1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %%%  The optimization paper

3: %$Id: eqs.tex,v 1.120 2005/05/17 13:34:16 badkri Exp $

4: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

6: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

7: 

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

9: \usepackage{bm}% bold math

10: \usepackage{graphicx}

11: 

12: \def\ba{\begin{eqnarray}}

13: \def\ea{\end{eqnarray}}

14: \def\F{\mathcal{F}}

15: \def\n{\mathbf{n}}

16: \def\th{\textrm{\mbox{\tiny{th}}}}

17: \def\Tobs{T_{\textrm{\mbox{\tiny{used}}}}}

18: \def\Tcoh{\Delta T}

19: \def\Tsft{T_{\textrm{\mbox{\tiny{sft}}}}}

20: \def\coh{{\textrm{\mbox{\tiny{coh}}}}}

21: \def\nd{{\mathbf{n}}_d}

22: \def\SSB{\textrm{\mbox{\tiny{ssb}}}}

23: \def\ns{\textrm{\mbox{\tiny{NS}}}}

24: \def\min{\textrm{\mbox{\tiny{min}}}}

25: \def\max{\textrm{\mbox{\tiny{max}}}}

26: \def\sft{\textrm{\mbox{\tiny{sft}}}}

27: \def\res{\textrm{\mbox{\tiny{res}}}}

28: \def\RMS{\textrm{\mbox{\tiny{RMS}}}}

29: 

30: \def\ib{{(i)}}

31: \def\bmath#1{\mbox{\boldmath$#1$\unboldmath}}

32: \def\bmaths#1{\mbox{\scriptsize\boldmath$#1$\unboldmath}}

33: 

34: 

35: 

36: 

37: \def\etal{{\it et al.}}

38: \def\ie{{\it i.e.}}

39: \def\eg{{\it e.g.}}

40: \def\lap{\hbox{${_{\displaystyle<}\atop^{\displaystyle\sim}}$}}

41: \def\gap{\hbox{${_{\displaystyle>}\atop^{\displaystyle\sim}}$}}

42: 

43: \def\lesssim{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}}

44: \def\gtrsim{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}}

45: \def\alt{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}}

46: \def\agt{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}}

47: 

48: \newcommand {\be}{\begin{equation}}

49: \newcommand {\ee}{\end{equation}}

50: 

51: \begin{document}

52: 

53: \title{Improved Stack-Slide Searches for Gravitational-Wave Pulsars}

54: 

55: \newcommand*{\AEI}{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur

56:     Gravitationsphysik, Albert-Einstein-Institut, Am M\"uhlenberg 1,

57:     D-14476 Golm, Germany}\affiliation{\AEI}

58: 

59: \author{Curt Cutler}\email{curt.cutler@aei.mpg.de}\affiliation{\AEI}

60: 

61: \author{Iraj Gholami}\email{iraj.gholami@aei.mpg.de}\affiliation{\AEI}

62: 

63: \author{Badri Krishnan}\email{badri.krishnan@aei.mpg.de}\affiliation{\AEI}

64: 

65: 

66: \date{\today}

67: 

68: \begin{abstract}

69: 

70: We formulate and optimize a computational search strategy for detecting

71: gravitational waves from isolated, previously-unknown neutron stars

72: (that is, neutron stars with unknown sky positions, spin frequencies,

73: and spin-down parameters).

74: It is well known that fully coherent searches over the relevant

75: parameter-space volumes are not computationally feasible, and so more

76: computationally efficient methods are called for.  The

77: first step in this direction was taken by Brady\&Creighton (2000), who

78: proposed and optimized a two-stage, stack-slide search algorithm.  We

79: generalize and otherwise improve upon the Brady-Creighton scheme in

80: several ways.  Like Brady\&Creighton, we consider a stack-slide scheme,

81: but here with an

82: arbitrary number of semi-coherent stages and with a coherent

83: follow-up stage at the end.

84: We find that searches with three semi-coherent stages are significantly

85: more efficient than two-stage searches (requiring about $2$--$5$ times less

86: computational power for the same sensitivity) and are only slightly

87: less efficient than searches with four or more stages.

88: We calculate the signal-to-noise ratio required for detection, as

89: a function of computing power and neutron star spin-down-age, using

90: our optimized searches.

91: \end{abstract}

92: 

93: 

94: \pacs{04.80.Nn, 95.75.Pq, 97.60.Gb}

95: \preprint{AEI-2005-104}

96: \maketitle

97: 

98: 

99: \section{Introduction}

100: \label{sec:intro}

101: 

102: 

103: In analyzing data from Earth-based and space-based gravitational-wave (GW)

104: detectors, we will be computationally limited in performing certain

105: types of searches--especially searches for long-lived signals described

106: by several unknown parameters.

107: For such signals, the number of templates signals required to

108: discretely cover the parameter space (at useful resolution)

109: typically increases rapidly as a function of the observation time.

110: For ground-based detectors, such as LIGO, a well-known example is the

111: search for nearly periodic GWs from unknown, isolated, rapidly

112: rotating neutron stars (NSs). We will refer to NSs that are continuously

113: emitting GWs as ``GW pulsars''.

114: By ``unknown'', we mean that the GW pulsar's

115: position on the sky, frequency, and frequency derivatives are all

116: unknown, and so must be searched over. (The NS could be unknown either

117: because it is electromagnetically inactive, or because its

118: electromagnetic emission

119: does not reach us--e.g., because we do not intersect its radio pulsar beam.)

120: Brady et al.~\cite{bccs}

121: showed that straightforward matched-filter searches for unknown

122: GW pulsars would

123: be severely computationally limited; for example, searches for young, fast

124: NSs (NSs with GW frequencies as high as $1\,$kHz and spin-down ages

125: as short as $40$ yr) would be limited to observation times of order one day.

126: To address this problem, Brady \& Creighton~\cite{bc}

127: (henceforth referred to as BC) were the first to

128: consider hierarchical, multistage, semi-coherent searches for GW pulsars.

129: Briefly, a semi-coherent search is one where a sequence of

130: short data stretches are all coherently searched, using

131: some technique akin to matched filtering,

132: and then the resulting powers from the different stretches are summed.

133: The method is only

134: ``semi-coherent'' because powers are added instead of complex amplitudes; i.e.,

135: information regarding the overall phase of the signal in different

136: stretches is  discarded. This allows one to use a much coarser

137: grid on parameter space than would be required in a fully coherent search of

138: the same data.  BC developed a ``stack-slide''

139: method for summing the powers along different tracks in the time-frequency

140: plane, in close analogy to the ``power stacking'' method

141: (sometimes called the Radon transform) used in radio pulsar searches.

142: The basic idea of their two-stage search is to

143: identify a list of ``candidates'' (basically, promising-looking

144: regions in parameter space) in the first stage, using some

145: fraction of the

146: available data, and then to ``follow up'' those candidates using more

147: data in the second stage. In their scheme, both the first and second

148: stages are semi-coherent.

149: 

150: In this paper we revisit the problem of constructing efficient, hierarchical

151: searches for GW pulsars. We build on the BC treatment, but

152: we also significantly generalize and otherwise improve upon their

153: work. The most important improvements are that we consider searches

154: with $n$ semi-coherent stages (not just $2$), with surviving

155: candidates being winnowed at each stage, and we add on a fully coherent

156: final stage to verify or debunk any remaining candidates.

157: We also explicitly account for the unknown polarization of the source,

158: while this complication was omitted for in BC, for simplicity.

159: Other important differences between our work and theirs will be highlighted

160: below.

161: 

162: This paper is organized as follows.  Section \ref{sec:basics} sets up

163: notation, describes the expected signal from an isolated GW pulsar,

164: and reviews the stack-slide algorithm.  Our general multistage strategy for

165: searching through large parameter spaces for GW pulsars,

166: using a combination of semi-coherent methods and coherent methods,

167: is explained in Section~\ref{sec:hierarchical}.

168: Our general search scheme contains a fair number of

169: free parameters (the number

170: and duration of the coherently analyzed stretches in each semi-coherent

171: stage, as well as the coarseness of the discrete grid used to

172: cover the parameter space of sought-for signals), which we

173: can adjust to make the search as efficient

174: as possible. Our general scheme for performing this optimization is

175: described in  Section~\ref{subsec:optimize}.

176: Section~\ref{sec:formulae} develops all the formulae

177: we need to evaluate the computational cost of any of our strategies, for

178: any desired sensitivity.

179: More specifically, section~\ref{subsec:metric} reviews the

180: template-counting formulae developed in BC;

181: section~\ref{subsec:fd} develops the equations

182: relating the thresholds that candidates must pass at different stages

183: (to advance to the following stage) to the false dismissal (FD) rates

184: at those stages, and hence to the overall sensitivity of the

185: search;

186: and section~\ref{subsec:cost}

187: derives estimates for the dominant computational cost of each

188: part of the search.

189: Section~\ref{sec:results} describes our results: the optimal

190: strategy (within our general scheme) and its sensitivity.

191: Section~\ref{sec:conclusions} concludes with a summary of our main results

192: and a discussion of open issues and future work.

193: 

194: 

195: \section{Notation and basics}

196: \label{sec:basics}

197: 

198: \subsection{The signal from a GW pulsar}

199: \label{subsec:pulsar}

200: 

201: Here we briefly review the expected GW

202: signal from a spinning neutron star.  Let $x(t)$ be the output of some

203: detector.  In the absence of any signal, $x(t)$ is

204: just noise $n(t)$, which we shall assume to be a stationary, Gaussian

205: stochastic process with zero mean.  In the presence of a signal, we

206: have

207: %

208: \be

209: x(t) = n(t) + h(t)

210: \ee

211: %

212: where the signal $h(t)$ is a deterministic function of time.

213: We assume that the GW pulsar is isolated and at rest with

214: respect to us, so that effects due to its motion can be neglected.

215: (More precisely, we assume these effects can absorbed into an overall

216: Doppler shift, and so are unobservable.)

217: Let $t_\SSB$ be

218: time measured in the Solar System Barycenter (SSB) frame. The form of

219: $h(t)$ in this frame is a constant-amplitude sinusoid with phase given by

220: %

221: \be \label{eq:phase}

222: \Phi(t_\SSB) = \Phi_0 + 2\pi f_0 \Delta t_\SSB +

223: 2\pi \sum_{k=1}^{s}\frac{f_k}{(k+1)!}\left( \Delta t_\SSB

224: \right)^{k+1}

225: \ee

226: %

227: where $\Delta t_\SSB \equiv t_\SSB - t_\SSB^{(0)}$, with $t_\SSB^{(0)}$

228: being a fiducial start time; $\Phi_0$, $f_0$ and $f_k$ are respectively the

229: phase, frequency, and spin-down parameters at the start time, and $s$ is the

230: number of spin-down parameters that we search over.  Assuming that the

231: pulsar is isolated and emitting GWs due to a small

232: deviation from axisymmetry, the waveforms for the two polarizations are

233: %

234: \ba

235: h_+ &=& \frac{1}{2}h_0(1+\cos^2\iota)\cos\Phi(t)\, ,

236: \label{eq:waveformplus} \\  h_\times  &=&

237: h_0\cos\iota \sin\Phi(t) \label{eq:waveformcross}

238: \ea

239: %

240: where $h_0$ represents the angle-independent amplitude of the wave,

241: $\iota$ is the angle

242: between the spin-axis of the pulsar and the direction of the waves'

243: propagation, and

244: the frequency $f = \dot\Phi/2\pi $ of the emitted GWs is equal

245: to twice the rotational frequency of the star.

246: 

247: Let $\mathbf{n}$ be the unit vector pointing from the Solar System

248: toward the pulsar,  $\mathbf{r}(t)$ be the position of the detector in

249: the SSB frame, and $\mathbf{v}(t)$ be its velocity with $t$ being the

250: time in the detector frame.  Ignoring relativistic

251: corrections~\footnote{Of course an actual search should must take into

252:   account the so-called 

253: Einstein and Shapiro delays, but these are unimportant for the question

254: of how the search is most efficiently {\it organized}, which is the

255: focus of this paper.}, a wave

256: reaching the Sun at time $t_\SSB$ will reach the detector at time

257: %

258: \be \label{eq:tssb} t = t_\SSB -

259: \frac{\mathbf{r}(t)\cdot\mathbf{n}}{c} \,.\ee

260: %

261: As seen from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:phase}) and (\ref{eq:tssb}), to a good

262: approximation, the instantaneous frequency of the

263: signal as seen by the detector is given by the familiar Doppler shift

264: expression

265: %

266: \be \label{eq:doppler}

267: f(t) = \hat{f}(t) \left( 1 +

268: \frac{\mathbf{v}(t)\cdot\mathbf{n}}{c}\right)

269: \ee

270: %

271: where $\hat{f}(t)$ is the instantaneous frequency of the signal in the

272: SSB frame, and is given by

273: %

274: \be \label{eq:fhat}

275: \hat{f}(t) = f_0 + \sum_{k=1}^{s}\frac{f_k}{k!}\left( \Delta t_\SSB \right)^{k}\,.

276: \ee

277: %

278: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:doppler}) and (\ref{eq:fhat}) describe the frequency

279: modulation of the received signal.

280: The received signal is also amplitude modulated by the

281: time-changing antenna pattern of the detector as it is carried along

282: by the Earth's rotation.

283: The received signal $h(t)$ is a linear

284: combination of $h_+$ and $h_\times$:

285: %

286: \be\label{eq:detoutput}

287: h(t) = F_+(\n,\psi)h_+(t) + F_\times(\n,\psi)h_\times(t)

288: \ee

289: %

290: where $\psi$ is the polarization angle of the signal, and $F_{+,\times}$ are

291: the antenna pattern functions.  Due to the motion of the Earth, the $F_{+,\times}$

292: depend implicitly on time:

293: %

294: \ba F_+(t) &=& a(t)\cos 2\psi + b(t)\sin 2\psi  \\

295: F_\times (t) &=& b(t)\cos 2\psi - a(t)\sin 2\psi \ea

296: %

297: where the functions $a(t)$ and $b(t)$ are independent of $\psi$.

298: (In these equations, the angle between the arms of the detector is

299: taken to be $\pi/2$.)

300: We refer the reader to \cite{jks} for

301: explicit expressions for $a(t)$ and $b(t)$.

302: 

303: 

304: The modulated frequency is described by the $s+3$ parameters

305: consisting of

306: $f_0$ and $\vec{\lambda}:= (\mathbf{n}, \{f_k\}_{k=1\ldots s})$; we

307: shall often denote the pair $(f_0,\vec{\lambda})$ by the boldface symbol

308: $\bmath{\lambda}$.  Apart from the parameters $\bmath{\lambda}$, the

309: waveform (\ref{eq:detoutput})

310: depends on other parameters: the pulsar's orientation $\iota$,

311: polarization angle $\psi$, the initial phase $\Phi_0$, and the

312: amplitude $h_0$.  The optimal matched filter statistic

313: \cite{jks} for detecting the waveform must, in principle, search over

314: the entire parameter space $(\bmath{\lambda},\iota,

315: \psi,\Phi_0,h_0)$.  However, it turns out that the computationally

316: challenging part of the search involves just the $\mathbf{\lambda}$; the

317: optimization of over $(\iota,

318: \psi, \Phi_0, h_0)$ can be done analytically,

319: by means of the

320: $\F$-statistic defined in \cite{jks}.  The $\F$-statistic {\it is}

321: the optimal matched filter statistic maximized over $(\iota,

322: \psi, \Phi_0, h_0)$.  It is therefore only a function of

323: $(f_0,\vec{\lambda})$ and it is given by

324: %

325: \be\label{eq:fstatdef}

326: \F(f_0,\vec{\lambda}) = 4\left[\frac{B|F_a|^2 +

327: A|F_b|^2 - 2C\mathcal{R}(F_aF_b^\star)}{\Tcoh S_n(f_0) D} \right]

328: \ee

329: %

330: where $S_n(f)$ is the single-sided

331: power spectral density of the detector noise $n(t)$, and

332: %

333: \begin{eqnarray}

334: F_a &=& \int_{-\Tcoh/2}^{\Tcoh/2}

335: x(t)a(t)e^{-i\Phi(t;\bmaths{\lambda})}\,dt \, ,\label{eq:Fa}\\

336: F_b &=& \int_{-\Tcoh/2}^{\Tcoh/2}

337: x(t)b(t)e^{-i\Phi(t;\bmaths{\lambda})}\,dt \, , \label{eq:Fb} \\

338: A &=& (a||a)\,, \qquad B = (b||b) \,,\\

339: C &=& (a||b)\,,\qquad D = AB-C^2\,.

