Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Not too close! Evaluating the impact of the baseline on the localization of binary black holes by next-generation gravitational-wave detectors

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-05-10 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Baselines of 2300-3300 km give mostly usable sky localizations for binary black holes in next-generation detector networks.

desk verdict Baselines of 8-11 ms give a workable compromise for two Cosmic Explorer detectors, and a third detector removes most multimodality. read the letter →

arxiv 2604.11871 v1 submitted 2026-04-13 gr-qc astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM

Francesco Iacovelli , Luca Reali , Emanuele Berti , Alessandra Corsi , B. S. Sathyaprakash , Digvijay Wadekar This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM
keywords gravitationalwavesbinaryblackholesskylocalizationnext-generationdetectorsCosmicExplorertimingtriangulationnetworkbaselinesEinsteinTelescope
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 tests how the separation between next-generation gravitational-wave detectors changes the accuracy of sky positions recovered for binary black hole mergers. Because most of these signals last only minutes in the detectors' sensitive band, position is recovered mainly from the small arrival-time difference between sites. Simulations of both fixed events and a realistic population drawn from current observations show that light-travel times of 8-11 ms produce predominantly single-peaked or double-peaked sky maps. These maps remain useful for electromagnetic follow-up and for linking events to host galaxies. Shorter baselines produce many ambiguous, multimodal maps, especially for loud signals, while adding a third detector largely removes the ambiguity.

What carries the argument

Timing triangulation across the light-travel-time baseline between detectors, which converts measured arrival-time differences into sky-position constraints for signals that remain in band for only a few minutes.

What would settle it

A high signal-to-noise binary black hole event recorded on a short-baseline two-detector network that still shows persistent multimodal sky localization after full parameter estimation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In a two-detector Cosmic Explorer network, baselines corresponding to light travel times of 8-11 ms (~2300-3300 km) offer a reasonable compromise for localizing binary black holes with detector-frame total masses up to ~100 solar masses, yielding predominantly unimodal or bimodal sky maps suitable for follow-up observations. Shorter baselines degrade performance, especially at high signal-to-noise ratio. Networks including a third detector, such as LIGO-India or the Einstein Telescope, substantially reduce multimodality.

Load-bearing premise

Localization of most binary black hole signals will continue to rely primarily on timing triangulation because the signals spend at most a few minutes in the sensitivity band.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Shorter baselines significantly degrade localization, particularly for high signal-to-noise events.
  • A network of two Cosmic Explorers plus LIGO-India yields unimodal posteriors for a good fraction of events.
  • Two Cosmic Explorers plus the Einstein Telescope yields unimodal posteriors for essentially all events.
  • Baselines of 8-11 ms support both electromagnetic follow-up and statistical host-galaxy cross-correlation studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Network planners may need to accept some logistical cost to achieve separations near 3000 km rather than clustering facilities more closely.
  • Statistical host-galaxy studies could still proceed if the fraction of events with usable (unimodal or bimodal) maps remains high.
  • The large improvement from adding a third distant detector suggests prioritizing global distribution over concentrating multiple next-generation instruments in one region.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines the effect of baseline separation in a two-detector Cosmic Explorer network on sky localization of binary black hole mergers. Using fixed-parameter injections and a realistic BBH population drawn from GWTC-4, it concludes that light-travel times of 8-11 ms (~2300-3300 km) yield predominantly unimodal or bimodal posteriors suitable for electromagnetic follow-up and statistical host-galaxy studies for detector-frame total masses up to ~100 M_⊙. It further shows that adding a third detector (LIGO-India or ET) largely eliminates multimodality.

