pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2512.16322 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-18 · 🌀 gr-qc

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

First-time assessment of glitch-induced bias and uncertainty in inference of extreme mass ratio inspirals

Amin Boumerdassi , Matthew C. Edwards , Avi Vajpeyi , Ollie Burke
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 21:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords extreme mass ratio inspiralsLISAglitchesparameter estimationFisher matrixMarkov-Chain Monte CarloLISA Pathfinder
0
0 comments X

The pith

Moderate glitch streams cause only minor biases in LISA extreme mass ratio inspiral parameter estimates.

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

The paper quantifies how transient non-Gaussian noise artifacts affect parameter recovery for long-lived extreme mass ratio inspirals. Using simulated LISA data that inject EMRIs together with shapelet glitches drawn from the LISA Pathfinder catalog, the authors apply a Fisher-matrix analysis, cross-checked with Markov-Chain Monte Carlo sampling. They report that glitch streams limited to moderate signal-to-noise ratios produce biases no larger than about 0.6 sigma across the EMRI parameters, while streams containing higher-SNR events can reach biases approaching one sigma. This robustness stands in contrast to the stronger biases previously seen for shorter signals such as massive black hole binaries. The work concludes that some level of glitch mitigation will still be required for unbiased LISA EMRI analyses.

Core claim

When moderately mitigated glitch streams containing only events up to moderate SNRs are present, the induced biases in recovered EMRI parameters remain negligible to minor (roughly 0.04 to 0.6 sigma), whereas weakly mitigated streams that include higher-SNR glitches can produce biases nearing 1 sigma; overall, EMRI inference proves notably more robust to such artifacts than inference performed on shorter-duration sources.

What carries the argument

Fisher-matrix-based bias and uncertainty estimation applied to simulated LISA observations of injected EMRIs plus shapelet-modeled glitch streams, with MCMC verification of the Fisher results.

If this is right

  • Unmitigated high-SNR glitches can shift EMRI parameter posteriors by up to one standard deviation, requiring at least partial glitch modeling.
  • The longer duration of EMRIs relative to massive black hole binaries reduces the fractional impact of individual glitches on the overall signal.
  • Fisher-matrix forecasts remain reliable for EMRI-glitch studies once confirmed by MCMC sampling.
  • Glitch mitigation strategies that remove events above roughly SNR 90 will keep most EMRI biases below 0.6 sigma.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the same glitch catalog proves representative, existing LISA data-analysis pipelines may need only modest extensions rather than wholesale redesigns for EMRI work.
  • The reported robustness may extend to other long-lived sources such as galactic binaries, suggesting a general advantage for signals whose duration greatly exceeds typical glitch timescales.
  • Future work could test whether the bias scaling with glitch SNR follows a simple power law that could be used for rapid forecasting.

Load-bearing premise

The shapelet-based glitches drawn from the LISA Pathfinder catalog accurately represent the statistical properties and occurrence rates of glitches that will actually appear in LISA flight data.

