1: 

2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4: %\documentclass[aps,float,prd,psfig]{revtex4}

5: %\documentclass[aps,twocolumn,float,prd,psfig]{revtex4}

6: \documentclass[showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,

7: amssymb,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

9: %\usepackage{CJK}

10: %\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,latexsym}

11: \usepackage{graphicx,bm}% Include figure files

12: \usepackage{dcolumn}    % Align table columns on decimal point

13: %\usepackage{epsf,psfig}

14:  \usepackage{epsf}

15: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

16: \input epsf

17: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

18: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}

19: 		  \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

20: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}

21: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al. }}

22: \newcommand{\siml}{\lesssim}

23: \newcommand{\simg}{\gtrsim}

24: \newcommand{\lsim}{\lesssim}

25: \newcommand{\gsim}{\gtrsim}

26: \newcommand{\psim}{\mbox{\raisebox{-1.0ex}{$~\stackrel{\textstyle \propto}

27: {\textstyle \sim}~$ }}}

28: \newcommand{\vect}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath${#1}$}}

29: \newcommand{\lmk}{\left(}

30: \newcommand{\rmk}{\right)}

31: \newcommand{\lnk}{\left\{ }

32: %\newcommand{\n(T_{obs}/10{\rm yr})^{1/2}n}{\nonumber}

33: \newcommand{\rnk}{\right\} }

34: \newcommand{\lkk}{\left[}

35: \newcommand{\rkk}{\right]}

36: \newcommand{\lla}{\left\langle}

37: \newcommand{\p}{\partial}

38: \newcommand{\rra}{\right\rangle}

39: \newcommand{\so}{M_\odot}

40: \newcommand{\mch}{{\cal M}}

41: \newcommand{\vex}{{\vect x}}

42: \newcommand{\ver}{{\vect r}}

43: \newcommand{\vue}{\hat{\vect e}}

44: \newcommand{\vel}{\vect l}

45: \newcommand{\vez}{\vect z}

46: \newcommand{\ven}{\vect n}

47: \newcommand{\vem}{\vect m}

48: \newcommand{\vep}{{\vect p}}

49: \newcommand{\veu}{{\vect u}}

50: \newcommand{\vev}{{\vect v}}

51: \newcommand{\veq}{{\vect q}}

52: \newcommand{\ved}{{\vect d}}

53: \newcommand{\ve}{{\vect e}}

54: \newcommand{\hf}{{\hat f}}

55: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

56: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

57: \begin{document}

58: %\baselineskip 8mm

59: 

60: \title{Polarization analysis of gravitational-wave backgrounds 

61: from the correlation signals of ground-based interferometers: 

62: measuring a circular-polarization mode } 

63: %

64: \author{Naoki Seto$^1$ and Atsushi Taruya$^2$}

65: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

66: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

67: \affiliation{$^1$Division of Theoretical Astronomy, National

68: Astronomical Observatory of Japan, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan

69: 181-8588, Japan\\

70: $^2$Research Center for the Early Universe, School of Science, 

71: The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan

72: }

73: \date{\today}

74: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

75: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

76: \begin{abstract}

77:  The Stokes $V$ parameter characterizes asymmetry of amplitudes between 

78:  right- and left-handed waves, and non-vanishing value of the $V$ parameter 

79:  yields a circularly polarized signal. Cosmologically, $V$ parameter may be 

80:  a direct probe for parity violation in the  universe. In this paper, 

81:  we theoretically investigate a measurement of this parameter, particularly 

82:  focusing on the gravitational-wave backgrounds observed via ground-based 

83:  interferometers. 

84:  In contrast to the traditional analysis that only considers the total 

85:  amplitude (or equivalently $\Omega_{\rm GW}$), the signal analysis including 

86:  a circular-polarized mode has a rich structure due to the 

87:  multi-dimensionality of target parameters. We show that, by using the 

88:  network of next-generation detectors, separation between polarized and 

89:  unpolarized modes can be performed with small statistical loss induced 

90:  by their correlation. 

91: \end{abstract}

92: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

93: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

94: 

95: \maketitle

96: %\end{CJK*}

97: 

98: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

99: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

100: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

101: \section{Introduction}

102: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

103: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

104: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

105: 

106: 

107: Because of the extremely weak signal, a direct detection of gravitational 

108: waves is a technically challenging issue, and  

109: we have not yet succeeded the direct detection despite extensive

110: efforts.  Nevertheless, 

111: the weakness of the gravitational interaction may be a great 

112: advantage for astronomy and cosmology, because gravitational waves 

113: can propagate to us from very early universe almost without scattering 

114: and absorption \cite{Thorne_K:1987,Cutler:2002me}. In this respect, 

115: stochastic background of gravitational waves is 

116: one of the most important targets for gravitational wave astronomy 

117: \cite{Allen:1996vm}. If detected, the stochastic background will serve 

118: as an invaluable fossil to study the physics at extremely high-energy 

119: scale for which other methods cannot be attainable. 

120: 

121: 

122: 

123: Over the last decade, sensitivity of gravitational wave detectors 

124: to the stochastic background has drastically improved. We will soon 

125: reach at the sensitivity level $\Omega_{\rm GW}\lsim 

126: 10^{-5}$ around 100Hz \cite{Abbott:2006zx}, where $\Omega_{\rm GW}$ is 

127: the energy density of the gravitational waves normalized by critical 

128: density of the universe. This level is below the 

129: indirect cosmological constraints, such as derived from the observed 

130: abundance of light elements \cite{Allen:1996vm} (see \cite{Smith:2006nka} 

131: for the constraints from cosmic microwave background), and 

132: in this sense, gravitational wave detectors will provide a unique 

133: opportunity to directly constrain the early universe. 

134: In order to further get a stringent constraint and/or valuable 

135: information from the next-generation detectors, one important approach 

136: is to improve the statistical analysis of gravitational wave backgrounds. 

137: So far,  most of theoretical studies on the gravitational-wave backgrounds 

138: have been directed  to its energy  spectrum (for its anisotropies, see,  

139: {\it e.g.,} \cite{Giampieri:1997ie}). The authors recently provided a 

140: brief sketch for measurement of the Stokes $V$ parameter of the 

141: gravitational-wave background via correlation analysis of 

142: ground-based detectors \cite{Seto:2007tn} (see \cite{Lue:1998mq} for cosmic 

143: microwave background and \cite{Seto:2006hf}

144: for space gravitational wave detectors such as  LISA \cite{lisa} or 

145: BBO/DECIGO \cite{bbo,Seto:2001qf}).  The Stokes $V$ parameter may be 

146: basic observable to quantify the parity violation process. One of such 

147: parity violation process is through the Chern-Simons term that might be 

148: originated from string theory \cite{Alexander:2004us}. This paper is 

149: a follow-up study to the preceding short report. In 

150: addition to detailed explanations and supplementary materials to the

151: previous paper, we developed a new statistical framework to deal with

152: multiple parameters of gravitational wave backgrounds, 

153: and we specifically 

154: applied it to simultaneous estimation of amplitudes of both the

155: unpolarized and polarized modes of the gravitational-wave background. 

156: 

157: 

158: This paper is organized as follows. In section \ref{sec:circular_pol}, 

159: we describe polarization decomposition of 

160: a gravitational-wave  background,  and define its Stokes $V$ 

161: parameter. The basic framework to treat polarized gravitational waves 

162: is essentially the same one as in the case of electromagnetic waves 

163: \cite{radipro}. 

164: In section \ref{sec:overlap_func}, we explain the correlation analysis 

165: for the gravitational-wave background and

166: introduce the overlap functions that characterize sensitivities to the

167: polarized and unpolarized modes.  Then, we discuss basic properties of

168: the overlap functions, and calculate them for the planed 

169: next-generation detectors, such as advanced LIGO. In section 

170: \ref{sec:broadband_SNR}, broadband analysis of the gravitational-wave 

171: background is studied, taking into account the measurement noises for 

172: each detector.

173: In section \ref{sec:separation}, we discuss how well we can separately 

174: measure the polarized and unpolarized modes.  In contrast to the traditional 

175: arguments only for the unpolarized mode, the situation considered here 

176: is more complicated. We provide a statistical framework to analyze 

177: multiple parameters of the stochastic background with correlation analysis. 

178: Finally, section \ref{sec:summary} is a brief summary of this paper. 

179: Appendix \ref{sec:tensor_analysis} presents the derivation 

180: for the expressions of the overlap functions.  This geometrical 

181: derivation is similar to that given in Ref.\cite{Flanagan:1993ix}. 

182: In appendix \ref{sec:PDF_for_corr}, we discuss the probability distribution 

183: functions (PDFs) of basic observational quantities with correlation 

184: analysis. In appendix \ref{sec:derivation_optimal_SNR}, we derive the 

185: formal expressions for optimal signal-to-noise ratios for detectors more 

186: than four. In appendix \ref{sec:moon}, we comment on the surface of the Moon as potential sites for laser interferometers.

187: 

188: 

189: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

190: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

191: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

192: \section{Circular polarization}

193: \label{sec:circular_pol}

194: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

195: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

196: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

197: 

198: 

199: Let us first describe the polarization states of stochastic gravitational

200: waves. We consider a plane wave expansion of gravitational-wave 

201: backgrounds as 

202: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

203: \beq

204: h_{ij}(t,\vex)=\sum_{P=+,\times} \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} df \int_{S^2} d\ven~

205: h_P(f,\ven) e^{2\pi i f (-t+\ven \cdot \vex) } \ve^P_{ij}(\ven).\label{plane}

206: \eeq

207: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

208: Here, the bases for transverse-traceless tensor $\ve^P$ $(P=+,\times)$

209: are given as 

210: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

211: \beq

212: \ve^+_{}={\hat \ve}_\theta \otimes {\hat \ve}_\theta- {\hat \ve}_\phi

213: \otimes  {\hat \ve}_\phi,

214: \quad

215: \ve^\times_{}={\hat \ve}_\theta \otimes

216: {\hat 

217: \ve}_\phi+{\hat  

218: \ve}_\phi \otimes {\hat \ve}_\theta

219: \eeq

220: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

221: with the unit vectors $ {\hat \ve}_\theta$ and $ {\hat \ve}_\phi$ 

222: being normal to the propagation 

223: direction $\ven$ that are associated with a right-handed Cartesian 

224: coordinate: 

225: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

226: \beq

227: {\hat \ve}_\theta=(\cos\theta\cos\phi,\cos\theta\sin\phi,-\sin\theta),~~

228: {\hat \ve}_\phi=(-\sin\phi,\cos\phi,0).

229: \eeq

230: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

231: On the other hand, the random amplitude $h_P$ represents the mode 

232: coefficients and the statistical properties of it are characterized by the 

233: power spectral density given by

234: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

235: $\lla h_{P1}(\ven) h_{P2}^* (\ven') \rra$ $(P1,P2=+,\times)$

236: for two polarization modes as

237: \beq

238: \left( 

239:            \begin{array}{@{\,}cc@{\,}}

240: \lla h_{+}(f,\ven) h_{+}^* (f',\ven') \rra & 

241: \lla h_{+}(f,\ven) h_{\times}^* (f',\ven') \rra  \\

242:             \lla h_{\times}(f,\ven) h_{+}^* (f',\ven') \rra & 

243: \lla h_\times(f,\ven) h_{\times}^* (f',\ven') \rra  \\ 

244:            \end{array} \right)=\frac12

245: {\delta_{\rm D}^2(\ven-\ven')\delta_{\rm D}(f-f')}\left( 

246:            \begin{array}{@{\,}cc@{\,}}

247:            I(f,\ven)+Q(f,\ven) & U(f,\ven)-iV(f,\ven)  \\

248:             U(f,\ven)+iV(f,\ven) & I(f,\ven)-Q(f,\ven)  \\ 

249:            \end{array} \right), \label{matrix}

250: \eeq

251: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

252: with  delta functions $\delta_{\rm D}(\cdot)$ and the

253: notation $\lla \cdots \rra$ for an ensemble average. 

254: Here, the quantities $I,Q,U$ and $V$ are the Stokes parameters and are

255: real functions  of  direction $\ven$. 

256: Alternative to the linear polarization

257: bases $(\ve^+, \ve^\times)$, we may use the circular polarization bases

258: $(\ve^R, \ve^L)$ (right- and left-handed modes)

259: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

260: \beq

261: \ve^R=\frac{(\ve^++i\ve^\times)}{\sqrt2}, 

262: \quad

263: \ve^L=\frac{(\ve^+-i\ve^\times)}{\sqrt2 }

264: \eeq

265: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

266:  for the plane wave expansion (\ref{plane}). Two coefficients $h_{R,L}$ 

267: for the corresponding  modes  are given as 

268: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

269: \beq

270: h_R=\frac{(h_+-ih_\times)}{\sqrt2},~~~h_L=\frac{(h_++ih_\times)}{\sqrt2}.

271: \eeq

272: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

273: Then the covariance matrix is recast as

274: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

275: \beq

276: \left( \begin{array}{@{\,}cc@{\,}}

277:              \lla h_R(f,\ven) h_R(f',\ven')^* \rra  &

278:               \lla h_L(f,\ven) h_R(f',\ven')^* \rra \\

279:               \lla h_R(f,\ven) h_L(f',\ven')^* \rra &

280:               \lla h_L(f,\ven) h_L(f',\ven')^* \rra \\ 

281:            \end{array} \right)

282: =\frac12{\delta_{\rm D}({\ven-\ven'})^2\delta_{\rm D}({f-f'})}\left( 

283:            \begin{array}{@{\,}cc@{\,}}

284:            I(f,\ven)+V(f,\ven)  &

285:            Q(f,\ven)-iU(f,\ven)  \\ 

286:            Q(f,\ven)+iU(f,\ven)  &

287:            I(f,\ven)-V(f,\ven)  \\ 

288:            \end{array} \right).  \label{matrix2}

289: \eeq

290: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

291: 

292: 

293: With this expression, it is apparent that the real parameter $V$

294: characterizes the 

295: asymmetry of amplitudes between right- and  left-handed waves, 

296: while the parameter $I(\ge |V|)$ represents their total amplitude.

297: For example, if we can observationally establish $V>0$, the background 

298: is dominated by right-handed waves. Since the parity transformation 

299: interchanges the two polarization modes, the asymmetry is closely related 

300: to parity violation process (see {\it e.g.} 

301: \cite{Alexander:2004us,Kahniashvili:2005qi} for recent theoretical studies).  

302: Therefore, we may detect signature of parity violation in the early

303: universe by analyzing the $V$ parameter of gravitational-wave 

304: backgrounds.  This is the basic motivation of this paper.

305: 

306: 

307: Since the two parameters $I$ and $V$ have spin 0, 

308: their angular dependence can be expanded by the standard (scalar) spherical

309: harmonics $Y_{\ell m}$:

310: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

311: \beq

312: I(f,\ven)=\sum_{\ell=0}^\infty\sum_{m=-\ell}^\ell I_{\ell m}(f)Y_{\ell m}(\ven),

313: \quad

314: V(f,\ven)=\sum_{\ell=0}^\infty\sum_{m=-\ell}^\ell V_{\ell m}(f)Y_{\ell m}(\ven).

315: \eeq

316: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

317: On the other hand, the combinations $Q\pm iU$ describe the

318: linear polarization and have spin $\pm 4$ reflecting spin-2 nature of

319: gravitational waves. They are expanded with the

320: spin-weighted spherical harmonics as

321: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

322: \beq

323: (Q+i\,U)(f,\ven)=\sum_{\ell=4}^\infty\sum_{m=-\ell}^\ell P^+_{\ell m}(f) 

324: {}_4Y_{\ell m}(\ven),

325: \quad

326: (Q-i\,U)(f,\ven)=\sum_{\ell=4}^\infty\sum_{m=-\ell}^\ell P^-_{\ell m}(f) 

327: {}_{-4}Y_{\ell m}(\ven).

328: \eeq

329: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

330: Note that $Q\pm i\,U$ do not have monopole components ($\ell=0$), because 

331: the linear modes introduce specific spatial directions.

332: Since the observed universe is highly homogeneous and isotropic on large

333: spatial scales, it is reasonable to set the monopole modes of a 

334: cosmological stochastic background as our primary targets. 

335: Therefore, in this paper, we do not study the linear polarization $Q\pm

336: i\,U$. From  the same reason, we also 

337: neglect the directional dependence of the $I$ and $V$ modes. 

338: 

339: 

340: Next, we describe the frequency dependence of the gravitational-wave 

341: background. To characterize the gravitational waves in the 

342: cosmological context, rather than the spectral density, 

343: the normalized logarithmic energy density of the stochastic background, 

344: $\Omega_{\rm GW}(f)$, is frequently used in the literature 

345: \cite{Flanagan:1993ix,Allen:1997ad}. 

346: The density $\Omega_{\rm GW}(f)$ is defined by the spectral density $I$ as

347: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

348: \beq

349: \Omega_{\rm GW}(f)=\frac{4\pi^2 f^3}{\rho_c} I(f),

350: \eeq 

351: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

352: where $\rho_{\rm c}(=3H_0^2/8\pi$, $H_0=70h_{70}$km/sec/Mpc: 

353: the Hubble parameter) is the critical density of the universe. 

354: We also define the polarization degree by $\Pi(f)=V(f)/I(f)$. 

355: In terms of the quantities $\Omega_{\rm GW}(f)$ and $\Pi(f)$, 

356: the asymmetry parameter $V$ is expressed as 

357: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

358: \beq

359: V(f)=\frac{\rho_{\rm c}}{4\pi^2 f^3} \Omega_{\rm GW}(f) \Pi(f).

360: \eeq

361: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

362: 

363: 

364: 

365: 

366: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

367: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

368: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

369: \section{Overlap functions for ground-based detectors}

370: \label{sec:overlap_func}

371: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

372: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

373: 

374: 

375: This section discusses the overlap functions for 

376: correlation signals as the basic ingredient for correlation analysis of 

377: gravitational-wave background. In Sec.\ref{subsec:formulation}, 

378: the definition and the analytic formula for overlap functions are 

379: given. Subsequently, Sec.\ref{subsec:special}, \ref{subsec:same_plane} 

380: and \ref{subsec:optimal_config} discuss special or limiting cases 

381: for overlap functions in order to understand their geometrical properties. 

