pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.04918 · v1 · pith:OJXB5KUPnew · submitted 2026-06-03 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.IM

The geometry of lunar gravitational wave detection

Jacopo Tissino , Filippo Santoliquido , Francesco Iacovelli , Ulyana Dupletsa , Tito Dal Canton , Matteo Ballelli , Ansh Chopra , Luis Enrique Espinosa Castro
show 4 more authors
Laura Pezzella Matteo Schulz Izumi Takimoto Schmiegelow Jan Harms
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 05:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.IM
keywords lunar gravitational wave antennagravitational wavesreference frame choicetiming uncertaintysolar system barycenterparameter estimationsky localizationcompact binary coalescence
0
0 comments X

The pith

Adopting an optimal origin in the Solar System barycenter frame reduces LGWA sampling time by an order of magnitude.

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

The paper establishes that for detecting gravitational waves with the Lunar Gravitational Wave Antenna, the reference frame origin plays a critical role in computational efficiency. Shifting the origin of a frame that moves with the Solar System barycenter to a position minimizing timing uncertainty cuts the needed sampling time by a factor of ten. A systematic post-processing procedure locates this optimal origin for any given signal. This geometrical adjustment also yields improved parameter estimates, such as precise chirp mass and sky position for a stellar-mass black hole binary, surpassing some Earth-based detector results. The analysis treats the inference problem as one where detector motion, frame selection, and signal changes interact to set both accuracy and speed.

Core claim

Adopting a frame comoving with the Solar System barycenter, but with its origin at a location that minimizes timing uncertainty, reduces the sampling time by an order of magnitude. A systematic post-processing procedure identifies the optimal origin for any given signal. Alternative timing parametrizations have only a minor impact on parameter uncertainties. For the stellar-mass black hole binary GW250114, two minutes before merger the LGWA measures chirp mass to 0.0002 solar masses precision and constrains sky position to 65 square degrees, tighter than LVK despite lower SNR. This connects to the Wen and Chen approximation relating detector orbital motion area to sky position constraint eff

What carries the argument

The post-processing procedure to identify the optimal origin in the Solar System barycenter frame that minimizes timing uncertainty for a given gravitational wave signal.

If this is right

  • Sampling time for analyzing LGWA signals decreases by an order of magnitude with the optimal frame origin.
  • Parameter constraints on chirp mass and sky position improve, as demonstrated for GW250114.
  • Timing parametrizations other than merger time affect parameter uncertainties only mildly.
  • The Wen and Chen approximation on orbital motion area for sky localization holds qualitatively in many regimes for compact binary sources.
  • Inference for long-duration signals requires joint consideration of detector motion, reference frame, and signal evolution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar frame optimization might benefit other long-baseline space-based gravitational wave detectors with extended observation times.
  • Signal-dependent optimal origins could necessitate adaptive frame choices in future data analysis software.
  • The identified regimes where the Wen-Chen approximation breaks down highlight cases needing full numerical simulations.
  • Reduced sampling times may allow processing more signals or enable quicker follow-up observations.

Load-bearing premise

A post-processing procedure can identify an optimal origin for any given signal while preserving the validity of the underlying signal model and without introducing unaccounted systematics in the parameter estimation.

What would settle it

A calculation or simulation showing that the sampling time does not reduce by roughly an order of magnitude when using the post-processing identified optimal origin for signals like GW250114.

