Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Flexible Spectral Separation of Multiple Isotropic and Anisotropic Stochastic Gravitational Wave Backgrounds in LISA

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read BLIP 2.0 shows that LISA can spectrally separate multiple overlapping gravitational-wave backgrounds by modeling their sky anisotropy, recovering Milky Way, LMC, and extragalactic binary backgrounds and bounding a cosmological signal.

desk verdict A well-engineered, openly documented LISA SGWB separation framework whose headline demo is credible, but whose fixed-template matching to injections leaves the robustness claim unquantified. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20308 v1 pith:BGOPYQ4W submitted 2025-08-27 astro-ph.IM gr-qc

Alexander W. Criswell , Sharan Banagiri , Jessica Lawrence , Levi Schult , Steven Rieck , Stephen R. Taylor , Vuk Mandic This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMgr-qc
keywords stochasticgravitationalwavebackgroundLISAspectralseparationanisotropyBayesianinferenceGalacticforegroundLargeMagellanicCloudGPUacceleration
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

LISA will see several overlapping stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds at once: the Milky Way's disk of unresolved white dwarf binaries, a smaller background from the Large Magellanic Cloud, an isotropic background from extragalactic stellar-origin black hole binaries, and possibly a cosmological signal. The paper claims that these can be separated spectrally by exploiting their different sky distributions, rather than treating them all as isotropic noise. To test this, it presents BLIP 2.0, a modular, GPU-accelerated Bayesian framework that can simulate and analyze arbitrary combinations of isotropic and anisotropic backgrounds. In simulated four-year LISA data, it recovers the Milky Way and LMC spectra, measures the extragalactic binary background amplitude consistent with its injected value, and places a proof-of-concept upper limit on an underlying cosmological background. A comparison shows that ignoring anisotropy biases the recovered amplitudes dramatically, so modeling sky morphology is a load-bearing part of the separation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the additive-covariance simultaneous inference model built inside the BLIP 2.0 modular architecture. Each stochastic background is a submodel pairing a spectral model (power law, broken power law, tanh-truncated power law, or analytic foreground spectrum) with a spatial model (isotropic, spherical-harmonic expansion, or a fixed pixel-basis template). The total model covariance is the sum over submodels, so any number of signals can be combined; the spatial templates for the Milky Way (exponential disk with radial scale height 2.9 kpc and vertical scale height 0.3 kpc) and the LMC (uniform sphere at 50 kpc with radius 2.15 kpc) fix the anisotropic morphology in advance, and the likelihood then separates the spectra. GPU-accelerated gradient-based Hamiltonian Monte Carlo sampling with just-in-time compilation and automatic differentiation makes four-year analyses computationally feasible.

What would settle it

Simulate the same three-component dataset with a perturbed Milky Way disk scale height or an LMC placed at a different distance, then run the identical templated analysis: if the recovered SOBBH amplitude or the Milky Way turnover frequency shifts away from the injected values by more than the quoted credible intervals, the fixed-template assumption is the failure point. The paper's own isotropic-mismodeling run (830 percent LMC bias) shows the sign such a test would take.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that simultaneous spectral separation works when each background's covariance contribution is modeled as the product of a spectrum and a sky template, and the total channel covariance is the sum of these contributions. Because an anisotropic background imprints a time-dependent modulation on LISA's response as the constellation orbits, the templates break the degeneracy between signals that have similar spectra but different sky locations. In the three-signal demonstration, the Galactic foreground's amplitude, truncation frequency, and scale parameters are recovered precisely; the LMC amplitude is recovered within about 10 percent; and the isotropic stellar-origin binary background is recovered with $\log_{10}\Omega_{\mathrm{GW}}(1\,\mathrm{mHz}) = -11.8^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ against an injected value of $-11.68$. Adding a fourth, lower-amplitude isotropic cosmological power law yields a 97.5 percent upper limit of $\log_{10}\Omega_{\mathrm{GW}}(1\,\mathrm{mHz}) \leq -12.0$. The paper further shows that repeating the three-signal analysis with all backgrounds modeled as isotropic overestimates the MW, LMC, and SOBBH amplitudes by 2 percent, 830 percent, and 376 percent respectively.

Load-bearing premise

The demonstration assumes that the fixed sky templates used in the fit exactly match the true morphologies of the Milky Way and LMC signals; if the real templates are wrong, spectral separation can become severely biased, as the paper itself shows when anisotropy is dropped entirely.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Milky Way foreground, the LMC background, and the isotropic stellar-origin binary background can be separated and each spectrum recovered in a single Bayesian fit to four years of simulated LISA data.
  • An isotropic cosmological background can be constrained even in the presence of louder astrophysical foregrounds, here to $\log_{10}\Omega_{\mathrm{GW}}(1\,\mathrm{mHz}) \leq -12.0$ at 97.5 percent confidence.
  • Neglecting anisotropy is not a minor approximation: it inflates the recovered MW, LMC, and SOBBH amplitudes by 2, 830, and 376 percent and corrupts the noise estimate.
  • Precise recovery of the Milky Way and LMC spectral turnover frequencies opens a route to comparing the two white-dwarf populations.
  • The modular submodel structure extends to arbitrary combinations of isotropic and anisotropic backgrounds and is structured for later transdimensional model selection in a global analysis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Milky Way morphology is not pinned down by resolved binaries before the background analysis, the fixed-template assumption will need to be relaxed, either by marginalizing over template parameters or by jointly inferring the morphology; the paper's isotropic control run shows the magnitude of the resulting bias.
  • The additive-covariance design suggests a direct path to including polarization or non-stationary backgrounds without changing the separation formalism.
  • The LMC amplitude measurement to within about 10 percent implies that a LISA-era detection could be turned into a population constraint on LMC white-dwarf binaries, a comparison the paper flags but does not quantify.
  • A practical testing protocol suggested by this work is to run the same pipeline on population-synthesis-based foreground templates rather than analytic disks, to check whether the demonstrated separation survives realistic spectral roughness and Poisson fluctuations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents BLIP 2.0, a modular, GPU-accelerated framework for simulating and jointly inferring multiple isotropic and anisotropic stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds (SGWBs) in LISA data. The statistical core is an extension of the single-SGWB Gaussian likelihood to a sum of additive covariance contributions from an arbitrary number of signal and noise submodels (Eqs. 6–7), where each SGWB is modeled as a separable product of a spectral function and a spatial distribution. The authors describe the new spectral and spatial submodels (broken power law, analytic foreground, analytic satellite, point-source radiometer, popmap) and report large computational speedups from JAX/NumPyro. They validate the framework on two simulated four-year LISA datasets containing the Milky Way foreground, the Large Magellanic Cloud SGWB, the extragalactic stellar-origin binary black hole background, and, in the second dataset, a cosmological SGWB. The main results are a simultaneous recovery of the MW, LMC, and SOBBH spectra using pixel-basis spatial templates whose parameters are fixed to the injected values, and a proof-of-concept upper limit on the cosmological background. A comparison run in which the MW and LMC are treated as isotropic shows severe biases, illustrating the importance of anisotropy modeling.

