How do glitch correlations between detectors affect whether Poisson statistics actually apply to networks?

# Glitch Correlations and Poisson Statistics in Detector Networks

The core tension is this: if glitches occur *independently* at each detector, they follow Poisson statistics; but if they're *correlated* across a network—triggered by the same environmental disturbance, for example—the network's overall noise behavior deviates dramatically from Poisson, and Poisson-based statistical inference breaks down.

What the data shows about individual glitch populations

Work on LIGO's O3 run found that glitch populations are *not uniformly Poissonian* [AG-2025.11-155]. While some morphological classes (like "Blip" or "Scratchy") fit the Poisson hypothesis well (R² > 0.8), others like "1400Ripples," "Fast Scattering," and "Power Line" show significant deviations (R² ≤ 0.6) [AG-2025.11-155]. This suggests those classes arise from processes that cluster in time or have memory—opposite to the memoryless arrivals assumed in Poisson models.

The practical implication: if you naively assume Poisson statistics for a glitch class that actually clusters, you'll systematically underestimate the probability of false alarms during quiet periods and overestimate it during busy ones.

How correlations between detectors amplify the problem

When you combine multiple detectors into a network, shared environmental noise (seismic activity, electromagnetic interference) creates *correlated* glitches—the same transient appears across Hanford and Livingston simultaneously, or with a small delay. This breaks independence, the bedrock of Poisson statistics.

In BayesWave's gravitational-wave burst search, this effect is significant [AG-2024.03-419]. Adding a third detector (Virgo to the Hanford-Livingston pair) should boost signal confidence because real astrophysical signals appear coherently across the network. But if glitches are also correlated, they mimic that coherence and generate false alarms—reducing overall detection efficiency despite having more detectors [AG-2024.03-419]. The log Bayes factor *increases* with detector count in theory, but in practice, correlated glitch backgrounds erode that gain.

Better approaches for multi-detector networks

Rather than assume Poisson arrivals, modern analyses measure glitch rates directly from data using hierarchical Bayesian methods [AG-2026.04-431]. This framework doesn't assume glitches follow Poisson statistics; instead, it infers the actual rate and distribution from observed triggers, accounting for the low signal-to-noise regime where Gaussian noise contamination is worst [AG-2026.04-431]. This is especially important because different detector pairs and observing runs show different glitch populations [AG-2025.11-155]—a clear sign that correlations vary with instrumental state.

Why this matters for expanding networks

As detector networks grow (adding KAGRA, future ground-based detectors, space-based missions), correlated noise becomes harder to ignore. A three-detector network's false-alarm rate is not simply the product of three independent Poisson processes; shared environmental triggers couple them. Strategies like time-sliding data (shifting one detector's stream relative to others to break real correlations while preserving glitch correlations) can quantify this coupling, but only if you first acknowledge that simple Poisson models fail [AG-2024.03-419].