What would settle it

Direct comparison of the reported bias magnitudes against parameter shifts recovered from actual LISA flight data once glitch catalogs from the mission become available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.16322 by Amin Boumerdassi, Avi Vajpeyi, Matthew C. Edwards, Ollie Burke.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A Short-Time Fourier Transform spectrogram of the TDI response of the prograde EMRI buried in an unmitigated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution of network optimal SNRs for individ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Each EMRI’s count of runs in which a given pa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic diagram taken from [88] of the LISA constellation showing the three spacecraft (S/C 1, S/C 2, S/C 3) and their respective moving sub-optical assemblies (MOSA). Each MOSA is labeled with indices (i, j) where i denotes the host spacecraft and j indicates the spacecraft from which it receives laser light. Red arrows indicate the inter-spacecraft links with associated light-travel distances Dij . App… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Marginal posteriors of the prograde EMRI as obtained by MCMC alongside the FM-derived posterior. The data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Marginal posteriors of the strong-field EMRI as obtained by MCMC alongside the FM-derived posterior. The data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Marginal posteriors of the retrograde EMRI as obtained by MCMC alongside the FM-derived posterior. The data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A comparison of the MCMC-derived and FM-derived posteriors for the prograde EMRI corrupted by a glitch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This work investigates the impact of streams of transient, non-Gaussian noise artifacts or "glitches" on the parameter estimation of extreme mass ratio inspirals (EMRI) in the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA). Glitches cause biased and less precise inference for short-duration signals such as massive black hole binaries, but their effect on long-lived sources such as EMRIs has not been quantified. Using simulated LISA observations containing injected EMRIs and streams of shapelet-based glitches drawn from the LISA Pathfinder catalog, we estimate the glitch-induced parameter biases and uncertainties through a Fisher-matrix-based analysis whose accuracy we verify with Markov-Chain Monte Carlo. We find that moderately mitigated glitch streams i.e. ones containing only glitches of up to moderate SNRs ($\rho \lesssim 90$) induce negligible to minor biases $[\sim0.04\sigma ,\sim0.6\sigma]$ in the inferred EMRI parameters. In contrast, weakly mitigated glitch streams containing higher-SNR events ($\rho \lesssim 400$) can produce biases nearing $1\sigma$. These results demonstrate that, when compared to inference of other sources such as massive black hole binaries, EMRI inference is notably more robust to glitches. We stress that at least some amount of glitch modeling and mitigation remains essential for unbiased EMRI analyses in the LISA era.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the first quantitative assessment of glitch-induced biases and uncertainties in LISA parameter estimation for extreme mass ratio inspirals (EMRIs). Using simulated observations that inject EMRIs together with streams of shapelet-modeled glitches drawn from the LISA Pathfinder catalog, the authors perform a Fisher-matrix analysis whose accuracy is cross-checked via MCMC sampling. They report that moderately mitigated glitch streams (glitches with ρ ≲ 90) produce parameter biases of order 0.04–0.6σ, while weakly mitigated streams containing higher-SNR events (ρ ≲ 400) can reach biases approaching 1σ. The work concludes that EMRI inference is notably more robust to glitches than inference of shorter-duration sources such as massive black hole binaries.

Significance. If the reported bias levels hold, the paper supplies the first controlled, simulation-based quantification of glitch effects on long-lived EMRI signals, a result directly relevant to LISA data-analysis readiness. The explicit MCMC verification of the Fisher-matrix results and the use of an observationally motivated glitch catalog constitute clear methodological strengths that increase confidence in the numerical findings.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusions] Abstract and final section: the claim that EMRI inference is 'notably more robust' to glitches than MBHB inference rests on an indirect comparison to earlier literature rather than a controlled side-by-side test performed with identical glitch realizations, mitigation thresholds, data duration, and analysis pipeline. Because differences in glitch occurrence rate, frequency overlap, or pipeline choices could contribute to the observed difference in bias magnitude, the comparative statement requires either a direct re-analysis of an MBHB signal under the same conditions or an explicit caveat.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods section: the precise criteria used to classify a glitch stream as 'moderately mitigated' versus 'weakly mitigated' (including any SNR cut-offs or removal procedures) should be stated explicitly so that the reader can reproduce the two regimes.
  2. [Results] Results: the largest biases are reported for particular EMRI parameters; listing the affected parameters (e.g., mass ratio, spin, or sky location) and their physical interpretation would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for recommending minor revision. We appreciate the recognition of the methodological strengths of our work, including the MCMC verification and use of the LISA Pathfinder glitch catalog. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Conclusions] Abstract and final section: the claim that EMRI inference is 'notably more robust' to glitches than MBHB inference rests on an indirect comparison to earlier literature rather than a controlled side-by-side test performed with identical glitch realizations, mitigation thresholds, data duration, and analysis pipeline. Because differences in glitch occurrence rate, frequency overlap, or pipeline choices could contribute to the observed difference in bias magnitude, the comparative statement requires either a direct re-analysis of an MBHB signal under the same conditions or an explicit caveat.