382: After describing some mathematical properties in 

383: Sec.\ref{subsec:functions_Theta}, we evaluate the overlaps functions for 

384: specific pairs of five detectors in Sec.\ref{subsec:overlap_specific}. 

385: 

386: 

387: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

388: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

389: \subsection{Formulation}

390: \label{subsec:formulation}

391: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

392: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

393: 

394: 

395: 

396: Let us begin by considering how we can detect the monopole 

397: components of the $I$ and $V$ modes with laser interferometers. 

398: Response $H_a$ of a detector $a$ at $\vex_a$  is written as

399: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

400: \beq

401: H_a(f) =\int_{S^2} d\ven  

402: \sum_{P=+,\times} h_P(f,\ven) F^P_{a}(\ven, f) e^{2\pi i f \ven\cdot\vex_a}. 

403: \eeq

404: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

405: The function  $F_a^P$ is   the beam pattern function and it

406: represents the response of the detector to each linear  polarization

407: mode.   Here we used the conventional linear polarization bases.

408: 

409: 

410: To distinguish the background signals from detector noises and to obtain  a

411: large signal-to-noise ratio, the correlation analysis with multiple

412: detectors is essential \cite{m87,Christensen:1992wi,Flanagan:1993ix,

413: Allen:1997ad}. We define the correlation $C_{ab}(f)$ of data streams 

414: obtained from two detectors $a$ and $b$ as

415: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

416: \beq

417:  \lla  H_a(f) H_b(f')^* \rra \equiv C_{ab}(f) \delta_{\rm D}(f-f').

418: \eeq

419: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

420: Keeping the monopole contribution only,  its expectation 

421: value is written as

422: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

423: \beq

424:  C_{ab}(f)=\frac{8\pi}5\lkk 

425: \gamma_{I,ab}(f)I(f)+\gamma_{V,ab}(f)V(f) \rkk,

426: \eeq 

427: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

428: where $\gamma_I$ is the overlap  function and given by \cite{Flanagan:1993ix,

429: Allen:1997ad}

430: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

431: \beq

432: \gamma_{I,ab}(f)=\frac{5}{8\pi}\int_{S^2} d\ven  \lkk  \lnk

433: F_a^+F_{b}^{+*}+

434: F_a^\times F_{b}^{\times*} \rnk e^{iy \ven\vem} \rkk, \label{gi11}

435: \eeq

436: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

437: with rewriting $\vex_a-\vex_b=D \vem$ ($D$: distance, $\vem$: unit vector) 

438: and $y\equiv2\pi fD/c$.  The variable $y$ represents the phase difference at

439: two cites $a$ and $b$ for waves with  a propagation direction $\vem$.  

440: Similarly, the function $\gamma_{V,ab}(f)$ is given by

441: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

442: \beq

443: \gamma_{V,ab}(f)=\frac{5}{8\pi}\int_{S^2} d\ven  \lkk i \lnk

444: F_a^+F_{b}^{\times*}-

445: F_a^\times F_{b}^{+*} \rnk e^{iy \ven\vem}  \rkk. \label{gv11}

446: \eeq

447: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

448: Two functions $\gamma_I$ and $\gamma_V$ are purely determined by relative 

449: configuration of two detectors. 

450: 

451: 

452: 

453: 

454: Here, we summarize the response of ground-based L-shaped interferometer $a$.  

455: We assume that two arms of the next-generation interferometer have equal 

456: length with opening angle of $90^\circ$.  

457: We denote the unit vectors for the directions of its two arms as $\veu$ and

458: $\vev$. At the frequency regime where the wavelength of the incident

459: gravitational wave is much longer than the armlength,  the beam pattern

460: function takes a  simple form as

461: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

462: \beq

463: F_a^P=\ved_a:\ve^P(\ven),  

464: \label{eq:response}

465: \eeq

466: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

467: where the colon represents a double contraction and  the detector  tensor

468: $\ved_a$ is given by 

469: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

470: \beq 

471: \label{detten}

472: \ved_a=\frac{({\veu}_a \otimes {\veu}_a- {\vev}_b

473: \otimes  {\vev}_b)}2.

474: \eeq

475: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

476: In reality,  there might be some 

477: exceptional cases that the opening angle of two arms is slightly different 

478: from $90^\circ$ such as GEO600, whose opening angle is $94.3^\circ$ 

479: \cite{Willke:2002bs}. However, the response of such a detector

480: can be treated as the one of the right-angled interferometer (see {\it eg.} \cite{lisa} for the case with LISA).

481: 

482: Note that from equations (\ref{eq:response}) and (\ref{detten}),  we have

483: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

484: \beq

485: \frac{5}{8\pi}\int_{S^2} d\ven  \lkk  

486: F_i^+F_{i}^{+*}  \rkk=\frac{5}{8\pi}\int_{S^2} d\ven  \lkk  

487: F_i^\times F_{i}^{\times*}  \rkk=\frac12,  

488: \eeq

489: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

490: and Schwartz inequality implies 

491: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

492: \beq

493: -1\le \gamma_{I,ab}\le 1,~~~-1\le \gamma_{V,ab}\le 1.

494: \eeq

495: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

496: 

497: 

498: In Table \ref{tab:location_of_detectors}, we list positions and orientations 

499: of the ongoing (and planned) kilometer-size interferometers, 

500: AIGO \cite{aigo}, LCGT \cite{Kuroda:1999vi}, LIGO-Hanford,

501: LIGO-Livingston \cite{Abramovici:1992ah}, and Virgo \cite{Acernese:2002bw}.

502: As a reference, we also list two sub-kilometer-size

503: interferometers, TAMA300 \cite{Ando:2001ej} and GEO600 \cite{Willke:2002bs}.  

504: We use a spherical coordinate system $(\theta,\phi)$ with 

505: which the north pole is at $\theta=0^\circ$, and  $\phi$

506:  represents longitude. The orientation $\alpha$ is the angle between 

507: the local east direction and the bisecting line of  two arms of each detector

508: measured  counterclockwise.

509: Since the beam pattern functions have spin-2 character with respect to the 

510: rotation of detector, meaningful information here is the angle $\alpha$ 

511: module $90^\circ$. In what follows, we mainly focus on the first 

512: five detectors in Table \ref{tab:location_of_detectors} with their 

513: abbreviations (A,C,H,L,V) and with $R=R_{\rm E}=6400$km for the radius of 

514: the Earth \footnote{We use the roman V for Virgo detector and the italic $V$ 

515: for the polarization mode.}, but in section \ref{subsec:antipodal}, 

516: we also discuss the detectors placed on the Moon 

517: as an exceptional but interesting case (see also appendix \ref{sec:moon}).     

518: 

519: 

520: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  Table I %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

521: \begin{table}[!bth]

522: %\begin{ruledtabular}

523: \begin{tabular}{lccc}

524: \hline\hline

525:  ~ & $\theta$ & $\phi$ & $\alpha$ \\

526: \hline

527: \ AIGO ({\bf A}) & $121.4$ & $115.7$ & $-45.0$\\

528: \ LCGT ({\bf C}) & $53.6$ & $137.3$ & $70.0$ \\

529: \ LIGO\ Hanford ({\bf H}) & $43.5$ & $-119.4$ & $171.8$ \\

530: \ LIGO\ Livingston ({\bf L}) & $59.4$ & $-90.8$ & $243.0$ \\

531: \ Virgo ({\bf V}) & $46.4$ & $10.5$ & $116.5$ \\

532: \hline

533: \ TAMA300 & $54.3$ & $139.5$ & $225.0$ \\

534: \ GEO600  & $47.7$ & $9.8$ & $68.8$ \\

535: \hline\hline

536: \end{tabular}

537: %\end{ruledtabular}

538: \caption{Positions $(\theta,\phi)$ and orientation angles $\alpha$ of

539:  detectors (in units of degree) on the Earth.   }

540: \label{tab:location_of_detectors}

541: \end{table}

542: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

543:  

544: 

545: For the monopole modes of the stochastic background, only the

546: relative configuration of two detectors is relevant with the correlation

547: $C_{ab}$ and we do not need to deal with their overall rotation. 

548: Therefore, without loss of generality, their

549: configuration is characterized by the three angular parameters

550: $(\beta,\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$, shown in Figure \ref{fig:f1} 

551: \cite{Flanagan:1993ix}.   Here, $\beta$ is the separation angle between 

552: two detectors measured from the 

553: center of the Earth. The angle $\sigma_1$ ($\sigma_2$) is the

554: orientation of the bisector of two arms of the detector $a$ ($b$

555: respectively) measured in counter-clockwise manner relative to the 

556: great circle connecting $a$ and $b$. Their distance is given by

557: $D=2R_{\rm E} \sin(\beta/2)$ that determines a characteristic frequency 

558: $f_{\rm D}\equiv c/D$ for the overlap functions. 

559: Following \cite{Flanagan:1993ix}, we define the angles 

560: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

561: \beq

562: \Delta\equiv \frac{({\sigma_1+\sigma_2})}2,

563: \quad

564: \delta\equiv \frac{({\sigma_1-\sigma_2})}2,

565: \eeq

566: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

567: and  the geometrical information for possible pairs made from the five 

568: detectors are summarized in Table \ref{tab:table2}.

569: 

570: 

571: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

572: \begin{figure}

573:   \begin{center}

574: \epsfxsize=5cm

575: \epsffile{f1.eps}

576:  \end{center}

577: 

578: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

579: 

580:   \caption{  Detector planes are tangential to a sphere. Two detectors

581:  $a$ and $b$ are separated by the angle $\beta$ measured from the center

582:  of the sphere. The angles

583:  $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ describe the orientation of bisectors of

584:  interferometers in a counter-clockwise manner relative to the great 

585:  circle joining two sites. 

586:  }

587: \label{fig:f1}

588: \end{figure}

589: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Table II %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

590: \begin{table}[!tbh]

591: \begin{ruledtabular}

592: \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c|c}

593:   & A &  C & H & L & V \\

594: \hline

595: \ AIGO (A) & $*$ & $70.8,\, 58.1,\,31.4$ & $135.6,\,53.7,\,45.1$  

596: &$157.3,\,38.0,\,2.08$   &$121.4,\,19.2,\,60.8$ \\

597: \hline

598: \ LCGT (C) & $-0.61,\,-0.58,\,0.81$ & $*$  & $72.4,\,89.1,\,25.6$  

599: & $99.2,\,42.4,\,68.1$  &  $86.6,\,28.9,\,5.6$ \\

600: \hline

601: \ LIGO\ Hanford (H) & $-0.82,\,-1.00,\,-0.007$  & $1.0,\,-0.21,\,0.98$  

602: & $*$ &  $27.2,\,45.3,\,62.2$ & $79.6,\,61.8,\, 55.1$ \\

603: \hline

604: \ LIGO\ Livingston (L) &$-0.88,\,0.99,\,0.15$  &$-0.98,\,0.04,\,-1.0$  

605: & $-1.00,\,-0.36,\,-0.93$   & $*$ & $76.8,\,26.7,\,83.1$ \\

606: \hline

607: \ Virgo (V) & $0.23,\,-0.45,\,-0.89$  & $-0.43,\,0.92,\,0.38$ 

608: & $-0.43,\,-0.76,\,-0.65$  & $-0.29,\,0.89,\,-0.46$ &  $*$

609: \end{tabular}

610: \end{ruledtabular}

611: \caption{Upper right: angle parameters 

612: $(\beta,\delta,\Delta)$ for each pair of detectors in units of degree. 

613: Lower left: numerical values $(\cos(4\delta), \cos(4\Delta),\sin(4\Delta))$ 

614: for each pair of detectors.} 

615: \label{tab:table2}

616: \end{table}

617: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

618: 

619: 

620: The angular integral (\ref{gi11}) can be performed analytically 

621:  with explicit forms of the pattern functions, and  we get

622: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

623: \beq

624: \gamma_{I,ab}= \Theta_1(y,\beta)\cos(4\delta)+

625: \Theta_2(y,\beta) \cos(4\Delta), \label{gi}

626: \eeq

627: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

628: with

629: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

630: \beq

631:  \Theta_1(y,\beta)=\cos^4\lmk\frac{\beta}2  \rmk \lmk j_0+\frac57

632: j_2+\frac{3}{112} j_4 \rmk ,

633: \eeq

634: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

635: and 

636: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

637: \beq

638:  \Theta_2(y,\beta)=\lmk -\frac38 j_0+\frac{45}{56}

639: j_2-\frac{169}{896} j_4 \rmk

640: +\lmk \frac12 j_0-\frac57j_2-\frac{27}{224}j_4 \rmk \cos\beta%\nonumber\\

641: %& & 

642: + \lmk-\frac18 j_0-\frac5{56}j_2-\frac{3}{896}j_4  \rmk \cos(2\beta).

643: \eeq

644: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

645: The function $j_n$ is the $n$-th spherical Bessel function with its argument

646: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

647: \beq

648: y\equiv\frac{2\pi f D}{c}=\frac{4\pi f R_{\rm E}}{c}\,

649: \sin\left(\frac{\beta}{2}\right).

650: % ={4\pi f R_E\sin(\beta/2)}/{c}.

651: \eeq

652: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

653: The expression (\ref{gi}) coincides with the formula (4.1) in Ref.

654: \cite{Flanagan:1993ix}. 

655: 

656: 

657: 

658: In  a similar manner, the overlap function for the $V$ mode is

659: given by 

660: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

661: \beq

662: \gamma_{V,ab}=\Theta_3(y,\beta)\sin(4\Delta) 

663: \label{gv}

664: \eeq

665: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

666: with

667: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

668: \beq

669: \Theta_3(y,\beta)=-\sin\lmk \frac{\beta}2 \rmk \lkk \lmk-j_1+\frac78

670: j_3  \rmk + \lmk j_1+\frac38 j_3 \rmk\cos\beta   \rkk.

671: \eeq

672: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

673: Note that the dependence of the angles $\delta$ and $\Delta$ on the 

674: overlap functions (\ref{gi}) and (\ref{gv}) can be 

675: deduced from the symmetric reasons \cite{Seto:2007tn}.  

676: 

677: 

678: In appendix \ref{sec:tensor_analysis}, we present a brief sketch to derive 

679: the expressions $\gamma_I$ and $\gamma_V$, using the symmetries of 

680: tensorial structure. Since our primary interest here is the dependence 

681: on the frequency $f$ and the angle $\beta$, we mainly use the set of

682: the variables $(f,\beta)$, instead of $(y,\beta)$.

683: 

684: 

685: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

686: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

687: \subsection{Special cases and asymptotic profiles}

688: \label{subsec:special}

689: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

690: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

691: 

692: 

693: In order to get a physical insight into the overlap functions, 

694: it is instructive to consider geometrically simple 

695: configurations for two detectors. When a pair of detectors 

696: are placed on the same plane ($\beta=0^\circ$) and at the 

697: same position ($D=0$), 

698: we have the identity $(\Theta_1,\Theta_2)=(1,0)$ and  thus 

699: $\gamma_{I,ab}=\cos(4\delta)$. In contrast, for $V$ mode, 

700: we obtain $\gamma_{V,ab}=0$ for the coplanar configuration 

701: $(\beta=0^\circ)$ and this is even true 

702: with finite separation $D\ne0$. The reason for this is explained in next

703: subsection. Equation (\ref{gi}) and the identity 

704: $\Theta_2(y,0^\circ)=0$ indicates that 

705: the function $\gamma_I$ depends very weakly on the parameter $\Delta$ at 

706: small angle $\beta \ll 180^\circ$. For ground-based detectors, the 

707: functions $\Theta_i(y,\beta)$ depend on the angle $\beta$ also 

708: through the variable $y=4\pi R_{\rm E} f \sin(\beta/2)/c$. 

709: Taking into account this fact,  we obtain the following asymptotic

710: profiles at small $\beta$ (in unit of radian): 

711: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

712: \beq

713: \Theta_1=O(\beta^0),

714: \quad

715: \Theta_2=O(\beta^4),

716: \quad

717: \Theta_3=O(\beta^3).

718: \eeq

719: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

720: 

721: 

722: On the other hand, for pair of detectors located at 

723: antipodal positions ($\beta=\pi$), the overlap 

724: function $\gamma_{I,ab}$ does not depend on the parameter 

725: $\delta$ because of $\Theta_1(y,180^\circ)=0$. In this case, 

726: the asymptotic profiles become

727: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

728: \beq

729: \Theta_1=O((\pi-\beta)^4),

730: \quad

731: \Theta_2=O((\pi-\beta)^0),

732: \quad

733: \Theta_3=O((\pi-\beta)^0).

734: \eeq

735: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

736: Note that at $\beta=0$ and $\pi$, we have

737: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

738: \beq

739: \p_\beta \Theta_1=\p_\beta \Theta_2=\p_\beta \Theta_3=0.

740: \eeq

741: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

742: 

743: 

744: 

745: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

746: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

747: \subsection{Coplanar configuration}

748: \label{subsec:same_plane}

749: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

750: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

751: 

752: 

753:  An L-shaped detector measures difference of spatial deformation towards

754:  its orthogonal two arms.  This is purely geometrical measurement. If 

755: two detectors are placed on the same plane $z=0$, there is an apparent 

756: geometrical symmetry for the system with respect to the plane. Due to 

757: the mirror symmetry to the plane,  a right-handed wave 

758: coming from the direction 

759: $(n_x,n_y,n_z)$ and a left-handed wave from the direction

760: $(n_x,n_y,-n_z)$, provide an identical correlation signal, if they have the 

761: same frequency and amplitude. 

762: Therefore, for an isotropic background,   right-handed waves coming

763: from two directions  

764: $(n_x,n_y,\pm n_z)$ exactly cancel out  in the correlation signal. The 

765: same is true for left-handed waves.  As a result,  the symmetric

766: system has no sensitivity to the isotropic component of the $V$-mode 

767: \cite{Seto:2007tn,Seto:2006hf}.  

768: We can directly confirm this cancellation from the definition

769: (\ref{gv11}) and  the following  relations 

770: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

771: \beq

772: F^+_i(n_x,n_y,n_z)=F^+_i(n_x,n_y,-n_z),

773: \quad

774: F^\times_i(n_x,n_y,n_z)=-F^\times_i(n_x,n_y,-n_z), 

775: \eeq

776: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

777: which are easily derived from the symmetries of the polarization bases

778: $e^{+,\times}(\ven) $ \cite{Kudoh:2005as}.  

779: The cancellation of correlation signal is particularly important for 

780: setting orbits of space-based interferometers, 

781: such as BBO/DECIGO \cite{Seto:2006hf}. For detecting the 

782: monopole of the $V$-mode, it is essential to break the symmetric 

783: configuration. 

784: 

785: 

786: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

787: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

788: \subsection{Optimal configuration}

789: \label{subsec:optimal_config}

790: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

791: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

792: 

793: 

794: In this subsection, we consider optimal configurations of two 

795: detectors $(a,b)$ for measuring the $I$ and $V$ modes of 

796: stochastic backgrounds. To investigate the optimized parameters for 

797: overlap functions, there are two relevant 

798: issues; maximization of the signals $\gamma_{I,ab}$ 

799: and $\gamma_{V, ab}$, and switching off either of them

800: ($\gamma_{I,ab}=0$ or $\gamma_{I,ab}=0$) for their decomposition. 

801: For simplicity,  we consider how to set the second detector  $b$ relative to

802: the fixed first one $a$ for a given separation angle $\beta$. 

803: In this case, the sensitivities to the $I$- and $V$-modes 

804: are characterized by the remaining adjustable parameters, 

805: $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$. 

806: The former determines the position of the detector $b$, while the latter 

807: specifies its orientation (see Fig.\ref{fig:f1}). 

808: Based on the expressions (\ref{gi}) and (\ref{gv}), 

809: one finds that there are three possibilities for the optimal detector 

810: orientation:  

811: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

812: \beq

813: \mathrm{Type\,\, I}: \quad \cos (4\Delta)=-\cos (4\delta)=\pm 1 

814: \eeq

815: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

816: or 

817: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

818: \beq

819: \mathrm{Type\,\, II}:\quad \cos (4\Delta)=\cos (4\delta)=\pm 1 

820: \eeq

821: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

822: to maximize the normalized SNR ${\it S}_{I,ab}$ \cite{Flanagan:1993ix}, 

823: and  

824: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

825: \beq

826: \mathrm{Type\,\,III}:\quad \cos{(4\Delta)}=\cos{(4\delta)}=0  

827: \eeq 

828: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

829: to erase the contribution from $I$-mode. 

830: The relative signs of the two functions $\Theta_1$ and $\Theta_2$

831: determine whether type I or type II is  the optimal choice.

832: 

833: 

834: 

835: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

836: \begin{figure}[tb]

837: \begin{center}

838: \epsfxsize=8cm

839: \epsffile{f2.eps}

840: \end{center}

841: 

842: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

843: 

844: \caption{Type I configuration with a given separation angle $\beta$. 

845:   Relative to a fixed L-shaped

846:  interferometer $a$, the second one must be placed on two great circles

847:  shown with long-dashed lines (left panel). We also have four

848:  equivalent detector orientations due to mod-$90^\circ$ freedom as

849:  shown in the right panel.} 

850: \label{fig:type1}

851: 

852: \vspace*{-1.0cm}

853: 

854: \begin{center}

855: \epsfxsize=12cm

856: \epsffile{f3.eps}

857: \end{center}

858: 

859: \vspace*{-2cm}

860: 

861: \caption{ Position and orientation of the second detector $b$ relative to

862:  the fixed first one $a$. The long dashed lines are great circles

863:  passing the first one $a$.   } 

864: \label{fig:type}

865: \end{figure}

866: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

867: For type I, the solutions of the two angles $\sigma_{1,2}$ are 

868: $\sigma_1=\sigma_2=45^\circ$ 

869: (mod $90^\circ$) and the detector $b$ must be placed on one 

870: of the two great circles passing through the detector $a$, 

871: parallel to one of the two arms as shown in Figure \ref{fig:type1}.

872: For a given separation $\beta$,  there are four points for the  

873: cites of the detector $b$. At each point we have four equivalent 

874: orientations as shown in the right panel of Figure \ref{fig:type1}.

875: This is because response of an  L-shaped detector has mod-$90^\circ$

876: effective equivalence.  After all,  for a given  separation $\beta$, 

877: there are totally $4\times 4=16$ possible configurations of  detector 

878: $b$. 

879: 

880: 

881: For type II, the second detector must reside in two great 

882: circles parallel or perpendicular to the bisecting line of 

883: each detector, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:type}. As in the case of type I,

884: with a given separation $\beta$ we have totally  16 candidates 

885: for  detector $b$.  At the  limits

886: $\beta \to 0^\circ$ and $\beta \to 180^\circ$, 

887: there are no essential differences   between types I and II.

888: 

889: 

890:  Similarly, the type III configuration is 

891: realized by placing the second detector on one of the 

892: four great circles defined for types I and II, with 

893: rotating $45^{\circ}$ relative to the first detector 

894: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:type}). 

895: In this case we have $8\times  4=32$ possible configurations

896: for  detector $b$. 

897: Note that the sensitivity to the $V$-mode is automatically switched off 

898: for the type I and II configurations and is conversely maximized for 

899: the type III configuration. This is because the function $\gamma_V$ is

900: proportional to $\sin (4\Delta)$. 

901: 

902: 

903: 

904: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

905: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

906: \subsection{Basic properties of functions $\Theta_i$}

907: \label{subsec:functions_Theta}

908: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

909: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

910: 

911: 

912: In this subsection,  

913: specifically focusing on the detectors on the Earth with 

914: radius $R_{\rm E}$=6400km,  we study basic properties of the three

915: functions $\Theta_1$, $\Theta_2$ and $\Theta_3$ in some details. 

916: Note that in general, for a sphere  with radius $R_{\rm s}$, there is 

917: one characteristic frequency  $c/R_{\rm s}$ and our results for 

918: the Earth at frequency $f$ can be rescaled to those for the 

919: sphere with scaled frequency $(R_{\rm E}/R_{\rm s})\,f$ \footnote{  

920: This is easily deduced from the fact that the functions

921: $\Theta_1$,  $\Theta_2$ and $\Theta_3$ depend on  frequency $f$

922: only through the product $f\,R_{\rm E}$}. Hence, 

923: the result presented here may be interpreted as the one 

924: for an arbitrary sphere, including multiple detectors placed on the Moon. 

925: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 4 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

926: \begin{figure}[t]

927: \begin{center}

928: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{f4a.eps}

929: \hspace*{0.5cm}

930: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{f4b.eps}

931: \end{center}

932: 

933: \vspace*{-0.2cm}

934: 

935: \caption{The functions $\Theta_1(f,\beta)$ and  $\Theta_2(f,\beta)$  

936: for detectors on the

937:  Earth at frequencies $f=10$Hz, 50Hz and 70Hz.  }

938: \label{t1}

939: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 5 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

940: \begin{center}

941: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{f5.eps}

942: \end{center}

943: 

944: \vspace*{-0.2cm}

945: 

946: \caption{The optimal combinations $|\Theta_1(f,\beta)+\Theta_1(f,\beta)|$

947:  (type II: thick lines) and $|\Theta_1(f,\beta)-\Theta_1(f,\beta)|$

948:  (type I: thin lines) for detectors on the

949:  Earth at frequencies $f=10$Hz and  50Hz.  }

950: \label{t12}

951: \end{figure}

952: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

953: 

954: 

955: 

956: In left panel of Figure \ref{t1}, the function $\Theta_1(f,\beta)$ 

957: is plotted against 

958: the angle parameter $\beta$ at specific frequencies $f=10$, 50 and 70Hz. 

959: As shown in Sec. \ref{subsec:same_plane}, 

960: we have $\Theta_1=1$ at $\beta=0^\circ$ that is 

961: the maximum value for $\gamma_I$ for given frequency $f$.

962: At frequency $f\ge 10$Hz relevant for ground-based detectors, the

963: function $|\Theta_1|$ becomes very small for a separation angle $\beta

964: \gsim 90^\circ$, and we 

965: identically have $\Theta_1=0$ at antipodal configuration $\beta=180^\circ$.

966: In right panel of Figure \ref{t1},  the shape of the second function 

967: $\Theta_2(f,\beta)$ is shown. As discussed in Sec. \ref{subsec:same_plane}, 

968: the function $\Theta_2$ becomes vanishing at $\beta=0^\circ$.  

969: This function exhibits an oscillatory behavior in the range

970: $0^\circ\le \beta \le  180^\circ$, and the number of its nodes 

971: is approximately 

972: proportional to $f R_{\rm E}$ (see appendix \ref{sec:tensor_analysis}).

973: 

974: 

975: 

976: In Figure \ref{t12}, we plot the overlap function $|\gamma_I|$ for two

977: optimal configurations, types I and II, at specific frequencies $10$ and 

978: $50$Hz.  The thin lines are for the 

979: type I with $|\gamma_I|=|\Theta_1-\Theta_2|$, while the

980: thick lines are for the type II with $|\gamma_I|=|\Theta_1+\Theta_2|$.

981: For angles close to 

982: $\beta=0^\circ$ and $180^\circ$, two lines are almost identical. 

983: This is because only one component is dominant there, that is, 

984: $|\Theta_1| \gg |\Theta_2| $ at $\beta\sim 0^\circ$, and  $|\Theta_2| \gg

985: |\Theta_1| $ at $\beta\sim 180^\circ$. Two components have comparable

986: magnitude at $\beta \sim 120^\circ$ for $f=10$Hz and at $\beta \sim 60^\circ$ 

987: for $f=50$Hz. As shown with the curves for $f=50$Hz, both types I and II

988: have chance to give the maximum value of $|\gamma_I|$ for given

989: $(f,\beta)$, depending on the relative signs of $\Theta_1$ and

990: $\Theta_2$. 

991: 

992: 

993: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 6 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

994: \begin{figure}[t]

995: \begin{center}

996: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{f6.eps}

997: \end{center}

998: 

999: \vspace*{-0.2cm}

1000: 

1001: \caption{The function $\Theta_3(f,\beta)$ for detectors on the

1002:  Earth at frequencies $f=10$Hz, 50Hz and 70Hz.  }

1003: \label{t3}

1004: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 7 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1005: \begin{center}

1006: \epsfxsize=6.5cm

1007: \epsffile{f7.eps}

1008:  \end{center}

1009: 

1010: \vspace*{-0.2cm}

1011: 

1012: \caption{Values of $\beta_{\rm max}$ for detectors on the Earth 

1013: as a function of frequency. While

1014:  vertical lines are shown due to a software reason, there are

1015:  discontinuities from $\beta_{\rm max}<180^\circ$ to 

1016:  $\beta_{\rm max}=180^\circ$.  }

1017: \label{beta}

1018: \end{figure}

1019: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 8 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1020: \begin{figure}[tb]

1021: \begin{center}

1022: \epsfxsize=6.5cm

1023: \epsffile{f8.eps}

1024:  \end{center}

1025: 

1026: \vspace*{-0.2cm}

1027: 

1028: \caption{The function $|\gamma_V|$ for detectors on the Earth with type

1029:  III configuration. The solid

1030:  curve (dotted curve) is the result with $\beta=\pi$

1031:  ($\beta=5\pi/6$). The dashed line is result with $\beta_{max}$ for

1032:  which the function   $|\gamma_V|$ becomes maximum with given frequency

1033:  $f$.  } 

1034: \label{gvmax}

1035: \end{figure}

1036: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1037: Next, in Figure \ref{t3}, the function $\Theta_3$ for the $V$-mode 

1038: is plotted. Note that we have $|\gamma_V|=|\Theta_3|$ for the type III 

1039: configuration. As in the case for $\Theta_2$, the oscillating profiles have

1040: a number of nodes approximately proportional to $fR_{\rm E}$. 

1041: For given frequency $f$, we define  the 

1042: separation angle $\beta_{\rm max}$ that maximizes the function  $|\Theta_3|$ in

1043: the range $\beta \in [0^\circ,\,\,180^\circ]$.  In contrast to the simple 

1044: results for the $I$-mode with 

1045: $\max \gamma_I(f,\beta)=\Theta_1(f,\beta=0^\circ)=1$, the

1046: angle $\beta_{\rm max}$ defined for the $V$-mode is slightly complicated 

1047: and it does depend on the frequency $f$.

1048: Figure \ref{beta} shows the angle $\beta_{max}$ in unit of radian, 

1049: plotted against the frequency. The frequency dependence in the range 

1050: $0<f<16.7$Hz can be understood with the following three steps:

1051: 

1052: 

1053: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1054: \begin{description}

1055: \item[(i)] As commented earlier, we have $\p_\beta 

1056: \Theta_3(f,\beta=180^\circ)=0$ 

1057: representing that the end point $\beta=180^\circ$ is generally an extreme.

1058: At low frequency  regime,  the oscillating feature of $\Theta_3$ is

1059: relatively simple (see Fig.~\ref{t3}), and the end point

1060: $\Theta_3(f,\beta=180^\circ)$ is the global maxima.  We find 

1061: $\beta_{\rm max}=180^\circ$ for $f\le 12.8$Hz.  

1062: \item[(ii)] 

1063: At $f=12.8$Hz, the end point $\beta=180^\circ$ becomes an inflection 

1064: point with $\p^2_\beta \Theta_3(f,\beta=180^\circ)=0$.  Then,  

1065: for $f>12.8$Hz,  there appears a local

1066: maxima for $\Theta_3$ at $\beta<180^\circ$ that determines the separation

1067: angle $\beta_{\rm max}$, 

1068: as in Figure \ref{beta}. Meanwhile the end point 

1069: $\Theta_3(f,\beta=180^\circ)$ is now a local minimum. With increasing $f$ it

1070: decreases and crosses  0 at $f=15.7$Hz. 

1071: \item[(iii)] The local maxima $\Theta_3(f,\beta_{\rm max})$  at 

1072: $\beta_{\rm max}<180^\circ$

1073: coincides with $-\Theta_3(f,\beta=180^\circ)$ ($>0$) at $f=16.7$Hz,

1074: and the separation angle $\beta_{\rm max}$ shows a discontinuous 

1075: transition up to $\beta_{\rm max}=180^\circ$ at $f=16.7$Hz. 

1076: \end{description}

1077: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1078: 

1079: 

1080: We can observe  similar cycles for the angle $\beta_{\rm max}$ at $f>16.7$Hz. 

1081: The frequency dependent angle $\beta_{\rm max}$ should be regarded as the 

1082: optimal separation for narrow band detection for the $V$-mode signal.

1083: In Figure \ref{gvmax}, we show the maximum value

1084: $|\Theta_3(f,\beta_{\rm max})|$ as well as $|\Theta_3(f,\beta=180^\circ)|$ 

1085: and $|\Theta_3(f,\beta=150^\circ)|$. The  choice $\beta=150^\circ$ is just 

1086: for an example. The first two curves coincide at some frequency bands 

1087: (as shown in Fig. \ref{beta} for $\beta_{\rm max}$),

1088: while the example  $|\Theta_3(f,\beta=150^\circ)|$ contacts with the dashed

1089: curve for maximum value

1090: $|\Theta_3(f, \beta_{\rm max}|$ only at specific  discrete frequencies.  In

1091: the two dimensional region with 

1092: $0^\circ\le \beta \le 180^\circ$ and $f\ge 0$, 

1093: the global maximum  for $\Theta_3$ is 

1094: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1095: \beq

1096: -\frac{5}{32} (2\cos2-5\sin 2)=0.84,

1097: \eeq

1098: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1099: which appear at $\beta=180^\circ$ and $f=c/2\pi R_{\rm E}=7.5$Hz for

1100: detectors on the Earth with $R_{\rm E}=6400$km.

1101: In general, the function $\Theta_3$ is maximized at antipodal configuration 

1102: ($\beta=180^\circ$) with $f={c}/{2\pi R_{\rm s}}$, or equivalently 

1103: $y=2$ due to the scaling commented in the beginning of this 

1104: subsection. Although, for practical purpose to detect the $V$-mode signal, 

1105: the broad-band analysis with multiple detectors is essential, 

1106: which we will discuss in next section, 

1107: it is clear from Figure \ref{gvmax} that the

1108: separation $\beta=180^\circ$ seems the best choice for detectors, whose

1109: bandwidths are much larger than the individual wiggle structure in this

1110: figure.  

1111: 

1112: 

1113: 

1114: 

1115: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1116: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1117: \subsection{Overlap functions for specific pairs of detectors }

1118: \label{subsec:overlap_specific}

1119: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1120: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1121: 

1122: 

1123: Now, we analyze the geometry of ten pairs made from the five detectors 

1124: listed in Table \ref{fig:f1}.  In this paper, we do not consider 

1125: the co-located and co-aligned pair of detectors, such as two interferometers 

1126: (4km+2km) at LIGO-Hanford. Co-located and co-aligned detectors are 

1127: possibly contaminated by the measurement noises which are statistically 

1128: correlated with each other, making the detection of stochastic signals 

1129: difficult. 

1130: 

1131: 

1132: Let us first examine how well the pairs of existing or planned 

1133: interferometers are suitable for $I$- and $V$-mode detection 

1134: by comparing the angle parameters with those of the 

1135: optimal configuration discussed in Sec.~\ref{subsec:optimal_config}.  

1136: In left panel of Figure~\ref{beta-del}, 

1137: we plot the combination $(\cos (4\delta),\cos(4\Delta))$. 

1138: >From this plot, the AL and AH pairs are 

1139: found to be very close to the type I and type II configurations, 

1140: respectively. Except for these, however, there are no other 

1141: noticeable pairs. Turn to next consider a large separation angle 

1142: $\beta\sim 180^\circ$, where the parameter $\delta$ becomes unimportant  

1143: and the correlation signal can be approximately described by 

1144: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1145: \beq

1146: C_{ab}\simeq \frac{8\pi}{5}

1147: \lkk\Theta_2(y,\beta)\cos(4\Delta)+\Theta_3(y,\beta)\sin(4\Delta) 

1148:    \rkk. \label{largebeta}

1149: \eeq

1150: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1151: Thus, in this case, the angle parameters $\beta$ 

1152: and $\Delta$ now play an important role. 

1153: Since the regime $\beta \gsim 90^\circ$ is preferable for the $V$-mode 

1154: detection, we next plot the combination $(\beta,\cos(4\Delta))$ 

1155: in right panel of Figure~\ref{beta-del}. Among various pairs of detectors, 

1156: the CL pair realizes nearly ideal angle ($\sin (4\Delta)=-1$), although the 

1157: separation angle of CL pair is intermediate, i.e., $\beta=99.2^\circ$. 

1158: Other interesting pairs for the $V$ mode with relatively large 

1159: $|\sin (4\Delta)|$ are AV ($\sin (4\Delta)=-0.89$) and 

1160: CH ($\sin(4\Delta)=0.98$).  

1161: The HL pair has $\sin (4\Delta)=-0.93$, but its

1162: separation is small, $\beta=27.2^\circ$, where the amplitude

1163: $\Theta_3(y,\beta)$ is relatively small.

1164: 

1165: 

1166: 

1167: Based on these considerations, 

1168: in Figure \ref{r1}, we compile the overlap functions

1169: ($\gamma_I,\gamma_V$) for the ten pairs of detectors.  

1170: There is characteristic frequency-width,  

1171: $\Delta f\propto (\sin \beta/2)^{-1}$, determined by 

1172: the arrival-time difference of gravitational waves between two cites.  

1173: The frequency 

1174: interval is largest for the HL pair.  For high frequencies, the peaks for the 

1175: functions $\gamma_I$ and $\gamma_V$ have 1/4-cycle phase difference, as 

1176: discussed in appendix \ref{sec:tensor_analysis}.  

1177: The AH pair is almost insensitive to the $V$ mode, because it is 

1178: close to the type II configuration.  The situation is similar for the AL

1179: pair.  Note that the CL and AV pairs have relatively good sensitivity

1180: to the $V$ mode, as anticipated from the angular parameters.  

1181: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 9 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1182: \begin{figure}[!tb]

1183: \begin{center}

1184: \epsfxsize=14cm

1185: \epsffile{f9.eps}

1186: \end{center}

1187: 

1188: \vspace*{-1.5cm}

1189: 

1190: \caption{{\it Left}: Distribution of the combinations 

1191:   $(\cos 4\delta, \cos 4\Delta)$ for ten detector pairs shown in 

1192:   Table \ref{tab:table2}.  Points for three types of configurations are 

1193:   also given with 

1194:   squares.  {\it Right}: Distribution of the 

1195:   combinations $(\beta, \cos (4\Delta))$ for ten pairs shown in 

1196:   Table \ref{tab:table2}. At relatively 

1197:   large $\beta$ the sensitivity to the $V$-mode is roughly proportional 

1198:   to $\sin (4\Delta)$. } 

1199: \label{beta-del}

1200: \end{figure}

1201: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 10 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1202: \begin{figure}[ht]

1203: \begin{center}

1204: \epsfxsize=8.9cm

1205: \epsffile{f10a.eps}

1206: \epsfxsize=8.9cm

1207: \epsffile{f10b.eps}

1208: 

1209: \vspace*{0.7cm}

1210: 

1211: \epsfxsize=8.9cm

1212: \epsffile{f10c.eps}

1213: \end{center}

1214: \caption{Overlap functions for specific pair of detector made from the 

1215: five detectors, A, C, H, L and V. The solid lines

1216:  are for $\gamma_I$ and the dotted lines for $\gamma_V$. } 

1217: \label{r1}

1218: \end{figure}

1219: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1220: 

1221: 

1222: 

1223: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1224: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1225: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1226: \section{Broadband signal analysis }

1227: \label{sec:broadband_SNR}

1228: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1229: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1230: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1231: 

1232: 

1233: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1234: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1235: \subsection{Preliminary}

1236: \label{subsec:preliminary}

1237: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1238: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1239: 

1240: 

1241: So far, we have only dealt with the correlation signal of 

1242: gravitational-wave backgrounds. In practice, the signal is 

1243: contaminated by detector's noises,

1244:  and thus the broadband signal analysis is essential ingredient 

1245: for detection of background signals with high signal-to-noise ratio. 

1246: 

1247: 

1248: We model the data stream $s_a$ of a detector $a$ by 

1249: a summation of gravitational-wave signal $H_a$ and detector noise $n_a$,

1250: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1251: \beq

1252: s_a=H_a+n_a.

1253: \eeq

1254: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1255: Throughout this paper, we assume that the noise of detector, $n_a$, obeys 

1256: stationary and random processes and the noise correlation between 

1257: any pair of detectors can be safely neglected. Then, 

1258: covariance of the detector noises can be expressed as 

1259: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1260: \beq

1261: \lla n_a(f) n_b(f')^*  \rra=\frac12 \delta_{ab} 

1262: \delta_{\rm D} (f-f')N_a(f), 

1263: \eeq

1264: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1265: where $N_a$ is the noise spectral density for detector $a$. 

1266: 

1267: 

1268: 

1269: To estimate the sensitivity of each pair of detectors, 

1270: let us consider the simple case with correlation 

1271: $C_{ab}(f)$ of two detectors $a$ and $b$.  As it has been 

1272: shown in the literature,  

1273: the total signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is given by 

1274: \cite{Flanagan:1993ix,Allen:1997ad} (see also appendix 

1275: \ref{sec:PDF_for_corr})

1276: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1277: \beqa

1278: \mathrm{SNR}^2&=&\lmk\frac{16\pi}{5}  \rmk^2 T_{\rm obs} 

1279: \lkk 2  \int_0^\infty df

1280: \frac{(\gamma_{I} I+\gamma_{V} V)^2}{ {\cal N}_{ab}(f)}

1281: \rkk

1282: \nonumber

1283: \\ 

1284: &=&\lmk\frac{3H_0^2}{10\pi^2}  \rmk^2 T_{\rm obs} \lkk  2\int_0^\infty df

1285: \frac{\Omega_{\rm GW}(f)^2 (\gamma_{I}+

1286: \gamma_{V}\Pi)^2}{f^6 {\cal N}_{ab}(f)}

1287: \rkk  \label{broad}

1288: \eeqa

1289: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1290: with the quantity ${\cal N}_{ab}$ defined by 

1291: ${\cal N}_{ab}\equiv N_a(f)N_b(f)$. This is the result obtained 

1292: in the weak-signal limit $I(f)\ll N_{\{a,b\}}(f)$. Note that 

1293: the above formula just represents the SNR for the total amplitude of 

1294: the background signals, and it does not imply the SNR for a pure $I$- or 

1295: $V$-mode signal. The separation of $I$- and $V$-modes will be 

1296: discussed in next section. 

1297: 

1298: 

1299: For quantitative evaluation of SNRs,  we need an explicit 

1300: form of the noise spectral density. In the following, 

1301: we use the fitting form of the noise spectra for 

1302: advanced LIGO detector, $N_{\rm ligo}$. 

1303: Assuming that all the detectors have identical 

1304: noise spectra with $N_{\rm ligo}$, signal-to-noise ratios of stochastic 

1305: signals are estimated. Based on Ref.\cite{adv},  

1306: the analytical fit of the noise spectrum $N_{\rm ligo}$ is given by 

1307: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1308: \beq

1309: N_{\rm ligo}(f)= 

1310: \left\{

1311: \begin{array}{lcl}

1312: {\displaystyle 10^{-44} \lmk \frac{f }{\rm 10 Hz}\rmk^{-4}+10^{-47.25 }

1313: \lmk \frac{f }{\rm 100 Hz} \rmk^{-1.7}}  {\rm Hz^{-1}} & {\rm for} &

1314: 10{\rm Hz}\le f \le 240{\rm Hz},

1315: \\

1316: {\displaystyle 10^{-46} \lmk \frac{f }{\rm 1000 Hz} \rmk^{3} } 

1317:  {\rm Hz^{-1}} & {\rm for} &  240{\rm Hz}\le f \le 3000{\rm Hz}, 

1318: \\

1319: \infty &~& {\rm otherwise}.

1320: \end{array}

1321: \right.

1322: \eeq

1323: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1324: 

1325: 

1326: The expression (\ref{broad}) implies that the weight function for 

1327: SNR per logarithmic frequency interval $d\ln f$ is 

1328: proportional to $(N(f)f^{5/2})^{-1}$ for flat input $\Omega_{\rm GW}(f) 

1329: (\gamma_{I}+\gamma_{V}\Pi)={\rm const}$. In Figure \ref{nc}, using 

1330: the analytic form of the noise spectrum, we plot the weight function. 

1331: It becomes maximum around $\sim 50$Hz with its bandwidth $\sim 100$Hz. 

1332: Note that the shape of the weight function for stochastic signals is close 

1333: to the one for the signals produced by binary neutron stars, in which case  

1334: the detectable distance, as the integral of weight function, is 

1335: roughly proportional to 

1336: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1337: \beq

1338: \lkk \int_0^\infty d\ln f \frac{1}{f^{4/3} N(f)}   \rkk^{1/2}.

1339: \eeq

1340: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1341: The next-generation detectors are primarily designed to have the 

1342: good sensitivity to a chirping signal of binary neutron stars, 

1343: and they are planned to achieve the similar performance for detecting these binaries. 

1344: In this sense,   

1345: our assumption that all the detectors have identical 

1346: noise spectrum with advanced LIGO is reasonable. 

1347: 

1348:  

1349:  

1350: 

1351: Finally, as a reference, we present the SNR for coincident

1352: detectors ($\gamma_{I,ab}=1, \gamma_{V,ab}=0$):      

1353: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1354: \beq

1355: \mathrm{SNR}_0=4.8\lmk \frac{T_{\rm obs}}{3\rm yr}  \rmk^{1/2}\lmk

1356: \frac{\Omega_{\rm GW}h_{70}^2}{10^{-9}}  \rmk.  \label{norm}

1357: \eeq

1358: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1359: This value will be frequently referred, as a baseline of the SNR for 

1360: various situations considered below. 

1361: 

1362: 

1363: 

1364: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 11 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1365: \begin{figure}[!tb]

1366: \begin{center}

1367: \epsfxsize=10.cm

1368: \epsffile{f11.eps} 

1369: \end{center}

1370: 

1371: \vspace*{-0.2cm}

1372: 

1373: \caption{ The weight function $(N(f)f^{5/2})$ for advanced LIGO.  } 

1374: \label{nc}

1375: \end{figure}

1376: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1377: 

1378: 

1379: 

1380: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1381: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1382: \subsection{Signal-to-noise ratios for  pair of detector}

1383: \label{subsec:SNR}

1384: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1385: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1386: 

1387: 

1388: The total SNR (\ref{broad}) depends strongly on model parameters of the

1389: background, including the polarization degree $\Pi$. 

1390: In order to present our numerical results concisely,  we use the

1391: normalized form

1392: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1393: \beq

1394: Q\equiv\frac{\rm SNR}{\rm SNR_0}.

1395: \eeq

1396: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  

1397: To characterize sensitivity of each pair to $I$- or $V$-mode signal, 

1398: based on the above equation, we respectively define  $Q_I$ and $Q_V$ by 

1399: replacing $\{I,\,\,V\}$ in the expression of SNR 

1400: with $\rho_c/(4\pi^2f^3)\{\Omega_{\rm GW},\,\,0\}$ 

1401: and $\rho_c/(4\pi^2f^3)\{0,\,\,\Omega_{\rm GW}\}$. 

1402: These normalized SNRs  $Q_I$ and $Q_V$ can be regarded as a rms value 

1403: of overlap functions with the weight function $(f^{5/2} N(f))^{-1}$.

1404: 

1405: 

1406: In Figure \ref{nsr}, we present the normalized SNR 

1407: for the optimal geometry, i.e., types I, II and III configurations 

1408: (short-dashed, long-dashed and solid lines, respectively). 

1409: One noticeable point is that a widely separated ($\beta\sim 180^\circ$) 

1410: pair is powerful to 

1411: search for the $V$ mode. At $\beta=180^\circ$, we find the following 

1412: asymptotic relations

1413: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  

1414: \beq

1415: \gamma_I\sim-\frac{5}{2}\cos(4\Delta) \frac{\sin y}{y},

1416: \quad

1417: \gamma_V\sim\frac{5}{2}\sin(4\Delta) \frac{\cos y}{y}

1418: \eeq

1419: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  

1420: with $y=4\pi R f/c$.  For detectors on the Earth, the characteristic 

1421: frequency interval is $c/2R_{\rm E}\sim20$Hz, which is enough inside the 

1422: bandwidth of advance LIGO, $\Delta f\sim 100$Hz. As a result, the 

1423: oscillation of the overlap functions are averaged out and the normalized 

1424: SNRs $Q_I$ and $Q_V$ give a similar output for optimal configurations 

1425: (types I-III) at $\beta=180^\circ$. 

1426: 

1427: 

1428: In Figure \ref{net} and Table \ref{tab:Q_I_Q_V},  we show the 

1429: normalized SNRs for pairs made from the five  interferometers in 

1430: Table \ref{tab:location_of_detectors}. 

1431: To reduce the contribution from the $I$-mode signal, 

1432: pairs that have been regarded as disadvantageous for constraining 

1433: $\Omega_{\rm GW}$, can now play important roles for measuring the $V$ mode, 

1434: according to equation (\ref{largebeta}). 

1435: The HL pair with $\cos (4\delta)\sim 1$ and $\sin (4\Delta)\sim 0.93$ 

1436: realizes nearly maximum values simultaneously for ${ Q}_{I,ab}$ and 

1437: ${ Q}_{V,ab}$, at its separation $\beta=27.2^\circ$. 

1438: This is because ${Q}_{I,ab}$ is mainly determined by the angle $\delta$ 

1439: at a small  $\beta$, while  ${Q}_{V,ab}$ depends only on

1440: $\Delta$. This pair has the largest $Q_I$ among ten pairs of

1441: detectors. In contrast, the CL pair has good sensitivity to $V$, 

1442: although it is relatively insensitive to the $I$ mode, because of 

1443: $\sin (4\Delta)\sim 1$ and  $|\cos(4\Delta)|=0.04$. 

1444: Indeed, the orientation of the LCGT detector is only $1.2^\circ$ different 

1445: from the optimal direction ($\cos(4\Delta)=0$) with respect to the 

1446: LIGO-Livingston cite. As other interesting pairs, the AH pair is almost 

1447: insensitive to the $V$ mode with $\sin(4\Delta)=-0.007$ 

1448: (nearly type II configuration with LIGO-Hanford). 

1449: The AV pair has a large $Q_V$  with

1450: $|\sin (4\Delta)|=0.89$, but its $Q_I$ is much larger than 

1451: that of the CL pair. 

1452: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 12 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1453: \begin{figure}[!bth]

1454: \begin{center}

1455: \epsfxsize=9.0cm

1456: \epsffile{f12.eps}

1457:  \end{center}

1458: 

1459: \vspace*{-0.2cm}

1460: 

1461: \caption{ Normalized signal to noise ratios (${ Q}_{I,ab}$ and 

1462:   ${ Q}_{V,ab}$) with optimal configurations  

1463: for the $I$-mode (short dashed curve: type I, long dashed curve: type II)

1464:  and for  the $V$-mode (solid curve: type III with setting $\Pi=1$ for

1465:  illustrative purpose). We use the noise curve for

1466:  the advanced LIGO.  } 

1467: \label{nsr}

1468: %\end{figure}

1469: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 13 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1470: %\begin{figure}[!bth]

1471: \begin{center}

1472: \epsfxsize=5.8cm

1473: \epsffile{f13a.eps}

1474: \epsfxsize=5.8cm

1475: \epsffile{f13b.eps}

1476: \epsfxsize=5.8cm

1477: \epsffile{f13c.eps}

1478: \epsfxsize=5.8cm

1479: \epsffile{f13d.eps}

1480: \epsfxsize=5.8cm

1481: \epsffile{f13e.eps}

1482:  \end{center}

1483: 

1484: \vspace*{-0.2cm}

1485: 

1486: \caption{ The normalized SNRs $Q_I$ (circles) and $Q_V$ 

1487: (triangles) for detector pairs.} 

1488: \label{net}

1489: \end{figure}

1490: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Table III %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1491: \begin{table}[!tbh]

1492: %\begin{ruledtabular}

1493: \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c|c}

1494: \hline\hline

1495: ~ & ~~A~~  & ~~C~~  & ~~H~~  & ~~L~~  & ~~V~~ \\ 

1496: \hline

1497: ~~A~~& $*$  &  $0.060$ &  $0.14$  &  $0.15$  &  $0.059$ \\ 

1498: \hline

1499: ~~C~~ & $0.07$  &  $*$  &  $0.042$  & $0.011$  & $0.091$ \\ 

1500: \hline

1501: ~~H~~ & $0.0009$  & $0.081$ &  $*$  & $0.32$ & $0.073$ \\ 

1502: \hline

1503: ~~L~~ &  $0.021$ & $0.11$  & $0.037$ & $*$  & $0.077$ \\ 

1504: \hline

1505: ~~V~~ & $0.11$  & $0.036$ & $0.058$ & $0.040$ & $*$ \\ 

1506: \hline\hline

1507: \end{tabular}

1508: %\end{ruledtabular}

1509: \caption{Normalized SNRs $Q_I$ (upper-right) and $Q_V$ (lower-left).

1510: }

1511: \label{tab:Q_I_Q_V}

1512: \end{table}

1513: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1514: 

1515: 

1516: 

1517: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1518: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1519: \subsection{Antipodal detectors}

1520: \label{subsec:antipodal}

1521: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1522: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1523: 

1524: 

1525: So far, we have studied pairs of detectors on the Earth,  

1526: strictly keeping the radius of sphere $R_{\rm E}=6400$km,    

1527: for which the antipodal type III configuration is turned out to be 

1528: optimal to realize the largest SNR $Q_V$.  Here, we discuss to what 

1529: extent one can improve the sensitivity to the $V$ mode by varying the 

1530: radius of sphere. 

1531: 

1532: 

1533: 

1534: In Figure \ref{anti1}, we plot the broadband sensitivities $Q_I$ and 

1535: $Q_V$ for antipodal detectors as functions of the radius of sphere, $R$. 

1536: Note that the noise spectrum is fixed to $N_{\rm ligo}(f)$ as before. 

1537: Here, we put $\cos (4\Delta)=1$ for $Q_I$ and 

1538: $\sin (4\Delta)=1$ for $Q_V$.  While the value $Q_I$ is maximized at 

1539: $R=0$ and we obtain $Q_I=1$ and $Q_V=0$, the maximum value of $Q_V$ is 

1540: achieved when $R=600$km, leading to $Q_V=0.64$.  

1541: It is interesting to note that at $R\sim 1700$km corresponding to the 

1542: radius of the Moon, we still obtain rather larger value, $Q_V=0.45$. 

1543: 

1544: 

1545: In Figure \ref{anti2}, the overlap functions for three representative cases 

1546: are plotted: $R=600$, $1700$ and $6400$km. As we commented earlier, 

1547: the overlap functions for any radius can be rescaled and become 

1548: identical if we plot the functions against the rescaled variable, 

1549: $y\propto fR$. Further, for the configuration examined in Figure 

1550: \ref{anti1}, the relations $\gamma_I(0)=-1$ and $\gamma_V(0)=0$ strictly 

1551: hold. In those situations, the shape of the noise spectrum 

1552: shown in Figure \ref{nc} is the key to determine the best value for 

1553: $Q_V$ and the overlap function $\gamma_V$ for $R\sim 600$km 

1554: eventually becomes the best shape to achieve the maximum value of  

1555: $Q_V=0.64$. Also, it turned out that the sensitivity for the 

1556: Moon becomes about three times larger than that for the Earth, $Q_V=0.15$ (see appendix \ref{sec:moon} for comments on detectors on the Moon). 

1557: 

1558: 

1559: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 14 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1560: \begin{figure}[!tb]

1561: \begin{center}

1562: \epsfxsize=9.cm

1563: \epsffile{f14.eps}

1564: \end{center}

1565: 

1566: \vspace*{-0.2cm}

1567: 

1568: \caption{ The normalized SNR for antipodal configuration with radius

1569:  $R$.  Advanced LIGO noise curve is used. } 

1570: \label{anti1}

1571: 

1572: \vspace*{0.5cm}

1573: 

1574: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 15 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1575: \begin{center}

1576: \epsfxsize=14.cm

1577: \epsffile{f15.eps}

1578: \end{center}

1579: 

1580: \vspace*{-0.2cm}

1581: 

1582: \caption{ Overlap functions for antipodal detector pairs (solid curves:

1583:  $\gamma_I$, dotted curves: $\gamma_V$). } 

1584: \label{anti2}

1585: \end{figure}

1586: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1587: 

1588: 

1589: 

1590: 

1591: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1592: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1593: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1594: \section{Separation}

1595: \label{sec:separation}

1596: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1597: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1598: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1599: 

1600: 

1601: As discussed so far, a simple analysis with correlation signal 

1602: $C_{ab}$ of two detectors allows us to detect a mixture of 

1603: $I$- and $V$-mode signals, but we cannot extract each of them 

1604: separately. In order to disentangle these two signals, 

1605: in this section, we discuss the problem of the $I$- and $V$-mode 

1606: separation considered in Ref.\cite{Seto:2007tn}. After  

1607: describing the simplest case using a set of four detectors 

1608: in Sec.\ref{subsec:two_correlation}, we generalize it to 

1609: the multiple-detector case in Sec.~\ref{subsec:multiple_correlation}, 

1610: and present a statistical framework to achieve the optimal sensitivity.  

1611: Based on these theoretical backgrounds, in Sec.~\ref{subsec:network},  

1612: the correlation analysis with network of ground-based detectors are examined 

1613: and the optimal values of SNR are derived for each $I$ and $V$ mode. 

1614: 

1615: 

1616: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1617: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1618: \subsection{Analysis with two correlation signals}

1619: \label{subsec:two_correlation}

1620: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1621: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1622: 

1623: 

1624: Let us begin by considering the simplest case that two pairs 

1625: of interferometers $(a,b)$ and $(c,d)$ are available. We write 

1626: down their correlation signals as

1627: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1628: \beq

1629: C_{ab}(f)=\frac{8\pi}5\{\gamma_{I,ab}(f) I(f)+\gamma_{V,ab}(f) V(f)\},

1630: \quad

1631: C_{cd}(f)=\frac{8\pi}5\{\gamma_{I,cd}(f) I(f)+\gamma_{V,cd}(f) V(f)\}.

1632: \label{2eq}

1633: \eeq

1634: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1635: Making their linear combination, $I$ or $V$ mode can be 

1636: removed, and a pure $V$ or $I$ mode is separately extracted. 

1637: Except for trivial scaling, the unique choices are

1638: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1639: \beq

1640: {\gamma_{V,ab}C_{cd}-\gamma_{V,cd}C_{ab}}=

1641: \frac{8\pi}5 I{(\gamma_{I,cd}\gamma_{V,ab}-\gamma_{I,ab}\gamma_{V,cd})},

1642: \quad

1643: {\gamma_{I,ab}C_{cd}-\gamma_{I,cd}C_{ab}}=

1644: \frac{8\pi}5 V{(\gamma_{V,cd}\gamma_{I,ab}-\gamma_{V,ab}\gamma_{I,cd})}.

1645: \eeq

1646: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1647: Meanwhile, the noise spectra for these combinations are proportional to 

1648: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1649: \beq

1650: {\gamma_{V,ab}^2 {\cal N}_{cd}+\gamma_{V,cd}^2 {\cal N}_{ab}},

1651: \quad

1652: {\gamma_{I,ab}^2 {\cal N}_{cd}+\gamma_{I,cd}^2 {\cal N}_{ab}},

1653: \eeq

1654: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1655: where quantity ${\cal N}_{ab}$ indicates the product of noise spectra, 

1656: ${\cal N}_{ab}=N_a(f)N_b(f)$. Taking account of proportional 

1657: factors, the broadband signal-to-noise ratio for a pure $I$ or 

1658: $V$ mode becomes

1659: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1660: \beqa

1661: \mathrm{SNR}_I^2&=&

1662: \lmk\frac{16\pi}{5}\rmk^2 T_{\rm obs} \lkk  2\int_0^\infty df

1663: \frac{I^2(\gamma_{V,cd}\gamma_{I,ab}-\gamma_{V,ab}\gamma_{I,cd})^2}

1664: { (\gamma_{V,ab}^2 {\cal N}_{cd}+\gamma_{V,cd}^2 {\cal N}_{ab})}  \rkk, 

1665: \label{eq:compiled_SNR_I}

1666: \\

1667: \mathrm{SNR}_V^2&=&

1668: \lmk\frac{16\pi}{5}\rmk

1669: ^2 T_{\rm obs} \lkk  2\int_0^\infty df

1670: \frac{V^2(\gamma_{V,cd}\gamma_{I,ab}-\gamma_{V,ab}\gamma_{I,cd})^2}

1671: { (\gamma_{V,ab}^2 {\cal N}_{cd}+\gamma_{V,cd}^2 {\cal N}_{ab})}  \rkk. 

1672: \label{eq:compiled_SNR_V}

1673: \eeqa

1674: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1675: For detectors with identical  noise spectra  with 

1676: ${\cal N}(f)=N(f)^2$, the {\it compiled} overlap functions are defined as

1677: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1678: \beq

1679: \Gamma_{I,ab:cd}\equiv

1680: \frac{\gamma_{I,cd}\gamma_{V,ab}-\gamma_{I,ab}\gamma_{V,cd}}{[\gamma_{V,ab}^2 

1681: +\gamma_{V,cd}^2]^{1/2}},

1682: \quad

1683: \Gamma_{V,ab:cd}\equiv

1684: \frac{\gamma_{V,cd}\gamma_{I,ab}-\gamma_{V,ab}\gamma_{I,cd}}{[\gamma_{I,ab}^2 

1685: +\gamma_{I,cd}^2]^{1/2}}.

1686: \label{co}

1687: \eeq

1688: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1689: With these functions, the broadband SNRs for the separated two modes 

1690: can be estimated from equation (\ref{broad}) just replacing  

1691: the term $\gamma_II+\gamma_VV$ with $\Gamma_{I,ab:cd} I$ and 

1692: $\Gamma_{V,ab:cd}V$.  In this sense, 

1693: the complied overlap functions represent the sensitivities

1694: to the $I$ and $V$ modes after the separation.

1695: 

1696: 

1697: In Figure \ref{twodet}, as a specific example for the mode separation, 

1698: we consider the HL and CL pairs and plot the compiled overlap function, 

1699: as well as  the overlap functions for each pair. Although the 

1700: shapes of the functions $\Gamma_{ab:cd}$ are very complicated, 

1701: resultant values of the normalized SNR estimated from 

1702: equations (\ref{eq:compiled_SNR_I}) and (\ref{eq:compiled_SNR_V}) 

1703: are  $0.11$ for the $V$ mode and $0.31$ for the $I$ mode, which are 

1704: very close to the values presented in Sec.~\ref{subsec:SNR}  

1705: (${Q}_V=0.11$ for CL, ${Q}_I=0.32$ for HL). 

1706: Note also that for other combinations, the $I$ and $V$-mode separation 

1707: can be performed with nominal changes to the naively expected 

1708: sensitivities ${Q}_{\{I,V\},ab}$. This will be discussed in 

1709: details in Sec.~\ref{subsec:network}. 

1710: 

1711: 

1712: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 16 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1713: \begin{figure}[!tb]

1714: \begin{center}

1715: \epsfxsize=12cm

1716: \epsffile{f16.eps}

1717:  \end{center}

1718: 

1719: \vspace*{-0.3cm}

1720: 

1721: \caption{Overlap  functions for the unpolarized $I$ mode (dashed

1722:  curves), and the circularly polarized $V$ mode (solid curves). The

1723:  upper panel shows 

1724:  the results for the Hanford-Livingston (HL) pair. The middle one

1725:  is results for the LCGT-Livingston (CL) pair. The

1726:  normalized SNRs ${\it S}_{I,V}$ (with the adv LIGO noise 

1727: spectrum) are also presented.  The bottom one show the compiled

1728:  functions $\Gamma_{I,V}$ (Eq.(\ref{co})) made from  both pairs.

1729:   } 

1730: \label{twodet}

1731: \end{figure}

1732: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1733: 

1734: 

1735: 

1736: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1737: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1738: \subsection{Analysis with multiple data set }

1739: \label{subsec:multiple_correlation}

1740: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1741: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1742: 

1743: 

1744: Next consider the generalization of the previous analysis to the 

1745: cases with multiple data set. 

1746: For a network of $n$ detectors, we can make totally $n_t=n(n-1)/2$ 

1747: independent correlation signals 

1748: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1749: \beq

1750: C_i=\frac{8\pi}5(\gamma_{Ii}\, I+\gamma_{Vi}\, V)

1751: \eeq

1752: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1753: with $i=1,.., n_t$.

1754: Here, we use the single suffix $i$ to represent a detector pair for which

1755: we have assigned two suffixes so far, such as $ab$  in equation (\ref{2eq}).

1756: For the number of detectors with $n>2$, the number of output signals 

1757: becomes $n_t>3$, and this implies that 

1758: we must deal with the over-determined problem in order 

1759: to separate a mixture of $I$- and $V$-modes, because 

1760: the number of observables 

1761: exceeds the number of target parameters, $I$ and $V$. 

1762: In what follows, we will discuss the signal-to-noise ratios expected

1763: from the optimal data analysis. 

1764: 

1765: 

1766: 

1767: Let us examine a straightforward extension of the analysis in previous 

1768: subsection. Provided the original data set of correlation signals, 

1769: $\{C_i\}$, obtained from all possible pairs of detectors, we can make 

1770: the linear combinations, $D_{Ii}$ and $D_{Vi}$, which respectively eliminate 

1771: the variable $V$ and $I$:  

1772: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1773: \beq

1774: D_{Ii}=d_{Ii} I,~~~ D_{Vi}=d_{Vi} V,

1775: \eeq

1776: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1777: where $d_{Ii}$ and $d_{Vi}$ denote some numerical coefficients, 

1778: appropriately chosen for removing the contribution from $V$ and $I$, 

1779: respectively.  Note that the  number 

1780: of independent combinations labeled as $i$ is 

1781:  $n_t-1$ \footnote{One simple example is to make 

1782: $D_{Ii}=C_i-({\gamma_{Vi}}/{\gamma_{Vn_t}})\,C_{n_t}=

1783: (\gamma_{Ii}-\gamma_{In_t}\gamma_{Vi}/\gamma_{Vn_t})\,I$ 

1784: and $D_{Vi}=C_i-({\gamma_{Ii}}/{\gamma_{In_t}})\,C_{n_t}=

1785: (\gamma_{Vi}-\gamma_{Vn_t}\gamma_{Ii}/\gamma_{In_t})\,V$.}. 

1786: The associated covariance matrices for intrinsic noises, 

1787: ${\cal M}^{-1}_{Iij}$ and ${\cal M}^{-1}_{Vij}$, are expressed

1788: in terms of the quantities, 

1789: $\gamma_{Ii}$, $\gamma_{Vi}$ and ${\cal N}_i$ (noise spectra).  

1790: Then, the resultant total SNRs for the optimal combinations of 

1791: data sets $\{D_{Ii},D_{Vi}\}$ are 

1792: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1793: \beq

1794: \mathrm{SNR}_I^2\propto d_{Ii}{\cal M}^{-1}_{}d_{Ij},

1795: \quad

1796: \mathrm{SNR}_V^2\propto d_{Vi}{\cal M}^{-1}_{Vij}d_{Vj}.

1797: \label{eq:SNR_direct_method}

1798: \eeq

1799: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1800: For $n_t=n=3$, the above expressions can be recast in a 

1801: rather simple form: 

1802: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1803: \beqa

1804: \mathrm{SNR}_I^2&\propto &

1805: I^2\lkk \lmk \sum_i^3 \frac{\gamma_{Ii}^2}{{\cal N}_i}  \rmk  \lmk

1806: \sum_i^3 \frac{\gamma_{Vi}^2}{{\cal N}_i} \rmk - \lmk \sum_i^3

1807: \frac{\gamma_{Ii}\gamma_{Vi}}{{\cal N}_i}  \rmk^2  \rkk  \lmk \sum_i^3

1808: \frac{\gamma_{Vi}^2}{{\cal N}_i}  \rmk^{-1},

1809: \label{31}

1810: \\

1811: \mathrm{SNR}_V^2&\propto &

1812: V^2\lkk \lmk \sum_i^3 \frac{\gamma_{Ii}^2}{{\cal N}_i}  \rmk  \lmk

1813: \sum_i^3 \frac{\gamma_{Vi}^2}{{\cal N}_i} \rmk - \lmk \sum_i^3

1814: \frac{\gamma_{Ii}\gamma_{Vi}}{{\cal N}_i}  \rmk^2  \rkk  \lmk \sum_i^3 

1815: \frac{\gamma_{Ii}^2}{{\cal N}_i}  \rmk^{-1}.

1816: \label{32}

1817: \eeqa

1818: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1819: Equations (\ref{31}) and (\ref{32}) are symmetric with respect to 

1820: the suffix $i$ and they do not depend on the specific choice of 

1821: the data sets $\{D_{Ii},D_{Vi}\}$. 

1822: Self-consistently, the above expressions recover the 

1823: previous results, (\ref{eq:compiled_SNR_I}) and (\ref{eq:compiled_SNR_V}), 

1824: if we set $\gamma_{I3}$ and $\gamma_{V3}$ to zero. 

1825: Indeed, the symmetric expressions (\ref{31}) and (\ref{32}) for $n_t=3$ 

1826: generally hold for the cases with $n_t>3$ and we will use these 

1827: forms to estimate the SNRs for optimal combination of five 

1828: ground-based detectors. In appendix \ref{sec:derivation_optimal_SNR}, 

1829: a brief sketch to derive the symmetric expressions for the $n_t>3$ cases 

1830: is presented.  Multiplying the factor $2(16\pi/5)^2df$ and integrating 

1831: over entire frequency range, 

1832: the narrow band SNRs (\ref{31}) and (\ref{32}) can be generalized to 

1833: the broadband SNRs

1834: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1835: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1836: \beqa

1837: \mathrm{SN

1838: R}_I^2&= & 2\lmk \frac{16\pi}5 \rmk^2  T_{\rm obs} \int_0^\infty df 

1839: I^2\lkk \lmk \sum_i^{n_t} \frac{\gamma_{Ii}^2}{{\cal N}_i}  \rmk  \lmk

1840: \sum_i^{n_t} \frac{\gamma_{Vi}^2}{{\cal N}_i} \rmk - \lmk \sum_i^{n_t}

1841: \frac{\gamma_{Ii}\gamma_{Vi}}{{\cal N}_i}  \rmk^2  \rkk  \lmk \sum_i^{n_t}

1842: \frac{\gamma_{Vi}^2}{{\cal N}_i}  \rmk^{-1},

1843: \label{312}

1844: \\

1845: \mathrm{SNR}_V^2&= & 2\lmk \frac{16\pi}5 \rmk^2  T_{\rm obs} \int_0^\infty df

1846: V^2\lkk \lmk \sum_i^{n_t} \frac{\gamma_{Ii}^2}{{\cal N}_i}  \rmk  \lmk

1847: \sum_i^{n_t} \frac{\gamma_{Vi}^2}{{\cal N}_i} \rmk - \lmk \sum_i^{n_t}

1848: \frac{\gamma_{Ii}\gamma_{Vi}}{{\cal N}_i}  \rmk^2  \rkk  \lmk \sum_i^{n_t} 

1849: \frac{\gamma_{Ii}^2}{{\cal N}_i}  \rmk^{-1}.

1850: \label{322}

1851: \eeqa

1852: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1853: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1854: 

1855: 

1856: Similar to the one defined in previous subsection, 

1857: we define the effective overlap functions 

1858: for detectors with identical noise spectra, 

1859: which represent the optimal sensitivities to the $I$ and $V$ modes: 

1860: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1861: \beq

1862: \Gamma_{{\rm eff},I}\equiv \lmk\frac{\sum_i^{n_t} \gamma_{iI}^2\sum_i^{n_t}

1863: \gamma_{iV}^2-(\sum_i^{n_t} \gamma_{iI}\gamma_{iV})^2}{\sum_i^{n_t}

1864: \gamma_{iV}^2}  \rmk^{1/2},

1865: \quad

1866: \Gamma_{{\rm eff},V}\equiv \lmk\frac{\sum_i^{n_t}

1867: \gamma_{iI}^2\sum_i^{n_t} \gamma_{iV}^2-(\sum_i^{n_t}

1868: \gamma_{iI}\gamma_{iV})^2}{\sum_i^{n_t} \gamma_{iI}^2}  \rmk^{1/2}.  

1869: \eeq

1870: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1871: For sensitivity only for the $I$ or $V$ mode,  we also define 

1872: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1873: \beq

1874: \Gamma_{{\rm eff},I0}=\lmk \sum_i^{n_t} \gamma_{iI}^2\rmk^{1/2},

1875: \quad

1876: \Gamma_{{\rm eff},V0}=\lmk \sum_i^{n_t} \gamma_{iV}^2\rmk^{1/2}, 

1877: \eeq

1878: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1879: which correspond to the effective overlap function (with identical 

1880: noise spectrum) for the traditional analysis in the absence of $V$ or 

1881: $I$ mode. In the following, we use the notation $Q_{I0}$ for the 

1882: normalized SNR with effective function $\Gamma_{{\rm eff},I0}$. 

1883: Based on these definitions,  the ratio $R$ is given by 

1884: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1885: \beq

1886: R= \frac{\sum_i^{n_t} \gamma_{iI}\gamma_{iV}}

1887: {\Gamma_{{\rm eff},I0}\Gamma_{{\rm eff},V0}}.

1888: \label{eq:def_R}

1889: \eeq

1890: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1891: As increasing the number of detectors, the functions

1892: $\Gamma_{{\rm eff},I0}$ and $\Gamma_{{\rm eff},V0}$ monotonically 

1893: increase. For a large numbers of detectors, however, the numerator

1894: $\sum_i^{n_t} \gamma_{iI}\gamma_{iV}$ can be regarded as a summation 

1895: of random numbers, and the ratio $R$ is expected to decrease quickly. 

1896: We will see this numerically in next subsection.

1897: 

1898: 

1899: 

1900: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1901: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1902: \subsection{Optimal SNRs from ground-based network}

1903: \label{subsec:network}

1904: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1905: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1906: 

1907: 

1908: We are in position to evaluate the broad band SNRs for optimal combination 

1909: of network of five detectors, A,C,H,L and V.  

1910: For networks made by three detectors among five detectors,  

1911: there are  ${}_5C_3=10$ possible networks. 

1912: In the same way, we can make ${}_5C_4=5$ networks for combinations of 

1913: four detectors. Numerical results for detector networks are presented 

1914: in Table \ref{nett}. In Figure \ref{f25}, we also provide the normalized 

1915: SNRs for various combinations of detectors, showing the 

1916: overall behaviors against the number of detectors.  

1917: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Table IV %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1918: \begin{table}[!bth]

1919: %\begin{ruledtabular}

1920: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}

1921: \hline

1922: network & $Q_I$ & $Q_V$ & $Q_{I0}$ \\

1923: \hline

1924: \hline

1925: ~~ ACH~~ & ~~$0.15$~~ & ~~$0.10$~~ & ~~$0.16$~~ \\

1926: \hline

1927: ~~ ACL~~ & ~~$0.15$~~ & ~~$0.12$~~ & ~~$0.16$~~ \\

1928: \hline

1929: ~~ ACV~~ & ~~$0.11$~~ & ~~$0.16$~~ & ~~$0.12$~~ \\

1930: \hline

1931: ~~ AHL~~ & ~~$0.33$~~ & ~~$0.04$~~ & ~~$0.37$~~ \\

1932: \hline

1933: ~~ AHV~~ & ~~$0.16$~~ & ~~$0.12$~~ & ~~$0.17$~~ \\

1934: \hline

1935: ~~ ALV~~ & ~~$0.16$~~ & ~~$0.11$~~ & ~~$0.18$~~ \\

1936: \hline

1937: ~~ CHL~~ & ~~$0.31$~~ & ~~$0.13$~~ & ~~$0.32$~~ \\

1938: \hline

1939: ~~ CHV~~ & ~~$0.09$~~ & ~~$0.09$~~ & ~~$0.12$~~ \\

1940: \hline

1941: ~~ CLV~~ & ~~$0.12$~~ & ~~$0.11$~~ & ~~$0.12$~~ \\

1942: \hline

1943: ~~ HLV~~ & ~~$0.32$~~ & ~~$0.07$~~ & ~~$0.33$~~ \\

1944: \hline

1945: \hline

1946: ~~ ACHL~~ & ~~$0.38$~~ & ~~$0.15$~~ & ~~$0.38$~~ \\

1947: \hline

1948: ~~ ACHV~~ & ~~$0.20$~~ & ~~$0.16$~~ & ~~$0.20$~~ \\

1949: \hline

1950: ~~ ACLV~~ & ~~$0.20$~~ & ~~$0.17$~~ & ~~$0.21$~~ \\

1951: \hline

1952: ~~ AHLV~~ & ~~$0.39$~~ & ~~$0.14$~~ & ~~$0.39$~~ \\

1953: \hline

1954: ~~ CHLV~~ & ~~$0.34$~~ & ~~$0.16$~~ & ~~$0.35$~~ \\

1955: \hline

1956: \hline

1957: ~~ ACHLV~~ & ~~$0.41$~~ & ~~$0.20$~~ & ~~$0.41$~~ \\

1958: \hline

1959: \end{tabular}

1960: %\end{ruledtabular}

1961: \caption{Normalized SNRs $Q_I$, $Q_V$ and $Q_{I0}$ for 

1962:   network of detectors. }

1963: \label{nett}

1964: \end{table}

1965: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1966: 

1967: 

1968: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 17 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1969: \begin{figure}[!bth]

1970: \begin{center}

1971: \epsfxsize=10.cm

1972: \epsffile{f17.eps}

1973:  \end{center}

1974: \caption{ The normalized SNRs $Q_I$ (left panel; filled triangles),

1975:  $Q_{I0}$ (left panel ; open circles), and $Q_V$ (right panel; filled

1976:  triangle).  The horizontal axis is the number of detectors.  We

1977:  slightly shift the points for $Q_{I0}$ to the right.} 

1978: \label{f25}

1979: \end{figure}

1980: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1981: 

1982: 

1983: >From Table \ref{nett} and Figure \ref{f25}, several 

1984: diagnostic features are summarized: 

1985: 

1986: \begin{description}

1987: \item[(i)]  To realize a good sensitivity to the $I$ mode,  the  HL pair  

1988: has a crucial role. This is due to their small separation.  Without the pair, 

1989: we have at most $\mathrm{SNR}_I=0.20$ and $\mathrm{SNR}_{I0}=0.21$. 

1990: Including the two detectors, the value $\mathrm{SNR}_I$ becomes more than 0.3.

1991: 

1992: \item[(ii)]  The combination AHL does not have a good sensitivity to the

1993: $V$ mode and we obtain $Q_V=0.04$.  This is because the orientation of 

1994: AIGO detector is specialized to achieve the best sensitivity to $I$ 

1995: mode in combination with LIGO detectors. In fact, they are aligned to 

1996: have large overlaps (in relation to (i)). Nevertheless, the sensitivity 

1997: to the $V$ mode can be improved by adding the LCGT or Virgo detector. 

1998: In contrast,  the value $Q_{I0}$ increases only $10\%$ even if we 

1999: increase the network from AHL to ACHLV. 

2000: 

2001: \item[(iii)]  Comparing $\mathrm{SNR}_I$ with $\mathrm{SNR}_{I0}$, 

2002: we deduce a tiny amount of statistical loss for the sensitivity to the $I$ 

2003: mode,  caused by adding a new target parameter, $V$.  

2004:  It is not preferable to get a significant statistical loss by dealing with

2005: the circular polarization mode whose fraction is naively expected to be small. 

2006: But Table \ref{nett}  indicates that even when the 

2007: $V$ mode is added as observational targets, detection efficiency for $I$ 

2008: mode remains almost unchanged. For three-detector networks, the 

2009: relative loss is 

2010: largest for CHV and reach about $24$\%. Increasing the number of detectors, 

2011: the maximum loss is reduced to $4$\% for four-detector network, and  

2012: further reduced to $1$\% for five-detector network. 

2013: \end{description}

2014: 

2015: 

2016: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 18 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2017: \begin{figure}[t]

2018: \begin{center}

2019: \epsfxsize=8cm

2020: \epsffile{f18a.eps}

2021: \epsfxsize=8cm

2022: \epsffile{f18b.eps}

2023:  \end{center}

2024: 

2025: \vspace*{-0.2cm}

2026: 

2027: \caption{Left: effective overlap functions, $\Gamma_{{\rm eff},I}^2$ 

2028:   (solid), $\Gamma_{{\rm eff},I}^2$(dotted), and 

2029:   $\Gamma_{{\rm eff},I0}^2$ (long-dashed). Right: 

2030: same as in left panel, but for the network of five detectors. 

2031: Two curves for $\Gamma_{{\rm eff},I}^2$ and  $\Gamma_{{\rm eff},I0}^2$ 

2032: are nearly overlapped. } 

2033: \label{fig:g3_g5}

2034: 

2035: \vspace*{0.2cm}

2036: 

2037: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 19 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2038: 

2039: \begin{center}

2040: \epsfxsize=9.cm

2041: \epsffile{f19.eps}

2042:  \end{center}

2043: 

2044: \vspace*{-0.2cm}

2045: 

2046: \caption{The function $R^2$ for the CHV (dotted curve) and the ACHLV

2047:  networks (solid  curve).}  

2048: \label{rr}

2049: \end{figure}

2050: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2051: To further give a deep insight into the diagnosis (iii), in 

2052: Figure \ref{fig:g3_g5}, we plot 

2053: the effective overlap functions $\Gamma_{{\rm eff},I}$, 

2054: $\Gamma_{{\rm eff},I0}$ and $\Gamma_{{\rm eff},V}$ for specific networks 

2055: of CHV (left) and ACHLV (right). For network of CHV, there exists 

2056: characteristic pattern at $f>40$Hz with period $\Delta f=18$Hz. The 

2057: main reason of this comes from the fact that all the pairs, CH, CV and HV, 

2058: have the separation angle $\beta\sim 80^\circ$, leading to the frequency 

2059: $\Delta f=c/(4 R_{\rm E}\sin(80^\circ/2))\sim 18$Hz. 

2060: Focusing on the differences between $\Gamma_{{\rm eff},I}$ and

2061: $\Gamma_{{\rm eff},I0}$, we find that while the differences are manifest at 

2062: low-frequency in CHV system, the functions $\Gamma_{{\rm eff},I}$ 

2063: and $\Gamma_{{\rm eff},I0}$ in ACHLV system become almost identical 

2064: even at low-frequency. This is clearly quantified 

2065: if we plot the ratio $R$ defined in equation (\ref{eq:def_R}). 

2066: Figure \ref{rr} reveals that the magnitude of the ratio $R$ is 

2067: significantly reduced for the ACHLV system, suggesting the fact that 

2068: the statistical loss is negligibly small.  

2069: In this respect, negligible statistical loss may be 

2070: another merit for a network with a large number of detectors. 

2071: 

2072: 

2073: 

2074: Finally, from numerical results given above and with a help of equation 

2075: (\ref{norm}),  we summarize the signal-to-noise ratios, 

2076: $\mathrm{SNR}_I$ and $\mathrm{SNR}_Q$  (not normalized ones) 

2077: with noise spectrum of advanced LIGO.  

2078: For the five-detector network, assuming the 

2079: flat spectra $\Omega_{\rm GW}=\mathrm{const}$ and 

2080: $\Omega_{\rm GW}\Pi =\mathrm{const}$, we have

2081: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2082: \beq

2083: \mathrm{SNR}_I=1.64 \lmk\frac{\Omega_{\rm GW}h_{70}^2}{10^{-9}}  \rmk

2084: \lmk\frac{T_{\rm obs}}{3 \rm yr}  \rmk^{-1/2},

2085: \quad

2086: \mathrm{SNR}_V=0.749 \lmk\frac{\Omega_{\rm GW}h_{70}^2\Pi }{10^{-9}}  \rmk

2087: \lmk\frac{T_{\rm obs}}{3 \rm yr}  \rmk^{-1/2}.

2088: \eeq

2089: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2090: 

2091: 

2092: 

2093: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2094: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2095: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2096: \section{Summary}

2097: \label{sec:summary}

2098: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2099: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2100: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2101: 

2102: 

2103: In this paper we present prospects for measuring the Stokes

2104: $V$ parameter of  stochastic gravitational wave backgrounds via 

2105: the correlation analysis.  This 

2106: parameter characterizes the asymmetry of amplitudes of right- and

2107: left-handed waves.  As the parity transformation interchanges the two

2108: polarization modes,   it can be regarded as the basic

2109: observational measure to probe parity violation.  We  made detailed analyses

2110: for the basic properties of the overlap functions $\gamma_I$ and

2111: $\gamma_V$, especially their dependencies on geometry of detector

2112: configurations.   

2113: 

2114: In contrast to studies only for the unpolarized $I$ mode 

2115: (equivalently,  the energy spectrum $\Omega_{\rm GW}$),  we need to develop a

2116: new statistical framework to deal with rich  structures 

2117: caused by  multi-dimensionality of target parameters.   We provide an 

2118: optimal method that will be applicable to  various problems of 

2119: gravitational-wave backgrounds.  Based on our new method, we 

2120: estimated sensitivities of the planned and proposed

2121: next-generation interferometers to the  $V$ modes.   We  found that it is 

2122: important to have a large number of detectors in order to reduce 

2123: possible effects due to correlation between target parameters.  

2124: 

2125: 

2126: \bigskip

2127: We would like to thank M. Ando, N. Kanda and M. Ohashi for useful

2128: conversations. This work was in part supported by a 

2129: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the 

2130: Promotion of Science (No.~18740132). 

2131: 

2132: \appendix

2133: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2134: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2135: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2136: \section{Tensorial expansion}

2137: \label{sec:tensor_analysis}

2138: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2139: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2140: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2141: 

2142: 

2143: In this appendix we present tensorial decompositions of the overlap

2144: functions  $\gamma_{I,V}$ (see also Ref.\cite{Flanagan:1993ix}) 

2145: defined for pair of detectors $a$ and $b$ at positions $\vex_a$ and 

2146: $\vex_b$.  They are expressed as

2147: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2148: \beq

2149: \gamma_{I,ab}(f)=\frac{5}{8\pi}\int_{S^2} d\ven  \lkk  \lnk

2150: F_a^+F_{b}^{+*}+

2151: F_a^\times F_{b}^{\times*} \rnk e^{iy \ven\vem} \rkk, \label{gi1}

2152: \eeq

2153: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2154:  and

2155: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2156: \beq

2157: \gamma_{V,ab}(f)=\frac{5}{8\pi}\int_{S^2} d\ven

2158: \lkk i \lnk

2159: F_a^+F_{b}^{\times*}-

2160: F_a^\times F_{b}^{+*} \rnk e^{iy \ven\vem}  \rkk ,

2161: \eeq

2162: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2163: with $\vex_a-\vex_b=D \vem$ ($D$: distance, $\vem$:unit vector) and 

2164: $y\equiv2\pi fD/c$.

2165: The beam-pattern functions $F_a^P$ are written by the the polarization

2166: tensor $\ve^P$ and the detector tensor $\ved^a$ as

2167: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2168: \beq

2169: F_a^P=\ved_a:\ve^P(\ven)=d_{ij}^a e^P_{ij}.

2170: \eeq

2171: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2172: Here the detector tensor $\ved_a$ is given by two orthonormal vectors $\veu_a$ and $\vev_a$ as $\ved_a=(\veu_a\otimes \veu_a-\vev_a\otimes \vev_a)/2$.

2173: Therefore, the  overlap functions are formally written as

2174: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2175: \beq

2176: \gamma_{I}(f)=\Gamma_{I,ijkl}(f) d_{ij}^a

2177: d_{kl}^b,~~~\gamma_{V}(f)=\Gamma_{V,ijkl}(f) d_{ij}^a d_{kl}^b. \label{tbeq}

2178: \eeq

2179: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2180: In these expressions we defined

2181: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2182: \beq

2183: \Gamma_{I,ijkl}(f)=\frac{5}{8\pi}\int_{S^2} d\ven  \lkk  

2184: e^+_{ij }(\ven)e ^{+}_{kl}(\ven)+

2185: e^\times _{ij }(\ven)e_{kl}^{\times}(\ven)    \rkk  e^{iy \ven\vem}

2186: \eeq

2187: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2188: and

2189: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2190: \beq

2191: \Gamma_{V,ijkl}(f)=-\frac{5i }{8\pi}\int_{S^2} d\ven  \lkk  

2192: e^+_{ij }(\ven)e ^{\times}_{kl}(\ven)-

2193: e^\times _{ij}(\ven)e_{kl}^{+}(\ven)    \rkk  e^{iy \ven\vem}.

