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

2: %%                                                                %%   

3: %%   Probing Anisotropies of Gravitational-Wave Backgrounds       %%

4: %%   With a Space-based Interferometer II: perturbative           %%

5: %%   reconstruction of a skymap in low-frequency regime           %%

6: %%                                                                %%

7: %%                                                                %%

8: %%     2005/10/18  Version 2.0 re-submitted to Phys.Rev.D         %%

9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

10: \documentclass[showpacs,superscriptaddress,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

11: 

12: 

13: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,latexsym}

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

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

16: \usepackage{epsf,psfig}

17: % \usepackage{epsf}

18: %

19: % Define a page header.

20: %

21: %=================================================================

22: %

23: \begin{document}

24: %

25: % =================================================================

26: %

27: %

28: %

29: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

30: \newcommand{\sinc}{ {\mathrm{sinc}} } 

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

32: \newcommand{\Rdots}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{-45}{\vdots}}

33: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

34: %

35: %

36: %

37: %

38: %

39: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

40: \title{ Probing anisotropies of gravitational-wave backgrounds

41:   \\

42:   with a space-based interferometer II:

43:   \\

44:   \it{ 

45:   perturbative reconstruction of a low-frequency skymap

46:   } }

47: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

48: 

49: 

50: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

51: \author{Atsushi Taruya} \email{ataruya_at_utap.phys.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp}

52: \affiliation{ Research Center for the Early Universe~(RESCEU), School

53:   of Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan }

54: 

55: \author{Hideaki Kudoh} \email{kudoh_at_utap.phys.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp}

56: \affiliation{ Department of Physics, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo

57:   113-0033, Japan }

58: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

59: 

60: 

61: \preprint{UTAP-531, RESCEU-34/05}

62: \pacs{04.30.-w, 04.80.Nn, 95.55.Ym, 95.30.Sf}

63: %%

64: %% PACS (Checked 2004/10/20)

65: %%

66: %% 04.30.-w, Gravitational waves: theory 04.80.Nn, Gravitational wave

67: %% detectors and experiments 95.55.Ym Gravitational radiation

68: %% detectors; 95.75.-z Observation and data reduction techniques;

69: %% 95.30.Sf Relativity and gravitation

70: %%

71: %%

72: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

73: \begin{abstract}

74: We present a perturbative reconstruction method to make a skymap of 

75: gravitational-wave backgrounds (GWBs) observed via space-based 

76: interferometer. In the presence of anisotropies in GWBs, the 

77: cross-correlated signals of observed GWBs are inherently time-dependent 

78: due to the non-stationarity of the gravitational-wave detector. Since 

79: the cross-correlated signal is obtained through an all-sky integral 

80: of primary signals convolving with the antenna pattern function of 

81: gravitational-wave detectors, the non-stationarity of cross-correlated 

82: signals, together with full knowledge of antenna pattern functions, 

83: can be used to reconstruct an intensity map of the GWBs. 

84: Here, we give two simple methods to reconstruct a skymap of GWBs 

85: based on the perturbative expansion in low-frequency regime. 

86: The first one is based on harmonic-Fourier representation of data 

87: streams and the second is based on ``direct'' time-series data. 

88: The latter method enables us to create a skymap in a direct manner.   

89: The reconstruction technique is demonstrated for the case of the 

90: Galactic gravitational wave background observed via planned space 

91: interferometer, LISA. Although the angular resolution of 

92: low-frequency skymap is rather restricted, the methodology presented 

93: here would be helpful in discriminating the GWBs of galactic origins 

94: by those of the extragalactic and/or cosmological origins.

95: \end{abstract}

96: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

97: 

98: 

99: \maketitle

100: 

101: 

102: % ==============================================================%

103: % ==============================================================%

104: \section{Introduction}

105: \label{sec:intro}

106: % ==============================================================%

107: % ==============================================================%

108: 

109: 

110: The gravitational-wave background, incoherent superposition of

111: gravitational waves coming from many unresolved point-sources and/or 

112: diffuse-sources would be a cosmological gold mine to probe the dark side 

113: of the Universe. While these signals are generally random and act as 

114: {\it confusion noises} with respect to a periodic gravitational-wave

115: signal, the statistical properties of gravitational-wave backgrounds

116: (GWBs) carry valuable information such as physical processes of 

117: gravitational-wave emission, source distribution and

118: populations. Moreover, the extremely early universe beyond the

119: last-scattering surface of cosmic microwave background (CMB) can be

120: directly explored using GWB. Therefore, GWBs may be regarded as an

121: ultimate cosmological tool alternative to the CMB. 

122: 

123: 

124: Currently, several grand-based gravitational-wave detectors are now

125: under scientific operation, and the search for gravitational waves

126: enters a new era. There are several kinds of target GW sources in these 

127: detectors, such as, coalescence of neutron star binaries and

128: core-collapsed supernova. On the other hand, planned space-based

129: detector, LISA (Laser Interferometer Space Antenna) and the

130: next-generation detectors, e.g., DECIGO \cite{Seto:2001qf} and 

131: BBO \cite{BBO:2003} aim at detecting gravitational waves in

132: low-frequency band $0.1$mHz --$0.1$Hz, in which many detectable

133: candidates for GWBs exist. Among them, the GWB originated from the 

134: inflationary epoch may be detected directly in this band 

135: (e.g., \cite{Ungarelli:2000jp,Smith:2005mm}). 

136: Therefore, for future application to cosmology, various implications for 

137: these GWBs should deserve consideration both from the theoretical and

138: the observational viewpoint. 

139: 

140: 

141: One fundamental issue to access a new subject of cosmology is to make a 

142: skymap of GWB as a first step. Similar to the case of the CMB, the 

143: intensity map of the GWBs is of particular interest and it provides

144: valuable information, which plays a key role to clarify the origin of

145: GWBs. Importantly, the low-frequency GWBs observed by LISA are expected

146: to be anisotropic due to the contribution of Galactic binaries to the 

147: confusion noise (\cite{Hils:1990hg,Bender:1997bc,Nelemans:2001hp}, see

148: also recent numerical simulations  

149: \cite{Benacquista:2003th,Edlund:2005ye,Timpano:2005gm}).

150: Thus, the GWB skymap is potentially useful to discriminate the

151: individual backgrounds from many superposed GWBs, as well as to identify 

152: the underlying physical processes. The basic idea to create a skymap of

153: GWB is to use the directional information obtained through the

154: time-modulation of the correlation signals, which is caused by the

155: motion of gravitational-wave detector. As detector's antenna pattern

156: sweeps out the sky, the amplitude of the gravitational-wave signal would 

157: gradually change in time if the intensity distribution of GWB is

158: anisotropic. Using this, a method to explore anisotropies of GWB has

159: been proposed \cite{Giampieri:1997,Giampieri:1997ie,Allen:1997gp}. Later, 

160: the methodology was applied to study the anisotropic GWB observed by

161: space interferometer, LISA 

162: \cite{Ungarelli:2001xu,Cornish:2001hg,Cornish:2002bh,Seto:2004ji,Seto:2004np}. 

163: 

164: 

165: 

166: In the previous paper \cite{Kudoh:2004he}, which is referred to as 

167: {\it Paper I} in the present paper, we have investigated the directional 

168: sensitivity of space interferometer to the anisotropy of GWB. 

169: Particularly focusing on the geometric properties of antenna pattern 

170: functions and their angular power, we found that the angular sensitivity 

171: to the anisotropic GWBs is severely restricted by the data combination

172: and the symmetry of detector configuration. As a result, in the case of

173: the single LISA detector, detectable multipole moments are limited to 

174: $\ell\lesssim 8$--$10$ with the effective strain sensitivity 

175: $h\sim 10^{-20}$ Hz$^{-1/2}$. 

176: This is marked contrast to the angular sensitivity to the chirp signals 

177: emitted from point sources, in which the angular resolution can reach at 

178: a level of a square degree or even better than that 

179: \cite{Cutler:1997ta,Moore:1999zw,Peterseim:1997ic,Takahashi:2003wm}. 

180: 

181: 

182: 

183: Despite the poor resolution of LISA detector with respect to GWBs, 

184: making a skymap of GWBs is still an important general issue and thus 

185: needs to be investigated. In the present paper, we continue to

186: investigate the map-making problem and consider how the intensity map of the 

187: GWBs is reconstructed from the time-modulation signals observed via

188: space interferometer. In particular, we are interested in the 

189: low-frequency GWB, the wavelength of which is longer than the arm-length 

190: of the detector. In such case, the frequency dependence of the detector 

191: response becomes simpler and a perturbative scheme based on the

192: low-frequency expansion of the antenna pattern functions can be

193: applied. Owing to the least-squares approximation, we present a robust 

194: reconstruction method. The methodology is quite general and is also

195: applicable to the map-making problem in the case of the ground detectors.

196: We demonstrate how the present reconstruction method works well in a

197: specific example of GWB source, i.e., Galactic confusion-noise background. 

198: With a sufficient high signal-to-noise ratio for each anisotropic

199: components of GWB, we show that the space interferometer 

200: LISA can create the low-frequency skymap of Galactic GWB with angular 

201: resolution $\ell\leq5$. 

202: Since the resultant skymap is obtained in a non-parametric way without 

203: any assumption of source distributions, we hope that despite the poor 

204: angular resolution, the present methodology will be helpful to give a

205: tight constraint on the luminosity distribution of GWBs if we combine 

206: it with the other observational techniques. 

207: 

208: 

209: The organization of the paper is as follows. In Sec.

210: \ref{sec:detection of anisotropy}, a brief discussion on the detection

211: and the signal processing of anisotropic GWBs is presented, together

212: with the detector response of space interferometer. Sec.\ref{sec:method} 

213: describes the details of the reconstruction of a GWB skymap in 

214: low-frequency regime. Owing to the least-squares approximation and the 

215: low-frequency expansion, a perturbative reconstruction scheme is developed.

216: Related to this (in the case of LISA), and we give an important remark

217: on the degeneracy between some multipole moments (Appendix 

218: \ref{appendix:on_the_degeneracy}). In Sec.\ref{sec:demonstration}, the 

219: reconstruction method is demonstrated in the case of the Galactic GWB. 

220: The signal-to-noise ratios for anisotropy of GWB are evaluated and the 

221: feasibility to make a skymap of GWB is discussed.  Finally, 

222: Section \ref{sec:conclusion} is devoted to a summary and conclusion. 

223: 

224: 

225: 

226: % ==============================================================%

227: % ==============================================================%

228: \section{Basic formalism}

229: \label{sec:detection of anisotropy}

230: % ==============================================================%

231: % ==============================================================%

232: 

233: 

234: % ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// %

235: \subsection{Correlation analysis}

236: \label{subsec:correlation}

237: % ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// %

238: 

239: 

240: Let us begin with briefly reviewing the signal processing of 

241: gravitational-wave backgrounds based on the correlation analysis 

242: \cite{Kudoh:2004he}. Stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds are

243: described by incoherent superposition of plane gravitational waves 

244: ${\mathbf h}=h_{ij}$ given by  

245: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

246: \begin{eqnarray}

247: {\mathbf h}(t,\mathbf{x})= \sum_{A=+,\times} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} df

248: \int d\mathbf{\Omega}\,\,e^{i\,\,2\pi\,f(t-\mathbf{\Omega}\cdot \mathbf{x})}

249: \,\tilde{h}_A(f,\mathbf{\Omega})\,\mathbf{e}^A(\mathbf{\Omega}).

250: \end{eqnarray}

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

252: The Fourier amplitude $\tilde{h}_A (f,\mathbf{\Omega})$ of the

253: gravitational waves for the two polarization modes 

254: ${\mathbf e}^A$ ($A=+,\times$) is assumed to be characterized by a

255: stationary 

256: random process with zero mean $\big\langle  \widetilde{h}_A \big\rangle =0 $. 

257: The power spectral density $S_h$ is then defined by 

258: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

259: \begin{eqnarray}

260:     \left\langle 

261:         \widetilde{h}_A^*  (f, {\bf{\Omega}})  

262:         {{\widetilde{h}}_{A'} }  (f', {\bf{\Omega}}')  

263:     \right\rangle  

264:     &=& 

265:     \frac{1}{2} \delta(f-f') 

266:     \frac{ \delta^2 (  {\bf{\Omega}} - {\bf{\Omega}}')}{4\pi}

267:     \delta_{AA'} S_h(|f|, \,\mathbf{\Omega}), 

268:     \label{eq:h*h gaussian process}

269: \end{eqnarray}

270: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

271: where ${\mathbf{\Omega}}$ is the direction of a propagating plane wave. 

272: Note that the statistical independence between two different directions

273: in the sky is implicitly assumed in equation (\ref{eq:h*h gaussian

274: process}), which might not be generally correct. Actually, CMB skymap

275: exhibits a large-angle correlation between the different skies, which

276: reflects the primordial density fluctuations. For the GWB of our

277: interest, the wavelength of the tensor fluctuations detected via space 

278: interferometers is much shorter than the cosmological scales and thereby 

279: the assumption put in equation (\ref{eq:h*h gaussian process}) 

280: is practically valid. 

281: 

282: 

283: The detection of a gravitational-wave background is achieved through the 

284: correlation analysis of two data streams. The planned space

285: interferometer, LISA and also the next generation detectors DECIGO/BBO 

286: constitute several spacecrafts, each of which exchanges laser beams with 

287: the others. Combining these laser pulses, it is possible to synthesize

288: the various output streams which are sensitive (or insensitive) to the 

289: gravitational-wave signal. The output stream for a specific combination 

290: $I$ denoted by $s_I(t)$ is generally described by a sum of the 

291: gravitational-wave signal $h_I(t)$ and the instrumental noise $n_I(t)$ by  

292: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

293: \begin{equation*}

294:     s_I(t) = h_I(t)+ n_I(t). 

295: \end{equation*}

296: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

297: We assume that the noise $n_I(t)$ is treated as a Gaussian random

298: process with spectral density $S_{\rm n}(f)$ and zero mean 

299: $\big\langle n_I\big\rangle=0 $. The gravitational-wave signal $h_I$ is 

300: obtained by contracting $\mathbf{h}$ with detector's response function 

301: and/or detector tensor ${\mathbf D}:=D_{ij}$:  

302: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

303: \begin{equation}

304:     h_I(t) = \sum_{A=+,\times} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} df 

305:     \int d \mathbf{\Omega}  ~

306:     e^{i2\pi f (t-\mathbf{\Omega} \cdot \mathbf{x}_I) }

307:     {\textbf{D}}_I    ( {\mathbf{\Omega}} ,f;t) \,

308:      {\textbf : }\, \mathbf{e}^{A}(\mathbf{\Omega})\,\,

309:      \widetilde{h}_A(f,\mathbf{\Omega}).  

310: \label{eq:h_I(t)}

311: \end{equation}

312: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

313: Note that the response function explicitly depends on time. 

314: The time variation of response function is caused by the orbital motion

315: of the detector and it plays a key role in reconstructing a skymap of the GWBs. 

316: Typically, the orbital frequency of the detector motion is much lower

317: than the observed frequency and within the case, the expression 

318: (\ref{eq:h_I(t)}) is validated. 

319:  

320: 

321: 

322: 

323: Provided the two output data sets, the correlation analysis is examined 

324: depending on the strategy of data analysis, i.e., self-correlation

325: analysis using the single data stream or cross-correlation analysis

326: using the two independent data stream. 

327: Defining $S_{IJ}(t) \equiv \left\langle s_I(t)s_J(t) \right\rangle$, the Fourier 

328: counterpart of it $\widetilde{S}_{IJ}(t,f)$, which is related with 

329: $S_{IJ}(t)$ by $S_{IJ}(t)=\int df \widetilde{S}_{IJ}(t,f)$, becomes

330: \footnote{

331: In Paper I, we had used $C_{IJ}$ to denote the output data 

332: $\left\langle s_I(t)s_J(t) \right\rangle$ itself. This coincides with 

333: the present definition if we neglect the instrumental noises. 

334: }

335: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

336: \begin{eqnarray} 

337:     \widetilde{S}_{IJ}(t,f) & = &  

338:       \widetilde{C}_{IJ}(t,f) + \delta_{IJ} \,\,S_n(|f|),

339: \label{eq:detector output S(t)}

340: \end{eqnarray}

341: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

342: where we define

343: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

344: \begin{eqnarray}

345: \widetilde{C}_{IJ}(t,f)=\int \frac{d

346:       \mathbf{\Omega}}{4\pi}  S_h(|f|, \mathbf{\Omega})~ 

347:     \mathcal{ F}_{IJ}^E(f,  \mathbf{\Omega};\,t). 

348: \label{eq:def_of_C(f)}

349: \end{eqnarray}

350: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

351: Here, the function $\mathcal{F}^E_{IJ}$ is the so-called antenna pattern 

352: function defined in an ecliptic coordinate, which is expressed in terms 

353: of detector's response function: 

354: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

355: \begin{eqnarray}

356:     && \mathcal{F}^E_{IJ}(f, \mathbf{\Omega};\,t)=  

357:     e^{ i \, 2\pi f \,{\bf \Omega \cdot}(\textbf{x}_I -\textbf{x}_J) }

358:     \sum_{A=+,\times} 

359:     F_I^{A*}(  \mathbf{\Omega},f;\,t) F_J^A( \mathbf{\Omega},f;\,t)

360:     \cr

361:     && F_I^A(  \mathbf{\Omega},f;\,t)  = 

362:     {\bf D}_I( \mathbf{\Omega},f;\,t)\, \textbf{:} \,

363:     \textbf{e} ^A (\mathbf{\Omega})

364:     \label{eq:def_of_antenna}

365: \end{eqnarray}

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

367: 

368: 

369: Apart from the second term, equation (\ref{eq:detector output S(t)})

370: implies that the luminosity distribution of GWBs

371: $S_h(f,\mathbf{\Omega})$ can be obtained by deconvolving the all-sky 

372: integral of antenna pattern function from the time-series data $S_{IJ}(t)$. 

373: To see this more explicitly, we focus on equation (\ref{eq:def_of_C(f)}) 

374: and decompose the antenna pattern function and the luminosity

375: distribution into spherical harmonics in an ecliptic coordinate, i.e., 

376: sky-fixed frame:

377: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

378: \begin{eqnarray}

379:     S_h(|f|,\, \mathbf{\Omega}) 

380:     =  \sum_{\ell, m} \,\,[p_{\ell m} (f)]^* \,\,

381:     Y_{\ell m}^* ( \mathbf{\Omega}), 

382: \cr

383:     \mathcal{F}^E_{IJ}(f,\, \mathbf{\Omega};\,t)

384:     = 

385:     \sum_{\ell, m} \,\, a_{\ell m}^E (f,t) \,\,

386:     Y_{\ell m} ( \mathbf{\Omega}). 

387:     \label{eq:Y_lm expansion of S and F}

388: \end{eqnarray}

389: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

390: Note that the properties of spherical harmonics yield 

391: $p_{\ell m}^*=(-1)^m p_{\ell,-m}$ and 

392: $a_{\ell m}^*=(-1)^{\ell-m}a_{\ell,-m}$, where the latter property comes from 

393: ${\mathcal{F}}_{IJ}^* (f,  \Omega;t) = {\mathcal{F}}_{IJ} (f, - \Omega;t)$ 

394: \cite{Kudoh:2004he}. Substituting (\ref{eq:Y_lm expansion of S and F}) into

395: (\ref{eq:def_of_C(f)}) becomes

396: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

397: \begin{eqnarray}

398:     \widetilde{C}_{IJ}(t,f) = \frac{1}{4\pi}\, \sum_{\ell m}\,\, 

399:     \left[ p_{\ell m}(f) \right]^*  a^{E }_{\ell m}(f,\,t),  

400: \label{eq:C_IJ in E-frame} 

401: \end{eqnarray}

402: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

403: where we have dropped the contribution from the detector noise. 

404: The expression (\ref{eq:C_IJ in E-frame}) still involves the

405: time-dependence of antenna pattern functions. 

406: To eliminate this, one may further rewrite equation 

407: (\ref{eq:C_IJ in E-frame}) by employing the harmonic expansion in

408: detector's rest frame. 

409: We denote the multipole coefficients of the antenna pattern in

410: detector's rest frame by $a_{\ell m}$. 

411: The transformation between the detector rest frame and the sky-fixed

412: frame is described by a rotation matrix by the Euler angles 

413: $(\psi, \vartheta ,\varphi)$, whose explicit relation is expressed in 

414: terms of the Wigner $D$ matrices \footnote{

415: \label{footnote:orbital motion}

416: We are specifically concerned with the time dependence of directional 

417: sensitivity of antenna pattern functions, not the real orbital motion. 

418: Hence, only the time evolution of directional dependence is considered 

419: in the expression (\ref{eq:Wigner_formula}).}

420: \cite{Allen:1997gp,Cornish:2002bh, Edmonds:1957}:

421: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

422: \begin{eqnarray}

423:     a^E_{\ell m }(f,t)  = \sum_{n=-\ell}^\ell

424:     e^{-i \,n \,\psi}\, d^\ell_{nm}( \vartheta)\, e^{-i \,m \,\varphi}

425:     \,\,a_{\ell n}(f). 

426:     \label{eq:Wigner_formula}

427: \end{eqnarray}

428: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

429: Here the Euler rotation is defined to perform a sequence of rotation, 

430: starting with a rotation by $\psi$ about the original $z$ axis, followed 

431: by rotation by $\vartheta$ about the original $y$ axis, and ending with

432: a rotation by $\varphi$ about the original $z$ axis. 

433: The Wigner $D$ matrices for $n\ge m$ is 

434: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

435: \begin{eqnarray}

436:  d_{n m}^\ell ({\mathcal{\theta}}) =

437:  (-1)^{\ell-n}

438:  \sqrt{\frac{ (\ell+n)! (\ell-n)! }{ (\ell+m)!(\ell-m)!  } }

439: \left( \cos \frac{\theta}{2}\right)^{n+m}

440: \left(-\sin \frac{\theta}{2}\right)^{n-m} 

441: P_{\ell-n}^{(n+m, n-m)}(-\cos\theta)

442: \end{eqnarray}

443: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

444: with $P_n^{(a,b)}$ being Jacobi polynomial. For 

445: $n<m$, we have $d^{\ell}_{nm}=(-1)^{n-m} d^\ell_{mn}$.

446: 

447: 

448: 

449: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  Figure   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

450: \begin{figure}[t]

451: \begin{center}

452: \includegraphics[width=8cm,angle=0,clip]{figs/ecliptic_coordinates.eps}

453: \end{center}

454: \caption{

455: LISA configuration in the ecliptic coordinates. The Galactic center is at

456: RA $267.4^\circ$ and dec. $-5.5^{\circ}$ in this coordinate system.  

457: }

458: \label{fig:LISA}

459: \end{figure}

460: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

461: 

462: 

463: Let us now focus on the orbital motion of the LISA constellation (see 

464: Fig.\ref{fig:LISA}). 

465: The LISA orbital motion can be expressed by 

466: $\psi=-\omega t$, $\vartheta=-\pi/3$, $\varphi= \omega t$, where 

467: $\omega = 2\pi/T_0$ is the orbital frequency of LISA ($T_0=1$ sidereal year)

468: \footnote{

469: The relation $\psi=-\varphi$ does not necessarily hold for orbital motion of 

470: LISA and there may be some possibilities to impose a constant phase 

471: difference, i.e., $\psi=-\varphi + c$. However, for the sake of

472: simplicity, we put $c=0$.

473: }

474: Since the antenna pattern function is periodic in time due to the

475: orbital motion, the expected signals also vary in time with the same

476: period $T_0$. It is therefore convenient to express the output signals by 

477: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

478: \begin{equation}

479: \widetilde{C}_{IJ}(t,f)=\sum_{k=-\infty}^{+\infty}\,\,

480: \widetilde{C}_{IJ,k}(f)\,\,e^{i\,k\,\omega\,t}. 

481: \end{equation}

482: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

483: Using the relation (\ref{eq:Wigner_formula}) with specific parameter

484: set, the Fourier component $\widetilde{C}_{IJ,k}(f)$ is then given by 

485: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

486: \begin{eqnarray} 

487:     \tilde{C}_k(f) &\equiv&   \frac{1}{T_0} 

488:    \int^{T_0}_{0} dt~ e^{-ik \omega t}\,\, \tilde{C}_{IJ}(t,f)

489: \nonumber\\

490: &=&    \frac{1}{4\pi}

491:     \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty} \sum_{m=- \ell}^{\ell-k}~ [p_{\ell m}(f)]^*\,\, 

492:     d^{\ell}_{(m+k),m}  \left( -\frac{\pi}{3}  \right) ~a_{\ell,(m+k)}(f)   

493:     \label{eq:deconvolution}

494: \end{eqnarray}

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

496: for $k\ge 0$. As for $k<0$, the lower and the upper limit of the sum 

497: over $m$ are changed to $m=-\ell-k$ and $m=\ell$, respectively.

498: 

499: 

500: Equation (\ref{eq:deconvolution}) as well as (\ref{eq:def_of_C(f)}) is 

501: the theoretical basis to reconstruct the skymap of GWBs. 

502: Given the output data $\tilde{C}_k(f)$ (or $\tilde{C}_{IJ}(t,f)$) 

503: experimentally, the task is to solve the linear system 

504: (\ref{eq:deconvolution}) with respect to $p_{\ell m}(f)$ for given

505: antenna pattern functions. One important remark deduced from equation 

506: (\ref{eq:deconvolution}) is that the accessible multipole coefficients 

507: $p_{\ell m}$ are severely restricted by the angular sensitivity of

508: antenna pattern functions. The important properties of the antenna

509: pattern functions are summarized in next subsection. 

510: Another important message is that the above linear systems are generally 

511: either over-constrained or under-determined. For the expression 

512: (\ref{eq:deconvolution}), if one truncates the multipole expansion with 

513: $\ell=\ell_\mathrm{max}$, the system consists of 

514: $\frac{1}{2}(\ell_{max}+1)(2\ell_{max}+1)$ unknowns and

515: $N(2\ell_{max}+1)$ equations (for $k \ge0$), where $N$ is the number of 

516: available modes of the antenna pattern functions. Thus this

517: deconvolution problem is, in principle, over-determined for a relatively 

518: small truncation multipole $\ell_{\text{max}}$, while it becomes 

519: under-determined for a larger value of  $\ell_{\text{max}}$. We will 

520: later discuss the over-determined case in

521: Sec.\ref{subsubsec:over-determined}, where 

522: $\ell_{\text{max}} = 5$ and $N \simeq 5$. 

523: %

524: %

525: %

526: %

527: %

528: %

529: %

530: % ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// %

531: \subsection{Detector response and antenna pattern functions}

532: \label{subsec:antenna_pattern}

533: % ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// %

534: %

535: %

536: %

537: %

538: %

539: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  TABLE  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

540: \begin{table}[b]

541: \caption{\label{tab:summay_antenna}

542: Important properties of antenna pattern function. 

543: Note that the cross-correlated data are blind to isotropic GWBs. 

544: }

545: \begin{ruledtabular}

546: \begin{tabular}{cll}

547: Combination of variables & Visible multipole moments in low-frequency 

548: regime $(\hat{f}\lesssim1)$ & General properties  \\

549: \hline

550: (A,A), (E,E) & $\mathcal{O}(\hat{f}^2):$ $\ell=0,\,\,2,\,\,4$ 

551: & visible only to $\ell=$even \\

552: (T,T)     & $\mathcal{O}(\hat{f}^4):$ $\ell=0,\,\,4,\,\,6$ 

553: & visible only to $\ell=$even \\

554: (A,E)     & $\mathcal{O}(\hat{f}^2):$ $\ell=4$,\quad \quad 

555: $\mathcal{O}(\hat{f}^3):$ $\ell=3,\,\,5$

556: & blind to $\ell=0,\,\,1$ \\

557: (A,T), (E,T)  & $\mathcal{O}(\hat{f}^3):$ $\ell=1,\,\,3,\,\,5$

558: & blind to $\ell=0$ \\

559: \end{tabular}

560: \end{ruledtabular}

561: \end{table}

562: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  TABLE  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

563: 

564: 

565: The output signals of space interferometer sensitive to the

566: gravitational waves are constructed by time-delayed combination of laser 

567: pulses. In the case of LISA, the technique to synthesize data streams 

568: canceling the laser frequency noise is known as time-delay

569: interferometry (TDI), which is crucial for our subsequent analysis. 

570: In the present paper, we use the optimal set of TDI variables

571: independently found by Prince et al. \cite{Prince:2002hp} and 

572: Nayak et al.\cite{Nayak:2002ir}, which are free from the noise correlation

573: \footnote{

574: The optimal TDI variables adopted here may not be the best TDI

575: combinations for the present purpose. There might be a better choice of

576: the signal combinations, although a dramatic improvement of the angular 

577: sensitivity would not be expected. }. 

578: A simple realization of such data set is obtained from a combination of 

579: Sagnac signals, which are the six-link observables using all six LISA 

580: oriented arms. For example, the Sagnac signal S$_1$ measures the phase 

581: difference accumulated by two laser beams received at space craft $1$, 

582: each of which travels around the LISA array in clockwise or 

583: counter-clockwise direction. 

584: The explicit expression of detector tensor for such signal, which we denote by 

585: ${\bf D}_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm S_1}$, is given in equation (21) of 

586: Paper I (see also \cite{Cornish:2001bb,Armstrong:1999}).  

587: The analytic expression for other detector tensors ${\bf D}_{\rm S_2}$ 

588: and ${\bf D}_{\rm S_3}$ are also obtained by the cyclic permutation of 

589: the unit vectors $\mathbf{a},\,\mathbf{b}$ and $\mathbf{c}$. 

590: 

591: 

592: Combining the three Sagnac signals, a set of optimal data combinations 

593: can be constructed 

594: \cite{Prince:2002hp,Nayak:2002ir} (see also \cite{Krolak:2004xp}): 

595: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

596: \begin{eqnarray}

597: && {\bf D}_{\rm A} =  

598: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2} }( {\bf D}_{\rm S_3}- {\bf D}_{\rm S_1} ),

599: \nonumber

600: \\

601: && {\bf D}_{\rm E} = 

602: \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(  

603:   {\bf D}_{\rm S_1} - 2{\bf D}_{ \rm S_2 } + {\bf D}_{ \rm S_3} ),

604: \nonumber

605: \\

606: && {\bf D}_{\rm T} = 

607: \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}( {\bf D}_{\rm S_1} 

608: +  {\bf D}_{\rm S_2} + {\bf D}_{\rm S_3} ).  

609: \label{eq:def AET mode}

610: \end{eqnarray}

611: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

612: These three detector tensors are referred to as $A,E,T$-variables, 

613: which generate six kinds of antenna pattern functions. 

614: Notice that in the equal arm-length limit, frequency dependence of these 

615: functions is simply expressed in terms of the normalized frequency: 

616: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

617: \begin{equation}

618: \hat{f}\equiv\frac{f}{f_*},  

619: \label{eq:normalized_f}

620: \end{equation}

621: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

622: where the characteristic frequency is given by 

623: $f_*=c/(2\pi L)$ with $L$ being the arm-length of detector.  

624: With the arm-length $L=5\times10^6$ km, the characteristic frequency of 

625: LISA becomes $f_*\simeq 9.54$ mHz. 

626: In what follows, we use the analytic expressions for equal arm-length 

627: limit to demonstrate the reconstruction of GWB skymap. 

628: This is sufficient for the present purpose, because we are concerned 

629: with a fundamental theoretical basis to map-making capability of GWBs. 

630: The idea provided in the present paper would allow us to examine a more 

631: realistic situation and the same strategy can be applied to an extended 

632: analysis in the same manner. 

633: 

634: 

635: 

636: Finally, we note that the antenna pattern functions for the optimal 

637: combinations of TDI have several distinctive features in angular sensitivity.

638: In the low frequency limit ($\hat{f} \ll 1$), the antenna pattern

639: functions for the self-correlations and the cross-correlations are expanded as

640: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

641: \begin{equation}

642: \begin{aligned}

643: {\mathcal F}_{AA} (f,\,\mathbf{\Omega}) =~ 

644:  & {\mathcal F}_{AA}^{(2)}(\mathbf{\Omega})\, \hat{f}^2 &

645:  &&

646:  +~ &~{\mathcal F}_{AA}^{(4)}(\mathbf{\Omega})\, \hat{f}^4 &

647:                     + ~O(\hat{f}^6)

648: \\

649: %\nonumber

650: {\mathcal F}_{TT} (f,\,\mathbf{\Omega}) =~ 

651:  & &

652:  & &

653:  &~{\mathcal F}_{TT}^{(4)}(\mathbf{\Omega})\, \hat{f}^4 &

654:    +~ O(\hat{f}^6)

655: \\

656: %\nonumber

657: {\mathcal F}_{AE} (f,\,\mathbf{\Omega}) = ~ 

658:     &{\mathcal F}_{AE}^{(2)}(\mathbf{\Omega})\, \hat{f}^2&

659:   +~ &~{\mathcal F}_{AE}^{(3)}(\mathbf{\Omega})\, \hat{f}^3&

660:   +~ &~{\mathcal F}_{AE}^{(4)}(\mathbf{\Omega})\, \hat{f}^4&

661:   +~ O(f^5)

662: \\

663: {\mathcal F}_{AT} (f,\,\mathbf{\Omega}) =~ 

664:    & &

665:    &~{\mathcal F}_{AT}^{(3)}(\mathbf{\Omega})\, \hat{f}^3 &

666:  +~ &~{\mathcal F}_{AT}^{(4)}(\mathbf{\Omega})\, \hat{f}^4&

667:  + ~O(\hat{f}^5)

668: \end{aligned}

669: \label{eq:expand_antenna}

670: \end{equation}

671: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

672: The frequency dependence of ${\mathcal F}_{EE}$ and ${\mathcal F}_{ET}$

673: are the same as for  ${\mathcal F}_{AA}$ and ${\mathcal F}_{AT}$, respectively. 

674: Since the leading term of the TT-correlation is $O(\hat{f}^4)$, the 

675: $TT$-correlation becomes insensitive to the gravitational waves in the 

676: low-frequency regime. We will use all correlated data set except for the 

677: $TT$-correlation. In Table \ref{tab:summay_antenna}, we summarize the 

678: important properties for the multipole moments of antenna pattern functions.  

679: Also, in Appendix \ref{appendix:Mulipole coefficients}, employing the 

680: perturbative approach based on the low-frequency approximation 

681: $\hat{f}\ll1$, the spherical harmonic expansion for antenna pattern 

682: functions are analytically computed, which will be useful in subsequent analysis.  

683: %

684: %

685: %

686: %

687: %

688: %

689: %

690: %

691: %

692: %

693: % ==============================================================%

694: % ==============================================================%

695: \section{Perturbative reconstruction method 

696: for GWB skymap}

697: \label{sec:method}

698: % ==============================================================%

699: % ==============================================================%

700: %

701: %

702: %

703: %

704: %

705: %

706: %

707: %

708: %

709: We are in position to discuss the methodology to reconstruct a skymap of 

710: GWB based on the expression (\ref{eq:deconvolution}) (or 

711: (\ref{eq:def_of_C(f)})). 

712: Since we are specifically concerned with low-frequency sources observed

713: via LISA, it would be helpful to employ a perturbative approach using

714: the low-frequency expansion of antenna pattern function. 

715: In Sec.\ref{subsec:general_scheme}, owing to the expression 

716: (\ref{eq:deconvolution}), a perturbative reconstruction method is presented. 

717: Sec.\ref{subsec:time-domain} discusses alternative reconstruction method 

718: based on the time-series representation (\ref{eq:def_of_C(f)}). 

719: 

720: 

721: 

722: % ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// %

723: \subsection{General scheme}

724: \label{subsec:general_scheme}

725: % ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// %

726: 

727: 

728: 

729: Hereafter, we focus on the GWBs in the low-frequency band of the

730: detector, the wavelength of which is typically longer than the

731: arm-length of the gravitational detector, i.e., $\hat{f}\lesssim 1$. 

732: Without loss of generality, we restrict our attention to the

733: reconstruction of a GWB skymap in a certain narrow frequency range, 

734: $f\sim f+ \Delta f$, within which a separable form of the GWB spectrum 

735: is a good assumption:  

736: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

737: \begin{equation}

738: S_h(f,\mathbf{\Omega}) = H(f)\,\,P(\mathbf{\Omega}). 

739: \label{eq:S_h_separable}

740: \end{equation}

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

742: Further, for our interest of the narrow bandwidth, it is reasonable to 

743: assume that the spectral density $H(f)$ is described by a power-law 

744: form as $H(f)= {\mathcal N} \, f^{\alpha}$. 

745: In the reconstruction analysis discussed below, the spectral index 

746: $\alpha$ is assumed to be determined beforehand from theoretical 

747: prediction and/or experimental constraint 

748: \footnote{In our general scheme, we do not assume a priori the 

749: normalization factor ${\mathcal N}$ in the function $H(f)$, which 

750: should be simultaneously determined with the reconstruction of an 

751: intensity distribution $P(\mathbf{\Omega})$. 

752: In the low-frequency approximation, $\hat{f}\ll1$, however, there 

753: exists a degeneracy between the monopole and the quadrupole 

754: components and one cannot correctly determine the normalization 

755: ${\mathcal N}$. (See Appendix.\ref{appendix:on_the_degeneracy}.) }.

756: 

757: 

758: 

759: In the low frequency approximation up to the order 

760: $\mathcal{O}(\hat{f}^3)$, we have five output signals which 

761: respond to the GWBs, i.e., $AA$-, $EE$-, $AE$-, $AT$- and

762: $ET$-correlations, each output of which is represented by equation 

763: (\ref{eq:deconvolution}). 

764: Collecting these linear equations and arraying them appropriately, 

765: the linear algebraic equations can be symbolically written in a matrix form as  

766: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

767: \begin{eqnarray}

768: {\mathbf {c}}(f)  = {\mathbf {A}}(f)  \cdot {\mathbf {p}}.    

769: \label{eq: c=Ap}

770: \end{eqnarray}

771: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

772: In the above expression, while the vector ${\mathbf {p}}$ represents 

773: the unknowns consisting of the multipole coefficients of GWBs 

774: $p_{\ell m}$, the vector ${\mathbf {c}}(f)$ contains the correlation signals 

775: $\tilde{C}_{k}(f)$. 

776: Here, the frequency dependence of the function $H(f)$ has been already 

777: factorized and thereby the vector ${\mathbf {p}}$ only contains the 

778: information about the angular distribution. 

779: The matrix ${\mathbf {A}}(f)$ is the known quantity consisting of the 

780: multipole coefficients of each antenna pattern and the Wigner $D$ matrices

781: (see Appendix \ref{appendix:SVD} for an explicit example). 

782: 

783: 

784: As we have already mentioned, the linear systems (\ref{eq: c=Ap}) 

785: become either over-determined or under-determined system. 

786: In most of our treatment in the low-frequency regime, the linear systems 

787: (\ref{eq: c=Ap}) tend to become over-determined, but this is not always 

788: correct depending on the amplitude of GWB spectrum  

789: $H(f)$ (see Sec.\ref{subsec:on_snr}). 

790: In any case, the matrix $\mathbf{A}$ would not be a square matrix and

791: the number of components of the vector $\mathbf{c}$ does not coincide

792: with the one in the vector $\mathbf{p}$. 

793: In the over-determined case, while there is a hope to get a unique solution 

794: $\mathbf{p}$ to produce the gravitational-wave signal 

795: $\mathbf{c}$, it seems practically difficult due to the errors

796: associated with the instrumental noise and/or numerical analysis. 

797: Hence, instead of pursuit of a rigorous solution, it would be better to 

798: focus on the issue how to get an approximate solution by a simple and 

799: systematic method.  

800: 

801: 

802: In the case of our linear system, the approximate solution for the 

803: multipole coefficient $\mathbf{p}_{\rm approx}$ can be obtained from 

804: the least-squares method in the following form:  

805: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

806: \begin{equation}

807: \mathbf{p}_{\rm\scriptscriptstyle approx} 

808: = \mathbf{A}^+ \cdot \mathbf{c}.

809: \label{eq:p=AC}

810: \end{equation}

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

812: The matrix $\mathbf{A}^+$ is called the pseudo-inverse matrix of 

813: Moore-Penrose type, whose explicit expression can be uniquely determined 

814: from the singular value decomposition (SVD)

815: \cite{Press:NRC++}. According to the theorem of linear algebra, the

816: matrix $\mathbf{A}$, whose number of rows is greater than or equal to

817: its number of columns, can be generally written as 

818: $\mathbf{A}= U^T\cdot \mbox{diag}[w_i]\cdot V $. Here, the matrices $U$ and 

819: $V$ are orthonormal matrices which satisfy 

820: $U^{\dagger}\,U=V^{\dagger}\,V=\mathbf{1}$, 

821: where the quantity with subscript $^{\dagger}$ represents the Hermite 

822: conjugate variable. The quantity $\mbox{diag}[w_i]$ represents an

823: diagonal matrix with singular values $w_i$ with respect to the matrix 

824: $\mathbf{A}$. Then the pseudo-inverse matrix becomes 

825: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

826: \begin{equation}

827:     \mathbf{A}^+ = V^T\cdot \mbox{diag}[w_i^{-1}]\cdot U. 

828: \label{eq:pseudo-inverse_A}

829: \end{equation}

830: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

831: It should be stressed that the explicit form of the pseudo-inverse matrix 

832: $\mathbf{A}^+$ is characterized only by the angular dependence of

833: antenna pattern functions. 

834: 

835: 

836: In principle, the least-squares method by SVD can work well and all the 

837: accessible multipole moments of GWB would be obtained as long as the

838: antenna pattern functions have the corresponding sensitivity to each 

839: detectable multipole moment. As we mentioned in 

840: Sec.\ref{subsec:antenna_pattern}, however, the angular power of antenna 

841: pattern function depends sensitively on the frequency. In the

842: low-frequency regime, the frequency dependence of the non-vanishing 

843: multipole moments appears at 

844: $\mathcal{O}(\hat{f}^2)$ for 

845: $\ell=0,\,\,2$ and $4$, and $\mathcal{O}(\hat{f}^3)$ for 

846: $\ell=1,\,\,3$ and $5$ (see Table \ref{tab:summay_antenna}). 

847: In this respect, by a naive application of the least-squares method, 

848: it is difficult to extract the information about $\ell=$odd modes of 

849: GWBs because the singular values of the matrix $\mathbf{A}$ are

850: dominated by the lowest-order contribution of the antenna pattern functions. 

851: 

852: 

853: For a practical and a reliable estimate of the odd multipoles in 

854: low-frequency regime, the least-squares method should be applied

855: combining with the perturbative scheme described below.  Let us recall

856: from the expression (\ref{eq:expand_antenna}) that the matrix

857: $\mathbf{A}$ can be expanded as 

858: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

859: \begin{eqnarray}

860: \mathbf{A} = \hat{f}^2\,\,\mathbf{A}^{(2)} + 

861: \hat{f}^4\,\,\mathbf{A}^{(4)} + \cdots

862: \label{eq:expand_mat_A1}

863: \end{eqnarray}

864: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

865: for a matrix consisting of the self-correlation signals 

866: $\mathcal{F}_{AA}$ and $\mathcal{F}_{EE}$,  

867: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

868: \begin{eqnarray}

869: \mathbf{A} = \hat{f}^2\,\,\mathbf{A}^{(2)} + \hat{f}^3\,\,\mathbf{A}^{(3)} +

870: \hat{f}^4\,\,\mathbf{A}^{(4)} +  \cdots

871: \label{eq:expand_mat_A2}

872: \end{eqnarray}

873: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

874: for a matrix consisting of the cross-correlation signal 

875: $\mathcal{F}_{AE}$, and 

876: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

877: \begin{eqnarray}

878: \mathbf{A} = \hat{f}^3\,\,\mathbf{A}^{(3)} +

879: \hat{f}^4\,\,\mathbf{A}^{(4)} +  \cdots

880: \label{eq:expand_mat_A3}

881: \end{eqnarray}

882: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

883: for a matrix consisting of the cross-correlation signals  

884: $\mathcal{F}_{AT}$ and $\mathcal{F}_{ET}$.  

885: Then the resultant matrices $\mathbf{A}^{(i)}$ become independent of the 

886: frequency. The above perturbative expansion implies that the output

887: signal $\mathbf{c}$ is also expanded in powers of $\hat{f}$. Since the 

888: frequency dependence of the function 

889: $H(f)$ has been already factorized in equation (\ref{eq: c=Ap}), we have 

890: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

891: \begin{eqnarray}

892: \mathbf{c}(f) =

893: \left\{

894: \begin{array}{lll}

895:    & \hat{f}^2 ~ \mathbf{c}^{(2)} + 

896:     \hat{f}^4 \mathbf{c}^{(4)} + \cdots, 

897:     \quad\, & \text{for AA-, EE-correlations} 

898: \\ 

899: \\

900:     &  \hat{f}^2 ~ \mathbf{c}^{(2)} + 

901:     \hat{f}^3 ~ \mathbf{c}^{(3)} + 

902:     \hat{f}^4 \mathbf{c}^{(4)} + \cdots,

903:     \quad\, & \text{for AE-correlation} 

904: \\

905: \\

906:    &  \hat{f}^3 ~ \mathbf{c}^{(3)} + 

907:     \hat{f}^4 \mathbf{c}^{(4)} + \cdots,

908:     \quad\, &

909:     \text{for AT-,ET-correlations} 

910: \end{array}

911: \right.

912: \label{eq:expand_vec_c}

913: \end{eqnarray}

914: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

915: Substituting the terms (\ref{eq:expand_mat_A1})-(\ref{eq:expand_mat_A3}) and 

916: (\ref{eq:expand_vec_c}) into the expression (\ref{eq: c=Ap}) and 

917: collecting the terms of each order of $\hat{f}$, we have 

918: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

919: \begin{equation}

920: \mathbf{c}^{(i)} = \mathbf{A}^{(i)}\,\cdot\,\mathbf{p}^{(i)}, 

921: \quad \quad (i=2,\,\,3,\,\,4,\,\,\cdots)

922: \label{eq:perturbative_c=Ap}

923: \end{equation}

924: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

925: where the subscript $^{(i)}$ means the quantity consisting of the order 

926: $\mathcal{O}(\hat{f}^i)$ terms. 

927: The vector $\mathbf{p}^{(i)}$ represents the accessible multipole moments 

928: $p_{\ell m}$ to which the antenna pattern functions become sensitive 

929: in this order. For example, the vector $\mathbf{p}^{(2)}$ contains the 

930: $\ell=0,\,2$ and $4$ modes, while the vector $\mathbf{p}^{(3)}$  have 

931: the multipole moments with $\ell=1,\,3$ and $5$. Since the expression 

932: (\ref{eq:perturbative_c=Ap}) has no explicit frequency dependence, we 

933: can reliably apply the least-squares solution by the SVD to reconstruct 

934: the odd modes of GWBs, as well as the even modes:  

935: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

936: \begin{equation}

937: \mathbf{p}^{(i)}_{\rm\scriptscriptstyle approx } 

938: = [\mathbf{A}^{(i)}]^+\,\cdot\,\mathbf{c}^{(i)}.

939: \label{eq:perturbative_p=AC}

940: \end{equation}

941: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

942: Each step of the perturbative reconstruction scheme is summarized in Fig.

943: \ref{fig:flowchart} (see Appendix \ref{appendix:SVD} in more details).

944: 

945: 

946: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  Figure   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

947: \begin{figure}[htbp]

948: \begin{center}

949: \includegraphics[width=13cm,angle=0,clip]{figs/flowchart/flowchart.eps}

950: \end{center}

951:     \caption{Flowchart of perturbative reconstruction scheme based on

952:       the harmonic-Fourier representation. 

953:     }

954:      \label{fig:flowchart}

955: \end{figure}

956: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

957: 

958: 

959: Finally, we note that the low-frequency reconstruction method presented

960: here assumes the perturbative expansion form of the output signal $\mathbf{c}$. 

961: To determine the coefficients $\mathbf{c}^{(i)}$ in equation 

962: (\ref{eq:expand_vec_c}), one must know the frequency dependence of the 

963: vector $\mathbf{c}$  in the narrow bandwidth $f\sim f+\Delta f$, which 

964: can be achieved by analyzing the multi-frequency data.  

965: One important remark is that the signal-to-noise ratio in each

966: reconstructed multipoles might be influenced by the sampling frequencies 

967: and/or the data analysis strategy. This point will be discussed later in Sec.

968: \ref{subsec:reconstruction}. 

969: %

970: %

971: %

972: %

973: %

974: %

975: %

976: %

977: %

978: %

979: % ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// %

980: \subsection{Reconstruction based on the time-series representation}

981: \label{subsec:time-domain}

982: % ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// %

983: %

984: %

985: %

986: %

987: %

988: So far, we have discussed the reconstruction method based on the 

989: harmonic-Fourier representation (\ref{eq:deconvolution}).  

990: The main advantage of the harmonic-Fourier representation is that 

991: it gives a simple algebraic equation suitable for applying the 

992: least-squares solution by SVD. 

993: However, the harmonic-Fourier representation implicitly assumes that 

994: the space interferometer orbits around the sun under keeping their 

995: configuration rigidly. 

996: In reality, rigid adiabatic treatment of the spacecraft motion is no 

997: longer valid due to the intrinsic variation of arm-length caused by the 

998: Keplerian motion of three space crafts, as well as the tidal 

999: perturbation by the gravitational force of solar system planets 

1000: \cite{Cornish:2003tz,Tinto:2003vj,Shaddock:2003bc}. 

1001: In a rigorous sense, the time dependence of antenna pattern 

1002: function cannot be described by the Euler rotation of antenna pattern 

1003: function at rest frame (see footnote \ref{footnote:orbital motion}). 

1004: Although the influence of arm-length variation is expected to be small 

1005: in the low-frequency regime, alternative approach based on the other 

1006: representation would be helpful to consider the GWB skymap beyond the 

1007: low-frequency regime. 

1008: 

1009: 

1010: Here, we briefly discuss the reconstruction method based on the 

1011: time-series representation (\ref{eq:def_of_C(f)}). 

1012: The time-series representation is mathematically equivalent to the 

1013: harmonic-Fourier representation under the rigid adiabatic treatment, 

1014: but in general, no additional assumption for space craft configuration 

1015: is invoked to derive the expression 

1016: (\ref{eq:def_of_C(f)}), except for the premise that the time-dependence 

1017: of the antenna pattern functions, i.e., the motion of each spacecraft, 

1018: is well-known theoretically and/or observationally. 

1019: Moreover, as we see below, the method based on the time-series

1020: representation allows us to reconstruct directly the skymap $S_h$, 

1021: without going through intermediate variables, e.g. $p_{\ell m}$. 

1022: In this sense, the time-series representation would be superior to the 

1023: harmonic-Fourier representation for practical purpose, although there 

1024: still remains the same problem as discussed in Appendix 

1025: \ref{appendix:on_the_degeneracy} concerning the {\it{degeneracy}} of the 

1026: multipole coefficients.  

1027: 

1028: 

1029: In principle, the perturbative reconstruction scheme given in 

1030: Sec.\ref{subsec:general_scheme} can be applicable to the map-making 

1031: problem based on the time-series representation. 

1032: To apply this, we discretize the integral expression 

1033: (\ref{eq:def_of_C(f)}) so as to reduce it to a matrix form like 

1034: equation (\ref{eq: c=Ap}).  For example, we discretize the celestial sphere 

1035: $(\theta, \,\phi)$ into a regular $N$ meshes and also the continuous 

1036: time-series into the regular $M$ grids. Then we have 

1037: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1038: \begin{equation}

1039: \widetilde{C}(t_i,\,f)= \sum_{j=1}^{N}\,\,

1040: S_h(|f|,\,\,\mathbf{\Omega}_j)\,\,

1041: \mathcal{F}^E(f,\,\mathbf{\Omega}_j;\,t_i)\, 

1042: \frac{\Delta\mathbf{\Omega}_j}{4\pi}, \quad

1043: (i=1,2,\cdots,\,M), 

1044: \label{eq:discrete_eq}

1045: \end{equation}

1046: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1047: where $\Delta\mathbf{\Omega}_i=\sin\theta_i\,\Delta\theta_i\,\Delta\phi_i$. 

1048: Here, we have ignored the noise contribution and dropped the subscript 

1049: $_{IJ}$. For a reconstruction of low-frequency skymap, a large number 

1050: of mesh and/or grid are not necessary. Typically, for the angular 

1051: resolution up to $\ell=5$, it is sufficient to set 

1052: $M=16$ and $N=16\time32$ (see Sec.\ref{subsec:reconstruction}).  

1053: The above discretization procedure is repeated for the five output 

1054: data of the correlation signals. 

1055: Then, simply following the same procedure as in the case of the 

1056: harmonic-Fourier representation, the least-squares method by SVD 

1057: is applied to get the luminosity distribution of GWBs. 

1058: Note that the meanings of the matrix $\mathbf{A}^{(i)}$, the vectors 

1059: $\mathbf{c}^{(i)}$ and $\mathbf{p}^{(i)}$ in the perturbative expansion

1060: are appropriately changed as follows. For the matrix $\mathbf{A}^{(i)}$, we have 

1061: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1062: \begin{equation}

1063: \mathbf{A}^{(i)} = \frac{1}{4\pi}

1064: \left(

1065: \begin{array}{cccc}

1066:  \mathcal{F}^{(i)}(\mathbf{\Omega}_1, t_1)\,\Delta\mathbf{\Omega}_1 & 

1067:  \mathcal{F}^{(i)}(\mathbf{\Omega}_2, t_1)\,\Delta\mathbf{\Omega}_2 & \cdots &

1068:  \mathcal{F}^{(i)}(\mathbf{\Omega}_N, t_1)\,\Delta\mathbf{\Omega}_N \\

1069:  \mathcal{F}^{(i)}(\mathbf{\Omega}_1, t_2)\,\Delta\mathbf{\Omega}_1 & 

1070:  \mathcal{F}^{(i)}(\mathbf{\Omega}_2, t_2)\,\Delta\mathbf{\Omega}_2 & \cdots & 

1071:  \mathcal{F}^{(i)}(\mathbf{\Omega}_N, t_2)\,\Delta\mathbf{\Omega}_N \\

1072:  \vdots  & \vdots  & \ddots &\vdots \\

1073:  \mathcal{F}^{(i)}(\mathbf{\Omega}_1, t_M)\,\Delta\mathbf{\Omega}_1 & 

1074:  \mathcal{F}^{(i)}(\mathbf{\Omega}_2, t_M)\,\Delta\mathbf{\Omega}_2 & \cdots & 

1075:  \mathcal{F}^{(i)}(\mathbf{\Omega}_N, t_M)\,\Delta\mathbf{\Omega}_N \\

1076: \end{array}

1077: \right), \quad\quad (i=2,\,3,\,\cdots) 

1078: \end{equation}

1079: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1080: The corresponding vectors $\mathbf{c}_{(i)}$ and $\mathbf{p}_{(i)}$ becomes

1081: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1082: \begin{equation}

1083: \mathbf{c}^{(i)} = 

1084: \left(

1085: \begin{array}{c}

1086: \widetilde{C}^{(i)}(t_1) \\

1087: \widetilde{C}^{(i)}(t_2) \\

1088: \vdots  \\  

1089: \widetilde{C}^{(i)}(t_M) 

1090: \end{array}

1091: \right), 

1092: %% \quad\quad(i=2,\,3,\,\cdots) 

1093: \qquad

1094: \mathbf{p}^{(i)} = 

1095: \left(

1096: \begin{array}{c}

1097: S_h^{(i)}(\Omega_1) \\

1098: S_h^{(i)}(\Omega_2) \\

1099: \vdots  \\  

1100: S_h^{(i)}(\Omega_N) \\

1101: \end{array}

1102: \right), 

1103: \end{equation}

1104: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1105: where $\widetilde{C}^{(i)}(t)$ and $S_h^{(i)}(\Omega)$  the perturbative 

1106: coefficients of $\widetilde{C}(t,f)$ and $S_h (|f|, \Omega)$ in power 

1107: of $\hat{f}^i$, respectively.  Using these expressions, the

1108: least-squares solution is constructed as 

1109: $\mathbf{p}_{\rm approx}= 

1110: \mathbf{p}_{\rm approx}^{(2)}+\mathbf{p}_{\rm approx}^{(3)}+\cdots$, 

1111: with a help of equation (\ref{eq:perturbative_p=AC}). 

1112: Then, the resultant expression $\mathbf{p}_{\rm approx}$ directly gives a 

1113: GWB skymap in the ecliptic coordinate, i.e.,

1114: $S_h(|f|,\,\mathbf{\Omega})$, not the multipole coefficients.  

1115: 

1116: 

1117: 

1118: 

1119: 

1120: %

1121: % ==============================================================%

1122: % ==============================================================%

1123: \section{Demonstration:  skymap of 

1124: Galactic background}

1125: \label{sec:demonstration}

1126: % ==============================================================%

1127: % ==============================================================%

1128: %

1129: 

1130: 

1131: Perturbative reconstruction scheme presented in the previous section is 

1132: applicable to a general map-making problem for any kind of GWB sources. 

1133: In this section, to see how our general scheme works in practice, we 

1134: demonstrate the reconstruction of a GWB skymap focusing on a specific 

1135: source of anisotropic 

1136: GWB. An interesting example for LISA detector is a confusion-noise 

1137: background produced by the Galactic population of unresolved binaries. 

1138: After describing a model of Galactic GWB in Sec.\ref{subsec:GWB_model}, 

1139: the expected signals for time-modulation data of self- and

1140: cross-correlated TDIs are calculated in Sec.\ref{subsec:on_snr}.  

1141: Based on these, the detectable Fourier components for time-modulation 

1142: signals are discussed evaluating the signal-to-noise ratios. 

1143: In Sec.\ref{subsec:reconstruction}, a reconstruction of the GWB skymap

1144: is performed based on the harmonic-Fourier representation and the

1145: time-series representation. The resultant values of the multipole

1146: coefficients for Galactic GWBs are compared with those from the 

1147: full-resolution skymap, taking account of the influence of the noises. 

1148: 

1149: 

1150: 

1151: 

1152: % ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// %

1153: \subsection{A model of Galactic GWB}

1154: \label{subsec:GWB_model}

1155: % ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// %

1156: 

1157: 

1158: For our interest of GWBs in the low-frequency regime with 

1159: $f\lesssim f_* \simeq 9.54$ mHz, it is reasonable to assume that the 

1160: anisotropic GWB spectrum $S_h(f,\mathbf{\Omega})$ is separately treated as 

1161: $S_h(f,\mathbf{\Omega})=H(f)\,P(\mathbf{\Omega})$, as we mentioned. 

1162: The power spectral density $H(f)$ is approximated by a power-law function like 

1163: $H(f)= {\mathrm N } \,f^{\alpha}$, whose amplitude will be explicitly

1164: given later. For illustrative purpose, we consider the simplest model of 

1165: luminosity distribution $P(\mathbf{\Omega})$, in which the Galactic GWB

1166: is described by an incoherent superposition of gravitational waves

1167: produced by compact binaries whose spatial structure just traces the

1168: Galactic stellar distribution observed via infrared photometry. 

1169: We use the fitting model of Galactic stellar distribution given in 

1170: \cite{Binney:1996sv}, which consists of triaxial bulge and disk components 

1171: (see also \cite{Seto:2004ji}).  

1172: The explicit functional form of the density distribution

1173: $\rho(\mathbf{x})$ written in the Galactic coordinate system becomes 

1174: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1175: \begin{eqnarray}

1176:     \label{eq:rho_GWB}

1177: &&    \rho(\mathbf{x}) =  \rho_{\rm disk}(\mathbf{x}) +  

1178:     \rho_{\rm bulge}(\mathbf{x})\,\,;

1179:     \label{eq:BGS_model} \\

1180: &&\quad    \rho_{\rm bulge} = \frac{\rho_0}{(1+a/a_0)^{1.8}}\,\,

1181: e^{-(a/a_{\rm m})^2},

1182:     \nonumber \\

1183: &&\quad    \rho_{\rm disk} = \left(\frac{e^{-|z|/z_0}}{z_0}

1184:  + \alpha \,

1185: \frac{e^{-|z|/z_1}}{z_1}\right) \,R_s\, e^{-R/R_{\rm s}}

1186: \nonumber

1187: \end{eqnarray}

1188: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1189: with the quantities $a$ and $R$ defined by 

1190: $a\equiv [x^2+(y/\eta)^2+(z/\zeta)^2 ]^{1/2}$ and 

1191: $R\equiv (x^2 + y^2)^{1/2}$. Note that the $z$-axis is oriented to the north 

1192: Galactic pole and the direction of the $x$-axis is $20^{\circ}$

1193: different from the Sun-center line.

1194: Here the parameters are given as follows: $\rho_0=624$, 

1195: $a_{\rm m} = 1.9$ kpc, $a_0=100$ pc, $R_{\rm s}=2.5$ kpc, $z_0=210$ pc, 

1196: $z_1=42$ pc, $\alpha = 0.27$, $\eta=0.5$ and $\zeta=0.6$. 

1197: Provided the three-dimensional structure of stellar distribution 

1198: $\rho(\mathbf{x})$, the angular distribution $P(\mathbf{\Omega})$ is 

1199: obtained by projecting it onto the sphere in observed frame, i.e., 

1200: ecliptic coordinate:  

1201: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1202: \begin{equation}

1203:     P(\mathbf{\Omega}) = C\,\int dr\,\,4\pi\,r^2\,\, 

1204:     \frac{\rho(r,\mathbf{\Omega})}{r^2}, 

1205: \end{equation}

1206: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1207: where $C$ is a numerical constant normalized by  

1208: $\int d\mathbf{\Omega}\,P(\mathbf{\Omega})=1$.   

1209: The integration over $r$ is performed along a line-of-sight direction 

1210: from a location of space interferometer to infinity.

1211: 

1212: 

1213: In Fig.\ref{fig:full-resolution_skymap}, the projected intensity 

1214: distribution of GWB is numerically obtained specifically in ecliptic 

1215: coordinate and it is then transformed into Galactic coordinate, shown 

1216: as the Hammer-Aitoff map.  A strong intensity peak is found around the 

1217: Galactic center and the disk-like structure can be clearly seen. 

1218: Notice that while the result depicted in

1219: Fig.\ref{fig:full-resolution_skymap} represents a full-resolution

1220: skymap, it cannot be attained from the perturbative reconstruction

1221: scheme in low-frequency regime. For the antenna pattern functions of 

1222: cross-correlated TDI signals up to the order $\mathcal{O}(\hat{f}^3)$, 

1223: the detectable multipole moments of GWB are limited to $\ell\leq5$. 

1224: Moreover, in the low-frequency limit $\mathcal{O}(\hat{f}^2)$, only 

1225: the even modes $\ell=0$, $2$ and $4$ are measurable.

1226: Thus, the reconstructed skymap would be rather miserable compared to 

1227: the full skymap which contains the higher multipoles $\ell \gtrsim 30$ 

1228: (see Fig.\ref{fig:sigma_gwb} in Appendix).  Taking account of these 

1229: facts, in right panel of Fig.\ref{fig:expected_skymap}, we plot the 

1230: low-resolution skymap, which was obtained from the full-resolution

1231: skymap just dropping the higher multipole moments with $\ell>5$. 

1232: In Appendix \ref{appendix:multipole of GWB}, with a help of the 

1233: Fortran package of spherical harmonic analysis (\cite{Adams:2003}, see 

1234: Appendix \ref{appendix:multipole of GWB}), the numerical values of 

1235: the multipole coefficients $p_{\ell m}$ up to $\ell=5$ are computed 

1236: and are summarized in Table \ref{tab:summay_multipole}. 

1237: Also in the left panel, the odd modes are further subtracted and the 

1238: remaining multipole moments are only $\ell=0$, $2$ and $4$. 

1239: As a result, the fine structure around the bulge and the disk components 

1240: is coarse-grained and the intensity of the GWB diminishes. 

1241: It also shows some fake patterns with negative intensity. 

1242: Nevertheless, one can clearly see the anisotropic structure of GWB

1243: , which is mainly contributed from the gravitational-wave sources 

1244: around the Galactic disk. With a perturbative reconstruction of 

1245: low-frequency up to $\mathcal{O}(\hat{f}^3)$, one can roughly infer 

1246: that the main sources of Galactic GWB comes from the Galactic center. 

1247: 

1248: 

1249: 

1250: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  Figure   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1251: \begin{figure}[t]

1252: \begin{center}

1253:  \includegraphics[width=10cm,angle=0,clip]{figs/map_GC_JpegEPS/gwbdist.eps}

1254: \label{fig:fill_skymap}

1255: \end{center}

1256: \caption{Full-resolution 

1257:       skymap of the Galactic gravitational-wave background shown 

1258:       as Hammer-Aitoff map in Galactic coordinate. 

1259:     }

1260: \label{fig:full-resolution_skymap}

1261: \end{figure}

1262: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1263: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1264: \begin{figure}[t]

1265: \begin{center}

1266:  \includegraphics[width=8.3cm,clip]{figs/map_GC_JpegEPS/gwbdist_cut_l0-2-4.eps}

1267: \hspace*{0.3cm}

1268:  \includegraphics[width=8.3cm,clip]{figs/map_GC_JpegEPS/gwbdist_cut_l0-5.eps}

1269: \end{center}

1270:     \caption{Expected images of GWB skymap by LISA based on 

1271:       the low-frequency reconstruction scheme, which are both depicted in the 

1272:       Galactic coordinate. {\it Left}: low-resolution skymap 

1273:       created by truncating all the multipoles except for 

1274:       $\ell=0$, $2$ and $4$ from the original full-resolution skymap. 

1275:      {\it Right:} skymap created by truncating the higher multipoles 

1276:       $\ell>6$.  

1277:     }

1278:      \label{fig:expected_skymap}

1279: \end{figure}

1280: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1281: %

1282: %

1283: %

1284: %

1285: % ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// %

1286: \subsection{Time-modulation signals and signal-to-noise ratio}

1287: \label{subsec:on_snr}

1288: % ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// %

1289: %

1290: %

1291: %

1292: %

1293: %

1294: %

1295: Given the intensity distribution of GWB, one can calculate the 

1296: cross-correlation signals observed via LISA, which are inherently 

1297: time-dependent due to the orbital motion of the LISA detector.  

1298: The effect of the annual modulation of the Galactic binary confusion 

1299: noise on the LISA data analysis had been previously studied in  

1300: \cite{Seto:2004ji} in the low-frequency limit $\hat{f}\ll1$. 

1301: Recently, Monte Carlo simulations of Galactic GWB were carried out by 

1302: several groups and the annual modulation of GWB intensity has been 

1303: confirmed in a realistic setup with specific detector output 

1304: \cite{Benacquista:2003th,Edlund:2005ye,Timpano:2005gm}. 

1305: 

1306: 

1307: 

1308: Owing to the expression (\ref{eq:def_of_C(f)}), the time-modulation 

1309: signals $\widetilde{C}(t,f)$ neglecting the instrumental noises are

1310: computed for optimal TDIs at the frequency $\hat{f}=0.1$, i.e., 

1311: $f\simeq1 \mathrm{mHz}$ using the full expression of antenna pattern function 

1312: (\ref{eq:def_of_antenna}). The results are then plotted as function of 

1313: orbital phase. In Fig. \ref{fig:annual data}, six outputs of the 

1314: self- and cross-correlation signals normalized to its time-averaged value, 

1315: $\widetilde{C}(t,f)/|\widetilde{C}_0(f)|$ are shown. 

1316: The solid and dashed lines denote the real and imaginary parts of 

1317: the correlation signals, respectively. 

1318: 

1319: 

1320: The time modulation of these outputs basically reflects the spatial 

1321: structure of GWB. As LISA orbits around the Sun, the direction normal 

1322: to LISA's detector plane, which is the direction sensitive to the 

1323: gravitational waves, sweeps across the Galactic plane. 

1324: Since the response of the LISA detector to the gravitational 

1325: waves along the $\mathbf{\hat{\Omega}}$ direction give the same 

1326: response to the waves along the 

1327: $-\mathbf{\hat{\Omega}}$ direction 

1328: (see Eq.(\ref{eq:Y_lm expansion of S and F}) and the brief comment

1329: there), the time-modulation signal is expected to have a bimodal 

1330: structure, like $AA$- and $EE$-correlations. 

1331: However, the actual modulation signals are more complicated, depending 

1332: on the angular sensitivity of their antenna pattern functions, as well 

1333: as the observed frequency. Further, the cross-correlation data can be 

1334: generally complex variables, whose behaviors are different between 

1335: real- and imaginary-parts. 

1336: 

1337: 

1338: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  Figure %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1339: \begin{figure}[t]

1340: \begin{center}

1341:  \includegraphics[width=5.7cm,clip]{figs/signal/signal_AA_f01.eps}

1342: \hspace*{0cm}

1343:  \includegraphics[width=5.7cm,clip]{figs/signal/signal_EE_f01.eps}

1344: \hspace*{0cm}

1345:  \includegraphics[width=5.7cm,clip]{figs/signal/signal_TT_f01.eps}

1346: \end{center}

1347: \begin{center}

1348:  \includegraphics[width=5.7cm,clip]{figs/signal/signal_AE_f01.eps}

1349: \hspace*{0cm}

1350:  \includegraphics[width=5.7cm,clip]{figs/signal/signal_AT_f01.eps}

1351: \hspace*{0cm}

1352:  \includegraphics[width=5.7cm,clip]{figs/signal/signal_ET_f01.eps}

1353: \end{center}

1354:     \caption{ 

1355:     Annual time-modulation signals of self- and cross-correlation data 

1356:     as function of orbital phase assuming the observed frequency 

1357:     $\hat{f}=0.1$, i.e., $f\simeq1 \mathrm{mHz}$. 

1358:     Here, the correlation signals 

1359:     $\widetilde{C}_{IJ}(t,f)$ are plotted normalizing  

1360:     with $k=0$ component of correlation signal $\widetilde{C}_{IJ,0}(f)$. 

1361:     Solid and dashed lines represent the real and the imaginary 

1362:     part of correlation signal, respectively. 

1363:     }

1364:     \label{fig:annual data}

1365: \end{figure}

1366: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1367: 

1368: 

1369: 

1370: Notice that the time-modulation signals presented in Fig. 

1371: \ref{fig:annual data} are the results in an idealistic situation free 

1372: from the noise contribution. In presence of the random noise, some of 

1373: the correlation data which contain gravitational wave signals are 

1374: overwhelmed by noise, which cannot be used for the reconstruction of 

1375: GWB skymap. Hence, one must consider the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) 

1376: to discriminate available correlation data. 

1377: To evaluate this, the output signals depicted in 

1378: Fig.\ref{fig:annual data} are first transformed to its Fourier counterpart, 

1379: $\widetilde{C}_k(f)$. The resultant Fourier components for each signal 

1380: are then compared to the noise contributions. 

1381: The SNR for each component is expressed in the following form 

1382: (\cite{Seto:2004np}, see also 

1383: \cite{Giampieri:1997,Ungarelli:2001xu}): 

1384: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1385: \begin{equation}

1386: \left(\frac{S}{N}\right)_k =\sqrt{2\,\,\Delta f\,\,T}\,\,

1387: \frac{|\widetilde{C}_k|}{N_k}.  

1388: \label{eq:def_SNR}

1389: \end{equation}

1390: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1391: Here we set the observational time to $T=10^8$sec and the bandwidth to 

1392: $\Delta f=10^{-3}$Hz. The quantity $N_k$ represents the noise 

1393: contribution. The important remark is that the noise contribution 

1394: comes from not only the detector noise but also the randomness of 

1395: the signal itself. The details of the analytic expression for $N_k$ 

1396: will be given elsewhere \cite{Kudoh:2005inprep}. 

1397: Here, as a crude estimate, we evaluate the noise contribution $N_k$ as 

1398: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1399: \begin{equation}

1400: N_k= \sqrt{2\,\,\Delta f\,\,T}\,\,S_n^{II}, \quad(I= A,~E,~T) 

1401: \end{equation}

1402: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1403: for $k=0$ component of self-correlation signals and 

1404: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1405: \begin{equation}

1406: N_k= \sqrt{\mbox{max}\left(\widetilde{C}_{II,0}\widetilde{C}_{JJ,0},

1407: ~\widetilde{C}_{II,0}S_n^{JJ},~

1408: \widetilde{C}_{JJ,0}S_n^{II},~S_n^{II}S_n^{JJ}\right) }, 

1409: \quad (I,J= A,~E,~T) 

1410: \end{equation}

1411: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1412: for cross-correlation signals and $k\neq0$ component of self-correlation signals. 

1413: To estimate SNR, one further needs the spectral density for instrumental 

1414: noise, i.e., $S_n^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm AA}(f)$, 

1415: $S_n^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm EE}(f)$ and $S_n^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm

1416: TT}(f)$. We use the expressions given in equation (58) of Paper I 

1417: (see also \cite{Cornish:2001bb,Prince:2002hp})

1418: \footnote{In equation (58) of Paper I, there are some typos in the

1419: numerical values of $S_{\rm shot}(f)$ and $S_{\rm accel}(f)$. 

1420: In the present paper, we adopt $S_{\rm shot}(f)=1.6\times10^{-41}$Hz$^{-1}$ 

1421: and $S_{\rm accel}(f)=2.31\times10^{-41}(\mbox{mHz}/f)^4$Hz$^{-1}$ 

1422: according to Refs.\cite{Bender:1998,Cornish:2001bb}.}.

1423: Note that all the cross-correlated noise spectra such as 

1424: $S_n^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm AE}(f)$ and $S_n^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm AT}(f)$ 

1425: are exactly canceled. 

1426:  

1427: 

1428: 

1429: 

1430: In Fig.\ref{fig:SNR}, the SNRs for six output data are evaluated and 

1431: are shown in the histogram as function of Fourier component, $k$. 

1432: In these panels, thick-dotted lines show the detection limit of 

1433: $(S/N)_k=5$, while the thin-dotted lines mean $(S/N)_k=1$. When 

1434: evaluating the SNR, we specifically consider the two cases: 

1435: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1436: \begin{description}

1437: \item[Case A:]\quad realistic case in which 

1438: the rms amplitude of GWB spectrum is given by 

1439: $S_h^{1/2}=5\times10^{-19}$Hz$^{-1/2}$ at the frequency 

1440: $f=1$mHz \footnote{The amplitude of GWB spectrum might be reduced 

1441: by a factor of $2\sim5$ according to the recent numerical simulations 

1442: \cite{Edlund:2005ye,Timpano:2005gm}. 

1443: In case A, however, the noise contributions in SNR (\ref{eq:def_SNR}) 

1444: used for reconstruction analysis are basically determined by the $k=0$ 

1445: components of self-correlation signals, i.e., 

1446: $N_k=\sqrt{\widetilde{C}_{II,0}\widetilde{C}_{JJ,0}}$. 

1447: Hence, a slight change of the GWB amplitude would not alter the final results.}.

1448: \item[Case B:]\quad optimistic case in which the rms amplitude of GWB 

1449: spectrum is ten times larger than that in the realistic case, i.e., 

1450: $S_h^{1/2}=5\times10^{-18}$Hz$^{-1/2}$ at $f=1$mHz.

1451: \end{description}

1452: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1453: The results of SNR are then shown in solid (case A) and dashed lines 

1454: (case B), respectively. 

1455: 

1456: 

1457: 

1458: As anticipated from the sensitivity of antenna pattern function in Table 

1459: \ref{tab:summay_antenna}, the SNR for $TT$-correlation is much less than unity. 

1460: Even in the optimistic case, the SNR is about ten times smaller than

1461: unity and thus the $TT$-correlation data cannot be used for

1462: reconstruction of the GWB skymap. Apart from this, the SNRs for the 

1463: self-correlation signals $AA$ and $EE$ as well as for the

1464: cross-correlation signal $AE$ are generally good compared to the 

1465: cross-correlation data $AT$ and $ET$. With sufficient higher SNR of 

1466: $(S/N)_k\geq5$, the available Fourier components of $AA$-, $EE$- and 

1467: $AE$-correlations become 

1468: $k=-2,\,-1,\,0,\,+1,\,+2$ in both realistic and optimistic cases. 

1469: This is consistent with the previous estimates \cite{Seto:2004np}.

1470: \footnote{The precise numerical values of the SNR for $AA$- and 

1471: $EE$-correlations slightly differ from Ref.~\cite{Seto:2004np}. 

1472: This is mainly because the Euler rotation angles for the LISA orbital 

1473: motion given in Sec.\ref{subsec:correlation} are different from 

1474: those in \cite{Seto:2004np}. } 

1475: On the other hand, with a large amplitude of GWB spectrum (case B), 

1476: only the $k=0$ component is accessible in the signal combinations of 

1477: $AT$ and $ET$. This is mainly due to the fact that the sensitivity of 

1478: the $T$-variable is poor at low-frequency and thereby the noise 

1479: contribution $N_k$ becomes 

1480: $\{\widetilde{C}_{AA,0}S_n^{\rm\scriptscriptstyle TT}\}^{1/2}$ or 

1481: $\{\widetilde{C}_{EE,0}S_n^{\rm\scriptscriptstyle TT}\}^{1/2}$, 

1482: which is much larger than   

1483: $\{\widetilde{C}_{AA,0}\widetilde{C}_{TT,0}\}^{1/2}$ or 

1484: $\{\widetilde{C}_{EE,0}\widetilde{C}_{TT,0}\}^{1/2}$.

1485: 

1486: 

1487: Thus, the available Fourier components of correlation data used for 

1488: the reconstruction of the skymap would be severely restricted in practice.  

1489: Under such restricted situation, the deconvolution problem of the linear system 

1490: (\ref{eq:deconvolution}) tends to be \textit{under-determined}. 

1491: Nevertheless, as it will be shown below, one can determine the $\ell=0$, 

1492: $2$ and $4$ modes of multipole coefficients of the Galactic GWB with 

1493: sufficiently small errors. 

1494: In addition, with the $k=0$ components of $AT$- and $ET$-correlations, 

1495: the odd moments $\ell=1$ and $3$ can be recovered. 

1496: 

1497: 

1498: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  Figure %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1499: \begin{figure}[t]

1500: \begin{center}

1501:  \includegraphics[width=5.7cm,clip]{figs/snr/snr_AA_f01.eps}

1502: \hspace*{0cm}

1503:  \includegraphics[width=5.7cm,clip]{figs/snr/snr_EE_f01.eps}

1504: \hspace*{0cm}

1505:  \includegraphics[width=5.7cm,clip]{figs/snr/snr_TT_f01.eps}

1506: \end{center}

1507: \begin{center}

1508:  \includegraphics[width=5.7cm,clip]{figs/snr/snr_AE_f01.eps}

1509: \hspace*{0cm}

1510:  \includegraphics[width=5.7cm,clip]{figs/snr/snr_AT_f01.eps}

1511: \hspace*{0cm}

1512:  \includegraphics[width=5.7cm,clip]{figs/snr/snr_ET_f01.eps}

1513: \end{center}

1514:     \caption{ 

1515:       Signal-to-noise ratio for each Fourier component of  

1516:       correlation signals, $(S/N)_k$ estimated at 

1517:       $\hat{f}=0.1$ ($f\simeq1$mHz). The histogram depicted in solid line 

1518:       indicates the case with the amplitude of Galactic GWB given by 

1519:       $S_h^{1/2}=5\times10^{-19}$Hz$^{-1/2}$ at $f=1$mHz (case A),  

1520:       while the histogram in dashed 

1521:       line represents the signal-to-noise ratio for the case with 

1522:       $S_h^{1/2}=5\times10^{-18}$Hz$^{-1/2}$ (case B). The thin-dashed,  

1523:       and thick-dashed lines respectively denote 

1524:       the lines of $(S/N)_k=1$ and $5$. 

1525:        }

1526:     \label{fig:SNR}

1527: \end{figure}

1528: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1529: %

1530: %

1531: %

1532: %

1533: %

1534: %

1535: %

1536: % ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// %

1537:    \subsection{Reconstruction of a skymap}

1538: \label{subsec:reconstruction}

1539: % ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// %

1540: 

1541: 

1542: Keeping the remarks on the SNR estimation in previous subsection in

1543: mind, we now proceed to a reconstruction analysis and test the validity

1544: of perturbative reconstruction method presented in Sec. \ref{sec:method}. 

1545: For this purpose, in addition to the analysis in the under-constrained cases 

1546: (case A and B) mentioned above, we also consider the over-constrained 

1547: case as an illustrative example. 

1548: 

1549: 

1550: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  TABLE  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1551: \begin{table}[b]

1552: \caption{

1553: Components of $\widetilde{C}_k$ used for reconstruction analysis based 

1554: on the harmonic-Fourier representation}

1555: \begin{ruledtabular}

1556: \begin{tabular}{c|cccccc}

1557:  & AA & EE & TT & AE & AT & ET 

1558: \\

1559: \hline

1560: Over-determined case & $-2\leq k\leq +2$ & $-2\leq k \leq +2$ & none 

1561: & $-8 \leq k \leq +8$ & $-4 \leq k \leq +4$ & $-4 \leq k \leq +4$ 

1562: \\

1563: Under-determined case & & & & & & \\

1564: case A & $-2\leq k\leq +2$ & $-2\leq k \leq +2$ & none 

1565: & $-2 \leq k \leq +2$ & none & none 

1566: \\

1567: case B & $-2\leq k\leq +2$ & $-2\leq k \leq +2$ & none 

1568: & $-2 \leq k \leq +2$ & $k=0$ & $k=0$

1569: \end{tabular}

1570: \label{tab:components_used}

1571: \end{ruledtabular}

1572: \end{table}

1573: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  TABLE  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1574: 

1575: 

1576: % ------------------------------------------------------------- %

1577: \subsubsection{Over-determined case}

1578: \label{subsubsec:over-determined}

1579: % ------------------------------------------------------------- %

1580: 

1581: \textit{(I) Harmonic-Fourier representation} \quad

1582: Let us first focus on a very idealistic situation that the noise 

1583: contributions are entirely neglected. In such a case, all the components 

1584: of self- and cross-correlation data $\widetilde{C}_k$ are available to 

1585: the reconstruction analysis. 

1586: In practice, however, it is sufficient to consider some restricted 

1587: components among all available data. 

1588: Here, to make a skymap with multipoles of $\ell\leq5$, we use the 

1589: $k=-2\sim+2$ components of self-correlation signals  

1590: $AA$ and $EE$, the $k=-4\sim+4$ components of cross-correlation signals 

1591: $AT$ and $ET$, and $k=-8\sim+8$ components of $AE$-signal 

1592: (see Table \ref{tab:components_used}). Even in this case, the linear 

1593: system (\ref{eq:deconvolution}) is still over-determined and the 

1594: least-squares approximation by SVD is potentially powerful to obtain 

1595: the multipole coefficients of anisotropic GWB. 

1596: The procedure of reconstruction analysis is the same one as presented in 

1597: Fig.\ref{fig:flowchart}. 

1598: For the output signals of harmonic-Fourier representation, we use the 

1599: data $\widetilde{C}_k$ observed at the frequencies 

1600: $\hat{f}=0.05$ and $0.15$, in addition to the data for our interest at 

1601: $\hat{f}=0.1$. 

1602: Collecting these multi-frequency data, the perturbative expansion form 

1603: of the vector $\mathbf{c}(f)$ is specified up to the third order in 

1604: $\hat{f}$ and the coefficients $\mathbf{c}^{(i)}$ are determined 

1605: (Appendix \ref{appendix:SVD}). 

1606: 

1607: 

1608: 

1609: In Fig.\ref{fig:reconstructed_skymap1}, the reconstructed results of 

1610: multipole coefficients $p_{\ell m}$ are converted to the projected 

1611: intensity distribution 

1612: (\ref{eq:Y_lm expansion of S and F}) and are shown as Hammer-Aitoff map 

1613: in Galactic coordinate. 

1614: Left panel shows the skymap reconstructed from the lowest-order signals 

1615: of self- and cross-correlation data 

1616: $\mathbf{c}^{(2)}$, which only includes the $\ell=0$, $2$ and $4$ modes, 

1617: while right panel is the result taking account of the leading-order correction 

1618: $\mathbf{c}^{(3)}$. Comparing those with the expected skymap shown in 

1619: Fig.\ref{fig:expected_skymap}, the reconstruction seems almost perfect. 

1620: In Fig. \ref{fig:reconstructed_plm1}, numerical values of the

1621: reconstructed multipole coefficients are compared with the true values 

1622: listed in Table \ref{tab:summay_multipole}. The agreement between the 

1623: reconstruction results ({\it open circles}) and the true values 

1624: ({\it crosses}) is quite good and the fractional errors are well within 

1625: a few percent except for $p_{20}$ and $p_{50}$. 

1626: A remarkable fact is that the monopole and the quadrupole values can be 

1627: reproduced reasonably well despite the presence of the degeneracy 

1628: mentioned in Appendix.\ref{appendix:on_the_degeneracy}. 

1629: This is just an accidental result. The (small) discrepancy in the ``recovered'' 

1630: $p_{20}$ can be ascribed to the expression (\ref{eq:fake_solution}). 

1631: After all, the least-squares method by SVD provides a robust

1632: reconstruction method when the linear system (\ref{eq:deconvolution}) 

1633: becomes over-determined. 

1634: 

1635: 

1636: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  Figure %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1637: \begin{figure}[t]

1638: \begin{center}

1639:  \includegraphics[width=8.3cm,clip]{figs/map_GC_JpegEPS/gwb_reconst_l0-2-4.eps}

1640: \hspace{0.3cm}

1641:  \includegraphics[width=8.3cm,clip]{figs/map_GC_JpegEPS/gwb_reconst_l0-5.eps}

1642: \end{center}

1643:    \caption{Reconstructed skymap from the time-modulation signals in 

1644:       the {\it{over-determined}} case. The results were obtained 

1645:       by the method based on harmonic-Fourier representation and are 

1646:       plotted in the Galactic coordinate. 

1647:       The left panel shows the leading-order result,  

1648:       where $\ell=0$, $2$ and $4$ modes are only reconstructed, while  

1649:       the right panel represents the result including all reconstructed 

1650:       multipoles ($\ell\leq5$). 

1651:      }

1652:     \label{fig:reconstructed_skymap1}

1653: \end{figure}

1654: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1655: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  Figure %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1656: \begin{figure}[tp]

1657: \begin{center}

1658:  \includegraphics[width=8.3cm,clip]{figs/error/plm.eps}

1659: \end{center}

1660:  \caption{

1661:  Reconstructed values of multipole coefficients $|p_{\ell m}|$  

1662:  in over-determined case.  These numerical values are 

1663:  evaluated in the ecliptic frame. 

1664:  The open circles represent the reconstruction results, while the 

1665:  crosses mean the true values, which are obtained from the spherical 

1666:  harmonic expansion of full-resolution skymap 

1667:    (see Table \ref{tab:summay_multipole}).} 

1668:    \label{fig:reconstructed_plm1}

1669: \end{figure}

1670: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1671: 

1672: 

1673: \textit{(II) Time-series representation} \quad 

1674: The successful reconstruction of the GWB skymap can also be achieved 

1675: by the alternative approach based on the time-series representation 

1676: (\ref{eq:def_of_C(f)}). Following the procedure presented in 

1677: Sec.\ref{subsec:time-domain}, the intensity skymap of the GWB is 

1678: directly obtained and the results taking account of the lowest-order 

1679: and the leading-order contributions to the antenna pattern functions 

1680: are shown in left and right panels in 

1681: Fig.\ref{fig:reconstructed skymap2}, respectively. 

1682: Here, to create the discretized data set (\ref{eq:discrete_eq}), the

1683: number of grid and/or mesh was specified as $M=16$ in time and 

1684: $N=17\times32$ in spherical coordinate. The time-series data of antenna 

1685: pattern functions were numerically generated based on the full analytic 

1686: expressions given in Sec.\ref{subsec:antenna_pattern} under assuming

1687: that the arm-length of the three space crafts are rigidly kept fixed. 

1688: The reconstructed skymap reasonably agrees with 

1689: Fig.\ref{fig:reconstructed_skymap1} as well as Fig.\ref{fig:expected_skymap}. 

1690: Although the situation considered here is very idealistic and thus the 

1691: results in Fig.\ref{fig:reconstructed skymap2} should be regarded as 

1692: just a preliminary one, one expects that the methodology based on the 

1693: time-series representation is potentially powerful even when the rigid 

1694: adiabatic treatment of space craft motion becomes inadequate. 

1695: To discuss its effectiveness, a further investigation is needed. 

1696: The details of the analysis including the effects of arm-length 

1697: variation will be presented elsewhere. 

1698: 

1699: 

1700: 

1701: 

1702: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  Figure %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1703: \begin{figure}[t]

1704: \begin{center}

1705:  \includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{figs/map_GC_JpegEPS/gwb_reconst_l0-2-4_time.eps}

1706:  \includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{figs/map_GC_JpegEPS/gwb_reconst_l0-5_time.eps}

1707: \end{center}

1708:  \caption{Reconstructed skymap from the time-modulation signals 

1709:  based on the time-series representation. Here, 

1710:  to perform the 

1711:  reconstruction analysis, the number of grid and/or mesh 

1712:  for the discretized data set (\ref{eq:discrete_eq}) 

1713:  was specified as $M=16$ in time and $N=17\times32$ in 

1714:  spherical coordinate.  

1715:  The left panel shows the lowest-order result 

1716:  in which only the $\ell=0$, $2$ and $4$ modes are included, 

1717:  while  the right panel represents the result taking account of 

1718:  the leading-order correction to the antenna pattern functions,  

1719:  which includes the multipoles, $\ell \leq5$. 

1720:  }

1721:  \label{fig:reconstructed skymap2}

1722: \end{figure}

1723: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1724: 

1725: 

1726: % ------------------------------------------------------------- %

1727: \subsubsection{Under-determined case}

1728: \label{subsubsec:under-determined}

1729: % ------------------------------------------------------------- %

1730: 

1731: 

1732: 

1733: Turning to focus on the analysis based on the harmonic-Fourier 

1734: representation, we next consider the under-constrained case in which 

1735: the number of available Fourier components is restricted due to the 

1736: noises (case A and B discussed in Sec.\ref{subsec:on_snr}). 

1737: Fig.\ref{fig:reconstructed skymap3} shows the reconstructed images of 

1738: GWB intensity map in Galactic coordinate, free from the noises but ]

1739: restricting the number of Fourier components according to Table 

1740: \ref{tab:components_used}. 

1741: The top panel is the intensity map obtained from the lowest-order signals 

1742: $\mathbf{c}^{(2)}$.  

1743: Since the accessible Fourier components are basically the same in 

1744: the lowest-order analysis, the same results are obtained between case A and B. 

1745: On the other hand, the bottom panels of Fig.\ref{fig:reconstructed

1746: skymap3} represent the skymap reconstructed from both 

1747: $\mathbf{c}^{(2)}$ and $\mathbf{c}^{(3)}$, which indicate that the

1748: different images of GWB skymap are obtained depending on the available 

1749: number of Fourier components (or the amplitude of GWB spectrum); 

1750: case A ({\it left}) and case B ({\it right}). 

1751: In Fig.\ref{fig:reconstructed_plm3}, numerical values of the 

1752: reconstructed multipoles $p_{\ell m}$ in ecliptic coordinate are 

1753: summarized together with the statistical errors. 

1754: The statistical errors were roughly estimated according to the

1755: discussion in Appendix \ref{appendix:statistical_error} based on the SNR 

1756: [Eq. (\ref{eq:def_SNR})]. 

1757: 

1758: 

1759: It turns out that the case A fails to reconstruct all the dipole

1760: moments, while they can be somehow reproduced in the case B. 

1761: This is because the cross-correlation data $AT$ and $ET$ which include 

1762: the information about $\ell=1$ modes were not used in the reconstruction 

1763: analysis in case A. Although the $\ell=5$ modes of multipole

1764: coefficients 

1765: were not reproduced well in both cases, their contributions to the

1766: intensity distribution are not large. Hence, the reconstructed GWB 

1767: skymap in case B roughly matches the expected intensity map in 

1768: Fig.\ref{fig:expected_skymap} and the visual impression becomes better 

1769: than case A. This readily implies that large amplitude of the GWB 

1770: spectrum is required for a correct reconstruction of a skymap, 

1771: in practice. However, it should be emphasized that the present 

1772: reconstruction technique can work well in the under-determined cases. 

1773: Even in the realistic situation with smaller amplitude of GWB 

1774: spectrum (case A), the reconstructed skymap including the multipoles 

1775: $\ell<5$ still shows a disk-like structure, which may provide an

1776: important clue to discriminate between the Galactic and the

1777: extragalactic GWBs. 

1778: 

1779: 

1780: 

1781: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  Figure %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1782: \begin{figure}[t]

1783: \begin{center}

1784:  \includegraphics[width=8.3cm,clip]{figs/map_GC_JpegEPS/gwb_reconst_restricted_l0-2-4.eps}

1785: \end{center}

1786: \begin{center}

1787:  \includegraphics[width=8.3cm,clip]{figs/map_GC_JpegEPS/gwb_reconst_restricted_l0-5.eps}

1788: \hspace*{0.3cm}

1789:  \includegraphics[width=8.3cm,clip]{figs/map_GC_JpegEPS/gwb_reconst_restricted2_l0-5.eps}

1790: \end{center}

1791:  \caption{Reconstructed skymap from the time-modulation signals 

1792:  using the restricted Fourier components in {\it{under-determined}} cases 

1793:  (case A, B). These are all plotted in Galactic coordinate. 

1794:  The upper panel shows the result from lowest-order 

1795:  analysis in which only the multipole coefficients of 

1796:  $\ell=0,\,2$ and $4$ modes are considered. 

1797:  The bottom panels are the intensity map taking account of the 

1798:  leading-order correction including the multipoles, $\ell<5$. Left and 

1799:  right panels respectively show the results obtained from the case A and B.  

1800:  Note that the available number of Fourier components was restricted in 

1801:  the reconstruction analysis according to Table \ref{tab:components_used}. }

1802:     \label{fig:reconstructed skymap3}

1803: \end{figure}

1804: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1805: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  Figure %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1806: \begin{figure}[ht]

1807: \begin{center}

1808:  \includegraphics[width=8.3cm,clip]{figs/error/plm_restricted1.eps}

1809: \hspace*{0.3cm}

1810:  \includegraphics[width=8.3cm,clip]{figs/error/plm_restricted2.eps}

1811: \end{center}

1812:  \caption{Reconstructed values of the multipole coefficients 

1813:  $|p_{\ell m}|$ in the under-constrained cases. 

1814:  The numerical values are evaluated in the ecliptic coordinates. 

1815:  Left (right) panel shows the result in case A (case B). The open

1816:  circles with error bar represent the reconstruction results, while 

1817:  the crosses mean the true values. The error bars represent the

1818:  statistical error in the signal processing. The evaluation of the error 

1819:  is discussed in Appendix \ref{appendix:statistical_error}. 

1820:  }

1821:  \label{fig:reconstructed_plm3}

1822: \end{figure}

1823: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1824: %

1825: %

1826: %

1827: %

1828: %

1829: %

1830: %

1831: %

1832: %

1833: %

1834: %

1835: %

1836: % ==============================================================%

1837: % ==============================================================%

1838:     \section{Conclusion and Discussion}

1839:     \label{sec:conclusion}

1840: % ==============================================================%

1841: % ==============================================================%

1842: %

1843: %

1844: %

1845: %

1846: In this paper, we have presented a perturbative reconstruction method to 

1847: make a skymap of GWB observed via space interferometer.  

1848: The orbital motion of the detector makes the output signals of GWB 

1849: time-dependent due to the presence of anisotropies of GWB. 

1850: Since the output signals of GWB are obtained through an all-sky integral 

1851: of primary signals convolving with an antenna pattern function of 

1852: gravitational-wave detectors, the time dependence of output data can 

1853: be used to reconstruct the luminosity distribution of GWBs under full 

1854: knowledge of detector's antenna pattern functions. 

1855: Focusing on the low-frequency regime, we have explicitly given a 

1856: non-parametric reconstruction method based on both the 

1857: \textit{harmonic-Fourier} and the \textit{time-series} representation. 

1858: With a help of low-frequency expansion of the antenna pattern functions, 

1859: the least-squares approximation by SVD enables us to obtain the

1860: multipole coefficients of GWB or direct intensity map even when the

1861: system becomes over-determined or under-determined. 

1862: For illustrative purpose, the reconstruction analysis of the GWB skymap 

1863: has been demonstrated for the confusion-noise background of Galactic 

1864: binaries around the low-frequency $f=1$mHz. It then turned out that the 

1865: space interferometer LISA free from the noises is capable of making a 

1866: skymap of Galactic GWB with angular resolution up to the multipoles, 

1867: $\ell=5$. For more realistic case based on the estimation of 

1868: signal-to-noise ratios, the system tends to become under-determined 

1869: and the number of Fourier components used in reconstruction analysis 

1870: would be severely restricted. 

1871: Nevertheless, the resultant skymap still contains the information 

1872: of the multipoles up to $\ell<5$, from which one can infer that 

1873: the main sources of GWB come from the Galactic center. 

1874: 

1875: 

1876: Although the present paper focuses on the reconstruction of the GWB 

1877: skymap from the LISA, the methodology discussed in Sec.\ref{sec:method} 

1878: is quite general and is also applicable to the reconstruction of 

1879: low-frequency skymap obtained from the ground detectors as well as 

1880: the other space interferometers, provided their antenna pattern functions. 

1881: Despite a wide applicability of the present method, however, accessible 

1882: multipole moments of low-frequency GWB are generally restricted to lower 

1883: multipoles due to the properties of antenna pattern functions.  

1884: This would be generally true in any gravitational-wave detectors 

1885: at the frequencies $f<f_*=c/(2\pi L)$, where $L$ is arm-length of 

1886: single detector or separation between the two detectors. 

1887: Hence, with the limited angular resolution, only the present methodology 

1888: may not give a powerful constraint on the luminosity distribution of

1889: GWBs. In this respect, we need to combine the other techniques such as 

1890: the parametric reconstruction method, in which we specifically assume an 

1891: explicit functional form of the luminosity distribution characterized by 

1892: the finite number of model parameters and determine them through the 

1893: likelihood analysis.  The data analysis strategy to give a tight

1894: constraint on the luminosity distribution is definitely a very important 

1895: issue and it must be considered urgently. 

1896: Nevertheless, we note that detectable multipole moments depend

1897: practically on the signal-to-noise ratios.  Since the signal-to-noise 

1898: ratios are determined both from the amplitude of GWB and detector's 

1899: intrinsic noises, a further feasibility study is necessary in order 

1900: to clarify the detectable multipole moments correctly. 

1901: With improved data analysis strategy, it might be even possible that 

1902: the angular resolution of GWB skymap becomes better than that of LISA 

1903: considered in the present paper.  

1904: 

1905: 

1906: Another important issue on the map-making problem is to consider the 

1907: reconstruction of skymap beyond the low-frequency regime, where the 

1908: antenna pattern functions give a complicated response to the anisotropic 

1909: GWBs and thereby the angular resolution of GWB map can be improved 

1910: \cite{Kudoh:2004he}. 

1911: Since the low-frequency expansion cannot be used there, a new 

1912: reconstruction technique should be devised to extract the information 

1913: of anisotropic GWBs. 

1914: Further, in the case of LISA, the effect of arm-length variation becomes 

1915: important and the rigid adiabatic treatment of the detector response 

1916: cannot be validated. Hence, as emphasized in

1917: Sec.\ref{subsec:time-domain}, it would become essential to consider the 

1918: reconstruction method based on the time-series representation, in which 

1919: no additional assumptions for spacecraft configuration and/or motion are 

1920: needed to compute the antenna pattern functions. The analysis concerning 

1921: this issue will be presented elsewhere. 

1922: %

1923: %

1924: %

1925: %

1926: %

1927: %

1928: %

1929: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1930: \begin{acknowledgments}

1931: We would like to thank N. Seto for valuable comments on the estimation of

1932: signal-to-noise ratios. 

1933: We also thank Y. Himemoto and T. Hiramatsu for discussions and comments, 

1934: T. Takiwaki and K. Yahata for the technical support to plot the skymap. 

1935: The work of H.K. is supported by the 

1936: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research of Japan Society for Promotion of Science. 

1937: \end{acknowledgments} 

1938: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1939: %

1940: %

1941: %

1942: %

1943: %

1944: %

1945: \appendix

1946: % -------------------------------------------------------------%

1947: % -------------------------------------------------------------%

1948: \section{Multipole coefficients of antenna 

1949: pattern functions in low-frequency regime}

1950: \label{appendix:Mulipole coefficients}

1951: % -------------------------------------------------------------%

1952: % -------------------------------------------------------------%

1953: %

1954: %

1955: %

1956: %

1957: %

1958: In this appendix, based on the analytic expression (21) of paper I, 

1959: the multipole moments for antenna pattern functions of optimal TDIs 

1960: are calculated at detector's rest frame. 

1961: Using the low-frequency approximation $\hat{f}\ll1$, we present the 

1962: perturbative expressions up to the forth order in $\hat{f}$. 

1963: 

1964: 

1965: To evaluate the antenna pattern functions, we must first specify the 

1966: directional unit vectors $\mathbf{a}$, $\mathbf{b}$ and $\mathbf{c}$, 

1967: which connect respective spacecrafts.

1968: Here, we specifically choose (Fig. 1 and Eq.(28) of Paper I): 

1969: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1970: \begin{eqnarray} 

1971: \mathbf{a} = 

1972: -\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\,\mathbf{x}  + \frac{1}{2}\,\mathbf{y} ,

1973: \quad\quad

1974: \mathbf{b} = -\mathbf{y} ,

1975: \quad\quad

1976: \mathbf{c} = 

1977: \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\,\mathbf{x}  + \frac{1}{2}\,\mathbf{y} ,

1978: \nonumber

1979: \end{eqnarray} 

1980: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1981: where the vectors $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{y}$ respectively denote 

1982: the unit vectors parallel to the $x$- and $y$-axes in detector's rest 

1983: frame (see Fig.1 of Paper I). 

1984: Then, based on the expression (\ref{eq:def AET mode}), the antenna 

1985: pattern functions of the optimal TDIs, $\mathcal{F}_{IJ}$ 

1986: $(I,J=A,E,T)$ are analytically computed at detector's rest frame. 

1987: Their multipole moments become 

1988: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1989: \begin{equation}

1990: a_{\ell m}(\hat{f}) = \int_0^{\pi}d\theta\,\int_0^{2\pi}\,d\phi\,

1991: \sin\theta\,\,Y_{\ell m}^*(\theta,\phi)\,\,\mathcal{F}(\hat{f},\theta,\phi),

1992: \end{equation}

1993: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1994: which are expressed as a function of normalized frequency 

1995: $\hat{f}=f/f_*$. 

1996: Here, for definiteness, we write down the explicit form of the harmonic 

1997: functions $Y_{\ell m}$:  

1998: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1999: \begin{eqnarray}

2000: Y_{\ell}^m (\theta,\phi) 

2001: = \sqrt{\frac{2\ell +1}{4\pi}\,\frac{(\ell-m)!}{(\ell+m)!}} \,\,

2002: P_{\ell}^m(\cos\theta)\,\, e^{i m \phi}.

2003: \label{eq:harmonic_Y_lm}

2004: \end{eqnarray}

2005: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2006: 

2007: 

2008: The analytic expressions for the multipole moments $a_{\ell m}$ are 

2009: generally intractable due to the complicated form of the antenna 

2010: pattern functions. In the low-frequency regime, however, the 

2011: perturbative treatment regarding $\hat{f}$ as a small expansion 

2012: parameter is applied to derive an analytic expression of multipole 

2013: moments. Below, we summarize the perturbation results up to the fourth 

2014: order in $\hat{f}$:  

2015: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2016: \begin{eqnarray}

2017: {\mathcal F}_{AA} :

2018: &&

2019: a_{00}= \frac{2\sqrt{\pi}}{5}\,\hat{f}^2 - 

2020: \frac{211\sqrt{\pi}}{1260}\,\hat{f}^4,

2021: \quad

2022: a_{20}=\frac{4}{7}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{5}}\,\hat{f}^2- 

2023: \frac{16}{63}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{5}}\,\hat{f}^4

2024: \quad

2025: a_{22}= - \frac{1-i \,\sqrt{3}}{756}

2026:       {\sqrt{\frac{15\pi }{2}}}\,{\hat f}^4,

2027: \cr

2028: &&

2029: a_{40}= \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{105}\,{\hat f}^2 +

2030: \frac{13\sqrt{\pi}}{9240}\,{\hat f}^4, 

2031: \quad

2032: a_{42}= \frac{13 (1-i{\sqrt{3}})}{5544} \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{10}}\,{\hat f}^4, 

2033: \quad

2034: a_{44}=-\frac{1+i \sqrt{3}}{6}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{70}}\,{\hat f}^2 

2035: +\frac{13(1+i \sqrt{3})}{792}\sqrt{\frac{5\pi}{14}}\,{\hat f}^4 

2036: \cr

2037: &&

2038: a_{60}= \frac{1}{1848}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{13}} \,{\hat f}^4 ,

2039: \qquad

2040: a_{62}=  -\frac{(1 -i\,\sqrt{3} )}{4752} 

2041: \sqrt{\frac{3\pi }{455}}\,{\hat f}^4 ,

2042: \qquad

2043: a_{64}= -\frac{1+i\sqrt{3}}{396} \sqrt{\frac{\pi }{182}}\,{\hat f}^4,

2044: \end{eqnarray}

2045: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2046: for self-correlated antenna pattern, $\mathcal{F}_{AA}$.   Note that 

2047: the multipole moments of ${\mathcal F}_{EE}$ are related to those of 

2048: $\mathcal{F}_{AA}$ through the relations,  

2049: $a_{\ell m}^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm EE}=

2050: a_{\ell m}^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm AA}$ for $m=0,\pm6,\pm12,\pm18,\cdots$ and 

2051: $a_{\ell m}^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm EE}=

2052: -a_{\ell m}^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm AA}$ for $m=\pm2,\pm4,\pm 8,\cdots$ 

2053: (see Paper I). The multipole moments of cross-correlation signals are 

2054: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2055: \begin{eqnarray}

2056: {\mathcal F}_{AE} :

2057: &&

2058: a_{22}= \frac{3+ i\sqrt{3}}{756} \sqrt{\frac{5\pi}{2}}\,{\hat f}^4,

2059: \quad

2060: a_{33}=\frac{1}{18}  \sqrt{\frac{7\pi}{15}}\,{\hat f}^3 ,

2061: \quad

2062: a_{42}= - \frac{ 13(\sqrt{3}+i)}{5544} \sqrt{\frac{\pi }{10}}\,{\hat f}^4,

2063: \quad

2064: \cr

2065: && 

2066: a_{44}= \frac{\sqrt{3} -i}{6}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{70}}\,\hat{f}^2  

2067: -\frac{13(\sqrt{3} -i)}{792}\sqrt{\frac{5\pi}{14}}\,\hat{f}^4,   

2068: \quad

2069: a_{53}=  \frac{1}{18}  \sqrt{\frac{\pi }{1155}}\,{\hat f}^3,

2070: \quad

2071: a_{62}= \frac{\sqrt{3} + i}{4752}\sqrt{ \frac{3\pi}{455} }\,{\hat f}^4,

2072: \cr

2073: &&

2074: a_{64}=  \frac{ \sqrt{3}-i }{396}  \sqrt{\frac{\pi }{182}}\,{\hat f}^4,

2075: \end{eqnarray}

2076: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2077: 

2078: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2079: \begin{eqnarray}

2080: {\mathcal F}_{AT } :

2081: &&

2082: a_{11}=  \frac{ ( 1 +i  \sqrt{3} ) \sqrt{\pi}}{168}\,{\hat f}^3,

2083: \quad

2084: a_{22}= -\frac{\sqrt{3}+i}{864}\sqrt{\frac{3\pi }{5}}\,{\hat f}^4,

2085: \quad

2086: a_{31}= \frac{1+i\sqrt{3}}{72}{\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{14}}}\, {\hat f}^3   ,

2087: \quad

2088: \cr

2089: && 

2090: a_{42}=  \frac{ \sqrt{3}+i}{3168}{\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{5}}}\,{\hat f}^4  ,

2091: \quad

2092: a_{44}=  \frac{17(\sqrt{3}-i)}{3168}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{35}}\,{\hat f}^4,

2093: \quad

2094: a_{51}= \frac{ 1 +i \sqrt{3}}{1008}{\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{55}}}\,{\hat f}^3 ,

2095: \cr

2096: &&

2097: a_{55}= \frac{1 -i\sqrt{3}}{72}{\sqrt{\frac{3\pi }{154}}}\,{\hat f}^3,

2098: \quad

2099: a_{62}= \frac{\sqrt{3}+i}{4752}{\sqrt{\frac{3\pi }{910}}}\,{\hat f}^4,

2100: \quad

2101: a_{64}= \frac{\sqrt{3} - i}{3168}{\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{91}}}\,{\hat f}^4.

2102: \end{eqnarray}

2103: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2104: The multipole moments of antenna pattern function $\mathcal{F}_{ET}$ are 

2105: also obtained from those of $\mathcal{F}_{AT}$ using the relation, 

2106: $ a_{\ell m}^{ET} = - (i/\sqrt{3})\, \tan \left(m\pi/3\right) a_{\ell m

2107: }^{AT}$, as shown in Paper I.  

2108: 

2109: 

2110: Finally, we also list the multipole moments of self-correlated antenna 

2111: pattern $\mathcal{F}_{TT}$, which are all higher-order contribution with 

2112: $\mathcal{O}(\hat{f}^4)$:  

2113: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2114: \begin{eqnarray}

2115: {\mathcal F}_{TT} :

2116: &&

2117: a_{00}=  \frac{\sqrt{\pi} }{504}\,{\hat f}^4 ,

2118: \qquad

2119: a_{40}= - \frac{\sqrt{\pi} }{1584}\,{\hat f}^4 ,

2120: \qquad

2121: a_{60}= - \frac{1}{11088} \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{13}}\,{\hat f}^4,

2122: \qquad

2123: a_{66}= - \frac{1}{48} \sqrt{\frac{\pi }{3003}}\,{\hat f}^4 .

2124: \end{eqnarray}

2125: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2126: %

2127: %

2128: %

2129: %

2130: %

2131: %

2132: % ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// %

2133: \section{Remarks on the degeneracy between 

2134: monopole and quadrupole moments for LISA measurement of 

2135: GWB anisotropy}

2136: \label{appendix:on_the_degeneracy}

2137: % ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// %

2138: %

2139: %

2140: %

2141: %

2142: %

2143: %

2144: %

2145: %

2146: %

2147: The reconstruction method based on the harmonic-Fourier representation 

2148: (\ref{eq:deconvolution}) presented in Sec.\ref{subsec:general_scheme} 

2149: has been first discussed by Cornish 

2150: \cite{Cornish:2001hg,Cornish:2002bh}. Later, Seto \& Cooray 

2151: \cite{Seto:2004np} considered the reconstruction of a skymap in 

2152: the low-frequency \textit{limit} using the optimal set of TDI 

2153: signals $A$ and $E$. In this case, the accessible multipole moments 

2154: $p_{\ell m}$ are $\ell=0,\,2$ and $4$ (see Table \ref{tab:summay_antenna}).  

2155: Seto \& Cooray explicitly wrote down the expressions for linear equation 

2156: (\ref{eq:deconvolution}) in the case of the self-correlation signals 

2157: (i.e., AA-, EE-correlations) and showed that the output data with 

2158: sufficient statistical significance are only $\widetilde{C}_0$,  

2159: $\widetilde{C}_{\pm 1}$ and $\widetilde{C}_{\pm 2}$. 

2160: Further, they found that the multipole coefficients 

2161: $p_{00}$ and $p_{20}$ cannot be separately determined due to the 

2162: degeneracy associated with a specific combination between the 

2163: Wigner $D$ matrices and the antenna pattern functions. 

2164: 

2165: 

2166: 

2167: Here, we explicitly point out the origin of this degeneracy and 

2168: discuss its influences on the reconstruction of GWB skymap. 

2169: Using the multipole coefficients of antenna patterns in 

2170: Appendix \ref{appendix:Mulipole coefficients}, the lowest-order contribution 

2171: to the linear system 

2172: (\ref{eq:deconvolution}) for AA- and EE-correlations becomes 

2173: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2174: \begin{eqnarray}

2175: \widetilde{C}^{(2)}_{AA,0} 

2176: &=&\frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi}}\left\{

2177:  \frac{2}{5}\,p_{00} - \frac{1}{14\sqrt{5}}\,p_{20}

2178:  -\frac{37}{13440}\,p_{40} 

2179: - \frac{27}{512\sqrt{70}}\sum_{m=-4,4} 

2180: b_{4m}^{\scriptscriptstyle ({\mathrm{AA}})}

2181: \,p_{4m} \right\},

2182: \label{eq:degenerate_CAA0}

2183: \\

2184: \widetilde{C}^{(2)}_{EE,0} 

2185: &=&\frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi}}\left\{

2186:  \frac{2}{5}\,p_{00} - \frac{1}{14\sqrt{5}}\,p_{20}

2187: -\frac{37}{13440}\,p_{40}

2188: + \frac{27}{512\sqrt{70}}\sum_{m=-4,4} 

2189: b_{4m}^{\scriptscriptstyle ({\mathrm{AA}})}

2190: \,p_{4m} \right\}.  

2191: \label{eq:degenerate_CEE0}

2192: \end{eqnarray}

2193: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2194: with $b^{\scriptscriptstyle ({\mathrm{AA}})}_{44}= 1-i\sqrt{3}= 

2195: [b^{\scriptscriptstyle ( {\mathrm{AA}} )}_{4,-4}]^*$.  

2196: Here, we only show the relevant components of $\widetilde{C}_k$ which 

2197: contains the multipole coefficients $p_{00}$ and $p_{20}$. 

2198: The above expressions include the multipole coefficients of 

2199: $\ell=4$, which are all determined separately from the lowest-order 

2200: contribution of $AE$-correlation, $\widetilde{C}_{AE,k}^{(2)}$.  

2201: Thus, apart from the octupole moments, equations

2202: (\ref{eq:degenerate_CAA0}) and (\ref{eq:degenerate_CEE0}) clearly show 

2203: the presence of degeneracy between the remaining multipole coefficients, 

2204: $p_{00}$ and $p_{20}$. 

2205: 

2206: 

2207: In a language of the least-squares method by SVD, this degeneracy 

2208: implies that the sub-system in the matrix equation

2209: (\ref{eq:perturbative_c=Ap}) 

2210: containing the coefficients $p_{00}$ and $p_{20}$ becomes under-determined. 

2211: In this case, the least-squares method by SVD cannot correctly produce 

2212: the approximate solutions for $p_{00}$ and $p_{20}$, although it still 

2213: provides some ``approximate'' solution. 

2214: From equations (\ref{eq:degenerate_CAA0}) and

2215: (\ref{eq:degenerate_CEE0}), 

2216: the only meaningful equation for $p_{00}$ and $p_{20}$ is now reduced to 

2217: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2218: \begin{equation}

2219: \widetilde{C}=\frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi}}\left(

2220:  \frac{2}{5}\,p_{00} - \frac{1}{14\sqrt{5}}\,p_{20}\right),  

2221: \end{equation}

2222: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2223: where the numerical constant $\widetilde{C}$ represents a collection of

2224: the 

2225: irrelevant terms of $\ell=4$ modes, which are separately determined from

2226: the linear system in $AE$-correlation.  If one naively applies the 

2227: least-squares method to the above system, a very tight relation is obtained:  

2228: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2229: \begin{eqnarray}

2230: p_{00} = \frac{7840\sqrt{\pi}}{789}\,\, \widetilde{C},  

2231: \quad \quad

2232: p_{20} = \frac{280\sqrt{5\pi}}{789}\,\, \widetilde{C}.      

2233: \label{eq:fake_solution}

2234: \end{eqnarray}

2235: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2236: 

2237: 

2238: The presence of degenerate coefficients may be a big obstacle in 

2239: constructing the skymap as well as in determining the normalization 

2240: factor of GWB spectrum. In principle, this degeneracy can be broken 

2241: when we consider the higher-order terms of $\mathcal{O}(\hat{f}^4)$.

2242: However, these terms are generally small and irrelevant for the 

2243: reconstruction analysis in the low-frequency regime. 

2244: In this sense, the reconstruction of low-frequency skymap is, in nature, 

2245: incomplete and the other additional information for monopole or

2246: quadrupole moment is required to make a full skymap. Nevertheless, it 

2247: should be emphasized that with a high signal-to-noise ratio, the other 

2248: remaining multipole coefficients can be all determined by the

2249: least-squares solution by SVD, independently of the above degeneracy. 

2250: Moreover, in cases with $p_{00} \gg p_{20}$, which is usually 

2251: satisfied, the least-squares solution (\ref{eq:fake_solution}) provides 

2252: a modest estimate of the degenerate coefficients $p_{00}$ and $p_{20}$ 

2253: because of the hierarchy of the coefficients in Eq. (\ref{eq:fake_solution}). 

2254: This point has been explicitly demonstrated in Sec.\ref{sec:demonstration}. 

2255: %

2256: %

2257: %

2258: 

2259: %

2260: %

2261: %

2262: %==============================================================%

2263: \section{Data sets and least-squares method}

2264: \label{appendix:SVD}

2265: %==============================================================%

2266:  

2267: In this appendix, we describe in more details how to obtain the 

2268: multipole moments of GWBs from many data streams by applying the 

2269: least-squares method. 

2270: Here we specifically focus on the situation considered in 

2271: Sec. \ref{subsubsec:over-determined}. That is, the data sets that we use are 

2272: (i) the $k=-2 \sim+2$ components of self-correlation signals $AA$ and $EE$, 

2273: (ii) $k=-8\sim+8$ components of $AE$-signal, and (iii) the $k=-4\sim+4$ 

2274: components of cross-correlation signals $AT$ and $ET$.  According to the 

2275: general strategy given in Sec. \ref{subsec:general_scheme} (see Eq. 

2276: (\ref{eq:perturbative_c=Ap})), we first combine the leading data streams 

2277: of (i) and (ii) which correspond to $i=2$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:expand_vec_c}).  

2278: The combined data sets consist of the following matrices. 

2279: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2280: \begin{equation}

2281: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2282:   \left(

2283:   \begin{array}{c}

2284:    \tilde{C}_{+2 ,AA}^{(2)}  \\

2285:    \tilde{C}_{+1 ,AA}^{(2)}  \\

2286:    \tilde{C}_{-1 ,AA}^{(2)}  \\

2287:    \tilde{C}_{-2 ,AA}^{(2)}  \\

2288:    \tilde{C}_{+2 ,EE}^{(2)}  \\

2289:     \vdots    \\

2290:    \tilde{C}_{-2 ,EE}^{(2)}  \\   

2291:   \end{array}

2292: \right)

2293: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2294: =

2295: \left(

2296: \begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}

2297:  0  &0     &0     & * &  \\

2298:  0  &0     & *    & 0 &  \\

2299:  0  &*     &0     & 0 &  \\ 

2300:  *  &0     &0     & 0 &  \\

2301:  0  &0     &0     & * &  \\

2302:  0  &0     &*     & 0 &  \\

2303:  0  &*     &0     & 0 &  \\ 

2304:  *  &0     &0     & 0 &  \\ 

2305: \end{array} 

2306: \right)

2307: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2308:     \left(

2309:   \begin{array}{c}

2310:     p_{2 2}  \\

2311:     p_{2 1}  \\

2312:     p_{2,-1}   \\

2313:     p_{2,-2}   \\

2314:   \end{array}

2315: \right), 

2316: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2317: \quad

2318: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2319:   \left(

2320:   \begin{array}{c}

2321:    \tilde{C}_{+8 ,AE}^{(2)}  \\

2322:    \tilde{C}_{+7 ,AE}^{(2)}  \\

2323:     \vdots    \\

2324:    \tilde{C}_{0 ,AE}^{(2)}  \\

2325:     \vdots    \\

2326:    \tilde{C}_{-7 ,AE}^{(2)}  \\

2327:    \tilde{C}_{-8 ,AE}^{(2)}  \\

2328:   \end{array}

2329: \right)

2330: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2331: =

2332: \left(

2333: \begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}

2334:  0  &      &&      & * &  \\

2335:     &      &&\Rdots&   &  \\

2336:     &\Rdots&&      &   &  \\ 

2337:  *  &      &&      & * &  \\

2338:     &      &&\Rdots&   &  \\

2339:     &\Rdots&&      &   &  \\ 

2340:  *  &      &&      & 0 &  \\ 

2341: \end{array} 

2342: \right)

2343: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2344:     \left(

2345:   \begin{array}{c}

2346:     p_{4 4}  \\

2347:     p_{4 3}  \\

2348:     \vdots    \\

2349:     p_{4 0}    \\

2350:     \vdots    \\

2351:     p_{4,-3}  \\

2352:     p_{4,-4}  \\

2353:   \end{array}

2354: \right), 

2355: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2356: \end{equation}

2357: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2358: where $*$ represents a non-vanishing complex number. Note that for 

2359: simplicity we have not included the data $\tilde{C}_{0 ,AA}^{(2)}$ 

2360: and  $\tilde{C}_{0 ,EE}^{(2)}$, which contain degeneracy between 

2361: the multipole moments (see Sec. \ref{appendix:on_the_degeneracy}). 

2362: The matrices in the right hand side correspond to $\mathbf{A}^{(i)}$ 

2363: in Eq. (\ref{eq:expand_vec_c}). These sparse forms of matrix are typical 

2364: for the present problem. 

2365: We perform the singular value decomposition with respect to these sparse 

2366: matrices, and construct pseudo-inverse matrices which give the 

2367: least-squares solutions of $p_{\ell m}$. 

2368: In a similar way the least-squares solutions of $\ell=\mathrm{odd}$ 

2369: modes are obtained from the following matrix equation,  

2370: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2371: \begin{equation}

2372:   \left( 

2373:   \begin{array}{c}  

2374:    \tilde{C}_{+8 ,AE}^{(3)}  \\

2375:     \vdots    \\

2376:    \tilde{C}_{-8 ,AE}^{(3)}  \\

2377:    \tilde{C}_{4 ,AT}^{(3)}  \\

2378:     \vdots    \\

2379:    \tilde{C}_{-4 ,AT}^{(3)}  \\

2380:    \tilde{C}_{4  ,ET}^{(3)}  \\

2381:     \vdots    \\

2382:    \tilde{C}_{-4 ,ET}^{(3)}  \\

2383:   \end{array}  

2384: \right)  

2385: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2386: =

2387: \left(

2388: \begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}

2389:     &      &                           &  &  \\

2390:     &      &  \mathbf{A}_{\mathrm{AE}}^{(3)}    &  &  \\

2391:     &      &      &   &  \\ 

2392:     &      &  \mathbf{A}_{\mathrm{AT}}^{(3)}    &  &  \\

2393:     &      &      &   &  \\

2394:     &      &  \mathbf{A}_{\mathrm{ET}}^{(3)}    &  &  \\

2395:     &      &      &   &  \\ 

2396: \end{array} 

2397: \right)

2398: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2399:     \left(

2400:   \begin{array}{c}

2401:     p_{11}    \\

2402:     p_{10}    \\

2403:     p_{1,-1}   \\

2404:     p_{33}    \\

2405:     \vdots    \\

2406:     p_{3,-3}  \\

2407:     p_{5 5}   \\

2408:     \vdots    \\

2409:     p_{5, -5}  \\

2410:   \end{array}

2411: \right),  

2412: \end{equation}

2413: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2414: where we have symbolically written the matrix ${\mathbf{A}}^{(3)}$ due 

2415: to space limitation. 

2416: %

2417: %

2418: %

2419: %

2420: %

2421: %==============================================================%

2422: %==============================================================%

2423: \section{Multipole coefficients for gravitational-wave 

2424:   backgrounds}

2425: \label{appendix:multipole of GWB}

2426: %==============================================================%

2427: %==============================================================%

2428: %

2429: %

2430: %

2431: %

2432: Here, we give the multipole coefficients for normalized intensity 

2433: distribution $P(\mathbf{\Omega})$ of galactic GWB presented in 

2434: Sec.\ref{subsec:GWB_model}. 

2435: To evaluate this, we first create the intensity map $P(\mathbf{\Omega})$ 

2436: with $129\times256$ regular grids of celestial sphere $(\theta,\,\phi)$. 

2437: Then, the spherical harmonic expansion of the intensity map is

2438: numerically carried out using the SPHEREPACK 3.1 package 

2439: \cite{Adams:2003}.  

2440: Table \ref{tab:summay_multipole} summarizes the multipole coefficients 

2441: $p_{\ell m}$ up to $\ell=5$, which are relevant to the analysis in 

2442: Sec.\ref{sec:demonstration}. Note also that 

2443: $p_{\ell,-m}=(-1)^m p_{\ell m}^*$. 

2444: 

2445: 

2446: To characterize the contribution of the $\ell$-th moment to the galactic 

2447: GWB, we introduce the angular power defined by 

2448: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2449: \begin{eqnarray}

2450: \sigma_{\ell}=\left\{ \frac{1}{2\ell+1}\,\, 

2451: \sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell} |p_{\ell m}|^2 \right\}^{1/2},  

2452: \end{eqnarray}

2453: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2454: which is rotationally invariant \cite{Kudoh:2004he}. 

2455: Figure \ref{fig:sigma_gwb} shows the normalized angular power, 

2456: $\sigma_{\ell}/\sigma_0$ up to $\ell=30$. 

2457: The dominant contribution to the intensity of galactic GWB comes from

2458: the multipoles with $\ell\lesssim 4$, however, the asymptotic behavior 

2459: at higher multipoles is very slow and can be fitted by 

2460: $\sigma_{\ell}/\sigma_{0} \sim 1.85\, e^{-0.005\ell}/\ell$ 

2461: (dotted line in Fig.\ref{fig:sigma_gwb}), which turns out to be a good 

2462: approximation even to much higher multipoles, $\ell\sim100$. 

2463: 

2464: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  Figure  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2465: \begin{figure}[ht]

2466:     \begin{center}

2467:     \includegraphics[width=8.3cm,clip]{figs/gwbdist/sigma_gwb.eps}

2468:     \end{center}

2469:     \caption{Normalized angular power of galactic GWB anisotropy, 

2470: $\sigma_{\ell}/\sigma_0$ as a function of multipole $\ell$. 

2471:       \label{fig:sigma_gwb}}

2472: \end{figure}

2473: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2474: 

2475: 

2476: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  TABLE  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2477: \begin{table}[t]

2478: %\begin{ruledtabular}

2479: \caption{

2480: Multipole coefficients for galactic GWB. 

2481: $p_{\ell m}$ with $m<0$ is given by 

2482: $p_{\ell m}= (-1)^m p^*_{\ell,-m}$.

2483: }

2484: \begin{tabular}{cc|rrr}

2485: $\ell$ & $m$ & Re[$p_{\ell m}$] & Im[$p_{\ell m}$] \\

2486: \hline\hline

2487: 0 & 0 & 0.282  & 0 \\

2488: \hline

2489: 1 & 0 & -0.0215 & 0 \\

2490: 1 & 1 & 0.00876& -0.156 \\

2491: \hline

2492: 2 & 0 & -0.0681 & 0 \\

2493: 2 & 1 & -0.0828 & 0.0216 \\

2494: 2 & 2 & -0.180 & -0.0124 \\

2495: \hline

2496: 3 & 0 & 0.0231 & 0 \\

2497: 3 & 1 & 0.00419 & 0.0648 \\

2498: 3 & 2 & 0.0212 & 0.0544 \\

2499: 3 & 3 & -0.0170 & 0.135 \\

2500: \hline

2501: 4 & 0 & 0.0120 & 0 \\

2502: 4 & 1 & -0.0205 & -0.0224 \\

2503: 4 & 2 & 0.0807 & -0.00274 \\

2504: 4 & 3 & 0.0936 & -0.0198 \\

2505: 4 & 4 & 0.139 & 0.0194 \\

2506: \hline

2507: 5 & 0 & -0.0172 & 0 \\

2508: 5 & 1 & 0.000230 & -0.0272 \\

2509: 5 & 2 & -0.0250 & -0.00640 \\

2510: 5 & 3 & -0.00336 & -0.0693 \\

2511: 5 & 4 & -0.0177 & -0.0719 \\

2512: 5 & 5 & 0.0222 & -0.1.13 \\

2513: \hline

2514: \hline

2515: \end{tabular}

2516: \label{tab:summay_multipole}

2517: %\end{ruledtabular}

2518: \end{table}

2519: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  TABLE  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2520: %

2521: %

2522: %

2523: %

2524: %

2525: %

2526: %

2527: %

2528: %==============================================================%

2529: %==============================================================%

2530: \section{Estimation of statistical error 

2531:   in reconstruction analysis}

2532: \label{appendix:statistical_error}

2533: %==============================================================%

2534: %==============================================================%

2535: 

2536: 

2537: In the reconstruction analysis based on the harmonic-Fourier

2538: representation, the statistical errors plotted in 

2539: Fig.\ref{fig:reconstructed_plm3} are roughly estimated as follows. 

2540: In the presence of the noises, the least-squares solution given 

2541: in equation (\ref{eq:perturbative_p=AC}) becomes 

2542: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2543: \begin{equation}

2544: \mathbf{p}^{(i)}_{\rm approx} =\left[\mathbf{A}^{(i)}\right]^+ \cdot 

2545: \left\{\mathbf{c}^{(i)}+\mathbf{s}_{\rm n}^{(i)}\right\}, 

2546: \end{equation}

2547: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2548: where the additional term $\mathbf{s}_{\rm n}^{(i)}$ represents the 

2549: noise contributions to the $i$-th order coefficient of perturbative 

2550: expansion for $\mathbf{c}(f)$. 

2551: The root-mean-square amplitude of the error $\Delta\mathbf{p}^{(i)}$ 

2552: is then defined by taking the ensemble average of the random noises as 

2553: $\Delta\mathbf{p}^{(i)}

2554: \equiv \left\langle|\mathbf{p}^{(i)} 

2555: -\langle\mathbf{p}^{(i)}\rangle|^2\right\rangle$, which gives the 

2556: errors in multipole coefficient $\Delta p_{\ell m}$. 

2557: The $j$-th components of the vector $\Delta\mathbf{p}^{(i)}$ becomes 

2558: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

2559: \begin{equation}

2560: |\Delta\mathbf{p}^{(i)}_{{\rm approx},j}|^2 =

2561: \left[\mathbf{A}^{(i)}\right]^+_{jk} \left[\mathbf{A}^{(i)}\right]^{+*}_{jk} \,

2562: \langle |\mathbf{s}_{{\rm n},k}^{(i)}|^2\rangle.

2563: \end{equation}

2564: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2565: Here, the variance $\langle |\mathbf{s}_{\rm n,k}^{(i)}|^2\rangle$ 

2566: roughly corresponds to the quadrature of the vector $\mathbf{c}^{(i)}$ 

2567: divided by the signal-to-noise ratio:  

2568: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2569: \begin{equation}

2570: \mathbf{S}_{{\rm n},k}^{(i)}= \left\{\alpha\,\,

2571: \frac{\displaystyle \mathbf{c}_k^{(i)}}

2572: {\displaystyle \mathbf{(s/r)}_k}\right\}^2.  

2573: \label{eq:error}

2574: \end{equation}

2575: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2576: In the above expression, the vector $\mathbf{(s/r)}$ represents the SNR, 

2577: each component of which is the quantity $(S/N)_k$ defined in 

2578: (\ref{eq:def_SNR}) just for the same component of the vector 

2579: $\mathbf{c}^{(i)}$. 

2580: Notice that the factor $\alpha$ is multiplied in equation

2581: (\ref{eq:error}) by hand. 

2582: The reason why we have introduced the factor $\alpha$ is as follows. 

2583: First note that the quantity $(S/N)_k$ basically reflects the 

2584: signal-to-noise ratio for the most dominant term in the perturbative 

2585: expansion for the signal 

2586: $\tilde{C}_k(f)$ (see Eq.(\ref{eq:expand_vec_c})). 

2587: For the $AE$-correlation,  $(S/N)_k$ gives the signal-to-noise 

2588: ratio for second-order term, i.e., $\mathbf{c}^{(2)}$. 

2589: For the $AT$-correlation,  $(S/N)_k$ reflects the signal-to-noise ratio for 

2590: $\mathbf{c}^{(3)}$. 

2591: In our reconstruction analysis, the higher-order contributions to the 

2592: $AE$-correlation, $\mathbf{c}^{(3)}$ is used to make the skymap 

2593: with multipoles $\ell\leq5$, which can be estimated by analyzing the 

2594: multi-frequency data. In general, the signal from higher-order 

2595: contribution is weaker than the lowest-order term, leading to the 

2596: calibration error. The significance of this error would be enhanced 

2597: by the factor roughly proportional to $\hat{f}^{-(i-2)}$ for the $i$-th 

2598: order terms of $AE$-correlation. Hence, in order to mimic this, the 

2599: factor $\alpha$ is multiplied and set to $\alpha=\hat{f}^{-(i-2)}$. 

2600: In the case examined in Fig.\ref{fig:reconstructed_plm3}, we adopt 

2601: $\alpha=\hat{f}^{-1}=10$ for third-order cross-correlation data 

2602: $\tilde{C}_{{\rm AE},k}^{(3)}$.   

2603: Otherwise we set $\alpha=1$. As a result, statistical errors of $\ell=3$ 

2604: modes become larger than those in $\ell=$even modes 

2605: (see Fig.\ref{fig:reconstructed_plm3}). Note that the multipole 

2606: coefficients with $\ell=1$ in case A and with $\ell=5$ in both case 

2607: are completely degenerate and cannot be recovered by reconstruction 

2608: analysis. Hence, the statistical errors were not evaluated.  

2609: 

2610: 

2611: 

2612: %==============================================================%

2613: %==============================================================%

2614: \section{Computational method of multipole coefficients}

2615: %==============================================================%

2616: %==============================================================%

2617: 

2618: 

2619: 

2620: In this Appendix, we give a brief description of the numerics of 

2621: calculating the multipole coefficients using the SPHEREPACK 3.1 

2622: package \cite{Adams:2003}.  

2623: The traditional spherical harmonic transform of a scalar function is 

2624: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2625: \begin{eqnarray}

2626:  \Psi (\theta,\phi) = \sum_{\ell,m} p_{\ell m} Y_{\ell m} (\theta,\phi).

2627: \label{eq:Psi}

2628: \end{eqnarray}

2629: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2630: The spherical harmonics are given by equation 

2631: (\ref{eq:harmonic_Y_lm}) and the associated Legendre polynomials are 

2632: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2633: \begin{eqnarray}

2634:  P^m_{\ell} (x) = \frac{(-1)^m}{2^\ell \ell!} (1-x^2)^{m/2} \frac{d^{m+\ell}}

2635: {dx^{m+\ell}}(x^2-1)^\ell.

2636: \label{eq:legendre}

2637: \end{eqnarray}

2638: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2639: On the other hand, numerical computation of spherical harmonic 

2640: expansion is performed with the subroutine \verb|shaec| in 

2641: SPHEREPACK 3.1 package, which directly gives the following expansion form: 

2642: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2643: \begin{eqnarray}

2644: \Psi(\theta,\phi) &=& \sqrt{ \frac{\pi}{2} }

2645:         \sum_{\ell=0}^\infty \sum_{m=0}^{\infty}{}'

2646:         P^m_\ell (\cos\theta) \gamma_{\ell m} 

2647: \left[ \alpha_{\ell m} \cos m \phi - \beta_{\ell m} \sin m \phi \right], 

2648: \label{eq:spherepack expansion}

2649: \end{eqnarray}

2650: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2651: where the prime notation on the sum indicates that the first term 

2652: corresponding to $m=0$ is multiplied by the factor $1/2$. 

2653: To relate the coefficients $\alpha_{\ell m}$ and $\beta_{\ell m}$ with 

2654: $p_{\ell m}$, the expansion (\ref{eq:Psi}) is compared with the 

2655: expression (\ref{eq:spherepack expansion}), leading to  

2656: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2657: \begin{eqnarray}

2658: p_{\ell m } &=&   \sqrt{ \frac{\pi}{2} } 

2659: (\alpha_{\ell m} + i \beta_{\ell m} ),

2660: \cr

2661: (-1)^m  p_{\ell,- m} &=&  \sqrt{ \frac{\pi}{2} } (\alpha_{\ell m} - i 

2662: \beta_{\ell m}), 

2663: \label{eq:alpha_ellm to p_ellm}

2664: \end{eqnarray}

2665: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2666: for $m >0$, and 

2667: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2668: \begin{equation}

2669: p_{\ell 0} =  \sqrt{ \frac{\pi}{2} } \alpha_{\ell 0}, 

2670: \label{eq:alpha_ellm to p_ellm2}

2671: \end{equation}

2672: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2673: for $m=0$. Hence, with a help of these expressions, one can read 

2674: off the multipole coefficients $p_{\ell m}$ from the expansion 

2675: formula (\ref{eq:spherepack expansion}). 

2676: Notice that the associated Legendre polynomials used in the 

2677: SPHEREPACK 3.1 package differ from (\ref{eq:legendre}) by a 

2678: factor $(-1)^m$ so that one must multiply this factor to the 

2679: transformation law (\ref{eq:alpha_ellm to p_ellm}) and 

2680: (\ref{eq:alpha_ellm to p_ellm2}).

2681: 

2682: 

2683: 

2684: %%*****************************************************************

2685: %%*****************************************************************

2686: %%*****************************************************************

2687: %

2688: %

2689: %

2690: %

2691: %

2692: %

2693: %\clearpage

2694: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2695: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2696: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  REFERENCES  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2697: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2698: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2699: 

2700: 

2701: 

2702: % \bibliographystyle{plain} %% a standard style

2703: %\bibliographystyle{apsrev} %% APS RevTex Style

2704: 

2705: 

2706: %\bibliography{GWs}

2707: \input{GWs.tex}

2708: 

2709: 

2710: %==============================================================%

2711: \end{document}

2712: %==============================================================% 

2713: 

2714: 

2715: