pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.23835 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-26 · ⚛️ physics.ins-det · physics.optics· quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Squeezed state degradations due to mode mismatch and thermal aberrations in gravitational wave detectors

Daniel Brown, Kevin Kuns

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 04:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.ins-det physics.opticsquant-ph
keywords mode mismatchthermal aberrationssqueezed lightgravitational wave detectorsquantum noisefrequency dependenceinterferometer optics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Thermal aberrations create two frequency-dependent types of mode mismatch that degrade squeezed states in gravitational wave detectors.

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

The paper identifies two kinds of internal mode mismatch caused by thermal aberrations in the test mass optics. Mismatch from the quadratic part of the wavefront shows low-pass frequency dependence in its effect on squeezed light, while mismatch from higher-order aberrations shows high-pass dependence. This split determines which degradations matter most in present detectors versus those planned with higher power and longer arms. A clear picture of these dynamics is needed to reach the 10 dB squeezing goal and to maintain sensitivity gains.

Core claim

The central claim is that the mismatch between the quadratic component of the wavefronts of two optical modes due to thermal aberrations exhibits low-pass frequency dependence in its degradation of squeezed states, whereas the mismatch from all higher-order thermal aberrations shows high-pass behavior. As a result, the two sources produce different squeezing losses across frequency bands, with some effects already relevant for current detectors and others becoming important only for future instruments that use longer arms.

What carries the argument

The decomposition of thermal wavefront aberrations into a quadratic part and all higher-order parts, which produces the distinct low-pass versus high-pass dynamics of the resulting mode mismatch.

If this is right

  • Quadratic mismatch will limit squeezing performance at low frequencies in detectors operating today.
  • Higher-order aberrations will dominate degradation in future detectors that use longer arm cavities.
  • Characterization procedures can target separate frequency bands to isolate each mismatch type.
  • Thermal control systems can be designed to address the quadratic and higher-order components independently.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Frequency-dependent squeezing filters may need adjustment that accounts for arm length to compensate the differing mismatch behaviors.
  • Active thermal compensation could be optimized to suppress the mismatch component that is strongest in a given frequency band.
  • The same quadratic-versus-higher-order split may appear in other high-power optical systems that rely on squeezed light.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that thermal aberrations generated by absorbed circulating arm power dominate internal mismatch sources and that separating the quadratic wavefront term from higher-order terms fully captures the frequency-dependent degradation behavior.

What would settle it

Measurements of the squeezing degradation spectrum versus frequency in an operating detector that fail to show a clear low-pass component tied to quadratic mismatch and a high-pass component tied to higher-order aberrations would falsify the predicted dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.23835 by Daniel Brown, Kevin Kuns.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Coupled cavity equivalent to the differential arm motion of a gravitational wave detector. The ellipses and circles view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Coupled cavity signal flow diagram for the model of the fundamental and a single HOM described in Section view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Optical path length differences resulting from the view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Quantum noise budget for Cosmic Explorer with view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Direct mode mismatch loss for ∆w/w = 5 % and Prel = 100 mW along with both types of aberrations separately for LIGO A♯ using the parameters of Table II. The dashed lines do not include radiation pressure and correspond to the discussion in Section IV A 1 while the solid lines include radiation pressure as discussed in Section IV A 2. The low-pass nature of quadratic mismatch and high-pass nature of higher … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mode mismatch loss for Cosmic Explorer varying view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Squeezed state rotation around the first HOM arm view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Higher order mode resonances in CE for two different view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Broadband rotation of the squeezed state. The peaks view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A♯ quantum noise budget plotted as 10 log10[N(Ω)/Γ(Ω)] for the thermal state of view at source ↗
read the original abstract

To date, frequency-dependent squeezed light has been used to reduce quantum noise in interferometric gravitational wave detectors by 6.1 dB (a factor of two). Future upgrades and detectors aim to both reduce quantum noise by 10 dB (a factor of three) and to increase the circulating power in the interferometer arm cavities. Achieving these goals will be extremely challenging due, in part, to the degradations to the squeezed state caused by mode mismatch between the internal interferometer optical cavities and between the auxiliary external cavities. It is therefore imperative to gain a detailed understanding of all sources of mismatch and to obtain experience in mitigating their effects in the current detectors in order to improve astrophysical sensitivity now and in the future. Two types of internal mismatch are identified which are due to the thermal aberrations generated when the test mass optics absorb a small fraction of the circulating arm power. It is found that the dynamics responsible for the degradations caused by the mismatch between the quadratic part of the wavefront of two modes has a characteristic low-pass frequency dependence while the dynamics of the mismatch due to all higher order thermal aberrations has a high-pass behavior. As a consequence, the two types of mismatch are predominantly responsible for different squeezing degradations -- some of which are significant for the current detectors and some of which will only be important for future detectors with longer arms. The behavior of these two types of internal mismatch are described and the implications for detector design, operation, and characterization are discussed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes mode-mismatch degradations to frequency-dependent squeezed light in gravitational-wave interferometers arising from thermal aberrations in the test-mass optics. It identifies two distinct internal mismatch mechanisms: quadratic wavefront mismatch (primarily curvature/defocus) whose squeezing degradation exhibits low-pass frequency dependence, and mismatch from all higher-order thermal aberrations whose degradation exhibits high-pass behavior. The paper discusses how these mechanisms dominate different squeezing loss channels at current versus future arm powers and arm lengths, and outlines implications for detector design, operation, and characterization.

Significance. If the reported frequency scalings hold, the work supplies a concrete, physically motivated framework for predicting and mitigating squeezing degradation as circulating power and arm length increase. This directly supports the community goal of reaching 10 dB squeezing while scaling arm power, and supplies testable signatures (low-pass versus high-pass roll-offs) that can be used in commissioning and in-situ characterization of current detectors.

major comments (2)
  1. [thermal aberration model and modal decomposition] The central claim—that quadratic wavefront mismatch produces low-pass dynamics while higher-order aberrations produce high-pass dynamics—rests on a clean modal decomposition without cross-terms. The manuscript must demonstrate (with explicit equations) that the projection of the thermal lens onto the fundamental mode does not mix low- and high-pass contributions via cavity filtering or Gouy-phase accumulation; otherwise the reported frequency scalings do not follow from the model.
  2. [assumptions and validity range] The analysis assumes thermal aberrations are linear in absorbed circulating power and that the quadratic/higher-order split accurately isolates the dynamics. The paper should quantify the size of any nonlinear or cross-term contributions (e.g., via the next-order term in the absorbed-power expansion) and show that they remain negligible across the power range considered for current and future detectors.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The abstract cites 6.1 dB and 10 dB squeezing targets; the introduction should explicitly reference the experimental papers that achieved these values so readers can trace the performance baseline.
  2. [figures and notation] Notation for the wavefront decomposition (quadratic coefficient versus higher-order coefficients) should be defined once in a dedicated subsection and used consistently; several figures would benefit from explicit labels indicating which curve corresponds to the quadratic component.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and insightful comments, which help clarify key aspects of our analysis. We address each major point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [thermal aberration model and modal decomposition] The central claim—that quadratic wavefront mismatch produces low-pass dynamics while higher-order aberrations produce high-pass dynamics—rests on a clean modal decomposition without cross-terms. The manuscript must demonstrate (with explicit equations) that the projection of the thermal lens onto the fundamental mode does not mix low- and high-pass contributions via cavity filtering or Gouy-phase accumulation; otherwise the reported frequency scalings do not follow from the model.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee drawing attention to this foundational element of the model. In our analysis the thermal aberration is decomposed into orthogonal components (quadratic defocus versus higher-order terms) via overlap integrals with the cavity eigenmodes. The frequency scalings then follow from the distinct coupling of these components to the frequency-dependent squeezed vacuum: quadratic mismatch produces an effective low-pass filter through amplitude coupling, while higher-order terms produce high-pass behavior via phase and Gouy-phase-induced mode conversion. To make the absence of cross-mixing explicit, we will add the relevant overlap-integral equations and a short derivation showing that cavity filtering (a common frequency-dependent operator) and Gouy-phase accumulation do not introduce leading-order mixing between the quadratic and higher-order projections in the paraxial regime used throughout the paper. These equations will be inserted in Section III of the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [assumptions and validity range] The analysis assumes thermal aberrations are linear in absorbed circulating power and that the quadratic/higher-order split accurately isolates the dynamics. The paper should quantify the size of any nonlinear or cross-term contributions (e.g., via the next-order term in the absorbed-power expansion) and show that they remain negligible across the power range considered for current and future detectors.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit bound on the linear approximation is valuable. The manuscript adopts the standard linear scaling of thermal aberrations with absorbed power, appropriate for the low absorption levels of fused-silica test masses. In the revision we will add a short calculation of the next-order (quadratic) term in the absorbed-power expansion, using representative absorption coefficients and thermo-optic constants. We will show that, for the arm powers and lengths considered (hundreds of kW to a few MW for current detectors; several MW for future detectors), the nonlinear contribution remains below a few percent and does not alter the reported low-pass versus high-pass scalings. This estimate will be placed in a new paragraph in Section II. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: frequency-dependent mismatch dynamics derived from independent optical modeling

full rationale

The paper models thermal aberrations in GW detectors by decomposing wavefront mismatches into quadratic (curvature) and higher-order components, then derives their distinct low-pass versus high-pass frequency responses in squeezing degradation from the underlying cavity dynamics and thermal lens effects. No equations or claims reduce by construction to fitted parameters, self-definitions, or self-citation chains; the separation and resulting behaviors follow from standard modal analysis and linear thermal absorption assumptions that remain externally falsifiable. The derivation is self-contained against benchmarks of interferometer optics and does not rely on renaming known results or importing uniqueness from prior author work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on standard optical-physics assumptions about thermal lensing and mode overlap; without the full text no additional free parameters or invented entities can be identified.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Thermal aberrations are generated when test mass optics absorb a small fraction of the circulating arm power.
    Explicitly stated in the abstract as the origin of the two mismatch types.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5567 in / 1214 out tokens · 40373 ms · 2026-05-08T04:53:16.352305+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Rotation, loss, and dephasing As can be seen from Fig. 4, the most prominent degrada- tion around a higher order mode resonance for reasonable values of mismatch for Cosmic Explorer is due to the anti-squeezing caused by the squeezed state rotation. For more extreme values of mismatch, the dephasing can be- come even more significant but can no longer be ...

  2. [2]

    The FSR is the difference in frequencies between resonances of the fundamental mode, and the TMS is the frequency difference between HOM resonances

    Placement of higher order mode resonances In the absence of thermal aberrations and apertures, a higher order mode of order N will become resonant in the arm cavities around frequencies [31] δωa =|pN ω tms −qω fsr|=ω fsr pN Ψa π −q (56a) ωtms =ω fsr Ψa π , ω fsr = πc La (56b) for integers p and q where ωfsr is the free spectral range (FSR), ωtms is the tr...

  3. [3]

    mis- rotation

    Use in tuning and characterizing detectors It may be possible to take advantage of these squeezed state degradations around a HOM arm cavity resonance by carefully measuring them in order to characterize the detector state and tune the interferometer for better mode matching. It is possible to measure the McCuller metrics directly using an audio diagnosti...

  4. [4]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), GWTC-4.0: An Introduction to Version 4.0 of the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog, Astrophys. J. Lett. 995, L18 (2025), arXiv:2508.18080 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neu- tron Star Inspiral, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Capoteet al., Advanced LIGO detector performance in the fourth observing run, Phys

    E. Capoteet al., Advanced LIGO detector performance in the fourth observing run, Phys. Rev. D111, 062002 (2025), arXiv:2411.14607 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Barsotti, J

    L. Barsotti, J. Harms, and R. Schnabel, Squeezed vacuum states of light for gravitational wave detectors, Rept. Prog. Phys.82, 016905 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    Tseet al., Quantum-Enhanced Advanced LIGO Detec- tors in the Era of Gravitational-Wave Astronomy, Phys

    M. Tseet al., Quantum-Enhanced Advanced LIGO Detec- tors in the Era of Gravitational-Wave Astronomy, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 231107 (2019)

    2019

  9. [9]

    Acerneseet al.(Virgo), Increasing the Astrophysical Reach of the Advanced Virgo Detector via the Application of Squeezed Vacuum States of Light, Phys

    F. Acerneseet al.(Virgo), Increasing the Astrophysical Reach of the Advanced Virgo Detector via the Application of Squeezed Vacuum States of Light, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 231108 (2019)

    2019

  10. [10]

    Grote, K

    H. Grote, K. Danzmann, K. L. Dooley, R. Schnabel, J. Slutsky, and H. Vahlbruch, First Long-Term Appli- cation of Squeezed States of Light in a Gravitational- Wave Observatory, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 181101 (2013), arXiv:1302.2188 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2013

  11. [11]

    Loughet al., First Demonstration of 6 dB Quan- tum Noise Reduction in a Kilometer Scale Gravitational Wave Observatory, Phys

    J. Loughet al., First Demonstration of 6 dB Quan- tum Noise Reduction in a Kilometer Scale Gravitational Wave Observatory, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 041102 (2021), arXiv:2005.10292 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Ganapathyet al.(LIGO O4 Detector), Broadband Quantum Enhancement of the LIGO Detectors with Frequency-Dependent Squeezing, Phys

    D. Ganapathyet al.(LIGO O4 Detector), Broadband Quantum Enhancement of the LIGO Detectors with Frequency-Dependent Squeezing, Phys. Rev. X13, 041021 (2023)

    2023

  13. [13]

    McCulleret al., Frequency-Dependent Squeezing for Advanced LIGO, Phys

    L. McCulleret al., Frequency-Dependent Squeezing for Advanced LIGO, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 171102 (2020), arXiv:2003.13443 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Zhaoet al., Frequency-Dependent Squeezed Vacuum Source for Broadband Quantum Noise Reduction in Ad- vanced Gravitational-Wave Detectors, Phys

    Y. Zhaoet al., Frequency-Dependent Squeezed Vacuum Source for Broadband Quantum Noise Reduction in Ad- vanced Gravitational-Wave Detectors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 171101 (2020), arXiv:2003.10672 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    McCulleret al., LIGO’s quantum response to squeezed states, Phys

    L. McCulleret al., LIGO’s quantum response to squeezed states, Phys. Rev. D104, 062006 (2021), arXiv:2105.12052 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    P. Kwee, J. Miller, T. Isogai, L. Barsotti, and M. Evans, Decoherence and degradation of squeezed states in quan- tum filter cavities, Phys. Rev. D90, 062006 (2014), arXiv:1704.03531 [physics.optics]

    work page arXiv 2014

  17. [17]

    Hello and J.-Y

    P. Hello and J.-Y. Vinet, Analytical models of thermal aberrations in massive mirrors heated by high power laser beams, Journal de Physique51, 1267–1282 (1990)

    1990

  18. [18]

    Hello and J.-Y

    P. Hello and J.-Y. Vinet, Analytical models of transient thermoelastic deformations of mirrors heated by high power cw laser beams, J. Phys. France51, 2243 (1990)

    1990

  19. [19]

    Vinet, On special optical modes and thermal issues in advanced gravitational wave interferometric detectors, Living Rev

    J.-Y. Vinet, On special optical modes and thermal issues in advanced gravitational wave interferometric detectors, Living Rev. Rel.12, 5 (2009)

    2009

  20. [20]

    W. Jiaet al.(members of the LIGO Scientific†), Squeezing the quantum noise of a gravitational-wave detector below the standard quantum limit, Science385, ado8069 (2024), arXiv:2404.14569 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Post-O5 Study Group,Report of the LSC Post-O5 Study Group, Technical Note LIGO-T2200287 (2023)

    2023

  22. [22]

    The VIRGO Collaboration,Virgo nEXT: Beyond the AdV+ project A concept study, Technical Note VIR-0497A- 22 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community

    M. Evanset al., A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community, arXiV (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    ET Steering Committee,ET Design Report Update 2020, Tech. Rep. ET-0007A-20 (Einstein Telescope, 2020)

    2020

  25. [25]

    Mizuno, K

    J. Mizuno, K. A. Strain, P. G. Nelson, J. M. Chen, R. Schilling, A. R¨ udiger, W. Winkler, and K. Danzmann, Resonant sideband extraction: a new configuration for in- terferometric gravitational wave detectors, Physics Letters A175, 273 (1993)

    1993

  26. [26]

    B. J. Meers, Recycling in laser-interferometric gravitational-wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D38, 2317 (1988)

    1988

  27. [27]

    C. M. Caves and B. L. Schumaker, New formalism for two-photon quantum optics. 1. Quadrature phases and squeezed states, Phys. Rev. A31, 3068 (1985)

    1985

  28. [28]

    S. L. Danilishin and F. Y. Khalili, Quantum Measurement Theory in Gravitational-Wave Detectors, Living Rev. Rel. 15, 5 (2012), arXiv:1203.1706 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2012

  29. [29]

    B. J. Meers and K. A. Strain, Wave-front distortion in laser-interferometric gravitational-wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D43, 3117 (1991)

    1991

  30. [30]

    B. Bochner, Simulating a Dual-Recycled Gravitational Wave Interferometer with Realistically Imperfect Op- tics, General Relativity and Gravitation35, 1029 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0306133 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2003

  31. [31]

    Granata, A

    M. Granata, A. Amato, L. Balzarini, M. Canepa, J. De- gallaix, D. Forest, V. Dolique, L. Mereni, C. Michel, L. Pinard, B. Sassolas, J. Teillon, and G. Cagnoli, Amor- phous optical coatings of present gravitational-wave inter- ferometers, Classical and Quantum Gravity37, 095004 (2020), arXiv:1909.03737 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    K. A. Strain, K. Danzmann, J. Mizuno, P. G. Nelson, A. R¨ udiger, R. Schilling, and W. Winkler, Thermal lensing in recycling interferometric gravitational wave detectors, Physics Letters A194, 124–132 (1994)

    1994

  33. [33]

    Winkler, K

    W. Winkler, K. Danzmann, A. Ruediger, and R. Schilling, Heating by optical absorption and the performance of interferometric gravitational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. A44, 7022 (1991)

    1991

  34. [34]

    A. E. Siegman,Lasers(1986)

    1986

  35. [35]

    C. Bond, D. Brown, A. Freise, and K. A. Strain, Interfer- ometer techniques for gravitational-wave detection, Living Reviews in Relativity19, 3 (2016)

    2016

  36. [36]

    Perreca, A

    A. Perreca, A. Brooks, J. Richardson, D. Toyra, and R. Smith, Analysis and visualization of the output mode- matching requirements for squeezing in Advanced LIGO and future gravitational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 101, 102005 (2020), arXiv:2001.10132 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    A. F. Brookset al.(aLIGO), Overview of Advanced LIGO Adaptive Optics, Appl. Opt.55, 8256 (2016), arXiv:1608.02934 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2016

  38. [38]

    Rocchi, E

    A. Rocchi, E. Coccia, V. Fafone, V. Malvezzi, Y. Mi- nenkov, and L. Sperandio, Thermal effects and their com- pensation in advanced Virgo, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.363, 012016 (2012)

    2012

  39. [39]

    A. W. Goodwin-Jones, R. Cabrita, M. Korobko, M. Van Beuzekom, D. D. Brown, V. Fafone, J. Van Heijningen, A. Rocchi, M. G. Schiworski, and M. Tacca, Transverse mode control in quantum enhanced interferometers: a review and recommendations for a new generation, Optica 11, 273 (2024), arXiv:2311.04736 [physics.optics]. 35

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    C. M. Caves, Quantum Mechanical Noise in an Interfer- ometer, Phys. Rev. D23, 1693 (1981)

    1981

  41. [41]

    Caves, Quantum-Mechanical Radiation-Pressure Fluc- tuations in an Interferometer, Phys

    C. Caves, Quantum-Mechanical Radiation-Pressure Fluc- tuations in an Interferometer, Phys. Rev. Lett.45, 75 (1980)

    1980

  42. [42]

    Buonanno and Y.-b

    A. Buonanno and Y.-b. Chen, Quantum noise in second generation, signal recycled laser interferometric gravita- tional wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D64, 042006 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0102012

    work page arXiv 2001

  43. [43]

    H. Miao, N. D. Smith, and M. Evans, Quantum Limit for Laser Interferometric Gravitational-Wave Detectors from Optical Dissipation, Physical Review X9, 011053 (2019), arXiv:1807.11734 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  44. [44]

    H. J. Kimble, Y. Levin, A. B. Matsko, K. S. Thorne, and S. P. Vyatchanin, Conversion of conventional gravitational-wave interferometers into quantum nonde- molition interferometers by modifying their input and/or output optics, Phys. Rev. D65, 022002 (2001), arXiv:gr- qc/0008026 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2001

  45. [45]

    Bachor and T

    H.-A. Bachor and T. C. Ralph,A Guide to Experiments in Quantum Optics, 2nd, Revised and Enlarged Edition (2004)

    2004

  46. [46]

    Ganapathy, L

    D. Ganapathy, L. McCuller, J. Graef Rollins, E. D. Hall, L. Barsotti, and M. Evans, Tuning Advanced LIGO to kilohertz signals from neutron-star collisions, Phys. Rev. D103, 022002 (2021), arXiv:2010.15735 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific), Calibration of the Advanced LIGO detectors for the discovery of the binary black-hole merger GW150914, Phys. Rev. D95, 062003 (2017), arXiv:1602.03845 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2017

  48. [48]

    Rakhmanov, J

    M. Rakhmanov, J. D. Romano, and J. T. Whelan, High- frequency corrections to the detector response and their effect on searches for gravitational waves, Class. Quant. Grav.25, 184017 (2008), arXiv:0808.3805 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2008

  49. [49]

    Essick, S

    R. Essick, S. Vitale, and M. Evans, Frequency-dependent responses in third generation gravitational-wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D96, 084004 (2017), arXiv:1708.06843 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2017

  50. [50]

    Srivastava, D

    V. Srivastava, D. Davis, K. Kuns, P. Landry, S. Ballmer, M. Evans, E. D. Hall, J. Read, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Science-driven Tunable Design of Cosmic Explorer De- tectors, Astrophys. J.931, 22 (2022), arXiv:2201.10668 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    Martynovet al., Exploring the sensitivity of gravita- tional wave detectors to neutron star physics, Phys

    D. Martynovet al., Exploring the sensitivity of gravita- tional wave detectors to neutron star physics, Phys. Rev. D99, 102004 (2019), arXiv:1901.03885 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2019

  52. [52]

    Ackleyet al., Neutron Star Extreme Matter Obser- vatory: A kilohertz-band gravitational-wave detector in the global network, Publ

    K. Ackleyet al., Neutron Star Extreme Matter Obser- vatory: A kilohertz-band gravitational-wave detector in the global network, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.37, e047 (2020), arXiv:2007.03128 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  53. [53]

    T¨ oyr¨ a, D

    D. T¨ oyr¨ a, D. D. Brown, M. Davis, S. Song, A. Wormald, J. Harms, H. Miao, and A. Freise, Multi-spatial-mode effects in squeezed-light-enhanced interferometric gravita- tional wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D96, 022006 (2017), arXiv:1704.08237 [physics.optics]

    work page arXiv 2017

  54. [54]

    Ganapathy, V

    D. Ganapathy, V. Xu, W. Jia, C. Whittle, M. Tse, L. Bar- sotti, M. Evans, and L. McCuller, Probing squeezing for gravitational-wave detectors with an audio-band field, Phys. Rev. D105, 122005 (2022), arXiv:2203.03849 [astro- ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    Buonanno and Y

    A. Buonanno and Y. Chen, Signal recycled laser inter- ferometer gravitational wave detectors as optical springs, Phys. Rev. D65, 042001 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0107021

    work page arXiv 2002

  56. [56]

    Srivastavaet al., Piezo-deformable mirrors for active mode matching in advanced LIGO, Opt

    V. Srivastavaet al., Piezo-deformable mirrors for active mode matching in advanced LIGO, Opt. Express30, 10491 (2022), arXiv:2110.00674 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    H. T. Cao, S. W. S. Ng, M. Noh, A. Brooks, F. Matichard, and P. J. Veitch, Enhancing the dynamic range of de- formable mirrors with compression bias, Optics Express 28, 38480 (2020)

    2020

  58. [58]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific), Exploring the Sen- sitivity of Next Generation Gravitational Wave Detectors, Class. Quant. Grav.34, 044001 (2017), arXiv:1607.08697 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2017

  59. [59]

    Arai,On the accumulated round-trip Gouy phase shift for a general optical cavity, Technical Note LIGO- T1300189 (2013)

    K. Arai,On the accumulated round-trip Gouy phase shift for a general optical cavity, Technical Note LIGO- T1300189 (2013)

    2013

  60. [60]

    D. D. Brown, A. Freise, H. T. Cao, A. Ciobanu, J. Gobeil, A. Green, P. Hapke, P. Jones, M. van der Kolk, K. Kuns, S. Leavey, J. W. Perry, S. Rowlinson, and M. Sall´ e, Finesse (2025)

    2025

  61. [61]

    A. F. Brookset al.(LIGO Scientific), Point ab- sorbers in Advanced LIGO, Appl. Opt.60, 4047 (2021), arXiv:2101.05828 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2021