the construction of several new detectors of gravitational radiation is currently approaching completion .
these instruments are of a different design and have significantly better sensitivity and broader bandwidth than previous detectors .
they include the ligo detector being built in the united states by a joint caltech / mit collaboration @xcite , the virgo detector being built near pisa by an italian / french collaboration @xcite , the geo-600 detector being built in hannover by an anglo / german collaboration @xcite , and the tama-300 detector near tokyo @xcite .
there are also several resonant bar detectors currently in operation @xcite , and several more refined bar and interferometric detectors presently in the planning and proposal stages @xcite .
these instruments search for very weak signals .
for the most likely sources , the signals will be buried in the noise of the detectors , and need to be extracted with sophisticated optimal signal - processing strategies @xcite .
the standard assumption made in the literature is that the detector noise has multivariate gaussian statistics .
this assumption is certainly incorrect : every sensitive gravitational wave detector operated to date has been characterized by noise that is both non - stationary and non - gaussian .
some experimentation has shown that this is a serious matter @xcite : existing detection strategies for both deterministic and stochastic signals do not perform nearly as well when non - gaussian noise is present . roughly speaking ,
if the non - gaussian fluctuations are large , they bias the statistics and make it more difficult to achieve a given level of statistical confidence .    in this paper , we develop a new set of statistical signal - processing techniques to search for deterministic and stochastic gravitational waves .
these techniques are _ robust _ , meaning that they will work well even if the detector noise is not gaussian but falls into a broader statistical class that we expect includes realistic detectors . in large part , these new methods are similar to the older ones : one constructs matched filters to search for known waveforms or cross - correlates the instrument outputs at the different detector sites to search for a stochastic background .
the essential difference is that by using locally optimal methods @xcite these statistical measures are modified .
the effect is to _ truncate _ the statistics : detector samples that fall outside the central gaussian - like part of the sample distribution ( i.e. , the outliers ) are excluded from ( or saturated when constructing ) the measurement statistic . for both cases ,
a robust statistic is found which performs better than the optimal linear filter in the case where the detector noise is non - gaussian , and almost as well in the gaussian - noise case .
the paper is organized as follows . in sec .
[ s : deterministic ] we derive the locally most powerful signal - processing tests for deterministic signals .
we begin in sec .
[ ss : sdwnkw ] with a derivation of the neyman - pearson criteria for optimality , in the case where a known waveform is hidden in white noise .
we define the power function of a test and derive a criteria for the locally optimal test in the weak - signal regime .
the locally optimal test is analyzed for a number of different types of non - gaussian noise , and we show that the locally optimal decision statistic is a matched filter where the non - gaussian sample values are truncated or excluded . in sec .
[ ss : sdcnkw ] the results are generalized to the case where a known waveform is hidden in colored noise , and we introduce models for non - gaussian colored noise . in sec .
[ s : stochastic ] , we turn to the detection of a stochastic background .
section  [ ss:2dwnss ] considers the case of a stochastic signal ( i.e. , where the waveform is not known ) and derives the locally optimal statistic which can be used to correlate two identical detectors , where we assume that each detector has independent white noise and is co - aligned and coincident . in sec .
[ ss:2dcnss ] , these results are generalized to the case where the noise is colored , and the detectors are in different locations , and not aligned in parallel . in sec .
[ s : impsim ] , we discuss an implementation of these statistics , and we illustrate how one can compare the performance of different statistics using monte carlo simulations . section  [ s : conclude ] contains a short conclusion and summary .
in order to describe the idea in a simple way we first discuss the case where we are searching for a known signal in the data stream of a single detector , where the time - domain detector noise samples are independent in the time - domain .    denote the data stream of the first detector by @xmath0 for @xmath1 . in this section , since we are going to only consider this single detector , we will drop the subscript `` 1 . ''
imagine that we are looking for a signal of known waveform but unknown amplitude @xmath2 , which we will denote by @xmath3 .
our primary interest is in the case where the amplitude @xmath2 is either small , or zero . for convenience ,
imagine for the moment that this parameter can have only two possible values , either @xmath4 or @xmath5 .
the detection problem that we need to solve is to partition the space of possible observations @xmath6 into two disjoint subsets .
when the observation @xmath7 falls into one of these , we conclude that @xmath4 and that the null hypothesis is true .
when the observation falls into the other set we conclude that the signal has been observed with @xmath8 . to describe the partition of @xmath6 into two regions , define a function @xmath9 which is zero in the null hypothesis region and unity elsewhere .
this function is called a _
test_. our goal is to find the `` best '' choice of a test @xmath10 .    to help characterize tests @xmath10 , it is helpful to define the _ power _ function of a test : @xmath11 here @xmath12 is the probability distribution of the measurement @xmath7 given signal amplitude @xmath2 .
for example , for additive white , stationary gaussian noise of unit variance and vanishing mean , @xmath13 the quality of the test can be expressed in terms of the power function .
we characterize the quality of the test by the false alarm and the false dismissal probabilities .
the false alarm probability is the probability with which we conclude that @xmath8 when in fact @xmath2 vanishes .
this is given by @xmath14 .
the false dismissal probability is the probability with which we conclude that @xmath4 when in fact it is @xmath15 .
this is given by @xmath16 .
one standard definition of the `` best '' test @xmath10 is that it minimizes the false dismissal probability for a given false alarm probability .
this is called the neyman - pearson test
. one can find this test using calculus of variations , with a lagrange multiplier @xmath17 to enforce the constraint that the false alarm probability is fixed .
the best test is obtained by partitioning @xmath6 as follows .
choose a constant @xmath18 .
then , set @xmath19 in regions where the likelihood ratio @xmath20 is greater than @xmath21 . set @xmath22 elsewhere .
( we assume that the boundary between these two regions is a set of probability measure zero . )
the value of the constant @xmath21 determines the false alarm probability .
thus , the likelihood ratio is a `` decision statistic '' : a number that can be calculated from the observed data .
if the statistic is less than some value , we conclude that the null hypothesis holds .
if the statistic is greater than this value , we conclude the opposite .
the decision statistic provides a partition of the space of observations into two disjoint regions .    in the case where the noise is gaussian ( [ e : gaussnoise ] ) this criteria is easily understood .
the optimal neyman - pearson test divides the space of observation along an @xmath23-dimensional plane .
on one side of this plane @xmath19 and on the other side @xmath10 vanishes .
the plane is defined by setting the likelihood ratio ( [ e : like ] ) to a constant . for the gaussian probability distribution ( [ e : gaussnoise ] )
the plane is defined by @xmath24 this plane is perpendicular to the vector @xmath25 .
different choices of this plane correspond to different false alarm rates .    in the case where the noise is not gaussian ,
the problem becomes more challenging . in the gaussian test , the decision statistic is independent of the signal amplitude @xmath2 .
however when the noise in not gaussian , the choice of decision statistic depends upon @xmath2 . consider the graph in fig .
[ f : powerfn ] showing the power function @xmath26 as a function of @xmath2 for several different tests .
all the tests have the same false alarm rate , but the optimal test depends upon the value of @xmath2 .    for the case of weak signals in non - gaussian noise , there is a useful test called the `` locally optimal '' test . for a given noise probability distribution ,
the locally optimal test is easy to describe , and leads to a simple decision statistic which can be calculated from the observed data @xcite . to define this test , it is useful to again consider the set of all tests with a given false alarm rate , as shown for example in fig .
