Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 3 cited by

L-shaped detector layouts give third-generation networks more power to detect circular polarization in the gravitational-wave background than triangular layouts, and current constraints make ET-only detection impossible.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 20:55 UTC pith:VFVJVK32

load-bearing objection Solid, useful ranking of third-gen detector networks for GWB circular polarization, with a real caveat: the design conclusions rest on constant polarization degree, and frequency-dependent Π could reshuffle the table. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2511.17422 v3 pith:VFVJVK32 submitted 2025-11-21 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

A battle of designs: triangular vs. L-shaped detectors and parity violation in the gravitational-wave background

Hannah Duval , Charles Badger , Mairi Sakellariadou , Jacopo Uggeri This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th
keywords gravitational-wave backgroundparity violationcircular polarizationEinstein TelescopeCosmic Explorerdetector network geometryoverlap reduction function
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper asks whether future ground-based gravitational-wave detectors can detect a parity-violating (circularly polarized) gravitational-wave background, and which detector layout is best suited for it. Comparing networks of one Einstein Telescope (triangular or L-shaped) with two Cosmic Explorer detectors, it finds that the network geometry — especially the ET design and orientation — controls sensitivity to circular polarization, with L-shaped ET designs consistently beating triangular ones. It also finds that, given current observational limits, ET alone cannot confidently detect a flat parity-violating background, so the Cosmic Explorers are essential. If correct, these results provide a practical guide for choosing third-generation detector designs when the goal is to probe parity-violating early-universe physics.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for a third-generation network combining one Einstein Telescope with two Cosmic Explorer detectors, the sensitivity to a parity-violating (circularly polarized) gravitational-wave background is governed primarily by the geometry of the detector layout, not by arm length or sheer number of interferometers. In particular, a network built from an L-shaped two-interferometer ET consistently achieves higher V-mode signal-to-noise and tighter constraints on the polarization degree Π than any of the triangular ET designs studied, because the L-shaped layouts have a non-vanishing chirality-sensitive overlap reduction function γ_V, whereas co-located triangular inter

What carries the argument

The central object is the overlap reduction function for the circular-polarization mode, γ_V, which quantifies how a pair of detectors responds to left- versus right-handed gravitational waves. The paper generalizes the power-law integrated sensitivity curve to this mode and uses it, together with signal-to-noise and Bayesian inference, to rank networks. The mechanism: γ_V nearly cancels for co-located, symmetric, triangular interferometers but is large for two separate L-shaped interferometers, so geometry determines whether a network can see parity violation.

Load-bearing premise

The ranking of detector networks assumes the degree of circular polarization of the background is the same at all frequencies; if it varies strongly with frequency, the networks could be reordered.

What would settle it

For a frequency-dependent polarization model, e.g., Π(f)∝f^n over the detection band, recompute the V-mode PI curves and SNRs for the four ET designs; if any triangular configuration ranks above the best L-shaped one, the claim that L-shaped geometry uniformly wins is refuted.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • An L-shaped ET plus Cosmic Explorers consistently achieves higher circular-polarization signal-to-noise than any triangular ET network across spectral indices from −3 to 3, and can exclude an unpolarized background (Π=0) at 95% confidence where a triangular network cannot.
  • ET alone — in every configuration studied — cannot confidently detect a flat parity-violating background under current observational constraints; the two CE detectors are a necessary part of the network.
  • The V-mode power-law integrated curves give a reliable fast proxy for full Bayesian detection thresholds (SNR ≈ 4 matches log Bayes factor ≈ 8), so design choices can be ranked without expensive parameter estimation.
  • Small asymmetries in a triangular ET improve its V-mode sensitivity, but not enough to close the gap with the L-shaped design.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The analysis assumes a constant polarization degree across frequencies; if a real parity-violating background has strongly frequency-dependent polarization, the network ranking could change because different designs have V-mode sensitivity peaking at different frequencies. Testing such models is a natural extension.
  • Because I-mode and V-mode sensitivity favor different configurations, optimizing a detector network for total gravitational-wave energy density does not automatically optimize it for parity-violation searches — a separate design criterion.
  • The identified threshold region (where an L-shaped network rules out Π=0 but a triangular one does not) gives a concrete target parameter space that future experiments could aim to reach, and a way to discriminate designs empirically.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper studies the detectability of a parity-violating gravitational-wave background with third-generation ground-based networks, comparing Einstein Telescope designs (triangular vs. two-L-shaped) in combination with two Cosmic Explorer detectors. It uses standard Stokes-parameter and overlap-reduction-function formalisms, extends power-law integrated sensitivity curves to the V-mode, and computes SNR-based rankings for power-law spectra with constant polarization degree. A Bayesian analysis of simulated signals for two extreme networks is used to validate the SNR proxy and to demonstrate that the L-shaped network can exclude the unpolarized hypothesis at 95% confidence where the triangular network cannot. The paper concludes that network geometry, especially the L-shaped ET design, dominates parity-violation sensitivity, that CE detectors are necessary, and that ET alone cannot confidently detect parity violation in a flat GWB given current LVK O4 constraints.

Significance. If the conclusions are robust, the paper provides concrete guidance for the ET/CE design choices relevant to circular-polarization science: an L-shaped ET appears preferred over a triangular ET, and CE is required for meaningful parity-violation detection. The work has practical value because it combines a fast SNR-based proxy with a Bayesian validation, and it extends the standard PI-curve method to the V-mode. The paper's strengths include a systematic ranking over spectral indices and network orientations, a transparent use of standard ORFs, and the explicit recovery of injected parameters within 1σ. The main caveat is that the general design recommendation is established only for the constant-polarization model; the robustness to frequency-dependent polarization is not tested, and the ET-alone claim relies on an external O4 limit whose mapping to the SNR contours is not shown.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, Fig. 1] The headline claim that parity-violation sensitivity is driven primarily by network geometry is demonstrated only under the assumption Π(f)=const, adopted in Section III. The V-mode SNR is a frequency integral weighted by the signal spectrum and Π(f), and the V-mode PI curves in Fig. 1 have network-dependent frequency shapes: (SR)3(PY)3 is best below about 20 Hz, while (SR)1(PY)1 is best above 25 Hz. A strongly frequency-dependent Π(f) could emphasize the band where a different network is relatively strongest. The paper explicitly notes that the framework can be generalized to a frequency-dependent power-law Π(f) model, but it does not test such a model. Please add a robustness study with representative frequency-dependent Π(f) forms and, if the ranking is not universal, soften the abstract and conclusions accordingly.
  2. [Appendix A / Abstract] The statement that ET alone cannot confidently detect parity violation in a flat GWB is presented as a consequence of current LVK constraints [40], but the mapping from that upper limit to the SNR contours in Fig. 6 is not given. To make the claim checkable, state the exact limit used (reference frequency, spectral index, and whether the bound is on Ωα, |Π|, or a derived product) and show its curve or numerical value in the figure. Without this information, the abstract's corollary cannot be independently verified.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section I] Typo: 'dualtheoretical' should be 'dual theoretical' (in the phrase 'dualtheoretical(based on signal-to-noise ratio)').
  2. [Abstract / Section III] The term 'flat GWB' is jargon; define it at first use as a power-law spectrum with α=0.
  3. [Eq. (2)] The ratio γ_V^{d1d2}/γ_I^{d1d2} is undefined where γ_I^{d1d2}=0. State how such frequencies are handled in the numerical calculation, or restrict the discussion to bands where γ_I is nonzero.
  4. [Tables II and III] The α column groupings are garbled in the text (e.g., '1 , 2 , 2 | 3 ,1,2 3'). Use clear column headers such as α = -3,-2; α = -1,0; α = 1/2, 2/3, 1, 2; α = 3.
  5. [Section V B 2, Fig. 3] The quoted '95% UL' on Π is ambiguous: for the 2L network the upper limit is -0.238, while for the triangular network it is 0.233. Please state explicitly whether these are endpoints of the 95% credible interval and give both endpoints.
  6. [Section V B 1] The paper says 1600 injections are generated per fixed α, but the prior on α in Table IV is a Gaussian. Clarify how the α values for injections are chosen and how the prior is used in the search.
  7. [Section II / Fig. 1] The V-mode PI curve Ω_PI,V is introduced as an extension of the standard procedure, but the defining equation is not shown. Provide the explicit definition or a direct reference so the reader can reproduce the curves without reverse-engineering them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the network ranking follows from independently computed overlap reduction functions; self-citations are ancillary.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—2L ET designs outperform triangular ET for parity-violation sensitivity—is computed from the V-mode overlap reduction functions gamma_V (Eq. 4) and the resulting PI curves and SNRs (Secs. III-V). No parameter is fitted to the quantity being 'predicted'. The Bayesian analysis validates the SNR proxy against simulated injections, which tests internal consistency rather than establishing a circular reduction. The assumption Pi(f)=const is explicitly adopted and acknowledged as generalizable in Sec. III; it is a modeling limitation, not a definitional identity with the conclusion. Self-citations [37,38] provide a power-law parameterization and a prior expectation about triangular ET V-mode weakness; the latter is independently reproduced in the paper's own Fig. 1 and supported by external references [35,41], so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The ET-only exclusion using LVK constraints [40] is an external benchmark. No step reduces an output to an input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The ranking and ET-alone exclusion rest entirely on standard detector-response formalism plus an assumed power-law, constant-Π model, and external noise curves and constraints. No ad hoc constants are fitted to make the central claim work; model parameters (Ω_α, α, Π) are scanned rather than fitted. The only new object, the V-mode PI curve, is a derived quantity rather than an invented entity.

