The Gravitational Wave Universe Toolbox: arXiv
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Astronomy & Astrophysics manuscript no. aanda ©ESO 2021
June 28, 2021
The Gravitational Wave Universe Toolbox:
A software package to simulate observation of the Gravitational Wave Universe
with different detectors
Shu-Xu Yi1? , Gijs Nelemans1, 2, 3 , Christiaan Brinkerink1 , Zuzanna Kostrzewa-Rutkowska4, 1, 2 , Sjoerd T. Timmer1 ,
Fiorenzo Stoppa1 , Elena M. Rossi4 , and Simon F. Portegies Zwart4
1
Department of Astrophysics/IMAPP, Radboud University, P O Box 9010, NL-6500 GL Nijmegen, The Netherlands
2
SRON, Netherlands Institute for Space Research, Sorbonnelaan 2, NL-3584 CA Utrecht, The Netherlands
3
Institute of Astronomy, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200D, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium
arXiv:2106.13662v1 [astro-ph.HE] 25 Jun 2021
4
Leiden Observatory, Leiden University, PO Box 9513, NL-2300 RA Leiden, the Netherlands
ABSTRACT
Context. As the importance of Gravitational Wave (GW) Astrophysics increases rapidly, astronomers in different fields and with
different backgrounds can have the need to get a quick idea of which GW source populations can be detected by which detectors and
with what measurement uncertainties.
Aims. The GW-Toolbox is an easy-to-use, flexible tool to simulate observations on the GW universe with different detectors, including
ground-based interferometers (advanced LIGO, advanced VIRGO, KAGRA, Einstein Telescope, and also customised designs), space-
borne interferometers (LISA and a customised design), pulsar timing arrays mimicking the current working ones (EPTA, PPTA,
NANOGrav, IPTA) and future ones. We include a broad range of sources such as mergers of stellar mass compact objects, namely
black holes, neutron stars and black hole-neutron stars; and supermassive black hole binaries mergers and inspirals, Galactic double
white dwarfs in ultra-compact orbit, extreme mass ratio inspirals and Stochastic GW backgrounds.
Methods. We collect methods to simulate source populations and determine their detectability with the various detectors. The paper
aims at giving a comprehensive description on the algorithm and functionality of the GW-Toolbox.
Results. The GW-Toolbox produces results that are consistent with more detailed calculations of the different source classes and can
be accessed with a website interface (gw-universe.org) or as a python package (https://bitbucket.org/radboudradiolab/gwtoolbox). In
the future, it will be upgraded with more functionality.
Key words. Gravitational waves, stars:neutron, stars:black holes, stars:white dwarfs, methods:numerical, galaxies:evolution, large-
scale structure of the Universe
1. Introduction lower frequencies, pulsar timing arrays (PTAs, Hobbs & Dai e.g.
2017; Dahal e.g. 2020) are used to probe GWs with frequencies
Gravitational Wave (GW) Astrophysics rises quickly into a piv- around 10−8 − 10−5 Hz.
otal branch of Astronomy and more and more scientists will be
able to use GW measurements for their science (e.g. Caprini & Together, these detectors are sensitive to a very broad range of
Figueroa 2018; Nelemans 2018; McWilliams et al. 2019). The GW sources, where higher frequency detectors are sensitive to
GW-Toolbox aims to provide useful tools for a broad audience smaller objects. At the highest frequencies, inspiral and merg-
to quickly get insight in the detectable sources, their numbers ers of stellar mass compact object (neutron star and black hole)
and the accuracy for different current and future GW detectors. binaries, spinning neutron stars and supernovae explosions (see
The first opened frequency window covers ∼ 10 − 1000 Hz, e.g., Clark et al. 1979; Thorne 1987; Schutz 1989; Lipunov et al.
which corresponds to the working frequency range of ground- 1997; Ott 2009; Goetz & Riles 2011). (Long) before their final
based interferometers, e.g., the operating 2nd generation detec- merger, these sources occupy the frequency range covered by
tors advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observa- mHz detectors. Also white dwarfs, those are not dense enough to
tory (LIGO)/Virgo interferometer (Virgo)/Kamioka Gravitational be detected by high-frequency detectors are prominent sources
Wave Detector (KAGRA) (Harry & LIGO Scientific Collabora- for mHz detectors (e.g., Nelemans et al. 2001; Sesana et al. 2020;
tion 2010; Acernese et al. 2015; Kagra Collaboration et al. 2019) Lau et al. 2020). Since BH sizes increase with mass, the mHZ de-
and the planned 3rd generation detectors e.g., Einstein Telescope tectors are sensitive to mergers of (super)massive BHs (SMBHs
3 8
(ET, Punturo et al. 2010) and Cosmic Explorer (Reitze et al. 2019). 10 − 10 M (e.g., Klein et al. 2016) and Extreme mass ratio
At lower frequencies space-borne interferometers, e.g., Laser In- inspirals (EMRIs, Babak et al. 2017). Again, earlier in their evo-
terferometer Space Antenna (LISA, Amaro-Seoane et al. 2017) lution, SMBH binaries occupy lower frequencies and in the low
−8 −5
and other similar projects, e.g., DECIGO (Kawamura et al. 2006), frequency end of the spectrum ∼ 10 − 10 Hz, the GW from
Taiji (Mei et al. 2020) and Tianqin (Luo et al. 2016), will cover tight SMBHB lies, either as individual sources or as a stochastic
the GW spectrum in the frequency range ∼ 10−3 − 1 Hz. At even background (Sazhin 1978; Detweiler 1979; Hellings & Downs
1983; Jenet et al. 2005).
?
s.yi@astro.ru.nl
Article number, page 1 of 21A&A proofs: manuscript no. aanda
The first detection of GW was made by the LIGO/Virgo Collabo- Ground-based Space-borne PTA
ration (LVC) in 2015 (Abbott et al. 2016). The event GW150914 advanced Virgo default eLISA EPTA
originates from the merger of a binary black hole (BBH). Since aLIGO (O3) Customised LISA-like PPTA
then, there have been 50 GW events detected (Abbott et al. aLIGO (design) NanoGrav
KAGRA IPTA
2019, 2020), including mergers of BBH, double neutron stars Einstein Telescope Existing PTA+ Future pulsars
(DNS, e.g., GW170817 and GW190425) and plausible Black Customised LIGO-like
Hole-Neutron stars (BHNS, e.g. GW190426). The population of
detected BBH mergers provides important clues on stellar forma-
tion and evolution history (e.g., The LIGO Scientific Collabora- kHz GW mHz GW nHz
BBH SMBBH Individual SMBBH
tion et al. 2020). Among the detected sources, there are several
DNS GWD Stochastic background
unique systems which provide input to and even challenge cur-
BHNS EMRI
rent stellar evolution theory (e.g., GW190412, GW190814) and
provide insight into the nature of neutron star matter (GW170817,
GW190425). The multi-messenger observations of the DNS Fig. 1. A summary of detectors and sources included in the GW-Toolbox
merger event GW170817/GRB 170817A/AT 2017gfo brought
huge progress on Astrophysics, fundamental physics and Cosmol- – any of the existing PTAs plus potential new pulsars in the
ogy (Abbott et al. 2017). future
Also PTA observations are routinely happening, and although
there has no conclusive evidence on GW detection with PTA1 , The three classes of detectors are corresponding to the three main
the communities are put more and more stringent upper limit on frequency regimes, namely kHz, mHz and nHz. In each of these
the low-frequency GW (van Haasteren et al. 2011; Demorest et regimes, we include the following sources.
al. 2013; Lentati et al. 2015; Arzoumanian et al. 2018; Verbiest
et al. 2016; Aggarwal et al. 2019, 2020) and already ruled out a – kHz GW:
– Binary BH (BBH) mergers
lot of theories on galaxy evolution history (Shannon et al. 2013,
– Double Neutron Star (DNS) mergers
2015).
– BH-Neutron Star (BHNS) mergers
In the following sections we describe the GW-Toolbox, while in – mHz GW:
section 5 we show the results and compare these to more detailed – Supermassive BH Binary Mergers (SMBBH)
calculations. In sections 6 and 7 we discuss the caveats and further – Close Galactic White Dwarf binaries insprials (GWD)
plans and summarize the paper. – Extreme Mass Ratio Inspirals (EMRIs, Stellar mass BHs
inspiraling into supermassive BHs)
– nHz GW:
2. The Gravitational Wave Universe Toolbox – Individual SMBBH inspiral
– A stochastic GW background
As the importance of GW Astrophysics increases rapidly, as-
tronomers in different field and background can have the need See figure 1 for a summary of the detectors and sources. In
to get a quick idea of GW populations and their observational practice, the logical flow of the GW-Toolbox is to first select the
aspects. The GW-Toolbox (website: gw-universe.org)2 is such a detector class and the detector parameters, then choose the source
set of tools that we built as an easy-to-use, flexible tools to simu- class and input its parameters and run. For some of the sources,
late the observation on the GW universe with different detectors. the underlying cosmological model is also relevant to the simula-
We include three classes of GW detectors, namely Earth-based tion, where users are able to select a certain build-in cosmology or
interferometers, space-borne interferometers, and PTAs. In each to input parameters for self-defined Λ-CDM cosmological model.
of these classes, the GW-Toolbox has the following detectors Examples in this paper are simulated with the cosmology model
with default and customised settings: that corresponds to Planck DR15 (Planck Collaboration et al.
2016, we use the astropy package (Astropy Collaboration et al.
– Earth-based interferometers: 2013, 2018) with the cosmology model “Planck15"). The results
– Advanced Virgo in general are the expected number of detection of the selected
– Advanced LIGO in O3 sources, and a synthetic catalogue with/without uncertainties on
– Advanced LIGO at final design parameters. Plots and histogram of parameters of the catalogue
– KAGRA can be made in-browser, and the figures and catalogue can also be
– Einstein telescope downloaded. In figure 2 a screen shot of the GW-Toolbox website
– LIGO-Like interferometer with customised parameters with the top-level selection is shown, in addition to an example
– Space-borne interferometers: of the kHz detector selection page.
– default LISA
– LISA-like spacecraft with customised parameters This paper aims at giving a comprehensive description of the algo-
– Pulsar Timing Arrays: rithm and the functionality of the GW-Toolbox. The paper is or-
– Existing EPTA ganised with a similar structure as the set-up of the GW-Toolbox.
– Existing PPTA For each class of sources, a model for the Universe is made in
– Existing NANOGrav which the sources are distributed in space, time and other relevant
– Existing IPTA parameters (such as mass, spins etc) according to a pre-defined
1
population model. The user is allowed to change the population
NanoGrav found evidence for a common stochastic signal across model, according to a parametrised formalism. In section 3, we
pulsars, but there is no significant evidence of that being a GW (Arzou- give description on each of the population models.
manian et al. 2020).
2
Python package repository: The resulting GW source population is then simulated to be ob-
bitbucket.org/radboudradiolab/gwtoolbox. served against a selected GW detector from the above list. After
Article number, page 2 of 21Shu-Xu Yi et al.: The Gravitational Wave Universe Toolbox:
Fig. 2. Screen shot of the GWT start page (left) and ground-based observatories page with results for advanced LIGO.
source and detector have been chosen, the detected sources are In the population model for BBH, the merger rate density is
selected using a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) criterion. Using the expressed as:
Fisher Matrix formalism, an estimate is made of the accuracy
with which the parameters of the detected sources are determined.
In section 4, we describe how the response of the detector is rep- ṅ(z, m1 , m2 , χ) = R(z) f (m1 )π(q)P(χ)/m1 , (1)
resented, and the algorithm to generate the catalogue of detected
sources. For PTAs, we describe our simplified representation where f (m1 ) is the mass function of the primary (heavier) black
of the pulsar array, the properties of the timing noises and the hole, π(q) and P(χ) are the probability distributions of the mass
observation campaign. ratio q ≡ m2 /m1 and the effective spin χ respectively. R as func-
tion of z is often refer to as the cosmic merger rate density. We
take the parameterisation as in (Vitale et al. 2019):
3. Implementation 1: The Universe model Z ∞
We first turn to the implementation of the Universe model, in R(zm ) = Rn ψ(z f )P(zm |z f )dz f , (2)
zm
which we select source population models from the literature
and in some cases, allow the user to change or adapt the source where ψ(z) is the Madau-Dickinson star formation rate:
population. There are many reviews of GW sources that discuss
(1 + z)α
these in more detail, such as González et al. (2013). We start with ψ(z) = , (3)
1 + ( 1+z β
sources for ground-based detectors, where we concentrate on C )
compact binary mergers detectable with ground-based detectors,
and then move to space-born detectors, with massive binary black with α = 2.7, β = 5.6, C = 2.9 (Madau & Dickinson 2014), and
hole mergers, white dwarf compact binaries and extreme mass- P(zm |z f , τ) is the probability that the BBH merger at zm if the
ratio inspirals (EMRIs) as sources, and finish with pulsar timing binary is formed at z f , which we refer to as the distribution of
arrays for which we discuss individual massive black hole binaries delay time with the form (Vitale et al. 2019):
as well as a stochastic background.
" #
1 t f (z f ) − tm (zm ) dt
P(zm |z f , τ) = exp − . (4)
τ τ dz
3.1. Sources for Ground Based detectors
In the above equation, t f and tm are the look back time as function
As illustrated in the above section, we initially look at BBH, DNS of z f and zm respectively.
and BHNS for ground-based GW detectors. We give plots of R(z) with different Rn and τ in figure 3. The
default parameters for BBH are set to Rn = 13 Gpc−3 yr−1 and
3.1.1. Binary Black Hole Mergers τ = 3 Gyrs, which are compatible with the local merger rate of
BBH found with GWTC-2 (The LIGO Scientific Collaboration
The population of black hole mergers is the most prominent in et al. 2020).
current GW detectors (Abbott et al. 2020). The source population
Although some information is known about the masses of the ob-
is characterised by the merger rate as a function of redshift and
served double black holes (The LIGO Scientific Collaboration et
the distribution of masses and spins (e.g. Schneider et al. 2001;
al. 2020), we assume a quite generic mass function p(m1 ):
Mapelli et al. 2017; Fryer & Kalogera 2001; Farr et al. 2011;
Kovetz et al. 2017; Talbot & Thrane 2018; Postnov & Kuranov
2019). We take a relatively simple, yet flexible approach (but see exp − m1c−µ (m1 − µ)−γ , m1 ≤ mcut
p(m1 ) ∝ (5)
Moe & Di Stefano 2017; Chruślińska et al. 2019, 2020). 0,
m1 > mcut
Article number, page 3 of 21A&A proofs: manuscript no. aanda
n = 30, = 1 Gyr
n = 15, = 10 Gyr 10 1 BBH-Pop1
102
n = 40, = 0.1 Gyr BBH-Pop2
n = 13, = 3 Gyr
1
(z) Gpc 3 yr
10 2
p(m1)
101
10 3
100
0 2 4 6 8 10
z 10 4
0 20 40 60 80 100
Fig. 3. R(z) with different R0 and τ. m1
Fig. 4. The primary BH mass distribution in the default models of BBH-
The distribution of p(m1 ) is defined for m1 > µ, which has a Pop1/2
power law tail of index −γ and a cut-off above mcut . When γ =
3/2, the distribution becomes a shifted Lévy distribution. p(m1 )
peaks at m1 = c/γ + µ. We set µ = 3, γ = 2.5, c = 6, mcut = where R(z) is taking the same form as in BBH population model,
95 M as default, which result in simulated catalogue that fits but with a different default setting: Rn = 300 Gpc−3 yr−1 and
with the observed one (see section 5.1). The normalization of τ = 3 Gyrs, which are compatible with the local merger rate of
p(m1 ) is DNS found with GWTC-2;
c p(ma,b ) is the mass function of the neutron stars. Note that we use
c1−γ Γ(γ − 1, ),
mcut − µ ma,b instead of m1,2 . The latter are the primary and secondary stars
based on their masses, while the former we do not distinguish
where Γ(a, b) is the upper incomplete gamma function;
between the primary and the secondary. We assume both ma and
In order to provide more flexibility, we also provide an alternative mb are following the same mass function. We use a truncated
p(m1 ), which has an extra Gaussian peak component ppeak (m1 ) Gaussian with upper and lower cuts as the mass function. The
on top of that in equation (5): default parameters are the mean m = 1.4 M , the mass dispersion
σm = 0.5 M , upper cut mcut,low = 1.1 M , mcut,high = 2.5 M ;
m1 − mpeak 2
!
we apply also a Gaussian spin model, with a smaller dispersion
ppeak (m1 ) = Apeak exp − , (6)
σpeak σχ = 0.05. These choices are roughly agree with observations
(Valentim et al. 2011; Özel et al. 2012; Kiziltan et al. 2013; Miller
the normalization of the alternative p(m1 ) is: & Miller 2015; Farrow et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2019)
c √
c1−γ Γ(γ − 1, ) + 2πσpeak Apeak .
mcut − µ 3.1.3. Neutron star/black hole mergers
We denote the population model without/with the peak compo- For the population model of BHNS, we again assume the merger
nent in the mass function as BBH-Pop1/2. Our default parame- rate density to be:
ters for the peak component are Apeak = 0.002, mpeak = 40 M ,
σpeak = 1 M , which are compatible with that implied from ṅ(z, m1 , m2 , χ) = R(z) f (m• )p(mn )P(χ), (8)
GWTC-2. In figure 4, we plot the mass distributions for BBH-
Pop1/2. where R(z) is taking the same form as in BBH and DNS, with
a different default setting: Rn = 45 Gpc−3 yr−1 and τ = 3 Gyrs;
We use a uniform distribution between [qcut , 1] for π(q) and as- which is broadly consistent with the LVK results. f (m• ) is the
sume χ follows a Gaussian distribution centered at zero with stan- mass function of the BH, which is the same as in BBH, We denote
dard deviation σχ . The actual mass ratio distribution is still poorly the population model without/with the peak component in f (m• )
constrained from observation. The discovery of the GW190412 as BHNS-Pop1/2. ; p(mn ) is the mass function of the NS, which
with asymmetric masses implies that the mass ratio distribution is the same as in DNS.
can be quite board (Abbott et al. 2020). The Gaussian spin model
is consistent with the finding in The LIGO Scientific Collabo-
ration et al. (2020). The default parameters are qcut = 0.4 and 3.2. Sources for space-borne detectors
σχ = 0.1. Those parameters in the population model can all be 3.2.1. Massive Black Hole Binaries
reset by users in both the web interface or in the python pack-
age. In the last two decades, it has been established that in the center
of most galaxies there is a massive black hole (with mass from
104 M to 1010 M . Since the mergers of galaxies are thought to
3.1.2. Double neutron star mergers be ubiquitous under the hierarchical clustering process, there are
For the population model of DNS mergers, the merger rate density expected to be close binaries of massive black holes (MBHB) in
is similarly expressed as: the merger galaxies, which emit GW during their inspiral and
merger phase (Colpi 2014). Such MBHB insprials are the main
ṅ(z, ma , mb , χ) = R(z)p(ma )p(mb )P(χ), (7) targets of LISA (Amaro-Seoane et al. 2017), TianQin (Luo et al.
Article number, page 4 of 21Shu-Xu Yi et al.: The Gravitational Wave Universe Toolbox:
2016) and PTA (Jenet et al. 2004, 2005), since the frequency of
their GW falls in the 10−8 − 1 Hz.
21
We use the MBHB catalogues from (Klein et al. 2016), which
are based on Barausse (2012). There are 3 population models,
which mainly differ in the massive BH formation scenario and 22
the timescale for the BHs to merge (see Klein et al. 2016 for
a detailed description; see also a review on supermassive BH
log(A)
23
formation and evolution by Inayoshi et al. 2020). These models
are named with pop3, Q3_nodelays and Q3_delays. For each
population model, there are 10 catalogues, each corresponds to a 24
realisation of all sources in the Universe within five years. The
number of total events for each population is ∼ 890 for pop3, 25
∼ 630 for Q3_nodelays and ∼ 40 for Q3_delays. They are
compatible with the reported averaged merger rates in Klein et 4.50 4.25 4.00 3.75 3.50 3.25 3.00 2.75 2.50
al. (2016) (pop3: 175.36 yr−1 , Q3_nodelays: 121.8 yr−1 and log(fs)
Q3_delays: 8.18 yr−1 ). In figure 5 we plot Mtot (intrinsic total
mass) and z of MBHB mergers that occur in the Universe over Fig. 6. The distribution density between fs and A of GW emitted from
a timescale of five years for three population models as a direct binaries in the catalogue. The stars are known DWDs as verification
demonstration of the population models. The distribution agrees binaries.
with those shown in Fig 3 of Klein et al. (2016) (note that they
show the distribution of red-shifted total masses instead).
3.2.3. Extreme Mass-Ratio Inspirals
In the nuclei region of galaxies, surrounding the massive black
holes (MBH), there are abundant stellar populations. Among
pop3
108 Q3_nodelays
them, compact objects, including stellar mass BHs, NS and
Q3_delays white dwarfs, can inspiral into the central MBH, radiating a
107 large amount of energy in GW. These systems compose the Ex-
106 treme Mass ratio insprials (EMRIs). EMRIs are of the ideal tar-
gets for space-borne detectors such as LISA (see Babak et al.
Mtot
105 2017).
104 In the GW-Toolbox, we use the simulated catalogues which cor-
respond to population models M1-M11 in (Babak et al. 2017).
103 For each population model, there are ten realizations of cata-
102 logues, which contain detectable EMRIs within one year with
their assumption of LISA noise properties. The distributions of
10 1 10 0 10 1 10 2 µ (mass of the stellar BH), M (mass of the massive BH) and D
z (luminosity distance) in the catalogues are plotted in figure 7. The
histogram for each population is averaged among the ten real-
Fig. 5. Mtot vs. z of MBHB mergers that occur in the Universe over a izations. Since we are using a SNR limited sample, instead of a
timescale of five years for three population models from Klein et al. complete one of the whole Universe (which is ∼ 10 times larger),
(2016). The data corresponds to one realisation. the GW-Toolbox will give an underestimated detectable number
and an incomplete catalogue of detections, especially when using
a lower SNR cutoff and a more sensitive LISA configuration.
3.2.2. Double White Dwarfs For now, we exclude M7 and M12 from the Toolbox, because in
their population models the direct plunges are ignored, therefore
Another important population of LISA sources are Ultra Compact the total number of EMRIs are about one order of magnitude
Galactic Binaries. Among those Galactic binaries, close double larger than others, which will make the computation take too
white dwarfs (DWDs) are the dominant, and are long expected long.
to be promising targets for LISA and other space-borne GW
detectors (e.g. Nelemans et al. 2001; Yu & Jeffery 2010; Nissanke
et al. 2012; Toonen et al. 2012; Korol et al. 2017; Lamberts et al. 3.3. Sources for Pulsar Timing Arrays
2019; Huang et al. 2020). 3.3.1. Individual Massive Black Hole
We use the synthetic catalogue of close DWD in the whole
Long before (millions or tens of millions, depends on their chirp
Galaxy (Nelemans et al. 2001). In figure 6 we plot the distri-
mass; see Burke-Spolaor et al. 2019) the GW from massive black
bution density between the frequencies fs = 2/P (where P is
hole binaries entering the band of space-borne GW detectors, it
the orbital period of the binaries) and the intrinsic amplitudes
lies in the PTA frequency range. If there would be such MBH
A = 2 (GM)5/3 (π f )2/3 /(c4 d) of GW emitted from binaries in the binaries sufficiently close to the Earth, PTAs could detect their sig-
catalogue. The total number in the catalogue is ∼ 2.6×107 . nals. Since no sources are known yet, we incorporate this source
Beside the synthetic catalogue, we also include a catalogue of 81 class in the GW-Toolbox in the form of a free form in which
known DWDs (Huang et al. 2020) as verification binaries (VBs, the user can fill in the frequency and GW amplitude, and the
see also Kupfer et al. 2018). Those VBs are plotted along in figure GW-Toolbox will determine if this binary, as a monochromatic
6 with star markers. GW source, can be detected by the selected PTA.
Article number, page 5 of 21A&A proofs: manuscript no. aanda
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M8 M9 M10 M11
103 103 103
102 102 102
Number
101 101 101
100 100 100
10 1 10 1 10 1
10 2 10 2 10 2
101 102 104 105 106 10 1 100 101
(M ) M(M ) D (Gpc)
Fig. 7. The averaged histograms of µ, M and D of EMRIs happen in one year, assuming different population models from Babak et al. (2017)
3.3.2. Stochastic background
The second class of target for PTA are Stochastic GW background 10 15
aLIGO-O3
(SGWB). It can originate from the incoherent overlapping of aLIGO-design
many unresolvable MBH, the relic GW, or the collision of cosmic 10 17 adV
strings. Each of these gives rise to a power-law GW signal noise strain (1/ Hz) KAGRA
ET
h2c ( f ) = C f γ , (9) 10 19
where the index γ corresponds to the origin of SGWB. For inco- 10 21
herent overlapping of MBH, γ = −2/3; for relic GW, γ = −1 and
for cosmic strings, γ = −7/6.
10 23
4. Implementation 2: Gravitational Wave
detectors 100 101 102 103 104
frequency (Hz)
4.1. Ground-based interferometers
4.1.1. Noise model of interferometers
aLIGO-design
For ground-based interferometers, the GW-Toolbox integrates 10 20 LIGO-Like Larm = 400 m
LIGO-Like Larm = 40 km
noise strain (1/ Hz)
the design performance of advanced LIGO (aLIGO), Advanced LIGO-Like Pin = 12.5 W
Virgo (AdV), KAGRA, and ET instruments. The noise models for 10 21
LIGO-Like Pin = 1250 W
the above-mentioned interferometers are taken from the following
resources: 10 22
– aLIGO: 10 23
https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1800044/public, see
also LIGO Scientific Collaboration et al. (2015);
– adV and KAGRA: 10 24
https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1500293/public;
– ET: 101 102 103
http://www.et-gw.eu/index.php/etsensitivities, frequency (Hz)
see also Hild et al. (2008, 2010, 2011); Fig. 8. Upper Panel: Noise Curves of the default detectors; Lower
Panel: aLIGO in design vs. Customised settings (arm length=4 km,
In the upper panel of figure 8, we plot the noise curves that are laser power=125 W)
used for the default detectors.
In addition, the GW-Toolbox employs the package FINESSE to – Power recycling mirror transmission coefficient
calculate S n of a LIGO-like or a ET-like interferometer with – Signal recycling phase factor
customised settings (Brown et al. 2020). Users can define the – Power recycling cavity length
following parameters of the detector: – Signal recycling cavity length
– Arm Length The most important parameters that affect the sensitivity are the
– Laser power arm length and laser power. In the lower panel of figure 8, we
– Arm mirror mass show the effects of varying the arm length and the laser power
– Arm mirror transmission coefficient starting from the design aLIGO. One of the other most influential
– Signal recycling mirror transmission coefficient parameters is the mass of the arm mirror. Heavier arm mirrors
Article number, page 6 of 21Shu-Xu Yi et al.: The Gravitational Wave Universe Toolbox:
will decrease the noise in the low frequency ends slope and leave 4.1.3. Determining the sample of detected sources
the high frequency end unaffected.
Given the differential cosmic merger rate density for compact
binary mergers ṅ, the theoretical number distribution for each
4.1.2. SNR of GW from compact binary merger source class in the catalogue is:
The core of the method with which the GW-Toolbox determines
∆T dVc
detectability of sources is to compare the SNR threshold ρ? with ND (Θ, θ, ϕ, ψ, ι) = ṅ(Θ, θ, ϕ, ι, ψ)H(ρ2 − ρ2? ). (17)
that of a source, which can be calculated with (Maggiore 2008): 1 + z 4πdz
where ∆T is the time span of observation, dVc /dz is the dif-
fhigh
|h2 ( f )|
Z
ferential cosmic comoving volume (volume per redshift), H is
ρ =4
2
d f, (10)
flow S n( f ) the Heaviside step function and ρ? is the SNR threshold, Θ de-
notes the intrinsic parameters and the luminosity of the source.
where h( f ) is the frequency domain response of the interferometer Marginalise over the directional parameters and assuming that ṅ
to the GW signal, and S n is the noises power density. For a binary is isotropic:
system, the detector response can be expressed as:
T dVc
ND (Θ) =
s
1 + cos2 ι
!2 ṅ(Θ)D(Θ), (18)
h( f ) = C F+2 + cos ι2 F×2 A( f )e−i(Ψ( f )+φp ) . (11) 1 + z dz
2
where
In the above equation, the constant
D(Θ) = dΩdΩ0 H(ρ2 − ρ2? )/(4π)2 ,
r
1 5 (GM)5/6 (19)
C= , (12)
2 6 c3/2 π2/3 DL
where M is the red-shifted chirp mass of the binary, DL is the is the detectability of the source, which is determined by the
luminosity distance, ι is the inclination angle between the orbital detector properties and the waveform of the source. Since we use
angular momentum and the line of sight; A( f ) is the frequency the same waveform for BBH, DNS and BH-NS, the difference
dependence of the GW amplitude. We use the following approxi- among these three populations are only in the cosmic merger rate
mation for the compact binary inspirals: ṅ discussed above in Sections 3.1.1-3.1.3.
The total number of expected events catalogue is:
, f ≤ fcut ,
( −7/6
f
A( f ) = (13)
f > fcut ;
Z
0,
Ntot = dΘND (Θ), (20)
and the high frequency cutoff fcut is a function of the masses and
spins of the binary. Ψ( f ) is the phase of the waveform. For fcut
and the number of detections thus is poisson realisation of the ex-
and Ψ( f ) we use those from the frequency domain waveform
pectation value ND (Θ). The synthetic catalogue is then obtained
IMRPhoemD (Ajith et al. 2011). F+,× are the antenna patterns
by a Markov Chain-Monte Carlo sampling from ND (Θ). We ap-
of the interferometer, which are function of position angles of
plied the elliptical slice sampling algorithm (Murray et al. 2010),
the source (θ, ϕ) and the polarization angle of the GW ψ, For
which converges faster to the target distribution comparing with
LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA-like interferometers, which have two per-
the traditional Metropolis-Hasting algorithm (Neal et al. 1999)
pendicular arms, the antenna pattern are:
and requires less tuning on the initial parameters. Such proper-
1 ties are suitable for our purpose, because we desire GW-Toolbox
F+,90◦ = (1 + cos2 θ) cos 2ϕ cos 2ψ + cos θ sin 2ϕ sin 2ψ to return the catalogue in a tolerable waiting time, and the user
2
1 don’t need to take care of parameters of the sampler. We also
F×,90◦ = (1 + cos2 θ) cos 2ϕ sin 2ψ + cos θ sin 2ϕ cos 2ψ, (14) give the estimated uncertainties on the parameters with the Fisher
2 Information Matrix (FIM): the covariance matrix is related to the
and for ET-like interferometers with 60◦ angles between the arms Fisher matrix with:
(Regimbau et al. 2012):, D E
√ δΘi δΘ j = Fi−1j , (21)
3
F+,60◦ = − F+,90◦
2 where the Fisher matrix is defined as:
√
3
F×,60◦ = F×,90◦ . (15)
2 Fi j = (∂h/∂Θi |∂h/∂Θ j ). (22)
The ET will have three nested interferometers, 60◦ rotated with
respect to each other. The antenna pattern for each interferometers The partial derivatives in the above equation are calculated nu-
are Fi,+,× (θ, ϕ, ψ) = F0,+,× (θ, ϕ + 2/3iπ, ψ), where i = 0, 1, 2 is the merically:
index of the interferometers, and F0,+,× are those in equation (15).
The joint response can be calculated with equation (11), where ∂h h(Θi + ∆Θi ) − h(Θi − ∆Θi )
= . (23)
the antenna pattern squared should be substituted with: ∂Θi 2∆Θi
2
In GW-Toolbox, we use ∆Θi = 10−8 Θi , as it is small enough to
X
2
F+,× = 2
Fi,+,× . (16)
i=0
give stable results.
Article number, page 7 of 21A&A proofs: manuscript no. aanda
4.2. Space-Borne interferometers ≤6 mo ≤1 yr ≤2 yr ≤ 4 yr
The Space-Borne interferometers module of the Toolbox enables α 0.133 0.171 0.165 0.138
users to simulate observations with LISA-like space-borne GW β 243 292 299 -221
observatories (see Barke et al. 2015). We work with the codes κ 482 1020 611 521
of the LISA Data Challenge (LDC, https://lisa-ldc.lal. γ 917 1680 1340 1680
in2p3.fr, a successor program of the earlier Mock LISA Data fk 0.00258 0.00215 0.00173 0.00113
Challenge (Babak et al. 2010)), and make it possible for users
to customize the arm length, the laser power and the telescope Table 1. The parameters of the confusion noise of the unresolved Galac-
tic WD binaries background.
diameter of LISA. In the ground-based interferometers section the
theoretical probability distribution of parameters of the detectable
sources are first calculated, afterwards samples are drawn from
such distribution as synthetic catalogues of observations. The and
procedure for LISA-like detectors is different: we go through pre-
optical
generated synthetic catalogues of different source populations Sy = S ops + S opo , (29)
in all the Universe and calculate the SNR of each source to be
detected by LISA. The SNR is still calculated with: where S ops is the laser shot noise, which scales with the arm
Z 2
|h ( f )| length L, the laser power P and the diameter of the telescope D
ρ =4
2
d f, (24) as (Amaro-Seoane et al. 2017):
S n( f )
where h( f ) is the LISA response to a waveform of a source, and f
!2
[2W] L
!2
[0.3m]
!2
S n ( f ) is the noise power spectrum density (PSD). The time-delay S ops
= 5.3 × 10 −38
× Hz−1 ;
[Hz] P 2.5[Gm] D
interference (TDI) channels are combinations of data streams
such that the noises arise from the fluctuation of the laser fre- (30)
quency can be exactly cancelled while the signal in GW can
be preserved (Tinto & Armstrong 1999; Armstrong et al. 1999; and
Estabrook et al. 2000). In GW-Toolbox, we consider the LISA S opo = 2.81 × 10−38 ( f /[Hz])2 Hz−1
responses and the noise spectrum density in the first generation denotes the contribution from other noise in the optical meteorol-
TDI-X channel (Armstrong et al. 1999). The noise spectrum will ogy system. We also include the TDI-X noise PSD originating
be introduced in the next section. Three classes of sources are from the confusion GW emission from Galactic DWDs. In prac-
included in GW-Toolbox for LISA, namely: inspiral of Massive tice the confusion noise will be modulated with the orbital phase
BH binaries (MBBH), resolved double white dwarfs (DWD) in of the spacecraft. For simplicity, we adopt an analytic approxi-
the Galaxy and extreme mass ratio inspirals (EMRIs). Waveforms mation for the averaged equal-arm Michelson PSD of GWD as
and the corresponding LISA responses will be introduced in the (Robson et al. 2019):
following subsections. Examples of synthetic observations are
α
given and compared with literature in Section 5. Uncertainties of +β f sin(κ f )
S GWD ( f, T obs ) = A f −7/3 e− f (1 + tanh(γ( fk − f ))) , (31)
the parameters are given with the FIM method, which is the same
with that in the ground-based interferometers part. Note that the noise depends also on the observation duration, be-
cause as observation goes, more and more individual DWDs can
4.2.1. Noise TDI be resolved and removed from the confusion noise background.
This time dependent is represented by using different parameters
The PSD of the noise TDI-X response is formulated with (Arm- with different T obs : The amplitude A is fixed to 9 × 10−45 for
strong et al. 1999): T obs ≤ 4 years, and is set to zero for larger T obs .
optical
S X ( f ) = [4 sin2 (2x) + 32 sin2 x]S yaccel + 16 sin2 xS y , (25) The equal-arm Michelson response (fractional displacement) PSD
term S GWD is converted to the fractional frequency by timing a
where x = 2π f L/c, and L is the arm length of LISA and c is factor x2 and then added to S ops calculated with equation (25).
optical
the speed of light, S yaccel and S y are the fractional frequency The upper panel of figure 9 shows the square root of the noise
fluctuations due to acceleration noise of spacecrafts and the opti- PSD with various LISA parameters. Note that our S X should not
cal meteorology system noise. For the acceleration noise, we use be confused with the PSD in the Michelson response. The latter is
(Amaro-Seoane et al. 2017): more commonly applied and sometimes referred as the sensitivity
−2 2
! 2
! 4
curve. GW-Toolbox also provide the latter with the following
−30 [m s ] [0.4mHz] f
S a = 9×10
accel
1 + 1 + . analytic model (Robson et al. 2019):
[Hz] f [8 mHz]
S aacc
! !
(26) 10 op 3 2
S n = 2 S dis + 2(1 + cos (x)) 2
1 + x + S GWD ,
Note that the above noise is in the form of acceleration. To convert 3L (2π f )4 5
it into fractional frequency fluctuation, one needs to divide a factor (32)
4π2 f 2 c2 (Armstrong et al. 1999), resulting: op
where S dis is the noise in the optical system in term of the dis-
S yaccel (27) placement, which can be converted into the previous Doppler
optical
!2 !2 !2 Sy by timing a factor 2π f /c. We plot the sensitivity curves
3.9 × 10−44 [0.4mHz] [8 mHz] f
= 1 + + , corresponding to different arm length and T obs in figure 9. In
[Hz] f f [8 mHz]
the appendix, we give a summary plot of the conversion among
(28) different detector responses.
Article number, page 8 of 21Shu-Xu Yi et al.: The Gravitational Wave Universe Toolbox:
10 17
total-2.5Gm/2W/30cm/ 10 16
10 18 GWD-2.5Gm 10 17
total-5Gm/2W/30cm/ 10 18
GWD-5Gm
|X| ( Hz 1 )
10 19
10 19
Sx
10 20
10 20 #1,L=5 Gm
10 21 #2,L=5 Gm
#3,L=5 Gm
10 21 10 22 #1,L=2.5 Gm
#2,L=2.5 Gm
10 23
#3,L=2.5 Gm
10 22
10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1
frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
Fig. 10. Modulus of frequency domain TDI-X responses to GW from
10 15 different MBHBs (whose parameters are listed in Table 2). The solid
total-2.5Gm/2W/30cm/ curves correspond to LISA with 5 Gm laser arms, and dashed curves
10 16
GWD correspond to 2.5 Gm arms configuration.
10 17 total-5Gm/2W/30cm/
4.2.3. TDI Waveform for double WD
10 18
Sn
We first derive the frequency domain TDI-X waveform in
10 19
a monochromatic plane wave approximation. The equal-arm
10 20 Michelson response of a plane GW in the long-wavelength re-
gion can be approximated as a sine wave with a orbit averaged
10 21 amplitude hAi and frequency fs . The relation between hAi and
the intrinsic amplitude A of the source binary can be found in
10 22
equations (A12,A13) of Korol et al. (2017).
10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100
frequency (Hz) The Fourier transform of such a signal with the duration T obs is:
Fig. 9. Upper Panel: Square root of the PSD noise TDI-X correspond-
ing to different LISA configurations. The solid curves are the total PSD, 1
while the dashed curves are the contribution from the confusion GWDs. h̃Mich ( f ) = hAiT obs sinc(( f − fs )T obs ). (33)
2
The bundle of curves in the same colour correspond to T obs = 1, 2, 4, 5
years from top to bottom; Lower Panel: Sensitivity curves correspond- Note that here we use the convention that sinc(x) = sin(πx)/(πx),
ing to different arm length and T obs . The solid curves are the total curve, such that the integration of |h̃( f )|2 equals T obs A2 .
while the dashed curves are the contribution from the confusion GWDs.
The bundle of curves in the same colour correspond to T obs = 1, 2, 4, 5 To convert the equal-arm Michelson into TDI-X, we multiply by
years from top to bottom. a factor 4x sin x, where x = f (2πL/c).
X( f ) = 2x sin xhAiT obs sinc ( f − fs )T obs
(34)
In figure (11) we show the wave forms of a DWD with A = 10−20 ,
4.2.2. TDI response to the waveform for MBHB
fs = 10−3 Hz, calculated analytically formula in equation (34)
The TDI-X response of LISA due to the incident of GW from a and compare them with those calculated numerically with LDC
MBHB merger is calculated using the LDC code (Babak et al. code (which is based on Cornish & Littenberg 2007).
2010), where the IMRPhenomD waveform is adopted (Ajith et al. From equations (24,34), we obtain an approximated squared SNR
2011). Figure 10 shows the modulus of the TDI-X responses in expression:
frequency domain, which corresponds to three different sources.
The parameters of the example sources are list in Table 2. The 16x2 sin2 x < A2 > T obs
low-frequency limit corresponds to the time to coalescence at the ρapprox. = .
2
(35)
S X ( fs )
beginning of observation, and the dips at the high frequency end
are due to the term sin(x) when converting to TDI. The sample When replace the TDI-X noise PSD with the Michelson noise
cadence is fixed to 5 s, which corresponds to a high frequency PSD, and drop the 16x2 sin2 x term, the above equation becomes
cut-off at 0.1 Hz. For systems with heavy BHs, like #1 in the the equation (10) of Korol et al. (2017).
example, the frequency at coalescence is lower than the cut-off
frequency, therefore the current cadence will not lose any power
from the signal; On the other hand, for systems with light BHs, 4.2.4. TDI Waveform for EMRIs
like #2 in the example, high frequency part (> 0.1 Hz) of the The analytic kludge (AK) waveforms (Barack & Cutler 2004) for
waveform will be lost. However, the decrease of SNR is less EMRIs are applied and the corresponding TDI-X responses are
than 1% comparing to that using a cadence of 1 s. Therefore is calculated with the code package EMRI_Kludge_Suite3 (Chua
acceptable to fix the cadence to 5 s for all sources, in the light of
3
the speed of simulation. https://github.com/alvincjk/EMRI_Kludge_Suite
Article number, page 9 of 21A&A proofs: manuscript no. aanda
# β (rad) λ (rad) θχ1 (rad) θχ2 (rad) ϕχ1 (rad) ϕχ2 (rad) χ1 χ2 m1 (M ) m2 (M ) θL (rad) ϕL (rad) z tc (yr)
1 -1.3 0.44 0.8 2.6 4.5 5.98 0.8 0.2 37695 4582 2.18 1.3 0.069 0.76
2 -0.44 4.7 0.08 0.037 4.26 5.48 0.04 0.2 420555 298237 1.14 3.26 5.1 0.0038
3 -0.01 2.7 0.12 0.12 0.72 6.08 0.6 0.13 76476 28854 1.673 1.47 2.8 0.5
Table 2. Parameters of example sources corresponding the figure 10. The meaning of the parameters are: β-Ecliptic Latitude; λ-Ecliptic Longitude;
θχ1 /χ1 -Polar angle of spin 1/2; χ1,2 -Spin 1/2; m1,2 -(Intrinsic) masses of primary/secondary BH; θL -Initial polar Angle of the orbital angular momentum;
ϕL Initial azimuthal Angle of the orbital angular momentum; z red-shift; tc time to coalescence at the beginning of observation;
the third waveforms than the second. Other physical parameters
are identical for the three system, which are: s = 0.5, e = 0,
1e 15 ι = 0.524 rad, γ = 0, ψ = 0.785 rad, θS = 0.785 rad, φS = 0.785
3.5
num.,Tobs=1 yr, L=2.5 Gm rad, θK = 1.05 rad, φK = 1.05 rad, α = 0, D = 1 Gpc. The
anal.,Tobs=1 yr, L=2.5 Gm meaning of the parameters are (Barack & Cutler 2004):
3.0 num.,Tobs=0.5 yr, L=5 Gm
anal.,Tobs=0.5 yr, L=5 Gm – s: dimension-less spin of the massive BH;
2.5 – e: the initial eccentricity;
– ι: the initial inclination;
– γ: the pericenter angle in AK Waveform;
2.0 – ψ: the initial phase;
– θS : the sky position polar angle of source in an ecliptic-based
|X|
1.5 coordinate system, equals to π/2 minus the ecliptic latitude;
– φS : the sky position azimuth angle of source in an ecliptic-
based coordinate system, equals to the ecliptic longitude;
1.0 – θK : the polar angle of the massive BH spin;
– φK : the azimuth angle of the massive BH spin;
– α: the azimuthal direction of the orbital angular momentum;
0.5 – D: luminosity distance.
0.0 As mentioned above, if the frequency domain waveform were to
4 2 0 2 4 be simulated in real time for every candidate event, it is difficult
fGW 10 3 Hz 1e 7
to reconcile both the speed of simulation and to include the full
GW signal from the beginning of observation to the plunge. As a
Fig. 11. Frequency domain LISA responses to GW from DWD: The solid solution, we generate the frequency domain TDI waveform cor-
and dashed lines correspond to two different LISA configurations; Blue responding to each candidate event in the catalogue in advance,
and oranges lines correspond to responses calculated with numerical and and store their modulus in files. The pre-generated TDI waveform
analytical methods respectively. corresponds to signal from the beginning of the observation to
the final plunge. The initial semi-latus is calculated with a New-
tonian formula equation 4.136 of Maggiore (2008) according to
& Gair 2015; Chua et al. 2017). As examples, in figure 12 we plot its masses, eccentricity and time to plunge at the beginning of
the frequency domain TDI-X responses to the AK waveforms, observation. The pre-calculated TDI corresponds to a LISA arm
which correspond to three EMRIs systems and two L designs of length 2.5 Gm. The conversion to a different LISA arm length can
LISA. The first system (blue curves) has a supermassive BH with be done by rescaling with x1,i sin x1,i /(x0,i sin x0,i ), where:
mass M = 106 M and stellar mass BH with mass m = 20 M .
Here the masses are all measured in the observer’s frame, i.e., x0,i = 2π fi Ldefault /c, (36)
red-shifted. The frequency domain response corresponds to a and
time-domain waveform simulated from the semi-latus rectum
p = 8GM/c2 to the final plunge. The time resolution is dt = x1,i = 2π fi Lnew /c. (37)
25 s, which is set to ensure that the highest frequency cut-off
set by 1/(2dt) is larger than the Kepler frequency around the
innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) of the supermassive BH. 4.3. Pulsar Timing Arrays
The lower frequency cut corresponds to initial orbital inspiral, and
the higher frequency cut corresponds to the orbital frequency at Pulsars are rotating neutron stars. Some of the known pulsars
the plunge, which approximates to the Kepler frequency at ISCO; which are very stable, i.e., their spin period only change a tiny
The second system (orange curves) has a supermassive BH with fraction in a very long epoch. Therefore, the arrival time of each
mass M = 105 M and stellar mass BH with mass m = 20 M . pulse from such a pulsar can be modeled with high accuracy. The
The initial semi-latus rectum is also p = 8GM/c2 . Since the passing of a series of GW will cause additional changes to the ex-
Kepler frequency at ISCO is inversely proportional to the mass of pected arrival time of the pulses (TOAs), and thus provide a way
the supermassive BH, we use dt = 2.5. The third system (green to detection GW in frequency 10−8 to 10−5 Hz, where the lower
curves) is identical with the second one. The difference is the frequency limit corresponds to the observation span of years,
initial semi-latus rectum of the third one is p = 20GM/c2 . To and the high frequency limit corresponds to the average cadence
track the evolution from this larger initial semi-latus rectum to the of a couple of days (Sazhin 1978; Detweiler 1979; Hellings &
final plunge, the simulation includes ∼ 10 times longer time steps. Downs 1983; Jenet et al. 2005). A pulsar timing array is a group
As a result, more low-frequency components are included in of pulsars, which are stable and has been monitored with radio
Article number, page 10 of 21Shu-Xu Yi et al.: The Gravitational Wave Universe Toolbox:
10 17 75°
60°
45°
10 19 30°
15°
10 21 150 120 90 60 30 0 330 300 270 240 210
0°
|X|
M = 106 M , m = 20 M , p0/M = 8 -15°
10 23
M = 105 M , m = 20 M , p0/M = 8 -30°
10 25 M = 105 M , m = 20 M , p0/M = 20 -45°
L=2.5 Gm -60°
-75°
L=5 Gm known pulsars new pulsars
10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1
Frequency (Hz)
Fig. 12. Frequency domain TDI-X responses to EMRI AK waveform, Fig. 13. Galactic distribution of the PTAs. The blue dots indicate the
which correspond to three EMRIs systems and two L designs of LISA pulsars from current IPTA, and orange dots indicate simulated new
pulsars. The size of the markers is proportional to the number of TOAs
of the corresponding pulsar.
telescopes for a long time. The existing PTA consortia are EPTA
(Kramer & Champion 2013), PPTA (Hobbs 2013), NANOGrav
(McLaughlin 2013) and IPTA (Hobbs et al. 2010). The standard observation, Ared the normalization of the red noise, α the power
procedure of pulsar timing is first to fit a timing model to TOAs index of the red noise, and σw the level of the white noise. The
from individual pulsars, which takes account of the pulsars’ as- last three are intrinsic properties of the pulsar. These parame-
trometric parameters inaccuracies and models of spin evolution, ters for the pulsars in the above mentioned PTAs are fitted and
refractive effects of interstellar medium and solar wind, the orbital published (Desvignes et al. 2016; Porayko et al. 2019; Alam
and spin motion of the Earth, delays due to general relativity etc. et al. 2020). The GW-Toolbox includes 42 pulsars in EPTA, 26
(see Hobbs et al. 2006). The off-set between the timing model pulsars in PPTA, 47 pulsars in NANOGrav and 87 pulsars in
and the observed TOAs are the timing residuals, which are used IPTA. Besides the pulsars in the current PTAs, the GW-Toolbox
to extract information of passing by GW with frequentist (Jenet also includes simulated future observations, with customised ob-
et al. 2005; Babak & Sesana 2012; Ellis et al. 2012) or Bayesian servation cadence and duration, and an increasing number of
method (van Haasteren et al. 2009; Ellis 2013). Here we want to new pulsars during the observation period. The parameters (sky
use a simplified way to represent the properties of PTA, without coordinates RA, DEC and noise parameters Ared , α, σw ) of the
the need to make use of the full time series of the timing residuals, simulated pulsars are assigned in the following way: randomly
and obtain results which agree in order of magnitude with the select two pulsars from the current PTA with replacement, and
published results. We base our method on measuring the excess draw a uniformly random number between the parameters of the
power from GW over analytic timing noise power spectra. Such selected pair of pulsars, and assign the random variable as the
a practice was also used by some early work (Jenet et al. 2004; corresponding parameter of the new pulsar. In this method, the
Yardley et al. 2010; Yi et al. 2014). noise properties and sky distribution of the new pulsars can reflect
those of the known pulsars.
4.3.1. Representing the timing noises In figure 14, we plot the noise spectra density of pulsars in the
PTA used by the GW-Toolbox. Blue curves correspond to known
Suppose that we have already removed every known source of pulsars in existing PTAs, and orange curves are simulated new
timing residuals from the TOA, the residuals that are purely intrin- pulsars. In figure 13, we plot the sky coordinates of pulsars in the
sic to the pulsars due to their spin irregularity. Previous studies PTA. The blue dots indicate the pulsars from current IPTA, and
found that such timing noise can be decomposed into a red noise orange dots indicate simulated new pulsars. The size of the mark-
component and a white noise component (Hobbs et al. 2010). ers is proportional to the number of TOAs of the corresponding
The red noise component can be represented with a power-law pulsar.
spectrum, with increasing power towards the lower frequencies,
while the white noise component has a frequency independent
power level. In the GW-Toolbox, we use the following equation 4.4. PTA detections
to represent the noise spectrum density of the timing residuals of The GW from an individual supermassive BH can be approxi-
an individual pulsar: mated with a monochromatic wave. The timing residuals induced
S total ( f ) = σ2w /( fhigh − flow ) + S n,red ( f ), (38) in the i-th pulsar is:
where σw is the level of white noise, fhigh = N/(2T ) is the high
s
!2
frequency cut-off defined by the observation cadence and flow = Ai = hs 1 + cos2 ι
(1 + cos θ) cos 2ψ
2 + sin2 2ψ cos2 ι
1/T is the low frequency cut-off defined by the inverse of the ω 2
duration, S n,red ( f ) is the red noise component, which has a power- (40)
law form:
!−α where θ, ι, Ψ are the angle between the pulsar and the GW source,
A2red f
S n,red ( f ) = . (39) the inclination of the source binary plan and the polarization
12π2 yr−1 angle respectively. The SNR squared of the GW in the i-th pulsar
is:
Therefore, we define the noise spectrum of a pulsar with 5 param-
eters, namely: N the number of observations, T the duration of ρ2i = A2i /S n,i ( f ) × T i , (41)
Article number, page 11 of 21A&A proofs: manuscript no. aanda
10 10
120 aLIGO-design-1 year
10 12 aLIGO-O3-1 year
100 GWTC-1+2 (BBH)
10 14 80
m1 (M )
Presi(day3)
10 16 60
10 18 40
20
10 20
0
10 22 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
z
10 24
10 1 100 101 102 aLIGO-design-1 year
100
f (yr 1) aLIGO-O3-1 year
80
GWTC-1+2 (BBH)
Fig. 14. The noise spectra of the pulsars. Blue curves correspond to
m2 (M )
known pulsars in existing PTAs, and orange curves are simulated new 60
pulsars.
40
where S n,i ( f ) is the noise spectrum density of the pulsar, and T i 20
is the observation duration. The total SNR squared of a PTA is:
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
m1 (M )
X
ρ2 = ρ2i . (42)
Fig. 15. aLIGO-design-1 year: The simulated catalogue from one year
The effects of a stochastic GW background (SGWB) to the timing observation by aLIGO with designed noise performance on BBH, marked
residual are an additional red noise: with blue crosses; aLIGO-O3-1 year: The simulated catalogue from
one year observation by aLIGO with O3 noise performance on BBH,
h2c ( f ) = C f γ , (43) marked with orange dots; GWTC-1+2(BBH): BBH events in GWTC-1
and GWTC-2, marked with green star symbols.
where hc is the characteristic GW strain at the frequency 1 yr−1 ,
and the index γ corresponds to the origin of SGWB. For incoher-
ent overlapping of MBH, γ = −2/3; for relic GW, γ = −1 and
for cosmic strings, γ = −7/6. Besides the additional red noise, it 5. Results and examples
is also expected that the timing residuals due to the SGWB are In order to test and validate the GW-Toolbox, we discuss the
correlated between pairs of pulsars. The correlation as a function outcome of the calculations for the different source populations
of the angular separation between the pair is: and for different detectors and compare these with earlier results
n 1 1 − cos ξ 1 − cos ξ 1 o where possible.
Γ0 = 3 + [ln( − ], (44)
3 2 2 6
5.1. Examples for stellar mass black holes binaries detected
which is referred as the Hellings and Downs Curve (Hellings &
with Earth-based detectors
Downs 1983). The SNR squared in pair of pulsars are:
s For double black holes, we generate catalogues for a one year run
H02 Ω2gw ( f )Γ20 of aLIGO, both with the noise spectrum of O3 (aLIGO-O3) and
Z ∞
ρ1,2 = 2 2T df 6 , (45) of the final design (aLIGO-design), to demonstrate the results
4π 0 f P1 ( f )P2 ( f )
of the GW-Toolbox. The underlying population model is BHBH-
where H0 is the Hubble constant, Ωgw ( f ) is the energy density of Pop2 with the default parameters (delay time of 3Gyr and a mass
the SGWB relative to the critical density that close the Universe. function with an extra Gaussian peak at 40M , see section 3.1.1).
The relation between hc ( f ) and Ωgw ( f ) is: The expected number of detections in the simulated catalogue
of aLIGO-O3 is 62.0, which is compatible with the real number
2
3H0 1 of detection in O3a (∼ 36 BBH in six month of observation,
h2c ( f ) = Ωgw ( f ). (46) see Abbott et al. (2020)); the expected detection number for
2π2 f 2
the aLIGO-design is 298.2. In the panels of figure 15, we plot
In equation (45) P1,2 ( f ) = S n1,2 ( f ) f 2 . The total SNR squared is the simulated catalogues in the z − m1 and m1 − m2 planes. We
the summation of SNR squared over all pairs in the PTA. also plot the BBH events in GWTC-1 and GWTC-2 to compare.
The simulated sets agree well with the observed ones, except
that the uncertainties of parameters are in general larger in our
simulation than the real observation (∼ 50%), especially in the
low SNR region. The problem of uncertainties overestimation is
Article number, page 12 of 21Shu-Xu Yi et al.: The Gravitational Wave Universe Toolbox:
0.14 ET 1 month detection 3.0 aLIGO-design-10 years
0.12
Universe aLIGO-O3-10 years
2.5 GWTC-1+2 (DNS)
0.10
m1 (M )
0.08 2.0
p.d.f
0.06
1.5
0.04
0.02 1.0
0 20 40 60 80 0 200 400 600 800 1000
m1 (M ) D(Mpc)
1400
ET 1 month detection aLIGO-design-10 years
1200 Universe 2.5 aLIGO-O3-10 years
GWTC-1+2 (DNS)
Num. density (z 1)
1000
2.0
m2 (M )
800
600
1.5
400
200 1.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
z m1 (M )
Fig. 16. m1 distribution (Upper Panel) and The number density (inte- Fig. 17. Same as figure 15, but for ten years observation on DNS.
grated to the total number) as function of redshift (Lower Panel) in the
catalogue of 1 month observation on BBH mergers by ET (solid blue).
As a comparison, we plot that of the whole Universe within 1 month in
dashed orange. 0.8 ET 1 year detection
Universe
0.6
intrinsic in the method of FIM, as pointed out by Rodriguez et al.
p.d.f
2013. 0.4
We also simulate a catalogue of 1 month observation by ET. In
this case, the number of events is 1923. In the panels of figure 16, 0.2
we plot the distribution of the catalogue in z and m1 . We also plot
the distribution of BBH mergers in the whole Universe as defined 0.0
by the population model for comparison. From this example, it is 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
clear that ET will probe the distribution of sources throughout the mtot (M )
Universe very well, as was shown before (Vitale & Evans 2017).
5 ×10
We will study this in more detail in a forthcoming paper (Yi et al. 5
in preparation Universe in 1 year
4
ET 1 year detection
Num. density (z 1)
5.2. Examples for double neutron stars detected with
Earth-based detectors 3
The number of DNS mergers detected so far is small (2-3). There-
fore, we generate catalogues for ten years of detection of DNS 2
mergers by aLIGO, both with the noise spectrum in O3 (aLIGO-
O3) and that in design (aLIGO-design). The event number in the 1
simulated catalogue of aLIGO-O3 is 48.7, which is in accordance
with the real detection rate in O3a (1-2 in six month); the number
0 2 4 6 8 10
of aLIGO-design is 236.3. In the panels of figure 17, we plot z
the simulated catalogues in the z − m1 and m1 − m2 planes. We
also plot the DNS events in GWTC-1 (GW170817) and GWTC-2 Fig. 18. The total mass distribution (Upper Panel) and the number density
(GW190425) to compare. It is difficult to draw strong conclusions (integrated to the total number) as function of red-shift in the catalogue of
with so few detection, but broadly the results of the GW-Toolbox one year’s observation on DNS mergers by ET (solid blue). The dashed
agree with the observations so far. orange curve is that in the whole universe within one year.
Article number, page 13 of 21You can also read
