1: \documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{graphicx}

3: 

4: \usepackage{dcolumn}

5: \usepackage{bm}

6: 

7: \begin{document}

8: \title{The White Dwarf --- White Dwarf galactic background in the LISA

9:   data.}

10: 

11: \author{Jeffrey A. Edlund}

12: \email{Jeffrey.A.Edlund@jpl.nasa.gov}

13: \affiliation{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of

14:              Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109}

15: 

16: \author{Massimo Tinto}

17: \email{Massimo.Tinto@jpl.nasa.gov}

18: \affiliation{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of

19:              Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109}

20: 

21: \author{Andrzej Kr\'olak}

22: \email{krolan@aei.mpg.de} \altaffiliation[also at: ]{Institute of

23: Mathematics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland}

24: \affiliation{Max-Planck-Institute for Gravitational Physics,

25: Albert Einstein Institute, D-14476 Golm, Germany}

26: 

27: \author{Gijs Nelemans} 

28: \email{nelemans@astro.ru.nl}

29: \affiliation{Department of Astrophysics, IMAPP, Radboud University

30:   Nijmegen, The Netherlands}

31: 

32: \date{\today}

33: %

34: \begin{abstract}

35:   LISA (Laser Interferometer Space Antenna) is a proposed space

36:   mission, which will use coherent laser beams exchanged between three

37:   remote spacecraft to detect and study low-frequency cosmic

38:   gravitational radiation. In the low-part of its frequency band, the

39:   LISA strain sensitivity will be dominated by the incoherent

40:   superposition of hundreds of millions of gravitational wave signals

41:   radiated by inspiraling white-dwarf binaries present in our own

42:   galaxy. In order to estimate the magnitude of the LISA response to

43:   this background, we have simulated a synthesized population that

44:   recently appeared in the literature. Our approach relies on entirely

45:   analytic expressions of the LISA Time-Delay Interferometric

46:   responses to the gravitational radiation emitted by such systems,

47:   which allows us to implement a computationally efficient and

48:   accurate simulation of the background in the LISA data. We find the

49:   amplitude of the galactic white-dwarf binary background in the LISA

50:   data to be modulated in time, reaching a minimum equal to about

51:   twice that of the LISA noise for a period of about two months around

52:   the time when the Sun-LISA direction is roughly oriented towards the

53:   Autumn equinox.  This suggests that, during this time period, LISA

54:   could search for other gravitational wave signals incoming from

55:   directions that are away from the galactic plane.  Since the

56:   galactic white-dwarfs background will be observed by LISA not as a

57:   stationary but rather as a cyclostationary random process with a

58:   period of one year, we summarize the theory of cyclostationary

59:   random processes, present the corresponding generalized spectral

60:   method needed to characterize such process, and make a comparison

61:   between our analytic results and those obtained by applying our

62:   method to the simulated data. We find that, by measuring the

63:   generalized spectral components of the white-dwarf background, LISA

64:   will be able to infer properties of the distribution of the

65:   white-dwarfs binary systems present in our Galaxy.

66: \end{abstract}

67: 

68: \pacs{04.80.Nn, 95.55.Ym, 07.60.Ly}

69: \maketitle

70: 

71: \section{Introduction}

72: \label{intro}

73: 

74: The Laser Interferometric Space Antenna (LISA) is a space mission

75: jointly proposed to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

76: (NASA) and the European Space Agency (ESA). Its aim is to detect and

77: study gravitational waves (GW) in the millihertz frequency band. It

78: will use coherent laser beams exchanged between three identical

79: spacecraft forming a giant (almost) equilateral triangle of side $5

80: \times 10^6$ kilometers. By monitoring the relative phase changes of

81: the light beams exchanged between the spacecraft, it will extract the

82: information about the gravitational waves it will observe at

83: unprecedented sensitivities  \cite{PPA98}.

84: 

85: The astrophysical sources that LISA is expected to observe within its

86: operational frequency band ($10^{-4} - 1$ Hz) include extra-galactic

87: super-massive black-hole coalescing binaries, stochastic gravitational

88: wave background from the early universe, and galactic and

89: extra-galactic coalescing binary systems containing white dwarfs and

90: neutron stars.

91: 

92: Recent surveys have uniquely identified twenty binary systems emitting

93: gravitational radiation within the LISA band, while population studies

94: have concluded that the large number of binaries present in our own

95: galaxy should produce a stochastic background that will lie

96: significantly above the LISA instrumental noise in the low-part of its

97: frequency band.  It has been shown in the literature (see \cite{NYP01}

98: for a recent study and \cite{HBW90,EIS87} for earlier investigations)

99: that these sources will be dominated by detached white-dwarf ---

100: white-dwarf (WD-WD) binaries, with $1.1 \ \times 10^8$ of such systems

101: in our Galaxy. The detached WD-WD binaries evolve by

102: gravitational-radiation reaction and the number of such sources

103: rapidly decreases with increasing orbital frequency. Although it is

104: expected that, above a certain frequency cut-off ($1 - 2 \ {\rm

105:   mHz}$), we will be able to resolve individual signals and remove

106: them from the LISA data, it is still not clear how to further improve

107: the LISA sensitivity to other gravitational wave signals in the region

108: of the frequency band below the WD-WD background frequency cut-off.

109: Although two promising data analysis procedures have been proposed

110: \cite{CL03,KT03} for attempting to subtract the galactic background,

111: considerable work still needs to be done to verify their

112: effectiveness. In this context, simulating the LISA response to the

113: WD-WD background will be particularly useful for verifying present and

114: future data analysis ``cleaning'' algorithms.  A realistic simulation

115: will also quantify the effects of the LISA motion around the Sun on

116: the overall amplitude and phase of the GW signal generated by the

117: background in the LISA data.  The directional properties of the LISA

118: response and its time dependence introduced by the motion of LISA

119: around the Sun, together with the non-isotropic and non-homogeneous

120: distribution of the WD-WD binary systems within the galactic disk as

121: seen by LISA, imply that the magnitude of the background observed by

122: LISA will not be a stationary random process. As a consequence of the

123: one-year periodicity of the LISA motion around the Sun, there exist

124: relatively long ($\approx 2$ months) stretches of data during which

125: the magnitude of the LISA response to the background will reach an

126: absolute minimum \cite{Seto04}. Our simulation shows this minimum to

127: be less than a factor of two larger than the level identified by the

128: LISA secondary noises, suggesting the possibility of performing

129: searches for gravitational radiation from other sources located in

130: regions of the sky that are away from the galactic plane.  The LISA

131: sensitivity to such signal in fact will be less limited by the WD-WD

132: background during these periods of observation.

133: 

134: This paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{LISA_RES} we

135: provide the analytic expression of one of the LISA Time-Delay

136: Interferometric (TDI) responses to a signal radiated by a binary

137: system. Although all the TDI responses to binary signals were first

138: given in their closed analytic form in \cite{KTV04}, in what follows

139: we will focus our attention only on the unequal-arm Michelson

140: combination, $X$. In Section \ref{WD_POP} we give a summary of how the

141: WD-WD binary population was obtained, and a description of our

142: numerical simulation of the $X$ response to it.  In Section \ref{Simu}

143: we describe the numerical implementation of our simulation of the LISA

144: $X$ response to the WD-WD background, and summarize our results.  In

145: particular, in agreement with the results by Seto \cite{Seto04}, we

146: find the amplitude of the galactic WD-WD background in the LISA

147: $X$-combination to be modulated in time, reaching a minimum when the

148: Sun-LISA direction is roughly oriented towards the Autumn equinox.

149: Furthermore, we show the amplitude of the background at its minimum to

150: be a factor less than two larger than the level identified by the LISA

151: noise for a time period of about two months, suggesting that LISA

152: could search (during this time period) for other gravitational wave

153: signals incoming from regions of the sky that are away from the

154: galactic plane.

155: 

156: The time-dependence and periodicity of the magnitude of the WD-WD

157: galactic background in the LISA data implies that it is not a

158: stationary but rather a cyclostationary random process of period one

159: year.  After providing a brief summary of the theory of

160: cyclostationary random processes relevant to the LISA detection of the

161: WD-WD galactic background, we apply it to three years worth of

162: simulated LISA $X$ data. We find that, by measuring the generalized

163: spectral components of such cyclostationary random process, LISA will

164: be able to infer key-properties of the distribution of the WD-WD

165: binary systems present in our own Galaxy.

166: 

167: \section{The LISA response to signals from binary systems}

168: \label{LISA_RES}

169: 

170: The overall LISA geometry is shown in Figure (\ref{Fig1}).

171: \begin{figure}

172: \centering

173: \includegraphics[width=2.5in, angle=-90]{Figure1.ps}

174: \caption{Schematic LISA configuration. Each spacecraft is 

175:   equidistant from point $o$, with unit vectors $\hat p_i$ indicating

176:   directions to the three spacecraft. Unit vectors $\hat n_i$ point

177:   between spacecraft pairs with the indicated orientation. \label{Fig1}}

178: \end{figure}

179: There are six beams exchanged between the LISA spacecraft, 

180: with the six Doppler measurements $y_{ij}$ ($i,j = 1, 2, 3$) recorded

181: when each received beam is mixed with the laser light of the

182: receiving optical bench.  The frequency fluctuations from the six

183: lasers, which enter in each of the six Doppler measurements, need to

184: be suppressed to a level smaller than that identified by the secondary

185:  (proof mass and optical path) noises  \cite{TEA02} in order to detect

186: and study gravitational radiation at the predicted amplitudes. 

187: 

188: Since the LISA triangular array has systematic motions, the two

189: one-way light times between any spacecraft pair are not the same

190:  \cite{S04}.  Delay times for light travel between

191: the spacecraft must be accounted for depending on the sense of light

192: propagation along each link when combining these data as a consequence

193: of the rotation of the array.  Following  \cite{TEA04}, the arms are

194: labeled with single numbers given by the opposite spacecraft; e.g.,

195: arm $2$ (or $2^{'}$) is opposite spacecraft $2$, where primed delays are

196: used to distinguish light-times taken in the counter-clockwise sense

197: and unprimed delays for the clockwise light times (see Figure (\ref{Fig2})).

198: Also the following labeling convention of the Doppler data will be

199: used.  Explicitly: $y_{23}$ is the one-way Doppler shift measured at

200: spacecraft $3$, coming from spacecraft $2$, along arm $1$.  Similarly,

201: $y_{32}$ is the Doppler shift measured on arrival at spacecraft $2$

202: along arm $1'$ of a signal transmitted from spacecraft $3$.  Due to the

203: relative motion between spacecraft, $L_1 \neq L_1^{'}$ in general. As

204: in  \cite{ETA00,TEA02}, we denote six further data streams,

205: $z_{ij}$ ($i,j = 1, 2, 3$), as the intra-spacecraft metrology data

206: used to monitor the motion of the two optical benches and the relative

207: phase fluctuations of the two lasers on each of the three spacecraft.

208: \begin{figure}

209: \centering

210: \includegraphics[width=3.0 in, angle=0.0]{Figure2.eps}

211: \caption{Schematic diagram of LISA configurations involving

212:   six laser beams. Optical path delays taken in the counter-clockwise

213:   sense are denoted with a prime, while unprimed delays are in the

214:   clockwise sense. 

215: \label{Fig2}}

216: \end{figure}

217: The frequency fluctuations introduced by the lasers, by the optical

218: benches, by the proof masses, by the fiber optics, and by the

219: measurements themselves at the photo-detectors (i.e.\ the shot-noise

220: fluctuations) enter the Doppler observables $y_{ij}$, $z_{ij}$ with

221: specific time signatures; see Refs.  \cite{ETA00,TEA02} for a detailed

222: discussion.  The contribution $y^\mathrm{GW}_{ij}$ due to GW signals

223: was derived in Ref.  \cite{AET99} in the case of a stationary array,

224: and further extended to the realistic configuration \cite{KTV04} of

225: the LISA array orbiting around the Sun.