axioms (5)
  • standard math Stokes I/V formalism and overlap reduction functions (Eqs. 1-4) fully characterize the detector-pair response to a polarized GWB.
    Standard results from Seto & Taruya and Romano & Cornish (refs. [41,43,44]); used to define PI curves and SNRs.
  • domain assumption The GWB is modeled as a power law Ω_GW = Ω_α (f/f_ref)^α with f_ref = 25 Hz.
    Section III; captures common early-universe models but not all spectra.
  • domain assumption Polarization degree Π(f) is constant across frequency.
    Section III; explicitly stated and acknowledged as generalizable, but not tested for frequency-dependent Π.
  • domain assumption Future detector designs and noise curves from refs. [48,49,50] represent the actual third-generation configurations.
    Used to define all seven networks; design sensitivities are targets, not measured data.
  • domain assumption LVK O4 constraints from ref. [40] correctly bound a parity-violating GWB.
    Basis for excluding ET-alone detection in Appendix A.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10651 in / 16936 out tokens · 167571 ms · 2026-08-03T20:55:55.476825+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the prospects for detecting a parity-violating gravitational-wave background (GWB) with third-generation ground-based detector networks. We focus on a network consisting of one Einstein Telescope (ET) and two Cosmic Explorer (CE) detectors. In our analysis we vary the ET design, detector orientations, and arm lengths, in order to assess the impact of geometry and scale on detection capabilities. We find that parity-violation sensitivity is driven primarily by network geometry. In particular, detector orientation has a substantial influence on sensitivity to circular polarization. Given current observational constraints from the fourth observing run of the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration, we find that ET alone cannot confidently detect parity-violation in a flat GWB.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.17422 by Charles Badger, Hannah Duval, Jacopo Uggeri, Mairi Sakellariadou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: PI sensitivity curves for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: SNRs for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Posterior distributions from Bayesian inference for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: PI curves sensitivity curves for I-mode (solid lines) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: SNRs for I-mode (solid lines) and V-mode (dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Squashed Pyramid Interferometer Network (SPIN): Direct Access to Chirality of Cosmological Gravitational Waves

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Pyramid interferometers use non-coplanar geometry to create a channel sensitive only to net helicity in the cosmological gravitational wave background while remaining blind to the unpolarized component.

  2. Squashed Pyramid Interferometer Network (SPIN): Direct Access to Chirality of Cosmological Gravitational Waves

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    The Squashed Pyramid Interferometer Network uses a non-coplanar configuration to directly access the chirality of cosmological gravitational waves.

  3. Constraining primordial non-Gaussianity and parity-violation through Scalar-Induced Gravitational Waves with next-generation ground-based interferometers

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    ET+CE forecast: injected SIGW parameters (A_p, f_peak, f_NL, tau_NL, parity-odd tau_tilde_NL) are recovered within 1-2 sigma despite an astrophysical foreground, but the chiral V-mode is sub-threshold (SNR 0.5-1.9).

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Figure 3 shows this comparison for the most optimistic ((SR) 3(PY)3) and most pessimistic (∆10(PY)5) network configurations for a flat GWB spectrum

    Comparison to signal-to-noise We compare the recovered data-analysis Bayes factors to theI- andV-mode SNRs for all injections. Figure 3 shows this comparison for the most optimistic ((SR) 3(PY)3) and most pessimistic (∆10(PY)5) network configurations for a flat GWB spectrum. More concretely, it shows the SNRs along- side the log Bayes factors for a polari...

