A decision between Bayesian and Frequentist upper limit in analyzing continuous Gravitational Waves

TL;DR

This paper compares Bayesian and Frequentist methods for setting upper limits on continuous gravitational wave signals, evaluating their realism and suitability for future data analysis with current detector sensitivities.

Contribution

It provides an assessment of the realism of upper limits set by Bayesian and Frequentist approaches in gravitational wave data analysis.

Findings

Bayesian and Frequentist methods yield different upper limit estimates.

The paper discusses which method provides more realistic upper limits.

Recommendations are made for future gravitational wave data analysis.

Abstract

Given the sensitivity of current ground-based Gravitational Wave (GW) detectors, any continuous-wave signal we can realistically expect will be at a level or below the background noise. Hence, any data analysis of detector data will need to rely on statistical techniques to separate the signal from the noise. While with the current sensitivity of our detectors we do not expect to detect any true GW signals in our data, we can still set upper limits (UL) on their amplitude. These upper limits, in fact, tell us how weak a signal strength we would detect. In setting upper limit using two popular method, Bayesian and Frequentist, there is always the question of a realistic results. In this paper, we try to give an estimate of how realistically we can set the upper limit using the above mentioned methods. And if any, which one is preferred for our future data analysis work.