Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Search for Higher Harmonic Signals from Close White Dwarf Binaries in the mHz Band

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LISA likely sees the (3,3) wave mode in nearby white dwarfs

desk verdict Clean target study showing the (3,3) harmonic is within reach for the nearest CWDBs, but the headline detection probabilities are conditional on the nearest source having the large mass asymmetry of two EM-selected systems. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23441 v1 pith:NBXEHSJP submitted 2025-06-30 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Naoki Seto This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords gravitationalwaveswhitedwarfbinarieshigherharmonicspost-NewtonianLISAAMCVnmassasymmetry
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 LISA has a good chance of detecting higher-harmonic gravitational-wave signals, particularly the $(l,|m|)=(3,3)$ mode, from a few nearby close white dwarf binaries even though their orbital velocities are only about $10^{-3}$ times the speed of light. The amplitude of this post-Newtonian mode is proportional to the binary's mass asymmetry, so a detection would give a direct, robust probe of how unequal the two white dwarf masses are, which matters for understanding mass-transferring AM CVn systems. The known template systems, HM Cancri and ZTF J1539, are too faint at their reference distances, but the paper estimates the nearest undiscovered binary sits near $0.5$ kpc, where the (3,3) mode becomes detectable. Combining LISA with Taiji and TianQin for ten years raises the detection probabilities to 98% and 75% for HM Cancri-like and ZTF J1539-like binaries, respectively. The claim makes the search a concrete observational program rather than a theoretical curiosity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the $(l,|m|)=(3,3)$ mode of the spin-weighted spherical harmonic decomposition, whose waveform pattern functions enter at 0.5PN order as $H_+^{(1/2)} \propto \beta\Delta$. The argument's engine is the signal-to-noise formula $\rho_3 \simeq \rho_2 \beta \Delta E_3(I)/E_2(I)$, where $\rho_2$ is the loud quadrupole-mode signal-to-noise ratio and $E_3/E_2$ are inclination-dependent intensity functions; because $\rho_2 \sim 1000$ for the nearest binaries, the small factors $\beta\Delta \sim 0.001$ are overcome. The probability estimate then uses the cumulative distance distribution $F(<d) \propto d^{2.5}$ for the Galactic disk and the Poisson formula $P(<d_{\min}) = 1 - \exp[-N F(<d_{\min})]$ to argue that the nearest $f_2 \geq 4$ mHz binary is likely within $\sim 0.5$ kpc.

What would settle it

After ten years of combined LISA, Taiji, and TianQin data, look for the $(3,3)$ line in the nearest $f_2 \ge 4$ mHz binary identified by electromagnetic surveys; if the binary lies within $0.3$ kpc with $\Delta \sim 0.4$ and no line appears at the predicted amplitude, the amplitude scaling or noise model is wrong. Alternatively, if an electromagnetic census shows the nearest such binary has $\Delta < 0.2$, the 98% and 75% detection probabilities should be recomputed downward.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At its core the paper claims that the $(3,3)$ post-Newtonian harmonic, usually neglected for white-dwarf binaries because the PN parameter $\beta$ is only $\sim 0.004$, will be measurable in a handful of nearby systems. The mode amplitude is governed by the scaling factor $s = \beta \Delta$, where $\Delta = (m_a - m_b)/m$ is the mass-asymmetry ratio, so measuring it yields mass information that the dominant quadrupole mode cannot provide. With a single LISA detector operating for ten years, an HM Cancri-like binary at $d = 0.5$ kpc gives $\rho_3 \simeq 3.4$, just below the detection threshold of $\rho_3 \geq 5$; combining LISA, Taiji, and TianQin boosts the signal-to-noise ratio by a factor of $\sim 2.5$ and makes the detection probabilities 98% and 75% for the two representative templates. This is the paper's central result: the nearest binary, not the known ones, is the key target, and it should be close enough for the harmonic to show up in coordinated long-term observations.

Load-bearing premise

The high detection probabilities rest on the premise that the nearest undiscovered $f_2 \geq 4$ mHz binary has a mass-asymmetry ratio $\Delta$ close to the 0.34 and 0.49 values of the two known template systems and a favorable inclination; if the typical nearby binary had $\Delta \sim 0.17$, the probabilities would drop by roughly a factor of six.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For several nearby close white dwarf binaries, the $(3,3)$ harmonic will be detectable, providing a direct measurement of the mass-asymmetry ratio $\Delta$.
  • Coordinated 10-year operation of LISA, Taiji, and TianQin improves the harmonic signal-to-noise ratio by about a factor of 2.5, raising detection probabilities to 98% and 75% for the two representative systems.
  • The $f_1$ orbital-frequency mode can be separated from eccentricity-induced and anomalous-polarization signals, giving tests of gravitational-wave polarization and alternative gravity theories.
  • A nearby binary detected in harmonics becomes a prime electromagnetic follow-up target, with the gravitational-wave data predicting periodic variations to search in light curves and spectral lines.
  • Combining the harmonic amplitude with an electromagnetic parallax distance and the quadrupole amplitude can solve for the two component masses separately.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the detection succeeds, the measured $\Delta$ values for nearby AM CVn binaries will bear directly on the classical stability criterion $\Delta \geq 1/5$, offering an empirical test of mass-transfer stability.
  • The same signal-to-noise framework could be applied to the $f_1$ mode to search for dipole gravitational radiation, since the paper shows the PN contribution can be predicted and subtracted using the strong quadrupole mode.
  • The probability estimate depends on the assumed disk scale lengths; future electromagnetic surveys that census the nearest $f_2 \geq 4$ mHz binaries will directly test whether the $d^{2.5}$ scaling near 0.5 kpc is correct.
  • A null detection after ten years of combined data would not only challenge the noise and distance assumptions but would also tighten the upper bound on typical mass asymmetry of nearby white-dwarf binaries.
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 estimates the detectability of 0.5PN higher-harmonic signals, mainly the (3,3) mode at f3 = 3 f_o and the f1 = f_o mode, from circular close white dwarf binaries in the mHz band. It uses published PN pattern functions and the LISA noise curve to express the harmonic SNRs rho3 and rho1 in terms of the quadrupole SNR rho2, the mass-asymmetry parameter Delta, and the inclination-dependent intensity functions E3 and E1. A Galactic disk model is then used to estimate the minimum distance d_min of f2 >= 4 mHz CWDBs, giving d_c ~ 0.5 kpc for N = 2000. For HM Cancri-like and ZTF J1539-like parameters placed at d = 0.5 kpc, the paper finds LISA-only 10-year detection probabilities (rho3 >= 5) of 31% and 13%, rising to 98% and 75% when LISA, Taiji, and TianQin data are coherently combined. The paper also discusses separation from eccentricity-induced harmonics, anomalous polarization tests, EM follow-up, and measurement of the two masses.

Significance. If the detection-probability claim holds, the paper identifies a genuinely new and observable channel: the 0.5PN (3,3) harmonic of nearby CWDBs, whose amplitude directly probes mass asymmetry and can break the chirp-mass degeneracy when combined with the quadrupole amplitude. The derivation is transparent and internally consistent, and the analytic scaling relations, especially rho3 = rho2 beta Delta E3/E2 and the F(<d) ~ d^2.5 population estimate, are useful tools. The paper does not introduce new waveform machinery or fit to a target result; the stress-test concern about circularity does not land. However, the headline probabilities are conditional on fixed representative values of Delta and inclination, and the abstract overstates the role of LISA alone, so the significance is real but more fragile than the current presentation suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Nearby binaries; Eq. (18) and Table II] The 98% and 75% detection probabilities are conditional on the specific mass-asymmetry and inclination values of HM Cancri (Delta = 0.34, I = 38 deg) and ZTF J1539 (Delta = 0.49, I = 84 deg) from Table I. Because rho3 is proportional to Delta E3(I) and F(<d) is approximately proportional to d^2.5, the detection probability scales roughly as [Delta E3(I)/E2(I)]^2.5 in the small-probability regime. Halving Delta from 0.34 to 0.17 reduces the combined HM-Cancri-like probability from about 98% to about 50%, and halving the ZTF-like value reduces its probability from about 75% to about 20%. The paper does not marginalize over the mass-ratio distribution or over an isotropic inclination distribution, nor does it propagate the published mass ambiguity for HM Cancri. The claim that LISA is 'reasonably likely' to detect these modes therefore needs either a population-averaged estimate or a prominently stated conditional interpretation; as written, the headline numbers represent an upper-tail scenario rather than an expected detection probability.
  2. [Abstract and Summary vs. Nearby binaries] The abstract and introduction say that 'LISA is reasonably likely' to detect higher-harmonic signals, but the quantitative support for the high probabilities comes from coherently combining LISA, Taiji, and TianQin, which gives an SNR gain factor of about sqrt(1^2+1^2+2^2) ~ 2.5. LISA alone yields only 31% and 13% for the two representative systems. This distinction should be made explicit in the abstract and conclusions; otherwise the reader is left with the impression that the 98%/75% numbers are LISA-only results.
  3. [Nearby binaries, Eq. (17)] The estimate d_c ~ 0.5 kpc uses N = 2000 for the number of f2 >= 4 mHz CWDBs, but the text states that LISA is expected to detect about 2000 detached CWDBs and a similar number of AMCVn binaries in this band. If the relevant population is taken to be N ~ 4000, d_c decreases by a factor 2^0.4 ~ 1.32 and the quoted detection probabilities increase. The choice N = 2000 is conservative, but the paper should state this explicitly and ideally show how the probabilities depend on N, since the total population of f2 >= 4 mHz CWDBs is not known to a factor of two.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (18)] The notation P(< dmin) is ambiguous; it should be written as the cumulative distribution function P(dmin < x) = 1 - exp[-N F(<x)] to make clear that the right-hand side is a function of the argument x, not of the random variable dmin.
  2. [Fig. 1] The figure shows four combinations of (R_D, z_D) but has no legend; the caption lists the combinations without indicating which curve corresponds to which combination. Adding a legend or labeling the curves directly would improve readability.
  3. [Eq. (6) and Table II] The SNR estimate uses the effective noise spectrum Sn(f) and the 0.89 averaging factor for linearly polarized radiation, but this is stated only in the text around Eq. (6). Since Table II is the main quantitative result, the paper should state explicitly that the tabulated rho_i values include that factor and use the extended 10-year mission.
  4. [Section on PN corrections, text near Eq. (14)] The approximation Sn(f3)/Sn(f2) = 1 is reasonable in the flat part of the LISA noise curve, but the f1 mode falls at 3.1 mHz for HM Cancri and 2.4 mHz for ZTF J1539, where the noise curve is no longer flat. The paper acknowledges this, but it would be helpful to quote the actual rho1 values including the real noise curve rather than only the ratio.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the HH-mode detection probabilities are conditional on assumed mass asymmetries but are not fitted to, or defined in terms of, the target HH signal.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The HH SNR formulas (Eqs. 13-15) are straightforward applications of published 0.5PN pattern functions from Kidder and Blanchet, combined with the standard matched-filtering SNR definition and the public LISA noise curve; Eq. (14) is an algebraic rearrangement of these definitions, not a fit to the HH signal. The amplitudes, masses, inclinations, distances, and noise parameters in Table I come from independent external EM and LISA forecast references, and no HH data are used to adjust them. The nearest-distance distribution (Eqs. 17-18) is a standard Poisson extreme-value calculation from an assumed Galactic disk model, again independent of the HH prediction. The 98% and 75% probabilities for combined LISA-Taiji-TianQin observations are explicitly conditional on the nearest f2>=4mHz CWDB having mass-asymmetry parameters and inclinations resembling HM Cancri or ZTF J1539, as noted around Table II; this is a real astrophysical assumption and a correctness risk, but it is not circularity because Delta and I are inputs taken from EM-measured systems rather than inferred from the quantity being predicted. The self-citations [20], [33], and [39] support secondary technical points (annual response averaging, apsidal-precession frequency separation, and sky-localization scaling) and carry independent published content; none is a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or an ansatz smuggled in solely by self-citation. The paper does not rename a known empirical pattern as organization, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The central claim therefore has independent content, so no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The forecast uses published PN waveforms and noise curves; its numeric output is controlled by astrophysical input choices N, disk scale lengths, thresholds, integration time, and the fiducial masses and inclinations, none of which are fitted to the claimed result. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • N: number of CWDBs with f2>=4mHz = 2000
    Adopted from LISA forecasts [7,11,13]; used in Eq. (17) to set d_c ~0.5 kpc. The result scales as N^0.4, so the uncertainty is modest but still an input choice.
  • Disk scale lengths (R_D, z_D) = (2.5, 0.2) kpc reference
    Assumed for the Galactic disk model Eq. (16); Fig. 1 varies them and shows the resulting uncertainty in d_c. Not fitted to the target result.
  • Detection threshold rho_i>=5 = 5
    Chosen as a conservative detection criterion; the probabilities would increase if a lower threshold or a combined f1+f3 statistic were used.
  • Integration time T = 10 yr
    Assumed extended LISA mission and comparable Taiji/TianQin operations; Table II uses T=10 yr and the multi-detector factor sqrt(1+1+4).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Point-particle approximation for the two-body PN waveform, with tidal deformation corrections of order O[(R/D)^5] neglected and argued to be at most ~1% (ref [19]).
    Invoked in the paragraph following Eq. (2) and again for the 0.5PN modes; if tidal corrections were larger, the amplitude-mass relationship could be biased.
  • domain assumption Orbital eccentricity is negligible for the fiducial waveforms; eccentricity-induced f1/f3 signals are separable from PN signals by the apsidal precession frequency gap.
    Used in the Discussions to argue that the PN harmonic is not confused with Newtonian eccentricity harmonics; this depends on the frequency resolution of a 4-year observation.
  • domain assumption The Galactic CWDB spatial distribution follows the standard exponential disk model Eq. (16), with CD=2/3 and no bulge near the Sun.
    Used to compute F(<d) and the minimum-distance statistics; the four scale-length combinations in Fig. 1 bracket the uncertainty, but the disk-only model is an assumption.
  • domain assumption LISA's effective noise Sn(f) is approximately flat between 2 and 15 mHz, so Sn(f3)/Sn(f2)=1 in Eq. (14).
    Taken from the cited LISA noise model [21]; the paper itself notes this is less accurate for f1 near 2-3 mHz, where Galactic confusion noise matters.
  • domain assumption Matched-filter signal-to-noise ratios scale as rho = A E T^1/2 / Sn(f)^1/2, with a 0.89 averaging factor for linearly polarized GWs over a one-year integration.
    Standard matched-filtering result, cited to [20,21], used in Eqs. (6), (13), and (14).
  • standard math The minimum-distance distribution follows the Poisson-based formula P(<d_min) = 1 - exp[-N F(<d_min)] in Eq. (18).
    Standard extreme-value statistics for N independent draws from the distance distribution; used to convert d_th into detection probabilities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Search for Higher Harmonic Signals from Close White Dwarf Binaries in the mHz Band." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NBXEHSJP

@misc{pith2026250623441,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Search for Higher Harmonic Signals from Close White Dwarf Binaries in the mHz Band},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NBXEHSJP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23441}
}
abstract

Space-based gravitational wave (GW) detectors, such as LISA, are expected to detect thousands of Galactic close white dwarf binaries emitting nearly monochromatic GWs. In this study, we demonstrate that LISA is reasonably likely to detect higher harmonic GW signals, particularly the $(l, |m|) = (3, 3)$ mode, from a limited sample of nearby close white dwarf binaries, even with small orbital velocities $v/c$ of order $10^{-3}$. The amplitudes of these post-Newtonian modes provide robust probes of mass asymmetry in such systems, making them valuable observational targets, especially in mass-transferring binaries. Long-term, coordinated detector operations will further improve the prospects for detecting these informative signals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23441 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The cumulative fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The intensity functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Probing the Orientation Distribution of Nearby Double White Dwarfs through Gravitational Waves with LISA

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A spherical-harmonic method extracts low-multipole orientation coefficients of ~500 nearby double white dwarfs from LISA data with ~0.02 shot-noise uncertainty.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, N. Adhikari, R. Adhikari, V. Adya, C. Affeldt, D. Agar- wal, et al., Physical Review X 13, 041039 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Blanchet, Living reviews in relativity 17, 2 (2014)

    L. Blanchet, Living reviews in relativity 17, 2 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Poisson and C

    E. Poisson and C. M. Will, Gravity: Newtonian, post- newtonian, relativistic (Cambridge University Press, 2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Cutler and E

    C. Cutler and E. E. Flanagan, Physical Review D 49, 2658 (1994)

    1994

  5. [5]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ack- ley, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V. Adya, C. Affeldt, M. Agathos, et al., Physical Review D 102, 043015 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ack- ley, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V. Adya, C. Affeldt, M. Agathos, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters 896, L44 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    P. A. Seoane et al.(LISA), Living Rev. Rel. 26, 2 (2023), arXiv:2203.06016 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Hu and Y.-L

    W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu, The taiji program in space for gravitational wave physics and the nature of gravity (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Luo, L.-S

    J. Luo, L.-S. Chen, H.-Z. Duan, Y.-G. Gong, S. Hu, J. Ji, Q. Liu, J. Mei, V. Milyukov, M. Sazhin, et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity 33, 035010 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    A. J. Ruiter, K. Belczynski, M. Benacquista, S. L. Lar- son, and G. Williams, Astrophys. J. 717, 1006 (2010), arXiv:0705.3272 [astro-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Nissanke, M

    S. Nissanke, M. Vallisneri, G. Nelemans, and T. A. Prince, The Astrophysical Journal 758, 131 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    Lamberts, S

    A. Lamberts, S. Blunt, T. B. Littenberg, S. Garrison- Kimmel, T. Kupfer, and R. E. Sanderson, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 490, 5888 (2019), arXiv:1907.00014 [astro- ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Toubiana, N

    A. Toubiana, N. Karnesis, A. Lamberts, and M. C. Miller, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16867 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Chakraborty et al

    J. Chakraborty et al. , Expanding the ultracom- pacts: gravitational wave-driven mass transfer in the shortest-period binaries with accretion disks (2024), arXiv:2411.12796 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A. Wolz, K. Yagi, N. Anderson, and A. J. Tay- lor, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 500, L52 (2020), arXiv:2011.04722 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    S. Y. Lau, K. Yagi, and P. Arras, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17418 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Fuller and D

    J. Fuller and D. Lai, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 421, 426 (2012), arXiv:1108.4910 [astro-ph.SR]

    2012 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Nelemans, S

    G. Nelemans, S. F. Portegies Zwart, F. Verbunt, and L. R. Yungelson, Astron. Astrophys. 368, 939 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0101123

    2001 arXiv

  11. [19]

    D. v. d. Broek, G. Nelemans, M. Dan, and S. Ross- wog, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 425, 24 (2012), arXiv:1206.0744 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Seto, Physical Review D 83, 044011 (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    Robson, N

    T. Robson, N. J. Cornish, and C. Liu, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 105011 (2019), arXiv:1803.01944 [astro- ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    T. E. Strohmayer, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 912, L8 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Munday, T

    J. Munday, T. Marsh, M. Hollands, I. Pelisoli, D. Steeghs, P. Hakala, E. Breedt, A. Brown, V. Dhillon, M. J. Dyer, et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 518, 5123 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    In Table I, we present the signal-to-noise ratios ρ2 for the quadrupole mode estimated in [26] and [24] for a 4yr operation of LISA

    estimated its distance d = 2.34 ± 0.14 kpc. In Table I, we present the signal-to-noise ratios ρ2 for the quadrupole mode estimated in [26] and [24] for a 4yr operation of LISA. Here a tentative distance d = 5kpc is used for HM Cancri. post-Newtonian corrections— Next, we inclu...

    2018

  17. [25]

    K. B. Burdge, M. W. Coughlin, J. Fuller, T. Kupfer, E. C. Bellm, L. Bildsten, M. J. Graham, D. L. Kaplan, J. v. Roestel, R. G. Dekany, et al., Nature 571, 528 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Paczy´ nski, Acta Astronomica17, 287 (1967)

    B. Paczy´ nski, Acta Astronomica17, 287 (1967)

    1967

  19. [27]

    Kupfer, V

    T. Kupfer, V. Korol, S. Shah, G. Nelemans, T. Marsh, G. Ramsay, P. Groot, D. Steeghs, and E. Rossi, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 480, 302 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    L. E. Kidder, Physical Review D 52, 821 (1995)

    1995

  21. [29]

    Maggiore, Gravitational waves, Vol

    M. Maggiore, Gravitational waves, Vol. 2 (Oxford univer- sity press, 2008)

    2008

  22. [30]

    Kyutoku, Y

    K. Kyutoku, Y. Nishino, and N. Seto, Monthly Notices 6 E2(I) E1(I) E3(I) 0 20 40 60 800.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 I[degree] FIG. 2. The intensity functions E2, E1 and E3 defined in Eqs. (5)(11) and (12). of the Royal Astronomical Society 483, 2615 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Cornish and T

    N. Cornish and T. Robson, in Journal of Physics: Con- ference Series, Vol. 840 (IOP Publishing, 2017) p. 012024

    2017

  24. [32]

    T. B. Littenberg and N. Yunes, Classical and Quantum Gravity 36, 095017 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    P. C. Peters, Phys. Rev. 136, B1224 (1964)

    1964

  26. [34]

    Seto, Physical Review Letters 87, 251101 (2001)

    N. Seto, Physical Review Letters 87, 251101 (2001)

    2001

  27. [35]

    Willems, A

    B. Willems, A. Vecchio, and V. Kalogera, Physical review letters 100, 041102 (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    Savalle, A

    E. Savalle, A. Bourgoin, C. Le Poncin-Lafitte, S. Mathis, M.-C. Angonin, and C. Aykroyd, Physical Review D109, 083003 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    D. M. Eardley, D. L. Lee, A. P. Lightman, R. V. Wagoner, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 884 (1973)

    1973

  30. [38]

    C. M. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (1993)

    1993

  31. [39]

    Chatziioannou, N

    K. Chatziioannou, N. Yunes, and N. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D 86, 022004 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 95, 129901 (2017)], arXiv:1204.2585 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Takahashi and N

    R. Takahashi and N. Seto, The Astrophysical Journal 575, 1030 (2002)

    2002

  33. [41]

    G. M. Harry, P. Fritschel, D. A. Shaddock, W. Folkner, and E. S. Phinney, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 4887 (2006), [Erratum: Class.Quant.Grav. 23, 7361 (2006)]

    2006

  34. [42]

    Kawamura et al., Class

    S. Kawamura et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 094011 (2011). Appendix A: Intensity functions In Fig. 2, we present the intensity functions E2(I), E3(I) and E1(I) in the range I ∈ [0◦, 90◦]. The functions E2(I) monotonically decreases with E2(0◦) = 2 √ 2 and E2(90◦) = 1. At the f...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.