1: \section{A brief refresher on matched-filtering GW detection}
2: \label{sec:refresher}
3:
4: We refer the reader to Ref.\ \cite{bcv1} (henceforth BCV1), for a
5: self-contained discussion of matched-filtering techniques for GW
6: detection, which includes all relevant bibliographic references. In
7: this section we shall be content with introducing cursorily the
8: quantities and symbols used throughout this paper.
9:
10: \emph{Matched filtering}
11: \cite{Wainstein,DA91,Finn,FC,CF94,DS94,S94,ApostolatosFF,O,BSD,FH,DIS,OS99,DIS3} is the
12: standard method to detect GW signals of known shape, whereby we
13: compare the detector output with \emph{templates} that approximate
14: closely the signals expected from a given class of sources, for a
15: variety of source parameters. The goodness of fit between the template
16: $h(\lambda^A)$ (where $\lambda^A$ denotes all the source parameters)
17: and the real GW signal $s$ is quantified by the \emph{overlap}
18: %
19: \begin{equation}
20: \label{eq:overlap}
21: \rho[s,h(\lambda^A)] = \frac{\langle s, h(\lambda^A) \rangle}{\sqrt{\langle h(\lambda^A), h(\lambda^A) \rangle}}
22: \end{equation}
23: %
24: [also known as the \emph{signal-to-noise ratio} after filtering $s$ by
25: $h(\lambda^A)$], where the inner product $\langle g(t)$, $h(t)
26: \rangle$ of two real signals with Fourier transforms $\tilde{g}(f)$,
27: $\tilde{h}(f)$ is given by \cite{CF94}
28: %
29: \begin{equation}
30: \langle g, h \rangle =
31: 2 \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{\tilde{g}^*(f)
32: \tilde{h}(f)}{S_n(|f|)} df =
33: 4 \, \mathrm{Re} \int_{0}^{+\infty}
34: \frac{\tilde{g}^*(f) \tilde{h}(f)}{S_n(f)} df;
35: \end{equation}
36: %
37: throughout this paper we adopt the LIGO-I one-sided noise power
38: spectral density $S_n$ given by Eq.\ (28) of BCV1. Except where
39: otherwise noted, we shall always consider normalized templates
40: $\hat{h}$ (where the hat denotes normalization), for which $\langle
41: \hat{h}(\lambda^A), \hat{h}(\lambda^A) \rangle = 1$, so we can drop
42: the denominator of Eq.\ \eqref{eq:overlap}.
43:
44: A large overlap between a given stretch of detector output and a
45: particular template implies that there is a high probability that a GW
46: signal similar to the template is actually present in the output, and
47: is not being merely simulated by noise alone. Therefore the overlap
48: can be used as a \emph{detection statistic}: we may claim a detection
49: if the overlap rises above a \emph{detection threshold} $\rho^*$,
50: which is set, on the basis of a characterization of the noise, in such
51: a way that false alarms are sufficiently unlikely.
52:
53: The maximum (\emph{optimal}) overlap that can be achieved for the signal $s$
54: is $\sqrt{\langle s, s \rangle}$ (the \emph{optimal signal-to-noise
55: ratio}), which is achieved by a perfect (normalized) template $\hat{h} \equiv s /
56: \sqrt{\langle s, s \rangle}$. In practice, however, this value will
57: not be reached, for two distinct reasons. First, the template family
58: $\{\hat{h}(\lambda^A)\}$ might not contain a faithful representation of the
59: physical signal $w$. The fraction of the theoretical maximum overlap
60: that is recovered by the template family is quantified by the
61: \emph{fitting factor} \cite{ApostolatosFF}
62: %
63: \begin{equation}
64: \mathrm{FF} = \frac{\max_{\lambda^A} \langle w, \hat{h}(\lambda^A) \rangle}{\sqrt{\langle w, w \rangle}}.
65: \end{equation}
66: %
67: Second, in practice we will usually not be able to use a
68: \emph{continuous} template family $\{\hat{h}(\lambda^A)\}$, but instead we
69: will have to settle with a discretized template {bank}
70: $\{\hat{h}(\lambda_{(k)}^A)\}$, where $(k)$ indexes a finite lattice in
71: parameter space; so the best template to match a given physical signal
72: will have to be replaced by a nearby template in the bank. [As we
73: shall see in Sec.\ \ref{sec:parametrization}, there is a partial
74: exception to this rule: we can take into account all possible values
75: of certain parameters, known as \emph{extrinsic parameters}
76: \cite{S94,O}, without actually laying down templates in the bank along
77: that parameter direction.] The fraction of the optimal overlap that
78: is recovered by the template bank, in the worst possible case, is
79: quantified by the \emph{minimum match} \cite{DA91,O}. Assuming that the physical
80: signal belongs to the continuous template family $\{\hat{h}(\lambda^A)\}$,
81: the minimum match is equal to
82: %
83: \begin{equation}
84: \mathrm{MM} = \min_{{\lambda'}^A} \max_{(k)} \langle \hat{h}({\lambda'}^A), \hat{h}(\lambda_{(k)}^A) \rangle.
85: \end{equation}
86: %
87: The required minimum match $\mathrm{MM}$ sets the allowable coarseness
88: of the template bank \cite{DA91,DS94,S94}: the closer to one the $\mathrm{MM}$, the closer
89: to one another the templates will need to be laid down. In Sec.\
90: \ref{sec:metric} we shall use a notion of \emph{metric}
91: \cite{BSD,O,OS99} in parameter space to characterize the
92: size and the geometry of the template bank corresponding to a given
93: $\mathrm{MM}$.
94:
95: