Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 69 references

Solar wind can bias gravitational wave background searches by up to 19%

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-07 14:12 UTC pith:3ZGIMSVV

load-bearing objection The paper makes a valid conceptual point — single-detector plasma noise levels don't bound cross-correlation bias — but the headline 12-19% bias numbers depend on an unvalidated assumption about solar wind correlation scales. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.05368 v1 pith:3ZGIMSVV submitted 2026-07-06 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Effects of Solar Wind Plasma Noise on Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background Searches with the LISA-Taiji Network

Mengfei Sun , Borui Wang , Jie Wu , Jin Li , Shengyi Ye This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qc PACS 95.55.Ym96.50.Xy04.80.Nn95.75.Wx
keywords noiseplasmasgwbnetworkparameterwindbiasdetector
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper argues that solar wind plasma noise, while individually negligible in each detector, can produce a correlated signal between LISA and Taiji that directly contaminates cross-correlation measurements of the stochastic gravitational wave background (SGWB). The central mechanism is that free electrons in the solar wind perturb the refractive index along laser links, creating optical path fluctuations. When the same solar wind density structure affects both detectors' links simultaneously, the resulting noise enters the cross-correlation estimator as a spurious signal. Using electron density data from the Wind spacecraft, the authors propagate this plasma noise through time-delay interferometry channels and compute the resulting Fisher parameter bias. Under a scenario where solar wind structures remain coherent over scales comparable to the LISA-Taiji separation (~10^8 km), the bias reaches 12.73% of the Fisher uncertainty for a power-law spectral index and 19.26% for cosmic string tension. Under the more physically motivated assumption of smaller correlation scales, the bias is negligible (below 10^-11%). The paper's core claim is that single-detector noise assessments cannot rule out correlated environmental noise in cross-correlation searches; the interdetector correlated component must be evaluated separately.

Core claim

The paper establishes that the impact of solar wind plasma noise on SGWB cross-correlation searches is governed not by the single-detector residual noise level but by the interdetector correlated component, which depends on the spatial coherence scale of solar wind density structures relative to the detector separation. Under dual detector scale coverage (L_parallel = 10^9 km, L_perp = 10^8 km), the TDI correlation strength reaches 0.757 and the parameter bias for a power-law SGWB spectral index reaches 12.73% of the Fisher uncertainty, while for M3 cosmic string spectra the bias in ln(G*mu) reaches 19.26%. Under single detector scale coverage (L_parallel = 10^8 km), the TDI correlation is 6

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the interdetector plasma cross spectrum C_plasma_I(f), computed via a double path integral over pairs of laser links from the two detectors, weighted by an anisotropic frozen-flow spatial correlation kernel with parallel and perpendicular correlation lengths L_parallel and L_perp. This cross spectrum is then propagated through TDI delay polynomials into A/E channels and projected onto SGWB Fisher derivatives to quantify parameter bias.

Load-bearing premise

The 10-20% bias results depend on solar wind electron density structures remaining spatially coherent over scales comparable to the LISA-Taiji intercenter separation (~10^8 km). The paper presents this dual detector scale coverage as a scenario to evaluate, not as an observationally established fact; under smaller, more physically motivated correlation scales, the bias drops below 10^-11%.

What would settle it

Measure the two-point spatial correlation function of solar wind electron density fluctuations at separations of ~10^8 km using multipoint spacecraft observations. If the correlation at this separation is consistent with the SDC regime (L_parallel ~ 10^8 km), the predicted bias is negligible; only if coherence persists at the DDC scale (L_parallel ~ 10^9 km) would the 10-20% bias materialize.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If solar wind density structures do maintain coherence over ~10^8 km scales, LISA-Taiji SGWB parameter estimates for spectral index and cosmic string tension could carry systematic biases at the 10-20% level that are not captured by current noise models.
  • The framework can be extended to triple-detector networks including TianQin, where additional baselines would change both the overlap reduction function and the geometric weighting of plasma correlations.
  • Multipoint solar wind observations from missions at different heliocentric distances could directly constrain the correlation lengths L_parallel and L_perp, determining whether the DDC regime is physically realized.
  • For SGWB models with peaked spectra (e.g., first-order phase transitions), the plasma cross spectrum's frequency structure could interact differently with the Fisher weight, potentially amplifying or suppressing bias depending on peak location.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies whether solar wind plasma noise, correlated between the LISA and Taiji detectors, can bias stochastic gravitational wave background (SGWB) parameter estimation in cross-correlation searches. The authors use Wind/SWE electron density data to construct a plasma noise spectrum via Lomb-Scargle estimation, propagate this noise through finite-arm integrals and TDI A/E channels, and compute Fisher parameter biases for power-law and cosmic string SGWB models. The central conceptual point is that single-detector plasma residual levels (which are below instrumental noise) do not bound the interdetector cross-correlation bias. Under a 'dual detector scale coverage' (DDC) scenario with large correlation lengths (L_parallel = 10^9 km, L_perp = 10^8 km), the bias reaches 12.73% for a power-law spectral index and 19.26% for cosmic string ln(Gmu). Under a 'single detector scale coverage' (SDC) scenario with smaller correlation lengths, the bias is below 10^-11%. The mathematical framework (Lomb-Scargle estimation, finite-arm integration, TDI propagation, Fisher bias) follows standard derivations and is internally consistent.

Significance. The paper addresses a legitimate and previously unexamined systematic for the LISA-Taiji network: correlated environmental noise entering the SGWB cross-correlation estimator. The conceptual distinction between single-detector residual levels and interdetector cross-spectrum bias is well-argued and correct. The use of real Wind/SWE data with Lomb-Scargle spectral estimation for unevenly sampled time series is a strength, as is the double-path integral formulation (Eq. 30) that avoids the fully coherent arm approximation. The Fisher bias framework (Eqs. 47-50) is standard and correctly applied. However, the quantitative headline results (12-19% bias) are entirely conditional on the DDC scenario, whose physical realizability is not established by independent observational evidence. The significance of the quantitative findings is therefore limited by the unconstrained nature of the spatial correlation model.

major comments (4)
  1. §IV.B, Eq. (34), Table III: The central quantitative results (12.73% and 19.26% biases) depend entirely on the DDC correlation lengths (L_parallel = 10^9 km, L_perp = 10^8 km) and the specific functional form of Gamma_n (exponential along Parker spiral, Gaussian perpendicular). The Wind/SWE data constrains only the electron density auto-spectrum S_Ne(f); it provides no information about the spatial correlation kernel or its correlation lengths. The paper is transparent that DDC is a 'scenario to evaluate' (§IV.B), but the abstract and conclusion foreground the DDC numbers without this qualification. The abstract states 'the plasma induced parameter bias for a power law SGWB can reach 12.73%' without noting that this requires L_parallel = 10^9 km, a value not supported by any multipoint observational evidence presented. The abstract should explicitly state that these figures are obtained,
  2. §IV.B, Table III: The DDC correlation axis angle (60 degrees) differs from the SDC angle (45 degrees) without physical justification. Since the correlation axis angle enters Gamma_n through the geometric projection (Eq. 35) and directly affects the cross-spectrum magnitude, this unexplained change introduces an additional unconstrained modeling choice that influences the headline bias numbers. The authors should either justify this difference or demonstrate that the bias results are insensitive to this angle.
  3. §IV.B, Eq. (34): The anisotropic correlation kernel Gamma_n is stated to be set by the Parker spiral, but no derivation or observational validation of the specific functional form (exponential decay along b_b, Gaussian decay perpendicular) is provided. The paper should cite any solar wind literature supporting this choice, or explicitly state that this functional form is an unvalidated model assumption. The distinction between 'ad hoc model choice' and 'physically motivated' matters for how readers should interpret the DDC results.
  4. §V.B, Table IV: The DDC results are presented only for LISA-Taiji_m, while SDC results are shown for both LISA-Taiji_p and LISA-Taiji_m. If DDC results for LISA-Taiji_p exist, they should be included for completeness; if not, the omission should be noted and justified.
minor comments (8)
  1. §II.A: The Wind/SWE data span is given as August 16, 2002 to February 26, 2026. Given the arXiv date of July 2026, please confirm this is the correct data cutoff and not a typographical error.
  2. §III.A, Eq. (14): The A/E channel response approximation is labeled as approximate, but it is unclear whether the numerical Fisher results use this approximation or the full numerical response. Please clarify which response is used in the actual calculations.
  3. Table I: The column header 'Band/Hz' is ambiguous; consider 'Frequency band' or 'Frequency range' for clarity.
  4. §IV.B: The SDC parameters are given as L_parallel = 10^8 km, L_perp = 10^7 km in the text, but Table III lists L_perp = 10^7 km. These are consistent, but the text could state the values more explicitly alongside the DDC values for direct comparison.
  5. Figure 7: The legend distinguishes SDC and DDC curves, but the figure caption could note the frequency bands shown more explicitly.
  6. §VI.B, Table V: The u_lnGmu values for M2 at Gmu=10^-18 (82.65 at 1 yr) are much larger than at Gmu=10^-17 (1.958 at 1 yr). A brief comment on the physical origin of this order-of-magnitude jump would help the reader.
  7. §VII: The outlook mentions multipoint observations from Wind, ACE, Solar Orbiter, and Parker Solar Probe as future work to constrain L_parallel and L_perp. This is appropriate, but the paper could note whether any existing multipoint studies (e.g., from STEREO) already provide relevant constraints.
  8. References: Several arXiv-only references (e.g., [1], [2], [19]) lack journal publication information where it may exist. Please update where applicable.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

4 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The referee correctly identifies that the headline quantitative results are conditional on the DDC scenario, whose spatial correlation parameters are not constrained by the Wind/SWE data used in this work. We agree with several of the referee's points and will revise the manuscript accordingly. Below we address each major comment in turn.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §IV.B, Eq. (34), Table III: The central quantitative results (12.73% and 19.26% biases) depend entirely on the DDC correlation lengths and the specific functional form of Gamma_n. The Wind/SWE data constrains only the electron density auto-spectrum; it provides no information about the spatial correlation kernel or its correlation lengths. The abstract and conclusion foreground the DDC numbers without this qualification.

    Authors: The referee is correct that Wind/SWE is a single-point measurement and constrains only S_Ne(f), not the spatial correlation kernel or its correlation lengths. We agree that the abstract and conclusion should explicitly state that the 12.73% and 19.26% figures are obtained under the DDC scenario with specific correlation lengths (L_parallel = 10^9 km, L_perp = 10^8 km) that are not independently constrained by multipoint observational evidence. We will revise the abstract to read, e.g., 'Under a dual detector scale coverage scenario with correlation lengths L_parallel = 10^9 km and L_perp = 10^8 km, which are not constrained by current multipoint observations, the plasma induced parameter bias...' and add a corresponding qualification to the conclusion. We will also add a sentence in the abstract noting that under the SDC scenario the bias is below 10^{-11}%. The paper's contribution is to identify a previously unexamined systematic and quantify its potential impact under a physically motivated but unconstrained scenario; we agree this should be stated more transparently. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §IV.B, Table III: The DDC correlation axis angle (60 degrees) differs from the SDC angle (45 degrees) without physical justification. Since the correlation axis angle enters Gamma_n through the geometric projection and directly affects the cross-spectrum magnitude, this unexplained change introduces an additional unconstrained modeling choice.

    Authors: The referee is correct to flag this inconsistency. The Parker spiral angle depends on the solar wind speed and heliocentric distance via tan(psi) = Omega * r / V_sw. At the LISA-Taiji orbital distances (~1 AU) with V_sw = 400 km/s, the Parker spiral angle is approximately 45 degrees. The 60-degree value used in the DDC case was intended to explore a different geometric projection but was not physically justified relative to the SDC case. We will unify both scenarios to use the same Parker spiral angle (45 degrees, consistent with V_sw = 400 km/s at ~1 AU) and recompute the DDC results. If the bias changes appreciably, we will report the updated values. We will also add a brief note explaining the Parker spiral angle calculation so that the choice is transparent. revision: yes

  3. Referee: §IV.B, Eq. (34): The anisotropic correlation kernel Gamma_n is stated to be set by the Parker spiral, but no derivation or observational validation of the specific functional form (exponential decay along b_b, Gaussian decay perpendicular) is provided.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the specific functional form of Gamma_n — exponential along the Parker spiral direction and Gaussian perpendicular — is a model assumption rather than a result derived from first principles or validated by multipoint observations. We are not aware of multipoint solar wind measurements that directly constrain the functional form of the density correlation kernel at the scales relevant to the LISA-Taiji baseline. We will revise the manuscript to explicitly state that this functional form is an unvalidated model assumption, and we will add citations to solar wind turbulence literature that discusses anisotropic correlation structures (e.g., Verscharen et al. 2019; Horbury et al. 2008) while making clear that these references motivate anisotropy in general rather than validating our specific kernel. We will also add a sentence noting that the choice of exponential vs. Gaussian decay is a modeling convenience and that the sensitivity of the results to this choice is not assessed in this work. revision: yes

  4. Referee: §V.B, Table IV: The DDC results are presented only for LISA-Taiji_m, while SDC results are shown for both LISA-Taiji_p and LISA-Taiji_m. If DDC results for LISA-Taiji_p exist, they should be included; if not, the omission should be noted and justified.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the asymmetry between SDC (both p and m) and DDC (only m) in Table IV is not explained. The DDC results for LISA-Taiji_p were not included because the LISA-Taiji_m configuration has a larger ORF and was expected to show the larger bias, but this reasoning was not stated. We will compute and include the DDC results for LISA-Taiji_p in the revised Table IV for completeness. If the computation has not been completed by the revision deadline, we will at minimum add a note explaining the omission and the expectation that the bias is smaller for the p configuration due to the ORF difference. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • The referee's fundamental point — that the DDC correlation lengths are not constrained by any multipoint observational evidence presented in the paper — is correct and cannot be fully answered. We can qualify the presentation and motivate the scenario physically, but we cannot claim observational validation that does not exist. The DDC results should be understood as a scenario evaluation identifying a potential systematic, not as a prediction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: the derivation chain is a forward propagation from externally fitted data through independent physics equations

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain proceeds as follows: (1) Wind/SWE electron density data is fitted to a power-law spectrum (Table I, Eq. 2-4) — this is standard data fitting from an external source; (2) the fitted spectrum is propagated to single-link plasma noise via Eqs. 9-11, which are derived from cold plasma dispersion and frozen-flow geometry; (3) the interdetector cross spectrum is computed via a double path integral (Eq. 30) with a spatial correlation kernel Γ_n (Eq. 34) whose correlation lengths L_∥, L_⊥ are explicitly stated as scenario assumptions (SDC/DDC), not fitted quantities and not defined in terms of the output biases; (4) TDI combination (Eqs. 36-38) maps link-level cross spectra to A/E channels using standard delay polynomials; (5) Fisher parameter biases (Eqs. 48-51) are computed using standard Fisher matrix formulas from Cutler, Flanagan, and Vallisneri [50-53], where the bias vector b_j depends on C^plasma (from steps 1-3) and SGWB response derivatives (from detector geometry and spectral models) — these are independent quantities. No step reduces to its inputs by construction. The self-citations [20, 21] (Wang and Li) provide external inputs (network configurations, cosmic string spectral templates) but are not load-bearing for the core plasma noise propagation or the Fisher bias calculation. The 12.73% and 19.26% bias figures are forward-propagated results, not renamings of fitted parameters. The paper is transparent that DDC is a scenario to evaluate, not a prediction from data. The conceptual claim that single-detector residuals cannot bound cross-correlation bias follows from the mathematical structure of Eqs. 30-39, not from a self-citation chain. No circularity is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

12 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, or forces. The free parameters are a mix of data-fitted spectral parameters (αn, b) and scenario-chosen correlation lengths (L∥, L⊥) and angles. The axioms are standard domain assumptions (frozen flow, cold plasma, weak signal) plus one ad hoc modeling choice (the specific form of the anisotropic correlation kernel). The DDC parameters are the most consequential free parameters because all significant bias results depend on them.

free parameters (12)
  • αn (low band) = -1.554
    Power-law spectral index fitted to Wind/SWE electron density PSD in 10^-6 to 10^-4 Hz band (Table I).
  • log10 b (low band) = -3.018
    Power-law normalization fitted to Wind/SWE electron density PSD in 10^-6 to 10^-4 Hz band (Table I).
  • αn (high band) = -1.124
    Power-law spectral index fitted to Wind/SWE electron density PSD in 10^-4 to 10^-2 Hz band (Table I).
  • log10 b (high band) = -1.507
    Power-law normalization fitted to Wind/SWE electron density PSD in 10^-4 to 10^-2 Hz band (Table I).
  • L∥ (SDC) = 1e8 km
    Parallel correlation length for single detector scale coverage, chosen by hand as a physically motivated scenario (Sec. IV.B).
  • L⊥ (SDC) = 1e7 km
    Perpendicular correlation length for single detector scale coverage, chosen by hand (Sec. IV.B).
  • L∥ (DDC) = 1e9 km
    Parallel correlation length for dual detector scale coverage, chosen by hand to evaluate large-scale scenario (Sec. IV.B).
  • L⊥ (DDC) = 1e8 km
    Perpendicular correlation length for dual detector scale coverage, chosen by hand (Sec. IV.B).
  • Vsw = 400 km/s
    Solar wind speed, adopted as a representative value (Sec. IV.B).
  • Correlation axis angle (SDC) = 45 degrees
    Parker spiral angle for SDC scenario, chosen by hand (Table III).
  • Correlation axis angle (DDC) = 60 degrees
    Parker spiral angle for DDC scenario, chosen by hand (Table III).
  • β (arm orientation) = sqrt(3)/2 to 1
    Geometric orientation parameter in single-arm transfer function (Eq. 11), stated as a range.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Taylor frozen flow approximation: solar wind structures are advected without evolution at speed Vsw, mapping temporal frequency to spatial scale (Sec. II.B, Eq. 6 context).
    Standard in solar wind turbulence studies but an approximation; structures may evolve during advection.
  • domain assumption Cold plasma dispersion relation for laser propagation (Eq. 7-8), neglecting collisions and magnetization.
    Valid for laser frequencies much greater than plasma frequency, which holds for LISA/Taiji lasers.
  • domain assumption Weak cross-signal limit: |CI|^2 << PI,Taiji * PI,LISA, used to simplify the cross-correlation Fisher matrix (Sec. V.A, Eq. 42-43).
    Standard for SGWB searches where the signal is below the noise floor; the paper uses this to justify the simplified Fisher form.
  • standard math A/E channel orthogonality approximation for first-generation TDI with equal arms (Sec. III.A, Eq. 17-18).
    Standard TDI formulation; deviations from equal arms would introduce corrections.
  • ad hoc to paper The anisotropic correlation kernel (Eq. 34) with exponential decay along Parker spiral and Gaussian decay perpendicular is a valid model for solar wind density correlations.
    The specific functional form of Γn is a modeling choice; the paper does not derive it from first principles or validate it against multipoint solar wind measurements.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 22799 in / 3752 out tokens · 420184 ms · 2026-07-07T14:12:07.169345+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The LISA-Taiji dual detector network improves millihertz SGWB sensitivity through cross correlation measurements. Solar wind plasma, however, can generate plasma noise correlated between detectors and bias SGWB cross correlation estimates. We use high time resolution electron density data from Wind/SWE, estimate the solar wind electron density fluctuation spectrum with the Lomb-Scargle method, and propagate the resulting plasma noise to the TDI A/E channels of the LISA-Taiji network. By including finite arm propagation, Taylor frozen flow spatial correlations, and the network overlap reduction response, we compute the SGWB parameter bias induced by interdetector plasma noise. Although the single detector plasma residual is below the reference noise, the component correlated between detectors can enter the SGWB cross correlation estimator directly. Under dual detector scale coverage, the plasma induced parameter bias for a power law SGWB can reach 12.73% of the corresponding Fisher parameter uncertainty. For M2/M3 cosmic string spectra, the bias in ln Gmu can reach 19.26% of the corresponding Fisher parameter uncertainty for the network configurations, observing times, and frequency bands considered here. These results show that the impact of solar wind plasma noise cannot be assessed from the single detector residual noise level alone. In LISA-Taiji SGWB searches, the interdetector correlated component of this noise can directly affect parameter estimation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05368 by Borui Wang, Jie Wu, Jin Li, Mengfei Sun, Shengyi Ye.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Wind/SWE electron density time series. Valid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Single link plasma displacement noise and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Heliocentric geometry of the LISA–Taijip and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Single detector A/E channel plasma residuals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Comparison between frozen flow spatial scales [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Equivalent amplitude shifts ∆Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Observation time dependence of power law [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Cosmic string M2/M3 backgrounds, Galactic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: String tension parameter uncertainties for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

    P. Amaro-Seoaneet al., Laser interferometer space an- tenna, arXiv:1702.00786 (2017)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    LISA Consortium, Lisa definition study report, arXiv:2402.07571 (2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    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, Na- tional Science Review4, 685 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Luo, Z.-K

    Z. Luo, Z.-K. Guo, G. Jin, Y.-L. Wu, and W.-R. Hu, A brief analysis to taiji: Science and technology, Results in Physics16, 102918 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Luoet al., Tianqin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector, Classical and Quantum Gravity33, 035010 (2016)

    J. Luoet al., Tianqin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector, Classical and Quantum Gravity33, 035010 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Meiet al., The tianqin project: current progress on science and technology, Progress of Theoretical and Ex- perimental Physics2021, 05A107 (2021)

    J. Meiet al., The tianqin project: current progress on science and technology, Progress of Theoretical and Ex- perimental Physics2021, 05A107 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Maggiore, Gravitational wave experiments and early universe cosmology, Physics Reports331, 283 (2000)

    M. Maggiore, Gravitational wave experiments and early universe cosmology, Physics Reports331, 283 (2000)

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    E. S. Phinney, A practical theorem on gravitational wave backgrounds, arXiv:astro-ph/0108028 (2001)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  9. [9]

    Regimbau, The astrophysical gravitational wave stochastic background, Research in Astronomy and As- trophysics11, 369 (2011)

    T. Regimbau, The astrophysical gravitational wave stochastic background, Research in Astronomy and As- trophysics11, 369 (2011)

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    Caprini and D

    C. Caprini and D. G. Figueroa, Cosmological back- grounds of gravitational waves, Classical and Quantum Gravity35, 163001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    Chen, F.-P

    Z.-C. Chen, F.-P. Huang, and Q.-G. Huang, Stochastic gravitational-wave background from binary black holes and binary neutron stars and implications for lisa, As- trophysical Journal871, 97 (2019)

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    Allen and J

    B. Allen and J. D. Romano, Detecting a stochastic background of gravitational radiation: Signal process- ing strategies and sensitivities, Physical Review D59, 102001 (1999)

    work page 1999

  13. [13]

    J. D. Romano and N. J. Cornish, Detection methods for stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds: a unified treatment, Living Reviews in Relativity20, 2 (2017)

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    Thrane and J

    E. Thrane and J. D. Romano, Sensitivity curves for searches for gravitational-wave backgrounds, Physical Review D88, 124032 (2013)

    work page 2013

  15. [15]

    Christensen, Stochastic gravitational wave back- grounds, Reports on Progress in Physics82, 016903 (2019)

    N. Christensen, Stochastic gravitational wave back- grounds, Reports on Progress in Physics82, 016903 (2019)

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    Wang and W.-B

    G. Wang and W.-B. Han, Alternative lisa-taiji net- works: Detectability of the isotropic stochastic gravita- tional wave background, Physical Review D104, 104015 (2021)

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    Seto, Gravitational wave background search by cor- relating multiple triangular detectors in the mhz band, Physical Review D102, 123547 (2020)

    N. Seto, Gravitational wave background search by cor- relating multiple triangular detectors in the mhz band, Physical Review D102, 123547 (2020)

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Omiya and N

    H. Omiya and N. Seto, Searching for anomalous po- larization modes of the stochastic gravitational wave background with lisa and taiji, Physical Review D102, 084053 (2020)

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Caiet al., On networks of space-based gravitational-wave detectors, Fundamental Research (2023)

    R.-G. Caiet al., On networks of space-based gravitational-wave detectors, Fundamental Research (2023)

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    B.-R. Wang, J. Li, and H. Wang, Probing the gravita- tional wave background from cosmic strings with the al- ternative lisa-taiji network, European Physical Journal C 83, 1010 (2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Wang and J

    B.-R. Wang and J. Li, Ability of lisa, taiji, and their net- works to detect the stochastic gravitational wave back- ground generated by cosmic strings, Physical Review D 109, 063520 (2024)

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Smetana, Background for gravitational wave signal at lisa from refractive index of solar wind plasma, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters499, L77 (2020)

    A. Smetana, Background for gravitational wave signal at lisa from refractive index of solar wind plasma, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters499, L77 (2020)

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    Jennrich, N

    O. Jennrich, N. Luetzgendorf, J. I. Thorpe, J. Slutsky, and C. Cutler, Sensitivity limits of space-based interfer- ometric gravitational wave observatories from the solar wind, Physical Review D104, 062003 (2021)

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    K. W. Ogilvieet al., Swe, a comprehensive plasma in- strument for the wind spacecraft, Space Science Reviews 71, 55 (1995)

    work page 1995

  25. [25]

    K. W. Ogilvie and M. D. Desch, The wind spacecraft and its early scientific results, Advances in Space Research 20, 559 (1997)

    work page 1997

  26. [26]

    F. Xie, W. Tang, X. Ma, X. Peng, Z. Yang, L.-E. Qiang, Y. Zhang, C. Gao, J. Zhang, and F. Wang, Lomb-scargle spectral analysis of plasma’s noise for space-based laser interferometric gravitational wave antennas, Advances in Space Research74, 4196 (2024)

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    L.-F. Lu, W. Su, X. Zhang,et al., Effects of the space plasma density oscillation on the interspacecraft laser ranging for tianqin gravitational wave observatory, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics126, e2020JA028579 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    W. Su, Y. Wang, C. Zhou,et al., Analyses of laser prop- agation noises for tianqin gravitational wave observatory based on global magnetosphere mhd simulations, Astro- physical Journal914, 139 (2021)

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    Y.-D. Jing, L. Zheng, S. Yang,et al., Plasma noise in tianqin time-delay interferometry, Physical Review D 106, 082006 (2022)

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    L. Luet al., Numerical simulations of the wavefront dis- tortion of inter-spacecraft laser beams caused by solar wind and magnetospheric plasmas, Plasma Science and Technology22, 115301 (2020)

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    S. Zhou, W. Su, S. Zhou, C. Li, and J. Zhang, The point- ing error due to laser propagation in space plasma for tianqin gravitational wave detection, Space Weather24, e2025SW004784 (2026)

    work page 2026

  32. [32]

    N. R. Lomb, Least-squares frequency analysis of un- equally spaced data, Astrophysics and Space Science39, 447 (1976)

    work page 1976

  33. [33]

    J. D. Scargle, Studies in astronomical time series analy- sis. ii. statistical aspects of spectral analysis of unevenly spaced data, Astrophysical Journal263, 835 (1982)

    work page 1982

  34. [34]

    J. T. VanderPlas, Understanding the lomb-scargle peri- odogram, Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series236, 16 (2018)

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    A. N. Kolmogorov, The local structure of turbulence in incompressible viscous fluid for very large reynolds num- bers, Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR30, 301 (1941)

    work page 1941

  36. [36]

    G. I. Taylor, The spectrum of turbulence, Proceedings of the Royal Society A164, 476 (1938)

    work page 1938

  37. [37]

    Verscharen, K

    D. Verscharen, K. G. Klein, and B. A. Maruca, The multi-scale nature of the solar wind, Living Reviews in Solar Physics16, 5 (2019)

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    L. Abbo, L. Ofman, S. K. Antiochos,et al., Slow solar 16 wind: observations and modeling, Space Science Reviews 201, 55 (2016)

    work page 2016

  39. [39]

    Collaboration, Astropy: A community python package for astronomy, Astronomy and Astrophysics558, A33 (2013)

    A. Collaboration, Astropy: A community python package for astronomy, Astronomy and Astrophysics558, A33 (2013)

    work page 2013

  40. [40]

    I. H. Hutchinson,Principles of Plasma Diagnostics (Cambridge University Press, 2002)

    work page 2002

  41. [41]

    T. A. Prince, M. Tinto, S. L. Larson, and J. W. Arm- strong, Lisa optimal sensitivity, Physical Review D66, 122002 (2002)

    work page 2002

  42. [42]

    Tinto, F

    M. Tinto, F. B. Estabrook, and J. W. Armstrong, Time- delay interferometry for lisa, Physical Review D65, 082003 (2002)

    work page 2002

  43. [43]

    Vallisneri, Synthetic lisa: Simulating time delay inter- ferometry in a model lisa, Physical Review D71, 022001 (2005)

    M. Vallisneri, Synthetic lisa: Simulating time delay inter- ferometry in a model lisa, Physical Review D71, 022001 (2005)

    work page 2005

  44. [44]

    Tinto and O

    M. Tinto and O. Hartwig, Time-delay interferometry and clock-noise calibration, Physical Review D98, 042003 (2018)

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    Tinto and S

    M. Tinto and S. V. Dhurandhar, Time-delay interferom- etry, Living Reviews in Relativity24, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    M. Otto, G. Heinzel, and K. Danzmann, Tdi and clock noise removal for the split interferometry configuration of lisa, Classical and Quantum Gravity29, 205003 (2012)

    work page 2012

  47. [47]

    Mandic, E

    V. Mandic, E. Thrane, S. Giampanis, and T. Regim- bau, Parameter estimation in searches for the stochastic gravitational-wave background, Physical Review Letters 109, 171102 (2012)

    work page 2012

  48. [48]

    Abbottet al., Upper limits on the isotropic gravitational-wave background from advanced ligo’s and advanced virgo’s third observing run, Physical Review D 104, 022004 (2021)

    R. Abbottet al., Upper limits on the isotropic gravitational-wave background from advanced ligo’s and advanced virgo’s third observing run, Physical Review D 104, 022004 (2021)

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    T. L. Smith and R. R. Caldwell, Lisa for cosmologists: Calculating the signal-to-noise ratio for stochastic and deterministic sources, Physical Review D100, 104055 (2019)

    work page 2019

  50. [50]

    R. A. Fisher, On the mathematical foundations of theo- retical statistics, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A222, 309 (1922)

    work page 1922

  51. [51]

    Cutler and E

    C. Cutler and E. E. Flanagan, Gravitational waves from merging compact binaries: How accurately can one ex- tract the binary’s parameters from the inspiral wave- form?, Physical Review D49, 2658 (1994)

    work page 1994

  52. [52]

    Vallisneri, Use and abuse of the fisher information ma- trix in the assessment of gravitational-wave parameter- estimation prospects, Physical Review D77, 042001 (2008)

    M. Vallisneri, Use and abuse of the fisher information ma- trix in the assessment of gravitational-wave parameter- estimation prospects, Physical Review D77, 042001 (2008)

    work page 2008

  53. [53]

    Cutler and M

    C. Cutler and M. Vallisneri, Lisa detections of massive black hole inspirals: Parameter extraction errors due to inaccurate template waveforms, Physical Review D76, 104018 (2007)

    work page 2007

  54. [54]

    Liang, Y.-M

    Z.-C. Liang, Y.-M. Hu, Y. Jiang, J. Cheng, J.-d. Zhang, and J. Mei, Science with the tianqin observatory: Pre- liminary results on stochastic gravitational-wave back- ground, Physical Review D105, 022001 (2022)

    work page 2022

  55. [55]

    Martinovic, P

    K. Martinovic, P. M. Meyers, M. Sakellariadou, and N. Christensen, Simultaneous estimation of astrophysi- cal and cosmological stochastic gravitational-wave back- grounds with terrestrial detectors, Physical Review D 103, 043023 (2021)

    work page 2021

  56. [56]

    A. Lambertset al., Predicting the lisa white dwarf binary population in the milky way with cosmological simula- tions, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 490, 5888 (2019)

    work page 2019

  57. [57]

    Perigois, K

    C. Perigois, K. Belczynski, T. Bulik, and T. Regimbau, Startrack predictions of the stochastic gravitational-wave background from compact binary mergers, Physical Re- view D103, 043002 (2021)

    work page 2021

  58. [58]

    Boileau, A

    G. Boileau, A. C. Jenkins, M. Sakellariadou, R. Meyer, and N. Christensen, Ability of lisa to detect a gravitational-wave background of cosmological origin: The cosmic string case, Physical Review D105, 023510 (2022)

    work page 2022

  59. [59]

    Auclairet al., Probing the gravitational wave back- ground from cosmic strings with lisa, Journal of Cosmol- ogy and Astroparticle Physics04, 034

    P. Auclairet al., Probing the gravitational wave back- ground from cosmic strings with lisa, Journal of Cosmol- ogy and Astroparticle Physics04, 034

    work page

  60. [60]

    Capriniet al., Science with the space-based interfer- ometer elisa

    C. Capriniet al., Science with the space-based interfer- ometer elisa. ii: Gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparti- cle Physics04, 001

    work page

  61. [61]

    Bartoloet al., Science with the space-based inter- ferometer lisa

    N. Bartoloet al., Science with the space-based inter- ferometer lisa. iv: Probing inflation with gravitational waves, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 12, 026

    work page

  62. [62]

    Ruan, Z.-K

    W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and Y.-Z. Zhang, Taiji program: Gravitational-wave sources, International Journal of Modern Physics A35, 2050075 (2020)

    work page 2020

  63. [63]

    Robson, N

    T. Robson, N. J. Cornish, and C. Liu, The construction and use of lisa sensitivity curves, Classical and Quantum Gravity36, 105011 (2019)

    work page 2019

  64. [64]

    N. J. Cornish and L. J. Rubbo, The lisa response func- tion, Physical Review D67, 022001 (2003)

    work page 2003

  65. [65]

    Wang, W.-T

    G. Wang, W.-T. Ni, W.-B. Han, and C.-F. Qiao, Al- gorithm for time-delay interferometry numerical simu- lation and sensitivity investigation, Physical Review D 103, 122006 (2021)

    work page 2021

  66. [66]

    M. R. Adams and N. J. Cornish, Detecting a stochastic gravitational wave background in the presence of a galac- tic foreground and instrument noise, Physical Review D 89, 022001 (2014)

    work page 2014

  67. [67]

    Flauger, N

    R. Flauger, N. Karnesis, G. Nardini, M. Pieroni, A. Ric- ciardone, and J. Torrado, Improved reconstruction of a stochastic gravitational wave background with lisa, Jour- nal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics01, 059

    work page

  68. [68]

    Auclairet al., Cosmology with the laser interferometer space antenna, Living Reviews in Relativity26, 5 (2023)

    P. Auclairet al., Cosmology with the laser interferometer space antenna, Living Reviews in Relativity26, 5 (2023)

    work page 2023

  69. [69]

    Boileau, A

    G. Boileau, A. Lamberts, N. Christensen, N. J. Cor- nish, and R. Meyer, Spectral separation of the stochastic gravitational-wave background for lisa in the context of a modulated galactic foreground, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society508, 803 (2021)

    work page 2021