arxiv: v2 [astro-ph.im] 21 Nov 2018

Transcription

1 Analytic Model and Simulations of Residual Laser Noise after Time-Delay Interferometry in LISA Jean-Baptiste Bayle, Marc Lilley, Antoine Petiteau, Hubert Halloin APC, Université Paris Diderot, CNRS/INP3, CEA/lrfu, Observatoire de Paris, Sorbonne Paris Cité, 10 rue Alice Domont et Léonie Duquet, Paris, France (Dated: November, 018) arxiv: v [astro-ph.im] 1 Nov 018 The Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) is a European Space Agency mission that aims to measure gravitational waves in the millihertz range. Laser frequency noise is the dominant source of noise that enters the measurement signals. It is greater than the expected gravitational signal level by many orders of magnitude. Time-delay interferometry (TDI) is a pre-processing technique that reduces this laser frequency noise by synthesizing virtual equal-arm interferometric measurements. Laboratory experiments and numerical simulations, in proof-of-concept setups, have shown that this reduction is sufficient to meet the scientific goals of the mission. In this paper, we propose a theoretical model of the instrument, which includes laser frequency noise, the inter-spacecraft arm length time evolution, as well as the effect of the on-board anti-aliasing filters used to down-sample the data. We also use two independent simulators to produce realistic measurement signals and compute the corresponding TDI Michelson variables. We show that our theoretical model agrees with the simulated data with exquisite precision. Using these two complementary approaches we confirm TDI s ability to greatly reduce laser frequency noise in a more realistic mission setup. The theoretical model also provides insight into the role played by the instrumental configuration and by the anti-aliasing filters. We find that the filters play an important role for the TDI.0 Michelson variables; this was neglected in previous studies. I. INTRODUCTION The Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) is a European Space Agency (ESA) scientific space mission which aims to measure gravitational waves (GWs) in the millihertz range [1]. Those waves are predicted by Einstein s theory of General Relativity and produced by the quadrupolar moment of very dense objects, such as black hole binaries or coalescing super-massive black holes. The detection of low-frequency gravitational waves will help answer numerous astrophysical, cosmological and theoretical questions, related, for example, to the formation of black hole binaries and extreme mass ratio inspirals, the formation of galaxies or General Relativity in the strong field regime [1]. The mission is expected to be launched in the year 034. Three spacecraft will trail the Earth around the Sun, in a nearly equilateral triangular configuration with arm lengths of about.5 million kilometers. Each spacecraft contains two free-falling test masses acting as inertial sensors [1] and two optical benches. Six laser links connect the six optical benches performing interferometric measurements between the local and distant laser beams. These optical setups are capable of measuring the differential acceleration between the local and remote test masses with sub-picometer precision [, 3]. In the latest design, each spacecraft performs six interferometric measurements (see Section II), which are then telemetered to Earth. Among the multiple sources of noise which enter the measurements made by LISA, laser frequency noise is dominant. Its amplitude is greater than that of other (secondary) noises and that of GWs by several orders of magnitude. This is related to the fact that the arm lengths of the LISA constellation are not equal and change with time. Time-delay interferometry (TDI) is a pre-processing algorithm first proposed by [4] that aims to reduce the laser frequency noise by 8 orders of magnitude, bringing it below secondary noises and GW signals [5]. TDI synthesizes virtual equal-arm inteferometric measurements by combining time-shifted measurements from LISA. The delays that are applied correspond to the light travel times between the spacecraft. In order to apply TDI, an absolute ranging method must therefore be

2 used to determine the arm lengths. Laboratory experiments have been performed to study whether TDI can be applied correctly and that its performance meets mission requirements, in various setups. A first demonstrator was designed at the Jet Propulsion Lab [6] to reproduce noise couplings and measure TDI noise reduction in a fixed twoarm configuration. It was shown that the laser frequency noise could be reduced to the desired level. The Hexagon interferometer [7] is a metrology test-bed developed at the Albert Einstein Institute, and consists of three locked lasers [8]. It was used both to test the performance and feasibility of TDI for heterodyne interferometry and to test phasemeter prototypes. LISA-On-Table (LOT) is an electrooptical simulator developed at the laboratoire AstroParticule et Cosmologie [9, 10]. The results show that in the case of two static unequal arms, first-generation TDI cancels the laser frequency noise as expected. The University of Florida LISA Simulator (UFLIS) uses electronic phase delay units to simulate the time variation of the arm lengths. First-generation TDI was successfully tested, reaching the required performance, while TDI.0 results were limited by the non-linearities of the electronic phase delay units. To date, however, no realistic demonstrator using time-varying arm lengths was successful in measuring the performance of TDI.0. Computer simulations have also been used to check the performance of the laser frequency noise removal performed by TDI. Synthetic LISA was developed by M. Vallisneri [11] to study TDI laser noise reduction for a flexing constellation, in an idealized configuration. Using this simulator, it was shown that one must use the second-generation TDI algorithms to