    Authors: We agree that the comparison to MBHB inference is indirect, relying on results from prior literature rather than a controlled side-by-side test with identical glitch realizations, mitigation thresholds, data duration, and analysis pipeline. Performing a direct re-analysis of MBHB signals under the same conditions would require substantial additional computational resources and falls outside the scope of the present EMRI-focused study. We will therefore revise both the abstract and the conclusions section to include an explicit caveat clarifying that the robustness statement is based on literature values obtained under differing conditions, and that a dedicated comparative analysis remains a valuable direction for future work. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the EMRI glitch bias analysis

full rationale

The paper's bias and uncertainty estimates are produced via forward simulations that inject EMRIs into LISA-like data streams containing shapelet glitches drawn from the external LPF catalog, followed by Fisher-matrix calculations whose accuracy is cross-checked with independent MCMC sampling. No parameters are fitted to the reported bias values themselves, and no step reduces by construction to a self-citation or internal normalization. The comparative claim of greater robustness versus MBHB sources is supported by reference to prior external literature rather than any re-derivation internal to this work, leaving the derivation chain self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the assumption that Pathfinder-derived shapelet glitches are statistically representative of LISA glitches and that the Fisher matrix plus MCMC verification fully captures the posterior shifts induced by those glitches. No new free parameters are introduced beyond the SNR cutoffs taken from the catalog.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Shapelet-based glitches drawn from the LISA Pathfinder catalog have the same statistical properties and occurrence rates as glitches that will appear in LISA science data.
    Invoked when constructing the simulated data streams used for both Fisher and MCMC analyses.
  • domain assumption The Fisher-matrix approximation remains accurate enough to report bias and uncertainty shifts at the 0.04–1σ level for the chosen glitch amplitudes.
    Justified by the MCMC cross-check but still an approximation whose validity depends on the signal-to-noise regime.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5547 in / 1513 out tokens · 29485 ms · 2026-05-16T21:33:28.395146+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Parameter-estimation bias induced by transient orbital resonances in extreme-mass-ratio inspirals

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Neglecting transient orbital resonances in EMRIs causes significant SNR losses and biases in recovered parameters, with the sign and amplitude of resonance-induced changes to integrals of motion being critical.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 87 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    mitigated

    (29c) For our analysis, we disregard the T channel due to its insensitivity to EMRIs (though not to glitches) and assume identical, uncorrelated noise PSDsSA n = SE n. TDI propagation is implemented with the GPU- accelerated fastlisaresponse [75]. Stationary instru- mental noise follows theSciRDv1 sensitivity curve [76], with the unresolved galactic binar...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Danzmann, Advances in Space Research 25, 1129 (2000), fundamental Physics in Space

    K. Danzmann, Advances in Space Research 25, 1129 (2000), fundamental Physics in Space

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    J. R. Gair, S. Babak, A. Sesana, P. Amaro-Seoane, E. Barausse,et al., Journal of Physics: Conference Se- ries 840, 012021 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [5]

    Babak, J

    S. Babak, J. G. Baker, M. J. Benacquista, N. J. Cornish, S. L. Larson,et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity27, 084009 (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [6]

    Science with the space-based interferometer LISA. V: Extreme mass-ratio inspirals

    S. Babak, J. R. Gair, A. Sesana, E. Barausse, C. F. Sop- uerta, C. P. L. Berry, E. Berti, P. Amaro-Seoane, A. Pe- titeau, and A. Klein, Physical Review D 95, 103012 (2017), arXiv:1703.09722

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [7]

    LISA Definition Study Report

    M. Colpi, K. Danzmann, M. Hewitson, K. Holley- Bockelmann, P. Jetzer,et al., Lisa definition study re- port (2024), arXiv:2402.07571 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [8]

