Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Assessing the performance of future space-based detectors: Astrophysical foregrounds and individual sources

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Future space-based gravitational-wave detectors will be limited not by their instrumental noise but by the unresolved astrophysical foreground, which this paper computes for LISA, µAres, AMIGO, and the Decihertz Observatory.

desk verdict First consistent foreground comparison for µAres/AMIGO/DO; the qualitative ranking is solid, but DO's 'one order below noise' claim rests on perfect subtraction and should be taken with a grain of salt. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.18695 v2 pith:TK3BROAH submitted 2025-10-21 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IMgr-qc

Alice Perego , Matteo Bonetti , Alberto Sesana , Silvia Toonen , Valeriya Korol This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMgr-qc
keywords gravitational-wavedetectorsastrophysicalforegroundstochasticbackgroundspace-basedinterferometersmassiveblackholebinariesgalacticextrememass-ratioinspiralsdecihertzobservatory
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 tries to establish that the unresolved astrophysical gravitational-wave background—the combined roar of all sources too faint to pull out individually—is the true noise floor for future space-based detectors, and that its level depends strongly on band and detector. Using an iterative subtraction that repeatedly removes resolvable sources and recomputes the leftover background, the authors show that µAres is overwhelmed below 1 mHz by massive-black-hole-binary and galactic foregrounds, while the Decihertz Observatory cleans its band so thoroughly that the residual background falls about an order below instrumental noise near 0.1 Hz, leaving room to seek cosmological signals. They also map which source classes each mission can resolve: µAres watches massive black hole binaries years before merger; DO resolves all merging light-seed MBHBs, hundreds of thousands of stellar-origin black holes up to z≈10, and thousands of extreme mass-ratio inspirals. If right, these effective-sensitivity curves, not the instrumental curves, are what mission designers should use to weigh the three post-LISA concepts.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the iterative source-subtraction algorithm: at each pass, every catalog source's signal-to-noise ratio is computed against detector noise plus the previous background estimate, sources above threshold are declared resolved and removed, and the remaining unresolved population defines a new background power spectral density. Repeating to convergence (20 iterations) yields the residual astrophysical noise used to build effective sensitivity curves and final detectability counts. The background calculation itself uses per-frequency characteristic-strain sums for circular and eccentric binaries, with contributions weighted by the number of wave cycles completed during the

What would settle it

Run the same source catalogs through an end-to-end analysis that fits and subtracts each resolvable source with realistic noise-induced parameter errors; if the leftover noise from imperfect subtraction exceeds the predicted residual GWB near 0.1 Hz for the Decihertz Observatory, or keeps µAres's background above the MBHB-dominated level, the paper's effective-sensitivity predictions are wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that a self-consistent, iteratively computed unresolved gravitational-wave background (GWB) is the correct estimate of the astrophysical noise floor for each detector. Combining catalogs of massive black hole binaries (MBHBs), extreme mass-ratio inspirals, stellar-origin binary black holes, Galactic binaries, and extragalactic double white dwarfs, they subtract resolvable sources one iteration at a time and recompute the leftover background until it converges. The resulting residual foreground overwhelms µAres's instrumental noise by 2–3 orders of magnitude below ~1 mHz, while for the Decihertz Observatory the cleaned background sits about one order of magnitude below the n

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every resolved source is identified and subtracted perfectly using its true waveform parameters, so the predicted residual background—and the cleaned sensitivity curves built from it—would rise if realistic parameter-estimation errors left subtraction residuals behind.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • µAres's effective low-frequency sensitivity is set by the massive-black-hole-binary and Galactic foreground, not by instrumental noise: its performance worsens by 2–3 orders of magnitude below ~1 mHz, yet it remains the best band for watching MBHBs hundreds of years before merger.
  • The Decihertz Observatory is the cleanest of the four concepts: iterative cleaning pushes EMRI and stellar-origin-black-hole backgrounds roughly ten times below detector noise near 0.1 Hz, making it the best placed to detect a subdominant cosmological stochastic background.
  • AMIGO's tenfold sensitivity gain is partly wasted: Galactic binaries and extragalactic double white dwarfs dominate above ~3 mHz and cannot be removed by resolving individual sources, limiting the gain to frequencies below ~0.1 mHz and above ~10 mHz.
  • The detector-specific counts—DO detecting essentially all merging light-seed MBHBs and SOBBHs to z≈10, µAres adding ~250 non-merging MBHBs, and all missions resolving roughly 10^4 galactic binaries—are the concrete science-return predictions that follow from the cleaned noise curves.
  • The paper identifies which proposed science cases survive foreground cleaning: DO's high-redshift seed-black-hole observations and µAres's multimessenger inspiral monitoring are the two most foreground-resistant scientific niches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: The 'one order below noise' margin claimed for the Decihertz Observatory is an upper bound on cleanliness; if realistic imperfect subtraction were included, the residual astrophysical background would rise toward the detector noise, weakening the case that cosmological backgrounds are cleanly observable there.
  • Extension: The irreducible extragalactic double-white-dwarf foreground is population-model dependent, so measuring its amplitude with LISA first would calibrate and sharpen the predicted AMIGO performance above 3 mHz.
  • Extension: The same iterative-cleaning logic could be applied to networks of space detectors (LISA with TianQin or Taiji) or to next-generation ground observatories, where subtraction residuals are similarly the dominant uncertainty in foreground estimation.
  • Extension: The sky- and inclination-averaged detector responses used here may misestimate the anisotropic Galactic foreground; a full response calculation could change which detector appears cleanest at the lowest frequencies.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a unified forward-modeling framework to estimate the unresolved astrophysical gravitational-wave background (GWB) for LISA, µAres, AMIGO, and the Decihertz Observatory, and then assesses the numbers and properties of individually resolvable sources. Five source classes are considered: massive black hole binaries (two seed models), extreme mass-ratio inspirals, stellar-origin binary black holes, Galactic binaries, and extragalactic double white dwarfs. The unresolved GWB is computed with the iterative source-subtraction algorithm of Karnesis et al. [30], using published catalogs and standard sky-averaged SNR formulas. The paper reports residual GWB curves, effective sensitivity curves, resolved-source counts, and population properties for each detector. The central quantitative claims are that the MBHB+GB foreground degrades µAres sensitivity by 2-3 orders of magnitude below ~1 mHz, and that DO reduces the SOBBH/EMRI foregrounds to about one order of magnitude below its noise near 0.1 Hz, with corresponding implications for detecting subdominant cosmological backgrounds.

