Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Gravitational-wave background detection using machine learning

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A multi-scale autoencoder separates the gravitational-wave background from detector noise, detecting a binary-black-hole component at $\Omega_\alpha\sim10^{-9}$ and a cosmological component as faint as $\Omega_0\sim1.3\times10^{-10}$ in…

desk verdict Promising ML architecture for GWB separation, but the central sensitivity claims likely rest on an uncorrected diagonal-covariance likelihood and a misleading baseline comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14764 v1 pith:AB4CZJJT submitted 2025-06-17 gr-qc astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM

Hugo Einsle , Marie-Anne Bizouard , Tania Regimbau , Mairi Sakellariadou This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM
keywords gravitational-wavebackgroundstochasticautoencoderdeeplearningBayesianinferenceMarkovChainMonteCarlocomponentseparationcompactbinarycoalescences
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

The paper argues that a purpose-built autoencoder can pull the faint stochastic gravitational-wave background out of the dominant noise of ground-based interferometers, and that the cleaned spectrum can then be split into astrophysical and cosmological components with Markov Chain Monte Carlo estimation. This matters because this background is the combined residue of all unresolvable compact-binary mergers and possible early-universe processes, and standard cross-correlation searches need much longer observation times to reach comparable sensitivity. Training on 47.4 days of simulated LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA data at design sensitivity, the authors report a confident detection of a binary-black-hole background at $\Omega_\alpha\simeq10^{-9}$ at 25 Hz, and the simultaneous measurement of a flat cosmological component as faint as $\Omega_0\simeq1.3\times10^{-10}$ on 23.7 days of test data. The method also keeps its sensitivity when the astrophysical spectral index is treated as a free parameter rather than fixed to $2/3$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the MSMHAutoencoder, an autoencoder that takes $M=12$ consecutive log-power spectra with $N=1005$ frequency bins and builds latent representations at several spectral scales. A noise decoder reconstructs the detector noise $\hat n$; the signal latent is defined as $z_\mathrm{signal}=(z_\mathrm{total}-z_\mathrm{noise})+C(z_\mathrm{total},z_\mathrm{noise})$, where $C$ is a learned per-scale correction that prevents naive latent subtraction from erasing faint signal features. The decoder then maps the corrected latents to the estimated background spectrum $\hat s$. Training uses a physics-informed loss with spectral reconstruction, smoothness, latent consistency, and input consistency terms, plus a curriculum that starts with artificially amplified signals and gradually lowers the amplitudes to realistic, noise-dominated levels.

What would settle it

Take the trained autoencoder, inject a known $\Omega_\alpha=10^{-9}$ background plus a $\Omega_0=1.3\times10^{-10}$ cosmological component into data that includes simulated glitches and correlated magnetic noise, and check whether the recovered amplitudes stay within the reported $1\sigma$ credible intervals; if the bias exceeds those intervals or the Bayes factor falls below 3, the claim as stated is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a multi-scale, multi-headed autoencoder can act as a signal extractor for the stochastic gravitational-wave background: it builds a latent representation of the input spectra, reconstructs the noise, then forms a signal latent not by direct subtraction but with a learned correction, and decodes that corrected latent into a background spectrum. The decoded spectrum becomes the likelihood data for a two-component model $\Omega_\mathrm{GW}(f)=\Omega_\alpha(f/f_\mathrm{ref})^{2/3}+\Omega_0$ with $f_\mathrm{ref}=25$ Hz, and this combined analysis reaches $\log_{10}(\mathrm{BF})>3$ for $\Omega_\alpha\simeq10^{-9}$ while distinguishing $\Omega_0\simeq1.3\times10^{-10}$ from a pure foreground. When the spectral index is left free, the posterior peaks near $2/3$ and the cosmological estimate remains consistent within $1\sigma$. The paper also reports that the autoencoder's sensitivity improves faster with exposure than the cross-correlation estimator, with an early power-law gain that later flattens.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that simulated Gaussian, uncorrelated, stationary detector noise, plus signals generated from the same population models and power-law shapes used in recovery, faithfully represents real interferometer data; if real noise contains non-Gaussian transients, correlated magnetic noise, or non-stationarity, the claimed sensitivities may not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A trained autoencoder can produce pre-cleaned spectra fast enough to feed Bayesian estimation, potentially replacing much of the expensive raw-data MCMC burden in GWB component separation.
  • At design sensitivity, a CBC background at the expected upper end of the merger-rate range would be detected with decisive evidence using only weeks of training data and days of test data.
  • A flat cosmological component roughly an order of magnitude fainter than the astrophysical foreground remains measurable, so early-universe backgrounds could be disentangled from the CBC foreground without resolving and subtracting individual sources.
  • Allowing the astrophysical spectral index to vary instead of fixing $\alpha=2/3$ does not spoil the cosmological measurement, widening the method to backgrounds with different slopes.
  • The sensitivity scaling reported (steep at first, flattening to $T^{-0.2}$) means that for this architecture, adding more training data yields diminishing returns beyond roughly ten hours of equivalent observing time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the method survives non-Gaussian noise, the autoencoder could be used as a pre-filter feeding the standard cross-correlation estimator, so its speed advantage would translate into a sensitivity gain for existing stochastic pipelines rather than only a new analysis chain.
  • The two-component recovery is demonstrated on a $\alpha=2/3$ power law plus a flat cosmological spectrum; a natural extension is to inject cosmic-string or phase-transition templates with broken power laws to see whether the latent-space separation still holds.
  • The comparison of training-data volume to observing time leaves out the fixed computational cost of training; a fair operational benchmark would account for that cost and for how often the network must be retrained when detector noise changes.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a hybrid machine-learning/Bayesian pipeline for stochastic gravitational-wave background (GWB) analysis. A custom multi-scale multi-headed autoencoder (MSMHAutoencoder) is trained on simulated log-spectra of Hanford and Livingston detector noise with injected astrophysical and cosmological signals, and its reconstructed spectrum is then used in MCMC/nested-sampling parameter estimation with a power-law astrophysical component and a constant cosmological component. The authors report a BBH background detection threshold of Omega_alpha ~ 1e-9 at 25 Hz (log10 BF > 3) and a simultaneous cosmological component threshold of Omega_0 ~ 1.3e-10 using 23.7 days of simulated test data, and they argue that the method reaches sensitivity faster than cross-correlation as a function of training-data volume.

Significance. Strengths: the injection-recovery framework is internally consistent, the architecture and training details are documented in the appendices, and the authors are explicit that validation uses idealized Gaussian uncorrelated noise. If the sensitivity figures were calibrated, the paper would provide a useful proof-of-concept for ML-based GWB denoising and component separation. The main value is the demonstration of the hybrid pipeline, not yet a claim about real LVK data. The quantitative claims are currently not fully supported because the Bayes factors rely on an independence assumption that is likely violated, no null-injection false-alarm rates are shown, and the comparison with cross-correlation uses mismatched detection criteria.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (30)] The likelihood in Eq. (30) assumes that residuals between the autoencoder output and the model are independent across frequency bins with variance sigma_log(f)^2. This is not justified: the spectral loss in Eq. (14) penalizes second differences of the output, and the multi-scale encoder/decoder in Appendix A uses downsampling, transposed convolutions, and interpolation, all of which induce correlations between neighboring output bins. Under a diagonal-covariance Gaussian likelihood, correlated residuals are treated as independent information, which can inflate log10(BF) and log10(BF_Cosmo) in Figures 3 and 4. The manuscript does not report false-alarm rates from noise-only injections or a calibration check of the Bayes factors, so the threshold log10(BF) = 3 is not demonstrated to control false positives. A revision should estimate and include the full residual covariance (or whiten the output) and report null-injection Bayes-factor distributions.
  2. [Section V, Fig. 6 and Discussion] The claimed speed advantage over cross-correlation rests on mismatched metrics. The autoencoder sensitivity in Fig. 6 is defined by Eq. (32) with an MSE threshold of 0.01, which the text itself calls arbitrarily chosen, while the red dashed curve is the cross-correlation sensitivity at SNR = 1. Comparing these two curves is not a comparison of detection thresholds, and the statement in the Discussion that 1.6 years of coincident data would be needed for cross-correlation to reach Omega_alpha ~ 10^-9 does not follow from the figure. In addition, the x-axis is the cumulative volume of distinct simulated training data, not observing time; training data can be generated at will, so the early T^-1.6 scaling is not directly comparable to the 1/sqrt(T_obs) scaling of an observing-time sensitivity. The comparison should be redone with matched false-alarm probability, detection probability, and data-volume definitions.
  3. [Abstract and Section V] The abstract says the method is validated on the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA network, but the reported test results use only the two LIGO detectors. Section IV describes a three-detector network including Virgo, while Section V and the Figure 2 caption specify LIGO Hanford and LIGO Livingston noise only. Since the overlap reduction function and noise curves of each baseline enter the signal simulation, the sensitivity numbers should be reported for the two-detector configuration actually analyzed, and the network-level claim should be either verified with Virgo/KAGRA or removed.
  4. [Section V, Eq. (28)] The component-separation test is a within-model injection-recovery: the cosmological component is generated as a constant spectrum and recovered with the same constant model Omega_Cosmo = Omega_0, while the BBH component is generated from the same CBC population assumptions that motivate the power-law recovery model. This demonstrates sensitivity under ideal model matching but does not test the method's ability to separate components with different spectral shapes (e.g., first-order phase transition or cosmic-string spectra), which is the harder part of the claimed disentangling task. The Discussion correctly lists such scenarios as future work, but the abstract and Section V should qualify 'disentangling' accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, Section III, Section IV.B] 'Marcov Chain Monte Carlo' should read 'Markov Chain Monte Carlo'; similar typos include 'projet' in the acknowledgments and 'uniformally' in Section IV.B.
  2. [Appendix A] 'biase tensors' should be 'bias tensors'.
  3. [Eq. (31)] The prior enforcing Omega_0 < Omega_alpha is a strong assumption; please state explicitly that the analysis applies only to subdominant cosmological components and consider a robustness test with this prior removed.
  4. [Figure 6] The caption should define what the red curve represents (detector pair, spectral index, and SNR definition) and clarify that the x-axis is simulated training-data volume, not observation time.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the results are closed-loop simulation validations, not derivations that assume their conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (Omega_BBH ~ 1e-9 and Omega_Cosmo ~ 1.3e-10 detectable with log10(BF)>3) are obtained by injecting known signals into simulated detector noise, training the MSMHAutoencoder on separate data from the same simulator, and then running MCMC on the autoencoder output. The recovery model in Eq. (28) uses the same power-law forms that parameterize the injections (Eq. 3 and Section IV.C), and the network's supervised loss (Eqs. 13-17) directly optimizes reconstruction of the injected signal and noise spectra. This makes the validation a self-consistency test rather than an independent first-principles prediction, but the paper explicitly frames it as validation, uses a held-out test set (23.7 days), and does not fit the recovery parameters to the test results. The authors' own limitations paragraph acknowledges idealized noise and the need for real-data testing. The diagonal likelihood in Eq. (30) is an assumption that could miscalibrate Bayes factors, but that is a statistical correctness risk, not a reduction of the output to the input. No load-bearing self-citation, uniqueness argument, or ansatz-smuggling is present; self-citations such as Refs. [36,37,55] provide context and simulation tools rather than support for the detection claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central sensitivity claims rest on idealized simulation assumptions, Gaussian uncorrelated noise and known spectral shapes, rather than on any new physical entity. The main free choices are training hyperparameters and the arbitrary sensitivity threshold; no post-hoc physics parameters are fitted to force the claimed result.

free parameters (4)
  • Curriculum amplitude bounds (A0, Am, Amax) = A0=1e2, Am=1e-2, Amax=1e2
    Chosen by hand in Table I; define the dynamic range of signal amplitudes the network sees during training and thus bound the sensitivity regime the paper claims.
  • Loss weights (lambda_s, lambda_l, lambda_c) = 0.5, 0.1, 0.1
    Hand-tuned in Table I; balance reconstruction, latent, and consistency losses, directly shaping separation quality.
  • MSE sensitivity threshold = 0.01
    Arbitrary threshold in Eq. (32) used to define the model's minimum detectable amplitude in Figure 6.
  • Prior ranges for log10 Omega_0 and log10 Omega_alpha = -13 to -9 and -11 to -7
    Chosen by hand for the MCMC priors in Eq. (31); they bound the recoverable amplitudes and could influence the Bayes factors.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Detector noise is Gaussian and uncorrelated between detectors.
    Section IV.A states this explicitly; the autoencoder's signal and noise separation is trained and evaluated under this assumption.
  • domain assumption The GWB is isotropic, stationary, and unpolarized.
    Standard assumption inherited from cross-correlation analyses in Section II and used implicitly in the overlap reduction function and power-law model.
  • domain assumption The BBH background is a power law with spectral index alpha = 2/3.
    Used for MCMC recovery in Eq. (28) and for extrapolating to other CBC sources; this matches the inspiral-dominated expectation but is an assumption about the true spectrum.
  • domain assumption The cosmological background is frequency-independent, alpha = 0.
    Injected and recovered as a constant Omega_0; many cosmological models are not flat over the LVK band.
  • domain assumption The simulated data are representative of LVK A+ design sensitivity.
    Section IV uses the A+ design curve for LIGO and a simplified Virgo sensitivity; real detector performance and artifacts are absent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational-wave background detection using machine learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AB4CZJJT

@misc{pith2026250614764,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational-wave background detection using machine learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AB4CZJJT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14764}
}
abstract

Extracting the faint gravitational-wave background (GWB) signal from dominant detector noise and disentangling its %diverse astrophysical and cosmological components remain significant challenges for traditional methods like cross-correlation analysis. We propose a novel hybrid approach that combines deep learning with Bayesian inference to identify and characterize the GWB more rapidly than current techniques. Our method utilizes a custom-designed multi-scale multi-headed autoencoder (MSMHAutoencoder) architecture to separate GWB signals from detector noise, and subsequently Marcov Chain Monte Carlo parameter estimation to disentangle the GWB components. Using simulated data representative of the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA network at design sensitivity, we show that our MSMHAutoencoder can detect with high confidence (log noise Bayes factor of 3) a GWB from binary black hole mergers with fractional energy density $\Omega_{\text{BBH}} \approx 10^{-9}$ at 25 Hz. In the presence of such an astrophysical GWB, we can simultaneously measure a cosmological component as faint as $\Omega_{\text{Cosmo}} \approx 1.3 \times 10^{-10}$ using 47.4 days of training data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14764 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic representation of the MSMHAutoencoder architecture. The model processes frequency-domain inputs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Evolution of the training loss (blue) and validation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Recovered median log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Recovered median log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Sensitivity as function of the amount of unique train [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Corner plots showing the marginalized posterior prob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A "Neutrino Fog" For Gravitational Waves: The Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background from Supernova Neutrino Memory

    astro-ph.HE 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using 3D supernova simulations, the authors predict that neutrino memory creates a gravitational wave background with Omega_GW around 1e-16 at 0.1 Hz, within reach of future space-based detectors.

  2. Can machine learning improve the detectability and disentanglement of the gravitational-wave background?

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    On 108 days of simulated O4a-like LIGO noise, a deep-learning autoencoder plus MCMC pipeline detects a CBC background at Ωα≈4.5e-9 and separates a flat cosmological component at Ω0≈9e-10, outperforming the standard py...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbott et al. GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observ- ing Runs. Phys. Rev., X9(3):031040, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    The stride specifies the shift applied to the filter across the input; a stride of 2 doubles the frequency resolution by spacing out the convolution outputs

    Here, the kernel size defines the width of the con- volutional filter, determining how many neighboring fre- quency bins are combined in each operation. The stride specifies the shift applied to the filter across the input; a stride of 2 doubles the frequency resolution by spacing out the convolution outputs. If the result z(ℓ+1) up does not match the res...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coales- cences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the Second Part of the Third Observing Run. 11 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. GWTC-2: Compact Binary Co- alescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run. Phys. Rev. X , 11:021053, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    Stochastic Gravitational Wave Backgrounds

    Nelson Christensen. Stochastic Gravitational Wave Backgrounds. Rept. Prog. Phys., 82(1):016903, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Capote et al

    E. Capote et al. Advanced ligo detector performance in the fourth observing run. Physical Review D , 111(6), March 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    The Next Generation Global Grav- itational Wave Observatory: The Science Book

    Vicky Kalogera et al. The Next Generation Global Grav- itational Wave Observatory: The Science Book. 11 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Figueroa

    Chiara Caprini and Daniel G. Figueroa. Cosmologi- cal Backgrounds of Gravitational Waves. Class. Quant. Grav., 35(16):163001, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    The astrophysical gravitational wave stochastic background

    Tania Regimbau. The astrophysical gravitational wave stochastic background. Res. Astron. Astrophys., 11:369– 390, 2011

    2011

  2. [10]

    Cosmology with the Laser Interfer- ometer Space Antenna

    Pierre Auclair et al. Cosmology with the Laser Interfer- ometer Space Antenna. Living Rev. Rel. , 26(1):5, 2023

    2023

  3. [10]

    Cosmology with the Laser Interfer- ometer Space Antenna

    Pierre Auclair et al. Cosmology with the Laser Interfer- ometer Space Antenna. Living Rev. Rel., 26(1):5, 2023

    2023

  4. [11]

    Ramsey- Musolf, Mairi Sakellariadou, Kuver Sinha, Lian-Tao Wang, Graham White, Yue Zhao, Haipeng An, Ligong Bian, Chiara Caprini, Sebastien Clesse, James M

    Robert Caldwell, Yanou Cui, Huai-Ke Guo, Vuk Mandic, Alberto Mariotti, Jose Miguel No, Michael J. Ramsey- Musolf, Mairi Sakellariadou, Kuver Sinha, Lian-Tao Wang, Graham White, Yue Zhao, Haipeng An, Ligong Bian, Chiara Caprini, Sebastien Clesse, James M. Cline, Giulia Cusin, B...

    2022

  5. [12]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. Constraints on Cosmic Strings Using Data from the Third Advanced LIGO–Virgo Observing Run. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 126(24):241102, 2021

    2021

  6. [12]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. Constraints on Cosmic Strings Using Data from the Third Advanced LIGO–Virgo Observing Run. Phys. Rev. Lett., 126(24):241102, 2021

    2021

  7. [13]

    Searching for parity violation with the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA network

    Katarina Martinovic, Charles Badger, Mairi Sakellari- adou, and Vuk Mandic. Searching for parity violation with the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA network. Phys. Rev. D , 104(8):L081101, 2021

    2021

  8. [14]

    Friction on ALP domain walls and gravitational waves

    Simone Blasi, Alberto Mariotti, A¨ aron Rase, Alexander Sevrin, and Kevin Turbang. Friction on ALP domain walls and gravitational waves. JCAP, 04:008, 2023

    2023

  9. [15]

    In- vestigating cosmic histories with a stiff era through grav- itational waves

    Hannah Duval, Sachiko Kuroyanagi, Alberto Mariotti, Alba Romero-Rodr ´ ıguez, and Mairi Sakellariadou. In- vestigating cosmic histories with a stiff era through grav- itational waves. Phys. Rev. D , 110(10):103503, 2024

    2024

  10. [15]

    In- vestigating cosmic histories with a stiff era through grav- itational waves

    Hannah Duval, Sachiko Kuroyanagi, Alberto Mariotti, Alba Romero-Rodr´ ıguez, and Mairi Sakellariadou. In- vestigating cosmic histories with a stiff era through grav- itational waves. Phys. Rev. D , 110(10):103503, 2024

    2024

  11. [16]

    Probing early Universe supercooled phase transitions with gravitational wave data

    Charles Badger et al. Probing early Universe supercooled phase transitions with gravitational wave data. Phys. Rev. D, 107(2):023511, 2023

    2023

  12. [17]

    Abbott et al

    Benjamin P. Abbott et al. GW170817: Implica- tions for the Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background from Compact Binary Coalescences. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 120(9):091101, 2018

    2018

  13. [18]

    Detection prospects of gravitational waves from SU(2) axion inflation

    Charles Badger, Hannah Duval, Tomohiro Fujita, Sachiko Kuroyanagi, Alba Romero-Rodr ´ ıguez, and Mairi Sakellariadou. Detection prospects of gravitational waves from SU(2) axion inflation. Phys. Rev. D, 110(8):084063, 2024

    2024

  14. [18]

    Detection prospects of gravitational waves from SU(2) axion inflation

    Charles Badger, Hannah Duval, Tomohiro Fujita, Sachiko Kuroyanagi, Alba Romero-Rodr´ ıguez, and Mairi Sakellariadou. Detection prospects of gravitational waves from SU(2) axion inflation. Phys. Rev. D, 110(8):084063, 2024

    2024

  15. [19]

    Abbott et al

    Benjamin P. Abbott et al. Upper Limits on the Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background from Advanced LIGO’s First Observing Run. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 118(12):121101,

  16. [20]

    Optimal detection strategies for measuring the stochastic gravitational radiation back- ground with laser interferometric antennas

    Nelson Christensen. Optimal detection strategies for measuring the stochastic gravitational radiation back- ground with laser interferometric antennas. Phys. Rev. D, 55:448–454, 1997

    1997

  17. [21]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. Upper limits on the isotropic gravitational-wave background from Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo’s third observing run. Phys. Rev. D, 104(2):022004, 2021

    2021

  18. [22]

    Meyers, Katarina Martinovic, Nelson Chris- tensen, and Mairi Sakellariadou

    Patrick M. Meyers, Katarina Martinovic, Nelson Chris- tensen, and Mairi Sakellariadou. Detecting a stochas- tic gravitational-wave background in the presence of cor- related magnetic noise. Phys. Rev. D , 102(10):102005, 2020. 16

    2020

  19. [23]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Search for the isotropic stochastic background using data from Advanced LIGO’s second observing run. Phys. Rev. D , 100(6):061101, 2019

    2019

  20. [24]

    Jointly setting upper limits on multiple components of an anisotropic stochastic gravitational-wave background

    Jishnu Suresh, Deepali Agarwal, and Sanjit Mitra. Jointly setting upper limits on multiple components of an anisotropic stochastic gravitational-wave background. Physical Review D , 104(10), November 2021

    2021

  21. [24]

    Jointly setting upper limits on multiple components of an anisotropic stochastic gravitational-wave background

    Jishnu Suresh, Deepali Agarwal, and Sanjit Mitra. Jointly setting upper limits on multiple components of an anisotropic stochastic gravitational-wave background. Physical Review D, 104(10), November 2021

    2021

  22. [25]

    Guillaume Boileau, Nelson Christensen, Renate Meyer, and Neil J. Cornish. Spectral separation of the stochastic gravitational-wave background for lisa: Observing both cosmological and astrophysical backgrounds. Physical Review D, 103(10), May 2021

    2021

  23. [26]

    Component separation of a isotropic gravitational wave background

    Abhishek Parida, Sanjit Mitra, and Sanjay Jhingan. Component separation of a isotropic gravitational wave background. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2016(04):024–024, April 2016

    2016

  24. [27]

    A deep learning approach to galaxy cluster x-ray masses

    Michelle Ntampaka, J ZuHone, D Eisenstein, D Nagai, A Vikhlinin, L Hernquist, Federico Marinacci, Dylan Nel- son, R¨ udiger Pakmor, Annalisa Pillepich, et al. A deep learning approach to galaxy cluster x-ray masses. The Astrophysical Journal, 876(1):82, 2019

    2019

  25. [28]

    Daniel George and E. A. Huerta. Deep Learning for Real- time Gravitational Wave Detection and Parameter Esti- mation: Results with Advanced LIGO Data. Phys. Lett. B, 778:64–70, 2018

    2018

  26. [29]

    Machine learning and the physical sciences

    Giuseppe Carleo, Ignacio Cirac, Kyle Cranmer, Lau- rent Daudet, Maria Schuld, Naftali Tishby, Leslie Vogt- Maranto, and Lenka Zdeborov´ a. Machine learning and the physical sciences. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 91(4):045002, 2019

    2019

  27. [30]

    Alvin J. K. Chua and Michele Vallisneri. Learn- ing Bayesian posteriors with neural networks for gravitational-wave inference. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 124(4):041102, 2020

    2020

  28. [31]

    Bayesian parameter estimation using conditional vari- ational autoencoders for gravitational-wave astronomy

    Hunter Gabbard, Chris Messenger, Ik Siong Heng, Francesco Tonolini, and Roderick Murray-Smith. Bayesian parameter estimation using conditional vari- ational autoencoders for gravitational-wave astronomy. Nature Phys., 18(1):112–117, 2022

    2022

  29. [32]

    Sch¨ afer et al

    Marlin B. Sch¨ afer et al. First machine learning gravitational-wave search mock data challenge. Phys. Rev. D, 107(2):023021, 2023

    2023

  30. [33]

    Raffelt, Hans-Thomas Janka, and Ewald M¨ uller

    Alessandra Buonanno, G¨ unter Sigl, Georg G. Raffelt, Hans-Thomas Janka, and Ewald M¨ uller. Stochastic gravitational-wave background from cosmological super- novae. Phys. Rev. D , 72(8):084001, October 2005

    2005

  31. [34]

    Probing the gravitational wave back- ground from cosmic strings with LISA

    Pierre Auclair et al. Probing the gravitational wave back- ground from cosmic strings with LISA. JCAP, 04:034, 2020

    2020

  32. [35]

    Applications of machine learning in gravitational-wave research with current in- terferometric detectors

    Elena Cuoco, Marco Cavagli` a, Ik Siong Heng, David Kei- tel, and Christopher Messenger. Applications of machine learning in gravitational-wave research with current in- terferometric detectors. Living Rev. Rel. , 28(1):2, 2025

    2025

  33. [35]

    Applications of machine learning in gravitational-wave research with current in- terferometric detectors

    Elena Cuoco, Marco Cavagli` a, Ik Siong Heng, David Kei- tel, and Christopher Messenger. Applications of machine learning in gravitational-wave research with current in- terferometric detectors. Living Rev. Rel., 28(1):2, 2025

    2025

  34. [36]

    Meyers, Mairi Sakel- lariadou, and Nelson Christensen

    Katarina Martinovic, Patrick M. Meyers, Mairi Sakel- lariadou, and Nelson Christensen. Simultaneous es- timation of astrophysical and cosmological stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds with terrestrial detec- tors. Phys. Rev. D , 103(4):043023, 2021

    2021

  35. [37]

    Regimbau, M

    T. Regimbau, M. Evans, N. Christensen, E. Kat- savounidis, B. Sathyaprakash, and S. Vitale. Digging Deeper: Observing Primordial Gravitational Waves be- low the Binary-Black-Hole-Produced Stochastic Back- ground. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 118(15):151105, April 2017

    2017

  36. [37]

    Regimbau, M

    T. Regimbau, M. Evans, N. Christensen, E. Kat- savounidis, B. Sathyaprakash, and S. Vitale. Digging Deeper: Observing Primordial Gravitational Waves be- low the Binary-Black-Hole-Produced Stochastic Back- ground. Phys. Rev. Lett., 118(15):151105, April 2017

    2017

  37. [38]

    Thrane, N

    E. Thrane, N. Christensen, R. M. S. Schofield, and A. Ef- fler. Correlated noise in networks of gravitational-wave detectors: subtraction and mitigation. Phys. Rev. D , 90(2):023013, 2014

    2014

  38. [39]

    Searching for cosmologi- cal gravitational-wave backgrounds with third-generation detectors in the presence of an astrophysical foreground

    Ashish Sharma and Jan Harms. Searching for cosmologi- cal gravitational-wave backgrounds with third-generation detectors in the presence of an astrophysical foreground. Phys. Rev. D , 102(6):063009, September 2020

    2020

  39. [40]

    Bei Zhou, Luca Reali, Emanuele Berti, Mesut ¸ calı¸ skan, Cyril Creque-Sarbinowski, Marc Kamionkowski, and B. S. Sathyaprakash. Subtracting compact binary fore- grounds to search for subdominant gravitational-wave backgrounds in next-generation ground-based observato- ries. Ph...

    2023

  40. [41]

    Surabhi Sachdev, Tania Regimbau, and B. S. Sathyaprakash. Subtracting compact binary fore- ground sources to reveal primordial gravitational-wave backgrounds. Phys. Rev. D , 102(2):024051, July 2020

    2020

  41. [42]

    Measuring the primordial gravitational-wave background in the presence of astrophysical foregrounds

    Sylvia Biscoveanu, Colm Talbot, Eric Thrane, and Rory Smith. Measuring the primordial gravitational-wave background in the presence of astrophysical foregrounds. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 125:241101, 2020

    2020

  42. [42]

    Measuring the primordial gravitational-wave background in the presence of astrophysical foregrounds

    Sylvia Biscoveanu, Colm Talbot, Eric Thrane, and Rory Smith. Measuring the primordial gravitational-wave background in the presence of astrophysical foregrounds. Phys. Rev. Lett., 125:241101, 2020

    2020

  43. [43]

    Bourlard and Y

    H. Bourlard and Y. Kamp. Auto-association by multi- layer perceptrons and singular value decomposition. Bi- ological Cybernetics, 59(4-5):291–294, 1988

    1988

  44. [44]

    Searching for cosmological stochastic backgrounds by notching out resolvable compact binary foregrounds with next-generation gravitational-wave de- tectors

    Haowen Zhong, Bei Zhou, Luca Reali, Emanuele Berti, and Vuk Mandic. Searching for cosmological stochastic backgrounds by notching out resolvable compact binary foregrounds with next-generation gravitational-wave de- tectors. Phys. Rev. D , 110(6):064047, 2024

    2024

  45. [45]

    Deep Learning

    Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. Deep Learning. MIT Press, 2016

    2016

  46. [46]

    Rumelhart, Geoffrey E

    David E. Rumelhart, Geoffrey E. Hinton, and Ronald J. Williams. Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature, 323(6088):533–536, 1986

    1986

  47. [47]

    G. E. Hinton and R. R. Salakhutdinov. Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. Science, 313(5786):504–507, 2006

    2006

  48. [48]

    Early stopping – but when? In Gr´ egoire Montavon, Genevi` eve B

    Lutz Prechelt. Early stopping – but when? In Gr´ egoire Montavon, Genevi` eve B. Orr, and Klaus-Robert M¨ uller, editors, Neural Networks: Tricks of the Trade , pages 55–

  49. [49]

    The A+ design curve

    Lisa Barsotti, Lee McCuller, Peter Fritschel, and Matthew Evans. The A+ design curve. https://dcc.ligo.org/T1800042-v5/public, 2018

    2018

  50. [50]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, 2017

    2017

  51. [51]

    Hierarchical black hole mergers in young, globular and nuclear star clusters: the effect of metallicity, spin and cluster properties

    Michela Mapelli et al. Hierarchical black hole mergers in young, globular and nuclear star clusters: the effect of metallicity, spin and cluster properties. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 505(1):339–358, 2021

    2021

  52. [52]

    for systems including a neutron star). The source extrinsic parameters, right ascension ra, declination δ and inclination angle, are drawn from isotropic distri- butions while the polarization angle ψ and the initial phase when the signal frequency reaches 5 Hz, are uni- forma...

  53. [52]

    for systems including a neutron star). The source extrinsic parameters, right ascension ra, declination δ and inclination angle, are drawn from isotropic distri- butions while the polarization angle ψ and the initial phase when the signal frequency reaches 5 Hz, are uni- forma...

  54. [53]

    Johnson-McDaniel, Reetika Dudi, and Wolf- gang Tichy

    Tim Dietrich, Anuradha Samajdar, Sebastian Khan, Nathan K. Johnson-McDaniel, Reetika Dudi, and Wolf- gang Tichy. Improving the NRTidal model for binary neutron star systems. Phys. Rev. D, 100(4):044003, 2019

    2019

  55. [54]

    L VK Algorithm Library - LAL- Suite

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration. L VK Algorithm Library - LAL- Suite. Free software (GPL), 2018

    2018

  56. [54]

    LVK Algorithm Library - LAL- Suite

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration. LVK Algorithm Library - LAL- Suite. Free software (GPL), 2018

    2018

  57. [55]

    A mock data chal- lenge for next generation detectors

    Tania Regimbau and Jishnu Suresh. A mock data chal- lenge for next generation detectors. 2025

    2025

  58. [56]

    Celeste Artale

    Filippo Santoliquido, Michela Mapelli, Nicola Giacobbo, Yann Bouffanais, and M. Celeste Artale. The cosmic merger rate density of compact objects: impact of star formation, metallicity, initial mass function and binary evolution. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. , 502(4):4877– 4889, 2021

    2021

  59. [57]

    Robin- son, and John T

    Giancarlo Cella, Carlo Nicola Colacino, Elena Cuoco, Angela Di Virgilio, Tania Regimbau, Emma L. Robin- son, and John T. Whelan. Prospects for stochastic back- ground searches using Virgo and LSC interferometers. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 24(19):S639–S648, Oc- tober 2007

    2007

  60. [58]

    Computationally efficient mod- els for the dominant and subdominant harmonic modes of precessing binary black holes

    Geraint Pratten et al. Computationally efficient mod- els for the dominant and subdominant harmonic modes of precessing binary black holes. Phys. Rev. D , 103(10):104056, 2021. 17

    2021

  61. [59]

    Joshua S. Speagle. Dynesty: a dynamic nested sam- pling package for estimating bayesian posteriors and ev- idences. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety, 493(3):3132–3158, January 2020

    2020

  62. [60]

    Towards the first search for a stochastic back- ground in LIGO data: applications of signal simula- tions

    Sukanta Bose, Bruce Allen, Michael Landry, Albert Laz- zarini, Isabel Leonor, Szabolcs Marka, Tania Regimbau, Joseph Romano, Peter Shawhan, Daniel Sigg, and John Whelan. Towards the first search for a stochastic back- ground in LIGO data: applications of signal simula- tions. ...

    2003

  63. [61]

    Bruce Allen and Joseph D. Romano. Detecting a stochastic background of gravitational radiation: Sig- nal processing strategies and sensitivities. Phys. Rev. D , 59(10):102001, May 1999

    1999

  64. [61]

    Bruce Allen and Joseph D. Romano. Detecting a stochastic background of gravitational radiation: Sig- nal processing strategies and sensitivities. Phys. Rev. D, 59(10):102001, May 1999

    1999

  65. [62]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Good- man. emcee: The MCMC Hammer. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific , 125(925):306–312, 2013

    2013

  66. [63]

    Renzini, Boris Goncharov, Alexander C

    Arianna I. Renzini, Boris Goncharov, Alexander C. Jenk- ins, and Patrick M. Meyers. Stochastic Gravitational- Wave Backgrounds: Current Detection Efforts and Fu- ture Prospects. Galaxies, 10(1):34, February 2022

    2022

  67. [64]

    The theory of probability

    Harold Jeffreys. The theory of probability . OuP Oxford, 1998

    1998

  68. [65]

    Go- ing deeper with convolutions

    Christian Szegedy, Wei Liu, Yangqing Jia, Pierre Ser- manet, Scott Reed, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Er- han, Vincent Vanhoucke, and Andrew Rabinovich. Go- ing deeper with convolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pag...

    2015

  69. [66]

    Eric Thrane and Joseph D. Romano. Sensitivity curves for searches for gravitational-wave backgrounds. Phys. Rev. D, 88(12):124032, December 2013

    2013

  70. [67]

    U-Net: convolutional networks for biomedical image seg- mentation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-Net: convolutional networks for biomedical image seg- mentation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer- Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2015 , volume 9351 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 234–241. Springer Inte...

    2015

  71. [68]

    and Romano J

    Thrane E. and Romano J. Sensitivity curves for searches for gravitational-wave backgrounds. Technical Report LIGO-P1300115, LIGO Document Control Center, 2013. https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1300115-v6/public

    2013

  72. [69]

    Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1998

    1998

  73. [70]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zem- ing Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Des- maison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner,...

    2019

  74. [72]

    Zeiler and Rob Fergus

    Matthew D. Zeiler and Rob Fergus. Visualizing and un- derstanding convolutional networks. In Computer Vision – ECCV 2014, volume 8689 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 818–833. Springer International Publish- ing, 2014

    2014

  75. [73]

    Anthony Parker, Robert V

    J. Anthony Parker, Robert V. Kenyon, and Donald E. Troxel. Comparison of interpolating methods for im- age resampling. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 2(1):31–39, 1983

    1983

  76. [74]

    Deep sparse rectifier neural networks

    Xavier Glorot, Antoine Bordes, and Yoshua Bengio. Deep sparse rectifier neural networks. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intel- ligence and Statistics (AISTATS) , volume 15 of Pro- ceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 315–323. P...

    2011

  77. [2017]

    119, 029901 (2017)]

    [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 119, 029901 (2017)]

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.