226: 

227: Let us consider for instance the ``second generation'' unequal-arm

228: Michelson TDI observables, ($X_1, X_2, X_3$). Their expressions, in

229: terms of the Doppler measurements $y_{ij}$, $z_{ij}$, are as follows \cite{STEA03}

230: \begin{eqnarray}

231: X_1 & = & [{(y_{31} + y_{13;2}) + (y_{21} + y_{12;3'})}_{;2'2}

232: + {(y_{21} + y_{12;3'})}_{;33'2'2}

233: + {(y_{31} + y_{13;2})}_{;33'33'2'2}]

234: \nonumber

235: \\

236: & & -

237: [(y_{21} + y_{12;3'})

238: + {(y_{31} + y_{13;2})}_{;33'}

239: + {(y_{31} + y_{13;2})}_{2'233'} +

240: {(y_{21} + y_{12;3'})}_{;2'22'233'}]

241: \nonumber

242: \\

243: & & +  \frac{1}{2} \ [(z_{21} - z_{31}) - {(z_{21} -

244: z_{31})}_{;33'} - {(z_{21} - z_{31})}_{;2'2}

245: + {(z_{21} - z_{31})}_{;33'33'2'2}

246: \nonumber

247: \\

248: & & + {(z_{21} - z_{31})}_{;2'22'233'}

249: - {(z_{21} - z_{31})}_{;2'233'33'2'2}] \ ,

250: \label{eq:X1}

251: \end{eqnarray}

252: with $X_2$, $X_3$ following from Eq. (\ref{eq:X1}) by permutations of

253: the spacecraft indices. The semicolon notation shown in equation

254: (\ref{eq:X1}) emphasizes that the operation of sequentially applying

255: two or more delays to a given measurement is non-commutative as

256: consequence of the time dependence of the light-times $L_i$ and

257: $L_i^{'}$ ($i = 1, 2, 3$), and a specific order has to be adopted to

258: adequately suppress the laser noises \cite{TEA04,CH03,STEA03}.

259: Specifically: $y_{ij;kl} \equiv y_{ij} (t - L_l (t) - L_k (t - L_l))

260: \ne y_{ij;lk}$ (units in which the speed of light $c=1$).

261: 

262: The expressions of the gravitational wave signal and the secondary

263: noise sources entering into $X_1$ will in general be different from

264: those entering into $X$, the corresponding ``first generation''

265: unequal-arm Michelson observable derived under the assumption of a

266: stationary LISA array \cite{AET99,ETA00}.  However, the magnitude

267: of the corrections introduced by the motion of the array are

268: proportional to the product between the time derivative of the GW

269: amplitude and the difference between the actual light travel times and

270: those valid for a stationary array.  At $1$ Hz, for instance, the

271: larger correction to the signal (due to the difference between the

272: co-rotating and counter-rotating light travel times) is two orders of

273: magnitude smaller than the main signal. Since the amplitude of this

274: correction scales linearly with the Fourier frequency, we can

275: completely disregard this effect (and the weaker effect due to the

276: time dependence of the light travel times) over the entire LISA band

277:  \cite{TEA04}.  Furthermore, since along the LISA orbit the three

278: armlengths will differ at most by $\sim$ 1\%--2\%, the degradation in

279: signal-to-noise ratio introduced by adopting signal templates that

280: neglect the inequality of the armlengths will be of only a few

281: percent.  For these reasons, in what follows we will focus on the

282: expressions of the GW responses of various second-generation Time-Delay

283: Interferometry (TDI) observables by disregarding the differences in

284: the delay times experienced by light propagating clockwise and

285: counterclockwise, and by assuming the three LISA armlengths to be

286: constant and equal to $L = 5 \times 10^6 \, \mbox{km} \simeq 16.67 \,

287: \mbox{s}$ \cite{PPA98}.  These approximations, together with the

288: treatment of the moving-LISA GW response discussed in \cite{KTV04} are

289: essentially equivalent to the \emph{rigid adiabatic approximation\/} of

290: Ref. \cite{RCP04}, and to the formalism of Ref. \cite{Seto04}.

291: 

292: These considerations imply that the second generation TDI expressions

293: for the gravitational wave signal and the secondary noises can be

294: expressed in terms of the corresponding first generation TDIs.  For

295: instance, the gravitational wave signal entering into the second

296: generation unequal-arm Michelson combination, $X^{\rm GW}_1$, can be

297: written in terms of the gravitational wave response of the

298: corresponding first generation unequal-arm Michelson combination,

299: $X^{\rm GW} (t)$, in the following manner \cite{TL04}

300: \begin{equation}

301: X^{\rm GW}_1 (t) = X^{\rm GW} (t) - X^{\rm GW} (t - 4L)

302: \label{X1fromX}

303: \end{equation}

304: Equation (\ref{X1fromX}) implies that any data analysis procedure and

305: algorithm that will be implemented for the second generation TDI

306: combinations can actually be derived by considering the corresponding

307: first generation TDI expressions. For this reason, from now on we

308: will focus our attention on the gravitational wave responses of the

309: first generation combinations.

310: 

311: The gravitational wave response $X^{\rm GW} (t)$ of the unequal-arm

312: Michelson TDI combination to a signal from a binary system has been

313: derived in \cite{KTV04}, and it can be written in the following form

314: %

315: \begin{equation}

316: X^\mathrm{GW} (t) = \Re \left[A(x, t) \ e^{-i \phi (t)}\right] \ ,

317: \label{X}

318: \end{equation}

319: where $x = \omega_s L$ ($\omega_s$ being the angular frequency of the

320: GW signal in the source reference frame), and the expressions for the

321: complex amplitude $A (x, t)$ and the real phase $\phi (t)$

322: are

323: \begin{eqnarray}

324: A(x, t) & = & 2 \, x \, \sin(x) \left\{ \left[ sinc[(1+c_2(t))\frac{x}{2}] \ e^{i x(\frac{3}{2} +

325:   d_2 (t))} 

326: + sinc[(1-c_2(t))\frac{x}{2}] \ e^{i x(\frac{5}{2} +  d_2 (t))}

327:   \right] \right. \ {\cal B}_2 (t) 

328: \nonumber

329: \\

330: & - & \left. \left[ sinc[(1-c_3(t))\frac{x}{2}] \ e^{i x(\frac{3}{2} +

331:   d_3 (t))} 

332: + sinc[(1+c_3(t))\frac{x}{2}] \ e^{i x(\frac{5}{2} +  d_3 (t))}

333:   \right] \ {\cal B}_3 (t) \right\} \ ,

334: \label{A}

335: \end{eqnarray}

336: \begin{equation}

337: \phi(t) = \omega_s t + \omega_s \ R \ \cos \beta \ \cos(\omega_s t +

338: \eta_0 - \lambda) \ .

339: \label{phi}

340: \end{equation}

341: In equation (\ref{phi}) $R$ is the distance of the guiding center of

342: the LISA array, $o$, from the Solar System Barycenter, ($\beta,

343: \lambda$) are the ecliptic latitude and longitude respectively of the

344: source location in the sky, $\Omega = 2 \pi/{\rm year}$, and

345: $\eta_0$ defines the position of the LISA guiding center in the

346: ecliptic plane at time $t = 0$. Note that the functions $c_k (t)$,

347: $d_k (t)$, and ${\cal B}_k (t)$ ($k = 2, 3$) do not depend on $x$. The

348: analytic expressions for $c_k (t)$, and $d_k (t)$ are the same as

349: those given in equations (46,47) of reference \cite{KTV04}, while the

350: functions ${\cal B}_k (t)$ ($k = 2, 3$) are equal to

351: \begin{equation}

352: {\cal B}_k (t) = (a^{(1)} + i \ a^{(3)}) \ u_k (t) + (a^{(2)} + i \ a^{(4)}) \ v_k

353: (t) \ .

354: \label{B}

355: \end{equation}

356: The coefficients ($a^{(1)}, a^{(2)}, a^{(3)}, a^{(4)}$) depend only on

357: the two independent amplitudes of the gravitational wave signal,

358: ($h_+$, $h_\times$), the polarization angle, $\psi$, and an arbitrary

359: phase, $\phi_0$, that the signal has at time $t = 0$. Their analytic

360: expressions are given in equations (41--44) of reference \cite{KTV04},

361: while the functions $u_k (t)$, and $v_k (t)$ ($k=2, 3$) are given in

362: equations (27,28) in the same reference.

363: 

364: Since most of the gravitational wave energy radiated by the galactic

365: WD-WD binaries will be present in the lower part of the LISA

366: sensitivity frequency band, say between $10^{-4} - 10^{-3}$ Hz, it is

367: useful to provide an expression for the Taylor expansion of the $X$

368: response in the long-wavelength limit (LWL), i.e. when the wavelength

369: of the gravitational wave signal is much larger than the LISA

370: armlength ($x << 1$). As it will be shown in the following sections,

371: the LWL expression will allow us to analytically describe the general

372: features of the white dwarfs background in the $X$-combination, and

373: derive computationally efficient algorithms for numerically simulating

374: the WD-WD background in the LISA data.

375: 

376: The nth-order truncation, $X^{\rm GW}_{(n)} (t)$, of the Taylor

377: expansion of $X^{\rm GW}(t)$ in power series of $x$ can be written in

378: the following form

379: \begin{equation}

380: X^{\rm GW}_{(n)} (t) = Re \sum_{k=0}^n A^{(k)} (t) \ x^{k+2} \ e^{-i \phi (t)}

381: \ ,

382: \label{Xn}

383: \end{equation}

384: where the first three functions of time $A^{(k)} (t), \ \ k \le 2$

385: are equal to

386: \begin{eqnarray}

387: A^{(0)}  & = &  4 \ [{\cal B}_2 - {\cal B}_3 ] \ ,

388: \nonumber

389: \\

390: A^{(1)}  & = & 4 i \ [(d_2+2) \ {\cal B}_2  - (d_3+2) {\cal B}_3 ] \ ,

391: \nonumber

392: \\

393: A^{(2)}  & = & [2{d_3}^2  + 8 d_3 + \frac{28}{3} + \frac{1}{6}

394: {c_3}^2] \ {\cal B}_3 - [2{d_2}^2  + 8 d_2 + \frac{28}{3} + \frac{1}{6}

395: {c_2}^2] \ {\cal B}_2 \ .

396: \label{An}

397: \end{eqnarray}

398: Note that the form we adopted for $X^{\rm GW} (t)$ (equation \ref{X})

399: makes the derivation of the functions $A^{(k)} (t)$ particularly easy

400: since the dependence on $x$ in $A (x,t)$ is now limited only to the

401: coefficients in front of the two functions ${\cal B}_2 (t)$ and ${\cal B}_3 (t)$

402: (see equation (\ref{A})). 

403: 

404: Although it is generally believed that the lowest order

405: long-wavelength expansion of the $X$ combination, $X^{\rm GW}_{(0)}$,

406: is sufficiently accurate in representing a gravitational wave signal

407: in the low-part of the LISA frequency band, there has not been in the

408: literature any quantitative analysis of the error introduced by

409: relying on such a zero-order approximation.  Since any TDI combination

410: will contain a linear superposition of tens of millions of signals, it

411: is crucial to estimate such an error as a function of the order of the

412: approximation, $n$. In order to determine how many terms we need to

413: use for a given signal angular frequency, $\omega_s$, we will rely on

414: the following `` matching function''

415: \begin{equation}

416: M(X^{\rm GW}, X^{\rm GW}_{(n)}) \equiv  \sqrt{\frac{\int_{0}^{T} {[X^{\rm GW} (t) - X^{\rm

417:     GW}_{(n)} (t)]}^2 dt}{\int_{0}^{T} {[X^{\rm GW} (t)]}^2 dt}} \ .

418: \label{M}

419: \end{equation}

420: Equation (\ref{M}) estimates the percent root-mean-squared error

421: implied by using the $n^{\rm th}$ order LWL approximation. In Figure

422: (\ref{error}) we plot $M$ as a function of the signal frequency,

423: $f_s$ ($=\omega_s/2\pi$), for $n=0, 1, 2$. At $5 \times 10^{-4}$ Hz, for

424: instance, the zero-order LWL approximation ($n = 0$) of the $X$

425: combination shows an r.m.s.\ deviation from the exact response equal

426: to about $10$ percent. As expected, this inaccuracy increases for

427: signals of higher frequencies, becoming equal to $40$ percent at $2

428: \times 10^{-3}$ Hz. With $n=1$ the accuracy improves showing that the

429: $X^{\rm GW}_{(1)}$ response deviates from the exact one with an r.m.s.

430: error smaller than $10$ percent in the frequency band ($10^{-4} - 2

431: \times 10^{-3}$) Hz. In our simulation we have actually implemented

432: the $n=2$ LWL expansion because it was possible and easy to do.

433: \begin{figure}

434: \includegraphics[width=5in]{Figure3.ps}

435: \caption{Plots of the percentage root-mean-squared errors, $

436:   M(X^{\rm GW}, X^{\rm GW}_{(n)})$, associated with the

437:   long-wavelength expansion index $n$, as functions of the

438:   gravitational wave frequency, $f_s$. The source location has been

439:   assumed to be in the center of our galaxy.}

440: \label{error}

441: \end{figure}

442: 

443: \section{White Dwarf binary population distribution}

444: \label{WD_POP}

445: 

446: The gravitational wave signal radiated by a WD-WD binary system

447: depends on eight parameters, ($\phi_o, \iota, \psi, D, \beta, \lambda,

448: {\cal M}_c, \omega_s$), which are the constant phase of the signal

449:  ($\phi_o$) at the starting time of the observation, the inclination

450: angle ($\iota$) of the angular momentum of the binary system relative

451: to the line of sight, the polarization angle ($\psi$) describing the

452: orientation of the wave polarization axes, the distance ($D$) to the

453: binary, the angles ($\lambda, \beta$) describing the location of the

454: source in the sky relative to the ecliptic plane, the chirp mass

455:  (${\cal M}_c$), and the angular frequency ($\omega_s$) in the source

456: reference frame respectively.  Since it can safely be assumed that the

457: chirp mass ${\cal M}_c$ and the angular frequency $\omega_s$ are

458: independent of the source location \cite{NYP01} and of the remaining

459: angular parameters $\phi_o, \iota, \psi$, and because there are no

460: physical arguments for preferred values of the constant phase $\phi_o$

461: and the orientation of the binary given by the angles $\iota$ and

462: $\psi$, it follows that the joint probability distribution, $P(\phi_o,

463: \iota, \psi, D, \beta, \lambda, {\cal M}_c, \omega_s)$, can be

464: rewritten in the following form

465: \begin{equation}

466: P(\phi_o, \iota, \psi, D, \beta, \lambda, {\cal M}_c, \omega_s) = 

467: P_1 (\phi_o) P_2 (\iota) P_3 (\psi) P_4 (D, \beta, \lambda) 

468: P_5({\cal M}_c, \omega_s) \ . 

469: \end{equation}

470: In the implementation of our simulation we have assumed the angles

471: $\phi_o$ and $\psi$ to be uniformly distributed in the interval $[0, 2

472: \pi)$, and $\cos\iota$ uniformly distributed in the interval $[-1,1]$.

473: We further assumed the binary systems to be randomly distributed in

474: the Galactic disc according to the following axially symmetric

475: distribution ${\cal P}_4 (R, z)$ (see \cite{NYP01} Eq. (5))

476: \begin{equation}

477: {\cal P}_4 (R,z) = \frac{e^{-R/H} \ sech^2(z/z_o)}{4 \pi z_o H^2}  \ ,

478: \label{eq:Galdis}

479: \end{equation}

480: where $(R,z)$ are cylindrical coordinates with origin at the galactic

481: center, $H = 2.5$ kpc, and $z_o = 200$ pc, and it is proportional to

482: $P_4 (D, \lambda, \beta)$ through the Jacobian of the coordinate

483: transformation.  Note that the position of the Sun in this coordinate

484: system is given by $R_{\odot} = 8.5 \ {\rm kpc}$ and $z_{\odot} = -30

485: \ {\rm pc}$. We then generate the positions of the sources from the

486: distribution given by Eq.  (\ref{eq:Galdis}) and map them to their

487: corresponding ecliptic coordinates $(D, \beta,\lambda)$.

488: 

489: The physical properties of the WD-WD population (${\cal M}_c \equiv

490: {(m_1 m_2)}^{3/ 5}/{(m_1 + m_2)}^{1/5}$, with $m_1$, $m_2$ being the

491: masses of the two stars, and $\omega_s = 2 \pi f_s = 4 \pi/{\rm orbital

492:   period}$) are taken from the binary population synthesis simulation

493: discussed in \cite{NYP04}. For details on this simulation we refer the

494: reader to \cite{NYP04}, and for earlier work to

495: \cite{HBW90,EIS87,HB90,HB00,BH97,NYP01}. The basic ingredient for

496: these simulations is an approximate binary evolution code. A

497: representation of the complete Galactic population of binaries is

498: produced by evolving a large (typically $10^6$) number of binaries

499: from their formation to the current time, where the distributions of

500: the masses and separations of the initial binaries are estimated from

501: the observed properties of local binaries.  This initial-to-final

502: parameter mapping is then convolved with an estimate of the binary

503: formation rate in the history of the Galaxy to obtain the total

504: Galactic population of binaries at the present time.  From these the

505: binaries of interest can then be selected.  In principle this

506: technique is very powerful, although the results can be limited by the

507: limited knowledge we have on many aspects of binary evolution. For

508: WD-WD binaries, the situation is better than for many other

509: populations, since the observed population of WD-WD binaries allows us

510: to gauge the models (e.g. \cite{NYP01}).

511: 

512: We also include the population of semi-detached WD-WD binaries

513: (usually referred to as AM CVn systems) that are discussed in detail

514: in \cite{NYP04}.  In these binaries one white dwarf transfers its

515: outer layers onto a companion white dwarf. Due to the redistribution

516: of mass in the system, the orbital period of these binaries increases

517: in time, even though the angular momentum of the binary orbit still

518: decreases due to gravitational wave losses. The formation of these

519: systems is very uncertain, mainly due to questions concerning the

520: stability of the mass transfer (e.g. \cite{MNS04})

521: 

522: From the models of the Galactic population of the detached WD-WD

523: binaries and AM CVn systems two dimensional histograms were created,

524: giving the expected number of both WD-WD binaries and AM CVn systems

525: currently present in the Galaxy as function of the $log$ of the GW

526: radiation frequency, $f_s (= \omega_s/2 \pi)$ and chirp mass,

527: $\mathcal{M}_c$.  In the case of the detached WD-WD binaries, the

528: ($\log f_s, \mathcal{M}_c)$) space was defined over the set

529: $\mathcal{M}_c \in (0, 1.5]$, $\log f_s \in [-6, -1]$, and contained

530: $30 \ \times \ 50$ grid points, while in the case of the AM CVn

531: systems the region is intrinsically smaller, $\mathcal{M}_c \in (0,

532: 1.2]$, $\log f_s \in [-4, -1.5]$, containing only $24 \ \times \ 25$

533: grid points.

534: 

535: Figure (\ref{fig:wdwd_nel1}) shows the distribution of the number of

536: detached WD-WD binaries as a function of the chirp mass and signal

537: frequency in the form of a contour plot. This distribution reaches its

538: maximum within the LISA frequency band when the chirp mass is equal to

539: $\simeq 0.25 \ {\cal M}_\odot$, and it monotonically decreases as a

540: function of the signal frequency.  The distribution of the number of

541: AM CVn systems has instead a rather different shape, as shown by the

542: contour plot given in Figure (\ref{fig:amcvn_nel1}). The region of the

543: ($\mathcal{M}_c, \log f_s$) space over which the distribution is

544: non-zero is equal to ($0, 0.07$) $\times$ ($-3.4, -2.2$), and it

545: reaches its maximum at the point ($0.03, -3.35$).

546: 

547: \begin{figure}

548: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{Figure4.eps}

549: \caption{The distribution of detached white-dwarf --- white-dwarf

550:   binaries in our galaxy as a function of the gravitational wave

551:   frequency, $f_s$, and chirp mass, ${\mathcal M}_c$.}

552: \label{fig:wdwd_nel1}

553: \end{figure}

554: \begin{figure}

555: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{Figure5.eps}

556: \caption{The distribution of AM CVn binary systems in our galaxy as a

557:     function of the gravitational wave frequency, $f_s$, and chirp

558:     mass, ${\mathcal M}_c$.}

559: \label{fig:amcvn_nel1}

560: \end{figure}

561: 

562: \section{Simulation of the background signal in the LISA data}

563: \label{Simu}

564: 

565: In order to simulate the LISA $X$ response to the population of WD-WD

566: binaries derived in Section \ref{WD_POP} one needs to coherently add

567: the LISA response to each individual signal. Although this could

568: naturally be done in the time domain, the actual CPU time required to

569: successfully perform such a simulation would be unacceptably long. The

570: generation in the time domain of one year of $X^{\rm GW} (t)$ response

571: to a single signal sampled at a rate of $16$ seconds would require

572: about $1$ second with an optimized C++ code running on a Pentium IV

573: $3.2$ GHz processor.  Since the number of signals from the background

574: is of the order $10^{8}$, it is clear that a different algorithm is

575: needed for simulating the background in the LISA data within a

576: reasonable amount of time. We were able to derive and implement

577: numerically an analytic formula of the Fourier transform of each

578: binary signal, which has allowed us to reduce the computational time

579: by almost a factor $100$.  Furthermore, we have run our code on the

580: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) supercomputer system, which includes

581: $64$ Intel Itanium2 processors each with a clock speed of 900 MHz.

582: 

583: \subsection{The Fourier transform of a binary signal}

584: \label{X_FOURIER}

585: 

586: The expression of the Fourier transform of the TDI response

587: $X^\mathrm{GW}$ to a single binary signal (Eqs. (\ref{X}, \ref{A},

588: \ref{phi}), cannot be written (to our knowledge) in closed analytic

589: form.  However, by using the LWL expansion of the $X^{\rm

590:   GW}$-response, it is possible to obtain a closed-form expression of

591: its Fourier transform.  Since the WD-WD binary background has a

592: natural frequency cut-off that is between $1$ and $2$ millihertz, the

593: LWL expansion of the $X^{\rm GW}$ response (Eq \ref{Xn}), truncated at

594: $n=2$, can be used for accurately representing the gravitational wave

595: response of each binary signal, as discussed in Section \ref{LISA_RES}.

596: 

597: In order to derive the Fourier transform of $X^{\rm GW}_{(2)} (t)$, we

598: use the following expansion of the function $e^{- i \phi (t)}$ in terms of

599: the Bessel functions of the first kind, $J_q$, \cite{AS72}

600: \begin{equation}

601: e^{-i \ \phi (t)} =  \sum_{q=-\infty}^{\infty} J_q (\omega_s R \cos\beta) \ e^{- i[\omega_s t \ + \ q \

602:   (\Omega t \ + \ \eta_0 \ - \ \lambda \ + \  \frac{\pi}{2})]} \ .

603: \label{Bessel}

604: \end{equation}

605: Since the Bessel functions $|J_q(\omega_s R \cos\beta)|$ are much

606: smaller than unity when $|q| >> |\omega_s R \cos\beta|$, the expansion

607: given by equation (\ref{Bessel}) can be truncated at a finite index

608: $Q$, providing an accurate numerical estimation of the function $e^{-i

609:   \ \phi (t)}$.  These considerations allow us to write the following

610: expression of the Fourier transform of $X^{\rm GW}_{(n)} (t)$

611: \begin{eqnarray} 

612: \widetilde{X}^{\rm GW}_{(n)} (\omega) & = & \mathcal{F} 

613: \left( \Re \sum_{k=0}^n \sum_{q= - Q}^{Q}  A^{(k)} (t) \ x^{k+2} \ J_q(\omega_s R \cos\beta) \ e^{- i[\omega_s t \ + \ q \

614:   (\Omega t \ + \ \eta_0 \ - \ \lambda \ + \  \frac{\pi}{2})]} \right) 

615: \nonumber

616: \\ 

617: & = &  \pi \sum_{q=- Q}^{Q}  J_q(\omega_s R \cos\beta) \sum_{k=0}^n x^{k+2} \left\{

618: \mathcal{F}\left(\Re [A^{(k)} (t)] \right) * \left[\delta(\omega +

619: \omega_s + q \Omega)  e^{i q (-\eta_0+\lambda-\pi/2)} \right. \right.

