Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 165 references

LIGO Detector Characterization in the Second and Third Parts of the Fourth Observing Run

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LIGO's detector-characterization program, not the detectors alone, is what made the fourth observing run's hundreds of confident gravitational-wave detections possible.

desk verdict Solid, honest DetChar archive for O4b/O4c; the carried-over iDQ calibration is the one soft spot worth a referee comment. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12193 v1 pith:GFC2QLBV submitted 2026-08-12 astro-ph.IM gr-qc

J. Glanzer , A. F. Helmling-Cornell , A. Calafat , S. R. Callos , E. Capote , A. Effler , T. A. Ferreira , E. Goetz
show 239 more authors
A. M. Knee J. R. Mérou D. Malakar B. Mannix D. Nandi K. Pham R. M. S. Schofield P. Sharma Z. Yarbrough N. Arnaud B. K. Berger K. Burtnyk C. M. Compton G. Connolly D. Davis F. Di Renzo G. Grant J. C. Martins G. Mo A. Neunzert L. K. Nuttall J. Oberling J. R. Olson S. Soni M. Trevor R. Abbott I. Abouelfettouh R. X. Adhikari A. Ahuja S. Álvarez-López A. Ananyeva S. Appert S. K. Apple K. Arai J. Areeda N. Aritomi S. M. Aston M. Ball S. W. Ballmer D. Barker L. Barsotti J. Betzwieser Z. S. Bhalla D. Bhattacharjee G. Billingsley S. Biscans C. D. Blair N. Bode E. Bonilla V. Bossilkov A. Branch A. F. Brooks D. D. Brown R. Bruntz J. Bryant C. Cahillane H. Cao C. Chatterjee N. Christensen F. Clara J. Collins R. Cottingham D. C. Coyne R. Crouch J. Csizmazia A. Cumming L. P. Dartez N. Demos E. Dohmen K. L. Dooley J. C. Driggers S. E. Dwyer A. Ejlli T. Etzel M. Evans J. Feicht R. Frey W. Frischhertz P. Fritschel V. V. Frolov M. Fuentes-Garcia P. Fulda M. Fyffe D. Ganapathy B. Gateley T. Gayer J. A. Giaime K. D. Giardina R. Goetz G. Gonzalez A. W. Goodwin-Jones S. Gras C. Gray D. Griffith H. Grote T. Guidry J. Gurs E. D. Hall J. Hanks J. Hanson M. C. Heintze N. A. Holland N.-T. Howard D. Hoyland H. Y. Huang B. Hughey Y. Inoue A. L. James A. Jamies K. Jani R. Jaume A. Jennings W. Jia D. H. Jones H. B. Kabagoz S. Kandhasamy S. Karat S. Karki M. Kasprzack K. Kawabe N. Kijbunchoo P. J. King J. S. Kissel K. Komori A. Kontos R. Kumar K. Kuns M. Landry B. Lantz M. Laxen K. Lee M. Lesovsky F. Llamas Villarreal E. Lofquist-Fabris M. Lormand B. R. Lott H. A. Loughlin R. Macas M. MacInnis C. N. Makarem G. L. Mansell R. M. Martin K. Mason F. Matichard N. Mavalvala N. Maxwell G. McCarrol R. McCarthy D. E. McClelland S. McCormick J. McIver R. McNeil T. McRae F. Mera E. L. Merilh F. Meylahn R. Mittleman S. Mohan S D. Moraru G. Moreno A. Mullavey M. Nakano T. J. N. Nelson S. A. Nichols J. Notte T. O'Hanlon R. Oram C. Osthelder D. J. Ottaway H. Overmier W. Parker O. Patane A. Pele S. Perry H. Pham M. Pirello J. Pullin V. Quetschke K. E. Ramirez K. Ransom J. Reyes J. W. Richardson K. Riles M. Robinson J. G. Rollins C. L. Romel J. H. Romie M. P. Ross B. I. Rotimi K. Ryan T. Sadecki A. Sanchez E. J. Sanchez L. E. Sanchez R. L. Savage D. Schaetzl M. G. Schiworski R. Schnabel E. Schwartz D. Sellers T. Shaffer R. W. Short D. Sigg B. J. J. Slagmolen J. R. Smith C. Soike V. Srivastava T. Starkman L. Sun D. B. Tanner J. Tasson M. Thomas P. Thomas K. A. Thorne E. M. Todd M. R. Todd C. I. Torrie G. Traylor A. S. Ubhi R. P. Udall G. Vajente J. Vanosky A. Vecchio P. J. Veitch A. M. Vibhute E. R. G. von Reis J. Warner B. Weaver R. Weiss C. Whittle P. Wilcox B. Willke C. C. Wipf J. L. Wright V. A. Xu H. Yamamoto L. Zhang Z. Zhang M. E. Zucker
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMgr-qc
keywords LIGOdetectorcharacterizationdataqualitygravitational-wavedetectorsglitchesnoisemitigationcompactbinarycoalescencesfourthobservingruninterferometercommissioning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that LIGO's detector-characterization (DetChar) program—continuous noise monitoring, glitch mitigation, event validation, and downstream data-quality products—is what made the confident detection of hundreds of compact-binary coalescences possible during the fourth observing run. It documents the O4b and O4c operational record: hardware upgrades and repairs at both observatories, noise investigations that traced glitches and spectral lines to specific sources, and the tools used to vet candidates. The headline quantitative claims include LHO's O4c glitch rate being the lowest observed in the advanced detector era, LLO's maximum BNS range of 171.5 Mpc during O4b, and 114 public-alert candidates in O4b with only nine retractions. The paper matters because it shows how a sustained, largely manual monitoring effort translates detector engineering into astrophysical yield, and it lays out the data-quality products that searches rely on.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the DetChar operational pipeline, a closed loop of monitoring, diagnosis, mitigation, and data-quality labeling. Its main components are the Omicron Q-transform glitch finder, the Data Quality Report (DQR) with per-task false-alarm thresholds calibrated on O4a, the iDQ statistical timeseries that quantifies auxiliary-channel evidence of transient noise and down-ranks PyCBC candidates during flagged time, safe-channel lists from photon-calibrator injections, and the lines and notch lists for persistent and wandering spectral artifacts. Together these convert raw strain into a vetted, analysis-ready dataset, and the paper argues that this pipeline is what allowed hundreds of detections to be made confidently.

