Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 87 references

Alternative LISA-TAIJI networks: polarization separation of the stochastic gravitational wave background

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A larger relative inclination between the LISA and TAIJI constellations, LISA-TAIJIm, separates tensor, vector, and scalar stochastic background components with recovered signal-to-noise ratios up to two to three times higher than the…

desk verdict The qualitative claim about LISA-TAIJIm's weaker polarization degeneracies is supported by the per-frequency analysis, but the headline factor-2–3 SNR advantage rests on a per-frequency Fisher inversion that is not the profile likelihood for the stated global power-law model. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08490 v1 pith:YUGFOVAI submitted 2026-08-09 gr-qc

Gang Wang , Lang Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords stochasticgravitationalwavebackgroundpolarizationsLISA-TAIJInetworkoverlapreductionfunctiontime-delayinterferometrypolarizationseparationcomponentFishermatrix
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

Future space-based gravitational-wave observatories LISA and TAIJI could cross-correlate their measurements to detect the stochastic background and, crucially, to separate its tensor, vector, and scalar polarization components. The paper compares two proposed network geometries that differ only in the tilt of the TAIJI constellation plane relative to LISA's, changing the angle between the two planes from roughly 34.5 to 71 degrees. It finds that the larger-tilt configuration, LISA-TAIJIm, produces substantially weaker correlations among the three polarization responses, so its sensitivity to a mixed tensor-vector-scalar background degrades far less than that of the smaller-angle LISA-TAIJIp. In a full three-component fit, the recovered signal-to-noise ratios for each component are higher by factors of about two to three for LISA-TAIJIm. This advantage persists for tensor-scalar and tensor-vector mixtures but reverses for a pure vector-scalar background, so the geometry's benefit is specific to tensor-containing polarization mixtures.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the set of overlap reduction functions Gamma_T, Gamma_V, Gamma_S defined as sky-averaged cross-correlations of the detector responses to each polarization pair, computed with the PD4L TDI observable, a second-generation combination of laser links with an effective duration of 4L. These overlap reduction functions enter the component-separation matrix F = M^dagger $N^{{-1}}$ M, whose inverse gives the covariance of the recovered polarization amplitudes; off-diagonal terms encode the polarization degeneracies. The larger relative constellation inclination in LISA-TAIJIm makes the three overlap-reduction-function vectors more nearly orthogonal, and that increased orthogonality is the mechanism that reduces the variance of each recovered component and raises the recovered signal-to-noise ratio.

What would settle it

An independent computation of the tensor, vector, and scalar overlap reduction functions using a different TDI combination or published orbital ephemerides could settle the claim: if the determinant of the 3 x 3 component-separation matrix for LISA-TAIJIp is within a few percent of that for LISA-TAIJIm, then the claimed factor-of-two-to-three SNR improvement cannot be correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the linear independence of the detector network's responses to different gravitational-wave polarizations is controlled by the relative inclination of the two constellations. Using the PD4L time-delay-interferometry response model, the authors compute overlap reduction functions Gamma_T, Gamma_V, Gamma_S for each polarization sector and assemble them into the component-separation matrix F = M^dagger $N^{{-1}}$ M. The off-diagonal entries of F measure polarization leakage; when the TAIJI plane is flipped from +60 to -60 degrees, the angle between the LISA and TAIJI planes grows from about 34.5 to about 71 degrees, the overlap-reduction-function vectors become more orthogonal, and the off-diagonal covariances drop. As a result, the variances of the recovered tensor, vector, and scalar amplitudes shrink substantially, and the profiled signal-to-noise ratios in a joint tensor-vector-scalar fit rise by factors of roughly two to three relative to the smaller-angle configuration. The same matrix explains why the vector-scalar case reverses: at the frequencies where the fiducial power-law spectrum contributes most to the SNR, the smaller-angle configuration has better individual component sensitivities, so the larger tilt is not universally beneficial. The paper also shows that a Fisher forecast for power-law spectral parameters yields nearly identical uncertainties for both geometries, because the model already treats the polarization sectors as distinct, reducing the role of geometric degeneracies.