Significance. The work is a useful, clearly structured scoping study for post-LISA mission design. Its strengths are that the SNR and GWB formalisms are standard and explicitly stated, the inputs are published catalogs rather than outputs tuned to the conclusions, and the iterative subtraction is tested for convergence (0.2% variation in GB counts after 20 iterations). The comparison of four detectors with the same pipeline is a genuine service to the Voyage 2050 discussion. However, the central predictions are only as good as the perfect-subtraction idealization, which the authors themselves flag as unrealistic. The qualitative conclusion for µAres is robust because its residual foreground sits orders of magnitude above the instrumental noise, but the quantitative claim for DO (foreground reduced below noise near 0.1 Hz) is exactly where realistic subtraction residuals matter most. I list below the load-bearing points that need to be addressed before the paper's conclusions can be accepted as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV D and Sec. VI, Figs. 3-4] The paper's central quantitative claims are computed under the assumption of perfect source identification and subtraction, i.e. subtracting waveforms with known true parameters. Sec. VI acknowledges this is 'not realistic' and may 'prevent the actual reduction of the astrophysical background much below the detector noise limit.' This caveat is not cosmetic: the cleaned sensitivity curves in Figs. 3-4, the effective noise used for all resolved-source counts, and the statement that DO 'succeeds in decreasing the GWB level to about one order of magnitude below the noise curve at frequencies of the order of 0.1 Hz' are all outputs of that idealization. Residual subtraction noise adds positive power, so the claimed DO curve is a lower bound, not an estimate; it is precisely where the claimed residual is smallest that the correction is largest. The authors should quantify this effect (e.g. by
  2. [Sec. III C and Sec. IV C, Eqs. (9) and (11)] The Galactic binary catalog is undersampled by a factor of 1:100 for GW frequencies below 0.5 mHz, but I could not find any statement that the GWB sum is reweighted to compensate. If the algorithm simply sums over catalog entries without weights, the unresolved GB background below 0.5 mHz is underestimated by two orders of magnitude, and the same applies to the low-frequency GB resolved-source counts. This is not a minor implementation detail: the GB foreground is claimed to dominate at low frequencies for µAres and AMIGO (Figs. 3-4, Sec. VI), and the resolved-GB frequency distributions in Fig. 17 extend below 0.5 mHz. Please state explicitly how the undersampling factor is corrected in the PSD calculation and in the source counts, or rerun the affected cases with a properly weighted/full catalog and update the conclusions that depend on the low-frequency GB contribution.
  3. [Sec. V A, Table I] The GWB and resolved-source results carry no systematic uncertainty estimates. The MBHB population is bracketed by HS/LS models, but the EMRI, GB, SOBBH, and extragalactic-DWD populations are each represented by a single model, despite the known sensitivity of their GWB levels to model assumptions (e.g. [58,59] for DWDs). As a result, strong statements such as 'Each contribution is individually detectable by the different missions' in Table I have no quantified support. The paper should either propagate the range of published population models or explicitly state that these are single-model point estimates not robust to population uncertainties, especially for the deci-Hz conclusions where the claimed foreground is already close to the noise level.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The functions F(e_n) and g_n(e_n) are used but not defined. A reader should not need to guess from the reference; please give the explicit expressions or exactly point to the numbered equations in [46].
  2. [Figs. 3-4] The text says a running mean is applied to smooth the GWB curves, but the window size and type are not specified. This makes the figures non-reproducible. Please state the smoothing prescription.
  3. [Sec. IV D] Convergence is reported only in terms of the number of resolved GB sources (0.2% change in the final iteration). Please also report the convergence of the GWB itself, e.g. the relative change in S_h at representative frequencies, since source counts and background power need not converge at the same rate.
  4. [Sec. IV C, Eq. (13)] The approximation gamma(f)=1 is acknowledged as indicative, but Table I presents the resulting GWB SNRs as definite numbers. Please add an explicit caveat in the table caption or text that these values are optimistic because of the unity overlap-reduction approximation.
  5. [Introduction] There are a few typographical/formatting artifacts, e.g. 'L VK operates' in the introduction, and the table header in Table I is unwieldy. A careful proofread would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: forward algorithm on published catalogs; the acknowledged perfect-subtraction idealization is a model limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

