Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 88 references

The Host Galaxies of PTA Sources: Converting Supermassive BH Binary Parameters into EM Observables

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A PTA detection's posterior over binary mass and distance can be converted into a prediction of host-galaxy brightness; for the upcoming 20-year IPTA, those hosts should already be in the WISE and SuperCOSMOS surveys outside the Galactic…

desk verdict Useful PTA-host photometry pipeline, but the SuperCOSMOS completeness claim rests on an unjustified null K-correction in B. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11598 v2 pith:6SDDY7BA submitted 2025-05-16 astro-ph.HE

Niccolo Veronesi , Maria Charisi , Stephen R Taylor , Jessie Runnoe , Daniel J D'Orazio This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gravitationalwaveastronomysupermassiveblackholespulsartimingarrayshostgalaxyidentificationscalingrelationselectromagneticcounterpartsskysurveys
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

Pulsar timing arrays will soon resolve individual supermassive black hole binaries, but each detection will come with a localization region spanning hundreds to thousands of square degrees and a poorly constrained distance. This paper establishes a pipeline that converts the gravitational-wave parameters a PTA actually measures—chirp mass, strain amplitude, and frequency—into probability distributions for the apparent brightness of the host galaxy in the near-infrared $K_s$ band, the mid-infrared $W1$ band, and the optical $B$ band. The conversion is built for two host scenarios, a passive early-type galaxy and an active galactic nucleus, and it is then used to ask whether existing all-sky surveys can see the hosts of binaries that future International Pulsar Timing Array data releases could resolve. The paper's answer for a 20-year, 116-pulsar array is yes: outside the Galactic plane, all expected hosts should already be in the WISE and SuperCOSMOS catalogs, while 2MASS starts to miss the most massive hosts beyond 1 Gpc. That matters because brightness is a cheap, catalog-based filter for ranking and rejecting candidate host galaxies before any expensive follow-up.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a chain of empirically calibrated scaling relations. For early-type hosts, the chain is: binary total mass $M_{\rm tot}$ stands in for the single black hole mass in the $M_{\rm BH}$--$M_{\rm bulge}$ relation of McConnell & Ma (2013), giving a bulge mass that is assumed to equal the galaxy's total stellar mass; the stellar mass is converted to an absolute $K_s$-band magnitude through the Cappellari (2013) mass–luminosity relation; and the apparent $K_s$ magnitude (with distance and dust extinction) is converted into $W1$ and $B$ apparent magnitudes using linear inter-band relations calibrated on the GLADE+ catalog. For active hosts, the chain runs from $M_{\rm tot}$ to Eddington luminosity, to bolometric luminosity through mass-binned Eddington-fraction distributions from Wu & Shen (2022), and then to band luminosities through bolometric-correction distributions built from Shang et al. (2011) and Runnoe et al. (2012). A separate rejection-sampling step converts the standard PTA posterior over chirp mass, strain amplitude, and frequency into a joint $M_{\rm tot}$--$d_L$ distribution, which is what allows the method to start from real gravitational-wave search output rather than from assumed binary parameters. Uncertainties are propagated by random draws from every scatter and distribution in the chain, which is how the final magnitude predictions become probability distributions rather than point estimates.

What would settle it

Find the securely identified host of a resolved PTA source and measure its stellar or bulge mass independently of the gravitational-wave inference; if the host's mass lies below the $M_{\rm BH}$--$M_{\rm bulge}$ relation's prediction at the inferred binary total mass, the conversion chain is biased and the claimed WISE/SuperCOSMOS completeness is too optimistic. A catalog check would also work: a host found to be fainter than the 5th percentile of the predicted magnitude distribution, in a band where the paper predicts detectability, would falsify the method's calibration for that system.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the mapping from a binary's total mass to its host's light is strong enough to be usable in reverse: start from the posterior distribution over binary total mass and luminosity distance delivered by a PTA search, apply empirical galaxy–black hole scaling relations sample by sample, and the result is a calibrated probability distribution for the host's apparent magnitude in several bands. The paper shows this for two host pictures: a regular early-type galaxy, where total mass is converted to bulge mass, then stellar mass, then $K_s$-band luminosity, then $W1$ and $B$ magnitudes; and an active galactic nucleus, where total mass sets the Eddington luminosity, an Eddington-ratio distribution sets the bolometric luminosity, and bolometric-correction distributions set the band luminosities. Applied to the reach of upcoming arrays, this yields the paper's headline comparisons: with a baseline of 20 years and 116 pulsars, similar to the next IPTA data release, binaries are detectable out to roughly 2 Gpc ($z\sim0.36$), and the hosts of all such binaries should be present in WISE and SuperCOSMOS outside the Galactic plane, whereas 2MASS becomes incomplete for hosts of binaries above $10^{9.8}\,M_\odot$ beyond 1 Gpc. The same conversion, applied to one mock detection at signal-to-noise 8, produces magnitude distributions whose 5th-to-95th percentile spans about 10 to 17 magnitudes, and the $B$-band prediction alone would reject roughly 84% of catalog galaxies in the localization area as too dim to host the binary.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the $M_{\rm BH}$--$M_{\rm bulge}$ scaling relation measured for single black holes still holds when the total mass of a close binary is inserted in place of the single black hole mass, and that the resulting bulge mass is the full stellar mass of an early-type galaxy; if real hosts deviate from this relation, especially at the high masses the detected gravitational-wave background may be pointing to, the predicted magnitudes and the survey-completeness conclusions shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 20-year, 116-pulsar array similar to the next IPTA data release can detect binaries out to a luminosity distance of about 2 Gpc ($z\sim0.36$) under optimistic assumptions, and the hosts of every such binary should be in WISE and SuperCOSMOS outside the Galactic plane.
  • 2MASS becomes incomplete for hosts of binaries with total mass above about $10^{9.8}\,M_\odot$ at luminosity distances beyond 1 Gpc, so near-infrared-only selection will miss the heaviest, most distant systems.
  • With a 30-year, 200-pulsar array the reach extends past 3 Gpc ($z\sim0.53$), and at those distances the three surveys become increasingly incomplete: in the $K_s$ and $B$ bands for early-type hosts and in the $K_s$ and $W1$ bands for active galactic nucleus hosts.
  • Applying the conversion to a mock signal-to-noise-8 detection, the $B$-band magnitude distribution alone would reject about 84% of the galaxies in the localization area as too faint, shrinking the candidate list before follow-up.
  • For a fixed binary mass, early-type galaxies and active galactic nuclei have similar $K_s$-band magnitudes, making the near-infrared the band least sensitive to the assumed host type.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not construct a full ranking likelihood, but the same machinery could be run in reverse over a galaxy catalog: each catalog galaxy's photometry implies a prior over binary mass and distance, and multiplying that by the PTA posterior would rank candidates by joint gravitational-wave-plus-photometry probability rather than by magnitude percentiles alone.
  • The uncertainty budget implies a shift in where future effort pays off: the intrinsic scatter of the $M_{\rm BH}$--$M_{\rm bulge}$ relation dominates the uncertainty in survey reach, yet for a fixed detection it contributes only about 2% of the width of the magnitude distribution, so sharper host predictions will come mainly from tighter gravitational-wave parameter estimation rather than from imp
  • Because the best PTA sky positions lie near the Galactic plane, where WISE and SuperCOSMOS are masked, the completeness claim is conditional on sky position in a way that may matter for the first real detection; quantifying the overlap between the PTA sensitivity map and the catalogs' unmasked area is a natural next step.
  • The same conversion logic could be extended to X-ray and radio bands, which the paper discusses only as follow-up channels; doing so would let the initial photometric ranking be checked against future high-resolution imaging of candidate hosts.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. This paper develops a pipeline for converting PTA-inferred supermassive black hole binary parameters (total mass and luminosity distance) into predicted apparent magnitudes of the host galaxy in the Ks, W1, and B bands, for two host scenarios: regular early-type galaxies and AGN. The authors simulate three future IPTA configurations (20, 25, and 30 year baselines), compute the maximum luminosity distance at which individual binaries can be detected as a function of mass, and compare those reaches with the nominal depths of 2MASS, WISE, and SuperCOSMOS. The central quantitative claim is that, for the IPTA_20 configuration, all detectable binary hosts outside the Galactic plane should be present in WISE and SuperCOSMOS, while 2MASS becomes incomplete at high masses and distances; longer-baseline arrays yield more incompleteness. The paper also demonstrates the pipeline on a mock detection from Petrov et al. (2024), converting GW posteriors into host magnitude distributions.

Significance. If the method is sound, it addresses a timely and practical problem: how to rank and select candidate host galaxies once PTAs resolve individual supermassive black hole binaries. The reach calculations are clearly described, the use of empirical scaling relations is transparent, and the Monte Carlo propagation of uncertainties is appropriate. The paper makes explicit, testable predictions about survey completeness that can be checked once a resolved source is found. However, the headline claim about SuperCOSMOS completeness rests on a K-correction assumption that is only justified in the Ks band and is not valid for the B band, and the posterior-conversion algorithm in Section 3.3 contains a statistical bias. These issues affect the central claims and need to be addressed before the results can be relied upon.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (4) and Fig. 5] The null K-correction is justified only for the Ks band and is then implicitly applied to the B-band magnitudes. The text cites Mannucci et al. (2001) only for Ks, with values in [-0.5, 0], but at z ≈ 0.36 the observed B band samples rest-frame wavelengths near 330 nm, shortward of the 4000 Å break, where an early-type galaxy SED is much fainter and K_B ≈ 1.5-2 mag is expected. Since the distance modulus enters as 5 log d_L = m_lim - M_B + 5 - K_B, a K-correction of 1.5-2 mag reduces the SuperCOSMOS reach by 10^(K_B/5) ≈ 2, i.e., by about 0.3-0.4 dex in log d_L. Figure 5 shows the SuperCOSMOS curve lying close to the IPTA_20 best-case reach at M_tot ≳ 10^9.5 M_sun, so this shift is of exactly the size needed to erase the claimed margin. The statement in Section 5 that neglecting K-corrections does not significantly affect the results is therefore supported only for Ks, not for B. The central claim that all IPTA_20 detectable hosts are present in SuperCOSMOS should be recomputed with a redshift-dependent K_B, or the conclusion should be restricted to the WISE band.
  2. [§3.3, Steps 3-6] The rejection-sampling procedure does not sample the stated target distribution. The proposal is obtained by drawing (M_tot, q, f_GW, h0) from the priors and then computing (M_chirp, d_L); this induces a non-uniform proposal density in the (M_chirp, d_L) plane. The acceptance probability is then taken as P(M_chirp, d_L)/P_max, with no division by the proposal density. Standard rejection sampling requires acceptance probability p(z)/(M q(z)), where q(z) is the proposal density. Omitting q(z) overweights regions where the prior predictive density of (M_chirp, d_L) is large. Consequently, the accepted (M_tot, d_L) samples, and therefore the magnitude distributions shown in Figure 7, are biased. A correct route is to use joint posterior samples of q from the GW analysis and transform each chirp-mass sample directly, or to include the proposal density in the acceptance ratio.
  3. [§3.1, Eq. (2), and §5] The conversion from binary total mass to host brightness relies on using M_tot in the M_BH-M_bulge relation calibrated for single SMBHs, and on assuming that the resulting bulge mass equals the total stellar mass of an early-type galaxy. The authors acknowledge this caveat in Section 5, but the central survey-completeness claim is sensitive to the zero-point of this relation, so the conclusion would be more robust with a quantitative sensitivity test. Recomputing the reach curves with alternative scaling relations (e.g., Haring & Rix 2004, Kormendy & Ho 2013) or with a high-mass correction motivated by the recent GW background amplitude would show whether the 'all hosts detectable' conclusion survives plausible systematic offsets. As it stands, the prediction is tied to one empirical relation without a demonstrated robustness margin at the high-mass, high-redshift end where the SuperCOSMOS and IPTA_20 curves nearly intersect.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (13)] The formula for the luminosity distance derived from the strain amplitude is typeset in a way that makes it difficult to parse; please check the published expression against the standard strain-distance relation and add parentheses around the prefactor for clarity.
  2. [§4.2, catalog comparison] In the sentence comparing the 95th percentile of m_B with the WISE x SuperCOSMOS catalog, the word 'above' should be clarified to mean fainter (larger magnitude), otherwise the direction of the 84% rejection statistic is ambiguous.
  3. [§3.1, Eqs. (5) and (6)] The inter-band apparent-magnitude calibrations are fit using the GLADE+ catalog, which is mostly at low redshift; the paper should state the redshift range of the galaxies used in the fit and explicitly discuss the extrapolation to z ~ 0.36, in addition to the K-correction issue.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is a forward model built on external empirical scaling relations, with independent PTA reach simulations and survey-limit comparisons.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain maps PTA-inferred binary total mass and luminosity distance into host-galaxy apparent magnitudes through a sequence of independent empirical calibrations: McConnell & Ma (2013) for M_BH-M_bulge, Cappellari (2013) for stellar-mass-to-Ks-luminosity, GLADE+ photometric regressions for inter-band conversions, Cardelli et al. (1989) for extinction, and Shang et al. (2011)/Runnoe et al. (2012) for AGN bolometric corrections. These calibrations were fit to observations external to this paper, and the paper does not fit any parameter to the PTA posterior or to the survey-completeness target and then rename that fit as a prediction. Inverting the Arzoumanian et al. (2021) catalog procedure is explicitly described as using 'the same approach but in the opposite direction' (Section 3.1); this is legitimate reuse of an external relation, not a reduction of the output to the input. The PTA reach is obtained from injected mock signals with an S/N threshold, independent of the EM magnitude conversion. The GLADE+ fits are calibrations applied to new hosts, not fits to the survey limits that are then re-derived. The stated limitations in Section 3.1 and Section 5 — null K-correction and neglected redshift evolution — are acknowledged caveats, not circular reductions. Self-citations (Runnoe et al. 2012, D'Orazio et al. 2013, Petrov et al. 2024) provide published external data, simulation frameworks, or theoretical results, and no load-bearing conclusion depends on an unverified self-citation chain. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on established scaling relations and empirical distributions from the astrophysics literature; no new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are the inter-band color correlations fitted by the authors and the chosen extinction value, all auxiliary to the main pipeline. The axioms are standard domain assumptions for this kind of forward-modeling study, the most fragile being the applicability of the M_BH-M_bulge relation to binary total masses and to high-mass hosts.

free parameters (3)
  • a3, b3, and intrinsic scatter 0.131 for the Ks-W1 apparent magnitude correlation (Eq. 5) = a3=-1.1825+-0.0052, b3=1.0877+-0.0004, scatter=0.131
    Fitted by the authors from the GLADE+ galaxy catalog after excluding quasars and star-forming galaxies; used to convert Ks magnitudes to W1 magnitudes in the ETG scenario.
  • a4, b4, and intrinsic scatter 0.431 for the Ks-B apparent magnitude correlation (Eq. 6) = a4=1.7237+-0.0054, b4=0.6517+-0.0003, scatter=0.431
    Fitted by the authors from GLADE+; used to convert Ks magnitudes to B-band magnitudes in the ETG scenario.
  • Galactic extinction A_V = 0.19 = 0.19 mag
    Chosen as the median of the sky distribution from Chiang 2023; applied to all three bands via fixed conversion factors.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The M_BH-M_bulge scaling relation measured for single SMBHs applies with the binary total mass M_tot substituted for M_BH (Eq. 2).
    Section 3.1 justifies this by arguing that dynamical tracers cannot distinguish a compact binary from a single object. This is the load-bearing premise for the entire ETG magnitude conversion.
  • domain assumption For ETGs, the bulge mass equals the total stellar mass at all redshifts PTAs probe (Section 3.1, citing Holden et al. 2009).
    Needed to pass from M_bulge to the stellar mass used in the Cappellari mass-magnitude relation. The paper acknowledges this is an approximation.
  • domain assumption Null K-correction in the Ks band for the redshift range considered (Section 3.1).
    The authors state K-corrections in Ks are in [-0.5, 0] over z<0.5 and argue the effect is small, but they do not include them.
  • domain assumption Time-averaged accretion onto an SMBH binary matches that of a single SMBH of equivalent total mass (Section 3.2, citing D'Orazio et al. 2013, Farris et al. 2014, Tiede et al. 2025).
    Required to map binary total mass to Eddington luminosity and hence AGN bolometric luminosity.
  • domain assumption The Eddington ratio and bolometric correction distributions do not evolve significantly with redshift over the probed range (Section 5).
    The AGN inputs come from catalogs spanning z=0.03-1.4; the paper uses the full samples without redshift cuts and argues the evolution is weak.
  • domain assumption The injected GW background with amplitude 6.4e-15 at 1/yr and spectral index 3.2, from NANOGrav 15yr, remains representative for future IPTA data sets (Section 2.2).
    The PTA reach calculation depends on this background level; a different background amplitude or slope would change the S/N and reach.
  • domain assumption Reach calculations assume circular orbits, face-on inclination, and mass ratios bracketed by q=1 and q=0.1 (Section 2.3).
    These are optimistic or bracketing choices; eccentric and inclined binaries would have different detectability, and the abstract's 2 Gpc number corresponds to the most optimistic case.
  • domain assumption The Ks-W1 and Ks-B magnitude correlations built from GLADE+ after removing quasars and star-forming galaxies are representative of ETGs hosting SMBH binaries (Section 3.1).
    The empirical fits use nearby galaxies selected on photometric criteria; applying them at higher redshift and to merger remnants assumes no significant evolution or selection bias.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Host Galaxies of PTA Sources: Converting Supermassive BH Binary Parameters into EM Observables." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6SDDY7BA

@misc{pith2026250511598,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Host Galaxies of PTA Sources: Converting Supermassive BH Binary Parameters into EM Observables},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6SDDY7BA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11598}
}
abstract

Pulsar timing arrays (PTAs) are approaching the sensitivity required to resolve gravitational waves (GWs) from individual supermassive black hole (SMBH) binaries. However, the large uncertainty in source localization will make the identification of its host environment challenging. We show how to convert the posterior probability function of binary parameters inferred by GW analyses into distributions of apparent magnitudes of the host galaxy. We do so for a scenario in which the host environment is a regular early-type galaxy, and one in which it is an active galactic nucleus. We estimate the reach of PTAs in the near and intermediate future, and estimate whether the binary hosts will be detectable in all-sky electromagnetic (EM) surveys. A PTA with a baseline of 20 yr and 116 pulsars, resembling the upcoming data release of the International Pulsar Timing Array, can detect binaries out to a luminosity distance of 2 Gpc (corresponding to a redshift of $z\sim0.36$), while a PTA with a baseline of 30 yr and 200 pulsars can reach out to distances slightly greater than 3 Gpc ($z\sim0.53$). We find that the host galaxies of all binaries detectable with a baseline of 20 yr are expected to be present in the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer and SuperCOSMOS surveys, if they lie outside the plane of the Milky Way. The Two Micron All Sky Survey becomes incomplete for hosts of binaries more massive than $10^{9.8}{\rm M}_\odot$ at a luminosity distance greater than 1 Gpc. The EM surveys become slightly more incomplete when PTAs with longer baselines and therefore improved sensitivities are considered.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 105

    Agazie, G., Antoniadis, J., Anumarlapudi, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 105

    2024

  2. [2]

    2019, arXiv:1902.05569

    Akeson, R., Armus, L., Bachelet, E., et al. 2019, arXiv:1902.05569

    arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    F., Arzoumanian, Z., Baker, P

    Alam, M. F., Arzoumanian, Z., Baker, P. T., et al. 2021, ApJS, 252, 5

    2021

  4. [4]

    2023, LRR, 26, 2

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2023, LRR, 26, 2

    2023

  5. [5]

    T., Brazier, A., et al

    Arzoumanian, Z., Baker, P. T., Brazier, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 121 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123

    2021

  6. [6]

    2020, PASA, 37, e028

    Bailes, M., Jameson, A., Abbate, F., et al. 2020, PASA, 37, e028

    2020

  7. [7]

    J., Haggard, D., Tremmel, M., & Horlaville, P

    Bardati, J., Ruan, J. J., Haggard, D., Tremmel, M., & Horlaville, P. 2024b, ApJ, 977, 265 Bécsy, B., Cornish, N. J., & Kelley, L. Z. 2022, ApJ, 941, 119

    2022

  8. [8]

    C., Blandford, R

    Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1980, Natur, 287, 307

    1980

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    A., Jarrett, T

    Bilicki, M., Peacock, J. A., Jarrett, T. H., et al. 2016, ApJS, 225, 5 Bogdanović, T., Eracleous, M., & Sigurdsson, S. 2009, NewAR, 53, 113 Bogdanović, T., Miller, M. C., & Blecha, L. 2022, LRR, 25, 3

    2016

  2. [10]

    R., Charisi, M., et al

    Burke-Spolaor, S., Taylor, S. R., Charisi, M., et al. 2019, A&ARv, 27, 5

    2019

  3. [11]

    I., et al

    Burtscher, L., Orban de Xivry, G., Davies, R. I., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, A47

    2015

  4. [12]

    2013, ApJL, 778, L2

    Cappellari, M. 2013, ApJL, 778, L2

    2013

  5. [13]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245

    1989

  6. [14]

    R., & Zoltan Kelley, L

    Cella, K., Taylor, S. R., & Zoltan Kelley, L. 2025, CQGra, 42, 025021

    2025

  7. [15]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 118

    Chiang, Y.-K. 2023, ApJ, 958, 118

    2023

  8. [16]

    S., Bressan, A., Panuzzo, P., et al

    Clemens, M. S., Bressan, A., Panuzzo, P., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 982

    2009

  9. [17]

    E., Jarrett, T

    Cluver, M. E., Jarrett, T. H., Hopkins, A. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 90

    2014

  10. [18]

    P., Werner, M., Akeson, R., et al

    Crill, B. P., Werner, M., Akeson, R., et al. 2020, Proc. SPIE, 11443, 114430I

    2020

  11. [19]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, 2MASS All Sky Catalog of Point Sources (Pasadena, CA: NASA/IPAC) Dálya, G., Dìaz, R., Bouchet, F. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1403 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, A., et al. 2016, arXiv:1611. 00036 D’Orazio...

    2003 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A., Vallisneri, M., Taylor, S

    Ellis, J. A., Vallisneri, M., Taylor, S. R., & Baker, P. T. 2020, ENTERPRISE: Enhanced Numerical Toolbox Enabling a Robust PulsaR Inference SuitE, v3.0.0, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.4059815

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    C., & O’Sullivan, E

    Ellis, S. C., & O’Sullivan, E. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 627 EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, Antoniadis, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A50 EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, Antoniadis, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A94

    2006

  14. [22]

    A., Halpern, J

    Eracleous, M., Boroson, T. A., Halpern, J. P., & Liu, J. 2012, ApJS, 201, 23 Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A1 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al. 2019, ApJL, 875, L2

    2012

  15. [23]

    D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A

    Farris, B. D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A. I., & Haiman, Z. 2014, ApJ, 783, 134

    2014

  16. [24]

    2000, ApJL, 539, L9

    Ferrarese, L., & Merritt, D. 2000, ApJL, 539, L9

    2000

  17. [25]

    C., Bécsy, B., Kelley, L

    Gardiner, E. C., Bécsy, B., Kelley, L. Z., & Cornish, N. J. 2025, ApJ, 988, 222

    2025

  18. [26]

    C., Kelley, L

    Gardiner, E. C., Kelley, L. Z., Lemke, A.-M., & Mitridate, A. 2024, ApJ, 965, 164

    2024

  19. [27]

    2000, ApJL, 539, L13

    Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., Bower, G., et al. 2000, ApJL, 539, L13

    2000

  20. [28]

    M., Sesana, A., Holgado, A

    Goldstein, J. M., Sesana, A., Holgado, A. M., & Veitch, J. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 248

    2019

  21. [29]

    E., Peng, C

    Greene, J. E., Peng, C. Y., Kim, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 26

    2010

  22. [30]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 3288

    Guo, H., Liu, X., Shen, Y., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3288

    2019

  23. [31]

    2009, ApJ, 700, 1952

    Haiman, Z., Kocsis, B., & Menou, K. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1952

    2009

  24. [32]

    C., MacGillivray, H

    Hambly, N. C., MacGillivray, H. T., Read, M. A., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1279 Häring, N., & Rix, H.-W. 2004, ApJL, 604, L89

    2001

  25. [33]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Natur, 585, 357

    2020

  26. [34]

    2013, CQGra, 30, 224007

    Hobbs, G. 2013, CQGra, 30, 224007

    2013

  27. [35]

    2010, CQGra, 27, 084013

    Hobbs, G., Archibald, A., Arzoumanian, Z., et al. 2010, CQGra, 27, 084013

    2010

  28. [36]

    P., Franx, M., Illingworth, G

    Holden, B. P., Franx, M., Illingworth, G. D., et al. 2009, ApJ, 693, 617

    2009

  29. [37]

    J., Eracleous, M., et al

    Horlaville, P., Ruan, J. J., Eracleous, M., et al. 2025, arXiv:2504.21145

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, CSE, 9, 90 Ivezić, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111

    2007

  31. [39]

    H., Masci, F., Tsai, C

    Jarrett, T. H., Masci, F., Tsai, C. W., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 6

    2013

  32. [40]

    C., Arumugasamy, P., Bagchi, M., et al

    Joshi, B. C., Arumugasamy, P., Bagchi, M., et al. 2018, JApA, 39, 51

    2018

  33. [41]

    Z., Blecha, L., Hernquist, L., Sesana, A., & Taylor, S

    Kelley, L. Z., Blecha, L., Hernquist, L., Sesana, A., & Taylor, S. R. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 964

    2018

  34. [42]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511

    2013

  35. [43]

    M., Chen, S., Theureau, G., Habouzit, M., & Sesana, A

    Kozhikkal, M. M., Chen, S., Theureau, G., Habouzit, M., & Sesana, A. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 1931

    2024

  36. [44]

    Kramer, M., & Champion, D. J. 2013, CQGra, 30, 224009

    2013

  37. [45]

    É., et al

    Kun, E., Frey, S., Gabányi, K. É., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1290

    2015

  38. [46]

    Lai, D., & Muñoz, D. J. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 517

    2023

  39. [47]

    Lee, K. J. 2016, in ASP Conf. Ser. 502, Frontiers in Radio Astronomy and FAST Early Sciences Symp. 2015, ed. L. Qain & D. Li (San Francisco, CA: ASP), 19

    2016

  40. [48]

    Manchester, R. N. 2008, in AIP Conf. Ser. 983, 40 Years of Pulsars: Millisecond Pulsars, Magnetars and More, ed. C. Bassa et al. (Melville, NY: AIP), 584

    2008

  41. [49]

    M., et al

    Mannucci, F., Basile, F., Poggianti, B. M., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 745

    2001

  42. [50]

    J., & Ma, C.-P

    McConnell, N. J., & Ma, C.-P. 2013, ApJ, 764, 184

    2013

  43. [51]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Kocsis, B., & Haiman, Z. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1468

    2013

  44. [52]

    McLaughlin, M. A. 2013, CQGra, 30, 224008

    2013

  45. [53]

    T., Shannon, R

    Miles, M. T., Shannon, R. M., Bailes, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3976

    2023

  46. [54]

    T., Shannon, R

    Miles, M. T., Shannon, R. M., Reardon, D. J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 1489

    2025

  47. [55]

    Mingarelli, C. M. F., Lazio, T. J. W., Sesana, A., et al. 2017, NatAs, 1, 886

    2017

  48. [56]

    2016, ApJ, 828, 68

    Nguyen, K., & Bogdanović, T. 2016, ApJ, 828, 68

    2016

  49. [57]

    A., Hambly, N

    Peacock, J. A., Hambly, N. C., Bilicki, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 2085

    2016

  50. [58]

    Perera, B. B. P., DeCesar, M. E., Demorest, P. B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4666

    2019

  51. [59]

    R., Charisi, M., & Ma, C.-P

    Petrov, P., Taylor, S. R., Charisi, M., & Ma, C.-P. 2024, ApJ, 976, 129

    2024

  52. [60]

    S., Taylor, S

    Pol, N. S., Taylor, S. R., Kelley, L. Z., et al. 2021, ApJL, 911, L34 Popović, L. ć., Jovanović, P., Stalevski, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 538, A107

    2021

  53. [61]

    J., Britzen, S., Witzel, A., Krichbaum, T

    Qian, S. J., Britzen, S., Witzel, A., Krichbaum, T. P., & Kun, E. 2018, A&A, 615, A123

    2018

  54. [62]

    2019, BAAS, 51, 195

    Ransom, S., Brazier, A., Chatterjee, S., et al. 2019, BAAS, 51, 195

    2019

  55. [63]

    J., Zic, A., Shannon, R

    Reardon, D. J., Zic, A., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L6

    2023

  56. [64]

    A., Bender, R., et al

    Richstone, D., Ajhar, E. A., Bender, R., et al. 1998, Natur, 385, A14

    1998

  57. [65]

    H., & Miller, M

    Roedig, C., Krolik, J. H., & Miller, M. C. 2014, ApJ, 785, 115

    2014

  58. [66]

    A., Sesana, A., & Gair, J

    Rosado, P. A., Sesana, A., & Gair, J. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2417

    2015

  59. [67]

    C., Brotherton, M

    Runnoe, J. C., Brotherton, M. S., & Shang, Z. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 478

    2012

  60. [68]

    L., Stern, D., Brightman, M., et al

    Saade, M. L., Stern, D., Brightman, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 148

    2020

  61. [69]

    2025, arXiv:2501.09786

    Sato-Polito, G., Zaldarriaga, M., & Quataert, E. 2025, arXiv:2501.09786

    2025 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Sazhin, M. V. 1978, SvA, 36, 22

    1978

  63. [71]

    F., Meisner, A

    Schlafly, E. F., Meisner, A. M., & Green, G. M. 2019, ApJS, 240, 30

    2019

  64. [72]

    E., & Greene, J

    Schutte, Z., Reines, A. E., & Greene, J. E. 2019, ApJ, 887, 245

    2019

  65. [73]

    S., Wills, B

    Shang, Z., Brotherton, M. S., Wills, B. J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 196, 2

    2011

  66. [74]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163

    2006

  67. [75]

    Taylor, S. R. 2021, Nanohertz Gravitational Wave Astronomy (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press)

    2021

  68. [76]

    2025, ApJ, 984, 144

    Tiede, C., Zrake, J., MacFadyen, A., & Haiman, Z. 2025, ApJ, 984, 144

    2025

  69. [77]

    J., Izquierdo-Villalba, D., Sesana, A., et al

    Truant, R. J., Izquierdo-Villalba, D., Sesana, A., et al. 2025, arXiv:2504.01074

    2025 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Verbiest, J. P. W., Lentati, L., Hobbs, G., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1267

    2016

  71. [79]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, NatMe, 17, 261

    2020

  72. [80]

    C., Tananbaum, H

    Weisskopf, M. C., Tananbaum, H. D., Van Speybroeck, L. P., & O’Dell, S. L. 2000, Proc. SPIE, 4012, 2

    2000

  73. [81]

    W., Roellig, T

    Werner, M. W., Roellig, T. L., Low, F. J., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 1

    2004

  74. [82]

    Willmer, C. N. A. 2018, ApJS, 236, 47

    2018

  75. [83]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868

    2010

  76. [84]

    2022, ApJS, 263, 42

    Wu, Q., & Shen, Y. 2022, ApJS, 263, 42

    2022

  77. [85]

    2023, RAA, 23, 075024

    Xu, H., Chen, S., Guo, Y., et al. 2023, RAA, 23, 075024

    2023

  78. [86]

    2024, A&A, 690, A268

    Zhang, Y., Comparat, J., Ponti, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A268

    2024

  79. [87]

    J., Kapur, A., et al

    Zic, A., Reardon, D. J., Kapur, A., et al. 2023, PASA, 40, e049

    2023

  80. [88]

    2019, JOSS, 4, 1298 14 The Astrophysical Journal, 990:46 (14pp), 2025 September 1 Veronesi et al

    Zonca, A., Singer, L., Lenz, D., et al. 2019, JOSS, 4, 1298 14 The Astrophysical Journal, 990:46 (14pp), 2025 September 1 Veronesi et al

    2019

Pith tools

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