620: \nonumber

621: \\

622: && + \left. \left. \delta(-\omega+\omega_s + q \Omega) e^{i q(

623:       \eta_0- \lambda+\pi/2)} \right] +

624: i \mathcal{F} \left(\Im [A^{(k)} (t)] \right) * \left[\delta(\omega +

625: \omega_s + q \Omega) e^{i q (-\eta_0+\lambda-\pi/2)} \right. \right.

626: \nonumber

627: \\

628: && - \left. \left. \delta(-\omega+\omega_s + q \Omega) e^{i q( \eta_0-

629:     \lambda+\pi/2)} \right] \right\} \ ,

630: \label{XF}

631: \end{eqnarray}

632: where $\mathcal{F}$ is the Fourier transform operator, the symbol $*$

633: between two expressions means their convolution, $\omega$ is the

634: Fourier angular frequency, and $A^{(k)} (t)$ are defined in Eq. (\ref{Xn})

635: and given in Eq. (\ref{An}) with $k= 0, 1, 2$.

636: 

637: As an example application of this general formula for the Fourier

638: transform of the $X^{\rm GW}_{(n)} (t)$ response, let us apply it to

639: the lowest order LWL expansion ($n=0$)

640: \begin{eqnarray} 

641: \widetilde{X}^{\rm GW}_{(0)} (\omega) & = & 4 \pi \sum_{q = - Q}^{Q}

642: J_q(\omega_s R \cos\beta) x^{2} \left\{ 

643: \left[a_1 (\tilde{u}_2(\omega)-\tilde{u}_3(\omega)) + a_2

644:   (\tilde{v}_2(\omega)-\tilde{v}_3(\omega)) \right] \right.

645: \nonumber

646: \\

647: && \left. * \left[\delta(\omega + \omega_s + q \Omega) 

648: e^{i q (-\eta_0+\lambda-\pi/2)} + \delta(-\omega+\omega_s + q \Omega) e^{i q( \eta_0-

649:       \lambda+\pi/2)} \right] \right.

650: \nonumber

651: \\

652: && \left. + i \left[a_3 (\tilde{u}_2(\omega)-\tilde{u}_3(\omega)) + a_4

653:   (\tilde{v}_2(\omega)-\tilde{v}_3(\omega))\right] \right.

654: \nonumber

655: \\

656: && \left. * \left[\delta(\omega + \omega_s + q \Omega) e^{i q

657:     (-\eta_0+\lambda-\pi/2)} - \delta(-\omega+\omega_s + q \Omega) e^{i q( \eta_0-

658:   \lambda+\pi/2)} \right] \right\} \ .

659: \label{XF0}

660: \end{eqnarray}

661: Since the Fourier transforms of $u$ and $v$ are both linear

662: combinations of nine Dirac delta functions centered on the frequencies

663: $\pm l \ \Omega \ , \ l=0, 1, 2, 3, 4$ (see equations (27--30) in

664: reference \cite{KTV04} for the expressions of $u$ and $v$), it follows

665: that $\tilde{X}^{\rm GW}_{(0)} (\omega)$ is also a linear combination

666: of Dirac delta functions. In particular, in the limit of negligible

667: Doppler modulation, the resulting expression (\ref{XF0}) reduces as

668: expected to that of a purely amplitude modulated sinusoidal signal

669: with central frequency equal to $\omega_s$ and upper and lower

670: band-limits given by $\omega_s + 4 \Omega$ and $\omega_s - 4 \Omega$

671: respectively \cite{GP97}.

672: 

673: The actual expression of the Fourier transform we implemented in our

674: simulation of the WD-WD background used Eq. (\ref{XF}) with $n=2$, and

675: maximum value of the index of the Bessel expansion, $Q$, equal to $

676: |\omega_s R \cos \beta| + 20$ in order to make negligible the error

677: associated with the truncation of the expansion itself.

678: 

679: One extra mathematical detail that we need to include is that the

680: Fourier transform of $X^{\rm GW}_{(n)} (t)$ is performed over a finite

681: integration time, $T$, while the expression in Eq. (\ref{XF})

682: corresponds to an infinite-time Fourier transform. In order to account

683: for this discrepancy we convolved the analytic Fourier transform of

684: the signal given in equation (\ref{XF}) with the Fourier transform of

685: a window function with an integration time $T$.  To avoid leakage

686: introduced by using a simple rectangular window, we have used instead

687: the Nuttall's modified Blackman-Harris window \cite{NBH81}. Although

688: this window is characterized by having the main lobe of its Fourier

689: transform slightly wider than that of the rectangular window, the

690: maximum of its side-lobes are about four orders of magnitude lower

691: than those of the rectangular window, reducing leakage significantly.

692: The expression of its Fourier transform, ${\widetilde {W}} (\omega)$,

693: is equal to

694: \begin{eqnarray}

695: {\widetilde {W}} (\omega) & = & n_0

696: [Sinc(\omega T) + i Cosc(\omega T)]

697: \label{WF}

698: \\

699: & - & n_1 \ 

700: [Sinc(\omega T + 2 \pi) + Sinc(\omega T - 2 \pi) 

701: + i \ (Cosc(\omega T + 2 \pi) + Cosc(\omega T - 2 \pi))] 

702: \nonumber

703: \\

704: & - & n_2 \ [Sinc(\omega T + 4 \pi) + Sinc(\omega T - 4

705: \pi) 

706: + i \ (Cosc(\omega T + 4 \pi) + Cosc(\omega T - 4 \pi))]

707: \nonumber

708: \\

709: & - & n_3 \ [Sinc(\omega T + 6 \pi) + Sinc(\omega T - 6 \pi)

710: + i \ (Cosc(\omega T + 6 \pi) + Cosc(\omega T - 6 \pi))] \ ,

711: \nonumber

712: \end{eqnarray}

713: where the functions $Sinc (.)$ and $Cosc (.)$ are defined as follows

714: \begin{equation}

715: Sinc(.) \equiv \frac{\sin(.)}{.} \ \ , \ \ Cosc(.) \equiv

716: \frac{\cos(.) - 1}{.} \ ,

717: \end{equation}

718: and  the coefficients $n_r \ , \ r=0, 1, 2, 3$

719: have the following numerical values

720: \begin{equation}

721: n_0 = 0.3635819 \ \ , \ \ 

722: n_1 = 0.24458875 \ \ , \ \ 

723: n_2 = 0.06829975\ \ , \ \ 

724: n_3 = 0.00532055\ .

725: \end{equation}

726: 

727: \subsection{Generation of the signal parameters}

728: 

729: We used the distributions given in Section \ref{WD_POP} to randomly

730: generate the parameters $\phi_o$, $\iota$, $\psi$, $D$, $\beta,

731: \lambda$, while the values of the chirp mass, ${\cal M}_c$, and the

732: logarithm of the frequency of the signal, $\log(f_s)$, were obtained

733: by further processing the numeric distribution function (given in

734: Section \ref{WD_POP}) of the number of sources. To derive the

735: distribution function for the variables (${\cal M}_c, \log (f_s)$)

736: within each grid-rectangle of our numerical distribution we proceeded

737: in the following way \cite{ValPriv04}.  Let us consider the number of

738: sources $N (x_1, x_2)$ as a function of two coordinates ($x_1, x_2$)

739: of a point in the $({\cal M}_c, \log (f_s))$ plane within a specified

740: grid-rectangle of the numerical distribution.  This function can be

741: approximated there by the following quadratic polynomial

742: \begin{equation}

743: N (x_1,x_2)= n_{00} (1-x_1) (1-x_2) + n_{11} x_1 x_2 + 

744: n_{01} (1-x_1) x_2 + n_{10} x_1 (1-x_2) \ ,

745: \end{equation}

746: where $n_{00}$, $n_{11}$, $n_{01}, n_{10}$ are equal to the number of

747: signals at the ``corners'' of the considered grid-rectangle and are

748: obtained by interpolation; ($x_1, x_2$) are therefore two real numbers

749: defined in the range $[0, 1]$.

750: 

751: If we integrate out the $x_2$-dependence in $N(x_1,x_2)$ we obtain

752: \begin{equation}

753: N_{x_2} (x_1) = \int_0^1 N (x_1,x_2) dx_2 = 

754: \frac{(-n_{00}+n_{11}-n_{01}+n_{10}) x_1 + n_{00} + n_{01} }{2} \ ,

755: \end{equation}

756: which defines the total number of sources within that grid-rectangle

757: having chirp mass equal to $x_1$. In order to derive the probability

758: distribution function of $x_1$ within that grid-rectangle we can

759: define the following mapping between a uniformly distributed random

760: variable, say $z_1$, and the random variable $x_1$ 

761: \begin{equation}

762: z_1 =  \frac{\int_0^{x_1} N_{x_2}(x_1') dx_1'}{\int_0^1 N_{x_2}(x_1') dx_1'} = 

763: \frac{(-n_{00}+n_{11}-n_{01}+n_{10}) x_1^2 + 2 (n_{00} + n_{01}) x_1 }

764: {n_{00}+n_{11}+n_{01}+n_{10}} \ .

765: \end{equation}

766: By solving the above non-linear equation for

767: every uniformly sampled $z_1$ we obtain

768: \begin{equation}

769: x_1 = \frac{n_{00}+n_{01} - \sqrt{n_{00}^2+2 n_{00} n_{01}+n_{01}^2 + 

770: (- n_{00}^2 - 2 n_{00} n_{01} + n_{11}^2 + 2 n_{11} n_{10}-n_{01}^2+

771: n_{10}^2) z_1 }}{n_{00}-n_{11}+n_{01}-n_{10}} \ ,

772: \label{x1}

773: \end{equation}

774: where the branch ``-'' has been chosen such that $x_1$ remains in the range

775: $[0, 1]$.  If $n_{00}-n_{11}+n_{01}-n_{10} = 0$ then equation

776:  (\ref{x1}) is no longer valid, and we have instead $x_1 = z_1$. 

777: 

778: A similar procedure can be implemented for calculating $x_2$. By

779: integrating $N (x_1, x_2')$ with respect to $x_2'$ over the

780: range ($0, x_2$), we can establish the following relationship between

781: another uniformly distributed random variable, say $z_2$, and $x_2$

782: \begin{equation}

783: z_2 = \frac{\int_0^{x_2} N(x_1,x_2') dx_2'}{\int_0^{1} N(x_1,x_2') dx_2'} = 

784: \frac{[(n_{00}+n_{11}-n_{01}-n_{10}) x_1-n_{00}+n_{01}] x_2^2+

785: 2 [(-n_{00}+n_{10}) x_1+n_{00}] x_2}{(-n_{00}+ n_{11}- n_{01} + n_{10})

786:   x_1+n_{00}+n_{01}} \ .

787: \end{equation}

788: After some simple algebra we can finally solve for $x_2$ in terms of

789: $x_1$ (itself a function of the uniformly distributed random variable

790: $z_1$) and $z_2$

791: \begin{equation}

792: x_2 = \frac{n_{00}(x_1 -1) -n_{10} x_1 +

793: \sqrt{F(x_1) z_2 

794: +(n_{00}^2-2 n_{00} n_{10}+n_{10}^2) x_1^2+ 2 (-n_{00}^2+n_{00}

795: n_{10}) x_1+n_{00}^2}}

796: {(n_{11}-n_{01}-n_{10}+n_{00}) x_1 - n_{00}+n_{01}} \ ,

797: \end{equation}

798: where now we have chosen the ``+'' branch so $x_2 \in [0, 1]$ range,

799: and the function $F(x_1)$ is equal to

800: \begin{equation}

801: F(x_1) \equiv (n_{11}^2 + n_{01}^2 - n_{00}^2 - 2 n_{01} n_{11} + 2 n_{00}

802:   n_{10} - n_{10}^2) x_1^2 +2 (-n_{00} n_{10} +

803:   n_{00}^2-n_{01}^2+n_{01} n_{11}) x_1-n_{00}^2+n_{01}^2 \ .