340: \end{eqnarray}

341: %

342: Here we have used the notation

343: %

344: \begin{equation}

345: (x||y) = \frac{2}{\Tcoh}\int_{-\Tcoh/2}^{\Tcoh/2} x(t)y(t)\,dt\,.

346: \end{equation}

347: %

348: In cases where the amplitude modulation can be ignored (e.g., for short

349: data segments, $<<1\,$ day long,  where the

350: $a(t)$ and $b(t)$ can be approximated as constant), we see that $\F$ is

351: proportional to the demodulated Fourier transform which matches just

352: the phase evolution:

353: %

354: \be \label{eq:approxF}

355: \F \propto |\tilde{X}(f,\vec{\lambda})|^2

356: \ee

357: %

358: where

359: %

360: \be \label{eq:demodulated}

361: \tilde{X}(f,\lambda) = \int_{-\Tcoh/2}^{\Tcoh/2}x(t)e^{-i\Phi(t;\bmaths{\lambda})}\,dt\,.

362: \ee

363: %

364: The $\F$-statistic is the optimal (frequentist) detection

365: statistic for GW pulsars, and it is at the core of

366: some algoriths currently used to search for GW pulsars

367: in  LIGO and GEO data~\cite{S1:pulsar}.

368: Some important properties of the

369: $\F$-statistic are reviewed in section IV.B, and

370: a more detailed description can be found in \cite{jks}.

371: 

372: 

373: \subsection{The Stack-Slide algorithm}

374: \label{subsec:stackslide}

375: 

376: The stack-slide algorithm is best described with reference to the Doppler

377: shift formula of Eq.~(\ref{eq:doppler}). Imagine we have a data

378: stream $x(t)$ covering an observation time $\Tobs$, and we wish to

379: search for a GW pulsar with some parameters $\bmath{\lambda}$.  We break up the

380: data into $N$ smaller segments of length $\Tcoh=\Tobs/N$, and

381: calculate the Fourier spectrum of each segment. For now we assume each

382: segment is sufficiently short that the signal frequency remains

383: confined to a single discrete frequency bin.  If there is a signal present, it

384: will most likely be too weak to show up in a single segment with any

385: significant signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR).  However, we can increase the

386: SNR by adding the power from the different segments.  We must {\it not}

387: use the the same frequency bin from each segment,

388: but rather must follow

389: the frequency evolution given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:doppler}).  Thus,

390: we `stack' the power after `sliding' each segment in frequency space.

391: Note that the sliding depends on $\vec{\lambda}$.  Thus, in practice, we

392: choose a grid in the space of $\vec{\lambda}$'s and the sliding is done

393: differently at each grid point.

394: 

395: As described above, the sensitivity of the stack-slide algorithm is

396: restricted due

397: to the length of $\Tcoh$; we should not take $\Tcoh$ to be too large, since then

398: we would lose SNR due to the signal power being spread over several frequency bins.

399: However, we can gather all the signal power back into a

400: single bin by taking account of the Doppler modulation and spin-down while

401: calculating the spectrum of a segment; i.e., we de-modulate each data

402: segment before summing.

403: 

404: With these concepts at hand, we can now describe the stack-slide

405: search for the $\F$-statistic.   The strategy is very similar to the

406: power summing method described earlier in this section.  Again we

407: break up the data of length $\Tobs$ into $N$ segments, each of length

408: $\Tcoh = \Tobs/N$.  We choose a point $\vec{\lambda}_d$ in

409: parameter space, and demodulate the signal accordingly.  We calculate

410: $\F(f,\vec{\lambda}_d)$ as a function of the frequency for each

411: segment and add the $\F$-statistic values after sliding the different

412: segments in frequency space appropriately.

413: 

414: As explained in BC, the resolution of sky- and

415: spin-down-space that suffices for the demodulation is not

416: fine enough for for the stack-slide step. Thus at each stage

417: we two grids on parameter space: a coarse one for

418: performing the short-segment demodulations and a fine one for

419: sliding and stacking the short-segment results.

420: We refer the reader to \cite{ip}

421: and the appendix of \cite{hough} for a detailed

422: derivation of the formula relating the required amount of sliding

423: to the parameters $\vec{\lambda}_d$.

424: 

425: 

426: \section{A multistage hierarchical search}

427: \label{sec:hierarchical}

428: 

429: 

430: \subsection{The general algorithm}

431: \label{subsec:algorithm}

432: 

433: The stack-slide search algorithm described in the previous section has

434: two components: 1) calculation of the $\F$-statistic for data stretches of length

435: $\Tcoh$, 2) summation of the resulting $\F$ values along the appropriate tracks in the time-frequency plane.

436: (If there are $N$ coherently analyzed segments, then the sums have  $N$ terms.)

437: If we had unlimited computational resources, we would

438: simply do a fully coherent search on all the data; i.e., set $N=1$ and take $\Tcoh$

439: to be the entire observation time.

440: However, the number of templates required for a fully

441: coherent search increases as a high power of $\Tcoh$, making this

442: impractical for all-sky searches.

443: 

444: To illustrate this point, consider an all-sky search for young, fast

445: pulsars, i.e., GW pulsars that have a spin-down age as short as $\tau_\min

446: = 40\,$yr and that emit GWs with frequency up to

447: $f_\max = 1000\,$Hz.

448: Let us assume that we have $30\,$days of data available to

449: us.  Imagine two different ways of looking for this pulsar: a full

450: $30-$day coherent integration versus a semi-coherent method where the

451: available data is broken up into 30 equal segments.  The formula for

452: the number of templates required for these searches is given below in

453: Eq~(\ref{eq:Np}).  It turns out that the full coherent search

454: requires $\sim 4.2\times 10^{15}$ templates if we are to not lose more

455: than $30\%$ of the signal power.  On the other hand, the semi-coherent

456: search requires only $\sim 1.5\times 10^{11}$ templates for the same

457: allowed fractional loss in signal power.  The ratio of the

458: the number of templates required for the two types of searches

459: increases rapidly with the observation time; for instance, for an

460: observation time of $40\,$ days, the corresponding numbers are $\sim 5.5 \times

461: 10^{16}$ and $\sim 8.3 \times 10^{11}$ for the full coherent and

462: semi-coherent searches respectively.

463: 

464: As illustrated by the above example, semi-coherent searches for unknown

465: GW pulsars are a compromise

466: forced upon us by limited computing power. Such searches will remain

467: computationally limited for the foreseeable future, so it behooves us to

468: organize them as efficiently as possible. In this paper we consider

469: a class of multistage, hierarchical  search algorithms.

470: Since our main ``problem'' is the

471: large volume of parameter space we need to search over,

472: the basic idea behind these algorithms is to identify and  discard

473: unpromising regions of parameter space

474: as fast as possible--without discarding real signals.

475: The type of scheme we consider is illustrated schematically in

476: Fig.~\ref{fig:hierarchical}.

477: The first stage is a semi-coherent search through some fraction of the

478: available data. A threshold is set, and candidates exceeding

479: this threshold are passed to the next stage.

480: The second stage is similar to the

481: first, but includes additional data and generally entails a finer

482: resolution of parameter space.

483: (The latter means that any candidate that survives the first semi-coherent

484: stage gives rise to a little crowd of nearby candidates that are

485: examined in the second semi-coherent stage.)

486:  Any candidate that exceeds the

487: second-stage threshold is passed on to the third stage, and so on.

488: In an $(n+1)$-stage search, any candidate surviving all $n$ semi-coherent

489: selections is subjected to a final, coherent search (which we consider

490: the $(n+1)^{\rm th}$ stage); if the final,

491: coherent threshold is exceeded, then a detection is announced.

492: We impose as a constraint that the false alarm (FA) rate for the entire search

493: must be $< 1\%$; i.e., if the data is actually just noise, then

494: the probability that a detection is announced must be $< 1\%$.

495: For reasons explained below, in realistic examples

496: this inequality is all too easy to satisfy ;

497: the actual FA rate for our optimized searches

498: is typically smaller than $1\%$ by many orders of magnitude.

499: 

500: In the end, our search will be able to detect

501: a GW pulsar signal whose rms strength (at the detector) $h_\RMS$

502: exceeds some threshold value $h_{\th}$

503: (with a false dismissal rate of $10--15\%$).

504: We can think of $1/h_{\th}$

505: as the search's sensitivity.

506: We will optimize our search to get the maximum

507: sensitivity for any given computing power or, equivalently, to

508: find the minimum computer power necessary to attain any

509: given sensitivity.

510: 

511: %

512: \begin{figure}

513:   \begin{center}

514:   \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{hierarchical.eps}

515:   \caption{A hierarchical scheme for the analysis of large parameter space

516:   volumes for continuous wave searches.  Each step analyzes only those

517:   regions in parameter space that have not been discarded by any of

518:   the previous steps.}\label{fig:hierarchical}

519:   \end{center}

520: \end{figure}

521: %

522: 

523: The problem of optimizing a semi-coherent, hierarchical search

524: scheme for GW pulsars was first studied by BC.  The

525: present study builds upon the BC formalism, but there are also

526: some important differences. We call attention to the following ones:

527: %

528: \begin{description}

529: \item[1)] BC consider a hierarchical search

530: consisting of exactly two semi-coherent stages.

531: In the present work, we consider a

532: search consisting of an arbitrary number of semi-coherent steps, plus a

533: fully coherent, ``follow-up'' stage (utilizing all the available data)

534: to assess the significance of any surviving candidates.

535: The effect of the final, follow-up stage is to ensure

536: that the overall false alarm rate (fixed at exactly $1\%$ by BC) is

537: greatly reduced and, for all practical purposes, ceases to be a

538: constraint.

539: \item[2)] In BC's second semi-coherent

540: stage, all the data used in the first-stage is reanalyzed, along with some

541: ``fresh'' (as yet unanalyzed) data. {\it A priori}, it is not clear whether

542: this strategy is more efficient than one in which each semi-coherent stage

543: analyzes only fresh data. (E.g, the first stage analyzes $20$

544: days of data and generates candidates, the second semi-coherent stage

545: searches for  those candidates

546: in the {\it next} $50$ days of data and generates a list of candidates that

547: have still ``survived'', these survivors are searched for again in the

548: {\it next} $150$ days of data, etc.)

549: In this paper, we investigate both kinds of schemes: schemes where

550: previously analyzed data is always {\it recycled} into subsequent

551: stages, and schemes where each semi-coherent stage analyzes only fresh data.

552: 

553: \item[3)] For simplicity, BC ignored the fact that the GWs have

554: two possible polarizations (in effect pretending that the detectors measure a

555: scalar wave). This is a reasonable approximation when estimating

556: the number of grid-points needed to cover the parameter space, but

557: not, say, when trying to estimate the FA and FD rates

558: as a function of the threshold at some intermediate stage in the

559: search. (Roughly speaking, scalar waves with the same matched-filter SNR

560: would be easier to detect than actual GWs, since with GWs the full

561: SNR is ``split'' between the two polarizations, in a way that is

562: unknown {\it a priori}.) In this paper we aim to

563: make realistic estimates of a GW pulsar's detectability for a

564: given matched-filter SNR (and given region of parameter space to be

565: searched over), so we take polarization into account wherever it makes

566: a significant difference. In practice, this just means that we use

567: the $\F$-statistic, Eq.~(\ref{eq:fstatdef}), as our detection

568: statistic.

569: 

570: \item[4)] When estimating computational costs, BC assume that the

571: demodulations will be done using \emph{stroboscopic

572: re-sampling}, a method modeled closely on the FFT algorithm.

573: A different demodulation method, which we shall refer to as the

574: SFT method, is currently being used by the GW pulsar search codes in

575: the  LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) software library~\cite{lscsoft}.

576: The SFT method takes as its input a  short FFT database

577: (FFT'ed sets of short-time data stretches), and can be more efficient

578: than \emph{stroboscopic re-sampling} in cases where only a narrow

579: frequency range of the demodulated time series is of interest.

580: In this paper we explore the possibility of using different demodulation methods at

581: different stages of the search, and attempt to find the most efficient

582: combination.

583: \end{description}

584: %

585: All the above points will be elaborated on in later sections of the

586: paper.

587: 

588: 

589: \subsection{The general optimization scheme}

590: \label{subsec:optimize}

591: 

592: In this section we further discuss our search algorithm and its

593: optimization.  First we establish some notation.  Let $n$ be the total

594: number of semi-coherent

595: stages.  Let $N^{\ib}$ be the number of stacks used in the $i^{\th}$

596: stage and $\Tcoh^{\ib}$ be the length of each stack; the superscript $i$

597: will always refer to the $i^{\th}$ semi-coherent stage.  The

598: resolution of the template grid used to cover parameter space is given

599: in terms of the maximum fractional mismatch in signal power

600: $\mu^\ib_\max$ \cite{owen}.  Our detection statistic is $\rho^{\ib}$,

601: the sum of the $\F$ values from the different stacks (obtained after

602: sliding appropriately):

603: %

604: \be

605: \rho^{\ib} = \sum_{k=1}^{N^{\ib}}\F_k^{\ib} \,.

606: \ee

607: %

608: Denote the distribution of $\rho^{\ib}$ in the absence of any signal

609: by $p(\rho^\ib)$. In the presence of a GW signal of amplitude $h_\RMS$,

610: let the distribution of $\rho^{\ib}$ at the gridpoint nearest the

611: actual signal be $p(\rho^\ib | h_\RMS,\mu_\max^{\ib})$.

612: Let $\rho_\th^\ib$ be the $i^{\th}$-stage threshold, which a

613: candidate must exceed to advance to the next stage.

614: that we use to reject candidates or advance them to the next stage.

615: The $i^{\th}$-stage FA rate  (per candidate) $\alpha^\ib$ and FD rate

616: (per candidate)

617: $\beta^\ib$ are given by

618: %

619: \ba

620: \alpha^\ib(\rho_\th^\ib) &=& \int_{\rho_\th^\ib}^{\infty}p(\rho)d\rho

621: \,, \label{eq:falsealarm}\\

622: \beta^\ib (\rho_\th^\ib; h_\RMS ,\mu_\max^{\ib}) &=& \int_0^{\rho_\th^\ib}

623: p(\rho|h_\RMS, \mu_\max^{\ib} )d\rho \,  .

624: \label{eq:falsediss}\ea

625: Practically identical formulae apply to the final, coherent stage as well.

626: 

627: Again, we require of any search algorithm

628: that, at the very

629: end of the search, it results in a false detection less

630: than $1\%$ of the time. Given this constraint, we parametrize the

631: search's sensitivity by the signal amplitude $h_{th}$ such that

632: an embedded signal with $h_\RMS > h_{th}$ would be detected

633: $\agt 85-90\%$ of the time. We enforce the latter condition as follows.

634: We set the first-stage threshold $h_{\th}$

635: such that a signal of amplitude

636: $h_\RMS = h_{\th}$ will pass to the second stage

637: $90\%$ of the time. At all subsequent stages we set the threshold

638: such that the same signal with strength $h_\RMS = h_{\th}$ has a

639: $99\%$ chance of passing to the next higher stage.

640: That is, we adjust the

641: the $i^{\th}$-stage threshold $\rho_\th^\ib$

642: so that $\beta^{(1)} = 0.10$, while $\beta^\ib = 0.01$ for $i > 1$,

643: and $\beta^{({\coh})} = 0.01$ as well.

644: The motivation behind making $\beta^{(1)}$ lower than

645: $\beta^\ib$ for $i > 1$ is the following: We believe that a computationally efficient

646: algorithm will have the property that a true signal that is strong

647: enough to pass the first-stage threshold {\it should} generally pass over all the

648: others. Any source that is not sufficiently strong to make it through to

649: the end of the detection pipeline should be discarded as soon as possible,

650: so as not to waste computing power.  This reflects the basic idea

651: behind our hierarchical searches: to eliminate unpromising regions of parameter

652: space as quickly as possible, so that computational resources can be

653: focused on the more promising regions.

654: Basically, the first-stage threshold determines the

655: sensitivity of the whole search, and

656: subsequent steps whittle down the number of candidates

657: (i.e., the number of small patches in parameter space that perhaps contain a

658: true signal) until any remaining patches can be fully, coherently analyzed.

659: 

660: To fully specify our search algorithm, we have to choose the

661: parameters $\Gamma \equiv (n,

662: \{N^\ib\}, \{\Tcoh^\ib\}, \{\mu_\max^\ib\}, \mu_\max^{coh})$,

663: where $n$ is the number of semi-coherent stages and

664: $i = 1,...,n$.

665: In doing so, we are subject to certain

666: requirements or constraints:

667: %

668: \begin{itemize}

669: \item The total amount of data

670: available is no more that some $T_\max$ (say, 1 year).

671: 

672: \item We wish to detect (with $\sim 90 \%$ FD rate and $< 1 \%$ overall

673: FA rate) any unknown signal of amplitude $h_\RMS$ greater than

674: $h_{th}$ (say, $10^{-26}$).

675: 

676: \end{itemize}

677: %

678: Our task is to choose the parameters $\Gamma$ that minimize the

679: total required computational power $P$, subject to the above constraints.

680: We arrive at a cost function $P(h_{th})$, the computational cost

681: of reaching any given sensitivity level. (Really, P is function

682: of the product $h^2_{th} T_{\rm max}/S_n(f)$, but we are regarding

683: $T_{\rm max}$ and $S_n(f)$ as fixed.)

684: We can immediately invert this function to

685: determine $h_{th}(P)$, the sensitivity achievable for any given

686: computing power.

687: 

688: Let us first deal with the constraint on the total amount of data.

689: We are going to consider simultaneously two different modes of all-sky

690: searches.

691: In ``data recycling mode,'' at each stage we start back at the beginning of the

692: data, but take progressively larger values of $N^{(i)}\Tcoh^{(i)}$.  Thus the

693: first stage looks at data in the interval $[T_0, T_0 + N^{(1)}\Tcoh^{(1)}]$, the

694: second stage looks at $[T_0, T_0 + N^{(2)}\Tcoh^{(2)}]$ and so on.  The total

695: observation time is thus

696: %

697: \begin{equation} \label{eq:tobsrecyc}

698: \Tobs = N^{(n)}\Tcoh^{(n)}\,.

699: \end{equation}

700: %

701: In ``fresh-data'' mode,

702: rather than always starting over from the beginning, we analyze fresh

703: data at each stage. The first stage looks at data in the range $[T_0, T_0 +

704: N^{(1)}\Tcoh^{(1)}]$, the second stage looks at  $[T_0 + N^{(1)}\Tcoh^{(1)}, T_0 +

705: N^{(1)}\Tcoh^{(1)} + N^{(2)}\Tcoh^{(2)}]$, etc. The total observation time is thus

706: %

707: \begin{equation}\label{eq:tobsfresh}

708: \Tobs = \sum_{i=1}^{n}N^{(i)}\Tcoh^{(i)}\,.

709: \end{equation}

710: %

711: In either data-recycling or fresh-data mode,

712: one constraint is that $\Tobs \leq T_\max$ where

713: $T_\max$ is the total amount of data available. Also, in either mode,

714: at each stage we look only at portions of parameter

715: space that exceeded the threshold set at the previous stage.

716: 

717: Next we consider our constraints on the overall FA and FD rates

718: for the pipeline.

719: The final, coherent follow-up stage is expected to be much more

720: sensitive than any of the preceding steps; therefore the overall FA rate

721: is essentially set by the final stage threshold alone.

722: (The earlier stages serve only

723: to whittle down the number of candidates, $N_{coh}$, that are

724: analyzed in the final coherent stage.)

725: If the threshold in the final follow-up stage is

726: $\rho_\th^{(coh)}$, then the overall FA rate is no larger than

727: ${\alpha}^{(coh)}(\rho_\th^{(coh)})$ times the number of effectively

728: independent candidates in parameter space. We approximate the latter, crudely,

729: by $\sim N_p(T_{\rm max}, 0.2, 1)$;

730: in practice ${\alpha}^{(coh)}(\rho_\th^{(coh)})$

731: turns out to be so minuscule that the crudeness of this approximation is

732: irrelevant.

733: 

734: The overall false dismissal requirement is also easily handled.  Let

735: $\tilde{\beta}$ be the total false dismissal rate of the multistage

736: search.  Each stage has its own threshold $\rho_\th^\ib$ and

737: corresponding false dismissal rate $\beta^\ib$.  If each stage,

738: including the follow-up stage, were to analyze completely independent

739: data, we would have

740: %

741: \be

742: \tilde{\beta} = 1 - \prod_{i=1}^{n+1} (1-\beta^\ib) \approx

743: \beta^{(1)} + \cdots \beta^{(n+1)} \,.

744: \ee

745: %

746: (where we use ``$\beta^{(n+1)}$'' interchangeably with $\beta^{(coh)}$).

747: In our fresh-data search mode, the data at different stages are

748: independent, {\it except} for the final, follow-up stage.

749: And in our recycled-data scheme, the

750: data examined at higher stages includes all the data examined in earlier

751: stages. Then when $\beta^{(1)}=0.1$ and

752: \be\label{eq:beta}

753: \beta^{(2)}= \beta^{(3)} = ... = \beta^{(n)} = \beta^{(coh)} = 0.01 \, ,

754: \ee

755: it is clear that $\tilde \beta$ is roughly in the range

756: $(10+n-1)\% $ to (10 + n)\% $, for fresh-data mode and $10\% $ to

757: (10 + n)\% $

758: for recycled-data mode. Since $n \approx 3$ turns out to be optimal

759: (see below), we crudely summarize this by saying that our

760: strategies have an overall FD rate of $10-15\%$ at the

761: threshold value of $h_\RMS$.

762: 

763: 

764: 

765: Finally, we turn to the search's computational cost, which we wish to

766: minimize. Let us denote the total number of floating point operations for the

767: $i^{th}$ semi-coherent stage by $C^\ib$ and for the final coherent stage by

768: $C^{(\coh)}$.  Expressions for $C^\ib$ and $C^{(\coh)}$ are given in the

769: next section. For now, it is sufficient to say the total computational

770: cost is

771: %

772: \be C_{total} = \big(\sum_{i=1}^n C^\ib\big) +

773: C^{(coh)}\, ,

774: \ee

775: %

776: and that if we wish to analyze the data in roughly real time,

777: the required computational power (operations per unit time) is

778: %

779: \begin{equation} \label{eq:comppower}

780: P = \frac{C_{total}}{\Tobs} \, .

781: \end{equation}

782: %

783: Depending on which mode we are working in, $\Tobs$ is given by

784: Eq.~(\ref{eq:tobsrecyc}) or Eq.~(\ref{eq:tobsfresh}).

785: 

786: Again, our strategy for optimizing the search is to minimize $P$,

787: subject to the constraints listed above.

788: 

789: \section{Template counting, confidence levels, and computational cost}

790: \label{sec:formulae}

791: 

792: \subsection{Template counting formulae}

793: \label{subsec:metric}

794: 

795: This section gives the template counting formulae originally derived

796: by BC using the metric formulation developed in \cite{owen}.

797: 

798: For simplicity, the parameter space is covered by spheres of proper radius

799: $\sqrt{\mu_\max}$ ($\mu_\max$ is the maximum allowed fractional

800: mismatch in the detection statistic \cite{owen}) using a cubic grid.

801: However it is worth keeping in mind that a cubic grid over-estimates the

802: number of required templates even in two

803: dimensions, and the difference increases rapidly with the

804: dimensionality \cite{jhc}.

805: 

806: As mentioned earlier, for each semi-coherent stage,

807: we have a coarse grid for the demodulation and a fine grid for the

808: stack-slide analysis.

809: Following BC, for simplicity we shall require that at any given

810: semi-coherent stage, the maximal mismatch $\mu_\max$ for the fine

811: grid is the same as $\mu_\max$ for the coarse one.

812: However (unlike BC), we allow $\mu_\max$ to vary from one stage to

813: the next.

814: 

815: The number of templates (or gridpoints) $N_p$ is a function of

816: the mismatch $\mu_\max$, the coherent time baseline $\Tcoh$, and the

817: number of stacks $N$ (which is unity for the coarse grid).

818: BC have derived the following expressions for the number of

819: gridpoints, $N_{pc}$ and $N_{pf}$, in the coarse and fine grids,

820: respectively:

821: \ba

822: N_{pc} &=& N_p(\Tcoh, \mu_\max, 1)\,, \label{eq:npc}\\

823: N_{pf} &=& N_p(\Tcoh, \mu_\max, N)\,. \label{eq:npf}

824: \ea

825: where $N_p$ is given in Eq.~(2.22) of BC:

826: %

827: \be \label{eq:Np}

828: N_p = \mathop{\textrm{max}}_{s\in

829:   \{0,1,2,3\}}\left[\mathcal{M}_s\mathcal{N}_sG_s\prod_{k=0}^s\left(1+

830:   \frac{0.3r\Omega^{k+1}\tau_\min^k}{c\,k!\sqrt{\mathcal{M}_s}}\right)\right]  \, .

831: \ee

832: %

833: Here $r=1\,$AU is Earth's orbital radius, $\Omega = 2\pi/(1 {\rm yr})$,

834: %

835: \be

836: \mathcal{N}_s = \frac{s^{s/2}}{(s+2)^{s/2}}\frac{f_\max^s

837:   \Tcoh^{s(s+3)/2}}{(\mu_\max/s)^{s/2}\tau_\min^{s(s+1)/2}}\, ,

838: \ee

839: \be

840: \mathcal{M}_s = \big(\frac{f_\max}{1 {\rm Hz}}\big)^2\frac{(s+2)}{4\mu_\max}\left( \frac{1}{A^2} +

841: \frac{1}{B^2} + \frac{1}{C^2}\right)^{-1/2}\, ,

842: \ee

843: where

844: \be

845: A = 0.014\ , B = 0.046\left(\frac{\Tcoh}{1\textrm{ day}}\right)^2 \,

846: C = 0.18\left(\frac{\Tcoh}{1\textrm{ day}}\right)^5 \,

847: \ee

848: and the functions $G_s$ are given in Appendix A of BC.

849: Roughly speaking, the factor $\mathcal{M}_s$ counts distinct patches

850: on the sky as set by the Earth's one-day spin period, $\mathcal{N}_s$

851: counts distinct ``patches'' in the space of spin-down parameters,

852: the $G_s$ give the dependence of $N_p$ on the number of stacks, $N$, and the

853: factors of the form $\left(1+

854:   \frac{0.3r\Omega^{k+1}\tau_\min^k}{c\,k!\sqrt{\mathcal{M}_s}}\right)$

855: effectively account for the increase of search volume required when

856: the frequency derivative $d^kf/dt^k$ is dominated by the Doppler shift

857: from the Earth's motion around the Sun rather than by the pulsar's

858: intrinsic spin-down. In our numerical work we use the full expressions for

859: the $G_s$ given in the Appendix A of BC, but for completeness we

860: note that BC also give the following approximate fits to the

861: $G_s$, which are valid when  $N\gg 4$:

862: %

863: \ba

864: G_0(N) &= & 1 \,,\\

865: G_1(N) &\approx & 0.524N \,,\\

866: G_2(N) &\approx & 0.0708N^3 \,,\\

867: G_3(N) &\approx & 0.00243N^6 \,.

868: \ea

869: %

870: The $N_p$ results in BC were derived under the assumption that the

871: observation time is significantly less than one year.  As

872: we shall see below, in the cases where the

873: total available data covers an observation time of a year or more,

874: it turns out

875: that for the optimal search, the initial semi-coherent stages

876: typically analyze a few days' to a few months'

877: worth of data.

878: Also, most of the search's computational cost

879: is spent on these early stages. (This is especially true

880: for the young-pulsar search, which is the most computationally challenging.)

881: Therefore, it seems reasonable for our purposes

882: to simply use the $N_p$ formulae from BC for {\it all} observation times.

883: Since the cost-errors we make by using the BS formulae

884: will be confined to the later

885: stages, and since the overall sensitivity of the search is effectively set

886: at the first stage, we believe these errors will not significantly

887: affect the total computational cost, for fixed threshold (though

888: they may affect the relative allocation of resources between

889: the different stage).

890: Of course, the validity of this assumption can only really

891: be checked by re-doing the calculation

892: using more accurate expressions for the $N_p$'s,

893: appropriate for year-long observation times, but unfortunately such

894: expressions are not currently available.

895: 

896: Even for short observation times, the

897: $N_p$ calculation in BC used the approximation

898: (\ref{eq:approxF}), which neglects the amplitude

899: modulation of the signal; however this approximation is not expected to cause

900: significant errors in estimating template numbers.

901: 

902: 

903: 

904: \subsection{False dismissal rates and the thresholds}

905: \label{subsec:fd}

906: 

907: 

908: In this subsection, we discuss the statistical properties of the

909: stack-slide search and solve the false dismissal constraint to obtain

910: expressions for the thresholds.

911: 

912: It is shown in \cite{jks} that the distribution of the $\F$-statistic

913: (or to be more precise, $2\F$), for each coherent search, is given by

914: a non-central $\chi^2$

915: distribution.  The non-centrality parameter $\eta$ is given in terms

916: of the signal $h(t)$ by:

917: %

918: \ba

919: \eta &=& 4 \left(1-\frac{\mu_\max}{3}\right)

920: \int_0^\infty \frac{|\tilde{h}(f)|^2}{S_n(f)} df \nonumber \\

921: &=& \left(1-\frac{\mu_\max}{3}\right)\frac{2 h_\RMS^2\Tcoh}{S_n(f)}\,,

922: \label{eta}

923: \ea

924: %

925: where $\tilde{h}(f)$ is the Fourier transform of $h(t)$.

926: We have included a fitting factor of $1-\mu_\max/3$ to account for

927: the average loss in power due to the mismatch between the signal and

928: template.

929: $h_\RMS$ is the root-mean-square value of the signal $h(t)$.

930: We can relate $h_\RMS$

931: to the amplitude $h_\RMS$ defined in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:waveformplus}) and

932: (\ref{eq:waveformcross}), as follows. If one averages

933: $h_\RMS$ over all sky-positions as well as over the polarization

934: parameters $\iota$ and $\psi$, one obtains

935: $<h^2_\RMS> = (2/25)h^2_0$ (see Eq. (93) of \cite{jks}).

936: 

937: More explicitly, the distribution is

938: %

939: \ba

940: p(\F|\eta) &=& 2\chi^2(2\F|\eta,4) \nonumber \\ &=&

941: \left(\frac{2\F}{\eta}\right)^{1/2} I_1(\sqrt{2\F\eta})e^{-\F-\eta/2}

942: \ea

943: %

944: where $\chi^2(\cdot|\eta, \nu)$ is the $\chi^2$ distribution with

945: $\nu$ degrees of freedom and non-centrality parameter $\eta$, and

946: $I_1$ is the modified Bessel function of first order.

947: The statistic $\rho$ of interest for the stack-slide

948: search is the sum of the $\F$-statistic over $N$ stacks.