    C. P. L. Berry, S. A. Hughes, C. F. Sopuerta, A. J. K. Chua, A. Heffernan, K. Holley-Bockelmann, D. P. Mihaylov, M. C. Miller, and A. Sesana, The unique potential of extreme mass-ratio inspirals for gravitational-wave astronomy (2019), arXiv:1903.03686 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2019

  8. [9]

    Barack and C

    L. Barack and C. Cutler, Phys. Rev. D 75, 042003 (2007)

    work page 2007

  9. [10]

    J. R. Gair, M. Vallisneri, S. L. Larson, and J. G. Baker, Living Reviews in Relativity 16, 10.12942/lrr-2013-7 (2013)

    work page doi:10.12942/lrr-2013-7 2013

  10. [11]

    Laghi, Gravitational wave cosmology with emris (2021), arXiv:2106.02053 [astro-ph.CO]

    D. Laghi, Gravitational wave cosmology with emris (2021), arXiv:2106.02053 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  11. [12]

    Toscani, O

    M. Toscani, O. Burke, C. Liu, N. B. Zamel, N. Tamanini, and F. Pozzoli, Strongly-lensed extreme mass-ratio inspirals (2023), arXiv:2307.06722 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  12. [13]

    Kumar, Probing deviations to kerr geometry with extreme mass-ratio inspirals (2024), arXiv:2410.08544 [gr-qc]

    S. Kumar, Probing deviations to kerr geometry with extreme mass-ratio inspirals (2024), arXiv:2410.08544 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  13. [14]

    Kumar and T

    S. Kumar and T. Zi, Gravitational waves from regu- lar black holes in extreme mass-ratio inspirals (2024), arXiv:2412.11847 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  14. [15]

    Barsanti, A

    S. Barsanti, A. Maselli, T. P. Sotiriou, and L. Gualtieri, Physical Review Letters 131, 051401 (2023), arXiv:2212.03888. 12

    work page arXiv 2023

  15. [16]

    Speri, S

    L. Speri, S. Barsanti, A. Maselli, T. P. Sotiriou, N. War- burton, M. van de Meent, A. J. K. Chua, O. Burke, and J. Gair, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07607 (2024), arXiv:2406.07607

    work page arXiv 2024

  16. [17]

    Detecting fundamental fields with LISA observations of gravitational waves from ex- treme mass-ratio inspirals,

    A. Maselli, N. Franchini, L. Gualtieri, T. P. Sotiriou, S. Barsanti, and P. Pani, Nature Astronomy 6, 464 (2022), arXiv:2106.11325

    work page arXiv 2022

  17. [18]

    Systematic errors in fast relativistic waveforms for Extreme Mass Ratio Inspirals

    H. Khalvati, P. Lynch, O. Burke, L. Speri, M. van de Meent, and Z. Nasipak, Systematic errors in fast rel- ativistic waveforms for extreme mass ratio inspirals (2025), arXiv:2509.08875 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [19]

    L.Speri, A.Antonelli, L.Sberna, S.Babak, E.Barausse, J. R. Gair, and M. L. Katz, Physical Review X 13, 10.1103/physrevx.13.021035 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.021035 2023

  19. [20]

    Burke, S

    O. Burke, S. Marsat, J. R. Gair, and M. L. Katz, Phys. Rev. D 111, 124053 (2025), arXiv:2502.17426 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [21]

    Burke, G

    O. Burke, G. A. Piovano, N. Warburton, P. Lynch, L. Speri, C. Kavanagh, B. Wardell, A. Pound, L. Durkan, and J. Miller, Accuracy requirements: As- sessing the importance of first post-adiabatic terms for small-mass-ratio binaries (2024), arXiv:2310.08927 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  21. [22]

    A. J. K. Chua, C. J. Moore, and J. R. Gair, Phys. Rev. D 96, 044005 (2017)

    work page 2017

  22. [23]

    J. R. GAIR, inThe Eleventh Marcel Grossmann Meet- ing (World Scientific Publishing Company, 2008) p. 2419–2421

    work page 2008

  23. [24]

    A. J. K. Chua and J. R. Gair, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 232002 (2015)

    work page 2015

  24. [25]

    Y. Mino, M. Sasaki, M. Shibata, H. Tagoshi, and T. Tanaka, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 128, 1 (1997), https://academic.oup.com/ptps/article- pdf/doi/10.1143/PTPS.128.1/5438984/128-1.pdf

    work page doi:10.1143/ptps.128.1/5438984/128-1.pdf 1997

  25. [26]

    Nasipak, Phys

    Z. Nasipak, Phys. Rev. D109, 044020 (2024)

    work page 2024

  26. [27]

    Islam, S

    T. Islam, S. E. Field, S. A. Hughes, G. Khanna, V. Varma,et al., Phys. Rev. D106, 104025 (2022)

    work page 2022

  27. [28]

    Barack andA

    L. Barack andA. Pound, Reports on Progress in Physics 82, 016904 (2018)

    work page 2018

  28. [29]

    Nasipak and C

    Z. Nasipak and C. R. Evans, Phys. Rev. D104, 084011 (2021)

    work page 2021

  29. [30]

    Gupta, L

    P. Gupta, L. Speri, B. Bonga, A. J. K. Chua, and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D106, 104001 (2022)

    work page 2022

  30. [31]

    A. J. K. Chua, M. L. Katz, N. Warburton, and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 051102 (2021), arXiv:2008.06071 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  31. [33]

    M. L. Katz, L. Speri, A. J. K. Chua, C. E. A. Chapman-Bird, N. Warburton, et al., BlackHolePer- turbationToolkit/FastEMRIWaveforms: Frequency Do- main Waveform Added! (2023)

    work page 2023

  32. [34]

    A. J. Chua, C. R. Galley, and M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 211101 (2019), arXiv:1811.05491 [astro- ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [35]

    A. J. Chua, C. J. Moore, and J. R. Gair, Phys. Rev. D 96, 044005 (2017), arXiv:1705.04259 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  34. [36]

    Speri, M

    L. Speri, M. L. Katz, A. J. K. Chua, S. A. Hughes, N. Warburton,et al., Fast and Fourier: Extreme Mass Ratio Inspiral Waveforms in the Frequency Domain (2023), arXiv:2307.12585 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  35. [37]

    M. L. Katz, A. J. K. Chua, L. Speri, N. Warburton, and S. A. Hughes, Physical Review D104, 064047 (2021), arXiv:2104.04582

    work page arXiv 2021

  36. [38]

    Khalvati, A

    H. Khalvati, A. Santini, F. Duque, L. Speri, J. Gair, H. Yang, and R. Brito, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17310 (2024), arXiv:2410.17310

    work page arXiv 2024

  37. [39]

    McNamara and L

    P. McNamara and L. P. Team, Lisa pathfinder (2006)

    work page 2006

  38. [40]

    Antonucci, M

    F. Antonucci, M. Armano, H. Audley, G. Auger, M. Benedetti, et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity 29, 124014 (2012)

    work page 2012

  39. [41]

    Armano, H

    M. Armano, H. Audley, G. Auger, J. Baird, P. Binetruy, et al.,JournalofPhysics: ConferenceSeries 610,012005 (2015)

    work page 2015

  40. [42]

    Armano, H

    M. Armano, H. Audley, J. Baird, P. Binetruy, M. Born, et al. (LISA Pathfinder Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 110, 042004 (2024)

    work page 2024

  41. [43]

    Baghi, N

    Q. Baghi, N. Korsakova, J. Slutsky, E. Castelli, N. Kar- nesis, and J.-B. Bayle, Physical Review D105, 042002 (2022), arXiv:2112.07490

    work page arXiv 2022

  42. [44]

    Armano, H

    M. Armano, H. Audley, J. Baird, P. Binetruy, M. Born, et al. (LISA Pathfinder Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 106, 062001 (2022)

    work page 2022

  43. [45]

