB searches; invoked when defining the estimators and covariances.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5784 in / 1311 out tokens · 27624 ms · 2026-06-26T07:14:00.016051+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Single-component SGWB: In this case, we assume that there is only one source of the SGWB, so that we can always express Ωgw(f |θ) by the product of a single amplitude Ω s and frequency-dependent function F (f |θ−): Ωgw(f) = ΩsF (f |θ−), (8.8) 48 where θ ≡ {Ωs} ⊕ θ−, with θ− ≡ {θ1, θ2, ...} encapsulating all the remaining model param- eters. Given this par...

  2. [2]

    In this case, the definition of R¯ℓ requires all parameters θ = {Ωs;i}Ns i=1 ⊕ {θ− i }Ns i=1

    Multi-component SGWB: If we assume there are multiple sources contributing to Ω gw(f), then we can parametrize Ωgw(f) as follows: Ωgw(f) = NsX i=1 Ωs;iFi(f |θ− i ), (8.9) where Ω s;i and Fi(fi|θ− i ) describe the amplitude and frequency-dependence of Ω gw(f) for the ith source model, respectively. In this case, the definition of R¯ℓ requires all parameter...

  3. [4]

    Acernese et al

    F. Acernese et al. (VIRGO), Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  4. [5]

    Bersanetti, B

    D. Bersanetti, B. Patricelli, O. J. Piccinni, F. Piergiovanni, F. Salemi, and V. Sequino, Universe 7 (2021), 10.3390/universe7090322. 57

    work page doi:10.3390/universe7090322 2021

  5. [6]

    Akutsu et al

    T. Akutsu et al. (KAGRA), Nature Astron. 3, 35 (2019), arXiv:1811.08079 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [7]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [8]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. D104, 022004 (2021), arXiv:2101.12130 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [9]

    A. I. Renzini, B. Goncharov, A. C. Jenkins, and P. M. Meyers, Galaxies 10, 34 (2022), arXiv:2202.00178 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2022

  9. [10]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 104, 022004 (2021)

    2021

  10. [11]

    D. S. Bellie, S. Banagiri, Z. Doctor, and V. Kalogera, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023006 (2024), arXiv:2310.02517 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  11. [12]

    Kosowsky, M

    A. Kosowsky, M. S. Turner, and R. Watkins, Phys. Rev. D 45, 4514 (1992)

    1992

  12. [13]

    Kosowsky and M

    A. Kosowsky and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 47, 4372 (1993)

    1993

  13. [14]

    P. S. B. Dev and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. D 93, 104001 (2016)

    2016

  14. [15]

    Marzola, A

    L. Marzola, A. Racioppi, and V. Vaskonen, The European Physical Journal C 77, 484 (2017)

    2017

  15. [16]

    von Harling, A

    B. von Harling, A. Pomarol, O. Pujol` as, and F. Rompineve, Journal of High Energy Physics 2020, 195 (2020)

    2020

  16. [17]

    Zhong, B

    H. Zhong, B. Gong, and T. Qiu, JHEP 02, 077 (2022), arXiv:2107.01845 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2022

  17. [18]

    Jinno and M

    R. Jinno and M. Takimoto, Phys. Rev. D 95, 024009 (2017), arXiv:1605.01403 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  18. [19]

    Ferrari, S

    V. Ferrari, S. Matarrese, and R. Schneider, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 303, 247 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9804259

    arXiv 1999

  19. [20]

    Buonanno, G

    A. Buonanno, G. Sigl, G. G. Raffelt, H.-T. Janka, and E. Muller, Phys. Rev. D 72, 084001 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0412277

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  20. [21]

    Crocker, V

    K. Crocker, V. Mandic, T. Regimbau, K. Belczynski, W. Gladysz, K. Olive, T. Prestegard, and E. Vangioni, Phys. Rev. D 92, 063005 (2015), arXiv:1506.02631 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  21. [22]

    Crocker, T

    K. Crocker, T. Prestegard, V. Mandic, T. Regimbau, K. Olive, and E. Vangioni, Phys. Rev. D 95, 063015 (2017), arXiv:1701.02638 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [23]

    Finkel, H

    B. Finkel, H. Andresen, and V. Mandic, Phys. Rev. D 105, 063022 (2022), arXiv:2110.01478 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2022

  23. [24]

    L. P. Grishchuk, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 67, 825 (1974)

    1974

  24. [25]

    A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. 30, 682 (1979)

    1979

  25. [26]

    L. P. Grishchuk, Phys. Rev. D 48, 3513 (1993), arXiv:gr-qc/9304018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  26. [27]

    Barnaby, E

    N. Barnaby, E. Pajer, and M. Peloso, Phys. Rev. D 85, 023525 (2012), arXiv:1110.3327 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  27. [28]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 71, 063510 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0410222

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  28. [29]

    Siemens, V

    X. Siemens, V. Mandic, and J. Creighton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 111101 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0610920

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  29. [30]

    Olmez, V

    S. Olmez, V. Mandic, and X. Siemens, Phys. Rev. D 81, 104028 (2010), arXiv:1004.0890 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  30. [31]

    Regimbau, S

    T. Regimbau, S. Giampanis, X. Siemens, and V. Mandic, Phys. Rev. D 85, 066001 (2012), arXiv:1111.6638 [astro-ph.CO]. 58

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  31. [32]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett. 913, L7 (2021), arXiv:2010.14533 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2021

  32. [33]

    S. S. Bavera, G. Franciolini, G. Cusin, A. Riotto, M. Zevin, and T. Fragos, Astron. Astrophys. 660, A26 (2022), arXiv:2109.05836 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  33. [34]

    Reitze, R

    D. Reitze, R. X. Adhikari, S. Ballmer, B. Barish, L. Barsotti, G. Billingsley, D. A. Brown, Y. Chen, D. Coyne, R. Eisenstein, et al., arXiv:1907.04833 (2019)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1907

  34. [35]

    Punturo, M

    M. Punturo, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  35. [36]

    Drasco and E

    S. Drasco and E. E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D 67, 082003 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0210032

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  36. [37]

    Smith and E

    R. Smith and E. Thrane, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021019 (2018), arXiv:1712.00688 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [38]

    R. J. E. Smith, C. Talbot, F. Hernandez Vivanco, and E. Thrane, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 496, 3281 (2020), arXiv:2004.09700 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  38. [39]

    Biscoveanu, C

    S. Biscoveanu, C. Talbot, E. Thrane, and R. Smith, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 241101 (2020)

    2020

  39. [40]

    Lawrence, K

    J. Lawrence, K. Turbang, A. Matas, A. I. Renzini, N. van Remortel, and J. D. Romano, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103026 (2023), arXiv:2301.07675 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  40. [41]

    Allen and J

    B. Allen and J. D. Romano, Phys. Rev. D 59, 102001 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9710117

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  41. [42]

    J. D. Romano and N. J. Cornish, Living Rev. Rel. 20, 2 (2017), arXiv:1608.06889 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  42. [43]

    Mandic, E

    V. Mandic, E. Thrane, S. Giampanis, and T. Regimbau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 171102 (2012), arXiv:1209.3847 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  43. [44]

    Lazzarini and J

    A. Lazzarini and J. Romano, Use of Overlapping Windows in the Stochastic Background Search, LIGO Technical Note LIGO-T040089-00-Z (LIGO Laboratory, 2004) LIGO Document T040089-00. https://dcc.ligo.org/T040089/public

    2004

  44. [45]

    J. T. Whelan, Cross-correlation of windowed, discretely-sampled data, LIGO Technical Note LIGO- T040125-00-Z (LIGO Laboratory, 2004) LIGO Document T040125-00. https://dcc.ligo.org/ LIGO-T040125/public

    2004

  45. [46]

    Sundaresan and J

    S. Sundaresan and J. T. Whelan, Windowing and Leakage in the Cross-Correlation Search for Periodic Gravitational Waves, LIGO Technical Note LIGO-T1200431-v1 (LIGO Laboratory, 2012) LIGO Document T1200431-v1. https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1200431-v1/public

    2012

  46. [47]

    J. T. Whelan, S. Sundaresan, Y. Zhang, and P. Peiris, Phys. Rev. D 91, 102005 (2015)

    2015

  47. [48]

    Zhong, L

    H. Zhong, L. Reali, B. Zhou, E. Berti, and V. Mandic, arXiv (2025), arXiv:2501.17717 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  48. [49]

    A. I. Renzini, T. Callister, K. Chatziioannou, and W. M. Farr, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023014 (2024), arXiv:2403.14793 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  49. [50]

    Cousins, K

    B. Cousins, K. Schumacher, A. K.-W. Chung, C. Talbot, T. Callister, D. E. Holz, and N. Yunes, arXiv (2025), arXiv:2503.01997 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  50. [51]

    Callister, M

    T. Callister, M. Fishbach, D. Holz, and W. Farr, Astrophys. J. Lett. 896, L32 (2020), arXiv:2003.12152 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  51. [52]

    Callister, L

    T. Callister, L. Jenks, D. E. Holz, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 111, 044041 (2025), arXiv:2312.12532 [gr-qc]. 59

    arXiv 2025

  52. [53]

    Turbang, M

    K. Turbang, M. Lalleman, T. A. Callister, and N. van Remortel, Astrophys. J. 967, 142 (2024), arXiv:2310.17625 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  53. [54]

    S. W. Ballmer, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, S179 (2006), gr-qc/0510096

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  54. [55]

    Dhurandhar, B

    S. Dhurandhar, B. Krishnan, H. Mukhopadhyay, and J. T. Whelan, Phys. Rev. D 77, 082001 (2008)

    2008

  55. [56]

    Matas and J

    A. Matas and J. D. Romano, Phys. Rev. D 103, 062003 (2021), arXiv:2012.00907 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

  56. [57]

    A. I. Renzini et al., Astrophys. J. 952, 25 (2023), arXiv:2303.15696 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  57. [58]

    C. M. F. Mingarelli, S. R. Taylor, B. S. Sathyaprakash, and W. M. Farr, arXiv preprint (2019), arXiv:1911.09745 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2019

  58. [59]

    Allen and J

    B. Allen and J. D. Romano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 031401 (2025)

    2025

  59. [60]

    Noise curves for use in simulations pre-O4,

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration, “Noise curves for use in simulations pre-O4,” LIGO Document Control Center, LIGO-T2200043-v3 (2022), https://dcc. ligo.org/T2200043-v3/public

    2022

  60. [61]

    Srivastava, D

    V. Srivastava, D. Davis, K. Kuns, P. Landry, S. Ballmer, M. Evans, E. D. Hall, J. Read, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Astrophys. J. 931, 22 (2022), arXiv:2201.10668 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2022

  61. [62]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.20721 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  62. [63]

    Caldwell et al., Gen

    R. Caldwell et al., Gen. Rel. Grav. 54, 156 (2022), arXiv:2203.07972 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2022

  63. [64]

    D. Phan, N. Pradhan, and M. Jankowiak, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.11554 (2019)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1912

  64. [65]

    Bingham, J

    E. Bingham, J. P. Chen, M. Jankowiak, F. Obermeyer, N. Pradhan, T. Karaletsos, R. Singh, P. A. Szerlip, P. Horsfall, and N. D. Goodman, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 20, 28:1 (2019)

    2019

  65. [66]

    Wick’s Theorem

    L. Isserlis, Biometrika 12, 134 (1918), often called “Wick’s Theorem” by physicists, although Wick’s work was three decades later

    1918

  66. [67]

    P. D. Welch, IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics 15, 70 (1967)

    1967

  67. [68]

    W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing, 3rd ed. (Cambridge University Press, USA, 2007)

    2007

  68. [69]

    G. M. Harry (LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 084006 (2010)

    2010

  69. [70]

    Aasi et al

    J. Aasi et al. (LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  70. [71]

    Ashton et al., Astrophys

    G. Ashton et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  71. [72]

    Ashton, M

    G. Ashton, M. H¨ ubner, P. D. Lasky, C. Talbot, K. Ackley, S. Biscoveanu, Q. Chu, A. Divakarla, P. J. Easter, B. Goncharov, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 241, 27 (2019). Appendix A: Statistics: standard definitions and results In this appendix, we review some standard definitions and results in statistics, which we will use repeatedl...

    2019

  72. [73]

    Its mean (expected value) and variance are defined as follows: µx ≡ ⟨x⟩ ≡ Z dx p(x)x , (A.1) σ2 x ≡ ⟨x2⟩ − ⟨x⟩2

    Mean, variance, and covariance Consider a random variable x. Its mean (expected value) and variance are defined as follows: µx ≡ ⟨x⟩ ≡ Z dx p(x)x , (A.1) σ2 x ≡ ⟨x2⟩ − ⟨x⟩2 . (A.2) Now, suppose we have N (real) random variables x1, x 2, · · · , x N. Their mutual dependence can be quantified by their covariance, defined as Σij ≡ ⟨xixj⟩ − ⟨xi⟩⟨xj⟩ . (A.3) I...

  73. [74]

    Isserlis’s theorem Consider N zero-mean, Gaussian random variables x1, x 2, · · · , xN. According to Isserlis’s theorem [64], the Nth-order expectation value can be written as ⟨x1x2 · · · xN ⟩ = X p∈P 2 N Y {i,j}∈p ⟨xixj⟩ , (A.5) where p denotes all possible distinct ways of partitioning {1, 2, · · · , N} into pairs (i, j). The sum- mation above is over a...

  74. [75]

    Suppose now that they all have the same mean ⟨xi⟩ = a, ∀xi, and the covariance Σ ij is known

    Optimal estimator Consider again N random variables x1, x 2, · · · , xN. Suppose now that they all have the same mean ⟨xi⟩ = a, ∀xi, and the covariance Σ ij is known. Then we can construct a linear optimal estimator of a such that the estimator is unbiased and has the minimum variance. We define the optimal estimator ˆaopt by the linear combination ˆaopt ...