  2. [2]

    Unlocking the Dark Universe with Gravitational Wave Observations: from Quan- tum Optics to Quantum Gravity

    Parameter estimation We perform a Bayesian analysis to assess parameter re- covery of simulated parity-violating GWBs for the most opti- mistic, (SR)3(PY)3 and most pessimistic,∆ 10(PY)5, network configurations. From the marginalized posteriors, we com- pute the 95% Upper Limits (UL) and Lower Limits (LL) on Π, allowing us to makeΠ = 0exclusion analyses. ...

  3. [3]

    L. P. Grishchuk, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.67, 825 (1974)

    1974

  4. [4]

    A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett.30, 682 (1979)

    1979

  5. [5]

    Badger, H

    C. Badger, H. Duval, T. Fujita, S. Kuroyanagi, A. Romero- Rodr´ıguez, and M. Sakellariadou, Phys. Rev. D110, 084063 (2024), arXiv:2406.11742 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D49, 2837 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9310044

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  7. [7]

    Apreda, M

    R. Apreda, M. Maggiore, A. Nicolis, and A. Riotto, Nucl. Phys. B631, 342 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0107033

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  8. [8]

    Grojean and G

    C. Grojean and G. Servant, Phys. Rev. D75, 043507 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0607107

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  9. [9]

    Romero, K

    A. Romero, K. Martinovic, T. A. Callister, H.-K. Guo, M. Mart´ınez, M. Sakellariadou, F.-W. Yang, and Y . Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 151301 (2021), arXiv:2102.01714 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    Badger et al., Phys

    C. Badger et al., Phys. Rev. D107, 023511 (2023), arXiv:2209.14707 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Auclair et al., JCAP04, 034 (2020), arXiv:1909.00819 [astro-ph.CO]

    P. Auclair et al., JCAP04, 034 (2020), arXiv:1909.00819 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D64, 064008 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0104026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  13. [13]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 241102 (2021), arXiv:2101.12248 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Aasi et al

    J. Aasi et al. (LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  16. [16]

    Acernese et al

    F. Acernese et al. (VIRGO), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  17. [17]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.20721 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    S. H. S. Alexander, M. E. Peskin, and M. M. Sheikh- Jabbari, Physical Review Letters96(2006), 10.1103/phys- revlett.96.081301

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2006

  19. [19]

    Satoh, S

    M. Satoh, S. Kanno, and J. Soda, Physical Review D77(2008), 10.1103/physrevd.77.023526

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.023526 2008

  20. [20]

    Bartolo, L

    N. Bartolo, L. Caloni, G. Orlando, and A. Ricciardone, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021, 073 (2021)

    2021

  21. [21]

    Takahashi and J

    T. Takahashi and J. Soda, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 231301 (2009)

    2009

  22. [22]

    Barnaby and M

    N. Barnaby and M. Peloso, Physical Review Letters106(2011), 10.1103/physrevlett.106.181301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.181301 2011

  23. [23]

    Dimastrogiovanni and M

    E. Dimastrogiovanni and M. Peloso, Physical Review D87 (2013), 10.1103/physrevd.87.103501

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.103501 2013

  24. [24]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky, and M. S. Turner, Physical Review D49, 2837–2851 (1994)

    1994

  25. [25]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D30, 272 (1984)

    1984

  26. [26]

    C. J. Hogan, MNRAS218, 629 (1986)

    1986

  27. [27]

    Brandenburg, K

    A. Brandenburg, K. Enqvist, and P. Olesen, Physical Review D 54, 1291–1300 (1996)

    1996

  28. [28]

    Christensson, M

    M. Christensson, M. Hindmarsh, and A. Brandenburg, Physical Review E64(2001), 10.1103/physreve.64.056405

    doi:10.1103/physreve.64.056405 2001

  29. [29]

    Kahniashvili, A

    T. Kahniashvili, A. Brandenburg, A. G. Tevzadze, and B. Ratra, Physical Review D81(2010), 10.1103/physrevd.81.123002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.123002 2010

  30. [30]

    Brandenburg, T

    A. Brandenburg, T. Kahniashvili, S. Mandal, A. R. Pol, A. G. Tevzadze, and T. Vachaspati, Physical Review Fluids4(2019), 10.1103/physrevfluids.4.024608

    doi:10.1103/physrevfluids.4.024608 2019

  31. [31]

    Brandenburg, Y

    A. Brandenburg, Y . He, T. Kahniashvili, M. Rheinhardt, and J. Schober, (2021), arXiv:2101.08178 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    Crowder, R

    S. Crowder, R. Namba, V . Mandic, S. Mukohyama, and M. Peloso, Physics Letters B726, 66–71 (2013)

    2013

  33. [33]

    Seto, Phys

    N. Seto, Phys. Rev. D75, 061302 (2007)

    2007

  34. [34]

    Ricciardone, Journal of Physics: Conference Series840, 012030 (2017)

    A. Ricciardone, Journal of Physics: Conference Series840, 012030 (2017)

    2017

  35. [35]

    Orlando, M

    G. Orlando, M. Pieroni, and A. Ricciardone, Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics2021, 069 (2021)

    2021

  36. [36]

    Bartolo, V

    N. Bartolo, V . Domcke, D. G. Figueroa, J. Garc ´ıa-Bellido, M. Peloso, M. Pieroni, A. Ricciardone, M. Sakellari- adou, L. Sorbo, and G. Tasinato, JCAP11, 034 (2018), arXiv:1806.02819 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [37]

    Domcke, J

    V . Domcke, J. Garc´ıa-Bellido, M. Peloso, M. Pieroni, A. Ric- ciardone, L. Sorbo, and G. Tasinato, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020, 028–028 (2020)

    2020

  38. [38]

    P. Xu, Z. Wang, and L.-E. Qiang, Physics Letters B789, 378 (2019)

    2019

  39. [39]

    Martinovic, C

    K. Martinovic, C. Badger, M. Sakellariadou, and V . Mandic, Phys. Rev. D104, L081101 (2021), arXiv:2103.06718 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Badger and M

    C. Badger and M. Sakellariadou, (2021), arXiv:2112.04650 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    N. M. J. Cruz, A. Malhotra, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, Phys. Rev. D110, 103505 (2024), arXiv:2406.04957 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2510.26848 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Seto and A

    N. Seto and A. Taruya, Phys. Rev. D77, 103001 (2008), arXiv:0801.4185 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  44. [44]

    Thrane and J

    E. Thrane and J. D. Romano, Phys. Rev. D88, 124032 (2013), arXiv:1310.5300 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  45. [45]

    Seto and A

    N. Seto and A. Taruya, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 121101 (2007)

    2007

  46. [46]

    J. D. Romano and N. J. Cornish, Living Reviews in Relativity 20(2017), 10.1007/s41114-017-0004-1

    doi:10.1007/s41114-017-0004-1 2017

  47. [47]

    Caporali and A

    I. Caporali and A. Ricciardone, (2025), arXiv:2507.15791 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Maleknejad, JHEP07, 104 (2016), arXiv:1604.03327 [hep- ph]

    A. Maleknejad, JHEP07, 104 (2016), arXiv:1604.03327 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  49. [49]

    Kahniashvili, G

    T. Kahniashvili, G. Gogoberidze, and B. Ratra, Physical Re- view Letters95(2005), 10.1103/physrevlett.95.151301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.151301 2005

  50. [50]

    Ebersold, T

    M. Ebersold, T. Regimbau, and N. Christensen, Phys. Rev. D 110, 122006 (2024), arXiv:2408.06032 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    ET sensitivity curves used for CoBA science study,

    S. Danilishin and T. Zhang, “ET sensitivity curves used for CoBA science study,” (2023)

    2023

  52. [52]

    Fulda, L

    P. Fulda, L. Barsotti, M. Evans, and K. Kuns, CE Document T2000017-v8 (2023)

    2023

  53. [53]

    A. I. Renzini et al., J. Open Source Softw.9, 5454 (2024)

    2024

  54. [54]

    Ashton et al., Astrophys

    G. Ashton et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl.241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  55. [55]

    Martinovic, P

    K. Martinovic, P. M. Meyers, M. Sakellariadou, and N. Chris- tensen, Phys. Rev. D103, 043023 (2021), arXiv:2011.05697 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  56. [56]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, A. Adams, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V . B. Adya, C. Affeldt, D. Agarwal, and et. al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D104, 022004 (2021). 7 Appendix A: Discussion on Einstein Telescope alone We briefly assess the detection prospects of a ...

    2021