Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Time-frequency Imprints of Extreme Mass-Ratio Inspirals in Confusion Gravitational Wave Background

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 The time-frequency spectrum of the confusion gravitational-wave background carries a chirp-induced correlation that determines EMRI population parameters to a few percent despite a white-dwarf foreground two orders of magnitude louder.

desk verdict A genuinely new population-level probe with a solid analytic covariance calculation, but the few-percent forecasting claim rests on a Gaussian likelihood for exponentially distributed data and is not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17380 v1 pith:6QC7QZVO submitted 2025-06-20 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Lingyuan Ji , Liang Dai This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords extreme-mass-ratioinspiralsconfusiongravitationalwavebackgroundtime-frequencyanalysischirpmassinformationmatrixLISAwhitedwarfbinariesstochastic
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 proposes a way to learn about extreme-mass-ratio inspirals (EMRIs) without detecting them individually. It treats the unresolved EMRI population as part of the confusion background and shows that the time-frequency spectrum of that background contains a chirp signature: pairs of time-frequency pixels are correlated when they lie along the same chirp track. An information-matrix analysis extracts the EMRI population's chirp-mass distribution and event rate with a-few-percent errors, even when the EMRI confusion power is two orders of magnitude below the Galactic white-dwarf binary foreground. The payoff is that LISA-era observations could constrain EMRI populations without the phase-accurate templates over $10^5$ orbits that matched-filter searches require.

What carries the argument

The central object is the time-frequency spectrum $X(f,\tau)=|\int x(t)\,W(t-\tau)\,e^{-2\pi i f t}\,dt|^2$, built from a Gaussian-windowed wavelet basis. The load-bearing mechanism is the covariance of this spectrum, and in particular the chirp-correlation factor of Eq. (20), $$\$chi^{{(1122)}}$(\mu)=\left(1+4\$pi^{2}$\$mu^{2}$ $T^{4}$\right)^{-1/2}\exp\left[-\frac{2\$pi^{2}$ $T^{2}$}{1+4\$pi^{2}$\$mu^{2}$ $T^{4}$}\left((f_1-f_2)-\mu(\tau_1-\tau_2)\right)^2\right],$$ which is the piece of the four-strain correlation that survives when two time-frequency pixels are far apart but connected by the chirp condition $f_1-f_2\approx\mu(\tau_1-\tau_2)$. This factor is what separates a fast-chirping EMRI population from a slowly chirping white-dwarf foreground. The computation is made tractable by writing the covariance as a banded matrix plus a small number of rank-one population terms, so the information matrix can be evaluated without ever forming the full dense covariance.

What would settle it

Inject a simulated LISA data realization that includes the full heliocentric Doppler shift and a sky-position-dependent antenna pattern, then measure whether the covariance predicted by Eq. (20) still appears along the chirp tracks and whether the recovered information-matrix uncertainties remain at the few-percent level; if the correlation is washed out or the uncertainties inflate by orders of magnitude, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the stochastic (confusion) gravitational-wave background is not fully captured by its power spectrum: the variance of the time-frequency spectrum, a four-point function of the strain, contains a term that correlates pixels along curves $f_1 - f_2 \approx \mu(\tau_1-\tau_2)$, where $\mu$ is the source chirp parameter. Because EMRIs chirp far faster than Galactic white-dwarf binaries, this correlation is a population-level fingerprint of the chirp mass. The paper derives the mean and covariance of the time-frequency spectrum analytically for populations of quasi-circular inspirals and, assuming a Gaussian likelihood, computes the information matrix for three EMRI population models. The result the paper asserts is that EMRI population parameters can be determined to a-few-percent accuracy even when a louder white-dwarf foreground is included.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast assumes an idealized LISA response with no Doppler shift from the spacecraft's orbit, an isotropic antenna pattern, and a single strain channel, and the authors themselves note that Doppler significantly distorts signals for $f \gtrsim 2$ mHz; if that distortion smears the time-frequency chirp correlation, the reported few-percent accuracy is not guaranteed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • EMRI population parameters (event rate, chirp-mass mean and width) can be inferred to a few percent from confusion data alone, without resolving individual events or using phase-accurate templates.
  • The EMRI chirp-mass distribution can be measured even when the EMRI stochastic background is about two orders of magnitude weaker than the white-dwarf binary foreground.
  • Stationary Gaussian instrumental noise does not contaminate this chirp-correlation feature, since noise only correlates nearby time-frequency pixels.
  • A full Bayesian posterior for the roughly ten population parameters is computationally feasible, because the likelihood can be evaluated through the banded-plus-rank-one covariance and emulated.
  • The same time-frequency covariance analysis can be applied to other space-based observatories and to other slowly chirping source populations beyond EMRIs and white dwarfs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: the same four-point statistic should apply to other unresolved chirping populations, such as low-frequency stellar-mass binary inspirals, wherever matched filtering is impractical.
  • Extension: if the method survives realistic LISA response modeling, deviations of the observed tracks from the straight chirp locus of Eq. (20) could serve as a population-level probe of orbital eccentricity.
  • Extension: the a-few-percent errors come from a Gaussian likelihood and a fixed population parameterization; a mock-data injection campaign would test how much prior misspecification or non-Gaussian source-count noise inflates the errors.
  • Extension: because Doppler shifts grow with frequency, the conservative $f \lesssim 2$ mHz cutoff leaves room to extend the method to higher frequencies where EMRI signals are stronger if the Doppler response is modeled.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using the time-frequency spectrum S(f,τ) of the gravitational-wave confusion background as a new observable for constraining the parameters of an unresolved extreme-mass-ratio inspiral (EMRI) population. It derives analytic expressions for the mean and covariance of the time-frequency spectrum, including a chirp-induced correlation term (Eq. 20) that is sensitive to chirp masses, and then performs a Fisher-matrix forecast under simplified LISA response assumptions. The central claim is that EMRI population parameters (abundance, mean chirp mass, and chirp-mass dispersion) can be determined to a few percent accuracy even when the galactic white-dwarf binary foreground is louder than the EMRI background.

Significance. If the forecast were statistically sound, this would be a valuable new method: it extracts population-level information from the four-point statistics of the strain without requiring accurate individual EMRI templates. The analytic covariance derivation is careful and internally consistent, and the Sherman-Morrison-based Fisher computation is a useful technical contribution that is verified against a brute-force calculation. The main weakness is that the statistical foundation of the forecast is currently misspecified, so the quantitative few-percent claims are not yet established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Likelihood and Fisher Information, Eq. (21)] The Gaussian likelihood in Eq. (21) is not valid in the limit of large source number, contrary to the statement in the text. Each observable d_k = S(f_l,τ_m) = |tilde x(f_l,τ_m)|^2 is the squared modulus of a windowed Fourier coefficient; in the confusion regime this coefficient is a sum of many independent random-phase sources plus Gaussian noise, so by the central limit theorem it converges to a circular complex Gaussian. The squared modulus of a zero-mean complex Gaussian is exponentially distributed, not Gaussian, regardless of the number of sources. The Fisher matrix in Eq. (22) is therefore the Fisher information of a misspecified likelihood, and the Cramér–Rao bound quoted from it does not apply to estimators under the true distribution. The covariance-derivative term (1/2)Tr(A_α A_β) is the most sensitive to this misspecification: for an exponential observable with mean μ, the true information for a scale parameter is (∂ log μ/∂θ)^2, whereas a Gaussian likelihood with the same mean and variance μ^2 yields 3(∂ log μ/∂θ)^2 (evaluated under Gaussian sampling), so the chirp-mass information carried by the covariance can be inflated by a factor of three or more. The authors should redo the forecast with the correct likelihood, or validate the Gaussian approximation with Monte Carlo injections at the fiducial model.
  2. [The Model; Conclusion (Doppler simplification)] The neglect of the LISA Doppler modulation is load-bearing for the central claim. The forecast sets f_max = 2 mHz, but the Doppler shift at 2 mHz is (v/c) f ≈ 2×10^-7 Hz, which is twice the frequency pixel spacing Δf = 1.0×10^-7 Hz used in the Fisher grid and eight times the intrinsic window resolution 1/(2πT) ≈ 2.5×10^-8 Hz. A time-dependent frequency shift of this magnitude will broaden and displace the chirp tracks in Eq. (20), decorrelating the covariance signal that carries the chirp-mass information. The paper itself notes that Doppler 'significantly distorts the GW signal for f ≳ 2 mHz', but the effect is already comparable to the pixel scale at f ≈ 1 mHz. The authors should quantify this effect, for example by including a simplified sky-position-averaged Doppler modulation in the covariance calculation, or restrict the few-percent claim to a sub-mHz band where the shift is below one pixel.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix] The word 'Supplimental' in 'Numerical techniques necessary to evaluate Eq. (22) ... in the Supplimental Material' and in the appendix heading should be 'Supplemental'.
  2. [Table I] The 'Step size' column lists 10^-6 for N_EMRI and N_GWDB; it would be clearer to state explicitly that these are relative (fractional) steps used in the finite-difference derivatives, not absolute steps in the source count.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] 'constrain contours' should read 'constraint contours'.
  4. [Conclusion] The phrase 'at a-few-percent accuracy' is awkward; it should read 'to a few percent accuracy'.
  5. [Main text after Eq. (20)] 'we emphasize that the abundance of these GW sources, especially of EMRIs, are quite uncertain' has a subject-verb agreement error; 'abundance ... is quite uncertain' would be correct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the time-frequency covariance and Fisher forecast are derived from the stated population model and involve no fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the Morlet-windowed strain transform through Eqs. (14)-(20) to the Fisher forecast in Eq. (22). The mean and covariance of the time-frequency spectrum are derived analytically from the stated source model, Gaussian window, and noise PSD, rather than being defined to equal the target parameters. The Fisher information is computed from those model-derived moments under a stated Gaussian likelihood, which is standard forecasting practice: the same fiducial population model defines both the signal statistics and the measurement, but no parameter is fitted to data and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations and invokes no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work; the population model, LISA simplifications, and window choices are explicit inputs, and the 'few-percent' accuracy claim is explicitly conditional on them. A separate statistical concern that each S(f_l, tau_m) is exponentially distributed rather than Gaussian is a validity issue for the Gaussian likelihood approximation, not a circularity, because the likelihood is not constructed to be equal to the Fisher target by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central forecast rests on hand-chosen fiducial population parameters (N_EMRI, chirp-mass distribution, distance range, N_GWDB) and on explicit modeling simplifications: quasi-circular orbits, isotropic single-channel LISA response, stationary Gaussian noise, and a large-N Gaussian likelihood. These are listed as axioms. No new physical entity is introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • N_EMRI (EMRI source number) = 3e7 (Models I and III), 1e7 (Model II)
    Overall EMRI abundance in the phenomenological population model; chosen by hand from literature-informed fiducials (Refs. [27-29]); the Fisher constraints scale with this number.
  • mu_M^EMRI (log-normal mean chirp mass) = 250 M_sun
    Central EMRI chirp mass of the fiducial population; chosen by hand; sets the location of the chirp tracks in Fig. 1 and controls the Fisher forecast.
  • sigma_M^EMRI (chirp-mass log-normal width) = 50 M_sun (Models I and II), 80 M_sun (Model III)
    Width of the EMRI chirp-mass distribution; chosen by hand; controls the spread of chirp tracks and the distinguishability from the white dwarf foreground.
  • D_EMRI range (D_min, D_max) = 1 Mpc to 1e3 Mpc
    Euclidean distance distribution bounds; chosen by hand; sets the amplitude scale through D2 and D4 and affects the Fisher constraints.
  • N_GWDB (Galactic white dwarf binary number) = 3e7
    Foreground population abundance; chosen by hand; sets the dominant background against which the EMRI parameters must be extracted.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption EMRIs are quasi-circular inspirals with strain hj(t) = Aj cos[2*pi*(nu_j t + mu_j t^2/2) + Phi_j].
    Eq. (4) defines the entire signal model; eccentricity is explicitly deferred to future work in the conclusion.
  • domain assumption LISA response is modeled as a single isotropic strain channel with no Doppler or cartwheel motion.
    Stated as technical simplifications (1)-(3) in 'The Model'; the Fisher forecast and the chirp tracks in Eq. (20) depend on this; the authors note Doppler significantly distorts f gtrsim 2 mHz.
  • domain assumption Instrumental noise is stationary Gaussian with power spectrum N(f) from Ref. [26], uncorrelated with astrophysical sources.
    Used in Eq. (13) and for the Isserlis expansion of noise four-point terms; real LISA noise is non-stationary and correlated across channels.
  • domain assumption Initial phases are independent and uniformly distributed, and the source count is large enough that the time-frequency spectrum S(f,tau) is Gaussian-distributed.
    Uniform phases justify the index pairing in Eq. (16); the Gaussian likelihood, Eq. (21), is stated to hold in the large-source-number limit.
  • domain assumption In the frequency integral, P_nu(nu) is picked out at nu = f and mu(nu,M) is replaced by mu(f,M) because the time-frequency window is narrow.
    Stated in the derivation of Eq. (15) before the authors write '=' instead of 'approx'; this approximation propagates into all correlator formulas.
  • standard math Cramer-Rao bound and Fisher information give the minimal variance of unbiased estimators.
    Used to convert the Gaussian likelihood, Eq. (21), into parameter uncertainties; standard and unproblematic.
  • standard math Isserlis' theorem (Wick's theorem) applies to the Gaussian noise four-point terms.
    Used to expand the noise covariance terms in Eq. (16); standard probability result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time-frequency Imprints of Extreme Mass-Ratio Inspirals in Confusion Gravitational Wave Background." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6QC7QZVO

@misc{pith2026250617380,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time-frequency Imprints of Extreme Mass-Ratio Inspirals in Confusion Gravitational Wave Background},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6QC7QZVO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17380}
}
read the original abstract

Detecting individual extreme-mass-ratio inspirals (EMRIs) is a major science goal of future space-based gravitational wave observatories such as Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) and TianQin. However, matched-filtering can be challenging as waveform templates are required to be accurate over tens of thousands of orbits. We introduce the time-frequency spectrum as an alternative observable that can be exploited to reveal the chirping of EMRIs at the population level. We analytically calculate this spectrum and its correlators for parameterized populations of slowly chirping sources on quasi-circular orbits, assuming a simplified model of the antenna response for a proof of concept. We then exploit this observable to distinguish between Galactic white dwarf binaries and a possible EMRI population, and quantify the precision at which EMRI population parameters can be determined through a Fisher analysis. We explore several scenarios of EMRI populations and find that this new method may allow us to determine EMRI population parameters at an accuracy level of several percent. Since white dwarf binaries have much longer chirping timescales than the EMRIs do, EMRI population properties can still be determined even if their stochastic gravitational wave background has a power spectrum two orders of magnitude weaker than that of the Galactic white dwarf binaries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17380 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Covariance of the time-frequency spectrum, Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Laser Interferome- ter Space Antenna,

    Pau Amaro-Seoane et al. (LISA), “Laser Interferome- ter Space Antenna,” (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro- ph.IM]

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    TianQin: a space-borne grav- itational wave detector,

    Jun Luo et al. (TianQin), “TianQin: a space-borne grav- itational wave detector,” Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 035010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    The Orbital statis- tics of stellar inspiral and relaxation near a massive black hole: Characterizing gravitational wave sources,

    Clovis Hopman and Tal Alexander, “The Orbital statis- tics of stellar inspiral and relaxation near a massive black hole: Characterizing gravitational wave sources,” Astro- phys. J. 629, 362–372 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0503672

    arXiv 2005

  4. [4]

    The impact of mass segregation and star-formation on the rates of gravitational-wave sources from extreme mass ra- tio inspirals,

    Danor Aharon and Hagai B. Perets, “The impact of mass segregation and star-formation on the rates of gravitational-wave sources from extreme mass ra- tio inspirals,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 830, L1 (2016), arXiv:1609.01715 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Detecting Intermediate-Mass Ratio Inspirals From The Ground And Space,

    Pau Amaro-Seoane, “Detecting Intermediate-Mass Ratio Inspirals From The Ground And Space,” Phys. Rev. D 98, 063018 (2018), arXiv:1807.03824 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Tidal disruption events, main-sequence extreme-mass ratio inspirals and binary star disruptions in galactic nuclei

    Re’em Sari and Giacomo Fragione, “Tidal disrup- tion events, main-sequence extreme-mass ratio inspi- rals and binary star disruptions in galactic nuclei,” (2019), 10.3847/1538-4357/ab43df, arXiv:1907.03312 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    The Combined Effects of Two-Body Relaxation Processes and the Eccentric Kozai-Lidov Mechanism on the EMRI Rate

    Smadar Naoz, Sanaea C. Rose, Erez Michaely, Denyz Melchor, Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz, Brenna Mockler, and Jeremy D. Schnittman, “The Combined Effects of Two-body Relaxation Processes and the Eccentric Kozai–Lidov Mechanism on the Extreme-mass-ratio In- spirals Rate,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 927, L18 (2022), arXiv:2202.12303 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    The Enhanced Popu- lation of Extreme Mass-ratio Inspirals in the LISA Band from Supermassive Black Hole Binaries,

    Smadar Naoz and Zoltan Haiman, “The Enhanced Popu- lation of Extreme Mass-ratio Inspirals in the LISA Band from Supermassive Black Hole Binaries,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 955, L27 (2023), arXiv:2307.11149 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Probing Accretion Physics with Gravitational Waves,

    Lorenzo Speri, Andrea Antonelli, Laura Sberna, Stanislav Babak, Enrico Barausse, Jonathan R. Gair, and Michael L. Katz, “Probing Accretion Physics with Gravitational Waves,” Phys. Rev. X 13, 021035 (2023), arXiv:2207.10086 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Supermassive black holes from runaway merg- ers and accretion in nuclear star clusters,

    Konstantinos Kritos, Emanuele Berti, and Joseph Silk, “Supermassive black holes from runaway merg- ers and accretion in nuclear star clusters,” (2024), arXiv:2404.11676 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Confusion noise from LISA capture sources,

    Leor Barack and Curt Cutler, “Confusion noise from LISA capture sources,” Phys. Rev. D 70, 122002 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0409010

    2004 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Using LISA EMRI sources to test off-Kerr deviations in the geometry of massive black holes,

    Leor Barack and Curt Cutler, “Using LISA EMRI sources to test off-Kerr deviations in the geometry of massive black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 75, 042003 (2007), arXiv:gr- qc/0612029

    2007

  5. [13]

    Approximate Wave- forms for Extreme-Mass-Ratio Inspirals in Modified Gravity Spacetimes,

    Jonathan Gair and Nicolas Yunes, “Approximate Wave- forms for Extreme-Mass-Ratio Inspirals in Modified Gravity Spacetimes,” Phys. Rev. D 84, 064016 (2011), arXiv:1106.6313 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Testing General Relativity with Low-Frequency, Space-Based Gravitational-Wave Detec- tors,

    Jonathan R. Gair, Michele Vallisneri, Shane L. Larson, and John G. Baker, “Testing General Relativity with Low-Frequency, Space-Based Gravitational-Wave Detec- tors,” Living Rev. Rel. 16, 7 (2013), arXiv:1212.5575 [gr- qc]

    2013 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Gravitational-Wave Tests of General Relativity with Ground-Based Detec- tors and Pulsar Timing-Arrays,

    Nicol´ as Yunes and Xavier Siemens, “Gravitational-Wave Tests of General Relativity with Ground-Based Detec- tors and Pulsar Timing-Arrays,” Living Rev. Rel. 16, 9 (2013), arXiv:1304.3473 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Towards a framework for testing general relativity with extreme- mass-ratio-inspiral observations,

    Alvin J. K. Chua, Sonke Hee, Will J. Handley, Ed- ward Higson, Christopher J. Moore, Jonathan R. Gair, Michael P. Hobson, and Anthony N. Lasenby, “Towards a framework for testing general relativity with extreme- mass-ratio-inspiral observations,” Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. ...

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Astrophysics, detection and science applications of intermediate- and extreme mass-ratio in- spirals,

    Pau Amaro-Seoane, Jonathan R. Gair, Marc Freitag, M. Coleman Miller, Ilya Mandel, Curt J. Cutler, and Stanislav Babak, “Astrophysics, detection and science applications of intermediate- and extreme mass-ratio in- spirals,” Class. Quant. Grav. 24, R113–R169 (2007), arXiv:astro-...

    2007 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A How-To for the Mock LISA Data Chal- lenges,

    Keith A. Arnaud et al. (Mock LISA Data Challenge Task Force), “A How-To for the Mock LISA Data Chal- lenges,” AIP Conf. Proc. 873, 625–632 (2006), arXiv:gr- qc/0609106

    2006

  11. [19]

    Report on the second Mock LISA Data Challenge,

    Stanislav Babak et al. (Mock LISA Data Challenge Task Force), “Report on the second Mock LISA Data Challenge,” Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 114037 (2008), arXiv:0711.2667 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  12. [20]

    The Mock LISA Data Challenges: From Chal- lenge 3 to Challenge 4,

    Stanislav Babak et al. (Mock LISA Data Challenge Task Force), “The Mock LISA Data Challenges: From Chal- lenge 3 to Challenge 4,” Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 084009 (2010), arXiv:0912.0548 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Event rate estimates for LISA extreme mass ratio capture sources,

    Jonathan R. Gair, Leor Barack, Teviet Creighton, Curt Cutler, Shane L. Larson, E. Sterl Phinney, and Michele Vallisneri, “Event rate estimates for LISA extreme mass ratio capture sources,” Class. Quant. Grav. 21, S1595– S1606 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0405137

    2004 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Detecting extreme mass ratio inspirals with LISA using time-frequency methods,

    Lin-qing Wen and Jonathan R Gair, “Detecting extreme mass ratio inspirals with LISA using time-frequency methods,” Class. Quant. Grav. 22, S445–S452 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0502100

    2005 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Detecting extreme mass ratio inspi- rals with LISA using time-frequency methods II: Search characterization,

    Jonathan Gair, “Detecting extreme mass ratio inspi- rals with LISA using time-frequency methods II: Search characterization,” Class. Quant. Grav. 22, S1359–S1371 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0506116

    2005 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Time-frequency analysis of extreme-mass-ratio inspiral signals in mock LISA data,

    Jonathan R. Gair, Ilya Mandel, and Linqing Wen, “Time-frequency analysis of extreme-mass-ratio inspiral signals in mock LISA data,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 122, 012037 (2008), arXiv:0710.5250 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Im- proved time-frequency analysis of extreme-mass-ratio in- spiral signals in mock LISA data,

    Jonathan R. Gair, Ilya Mandel, and Linqing Wen, “Im- proved time-frequency analysis of extreme-mass-ratio in- spiral signals in mock LISA data,” Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 184031 (2008), arXiv:0804.1084 [gr-qc]. 7

    2008 arXiv

  18. [26]

    The construction and use of LISA sensitivity curves,

    Travis Robson, Neil J. Cornish, and Chang Liu, “The construction and use of LISA sensitivity curves,” Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 105011 (2019), arXiv:1803.01944 [astro- ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Prospects for ob- serving extreme-mass-ratio inspirals with LISA,

    Jonathan R. Gair, Stanislav Babak, Alberto Sesana, Pau Amaro-Seoane, Enrico Barausse, Christopher P. L. Berry, Emanuele Berti, and Carlos Sopuerta, “Prospects for ob- serving extreme-mass-ratio inspirals with LISA,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 840, 012021 (2017), arXiv:1704.00009 [ast...

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Science with the space-based inter- ferometer LISA. V: Extreme mass-ratio inspirals,

    Stanislav Babak, Jonathan Gair, Alberto Sesana, Enrico Barausse, Carlos F. Sopuerta, Christopher P. L. Berry, Emanuele Berti, Pau Amaro-Seoane, Antoine Petiteau, and Antoine Klein, “Science with the space-based inter- ferometer LISA. V: Extreme mass-ratio inspirals,” Phys. Rev...

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    The white dwarf binary background and LISA,

    M. J. Benacquista, “The white dwarf binary background and LISA,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 32, 147–153 (2006). Derivation of Eq. (14) and Eq. (16) We outline the derivation of the mean, Eq. (14), and the variance, Eq. (16), of the time-frequency spectrum. We start with Eq. (14), M(f...

    2006

Pith tools

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