How does the exponential rarity of signal-consistent backgrounds scale with network size?

Your question asks about how signal-consistent backgrounds become exponentially rarer as detector networks grow. This is fundamentally a question about false-alarm statistics in multi-detector searches.

The most direct answer comes from the BayesWave study [AG-2024.03-419]. When gravitational-wave detectors are added to a network, the signal-to-glitch discrimination improves — the log Bayes factor $\ln\mathcal{B}_{\mathcal{S},\mathcal{G}}$ (which quantifies confidence that a candidate is astrophysical rather than instrumental noise) increases with detector count. This happens because a true gravitational-wave signal should appear coherently across all detectors in a way that noise transients ("glitches") rarely do.

However, the scaling is not purely beneficial. The frequency of glitches themselves grows as the network expands [AG-2024.03-419], meaning that while each individual background fluctuation becomes easier to reject, you encounter more candidates overall. The result is a trade-off: better discrimination per event, but more events to discriminate among.

For the underlying statistics, the pulsar-timing-array context provides insight. When searching for a stochastic background from many weak sources (like supermassive black-hole binaries), the probability distribution of background fluctuations follows a universal form that depends on the effective number of independent sources $N$ [AG-2026.04-504]. The rescaled variable $y = h_c^2 / \overline{h_c^2}$ (strain squared normalized to its mean) obeys a self-similar distribution $P(y) \simeq N^{1/3} \mathcal{P}(N^{1/3}(y-1))$ — meaning the width of rare-event probabilities scales as $N^{1/3}$. Tail events (far from the mean) thus become exponentially suppressed as $N$ increases, but the scaling goes as a power law in the cumulative probability, not a pure exponential in network size.

The archive materials don't directly address how false-alarm rates scale exponentially with *network size per se*; they focus instead on how finite populations and interference alter background statistics.