Significance. If the robustness concerns are addressed, the paper makes a useful contribution to LISA data analysis. The likelihood extension is clean and self-consistent, the code and data are public, and the GPU acceleration is a genuine practical advance that makes multi-SGWB analyses feasible. The demonstration that anisotropy information can separate several overlapping backgrounds is scientifically valuable and builds on prior work by the same group and others. The central claim—first spectral separation of MW, LMC, and SOBBH—is plausible but rests on idealized assumptions: fixed spatial templates exactly matched to injections, a known noise model, and a single simulated realization. The authors are transparent about many of these limitations. The comparison in §V C provides a lower bound on the cost of gross spatial mismodeling, but does not quantify the more relevant intermediate case of a close but imperfect template. I found no circularity in the derivation; the in-sample nature of the validation is a standard proof-of-concept design.

major comments (2)
  1. [§V A, §III B] The central demonstration fixes the pixel-basis spatial templates to the exact injected morphologies: the Analytic Galaxy template is set to rh = 2.9 kpc and zh = 0.3 kpc, and the Analytic Satellite template to d = 50 kpc, r = 2.15 kpc, RA/DEC matching the injection (Tables III–IV), while §III B states that pixel-basis spatial models do not infer spatial parameters. The justification that resolved DWDs will determine the MW morphology is plausible but is not quantified. This is load-bearing because §V C shows that when the anisotropic signals are instead modeled as isotropic, the MW, LMC, and SOBBH amplitudes are biased by +2%, +830%, and +376%, with true values excluded; a close-but-not-exact template is an intermediate case whose behavior is unknown. I request a sensitivity study that varies the template parameters (e.g., rh, zh, d, r, or the template skymap itself) and reports the resulting biases in the recovered spectral parameters, or at least a quantitative estimate of the template-parameter uncertainty propagated from resolved-DWD studies.
  2. [§V A, Figs. 2–3] The LMC spectral recovery is not clean: the injected second slope is α2 = 2.65 (Table III), while the posterior reports α2 ≈ 1.8 ± 0.2 (Fig. 2), with the text attributing this to 'significant spectral mixing' with the SOBBH at high frequencies. Because the LMC is one of the three components whose separation is the headline result, the paper should quantify this bias (posterior vs injected), state its effect on the spectral-separation claim, and either mitigate it (e.g., by treating the high-frequency band more carefully) or clearly present it as a limitation of the current demonstration.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§IV B] The text states that data are spliced onto 'Hann-windowed splice segments of duration 10−4 s'; this appears to be a typo for 10^5 s, the segment duration Tseg defined in §II A.
  2. [§V A] The phrase 'below the turnover frequency fbreak (i.e., for f ≳ 5 mHz)' is internally inconsistent because the injected fbreak is 3.83 mHz; 'above' or 'beyond' the turnover is presumably intended.
  3. [§V B] The comparison with Boileau et al. [28] is between a 97.5% upper limit from this work and a recovered amplitude from that work; the sentence should clarify that these are different statistical quantities and that the setups are not directly comparable.
  4. [Table IV] The prior for the CGWB amplitude is log10 Ωref ∼ U(−21, 9), which is extremely broad; a brief comment on whether the boundaries are intended and whether they affect the resulting upper limit would be useful.
  5. [Fig. 2] The corner plot labels and 1D marginal annotations are small and dense at journal page size; larger fonts or a split-panel layout would improve readability.
  6. [§VI] The phrase 'first of its kind' in the Discussion is broader than what is demonstrated; suggesting a scoped phrasing such as 'first flexible multi-SGWB framework with these capabilities' would better match the content.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the multi-SGWB likelihood is derived from additive covariances, and the demonstrations are closed-box simulations with acknowledged matched templates, not hidden predictions.

full rationale

The central derivation (Eqs. 6 and 7) extends the single-signal Gaussian likelihood by summing covariance contributions from uncorrelated signal and noise submodels. No term in this likelihood is defined in terms of the recovered parameters, and the extension is a direct mathematical consequence of additive channel covariances rather than an assumed conclusion. The simulation and analysis use the same model families (Tables III and IV), which is a standard self-consistency test rather than a circular prediction: the spectral parameters (amplitudes, slopes, and break frequencies) are genuinely sampled from broad priors, and the paper reports real failures in that test, including high-frequency spectral mixing between the LMC and SOBBH signals and severe biases in the isotropic-mismodeling control of Section V C. The fixed Analytic Galaxy and Analytic Satellite spatial templates are set to the injected morphology values in Section V A, but the paper explicitly identifies this as an assumption justified by future resolved-DWD measurements, not as an inferred parameter renamed as a prediction. The pixel-basis spatial template is a strong prior, but it does not by construction determine the spectral separation, which still requires the data to distinguish overlapping spectral shapes. Self-citations to earlier BLIP work are supported by open-source code and Zenodo-released data and posterior samples, and the results are checked against external amplitude estimates (Babak et al. 2023) and an external upper-limit comparison (Boileau et al. 2021). No load-bearing step reduces by definition, by fitted input, or by self-citation chain to its own inputs, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central capability claim rests on standard stochastic-background statistics and on the domain assumptions that the signals are Gaussian, stationary, separable in spectrum and sky location, and that the LISA noise model is known. The demonstration also relies on matched spatial templates and simple phenomenological spectra. No hidden constants or new physical entities are introduced; the analysis parameters in Tables III and IV are standard Bayesian inference targets, not ad hoc fitted constants.

assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The LISA data likelihood is the segment-wise complex Gaussian of Eq. (1), with independent segments and known noise PSD.
    Inherited from Adams and Cornish (2010) and Cornish (2001); this statistical model underlies all BLIP analyses.
  • domain assumption Each SGWB separates into a spectrum S(f) and a sky distribution P(n) (Eq. 3), with P(n) normalized to unity.
    This separability is used for every submodel in Eq. (5); it fails for non-separable models.
  • standard math Covariances from different SGWBs and from noise add linearly (Eq. 7), assuming signals are mutually uncorrelated.
    Additivity of PSDs for independent sources is standard; the simultaneous inference likelihood is built directly on this.
  • domain assumption The LISA instrumental noise has the analytic Amaro-Seoane 2017 form with two free amplitudes (Eq. 14), and its functional form is known exactly.
    Used for simulation and inference; the paper notes real LISA noise will be more complex and may degrade results.
  • domain assumption The AET TDI channels and the computed directional response functions R_IJ(f,t,n) faithfully encode the detector response.
    Needed to map sky anisotropy to time and frequency modulation; a standard LISA data-analysis assumption.
  • domain assumption Noise and SGWB signals are Gaussian and stationary, and data gaps are absent.
    Stated in Section IV and revisited in Section VI; non-stationary EMRI backgrounds are explicitly out of scope.
  • domain assumption The phenomenological spectral models (tanh-truncated power law for MW, broken power law for LMC, power law for SOBBH and CGWB) are adequate descriptions of the true signals.
    Both injections and fits use these families; realistic DWD catalog spectra are deferred to future work.
  • ad hoc to paper The fixed pixel-basis sky templates used in inference exactly match the simulated MW and LMC morphologies.
    The MW template scale heights and LMC sphere parameters are set to the injected values (Table III, Section V A), justified only by the expectation that resolved DWDs will determine them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flexible Spectral Separation of Multiple Isotropic and Anisotropic Stochastic Gravitational Wave Backgrounds in LISA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BGOPYQ4W

@misc{pith2026250820308,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flexible Spectral Separation of Multiple Isotropic and Anisotropic Stochastic Gravitational Wave Backgrounds in LISA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BGOPYQ4W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20308}
}
read the original abstract

The Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) will observe mHz gravitational waves from a wide variety of astrophysical sources. Of these, some will be characterizable as individual deterministic signals; the remainder will overlap to create astrophysical confusion noise. These sources of confusion noise are known as stochastic gravitational wave backgrounds (SGWBs). LISA data is expected to include several such astrophysical SGWBs, including the notable Galactic binary foreground, SGWBs from white dwarf binary populations in satellite galaxies of the Milky Way, and the SGWB from extragalactic stellar-origin binary black holes far from merger. To characterize these astrophysical signals and attempt to seek out possible underlying backgrounds of cosmological origin, it will be necessary to separate the contribution of each SGWB from that of the others. Crucially, several of these SGWBs are expected to be highly anisotropic on the sky, providing a powerful tool for spectral separation. To this end, we present BLIP 2.0: a flexible, GPU-accelerated framework for simulation and Bayesian analysis of arbitrary combinations of isotropic and anisotropic SGWBs. We leverage these capabilities to demonstrate for the first time spectral separation of the Galactic foreground, the Large Magellanic Cloud SGWB, and the SGWB from extragalactic stellar-origin binaries, and show a proof-of-concept for placing upper limits on the detection of an underlying isotropic cosmological SGWB in the presence of multiple astrophysical foregrounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20308 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Corner plot showing the posterior samples for each inferred parameter of the three-signal MW+LMC+SOBBH model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Simulated and inferred spectral distributions for the three-signal MW + LMC + SOBBH dataset. Dashed lines show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Simulated and inferred spectral distributions for the four-signal MW + LMC + SOBBH + CGWB dataset. Dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Simulated and inferred spectral distributions for the three-signal MW + LMC + SOBBH dataset, where the anisotropic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

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

    astro-ph.HE 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A unified foreground simulation shows the μAres concept is heavily blurred by massive-black-hole-binary noise while the Decihertz Observatory is the cleanest post-LISA design.

  2. Full-Covariance Bayesian Inference of Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with Time-Domain Simulations for Taiji-like Missions

    astro-ph.IM 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A full-covariance Bayesian pipeline that combines time-domain TDI simulations with a frequency-domain likelihood recovers injected stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds for a Taiji-like mission, though its detecto...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

133 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    The sharpness of the turnover is mediated by a smoothing parameter δ, which is usually fixed to a fiducial parameter rather than inferred

    Broken Power Law (Spectral) The broken power law spectral model, ΩGW(f) = Ωref f fref α1 1 + f fbreak 1 δ δ(α1−α2) , (11) consists of a power law spectrum with amplitude Ωref and slope α1, which turns over at the break frequency fbreak to a second power law with slope α2. The sharpness of the turnover is mediated by a smoothing parameter δ, which is usual...

  2. [2]

    Analytic Foreground (Spectral) This model is a direct adaptation of the form given in Cornish & Robson [39], originally proposed by Babak as noted in [39]: Sh(f) =Af−7/3e−fαC17−βf sin(κf ) [1 + tanh(γ(fk−f))] Hz−1, (12) which gives the Galactic foreground PSD as a func- tion of an amplitude A and a set of shape parameters {αC17,β,κ,γ,f k}8 which evolve ov...

  3. [3]

    It functions simi- larly to the Analytic Galaxy model in that it creates a parameterized 3D density distribution which is then pro- jected onto the sky as seen by LISA

    Analytic MW Satellite (Spatial) The Analytic MW Satellite submodel was initially im- plemented as a simplified model of the LMC, but its pa- rameters can be modified to serve as an analog of any ap- proximately spherical dwarf galaxy satellite of the MW.9 It is an appropriate model for any DWD ASGWB that would be better represented by a spatially extended...

  4. [4]

    All pixels within a single point source submodel share a spectrum

    Point Source/Radiometer (Spatial) The point source spatial submodel consists of a vari- able number of individual bright pixels on a Healpix [54, 116] skymap; these can be contiguous or non- contiguous as desired. All pixels within a single point source submodel share a spectrum. The user can cre- ate multiple spectrally-independent point sources by in- s...

  5. [5]

    1 + 2 mHz f 4# Hz−1, Sa(f) =

    Noise Spectral Model The current LISA instrumental noise model supported by BLIP10 is the two-parameter model given in Amaro- Seoane et al. [15]: Sp(f) =Np " 1 + 2 mHz f 4# Hz−1, Sa(f) = " 1 + 0.4 mHz f 2#" 1 + f 8 mHz 4# Na (2πf )4 Hz−1, (14) where Sp(f) and Sa(f) describe the contributions due to position and acceleration noise, parameterized respec- ti...

  6. [6]

    This can be desirable for several rea- sons

    Spectral Models with Fixed Parameters For the extant models discussed above, it is often ben- eficial to fix (i.e., hold constant and not sample over) one or more parameters. This can be desirable for several rea- sons. From an astrophysical perspective, we expect (for example) the SOBBH SGWB to have a slope ofα = 2/3; it may behoove us to search for a po...

  7. [7]

    2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001, doi: 10

    Acernese, F., Agathos, M., Agatsuma, K., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001, doi: 10. 1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    2015

  8. [8]

    R., & Cornish, N

    Adams, M. R., & Cornish, N. J. 2010, arXiv:1002.1291 [gr-qc], doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.022002

    arXiv 2010

Show all 133 references
  1. [9]

    The LISA re- sponse function calculations — far and away the most computationally-taxing component of BLIP — are now fully parallelized along their frequency axis

    Parallelization Parallelization has been implemented across sev- eral modules of the BLIP codebase. The LISA re- sponse function calculations — far and away the most computationally-taxing component of BLIP — are now fully parallelized along their frequency axis. This has redu...

  2. [10]

    JAX [31] is a Python library that — mod- ulo several specific design requirements for user code 13 — serves as an approximately 1:1 swap in for Numpy

    Just-in-Time Compilation with JAX All parts of the BLIP code that interact with its sam- pling routines (i.e., the Model and submodel objects and everything attached to them) are now fully compatible with JAX. JAX [31] is a Python library that — mod- ulo several specific desig...

  3. [11]

    F., Anumarlapudi, A., et al

    Agazie, G., Alam, M. F., Anumarlapudi, A., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 951, L9, doi: 10. 3847/2041-8213/acda9a

    2023

  4. [12]

    GPU-Accelerated Sampling with Numpyro These latter points lead to the final major speed im- provement for BLIP analyses: the implementation of GPU-accelerated HMC sampling with Numpyro [82]. Numpyro is built with JAX in mind, using the latter’s automatic differentiation to res...

  5. [13]

    Checkpointing of all analyses at a user-defined in- terval to preserve progress in the event a long run is interrupted

  6. [14]

    This is useful for MCMC samplers like Numpyro that do not have the well-defined convergence criteria of nested sam- pling

    The ability to resume sampling of chains from the final state of a completed run. This is useful for MCMC samplers like Numpyro that do not have the well-defined convergence criteria of nested sam- pling

  7. [15]

    The ability to produce and save a simulation for later analysis, as opposed to the previous require- ment of a joint simulation + analysis run; this saves a not-insignificant amount of computational ex- pense, especially for repeated analyses of the same dataset. Doing so stor...

  8. [16]

    This feature greatly eases the process of creating and reformat- ting plots of BLIP results

    All computed simulated and estimated spectra and skymaps used to create the final set of BLIP plots are saved to a separate compressed file, the con- tents of which can be easily accessed outside of the BLIP structure and its dependencies. This feature greatly eases the proces...

  9. [17]

    components

    Many other small aesthetic and ease-of-use im- provements, such as: dynamic sizing of corner and spectral plots; the ability to specify a skymap color scheme for anisotropic recoveries; the abil- ity to alias simulation submodels to those used in the analysis for purpose of pl...

  10. [18]

    thin disk

    Simple Galactic Foreground (“MW”) We simulate a simple Galactic foreground, combining the smooth Tanh-truncated Power Law spectrum with a parametric model for the Galactic spatial density dis- tribution (Analytic Galaxy) consisting of a simple bulge and exponential disk. The s...

  11. [19]

    Isotropic SOBBH SGWB (“SOBBH”) We simulate the SGWB from extragalactic stellar- origin binaries as an isotropic signal with a power-law slope of α = 2/3 and the upper range amplitude given in Babak et al. [21]. This latter work provides projections of the LISA SOBBH SGWB based...

  12. [20]

    This is an analytic simulation of the LMC SGWB for the same rea- sons discussed above with respect to the Galactic fore- ground

    Simple LMC (“LMC”) We simulate a simple version of the anisotropic SGWB from white dwarf binaries in the LMC [91]. This is an analytic simulation of the LMC SGWB for the same rea- sons discussed above with respect to the Galactic fore- ground. We simulate the LMC SGWB spectrum...

  13. [21]

    MW + LMC + SOBBH

    Cosmological SGWB (“CGWB”) We additionally simulate a generic cosmological SGWB. It is isotropic, lower in amplitude than the SOBBH SGWB, and possesses a flat power spectral den- sity — representative of a generic scale-invariant infla- tionary background. Its primary purpose ...

  14. [22]

    Ballmer, S. W. 2006, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 23, S179, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/23/8/S23

    2006 doi

  15. [23]

    − 2 Tseg X I,J ˜d∗ I(t,f ) CIJ (t,f|M1...N;⃗θ) −1 ˜dJ(t,f ) # , (6) with ⃗θ ={⃗θk} for k∈ [1...N] such that ⃗θk are the pa- rameters of signal/noise (sub)model Mk. “SI

    for the spherical harmonic case, Criswell et al. [46] for the pixel-basis case, and Adams & Cornish [8], Cornish [40], Cornish & Larson [43], Romano & Cornish [93] for the general case. B. Extension to Multiple Signals with Diverse Morphologies We now consider the case of simu...

  16. [24]

    J., Abbott, B

    Aasi, a. J., Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., et al. 2015, Clas- sical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 074001, doi: 10.1088/ 0264-9381/32/7/074001

    2015

  17. [25]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, Physical Review Letters, 118, 121101, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.118.121101

    2017

  18. [26]

    2019, Physical Review D, 100, 061101, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.100.061101

    —. 2019, Physical Review D, 100, 061101, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.100.061101

    2019

  19. [27]

    D., Abraham, S., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2021, Physical Review D, 104, 022005, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.104.022005

    2021

  20. [28]

    2021, Physical Review D, 104, 022004, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.104.022004

    —. 2021, Physical Review D, 104, 022004, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.104.022004

    2021

  21. [29]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023, Physical Review X, 13, 041039, doi:10.1103/PhysRevX. 13.041039

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    2020, Physical Review D, 102, 103023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.103023

    Bonetti, M., & Sesana, A. 2020, Physical Review D, 102, 103023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.103023

    2020 doi

  23. [32]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 951, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6

    2023 doi

  24. [33]

    Breivik, K., Mingarelli, C. M. F., & Larson, S. L. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 4, doi: 10.3847/ 1538-4357/abab99

    2020

  25. [34]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023, The NANOGrav 15-Year Data Set: Constraints on Supermassive Black Hole Binaries from the Gravita- tional Wave Background, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv. 2306.16220

    2023 doi arXiv

  26. [35]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 35, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0658-y

    Akutsu, T., Ando, M., Arai, K., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 35, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0658-y

    2019 doi

  27. [36]

    R., Freitag, M., et al

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Gair, J. R., Freitag, M., et al. 2007, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 24, R113, doi: 10. 1088/0264-9381/24/17/R01

    2007

  28. [37]

    2017, Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.1702.00786

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Audley, H., Babak, S., et al. 2017, Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.1702.00786

    2017 doi arXiv

  29. [38]

    2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/ s41114-022-00041-y

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/ s41114-022-00041-y

    2023

  30. [39]

    B., et al

    Antoniadis, J., Babak, S., Nielsen, A.-S. B., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 678, A48, doi: 10.1051/ 0004-6361/202346841

    2023

  31. [40]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 678, A50, doi: 10

    Antoniadis, J., Arumugam, P., Arumugam, S., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 678, A50, doi: 10. 1051/0004-6361/202346844

    2023

  32. [41]

    Doing so would also enable ex- ploration with BLIP of non-stationary SGWBs like that expected from an EMRI SGWB, and aid in Global Fit integration

    is a logical next step. Doing so would also enable ex- ploration with BLIP of non-stationary SGWBs like that expected from an EMRI SGWB, and aid in Global Fit integration. Additionally, the noise modelling used in the demonstrations presented here is quite simple compared 17 1...

  33. [42]

    M., Lim, P

    Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

    2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 5, doi: 10.1007/ s41114-023-00045-2

    Auclair, P., Bacon, D., Baker, T., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 5, doi: 10.1007/ s41114-023-00045-2

    2023

  35. [44]

    G., et al

    Babak, S., Caprini, C., Figueroa, D. G., et al. 2023, Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background from Stel- lar Origin Binary Black Holes in LISA, arXiv, doi: 10. 48550/arXiv.2304.06368

    2023 doi arXiv

  36. [46]

    2023, Physical Review D, 107, 083019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.083019

    Bayle, J.-B., & Hartwig, O. 2023, Physical Review D, 107, 083019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.083019

    2023 doi

  37. [47]

    1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 288, 365, doi: 10.1093/mnras/288.2.365 19

    Binney, J., Gerhard, O., & Spergel, D. 1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 288, 365, doi: 10.1093/mnras/288.2.365 19

    1997 doi

  38. [48]

    2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 330, 591, doi:10.1046/ j.1365-8711.2002.05116.x

    Bissantz, N., & Gerhard, O. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 330, 591, doi:10.1046/ j.1365-8711.2002.05116.x

    2002

  39. [49]

    2024, Angu- lar Resolution of a Bayesian Search for Anisotropic Stochastic Gravitational Wave Backgrounds with LISA, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.16372

    Bloom, M., Criswell, A., & Mandic, V. 2024, Angu- lar Resolution of a Bayesian Search for Anisotropic Stochastic Gravitational Wave Backgrounds with LISA, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.16372

    2024 doi arXiv

  40. [50]

    Boileau, G., Christensen, N., Meyer, R., & Cornish, N. J. 2021, Physical Review D, 103, 103529, doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevD.103.103529

    2021

  41. [52]

    2021, Jour- nal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 059, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/01/059

    Flauger, R., Karnesis, N., Nardini, G., et al. 2021, Jour- nal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 059, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/01/059

    2021 doi

  42. [53]

    2018, JAX: Composable Transformations of Python+NumPy Pro- grams

    Bradbury, J., Frostig, R., Hawkins, P., et al. 2018, JAX: Composable Transformations of Python+NumPy Pro- grams

    2018

  43. [54]

    2024, Gravitational Waves from Inflation in LISA: Recon- struction Pipeline and Physics Interpretation, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.04356

    Braglia, M., Calcagni, G., Franciolini, G., et al. 2024, Gravitational Waves from Inflation in LISA: Recon- struction Pipeline and Physics Interpretation, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.04356

    2024 doi arXiv

  44. [55]

    First among these is just-in-time compilation (JIT) of Python code

    with several powerful additions. First among these is just-in-time compilation (JIT) of Python code. Python is not a compiled coding language; as such, it gains significant flexibility in exchange for reduced efficiency. JAX’s JIT compiles code just as it is about to be ex- ec...

  45. [56]

    2024, A Test for LISA Foreground Gaussianity and Stationarity

    Buscicchio, R., Klein, A., Korol, V., et al. 2024, A Test for LISA Foreground Gaussianity and Stationarity. I. Galactic White-Dwarf Binaries, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.2410.08263

    2024 doi arXiv

  46. [57]

    G., Flauger, R., et al

    Caprini, C., Figueroa, D. G., Flauger, R., et al. 2019, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019, 017, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/11/017

    2019 doi

  47. [59]

    2024, LISA Definition Study Report, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.2402.07571

    Colpi, M., Danzmann, K., Hewitson, M., et al. 2024, LISA Definition Study Report, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.2402.07571

    2024 doi arXiv

  48. [60]

    R., Pieroni, M., Renzini, A

    Contaldi, C. R., Pieroni, M., Renzini, A. I., et al. 2020, Physical Review D, 102, 043502, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.102.043502

    2020

  49. [61]

    2017, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 840, 012024, doi: 10.1088/ 1742-6596/840/1/012024

    Cornish, N., & Robson, T. 2017, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 840, 012024, doi: 10.1088/ 1742-6596/840/1/012024

    2017

  50. [62]

    Cornish, N. J. 2001, Physical Review D, 65, 022004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.65.022004

    2001 doi

  51. [63]

    2020, Physical Review D, 102, 124038, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.102.124038

    —. 2020, Physical Review D, 102, 124038, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.102.124038

    2020

  52. [64]

    J., & Crowder, J

    Cornish, N. J., & Crowder, J. 2005, Physical Review D, 72, 043005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.043005

    2005 doi

  53. [65]

    J., & Larson, S

    Cornish, N. J., & Larson, S. L. 2001, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 18, 3473, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/ 18/17/308

    2001 doi

  54. [66]

    2025, Datasets for ”Flexible Spectral Sepa- ration of Multiple Isotropic and Anisotropic Stochastic Gravitational Wave Backgrounds in LISA”, Zenodo

    Criswell, A. 2025, Datasets for ”Flexible Spectral Sepa- ration of Multiple Isotropic and Anisotropic Stochastic Gravitational Wave Backgrounds in LISA”, Zenodo

    2025

  55. [67]

    2025, Criswellalexander/Blip: BLIP 2.0/Spectral Separation Paper Release, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16972090

    Criswell, A., Banagiri, S., Kuan, T., & s-rieck. 2025, Criswellalexander/Blip: BLIP 2.0/Spectral Separation Paper Release, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16972090

    2025 doi

  56. [68]

    W., Rieck, S., & Mandic, V

    Criswell, A. W., Rieck, S., & Mandic, V. 2025, Physical Review D, 111, 023025, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111. 023025

    2025 doi

  57. [69]

    Crowder, J., & Cornish, N. J. 2007, Physical Review D, 75, 043008, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.75.043008

    2007 doi

  58. [70]

    2019, Physical Review D, 100, 063004, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.100.063004

    Cusin, G., Dvorkin, I., Pitrou, C., & Uzan, J.-P. 2019, Physical Review D, 100, 063004, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.100.063004

    2019

  59. [71]

    2019, What We Can Learn from Multi-Band Observations of Black Hole Binaries

    Cutler, C., Berti, E., Jani, K., et al. 2019, What We Can Learn from Multi-Band Observations of Black Hole Binaries

    2019

  60. [72]

    L., et al

    Deng, S., Babak, S., Jeune, M. L., et al. 2025, Modu- lar Global-Fit Pipeline for LISA Data Analysis, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.10277

    2025 doi arXiv

  61. [73]

    A., Tinto, M., Krolak, A., & Nelemans, G

    Edlund, J. A., Tinto, M., Krolak, A., & Nelemans, G. 2005, Physical Review D, 71, 122003, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.71.122003

    2005

  62. [74]

    R., & Peloso, M

    Mentasti, G., Contaldi, C. R., & Peloso, M. 2024, Prob- ing the Galactic and Extragalactic Gravitational Wave Backgrounds with Space-Based Interferometers, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.10792

    2024 doi arXiv

  63. [75]

    Gerosa, D., Ma, S., Wong, K. W. K., et al. 2019, Phys- ical Review D, 99, 103004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99. 103004

    2019 doi

  64. [76]

    M., Hivon, E., Banday, A

    G´ orski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 622, 759, doi: 10.1086/427976

    2005 doi

  65. [77]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/ s41586-020-2649-2

    2020

  66. [78]

    2023, Physical Review D, 107, 123531, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.107.123531

    Hartwig, O., Lilley, M., Muratore, M., & Pieroni, M. 2023, Physical Review D, 107, 123531, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.107.123531

    2023

  67. [79]

    Hils, D., & Bender, P. L. 1995, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 445, L7, doi: 10.1086/187876

    1995 doi

  68. [80]

    C., Minkkinen, T., & Weir, D

    Hindmarsh, M., Hooper, D. C., Minkkinen, T., & Weir, D. J. 2024, Recovering a Phase Transition Signal in Simulated LISA Data with a Modulated Galactic Fore- ground, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.04894

    2024 doi arXiv

  69. [81]

    2016, Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 45, doi: 10.21105/joss.00045

    Hinton, S. 2016, Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 45, doi: 10.21105/joss.00045

    2016 doi

  70. [82]

    2024, On the Uncertainty of the White Dwarf Astrophysical Gravitational Wave Background, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.10642

    Hofman, S., & Nelemans, G. 2024, On the Uncertainty of the White Dwarf Astrophysical Gravitational Wave Background, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.10642

    2024 doi arXiv

  71. [83]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineer- ing, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  72. [84]

    L., Korsakova, N., Gair, J

    Karnesis, N., Katz, M. L., Korsakova, N., Gair, J. R., & Stergioulas, N. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 4814, doi: 10.1093/mnras/ stad2939

    2023 doi

  73. [85]

    2023, Mikekatz04/Eryn: First Full Release, Zenodo, doi: 10

    Katz, M., Karnesis, N., & Korsakova, N. 2023, Mikekatz04/Eryn: First Full Release, Zenodo, doi: 10. 5281/zenodo.7705496

    2023

  74. [86]

    L., Karnesis, N., Korsakova, N., Gair, J

    Katz, M. L., Karnesis, N., Korsakova, N., Gair, J. R., & Stergioulas, N. 2024, An Efficient GPU-accelerated Multi-Source Global Fit Pipeline for LISA Data Analy- sis, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.04690

    2024 doi arXiv

  75. [87]

    2021, arXiv:2109.10972 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc]

    Korol, V., Hallakoun, N., Toonen, S., & Karnesis, N. 2021, arXiv:2109.10972 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.10972

    2021 arXiv

  76. [88]

    2005, Physical Review D, 71, 024025, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.024025

    Kudoh, H., & Taruya, A. 2005, Physical Review D, 71, 024025, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.024025

    2005 doi

  77. [89]

    2023, The European Physical Journal C, 83, 168, doi: 10.1140/epjc/ s10052-023-11323-2

    Lewicki, M., & Vaskonen, V. 2023, The European Physical Journal C, 83, 168, doi: 10.1140/epjc/ s10052-023-11323-2

    2023 doi

  78. [90]

    2024, Unveiling a Multi-Component Stochas- tic Gravitational-Wave Background with the TianQin + LISA Network, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409

    Liang, Z.-C., Li, Z.-Y., Li, E.-K., Zhang, J.-d., & Hu, Y.-M. 2024, Unveiling a Multi-Component Stochas- tic Gravitational-Wave Background with the TianQin + LISA Network, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409. 20 00778

    2024 doi

  79. [91]

    SGWB” to be inclusive of the Galactic foreground throughout this work, despite its “foreground

    show that the unresolved DWD systems in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) produce a significant anisotropic SGWB (ASGWB) in LISA. Other MW satel- lites may contribute their own, lower-amplitude ASG- WBs [87]. LISA is also expected to observe the astrophysical SGWB from extragal...

  80. [92]

    2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 66, 299512, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2142-0

    Lin, S., Hu, B., Zhang, X.-H., & Liu, Y.-X. 2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 66, 299512, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2142-0

    2023 doi

  81. [93]

    2020, Physical Review D, 101, 123021, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.101.123021

    Littenberg, T., Cornish, N., Lackeos, K., & Robson, T. 2020, Physical Review D, 101, 123021, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.101.123021

    2020

  82. [94]

    Littenberg, T. B. 2011, Physical Review D, 84, 063009, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.063009

    2011 doi

  83. [95]

    B., & Cornish, N

    Littenberg, T. B., & Cornish, N. J. 2023, Prototype Global Analysis of LISA Data with Multiple Source Types, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.03673

    2023 doi arXiv

  84. [96]

    McMillan, P. J. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 414, 2446, doi: 10.1111/j. 1365-2966.2011.18564.x

    2011

  85. [97]

    T., Shannon, R

    Miles, M. T., Shannon, R. M., Reardon, D. J., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Soci- ety, 536, 1489, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2571

    2025 doi

  86. [99]

    Muratore, M., Gair, J., & Speri, L. 2023, Impact of the Noise Knowledge Uncertainty for the Science Ex- ploitation of Cosmological and Astrophysical Stochas- tic Gravitational Wave Background with LISA, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.01056

    2023 doi arXiv

  87. [100]

    2023, The Enhanced Popu- lation of Extreme Mass-Ratio Inspirals in the LISA Band from Supermassive Black Hole Binaries, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.11149

    Naoz, S., & Haiman, Z. 2023, The Enhanced Popu- lation of Extreme Mass-Ratio Inspirals in the LISA Band from Supermassive Black Hole Binaries, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.11149

    2023 doi arXiv

  88. [101]

    R., & Zwart, S

    Nelemans, G., Yungelson, L. R., & Zwart, S. F. P. 2001, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 375, 890, doi: 10.1051/ 0004-6361:20010683

    2001

  89. [102]

    2024, Noise Models in the LISA Mission, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.02339

    Pagone, M., & Novara, C. 2024, Noise Models in the LISA Mission, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.02339

    2024 doi arXiv

  90. [103]

    2021, Physical Review D, 103, 043002, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.103.043002

    P´ erigois, C., Belczynski, C., Bulik, T., & Regimbau, T. 2021, Physical Review D, 103, 043002, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.103.043002

    2021

  91. [104]

    2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.11554

    Phan, D., Pradhan, N., & Jankowiak, M. 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.11554. https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1912.11554

    2019 arXiv

  92. [105]

    Phinney, E. S. 2001, A Practical Theorem on Gravita- tional Wave Backgrounds, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv. astro-ph/0108028

    2001 doi arXiv

  93. [106]

    2024, A Test for LISA Foreground Gaussianity and Stationarity

    Piarulli, M., Buscicchio, R., Pozzoli, F., et al. 2024, A Test for LISA Foreground Gaussianity and Stationarity. II. Extreme Mass-Ratio Inspirals, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.2410.08862

    2024 doi arXiv

  94. [107]

    2020, Journal of Cosmol- ogy and Astroparticle Physics, 2020, 021, doi: 10.1088/ 1475-7516/2020/07/021

    Pieroni, M., & Barausse, E. 2020, Journal of Cosmol- ogy and Astroparticle Physics, 2020, 021, doi: 10.1088/ 1475-7516/2020/07/021

    2020

  95. [108]

    2023, Computation of Stochastic Back- ground from Extreme Mass Ratio Inspiral Populations for LISA, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.07043

    Pozzoli, F., Babak, S., Sesana, A., Bonetti, M., & Karnesis, N. 2023, Computation of Stochastic Back- ground from Extreme Mass Ratio Inspiral Populations for LISA, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.07043

    2023 doi arXiv

  96. [109]

    2024, Cy- clostationary Signals in LISA: A Practical Application to Milky Way Satellites, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv

    Pozzoli, F., Buscicchio, R., Klein, A., et al. 2024, Cy- clostationary Signals in LISA: A Practical Application to Milky Way Satellites, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv. 2410.08274

    2024 doi arXiv

  97. [110]

    J., Zic, A., Shannon, R

    Reardon, D. J., Zic, A., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 951, L7, doi: 10. 3847/2041-8213/acdd03

    2023

  98. [111]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 951, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02

    —. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 951, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02

    2023 doi

  99. [112]

    I., & Contaldi, C

    Renzini, A. I., & Contaldi, C. R. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 4650, doi: 10. 1093/mnras/sty2546

    2018

  100. [113]

    W., Korol, V., et al

    Rieck, S., Criswell, A. W., Korol, V., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 2642, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1283

    2024 doi

  101. [114]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., Greenfield, P., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, A33, doi: 10. 1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2013

  102. [115]

    D., & Cornish, Neil

    Romano, J. D., & Cornish, Neil. J. 2017, Living Reviews in Relativity, 20, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-017-0004-1

    2017 doi

  103. [116]

    Rosati, R., & Littenberg, T. B. 2024, Prototype Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background Recovery in the LISA Global Fit Residual, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.2410.17180

    2024 doi arXiv

  104. [117]

    J., Belczynski, K., Benacquista, M., Larson, S

    Ruiter, A. J., Belczynski, K., Benacquista, M., Larson, S. L., & Williams, G. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 717, 1006, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/2/1006

    2010 doi

  105. [118]

    B., et al

    Scaringi, S., Breivik, K., Littenberg, T. B., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 525, L50, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad093

    2023 doi

  106. [119]

    2016, Physical Review Letters, 116, 231102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.231102

    Sesana, A. 2016, Physical Review Letters, 116, 231102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.231102

    2016 doi

  107. [120]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 623, 23, doi: 10.1086/ 428492

    Sesana, A., Haardt, F., Madau, P., & Volonteri, M. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 623, 23, doi: 10.1086/ 428492

    2005

  108. [121]

    Sesana, A., Vecchio, A., & Colacino, C. N. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 390, 192, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13682.x

    2008

  109. [122]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 4669, doi: 10.1093/ mnras/stac1561

    Seto, N., & Kyutoku, K. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 4669, doi: 10.1093/ mnras/stac1561

    2022

  110. [123]

    Sigurdsson, S., & Rees, M. J. 1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 284, 318, doi:10.1093/ mnras/284.2.318

    1997

  111. [124]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 683, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/ 202348429

    Staelens, S., & Nelemans, G. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 683, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/ 202348429

    2024 doi

  112. [125]

    H., Ferraioli, L., Schmelzbach, C., St¨ ahler, S

    Strub, S. H., Ferraioli, L., Schmelzbach, C., St¨ ahler, S. C., & Giardini, D. 2024, Physical Review D, 110, 024005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.024005

    2024 doi

  113. [126]

    2005, Physical Review D, 72, 104015, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.104015

    Taruya, A., & Kudoh, H. 2005, Physical Review D, 72, 104015, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.104015

    2005 doi

  114. [127]

    M., Sip˝ ocz, B

    The Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  115. [128]

    2023, Phys- ical Review D, 107, 082001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD

    Tinto, M., Dhurandhar, S., & Malakar, D. 2023, Phys- ical Review D, 107, 082001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD. 107.082001

    2023 doi

  116. [129]

    Tinto, M., & Dhurandhar, S. V. 2020, Living Reviews in Relativity, 24, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41114-020-00029-6

    2020 doi

  117. [130]

    2001, Physical Review D, 64, 121501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.64.121501

    Ungarelli, C., & Vecchio, A. 2001, Physical Review D, 64, 121501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.64.121501

    2001 doi

  118. [131]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/ s41592-019-0686-2

    2020

  119. [132]

    Wilhelm, M. J. C., Korol, V., Rossi, E. M., & D’Onghia, E. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 4958, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3457 21

    2020 doi

  120. [133]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 075024, doi: 10.1088/ 1674-4527/acdfa5

    Xu, H., Chen, S., Guo, Y., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 075024, doi: 10.1088/ 1674-4527/acdfa5

    2023

  121. [134]

    2024, Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background from Highly-Eccentric Stellar-Mass Binaries in the Milli- hertz Band, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.04832

    Xuan, Z., Naoz, S., Kocsis, B., & Michaely, E. 2024, Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background from Highly-Eccentric Stellar-Mass Binaries in the Milli- hertz Band, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.04832

    2024 doi arXiv

  122. [135]

    2024, The As- trophysical Journal, 978, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ ad938a

    Zhang, S., Deng, F., Lu, Y., & Yu, S. 2024, The As- trophysical Journal, 978, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ ad938a

    2024 doi

  123. [136]

    Zhong, H., Reali, L., Zhou, B., Berti, E., & Mandic, V. 2025, A Two-Step Procedure to Detect Cosmo- logical Gravitational Wave Backgrounds with Next- Generation Terrestrial Gravitational-Wave Detectors, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.17717

    2025 doi arXiv

  124. [137]

    J., Kapur, A., et al

    Zic, A., Reardon, D. J., Kapur, A., et al. 2023, Publica- tions of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 40, e049, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2023.36

    2023 doi

  125. [138]

    2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, doi: 10.21105/joss

    Zonca, A., Singer, L., Lenz, D., et al. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, doi: 10.21105/joss. 01298

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.