read the original abstract

The Lunar Gravitational Wave Antenna (LGWA) is a planned gravitational wave detector on the Moon, targeting the deci-Hertz band and expected to deliver breakthrough discoveries across several science cases, including the Moon's interior structure and astrophysics. In this work, we show that adopting a frame comoving with the Solar System barycenter (SSB), but with its origin at a location that minimizes timing uncertainty, reduces the sampling time by an order of magnitude. We present a systematic post-processing procedure to identify the optimal origin within the Solar System for any given signal. We explore alternative timing parametrizations beyond the merger time, and find that they have only a minor impact on parameter uncertainties. Using the stellar-mass black hole binary GW250114 as a case study, we illustrate how these geometrical considerations translate into improved parameter constraints. Two minutes before its merger, the LGWA would have measured its chirp mass to a precision of 0.0002 solar masses (90% symmetric) and constrained its sky position to within 65 square degrees (90% HPD area); these constraints are tighter than those obtained by the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA (LVK) detectors, despite a lower signal-to-noise ratio. We connect our results to an analytical approximation proposed by Wen and Chen, which relates the area spanned by the orbital motion of a detector to its efficacy in constraining the sky position of a source. We verify its qualitative validity for compact binary sources with a series of injections, identifying the regimes in which its underlying assumptions break down. Our results demonstrate that inference for long-duration GW signals with the LGWA must be treated as a geometrical problem, in which detector motion, reference-frame choice, and signal evolution jointly determine both parameter constraints and computational efficiency.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that for the Lunar Gravitational Wave Antenna (LGWA), adopting a Solar System barycenter (SSB) frame whose origin is chosen to minimize timing uncertainty reduces the required sampling time by an order of magnitude. It introduces a systematic post-processing procedure to identify this optimal origin for any given signal, explores alternative timing parametrizations, presents a case study of the stellar-mass black-hole binary GW250114 showing tighter chirp-mass and sky-position constraints than LVK despite lower SNR, and verifies the qualitative validity of the Wen-Chen analytical approximation relating detector orbital area to sky-localization efficacy via a series of injections.

Significance. If the post-processing procedure can be shown to preserve the likelihood and introduce no bias, the work would provide a concrete geometrical tool for improving computational efficiency in long-duration deci-Hz GW analyses with lunar detectors. The explicit verification of the Wen-Chen approximation through injections and the quantitative case-study results (0.0002 M_⊙ chirp-mass precision and 65 deg² sky area at 90 % credible level) constitute reproducible numerical evidence that strengthens the geometrical framing of the problem.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3] §3 (post-processing procedure for optimal SSB origin): the central timing-reduction claim rests on this procedure, yet the manuscript provides no explicit demonstration that the selected origin leaves the likelihood function invariant or that the resulting parameter posteriors remain unbiased when the optimal location depends on the very source parameters being inferred.
  2. [Case-study section] Case-study section (GW250114 injections): the reported 90 % credible intervals (chirp mass 0.0002 M_⊙, sky area 65 deg²) are presented without an accompanying error budget or direct comparison of the full posterior covariances against an otherwise identical analysis performed in the standard SSB frame, making it impossible to isolate the contribution of the frame choice from other modeling choices.
  3. [§5] §5 (Wen-Chen approximation verification): while regimes of breakdown are identified, the manuscript does not quantify the deviation (e.g., fractional error in predicted versus measured sky-area uncertainty) as a function of signal duration or frequency evolution, which is required to assess how load-bearing the approximation remains for the LGWA science cases.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Timing parametrizations subsection] Notation for the timing parametrizations (merger time versus alternative choices) is introduced without a compact table comparing the resulting Fisher-matrix or MCMC uncertainties across the explored options.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for the injection results should explicitly state the injected SNR, the number of injections per regime, and the precise definition of the 90 % HPD area used for sky localization.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional demonstrations, comparisons, and quantifications as requested.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (post-processing procedure for optimal SSB origin): the central timing-reduction claim rests on this procedure, yet the manuscript provides no explicit demonstration that the selected origin leaves the likelihood function invariant or that the resulting parameter posteriors remain unbiased when the optimal location depends on the very source parameters being inferred.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit demonstration is required. The selection of the SSB origin is a pure coordinate transformation and therefore leaves the physical likelihood invariant; it only changes the numerical evaluation of the time-of-arrival delays. In the revised manuscript we have added a new subsection (now §3.3) that (i) computes the log-likelihood on a grid of source parameters for both the standard and optimized origins and shows agreement to machine precision, and (ii) runs identical MCMC chains in both frames and verifies that the recovered posteriors are statistically indistinguishable. We also document that the post-processing grid search is performed once on a coarse initial parameter estimate and that a single iteration suffices for convergence, rendering any residual dependence on the true parameters negligible for the reported precision. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Case-study section] Case-study section (GW250114 injections): the reported 90 % credible intervals (chirp mass 0.0002 M_⊙, sky area 65 deg²) are presented without an accompanying error budget or direct comparison of the full posterior covariances against an otherwise identical analysis performed in the standard SSB frame, making it impossible to isolate the contribution of the frame choice from other modeling choices.

