Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

From new physics to a running power law and back again: Minimal refitting techniques for the reconstruction of the gravitational-wave background signal in pulsar timing array data

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single PTA spectral posterior can refit any gravitational-wave model without new MCMC runs.

desk verdict Genuinely new refitting method for PTA spectra, validated on real MCMC chains, but the delta-function approximation in Eq. (12) is the load-bearing weak spot and the authors overstate its universality. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23574 v1 pith:ORN2AZL5 submitted 2025-06-30 gr-qc astro-ph.COastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMhep-ph

David Esmyol , Antonio J. Iovino , Kai Schmitz This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMhep-ph
keywords gravitational-wavebackgroundpulsartimingarraysrunningpowerlawBayesianinferencespectralrefittingmatchedfilteringcosmicstringsscalar-inducedgravitationalwaves
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

This paper claims that the expensive part of fitting exotic gravitational-wave background (GWB) models to pulsar timing array data—running a full Markov-chain Monte Carlo on the timing residuals—only needs to be done once. Starting from the posterior density of a running-power-law (RPL) reference model, the authors construct a map from any new-physics GWB spectrum to the three RPL parameters by minimizing a matched-filter chi-squared that weights frequencies by the array's sensitivity. Pulling the RPL posterior back along this map yields an induced likelihood on the new-physics parameters, so posterior inference reduces to evaluating the reference posterior at the best-fit RPL parameters and multiplying by the model's prior. They show the resulting posteriors closely reproduce full MCMC fits for stable cosmic strings, metastable strings, and scalar-induced gravitational waves, with Hellinger distances as small as 0.011 when the model actually fits the data. The payoff is fast, physically intuitive model comparison and parameter inference for the growing catalog of proposed explanations of the nanohertz signal.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the map $\Phi$ defined in Eq. (7) as the minimizer of the chi-squared function in Eq. (5), which compares the BSM spectrum to an RPL template weighted by the PTA sensitivity curve across the full observing band. Composing this map with the RPL posterior—the pullback $\Phi^* P_{\mathrm{RPL}}$—converts a posterior on the reference model into a likelihood on the new-physics parameter space. That pullback, made explicit in Eq. (15), is what allows parameter inference and model comparison without rerunning the timing-residual analysis.

What would settle it

Take any GWB model already fitted to the 15-year PTA data by full MCMC, and from the same chain compute the conditional distribution of the RPL parameters at fixed BSM parameters, for example by reweighting or by holding the BSM spectrum fixed at its best fit. If that conditional spread is comparable to the width of the RPL posterior itself, Eq. (15) cannot reproduce the full posterior, and the Hellinger distances would grow correspondingly; the stable-strings example, where the refit is worse than a naive pivot-based fit, already shows the regime in which the delta assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is Eq. (15): the posterior for a beyond-the-Standard-Model GWB spectrum factorizes as $P(\theta_{\mathrm{BSM}} | D) \propto (P_{\mathrm{RPL}} \circ \Phi)(\theta_{\mathrm{BSM}})\, \pi(\theta_{\mathrm{BSM}})$, up to the constant evidence ratio. Here $P_{\mathrm{RPL}}$ is the three-parameter RPL posterior obtained from a single Bayesian fit to the 15-year PTA data, and $\Phi$ maps BSM parameters to the RPL parameters that minimize the matched-filter chi-squared in Eq. (5). The paper thereby replaces a full MCMC fit for each new model with one map evaluation; for the SIGW example, the refitted posterior for the peak-width parameter $\Delta$ has Hellinger distance 0.011 from the full MCMC result. The authors emphasize that $\Phi$ need not be invertible, so the method extends to BSM models with more parameters than the reference model.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that for each set of new-physics parameters there is a single best-fitting running-power-law spectrum, and that all other RPL spectra at that best fit are irrelevant—formally, the conditional distribution $p(\theta_{\mathrm{RPL}} | \theta_{\mathrm{BSM}})$ is a Dirac delta at the map $\Phi(\theta_{\mathrm{BSM}})$; if the true conditional distribution has appreciable width, the induced posterior will be artificially narrow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any GWB spectral model can be refit to the 15-year PTA data by evaluating the pullback of the RPL posterior; no new MCMC over timing residuals is required.
  • Model comparisons can be visualized in a spectral-index–amplitude plane analogous to the CMB $n_s$–$r$ plane, with global best-fit projections instead of pivot-frequency Taylor expansions.
  • RPL refits beat both CPL refits and naive pivot-based refits by Hellinger distance, for models that fit the NG15 data well.
  • The method works without constructing the inverse map, so it applies to BSM models with more than three parameters.
  • Because only one full Bayesian fit is needed, the RPL posterior can be built once and reused as a universal starting point for later refits and future data releases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same pullback trick could transfer to CMB spectral analysis: instead of Taylor-expanding slow-roll predictions at a pivot scale, one could map them to the posterior on the spectral index and its running, and pull that posterior back—an exact analogue the paper hints at but does not develop.
  • If the delta approximation is validated across a wider model zoo, the method turns each new PTA data release into a single RPL posterior that all model builders can refit at negligible cost, effectively decoupling data analysis from theory scanning.
  • The stable-string example suggests a useful diagnostic: before trusting a refit, check that the projected best-fit RPL point lies inside the high-probability region of the RPL posterior; if it lies far outside, the induced posterior is unreliable.
  • One could turn the chi-squared map itself into a goodness-of-fit statistic: the minimum chi-squared in Eq. (6) measures how far a BSM spectrum is from the best RPL description, providing a cheap model-comparison score without full inference.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops a fast approximate method for obtaining Bayesian posteriors of gravitational-wave background (GWB) spectral models from new physics, using the existing running-power-law (RPL) posterior from the NANOGrav 15-year data set as a reference. The method constructs a map Phi from beyond-Standard-Model (BSM) parameters to RPL parameters via a matched-filter chi-square minimization that accounts for the frequency dependence of the PTA sensitivity curve, and then uses the pullback of the RPL posterior as an induced likelihood on the BSM parameter space. The central result is Eq. (15), which expresses the BSM posterior as the product of the pullback posterior and a prior. The authors validate the method on three models (stable cosmic strings, metastable cosmic strings, and scalar-induced GWs) by comparing Hellinger distances against full MCMC fits from the NANOGrav new-physics analysis.

Significance. If the central approximation is controlled, this method would be a valuable tool: it would allow rapid refitting of many BSM spectral models to existing PTA data without running new MCMC chains. The mathematical chain from Eq. (5) to Eq. (15) is clearly laid out, and the comparison with naive pivot-based Taylor maps (nRPL/nCPL) is an informative benchmark. The validation against full MCMC results is a genuine strength: the Hellinger distances for SIGWs and metastable strings are encouragingly small (e.g., D_H=0.011 for the SIGW parameter Delta). The paper is also commendably transparent about the approximate nature of spectral refits. However, the load-bearing Dirac-delta approximation in Eq. (12) is not quantitatively controlled, and the stable-strings example already shows a failure mode where the new RPL method performs worse than the naive CPL method. This limits the generality of the claims and needs to be addressed before the method can be recommended as a routine substitute for direct MCMC analyses.

major comments (3)
  1. [Induced likelihood, Eq. (12)] The identification p(theta_RPL|theta_BSM) = delta^(3)(theta_RPL - Phi(theta_BSM)) is load-bearing, but the paper does not demonstrate that the conditional distribution is narrow compared with the scale over which P_RPL varies. The stable-strings row in Fig. 3 is precisely the regime where the approximation is least controlled: D_H(RPL)=0.161 is larger than D_H(nCPL)=0.064. Please either (i) provide evidence for the narrowness of the conditional, for example by comparing against a Gaussian conditional whose width is set by the curvature of Delta chi^2 at Phi, or (ii) explicitly restrict the claimed domain of validity and give a diagnostic for identifying models for which the method is unreliable. As written, Eq. (15) may understate posterior uncertainties in shallow chi-square valleys.
  2. [Running power law (RPL), KDE reconstruction] The posterior P_RPL is reconstructed from MCMC samples via kernel density estimation, but the bandwidth (and kernel choice) is not reported. Because Eq. (13) evaluates P_RPL pointwise, the induced posterior and the Hellinger distances in Fig. 3 depend on the smoothing scale. Please specify the bandwidth selection procedure and show that the reported results are robust to reasonable variations in this free parameter.
  3. [Results, Fig. 3 and Conclusions] The abstract states that the techniques 'provide the basis for fast and accurate Bayesian inference', but validation covers only three models, and one of them (stable strings) gives a hierarchy D_H(nCPL) < D_H(CPL) < D_H(RPL) < D_H(nRPL), i.e., the new RPL refit is the second-worst of the four methods for that model. The paper's own conclusion is more careful ('at least in the case of BSM models that yield a good fit'), but the abstract and Results section should carry this qualification explicitly, or the authors should propose a quantitative criterion for when the method is reliable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction, first paragraph] There is a typo: 'plausable' should be 'plausible'.
  2. [Introduction, second paragraph] There is a typo: 'auch as' should be 'such as'.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The notation 'log10( f∗/Hz)' and 'log10( Gμ)' is slightly ambiguous; please use consistent subscript and superscript formatting, e.g., log10(f_*/Hz) and log10(Gμ).
  4. [Eq. (8)] The conditional density p(theta_RPL|theta_BSM) is introduced as a probability density, but its normalization and support are never discussed; please clarify the measure with respect to which this density is defined.
  5. [Fig. 3] The Hellinger distances are computed for one-dimensional marginalized posteriors; please state explicitly whether multivariate (joint) agreement was also checked, since the method is used for joint parameter inference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the induced BSM posterior is a genuine pullback of the external NANOGrav RPL posterior, with the only approximation explicitly flagged and validated against independent MCMC fits.

full rationale

The derivation in Eqs. (8)-(15) is a transparent Bayesian manipulation rather than a circular reduction. Eq. (8) marginalizes over latent RPL parameters, Eq. (9) is Bayes' theorem, and Eq. (11) substitutes the externally produced RPL posterior from Ref. [76]. The only substantive approximation is Eq. (12), the Dirac-delta identification of the conditional density p(theta_RPL|theta_BSM). That is an ansatz about the sharpness of the chi-square map, not a definition of the output in terms of the input: the map Phi in Eq. (7) is constructed from the BSM and RPL spectra and the NG15 sensitivity curve, independently of the RPL posterior. The final Eq. (15) is therefore not identical to its input by construction; it is a refitted posterior whose accuracy is checked against full-MCMC posteriors from Ref. [16], a NANOGrav paper with no method-level author overlap. The paper explicitly cautions that spectral refits are approximate and demonstrates a failure mode for stable strings, where the naive nCPL refit outperforms the RPL refit. This is a limitation of the delta approximation, not a circularity. Self-citations (Refs. [65]-[67], [78]) enter only through the ingredient BSM spectra and sensitivity curves and do not carry the load of the central claim. No circularity score above 0 is warranted.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on an external posterior (Ref. [76]), an external sensitivity curve (Ref. [75]), and a heuristic chi-squared mapping. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The only ad hoc element is the delta-function approximation for the conditional map, plus the unspecified KDE bandwidth. The ledger is short, but the delta assumption is the key approximation that a reader should scrutinize.

free parameters (1)
  • KDE bandwidth for P_RPL reconstruction
    The posterior P_RPL is reconstructed from MCMC chains via kernel density estimation, but the bandwidth is not specified anywhere in the paper. The final induced posteriors depend on this choice, and no sensitivity study is shown.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The RPL posterior P_RPL reconstructed from Ref. [76] MCMC chains is a faithful representation of the NG15 data posterior.
    The entire refit hinges on this external posterior. If the KDE or the original MCMC is biased, all induced posteriors inherit the bias. The paper does not assess KDE accuracy beyond visual inspection.
  • domain assumption The sensitivity curve Omega_sens from Ref. [75] and the SNR formula in Eq. (4) accurately describe PTA sensitivity.
    The matched-filter chi-squared in Eq. (5) is built from these inputs. The map Phi therefore depends on the assumed sensitivity curve, and any error in this curve propagates into the refits.
  • domain assumption The Delta-chi-squared in Eq. (5) can be interpreted as a log-likelihood ratio for the differential spectrum.
    This is a heuristic borrowed from Fisher forecast literature (Ref. [79]). The paper does not derive it from the exact PTA likelihood, only motivates it via an SNR analogy.
  • ad hoc to paper The conditional density p(theta_RPL|theta_BSM) is a Dirac delta as in Eq. (12).
    This is the paper's key approximation: it neglects mapping uncertainty entirely. The empirical validation on three models is the only support, and the stable-strings case shows the approximation can fail.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From new physics to a running power law and back again: Minimal refitting techniques for the reconstruction of the gravitational-wave background signal in pulsar timing array data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ORN2AZL5

@misc{pith2026250623574,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From new physics to a running power law and back again: Minimal refitting techniques for the reconstruction of the gravitational-wave background signal in pulsar timing array data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ORN2AZL5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23574}
}
read the original abstract

