Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 71 references

Searching beyond the fiducial stochastic gravitational wave background in pulsar timing array data using likelihood reweighting

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-stage likelihood reweighting recovers the posterior and Bayes factor of a signal-plus-background pulsar timing array model from a fiducial background-only chain, with at least an order-of-magnitude speedup over full MCMC.

desk verdict A useful two-pass reweighting recipe for PTA model screening, with a clean core idea but a Bayes-factor derivation that needs fixing before the headline numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21267 v1 pith:TETIUHBL submitted 2025-04-30 gr-qc astro-ph.IM

Heling Deng , Xavier Siemens , Rand Burnette This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.IM
keywords gravitationalwavebackgroundpulsartimingarraysBayesianinferenceimportancesamplinglikelihoodreweightingkerneldensityestimationmodelselectionHellings-Downscorrelation
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

PTA collaborations have found evidence for a stochastic gravitational wave background, and a natural next question is whether the data contain features beyond the fiducial correlated background: deterministic signals, modified-gravity correlation patterns, or a dominant single supermassive-black-hole binary. This paper argues that such beyond-fiducial models can be screened without running a new Markov chain every time. Starting from posterior samples of a common-uncorrelated-red-noise (CURN) model, it assigns each sample a weight equal to the likelihood ratio between the target model and CURN, yielding reweighted posteriors and a Bayes factor given by the average weight. Because vanilla importance sampling has unstable weights, the authors reweight a second time using a kernel-density estimate of the new parameters, and test the procedure on three simulated datasets with a global sinusoid injected at weak, moderate, and strong amplitudes. They find that the reweighted posteriors and Bayes factors are consistent with full Bayesian runs, that the sinusoid parameters are recovered well even when the signal dominates, and that the procedure offers an at least order-of-magnitude speedup.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the likelihood-ratio weight $w(x,y)=L_{\mathrm{target}}(x,y)/L_{\mathrm{proposal}}(x)$, assigned to each proposal MCMC sample so that the weighted samples approximate the target posterior and the sample mean of the weights estimates the Bayes factor $B=Z/Z_0\approx\bar{w}$. Because vanilla importance sampling has unstable weights when the models are dissimilar, the second mechanism is a KDE-adapted proposal: one-dimensional kernel density estimates $f_{\mathrm{KDE}}(y)$ of the new parameters from the first reweighting form a new likelihood $L_1(x,y)=L_0(x)f_{\mathrm{KDE}}(y)$, and second-round weights $w'=L_{\mathrm{target}}/L_1$ are computed. The diagnostic $N_{\mathrm{eff}}=N/(1+(\sigma_w/\bar{w})^2)$ tells whether the weight distribution is healthy enough to trust the result. These objects carry the argument: the first weight extracts signal information from the fiducial chain, the second stabilizes the estimate, and $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$ flags when the method is being pushed past its validity.

What would settle it

Run the same two-stage reweighting on a fourth simulated dataset with a sinusoid injected at $\log_{10} A_{\mathrm{sin}} = -6.5$, just beyond the paper's strong case, and compare the averaged-weight Bayes factor and the reweighted posterior of $\log_{10} A_{\mathrm{SGWB}}$ against a full MCMC run of the same target: if the Bayes factor disagrees by more than the reported differences (e.g., $491\pm23$ versus $448\pm42$) or the SGWB posterior separates from the full-search posterior, the claimed screening reliability has a sharp amplitude ceiling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that two-stage likelihood reweighting is a reliable screening tool for beyond-fiducial PTA models. For a target model that adds parameters $y$ to a proposal with likelihood $L_0$ and posterior samples $x^{(i)}$, reweighting by $w_i = L_{\mathrm{target}}(x^{(i)}, y^{(i)})/L_0(x^{(i)})$ produces target posterior samples with the correct weights, and the target/proposal Bayes factor is the mean weight. The second reweighting replaces the uniform prior draws over $y$ with samples from one-dimensional KDEs of the first-round marginal posteriors, forming a new proposal likelihood $L_1 = L_0 \, f_{\mathrm{KDE}}(y)$ and weights $w'_i = L_{\mathrm{target}}/L_1$. In the paper's three sinusoid-injection tests, the Bayes factors from the second reweighting ($1.63\pm0.03$, $11.07\pm0.23$, $491\pm23$) match those from full hypermodel MCMC runs ($1.48\pm0.04$, $10.16\pm0.74$, $448\pm42$), and the reweighted signal posteriors overlap the full searches. The method's stated boundary is model similarity: when the signal dominates, the SGWB posterior recovery degrades, although the signal parameters are still captured.

