Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Angular Resolution of a Bayesian Search for Anisotropic Stochastic Gravitational Wave Backgrounds with LISA

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Bayesian spherical-harmonic search can localize anisotropic stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds in LISA down to the angular scale set by the spherical-harmonic cutoff $\ell_{\mathrm{max}}$, with resolution improving up to…

desk verdict First quantitative Bayesian resolution study for LISA ASGWB searches, with a solid ℓmax trend up to 14, but the ℓmax=16 point is plausibly injection-limited and the headline comparison to frequentist limits overstates the case. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16372 v1 pith:2DW5CM7H submitted 2024-12-20 gr-qc astro-ph.IM

Malachy Bloom , Alexander Criswell , Vuk Mandic This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.IM
keywords gravitationalwavesLISAstochasticwavebackgroundanisotropysphericalharmonicsBayesianinferenceangularresolutionfull-widthhalf-maximum
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

LISA will observe stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds that are anisotropic on the sky, most prominently from tens of millions of unresolved white-dwarf binaries in the Milky Way. This paper asks how finely a Bayesian spherical-harmonic search can map such a background, and finds that the search's angular resolution is set by the spherical-harmonic cutoff $\ell_{\mathrm{max}}$ used to model the sky, not by the signal's amplitude or total observing time once the signal is loud enough. Resolution improves steadily as $\ell_{\mathrm{max}}$ grows from 4 to 16, and then a computational wall appears because the detector-response matrix and the sampling cost scale steeply with $\ell_{\mathrm{max}}$. This ceiling exceeds the $\ell_{\mathrm{max}}\lesssim 15$ angular resolution estimated for frequentist map-making techniques, so a Bayesian search can in principle produce sharper maps of LISA's anisotropic backgrounds. The result matters because LISA data analysis is expected to be Bayesian and global-fit based, making the achievable sky resolution a key planning input.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the spherical-harmonic expansion of the square root of the sky power, $S(n) = \sqrt{P(n)} = \sum_{\ell m} b_{\ell m} Y_{\ell m}(n)$, which guarantees that any inferred sky map is real and non-negative; the usual $a_{\ell m}$ coefficients are recovered through a Clebsch-Gordan convolution $b \otimes b$. The analysis cutoff $\ell_{\mathrm{max}}$ (with $\ell^a_{\mathrm{max}} = 2\ell^b_{\mathrm{max}}$) is the load-bearing dial: it directly sets the number of fitted coefficients, the cost of the LISA detector-response model, and the smallest angular feature the map can represent. Resolution is measured with full-width-half-max contoured skymaps, using the fraction of sky inside the half-max spot for single sources and the separation-to-spot-size ratio for two sources.

What would settle it

Re-run the single-source simulations with injection cutoff $\ell_{\mathrm{max,inj}} > 16$ (for example 24) and recover at $\ell_{\mathrm{max}}=16$. If the recovered full-width-half-maximum is unchanged, the resolution is truly limited by the analysis model; if it shrinks, the reported $\ell_{\mathrm{max}}=16$ result was an artifact of the truncated injection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that, for loud enough anisotropic stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds ($\Omega_{\rm ref} > 10^{-9}$ at 25 Hz for one year of observing), the angular resolution of a Bayesian spherical-harmonic search in LISA is limited by the analysis model's spherical-harmonic cutoff $\ell_{\mathrm{max}}$, equivalently by the number of fitted sky coefficients, rather than by the signal amplitude or observing time. For single point sources the full-width-half-maximum spot shrinks steadily as $\ell_{\mathrm{max}}$ increases from 4 to 16, tracking the angular-scale heuristic $\theta \sim \pi/\ell_{\mathrm{max}}$; amplitude and observing time mainly reduce the posterior uncertainty, not the spot size. Two-source separation shows the same $\ell_{\mathrm{max}}$ dependence, with sources becoming resolvable at $\ell_{\mathrm{max}}\ge 6$ and the separation-to-spot-size ratio growing into the tens. The paper concludes that the current resolution ceiling is a computational artifact, and that $\ell_{\mathrm{max}}=16$ already exceeds the $\ell_{\mathrm{max}}\lesssim 15$ resolution ceiling estimated for frequentist angular power-spectrum analyses of LISA. It also confirms LISA's insensitivity to odd-$\ell$ modes in the reconstructed $a_{\ell m}$ distribution.

Load-bearing premise

The injected point sources are simulated with spherical-harmonic expansions truncated at $\ell_{\mathrm{max}}=16$, the same value as the largest recovery cutoff, so the measured resolution at $\ell_{\mathrm{max}}=16$ could be capped by the finite width of the injected source rather than by the search's own resolving power; no simulation with a larger injection cutoff is run.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LISA Bayesian searches can in principle resolve loud anisotropic backgrounds down to angular scales of roughly $\pi/16$ radians (about 11 degrees), better than the $\sim\pi/15$ radians ceiling of frequentist angular power-spectrum methods.
  • The spherical-harmonic cutoff is the primary design lever for sky-map resolution: pushing $\ell_{\mathrm{max}}$ higher sharpens the map, so future analysis pipelines should raise $\ell_{\mathrm{max}}$ as computational resources allow.
  • Below a signal-to-noise threshold the search becomes information-limited, so low-amplitude backgrounds will not benefit from a high $\ell_{\mathrm{max}}$ unless longer observations or denoising raise the SNR.
  • Two-source separation requires at least six months of LISA data; shorter observations fail to resolve sources because the constellation's orbital motion has not yet broken the response degeneracies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The computational ceiling is likely a moving target: as nested-sampling and response-matrix performance improve, $\ell_{\mathrm{max}}$ values above 16 should become feasible, potentially pushing resolution below the current ~11-degree floor for high-SNR backgrounds.
  • For realistic faint extragalactic backgrounds, the practical resolution may be set by confusion with the Galactic foreground rather than by $\ell_{\mathrm{max}}$, so extending these simulations to include a foreground and low-amplitude injections would map the actual noise floor.
  • The odd-$\ell$ insensitivity means that $a_{\ell m}$-based power-spectrum estimators discard roughly half the available modes; fitting directly in the $b_{\ell m}$ basis, as done here, may extract more spatial information than traditional $\ell$-summaries.
  • The FWHM metrics used here assume compact, roughly Gaussian sources; adapting them to extended or structured backgrounds like the Galactic disk would tell whether Bayesian maps can separate a diffuse foreground from localized point-like contributors.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses the Bayesian spherical-harmonic ASGWB search in the open-source BLIP package to study how well LISA can localize anisotropic stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds. The authors simulate single- and two-point-source ASGWBs with power-law spectra over a grid of amplitudes Ωref, observing times Tobs, and spherical-harmonic cutoffs ℓamax, and they quantify angular resolution with FWHM-based 'spot size' metrics for single sources (SP) and separation-to-spot-size ratios for pairs (TP). The main reported trend is that the recovered spot size decreases with increasing analysis cutoff ℓamax, following an approximate heuristic SPmin≈sin²(1.1809π/(4ℓamax)), with no strong dependence on amplitude or observing time above an SNR threshold; the trend is reported to continue up to ℓamax=16, where computational cost becomes prohibitive. The authors also report that two-point resolution improves with ℓamax and separation, and that odd-ℓamax modes are insensitive in the reconstructed aℓm. They conclude that current Bayesian ASGWB searches are limited by the chosen ℓamax rather than by LISA's intrinsic response, and that their ℓamax=16 result exceeds the ℓamax≲15 limit estimated for frequentist map-making methods.

Significance. If the ℓamax=16 result holds, the paper would provide the first quantitative characterization of angular resolution for a Bayesian spherical-harmonic ASGWB search in LISA, which is directly relevant to planned global-fit analyses. The study is also useful as a systematic simulation campaign: it covers a broad grid in amplitude, observing time, and source separation; uses an open-source package; and makes posterior samples available on Zenodo, which supports reproducibility. The main caveat is that the headline endpoint at ℓamax=16 may be limited by the injected source's own spherical-harmonic truncation rather than by the search's resolving power, so the comparison to frequentist limits in Sec. IV is not yet established. The trends for ℓamax up to 14 and the explicit SNR-threshold discussion are valuable even if the final endpoint needs stronger support.

major comments (2)
  1. [§II B, Table II, Fig. 2] All single-point injections used for the ℓmax trend (simulations 1–28) have ℓamax,inj=16, equal to the largest analysis cutoff; because the footnote in §II B restricts analyses to ℓamax≤ℓamax,inj, the ℓamax=16 point is exactly the case where the analysis cutoff equals the injection cutoff. A delta function expanded to ℓ=16 has a finite intrinsic FWHM of order π/16 rad, which is comparable to the SP_min heuristic of Eq. (7) at ℓ=16, so the recovered FWHM at ℓmax=16 may be set by the injected source's band limit rather than by the search's resolving power. I recommend adding simulations with ℓamax,inj=24 or 32 (or otherwise narrower injections) at least for the highest-amplitude cases, and reporting the intrinsic FWHM of the truncated-delta injection alongside the recovered SP metric. The existing control at ℓmax=4 (simulation 1 vs simulation 33) should also be reported explicitly, because it is the only direct evidence on how injection bandwidth affects the recovered FWHM.
  2. [§II C, Eq. (7); §IV] The SP and TP heuristics are derived from the same spherical-harmonic truncation used in the reconstruction model, and the metrics are evaluated on the reconstructed band-limited skymap, so the observed improvement with ℓmax is partly a property of the parameterization rather than of LISA's angular response. This does not make the trend meaningless, but it means the paper's central claim that the search is 'currently limited at high amplitudes by the choice of ℓamax' needs to be separated from the trivial statement that a band-limited basis cannot represent features smaller than ~π/ℓmax. A concrete way to do this is to compare the recovered skymap to the best-fit band-limited projection of the true injection and to report the excess (the offset from Eq. (7)) as the actual resolution loss. Without such a comparison, the Sec. IV statement that ℓamax=16 'exceeds' the frequentist limit of Contaldi et al. is not a comparison of equivalent quantities.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§II B] The text says the angular separation grid spans (π/5, π) at a step of π/5, but Table III lists separations 2π/5, 4π/5, 6π/5, 8π/5, and π; please reconcile the stated range and step.
  2. [§III B.2] The sentence 'The recovered TP metric is compared to the TP heuristic in Fig. 2' should reference Fig. 6, where the dashed TPmax curve actually appears.
  3. [§I B] The phrase 'open souce Python package' contains a typo; it should be 'open-source Python package'.
  4. [§III A.2 and Fig. 3] The claim of amplitude/observing-time independence is conditioned on successful recovery; the low-SNR simulations that failed are excluded in §II B. Please state this explicitly in the Fig. 3 caption and in the abstract, since the current wording 'across a large grid in ... amplitude' could be read as unconditional.
  5. [Figs. 1 and 4] The color-bar labels (e.g., '1.06893e-22 1.42898e-11') lack units and a description of the plotted quantity; please specify that these are ΩGW at f=1 mHz and state the units in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the angular-resolution trends are measured from simulated data rather than derived from the model basis; the band-limited injection caveat affects external validity but is not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim that the spherical-harmonic cutoff ℓmax is the primary factor limiting angular resolution is supported by explicit Bayesian inference on simulated ASGWBs (Figs. 2, 3, 5, 6), not by inserting ℓmax into the resolution metric by definition. Equation (7) is explicitly introduced as an approximate contextual heuristic ('We stress that these are necessarily approximate measures, and serve primarily to contextualize the trends seen in the data.'), and the measured SP metric shows a positive offset from it, so the agreement is empirical rather than a definitional identity. The BLIP formalism is taken from Banagiri et al. [38], which includes present co-authors Criswell and Mandic; this is a methodological self-citation, but it supplies the code and likelihood rather than the resolution result, and the package is open source, so it is not load-bearing circular evidence. The strongest candidate for circularity is the injection band-limit: all Fig. 2 single-point simulations (Table II, sims 1–28) use ℓamax,inj = 16, equal to the largest analysis cutoff, so at ℓmax = 16 the recovered FWHM may be co-limited by the intrinsic width of the truncated 'point' source rather than purely by the search's resolving power. This is a missing control and a validity caveat, not a circular step: no equation in the paper equates the measured SP metric to the injection width, and the ℓmax = 4–14 trend against a fixed ℓ = 16 injection is a genuine independent check. The comparison to Contaldi et al.'s ℓmax ≲ 15 should therefore be read with that caveat, but the derivation chain itself is self-contained and not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the modeling assumptions of BLIP (separability, power-law spectrum, square-root harmonic parameterization, known noise model), on the band-limited injection scheme, and on the convergence of the nested sampler. The priors are hand-chosen but unlikely to dominate at high SNR. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Prior range for log10 Ωref = U(-14, 8)
    Chosen by hand; broad prior. At high SNR the likelihood dominates, so minimal effect on angular resolution.
  • Prior range for spectral index α = U(-5, 5)
    Chosen by hand; assumed power-law spectral model. Not a fitted parameter of the resolution claim.
  • Prior range for bℓ0 real coefficients = U(-3, 3)
    Chosen by hand. These priors control the allowed amplitude of the square-root sky map and could affect recovered spot size at finite SNR; no sensitivity study is performed.
  • Prior range for |bℓm|, m ≠ 0 = U(0, 3)
    Chosen by hand; as above.
  • Prior range for phases φℓm = U(-π, π)
    Chosen by hand; conventional phase prior.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Spectral-spatial separability: Ω(f,n) = Ω(f)P(n)
    The model assumes the ASGWB spectrum and sky distribution factorize. Realistic ASGWBs with frequency-dependent anisotropy could violate this; the paper does not test this. See Eq. (2).
  • domain assumption LISA noise model with independent Np and Na, stationary Gaussian noise
    Assumes two-component position and acceleration noise as in the LISA proposal. The paper defers non-stationary noise and breathing modes to future work. See Eq. (1) and §IV.
  • domain assumption Power-law spectral model for the ASGWB
    Assumes Ω(f) = Ωref (f/fref)^α with free α; injections use α=2/3. A different spectral form could change the comparison, acknowledged in §IV. See Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption Square-root spherical harmonic parameterization with finite truncation
    The sky map is modeled as the square of a truncated spherical harmonic series with ℓmax^b, giving ℓmax^a=2ℓmax^b. The truncation is a modeling choice that directly defines the attainable resolution; the Clebsch-Gordan relation is standard math. See Eqs. (4)-(5).
  • domain assumption Band-limited injection of point sources
    Point sources are injected as spherical harmonic expansions with cutoff ℓamax,inj=16, so the simulated 'true' source has finite width. This is the premise identified as weakest. See Table II and §II B.
  • domain assumption Nested sampling convergence
    The paper uses dynesty without showing convergence diagnostics; the largest case has 81 spatial parameters and a stated ~1 month wall time, so unconverged chains could bias the FWHM metrics. See §II A and §IV.
  • domain assumption FWHM contour metric validity
    The SP and TP metrics rely on pixel-based FWHM contours at nside=32; the authors note the method can fail to separate two peaks when contours merge, so the metric is an approximate resolution measure. See §II C.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Angular Resolution of a Bayesian Search for Anisotropic Stochastic Gravitational Wave Backgrounds with LISA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2DW5CM7H

@misc{pith2026241216372,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Angular Resolution of a Bayesian Search for Anisotropic Stochastic Gravitational Wave Backgrounds with LISA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2DW5CM7H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16372}
}
abstract

The Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA), a spaceborne gravitational wave (GW) detector set to launch in 2035, will observe several stochastic GW backgrounds in the mHz frequency band. At least one of these signals -- arising from the tens of millions of unresolved white dwarf binaries in the Milky Way -- is expected to be highly anisotropic on the sky. We evaluate the angular resolution of LISA and its ability to characterize anisotropic stochastic GW backgrounds (ASGWBs) using the Bayesian Spherical Harmonic formalism in the Bayesian LISA Inference Package (BLIP). We use \blip to simulate and analyze ASGWB signals in LISA across a large grid in total observing time, ASGWB amplitude, and angular size. We consider the ability of the \blip anisotropic search algorithm to both characterize single point sources and to separate two point sources on the sky, using a full-width half-max (FWHM) metric to measure the quality and spread of the recovered spatial distributions. We find that the number of spherical harmonic coefficients used in the anisotropic search model is the primary factor that limits the search's angular resolution. Notably, this trend continues until computational limitations become relevant around $\ell_{\mathrm{max}}=16$; this exceeds the maximum angular resolution achieved by other map-making techniques for LISA ASGWBs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16372 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Spot size given by FWHM vs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Spot size given by FWHM vs. Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Posterior median ASGWB energy density skymaps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Distance to spot size ratio (TP metric) vs. in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Distance to spot size ratio (TP metric) vs. injected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Transformed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Figure 2 shows the associated SP metric for each analysis

    Dependence on ℓa max To investigate angular resolution dependence on the choice of ℓa max used in the analysis, we analyze single- point sources with 4 different values of Ωref and vary ℓa max from 4 to 16. Figure 2 shows the associated SP metric for each analysis. As ℓa max increases the angular reso- lution improves drastically, whereas there is no obvi...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Dependence on ASGWB Amplitude/Observing Time The dependence on Ω ref and Tobs is more closely in- spected in Fig. 3. We vary Ωref from 1.6×10−9 to 4×10−7 for total observing time, Tobs, ranging from 3 months to 1 year. No significant dependence of the SP metric on Ωref or Tobs is apparent for recovered sources. However, 4 8 12 166 10 14 0. 0.02 0.04 0.06 ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Note that the data point for ℓa max = 10 at ∆ϕ = 4π/5 is marked with a †; analysis of the original simulation recovered a significant bimodal- ity in the two-point metric

    Dependence on ℓa max Consistent with the results in §III A, the choice of a higher ℓa max increases LISA’s ability to resolve two AS- GWB sources as measured by the TP metric, with the ex- ception of ℓa max = 8 at ∆ϕ = π. Note that the data point for ℓa max = 10 at ∆ϕ = 4π/5 is marked with a †; analysis of the original simulation recovered a significant b...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Dependence on ASGWB Amplitude We additionally consider different values of the simu- lated ASGWB amplitude Ωref for ℓa max = 8 in Fig. 6. The drop in the TP metric from ∆ ϕ = 2 π/5 to ∆ ϕ = 3 π/5 present in Fig. 5 is no longer present with higher Ω ref, and the low TP metric of the ℓa max = 8 case from above is greatly improved. In conjunction with the si...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Amaro-Seoane, H

    P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, et al. , Laser In- terferometer Space Antenna (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Amaro-Seoane, J

    P. Amaro-Seoane, J. Andrews, M. Arca Sedda, et al. , Living Reviews in Relativity 26, 2 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Agazie, A

    G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, et al. , The Astrophysical Journal Letters 951, L8 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    J. A. Edlund, M. Tinto, A. Krolak, and G. Nele- mans, Physical Review D 71, 122003 (2005), arxiv:gr- qc/0504112

    arXiv 2005

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    A. J. Ruiter, K. Belczynski, M. Benacquista, et al. , The Astrophysical Journal 717, 1006 (2010), arxiv:0705.3272

    2010 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Rieck, A

    S. Rieck, A. W. Criswell, V. Korol, et al. , A Stochas- tic Gravitational Wave Background in LISA from Un- resolved White Dwarf Binaries in the Large Magellanic Cloud (2024), arxiv:2308.12437 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Pozzoli, S

    F. Pozzoli, S. Babak, A. Sesana, et al. , Computation of stochastic background from extreme mass ratio inspiral populations for LISA (2023), arxiv:2302.07043 [astro-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Babak, C

    S. Babak, C. Caprini, D. G. Figueroa, et al. , Stochastic gravitational wave background from stellar origin binary black holes in LISA (2023), arxiv:2304.06368 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Caprini and D

    C. Caprini and D. G. Figueroa, Classical and Quantum Gravity 35, 163001 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Bethke, D

    L. Bethke, D. G. Figueroa, and A. Rajantie, Physical Review Letters 111, 011301 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Geller, A

    M. Geller, A. Hook, R. Sundrum, and Y. Tsai, Physical Review Letters 121, 201303 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Bartolo, D

    N. Bartolo, D. Bertacca, V. D. Luca, et al. , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2020 (02), 028

    2020

  9. [17]

    C. R. Contaldi, Physics Letters B 771, 9 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Bartolo, D

    N. Bartolo, D. Bertacca, S. Matarrese, et al. , Physical Review D 100, 121501 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Bartolo, D

    N. Bartolo, D. Bertacca, S. Matarrese, et al. , Physical Review D 102, 023527 (2020), arxiv:1912.09433 [astro- ph]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Breivik, C

    K. Breivik, C. M. F. Mingarelli, and S. L. Larson, The Astrophysical Journal 901, 4 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Cusin, C

    G. Cusin, C. Pitrou, and J.-P. Uzan, Physical Re- view D 97, 123527 (2018), arxiv:1711.11345 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc, physics:hep-th]. 9

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Cusin, I

    G. Cusin, I. Dvorkin, C. Pitrou, and J.-P. Uzan, Physi- cal Review Letters 120, 231101 (2018), arxiv:1803.03236 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc, physics:hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Bartolo, D

    N. Bartolo, D. Bertacca, R. Caldwell, et al. , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2022 (11), 009, arxiv:2201.08782 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Floden, V

    E. Floden, V. Mandic, A. Matas, and L. Tsukada, Phys- ical Review D 106, 023010 (2022), arxiv:2203.17141 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, et al. , Physical Review D 104, 022005 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, T

    Y. Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, T. L. Smith, and C. M. F. Mingarelli, Physical Review D 102, 122005 (2020), arxiv:2006.14570 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc, physics:physics]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    C. M. F. Mingarelli, T. Sidery, I. Mandel, and A. Vecchio, Physical Review D 88, 062005 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    S. R. Taylor and J. R. Gair, Physical Review D 88, 084001 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    S. R. Taylor, R. van Haasteren, and A. Sesana, Physical Review D 102, 084039 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    N. J. Cornish and R. van Haasteren, Mapping the nano- Hertz gravitational wave sky (2014), arxiv:1406.4511 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Agazie, A

    G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, et al. , The NANOGrav 15-year Data Set: Search for Anisotropy in the Gravitational-Wave Background (2023), arxiv:2306.16221 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    N. J. Cornish, Class. Quant. Grav. 18, 4277 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0105374

    2001 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Ungarelli and A

    C. Ungarelli and A. Vecchio, Phys. Rev. D 64, 121501 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0106538

    2001 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Kudoh and A

    H. Kudoh and A. Taruya, Phys. Rev. D 71, 024025 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0411017

    2005 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Taruya and H

    A. Taruya and H. Kudoh, Phys. Rev. D 72, 104015 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0507114

    2005 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Taruya, Phys

    A. Taruya, Phys. Rev. D 74, 104022 (2006), arXiv:gr- qc/0607080

    2006

  29. [37]

    Renzini and C

    A. Renzini and C. Contaldi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 481, 4650 (2018), arXiv:1806.11360 [astro-ph.IM]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Buscicchio, A

    R. Buscicchio, A. Klein, V. Korol, et al. , A test for LISA foreground Gaussianity and stationarity. I. Galactic white-dwarf binaries (2024), arXiv:2410.08263 [astro-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Piarulli, R

    M. Piarulli, R. Buscicchio, F. Pozzoli, et al. , A test for LISA foreground Gaussianity and stationarity. II. Extreme mass-ratio inspirals (2024), arXiv:2410.08862 [astro-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Pozzoli, R

    F. Pozzoli, R. Buscicchio, A. Klein, et al. , Cyclostation- ary signals in LISA: A practical application to Milky Way satellites (2024), arXiv:2410.08274

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    A. W. Criswell, S. Rieck, and V. Mandic, Templated Anisotropic Analyses of the LISA Galactic Foreground (2024), arXiv:2410.23260 [astro-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Banagiri, A

    S. Banagiri, A. Criswell, T. Kuan, et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 507, 5451 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Peterseim, O

    M. Peterseim, O. Jennrich, K. Danzmann, and B. F. Schutz, Classical and Quantum Gravity 14, 1507 (1997)

    1997

  36. [44]

    Cutler, Physical Review D 57, 7089 (1998)

    C. Cutler, Physical Review D 57, 7089 (1998)

    1998

  37. [45]

    T. A. Moore and R. W. Hellings, Physical Review D 65, 062001 (2002)

    2002

  38. [46]

    Kudoh and A

    H. Kudoh and A. Taruya, Physical Review D 71, 024025 (2005)

    2005

  39. [47]

    Taruya and H

    A. Taruya and H. Kudoh, Physical Review D 72, 104015 (2005)

    2005

  40. [48]

    C. R. Contaldi, M. Pieroni, A. I. Renzini, et al., Physical Review D 102, 043502 (2020), arxiv:2006.03313 [astro- ph]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Mentasti, C

    G. Mentasti, C. R. Contaldi, and M. Peloso, Prob- ing the galactic and extragalactic gravitational wave backgrounds with space-based interferometers (2024), arXiv:2312.10792 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    T. B. Littenberg and N. J. Cornish, Prototype Global Analysis of LISA Data with Multiple Source Types (2023), arxiv:2301.03673 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    M. L. Katz, N. Karnesis, N. Korsakova, et al. , An ef- ficient GPU-accelerated multi-source global fit pipeline for LISA data analysis (2024), arXiv:2405.04690 [astro- ph, physics:gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    N. J. Cornish and S. L. Larson, Classical and Quantum Gravity 18, 3473 (2001), arxiv:gr-qc/0103075

    2001 arXiv

  45. [53]

    N. J. Cornish, Physical Review D 65, 022004 (2001)

    2001

  46. [54]

    J. S. Speagle, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 493, 3132 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    K. M. Gorski, E. Hivon, A. J. Banday, et al. , The Astrophysical Journal 622, 759 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0409513

    2005

  48. [56]

    Tinto and S

    M. Tinto and S. V. Dhurandhar, Living Reviews in Rel- ativity 24, 1 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    M. R. Adams and N. J. Cornish, Physical Review D 82, 022002 (2010), arxiv:1002.1291

    2010 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Hartwig, M

    O. Hartwig, M. Lilley, M. Muratore, and M. Pieroni, Physical Review D 107, 123531 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Muratore, J

    M. Muratore, J. Gair, and L. Speri, Impact of the noise knowledge uncertainty for the science exploitation of cos- mological and astrophysical stochastic gravitational wave background with LISA (2023), arxiv:2308.01056 [astro- ph, physics:gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Bloom, A

    M. Bloom, A. Criswell, and V. Mandic, Datasets for ”An- gular Resolution of a Bayesian Search for Anisotropic Stochastic Gravitational Wave Backgrounds with LISA” (2024). Appendix A: Insensitivity to Odd-ℓa Modes We consider in brief the insensitivity of LISA to odd-ℓa spheric...

    2024

Pith tools

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