1: %This is a galaxy paper
2: \documentclass[12pt, preprint]{aastex}
3: %\usepackage{color}
4: %\documentclass[letter]{apj}
5: %\newcommand\checkme[1]{\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{#1}}}
6: \newcommand{\cl}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}_{L}}}
7: \newcommand{\Deff}{{{D}_{\rm eff}}}
8: %\usepackage{epstopdf}
9: %\usepackage{graphicx}
10:
11: \begin{document}
12:
13:
14: \title{Host Galaxies Catalog Used in LIGO Searches for
15: Compact Binary Coalescence Events}
16: \author{Ravi Kumar Kopparapu\altaffilmark{1,2,*}, Chad Hanna\altaffilmark{2},
17: Vicky Kalogera\altaffilmark{3}, Richard O'Shaughnessy\altaffilmark{3,*},
18: Gabriela Gonz\'alez\altaffilmark{2}, Patrick R. Brady\altaffilmark{4},
19: Stephen Fairhurst\altaffilmark{4,5,6}}
20: \altaffiltext{1}{Center for Computation and Technology, Louisiana State
21: University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA}
22: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State
23: University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA}
24: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Northwestern University,
25: 2145 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208, USA}
26: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
27: P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA}
28: \altaffiltext{5}{School of Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University,
29: Cardiff, CF2 3YB, United Kingdom.}
30: \altaffiltext{6}{LIGO Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena,
31: CA 91125, USA}
32: \altaffiltext{*}{At present: Center for Gravitational Wave Physics,
33: 104 Davey lab, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
34: PA - 16802-6300, USA}
35:
36: %\author{Patrick R. Brady, Stephen Fairhurst,
37: %Gabriela Gonz\'alez, Chad Hanna, Vicky Kalogera,
38: %Ravi Kopparapu, Richard O'Shaughnessy}
39:
40: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
41: % ABSTRACT
42: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
43:
44: \begin{abstract}
45: %Coalescence events of binary systems with two compact objects
46: % are among the most promising
47: %gravitational wave sources for LIGO. Current analyses of LIGO data
48: %constrain the rates of these events given an astrophysical population
49: % model
50: % for the sources considered. A reasonable assumption is that this population
51: % follows
52: %the star formation rate, as traced by the galactic blue light luminosity.
53: %We describe how the known distribution of galaxies within 100 Mpc and the
54: %asymptotic blue light density at $z=0.1$ is
55: %used in deriving
56: %event rate limits from LIGO science data runs.
57:
58: %Bernard's abstract suggestion.
59: An up-to-date catalog of nearby galaxies considered as hosts of
60: binary compact objects is provided with complete information about sky position,
61: distance, extinction-corrected blue luminosity and error estimates.
62: With our current understanding of binary evolution, rates of
63: formation and coalescence for binary compact objects scale with massive-star
64: formation
65: and hence the (extinction-corrected) blue luminosity of host galaxies.
66: Coalescence events in
67: binary compact objects are among the most promising gravitational-wave sources
68: for ground-based gravitational-wave detectors such as LIGO. Our catalog
69: and associated error estimates are important for the
70: interpretation of analyses, carried out for LIGO, to constrain the rates of
71: compact binary coalescence, given an astrophysical population model for the
72: sources considered. We discuss how the notion of effective distance, created
73: to account for the antenna pattern of a gravitational-wave detector, must be
74: used in conjunction with our catalog.
75: We note that the catalog provided can be used on other astronomical
76: analysis of populations that scale with galaxy blue luminosity.
77:
78: %\begin{center}
79: %\large{LIGO-P070065-00-Z}
80: %\end{center}
81:
82: \end{abstract}
83:
84: \keywords{binaries: close --- galaxies: luminosity function, mass function --- gravitational waves --- stars: neutron}
85:
86: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
87: % INTRODUCTION
88: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
89: \section{INTRODUCTION}
90: \label{introduction}
91:
92: %Double compact binary coalescence (CBC) events, such as neutron star or black hole mergers,
93: % are primary gravitational-wave
94: %sources for ground-based interferometers such as LIGO.
95: %Current estimates of binary neutron star merger rates
96: %derived from the observed binary pulsar sample \citep{Kim:2004,Kim:2006} are
97: %encouraging for searches at LIGO's initial design sensitivity that
98: %has been achieved during the ongoing fifth science run (S5).
99: %Furthermore the current understanding of binary evolution and
100: %compact object formation leads us to anticipate the formation of black
101: %hole binaries that will merge within a Hubble time \citep{Belczynski:2002, Belczynski:2007}.
102:
103: Compact binary coalescence (CBC) events, such as neutron star
104: or black hole mergers, are one of the primary gravitational-wave sources for
105: ground-based interferometers such as LIGO\footnote{www.ligo.org}.
106: LIGO's third (S3, Oct 31 2003 - Jan 9 2004) and fourth (S4, Feb 22 2005 -
107: Mar 23 2005)
108: science runs have reached
109: significant extragalactic distances \citep{LIGOS3S4iul}
110: into the nearby Universe.
111: Especially for massive compact binaries whose components are black holes,
112: the range extended beyond the Virgo
113: Cluster. To interpret the searches for signals from compact binary coalescence
114: in the LIGO data sets,
115: it is necessary to use information about
116: putative binary compact object populations in the known nearby galaxies, as well
117: as how the population scales at larger distances.
118: The nearby galaxy catalog discussed here represents the
119: distribution of such extragalactic populations, and the procedures described
120: are used for LIGO data analysis, such as assigning an astrophysically
121: meaningful upper limits given non-detection. An accurate upper-limit
122: that correctly incorporates our best
123: information about galaxy distributions requires a model of the nearby
124: overdense region because the current LIGO network's range
125: probes this overdensity.
126:
127: % Current LIGO's range
128: %probes a locally overdense region which must be modeled to assign accurate
129: %upper limits that correctly incorporates our best
130: %information about galaxy distributions}
131: % We present a nearby galaxy catalog representing the distribution
132: % of such extragalactic populations,
133: %as motivated by current information about the host galaxies.
134:
135:
136: Binary compact objects are usually
137: produced from the evolution of massive stellar binaries. Since
138: short-lived, massive stars emit more blue light than all other stars
139: in a galaxy combined, blue light is a well-known tracer of star formation in
140: general and the birthrate of these massive stars in particular.
141: Given the short lifetimes of the known Milky Way double compact object
142: population and the slow rate of change in star formation expected
143: in nearby and distant galaxies, \citet{Phinney:1991ei} has argued
144: that a galaxy's blue luminosity should linearly scale with its
145: compact binary coalescence rate.
146:
147: %
148: %We note that the relationship between rate and blue luminosity of galaxies is
149: %********************Richard's suggestion:*******************
150: % well motivated assuming that binary compact objects are formed in environments
151: % of roughly continuous star formation, similar to the Milky Way. %We note that
152: %It is possible that compact binary populations that are not related to
153: %regions of continuous star formation may exist in the Universe. For
154: %example, the contribution of elliptical galaxies to the merger rates
155: %is potentially significant beyond the Virgo cluster \citep{deFreitasPacheco},
156: %whereas their blue luminosity is not representative of their putative compact
157: %binary populations.
158: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
159: % need here some more detailed statement about the distance at which the blue
160: % light normalization alone may not be enough -
161: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
162: %Nevertheless, the current catalog is limited to galaxies in which the
163: %blue-light luminosity is a tracer of the compact binary population.
164: %
165: %Furthermore,
166: The sensitivity of LIGO to compact binary coalescence signals
167: depends on the distance and sky position of the coalescence event and
168: therefore,
169: the distribution of known nearby galaxies in blue luminosity and in
170: space is the minimum information needed to properly interpret searches of
171: the LIGO data sets.
172: %{\bf Also, it has been shown by \cite{Burgay2003} and \cite{Phinney:1991ei}
173: %that the compact binary populations in globular clusters do not contribute
174: %significantly to the event rate in comparison to their parent galaxies and
175: %hence we ignore them. }
176: %as LIGO rate upper limits
177: %depend inversely on the cumulative blue luminosity visible within LIGO's
178: %range and the time analyzed.
179:
180: It is possible that compact binary populations that are not related to
181: regions of star formation may exist in the Universe.
182: A mass, metallicity and morphology dependent star
183: formation history may be needed to account for these populations\footnote{
184: \cite{Lipunov1995} adopts a mass normalization to derive
185: their event rate of 1/year within 50 Mpc using an older version of
186: Tully's catalog, whereas
187: we use a blue-light normalization and the up-to-date Tully catalog
188: (\S\ref{section2}).
189: Their study also differs from ours because we consider issues like antenna
190: pattern of the detector and completeness corrections, which they ignore.}.
191: Nevertheless, the work described here is limited
192: to the blue-light luminosity as a tracer of the compact binary population.
193:
194: %{\bf A simple case where the continous star formation assumption breaks down
195: %is elliptical galaxies}.
196: The contribution of elliptical galaxies to the merger rates
197: is potentially significant beyond the Virgo cluster \citep{deFreitasPacheco},
198: whereas their blue luminosity is not representative of their putative compact
199: binary populations.
200: However, at large distances, the fractional blue luminosity
201: produced in ellipticals is about $10 \%$
202: \citep{Driver2007}, and at short
203: distances the contribution is negligible because there are fewer
204: ellipticals in the nearby local universe. \cite{deFreitasPacheco}
205: conclude that
206: the event rate for an elliptical galaxy with the same blue luminosity as a
207: spiral
208: galaxy is a factor of five times larger on average.
