Paper detail

Line-robust statistics for continuous gravitational waves: safety in the case of unequal detector sensitivities

The multi-detector F-statistic is close to optimal for detecting continuous gravitational waves (CWs) in Gaussian noise. However, it is susceptible to false alarms from instrumental artefacts, for example quasi-monochromatic disturbances ('lines'), which resemble a CW signal more than Gaussian noise. In a recent paper [Keitel et al 2014, PRD 89 064023], a Bayesian model selection approach was used to derive line-robust detection statistics for CW signals, generalising both the F-statistic and the F-statistic consistency veto technique and yielding improved performance in line-affected data. Here we investigate a generalisation of the assumptions made in that paper: if a CW analysis uses data from two or more detectors with very different sensitivities, the line-robust statistics could be less effective. We investigate the boundaries within which they are still safe to use, in comparison with the F-statistic. Tests using synthetic draws show that the optimally-tuned version of the original line-robust statistic remains safe in most cases of practical interest. We also explore a simple idea on further improving the detection power and safety of these statistics, which we however find to be of limited practical use.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.