Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Enhancing Taiji's Parameter Estimation under Non-Stationarity: a Time-Frequency Domain Framework for Galactic Binaries and Instrumental Noises

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A short-time Fourier transform likelihood outperforms frequency-domain analysis for Taiji under non-stationary noise, cutting bias and recovering lost low-SNR binaries.

desk verdict Solid time-frequency framework for Taiji data analysis with a real analytic template; the main caveat is the uncorrelated-pixel likelihood assumption, which needs more validation for fast noise drifts. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10599 v3 pith:PX3OBQJO submitted 2025-06-12 gr-qc astro-ph.IM

Minghui Du , Ziren Luo , Peng Xu This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.IM
keywords gravitationalwavedataanalysisTaijimissionGalacticbinariesnon-stationarynoiseshort-timeFouriertransformBayesianinferenceWhittlelikelihoodtime-delayinterferometry
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

The paper claims that the conventional frequency-domain analysis of space-based gravitational-wave data breaks down when detector noise is non-stationary, and that replacing it with a short-time Fourier transform (STFT) framework restores reliable inference. The authors cut one year of simulated Taiji data into locally stationary 2.5-day blocks, derive STFT templates for Galactic binary signals and time-varying noise power spectra, and run Bayesian inference with an extended Whittle likelihood built over all time-frequency pixels. Tested on 55 verification Galactic binaries with month-scale noise drifts, the STFT likelihood gives tighter and less biased posteriors for key source parameters than the frequency-domain benchmark, and it recovers a low-SNR binary that the frequency-domain analysis loses. For instrumental noise, modeling the time-varying transfer of the null T channel through changing arm lengths breaks the degeneracy among acceleration-noise amplitudes. If the claim holds, a time-frequency likelihood becomes a viable engine for Taiji's future global fit pipelines, and the same logic should carry over to LISA and Tianqin.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the STFT template-likelihood pair: a short-time Fourier transform, that is, a windowed Fourier transform that breaks the data into blocks and gives one power spectrum per block. For a Galactic binary, the template factorizes as $\bar{X}_2(t_m,f) \approx e^{-i\pi f T}\tilde{w}_m(f-\dot{\varphi}(t_m)/2\pi)\, A_{X2}(t_m)$, separating the fast phase evolution (which shifts the window function in frequency) from the slow amplitude and orbit modulation $A_{X2}(t_m)$. The noise enters through a time-frequency PSD $S(t,f)$ whose time dependence comes from the same delay operators used in the TDI combinations. Over the resulting pixels, the paper defines an inner product and the extended Whittle likelihood (Eq. 33), which assumes all time-frequency pixels are uncorrelated. That assumption turns a non-stationary, fully correlated problem into a locally stationary, diagonal one that is cheap to evaluate; the implementation reaches roughly $10^4$ likelihood evaluations per second on a GPU.

What would settle it

Inject a simulated Galactic binary into a year of Taiji noise whose amplitude is modulated on a timescale shorter than the 2.5-day segment length, run the STFT inference on many noise realizations, and measure the empirical coverage of the 68% and 95% credible intervals; if coverage falls well below nominal while the frequency-domain method becomes even more biased, the local-stationarity assumption has broken down.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that, under non-stationary noise, the time-frequency likelihood is not just a convenience but the statistically correct model. The paper shows that within segments short enough to be locally stationary, both signal and noise factorize into per-segment, per-frequency pieces: a Galactic binary's STFT template at segment $t_m$ is the window function evaluated at the instantaneous frequency $\dot{\varphi}(t_m)/2\pi$ times a slowly varying amplitude factor $A_{X2}(t_m)$, and the noise power spectrum $S(t_m,f_n)$ is built from the same delay operators that define the time-delay interferometry (TDI) combinations. The extended Whittle likelihood (Eq. 33) then treats every time-frequency pixel as an independent measurement, which is the correct limit of local stationarity and removes the non-diagonal noise covariance that plagues the frequency-domain likelihood. Because the time dependence of the noise is modeled explicitly, parameter estimates are less biased and credible intervals narrower; because the T channel's time-varying transfer function is captured, previously degenerate noise amplitudes become separable.

Load-bearing premise

The whole posterior rests on the assumption that the noise is statistically stationary within each 2.5-day block and that different blocks are independent; if noise drifts on shorter timescales or windowing couples neighboring frequency bins, the likelihood is misspecified and the reported credible intervals could be over-confident.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cutting data into locally stationary STFT segments reduces bias and narrows credible intervals for Galactic binary parameters when noise drifts on monthly timescales.
  • A low-SNR verification binary that frequency-domain analysis effectively loses can be recovered by the STFT likelihood.
  • Modeling the T channel's time-varying transfer function separates otherwise degenerate acceleration-noise amplitudes, giving substantially tighter posterior constraints.
  • The time-frequency likelihood is computationally efficient enough (about $10^4$ evaluations per second per GPU) to serve as an engine for future global fits.
  • Because the method rests on the segmentation and the delay operators rather than on Taiji-specific orbits, the same framework transfers to LISA and Tianqin data with the same segment-length logic.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If local stationarity holds, the same time-frequency pixelisation could handle data gaps naturally: a missing block simply drops out of the likelihood sum, something the frequency-domain method cannot do cleanly.
  • The framework points toward a fully time-frequency global fit that models resolved binaries, unresolved foreground, and drifting instrument noise together, turning non-stationarity from a nuisance into a modeled feature.
  • A natural stress test is the low signal-to-noise regime: the paper's claim predicts that STFT credible intervals stay closer to nominal coverage than frequency-domain intervals even when individual blocks sit near the detection threshold.
  • The time-frequency decomposition of the T channel could be extended to separate an anisotropic stochastic foreground from arm-length-driven transfer variations by comparing the modeled $F_{ij,\alpha}(t,f)$ patterns, a direction the paper notes but leaves for future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. This paper proposes a short-time Fourier transform (STFT) based Bayesian inference framework for the Taiji space-based gravitational wave detector, targeting parameter estimation of Galactic binaries and characterization of instrumental noise under non-stationary conditions. The authors derive STFT templates for the TDI response of verification Galactic binaries (Eq. 27) and a time-frequency noise spectral model (Eq. 29), and define an extended Whittle likelihood (Eq. 33). They validate the templates against an independent time-domain simulator (Fig. 1), perform Bayesian MCMC on 55 VGBs comparing STFT with a frequency-domain benchmark (GBGPU), and apply the method to noise amplitude estimation in the T channel under armlength variations. The main claims are reduced uncertainty and bias, recovery of a low-SNR source missed by frequency-domain analysis, and mitigation of parameter degeneracies.

Significance. If the claims hold, the framework provides a practical, GPU-accelerated time-frequency approach that could be integrated into future LISA/Taiji/Tianqin global analysis pipelines, where non-stationary noise is a recognized challenge. The paper has clear strengths: the STFT template is derived from first principles and checked against a rigorous time-domain simulator, with mismatches at O(10^-3) or better for 1-2.5 day segments; the authors provide open-source codes (Triangle-Simulator, Triangle-GB) and use a standard MCMC sampler (Eryn), making the analysis reproducible; and the P-P plots with KS tests give a direct calibration check for the tested noise scenario. The main risk is that the extended Whittle likelihood assumes uncorrelated time-frequency pixels; this is not automatically satisfied with the chosen Tukey window and is only empirically validated for one slowly-varying noise profile.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eq. (33) and Section II B] The extended Whittle likelihood in Eq. (33) sums over STFT pixels as independent, stated to follow from 'local stationarity and statistical independence among segments' with citations to Refs. [53,76]. Those references concern WDM wavelets whose near-orthogonality is specifically engineered; the same property does not hold automatically for a short-time Fourier transform with the Tukey window of Eq. (A1). For a segment of length T, the Tukey window transfer function has a mainlobe comparable to the frequency spacing 1/T, so adjacent frequency bins are correlated even for strictly stationary noise. The P-P plots in Fig. 4 are sensitive to this only for the injected one-knot-per-month drift profile. Please provide (a) a direct computation of the STFT pixel correlation matrix for the chosen parameters, and (b) posterior coverage tests for noise drifts on timescales comparable to or shorter than the 2.5-day segment. Without these, the reported uncertainty reductions in Figs. 4 and 8 could partly reflect overconfidence rather than additional information, which would affect every posterior in the paper.
  2. [Section III, Fig. 5] The abstract's claim that the STFT approach 'successfully recovers low signal-to-noise ratio signals missed by frequency-domain analysis' is supported by a single source, ZTF J2320. The text describes it as relatively low-SNR but does not quote the injected SNR, the recovered SNR, or any detection statistic such as a Bayes factor or false-alarm probability. The figure shows posterior samples, but it is not clear from the plot alone whether the frequency-domain posterior has actually failed to constrain the source or is merely broader. Please quantify the SNR and provide a detection significance; ideally, also give the recovery rate over a population of low-SNR injections rather than a single anecdotal case.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section I] The sentence 'A a way around this difficulty' in the Introduction contains a typo ('A a' should be 'A way').
  2. [Figure 5 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'frequnecy-domain' should be 'frequency-domain'.
  3. [Section III] The noise amplitude is said to vary by '±1 magnitudes'; please clarify whether this means a factor of 10 in amplitude or in power spectral density, and how the cubic-spline knots are normalized.
  4. [Appendix A and Eq. (A2)] The frequency-domain Tukey window expression in Eq. (A2) uses definitions A, B, and C but does not state its domain of validity (e.g., excluding f = 0) or explain fully how it is derived from the time-domain window in Eq. (A1); a brief note would improve reproducibility.
  5. [Equation (31) and surrounding text] The notation 'Nf,m/Tm' is ambiguous: the upper limit of the frequency sum should be written as Nf,m/Tm (the maximum frequency), and the subscript 'Nf,m' should be defined explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the STFT template, noise model, and extended Whittle likelihood are derived from first principles and validated against independent time-domain simulations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The STFT GB template (Eq. 27) is obtained by analytically evaluating the windowed integral in Eq. 23 from the time-domain TDI response, with the slow-variation approximations stated explicitly; its accuracy is checked directly against time-domain waveforms from the public Triangle-Simulator toolkit (Fig. 1), not against the template itself. The time-varying noise PSD (Eqs. 29 and 35) is computed from TDI transfer functions and independently compared with simulated data (Fig. 6). The likelihood (Eq. 33) is the standard extended Whittle form; its diagonal-pixel assumption is justified by external references (Refs. [53,76]), and a potential violation would be a modeling or calibration concern, not a circular step. The only self-references (Ref. [19] for Taiji orbit data and Triangle-GB validation, plus the TriangleDataCenter repositories) are used for simulation infrastructure and benchmarking; Triangle-GB is public code validated against time-domain simulation, so it constitutes independent support rather than a circular premise. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely relabeled. The reported STFT advantage follows from using time-resolved noise PSDs instead of year-averaged spectra, which is the paper's stated point rather than a definitional tautology.

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

The framework is mostly self-contained: it combines known statistical tools (STFT, Whittle likelihood, MCMC) with a newly derived STFT template. The free parameters are analysis choices and simulation settings, not hidden physical constants tuned to force agreement. The main assumptions are local stationarity, idealized noise spectral shapes, and precise armlength knowledge; the authors acknowledge the idealized parts in Section V. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Segment length T_m = 2.5 days
    Chosen as representative to balance local stationarity and frequency resolution. Mismatch tests show 1 to 2.5 day segments give O(1e-3) to O(1e-4) template errors, and longer segments degrade accuracy.
  • Tukey window parameter alpha = 0.1
    Selected to suppress spectral leakage while preserving signal strength. The STFT template is windowed identically, so alpha affects the likelihood and the results.
  • VGB amplitude scaling factors = 2x for first 25 sources, 4x for remaining 30
    Needed because the 1-year simulation shortens the 48-month detectability baseline of the catalog. Rescaling changes SNR and influences the recovery and uncertainty comparisons.
  • Injected noise drift profile = +/-1 magnitude around mean, 13 cubic-spline knots over 1 year
    Defines the non-stationarity used in the Galactic binary simulations, generated independently for A2 and E2. The magnitude and cadence are modeling choices, not derived from mission data.
  • PSD estimation band widths and smoothing filter = 10 microHz (FD), 50 microHz (STFT), Savitzky-Golay smoothing
    Analysis hyperparameters for estimating S(t, f0). The median-over-band plus smoothing prescription is heuristic and affects the likelihood inputs.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption STFT pixels are locally stationary and statistically independent across segments; the extended Whittle likelihood is valid.
    Invoked before Eq. (31)-(33) to justify uncorrelated time-frequency pixels. The authors cite Refs. [53,76] for verification. If segments are too short or correlated, the likelihood is misspecified.
  • domain assumption Within a segment, the GW phase evolves linearly and detector orbit delays can be approximated by constant phase shifts.
    Used to derive the closed-form STFT template in Eq. (27). Quadratic phase terms are neglected with claimed error below O(1e-2), and delay operators become factors e^{-i phi dot d}.
  • domain assumption OMS and ACC noise spectral shapes are known, identical for all links, and constant over the mission; only amplitudes are estimated.
    Used in the T-channel noise model Eq. (35). The paper calls this a conventional simplification and notes realistic noise requires spline or Gaussian-process modeling.
  • domain assumption All T-channel non-stationarity comes from arm length variations in the transfer functions, not from intrinsic noise drift.
    This is the core setup of Section IV. The authors explicitly state the assumption and list intrinsic drift as future work.
  • domain assumption Arm lengths are known to nanosecond precision from ranging and orbit determination.
    Underlies the claim that the time dependence of S_T2 can be modeled rather than fitted. Cited from Refs. [68,69].
  • domain assumption The median periodogram and Savitzky-Golay smoothing produce an unbiased estimate of the local noise PSD in the Galactic binary analysis.
    Used in the noise-agnostic workflow to fix S(t,f0) before signal MCMC. No rigorous proof is given for this estimator, though it is standard in the field.
  • standard math Newtonian approximation and third-order phase expansion describe Galactic binary waveforms.
    Adopted for the waveform model in Eqs. (11)-(14) and consistent with the cited Galactic binary literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Taiji's Parameter Estimation under Non-Stationarity: a Time-Frequency Domain Framework for Galactic Binaries and Instrumental Noises." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PX3OBQJO

@misc{pith2026250610599,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Taiji's Parameter Estimation under Non-Stationarity: a Time-Frequency Domain Framework for Galactic Binaries and Instrumental Noises},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PX3OBQJO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10599}
}
read the original abstract

The data analysis of space-based gravitational wave detectors like Taiji faces significant challenges from non-stationary noise, which compromises the efficacy of traditional frequency-domain analysis. This work proposes a unified framework based on short-time Fourier transform (STFT) to enhance parameter estimation of Galactic binary and characterization of instrumental noise under non-stationarity. Segmenting data into locally stationary intervals, we derive STFT-based models for signals and noises, and implement Bayesian inference via the extended Whittle likelihood. Validated through the analysis of verification Galactic binaries and instrumental noises, our STFT approach outperforms frequency-domain methods by reducing the uncertainty and bias of estimation, successfully recovering low signal-to-noise ratio signals missed by frequency-domain analysis, and mitigating the degeneracy among noise parameters. The framework's robustness against noise drifts and computational efficiency highlight its potential for integration into future global analysis pipelines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10599 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Mismatches between STFT templates and rigorous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Time-varying instrumental noises in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. The statistical summaries for four key parameters (amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The posteriors of VGB ZTF J2320 as an ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The time-frequency dependence of contributors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The posterior distributions of OMS (left) and ACC (right) noise amplitudes. The ACC noise amplitudes are grouped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The posterior distributions of high-frequency source HMCnc ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Similar to FIG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Non-stationary noise in gravitational wave analyses: The wavelet domain noise covariance matrix

    gr-qc 2025-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    For slowly varying detector noise, the Wilson-Daubechies-Meyer wavelet noise covariance matrix is approximately diagonal, with off-diagonal terms controlled by the time and frequency derivatives of the dynamic spectral model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Amaro-Seoane, H

    P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, J. Baker, E. Barausse, et al., (2017), 10.48550/arXiv.1702.00786, arxiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.00786 2017

  2. [2]

    Baker et al., (2019), arXiv:1907.06482 [astro-ph.IM]

    J. Baker et al., (2019), arXiv:1907.06482 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    Hu and Y.-L

    W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu, National Science Review 4, 685 (2017), https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article- pdf/4/5/685/31566708/nwx116.pdf

    2017

  4. [4]

    Z. Luo, Z. Guo, G. Jin, Y. Wu, and W. Hu, Results in Physics 16, 102918 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    Z. Luo, Y. Wang, Y. Wu, W. Hu, and G. Jin, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2021, 05A108 (2020), https://academic.oup.com/ptep/article- pdf/2021/5/05A108/37953044/ptaa083.pdf

    2020

  6. [6]

    Luo et al

    J. Luo et al. (TianQin), Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 035010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    K. Li, T. Bogdanovi´ c, D. R. Ballantyne, and M. Bonetti, The Astrophysical Journal 933, 104 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    K. Li, T. Bogdanovi´ c, D. R. Ballantyne, and M. Bonetti, (2022), 10.48550/arXiv.2207.14231, arXiv:2207.14231 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.14231 2022

Show all 112 references
  1. [9]

    Steinle, H

    N. Steinle, H. Middleton, C. J. Moore, S. Chen, A. Klein, et al., (2023), 10.48550/arXiv.2305.05955, arXiv:2305.05955 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Lamberts, S

    A. Lamberts, S. Blunt, T. B. Littenberg, S. Garrison- Kimmel, T. Kupfer, et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 490, 5888 (2019), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/490/4/5888/30995029/stz2834.pdf

    2019

  3. [11]

    Korol, E

    V. Korol, E. M. Rossi, P. J. Groot, G. Nele- mans, S. Toonen, et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 470, 1894 (2017), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/470/2/1894/18139327/stx1285.pdf

    2017

  4. [12]

    Korol, N

    V. Korol, N. Hallakoun, S. Toonen, and N. Karnesis, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society511, 5936 (2022), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/511/4/5936/48413134/stac415.pdf

    2022

  5. [13]

    Lisa and the galactic population of compact binaries,

    M. Benacquista, “Lisa and the galactic population of compact binaries,” in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, edited by C. Bambi, S. Katsanevas, and K. D. Kokkotas (Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2020) pp. 1–24

    2020

  6. [14]

    J. R. Gair, L. Barack, T. Creighton, C. Cutler, S. L. Larson, et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 21, S1595 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0405137

    2004 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Chen, C.-S

    J. Chen, C.-S. Yan, Y.-J. Lu, Y.-T. Zhao, and J.-Q. 11 Ge, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 21, 285 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Buscicchio, J

    R. Buscicchio, J. Torrado, C. Caprini, G. Nar- dini, N. Karnesis, et al., JCAP 01, 084 (2025), arXiv:2410.18171 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Babak, C

    S. Babak, C. Caprini, D. G. Figueroa, N. Kar- nesis, P. Marcoccia, et al., JCAP 08, 034 (2023), arXiv:2304.06368 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Caprini et al., JCAP 03, 024 (2020), arXiv:1910.13125 [astro-ph.CO]

    C. Caprini et al., JCAP 03, 024 (2020), arXiv:1910.13125 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Du et al., (2025), arXiv:2505.16500 [gr-qc]

    M. Du et al., (2025), arXiv:2505.16500 [gr-qc]

    2025

  12. [20]

    Breivik, C

    K. Breivik, C. M. F. Mingarelli, and S. L. Larson, Astro- phys. J. 901, 4 (2020), arXiv:1912.02200 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Ebadi, V

    R. Ebadi, V. Strokov, E. H. Tanin, E. Berti, and R. L. Walsworth, Phys. Rev. D 111, 044023 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Liu, W.-H

    C. Liu, W.-H. Ruan, and Z.-K. Guo, Phys. Rev. D 107, 064021 (2023), arXiv:2301.02821 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Karnesis, S

    N. Karnesis, S. Babak, M. Pieroni, N. Cornish, and T. Littenberg, Phys. Rev. D 104, 043019 (2021), arXiv:2103.14598 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Littenberg, N

    T. Littenberg, N. Cornish, K. Lackeos, and T. Robson, Phys. Rev. D 101, 123021 (2020), arXiv:2004.08464 [gr- qc]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    T. B. Littenberg and N. J. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D 107, 063004 (2023), arXiv:2301.03673 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    M. L. Katz, N. Karnesis, N. Korsakova, J. R. Gair, and N. Stergioulas, (2024), arXiv:2405.04690 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    S. Deng, S. Babak, M. Le Jeune, S. Marsat, E. Plagnol, et al., Phys. Rev. D 111, 103014 (2025), arXiv:2501.10277 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    G. Wang, B. Li, P. Xu, and X. Fan, Phys. Rev. D 106, 044054 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Hartwig, M

    O. Hartwig, M. Lilley, M. Muratore, and M. Pieroni, Phys. Rev. D 107, 123531 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    M. H. A. Davis (1989)

    1989

  23. [31]

    Jaranowski and A

    P. Jaranowski and A. Krolak, Analysis of Gravitational- Wave Data , Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology (Cambridge University Press, 2009)

    2009

  24. [32]

    Muratore, J

    M. Muratore, J. Gair, and L. Speri, Phys. Rev. D 109, 042001 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Caprini, D

    C. Caprini, D. G. Figueroa, R. Flauger, G. Nardini, M. Peloso, et al., Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics 2019, 017 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Flauger, N

    R. Flauger, N. Karnesis, G. Nardini, M. Pieroni, A. Ric- ciardone, et al., JCAP 01, 059 (2021), arXiv:2009.11845 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Boileau, N

    G. Boileau, N. Christensen, R. Meyer, and N. J. Cor- nish, Phys. Rev. D 103, 103529 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Baghi, N

    Q. Baghi, N. Karnesis, J.-B. Bayle, M. Besan¸ con, and H. Inchausp´ e, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2023, 066 (2023)

    2023

  29. [38]

    Muratore, D

    M. Muratore, D. Vetrugno, S. Vitale, and O. Hartwig, Phys. Rev. D 105, 023009 (2022)

    2022

  30. [39]

    Hartwig and M

    O. Hartwig and M. Muratore, Phys. Rev. D 105, 062006 (2022)

    2022

  31. [40]

    Muratore, O

    M. Muratore, O. Hartwig, D. Vetrugno, S. Vitale, and W. J. Weber, Phys. Rev. D 107, 082004 (2023)

    2023

  32. [41]

    Wang, X.-Y

    P.-P. Wang, X.-Y. Lu, X.-L. Zhao, H.-K. Chen, J. Zhou, et al., Results in Physics 58, 107481 (2024)

    2024

  33. [42]

    Transient noises such as glitches can be ad- dressed with alternative methods like fitting and sub- traction [113, 114]

    The focus of this paper primarily lies in slowly drift- ing noises. Transient noises such as glitches can be ad- dressed with alternative methods like fitting and sub- traction [113, 114]

  34. [43]

    M. R. Adams and N. J. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D 89, 022001 (2014)

    2014

  35. [44]

    S. Lin, B. Hu, X.-H. Zhang, and Y.-X. Liu, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66, 299512 (2023), arXiv:2212.14519 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Pozzoli, R

    F. Pozzoli, R. Buscicchio, A. Klein, V. Korol, A. Sesana, et al., Phys. Rev. D 111, 063005 (2025), arXiv:2410.08274 [astro-ph.GA]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Armano, H

    M. Armano, H. Audley, G. Auger, J. T. Baird, M. Bas- san, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 231101 (2016)

    2016

  38. [47]

    Armano, H

    M. Armano, H. Audley, J. Baird, P. Binetruy, M. Born, et al., Phys. Rev. D 97, 122002 (2018)

    2018

  39. [48]

    Armano, H

    M. Armano, H. Audley, J. Baird, P. Binetruy, M. Born, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 061101 (2018)

    2018

  40. [49]

    Wang and W.-T

    G. Wang and W.-T. Ni, Phys. Scripta 98, 075005 (2023), arXiv:2008.05812 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Wang, Phys

    G. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 110, 064085 (2024), arXiv:2406.11305 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Whittle, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 20, 334 (2018), https://academic.oup.com/jrsssb/article- pdf/20/2/334/49096391/jrsssb 20 2 334.pdf

    P. Whittle, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 20, 334 (2018), https://academic.oup.com/jrsssb/article- pdf/20/2/334/49096391/jrsssb 20 2 334.pdf

    2018

  43. [52]

    Baghi, I

    Q. Baghi, I. Thorpe, J. Slutsky, J. Baker, T. Dal Can- ton, et al., Phys. Rev. D 100, 022003 (2019), arXiv:1907.04747 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [53]

    N. J. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D 102, 124038 (2020)

    2020

  45. [54]

    M. C. Digman and N. J. Cornish, Astrophys. J. 940, 10 (2022), arXiv:2206.14813 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [55]

    M. C. Digman and N. J. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D 108, 023022 (2023), arXiv:2212.04600 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Tenorio and D

    R. Tenorio and D. Gerosa, Phys. Rev. D 111, 104044 (2025), arXiv:2502.11823 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Kumar, A

    S. Kumar, A. H. Nitz, and X. J. Forteza, Astrophys. J. 982, 67 (2025), arXiv:2202.12762 [astro-ph.IM]

    2025 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Klimenko, I

    S. Klimenko, I. Yakushin, A. Mercer, and G. Mitsel- makher, Classical and Quantum Gravity 25, 114029 (2008), arXiv:0802.3232 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Kupfer et al., Astrophys

    T. Kupfer et al., Astrophys. J. 963, 100 (2024), arXiv:2302.12719 [astro-ph.SR]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [60]

    A. W. Criswell, S. Rieck, and V. Mandic, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023025 (2025), arXiv:2410.23260 [astro-ph.IM]

    2025 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Otto, Time-Delay Interferometry Simulations for the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, Ph.D

    M. Otto, Time-Delay Interferometry Simulations for the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, Ph.D. thesis, Leib- niz U., Hannover (2015)

    2015

  53. [62]

    Hartwig, Instrumental modelling and noise reduction algorithms for the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, Ph.D

    O. Hartwig, Instrumental modelling and noise reduction algorithms for the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, Ph.D. thesis, Leibniz U., Hannover (2021)

    2021

  54. [63]

    Bayle and O

    J.-B. Bayle and O. Hartwig, Phys. Rev. D 107, 083019 (2023)

    2023

  55. [64]

    P. Wu, M. Du, and P. Xu, Opt. Express 32, 43249 (2024), arXiv:2206.10664 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [65]

    M. L. Katz, J.-B. Bayle, A. J. K. Chua, and M. Vallis- neri, Phys. Rev. D 106, 103001 (2022)

    2022

  57. [66]

    Lisa data challenge manual,

    L. WG, “Lisa data challenge manual,” https: //lisa-ldc.lal.in2p3.fr/static/data/pdf/ LDC-manual-002.pdf

  58. [67]

    Z. Ren, T. Zhao, Z. Cao, Z.-K. Guo, W.-B. Han, et al., Front. Phys. (Beijing) 18, 64302 (2023), arXiv:2301.02967 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [68]

    J. N. Reinhardt, M. Staab, K. Yamamoto, J.-B. Bayle, A. Hees, et al., Phys. Rev. D 109, 022004 (2024), arXiv:2307.05204 [gr-qc]. 12

    2024 arXiv

  60. [69]

    J. N. Reinhardt, O. Hartwig, and G. Heinzel, Class. Quant. Grav. 42, 055014 (2025), arXiv:2408.09832 [gr- qc]

    2025 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Quang Nam, Y

    D. Quang Nam, Y. Lemi` ere, A. Petiteau, J.-B. Bayle, O. Hartwig, et al., Phys. Rev. D 108, 082004 (2023), arXiv:2211.02539 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Tinto and S

    M. Tinto and S. Dhurandhar, Living Reviews in Rela- tivity 24 (2021), 10.1007/s41114-020-00029-6

    2021 doi

  63. [72]

    Tinto and S

    M. Tinto and S. V. Dhurandhar, Living Rev. Rel. 8, 4 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0409034

    2005 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Wang, W.-L

    P.-P. Wang, W.-L. Qian, Y.-J. Tan, H.-Z. Wu, and C.-G. Shao, Phys. Rev. D 106, 024003 (2022), arXiv:2205.08709 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  65. [74]

    T. A. Prince, M. Tinto, S. L. Larson, and J. W. Armstrong, Phys. Rev. D 66, 122002 (2002), arXiv:gr- qc/0209039

    2002

  66. [75]

    M. B. Priestley, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 27, 204 (1965), https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.2517- 6161.1965.tb01488.x

    1965

  67. [76]

    Burke, S

    O. Burke, S. Marsat, J. R. Gair, and M. L. Katz, (2025), arXiv:2502.17426 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Castelli, Q

    E. Castelli, Q. Baghi, J. G. Baker, J. Slutsky, J. Bobin, et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 42, 065018 (2025), arXiv:2411.13402 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  69. [78]

    P. A. Seoane et al., Gen. Rel. Grav. 54, 3 (2022), arXiv:2107.09665 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

  70. [79]

    N. J. Cornish and T. B. Littenberg, Phys. Rev. D 76, 083006 (2007), arXiv:0704.1808 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Korol, N

    V. Korol, N. Hallakoun, S. Toonen, and N. Karne- sis, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 511, 5936 (2022), arXiv:2109.10972 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Korol, E

    V. Korol, E. M. Rossi, P. J. Groot, G. Nelemans, S. Too- nen, et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 470, 1894 (2017), arXiv:1703.02555 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  73. [82]

    To set a criterion for the accuracy of template, we require the residual signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) caused by template error to be less than 1

    When modeling the TDI response of GB signal, the am- plitude evolves slowly and can be calculated on a sparse time grid without loss of precision, leaving the accu- racy of phase as our primary focus. To set a criterion for the accuracy of template, we require the residual sig...

  74. [83]

    The difference between dij and dji is crucial for the suppression of laser noise, though

  75. [84]

    https://github.com/TriangleDataCenter/ Triangle-Simulator

  76. [85]

    Lindblom, B

    L. Lindblom, B. J. Owen, and D. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. D 78, 124020 (2008)

    2008

  77. [86]

    P¨ urrer and C.-J

    M. P¨ urrer and C.-J. Haster, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023151 (2020)

    2020

  78. [87]

    S. H. Strub, L. Ferraioli, C. Schmelzbach, S. C. St¨ ahler, and D. Giardini, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024005 (2024), arXiv:2403.15318 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  79. [88]

    M. L. Katz, C. Danielski, N. Karnesis, V. Korol, N. Tamanini, et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 517, 697 (2022), arXiv:2205.03461 [astro-ph.EP]

    2022 arXiv

  80. [89]

    Robson, N

    T. Robson, N. J. Cornish, N. Tamanini, and S. Toonen, Phys. Rev. D 98, 064012 (2018), arXiv:1806.00500 [gr- qc]

    2018 arXiv

  81. [90]

    mikekatz04/gbgpu: First official public release!

    M. L. Katz, “mikekatz04/gbgpu: First official public release!” (2022)

    2022

  82. [91]

    https://github.com/TriangleDataCenter/ Triangle-GB

  83. [92]

    Allen, W

    B. Allen, W. G. Anderson, P. R. Brady, D. A. Brown, and J. D. E. Creighton, Phys. Rev. D85, 122006 (2012), arXiv:gr-qc/0509116

    2012 arXiv

  84. [93]

    R. W. Schafer, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 28, 111 (2011)

    2011

  85. [94]

    LISA Verification Bi- naries,

    LISA Collaboration, “LISA Verification Bi- naries,” https://gitlab.in2p3.fr/LISA/ lisa-verification-binaries (2024)

    2024

  86. [95]

    Karnesis, M

    N. Karnesis, M. L. Katz, N. Korsakova, J. R. Gair, and N. Stergioulas, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 526, 4814 (2023), arXiv:2303.02164 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  87. [96]

    For parameters with multimodal distributions ( e.g., the sky locations of some sources), we employ SCIPY’s find peaks method to select only the peak with maxi- mum likelihood values

  88. [97]

    C. J. Hogan and P. L. Bender, Phys. Rev. D 64, 062002 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0104266

    2001 arXiv

  89. [99]

    Pozzoli, R

    F. Pozzoli, R. Buscicchio, C. J. Moore, F. Haardt, and A. Sesana, Phys. Rev. D 109, 083029 (2024), arXiv:2311.12111 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  90. [100]

    Wang, Phys

    G. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 110, 042005 (2024), arXiv:2403.01490 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  91. [101]

    Wang, (2025), arXiv:2502.03983 [gr-qc]

    G. Wang, (2025), arXiv:2502.03983 [gr-qc]

    2025

  92. [102]

    Li, Y.-M

    Y.-N. Li, Y.-M. Hu, and E.-K. Li, (2025), arXiv:2504.12983 [astro-ph.IM]

    2025 arXiv

  93. [103]

    T. B. Littenberg and N. J. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D 91, 084034 (2015), arXiv:1410.3852 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  94. [104]

    N. J. Cornish and J. D. Romano, Phys. Rev. D 92, 042001 (2015), arXiv:1505.08084 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  95. [105]

    Rosati and T

    R. Rosati and T. B. Littenberg, (2024), arXiv:2410.17180 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  96. [106]

    Karnesis, M

    N. Karnesis, M. Lilley, and A. Petiteau, Classical and Quantum Gravity 37, 215017 (2020)

    2020

  97. [107]

    Baghi (LDC Working Group), in 56th Rencontres de Moriond on Gravitation (2022) arXiv:2204.12142 [gr- qc]

    Q. Baghi (LDC Working Group), in 56th Rencontres de Moriond on Gravitation (2022) arXiv:2204.12142 [gr- qc]

    2022 arXiv

  98. [108]

    J. Kume, M. Peloso, M. Pieroni, and A. Ricciardone, (2024), arXiv:2410.10342 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  99. [109]

    Chauvineau, T

    B. Chauvineau, T. Regimbau, J.-Y. Vinet, and S. Pireaux, Phys. Rev. D 72, 122003 (2005)

    2005

  100. [110]

    Tinto and S

    M. Tinto and S. V. Dhurandhar, Living Rev. Rel. 24, 1 (2021)

    2021

  101. [111]

    Hinderer and E

    T. Hinderer and E. E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D 78, 064028 (2008)

    2008

  102. [112]

    M. L. Katz, A. J. K. Chua, L. Speri, N. Warburton, and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D 104, 064047 (2021)

    2021

  103. [113]

    Muratore, J

    M. Muratore, J. Gair, O. Hartwig, M. L. Katz, and A. Toubiana, (2025), arXiv:2505.19870 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  104. [114]

    Baghi, N

    Q. Baghi, N. Korsakova, J. Slutsky, E. Castelli, N. Kar- nesis, et al., Phys. Rev. D 105, 042002 (2022). 13 Appendix A: T ukey window in the time and frequency domain For a Tukey window specified by parameter α ∈ [0, 1], its time-domain expression reads wT (t) =    1 2 ...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.