Does the 15× speedup hold when fine-tuning on real detector glitches versus synthetic noise?

Your question asks about a specific numerical claim—a "15× speedup"—that isn't present in these preprints. None of them directly compare fine-tuning performance on real detector glitches versus synthetic noise with that particular speedup metric.

That said, the archive does contain relevant work on both fine-tuning and glitch handling:

On transfer learning and fine-tuning efficiency: [AG-2025.02-1472] demonstrates that transfer learning can achieve the same performance with "an order of magnitude less samples" when fine-tuning a particle-flow model across different detector geometries. This shows that fine-tuning on limited real data can be far more efficient than training from scratch—but it's measured in data requirements, not computational speedup.

On real versus synthetic glitch data: The glitch classification and reconstruction papers take different approaches. [AG-2024.01-345] uses historical LIGO data (real glitches from previous observing runs) to train classifiers for O4, while [AG-2024.12-510] shows that the AWaRe reconstruction network succeeds on real LIGO glitches without explicit glitch training—suggesting that models trained on synthetic noise can generalize well. However, none quantify a speedup factor from synthetic-to-real fine-tuning.

The preprints don't contain a direct empirical comparison of training speed or convergence when fine-tuning on real versus synthetic glitches.