[ f : powerfn ] .
the locally optimal test is the one that maximizes @xmath27 at @xmath4 for a fixed false alarm probability .
as above , one can show that the locally optimal test sets @xmath19 inside the region where @xmath28_{\epsilon=0}>\text{constant}\ ] ] for some constant , and @xmath22 elsewhere ( see fig .  [
f : powerfn ] ) .
the value of the constant determines ( or is determined by ) the false alarm probability . more generally , if the first derivative vanishes , the locally optimal test is determined by the first non - zero @xmath29 to understand the implications of this , it is helpful to consider several examples .
the examples here are for the case where the ( additive ) detector noise is independent for each sample value ( so the noise spectrum is white ) but has an arbitrary probability distribution . for convenience ,
we write @xmath30 where the function @xmath31 is a quadratic function of its argument for the case where the probability distribution of the noise is gaussian . [
note : any probability distribution for stationary additive noise where the sample values are independent can be written in this way .
if the noise is not stationary but is still additive and independent , then each function @xmath31 appearing in ( [ e : nongaussnoise ] ) may be different @xmath32 . ] the first derivative of the pdf ( [ e : nongaussnoise ] ) with respect to @xmath2 is @xmath33 where @xmath34 denotes the derivative of @xmath31 with respect to its argument . setting @xmath4 in this expression
one can easily find the locally optimal test ( [ e : lotest ] ) .
this is defined by setting @xmath19 in the region @xmath35 and setting @xmath22 elsewhere .
[ note : if @xmath2 can take either sign @xmath36 then an absolute value sign should enclose the lhs of the inequality in eq .
( [ e : forexamples ] ) . ] as before , the value of the constant determines the false alarm probability . here
are several examples :    * * gaussian noise * : @xmath37 , so @xmath38 . for this case the locally optimal test ( [ e : forexamples ] ) and the optimal test ( [ e : simplegauss ] ) both give the same statistic : @xmath39 .
this is the standard optimal linear filter . * * exponential noise * : @xmath40 , so @xmath41 . here
the locally optimal statistic is given by ( [ e : forexamples ] ) as @xmath42 where the @xmath43 function is @xmath44 for @xmath45 and @xmath46 for @xmath47 .
* * sum of distinct gaussian processes * : this is a white - noise version of the model given in  @xcite : @xmath48 where @xmath49 and @xmath50 .
usually one also has @xmath51 .
this noise model is discussed in more detail later in this paper .
it often arises when the most common source of noise is gaussian , but there is also a `` tail '' of `` outlier '' events which dominates the wings of the distribution . here
the locally optimal statistic is defined by ( [ e : forexamples ] ) where @xmath52.\ ] ] this function is shown ( for the case @xmath53 , @xmath54 , @xmath55 ) in fig .
[ f : weight2 ] . roughly speaking , for @xmath56 small compared to @xmath57 one has @xmath58 . for large @xmath56
one has @xmath59 . *
* gaussian noise plus uniform background * : here , we have a ( small ) uniform background superposed on gaussian noise of zero mean and unit variance .
this is defined for ( small ) @xmath60 by @xmath61 here we assume that @xmath62 is the scale size of the uniform background ( the probability distribution is correctly normalized only in the limit @xmath63 ) . in this case one finds that @xmath64 for @xmath65 and @xmath66 for @xmath67 .
while the results for the different probability distributions are technically different , they all carry same message , which is the central result of this paper : _ if the distribution of sample values has a central gaussian region , then sample values falling in this region should be correlated exactly as they would be in the gaussian case .
if a sample value falls outside this region , its value should be truncated ( or clipped ) to the largest allowed value in the central region , or even dropped from any correlation statistic , depending upon the shape of the probability distribution_.    let us repeat this central point one more time .
the results show that when the noise is not gaussian , the normal optimal filter used to construct a decision statistic is replaced by a somewhat different sum .
the values of the expected signal @xmath68 are multiplied , not by the observed data @xmath69 but by some non - linear function of that data , then summed . in the event that the probability distribution of the noise has a non - gaussian tail ,
the effect of this non - linear function is to `` clip '' or truncate sample values which fall outside the central bulge of the probability distribution function .
if the detector s noise spectrum is colored rather than white , then the previous analysis does not apply : the assumption that the different sample values are uncorrelated no longer holds .
however the analysis can be generalized to the colored case if we make assumptions that are motivated by the properties of stationary detector noise .    in explaining this , it helps to begin by describing the stationary gaussian case . for a colored gaussian process , the probability density function ( pdf ) of the detector samples
may be expressed as @xmath70 where the @xmath71 correlation matrix @xmath72 is a positive - definite real symmetric matrix with @xmath73 real degrees of freedom and @xmath74 .
we have assumed that the process has zero mean .
the volume element associated with this pdf is @xmath75 . in the time - domain
, @xmath7 is a vector of real numbers so @xmath76 .    in the case where the random process is stationary ,
the matrix @xmath77 is a toeplitz matrix , which depends only upon @xmath78 .
such a process is defined by the first row or first column of the matrix and has only @xmath79 real degrees of freedom .
thus stationary gaussian processes are a tiny subset of _ all _ gaussian processes .
now consider the pdf of new random variables that are linear combinations of the old ones : @xmath80 .
take @xmath81 to be an arbitrary unitary matrix .
clearly the pdf of these new variables @xmath82 is still gaussian .
the matrix @xmath81 can be chosen to diagonalize the correlation matrix : this is called a karhunen - loeve transformation . in the limit where the time interval occupied by the @xmath79 samples is much larger than the correlation time of the noise , the linear combinations of random variables that diagonalize the correlation matrix asymptotically approach the discrete fourier transform ( dft ) .
this is given by @xmath83 thus , if @xmath79 is sufficiently large , to a good approximation the pdf of the new variables in the gaussian case may be written as @xmath84 } 2\pi^{-1}p_k^{-2 }    \exp(-2|\tilde x_k|^2/p_k)\ ] ] where @xmath85 is the ( real , positive ) mean spectral amplitude in the @xmath86th frequency bin : @xmath87 for @xmath88 $ ] ; thus @xmath89 $ ] .
in other words , it is a good approximation to express the pdf of a stationary colored gaussian process as a diagonal process in frequency space .
the limits of the product in eq .
( [ e : fspacegauss ] ) appear strange because @xmath82 can not take on arbitrary values since @xmath7 is real .
the consequences include :    * @xmath90 .
hence the amplitudes of @xmath91 for @xmath92 + 1,\ldots , n-1 $ ] are completely determined by @xmath91 for @xmath93 $ ] . *
@xmath94 and , for even @xmath79 , @xmath95 are real . however , we assume that the data set has had the mean value ( dc term ) removed : @xmath96 .
since gravitational wave detectors are ac - coupled and have no useful low - frequency response , this is a valid assumption .
it implies that @xmath94 is identically zero .
second , when @xmath79 is even , we assume that there is no energy in the nyquist frequency bin : @xmath97 also vanishes identically .
this is a very reasonable assumption , since an experiment will include an anti - aliasing filter whose response ( as a function of frequency ) falls off rapidly as the nyquist frequency is approached . *
the volume element associated with this pdf is therefore @xmath98}d(\re\tilde x_k)d(\im\tilde x_k)$ ] .    the likelihood ratio in the case of colored , stationary , gaussian noise is @xmath99 or , in the frequency domain , @xmath100}\tilde s_k^\ast \tilde x_k / p_k.\ ] ] thus
, the matched filter statistic , with a weighting equal to the inverse of the noise spectrum , is the optimal detection statistic .
