Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Three sensors push gravitational-wave detectors toward 5 Hz.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 20:16 UTC pith:NSR77BOE

load-bearing objection Measured sensor integration is real; the factor-3 horizon hinges on unvalidated control-loop bandwidth reductions. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.23531 v2 pith:NSR77BOE submitted 2026-02-26 astro-ph.IM

Extending Ground-Based Gravitational-Wave Sensitivity to 5 Hz

Amit Singh Ubhi , Lari Koponen , Jiri Smetana , Yulin Xia , Haixing Miao , Emilia Chick , John Bryant , Geraint Pratten
show 6 more authors
Teng Zhang Richard Mittleman Peter Fritschel Alan V. Cumming Giles Hammond Denis Martynov
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords gravitational wavesseismic isolationinertial sensorslaser position sensorintermediate-mass black holesLIGOlow-frequency sensitivityactive platform control
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper aims to show that the reason terrestrial gravitational-wave detectors lose sensitivity below 20 Hz is not fundamental physics but the noise of the sensors that hold their mirrors still. It presents three vacuum-compatible devices — a laser position sensor roughly 100 times quieter than LIGO's current shadow sensors, a leaf-spring inertial sensor five times better than the best commercial seismometer at low frequencies, and a fused-silica six-axis seismometer with exceptionally quiet tilt sensing — and shows they stabilize an active platform down to 10 mHz. Feeding these sensors into a LIGO-like interferometer model, the paper predicts an order-of-magnitude sensitivity gain at 10 Hz, which would triple the detection horizon for ~1000-solar-mass intermediate-mass black hole binaries and raise the detectable fraction of such systems by about 86%. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a hardware path, not just a paper study: the sensors exist, were tested at a LIGO facility, and are natural upgrades for current and next-generation detectors.

Core claim

The central claim is that replacing LIGO's current optical shadow sensors and commercial seismometers with the LPS, BIS, and C-6D reduces the injected sensing noise in all six degrees of freedom of the suspended optics, so the control loops that keep the mirrors aligned can run at much lower bandwidths — alignment control from 3 Hz to 0.5 Hz and Michelson length control from 8 Hz to 2.5 Hz — while the RMS motion of the optics falls by a factor of about 10. With the technical control noise pushed below the fundamental quantum, thermal, and Newtonian noise floors, the A+ detector can operate at its design sensitivity down to roughly 5–10 Hz. The result would extend the observable inspiral for

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are three sensors and a control architecture. The LPS is an unequal-arm Michelson interferometer with deep frequency-modulation readout and a pentaprism beamsplitter that contains the reference arm, making it polarization-insensitive and roughly 100 times quieter than shadow sensors. The BIS uses a leaf-spring anti-spring, following the Wielandt–Streckeisen seismometer design, tuned to about a 15-second period, and is vacuum-compatible. The C-6D is a fused-silica ring proof mass suspended by a low-loss silica fiber and sensed by six LPSs, giving tilt sensitivity about 30 times better than commercial seismometers. Together they attack the g/omega^2 tilt-to-horizontal

Load-bearing premise

The detector-level prediction assumes that with the improved sensors, the global alignment control bandwidth can drop from 3 Hz to 0.5 Hz and the Michelson length control from 8 Hz to 2.5 Hz while the loops remain stable and the RMS motion of the optics falls by about a factor of 10; this is simulated using suspension transfer-function models, not yet demonstrated in a full interferometer.

What would settle it

Measure the actual closed-loop test-mass pitch motion in a LIGO-like interferometer with C-6D and LPSs in the control path and check whether the RMS motion falls by about 10x with a 0.5 Hz alignment-control unity-gain frequency while all loops stay stable. A simpler partial check: an independent calibration of the LPS that shows polarization-dependent noise or parasitic interference above 1 pm/sqrt(Hz) below 1 Hz would break the 100x improvement claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • LIGO A+ could reach its design strain sensitivity below 30 Hz, with technical control noise no longer dominating above 10 Hz.
  • The detection horizon for 10^3-solar-mass intermediate-mass black hole binaries would grow by a factor of 3, and the fraction of detectable IMBH binaries in the modeled population would rise by about 86%.
  • Parameter estimation for near-horizon IMBH mergers becomes possible: a 300+200 solar-mass merger at redshift 2, currently below threshold, would yield source-mass and redshift constraints rather than a prior-dominated result.
  • The same sensors reduce RMS motion of signal-recycling telescope optics by a factor of 5, improving detector linearity and calibration stability for all sources.
  • The sensors are vacuum-compatible and demonstrated on LIGO infrastructure, so the pathway is an upgrade of current detectors, not only a design for next-generation ones.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the sensor noise floor is genuinely as low as measured, the remaining low-frequency limit in the modeled band is Newtonian gravity-gradient noise; the paper notes this but does not model it, so a further push below ~5 Hz would need work on the gravity-gradient environment, not better sensors.
  • The 100x quieter position sensor and the demonstrated control scheme offer a template for other precision experiments — atom interferometers, telescope pointing, lithography — where slow drift, not just vibration, limits performance; the paper lists these areas but does not quantify the transfer.
  • The claimed 10x RMS motion reduction with lower loop bandwidths, if realized in an operating detector, should also improve lock acquisition robustness and duty cycle; the paper mentions stability but gives no statistical lock-loss model.
  • The 86% detectable-fraction figure depends on the assumed IMBH population model; the per-event gains in SNR and parameter measurement are more robust than the population-based projection and should be read as the firmer claim.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents three technologies for improving low-frequency seismic isolation and position sensing in ground-based gravitational-wave detectors: a laser position sensor (LPS), a Birmingham Inertial Sensor (BIS), and a six-axis fused-silica seismometer (C-6D). It reports measured noise budgets for each sensor, active platform stabilization tests at LIGO's MIT facility, and a LIGO-like interferometer model that combines these sensors to predict an order-of-magnitude sensitivity improvement at 10 Hz, a factor-of-3 increase in detection horizon for 10^3 M_sun IMBH binaries, and a ~86% increase in detectable IMBH binaries. The paper claims the first experimental demonstration of a practical pathway to sub-10 Hz terrestrial GW detection.