Significance. If the results hold, the work supplies concrete guidance for siting next-generation detectors to support multi-messenger and statistical cosmology applications. The dual use of targeted injections and a full population study, together with the explicit demonstration that a third detector resolves most degeneracies, constitutes a practical contribution to network design.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (Methods): The assumption that BBH signals remain in band for at most a few minutes (justifying pure timing triangulation) is scoped to M_det ≲ 100 M_⊙, but an explicit verification of in-band duration for the highest-mass events using the adopted CE noise curve would confirm the approximation holds across the simulated population.
  2. [§4] §4 (Results): The central claim that 8-11 ms baselines produce 'predominantly' unimodal or bimodal localizations requires the exact fractions (or cumulative distributions) of localization types versus baseline for the GWTC-4 population; without these numbers the quantitative support for the compromise region is incomplete.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the parenthetical distance conversion (~2300-3300 km) should state the precise value of c employed or the formula used.
  2. [Figure captions] Figure captions (sky-posterior figures): include a brief statement of the quantitative criterion used to label a posterior as unimodal versus bimodal.
  3. [§5] §5 (Discussion): the trade-off between localization performance and other siting constraints (cost, seismic environment) is mentioned only qualitatively; a short table or paragraph summarizing these factors would help readers weigh the recommendation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation and the helpful suggestions that will improve the clarity and quantitative support of our manuscript. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Methods): The assumption that BBH signals remain in band for at most a few minutes (justifying pure timing triangulation) is scoped to M_det ≲ 100 M_⊙, but an explicit verification of in-band duration for the highest-mass events using the adopted CE noise curve would confirm the approximation holds across the simulated population.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit verification strengthens the methods section. In the revised manuscript we will add a short paragraph (or footnote) in §3 that computes the in-band duration for the highest-mass events in our GWTC-4 population (detector-frame total mass up to 100 M_⊙) using the adopted CE noise curve, confirming that all such signals remain in band for at most a few minutes and thereby justifying the timing-triangulation approximation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (Results): The central claim that 8-11 ms baselines produce 'predominantly' unimodal or bimodal localizations requires the exact fractions (or cumulative distributions) of localization types versus baseline for the GWTC-4 population; without these numbers the quantitative support for the compromise region is incomplete.

    Authors: We accept that providing the exact fractions will make the quantitative support more complete. While the existing figures already demonstrate the trends, we will add a new table (or cumulative-distribution panel) in §4 that reports the precise fractions of unimodal, bimodal, and multimodal sky localizations as a function of baseline for the full GWTC-4 population. This addition will directly substantiate the 8–11 ms compromise region. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The manuscript derives its conclusions on optimal baselines (8-11 ms light-travel time) exclusively from numerical injections and Bayesian parameter estimation on simulated signals, using both fixed-mass cases and a population drawn from external GWTC-4 statistics. No equation or result is obtained by fitting a parameter to a subset of the same data and then relabeling the fit as a prediction; no self-citation supplies a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that is then treated as external; the triangulation assumption is scoped explicitly to the short in-band durations of the simulated events and is tested by adding a third detector. All load-bearing steps are therefore independent of the paper's own outputs.

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

The paper relies on standard assumptions in gravitational wave astronomy about signal durations and localization methods. No new free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption BBH signals spend at most a few minutes within the XG detector's effective sensitivity band
    Stated explicitly as the reason localization relies on timing triangulation.
  • domain assumption Localization of most BBH signals relies primarily on timing triangulation across a network
    Key premise for the baseline study.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Not too close! Evaluating the impact of the baseline on the localization of binary black holes by next-generation gravitational-wave detectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2604.11871

@misc{pith2026260411871,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Not too close! Evaluating the impact of the baseline on the localization of binary black holes by next-generation gravitational-wave detectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2604.11871}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.11871}
}
abstract

Next-generation (XG) gravitational-wave detectors, such as Cosmic Explorer (CE) and the Einstein Telescope (ET), will observe compact binary coalescences at unprecedented rates and signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). Accurate sky localization of these sources is crucial for several aspects of the science case of CE and ET. The localization of most binary black hole (BBH) signals, which will spend at most a few minutes within the XG detector's effective sensitivity band, will continue to rely primarily on timing triangulation across a network of detectors. A key design choice for triangulation is the baseline between instruments. We investigate how the baseline affects the localization capabilities of a two-detector CE network, analyzing both fixed-parameter injections and a realistic BBH population consistent with the latest GWTC-4 results. For detector-frame total masses up to $\sim\!100\,{\rm M}_\odot$, we find that baselines corresponding to light travel times of $8-11$ ms ($\sim\!2300-3300$ km) offer a reasonable compromise, producing predominantly unimodal or bimodal sky localizations suitable for electromagnetic follow-up and statistical host galaxy identification and galaxy cross-correlation studies. Shorter baselines significantly degrade localization, particularly for high SNR events. Crucially, we find that adding a third detector to the network eliminates localization multimodality for a substantial fraction of sources. A network with two CEs and LIGO-India provides unimodal posteriors for a good fraction of events, whereas two CEs plus ET would provide unimodal posteriors for essentially all of them. These considerations should be useful to inform the development of the XG detector network.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11871 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Noise amplitude spectral densities (ASDs) for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. SNR distribution of 100 realizations of a 1 yr BBH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Mollweide projections of the absolute value of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Upper panels: Fraction of the points in the sky exhibiting a sky localization posterior with at most two distinct modes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same as in the top and bottom rows of Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Same as in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Fraction of the points in the sky exhibiting a uni [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Fraction of points in the sky exhibiting a unimodal sky localization posterior as a function of detector-frame mass for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Scatter plots of the sky localization and relative statistical uncertainty attainable on the luminosity distance at 90% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Fraction of events with a given number of modes in the sky localization posterior for combinations of two CE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Same as in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Fraction of the points in the sky exhibiting a unimodal sky localization posterior as a function of the detector frame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Same as in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Scatter plot of the relative difference in localization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Co-design of ground-based gravitational wave detector networks

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

    A proof-of-concept ML pipeline co-designs two-site gravitational-wave detector networks, producing three example configurations with 15–44 km arms and BNS ranges up to 1160 Mpc.

  2. Impact of the Einstein Telescope's duty cycle on the estimation of binary black holes parameters

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    ET-Δ outperforms ET-2L on luminosity distance and source-frame masses for BBH events because its redundancy produces higher multi-detector uptime under realistic duty-cycle modeling.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

131 extracted references · 131 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    silver dark sirens

    We repeat step 4 for a realistic population of BBH sources. In this case, we simulate a population corresponding to 1yr of mergers using the maximum likelihood hyperparameter sample from the latest LVK results [5], and the same distributions used for generating the catalogs in step 3. We restrict our study to systems with aligned spins, using again theIMR...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Advanced LIGO

    J. Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    F.Acerneseet al.(Virgo),Class.Quant.Grav.32,024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Y. Aso, Y. Michimura, K. Somiya, M. Ando, O. Miyakawa, T. Sekiguchi, D. Tatsumi, and H. Ya- mamoto (KAGRA), Phys. Rev. D88, 043007 (2013), arXiv:1306.6747 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    The population of merging compact binaries inferred using gravitational waves through GWTC-3

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18083 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Phys. Rev. D112, 084080 (2025), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 111403 (2025), arXiv:2509.08054 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

Show all 131 references
  1. [9]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]. 21

    2017

  2. [10]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Astrophys. J.949, 76 (2023), arXiv:2111.03604 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023

  3. [11]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2509.04348 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  4. [12]

    Punturoet al., Class

    M. Punturoet al., Class. Quant. Grav.27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Hildet al., Class

    S. Hildet al., Class. Quantum Grav.28, 094013 (2011), arXiv:1012.0908 [gr-qc]

    2011

  6. [14]

    Abacet al.(ET), JCAP2026(3), 081, arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    A. Abacet al.(ET), JCAP2026(3), 081, arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Reitzeet al., Bull

    D. Reitzeet al., Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51, 035 (2019), arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019

  8. [16]

    Evanset al., (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]

    M. Evanset al., (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021

  9. [17]

    Evanset al., (2023), arXiv:2306.13745 [astro-ph.IM]

    M. Evanset al., (2023), arXiv:2306.13745 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023

  10. [18]

    Borhanian and B

    S. Borhanian and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083040 (2024), arXiv:2202.11048 [gr-qc]

    2024

  11. [19]

    Ronchini, M

    S. Ronchini, M. Branchesi, G. Oganesyan, B. Banerjee, U. Dupletsa, G. Ghirlanda, J. Harms, M. Mapelli, and F. Santoliquido, Astron. Astrophys.665, A97 (2022), arXiv:2204.01746 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022

  12. [20]

    Iacovelli, M

    F. Iacovelli, M. Mancarella, S. Foffa, and M. Maggiore, Astrophys. J.941, 208 (2022), arXiv:2207.02771 [gr-qc]

    2022

  13. [21]

    Pieroni, A

    M. Pieroni, A. Ricciardone, and E. Barausse, Sci. Rep. 12, 17940 (2022), arXiv:2203.12586 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022

  14. [22]

    Guptaet al., Class

    I. Guptaet al., Class. Quant. Grav.41, 245001 (2024), arXiv:2307.10421 [gr-qc]

    2024

  15. [23]

    B. F. Schutz, Nature323, 310 (1986)

    1986

  16. [24]

    C. L. MacLeod and C. J. Hogan, Phys. Rev. D77, 043512 (2008), arXiv:0712.0618 [astro-ph]

    2008

  17. [25]

    Del Pozzo, Phys

    W. Del Pozzo, Phys. Rev. D86, 043011 (2012), arXiv:1108.1317 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012

  18. [26]

    Fishbachet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys

    M. Fishbachet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett.871, L13 (2019), arXiv:1807.05667 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019

  19. [27]

    Grayet al., Phys

    R. Grayet al., Phys. Rev. D101, 122001 (2020), arXiv:1908.06050 [gr-qc]

    2020

  20. [28]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J.909, 218 (2021), arXiv:1908.06060 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021

  21. [29]

    Borhanian, A

    S. Borhanian, A. Dhani, A. Gupta, K. G. Arun, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Astrophys. J. Lett.905, L28 (2020), arXiv:2007.02883 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020

  22. [30]

    A.Finke, S.Foffa, F.Iacovelli, M.Maggiore,andM.Man- carella, JCAP2021(08), 026, arXiv:2101.12660 [astro- ph.CO]

  23. [31]

    Borghi, M

    N. Borghi, M. Mancarella, M. Moresco, M. Tagliazucchi, F. Iacovelli, A. Cimatti, and M. Maggiore, Astrophys. J. 964, 191 (2024), arXiv:2312.05302 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  24. [32]

    Van Den Broeck, J

    C. Van Den Broeck, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.484, 012008 (2014), arXiv:1303.7393 [gr-qc]

    2014

  25. [33]

    L. A. C. van Son, S. E. de Mink, T. Callister, S. Justham, M. Renzo, T. Wagg, F. S. Broekgaarden, F. Kummer, R. Pakmor, and I. Mandel, Astrophys. J.931, 17 (2022), arXiv:2110.01634 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022

  26. [34]

    K. K. Y. Ng, G. Franciolini, E. Berti, P. Pani, A. Ri- otto, and S. Vitale, Astrophys. J. Lett.933, L41 (2022), arXiv:2204.11864 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022

  27. [35]

    Branchesiet al., JCAP2023(07), 068, arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    M. Branchesiet al., JCAP2023(07), 068, arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

  28. [36]

    B. J. Carr, Astrophys. J.201, 1 (1975)

    1975

  29. [37]

    Kinugawa, K

    T. Kinugawa, K. Inayoshi, K. Hotokezaka, D. Nakauchi, and T. Nakamura, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.442, 2963 (2014), arXiv:1402.6672 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014

  30. [38]

    Hartwig, M

    T. Hartwig, M. Volonteri, V. Bromm, R. S. Klessen, E. Barausse, M. Magg, and A. Stacy, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.460, L74 (2016), arXiv:1603.05655 [astro- ph.GA]

    2016

  31. [39]

    Belczynski, T

    K. Belczynski, T. Ryu, R. Perna, E. Berti, T. L. Tanaka, and T. Bulik, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.471, 4702 (2017), arXiv:1612.01524 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017

  32. [40]

    Sasaki, T

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka, and S. Yokoyama, Class. Quantum Grav.35, 063001 (2018), arXiv:1801.05235 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018

  33. [41]

    B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Rept. Prog. Phys.84, 116902 (2021), arXiv:2002.12778 [astro- ph.CO]

    2021

  34. [42]

    Franciolini, R

    G. Franciolini, R. Cotesta, N. Loutrel, E. Berti, P. Pani, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D105, 063510 (2022), arXiv:2112.10660 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022

  35. [43]

    Mancarella, F

    M. Mancarella, F. Iacovelli, and D. Gerosa, Phys. Rev. D107, L101302 (2023), arXiv:2303.16323 [gr-qc]

    2023

  36. [44]

    Franciolini, F

    G. Franciolini, F. Iacovelli, M. Mancarella, M. Maggiore, P. Pani, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D108, 043506 (2023), arXiv:2304.03160 [gr-qc]

    2023

  37. [45]

    Santoliquido, U

    F. Santoliquido, U. Dupletsa, J. Tissino, M. Branchesi, F. Iacovelli, G. Iorio, M. Mapelli, D. Gerosa, J. Harms, and M. Pasquato, Astron. Astrophys.690, A362 (2024), arXiv:2404.10048 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  38. [46]

    Mestichelli, M

    B. Mestichelli, M. Mapelli, S. Torniamenti, M. A. Sedda, M. Branchesi, G. Costa, G. Iorio, and F. Santoliquido, Astron. Astrophys.690, A106 (2024), arXiv:2405.06037 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024

  39. [47]

    Franciolini, K

    G. Franciolini, K. Kritos, L. Reali, F. Broekgaar- den, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D110, 023036 (2024), arXiv:2401.13038 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  40. [48]

    Plunkett, M

    C. Plunkett, M. Mould, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D112, 023039 (2025), arXiv:2504.18615 [gr-qc]

    2025

  41. [49]

    B. D. Metzger, Living Rev. Rel.23, 1 (2020), arXiv:1910.01617 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020

  42. [50]

    Nakar, Phys

    E. Nakar, Phys. Rept.886, 1 (2020), arXiv:1912.05659 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020

  43. [51]

    Ascenzi, G

    S. Ascenzi, G. Oganesyan, M. Branchesi, and R. Ciolfi, J. Plasma Phys.87, 845870102 (2021), arXiv:2011.04001 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021

  44. [52]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi- GBM, INTEGRAL), Astrophys. J. Lett.848, L13 (2017), arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017

  45. [53]

    Connaughtonet al., Astrophys

    V. Connaughtonet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.826, L6 (2016), arXiv:1602.03920 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016

  46. [54]

    M. J. Grahamet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 251102 (2020), arXiv:2006.14122 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020

  47. [55]

    J.835, 165 (2017), arXiv:1602.03831 [astro-ph.HE]

    I.Bartos, B.Kocsis, Z.Haiman,andS.Márka,Astrophys. J.835, 165 (2017), arXiv:1602.03831 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017

  48. [56]

    N. C. Stone, B. D. Metzger, and Z. Haiman, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.464, 946 (2017), arXiv:1602.04226 [astro-ph.GA]

    2017

  49. [57]

    Perna, D

    R. Perna, D. Lazzati, and B. Giacomazzo, Astrophys. J. Lett.821, L18 (2016), arXiv:1602.05140 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016

  50. [58]

    K. E. S. Ford, F. Fraschetti, C. Fryer, S. L. Liebling, R. Perna, P. Shawhan, P. Veres, and B. Zhang, (2019), arXiv:1903.11116 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019

  51. [59]

    McKernan, K

    B. McKernan, K. E. S. Ford, I. Bartos, M. J. Graham, W. Lyra, S. Marka, Z. Marka, N. P. Ross, D. Stern, and Y. Yang, Astrophys. J. Lett.884, L50 (2019), arXiv:1907.03746 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019

  52. [60]

    Veres, T

    P. Veres, T. dal Canton, E. Burns, A. Goldstein, T. B. Littenberg, N. Christensen, and R. D. Preece, Astrophys. J.882, 53 (2019), arXiv:1905.08755 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019

  53. [61]

    B. J. Kelly, Z. B. Etienne, J. Golomb, J. D. Schnittman, J. G. Baker, S. C. Noble, and G. Ryan, Phys. Rev. D 22 103, 063039 (2021), arXiv:2010.11259 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021

  54. [62]

    S. S. Kimura, K. Murase, and I. Bartos, Astrophys. J. 916, 111 (2021), arXiv:2103.02461 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021

  55. [63]

    Zhang, Astrophys

    B. Zhang, Astrophys. J. Lett.827, L31 (2016), arXiv:1602.04542 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016

  56. [64]

    S. L. Liebling and C. Palenzuela, Phys. Rev. D94, 064046 (2016), arXiv:1607.02140 [gr-qc]

    2016

  57. [65]

    Fairhurst, New J

    S. Fairhurst, New J. Phys.11, 123006 (2009), [Erratum: New J.Phys. 13, 069602 (2011)], arXiv:0908.2356 [gr-qc]

    2009

  58. [66]

    Wen and Y

    L. Wen and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D81, 082001 (2010), arXiv:1003.2504 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010

  59. [67]

    Fairhurst, Class

    S. Fairhurst, Class. Quant. Grav.28, 105021 (2011), arXiv:1010.6192 [gr-qc]

    2011

  60. [68]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019

  61. [69]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

    2021

  62. [70]

    Abbottet al.(KAGRA, Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    2023

  63. [71]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    2025

  64. [72]

    A. H. Nitz and T. Dal Canton, Astrophys. J. Lett.917, L27 (2021), arXiv:2106.15259 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021

  65. [73]

    Baral, S

    P. Baral, S. Morisaki, I. Magaña Hernandez, and J. Creighton, Phys. Rev. D108, 043010 (2023), arXiv:2304.09889 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023

  66. [74]

    Baral, S

    P. Baral, S. Morisaki, I. Gupta, and J. Creighton, Class. Quant. Grav.42, 215007 (2025), arXiv:2503.09627 [astro- ph.IM]

    2025

  67. [75]

    Singh and T

    N. Singh and T. Bulik, Phys. Rev. D104, 043014 (2021), arXiv:2011.06336 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021

  68. [76]

    Singh and T

    N. Singh and T. Bulik, Phys. Rev. D106, 123014 (2022), arXiv:2107.11198 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022

  69. [77]

    Santoliquidoet al., Phys

    F. Santoliquidoet al., Phys. Rev. D112, 103015 (2025), arXiv:2504.21087 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  70. [78]

    Santoliquido, J

    F. Santoliquido, J. Tissino, U. Dupletsa, M. Branchesi, and J. Harms, (2025), arXiv:2512.20699 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  71. [79]

    B. Iyer, T. Souradeep, C. Unnikrishnan, S. Dhurandhar, S. Raja, and A. Sengupta, LIGO-India, Proposal of the Consortium for Indian Initiative in Gravitational-wave Observations (IndIGO), Tech. Rep. M1100296-v2 (2011)

    2011

  72. [80]

    Chandra, Class

    K. Chandra, Class. Quant. Grav.42, 025003 (2025), arXiv:2407.21109 [gr-qc]

    2025

  73. [81]

    Chandra, https://github.com/koustavchandra/ gwforge/tree/main/GWForge/ifo/noise_curves (2025)

    K. Chandra, https://github.com/koustavchandra/ gwforge/tree/main/GWForge/ifo/noise_curves (2025)

    2025

  74. [82]

    J. D. Romano and N. J. Cornish, Living Rev. Rel.20, 2 (2017), arXiv:1608.06889 [gr-qc]

    2017

  75. [83]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Living Rev. Rel.19, 1 (2016), arXiv:1304.0670 [gr-qc]

    2016

  76. [84]

    Fritschelet al., Report from the LSC Post-O5 Study Group, https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2200287/ public(2024)

    P. Fritschelet al., Report from the LSC Post-O5 Study Group, https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2200287/ public(2024)

    2024

  77. [85]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA Collaboration, Noise curves used for simulations in the update of the observing scenarios paper, https://dcc.ligo.org/ LIGO-T2000012-v1/public(2022)

