Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Performance of an instrumented baffle placed at the entrance of Virgo's end mirror vacuum tower during O5

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A baffle moved to the entrance of Virgo's vacuum tower can still monitor stray light without adding noise.

desk verdict Useful engineering study for Virgo O5, but the noise conclusion rests on an unmeasured baffle BRDF; get that measured and the paper is solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11592 v2 pith:RLXJ5P6Z submitted 2024-12-16 physics.ins-det

M. Andrés-Carcasona , M. Martínez , Ll. M. Mir , J. Mundet , H. Yamamoto This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-det
keywords instrumentedbafflescatteredlightFabry-PerotcavityVirgogravitational-wavedetectorstraynoisephotodioderingAdvancedPlusO5back-scatteringBRDF
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 argues that an instrumented baffle originally designed to hang near Virgo's end mirrors can instead be fixed to the wall of the vacuum tower, 1.4 m from the mirror, and do the same monitoring job. The baffle's five rings of photodiodes face the input mirror and read the scattered-light pattern inside the Fabry-Perot cavity, a known noise source and a diagnostic for mirror defects and beam misalignment. Using an FFT-based paraxial simulation with measured mirror maps, the authors find that the relocated baffle still resolves beam offsets of 3 to 5 cm and tilts around $10^{-5}$ rad, and that its own back-scattering and diffraction noise stays at least an order of magnitude below the projected O5 sensitivity. If this is right, the baffle can be installed now, decoupled from the deferred plan to replace the end mirrors with larger ones, without compromising Virgo's sensitivity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the instrumented baffle itself: a ring with five concentric arrays of 24 photodiodes, inner radius 0.26 m, fixed to the vacuum tube by three plungers spaced 120 degrees apart, with an absorbing coating on the side facing the end mirror. The argument is carried by two calculational tools: an FFT-based paraxial simulation of the Fabry-Perot cavity field that yields the light distribution on the front rings and the diffraction-noise coefficient, and an analytical bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF) treatment for the large-angle scattering that illuminates the back side. The governing identities are Eq. (3), which converts a measured one-dimensional surface power spectral density into a BRDF, and Eqs. (4) and (7), which convert baffle displacement into back-scattering and diffraction strain noise; the displacement spectrum is up-converted from velocity and acceleration data by the phase-wrapping procedure, and a finite-element modal analysis supplies the resonance and amplification factors.

What would settle it

Measure the actual BRDF of the baffle surface at 1064 nm over the angles that illuminate its back side, roughly 0.19 rad from the end mirror; if the value exceeds $10^{-3}$ per steradian, the predicted back-scattering noise crosses the one-order-of-magnitude safety line, and the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the new location—at the entrance of the end-mirror vacuum tower, just beyond the cryotrap gate valve—is functionally equivalent to the originally planned suspended position for monitoring intra-cavity scattered light, while reducing contamination risk and separating the baffle schedule from the large-mirror upgrade. The photodiode rings facing the input mirror see the same structured light patterns as before, because moving the baffle by less than 2 m changes little: the inner four rings receive $10^{-5}$ to $10^{-4}$ W in nominal conditions, and the outer ring, though geometrically shielded, lights up when the beam is offset by 3 to 5 cm or tilted by about $10^{-5}$ rad. The noise estimate combines a back-scattering term proportional to the baffle's assumed BRDF and a diffraction term from the aperture edge, using a vibration spectrum up-converted from measurements taken during high microseismic activity and including a 112 Hz mechanical resonance with an amplification factor of about 60. The computed total stays below the one-order-of-magnitude safety margin below Virgo's projected O5 sensitivity, which is the paper's basis for saying the relocation does not compromise the detector.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the assumed back-scattering BRDF of the baffle surface, $10^{-4}$ per steradian, which appears in Table II without a measurement; since the noise scales linearly with this value and the safety margin is only one order of magnitude, a real baffle ten times more reflective would erase the margin.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The baffle can be deployed during O5 even though larger end mirrors and new payloads are deferred to a post-O5 phase, because the new mounting point does not depend on the mirror-upgrade schedule.
  • Operators can use the inner-ring photodiode readout to detect beam offsets of 3 to 5 cm and tilts around $10^{-5}$ rad, supporting cavity pre-alignment and helping the beam avoid mirror defects.
  • With the assumed baffle surface quality, the combined back-scattering and diffraction noise remains at least one order of magnitude below the projected O5 sensitivity, so the monitor does not reduce the detector's reach.
  • The dominant mechanical resonance at 112 Hz, with an amplification factor near 60, still leaves the noise budget intact, so the ground-mounted design needs no extra damping to meet the sensitivity target.
  • The outer ring is dark under nominal conditions and catches light only under large misalignments, giving the baffle a wide dynamic range without sensor saturation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the assumed back-scattering BRDF of $10^{-4}$ per steradian is optimistic, the safety margin shrinks proportionally; measuring the actual baffle surface at 1064 nm over angles near 0.19 rad would settle whether a surface specification is needed.
  • The same relocation logic could apply to the input-mirror tower or to other interferometers with constrained upgrade schedules, wherever waiting for new optics would otherwise delay stray-light monitoring.
  • Because the photodiodes read out at 1 kHz, the ring pattern could in principle feed an active alignment or scattered-light subtraction loop; the paper demonstrates the sensing capability but does not close that loop.
  • The absolute powers on the rings will shift when the O5 mirrors replace the O3 ones whose maps were used here, but the qualitative detection pattern for offsets and tilts is likely to persist.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper considers a change to the Advanced Virgo Plus (AdV+) O5 layout: instead of suspending the instrumented baffle around new, larger end mirrors, the baffle would be installed at the entrance of the end-mirror vacuum tower, about 1.4 m from the mirror, just beyond the cryotrap gate valve. Using the SIS FFT code with measured O3 mirror maps, the authors simulate the scattered-light field reaching the baffle and show that the five photodiode rings would receive measurable power under nominal conditions and respond to beam offsets of 3-5 cm and tilts of 1-1.67e-5 rad. They then estimate the back-scattering and diffraction noise introduced by the baffle using Eqs. (4)-(8), compare the total with the projected O5 sensitivity, and conclude that the baffle would not compromise Virgo's sensitivity. Appendix A reports a modal analysis and a 112 Hz resonance with an amplification factor of about 60, which the authors argue does not change the conclusion.