Load-bearing premise

The entire comparison rests on the numerical evaluation of the overlap reduction functions from the assumed orbits, TDI combination, and noise power spectral densities; if any of these inputs are inaccurate, the claimed factor-of-two-to-three geometric advantage could be misestimated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a model-independent search that lets tensor, vector, and scalar amplitudes float simultaneously, the LISA-TAIJIm geometry should recover each component with roughly two to three times the signal-to-noise ratio of LISA-TAIJIp.
  • In mixed tensor-scalar and tensor-vector backgrounds, the larger-inclination network remains better but by a smaller margin; in a pure vector-scalar background, the smaller-inclination network can win by about a factor of 1.3 to 1.4 in SNR.
  • The sensitivity loss caused by simultaneously fitting several polarization sectors is largest at low frequencies, where the responses are hardest to distinguish, and the large-inclination geometry mitigates that loss.
  • Under a power-law model with known component spectra, both geometries deliver nearly equal parameter uncertainties; the geometric advantage shows up mainly when the polarization sectors are not assumed a priori.
  • These results give a concrete design criterion for future space-based networks: for polarization separation, maximize the relative inclination of the detector planes rather than the raw overlap.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same matrix-orthogonality argument suggests that an even larger relative inclination than 71 degrees, or non-equilateral constellation shapes, could push tensor-vector-scalar separation further, though possibly at some cost to overall sensitivity; the paper does not explore this trade-off.
  • Beyond the paper: if real background spectra deviate from power laws and contain spectral features, the Fisher-forecast comparability would probably shrink, and the model-independent advantage of LISA-TAIJIm would become the dominant factor; the paper hints at this but does not quantify it.
  • Beyond the paper: a natural testable extension is to apply the same component-separation calculation to anisotropic or parity-violating backgrounds, where the larger inclination is already known to help; whether the polarization-separation gain persists when sky direction is also reconstructed remains open.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper compares two proposed LISA-TAIJI network geometries, LISA-TAIJIp and LISA-TAIJIm, for detecting and separating tensor, vector, and scalar polarization components of an isotropic stochastic gravitational-wave background. Using the PD4L time-delay interferometry response model, the authors compute overlap reduction functions, effective sensitivities, power-law integrated sensitivities, profiled signal-to-noise ratios, and Fisher-matrix parameter forecasts. The central claim is that the larger relative constellation inclination of LISA-TAIJIm substantially weakens polarization degeneracies and yields recovered SNRs that are factors of roughly two to three larger than LISA-TAIJIp in the tensor-vector-scalar case, while the Fisher-forecast parameter constraints for the two geometries are broadly comparable.

Significance. The question addressed is timely and relevant for design studies of future space-based gravitational-wave networks. The paper's strength is its systematic application of the standard ORF and Fisher-matrix formalism to a concrete pair of mission geometries, and its explicit separation of model-independent component separation from model-dependent parameter estimation. If the headline numerical comparison survives scrutiny, the work would provide a useful design argument in favor of large-inclination LISA-TAIJI configurations for SGWB polarization studies. However, the main quantitative claim rests on an SNR formula that is not the profile likelihood for the stated global power-law model, and the numerical ORF pipeline is not independently checkable from the manuscript. The qualitative distinction between component separation and parameter estimation is likely robust, but the factor-of-2-3 SNR advantage requires correction and recomputation before it can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.C, Eq. (43)] Equation (43) does not compute the profiled SNR for the global power-law model stated in Sec. III.C. In that model A_P is a single amplitude common to all frequencies and the nuisance amplitudes A_Q are also global parameters. The correct profile for A_P is A_P^2 / [(2T ∫ W(f) df)^{-1}]_{PP}, where W_ab(f) is the per-frequency Fisher matrix for the global amplitudes, related to F(f) in Eq. (33). Equation (43), by contrast, evaluates ∫ [S_P(f)/σ_P(f)]^2 df with σ_P(f) = (F(f)^{-1})_{PP}; this is the SNR obtained by estimating A_P independently in every frequency bin and then combining the bins incoherently. Since integration and matrix inversion do not commute for a non-diagonal F(f), the two expressions differ, and the discrepancy is configuration-dependent because the frequency structure of the ORF degeneracies differs between LISA-TAIJIp and LISA-TAIJIm. The factor 2-3 ratio in Fig. 7 is therefore not the profile-likelihood ratio for the stated global model. Please recompute Fig. 7 with the integrated-Fisher profile, or explicitly redefine Eq. (43) as a two-step per-frequency component-separation SNR and adjust the claims accordingly.
  2. [Sec. II.B] The central quantitative results depend entirely on the numerically computed overlap reduction functions from the PD4L TDI response model, yet the manuscript provides no convergence checks, no comparison with known low-frequency or geometric limits, and no code or data release. Because the factor-2-3 advantage is the headline claim, a reader cannot distinguish a true geometric effect from an integration or pipeline artifact. Please add numerical validation, such as convergence with sky resolution, comparison with analytic zero-frequency ORF values, or release of the ORF computation code, before publication.
  3. [Sec. III.C] When the SGWB self-noise terms are retained, Eqs. (29) and (43) treat the nine cross-correlation baselines as statistically independent, each with variance M(f). That is not correct: the same SGWB realization contributes to all baselines, so the cross-spectra C_ij(f) have non-vanishing cross-covariances once the signal term in Eq. (29) is non-negligible. The likelihood in Eq. (31) implicitly requires the full 9x9 covariance matrix, not a per-baseline scalar. Since some plotted SNRs in Figs. 7-10 are O(100) at the largest amplitudes, the weak-signal limit is not valid over the full parameter space, and the per-baseline sum may overestimate or misorder the two networks. Please either restrict the SNR calculation to the weak-signal regime or implement the full multi-baseline covariance.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (27)] The notation in Eq. (27) is ambiguous: the numerator should be written as the squared expectation of the cross-correlation estimator, and the denominator as its variance, e.g., ρ² = ⟨Ĉ⟩² / Var(Ĉ).
  2. [Sec. V] The conclusion contains a typo: 'nontrivial spectral features structures' should read 'nontrivial spectral features' or 'spectral structures'.
  3. [Sec. IV] The Fisher analysis excludes all auto-correlation information within each mission by design; this should be stated more prominently, since including auto-correlations could change the relative constraints of the two geometries and the interpretation of the 'broadly comparable' result.
  4. [Sec. II.B] The identical acceleration-noise assumption for LISA and TAIJI in Eq. (22) is a strong modeling choice; a brief justification or a sensitivity check would help the reader assess how much of the reported differences could come from this assumption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the m-vs-p polarization-separation claim is computed from ORFs and model inputs, not from fitted data or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