Load-bearing premise

The target model must be a small perturbation of the proposal model so that the likelihood-ratio weights have small variance; the paper states this similarity requirement, and when the signal is strong enough to violate it, the weights and Bayes-factor estimates become unstable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single converged CURN chain can be reused to screen many target models, since the weights are computed in parallel and the proposal chain is thinned before reweighting.
  • Small Bayes factors from reweighting can set upper limits on new-signal parameters, while large Bayes factors flag targets that deserve a full MCMC follow-up.
  • The second KDE-based reweighting extends the usable range of importance sampling to moderately strong signals, where a single reweighting has visibly unstable weights.
  • An at least order-of-magnitude speedup over a full target search follows whenever the target likelihood is the expensive part of the calculation.
  • The signal parameters themselves are recovered even in the strong-signal regime where the SGWB posterior is degraded, so screening can still detect a dominant sinusoid.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's tests, a sky-located continuous-wave source is the natural next probe: it adds two sky-position parameters to the sinusoid, and the paper explicitly notes this as a physically interesting extension, so a failure there would mark the practical screening boundary for deterministic-source searches.
  • The dimension limit the paper states (no more than roughly ten new parameters) implies that modified-gravity correlation models that change many angular correlation coefficients at once are unlikely to be screenable by this route; those models would need a different proposal.
  • If this workflow is adopted, the fiducial chain becomes a reusable asset: each new target model costs only weight evaluations, so a single background-only analysis can support a fast model survey, and the effective sample size can be monitored in real time as a stopping rule.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-stage likelihood-reweighting method for pulsar timing array (PTA) searches beyond a fiducial stochastic gravitational wave background. Using posterior samples from a common uncorrelated red noise (CURN) model as a proposal, the first reweighting assigns likelihood-ratio weights to estimate the posterior and Bayes factor of a CURN plus global-sinusoid target model. To mitigate the large importance-weight variance that arises when the target is not a small perturbation of the proposal, the authors introduce a second reweighting step: kernel density estimates of the first-stage marginal posteriors of the sinusoid parameters are used to construct an adaptive proposal, and a second set of importance weights is computed. The method is tested on three simulated 20-pulsar datasets with sinusoid amplitudes corresponding to Bayes factors of roughly 1, 10, and 500. The reweighted posteriors are compared visually with full MCMC posteriors, and the reweighted Bayes factors are compared with hypermodel MCMC values. The authors claim that the method gives compatible results and provides at least an order-of-magnitude speedup over full analyses.

Significance. If validated, the method would be practically useful: PTA collaborations could reuse one fiducial CURN chain to screen many beyond-fiducial models, including global sinusoids, modified Hellings-Downs correlations, and continuous-wave-like signals. The second-reweighting innovation, using KDE-based adaptive proposals to temper importance-weight variance, is a reasonable extension of existing likelihood-reweighting work in gravitational-wave astronomy. However, the quantitative Bayes-factor claims currently rest on a derivation that is not self-consistent, and the reported speedup is asserted rather than measured. The central idea is sound and the simulated comparisons are encouraging, but the manuscript needs a corrected derivation and a more careful statement of the speedup claim before the results can be relied upon.

major comments (3)
  1. [II B, Eqs. (16)-(22)] The derivation of the second-stage Bayes factor is not self-consistent and the reported numbers cannot be reproduced as written. With pKDE(y)=fKDE(y)π(y), the product p0(x)pKDE(y) equals L1(x,y)π0(x)π(y)/Z0, so the fraction in Eq. (17) is Z1/Z0, not 1; the displayed equality therefore does not lead to Eq. (18). In addition, Eq. (21) approximates ∫fKDE(y)π(y)dy by ∫pKDE(y)π(y)dy: if pKDE=fKDEπ this introduces an extra factor π(y), while if pKDE is taken to be the normalized density ≈fKDE, the definition in the text is contradicted. Since the priors on Asin and fsin are log-uniform, the two readings differ by the factor ∫fKDEπ^2 / ∫fKDEπ. The symbol ρ in Eq. (22) is the inverse of whichever integral is intended, but the paper never states which. The reported Bayes factors B=1.63, 11.07, and 491 all depend on this unstated choice. Please correct the derivation (e.g., define ρ≡Z0/Z1=[∫fKDE(y)π(y)dy]^{-1} and compute it explicitly) or report evidence estimates obtained by a direct method.
  2. [III B3] The 'at least O(10)-time speedup' claim is asserted rather than demonstrated. The estimate assumes that the number of samples needed for a converged target chain equals that of the proposal chain and that thinning is performed every 10 samples, but no wall-clock measurements, effective-sample-size comparisons, or convergence diagnostics for the target chains are reported. The claim should either be backed by benchmark timings for the actual likelihood evaluations used here or be explicitly qualified as a conditional estimate that applies only when the target likelihood is substantially more expensive than the proposal likelihood.
  3. [II B, paragraph after Eq. (11)] The normalization of pKDE is ambiguous. If pKDE(y)=fKDE(y)π(y) as stated, then pKDE does not integrate to 1 for the non-uniform priors used in this paper, so the instruction 'draw N samples from pKDE(y)' is not well defined without specifying a normalization constant. This ambiguity is directly connected to the ρ inconsistency in Eqs. (19)-(22) and should be resolved in the same revision.
minor comments (4)
  1. [III B] The convergence check using one MCMC chain split in half after burn-in and requiring R<1.005 is not the standard Gelman-Rubin diagnostic, which compares multiple independent chains. Please either rename this as a within-chain consistency check or justify why it is adequate for the results presented.
  2. [II A, Eq. (9)] The standard error ΔB=σw/√N assumes independent samples, but the proposal chain is serially correlated. If the chain is thinned, this should be stated; otherwise an effective-sample-size correction should be used.
  3. [Table I] The notation 'log-uniform [−18,−11]' is ambiguous. Please state explicitly that log10 of the parameter is drawn from a uniform distribution on the indicated interval, for all such entries.
  4. [III B1] The comparison between reweighted and full-MCMC posteriors is purely visual. Reporting a quantitative measure (e.g., Kullback-Leibler divergence or credible-interval overlap) would make the claimed compatibility more precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the reweighted posterior and Bayes factor are derived from proposal-chain samples through likelihood-ratio weights, not from the target answer; the KDE-based second proposal is standard adaptive importance sampling.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. In Section II A, Eqs. (1)-(8) obtain the target posterior and Bayes factor from the CURN proposal posterior by the exact identity Z = Z0 * integral w(x,y) pi(y) p0(x) dx dy, with w = L/L0; no target posterior is inserted back into the estimator. The second reweighting (Section II B) fits a KDE to the first-round weighted samples and uses it only to build a proposal, L1 = L0 * fKDE(y); the target is still reached through the likelihood-ratio weight w' = L/L1 (Eq. 14), so the estimator is not forced by construction. This is adaptive importance sampling, not circularity. The reported agreement with full hypermodel MCMC (B = 1.48 vs 1.63, 10.16 vs 11.07, 448 vs 491) is an external benchmark, not a fitted input. The authors state the method's validity condition, 'The performance of this technique relies on the similarity of the two models' (Section II A), which is an acknowledged variance limitation rather than a circular step. One algebraic ambiguity exists: after defining pKDE(y) = fKDE(y) pi(y), Eqs. (20)-(22) replace fKDE by pKDE inside the integral and define rho inconsistently; with log-uniform priors the two readings differ by a non-constant prior factor. This is a reproducibility and correctness concern, not circularity, because no result reduces to its own input. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is used; the method is tested against full MCMC on simulated data.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no fitted physical constants and no new physical entities. The listed free parameters are algorithmic settings (KDE bandwidth, thinning, draws per sample). The key assumptions are the Gaussian PTA likelihood, CURN as the proposal, the small-perturbation overlap condition, and the adequacy of 1D KDE proposals.