949: Assuming the $\F$-statistic for the $N$ stacks to be statistically

950: independent, $2\rho$

951: must follow a $\chi^2$ distribution with $4N$ degrees of freedom and

952: non-centrality parameter $N\eta$

953: %

954: \be

955: p(\rho|\eta,N) = 2\chi^2(2\rho|N\eta,4N)\,.

956: \ee

957: %

958: The mean and variance of $\rho$ are given respectively by

959: %

960: \be \label{eq:meanvar}

961: \bar{\rho} = 2N + \frac{N\eta}{2} \,, \qquad \sigma_\rho^2 = 2N + N\eta\,.

962: \ee

963: %

964: Using the distribution $p(\rho^\ib)$, the false alarm rate

965: for the $i^{th}$ semi-coherent stage (defined in

966: Eq.~(\ref{eq:falsealarm})) can be evaluated analytically:

967: %

968: \begin{equation}

969: \alpha^\ib(\rho_\th^\ib) =

970: e^{-\rho_\th}\sum_{k=0}^{2N^\ib-1}\frac{(\rho_\th^\ib)^k}{k!}  \,. \label{eq:fa-analytical}

971: \end{equation}

972: %

973: As discussed earlier, the overall false alarm probability $\tilde{\alpha}$

974: for the search is set by the final coherent follow-up stage.  For this

975: stage, $N=1$ so that if the threshold on $\rho$ is $\rho_\th^{(coh)}$,

976: then it is easy to see from the previous equation that:

977: %

978: \be \label{eq:alphacoh}

979: \tilde{\alpha} = (1+\rho_\th^{(coh)})e^{-\rho_\th^{(coh)}}\,.

980: \ee

981: %

982: In the presence of a signal, the non-central $\chi^2$ distribution for

983: $\rho$ is a little cumbersome to work with, and it is useful to

984: replace it by a Gaussian with the appropriate mean and variance.  So

985: we say that the distribution of $\rho$ must be approximately Gaussian

986: with mean and variance as in eq. (\ref{eq:meanvar}):

987: %

988: \be

989: p(\rho|\eta,N) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\sigma_\rho^2}}

990: \,\,e^{-(\rho-\bar{\rho})^2/2\sigma_\rho^2} \, .

991: \ee

992: %

993: This approximation is not valid when $N$ is of order unity.

994: Then for any given $h_{\th}$, we should set the threshold of the

995: $i^{th}$ stage, $\rho^{\ib}$ by the false dismissal requirement:

996: %

997: \be\label{rhoi}

998: \int_{0}^{\rho^{\ib}} p(\rho|\eta^{\ib}_\th,N) d\rho = \beta^\ib \,,

999: \ee

1000: %

1001: where

1002: %

1003: \be

1004: \eta^{\ib}_\th := \left(1-\frac{\mu_\max}{3}\right)\frac{2h_\th^2\Tcoh^{\ib}}{S_n(f)}\,.

1005: \ee

1006: %

1007: Here the factor of $1-\mu_\max^\ib/3$ accounts for the average

1008: loss in power due to the mismatch between the signal parameters and

1009: nearest gridpoint parameters.

1010: Eq.~(\ref{rhoi}) can be solved to find $\rho^\ib_\th$ as a function

1011: of $h_{\th}$, $\Tcoh^{\ib}$, and $\mu^{\ib}$.

1012: Or equivalently, it gives

1013: $h_{\th} = h_{\th}(\rho^{\ib}, \Tcoh^{\ib}, \mu^{\ib})$.

1014: This equation can easily be solved by using the properties of the

1015: complementary error function.  By changing variables in the integral,

1016: we can rewrite the false dismissal rate as

1017: %

1018: \be

1019: \beta^\ib =

1020: \frac{1}{2}\textrm{erfc}\left(\frac{\bar{\rho}^\ib-\rho^\ib}{\sqrt{2}\sigma_\rho^\ib}\right)\,.

1021: \ee

1022: %

1023: If $h_\th$ is the smallest value of $h_\RMS$ for which the false

1024: dismissal rate is no bigger than $\beta^\ib$, then we have

1025: %

1026: \ba\label{eq:thresholdsolve}

1027: \rho^\ib(h_\th) &=& \bar{\rho}^\ib -

1028: \sqrt{2}\sigma_\rho^\ib\,\textrm{erfc}^{-1}(2\beta^\ib) \nonumber \\

1029: &\approx& 2N^\ib\left[1 + \frac{\eta_\th^\ib}{4}\right] \nonumber \\ &-&

1030: 2\textrm{erfc}^{-1}(2\beta^\ib) \sqrt{{N}^\ib}\sqrt{1 +\frac{\eta_\th^\ib}{2}}\,.

1031: \ea

1032: %

1033: 

1034: In practice, we fix one value of $h_\th$ (our sensitivity goal)

1035: for an an entire search,

1036: and we then set the threshold $\rho^{\ib}$ at each stage by solving

1037: Eq.~(\ref{eq:thresholdsolve}), with the false dismissal rates set by

1038: $\beta^{(1)} = 0.1$ and $\beta^\ib = \beta^{\rm coh} = 0.01$ for

1039: $i\geq 2$.

1040: Our rationale for this choice is as follows.

1041: At each stage, one can estimate the signal strength of any

1042: successful candidate. If after the first stage, one can already predict

1043: that a candidate is not strong enough to pass over the threshold at the

1044: second or a higher stage, then one might as well discard it immediately

1045: and so not waste computer power on a likely failure.

1046: Put the other way, an efficient algorithm should ensure that

1047: a true signal that is strong enough to pass over the first stage is also

1048: strong enough to pass over all subsequent stages. Then the

1049: false dismissal rate for the whole search will be only a little larger

1050: than the FD rate of the first stage alone, or a little more than $10\%$.

1051: (An {\it overestimate} of the total FD rate is the sum of the rates for

1052: each of the stages, or $13\%$ for a 3-stage search.)

1053: 

1054: 

1055: \subsection{Computational Cost}

1056: \label{subsec:cost}

1057: 

1058: Let us begin with the first semi-coherent stage.  Here, the number of

1059: points in the

1060: coarse and fine grids are respectively

1061: %

1062: \ba

1063: N^{(1)}_{pc} &=& N_p(\Tcoh^{(1)},\mu_\max^{(1)}, 1) \,, \\

1064: N^{(1)}_{pf} &=& N_p(\Tcoh^{(1)},\mu_\max^{(1)},N^{(1)}) \,.

1065: \ea

1066: %

1067: If we are searching in a frequency range from small frequencies up to $f_\max$,

1068: the data must be sampled in the time domain (at least) at the Nyquist

1069: frequency $2f_\max$.  The minimum number of data points that we must

1070: start out with in the time domain is then $2f_\max\Tcoh$. To calculate

1071: the $\F$-statistic for each stack, we need to first calculate the

1072: quantities $F_a$ and $F_b$ which appear in equation

1073: (\ref{eq:fstatdef}).  We describe two methods below which

1074: may be called the \emph{stroboscopic resampling method} and the

1075: \emph{SFT method}. Given $F_a$ and $F_b$, the cost of combining

1076: them to get $\F$ is negligible.\\

1077: 

1078: 

1079: \noindent \textit{The stroboscopic resampling method:} The method

1080: suggested in \cite{jks} (and also in \cite{bc}) is based on the

1081: observation that the integrals in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Fa}) and (\ref{eq:Fb})

1082: look \emph{almost} like a Fourier transform; the difference being the

1083: form of $\Phi(t)$ in the exponential.  However, by suitably resampling

1084: the time series, effectively redefining the time variable so that the

1085: spectrum of a real signal would look like a spike in a single frequency

1086: bin, the integral can be written as a Fourier transform and we can

1087: then use the FFT algorithm.  Since the cost of calculating an FFT for

1088: a time series containing $m$ data points is $3m\log_2 m$, the operations

1089: cost of

1090: calculating the $\F$-statistic for each stack should be approximately

1091: $12f_\max \Tcoh\log_2(2f_\max\Tcoh)$.  Repeating this for $N^{(1)}$

1092: stacks and for each point in the coarse grid, we see that the total

1093: cost of calculating $F_a$ and $F_b$, and therefore the $\F$-statistic,

1094: is approximately

1095: %

1096: \be

1097: 12N^{(1)}N^{(1)}_{pc}f_\max\Tcoh^{(1)}\log_2(2f_\max\Tcoh^{(1)})\,.

1098: \ee

1099: %

1100: We now need to appropriately slide each segment in frequency space and

1101: stack them up, i.e. add the $\F$-statistic values from each

1102: stack to get our final statistic $\rho$.  This has to be done for each

1103: point in the fine grid.  The cost of sliding is negligible and we need

1104: only consider the cost of adding the $\F$-statistic values.

1105: Since adding $N^{(1)}$ real

1106: numbers requires $N^{(1)}-1$ floating point operations, we see that

1107: the cost of stacking and sliding for all frequency bins and for all

1108: points in the fine grid is approximately

1109: %

1110: \be

1111: f_\max\Tcoh^{(1)}{N_{pf}^{(1)}}

1112: (N^{(1)}-1)  \,.

1113: \ee

1114: %

1115: Thus, the computational cost for the first semi-coherent stage is

1116: %

1117: \ba\label{eq:hierarchical-cost-1}

1118: C^{(1)}_\res &=& f_\max\Tcoh^{(1)}N_{pc}^{(1)}\left[

1119: 12N^{(1)}\frac{\log(2f_\max\Tcoh^{(1)})}{\log 2} \right. \nonumber \\

1120: &+& \left.

1121: \frac{N_{pf}^{(1)}}{N_{pc}^{(1)}}(N^{(1)}-1)  \right] \,.

1122: \ea

1123: %

1124: The subscript $\res$ indicates that this result is for the

1125: stroboscopic resampling method.\\

1126: 

1127: \noindent \textit{The SFT method:} An alternative method is to

1128: use as input not the time series, but rather a bank of short time

1129: baseline Fourier Transforms (SFTs).  This is in

1130: fact the method currently being used in the search codes of the LIGO

1131: Scientific Collaboration \cite{lscsoft}.

1132: Here one first breaks up the data into short segments of length $\Tsft$,

1133: and calculates the Fourier transform of each

1134: segment. (These segments, which are to be combined \emph{coherently}, are

1135: not to be confused with the segments used in the stack-slide algorithm

1136: which are combined incoherently).  $\Tsft$ should be

1137: short enough so that the signal does not drift by more than half a

1138: frequency bin over this time.

1139: Typical values of $\Tsft$ are $1800$s.

1140: The exact method of calculating the

1141: $\F$-statistic from an SFT database is sketched in Appendix A, and

1142: the operations count is also derived there. The result is

1143: (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:sftcostapp})):

1144: %

1145: \be

1146: \approx 640 N^{(1)}N_{pc}^{(1)}f_\max \frac{(\Tcoh^{(1)})^2}{\Tsft}

1147: \,\,\textrm{Flops}\,.

1148: \ee

1149: %

1150: Note that the SFT method of calculating the $\F$-statistic is

1151: $\mathcal{O}((\Tcoh^{(1)})^2)$ while for the stroboscopic resampling

1152: method it is

1153: $\mathcal{O}(\Tcoh^{(1)}\log \Tcoh^{(1)})$.

1154: 

1155: 

1156: The total cost of stacking and sliding in the first hierarchical stage

1157: using the SFT method is thus:

1158: %

1159: \ba\label{eq:c1sft}

1160: C^{(1)}_\sft &=& f_\max\Tcoh^{(1)}N_{pc}^{(1)}\left[ \frac{640 N^{(1)}

1161: \Tcoh^{(1)}}{\Tsft} \right. \nonumber \\  &+& \left.

1162: \frac{N_{pf}^{(1)}}{N_{pc}^{(1)}}(N^{(1)}-1) \right]\,.

1163: \ea

1164: %

1165: When all frequencies are to be searched over,

1166: stroboscopic resampling produces the $\F$-statistic

1167: about an order of magnitude more cheaply than the SFT method, for typical

1168: values of $\Tcoh^{(1)}$.  However when previous stages have narrowed

1169: the search to a small fraction of the whole frequency band (for any given

1170: $\vec\lambda$), the SFT method can be the more efficient one.

1171: We should also mention here that it is possible to start with SFTs and

1172: combine them in such a way as to get a $\mathcal{O}(\Tcoh^{(1)}\log

1173: \Tcoh^{(1)})$ operations count; this is in fact the method used in

1174: \cite{abjk}. However, in this paper, by the ``SFT method'' we always

1175: mean the method described here in Appendix B, with the operation count

1176: given above in Eq.~(\ref{eq:c1sft}).

1177: 

1178: It also seems likely that the resampling method could be

1179: modified so as to be the most efficient one, even when only

1180: wanted to demodulate a small

1181: frequency band

1182: \be

1183: \Delta f = \textrm{max}\left\{1,\frac{\Tcoh^\ib}{\Tcoh^{(i-1)}}\right\}

1184: \ee

1185: around every selected candidate.  Presumably the first step would be

1186: to heterodyne the data to shift

1187: the relevant frequency range to a neighborhood of zero-frequency.

1188: Then one would filter out frequencies higher than $\Delta f$,

1189: followed by the usual demodulation.

1190: Eq.~(\ref{eq:hierarchical-cost-i}) would then be modified, so that the

1191: new cost of demodulating would be $12N^\ib\Tcoh^\ib\Delta

1192: f\log_2(2\Tcoh^\ib\Delta f)$.  However since the details of this

1193: modified demodulation method have not yet been worked out, we will

1194: not consider it further in this paper.

1195: 

1196: This completes our analysis of the first stage computational costs for

1197: both methods.  The analysis for the subsequent stages proceeds

1198: similarly; the only difference is

1199: that subsequent stages analyze only those regions of parameter space

1200: that have not been discarded by any of the previous stages.  Assuming

1201: that almost all the candidates are due to noise, the false alarm rate

1202: is a good estimate of the number of candidates produced by any stage.

1203: Let us denote by

1204: $F^{(i)}$ the number of candidates which survive the $i^{th}$

1205: stage.  Since the false alarm rate for the first stage is

1206: $\alpha^{(1)}$, the number of candidates produced by the first

1207: stage is given by

1208: %

1209: \be

1210: F^{(1)} =

1211: \textrm{max}\left\{1,f_\max\Tcoh^{(1)}N_{pf}^{(1)}\alpha^{(1)}\right\}

1212: \,.

1213: \ee

1214: %

1215: Note that we will always have at least one candidate which makes it

1216: through to the next stage.

1217: To calculate the cost of a search, we of course must make some

1218: assumptions about the data to be processed. Basically, we are assuming

1219: that the data consists of Gaussian noise plus one detectable source.

1220: (Though we call $F^{(i)}$ the ``$i^{(th)}$-stage false alarm rate'', it

1221: is really the ``false alarm rate or the true-source survival rate, whichever

1222: dominates''. In practice, until the last semi-coherent stage,

1223: the FA rate always dominates.)

1224: 

1225: 

1226: To estimate the computational cost for the $i^{th}$

1227: stage, for $i>1$, recall that each of the $F^{(i-1)}$

1228: candidates produced by the $(i-1)^{th}$ stage is in fact a region in

1229: parameter space.  If we assume that the $i^{th}$ stage

1230: further refines

1231: this region, then we see that the number of $i^{th}$-stage coarse grid

1232: points

1233: in this region must be, on average,

1234: $N_{pc}^{\ib}/N_{pf}^{(i-1)}$ (again,

1235: assuming this ratio to be bigger than 1).

1236: Thus, using the stroboscopic resampling method, the number of floating

1237: point operations to calculate the $\F$-statistic in the $i^{th}$ stage

1238: is

1239: %

1240: \be

1241: F^{(i-1)} \textrm{max}\left\{

1242: 1,\frac{N_{pc}^{\ib}}{N_{pf}^{(i-1)}}\right\}

1243: 12f_\max \Tcoh^{\ib}N^{\ib}\log_2(2f_\max\Tcoh^{\ib})\,.

1244: \ee

1245: %

1246: Each candidate produced by the $(i-1)^{th}$ stage occupies a frequency

1247: band $1/\Tcoh^{(i-1)}$, and thus corresponds to $\Tcoh^\ib/\Tcoh^{(i-1)}$

1248: $i^{th}$-stage  frequency bins.  Thus the operations count

1249: for the stacking and sliding is

1250: %

1251: \ba

1252: &&F^{(i-1)}

1253: \textrm{max}\left\{1,\frac{\Tcoh^\ib}{\Tcoh^{(i-1)}} \right\}

1254: \textrm{max}\left\{1,\frac{N_{pc}^{\ib}}{N_{pf}^{(i-1)}}\right\}

1255: \times \nonumber \\

1256: && \times \frac{N_{pf}^{\ib}}{N_{pc}^{\ib}} (N^{\ib}-1)

1257: \ea

1258: %

1259: floating point operations.

1260: Combining these results, we get the computational cost for the

1261: $i^{th}$ stage ($i\geq 2$):

1262: \ba

1263: C^\ib_\res &=&  F^{(i-1)}

1264: \textrm{max}\left\{1,\frac{N_{pc}^{\ib}}{N_{pf}^{(i-1)}}\right\}

1265: \times \nonumber \\ &\times&

1266: \left[ 12N^\ib f_\max\Tcoh^\ib\frac{\log(2f_\max\Tcoh^\ib)}{\log 2}

1267: \right. \label{eq:hierarchical-cost-i}

1268: \\ &+& \left.  \textrm{max}\left\{1,\frac{\Tcoh^\ib}{\Tcoh^{(i-1)}} \right\}

1269: \frac{N_{pf}^{\ib}}{N_{pc}^{\ib}}(N^{\ib}-1)  \right] \,. \nonumber

1270: \ea

1271: %

1272: 

1273: If instead one uses the SFT method for calculating the $\F$-statistic,

1274: it is easy to see the operations count is

1275: %

1276: \ba

1277: C^\ib_\sft &=&  F^{(i-1)}

1278: \textrm{max}\left\{1,\frac{N_{pc}^\ib}{N_{pf}^{(i-1)}} \right\}

1279: \textrm{max}\left\{1,\frac{\Tcoh^\ib}{\Tcoh^{(i-1)}}\right\} \times \nonumber \\

1280: &\times&\left[\frac{640 N^\ib\Tcoh^\ib}{\Tsft} +

1281: \frac{N_{pf}^\ib}{N_{pc}^\ib}(N^\ib -1) \right] \,. \label{eq:hierarchical-cost-i-sft}

1282: \ea

1283: %

1284: 

1285: After the $n$ semi-coherent steps, we have the final coherent follow-up stage

1286: where the entire stretch of data of duration $\Tobs$ is used. For this stage,

1287: we analyze $F^{(n)}$ candidates and simply compute the $\F$-statistic without

1288: breaking up the data into any smaller stacks. The cost $C^{(coh)}$ for this

1289: using the resampling method is

1290: %

1291: \be\label{eq:hierarchical-cost-coh}

1292: C^{({\mathrm coh})}_\res =

1293: F^{(n)}\textrm{max}\left\{1,\frac{N_{p}^{(coh)}}{N_{pf}^{(n)}}

1294: \right\} 12 f_\max\Tobs\frac{\log(2f_\max\Tobs)}{\log 2}

1295: \ee

1296: %

1297: where $N_{pf}^{coh} \equiv N_p(\Tobs,\mu_{coh},1)$, and

1298: $\mu_{coh}$ is the $\mu_{max}$ of the final, coherent stage.

1299: Using the SFT method, we would have

1300: %

1301: \be

1302: C^{({\mathrm coh})}_\sft = F^{(n)}\textrm{max}\left\{1,\frac{N_{p}^{(coh)}}{N_{pf}^{(n)}}

1303: \right\} \textrm{max}\left\{1,\frac{\Tobs}{\Tcoh^{(n)}}

1304: \right\}\frac{640\Tobs}{\Tsft}

1305: \ee

1306: 

1307: So far, all results in this section are valid whether we are working in

1308: fresh-data mode or data-recycling mode.  The following formulae,

1309: for the number of candidates which survive a given

1310: stage, do however depend on which mode we are working in.  If we operate

1311: in fresh-data mode (analyzing fresh data at every

1312: stage--except the last stage, which is a coherent follow-up of all

1313: the searched data), we clearly have (for $i\geq 2$)

1314: %

1315: \ba\label{Fifresh}

1316: F^{\ib} &=& \alpha^{(i)} \textrm{max}\left\{F^{(i-1)}, 1 \right\}

1317: \textrm{max}\left(1,\frac{N_{pf}^{\ib}}{N_{pf}^{(i-1)}}\right) \nonumber

1318: \\&\times& \textrm{max}\left(1,\frac{\Tcoh^{\ib}}{\Tcoh^{(i-1)}}\right) \, .

1319: \ea

1320: %

1321: Again, our count assumes that at least

1322: one candidate gets ``promoted'' to the succeeding stage.

1323: We note that Eq.~(\ref{Fifresh}) assumes that

1324: the parameter space resolution improves at every stage of

1325: fresh-data mode (which seems always to be true for our

1326: optimized searches).

1327: We also note that Eq.~(\ref{Fifresh}) is basically

1328: identical to Eq.~(5.2) of BC, but there it is

1329: claimed to be the FA rate for data-recycling mode. That is

1330: not correct, in general, as we discuss further below.

1331: 

1332: If we are in data-recycling mode (at each step, re-analyzing old data,

1333: while also adding on new data), then the probabilities of

1334: a candidate's randomly surviving the $(i-1)^{th}$ and

1335: $i^{th}$ stages are {\it not} independent, and so Eq.~(\ref{Fifresh})

1336: is no longer valid.

1337: (To see this, consider the limit where only a very tiny bit of data is

1338: added on, and the resolution is kept fixed. Then any candidate that

1339: survives the $(i-1)^{th}$ stage has almost a $100\%$ chance of surviving

1340: the $i^{th}$ stage, even if $\alpha^{(i)}$ is extremely small.)

1341: Indeed, the rhs of Eq.~(\ref{Fifresh}) is clearly a {\it lower bound}

1342: on the $i^{th}$-stage false alarm rate, in data-recycling mode.

1343: 

1344: We can also place the following {\it upper bound} on

1345: on $F^{\ib}$ for data-recycling mode:

1346: %

1347: \be

1348: \label{FiBC}

1349: F^{\ib} = f_{\mathrm{max}}\Tcoh ^{\ib}\, N_{pf}^{\ib} \alpha^\ib  \, .

1350: \ee

1351: %

1352: The rhs of (\ref{FiBC}) is the number of false alarms that would

1353: result if one performed a semi-coherent search of the {\it entire}

1354: parameter space with the given $(N^{(i)}, \Delta T^{(i)}, \mu^{(i)},

1355: \rho^{(i)})$, while the lhs is the false alarms that result from

1356: searching only neighborhoods of the points the survived the

1357: $(i-1)^{th}$ stage. 

1358: Thus for data-recycling mode, we can say that

1359: $F^{\ib}$ is somewhere in the range

1360: \ba

1361: \label{FiBC2}

1362: F^{(i-1)} \biggl(\frac{N_{pf}^{\ib}}{N_{pf}^{(i-1)}}

1363:     \frac{\Tcoh^{\ib}}{\Tcoh^{(i-1)}} &\biggr)& \, \alpha^{(i)} \,

1364: \le  \,  F^{\ib} \nonumber \\

1365: &\le & \, f_{\mathrm{max}}\Tcoh ^{\ib}\, N_{pf}^{\ib}

1366: \alpha^\ib  \; .

1367: \ea

1368: Fortunately, when we calculate the total computational cost of some

1369: optimized search in data-recycling mode, needed to achieve some

1370: given sensitivity $h_{th}$, if we try

1371: plugging in {\it either} the upper or lower bound for

1372: $F^{\ib}$, we find the two final results differ from each other

1373: by $\lesssim 18\%$  for a young palsar ($\tau_{min} =40$ year) and

1374:     $\lesssim 5\%$ for an old one ($\tau_{min} =10^6$ year), which for our purposes is

1375: practically insignificant.  Moreover, the optimized search parameters obtained

1376: when we plug in the upper-limit estimate for $F^{\ib}$ are quite similar

1377: to those we find by plugging in the lower limit instead.

1378: Therefore it is safe for us to choose {\it either} the upper or lower limit

1379: as an estimate  of $F^{\ib}$.  For concreteness, in the rest of this

1380: paper we always estimate $F^{\ib}$ by its upper limit, which slightly

1381: overestimates the computational cost of the search.

1382: 

1383: With these results in hand, we are now ready to calculate the total

1384: computational cost of the entire search pipeline.  We have a number of

1385: choices to make.  At each stage, we can use either the stroboscopic

1386: resampling method or the SFT method in each stage, and we can work in 

1387: either the data-recycling

1388: mode or fresh-data mode from the second stage onwards.

1389: For convenience, we somewhat arbitrarily limit the choices by

1390: considering only strategies that use either

1391: data-recycling mode in every stage or

1392: fresh-data mode in every stage. As we shall see below,

1393: the efficiencies of these two sorts of searches turn out to be

1394: extremely close anyway. Therefore we strongly suspect that more

1395: general searches (using fresh-data mode in some stages and

1396: data-recycling mode in others) would not give significant improvements.

1397: 

1398: 

1399: \section{Results}

1400: \label{sec:results}

1401: 

1402: \subsection{The optimization method}

1403: \label{subsec:optimizationmethod}

1404: 

1405: We next describe our numerical

1406: optimization method.   The function we want to minimize, the

1407: computational power of Eq.~(\ref{eq:comppower}), is a

1408: complicated function on a large-dimensional space.  Our chosen method

1409: is a simulated annealing algorithm~\cite{mrrtt, kgv} based on

1410: the downhill simplex method of Nelder and Mead~\cite{nm}.  The

1411: downhill simplex method consists of evaluating the function on the

1412: vertices of a simplex and moving the simplex downhill and shrinking it

1413: until the desired accuracy is reached.  The motion of the simplex

1414: consists of a prescribed set of ``moves'' which could be either an

1415: expansion of the simplex, a reflection around a face, or a

1416: contraction. This method is turned into a simulated

1417: annealing method by adding a random fluctuation to the values of the

1418: function to be minimized, at the points of the

1419: simplex.  The temperature of the random fluctuations is reduced

1420: appropriately, or in other words ``annealed'', until the minimum is

1421: found.

1422: 

1423: There are no universal choices for the rate of annealing or the

1424: starting point of the simplex; these

1425: depend on the particular problem at hand.  For the results presented

1426: below, we have used a variety of different starting points and

1427: annealing schedules to convince ourselves that the optimization algorithm has

1428: converged and that we have indeed

1429: found the best minimum.

1430: Let us first discuss the starting temperature, whose meaning is as

1431: follows.   If $f$ is the

1432: the function to be minimized, then

1433: the temperature

1434: $\Theta$ parametrizes the amplitude of random

1435: fluctuations $f \rightarrow f + \delta f$ added to

1436: $f$ at the points of the simplex:

1437: %

1438: \be

1439: \delta f  = -\Theta \log r

1440: \ee

1441: %

1442: where $0 < r < 1$ is a uniformly distributed random number.

1443: A simplex move is always accepted if it takes the simplex downhill, but an

1444: uphill step may also be accepted due to these random fluctuations.

1445: In our case, we found that a starting temperature of $\Theta \sim

1446: 10^6$-$10^9$ gives good convergence; this value is to be

1447: compared to the typical value $\sim 10^{13}$ of the

1448: computational cost near its minimum for most of the results presented

1449: below.  We allow a maximum of $500$ iterations of the

1450: simplex.  If the simplex does not converge within $500$ iterations, we

1451: reduce the temperature by $2-5\%$ and restart the iterations from the

1452: best minimum found up to that point.  These steps are repeated until

1453: the simplex converges.   The starting point of the simplex cannot be

1454: chosen arbitrarily, and for this purpose, it is useful to have a rough

1455: idea of the location of the minimum. This requires some experimenting

1456: with a sufficiently broad range of starting points; this is especially

1457: important when the number of variables is large, as is the case for,

1458: say, a search with $n>3$.  Having found a

1459: suitable starting point for one set of pulsar parameters ($f_\max$ and

1460: $\tau_\min$), it can be reused for nearby pulsar parameter values.

1461: Occasionally, to obtain convergence to a minimum, we have taken

1462: as our starting point the minimum we found for nearby pulsar-parameter

1463: values.

1464: 

1465: We next describe how we impose the constraint that the total amount of

1466: analyzed data is less than $T_\max$.  One could imagine trying to

1467: do this using the method of Lagrange multipliers.

1468: However this seemed difficult to implement numerically  (for our

1469: highly non-linear function $P$), and we found a simpler approach that

1470: suffices. The function our algorithm minimizes is not the total

1471: computational power $P$ (defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:comppower})) itself,

1472: but rather 

1473: %

1474: \be \label{eq:compconstr}

1475: f = P \times \left[1 + S\left(\frac{\Tobs}{T_\max}\right)\right]

1476: \ee

1477: %

1478: where $S(x)$ is a smooth function such that $S(x) = 0$ for $0 < x < 1$ but

1479: S(x) is rapidly increasing exponential function for $x > 1$.

1480: That is, we impose a very steep penalty for leaving the

1481: constraint surface.

1482: This works well, and indeed we found it useful

1483: to impose some additional (intuitively obvious)

1484: constraints in this way, such as

1485: requiring the $N^\ib$ and $\Delta T^\ib$ to all be positive; we again multiply

1486: $P$ by factor that is unity when the constraint is

1487: satisfied but is very large when the constraint is violated.

1488: This ``trick'' is used to find the {\it location} of the minimum, but

1489: of course the results we report are the values of the function $P$ there,

1490: not $f$.

1491: 

1492: There is one additional technical detail, namely, that our optimization

1493: method is meant for the case of continuous, real variables, while

1494: our variables $N^\ib$ are strictly integers.

1495: We handle this by rounding off $N^\ib$ to the nearest integer while calculating

1496: the cost function $f$, every time it is called.  The downhill simplex

1497: algorithm still treats $N^\ib$ as a

1498: continuous variable, i.e. we allow arbitrarily small changes to

1499: $N^\ib$ when the simplex is moving downhill, but such changes have no

1500: effect on $f$.  We have also tried an alternative approach where

1501: $N^\ib$ is kept as a continuous variable throughout, and rounded off

1502: only at the very end. We have found that the two approaches yield

1503: consistent results.

1504: 

1505: Finally,

1506: we cross-checked our results using two different implementations of

1507: the simulated annealing algorithm--those of

1508: \cite{nr} and \cite{gsl}--and found that they gave basically equivalent

1509: results in our case.

1510: 

1511: 

1512: \subsection{The number of semi-coherent stages}

1513: \label{subsec:nstages}

1514: 

1515: The first question we want to answer is: what is the optimum number $n$ of

1516: semi-coherent stages to use in the search?

1517: Relatedly, we want to know the most efficient method to use for

1518: the $\F$-statistic calculation (stroboscopic resampling or SFT method) and

1519: best mode to work in (fresh-data mode or data-recycling mode).

1520: To answer this, we

1521: consider an all-sky search for fast/young GW pulsars, by which we mean

1522: a search that goes up to frequency

1523: $f_\max=1000\,$Hz and that can detect pulsars with spindown ages $\tau_{\min}$

1524: as short as $40\,$yr. We assume the amount of data available is

1525: $T_\max=1\,$yr, and ask what is the computational power required to

1526: detect pulsar signals whose $h_\RMS$ is

1527: or above $h_{th}$, given by:

1528: \be\label{eq:h5e}

1529: \frac{h_{th}^2}{S_n(f)} = 2.5\times 10^{-5}\textrm{sec}^{-1}\,.