804: \end{equation}

805: Note that the equation for $x_2$ above is no longer valid when

806: $(n_{11}-n_{01}-n_{10}+n_{00}) x_1 - n_{00}+n_{01} = 0$, in which case

807: $x_2 = z_2$.  Once $x_1$ and $x_2$ are calculated, they can be

808: converted into the physical parameters ${\cal M}_c$ and $\omega_s$

809: according to the following relationships

810: \begin{eqnarray}

811: {\cal M}_c & = & {{\cal M}_c}_{00} +  x_1 \ \Delta_{{\cal M}_c} \\

812: \omega_s & = & 2 \pi 10^{\log ({f_s}_{00}) + x_2 \ \Delta_{\log (f_s)}}

813: \end{eqnarray}

814: where (${{\cal M}_c}_{00}, \log ({f_s}_{00})$) are the coordinates of

815: the ``lower-left-hand-corner'' of the considered grid-rectangle, and

816: $\Delta_{{\cal M}_c}$, $\Delta_{\log ({f_s})}$ are the lengths of the

817: sides of the grid-rectangle.

818: 

819: \subsection{Results of the Numerical Simulation}

820: \label{NumSim}

821: 

822: The expression for the finite-time Fourier transform of each WD-WD

823: signal in the $\widetilde{X}^{\rm GW}$ response given in Section

824: \ref{X_FOURIER} allows us to coherently add in the Fourier domain all

825: the signals radiated by the WD-WD galactic binary population described

826: in Section \ref{WD_POP}.  After inverse Fourier transforming the

827: synthesized response and removing the window from it, we finally

828: obtain the time-domain representation of the background as it will be

829: seen in the LISA TDI combination $X$.  This is shown in Figure

830: (\ref{time_results}), where we plot three years worth of simulated

831: $X^{\rm GW} (t)$, and include the LISA noise \cite{PPA98}. The

832: one-year periodicity induced by the motion of LISA around the Sun is

833: clearly noticeable.  One other interesting feature shown by Figure

834: (\ref{time_results}) is that the amplitude response reaches absolute

835: minima when the Sun-LISA direction is roughly oriented towards the

836: Autumn equinox, while the absolute maxima take place when the Sun-LISA

837: direction is oriented roughly towards the Galactic center

838: \cite{Seto04}. This fact can easily be understood by looking at Figure

839: (\ref{Galaxy_Ecliptic}). Since the ecliptic plane is not parallel to

840: the galactic plane, and because our own solar system is about $8.5 \ 

841: {\rm kpc}$ away from the galactic center (where most of the of WD-WD

842: binaries are concentrated ) it follows that the LISA $X^{\rm GW}$

843: response does not have a six-months periodicity.

844: 

845: \begin{figure}

846: \includegraphics[width=6in]{Figure6.eps}

847: \caption{Two snapshots of LISA along its trajectory as recorded six

848:   months apart by an observer in the ecliptic plane. They correspond

849:   to the times when the LISA response to the background achieves a local

850:   maximum.  The magnitudes of these maxima are not equal due to the

851:   relative disposition of the ecliptic plane with respect to the

852:   galactic plane. At time $t_0$ the angle $\theta_0$ between the

853:   normal to the plane of LISA and a vector pointing to the galactic

854:   center is equal to $24.47^\circ$.  Six months later, when the LISA

855:   response is also at a maximum, the angle $\theta_1$ is equal to

856:   $35.53^\circ$ which results in a smaller maximum.}

857: \label{Galaxy_Ecliptic}

858: \end{figure}

859: 

860: Note also that, for a time period of about $2$ months, the absolute

861: minima reached by the amplitude of the LISA response to the WD-WD

862: background is only a factor less than $2$ larger than the level of the

863: instrumental noise.  This implies that during these observation times

864: LISA should be able to search for other sources of gravitational

865: radiation that are not located in the galactic plane. This might turn

866: out to be the easiest way to mitigate the detrimental effects of the

867: WD-WD background when searching for other sources of gravitational

868: radiation.  We will quantitatively analyze in a follow up work how to

869: take advantage of this observation in order to optimally search, during

870: these time periods, for sources that are off the galactic plane.

871: 

872: \begin{figure}

873: \includegraphics[width=6in]{Figure7.eps}

874: \caption{Three years of simulated TDI $X$ response to

875:   the WD-WD Galactic background signal. The time series of the LISA

876:   instrumental noise is displayed for comparison.}

877: \label{time_results}

878: \end{figure}

879: 

880: In Figure (\ref{Spectrum}) we plot, as functions of the Fourier

881: frequency, $f$, the windowed Fourier powers of both the signal and the

882: noise entering into the TDI $X$ combination.  Note that in the region

883: of the LISA band below $0.2$ millihertz the power of the WD-WD

884: background is smaller than that of the instrumental noise.

885: 

886: \begin{figure}

887: \includegraphics[width=6in]{Figure8.eps}

888: \caption{The amplitude of the Fourier transform of the WD-WD Galactic

889:   background gravitational wave signal and of the LISA instrumental

890:   noise entering into the TDI combination $X$.}

891: \label{Spectrum}

892: \end{figure}

893: 

894: \section{Cyclostationary processes}

895: \label{sec:cyclo}

896: 

897: The results of our simulation (Figure (\ref{time_results})) indicate

898: that the LISA $X^{\rm GW}$ response to the background can be regarded,

899: in a statistical sense, as a periodic function of time. This is

900: consequence of the deterministic (and periodic) motion of the LISA

901: array around the Sun. Since its autocorrelation function will also be

902: a periodic function of period one year, it follows that any LISA

903: response to the WD-WD background should no longer be treated as a

904: stationary random process but rather as a periodically correlated

905: random process. These kind of processes have been studied for many

906: years, and are usually referred to as cyclostationary random processes

907: (see \cite{H89} for a comprehensive overview of the subject and for more

908: references). In what follows we will briefly summarize the properties

909: of cyclostationary processes that are relevant to our problem.

910: 

911: A continuous stochastic process ${\cal X} (t)$ having finite second order

912: moments is said to be {\em cyclostationary\/} with period $T$ if the

913: following expectation values

914: \begin{eqnarray}

915: E[{\cal X} (t)] &=& m(t) = m(t + T) , \\

916: E[{\cal X} (t') {\cal X} (t)] &=& C(t',t) = C(t' + T,t + T)

917: \end{eqnarray}

918: are periodic functions of period $T$, for every $(t',t) \in {\bf R}

919: \times {\bf R}$. For simplicity from now on we will assume $m(t) = 0$.

920: 

921: If ${\cal X} (t)$ is cyclostationary, then the function $B(t,\tau) \equiv C(t

922: + \tau,t)$ for a given $\tau \in {\bf R}$ is periodic with period $T$,

923: and it can be represented by the following Fourier series

924: \begin{equation}

925: B(t,\tau) = \sum_{r = -\infty}^{\infty}B_r(\tau) e^{i

926: 2\pi\frac{r t}{T}} \ ,

927: \end{equation}

928: where the functions $B_r(\tau)$ are given by

929: \begin{equation}

930: B_r(\tau) = \frac{1}{T}\int^T_0B(t,\tau) e^{- i 2\pi r\frac{

931:     t}{T}} \ dt \ .

932: \label{eq:FB}

933: \end{equation}

934: The Fourier transforms $g_r(f)$ of $B_r(\tau)$ are the so called

935: ``cyclic spectra'' of the cyclostationary process ${\cal X} (t)$  \cite{H89}

936: \begin{equation}

937: g_r(f) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}B_r(\tau)e^{-i 2\pi f \tau } \ d

938: \tau \ .

939: \end{equation}

940: If a cyclostationary process is real, the following relationships

941: between the cyclic spectra hold

942: \begin{eqnarray}

943: B_{-r}(\tau) & = & B^*_r(\tau) \ ,

944: \label{eq:ksym1}

945: \\

946: g_{-r}(-f) & = &  g^*_r(f) \ ,

947: \label{eq:ksym2}

948: \end{eqnarray}

949: where the symbol $^*$ means complex conjugation.  This implies that,

950: for a real cyclostationary process, the cyclic spectra with $r \geq 0$

951: contain all the information needed to characterize the process itself.

952: 

953: The function $\sigma^2(\tau) \equiv B(0,\tau)$ is the variance of the

954: cyclostationary process ${\cal X} (t)$, and it can be written as a Fourier

955: decomposition as a consequence of Eq. (\ref{eq:FB})

956: \begin{equation}

957: \sigma^2(\tau) = \sum_{r=-\infty}^{\infty}H_r e^{ i

958: 2\pi\frac{r \tau}{T}},

959: \end{equation}

960: where $H_r \equiv B_r(0)$ are harmonics of the variance $\sigma^2$.

961: From Eq. (\ref{eq:ksym1}) it follows that $H_{-r} =

962: {H}^*_r$.

963: 

964: For a discrete, finite, real time series ${\cal X}_t$, $t =

965: 1,\ldots, {\cal N}$ we can estimate the cyclic spectra by generalizing

966: standard methods of spectrum estimation used with stationary

967: processes. Assuming again the mean value of the time series ${\cal

968:   X}_t$ to be zero, the cyclic autocorrelation sequences are defined

969: as

970: \begin{equation}

971: s_l^r = \frac{1}{\cal N}\sum_{t=1}^{{\cal N}-|l|}{\cal X}_t {\cal X}_{t+|l|}

972: e^{-\frac{i 2\pi r (t-1)}{T}} \ . 

973: \label{eq:cycorr}

974: \end{equation}

975: It has been shown \cite{H89} that the cyclic autocorrelations are

976: asymptotically (i.e.\ for $N \rightarrow \infty$) unbiased estimators

977: of the functions $B_r(\tau)$. The Fourier transforms of the cyclic

978: autocorrelation sequences $s_l^r$ are estimators of the cyclic spectra

979: $g_r(f)$. These estimators are asymptotically unbiased, and are called

980: ``inconsistent estimators'' of the cyclic spectra, i.e. their

981: variances do not tend to zero asymptotically.  In the case of Gaussian

982: processes \cite{H89} consistent estimators can be obtained by first

983: applying a lag window to the cyclic autocorrelation and then perform

984: a Fourier transform.  This procedure represents a generalization of

985: the well-known technique for estimating the spectra of stationary

986: random processes \cite{PW93}.

987: 

988: An alternative procedure for identifying consistent estimators of the

989: cyclic spectra is to first take the Fourier transform,

990: $\tilde{{\cal X}}(f)$, of the time series ${\cal X} (t)$

991: \begin{equation}

992: \tilde{{\cal X}}(f) = \sum_{t = 1}^{\cal N}  {\cal X}_t e^{-i 2\pi f (t - 1)}

993: \end{equation}

994: and then estimate the cyclic periodograms $g_r(f)$

995: \begin{equation}

996: g_r(f) = \frac{\tilde{{\cal X}}(f)\tilde{{\cal X}}^*(f - \frac{2\pi

997:     r}{T})}{\cal N} \ .

