EPTA – Exploiting 25 years of data · 6 EPTA DR2 Major extension of the DR1; adds about ~10 years...
Transcript of EPTA – Exploiting 25 years of data · 6 EPTA DR2 Major extension of the DR1; adds about ~10 years...
EPTA – Exploiting 25 years of data
Siyuan ChenOn behalf of the EPTA
IPTA Catch-up Meeting23 Sep 2020
2
EPTA DR1
● Desvignes et al. 2016; Caballero et al. 2016
● 42 millisecond pulsars (MSPs), “Historical” backend data, T=(6.9-24.1) yr
● Major upgrade from 2011 release (van Haasteren et al. 2011)
● 2011: EPTA Gravitational-wave background (GWB) strain upper limit: A=6x10-15 (95% CL) @ α=-2/3
● 2015/16 limit (Lentati et al. 2015): A=3x10-
15 (95% CL) @ α=-2/3,
● first time to see a suspicious possible common red signal (CRS) in EPTA pulsar data
3
EPTA DR1 GWB search/detection analysis
6 MSP search Confirmation by multiple
codes and checks Some variation in GWB
parameters depending on sampler used, but consistent within uncertainties
Passed all basic data-systematics checks
CRS spectral index Vs strain amplitude(multiple Bayesian codes; fixed DE421 ephemeris)
EPTA 2014-15 GWB search analysis
4
EPTA DR1 GWB search/detection analysis
Hellings-Downs (HD) curve?:Cross-correlation measurement precision still low, however:
1) Bayesian factor disfavoured a clock signal (monopolar correlation)2) GW-parameter posterior distributions did not depend on Solar-system ephemeris used3) Pulsar-position randomization was flattening the strain amplitude posterior distribution
=> Suspicion of possible GWB signal to be further monitored
CRS cross-correlation curve (multiple methods/codes; fixed DE421 ephemeris)
EPTA 2014-15 GWB search analysis
5
EPTA DR1 GWB search/detection analysis
Frequentist statistic: Fixed spectral index α=-2/3(GW-driven supermassive black holes); fixed DE421 ephemeris
Max. likelihood (Λ) estimator (top= Λ, bottom = Λ distribution)
Optimal statistic (OS) (Anholm et al 2009).Bottom=Null hypothesis Amplitude distributionGreen line = Max. Likelihood value
All analyses pointed to amplitude ~2x10-15 for spectral index α=-2/3, in case this was a GWB, but HD measurement missing
EPTA 2014-15 GWB search analysis
6
EPTA DR2
Major extension of the DR1; adds about ~10 years of new/improved data (some overlap with old data)
Initial focus on 6 pulsars for prelim DR2 v0 with more pulsars to be added to DR2 v1 sequentially
Includes several new observing systems with coherent dedispersion
Incorporated for the first time TOAs from the Large European Array for Pulsars (LEAP) project
=> Major challenge: data from 5+1 telescopes
Presentation of preliminary GWB analysis on the prelim DR2 v0; all results are preliminary
Work ongoing to finalize dataset and analyze it in more detail
7
EPTA DR2
Includes several new observing systems with coherent dedispersion:
Effelsberg: L-band receiver with 200(400) MHz; S-band receivers with 200(500) MHz bandwidths
Lovell: ROACH (300 MHz) system replacing DFB at L-band
Nancay: NUPPI (512 MHz) system replacing BON at L and S-band
Sardinia: major upgrade ongoing, L-band and higher freqs planned
Westerbork: Puma2 system replacing Puma1 at low freqs, L and S-band
LEAP: Coherently added observations at L-band with 128 MHz bandwidth from up to 5 telescopes forming a up to 194-m dish
8
EPTA DR1 vs DR2 v0
Improving our dataset to improve our GW search results: From EPTA DR1 to DR2Below: TOAs of 6 MSPs used for 2015 analysis. Pulsar noise properties appear consistent so far.
J0613-0200
J1012+5307
J1600-3053
J1713+0747
J1744-1134
J1909-3744
9
Single pulsar – Upper limits (DR1 vs DR2 v0)
10
Detection analysis (DR1 vs DR2 v0)
Varied spectral indexFixed spectral index
11
Fixed Solar system ephemeris vs BayesEphem (DR1)
Upper limit analysis Detection analysis
Results seem independent between fixing or modelling the SSE; DR2 v0 analyses appear also consistent
12
BayesEphem vs EphemGP (DR2 v0)
Results seem independent between fixing or modelling the SSE; DR1 analyses appear also consistent
13
EPTA DR2 v0 GWB search/detection analysis
CRS still present – now with evidence for possible HD correlationBelow a DR1 vs DR2 comparison; DE436 ephemeris + BayesEphem
14
CRS Free spectrum vs Power Law comparison
15
Example model selection: Bayes Factor (BF) (DR1 vs DR2 v0)
Pulsar intrinsic red noise only
Common-uncorrelated
HD Correlation
Monopole Correlation
Dipole Correlation
HD + Monopole
HD + common uncorr.
HD + Dipole
0.7 0.06
– 0.34
– 0.3
– 0.03
0.1
0.213.15 0.17
– 2.24
– 1.79
0.09
0.03
0.45
BF=Log10(Bayes Factor) values for model comparison/selection: Each BF favoring(+ve) or disfavoring(-ve) the addition of the parameter at the right of the arrow to to the model at the start of the arrow
Values for fixed α=-2/3 Ephemeris DE436+ BayesEphem Blue=DR1; Orange=DR2
16
Alternative (frequentist) analysis: Optimal statistic spatial correlation
DE436 ephemeris
S/N = sqrt(2*ln(BF))
BF = exp(S/N^2 / 2)
DR2 v0DR1
17
EPTA GWB search – A Summary of recent Enterprise runs
Pulsar – Upper limit Lentati et al. 2015 DR1 (enterprise) DR2 (enterprise)
J0613-0200 9.7e-15 8.2e-15 6.3e-15
J1012+5307 8.3e-15 8.3e-15 6.5e-15
J1600-3053 2.1e-14 2.2e-14 1.1e-14
J1713+0747 4.4e-15 4.2e-15 4.6e-15
J1744-1134 7.0e-15 7.4e-15 5.5e-15
J1909-3744 5.2e-15 5.0e-15 4.8e-15
GWB fixed gamma 3.0e-15 2.7e-15 3.4e-15
GWB varied gamma 1.3e-14 1.6e-14 1.1e-14
Model comparison: Spatial correlation
Monopole vs none:DR1 → DR2
Dipole vs none:DR1 → DR2
HD vs none:DR1 → DR2
Log10 Bayes factor – 0.34 → -2.24 – 0.3 → -1.79 0.06 → 0.17
Frequentist OS S/N 0.14 → 1.06 – 0.04 → 0.74 0.34 → 0.81
More DR2 pulsar data in prep. for further work on search/detectionGoal is to better sample the cross-correlation curve
18
EPTA – Current Status
• EPTA data based on regular observations with 5 telescopes (Effelsberg, Lovell, Nancay, Sardinia, Westerbork) with combined weekly cadence
• For nearly 10 years, monthly LEAP runs coherently adding EPTA dishes to up to 194-m dish• Additionally, low-frequency MSP monitoring with LOFAR core, GLOW stations, now
NenuFAR• DR1 analysis in 2014-2015 suggested a common red-noise process but of unclear origin,
opted to do more work before publicizing• Since then trying to understand origin (GW, instrumental, ephemerides, clocks, samplers
etc.) in order to avoid false-positive detections• Decision to improve data and data acquisition systems while working on paper leading to
DR2 rather than publishing new limits● DR2 contains excellent new data incl. LEAP showing very promising and interesting results.
Work in progress
19
EPTA – Towards 10k days of data
● Comparing Single pulsar noise analysis between enterprise/temponest/fortytwo (incl. Timing parameters)
● Testing different Solar System ephemerides and models (BayesEphem/EphemGP/LINIMOSS) bridging the uncertainties
● Testing different pipelines/samplers for consistency● Checking the effects of various DM/ISM correction schemes● Scintillation and Scattering effects● Using LEAP to cross check different telescopes● Include more pulsars, curate dataset● More collaboration in IPTA