1530: \ee

1531: This signal strength corresponds to $\sqrt{\eta}\approx 39.72$ for a

1532: full 1-yr observation time with a perfectly matched template.

1533: (Here and below we are implicitly assuming that $S_n(f)$ hardly varies

1534: over the frequency range of the signal.)

1535: We choose the $i^{th}$-stage FD rates $\beta^{(i)}$ as given

1536: in (and just above) Eq.~(\ref{eq:beta}), which, along with the

1537: detection threshold given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:h5e}), determines the

1538: $i^{th}$-stage thresholds $\rho^{(i)}$.

1539: For simplicity, we set $\mu^{(coh)} = 0.2$.

1540: While this is a restriction that we simply put in by hand

1541: (to slightly reduce the space of search parameters to be optimized), we

1542: believe this choice has very little effect on the overall optimized

1543: strategy because, as we shall see shortly, the follow-up stage

1544: usually accounts for only a tiny fraction of the total computational

1545: cost.\footnote{An exception is a search for old pulsars presented in tables

1546: \ref{tab:Fresh-params-million} and \ref{tab:Fresh-cc-million}, where

1547: the cost for the follow-up stage turns out to be non-negligible. This

1548: example in particular will have to be revisited when better formulas

1549: for $N_p$ are available.}  

1550: Thus we are left with $3n$ parameters to be optimized:

1551: $(\Tcoh^\ib,\mu_\max^\ib, N^\ib)$ for $i = 1,\ldots ,n$, subject

1552: to the constraint that the total amount of data analyzed, $T_{used}$

1553: [given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:tobsrecyc}) or (\ref{eq:tobsfresh})] is less than

1554: $1\,$yr.

1555: 

1556: Plots of the minimum computational cost for different $n$ and for

1557: both the data-recycling and fresh-data modes are

1558: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:SFT-RES}.

1559: For each mode, we consider the following three

1560: strategies: (i) Use the SFT method in each stage, (ii) Use the

1561: resampling method in each stage, and (iii) Use the resampling method

1562: in the first and final follow-up stages, and use the SFT method in all

1563: intermediate stages.  Therefore there are $6$ curves in

1564: Fig.~\ref{fig:SFT-RES}.

1565: 

1566: %

1567: \begin{figure}

1568:   \begin{center}

1569:   \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{BC-Fresh-SFT-RES.eps}

1570:   \caption{Computational power versus number of semi-coherent

1571:   stages for different methods of calculating the $\F$-statistic. RES

1572:   indicates the stroboscopic resampling method (strategy (ii)) and SFT is

1573:   the SFT method (strategy (i)). SFT+RES corresponds the mixture of these two

1574:   methods (strategy (iii)). For each strategy, solid lines indicate the

1575:   result for the fresh-data mode, while the dashed lines are for the

1576:   data-recycling mode.}

1577:   \label{fig:SFT-RES}

1578:   \end{center}

1579: \end{figure}

1580: %

1581: 

1582: 

1583: The most important lessons from Fig.~\ref{fig:SFT-RES} are

1584: the following:  Strategy (iii) turns out to be better than (i) or

1585: (ii).  Furthermore, for strategy (iii), there is a significant

1586: advantage in a three-stage search as compared to a two-stage or single-stage

1587: search, but there is hardly any improvement in computational cost

1588: in going to four or more

1589: semi-coherent stages.

1590: Furthermore, these results are the same

1591: whether we use the fresh-data mode or data-recycling mode, and these

1592: two modes give very similar total costs.

1593: While Fig.~\ref{fig:SFT-RES} presents results just for young/fast pulsar

1594: searches, we find the same basic

1595: pattern for old pulsars, with $\tau_{min} \sim 10^6\,$yr:

1596: strategy (ii) is the most efficient for calculating the $\F$-statistic,

1597: data-recycling mode and fresh-data mode are almost equally efficient, and

1598: having three semi-coherent stages is near-optimal (significantly better than

1599: two stages, and practically as good as four).  The main difference

1600: from the young/fast pulsar case is that the gain in going from 2 to 3

1601: stages is now only a factor $\sim 2$ in computational power, i.e., 

1602: smaller but still significant.    

1603: 

1604: In the light of these

1605: results, in the rest of this section, we consider only three-stage

1606: searches, with the first stage and final follow-up stages

1607: employing the resampling method and with the second and third stages

1608: employing  the SFT method. We continue to report results for both

1609: data-recycling mode and fresh-data mode.

1610: 

1611: 

1612: \subsection{The optimal three-stage search parameters}

1613: \label{subsec:3stage}

1614: 

1615: For the example search described above, (i.e. $f_\max=1000\,$Hz,

1616: $\tau_{\min}=40\,$yr, $T_\max=1\,$yr, and ${h_{th}^2}/{S_n} = 2.5\times

1617: 10^{-5}\textrm{sec}^{-1}$) we list the optimal search

1618: parameters for the three-stage search in data-recycling mode in Table

1619: \ref{tab:bc-params}.  The first two stages analyze about

1620: 26 days (divided in 10 segments) and 42 days (divided in 12 segments) of data, respectively,

1621: while the third stage

1622: analyzes the entire year-long data stretch (divided in 8 segments).  The total

1623: computational cost is

1624: $40.2\,$TFlops. The cost breakdown among the individual stages, and

1625: further cost breakdown into the

1626: demodulation piece $C^{(i)}_{coh}$ and the

1627: stack-slide $C^{(i)}_{ss}$ piece in each stage,

1628: are given in Table \ref{tab:bc-cc}.

1629: There we give the total count of floating point operations required, not

1630: the number of operations per second.

1631: %

1632: \begin{table}[h]

1633: \caption{The optimal search parameters in data recycling

1634:   mode. $f_\max=1000$Hz, $\tau_{\min}=40$yr, $T_\max=1$yr,

1635:   ${h_{th}^2}/{S_n} = 2.5\times 10^{-5}\textrm{sec}^{-1}$, and $\eta$ is

1636:   defined according to Eq. \ref{eta}.}

1637: \vspace{0.2cm}

1638: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1639:   \hline

1640:   Stage & $\Tcoh^{(i)}$ (days) & $\mu^{(i)}$ & $N^{(i)}$ & $\Tobs^{(i)}$ (days) & $\sqrt{\eta}$ \\

1641:   \hline

1642:   &&&&&\\

1643:   1 &  2.58 & 0.7805 & 10 &  25.79 &  9.08 \\&&&&&\\

1644:   2 &  3.51 & 0.1139 & 12 &  42.13 &  13.23 \\&&&&&\\

1645:   3 & 45.66 & 0.8196 &  8 & 365.25 &  33.86 \\

1646:   \hline

1647: \end{tabular}

1648: \label{tab:bc-params}

1649: \end{table}

1650: %

1651: 

1652: %

1653: \begin{table}

1654: \caption{The computational cost to analyze one year of  data in

1655:   data-recycling mode. The search parameters are the same as given in

1656:   Table I.  $C^{(i)}_\coh$ is the cost for the coherent

1657:   demodulation step and $C^{(i)}_{ss}$ for the stack-slide step, while

1658:   $C^{(i)}$ is the sum of these two. Follow-up indicates the computational

1659:   cost require for the final follow-up stage.}

1660: \vspace{0.2cm}

1661: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}

1662:   \hline

1663:   Stage & $C^{(i)}$ (Flop) &  $C^{(i)}_\coh$ (Flop) & $C^{(i)}_{ss}$ (Flop) \\

1664:   \hline

1665:   &&&\\

1666:   1 & $ 9.37\times 10^{20}$ & $ 6.21\times 10^{19}$ & $8.75\times 10^{20}$  \\

1667:   &&&\\

1668:   2 & $ 3.16\times 10^{20}$ & $ 2.46\times 10^{20}$ & $6.98\times 10^{19} $ \\

1669:   &&&\\

1670:   3 & $ 1.65\times 10^{19}$ & $ 2.73\times 10^{18}$ & $1.37\times 10^{19}$ \\

1671:   &&&\\

1672:   Follow-up &$ 6.30\times 10^{15}$ & & \\

1673: \hline

1674: \end{tabular}

1675: \label{tab:bc-cc}

1676: \end{table}

1677: %

1678: 

1679: Our results for fresh-data mode are qualitatively similar, and are

1680: given in Table \ref{tab:fresh-params}.

1681: In this case, the optimal search analyzes about 24 days of data

1682: in the first stage (broken up into 9 segments) and 24 more days in

1683: the second stage (broken into 6 sements).

1684: The third stage analyzes the rest of the year's worth of data, divided into

1685: 7 segments. The total computational

1686: requirement is $34.6\,$TFlops and its breakdown is given in Table

1687: \ref{tab:fresh-cc}.

1688: 

1689: %

1690: \begin{table}

1691: \caption{Same as Table I, but for fresh-data mode.}

1692: \vspace{0.2cm}

1693: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1694:     \hline

1695: Stage & $\Tcoh^{(i)}$ (days) & $\mu^{(i)}$ & $N^{(i)}$ & $\Tobs^{(i)}$ (days) & $\sqrt{\eta}$ \\

1696:     \hline

1697: &&&&&\\

1698: 1 &  2.71 & 0.7829 & 9 &  24.35 &  8.82 \\&&&&&\\

1699: 2 &  4.08 & 0.0654 & 6 &  24.49 & 10.17 \\&&&&&\\

1700: 3 & 45.20 & 0.8229 & 7 & 316.42 & 31.50 \\

1701: \hline

1702: \end{tabular}

1703: \label{tab:fresh-params}

1704: \end{table}

1705: %

1706: %

1707: \begin{table}

1708: \caption{Same as Table II, but for fresh-data mode.}

1709: \vspace{0.2cm}

1710: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}

1711:     \hline

1712: Stage & $C^{(i)}$ (Flop) & $C^{(i)}_\coh$ (Flop) & $C^{(i)}_{ss}$ (Flop) \\

1713:     \hline

1714: &&&\\

1715: 1 & $8.11\times 10^{20}$ & $6.42\times 10^{19}$ & $7.46\times 10^{20}$  \\

1716: &&&\\

1717: 2 & $2.64\times 10^{20}$ & $2.62\times 10^{20}$ & $2.67\times 10^{18}$  \\

1718: &&&\\

1719: 3 & $1.74\times 10^{19}$ & $5.54\times 10^{18}$ & $1.19\times 10^{19}$ \\

1720: &&&\\

1721: Follow-up & $1.62\times 10^{16}$ & & \\

1722: \hline

1723: \end{tabular}

1724: \label{tab:fresh-cc}

1725: \end{table}

1726: %

1727: 

1728: We note the following features of these results.  First, in both modes,

1729: basically all the data has been analyzed by the end of the third

1730: semi-coherent stage.

1731: This is not a requirement that we put in by hand, but rather it arises from the

1732: optimization: the optimal scheme ``gets through'' the entire year's worth of

1733: data before the final follow-up stage.

1734: Secondly, in data-recycling mode, $73.8\%$ of the computing time

1735: is spent in the first stage, $24.9\%$ in

1736: the second, $1.3\%$ in the third and a negligible fraction in the follow-up.  The

1737: results are similar for the fresh-data mode: approximately $74.2\%$ of the

1738: computational resources are spent in the first stage,  $24.2\%$ in the second

1739: stage, $1.6\%$ in the third stage and a negligible amount in the follow up stage.

1740: Finally, fresh-data mode entails

1741: a slightly lower computational cost than data-recycling mode.

1742: However this last fact could be an artifact either of having slightly

1743: different overall FD rates in the two cases, or of our using an overestimate

1744: of $F^{(i)}$ in the latter case. The bottom line is that, after optimization,

1745: the two modes are almost equally efficient.

1746: 

1747: If instead we consider a search for older pulsars, with $\tau_\min

1748: = 10^6\,$yr instead of $40\,$yr, then the optimal solutionfor both modes  

1749: are summarized in Tables

1750: \ref{tab:BC-params-million}--\ref{tab:Fresh-cc-million}.   A larger

1751: value of $\tau_\min$ means a smaller number of templates, and therefore

1752: a more sensitive search for fixed computational cost.

1753: 

1754: For data-recycling mode, we have lowered the threshold $h_{th}$ by a

1755: factor $2.35$, to the point where the required computational power is

1756: again $40.2\,$ Tflops, as in the example of Tables \ref{tab:bc-params}

1757: and \ref{tab:bc-cc}. The results are shown in tables

1758: \ref{tab:BC-params-million} and \ref{tab:BC-cc-million}.  

1759: Compared to the young-pulsar search, the computational power is now

1760: spread more evenly over the first two stages: the first stage

1761: consumes about $58.27\%$ of the power, the second stage $38.73\%$,

1762: third stage $3.0\%$ and negligible for the follow-up stage.

1763: %

1764: \begin{table}

1765: \caption{Search parameters for data-recycling mode with $f_\max=1000$Hz,

1766:   $\tau_{\min}=10^6$yr, $T_\max=1$yr, ${h_{th}^2}/{S_n} = 4.53\times

1767:   10^{-6}\textrm{sec}^{-1}$, and computational power $40.2$Tflops;

1768: $\eta$ is defined according to Eq.~(\ref{eta}).}

1769: \vspace{0.2cm}

1770: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1771:     \hline

1772: Stage & $\Tcoh^{(i)}$ (days) & $\mu^{(i)}$ & $N^{(i)}$ & $\Tobs^{(i)}$ (days) & $\sqrt{\eta}$ \\

1773:     \hline

1774: &&&&&\\

1775: 1 & 14.84 & 0.3514 & 8 & 118.72 &  9.06 \\&&&&&\\

1776: 2 & 30.06 & 0.0917 & 6 & 180.34 & 11.70 \\&&&&&\\

1777: 3 & 52.18 & 0.0986 & 7 & 365.25 & 16.63 \\

1778: \hline

1779: \end{tabular}

1780: \label{tab:BC-params-million}

1781: \end{table}

1782: %

1783: %

1784: \begin{table}

1785: \caption{The computational cost to analyze one year of  data in

1786:   data-recycling mode. The search parameters are the same as given in

1787:   Table V.  $C^{(i)}_\coh$ is the cost for the coherent

1788:   demodulation step and $C^{(i)}_{ss}$ for the stack-slide step, while

1789:   $C^{(i)}$ is the sum of these two. Follow-up indicates the computational

1790:   cost require for the final follow-up stage.}

1791: \vspace{0.2cm}

1792: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}

1793:     \hline

1794: Stage & $C^{(i)}$ (Flop) & $C^{(i)}_\coh$ (Flop) & $C^{(i)}_{ss}$ (Flop) \\

1795:     \hline

1796: &&&\\

1797: 1 & $7.41\times 10^{20}$ & $2.85\times 10^{18}$ & $7.39\times 10^{20}$  \\

1798: &&&\\

1799: 2 & $4.93\times 10^{20}$ & $3.77\times 10^{20}$ & $1.16\times 10^{20}$  \\

1800: &&&\\

1801: 3 & $3.82\times 10^{19}$ & $1.34\times 10^{19}$ & $2.48\times 10^{19}$ \\

1802: &&&\\

1803: Follow-up & $6.18\times 10^{13}$ & & \\

1804: \hline

1805: \end{tabular}

1806: \label{tab:BC-cc-million}

1807: \end{table}

1808: %

1809: 

1810: For the case of fresh-data mode, we have lowered the threshold $h_{th}$ by a factor

1811: $2.36$, to the point where the required computational power is

1812: again $34.6\,$ Tflops, as in the example of Tables

1813: \ref{tab:fresh-params} and \ref{tab:fresh-cc}.

