Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 37 references

The unresolved Galactic-binary foreground is degenerate with an isotropic stochastic background: free marginalization inflates the inferred amplitude error by 13.6%, omission shifts it by 119.5σ (a projection, not detection).

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 02:42 UTC pith:EL24A7T2

load-bearing objection Useful, internally consistent forecast of LISA SGWB residual-foreground degeneracy; all headline numbers rest on a Gaussian-mode covariance whose failure in concentrated bins is acknowledged but unquantified. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25349 v1 pith:EL24A7T2 submitted 2026-07-28 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Residual Galactic binary foreground in LISA stochastic gravitational-wave background inference: source power concentration and spectral degeneracy

Ruo-Yu Guan , Yan Wang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE gr-qc
keywords gravitational wavesLISAGalactic binariesstochastic gravitational-wave backgroundforeground subtractionFisher information matrixexcess kurtosisspectral degeneracy
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.

The paper's goal is to establish that the catalog-level residual from Galactic compact binaries—the injected sources that fail the adopted recovery criteria—is degenerate with an isotropic stochastic gravitational-wave background in LISA binned-power measurements. Using a one-year simulated LISA catalog and a fixed Gaussian-mode covariance, it finds that for a frequency-independent background (α=0, Ω0=10⁻¹¹), the inverse-variance-weighted spectral overlap is |ρ_Ωβ|≈0.475, making the inferred Ω0 uncertainty 13.6% larger when the residual-power factor β is freely marginalized. Capping the increase at 10% requires a Gaussian prior on β of width ≈0.0073, assuming residual power is uniform within each analysis bin; more concentrated distributions give smaller increases (11.2% and 5.1%). If the residual is instead omitted while the covariance is held fixed, the best-fit Ω0 shifts by 119.5 times the fixed-β uncertainty—a spectral projection the authors explicitly caution is not a detection significance. The practical stake is that LISA stochastic-background analyses must either model the residual foreground jointly or constrain it with a prior, or they will report overconfident and possibly biased amplitudes.

Core claim

The central claim is that the residual Galactic-binary foreground is not benign: its binned power spectrum partly mimics a frequency-independent SGWB, so a two-parameter Fisher analysis of LISA power measurements cannot cleanly separate residual foreground from background. The headline numbers—|ρ_Ωβ|≈0.475, I0≈1.1361, σβ¹⁰%≈0.0073, and an omitted-residual shift of 119.5σ—are all conditional on a scalar power model with orbit-averaged long-wavelength Michelson X response, a fixed instrumental noise spectrum, and a covariance built from independent Gaussian Fourier-mode variances. The excess kurtosis of the random-phase residual sum is set by the source power concentration C2 via γ2=−3/2 C2, a

What carries the argument

Two objects carry the argument. First, the dimensionless source power concentration C2 = Σ_i w_i², where w_i are normalized residual source powers in a bin; it determines the excess kurtosis γ2 = −3/2 C2 of a random-phase source sum and measures whether a bin's residual power is spread across many binaries or dominated by one. Second, a two-parameter Fisher information matrix on (Ω0, β), where β is the dimensionless factor multiplying the catalog residual spectrum. The normalized off-diagonal element ρ_Ωβ = F_Ωβ / √(F_ΩΩ F_ββ) is an inverse-variance-weighted spectral overlap between residual and SGWB templates; it sets the no-prior uncertainty increase I0 = (1−ρ²_Ωβ)^(−1/2), and the same Fis

Load-bearing premise

The headline numbers rest on treating each Fourier mode's power as independent and Gaussian, so the residual foreground contributes no coherent sidebands, spectral leakage, or cross-frequency correlations; if real LISA residuals contain such structure, the 13.6% figure, the 0.0073 prior width, and the 119.5σ shift would all change.

What would settle it

Redo the same Fisher calculation with an empirically estimated binned-power covariance from a one-year time-domain simulation of the same unresolved binary population—including the full orbital response, Doppler modulation, and TDI channels—and compare |ρ_Ωβ|, I0, and the omitted-residual shift. Alternatively, measure the binned excess kurtosis of the simulated residual and check the random-phase prediction γ2 = −3/2 C2; a large positive or strongly non-platykurtic value would invalidate the source-sum model.

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

If this is right

  • LISA analyses that fit a frequency-independent SGWB to binned power should include the residual foreground amplitude as a nuisance parameter with a prior; without it, the inferred Ω0 uncertainty is understated by about 14%.
  • A Gaussian prior β = 1 ± 0.0073 keeps the marginalization penalty at or below 10% under the uniform-within-bin residual distribution; tighter priors are needed if the residual power is more concentrated in a few Fourier frequencies.
  • Omitting the residual foreground is not a conservative shortcut: it produces a ~120σ bias in the best-fit Ω0 in this model, which the authors identify as a spectral projection rather than a detection significance.
  • The required prior width depends sharply on which frequency bins are used: subsets with the least-diluted source discreteness show I0 between ~1.8 and 3.0, so narrow-band analyses are more vulnerable than the full 0.4–6.0 mHz result.
  • Unresolved frequency structure matters: the uniform, drift/Doppler, and closest-frequency distributions give 13.6%, 11.2%, and 5.1% uncertainty increases, so future work must specify how unresolved binaries are distributed across Fourier modes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, recomputing ρ_Ωβ and I0 with a covariance estimated directly from time-domain simulations that include orbital response, Doppler sidebands, and TDI channel correlations would test whether the 13.6% figure survives; the fixed-diagonal Gaussian covariance is the paper's main model assumption.
  • The γ2 = −3/2 C2 relation is a cheap diagnostic that could be applied to any future catalog to flag bins where Gaussian likelihoods are least valid; bins with effective degrees of freedom near 3 are exactly where misweighting would do the most damage.
  • If the residual–SGWB overlap is as strong as the paper suggests, a claimed LISA stochastic-background detection in the millihertz band will need to demonstrate explicitly that it survives joint fitting with a residual foreground term, not merely subtraction of resolved sources; the 119.5σ projection is a caution, not a signal.

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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a residual Galactic-binary foreground spectrum from the LDC2A Sangria injection catalogs and the Erebor injection–recovery comparison table, after classifying injected binaries as recovered or residual using thresholds Crec ≥ 0.9 and Obest ≥ 0.9. It characterizes the residual power concentration via C2 and its relation to the excess kurtosis γ2,res = −(3/2)C2 of a response-averaged random-phase source sum. The central SGWB analysis uses a binned Fisher information matrix for the parameters (Ω0, β), where β multiplies the catalog residual spectrum, with the covariance fixed to the independent Gaussian Fourier-mode power variance of Eq. (19). For a frequency-independent SGWB with Ω0 = 10−11 and 560 bins from 0.4–6.0 mHz, the paper reports |ρΩβ| ≈ 0.475, I0 ≈ 1.1361 (13.6% uncertainty increase), σβ^10% ≈ 0.0073, and an omitted-residual shift ΔΩbias/σΩ,fixed ≈ 119.5. These numbers are explicitly conditional on the catalog-level scalar power model, fixed instrumental noise, and independent-mode covariance. The dependence on residual-power distribution (uniform within bins, drift–Doppler, closest-frequency) and on frequency-subset selection is also quantified.