Significance. If the detector-level projection holds, these sensor upgrades would substantially improve LIGO-class sensitivity at low frequencies and open a new IMBH discovery window. The measured sensor noise budgets are physically motivated and the platform suppression traces are valuable experimental results. The forward model is transparent: the sensor noise curves are measured/designed inputs, not fitted outputs, and the control diagrams with blending frequencies are provided in the supplementary material. The main weakness is that the headline detector-level gain depends on simulated reductions of global control bandwidths without closed-loop stability validation, and some experimental claims (10 mHz suppression, BIS noise floor) may be limited by witness-sensor noise. These are load-bearing issues that require additional evidence or softened claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Supplementary 'LIGO INTERFEROMETER MODELING', Figs. 6-8; main text 'Detector improvements'] The predicted order-of-magnitude gain at 10 Hz and factor-3 IMBH horizon rest on reducing the ASC bandwidth from 3 Hz to 0.5 Hz and the MICH bandwidth from 8 Hz (main text) to 2.5 Hz, while simultaneously decreasing RMS optic motion by a factor of 10. The strain budgets in Fig. 8 show ASC and MICH noise falling below the fundamental floor only after this bandwidth reduction. However, no closed-loop stability margins, phase budgets, loop delays, actuator saturation limits, or sensor-blend cross-couplings are reported for these proposed loops. Furthermore, the supplement states the MICH bandwidth is reduced 'from 11 Hz to 8 Hz' (p. 3), while Fig. 7 and the main text state 8 Hz to 2.5 Hz. Please reconcile this inconsistency and provide a stability analysis, or temper the headline claim to reflect that it assumes these bandwidth reductions are achievable.
  2. [Fig. 3 and Supplementary 'MIT ACTIVE PLATFORM CONTROL'] The platform suppression traces in Fig. 3 are measured with a T-240 seismometer as a witness sensor. The supplement states that the BIS was noise-limited below 25 mHz during these tests. Without plotting the T-240 self-noise floor and uncertainty bands on the same axes, the claim of 'longitudinal platform suppression down to 10 mHz' may reflect the witness noise rather than actual platform motion. This is load-bearing for the 'first experimental demonstration' claim. Please add the witness noise floor and uncertainty estimates, or restrict the claim to frequencies where the witness is validated.
  3. [Supplementary 'LIGO INTERFEROMETER MODELING'] The ASC coupling is modeled as h_ASC = 2√2 d_oc/L_arm × θ_TM, with a static beam offset d_oc = 1 mm and the assumption that the four test masses move uncorrelated. The 1 mm offset enters linearly and is not supported by a dedicated measurement; the uncorrelated assumption may underestimate coherent or common-mode couplings. Please justify these assumptions and quantify how the 10-Hz sensitivity and IMBH horizon change under plausible beam offsets and correlated-motion scenarios.
  4. [Fig. 2(b) and Supplementary Fig. 1] The BIS noise budget is partly inferred from the same MIT platform tests used to demonstrate suppression. The supplement says that below 25 mHz the device was noise-limited, and the platform tilt is inferred from T-240 horizontal measurements. This creates a mild in-loop self-reference: if the platform is not as quiet as assumed, the inferred BIS sensitivity may include platform motion. Please state explicitly which components of the BIS noise budget are measured, modeled, or inferred in-loop, and provide independent bounds or cross-checks where possible.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / Title] The abstract says 'sub-10 Hz operation' while the title and Fig. 1 promise sensitivity to 5 Hz. Please clarify the distinction between sensing demonstrations and full detector operation.
  2. [Main text vs. Supplement] The MICH bandwidth reduction is given as '8 Hz to 2.5 Hz' in the main text and '11 Hz to 8 Hz' in the supplement. Besides being a technical inconsistency, this affects the interpretation of Fig. 7.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says the dotted lines represent RMS motion, but the dotted lines are not clearly visible in the provided figure. Please ensure the figure renders correctly.
  4. [Supplementary Table IV] The entry 'RY stage 1 RY = stage 2 RY' is unclear. Please define the notation for stage-1 and stage-2 degrees of freedom.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: sensor noise curves are measured inputs propagated through an independent LIGO-like model; the central prediction depends on unvalidated control-bandwidth assumptions, not on a reduction to the paper's own inputs.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is: (1) characterize LPS, BIS, C-6D noise and platform suppression; (2) propagate the resulting residual motion through suspension transfer functions and pyGWINC; (3) compute astrophysical yields. Each step uses measured or externally benchmarked quantities as inputs. The LPS noise is a measured spectrum (Fig. 2a); BIS and C-6D noise budgets are compared against T-240 and GS-13 commercial seismometers (Fig. 2b,c); platform suppression is witnessed by an out-of-loop T-240 (Fig. 3 caption: 'using a T-240 seismometer as a witness sensor'). The detector-level prediction is obtained by lowering ASC bandwidth 3->0.5 Hz and MICH bandwidth 8->2.5 Hz (main text) and propagating the same sensor/suspension models through pyGWINC. These bandwidth reductions are design assumptions, not fitted outputs: no parameter is tuned to force the headline strain curve, and the paper does not claim the closed-loop stability was demonstrated. The BIS sensitivity is characterized in part from the same platform tests, but with an independent T-240 witness, so this is a mild experimental self-consistency check rather than a definitional circularity. Self-citations ([17], [34], [39-43], and the decoupling scheme [7]) point to prior sensor designs and a 'LIGO-5 Hz' benchmark; they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole evidence for the predicted improvement. The main weakness is that the order-of-magnitude gain at 10 Hz and the factor-3 IMBH horizon depend on unvalidated loop-bandwidth reductions and coupling assumptions (e.g., 1 mm beam offset, uncorrelated test masses), which is a correctness/robustness risk, not a circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central prediction is an engineering projection: measured sensor noise is fed through suspension/control models. The hand-chosen blending frequencies and assumed bandwidth reductions are the main free parameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Control-loop blending frequencies (MIT tests) = e.g., X: CPS-to-BIS 40 mHz, BIS-to-GS-13 0.3 Hz; C-6D: CPS-to-C-6D 25 mHz, C-6D-to-GS-13 2 Hz (Tab. I-II)
    Hand-chosen crossover frequencies for the three-way sensor blend; the measured platform suppression and its extrapolation depend on these choices.
  • Simulated platform blending frequencies (detector model) = stage-2 X: CPS-to-C-6D 11 mHz, C-6D-to-GS-13 6 Hz; RY 3 mHz to 6 Hz (Tab. IV)
    These design choices determine the predicted residual platform motion used to compute detector sensitivity.
  • ASC and MICH control bandwidths = ASC: 3 Hz → 0.5 Hz; MICH: 8 Hz → 2.5 Hz
    The predicted improvement assumes these bandwidth reductions are achievable with the new sensors; they are target values, not demonstrated.
  • Beam offset doc = 1 mm
    Assumed beam offset converting test-mass pitch to strain noise (h_ASC = 2√2 doc/L_arm θ_TM); a larger offset would increase the ASC coupling.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Quadruple suspension transfer functions model the real test-mass chain
    Used to propagate simulated platform motion to test-mass pitch (supplementary Fig. 6). If transfer functions differ, the predicted RMS reduction and bandwidth reduction change.
  • domain assumption Test-mass motions are uncorrelated
    Assumed in computing ASC strain noise; correlations would alter the factor of 2√2.
  • domain assumption Reduced platform motion allows lower ASC/MICH bandwidth without instability
    The predicted noise reduction assumes loop stability at 0.5 Hz ASC and 2.5 Hz MICH; no stability margins are shown.
  • domain assumption T-240 witness sensor measures platform motion without being noise-limited
    Platform suppression traces are measured with a T-240 as witness; in the supplementary, BIS is noted to be noise-limited below 25 mHz, so some suppression claims may be floor-limited.
  • standard math Tilt-to-horizontal coupling scales as g/ω^2
    Used to infer tilt and subtract it; standard for inertial sensors.
  • domain assumption Astrophysical population model (power-law masses, Madau-Dickinson rate, merger rate 1 Gpc^-3 yr^-1)
    Affects claims about 86% increase in detected binaries; not the detector sensitivity itself.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 29613 in / 13565 out tokens · 119885 ms · 2026-08-02T20:16:15.658074+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Extending the sensitivity of terrestrial gravitational-wave detectors below 20 Hz is a long-standing challenge, limited by ground motion and inertial sensing noise. In this letter, we demonstrate ultra-high-vacuum compatible inertial isolation and position sensing technologies that achieve active platform stabilization down to 10 mHz. Our laser position sensors reach a sub-pm/$\sqrt{\rm Hz}$ sensitivity above 10 mHz, independent of the input light polarization, representing a 100-fold improvement over the current LIGO position sensors. In addition, our inertial sensors provide at least a factor of 5 improvement in low-frequency sensitivity compared to state-of-the-art commercial seismometers. We integrate these technologies into a LIGO-like interferometer model and predict a low-frequency sensitivity improvement of up to an order of magnitude at 10 Hz, with enhanced linearity and calibration stability. This extension increases the detection horizon for intermediate-mass black hole binaries of mass $10^3 M_\odot$ by a factor of 3. Our results provide the first experimental demonstration of a practical pathway to sub-10 Hz operation of terrestrial gravitational-wave detectors and establish key technologies for next-generation observatories such as Cosmic Explorer and Einstein Telescope.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.23531 by Alan V. Cumming, Amit Singh Ubhi, Denis Martynov, Emilia Chick, Geraint Pratten, Giles Hammond, Haixing Miao, Jiri Smetana, John Bryant, Lari Koponen, Peter Fritschel, Richard Mittleman, Teng Zhang, Yulin Xia.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Detector strain sensitivity comparison for the A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Photos of the three technologies and their respective noise budgets below. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Active platform stabilization at LIGO’s MIT facility. Red traces are the measured ground motion using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Comparison of di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Single degree of freedom control loop for the active [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Measured platform tilt using the BIS (gray). The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Control diagram when integrating C-6D for active [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Simulated motion of the two-stage platform when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Comparison of the test mass pitch motion, showing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Horizon and range assuming equal mass binaries. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Comparison of the signal-recycling telescope optic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Comparison of the signal-recycling telescope optic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Torsional-X Seismometer for Lunar Decihertz Gravitational-Wave Detection

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A fused-silica torsional-X seismometer is projected to improve lunar decihertz gravitational-wave strain sensitivity by nearly an order of magnitude around 0.1 Hz, with the principle shown in a prototype but the headl...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Assuming zero noise, the SNR is ≈ 9.2 compared to ≈ 3.9 in the presence of the current controls noise, where it 5 0 1 2 3 z 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800msrc i [M⊙ ] A+ (current controls noise) 0 1 2 3 z A+ (proposed upgrade) A+ (current controls noise) 10− 2 10− 1 100 101 102 ∆mi/mi (a) 200 400 m1 [M⊙ ] 2z − 0. 5

  2. [2]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, R. Adhikari, V . Adya, C. A ffeldt, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, N. Aggarwal, et al., Physical Review Letters 125, 101102 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    Astrophysics at the Uni- versity of Birmingham

    5 χ eff 200 400m2 [M⊙ ] 200 400 m2 [M⊙ ] − 0. 5 0. 5 χ eff 1 3 z A+ (proposed upgrade) A+ (current controls noise) (b) FIG. 5: (a) Left: fractional error on the detector-frame masses as a function of redshift for the A + configuration with the current controls noise. Right: comparison between the A + configuration with the current control noise (red circles) ...

  4. [4]

    J. E. Greene, J. Strader, and L. C. Ho, Annual Review of As- tronomy and Astrophysics 58, 257–312 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    Mahapatra, D

    P . Mahapatra, D. Chattopadhyay, A. Gupta, M. Favata, B. Sathyaprakash, and K. Arun, Physical Review D 111, 023013 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    A. G. Abac, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adamcewicz, S. Adhicary, D. Adhikari, N. Adhikari, R. X. Adhikari, V . K. Adkins, S. Afroz, A. Agapito, D. Agarwal, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters 993, L25 (2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    Gerosa and E

    D. Gerosa and E. Berti, Physical Review D 95, 124046 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    Franciolini, K

    G. Franciolini, K. Kritos, L. Reali, F. Broekgaarden, and E. Berti, Physical Review D 110, 023036 (2024)

    2024

  9. [9]

    Croon, J

    D. Croon, J. Sakstein, and D. Gerosa, Can stellar physics ex- plain gw231123? (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    Kremer, M

    K. Kremer, M. Spera, D. Becker, S. Chatterjee, U. N. Di Carlo, G. Fragione, C. L. Rodriguez, C. S. Y e, and F. A. Rasio, The Astrophysical Journal 903, 45 (2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, Physi- cal Review X 9, 031040 (2019)

    2019

  12. [12]

    Antonini, I

    F. Antonini, I. Romero-Shaw, T. Callister, F. Dosopoulou, D. Chattopadhyay, M. Gieles, and M. Mapelli, Gravitational waves reveal the pair-instability mass gap and constrain nuclear burning in massive stars (2025)

    2025

  13. [13]

    Abbott, R

    B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P . Addesso, R. Adhikari, V . Adya, C. Affeldt, M. Agathos, et al., Physical Review Letters 116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  14. [14]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, and the KAGRA Collaboration, Gwtc-4.0: Updating the gravitational-wave transient catalog with observations from the first part of the fourth ligo-virgo-kagra observing run (2025)

    2025

  15. [15]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, Physi- cal Review X 11, 021053 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KA- GRA Collaboration, Physical Review X 13, 041039 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    H. Y u, D. Martynov, S. Vitale, M. Evans, D. Shoemaker, B. Barr, G. Hammond, S. Hild, J. Hough, S. Huttner, S. Rowan, B. Sorazu, L. Carbone, A. Freise, C. Mow-Lowry, K. L. Doo- ley, P . Fulda, H. Grote, and D. Sigg, Physical Review Letters 120, 141102 (2018)

    2018

  18. [18]

    Abbott, R

    B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P . Addesso, R. Adhikari, V . Adya, et al., Physical Review Letters 119, 161101 (2017)

    2017

  19. [19]

    B. P . Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P . Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, V . B. Adya, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters 848, L12 (2017)

    2017

  20. [20]

    B. P . Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, K. Ack- ley, C. Adams, P . Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, V . B. Adya, C. Af- feldt, et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity 34, 044001 (2017)

    2017

  21. [21]

    Gupta et al

    I. Gupta et al. , Characterizing gravitational wave detector net- works: From a ♯ to cosmic explorer (2023)

    2023

  22. [22]

    E. D. Hall, K. Kuns, J. R. Smith, Y . Bai, C. Wipf, S. Bis- cans, R. X. Adhikari, K. Arai, S. Ballmer, L. Barsotti, Y . Chen, M. Evans, P . Fritschel, J. Harms, B. Kamai, J. G. Rollins, D. Shoemaker, B. J. Slagmolen, R. Weiss, and H. Y amamoto, Physical Review D 103, 122004 (2021)

    2021

  23. [24]

    Sathyaprakash, M

    B. Sathyaprakash, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, P . Ajith, B. Allen, P . Amaro-Seoane, N. Andersson, S. Aoudia, K. Arun, P . Astone, et al. , Classical and Quantum Gravity 29, 124013 (2012)

    2012

  24. [25]

    S. Hild, S. Chelkowski, A. Freise, J. Franc, N. Morgado, R. Flaminio, and R. DeSalvo, Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 015003 (2009)

    2009

  25. [26]

    Carbone, S

    L. Carbone, S. M. Aston, R. M. Cutler, A. Freise, J. Green- halgh, J. Heefner, D. Hoyland, N. A. Lockerbie, D. Lodhia, N. A. Robertson, C. C. Speake, K. A. Strain, and A. V ecchio, Classical and Quantum Gravity 29, 115005 (2012)

    2012

  26. [29]

    Buikema, C

    A. Buikema, C. Cahillane, G. Mansell, C. Blair, R. Abbott, C. Adams, R. Adhikari, A. Ananyeva, S. Appert, K. Arai, J. Areeda, Y . Asali, S. Aston, C. Austin, A. Baer, M. Ball, S. Ballmer, S. Banagiri, D. Barker, L. Barsotti, J. Bartlett, B. Berger, J. Betzwieser, D. Bhattacharjee, G. Billingsley, S. Biscans, R. Blair, N. Bode, P . Booker, R. Bork, A. Bram...

    2020

  27. [30]

    S. J. Cooper, C. M. Mow-Lowry, D. Hoyland, J. Bryant, A. Ubhi, J. O’Dell, A. Huddart, S. Aston, and A. V ecchio, Re- view of Scientific Instruments 94, 10.1063/5.0117605 (2023). 7

    doi:10.1063/5.0117605 2023

  28. [32]

    S. M. Aston, M. A. Barton, A. S. Bell, N. Beveridge, B. Bland, A. J. Brummitt, G. Cagnoli, C. A. Cantley, L. Carbone, A. V . Cumming, L. Cunningham, R. M. Cutler, R. J. S. Greenhalgh, G. D. Hammond, K. Haughian, T. M. Hayler, A. Heptonstall, J. Heefner, D. Hoyland, J. Hough, R. Jones, J. S. Kissel, R. Ku- mar, N. A. Lockerbie, D. Lodhia, I. W. Martin, P ....

    2012

  29. [33]

    Capote, W

    E. Capote, W. Jia, N. Aritomi, M. Nakano, V . Xu, R. Abbott, I. Abouelfettouh, R. Adhikari, A. Ananyeva, S. Appert, S. Ap- ple, K. Arai, S. Aston, M. Ball, S. Ballmer, D. Barker, L. Bar- sotti, B. Berger, J. Betzwieser, D. Bhattacharjee, G. Billings- ley, S. Biscans, C. Blair, N. Bode, E. Bonilla, V . Bossilkov, A. Branch, A. Brooks, D. Brown, J. Bryant, ...

    2025

  30. [34]

    Davis, T

    D. Davis, T. Massinger, A. Lundgren, J. C. Driggers, A. L. Ur- ban, and L. Nuttall, Classical and Quantum Gravity 36, 055011 (2019)

    2019

  31. [35]

    Gerberding, Optics Express 23, 14753 (2015)

    O. Gerberding, Optics Express 23, 14753 (2015)

    2015

  32. [36]

    Buchli, B

    J. Buchli, B. Tracey, T. Andric, C. Wipf, Y . H. J. Chiu, M. Lochbrunner, C. Donner, R. X. Adhikari, J. Harms, I. Barr, R. Hafner, A. Huber, A. Abdolmaleki, C. Beattie, J. Betzwieser, S. Cabi, J. Degrave, Y . Dong, L. Fritz, A. Gupta, O. Groth, S. Huang, T. Norman, H. Openshaw, J. Rollins, G. Thornton, G. van den Driessche, M. Wulfmeier, P . Kohli, M. Rie...

    2025

  33. [37]

    Smetana, R

    J. Smetana, R. Walters, S. Bauchinger, A. S. Ubhi, S. Cooper, D. Hoyland, R. Abbott, C. Baune, P . Fritchel, O. Gerberding, S. Köhnke, H. Miao, S. Rode, and D. Martynov, Physical Re- view Applied 18, 034040 (2022)

    2022

  34. [38]

    Wielandt and G

    E. Wielandt and G. Streckeisen, Bulletin of the Seis- mological Society of America 72, 2349 (1982) , https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article- pdf/72/6A/2349/5330641/bssa07206a2349.pdf

    1982

  35. [39]

    Heinzel, F

    G. Heinzel, F. Guzmán Cervantes, A. F. García Marin, J. Kull- mann, W. Feng, and K. Danzmann, Optics Express 18, 19076 (2010)

    2010

  36. [40]

    Smetana, C

    J. Smetana, C. Di Fronzo, A. Amorosi, and D. Martynov, Sen- sors 23, 10.3390/s23177526 (2023)

    work page doi:10.3390/s23177526 2023

  37. [42]

    C. M. Mow-Lowry and D. Martynov, Classical and Quantum Gravity 36, 245006 (2019)

    2019

  38. [44]

    A. V . Cumming, A. S. Bell, L. Barsotti, M. A. Barton, G. Cagnoli, D. Cook, L. Cunningham, M. Evans, G. D. Ham- mond, G. M. Harry, A. Heptonstall, J. Hough, R. Jones, R. Ku- mar, R. Mittleman, N. A. Robertson, S. Rowan, B. Shapiro, K. A. Strain, K. Tokmakov, C. Torrie, and A. A. van V eggel, Classical and Quantum Gravity 29, 035003 (2012)

    2012

  39. [45]

    Prokhorov, S

    L. Prokhorov, S. Cooper, A. S. Ubhi, C. Mow-Lowry, J. Bryant, A. Dmitriev, C. Di Fronzo, C. J. Collins, A. Gill, A. Mitchell, J. Heinze, J. Smetana, T. Y an, A. V . Cumming, G. Hammond, and D. Martynov, Physical Review D 109, 042007 (2024)

    2024

  40. [46]

    Smetana, A

    J. Smetana, A. S. Ubhi, E. Chick, L. Prokhorov, J. Bryant, A. Dmitriev, A. Gill, L. Koponen, D. Martynov, H. Miao, A. V . Cumming, G. Hammond, V . Frolov, R. Mittleman, and P . Fritchel, Physical Review Applied 23, 024013 (2025)

    2025

  41. [47]

    J. M. Hensley, A. Peters, and S. Chu, Review of Scientific In- struments 70, 2735 (1999)

    1999

  42. [48]

    P . G. Nelson, Review of Scientific Instruments 62, 2069 (1991)

    2069

  43. [49]

    S. J. Richman, J. A. Giaime, D. B. Newell, R. T. Stebbins, P . L. Bender, and J. E. Faller, Review of Scientific Instruments 69, 2531 (1998)

    1998

  44. [51]

    Hakvoort, G

    W. Hakvoort, G. Boerrigter, and M. Beijen, IFAC- PapersOnLine 53, 9144 (2020)

    2020

  45. [52]

    T. Wang, C. Blair, A. Al-Jodah, J. Winterflood, J. Liu, A. Adams, A. Goodwin-Jones, C. Zhao, and L. Ju, Seismic iso- lation of optical tables using piezo actuators (2025)

    2025

  46. [53]

    S. Soni, B. K. Berger, D. Davis, F. Di Renzo, A. E ffler, T. A. Ferreira, J. Glanzer, E. Goetz, G. González, A. Helmling- Cornell, B. Hughey, R. Huxford, B. Mannix, G. Mo, D. Nandi, 9 A. Neunzert, S. Nichols, K. Pham, A. I. Renzini, R. M. S. Schofield, A. Stuver, M. Trevor, S. Álvarez López, R. Beda, C. P . L. Berry, S. Bhuiyan, L. Blagg, R. Bruntz, S. Callo...

    2025

  47. [55]

    M. P . Ross, K. V enkateswara, C. Mow-Lowry, S. Cooper, J. Warner, B. Lantz, J. Kissel, H. Radkins, T. Shaffer, R. Mittle- man, A. Pele, and J. Gundlach, Classical and Quantum Gravity 37, 185018 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    G. D. Meadors, K. Kawabe, and K. Riles, Classical and Quan- tum Gravity 31, 105014 (2014)

    2014

  49. [57]

    J. A. Sidles and D. Sigg, Physics Letters A 354, 167 (2006)

    2006

  50. [58]

    J. Liu, V . Bossilkov, C. Blair, C. Zhao, L. Ju, and D. G. Blair, Review of Scientific Instruments 89, 10.1063/1.5049508 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5049508 2018

  51. [59]

    Reissel, D

    C. Reissel, D. Lai, S. Dwivedi, E. Bonilla, C. Geer, C. Wipf, R. Mittleman, P . Harris, E. Schwartz, D. Poznanski, B. Lantz, and E. Katsavounidis, Microseismic noise mitigation with ma- chine learning for advanced ligo (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    Buonanno and Y

    A. Buonanno and Y . Chen, Physical Review D 65, 042001 (2002)

    2002

  53. [61]

    A. C. Green, D. D. Brown, M. Dovale-Álvarez, C. Collins, H. Miao, C. M. Mow-Lowry, and A. Freise,Classical and Quan- tum Gravity 34, 205004 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    S. Soni, C. Austin, A. E ffler, R. M. S. Schofield, G. González, V . V . Frolov, J. C. Driggers, A. Pele, A. L. Urban, G. V aldes, R. Abbott, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, A. Ananyeva, S. Ap- pert, K. Arai, J. S. Areeda, Y . Asali, S. M. Aston, A. M. Baer, M. Ball, S. W. Ballmer, S. Banagiri, D. Barker, L. Bar- sotti, J. Bartlett, B. K. Berger, J. Betzwieser, D....

    2021

  55. [63]

    Heinzel, K

    G. Heinzel, K. A. Strain, J. Mizuno, K. D. Skeldon, B. Willke, W. Winkler, R. Schilling, A. Rüdiger, and K. Danzmann, Phys- ical Review Letters 81, 5493 (1998)

    1998

  56. [64]

    Longo, S

    A. Longo, S. Bianchi, G. V aldes, N. Arnaud, and W. Plastino, Classical and Quantum Gravity 39, 035001 (2021)

    2021

  57. [65]

    Pratten, S

    G. Pratten, S. Husa, C. Garcia-Quiros, M. Colleoni, A. Ramos- Buades, H. Estelles, and R. Jaume, Phys. Rev. D 102, 064001 (2020), arXiv:2001.11412 [gr-qc]. 10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  58. [66]

    Staley, D

    A. Staley, D. Martynov, R. Abbott, R. X. Adhikari, K. Arai, S. Ballmer, L. Barsotti, A. F. Brooks, R. T. DeRosa, S. Dwyer, A. E ffler, M. Evans, P . Fritschel, V . V . Frolov, C. Gray, C. J. Guido, R. Gustafson, M. Heintze, D. Hoak, K. Izumi, K. Kawabe, E. J. King, J. S. Kissel, K. Kokeyama, M. Landry, D. E. McClelland, J. Miller, A. Mullavey, B. O’Reilly, ...

    2014

  59. [67]

    Dupletsa, J

    U. Dupletsa, J. Harms, B. Banerjee, M. Branchesi, B. Goncharov, A. Maselli, A. C. S. Oliveira, S. Ron- chini, and J. Tissino, Astron. Comput. 42, 100671 (2023) , arXiv:2205.02499 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [68]

    Schmidt, F

    P . Schmidt, F. Ohme, and M. Hannam, Phys. Rev. D 91, 024043 (2015), arXiv:1408.1810 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  61. [69]

    García-Quirós, M

    C. García-Quirós, M. Colleoni, S. Husa, H. Estellés, G. Pratten, A. Ramos-Buades, M. Mateu-Lucena, and R. Jaume, Phys. Rev. D 102, 064002 (2020), arXiv:2001.10914 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  62. [70]

    Madau and M

    P . Madau and M. Dickinson, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 52, 415 (2014), arXiv:1403.0007 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  63. [71]

    J. S. Speagle, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety 493, 3132–3158 (2020)

    2020

  64. [72]

    V arma, S

    V . V arma, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, J. Blackman, L. E. Kidder, and H. P . Pfei ffer, Phys. Rev. D 99, 064045 (2019) , arXiv:1812.07865 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  65. [73]

    Ashton et al

    G. Ashton et al. , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 241, 27 (2019) , arXiv:1811.02042 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  66. [74]

    S. A. Hughes and K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D 58, 122002 (1998)

    1998

  67. [75]

    J. D. E. Creighton and W. G. Anderson, Gravitational-Wave Physics and Astronomy: An Introduction to Theory, Experiment and Data Analysis (Wiley, 2011)

    2011

  68. [76]

    P . O. committee, LIGO A# — Post O5 upgrade and step to- ward Cosmic Explorer , Technical document, LIGO Document Control Center (2024), accessed: 2026-02-13

    2024

  69. [77]

    Y . Song, C. Gui, Z. Huo, S. W. R. Lee, and S. Liu, International Journal of Mechanical System Dynamics 1, 35 (2021)

    2021

  70. [78]

    Collette, S

    C. Collette, S. Janssens, K. Artoos, and C. Hauviller, Diamond Light Source Proceedings 1, 10.1017/s2044820110000134 (2010)

    work page doi:10.1017/s2044820110000134 2010

  71. [79]

    in Handbook of Optical Dimensional Metrology (CRC Press,

  72. [80]

    Oon and R

    F. Oon and R. Dumke, Physical Review Applied 18, 044037 (2022)

    2022

  73. [81]

    Leon-Gil, J

    J. Leon-Gil, J. Gonzalez-Cava, A. Zamora-Jimenez, M. Nuñez- Cagigal, and J. Mendez-Perez, IFAC-PapersOnLine 59, 184 (2025)

    2025

  74. [82]

    D. Xie, S. Y an, L. Zhu, H. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2125, 012022 (2021)

    2021

  75. [84]

    Shin, S.-J

    Y .-H. Shin, S.-J. Moon, Y .-J. Kim, and K.-Y . Oh, Sensors 20, 2277 (2020). Supplementary Material BIRMINGHAM INERTIAL SENSOR NOISE The Birmingham Inertial Sensors (BISs) are designed with ultra-high-vacuum compatibility for integration into LIGO’s single stage active platforms. They are engineered to have improved noise compared to the Trillium T-240 in...

    2020

  76. [85]

    Matichard and M

    F. Matichard and M. Evans, Bulletin of the Seismological Soci- ety of America 105, 497 (2015)

    2015

  77. [86]

    Matichard, M

    F. Matichard, M. Evans, R. Mittleman, M. MacInnis, S. Bis- cans, K. L. Dooley, H. Sohier, A. Lauriero, H. Paris, J. Koch, P . Knothe, A. Carbajo, and C. Dufort, Review of Scientific In- struments 87, 10.1063/1.4953110 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4953110 2016

  78. [87]

    Matichard, B

    F. Matichard, B. Lantz, R. Mittleman, K. Mason, J. Kissel, B. Abbott, S. Biscans, J. McIver, R. Abbott, S. Abbott, E. All- wine, S. Barnum, J. Birch, C. Celerier, D. Clark, D. Coyne, D. DeBra, R. DeRosa, M. Evans, S. Foley, P . Fritschel, J. A. Gi- aime, C. Gray, G. Grabeel, J. Hanson, C. Hardham, M. Hillard, W. Hua, C. Kucharczyk, M. Landry, A. Le Roux, ...

    2015

  79. [88]

    A. S. Ubhi, J. Smetana, T. Zhang, S. Cooper, L. Prokhorov, J. Bryant, D. Hoyland, H. Miao, and D. Martynov, Classical and Quantum Gravity 39, 015006 (2021)

    2021

  80. [89]

    Matichard, B

    F. Matichard, B. Lantz, K. Mason, R. Mittleman, B. Ab- bott, S. Abbott, E. Allwine, S. Barnum, J. Birch, S. Bis- cans, D. Clark, D. Coyne, D. DeBra, R. DeRosa, S. Fo- ley, P . Fritschel, J. Giaime, C. Gray, G. Grabeel, J. Hanson, M. Hillard, J. Kissel, C. Kucharczyk, A. Le Roux, V . Lhuil- lier, M. Macinnis, B. O’Reilly, D. Ottaway, H. Paris, M. Puma, H. ...

    2015

Showing first 80 references.