Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Design of Dedicated Tilt-to-Length Calibration Maneuvers for LISA

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Rotation maneuvers of about 30 nanoradians can calibrate LISA's largest noise source in 20 minutes.

desk verdict Useful, well-executed simulation study on LISA TTL calibration, but the headline 'below 15 µm/rad' rests on the formal LSQ error; the paper's own 1.5 calibration factor puts every coefficient above that threshold. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10409 v1 pith:ZCQBIKVB submitted 2024-11-15 gr-qc astro-ph.IMphysics.data-anphysics.ins-det

Henry Wegener , Sarah Paczkowski , Marie-Sophie Hartig , Martin Hewitson , Gerhard Heinzel , Gudrun Wanner This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.IMphysics.data-anphysics.ins-det PACS 04.80.Nn95.55.Ym
keywords tilt-to-lengthcouplingLISAcalibrationmaneuversTTLcoefficientestimationtime-delayinterferometryleast-squaresspacecraftattitudecontrolMOSAyawactuation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

LISA's anticipated primary noise source after time-delay interferometry is tilt-to-length (TTL) coupling: tiny rotations of the telescopes and optical sub-assemblies leak into the measured arm lengths. The paper tries to establish that this noise can be calibrated in flight by deliberately rotating the spacecraft and the movable optical assemblies, turning the leakage into a known signal. It argues that sinusoidal maneuvers with amplitudes near 30 nrad and frequencies near 43 mHz are both feasible and nearly optimal, and that several such maneuvers can be run simultaneously. In simulation, all 24 TTL coupling coefficients are then recovered with uncertainties below 15 µm/rad ($1\sigma$) after 20 minutes of total maneuver time, more than enough for post-processing subtraction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the linear TTL model $V_{\mathrm{TTL}} = A \cdot C$, where $C$ is the 24-vector of coupling coefficients and $A$ is the $3N \times 24$ matrix of TDI angles built from the MOSA pitch/yaw angles delayed through the TDI 2.0 combinations. The estimator machinery is the least-squares covariance $\sigma_{\mathrm{LSQ}}(\hat{C}) = \sigma(n_V) \cdot \mathrm{diag}\left(\sqrt{(A^T A)^{-1}}\right)$. The decisive design relation is $\sigma_{\mathrm{LSQ}} \propto 1/(\sigma(X_{ij\alpha\beta}) \sqrt{1-c_{ij\alpha}^2})$ for the main TDI variable: a good maneuver frequency must make the induced TDI angle large (constructive echo interference) and the Rx/Tx correlation small. This selects about 43 mHz, and the uncorrelated-pair structure plus the use of three distinct sine frequencies turns 12 sequential maneuvers into two sets of six simultaneous ones. For MOSA yaw, the OATM stair-like triangular signal at 30 nrad and roughly 24 s period provides the same kind of calibration signal.

What would settle it

Take the flight-like thruster torque and spacecraft moment of inertia and compute the achievable angular amplitude at 43 mHz with $A_{\max} \approx 40\,\mu\mathrm{N\,m}/(J_z (2\pi f)^2)$; if it falls well below 30 nrad, or if a closed-loop drag-free attitude control test shows the MOSA yaw mechanism cannot track a 30 nrad triangular waveform at 24 s period with 1 nrad steps, the 20-minute calibration claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that TTL calibration maneuvers for LISA are practical if the modulation frequency is chosen to sit in a constructive window of the TDI transfer function rather than at its nulls. The paper derives that the least-squares uncertainty scales inversely with the strength of the induced TDI angle and with the decorrelation between receive and transmit contributions, so the near-optimal maneuver frequency band is 40–45 mHz (with 43 mHz as a representative value), while 30 mHz and its multiples are bad choices. It shows that 30 nrad amplitudes are achievable either through cold-gas thruster rotations of the spacecraft (for the pitch angles) or through OATM stepping of the MOSA yaw angles, and that by grouping angles into naturally uncorrelated pairs and using three distinct frequencies, all 12 TTL-causing angles can be excited in two sets of six simultaneous maneuvers. In a full LISASim simulation with realistic jitter and DWS noise, a least-squares fit of the 24 coefficients reaches formal uncertainties between 10.2 and 13.1 µm/rad—below the 15 µm/rad target—after 1400 s, and the paper shows that SC yaw maneuvers alone cannot separate the individual $\phi$ coefficients but can estimate the combinations needed for subtraction.

Load-bearing premise

The claim depends on the assumption that the spacecraft cold-gas thrusters and the MOSA yaw mechanism can actually deliver sinusoidal rotations of about 30 nrad at frequencies near 43 mHz; if the real actuators cannot produce that amplitude at that frequency, the stated estimation precision is not reachable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With a total of 20 minutes of dedicated maneuvers, LISA can estimate all 24 TTL coefficients with uncertainties below 15 µm/rad, satisfying the temporary 100 µm/rad requirement for post-processing subtraction.
  • Maneuvers shorten the time needed to reach a given TTL coefficient uncertainty by a factor of about 9 with full MOSA jitter and by about 230 with reduced MOSA $\phi$ jitter, compared with noise minimization alone.
  • Frequencies near 43 mHz (40–45 mHz) are near-optimal, while 30 mHz and its multiples should be avoided because TDI echoes cancel.
  • Pitch and roll SC rotations can excite individual $\eta$ angles, but SC yaw rotations cannot disentangle individual $\phi$ coefficients; OATM-driven MOSA yaw maneuvers are needed for that, while SC yaw maneuvers still give the coefficient combinations required for TTL subtraction.
  • The estimation uncertainty scales as $1/A_{\mathrm{man}}$ and $1/\sqrt{T_{\mathrm{man}}}$, so calibration precision can be improved predictably by increasing maneuver amplitude or duration.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: If a closed-loop drag-free attitude control system can track the commanded sinusoids, this scheme could be run once during LISA commissioning and never repeated, replacing much longer noise-minimization integrations.
  • Editorial inference: The frequency-selection principle—place calibration tones in constructive windows of the TDI transfer function and decorrelate channels with distinct frequencies—applies to any future laser interferometry mission that uses time-delay interferometry, not only to LISA.
  • Editorial inference: Because the achieved uncertainties match Fisher-information lower bounds, further gains would come mainly from larger amplitude or longer integration rather than from a more sophisticated estimator.
  • Editorial inference: Using two phase-quadrature tones at one frequency, which the paper notes are also uncorrelated, could reduce the number of frequency slots needed below the three used here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper designs dedicated rotation maneuvers for in-flight calibration of the 24 tilt-to-length (TTL) coupling coefficients in LISA. The authors model TTL in the TDI 2.0 variables, estimate coefficients with a time-domain least-squares fit, analyze how the TDI transfer function shapes the estimation uncertainty as a function of maneuver frequency, and propose simultaneous maneuvers using uncorrelated pairs and three different frequencies. They simulate a full schedule with 30 nrad sinusoidal SC injections for the η angles and triangular MOSA injections for the ϕ angles, reporting that all 24 coefficients can be estimated with formal LSQ uncertainties below 15 µm/rad after about 20 minutes of maneuvers. The results are compared with no-maneuver cases and with two earlier studies.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, the paper provides a practical and efficient calibration strategy that reduces the required integration time by a large factor and identifies a nearly optimal frequency band (40–45 mHz) as well as realistic injection amplitudes. The analytical derivation of the LSQ uncertainty in Appendix C, the TDI transfer-function analysis in Sec. V A, and the construction of uncorrelated maneuver pairs in Sec. V C are valuable and appear internally sound. The authors are also transparent about simulator limitations, such as the telescope path-length assumption and the incomplete treatment of imperfect injections. However, the headline precision claim is stated with the formal LSQ error rather than the paper's own calibrated uncertainty, and this mismatch directly affects the central numerical conclusion.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. VI A, Tab. VI, Eq. (26)] The headline claim of precision below 15 µm/rad is not supported under the paper's own uncertainty model. The case A uncertainties in Table VI are σ_LSQ from Eq. (25). Applying the calibrated factor σ_stat = 1.5·σ_LSQ defined in Eq. (26) and Appendix B gives 15.3–16.5 µm/rad for the η coefficients (rows 1–6 and 13–18) and 18.0–19.7 µm/rad for the ϕ coefficients (rows 7–12 and 19–24), so none of the 24 coefficients is below 15 µm/rad under σ_stat. The abstract, Sec. VI A, and Sec. VII repeat the below-15 claim without this caveat. The paper should either present case A uncertainties as σ_stat or with maneuver-specific Monte Carlo estimates of the true scatter, and revise the quantitative claim accordingly, or explicitly justify why the 1.5 factor does not apply to maneuver-dominated estimation.
  2. [App. B, Sec. IV] The calibration factor 1.5 is not established for the maneuver scenario. Appendix B describes 500 simulations of length 2000 s with random coefficients and the noise settings of Table III, but it does not state whether maneuvers were included; as written, these appear to be no-maneuver runs. If so, the transfer of σ_stat to case A is an untested assumption. A Monte Carlo validation using the case A maneuver schedule, for example 100 realizations of the full 24-coefficient fit, is needed to verify that the formal error underestimates the true scatter by a factor close to 1.5 in the maneuver-dominated regime, or to estimate the actual factor. Without this, the quantitative conclusions in Sec. VI A, the comparison in Sec. VI D, and the scaling in Eq. (55) inherit this assumption.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. VI B] Typographical error: "inclunding maneuvers" should read "including maneuvers".
  2. [Sec. V B 1, Fig. 7] The text refers to "the SC angles ηSC12 and θSC12" in Figure 7; these should be the SC 1 angles ηSC_1 and θSC_1.
  3. [Sec. V D 2] The correlation identity corr(sin(ωt), sin(ω(t−δt))) = cos(ωδt) is stated without qualification; it holds exactly only for infinite or integer-cycle averaging, and the manuscript should state this assumption.
  4. [Introduction] The GRACE Follow-On citation appears as unresolved placeholders "[ ? ? ]" and should be completed.
  5. [Sec. V D 1, Eq. (51)] In Eq. (51) the text says D is a one-arm delay, whereas earlier notation D2 denotes a two-arm delay; the convention should be clarified to avoid confusion.
  6. [Tab. VII] The row for "this study" with jitter levels 5/1/5 and σstat ≈ (8.7, 6.3) should explicitly state that it refers to one day of integration time, so that readers do not confuse it with the 1400 s case A values in Table VI.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the maneuver-frequency and uncertainty predictions follow from the LSQ covariance formula and the TDI transfer function, not from fitting the target coefficients; self-citations are background-model citations, not load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The TTL model is laid out in App. A from the TDI 2.0 combination of Ref. [12] and is used to form the design matrix A; the estimator and its covariance are the standard LSQ expressions in Eqs. (23)-(25). The optimal-frequency statement is derived from the analytic relation (31)/(C10) involving the TDI-angle strength and the Rx-Tx correlation, and it is separately tested against simulations in Fig. 6, so it is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. The 'below 15 um/rad' result in Sec. VI A is a direct reading of the LSQ covariance for a specific simulated maneuver pattern, not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. Heavy citation of the authors' own prior papers ([5],[6],[7]) does not create circularity here: the needed TTL equations are re-derived in App. A and the comparison cases B/C are simulated within the paper, while Ref. [8] provides an external Fisher-information benchmark that the authors match using their calibrated sigma_stat. The only notable internal inconsistency is that the paper's headline uncertainty uses the formal sigma_LSQ, whereas App. B calibrates the realistic sigma_stat = 1.5*sigma_LSQ and applying that factor to Table VI would put the eta and phi coefficients slightly above 15 um/rad; this is a reporting/numerical-accuracy issue, not a circular reduction. The acknowledged telescope-pathlength error (0.7 m vs 1.8 m) and the stated simplifications (zero laser frequency noise, static arm lengths, white-noise LSQ assumption, no imperfect injections) are limitations, not circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the linear TTL model, the LISASim noise model, and actuator feasibility assumptions. Only one numerically fitted factor (1.5) is introduced; the rest are domain assumptions common in LISA TTL analysis.

free parameters (1)
  • σ_stat calibration factor = 1.5
    Fitted to match statistical standard deviations across 500 noise realizations (App. B). It is used to convert formal LSQ uncertainties into realistic ones, but is not reported for the headline case A result.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 24 TTL coupling coefficients are constant and the TTL model is linear in the angles
    Sec. II B and Eq. (8)-(10); standard for small angles, but coefficients may drift over the mission.
  • domain assumption TDI noise nV is white, Gaussian, and uncorrelated between X, Y, Z
    Sec. IV; acknowledged as a simplification because Fig. 3 shows colored spectra. The σ_stat factor is meant to compensate for this.
  • domain assumption DWS sensing noise is uncorrelated and has no cross-talk between pitch and yaw
    Sec. II A; common assumption in TTL estimation.
  • domain assumption LISASim noise and jitter levels (Tab. III) represent the LISA performance model
    Sec. III A; some values like telescope path length are acknowledged as uncertain, and the authors note an accidental use of 0.7 m instead of 1.8 m.
  • ad hoc to paper The two-coefficient approximation in Eq. (C10) extends to the full 24-coefficient LSQ fit
    Used to derive the optimal maneuver frequency; tested against simulations in Sec. V A but not a rigorous theorem.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Design of Dedicated Tilt-to-Length Calibration Maneuvers for LISA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZCQBIKVB

@misc{pith2026241110409,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Design of Dedicated Tilt-to-Length Calibration Maneuvers for LISA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZCQBIKVB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10409}
}
read the original abstract

Tilts of certain elements within a laser interferometer can undesirably couple into measurements as a form of noise, known as tilt-to-length (TTL) coupling. This TTL coupling is anticipated to be one of the primary noise sources in the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) mission, after Time Delay Interferometry (TDI) is applied. Despite the careful interferometer design and calibration on the ground, TTL is likely to require in-flight mitigation through post-processing subtraction to achieve the necessary sensitivity. Past research has demonstrated TTL subtraction in simulations through the estimation of 24 linear coupling coefficients using a noise minimization approach. This paper investigates an approach based on performing rotation maneuvers for estimating coupling coefficients with low uncertainties. In this study, we evaluate the feasibility and optimal configurations of such maneuvers to identify the most efficient solutions. We assess the efficacy of TTL calibration maneuvers by modulating either the spacecraft attitude or the Moving Optical Sub-Assembly (MOSA) yaw angle. We found that sinusoidal signals with amplitudes of around 30 nrad and frequencies near 43 mHz are practical and nearly optimal choices for such modulations. Employing different frequencies generates uncorrelated signals, allowing for multiple maneuvers to be executed simultaneously. Our simulations enable us to estimate the TTL coefficients with precision below 15 um/rad (1-sigma, in free space) after a total maneuver time of 20 minutes. The results are compared to the estimation uncertainties that can be achieved without using maneuvers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10409 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. LISA SC constellation, MOSA index notation. Image [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic of the construction of the TDI 2.0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. ASDs of SC jitter (black, red), MOSA jitter (blue, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Illustration of bad and good examplary maneuver frequencies. Left (30 mHz; bad choice): destructive echo interference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Left: relative standard deviation of the response of an injected signal in a TDI angle (blue line), and absolute value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Example: injections into the SC angles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Example: injections directly into the MOSA angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Example: simultaneous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Example: sinusoidal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Simulation results for SC maneuvers. Top left: simulated DWS angles measured on SC 1. Bottom left: ASDs of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Dependency of estimator uncertainties to 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    Design of Dedicated Tilt-to-Length Calibration Maneuvers for LISA

    apply a Fisher information matrix analysis to derive lower bounds for the uncertainty with which the TTL co- efficients can be estimated and use these to analyze the residual TTL noise after post-processing subtraction. In [9], the observability of TTL in the TDI Michelson variables is shown by propagating the TTL contributions through the TDI algorithm. ...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Injection into SC Angles The LISA satellites will likely utilize cold gas thrusters for attitude control. Our current best estimate is that these will be similar to the thrusters used in the LPF mission, each of which could produce a maximum force of 500 µN [20], only part of which was intended for regu- lar use, and part of it was allocated for potential...

    work page

  3. [2]

    The OATM specifics are not finalized yet, however, one option is to use piezo electric actuators, providing stepwise actuation of each MOSA in the yaw degree of freedom, i.e

    Injection into MOSA Angles The MOSAs will be controllable with use of the Optical Assembly Tracking Mechanism (OATM). The OATM specifics are not finalized yet, however, one option is to use piezo electric actuators, providing stepwise actuation of each MOSA in the yaw degree of freedom, i.e. around the z axis. Based on internal discussions, we assume here...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Here the DF ACS is assumed to be able to apply the necessary control torques to follow a prescribed commanded set point sequence

    Imperfect Injections It is important to note that, in this document, it is not investigated in detail how the maneuvers proposed here can be implemented in the real mission. Here the DF ACS is assumed to be able to apply the necessary control torques to follow a prescribed commanded set point sequence. Consequently, imperfect injections are not considered...

    work page

  5. [4]

    52 is sufficient in order to subtract TTL from the TDI variables

    Subtraction without Knowledge of Individual Coefficients Knowledge of the coefficient combinations defined by the left hand side of Eq. 52 is sufficient in order to subtract TTL from the TDI variables. This was con- firmed with simulations and the results are presented in Sec. VI C. VI. SIMULA TION RESUL TS A. F ull Simulation with Maneuvers (case A) We p...

    work page

  6. [5]

    Uncorrelated Pairs When identical maneuvers are performed in more than one angle simultaneously, in general it might not be possi- ble to disentangle the respective TTL coefficients. In this section we show that there exist pairs of TTL contribu- tions that are naturally uncorrelated, allowing accurate coefficient estimation even if both angles are excite...

    work page

  7. [6]

    More than one Pair Simultaneously The potential drawback of multiple simultaneous ma- neuvers is that the resulting TTL contributions may be highly correlated, which would result in large estimation uncertainties, cf. App. C. At this point a useful obser- vation is the fact that any two sines having different fre- quencies are uncorrelated, if both comple...

    work page

  8. [7]

    Exciting ϕSC i thereby stimulates four TTL contributions, i.e

    Problem Statement Equation (1) shows that any rotation of SCi in the yaw angle ϕSC i necessarily causes identical rotations of ϕij and ϕik, j ̸= k. Exciting ϕSC i thereby stimulates four TTL contributions, i.e. the Rx and Tx contributions from the two local MOSAs’ ϕ angles. Taking ϕSC 1 as an ex- ample, this means that the coefficients C12ϕRx, C12ϕT x, C1...

    work page

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Here we examine if this conclusion still holds when we consider unequal arm lengths

    Correlation with Unequal Armlengths Above we have seen that SC ϕ maneuvers do not al- low the estimation of the individual ϕ TTL coefficients, assuming that the three LISA arms have equal length. Here we examine if this conclusion still holds when we consider unequal arm lengt...

  2. [10]

    In 14 Sec

    Workaround A potential way to circumvent the problem discussed above is to utilize MOSA maneuvers via the OATM. In 14 Sec. V B 2 above, it is described what MOSA maneuvers are feasible and how different uncorrelated injection sig- nals can be obtained. The results of a full si...

  3. [11]

    Colpi et al

    M. Colpi et al. , LISA Definition Study Report (2024), arXiv:2402.07571 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Tinto and S

    M. Tinto and S. V. Dhurandhar, Time-delay interferom- etry, Living Reviews in Relativity 24, 10.1007/s41114- 020-00029-6 (2020)

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    Armano et al

    M. Armano et al. , Tilt-to-length coupling in LISA Pathfinder: A data analysis, Phys. Rev. D 108, 102003 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Heinzel, M

    G. Heinzel, M. Hewitson, M. Born, N. Karnesis, L. Wis- sel, B. Kaune, G. Wanner, K. Danzmann, S. Paczkowski, A. Wittchen, M.-S. Hartig, H. Audley, and J. Reiche, LISA Pathfinder mission extension report for the Ger- man contribution , Tech. Rep. ([Max-Planck-Institut f¨ ur Gra...

    2020

  7. [15]

    Wanner et al

    G. Wanner et al. , In-Depth Modeling of Tilt-To-Length Coupling in LISA’s Interferometers and TDI Michelson Observables, Physical Review D (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Paczkowski, R

    S. Paczkowski, R. Giusteri, M. Hewitson, N. Karnesis, E. D. Fitzsimons, G. Wanner, and G. Heinzel, Postpro- cessing subtraction of tilt-to-length noise in LISA, Phys. Rev. D 106, 042005 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Paczkowski et al

    S. Paczkowski et al. , Update on TTL coefficient estima- tion using noise minimisation, in preparation (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    George, J

    D. George, J. Sanjuan, P. Fulda, and G. Mueller, Calcu- lating the precision of tilt-to-length coupling estimation and noise subtraction in LISA using Fisher information, Phys. Rev. D 107, 022005 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Houba, S

    N. Houba, S. Delchambre, T. Ziegler, and W. Fichter, Optimal Estimation of Tilt-to-Length Noise for Space- borne Gravitational-Wave Observatories, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 45, 1078 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Houba, S

    N. Houba, S. Delchambre, T. Ziegler, G. Hechenblaikner, and W. Fichter, LISA spacecraft maneuver design to estimate tilt-to-length noise during gravitational wave events, Phys. Rev. D 106, 022004 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Morrison, B

    E. Morrison, B. J. Meers, D. I. Robertson, and H. Ward, Automatic alignment of optical interferometers, Appl. Opt. 33, 5041 (1994)

    1994

  14. [22]

    Bayle, Simulation and Data Analysis for LISA , Ph.D

    J.-B. Bayle, Simulation and Data Analysis for LISA , Ph.D. thesis, Universit´ e de Paris (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Otto, Time-Delay Interferometry Simulations for the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, Ph.D

    M. Otto, Time-Delay Interferometry Simulations for the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, Ph.D. thesis, Leib- niz Universit¨ at Hannover, Germany (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Hewitson et al

    M. Hewitson et al. , LISASim: An open-loop LISA simu- lator in MATLAB (2021), LISA-LCST-INST-DD-003

    2021

  17. [25]

    Paczkowski, M

    S. Paczkowski, M. Hartig, and R. Giusteri, Post- processing subtraction of Tilt-To-Length noise in LISA - Phase B1 investigations (2023), LISA-LCST-INST-TN- 017 i1.0

    2023

  18. [26]

    Chwalla et al., Optical Suppression of Tilt-to-Length Coupling in the LISA Long-Arm Interferometer, Phys

    M. Chwalla et al., Optical Suppression of Tilt-to-Length Coupling in the LISA Long-Arm Interferometer, Phys. Rev. Applied 14, 014030 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Hewitson et al

    M. Hewitson et al. , LISA Performance Model (2021), LISA-LCST-INST-TN-003 i2.1

    2021

  20. [28]

    Hartig, J

    M.-S. Hartig, J. Marmor, D. George, S. Paczkowski, and J. Sanjuan, Tilt-to-length coupling in lisa – uncertainty and biases, arXiv (2024), 2410.16475

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    J. L. Crassidis and J. L. Junkins, Optimal Estimation of Dynamic Systems (CRC Press LLC, 2004)

    2004

  22. [30]

    Armano et al

    M. Armano et al. (LISA Pathfinder Collaboration), LISA Pathfinder micronewton cold gas thrusters: In-flight characterization, Phys. Rev. D 99, 122003 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    TEB, LISA - Optical Assembly Tracking Mechanism De- velopment (2021), ESA-SCI-F-ESTEC-SOW-2019-028, Programme Reference: C215-137FT

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.