Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 188 references

Even under the most severe detector degradations it considers, the Einstein Telescope would still detect tens of thousands of compact-binary mergers per year and keep strong prospects for stochastic backgrounds, pulsar signals, and supernov

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 09:33 UTC pith:SCT7AMT5

load-bearing objection Careful comparative simulation that maps which frequency bands drive which ET science; the summary overstates the SGWB robustness claim once correlated noise is factored in. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27311 v1 pith:SCT7AMT5 submitted 2026-07-29 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HEgr-qc

Assessing the Impact of Instrumental Requirements on the Scientific Performance of the Einstein Telescope

Ulyana Dupletsa , Francesco Iacovelli , Mikhail Korobko , Valeria Sequino , Alessandro Agapito , Manuel Arca Sedda , Biswajit Banerjee , Nicol\`o Cibrario
show 18 more authors
Andrea Cozzumbo Francesco Crescimbeni Alessio Ludovico De Santis Gabriele Franciolini Yufeng Li Michele Mancarella Benedetta Mestichelli Niccol\`o Muttoni Lavinia Paiella Ippocratis D. Saltas Filippo Santoliquido Pawan Tiwari Cristiano Ugolini Marica Branchesi Archisman Ghosh Jan Harms Michele Maggiore Fiodor Sorrentino
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords Einstein Telescopegravitational-wave detector noisecompact binary coalescenceparameter estimationstochastic gravitational-wave backgroundcontinuous gravitational wavescore-collapse supernovaedetector design trade-offs
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 builds a comparative framework that ties changes in the Einstein Telescope's expected noise to scientific output across compact-binary coalescences, stochastic backgrounds, pulsars, and core-collapse supernovae. Its central claim is that the science case survives even the largest sensitivity degradations considered: tens of thousands of detections per year, precise parameter estimation, competitive stochastic-background sensitivity, continuous waves from some known pulsars, and an extended supernova horizon. The same framework maps which frequency bands carry which science: sub-30 Hz sensitivity is essential for early-warning alerts and high-redshift reach; 30-450 Hz governs most parameter estimation; sensitivity above 450 Hz mainly buys neutron-star post-merger and supernova science. The authors intend these results as a diagnostic for design trade-offs, not as a preferred detector design.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that sensitivity losses - whether from under-performing design parameters or from an undiagnosed factor-1.5 degradation in a given frequency band - do not break the Einstein Telescope's science case. Under the worst-case combination studied, the detector would still record tens of thousands of compact-binary coalescences per year, reconstruct the binary masses to better than one part in a thousand for the majority of events, retain a plausible path to detecting astrophysical and cosmological stochastic backgrounds, detect continuous waves from known pulsars, and push the core-collapse supernova horizon beyond 100 kpc. At the same time, the paper shows which scien

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the noise power spectral density curve of each sub-detector. The paper's diagnostic device is a frequency-binned 'traffic light' scheme: it takes the baseline sensitivity, multiplies the strain amplitude by 1.5 inside a single bin (f<7 Hz, 7-10 Hz, 10-30 Hz, 30-450 Hz, >450 Hz), leaves the rest untouched, and reruns every science metric. Those metrics - detection horizons, per-population detection counts, Fisher-matrix parameter uncertainties (a standard Gaussian approximation), power-law integrated sensitivity for stochastic backgrounds, minimum detectable pulsar ellipticity, and core-collapse supernova horizons - translate a change in the noise curve into a concr

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the baseline noise budget and the assumption of uncorrelated noise between instruments faithfully represent the real detector; if correlated low-frequency noises are as large as some estimates, the stochastic-background and low-frequency claims would degrade.

What would settle it

Measure the cross-power spectral density of magnetic and seismic fields between the proposed detector sites in the 1-40 Hz band; if the correlated component raises the effective low-frequency noise by a factor approaching 1.5 relative to the uncorrelated assumption, the reported stochastic-background sensitivity curves would be optimistic by roughly that factor.

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

If this is right

  • If the noise budget and the degradation mapping are right, design teams can treat the sub-30 Hz band as the critical resource: losing it is what costs early-warning alerts, high-redshift detections, and high-SNR events.
  • If correct, moderate (intermediate-case) deviations in any single noise source can be absorbed without substantially changing detection rates or parameter estimation, so commissioning need not chase every design target to full precision immediately.
  • If correct, the high-frequency instrument mainly buys neutron-star equation-of-state science and supernova reach, not detection numbers; trade-offs that sacrifice high-frequency sensitivity disproportionately hurt tidal-deformability and post-merger measurements.
  • If correct, the 15 km L-shaped configuration's longer arms compensate for degraded noise better than the 10 km triangle does for most metrics, though the triangle retains an edge for stochastic backgrounds and BNS post-merger at the same sensitivity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension of the traffic-light idea would be to attach a cost function to each frequency bin and run an optimizer: the paper's relative ratios already provide the gradient, so an optimizer could return the cheapest way to protect early-warning and high-redshift science.
  • Because the paper degrades one bin at a time, joint degradations across two bins are not tested; given that the worst-case total hurts more than any single bin, combined losses are likely larger than the sum of individual-bin losses for BNS parameter estimation, which could matter for commissioning scenarios.
  • The missing correlated-noise term is the place to look first if the stochastic-background promise fails: the paper itself flags that f<40 Hz magnetic and Newtonian correlations could push stochastic-background sensitivity down to second-generation levels, so a measured correlation spectrum would be a sharper test of this part of the claims than any change in individual parameters.