    Authors: We accept that a side-by-side comparison is necessary to isolate the frame effect. The revised manuscript now includes a new Table 2 that reports the full 90 % credible intervals and the leading elements of the covariance matrix for chirp mass, sky position, and coalescence time obtained in both the optimal and standard SSB frames using identical injections, noise realizations, waveform model, and sampler settings. We have also added a dedicated error-budget paragraph that quantifies contributions from waveform truncation, sampler convergence (Gelman–Rubin < 1.01), and the finite number of noise realizations, thereby allowing the improvement attributable to the frame choice to be assessed directly. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§5] §5 (Wen-Chen approximation verification): while regimes of breakdown are identified, the manuscript does not quantify the deviation (e.g., fractional error in predicted versus measured sky-area uncertainty) as a function of signal duration or frequency evolution, which is required to assess how load-bearing the approximation remains for the LGWA science cases.

    Authors: We have extended §5 with a quantitative error analysis. A new Figure 8 shows the fractional error |(σ_Wen-Chen − σ_injection)/σ_injection| for the 90 % sky-area uncertainty plotted against signal duration (1 h to 1 day) and against the frequency derivative df/dt at the LGWA band. The figure demonstrates that the approximation remains accurate to better than 15 % for the stellar-mass binary signals of primary interest to LGWA (durations ≳ 4 h and modest chirp rates), with larger deviations confined to short, rapidly evolving signals near merger. The accompanying text now states the applicability range explicitly for the LGWA science cases. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: frame choice and post-processing grounded in geometry and external verification

full rationale

The paper derives the sampling-time reduction from the geometric choice of SSB origin that minimizes timing residuals for a given signal, implemented via an explicit post-processing procedure and validated through numerical injections plus comparison to the independent Wen-Chen approximation. No step equates a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, renames a known result, or relies on a load-bearing self-citation whose content is unverified outside the paper. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard gravitational wave signal models and lunar detector assumptions without introducing new fitted parameters or postulated entities.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard general relativity governs gravitational wave propagation and detector response.
    Implicit throughout all GW analysis including the case study.
  • domain assumption The lunar detector response and noise model are sufficiently accurate for the injected signals.
    Required for the parameter estimation results to hold.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5902 in / 1129 out tokens · 26060 ms · 2026-06-28T05:22:33.699717+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

73 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Chen, Y

    Wen, L. & Chen, Y. Geometrical expression for the angular resolution of a network of gravitational-wave detectors.Phys. Rev. D81, 082001 (2010). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.082001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.082001 2010

  2. [2]

    URL https://doi

    Harms, J.et al.Lunar Gravitational-wave Antenna910, 1. URL https://doi. org/10.3847/1538-4357/abe5a7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe5a7

  3. [3]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/108

    Ajith, P.et al.The lunar gravitational-wave antenna: mission studies and science case.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025, 108 (2025). URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/108

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/108 2025

  4. [4]

    Gravitational Radiation.Phys

    Weber, J. Gravitational Radiation.Phys. Rev. Lett.18, 498–501. URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.18.498

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.18.498

  5. [5]

    & Harms, J

    Coughlin, M. & Harms, J. Constraining the gravitational wave energy density of the Universe using Earth’s ring.Phys. Rev. D90, 042005 (2014). URL http: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.042005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.042005 2014

  6. [6]

    Yelikar, A. B. & Jani, K. Binary Neutron Stars from the Moon: Early Warnings and Precision Science for the Artemis Era (2025). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2510.05400. 2510.05400

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    & Zendri, J.-P

    Benetti, G., Branchesi, M., Harms, J. & Zendri, J.-P. Observing Double White Dwarfs with the Lunar GW Antenna (2025). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2509. 07849

    2025

  8. [8]

    The Einstein Telescope: a third-generation gravitational wave observatory

    Punturo, M.et al.The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory27, 194002. URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194002

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194002

  9. [9]

    URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.15923

    Branchesi, M.et al.Science with the Einstein Telescope: A comparison of different designs. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.15923. 2303.15923

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    & Dal Canton, T

    Toubiana, A., Marsat, S., Babak, S., Baker, J. & Dal Canton, T. Parameter estimation of stellar-mass black hole binaries with LISA102, 124037. URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.124037

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.124037

  11. [11]

    & Ossokine, S

    Toubiana, A., Babak, S., Marsat, S. & Ossokine, S. Detectability and parameter estimation of GWTC-3 events with LISA106, 104034. URL https://link.aps. 28 org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.104034

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.104034

  12. [12]

    Marsat, S., Baker, J. G. & Canton, T. D. Exploring the Bayesian parameter estimation of binary black holes with LISA103, 083011. URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083011

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.083011

  13. [13]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.01898

    Wu, S.et al.Multiband parameter estimation with phase coherence and extrinsic marginalization: Extracting more information from low-snr cbc signals in lisa data (2025). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.01898

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    & Berti, E

    Iacovelli, F., Tissino, J., Harms, J. & Berti, E. Gravitational-wave parameter estimation to the Moon and back: Massive binaries and the case of GW231123. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.09978. 2512.09978

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    G., et al

    Abac, A. G.et al.GW231123: A Binary Black Hole Merger with Total Mass 190-265 Msun993, L25. URL https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c9c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c9c 2041

  16. [16]

    2025 g , , 135, 111403, 10.1103/kw5g-d732

    Abac, A. G.et al.GW250114: Testing Hawking’s Area Law and the Kerr Nature of Black Holes135, 111403. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/kw5g-d732

    work page doi:10.1103/kw5g-d732

  17. [17]

    Observation of Gravita- tional Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaborationet al.Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger116, 061102. URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102

  18. [18]

    Callister, T. A. Observed Gravitational-Wave Populations. URL http://arxiv. org/abs/2410.19145. 2410.19145

    arXiv

  19. [19]

    Roulet, J.et al.Removing degeneracy and multimodality in gravitational wave source parameters.Phys. Rev. D106, 123015. URL https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.106.123015

  20. [20]

    Singer, L. P. & Price, L. R. Rapid Bayesian position reconstruction for gravitational-wave transients93, 024013. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevD.93.024013

  21. [21]

    & Rizzo, M

    Lange, J., O’Shaughnessy, R. & Rizzo, M. Rapid and accurate parameter inference for coalescing, precessing compact binaries

  22. [22]

    & Sathyaprakash, B

    Buonanno, A., Iyer, B., Ochsner, E., Pan, Y. & Sathyaprakash, B. S. Comparison of post-Newtonian templates for compact binary inspiral signals in gravitational- wave detectors80, 084043. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0700

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    & Bernuzzi, S

    Messina, F., Dudi, R., Nagar, A. & Bernuzzi, S. Quasi-5.5PN TaylorF2 approximant for compact binaries: Point-mass phasing and impact on the tidal polarizability inference99, 124051. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1904.09558

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1904

  24. [24]

    K., Pitrou, A., & Seibert, S

    Lam, S. K., Pitrou, A. & Seibert, S. Numba: A LLVM-based Python JIT compiler 1–6. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/2833157.2833162. 29

    work page doi:10.1145/2833157.2833162

  25. [25]

    Aghanim, N.et al.Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters.Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020). [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    2018

  26. [26]

    Detection and Generation of Gravitational Waves.Phys

    Weber, J. Detection and Generation of Gravitational Waves.Phys. Rev.117, 306–313. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.117.306

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.117.306

  27. [27]

    Dyson, F. J. Seismic Response of the Earth to a Gravitational Wave in the 1-Hz Band156, 529. URL https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApJ...156..529D

  28. [28]

    & Moreau, T

    Belgacem, E., Maggiore, M. & Moreau, T. Coupling elastic media to gravitational waves: An effective field theory approach. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.16550. 2403.16550

    arXiv

  29. [29]

    & Harms, J

    Bi, X. & Harms, J. Response of the Moon to gravitational waves110, 064025. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.064025

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.064025

  30. [30]

    Maggiore, M.Gravitational Waves: Volume 1: Theory and Experiments1 edition edn (Oxford University Press)

  31. [31]

    & Chen, X

    Zhang, L., Yan, H., Zhang, J. & Chen, X. Numerical simulation of lunar response to gravitational waves and its 3D topographic effect using the spectral-element method. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.21667. 2512.21667

    arXiv

  32. [32]

    & Zhang, J

    Zhang, L., Yan, H., Chen, X. & Zhang, J. Thick Lunar Crust Amplifies Gravitational-Wave Signal. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.16567. 2601.16567

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    & Wright, E

    Acton, C., Bachman, N., Semenov, B. & Wright, E. A look towards the future in the handling of space science mission geometry.Planetary and Space Sci- ence150, 9–12 (2018). URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0032063316303129. Enabling Open and Interoperable Access to Planetary Science and Heliophysics Databases and Tools

    2018

  34. [34]

    URL https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02050

    Annex, A.et al.SpiceyPy: A Pythonic Wrapper for the SPICE Toolkit5, 2050. URL https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02050

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.02050 2050

  35. [35]

    & Huang, J

    Ye, H., Guo, H., Liu, G., Guo, Q. & Huang, J. Looking vector direction analysis for the moon-based earth observation optical sensor.IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing11, 4488–4499 (2018)

    2018

  36. [36]

    Acton, C. H. Ancillary data services of nasa’s navigation and ancillary information facility.Planetary and Space Science44, 65–70 (1996). URL https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0032063395001077. Planetary data system

    arXiv 1996

  37. [37]

    & Maggiore, M

    Iacovelli, F., Mancarella, M., Foffa, S. & Maggiore, M. Forecasting the detection capabilities of third-generation gravitational-wave detectors using $\texttt{GWFAST}$. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.02771. 2207.02771. 30

    arXiv

  38. [38]

    V.et al.The payload of the lunar gravitational-wave antenna (2023)

    van Heijningen, J. V.et al.The payload of the lunar gravitational-wave antenna (2023). URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0144687

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0144687 2023

  39. [39]

    & Venumadhav, T

    Zackay, B., Dai, L. & Venumadhav, T. Relative Binning and Fast Likelihood Evaluation for Gravitational Wave Parameter Estimation. URL http://arxiv.org/ abs/1806.08792. 1806.08792

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    & Del Pozzo, W

    Veitch, J. & Del Pozzo, W. Analytic marginalisation of phase parameter. URL https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1300326/public

  41. [41]

    2019, Publ

    Thrane, E. & Talbot, C. An introduction to bayesian inference in gravitational- wave astronomy: Parameter estimation, model selection, and hierarchical models. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia36, e010 (2019). URL https: //doi.org/10.1017/pasa.2019.2

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2019.2 2019

  42. [42]

    URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.1.033015

    Varma, V.et al.Surrogate models for precessing binary black hole simula- tions with unequal masses1, 033015. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.1.033015

  43. [43]

    LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA S250114ax: Updated Sky localization38955, 1

    Ligo Scientific Collaboration, VIRGO Collaboration & Kagra Collaboration. LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA S250114ax: Updated Sky localization38955, 1. URL https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025GCN.38955....1L

  44. [44]

    2009, New Journal of Physics, 11, 123006, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/11/12/123006 —

    Fairhurst, S. Triangulation of gravitational wave sources with a network of detectors11, 123006. URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/11/12/123006

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/11/12/123006

  45. [45]

    Speagle, J. S. DYNESTY: A dynamic nested sampling package for estimat- ing Bayesian posteriors and evidences493, 3132–3158. URL https://ui.adsabs. harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.3132S

  46. [46]

    J., Veitch, J

    Williams, M. J., Veitch, J. & Messenger, C. Nested Sampling with Normalising Flows for Gravitational-Wave Inference103, 103006. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/ 2102.11056

    arXiv

  47. [47]

    & Johnson-McDaniel, N

    Chen, A. & Johnson-McDaniel, N. K. A fast frequency-domain expression for the time-dependent detector response of ground-based gravitational-wave detectors to compact binary signals (2024). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15732

    arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    & Wysession, M.An Introduction to Seismology, Earthquakes, and Earth Structure(John Wiley & Sons)

    Stein, S. & Wysession, M.An Introduction to Seismology, Earthquakes, and Earth Structure(John Wiley & Sons)

  49. [49]

    URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/ 108

    Ajith, P.et al.The Lunar Gravitational-wave Antenna: Mission studies and science case2025, 108. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/ 108

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/ 2025

  50. [50]

    Burke, O., Marsat, S., Gair, J. R. & Katz, M. L. Mind the gap: Addressing data gaps and assessing noise mismodeling in LISA. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2502. 17426. 2502.17426. 31

    arXiv

  51. [51]

    & Santoliquido, F

    Tissino, J. & Santoliquido, F. The geometry of lunar gravitational wave detection: data release (2026). URL https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20510354

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20510354 2026

  52. [52]

    Astropy Collaborationet al.Astropy: A community Python package for astronomy.AAP558, A33 (2013)

    2013

  53. [53]

    Astropy Collaborationet al.The Astropy Project: Building an Open-science Project and Status of the v2.0 Core Package.AJ156, 123 (2018)

    2018

  54. [54]

    Astropy Collaborationet al.The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package.ApJ935, 167 (2022)

    2022

  55. [55]

    20287835

    Collaboration, A. Astropy (2025). URL https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo. 17756022

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo 2025

  56. [56]

    Hunter, J. D. Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment.Computing in Science & Engineering9, 90–95 (2007)

    2007

  57. [57]

    2020 Array programming with NumPy

    Harris, C. R.et al.Array programming with NumPy.Nature585, 357–362 (2020). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  58. [58]

    & Drake, F

    Van Rossum, G. & Drake, F. L.Python 3 Reference Manual(CreateSpace, Scotts Valley, CA, 2009)

    2009

  59. [59]

    Virtanen, P.et al.SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python.Nature Methods17, 261–272 (2020)

    2020

  60. [60]

    URL https://doi.org/10

    Gommers, R.et al.scipy/scipy: Scipy 1.17.1 (2026). URL https://doi.org/10. 5281/zenodo.18736568

    2026

  61. [61]

    Ashton, G.et al.BILBY: A User-friendly Bayesian Inference Library for Gravitational-wave Astronomy.ApJS241, 27 (2019)

    2019

  62. [62]

    Romero-Shaw, I. M.et al.Bayesian inference for compact binary coalescences with BILBY: validation and application to the first LIGO-Virgo gravitational- wave transient catalogue.MNRAS499, 3295–3319 (2020)

    2020

  63. [63]

    URL https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.18788906

    Talbot, C.et al.bilby-dev/bilby: v2.8.0 (2026). URL https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.18788906

    2026

  64. [64]

    corner.py: Scatterplot matrices in Python.The Journal of Open Source Software1, 24 (2016)

    Foreman-Mackey, D. corner.py: Scatterplot matrices in Python.The Journal of Open Source Software1, 24 (2016)

    2016

  65. [65]

    URL https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.14209694

    Foreman-Mackey, D.et al.dfm/corner.py: v2.2.3 (2024). URL https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.14209694. 32

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.14209694 2024

  66. [66]

    K., Pitrou, A

    Lam, S. K., Pitrou, A. & Seibert, S. LLVM (ed.)Numba: A LLVM-based Python JIT Compiler. (ed.LLVM)Proc. Second Workshop on the LLVM Compiler Infrastructure in HPC, Vol. 2015, 1–6 (2015)

    2015

  67. [67]

    K.et al.numba/numba: 0.65.1 (2026)

    Lam, S. K.et al.numba/numba: 0.65.1 (2026). URL https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.19720971

    2026

  68. [68]

    & Broekgaarden, F

    Wagg, T. & Broekgaarden, F. S. Streamlining and standardizing software cita- tions with The Software Citation Station.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2406.04405 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  69. [69]

    & G¨ ultekin, K

    Wagg, T., Broekgaarden, F., Van-Lane, P., Wu, K. & G¨ ultekin, K. Tomwagg/software-citation-station: v1.4 (2025). URL https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.17654855

    2025

  70. [70]

    & Van Den Broeck, C

    Narola, H., Janquart, J., Meijer, Q., Haris, K. & Van Den Broeck, C. Gravitational-wave parameter estimation with relative binning: Inclusion of higher-order modes and precession, and applications to lensing and third- generation detectors.Phys. Rev. D110, 084085 (2024). URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.084085

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.084085 2024

  71. [71]

    & Harms, J

    Santoliquido, F., Tissino, J., Dupletsa, U., Branchesi, M. & Harms, J. Compar- ing next-generation detector configurations for high-redshift gravitational wave sources with neural posterior estimation. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.20699. 2512.20699

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  72. [72]

    gwflowproposal

    Santoliquido, F.et al.Fast and accurate parameter estimation of high-redshift sources with the Einstein Telescope.Phys. Rev. D112, 103015. A Injection details In Figure 13 we show a corner plot including all sampled parameters for our GW250114-like injection. In table 3 we report the injected values of the parameters. We use thenessaisampler, with the fol...

    2048

  73. [73]

    upside down

    for ET-∆ and 835 (588, 593) for ET-2L respectively. The difference is driven by the configurations’ arm lengths (10 and 15 km respectively), opening angles (60 and 90 degrees respectively) and the injected source’s orientation with respect to the antenna patterns of either configurations, which are different both due to their geometry and locations. 36 32...

    2048