What would settle it

Recompute the offline iDQ false-alarm probabilities for the two-week O4c stretch shown in Figure 21 (June 24–July 8, 2025) using a calibration refit to post-O4b auxiliary data; if the fraction of livetime flagged (reported as 0.08%) or the trigger-rate enhancement in the shortest-duration bin (reported as roughly 174 times the mean) changes beyond statistical tolerance, the paper's assumption that iDQ carried over unchanged from O4a is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that detector characterization—not just detector sensitivity—determined the scientific output of O4. With a program of routine hardware injections to certify 'safe' auxiliary channels, automated and human event validation, and data-quality products such as iDQ, lines lists, and notch lists, the collaboration was able to identify hundreds of confident CBC detections, mitigate the glitches that would otherwise bias parameter estimation, and suppress correlated and non-stationary noise for burst, continuous-wave, and stochastic searches. The paper records improvements such as the reduction of LHO's glitch rate, including a 50% drop in blip-glitch rate relative to O3, and LLO's recovery from scattered-light noise after cage-baffle and HAM-1 ISI installations. It also reports that, of 114 O4b public alerts, nine were retracted, with the retractions motivated mostly by search-pipeline concerns and only a minority by data quality, and that 25 unretracted events required glitch subtraction.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's load-bearing assumption is that the iDQ glitch flag, calibrated and configured in O4a, remained valid after the major hardware changes of O4b and O4c; if auxiliary-channel noise statistics drifted, the false-alarm probabilities that down-rank candidates would no longer mean what they did.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If DetChar is as central as claimed, future observing runs with longer duration and more events will require even more automated data-quality tools, because the manual validation workload scales with event rate.
  • The success of per-task DQR thresholds calibrated on O4a suggests that recalibrating data-quality flags on accumulated data will improve true-alarm rates without inflating deadtime.
  • The iDQ down-ranking scheme, which concentrates on the shortest-duration templates most easily mimicked by glitches, shows that glitch mitigation can be targeted rather than blanket, preserving sensitivity for clean triggers.
  • Following the guidance that glitches far from a signal do not bias inference, the noise-mitigation team reduced subtraction in O4c, indicating that future runs can reserve subtraction for glitches that actually overlap the signal.
  • The documented hardware changes that reduced noise—cage baffles, HAM-1 ISI installation, NPRO replacement, and upgraded earthquake-mode control—provide a concrete template for prioritizing commissioning investments at future observatories.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the iDQ calibration actually drifted after the O4b/O4c hardware changes, the unchanged-configuration assumption would understate the false-alarm probability uncertainty; a recalibration study on post-O4b auxiliary data would settle this and could either confirm the paper's implicit transferability claim or reveal a bias in down-ranking.
  • The paper's account suggests that many noise sources are environmental and site-specific, so a similar detector-characterization program at future ground-based gravitational-wave observatories would need to re-derive safe channels, lines lists, and thresholds from scratch rather than carry them over unchanged.
  • The unexplained 12-hour BNS-range drops and 30-minute oscillations at LLO, if eventually traced to thermal lensing or mechanical coupling at the end stations, would make temperature stabilization a standard commissioning lever, extending beyond what this paper establishes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports LIGO detector characterization (DetChar) activities for the second and third parts of the fourth observing run (O4b and O4c). It documents hardware and configuration changes at LHO and LLO between the end of O4a and the end of O4c, including the OFI repair, two PSL NPRO replacements, HAM-1 ISI installations, LLO cage baffles, EQ-mode modifications, and LEMI recalibrations. It presents detector performance metrics such as BNS range, duty cycle, glitch rates, and earthquake lock survival; it describes instrumental investigations of glitches, spectral lines and combs, scattered light, electronics-ground noise, and BNS range oscillations; and it reviews event validation, the Data Quality Report, and the data quality products supplied to CBC, burst, continuous-wave, and stochastic searches. The central claim is that DetChar efforts enabled the confident detection of hundreds of compact binary coalescences during O4. The paper is candid about unresolved causal mechanisms in several investigations, appropriately labeling findings as not conclusively established.

Significance. If the operational record is accurate, the paper is a valuable reference for the LVK collaboration and for future observing runs. Its strengths include explicit caveats on non-confirmed causal interventions, the consistent use of the uncleaned strain channel for cross-period glitch-rate comparisons, detailed citations to aLOG entries and technical documents, and quantitative performance benchmarks such as the LLO maximum BNS range of 171.5 Mpc and the low LHO O4c glitch rate. Because the paper is a descriptive run summary rather than a derivation, the circularity burden is low; the main risk is traceability and calibration stability of statistical data quality products across hardware changes. If the identified calibration-transfer issue is either demonstrated to be benign or properly caveated, the paper meets the standard for publication in its field.

major comments (1)
  1. [5.2.1 (with Sections 2.3–2.5, 4.1, 4.2)] The load-bearing point that needs work is the transfer of iDQ calibration from O4a to O4b/O4c. Section 5.2.1 states that iDQ's configuration and calibration were unchanged from O4a and that PyCBC Live applies the hard cut FAP(t)<10^{-4} within ±1 s, while the offline PyCBC search folds the logL>=5 flag into its ranking statistic. Sections 2.3–2.5 document substantial hardware changes during O4b/O4c: the LHO OFI polarizer and wedge replacement, two PSL NPRO swaps, HAM-1 ISI installations at both sites, and LLO cage baffles. These changes could plausibly alter the auxiliary-channel statistics from which OVL assigns iDQ false-alarm probabilities, which would change the meaning of a given FAP value. Figure 21 shows that the O4c offline flag is strongly enriched in short-duration triggers, but enrichment is a relative statement and does not validate the absolute FAP scale on which the low-latency hard cut depends. The same concern applies to the per-task DQR thresholds introduced in Section 4.1, which were calibrated using O4a statistics and then used in O4b/O4c, and to the extension of DQR tasks to Virgo in Section 4.2. Please either provide quantitative evidence that the FAP calibrations remained stable (for example, comparisons of predicted vs. observed glitch rates in flagged epochs for each part of O4) or state explicitly that the absolute calibration was not revalidated and discuss the consequences for the low-latency hard cut and the offline down-weighting.
minor comments (6)
  1. [3.1] The claim that the LHO O4c glitch rate is the lowest observed in the advanced-detector era would be easier to verify if the paper included historical rates for O1–O3 or a citation to a comparison table; Figure 10 only shows O4a, O4b, and O4c.
  2. [4.4] Please report the number of retractions attributed to search-pipeline concerns versus data quality explicitly; the text currently says 'the majority' and lists four data-quality-related retractions, which is less precise than the rest of the paper.
  3. [Table 2] The column labeled 'Lock Probability' appears to report the fraction of earthquakes during which lock was maintained; consider renaming it for consistency with the text and stating whether the O4b-to-O4c differences are statistically significant.
  4. [5.3.2] The statement that without gating the non-stationarity cuts would remove approximately 27% of segments would benefit from a one-sentence description of how this counterfactual was estimated.
  5. [4.2] The sentence about KAGRA data, 'and hence it was not used for validation of candidates,' is slightly confusing; consider rewording to clarify that KAGRA data were ingested and processed by DQR tasks but not used in candidate validation or parameter estimation.
  6. [Throughout] Please correct minor typos: 'severly' (Section 2.4.2), 'aquisition' (Section 2.3.3), 'targetted' (Section 3.2.2), 'perfrom' (Section 4.3), 'denoates' (Figure 16 caption), and 'attmept' (reference [94]).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an operational report whose headline quantities are measurements, not fits relabeled as predictions, and its few carry-over assumptions are traceability concerns rather than self-referential derivations.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claims are empirical measurements: BNS ranges, glitch rates, line counts, retraction counts, and the O4c glitch-rate record are all direct descriptions of detector performance rather than outputs of a derivation that re-imports its own inputs. The iDQ configuration and calibration being 'unchanged from O4a' is an operational carry-forward assumption, not a circular derivation; Figure 21 supplies an independent enrichment check of the offline flag's utility, even though it does not revalidate the absolute FAP scale after hardware changes. Similarly, the DQR per-task thresholds calibrated on O4a statistics are described as an improvement, but the paper does not show those same O4a data being used as the confirmation of the improvement, so no fitted-input-called-prediction step is exhibited. References to prior LIGO detector-characterization papers and in-preparation items are continuity citations, not load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatz-smuggling devices. The absence of proof for the iDQ calibration transfer is a legitimate traceability and robustness concern, but it is not a circularity: no equation in the paper reduces to itself, and no prediction is definitionally equivalent to a fitted parameter.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is short because this is an operational review rather than a derivation. The free parameters are thresholds and calibrations of data quality tools: the DQR per-task thresholds fit to O4a false- and true-alarm statistics, the strict-notch factor of 1.5, and the non-stationarity cut threshold that is not even stated numerically. The axioms are domain assumptions about the data and the methods: Gaussianity, the safety-injection proxy, the earthquake identification criterion, and the transferability of the iDQ calibration. No entities are invented; the wandering lines, combs, and scattered light glitches are measured artifacts.

free parameters (3)
  • DQR per-task statistical thresholds = not stated numerically
    Section 4.1: 'Each task was assigned its own numerical threshold, calibrated using the false- and true-alarm statistics observed in O4a.' These thresholds were fit to O4a performance and carried into O4b and O4c; they set which candidates receive rapid human review.
  • Strict-notch StdRatio factor = 1.5
    Section 5.3.2: frequency bins whose StdRatio(f) exceeds a running local baseline by a factor of 1.5 are flagged as strict-notch candidates; the factor and the manual vetting step are analysis choices.
  • Non-stationarity cut threshold on |Delta sigma| = not stated
    Section 5.3.2: segments with |Delta sigma_i| 'above a chosen threshold' are excluded for stochastic searches; the numeric value of the threshold is not reported in the paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The LIGO strain data are 'typically Gaussian and stationary' apart from the characterized artifacts.
    Stated in the Introduction. The residual noise treatment, Gaussianity checks, and stationarity cuts all depend on this baseline assumption about the data.
  • domain assumption Photon-calibrator sine-Gaussian injections into h(t) are an adequate proxy for testing whether auxiliary channels can respond to real signals; a channel with no response is declared 'safe' for veto development.
    Section 2.1: 'A channel is considered safe only if it shows no response to these injected signals.' The injected waveforms are sine-Gaussians, not compact binary waveforms, so safety is an assumed proxy.
  • domain assumption The earthquake identification criterion (coincident 30-100 mHz vertical ground motion peaks in two or more buildings at a site) captures the population of lock-threatening earthquakes.
    Table 2 caption, Section 2.2.1. The earthquake survival fractions supporting the EQ mode improvement claim are defined by this criterion.
  • domain assumption The iDQ configuration and calibration remain valid in O4b and O4c, unchanged from O4a, despite major hardware changes to the detectors.
    Section 5.2.1: 'The configuration and calibration of iDQ were unchanged from O4a.' This is the transferability assumption behind the CBC down-ranking product, given the hardware changes in Sections 2.3 to 2.5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LIGO Detector Characterization in the Second and Third Parts of the Fourth Observing Run." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GFC2QLBV

@misc{pith2026260812193,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LIGO Detector Characterization in the Second and Third Parts of the Fourth Observing Run},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GFC2QLBV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12193}
}
read the original abstract

LIGO detector characterization efforts enabled the confident detection of gravitational waves from hundreds of compact binary coalescences during the fourth observing run. Reliable production of high quality detector data and rapid noise mitigation efforts allow the extraction of the most in-depth knowledge of gravitational wave sources and their progenitors. In this paper we describe LIGO detector characterization activities during the second and third parts of O4-O4b and O4c. We summarize changes in detector configuration and performance at the LIGO Hanford and LIGO Livingston Observatories between the end of the first part of O4a and the end of O4c, including upgrades made during the commissioning break preceding O4b and during repairs performed in O4c. We describe instrumental investigations carried out at both sites designed to understand and subsequently mitigate the effect on detector sensitivity of transient glitches, narrowband spectral lines, and vibration-driven noise, among other data quality concerns. We then review the tools and procedures used to validate gravitational wave candidates and the data quality products thus supplied to searches for gravitational waves from compact binary coalescences and unmodeled transients, continuous gravitational waves, and the stochastic gravitational wave background. The efforts of the detector characterization group are essential for maintaining and improving the sensitivity and reliability of the LIGO detectors especially as observing runs lengthen and more events are detected. We conclude with prospects for LIGO detector characterization activities in future observing runs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12193 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Representative ASDs of the GW strain noise at LHO during O4a, O4b, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Representative ASDs of the strain noise at LLO during O4a, O4b, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A comparison of the BNS range of the LIGO detectors in each part [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (20 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Range ASD for LHO during O4b and O4c. Solid lines show the median [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Range ASD for LLO during O4b and O4c [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Schematic of LLO vacuum chambers adapted from [24]. The path of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Vibration of the HAM 1 table-top before and after the ISI was installed at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Quantum noise reduction from LHO’s squeezed light system in O4a (red), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: voltage data from the FSS subsystem preceding an NPRO glitch which [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Glitch rate per hour during O4b and O4c for both detectors. In each panel, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Monthly Omicron glitch rate at LLO for SNR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Results of the pre-O4 PEM vibration noise injection campaign at LHO. PEM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Results of the post-O4 acoustic noise injection campaign. The plotting style [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Results of the pre-O4 PEM magnetic noise injection campaign. The plotting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Results of the post-O4 PEM magnetic noise injection campaign. The plotting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Scatter shelves (broadband high amplitude noise in between 8-15 Hz) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: BNS range oscillations over a stretch of 16 hours. 30-minute oscillations are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Example of the BNS range drop associated with low frequency broadband [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Spectrogram of LLO strain data over a representative continuous observing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Example of glitch mitigation performed during O4b for the event [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Impact of the offline iDQ glitch flag on the PyCBC search at LHO. For each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Left: coherence spectrum between LHO and LLO strain data over the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Standard deviation of normalized PSDs for LHO (red) and LLO over O4b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_23.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

165 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbott B Pet al2016 GW150914: First results from the search for binary black hole coalescence with Advanced LIGOPhys. Rev. D93122003 (PreprintarXiv:1602.03839)

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Abbott B Pet al(LIGO-Virgo Collaboration) 2019 GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing RunsPhys. Rev. X9031040 (PreprintarXiv:1811.12907)

    arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    Abbott Ret al(LIGO-Virgo Collaboration) 2021 GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First Half of the Third Observing RunPhys. Rev. X 11021053 (PreprintarXiv:2010.14527)

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Abbott Ret al2023 GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing RunPhys. Rev. X13041039 (PreprintarXiv: 2111.03606)

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Abac Aet al(LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration) 2025 GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational- Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo- KAGRA Observing Run (PreprintarXiv:2508.18082)

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Abac Aet al(LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration) 2026 GWTC-5.0: Observations from the Second Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run and Updates to the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog (PreprintarXiv:2605.27225)

    arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Acernese Fet al2015 Advanced Virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detectorClassical Quantum Gravity32024001 (PreprintarXiv:1408.3978)

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Astron.335–40 (PreprintarXiv:1811.08079)

    Kagra Collaboration 2019 KAGRA: 2.5 generation interferometric gravitational wave detector Nat. Astron.335–40 (PreprintarXiv:1811.08079)

    arXiv 2019

Show all 165 references
  1. [9]

    Soni Set al2025 LIGO Detector Characterization in the first half of the fourth Observing run Classical Quantum Gravity42085016 (PreprintarXiv:2409.02831)

  2. [10]

    Acernese Fet al2023 Virgo detector characterization and data quality: results from the O3 run Classical Quantum Gravity40185006 (PreprintarXiv:2210.15633)

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Akutsu Tet al2021 Overview of KAGRA: Calibration, detector characterization, physical environmental monitors, and the geophysics interferometerProgress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics202105A102 (PreprintarXiv:2009.09305)

    2009

  4. [12]

    Davis D and Capote E 2025 Guiding interferometer improvements with the frequency-dependent inspiral rangePhys. Rev. D111122005 (PreprintarXiv:2502.07253)

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Goetz Eet al2026 Narrow spectral artifact investigation and mitigation in LIGO data from the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run (PreprintarXiv:2606.05959)

  6. [14]

    Davis Det al2021 LIGO detector characterization in the second and third observing runsClassical Quantum Gravity38135014 (PreprintarXiv:2101.11673) LIGO Detector Characterization in O4b & O4c44

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Nuttall L K 2018 Characterizing transient noise in the LIGO detectorsPhilos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A37620170286 (PreprintarXiv:1804.07592)

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Abbott B P and other 2016 Characterization of transient noise in Advanced LIGO relevant to gravitational wave signal GW150914Classical Quantum Gravity33134001 (PreprintarXiv: 1602.03844)

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Zevin Met al2017 Gravity Spy: integrating advanced LIGO detector characterization, machine learning, and citizen scienceClassical Quantum Gravity34064003 (PreprintarXiv:1611.04596)

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Glanzer Jet al2023 Data quality up to the third observing run of advanced LIGO: Gravity Spy glitch classificationsClassical Quantum Gravity40065004 (PreprintarXiv:2208.12849)

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Payne E, Hourihane S, Golomb J, Udall R, Davis D and Chatziioannou K 2022 Curious case of GW200129: Interplay between spin-precession inference and data-quality issuesPhys. Rev. D 106104017 (PreprintarXiv:2206.11932)

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Lecoeuche Y, McIver J, Knee A M, Udall R, Rink K, Hourihane S, Miller S J, Chatziioannou K, Massinger T and Davis D 2026 Coalescing Compact Binary Parameter Estimation with Gravitational Waves in the Presence of non-Gaussian Transient Noise (PreprintarXiv: 2604.07668)

    2026 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Udall R, Bini S, Chatziioannou K, Davis D, Hourihane S, Lecoeuche Y, McIver J and Miller S 2026 Inferring the spins of merging black holes in the presence of data-quality issuesPhys. Rev. D113042005 (PreprintarXiv:2510.05029)

    2026

  14. [22]

    Karki Set al2016 The Advanced LIGO photon calibratorsRev. Sci. Instrum.87114503 (Preprint arXiv:1608.05055)

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Essick R, Mo G and Katsavounidis E 2021 A coincidence null test for Poisson-distributed events Phys. Rev. D103042003 (PreprintarXiv:2011.13787)

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Pem central URLhttps://pem.ligo.org/

  17. [25]

    Ganapathy Det al2023 Broadband Quantum Enhancement of the LIGO Detectors with Frequency-Dependent SqueezingPhys. Rev. X13041021

  18. [26]

    Schwartz Eet al2020 Improving the robustness of the advanced LIGO detectors to earthquakes Classical Quantum Gravity37235007 (PreprintarXiv:2007.12847)

    2007 arXiv

  19. [27]

    caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=85740

    Capote E and Warner J Trying High Bandwidth control for earthquakehttps://alog.ligo-wa. caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=85740

  20. [28]

    Pham H Start testing EQ control with ASC cut-offhttps://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/ index.php?callRep=78473

  21. [29]

    Capote Eet al2025 Advanced LIGO detector performance in the fourth observing runPhys. Rev. D111062002 (PreprintarXiv:2411.14607)

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Matichard Fet al2015 Seismic isolation of Advanced LIGO: Review of strategy, instrumentation and performanceClassical Quantum Gravity32185003 (PreprintarXiv:1502.06300)

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Nguyen P, Schofield R M S, Effler Aet al2021 Environmental noise in advanced LIGO detectors Classical Quantum Gravity38145001 (PreprintarXiv:2101.09935)

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Janssens K, Lawrence J, Effler A, Schofield R M S, Lalleman M, Betzwieser J, Christensen N, Coughlin M W, Driggers J C, Helmling-Cornell A Fet al2025 Coherent injection of magnetic noise and its impact on gravitational-wave searchesPhys. Rev. D112102003 (PreprintarXiv: 2505.11903)

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Venikoudis S, De Lillo F, Janssens K, Suresh J and Bruno G 2025 Impact of correlated magnetic noise on directional stochastic gravitational-wave background searchesPhys. Rev. D111 082005 (PreprintarXiv:2411.11746)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Abac A Get al(LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration) 2025 Upper Limits on the Isotropic Gravitational-Wave Background from the first part of LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA’s fourth Observing Run (PreprintarXiv:2508.20721)

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=84924

    Pham K, Schofield R and Campos C May 15 LEMI calibrationhttps://alog.ligo-wa.caltech. edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=84924

  28. [36]

    Effler A, Pham K, Guidry T, MacDonald T and Connolly G Vault Tests for LEMI magnetometers LIGO Detector Characterization in O4b & O4c45 calibrationhttps://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=79137

  29. [37]

    php?callRep=78903

    Bossilkov V Greater angular offload to L1https://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index. php?callRep=78903

  30. [38]

    Bossilkov V Summary of Commissioning Changeshttps://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/ index.php?callRep=78942

  31. [39]

    Driggers Jet alIFO very unhappy, something likely wrong with alignment, AS C needs strange offsetshttps://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=77368

  32. [40]

    edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=77392

    Dwyer Set alwe suspect that something in OFI has changedhttps://alog.ligo-wa.caltech. edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=77392

  33. [41]

    ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=77427

    Dwyer S Summary of alogs related to changes in our output arm this weekhttps://alog. ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=77427

  34. [42]

    Sanchez A, Kijbunchoo N and Xu V Re-aligning SQZ to current AS alignment 4.5dB, required big ZM moveshttps://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=77400

  35. [43]

    Kawabe K, Dwyer S, Crouch R and Abouelfettouh I DARM offset causing locklosses again https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=79082

  36. [44]

    ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=79101

    Dwyer S some symptoms that seem similar to April 22nd/23rd output changehttps://alog. ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=79101

  37. [45]

    Kawabe K and Dwyer S KTP wedge chipped, back up spare installed and ready to go to chamber https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=79326

  38. [46]

    Dwyer S, Kawabe K, Driggers J and Compton C FS Assmembly Reinstalled in OFIhttps: //alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=79363

  39. [47]

    caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=79690

    Gray C, Patane O, Short R and Dwyer S H1 Back To Observing!!!https://alog.ligo-wa. caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=79690

  40. [48]

    Oberling J, Short R, Dwyer S, Sanchez A, Xu V, Capote C and Compton C Overview of PSL Story so farhttps://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=81193

  41. [49]

    Driggers J Comment to: Test setup of spare NPRO does not seem to see glitches; beginning process to swap to spare NPROhttps://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php? callRep=80837

  42. [50]

    caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=80908

    Short R and Oberling J PSL NPRO Swap: It Lives! (WP 12155)https://alog.ligo-wa. caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=80908

  43. [51]

    Compton C Comparison of PSL glitches before locklosses tagged: glitches dramatically changed after NPRO swaphttps://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=81386

  44. [52]

    caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=81107

    Xu V and Oberling J PSL NPRO Crystal Temperature Tuninghttps://alog.ligo-wa. caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=81107

  45. [53]

    ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=81409

    Oberling J and Short R PSL NPRO Swap: Here We Go Again (WP 12210)https://alog. ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=81409

  46. [54]

    Robinet F, Arnaud N, Leroy N, Lundgren A, Macleod D and McIver J 2020 Omicron: A tool to characterize transient noise in gravitational-wave detectorsSoftwareX12100620 (Preprint arXiv:2007.11374)

    2020 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Brown J C 1991 Calculation of a constant Q spectral transformJ. Acoust. Soc. Am.89425–434

    1991

  48. [56]

    Davis D, Massinger T, Lundgren A, Driggers J C, Urban A L and Nuttall L 2019 Improving the sensitivity of Advanced LIGO using noise subtractionClassical Quantum Gravity36055011 (PreprintarXiv:1809.05348)

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Dartez L, Dwyer S and Vajente, G New DARM offloading reduces non-stationarity by reducing ESD drive RMS.https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=74939

  50. [58]

    Cabero Met al2019 Blip glitches in Advanced LIGO dataClassical Quantum Gravity36155010 (PreprintarXiv:1901.05093)

    1901 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Nandi D, Effler A, Soni S, Aira Ferreira T, Schofield R, Pham H, O’Hanlon T, Frolov V V and Gonz´ alez G 2026 Scattered light noise at LIGO Livingston Observatory during O4 (Preprint arXiv:2605.14143)

    2026 arXiv

  52. [60]

    ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=69626

    Ferreira T and Gonzalez G Significant discrepancy between the spectrograms from LIGO Detector Characterization in O4b & O4c46 GDS CALIB STRAIN and GDS CALIB STRAIN CLEAN/NOLINEShttps://alog. ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=69626

  53. [61]

    php?callRep=69850

    Ferreira T and Gonzalez G Omicron at GDS CALIB STRAIN and GDS CALIB STRAIN NOLINEShttps://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index. php?callRep=69850

  54. [62]

    Soni Set al2021 Reducing scattered light in LIGO’s third observing runClassical Quantum Gravity38025016 (PreprintarXiv:2007.14876)

    2007 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Schofield R CER ACs and main HVAC likely couple to DARM in input arm, possibly through MCA2 bafflehttps://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=74175

  56. [64]

    Schofield R Confirmation from laser vibrometry and beating shakers: the MC baffle by HAM3 has been producing noise in DARM and the one by HAM2 produces noise when 18 Hz vibration is increased by about 5; also, suggestions for mitigation during the January break https://alog.li...

  57. [65]

    Schofield R Evaluation of stray light work done during the break: desired reductions in vibration coupling attained for EX cryobaffle, and for input arm - after adjustment of ITMY CP yaw https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=76969

  58. [66]

    caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=79546

    Connolly G Hunting 30-40 Hz peaks with portable accelerometerhttps://alog.ligo-wa. caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=79546

  59. [67]

    caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=80182

    Callos S and Schofield R 24-30 Hz Range Noise in DARM Identificationhttps://alog.ligo-wa. caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=80182

  60. [68]

    Connolly G Identification of 30-40 Hz peaks in DARMhttps://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/ aLOG/index.php?callRep=80655

  61. [69]

    caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=82986

    Schofield R, McCarthy R, Guidry T, Connolly G, Mannix B and Olson J 35 Hz peak in DARM greatly reduced by changing the frequency of the OSB HVAC drive.https://alog.ligo-wa. caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=82986

  62. [70]

    Callos S and Schofield R 20-40 Hz HVAC Noisehttps://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/ index.php?callRep=86257

  63. [71]

    M´ erou J, Calafat A, Effler A, Dwyer S, Schofield R and Driggers J Witness channels of the set of near-30Hz and near-100Hz combs at LHOhttps://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/ index.php?callRep=87414

  64. [72]

    Aasi Jet al(LIGO Scientific Collaboration) 2015 Advanced LIGOClassical Quantum Gravity 32074001 (PreprintarXiv:1411.4547)

    2015 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Lockerbie N A, Carbone L, Shapiro B, Tokmakov K V, Bell A and Strain K A 2011 First results from the ‘Violin-Mode’ tests on an advanced LIGO suspension at MITClassical Quantum Gravity28245001

    2011

  66. [74]

    Starkman T Effect of violin mode amplitude on narrow lines near the violin modeshttps: //alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=71501

  67. [75]

    Starkman T Asymmetry in narrow line contamination in bands around violin mode frequencies https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=71800

  68. [76]

    Goetz Eet alO3 lines and combs in found in self-gated C01 datahttps://dcc.ligo.org/ LIGO-T2100200/public

  69. [77]

    org/LIGO-T2400204/public

    Goetz Eet alO4a lines and combs in found in self-gated C00 cleaned datahttps://dcc.ligo. org/LIGO-T2400204/public

  70. [78]

    Neunzert A CAL AWG LINES extra calibration lines create many narrow artifacts below 100 Hz https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=71964

  71. [79]

    Neunzert A, Goetz E, Knee A, Collier T and Marceau A Deeper study of a 2023 test shows calibration lines + violin modes = more line contamination than previously understood https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=79825

    2023

  72. [80]

    Neunzert A Relationship between violin mode height and narrow spectral artifact contamination, revisitedhttps://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=82320

  73. [81]

    Goetz E, Knee A and Neunzert A O4a lines statistics and most problematic artifactshttps: LIGO Detector Characterization in O4b & O4c47 //alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=79579

  74. [82]

    Calafat A, M´ erou J, Dwyer S, Schofield R and Driggers J Intermodulation lines andβestimation in H1:OMC-DCPD SUM OUT DQhttps://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php? callRep=87923

  75. [83]

    edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=67075

    Schofield R and Dwyer S Update on grounding noise studieshttps://alog.ligo-wa.caltech. edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=67075

  76. [84]

    Effler A PEM Injection Statushttps://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php? callRep=64609

  77. [85]

    Effler A Commissioning tests todayhttps://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php? callRep=67149

  78. [86]

    php?callRep=72118

    Schofield R ETMX bias that minimizes grounding noise coupling hasnt changed much since January, and PEM injections at 60Whttps://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index. php?callRep=72118

  79. [87]

    Schofield R, Dwyer S and Compton C ETMX bias sweep gives significantly different minimum in electronics ground noise coupling after charge change: from 150 V to new value of 58 V (1.5 bias offset)https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=78194

  80. [88]

    caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=78734

    Schofield R Slow changes of ITMY ESD bias during observationhttps://alog.ligo-wa. caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=78734

  81. [89]

    Schofield R Slow bias changes during observation completed; New ESD bias settings: ITMX 0V, ITMY -40V (-4.0 in offset window)https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php? callRep=78925

  82. [90]

    Helmling-Cornell A F, Nguyen P, Schofield R M S and Frey R 2024 Automated evaluation of environmental coupling for Advanced LIGO gravitational wave detectionsClassical Quantum Gravity41145003 (PreprintarXiv:2312.00735)

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Berger B Ket al2023 Searching for the causes of anomalous Advanced LIGO noiseAppl. Phys. Lett.122184101

  84. [92]

    Effler A, Schofield R M S, Frolov V V, Gonz´ alez G, Kawabe K, Smith J R, Birch J and McCarthy R 2015 Environmental influences on the LIGO gravitational wave detectors during the 6th science runClassical Quantum Gravity32035017 (PreprintarXiv:1409.5160)

    2015 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Short R, Glanzer J, Helmling-Cornell A, Effler A and Schofield R PEM injections successfully completed - will inform HVAC experimentshttps://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/ index.php?callRep=69745

  86. [94]

    Cahillane C Comment to: Another failed attmept to switch OMC ASC to dither alignment https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=64609

  87. [95]

    php?callRep=89929

    Callos S, Connolly G, Schofield R, Short R and Campos C PEM November 2025 Injection Coupling Analysis Completehttps://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/index. php?callRep=89929

    2025

  88. [96]

    Washimi T, Yokozawa T, Tanaka T, Itoh Y, Kume J and Yokoyama J 2021 Method for environmental noise estimation via injection tests for ground-based gravitational wave detectors Classical Quantum Gravity38125005 (PreprintarXiv:2012.09294)

    2021 arXiv

  89. [97]

    php?callRep=78693

    Pham H, O’Hanlon T and Effler A BS HEPI injections imply large amount of scattered light in the vertex, from ITM elliptical baffleshttps://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index. php?callRep=78693

  90. [98]

    Nandi D and Ferreira T Comparing the rate of scattered light glitches pre and post vent https://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=78226

  91. [99]

    Nandi D 2025 aLIGO LLO Logbookhttps://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php? callRep=75579

    2025

  92. [100]

    Pham H 2024 aLIGO LLO Logbookhttps://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php? callRep=72674

    2024

  93. [101]

    O’Hanlon T and Effler E EX Manifold Wrapped to try and affect 30 min oscillationshttps: //alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=73481 LIGO Detector Characterization in O4b & O4c48

  94. [102]

    edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=73288

    Frolov V and Effler E EX tapping tests and microseism drivehttps://alog.ligo-la.caltech. edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=73288

  95. [103]

    Berger B Wandering lines in PEM VMON channels at EX line up with BNS range oscillations https://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=80232

  96. [104]

    Berger B Time variation of wandering lines in PEM EX VMON ESDPOWER channelshttps: //alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=80556

  97. [105]

    Walker M, Agnew A F, Bidler J, Lundgren A, Macedo A, Macleod D, Massinger T J, Patane O and Smith J R 2018 Identifying correlations between LIGO’s astronomical range and auxiliary sensors using lasso regressionClassical Quantum Gravity35225002 (PreprintarXiv: 1807.02592)

    2018 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Mullavey A Unlocking ALS end-station PLLshttps://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/ index.php?callRep=75125

  99. [107]

    Grant G and Glanzer JInvestigations of Binary Neutron Star Range Oscillations at LIGO Livingstonhttps://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2500220/public

  100. [108]

    caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=72583

    Kabagoz B and Effler A Low range, sqz on off test: It’s not the squeezerhttps://alog.ligo-la. caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=72583

  101. [109]

    edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=72819

    Glanzer J Comment to: Excess noise during range oscillationhttps://alog.ligo-la.caltech. edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=72819

  102. [110]

    caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=78194

    Glanzer J Comment to: BRUCO comparision for range oscillationshttps://alog.ligo-la. caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=78194

  103. [111]

    ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=73009

    Glanzer J Potential correlation between long duration range drops and CS temphttps://alog. ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=73009

  104. [112]

    Brooks A Environmental coupling to the ITMs due to temperature excursions even with stabilized lab temperaturehttps://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=74834

  105. [113]

    caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=78104

    Iwaguchi S Comparison before and after changing AHU settingshttps://alog.ligo-la. caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=78104

  106. [114]

    Iwaguchi S AHU behavior and LVEA temperature after change of AHU1 settinghttps: //alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=78563

  107. [115]

    php?callRep=78617

    O’Hanlon T LVEA HVAC Controls Changehttps://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index. php?callRep=78617

  108. [116]

    Kandhasamy S 2024 Wandering lines in h(t) around 580 Hz and other related lineshttps: //alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=70869

    2024

  109. [117]

    Macleod D, Goetz E, Ota I, Isi M, Massinger T, Davis D, Pitkin M, Altin P and Nitz A 2024 gwpy/gwsumm: 2.2.6 URLhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10999143

    2024 doi

  110. [118]

    Comput.1827–34 ISSN 2213-1337 URLhttps: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213133716301196

    Areeda J, Smith J, Lundgren A, Maros E, Macleod D and Zweizig J 2017 LigoDV-web: Providing easy, secure and universal access to a large distributed scientific data store for the LIGO scientific collaborationAstron. Comput.1827–34 ISSN 2213-1337 URLhttps: //www.sciencedirect.co...

    2017

  111. [119]

    Fisher R P, Hemming G, Bizouard M A, Brown D A, Couvares P F, Robinet F and Verkindt D 2021 DQSEGDB: A time-interval database for storing gravitational wave observatory metadata SoftwareX14100677 (PreprintarXiv:2008.11316)

    2021 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Vajente G 2023 BruCo: Brute-force coherence noise analsysis URLhttps://git.ligo.org/ gabriele-vajente/bruco

    2023

  113. [121]

    Smith J R, Abbott T, Hirose E, Leroy N, MacLeod D, McIver J, Saulson P and Shawhan P 2011 A hierarchical method for vetoing noise transients in gravitational-wave detectorsClassical Quantum Gravity28235005 (PreprintarXiv:1107.2948)

    2011 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Isogai T, LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration 2010 Used percentage veto for LIGO and virgo binary inspiral searchesJ. Phys. Conf. Ser.(J. Phys. Conf. Ser.vol 243) (IOP) p 012005

    2010

  115. [123]

    Essick R, Godwin P, Hanna C, Blackburn L and Katsavounidis E 2020 iDQ: Statistical Inference of Non-Gaussian Noise with Auxiliary Degrees of Freedom in Gravitational-Wave Detectors LIGO Detector Characterization in O4b & O4c49 (PreprintarXiv:2005.12761)

    2020 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Davis D, Trevor M, Mozzon S and Nuttall L K 2022 Incorporating information from LIGO data quality streams into the PyCBC search for gravitational wavesPhys. Rev. D106102006 (PreprintarXiv:2204.03091)

    2022 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Talukder D 2017 LIGO Channel Activity Monitor URLhttps://github.com/dipongkar/ ligocam

    2017

  118. [126]

    Goetz E, Neunzert A and Suyamprakasam S 2025 Fscan URLhttps://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.18776397

    2025

  119. [127]

    thesis Minnesota U

    Meyers P M 2018Cross-correlation searches for persistent gravitational waves with Advanced LIGO and noise studies for current and future ground-based gravitational-wave detectorsPh.D. thesis Minnesota U

  120. [128]

    Hernandez G and E T 2023Stochmon: A LIGO Data Analysis ToolTech. Rep. T1400205 LSC URLhttps://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1400205/public

  121. [129]

    Usman S A, Nitz A H, Harry I W, Biwer C M, Brown D A, Cabero M, Capano C D, Canton T D, Dent T, Fairhurst Set al2016 The pycbc search for gravitational waves from compact binary coalescenceClassical Quantum Gravity33215004

  122. [130]

    Messick C, Blackburn K, Brady P, Brockill P, Cannon K, Cariou R, Caudill S, Chamberlin S J, Creighton J D, Everett Ret al2017 Analysis framework for the prompt discovery of compact binary mergers in gravitational-wave dataPhys. Rev. D95042001

  123. [131]

    Aubin F, Brighenti F, Chierici R, Estevez D, Greco G, Guidi G M, Juste V, Marion F, Mours B, Nitoglia Eet al2021 The mbta pipeline for detecting compact binary coalescences in the third ligo–virgo observing runClassical Quantum Gravity38095004

  124. [132]

    Luan J, Hooper S, Wen L and Chen Y 2012 Towards low-latency real-time detection of gravitational waves from compact binary coalescences in the era of advanced detectorsPhys. Rev. D85102002 (PreprintarXiv:1108.3174)

    2012 arXiv

  125. [133]

    Hooper S, Chung S K, Luan J, Blair D, Chen Y and Wen L 2012 Summed parallel infinite impulse response filters for low-latency detection of chirping gravitational wavesPhys. Rev. D 86024012 (PreprintarXiv:1108.3186)

    2012 arXiv

  126. [134]

    Marx E, Benoit W, Gunny A, Omer R, Chatterjee D, Venterea R C, Wills L, Saleem M, Moreno E, Raikman Ret al2025 Machine-learning pipeline for real-time detection of gravitational waves from compact binary coalescencesPhys. Rev. D111042010

  127. [135]

    Skliris V, Norman M R and Sutton P J 2024 Toward real-time detection of unmodeled gravitational wave transients using convolutional neural networksPhys. Rev. D110104034

    2024

  128. [136]

    Mishra T, O’Brien B, Szczepa´ nczyk M, Vedovato G, Bhaumik S, Gayathri V, Prodi G, Salemi F, Milotti E, Bartos Iet al2022 Search for binary black hole mergers in the third observing run of advanced ligo-virgo using coherent waveburst enhanced with machine learningPhys. Rev. D ...

  129. [137]

    Cornish N J, Littenberg T B, B´ ecsy B, Chatziioannou K, Clark J A, Ghonge S and Millhouse M 2021 BayesWave analysis pipeline in the era of gravitational wave observationsPhys. Rev. D 103044006 (PreprintarXiv:2011.09494)

    2021 arXiv

  130. [138]

    Di Renzo F, Fidecaro F, Razzano M and Sorrentino N 2024 BRiSTOL – a Band-limited RMS Stationarity Test Tool for Gravitational Wave Data (PreprintarXiv:2401.15392)

    2024 arXiv

  131. [139]

    Vazsonyi L and Davis D 2023 Identifying glitches near gravitational-wave signals from compact binary coalescences using the Q-transformClassical Quantum Gravity40035008 (Preprint arXiv:2208.12338)

    2023 arXiv

  132. [140]

    Mozzon S, Nuttall L K, Lundgren A, Dent T, Kumar S and Nitz A H 2020 Dynamic normalization for compact binary coalescence searches in non-stationary noiseClassical Quantum Gravity37 215014 (PreprintarXiv:2002.09407)

    2020

  133. [141]

    Macas R and Lundgren A 2023 Sensitive test of non-Gaussianity in gravitational-wave detector dataPhys. Rev. D108063016 (PreprintarXiv:2306.09019)

    2023 arXiv

  134. [142]

    ´Alvarez-L´ opez S, Liyanage A, Ding J, Ng R and McIver J 2024 GSpyNetTree: a signal-vs- LIGO Detector Characterization in O4b & O4c50 glitch classifier for gravitational-wave event candidatesClassical Quantum Gravity41085007 (PreprintarXiv:2304.09977)

    2024 arXiv

  135. [143]

    ´Alvarez-L´ opez S, Chan M L, Herbst F S, Raghunathan D, Ahuja A, Liyanage A, Ding J, Garcia- Varela A, Ng R and McIver J 2026 GSpyNetTree-O4: an event validation tool used in the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run (PreprintarXiv:2607.25208)

    2026 arXiv

  136. [144]

    Davis Det al2026 Rapid data quality investigations of gravitational-wave events with the Data Quality Report Builder toolkitarXiv e-printsarXiv:2605.16183 (PreprintarXiv:2605.16183)

    arXiv

  137. [145]

    Acernese F, Agathos M, Ain A, Albanesi S, Allocca A, Amato A, Andrade T, Andres N, Andr´ es- Carcasona M, Andri´ c Tet al2023 Virgo detector characterization and data quality: tools Classical Quantum Gravity40185005

  138. [146]

    Hourihane S and Chatziioannou K 2025 Glitches far from transient gravitational-wave events do not bias inferencePhys. Rev. D112084006 (PreprintarXiv:2506.21869)

    2025

  139. [147]

    Cornish N J and Littenberg T B 2015 Bayeswave: Bayesian inference for gravitational wave bursts and instrument glitchesClassical Quantum Gravity32135012 (PreprintarXiv:1410.3835)

    2015 arXiv

  140. [148]

    Ashton, G et al 2024 CBCFlowhttps://cbc.docs.ligo.org/projects/cbcflow/index.html

    2024

  141. [149]

    Ligo Scientific Collaboration, VIRGO Collaboration and Kagra Collaboration 2025 LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA S250108ha: Retraction of GW compact binary merger candidateGRB Coordinates Network388561

    2025

  142. [150]

    Ligo Scientific Collaboration, VIRGO Collaboration and Kagra Collaboration 2024 LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA S240420aw: Retraction of GW compact binary merger candidateGRB Coordinates Network361901

    2024

  143. [151]

    Ligo Scientific Collaboration, VIRGO Collaboration and Kagra Collaboration 2024 LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA S241104a: Retraction of GW compact binary merger candidateGRB Coordinates Network380701

    2024

  144. [152]

    Ligo Scientific Collaboration, VIRGO Collaboration and Kagra Collaboration 2024 LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA S240624cd: Retraction of GW unmodeled transient candidateGRB Coordinates Network367471

    2024

  145. [153]

    thesis University of Oregon

    Helmling-Cornell A 2025Noise Mitigation in Searches for Gravitational Waves from Compact Binaries and Cosmic StringsPh.D. thesis University of Oregon

  146. [154]

    Arnaud N 2023 LIGO and Virgo detector characterization and data quality: Contributions to the O3 run and preparation for O4Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A1048167945

    2023

  147. [155]

    Abac Aet al2026 Open Data from LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA through the Second Part of the Fourth Observing Run (PreprintarXiv:2605.27090)

    arXiv

  148. [156]

    Evans Met al2015 Observation of Parametric Instability in Advanced LIGOPhys. Rev. Lett. 114161102 (PreprintarXiv:1502.06058)

    arXiv

  149. [157]

    Essick R, Blackburn L and Katsavounidis E 2013 Optimizing vetoes for gravitational-wave transient searchesClassical Quantum Gravity30155010 (PreprintarXiv:1303.7159)

    2013 arXiv

  150. [158]

    J.923254 (PreprintarXiv:2008.07494)

    Dal Canton T, Nitz A H, Gadre B, Cabourn Davies G S, Villa-Ortega V, Dent T, Harry I and Xiao L 2021 Real-time Search for Compact Binary Mergers in Advanced LIGO and Virgo’s Third Observing Run Using PyCBC LiveAstrophys. J.923254 (PreprintarXiv:2008.07494)

    2021 arXiv

  151. [159]

    Trevor M, Cabourn Davies G S, Dal Canton T, Dent T, Harry I, Hoang S and Tolley A 2026 PyCBC Live Search for Compact Binary Mergers in Advanced LIGO and Virgo’s Fourth Observing Run (PreprintarXiv:2606.07679)

    2026 arXiv

  152. [160]

    Drago Met al2021 coherent WaveBurst, a pipeline for unmodeled gravitational-wave data analysisSoftwareX14100678 (PreprintarXiv:2006.12604)

    2006 arXiv

  153. [161]

    Macquet A, Bizouard M A, Christensen N and Coughlin M 2021 Long-duration transient gravitational-wave search pipelinePhys. Rev. D104102005 (PreprintarXiv:2108.10588)

    2021 arXiv

  154. [162]

    ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=64377

    Lundgren A Electrical glitches remain at EY after ESD transitioned to EXhttps://alog. ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=64377

  155. [163]

    Davis D, Neunzert A, Goetz E, Riles K, Wette K and Lalleman M Self-gating of O4a h(t) for use in continuous-wave searcheshttps://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2400003/public LIGO Detector Characterization in O4b & O4c51

  156. [164]

    J.95225 (PreprintarXiv:2303.15696)

    Renzini A Iet al2023 pygwb: A Python-based Library for Gravitational-wave Background SearchesAstrophys. J.95225 (PreprintarXiv:2303.15696)

    arXiv

  157. [165]

    Abac Aet alIn preparation

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.