meet noise reduction requirements. LISACode [1, 13] is the tool currently used by the LISA Simulation Group and the LISA Data Challenge to produce realistic data. It uses a high-level model of the instrument to reproduce the instrumental response to incoming gravitational waves. LISACode also includes models for several sources of noise, including the aforementioned laser frequency noise. LISANode [14] is a new prototype end-to-end mission simulator. It is a very flexible framework that enables the study of various instrumental configurations. LISANode includes an up-to-date model for the instrument, various sources of noise and the TDI algorithms. We have developed an analytic model that describes both LISA and TDI for a realistic setup in order to determine which instrumental factors play an important role in the latter s laser frequency noise reduction performance. This model reproduces the results of both LISANode and LISACode. We include the effect of time-varying arm lengths and that of the anti-aliasing filtering applied before the high-frequency measurements are downsampled and transmitted to Earth. The agreement between our theoretical model and our simulations demonstrates that LISACode and LISANode are implemented correctly. Our work also provides some useful insight into the application of TDI for a more realistic instrumental setup. In addition, our results demonstrate that the remaining laser frequency noise is below mission requirements in the frequency band between and Hz, for the most recent LISA instrumental setup and with second-generation TDI. In the sections that follow, we first present the LISA mission setup that was modeled analytically and simulated numerically. In Section V, we derive the corresponding analytic model for TDI 1.5 and.0. In Section VI we describe LISACode and LISANode, and give details about the configuration used to generate the data. Finally, in Section VII, we compare and discuss the results of the simulators and of the analytic approach. II. INSTRUMENTAL SETUP LISA is a constellation of three spacecraft forming a nearly equilateral triangle. The constellation s center of mass trails the Earth in its orbit around the Sun by around 0 deg. [1]. Each spacecraft emits and receives a laser beam along each of the two arms connecting it to its companion spacecraft. All spacecraft host two Movable Optical System Assemblies (MOSAs), an on-board computer, a phase-meter and two laser sources. A MOSA is composed of a telescope and an optical bench. The telescope

3 3 L L 3 3 L 1 L L 3 Figure 1. Conventions for indexing spacecraft, MOSAs, lasers, optical benches and arms. Primed indices are used for arms pointing clockwise and for MOSAs and optical benches receiving light clockwise. L sends outgoing laser beams to its companion spacecraft and collects incoming light. Various conventions are used in the literature to denote the spacecraft, optical benches and arms. In this paper, we number these components according to Fig. 1. Two different optical designs are considered in this paper. The original design, described in [13], consists of four interferometric measurements per spacecraft. The science signals are denoted s i (t) and s i (t) and correspond to the beat notes formed by the local beam and the distant beam, after reflection on the local test mass. The reference measurement signals are denoted τ i (t) and τ i (t). They correspond to the beat notes formed by the local beam and the beam of the adjacent MOSA after it has been reflected on the adjacent test mass, see Fig.. The new optical design, often designated as the split interferometry design, is described in [15]. We now count six interferometric measurements per spacecraft. The science (resp. reference) signals are redefined to be the beat notes between the distant (resp. adjacent) beam and the local beam without any reflection on the test masses. In addition to these four signals we add two test-mass signals denoted ɛ i (t) and ɛ i (t). They correspond to the beat notes formed by the local beam and the adjacent beam after reflection onto the local test mass. This optical scheme is presented in Fig. 3, see [15] for more detail. In this paper, these interferometric measurements are delivered by the phasemeter to the on-board computer at a frequency of 0 Hz. Due to limitations in the telemetry pass-band, they must be down-sampled to Hz before they are transmitted to Earth [1]. Anti-aliasing filters are therefore used to prevent power folding in the band of interest. These filters are assumed to be identical on board all spacecraft, and consist of a convolution with a filter kernel f(t). We will assume that the filters are Finite Impulse Response (FIR) filters, compatible with the current baseline for the mission instrumental configuration. We define the filter operator F such that Fp(t) = (f p)(t) for any signal p(t). We model all signals as Doppler observables, i.e. as the ratio of the instantaneous frequency deviation from the nominal carrier frequency [ν(t) ν 0 ]/ν 0 [11] over that nominal carrier frequency. We neglect frequency planning [16] and Doppler shifts due to the relative motion of the spacecraft. Therefore, in the following paper, the carrier nominal frequency remains constant and equal for all beams. Interferometric signals are then obtained by forming the difference of two incoming Doppler observables: ν 1 (t) ν (t) ν 0 = ν 1(t) ν 0 ν 0 ν (t) ν 0 ν 0. (1) III. ON-BOARD INTERFERENCE MEASUREMENTS For simplicity, we neglect all secondary noise sources, such as the readout noise, the optical path noise, and the test-mass acceleration noise. The clocks on board each spacecraft are assumed to be perfect and we neglect both the clock noise and the side-band measurements that are used to remove parts of this noise [15, 17]. We therefore only consider laser frequency noise, denoted p i (t) and p i (t) where i is the spacecraft index, and assume it can be modeled as white noise.

4 4 The propagation of laser beams between two spacecraft is modeled by applying timevarying delays to each laser frequency noise signal. These delays correspond to the light travel times along the arms, which are given by the spacecraft orbits and the speed of light in vacuum. We denote D i the operator associated with the travel time along arm i, L i (t)/c. For example, the laser frequency noise received by optical bench from laser 1, along arm 3, is given by D 3 p 1 (t) = p 1 (t L 3 (t)). () Similar formulae for other lasers and along other arms are obtained by circular permutation of the indices. Note that in this expression and below, we set c = 1 so that L i (t) can be interpreted as either the arm length in meters or the light time-of-flight in seconds. Using Eq., the expressions of the measurement signals are as follows. The science signals for spacecraft 1 are given by s 1 = FD 3 p Fp 1, s 1 = FD p 3 Fp 1. (3) As before, the expressions for the other four science measurements are obtained by circular permutation. In the absence of secondary noise sources, the expressions for the test-mass and reference signals are equal and given by ɛ 1 = τ 1 = Fp 1 Fp,, ɛ 1 = τ 1 = Fp 1 Fp 1, (4) the expressions for the remaining spacecraft are obtained by circular permutation. IV. TIME-DELAY INTERFEROMETRY TDI is a many-step pre-processing algorithm. A detailed description can be found in [8]. Not only does it reduce laser frequency noise, but it also cancels other instrumental sources of noise. As mentioned above, we shall only consider laser frequency noise. For consistency with the entire TDI scheme, we will nevertheless use the full expressions in this section. In the case of split-interferometry, one first uses the measurement signals to form the intermediary variables ξ i, then Q i and finally η i. These combinations respectively cancel out the optical bench displacement noise (set here to zero) and reduce the signals to one free-running laser per spacecraft. Note that the test-mass acceleration and optical measurement system noises, also set to zero, are not suppressed by these combinations. ξ, Q and η are defined in [8] and can be written under our assumptions as ξ i = s i D kɛ j D kτ j ξ i = s i D j ɛ k D j τ k Q i = ξ i + D kτ j D kτ j Q i = ξ i + τ i τ i, η i = Q i, η i = Q i.,,, (5) Next, TDI synthesizes virtual equal-arm interferometric measurements in order to reduce laser frequency noise. This is done by applying an appropriate set of nested delays to the η i variables and by combining the resulting terms. The combination of terms built in order to cancel laser frequency noise is not unique. In this paper, we focus on the Michelson variables X, Y and Z, which synthesize pairwise independent Michelson-like interferometers. There exist several generations of Michelson variables which depend on the complexity of the spacecraft motion. TDI version 1.0 applies to a static configuration. Version 1.5 applies to a rigid but rotating configuration. Finally TDI version.0 applies to a rotating configuration with arm lengths varying linearly in time. In this paper we focus on versions 1.5 and.0 of TDI. The expressions for the X variable for generations 1.5 and.0 are given by [18]

5 5 X 1.5 = η 1 + D η 3 + D D η 1 + D D D 3 η η 1 D 3 η D 3 D 3 η 1 D 3 D 3 D η 3, (6) X.0 = η 1 + D η 3 + D D η 1 + D D D 3 η + D D D 3 D 3 η 1 +D D D 3 D 3 D 3 η + D D D 3 D 3 D 3 D 3 η 1 + D D D 3 D 3 D 3 D 3 D η 3 η 1 D 3 η D 3 D 3 η 1 D 3 D 3 D η 3 D 3 D 3 D D η 1 D 3 D 3 D D D η 3 D 3 D 3 D D D D η 1 D 3 D 3 D D D D D 3 η. (7) The remaining variables Y and Z can be obtained by circular permutation of the indices. Substituting in Eqs. 6 and 7 the expressions for η and η given by Eq. 5, yields X 1.5 = (D D D 3 D 3 D 3 D 3 D D )Fp 1 (1 D D )D 3 (FD 3 D 3 F)p 1 +(1 D 3 D 3 )D (FD D F)p 1 (1 D D )(FD 3 D 3 F)p +(1 D 3 D 3 )(FD D F)p 3, (8) X.0 = (D D D 3 D 3 D 3 D 3 D D )D D D 3 FD 3 p 1 +D D D 3 D 3 (D 3 D 3 D D D D D 3 D 3 )Fp 1 (1 D D D 3 D 3 )(1 D D )D 3 (FD 3 D 3 F)p 1 +(D D D 3 D 3 D 3 D 3 D D )D 3 D 3 D (FD D F)p 1 +(1 D 3 D 3 D D )(1 D 3 D 3 )D (FD D F)p 1 (D 3 D 3 D D D D D 3 D 3 )D D (FD 3 D 3 F)p (1 D D D 3 D 3 )(1 D D )(FD 3 D 3 F)p +(D D D 3 D 3 D 3 D 3 D D )D 3 D 3 (FD D F)p 3 +(1 D 3 D 3 D D )(1 D 3 D 3 )(FD D F)p 3. (9) Note that most terms cancel out if we neglect the effect of the filter, i.e. when we set F = 1. In that case, we are left with a single term in p 1 for X 1.5 and two terms in p 1 for X.0. These terms reflect the non-commutation of delay operators in the case of time-varying arm lengths. When the effect of the filter is included in the model, supplementary terms appear and contribute to the residual laser noise. They reflect, this time, the non-commutation of the delay and filter operators. For a rigid constellation however, laser frequency noise is fully suppressed for both generations. In the next section, we use these expressions to derive an analytic model for the residual laser frequency noise after application of TDI. In Section VI, we numerically simulate the measurement signals, generate the X, Y and Z variables, and estimate their Power Spectral Densities (PSDs). We then present and discuss our results in Section VII. V. ANALYTIC CALCULATION FOR LINEAR ARM LENGTHS For realistic spacecraft orbits computed using Kepler s laws [19, 0], the arm lengths are not constant in time but modulated with a characteristic time scale of a year. In this section, we expand these arm lengths to first order in time. This is a good approximation of the true orbits on a scale of several weeks, i.e. to a frequency of the order of Hz, while the lowest frequency in LISA s band of interest is 10 5 Hz. Therefore, deviations are expected to appear only at low frequencies. We define the arm lengths as L i (t) = L i +

6 6 L i t, where L i and L i are constant, so that our delay operators D i applied to the laser frequency noise p(t) read [( D i p(t) = p 1 L ] i )t L i ). (10) Taking the Fourier transform of this expression yields D i p(ω) = [ exp jω Li 1 1 L i L i ] ( ) ω p 1 L, (11) i where j = 1. Writing out Eqs. 8 and 9 yields expressions which are simply the sums of terms of the form y(t) = D i1 D i... D im FD im+1... D in p(t). This corresponds to a signal p(t) which is first timeshifted by m delay operators, filtered, and then delayed once again by n m other operators. In order to compute the PSD of such an expression, we derive its Fourier transform. Using Eq. 11, we obtain ( ỹ(ω) = 1 exp jω S n n k=1 L ik S k ) ( ) ( ) ω ω p f, S n S m (1) where we have defined the sum S k = k l=1 (1 L il ). Note that it is the term inside the exponential that encodes the noncommutation of the delay operators. Inserting Eq. 1 into Eqs. 8 and 9 yields the Fourier transforms for the Michelson variables X 1.5 and X.0. There exist similar expressions for the variables Y and Z. Taking the squared modulus and the ensemble average yields the associated PSDs. These expressions contain several dozen terms. Note that the p i s have zero mean, i.e. p i (ω) = 0. Furthermore, it should be true that they are uncorrelated, i.e. p i (ω 1 )p j (ω ) = S pi δ(ω 1 ω )δ ij. In practice however, spectral estimators typically couple nearby modes so that p i (ω)p j (ω + ɛ) = S p δ ij, with ɛ the width of the function in the frequency domain. The full expressions are very lengthy and difficult to interpret. In the following, we expand those expressions to leading order in powers of L, i.e. to first order for generation 1.5 and to second order for generation.0. We neglect the Sagnac effect, i.e. we take L i L i, and assume that all arm lengths are time-dependent but equal: L i L j = L. These simplifications greatly reduce the length of the full expressions for the TDI variables and allow for a better understanding of the main factors driving the shapes and amplitudes of the PSDs for X, Y and Z. Let us first neglect the effect of the filters. Doing so, we obtain S X1.5 (ω) 16S p ω L ( L L 3 ), (13) S X.0 (ω) 64S p ω L ( L L 3 ). (14) Next, re-introducing the effect of the filter, the approximate expression for TDI 1.5 does not change while that for TDI.0 is modified to ( ) ( ω S X.0 (ω) 3S p K F (ω) L + ) L 3 sin (ωl) sin (ωl), (15) f s where K F (ω) = k kα k is a term that depends on the filter coefficients α k. In this expression, the attenuation induced by the filter at high frequencies is neglected. If necessary one can include it by using the more complete expression K F (ω) = k kα ke jωk/fs. VI. SIMULATIONS FOR KEPLERIAN ORBITS In this section we present LISACode and LISANode, the two simulation softwares that were used in this paper to generate LISA measurement signals and process them using the TDI algorithm introduced in Section IV. The

7 7 instrumental setups used for these simulations are given below while the results are presented and discussed in Section VII. Numerous and sometimes non-linear operations are performed by both simulators on the laser beams propagating along each arm and through the various optics. They make a clear physical understanding of the instrument s transfer function difficult without the help of an analytic model. This analytic model, presented in the previous section for the case of time-varying arm lengths and in the presence of anti-aliasing filters, also serves to confirm the validity of the computer codes. On the other hand, simulations can capture potentially complex correlations, which one should take into account when assessing the performance of TDI. LISACode is the simulator currently used by the LISA community to generate realistic data while LISANode is the baseline prototype for an end-to-end mission performance simulator. They both perform computations in the time domain, and produce time-series for any choice of TDI variables. In the following we only consider the Michelson variables X, Y and Z. Two sampling frequencies are used in our simulations. The physical sampling frequency applies to the physical subsystems in the simulators: generation of instrumental noise, beam propagation and optical measurements. It is taken to be equal to f phy = 0 Hz in both simulators. The measurement signals s i, ɛ i and τ i are down-sampled to the measurement frequency f meas = Hz by means of a decimation algorithm of a factor f phy /f meas = 10. All preprocessing steps, including TDI, are therefore carried out at this measurement frequency. All signals are Doppler variables, as discussed in Section II, and are implemented as doubles (64-bit floating-point numbers). In both simulators, we use a symmetric FIR anti-aliasing filter of order 53. The coefficients are calculated such that the signal is attenuated by 40 db between 0. Hz and 0.9 Hz. The propagation of the laser beams between the spacecraft is implemented using timevarying delays. Those delays are computed from the relative positions of the spacecraft, themselves deduced from their Keplerian orbits presented in [19]. These orbits include the Sagnac effect, as well as first order relativistic corrections. All delay operators are implemented using Lagrange interpolating polynomials of order 31. This choice is the result of a trade-off: it allows for good precision and limits execution time and numerical errors. As seen above, the TDI algorithm requires the application of multiple delay operators to the interference measurements for the calculation of the Michelson variables X, Y and Z. In order to minimize the error introduced by the associated interpolations, we use a nested delay algorithm in which a single interpolation is necessary. As indicated in Section II, we neglect all sources of noise except laser frequency noise; secondary noises, such as the test-mass acceleration noise, the optical path noise or the readout noise are set to zero. We model, in the frequency range [0, f phy ], the laser frequency noise by a simple Gaussian white noise with a constant PSD S pi = Hz 1, i.e. 30 Hz/ Hz, in agreement with its current value in the LISA instrument noise budget. We also assume that we know the exact distance between the spacecraft, i.e. that the absolute ranging method gives perfect results. A. LISACode LISACode is a high-level simulator [1] developed by A. Petiteau. In order to maximize its performance, it is written entirely in C++. It was used to produce noise time-series for the past Mock LISA Data Challenges (MLDC) [1] as well as for the current LISA Data Challenge (LDC). It also constitutes a useful tool for the various studies of the instrument noise budget. LISACode is based on the original optical design described in Section II and presented in Fig.. Each of the three spacecraft of the LISA constellation contains two independent lasers and two optical benches. Each optical bench holds a science and a reference interferometer; the corresponding beat notes are filtered and decimated to produce the respective measurement signals s i (t) and τ i (t), as presented in Fig. [].

8 8 To distant spacecraft To distant spacecraft To distant spacecraft To distant spacecraft Laser noise p Laser noise p' Laser noise p Laser noise p' ε ε' s τ τ' s' s τ τ' s' Antialiasing filter and decimation Antialiasing filter and decimation s τ s τ s ε τ s ε τ Figure. Original optical design used in LISACode simulations. Four interferometric measurements per spacecraft are performed: the science signals s i and s i, along with the reference signals τ i and τ i. Figure 3. New split-interferometry optical design used in LISANode simulations. Six interferometric measurements per spacecraft are performed: the science signals s i and s i, the test-mass signals ɛ i and ɛ i, along with the reference signals τ i and τ i. B. LISANode LISANode [14] is a flexible simulation tool based on the foundations of LISACode, which aims to assess LISA s scientific performance. It is the current prototype for an end-to-end simulator of the mission. It was originally developed by the authors and is now part of the LISA Simulation Group activities. Just like LISACode, LISANode works exclusively in the time domain so that it can handle non-linear artifacts and produce output in the form of time-series. It is based on simulation graphs, written in Python, which are composed of atomic C++ computation units called nodes. A scheduler triggers node execution in a specific order and pushes data from one node to the next. In this manner, execution time is optimized and data flow is synchronized. Graphs can be nested to represent whole sub-systems as one object, allowing for a high level of modularity and maintainability. LISANode simulates three spacecraft which exchange laser beams. Those signals are timedelayed in order to account for their propagation along the arms of the LISA constellation. Contrary to LISACode, the optical benches implement the newest split-interferometry optical setup described in Section II and shown in Fig. 3. Three interferometric measurements s i, τ i and ɛ i (resp. the science, test-mass and reference signals) are formed and relevant sources of noise are added to the measurements. These signals are then transmitted to the on-board computer, which contains the anti-aliasing filter and decimation nodes. The results of these operations are used to form the TDI Michelson variables X, Y and Z [3]. VII. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In the following section, we present and discuss the results of our numerical simulations. We show that the residual laser frequency noise PSD in the TDI Michelson channels matches with great precision the full expressions in the analytic model that was derived in Section V. In addition, the approximated expressions 13 and 15 agree both with the full expressions and with the results of the numerical simulations, for both TDI first and second generations. They can therefore be used to understand the physical origin of the PSD shapes and amplitudes.

9 9 A. Results In Figs. 4 and 5 we present the PSDs for the TDI Michelson X variable obtained from the simulations, along with the results of our full and approximated models derived in Section V, for TDI generations 1.5 and.0. The spectral estimator used implements Welch s method, computed with standard Python tools included in the scipy.signal module, version We use segments of samples with a Nutall4 window function. The results are presented for the frequency band Hz 1 Hz, as described in [1]. The blue (resp. orange) curves of both figures show the results of LISACode (resp. LISANode) simulations when all noises but the laser frequency noise are neglected, i.e. they show the residual laser frequency noise after reduction by the TDI algorithm. We can easily see that the results of both simulators are in very good agreement. With all secondary noises set to zero, TDI split interferometry reduces to the simpler setup implemented in LISACode: this result was therefore expected. The fact that LISACode and LISANode give similar results, although they use different implementations, increases our confidence in the two simulators. Note that at frequencies greater than Hz, one observes a slight discrepancy. This discrepancy is due to different implementations of the Lagrange interpolating polynomials in LISACode and LISANode. Note also that in the case of secondgeneration TDI, there are oscillations in the frequency band of interest, while these oscillations are sub-dominant in first generation TDI. In Subsection VII B we give an intuitive understanding of these results, based on Eqs The plain black curves show the results of the full analytic model. We see that the full model matches the simulated data with exquisite precision in most of the LISA band. At high frequencies, the simulated laser frequency noise residuals disagree with those obtained in the analytic model. Indeed, the latter does not include the errors from the Lagrange interpolations which are included in the former. This is reflected in the increased level of residual laser frequency noise in the high-frequency part of the spectrum. It can be shown that varying the interpolation order changes the amplitude of this effect. At lower frequencies, in Fig. 5, the simulated data deviates away from the analytic model. This is because, as already mentioned, our model s domain of validity is limited to frequencies higher than 1 mhz. However, we see that at these lower frequencies the residual laser noise is in any case well below mission noise level requirements. The dashed green lines show the results obtained from our approximate expressions given by Eqs. 13 and 15. These expressions only capture dominant effects. In the case of TDI 1.5 (Fig. 4), no oscillation appears. Eq. 13 is thus a good approximation to the laser frequency noise residual level for most of the frequency band of interest. At the filter cut-off frequency ( Hz) and higher, the approximation is no longer valid because it does not include filter attenuation. The full model should therefore be used. Our approximate model gives, for TDI.0 (Fig. 5), an extremely good estimate of the residual laser frequency noise level, over all the frequency band and up to 1 Hz. Here, we have used the exact expression for K F which extends the domain of validity to high frequencies where filter attenuation is of relevance, see Section V. Finally, for reference, the red curves show the residual secondary noises in the TDI Michelson X channel, simulated using LISANode. To generate those signals, the parameters of the simulation are identical to those used in the one already described for laser frequency noise. This time however, the latter is set to zero while the test-mass acceleration (TM), optical readout (RO) and optical path (OP) noise amplitudes are given their nominal LISA instrument noise budget values. The spectral shapes of these three secondary sources of noise are given in [4], and read S TM = ( ) [ ( ) ] 1 + m s 4 Hz 1, f S RO + S OP = m Hz 1. Because TDI cannot suppress those secondary noises but only modulates their spectra,

10 10 Figure 4. Power spectral density of the residual laser frequency noise in the Michelson X channel for first generation TDI. The LISACode and LISANode simulations use realistic Keplerian orbits while the theoretical model uses arm lengths varying linearly with time. Secondary noises are shown in red and indicate the target level of laser frequency noise suppression. Figure 5. Power spectral density of the residual laser frequency noise in the Michelson X channel for second generation TDI. The LISACode and LISANode simulations use realistic Keplerian orbits while the theoretical model uses arm lengths varying linearly with time. Secondary noises are shown in red and indicate the target level of laser frequency noise suppression.

11 11 they are used as a benchmark: the residual laser frequency noise after TDI should not exceed those levels. Fig. 4 shows that the first generation TDI Michelson variables reduce the laser frequency noise down to the required level, but only marginally. On the contrary, Fig. 5 shows that the second-generation TDI Michelson variables can reduce the laser frequency noise to one order of magnitude below the secondary noises over the entire frequency range. In the case of time varying orbits, and in the presence of anti-aliasing filters, TDI.0 is therefore necessary and sufficient to suppress laser frequency noise levels down to mission requirements [1]. B. Discussion In this section, we examine Eqs. 13 and 14 to develop an intuitive understanding of the behaviors observed in Figs. 4 and 5. In the absence of filters, the expressions for X 1.5 and X.0 in Eqs. 8 and 9 reduce to X 1.5 = (D D D 3 D 3 D 3 D 3 D D )p 1, X.0 = (D D D 3 D 3 D 3 D 3 D D D 3 D 3 D D D D D 3 D 3 )p 1. As explained already, the Fourier transforms of those expressions are computed using Eq. 1. Taking their squared modulus, Taylor expanding to leading order in powers of L i, neglecting the Sagnac effect and assuming that the timeindependent parts all arm lengths are equal yield Eqs. 13 and 14 for TDI 1.5 and.0 respectively. At zeroth order, X vanishes for both generations. This is expected, since TDI is designed to cancel out laser frequency noise exactly for constant arm lengths. At first order, not all terms vanish in the case of TDI 1.5, because it does not take into account arm length evolution. In the case of its second-generation counterpart, laser frequency noise cancels out perfectly and we must go to second order in L to find non-vanishing terms. Note also that both expressions are free of any in-band oscillating term and evolve as ω. The amplitude of the laser frequency noise residual can be seen to be proportional to the laser frequency noise PSD S p, the squared arm length and the squared difference in arm length time derivatives. This implies that both generations cancel out perfectly the laser frequency noise if the constellation undergoes homothetic evolution. Let us now discuss the effect of filters. In the case of TDI 1.5, we collect all terms introduced by the addition of the filters. They are of the form (1 D i D i )(FD j D j F). Estimating the magnitude of these terms shows that they are negligible compared to the filter-independent terms discussed above. The introduction of filters does not change the approximate model for first generation Michelson variables, i.e. Eq. 13 still applies. In the case of TDI.0, the introduction of filters yields two new types of terms. The first one contains delay and filters combinations of the form (D i D i D j D j D j D j D i D i )(FD i D i F) and appears in lasers 1, and 3. The second type applies to all lasers involved in the full expression and involves combinations of the form (1 D i D i D j D j )(1 D i D i )(FD j D j F). An order of magnitude estimation shows that the terms of the first type are negligible compared to those of the second type. We shall therefore study the spectral shape of the latter. Working to leading order in L, it suffices to evaluate these combinations of delay and filter operators term by term and then perform a product of their respective PSDs. The first term is (FD j D j F) and is the commutator of a delay and a filter operator. Its Fourier transform can easily be deduced from Eq. 11 and expanded to leading order in L. We then take its square modulus to obtain ( ω S (FDj D jf)(ω) f s ) K F ( L j ), where K F = k kα k depends on the filter coefficients α k. This factor does not produce any in-band oscillations but is proportional to ω and the time derivative of the arm length L j. We follow the same procedure for (1 D i D i ). Expanding its Fourier transform to leading order in L, taking its square modulus, and neglecting the Sagnac effects, we obtain the

12 1 following PSD: S (1 DiD i )(ω) 4 sin (ωl). (16) This term produces in-band oscillations with zeroes at multiples and half-multiples of the frequency associated with the constant arm length k/l k 6 10 Hz. It is now easy to deduce the residual power density from (1 D i D i D j D j ). We obtain a similar expression with twice as many zeroes S (1 DiD i D j D j)(ω) 4 sin (ωl). (17) We now simply combine these three terms, apply a multiplicative factor of 4 to account for the four lasers, and re-introduce the PSD of the laser frequency noise S p to obtain the approximation Eq. 15 for TDI.0. VIII. CONCLUSION This article addresses the problem of modeling and simulating the residual laser frequency noise, after TDI has been applied, in a realistic instrumental setup. We have focused our analysis on the first and second-generation Michelson X, Y and Z variables, and have included the effect of time-varying arm lengths, as well as the effects of the on-board anti-aliasing filters. In our LISACode and LISANode simulations, the arm lengths vary according to Keplerian orbits. In the analytic expressions of the residual laser frequency noise spectrum we derive, arm lengths vary linearly with time. This is a very good approximation to Keplerian orbits on the time scales and frequency range of interest. The resulting expressions for TDI 1.5 and.0 are functions of both the varying arm lengths and of the filter coefficients. The full expressions of our analytic calculation being very lengthy, we also computed approximate expressions, to leading order in the arm length s first time derivative. That enables a better understanding of TDI performance s dependence on the parameters and instrumental configuration. We showed that the simulated data matches the full analytic model with exquisite precision. The approximate expressions also give a very good estimate of the residual laser noise frequency level over a large fraction of the LISA frequency band. As a benchmark for the performance of TDI, we used LISANode simulations that include secondary noise only. In the case of time-varying arm lengths, TDI 1.5 is shown not be able to achieve sufficient laser frequency noise reduction over the entire frequency range of interest. On the other hand, TDI.0 reduces laser frequency noise to well below the secondary noise level, for the case of a standard finite-impulse response filter. TDI.0 is therefore the minimal viable TDI generation for LISA. As demonstrated in this paper, our analytic model and simulations help gain insight into TDI and the various parameters that play a key role in its performance. One could also use the analytic model developed in this study to optimize the filter coefficients, so that the useful frequency band for data analysis (i.e. the frequency band over which the gravitational signal is not attenuated) is maximized, while the residual laser frequency noise level remains below the secondary noise level. Finally, the effect of other instrumental imperfections and artifacts, such as the errors in the absolute ranging or in the interpolation scheme, or even clock noises, remain to be included in our existing analysis. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research has been supported by the Centre National d Études Spatiales (CNES), the CNRS and the Université Paris-Diderot. The development of LISACode and LISANode is part of the LISA Simulation Group activities. We thank Víctor Martín Hernández (IEEC, UAB) for the fruitful discussions on the structure of LISANode. We are also grateful to the members of the LISA Simulation Group for their comments and help in improving the manuscript. [1] P. Amaro-Seoane et al. (LISA Collaboration), (017), arxiv.org: [astro-ph]. [] M. Armano and others, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116,

13 (016). [3] M. Armano et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, (018). [4] J. W. Armstrong, F. B. Estabrook, and M. Tinto, ApJ 57, 814 (1999). [5] M. Tinto and J. W. Armstrong, Phys. Rev. D59, (1999). [6] G. de Vine, B. Ware, K. McKenzie, R. E. Spero, W. M. Klipstein, and D. A. Shaddock, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, (010), arxiv: [astro-ph.im]. [7] T. S. Schwarze et al., (018), arxiv.org: [astro-ph]. [8] M. Otto, Time-Delay Interferometry Simulations for the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, Ph.D. thesis, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universität Hannover (015). [9] M. Laporte, H. Halloin, E. Bréelle, C. Buy, P. Grüning, and P. Prat, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 840, (017). [10] P. Grüning et al., Exp. Astron. 39, 81 (015). [11] M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D 71, 185 (005). [1] A. Petiteau, De la simulation de LISA à l analyse des données, Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris-Diderot (008). [13] A. Petiteau, G. Auger, H. Halloin, O. Jeannin, É. Plagnol, S. Pireaux, T. Regimbau, and J.-Y. Vinet, Phys. Rev. D 77, 0300 (008). [14] J.-B. Bayle, M. Lilley, and A. Petiteau, LISANode: A modular simulator for LISA, (019), to be published. [15] M. Otto, G. Heinzel, and K. Danzmann, Class. Quant. Grav. 9, (01). [16] S. Barke, Inter-Spacecraft Frequency Distribution for Future Gravitational Wave Observatories, Ph.D. thesis, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universität Hannover (015). [17] M. Tinto and O. Hartwig, Phys. Rev. D 98, (018), arxiv: [gr-qc]. [18] S. V. Dhurandhar, K. Rajesh Nayak, and J.-Y. Vinet, Class. Quant. Grav. D65, 1000 (00). [19] K. Rajesh Nayak, S. Koshti, S. V. Dhurandhar, and J.-Y. Vinet, Classical and Quantum Gravity 3, 1763 (006). [0] S. V. Dhurandhar, K. R. Nayak, S. Koshti, and J.-Y. Vinet, Class. Quant. Grav., 481 (004), arxiv:gr-qc/ [gr-qc]. [1] S. Babak, J. G. Baker, et al., Class. Quantum Grav. 5, (008). [] The results use a s time-series generated with LISACode version.1 on a Mac- Book Pro (Retina 13 inches, early 015),.9 GHz Intel Core i5, 16 Go 1867 MHz DDR3, running OS X El Capitan [3] The results use a s time-series generated with LISANode version 1.0, on a MacBook Pro (Retina 13 inches, early 015),.9 GHz Intel Core i5, 8 Go 1867 MHz DDR3, running macos High Sierra [4] LISA-Study-Team, ESA-L3-EST-MIS-RS-001 issue L3/LISA Mission Requirements Document, Tech. Rep. (ESA, 017).