Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 88 references

Full-Covariance Bayesian Inference of Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with Time-Domain Simulations for Taiji-like Missions

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Full 3×3 channel covariance recovers Taiji's stochastic gravitational-wave background.

desk verdict Useful simulation-to-inference framework for Taiji SGWB analyses, but the written method omits the Hann-window gain correction, so the central few-percent validation claim needs clarification before the numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11276 v1 pith:5PT4FYAY submitted 2026-08-11 astro-ph.IM gr-qchep-ph

Qingyuan Liang , Ju Chen , Minghui Du , Huai-Ke Guo This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMgr-qchep-ph
keywords stochasticgravitationalwavebackgroundtime-delayinterferometryBayesianinferenceTaijifullcovariancelikelihoodresponsefunctionsnoisetransferphasetransitionwaves
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 establishes a simulation-to-inference pipeline for stochastic gravitational-wave background searches in a Taiji-like space mission. The authors divide simulated second-generation time-delay-interferometry X, Y, Z streams into one-day segments and model each segment's Fourier coefficients with a segment-dependent complex 3×3 covariance built from orbital response functions and instrumental-noise transfer functions. Controlled simulations show that the calculated spectra match the ensemble-averaged simulated spectra at the few-percent level away from the TDI null frequencies. Using a matched full-covariance likelihood, Bayesian parameter estimation recovers injected astrophysical-background, galactic-foreground, instrumental-noise, and, in the ten-parameter benchmark, phase-transition sound-wave parameters consistently across equal-arm frequency-domain, equal-arm time-domain, and unequal-arm time-domain configurations. If this holds for real mission data, the simplified equal-arm frequency-domain likelihood is a trustworthy baseline for detectability forecasts as long as the inference model is kept consistent with the data-generation geometry.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the segment-dependent Hermitian spectral matrix $P^\kappa_{IJ}(f) = N^\kappa_{IJ}(f) + S_h(f)R^\kappa_{IJ}(f)$, where $N^\kappa_{IJ}$ collects the post-TDI acceleration-noise and optical-metrology noise transfer functions and $R^\kappa_{IJ}$ is the sky- and polarization-averaged response to an isotropic background, both evaluated for the one-day orbital configuration of segment $\kappa$. The inference layer is the Whittle Gaussian likelihood over retained Fourier coefficients, $\ln L = -\sum_{\kappa,k}[\ln\det(\pi C^\kappa(f_k)) + (\tilde d^\kappa(f_k))^\dagger (C^\kappa(f_k))^{-1}\tilde d^\kappa(f_k)]$, with $C^\kappa = (T_{\rm seg} f_s^2/2)P^\kappa$. Because the fixed A, E, T rotation does not diagonalize the covariance for unequal, time-varying arms, the full complex 3×3 matrix is retained, and bins within 0.010 Hz of the nominal null frequencies $f_m = mc/(4L)$ are masked where the transfer functions are small and rapidly varying.

What would settle it

Generate a one-year Taiji-like dataset with an independently written simulator that uses different orbital-propagation and beam-pattern conventions, inject a known power-law astrophysical background plus noise, and analyze it with the paper's likelihood using transfer functions computed from that independent simulator. If the realization-averaged spectra deviate from the calculated functions by more than a few percent outside the TDI-null notches, or if the injected background amplitude falls outside the posterior credible intervals in a meaningful fraction of realizations, the few-percent-consistency claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that segment-dependent response and noise transfer functions, inserted into the full 3×3 X-Y-Z covariance of a Whittle likelihood, reproduce the realization-averaged spectra of second-generation TDI simulations within the finite-realization scatter (about 3 percent for 1000 realizations) over the retained band away from TDI nulls. In matched parameter-estimation runs, the static equal-arm frequency-domain, equal-arm time-domain, and unequal-arm time-domain configurations all return posterior means close to the injected astrophysical-background amplitude and spectral index after marginalizing over an effective Galactic foreground; the ten-parameter phase-transition benchmark also recovers the sound-wave peak amplitude and peak frequency. A deliberate model-mismatch test, in which unequal-arm time-domain data are fit with an equal-arm spectral model, displaces or pushes several noise and foreground posteriors to the prior boundary; the paper presents this as evidence that the simulation and inference geometries must be internally consistent.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulation package used to generate the time-domain data streams is a correct and complete model of the Taiji detector, because the same package also supplies the orbital response and noise transfer functions used in the likelihood, and the paper explicitly notes that this comparison is not fully independent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The static equal-arm frequency-domain likelihood can serve as the fast baseline for Taiji stochastic-background forecasts, since it gives posterior precision, SNR, and Bayesian-evidence trends consistent with the full unequal-arm time-domain pipeline.
  • Unequal-arm time-domain data should not be analyzed with an equal-arm spectral model: the paper's mismatch test shows that such a model can displace instrumental-noise and foreground parameters to the prior boundary.
  • An astrophysical background with amplitude as low as $\log_{10}\Omega_{\rm ast} = -12.5$ remains strongly favored over the null model after marginalizing over instrumental noise and the effective Galactic foreground, with $\ln BF$ above 115 in all three configurations.
  • A phase-transition sound-wave component at peak amplitude $\log_{10}\Omega_0 = -11.5$ and peak frequency $10^{-2.25}$ Hz is recoverable in the full ten-parameter model, though the evidence is weaker in the unequal-arm configuration ($\ln BF \approx 5.8$) than in the equal-arm ones ($\ln BF \approx 10$).

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the same simulation package generates the time-domain streams and supplies the transfer functions used in the likelihood, the few-percent agreement is a test of internal consistency; an independently implemented simulator with different orbital and beam-pattern conventions could expose model error larger than the paper measures.
  • The notch mask around the TDI null frequencies removes exactly the bands where unequal-arm effects are most visible, so a future analysis using alternative TDI combinations with fewer nulls could recover information the current likelihood discards.
  • The same segment-dependent full-covariance construction should transfer to other space-based interferometer concepts once their orbits and noise models are supplied, but the matched-pipeline comparison would need to be repeated for each geometry.
  • The small residual offset in the optical-metrology noise parameter found in the ten-realization validation suggests that aggressive high-frequency notching weakens noise calibration; a real search may need an informative prior on that amplitude or extra high-frequency data.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a Bayesian spectral-inference framework for stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds (SGWB) in Taiji-like missions, combining second-generation time-delay interferometry (TDI) time-domain simulations from Triangle-Simulator with a frequency-domain, full 3x3 XYZ covariance likelihood. The detector response and noise transfer functions are evaluated per one-day orbital segment, validated at the few-percent level against 1000-realization averages of component-isolated simulations for the first segment, and then used in nested-sampling parameter estimation for three matched configurations (equal-arm FD, equal-arm TD, unequal-arm TD). The reported benchmarks include a four-parameter recovery test, an eight-parameter Galactic-foreground plus astrophysical-background analysis, and a ten-parameter phase-transition sound-wave search.

Significance. If the central validation claim holds, the framework is a useful contribution to LISA/Taiji stochastic-background analyses: it retains the full XYZ covariance with segment-dependent response functions, provides a controlled comparison of FD and TD pipelines, and includes a careful finite-realization variance prediction in Appendix B. The paper also goes beyond single-component recovery by jointly fitting instrumental noise, a Galactic foreground, an astrophysical background, and a cosmological component, and it includes an explicit model-mismatch test that visibly demonstrates the dangers of an inconsistent detector model. The analytical derivations in Appendices B and C are clear and machine-checkable in principle, and the controlled injection setup with matched likelihoods is a strength.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (2.6)] A Hann window is applied to every segment before the DFT, but the PSD estimator in Eq. (2.6) uses the unwindowed normalization 2/(Tseg fs^2) and no window-gain correction is introduced anywhere in the text. For a Hann window, the expected periodogram of a stationary process is (sum w_n^2 / N) times the true one-sided PSD, approximately 0.375 P(f). Unless a compensating factor 1/(sum w_n^2/N) is applied in the code, the simulated spectra used in the validation and in the PE likelihood are biased low by a factor of about 8/3. Since all quantitative claims—the few-percent validation, the unbiased recovery in Tables 2 and 3, and the evidence values—depend on the absolute scale of the spectral estimates, the paper must state the window-gain factor explicitly and, if it is missing, rerun the affected analyses.
  2. [§2.3, Eqs. (2.22)–(2.23)] The likelihood in Eq. (2.23) models the windowed Fourier coefficients as independent circular complex Gaussians with covariance C^kappa(fk)=Tseg fs^2/2 P^kappa(fk). Even after a correct window-gain normalization, Hann windowing introduces correlations between neighboring frequency bins, so the coefficients are not exactly independent and the covariance is not exactly diagonal. The paper should state that Eq. (2.23) is an approximate Whittle likelihood for windowed data, quantify or justify the approximation (e.g., by checking the effective number of independent bins), and confirm that the validation residual reference in Eq. (2.21) remains the correct scale under windowing.
  3. [§2.2 and §3] The direct simulation-to-calculation validation is performed only for the first one-day segment of the unequal-arm orbit, while all 360 segments enter the parameter-estimation likelihood with their own orbit-dependent response and noise transfer functions. The paper does not validate that the segment-dependent functions are accurate at later times, where the orbital configuration and arm lengths differ. The authors should either extend the validation to a sample of segments across the year or provide a quantitative argument that the first-segment agreement is representative.
  4. [§2.2 (self-disclosed circularity)] The manuscript correctly states that the validation is not fully independent because Triangle-Simulator is used both to generate the TDI streams and to evaluate the orbit-dependent response and noise transfer functions. This limits the strength of the validation: it can detect implementation inconsistencies but cannot certify that the simulator itself matches a real detector. The authors should explicitly discuss this limitation in the conclusions and indicate whether any independent checks (e.g., analytic equal-arm limits, comparison with another TDI code, or public LISA simulation outputs) were performed.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §2] The abstract and several headings contain non-ASCII ligature artifacts (e.g., 'efficient') that should be cleaned for production.
  2. [§2.2, Eq. (2.21)] The sentence introducing Eq. (2.21) says the curves show the predictions 'multiplied by Nreal' and that they give the expected values of the plotted Nreal(r^kappa_IJ)^2. This is clear, but the text later refers to 'the matched unequal-arm TD expectation from Eq. (2.21) multiplied by Nreal'; consider consistently calling it the scaled expectation to avoid confusion.
  3. [Figure A.7 caption] The caption states the ratio diagnostic is applied to the full first-segment XYZ covariance with all components included, but the main text does not reference Figure A.7 in the validation discussion; a cross-reference would help the reader locate this important combined check.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Detector-function validation is a disclosed self-consistency check because Triangle-Simulator provides both the simulated streams and the orbital configuration used in the analytic transfer functions.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 2.2, 'Validation of Response and Noise Transfer Functions' (Eqs. 2.4, 2.16)]
    "We adopt the (X2, Y2, Z2) convention implemented in Triangle-Simulator... This comparison is not fully independent, however, because Triangle-Simulator is used both to generate the TD streams and to evaluate the orbit-dependent response and noise transfer functions."

    The response functions in Eq. (2.16) are sky/polarization averages of TDI responses built from the same delay-polynomial convention (Eq. 2.4) and the same per-segment orbital configuration supplied by Triangle-Simulator that also generates the simulated streams being compared. The few-percent agreement therefore measures internal consistency of the simulator with its own analytic transfer functions; it is expected by construction up to numerical and finite-realization error, not an independent validation. The paper explicitly discloses this non-independence, which is honest, but the central validation claim still reduces to a self-consistency check. The subsequent PE likelihood uses externally referenced response and noise models (Refs.

full rationale

The paper's main inference pipeline is self-contained: the full-covariance likelihood (Eq. 2.23) is built from standard external response and noise-transfer formalisms, and the PE benchmarks are matched-model injection-recovery tests that verify the numerical implementation rather than pretending to make independent empirical predictions. The only genuinely circular element is the detector-function validation in Sec. 2.2, where Triangle-Simulator supplies both the simulated data and the orbital configuration used to evaluate the analytic transfer functions, and the TDI delay-polynomial convention is shared between the simulation and the response calculation. This is disclosed by the authors, and the comparison retains some content because the analytic transfer functions come from external references, but the headline few-percent agreement is an internal-consistency result. The Hann-window normalization concern raised elsewhere is a correctness and reproducibility issue, not a circularity category, and I do not count it in the circularity score. Overall, the central claim is not forced by definition, but the validation step is partially self-referential, warranting a score of 4 rather than a higher value.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central inference relies on standard Gaussian spectral likelihoods, published TDI noise transfer functions, and an effective isotropic foreground model. The main uncounted burden is the self-referential use of Triangle-Simulator for both data generation and model-function evaluation, plus hand-chosen segmentation, frequency band, and notch width that shape all reported results.

free parameters (4)
  • TDI null notch half-width = 0.010 Hz
    Chosen by hand in Section 2.2 to excise neighborhoods around the nominal Michelson null frequencies. It directly controls which Fourier bins enter the likelihood and therefore shapes the validation and recovery results.
  • Segment duration and count = Tseg = 86400 s, Nseg = 360
    One-day segmentation selected in Section 2.2. It sets the Fourier resolution and the stationarity assumption underlying the per-segment covariance model.
  • Retained frequency band = 1e-4 Hz to 0.15 Hz
    Frequency range chosen in Section 2.2. Band edges are excluded from the validation and parameter-estimation analyses and affect the recovered noise parameters.
  • Galactic foreground pivot frequency = f0 = 16 mHz
    Fixed in Eq. (2.10) in the adopted DWD foreground parametrization from Ref. [74]. It is not inferred and is a hand-chosen constant of the foreground model.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Retained Fourier coefficient vectors are independent circular complex Gaussians with covariance C = Tseg fs^2 P / 2.
    Invoked in Eqs. (2.22) and (2.23). Segment independence and Gaussianity are assumed and not separately verified against correlations introduced by windowing or long-timescale variability.
  • domain assumption The SGWB response can be represented by a sky-averaged, unpolarized response function R^kappa_IJ applied to a scalar strain PSD.
    Used in Eqs. (2.7) and (2.16). This is standard for isotropic unpolarized backgrounds but does not cover anisotropic or polarized signals.
  • domain assumption The unresolved Galactic DWD foreground is represented by an effective isotropic broken power law.
    Eq. (2.10). The paper states this is an effective model and does not include anisotropic emission or resolved source subtraction.
  • domain assumption The ACC and OMS noise transfer functions quoted from Ref. [63] are correct for second-generation TDI in an unequal-arm moving constellation.
    Relied on in Eq. (2.15) and in the validation. The paper does not re-derive these transfer functions and treats the external derivation as an input.
  • domain assumption Triangle-Simulator correctly implements second-generation TDI and the injected stochastic processes used for validation.
    The same simulator is used for both data generation and evaluation of orbital response and noise functions, so its correctness cannot be externally certified by this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Full-Covariance Bayesian Inference of Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with Time-Domain Simulations for Taiji-like Missions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5PT4FYAY

@misc{pith2026260811276,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Full-Covariance Bayesian Inference of Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with Time-Domain Simulations for Taiji-like Missions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5PT4FYAY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11276}
}
read the original abstract

For Taiji-like missions, we implement a Bayesian spectral inference framework that combines second-generation time-domain (TD) simulations of time-delay interferometry (TDI) with a frequency-domain (FD) spectral likelihood for stochastic gravitational-wave background (SGWB) analyses. The X, Y, Z Michelson streams generated with Triangle-Simulator are divided into finite segments, Fourier transformed, and modeled with a segment-dependent complex 3 x 3 covariance matrix. For each segment we evaluate the orbit-dependent response functions and noise transfer functions, allowing unequal-arm and time-evolving effects to enter through the full XYZ covariance. Controlled simulations performed with Triangle-Simulator show that the calculated functions reproduce the realization-averaged spectra at the few-percent level over the retained frequency band away from TDI nulls. We then compare parameter-estimation results for static equal-arm FD, equal-arm TD, and unequal-arm TD configurations, using in each case a full XYZ-covariance likelihood matched to the corresponding detector configuration. All three yield consistent uncertainty trends and Bayesian-evidence diagnostics for astrophysical-background recovery after marginalizing over instrumental noise and an effective Galactic double-white-dwarf foreground. Finally, we add a sound-wave spectrum from a first-order phase transition.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Allen and J.D

    B. Allen and J.D. Romano, Detecting a stochastic background of gravitational radiation: Signal processing strategies and sensitivities , Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 102001 [gr-qc/9710117]

    arXiv 1999

  2. [2]

    Romano and N.J

    J.D. Romano and N.J. Cornish, Detection methods for stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds: a unified treatment , Living Rev. Rel. 20 (2017) 2 [1608.06889]. – 39 –

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    LISA collaboration, Laser Interferometer Space Antenna , 1702.00786

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Caprini et al., Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update , JCAP 03 (2020) 024 [1910.13125]

    C. Caprini et al., Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update , JCAP 03 (2020) 024 [1910.13125]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Caprini et al., Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA

    C. Caprini et al., Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA. II: Gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions , JCAP 04 (2016) 001 [1512.06239]

    arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Hindmarsh, S.J

    M. Hindmarsh, S.J. Huber, K. Rummukainen and D.J. Weir, Numerical simulations of acoustically generated gravitational waves at a first order phase transition , Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 123009 [1504.03291]

    arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Hindmarsh, S.J

    M. Hindmarsh, S.J. Huber, K. Rummukainen and D.J. Weir, Shape of the acoustic gravitational wave power spectrum from a first order phase transition , Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 103520 [1704.05871]

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Weir, Gravitational waves from a first order electroweak phase transition: a brief review , Phil

    D.J. Weir, Gravitational waves from a first order electroweak phase transition: a brief review , Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 376 (2018) 20170126 [1705.01783]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Mazumdar and G

    A. Mazumdar and G. White, Review of cosmic phase transitions: their significance and experimental signatures , Rept. Prog. Phys. 82 (2019) 076901 [1811.01948]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Bian et al., The Gravitational-wave physics II: Progress , Sci

    L. Bian et al., The Gravitational-wave physics II: Progress , Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 64 (2021) 120401 [2106.10235]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Athron, C

    P. Athron, C. Balázs, A. Fowlie, L. Morris and L. Wu, Cosmological phase transitions: From perturbative particle physics to gravitational waves , Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 135 (2024) 104094 [2305.02357]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Nelemans, L.R

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

    2001 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Robson, N.J

    T. Robson, N.J. Cornish and C. Liu, The construction and use of LISA sensitivity curves, Class. Quant. Grav. 36 (2019) 105011 [1803.01944]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Regimbau, The astrophysical gravitational wave stochastic background , Res

    T. Regimbau, The astrophysical gravitational wave stochastic background , Res. Astron. Astrophys. 11 (2011) 369 [1101.2762]

    2011 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Rosado, Gravitational wave background from binary systems , Phys

    P.A. Rosado, Gravitational wave background from binary systems , Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 084004 [1106.5795]

    2011 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Hu and Y.-L

    W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu, The Taiji Program in Space for gravitational wave physics and the nature of gravity , Natl. Sci. Rev. 4 (2017) 685

    2017

  9. [17]

    Ruan, Z.-K

    W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai and Y.-Z. Zhang, Taiji program: Gravitational-wave sources, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35 (2020) 2050075 [1807.09495]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Wu, Hyperunified field theory and Taiji program in space for GWD , Int

    Y.-L. Wu, Hyperunified field theory and Taiji program in space for GWD , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33 (2018) 1844014 [1805.10119]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    TianQin collaboration, TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector , Class. Quant. Grav. 33 (2016) 035010 [1512.02076]. – 40 –

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Hu, X.-H

    X.-C. Hu, X.-H. Li, Y. Wang, W.-F. Feng, M.-Y. Zhou, Y.-M. Hu et al., Fundamentals of the orbit and response for TianQin , Class. Quant. Grav. 35 (2018) 095008 [1803.03368]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    TianQin collaboration, The TianQin project: current progress on science and technology, PTEP 2021 (2021) 05A107 [2008.10332]

    2021

  14. [22]

    N. Seto, S. Kawamura and T. Nakamura, Possibility of direct measurement of the acceleration of the universe using 0.1-Hz band laser interferometer gravitational wave antenna in space , Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 221103 [astro-ph/0108011]

    2001 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Isoyama, H

    S. Isoyama, H. Nakano and T. Nakamura, Multiband Gravitational-Wave Astronomy: Observing binary inspirals with a decihertz detector, B-DECIGO , PTEP 2018 (2018) 073E01 [1802.06977]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Kawamura et al., Current status of space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO and B-DECIGO , PTEP 2021 (2021) 05A105 [2006.13545]

    S. Kawamura et al., Current status of space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO and B-DECIGO , PTEP 2021 (2021) 05A105 [2006.13545]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Tinto, F.B

    M. Tinto, F.B. Estabrook and J.W. Armstrong, Time delay interferometry for LISA, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 082003

    2002

  18. [26]

    Tinto and S.V

    M. Tinto and S.V. Dhurandhar, Time-Delay Interferometry , Living Rev. Rel. 17 (2014) 6

    2014

  19. [27]

    Tinto, F.B

    M. Tinto, F.B. Estabrook and J.W. Armstrong, Time delay interferometry with moving spacecraft arrays, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 082001 [gr-qc/0310017]

    2004 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Prince, M

    T.A. Prince, M. Tinto, S.L. Larson and J.W. Armstrong, The LISA optimal sensitivity, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 122002 [gr-qc/0209039]

    2002 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Larson, W.A

    S.L. Larson, W.A. Hiscock and R.W. Hellings, Sensitivity curves for spaceborne gravitational wave interferometers , Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 062001 [gr-qc/9909080]

    2000 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Smith and R

    T.L. Smith and R. Caldwell, LISA for Cosmologists: Calculating the Signal-to-Noise Ratio for Stochastic and Deterministic Sources , Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 104055 [1908.00546]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Babak, A

    S. Babak, A. Petiteau and M. Hewitson, LISA Sensitivity and SNR Calculations , 2108.01167

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    LISA Cosmology Working Group collaboration, Gravitational waves from first-order phase transitions in LISA: reconstruction pipeline and physics interpretation, JCAP 10 (2024) 020 [2403.03723]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Cornish and L.J

    N.J. Cornish and L.J. Rubbo, The LISA response function , Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 022001 [gr-qc/0209011]

    2003 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Vallisneri, Synthetic LISA: Simulating time delay interferometry in a model LISA, Phys

    M. Vallisneri, Synthetic LISA: Simulating time delay interferometry in a model LISA, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 022001 [gr-qc/0407102]

    2005 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Petiteau, G

    A. Petiteau, G. Auger, H. Halloin, O. Jeannin, E. Plagnol, S. Pireaux et al., LISACode: A Scientific simulator of LISA , Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 023002 [0802.2023]. – 41 –

    2008 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Du et al., Towards realistic detection pipelines of Taiji: New challenges in data analysis and high-fidelity simulations of space-based gravitational wave antenna , Sci

    M. Du et al., Towards realistic detection pipelines of Taiji: New challenges in data analysis and high-fidelity simulations of space-based gravitational wave antenna , Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 69 (2026) 249501 [2505.16500]

    2026

  29. [37]

    Baghi, N

    Q. Baghi, N. Karnesis, J.-B. Bayle, M. Besançon and H. Inchauspé, Uncovering gravitational-wave backgrounds from noises of unknown shape with LISA , JCAP 04 (2023) 066 [2302.12573]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Adams and N.J

    M.R. Adams and N.J. Cornish, Discriminating between a Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background and Instrument Noise , Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 022002 [1002.1291]

    2010 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Adams and N.J

    M.R. Adams and N.J. Cornish, Detecting a Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background in the presence of a Galactic Foreground and Instrument Noise , Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 022001 [1307.4116]

    2014 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Karnesis, S

    N. Karnesis, S. Babak, M. Pieroni, N. Cornish and T. Littenberg, Characterization of the stochastic signal originating from compact binary populations as measured by LISA, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 043019 [2103.14598]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Caprini, D.G

    C. Caprini, D.G. Figueroa, R. Flauger, G. Nardini, M. Peloso, M. Pieroni et al., Reconstructing the spectral shape of a stochastic gravitational wave background with LISA, JCAP 11 (2019) 017 [1906.09244]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Flauger, N

    R. Flauger, N. Karnesis, G. Nardini, M. Pieroni, A. Ricciardone and J. Torrado, Improved reconstruction of a stochastic gravitational wave background with LISA , JCAP 01 (2021) 059 [2009.11845]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Boileau, N

    G. Boileau, N. Christensen, R. Meyer and N.J. Cornish, Spectral separation of the stochastic gravitational-wave background for LISA: Observing both cosmological and astrophysical backgrounds, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 103529 [2011.05055]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Boileau, A

    G. Boileau, A. Lamberts, N. Christensen, N.J. Cornish and R. Meyer, Spectral separation of the stochastic gravitational-wave background for LISA in the context of a modulated Galactic foreground , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 508 (2021) 803 [2105.04283]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Banagiri, A

    S. Banagiri, A. Criswell, T. Kuan, V. Mandic, J.D. Romano and S.R. Taylor, Mapping the gravitational-wave sky with LISA: a Bayesian spherical harmonic approach, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 507 (2021) 5451 [2103.00826]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Rieck, A.W

    S. Rieck, A.W. Criswell, V. Korol, M.A. Keim, M. Bloom and V. Mandic, A stochastic gravitational wave background in LISA from unresolved white dwarf binaries in the Large Magellanic Cloud , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 531 (2024) 2642 [2308.12437]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Criswell, S

    A.W. Criswell, S. Rieck and V. Mandic, Templated anisotropic analyses of the LISA Galactic foreground, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 023025 [2410.23260]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Criswell, S

    A.W. Criswell, S. Banagiri, J. Lawrence, L. Schult, S. Rieck, S.R. Taylor et al., – 42 – Flexible Spectral Separation of Multiple Isotropic and Anisotropic Stochastic Gravitational Wave Backgrounds in LISA , 2508.20308

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Wang and W.-T

    G. Wang and W.-T. Ni, Revisiting time delay interferometry for unequal-arm LISA and TAIJI, Phys. Scripta 98 (2023) 075005 [2008.05812]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Wang, W.-T

    G. Wang, W.-T. Ni, W.-B. Han and C.-F. Qiao, Algorithm for time-delay interferometry numerical simulation and sensitivity investigation , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 122006 [2010.15544]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    G. Wang, B. Li, P. Xu and X. Fan, Characterizing instrumental noise and stochastic gravitational wave signals from combined time-delay interferometry , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 044054 [2201.10902]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Wang and W.-B

    G. Wang and W.-B. Han, Alternative LISA-TAIJI networks: Detectability of the isotropic stochastic gravitational wave background , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 104015 [2108.11151]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Jiang and Q.-G

    Y. Jiang and Q.-G. Huang, Isotropic stochastic gravitational wave background reconstruction for Taiji constellation , JCAP 06 (2026) 024 [2601.00169]

    2026 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Littenberg and N.J

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

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Rosati and T.B

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

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Hindmarsh, D.C

    M. Hindmarsh, D.C. Hooper, T. Minkkinen and D.J. Weir, Recovering a phase transition signal in simulated LISA data with a modulated galactic foreground , JCAP 04 (2025) 052 [2406.04894]

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Cornish and S.L

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

    2003 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Timpano, L.J

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

    2006 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Littenberg, N

    T. Littenberg, N. Cornish, K. Lackeos and T. Robson, Global Analysis of the Gravitational Wave Signal from Galactic Binaries , Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 123021 [2004.08464]

    2020 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Farmer and E.S

    A.J. Farmer and E.S. Phinney, The gravitational wave background from cosmological compact binaries, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 346 (2003) 1197 [astro-ph/0304393]

    2003 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Hindmarsh, S.J

    M. Hindmarsh, S.J. Huber, K. Rummukainen and D.J. Weir, Gravitational waves from the sound of a first order phase transition , Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 041301 [1304.2433]

    2014 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Hindmarsh and M

    M. Hindmarsh and M. Hijazi, Gravitational waves from first order cosmological phase transitions in the Sound Shell Model , JCAP 12 (2019) 062 [1909.10040]. – 43 –

    2019 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Quang Nam, Y

    D. Quang Nam, Y. Lemière, A. Petiteau, J.-B. Bayle, O. Hartwig, J. Martino et al., Time-delay interferometry noise transfer functions for LISA , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 082004 [2211.02539]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Skilling, Nested sampling for general Bayesian computation , Bayesian Analysis 1 (2006) 833

    J. Skilling, Nested sampling for general Bayesian computation , Bayesian Analysis 1 (2006) 833

    2006

  57. [65]

    Feroz, M.P

    F. Feroz, M.P. Hobson and M. Bridges, MultiNest: an efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmology and particle physics , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 398 (2009) 1601 [0809.3437]

    2009 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Feroz, M.P

    F. Feroz, M.P. Hobson, E. Cameron and A.N. Pettitt, Importance Nested Sampling and the MultiNest Algorithm , Open J. Astrophys. 2 (2019) 10 [1306.2144]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Speagle, dynesty: a dynamic nested sampling package for estimating Bayesian posteriors and evidences , Mon

    J.S. Speagle, dynesty: a dynamic nested sampling package for estimating Bayesian posteriors and evidences , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 493 (2020) 3132 [1904.02180]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Ashton et al., BILBY: A user-friendly Bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave astronomy, Astrophys

    G. Ashton et al., BILBY: A user-friendly Bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave astronomy, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 241 (2019) 27 [1811.02042]

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Romero-Shaw et al., Bayesian inference for compact binary coalescences with bilby: validation and application to the first LIGO–Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalogue, Mon

    I.M. Romero-Shaw et al., Bayesian inference for compact binary coalescences with bilby: validation and application to the first LIGO–Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalogue, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 499 (2020) 3295 [2006.00714]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Veitch et al., Parameter estimation for compact binaries with ground-based gravitational-wave observations using the LALInference software library , Phys

    J. Veitch et al., Parameter estimation for compact binaries with ground-based gravitational-wave observations using the LALInference software library , Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 042003 [1409.7215]

    2015 arXiv

  63. [71]

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

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

    2008 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Guan, H.-K

    S. Guan, H.-K. Guo, D. Jiao, Q. Liang, L. Wu and Y. Zhang, Measuring gravitational wave spectrum from electroweak phase transition and Higgs self-couplings, Phys. Rev. D 113 (2026) 075014 [2511.00996]

    2026 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Liang, C

    Q. Liang, C. Yang, H. An and H.-K. Guo, Inflationary phase transitions in the early Universe: A Bayesian study with space-based gravitational-wave detectors , Phys. Rev. D 114 (2026) 023025 [2603.21762]

    2026 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Liang, L

    Q. Liang, L. Bian, H.-K. Guo and Y. Wu, Bayesian analysis of the complex singlet model with phase transition gravitational waves , Phys. Rev. D 113 (2026) 083004 [2511.21488]

    2026 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Wang, Time delay interferometry with minimal null frequencies , Phys

    G. Wang, Time delay interferometry with minimal null frequencies , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 042005 [2403.01490]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Wang and W.-T

    G. Wang and W.-T. Ni, Numerical simulation of time delay interferometry for TAIJI and new LISA , Res. Astron. Astrophys. 19 (2019) 058 [1707.09127]

    2019 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Wang, SATDI: Simulation and Analysis for Time-Delay Interferometry , 2403.01726

    G. Wang, SATDI: Simulation and Analysis for Time-Delay Interferometry , 2403.01726. – 44 –

    arXiv

  70. [78]

    Hartwig, M

    O. Hartwig, M. Lilley, M. Muratore and M. Pieroni, Stochastic gravitational wave background reconstruction for a nonequilateral and unequal-noise LISA constellation , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 123531 [2303.15929]

    2023 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Wang, Enhancing noise characterization with robust time delay interferometry combination, Phys

    G. Wang, Enhancing noise characterization with robust time delay interferometry combination, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 064085 [2406.11305]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Wang, Time delay interferometry with minimal null frequencies and shortened time span , Sci

    G. Wang, Time delay interferometry with minimal null frequencies and shortened time span , Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 69 (2026) 220411 [2502.03983]

    2026

  73. [81]

    Wang, Correlation and data-analysis distinctiveness of time-delay interferometry configurations, Phys

    G. Wang, Correlation and data-analysis distinctiveness of time-delay interferometry configurations, Phys. Rev. D 113 (2026) 124072 [2507.18397]

    2026 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Franciolini, M

    G. Franciolini, M. Pieroni, A. Ricciardone and J.D. Romano, Likelihoods for stochastic gravitational wave background data analysis , Phys. Rev. D 112 (2025) 103516 [2505.24695]

    2025 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Y. Liu, C. Kirch, J.E. Lee and R. Meyer, A nonparametrically corrected likelihood for bayesian spectral analysis of multivariate time series , Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 199 (2024) 108010

    2024

  76. [84]

    Tegmark, A

    M. Tegmark, A. Taylor and A. Heavens, Karhunen-Loeve eigenvalue problems in cosmology: How should we tackle large data sets? , Astrophys. J. 480 (1997) 22 [astro-ph/9603021]

    1997 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Contaldi, M

    C.R. Contaldi, M. Pieroni, A.I. Renzini, G. Cusin, N. Karnesis, M. Peloso et al., Maximum likelihood map-making with the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna , Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 043502 [2006.03313]

    2020 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Trotta, Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology , Contemp

    R. Trotta, Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology , Contemp. Phys. 49 (2008) 71 [0803.4089]

    2008 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Goodman, Statistical analysis based on a certain multivariate complex Gaussian distribution (an introduction) , Ann

    N.R. Goodman, Statistical analysis based on a certain multivariate complex Gaussian distribution (an introduction) , Ann. Math. Statist. 34 (1963) 152

    1963

  80. [88]

    J. Chen, C. Liu, Y.-L. Zhang and G. Wang, Alternative LISA-TAIJI networks: Detectability of parity violation in stochastic gravitational wave background , Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 084026 [2412.18420]. – 45 –

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.