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

Your question asks about how the rarity of noise-like backgrounds that could mimic signals scales as detector networks grow. This is a crucial issue for gravitational-wave astronomy, and the archive has some direct evidence on it.

The Core Finding

The bad news: as you add more detectors, glitches (non-Gaussian noise transients) become *more* frequent in the network, even though the signal-detection confidence improves. In a two-detector network (Hanford–Livingston), false alarms from noise are rarer than in a three-detector network (Hanford–Livingston–Virgo) [AG-2024.03-419]. This creates a tension: more detectors help you confidently identify *real* signals, but they also increase the *background rate* of noise events that can impersonate signals.

This is empirically measured using the BayesWave pipeline's signal-versus-glitch Bayes factor ($\ln\mathcal{B}_{\mathcal{S},\mathcal{G}}$), which quantifies detection confidence. The key insight is that while this confidence metric improves with detector count, the absolute frequency of spurious triggers does not scale favorably [AG-2024.03-419].

Why This Matters

The challenge mirrors a problem in any rare-event search: as your sensitivity grows (via network expansion), you inevitably collect more background "noise events" that happen to look signal-like by coincidence. The observatory must filter these out statistically, which is why false-alarm rates become a bottleneck for expanding networks.

Unfortunately, the preprints don't provide a closed-form scaling law (e.g., "false-alarm rate grows as $N^{\alpha}$ for $N$ detectors"). The empirical study [AG-2024.03-419] compares only HL (2 detectors) and HLV (3 detectors), so a general scaling relationship isn't established in these papers.