  75. [76]

    Consider N Gaussian-distributed random variables, xi = a + ni , i = 1, 2, · · · , N, (A.13) with ⟨ni⟩ = 0, ⟨ninj⟩ = σ2δij

    Sufficient statistics We introduce the idea of sufficient statistics by considering the following toy example, and refer the interested readers to [54] for extra discussion. Consider N Gaussian-distributed random variables, xi = a + ni , i = 1, 2, · · · , N, (A.13) with ⟨ni⟩ = 0, ⟨ninj⟩ = σ2δij . (A.14) In the above expressions, a denotes the unknown ampl...

  76. [77]

    (4.5) We want to evaluate the summation Sℓ ≡PN −1 j=0 ˜wℓ−j ˜w∗ ℓ−j

    Proof of Eq. (4.5) We want to evaluate the summation Sℓ ≡PN −1 j=0 ˜wℓ−j ˜w∗ ℓ−j. Using the definition the DFT (2.5), we find Sℓ = (∆t)2 N −1X j=0 N −1X p=0 N −1X q=0 wpwqe−2πi p(ℓ−j) N e2πi q(ℓ−j) N = (∆t)2 N −1X p=0 N −1X q=0 wpwqe−2πi ℓ(p−q) N N −1X j=0 e2πi j(p−q) N | {z } N δpq . (B.1) Note that the summation over j yields a Kronecker delta, δpq, whi...

  77. [78]

    (4.11) We now want to evaluate Spq ≡PN −1 j=0 ˜wp−j ˜w∗ q−j

    Proof of Eq. (4.11) We now want to evaluate Spq ≡PN −1 j=0 ˜wp−j ˜w∗ q−j. As before, we use the definition of the DFT (Eq. (2.5)) to obtain: Spq = (∆t)2 N −1X j=0 N −1X ℓ=0 N −1X m=0 wℓwme−2πi ℓ(p−j) N e2πi m(q−j) N = (∆t)2 N −1X ℓ=0 N −1X m=0 wℓwme−2πi (ℓp−mq) N N −1X j=0 e2πi j(ℓ−m) N | {z } N δℓm = T 2 N N −1X ℓ=0 w2 ℓ e−2πi ℓ(p−q) N . (B.3) 64

  78. [79]

    (4.22) To prove (4.22), we need to evaluate S − jk;¯ℓ ¯m and S+ jk;¯ℓ; ¯m defined in (4.21)

    Proof of Eq. (4.22) To prove (4.22), we need to evaluate S − jk;¯ℓ ¯m and S+ jk;¯ℓ; ¯m defined in (4.21). Let us first consider S − jk;¯ℓ ¯m: S − jk;¯ℓ ¯m ≡ 1 M 2 M ¯ℓ+ M 2 −1X p=M ¯ℓ− M 2 M ¯m+ M 2 −1X q=M ¯m− M 2 e−2πi(j−k) (p−q) N = e−2πi(j−k) M(¯ℓ− ¯m) N 1 M 2 M −1X p,q=0 e−2πi(j−k) (p−q) N = e−2πi(j−k) M(¯ℓ− ¯m) N 1 M M −1X p=0 e−2πi(j−k) p N 2 . (B....

  79. [80]

    Proof of Eq. (5.7) We start by proving (5.7), which we can be derived from (5.5) as follows: ⟨ ˜d1;I;j ˜d∗ 1;I+1;k⟩ = (∆t)2 N −1X r=0 N −1X s=0 ⟨d1;I;rd1;I+1;s⟩e−2πi rj N e2πi sk N e2πi (1−O)N k N = (∆t)2 N −1X r=0 (2−O)N −1X s=(1−O)N ⟨dI+ 1;rdI+ 1;s⟩e−2πi rj N e2πi [s−(1−O)N]k N e2πi (1−O)N k N = (∆t)2 N −1X r=0 (2−O)N −1X s=(1−O)N ⟨dI+ 1;rdI+ 1;s⟩e−2πi ...

  80. [81]

    (5.8) To prove (5.8), we continue with the last equality of (C.1), noting that⟨dI+ 1;rdI+ 1;s⟩ is the definition of the auto-correlation function σ2 1R1;|r−s| for detector 1

    Proof of Eq. (5.8) To prove (5.8), we continue with the last equality of (C.1), noting that⟨dI+ 1;rdI+ 1;s⟩ is the definition of the auto-correlation function σ2 1R1;|r−s| for detector 1. Then, ⟨ ˜d1;I;j ˜d∗ 1;I+1;k⟩ = (∆t)2 N −1X r=0 (2−O)N −1X s=(1−O)N σ2 1R1;|r−s|e−2πi (rj−sk) N = (∆t)2 N −1X r=0 min r+N −1,(2−O)N −1 X s=(1−O)N σ2 1R1;|r−s|e−2πi (rj−sk...

Showing first 80 references.