2194: \eeq

2195: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2196: There are apparent symmetries with respect to the subscripts of the tensor

2197: $\Gamma_{I,ijkl}$. For example, it is invariant under the replacement $i

2198: \leftrightarrow j$ or $(i,j)\leftrightarrow (k,l) $. 

2199: Furthermore, with using the correspondences $e^+_{ij }(-\ven) = e^+_{ij

2200: }(\ven)$ and $e^\times _{ij}(-\ven)= -e^\times _{ij}(\ven)$ for parity

2201: transformation, the tensor $\Gamma_{I,ijkl}$ is a real function  taking a same value at  $\vem$ and

2202: $-\vem$. 

2203: >From these symmetries, the tensor $\Gamma_{I,ijkl}(f)$ is

2204: given by a combination of basic tensors $m_i$ and  $\delta_{ij}$ as

2205: follows; 

2206: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2207: \beqa

2208: \Gamma_{I,ijkl}(f)&=&a_{I1}\delta_{ij}\delta_{kl}+a_{I2}(\delta_{ik}\delta_{jl}+\delta_{il}\delta_{jk})+ 

2209: a_{I3} (\delta_{ij}m_k m_l+\delta_{kl}m_i m_j)+a_{I4} m_i m_j m_k m_l\nonumber\\

2210: & & + a_{I5}(\delta_{ik}m_j m_l+\delta_{jk}m_i m_l+\delta_{jl}m_i

2211: m_k+\delta_{il}m_j m_k) \label{GI},

2212: \eeqa

2213: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2214: with the expansion coefficients $a_{Ii}$. These coefficients  are given in the following manner. We firstly fix the direction vector $\vem=(1,0,0)$ and calculate the components $\Gamma_{I,ijkl}(f)$ for $(i,j,k,l)=(x,x,x,x), (x,x,y,y),(x,y,x,y),(y,y,y,y)$ and $(y,y,z,z)$.  Then we can solve the coefficients

2215: $a_{Ii}$ with their five independent combinations.  After some calculation, we obtain them in terms of 

2216: spherical Bessel functions with  argument $y$ as

2217: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2218: \beq

2219: a_{I1}=0, ~~a_{I2}=j_0-\frac{10}7 j_2+\frac1{14}j_4,~~a_{I3}=-\frac{20}7

2220: j_2-\frac5{14}j_4,~~a_{I4}=\frac52 j_4,~~~~a_{I5}=\frac{15}7

2221: j_2-\frac5{14}j_4 \label{ai}.

2222: \eeq

2223: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2224: A detector tensor $\ved_a$ is usually traceless

2225: ($d_{ij}^a\delta_{ij}=0$), as we measure quadrupole 

2226: deformation of space {\it e.g} with  interfering laser beams of two

2227: arms.  Then  the first and third terms in equation (\ref{GI}) do not provide

2228: contribution to the overlap function $\gamma_I$. 

2229: With angular parameters $(\beta,\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$ for a given detector pair

2230: $(a,b)$ on a sphere with radius $R$ (see figure 1), we can set  their positions as $\vex_a=R(\cos\beta/2,0,\sin\beta/2)$ and 

2231: $\vex_b=R(\cos\beta/2,0,-\sin\beta/2)$, since only their relative positions are relevant.

2232: In this case we have $\vem=(0,0,-1)$, and the two unit vectors 

2233: $\veu_a$ and $\vev_a$ are written by

2234: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2235: \beq

2236: \veu_a=\cos\sigma_1(\sin\beta/2,0,-\cos\beta/2)+\sin\sigma_1 (0,1,0),~~

2237: \vev_a=-\sin\sigma_1(\sin\beta/2,0,-\cos\beta/2)+\cos\sigma_1 (0,1,0),

2238: \eeq

2239: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2240: while we can put

2241: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2242: \beq

2243: \veu_b=\cos\sigma_2(\sin\beta/2,0,-\cos\beta/2)+\sin\sigma_2 (0,1,0),~~

2244: \vev_b=-\sin\sigma_2(-\sin\beta/2,0,-\cos\beta/2)+\cos\sigma_2 (0,1,0)

2245: \eeq

2246: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2247: for the second detector $b$. With plugging in these expressions into equation (\ref{tbeq}) we obtain equation (\ref{gi}).

2248: 

2249: 

2250: Similarly, the tensor $\Gamma_{V,ijkl}$ is invariant with replacements

2251: such as $i

2252: \leftrightarrow j$, but it is asymmetric for the replacement $(i,j)\leftrightarrow

2253: (k,l) $ or $m_i \to -m_i$.  

2254: The tensor  is real due to the parity relation as for $\Gamma_{I,ijkl}$. 

2255: We found that 

2256: it is expanded with the basic tensors as 

2257: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2258: \beq

2259: \Gamma_{ijkl}^V=a_{V1}

2260: (\omega_{ik}\delta_{jl}+\omega_{il}\delta_{jk}+\omega_{jk}\delta_{il}+\omega_{jl}\delta_{ik})+a_{V2}

2261: (\omega_{ik}m_{j} m_l +\omega_{il} m_j m_k +\omega_{jk} m_i

2262: m_l+\omega_{jl} m_i m_k) \label{lgv}

2263: \eeq

2264: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2265: with $\omega_{ij}\equiv \epsilon_{ijk}m_k$ ($\epsilon_{ijk}$:

2266: antisymmetric tensor).

2267:  In this case, the expansion coefficients $a_{Vi}$ are solved as

2268: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2269: \beq

2270: a_{V1}=j_1-\frac14 j_3,~~~a_{V2}=\frac54 j_3 \label{av}.

2271: \eeq

2272: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2273: We can derive equation (\ref{gv}) as in the case for the $I$ mode analyzed above.

2274: 

2275: 

2276: When two detectors $a$ and $b$ are on a same plane, the tensor

2277: $\omega_{ij}$ cannot have component with respect to the two dimensional

2278: projected space to the plane, and we have identically $\gamma_V=0$ with

2279: equations (\ref{tbeq}) and (\ref{lgv}).

2280: 

2281: 

2282: Note that the tensor $\Gamma_I$ is an even function of $m_i$ but the

2283: tensor 

2284: $\Gamma_V$ is an odd function reflecting its handedness.

2285: The function $\gamma_I$ is given by spherical Bessel

2286: functions 

2287: $j_i$ with even $i$, while the function $\gamma_V$ is with odd

2288: $i$. 

2289: The asymptotic behaviors of the spherical Bessel functions  are

2290: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2291: \beq

2292: j_n(y)\sim \frac1{y}\cos\lmk y-\frac{(n+1)\pi}2  \rmk 

2293: \eeq

2294: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2295: at $y\to \infty$.

2296: In the same manner the peaks of the function $|\gamma_I|$ are at

2297: $y\sim (N+1/2)\pi$ ($N$: natural number) and those for  $|\gamma_V|$ are at

2298: $y\sim  N \pi$.

2299: Therefore the zero points for $\gamma_V$ and $\gamma_I$ are offset

2300: by $\Delta y=\pi/2$ at large $y$.

2301: 

2302: 

2303:  At the low frequency limit  $y\to 0$ we have

2304: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2305: \beq

2306: j_n(y)\sim \frac{y^n}{(2n+1)!!},

2307: \eeq

2308: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2309: and the asymptotic behaviors of the overlap functions  are  $\gamma_V\to 0$ and

2310: $\gamma_I\to   d^a_{ij} d^b_{ij}/2$.

2311: For two traceless tensors $d^a_{ij}$ and   $d^b_{kl}$, the combination

2312: $d^a_{ij} d^b_{ij}$ is the unique scalar quantity 

2313: written by their tensor product.

2314: In terms of the angular parameters in the main text, this limit is given

2315: by $\cos^4(\beta/2)\cos(4\Delta)$.

2316: 

2317: 

2318: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2319: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2320: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2321: \section{Probability distribution functions for correlation analysis}

2322: \label{sec:PDF_for_corr}

2323: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2324: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2325: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2326: 

2327: 

2328: In this appendix,  we study probability distribution functions

2329: associated with correlation analysis, following Ref.\cite{Seto:2005qy}.    With  Fourier

2330: space 

2331: representation, each data

2332: stream $s_a(f)$ is made by gravitational wave signal $H_a(f)$ and 

2333: noise $n_a(f)$ as

2334: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2335: \beq

2336: s_a(f)=H_a(f)+n_a(f),

2337: \eeq

2338: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2339: and we define its noise spectrum 

2340: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2341: \beq

2342: \lla n_a^*(f) n_a(f')\rra=\frac12\delta_{\rm D}(f-f')N_a(f).

2343: \eeq

2344: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2345:  We assume that the correlation between noises 

2346: are negligible (namely $\lla n_a^* n_b\rra=0$ for $a\ne b$), and the amplitude of the signal $\lla H_a(f)^* H_b(f) \rra$

2347: is much smaller than that of  the noise   $\lla n_a(f)^* n_a(f)

2348: \rra$. These

2349: are  the conditions where  correlation analysis becomes very  powerful.

2350: We divide the positive  Fourier space into frequency segments $F_v$

2351: ($i=1,...,N$) 

2352: with their center frequencies $\{f_v\}$ and widths $\{\delta f_v\}$. 

2353:  In each segment the width $\delta f_v$ is much smaller

2354: than $f_v$, and the relevant quantities (e.g. $\Omega_{\rm GW}(f)$,

2355: $\gamma_{ab}(f)$) are almost constant. But the width is

2356: much larger than the frequency resolution $\Delta f\equiv T_{\rm obs}^{-1}$ 

2357: ($T_{\rm obs}$: observation period) so that each  segment contains 

2358: Fourier modes as many as $\delta f_v/\Delta f\gg 1$. 

2359: 

2360: For 

2361: correlation analysis we compress the

2362: observational data $s_I(f)$ by summing up the products $s^*_a(f)s_b(f)$ 

2363:  ($a\ne b$) in each segment $F_v$ as

2364: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2365: \beq

2366: \mu_v\equiv\sum_{f\in F_v} s^*_a(f)s_b(f),

2367: \label{mean}

2368: \eeq

2369: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2370: where we omitted the apparent subscript $\{ab\}$ for the compressed

2371: data  $\{\mu_v\}$ for

2372: notational 

2373: simplicity. As the noises are assumed to be uncorrelated, the statistical

2374: mean 

2375: $\lla \mu_v \rra$ is caused by  gravitational wave

2376: signal. After some calculations,  we have a real value

2377: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2378: \beq

2379: \lla \mu_v\rra= \sum_{f\in F_v}\lla  H_a(f)^*H_b(f)\rra\simeq

2380: \frac{8\pi}{5}   (I\gamma_{ab,I}+V\gamma_{ab,V})\frac{\delta

2381: f_v}{\Delta f}. 

2382: \label{mean_signal}

2383: \eeq 

2384: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2385: The fluctuations around the mean $\lla \mu_v\rra$ are dominated by the

2386: noise under our weak signal approximation,  and its variance

2387: $\sigma_v^2$ for  the real part of $\mu_v$  becomes 

2388: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2389: \beq

2390: \sigma_v^2=N_a(f_v) N_b(f_v) \frac{\delta f_v}{8\Delta f}.

2391: \label{noise_variance}

2392: \eeq

2393: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2394: As the number of Fourier modes $\delta f_v/\Delta f$ in each segment

2395: is much larger 

2396: than unity, the probability distribution function (PDF) for the real 

2397: part of  the measured value $\mu_v$ is  close to 

2398: Gaussian distribution due to the central-limit theorem as

2399: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2400: \beq

2401: p({\rm Re} [\mu_v])\simeq\frac1{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma_v^2}}\exp \lkk-\frac{({\rm Re} [\mu_v]-\lla \mu_v\rra)^2}{2\sigma_v^2} \rkk. \label{pdf}

2402: \eeq

2403: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2404: Here we neglected the prior

2405: information of the spectrum $\Omega_{\rm GW}(f)$ and $\Pi(f)$.

2406:  From equations (\ref{mean_signal}) and (\ref{noise_variance}), the signal to noise ratio of each segment becomes

2407: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2408: \beq

2409: \mathrm{SNR}^2_v=\frac{\lla \mu_v\rra^2 }{\sigma_v^2}=\lmk

2410: \frac{16\pi}{5}\rmk^2  {T_{\rm obs}} \lkk 2\delta f_v

2411: \frac{ (I\gamma_{ab,I}+V\gamma_{ab,V})^2}{N_a(f)N_b(f)}   \rkk. 

2412: \eeq

2413: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2414: Summing up the all the segments quadratically, we get the total signal 

2415: to noise ratio 

2416: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2417: \beq

2418: \mathrm{SNR}^2= \lmk \frac{16\pi}{5}\rmk^2 T_{\rm obs} \lkk2 \int_0^\infty df

2419: \frac{ (I\gamma_{ab,I}+V\gamma_{ab,V})^2}{ N_a(f)N_b(f)}   \rkk. 

2420: \label{single}

2421: \eeq

2422: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2423: This expression does not depend on the details of the

2424: segmentation $\{F_v\}$. The same  results  can be derived by  introducing 

2425: the optimal filter for the product $N_a^*(f) N_b(f)$ to get the highest 

2426: signal to  noise ratio (see {\it e.g.,} Ref.\cite{Flanagan:1993ix}). 

2427: 

2428: 

2429: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2430: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2431: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2432: \section{Derivation of optimal SNRs for multiple detectors}

2433: \label{sec:derivation_optimal_SNR}

2434: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2435: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2436: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2437: 

2438: 

2439: The derivation outlined in Sec.\ref{subsec:multiple_correlation} is intuitive, but it is algebraically

2440: complicated  to derive the final expressions. For example, we need to

2441: deal with large-dimensional noise matrices ${\cal M}_{Iij}$ and ${\cal

2442: M}_{Vij}$ that have off-diagonal components.  In this Appendix, we make a simple

2443: explanation for the structure of equations (\ref{31}) and (\ref{32}), and derive  

2444: useful expressions valid for arbitrary number of detectors $n$. Based on

2445: Appendix \ref{sec:PDF_for_corr}, we consider the summed correlation signals 

2446: $\{\mu_{vi}\}$ in a 

2447: fixed small band $F_v$ with its bandwidth $\delta f_i$ as in equation (B3).  

2448: Later, we will sum up all the bands to get the total SNRs. 

2449: 

2450: 

2451: 

2452: In  actual observation, we cannot exactly  measure the expectation values 

2453: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2454: \beq

2455: \lla \mu_{vi}\rra=C_i b_v=\frac{8\pi}5\{\gamma_{Ii} I_+\gamma_{Vi} V\}b_v.

2456: \eeq

2457: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2458: Rather, the measured values $\{\mu_{vi}'\}$ fluctuate around the true

2459: values $C_i b_v$ with variances ${\cal N}_i^2 b_v$.  Here the ratio

2460: $b_v=\frac{\delta f_v}{\Delta f}$ is the number of frequency bin in the

2461: band $f_v$ with the frequency 

2462: resolution $\Delta f=T_{\rm obs}^{-1}$.  The multi-dimensional

2463: probability distribution function $P(\{\mu_{vi}'\})$ has a form

2464: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2465: \beq

2466: P(\{\mu_{vi}'\})\propto

2467: \exp\lkk -K\rkk \label{prob}

2468: \eeq

2469: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2470: with the kernel

2471: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2472: \beq

2473: K\propto \sum_{n_{t}}\frac{(\mu_{vi}'-\lla\mu_{vi}\rra)^2}{{\cal N}_i^2} b_v.

2474: \eeq

2475: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2476: 

2477: 

2478: The structure of the distribution function $P(I_e,V_e)$ for the

2479: estimated values 

2480: $\{I_e,V_e\}$ is obtained by the replacement

2481: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2482: \beq

2483: \mu'_{vi}\to \frac{8\pi}5(\gamma_{Ii} I_e+\gamma_{Vi} V_e)b_v.

2484: \eeq

2485: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2486: Since the expression in the large parenthesis $[\cdots]$

2487:  in equation (\ref{prob}) becomes a quadratic function of the target parameters

2488: $\{I_e,V_e\}$, their 

2489: expectation values are $\{I,V\}$, and  their covariance noises matrix

2490: is proportional to

2491: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2492: \beq

2493: \left( \begin{array}{@{\,}cc@{\,}}

2494:            a_{II} & a_{IV}  \\

2495:            a_{IV} & a_{VV}  \\ 

2496:            \end{array} \right)^{-1}=\frac1{a_{II}a_{VV}-a_{IV}^2} \left(\begin{array}{@{\,}cc@{\,}}

2497:            a_{VV} & -a_{IV}  \\

2498:            -a_{IV} & a_{II}  \\ 

2499:            \end{array} \right)

2500: \eeq

2501: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2502: with the matrix elements, $a_{II}=\sum_i \gamma_{Ii}^2/{\cal N}_i$, 

2503: $a_{VV}=\sum_i \gamma_{Vi}^2/{\cal N}_i$ and 

2504: $a_{IV}=\sum_i (\gamma_{Ii}\gamma_{Vi})/{\cal N}_i$.

2505: Note that the off-diagonal element $a_{IV}$ has information for the

2506: statistical correlation between $I$- and $V$-modes. We define the ratio

2507: $R$ by

2508: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2509: \beq

2510: R=\frac{a_{IV}}{\sqrt{a_{II}a_{VV}}}.

2511: \eeq

2512: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2513: The ratio of the expectation values squared $\{I^2,V^2\}$ to the

2514: variances of their noises are proportional to 

2515: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2516: \beq

2517: I^2\frac{a_{II}a_{VV}-a_{IV}^2 }{  a_{VV}}, 

2518: \quad

2519: V^2\frac{a_{II}a_{VV}-a_{IV}^2  }{a_{II}}.

2520: \eeq

2521: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2522: These expressions exactly coincide with equations (\ref{31}) and 

2523: (\ref{32}) in the case of $n_t=3$. 

2524: Indeed, using $Mathematica$, we confirmed  that the above 

2525: expressions faithfully reproduced  the same results as 

2526: obtained from the direct estimation with equation 

2527: (\ref{eq:SNR_direct_method}), up to $n_t=8$. 

2528: By summing up all the frequency bands and properly dealing with the

2529: number of bins $b_v=\delta f_v/\Delta f$ (as in Appendix \ref{sec:PDF_for_corr}), we can easily evaluate the broadband SNRs for large number of detectors with

2530: the following the expressions:

2531: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2532: \beqa

2533: \mathrm{SNR}_I^2&=&\lmk\frac{16\pi}{5}  \rmk^2 T_{\rm obs} \lkk

2534: 2\int_0^\infty df I^2\frac{a_{II}a_{VV}-a_{IV}^2 }{  a_{VV}} \rkk, \\

2535: \mathrm{SNR}_V^2&=&\lmk\frac{16\pi}{5}  \rmk^2 T_{\rm obs}  \lkk

2536: 2\int_0^\infty df    V^2\frac{a_{II}a_{VV}-a_{IV}^2 }{  a_{II}} \rkk .

2537: \eeqa

2538: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2539: For  analysis  only

2540: with the $I$-mode (or $\Omega_{\rm GW}$), the broadband SNR for the $I$ mode is

2541: evaluated by 

2542: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2543: \beq

2544: \mathrm{SNR}_{I0}^2=\lmk\frac{16\pi}{5}  \rmk^2 T_{\rm obs} \lkk

2545: 2\int_0^\infty df {I^2 a_{II}} \rkk .

2546: \eeq

2547: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2548: We use this expression as a reference to analyze effects caused by

2549: estimation of multiple parameters.

2550: We can express $\mathrm{SNR}_I$ as

2551: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2552: \beq

2553: \mathrm{SNR}_I^2=\lmk\frac{16\pi}{5}  \rmk^2 T_{\rm obs} \lkk

2554: 2\int_0^\infty df I^2 a_{II} (1-R^2) \rkk .

2555: \eeq

2556: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2557: Therefore the ratio $R$ characterizes the loss of SNRs due to the

2558: increase of the number of observable parameters. A similar argument holds

2559: for the $V$ mode.

2560: 

2561: 

2562: 

2563: 

2564: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2565: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2566: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2567: \section{Detectors on the Moon}

2568: \label{sec:moon}

2569: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2570: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2571: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2572: 

2573: 

2574: It has been discussed that, on the surface of the Moon, the

2575: high-vacuum level and rich three-dimensional surface structure

2576:  are suitable to build a gravitational wave interferometer with very long

2577: armlength (see {\it e.g.,} Ref.\cite{moon}). 

2578: Meanwhile,  the north and south poles of the Moon seem to be 

2579: preferable and are thought to be special places for human 

2580: activities as well as astronomical observation (see {\it e.g.,} 

2581: Ref.\cite{ice}). 

2582: The rotation axis of the Moon is nearly perpendicular to the ecliptic plane. 

2583: Therefore, at the rims of craters

2584: near the two poles, the sun-light is available during most of one Moon's

2585: day ($\sim$30 Earth days). In contrast, the bottom of craters around the poles

2586: is at permanent night with exceptionally stable temperature environment

2587: around 40K, and we might obtain trapped water ice, from which we can produce 

2588: hydrogen and oxygen (fuel for rocket engine) with electrical decomposition. 

2589: Away from the pole areas, the surface of the Moon has severe physical 

2590: conditions with a large temperature variation typically from $\sim 100$K 

2591: (night) to $\sim 400$K (daytime).  Therefore, when we build detectors on the 

2592: Moon, location near the poles would be the most natural choice. 

2593: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2594: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2595: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2596: %\include{ref}

2597: 

2598: 

2599: \begin{thebibliography}{DUM}

2600: 

2601: 

2602: \bibitem{Thorne_K:1987}

2603: K.~S. Thorne,  in {\em Three hundred years of gravitation}, edited by

2604:  S.~W. 

2605:   Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987),

2606:   pp.\ 330--458.

2607: 

2608: 

2609: 

2610: %\cite{Cutler:2002me}

2611: \bibitem{Cutler:2002me}

2612:   C.~Cutler and K.~S.~Thorne,

2613:   %``An overview of gravitational-wave sources,''

2614:   arXiv:gr-qc/0204090.

2615:   %%CITATION = GR-QC 0204090;%%

2616: 

2617: 

2618: 

2619: %\cite{Allen:1996vm}

2620: \bibitem{Allen:1996vm}

2621:   M.~Maggiore,

2622:   %``Gravitational wave experiments and early universe cosmology,''

2623:   Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 331}, 283 (2000);

2624:   %%CITATION = GR-QC 9909001;%%

2625: B.~Allen,

2626:   %``The stochastic gravity-wave background: Sources and detection,''

2627:   arXiv:gr-qc/9604033.

2628:   %%CITATION = GR-QC 9604033;%%

2629: 

2630: %\cite{Abbott:2006zx}

2631: \bibitem{Abbott:2006zx}

2632:   B.~Abbott {\it et al.}  [LIGO Collaboration],

2633:   %``Searching for a stochastic background of gravitational waves with LIGO,''

2634:   Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 659}, 918 (2007)

2635:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0608606].

2636:   %%CITATION = ASJOA,659,918;%%

2637: 

2638: 

2639: %\cite{Smith:2006nka}

2640: \bibitem{Smith:2006nka}

2641:   T.~L.~Smith, E.~Pierpaoli and M.~Kamionkowski,

2642:   %``A new cosmic microwave background constraint to primordial  gravitational

2643:   %waves,''

2644:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 97}, 021301 (2006)

2645:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0603144].

2646:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,97,021301;%%

2647: 

2648: %\cite{Giampieri:1997ie}

2649: \bibitem{Giampieri:1997ie}

2650: 

2651: %\bibitem{Allen:1996gp}

2652:   B.~Allen and A.~C.~Ottewill,

2653:   %``Detection of anisotropies in the gravitational-wave stochastic

2654:   %background,''

2655:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 56}, 545 (1997)

2656:   [arXiv:gr-qc/9607068];

2657:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D56,545;%%

2658: 

2659: 

2660:   G.~Giampieri and A.~G.~Polnarev,

2661:   %``Detecting an anisotropic gravitational wave background with LISA,''

2662:   Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\  {\bf 14}, 1521 (1997);

2663:   %%CITATION = CQGRD,14,1521;%%

2664: 

2665: %\cite{Cornish:2001hg}

2666: %\bibitem{Cornish:2001hg}

2667:   N.~J.~Cornish,

2668:   %``Mapping the gravitational wave background,''

2669:   Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\  {\bf 18}, 4277 (2001)

2670:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0105374];

2671:   %%CITATION = CQGRD,18,4277;%%

2672: 

2673: 

2674: %\cite{Ungarelli:2001xu}

2675: %\bibitem{Ungarelli:2001xu}

2676:   C.~Ungarelli and A.~Vecchio,

2677:   %``Studying the anisotropy of the gravitational wave stochastic background

2678:   %with LISA,''

2679:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 64}, 121501 (2001)

2680:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0106538];

2681:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D64,121501;%%

2682: 

2683: %\cite{Seto:2004ji}

2684: %\bibitem{Seto:2004ji}

2685:   N.~Seto,

2686:   %``Annual modulation of the galactic binary confusion noise background and

2687:   %LISA data analysis,''

2688:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 69}, 123005 (2004)

2689:   [arXiv:gr-qc/0403014];

2690:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D69,123005;%%

2691: 

2692: 

2693:  A.~Taruya,

2694:   %``Probing anisotropies of gravitational-wave backgrounds with a  space-based

2695:   %interferometer. III: Reconstruction of a high-frequency  skymap,''

2696:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 74}, 104022 (2006)

2697:   [arXiv:gr-qc/0607080];

2698:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D74,104022;%%

2699: 

2700: 

2701: 

2702: %\cite{Mitra:2007mc}

2703: %\bibitem{Mitra:2007mc}

2704:   S.~Mitra, S.~Dhurandhar, T.~Souradeep, A.~Lazzarini, V.~Mandic, S.~Bose and S.~Ballmer,

2705:   %``Gravitational wave radiometry: Mapping a stochastic gravitational wave

2706:   %background,''

2707:   arXiv:0708.2728 [gr-qc].

2708:   %%CITATION = ARXIV:0708.2728;%%

2709: 

2710: 

2711: 

2712: %\cite{Seto:2007tn}

2713: \bibitem{Seto:2007tn}

2714:   N.~Seto and A.~Taruya,

2715:   %``Measuring a Parity Violation Signature in the Early Universe via

2716:   %Ground-based Laser Interferometers,''

2717:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 99}, 121101 (2007)

2718:   [arXiv:0707.0535 [astro-ph]].

2719:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,99,121101;%%

2720: 

2721: %\cite{Lue:1998mq}

2722: \bibitem{Lue:1998mq}

2723:   A.~Lue, L.~M.~Wang and M.~Kamionkowski,

2724:   %``Cosmological signature of new parity-violating interactions,''

2725:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 83}, 1506 (1999)

2726:   [arXiv:astro-ph/9812088];

2727:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,83,1506;%%

2728: %\cite{Saito:2007kt}

2729: 

2730: %\bibitem{Saito:2007kt}

2731:   S.~Saito, K.~Ichiki and A.~Taruya,

2732:   %``Probing polarization states of primordial gravitational waves with CMB

2733:   %anisotropies,''

2734:   JCAP {\bf 0709}, 002 (2007)

2735:   [arXiv:0705.3701 [astro-ph]].

2736:   %%CITATION = JCAPA,0709,002;%%

2737: 

2738: 

2739: 

2740: 

2741: 

2742: %\cite{Seto:2006hf}

2743: \bibitem{Seto:2006hf}

2744:   N.~Seto,

2745:   %``Prospects for direct detection of circular polarization of

2746:   %gravitational-wave background,''

2747:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 97}, 151101 (2006); 

2748:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,97,151101;%%

2749: %\cite{Seto:2006dz}

2750: %\bibitem{Seto:2006dz}

2751:   N.~Seto,

2752:   %``Quest for circular polarization of gravitational wave background and orbits

2753:   %of laser interferometers in space,''

2754:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 75}, 061302 (2007)

2755:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0609633].

2756:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D75,061302;%%

2757: 

2758: 

2759: %\cite{lisa}

2760: \bibitem{lisa}

2761: P.~L.~Bender  { et al}.

2762: {\it LISA Pre-Phase A Report,} Second edition, July 1998. 

2763: 

2764: 

2765: 

2766: %\cite{bbo}

2767: \bibitem{bbo}

2768: E. S. Phinney et al. The Big Bang Observer, NASA Mission Concept Study

2769:  (2003).

2770: 

2771: 

2772: 

2773: 

2774: %\cite{Seto:2001qf}

2775: \bibitem{Seto:2001qf}

2776:   N.~Seto, S.~Kawamura and T.~Nakamura,

2777:   %``Possibility of direct measurement of the acceleration of the universe

2778:   %using 0.1-Hz band laser interferometer gravitational wave antenna in

2779:   %space,''

2780:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 87}, 221103 (2001);

2781: %  [arXiv:astro-ph/0108011].

2782:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0108011;%%

2783: %\cite{Kawamura}

2784: %\bibitem{Kawamura}

2785: S. Kawamura et al.\ 

2786:  Class.  Quant. Grav. {\bf 23}, 125 (2006).

2787: 

2788: 

2789: 

2790: 

2791: %\cite{Alexander:2004us}

2792: \bibitem{Alexander:2004us}

2793:   S.~H.~S.~Alexander et al.

2794:   %``Leptogenesis from gravity waves in models of inflation,''

2795:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 96}, 081301 (2006);

2796:  % [arXiv:hep-th/0403069].

2797:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,96,081301;%%

2798: 

2799: 

2800: %\cite{Satoh:2007gn}

2801: %\bibitem{Satoh:2007gn}

2802:   M.~Satoh, S.~Kanno and J.~Soda,

2803:   %``Circular Polarization of Primordial Gravitational Waves in String-inspired

2804:   %Inflationary Cosmology,''

2805:   arXiv:0706.3585 [astro-ph].

2806:   %%CITATION = ARXIV:0706.3585;%%

2807: 

2808: 

2809: %\cite{Kahniashvili:2005qi}

2810: \bibitem{Kahniashvili:2005qi}

2811:   T.~Kahniashvili, G.~Gogoberidze and B.~Ratra,

2812:   %``Polarized cosmological gravitational waves from primordial helical

2813:   %turbulence,''

2814:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 95}, 151301 (2005)

2815:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0505628].

2816:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,95,151301

2817: 

2818: 

2819: \bibitem{radipro}

2820: G. B. Rybicki and A. P. Lightman, {\it Radiative Process in Astrophysics} (Wiley, New York, 1979). 

2821: 

2822: 

2823: 

2824: 

2825: 

2826: 

2827: \bibitem{m87}

2828: P. F. Michelson, 

2829: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 227, 933 (1987).

2830: 

2831: %\cite{Christensen:1992wi}

2832: \bibitem{Christensen:1992wi}

2833:   N.~Christensen,

2834:   %``Measuring the stochastic gravitational radiation background with laser

2835:   %interferometric antennas,''

2836:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 46}, 5250 (1992).

2837:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D46,5250;%%

2838: 

2839: 

2840: 

2841: %\cite{Flanagan:1993ix}

2842: \bibitem{Flanagan:1993ix}

2843:   E.~E.~Flanagan,

2844:   %``The Sensitivity of the laser interferometer gravitational wave observatory

2845:   %(LIGO) to a stochastic background, and its dependence on the detector

2846:   %orientations,''

2847:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48}, 2389 (1993).

2848: %  [arXiv:astro-ph/9305029];

2849:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9305029;%%

2850: 

2851: 

2852: %\cite{Allen:1997ad}

2853: \bibitem{Allen:1997ad}

2854:   B.~Allen and J.~D.~Romano,

2855:   %``Detecting a stochastic background of gravitational radiation: Signal

2856:   %processing strategies and sensitivities,''

2857:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 59}, 102001 (1999).

2858:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D59,102001;%%

2859: 

2860: %\cite{Willke:2002bs}

2861: \bibitem{Willke:2002bs}

2862:   B.~Willke {\it et al.},

2863:   %``The GEO 600 gravitational wave detector,''

2864:   Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\  {\bf 19}, 1377 (2002).

2865:   %%CITATION = CQGRD,19,1377;%%

2866: 

2867: \bibitem{aigo}

2868: R. Sandeman, in Second workshop on gravitational waves data analysis, M. Davier

2869: and P. Hello eds., `Editions Fronti�Leres, Paris, 1998.

2870: 

2871: %\cite{Kuroda:1999vi}

2872: \bibitem{Kuroda:1999vi}

2873:   K.~Kuroda {\it et al.} 

2874:   %``Large-scale cryogenic gravitational wave telescope,''

2875:   Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\  D {\bf 8}, 557 (1999).

2876:   %%CITATION = IMPAE,D8,557;%%

2877: 

2878: 

2879: %\cite{Abramovici:1992ah}

2880: \bibitem{Abramovici:1992ah}

2881:   A.~Abramovici {\it et al.},

2882:   %``Ligo: The Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory,''

2883:   Science {\bf 256}, 325 (1992).

2884:   %%CITATION = SCIEA,256,325;%%

2885: 

2886: 

2887: 

2888: %\cite{Acernese:2002bw}

2889: \bibitem{Acernese:2002bw}

2890:   F.~Acernese {\it et al.}  [VIRGO Collaboration],

2891:   %``The present status of the VIRGO central interferometer,''

2892:   Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\  {\bf 19}, 1421 (2002).

2893:   %%CITATION = CQGRD,19,1421;%%

2894: 

2895: %\cite{Ando:2001ej}

2896: \bibitem{Ando:2001ej}

2897:   M.~Ando {\it et al.}  [TAMA Collaboration],

2898:   %``Stable operation of a 300-m laser interferometer with sufficient

2899:   %sensitivity to detect gravitational-wave events within our Galaxy,''

2900:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86}, 3950 (2001)

2901:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0105473].

2902:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,86,3950;%%

2903: 

2904: 

2905: 

2906: \bibitem{adv}E.  Gustafson et al. 1999,

2907: LIGO project document

2908: T990080-00-D.

2909: 

2910: 

2911: %\cite{Seto:2005qy}

2912: \bibitem{Seto:2005qy}

2913:   N.~Seto,

2914:   %``Correlation analysis of stochastic gravitational wave background around

2915:   %0.1-Hz - 1-Hz,''

2916:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 73}, 063001 (2006)

2917:   [arXiv:gr-qc/0510067].

2918:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D73,063001;%%

2919: 

2920: 

2921: 

2922: %\cite{Kudoh:2005as}

2923: \bibitem{Kudoh:2005as}

2924:   H.~Kudoh et al.

2925:   %``Detecting a gravitational-wave background with next-generation space

2926:   %interferometers,''

2927:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 064006 (2006).

2928: %  [arXiv:gr-qc/0511145].

2929:   %%CITATION = GR-QC 0511145;%%

2930: 

2931: \bibitem{moon}

2932:  R. T. Stebbins, P. R. 

2933: Saulson, J. W. Armstrong, R. W. Hellings, P. L. Bender,  \& 

2934: R. W. P. Drever,  

2935: Astrophysics from the Moon 207, 637 (1990). 

2936: 

2937: 

2938: \bibitem{ice}

2939: Bussey, D. B. J. et al.  Nature, 434, 842 (2005).

2940: 

2941: 

2942: \end{thebibliography}

2943: 

2944: 

2945: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2946: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2947: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2948: 

2949: 

2950: \end{document}

2951: 

2952: 

2953: 

2954: 

2955: 

2956: 

2957: ----Next_Part(Tue_Jan_22_17_26_25_2008_142)----

2958: 

2959: 

2960: ----Next_Part(Thu_Jan_24_01_53_17_2008_424)----

2961: 

2962: