Low thermal noise mirror coatings utilising titanium dioxide and germanium dioxide mixtures

A. Markosyan; C. Clark; D. Gibson; F. Schiettekatte; G. McGhee; G. Vajente; I. W. Martin; J. Hough; J. Smith; M. Ben Yaala

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 28 references

Low thermal noise mirror coatings utilising titanium dioxide and germanium dioxide mixtures

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

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

Pith's one-line read This paper demonstrates that a TiO2:GeO2/SiO2 mirror coating, after annealing, has a directly measured coating thermal noise 25% lower than current Advanced LIGO end test mass coatings while keeping optical absorption at 0.14 ppm.

desk verdict First direct CTN measurement on a TiO2:GeO2/SiO2 HR stack shows a real 25% reduction with sub-ppm absorption, but the gain is only demonstrated on a defect-free patch and blister suppression is still cited, not shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07679 v1 pith:XPTBXTWQ submitted 2025-02-11 physics.ins-det cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.optics

M. Fazio , I. W. Martin , P. Hill , M. Ben Yaala , M. Chicoine , C. Clark , N. Demos , M. M. Fejer

show 11 more authors

D. Gibson S. Gras J. Hough A. Markosyan G. McGhee S. Rowan J. Smith F. Schiettekatte S. Tait G. Vajente S. Reid

This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.ins-detcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.optics

keywords coatingthermalnoiseTiO2:GeO2gravitational-wavedetectorsionbeamdepositionannealingopticalabsorptionmechanicallossblistering

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

Gravitational-wave detectors are limited by thermal noise in their mirror coatings—tiny heat-driven vibrations that mask the signal. This paper reports a coating material, titania-doped germania (TiO2:GeO2) paired with silica, that lowers that noise. After annealing at 600 degrees Celsius for 100 hours, a highly reflective stack of these layers is directly measured to have coating thermal noise about 74% of the level of the current Advanced LIGO end test mass coatings, a 25% reduction, and optical absorption of 0.14 ppm at 1064 nm, below the A+ LIGO requirement of 0.5 ppm. The paper also shows that the same material stays amorphous at the annealing temperature and that the measured noise reduction is smaller than single-layer loss data predict, pointing to extra loss in the multilayer stack. The outstanding issue is blistering caused by annealing, which raises scattering; the authors report indications that it can be suppressed by lowering water partial pressure during deposition.

What carries the argument

The central object is the amorphous high-index layer TiO2:GeO2 with a dopant cation ratio $r = \mathrm{Ti}/(\mathrm{Ti}+\mathrm{Ge})$ around 0.43, deposited by ion beam deposition and paired with SiO2 in a 27-pair stack. Its low mechanical loss angle (as low as $(1.5\pm0.9)\times10^{-4}$ after annealing) is the property that lowers coating thermal noise, and the authors connect that low loss to a high fraction of corner-sharing metal-centered polyhedra in the amorphous network. The annealing protocol—heating to 600 °C for 100 hours—does the work of reducing optical absorption from 15.5 ppm as-deposited to 0.14 ppm. The direct coating thermal noise measurement cavity is the instrument that turns the low loss into the headline 25% number.

What would settle it

Deposit a full-aperture TiO2:GeO2/SiO2 HR coating under reduced water partial pressure, anneal it at 600 °C for 100 hours, and measure both the scattering loss map and the coating thermal noise over the entire intended beam area. If blisters still form across the aperture, or if the full-area coating thermal noise reduction is less than 25% relative to an Advanced LIGO witness sample, the claim that this coating can deliver the stated sensitivity gain in a real detector would be disproved.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that a 27-pair TiO2:GeO2/SiO2 highly reflective multilayer, annealed at 600 °C for 100 hours, exhibits a directly measured coating thermal noise reduction of 25% relative to the Advanced LIGO end test mass witness sample—about 74% of its amplitude spectral density at 100 Hz—combined with an optical absorption of 0.14 ppm at 1064 nm, comfortably below the 0.5 ppm A+ requirement. The authors further claim that single layers of TiO2:GeO2 with dopant cation ratios from 0.374 to 0.521 remain amorphous up to at least 600 °C, that adding TiO2 raises the crystallization temperature of GeO2, and that the loss angle reaches values near $1\times 10^{-4}$, consistent with earlier single-layer reports. They also note that the stack's measured noise is higher than predicted from single-layer loss using an effective-medium model, indicating excess loss from interfaces or other stack effects.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on the assumption that the blisters seen after annealing can be suppressed on full-size mirrors by lowering water partial pressure during deposition, because the 25% noise reduction was measured on a small defect-free area while blisters elsewhere degraded scattering.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If blistering is controlled, TiO2:GeO2/SiO2 stacks could replace TiO2:Ta2O5/SiO2 in future detector upgrades, giving a 25% coating thermal noise reduction while satisfying the A+ absorption limit.
The sub-ppm absorption after extended annealing makes the material compatible with the high circulating powers planned in upgraded gravitational-wave detectors.
Because single-layer estimates predict an even larger noise reduction than measured, removing the excess stack loss would yield additional sensitivity beyond 25%.
The higher crystallization temperature of TiO2-doped GeO2 permits annealing at 600 °C without crystallizing, which is what unlocks the low absorption.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension would be to vary the deposition water partial pressure systematically and measure blister density across a full-size mirror; if blistering disappears while the 25% CTN reduction persists, the coating is ready for detector integration.
The gap between measured and single-layer-predicted coating thermal noise suggests interfacial loss is the next target; experiments varying ion energy or layer-boundary treatment could test whether the remaining gap is interfacial.
The paper's absorption drop with extended annealing hints at an optimal annealing duration that minimizes both absorption and blister growth; a systematic annealing-time series on full-size samples would map that window.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

You should know two things about this paper: it delivers the first direct coating thermal noise measurement on a full TiO2:GeO2/SiO2 HR stack, and that measurement shows a genuine 25% reduction over an Advanced LIGO ETM witness at 100 Hz. The absorption after the full anneal is 0.14 ppm, comfortably below the A+ requirement. Those are real, directly measured results, and they are the reason this paper matters.

What's new here is the full-stack demonstration. Prior work on this material system had reported single-layer mechanical loss; this paper extends that to a 27-pair HR stack and verifies the noise reduction directly in a cavity, not just by inferring from loss models. The single-layer characterization (RBS, GIXRD, PCI, ringdown) is careful, and the paper is honest about where things stand.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The 25% figure has no stated uncertainty, and both the CTN and absorption measurements come from a defect-free central patch on a sample whose surface otherwise shows blisters, cracks, and delamination after annealing. The paper says blister suppression can be achieved by reducing water partial pressure, citing Lalande et al., but no such sample is shown here. That makes the headline gain conditional on a process modification that's not yet demonstrated at full aperture. Also, the stack's CTN is higher than the single-layer prediction — about 90% predicted vs measured equal to Advanced LIGO — and the authors acknowledge unmodeled interfacial or bulk/shear effects. That's a caveat, not a fatal flaw, but it means the mechanism is not fully understood.

All that said, the central measurement stands on its own. A direct, apples-to-apples CTN measurement on a real HR stack with sub-ppm absorption is a solid engineering contribution for the gravitational-wave community. I'd send it to peer review. The referees should push for error bars, a discussion of how representative the defect-free region is, and ideally a demonstration of blister suppression. If the authors can show that, the material is genuinely interesting for A+ and future detectors.

I'd bring this to the reading group and would cite it if I were working on coating development.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the development and characterization of TiO2:GeO2/SiO2 highly reflective coatings intended for gravitational-wave detector mirrors. Single layers spanning dopant cation ratios 0.374-0.521 are characterized for composition, refractive index, absorption, crystallization behavior, and mechanical loss. A 27-pair HR stack with Ti/(Ti+Ge)=0.429 is deposited, annealed, and measured for optical absorption, scattering, and coating thermal noise (CTN). The authors report sub-ppm absorption (0.14 ppm after annealing at 600°C for 100 h) and a CTN reduction of about 25% relative to an Advanced LIGO end-test-mass witness sample at 100 Hz. Annealing also produces blisters and delamination, increasing scattering; the authors state that prior work indicates blister suppression by reducing water partial pressure in the deposition chamber, but no blister-free sample is demonstrated in this paper.

Significance. The direct CTN measurement is a valuable step beyond the single-layer loss results reported previously for TiO2:GeO2, and the comparison with an Advanced LIGO witness sample in the same apparatus is a strength. If the measured reduction and sub-ppm absorption can be reproduced on a blister-free, full-aperture coating, the material would be a serious candidate for A+ and future detectors. The paper is also candid about the excess CTN relative to single-layer predictions and about the blistering problem. However, the central quantitative claims currently rest on a selected defect-free area of a blistered sample and are quoted without uncertainties, so the significance is conditional on further process validation.

major comments (3)

[Section III.B, Figs. 5-7] The headline values (0.14 ppm absorption and 74% of the Advanced LIGO CTN at 100 Hz) are measured on a defect-free central area of a sample that, after the same annealing, exhibits extensive blisters with cracks and delamination (Fig. 5). The abstract and Section IV state only that blister suppression is 'indicated' by reducing the water partial pressure, citing Ref. [26] rather than presenting a blister-free coating. The central claim is therefore not yet established for a usable full-aperture mirror. Please either demonstrate the suppression on a representative sample or explicitly frame the CTN/absorption results as conditional on a process modification that remains to be validated, and soften the unqualified 'demonstrated' language in Section IV.
[Section III.B, Fig. 7] The claimed '25% reduction' (equivalently, 'about 74% of Advanced LIGO' at 100 Hz) is quoted without any uncertainty, and the same is true for the 0.14 ppm absorption value. The CTN measurement is performed on a single HR stack, and the extraction involves a fit that includes sensor and cavity-coupler noise terms. Please provide statistical and systematic uncertainties, including the fit, calibration, and sample-to-sample variation, and state the number of measurements. Without these, the precision of the central quantitative claim cannot be assessed.
[Section III.B, final paragraph] The authors note that the measured stack CTN is higher than that predicted from single-layer loss using the effective-medium approach of Ref. [13] (calculated 'nearly 90%' vs measured 'about the same as' the Advanced LIGO ETM witness sample after 500°C annealing). This indicates unmodeled excess loss from interfaces, bulk/shear loss differences, or other stack effects. Because this excess is not quantified, the extent to which the measured 25% reduction transfers to other stack designs or deposition conditions remains unclear. Please quantify the excess or discuss its implications for extrapolation to production coatings.

minor comments (4)

[Figure 5] The optical and SEM images would benefit from explicit scale bars and labels indicating the typical blister sizes and the location of the defect-free measured region relative to the blistered area.
[Section II] The assumption that the transmittance measured after annealing at 300°C is unchanged by subsequent annealing steps should be justified or included in the uncertainty budget for the derived scattering losses.
[References] Reference [3] contains a garbled author string ('and othersi'); please correct typographical errors in the reference list.
[Abstract / Section III.B] The abstract states a '25% reduction' while Section III.B reports 'about 74% of Advanced LIGO at 100 Hz'; please state explicitly that these refer to the same measurement and specify the frequency and annealing conditions in both places.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the reported 25% CTN reduction and 0.14 ppm absorption are direct measurements, not outputs of a fitted model, and no load-bearing claim reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The central claims of the paper are experimentally measured quantities: the coating thermal noise of the TiO2:GeO2/SiO2 HR stack is directly measured in a dedicated apparatus and compared to an Advanced LIGO witness sample measured in the same setup, giving about 74% of the Advanced LIGO CTN at 100 Hz after annealing at 600 °C for 100 hours. The absorption is likewise measured from the frequency shift of a high-finesse cavity, calibrated against a coating of known absorption. Neither result is obtained by fitting a parameter to the same data and then calling the fit a prediction. The paper does reference prior work by overlapping authors, notably Vajente et al. [13] for the effective-medium model and single-layer loss values, but that model is used only for comparison and the paper explicitly notes that the measured CTN reduction is smaller than predicted by that model, indicating the model is not the source of the claim. The blister-suppression statement relies on prior work by Lalande et al. [26], but it is presented as an 'indication' and is not used to derive the CTN or absorption numbers; it is a forward-looking process recommendation. The measurements being taken on a defect-free central area while blisters exist elsewhere is a legitimate correctness and applicability limitation, but it is not a circularity: the reported values are what they claim to be, namely properties of the measured region of this particular annealed stack. No self-definitional step, fitted-input-as-prediction step, or load-bearing self-citation chain was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a direct measured CTN ratio, so there are no fitted constants in the main result. The listed parameters are design and characterization choices. The key unproven premise is that the defect-free region measured represents a usable coating and that blistering can be suppressed in production.

free parameters (2)

HR stack dopant cation ratio (Ti/(Ti+Ge)) = 0.429
Chosen as a compromise between high refractive index and crystallization temperature (Section II), not optimized by fitting to the CTN result; affects stack optical and mechanical properties.
Coating Young's modulus and Poisson ratio = 89 ± 1 GPa and 0.25 ± 0.05
Estimated with a Bayesian fit to ringdown mode frequencies (Section III A); used to convert measured resonant frequencies to mechanical loss angles.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Coating thermal noise follows the simplified expression x(f) proportional to sqrt(kBT d / (f w^2 phi)), with bulk and shear mechanical losses approximately equal.
Stated in the Introduction near Eq. (1); used to connect measured loss to CTN but not used to compute the direct CTN result.
domain assumption The Advanced LIGO ETM witness sample measured in the same apparatus is a representative baseline for current end test mass coatings.
The 25% reduction is expressed relative to this witness sample (Section III B, Fig. 7).
domain assumption The defect-free central region of the HR stack is representative of the coating's optical and thermal performance.
Absorption and CTN were measured on this region while blisters existed elsewhere (Section III B).
domain assumption Blister formation can be suppressed by reducing water partial pressure in the IBD chamber, per Ref. [26].
Stated as an indication from prior work, not demonstrated in this paper (abstract and Section III B).
domain assumption Standard ion beam analysis and optical characterization methods (RBS/SIMNRA, OptiChar, PCI) give accurate composition and absorption values.
All reported compositions and absorptions depend on these calibrated techniques, described in Section II.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Low thermal noise mirror coatings utilising titanium dioxide and germanium dioxide mixtures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XPTBXTWQ

@misc{pith2026250207679,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Low thermal noise mirror coatings utilising titanium dioxide and germanium dioxide mixtures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XPTBXTWQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07679}
}

abstract

Upgrades to ground-based gravitational-wave observatories will require mirror coatings with reduced thermal noise, enabling improved detector sensitivity and extended astrophysical reach. Recent studies have shown that optical coatings utilising amorphous materials that exhibit a larger fraction of corner-sharing between adjacent structural units of metal-centered polyhedra are a promising route for reducing mechanical dissipation and thus thermal noise at room temperature. We report on multilayer optical coatings that are fabricated using germanium dioxide mixed with titanium dioxide (TiO$_2$:GeO$_2$) for the high index layers, and silicon dioxide (SiO$_2$) for the low index material. Single layers of TiO$_2$:GeO$_2$ are characterised to optimise the mixture proportion and based on that highly reflective multilayer stacks were deposited. Exceptional optical absorption at 1064 nm below 1 part-per-million (ppm) is observed in the multilayer stacks after heat treatment. The annealing process also induces the formation of blisters which leads to increased optical scattering. However, there is indication that blisters can be suppressed by decreasing the water partial pressure in the deposition chamber. Direct thermal noise measurements provide experimental verification of a significant 25\% reduction of thermal noise over the mirrors currently employed, which combined with sub-ppm levels of optical absorption show the potential of TiO$_2$:GeO$_2$ to improve the sensitivity of gravitational-wave observatories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07679 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. Refractive index (top panel) and extinction coefficient (bot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. GIXRD diffractograms of TiO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. SEM (top) and optical microscope (bottom) images of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Absorption loss and (b) scattering loss for an HR multi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[26]

Rezac, D

M. Rezac, D. Martinez, A. Gleckl, and J. R. Smith, Applied Optics 62, B97 (2023)

work page 2023
[13]

The composition of the coatings was measured using Rutherford backscattering spectrometry (RBS) [17]

also informed target composition. The composition of the coatings was measured using Rutherford backscattering spectrometry (RBS) [17]. These measurements were conducted with a 2032 keV He beam on a Tandetron accelerator, with an incidence angle of 7 ◦ and the detector placed at a scattering angle of 170 ◦. Simulations with the ion beam analysis software ...

work page 2000
[1]

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016)

work page 2016
[2]

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 074001 (2015)

work page 2015
[3]

Acernese, M

F. Acernese, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, D. Aisa, N. Alleman- dou, A. Allocca, J. Amarni, P. Astone, G. Balestri, G. Ballardin, and othersi, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 024001 (2014)

work page 2014
[4]

LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021)

work page 2021
[5]

Abbott, T

R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, N. Adhikari, R. X. Adhikari, V . B. Adya, C. Affeldt, et al. , GWTC-3: Compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the second part of the third observing run (2021), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2021
[6]

G. M. Harry, A. M. Gretarsson, P. R. Saulson, S. E. Kittelberger, S. D. Penn, W. J. Startin, S. Rowan, M. M. Fejer, D. Crooks, G. Cagnoli, et al. , Classical and Quantum Gravity 19, 897 (2002)

work page 2002

Show all 28 references

[7]

T. Hong, H. Yang, E. K. Gustafson, R. X. Adhikari, and Y . Chen, Phys. Rev. D87, 082001 (2013)

2013
[8]

Granata, A

M. Granata, A. Amato, L. Balzarini, M. Canepa, J. Degallaix, D. Forest, V . Dolique, L. Mereni, C. Michel, L. Pinard, B. Sas- solas, J. Teillon, and G. Cagnoli, Classical and Quantum Grav- ity 37, 095004 (2020)

2020
[9]

Harry et al., Appl

G. Harry et al., Appl. Opt. 45, 1569 (2006)

2006
[10]

G. M. Harry, M. R. Abernathy, A. E. Becerra-Toledo, H. Ar- mandula, E. Black, K. Dooley, M. Eichenfield, C. Nwabugwu, A. Villar, D. R. M. Crooks, G. Cagnoli, J. Hough, C. R. How, I. MacLaren, P. Murray, S. Reid, S. Rowan, P. H. Sneddon, M. M. Fejer, R. Route, S. D. Penn, P. Ga...

2006
[11]

Flaminio, J

R. Flaminio, J. Franc, C. Michel, N. Morgado, L. Pinard, and B. Sassolas, Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 084030 (2010)

2010
[12]

Amato, G

A. Amato, G. Cagnoli, M. Granata, B. Sassolas, J. Degallaix, D. Forest, C. Michel, L. Pinard, N. Demos, S. Gras, M. Evans, A. Di Michele, and M. Canepa, Phys. Rev. D 103, 072001 (2021)

2021
[14]

Vajente, L

G. Vajente, L. Yang, A. Davenport, M. Fazio, A. Ananyeva, L. Zhang, G. Billingsley, K. Prasai, A. Markosyan, R. Bassiri, M. M. Fejer, M. Chicoine, F. Schiettekatte, and C. S. Menoni, Physical Review Letters 127, 071101 (2021)

2021
[15]

Prasai, J

K. Prasai, J. Jiang, A. Mishkin, B. Shyam, S. Angelova, R. Bir- ney, D. A. Drabold, M. Fazio, E. K. Gustafson, G. Harry,et al., Physical review letters 123, 045501 (2019)

2019
[16]

Cutting Edge Coatings GmbH, Hollerithallee 18, 30419 Han- nover, Germany
[17]

Sakiew, S

W. Sakiew, S. Schrameyer, P. Schwerdtner, N. Erhart, and K. Starke, Applied Optics 59, 4296 (2020)

2020
[18]

W.-K. Chu, J. W. Mayer, and M.-A. Nicolet, Backscattering Spectrometry (Academic Press, New York, 1978)

1978
[19]

Mayer, in AIP conference proceedings, V ol

M. Mayer, in AIP conference proceedings, V ol. 475 (American Institute of Physics, 1999) pp. 541–544

1999
[20]

Alexandrovski, M

A. Alexandrovski, M. Fejer, A. Markosian, and R. Route, Solid State Lasers XVIII: Technology and Devices 7193, 71930D (2009)

2009
[21]

Cesarini, M

E. Cesarini, M. Lorenzini, E. Campagna, F. Martelli, F. Piergiovanni, F. Vetrano, G. Losurdo, and G. Cagnoli, Review of Scientific Instruments 80, 053904 (2009), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3124800

2009 doi
[22]

Vajente, M

G. Vajente, M. Fazio, L. Yang, A. Gupta, A. Ananyeva, G. Billinsley, and C. S. Menoni, Physical Review D 101, 042004 (2020)

2020
[23]

Gras and M

S. Gras and M. Evans, Phys. Rev. D 98, 122001 (2018)

2018
[24]

Gates-Rector and T

S. Gates-Rector and T. Blanton, Powder Diffraction 34, 352 (2019)

2019
[25]

Fazio, G

M. Fazio, G. Vajente, L. Yang, A. Ananyeva, and C. S. Menoni, Physical Review D 105, 102008 (2022)

2022
[27]

Lalande, A

É. Lalande, A. Davenport, L. Marchand, A. Markosyan, D. Martinez, A. Paolone, M. Rezac, M. Bazzan, M. Chicoine, J. L. Colaux, et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity 41, 115013 (2024)

2024
[28]

M. A. Fazio, G. Vajente, A. Ananyeva, A. Markosyan, R. Bassiri, M. M. Fejer, and C. S. Menoni, Optical Materials Express 10, 1687 (2020)

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [26]

Rezac, D

M. Rezac, D. Martinez, A. Gleckl, and J. R. Smith, Applied Optics 62, B97 (2023)

work page 2023

[2] [13]

The composition of the coatings was measured using Rutherford backscattering spectrometry (RBS) [17]

also informed target composition. The composition of the coatings was measured using Rutherford backscattering spectrometry (RBS) [17]. These measurements were conducted with a 2032 keV He beam on a Tandetron accelerator, with an incidence angle of 7 ◦ and the detector placed at a scattering angle of 170 ◦. Simulations with the ion beam analysis software ...

work page 2000

[3] [1]

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016)

work page 2016

[4] [2]

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 074001 (2015)

work page 2015

[5] [3]

Acernese, M

F. Acernese, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, D. Aisa, N. Alleman- dou, A. Allocca, J. Amarni, P. Astone, G. Balestri, G. Ballardin, and othersi, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 024001 (2014)

work page 2014

[6] [4]

LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021)

work page 2021

[7] [5]

Abbott, T

R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, N. Adhikari, R. X. Adhikari, V . B. Adya, C. Affeldt, et al. , GWTC-3: Compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the second part of the third observing run (2021), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2021

[8] [6]

G. M. Harry, A. M. Gretarsson, P. R. Saulson, S. E. Kittelberger, S. D. Penn, W. J. Startin, S. Rowan, M. M. Fejer, D. Crooks, G. Cagnoli, et al. , Classical and Quantum Gravity 19, 897 (2002)

work page 2002