    Sala, Residual test mass acceleration in LISA Pathfinder: in-depth statistical analysis and physical sources, Ph.D

    L. Sala, Residual test mass acceleration in LISA Pathfinder: in-depth statistical analysis and physical sources, Ph.D. thesis, Trento U. (2023)

    work page 2023

  44. [46]

    Houba, L

    N. Houba, L. Ferraioli, and D. Giardini, Physical Re- view D 109, 10.1103/physrevd.109.083027 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.083027 2024

  45. [47]

    Houba, S

    N. Houba, S. Strub, and O. Jennrich, Physical Review D 109, 083027 (2024), arXiv:2401.00846

    work page arXiv 2024

  46. [48]

    Baghi, N

    Q. Baghi, N. Korsakova, J. Slutsky, E. Castelli, N. Kar- nesis, et al., Phys. Rev. D105, 042002 (2022)

    work page 2022

  47. [49]

    Muratore, J

    M. Muratore, J. Gair, O. Hartwig, M. L. Katz, and A. Toubiana, A pipeline for searching and fitting in- strumentalglitchesinlisadata(2025),arXiv:2505.19870 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [50]

    Licciardi, D

    A. Licciardi, D. Carbone, L. Rondoni, and A. Na- gar, Wavelet scattering transform for gravitational waves analysis. an application to glitch characterization (2025), arXiv:2411.19122 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [51]

    Gair and G

    J. Gair and G. Jones, Classical and Quantum Gravity 24, 1145–1168 (2007)

    work page 2007

  50. [52]

    Speri, M

    L. Speri, M. L. Katz, A. J. K. Chua, S. A. Hughes, N. Warburton, J. E. Thompson, C. E. A. Chapman-Bird, and J. R. Gair, Frontiers in Ap- plied Mathematics and Statistics V olume 9 - 2023 , 10.3389/fams.2023.1266739 (2024)

    work page doi:10.3389/fams.2023.1266739 2023

  51. [53]

    M. L. Katz, N. Karnesis, N. Korsakova, J. R. Gair, and N. Stergioulas, Physical Review D111, 024060 (2024), arXiv:2405.04690

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [54]

    T. B. Littenberg and N. J. Cornish, Physical Review D 107, 063004 (2023), arXiv:2301.03673

    work page arXiv 2023

  53. [55]

    S. Deng, L. Speri, Q. Baghi, S. Marsat, S. Babak, and M. L. Katz, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10277 (2025), arXiv:2501.10277

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [56]

    S. H. Strub, L. Ferraioli, C. Schäfer, A. Hees, and E. Plagnol, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15318 (2024), arXiv:2403.15318

    work page arXiv 2024

  55. [57]

    Baghi, The lisa data challenges (2022), arXiv:2204.12142 [gr-qc]

    Q. Baghi, The lisa data challenges (2022), arXiv:2204.12142 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  56. [59]

    Castelli, Q

    E. Castelli, Q. Baghi, J. G. Baker, J. Slutsky, J. Bobin, et al., Extraction of gravitational wave signals in realis- tic lisa data (2024), arXiv:2411.13402 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  57. [60]

    Whittle,Hypothesis Testing in Time Series Analysis, Statistics / Uppsala universitet (Almqvist & Wiksells boktr., 1951)

    P. Whittle,Hypothesis Testing in Time Series Analysis, Statistics / Uppsala universitet (Almqvist & Wiksells boktr., 1951)

    work page 1951

  58. [61]

    L. S. Finn, Physical Review D46, 5236–5249 (1992)

    work page 1992

  59. [62]

    A. J. K. Chua and C. J. Cutler, Phys. Rev. D 106, 124046 (2022)

    work page 2022

  60. [63]

    Karnesis, M

    N. Karnesis, M. L. Katz, N. Korsakova, J. R. Gair, and N. Stergioulas, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 526, 4814 (2023), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/526/4/4814/52313119/stad2939.pdf

    work page 2023

  61. [64]

    Ashton, M

    G. Ashton, M. Hübner, P. D. Lasky, C. Talbot, K. Ack- ley, S. Biscoveanu, Q. Chu, A. Divakarla, P. J. Easter, B. Goncharov, F. H. Vivanco, J. Harms, M. E. Lower, G. D. Meadors, D. Melchor, E. Payne, M. D. Pitkin, J. Powell, N. Sarin, R. J. E. Smith, and E. Thrane, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series241, 27 (2019)

    work page 2019

  62. [65]

    J. S. Speagle, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 493, 3132 (2020), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/493/3/3132/32890730/staa278.pdf

    work page 2020

  63. [66]

    Speri, R

    L. Speri, R. Tenorio, C. Chapman-Bird, and D. Gerosa, Ab uno disce omnes: Single-harmonic search for ex- treme mass-ratio inspirals (2025), arXiv:2510.20891 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  64. [67]

    Kejriwal, C

    S. Kejriwal, C. Chapman-Bird, and O. Burke, per- turber/stableemrifisher. (manuscript under prepara- tion)

    work page

  65. [68]

    Karnesis, M

    N. Karnesis, M. L. Katz, N. Korsakova, J. R. Gair, and N. Stergioulas, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society 526, 4814–4830 (2023)

    work page 2023

  66. [69]

    E. E. Flanagan and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D57, 4566 (1998)

    work page 1998

  67. [70]

    Miller, Phys

    M. Miller, Phys. Rev. D71, 104016 (2005)

    work page 2005

  68. [71]

    Cutler and M

    C. Cutler and M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D76, 104018 (2007)

    work page 2007

  69. [72]

    Roland and N

    M. Vallisneri, Physical Review D 77, 10.1103/phys- revd.77.042001 (2008)

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2008

  70. [73]

    Antonelli, O

    A. Antonelli, O. Burke, and J. R. Gair, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society507, 5069–5086 (2021)

    work page 2021

  71. [74]

    C. E. A. Chapman-Bird, L. Speri, Z. Nasipak, O. Burke, M. L. Katz,et al., The fast and the frame-dragging: Ef- ficient waveforms for asymmetric-mass eccentric equa- torial inspirals into rapidly-spinning black holes (2025), arXiv:2506.09470 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  72. [75]

    Lynch and O

    P. Lynch and O. Burke, Classical and Quantum Gravity 42, 167001 (2025)

    work page 2025

  73. [76]

    M. L. Katz, J.-B. Bayle, A. J. Chua, and M. Vallisneri, Physical Review D 106, 10.1103/physrevd.106.103001 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.103001 2022

  74. [77]

    LISA Science Study Team, Science requirement docu- ment: Esa-l3-est-sci-rs-001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  75. [78]

    Katz, CChapmanbird, L

    M. Katz, CChapmanbird, L. Speri, N. Karnesis, and N. Korsakova, mikekatz04/lisaanalysistools: First main release. (2024)

    work page 2024

  76. [79]

    Bergé, R

    J. Bergé, R. Massey, Q. Baghi, and P. Touboul, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society486, 544–559 (2019)

    work page 2019

  77. [80]

    Bayle, E

    J.-B. Bayle, E. Castelli, and N. Korsakova, Lisa glitch (2022)

    work page 2022

  78. [81]

    Consortium, Lisa pathfinder glitches, Available at: https://lisa-simulation.pages.in2p3.fr/glitch/ v1.2/lpf.html, accessed on 30 October 2025

    L. Consortium, Lisa pathfinder glitches, Available at: https://lisa-simulation.pages.in2p3.fr/glitch/ v1.2/lpf.html, accessed on 30 October 2025

    work page 2025

  79. [82]

    Derdzinski and L

    A. Derdzinski and L. Zwick, Multimessenger astronomy with black holes: Extreme mass ratio inspirals (2023), arXiv:2310.16900 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  80. [83]

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gom- mers, P. Virtanen,et al., Nature 585, 357 (2020)

    work page 2020

Showing first 80 references.