998: \end{equation}

999: By finally smoothing the cyclic periodograms, consistent estimators of

1000: the spectra $g_r(f)$ are then obtained.  The estimators of the

1001: harmonics $H_r$ of the variance $\sigma^2$ of a cyclostationary

1002: random process can be obtained by first forming a sample variance of

1003: the time series ${\cal X}_t$. The sample variance is obtained by

1004: dividing the time series ${\cal X}_t$ into contiguous segments of

1005: length $\tau_0$ such that $\tau_0$ is much smaller than the period $T$ of

1006: the cyclostationary process, and by calculating the variance

1007: $\sigma^2_I$ over each segment.  Estimators of the harmonics are

1008: obtained either by Fourier analyzing the series $\sigma^2_I$ or by

1009: making a least square fit to $\sigma^2_I$ with the appropriate number

1010: of harmonics. Note that the definitions of (i) zero order ($r = 0$)

1011: cyclic autocorrelation, (ii) periodogram, and (iii) zero order

1012: harmonic of the variance, coincide with those usually adopted for

1013: stationary random processes.  Thus, even though a cyclostationary time

1014: series is not stationary, the ordinary spectral analysis can be used

1015: for obtaining the zero order spectra.  Note, however, that

1016: cyclostationary random processes provide more spectral information

1017: about the time series they are associated with due to the existence of

1018: cyclic spectra with $r > 0$.

1019: 

1020: As an important and practical application, let us consider a time

1021: series $y_t$ consisting of the sum of a stationary random process,

1022: $n_t$, and a cyclostationary one ${\cal X}_t$ (i.e. $y_t = n_t + {\cal

1023:   X}_t$).  Let the variance of the stationary time series $n_t$ be

1024: $\nu^2$ and its spectral density be $\mathcal{E}(f)$.  It is

1025: easy to see that the resulting process is also cyclostationary. If the

1026: two processes are uncorrelated, then the zero order harmonic

1027: $\Sigma^2_0$ of the variance of the combined processes is equal to

1028: \begin{equation}

1029: \Sigma^2_0 = \nu^2 + \sigma^2_0 \ ,

1030: \end{equation}

1031: and the zero order spectrum, $G_0(f)$, of $y_t$ is

1032: \begin{equation}

1033: G_0(f) =  \mathcal{E}(f)  +  g_0(f) \ .

1034: \end{equation}

1035: The harmonics of the variance as well as the cyclic spectra of $y_t$

1036: with $r > 0$ coincide instead with those of ${\cal X}_t$.  In other words,

1037: the harmonics of the variance and the cyclic spectra of the process

1038: $y_t$ with $r > 0$ contain information only about the cyclostationary

1039: process ${\cal X}_t$, and are not ``contaminated'' by the stationary process

1040: $n_t$. 

1041: 

1042: \section{Analytic study of the background signal}

1043: \label{sec:cycloa}

1044: 

1045: In the case of the ensemble of $N$ WD-WD binaries, the total signal

1046: $s(t)$ is given by the following sum

1047: \begin{equation}

1048: s(t) = \sum^N_{i=1} X^{\rm GW} (t; {\bf \Lambda}_i) \ , 

1049: \end{equation}

1050: where ${\bf \Lambda}$ represents the set

1051: ($\phi_o,\iota,\psi,D,\beta,\lambda,{\cal M}_c, \omega_s$) of $8$

1052: parameters characterizing a GW signal. Since $N$ is large, we can

1053: expect the parameters of the signals to be randomly distributed and

1054: regard the signal $s(t)$ itself as a random process. Its mean, $m(t)$,

1055: and its autocorrelation function, $C(t',t)$ can then be calculated by

1056: assuming the probability distribution of the vector $\bf \Lambda$,

1057: $P({\bf \Lambda})$, to be the product of the five probability

1058: distributions, $P_1 (\phi_o)$, $ P_2 (\iota)$, $ P_3 (\psi)$, $ P_4

1059: (D, \beta, \lambda)$, and $ P_5({\cal M}_c, \omega_s)$ (as we did in

1060: our numerical simulation of the WD-WD background in Section

1061: \ref{WD_POP}).  By assuming the angles $\phi_o$ and $\psi$ to be

1062: uniformly distributed in the interval $[0, 2\pi)$, and $\cos\iota$ to

1063: be uniformly distributed in the interval $[-1,1]$, we can then perform

1064: the integrals over the angles $\phi_o$, $\psi$, and $\iota$

1065: analytically and obtain the following expressions

1066: \begin{eqnarray}

1067: m(t) & = & N \int_V  X^\mathrm{GW}(t) P({\bf \Lambda}) d {\bf \Lambda}

1068: \nonumber

1069: \\

1070: & = & \frac{N}{8 \pi^2}\int_0^{2\pi}d\phi_o \int_0^{2\pi}d\psi 

1071: \int_{-1}^1d\cos\iota

1072: \int_{V_4}\int_{V_5} X^\mathrm{GW}(t) P_4 P_5 dV_4 dV_5 = 0 \ , 

1073: \end{eqnarray}

1074: \begin{eqnarray}

1075: C(t',t) & = & N \int_V  X^\mathrm{GW}(t') X^\mathrm{GW}(t) 

1076:  P({\bf \Lambda}) d {\bf \Lambda}

1077: \nonumber

1078: \\

1079: & = & \frac{N}{16 \pi^2}\int_0^{2\pi}d\phi_o 

1080: \int_0^{2\pi}d\psi \int_{-1}^1d\cos\iota

1081: \int_{V_4}\int_{V_5} \Re [A(x, t') A^* (x, t) 

1082: e^{i[\phi(t) - \phi(t')]}] P_4 P_5 dV_4

1083: dV_5 \ .

1084: \end{eqnarray}

1085: Note that the mean value $m (t)$ is equal to $0$ as a consequence of

1086: averaging the antenna response over the polarization angle $\psi$.

1087: 

1088: In order to gain an analytic insight about the statistical properties

1089: of the autocorrelation function $C(t', t)$, in what follows we will

1090: adopt the zero-order long-wavelength approximation of the LISA

1091: response $X^{\rm GW} (t)$ obtained by fixing $n=0$ in (\ref{Xn}) and

1092: using the expression for the complex amplitude $A^{(0)}$ given in

1093: equation (\ref{An}).  After some long but straightforward algebra, the

1094: autocorrelation function, $C(t', t)$, can be written in the following

1095: form

1096: \begin{eqnarray}

1097: C(t',t) & = & \frac{16}{5} N \int_{V_4}\int_{V_5} x^4  h_o^2  

1098: [u_2 (t') u_2 (t) + v_2 (t') v_2 (t) + u_3 (t') u_3 (t) + v_3 (t') v_3

1099: (t) 

1100: \nonumber

1101: \\

1102: & - &

1103: u_2 (t') u_3 (t) - v_2 (t') v_3 (t) -

1104: u_3 (t') u_2 (t) - v_3 (t') v_2 (t)]

1105: \cos[\phi(t') - \phi(t)] P_4 P_5 \ dV_4 \ dV_5 \ ,

1106: \end{eqnarray}

1107: where $x = \omega_s L$, and $h_o = \frac{4 {{\cal M}_c}^{5/3}}{D}

1108: \left[\frac{\omega_s}{2}\right]^{2/3}$ (units in which the

1109: gravitational constant, $G$, and the speed of light, $c$, are equal to

1110: $1$).  For frequencies less than $1$ mHz the Doppler modulation in the

1111: phase $\phi(t)$ can be neglected making $\phi(t) \simeq \omega_s \,

1112: t$. If we now introduce a new time variable $\tau = t' - t$ and define

1113: $B(t,\tau) \equiv C(t + \tau,t)$, we have

1114: \begin{equation}

1115: B(t,\tau) = 

1116: \int_{0}^{\infty}

1117: {\cal P}(\omega_s) \cos(\omega_s \tau) \,d\omega_s \sum_{r = -8}^8 B_r(\tau)

1118: \ e^{i r\Omega t} \ ,

1119: \label{eq:cycor}

1120: \end{equation}

1121: where

1122: \begin{eqnarray}

1123: {\cal P}(\omega_s) &=& \frac{48 N}{5} \ {(\omega_s L)}^4 \omega_s^{4/3}

1124: \int_{\mathcal{M}_c} ({\sqrt{2} \mathcal{M}_c})^{10/3} P_5(\mathcal{M}_c,

1125: \omega_s) \ d\mathcal{M}_c \ ,

1126: \end{eqnarray}

1127: and

1128: \begin{equation}

1129: B_r(\tau) = \int_{V_4} b_r(\Omega\tau)

1130: \frac{P_4 (D,\beta,\lambda)}{D^2} \ dV_4 \ .

1131: \label{eq:autocyc} 

1132: \end{equation}

1133: The functions $b_r$ entering into equation (\ref{eq:autocyc})  are

1134: equal to

1135: \begin{eqnarray}

1136: b_0 &=& V_0^2 + U_0^2 +

1137: (V_1^2 + U_1^2)\cos(  \Omega \tau)

1138: + U_2^2 \cos(2 \Omega \tau)

1139: + (V_3^2 + U_3^2)\cos(3 \Omega \tau)

1140: \nonumber

1141: \\ 

1142: &&   + (V_4^2 + U_4^2)\cos(4 \Omega \tau)  +

1143: (V_0^2 - U_0^2)\cos(4 \gamma_0) \ ,

1144: \nonumber

1145: \\

1146: b_1 &=& e^{i (\Omega \tau/2 - \delta_0)}

1147: [(U_0 U_1 + V_0 V_1)\cos(\Omega \tau/2) +

1148:  U_1 U_2 \cos(3 \Omega \tau/2) +

1149: \nonumber

1150: \\ 

1151: && U_2 U_3 \cos(5 \Omega \tau/2)  +

1152: (U_3 U_4 + V_3 V_4)\cos(7 \Omega \tau/2)  +

1153: (-U_0 U_1 + V_0 V_1)\cos(\Omega \tau/2) e^{i 4 \gamma_0}]             

1154: \ ,

1155: \nonumber

1156: \\

1157: b_2 &=& e^{i (\Omega\tau - 2 \delta_0)}

1158: [U_0 U_2 \cos(\Omega \tau) +

1159: U_2 U_4 \cos(3 \Omega \tau) +

1160: (V_1 V_3 + U_1 U_3)\cos(2 \Omega \tau) +

1161: \nonumber

1162: \\ 

1163: && (- U_1^2/2 + V_1^2/2 - U_0 U_2 \cos(\Omega \tau)) e^{i 4 \gamma_0}]    

1164: \ ,

1165: \nonumber

1166: \\

1167: b_3 &=& e^{i 3 (\Omega \tau/2 - \delta_0)}

1168: [( U_0 U_3 + V_0 V_3)\cos(3 \Omega \tau/2) +

1169: ( U_1 U_4 + V_1 V_4)\cos(5\Omega \tau/2) + 

1170: \nonumber

1171: \\ 

1172: && ((-U_0 U_3 + V_0 V_3)\cos(3\Omega \tau/2)

1173: - U_1 U_2 \cos(    \Omega \tau/2)) e^{i 4 \gamma_0}]

1174: \ ,

1175: \nonumber

1176: \\

1177: b_4 &=& e^{i 2 (\Omega \tau - 2 \delta_0)}

1178: [(U_0 U_4 + V_0 V_4) \cos(2 \Omega \tau) +

1179: ((V_1 V_3 - U_1 U_3) \cos(\Omega\tau)  +                                   

1180: \nonumber

1181: \\ 

1182: && (V_0 V_4 - U_0 U_4) \cos(2 \Omega \tau)

1183: - U_2^2/2) e^{i 4 \gamma_0}] 

1184: \nonumber

1185: \ ,

1186: \\

1187: b_5 &=& e^{i 5 (\Omega\tau/2 - \delta_0) +  i 4 \gamma_0}

1188: [(V_1 V_4 - U_1 U_4)\cos(3 \Omega \tau/2) - U_2 U_3\cos(\Omega

1189: \tau/2)]    

1190: \ ,

1191: \nonumber

1192: \\

1193: b_6 &=& e^{i (3 \Omega\tau - 6 \delta_0 + 4 \gamma_0)}

1194: [-U_2 U_4 \cos(\Omega \tau) - U_3^2/2 + V_3^2/2]                           

1195: \ ,

1196: \nonumber

1197: \\

1198: b_7 &=& e^{i 7 (\Omega\tau/2 - \delta_0) + i 4 \gamma_0} \cos(\Omega \tau/2)

1199: [- U_3 U_4 + V_3 V_4]                                   

1200: \ ,

1201: \nonumber

1202: \\

1203: b_8 &=& e^{i 4 (\Omega\tau - 2 \delta_0 + \gamma_0)}

1204: [-U_4^2/2 + V_4^2/2] \ ,

1205: \label{eqs:cofbt}

1206: \end{eqnarray}

1207: where $\delta_0 = \lambda - \eta_0$, $\gamma_0 = \lambda - \eta_0 -

1208: \xi_0$, and the functions $U_i$, $V_i$ are give in equations (31-39)

1209: of \cite{KTV04}.  It is easy to see that the autocorrelation

1210: $B(t,\tau)$ is periodic in $t$ with period one year for a fixed

1211: $\tau$, making it a cyclostationary random process.  Note that, if the

1212: ecliptic longitude $\lambda$ is uniformly distributed, all the

1213: coefficients $b_r$ given in Eq.  (\ref{eqs:cofbt}) vanish for $r > 0$,

1214: and the random process $s(t)$ becomes stationary as the

1215: autocorrelation $C(t',t)$ now depends on the time difference $t'-t$.