209: We conclude that LIGO rate upper limits derived from the catalog presented here would change by less than a factor of 1.5 due to a correction for elliptical galaxies.
210: %***************Vicky's suggestion**************************************
211:
212:
213: Our blue light census will also implicitly not account for any potential
214: contribution from globular clusters to the compact binary coalescence
215: rate of the nearby universe.
216: \citet{Phinney:1991ei} has argued that the contribution of globular clusters to
217: double neutron star mergers in the Galaxy would not exceed 10 \% of the
218: coalescence rate due to the Galactic field.
219: On the other hand it has been argued that the contribution of globular clusters
220: to binary black hole coalescence may be very significant
221: \citep[see, e.g.,][]{PZMcM,clusters-2005}.
222: However, these cluster contributions are expected to become significant
223: at distances
224: beyond the Virgo cluster, where a more significant fraction of
225: ellipticals with large globular-cluster systems will eventually enter LIGO's
226: detection volume.
227:
228: %*****************************************************************************
229:
230: We have used mostly publicly available astronomical catalogs of
231: galaxies to compile a catalog used in the S3/S4/S5 (fifth science run\footnote{
232: http://lhocds.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/scirun/S5/}, Nov 4 2005 - present)
233: LIGO data
234: set analyses. We discuss the methodology used to compile this
235: galaxy catalog and briefly describe how this information feeds into
236: LIGO rate estimates.
237: In \S\ref{section2}, we describe all the elements involved in compiling the
238: galaxy catalog and assessing the relevant errors and uncertainties.
239: In \S\ref{section3}, we derive a correction factor to account for
240: incompleteness in the catalog guided also by the blue-light volume density
241: estimated from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and earlier surveys. In
242: \S\ref{section4}, we
243: discuss how the corrected catalog and resulting blue light distribution as a
244: function of distance is used to bound the rate of compact binary coalescence
245: using data from the recent LIGO science runs. If the maximum distance
246: to which a search could detect a compact binary coalescence is known,
247: then the expected number of detectable events can be derived. Some
248: concluding remarks are made in \S\ref{section5}.
249:
250:
251: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
252: % COMPILATION OF GALAXY SOURCE LIST
253: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
254:
255: \section{COMPILATION OF GALAXY CATALOG}
256: \label{section2}
257: %
258:
259: We have compiled a catalog\@\footnote{%
260: http://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/cgi-bin/cvs/viewcvs.cgi/lalapps/src/ \\
261: inspiral/inspsrcs100Mpc.errors?cvsroot=lscsoft},
262: the \emph{compact binary coalescence galaxy} catalog
263: or CBCG-catalog, of nearby galaxies which
264: could host compact binary systems. For each galaxy out to 100 Mpc, the
265: catalog provides the equatorial coordinates, distance to the galaxy,
266: and the blue luminosity corrected for absorption. Estimates of the
267: systematic errors on distance and luminosity are also provided.
268:
269:
270: The CBCG-catalog is compiled from information provided in the following
271: four astronomical catalogs: (i) the Hubble Space
272: Telescope (HST) key project catalog used to measure the Hubble constant
273: \citep{Freedman:2001}, (ii) Mateo's dwarf galaxies of the local group
274: catalog \citep{Mateo:1998}, (iii) the HyperLeda (LEDA) database of galaxies
275: \citep{LEDA}, and (iv) an
276: updated version of the Tully Nearby Galaxy Catalog \citep{Tully:TPC}.
277:
278: When combining these catalogs, distances and luminosities reported in
279: the HST, Mateo and Tully catalogs were generally adopted over those in
280: the LEDA catalog. This is because these catalogs use accurate
281: distance determination methods compared to LEDA.
282: Nevertheless, LEDA served as the baseline for
283: comparisons in the range 10-100 Mpc since it is the most complete.
284:
285: \subsection{DISTANCES}
286: \label{distance_section}
287: %The distance information from the HST key project is considered to
288: %be the most accurate in our catalog.
289: One of the primary objectives of
290: the HST key project was to discover Cepheid variables (stars which
291: have periodic variations in brightness) in several nearby spiral
292: galaxies and measure their distances accurately using the
293: period-luminosity relation for Cepheids.
294: Cepheid distance determination to nearby galaxies is one of
295: the most important and accurate primary distance indicators.
296: The distance information from the HST key project is considered to be
297: the most accurate in the CBCG-catalog; there are 30 galaxies in our
298: catalog for which we adopt distances from the HST key project.
299:
300: Mateo's review \citep{Mateo:1998} of properties of the
301: dwarf galaxies in the Local Group provides distance and
302: luminosity information for each galaxy considered. %Mateo's catalog was
303: %an integral part of data analysis
304: %for LIGO's second science run \citep{LIGOS2iul}, which had very limited range.
305: Since the parameters in this catalog were derived from focused studies on each
306: individual galaxy,
307: %that are useful for
308: %our present discussion, we included it in constructing our catalog,
309: we consider it the most accurate next to the HST measurements for nearby
310: galaxies. Moreover it has reasonably comprehensive information on the Local
311: Group's dwarf galaxies; there are 18 sources in the CBCG-catalog which adopt
312: distances (and luminosities) from Mateo's compilation.
313:
314: %Apart from these two,
315: It becomes increasingly difficult to use primary distance estimators
316: like Cepheid stars in more distant galaxies. Therefore secondary distance
317: methods are used to measure larger distances.
318: Tully's catalog has up to three types of distances for each source:
319: (i){\it Quality distance} ($D_\mathrm{Q}$) is based on either Cepheid
320: measurements, surface brightness fluctuations,
321: or the tip of the red giant branch. There are 409 galaxies
322: with such a distance in the CBCG-catalog.
323: (ii) {\it HI luminosity-line-width} distances ($D_\mathrm{HI}$) are
324: obtained from the Tully-Fisher relation, where the maximum rotational
325: velocity of a galaxy (measured by the Doppler broadening of the
326: 21-cm radio emission line of neutral hydrogen) is correlated with
327: the luminosity (in B, R, I and H bands) to find the distances. There
328: are 553 galaxies in the catalog with such a distance.
329: (iii) {\it Model distance} ($D_\mathrm{M}$) is derived from an evolved
330: dynamical mass model that translates galaxy radial velocities into
331: distances. This model is an update of the least action model
332: described by \cite{Shaya95} and takes into account the deviations
333: from a perfect Hubble flow due to a spherically symmetric
334: distribution of mass centered on the Virgo Cluster. All
335: galaxies have a calculated model distance. %Shaya et al (1995).
336: Whenever
337: available, $D_\mathrm{Q}$ distances are the most preferred due to
338: their smaller uncertainties, then the $D_\mathrm{HI}$
339: followed by $D_\mathrm{M}$.
340:
341: The remaining galaxies come from LEDA which
342: does not provide distances explicitly, but instead provides
343: measured radial velocities corrected
344: for in-fall of the Local Group towards the Virgo cluster
345: ($v_\mathrm{vir}$). We obtain
346: the LEDA distance ($D_\mathrm{L}$) using Hubble's law
347: with the Hubble constant $H_\mathrm{0} = 73\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}\,\mbox{Mpc}^{-1}$ reported by
348: \cite{Spergel}.
349: Although corrections to the recessional velocity
350: were made, this method of calculating distances is still highly
351: uncertain. Hence, we use Hubble's law to evaluate the
352: % I am very confused by this. It seems to imply that the distance
353: % estimate is "better" because of the large infall velocity. What am
354: % I missing? Also, the distance in brackets does not make sense
355: % relative to H0.
356: distances only to the galaxies for which $v_\mathrm{vir} \ge 500$
357: km/s (7Mpc) and peculiar velocities are expected to be
358: more of a perturbation.
359:
360:
361: The error in a distance depends strongly on the
362: method used to measure that distance. The HST sources,
363: though a small contribution to the galaxy catalog, have the smallest
364: errors ($< 10 \%$) \citep{Freedman:2001}.
365: The three different distance methods in
366: Tully's catalog have different errors. $D_\mathrm{Q}$
367: also has a low error ($10 \%$) followed by the
368: $D_\mathrm{HI}$
369: ($20 \%$). To obtain an estimate for the errors of
370: $D_\mathrm{M}$, we compare them with $D_\mathrm{Q}$
371: for the set of galaxies that have both types of distance estimates.
372: The best fit Gaussian
373: (see Fig.~\ref{TullyDistanceErrors}) to
374: the logarithm of fractional errors has
375: a one sigma width of $0.24$ which when subtracted in quadrature
376: with $D_\mathrm{Q}$ error gives,
377: $0.22$ distance error associated with $D_\mathrm{M}$.