No circularity is present in the derivation chain. The central results — the residual astrophysical GWB curves (Figs. 3-4), the GWB SNR table (Table I), and the resolved source counts (Sec. V B) — are forward outputs of an iterative fixed-point subtraction algorithm (Sec. IV D, following Karnesis et al. [30]) applied to independent, published population catalogs. No target quantity is fitted, and the residual background is not equal by construction to any input curve. The inputs themselves are published results with stated assumptions: MBHB catalogs from Bonetti et al. [42] (Sec. III A), EMRI catalog from Babak et al. [45] and formalism from Bonetti & Sesana [46] (Sec. III B), GB catalogs from Toonen et al. [49] and Korol et al. [53,54] (Sec. III C), SOBBH catalogs from extrapops following Babak et al. [32] (Sec. III D), and the extragalactic DWD analytic fit from Hofman & Nelemans [58] (Sec. III E). Although several of these are prior work by the current authors, they are not tuned to the present results and carry independent external grounding; for example, the EMRI GWB estimate is explicitly cross-checked against the independent computation of Pozzoli et al. [33] in Sec. IV B. The Sec. VI caveat — 'our methodology assumes perfect source identification and subtraction, meaning that the waveform removed from the background uses the known true parameters. This is not realistic... This may prevent the actual reduction of the astrophysical background much below the detector noise limit' — is a genuine and correctly flagged limitation affecting robustness of the DO sub-noise residual claim and of the effective sensitivity curves; it is an acknowledged modeling idealization, not a circular derivation from the inputs. The paper's self-citations are therefore not load-bearing in a circular sense. The honest finding is 'no significant circularity' (score 1, reflecting minor but non-circular reuse of the authors' own published inputs).

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

The central claims rest on externally built population catalogs (MBHB HS/LS, EMRI M1, SeBa GBs, GWTC-3 SOBBHs) and on the analytic extragalactic DWD fit; these contain numerous model parameters the paper does not vary. Within the paper itself, the main free choices are the SNR thresholds, the GB undersampling factor, and the iteration limit. The astrophysical assumptions (circular orbits, GW-only evolution, perfect source subtraction, isotropic irreducible DWD floor, γ≈1) are stated in the text.

free parameters (4)
  • Extragalactic DWD GWB fit parameters (amplitude, spectral shape) = not stated in paper
    The irreducible extragalactic DWD background is taken from the analytic fit of Hofman & Nelemans (2024) (Sec. III E) and added a priori to every detector's noise budget; the fit values are not reproduced. Since this floor limits AMIGO and contributes to all detectors, the background amplitude is a free input.
  • SNR detection thresholds = 8 (MBHB/GB/SOBBH); 20 (EMRI)
    Chosen by hand in Sec. IV B; the EMRI threshold is set to 20 because of signal complexity. Thresholds determine which sources are counted as resolved and hence the level of residual GWB after subtraction.
  • GB catalog undersampling factor at f_GW < 0.5 mHz = 1:100
    Sec. III C: the Galactic binary catalog is undersampled below 0.5 mHz to reduce computational cost, which directly affects the low-frequency Galactic foreground level and the counts of low-frequency resolvable WD-WD binaries.
  • Iteration limit = i = 20
    Sec. IV D: converged when resolved counts stabilize; GB counts still grow by 0.2% at the final iteration, so the exact residual GWB depends mildly on this stopping choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption All MBHB, GB, SOBBH sources are circular (eccentricity zero); only the dominant n=2 harmonic is considered.
    Section IV A: 'except for EMRIs, we assume all sources to have zero eccentricity. For circular sources, we therefore evaluate only the dominant harmonic n=2.' This removes eccentricity-driven signal power and affects SNRs and GWB shape.
  • domain assumption Resolved sources are removed with their true waveforms (perfect source subtraction).
    Section IV D and VI: algorithm 'assumes perfect source identification and subtraction... waveform removed from the background uses the known true parameters'. The authors flag this as unrealistic; residual from imperfect subtraction could keep GWB above noise.
  • domain assumption Extragalactic DWD background is irreducible and isotropic, modeled by the Hofman-Nelemans fit.
    Section III E and V A: 'the latter included a priori in the iterative procedure, as an irreducible GWB'. This adds a floor to all detectors' noise budgets, particularly limiting AMIGO above 3 mHz.
  • domain assumption EMRI population model M1 is a fiducial representative of true EMRI rates.
    Section III B: 'The features of the populations are strongly related to the astrophysical model assumed... relies on a great number of poorly known parameters.' Results for EMRI counts are tied to this choice.
  • domain assumption GWB SNR uses γ(f)≈1 (low-frequency approximation).
    Section IV C: 'γ(f) is approximated to unity. Since the latter assumption is valid only at low frequency, in particular for long-baseline configurations as µAres, these estimates must be regarded as indicative.'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Assessing the performance of future space-based detectors: Astrophysical foregrounds and individual sources." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TK3BROAH

@misc{pith2026251018695,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Assessing the performance of future space-based detectors: Astrophysical foregrounds and individual sources},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TK3BROAH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.18695}
}
abstract

The space mission LISA, scheduled for launch in 2035, aims to detect gravitational wave (GW) signals in the milli-Hz band. In the context of the ESA Voyage 2050 Call for new mission concepts, other frequency ranges are explored by the Gravitational-Wave Space 2050 Working Group to conceive new proposals for a post-LISA space-based detector. In this work, we give a preliminary estimate of the observational potential of three mission designs proposed in the literature, namely $\mu$Ares, AMIGO and the Decihertz Observatory. The analysis framework includes astrophysical GW sources, such as massive black hole binaries and extreme mass-ratio inspirals, and compact binaries, such as stellar black holes and white dwarfs. For each detector, we first present a consistent computation of the unresolved gravitational wave background (GWB) produced by the sum of all anticipated astrophysical populations using an iterative subtraction algorithm. We then investigate which types of systems are the most appealing by measuring the number of GW signals detected and exploring the source properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.18695 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Amplitude spectral density of the sensitivity curves [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Flowchart of the code’s algorithm. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Each panel shows the characteristic strain of the total unresolved GWB (black dashed line) present in the detector, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Each panel shows the characteristic strain of the total unresolved GWB (dashed black line) present in the detector, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. SNR distribution for the MBHB catalog in the HS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Upper panels: coalescence time (x-axis) and SNR (y-axis) distributions for the MBHB catalog in the HS scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Time to coalescence and binary separation distri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Upper panels: coalescence time (x-axis) and SNR (y-axis) distributions for the MBHB catalog in the LS scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Binary separation distributions at the moment of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Mass (x-axis), redshift (y-axis, upper panels) and eccentricity (y-axis, lower panels) distributions for the resolved [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. SNR distribution for the SOBBH catalog. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Coalescence time (x-axis) and SNR (y-axis) distri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Mass (x-axis) and redshift (y-axis) distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Cosmic string gravitational wave backgrounds at LISA: II. Reconstruction of conventional signals over astrophysical foregrounds

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

    When realistic astrophysical foregrounds are included, LISA can reconstruct the cosmic-string tension to 10% precision only for Gμ ≳ 10^{-11}, 10^5 times larger than foreground-free forecasts.

  2. Reviving Motivated Inflationary Potentials with $K$-inflation in the light of ACT

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    K-inflation with non-canonical kinetic term G(φ) shifts α-attractor T-models and natural inflation into the Planck-ACT-LB-BK18 allowed region while satisfying Swampland conjectures and producing testable GW spectra.

  3. The deci-Hz gravitational wave signal from the collapse of rotating very massive stars

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Collapse of a rotating 300 solar mass star produces a strong, characteristic deci-Hz gravitational wave signal potentially detectable to 200 Mpc at a rate of 0.5 per year.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 51 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [30]

    Karnesiset al., Characterization of the stochastic signal originating from compact binary populations as measured by LISA, Phys

    N. Karnesiset al., Characterization of the stochastic signal originating from compact binary populations as measured by LISA, Phys. Rev. D104, 043019 (2021), arXiv:2103.14598 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2021

  2. [1]

    The resulting SNR distributions for the four missions are shown in Fig

    Massive black hole binaries Heavy seeds.We first concentrate on the HS catalog, which contains≈1.4×10 7 sources. The resulting SNR distributions for the four missions are shown in Fig. 5. The different heights of the histograms come from the fact that for each detector we considered only MBHBs emitting at frequencies falling within its frequency band, set...

  3. [2]

    Extreme mass-ratio inspirals Mock populations of EMRIs are difficult to construct due to our limited knowledge on the number and prop- −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 log(SNR) 101 103 105 N LISA µAres Decihertz Observatory AMIGO log(20) FIG. 11. SNR distribution for the EMRI catalog. erties of these systems. Therefore our results are closely tied to the fiducial model ...

  4. [3]

    In our model, they amount to nearly 26 million of events included in the catalog, whose SNR histograms is displayed in Fig

    Stellar-origin binary black holes Compact binaries of stellar BHs are already the pri- mary target of terrestrial observatories, but they could be potentially detected also by space-based interferome- ters. In our model, they amount to nearly 26 million of events included in the catalog, whose SNR histograms is displayed in Fig. 13. As expected, almost al...

  5. [4]

    Dipartimenti di Eccellenza 2023-2027

    Galactic binaries Our last astrophysical population consists of around 500 million of compact binaries inhabiting the Milky Way, whose quasi-monochromatic GW signals span a fre- quency range from 10 −6 Hz to a few tens of mHz. The SNR distribution of the ”in-band” sources for each de- tector is presented in Fig. 16. All resolved sources are WDWD binaries,...

  6. [5]

    Punturoet al., The Einstein Telescope: a third- generation gravitational wave observatory, Classical and Quantum Gravity27, 194002 (2010)

    M. Punturoet al., The Einstein Telescope: a third- generation gravitational wave observatory, Classical and Quantum Gravity27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  7. [6]

    Reitzeet al., Cosmic Explorer: The U.S

    D. Reitzeet al., Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO, Bul- letin of the AAS51, 35 (2019), arXiv:1907.04833 [astro- ph.IM]. 16

    arXiv 2019

  8. [7]

    M. V. Sazhin, Opportunities for detecting ultralong grav- itational waves, Soviet Ast.22, 36 (1978)

    1978

Show all 86 references
  1. [8]

    EPTA Collaborationet al., The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array. III. Search for gravitational wave signals, A&A678, A50 (2023), arXiv:2306.16214 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [9]

    B. P. Abbottet al., Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [10]

    LIGO Scientific Collaborationet al., Advanced LIGO, Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Acerneseet al., Advanced Virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    F. Acerneseet al., Advanced Virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [12]

    T. Akutsuet al., Overview of KAGRA: Detector de- sign and construction history, Progress of Theoreti- cal and Experimental Physics2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    2021

  6. [13]

    EPTA Collaborationet al., The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array. IV. Implications for massive black holes, dark matter, and the early Universe, A&A685, A94 (2024), arXiv:2306.16227 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    G. Agazieet al., The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Con- straints on Supermassive Black Hole Binaries from the Gravitational-wave Background, ApJ952, L37 (2023), arXiv:2306.16220 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Colpiet al., LISA Definition Study Report, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2402.07571 (2024), arXiv:2402.07571 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Colpiet al., LISA Definition Study Report, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2402.07571 (2024), arXiv:2402.07571 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [16]

    ESA, Capturing the ripples of spacetime: LISA gets go- ahead (2024)

    2024

  10. [17]

    Agazieet al., The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Ev- idence for a Gravitational-wave Background, ApJ951, L8 (2023), arXiv:2306.16213 [astro-ph.HE]

    G. Agazieet al., The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Ev- idence for a Gravitational-wave Background, ApJ951, L8 (2023), arXiv:2306.16213 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [18]

    D. J. Reardonet al., Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array, ApJ951, L6 (2023), arXiv:2306.16215 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [19]

    H. Xuet al., Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics23, 075024 (2023), arXiv:2306.16216 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Burke-Spolaoret al., The astrophysics of nanohertz gravitational waves, A&A Rev.27, 5 (2019), arXiv:1811.08826 [astro-ph.HE]

    S. Burke-Spolaoret al., The astrophysics of nanohertz gravitational waves, A&A Rev.27, 5 (2019), arXiv:1811.08826 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Sesanaet al., Unveiling the gravitational universe atµ-Hz frequencies, Experimental Astronomy51, 1333 (2021), arXiv:1908.11391 [astro-ph.IM]

    A. Sesanaet al., Unveiling the gravitational universe atµ-Hz frequencies, Experimental Astronomy51, 1333 (2021), arXiv:1908.11391 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Martens, M

    W. Martens, M. Khan, and J.-B. Bayle, LISAmax: Im- proving the low-frequency gravitational-wave sensitivity by two orders of magnitude, Classical and Quantum Gravity40, 195022 (2023)

    2023

  16. [23]

    Arca Seddaet al., The missing link in gravitational- wave astronomy: discoveries waiting in the decihertz range, Classical and Quantum Gravity37, 215011 (2020)

    M. Arca Seddaet al., The missing link in gravitational- wave astronomy: discoveries waiting in the decihertz range, Classical and Quantum Gravity37, 215011 (2020)

    2020

  17. [24]

    Regimbau, The astrophysical gravitational wave stochastic background, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics11, 369 (2011), arXiv:1101.2762 [astro- ph.CO]

    T. Regimbau, The astrophysical gravitational wave stochastic background, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics11, 369 (2011), arXiv:1101.2762 [astro- ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Amaro-Seoaneet al., Astrophysics with the Laser In- terferometer Space Antenna, Living Reviews in Relativ- ity26, 2 (2023), arXiv:2203.06016 [gr-qc]

    P. Amaro-Seoaneet al., Astrophysics with the Laser In- terferometer Space Antenna, Living Reviews in Relativ- ity26, 2 (2023), arXiv:2203.06016 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Hu and Y.-L

    W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu, The Taiji Program in Space for gravitational wave physics and the nature of gravity, National Science Review4, 685 (2017)

    2017

  20. [27]

    Luoet al., TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector, Classical and Quantum Gravity33, 035010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]

    J. Luoet al., TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector, Classical and Quantum Gravity33, 035010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  21. [28]

    F. Favataet al., Introducing the Voyage 2050 White Pa- pers, contributions from the science community to ESA’s long-term plan for the Scientific Programme, Experimen- tal Astronomy51, 551 (2021)

  22. [29]

    G. Boileauet al., Spectral separation of the stochastic gravitational-wave background for LISA in the context of a modulated Galactic foreground, MNRAS508, 803 (2021), arXiv:2105.04283 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Georgousiet al., Gravitational waves from double white dwarfs as probes of the milky way, MNRAS519, 2552 (2023), arXiv:2204.07349 [astro-ph.GA]

    M. Georgousiet al., Gravitational waves from double white dwarfs as probes of the milky way, MNRAS519, 2552 (2023), arXiv:2204.07349 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Babaket al., Stochastic gravitational wave background from stellar origin binary black holes in LISA, J

    S. Babaket al., Stochastic gravitational wave background from stellar origin binary black holes in LISA, J. Cosmol- ogy Astropart. Phys.2023, 034 (2023), arXiv:2304.06368 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    J. D. Romano and N. J. Cornish, Detection methods for stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds: a unified treatment, Living Reviews in Relativity20, 2 (2017), arXiv:1608.06889 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    and extragalactic compact binaries as DWDs [35, 36] and SOBBHs [32]. In this paper, we present a self-consistent computation of astrophysical GWBs from the source populations listed above, carried out within a unified framework that relies on the source-subtraction algorithm o...

  27. [35]

    Capriniet al., Reconstructing the spectral shape of a stochastic gravitational wave background with LISA, J

    C. Capriniet al., Reconstructing the spectral shape of a stochastic gravitational wave background with LISA, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2019, 017 (2019), arXiv:1906.09244 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    A. I. Renziniet al., Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Backgrounds: Current Detection Efforts and Future Prospects, Galaxies10, 34 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    T. B. Littenberget al., Global analysis of the gravita- tional wave signal from Galactic binaries, Phys. Rev. D 101, 123021 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    LISA Science Study Team, LISA Science Requirements Document (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    Baghiet al., Detection and characterization of instru- mental transients in LISA Pathfinder and their projection to LISA, Phys

    Q. Baghiet al., Detection and characterization of instru- mental transients in LISA Pathfinder and their projection to LISA, Phys. Rev. D105, 042002 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Baghiet al., Gravitational-wave parameter estima- tion with gaps in LISA: A Bayesian data augmentation method, Phys

    Q. Baghiet al., Gravitational-wave parameter estima- tion with gaps in LISA: A Bayesian data augmentation method, Phys. Rev. D100, 022003 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Pozzoliet al., Computation of stochastic background from extreme-mass-ratio inspiral populations for LISA, Phys

    F. Pozzoliet al., Computation of stochastic background from extreme-mass-ratio inspiral populations for LISA, Phys. Rev. D108, 103039 (2023), arXiv:2302.07043 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Sesana, A

    A. Sesana, A. Vecchio, and C. N. Colacino, The stochastic gravitational-wave background from massive black hole binary systems: implications for observations with Pulsar Timing Arrays, MNRAS390, 192 (2008), arXiv:0804.4476 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  35. [43]

    A. J. Farmer and E. S. Phinney, The gravitational wave background from cosmological compact binaries, MN- RAS346, 1197 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0304393 [astro- ph]

    2003 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Staelens and G

    S. Staelens and G. Nelemans, Likelihood of white dwarf binaries to dominate the astrophysical gravitational wave background in the mHz band, Astronomy & Astrophysics 683, A139 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Baibhavet al., Probing the nature of black holes: Deep in the mHz gravitational-wave sky, Experimental Astronomy51, 1385–1416 (2021)

    V. Baibhavet al., Probing the nature of black holes: Deep in the mHz gravitational-wave sky, Experimental Astronomy51, 1385–1416 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    employed in this work. C. GWB computation Given the set of different catalogs of astrophysical sources, we estimate the total PSD of the stochastic back- ground generated by all of them. The procedure closely follows the one explained in [46], further simplified in the case of...

  39. [47]

    G¨ ultekinet al., The M-σand M-L Relations in Galac- tic Bulges, and Determinations of Their Intrinsic Scatter, ApJ698, 198 (2009), arXiv:0903.4897 [astro-ph.GA]

    K. G¨ ultekinet al., The M-σand M-L Relations in Galac- tic Bulges, and Determinations of Their Intrinsic Scatter, ApJ698, 198 (2009), arXiv:0903.4897 [astro-ph.GA]

    2009 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Korolet al., Observationally driven Galactic double white dwarf population for LISA, MNRAS511, 5936 (2022), arXiv:2109.10972 [astro-ph.HE]

    V. Korolet al., Observationally driven Galactic double white dwarf population for LISA, MNRAS511, 5936 (2022), arXiv:2109.10972 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    M. C. Digman and N. J. Cornish, LISA Gravitational Wave Sources in a Time-varying Galactic Stochastic Background, ApJ940, 10 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Bonettiet al., Post-Newtonian evolution of massive black hole triplets in galactic nuclei - IV

    M. Bonettiet al., Post-Newtonian evolution of massive black hole triplets in galactic nuclei - IV. Implications for LISA, MNRAS486, 4044 (2019), arXiv:1812.01011 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Barausse, The evolution of massive black holes and their spins in their galactic hosts, MNRAS423, 2533 (2012), arXiv:1201.5888 [astro-ph.CO]

    E. Barausse, The evolution of massive black holes and their spins in their galactic hosts, MNRAS423, 2533 (2012), arXiv:1201.5888 [astro-ph.CO]. 17

    2012 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Kleinet al., Science with the space-based inter- ferometer eLISA: Supermassive black hole binaries, Phys

    A. Kleinet al., Science with the space-based inter- ferometer eLISA: Supermassive black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D93, 024003 (2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    Babaket al., Science with the space-based interferom- eter LISA

    S. Babaket al., Science with the space-based interferom- eter LISA. V. Extreme mass-ratio inspirals, Phys. Rev. D 95, 103012 (2017), arXiv:1703.09722 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Bonetti and A

    M. Bonetti and A. Sesana, Gravitational wave back- ground from extreme mass ratio inspirals, Phys. Rev. D 102, 103023 (2020), arXiv:2007.14403 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [55]

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Population of Merging Compact Binaries Inferred Using Gravita- tional Waves through GWTC-3, Physical Review X13, 011048 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Torrado, extrapops: Fast simulation and analysis of extra-galactic binary GW sources (2023)

    J. Torrado, extrapops: Fast simulation and analysis of extra-galactic binary GW sources (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Toonen, G

    S. Toonen, G. Nelemans, and S. Portegies Zwart, Su- pernova Type Ia progenitors from merging double white dwarfs. Using a new population synthesis model, A&A 546, A70 (2012), arXiv:1208.6446 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Paczynski, Common Envelope Binaries, inStructure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems, IAU Symposium, Vol

    B. Paczynski, Common Envelope Binaries, inStructure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems, IAU Symposium, Vol. 73, edited by P. Eggleton, S. Mitton, and J. Whelan (1976) p. 75

    1976

  51. [59]

    R. F. Webbink, Double white dwarfs as progenitors of R Coronae Borealis stars and type I supernovae., ApJ277, 355 (1984)

    1984

  52. [60]

    Toonen and G

    S. Toonen and G. Nelemans, The effect of common- envelope evolution on the visible population of post- common-envelope binaries, A&A557, A87 (2013), arXiv:1309.0327 [astro-ph.SR]

    2013 arXiv

  53. [61]

    and the approach of Bonetti and Sesana [46], espe- 5 cially relevant for eccentric binaries. For each class of binaries, the SNR is calculated as SNR2 = Z h2 c f Snoise(f) dlnf ,(3) whereS noise(fn) is the detector PSD andh 2 c is the total characteristic strain of the signal,...

  54. [62]

    Korolet al., Prospects for detection of detached dou- ble white dwarf binaries with Gaia, LSST and LISA, MN- RAS470, 1894 (2017), arXiv:1703.02555 [astro-ph.HE]

    V. Korolet al., Prospects for detection of detached dou- ble white dwarf binaries with Gaia, LSST and LISA, MN- RAS470, 1894 (2017), arXiv:1703.02555 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Korolet al., Expected insights into Type Ia super- novae from LISA’s gravitational wave observations, A&A 691, A44 (2024), arXiv:2407.03935 [astro-ph.HE]

    V. Korolet al., Expected insights into Type Ia super- novae from LISA’s gravitational wave observations, A&A 691, A44 (2024), arXiv:2407.03935 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    E. S. Phinney, A Practical Theorem on Gravita- tional Wave Backgrounds, arXiv e-prints , astro (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0108028 [astro-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Madau and T

    P. Madau and T. Fragos, Radiation Backgrounds at Cos- mic Dawn: X-Rays from Compact Binaries, ApJ840, 39 (2017), arXiv:1606.07887 [astro-ph.GA]

    2017 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Hofman and G

    S. Hofman and G. Nelemans, On the uncertainty of the White Dwarf Astrophysical Gravitational Wave Background, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2407.10642 (2024), arXiv:2407.10642 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Boileauet al., Gravitational-Wave Background from Extragalactic Double White Dwarfs for LISA, arXiv e- prints , arXiv:2506.18390 (2025), arXiv:2506.18390 [gr- qc]

    G. Boileauet al., Gravitational-Wave Background from Extragalactic Double White Dwarfs for LISA, arXiv e- prints , arXiv:2506.18390 (2025), arXiv:2506.18390 [gr- qc]

    2025

  60. [68]

    Santamar ´ ıaet al., Matching post-Newtonian and nu- merical relativity waveforms: Systematic errors and a new phenomenological model for nonprecessing black hole binaries, Phys

    L. Santamar ´ ıaet al., Matching post-Newtonian and nu- merical relativity waveforms: Systematic errors and a new phenomenological model for nonprecessing black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D82, 064016 (2010)

    2010

  61. [69]

    L. S. Finn and K. S. Thorne, Gravitational waves from a compact star in a circular, inspiral orbit, in the equatorial plane of a massive, spinning black hole, as observed by LISA, Phys. Rev. D62, 124021 (2000)

    2000

  62. [70]

    Babaket al., The Mock LISA Data Challenges: from challenge 3 to challenge 4, Class

    S. Babaket al., The Mock LISA Data Challenges: from challenge 3 to challenge 4, Class. Quantum Grav.27, 084009 (2010), arXiv:0912.0548 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Sesana, Prospects for Multiband Gravitational-Wave Astronomy after GW150914, Phys

    A. Sesana, Prospects for Multiband Gravitational-Wave Astronomy after GW150914, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 231102 (2016), arXiv:1602.06951 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Franchiniet al., Emission signatures from sub- parsec post-Newtonian binaries embedded in circumbi- nary discs, A&A686, A288 (2024), arXiv:2401.10331 [astro-ph.HE]

    A. Franchiniet al., Emission signatures from sub- parsec post-Newtonian binaries embedded in circumbi- nary discs, A&A686, A288 (2024), arXiv:2401.10331 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Zhouet al., Subtracting compact binary foregrounds to search for subdominant gravitational-wave back- grounds in next-generation ground-based observatories, Phys

    B. Zhouet al., Subtracting compact binary foregrounds to search for subdominant gravitational-wave back- grounds in next-generation ground-based observatories, Phys. Rev. D108, 064040 (2023)

    2023

  66. [74]

    Sesana and F

    A. Sesana and F. M. Khan, Scattering experiments meet N-body - I. A practical recipe for the evolution of massive black hole binaries in stellar environments, MNRAS454, L66 (2015), arXiv:1505.02062 [astro-ph.GA]

    2015 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Bortolas, M

    E. Bortolas, M. Mapelli, and M. Spera, Star cluster dis- ruption by a massive black hole binary, MNRAS474, 1054 (2018), arXiv:1710.09418 [astro-ph.GA]

    2018 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Roediget al., Evolution of binary black holes in self gravitating discs

    C. Roediget al., Evolution of binary black holes in self gravitating discs. Dissecting the torques, A&A545, A127 (2012), arXiv:1202.6063 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Y. Tang, A. MacFadyen, and Z. Haiman, On the orbital evolution of supermassive black hole binaries with cir- cumbinary accretion discs, MNRAS469, 4258 (2017)

    2017

  70. [78]

    Spadaroet al., Stars or gas? Constraining the hard- ening processes of massive black-hole binaries with LISA, Phys

    A. Spadaroet al., Stars or gas? Constraining the hard- ening processes of massive black-hole binaries with LISA, Phys. Rev. D111, 023004 (2025), arXiv:2409.13011 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Mangiagliet al., Massive black hole binaries in LISA: Multimessenger prospects and electromag- netic counterparts, Phys

    A. Mangiagliet al., Massive black hole binaries in LISA: Multimessenger prospects and electromag- netic counterparts, Phys. Rev. D106, 103017 (2022), arXiv:2207.10678 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Haiman, Electromagnetic chirp of a compact binary black hole: A phase template for the gravitational wave inspiral, Phys

    Z. Haiman, Electromagnetic chirp of a compact binary black hole: A phase template for the gravitational wave inspiral, Phys. Rev. D96, 023004 (2017)

    2017

  73. [82]

    Madau, F

    P. Madau, F. Haardt, and M. Dotti, Super-critical Growth of Massive Black Holes from Stellar-mass Seeds, ApJ784, L38 (2014), arXiv:1402.6995 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Breiviket al., Distinguishing between Formation Channels for Binary Black Holes with LISA, ApJ830, L18 (2016), arXiv:1606.09558 [astro-ph.GA]

    K. Breiviket al., Distinguishing between Formation Channels for Binary Black Holes with LISA, ApJ830, L18 (2016), arXiv:1606.09558 [astro-ph.GA]

    2016 arXiv

  75. [84]

    V. Kalogeraet al., Deeper, Wider, Sharper: Next- Generation Ground-based Gravitational-Wave Observa- tions of Binary Black Holes, Bulletin of the AAS51, 242 (2019), arXiv:1903.09220 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Toubianaet al., Detectable Environmental Ef- fects in GW190521-like Black-Hole Binaries with LISA, Phys

    A. Toubianaet al., Detectable Environmental Ef- fects in GW190521-like Black-Hole Binaries with LISA, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 101105 (2021)

    2021

  77. [86]

    A. W. Criswellet al., Flexible Spectral Separation of Multiple Isotropic and Anisotropic Stochastic Gravi- tational Wave Backgrounds in LISA, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2508.20308 (2025), arXiv:2508.20308 [astro- ph.IM]

    2025 arXiv

  78. [2015]

    It was later joined in 2017 by the Advanced Virgo interferometer [3], located in Cascina, Italy, and in 2020 by the Kamioka Gravitational Wave Detector (KAGRA) [4], located in Gifu Prefecture, Japan. They initiated a global network of GW observatories targeting GWs in the freq...

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.