this motivates a more general model for the statistical distribution of colored non - gaussian detector noise , assuming that it is still stationary . in this case , to good approximation , the two - point correlation matrix @xmath101 is diagonal .
there may be higher - order correlations present between the fourier amplitudes at different frequencies , but we will assume that this additional correlation is negligible , and that to a reasonable approximation the probability distribution of the noise in the non - gaussian case is described by a pdf in which the different frequency components are independent : @xmath102 } 2 \pi^{-1 } p_k^{-2 }    \exp[-2g_k(|\tilde x_k|^2/p_k)],\ ] ] with volume element @xmath98}d(\re\tilde x_k)d(\im\tilde x_k)$ ] .
the functions @xmath103 depend upon the frequency bin index @xmath86 , so that the statistical distribution can depend upon the frequency .
for the colored gaussian case the functions are @xmath104 . in order that the pdf be properly normalized , and that @xmath105 , the functions @xmath103 must obey @xmath106 respectively , these constrain the additive constant in the definition of @xmath107 , and the multiplicative scale of the argument of @xmath107 .
this is _ not _ the most general possible form of the probability distribution of a stationary random process , but in many situations it should be a reasonable approximation , particularly if the quantities of interest are dominated by the second moments .    the locally optimal statistic may now be easily derived . letting @xmath108 denote the dft of the expected waveform , and as before zeroing its dc and nyquist components , the conditional probability distribution of the detector output is given by @xmath109 } 2 \pi^{-1 } p_k^{-2 }     \exp[-2g_k(|\tilde x_k-\epsilon\tilde s_k|^2/p_k)]\ ] ] the locally optimal test
can then be obtained from the first derivative : @xmath110}\re(\tilde s_k^\ast \tilde x_k / p_k )      g_k'(|\tilde x_k|^2/p_k).\ ] ] in the colored gaussian case @xmath111 this is the ordinary optimal linear matched filter .
the contributions of the different frequency bins are weighted by the inverse noise power spectrum in that bin . in the non - gaussian case , just as for the case of uncolored white noise , the correlation in frequency space is clipped or truncated for ( frequency - bin ) samples that lie outside the central gaussian part of the probability distribution , where @xmath112 .
an example of this may be seen in fig .
[ f : weight2 ] : for the illustrated case @xmath113 .
let us consider another form of non - gaussian noise that describes a process in which there is an ambient gaussian noise background interrupted occasionally by a large noise burst , which we will model as a second component of gaussian noise with a much larger variance .
the probability distribution we adopt is  @xcite : @xmath114 where @xmath77 is the autocorrelation matrix for the normal ambient detector noise and @xmath115 is the composite autocorrelation matrix for the detector noise when a noise burst is present .
the noise bursts occur with probability @xmath116 in this model .
also , @xmath74 and @xmath117 .
we assume that @xmath118 is much smaller than @xmath119 , meaning that @xmath120 for all vectors @xmath7 .
the locally optimal statistic is @xmath121 where @xmath122\ ] ] is a detector of possible bursts .
when a burst is absent , @xmath123 is typically small and the locally optimal statistic reduces to the matched filter .
however , when a burst is present , @xmath123 is typically large and the matched filter is suppressed .
thus the locally optimal statistic is nearly equivalent to the matched filter statistic with a veto if a segment of data has a large amount of excess power as measured by @xmath124 or , in the frequency domain , @xmath125 } |\tilde x_k|^2/p_k.\ ] ] the lengths ( in time ) of the data chunks used to estimate the autocorrelation matrices should be choosen to be significantly longer than the characteristic time of the signals being searched for , but still short enough that the detector behavior is quasi - stationary . for inspiral signals ,
typical signals are in the detector band for tens of seconds , so the matrix estimation time should be at least of order tens of minutes . for stochastic background detection , the correlation time between the two instruments is tens of milliseconds , so that the matrix estimation time should be at least a few seconds .    based on the two forms of non - gaussian noise considered in this section , it seems reasonable to adopt the following detection rules : ( i ) veto immediately any segment of data that has an excess of power as measured by the excess power statistic ; ( ii ) for segments of data without an excess of power , construct the matched filter in the frequency domain , but exclude those frequency bins in which the detector power is too large .
the resulting ( truncated ) matched filter is a good approximation of the locally optimal statistic for a wide variety of possible non - gaussian noise distribution . in this sense , it is a robust , nearly optimal detection statistic .
observational limits from nucleosynthesis demonstrate that the stochastic background of gravitational radiation has such small amplitude that it would not be detectable with a single instrument @xcite . in a single instrument
, there would be no practical way to discriminate between intrinsic detector noise and the small additional noise - like output arising from a stochastic background .
however , one can correlate the outputs of two different instruments and search for a common signal in this way . if the instrumental noise is not gaussian , then the previous single - detector analysis can be easily generalized .
we begin by considering the simple case in which the two detectors are coincident and co - aligned , so that they have identical output contributions from the stochastic background but independent intrinsic noise .
we also assume that the intrinsic noise samples in each detector are independent , and hence white .
if the signal were deterministic ( known ) then the joint probability distribution for the samples in the two detectors could be written as @xmath126 this system can be analyzed in exactly the same way as in sec .
[ ss : sdwnkw ] .
however the stochastic background does not produce a known ( deterministic ) signal , so that the probability distribution needs to be averaged over its expected distribution @xmath127 ( which , by reason of the central limit theorem , is almost certainly a multivariate gaussian ) .
this leads to a joint probability distribution which is given by @xmath128 here @xmath2 may be thought of as the coupling of the detector .
the case of small @xmath2 corresponds to a detector that is only weakly coupled to the signal . for this non - deterministic signal , it is still straightforward to construct a locally optimal test , and a corresponding decision statistic or threshold criterion .
the locally optimal statistic is obtained from the derivative of the probability distribution with respect to @xmath2 .
this is given by @xmath129 )   \right )    \nonumber\\    & & \times\prod_{i=0}^{n-1 }     e^{-f_1(x_{1,i}-\epsilon s_i)-f_2(x_{2,i}-\epsilon s_i)}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] setting @xmath4 and dividing by @xmath130 yields the locally optimal statistic : @xmath131    \times\int s_j p_{\text{sb}}({{\mathbf{s } } } ) d{{\mathbf{s}}}.\ ] ] unfortunately this vanishes if the random process described by @xmath132 has vanishing mean , since in this case @xmath133 .
this is indeed the case for the gravitational - wave stochastic background .
when the _ first _ derivative vanishes , the locally optimal statistic is defined by having the largest _ second _ derivative at @xmath4 . see fig .
[ f : powerfn ] for example . taking another derivative of ( [ e : firstder ] ) and setting @xmath4 yields @xmath134{l }      \biggl\{\bigl(\sum_{j=0}^{n-1 } s_j [ f_1'(x_{1,j})+f_2'(x_{2,j } ) ] \bigr)^2\\      \quad-\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}s_j^2[f_1''(x_{1,j})+f_2''(x_{2,j } ) ]
\biggr\ }    \end{array}\ ] ] the terms that appear in this statistic have different character , and before moving on , some discussion is required .
the locally optimal statistic depends upon the statistical character of the stochastic background radiation through the second - order moments .
we will assume that the stochastic background is a stationary process , so that the second order correlation @xmath135 is a function of the lag @xmath78 only : @xmath136 in a stochastic background search , the `` signal model '' only requires an assumption about the form of the spectrum .
this is ( roughly ) the fourier transform of @xmath137 . without loss of generality
we normalize @xmath137
so that @xmath138 ( this simply scales the value of @xmath2 ) . expressing the locally optimal statistic in terms of the correlation function @xmath139 then gives @xmath140 \nonumber\\    & & + \sum_{j , k=0}^{n-1 } c(|j - k| ) [ f_1'(x_{1,j } ) f_1'(x_{1,k } ) \\    & & \qquad + f_2'(x_{2,j } ) f_2'(x_{2,k } ) + 2 f_1'(x_{1,j } ) f_2'(x_{2,k } ) ] .