1216: 

1217: The non-stationarity of the WD-WD background was first pointed out by

1218: Giampieri and Polnarev \cite{GP97} under the assumption of sources

1219: distributed anisotropically, and they also obtained the Fourier

1220: expansion of the sample variance and calculated the Fourier

1221: coefficient for simplified WD-WD binary distributions in the

1222: Galactic disc. What was however not realized in their work is that

1223: this non-stationary random process is actually cyclostationary, i.e.

1224: there exists cyclic spectra that can in principle allow us to infer

1225: more information about the WD-WD background than one could obtain

1226: by just estimating the zero-order spectrum.

1227: 

1228: If we now set $\tau = 0$ in Eq. \ref{eq:autocyc} we obtain the Fourier

1229: expansion of the variance $\sigma^2(t)$ of the cyclostationary

1230: process

1231: \begin{equation}

1232: \sigma^2(t) = B(t,0) =  \sum_{k = -8}^8 B_{k0} e^{i k\Omega t} \ ,

1233: \end{equation}

1234: where

1235: \begin{equation}

1236: \label{eq:sigk}

1237:  B_{k0} = {\cal P}_o \int_{V_5} b_{k0}

1238: \frac{P_4(D,\beta,\lambda)}{D^2} dV_4 \ ,

1239: \end{equation}

1240: with ${\cal P}_o = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{\infty}{\cal P}(\omega_s) \ d\omega_s$, and

1241: \begin{eqnarray}

1242: b_{00} &=&   U_0^2 + U_1^2 + U_2^2 + U_3^2 + U_4^2 + V_0^2 + V_1^2 +

1243: V_3^2 + V_4^2 + 

1244: \nonumber

1245: \\ 

1246: && (V_0^2 - U_0^2) \cos(4\gamma_0)  ,\\

1247: b_{10} &=&   e^{-i \delta_0} (U_0 U_1 + U_1 U_2 + U_2 U_3 + U_3 U_4 +

1248: V_0 V_1 + V_3 V_4 

1249: + 

1250: \nonumber

1251: \\ 

1252: && (-U_0 U_1 + V_0 V_1) e^{i 4 \gamma_0}) 

1253: \ ,

1254: \\

1255: b_{20} &=&   e^{-i 2 \delta_0} (U_0 U_2 + U_1 U_3 + U_2 U_4 + V_1 V_3

1256: +

1257:  \nonumber

1258: \\

1259: && (- U_1^2/2 + V_1^2/2 - U_0 U_2) e^{i 4 \gamma_0}) 

1260: \\

1261: b_{30} &=&   e^{-i 3 \delta_0} (U_0 U_3 + U_1 U_4 + V_0 V_3 + V_1 V_4 + \\ \nonumber

1262: && (-U_0 U_3 - U_1 U_2 + V_0 V_3) e^{i 4 \gamma_0}) 

1263: \, 

1264: \\

1265: b_{40} &=&   e^{-i 4 \delta_0} (U_0 U_4 + V_0 V_4 + \\ \nonumber

1266: && (- U_0 U_4 - U_1 U_3 + V_0 V_4 + V_1 V_3 - U_2^2/2) e^{i 4

1267:   \gamma_0})  

1268: \ ,

1269: \\

1270: b_{50} &=&  e^{i (4 \gamma_0 - 5 \delta_0)} (- U_1 U_4 - U_2 U_3 + V_1

1271: V_4)   

1272: \ ,

1273: \\

1274: b_{60} &=&  e^{i (4 \gamma_0 - 6 \delta_0)} (- U_2 U_4 - U_3^2/2 +

1275: V_3^2/2)  

1276: \ , 

1277: \\

1278: b_{70} &=&  e^{i (4 \gamma_0 - 7 \delta_0)} (- U_3 U_4 + V_3 V_4)  

1279: \ , 

1280: \\

1281: b_{80} &=&  e^{i (4 \gamma_0 - 8 \delta_0)} (- U_4^2/2 + V_4^2/2) \ .

1282: \end{eqnarray}

1283: 

1284: If we assume the function ${\cal P}(\omega_s)$ to change very little over a

1285: frequency bin, or equivalently choose $\tau$ to be such that

1286: $\Omega\tau \ll 1$, we can then approximate the functions $b_r$ with

1287: the functions $b_{r0}$.  Under this approximation the cyclic spectra

1288: of the process $s(t)$ can be shown to reduce to the following

1289: expression

1290: \begin{equation}

1291: g_r(\omega_s) = \frac{1}{2}{\cal P}(\omega_s)B_{0r} \ . 

1292: \label{eq:cycspeca}

1293: \end{equation}

1294: Thus under the above approximations the cyclic spectra are determined

1295: by one function of the Fourier frequency, and by the coefficients of

1296: the Fourier decomposition of the cyclic variance.  Note that this

1297: simplified representation of the cyclic spectra will not be valid if

1298: there are additional correlations between the parameters of the binary

1299: population. For example, if the chirp masses or the frequencies of the

1300: radiation emitted by the binaries are correlated with the positions of

1301: the binaries themselves in the Galactic disc, then the cyclic spectra

1302: will display a different frequency dependence from that implied by

1303: equation (\ref{eq:cycspeca}). In general we can expect the direct

1304: measurements of the cyclic spectra from the LISA data to allow us to

1305: infer properties of the distribution of the parameters characterizing

1306: the WD-WD population.  In other words, by analyzing the $17$ real and

1307: independent cyclic spectra we should be able to derive more

1308: information about the WD-WD binary population than we would have by

1309: simply looking at the ordinary spectrum.

1310: 

1311: \section{Data analysis of the background signal}

1312: \label{DATA_A}

1313: We have numerically implemented the methods outlined in Section

1314: \ref{sec:cyclo} and applied them to our simulated WD-WD background

1315: signal.  A comparison of the results of our simulation of the detached

1316: WD-WD background with the calculation of the background by Hils and

1317: Bender \cite{HB90,Lweb} is shown in Figure (\ref{fig:nel_ben_comp}).

1318: We find that the amplitude of the background from our simulation is a

1319: factor of more than $2$ smaller than that of Hils and Bender.

1320: The level of the WD-WD background is determined by the number of such

1321: systems in the Galaxy. We estimate that our number WD-WD binaries should be

1322: correct within a factor $5$ and thus the amplitude of the background should

1323: be right within a factor of $\sqrt{5}$.

1324: In Figure (\ref{fig:nel_ben_comp}) we have plotted the two backgrounds

1325: against the LISA spectral density and we have also included the LISA

1326: sensitivity curve. The latter is obtained by dividing the instrumental

1327: noise spectral density by the detector GW transfer function averaged

1328: over isotropically distributed and randomly polarized signals.  In the

1329: zero-order long wavelength approximation this averaged transfer

1330: function is equal to $\sqrt{3/20}$.

1331: 

1332: \begin{figure}

1333: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{Figure9.eps}

1334: \caption{Comparison of detached WD-WD background obtained from

1335:   binary population synthesis simulation ( \cite{NYP01,NYP04}) with

1336:   the WD-WD background calculated by Hils and Bender \cite{HB90}.  The

1337:   amplitude spectral density of the LISA instrumental noise and the

1338:   LISA sensitivity curve are drawn for comparison.  All spectral

1339:   densities are one-sided.}

1340: \label{fig:nel_ben_comp}

1341: \end{figure}

1342: 

1343: Our analysis was applied to $3$ years of LISA $X$ data consisting of a

1344: coherent superposition of signals emitted by detached WD-WD binaries,

1345: by semi-detached binaries (AM CVn systems), and of simulated

1346: instrumental noise. The noise was numerically generated by using the

1347: spectral density of the TDI $X$ observable given in \cite{ETA00}.  In

1348: addition a $1$ mHz low-pass filter was applied to our data set in

1349: order to focus our analyses to the frequency region in which the WD-WD

1350: stochastic background is expected to be dominant.

1351: 

1352: The results of the Fourier analysis of the sample variance of the

1353: background signal are shown in Figures (\ref{fig:wdwd_nel_var}) and

1354: (\ref{fig:wdwd_nel_har}). The top panel of Figure (\ref{fig:wdwd_nel_var})

1355: shows the sample variance of the simulated data for which the

1356: variances were estimated over a period of $1$ week; periodicity is

1357: clearly visible.  The bottom panel instead shows the Fourier analysis

1358: of the sample variance for which we have removed the mean from the

1359: sample variance time series. The vertical lines correspond to

1360: multiples of $1$ year; two harmonics can clearly be distinguished from

1361: noise.  The other peaks of the spectrum that fall roughly half way

1362: between the multiples of $1/{\rm year}$ frequency, are from the

1363: rectangular window inherent to the finite time series.

1364: \begin{figure}

1365: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{Figure10.eps}

1366: \caption{Top panel: The sample variance of the simulated 

1367:   WD-WD background observed by LISA. The data includes two populations

1368:   of WD-WD binaries, detached and semi-detached, which are added to

1369:   the LISA instrumental noise. The data is passed through a low-pass

1370:   filter with a cut-off frequency of $1$ mHz.  Bottom panel: Fourier

1371:   analysis of the sample variance.  Two harmonics are clearly resolved.

1372: \label{fig:wdwd_nel_var}}

1373: \end{figure}

1374: In Figure (\ref{fig:wdwd_nel_har}) we present the least square fit of

1375: $8$ harmonics to our $3$ years of simulated $X$ data. The number $8$

1376: comes from our theoretical predictions of the number of harmonics

1377: obtained in Section \ref{sec:cycloa} (see Eq. (\ref{eq:cycor})). We

1378: have calculated the magnitude of the harmonics and obtained the

1379: residuals. The results from the least square fit agree very well with

1380: those obtained via Fourier analysis (see also Figure

1381: (\ref{fig:har_cyclo_comp})). The magnitudes of the first and second

1382: harmonics resolved by Fourier analysis, for instance, agree with the

1383: corresponding least square fit estimates within a few hundredth of a

1384: percent.

1385: 

1386: It is useful to compare the results of our numerical analysis against

1387: the analytic calculations of Giampieri and Polnarev \cite{GP97}. Their

1388: analytic expressions for the harmonics of the variance of a background

1389: due to binary systems distributed in the galactic disc are given in

1390: Eq. (42) and shown in Figure (4) of \cite{GP97}.  Our estimation

1391: roughly matches theirs in that the 0th order harmonics is dominant and

1392: the first two harmonics have more power than the remaining ones. Our

1393: estimate of the power in the second harmonic, however, is larger than

1394: that in the first one, whereas they find the opposite.  We attribute

1395: this difference to their use of a Gaussian distribution of sources in

1396: the Galactic disc rather than the exponential that we adopted from

1397: \cite{NYP01}.  Comparison between these two results suggests that it

1398: should be possible to infer the distribution of WD-WD binaries in our

1399: Galaxy by properly analyzing the harmonics of the variance of the

1400: galactic background measured by LISA.  How this can be done will be

1401: the subject of a future work.

