REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by
The first directed searches for gravitational waves from ultralight boson clouds around three known black holes find no signal, excluding masses 0.85–1.59 × 10^-13 eV around Cygnus X-1 at 95% confidence.
Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →
T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash
2026-08-04 22:21 UTC pith:KBLMDPQN
load-bearing objection First directed VBC searches on real O4a data; the Cygnus X-1 95% exclusion is the result that matters, and its strongest assumption is the SuperRad amplitude model. the 3 major comments →
Directed searches for gravitational waves from ultralight vector boson clouds around merger remnant and galactic black holes during the first part of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
Core claim
The paper's central claim is that during the first months of the fourth observing run the data contain no detectable gravitational-wave signal from a superradiant ultralight vector boson cloud around any of the three targeted black holes, and that this null translates into mass exclusions. The Cygnus X-1 search, built on the Band Sampled Data framework, excludes vector boson masses in [0.85, 1.59] × 10^-13 eV at 95% confidence for an assumed initial black-hole spin above 0.5; this is the paper's strongest result. The two hidden-Markov-model searches of the merger remnants GW230814 and GW231123 disfavour [2.75, 3.28] × 10^-13 eV and [0.94, 1.08] × 10^-13 eV respectively at 30% confidence with
What carries the argument
The argument runs on three pieces. (1) The superradiance mechanism itself: a vector boson whose Compton wavelength is comparable to the black hole's horizon extracts rotational energy and grows into a macroscopic cloud, which then emits gravitational waves at roughly twice the boson frequency; the SuperRad waveform model [52, 92] supplies the predicted strain amplitude, emission frequency, growth time, and depletion time that the searches target. (2) A hidden Markov model (HMM) tracking scheme — a probabilistic path-finding algorithm over frequency bins that follows a signal whose frequency wanders rapidly — combined with an F-statistic matched filter, used for the young merger remnants whos
Load-bearing premise
The exclusions stand or fall on the SuperRad waveform model's prediction of the gravitational-wave amplitude and of cloud growth and depletion timescales; if a real cloud emits more faintly than the model predicts, the quoted mass ranges are not excluded.
What would settle it
Find a continuous gravitational-wave signal from Cygnus X-1 in the 41.25–80 Hz band in the same data — for example with a fully coherent search that the semicoherent pipeline could have missed — and the exclusion falls. Alternatively, a robust measurement that Cygnus X-1's black hole was born with spin below 0.5 would void the headline range, since the predicted amplitude would drop below the measured upper limits.
If this is right
- If the Cygnus X-1 exclusion holds, any ultralight vector boson in 0.85–1.59 × 10^-13 eV is ruled out as a superradiant cloud source around that black hole, consistent with indirect constraints from spin measurements and stochastic-background searches that already disfavoured ~10^-13 eV bosons.
- The merger-remnant searches show the HMM pipeline recovering simulated signals at realistic distances; future high-signal-to-noise mergers with better-measured remnant spins and masses are expected to turn the 30%-confidence disfavouring into high-confidence exclusions.
- Application of the BSD pipeline to other known galactic black holes is expected to widen the excluded mass range piecewise, since the accessible masses depend on each hole's mass and spin.
- Tighter parameter estimates for merger remnants (mass, spin, distance, sky position) directly translate into tighter boson-mass constraints in the HMM framework.
- The null results set a benchmark: the first part of the fourth observing run contains no quasi-monochromatic signal from Cygnus X-1 in the 41.25–80 Hz band above the quoted strain upper limit.
- The null results set a benchmark: the first part of the fourth observing run contains no quasi-monochromatic signal from Cygnus X-1 in the 41.25–80 Hz band above the quoted strain upper limit.
Where Pith is reading between the lines
- The headline exclusion inherits the controversy over Cygnus X-1's spin: some X-ray studies claim an extreme spin, others 0.5–0.9, a few below 0.2. A decisive spin measurement would either reinforce the exclusion (if the birth spin was high) or shrink and eventually dissolve it (if below 0.5, where predicted amplitudes fall under the upper limits).
- Because the exclusions are only as strong as the SuperRad amplitude predictions, an independent numerical-relativity check of the waveform model, or a detection of a scalar cloud that exercises the same machinery, would be the natural next test.
- A fully coherent re-analysis of the same data in the excluded frequency band would be a stricter confirmation of the null; the semicoherent search is deliberately conservative, so a coherent search should reproduce the absence with greater sensitivity.
- The technique turns each well-measured stellar-mass black hole into a mass-sharpened particle-physics probe: the exclusion region is currently a narrow window around one source, but the same pipeline scales to any black hole with known orbit, distance, and spin.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. This paper presents the first directed searches for gravitational waves from ultralight vector boson clouds around known black holes, using LIGO O4a data. Two semicoherent pipelines are applied: an HMM-based tracker for the remnants of GW230814_230901 and GW231123_135430, and a Binary BSD-VBC search for Cygnus X-1. No signal candidate survives the veto procedures. The HMM searches disfavor vector masses [0.94,1.08]×10^-13 eV (GW231123) and [2.75,3.28]×10^-13 eV (GW230814) at 30% confidence for a 1% false-alarm probability. The Cygnus X-1 search sets 95% upper limits on strain and, comparing with SuperRad-predicted amplitudes, excludes [0.85,1.59]×10^-13 eV assuming initial spin >0.5.
Significance. The paper's main value is methodological and empirical: it demonstrates that directed searches for VBC signals around both merger remnants and a known galactic BH are feasible with O4a data, and it provides the first direct constraints on vector bosons from such targets. The Cygnus X-1 exclusion is the strongest quantitative claim; if SuperRad's amplitude predictions are accurate, this is a genuine 95% exclusion over a narrow mass window. The search analysis is careful: multiple veto stages, explicit false-alarm settings, empirical injection-based sensitivity estimates, and explicit statement of the spin assumption. The HMM constraints are too weak to be decisive but show the path to future high-SNR events. The main weakness is the unquantified dependence of the Cygnus X-1 exclusion on the SuperRad signal model.
major comments (3)
- [Sec. VI.B.2, Fig. 4] The headline exclusion [0.85,1.59]×10^-13 eV is obtained by comparing measured upper limits with SuperRad-predicted strain amplitudes. No uncertainty is quoted on these amplitudes or on the growth/depletion timescales. Because the excluded interval is exactly the set where the predicted amplitude exceeds the upper limit, a downward shift of even tens of percent (e.g., from nonlinear mode coupling or higher-multipole losses) would shrink or shift the interval. Since SuperRad authors are also coauthors, please add an independent cross-check or a conservative amplitude-reduction robustness test.
- [Appendix B and Sec. VI.A, Eq. (7)] The manuscript states in Appendix B that the false dismissal probability of the vetoes cannot be easily quantified. However, the HMM sensitivity P_det in Eq. (7) is computed using only the L>L_th threshold and does not include the known-line, single-interferometer, or manual vetoes applied to the real data. If a real signal is contaminated by a noise artifact it will be vetoed, so P_det likely overestimates the true recovery probability. This directly affects the 30%-confidence 'disfavored' mass ranges; please quantify or bound this effect, or rephrase the claim.
- [Sec. VI.A, Eq. (7)] P_det as defined in Eq. (7) is detection power, not a confidence in exclusion. Calling it 'the confidence to which the existence of the vector boson ... can be excluded' is nonstandard and potentially misleading. Please replace with standard terminology (e.g., 'detection probability' or 'power') and state explicitly that the quoted confidence is frequentist power under the injected-signal model.
minor comments (4)
- [Sec. VI.B.2] The text reports two different exclusion endpoints: 1.65×10^-13 eV for chi_i=0.95 and 1.59×10^-13 eV for chi_i>0.5, described as having the 'same excluded band.' This is confusing because the hashed regions in Fig. 4 are computed for chi_i=0.95. Please clarify how the chi_i>0.5 curve is obtained or show a spin-inclusive excluded band.
- [Abstract and Sec. VI.A] 'Disfavor ... at 30% confidence' is easily misread as a posterior probability. Please use '30% detection probability' or '30% power' throughout, including the abstract.
- [Table I] The Cygnus X-1 row lists chi_i=0.95 with a footnote saying the final spin is free, but the abstract uses chi_i>0.5. Define chi_i consistently in the table and text to avoid ambiguity.
- [Fig. 4] The hashed regions and the black upper-limit curve are difficult to distinguish, especially in grayscale. Use distinct line styles and add a legend showing the chi_i=0.95 and chi_i>0.5 exclusion intervals.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: exclusions are data-versus-independent-model comparisons, not fitted inputs renamed as predictions.
full rationale
The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. The headline Cygnus X-1 constraint (Sec. VIB2, Fig. 4) is obtained by computing measured 95% upper limits h95%_UL from Eq. (8), which depends only on the observed ASD, Tcoh, and the loudest CR in each band, and then comparing those limits to strain amplitudes predicted by the published SuperRad waveform model [52,92]. SuperRad is a numerical-relativity/perturbative model whose inputs are the BH parameters and boson mass; nothing in it is fitted to O4a data, and the paper does not tune the model to make the upper limits cross. The excluded mass range is therefore a measurement-versus-independent-prediction comparison, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The HMM constraints (Sec. VIA) similarly use SuperRad only to define search configurations and to generate injection-recovery simulations for Pdet; the null result itself comes from the real-data vetoes. The self-citations to [79,80,84,92,52] are heavy, but they are prior published, code-reproduced pipelines and waveform models, i.e., independent support under the stated criteria. The paper also explicitly flags its own limitations (Appendix B: the false dismissal probability cannot be easily quantified; Sec. VII: the confidence level remains statistically insignificant; Table I footnote: the Cygnus X-1 spin is debated), which are honest caveats about model-dependence and sensitivity, not evidence of circularity. No equation in the manuscript reduces to its own input by construction, and no result is forced by a self-citation chain.
Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger
free parameters (2)
- Initial spin chi_i of Cygnus X-1 =
0.95 (nominal); headline constraint quoted for chi_i > 0.5
- Peakmap threshold theta_thr =
2.5 (gives p0=0.075, p1=0.096)
axioms (5)
- domain assumption A gravitationally coupled ultralight vector boson, if present, undergoes superradiance and forms the cloud described by SuperRad, with the stated growth/depletion timescales and strain amplitudes.
- domain assumption The vector field interacts with Standard Model matter only gravitationally.
- domain assumption Cygnus X-1 emission is monochromatic over O4a (frequency drift below resolution).
- domain assumption The BH parameter posteriors (mass, spin, distance, sky location) and Cygnus X-1 orbital parameters from cited measurements are correct inputs.
- standard math Standard detection statistics (F-statistic, Viterbi, Critical Ratio) and the binary template metric are valid.
invented entities (1)
-
Ultralight vector boson (search target)
no independent evidence
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Directed searches for gravitational waves from ultralight vector boson clouds around merger remnant and galactic black holes during the first part of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KBLMDPQN
@misc{pith2026250907352,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Directed searches for gravitational waves from ultralight vector boson clouds around merger remnant and galactic black holes during the first part of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KBLMDPQN}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07352}
}
read the original abstract
We present the first directed searches for long-transient and continuous gravitational waves from ultralight vector boson clouds around known black holes (BHs). We use LIGO data from the first part of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run. The searches target two distinct types of BHs and use two new semicoherent methods: hidden Markov model (HMM) tracking for the remnant BHs of the mergers GW230814_230901 and GW231123_135430 (referred to as GW230814 and GW231123 in this study), and a dedicated method using the Band Sampled Data (BSD) framework for the galactic BH in the Cygnus X-1 binary system. Without finding evidence of a signal from vector bosons in the data, we estimate the mass range that can be constrained. For the HMM searches targeting the remnants from GW231123 and GW230814, we disfavor vector boson masses in the ranges $[0.94, 1.08]$ and $[2.75, 3.28] \times 10^{-13}$ eV, respectively, at 30% confidence, assuming a 1% false alarm probability. Although these searches are only marginally sensitive to signals from merger remnants at relatively large distances, future observations are expected to yield more stringent constraints with high confidence. For the BSD search targeting the BH in Cygnus X-1, we exclude vector boson masses in the range $[0.85, 1.59] \times 10^{-13}$ eV at 95% confidence, assuming an initial BH spin larger than 0.5.
Figures
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Relativistic frequency shifts in gravitational waves from axion clouds
A unified relativistic framework using bilinear perturbation theory calculates frequency shifts in GWs from axion clouds, handling self-interactions and multiple superradiant modes for the first time.
-
Directional Search for Persistent Gravitational Waves: Results from the First Part of LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA's Fourth Observing Run
An 8.3-year LIGO–Virgo–KAGRA search for persistent, direction-dependent gravitational waves finds no signal and yields the most restrictive upper limits to date on anisotropic backgrounds and targeted sources.
-
Impact of coalescence signals on the search for continuous gravitational waves with Einstein Telescope
Unresolved compact binary coalescence background acts as additional noise that worsens Frequency-Hough sensitivity for continuous gravitational waves by 7-10% near 7 Hz under Einstein Telescope conditions.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Bertone and T
G. Bertone and T. M. P. Tait, Nature562, 51 (2018)
2018
-
[2]
Bertone and D
G. Bertone and D. Hooper, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 045002 (2018)
2018
-
[3]
Oks, New Astronomy Reviews93, 101632 (2021)
E. Oks, New Astronomy Reviews93, 101632 (2021)
2021
-
[4]
Search- ing for the QCD Dark Matter Axion,
M. Baryakhtar, L. Rosenberg, and G. Rybka, “Search- ing for the QCD Dark Matter Axion,” (2025), arXiv:2504.10607 [hep-ex]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
-
[5]
R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1440 (1977)
1977
-
[6]
R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D16, 1791 (1977)
1977
-
[7]
Weinberg, Phys
S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223 (1978)
1978
-
[8]
Arvanitaki, S
A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D81, 123530 (2010)
2010
-
[9]
F. F. Freitas, C. A. Herdeiro, A. P. Morais, A. Onofre, R. Pasechnik, E. Radu, N. Sanchis-Gual, and R. Santos, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021, 047 (2021)
2021
-
[10]
Holdom, Physics Letters B166, 196 (1986)
B. Holdom, Physics Letters B166, 196 (1986)
1986
-
[11]
Goodsell, J
M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo, and A. Ringwald, Journal of High Energy Physics2009, 027 (2009)
2009
-
[12]
Jaeckel and A
J. Jaeckel and A. Ringwald, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science60, 405 (2010)
2010
-
[13]
Essiget al., inSnowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi(2013) arXiv:1311.0029 [hep-ph]
R. Essiget al., inSnowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi(2013) arXiv:1311.0029 [hep-ph]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013
-
[14]
L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D95, 043541 (2017)
2017
-
[15]
Agrawal, N
P. Agrawal, N. Kitajima, M. Reece, T. Sekiguchi, and F. Takahashi, Physics Letters B801, 135136 (2020)
2020
-
[16]
Fabbrichesi, E
M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli, and G. Lanfranchi,The physics of the dark photon(Springer International Pub- lishing, 2021)
2021
-
[17]
Clifton, P
T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, Phys. Rept.513, 1 (2012)
2012
-
[18]
Babichev, L
E. Babichev, L. Marzola, M. Raidal, A. Schmidt-May, F. Urban, H. Veermäe, and M. v. Strauss, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2016, 016 (2016)
2016
-
[19]
Babichev, L
E. Babichev, L. Marzola, M. Raidal, A. Schmidt-May, F. Urban, H. Veermäe, and M. von Strauss, Phys. Rev. D94, 084055 (2016)
2016
-
[20]
Aoki and S
K. Aoki and S. Mukohyama, Phys. Rev. D94, 024001 (2016)
2016
-
[21]
Aoki and K.-i
K. Aoki and K.-i. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D97, 044002 (2018)
2018
-
[22]
Manita, K
Y. Manita, K. Aoki, T. Fujita, and S. Mukohyama, Phys. Rev. D107, 104007 (2023)
2023
-
[23]
Arvanitaki and S
A. Arvanitaki and S. Dubovsky, Phys. Rev. D83, 044026 (2011)
2011
-
[24]
H. Yoshino and H. Kodama, Progress of The- oretical and Experimental Physics2014(2014), 10.1093/ptep/ptu029, 043E02
-
[25]
H. Yoshino and H. Kodama, Progress of The- oretical and Experimental Physics2015(2015), 10.1093/ptep/ptv067, 061E01
-
[26]
Arvanitaki, M
A. Arvanitaki, M. Baryakhtar, and X. Huang, Phys. Rev. D91, 084011 (2015)
2015
-
[27]
Arvanitaki, M
A. Arvanitaki, M. Baryakhtar, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, and R. Lasenby, Phys. Rev. D95, 043001 (2017)
2017
-
[28]
Brito, S
R. Brito, S. Ghosh, E. Barausse, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, I. Dvorkin, A. Klein, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 31 131101 (2017)
2017
-
[29]
Brito, S
R. Brito, S. Ghosh, E. Barausse, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, I. Dvorkin, A. Klein, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D96, 064050 (2017)
2017
-
[30]
Baryakhtar, R
M. Baryakhtar, R. Lasenby, and M. Teo, Phys. Rev. D 96, 035019 (2017)
2017
-
[31]
K. H. M. Chan and O. A. Hannuksela, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023009 (2024)
2024
-
[32]
Cardoso, Óscar J.C
V. Cardoso, Óscar J.C. Dias, G. S. Hartnett, M. Middle- ton, P. Pani, and J. E. Santos, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2018, 043 (2018)
2018
-
[33]
Baumann, H
D. Baumann, H. S. Chia, and R. A. Porto, Phys. Rev. D99, 044001 (2019)
2019
-
[34]
O. A. Hannuksela, K. W. K. Wong, R. Brito, E. Berti, and T. G. F. Li, Nature Astronomy3, 447 (2019)
2019
-
[35]
Zhang and H
J. Zhang and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D99, 064018 (2019)
2019
-
[36]
W. E. East, Phys. Rev. D96, 024004 (2017)
2017
-
[37]
W. E. East and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 041101 (2017)
2017
-
[38]
W. E. East, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 131104 (2018)
2018
-
[39]
Siemonsen and W
N. Siemonsen and W. E. East, Phys. Rev. D101, 024019 (2020)
2020
-
[40]
R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Lect. Notes Phys. 906, pp.1 (2020), arXiv:1501.06570 [gr-qc]
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
-
[41]
Penrose, Nuovo Cimento Rivista Serie1, 252 (1969)
R. Penrose, Nuovo Cimento Rivista Serie1, 252 (1969)
1969
-
[42]
W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky, Nature (London)238, 211 (1972)
1972
-
[43]
Y. B. Zel’Dovich, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters14, 180 (1971)
1971
-
[44]
A. A. Starobinskii, Soviet Phys JETP37, 28 (1973)
1973
-
[45]
Detweiler, Phys
S. Detweiler, Phys. Rev. D22, 2323 (1980)
1980
-
[46]
J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D7, 949 (1973)
1973
-
[47]
S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D76, 084001 (2007)
2007
-
[48]
C. A. Herdeiro, E. Radu, and N. M. Santos, Physics Letters B824, 136835 (2022)
2022
-
[49]
M. Isi, L. Sun, R. Brito, and A. Melatos, Phys. Rev. D 99, 084042 (2019)
2019
-
[50]
Baryakhtar, M
M. Baryakhtar, M. Galanis, R. Lasenby, and O. Simon, Phys. Rev. D103, 095019 (2021)
2021
-
[51]
Siemonsen, C
N. Siemonsen, C. Mondino, D. Egaña Ugrinovic, J. Huang, M. Baryakhtar, and W. E. East, Phys. Rev. D107, 075025 (2023)
2023
-
[52]
T. May, W. E. East, and N. Siemonsen, Phys. Rev. D 111, 044062 (2025)
2025
-
[53]
Aasiet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 074001 (2015)
J. Aasiet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 074001 (2015)
2015
-
[54]
Acerneseet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2014)
F. Acerneseet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2014)
2014
-
[55]
Akutsuet al., Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2021, 05A101 (2020), https://academic.oup.com/ptep/article- pdf/2021/5/05A101/37974994/ptaa125.pdf
T. Akutsuet al., Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2021, 05A101 (2020), https://academic.oup.com/ptep/article- pdf/2021/5/05A101/37974994/ptaa125.pdf
2020
-
[56]
Jiaet al., Science385, 1318 (2024), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.ado8069
W. Jiaet al., Science385, 1318 (2024), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.ado8069
-
[57]
B. P. Abbottet al., Living Reviews in Relativity23, 3 (2020)
2020
-
[58]
Punturoet al.,Proceedings, 14th workshop on gravi- tational wave data analysis (GWDAW-14): Rome, Italy, January 26-29, 2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 194002 (2010)
M. Punturoet al.,Proceedings, 14th workshop on gravi- tational wave data analysis (GWDAW-14): Rome, Italy, January 26-29, 2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 194002 (2010)
2010
-
[59]
M. Evans, R. X. Adhikari, C. Afle, S. W. Ballmer, S. Biscoveanu, S. Borhanian, D. A. Brown, Y. Chen, R. Eisenstein, A. Gruson, A. Gupta, E. D. Hall, R. Hux- ford, B. Kamai, R. Kashyap, J. S. Kissel, K. Kuns, P. Landry, A. Lenon, G. Lovelace, L. McCuller, K. K. Y. Ng, A. H. Nitz, J. Read, B. S. Sathyaprakash, D. H. Shoemaker, B. J. J. Slagmolen, J. R. Smit...
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
-
[60]
K. K. Y. Ng, S. Vitale, O. A. Hannuksela, and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 151102 (2021)
2021
-
[61]
P. S. Aswathi, W. E. East, N. Siemonsen, L. Sun, and D. Jones, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2507.20979 [gr- qc]
arXiv 2025
-
[62]
Abbottet al.(The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, and the KAGRA Collaboration), Phys
R. Abbottet al.(The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, and the KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D105, 102001 (2022)
2022
-
[63]
Palombaet al., Phys
C. Palombaet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 171101 (2019)
2019
-
[64]
Dergachev and M
V. Dergachev and M. A. Papa, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 101101 (2019)
2019
-
[65]
Abbottet al.(KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys
R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys. Rev. D106, 042003 (2022)
2022
-
[66]
S. J. Zhu, M. Baryakhtar, M. A. Papa, D. Tsuna, N. Kawanaka, and H.-B. Eggenstein, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063020 (2020)
2020
-
[67]
Tsukada, T
L. Tsukada, T. Callister, A. Matas, and P. Meyers, Phys. Rev. D99, 103015 (2019)
2019
-
[68]
C. Yuan, Y. Jiang, and Q.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 106, 023020 (2022)
2022
-
[69]
Tsukada, R
L. Tsukada, R. Brito, W. E. East, and N. Siemonsen, Phys. Rev. D103, 083005 (2021)
2021
-
[70]
L. Sun, R. Brito, and M. Isi, Phys. Rev. D101, 063020 (2020)
2020
-
[71]
Collaviti, L
S. Collaviti, L. Sun, M. Galanis, and M. Baryakhtar, Classical and Quantum Gravity42, 025006 (2024)
2024
-
[72]
Vermeulen, P
S. Vermeulen, P. Relton, H. Grote, V. Raymond, C. Af- feldt, F. Bergamin, A. Bisht, M. Brinkmann, K. Danz- mann, S. Doravari, V. Kringel, J. Lough, H. Lück, M. Mehmet, N. Mukund Menon, S. Nadji, E. Schreiber, B. Sorazu, K. Strain, and H. Wittel, Nature600, 424 (2021)
2021
-
[73]
A. S. Göttel, A. Ejlli, K. Karan, S. M. Vermeulen, L. Aiello, V. Raymond, and H. Grote, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 101001 (2024)
2024
-
[74]
Aiello, J
L. Aiello, J. W. Richardson, S. M. Vermeulen, H. Grote, C. Hogan, O. Kwon, and C. Stoughton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 121101 (2022)
2022
-
[75]
Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Phys
R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D105, 063030 (2022)
2022
-
[76]
A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, and KAGRA Collaborations), Phys. Rev. D110, 042001 (2024)
2024
-
[77]
Yang, L.-W
Q. Yang, L.-W. Ji, B. Hu, Z.-J. Cao, and R.-G. Cai, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics18, 065 (2018)
2018
-
[78]
Choudhary, N
S. Choudhary, N. Sanchis-Gual, A. Gupta, J. C. Degol- lado, S. Bose, and J. A. Font, Phys. Rev. D103, 044032 (2021)
2021
-
[79]
Jones, L
D. Jones, L. Sun, N. Siemonsen, W. E. East, S. M. Scott, and K. Wette, Phys. Rev. D108, 064001 (2023)
2023
-
[80]
Jones, N
D. Jones, N. Siemonsen, L. Sun, W. E. East, A. L. Miller, K. Wette, and O. J. Piccinni, Phys. Rev. D111, 063028 (2025)
2025
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.