\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] each of the five terms that appears in ( [ e : lostochbg ] ) has a specific interpretation .
the first four terms that appear in the locally optimal estimator @xmath141 are generalized `` single - detector '' statistics which do not cross - correlate the two detectors .
they are generalized measures of the `` energy '' received by each individual detector , and provide useful information only if the stochastic background contributes substantially more to the measured signal than the detector output does , or if the detector s intrinsic noise contributions can somehow be separated from the noise contribution arising from the stochastic background .
( this will not be the case for the first few generations of gravitational wave detectors ) .
the last term in ( [ e : lostochbg ] ) is a generalized cross - correlation ( gcc ) statistic , that provides useful information even if the detector noise dominates the signal : the expected case for gravitational - wave stochastic background . to quote from kassam ( following eq .
( 7 - 24 ) in ref .
@xcite )    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ it is important to note that the increase in power level occurs whenever random signals are present at the individual receivers of the array regardless of whether the signals _ across _ the array are one common signal or are completely uncorrelated .
the gcc part of the locally optimal ( lo ) statistic responds only to a _
common _ signal or at least to signals which are spatially correlated across the array elements .
this is a major reason why it is useful to employ only the gcc part of the lo statistic in applications involving detection as well as location of signal sources .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
for this reason ( and others is positive definite ) and that for the expected `` gaussian + tail '' detector probability distribution , term 1 is also positive definite .
baysian analysis ( in part ii of this series of papers ) also shows that the single - detector terms must be dropped .
this may also be seen in the analysis at the end of sec .
[ ss : estimators ] . ] ) we drop the single - detector terms from the statistic , and define the gcc statistic as : @xmath142 this generalized cross - correlation statistic reduces to the ordinary cross - correlation statistic in the case where the detector noise is gaussian : @xmath143 .
it can be easily generalized to the case of three or more detectors @xcite .    in practical work
@xmath139 will vanish for lags greater than the light travel time between the two detectors ( i.e. , 10  ms for the ligo detectors ) .
this means that even if @xmath79 is chosen to be very large , @xmath144 only correlates samples from the two detectors taken within this time window .
( note : if the detector noise is colored , then the time window may be larger , as will be seen shortly . )      in this section , we generalize the work of sec .  [ ss:2dwnss ] to the case where the two detectors are not coincident or co - aligned , and their noise power spectrum is not white .
we assume that the intrinsic detector noise of the two detectors is independent . if the two detectors are widely separated and subject to different environmental influences , this assumption should hold .
let us start by assuming that the two detectors each have internal ( instrumental ) colored gaussian noise with known autocorrelation matrices @xmath145 and @xmath146 , and that the instrumental noise of the two detectors is independent .
the stochastic background produces an additional source of colored gaussian noise that is correlated between the two detectors .
the stochastic background noise is measured by the autocorrelation matrices @xmath147 , @xmath148 , and the cross - correlation matrices @xmath149 , @xmath150 . since the stochastic background is isotropic , @xmath151 ( the stochastic background contribution to the detector s autocorrelation matrices ) and @xmath152 ( the cross - correlated noise between the detectors due to the stochastic background ) .
the total autocorrelation noise of the two detectors are @xmath153 and @xmath154 . in the presence of the stochastic background ,
the likelihood ratio is @xmath155 where @xmath156    \quad\text{and}\quad    { { \mathbf{\sigma } } } = \left [    \begin{array}{cc }      { { \mathbf{r}}}_1 & \epsilon^2{{\mathbf{s } } } \\ \epsilon^2{{\mathbf{s } } } & { { \mathbf{r}}}_2    \end{array } \right].\ ] ] in the weak signal approximation , @xmath157 \nonumber\\    & & - \epsilon^2 \left [    \begin{array}{cc }      { { \mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},1}\cdot{{\mathbf{r}}}_{\text{sb}}\cdot{{\mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},1 } &      { { \mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},1}\cdot{{\mathbf{s}}}\cdot{{\mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},2 }              \\      { { \mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},2}\cdot{{\mathbf{s}}}\cdot{{\mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},1 }              &      { { \mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},2}\cdot{{\mathbf{r}}}_{\text{sb}}\cdot{{\mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},2 }    \end{array } \right ] \nonumber\\    & & + \epsilon^4 \biggl\ { \left [    \begin{array}{c }        { { \mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},1}\cdot{{\mathbf{r}}}_{\text{sb}}\cdot{{\mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},1 }        \cdot{{\mathbf{r}}}_{\text{sb}}\cdot{{\mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},1 } , \quad { { \mathbf{0 } } } \\        { { \mathbf{0 } } } , \quad { { \mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},2}\cdot{{\mathbf{r}}}_{\text{sb}}\cdot        { { \mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},2}\cdot{{\mathbf{r}}}_{\text{sb}}\cdot{{\mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},2 }    \end{array}\right ]    \nonumber\\    & & \quad + \left [    \begin{array}{c }        { { \mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},1}\cdot{{\mathbf{s}}}\cdot        { { \mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},2}\cdot{{\mathbf{s}}}\cdot{{\mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},1 } , \quad { { \mathbf{0 } } } \\        { { \mathbf{0 } } } , \quad { { \mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},2}\cdot{{\mathbf{s}}}\cdot        { { \mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},1}\cdot{{\mathbf{s}}}\cdot{{\mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},2 }    \end{array } \right ] \biggr\ }
\nonumber\\    & & + o(\epsilon^6),\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath158 \nonumber\\    & & - \epsilon^4 [         \frac{1}{2}{{\mathrm{tr}}}({{\mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},1}\cdot{{\mathbf{r}}}_{\text{sb } }             \cdot{{\mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},1}\cdot{{\mathbf{r}}}_{\text{sb } } ) \nonumber\\    & & \qquad + \frac{1}{2}{{\mathrm{tr}}}({{\mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},2}\cdot{{\mathbf{r}}}_{\text{sb } }             \cdot{{\mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},2}\cdot{{\mathbf{r}}}_{\text{sb } } ) \nonumber\\    & & \qquad + { { \mathrm{tr}}}({{\mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},2}\cdot{{\mathbf{s}}}\cdot{{\mathbf{q}}}_{\text{in},1 }             \cdot{{\mathbf{s } } } ) ] \nonumber\\    & & + o(\epsilon^6),\end{aligned}\ ] ] and @xmath159 where @xmath160 and @xmath161 .
the last two terms represent the autocorrelation `` energy '' detectors .
the following question now becomes important : how does one obtain the quantities @xmath145 and @xmath146 .
there are two possible methods : ( i ) by a theoretical understanding of the detector , or ( ii ) by shielding the instrument from the stochastic background and measuring the noise autocorrelation . for gravitational wave searches ,
method ( ii ) is not available as there is no way to shield the detector from a stochastic background of gravitational waves .
method ( i ) holds more promise , but if the stochastic background is expected to be weak , it is unlikely that our understanding of the detector will be sufficient to distinguish between the noise autocorrelations @xmath162 and @xmath163 .
we expect that the noise matrices that should be used are the _ measured _ noise matrices @xmath164 and @xmath165 , which contain both the internal , instrumental noise as well as the stochastic background `` noise . ''
since it is these quantities rather than @xmath145 and @xmath146 that are known , the previous analysis must be modified .
we now have @xmath166    - \epsilon^2 \left [    \begin{array}{cc }      { { \mathbf{0 } } } & { { \mathbf{q}}}_1\cdot{{\mathbf{s}}}\cdot{{\mathbf{q}}}_2   \\      { { \mathbf{q}}}_2\cdot{{\mathbf{s}}}\cdot{{\mathbf{q}}}_1 & { { \mathbf{0 } } }    \end{array } \right ] \nonumber\\    & & + \epsilon^4 \left [    \begin{array}{c }        { { \mathbf{q}}}_1\cdot{{\mathbf{s}}}\cdot{{\mathbf{q}}}_2\cdot{{\mathbf{s}}}\cdot{{\mathbf{q}}}_1,\quad { { \mathbf{0 } } } \\        { { \mathbf{0}}},\quad { { \mathbf{q}}}_2\cdot{{\mathbf{s}}}\cdot{{\mathbf{q}}}_1\cdot{{\mathbf{s}}}\cdot{{\mathbf{q}}}_2    \end{array } \right ] \nonumber\\    & & + o(\epsilon^6),\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath167 and @xmath168 where @xmath169 and @xmath170 .
the locally optimal detection statistic ( which is appropriate for weak signals ) is the cross - correlation statistic .    to generalize to non - gaussian noise , it is helpful to use moment generating functions .
suppose the vector @xmath171 represents the internal ( instrumental ) noise in the first detector .
the moment generating function for @xmath171 is @xmath172 and the probability distribution for @xmath171 is the fourier transform of the moment generating function : @xmath173 the moment generating function @xmath174 for the internal noise in detector 2 is defined similarly .
we assume that the stochastic background is a multivariate gaussian with a moment generating function @xmath175 with @xmath176    \quad\text{and}\quad    { { \mathbf{\sigma}}}_{\text{sb}}=\left [    \begin{array}{cc }      { { \mathbf{r}}}_{\text{sb } } & { { \mathbf{s } } } \\ { { \mathbf{s } } } & { { \mathbf{r}}}_{\text{sb } }    \end{array } \right].\ ] ] then the moment generating function for the detectors output is @xmath177 and the joint probability distribution is @xmath178 thus , if we ignore the autocorrelation terms , the locally optimal statistic is @xmath179 this equation for the locally optimal statistic is good for the time domain , in which the detectors output vectors are real and so the derivative is meaningful .
to extend the result to complex vectors , and thus to a frequency - domain representation , we use the following formal replacement : replace every complex number @xmath180 and derivative @xmath181 with the matrices @xmath182    \quad\text{and}\quad    \nabla \to \underline\nabla = \frac{1}{2 } \left [    \begin{array}{rr }      \partial/\partial a & -\partial/\partial b \\
\partial/\partial b & \partial/\partial a    \end{array } \right].\ ] ] note that this means @xmath183 is represented by @xmath184 and @xmath185 by @xmath186 . also , the meaning of @xmath187 is @xmath188 .
the locally optimal statistic is @xmath189 for example , for the noise model in which @xmath190}g_k(|\tilde x_k|^2/2p_k)$ ] and @xmath191 $ ] , the locally optimal statistic is @xmath192 }    \frac{\gamma_k\sigma^2_k\tilde x_{1,k}^\ast\tilde x_{2,k}}{p_{1,k}p_{2,k } }    \nonumber\\    & & \quad\times    g_{1,k}'(|\tilde x_{1,k}|^2/p_{1,k } )    g_{2,k}'(|\tilde x_{2,k}|^2/p_{2,k}).\end{aligned}\ ] ]    before we examine specific non - gaussian noise models , we will describe the form of the matrices @xmath193 and @xmath194 .
a stochastic background , if present , contributes to the signal amplitude at each detector . to simplify the analysis , in sec .
[ ss:2dwnss ] , we assumed that the detectors were coincident and co - aligned , so that the amplitude contribution in each individual detector are identical . here
, we drop that assumption .    because the detectors are not co - aligned , the axes of the two interferometer arms point in different directions , and are sensitive to different linear combinations of the two possible gravitational wave polarizations .
this reduces the correlation between the amplitudes in the two detectors , since we will assume that the stochastic background is unpolarized .
an additional loss of correlation occurs because the two detectors are separated .
this loss of correlation becomes increasingly greater for shorter wavelengths .
roughly speaking , there is no significant loss of correlation for wavelengths much longer than the inter - detector distance , and there is a complete loss of correlations for wavelengths much shorter than this@xcite .    the loss of amplitude correlation due to the separation and non - alignment of the two detectors may be described ( for an unpolarized and isotropic stochastic background ) in terms of the overlap reduction function @xmath195 defined by flanagan @xcite .
this quantity is the average value of the product of the detector outputs , for a stochastic background of a given frequency @xmath31 , averaged over the possible directions of arrival and phases .
it is given by : @xmath196 here @xmath197 is a unit - length vector on the two - sphere , @xmath198 is the separation between the two detector sites , and @xmath199 is the response of detector @xmath200 to the @xmath201 or @xmath202 polarization . for the @xmath200th detector @xmath203 one
has @xmath204 where @xmath205 are the gravitational wave polarization tensors for a wave propagating in direction @xmath197 .
the normalization of @xmath195 is chosen so that for coincident and co - aligned detectors , @xmath206 . for co - aligned but not coincident detectors , @xmath207 . for coincident but unaligned detectors ,
@xmath195 is a frequency - independent constant that depends only upon the relative orientation of the two detectors , and vanishes if the two detectors are sensitive to orthogonal polarizations .
general expressions for @xmath195 for arbitrary detectors may be found in refs .
@xcite . for the pair of ligo detectors @xmath195
is shown in fig .
[ f : gammaligo ] , and is given by @xmath208 where @xmath209 is a frequency variable , @xmath210 is the detector separation , @xmath211 is the speed of light , and @xmath212 is a spherical bessel function .
it is helpful to introduce notation for the overlap reduction function s values in the frequency bins of interest .
let @xmath213 denote the frequency of the @xmath86th bin , with @xmath214 $ ] . here
@xmath215 is the sample interval and @xmath216 is the total observation time .
then @xmath217 are the values of the overlap reduction function in the @xmath86th bin .
the stochastic background is characterized by its dimensionless energy density @xmath218 where @xmath219 is the energy density of the gravitational radiation contained in the frequency range @xmath31 to @xmath220 , and @xmath221 is the critical energy density required ( today ) to close the universe : @xmath222 @xmath223 is the hubble expansion rate ( today ) : @xmath224 and @xmath225 is a dimensionless factor that we have included to account for the different values of @xmath223 that are quoted in the literature . is probably very close to 0.65 . ]
the pdf of the stochastic background strain can usually be expressed in closed form .
the central limit theorem shows that if the stochastic background has been produced ( as it is in many scenarios ) by an incoherent sum of many small processes , then its statistics will be stationary@xcite and gaussian .
this means that it is characterized by the single - site second moments @xmath226 with @xmath227 as before , we have assumed that @xmath79 is chosen so that @xmath228 is much larger than the correlation time of the stochastic background ( filtered by the instrument response function ) , so that the rhs of ( [ e : sbg2nd ] ) is proportional to @xmath229 .
the expectation value of the product of the strain at the two different sites is reduced by the overlap reduction function : @xmath230 this follows from eqn .
( 3.56 ) of reference @xcite . in practice , since the shape of the stochastic background spectrum is not know , the dependence of the @xmath231 on @xmath86 should be assumed to fit some simple parameterized model , such as a power law @xmath232 for a reasonable range of @xmath123 .
we can now express the locally optimal detection statistic for a stochastic background in colored gaussian noise .
it is : @xmath233 }      \gamma_k \sigma^2_k x_{1,k}^\ast x_{2,k}/(p_{1,k}p_{2,k})\ ] ] where @xmath234 and @xmath235 are the measured noise spectra in the two detectors .
let us now turn to our first non - gaussian noise model .
our starting point is a pdf for the noise in the two detectors in the absence of any stochastic background signal .
we make the same assumptions about the detector noise as in sec .
[ ss : sdcnkw ] .
the pdf is given in frequency space by a product of two terms identical to ( [ e : assumedform ] ) , @xmath236 }      2 \pi^{-1 } p_{1,k}^{-2 } e^{-2g_{1,k}(|\tilde x_{1,k}|^2/p_{1,k } ) } \\    & & \times \prod_{k'=1}^{[(n-1)/2 ] }      2 \pi^{-1 } p_{2,k'}^{-2 } e^{-2g_{2,k'}(|\tilde x_{2,k'}|^2/p_{2,k ' } ) } \\    & = & \prod_{k=1}^{[(n-1)/2 ] } 4 \pi^{-2 } p_{1,k}^{-2 } p_{2,k}^{-2 } \\    & & \times e^{-2g_{1,k}(|\tilde x_{1,k}|^2/p_{1,k } )      -2g_{2,k}(|\tilde x_{2,k}|^2/p_{2,k})}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the statistical distribution of the stochastic background is @xmath237 } ( \pi\sigma_k^2)^{-2}(1-\gamma_k^2)^{-1 } \nonumber\\    & & \quad \times \exp\left ( -       \frac{|\tilde s_{1,k}|^2 + |\tilde s_{2,k}|^2            - 2\gamma_k \re(\tilde s_{1,k}^\ast \tilde s_{2,k } ) }          { \sigma_k^2 ( 1-\gamma_k^2 ) }    \right).\end{aligned}\ ] ]    we can now find the locally optimal statistic . since the detector is linear , as before , one has a joint probability distribution for the observed fourier amplitudes : @xmath238 this corresponds to a stochastic background with a characteristic energy - density function @xmath239 .
should really be interpreted as `` coupling to the detector '' .
the locally optimal statistic is the best choice in the `` weakly coupled detector '' limit . ]
the locally optimal statistic is @xmath240 } & & \biggl\ {    \frac{\langle\tilde s_{1,k}^\ast\rangle \tilde x_{1,k }          g_{1,k}'(|\tilde x_{1,k}|^2/p_{1,k})}{p_{1,k } } \nonumber\\    & & \quad +    \frac{\langle\tilde s_{2,k}^\ast\rangle \tilde x_{2,k }          g_{2,k}'(|\tilde x_{2,k}|^2/p_{2,k})}{p_{2,k } } \biggr\}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the quantities @xmath241 and @xmath242 are mean values of the stochastic background s fourier amplitudes at each of the two detector sites .
these both vanish : @xmath243 since the mean values of the fourier amplitudes are zero . hence , as in sec .
[ ss:2dwnss ] one must look for the locally optimal statistic at the next order in @xmath2 . taking an additional derivative , one can easily compute @xmath141 . as in sec .
[ ss:2dwnss ] this consists of two types of terms . for the same reasons as before , we discard from this decision statistic all the _ single detector _ terms .
this leaves us with the following generalized cross - correlation statistic : @xmath244 }    \frac{\re(\tilde s_{1,k}^\ast\tilde x_{1,k } )          g_{1,k}'(|\tilde x_{1,k}|^2/p_{1,k})}{p_{1,k } } \nonumber\\    & & \qquad \times    \frac{\re(\tilde s_{2,k'}^\ast\tilde x_{2,k ' } )          g_{2,k'}'(|\tilde x_{2,k'}|^2/p_{2,k'})}{p_{2,k'}}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] since the expectation value of the product of the stochastic background at the two sites is given by @xmath245 one obtains the generalized cross - correlation statistic @xmath246 }    \frac{\gamma_k\sigma^2_k\tilde x_{1,k}^\ast\tilde x_{2,k}}{p_{1,k}p_{2,k } }    \nonumber\\    & & \quad\times    g_{1,k}'(|\tilde x_{1,k}|^2/p_{1,k } )    g_{2,k}'(|\tilde x_{2,k}|^2/p_{2,k}).\end{aligned}\ ] ] if the functions @xmath247 are replaced by unity , this reduces to the standard result for the optimal filter for the case where the detector noise is assumed to be stationary and gaussian . for typical non - gaussian noise models ,
the effect of the @xmath247 functions is to exclude those frequency bins in which @xmath248 is large in either detector .
our second non - gaussian noise model is similar to the noise burst model used in sec .
[ ss : sdcnkw ] , generalized to the two detector case .
the composite pdf for this model is @xmath249 where @xmath250 and @xmath251 are the probabilities of bursts in detectors 1 and 2 .
the matrices @xmath252 , @xmath253 , and @xmath254 represent the correlation matrices when a noise burst is present . as in sec .
[ ss : sdcnkw ] , a burst effectively changes the noise level for the detector experiencing the burst .
thus , if there is a burst in detector 1 , simply replace @xmath255 with @xmath256 in @xmath257 to obtain @xmath252 .
then we find @xmath258 + o(\epsilon^4)\ ] ] and @xmath259 to first order in @xmath260 and similarly for @xmath253 .
we also have @xmath261\ ] ] and @xmath262 to first order in @xmath260 and @xmath263 .
we can now compute the locally optimal statistic : @xmath264 where @xmath265 and @xmath266 is given by a similar expression . here
we have neglected all @xmath118 terms .
the terms @xmath267 and @xmath266 detect bursts , and their role is to suppress @xmath141 when a burst is present in either detector .
in analyzing experimental data , there are different possible goals .
one goal might be to set an upper limit ( with a certain statistical confidence ) on the stochastic background energy density in a particular frequency band .
another goal might be to estimate this energy density in a particular frequency band .    for this latter purpose ,
there are different possible estimators that might be used .
one standard estimator is the maximum likelihood estimators ( mle ) . in this section ,
we show how this estimator is related to the cross - correlation statistic .
recall that the probability distribution for the joint detector output is @xmath268 suppose we wish to estimate the strength @xmath269 of the stochastic background .
the maximum likelihood estimator is the value @xmath270 for which this probability is maximized : @xmath271_{\epsilon^2_{\text{mle } } } = 0 $ ] .
the result is @xmath272 where @xmath273 is a measure of how how sensitive the detectors were to the stochastic background .
normally @xmath274 will be on the order of unity so @xmath270 is approximately just the cross - correlation statistic .
however , if the detector were abnormally noisy , then @xmath274 would be less that unity and the estimate of the stochastic background strength would be smaller than the cross - correlation statistic would indicate : this is a correction that compensates for artificially large values of the cross - correlation statistic due to noise fluctuations .
another possible estimator is the bayesian estimator . in the long measurement ,
weak signal case this again yields the same result as the mle estimator .
a nice feature of these techniques is that in practice , they should be easy to implement .
work by scott and whiting @xcite has shown that the pdfs of the fourier amplitudes in different frequency bins can be easily obtained .
since the characteristic time - scale for stochastic background correlation is @xmath275 , these can be computed using data - segments with lengths seconds or tens of seconds .
these pdfs can then be used to determine where to truncate or clip the correlation , frequency - bin by frequency - bin .
provided that the instrument s characteristics are stable over periods of minutes or hours , it should be simple to accumulate sufficient statistics to determine the pdfs and therefore the truncation or weighting functions with reasonable accuracy .    in practice , it may also be desirable to `` discard '' a small part of the `` attainable - in - principle '' correlation in exchange for obtaining more robust statistics .
for example , on can arbitrarily zero the 1% of frequency bins that are the largest number of standard deviations away from the mean value ( for that bin ) . since the dominant contribution in any bin always comes from the detector noise , this is only very weakly correlated with the actual stochastic background signal , and the net effect is to discard just a bit more than 1% of the `` in principle '' attainable signal - to - noise ration .
but in exchange , the detection statistic becomes far less sensitive to non - gaussian detector fluctuations .
the precise effects of such treatment , and the appropriate truncation thresholds , can be easily determined with monte carlo simulations using simulated signals added into real detector noise .    in searching for a known waveform ( e.g. , binary inspiral )
the methods are again easily implementable . here , since the signal timescale is less than a minute , the frequency - bin by frequency - bin statistics take a bit more time to accumulate , and the detector s statistical properties have got to be stable over a slightly longer time - scale ( an hour , perhaps ) .
this appears likely .
since certain non - gaussian noise features are more likely to appear as outlier points in the time - domain , and others in the frequency - domain , a combination of the time- and frequency - domain methods may be desirable .
unfortunately , if the detector noise is not white , this may require the removal ( vetoing ) of entire small sections of time - series data .
this is easy in the stochastic background case , where only tens of milliseconds around a glitch need excision .
it may be more problematic for signals like binary inspiral chirps that have longer duration .      in secs .
[ s : deterministic ] and [ s : stochastic ] , we derived locally optimal statistics to search for deterministic and stochastic gravitational wave signals in the presence of non - gaussian noise .
these statistics reduce to the standard matched - filtering and cross - correlation statistics when the detector noise is gaussian .
but they are more _ robust _
( i.e. , less sensitive to outliers ) when the detector noise has non - gaussian components . for both cases ,
the standard and robust statistics take ( as input ) the output of one or more detectors , and return ( as output ) a single real number .
but the statistics also depend on the gravitational wave signal and detector noise models , which are not directly observable .
different choices for the signal and noise models correspond to different statistics , and these different statistics will in general perform differently given the same detector output . in order to compare and evaluate the statistics
, we need a way to quantify their performance .    as mentioned in sec .
[ s : deterministic ] , the quality of a test ( i.e. , a decision rule based on a particular statistic ) is characterized by its _ false alarm _ and _ false dismissal _
probabilities for a given source .
these are , respectively , the probability that the test leads us to conclude that a signal is present , when in fact it is absent ( @xmath4 ) , and the probability that the test leads us to conclude that a signal is absent , when in fact it is present ( @xmath276 ) .
these two probabilities ( denoted @xmath123 and @xmath277 ) completely specify the long - term performance of a statistic . but to rank different tests , we need to reduce these multi - dimensional error measures to a single figure of merit .
how we do this depends on the problem we are trying to solve ( see , e.g. @xcite ) , but in the context of gravitational wave detection , it is common to look for a test that minimizes the false dismissal probability , keeping the false alarm probability less than or equal to some maximum tolerable value .
this criterion is known as the _ neyman - pearson _ criterion , and it was used in sec .
[ s : deterministic ] to define the locally optimal statistics .    thus , to compare the performance of different statistics , we should plot false dismissal versus false alarm curves for different values of the signal amplitude @xmath2 .
the best test ( or best statistic ) is the one that has the smallest false dismissal probability @xmath278 , for fixed false alarm probability @xmath123 and fixed signal amplitude @xmath2 .
note that since the false dismissal probability depends on both @xmath123 and @xmath2 , it is possible that the best test for one choice of @xmath279 is not the best test for a different choice of @xmath279 .
note also that this method of comparing statistics is different than simply comparing expected signal - to - noise ratios .
what is important when determining error rates ( and hence the performance of a particular test ) is not the expected value of the statistic , but rather its probability _
distribution_.    for sufficiently simple statistics with sufficiently simple signal and noise models , it may be possible to analytically calculate the corresponding false dismissal versus false alarm curves .
but for most cases of interest , we must resort to _ monte carlo simulations _ to generate the curves .
this consists of adding simulated signals to simulated ( or real ) detector noise , and then processing the resulting data with a statistic . for each stretch of data
, the statistic outputs a single number which is then compared to a threshold to determine if we should claim detection .
since we know if a signal is present in the data , we can easily determine the fraction of times that the decision rule was in error . in the absence of a signal
, this procedure yields the false alarm probability @xmath123 as a function of the threshold @xmath21 . in the presence of a signal having fixed amplitude @xmath2 , we obtain the false dismissal probability @xmath277 , again as a function of the threshold .
if we invert @xmath280 for @xmath281 , and substitute this expression back into @xmath282 , we obtain the false dismissal versus false alarm curve @xmath283 .
we can then repeat these steps for a different signal amplitude @xmath284 to produce a new curve @xmath285 .
the final result will be a set of curves similar to those shown in fig .
[ f : typical1 ] .    alternatively , we can plot @xmath286 or @xmath287 versus @xmath123 , as shown in figs .
[ f : typical2 ] and [ f : typical3 ] .
note that the quantity @xmath288 is the difference of two probabilities : @xmath289 is the probability that the statistic exceeds some threshold in the presence of a signal ( @xmath290 , while @xmath123 is the probability that the statistic exceeds the same threshold in the absence of a signal ( i.e. , @xmath4 ) .
although , figs .
[ f : typical2 ] and [ f : typical3 ] contain the same information as the false dismissal versus false alarm curves ( fig .
[ f : typical1 ] ) , plotting @xmath287 versus @xmath123 has the nice property that , for stochastic signals , the curves have a well - defined @xmath291 limit .      to illustrate how we can compare different statistics using monte carlo simulations , consider the simple case of a search for a white , gaussian stochastic background signal using two independent , identical , coincident and coaligned detectors .
statistic 1 will be the standard cross - correlation statistic defined by a white , gaussian stochastic background signal and white , gaussian detector noise .
statistic 2 will be a locally optimal statistic , also defined by a white , gaussian stochastic background signal , but with white , 2-component , mixture gaussian noise with an arbitrary knee .
we will assume that we know ( a  priori ) that the two detectors are identical and have uncorrelated white noise .
we will not assume , however , that we know ( a  priori ) the parameters describing the statistical properties of the detector noise or the overall amplitude of the stochastic background signal .
each statistic will have to internally estimate the parameters from the detector output , without any other prior knowledge .
we perform monte carlo simulations of the two statistics for the following three cases :    * uncorrelated , white , gaussian detector noise with zero mean and unit variance . * uncorrelated , white , 2-component , mixture gaussian detector noise with zero mean , unit variance , @xmath292 , and @xmath55 [ see eq .
( [ sgs ] ) ] . *
uncorrelated , white , exponential detector noise with zero mean and unit variance [ see eq .
( [ e : exp ] ) ] .
the first two simulations test the optimal behavior of the statistics .
statistic 1 is designed for the data of case ( i ) , and statistic 2 is designed for the data of case ( ii ) .
the third simulation tests the two statistics in a sub - optimal situation , representative of a real search where we do not know in advance the exact statistical character of the detector noise
.    details of the monte carlo simulations are summarized below :    \(i ) a single stretch of data consists of @xmath293 discrete - time samples .
this @xmath79 is sufficiently large that the large observation time approximation is valid .
since we are considering white noise ( which has zero correlation length ) , any @xmath294 would do .
\(ii ) the simulated stochastic gravitational - wave signal strengths are @xmath295 , .005 , .010 , .020 , and .040 , where @xmath2 is the ratio of the rms amplitude of the stochastic background signal to the rms amplitude of the detector noise .
these signal strengths correspond to signal - to - noise ratios ( @xmath296 ) ranging from approximately 0.1 to 1 for a single stretch of data .
note : since a real stochastic background is expected to have a smaller value of @xmath269 ( @xmath297 ) , we would need a much longer observation time to build - up similar signal - to - noise ratios in a real search .
the purpose of this example , however , is to illustrate how one can compare two different statistics ; it is not meant to simulate a real ( @xmath298 month ) stochastic background search .
\(iii ) for all three types of simulated detector noise , the standard cross - correlation statistic estimates the variance of the noise by calculating the sample variance of a stretch of detector output equal to @xmath299 . since the detector output consists in general of signal plus noise , the estimate of the noise variance gets worse as the signal amplitude increases .
the sample variance is needed to specify the white , gaussian noise model that enters the definition of the standard cross - correlation statistic [ c.f .
[ e : gcc ] ] : @xmath300 where @xmath301 and @xmath302 are the estimated variances of the noise in detectors 1 and 2 , respectively .
\(iv ) in addition to estimating the variance of the detector noise , the locally optimal statistic also estimates the variances @xmath57 , @xmath303 , and breakpoint @xmath304 of the 2-component , mixture gaussian model that define this statistic .
it does this by fitting two straight lines to a @xmath305 vs.  @xmath306 plot obtained from a histogram of a stretch of detector output , again equal to @xmath307 .
best - fit lines at small @xmath308 and large @xmath308 , respectively , yield estimates of @xmath57 and @xmath303 , while the intersection of the lines yields an estimate of @xmath304 .
actually , only the breakpoints for the detector noise are needed to define the following locally optimal statistic : @xmath309 which is a truncated version of @xmath310 .
( see the discussion of truncation in the previous subsection . ) here @xmath311 is the usual step function , which equals 0 if @xmath47 , and equals 1 if @xmath312 .
note : in order to handle pure gaussian noise ( which is a pathological case when one tries to model it as a 2-component , mixture gaussian distribution ) , the locally optimal statistic sets the breakpoint @xmath304 to @xmath313 whenever the estimated slopes at small and large values of @xmath308 have a percent difference less than @xmath314 . by doing this
, the locally optimal statistic @xmath315 effectively reduces to the standard cross - correlation statistic @xmath316 when the noise is pure gaussian .
\(v ) we use @xmath317 trials to generate each false dismissal versus false alarm curve .
\(vi ) the simulations were written in matlab @xcite .
the results of the simulation are shown in figs .
[ f : noise1_beta]-[f : noise3_gamma ] .
as noted in ( iv ) above , our implementation of the locally optimal statistic reduces to the standard cross - correlation statistic when the detector noise is pure gaussian .
that is why the false dismissal versus false alarm curves for the two statistics are effectively identical in fig .
[ f : noise1_beta ] .    from fig .
[ f : noise2_beta ] we see that the locally optimal statistic performs better than the standard cross - correlation statistic when the simulated detector noise is mixture gaussian . for each value of the stochastic signal strength @xmath269 and for each false alarm probability @xmath123 ,
the false dismissal probability @xmath283 for the locally optimal statistic is less than that for the standard cross - correlation statistic .
this is as expected , since the locally optimal statistic was constructed precisely to handle mixture gaussian noise .    finally , from figs .
[ f : noise3_beta]-[f : noise3_gamma ] we see that the locally optimal statistic also performs better than the standard cross - correlation statistic when the simulated detector noise has an exponential distribution .
the difference in performance between the two statistics for this case is less than that for mixture gaussian noise , but it is still noticeable .
( figure  [ f : noise3_blowup ] focuses attention on the false dismissal versus false alarm curves for small values of the false alarm probability , while fig .
[ f : noise3_gamma ] is a plot of @xmath318 versus @xmath123 , which highlights the difference between the two statistics in the small signal limit . )
this behavior is again as expected , since a locally optimal statistic is constructed to be less sensitive to the tails of a non - gaussian distribution .
in this paper , we have constructed a replacement for the standard linear matched filter estimators used for gravitational wave detection .
the replacements are more robust because they are less susceptible to corruption by non - gaussian detector noise .
we have explicitly illustrated the locally optimal detection strategies for a variety of different noise pdfs , and for two different detection problems ( single detector known waveform , and two - detector stochastic background ) . in all cases , the optimal strategy is similar to the one for gaussian noise except that data samples that lie outside the central part of the distribution ( the outliers ) are excluded from the sums which form the estimators .
this research was supported in part by nsf grants phy-9728704 , phy-9722189 , phy-9981795 , phy-0071028 , nasa grant nasa - jpl 961298 , the sloan foundation , and by the max planck society ( albert einstein institute , potsdam ) .
a. abramovici , w. e. althouse , r. w. p. drever , y. grsel , s. kawamura , f. j. raab , d. shoemaker , l. sievers , r. e. spero , k. s. thorne , r. e. vogt , r. weiss , s. e. whitcomb , and m. e. zucker , science * 256 * , 325 ( 1992 ) .      c. bradaschia et al .
methods * a289 * , 518 ( 1990 ) ; also in _ gravitation 1990 _ , proceedings of the banff summer institute , banff , alberta , 1990 , edited by r. mann and p. wesson ( world scientific , singapore , 1991 ) .
i. s. heng , d. g. blair , e. n. ivanov , m. e. tobar , phys .
a * 218 * , 190 ( 1996 ) ; e. mauceli et al .
, 1996 phys .
d * 54 * , 1264 ( 1996 ) ; p. astone et al . , _ ibid_. * 47 * , 362 ( 1993 ) ; m. cerdonio et al .
, in _ gravitational wave experiments _ , proceedings of the edoardo amaldi conference , edited by e. coccia , g. pizzella , and f. ronga ( world scientific , singapore 1995 ) , p. 176 ; e. coccia , _
ibid_. , p. 161 .
simple experiments carried out by allen and romano using the grasp data analysis package ` http://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu ` indicate that the large non - gaussian fluctuations present in the data from the ligo 40-m prototype created large biases in the cross - correlation estimators .
the 1994 data stream was split into two parts , and each was assumed to come from an independent detector .
b. allen , in _ proceedings of the les houches school on astrophysical sources of gravitational waves _ , edited by jean - alain marck and jean - pierre lasota ( cambridge university press , cambridge , england , 1997 ) .
 . flanagan , phys .
d * 48 * , 2389 ( 1993 ) . note that the second term on the rhs of eq .
( b6 ) should read @xmath319 rather than @xmath320 , that the sliding delay function shown in fig .
2 is incorrect , and that the right hand side of eq .
( 2.8 ) should be divided by @xmath321 .
matlab : ` http://www.mathworks.com ` .
the matlab scripts that we used to generate the monte carlo simulations are available at : ` http://feynman.utb.edu/\simjoe/research/ stochastic / algorithms / robust / simulations / code/ ` .