    2022

  78. [86]

    K. K. Kuns and P. Fritschel, A#Strain Sensi- tivity, https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2300041/public (2024)

    2024

  79. [87]

    L. P. Singer and L. R. Price, Phys. Rev. D93, 024013 (2016), arXiv:1508.03634 [gr-qc]

    2016

  80. [88]

    L. P. Singeret al., Astrophys. J. Lett.829, L15 (2016), arXiv:1603.07333 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016

  81. [89]

    L. P. Singeret al., Astrophys. J. Suppl.226, 10 (2016), arXiv:1605.04242 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016

  82. [90]

    Begnoni, S

    A. Begnoni, S. Anselmi, M. Pieroni, A. Renzi, and A. Ric- ciardone, (2025), arXiv:2506.21530 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  83. [91]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration, LVK Algorithm Library - LAL- Suite, Free software (GPL) (2018)

    2018

  84. [92]

    B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D50, R7111 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9411043

    1994

  85. [93]

    Essick, S

    R. Essick, S. Vitale, and M. Evans, Phys. Rev. D96, 084004 (2017), arXiv:1708.06843 [gr-qc]

    2017

  86. [94]

    Virtuoso and E

    A. Virtuoso and E. Milotti, Phys. Rev. D111, 064058 (2025), arXiv:2412.01693 [gr-qc]

    2025

  87. [95]

    Iacovelli, M

    F. Iacovelli, M. Mancarella, S. Foffa, and M. Maggiore, Astrophys. J. Supp.263, 2 (2022), arXiv:2207.06910 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022

  88. [96]

    Madau and M

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

    2014 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Madau and T

    P. Madau and T. Fragos, Astrophys. J.840, 39 (2017), arXiv:1606.07887 [astro-ph.GA]

    2017

  90. [98]

    Pratten, S

    G. Pratten, S. Husa, C. Garcia-Quiros, M. Colleoni, A. Ramos-Buades, H. Estelles, and R. Jaume, Phys. Rev. D102, 064001 (2020), arXiv:2001.11412 [gr-qc]

    2020

  91. [99]

    J. D. Foley and A. Van Dam,Fundamentals of interactive computer graphics(Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., USA, 1982)

    1982

  92. [100]

    Virtanenet al., Nat

    P. Virtanenet al., Nat. Methods17, 261 (2020)

    2020

  93. [101]

    Roulet, S

    J. Roulet, S. Olsen, J. Mushkin, T. Islam, T. Venumad- hav, B. Zackay, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D106, 123015 (2022), arXiv:2207.03508 [gr-qc]

    2022

  94. [102]

    Grötschel, L

    M. Grötschel, L. Lovász, and A. Schrijver, inGeometric Algorithms and Combinatorial Optimization(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1993) pp. 64–101

    1993

  95. [103]

    Gehrelset al.(Swift Science), Astrophys

    N. Gehrelset al.(Swift Science), Astrophys. J.611, 1005 (2004), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 621, 558 (2005)], arXiv:astro-ph/0405233

    2004

  96. [104]

    S. D. Barthelmyet al., Space Sci. Rev.120, 143 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0507410

    2005

  97. [105]

    R. A. J. Eyles-Ferriset al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 536, 2857 (2024), arXiv:2411.05072 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  98. [106]

    M. J. Grahamet al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.131, 078001 (2019), arXiv:1902.01945 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019

  99. [107]

    Ahumadaet al., Publ

    T. Ahumadaet al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.136, 114201 (2024), arXiv:2405.12403 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  100. [108]

    Ivezićet al.(LSST), Astrophys

    Ž. Ivezićet al.(LSST), Astrophys. J.873, 111 (2019), arXiv:0805.2366 [astro-ph]

    2019

  101. [109]

    Andreoniet al., (2024), arXiv:2411.04793 [astro- ph.IM]

    I. Andreoniet al., (2024), arXiv:2411.04793 [astro- ph.IM]

    2024

  102. [110]

    Prayag, G

    V. Prayag, G. Hellbourg, G. Hallinan, F. Kapp, and DSA-2000, inAmerican Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #243, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 243 (2024) p. 261.02

    2000

  103. [111]

    F. J. Masciet al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.131, 018003 (2019), arXiv:1902.01872 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  104. [112]

    K. K. Y. Nget al., Phys. Rev. D107, 024041 (2023), arXiv:2210.03132 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023

  105. [113]

    A. F. Mascioli, F. Crescimbeni, C. Pacilio, P. Pani, and F. Pannarale, Phys. Rev. D112, 062003 (2025), arXiv:2504.12473 [gr-qc]

    2025

  106. [114]

    Maggiore,Gravitational Waves

    M. Maggiore,Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments, Oxford Master Series in Physics (Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  107. [115]

    Danget al., (2025), arXiv:2512.21729 [astro-ph.CO]

    Y. Danget al., (2025), arXiv:2512.21729 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  108. [116]

    Braun, A

    R. Braun, A. Bonaldi, T. Bourke, E. Keane, and J. Wagg, 23 (2019), arXiv:1912.12699 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019

  109. [117]

    Gupta, Mon

    I. Gupta, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.524, 3537 (2023), arXiv:2212.00163 [gr-qc]

    2023

  110. [118]

    Chen, JCAP2027(07), 076, arXiv:2505.12678 [gr-qc]

    A. Chen, JCAP2027(07), 076, arXiv:2505.12678 [gr-qc]

  111. [119]

    D. N. Burrowset al.(SWIFT), Space Sci. Rev.120, 165 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0508071

    2005

  112. [120]

    Perleyet al., IEEE Proceedings97, 1448 (2009), arXiv:0909.1585 [astro-ph.IM]

    R. Perleyet al., IEEE Proceedings97, 1448 (2009), arXiv:0909.1585 [astro-ph.IM]

    2009

  113. [121]

    E. J. Murphyet al., inScience with a Next Generation Very Large Array, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 517, edited by E. Murphy (2018) p. 3, arXiv:1810.07524 [astro-ph.IM]

    2018

  114. [122]

    Akesonet al., (2019), arXiv:1902.05569 [astro-ph.IM]

    R. Akesonet al., (2019), arXiv:1902.05569 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019

  115. [123]

    Borhanian, A

    S. Borhanian, A. Renzini, P. S. Cole, C. Pacilio, M. Man- carella, and D. Gerosa, (2025), arXiv:2510.11861 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  116. [124]

    S. R. Green, C. Simpson, and J. Gair, Phys. Rev. D102, 104057 (2020), arXiv:2002.07656 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020

  117. [125]

    M. Dax, S. R. Green, J. Gair, J. H. Macke, A. Buonanno, and B. Schölkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 241103 (2021), arXiv:2106.12594 [gr-qc]

    2021

  118. [126]

    Islam, J

    T. Islam, J. Roulet, and T. Venumadhav, (2022), arXiv:2210.16278 [gr-qc]

    2022

  119. [127]

    Roulet, J

    J. Roulet, J. Mushkin, D. Wadekar, T. Venumadhav, B. Zackay, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D110, 044010 (2024), arXiv:2404.02435 [gr-qc]

    2024

  120. [128]

    Wadekar, T

    D. Wadekar, T. Venumadhav, J. Roulet, A. K. Mehta, B. Zackay, J. Mushkin, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D110, 044063 (2024), arXiv:2405.17400 [gr-qc]

    2024

  121. [129]

    Iacovelli, D

    F. Iacovelli, D. Wadekar,et al., in preparation

  122. [130]

    García-Quirós, M

    C. García-Quirós, M. Colleoni, S. Husa, H. Estel- lés, G. Pratten, A. Ramos-Buades, M. Mateu-Lucena, and R. Jaume, Phys. Rev. D102, 064002 (2020), arXiv:2001.10914 [gr-qc]

    2020

  123. [131]

    Hellinger, Journal für die reine und angewandte Math- ematik136, 210 (1909)

    E. Hellinger, Journal für die reine und angewandte Math- ematik136, 210 (1909)

    1909

Pith tools

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