Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 34 references

Error signals for overcoming the laser power limits of gravitational-wave detectors

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Front-surface thermal imaging of test masses can recover the thermal state that distorts gravitational-wave wavefronts, supplying real-time error signals for the actuators that correct them.

desk verdict A clean simulation study proposing thermal imaging for GW wavefront control, with a load-bearing FEA-fidelity assumption and an asserted ratio invariance; the headline 34% gain is a worst-case projection under random noise only. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06840 v3 pith:LVL36YUB submitted 2025-09-08 astro-ph.IM gr-qc

Liu Tao , Pooyan Goodarzi , Jonathan W. Richardson This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IMgr-qc
keywords gravitational-wavedetectorsthermalcompensationwavefrontsensingimagingFROSTIquantumnoiseadaptiveopticsfiniteelementanalysis
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 become more sensitive as laser power rises, but megawatt-class beams heat the mirrors and distort the wavefronts that carry the signal. The actuators that correct these distortions currently have no direct, full-aperture error signal, so operators cannot finely control them. The paper claims that pointing a thermal camera at the front surface of each test mass supplies that missing signal: the measured temperature map is decomposed into the contributions of the main beam, the ring heater, and the FROSTI edge heater, and a small linear inversion recovers the three powers plus the beam position. With those parameters, the actuator error signals are known in real time. The authors' Monte Carlo simulations of LIGO A+ project up to a 34% reduction in strain noise at 95% confidence and an 11 Mpc gain in binary neutron star detection range.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is the unit-map decomposition T(x,y) = PS·TS + PR·TR + PF·TF, in which the measured surface temperature is written as 1 W of main-beam heating, ring-heater heating, and FROSTI heating, each unit map computed by a finite element model. The inference algorithm evaluates the overlap integrals ⟨Tα|Tβ⟩, inverts the resulting 3x3 Gram matrix to obtain the powers, then iteratively locates the beam centroid from the residual map. The control error signals are εR = PR − PR0 and εF = PF − PF0, where PR0 and PF0 are the optimal powers for the inferred absorbed beam power; the method relies on the optimal power ratios being invariant, so the error signals are available withou

What would settle it

On a test mass in vacuum, apply known ring-heater and FROSTI powers while imaging the front surface with a 20 mK-resolution camera, and check whether the measured temperature map matches the three-unit-map linear prediction to within camera noise. A residual that grows with power, or a change in inferred beam position larger than about 0.5 mm when a small absorbing defect is added, would falsify the central inversion claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a test mass's thermal steady state is uniquely fixed by five quantities—absorbed main-beam power, the beam's x and y position, ring-heater power, and FROSTI power—and that all five can be recovered from one front-surface temperature image. The paper establishes this by modeling the image as a linear combination of three finite-element unit maps and inverting the 3x3 matrix of their pairwise overlap integrals; the beam position is found iteratively as the peak of the residual map after subtracting the actuator contributions. This converts thermal imaging from a qualitative monitor into a quantitative sensor: with a commercial camera, inferred positions are accurate t

Load-bearing premise

The inference stands or falls on the assumption that a mirror's surface temperature is exactly the linear sum of three known heating patterns—main beam, ring heater, and FROSTI—with uniform coating absorption and no point absorbers; if the real mirror violates this, the inferred powers and the error signals built from them are biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LIGO A+ could reach up to 34% lower strain noise at 95% confidence, with an 11 Mpc larger binary neutron star detection range.
  • Wavefront actuator settings become directly observable and correctable in real time, removing the need for trial-and-error power searches.
  • The sensing requirement is met by commercial thermal cameras (600x600 pixels, 20 mK resolution) plus relay optics, so no new sensor technology is needed.
  • Above 750 kW arm power, quantum-noise performance becomes limited by the wavefront actuators' intrinsic spatial matching capability rather than by uncertainty in the thermal state.
  • The same sensing capability is presented as an enabling element for the next-generation Cosmic Explorer observatory.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The overlap-inversion scheme should generalize to additional thermal sources: adding a unit map for a point absorber or a new actuator would extend the same inference, though the paper demonstrates 0.1% accuracy only for the three-source case.
  • A bench-top experiment that independently varies actuator powers while imaging a test mass could test the 0.1% power-recovery claim directly and cheaply, before committing to a full observatory upgrade.
  • Systematic residuals from the three-unit-map fit would themselves be informative: they would reveal coating non-uniformities and point absorbers, turning the method's main failure mode into a diagnostic.
  • The projected sensitivity gain assumes uniform coating absorption and no point absorbers; if real optics violate that, the gain would shrink, so the technique is most attractive when combined with improved coating characterization.
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 proposes using front-surface thermal imaging of each LIGO test mass to infer the full thermal steady state (absorbed laser power P_S, beam position (x0,y0), ring-heater power P_R, and FROSTI power P_F) by linearly inverting FEA-computed unit temperature maps (Eqs. 1–5). From the inferred powers, the authors construct error signals for the ring heater and FROSTI actuators (Eqs. 6–7) and use them in Monte Carlo Finesse simulations of LIGO A+. They report that this sensing scheme can improve the 95% worst-case strain sensitivity by up to 34% at 1 kHz and increase the BNS range by 11 Mpc, relative to the same detector without thermal-imaging-based inference.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper fills a real gap: there is currently no direct full-aperture wavefront error signal in LIGO, and the proposed thermal imaging approach is conceptually clean and computationally fast. The linear inversion is a simple, well-posed least-squares estimator, and the authors correctly identify realistic camera resolutions (20 mK temperature resolution, ~0.5 mm spatial resolution) that make the scheme plausible. The paper also connects the sensing problem to concrete astrophysical sensitivity metrics, which is valuable for prioritization in A+ and Cosmic Explorer planning. However, the central claim rests on two unproven or undermodeled premises: (i) that the forward FEA model matches the real mirror sufficiently well, and (ii) that the optimal actuator power ratios are invariant to P_S. The validation in the paper is internal, not external, so the headline sensitivity gain should be read as a model-conditional projection rather than a demonstrated capability.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3 and §4] The performance test is self-referential: the simulated 'measured' thermal images in §3 and the Monte Carlo trials in §4 are generated using the same FEA model that provides the unit maps in Eq. (5). This validates the linear algebra and the numerical inversion, but it does not test the mapping from a real mirror to the model. The paper explicitly restricts attention to uniform 0.5 ppm absorption, no point absorbers, and negligible large-scale non-uniformities (§4). If a real optic violates these assumptions, the true temperature map contains components outside the span of the three unit maps, and Eq. (5) will misattribute them to P_S, P_R, P_F, biasing the error signals in Eqs. (6)–(7). The Monte Carlo of Fig. 4 draws actuator settings from Gaussians centered on the true optima, so it measures the effect of random noise only, not systematic model mismatch. I recommend adding an explicit
  2. [§2, Eqs. (6)–(7)] The error signals ε_R and ε_F rely on the assertion that 'the optimal actuator powers scale linearly with the absorbed laser power (i.e., the ratios of optimal actuator powers to self-heating power are invariant).' This is load-bearing: if the optimal P_R,0 and P_F,0 do not scale linearly with P_S, or if they also depend on the beam position (x0,y0), then ε_R = P_R − P_R,0(P_S) and ε_F = P_F − P_F,0(P_S) are biased and minimize the wrong quantity. No derivation or FEA verification is provided for this invariance. Please show explicit FEA results for P_R,0 and P_F,0 as functions of P_S (and possibly of beam offset) over the range of interest, or state and justify the linearity assumption from the governing equations.
  3. [§4, Fig. 4] The headline improvement ('up to 34% strain sensitivity improvement at 95% confidence') is a comparison of 95% worst-case outcomes under the assumed inferential uncertainties: 1 mm beam position and 35.5% absorbed-power uncertainty without thermal imaging, versus 0.5 mm and 0.1% with thermal imaging. The result therefore depends sensitively on the prior widths assigned to the 'without thermal imaging' case. If the 35.5% calibration uncertainty is reduced by improved metrology, or if the with-imaging case includes model-mismatch bias, the improvement could shrink substantially. The paper should present a sensitivity analysis of the Monte Carlo results to the assumed uncertainty widths, and should state more explicitly that the 34% is a conditional projection rather than a guaranteed performance gain.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract in the header block reports '31%' and '10 Mpc', while the full-text abstract, the introduction, and §4 report '34%' and '11 Mpc'. Please harmonize the numbers.
  2. [Eq. (5)] In the matrix displayed in Eq. (5), the (1,2) entry appears as '⟨T_S|T_R⟩' rather than '⟨Rhat T_S|Rhat T_R⟩' (a hat is missing on T_S). Please check the typesetting.
  3. [§4] The statement that '1000 trials are adequate to fully sample the distributions, based on convergence testing' is not supported by a figure or quantitative criterion. A brief convergence plot or a table of 95th-percentile stability would make this more convincing.
  4. [Fig. 3] The caption states that the FROSTI ETM edge actuation feature is removed 'to better visualize the residual error in the central region.' This is fine, but the text should clarify whether the final sensitivity calculations in §4 use the full FROSTI profile with edge actuation; otherwise the reader may wonder which profile is being simulated.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Self-referential FEA validation loop: the inference test generates the 'measured' images from the same unit maps used for inversion, so the reported accuracy (0.1%, 0.5 mm) is a consistency check rather than an independent validation.

  1. self definitional [Section 2 (Eq. 1, Eq. 5) and Section 3 (first paragraph)]
    "To assess the inferential power of our model, we trial it on a set of simulated thermal images generated by an FEA model of a test mass with all three thermal sources. ... An FEA thermal model of the test mass is used to calculate each unit map, from which the 3×3 matrix of overlap coefficients in equation 5 can be numerically calculated."

    In Eq. 1 the measured temperature map is decomposed as T = P_S T_S + P_R T_R + P_F T_F, with the unit maps computed from the FEA model. Section 3 then generates the simulated 'measured' images with the same FEA model, so the synthetic data lie exactly in the span of those same unit maps. The inversion of Eq. 5 recovers the injected P_S, P_R, P_F and beam position by construction (up to pixelation and sensor noise). The reported 0.5 mm position error and 0.1% power error therefore validate only the linear algebra and the internal consistency of the model, not the mapping from a real test mass's thermal emission to the five-parameter thermal state. The 'demonstration of feasibility' is a self-consistency check; the uncertainty estimates from Fig. 2 are then used as inputs to the §4 Monte Car

full rationale

The paper's central derivation (thermal-image decomposition, 3×3 overlap inversion, error-signal construction) is internally self-contained linear algebra and does not reduce to a fitted constant. However, its only performance validation is a self-referential simulation: the same FEA model generates both the synthetic 'measured' thermal images and the unit maps used for inversion, so the recovered parameters are correct by construction. The headline sensitivity gain (up to 34%, +11 Mpc) is a Monte Carlo projection whose 'with thermal imaging' uncertainty inputs come from that closed-loop test, while the 'without thermal imaging' comparison uses empirical calibration uncertainties (3.1% arm-power calibration, 31.4% absorptivity). The paper is explicit about the model assumptions (uniform 0.5 ppm absorption, no point absorbers, negligible large-scale non-uniformities), and those assumptions are reasonable for simulation, but they are not independently validated here. Citations to the prior FROSTI papers [21,26] are self-citations but are published prior work and are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternatives, so they do not add circularity. The circularity is partial and localized to the synthetic-data validation, giving a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; FROSTI and CHETA are prior or planned hardware from cited work. The inverse problem is parameter-free once the FEA unit maps are accepted, but the paper relies heavily on FEA fidelity, linearity, steady state, no point absorbers, and linear scaling of optimal powers. The simulated-image test uses the same FEA model for generation and inversion, so it tests self-consistency rather than model fidelity.

free parameters (3)
  • Simulated absorbed power operating point = PS=1 W, PR=20 W, PF=10 W
    Chosen to represent A# at 1.5 MW arm power. Used to generate simulated thermal images; sensitivity numbers scale with these assumptions.
  • Uniform coating absorption = 0.5 ppm per test mass
    Adopted for beam-heating wavefront maps and Monte Carlo; stated as consistent with O4 optics, not measured here.
  • Effective injected squeezing = 9 dB at 1 kHz
    Input to sensitivity projections; chosen to account for A+ squeezer losses and phase noise.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Linear superposition of unit temperature maps (Eq. 1) is valid at PS~1 W, PR~PF~10 W.
    Paper says FEA confirms, but no residual evidence shown; underlies the entire inversion.
  • domain assumption Thermal steady state is maintained and the full thermal state is characterized by five parameters.
    Table 1 and CHETA discussion; no other heat sources or transient states considered.
  • ad hoc to paper Optimal actuator powers scale linearly with absorbed laser power (ratios PR,0/PS and PF,0/PS invariant).
    Asserted after Eq. (7) without derivation; it is what makes the error signals meaningful.
  • domain assumption FEA model fidelity: uniform absorption, no point absorbers, negligible nonuniformities.
    Stated in Section 4; if false, inferred powers are biased.
  • domain assumption Primary beam is pure fundamental Gaussian with HOM fraction below ~1700 ppm.
    Right panel of Fig. 2 quantifies sensitivity; requirement is plausible but not demonstrated in situ.
  • domain assumption CHETA will maintain steady state during offline periods for all test masses.
    Discussed in Section 1 and Discussion; future design assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Error signals for overcoming the laser power limits of gravitational-wave detectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LVL36YUB

@misc{pith2026250906840,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Error signals for overcoming the laser power limits of gravitational-wave detectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LVL36YUB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06840}
}
read the original abstract

A major barrier to improving the quantum-limited sensitivity of gravitational-wave observatories is the thermal distortions of the test masses which arise at megawatt laser power. Recent advances in a new form of higher-order wavefront correction, in which corrective heating profiles are applied to the test mass surfaces near their edges, together with other planned instrumental upgrades, have the potential to enable a tenfold reduction of the quantum noise floor of future detectors. However, realizing high levels of quantum noise reduction in practice hinges on identifying measurable error signals to finely control each wavefront actuator, in order to suppress wavefront errors to a few-nanometer precision across the full mirror apertures. No direct source of such an error signal exists in LIGO today. We demonstrate that thermally imaging the surface of each test mass can provide these critical error signals. We show that the surface temperature profiles obtained from thermal imaging can be uniquely mapped to a finite element model of the mirror whose complete thermal state is identified, enabling full-aperture wavefront reconstruction and direct error signals for real-time precision wavefront control. This new sensing capability can enable up to a 31% strain sensitivity improvement in LIGO A+ at 95% confidence, increasing the sky-averaged detection range for binary neutron star mergers by 10 Mpc, and will be integral to a next-generation 40-km gravitational-wave observatory in the U.S., Cosmic Explorer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06840 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Test mass thermal state inference from front-surface thermal imaging. This procedure is used to infer the parameters in table 1. Parameter Units Description PS W Power absorbed from laser beam x0 mm Laser beam centroid x-coordinate y0 mm Laser beam centroid y-coordinate PR W Power delivered by ring heater PF W Power delivered by FROSTI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance of the thermal state inference algorithm. Left: Error of the inferred radial position of the laser beam, as a function of the spatial resolution of the thermal image. Middle: Relative errors of the inferred powers, as a function of the temperature resolution of the thermal image. Right: Relative power errors versus the fractional higher-order mode power, shown for the first-order HG1,0 mode (solid lines)… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Residual wavefront error phase maps for the ITM surface, ITM substrate, and ETM surface (left to right). The top and bottom rows show results with and without thermal-imaging-based sensing, respectively, at their 3σ maximum power and position errors. The RMS error for each map is indicated. The FROSTI ETM profile includes intentional edge actuation to shift the resonance frequency of a higher-order mode relative to … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of the performance of a LIGO A+ detector with realistic uncertainties in the beam positions and the optimal power settings of the wavefront actuators. Left: The achievable power in the arm cavities, with a fixed input power of 125 W. Middle: The observed …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the worst-case strain sensitivities of a LIGO A+ detector, at 95% confidence, with and without thermal-imaging-based inference. These two cases correspond to the two cases denoted by the dashed vertical lines in figure 4. outcomes in 95% of trials. That i…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Projected performance of a LIGO A+ detector as the arm power is increased beyond the nominal target of 750 kW, toward the megawatt scale required for next-generation detectors. The shaded regions indicate the range of possible outcomes, at 95% confidence, for the cases…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbott et al B P (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) 2016Phys. Rev. Lett.116(6) 061102 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102

  2. [2]

    Abbott et al B P (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) 2019Phys. Rev. X 9(3) 031040 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031040

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.031040

  3. [3]

    Abbott et al R (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) 2021Phys. Rev. X 11(2) 021053 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.11.021053

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.11.021053

  4. [4]

    Abbott et al R (The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration) 2024Phys. Rev. D109(2) 022001 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.109.022001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.022001

  5. [5]

    Abbott et al R (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration) 2023Phys. Rev. X13(4) 041039 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039

  6. [6]

    Chen H Y, Fishbach M and Holz D E 2018Nature562545–547 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0606-0

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0606-0

  7. [7]

    Farr W M, Fishbach M, Ye J and Holz D E 2019ApJL883L42 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab4284

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab4284

  8. [8]

    Rep.467117–171 ISSN 0370-1573 URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157308002688

    Skenderis K and Taylor M 2008Phys. Rep.467117–171 ISSN 0370-1573 URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157308002688

    work page

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Astron.1586–591 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-017-0225-y

    Cardoso V and Pani P 2017Nat. Astron.1586–591 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-017-0225-y

    doi

  2. [10]

    Brustein R and Medved A J M 2018Phys. Rev. D97(4) 044035 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.044035

    doi

  3. [11]

    Tsang D, Read J S, Hinderer T, Piro A L and Bondarescu R 2012Phys. Rev. Lett.108(1) 011102 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.011102

    doi

  4. [12]

    Barsotti L, McCuller L, Evans M and Fritschel P 2018 The A+ design curve LIGO Technical Report LIGO-T1800042 URLhttps://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1800042/public

    2018

  5. [13]

    Quantum Grav.vv(2025) aaaaaa Taoet al

    Fritschel P, Kuns K, Driggers J, Effler A, Lantz B, Ottaway D, Ballmer S, Dooley K, Adhikari R X, Evans M, Farr B, Gonzalez G, Schmidt P and Raja S 2022 Report of the LSC Post-O5 Study Group LIGO Technical Report LIGO-T2200287 URL https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2200287/public 8 IO...

    2022

  6. [14]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration 2024 The LSC Instrument Science White Paper (2025 edition) LIGO Technical Report LIGO-T2400407 URL https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2400407/public

    2024

  7. [15]

    McCuller L, Dwyer S E, Green A C, Yu H, Kuns K, Barsotti L, Blair C D, Brown D D, Effler A, Evans M, Fernandez-Galiana A, Fritschel P, Frolov V V, Kijbunchoo N, Mansell G L, Matichard F, Mavalvala N, McClelland D E, McRae T, Mullavey A, Sigg D, Slagmolen B J J, Tse M, Vo T, Wa...

  8. [16]

    Ganapathy D, Jia W, Nakano M, Xu V, Aritomi N, Cullen T, Kijbunchoo N, Dwyer S E, Mullavey A, McCuller L, Abbott R, Abouelfettouh I, Adhikari R X, Ananyeva A, Appert S, Arai K, Aston S M, Ball M, Ballmer S W, Barker D, Barsotti L, Berger B K, Betzwieser J, Bhattacharjee D, Bil...

    2023

  9. [17]

    Evans M, Adhikari R X, Afle C, Ballmer S W, Biscoveanu S, Borhanian S, Brown D A, Chen Y, Eisenstein R, Gruson A, Gupta A, Hall E D, Huxford R, Kamai B, Kashyap R, Kissel J S, 9 IOP PublishingClass. Quantum Grav.vv(2025) aaaaaa Taoet al Kuns K, Landry P, Lenon A, Lovelace G, M...

    2025 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Caves C M, Thorne K S, Drever R W P, Sandberg V D and Zimmermann M 1980Rev. Mod. Phys.52(2) 341–392 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.52.341

    doi

  11. [19]

    Caves C M 1981Phys. Rev. D23(8) 1693–1708 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.23.1693

    doi

  12. [20]

    Cao H T, Brooks A, Kuns K, Brown D, Yamamoto H and Richardson J W 2023 Post-O5 Thermal Modeling: A# TCS Requirements LIGO Technical Report LIGO-G2300624 URL https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-G2300624/public

    2023

  13. [21]

    Tao L, Bhattacharya M, Carney P, Gutierrez L M, Johnson L, Levin S, Liang C, Ma X, Padilla M, Rosauer T, Wilkin A and Richardson J W 2025Phys. Rev. Lett.134(5) 051401 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.051401

    doi

  14. [22]

    Opt.558256–8265 URL http://ao.osa.org/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-55-29-8256

    Brooks A F, Abbott B, Arain M A, Ciani G, Cole A, Grabeel G, Gustafson E, Guido C, Heintze M, Heptonstall A, Jacobson M, Kim W, King E, Lynch A, O’Connor S, Ottaway D, Mailand K, Mueller G, Munch J, Sannibale V, Shao Z, Smith M, Veitch P, Vo T, Vorvick C and Willems P 2016Appl...

  15. [23]

    van der Schaaf L, Agatsuma K, van Beuzekom M, Gebyehu M and van den Brand J 2016 Journal of Physics: Conference Series718072008 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/718/7/072008

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Jaberian Hamedan V, Zhao C, Ju L, Blair C and Blair D G 2018Classical and Quantum Gravity35115006 URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/aabceb

    doi

  17. [25]

    Opt.558256–8265 URL https://opg.optica.org/ao/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-55-29-8256

    Brooks A F, Abbott B, Arain M A, Ciani G, Cole A, Grabeel G, Gustafson E, Guido C, Heintze M, Heptonstall A, Jacobson M, Kim W, King E, Lynch A, O’Connor S, Ottaway D, Mailand K, Mueller G, Munch J, Sannibale V, Shao Z, Smith M, Veitch P, Vo T, Vorvick C and Willems P 2016Appl...

  18. [26]

    Rosauer T, Cao H T, Bhattacharya M, Carney P, Johnson L, Levin S, Liang C, Ma X, Gutierrez L M, Padilla M, Tao L, Wilkin A, Brooks A and Richardson J W 2025Optica12 1569–1577 URLhttps://opg.optica.org/optica/abstract.cfm?URI=optica-12-10-1569

  19. [27]

    Opt.232944–2949 URL https://opg.optica.org/ao/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-23-17-2944

    Anderson D Z 1984Appl. Opt.232944–2949 URL https://opg.optica.org/ao/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-23-17-2944

  20. [28]

    Melo S 2025 Point absorber investigation Virgo Logbook aLOG-66886 URL https://logbook.virgo-gw.eu/virgo/?r=66886

    2025

  21. [29]

    Opt.335041–5049 URL https://opg.optica.org/ao/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-33-22-5041

    Morrison E, Meers B J, Robertson D I and Ward H 1994Appl. Opt.335041–5049 URL https://opg.optica.org/ao/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-33-22-5041

  22. [30]

    Opt.335037–5040 URL https://opg.optica.org/ao/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-33-22-5037

    Morrison E, Meers B J, Robertson D I and Ward H 1994Appl. Opt.335037–5040 URL https://opg.optica.org/ao/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-33-22-5037

  23. [31]

    Betzwieser J and Effler A 2020 ETMY camera calibration aLIGO LLO Logbook aLOG-54518 URLhttps://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=54518

    2020

  24. [32]

    Capote E, Jia W, Aritomi N, Nakano M, Xu V, Abbott R, Abouelfettouh I, Adhikari R X, Ananyeva A, Appert S, Apple S K, Arai K, Aston S M, Ball M, Ballmer S W, Barker D, Barsotti L, Berger B K, Betzwieser J, Bhattacharjee D, Billingsley G, Biscans S, Blair C D, Bode N, Bonilla E...

    2025

  25. [33]

    Billingsley G 2023 aLIGO COC Testing and Commissioning Documentation LIGO Technical Report LIGO-E1000763 URLhttps://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-E1000763/public

    2023

  26. [34]

    Brown D D, Jones P, Rowlinson S, Leavey S, Green A C, Töyrä D and Freise A 2020 SoftwareX12100613 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2020.100613 11

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.