378:
379: Because errors in $v_\mathrm{vir}$ are not given in LEDA, we follow a
380: similar procedure to find LEDA distance errors, $D_\mathrm{L}$. We
381: compare the calculated $D_\mathrm{L}$ with $D_\mathrm{Q}$ for galaxies
382: in both catalogs to obtain uncertainty estimates in $D_\mathrm{L}$. The
383: plot in Fig.~\ref{DistanceErrors} shows the best fit Gaussian to the
384: logarithm of fractional errors with a one sigma width of $0.27$ which,
385: subtracted in
386: quadrature with $D_\mathrm{Q}$ distance errors, gives a total distance error
387: $0.25$.\@\footnote{For searches of the S3 and S4 LIGO data
388: \citep{LIGOS3S4iul}, with smaller ranges a more conservative uncertainty
389: of 40\% was used for LEDA distances.}
390: %
391: \clearpage
392: %\thispagestyle{empty}
393: \begin{figure}[!hbp|t]
394: \centering
395: %\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{TULLYIN_TULLYQ_DIST.pdf}
396: \epsscale{1}
397: \plotone{f1.eps}
398: \hfill \caption{\label{TullyDistanceErrors}In order to obtain
399: reasonable estimates for Tully's model distances we compare
400: galaxies that have values for both. We only consider galaxies beyond
401: 10 Mpc since model distances and LEDA distances are not reliable below
402: this value. All galaxies below 10 Mpc have better distance estimates.
403: The Tully quality distance has roughly a $0.1$ logarithmic error.
404: The best fit
405: Gaussian for $\ln[D_M / D_Q]$ implies a fractional error $\sigma$ of
406: $0.24$ in log. Subtracting these uncertainties in quadrature gives an error of
407: $0.22$ for Tully model distances.}
408: \end{figure}
409: %
410: \clearpage
411: %\thispagestyle{empty}
412: \begin{figure}[!hbp|t]
413: \centering
414: \epsscale{1}
415: \plotone{f2.eps}
416: %\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{LEDA_TULLYQUAL.pdf}
417: \hfill \caption{\label{DistanceErrors}
418: %We do a similar
419: Fractional error analysis as in Fig.~\ref{TullyDistanceErrors} for LEDA
420: distances. By comparing the fractional error between LEDA
421: distances and Tully we obtain a $\sim$ $0.25$ log distance error for LEDA.}
422: \end{figure}
423: \clearpage
424:
425:
426: \subsection{BLUE LUMINOSITIES}
427:
428: %\footnote{http://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/cgi-bin/cvs/viewcvs.cgi/lalapps/ \\
429: %\indent src/inspiral/inspsrcs100Mpc.errors?cvsroot=lscsoft}
430: %of nearby host galaxies for compact binary systems
431: %that includes equatorial coordinates, distance, and blue
432: %luminosity corrected for absorption for each galaxy out to a
433: %maximum distance of 100Mpc.
434: %
435:
436: %As mentioned in the introduction,
437: The distribution of binary compact objects
438: in the nearby universe is expected to follow the
439: star formation in the universe and a measure of star formation is the
440: blue luminosity of galaxies corrected for dust extinction and
441: reddening \citep{Phinney:1991ei}. Hence, for each galaxy, we calculate
442: the blue luminosity $L_\mathrm{B}$ from the
443: absolute blue magnitude of the galaxy $M_\mathrm{B}$
444: (corrected for internal and Galactic extinctions).
445: For convenience, blue luminosity is provided in units
446: of $L_\mathrm{10} \equiv 10^{10} L_\mathrm{B, \odot}$, where
447: $L_\mathrm{B, \odot} = 2.16 \times 10^{33}$ ergs/s is the blue
448: solar luminosity derived from the blue solar magnitude
449: $M_\mathrm{B, \odot} = 5.48$
450: \citep{Binney-Tremaine}.
451: % As well as saying this here, we should report it in the completeness
452: % section.
453: We do not consider galaxies with luminosities
454: less than $10^{-3} L_\mathrm{10}$ because they do not contribute significantly
455: to the total luminosity -- see \S\ref{section3}.
456:
457:
458: The Mateo, Tully and LEDA catalogs provide information on
459: apparent B-magnitudes
460: corrected for extinction. The galaxies in the HST key project catalog
461: have only distance information, so for those we extract
462: the corresponding apparent magnitude values ($m_\mathrm{B}$,
463: corrected for internal and Galactic extinction) in the B-band from the
464: Tully catalog to find $M_\mathrm{B}$.
465: Table~\ref{table1} summarizes relevant properties of each of these
466: catalogs and the fraction of the total luminosity within 100 Mpc that
467: each contributes.
468: \clearpage
469: \begin{table*}[!h]
470: \caption{Summary information about the four astronomical catalogs used to develop
471: the CBCG-catalog. We report the number of galaxies for which the catalog was the
472: primary reference and fraction of the total CBCG-catalog blue luminosity
473: accounted for by those galaxies.}
474: \begin{center}
475: \label{table1}
476: \begin{tabular}{@{} lllllr @{}}
477: %\hline
478: \hline
479: \hline
480: & Catalog&\# of galaxies& ${\rm L}_{10}$& Fractional luminosity & Reference \\
481: &&& $(10^{10} L_\mathrm{B,\odot})$&& \\
482: \hline
483: (i) & HST&30&57.3 &0.1$\%$&\citep{Freedman:2001}\\
484: (ii) & Mateo&18&0.4 &$<$0.001$\%$&\citep{Mateo:1998}\\
485: (iii) & Tully&1968&2390 &5.3$\%$& \citep{Tully:TPC}\\
486: (iv) & LEDA&36741&42969.4 &94.6$\%$&\citep{LEDA}\\
487: %\hline
488: \hline
489: \hline
490: & Total&38757&45417.1 & $100.0$\% \\
491: \hline
492: \end{tabular}
493: \end{center}
494: \end{table*}
495: \clearpage
496: The LEDA database quotes uncertainties in apparent magnitude.
497: Figure~\ref{LEDAmagerrCorrected} shows the distribution of
498: LEDA assigned apparent magnitude variances for the galaxies in the
499: CBCG-catalog. The RMS error is $\Delta m_B = 0.42$.
500: Galaxies from Tully's catalog have a smaller observational error
501: $\Delta m_\mathrm{B} = 0.30$ \citep{Tully:TPC}.
502: %\clearpage
503: %\thispagestyle{empty}
504: \clearpage
505: \begin{figure}[!hbp|t]
506: \centering
507: \epsscale{1}
508: \plotone{f3.eps}
509: %\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{LEDA_MB.pdf}
510: \caption{\label{LEDAmagerrCorrected}LEDA provides uncertainties in apparent
511: magnitudes. The histogram above shows the $m_b$ variance distribution
512: for each LEDA galaxy. The RMS error is 0.42.}
513: %\checkme{Should we also give the standard deviation for
514: % completeness? -- Patrick}}
515: % Galaxies with unknown uncertainties have been assigned $0.5$.}
516: \end{figure}
517: \clearpage
518:
519:
520:
521: \section{COMPLETENESS}
522: \label{section3}
523: Observations of faint galaxies are difficult even in the nearby
524: universe and lead to systematic incompleteness in galaxy
525: catalogs. Studies of galaxy luminosity
526: functions can provide insight into how many galaxies are missing from
527: a catalog (and hence the corresponding blue luminosity). Using the
528: CBCG-catalog, we can generate a luminosity function $N(L,D)$ which is
529: the number of galaxies with luminosities within a luminosity bin from
530: $L$ to $L+\Delta L$ normalized to the spherical volume within radius
531: D. Specifically, we write
532: \begin{equation}
533: N(L,D) \Delta L = \left(\frac{3}{4\pi D^3}\right) \,\left[\sum_\mathrm{j} l_\mathrm{j}\right]
534: \label{N_LD}
535: \end{equation}
536: where
537: \begin{eqnarray}
538: \nonumber
539: l_\mathrm{j} =
540: \left\{
541: \begin{array}{ll}
542: 1 & \hspace{1.cm} {\rm if }\,\,(L < L_\mathrm{j} < L+\Delta L) \textrm{ and } (D_j < D) \nonumber \\
543: 0 & \hspace{1.cm} {\rm otherwise}
544: \end{array}
545: \right.
546: \end{eqnarray}
547: %\checkme{Is there a $D^3$ missing here? -- Patrick}
548: and the sum over $j$ runs through all the galaxies in the catalog. The
549: quantities $L_\mathrm{j}$ and $D_\mathrm{j}$ are the luminosity and
550: distance of each galaxy. Similarly we can compute the luminosity
551: function in terms of blue absolute magnitudes as a function of
552: distance $N(M_\mathrm{B},D)$. The dashed and dot-dashed lines in
553: Fig.~\ref{lum_function} show
554: several realizations of $N(M_\mathrm{B},D)$ for different distances
555: $D$ plotted as a function of $M_\mathrm{B}$.
556: %\checkme{Explain error bars}
557:
558: To estimate the degree of incompleteness in the CBCG-catalog,
559: we use an analytical Schechter galaxy luminosity function \citep{Schechter}
560: %
561: \begin{equation}
562: \phi (L) dL = \phi^{*} \biggl(\frac{L}{L^{*}}\biggr)^{\alpha} \exp\biggl(\frac{-L}{L^{*}}\biggr) d\left(\frac{L}{L^{*}}\right)
563: \label{phi_LUM}
564: \end{equation}
565: %
566: where $\phi (L) dL$ is the number density (number of galaxies per
567: unit volume) within the luminosity interval $L$ and $L + dL$,
568: $L^{*}$ is the luminosity at which the number of galaxies begins to fall off
569: exponentially, $\alpha$ is a parameter
570: which determines the slope at the faint end of the luminosity function, and
571: $\phi^*$ is a normalization constant.
572: In terms of (blue) absolute magnitudes, $M_\mathrm{B}$, the Schechter function
573: becomes
574: %
575: %\begin{widetext}
576: \begin{eqnarray}
577: \label{schecter}
578: % Is the tilde on phi^* correct?