No circular step is present. The headline claim—that LISA-TAIJIm has weaker tensor/vector/scalar degeneracies and better separation SNR—is a derived consequence of the ORFs computed in Eqs. (19)-(21) from the stated constellation geometries, TDI response model, and noise PSDs; the m-vs-p comparison is an output of these calculations, not an input. The configurations and PD4L TDI choice come from the authors' earlier papers (refs. 47-49, 54-55, 61), but those are used as model inputs with stated definitions, not as evidence that forces the conclusion, and the ORF, sensitivity, PLS, SNR, and Fisher results are all recomputed here from explicit expressions. The self-citations are therefore informative, not load-bearing. The skeptic's Eq. (43) concern—inverting the per-frequency Fisher matrix before integrating over a global power-law amplitude—is a statistical-consistency issue about profile likelihood rather than circularity: the quantity is computed from the model, not defined to equal the model's inputs. No prediction is fitted to data, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a forecast.

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

The paper introduces no new free parameters fitted to data; the listed free parameters are conventional input choices. The central claim depends on standard domain assumptions about the SGWB model, noise independence, and the numerical accuracy of the TDI/ORF pipeline. No invented physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Fiducial tensor amplitude A_T = 4.446e-12
    Adopted from LIGO O2 as a reference signal amplitude. It is an input scale for SNR and Fisher forecasts, not fitted to data in this paper.
  • Spectral index alpha_P = 2/3
    Fixed power-law index for all polarization components in the fiducial model. The relative network performance, especially for the VS scenario, depends on this value.
  • Observation time T_obs = 3 yr
    Assumed effective integration time (4-year mission with 75% duty cycle). It scales all SNR and Fisher constraints but does not affect the qualitative geometry comparison.
  • SNR threshold rho_th = 10
    Detection threshold used in the power-law integrated sensitivity calculations. A conventional choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Isotropic stochastic gravitational wave background with no parity-violating components.
    Assumed in Sec. II and III; restricts the analysis to tensor, vector, and scalar sectors and ignores circular polarization asymmetries.
  • domain assumption Power-law spectral model for Fisher forecasts (Eq. 41).
    Sec. IV assumes each polarization component follows a simple power law; if spectra deviate, the parameter constraints and geometry ranking could change.
  • domain assumption Independent and known noise power spectral densities for LISA and TAIJI (Eqs. 22-24).
    The cross-correlation formalism (Eq. 26) relies on statistically independent instrumental noises; correlated noise or different TAIJI noise would alter the SNR and Fisher results.
  • domain assumption PD4L TDI response model and numerical ORF computation are accurate.
    Sec. II.B; all sensitivity and separation results depend on the ORFs from the PD4L response, which requires orbit and TDI simulation code not shipped with the paper.
  • standard math Gaussian likelihood and Fisher matrix approximation at high SNR.
    Eqs. (31) and (47)-(49) assume Gaussian noise and use F^{-1} for parameter uncertainties, valid in the high-SNR limit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Alternative LISA-TAIJI networks: polarization separation of the stochastic gravitational wave background." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YUGFOVAI

@misc{pith2026260808490,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Alternative LISA-TAIJI networks: polarization separation of the stochastic gravitational wave background},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YUGFOVAI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08490}
}
read the original abstract

Stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds (SGWBs) provide a unique opportunity to probe both unresolved astrophysical populations and fundamental physics in the early Universe. Future space-based gravitational-wave (GW) detectors, such as LISA and TAIJI, will enable cross-correlation observations that are particularly sensitive to SGWBs and their polarization content. In this work, we investigate the capabilities of two proposed LISA-TAIJI networks, LISA-TAIJIp and LISA-TAIJIm, for detecting and discriminating tensor, vector, and scalar polarization components of isotropic SGWBs. Using the cross-correlation between the two networks, we evaluate their sensitivities and signal-to-noise ratios for SGWBs containing different combinations of polarization sectors. We find that the LISA-TAIJIm configuration, which has a larger relative inclination between the two constellations, exhibits substantially weaker polarization degeneracies and significantly improved performance in separating polarization components, particularly for tensor-vector-scalar backgrounds. Fisher-matrix forecasts for power-law SGWBs show that the two configurations yield broadly comparable constraints on spectral parameters, reflecting the different roles of component separation and parameter estimation. Our results demonstrate that large-angle LISA-TAIJI networks provide a more favorable geometry for model-independent SGWB polarization measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08490 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of the orbital configurations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Three-dimensional visualization of the tidal deformations produced by the six possible GW polarization states. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Sensitivities of the LISA-TAIJI detector networks to the tensor (top row), vector (middle row), and scalar (bottom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Sensitivities of the LISA-TAIJI detector networks to the tensor (top row) and scalar (bottom row) polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Sensitivities of the LISA-TAIJI detector networks to the tensor (top row) and vector (bottom row) polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Sensitivities of the LISA-TAIJI detector networks to the vector (top row) and scalar (bottom row) polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The profiled SNRs for the TVS SGWB. The three rows correspond to the recovered tensor, vector, and scalar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Profiled SNRs for a TS SGWB. The top and bottom rows correspond to the recovered tensor and scalar polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Profiled SNRs for a TV SGWB. The top and bottom rows correspond to the recovered tensor and vector polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Profiled SNRs for a VS SGWB. The top and bottom rows correspond to the recovered vector and scalar polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Fisher-forecasted parameter constraints for the TVS SGWB model. The six-dimensional parameter space consists [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Fisher-forecasted parameter constraints for the TS SGWB model, encompassing four parameters (two amplitudes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Fisher-forecasted parameter constraints for the TV SGWB scenario. Consistent with the other configurations, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The parameter constraints for the VS SGWB scenario. The constraints obtained with the LISA-TAIJIp and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Brans and R

    C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Mach’s principle and a rela- tivistic theory of gravitation, Phys. Rev.124, 925 (1961)

    1961

  2. [2]

    Damour and G

    T. Damour and G. Esposito-Farese, Tensor multiscalar theories of gravitation, Class. Quant. Grav.9, 2093 (1992)

    1992

  3. [3]

    H. A. Buchdahl, Non-linear lagrangians and cosmological theory, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.150, 1 (1970)

    1970

  4. [4]

    G. W. Horndeski, Second-order scalar-tensor field equa- tions in a four-dimensional space, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 10, 363 (1974)

    1974

  5. [5]

    Jacobson and D

    T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, Gravity with a dynam- ical preferred frame, Phys. Rev. D64, 024028 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0007031

    arXiv 2001

  6. [6]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Relativistic gravitation theory for the MOND paradigm, Phys. Rev. D70, 083509 (2004), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 71, 069901 (2005)], arXiv:astro- ph/0403694

    arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    S. Hou, Y. Gong, and Y. Liu, Polarizations of Gravita- tional Waves in Horndeski Theory, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 378 (2018), arXiv:1704.01899 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Liang, Y

    D. Liang, Y. Gong, S. Hou, and Y. Liu, Polarizations of gravitational waves inf(R) gravity, Phys. Rev. D95, 104034 (2017), arXiv:1701.05998 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Gong, S. Hou, D. Liang, and E. Papantonopoulos, 20 Gravitational waves in Einstein-æther and generalized TeVeS theory after GW170817, Phys. Rev. D97, 084040 (2018), arXiv:1801.03382 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Dong, Y.-Q

    Y.-Q. Dong, Y.-Q. Liu, and Y.-X. Liu, Polarization modes of gravitational waves in general modified grav- ity: General metric theory and general scalar-tensor the- ory, Phys. Rev. D109, 044013 (2024), arXiv:2310.11336 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Lai, Y.-Q

    X.-B. Lai, Y.-Q. Dong, Y.-Q. Liu, and Y.-X. Liu, Polarization modes of gravitational waves in general Einstein-vector theory, Phys. Rev. D110, 064073 (2024), arXiv:2405.20577 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    D. M. Eardley, D. L. Lee, A. P. Lightman, R. V. Wagoner, and C. M. Will, Gravitational-wave observations as a tool for testing relativistic gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett.30, 884 (1973)

    1973

  5. [13]

    D. M. Eardley, D. L. Lee, and A. P. Lightman, Gravitational-wave observations as a tool for testing rel- ativistic gravity, Phys. Rev. D8, 3308 (1973)

    1973

  6. [14]

    C. M. Will, The Confrontation between General Rela- tivity and Experiment, Living Rev. Rel.17, 4 (2014), arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Callister, A

    T. Callister, A. S. Biscoveanu, N. Christensen, M. Isi, A. Matas, O. Minazzoli, T. Regimbau, M. Sakellariadou, J. Tasson, and E. Thrane, Polarization-based Tests of Gravity with the Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Back- ground, Phys. Rev. X7, 041058 (2017), arXiv:1704.08373 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Nishizawa, A

    A. Nishizawa, A. Taruya, K. Hayama, S. Kawamura, and M.-a. Sakagami, Probing non-tensorial polarizations of stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds with ground- based laser interferometers, Phys. Rev. D79, 082002 (2009), arXiv:0903.0528 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  9. [17]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Search for Tensor, Vector, and Scalar Polarizations in the Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 201102 (2018), arXiv:1802.10194 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Search for the isotropic stochastic background using data from Ad- vanced LIGO’s second observing run, Phys. Rev. D100, 061101 (2019), arXiv:1903.02886 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Constraints on cosmic strings using data from the third Advanced LIGO-Virgo observing run, (2021), arXiv:2101.12248 [gr-qc]

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Constraints on cosmic strings using data from the third Advanced LIGO-Virgo observing run, (2021), arXiv:2101.12248 [gr-qc]

    2021

  12. [20]

    Abbottet al.(KAGRA, Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Upper limits on the isotropic gravitational-wave back- ground from Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo’s third observing run, Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Upper limits on the isotropic gravitational-wave back- ground from Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo’s third observing run, Phys. Rev. D104, 022004 (2021), arXiv:2101.12130 [gr-qc]

    2021

  13. [21]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Upper Limits on the Isotropic Gravitational-Wave Back- ground from the first part of LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA’s fourth Observing Run, (2025), arXiv:2508.20721 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Cosmological and High Energy Physics implications from gravitational-wave background searches in LIGO-Virgo- KAGRA’s O1-O4a runs, (2025), arXiv:2510.26848 [gr- qc]

    2025

  15. [23]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GW170814: A Three-Detector Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Coalescence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 141101 (2017), arXiv:1709.09660 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Takeda, A

    H. Takeda, A. Nishizawa, Y. Michimura, K. Nagano, K. Komori, M. Ando, and K. Hayama, Polarization test of gravitational waves from compact binary coalescences, Phys. Rev. D98, 022008 (2018), arXiv:1806.02182 [gr- qc]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3, Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3, Phys. Rev. D 112, 084080 (2025), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), GWTC-4.0: Tests of General Relativity. I. Overview and General Tests, (2026), arXiv:2603.19019 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), GWTC-4.0: Tests of General Relativity. II. Parameter- ized Tests, (2026), arXiv:2603.19020 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Saffer and K

    A. Saffer and K. Yagi, Parameter Estimation for Tests of General Relativity with the Astrophysical Stochas- tic Gravitational Wave Background, Phys. Rev. D102, 024001 (2020), arXiv:2003.11128 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Search for Transverse Polarization Modes in the Gravitational-wave Background, Astrophys

    G. Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Search for Transverse Polarization Modes in the Gravitational-wave Background, Astrophys. J. Lett. 964, L14 (2024), arXiv:2310.12138 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Z.-C. Chen, C. Yuan, and Q.-G. Huang, Non-tensorial gravitational wave background in NANOGrav 12.5-year data set, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.64, 12 (2021), arXiv:2101.06869 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Chen, Y.-M

    Z.-C. Chen, Y.-M. Wu, Y.-C. Bi, and Q.-G. Huang, Search for nontensorial gravitational-wave backgrounds in the NANOGrav 15-year dataset, Phys. Rev. D109, 084045 (2024), arXiv:2310.11238 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    P. Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

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

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

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Hu and Y.-L

    W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu, The Taiji Program in Space for gravitational wave physics and the nature of gravity, Natl. Sci. Rev.4, 685 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Luoet al.(TianQin), TianQin: a space-borne gravi- tational wave detector, Class

    J. Luoet al.(TianQin), TianQin: a space-borne gravi- tational wave detector, Class. Quant. Grav.33, 035010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    W.-H. Ruan, C. Liu, Z.-K. Guo, Y.-L. Wu, and R.-G. Cai, The LISA-Taiji network, Nature Astron.4, 108 (2020), arXiv:2002.03603 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Wang, W.-T

    G. Wang, W.-T. Ni, W.-B. Han, S.-C. Yang, and X.- Y. Zhong, Numerical simulation of sky localization for LISA-TAIJI joint observation, Phys. Rev. D102, 024089 (2020), arXiv:2002.12628

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Wang and W.-B

    G. Wang and W.-B. Han, Observing gravitational wave polarizations with the LISA-TAIJI network, Phys. Rev. D103, 064021 (2021), arXiv:2101.01991 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    K. J. Shuman and N. J. Cornish, Massive Black Hole Binaries and Where to Find Them with Dual Detector Networks, (2021), arXiv:2105.02943 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Omiya and N

    H. Omiya and N. Seto, Searching for anomalous polar- ization modes of the stochastic gravitational wave back- ground with LISA and Taiji, Phys. Rev. D102, 084053 (2020), arXiv:2010.00771 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Seto, Gravitational Wave Background Search by Cor- relating Multiple Triangular Detectors in the mHz Band, Phys

    N. Seto, Gravitational Wave Background Search by Cor- relating Multiple Triangular Detectors in the mHz Band, Phys. Rev. D102, 123547 (2020), arXiv:2010.06877 [gr- qc]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Orlando, M

    G. Orlando, M. Pieroni, and A. Ricciardone, Measur- ing Parity Violation in the Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the LISA-Taiji network, (2020), arXiv:2011.07059 [astro-ph.CO]. 21

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    A. R. Pol, S. Mandal, A. Brandenburg, and T. Kahni- ashvili, Polarization of gravitational waves from helical MHD turbulent sources, (2021), arXiv:2107.05356 [gr- qc]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Zhao and S

    Z.-C. Zhao and S. Wang, Measuring the anisotropies in astrophysical and cosmological gravitational-wave back- grounds with Taiji and LISA networks, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.67, 120411 (2024), arXiv:2407.09380 [gr- qc]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Wang, S.-J

    L.-F. Wang, S.-J. Jin, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Forecast for cosmological parameter estimation with gravitational-wave standard sirens from the LISA-Taiji network, (2021), arXiv:2101.11882 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Wang, W.-H

    R. Wang, W.-H. Ruan, Q. Yang, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and B. Hu, Hubble parameter estimation via dark sirens with the LISA-Taiji network, (2020), arXiv:2010.14732 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Wang, W.-T

    G. Wang, W.-T. Ni, W.-B. Han, P. Xu, and Z. Luo, Alter- native LISA-TAIJI networks, Phys. Rev. D104, 024012 (2021), arXiv:2105.00746 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Wang and W.-B

    G. Wang and W.-B. Han, Alternative LISA-TAIJI net- works: Detectability of the isotropic stochastic gravi- tational wave background, Phys. Rev. D104, 104015 (2021), arXiv:2108.11151 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    J. Chen, C. Liu, Y.-L. Zhang, and G. Wang, Alternative LISA-TAIJI networks: Detectability of parity violation in stochastic gravitational wave background, Phys. Rev. D111, 084026 (2025), arXiv:2412.18420 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Zhang and G

    C. Zhang and G. Wang, Detectability to extreme mass ratio inspirals with alternative space-based detector net- works, (2026), arXiv:2606.09238 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Vallisneri and C

    M. Vallisneri and C. R. Galley, Non-sky-averaged sen- sitivity curves for space-based gravitational-wave ob- servatories, Class. Quant. Grav.29, 124015 (2012), arXiv:1201.3684 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  44. [52]

    M. L. Katz, J.-B. Bayle, A. J. K. Chua, and M. Vallisneri, Assessing the data-analysis impact of LISA orbit approx- imations using a GPU-accelerated response model, Phys. Rev. D106, 103001 (2022), arXiv:2204.06633 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Baghiet al., LISA science ground segment conven- tions, (2026), arXiv:2603.22377 [astro-ph.IM]

    Q. Baghiet al., LISA science ground segment conven- tions, (2026), arXiv:2603.22377 [astro-ph.IM]

    2026

  46. [54]

    Wang, Correlation and Data-Analysis Distinctiveness of Time-Delay Interferometry Configurations, (2025), arXiv:2507.18397 [gr-qc]

    G. Wang, Correlation and Data-Analysis Distinctiveness of Time-Delay Interferometry Configurations, (2025), arXiv:2507.18397 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Wang, Time-Delay Interferometry for ASTROD-GW (2011), arXiv:2406.14173 [gr-qc]

    G. Wang, Time-Delay Interferometry for ASTROD-GW (2011), arXiv:2406.14173 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Vallisneri, Geometric time delay interferometry, Phys

    M. Vallisneri, Geometric time delay interferometry, Phys. Rev. D72, 042003 (2005), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 76, 109903 (2007)], arXiv:gr-qc/0504145

    2005 arXiv

  49. [57]

    F. B. Estabrook and H. D. Wahlquist, Response of Doppler spacecraft tracking to gravitational radiation., General Relativity and Gravitation6, 439 (1975)

    1975

  50. [58]

    Wahlquist, The Doppler response to gravitational waves from a binary star source., General Relativity and Gravitation19, 1101 (1987)

    H. Wahlquist, The Doppler response to gravitational waves from a binary star source., General Relativity and Gravitation19, 1101 (1987)

    1987

  51. [59]

    Vallisneri, J

    M. Vallisneri, J. Crowder, and M. Tinto, Sensitivity and parameter-estimation precision for alternate LISA configurations, Class. Quant. Grav.25, 065005 (2008), arXiv:0710.4369 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Tinto and M

    M. Tinto and M. E. da Silva Alves, LISA Sensitiv- ities to Gravitational Waves from Relativistic Metric Theories of Gravity, Phys. Rev. D82, 122003 (2010), arXiv:1010.1302 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Wang, Time delay interferometry with minimal null frequencies and shortened time span, Sci

    G. Wang, Time delay interferometry with minimal null frequencies and shortened time span, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.69, 220411 (2026), arXiv:2502.03983 [gr- qc]

    2026

  54. [62]

    T. A. Prince, M. Tinto, S. L. Larson, and J. W. Arm- strong, The LISA optimal sensitivity, Phys. Rev. D66, 122002 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0209039 [gr-qc]

    2002 arXiv

  55. [63]

    J. D. Romano and N. J. Cornish, Detection meth- ods for stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds: a unified treatment, Living Rev. Rel.20, 2 (2017), arXiv:1608.06889 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Z. Luo, Z. Guo, G. Jin, Y. Wu, and W. Hu, A brief anal- ysis to Taiji: Science and technology, Results in Physics 16, 102918 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    Wang and W.-T

    G. Wang and W.-T. Ni, Revisiting time delay interfer- ometry for unequal-arm LISA and TAIJI, Phys. Scripta 98, 075005 (2023), arXiv:2008.05812 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Wang, W.-T

    G. Wang, W.-T. Ni, W.-B. Han, and C.-F. Qiao, Algo- rithm for TDI numerical simulation and sensitivity inves- tigation, (2020), arXiv:2010.15544 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Allen, The Stochastic gravity wave background: Sources and detection, inLes Houches School of Physics: Astrophysical Sources of Gravitational Radiation(1996) arXiv:gr-qc/9604033

    B. Allen, The Stochastic gravity wave background: Sources and detection, inLes Houches School of Physics: Astrophysical Sources of Gravitational Radiation(1996) arXiv:gr-qc/9604033

    1996 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Allen and J

    B. Allen and J. D. Romano, Detecting a stochastic background of gravitational radiation: Signal process- ing strategies and sensitivities, Phys. Rev. D59, 102001 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9710117

    1999 arXiv

  61. [69]

    N. J. Cornish and S. L. Larson, Space missions to detect the cosmic gravitational wave background, Class. Quant. Grav.18, 3473 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0103075

    2001 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Caprini, D

    C. Caprini, D. G. Figueroa, R. Flauger, G. Nardini, M. Peloso, M. Pieroni, A. Ricciardone, and G. Tasinato, Reconstructing the spectral shape of a stochastic grav- itational wave background with LISA, JCAP11, 017, arXiv:1906.09244 [astro-ph.CO]

    1906 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Thrane and J

    E. Thrane and J. D. Romano, Sensitivity curves for searches for gravitational-wave backgrounds, Phys. Rev. D88, 124032 (2013), arXiv:1310.5300 [astro-ph.IM]

    2013 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Capriniet al., Science with the space-based interfer- ometer eLISA

    C. Capriniet al., Science with the space-based interfer- ometer eLISA. II: Gravitational waves from cosmologi- cal phase transitions, JCAP04, 001, arXiv:1512.06239 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    Capriniet al., Detecting gravitational waves from cos- mological phase transitions with LISA: an update, JCAP 03, 024, arXiv:1910.13125 [astro-ph.CO]

    C. Capriniet al., Detecting gravitational waves from cos- mological phase transitions with LISA: an update, JCAP 03, 024, arXiv:1910.13125 [astro-ph.CO]

    1910 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Kuroyanagi, T

    S. Kuroyanagi, T. Chiba, and T. Takahashi, Probing the Universe through the Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background, JCAP11, 038, arXiv:1807.00786 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv

  68. [76]

    Flauger, N

    R. Flauger, N. Karnesis, G. Nardini, M. Pieroni, A. Ric- ciardone, and J. Torrado, Improved reconstruction of a stochastic gravitational wave background with LISA, JCAP01, 059, arXiv:2009.11845 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Martinovic, P

    K. Martinovic, P. M. Meyers, M. Sakellariadou, and N. Christensen, Simultaneous estimation of astrophysi- cal and cosmological stochastic gravitational-wave back- grounds with terrestrial detectors, Phys. Rev. D103, 043023 (2021), arXiv:2011.05697 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Pi and J

    S. Pi and J. Wang, Primordial black hole formation in Starobinsky’s linear potential model, JCAP06, 018, 22 arXiv:2209.14183 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  71. [79]

    LiGong, P

    B. LiGong, P. Shi, and S.-J. Wang, Gravitational waves originated from the early universe: A review and per- spective, Sci. Sin. Phys. Mech. Astro.55, 230405 (2025)

    2025

  72. [80]

    Boileau, N

    G. Boileau, N. Christensen, R. Meyer, and N. J. Cor- nish, Spectral separation of the stochastic gravitational- wave background for LISA: Observing both cosmologi- cal and astrophysical backgrounds, Phys. Rev. D103, 103529 (2021), arXiv:2011.05055 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  73. [81]

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gom- mers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau, E. Wieser, J. Tay- lor, S. Berg, N. J. Smith, R. Kern, M. Picus, S. Hoyer, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Brett, A. Haldane, J. F. del R ´ ıo, M. Wiebe, P. Peterson, P. G´ erard-Marchant, K. She...

    2020

  74. [82]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Pe- terson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, ˙I. Po- lat, Y...

    2020

  75. [83]

    pandas development team, pandas-dev/pandas: Pan- das (2020)

    T. pandas development team, pandas-dev/pandas: Pan- das (2020)

    2020

  76. [84]

    J. D. Hunter, Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment, Comput. Sci. Eng.9, 90 (2007)

    2007

  77. [85]

    Lewis, GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples, (2019), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    A. Lewis, GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples, (2019), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  78. [86]

    K. M. G´ orski, E. Hivon, A. J. Banday, B. D. Wan- delt, F. K. Hansen, M. Reinecke, and M. Bartelmann, HEALPix: A Framework for High-Resolution Discretiza- tion and Fast Analysis of Data Distributed on the Sphere, Astrophys. J.622, 759 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0409513

    2005 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Zonca, L

    A. Zonca, L. Singer, D. Lenz, M. Reinecke, C. Rosset, E. Hivon, and K. Gorski, healpy: equal area pixeliza- tion and spherical harmonics transforms for data on the sphere in python, Journal of Open Source Software4, 1298 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.