Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

Impact of correlated noise on the reconstruction of the stochastic gravitational wave background with Einstein Telescope

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that correlated Newtonian noise in the triangular Einstein Telescope layout does not prevent accurate reconstruction of the stochastic gravitational-wave background, provided the noise's frequency dependence is modeled…

desk verdict A careful and honest simulation study: joint recovery of the SGWB and correlated noise works under the matched-model assumption, but the practical claim still needs a mismatch test. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09057 v1 pith:LCRRSOQR submitted 2025-01-15 gr-qc astro-ph.COastro-ph.IM

Ilaria Caporali , Giulia Capurri , Walter Del Pozzo , Angelo Ricciardone , Lorenzo Valbusa Dall'Armi This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COastro-ph.IM
keywords stochasticgravitationalwavebackgroundEinsteinTelescopecorrelatednoiseNewtonianBayesianparameterestimationAETbasisdetectorspower-lawspectralmodel
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 asks whether the proposed triangular Einstein Telescope can measure the stochastic gravitational-wave background despite correlated Newtonian noise among its three nested interferometers. It argues that with a Bayesian analysis that models the correlated noise as a power law and estimates it alongside the background, one day of simulated data reconstructs both signal and noise parameters at percent-level accuracy. It also shows that ignoring the correlated noise biases the recovered background parameters, and that a two-L-shaped-detector layout remains slightly more precise, mainly because of longer arms. The paper concludes that the triangular configuration stays competitive for stochastic-background science when the correlated noise spectrum is correctly modeled.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the frequency-domain Gaussian likelihood for the time-averaged cross-power estimator $\hat C_{IJ}(f)$, whose mean is $\gamma_{IJ}(f)\Omega_{\rm GW}(f)+N_{IJ}(f)/S_0(f)$ and whose variance is set by the auto- and cross-power spectra divided by the number of segments. For the triangle this is evaluated in the AET basis, which diagonalizes the correlated-noise covariance because the three interferometers are assumed identical. The signal and noise are both modeled as power laws, with the noise correlation written as $N_o(f)=N_d(2.75\,{\rm Hz})\,r\,(f/2.75\,{\rm Hz})^{n_{\rm noise}}$, and the four parameters are sampled jointly. A supporting result is the proof that a complex phase in the cross-spectral density can be absorbed into a redefinition of the zero-mean stochastic background, so only the real correlation amplitude matters for background reconstruction.

What would settle it

Run the same Bayesian pipeline on simulated data whose correlated noise is generated from a more realistic spectrum, for example a body-wave Newtonian noise model with a spectral peak or turnover away from a pure $f^{-8}$ power law, while keeping the analysis template as a simple power law; if the recovered background amplitude or tilt shifts beyond the quoted percent level, the central claim would fail for realistic noise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In a triangular three-interferometer detector, seismic Newtonian noise correlates the channels at low frequency; the authors show that this does not spoil stochastic gravitational-wave background measurement if the correlation is included in the model. They derive a Gaussian likelihood for the cross-power estimator in the AET basis, add a power-law cross-spectral-density template for the correlated noise, and jointly estimate four parameters: background amplitude and tilt at 25 Hz, and noise correlation amplitude and tilt at 2.75 Hz. On one day of simulated data with injected background amplitude $A_{\rm GW}=10^{-9}$ and tilt $n_{\rm GW}=2/3$, all four parameters are reconstructed at percent-level accuracy for injected correlations between $-0.5$ and $0.8$; the noise parameters widen as $r\to 0$, while the background parameters remain stable. If the correlated noise is omitted from the likelihood, the recovered background parameters are significantly biased. The two-L-shaped 15-km layout gives credible regions roughly 1.5 times narrower, which the authors attribute mainly to arm length and to having two fewer nuisance parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on simulated correlated noise being drawn from exactly the same power-law model that the analysis fits; real Newtonian noise with a different spectral shape could invalidate the percent-level accuracy claim.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If ET is built in the triangular 10-km layout, stochastic-background searches do not have to treat correlated Newtonian noise as a showstopper; the noise can be estimated jointly with the signal.
  • Future ET pipelines that omit a correlated-noise term will misestimate the background amplitude and tilt, so a cross-spectral-density model must be included.
  • With one day of data, both astrophysical background and noise parameters can be constrained to percent level, so early science runs could already measure the background.
  • The triangular layout is competitive with two separated L-shaped detectors, which are only about 1.5 times tighter on background parameters, mostly because of longer arms.
  • When the injected correlation is weak, the noise parameters become harder to measure, but the background parameters stay stable across the full allowed range of correlation amplitudes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own caveat implies the percent-level accuracy is not yet established for real data: a realistic Newtonian-noise spectrum with bumps, turnovers, or site-specific structure would test whether a single power-law template is enough to keep the background unbiased.
  • If the 2L advantage is mainly arm length, then a triangular design with longer arms or a different site could close or reverse the gap; nothing in the paper shows the L-shape geometry itself is intrinsically superior.
  • The same likelihood framework could be stress-tested on non-power-law backgrounds, such as cosmic strings or first-order phase transitions, where the signal and correlated noise may overlap in frequency differently than in the power-law case.
  • Because the phase of the correlated noise can be absorbed into the background definition for a zero-mean signal, real-data analyses may only need to model the modulus of the cross-spectral density when estimating the stochastic background, leaving phase modeling to resolved-source studies.
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 studies the impact of correlated Newtonian noise on stochastic gravitational-wave background (SGWB) parameter estimation for the Einstein Telescope (ET) in its triangular configuration, and compares this with a two-L-shaped-detector (2L) configuration. The authors derive a Gaussian likelihood for the SGWB estimator in the presence of correlated noise, validate it with a Wishart-likelihood equivalence in Appendix C, and perform Bayesian parameter estimation on simulated data using Bilby and Dynesty. Their main results are (i) when the correlated-noise CSD is modeled as a power law matching the injection, the SGWB parameters (amplitude and tilt) and the correlated-noise parameters (amplitude ratio r and tilt n_noise) are reconstructed with high precision from one day of observation; (ii) neglecting correlated noise in the likelihood produces strongly biased SGWB parameters; and (iii) the 2L configuration yields somewhat tighter constraints on the SGWB parameters than the triangular configuration. The statistical calibration is checked with a 100-realization PP plot.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful validation that a simple joint estimation of SGWB and correlated-noise power-law parameters can, in principle, protect the SGWB measurement from correlated Newtonian noise in the triangular ET configuration. The bias demonstration in Figure 3 is a clear and potentially important warning for future ET analyses. The analytic likelihood derivation and the explicit PP-plot calibration are careful and constitute genuine strengths. The main limitation is that the central recovery claim is established only in a matched-model simulation: the data are generated with the same power-law CSD used in the analysis, and the auto-PSD is fixed to a reference value. The paper itself acknowledges the first caveat, but the abstract and conclusions still state the practical claim that the triangular configuration remains competitive and that percent-level accuracy is achievable without the caveat being fully reflected in the headline statements.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section V, Eqs. (3) and (11)] The central recovery claim rests on a matched-model simulation: the simulated data are generated with the power-law correlated-noise CSD of Eq. (11), and the same power-law model is used in the likelihood to estimate r and n_noise. The paper explicitly notes in Section V that this is a key assumption that may not hold for real data. This is load-bearing because the demonstrated separation between the SGWB and the correlated noise relies on the large spectral-tilt difference (n_GW = 2/3 versus n_noise = -8) and on the well-separated pivot frequencies (25 Hz versus 2.75 Hz). If the real Newtonian-noise CSD is shallower, has a spectral break, or contains additional structure, the four-parameter power-law fit can absorb the mismatch into A_GW and n_GW, reintroducing the sort of bias the paper itself shows in Figure 3 when correlated noise is neglected. No mismatch or robustness test is performed. I therefore recommend that the authors either add injection-recovery tests with misspecified noise CSDs (e.g., broken power laws, different tilts, or a smooth non-power-law term) or explicitly restrict the quantitative claims in the abstract and conclusions to the assumed power-law model.
  2. [Section IV A, fixed PSD assumption] The text states that fixing the auto-PSD to the reference value 'should give conservative estimates.' This is not correct: fixing a parameter removes a source of uncertainty and cannot make the posterior widths conservative; it can only make them narrower than they would be if the PSD were estimated jointly. The reported 'percent-level accuracy' and the relative widths of the triangular versus 2L posteriors in Figure 4 depend on this choice. The authors should either relax this assumption (for example, by jointly estimating PSD amplitudes or by using the T-channel information they exclude) or remove the word 'conservative' and explicitly state that all precision statements assume a perfectly known auto-PSD.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B, equation after (B3)] The expression 'e^{-ψI(f)}' should read 'e^{-iψI(f)}' to be dimensionally and notationally consistent with the phase factor in Eq. (B1).
  2. [Abstract and Conclusions] The phrase 'percent-level accuracy' should be qualified as 'for the injected power-law correlated-noise model and with the auto-PSD fixed'; otherwise readers may overinterpret the claim as applying to realistic ET noise.
  3. [Section V, Table I footnote and Figure 2] The positive-definiteness constraint on No(f)/Nd(f) is mentioned only briefly; please state explicitly how the constraint is implemented in the sampler and verify that all injected values, including r = 0.8 at the lowest analyzed frequencies, satisfy the condition -1/2 ≤ No(f)/Nd(f) ≤ 1.
  4. [Section V, footnote 7] The SNR of the correlated noise is quoted as 135 'according to the standard definition'; please give the explicit formula or a precise citation, since the SNR definition for a noise contribution interpreted as a signal is not standard.
  5. [Introduction, paragraph 1] Typo: 'arm-lenghts' should be 'arm lengths'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the joint reconstruction is a standard injection-recovery validation with an explicitly acknowledged matched-model assumption, and the likelihood does not depend on the fitted values.

full rationale

The paper's likelihood (Eq. 16) is built from the standard SGWB estimator (Eqs. 13-15) and the noise covariance model (Eqs. 10-11); it depends on the data and on model parameters, not on the injected values used to generate the simulations. Recovering the injected AGW, nGW, r, and nnoise is therefore a self-consistency and injection-recovery test, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The matching between the generative noise model and the analysis model is explicitly acknowledged by the authors as a key assumption that holds only for simulated data; this is a limitation, not circularity. Citations to the authors' own previous work ([13] for the correlated-noise likelihood and [104] for the GWBird ORF computation) are ancillary: the likelihood derivation is reproduced in the paper, and the overlap reduction functions are standard quantities, so no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation. No equation is defined in terms of the quantity it is claimed to predict, and no uniqueness claim is imported from prior work. The risk that a real Newtonian-noise CSD would deviate from a power law is a robustness concern that the paper itself flags at the end of Section V and in the Conclusions; it belongs under correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central claim depends on two fitted parameters for the correlated noise model (r and n_noise), the power-law ansatz for Newtonian noise, the assumption of identical channels, and the decision to fix the PSD rather than estimate it. The injection-recovery setup uses the same model for data generation and analysis, which is why the recoverability claim is self-consistent but not a test against an external noise model.

free parameters (2)
  • Correlated noise correlation coefficient r at pivot frequency 2.75 Hz = Injected values -0.4, -0.2, 0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8; recovered in posterior
    Determines the amplitude of the correlated Newtonian noise relative to the PSD. It is estimated from the data, and its recoverability is part of the central claim.
  • Correlated noise spectral tilt n_noise = Injected at -8; recovered in posterior
    Sets the frequency dependence of the correlated noise; estimated jointly with SGWB parameters.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The SGWB and detector noise are stationary, Gaussian, isotropic, and unpolarized; resolved transients are perfectly subtracted.
    Used throughout Section II and IV to write the spectral covariance and Gaussian likelihood; standard for SGWB searches.
  • domain assumption The three triangle interferometers have identical PSDs and identical cross-PSDs, and the geophysical environment at the three vertices is the same.
    Stated in Section III A after Eq. (10); enables the AET diagonalization and the simplified covariance matrix.
  • domain assumption The correlated Newtonian noise follows a power law No(f) = Nd(2.75 Hz) * r * (f/2.75)^nnoise with nnoise approximately -8.
    Eq. (11); the central recovery test is only performed with this model, a limitation the authors acknowledge.
  • domain assumption The PSD is fixed to the reference value of [11] and the T channel is assumed to provide exact PSD information.
    Section IV A; this removes PSD uncertainty from the analysis and affects the width of the reported credible intervals.
  • standard math The Toeplitz covariance matrix is asymptotically equivalent to a circulant matrix, so the DFT diagonalizes it.
    Invoked in Section III A with citation [78]; supports the frequency-domain likelihood.
  • standard math The averaged estimator is Gaussian via the central limit theorem for Nseg = 21600 segments.
    Section IV A and V; justifies the Gaussian likelihood in Eq. (16); validated by PP plots.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of correlated noise on the reconstruction of the stochastic gravitational wave background with Einstein Telescope." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LCRRSOQR

@misc{pith2026250109057,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of correlated noise on the reconstruction of the stochastic gravitational wave background with Einstein Telescope},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LCRRSOQR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09057}
}
read the original abstract

Einstein Telescope (ET) is a proposed next-generation Gravitational Wave (GW) interferometer designed to detect a large number of astrophysical and cosmological sources with unprecedented sensitivity. A key target for ET is the detection of a stochastic gravitational-wave background (SGWB), a faint signal from unresolved GW sources. In its proposed triangular configuration, correlated Newtonian noise of seismic origin poses some challenges for the SGWB detection. We study the impact of correlated noise on the SGWB detection and relative parameter estimation for ET in the triangular configuration, comparing it to a 2L configuration with two separated L-shaped detectors. We perform a Bayesian analysis on simulated data, which shows that accurate reconstruction of the SGWB parameters and instrumental noise is achievable if the noise is properly modeled. We illustrate that neglecting correlated noise leads to significant biases in the parameter reconstruction. Our results show that while the 2L configuration provides slightly better parameter estimation precision, mainly due to its longer arm length, the triangular configuration remains competitive when accurate noise modeling is provided.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09057 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Relative error on the reconstructed parameters as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Posterior distribution of log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Comparison of the posteriors for the SGWB parame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Probability-Probability (PP) plot for the posterior [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

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

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Degrading the Einstein Telescope's sensitivity in specific frequency bands hurts different science goals in predictable ways, but the mission remains scientifically strong even in the worst modelled cases.

  2. Detectability and Parameter Estimation for Einstein Telescope Configurations with GWJulia

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new open-source Julia tool forecasts Einstein Telescope parameter-estimation accuracy, finding the 2L45 design marginally best for single parameters but comparable to other layouts when joint precision is required.

  3. Likelihoods for Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background Data Analysis

    gr-qc 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Gaussian likelihood approximations used in stochastic gravitational-wave background searches can bias parameter estimates when the number of data segments is small, and for LISA and pulsar timing arrays the bias can e...

  4. Constraining primordial non-Gaussianity and parity-violation through Scalar-Induced Gravitational Waves with next-generation ground-based interferometers

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    ET+CE forecast: injected SIGW parameters (A_p, f_peak, f_NL, tau_NL, parity-odd tau_tilde_NL) are recovered within 1-2 sigma despite an astrophysical foreground, but the chiral V-mode is sub-threshold (SNR 0.5-1.9).

  5. \texttt{GWBird}: a toolkit for the characterization of the Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background for Ground, Space, and Pulsar Timing Array detectors

    astro-ph.IM 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A new, unified Python package computes overlap reduction functions, power-law integrated sensitivity curves, and angular sensitivity curves for ground, space, and pulsar timing array detectors across all gravitational...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    M. Punturo et al. , “The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory,”Class. Quant. Grav., vol. 27, p. 194002, 2010

    2010

  2. [2]

    Science Case for the Einstein Tele- scope,

    M. Maggiore et al., “Science Case for the Einstein Tele- scope,” JCAP, vol. 03, p. 050, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    The astrophysical gravitational wave stochastic background,

    T. Regimbau, “The astrophysical gravitational wave stochastic background,” Res. Astron. Astrophys. , vol. 11, pp. 369–390, 2011

    2011

  4. [4]

    Cosmological Back- grounds of Gravitational Waves,

    C. Caprini and D. G. Figueroa, “Cosmological Back- grounds of Gravitational Waves,” Class. Quant. Grav. , vol. 35, no. 16, p. 163001, 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    Correlated 1–1000 Hz magnetic field fluctuations from lightning over Earth-scale distances and their impact on gravitational wave searches,

    K. Janssens et al., “Correlated 1–1000 Hz magnetic field fluctuations from lightning over Earth-scale distances and their impact on gravitational wave searches,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 107, no. 2, p. 022004, 2023

    2023

  6. [6]

    Prospects for an isotropic gravitational wave background detection with Earth-based interfero- metric detectors and the threat of correlated noise,

    K. Janssens, “Prospects for an isotropic gravitational wave background detection with Earth-based interfero- metric detectors and the threat of correlated noise,” in 57th Rencontres de Moriond on Gravitation , 5 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

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

    K. Janssens et al., “Correlated 0.01Hz-40Hz seismic and Newtonian noise and its impact on future gravitational- wave detectors,” 2 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    A seismological study of the sos enattos area—the sardinia candidate site for the einstein telescope,

    M. Di Giovanni, C. Giunchi, G. Saccorotti, A. Berbellini, L. Boschi, M. Olivieri, R. De Rosa, L. Naticchioni, G. Oggiano, M. Carpinelli, et al. , “A seismological study of the sos enattos area—the sardinia candidate site for the einstein telescope,” Seismological Research Letters, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 352–364, 2021

    2021

Show all 110 references
  1. [9]

    Simulations of gravitoelastic correlations for the sardinian candidate site of the ein- stein telescope,

    T. Andric and J. Harms, “Simulations of gravitoelastic correlations for the sardinian candidate site of the ein- stein telescope,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, vol. 125, no. 10, p. e2020JB020401, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Collection of documents on the ET design study and science case,

    ET Steering Committee Editorial Team, “Collection of documents on the ET design study and science case,”

  3. [11]

    Science with the Einstein Tele- scope: a comparison of different designs,

    M. Branchesi et al. , “Science with the Einstein Tele- scope: a comparison of different designs,” JCAP, vol. 07, p. 068, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Impact of correlated seismic and correlated Newtonian noise on the Einstein Telescope,

    K. Janssens, G. Boileau, N. Christensen, F. Badaracco, and N. van Remortel, “Impact of correlated seismic and correlated Newtonian noise on the Einstein Telescope,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 106, no. 4, p. 042008, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Likelihood for a network of gravitational-wave detectors with correlated noise,

    F. Cireddu, M. Wils, I. C. F. Wong, P. T. H. Pang, T. G. F. Li, and W. Del Pozzo, “Likelihood for a network of gravitational-wave detectors with correlated noise,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 110, no. 10, p. 104060, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Detection methods for stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds: a unified treatment,

    J. D. Romano and N. J. Cornish, “Detection methods for stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds: a unified treatment,” Living Rev. Rel. , vol. 20, no. 1, p. 2, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Estimating stochas- tic gravitational wave backgrounds with Sagnac calibra- tion,

    C. J. Hogan and P. L. Bender, “Estimating stochas- tic gravitational wave backgrounds with Sagnac calibra- tion,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 64, p. 062002, 2001

    2001

  8. [16]

    Discriminating be- tween a Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background and Instrument Noise,

    M. R. Adams and N. J. Cornish, “Discriminating be- tween a Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background and Instrument Noise,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 82, p. 022002, 2010

    2010

  9. [17]

    Formalism for power spectral density estimation for non-identical and correlated noise using the null channel in Einstein Telescope,

    K. Janssens, G. Boileau, M.-A. Bizouard, N. Chris- tensen, T. Regimbau, and N. van Remortel, “Formalism for power spectral density estimation for non-identical and correlated noise using the null channel in Einstein Telescope,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus , vol. 138, no. 4, p. 352,

  10. [18]

    Detecting a stochastic background of gravitational radiation: Signal process- ing strategies and sensitivities,

    B. Allen and J. D. Romano, “Detecting a stochastic background of gravitational radiation: Signal process- ing strategies and sensitivities,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 59, p. 102001, 1999

    1999

  11. [19]

    Reconstructing the spectral shape of a stochastic grav- itational wave background with LISA,

    C. Caprini, D. G. Figueroa, R. Flauger, G. Nardini, M. Peloso, M. Pieroni, A. Ricciardone, and G. Tasinato, “Reconstructing the spectral shape of a stochastic grav- itational wave background with LISA,” JCAP, vol. 11, p. 017, 2019. 13

    2019

  12. [20]

    Improved reconstruction of a stochastic gravitational wave background with LISA,

    R. Flauger, N. Karnesis, G. Nardini, M. Pieroni, A. Ric- ciardone, and J. Torrado, “Improved reconstruction of a stochastic gravitational wave background with LISA,” JCAP, vol. 01, p. 059, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Cosmology with the Laser Interfer- ometer Space Antenna,

    P. Auclair et al. , “Cosmology with the Laser Interfer- ometer Space Antenna,” Living Rev. Rel., vol. 26, no. 1, p. 5, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Gravitational waves from inflation in LISA: reconstruction pipeline and physics interpreta- tion,

    M. Braglia et al. , “Gravitational waves from inflation in LISA: reconstruction pipeline and physics interpreta- tion,” JCAP, vol. 11, p. 032, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Gravitational waves from cosmic strings in LISA: reconstruction pipeline and physics interpreta- tion,

    J. J. Blanco-Pillado, Y. Cui, S. Kuroyanagi, M. Lewicki, G. Nardini, M. Pieroni, I. Y. Rybak, L. Sousa, and J. M. Wachter, “Gravitational waves from cosmic strings in LISA: reconstruction pipeline and physics interpreta- tion,” 5 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Gravitational waves from first-order phase transitions in LISA: reconstruction pipeline and physics interpretation,

    C. Caprini, R. Jinno, M. Lewicki, E. Madge, M. Mer- chand, G. Nardini, M. Pieroni, A. Roper Pol, and V. Vaskonen, “Gravitational waves from first-order phase transitions in LISA: reconstruction pipeline and physics interpretation,” JCAP, vol. 10, p. 020, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    A Practical theorem on gravitational wave backgrounds,

    E. S. Phinney, “A Practical theorem on gravitational wave backgrounds,” 7 2001

    2001

  18. [26]

    Circular Polarization of the Astro- physical Gravitational Wave Background,

    L. Valbusa Dall’Armi, A. Nishizawa, A. Ricciardone, and S. Matarrese, “Circular Polarization of the Astro- physical Gravitational Wave Background,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 131, no. 4, p. 041401, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    The spectral density of astrophysical stochastic backgrounds,

    E. Belgacem, F. Iacovelli, M. Maggiore, M. Mancarella, and N. Muttoni, “The spectral density of astrophysical stochastic backgrounds,” 11 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Amplification of gravitational waves in an istropic universe,

    L. P. Grishchuk, “Amplification of gravitational waves in an istropic universe,” Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. , vol. 67, pp. 825–838, 1974

    1974

  21. [29]

    Spectrum of relict gravitational ra- diation and the early state of the universe,

    A. A. Starobinsky, “Spectrum of relict gravitational ra- diation and the early state of the universe,” JETP Lett., vol. 30, pp. 682–685, 1979

    1979

  22. [30]

    The Inflationary Universe: A Possible So- lution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems,

    A. H. Guth, “The Inflationary Universe: A Possible So- lution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 23, pp. 347–356, 1981

    1981

  23. [31]

    A New Type of Isotropic Cosmolog- ical Models Without Singularity,

    A. A. Starobinsky, “A New Type of Isotropic Cosmolog- ical Models Without Singularity,” Phys. Lett. B, vol. 91, pp. 99–102, 1980

    1980

  24. [32]

    A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogene- ity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems,

    A. D. Linde, “A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogene- ity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems,”Phys. Lett. B, vol. 108, pp. 389–393, 1982

    1982

  25. [33]

    Cosmology for Grand Unified Theories with Radiatively Induced Symmetry Breaking,

    A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, “Cosmology for Grand Unified Theories with Radiatively Induced Symmetry Breaking,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 48, pp. 1220–1223, 1982

    1982

  26. [34]

    Gravitational waves from inflation,

    M. C. Guzzetti, N. Bartolo, M. Liguori, and S. Matar- rese, “Gravitational waves from inflation,” Riv. Nuovo Cim., vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 399–495, 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    Parity violation in the Cosmic Microwave Background from a pseudoscalar inflaton,

    L. Sorbo, “Parity violation in the Cosmic Microwave Background from a pseudoscalar inflaton,” JCAP, vol. 06, p. 003, 2011

    2011

  28. [36]

    Detec- tion prospects of gravitational waves from SU(2) axion inflation,

    C. Badger, H. Duval, T. Fujita, S. Kuroyanagi, A. Romero-Rodr ´ ıguez, and M. Sakellariadou, “Detec- tion prospects of gravitational waves from SU(2) axion inflation,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 110, no. 8, p. 084063, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    A flashing beacon in axion inflation: recur- ring bursts of gravitational waves in the strong backre- action regime,

    J. Garcia-Bellido, A. Papageorgiou, M. Peloso, and L. Sorbo, “A flashing beacon in axion inflation: recur- ring bursts of gravitational waves in the strong backre- action regime,” JCAP, vol. 01, p. 034, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Enhancing Inflationary Tensor Modes through Spectator Fields,

    M. Biagetti, M. Fasiello, and A. Riotto, “Enhancing Inflationary Tensor Modes through Spectator Fields,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 88, p. 103518, 2013

    2013

  31. [39]

    Particle production during inflation and gravitational waves detectable by ground- based interferometers,

    J. L. Cook and L. Sorbo, “Particle production during inflation and gravitational waves detectable by ground- based interferometers,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 85, p. 023534,

  32. [40]

    Gravity waves and non-Gaussian features from particle production in a sector gravitationally cou- pled to the inflaton,

    N. Barnaby, J. Moxon, R. Namba, M. Peloso, G. Shiu, and P. Zhou, “Gravity waves and non-Gaussian features from particle production in a sector gravitationally cou- pled to the inflaton,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 86, p. 103508, 2012

    2012

  33. [41]

    Distinctive signatures of space-time diffeomor- phism breaking in EFT of inflation,

    N. Bartolo, D. Cannone, A. Ricciardone, and G. Tasi- nato, “Distinctive signatures of space-time diffeomor- phism breaking in EFT of inflation,” JCAP, vol. 03, p. 044, 2016

    2016

  34. [42]

    Primordial gravi- tational waves in supersolid inflation,

    A. Ricciardone and G. Tasinato, “Primordial gravi- tational waves in supersolid inflation,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 96, no. 2, p. 023508, 2017

    2017

  35. [43]

    Let Effective Field Theory of Inflation flow: stochastic generation of models with red/blue tensor tilt,

    G. Capurri, N. Bartolo, D. Maino, and S. Matarrese, “Let Effective Field Theory of Inflation flow: stochastic generation of models with red/blue tensor tilt,” JCAP, vol. 11, p. 037, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Evolution of Irregularities in a Chaotic Early Universe,

    K. Tomita, “Evolution of Irregularities in a Chaotic Early Universe,” Prog. Theor. Phys. , vol. 54, p. 730, 1975

    1975

  37. [45]

    A General rel- ativistic approach to the nonlinear evolution of collision- less matter,

    S. Matarrese, O. Pantano, and D. Saez, “A General rel- ativistic approach to the nonlinear evolution of collision- less matter,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 47, pp. 1311–1323, 1993

    1993

  38. [46]

    General rela- tivistic dynamics of irrotational dust: Cosmological im- plications,

    S. Matarrese, O. Pantano, and D. Saez, “General rela- tivistic dynamics of irrotational dust: Cosmological im- plications,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 72, pp. 320–323, 1994

    1994

  39. [47]

    Second order perturbations of the Einstein-de Sitter universe,

    S. Matarrese, S. Mollerach, and M. Bruni, “Second order perturbations of the Einstein-de Sitter universe,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 58, p. 043504, 1998

    1998

  40. [48]

    Second order cosmological perturbations from in- flation,

    V. Acquaviva, N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, and A. Ri- otto, “Second order cosmological perturbations from in- flation,” Nucl. Phys. B , vol. 667, pp. 119–148, 2003

    2003

  41. [49]

    CMB polar- ization from secondary vector and tensor modes,

    S. Mollerach, D. Harari, and S. Matarrese, “CMB polar- ization from secondary vector and tensor modes,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 69, p. 063002, 2004

    2004

  42. [50]

    The Cosmological gravitational wave background from pri- mordial density perturbations,

    K. N. Ananda, C. Clarkson, and D. Wands, “The Cosmological gravitational wave background from pri- mordial density perturbations,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 75, p. 123518, 2007

    2007

  43. [51]

    Gravitational Wave Spectrum Induced by Primordial Scalar Perturbations,

    D. Baumann, P. J. Steinhardt, K. Takahashi, and K. Ichiki, “Gravitational Wave Spectrum Induced by Primordial Scalar Perturbations,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 76, p. 084019, 2007

    2007

  44. [52]

    Scalar Induced Gravitational Waves Re- view,

    G. Dom` enech, “Scalar Induced Gravitational Waves Re- view,” Universe, vol. 7, no. 11, p. 398, 2021

    2021

  45. [53]

    Fully non-Gaussian Scalar-Induced Gravitational Waves,

    G. Perna, C. Testini, A. Ricciardone, and S. Matar- rese, “Fully non-Gaussian Scalar-Induced Gravitational Waves,” JCAP, vol. 05, p. 086, 2024

    2024

  46. [54]

    How Well Do We Know the Scalar- Induced Gravitational Waves?,

    A. J. Iovino, S. Matarrese, G. Perna, A. Ricciardone, and A. Riotto, “How Well Do We Know the Scalar- Induced Gravitational Waves?,” 12 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    Cosmic Separation of Phases,

    E. Witten, “Cosmic Separation of Phases,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 30, pp. 272–285, 1984

    1984

  48. [56]

    Gravitational radiation from cosmolog- ical phase transitions,

    C. J. Hogan, “Gravitational radiation from cosmolog- ical phase transitions,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. , vol. 218, pp. 629–636, 1986

    1986

  49. [57]

    General Properties of the Gravitational Wave Spec- trum from Phase Transitions,

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer, T. Konstandin, and G. Servant, “General Properties of the Gravitational Wave Spec- trum from Phase Transitions,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 79, 14 p. 083519, 2009

    2009

  50. [58]

    Gravitational radiation from first order phase transi- tions,

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky, and M. S. Turner, “Gravitational radiation from first order phase transi- tions,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 49, pp. 2837–2851, 1994

    1994

  51. [59]

    Gravitational wave generation from bubble collisions in first-order phase transitions: An analytic approach,

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer, and G. Servant, “Gravitational wave generation from bubble collisions in first-order phase transitions: An analytic approach,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 77, p. 124015, 2008

    2008

  52. [60]

    Gravitational Wave Production by Collisions: More Bubbles,

    S. J. Huber and T. Konstandin, “Gravitational Wave Production by Collisions: More Bubbles,” JCAP, vol. 09, p. 022, 2008

    2008

  53. [61]

    The stochas- tic gravitational wave background from turbulence and magnetic fields generated by a first-order phase transi- tion,

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer, and G. Servant, “The stochas- tic gravitational wave background from turbulence and magnetic fields generated by a first-order phase transi- tion,” JCAP, vol. 12, p. 024, 2009

    2009

  54. [62]

    Gravitational waves from the sound of a first order phase transition,

    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. , vol. 112, p. 041301, 2014

    2014

  55. [63]

    Primordial gravita- tional wave backgrounds from phase transitions with next generation ground based detectors,

    C. Caprini, O. Pujol` as, H. Quelquejay-Leclere, F. Rompineve, and D. A. Steer, “Primordial gravita- tional wave backgrounds from phase transitions with next generation ground based detectors,” 6 2024

    2024

  56. [64]

    Vortex Line Models for Dual Strings,

    H. B. Nielsen and P. Olesen, “Vortex Line Models for Dual Strings,” Nucl. Phys. B , vol. 61, pp. 45–61, 1973

    1973

  57. [65]

    Cosmic Strings and Cosmic Su- perstrings,

    M. Sakellariadou, “Cosmic Strings and Cosmic Su- perstrings,” Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. , vol. 192-193, pp. 68–90, 2009

    2009

  58. [66]

    Gravitational radiation from cosmic strings,

    A. Vilenkin, “Gravitational radiation from cosmic strings,” Phys. Lett. B , vol. 107, pp. 47–50, 1981

    1981

  59. [67]

    Gravitational waves emitted from in- finite strings,

    M. Sakellariadou, “Gravitational waves emitted from in- finite strings,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 42, pp. 354–360, 1990. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 43, 4150 (1991)]

    1991

  60. [68]

    Gravitational radiation from kinky in- finite strings,

    M. Hindmarsh, “Gravitational radiation from kinky in- finite strings,” Phys. Lett. B , vol. 251, pp. 28–33, 1990

    1990

  61. [69]

    Gravitational radiation from cosmic (super)strings: Bursts, stochastic back- ground, and observational windows,

    T. Damour and A. Vilenkin, “Gravitational radiation from cosmic (super)strings: Bursts, stochastic back- ground, and observational windows,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 71, p. 063510, 2005

    2005

  62. [70]

    Sensitivity curves for searches for gravitational-wave backgrounds,

    E. Thrane and J. D. Romano, “Sensitivity curves for searches for gravitational-wave backgrounds,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 88, no. 12, p. 124032, 2013

    2013

  63. [71]

    Saxony also wants to build the einstein telescope,

    E. T. EMR, “Saxony also wants to build the einstein telescope,” December 2024

    2024

  64. [72]

    Combining underground and on- surface third-generation gravitational-wave interferome- ters,

    F. Iacovelli, E. Belgacem, M. Maggiore, M. Mancar- ella, and N. Muttoni, “Combining underground and on- surface third-generation gravitational-wave interferome- ters,” JCAP, vol. 10, p. 085, 2024

    2024

  65. [73]

    Next- generation global gravitational-wave detector network: Impact of detector orientation on compact binary coa- lescence and stochastic gravitational-wave background searches,

    M. Ebersold, T. Regimbau, and N. Christensen, “Next- generation global gravitational-wave detector network: Impact of detector orientation on compact binary coa- lescence and stochastic gravitational-wave background searches,” 8 2024

    2024

  66. [74]

    Surface and un- derground seismic characterization at Terziet in Lim- burg—the Euregio Meuse–Rhine candidate site for Ein- stein Telescope,

    S. Koley, M. Bader, J. van den Brand, X. Campman, H. J. Bulten, F. Linde, and B. Vink, “Surface and un- derground seismic characterization at Terziet in Lim- burg—the Euregio Meuse–Rhine candidate site for Ein- stein Telescope,” Class. Quant. Grav. , vol. 39, no. 2, p. 025008, 2022

    2022

  67. [75]

    Terrestrial Gravitational Noise On A Gravitational Wave Antenna,

    P. R. Saulson, “Terrestrial Gravitational Noise On A Gravitational Wave Antenna,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 30, pp. 732–736, 1984

    1984

  68. [76]

    Optimization of seis- mometer arrays for the cancellation of Newtonian noise from seismic body waves,

    F. Badaracco and J. Harms, “Optimization of seis- mometer arrays for the cancellation of Newtonian noise from seismic body waves,” Class. Quant. Grav. , vol. 36, no. 14, p. 145006, 2019

    2019

  69. [77]

    Impact of Schumann reso- nances on the Einstein Telescope and projections for the magnetic coupling function,

    K. Janssens, K. Martinovic, N. Christensen, P. M. Mey- ers, and M. Sakellariadou, “Impact of Schumann reso- nances on the Einstein Telescope and projections for the magnetic coupling function,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 104, no. 12, p. 122006, 2021. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 105, 109904 (2022)]

    2022

  70. [78]

    On the asymptotic equiva- lence of circulant and Toeplitz matrices,

    Z. Zhu and M. B. Wakin, “On the asymptotic equiva- lence of circulant and Toeplitz matrices,” IEEE Trans- actions on Information Theory , vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 2975– 2992, 2017

    2017

  71. [79]

    Stochastic gravitational wave background reconstruc- tion for a nonequilateral and unequal-noise LISA con- stellation,

    O. Hartwig, M. Lilley, M. Muratore, and M. Pieroni, “Stochastic gravitational wave background reconstruc- tion for a nonequilateral and unequal-noise LISA con- stellation,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 107, no. 12, p. 123531, 2023

    2023

  72. [80]

    Assessing the Impact of Unequal Noises and Fore- ground Modeling on SGWB Reconstruction with LISA,

    J. Kume, M. Peloso, M. Pieroni, and A. Ricciardone, “Assessing the Impact of Unequal Noises and Fore- ground Modeling on SGWB Reconstruction with LISA,” 10 2024

    2024

  73. [81]

    Vari- ational inference for correlated gravitational wave detec- tor network noise,

    J. Liu, A. Vajpeyi, R. Meyer, K. Janssens, J. E. Lee, P. Maturana-Russel, N. Christensen, and Y. Liu, “Vari- ational inference for correlated gravitational wave detec- tor network noise,” 9 2024

    2024

  74. [82]

    Site-selection criteria for the Einstein Telescope,

    F. Amann et al., “Site-selection criteria for the Einstein Telescope,” Rev. Sci. Instrum., vol. 91, no. 9, p. 9, 2020

    2020

  75. [83]

    The Potential Impact of Noise Correlation in Next-generation Gravitational Wave Detectors,

    I. C. F. Wong, P. T. H. Pang, M. Wils, F. Cireddu, W. Del Pozzo, and T. G. F. Li, “The Potential Impact of Noise Correlation in Next-generation Gravitational Wave Detectors,” 7 2024

    2024

  76. [84]

    Characterization of transient noise in Advanced LIGO relevant to gravitational wave sig- nal GW150914,

    B. P. Abbott et al., “Characterization of transient noise in Advanced LIGO relevant to gravitational wave sig- nal GW150914,” Class. Quant. Grav. , vol. 33, no. 13, p. 134001, 2016

    2016

  77. [85]

    Sensitivity and performance of the Advanced LIGO detectors in the third observing run,

    A. Buikema et al. , “Sensitivity and performance of the Advanced LIGO detectors in the third observing run,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 102, no. 6, p. 062003, 2020

    2020

  78. [86]

    Characterization of the LIGO detectors during their sixth science run,

    J. Aasi et al. , “Characterization of the LIGO detectors during their sixth science run,” Class. Quant. Grav. , vol. 32, no. 11, p. 115012, 2015

    2015

  79. [87]

    LIGO Detector Characterization in the first half of the fourth Observing run,

    S. Soni et al. , “LIGO Detector Characterization in the first half of the fourth Observing run,” 9 2024

    2024

  80. [88]

    Time-Frequency Analysis of Gravita- tional Wave Data,

    N. J. Cornish, “Time-Frequency Analysis of Gravita- tional Wave Data,” 8 2020

    2020

  81. [89]

    Search for the isotropic stochastic background using data from Advanced LIGO’s second observing run,

    B. P. Abbott et al. , “Search for the isotropic stochastic background using data from Advanced LIGO’s second observing run,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 100, no. 6, p. 061101, 2019

    2019

  82. [90]

    Upper limits on the isotropic gravitational-wave background from Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo’s third observing run,

    R. Abbott et al. , “Upper limits on the isotropic gravitational-wave background from Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo’s third observing run,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 104, no. 2, p. 022004, 2021

    2021

  83. [91]

    Time- Delay Interferometry for Space-based Gravitational Wave Searches,

    J. Armstrong, F. Estabrook, and M. Tinto, “Time- Delay Interferometry for Space-based Gravitational Wave Searches,” The Astrophysical Journal , vol. 527, p. 814, dec 1999

    1999

  84. [92]

    BILBY: A user-friendly Bayesian in- ference library for gravitational-wave astronomy,

    G. Ashton et al. , “BILBY: A user-friendly Bayesian in- ference library for gravitational-wave astronomy,” As- trophys. J. Suppl. , vol. 241, no. 2, p. 27, 2019

    2019

  85. [93]

    Bayesian inference for com- pact binary coalescences with bilby: validation and ap- plication to the first LIGO–Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalogue,

    I. M. Romero-Shaw et al. , “Bayesian inference for com- pact binary coalescences with bilby: validation and ap- plication to the first LIGO–Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalogue,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. , 15 vol. 499, no. 3, pp. 3295–3319, 2020

    2020

  86. [94]

    Rapid lo- calization and inference on compact binary coalescences with the Advanced LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA gravitational- wave detector network,

    S. Morisaki, R. Smith, L. Tsukada, S. Sachdev, S. Stevenson, C. Talbot, and A. Zimmerman, “Rapid lo- calization and inference on compact binary coalescences with the Advanced LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA gravitational- wave detector network,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 108, no. 12, p. 123040, 2023

    2023

  87. [95]

    dynesty: a dynamic nested sampling package for estimating Bayesian posteriors and evi- dences,

    J. S. Speagle, “dynesty: a dynamic nested sampling package for estimating Bayesian posteriors and evi- dences,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. , vol. 493, no. 3, pp. 3132–3158, 2020

    2020

  88. [96]

    Intensity and anisotropies of the stochastic gravitational wave background from merging compact binaries in galaxies,

    G. Capurri, A. Lapi, C. Baccigalupi, L. Boco, G. Scelfo, and T. Ronconi, “Intensity and anisotropies of the stochastic gravitational wave background from merging compact binaries in galaxies,” JCAP, vol. 11, p. 032, 2021

    2021

  89. [97]

    CLASS GWB: robust model- ing of the astrophysical gravitational wave background anisotropies,

    N. Bellomo, D. Bertacca, A. C. Jenkins, S. Matar- rese, A. Raccanelli, T. Regimbau, A. Ricciardone, and M. Sakellariadou, “CLASS GWB: robust model- ing of the astrophysical gravitational wave background anisotropies,” JCAP, vol. 06, no. 06, p. 030, 2022

    2022

  90. [98]

    Merging Rates of Compact Bi- naries in Galaxies: Perspectives for Gravitational Wave Detections,

    L. Boco, A. Lapi, S. Goswami, F. Perrotta, C. Bacci- galupi, and L. Danese, “Merging Rates of Compact Bi- naries in Galaxies: Perspectives for Gravitational Wave Detections,” 7 2019

    2019

  91. [99]

    Gravitational background from dynami- cal binaries and detectability with 2G detectors,

    C. P´ erigois, F. Santoliquido, Y. Bouffanais, U. N. Di Carlo, N. Giacobbo, S. Rastello, M. Mapelli, and T. Regimbau, “Gravitational background from dynami- cal binaries and detectability with 2G detectors,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 105, no. 10, p. 103032, 2022

    2022

  92. [100]

    Metallicity-constrained merger rates of binary black holes and the stochastic gravitational wave back- ground,

    I. Dvorkin, E. Vangioni, J. Silk, J.-P. Uzan, and K. A. Olive, “Metallicity-constrained merger rates of binary black holes and the stochastic gravitational wave back- ground,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. , vol. 461, no. 4, pp. 3877–3885, 2016

    2016

  93. [101]

    Prop- erties of the stochastic astrophysical gravitational wave background: astrophysical sources dependencies,

    G. Cusin, I. Dvorkin, C. Pitrou, and J.-P. Uzan, “Prop- erties of the stochastic astrophysical gravitational wave background: astrophysical sources dependencies,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 100, no. 6, p. 063004, 2019

    2019

  94. [102]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmolog- ical parameters,

    N. Aghanim et al., “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmolog- ical parameters,” Astron. Astrophys. , vol. 641, p. A6,

    2018

  95. [103]

    Maximum entropy spectral analysis: an application to gravitational waves data analysis,

    A. Martini, S. Schmidt, G. Ashton, and W. Del Pozzo, “Maximum entropy spectral analysis: an application to gravitational waves data analysis,” Eur. Phys. J. C , vol. 84, no. 10, p. 1023, 2024

    2024

  96. [104]

    GWBird: A tool for the detection of the stochastic gravitational wave back- ground for current and next generation interferome- ters.,

    I. Caporali and A. Ricciardone, “ GWBird: A tool for the detection of the stochastic gravitational wave back- ground for current and next generation interferome- ters.,” To appear

  97. [105]

    Stochastic Gravitational Wave Back- grounds,

    N. Christensen, “Stochastic Gravitational Wave Back- grounds,” Rept. Prog. Phys. , vol. 82, no. 1, p. 016903, 2019

    2019

  98. [106]

    The generalised product moment distribu- tion in samples from a normal multivariate population,

    J. Wishart, “The generalised product moment distribu- tion in samples from a normal multivariate population,” Biometrika, vol. 20A, no. 1/2, pp. 32–52, 1928

    1928

  99. [107]

    On the Estimation of Confidence Intervals for Binomial Population Proportions in Astronomy: The Simplicity and Superiority of the Bayesian Approach,

    E. Cameron, “On the Estimation of Confidence Intervals for Binomial Population Proportions in Astronomy: The Simplicity and Superiority of the Bayesian Approach,” Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. , vol. 28, p. 128, 2011

    2011

  100. [2012]

    [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 86, 069901 (2012)]

    2012

  101. [2020]

    652, C4 (2021)]

    [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    2021

  102. [2023]

    [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.Plus 138, 446 (2023)]

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.