1814: Once again, compared to the young-pulsar search, the computational

1815: costs are spread more evenly over the first two stages: the first stage

1816: consumes about $31.3\%$ of the power, the second stage $30.4\%$,

1817: third stage $14.0\%$.  In this case, the cost for the

1818: follow-up stage is $24.0\%$, which is not negligible.  

1819: This indicates that, for this case, the earlier stages have not succeeded in 

1820: reducing the number of candidates to a low level.  

1821: The overall sensitivity, though, is still almost identical to the

1822: data-recycling case.

1823: %

1824: \begin{table}

1825: \caption{Search parameters for fresh-data mode with $f_\max=1000$Hz,

1826:   $\tau_{\min}=10^6$yr, $T_\max=1$yr, ${h_{th}^2}/{S_n} = 4.47\times

1827:   10^{-6}\textrm{sec}^{-1}$, and computational power $34.6$Tflops;

1828: $\eta$ is defined according to Eq. \ref{eta}.}

1829: \vspace{0.2cm}

1830: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1831:     \hline

1832: Stage & $\Tcoh^{(i)}$ (days) & $\mu^{(i)}$ & $N^{(i)}$ & $\Tobs^{(i)}$ (days) & $\sqrt{\eta}$ \\

1833:     \hline

1834: &&&&&\\

1835: 1 & 11.77 & 0.2074 & 9 & 105.96 &  9.04 \\&&&&&\\

1836: 2 & 10.97 & 0.0199 & 6 &  65.82 &  7.13 \\&&&&&\\

1837: 3 & 27.64 & 0.0206 & 7 & 193.47 & 12.22 \\

1838: \hline

1839: \end{tabular}

1840: \label{tab:Fresh-params-million}

1841: \end{table}

1842: %

1843: %

1844: \begin{table}

1845: \caption{Same as Table VI, except for fresh-data mode. The 

1846: search parameters are those of Table VII.}

1847: \vspace{0.2cm}

1848: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}

1849:     \hline

1850: Stage & $C^{(i)}$ (Flop) & $C^{(i)}_\coh$ (Flop) & $C^{(i)}_{ss}$ (Flop) \\

1851:     \hline

1852: &&&\\

1853: 1 & $3.46\times 10^{20}$ & $3.07\times 10^{18}$ & $3.43\times 10^{20}$  \\

1854: &&&\\

1855: 2 & $3.35\times 10^{20}$ & $3.33\times 10^{20}$ & $1.91\times 10^{18}$  \\

1856: &&&\\

1857: 3 & $1.54\times 10^{20}$ & $9.23\times 10^{19}$ & $6.19\times 10^{19}$ \\

1858: &&&\\

1859: Follow-up & $2.67\times 10^{20}$ & & \\

1860: \hline

1861: \end{tabular}

1862: \label{tab:Fresh-cc-million}

1863: \end{table}

1864: %

1865: 

1866: Let us now discuss the false alarm rate.  We require

1867: that the overall FA rate be less than $1\%$, and we

1868: claimed in section~\ref{subsec:optimize} that this is automatically

1869: satisfied in typical, realistic cases.  We can now verify this claim. 

1870: For the $\tau_\min=40\,$yr search summarized in tables

1871: \ref{tab:bc-params}--\ref{tab:fresh-cc}, 

1872: using (\ref{eta}), with $\mu_\max = \mu_\max^{(coh)} = 0.2$, the

1873: threshold corresponds to

1874: $\rho^{(coh)}_\th \approx \bar{\rho} = 2 + \eta/2 \approx 738 $.

1875: By Eq.~(\ref{eq:alphacoh}), this corresponds to

1876: $\tilde{\alpha} \approx 10^{-318}$ (for either mode).  Using

1877: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Np}), the number of independent templates

1878: required for a full coherent search

1879: of the entire parameter space, using $1\,$yr of data, is

1880: $f_\max T_\max N_p(1\textrm{yr},0.2,1) \approx  10^{34}$.

1881: The overall false alarm

1882: rate is thus $FA = f_\max T_\max N_p\tilde{\alpha} \approx 10^{-284} \ll 1\%$

1883: \footnote{Strictly speaking, Eq.~(\ref{eq:Np}) for the number

1884:   of templates is valid only for observation times which are

1885:   significantly less than a year.  However, unless the discrepancy is

1886:   many orders of magnitude, the numbers obtained show that it is

1887:   obviously sufficient for the purposes of this argument. }.

1888: 

1889: Similarly, for the case $\tau_\min = 10^6\,$yr, $h^2_{th}/S_n = 4.53

1890: \times 10^{-6}$ (data recycling mode, tables

1891: \ref{tab:BC-params-million} and \ref{tab:BC-cc-million})), we get

1892: $\eta \approx 286$ so that $\tilde\alpha \approx 10^{-61}$.  In this

1893: case, have $N_p 

1894: \approx 10^{17}$ so that $FA = f_\max T_\max N_p \tilde{\alpha}

1895: \approx 10^{-34}$. If we look at fresh data mode (tables

1896: \ref{tab:Fresh-params-million} and \ref{tab:Fresh-cc-million}) with

1897: $\tau_\min =  10^6\,$yr, $h^2_{th}/S_n = 4.47 \times 10^{-6}$, we get 

1898: $FA \approx 10^{-33}$. These values are greater than for the case of

1899: young pulsars, but still vastly smaller than $1\%$.   

1900: 

1901: The basic point is simply this: For an all-sky search, sensitivity is

1902: limited by computing power, so the detection threshold $h_{th}$ in

1903: practice is substantially higher than what it would be for infinite

1904: computing power.  This means that for a signal to be detectable, it

1905: must have quite a high SNR (in the matched filter sense)--which means

1906: that the FA rate is exponentially small.

1907: Being computationally limited means that when we {\it do} detect something,

1908: we can be very confident that it is not simply random noise masquerading as

1909: a signal~\footnote{Of course, no sensible person would ever claim that

1910: he or she had detected a GW pulsar with FA probability of less than

1911: $10^{-284}$. In such a case, the ``statistical error'' is so ridiculously

1912: small that the true FA rate is dominated by the other,

1913: hard-to-quantify factors,

1914: such as the probability of having some bug in the instrumentation or

1915: in the data analysis code.}

1916: 

1917: How accurate are our numerical results?  The total computational cost is a

1918: complicated function on a 9-dimensional space and thus is not easy to

1919: visualize.  We can, however, take appropriate sections of this function

1920: to examine its behavior near the minimum.  Thus, we can ask

1921: whether variations in, say, $\Tcoh^{(1)}$ or $\Tcoh^{(2)}$ away from

1922: their optimal values, increase the computational cost (as they should,

1923: if should if we have truly found a minimum).

1924: To answer this, in Fig.~\ref{fig:DT1} we plot the total

1925: computational power as a function of

1926: $\Tcoh^{(1)}$ and $\Tcoh^{(2)}$, respectively,

1927: for the young-pulsar searches summarized in Tables I-IV.

1928: All the other parameters fixed at their optimal values.

1929: The minima of these curves agree precisely with our simulated

1930: annealing results.

1931: Similarly, Figs.~\ref{fig:N1} and

1932: \ref{fig:mu123} carry the same message, as well as showing

1933: the strong dependence of the computational cost

1934: on $N^\ib$ and $\mu_\max^\ib$.  (It is not so clear from the

1935: plot of $P$ vs.  $\mu_\max^{(3)}$ that this curve has

1936: a minimum in the range shown, but it does in fact have a very shallow

1937: one.)

1938: 

1939: For the plot of computational cost

1940: versus $N^{(3)}$, we are not allowed to keep $\Tcoh^{(3)}$ fixed, since

1941: that could violate the constraint $\Tcoh^{(3)}N^{(3)} \leq T_\max$.

1942: (Recall that $\Tcoh^{(3)}N^{(3)} = T_\max =1\,$yr for the optimal 3-stage

1943: solution, which is therefore just at the boundary of the constraint

1944: region.)  Therefore, we choose to plot the computational cost as a

1945: function of $N^{(3)}$ while simultaneously varying $\Tcoh^{(3)}$

1946: according to $\Tcoh^{(3)} = T_\max/N^{(3)}$.

1947: 

1948: A noteworthy feature of these plots is that the

1949: computational power $P$ depends more sensitively on the

1950: early-stage parameters than the late-stage ones; e.g., more

1951: sensitively on $N^{(1)}$ and $N^{(2)}$ than on $N^{(3)}$.

1952: This result should not be surprising since,

1953: as mentioned earlier, for the young-pulsar search the

1954: computational cost of the higher stages is relatively small.

1955: %

1956: \begin{figure}

1957:   \begin{center}

1958:   \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{BC-Fresh-DeltaT.eps}

1959:   \caption{Computational power $P$ as a function of

1960:   $\Delta T^{(1)}$ and $\Delta T^{(2)}$, with all other parameters fixed to their optimal

1961:   values. }\label{fig:DT1}

1962:   \end{center}

1963: \end{figure}

1964: %

1965: \begin{figure}

1966:   \begin{center}

1967:   \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{BC-Fresh-N.eps}

1968:   \caption{Computational power $P$ as a function of

1969:   $N^{(1)}$, $N^{(2)}$ and $N^{(3)}$.

1970:   For the $N^{(1)}$ and $N^{(2)}$ plots, all other parameters have fixed

1971:   to their optimal values. For the $N^{(3)}$ plot, we have also

1972:   varied $\Tcoh^{(3)}$

1973:   according to $\Tcoh^{(3)} = T_\max/N^{(3)}$ in order to satisfy the

1974:   constraint that the amount of data available is

1975:   $T_\max$.}\label{fig:N1}

1976:   \end{center}

1977: \end{figure}

1978: %

1979: \begin{figure}

1980:   \begin{center}

1981:   \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{BC-Fresh-Mu.eps}

1982:   \caption{Computational power $P$ as a function of

1983:   $\mu_\max^{(1)}$, $\mu_\max^{(2)}$, and $\mu_\max^{(3)}$.  For each

1984:   plot, all other parameters are fixed at their optimal

1985:   values.}\label{fig:mu123}

1986:   \end{center}

1987: \end{figure}

1988: %

1989: 

1990: \subsection{The spindown-age and the SNR}

1991: \label{subsec:taumin}

1992: 

1993: How does the (minimum) computational cost depend on

1994: the shortest spindown timescale that we search over, $\tau_\min$?

1995: Consider again

1996: the case where we have one year of data and we perform an

1997: all-sky search up to a

1998: frequency of $f_\max = 1000\,$Hz.  Fig.~\ref{fig:bcfresh-taumin} shows the

1999: result for the both data-recycling and fresh-data mode,

2000: for two different values

2001: of the 1-year SNR.  Note that these results do pass simple

2002: sanity checks: the computational cost decreases as the SNR

2003: increases (since it is easier to look for stronger signals), and

2004: the computational cost decreases as $\tau_\min$ increases (since it

2005: is easier to search through a smaller parameter space).

2006: 

2007: %

2008: \begin{figure}

2009:   \begin{center}

2010:   \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{BC-Fresh-CCvsTau-1year-NS=3-h2sn.eps}

2011:   \caption{The minimum computational power $P$ required for

2012:   analyzing 1 year's worth of data as a function of the pulsar's

2013: spindown age $\tau_\min$. We

2014:   consider a three-stage search in the both data-recycling and

2015:   fresh-data mode, for two

2016:   different signal strengths. The data-recycling mode results are shown

2017:   with dashed lines, while the fresh-data results are in dotted lines.

2018:   In parts of the curves, the results for the two modes are

2019:   so close together that it is hard to distinguish them.}

2020: \label{fig:bcfresh-taumin}

2021:   \end{center}

2022: \end{figure}

2023: %

2024: %

2025: \begin{figure}

2026:   \begin{center}

2027:   \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{BC-Fresh-SNRvsTau-1year-CC=1e13.eps}

2028:   \caption{The 1-year SNR (with zero mismatch) as a function

2029:   of  $\tau_\min$, for fixed computational power

2030:   $P= 10^{13}\,$Flops. The dashed line indicates the result for

2031:   data-recycling mode and the dotted line for fresh-data. Since these two

2032:   result are very close to each other, it may be difficult to

2033:   distinguish them.}\label{fig:bcfresh-snr}

2034:   \end{center}

2035: \end{figure}

2036: %

2037: One can also ask: for a given available computational power, how does

2038: the threshold SNR scale with $\tau_\min$?  This is shown in

2039: Fig.~\ref{fig:bcfresh-snr}. The plot is based on the assumption that

2040: we have one year's worth of data and that we have 10 TFlops of

2041: computing power at our disposal. By ``SNR'', here we mean the

2042: matched-filter SNR, for a perfectly matched filter.

2043: Fig.~\ref{fig:bcfresh-snr} tells us

2044: that a search for unknown GW pulsars with spindown ages

2045: $> 10^6\,$yr  can detect $\sim 85-90\%$ of pulsars whose SNR is $>17$

2046: (again, with FA rate $<< 1\%$).

2047: In an all-sky search for very young pulsars, with $\tau_{min} =

2048: 40\,$yr, the SNR required for detection (with the same FD and FA

2049: rates) increases to $\sim 43$.  In comparison, for a source where the

2050: sky position and frequency are known in advance (from radio

2051: observations), an SNR of only $4.56$ is required for detection, with a

2052: $10\%$ FD rate and $1\%$ FA rate~\cite{S1:pulsar}.

2053: 

2054: 

2055: Fig.~\ref{fig:bcfresh-snr} strongly suggests that one would

2056: like to simultaneously perform at least two different

2057: all-sky searches: one for old GW pulsars and another for young ones,

2058: with comparable (within a factor ten) computer power devoted to each, but

2059: with quite different thresholds.

2060: (If one set the same threshold for both old and young pulsars, then

2061: almost all computing resources would end up being spent on the young

2062: ones.)

2063: Clearly, to determine the ``best'' apportionment of resources between the

2064: two types of searches would require some additional inputs/assumptions, but

2065: at least Fig.~\ref{fig:bcfresh-snr} seems a good first step towards

2066: making an intelligent allocation.

2067: 

2068: 

2069: \section{Conclusions}

2070: \label{sec:conclusions}

2071: 

2072: Let us first summarize the main results of this paper.  We have

2073: studied general hierarchical strategies for searching for

2074: gravitational waves from unknown, isolated GW pulsars.  In particular, we

2075: have considered multistage hierarchical algorithms where each stage

2076: (except the last)

2077: consists of a coherent demodulation of short stacks of data followed

2078: by appropriate sliding and stacking of the $\F$-statistics results from

2079: the different stacks.

2080: The successive stages serve to quickly reduce the

2081: number of candidates; they are followed by final coherent follow-up stage to

2082: fully analyze the remaining candidates.

2083: 

2084: We have optimized this strategy by minimizing the computational cost $P$

2085: subject to the constraints which specify the total amount of data

2086: available and the desired confidence levels.

2087: Of course, $P$ depends on the size of the parameter space--

2088: in particular on the range of frequencies and spindown ages that

2089: are searched over.

2090: Carrying out the optimization, and varying over the number $n$ of

2091: semi-coherent stages, we found that the advantages of the multistage

2092: approach saturate at $n=3$ (i.e., $n=4$ and $5$ are scarcely better).

2093: 

2094: The optimized search parameters $(N^\ib,\Delta T^\ib,\mu^\ib)$

2095: we report should only be considered a rough guide for carrying

2096: out a search in practice because i) in many places we have

2097: used theoretical estimates

2098: of the operations counts instead of those obtained by profiling

2099: existing codes, ii) we have not considered

2100: issues of memory storage or the cost of performing any Monte-Carlo simulations,

2101: and iii) the detector noise has throughout been assumed to be Gaussian and

2102: stationary.  Furthermore, the template counting formulae (\ref{eq:Np})

2103: used in this paper are, strictly speaking, valid only for observation times

2104: significantly less than a year.  The numbers presented in this work

2105: must be recalculated when better approximations become available.

2106: In spite of these limitations, we believe that our results do

2107: provide a useful qualitative guide to what an optimized all-sky search

2108: ``looks like.''  In order to optimize actual search codes, applied to

2109: actual data, one must 1) profile the codes to determine the actual

2110: computational cost of the different operations, and 2) do Monte Carlo

2111: studies to determine the {\it actual} $\alpha^\ib$ for different thresholds.

2112: (Recall that the formulae given  here are

2113: based on the assumption stationary, Gaussian noise.) The latter could

2114: require considerable work, especially if the results are strongly

2115: frequency-dependent, with some bands being much ``better behaved''

2116: than others.

2117: 

2118: 

2119: Finally, we mention some other possibilities for future work:

2120: %

2121: \begin{itemize}

2122: \item It would be trivial to extend our work to consider searches that are

2123:   less computationally challenging than all-sky ones, but that are still computationally limited.

2124:   E.g., one could consider searches for unknown NSs in supernova remnants

2125:   (such as SN 1987A), in which case the sky-position is well known but

2126:   the frequency and spindown parameters must be searched over. Similarly, one

2127:   could consider a search over a small fraction of sky, e.g., a portion containing

2128:   the Galactic center or the disk.

2129: \item The formulae for operations counts, confidence levels etc. can

2130:   also be derived for case when the Hough transform~\cite{hough}

2131:   is used in the semi-coherent stages instead of the stack-slide method;

2132:    the optimization of multistage, hierarchical Hough-type searches would

2133: then proceed in the same way as developed here.

2134: \item We expect that the lessons learned in this paper will carry over to

2135:   searches for GW pulsars in low-mass X-ray binaries, which

2136:   are also a computationaly limited~\cite{vecchio}.

2137:   However the details are yet to be worked out.

2138: \item The problem of searching, in LISA data, for the inspiral signals

2139:   of stellar-mass compact objects captured by $\sim 10^6 M_{\odot}$ BHs

2140:   in galactic nuclei, is similar to the GW pulsar search problem, but

2141:   even more computationally challenging~\cite{emri}.

2142:   We expect that the lessons learned in this

2143:   paper will also be very useful in formulating and optimizing a

2144:   search algorithm for LISA capture sources.

2145: \item

2146: 

2147: In this paper we have tacitly assumed that the search is performed

2148: by a single computer or computing cluster.

2149: However, at least in the next few years,

2150: the most computationally intensive GW searches will be directed by

2151: \texttt{Einstein@Home}\cite{eah}, which relies on tens of thousands

2152: of individual participants donating their idle computing power.

2153: In this case, there might be additional constraints that we

2154: have not yet considered, relating to the rate at which data

2155: and intermediate results can be sent back and forth between the

2156: \texttt{Einstein@Home}\cite{eah} servers and participants' computers, how

2157: much storage is available for use on participants' computers, etc.

2158: We intend to study hierarchical searches in this context also,

2159: to see which if any of the lessons learned here must be modified for the

2160: \texttt{Einstein@Home} context.

2161: 

2162: 

2163: \end{itemize}

2164: %

2165: 

2166: \section*{Acknowledgements}

2167: 

2168: The authors thank Bruce Allen, Teviet Creighton, Maria Alessandra

2169: Papa, Reinhard Prix, Bernard Schutz, Xavier Siemens and Alicia Sintes

2170: for valuable discussions. BK acknowledges the hospitality of the

2171: University of the Balearic Islands in Spain.

2172: 

2173: \begin{appendix}

2174: 

2175: \section{Computational cost of the SFT method}

2176: \label{app:sftmethod}

2177: Here we estimate the computational cost (in floating point operations)

2178: of calculating the $\F$-statistic via the SFT method.

2179: This result is used in Sec.IV.C.

2180: 

2181: We begin by reviewing the details of the SFT method; our description

2182: closely follows that given in the documentation of the software

2183: package LIGO Algorithms

2184: Library~\cite{lscsoft}. Imagine

2185: that we wish to compute the $\F$-statistic for a data stretch of length

2186: $\Tcoh$.  Divide this data into

2187: M shorter segments of length $\Tsft = \Delta T/M$,

2188: each containing $N$ data points (so there are

2189: $MN$ data points within $\Tcoh$). The sampled values of

2190: $x(t)$ can then be written as $x_{\alpha j}$ where $0\leq \alpha < M$

2191: labels the segment and $0\leq j < N$ labels points within a

2192: segment. Eq.~(\ref{eq:Fa}) can then be discretized as follows:

2193: %

2194: \be

2195: F_a(\bmath{\lambda}) = \sum_{\alpha = 0}^{M-1}\sum_{j=0}^{N-1} a_{\alpha j}x_{\alpha

2196: j} e^{-i\Phi_{\alpha j}(\bmaths{\lambda})}\,

2197: \ee

2198: %

2199: and similarly for Eq.~(\ref{eq:Fb}).

2200: Let $\tilde{x}_{\alpha k}$ be the discrete Fourier transform of

2201: $x_{\alpha j}$ along the index $j$, so that

2202: %

2203: \be

2204: x_{\alpha j} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}\tilde{x}_{\alpha k}e^{2\pi ijk/N}\,.

2205: \ee

2206: %

2207: Then if we approximate the amplitude

2208: modulation function $a(t)$ as constant over the short-time baseline $\Tsft$,

2209: the expression for $F_a$ becomes

2210: %

2211: \be

2212: F_a(\bmath{\lambda}) = \sum_{\alpha = 0}^{M-1}a_\alpha

2213: \sum_{k=0}^{N-1}\tilde{x}_{\alpha k} \left[

2214: \frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=0}^{N-1}\exp\left(\frac{2\pi i jk}{N} -

2215: i\Phi_{\alpha j}(\bmath{\lambda})\right) \right] \,.

2216: \ee

2217: %

2218: The short-time baseline $\Tsft$ is generally chosen so that neither

2219: pulsar spindown nor the Doppler effect causes the signal power to

2220: shift by more than, say, half a frequency bin.  Then we can find

2221: functions $A_{\alpha}(\vec{\lambda})$ and $B_{\alpha

2222:   k}(\bmath{\lambda})$ such that to a good approximation

2223: %

2224: \be

2225: \Phi_{\alpha j}(\vec{\lambda}) - \frac{2\pi jk}{N}  = A_{\alpha}(\vec{\lambda}) +

2226: \frac{B_{\alpha k}(\bmath{\lambda}) j}{N} \,.

2227: \ee

2228: %

2229: Thus we have

2230: %

2231: \ba

2232: &&\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=0}^{N-1}\exp\left(\frac{2\pi i jk}{N} -

2233: i\Phi_{\alpha j}(\bmath{\lambda})\right) \nonumber \\&& =

2234: e^{-iA_{\alpha}(\vec{\lambda})} \left( \frac{1-e^{-iB_{\alpha

2235: k}(\bmaths{\lambda})}}{1-e^{-iB_{\alpha k}(\bmaths{\lambda})/N}} \right) \,.

2236: \ea

2237: %

2238: Next we assume $N$ is large enough that $1-e^{-iB_{\alpha

2239: k}(\bmaths{\lambda})/N} \approx iB_{\alpha k}(\bmath{\lambda})/N$; then

2240: %

2241: \be

2242: F_a = \sum_{\alpha =

2243: 0}^{M-1}a_\alpha e^{-iA_{\alpha}(\vec{\lambda})}\sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \tilde{x}_{\alpha

2244: k}P[B_{\alpha k}(\bmath{\lambda})]

2245: \ee

2246: %

2247: where

2248: %

2249: \ba

2250: P[x] &=& \frac{1}{N}\frac{1-e^{-ix}}{1-e^{-ix/N}} \nonumber

2251: \\ &\approx& \frac{\sin x}{x} -i\frac{1-\cos x}{x} \,.

2252: \ea

2253: %

2254: Now arises the great advantage of the SFT method: the function $P[x]$ is sharply peaked about $x=0$,

2255: so the sum over $k$

2256: can be approximated by retaining only a few terms:

2257: %

2258: \be \label{eq:Fa-LALDemod}

2259: F_a = \sum_{\alpha =

2260: 0}^{M-1}a_\alpha e^{-iA_{\alpha}(\vec{\lambda})}\sum_{k^\prime= -D}^{ D}

2261: \tilde{x}_{\alpha k^\prime}P[B_{\alpha k^\prime}(\bmath{\lambda})]

2262: \ee

2263: %

2264: where $k^\prime = k - k^\star$ and $k^\star$ is the value of $k$ such

2265: that $B_{\alpha k^\star}(\bmath{\lambda}) = 0$, and $D$ is the number of

2266: terms that we retain in the sum on either side of $k^\star$.

2267: It turns out that $D=16$ suffices to calculate the

2268: $\F$-statistic to within a few percent.

2269: 

2270: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Fa-LALDemod}) is our final approximation for $F_a$.

2271: Analogous expressions hold for $F_b$, and the final $\F$-statistic

2272: is calculated from $F_a$ and $F_b$ using Eq.~(\ref{eq:fstatdef}).

2273: Thus, with the SFT method, for each point ${\bf \lambda}$ in parameter

2274: space we need to calculate $A_\alpha(\vec{\lambda})$,

2275: $B_{\alpha k}(\bmath{\lambda})$, and the amplitude modulation functions,

2276: $a_\alpha$ and $b_\alpha$, and then to perform the sums in

2277: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Fa-LALDemod}). It is then easy to see that to calculate the

2278: $\F$-statistic for $n$ frequency bins, for a fixed value of

2279: $\vec{\lambda}$, the number of floating point operations required is

2280: roughly some $\textrm{constant}$ times $nMD$.   To estimate the constant,

2281: let $C_1$ be the cost of calculating $P[B_{\alpha k}]$ for each

2282: $\alpha$ and $k$ value.  Since multiplying two complex

2283: numbers requires $6$ operations, and adding two complex numbers requires $2$

2284: operations, we see that calculating the sum over $k^\prime$ in equation

2285: (\ref{eq:Fa-LALDemod}) requires

2286: %

2287: \be (C_1 + 6)(2D + 1) + 4D

2288: \ee

2289: %

2290: operations. Similarly, if $C_2$ is the cost of calculating $a_\alpha e^{-iA_{\alpha}}$ for

2291: every $\alpha$, then the cost of calculating $F_a$ is

2292: %

2293: \be M[(C_1 + 6)(2D + 1) + 4D] + MC_2 + 6M + 2(M-1) \,.\ee

2294: %

2295: Thus, to find

2296: $F_a$ and $F_b$ for every frequency bin requires $\approx 2\times

2297: (2C_1 + 16)DM$ operations.  Since the cost of combining $F_a$ and $F_b$ to

2298: get $\F$ is negligible compared to this, and assuming $C_1$ to be of

2299: order unity, we see that the operation count for

2300: calculating the $\F$-statistic

2301: for $n$ frequency bins is approximately

2302: %

2303: \be

2304: \sim 40 nMD\,.

2305: \ee

2306: %

2307: For the first stage in the hierarchical search, the

2308: $\F$-statistic is evaluated for $N^{(1)}N_{pc}^{(1)}f_\max\Tcoh$ bins.

2309: So, taking $D=16$ and using $M = \Tcoh^{(1)}/\Tsft$, the cost is

2310: %

2311: \be \label{eq:sftcostapp}

2312: \approx 640 N^{(1)}N_{pc}^{(1)}f_\max \frac{(\Tcoh^{(1)})^2}{\Tsft} \, .

2313: \ee

2314: %

2315: \noindent

2316: At higher stages, we evaluate the $\F$-statistic

2317: \be

2318: F^{(i-1)}

2319: \textrm{max}\left\{1,\frac{N_{pc}^\ib}{N_{pf}^{(i-1)}} \right\}

2320: \textrm{max}\left\{1,\frac{\Tcoh^\ib}{\Tcoh^{(i-1)}}\right\}\, N^{(i)}

2321: \ee

2322: times, so the operations count is

2323: \ba

2324: &&F^{(i-1)}

2325: \textrm{max}\left\{1,\frac{N_{pc}^\ib}{N_{pf}^{(i-1)}} \right\}

2326: \textrm{max}\left\{1,\frac{\Tcoh^\ib}{\Tcoh^{(i-1)}}\right\}  \nonumber \\

2327: && \ \ \times \left[\frac{640 N^\ib\Tcoh^\ib}{\Tsft} \right] \,.

2328: \ea

2329: 

2330: \end{appendix}

2331: 

2332: 

2333: \begin{thebibliography}{}

2334: 

2335: \bibitem{bccs}   P.R.~Brady, T.~Creighton, C.~Cutler, and B.F.~Schutz,

2336:  \textit{Phys. Rev.} {\bf D57} 2101 (1998).

2337: 

2338: \bibitem{bc} P.R.~Brady and T.~Creighton,

2339: \textit{Phys. Rev.} {\bf D61}, 082001 (2000).

2340: 

2341: \bibitem{jks}   P.~Jaranowski, A.~Kr\'olak, and B.F.~Schutz,

2342:  \textit{Phys. Rev.} {\bf D58} 063001  (1998).

2343: 

2344: \bibitem{S1:pulsar} B.~Abbott et al. (The LIGO Scientfic

2345: Collaboration),

2346: \textit{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{D69}, 082004 (2004).

2347: 

2348: \bibitem{ip} R.~Prix and Y.~Itoh, \texttt{gr-qc/0504006}.

2349: 

2350: \bibitem{hough} B.~Krishnan, A.M.~Sintes, M.A.~Papa, B.F.~Schutz,

2351: S.~Frasca, and C.~Palomba,

2352: \textit{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{D70}, 082001 (2004).

2353: 

2354: \bibitem{lscsoft} The software can be found on the following websites:

2355:   \texttt{http://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/daswg/projects/\\lal.html}

2356:   and \texttt{http://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/\\daswg/projects/lalapps.html}

2357: 

2358: \bibitem{owen} B.~Owen, \textit{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{D53}, 6749 (1996).

2359: 

2360: \bibitem{jhc} J.H.~Conway and N.J.A.~Sloane, \textit{Sphere Packings,

2361: Lattices and Groups}, Springer (1991).

2362: 

2363: \bibitem{abjk} P.~Astone, K.M.~Borkowski, P.~Jaranowski, and

2364: A.~Kr\'olak,

2365: \textit{Phys. Rev.} {\bf D65} 042003 (2003).

2366: 

2367: \bibitem{mrrtt} N.~Metropolis, A.~Rosenbluth, M.~Rosenbluth,

2368:   A.~Teller, E.~Teller, \textit{J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{21}, 1087

2369:   (1953).

2370: 

2371: \bibitem{kgv} S.~Kirkpatrick, C.D.~Gelatt Jr., and M.P.~Vecchi,

2372:   \textit{Science} \textbf{220}, No. 4598, 671 (1983).

2373: 

2374: \bibitem{nm} J.A.~Nelder and R.~Mead, \textit{Comput. J.} \textbf{7},

2375:   308-313, 1965.

2376: 

2377: \bibitem{nr} W.H.~Press, \textit{Numerical Recipes in C}, Cambridge

2378:   University Press (2002).

2379: 

2380: \bibitem{gsl} \texttt{http://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/}.

2381: 

2382: \bibitem{vecchio} S.V~Dhurandhar and A.~Vecchio,

2383:  \textit{Phys. Rev.} {\bf D63} 122001 (2001).

2384: 

2385: \bibitem{eah}

2386:   \texttt{http://www.physics2005.org/events/einsteinathome/\\\#einsteinathome}

2387: 

2388: \bibitem{emri}  J.\ R.\ Gair, L.\ Barack, T.\ Creighton,

2389: C.\ Cutler, S.\ L.\ Larson, E.\ S.\ Phinney, and M.\ Vallisneri,

2390: Proceedings of the Eighth GWDAW Meeting (Milwaukee, 2003); gr-qc/0405137.

2391: 

2392: \end{thebibliography}

2393: 

2394: 

2395: \end{document}

2396: 

2397: 

2398: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5

2399: