Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Robust Bayesian inference with gapped LISA data using all-in-one TDI-$\infty$

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TDI-∞ keeps LISA parameter recovery stable through data gaps that cripple classical TDI.

desk verdict Plausible Bayesian adaptation of TDI-infinity for gapped LISA data, but the headline gap-robustness claim rests on an unvalidated chunked likelihood. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20793 v1 pith:UJ7QIEX4 submitted 2024-12-30 astro-ph.IM gr-qcphysics.data-anphysics.ins-det

Niklas Houba , Jean-Baptiste Bayle , Michele Vallisneri This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMgr-qcphysics.data-anphysics.ins-det
keywords LISAtime-delayinterferometryTDI-infinitydatagapsBayesianinferencegravitational-waveparameterestimationmassiveblackholebinariesnull-spaceprojection
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 TDI-∞, a numerical variant of time-delay interferometry, handles LISA data gaps naturally and preserves astrophysical parameter estimation where classical TDI degrades badly. The authors build an all-in-one TDI-∞ pipeline that suppresses laser, optical-bench, clock, and modulation noise in a single null-space projection, then test Bayesian inference on one hour of gapped data containing a massive black hole binary merger. With six one-sample gaps near the merger, classical TDI corrupts roughly 400 seconds of data, while TDI-∞ loses only the gap samples themselves. The resulting posterior distributions for coalescence time and component masses remain stable with TDI-∞, whereas classical TDI shows significant spreading and bias, especially in the frequency-domain likelihood. A sympathetic reader would care because low-latency LISA alerts depend on analyzing short, possibly interrupted data streams where classical TDI's gap sensitivity is most damaging.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the null-space projection of the raw measurement vector. The measurement vector $y$ contains the telemetered beat-note signals from LISA's interferometers, the noise vector $p$ collects the suppressible noise sources, and the design matrix $M$ encodes their time-delayed coupling through fractional-delay finite-impulse-response filters. The TDI-∞ observable $o = T y$ is defined by the null space condition $T M = 0$, so it cancels all noises in $p$; gaps are handled by deleting invalid rows before the null space is computed. For long datasets the design matrix is chunked into overlapping submatrices with length $l$ and row overlap $q$, and the time-domain Gaussian likelihood uses a noise covariance $N = F^\dagger \tilde{N} F$ built from the raw-measurement power spectral densities. The turnback algorithm provides the sparse, banded null-space matrix $T$ that keeps the computation feasible and reveals six repeating generators, three of which preserve gravitational-wave signals and three of which are local and signal-insensitive.

What would settle it

Run the same Bayesian recovery on gapped data with chunk length $l$ varied from 250 to 2000 and overlap $q$ varied from 0 to 0.2; if the recovered mass and coalescence-time posteriors shift by more than the statistical uncertainty, or if biases grow monotonically as $l$ shrinks, the chunked-likelihood approximation is not unbiased.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that TDI-∞ makes LISA gravitational-wave parameter inference robust to measurement interruptions without gap filling or interpolation. TDI-∞ replaces the algebraic TDI combinations with a numerical projection: the raw beat-note measurements are collected in a vector $y$, the modeled noise couplings form a design matrix $M$, and the TDI-∞ observable is $o = T y$ where $T$ spans the null space of $M^\top$, so $T M = 0$ cancels all suppressible noises. Data gaps are handled by simply removing the corresponding rows of $y$, $M$, and the noise covariance before computing the null space, so the lost information is essentially just the missing samples. In the authors' simulations, classical TDI loses about 400 seconds of data around six one-sample gaps, while TDI-∞ loses roughly the six gapped samples; Bayesian posteriors for a massive black hole binary's coalescence time and masses stay stable with TDI-∞, and classical TDI posteriors spread and shift markedly. The paper also presents an all-in-one extension that suppresses optical-bench displacement, clock, and modulation noise in addition to laser noise, though the Bayesian inference runs use a reduced laser-only version to keep the design matrix numerically tractable.

Load-bearing premise

The chunked likelihood approximation with chunk length $l=500$ and overlap $q=0.1$ preserves enough cross-correlation information to keep the posterior unbiased; the paper does not test convergence over $l$ and $q$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LISA low-latency analyses of short data streams can proceed with essentially no extra data loss: each one-sample gap costs about one sample in TDI-∞, whereas classical TDI costs hundreds of seconds.
  • Bayesian parameter recovery with TDI-∞ remains stable with gaps near the merger, so early alerts for massive black hole mergers would not require waiting for retransmission of lost data packets.
  • Classical TDI in the frequency domain is particularly vulnerable to gaps and low-frequency noise leakage; time-domain classical TDI improves but still underperforms TDI-∞, so TDI-∞ removes the need for specialized gap-handling techniques.
  • The all-in-one formulation, once numerically stabilized, could cancel laser, optical-bench, clock, and modulation noise in a single projection, simplifying the L0-L1 processing chain.
  • Chunking makes TDI-∞ computationally practical for long LISA datasets, with the overlap factor $q$ trading off cross-correlation information against data double-counting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the chunked likelihood is unbiased, TDI-∞ could also simplify global-fit pipelines, where months of gapped data are currently handled with gap-filling or data augmentation; the same null-space trick would apply to any interruption pattern.
  • The paper does not study convergence over the chunk length $l$ and overlap $q$; a natural extension would map how posterior width and bias vary with these tuning parameters, which would tell whether the reported stability is robust.
  • The dynamic-range problem that forced the Bayesian runs to use a laser-only reduced framework suggests that full all-in-one inference needs renormalization of $M$; the authors note an initial version already works, so a testable next step is repeating the gapped-merger MCMC with all noise sources active.
  • Because TDI-∞ works in the time domain and removes gaps before projecting, it may naturally extend to non-stationary noise or time-varying arm lengths without the spectral-leakage corrections that plague frequency-domain TDI likelihoods.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper adapts TDI-infinity, a numerical null-space projection that removes laser and other suppressible noises from raw LISA beat-note measurements, to Bayesian parameter estimation for a one-hour massive-black-hole-binary signal. Gaps are handled by deleting invalid rows from the measurement vector and design matrix before computing the null space, so that the number of lost samples roughly equals the number of introduced gaps. The authors introduce an all-in-one formulation that includes optical-bench, clock, and modulation noises, present a chunked time-domain likelihood, and compare posterior distributions from TDI-infinity with classical TDI-2 in frequency-domain and time-domain implementations, under no-gap and gapped scenarios. The central simulation result is that TDI-infinity posteriors remain stable under six one-sample gaps, while classical TDI loses roughly 400 seconds of data and shows degraded posteriors. The inference runs, however, use a reduced version of TDI-infinity that suppresses only laser noise, and the chunking parameters l and q are not varied or checked for convergence.

Significance. If the gap-robustness result holds, this is a useful contribution to LISA low-latency data analysis: it replaces ad hoc gap filling or segment-wise likelihoods with a principled algebraic projection, and it avoids the data loss around gaps that plagues classical TDI. The inclusion of a time-domain classical TDI baseline in Figs. 12-14 strengthens the comparison, and the method involves no fitted constants or recycled equations; the gap advantage follows from a real difference in how invalid samples are treated. The main limitations are that the all-in-one setup is not used in the inference, the chunked likelihood is not validated for convergence, and the simulations use a single noise realization, injection, and gap pattern. These limitations are partly acknowledged in the text, but they currently bound the strength of the paper's central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.4] The inference results that support the paper's central claim use the 'reduced TDI-infinity framework,' where only the six laser noises are suppressed and optical-bench, clock, and modulation noises are deactivated; the all-in-one framework is validated only for noise suppression in Figs. 4-5 and 10. The title and abstract claim an 'all-in-one TDI-infinity' advantage under gaps, but no posterior comparison is made with all suppressible noises active. This is load-bearing because the all-in-one design matrix has a much larger dynamic range, and Fig. 10 shows that null-space algorithms leave substantially larger residuals in that setting. The authors should either add a gapped-inference case with the all-in-one setup after the re-normalization mentioned in the footnote to Sec. 5.4, or explicitly restrict the claims of the paper to the reduced framework.
  2. [Section 4.4, Eq. (55)] The chunked likelihood is used with l=500 and q=0.1 for all TDI-infinity results, but no convergence study over l and q is presented; the text itself defers this to future work in Sec. 5.5. Because chunks overlap, the log-likelihood in Eq. (55) double-counts data in the overlap regions, which inflates the effective sample size and can artificially narrow credible intervals, and the 125-s chunk length cannot represent OMS noise correlations below about 8 mHz even though the models in Eqs. (57)-(58) have a 2-mHz term. The no-gap comparison in Fig. 12 provides partial reassurance, but with gaps there is no full-covariance benchmark. A convergence test varying l and q, ideally including q=0 and a comparison against a full-covariance TDI-infinity likelihood for the gap case, is needed before the claimed gap robustness can be considered validated.
  3. [Section 5.5] All conclusions rest on one noise realization, one injected signal, and one gap pattern, with a relatively short MCMC run (60 walkers, 500 steps, burn-in 100, thinning by 15). The posterior shifts reported in Figs. 12-14 are therefore not separated from realization-specific noise fluctuations. At minimum, the authors should repeat the gap scenarios with several noise realizations, or report noise-whitened residuals, and ideally use a longer chain, so that the reader can assess whether the TDI-infinity stability in Fig. 13 is systematic rather than a single-draw artifact.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2] The statement that classical TDI loses 'approximately 400 seconds' of data should be quantified for the TDI-2 variables and the specific gap pattern, rather than presented as a visual claim from Figs. 7 and 8.
  2. [Equations (43) and (56)] The index expression 'ml·(i+1−qi)' is easy to misread; please define the integer ranges and the overlap convention explicitly in the text.
  3. [Section 4.4, Eq. (55)] The determinant normalization in Eq. (53) is not correctly preserved when overlapping chunks are summed in Eq. (55), so the quantity in Eq. (55) is a pseudo-likelihood that is not a properly normalized probability; this should be stated explicitly, since it affects model comparison even if parameter centroids are acceptable.
  4. [Section 5.5] The sentence about the discarded-bins check ('This plot is not shown here') should either be removed or replaced with the actual plot or a quantitative summary, because it makes a verification claim that the reader cannot check.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: TDI-infinity's gap advantage is established by simulation, not by re-importing its own construction as a result.

full rationale

I audited the derivation chain for the seven circularity patterns. (1) The TDI-infinity observable is defined algebraically as o = T y with T M = 0 (Eqs. 23-24), an exact null-space projection with no fitted parameters; the posterior comparisons in Figs. 11-14 are Monte Carlo outputs that could in principle have failed, so the central 'handles gaps better' claim is not forced by the definition. (2) The statement that TDI-infinity loses roughly as many samples as there are gaps (Sec. 5.2, Fig. 8) is a design property of removing invalid rows from y and M before computing the null space (Sec. 4.4), but the paper does not present that property as the evidence for superior inference; the evidence is the MCMC posteriors. This is self-definitional only in a non-load-bearing sense and does not manufacture the paper's main result. (3) The chunked likelihood of Eq. (55) with l=500, q=0.1 does double-count overlapping data and truncates cross-correlations, and the paper itself flags that the impact 'will be investigated more extensively in future studies' (Sec. 5.5) and that chunking entails 'a trade-off between computational complexity, signal-to-noise ratio loss, and the double-counting of data in overlapping matrix regions' (Sec. 4.4). This is a validity and convergence concern about the pseudo-likelihood, not a circularity: Eq. (55) is not equivalent by construction to the claimed posterior stability, and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. (4) The reliance on Refs. [34] and [42] is self-citation, but the TDI-infinity matrix construction is restated in the paper (Sec. 3.2) and then extended; it is a parameter-free algebraic construction from prior work, not an unverified uniqueness theorem invoked to forbid alternatives. (5) No constants are fitted to the simulated data; OMS noise PSDs in Eqs. (57)-(58) are analytical models used both to simulate noise and to build N, which is an in-sample consistency check rather than a circular reduction. The paper's own noted limitations - omitted A/E/T PSD derivation (Sec. 5.3), future renormalization of M (Sec. 5.4 footnote), future chunking studies (Sec. 5.5) - are completeness risks, not circular steps. Verdict: no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumed correctness of the LISA measurement model, Gaussian stationary noise with known PSD, the existence of a null-space projector, and an unvalidated chunking approximation. The two explicit free parameters are the chunk length l and overlap q chosen for the simulations.

free parameters (3)
  • Chunk length l = 500 samples (for all posterior plots)
    Controls size of design-matrix submatrices in the chunked TDI-infinity likelihood; chosen without convergence study.
  • Row overlap factor q = 0.1
    Controls overlap between chunks to mitigate cross-correlation loss; chosen without convergence study.
  • Discarded frequency bins in classical TDI baseline = 20 bins out of 7195
    Chosen to make frequency-domain classical TDI converge; affects the comparison baseline, not the TDI-infinity result.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption LISA measurement model of Bayle and Hartwig (Ref [40]) is correct
    All raw beat-note equations (1)-(15) are taken from prior work without independent verification in this paper.
  • domain assumption Secondary noise is Gaussian, stationary, and characterized by known PSDs
    Used to build covariance N in equation (54); PSD models in Section 5.3 are assumed accurate.
  • standard math The design matrix M has a computable null space such that T M = 0 with the turnback algorithm
    The whole method requires a valid projector; Fig. 10 shows the choice of null-space algorithm strongly affects residuals, especially for Keplerian orbits.
  • ad hoc to paper Chunking with parameters l and q preserves the likelihood to sufficient accuracy
    Equation (55) sums chunk-wise log-likelihoods and discards cross-chunk covariance; the authors state this topic is left for future work.
  • ad hoc to paper Gap removal does not bias the likelihood
    Invalid measurements are simply deleted from y and M before null-space computation; the paper does not analyze the statistical effect of this deletion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Bayesian inference with gapped LISA data using all-in-one TDI-$\infty$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UJ7QIEX4

@misc{pith2026241220793,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Bayesian inference with gapped LISA data using all-in-one TDI-$\infty$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UJ7QIEX4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20793}
}
abstract

The Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA), an ESA L-class mission, is designed to detect gravitational waves in the millihertz frequency band, with operations expected to begin in the next decade. LISA will enable studies of astrophysical phenomena such as massive black hole mergers, extreme mass ratio inspirals, and compact binary systems. A key challenge in analyzing LISA's data is the significant laser frequency noise, which must be suppressed using time-delay interferometry (TDI). Classical TDI mitigates this noise by algebraically combining phase measurements taken at different times and spacecraft. However, data gaps caused by instrumental issues or operational interruptions complicate the process. These gaps affect multiple TDI samples due to the time delays inherent to the algorithm, rendering surrounding measurements unusable for parameter inference. In this paper, we apply the recently proposed variant of TDI known as TDI-$\infty$ to astrophysical parameter inference, focusing on the challenge posed by data gaps. TDI-$\infty$ frames the LISA likelihood numerically in terms of raw measurements, marginalizing over laser phase noises under the assumption of infinite noise variance. Additionally, TDI-$\infty$ is set up to incorporate and cancel other noise sources beyond laser noise, including optical bench motion, clock noise, and modulation noise, establishing it as an all-in-one TDI solution. The method gracefully handles measurement interruptions, removing the need to explicitly address discontinuities during template matching. We integrate TDI-$\infty$ into a Bayesian framework, demonstrating its superior performance in scenarios involving gaps. Compared to classical TDI, the method preserves signal integrity more effectively and is particularly interesting for low-latency applications, where the limited amount of available data makes data gaps particularly disruptive.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20793 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Configuration of the LISA constellation, including the index convention for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A simplified unequal-arm interferometer toy model used to illustrate the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic illustration of three different possible architectures for LISA’s L0-L1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Amplitude spectral density (ASD) of the four primary noise sources that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of the noise-affected inter-spacecraft interferometer measurements [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of the chunking process for the design matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: TDI-2 Michelson channels X, Y , and Z for the gap-free (top) and gap￾affected (bottom) cases considered in this study. For clarity, the time series are shown only around the regions affected by gaps. The data gaps, injected near the merger event as described in the mai…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: TDI-∞ observable o in the gap-unaffected (top) and gap-affected (bottom) cases. The left panels illustrate the scenario with secondary noise from the optical metrology system, while the right panels show the noiseless case. Unlike classical TDI, gaps do not appear in t…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Amplitude spectral density of the optical metrology system noise within [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the noise suppression performance using the turnback null [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Posterior distributions of the coalescence time and mass parameters for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Posterior distributions with secondary noises and no gaps (scenario ii). The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Posterior distributions with secondary noise and gaps close to the merger, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Posterior distributions with secondary noise and gaps during the inspiral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Illustration of repeating patterns in the null-space matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Sequential simulation-based inference for extreme mass ratio inspirals

    gr-qc 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Sequential simulation-based inference with truncated marginal neural ratio estimation shrinks the 11-parameter search volume for simulated non-spinning extreme-mass-ratio inspirals by factors of 1e6 to 1e7 and recover...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    LISA Definition Study Report, 2024

    Monica Colpi, Karsten Danzmann, Martin Hewitson, Kelly Holley-Bockelmann, Philippe Jetzer, Gijs Nelemans, Antoine Petiteau, David Shoemaker, Carlos Sopuerta, Robin Stebbins, et al. LISA Definition Study Report, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Abbott, Richard Abbott, Thomas D

    Bruce P. Abbott, Richard Abbott, Thomas D. Abbott, Matthew R. Abernathy, Francesco Acernese, Katherine Ackley, Carl Adams, Thomas Adams, Paolo Addesso, Rana X. Adhikari, et al. Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Phys. Rev. Lett., 116:061102, Feb 2016

    2016

  3. [3]

    Abbott, Richard Abbott, Thomas D

    Bruce P. Abbott, Richard Abbott, Thomas D. Abbott, Matthew R. Abernathy, Francesco Acernese, Katherine Ackley, Carl Adams, Thomas Adams, Paolo Addesso, Rana X. Adhikari, et al. GW151226: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a 22-Solar-Mass Binary Black Hole Coalescence. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 116:241103, Jun 2016

    2016

  4. [4]

    Abbott, Richard Abbott, Thomas D

    Bruce P. Abbott, Richard Abbott, Thomas D. Abbott, Francesco Acernese, Katherine Ackley, Carl Adams, Thomas Adams, Paolo Addesso, Rana X. Adhikari, Varun B. Adya, et al. GW170104: Robust Bayesian inference with gapped LISA data using all-in-one TDI-∞ 43 Observation of a 50-Solar-Mass Binary Black Hole Coalescence at Redshift 0.2. Phys. Rev. Lett., 118:221...

    2017

  5. [5]

    Abbott, Richard Abbott, Thomas D

    Bruce P. Abbott, Richard Abbott, Thomas D. Abbott, Francesco Acernese, Katherine Ackley, Carl Adams, Thomas Adams, Paolo Addesso, Rana X. Adhikari, and Varun B. Adya. GW170608: Observation of a 19 Solar-mass Binary Black Hole Coalescence. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 851(2):L35, dec 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    Abbott, Richard Abbott, Thomas D

    Bruce P. Abbott, Richard Abbott, Thomas D. Abbott, Francesco Acernese, Katherine Ackley, Carl Adams, Thomas Adams, Paolo Addesso, Rana X. Adhikari, and Varun B. Adya. GW170814: A Three-Detector Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Coalescence. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 119:141101, Oct 2017

    2017

  7. [7]

    Abbott, Richard Abbott, Thomas D

    Bruce P. Abbott, Richard Abbott, Thomas D. Abbott, Francesco Acernese, Katherine Ackley, Carl Adams, Thomas Adams, Paolo Addesso, Rana X. Adhikari, Varun B. Adya, et al. GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 119:161101, Oct 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Abbott, Richard Abbott, Thomas D

    Bruce P. Abbott, Richard Abbott, Thomas D. Abbott, Suraj Abraham, Francesco Acernese, Katherine Ackley, Carl Adams, Rana X. Adhikari, Varun B. Adya, Carsten Affeldt, et al. GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs. Phys. Rev. X , 9:031040, Sep 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Abbott, Richard Abbott, Thomas D

    Bruce P. Abbott, Richard Abbott, Thomas D. Abbott, Suraj Abraham, Francesco Acernese, Katherine Ackley, Carl Adams, Rana X. Adhikari, Varun B. Adya, Carsten Affeldt, et al. GW190425: Observation of a Compact Binary Coalescence with Total Mass ∼ 3.4 M⊙ . The Astrophysical Journ...

    2020

  2. [10]

    Abbott, Suraj Abraham, Francesco Acernese, Katherine Ackley, Carl Adams, Rana X

    Richard Abbott, Thomas D. Abbott, Suraj Abraham, Francesco Acernese, Katherine Ackley, Carl Adams, Rana X. Adhikari, Varun B. Adya, Carsten Affeldt, Michalis Agathos, et al. GW190412: Observation of a binary-black-hole coalescence with asymmetric masses. Phys. Rev. D, 102:0430...

    2020

  3. [11]

    Abbott, Suraj Abraham, Francesco Acernese, Katherine Ackley, Carl Adams, Rana X

    Richard Abbott, Thomas D. Abbott, Suraj Abraham, Francesco Acernese, Katherine Ackley, Carl Adams, Rana X. Adhikari, Varun B. Adya, Carsten Affeldt, Michalis Agathos, et al. GW190814: Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of a 23 Solar Mass Black Hole with a 2.6 Solar Mass ...

    2020

  4. [12]

    Abbott, Suraj Abraham, Francesco Acernese, Katherine Ackley, Carl Adams, Rana X

    Richard Abbott, Thomas D. Abbott, Suraj Abraham, Francesco Acernese, Katherine Ackley, Carl Adams, Rana X. Adhikari, Varun B. Adya, Carsten Affeldt, and Michalis Agathos. GW190521: A Binary Black Hole Merger with a Total Mass of 150 MJ. Phys. Rev. Lett., 125:101102, Sep 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    LISA Science Requirements document

    LISA Science Study Team. LISA Science Requirements document. Technical Report, European Space Agency, 2018. Technical Report ESA-L3-EST-SCI-RS-001

    2018

  6. [14]

    Low-frequency gravitational-wave science with eLISA/NGO

    Pau Amaro-Seoane, Sofiane Aoudia, Stanislav Babak, Pierre Bin´ etruy, Emanuele Berti, Alejandro Boh´ e, Chiara Caprini, Monica Colpi, Neil J Cornish, Karsten Danzmann, et al. Low-frequency gravitational-wave science with eLISA/NGO. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 29(12):124016...

    2012

  7. [15]

    Gair, Christopher Tang, and Marta Volonteri

    Jonathan R. Gair, Christopher Tang, and Marta Volonteri. Lisa extreme-mass-ratio inspiral events as probes of the black hole mass function. Phys. Rev. D , 81:104014, May 2010

    2010

  8. [16]

    Cosmology with massive black hole binary mergers in the LISA era

    Alberto Mangiagli, Chiara Caprini, Marta Volonteri, Sylvain Marsat, Susanna Vergani, Nicola Tamanini, and Lorenzo Speri. Cosmology with massive black hole binary mergers in the LISA era. In Proceedings of 41st International Conference on High Energy physics — PoS(ICHEP2022), I...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

    Pau Amaro-Seoane, Harry Audley, Stanislav Babak, John Baker, Peter Bender Enrico Barausse, Emanuele Berti, Michael Born Pierre Binetruy, Daniele Bortoluzzi, et al. Laser Interferometer Space Antenna. arXiv e-prints , page arXiv:1702.00786, February 02/2017

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Trajectory Design for the ESA LISA Mission

    Waldemar Martens and Eric Joffre. Trajectory Design for the ESA LISA Mission. The Journal Robust Bayesian inference with gapped LISA data using all-in-one TDI-∞ 44 of the Astronautical Sciences , 68(2):402–443, June 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Picometer and nanoradian optical heterodyne interferometry for translation and tilt metrology of the LISA gravitational reference sensor

    Thilo Schuldt, Martin Gohlke, Dennis Weise, Ulrich Johann, Achim Peters, and Claus Braxmaier. Picometer and nanoradian optical heterodyne interferometry for translation and tilt metrology of the LISA gravitational reference sensor. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 26(8):085008,...

    2009

  12. [20]

    Cruise, et al

    Michele Armano, Harry Audley, Jim Baird, Pierre Bin´ etruy, Michael Born, Daniele Bortoluzzi, Enrico Castelli, Angelo Cavalleri, Andrea Cesarini, Andrew M. Cruise, et al. LISA Pathfinder platform stability and drag-free performance. Phys. Rev. D , 99:082001, Apr 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Luigi Carbone, Angelo Cavalleri, Giacomo Ciani, Riccardo Dolesi, Mauro Hueller, Davide Tombolato, Stefano Vitale, and William J. Weber. Torsion pendulum facility for direct force measurements of LISA GRS related disturbances. In AIP Conference Proceedings. AIP, 2006

    2006

  14. [22]

    Bender, Alain Brillet, Ignazio Ciufolini, Andrew M

    Peter L. Bender, Alain Brillet, Ignazio Ciufolini, Andrew M. Cruise, Curt Cutler, Karsten Danzmann, et al. LISA. Laser Interferometer Space Antenna for the detection and observation of gravitational waves. An international project in the field of Fundamental Physics in Space. ...

    1998

  15. [23]

    Rajesh Nayak, and Jacques Vinet

    Sanjeev Dhurandhar, K. Rajesh Nayak, and Jacques Vinet. Time-delay interferometry for LISA with one arm dysfunctional. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 27:135013, 2010

    2010

  16. [24]

    Analytic Model and Simulations of Residual Laser Noise after Time-Delay Interferometry in LISA

    Jean-Baptiste Bayle, Marc Lilley, Antoine Petiteau, and Henri Halloin. Analytic Model and Simulations of Residual Laser Noise after Time-Delay Interferometry in LISA. arXiv: Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics , 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Effect of filters on the time-delay interferometry residual laser noise for LISA

    Jean-Baptiste Bayle, Marc Lilley, Antoine Petiteau, and Henri Halloin. Effect of filters on the time-delay interferometry residual laser noise for LISA. Physical Review D , 99:084023, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Estabrook, and John W

    Massimo Tinto, Frank B. Estabrook, and John W. Armstrong. Time-delay interferometry for LISA. Physical Review D , 65(8), April 2002

    2002

  19. [27]

    Dhurandhar

    Massimo Tinto and Sanjeev V. Dhurandhar. Time-Delay Interferometry. Living Reviews in Relativity, 8(1), Jul 2005

    2005

  20. [28]

    Statistical inference approach to time-delay interferometry for gravitational-wave detection

    Quentin Baghi, James Ira Thorpe, Jacob Slutsky, and John Baker. Statistical inference approach to time-delay interferometry for gravitational-wave detection. Phys. Rev. D , 103:042006, Feb 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Effect of data gaps on the detectability and parameter estimation of massive black hole binaries with LISA

    Kallol Dey, Nikolaos Karnesis, Alexandre Toubiana, Enrico Barausse, Natalia Korsakova, Quentin Baghi, and Soumen Basak. Effect of data gaps on the detectability and parameter estimation of massive black hole binaries with LISA. Phys. Rev. D , 104:044035, Aug 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Gravitational-wave parameter estimation with gaps in LISA: A Bayesian data augmentation method

    Quentin Baghi, James Ira Thorpe, Jacob Slutsky, John Baker, Tito Dal Canton, Natalia Korsakova, and Nikos Karnesis. Gravitational-wave parameter estimation with gaps in LISA: A Bayesian data augmentation method. Phys. Rev. D , 100:022003, Jul 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Baker, Jacob Slutsky, J´ erˆ ome Bobin, Nikolaos Karnesis, Antoine Petiteau, Orion Sauter, Peter Wass, and William J

    Eleonora Castelli, Quentin Baghi, John G. Baker, Jacob Slutsky, J´ erˆ ome Bobin, Nikolaos Karnesis, Antoine Petiteau, Orion Sauter, Peter Wass, and William J. Weber. Extraction of gravitational wave signals in realistic LISA data, 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.13402

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    LISA science results in the presence of data disturbances

    Scott E Pollack. LISA science results in the presence of data disturbances. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 21(14):3419–3432, June 2004

    2004

  25. [33]

    J´ erˆ ome Carr´ e and Edward K. Porter. The Effect of Data Gaps on LISA Galactic Binary Parameter Estimation, 2010. https://arxiv.org/abs/1010.1641

    2010 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Time-delay interferometry without delays

    Michele Vallisneri, Jean-Baptiste Bayle, Stanislav Babak, and Antoine Petiteau. Time-delay interferometry without delays. Phys. Rev. D , 103:082001, Apr 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Jonathan R. Gair. Statistics for Gravitational Wave Data Analysis - Lecture 8. https://imprs-gw-lectures.aei.mpg.de/potsdam-2019/wp-content/uploads/sites/ 2/2020/01/IMPRSStatsforGWLecture8.pdf, 2019. Lecture notes, Accessed: 2024-09-17

    2019

  28. [36]

    LISA: Challenges for Data Analysis

    Stanislav Babak. LISA: Challenges for Data Analysis. https://www.kiss.caltech.edu/ workshops/LISA/presentations/Babak.pdf, 2018. Lecture notes, Accessed: 2024-09-17

    2018

  29. [37]

    TDI and clock noise removal for the split interferometry configuration of LISA

    Markus Otto, Gerhard Heinzel, and Karsten Danzmann. TDI and clock noise removal for the split interferometry configuration of LISA. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 29(20):205003, aug Robust Bayesian inference with gapped LISA data using all-in-one TDI-∞ 45 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    Effect of filters on the time-delay interferometry residual laser noise for LISA

    Jean-Baptiste Bayle, Marc Lilley, Antoine Petiteau, and Hubert Halloin. Effect of filters on the time-delay interferometry residual laser noise for LISA. Phys. Rev. D , 99:084023, Apr 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Time-delay interferometry simulations for the laser interferometer space antenna,

    Markus Otto. Time-delay interferometry simulations for the laser interferometer space antenna,

  32. [40]

    Unified model for the LISA measurements and instrument simulations

    Jean-Baptiste Bayle and Olaf Hartwig. Unified model for the LISA measurements and instrument simulations. Phys. Rev. D , 107:083019, Apr 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Adapting time-delay interferometry for LISA data in frequency

    Jean-Baptiste Bayle, Olaf Hartwig, and Martin Staab. Adapting time-delay interferometry for LISA data in frequency. Phys. Rev. D , 104:023006, Jul 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Time-delay interferometry infinity for tilt-to-length noise estimation in LISA

    Niklas Houba, Simon Delchambre, Gerald Hechenblaikner, Tobias Ziegler, and Walter Fichter. Time-delay interferometry infinity for tilt-to-length noise estimation in LISA. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 40(10):107001, April 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Armstrong

    Massimo Tinto and John W. Armstrong. Cancellation of laser noise in an unequal-arm interferometer detector of gravitational radiation. Phys. Rev. D , 59:102003, Apr 1999

    1999

  36. [44]

    Armstrong, Frank B

    John W. Armstrong, Frank B. Estabrook, and Massimo Tinto. Time-Delay Interferometry for Space-based Gravitational Wave Searches. The Astrophysical Journal, 527(2):814–826, dec 1999

    1999

  37. [45]

    Estabrook, and John W

    Massimo Tinto, Frank B. Estabrook, and John W. Armstrong. Time delay interferometry with moving spacecraft arrays. Physical Review D , 69(8), Apr 2004

    2004

  38. [46]

    Massimo Tinto and Shane L. Larson. LISA time-delay interferometry zero-signal solution: Geometrical properties. Phys. Rev. D , 70:062002, Sep 2004

    2004

  39. [47]

    Geometric time delay interferometry

    Michele Vallisneri. Geometric time delay interferometry. Physical Review D, 72(4), August 2005

    2005

  40. [48]

    Synthetic LISA: Simulating time delay interferometry in a model LISA

    Michele Vallisneri. Synthetic LISA: Simulating time delay interferometry in a model LISA. Phys. Rev. D, 71:022001, Jan 2005

    2005

  41. [49]

    Matrix representation of time-delay interferometry

    Massimo Tinto, Sanjeev Dhurandhar, and Prasanna Joshi. Matrix representation of time-delay interferometry. Phys. Rev. D , 104:044033, Aug 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    On the matrix formulation of time-delay interferometry, 2021

    Jean-Baptiste Bayle, Michele Vallisneri, Stanislav Babak, and Antoine Petiteau. On the matrix formulation of time-delay interferometry, 2021

    2021

  43. [51]

    Revisitation of time delay interferometry combinations that suppress laser noise in lisa

    Martina Muratore, Daniele Vetrugno, and Stefano Vitale. Revisitation of time delay interferometry combinations that suppress laser noise in lisa. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 37(18):185019, aug 2020

    2020

  44. [52]

    Littenberg

    Jessica Page and Tyson B. Littenberg. Bayesian time delay interferometry. Physical Review D , 104(8), Oct 2021

    2021

  45. [53]

    Spero, William M

    Glenn de Vine, Brent Ware, Kirk McKenzie, Robert E. Spero, William M. Klipstein, and Daniel A. Shaddock. Experimental Demonstration of Time-Delay Interferometry for the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 104:211103, May 2010

    2010

  46. [54]

    Verification of time-delay interferometry techniques using the University of Florida LISA interferometry simulator

    Shawn Mitryk, Vinzenz Wand, and Guido Mueller. Verification of time-delay interferometry techniques using the University of Florida LISA interferometry simulator. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27:084012, 2010

    2010

  47. [55]

    Cruz, James I

    Rachel J. Cruz, James I. Thorpe, Michael Hartman, and Guido Mueller. Time Delay Interferometry using the UF LISA Benchtop Simulator. In AIP Conference Proceedings. AIP, 2006

    2006

  48. [56]

    Shaddock, Massimo Tinto, Frank B

    Daniel A. Shaddock, Massimo Tinto, Frank B. Estabrook, and John W. Armstrong. Data combinations accounting for LISA spacecraft motion. Physical Review D , 68(6), Sep 2003

    2003

  49. [57]

    Time-delay interferometry without clock synchronization

    Olaf Hartwig, Jean-Baptiste Bayle, Martin Staab, Aur´ elien Hees, Marc Lilley, and Peter Wolf. Time-delay interferometry without clock synchronization. Phys. Rev. D , 105:122008, Jun 2022

    2022

  50. [58]

    Simulation and Data Analysis for LISA (Instrumental Modeling, Time- Delay Interferometry, Noise-Reduction Performance Study, and Discrimination of Transient Gravitational Signals)

    Jean-Baptiste Bayle. Simulation and Data Analysis for LISA (Instrumental Modeling, Time- Delay Interferometry, Noise-Reduction Performance Study, and Discrimination of Transient Gravitational Signals) . Theses, Universit´ e de Paris ; Universit´ e Paris Diderot ; Laboratoire A...

    2019

  51. [59]

    Clock-jitter reduction in LISA time-delay interferometry Robust Bayesian inference with gapped LISA data using all-in-one TDI-∞ 46 combinations

    Olaf Hartwig and Jean-Baptiste Bayle. Clock-jitter reduction in LISA time-delay interferometry Robust Bayesian inference with gapped LISA data using all-in-one TDI-∞ 46 combinations. Phys. Rev. D , 103:123027, Jun 2021

    2021

  52. [60]

    Fitzsimons, Gudrun Wanner, and Gerhard Heinzel

    Sarah Paczkowski, Roberta Giusteri, Martin Hewitson, Nikolaos Karnesis, Ewan D. Fitzsimons, Gudrun Wanner, and Gerhard Heinzel. Postprocessing subtraction of tilt-to-length noise in LISA. Phys. Rev. D , 106:042005, Aug 2022

    2022

  53. [61]

    Prince, Massimo Tinto, Shane L

    Thomas A. Prince, Massimo Tinto, Shane L. Larson, and John W. Armstrong. LISA optimal sensitivity. Physical Review D , 66(12), December 2002

    2002

  54. [62]

    turnbackLU: Sparse matrix LU factorization, 2024

    Kai Pfeiffer. turnbackLU: Sparse matrix LU factorization, 2024. https://github.com/ pfeiffer-kai/turnbackLU, accessed: 2024-09-12

    2024

  55. [63]

    Veeravalli

    Pierre Moulin and Venugopal V. Veeravalli. Statistical Inference for Engineers and Data Scientists. Cambridge University Press, 2018

    2018

  56. [64]

    Coryn A. L. Bailer-Jones. Practical Bayesian inference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, July 2017

    2017

  57. [65]

    Bayesian Inference

    Tang Niansheng. Bayesian Inference. IntechOpen, Rijeka, Nov 2022. 10.5772/intechopen.97942

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    Nested Sampling: A Case Study in Parameter Estimation , chapter 3

    Fesih Keskin. Nested Sampling: A Case Study in Parameter Estimation , chapter 3. IntechOpen, December 2023

    2023

  59. [67]

    An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances

    Thomas Bayes. An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Biometrika, 45(3-4):296–315, 12 1958

    1958

  60. [68]

    Scott M. Lynch. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling methods. In Applied Bayesian Statistics, pages 62–110. SAGE Publications, Inc., 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320, 2023

    2023

  61. [69]

    Markov Chain Monte Carlo Sampling (MCMC) , page 35–40

    Marcel van Oijen. Markov Chain Monte Carlo Sampling (MCMC) , page 35–40. Springer International Publishing, 2024

    2024

  62. [70]

    Gilks, Sylvia Richardson, and David Spiegelhalter

    Walter R. Gilks, Sylvia Richardson, and David Spiegelhalter. Introducing Markov chain Monte Carlo”. In Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice , pages 19–38. Chapman and Hall/CRC, December 1995

    1995

  63. [71]

    Applications of Markov Chain Monte Carlo , page 113–168

    Masanori Hanada and So Matsuura. Applications of Markov Chain Monte Carlo , page 113–168. Springer Nature Singapore, 2022

    2022

  64. [72]

    John M. Hancock. Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC, Metropolis-Hastings, Gibbs Sampling), October 2004. Dictionary of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, ISBN 9780471650126

    2004

  65. [73]

    Christian P. Robert. The Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. arXiv e-prints , April 2015. http: //arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/

    2015

  66. [74]

    Bernd A. Berg. Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations and their statistical analysis: With web- based FORTRAN code. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, Singapore, December 2004

    2004

  67. [75]

    David D. L. Minh and Do Le (Paul) Minh. Understanding the Hastings algorithm. Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput. , 44(2):332–349, February 2015

    2015

  68. [76]

    Inference from Simulations and Monitoring Convergence , page 162–174

    Andrew Gelman and Kenneth Shirley. Inference from Simulations and Monitoring Convergence , page 162–174. Chapman and Hall/CRC, May 2011

    2011

  69. [77]

    Revisiting the Gelman-Rubin Diagnostic, 2018

    Dootika Vats and Christina Knudson. Revisiting the Gelman-Rubin Diagnostic, 2018

    2018

  70. [78]

    LISA Instrument, November 2023

    Jean-Baptiste Bayle, Olaf Hartwig, and Martin Staab. LISA Instrument, November 2023. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10136689

    2023 doi

  71. [79]

    PyTDI, 2023

    Martin Staab, Jean-Baptiste Bayle, and Olaf Hartwig. PyTDI, 2023. https://zenodo.org/ record/6351736

    2023

  72. [80]

    Katz, Natalia Korsakova, Jonathan R

    Nikolaos Karnesis, Michael L. Katz, Natalia Korsakova, Jonathan R. Gair, and Nikolaos Stergioulas. Eryn: a multipurpose sampler for Bayesian inference. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526(4):4814–4830, sep 2023

    2023

  73. [81]

    Hogg, Dustin Lang, and Jonathan Goodman

    Daniel Foreman-Mackey, David W. Hogg, Dustin Lang, and Jonathan Goodman. emcee: The MCMC Hammer. arXiv e-prints , 125(925):306, March 2013

    2013

  74. [82]

    Charles J. Geyer. Markov Chain Monte Carlo Maximum Likelihood. In Proceedings of the 23rd Symposium on the Interface , pages 156–163. Interface Foundation of North America, 1991

    1991

  75. [83]

    Reversible jump MCMC simulated annealing for neural networks

    Christophe Andrieu, Nando de Freitas, and Arnaud Doucet. Reversible jump MCMC simulated annealing for neural networks. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Robust Bayesian inference with gapped LISA data using all-in-one TDI-∞ 47 Artificial Intelligence...

    2000

  76. [84]

    Neil J. Cornish. Heterodyned likelihood for rapid gravitational wave parameter inference. Phys. Rev. D, 104:104054, Nov 2021

    2021

  77. [85]

    Gilbert and Michael T

    John R. Gilbert and Michael T. Heath. Computing a sparse basis for the null space. SIAM Journal on Algebraic Discrete Methods , 8(3):446–459, 1987

    1987

  78. [2015]

    uni-hannover.de/handle/123456789/8598

    Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universit¨ at Hannover, 10.15488/8545, https://www.repo. uni-hannover.de/handle/123456789/8598

Pith tools

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