Significance. If the results are taken at face value, the paper provides a useful quantitative estimate of how an imperfectly subtracted Galactic binary foreground affects LISA SGWB inference, using publicly available challenge data and a transparent, reproducible framework. The Monte Carlo validation of the γ2 = −(3/2)C2 relation (r = 0.9991) is a clean check, and the explicit distinction between the marginalization-induced uncertainty increase and the omitted-residual spectral projection is methodologically sound. The paper's own limitations section is unusually candid. However, the practical significance of the headline numbers is limited by the diagonal independent-Gaussian covariance assumption, which the paper acknowledges but does not quantitatively bound; the exact numerical values are therefore model-conditional rather than generic predictions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix C, Eqs. (C11)–(C13)] The displayed algebra is incorrect. From I²(σβ) = A(B + 1/σβ²) / [A(B + 1/σβ²) − C²] ≤ r_max², the correct reduction is B + 1/σβ² ≥ (C²/A) (1 − r_max^{−2})^{−1}, not (C²/A)(1 − r_max^{−2}) as printed. The factor matters: for the all-bin α = 0 case, ρ = 0.475 and r_max = 1.1 give (1 − r_max^{−2})^{−1} ≈ 5.76 whereas (1 − r_max^{−2}) ≈ 0.174. As printed, Eq. (C12) would be satisfied in that case and would incorrectly predict σβ,max = ∞, contradicting the reported σβ^{10%} ≈ 0.0073 in §V A and Table II. Please correct Eqs. (C11)–(C13) and verify that the tabulated prior widths were computed with the correct threshold.
  2. [§III, Eq. (19), and §V A] Every Fisher element is built from the diagonal Gaussian mode-power covariance VarG(V̂_k) = (δf_F)² Σ_j S_j², which assumes statistically independent Gaussian Fourier amplitudes. The paper's own §III shows that the residual process is strongly non-Gaussian in the most concentrated bins (maximum |γ2,tot| ≈ 0.90; effective degrees of freedom ≈ 3.3 for the closest-frequency assignment), and it explicitly excludes coherent Doppler sidebands and cross-frequency correlations. The three residual-power distributions studied in §V A all use the same Gaussian covariance, so they do not bracket the effect of coherent structure. The headline values (I0 ≈ 1.1361, σβ^{10%} ≈ 0.0073, ΔΩbias/σ ≈ 119.5) are therefore conditional on an assumption that is violated in the very bins that dominate the residual–SGWB overlap. I request either (i) a quantitative sensitivity estimate — e.g., a simple coherent-lin
minor comments (3)
  1. [§II A] The recovery thresholds Crec ≥ 0.9 and Obest ≥ 0.9 are central to the residual definition, but the paper does not discuss how sensitive the main results are to these thresholds. A brief statement about the expected effect of varying the thresholds (e.g., by ±0.05) would help readers gauge the robustness of the residual population.
  2. [Appendix D and §II B] The orbital average in Eq. (5) is evaluated at Nφ = 12 in Appendix D, but this detail is not mentioned in the main text. Adding a one-line pointer would improve reproducibility, especially since Appendix D reports that Nφ = 6 changes I0 from 1.1361 to 1.1367.
  3. [Data Availability] The code is 'available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.' For a paper whose central results are numerical and depend on specific catalog processing, depositing the code in a public repository (e.g., Zenodo) would substantially increase reproducibility and is strongly encouraged.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: headline numbers are forward Fisher projections from external LDC2A/Erebor catalogs under a stated covariance model.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the non-circular sense. It takes external inputs (LDC2A Sangria injection catalogs and the Erebor comparison table, Refs. [28,29]), constructs the residual spectrum R_k, defines the source power concentration C2, derives the random-phase kurtosis relation gamma2,res = -3C2/2, adopts an explicitly declared Gaussian independent-mode covariance Var_G(V_k) = (delta f_F)^2 sum_j S_j^2 (Eq. 19), and then evaluates Fisher elements F_ij = sum_k d_i mu_k d_j mu_k / Var_G(V_k) (Eq. 28) at fixed fiducial parameters. The reported quantities — |rho_OmegaBeta| ~ 0.475, I0 ~ 1.1361, sigma_beta^10% ~ 0.00728, and DeltaOmega_bias/sigma_Omega,fixed ~ 119.5 — are algebraic consequences of these inputs, not parameters fitted to reproduce a target answer. The 119.5 sigma shift is defined in Eq. (30) as the inverse-variance-weighted projection of the omitted residual onto the SGWB template and is explicitly labeled 'not a posterior detection significance.' No author self-citations are load-bearing; the data and pipelines cited are public external releases. The acknowledged limitations — coherent Doppler sidebands, TDI cross-channel correlations, finite-arm effects, and the Gaussian covariance approximation — condition the numerical values but do not make the derivation circular; the paper itself states 'The numerical values are conditional on the catalog-level scalar power model, fixed instrumental noise, and independent mode-power covariance.' The Monte-Carlo validation of the kurtosis relation is internal consistency, not circularity. No step reduces by construction to its own output.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's claims rest on external catalog data (Sangria injections, Erebor recovery labels), standard cosmology relations, and three structural modeling choices: the recovery thresholds that define the residual population, the orbit-averaged long-wavelength response, and the Gaussian independent-mode covariance. No new physical entities are postulated; β and η are ordinary nuisance parameters. The frequent hedging in §VI and Appendices B–D discloses most of these, but the sensitivity of the headline numbers to the recovery-threshold choice is not quantified.

free parameters (6)
  • Recovery thresholds (Crec, Obest) = ≥ 0.9, ≥ 0.9
    Eq. (1). Defines which injected sources count as residual; changing this threshold rescales Rk and all Fisher elements. Chosen from the Erebor convention, not fitted.
  • Analysis band and bin width = 0.4–6.0 mHz; Δf = 10⁻⁵ Hz
    560 bins; edges exclude the densest low-frequency foreground and the sparse high-frequency tail. I0 varies with bin width (1.119/1.136/1.157 for 5/10/20 µHz), so the headline 13.6% is bin-width dependent.
  • Fiducial SGWB amplitude Ω0 = 10⁻¹¹
    Sets the covariance normalization (Eq. 19) and the dilution factor (Eq. 24); the authors state all numeric results are conditional on it.
  • Residual power distribution over Fourier frequencies = uniform / drift-Doppler / closest
    Three ad hoc distributions of Rk within bins; the headline 13.6% uses uniform, alternatives give 11.2% and 5.1%. The real unresolved frequency structure is unknown, so this choice is load-bearing.
  • β fiducial value and prior center = β = 1 (Gaussian prior)
    Assumes the catalog residual power equals the true residual amplitude; the prior width σβ is the derived output, but its center and Gaussian form are chosen.
  • Orbital-phase grid Nφ = 12
    I0 = 1.1361 vs 1.1367 at 6 phases; converged discretization, minor.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Independent uniformly random source phases (Appendix B, Eq. B1)
    Yields ⟨x⁴⟩ = (3/2)p² and γ2,res = −(3/2)C2 (Eq. B5). The MC in §II C validates the algebra against the same model, not the physical phase distribution.
  • domain assumption Independent complex-Gaussian Fourier amplitudes ⇒ exponential mode powers, Cov(Ŝj, Ŝj′) = S²_j δ_jj′ (Eq. 15)
    All Fisher elements use the diagonal fixed covariance of Eq. (19). §III itself shows residual bins can have effective dof as low as 3.3, so this Gaussian covariance is an approximation exactly where source discreteness is strong; its failure mode is unbounded in the paper.
  • domain assumption Orbit-averaged long-wavelength Michelson-X response; power divided by ⟨R⟩ = 3/20 (Eqs. 3–5, D3–D5)
    Converts all spectra to one equivalent-incident-strain convention; excludes finite-arm effects, coherent Doppler sidebands, spectral leakage, and TDI cross-channel correlations, all acknowledged in §VI.
  • domain assumption Erebor injection–recovery comparison table correctly identifies recovered sources (Eq. 1 and Appendix D1)
    The residual population is whatever the Erebor global-fit labels do not recover; trusting those labels is load-bearing.
  • standard math SGWB strain spectrum Sh(f) = 3H0² ΩGW(f)/(2π² f³) with H0 = 67.4 (Eqs. 25–27)
    Standard relation (Maggiore ref. [33]; Planck H0), used as an input.
  • domain assumption Robson–Cornish–Liu LISA noise levels (Eqs. D8–D10) treated as known
    Instrumental noise is fixed in the two-parameter fit; only the η extension tests overall amplitude sensitivity.
  • domain assumption Fisher/local approximation with covariance frozen at fiducial parameters (Eqs. 23, 28)
    For the smallest subsets σΩ,fixed can be of order Ω0 or larger, so Fisher values are not posterior intervals; the paper flags this at Nbin = 6.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22564 in / 30774 out tokens · 283205 ms · 2026-08-01T02:42:54.577717+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Galactic compact binaries are expected to form a dominant foreground in the millihertz band of the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA). Residual power from injected sources that do not meet the adopted recovery criteria can bias stochastic gravitational-wave background (SGWB) inference or increase its uncertainty. We use LISA Data Challenge 2A Sangria injections and the Erebor comparison table to construct a catalog residual spectrum between 0.4 and 6.0 mHz with orbit-averaged long-wavelength Michelson \(X\) source powers. The source power concentration in each frequency bin determines the excess kurtosis of a random-phase source sum; instrumental noise and fiducial SGWB power strongly reduce the resulting excess kurtosis in most bins. The residual spectrum also overlaps an isotropic power-law SGWB in the mean binned power. We use a fixed covariance obtained by summing independent Fourier-mode power variances. For a frequency-independent SGWB with fiducial amplitude \(\Omega_0=10^{-11}\), marginalizing over the dimensionless residual-power factor \(\beta\) increases the \(\Omega_0\) uncertainty by \(13.6\%\) when the residual power is distributed uniformly over the Fourier frequencies in each bin. The largest Gaussian prior standard deviation on \(\beta\) that limits this increase to \(10\%\) is \(0.0073\). More concentrated distributions of the residual power among Fourier frequencies reduce the increase, reflecting unresolved frequency structure. Omitting the fiducial residual with the covariance held fixed shifts the best-fitting \(\Omega_0\) by \(119.5\) times the uncertainty obtained with \(\beta\) fixed. This projection of the residual spectrum onto the SGWB spectrum is not a posterior detection significance. The numerical values are conditional on the catalog-level scalar power model, fixed instrumental noise, and independent mode-power covariance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25349 by Ruo-Yu Guan, Yan Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.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

37 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sources with 0.4 mHz ≤ fi < 6.0 mHz are assigned to the unique 10 µHz bin satisfying fk,left ≤ fi < f k,right

    F requency bins and recovered source labels We use the injected Galactic binary populations in the HDF5 catalog groups sky/dgb/cat and sky/igb/cat of the LDC2A Sangria data set [ 28]. Sources with 0.4 mHz ≤ fi < 6.0 mHz are assigned to the unique 10 µHz bin satisfying fk,left ≤ fi < f k,right . (D1) Recovery labels are obtained from the Erebor LDC2A injec...

  2. [2]

    Orbit-averaged Michelson response and catalog sums We evaluate the source power with the long-wavelength Michelson X response [ 31, 32]. At orbital phase φ, the first-order equal-arm LDC orbit specifies the relative spacecraft geometry, up to a common displacement and overall scale, through the dimensionless vectors rn(φ). With ηn = 2πn/3, rn(φ) = 0 B@ si...

  3. [3]

    1 + 2.0 × 10−3 Hz f 4# , (D9) Pacc(f ) = (3 .0 × 10−15 m s−2)2 Hz−1 ×

    Instrumental noise and covariance of F ourier powers The one-sided instrumental noise spectral density uses the optical metrology and acceleration noise levels adopted for the LISA sensitivity curve [ 30], divided by the single-Michelson long-wavelength response: Sinst(f ) = 20 3L2 POMS(f ) + 4Pacc(f ) (2πf )4 , (D8) where L = 2.5 × 109 m, and POMS(f ) = ...

  4. [4]

    Amaro-Seoane, H

    P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, J. Baker, E. Barausse, P. Bender, E. Berti, P. Binetruy, M. Born, D. Bortoluzzi, et al. , Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1702.00786 (2017) , arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    D. Hils, P. L. Bender, and R. F. Webbink, Gravitational Radiation from the Galaxy, Astrophys. J. 360, 75 (1990)

    1990

  6. [6]

    P. L. Bender and D. Hils, Confusion noise level due to galactic and extragalactic binaries, Classical Quantum Gravity 14, 1439 (1997)

    1997

  7. [7]

    Nelemans, L

    G. Nelemans, L. R. Yungelson, and S. F. Portegies Zwart, The gravitational wave signal from the Galactic disk population of binaries containing two compact ob- jects, Astron. Astrophys. 375, 890 (2001) , arXiv:astro- ph/0105221 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2001

  8. [8]

    S. E. Timpano, L. J. Rubbo, and N. J. Cornish, Char- acterizing the galactic gravitational wave background with LISA, Phys. Rev. D 73, 122001 (2006) , arXiv:gr- qc/0504071 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2006

  9. [9]

    A. J. Ruiter, K. Belczynski, M. Benacquista, S. L. Lar- son, and G. Williams, The LISA Gravitational Wave Foreground: A Study of Double White Dwarfs, Astro- phys. J. 717, 1006 (2010) , arXiv:0705.3272 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  10. [10]

    Korol, N

    V. Korol, N. Hallakoun, S. Toonen, and N. Karnesis, Ob- servationally driven Galactic double white dwarf popu- lation for LISA, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 511, 5936 (2022), arXiv:2109.10972 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    Babak et al

    S. Babak et al. , The Mock LISA Data Challenges: from Challenge 1B to Challenge 3, Classical Quantum Gravity 25, 184026 (2008) , arXiv:0806.2110 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  12. [12]

    Baghi, The LISA Data Challenges, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2204.12142 (2022) , arXiv:2204.12142 [gr-qc]

    Q. Baghi, The LISA Data Challenges, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2204.12142 (2022) , arXiv:2204.12142 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    N. J. Cornish and S. L. Larson, LISA data analysis: Source identification and subtraction, Phys. Rev. D 67, 103001 (2003) , arXiv:astro-ph/0301548 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  14. [14]

    Crowder and N

    J. Crowder and N. J. Cornish, Solution to the galactic foreground problem for LISA, Phys. Rev. D 75, 043008 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0611546 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  15. [15]

    T. B. Littenberg, Detection pipeline for Galactic bina- ries in LISA data, Phys. Rev. D 84, 063009 (2011) , arXiv:1106.6355 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  16. [16]

    Zhang, S

    X.-H. Zhang, S. D. Mohanty, X.-B. Zou, and Y.-X. Liu, Resolving Galactic binaries in LISA data using particle swarm optimization and cross-validation, Phys. Rev. D 104, 024023 (2021) , arXiv:2103.09391 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Zhang, S.-D

    X.-H. Zhang, S.-D. Zhao, S. D. Mohanty, and Y.-X. Liu, Resolving Galactic binaries using a network of space- borne gravitational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 106, 102004 (2022) , arXiv:2206.12083 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    T. B. Littenberg and N. J. Cornish, Prototype global analysis of LISA data with multiple source types, Phys. Rev. D 107, 063004 (2023) , arXiv:2301.03673 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    S. H. Strub, L. Ferraioli, C. Schmelzbach, S. C. Stäh- ler, and D. Giardini, Global analysis of LISA data with Galactic binaries and massive black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024005 (2024) , arXiv:2403.15318 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    S. Deng, S. Babak, M. Le Jeune, S. Marsat, É. Plagnol, and A. Sartirana, Modular global-fit pipeline for LISA data analysis, Phys. Rev. D 111, 103014 (2025) , arXiv:2501.10277 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    M. L. Katz, N. Karnesis, N. Korsakova, J. R. Gair, and N. Stergioulas, Efficient GPU-accelerated multisource global fit pipeline for LISA data analysis, Phys. Rev. D 111, 024060 (2025) , arXiv:2405.04690 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    A. D. Johnson, J. Roulet, K. Chatziioannou, M. Vallis- neri, C. G. Trejo, and K. A. Gersbach, From the LISA 16 global fit to a catalog of Galactic binaries, Phys. Rev. D 112, 024045 (2025) , arXiv:2502.14818 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Caprini and D

    C. Caprini and D. G. Figueroa, Cosmological back- grounds of gravitational waves, Classical Quantum Grav- ity 35, 163001 (2018) , arXiv:1801.04268 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    A. I. Renzini, B. Goncharov, A. C. Jenkins, and P. M. Meyers, Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Backgrounds: Current Detection Efforts and Future Prospects, Galax- ies 10, 34 (2022) , arXiv:2202.00178 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Buscicchio, A

    R. Buscicchio, A. Klein, V. Korol, F. Di Renzo, C. J. Moore, D. Gerosa, and A. Carzaniga, Test for LISA foreground Gaussianity and stationarity: galactic white-dwarf binaries, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 887 (2025) , arXiv:2410.08263 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    M. R. Adams and N. J. Cornish, Discriminating be- tween a stochastic gravitational wave background and instrument noise, Phys. Rev. D 82, 022002 (2010) , arXiv:1002.1291 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  27. [27]

    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, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 508, 803 (2021) , arXiv:2105.04283 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Rosati and T

    R. Rosati and T. B. Littenberg, Prototype stochastic gravitational wave background recovery in the LISA global fit residual, Phys. Rev. D 112, 084060 (2025) , arXiv:2410.17180 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Cutler and É

    C. Cutler and É. E. Flanagan, Gravitational waves from merging compact binaries: How accurately can one extract the binary’s parameters from the inspiral waveform?, Phys. Rev. D 49, 2658 (1994) , arXiv:gr- qc/9402014 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 1994

  30. [30]

    Vallisneri, Use and abuse of the Fisher infor- mation matrix in the assessment of gravitational- wave parameter-estimation prospects, Phys

    M. Vallisneri, Use and abuse of the Fisher infor- mation matrix in the assessment of gravitational- wave parameter-estimation prospects, Phys. Rev. D 77, 042001 (2008) , arXiv:gr-qc/0703086 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  31. [31]

    Le Jeune and S

    M. Le Jeune and S. Babak, LISA data challenge Sangria (LDC2a), 10.5281/zenodo.7132178 (2022)

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.7132178 2022

  32. [32]

    M. L. Katz, N. Karnesis, N. Korsakova, J. R. Gair, and S. Nikolaos, Erebor LDC2A training dataset output cat- alogs, 10.5281/zenodo.11130700 (2024)

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.11130700 2024

  33. [33]

    Robson, N

    T. Robson, N. J. Cornish, and C. Liu, The construc- tion and use of LISA sensitivity curves, Classical Quan- tum Gravity 36, 105011 (2019) , arXiv:1803.01944 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    Cutler, Angular resolution of the LISA gravitational wave detector, Phys

    C. Cutler, Angular resolution of the LISA gravitational wave detector, Phys. Rev. D 57, 7089 (1998) , arXiv:gr- qc/9703068 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 1998

  35. [35]

    N. J. Cornish and L. J. Rubbo, LISA response function, Phys. Rev. D 67, 022001 (2003)

    2003

  36. [36]

    Maggiore, Stochastic backgrounds of gravitational waves, arXiv e-prints , gr-qc/0008027 (2000) , arXiv:gr- qc/0008027 [astro-ph]

    M. Maggiore, Stochastic backgrounds of gravitational waves, arXiv e-prints , gr-qc/0008027 (2000) , arXiv:gr- qc/0008027 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  37. [37]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020) , arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018