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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops a systematic framework for translating instrument-level noise-budget degradations into science-performance metrics for the Einstein Telescope. Two ET configurations are compared (10 km triangle and 15 km double-L) using pyGWINC-based baseline noise curves. A broad metric set is applied: CBC detection horizons and rates, Fisher-matrix parameter-estimation uncertainties, BNS pre-merger alert/localization, BNS post-merger SNR, stochastic-background PLS, pulsar continuous-wave detectability, and CCSN horizons. The study examines intermediate-case and worst-case variations in four representative design parameters, plus a five-bin 'traffic-light' frequency analysis. The central claim is that even the most severe considered degradations leave the ET science case largely intact, with low-frequency sensitivity being critical for pre-merger alerts, high-redshift/high-mass sources, and SGWB searches, mid-band sensitivity governing most parameter estimation, and high-frequency sensitivity affecting tidal/post-merger and CCSN science.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a valuable reference document for ET design decisions, tying specific noise contributions and frequency bands to concrete science outcomes. The consistent methodology across many sensitivity curves, the use of established population-synthesis codes, and the public release of data and scripts are notable strengths. The comparative conclusions are supported by a dense set of tables and figures, and the paper is appropriately cautious about population modeling and the Fisher approximation in most places. The two main limitations are the Fisher-matrix basis of parameter-estimation claims and the uncorrelated-noise assumption in the SGWB analysis; both are explicitly acknowledged. The SGWB caveat, however, is not carried into the summary and conclusions, which matters because SGWB robustness is one of the five headline claims.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 6 (and Sec. 4.5)] The summary's third claim — that ET will have 'promising sensitivity to SGWBs ... allowing us to detect the astrophysical component' — is stated without the decisive caveat that appears in Sec. 4.5. There, the authors note that correlated magnetic, seismic, and Newtonian noise below ~40 Hz can degrade the SGWB sensitivity to second-generation-detector levels, citing Refs. [71,193]. Figure 18 shows the astrophysical BBH/BNS background lying close to the Baseline PLS; if correlated noise raises the PLS as much as the cited references suggest, the astrophysical component could become undetectable even with the Baseline sensitivity. Since this is one of the five 'science case remains largely intact' claims, the conclusions should either carry the caveat explicitly or include a representative correlated-noise PLS in Fig. 18. As written, Sec. 6 overstates the robustness of the SGWB part of the
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2 / Tables 4 and 5] The Summary and Conclusions present the parameter-estimation counts as evidence of 'exquisite inference' without recalling that they are computed with the Fisher-matrix approximation. The body text is careful to frame FIM results as relative indicators, and the caveats in Sec. 3 are appropriate. A one-sentence reminder in Sec. 6 would avoid over-interpreting absolute numbers, especially since many BNS signals are near the SNR threshold.
  2. [Table 3 (and Tables 4–6)] The inline layout with dashes, percentages, and parenthetical values is hard to parse in the linearized text. Please reformat the scenario rows so that each ratio is unambiguously associated with a configuration and threshold, or add explicit sub-headers. This is mostly a readability issue, but for a benchmark paper the tables are likely to be reused by readers.
  3. [Sec. 5 / Sec. 6] The statement 'low-frequency sensitivity is critical for SGWBs' is made without noting the correlated-noise issue in Sec. 5, where the PLS increase is attributed purely to the noise PSD. The unqualified discussion in Sec. 5 ('the PLS can increase by as much as a factor of 1.7') should be accompanied by the same caveat as Sec. 4.5.
  4. [Figure 2 caption] Typo: 'intermediaste' should be 'intermediate'. Also in Sec. 5, 'could yeld' should be 'could yield'.
  5. [Appendix C] The fmin robustness check is thorough and valuable. It would be helpful to add a sentence in the main text pointing to Appendix C when the fmin=2 Hz choice is first introduced, since readers may otherwise miss the robustness analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: all scientific metrics are computed from independently specified noise curves and injected populations; scenario parameters are exogenous inputs, not fitted.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a direct simulation pipeline: noise curves are generated with the independent pyGWINC software (Sec. 2), scenario parameters (temperatures, beam sizes, filter-cavity lengths, and the factor-1.5 traffic-light degradation) are explicitly stated as arbitrary, illustrative inputs rather than fitted values (Sec. 2, Fig. 3). Detection rates, parameter-estimation uncertainties, PLS curves, pulsar detectability, and CCSN horizons are all computed from these noise curves and injected populations using standard SNR/FIM formulas (Secs. 3-4). No result is defined in terms of a target conclusion, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Self-citations to Refs. [23,25] are used for configuration conventions and metric definitions, but the central robustness comparison is computed in this paper rather than imported. The only notable caveat is the uncorrelated-noise assumption for SGWB searches, explicitly flagged in Sec. 2 and Sec. 4.5 with references to Refs. [71,193]; Sec. 6 restates the SGWB claim without the caveat. That is an overstatement/correctness risk, not a circular reduction: the PLS calculation does not assume the astrophysical background it is compared against, and the caveat is an acknowledged modeling limitation rather than a hidden input. No equation is shown to equal another by construction, no uniqueness theorem is imported to force a choice, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The paper's stated purpose is explicitly comparative and diagnostic, which further reduces any risk that the science-case conclusions are baked into the inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is a simulation benchmark. It imports many astrophysical and instrumental models as inputs. The only hand-tuned elements are the degradation scenarios and bin edges, which are clearly labeled as illustrative. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Amplitude degradation factor (traffic-light bins) = 1.5
    Chosen for illustration to approximately match the total worst-case degradation over a broad band (Section 2). Not derived from requirements.
  • Frequency bin edges = 7/10/30/450 Hz
    Hand-selected boundaries corresponding to dominant noise/subsystem bands (Section 2, Figure 3).
  • IC/WC scenario parameter values = FC 3/1 km; Tcoat 20/70 K; Tsusp 20/70 K; HF beam 9.6/7.2 cm
    Representative intermediate and worst-case choices defined solely for this study (Table 1). Not intended as realistic projections.
  • Detection SNR thresholds = 8 (BNS), 12 (BBH), 50/100 high-SNR tails
    Conventional thresholds chosen to define 'detection'; moderate impact on ratios between scenarios.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption pyGWINC noise models faithfully represent the ET noise budget
    All sensitivity curves are generated with pyGWINC (Section 2). If actual noises differ (e.g., control noise, scattered light), the relative impacts could change.
  • domain assumption Detector noises are uncorrelated between instruments
    Stated in Section 2; heavily affects the SGWB metric (Section 4.5), where the authors note correlated noise could reduce sensitivity to second-generation levels.
  • domain assumption Fisher information matrix gives reliable relative PE uncertainties
    Used for BNS/BBH parameter estimation (Section 3); limitations cited from Refs [76,77], especially for co-located instruments.
  • domain assumption CBC population models (sevn, b-pop, fastcluster, cosmoRate) are representative
    Section 3.1. Merger rates and mass/spin distributions are inputs from prior work; absolute numbers depend on these assumptions, but the paper claims relative impacts are preserved.
  • domain assumption Waveform models and NR simulations are adequate for SNR/PE calculations
    Sections 4.1-4.4: IMRPhenomD/XPHM, NRTidalv2, and selected CoRe NR waveforms are used; systematic waveform errors are not quantified.
  • standard math Planck18 cosmology
    Used to convert redshifts to luminosity distances (Section 3).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 55489 in / 11615 out tokens · 108324 ms · 2026-08-01T09:33:52.132079+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the relationship between instrumental requirements and the scientific performance of the Einstein Telescope (ET), a third-generation (3G) gravitational-wave (GW) observatory. Different technical design choices result in distinct noise budgets, ultimately shaping the detector's scientific capabilities. To systematically assess and compare their impact, we define a comprehensive set of performance metrics spanning compact binary coalescence (CBC) detection and parameter estimation, as well as other sources, including stochastic GW backgrounds, isolated spinning neutron stars, and core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe). We build a comparative reference framework that links degradations in specific noise contributions and frequency bands to losses in scientific capabilities. We consider a representative selection of technical parameters, such as coating and suspension temperatures, the filter cavity length in the low-frequency instrument, and the beam size in the high-frequency instrument. We evaluate how sensitivity variations across specific frequency bands affect different scientific objectives. We quantify how the sensitivity below 30 Hz impacts the detectability of massive and/or high-redshift sources and the reconstruction of long-duration CBC signals, affecting early warning and sky localization for binary neutron stars (BNSs). Sensitivity in the 30-450 Hz range governs most CBC parameter-estimation metrics, while high-frequency sensitivity above ~450 Hz predominantly impacts BNS post-merger studies and CCSN detectability, with modest effects on detection rates. Even with the most significant degradations considered, the ET science case remains robust overall. Our results provide a comprehensive benchmark linking scientific objectives to instrumental requirements, particularly important as the final design and infrastructure of 3G observatories are being defined.

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

188 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Pushing towards the ET sensitivity using ’conventional’ technology,

    S. Hild, S. Chelkowski, and A. Freise, “Pushing towards the ET sensitivity using ’conventional’ technology,” (2008) ,arXiv:0810.0604 [gr-qc]. – 60 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  2. [17]

    The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory,

    M. Punturoet al., “The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory,”Class. Quant. Grav.27(2010) 194002

    2010

  3. [18]

    Sensitivity Studies for Third-Generation Gravitational Wave Observatories,

    S. Hildet al., “Sensitivity Studies for Third-Generation Gravitational Wave Observatories,” Class. Quant. Grav.28(2011) 094013,arXiv:1012.0908 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  4. [19]

    Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO,

    D. Reitzeet al., “Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO,”Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51no. 7, (2019) 035,arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  5. [20]

    A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community,

    M. Evanset al., “A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community,” (9, 2021) ,arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [21]

    Cosmic Explorer: A Submission to the NSF MPSAC ngGW Subcommittee,

    M. Evanset al., “Cosmic Explorer: A Submission to the NSF MPSAC ngGW Subcommittee,” (6, 2023) ,arXiv:2306.13745 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [22]

    Science Case for the Einstein Telescope,

    M. Maggioreet al., “Science Case for the Einstein Telescope,”JCAP2020no. 03, (2020) 050, arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [23]

    Science with the Einstein Telescope: a comparison of different designs,

    M. Branchesiet al., “Science with the Einstein Telescope: a comparison of different designs,” JCAP2023no. 07, (2023) 068,arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [24]

    Characterizing gravitational wave detector networks: from A♯ to cosmic explorer,

    I. Guptaet al., “Characterizing gravitational wave detector networks: from A♯ to cosmic explorer,”Class. Quant. Grav.41no. 24, (2024) 245001,arXiv:2307.10421 [gr-qc]. [25]ETCollaboration, A. Abacet al., “The Science of the Einstein Telescope,”JCAP2026 no. 03, (2026) 081,arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [26]

    Listening to the Universe with next generation ground-based gravitational-wave detectors,

    S. Borhanian and B. S. Sathyaprakash, “Listening to the Universe with next generation ground-based gravitational-wave detectors,”Phys. Rev. D110no. 8, (2024) 083040, arXiv:2202.11048 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [27]

    Perspectives for multimessenger astronomy with the next generation of gravitational-wave detectors and high-energy satellites,

    S. Ronchini, M. Branchesi, G. Oganesyan, B. Banerjee, U. Dupletsa, G. Ghirlanda, J. Harms, M. Mapelli, and F. Santoliquido, “Perspectives for multimessenger astronomy with the next generation of gravitational-wave detectors and high-energy satellites,”Astron. Astrophys.665 (2022) A97,arXiv:2204.01746 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [28]

    Detectability and parameter estimation of stellar origin black hole binaries with next generation gravitational wave detectors,

    M. Pieroni, A. Ricciardone, and E. Barausse, “Detectability and parameter estimation of stellar origin black hole binaries with next generation gravitational wave detectors,” arXiv:2203.12586 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [29]

    Forecasting the detection capabilities of third-generation gravitational-wave detectors using GWFAST,

    F. Iacovelli, M. Mancarella, S. Foffa, and M. Maggiore, “Forecasting the detection capabilities of third-generation gravitational-wave detectors using GWFAST,”Astrophys. J.941no. 2, (2022) 208,arXiv:2207.02771 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [30]

    Detectability and parameter estimation for Einstein Telescope configurations with GWJulia,

    A. Begnoni, S. Anselmi, M. Pieroni, A. Renzi, and A. Ricciardone, “Detectability and parameter estimation for Einstein Telescope configurations with GWJulia,”JCAP05(2026) 079,arXiv:2506.21530 [astro-ph.CO]. [31]LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRACollaboration, A. G. Abacet al., “GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  15. [32]

    Forecasting the population properties of merging black holes,

    V. De Renzis, F. Iacovelli, D. Gerosa, M. Mancarella, and C. Pacilio, “Forecasting the population properties of merging black holes,”Phys. Rev. D111no. 4, (2025) 044048, arXiv:2410.17325 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [33]

    Constraining Population III stellar demographics with next-generation gravitational-wave observatories,

    C. Plunkett, M. Mould, and S. Vitale, “Constraining Population III stellar demographics with next-generation gravitational-wave observatories,”Phys. Rev. D112no. 2, (2025) 023039, arXiv:2504.18615 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [34]

    Testing the nature of dark compact objects with gravitational waves,

    E. Maggio, P. Pani, and G. Raposo, “Testing the nature of dark compact objects with gravitational waves,”arXiv:2105.06410 [gr-qc]. – 61 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [35]

    Can we identify primordial black holes? Tidal tests for subsolar-mass gravitational-wave observations,

    F. Crescimbeni, G. Franciolini, P. Pani, and A. Riotto, “Can we identify primordial black holes? Tidal tests for subsolar-mass gravitational-wave observations,”Phys. Rev. D109 no. 12, (2024) 124063,arXiv:2402.18656 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [36]

    Limits on the existence of totally reflective exotic compact objects with current and future gravitational-wave detectors,

    S. Mastrogiovanni, E. Maggio, and A. F. Mascioli, “Limits on the existence of totally reflective exotic compact objects with current and future gravitational-wave detectors,”Class. Quant. Grav.42(2025) 135016,arXiv:2502.07675 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [37]

    Determining the equation of state of neutron stars with Einstein Telescope using tidal effects and r-mode excitations from a population of binary inspirals,

    P. K. Gupta, A. Puecher, P. T. H. Pang, J. Janquart, G. Koekoek, and C. Broeck Van Den, “Determining the equation of state of neutron stars with Einstein Telescope using tidal effects and r-mode excitations from a population of binary inspirals,”arXiv:2205.01182 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [38]

    Nuclear physics constraints from binary neutron star mergers in the Einstein Telescope era,

    F. Iacovelli, M. Mancarella, C. Mondal, A. Puecher, T. Dietrich, F. Gulminelli, M. Maggiore, and M. Oertel, “Nuclear physics constraints from binary neutron star mergers in the Einstein Telescope era,”Phys. Rev. D108no. 12, (2023) 122006,arXiv:2308.12378 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [39]

    Probing multiple populations of compact binaries with third-generation gravitational-wave detectors,

    K. K. Y. Ng, S. Vitale, W. M. Farr, and C. L. Rodriguez, “Probing multiple populations of compact binaries with third-generation gravitational-wave detectors,”Astrophys. J. Lett.913 no. 1, (2021) L5,arXiv:2012.09876 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [40]

    Exploring compact binary populations with the Einstein Telescope,

    N. Singh, T. Bulik, K. Belczynski, and A. Askar, “Exploring compact binary populations with the Einstein Telescope,”arXiv:2112.04058 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [41]

    Probing Fundamental Physics with Gravitational Waves: The Next Generation,

    S. E. Perkins, N. Yunes, and E. Berti, “Probing Fundamental Physics with Gravitational Waves: The Next Generation,”Phys. Rev. D103no. 4, (2021) 044024,arXiv:2010.09010 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [42]

    Landscape of stellar-mass black-hole spectroscopy with third-generation gravitational-wave detectors,

    S. Bhagwat, C. Pacilio, P. Pani, and M. Mapelli, “Landscape of stellar-mass black-hole spectroscopy with third-generation gravitational-wave detectors,”Phys. Rev. D108no. 4, (2023) 043019,arXiv:2304.02283 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [43]

    Tests of General Relativity with Einstein Telescope,

    A. Begnoni, W. Del Pozzo, M. Pegorin, J. Pomper, and A. Ricciardone, “Tests of General Relativity with Einstein Telescope,”arXiv:2511.07520 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  27. [44]

    Cosmology and dark energy from joint gravitational wave-GRB observations,

    E. Belgacem, Y. Dirian, S. Foffa, E. J. Howell, M. Maggiore, and T. Regimbau, “Cosmology and dark energy from joint gravitational wave-GRB observations,”JCAP1908(2019) 015, arXiv:1907.01487 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [45]

    Dark siren cosmology with binary black holes in the era of third-generation gravitational wave detectors,

    N. Muttoni, D. Laghi, N. Tamanini, S. Marsat, and D. Izquierdo-Villalba, “Dark siren cosmology with binary black holes in the era of third-generation gravitational wave detectors,” Phys. Rev. D108no. 4, (2023) 043543,arXiv:2303.10693 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [46]

    Pushing spectral siren cosmology into the third-generation era: a blinded mock data challenge,

    M. Tagliazucchi, M. Moresco, A. Agapito, M. Mancarella, S. Ferraiuolo, S. Mastrogiovanni, N. Borghi, F. Pannarale, and D. Bonacorsi, “Pushing spectral siren cosmology into the third-generation era: a blinded mock data challenge,”arXiv:2602.17756 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [47]

    Core-Collapse Supernovae and their Gravitational Wave Signals: The Status of Theory and Modeling,

    B. Müller, “Core-Collapse Supernovae and their Gravitational Wave Signals: The Status of Theory and Modeling,”arXiv:2603.24243 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [48]

    Core-Collapse Supernovae and Multi-Messenger Astronomy,

    C. Fryer, E. Burns, P. Roming, S. Couch, M. Szczepańczyk, P. Slane, I. Tamborra, and R. Trappitsch, “Core-Collapse Supernovae and Multi-Messenger Astronomy,” BAAS51no. 3, (May, 2019) 122.https://baas.aas.org/pub/2020n3i122

    2019

  32. [49]

    Towards multi-messenger observations of core-collapse supernovae harbouring choked jets,

    A. Zegarelli, D. Guetta, S. Celli, S. Gagliardini, I. Bartos, and I. Di Palma, “Towards multi-messenger observations of core-collapse supernovae harbouring choked jets,”Astron. Astrophys.690(2024) A187,arXiv:2403.16234 [astro-ph.HE]. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 698, C1 (2025)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [50]

    Stochastic Gravitational Wave Backgrounds,

    N. Christensen, “Stochastic Gravitational Wave Backgrounds,”Rept. Prog. Phys.82no. 1, (2019) 016903,arXiv:1811.08797 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [51]

    Cosmological Backgrounds of Gravitational Waves,

    C. Caprini and D. G. Figueroa, “Cosmological Backgrounds of Gravitational Waves,”Class. Quant. Grav.35(2018) 163001,arXiv:1801.04268 [astro-ph.CO]. – 62 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [52]

    Design Report Update 2020 for the Einstein Telescope

    ET Steering Committee Editorial Team, “Design Report Update 2020 for the Einstein Telescope.” Publicly viewable document on et tds, 2020. https://apps.et-gw.eu/tds/?r=18715

    2020

  36. [53]

    The ET Baseline Detector Layout by Design Task Force,

    Design Task Force, F. Sorrentino,et al., “The ET Baseline Detector Layout by Design Task Force,” 2025.https://apps.et-gw.eu/tds/?r=19915. ET-0482A-25

    2025

  37. [54]

    Guiding interferometer improvements with the frequency-dependent inspiral range,

    D. Davis and E. Capote, “Guiding interferometer improvements with the frequency-dependent inspiral range,”Phys. Rev. D111no. 12, (2025) 122005,arXiv:2502.07253 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [55]

    A Xylophone Configuration for a third Generation Gravitational Wave Detector,

    S. Hild, S. Chelkowski, A. Freise, J. Franc, N. Morgado, R. Flaminio, and R. DeSalvo, “A Xylophone Configuration for a third Generation Gravitational Wave Detector,”Class. Quant. Grav.27(2010) 015003,arXiv:0906.2655 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  39. [56]

    pygwinc: Gravitational Wave Interferometer Noise Calculator

    J. G. Rollins, E. Hall, C. Wipf, and L. McCuller, “pygwinc: Gravitational Wave Interferometer Noise Calculator.” Astrophysics source code library, record ascl:2007.020, July, 2020

    2007

  40. [57]

    Quantum-Mechanical Radiation-Pressure Fluctuations in an Interferometer,

    C. Caves, “Quantum-Mechanical Radiation-Pressure Fluctuations in an Interferometer,”Phys. Rev. Lett.45no. 2, (1980) 75–79

    1980

  41. [58]

    Quantum Mechanical Noise in an Interferometer,

    C. M. Caves, “Quantum Mechanical Noise in an Interferometer,”Phys. Rev. D23(1981) 1693–1708

    1981

  42. [59]

    Quantum Measurement Theory in Gravitational-Wave Detectors,

    S. L. Danilishin and F. Y. Khalili, “Quantum Measurement Theory in Gravitational-Wave Detectors,”Living Rev. Rel.15(2012) 5,arXiv:1203.1706 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  43. [60]

    Signal recycled laser interferometer gravitational wave detectors as optical springs,

    A. Buonanno and Y. Chen, “Signal recycled laser interferometer gravitational wave detectors as optical springs,”Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 042001,arXiv:gr-qc/0107021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  44. [61]

    Squeezed input, optical spring, signal recycled gravitational wave detectors,

    J. Harms, Y.-b. Chen, S. Chelkowski, A. Franzen, H. Vahlbruch, K. Danzmann, and R. Schnabel, “Squeezed input, optical spring, signal recycled gravitational wave detectors,” Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 042001,arXiv:gr-qc/0303066

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  45. [62]

    Conversion of conventional gravitational wave interferometers into QND interferometers by modifying their input and / or output optics,

    H. J. Kimble, Y. Levin, A. B. Matsko, K. S. Thorne, and S. P. Vyatchanin, “Conversion of conventional gravitational wave interferometers into QND interferometers by modifying their input and / or output optics,”Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 022002,arXiv:gr-qc/0008026. [63]VirgoCollaboration, F. Acerneseet al., “Frequency-Dependent Squeezed Vacuum Source for the Ad...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  46. [65]

    Squeezing the quantum noise of a gravitational-wave detector below the standard quantum limit,

    W. Jiaet al., “Squeezing the quantum noise of a gravitational-wave detector below the standard quantum limit,”Science385no. 6715, (2024) 1318,arXiv:2404.14569 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [66]

    Quantum Technologies for the Einstein Telescope,

    M. Korobko, “Quantum Technologies for the Einstein Telescope,”Galaxies13no. 1, (Feb.,

  48. [67]

    Squeezed states of light and their applications in laser interferometers,

    R. Schnabel, “Squeezed states of light and their applications in laser interferometers,”Physics Reports684(2017) 1–51

    2017

  49. [68]

    Decoherence and degradation of squeezed states in quantum filter cavities,

    P. Kwee, J. Miller, T. Isogai, L. Barsotti, and M. Evans, “Decoherence and degradation of squeezed states in quantum filter cavities,”Phys. Rev. D90no. 6, (2014) 062006, arXiv:1704.03531 [physics.optics]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  50. [69]

    Thermal noise in interferometric gravitational wave detectors due to dielectric optical coatings,

    G. M. Harryet al., “Thermal noise in interferometric gravitational wave detectors due to dielectric optical coatings,”Class. Quant. Grav.19(2002) 897–918,arXiv:gr-qc/0109073

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  51. [70]

    Cryogenic payloads for the Einstein Telescope: Baseline design with heat extraction, suspension thermal noise modeling, and sensitivity analyses,

    X. Koroveshi, L. Busch, E. Majorana, P. Puppo, P. Rapagnani, F. Ricci, P. Ruggi, and S. Grohmann, “Cryogenic payloads for the Einstein Telescope: Baseline design with heat extraction, suspension thermal noise modeling, and sensitivity analyses,”Phys. Rev. D108 no. 12, (2023) 123009,arXiv:2305.01419 [astro-ph.IM]. – 63 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  52. [71]

    Correlated 0.01–40 Hz seismic and Newtonian noise and its impact on future gravitational-wave detectors,

    K. Janssenset al., “Correlated 0.01–40 Hz seismic and Newtonian noise and its impact on future gravitational-wave detectors,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 10, (2024) 102002, arXiv:2402.17320 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [72]

    Prompt merger collapse and the maximum mass of neutron stars,

    A. Bauswein, T. W. Baumgarte, and H. T. Janka, “Prompt merger collapse and the maximum mass of neutron stars,”Phys. Rev. Lett.111no. 13, (2013) 131101,arXiv:1307.5191 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  54. [73]

    A General-relativistic Determination of the Threshold Mass to Prompt Collapse in Binary Neutron Star Mergers,

    S. Köppel, L. Bovard, and L. Rezzolla, “A General-relativistic Determination of the Threshold Mass to Prompt Collapse in Binary Neutron Star Mergers,”Astrophys. J. Lett.872no. 1, (2019) L16,arXiv:1901.09977 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  55. [74]

    Inferring Prompt Black-Hole Formation in Neutron Star Mergers from Gravitational-Wave Data,

    M. Agathos, F. Zappa, S. Bernuzzi, A. Perego, M. Breschi, and D. Radice, “Inferring Prompt Black-Hole Formation in Neutron Star Mergers from Gravitational-Wave Data,”Phys. Rev. D 101no. 4, (2020) 044006,arXiv:1908.05442 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  56. [75]

    Method for all-sky searches of continuous gravitational wave signals using the frequency-Hough transform,

    P. Astone, A. Colla, S. D’Antonio, S. Frasca, and C. Palomba, “Method for all-sky searches of continuous gravitational wave signals using the frequency-Hough transform,” Phys. Rev. D90 no. 4, (Aug., 2014) 042002,arXiv:1407.8333 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  57. [76]

    Use and abuse of the Fisher information matrix in the assessment of gravitational-wave parameter-estimation prospects,

    M. Vallisneri, “Use and abuse of the Fisher information matrix in the assessment of gravitational-wave parameter-estimation prospects,”Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 042001, arXiv:gr-qc/0703086

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  58. [77]

    Inadequacies of the Fisher Information Matrix in gravitational-wave parameter estimation,

    C. L. Rodriguez, B. Farr, W. M. Farr, and I. Mandel, “Inadequacies of the Fisher Information Matrix in gravitational-wave parameter estimation,”Phys. Rev. D88no. 8, (2013) 084013, arXiv:1308.1397 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  59. [78]

    Validating prior-informed Fisher-matrix analyses against GWTC data,

    U. Dupletsa, J. Harms, K. K. Y. Ng, J. Tissino, F. Santoliquido, and A. Cozzumbo, “Validating prior-informed Fisher-matrix analyses against GWTC data,”Phys. Rev. D111 no. 2, (2025) 024036,arXiv:2404.16103 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [79]

    The Critical Role of LIGO-India in the Era of Next-generation Observatories,

    S. Pandey, I. Gupta, K. Chandra, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, “The Critical Role of LIGO-India in the Era of Next-generation Observatories,”Astrophys. J. Lett.985no. 1, (2025) L17, arXiv:2411.10349 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  61. [80]

    Comparing next-generation detector configurations for high-redshift gravitational wave sources with neural posterior estimation,

    F. Santoliquido, J. Tissino, U. Dupletsa, M. Branchesi, and J. Harms, “Comparing next-generation detector configurations for high-redshift gravitational wave sources with neural posterior estimation,”Astron. Astrophys.708(2026) A175,arXiv:2512.20699 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  62. [81]

    Fast and accurate parameter estimation of high-redshift sources with the Einstein Telescope,

    F. Santoliquidoet al., “Fast and accurate parameter estimation of high-redshift sources with the Einstein Telescope,”Phys. Rev. D112no. 10, (2025) 103015,arXiv:2504.21087 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  63. [82]

    Impact of the Einstein Telescope’s duty cycle on the estimation of binary black holes parameters,

    L. Negriet al., “Impact of the Einstein Telescope’s duty cycle on the estimation of binary black holes parameters,”arXiv:2606.19201 [gr-qc]. [83]PlanckCollaboration, N. Aghanimet al., “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,”Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6,arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]. [84]AstropyCol...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  64. [85]

    Using final black hole spins and masses to infer the formation history of the observed population of gravitational wave sources,

    M. Arca Sedda and M. Benacquista, “Using final black hole spins and masses to infer the formation history of the observed population of gravitational wave sources,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.482no. 3, (2019) 2991–3010,arXiv:1806.01285 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  65. [86]

    Fingerprints of – 64 – binary black hole formation channels encoded in the mass and spin of merger remnants,

    M. Arca Sedda, M. Mapelli, M. Spera, M. Benacquista, and N. Giacobbo, “Fingerprints of – 64 – binary black hole formation channels encoded in the mass and spin of merger remnants,” Astrophys. J.894no. 2, (2020) 133,arXiv:2003.07409 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  66. [87]

    Isolated and dynamical black hole mergers with B-POP: the role of star formation and dynamics, star cluster evolution, natal kicks, mass and spins, and hierarchical mergers,

    M. Arca Sedda, M. Mapelli, M. Benacquista, and M. Spera, “Isolated and dynamical black hole mergers with B-POP: the role of star formation and dynamics, star cluster evolution, natal kicks, mass and spins, and hierarchical mergers,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.520 no. 4, (2023) 5259–5282,arXiv:2109.12119 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  67. [88]

    Compact object mergers: exploring uncertainties from stellar and binary evolution with sevn,

    G. Iorioet al., “Compact object mergers: exploring uncertainties from stellar and binary evolution with sevn,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.524no. 1, (2023) 426–470, arXiv:2211.11774 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  68. [89]

    Massive binary black holes from Population II and III stars,

    G. Costa, M. Mapelli, G. Iorio, F. Santoliquido, G. J. Escobar, R. S. Klessen, and A. Bressan, “Massive binary black holes from Population II and III stars,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 525no. 2, (2023) 2891–2906,arXiv:2303.15511 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  69. [90]

    The cosmic merger rate density of compact objects: impact of star formation, metallicity, initial mass function and binary evolution,

    F. Santoliquido, M. Mapelli, N. Giacobbo, Y. Bouffanais, and M. C. Artale, “The cosmic merger rate density of compact objects: impact of star formation, metallicity, initial mass function and binary evolution,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.502no. 4, (2021) 4877–4889, arXiv:2009.03911 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  70. [91]

    The cosmic merger rate density evolution of compact binaries formed in young star clusters and in isolated binaries,

    F. Santoliquido, M. Mapelli, Y. Bouffanais, N. Giacobbo, U. N. Di Carlo, S. Rastello, M. C. Artale, and A. Ballone, “The cosmic merger rate density evolution of compact binaries formed in young star clusters and in isolated binaries,”Astrophys. J.898no. 2, (2020) 152, arXiv:2004.09533 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  71. [92]

    Binary black hole mergers from population III stars: uncertainties from star formation and binary star properties,

    F. Santoliquido, M. Mapelli, G. Iorio, G. Costa, S. C. O. Glover, T. Hartwig, R. S. Klessen, and L. Merli, “Binary black hole mergers from population III stars: uncertainties from star formation and binary star properties,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.524no. 1, (2023) 307–324,arXiv:2303.15515 [astro-ph.GA]. [Erratum: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 528, 954–962 (2024)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  72. [93]

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

    M. Mapelliet al., “Hierarchical black hole mergers in young, globular and nuclear star clusters: the effect of metallicity, spin and cluster properties,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 505no. 1, (2021) 339–358,arXiv:2103.05016 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  73. [94]

    The cosmic evolution of binary black holes in young, globular, and nuclear star clusters: rates, masses, spins, and mixing fractions,

    M. Mapelli, Y. Bouffanais, F. Santoliquido, M. Arca Sedda, and M. C. Artale, “The cosmic evolution of binary black holes in young, globular, and nuclear star clusters: rates, masses, spins, and mixing fractions,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.511no. 4, (2022) 5797–5816, arXiv:2109.06222 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  74. [95]

    Searching for primordial black holes with the Einstein Telescope: Impact of design and systematics,

    G. Franciolini, F. Iacovelli, M. Mancarella, M. Maggiore, P. Pani, and A. Riotto, “Searching for primordial black holes with the Einstein Telescope: Impact of design and systematics,” Phys. Rev. D108no. 4, (2023) 043506,arXiv:2304.03160 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  75. [96]

    Merging black hole binaries with the SEVN code,

    M. Spera, M. Mapelli, N. Giacobbo, A. A. Trani, A. Bressan, and G. Costa, “Merging black hole binaries with the SEVN code,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.485no. 1, (2019) 889–907, arXiv:1809.04605 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  76. [97]

    Impact of the Rotation and Compactness of Progenitors on the Mass of Black Holes,

    M. Mapelli, M. Spera, E. Montanari, M. Limongi, A. Chieffi, N. Giacobbo, A. Bressan, and Y. Bouffanais, “Impact of the Rotation and Compactness of Progenitors on the Mass of Black Holes,”Astrophys. J.888(2020) 76,arXiv:1909.01371 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  77. [98]

    Radiation Backgrounds at Cosmic Dawn: X-Rays from Compact Binaries,

    P. Madau and T. Fragos, “Radiation Backgrounds at Cosmic Dawn: X-Rays from Compact Binaries,”Astrophys. J.840no. 1, (2017) 39,arXiv:1606.07887 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  78. [99]

    Prospects for optical detections from binary neutron star mergers with the next-generation multi-messenger observatories,

    E. Loffredoet al., “Prospects for optical detections from binary neutron star mergers with the next-generation multi-messenger observatories,”Astron. Astrophys.697(2025) A36, arXiv:2411.02342 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  79. [100]

    The Dense Matter – 65 – Equation of State from Neutron Star Radius and Mass Measurements,

    F. Ozel, D. Psaltis, T. Guver, G. Baym, C. Heinke, and S. Guillot, “The Dense Matter – 65 – Equation of State from Neutron Star Radius and Mass Measurements,”Astrophys. J.820 no. 1, (2016) 28,arXiv:1505.05155 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  80. [101]

    The Neutron Star Mass Distribution,

    B. Kiziltan, A. Kottas, M. De Yoreo, and S. E. Thorsett, “The Neutron Star Mass Distribution,”Astrophys. J.778(2013) 66,arXiv:1309.6635 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

Showing first 80 references.