579: \tilde {\phi}(M_\mathrm{B}) dM_\mathrm{B}= 0.92\, {\phi^{*}}
580: \exp\left[{-10^{-0.4(M_\mathrm{B} - {M_\mathrm{B}^{*}})}}\right]
581: \left[ 10^{-0.4(M_\mathrm{B} - {M_\mathrm{B}^{*}})} \right]^{\alpha + 1} \, dM_\mathrm{B} \; .
582: \label{phi_MB}
583: \end{eqnarray}
584: %\end{widetext}
585: %
586:
587: To estimate the total luminosity function, we use results from
588: the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) as reported by \cite{Blanton}.
589: Although the SDSS sky coverage is inadequate in RA and DEC, it provides
590: excellent coverage throughout our desired distance and
591: beyond. We therefore use the green luminosity function Schechter fit
592: given in Table 2. of \cite{Blanton} and convert it into blue band using the expression
593: given in Table 2. of \cite{BlantonRoweis}.
594: Adopting a Hubble constant value of $73\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}\,\mbox{Mpc}^{-1}$
595: \citep{Spergel} and correcting for reddening,\@\footnote{We correct
596: the value of $M_\mathrm{B}^{*}$ to be consistent with the reddening
597: correction described in \S\ref{cubic_law}}
598: the Schechter parameters are
599: $(M_\mathrm{B}^{*}, \tilde{\phi^{*}}, \alpha) = (-20.3, 0.0081, -0.9)$.
600: The solid line in Fig.~\ref{lum_function}
601: shows the Schechter function $\tilde \phi(M_\mathrm{B})$ derived from these
602: values. Since this function is obtained from deep surveys, it does not
603: account for the local over-density of blue light coming primarily from the
604: Virgo cluster. For distances up about to 30 Mpc, the CBCG-catalog's
605: luminosity function $N(M_\mathrm{B}, D)$ exceeds
606: $\tilde \phi(M_\mathrm{B})$.
607:
608:
609: We can now derive a completeness correction that arises at the faint end
610: beyond about 30 Mpc, where the Schechter function exceeds the catalog
611: $N(M_\mathrm{B}, D)$. We integrate the CBCG-galaxy-catalog luminosity
612: function $N(L,D)$ over $L$ and subtract it from the Schechter fit as a
613: function of distance. Hence, the total
614: corrected cumulative luminosity $L_{\mathrm{total}}$ within a volume of radius $D$
615: is given by
616: %\begin{widetext}
617: \begin{equation}
618: L_{\mathrm{total}}(D) = L_{\mathrm{CBCG}}(D) + L_{\mathrm{corr}}(D)
619: \label{Ltot}
620: \end{equation}
621: where
622: \begin{eqnarray}
623: L_{\mathrm{CBCG}}(D) &=& \int_{0}^{D} dD' \sum_\mathrm{j}L_\mathrm{j}
624: \delta(D'-D_\mathrm{j}) \label{Lcat} \\
625: L_{\mathrm{corr}}(D) &=& \frac{4\pi}{3}D^3\int_{L_\mathrm{min}}^{L_\mathrm{max}}L\,dL
626: \,\,\Theta \left[\phi(L)-N(L,D)\right]\,\, \left[ \phi(L)-N(L,D) \right] \; .
627: \label{Lcorr}
628: \end{eqnarray}
629: %\end{widetext}
630: Here, the index $j$ runs through all galaxies in the catalog, $\delta$ is the
631: Dirac delta function, $\Theta$ is the step function and $\phi(L)$ is the
632: adopted Schechter function (distance independent) assumed to represent the
633: complete luminosity distribution. We note that $L_\mathrm{max} = 52.481
634: ~L_\mathrm{10}$ ($M_\mathrm{B} = -23.83$) is the maximum luminosity
635: in the CBCG-catalog and we choose
636: $L_\mathrm{min} = 10^{-3}L_\mathrm{10}$ ($M_\mathrm{B} = -12.98$)
637: because luminosities below this value do not contribute
638: significantly to the net luminosity.
639: The quantity $L_{\mathrm{CBCG}}$ in Eqs.~(\ref{Ltot}) and (\ref{Lcat}) is the
640: uncorrected cumulative luminosity from the CBCG-catalog; the
641: quantity $L_{\mathrm{corr}}$ is the completeness correction. Note that the completeness
642: correction term is always zero or positive regardless of the choice of
643: Schechter function.
644:
645: In Fig.~\ref{cum_lum}, we show the cumulative blue luminosity as a
646: function of distance as obtained directly from the CBCG-catalog
647: (solid line) as well as with the completeness correction applied
648: (dashed line). It is evident that the correction becomes significant
649: at distances in excess of about 40Mpc.
650:
651: %\clearpage
652: %\thispagestyle{empty}
653: \clearpage
654: \begin{figure}[!hbp|t]
655: \centering
656: \epsscale{1}
657: \plotone{f4.eps}
658: %\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{luminosity_function.pdf}
659: \hfill \caption{\label{lum_function} The luminosity function of CBCG
660: catalog at various distances
661: (dashed and dot-dashed lines) and a Schechter function fit (solid line)
662: given in Eq. (\ref{phi_MB}) based on \cite{Blanton}.
663: We compensate for the incompleteness of the CBCG-catalog by applying an
664: upward correction to
665: the
666: luminosity bins that are below the Schechter function fit (solid line),
667: according to Eqs. (\ref{Ltot}) and (\ref{Lcorr}).
668: Error bars are found by sliding the magnitudes
669: of each galaxy according to the mean errors and recomputing the luminosity
670: function.}
671: \end{figure}
672: \clearpage
673:
674: \subsection{Comparison with other results}
675: \label{cubic_law}
676: %In order to accurately account for the missing luminosity, we adjust
677: %the CBCG-catalog to compensate for the incompleteness using the
678: %derivation described above. At any given distance,
679: %we add more galaxies, according to
680: %as predicted by
681: %the SDSS Schechter fit luminosity function
682: %best-fit luminosity function
683: %(dashed line in
684: %Fig.~\ref{lum_function}), and isotropically distribute them in space.
685: % as a function of distance.
686: %The dashed line shown in Fig.~\ref{cum_lum}
687: %indicates the corrected cumulative luminosity and the solid line is
688: %the cumulative luminosity without correction.
689:
690: To compare our method of correcting for completeness with other methods,
691: we consider the direct
692: computation of a reddening corrected luminosity density based on
693: \cite{Blanton} which could be used at large distances.
694: %A much simpler way of accounting for the missing luminosity in the
695: %compiled catalog of individual galaxies is to integrate the SDSS Schechter fit
696: %corrected for reddening $\phi(L)$ over luminosity to obtain the implied
697: %constant
698: %volume density of blue luminosity
699: %; the latter provides with a perfect cubic
700: %for the cumulative luminosity as a function of distance
701: %(gray-shaded band in Fig.~\ref{cum_lum}).
702: % I don't understand the next statement.
703: %This constant blue luminosity density is used for
704: %cubic extrapolation and then is matched with the cumulative blue luminosity
705: %from the CBCG-catalog.
706: We adopt a blue luminosity density of $(1.98\pm 0.16) \times 10^{-2}
707: L_\mathrm{10}/$Mpc$^{3}$ calculated as follows:
708: %
709: \begin{itemize}
710: \item The blue luminosity density, in terms of
711: blue absolute magnitudes per cubic Mpc, is $-14.98$ locally (redshift $z = 0$ )
712: and $-15.17$ for $z = 0.1$ [Table 10 \cite{Blanton}].
713: This is for a standard cosmology with
714: $\Omega_\mathrm{M} = 0.3$ and $\Omega_\mathrm{\Lambda} = 0.7$.
715: % For the current reach of LIGO, the $z=0$ value would suffice.
716: We use $z=0.1$ so that the results will be valid for advanced
717: detectors.
718: %But to apply our analyses for
719: %advanced detectors also, we use $z = 0.1$ value.
720: \item We convert the $z = 0.1$ blue magnitude density (-15.17) to
721: luminosity units
722: %using Eq.(\ref{absmag-lum})
723: $1.33 \times 10^{-2} L_\mathrm{10}/$Mpc$^{3}$
724: and assign systematic errors ($\simeq 10 \%$) associated with the
725: photometry
726: %to be about $10 \%$ on the luminosities,
727: to obtain a luminosity density of
728: $(1.33 \pm 0.13) \times 10^{-2} L_\mathrm{10}/$Mpc$^{3}$.
729: \item We also correct for processing of blue light and
730: re-emission in the infrared (IR) following \cite{Phinney:1991ei}
731: and \cite{Kalogera:2000dz}.
732: %\citep{Phinney} needs to be included,
733: % but with more up to date data on IR luminosity density.
734: We use the analysis of \cite{Saunders}, upward correct by $30 \%$ their
735: far IR ($40 \mu m - 100 \mu m$) luminosity density
736: %upward correct their far IR
737: % (40 $\mu m$ - 100$\mu m$) luminosity density by $30 \%$
738: to account
739: for emission down to $12 \mu m$ \citep{Kalogera:2000dz},
740: % account for conventional extinction models
741: and convert to $L_\mathrm{10}$
742: to obtain an IR luminosity density of
743: $L_\mathrm{IR} = (0.65 \pm 0.1) \times 10^{-2}
744: L_\mathrm{10}/$Mpc$^{3}$.
745: \item Adding both luminosity densities above and accounting for
746: the errors, we obtain a blue light luminosity density corrected for
747: extinction equal to $(1.98 \pm 0.16) \times 10^{-2}
748: L_\mathrm{10}/$Mpc$^{3}$
749: %in very good agreement with
750: %the one adopted by \citep{Kalogera:2000dz} based on older surveys.
751: \end{itemize}
752: %
753: %A plot of cubic extrapolation, utilizing
754: We use this blue luminosity density and its uncertainty and plot the implied
755: cumulative blue luminosity as a function of distance (cubic dependence)
756: in Fig.~\ref{cum_lum} (gray-shaded region). This uniform density
757: distribution agrees well with the completeness corrected luminosity
758: given above.
759:
760: We can compare our results for the cumulative blue luminosity as a
761: function of distance to similar results obtained by \cite{Nutzman:2004},
762: especially their Figure 1. The results for the uncorrected catalog
763: agree qualitatively. However,
764: the catalog described here is more up-to-date compared to the one
765: compiled by \cite{Nutzman:2004} by virtue of the updates to LEDA and by
766: the inclusion of the current Tully catalog. The incompleteness
767: correction derived here is also more physically and empirically
768: motivated than the one constructed in that earlier paper. We note that
769: the cumulative luminosity shown as the dashed line in their Figure 1 is
770: too low by a factor of $4\pi/3$ due to a numerical error. Additionally,
771: their luminosity density is $\sim 25 \%$ lower than ours resulting from our
772: use of the more recent results presented by \cite{Blanton}.
773:
774: % It's late (well early) in an owl shift, so my brain is not working
775: % well. How does 4 pi/3 translate into 75%?
776: %$75 \%$ with our value.
777: %\clearpage
778: %\thispagestyle{empty}
779: \clearpage
780: \begin{figure}[!hbp|t]
781: \centering
782: \epsscale{1}
783: \plotone{f5.eps}
784: %\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{LumVsDist.pdf}
785: \hfill \caption{\label{cum_lum} Cumulative luminosity as a function of
786: distance from CBCG-catalog uncorrected for incompleteness
787: (solid line), corrected for incompleteness
788: (dashed line) and the cubic extrapolation from the assumed constant blue
789: luminosity density corrected for extinction (gray-shaded region).}
790: \end{figure}
791: \clearpage
792:
793:
794: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
795: % MOTIVATION AND UPPER LIMITS STOLEN FROM STEVE'S PAPER
796: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
797:
798: \section{COMPACT BINARY COALESCENCE RATE ESTIMATES}
799: \label{section4}
800: %
801:
802: For neutron star binaries, the observed binary pulsar sample can be
803: used to predict the coalescence rate $\mathcal{R}_{\mathrm MW}$ in the Milky
804: Way~\citep{Kim:2004,Kim:2006}. The coalescence rate within a sphere of
805: radius $D$ is then simply given by
806: \begin{equation}
807: R = \mathcal{R}_{\mathrm MW}
808: \left(\frac{L_{\mathrm{total}}(D)}{L_{\mathrm MW}}\right) \;
809: \end{equation}
810: where $L_\mathrm{total} (D)$ is the total blue luminosity within a distance $D$
811: and $L_\mathrm{MW}$ is the blue luminosity of the Milky way,
812: $1.7 L_\mathrm{10}$ \citep{Kalogera:2000dz}.
813: If the rate $R$ of a binary neutron star coalescence could be measured
814: directly, it would provide an independent estimate of the rate of
815: coalescence per unit of blue luminosity. Together these two
816: measurements would deepen our understanding of stellar and binary
817: evolution. Furthermore, the current understanding of binary evolution
818: and compact object formation leads us to anticipate the formation of
819: black hole binaries that will merge within a Hubble time
820: \citep{Belczynski:2002, Belczynski:2007}. Experiments like LIGO will
821: provide a direct measure of the compact binary coalescence rate and
822: will impose constraints on the theoretical models of stellar evolution
823: and compact binary formation.
824:
825: \subsection{Rate estimates and systematic errors in gravitational-wave
826: searches}
827: In its simplest form, the rate estimate derived from a
828: gravitational-wave experiment will take the form
829: \begin{equation}
830: {\mathcal R} = \frac{\textrm{constant}}{ T \, \cl}
831: \end{equation}
832: where the constant depends on the precise outcome of the search and
833: the statistical method used in arriving at the rate estimate, $\cl$ is
834: the cumulative blue luminosity {\it observable} within the search's
835: sensitivity volume measured in $L_{10}$, and $T$ is the time analyzed
836: in years. In general the sensitivity volume is a complicated function
837: which depends on the instrument and the gravitational waveforms
838: searched for. Here, we focus on the influence of the host galaxy
839: properties and the distribution of blue light with distance.
840:
841: The gravitational-wave signal from a compact binary inspiral depends on
842: a large number of parameters. It is convenient to split these parameters
843: into two types for our discussion. Of particular interest here are the
844: parameters which determine the location and orientation of the binary.
845: We denote these collectively as $\vec{\lambda} := \{ D, \alpha, \delta,
846: \iota, \psi, t\}$, that is the distance to the binary, its Right
847: Ascension and declination, inclination angle relative to the line of
848: sight, polarization angle of the waves, and the time when the binary is
849: observed, respectively. Other parameters, including the masses and the spins, are
850: denoted $\vec{\mu}$. Recognizing that the spatial luminosity
851: distribution can be written as
852: %
853: \begin{equation}
854: L(\alpha,\delta,D) = \sum_j L_j \, \delta(\alpha_j - \alpha )
855: \, \delta( \delta_j - \delta ) \, \delta( D_j - D ) \; ,
856: \label{e:spatlum}
857: \end{equation}
858: %
859: we write the cumulative luminosity as
860: %
861: \begin{equation}
862: {\cl} = \int L(\alpha, \delta, D) \,
863: p(\textrm{detection} | \vec{\mu}, \vec{\lambda}) \,
864: p( \vec{\mu} ) \, p(\iota ) \, p(\psi) \, p(t) \,
865: d\vec{\mu} \, d\vec{\lambda}
866: \label{e:cumlum}
867: \end{equation}
868: %
869: Assuming that binary coalescences are uniformly distributed in time, and
870: their orientation is random, we take the corresponding prior
871: probabilities: $p(\iota) = \sin (\iota )/2$, $p(t)
872: = 1/\textrm{day}$, and $p(\psi ) = 1/2\pi$.
873:
874: Systematic errors associated with the derived rate esimates are
875: naturally associated with the errors in cumulative luminosity $\cl$.
876: The two most relevant errors in the galaxy catalog are in apparent
877: magnitude $m_B$ and distance $D$. Sky positions are known so precisely
878: that small errors in RA and DEC do not change the detection probability
879: of a particular binary in any significant way; for this reason, such
880: errors are not included in the LIGO analyses~\citep{LIGOS3S4iul}. The
881: errors induced on the spatial luminosity function in
882: Eq.~(\ref{e:spatlum}) take the form \citep{Fairhurst}
883:
884: %
885: \begin{equation}
886: [L + \Delta L](\alpha,\delta,D) = \sum_j L_j \, 10^{- 0.4 \Delta m_{Bj}}
887: \left(1 + \frac{\Delta D_j}{D_j} \right)^2
888: \delta(\alpha_j - \alpha ) \,
889: \delta( \delta_j - \delta ) \,
890: \delta( D_j + \Delta D_j - D ) \; .
891: \label{e:spatlumerror}
892: %{\cl}_{j} + \Delta {\cl}_{i} =
893: %\int d {D}_{\rm eff} \, \epsilon(D_{\rm eff}) \,
894: %({L_{B}}_{i} + \Delta {L_{B}}_{i}) (10^{0.4{\Delta {m_{B}}_{i}}})
895: \end{equation}
896: %\checkme{I changed the sign on the magnitude error in the exponent, I
897: %think this way is correct. Could somebody else check? -- Patrick}
898:
899: \subsection{A simplified model for estimating expected event rates}
900:
901: The sensitivity of a search for gravitational waves from compact binary
902: coalescence is determined primarily by the amplitude of the waves at the
903: detector. For a non-spinning binary
904: (i.e., the spins of each
905: compact object are much smaller than their general-relativistic maximum
906: value of $m_\mathrm{i}^2$) with given $\vec{\mu}$, the
907: amplitude is inversely proportional to the \textit{effective distance}
908: ${D}_{\rm eff}$ defined as \citep{Findchirp}
909: \begin{equation}
910: \label{effDist}
911: {D}_{\rm eff} = \frac{D}{\sqrt{F_+^2 (1 + \cos^{2} \iota)^2 / 4 + F_{\times}^2
912: \cos^{2} \iota}}
913: \end{equation}
914: %
915: where $D$ is the physical distance to the binary, $F_\mathrm{+}$ and
916: $F_\mathrm{\times}$ are the response amplitudes of each polarization
917: at the detector which depend upon the location of the binary system
918: \citep{Anderson}:
919: %
920: \begin{eqnarray}
921: F_\mathrm{+} = -\frac{1}{2}(1+\cos^{2} \theta) \cos 2 \phi \cos 2 \psi
922: - \cos \theta \cos 2 \phi \sin 2 \psi \, \\
923: F_\mathrm{\times} = \frac{1}{2}(1+\cos^{2} \theta) \cos 2 \phi \sin 2 \psi
924: - \cos \theta \sin 2 \phi \cos 2 \psi \; .
