Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Multi-messenger tests of gravity with weakly lensed gravitational waves

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cross-correlating GW with CMB lensing can test whether gravity bends light and gravitational waves alike

desk verdict A solid proposal for a GW-CMB lensing cross-correlation test, but the claim that a nonzero correlation manifestly verifies GR is too strong and the distance-error correlation assumption needs work. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08950 v2 pith:JJ27X7TB submitted 2019-08-23 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Suvodip Mukherjee , Benjamin D. Wandelt , Joseph Silk This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords gravitational-wavelensingCMBgeneralrelativitymodifiedgravitymulti-messengerastronomyluminositydistancecross-correlationcosmology
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 proposes a new way to test a fundamental prediction of general relativity: that photons and gravitational waves bend identically as they travel through the same perturbed spacetime. The idea is to estimate the weak-lensing convergence field from gravitational-wave luminosity distances and cross-correlate it with the lensing convergence map of the cosmic microwave background, producing a GW-CMB-CMB signal. Under GR and LCDM, the expected cross-correlation is nonzero and grows with source redshift, because high-redshift GW sources share more of their line of sight with CMB photons. The authors forecast that future detectors can measure this correlation with signal-to-noise above 3, which would manifestly verify the geodesic concordance of light and gravitational waves, while deviations would signal modified gravity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the GW luminosity-distance convergence estimator $\hat{D}_L(\hat{n}) = 1 - d_L(\hat{n})/d_L^{\rm est}(\hat{n})$, which equals the lensing convergence $\kappa_{\rm gw}$ plus a distance-error term $\epsilon$. Cross-correlating this estimator with a CMB lensing convergence map yields Eq. (18); because the error term is assumed uncorrelated with the CMB lensing field, the measured correlation isolates the common-lensing signal. The theoretical signal is the cross-spectrum $C_l^{\kappa_{\rm gw}\kappa_{\rm cmb}}$ of Eq. (15), built from the GW kernel $W_{\rm gw}$ and CMB kernel $W_{\rm cmb}$ and the nonlinear matter power spectrum $P_\delta((l+1/2)/\chi)$ in the Limber approximation.

What would settle it

If a future GW sample with the source counts, redshifts, and sky-localization errors assumed in the forecasts yields a cross-spectrum between the $\hat{D}_L$ field and CMB lensing maps that is consistent with zero at cumulative SNR above 3, the paper's central prediction would be falsified; repeating the analysis with galaxy-lensing maps would provide a systematics check on the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the lensing convergence field $\kappa_{\rm gw}$ imprinted on gravitational-wave luminosity distances by intervening matter can be estimated from the waveform alone, using the chirp-mass-independent luminosity distance estimator and an external redshift, and that this field has a predictable cross-power spectrum $C_l^{\kappa_{\rm gw}\kappa_{\rm cmb}}$ with CMB lensing. Because both photons and GWs propagate through the same gravitational potentials, GR predicts a nonzero correlation; the paper computes this signal in the Limber approximation from the product of the GW and CMB lensing kernels times the nonlinear matter power spectrum. The forecasts show LISA's massive black hole binaries with electromagnetic counterparts and Cosmic Explorer's stellar-mass binaries can detect the correlation with SNR above 3 for plausible source counts and sky localizations. A measured nonzero correlation verifies that GWs and photons follow identical geodesics, and a measured amplitude that deviates from the GR+LCDM prediction would probe modified gravity, graviton mass, extra dimensions, and differences between the scalar potentials $\Phi$ and $\Psi$.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme assumes that errors in the estimated luminosity distance—from redshift uncertainties, distance measurement noise, and cosmological parameter errors—are completely uncorrelated with the CMB lensing convergence field, and that the GW sources used have reliable redshifts; if those errors correlate with the intervening matter distribution, the measured cross-correlation would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A nonzero GW-CMB lensing cross-correlation measured at SNR above 3 would directly verify general relativity's prediction that photons and gravitational waves travel on identical geodesics.
  • The measured amplitude of the cross-spectrum as a function of source redshift can constrain modified-gravity parameters and the relation between the scalar potentials $\Phi$ and $\Psi$.
  • The cross-correlation between GW strain and CMB lensing is effectively a three-point function of two CMB fields and the GW strain, going beyond the standard luminosity-distance-redshift test of background cosmology.
  • The same estimator can be applied to neutron star binaries, black hole-neutron star binaries, and to galaxy-survey lensing maps, widening the test to other GW sources and density tracers.
  • Removing the weak-lensing contribution from GW signals (delensing) reduces the uncertainty in GW source parameters and sharpens gravitational-wave tests of modified gravity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If redshift errors or electromagnetic-counterpart selection effects correlate with the intervening matter distribution, the estimator would be biased; injecting such correlated errors into simulations would quantify how much bias can masquerade as a GR-violating signal.
  • The same convergence estimator could be cross-correlated with galaxy lensing or 21-cm lensing maps rather than CMB lensing, potentially providing higher-redshift overlap and independent systematics checks for stellar-mass GW sources without electromagnetic counterparts.
  • A tomographic version using GW source redshift bins could measure the growth of the lensing kernels directly, effectively mapping the matter distribution with gravitational waves as a probe, which the paper leaves implicit.
  • Because the GW-CMB cross-spectrum is sensitive to the same matter distribution as CMB lensing reconstruction, a discrepancy between the measured and predicted correlation could flag systematics in the CMB lensing maps themselves.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new multi-messenger test of general relativity: reconstruct a weak-lensing convergence field from the luminosity-distance residuals of gravitational-wave (GW) sources relative to their electromagnetic (EM) redshifts, and cross-correlate this field with the CMB lensing convergence. The authors compute the theoretical cross-spectrum C_l^{kappa_gw kappa_cmb} under LCDM+GR using the Limber approximation and a nonlinear matter power spectrum (Eq. 15), estimate the covariance including GW shot noise and CMB lensing reconstruction noise (Eq. 19), and forecast cumulative SNRs for LISA and Cosmic Explorer as functions of source redshift, source number, and angular resolution (Fig. 3). The central claim is that a non-zero GW-CMB lensing correlation would verify a fundamental GR prediction that photons and gravitational waves follow the same geodesics, and that deviations from the predicted signal would probe modified gravity.

Significance. If the proposed measurement works as described, it would open a genuinely new observational window: no current test directly cross-correlates GW strain with CMB lensing to probe the equality of photon and graviton geodesics in the weakly perturbed cosmological metric. The theoretical framework is largely standard: Eq. (15) is the usual Limber-approximated cross-spectrum of two convergence fields, and Eq. (19) is a plausible diagonal covariance model. The paper is also commendably explicit about the approximations used (inspiral-only waveform, diagonal covariance, Limber approximation) and about the fact that Ngw and theta_min are treated as free parameters. The forecast is falsifiable in principle and would be a valuable target for LISA and next-generation ground-based detectors. The main issues are in the estimator: the treatment of the error term epsilon in Eq. (18), the reliance on an unpublished companion paper for the estimator, the unverified assumption of EM counterparts with photometric redshifts for LISA massive black hole binaries, and the concluding claim that a detected non-zero correlation would by itself 'manifestly verify' GR.

major comments (4)
  1. [Estimator of the convergence field from GW strain, Eqs. (17)-(18)] The estimator in Eq. (17) is ˆD_L = κ_gw + ε − εκ_gw, but the cross-correlation in Eq. (18) is written as ∫(ε + ˆκ_gw)ˆκ_CMB, silently dropping the product term −εκ_gw. Even if ⟨ε κ_CMB⟩ vanishes, the contribution −⟨εκ_gw κ_CMB⟩ does not automatically vanish, since ε and κ_gw probe the same line of sight; this missing term biases the estimated cross-correlation. More importantly, the assertion after Eq. (18) that ‘the convergence field is uncorrelated with the error ε(n)’ is an assumption rather than a demonstrated property. Flux-limited EM-counterpart selection is affected by lensing magnification, and photometric-redshift errors are known to correlate with galaxy environment, so ε can be correlated with the matter distribution that lenses the CMB. Such a residual correlation contributes a term C_l^{εκ_cmb} that is degenerate with the GR signal in Eq. (15). This is load-bearing because the whole claim of a clean cross-correlation measurement rests on this step.
  2. [Conclusion] The conclusion states that ‘the existence of a non-zero correlation between these two signals will manifestly verify a fundamental prediction of general relativity.’ This overstates what the test can establish. First, the estimator in Eq. (17) uses the GR waveform relation of Eqs. (7)-(8) to convert measured strain into luminosity distance; any modified-gravity effect on wave propagation or on the distance–redshift relation would be absorbed into the reconstructed convergence field. Second, many modified-gravity theories predict a non-zero GW–CMB lensing correlation through altered lensing kernels, gravitational slip, or a modified growth rate, so a non-zero correlation is not by itself a GR discriminator. The paper should either weaken the claim to ‘consistent with the concordance GR prediction’ or specify how amplitude and redshift dependence would be compared with Eq. (15) to distinguish GR from alternatives.
  3. [Forecast for LISA and Cosmic Explorer, Fig. 3] The forecast treats Ngw and θ_min as free parameters and assumes that LISA massive black hole binaries have EM counterparts with σ_z/(1+z) = 0.03, while Cosmic Explorer sources have 100% redshift uncertainty. These assumptions are observationally unverified, and the projected SNR depends sensitively on them. The paper would be stronger if the source redshift distribution dngw/dz used in the forecasts were stated explicitly and if the SNR were presented as a function of the assumed counterpart fraction and redshift-error model. As it stands, the ‘large measurable window’ in Fig. 3 is a conditional forecast, not a prediction, and the reader cannot reproduce the cumulative SNR from the information given.
  4. [Eqs. (17) and (20), estimator and noise model] The core estimator of the convergence field and the detailed form of the luminosity-distance noise σ_dl are taken from Ref. [32], which is described as ‘Submitted to MNRAS (2019)’ and is not available to the reader of this manuscript. Given that the estimator is the central new element of the paper, the derivation of Eq. (17) and the mapping between σ_dl, σ_b, and the statistics of ε in Eq. (20) should either be provided in an appendix or the paper should cite a published, publicly available version of the companion work.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Conclusion] The conclusion refers to ‘the predicted signal ... shown in Fig. 1’, but the signal as a function of source redshift is shown in Fig. 2.
  2. [Eq. (20)] The localization suppression factor is typeset as ‘el2θ2min/8 ln 2’; this should presumably be exp(l^2 θ_min^2 / (8 ln 2)) or an equivalent explicitly written exponential.
  3. [Eq. (18)] The notation ˆκ_CMB is introduced without definition; it should be stated that this is the reconstructed CMB lensing convergence map with the associated reconstruction noise N_l^{κκ}.
  4. [General] The sentence ‘As the convergence field is uncorrelated with the error ε(n), the first term on the right hand side goes to zero’ would be clearer if it explicitly distinguished the statistical ensemble over noise and source properties from the ensemble over cosmic density fields.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predicted cross-correlation is computed from LCDM+GR and standard lensing kernels, not fitted to data, and no central claim reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The central signal C_l^{kappa_gw kappa_cmb} (Eq. 15) is a standard Limber-approximation cross-spectrum between two lensing kernels, evaluated with CLASS using LCDM and GR; it is not fitted to any measurement and does not depend on the proposed estimator. The estimator in Eq. (17) is explicitly constructed from the standard strain-luminosity-distance relation (Eqs. 7-8), and the paper openly states: "Here we have assumed that the waveform of the GW signal can be modeled according to GR." That is a stated modeling assumption, not a prediction secretly defined by the target result. The self-citation to [32] (Mukherjee, Wandelt and Silk, submitted) only supplies "More details about the estimator," while Eqs. (17)-(20) are stated and used in the present paper, so the derivation does not reduce to that citation. The assumption that the error epsilon is uncorrelated with the CMB lensing field is a statistical independence assumption that could be violated by flux-limited selection or photo-z environment correlations, but a potentially biased estimator is a systematic-error concern, not a case of the derivation being equivalent to its inputs by construction. The conclusion's wording that a nonzero correlation will "manifestly verify" GR is stronger than the evidence supports because modified-gravity models can also produce nonzero correlation, but that is a logical overreach in interpretation, not circularity. No circular step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or entities. The central burden is the estimator (Eq. 17) from a companion paper and the forecast inputs (Ngw, theta_min, sigma_z). The signal prediction itself is computed from standard LCDM+GR.

free parameters (4)
  • Ngw = varied (free)
    Number of GW sources; treated as a free parameter in the SNR forecast (Fig. 3).
  • theta_min = varied (free)
    Smallest angular scale set by sky localization error; sets l_max = 180 deg / theta_min; treated as free parameter in the forecast.
  • sigma_z/(1+z) = 0.03 (photometric), ~0 (spectroscopic)
    Assumed redshift error for EM follow-up of LISA sources; affects epsilon noise in Eq. (20).
  • merger rate for Cosmic Explorer = 24-112 Gpc^-3 yr^-1
    Taken from LIGO/Virgo [55]; input to the forecast, not fitted here.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Fiducial LCDM cosmology with nonlinear matter power spectrum from CLASS
    Used to compute C_l^{kappa_gw kappa_cmb} in Eq. (15). The forecast assumes these parameters are known from prior CMB/LSS missions.
  • domain assumption Error epsilon in luminosity distance is uncorrelated with CMB lensing field
    Needed for Eq. (18) to isolate the signal; stated in the paragraph after Eq. (18).
  • domain assumption Newtonian inspiral waveform (Eq. 7) valid for SNR estimates
    Used for Fisher estimate of sigma_dl; merger/ringdown neglected, stated to improve SNR if included.
  • standard math Limber approximation in evaluating the cross-power spectrum
    Eq. (15) uses the Limber approximation with k = (l + 1/2) / chi.
  • domain assumption Normalized GW source redshift distribution dn_gw/dz
    Either a delta function (Fig. 2) or theoretical models [56,57] for forecast; affects W_gw in Eq. (13).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-messenger tests of gravity with weakly lensed gravitational waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JJ27X7TB

@misc{pith2026190808950,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-messenger tests of gravity with weakly lensed gravitational waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JJ27X7TB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08950}
}
read the original abstract

General relativity (GR) predicts concordant trajectories for photons and gravitational waves (GW). We propose a new multi-messenger avenue (GW-CMB-CMB) to prove this aspect of fundamental physics by cross-correlating the GW signal of astrophysical origin with the lensing field derived from the cosmic microwave background (CMB). This new window will allow robust measurement of the prediction from GR with high signal-to-noise and will be able to unveil the true nature of gravity using the GW sources detected by missions such as the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA), Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08950 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: GR predicts identical geodesics of the lensed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The theoretical RMS signal of the CMB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: We show the cumulative SNR as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

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. OpenAlex reports about 78 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Probing the theory of gravity with gravitational lensing of gravitational waves and galaxy surveys

    astro-ph.CO 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Cross-correlating gravitational wave lensing with galaxy surveys is forecast to detect weak lensing of gravitational waves at z<0.5 within about 10 years, with black hole-neutron star mergers as the most promising source.

  2. Prospect for Detection of Strongly Lensed Multi-messenger Signals of Binary Neutron Star Mergers

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

    Future CE+ET detectors may detect lensed BNS kilonovae at ~0.5/yr via pointed follow-up of known galaxy lenses, while lensed sGRBs and afterglows remain rare or undetectable with current-generation facilities.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [32]

    Mukherjee, B

    S. Mukherjee, B. Wandelt, and J. Silk, Submitted to MN- RAS (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    S. W. Hawking and W. Israel, Three hundred years of gravitation (Cambridge University Press, 1987)

    work page 1987

  3. [2]

    I. D. Saltas, I. Sawicki, L. Amendola, and M. Kunz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 191101 (2014), 1406.7139

    arXiv 2014

  4. [3]

    Nishizawa, Phys

    A. Nishizawa, Phys. Rev. D97, 104037 (2018), 1710.04825

    arXiv 2018

  5. [4]

    Cardoso, O

    V. Cardoso, O. J. C. Dias, and J. P. S. Lemos, Phys. Rev. D67, 064026 (2003), hep-th/0212168

    arXiv 2003

  6. [5]

    S. M. Carroll, I. Sawicki, A. Silvestri, and M. Trodden, New J. Phys. 8, 323 (2006), astro-ph/0607458

    arXiv 2006

  7. [6]

    R. Bean, D. Bernat, L. Pogosian, A. Silvestri, and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D75, 064020 (2007), astro- ph/0611321

    work page arXiv 2007

  8. [7]

    Hu and I

    W. Hu and I. Sawicki, Phys. Rev. D76, 104043 (2007), 0708.1190

    arXiv 2007

Show all 68 references
  1. [8]

    Schmidt, Phys

    F. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D78, 043002 (2008), 0805.4812

    2008 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Silvestri, L

    A. Silvestri, L. Pogosian, and R. V. Buniy, Phys. Rev. D87, 104015 (2013), 1302.1193

    2013 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Lombriser and A

    L. Lombriser and A. Taylor, JCAP 1603, 031 (2016), 1509.08458

    2016 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Lombriser and N

    L. Lombriser and N. A. Lima, Phys. Lett. B765, 382 (2017), 1602.07670

    2017 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Sakstein and B

    J. Sakstein and B. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 251303 (2017), 1710.05893

    2017 arXiv

  6. [13]

    However, the other two parameters such as αM and Γij remain unconstrained

    and constraining the termcT andµ which are related to the speed of GW and the graviton mass. However, the other two parameters such as αM and Γij remain unconstrained. Along with the effects on GW propaga- tion, alternate theories of gravity also affect the Poisson equation ∇2(Φ...

  7. [14]

    Belgacem, Y

    E. Belgacem, Y. Dirian, S. Foffa, and M. Maggiore, Phys. Rev. D97, 104066 (2018), 1712.08108

    2018 arXiv

  8. [15]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A15 (2016), 1502.01591

    2016 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Baker, E

    T. Baker, E. Bellini, P. G. Ferreira, M. Lagos, J. Noller, and I. Sawicki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 251301 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.119.251301

    2017

  10. [17]

    Carron and A

    J. Carron and A. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D96, 063510 (2017), 1704.08230

    2017 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Millea, E

    M. Millea, E. Anderes, B. D. Wandelt, and M. Millea, ArXiv e-prints (2017), 1708.06753

    2017 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Okamoto and W

    T. Okamoto and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D67, 083002 (2003), astro-ph/0301031

    2003 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Poisson and C

    E. Poisson and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D52, 848 (1995), gr-qc/9502040

    1995 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Maggiore and O

    M. Maggiore and O. U. Press, Gravitational Waves: Vol- ume 1: Theory and Experiments , Gravitational Waves (OUP Oxford, 2008), ISBN 9780198570745, URL https: //books.google.com/books?id=AqVpQgAACAAJ

    2008

  15. [22]

    Cutler and E

    C. Cutler and E. E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D49, 2658 (1994), gr-qc/9402014

    1994 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Nissanke, D

    S. Nissanke, D. E. Holz, S. A. Hughes, N. Dalal, and J. L. Sievers, ApJ 725, 496 (2010), 0904.1017

    2010 arXiv

  17. [24]

    E. E. Flanagan and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D57, 4535 (1998), gr-qc/9701039

    1998 arXiv

  18. [25]

    B. F. Schutz, Nature 323, 310 (1986)

    1986

  19. [26]

    Camera and A

    S. Camera and A. Nishizawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 151103 (2013), 1303.5446

    2013 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Takahashi, Astrophys

    R. Takahashi, Astrophys. J. 644, 80 (2006), astro- ph/0511517

    2006

  21. [28]

    Laguna, S

    P. Laguna, S. L. Larson, D. Spergel, and N. Yunes, As- trophys. J. 715, L12 (2010), 0905.1908

    2010 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Lesgourgues, ArXiv e-prints (2011), 1104.2932

    J. Lesgourgues, ArXiv e-prints (2011), 1104.2932

    2011 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Audren and J

    B. Audren and J. Lesgourgues, JCAP 10, 037 (2011), 1106.2607

    2011 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Bertacca, A

    D. Bertacca, A. Raccanelli, N. Bartolo, and S. Matarrese, Phys. Dark Univ. 20, 32 (2018), 1702.01750

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Giacomazzo, J

    B. Giacomazzo, J. G. Baker, M. C. Miller, C. S. Reynolds, and J. R. van Meter, The Astrophysical Jour- nal Letters 752, L15 (2012), URL http://stacks.iop. org/2041-8205/752/i=1/a=L15

    2012

  26. [34]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, JCAP 7, 034 (2011), 1104.2933

    2011 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Palenzuela, L

    C. Palenzuela, L. Lehner, and S. L. Liebling, Science329, 927 (2010), 1005.1067

    2010 arXiv

  28. [36]

    B. D. Farris, P. Duffell, A. I. MacFadyen, and Z. Haiman, 7 Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 447, L80 (2015), 1409.5124

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Haiman, Found

    Z. Haiman, Found. Phys. 48, 1430 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    P. J. Armitage and P. Natarajan, Astrophys. J. 567, L9 (2002), astro-ph/0201318

    2002 arXiv

  31. [39]

    For stellar ori- gin BBHs which can be probed from Cosmic Explorer, we may not have an electromagnetic counter-part and as a result, the redshift error will be large

    and its redshift (z) using upcoming missions [40–43] or other dedicated spectroscopic surveys. For stellar ori- gin BBHs which can be probed from Cosmic Explorer, we may not have an electromagnetic counter-part and as a result, the redshift error will be large. So, by using th...

  32. [40]

    R. Gold, V. Paschalidis, M. Ruiz, S. L. Shapiro, Z. B. Eti- enne, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. D90, 104030 (2014), 1410.1543

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Padovani et al., ArXiv e-prints (2017), 1705.06064

    P. Padovani et al., ArXiv e-prints (2017), 1705.06064

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Petiteau, S

    A. Petiteau, S. Babak, and A. Sesana, Astrophys. J. 732, 82 (2011), 1102.0769

    2011 arXiv

  35. [43]

    LSST Science Collaboration, P. A. Abell, J. Allison, S. F. Anderson, J. R. Andrew, J. R. P. Angel, L. Armus, D. Ar- nett, S. J. Asztalos, T. S. Axelrod, et al., ArXiv e-prints (2009), 0912.0201

    2009 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Refregier, A

    A. Refregier, A. Amara, T. D. Kitching, A. Rassat, R. Scaramella, J. Weller, and f. t. Euclid Imaging Con- sortium, ArXiv e-prints (2010), 1001.0061

    2010 arXiv

  37. [45]

    https://www.eso.org/sci/publications.html, https: //www.eso.org/sci/publications.html

  38. [46]

    Maartens, F

    R. Maartens, F. B. Abdalla, M. Jarvis, and M. G. Santos (SKA Cosmology SWG), PoS AASKA14, 016 (2015), 1501.04076

    2015 arXiv

  39. [47]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D100, 104036 (2019), 1903.04467

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Dore et al

    O. Dore et al. (WFIRST), ArXiv e-prints (2018), 1804.03628

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    K. N. Abazajian et al. (CMB-S4), ArXiv e-prints (2016), 1610.02743

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    D. E. Holz and S. A. Hughes, Astrophys. J. 629, 15 (2005), astro-ph/0504616

    2005 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and D. Hanson, Journal of Cos- mology and Astro-Particle Physics 2011, 018 (2011), 1101.2234

    2011 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Mangilli, B

    A. Mangilli, B. Wandelt, F. Elsner, and M. Liguori, As- tron. Astrophys. 555, A82 (2013), 1303.1722

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    https://www.ligo.org, https://www.ligo.org

  46. [54]

    In this analysis, we treat the number of GW sourcesNgw and the smallest angular scale θmin as free parameters

    then this signal is also accessible from advance-LIGO. In this analysis, we treat the number of GW sourcesNgw and the smallest angular scale θmin as free parameters. (a) (b) FIG. 3: We show the cumulative SNR as a function of the maximum cosmological redshift (z). We have cons...

  47. [55]

    Amaro-Seoane, H

    P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, J. Baker, E. Ba- rausse, P. Bender, E. Berti, P. Binetruy, M. Born, D. Bor- toluzzi, et al., ArXiv e-prints (2017), 1702.00786

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 044001 (2017), 1607.08697

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. 833, L1 (2016), 1602.03842

    2016 arXiv

  50. [58]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. 882, L24 (2019), 1811.12940

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Micic, K

    M. Micic, K. Holley-Bockelmann, S. Sigurdsson, and T. Abel, MNRAS 380, 1533 (2007), astro-ph/0703540

    2007 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Klein, E

    A. Klein, E. Barausse, A. Sesana, A. Petiteau, E. Berti, S. Babak, J. Gair, S. Aoudia, I. Hinder, F. Ohme, et al., Phys. Rev. D 93, 024003 (2016), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024003

    2016 doi

  53. [61]

    Nissanke, J

    S. Nissanke, J. Sievers, N. Dalal, and D. Holz, Astrophys. J. 739, 99 (2011), 1105.3184

    2011 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Delfino, K

    G. Delfino, K. Krasnov, and C. Scarinci, JHEP 03, 119 (2015), 1210.6215

    2015 arXiv

  55. [63]

    caltech.edu/~shane/sensitivity/MakeCurve.html

    http://www.srl.caltech.edu/∼ shane/sensitivity/MakeCurve.html, http://www.srl. caltech.edu/~shane/sensitivity/MakeCurve.html

  56. [64]

    P´ erez and B

    F. P´ erez and B. E. Granger, Computing in Science and Engineering 9, 21 (2007), ISSN 1521-9615, URL http: //ipython.org

    2007

  57. [65]

    W. R. Inc., Mathematica, Version 12.0 , champaign, IL, 2019

    2019

  58. [66]

    J. D. Hunter, Computing In Science & Engineering 9, 90 (2007)

    2007

  59. [67]

    van der Walt, S

    S. van der Walt, S. C. Colbert, and G. Varoquaux, Computing in Science and Engineering 13, 22 (2011), 1102.1523

    2011 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Jones, T

    E. Jones, T. Oliphant, P. Peterson, et al., SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python (2001–), [Online; ac- cessed ¡today¿], URL http://www.scipy.org/

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.