1402: 

1403: \begin{figure}

1404: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{Figure11.eps}

1405: \caption{Top panel: The sample variance of the WD-WD background data

1406:   and the least square fit to it using $8$ harmonics (small circles).

1407:   Middle panel: magnitude of the harmonics obtained from the least

1408:   square fit. Bottom panel: residual error between the fit and the

1409:   data.

1410: \label{fig:wdwd_nel_har}}

1411: \end{figure}

1412: In order to validate our simulation and data analysis method we have

1413: compared the results of our estimation of the power in the harmonics

1414: of the variance against the explicit analytic calculation. To estimate

1415: the powers we have used Eq. (\ref{eq:sigk}) and we have evaluated the

1416: integrals by numerical and Monte Carlo methods. In the numerical

1417: calculation of the harmonics we have limited our analysis to the

1418: population of detached WD-WD binaries. Thus in order to make the

1419: comparison meaningful we have performed Fourier analysis and least

1420: square fit of the time series consisting only of simulated detached

1421: WD-WD binaries (without semi-detached ones and LISA instrumental

1422: noise). The results of the comparison are given in Figure

1423: (\ref{fig:har_cyclo_comp}). We see that for the 0th order harmonic and

1424: the first two harmonics the agreement is very good.  For higher order

1425: harmonics there are large discrepancies between the numerical

1426: calculation and estimation by the least square fit, while by using the

1427: Fourier transform method, we cannot even resolve higher harmonics in

1428: our $3$-year data set. We conclude that only the two first harmonics

1429: can be extracted reliably from the data. We also observe a very good

1430: agreement between the Fourier and the least square method.

1431: \begin{figure}

1432: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{Figure12.eps}

1433: \caption{Comparison between the estimated power in the harmonics

1434:   obtained via (i) Fourier analysis, (ii) least square fit, and (iii)

1435:   numerical calculation based on Eq. \ref{eq:sigk}. The blue line is

1436:   the power spectrum of the variance of the data, red vertical lines

1437:   are obtained from least square fit and the black vertical lines are

1438:   from the numerical calculation.}

1439: \label{fig:har_cyclo_comp}

1440: \end{figure}

1441: As a next step in our analysis, we have estimated the cyclic spectra

1442: of the simulated WD-WD background signal. In Figure

1443: (\ref{fig:spec_cyclo}) we have shown the cyclic spectra estimated from

1444: the data.  We have also plotted the spectrum of the LISA instrumental

1445: noise and the main spectrum ($k = 0$) estimated from the simulation.

1446: We find that the main spectrum and two cyclic spectra for $k = 1$ and

1447: $k = 2$ have the largest magnitude and, over some frequency range,

1448: they lie above the LISA instrumental noise. The remaining spectra are

1449: an order of magnitude smaller and are very noisy. We also see that all

1450: the cyclic spectra have roughly the same slope. This is predicted by

1451: our analytic calculations in Section \ref{sec:cycloa} and it follows

1452: from the assumed independence between the location of the binaries in

1453: the Galaxy ($D, \lambda, \beta$) and their frequencies and chirp

1454: masses ($\omega_s, {\cal M}_c$). We also find the magnitude of the 2nd

1455: cyclic spectrum to be higher than the first, similarly to what we had

1456: for the harmonics of the variance. Note that we estimated the spectra from 

1457: the time series consisting of the WD-WD background added to 

1458: the LISA instrumental noise.

1459: \begin{figure}

1460: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{Figure13.eps}

1461: \caption{The main (k = 0) spectrum of the 

1462:   simulated WD-WD background signal (red), and the $8$ cyclic spectra

1463:   (magenta) estimated from the simulated data are shown. The spectral

1464:   density of the LISA instrumental noise (black) is shown for

1465:   reference.

1466: \label{fig:spec_cyclo}}

1467: \end{figure}

1468: Like the analysis we did for the variance, we have also compared the

1469: estimates of the cyclic spectra from our simulation against those

1470: obtained via numerical calculation of the equations derived in Section

1471: \ref{sec:cycloa}. The corresponding results are presented in Figures

1472: (\ref{fig:spec_comp}) and (\ref{fig:spec_cyclo_comp}), where it is shown

1473: that the agreement between the two is quite good.

1474: 

1475: \begin{figure}

1476: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{Figure14.eps}

1477: \caption{Estimated main ($k = 0$) spectrum of the WD-WD background

1478:   (red) against the calculated spectrum (black). The LISA spectral

1479:   density curve (blue) is shown for comparison. The $0$th order

1480:   spectrum contains the LISA instrumental and hence it differs from the

1481:   spectrum given in Figure (\ref{fig:nel_ben_comp}).

1482: \label{fig:spec_comp}}

1483: \end{figure}

1484: \begin{figure}

1485: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{Figure15.eps}

1486: \caption{Estimated cyclic spectra (black) against the calculated spectra (red).

1487:   The LISA spectral density curve (blue) is shown for comparison.

1488: \label{fig:spec_cyclo_comp}}

1489: \end{figure}

1490: 

1491: Our analysis has shown that the LISA data will allow us to compute

1492: $17$ independent cyclic spectra (the $8$ complex cyclic spectra

1493: $g_r(f) , r=1, 2, ...8$ and the real spectrum $g_0 (f)$) of the WD-WD

1494: galactic background, $5$ of which can be expected to be measured

1495: reliably.  We have also shown that by performing generalized spectral

1496: analysis of the LISA data we will be able to derive more information

1497: about the WD-WD binary population (properties of the distribution of

1498: its parameters) than we would have by only looking at the ordinary

1499: $g_0 (f)$ spectrum.

1500: 

1501: \section*{Acknowledgments}

1502: The supercomputers used in this investigation were provided by funding

1503: from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory Institutional Computing and

1504: Information Services, and the NASA Directorates of Aeronautics

1505: Research, Science, Exploration Systems, and Space Operations.  A.K.\ 

1506: acknowledges support from the National Research Council under the

1507: Resident Research Associateship program at the Jet Propulsion

1508: Laboratory. This work was supported in part by the Polish Science

1509: Committee Grant No. KBN 1 P03B 029 27.  This research was performed at

1510: the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,

1511: under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

1512: 

1513: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

1514: %

1515: \bibitem{PPA98} P. L. Bender, K. Danzmann, and the LISA Study Team,

1516: \emph{Laser Interferometer Space Antenna for the Detection of

1517:     Gravitational Waves, Pre-Phase A Report}, doc. MPQ 233

1518:   (Max-Planck-Instit\"ut f\"ur Quantenoptik, Garching, 1998).

1519: %

1520: \bibitem{NYP01}

1521: G.\ Nelemans, L.\ R.\ Yungelson, and S.\ F.\ Portegies-Zwart, {\it

1522:   A\&A}, {\bf 375}, 890 (2001).

1523: %

1524: \bibitem{HBW90} 

1525: D.\ Hils, P.\ L.\ Bender, and R.\ F.\ Webbink, {\it Ap. J.}, {\bf 360}, 75 (1900).

1526: %

1527: \bibitem{EIS87}

1528: Ch.\ Evans, Ickp Iben, and L. Smarr, {\it Ap. J.}, {\bf 323}, 129 (1987).

1529: 

1530: \bibitem{CL03} N.J. Cornish, and S.L. Larson, {\it Phys. Rev. D}, {\bf 67},

1531: 103001 (2003).

1532: %

1533: \bibitem{KT03} A. Krolak, and M. Tinto, In: {\it Proceedings of the

1534:   tenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity}, eds. M

1535:   Novello, S. Perez-Bergliaffa, and R. Ruffini, World Scientific,

1536:   Singapore (2005).

1537: %

1538: \bibitem{Seto04} N. Seto, {\it Phys. Rev. D}, {\bf 69}, 123005 (2004).

1539: %

1540: \bibitem{KTV04} A. Kr\'olak, M. Tinto, and M. Vallisneri, {\it Phys. Rev. D}, {\bf 70},

1541: 022003 (2004).

1542: %

1543: \bibitem{TEA02} M. Tinto, F.B. Estabrook, and J.W. Armstrong, {\it

1544:     Phys. Rev. D\/} {\bf 65}, 082003 (2002).

1545: %

1546: \bibitem{S04} D.A. Shaddock, {\it Phys. Rev. D}, {\bf 69 }, 022001 (2004).

1547: %

1548: \bibitem{TEA04} M. Tinto, F.B. Estabrook, and J.W. Armstrong, 

1549: {\it Phys. Rev. D}, {\bf 69}, 082001 (2004).

1550: %

1551: \bibitem{ETA00} F.B. Estabrook, M. Tinto, and J.W. Armstrong, 

1552: {\it Phys. Rev. D}, {\bf 62}, 042002 (2000).

1553: %

1554: \bibitem{AET99} J. W. Armstrong, F. B. Estabrook, and M. Tinto, {\it

1555:     Astrophys. J.}, {\bf 527}, 814 (1999).

1556: %

1557: \bibitem{CH03} N.J. Cornish, and R.W. Hellings, {\it Class. Quantum Grav.}, {\bf 20},

1558: s163 (2004).

1559: %

1560: \bibitem{STEA03} D.A. Shaddock, M. Tinto, F.B. Estabrook, and J.W.

1561:   Armstrong, {\it Phys. Rev. D}, {\bf 68}, 061303(R) (2003).

1562: %

1563: \bibitem{RCP04} L.J. Rubbo, N.J. Cornish, and O. Poujade, 

1564: {\it Phys. Rev. D}, {\bf 69}, 082003 (2004).

1565: %

1566: \bibitem{TL04} M. Tinto, and S.L. Larson, {\it Phys. Rev. D}, {\bf 70}, 062002 (2004).

1567: %

1568: \bibitem{NYP04} G.\ Nelemans, L.\ R.\ Yungelson, and S.\ F.\ 

1569:   Portegies-Zwart, {\it Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.}, {\bf 349}, 181

1570:   (2004).

1571: %

1572: \bibitem{HB90} D. Hils and P. L. Bender, {\it Ap. J.}, {\bf

1573:     360}, 75--94 (1990).

1574: %

1575: \bibitem{HB00} D. Hils and P. L. Bender, {\it Ap. J.}, {\bf

1576:     537}, 334--341 (2000).

1577: %

1578: \bibitem{BH97} P. L. Bender and D. Hils, {\it Class. Quantum Grav.},

1579:   {\bf 14}, 1439--1444 (1997).

1580: %

1581: \bibitem{MNS04} T.\ R.\ Marsh,  G.\ Nelemans, and D.\ Steeghs, 

1582: {\it Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.}, {\bf 350}, 113 (2004).

1583: %

1584: \bibitem{AS72} Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I. A. (Eds.), 

1585: {\it Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and

1586:   Mathematical Tables}, 9th Edition, Dover, New York, pp. 355-389, (1972).

1587: %

1588: \bibitem{GP97} G. Giampieri and A. G. Polnarev, {\it Mon. Not. R.

1589:     Astron. Soc.}, {\bf 291}, 149--161 (1997).

1590: %

1591: \bibitem{NBH81} A.H. Nuttall, {\it IEEE Transactions on Acoustics,

1592:     Speech, and Signal Processing}, {\bf ASSP-29}, 84, (1981).

1593: %

1594: \bibitem{ValPriv04} Michele Vallisneri (private communication), (2004).

1595: %

1596: \bibitem{H89} H. L. Hurd, {\it IEEE Transactions on Information

1597:     Theory}, {\bf 35}, 350 (1989).

1598: %

1599: \bibitem{PW93} D. B. Percival and A. T. Walden, {\it Spectral Analysis

1600:     for Physical Applications}, Cambridge University Press (1993),

1601:   Chapter 6.

1602: %

1603: \bibitem{Lweb}

1604: Plots and data for Lisa sensitivity curve and WD-WD background due

1605: to Hils and Bender can be found at the following URL:

1606: ``http://www.srl.caltech.edu/~shane/sensitivity/MakeCurve.html''.

1607: \end{thebibliography}

1608: \end{document}

1609: 

1610: 

1611: