AresGW model 1's injection detection count at a false-alarm rate of 1/month varies with noise dataset by up to 39% coefficient of variation, while sensitive distance varies by only a few percent.
Deep learning for intermittent gravitational wave signals
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
The ensemble of unresolved compact binary coalescences is a promising source of the stochastic gravitational wave (GW) background. For stellar-mass black hole binaries, the astrophysical stochastic GW background is expected to exhibit non-Gaussianity due to their intermittent features. We investigate the application of deep learning to detect such non-Gaussian stochastic GW background and demonstrate it with the toy model employed in Drasco \& Flanagan (2003), in which each burst is described by a single peak concentrated at a time bin. For the detection problem, we compare three neural networks with different structures: a shallower convolutional neural network (CNN), a deeper CNN, and a residual network. We show that the residual network can achieve comparable sensitivity as the conventional non-Gaussian statistic for signals with the astrophysical duty cycle of $\log_{10}\xi \in [-3,-1]$. Furthermore, we apply deep learning for parameter estimation with two approaches, in which the neural network (1) directly provides the duty cycle and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and (2) classifies the data into four classes depending on the duty cycle value. This is the first step of a deep learning application for detecting a non-Gaussian stochastic GW background and extracting information on the astrophysical duty cycle.
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
gr-qc 1years
2025 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1roles
background 1polarities
background 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Robustness of Sensitivity Evaluations for Gravitational Wave Detection Algorithms
AresGW model 1's injection detection count at a false-alarm rate of 1/month varies with noise dataset by up to 39% coefficient of variation, while sensitive distance varies by only a few percent.