Significance. If the result holds, it decouples the instrumented-baffle installation from the deferred large-mirror upgrade and provides Virgo with an in-cavity scattered-light monitor during O5. The paper builds on validated tools and prior work: it uses measured O3 mirror maps, a conservatively strong microseism record at the 99th percentile, and an explicit mechanical resonance check. The main weakness is that the central noise conclusion relies on an unmeasured baffle BRDF whose value is assumed in Table II; this is a load-bearing parameter because Eq. (4) scales the back-scattering noise with the square root of that BRDF. The paper also gives no uncertainty bands for the projected noise curves. These issues are fixable and do not, in my reading, invalidate the overall methodology.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V, Eq. (4), Table II] The conclusion that the instrumented baffle "would not compromise Virgo's sensitivity" depends on the assumed back-scattering BRDF dP/dOmega_bs = 1e-4 str^-1, but the paper gives no measurement, datasheet value, or uncertainty for this quantity. The baffle surface is not a uniform optical surface: Sec. II describes five rings of photodiodes, their housings, cables, and coatings, any of which can contribute to back-scattering. Since h_bs in Eq. (4) scales as the square root of dP/dOmega_bs, a factor of 100 increase to 1e-2 str^-1 raises the back-scattering noise by one order of magnitude and removes the nominal one-order-of-magnitude safety margin shown in Fig. 6. Please provide a measured or conservatively bounded BRDF for the as-built baffle surface and propagate its uncertainty into the noise estimate.
  2. [Sec. V, Fig. 6] The projected noise curves are shown without uncertainty bands, although K and C come from SIS simulations with finite-resolution mirror maps, the vibration up-conversion follows a model-dependent procedure, and the mechanical amplification factors are computed by FEM. Because the paper's claim is a quantitative margin claim, the absence of uncertainty makes it impossible to judge how robust the margin is. At minimum, the authors should show the total noise curve for a range of plausible BRDF values, including 1e-3 and 1e-2 str^-1.
  3. [Sec. V and Appendix A] The 112 Hz mechanical resonance with amplification factor 62.6 is discussed in Appendix A, but Fig. 6 is computed without mechanical coupling, and no curve or marker with the amplified noise is shown. The text states that at 112 Hz the noise "remains more than two orders of magnitude below the safety margin," but this claim refers to the uncoupled curve in Fig. 6, so the reader cannot directly verify the combined effect of the resonance. Please add a point or curve showing the baffle noise with the 112 Hz amplification included.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III C] The terms "low-filtered" and "high-filtered" should be replaced by "low-pass filtered" and "high-pass filtered" for clarity.
  2. [Fig. 4] The left panel reports the power reaching each photodiode, but the caption does not state the units of the color scale; please add the units.
  3. [Sec. V] The sentence "This small value, three orders of magnitude smaller than the forward scattering" refers to K, which has units of m^-2 rather than being a dimensionless quantity; please clarify that the comparison is between the two K values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central noise and light-distribution calculations are driven by measured mirror maps, external cavity parameters, and standard LIGO/Virgo scattering formulas, not by the conclusions they support.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the predicted light distribution in Sec. IV is obtained by running the SIS simulation with measured O3 mirror maps, cavity parameters from Ref. [28], and imposed beam offsets and tilts; it is not a fit to the quantity being predicted. The noise estimate in Sec. V uses the standard back-scattering and diffraction formulas, Eqs. (4)-(7), from Refs. [17,20-24], with independently measured vibration data and mirror maps. The only load-bearing parameter not measured in the paper is the baffle BRDF dP/dOmega_bs = 10^-4 str^-1 in Table II, and the sensitivity conclusion scales with it; however, an unmeasured input is a robustness or correctness risk, not a circularity, because the paper does not derive that parameter from the conclusion it is used to support. Refs. [6,16,17] are prior work by overlapping authors, but they are used as methodological continuity, providing the same simulation tools and analytical formulas, not as an unverified premise that forces the new result. The new-location claim is evaluated by fresh SIS runs and a FEM mechanical analysis in Appendix A. No equation is defined in terms of the target result, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central noise calculation rests mainly on assumed surface scattering properties (baffle BRDF 10^-4 str^-1) and on measured but not shipped vibration data. No new physical entities are introduced. The main unvalidated input is the baffle BRDF, which is not measured in this paper.

free parameters (1)
  • Baffle surface BRDF dP/dOmega_bs = 10^-4 str^-1
    Chosen as an input in Table II for the back-scattering noise estimate. The noise scales linearly with this value, so the safety margin depends directly on it; no measurement or citation for this specific baffle surface is given in the paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The paraxial approximation in SIS is valid for low-angle scattering over the 3 km cavity.
    Sec. III A states SIS uses the paraxial approximation and is suitable only for low-angle scattering from the input mirror; the large-angle back-side contribution is handled analytically instead.
  • domain assumption Mirror surface imperfections are the dominant source of scattering; all other scatterers are neglected.
    Sec. III opening: 'we assume the main source of scattering is due to mirror imperfections'.
  • domain assumption The mirror reflectance factor Q is approximately 1 and the incidence angle is normal to the mirror.
    Sec. III A states 'Since Virgo mirrors have almost perfect reflectance, we assume Q approximately 1' and cos(theta_i) approximately 1.
  • domain assumption Vibration data from nearby sensors, with a unity transfer between tube base and baffle attachment, are representative of the installed baffle motion.
    Sec. III C uses 1200 s and 30 s records at one GPS time; Appendix A assumes the transfer function between the tube base and the baffle attachment is one before FEM refinement.
  • standard math Standard scattered-light noise formulas from Refs. [17,20-25] apply to this configuration.
    Equations (4) and (7) are taken from prior LIGO/Virgo technical literature; no re-derivation is provided in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Performance of an instrumented baffle placed at the entrance of Virgo's end mirror vacuum tower during O5." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RLXJ5P6Z

@misc{pith2026241211592,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Performance of an instrumented baffle placed at the entrance of Virgo's end mirror vacuum tower during O5},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RLXJ5P6Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11592}
}
read the original abstract

In this article, we present results on the simulated performance of an instrumented baffle installed at the entrance of the vacuum towers hosting the end mirrors of Virgo's main Fabry-P\'erot cavities. The installation of instrumented baffles is part of the Advanced Virgo Plus upgrade in time for the O5 observing run. They were originally envisaged to be suspended, mounted on new payloads and surrounding new larger end mirrors. The current Virgo upgrade plan includes the replacement of the mirrors with new ones of better quality and same dimensions, leaving the installation of new payloads and larger end mirrors to a post-O5 upgrade phase still to be defined. Here we demonstrate that placing the instrumented baffles just beyond the cryotrap gate valve and in front of the end mirrors would be equally effective for monitoring scattered light inside the cavities. This new location, more than a meter away from the mirror, further reduces the risk of contamination and any potential interference with the mirrors, preserves the full capability to monitor scattered light, and decouples the instrumented baffle timeline from the plans for installing large mirrors in the experiment. We provide an estimate of the light distribution the baffles would encounter under both nominal and non-nominal conditions, as well as an assessment of the scattered light noise introduced by these baffles in this new location, confirming that they would not compromise Virgo's sensitivity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11592 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Sketch (not to scale) of the EM tower and cryotrap with a 3D render of the instrumented baffle and the already [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Spectrum of the original data and spectrum resulting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Projected noise spectrum of the back-scattering of the baffle, the diffraction and the total. The black solid line indicates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. 3-dimensional representation of the modulus of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Frequency response for an input oscillation in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Optomechanical transfer factors for scattered light noise estimations in the beamtubes of ground-based gravitational wave detectors

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Scattered-light noise coupling to strain readout is derived as full optomechanical transfer factors, recovering legacy models only in phase-dominated regimes and substantially revising Einstein Telescope low-frequency...

  2. New modeling of the stray light noise in the main arms of the Einstein Telescope

    physics.ins-det 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Stray light noise in Einstein Telescope arms is predicted to stay below the safety margin in ideal conditions, but beam offsets above 4 to 7 cm, tilts above 8 microradians, or strong point absorbers could breach it.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Back-scattering noise To estimate the noise of backscattered light ( hbs), the relation from Refs. [17, 20–24] can be used, which equals ˜h2 bs(f ) = 1 L2 " λ2 + 8ΓPcirc cM πf2 2# dP dΩbs X 2(f )K , (4) where Γ is the gain of the cavity formed by the input mirror (IM) and signal recycling mirror (SRM), Pcirc the circulating power inside the cavity, d P/dΩ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Diffraction noise The diffraction noise (hdf ) can be estimated by assum- ing a coherent, paraxial wave propagation, accounting for the four mirrors in the main cavities of the interferometer and only one baffle as in Refs. [20, 21] like hdf (t) = λ πL I Z 2π 0 EIM →BEB→EM RX(t)dφ , (6) where EIM →B represents the propagated field from the IM to the baffl...

    2020

  3. [3]

    Acernese et al

    F. Acernese et al. (VIRGO), Frequency-Dependent Squeezed Vacuum Source for the Advanced Virgo Gravitational-Wave Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041403 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Acernese et al

    F. Acernese et al. (VIRGO), Advanced Virgo Plus: Fu- ture Perspectives, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2429, 012040 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Romero-Rodr ´ ıguez, A

    A. Romero-Rodr ´ ıguez, A. Allocca, A. Chiummo, M. Mart ´ ınez, L. M. Mir, and H. Yamamoto, Determi- nation of the light exposure on the photodiodes of a new instrumented baffle for the Virgo input mode cleaner end-mirror, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 045002 (2021), arXiv:2008.13740 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Ballester et al

    O. Ballester et al. , Measurement of the stray light in the Advanced Virgo input mode cleaner cavity using an instrumented baffle, Class. Quant. Grav. 39, 115011 (2022), arXiv:2111.09312 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Andr´ es-Carcasona et al

    M. Andr´ es-Carcasona et al. , Instrumented baffle for the Advanced Virgo input mode cleaner end mirror, Phys. Rev. D 107, 062001 (2023), arXiv:2210.16313 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Macquet, M

    A. Macquet, M. Andr´ es-Carcasona, M. Martinez, L.-M. Mir, A. Romero-Rodriguez, and H. Yamamoto, Simula- tions of light distribution on new instrumented baffles surrounding Virgo end mirrors, Class. Quant. Grav. 40, 077001 (2023), arXiv:2210.16308 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Accadia et al

    T. Accadia et al. , Noise from scattered light in Virgo’s second science run data, Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 194011 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    Fiori et al., The Hunt for Environmental Noise in Virgo during the Third Observing Run, Galaxies 8, 82 (2020)

    I. Fiori et al., The Hunt for Environmental Noise in Virgo during the Third Observing Run, Galaxies 8, 82 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    M. Was, R. Gouaty, and R. Bonnand, End benches scat- tered light modelling and subtraction in advanced Virgo, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 075020 (2021), arXiv:2011.03539 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Soni et al

    S. Soni et al. (LIGO), Reducing scattered light in LIGO’s third observing run, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 025016 (2020), arXiv:2007.14876 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Longo, S

    A. Longo, S. Bianchi, W. Plastino, N. Arnaud, A. Chi- ummo, I. Fiori, B. Swinkels, and M. Was, Scattered light noise characterisation at the Virgo interferometer with tvf-EMD adaptive algorithm, Class. Quant. Grav. 37, 145011 (2020), arXiv:2002.10529 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Longo, S

    A. Longo, S. Bianchi, G. Valdes, N. Arnaud, and W. Plas- tino, Daily monitoring of scattered light noise due to mi- croseismic variability at the Virgo interferometer, Class. Quant. Grav. 39, 035001 (2022), arXiv:2112.06046 [astro- ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Longo, S

    A. Longo, S. Bianchi, G. Valdes, N. Arnaud, and W. Plas- tino, Scattered light monitoring system at the Virgo in- terferometer: performance improvement and automation based on O3 data, Class. Quant. Grav.41, 015004 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Garufi, Advanced Virgo+ status and future perspec- tives, in Proceedings of the Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes X (SPIE, Yokohama, JP, 2024) Internal code: VIR-0422A-24

    F. Garufi, Advanced Virgo+ status and future perspec- tives, in Proceedings of the Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes X (SPIE, Yokohama, JP, 2024) Internal code: VIR-0422A-24

    2024

  9. [17]

    Romero and H

    A. Romero and H. Yamamoto, SIS20-Documents, Tech. Rep. LIGO-T2000311-v7 (LIGO, 2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Romero-Rodr ´ ıguez, M

    A. Romero-Rodr ´ ıguez, M. Mart ´ ınez, L. M. Mir, and H. Yamamoto, Determination of the Stray Light-Induced Noise from the Baffle in the Cryogenic Trapping Area of Advanced Virgo in O5, Galaxies 10, 86 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Andr´ es-Carcasona, A

    M. Andr´ es-Carcasona, A. Macquet, M. Mart ´ ınez, L. M. Mir, and H. Yamamoto, Study of scattered light in the main arms of the Einstein Telescope gravitational wave detector, Phys. Rev. D 108, 102001 (2023), arXiv:2307.14104 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    J. C. Stover, Optical scattering. Measurement and anal- ysis (SPIE Press, 2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Yamamoto, 1D PSD of mirror maps , Tech

    H. Yamamoto, 1D PSD of mirror maps , Tech. Rep. LIGO-T1100353 (LIGO, 2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    Thorne, Light Scattering and Proposed Baffle Con- 10 figuration for the LIGO , Tech

    K. Thorne, Light Scattering and Proposed Baffle Con- 10 figuration for the LIGO , Tech. Rep. LIGO-T890017-00 (LIGO, 1989)

    1989

  15. [23]

    Flanagan and K

    E. Flanagan and K. Thorne, Light Scattering and Baffle Configuration for LIGO , Tech. Rep. LIGO-T950101-00 (LIGO, 1995)

    1995

  16. [24]

    Vinet, V

    J.-Y. Vinet, V. Brisson, and S. Braccini, Scattered light noise in gravitational wave interferometric detectors: Co- herent effects, Phys. Rev. D 54, 1276 (1996)

    1996

  17. [25]

    Vinet, V

    J. Vinet, V. Brisson, S. Braccini, I. Ferrante, L. Pinard, F. m. c. Bondu, and E. Tourni´ e, Scattered light noise in gravitational wave interferometric detectors: A statisti- cal approach, Phys. Rev. D 56, 6085 (1997)

    1997

  18. [26]

    Brisson and J

    V. Brisson and J. Vinet, Summary of scattered light noise calculations and baffle design in the long cavities , Tech. Rep. VIR-NOT-LAL-1390-123 (VIRGO, 1998)

    1998

  19. [27]

    Fritschel and H

    P. Fritschel and H. Yamamoto, Scattered light noise due to the ETM coating ripple , Tech. Rep. LIGO-T1300354 (LIGO, 2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Degallaix et al

    J. Degallaix et al. , Large and extremely low loss: the unique challenges of gravitational wave mirrors, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 36, C85 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Bai, Cosmic Explorer: Back-scattering Noise and Design Recommendations , Tech

    Y. Bai, Cosmic Explorer: Back-scattering Noise and Design Recommendations , Tech. Rep. LIGO-T1900854 (LIGO, 2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Acernese et al

    F. Acernese et al. (VIRGO), Advanced Virgo: a second- generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Prospects for observing and localizing gravitational-wave transients with Advanced LIGO, Advanced Virgo and KAGRA, Living Rev. Rel. 19, 1 (2016), arXiv:1304.0670 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.