text:
# Pairing of Composite Fermions, Laughlin Correlations, and the Fractional Quantum Hall Hierarchy

## Introduction.

Pan et al. pan  recently observed fractional quantum Hall (FQH) tsui  minima in the diagonal resistivity of a two-dimensional electron gas at novel filling fractions $`\nu `$ of the lowest Landau level (LL). The new spin-polarized FQH states occur at filling factors outside the Jain sequence jain  of composite fermion (CF) states. Some of them, as $`\nu =4/11`$ or 4/13, appear in the Haldane hierarchy haldane  of quasiparticle (QP) condensates, but their “hierarchical” interpretation was questioned hierarchy  because of the specific form of the QP–QP interaction. Others, such as the $`\nu =3/8`$ or 3/10 states, do not belong to the Haldane hierarchy, and the origin of their incompressibility is puzzling in an even more obvious way. Pan et al. take their observations as evidence for residual CF–CF interactions, but at the same time they ignore the theoretical investigations in which these interactions were studied in detail hierarchy ; sitko ; lee . Consequently, they conclude that the origin of the observed FQH states remains unresolved. In this letter we propose an explanation for these new states involving formation of QP pairs which display Laughlin correlations with one another.

First, we present briefly the connection between the CF model (equivalent to the mean-field Chern–Simons transformation) jain  and the QP hierarchy haldane ; hierarchy ; sitko  to show that the form of the “residual CF–CF interactions” is neither mysterious nor unknown. On the contrary, the pseudopotentials $`V()`$ (defined as dependence of pair interaction energy on relative pair angular momentum) describing these interactions at short range have been calculated hierarchy ; sitko ; lee , and the long-range behavior can be readily understood from the nature of the (fractionally) charged QP’s that interact with one another by the (repulsive) Coulomb potential. It is worth noting the impossibility of deriving $`V()`$ from the literally understood CF picture, where it is interpreted as the difference between Coulomb and gauge interactions between fluctuations beyond the mean field. Second, we recall two simple types of two-body correlations, Laughlin correlations and pairing, that may occur in an interacting system depending on the filling factor $`\nu `$ and on whether $`V()`$ is super- or subharmonic at the relevant range parentage . Then, knowing the QP–QP pseudopotential $`V_{\mathrm{QP}}()`$, we apply the concept of Laughlin condensed states of (bosonic) pairs (used earlier for the electrons in the $`n=1`$ LL to describe such FQH states as $`\nu =5/2`$ or 7/3 fivehalf ) to the particles or holes in a partially filled CF LL, i.e., to Laughlin quasielectrons (QE’s) or quasiholes (QH’s). Finally, we propose the existence of novel hierarchy FQH states in which the incompressibility results from the condensation of QP pairs (QE2’s or QH2’s) into Laughlin correlated pair states. The series of FQH states derived from the parent $`\nu =1/3`$ state include all novel fractions reported by Pan et al.: $`\nu =5/13`$, 3/8, 4/11, and 6/17 for the QE’s and $`\nu =5/17`$, 3/10, 4/13, and 6/19 for the QH’s.

Standard numerical calculations for $`N`$ electrons are not useful for studying the Laughlin correlated pair states because convincing results require too large values of $`N`$. For a meaningful test, at least three QP pairs need be considered. For $`\nu =4/11`$ this occurs for $`N=18`$ electrons and the total flux $`2l=45`$, which seems beyond reach of exact diagonalization and explains the lack of earlier numerical evidence. In this letter we take advantage of the knowledge of the dominant features of $`V_{\mathrm{QE}}()`$ to diagonalize two interacting QE systems corresponding to $`\nu =5/13`$ and 3/8. Although the results confirm nondegenerate ground states and an excitation gap, they should be considered as a mere illustration in support of our idea, while the most convincing arguments lie in the analysis of QP–QP pseudopotentials and in good agreement with experiment. Somewhat similar, detailed calculations were recently carried out by Mandal and Jain mandal  in search of the $`\nu =4/11`$, 5/13, and 6/17 states. However, these authors did not study systems with the values of $`(N,2l)`$ predicted in our model (and their results did not indicate incompressibility).

## QP–QP Pseudopotential.

The nature of QP correlations depends critically on the pseudopotential $`V_{\mathrm{QP}}()`$ describing their pair interaction energy $`V_{\mathrm{QP}}`$ as a function of relative pair angular momentum $``$. We have shown earlier parentage ; fivehalf  that the correlations are of the Laughlin type (i.e., the particles tend to avoid pair states with one or more of the smallest values of $`=1`$, 3, …) only if $`V()`$ is “superharmonic” at the relevant values of $``$ for a given filling factor $`\nu `$ (specifically, at $`=2p1`$ for $`\nu (2p+1)^1`$, where $`p=1`$, 2, …). Laughlin correlations defined in this way justify reapplication of the CF picture to the QP’s to select the lowest states of the whole many-body spectrum, and lead to the incompressible QP “daughter” states of the standard CF hierarchy sitko . The superharmonic repulsion is defined as one for which $`V`$ decreases more quickly than linearly as a function of the average particle–particle separation $`r^2`$ for the consecutive pair eigenstates labeled by $``$. In spherical geometry haldane , most convenient for finite-size calculations, this means that $`V`$ increases more quickly than linearly as a function of $`L(L+1)`$, i.e., of the squared total pair angular momentum $`L=2l`$, where $`l`$ is the single-particle angular momentum.

The qualitative behavior of the QP–QP interaction pseudopotential $`V_{\mathrm{QP}}()`$ at short range is well-known from numerical studies of small systems hierarchy ; sitko ; lee . In Fig. 1(a) we compare $`V_{\mathrm{QE}}()`$ calculated for the systems of $`N=9`$ to 12 electrons.

The zero of energy is not determined very accurately in finite systems, and an extrapolation to large $`N`$ is needed to restore the positive sign of $`V_{\mathrm{QE}}()`$, as shown in Fig. 1(b). However, only the relative values are of importance, since adding a constant to $`V()`$ does not affect correlations and only shifts the whole many-body spectrum by a (different) constant. On the other hand, the repulsive character of the QP–QP interaction and the long-range behavior of $`V_{\mathrm{QP}}()^{1/2}`$ follow from the fact that QP’s are charged particles (the form of QP charge density affects $`V_{\mathrm{QP}}`$ only at short range, comparable to the QP size).

Combining the above arguments, it is clear that the dominant features of $`V_{\mathrm{QE}}`$ are the small value at $`=1`$ and a strong maximum at $`=3`$. This result is most apparent in the calculation of Lee et al. lee . Analogous analysis for the QH’s yields maxima at $`=1`$ and 5, and nearly vanishing $`V_{\mathrm{QH}}(3)`$. Importantly, these conclusions do not require such assumptions as zero layer thickness $`w`$ or infinite magnetic field $`B`$, and thus they are readily applicable to the experimental FQH systems. This is in contrast to the literally understood CF model in which the weak “residual” CF–CF interactions are said to result from partial cancellation of strong Coulomb and gauge interactions between the electrons. These two interactions have very different character and, for example, depend differently on $`w`$ or $`B`$ parentage . This prevents drawing conclusions about even the sign of $`V_{\mathrm{QP}}`$ from the CF model alone (which nevertheless remains a useful picture for certain other properties of Laughlin QP’s). Let us also note that while features in $`V_{\mathrm{QP}}()`$ reflect the internal structure of QP’s interacting through bare Coulomb potential $`V(r)r^1`$, it may be convenient to picture QP’s as point particles interacting through an appropriate model potential, for example $`V_{\mathrm{QE}}(r)(a^2+(rb)^2)^{1/2}`$ with a maximum at $`r=b`$ corresponding to $`=3`$.

## QP Pairing.

It is evident that because $`V_{\mathrm{QE}}(3)>V_{\mathrm{QE}}(1)`$, the QE system does not support Laughlin correlations. Instead, we expect that at least some of the QE’s will form pairs (QE2) at $`=1`$. A paired state would be characterized by a greatly reduced fractional parentage $`𝒢`$ parentage  from the strongly repulsive $`=3`$ state compared to the Laughlin correlated state, and have lower total interaction energy $`E=\frac{1}{2}N(N1)_{}𝒢()V()`$. Let us stress that such pairing is not a result of some attractive QE–QE interaction, but due to an obvious tendency to avoid the most strongly repulsive $`=3`$ pair state. At sufficiently high QE density this can only be achieved by having significant $`𝒢(1)`$, which can be interpreted as pairing into the QE2 molecules. By analogy, the QH pairing is expected in the low-energy $`=3`$ state. The range of QP filling factors $`\nu _{\mathrm{QP}}`$ at which pairing can be considered is limited by the condition that the separation between the closest pairs must exceed the pair size. While for the QE pairs with $`=1`$ this is satisfied at any $`\nu _{\mathrm{QE}}<1`$, the QH pairing with $`=3`$ can only occur at $`\nu _{\mathrm{QH}}<1/3`$.

Because of the limited knowledge of $`V_{\mathrm{QP}}`$ at intermediate $``$, we cannot completely preclude pairing into larger molecules (e.g. QE2’s with $`=5`$ or QH2’s with $`=7`$) that might occur at approprietly lower values of $`\nu _{\mathrm{QP}}`$. We also realize that whether all or only some of the QP’s form pairs might depend on $`\nu _{\mathrm{QP}}`$, but here we concentrate on the simpler, complete-pairing scenario, discussed in the context of electrons partially filling the $`n=1`$ LL fivehalf .

## Laughlin Correlations Between Pairs.

Having established that the QP fluid consists of QP2 molecules, the QP2–QP2 interactions need be studied to understand correlations. Here, the QP2’s will be treated as bosons, although in two dimensions they can be easily converted to fermions by a transformation consisting of attachment of one flux quantum. The QP2–QP2 interaction is described by an effective pseudopotential $`V_{\mathrm{QP}_2}()`$ that includes the correlation effects caused by the fact that the two-pair wavefunction must be symmetric under exchange of the whole QP2 bosons and at the same time antisymmetric under exchange of any pair of the QP fermions. This problem is analogous to that of interaction between the electron pairs in the $`n=1`$ LL fivehalf .

Although we do not know $`V_{\mathrm{QP}_2}()`$ accurately, we expect that since it is due to the repulsion between the QP’s that belong to different QP2 pairs, it might be superharmonic at the range corresponding to the QP2–QP2 separation. For example, the tendency to avoid the pair-QE state at $`=3`$ that is responsible for QE pairing is also expected to cause spatial separation of the QE2’s in order to reduce the contribution to the parentage $`𝒢(3)`$ coming from pairs of QE’s that belong to different QE2’s. Our numerical results for four QE’s (calculations of the expectation value of the interaction energy for a model QE–QE pseudopotential in the eigenstates of a pairing interaction Hamiltonian) seem to support this idea. However, in contrast to the $`n=1`$ electron LL fivehalf , the lack of accurate data for $`V_{\mathrm{QP}}`$ at the intermediate range makes such calculations uncertain.

## Condensed Pair States.

The assumption of Laughlin correlations between the QP2 bosons for the relevant values of $`\nu _{\mathrm{QP}}`$ implies the sequence of Laughlin condensed QP2 states that can be conveniently described using the “composite boson” (CB) model fivehalf . Let us use spherical geometry and consider the system of $`N_1`$ fermions (QP’s) each with (integral or half-integral) angular momentum $`l_1`$ (i.e., in a LL of degeneracy $`g_1=2l_1+1`$). Neglecting the finite-size corrections, this corresponds to the filling factor $`\nu _1=N_1/g_1`$. Let the fermions form $`N_2=\frac{1}{2}N_1`$ bosonic pairs each with angular momentum $`l_2=2l_1_1`$, where $`_1`$ is an odd integer. The filling factor for the system of pairs, defined as $`\nu _2=N_2/g_2`$ where $`g_2=2l_2+1`$, equals to $`\nu _2=\frac{1}{4}\nu _1`$. The allowed states of two bosonic pairs are labeled by total angular momentum $`L=2l_2_2`$, where $`_2`$ is an even integer. Of all even values of $`_2`$, the lowest few are not allowed because of the Pauli exclusion principle applied to the individual fermions. The condition that the two-fermion states with relative angular momentum smaller than $`_1`$ are forbidden is equivalent to the elimination of the states with $`_24_1`$ from the two-boson Hilbert space. Such a “hard core” can be accounted for by a CB transformation with $`4_1`$ magnetic flux quanta attached to each boson theorem . This gives the effective CB angular momentum $`l_2^{}=l_22_1(N_21)`$, effective LL degeneracy $`g_2^{}=g_24_1(N_21)`$, and effective filling factor $`\nu _2^{}=(\nu _2^14_1)^1`$.

The CB’s defined in this way condense into their only allowed $`l_2^{}=0`$ state ($`\nu _2^{}=\mathrm{}`$) when the corresponding fermion system has the maximum density at which pairing is still possible, $`\nu _1=_1^1`$. At lower filling factors, the CB LL is degenerate and the spectrum of all allowed states of the $`N_2`$ CB’s represents the spectrum of the corresponding paired fermion system. In particular, using the assumption of the superharmonic form of boson–boson repulsion, condensed CB states are expected at a series of Laughlin filling factors $`\nu _2^{}=(2q)^1`$. Here, $`2q`$ is an even integer corresponding to the number of additional magnetic flux quanta attached to each CB in a subsequent CB transformation, $`l_2^{}l_2^{}=l_2^{}q(N_21)`$, to describe Laughlin correlations between the original CB’s of angular momentum $`l_2^{}`$. From the relation between the fermion and CB filling factors, $`\nu _1^1=(4\nu _2^{})^1+_1`$, we find the following sequence of fractions corresponding to the Laughlin condensed pair states, $`\nu _1^1=q/2+_1`$. Finally, we set $`_1=1`$ for the QE’s and $`_1=3`$ for the QH’s, and use the hierarchy equation hierarchy , $`\nu ^1=2p+(1\pm \nu _{\mathrm{QP}})^1`$, to calculate the following sequences of electron filling factors, $`\nu `$, derived from the parent $`\nu =(2p+1)^1`$ state

$$\nu ^1=2p+1\pm (2+q/2)^1,$$
(1)
where “$``$” corresponds to the QE’s and “$`+`$” to the QH’s. Remarkably, all the fractions reported by Pan et al. are among those predicted for the $`\nu =1/3`$ parent and listed in Tab. 1.

Note also that the same values of $`q=1`$, 2, 4, and 8 describe both observed QE and QH states. This indicates similarity of the QE–QE and QH–QH pseudopotentials and suggests that both $`V_{\mathrm{QE}_2}`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{QH}_2}`$ may be superharmonic only at the corresponding four values of $``$ (in such case, remaining fractions of Tab. 1 could not be observed even in most ideal samples). Another possibility is only partial pairing of QP’s at some of the filling factors. Since the pseudopotentials for QP’s of different Laughlin states are quite similar hierarchy , let us also list the fractions of the $`\nu =1/5`$ hierarchy corresponding to $`q=1`$, 2, 4, and 8: $`\nu =5/23`$, 3/14, 4/19, and 6/29 for the QE’s and $`\nu =5/27`$, 3/16, 4/21, and 6/31 for the QH’s.

## Numerical Results.

As an illustration, we performed exact-diagonalization calculations on a sphere for systems of QE’s interacting through a model pseudopotential with only one coefficient, $`V_{\mathrm{QE}}(3)=1`$. Because a harmonic pseudopotential does not change the many-body eigenstates and only shifts the energy spectrum by a term that is linear in $`L(L+1)`$, such choice of $`V_{\mathrm{QE}}`$ means that we neglect all anharmonic contributions to the QE–QE interaction except for the strongest one at $`=3`$ hierarchy ; sitko ; lee .

In a numerical calculation it is important to account for the finite-size corrections when calculating $`N_1`$ and $`l_1`$ corresponding to a given $`\nu `$. As an example for $`\nu =5/13`$ corresponding to $`\nu _{\mathrm{QE}}\nu _1=2/3`$ and $`q=1`$, we pick $`N_{\mathrm{QE}}N_1=18`$ and calculate $`N_2=\frac{1}{2}N_1=9`$, $`l_2^{}=q(N_21)=8`$, $`l_2=l_2^{}+2_1(N_21)=24`$, and finally $`2l_{\mathrm{QE}}2l_1=l_2+1=25`$. This QE system represents $`N=N_1+2l_11=42`$ electrons at $`2l=2(l_11)+2p(N1)=105`$. For $`\nu =3/8`$ corresponding to $`\nu _1=1/2`$ and $`q=2`$, we pick $`N_1=10`$ and calculate $`N_2=5`$, $`l_2^{}=8`$, $`l_2=16`$, and finally $`2l_1=17`$. This system represents $`N=26`$ and $`2l=65`$. Let us note that the values of $`(N,2l)`$ used here differ from those of Ref. mandal  where pairing between QP’s was not considered. The energy spectra for these two systems are shown in Fig. 2.

They both show a nondegenerate ($`L=0`$) ground state and a finite gap.

The very simple QE–QE pseudopotential we used did not give the expected $`L=0`$ ground state in every case we tested. However, the lowest $`L=0`$ state was always the lowest state for small values of $`L`$ which suggests that it might become an absolute ground state if the appropriate harmonic term was included in $`V_{\mathrm{QE}}`$. Further numerical studies of the energy spectra and of the coefficients of fractional parentage $`𝒢`$ may clarify whether this is caused by the use of an oversimplified model pseudopotential or perhaps only partial QE pairing at $`\nu _{\mathrm{QE}}<1/2`$.

## Conclusions.

We have studied the QP–QP interactions leading to novel spin-polarized FQH states in the lowest LL. Using the knowledge of QP–QP pseudopotentials and a general dependence of the form of correlations on the super- or subharmonic behavior of the pseudopotential, we have shown that QP’s form pairs over a certain range of filling factor $`\nu _{\mathrm{QP}}`$. Then, we argued that the correlations between the QP pairs should be of Laughlin type and proposed a hierarchy of condensed paired QP states, in analogy to the paired states in the excited electron LL studied earlier. The proposed hierarchy of fractions agrees remarkably well with the recent experiment of Pan et al. pan . However, more detailed calculations are needed to understand why only some of the predicted states were observed. In particular, further studies might verify the possibility of only partial pairing and formation of mixed liquids containing both paired and unpaired QP’s at filling factors corresponding to $`q>2`$. Also, the whole $`\nu =1/5`$ hierarchy is yet to be confirmed experimentally. Finally, stability of the proposed states against spin excitations at low Zeeman energy needs to be tested, as a partially polarized $`\nu =4/11`$ state was suggested by Park and Jain park , and its particle-hole conjugate, $`\nu =7/11`$, appears unpolarized in experiment pan .

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by Grant DE-FG 02-97ER45657 of the Materials Science Program – Basic Energy Sciences of the U.S. Dept. of Energy. AW acknowledges support from Grant 2P03B02424 of the Polish KBN. KSY acknowledges support from Grant R14-2002-029-01002-0 of the KOSEF. The authors thank Jennifer J. Quinn and Josef Tobiska for helpful discussions.


format: text

text:
# References

Quantum Information as Reduced Classical Information

B.A.Nikolov

Department of Theoretical and Applied Physics,
Shoumen University, 9712 Shoumen, Bulgaria
E-mail: b.nikolov@shu-bg.net

## Abstract

It is shown on a simple classical model of a quantum particle at rest that information contained into the quantum state (quantum information) can be obtained by integrating the corresponding probability distribution on phase space, i.e. by reduction of the information contained into the classical state.

1.A physical theory must give specification of three items: a) state space, b) observables, and c)the value of an observable in a given state.For example in the classical model state space is the phase space of the system,observables are smooth real functions on phase space,and the value of the observable $`A`$ in a state $`(q,p)`$ is $`A(q,p)`$.In general however the phase space point is not known and the information about the real state (classical information)is given by a phase space distribution $`\rho (q,p)`$.In this case one can predict only the mean value (expectation)of the observable

$`A={\displaystyle A(q,p)\rho (q,p)𝑑q𝑑p}`$ (1)
Thus it is reasonable under a (classical) state to understand not a point in phase space but rather a probability distribution on it.Then instead about the value of an observable in some state one should speak about the mean value of the observable in that state.

In the quantum model the state space is a Hilbert space,the information about the state (quantum state)is represented by a density operator ,i.e a positive operator $`\rho `$ satisfying $`tr\rho =1`$,observables are Hermitian operators, and the mean value of the observable $`A`$ in state $`\rho `$ is given by the Born rule

$`A=trA\rho `$ (2)
.

Our aim in the present note is ,using the simple model of a quantum particle given in a previous work , to show that ,in fact, the quantum state can be obtained by integrating of the classical one .

2.As a model of a quantum particle at rest we consider a $`d=2s+1`$ -dimensional oscillator ,where $`s`$ is the spin of the particle.The mass and the frequency of the oscillator are taken equal to unit. The coordinates $`q_n,(n=1,2,\mathrm{},d)`$ of the oscillator describe the microscopic (unobservable) deviation from the rest position.If $`p_n`$ are the corresponding momenta,and energy is assumed to be $`E=\mathrm{}\omega /2=\mathrm{}/2`$ then the phase space trajectory is given by the equation

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{d}{}}}(p_n^2+q_n^2)=\mathrm{}`$ (3)
Introducing new coordinates and momenta , viz. $`x_n=\mathrm{}^{1/2},y_n=\mathrm{}^{1/2},\psi _n=x_n+iy_n`$ we can rewrite Eq.(1) in the form

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\psi _n^{}\psi _n=1`$ (4)
Now using the same techniques as in Ref.1 we can show that arbitrary observable generating canonical transformation that preserve Eq.(4) is a hermitian form:

$`A(\psi ^{},\psi )=\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}A_{nm}\psi _n^{}\psi _n`$ (5)
Here $`A_{nm}`$ is a Hermitian matrix completely determining the observable.

3.Let $`\rho (\psi ^{},\psi )`$ is the probability distribution of phase space coordinates, and

$`d\mathrm{\Omega }_\psi =(d1)!\delta (1\psi ^{}\psi )d\psi ^{}d\psi `$ (6)
is the normalized measure over the unit sphere (4) .Then, applying Eq.(1) taken in the form

$`A={\displaystyle A(\psi ^{},\psi )\rho (\psi ^{},\psi )𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_\psi }`$ (7)
we obtain

$`A={\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}A_{nm}\rho _{mn}`$ (8)
where

$`\rho _{mn}=\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \psi _n^{}\psi _m\rho (\psi ^{},\psi )𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_\psi }`$ (9)
In fact we obtained the Born rule in its most general form.


text:
# Swift Pointing and Gravitational-Wave Bursts from Gamma-Ray Burst Events

## 1 Introduction

The currently accepted model for gamma-ray burst phenomena involves the violent formation of a rapidly rotating approximately solar-mass black hole surrounded by a similarly massive debris torus . A gravitational-wave burst is likely to be associated with the formation of this “central engine,” and the observation of such a gravitational-wave burst may reveal details of the central engine that cannot be revealed through observations of the gamma rays alone. In this paper we examine how joint observations from the LIGO gravitational-wave detectors  and the Swift gamma-ray burst satellite  can be used to detect or place upper limits on gravitational-wave emission by gamma-ray burst events.

Finn, Mohanty, and Romano  have described how the cross-correlated output of two gravitational-wave detectors, taken in coincidence with gamma-ray burst (GRB) events, can be used to detect or place upper limits on the emission of gravitational-wave bursts (GWBs) by GRBs. Finn et al. estimate that 1000 GRB observations combined with observations from the initial LIGO detectors could produce an upper limit on the gravitational-wave strain associated with GRBs of approximately $`h_{\text{RMS}}1.7\times 10^{22}`$ at 95% confidence.

In their original work Finn et al. assumed that GRBs would be detected isotropically; i.e., that the GRB detector had an isotropic antenna pattern. They did note, however, that the Swift satellite , a next-generation multi-wavelength satellite dedicated to the study of GRBs, does not have an isotropic antenna pattern and that this has potentially important consequences for the ability of the combined GRB/GWB detector array to detect or limit the gravitational-wave flux on Earth owing to GRBs. Here we study this question specifically in the context of the Swift satellite and the LIGO gravitational-wave detectors; i.e., we determine, as a function of Swift’s pointing, the sensitivity of the Swift/LIGO detector array to gravitational waves from GRBs, and propose a figure-of-merit that can be used in Swift mission scheduling to optimize the sensitivity of the Swift/LIGO array to the gravitational-wave flux from GRBs. We find that the upper limit that can be placed on $`h_{\text{RMS}}`$ differs by a factor of 2 between best and worst orientations of the satellite.

We begin in Section 2 with a review of how one can detect place upper limits on the gravitational-wave strength associated with GRBs. In Section 3 we extract the direction dependence of this upper limit and apply to the case of Swift. We conclude with some brief remarks in Section 4.

## 2 Observing a GRB–GWB Association

In this section we briefly review the analysis presented in .

Consider a set of $`N`$ GRB detections, each characterized by the direction to the source $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_k`$ and the arrival time $`\tau _k`$ of the burst at Earth’s barycenter. A plane gravitational wave incident on the detector pair from the direction $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_k`$ will lead to correlated detector responses with a time lag equal to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t_k=t_k^{(2)}t_k^{(1)},$$
(1)
where $`t_k^{(i)}`$ is the arrival time of the burst at detector $`i`$, which depends only on $`\tau _k`$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_k`$, and the detector location.

Let $`s_i(t)`$ be the output of gravitational wave detector $`𝒟_i`$, which we assume to consist of detector noise $`n_i(t)`$ and a possible gravitational wave signal $`h_i(t)`$ produced by the GRB source:

$$s_i(t)=n_i(t)+h_i(t).$$
(2)
Finn et al.  define

$$S(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_k,\tau _k)=s_1,s_2:=_0^T𝑑t_0^T𝑑t^{}s_1(t_k^{(1)}t)Q(tt^{})s_2(t_k^{(2)}t^{}),$$
(3)
as the energy in the cross-correlation of the two detectors corresponding to the GRB characterized by $`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_k,\tau _k)`$. Here $`Q`$ is a freely specifiable symmetric filter function, and $`T`$ is chosen large enough to encompass the range of possible times by which the gravitational waves from a GRB event may precede the gamma rays, which is typically thought to be of order 1 s for GRBs produced by internal shocks and 100 s for GRBs produced by external shocks .

The presence of a GWB in the data will increase the mean value of the cross-correlation (3) over its mean value when no GWBs are present. Finn et al.  showed that this effect can be used to detect or place upper limits on the gravitational-wave strain associated with GRBs by comparing the mean value $`S_{\text{on}}`$ of the cross-correlation statistic for a set of GRB observations to the mean cross-correlation $`S_{\text{off}}`$ computed using random $`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }},\tau )`$ not associated with any GRB. The expected difference between $`S_{\text{on}}`$ and $`S_{\text{off}}`$ is simply the contribution due to GWBs from the GRB events; using (2), we have

$$S_{\text{on}}S_{\text{off}}=\overline{h_1,h_2}=_0^T𝑑t_0^T𝑑t^{}Q(tt^{})\overline{h_1(t_k^{(1)}t)h_2(t_k^{(2)}t^{})},$$
(4)
where the overline denotes an average over the population of GRBs. Since the right-hand side of (4) is quadratic in the gravitational-wave strain, a measurement of or limit on the difference in cross-correlations leads directly to an estimate of or upper limit on the gravitational-wave strain associated with GRBs.

Here we are not interested in the absolute value of the upper limit that can be achieved, but rather in how that upper limit varies according to the relative orientation of the GWB/GRB detector array. We shall extract this dependence in the next section.

## 3 Direction-dependence of the upper limit

The analysis described in  assumed that the arms of the two LIGO gravitational-wave detectors all reside in the same plane, that pairs of arms are parallel to each other, and that the antenna pattern of the detectors is isotropic on the sky. In this section we relax all of these approximations; i.e., we properly account for the position and orientation of the two LIGO detectors on the Earth and the dependence of their sensitivity to the direction to the GRB source. Our result is an expression for the dependence of the upper limit on the population-averaged gravitational-wave strength $`\overline{h_1,h_2}`$ as a function of the distribution of *detected* GRBs on the sky. We also combine this result with the directional sensitivity of the Swift detector to determine the dependence on Swift pointing of the upper limit on $`\overline{h_1,h_2}`$ that can be set by joint LIGO/Swift observations.

The gravitational-wave component $`h_i`$ of the LIGO detector output is a linear function of the physical gravitational-wave strain $`h_{ab}(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$,

$$h_i(t)=h_{ab}(t,\stackrel{}{x}_i)d_i^{ab},$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{}{x}_i`$ is the gravitational-wave detector’s location and $`d_i^{ab}`$ is the detector response function. For interferometer $`i`$ with arms pointing in the directions $`\widehat{X}_i`$, $`\widehat{Y}_i`$, the latter is

$$d_i^{ab}=\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{X}_i^a\widehat{X}_i^b\widehat{Y}_i^a\widehat{Y}_i^b).$$
(6)
It is convenient to decompose the gravitational wave into its two polarization states,

$$h_{ab}(t)=h_+(t)ϵ_{ab}^+(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})+h_+(t)ϵ_{ab}^\times (\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}).$$
(7)
See  for one choice of the polarization tensors $`ϵ_{ab}^A(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$. Lacking any detailed model for the gravitational waves that may be produced in a GRB event, we assume that (i) the waves have equal power in the two polarizations ($`\overline{h_+(t)h_+(t^{})}=\overline{h_\times (t)h_\times (t^{})}`$) and (ii) the two polarizations are uncorrelated ($`\overline{h_+(t)h_\times (t^{})}=0`$).

Focus attention now on the mean gravitational-wave contribution $`\overline{h_1,h_2}`$ to the cross-correlation statistic (3). For GWBs arriving from the direction $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, it can be shown that

$$\overline{h_1,h_2}=\rho _{\text{GWB}}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}|d_1,d_2)_0^T𝑑t_0^T𝑑t^{}Q(tt^{})\overline{h_+(t)h_+(t^{})},$$
(8)
where

$$\rho _{\text{GWB}}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}|d_1,d_2)\underset{A=+,\times }{}d_1^{ab}ϵ_{ab}^A(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})d_2^{cd}ϵ_{cd}^A(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})$$
(9)
describes the direction-dependence of the sensitivity of the gravitational-wave detector pair to the GWB.

To complete the evaluation of $`\overline{h_1,h_2}`$ consider to the fraction of GRB detections that arise from different patches on the sky. Since the intrinsic GRB population is isotropic, the distribution of detection on the sky depends entirely on the directional sensitivity of the GRB detector. Let the fraction of GRB detections in a sky patch of area $`d^2\mathrm{\Omega }`$ centered at $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ be given by

$$\rho _{\text{GRB}}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}|\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{},\widehat{n})d^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }},$$
(10)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{}`$ is the direction in which the GRB detector is pointed, and $`\widehat{n}`$ describes the rotation of the satellite about its pointing direction. It can then be shown that the upper limit on the squared gravitational-wave strain averaged over the observed GRB population when the orientation of GWB and the GRB detectors are given by $`(d_1,d_2,\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }},\widehat{n})`$ is inversely proportional to

$$\zeta (\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }},\widehat{n},d_1,d_2)=d^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{}\rho _{\text{GRB}}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{}|\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }},\widehat{n})\rho _{\text{GWB}}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{}|d_1,d_2).$$
(11)
Clearly $`\zeta `$ can be regarded as a figure of merit that describes how capable the gravitational-wave/gamma-ray burst detector combination is at identifying GWBs associated with GRBs as a function of the detector orientations. This figure of merit may be normalized to have a maximum of unity; however, regardless of the normalization

$$\zeta (\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{},\widehat{n}^{},d_1,d_2)/\zeta (\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }},\widehat{n},d_1,d_2)$$
(12)
is the ratio of the upper limits on the squared gravitational-wave amplitude that can be attained by orienting the GRB satellite as $`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }},\widehat{n})`$ versus $`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{},\widehat{n}^{})`$. To the extent that, e.g., the GRB detector orientation $`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }},\widehat{n})`$ can be manipulated on orbit, choosing orientations that maximize $`\zeta `$ will lead to larger signal contributions (4) to the cross-correlation and thus more sensitive measurements of the gravitational-wave strength associated with GRBs.

Let us now consider the special case of the Burst-Alert Telescope (BAT) on the Swift satellite  and the LIGO gravitational wave detectors . The BAT is a wide field-of-view coded-aperture gamma-ray imager that will detect and locate GRBs with arc-minute positional accuracy. Its sensitivity to GRBs depends on the the angle $`\lambda `$ between the line of sight to the GRB and the BAT axis, as well as the rotational orientation of the satellite about the BAT axis. Averaged over this azimuthal angle, the BAT sensitivity as a function of $`\lambda `$ is approximately444 See the BAT section of the Swift homepage, http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/instruments/bat.html

$$\rho _{\text{Swift}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}2\mathrm{cos}\lambda 1+0.077\mathrm{sin}[13(1\mathrm{cos}\lambda )]\hfill & \lambda [0,\pi /3],\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
For the purposes of illustration we will use this azimuthal-angle averaged expression for the BAT sensitivity.

Convolving $`\rho _{\text{GWB}}`$ (9) for the LIGO detector array (see ) with the Swift sensitivity function $`\rho _{\text{Swift}}`$ as in equation (11) gives the figure of merit $`\zeta `$ for the Swift pointing, which is shown in Figure 1. The figure of merit is nowhere zero, varying by a factor of approximately 4 between best (near zenith of detectors) and worst (near planes of detectors at 45 degrees from arms) orientations of Swift; this translates into a factor 2 difference in amplitude sensitivity. The all-sky average of the figure of merit is 0.56 times the maximum value.

## 4 Conclusion

In this article, we have evaluated how the quality of an upper limit on the gravitational-wave strength associated with gamma-ray burst observations depends on the relative orientation of the gamma-ray burst and gravitational-wave detectors, with particular application to the Swift Burst-Alert Telescope (BAT) and the LIGO gravitational wave detectors. Setting aside other physical and science constraints on the Swift mission, careful choice of BAT pointing leads to an upper limit on the observed GRB population-averaged mean-square gravitational-wave strength a factor of two lower than the upper limit resulting from pointing that does not take this science into account.

## 5 Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Margaret Chester, Shiho Kobayashi, and John Nousek for useful discussions. LSF and PJS acknowledge NSF grant PHY 00-99559, LSF, PJS and BK acknowledge the Center for Gravitational Wave Physics, which is supported by the NSF under cooperative agreement PHY 01-14375, and BK acknowledges the support of the Albert Einstein Institut.

## References