925: \end{eqnarray}
926: %
927: Here $\theta$ and $\phi$ are the spherical co-ordinates of the source
928: defined with respect to the detector and, as before, $\iota$ and $\psi$
929: are the inclination and polarization angles. Since $\theta$ and $\phi$
930: are detector dependent, the effective distance is different for
931: geographically separated detectors that are not perfectly aligned and,
932: for a fixed source location, changes as the Earth rotates through a
933: sidereal day. Additionally, the effective distance is always at least
934: as large as the physical distance.
935:
936: For simplicity in understanding the sensitivity of gravitational-wave
937: searches, consider the case in which $\vec{\mu}$ is fixed, i.e.
938: $p(\vec{\mu}) = \delta(\vec{\mu} - \hat{\mu})$. For example, these
939: might be the parameters appropriate to a neutron star binary.
940: The sensitivity of a detector is given by its horizon distance, which
941: is defined as the maximum effective distance that a neutron star binary
942: system can be detected at signal-to-noise ratio of 8.
943: %The
944: %horizon distance \citep{LIGOS3S4iul}
945: % $D_{\mathrm{horizon}}$, defined as the physical
946: %distance to an optimally oriented and located binary system that would
947: %be detected with a signal-to-noise ratio of 8, provides a good estimate
948: %of sensitivity of a particular detector. Since the amplitude of the
949: %gravitational wave is determined by the effective distance, the horizon
950: %distance defines an effective distance sphere.
951: Consider a
952: search which can perfectly detect these binaries if they have an
953: effective distance $D_{\mathrm{eff}} < D_{\mathrm{horizon}}$ at a
954: particular detector. Then
955: %
956: \begin{equation}
957: p(\textrm{detection} | \hat{\mu}, \vec{\lambda}) =
958: \Theta( D_{\mathrm{eff}}(\vec{\lambda}) < D_{\mathrm{horizon}} ) \,
959: \end{equation}
960: %
961: and we can write
962: %
963: \begin{equation}
964: {\cl}(D_{\mathrm{horizon}}) = \int L(\alpha, \delta, D) \,
965: \Theta( D_{\mathrm{eff}}(\vec{\lambda}) < D_{\mathrm{horizon}} ) \,
966: p(\iota ) \, p(\psi) \, p(t) \,
967: d\vec{\lambda} \, .
968: \label{e:cumlumdist}
969: \end{equation}
970: %
971: Thus, the cumulative blue luminosity accessible to such a detector is
972: the blue luminosity within an effective distance sphere of
973: radius $D_{\mathrm{horizon}}$, averaged over the time of day and
974: possible orientations of the binary. The lower curve in
975: Fig.~\ref{cumlum_effdist} shows $\cl(D_{\mathrm{horizon}})$.
976: %The signal-to-noise produced by a short CBC signal from a galaxy
977: %depends on the distance and sky location only through $\Deff^{-1}$.
978: %The LIGO detection threshold and antenna
979: %pattern at any time correspond precisely to surfaces of constant
980: %$\Deff$. Therefore, if searching for sources of known inclination at
981: %a fixed time, the detection volume and blue luminosity it contains are
982: %well defined and can be found by integrating $dL_{\rm
983: %\mathrm{total}}/dDd\Omega$ over this anisotropic volume.
984: %For randomly chosen sources, the average luminosity inside the
985: %detection volume defined by a known signal-to-noise threshold, or
986: %equivalently a known effective distance limit $\Deff_o$, can be computed by integration:
987: %\begin{eqnarray}
988: %L_B(\Deff_o)&=&\int \frac{d\cos\iota}{2}\frac{dt}{\rm day}
989: %\int_{\Deff(t,\iota)<\Deff_o}dV \frac{dL_B}{dV}
990: %\end{eqnarray}
991: %where day is a sidereal day.
992: %This average luminosity inside the detection volume is what enters
993: %into upper limits. In practice, this luminosity distribution versus
994: %effective distance can be calculated from a discrete catalog of
995: %sources $L_i$ if it is completed (i.e., if we adjoin
996: %artificial sources at large distances in order to reproduce the known
997: %distribution $L_{\mathrm{total}}$):\footnote{In reality, we calculate
998: %the average blue luminosity $L_B$ inside $\Deff$ from a monte carlo
999: %in which sources $\alpha$ are randomly placed in time, distance, and source
1000: %inclination, with relative probability per galaxy set by its blue
1001: %luminosity \citep{LAL}. In this representation, $L_B(\Deff)$ is simply
1002: %proportional to the
1003: %\emph{number} (not sum, given the monte carlo bias of more sources
1004: %to higher luminosity) of all sources with effective distance less
1005: %than $\Deff$, times the characteristic luminosity unit.}
1006: %\begin{eqnarray}
1007: %L_B(\Deff_o)&=&\sum_i L_i \int \frac{d\cos\iota}{2}\frac{dt}{\rm
1008: %day}
1009: %\theta(\Deff_i(t,\iota)-\Deff_o) \; .
1010: %\end{eqnarray}
1011: %where $\Deff_i(t,\iota)$ is the effective distance to the $i$th galaxy
1012: %at time $t$ given a source inclination $\iota$.
1013: Figure \ref{cumlum_effdist} also illustrates the significant difference
1014: between the cumulative luminosity $\cl (D_{\mathrm{eff}})$ and total
1015: luminosity $L_{\mathrm{total}}(D)$ at a given distance. If galaxies are
1016: distributed uniformly in space the ratio between these is $\simeq
1017: 11.2$ ; this is the factor by which the detection rate would be
1018: reduced and arises purely from the LIGO detector
1019: response, averaged over all possible source orientations with respect to the
1020: detector.
1021:
1022: When estimating the rate based on gravitational-wave observations,
1023: one can marginalize over uncertainties \citep{Fairhurst} in the galaxies'
1024: distances and apparent magnitudes. Specifically, by making use of the
1025: modified spatial distribution function Eq.~(\ref{e:spatlumerror}) and the
1026: distributions for $\Delta D_j$ and $\Delta m_{Bj}$ reported here, we can
1027: obtain a probability distribution for the cumulative luminosity
1028: $p(\cl | \Delta m_{Bj}, \Delta D_j)$ from Eq.~(\ref{e:cumlum}). For each
1029: value of the cumulative luminosity, a probability distribution
1030: $p(R | \cl)$ for the event rate can be calculated. Finally, the rate is
1031: marginalized over errors in the galaxy catalog by computing
1032: \begin{equation}\label{eq:marginalize}
1033: p(R) = \int d \cl \,\, p(\cl | \Delta m_{Bj}, \Delta D_j) \,\, p(R | \cl)
1034: \, .
1035: \end{equation}
1036: This distribution is then used to obtain a rate interval or upper limit on
1037: the occurrence of binary coalescences in the unverse.
1038:
1039: While this approach provides a reasonable estimate of the observable
1040: blue light luminosity in a single detector, it does not provide the
1041: whole story. For example, the $16^\circ$ difference in latitude between
1042: the LIGO Observatories in Hanford, Washington and Livingston, Louisiana,
1043: implies the $\cl(D_{\mathrm{horizon}})$ depends on the site used.
1044: Figure \ref{LumCont} shows two-dimensional contours of this function.
1045:
1046: %In reality the detection threshold is not sharp; sources near the
1047: %limits of detection have some probability of being detected,
1048: %characterized by the detection efficiency
1049: %$\epsilon(D_\mathrm{eff})$, which again depends only on the effective distance
1050: %for our discussion.% We calculate the expected effective distance,
1051: %Given the detection efficiency and the
1052: %blue luminosity from the CBCG-catalog versus effective distance for a given
1053: %detector, the
1054: %average blue luminosity $\cl$ inside a single detector's range can be
1055: %calculated as
1056: %
1057: %\begin{equation}
1058: %\cl = \int d\Deff \, \epsilon( \Deff )
1059: %\frac{dL_{B}}{d\Deff}( \Deff )
1060: %\end{equation}
1061:
1062: %\clearpage
1063: %\thispagestyle{empty}
1064: \begin{figure*}[!hbp|t]
1065: \centering
1066: \epsscale{1}
1067: \plotone{f6.eps}
1068: %\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{LumCont.pdf}
1069: \hfill \caption{\label{cumlum_effdist}
1070: Cumulative luminosity as a function of physical distance (top line)
1071: and horizon distance (bottom line).
1072: The horizon distance $D_{\mathrm{horizon}}$ is defined as the physical
1073: distance to an optimally oriented and located binary system that
1074: would be detected with a signal-to-noise ratio of 8. (Instrumental
1075: sensitivity range is sometimes quoted in terms of the radius of a sphere
1076: with the same volume as the non-uniform region probed by the
1077: instrument, this sensitivity range $D_s$ is related to the horizon
1078: distance by $D_s\simeq D_{\mathrm{horizon}}/\sqrt{5}$.
1079: The gray shaded lines are
1080: cubic extrapolations ($\S\ref{section3}$) derived for
1081: both cases. Given a LIGO horizon distance one can immediately get the
1082: cumulative blue luminosity from the bottom curve.
1083: To obtain an approximate rate upper limit
1084: one could calculate $\mathcal{R}_{90\%} \, [ \,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}L_{10}^{-1} ]
1085: = 2.3/(\mathcal{C}_{L} \times T)$ where $\mathcal{C}_{L}$ is taken
1086: from this plot at a given range in horizon distance. {\it Inset:} Ratio
1087: of the cumulative luminosity for the physical and horizon distance from
1088: the completeness corrected CBCG-catalog illustrates
1089: the non-uniform distribution at smaller ranges ($< 20$ Mpc) and
1090: asymptotes to the expected uniform distribution ratio (dashed line) for
1091: larger distances.}
1092: \end{figure*}
1093: \clearpage
1094:
1095:
1096: %\clearpage
1097: %\thispagestyle{empty}
1098: \clearpage
1099: \begin{figure*}[!hbp|t]
1100: \centering
1101: \epsscale{1}
1102: \plotone{f7.eps}
1103: %\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{LumCont.pdf}
1104: \hfill \caption{\label{LumCont}
1105: Luminosity contours per effective distance bin in the two
1106: LIGO sites. The
1107: effective distance to a source in one galaxy is different between
1108: the two detectors,
1109: changes as a function of the sidereal day and also on the orientation of the
1110: particular source. Since the effective
1111: distance is always larger than the real distance the luminosity
1112: available within a given effective distance bin is
1113: considerably smaller than the luminosity within the physical
1114: distance bin. The upper horizontal numbers refer to the luminosity per
1115: bin in effective distance. The parenthetical lower numbers refer
1116: to the luminosity per physical distance bin. It is also possible
1117: to have a systematically different luminosity between detectors as is
1118: indicated in the right panel zoom of the first 5 Mpc. The available
1119: luminosity within 5 Mpc (mostly from Andromeda) is slightly
1120: better located for LLO and therefore stretches
1121: the contours to higher effective distances for LHO. LIGO rate
1122: upper limits for searches with limited range thus depend
1123: on the non-uniformity of the Local Group.}
1124: \end{figure*}
1125: \clearpage
1126:
1127:
1128: Based on the galaxy catalog presented in this article, the cumulative
1129: blue luminosity $\cl$, measured in $L_{10}$, accessible to a search with a
1130: given horizon distance sensitivity can be derived from Fig.~\ref{cumlum_effdist}
1131: and is tabulated in Table~\ref{t:instrumental-rates}.
1132: We can combine the calculated cumulative blue luminosity
1133: with estimates of ${\mathcal R}$, the rate of binary
1134: mergers per $L_{10}$, to estimate the number of compact binary merger
1135: events $N$ detectable in a given LIGO search
1136: with an observation time $T$:
1137: \begin{equation}
1138: N =
1139: 10^{-3}
1140: \left(\frac{\mathcal R}{L_{10}^{-1} \textrm{ Myr}^{-1}} \right)
1141: \left(\frac{\cl}{10^3 L_{10}}\right)
1142: \left(\frac{T}{\textrm{ yr}}\right)
1143: \end{equation}
1144: If the horizon distance of a search is larger than 50 Mpc, we can use the following approximation, from a cubic law:
1145: \begin{equation}
1146: N \approx
1147: 7.4 \times 10^{-3}
1148: \left(\frac{\mathcal R}{L_{10}^{-1} \textrm{ Myr}^{-1}} \right)
1149: \left( \frac{D_{\mathrm{horizon}}}{100 \textrm{ Mpc}} \right)^3
1150: \left(\frac{T}{\textrm{ yr}}\right)
1151: \label{e:nevents-approx}
1152: \end{equation}
1153:
1154: Estimated rates of binary neutron star (BNS) mergers in our Galaxy are
1155: based on the observed sample of binary pulsars. The rates depend on the
1156: Galactic distribution of compact objects. In \cite{Kalogera:2004tn}, the
1157: most recent reference estimating rates, the most likely Galactic rate
1158: for their reference model 6 is $83\,\mbox{Myr}^{-1}$, with a 95\%
1159: confidence interval $17-292 \, \mbox{Myr}^{-1}$. The most likely rates for
1160: all the models used in \cite{Kalogera:2004tn} are in the range
1161: $4-220\,\mbox{Myr}^{-1}$ for the Milky Way.\@\footnote{The rates quoted here
1162: are in units of rate per Milky Way per Myr; to get the rate per
1163: $L_{10}$, we divide by $1.7$ which is the estimated blue luminosity of
1164: the Milky way in $L_{10}$ units, assuming the blue absolute magnitude of
1165: the Milky Way to be $-20.11$ \citep{Kalogera:2000dz}.}
1166:
1167: For the 4km LIGO detectors currently operating,
1168: $D_{\mathrm{horizon}}
1169: \approx 30 \textrm{ Mpc}$ for BNS.
1170: Thus, the predicted number of BNS events is in the range $N_6 \approx 2 -
1171: 30\times 10^{-3} \textrm{ yr}^{-1}$
1172: with the most likely number being $N_6 \approx 1/(100 \textrm{ yr})$
1173: [we use the subscript $_6$ to indicate these rates use reference model 6 from
1174: \cite{Kalogera:2004tn}].
1175: %
1176: A search that reaches twice the distance (such as enhanced LIGO),
1177: yields a most likely rate $
1178: N_6 \approx 1/(10 \textrm{ yr})$.
1179: And a search that would be 15 times more sensitive to coalescences of binary
1180: systems than the current LIGO detectors (such as
1181: Advanced LIGO) would yield a most likely rate of
1182: $N_6 \approx 40.0 \textrm{ yr}^{-1} $.
1183: \clearpage
1184: \begin{table}
1185: \caption{\label{t:instrumental-rates}
1186: Table showing the cumulative blue luminosity
1187: $\cl(D_{\mathrm{horizon}})$ accessible to a search
1188: with horizon distance $D_{\mathrm{horizon}}$ given in the first column.
1189: For $D_{\mathrm{horizon}} > 100 \textrm{ Mpc}$, the cumulative blue
1190: luminosity accessible to a search is given approximately by
1191: $C_L(D_{\mathrm{horizon}}) \approx 7.4 \times 10^3 \,\, (D_{\mathrm{horizon}}
1192: / 100 \textrm{Mpc})^3$. }
1193: \begin{center}
1194: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c}
1195: \hline
1196: $D_{\mathrm{horizon}}$ (Mpc) & $\cl(D_{\mathrm{horizon}})$ ($L_{10}$) \\
1197: \hline
1198: $10$ & $23$ \\
1199: $20$ & $85$ \\
1200: $30$ & $240$ \\
1201: $50$ & $953$ \\
1202: $100$ & $7200$ \\
1203: $200$ & $59200$ \\
1204: $300$ & $200000$ \\
1205: $500$ & $926000$ \\
1206: \hline
1207: \end{tabular}
1208: \end{center}
1209: \end{table}
1210: \clearpage
1211:
1212: \section{CONCLUSION}
1213: \label{section5}
1214:
1215:
1216:
1217: Whether one wishes to compute expected detection rates for LIGO
1218: searches, or to interpret LIGO searches as rate upper limits (or eventually
1219: detection rates), we require at the simplest level accurate accounting of
1220: the total observable blue luminosity $\cl$.
1221: As mentioned in the previous sections, a galaxy catalog complete with
1222: sky positions and distances is important for first generation LIGO detectors
1223: because the blue luminosity is not uniformly distributed
1224: in the sky within the search range. An upper limit which takes in to
1225: account the most up-to-date information on galaxy distribution can be
1226: obtained by accurately modeling the local overdense region.
1227: For searches with ranges well beyond current sensitivity the universe
1228: is uniform and rate estimates depend primarily on accurate blue
1229: luminosity densities corrected for reddening. We have
1230: introduced a method to bridge the gap between the well known nearby
1231: galaxy distribution and the expected long range distribution through
1232: a completeness correction based on SDSS luminosity functions
1233: \citep{Blanton}.
1234:
1235: This paper provides the most up to date accounting of nearby galaxies
1236: within 100Mpc as well as errors in the apparent magnitude (corrected for
1237: reddening) and distance and demonstrates how the errors propagate
1238: into rate calculations.
1239: Astrophysical errors are a significant contribution to the
1240: eventual systematic error associated with coalescence rate upper limits
1241: \citep{Fairhurst} and must be included.
1242: This paper provides a survey of the asymptotic and local uncertainty.
1243: Motivated
1244: by the use of effective distance to account for the antenna pattern
1245: of the LIGO detectors, we demonstrate the need to compute the average
1246: blue light luminosity within a given effective distance sphere.
1247: %We provide a way to easily account for the LIGO antenna pattern using
1248: %effective distance and motivate the need to
1249: %compute average cumulative blue luminosity found within a given effective
1250: %distance sphere.
1251: For ranges within 50Mpc there is a nontrivial relationship
1252: between cumulative blue luminosity within an effective distance sphere and
1253: within a physical distance sphere. Beyond 50Mpc the relationship is well
1254: behaved leading to the simple scaling for the number of detected events $N$
1255: given in Eq.(\ref{e:nevents-approx}). We would like to point that the
1256: catalog
1257: provided can also be used on other astronomical analysis of populations
1258: that scale with galaxy blue luminosity, such as the local
1259: Type II supernova rate or the rate of nearby SGR bursts that show up
1260: as short GRBs.
1261:
1262:
1263: We provide sufficient description of our methods for others
1264: to apply new rate models to future LIGO data. Although this catalog
1265: will serve as a reference for current and future LIGO data analysis, we
1266: look forward to future work that may transcend the simple blue light
1267: rate normalization that we have discussed. One way to go beyond blue light
1268: rate normalization, (necessary to ascertain the degree to which old stars
1269: contribute to present day mergers) is with multiband photometry of nearby
1270: galaxies which can reconstruct their mass,
1271: morphology and metallicity dependent star formation
1272: history. With this information in hand LIGO detections could be applied more
1273: stringently to assess the relative contribution that progenitors of different
1274: ages provide to the present day merger rate.
1275:
1276: % On cosmological scales, where galaxy by galaxy reconstruction
1277: % is not practical, we look forward to further attempts to measure
1278: % star formation history (XXXX RICHARD FIX THIS !!! ) in different galaxies
1279: % at high redshift. This will be essential for future LIGO searches with
1280: % cosmological range to high stellar mass black holes. (RICHARD FINISH THIS).
1281:
1282: \acknowledgements
1283:
1284: We would like to thank B. Tully for generously providing his most
1285: up to date nearby galaxies catalog in the preparation of this work. We
1286: acknowledge the usage of the HyperLeda database (http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr).
1287: We also thank P. Nutzman and the members of the LIGO Scientific
1288: Collaboration Compact-Binary-Coalescence group for many
1289: insightful discussions.
1290: This work has been supported in part by
1291: %NSF grant AST-0407070 and Louisiana
1292: %State University Center
1293: %for Computation and Technology (RKK) and
1294: NSF grants PHY-0200852, PHY-0353111, PHY 03-26281, PHY 06-00953, PHY 06-53462,
1295: PHY-0355289, AST-0407070, a David and Lucile
1296: Packard Foundation Fellowship in Science and Engineering (VK), a
1297: Cottrell Scholar Award from the Research Corporation (PRB),
1298: the Royal Society (SF) and
1299: Center for Computation and Technology (RKK). This work was also supported by
1300: the Center
1301: for Gravitational Wave Physics, which is supported by the National
1302: Science Foundation under cooperative agreement PHY 01-14375.
1303: LIGO was constructed by the California Institute of Technology and
1304: Massachusetts Institute of Technology with funding from the National
1305: Science Foundation and operates under cooperative agreement PHY-0107417.
1306: This paper has LIGO Document Number LIGO-P070065-00-Z.
1307:
1308: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1309:
1310: %\bibitem[Abbott et al.(2005)]{LIGOS2iul}
1311: %Abbott, B., et al. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 082001
1312:
1313:
1314: \bibitem[Abbott et al.(2007)]{LIGOS3S4iul}
1315: Abbott, B., et al. 2007, preprint(gr-qc/0704.3368)
1316: %\emph{Search for gravitational waves from binary
1317: %inspirals in S3 and S4 LIGO data}, arXiv:0704.3368 [gr-qc].
1318:
1319: \bibitem[Allen et al.(2005)]{Findchirp}
1320: Allen, B., Anderson, W. G., Brady, P. R., Brown, D. A., \& Creighton, J. D. E. 2005, preprint(gr-qc/0509116)
1321:
1322: \bibitem[Anderson et al.(2001)]{Anderson}
1323: Anderson, W. G., Brady, P. R., Creighton, J.D., \& Flanagan, \'E. \'E. 2001,
1324: Phys. Rev. D, 63, 042003
1325:
1326: \bibitem[e.g., Belczynski et al.(2002) and references therein]{Belczynski:2002}
1327: Belczynski, K., Kalogera, V., \& Bulik, T. 2002, ApJ, 572, 407
1328:
1329: \bibitem[Belczynski et al.(2007)]{Belczynski:2007}
1330: Belczynski, K., Taam, R. E., Rantsiou, E., \& van der Sluys, M. V. 2007, preprint(astro-ph/0703131)
1331:
1332: \bibitem[Binney \& Tremaine(2000)]{Binney-Tremaine}
1333: Binney, J., \& Tremaine, S. 2000, Galactic Dynamics
1334: (Princeton Series in Astrophysics; Princeton; Princeton University Press)
1335:
1336: \bibitem[Blanton et al.(2003)]{Blanton}
1337: Blanton, M. R., et al. 2003, ApJ, 592, 819
1338:
1339: \bibitem[Blanton \& Roweis(2007)]{BlantonRoweis}
1340: Blanton, M. R., \& Roweis, S. 2007, AJ, 133, 734
1341:
1342:
1343: \bibitem[Burgay et al.(2003)]{Burgay2003}
1344: Burgay, M., et al. 2003, Nature, 426, 531
1345:
1346: %\bibitem[Brown(2004)]{Duncan}
1347: %Brown, D. 2004, Ph.D thesis, The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
1348:
1349: \bibitem[de Freitas Pacheco et al.(2006)]{deFreitasPacheco}
1350: de Freitas Pacheco, J. A., Regimbau, T., Vincent, S., \& Spallicci, A. 2006,
1351: Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 15, 235
1352:
1353: \bibitem[Driver \& Allen(2007)]{Driver2007}
1354: Driver, P, S., \& Allen, D, P. 2007, ApJ, 657, L85
1355:
1356: \bibitem[Fairhurst et al.(2007)]{Fairhurst}
1357: Fairhurst, S., \& Brady, P. 2007. preprint(arxiv:0707.2410)
1358:
1359: \bibitem[Freedman et al.(2001)]{Freedman:2001}
1360: Freedman, W., et al. 2001, ApJ, 553, 47
1361:
1362: \bibitem[Kalogera et al.(2001)]{Kalogera:2000dz}
1363: Kalogera, V., Narayan, R., Spergel, D. N., \& Taylor, J. H. 2001, ApJ, 556, 340
1364:
1365: \bibitem[Kalogera et al.(2004)]{Kalogera:2004tn}
1366: Kalogera et al. 2004, ApJ, 601, L179; Erratum-ibid. 614 (2004) L137
1367:
1368: \bibitem[Kim et al.(2004)]{Kim:2004}
1369: Kim, C., Kalogera, V., Lorimer, D. R., \& White, T. 2004, ApJ, 616, 1109
1370:
1371: \bibitem[Kim et al.(2006)]{Kim:2006}
1372: Kim, C., Kalogera, V., \& Lorimer, D. R. 2006, preprint(astro-ph/0608280)
1373:
1374: \bibitem[Lipunov et al.(1995)]{Lipunov1995}
1375: Lipunov, V. M., Nazin, S. N., Panchenko, I. E., Postnov, K. A., \&
1376: Prokhorov, M. E. 1995, A\&A, 298, 677
1377:
1378: \bibitem[LSC Algorithm Library(2007)]{LAL} LSC Algorithm Library and associated programs \\
1379: http://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/daswg/projects/lal.html
1380:
1381: \bibitem[Mateo(1998)]{Mateo:1998}
1382: Mateo, M. 1998, ARA\&A, 36, 435
1383:
1384: %\bibitem[Narayan et al.(1991)]{Narayan:1991}
1385: %Narayan, R., Piran, S., \& Shemi, A. 1991, 379, L17
1386:
1387: \bibitem[Nutzman et al.(2004)]{Nutzman:2004}
1388: Nutzman, P., Kalogera, V., Finn, L. S., Hendrickson, C., \& Belczynski, K.
1389: 2004, ApJ, 612, 364
1390:
1391: \bibitem[O'Leary et al.(2007)]{clusters-2005}
1392: O'Leary, R., O'Shaughnessy, R., and Rasio, F. A. Phys. Rev. D rapid
1393: communications (in press) [astro-ph/0701887].
1394:
1395: \bibitem[Paturel et al.(2003)]{LEDA}
1396: Paturel, G., Petit, C., Prugniel, Ph., Theureau, G., Rousseau, J.,
1397: Brouty, M., Dubois, P., Cambr{\'e}sy, L. 2003, A\&A, 412, 45.
1398: (http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr/intro.html)
1399:
1400: \bibitem[Phinney(1991)]{Phinney:1991ei}
1401: Phinney, E. S. 1991, ApJ, 380, L17
1402:
1403: \bibitem[Portegies Zwart and McMillan(2000)]{PZMcM}
1404: Portegeis Zwart, S. F. and McMillan, S. L. W., ApJ, L17.
1405:
1406: \bibitem[Saunders et al.(1990)]{Saunders}
1407: Saunders, W., Rowan-Robinson, M., Lawrence, A., Efstathiou, G., Kaiser, N.,
1408: Ellis, R. S., \& Frenk, C. S. 1990, MNRAS, 242, 318
1409:
1410: \bibitem[Schechter(1976)]{Schechter}
1411: Schechter, P. 1976, ApJ, 203, 297
1412:
1413: \bibitem[Shaya et al.(1995)]{Shaya95}
1414: Shaya, E., Peebles, P. J., \& Tully, B. 1995, 454, 15
1415:
1416: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2006)]{Spergel}
1417: Spergel, D. N., et al. 2006, astro-ph/0603449
1418:
1419: \bibitem[Thorne(1987)]{KipThorne}
1420: Thorne, K. S. 1987, in 300 Years of Gravitation, ed. S. W. Hawking \& W. Israel
1421: (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press),330
1422:
1423: %\bibitem[Tully(1988)]{Tully1988b}
1424: %Tully, B. 1988, AJ, 96, 73
1425:
1426: \bibitem[Tully(2006)]{Tully:TPC}
1427: Tully, B. 2006, Private communication
1428:
1429: %\bibitem{Kalogera:2004tn}
1430: %Kalogera et al. 2004, ApJ 601, L179; Erratum-ibid. 614 (2004) L137
1431:
1432: \end{thebibliography}
1433:
1434:
1435: \end{document}
1436: