Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Probing intermediate-mass black hole binaries with the Lunar Gravitational-wave Antenna

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A lunar seismometer array could detect intermediate-mass black hole binaries out to redshift 10 and measure masses to better than 0.1 percent.

desk verdict The z~O(10) headline is internally contradicted by the paper's own updated PSD; the parameter-estimation forecasts are useful but need to be rerun with the corrected baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02995 v1 pith:XTZIYRM4 submitted 2025-02-05 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Hanlin Song , Han Yan , Yacheng Kang , Xian Chen , Junjie Zhao , Lijing Shao This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords intermediate-massblackholesgravitational-waveastronomyLunarAntennadecihertzgravitationalwavesparameterestimationFisherinformationmatrixseismology
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

Intermediate-mass black holes are the missing link between stellar and supermassive black holes, and binaries containing them should emit gravitational waves in a band that no current observatory covers. This paper asks whether the proposed Lunar Gravitational-wave Antenna, a network of seismometers on the Moon, can fill that gap. The authors find that with the design sensitivity, the LGWA could detect such binaries out to redshift $z\sim10$ and measure the primary mass to better than 0.1% for nearby systems. They also show that a more careful treatment of how the Moon responds to gravitational waves worsens the decihertz sensitivity by about two orders of magnitude and shrinks the detection horizon to $z\sim1$. The paper's central message is that the Moon is a plausible IMBH observatory, but its promised reach hinges on which lunar-response model is right.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the LGWA sensitivity curve, the power spectral density that describes how the Moon's seismic noise and its response to gravitational waves combine across 1 mHz to 4 Hz, with optimal sensitivity around 0.1 Hz. The analysis works by mapping source-frame masses into the detector-frame frequency band: at high redshift, lighter IMBH binaries appear heavier and radiate in the decihertz range, which explains why the antenna favors distant $10^3$ to $10^4\,M_\odot$ systems and nearby $10^4$ to $10^5\,M_\odot$ systems. The quantitative machinery is a Fisher information matrix built from an aligned-spin, quasi-circular inspiral-merger-ringdown waveform, which yields signal-to-noise ratios, parameter uncertainties, and sky-localization areas. The distinction between the original and updated lunar-response calculations matters because the two disagree by roughly two orders of magnitude at decihertz frequencies, and the horizon redshift follows directly from that choice.

What would settle it

A decisive check is the lunar response itself: compute the Moon's decihertz displacement from gravitational waves with a normal-mode treatment that includes the near-surface structure, and compare the resulting sensitivity curve to the one used here. If the updated curve is confirmed, the detection horizon for intermediate-mass black hole binaries is $z\sim1$, not $z\sim10$; if the original tidal-response curve is confirmed, the $z\sim10$ horizon stands.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Lunar Gravitational-wave Antenna, a proposed array of seismometers on the Moon sensitive from roughly 1 mHz to a few hertz, is a natural instrument for finding binary systems that contain at least one intermediate-mass black hole ($10^2$ to $10^5\,M_\odot$). Because the antenna's sensitivity peaks in the decihertz band, detectability is mass- and redshift-dependent in a specific way: nearby binaries ($z\lesssim0.5$) with primary masses $10^4$ to $10^5\,M_\odot$ are loudest, while distant binaries ($z\gtrsim5$) with $10^3$ to $10^4\,M_\odot$ are preferred, because at high redshift their emission shifts into the most sensitive band. With a signal-to-noise threshold of 10, the nominal horizon is $z\sim10$, and for binaries at $z\lesssim0.5$ the primary mass can be measured to better than 0.1%. The same analysis shows that a corrected calculation of the lunar response to gravitational waves makes the decihertz sensitivity about two orders of magnitude worse, reducing the horizon to $z\sim1$; the paper presents this as a limitation of the optimistic numbers, not a replacement of them.

Load-bearing premise

The headline reach assumes the original LGWA sensitivity curve is correct; if the corrected lunar-response calculation is the right one, the same binaries can be detected only out to $z\sim1$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the design sensitivity, LGWA can detect IMBH binaries out to $z\sim10$ and measure the primary mass to better than 0.1% at $z\lesssim0.5$, giving a direct census of the missing-link mass range.
  • For nearby heavy binaries, the 90% localization area is roughly $10\,\mathrm{deg}^2$, a practical target for follow-up searches.
  • Binaries at $z\lesssim0.1$ have redshift errors below 10%, so they can serve as distance anchors if their host galaxies are identified.
  • The opposite mass preferences at low and high redshift mean the detected population is selected by the decihertz sensitivity profile rather than by the intrinsic merger rate.
  • If the updated lunar-response PSD is adopted, the detection horizon shrinks to $z\sim\mathcal{O}(1)$, and the precision-measurement claims apply to a much smaller volume.

Reading between the lines

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

  • In our reading, the factor-of-ten gap between the two lunar-response models means LGWA's promise for IMBH science should be reported as a range until the Moon's response to gravitational waves is measured in situ; a single lunar seismometer with known forcing could settle it.
  • Because the same binary's inspiral sweeps through the millihertz, decihertz, and audio bands, a joint fit with a space-borne detector and a ground-based detector could break the degeneracies that make redshift and localization errors large at $z>0.5$.
  • The restriction to quasi-circular, aligned-spin binaries is conservative in one direction and optimistic in another: eccentric systems expected from dynamical formation emit at harmonics that could improve detectability, but their waveforms would also bias the quoted parameter errors if analyzed with circular templates.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper explores the detectability of intermediate-mass black hole (IMBH) binaries with the Lunar Gravitational-wave Antenna (LGWA). Using the GWFish package with the default LGWA power spectral density (PSD), the IMRPhenomXHM waveform, and the Fisher information matrix, the authors compute signal-to-noise ratios, horizon redshifts, parameter-estimation errors, and sky-localization uncertainties across a grid of masses and redshifts. The headline results are that LGWA can detect IMBH binaries up to z ~ O(10) at SNR=10, measure primary masses to better than 0.1% at z < 0.5, constrain redshift to 10% at z < 0.1, and localize some sources within O(10) deg^2. In Section 4, the paper acknowledges that a more careful calculation of the lunar response (following Yan et al. [44]) changes the PSD by about two orders of magnitude around decihertz, which reduces the detection horizon to z ~ O(1).

Significance. If the results were correct, the paper would provide a useful forecast for a proposed detector. The use of GWFish and a state-of-the-art waveform is appropriate, and the authors deserve credit for including an updated lunar-response PSD comparison in Fig. 7; that comparison is a valuable sanity check. However, because the updated PSD is presented in the same paper and directly contradicts the abstract's central z ~ O(10) claim, the significance of the forecasting results as presented is substantially undermined. The parameter-estimation claims at low redshift are less affected because the two PSDs are similar below ~10 mHz, but the overall contribution of the paper in its current form is mainly a caution about PSD assumptions rather than a demonstration of a z ~ O(10) detection horizon.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4 / Fig. 7] The abstract's central claim, 'the LGWA can detect IMBH binaries up to z ~ O(10)', is computed with the default GWFish LGWA PSD (Section 2.2 and Figs. 1-6), while Section 4 and Fig. 7 present an updated lunar-response PSD that is two orders of magnitude worse around decihertz and reduces the horizon to z ~ O(1). This is an internal contradiction: the authors explicitly state that the updated PSD is the more careful calculation, so the headline detection horizon is not supported by the paper's own evidence. The abstract and Summary should be rewritten to lead with the updated-PSD results, and the main analysis should be repeated with the updated PSD.
  2. [Figures 2, 4, 5, 6] All main results in Figs. 1-6, including the SNR maps (Fig. 2), mass errors (Fig. 4), redshift errors (Fig. 5), and sky localization (Fig. 6), are computed with the default PSD only. The paper does not quantify how the updated PSD changes these forecasts. Since the updated PSD is the more accurate one by the authors' own account, the numerical values in Figs. 2, 4, 5, and 6 are unverified for the actual detector sensitivity. At minimum, the paper should provide updated versions of these figures or explicitly state which results remain qualitatively unchanged.
  3. [Section 4] The Summary (Section 4) introduces new results rather than summarizing: it presents the updated PSD for the first time. A reader who skips Section 4 would not know that the headline z ~ O(10) has been superseded. This presentation choice compounds the internal inconsistency and should be corrected by moving the updated-PSD analysis into the main body and using it consistently throughout.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The mass ranges [102,105] and [103,104] appear without superscript formatting in the extracted text; this is likely a rendering issue but should be checked in the final version.
  2. [Section 2.2, Eq. (3)] Eq. (3) uses a simplified response tensor, but the updated PSD in Section 4 uses a more complete treatment; the text should explicitly state that all main results rely on the simplified response.
  3. [Fig. 1 and Fig. 7] The horizon-redshift panels compute SNR for fixed angles (alpha = pi/4, cos-delta = 1/2, psi = pi/4, cos-iota = 1); the text should state that the horizon depends on sky position and orientation, or provide angle-averaged horizons for comparison.
  4. [References] Reference [44] has an erratum; please cite the erratum consistently or state which version is used in the updated-PSD calculation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the paper is a forward Fisher-matrix and SNR study built on external PSD, waveform, and prior inputs; the Sec. 4 updated-PSD discussion is a self-correction/caveat, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward calculation: it takes externally supplied ingredients - the GWFish default LGWA power spectral density, the IMRPhenomXHM waveform, the parameter priors from Reali et al., and the Fisher-information formalism - and computes SNRs, horizon redshifts, and parameter-estimation errors. No parameter is fitted to a subset of the target data and then renamed as a prediction; the PSD is an assumed detector sensitivity, not an output of the analysis. The only self-citation to prior work by the same group (Yan et al. [44]) appears in Sec. 4, where the paper presents an updated lunar-response PSD and explicitly states that with this update 'the IMBH binaries now can only be detected up to z~O(1)'. This is a caveat and a correction to the optimistic default PSD, and it is based on an independent physical calculation rather than on the paper's own headline claim. The internal tension between the abstract's 'z ~ O(10)' statement and the Sec. 4 result is a robustness/correctness issue - the main claim is conditional on a PSD that the authors themselves show to be outdated - but it is not circular reasoning. There is no self-definitional step, no fitted-input-called-prediction step, and no load-bearing self-citation chain. The derivation is self-contained relative to its stated assumptions, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes no new free parameters or entities. Its central forecasts rest on external inputs: the detector sensitivity curve, the waveform model, the Fisher approximation, and adopted population priors. The most consequential of these is the detector PSD, which the paper itself updates to a less sensitive curve.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The original LGWA power spectral density as implemented in GWFish is the correct sensitivity for the main results.
    The paper's main SNR and parameter-error results rely on this PSD; the authors later show an updated PSD is two orders of magnitude worse at decihertz (Section 4, Fig. 7).
  • domain assumption IMRPhenomXHM waveform accurately models IMBH binaries with q <= 10 and aligned spins.
    Used to generate h+ and hx in Section 2.2; waveform systematics are not assessed.
  • domain assumption Fisher information matrix approximation is valid for the SNR range considered.
    Section 2.3 invokes linear-signal, Gaussian stationary noise; may fail at low SNR where the updated PSD makes many events marginal.
  • domain assumption The population priors from Reali et al. [31] cover plausible IMBH binary parameters.
    Section 2.1 adopts these priors; they are not derived from an astrophysical formation model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing intermediate-mass black hole binaries with the Lunar Gravitational-wave Antenna." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XTZIYRM4

@misc{pith2026250202995,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing intermediate-mass black hole binaries with the Lunar Gravitational-wave Antenna},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XTZIYRM4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02995}
}
abstract

New concepts for observing the gravitational waves (GWs) using a detector on the Moon, such as the Lunar Gravitational-wave Antenna (LGWA), have gained increasing attention. By utilizing the Moon as a giant antenna, the LGWA is expected to detect GWs in the frequency range from 1 millihertz (mHz) to several hertz, with optimal sensitivity in the decihertz band. Despite the debated formation and evolution channel of intermediate-mass black holes (IMBHs) with masses in the range of $[10^2, 10^5]\ {\rm M_\odot}$, binary systems containing at least one IMBH are widely believed to generate GWs spanning from mHz to a few Hz, making them a key scientific target for the LGWA. We explore the detectability of IMBH binaries with the LGWA in this work. The LGWA is more sensitive to nearby binaries (i.e. with redshift $z\lesssim0.5$) with the primary mass $m_1 \in [10^4, 10^5] \ {\rm M_\odot}$, while it prefers distant binaries (i.e. $z \gtrsim 5$) with $m_1 \in [10^3, 10^4] \ {\rm M_\odot}$. Considering a signal-to-noise ratio threshold of 10, our results imply that the LGWA can detect IMBH binaries up to $z \sim \mathcal{O}(10)$. We further show that the LGWA can constrain the primary mass with relative errors $\lesssim 0.1\%$ for binaries at $z \lesssim 0.5$. Furthermore, we show that the IMBH binaries at $z \lesssim 0.1$ can be used to constrain redshift with relative errors $\lesssim 10\%$, and those with $m_1 \in [10^4, 10^5] \ {\rm M_\odot}$ can be localized by the LGWA to be within $\mathcal{O} (10)$ $\rm deg^2$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [44]

    Yan, H., Chen, X., Zhang, J., Zhang, F., Wang, M., Shao, L.: Toward a consistent calculation of the lunar response to gravitational waves. Phys. Rev. D 109(6), 064092 (2024) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.109. 064092 arXiv:2403.08681 [gr-qc]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 109, 089903 (2024)]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Abbott, B.P., et al.: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Phys. Rev. Lett.116(6), 061102 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [2]

    Astrophys

    Agazie, G., et al.: The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Observations and Timing of 68 Millisecond Pulsars. Astrophys. J. Lett. 951(1), 9 (2023) https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/acda9a arXiv:2306.16217 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [3]

    Astrophys

    Agazie, G., et al.: The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-wave Background. Astrophys. J. Lett. 951(1), 8 (2023) https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6 arXiv:2306.16213 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [4]

    : The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array I

    Antoniadis, J., et al. : The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array I. The dataset and tim- ing analysis. Astron. Astrophys. 678, 48 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202346841 arXiv:2306.16224 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [5]

    Customised pulsar noise models for spatially correlated gravitational waves

    Antoniadis, J., et al.: The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array II. Customised pulsar noise models for spatially correlated gravitational waves. Astron. Astrophys. 678, 49 (2023) https: //doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/202346842 arXiv:2306.16225 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [6]

    Search for gravitational wave signals

    Antoniadis, J., et al.: The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array III. Search for gravitational wave signals. Astron. Astrophys. 678, 50 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202346844 arXiv:2306.16214 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    : The Parkes Pulsar Timing Array third data release

    Zic, A., et al. : The Parkes Pulsar Timing Array third data release. Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. 40, 049 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1017/pasa.2023.36 arXiv:2306.16230 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 46 references
  1. [8]

    Astrophys

    Reardon, D.J., et al.: Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array. Astrophys. J. Lett. 951(1), 6 (2023) https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02 arXiv:2306.16215 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Xu, H., et al.: Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I. Res. Astron. Astrophys. 23(7), 075024 (2023) https: //doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/ 6 101 102 103 104 105 m2 [M⊙] q < 1 q > 10 z = 0.05 z = 0...

    2023 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Punturo, M., et al.: The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory. Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 194002 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194002

    2010 doi

  4. [11]

    Contribution to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO

    Reitze, D., et al.: Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO. Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51(7), 035 (2019) arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [12]

    e-prints (2017) arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    Amaro-Seoane, P., et al.: Laser Interferometer Space Antenna. e-prints (2017) arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Hu, W.-R., Wu, Y .-L.: The Taiji Program in Space for gravitational wave physics and the nature of gravity. Natl. Sci. Rev. 4(5), 685–686 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwx116

    2017 doi

  7. [14]

    Luo, J., et al.: TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector. Class. Quant. Grav.33(3), 035010 (2016) https: //doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010 arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Kawamura, S., et al.: The Japanese space gravitational wave antenna: DECIGO. Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 094011 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/28/9/094011

    2011 doi

  9. [16]

    : Lunar Gravitational-wave Antenna

    Harms, J., et al. : Lunar Gravitational-wave Antenna. Astrophys. J. 910(1), 1 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4357/abe5a7 arXiv:2010.13726 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [17]

    JCAP 01, 108 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/108 arXiv:2404.09181 [gr-qc]

    Ajith, P., et al.: The Lunar Gravitational-wave Antenna: mission studies and science case. JCAP 01, 108 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/108 arXiv:2404.09181 [gr-qc]

    2025

  11. [18]

    Li, J., Liu, F., Pan, Y ., Wang, Z., Cao, M., Wang, M., Zhang, F., Zhang, J., Zhu, Z.-H.: Detecting gravitational wave with an interferometric seismometer array on lunar nearside. Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66(10), 109513 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11433-023-2179-9 . ...

    2023 doi

  12. [19]

    Greene, J.E., Strader, J., Ho, L.C.: Intermediate-Mass Black Holes. Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 58, 257–312 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835 arXiv:1911.09678 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Mezcua, M.: Observational evidence for intermediate-mass black holes. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 26(11), 1730021 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1142/S021827181730021X arXiv:1705.09667 [astro-ph.GA]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Maggiore, M.: Gravitational Waves. V ol. 1: Theory and Experiments. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198570745.001.0001

    2007

  15. [22]

    Astrophys

    Will, C.M.: On the rate of detectability of intermediate-mass black-hole binaries using LISA. Astrophys. J. 611, 1080 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1086/422387 arXiv:astro-ph/0403644

    2004 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Arca-Sedda, M., Amaro-Seoane, P., Chen, X.: Merging stellar and intermediate-mass black holes in dense clusters: implications for LIGO, LISA, and the next generation of gravitational wave detectors. Astron. Astrophys. 652, 54 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202037785 ...

    2021 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Strokov, V ., Fragione, G., Berti, E.: LISA constraints on an intermediate-mass black hole in the Galactic Centre. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 524(2), 2033–2041 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad2002 arXiv:2303.00015 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Liu, S., Wang, L., Hu, Y .-M., Tanikawa, A., Trani, A.A.: Merging hierarchical triple black hole systems with intermediate-mass black holes in population III star clusters. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 533(2), 2262–2281 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae1946 arXiv:2311.0...

    2024 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Sedda, M.A., et al.: The missing link in gravitational-wave astronomy: discoveries waiting in the decihertz range. Class. Quant. Grav. 37(21), 215011 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/abb5c1 arXiv:1908.11375 [gr-qc] 8 101 102 103 104 105 m2 [M⊙] q < 1 q > 10 z = 0.05 z ...

    2020 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Gra ff, P.B., Buonanno, A., Sathyaprakash, B.S.: Missing Link: Bayesian detection and measurement of intermediate-mass black-hole binaries. Phys. Rev. D 92(2), 022002 (2015) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92. 022002 arXiv:1504.04766 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Veitch, J., P ¨urrer, M., Mandel, I.: Measuring intermediate mass black hole binaries with advanced gravita- tional wave detectors. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115(14), 141101 (2015) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.141101 arXiv:1503.05953 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Han, W.-B., Cao, Z., Hu, Y .-M.: Excitation of high frequency voices from intermediate-mass-ratio inspirals with large eccentricity. Class. Quant. Grav. 34(22), 225010 (2017) https: //doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/aa891b arXiv:1710.00147 [gr-qc] 9

    2017 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Huerta, E.A., Gair, J.R.: Intermediate-mass-ratio-inspirals in the Einstein Telescope. II. Parameter estimation errors. Phys. Rev. D 83, 044021 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.044021 arXiv:1011.0421 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Reali, L., Cotesta, R., Antonelli, A., Kritos, K., Strokov, V ., Berti, E.: Intermediate-mass black hole binary parameter estimation with next-generation ground-based detector networks. Phys. Rev. D 110(10), 103002 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.103002 arXiv:2406....

    2024 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Garc ´ıa-Quir´os, C., Colleoni, M., Husa, S., Estell´es, H., Pratten, G., Ramos-Buades, A., Mateu-Lucena, M., Jaume, R.: Multimode frequency-domain model for the gravitational wave signal from nonprecessing black-hole binaries. Phys. Rev. D 102(6), 064002 (2020) https://doi.or...

    2020 arXiv

  26. [33]

    LIGO Document Control Center (2013)

    Whelan, J.T.: The geometry of gravitational wave detection. LIGO Document Control Center (2013)

    2013

  27. [34]

    : Lunar Gravitational-Wave Detection

    Branchesi, M., et al. : Lunar Gravitational-Wave Detection. Space Sci. Rev. 219(8), 67 (2023) https: //doi.org/10. 1007/s11214-023-01015-4

    2023

  28. [35]

    Dupletsa, U., Harms, J., Banerjee, B., Branchesi, M., Goncharov, B., Maselli, A., Oliveira, A.C.S., Ronchini, S., Tissino, J.: gwfish: A simulation software to evaluate parameter-estimation capabilities of gravitational-wave detec- tor networks. Astron. Comput. 42, 100671 (202...

    2023

  29. [36]

    Yan, H., Chen, X., Zhang, J., Zhang, F., Shao, L., Wang, M.: Constraining the stochastic gravitational wave background using the future lunar seismometers. Phys. Rev. D 110(4), 043009 (2024) https: //doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.110.043009 arXiv:2405.12640 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Finn, L.S.: Detection, measurement and gravitational radiation. Phys. Rev. D 46, 5236–5249 (1992) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.46.5236 arXiv:gr-qc/9209010

    1992 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Borhanian, S.: GWBENCH: a novel Fisher information package for gravitational-wave benchmarking. Class. Quant. Grav. 38(17), 175014 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ac1618 arXiv:2010.15202 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Moore, C.J., Cole, R.H., Berry, C.P.L.: Gravitational-wave sensitivity curves. Class. Quant. Grav. 32(1), 015014 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/32/1/015014 arXiv:1408.0740 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Li, Y ., Heng, I.S., Chan, M.L., Messenger, C., Fan, X.: Exploring the sky localization and early warning capabilities of third generation gravitational wave detectors in three-detector network configurations. Phys. Rev. D 105(4), 043010 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD...

    2022 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Sesana, A., Gair, J., Berti, E., V olonteri, M.: Reconstructing the massive black hole cosmic history through grav- itational waves. Phys. Rev. D 83, 044036 (2011) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.044036 arXiv:1011.5893 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Sesana, A., Haardt, F., Madau, P.: Interaction of massive black hole binaries with their stellar environment. 3. Scattering of bound stars. Astrophys. J. 686, 432 (2008) https: //doi.org/10.1086/590651 arXiv:0710.4301 [astro- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Klein, A., et al.: Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA: Supermassive black hole binaries. Phys. Rev. D 93(2), 024003 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024003 arXiv:1511.05581 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2024(7), 028 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/ 2024/07/028 arXiv:2403.16550 [gr-qc]

    Belgacem, E., Maggiore, M., Moreau, T.: Coupling elastic media to gravitational waves: an e ffective field theory approach. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2024(7), 028 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/ 2024/07/028 arXiv:2403.16550 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    arXiv e-prints, 2411–09559 (2024) https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.09559 arXiv:2411.09559 [gr-qc] 10

    Majstorovi ´c, J., Vidal, L., Lognonn ´e, P.: Modeling lunar response to gravitational waves using normal- mode approach and tidal forcing. arXiv e-prints, 2411–09559 (2024) https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.09559 arXiv:2411.09559 [gr-qc] 10

    2024 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.