free parameters (3)
  • KDE bandwidth = scipy default (not stated in paper)
    Smoothing bandwidth for the second proposal; chosen by software defaults rather than fitted to the target, but it affects the fidelity of the second reweighting.
  • Thinning factor for proposal chain = 10
    Assumed in the speedup estimate; not measured or optimized, and it directly drives the O(10) claim.
  • Random y draws per proposal sample = 1
    One sinusoid-parameter draw per MCMC sample in the first reweighting; the authors note that drawing more would improve performance at higher runtime.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Importance sampling identities: target posterior p is proportional to w times p0(x) times pi(y), and the Bayes factor is approximately the mean weight (Eqs. 1-8).
    Background Monte Carlo theory used without proof; standard.
  • domain assumption The marginal PTA likelihood is Gaussian: L = exp(-r^T C^-1 r / 2) / sqrt(det(2 pi C)) with C = N + T B T^T (Eq. 30).
    Standard PTA noise model with Gaussian white and red noise; used for both CURN and the target model.
  • ad hoc to paper The target model is a small perturbation of the proposal so that importance weights have manageable variance.
    Stated in Section II A; violated in the strong-signal case for SGWB parameters, producing unstable weights.
  • ad hoc to paper One-dimensional KDE marginals of the first reweighting are adequate proposals for the second reweighting (Section II B).
    The authors acknowledge a multidimensional KDE would be more accurate; correlations among sinusoid parameters are ignored.
  • ad hoc to paper Equal chain lengths for target and proposal, and thinning every 10 samples, underpin the speedup estimate (Section III B3).
    No wall-clock benchmark is reported; these assumptions directly produce the O(10) factor.
  • ad hoc to paper Splitting one MCMC chain after burn-in and requiring Gelman-Rubin R < 1.005 indicates convergence (Section III B).
    One-chain split-half is not a standard convergence diagnostic and can miss poor mixing.
  • domain assumption The 20-pulsar, 10-year, monthly-cadence simulated datasets with 1 microsecond white noise are representative enough to validate the method.
    The demonstration is entirely on synthetic data; no real PTA data are analyzed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching beyond the fiducial stochastic gravitational wave background in pulsar timing array data using likelihood reweighting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TETIUHBL

@misc{pith2026250421267,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching beyond the fiducial stochastic gravitational wave background in pulsar timing array data using likelihood reweighting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TETIUHBL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21267}
}
abstract

Since the recent announcements of evidence for a stochastic gravitational wave background from several pulsar timing array collaborations, much effort has been devoted to explore features beyond the fiducial Hellings-Downs background including those arising in modified gravity theories and deterministic gravitational wave signals. Inspired by previous studies, we propose a method to efficiently screen these models using likelihood reweighting based on the fiducial model. In order to alleviate the well-known unstable weight estimates in vanilla importance sampling, we implement reweighting for the second time making use of the kernel density estimation of the previously reweighted samples. We tested this method by analyzing three simulated datasets with an injected sinusoid signal applied to all pulsars. It is found that likelihood reweighting not only gives results compatible with those from full Bayesian analyses when the signal is subdominant, but is also able to recover the signal posterior to a reasonable accuracy in the presence of a rather strong signal. Given samples from the fiducial model, this method could bring an at least $\mathcal{O}(10)$-time speedup in analyzing new models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21267 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Weak signal We first considered a dataset where the sinusoid signal is almost buried by noise. Fig. 1 shows the marginal posteriors of log 10ASGWB and γSGWB in CURN and CURN + sin. We do not see much difference between the two models, which means that the presence of the sinu- soid signal does not bias the search for the SGWB. It is also shown in Fig. 1 t...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The two models are slightly disjoint in this regime

    Moderate signal Now we consider a stronger signal. The two models are slightly disjoint in this regime. Fig. 3 shows that the existence of the sinusoid signal obviously biases the estimate of the CURN parameters. In particular, ASGWB in the CURN model is overestimated because the sinusoid was mistaken as part of the background. It is also shown in Fig. 3 ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    perturbed

    Strong signal As expected, likelihood reweighting serves as an effi- cient tool in investigating a target model that can be 11 NANOGrav foundB≈ 1 in the 15-year data analysis supporting HD + sin over HD [1]. 14.8 14.6 14.4 14.2 14.0 13.8 13.6 13.4 13.2 log10 ASGWB 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 CURN CURN+sin First reweighting Second reweighting 1 2 3...

    work page

  4. [4]

    D. J. Reardon et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 951, L6 (2023), arXiv:2306.16215 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Agazie et al

    G. Agazie et al. (NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett. 951, L8 (2023), arXiv:2306.16213 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Xu et al

    H. Xu et al. , Res. Astron. Astrophys. 23, 075024 (2023), arXiv:2306.16216 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Antoniadis et al

    J. Antoniadis et al. (EPTA, InPTA:), Astron. Astrophys. 678, A50 (2023), arXiv:2306.16214 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    V. A. Rubakov, M. V. Sazhin, and A. V. Veryaskin, Phys. Lett. B 115, 189 (1982)

    work page 1982

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    M. T. Miles, R. M. Shannon, D. J. Reardon, M. Bailes, D. J. Champion, M. Geyer, P. Gitika, K. Grunthal, M. J. Keith, M. Kramer, et al. , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 536, 1489 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    L. P. Grishchuk, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 67, 825 (1974)

    1974

  3. [11]

    A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. 30, 682 (1979)

    1979

  4. [12]

    Kosowsky, M

    A. Kosowsky, M. S. Turner, and R. Watkins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2026 (1992)

    1992

  5. [13]

    Fabbri and M

    R. Fabbri and M. d. Pollock, Phys. Lett. B 125, 445 (1983)

    1983

  6. [14]

    Vagnozzi, JHEAp 39, 81 (2023), arXiv:2306.16912 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Vagnozzi, JHEAp 39, 81 (2023), arXiv:2306.16912 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Kosowsky, M

    A. Kosowsky, M. S. Turner, and R. Watkins, Phys. Rev. D 45, 4514 (1992)

    1992

  8. [16]

    S. J. Huber and T. Konstandin, JCAP 09, 022 (2008), arXiv:0806.1828 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Kosowsky and M

    A. Kosowsky and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 47, 4372 (1993), arXiv:astro-ph/9211004

    1993 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 49, 2837 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9310044

    1994 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer, and G. Servant, Phys. Rev. D 77, 124015 (2008), arXiv:0711.2593 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Hindmarsh, S

    M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen, and D. J. Weir, Phys. Rev. D 92, 123009 (2015), arXiv:1504.03291 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Hindmarsh, S

    M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen, and D. J. Weir, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 041301 (2014), arXiv:1304.2433 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    J. T. Giblin, Jr. and J. B. Mertens, JHEP 12, 042 (2013), arXiv:1310.2948 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J. T. Giblin and J. B. Mertens, Phys. Rev. D 90, 023532 (2014), arXiv:1405.4005 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Buchmuller, V

    W. Buchmuller, V. Domcke, and K. Schmitz, Phys. Lett. B 811, 135914 (2020), arXiv:2009.10649 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Arzoumanian et al

    Z. Arzoumanian et al. (NANOGrav), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 251302 (2021), arXiv:2104.13930 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Vilenkin, Phys

    A. Vilenkin, Phys. Lett. B 107, 47 (1981)

    1981

  19. [27]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 71, 063510 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0410222

    2005 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Afzal et al

    A. Afzal et al. (NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett. 951, L11 (2023), [Erratum: Astrophys.J.Lett. 971, L27 (2024), Erratum: Astrophys.J. 971, L27 (2024)], arXiv:2306.16219 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Ellis and M

    J. Ellis and M. Lewicki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 041304 (2021), arXiv:2009.06555 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    J. J. Blanco-Pillado, K. D. Olum, and J. M. Wachter, Phys. Rev. D 103, 103512 (2021), arXiv:2102.08194 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Hindmarsh and J

    M. Hindmarsh and J. Kume, JCAP 04, 045 (2023), arXiv:2210.06178 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Agazie et al

    G. Agazie et al. (NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett. 964, L14 (2024), arXiv:2310.12138 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Fairbairn, G. Franciolini, G. H¨ utsi, A. Iovino, M. Lewicki, M. Raidal, J. Urrutia, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023522 (2024), arXiv:2308.08546 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    D. G. Figueroa, M. Pieroni, A. Ricciardone, and P. Simakachorn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 171002 (2024), arXiv:2307.02399 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    R. w. Hellings and G. s. Downs, Astrophys. J. Lett. 265, L39 (1983)

    1983

  28. [36]

    Agazie et al., (2024), arXiv:2411.13472 [astro-ph.HE]

    G. Agazie et al., (2024), arXiv:2411.13472 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Chen, Y.-M

    Z.-C. Chen, Y.-M. Wu, Y.-C. Bi, and Q.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 109, 084045 (2024), arXiv:2310.11238 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    R. C. Bernardo and K.-W. Ng, Astron. Astrophys. 691, A126 (2024), arXiv:2310.07537 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Bi, Y.-M

    Y.-C. Bi, Y.-M. Wu, Z.-C. Chen, and Q.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 109, L061101 (2024), arXiv:2310.08366 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    B´ ecsy, N

    B. B´ ecsy, N. J. Cornish, and L. Z. Kelley, Astrophys. J. 941, 119 (2022), arXiv:2207.01607 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Sesana, A

    A. Sesana, A. Vecchio, and M. Volonteri, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 394, 2255 (2009), arXiv:0809.3412 [astro- ph]

    2009 arXiv

  34. [42]

    P. A. Rosado, A. Sesana, and J. Gair, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 451, 2417 (2015), arXiv:1503.04803 [astro- ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    L. Z. Kelley, L. Blecha, L. Hernquist, A. Sesana, and S. R. Taylor, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 477, 964 (2018), arXiv:1711.00075 [astro-ph.HE]. 11

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Maturana-Russel, R

    P. Maturana-Russel, R. Meyer, J. Veitch, and N. Christensen, Phys. Rev. D 99, 084006 (2019), arXiv:1810.04488 [physics.data-an]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Arzoumanian et al

    Z. Arzoumanian et al. (NANOGrav), (2023), arXiv:2301.03608 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Falxa et al

    M. Falxa et al. (IPTA), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.521, 5077 (2023), arXiv:2303.10767 [gr-qc]

    2023

  39. [47]

    W. Xie, P. O. Lewis, Y. Fan, L. Kuo, and M.-H. Chen, Systematic biology 60, 150 (2011)

    2011

  40. [48]

    I. M. Romero-Shaw, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 490, 5210 (2019), arXiv:1909.05466 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    E. M. Zahraoui, P. Maturana-Russel, W. van Straten, R. Meyer, and S. Gulyaev, (2024), arXiv:2411.14736 [astro-ph.IM]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    (13)], where N was mistakenly written as Neff defined below

    [Eq. (13)], where N was mistakenly written as Neff defined below. 3 Neff tells us whether the target’s posterior is sufficiently sampled.4 A threshold of Neff is usually determined em- pirically. If the threshold is not reached, it is straightfor- ward to generate more weighte...

  43. [51]

    Vitoratou and I

    S. Vitoratou and I. Ntzoufras, Statistics and Computing 27, 1165 (2017)

    2017

  44. [52]

    Payne, C

    E. Payne, C. Talbot, and E. Thrane, Phys. Rev. D 100, 123017 (2019), arXiv:1905.05477 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Biscoveanu, Nature Rev

    S. Biscoveanu, Nature Rev. Phys. 4, 5 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    Hourihane, P

    S. Hourihane, P. Meyers, A. Johnson, K. Chatziioan- nou, and M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D 107, 084045 (2023), arXiv:2212.06276 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    M. F. Bugallo, V. Elvira, L. Martino, D. Luengo, J. Miguez, and P. M. Djuric, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 34, 60 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    van Haasteren, Y

    R. van Haasteren, Y. Levin, P. McDonald, and T. Lu, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 395, 1005 (2009), arXiv:0809.0791 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Lentati, P

    L. Lentati, P. Alexander, M. P. Hobson, S. Taylor, J. Gair, S. T. Balan, and R. van Haasteren, Phys. Rev. D 87, 104021 (2013), arXiv:1210.3578 [astro-ph.IM]

    2013 arXiv

  50. [58]

    van Haasteren and M

    R. van Haasteren and M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D 90, 104012 (2014), arXiv:1407.1838 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  51. [59]

    S. R. Taylor, Nanohertz gravitational wave astronomy (CRC Press, 2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    Phinney, arXiv preprint astro-ph/0108028 (2001)

    E. Phinney, arXiv preprint astro-ph/0108028 (2001)

    2001 arXiv

  53. [61]

    van Haasteren and Y

    R. van Haasteren and Y. Levin, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 428, 1147 (2013), arXiv:1202.5932 [astro-ph.IM]

    2013 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Enterprise: Enhanced numerical toolbox enabling a ro- bust pulsar inference suite,

    J. A. Ellis, M. Vallisneri, S. R. Taylor, and P. T. Baker, “Enterprise: Enhanced numerical toolbox enabling a ro- bust pulsar inference suite,” Zenodo (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    Khmelnitsky and V

    A. Khmelnitsky and V. Rubakov, JCAP 02, 019 (2014), arXiv:1309.5888 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  56. [64]

    enterprise extensions,

    S. R. Taylor, P. T. Baker, J. S. Hazboun, J. Simon, and S. J. Vigeland, “enterprise extensions,” (2021), v2.4.3

    2021

  57. [65]

    jellis18/ptmcmcsampler: Official release,

    J. Ellis and R. van Haasteren, “jellis18/ptmcmcsampler: Official release,” (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    S. P. Brooks and A. Gelman, Journal of computational and graphical statistics 7, 434 (1998)

    1998

  59. [67]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peter- son, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, et al., Nature methods 17, 261 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    Odland, Zenodo (2018)

    T. Odland, Zenodo (2018)

    2018

  61. [69]

    S. Hee, W. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 455, 2461 (2016)

    2016

  62. [70]

    J. M. Dickey, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , 204 (1971)

    1971

  63. [71]

    H. Deng, B. B´ ecsy, and X. Siemens, in preparation

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.