Correlated magnetic noise from anisotropic lightning sources and the detection of stochastic gravitational waves

Atsushi Taruya; Yoshiaki Himemoto

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 55 references

Correlated magnetic noise from anisotropic lightning sources and the detection of stochastic gravitational waves

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Lightning noise won't blind Virgo-KAGRA to stochastic GWs

desk verdict Extends a validated Schumann-noise model to anisotropic lightning and finds the Virgo-KAGRA pair surprisingly robust; the main caveat is the untested frequency-independence of the anisotropy ansatz. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10635 v2 pith:WTPTGID7 submitted 2019-08-28 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.COastro-ph.EPgr-qc

Yoshiaki Himemoto , Atsushi Taruya This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.COastro-ph.EPgr-qc

keywords stochasticgravitationalwavesSchumannresonancescorrelatedmagneticnoiselightningsourceanisotropycross-correlationanalysisoverlapreductionfunctionVirgoKAGRA

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 claims that the correlated magnetic noise produced by Earth's Schumann resonances does not prevent detection of stochastic gravitational waves, even when the lightning sources that drive those resonances are strongly concentrated on tropical continents. Extending an earlier isotropic analytical model, the authors assign a weight $W(\hat{\Omega})=(1-\epsilon)+\epsilon w(\hat{\Omega})$ to each sky direction using the observed mean annual lightning flash-rate map, with $\epsilon=0.8$ representing strong anisotropy. They find that the noise impact does not always grow with anisotropy: for some detector pairs and polarization modes the integral of the oscillating magnetic-noise spectrum against the optimal filter partially cancels. The robust result is that Virgo and KAGRA, among all pairs of second-generation detectors, have correlated magnetic noise at or below the amplitude of a stochastic background detectable at signal-to-noise ratio 5 in one year, for tensor, vector, and scalar modes.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the analytical correlated-noise spectrum $M_{12}(f)=\frac{1}{8\pi}P_B(f)\sum_\ell \frac{|E_\ell(f)|^2}{|E_\ell(f'_\ell)|^2} \gamma^B_\ell(\hat{r}_1,\hat{r}_2)$, with the coherence function $\gamma^B_\ell$ carrying the geometry of the detector pair and the sky weight $W(\hat{\Omega})$; the sum runs over Schumann transverse-magnetic modes with Lorentzian line shapes $|E_\ell(f)|^2$. The extension replaces the isotropic sky average by a weighted average over the observed lightning map, so the coherence function becomes $\gamma^B_\ell(\hat{r}_1,\hat{r}_2) \propto \int d^2\hat{\Omega}\, W(\hat{\Omega}) P^1_\ell(\hat{\Omega}\cdot\hat{r}_1)P^1_\ell(\hat{\Omega}\cdot\hat{r}_2)[\hat{e}_1(\hat{\Omega})\cdot\hat{X}_1][\hat{e}_2(\hat{\Omega})\cdot\hat{X}_2]$. The cross-correlation statistic $\langle S_B\rangle$ is then computed by integrating $M_{12}$ against the optimal filter $\tilde{Q}(f)\propto \sum_A \Omega^A_{\rm gw}(f)\gamma^A_{12}(f)/[f^3 P_1(f)P_2(f)]$, and it is the phase relationship between the oscillating $M_{12}$ and $\tilde{Q}$ that determines whether anisotropy increases or decreases the impact.

What would settle it

A year-long measurement of the magnetic-field cross-spectrum between the Virgo and KAGRA sites, compared mode by mode with the model's prediction at $\epsilon=0.8$, would settle the claim: if the anisotropic part of the Schumann spectrum has a different frequency dependence than the flat weight assumed in Eqs. (20)-(22), or is not shaped like the climatological flash-rate map, the predicted ranking and the VK margin would change. A simpler check is whether the observed ratio $\langle S_B\rangle_{\epsilon}/\langle S_B\rangle_{\epsilon=0}$ for any pair follows the computed curve.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that anisotropic lightning loading changes the correlated magnetic noise $M_{12}(f)$ in a way that is mostly coherent and small in the spectrum, yet can swing the detection impact by factors of two to three or more depending on the detector pair and the GW polarization. For the LIGO Hanford-Livingston pair the absolute noise stays large under all assumed anisotropies, while for Virgo-KAGRA a large phase cancellation in $\langle S_B\rangle$ keeps the equivalent $\Omega_{\rm gw}h^2$ well below the one-year, SNR=5 threshold even at $\epsilon=0.8$. The authors emphasise that this robustness is a combined effect of the pair's large separation, its detector noise spectra, and its sensitivity peaking above roughly 40 Hz, away from the low-frequency Schumann band. They also show analytically that the exact nulling condition of the isotropic model survives only for specially symmetric source distributions, so in general no choice of coupling vectors can cancel the noise.

Load-bearing premise

The anisotropic part of the magnetic-field spectrum is assumed to be frequency-independent and directly proportional to the mean annual lightning flash-rate map; if the true Schumann source distribution has a different frequency dependence, the computed noise amplitudes and the Virgo-KAGRA ranking could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the model is right, the Virgo-KAGRA pair should be the least contaminated by correlated magnetic noise for unpolarized tensor, circularly polarized tensor, vector, and scalar stochastic backgrounds, and should be preferred in searches for all of these.
The LIGO Hanford-Livingston pair remains dominated by correlated magnetic noise under every assumed anisotropy, so improvements in magnetic coupling or noise subtraction are needed before that pair can contribute to a stochastic detection.
Anisotropy can suppress rather than amplify correlated noise in some configurations, because the product of the oscillating magnetic-noise spectrum and the optimal filter can cancel by phase; monotonic scaling with anisotropy is not a safe assumption.
A detector pair whose sensitivity begins above roughly 40 Hz largely avoids the low-frequency Schumann band, which is why Virgo-KAGRA stays robust even when the lightning source distribution is strongly anisotropic.
For astrophysical backgrounds with $\Omega_{\rm gw}\propto f^{2/3}$, the same qualitative ranking holds and the Virgo-KAGRA pair still falls below the one-year SNR=5 threshold for correlated magnetic noise.

Reading between the lines

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

The magnetometer cross-correlation between Virgo and KAGRA that has already been reported in the literature could be re-analysed to test the predicted $\epsilon$ dependence directly; the paper does not perform that comparison.
Because lightning activity varies seasonally and diurnally while the flash-rate map is an annual average, the model probably smooths over transient increases in anisotropy; a time-resolved estimate might find intervals where the Virgo-KAGRA margin shrinks.
The same phase-cancellation mechanism suggests a design rule for future detector sites: choose pairs with large separation and high-frequency sensitivity to stay safe against Schumann noise, a hint the paper states once but does not develop.
If future transfer-function measurements show that KAGRA couples to magnetic fields more strongly than the assumed $\kappa_i=2$, $b_i=2.67$ values, the Virgo-KAGRA margin could close, so the conclusion is conditional on that coupling.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this is a legitimate extension of a previously validated analytic model, and the central qualitative result—that Virgo–KAGRA is the pair least contaminated by correlated Schumann noise even under strongly anisotropic lightning—survives contact with the paper. The stress-test note points at the right weak spot, but it lands as a caveat rather than a fatal flaw.

What is genuinely new: the paper takes the authors' 2017 isotropic model (which already matched magnetometer measurements of Schumann correlations) and adds an anisotropic lightning source distribution built from the observed OTD/LIS flash-rate map, parametrized by a single anisotropy strength epsilon. It then computes the correlated magnetic noise contribution to the stochastic-background cross-correlation statistic for all pairs among the five second-generation detectors, for unpolarized tensor, circularly polarized tensor, vector, and scalar GW modes. The VK result is not constructed; it emerges from the integral of an oscillating M12 against the optimal filter, with the detector pair's insensitivity below 25 Hz playing a big role. Appendix B is a nice check: with the updated LIGO transfer function, the model reproduces the frequency-dependent Omega_mag measured during O2, including zero-crossings and Schumann peaks.

The soft spots are real but bounded. The anisotropic spectrum assumes frequency independence and takes the flash-rate map as the angular weight, with no dependence on stroke current-moment spectra; that is an unvalidated approximation, and it feeds directly into the shape of M12(f) that produces the phase cancellation. The authors say as much in the conclusion. Because the VK suppression partly comes from the detector pair's weak sensitivity at the Schumann frequencies rather than from the anisotropy model, the qualitative robustness claim probably holds, but the quantitative ranking and the factors-of-a-few in epsilon should be read as model-dependent. The coupling parameters ri(f) for KAGRA and India remain uncertain; the paper is transparent about this and tests an updated LIGO transfer function.

Citation pattern: self-citation to ref [24] is appropriate here, since the whole point is extending that validated model, and they cite the external magnetometer measurements. No red flags.

Recommendation: send it to a serious referee. The question is whether the anisotropy model is physical enough; a referee should push on whether measured Schumann anisotropic spectra exist to test the ansatz, and whether the epsilon scan is wide enough. For the stochastic-GW and detector-characterization community, this is worth reading.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper extends the authors' earlier analytic model of correlated magnetic noise from Schumann resonances to include anisotropic lightning source distributions. The anisotropy is parametrized by ε in W(Ω) = (1−ε) + εw(Ω), where w is derived from the mean annual flash-rate map. The model is applied to all pairs of five second-generation detectors (LIGO Hanford, Livingston, India, Virgo, KAGRA) and the impact of the correlated magnetic noise on stochastic GW detection is evaluated for unpolarized tensor, circularly polarized tensor, unpolarized vector, and unpolarized scalar modes, with flat and f^{2/3} spectra. The principal finding is that the Virgo–KAGRA (VK) pair remains the most robust against correlated magnetic noise even for strong anisotropy with ε = 0.8, staying at or below the SNR = 5 one-year detection threshold for all GW polarization types. The robustness is attributed not to a broadband suppression but to phase cancellation in the integral of the magnetic noise spectrum M12(f) against the oscillatory optimal filter.

Significance. If the result holds, it provides a concrete, falsifiable prediction for stochastic GW searches: the VK pair is the least contaminated by Schumann-resonance correlated noise among second-generation detector pairs, for tensor, vector, and scalar modes alike. The paper's strengths are its transparent derivation of Eq. (19) including the weighted coherence function, the use of a physically motivated source map, the systematic scan of ε rather than a fit tuned to the VK result, and the extension to non-tensor and circularly polarized GWs. The previous model from Ref. [24] has been checked against magnetometer measurements (Refs. [22, 23, 28]), and Appendix B further validates the updated transfer-function version against LIGO-Virgo data. The main caveat is that the anisotropic component of the magnetic spectrum is assumed frequency-independent and proportional to the climatological flash-rate map, an assumption that is load-bearing for the VK cancellation result and is not tested against measured anisotropic Schumann spectra.

major comments (3)

[Sec. IV A, Eqs. (20) and (21)] The VK robustness result relies on the assumption that the anisotropic part of the magnetic spectrum is frequency-independent, W(Ω) = (1−ε) + εw(Ω). The phase cancellation that suppresses ⟨S_B⟩ for VK is computed from the frequency integral of M12(f) against the oscillatory optimal filter, and the l-mode weights γ_l^B(f) enter M12 through Eq. (19). A frequency-dependent anisotropy pattern would change the relative l-mode weights and hence the shape of M12(f); there is no demonstrated reason that the cancellation survives such a change. The authors should test this by repeating the calculation with a simple frequency-dependent extension of W (e.g., different source terms at the first and higher Schumann resonances) or by comparing against measured anisotropic Schumann cross-spectra between Virgo and KAGRA sites. Without such a check, the quantitative claim that VK is robust up to ε = 0.8 is conditional on an unvalidated modeling choice.
[Sec. IV A, Eq. (22)] The normalized function w(Ω) is identified with the observed mean annual flash-rate map, which counts all lightning flashes equally. Real lightning sources have different stroke current-moment spectra depending on region and storm type, so even a frequency-independent anisotropy would not strictly equal the flash-rate map: the magnetic-field amplitude per flash is not region-independent. The paper should either justify this identification with a reference to measured source spectra or demonstrate that plausible variations in w(Ω) do not change the VK ranking. As it stands, no uncertainty from the lightning dataset or from alternative source models is propagated into the curves in Figs. 3 and 4.
[Sec. VI] The conclusion that VK is 'potentially' the most insensitive pair is appropriately cautious, but the abstract and Section IV B 2 make the stronger assertion that VK is robust for all types of stochastic GWs without prominently flagging the model dependence. Since the quantitative ranking and the cancellation mechanism both rely on the frequency-independent anisotropy assumption, the central claim should be explicitly qualified as a model-dependent result in the abstract and in the main text, with the unvalidated assumption stated at the point where the VK claim is made.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract] The phrase 'the correlated magnetic' appears to be missing the word 'noise'; it should read 'the correlated magnetic noise.'
[Abstract and Sec. I] The word 'lighting' is used where 'lightning' is meant; this typo appears in the abstract and in several places in the introduction.
[Eq. (16)] The shape function contains a typographical error: '|E𝓁(f)|2|' has an extra vertical bar and should read '|E𝓁(f)|2'.
[Sec. II B] The sentence 'which closely matchs with those estimated by [23]' contains a typo: 'matchs' should be 'matches.'
[Fig. 2 caption] The caption is crowded and the line labels for the four pairs are not clearly mapped to the four panels; adding explicit panel letters (a)–(d) would improve readability.
[Ref. [48]] Reference [48] is an LIGO aLOG entry with a URL; this is not a stable archival reference. The authors should provide a permanent citation or archival DOI if one exists, or at least note that the entry is an internal LIGO document.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the VK robustness result is a forward model prediction from an externally sourced lightning map, with the anisotropy parameter scanned rather than fitted.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward calculation with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The anisotropic magnetic-field spectrum is constructed in Eqs. (20)-(22) from an externally observed mean annual flash-rate map and a scanned anisotropy parameter epsilon; the central quantity <S_B> is then obtained by integration against the optimal filter, so the VK ranking is not equal to the input by construction. The underlying analytical model is taken from the authors' previous work (Ref. [24]), but that model has independent support through comparisons with magnetometer measurements in Refs. [22, 23, 28], and the nulling condition is re-derived in Appendix A rather than merely imported. Appendix B does fit transfer-function parameters and orientation angles to reproduce the measured Omega_mag of Ref. [47], but this is explicitly presented as a validation exercise and does not enter the main results of Sec. IV. The stated frequency-independence assumption in Sec. IV A is a modeling limitation rather than a circular reduction: changing the frequency dependence of the anisotropic component would change the numerical outcome, which is precisely why the conclusion is conditional on the model. The paper's own closing caution that the results rely on simplifications reinforces that the claim is a model prediction, not a restatement of its inputs. No circular step is therefore identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the authors' prior analytical model of Schumann resonances, extended with an anisotropic angular weight derived from satellite lightning data. The quantitative noise amplitudes scale with coupling parameters that are not measured for most detectors, and the absolute scale is not derived from first principles.

free parameters (6)

epsilon_anisotropy = 0.0, 0.2, 0.8
Controls the fraction of anisotropy in the magnetic-field spectrum W(Omega) in Eq. (21); scanned to represent isotropic, moderate, and strong anisotropy rather than fitted to data.
projection_vectors_X_i = chosen per detector pair and epsilon to maximize |<S_B>|
The angular orientation of the magnetic coupling in Eq. (11) is not known, so it is varied to give the pessimistic maximum of the correlated noise; this makes the ranking conservative but leaves the impact dependent on an unmeasured quantity.
transfer_function_parameters = (kappa_i,b_i) = (2, 2.67) fiducial and (0.079, 3.28) updated
Adopted from refs [22-24] and [48] respectively; the correlated noise amplitude scales linearly with kappa_1*kappa_2, so the absolute size of the impact is not predicted from first principles.
magnetic_spectrum_normalization_A = A^{1/2} = 5.89 pT/Hz^{1/2}
Input from refs [18, 24] for the isotropic Schumann spectrum P_B(f); the absolute magnitude of M12 scales with this value, but the relative pair ranking is independent of it.
quality_factor_Q = 5
Set close to observed Schumann resonance widths, following refs [22, 42-44]; chosen, not fitted in this paper.
resonance_frequency_shift = 0.78
Ratio of observed to ideal eigenfrequency, adopted from Schumann resonance literature.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The Schumann resonances are represented as a superposition of axisymmetric transverse magnetic (TM) modes of the Earth-ionosphere cavity, with the line-shape of Eq. (16).
Used to derive the magnetic noise spectrum in Sec. II B; follows Jackson [42] and the authors' prior model.
domain assumption The lightning sources form a stationary random process, so the magnetic noise is characterized by a power spectrum and is Gaussian.
Required for the cross-correlation statistic and optimal filter in Sec. II A.
domain assumption The anisotropic part of the magnetic-field spectrum is frequency-independent and follows the observed lightning flash-rate map, with W(Omega) = (1-epsilon) + epsilon w(Omega) in Eqs. (20)-(22).
This is the central modeling assumption of the paper; the real Schumann source distribution may vary with frequency and may not exactly track the flash-rate map.
domain assumption Correlated magnetic noise in the detector is linearly proportional to the global magnetic field via a frequency-dependent transfer function r_i(f) as in Eq. (11), with one coupling direction X_i per detector.
Linear coupling assumption for magnetically susceptible mirror control systems.
domain assumption The detector noise spectral densities and overlap reduction functions are taken from the cited literature and are accurate.
Used to compute the optimal filter and SNR; e.g., LIGO noise from ref [49], Virgo/KAGRA fits from ref [50].
standard math The cross-correlation statistic and optimal filter formalism of Allen and Romano [18] applies, including the relation <S_G> in Eq. (5).
Standard, unproved background for stochastic GW searches.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Correlated magnetic noise from anisotropic lightning sources and the detection of stochastic gravitational waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WTPTGID7

@misc{pith2026190810635,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Correlated magnetic noise from anisotropic lightning sources and the detection of stochastic gravitational waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WTPTGID7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10635}
}

read the original abstract

Direct detection of gravitational waves (GWs) from compact binary systems suggests that the merger rate of such events is large, and the sum of their GWs can be viewed as stochastic signals. Because of its random nature, cross-correlating the signals from multiple detectors is essential to disentangle the GWs from instrumental noise. However, the global magnetic fields in the Earth-ionosphere cavity produce the environmental disturbances at low-frequency bands, known as Schumann resonances, and coupled with GW detectors, they potentially contaminate the stochastic GW signal as a correlated noise. Previously, we have presented a simple analytical model to estimate its impact on the detection of stochastic GWs. Here, extending the analysis to further take account of the effects of anisotropic lightning source distributions, we present a comprehensive study of the impact of correlated magnetic noise at low-frequency bands, including non-tensor-type GWs, as well as circularly polarized tensor-type GWs. We find that as opposed to a naive expectation, the impact of correlated magnetic noise does not always increase with anisotropies in the lighting source distribution. Even in the presence of large anisotropies, there is a robust detector pair for which the amplitude of correlated magnetic noise becomes comparable to or well below detectable amplitude of stochastic GWs. The results indicate that the properties of the correlated magnetic noise depend crucially on both the geometrical and geographical setup of the detector's pair, and Virgo and KAGRA would be potentially the most insensitive detector pair against the correlated magnetic for both tensor- and non-tensor-type stochastic GWs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10635 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Frequency dependence of the magnetic noise power spectrum, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as in Fig. 3, but in the case of vector (upper) and scalar (lower) GWs, assuming that the stochastic GWs are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Dependence of the correlated magnetic noise on the geographical setup for representative pairs of detectors: LIGO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Correlated magnetic noise in terms of an effective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Same as in the upper panels of Fig. 3, but the results with the updated transfer function given by Eq. (24) with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Same as in Fig. 3, but here the impact of correlated magnetic noise on the detection of astrophysical GW backgrounds is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Same as in Fig. 4, but here the impact of the correlated magnetic noise on the detection of astrophysical GW [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[24]

W. O. Schumann, Zeitschrift Naturforschung Teil A 7, 149 (1952)

work page 1952
[1]

The magnetic noise spectrum describes the frequency-dependent coherence of the global mag- netic ﬁeld between two detectors, which is ex- pressed as a sum of the discrete Schumann res- onance modes convolving the line-shape function. Here, the Schumann resonances are idealistically represented by a superposition of the axisymmet- ric transverse magnetic (...

work page
[2]

The TM modes are generated by lightning sources which are produced continuously in a stationary random process. That is, the amplitude of the TM mode, ~B, has a random nature, and is character- ized by the power spectrum, which is the function of the angular position of lightning source ˆΩ and frequencyf. For simplicity, we further assume that the lightni...

work page
[3]

Correlated magnetic noise spectrum Before presenting the quantitative impact, it would be instructive to ﬁrst see how the presence of anisotropies 3 For LIGO Hanford/Livingston/India, we use the table of numer- ical data published in Ref. [49]. For KAGRA and Virgo, we use the ﬁtting form of the noise spectra, given at Eqs. (5) and (6) in Ref. [50], respec...

work page
[4]

Impact on the detection of stochastic GWs We now present the quantitative estimate of the im- pact of correlated magnetic noise varying the parameter ϵ. Figures. 3 and 4 summarize the results for tensor and nontensor (i.e., vector and scalar) modes, respectively. 9 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ϵ=0.0 ϵ=0.2 ϵ=0.8 10-9 10-8 10-...

work page
[5]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Aber- nathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, and et al., Physical Review Letters 116, 241103 (2016), arXiv:1606.04855 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2016
[6]

G. M. Harry and LIGO Scientiﬁc Collaboration, Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 084006 (2010)

work page 2010
[7]

LIGO Scientiﬁc Collaboration, J. Aasi, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, K. Ack- ley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, and et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2015

Show all 55 references

[8]

Maggiore, Phys

M. Maggiore, Phys. Rep. 331, 283 (2000), gr-qc/9909001

2000 arXiv
[9]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Aber- nathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, and et al., Physical Review Letters 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[10]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Ad- hikari, V. B. Adya, and et al., Physical Review Letters 120, 091101 (2018), arXiv:1710.05837 [gr-qc]. 17

2018 arXiv
[11]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Aber- nathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, and et al., Physical Review X 6, 041015 (2016), arXiv:1606.04856 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[12]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Ad- hikari, V. B. Adya, and et al., Physical Review Letters 118, 221101 (2017), arXiv:1706.01812 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[13]

This means that for the VK pair, a large cancellation happens in the integral of ⟨SB⟩

However, the numerator of the ratio, i.e., ⟨SB⟩, for the VK pair is found to be much smaller than that for the HL pair over various values of β, and its diﬀerence amounts to a factor of 700 in the original setup. This means that for the VK pair, a large cancellation happens in...
[14]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Ad- hikari, V. B. Adya, and et al., Astrophysical Journal 851, L35 (2017), arXiv:1711.05578 [astro-ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[15]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Ad- hikari, V. B. Adya, and et al., Physical Review Letters 119, 141101 (2017), arXiv:1709.09660 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[16]

Regimbau, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 11, 369 (2011), arXiv:1101.2762

T. Regimbau, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 11, 369 (2011), arXiv:1101.2762

2011 arXiv
[17]

X.-J. Zhu, E. Howell, T. Regimbau, D. Blair, and Z.-H. Zhu, ApJ 739, 86 (2011), arXiv:1104.3565 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[18]

P. A. Rosado, Phys. Rev. D 84, 084004 (2011), arXiv:1106.5795 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[19]

Marassi, R

S. Marassi, R. Schneider, G. Corvino, V. Ferrari, and S. Portegies Zwart, Phys. Rev. D 84, 124037 (2011), arXiv:1111.6125

2011 arXiv
[20]

X.-J. Zhu, E. J. Howell, D. G. Blair, and Z.-H. Zhu, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc 431, 882 (2013), arXiv:1209.0595 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[21]

Kowalska-Leszczynska, T

I. Kowalska-Leszczynska, T. Regimbau, T. Bulik, M. Do- minik, and K. Belczynski, Astron. Astrophys. 574, A58 (2015), arXiv:1205.4621

2015 arXiv
[22]

Christensen, Phys

N. Christensen, Phys. Rev. D 46, 5250 (1992)

1992
[23]

Allen and J

B. Allen and J. D. Romano, Phys. Rev. D 59, 102001 (1999), gr-qc/9710117

1999 arXiv
[25]

W. O. Schumann, Zeitschrift Naturforschung Teil A 7, 250 (1952)

1952
[26]

Kowalska-Leszczynska, M.-A

I. Kowalska-Leszczynska, M.-A. Bizouard, T. Bulik, N. Christensen, M. Coughlin, M. Go lkowski, J. Kubisz, A. Kulak, J. Mlynarczyk, F. Robinet, and M. Ro- hde, Classical and Quantum Gravity 34, 074002 (2017), arXiv:1612.01102 [astro-ph.IM]

2017 arXiv
[27]

Thrane, N

E. Thrane, N. Christensen, and R. M. S. Schoﬁeld, Phys. Rev. D 87, 123009 (2013), arXiv:1303.2613 [astro- ph.IM]

2013 arXiv
[28]

Thrane, N

E. Thrane, N. Christensen, R. M. S. Schoﬁeld, and A. Eﬄer, Physical Review D 90, 023013 (2014), arXiv:1406.2367 [astro-ph.IM]

2014 arXiv
[29]

Himemoto and A

Y. Himemoto and A. Taruya, Phys. Rev. D 96, 022004 (2017), arXiv:1704.07084 [astro-ph.IM]

2017 arXiv
[30]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Aber- nathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, and et al., Physical Review Letters 118, 121101 (2017), arXiv:1612.02029 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[31]

Acernese, M

F. Acernese, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, D. Aisa, N. Alle- mandou, A. Allocca, J. Amarni, P. Astone, G. Balestri, G. Ballardin, and et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[32]

Somiya, Classical and Quantum Gravity 29, 124007 (2012), arXiv:1111.7185 [gr-qc]

K. Somiya, Classical and Quantum Gravity 29, 124007 (2012), arXiv:1111.7185 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[33]

M. W. Coughlin, A. Cirone, P. Meyers, S. Atsuta, V. Boschi, A. Chincarini, N. L. Christensen, R. De Rosa, A. Eﬄer, I. Fiori, M. Go lkowski, M. Guidry, J. Harms, K. Hayama, Y. Kataoka, J. Kubisz, A. Kulak, M. Laxen, A. Matas, J. Mlynarczyk, T. Ogawa, F. Paoletti, J. Sal- vador,...

2018 arXiv
[34]

C. S. Unnikrishnan, International Journal of Mod- ern Physics D 22, 1341010 (2013), arXiv:1510.06059 [physics.ins-det]

2013 arXiv
[35]

A. V. Shvets, M. Hayakawa, M. Sekiguchi, and Y. Ando, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 71, 1405 (2009)

2009
[36]

Shvets and M

A. Shvets and M. Hayakawa, Surveys in Geophysics 32, 705 (2011)

2011
[37]

Nishizawa, A

A. Nishizawa, A. Taruya, K. Hayama, S. Kawamura, and M.-A. Sakagami, Phys. Rev. D 79, 082002 (2009), arXiv:0903.0528 [astro-ph.CO]

2009 arXiv
[38]

D. M. Eardley, D. L. Lee, A. P. Lightman, R. V. Wag- oner, and C. M. Will, Physical Review Letters 30, 884 (1973)

1973
[39]

D. M. Eardley, D. L. Lee, and A. P. Lightman, Phys. Rev. D 8, 3308 (1973)

1973
[40]

C. M. Will, Living Reviews in Relativity 17, 4 (2014), arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[41]

S. H. Alexander, M. E. Peskin, and M. M. Sheikh- Jabbari, Physical Review Letters 96, 081301 (2006), hep- th/0403069

2006
[42]

Satoh, S

M. Satoh, S. Kanno, and J. Soda, Phys. Rev. D 77, 023526 (2008), arXiv:0706.3585

2008 arXiv
[43]

Nishizawa, A

A. Nishizawa, A. Taruya, and S. Kawamura, Phys. Rev. D 81, 104043 (2010), arXiv:0911.0525 [gr-qc]

2010 arXiv
[44]

Seto, Phys

N. Seto, Phys. Rev. D 75, 061302 (2007), astro- ph/0609633

2007
[45]

Seto and A

N. Seto and A. Taruya, Physical Review Letters 99, 121101 (2007), arXiv:0707.0535

2007 arXiv
[46]

Seto and A

N. Seto and A. Taruya, Phys. Rev. D 77, 103001 (2008), arXiv:0801.4185

2008 arXiv
[47]

J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd Edition, by John David Jackson, pp. 832. ISBN 0-471-30932- X. Wiley-VCH , July 1998. (Wiley, 1998) p. 832

1998
[48]

D. D. Sentman, Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics 45, 55 (1983)

1983
[49]

Price, O

C. Price, O. Pechony, and E. Greenberg, Journal of Lightning Research 1, 1 (2007)

2007
[50]

D. J. Cecil, D. E. Buechler, and R. J. Blakeslee, Atmo- spheric Research 135, 404 (2014)

2014
[51]

R. I. Albrecht, S. J. Goodman, D. E. Buechler, R. J. Blakeslee, and H. J. Christian, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 97, 2051 (2016)

2016
[52]

The LIGO Scientiﬁc Collaboration, the Virgo Collab- oration, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, V. B. Adya, and et al., Phys. Rev. D 100, 061101 (2019), arXiv:1903.02886 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[53]

Nguyen, J

P. Nguyen, J. Kruk, A. Eﬄer, and R. Schoﬁeld, https://alog.ligo- la.caltech.edu/aLOG/index.php?callRep=17851 (2017)

2017
[54]

Shoemaker, https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T0900288- v3/public (2010)

D. Shoemaker, https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T0900288- v3/public (2010)

2010
[55]

Manzotti and A

A. Manzotti and A. Dietz, arXiv e-prints (2012), arXiv:1202.4031 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [24]

W. O. Schumann, Zeitschrift Naturforschung Teil A 7, 149 (1952)

work page 1952

[2] [1]

The magnetic noise spectrum describes the frequency-dependent coherence of the global mag- netic ﬁeld between two detectors, which is ex- pressed as a sum of the discrete Schumann res- onance modes convolving the line-shape function. Here, the Schumann resonances are idealistically represented by a superposition of the axisymmet- ric transverse magnetic (...

work page

[3] [2]

The TM modes are generated by lightning sources which are produced continuously in a stationary random process. That is, the amplitude of the TM mode, ~B, has a random nature, and is character- ized by the power spectrum, which is the function of the angular position of lightning source ˆΩ and frequencyf. For simplicity, we further assume that the lightni...

work page

[4] [3]

Correlated magnetic noise spectrum Before presenting the quantitative impact, it would be instructive to ﬁrst see how the presence of anisotropies 3 For LIGO Hanford/Livingston/India, we use the table of numer- ical data published in Ref. [49]. For KAGRA and Virgo, we use the ﬁtting form of the noise spectra, given at Eqs. (5) and (6) in Ref. [50], respec...

work page

[5] [4]

Impact on the detection of stochastic GWs We now present the quantitative estimate of the im- pact of correlated magnetic noise varying the parameter ϵ. Figures. 3 and 4 summarize the results for tensor and nontensor (i.e., vector and scalar) modes, respectively. 9 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ϵ=0.0 ϵ=0.2 ϵ=0.8 10-9 10-8 10-...

work page

[6] [5]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Aber- nathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, and et al., Physical Review Letters 116, 241103 (2016), arXiv:1606.04855 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2016

[7] [6]

G. M. Harry and LIGO Scientiﬁc Collaboration, Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 084006 (2010)

work page 2010

[8] [7]

LIGO Scientiﬁc Collaboration, J. Aasi, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, K. Ack- ley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, and et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2015