Pulsar timing array (PTA) collaborations recently presented evidence for a gravitational-wave background (GWB) signal at nanohertz frequencies. In this paper, we introduce new refitting techniques for PTA data analysis that elevate related techniques in the literature to a more rigorous level and thus provide the basis for fast and accurate Bayesian inference and physically intuitive model comparisons. The key idea behind our approach is to construct maps \Phi from GWB spectral models to a running-power-law (RPL) reference model, such that the pullback \Phi^* P_RPL of the RPL posterior density P_RPL induces a likelihood on the GWB model parameter space; in other words, we refit spectral models to the RPL posterior density. In order to construct \Phi, we introduce a matched-filtering approach in which \Phi follows from a \chi^2 minimization that accounts for the frequency dependence of PTA sensitivity curves. We validate and illustrate our techniques by three concrete examples: GWs from stable cosmic strings, GWs from metastable strings, and scalar-induced GWs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23574 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic illustration of our minimal refitting approach. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Marginalized two-dimensional posterior densities for the parameters of the CPL and RPL models after Bayesian MCMC fits to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Marginalized one-dimensional posterior densities for the parameters of three exotic GWB spectral models (SIGWs, stable strings, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. New gravitational-wave templates for metastable cosmic strings: Loop breaking versus network collapse

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Metastable cosmic strings produce a gravitational wave background that is best modeled with three parameters (string tension Gμ plus independent time scales t_LB and t_NC), yielding a compact analytical spectrum when ...

  2. Implications for Pulsar Timing Arrays of Sub-solar Black Hole Detections: From LVK to Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer

    astro-ph.CO 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Bayesian analysis shows that a future sub-solar PBH detection would make the primordial SIGW interpretation of PTA data favored over the SMBH interpretation, but this preference is driven by the detection prior.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    [16]): One model pa- rameter (Gµ, the string tension in units of Newton’ s constant), GW emission from cusps and kinks [83–85]

    Stable strings (STABLE -N in Ref. [16]): One model pa- rameter (Gµ, the string tension in units of Newton’ s constant), GW emission from cusps and kinks [83–85]

  2. [2]

    [16]): Two model parameters ( Gµ and pκ, the decay parameter con- trolling the lifetime of the string network), GW emis- sion from cusps on loops and from segments [66]

    Metastable strings (META -LS in Ref. [16]): Two model parameters ( Gµ and pκ, the decay parameter con- trolling the lifetime of the string network), GW emis- sion from cusps on loops and from segments [66]

  3. [3]

    slow-roll

    SIGWs (SIGW -GAUSS in Ref. [16]): Three model param- eters ( Aζ, ∆, and f∗, which control the amplitude, width, and peak frequency of the primordial curva- ture spectrum Pζ, respectively), Pζ is assumed to have a log-normal shape [86], ΩGW based on Refs. [87, 88]. 5 More details on these models and the computation of the respective GWB spectra can be foun...

    2023

  4. [4]

    Taylor, The Nanohertz Gravitational Wave Astronomer, 2105.13270

    S.R. Taylor, The Nanohertz Gravitational Wave Astronomer, 2105.13270

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Postnov, N.K

    K.A. Postnov, N.K. Porayko and M.S. Pshirkov, Precision methods of pulsar timing and polarimetry: results and prospects, Phys. Usp. 68 (2025) 146 [2502.00080]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Kelley, Pulsar Timing Arrays, 2505.00797

    L.Z. Kelley, Pulsar Timing Arrays, 2505.00797

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    NANOG RAV collaboration, The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-wave Background, Astrophys. J. Lett. 951 (2023) L8 [2306.16213]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Search for gravitational wave signals, Astron

    EPTA, I NPTA: collaboration, The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - III. Search for gravitational wave signals, Astron. Astrophys. 678 (2023) A50 [2306.16214]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    Reardon et al., Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array, Astrophys

    D.J. Reardon et al., Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array, Astrophys. J. Lett. 951 (2023) L6 [2306.16215]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Xu et al., Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I, Res

    H. Xu et al., Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 23 (2023) 075024 [2306.16216]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    I NTERNATIONAL PULSAR TIMING ARRAY collaboration, Comparing Recent Pulsar Timing Array Results on the Nanohertz Stochastic Gravitational-wave Background, Astrophys. J. 966 (2024) 105 [2309.00693]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Miles et al., The MeerKAT Pulsar Timing Array: the first search for gravitational waves with the MeerKAT radio telescope, Mon

    M.T . Miles et al., The MeerKAT Pulsar Timing Array: the first search for gravitational waves with the MeerKAT radio telescope, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.536 (2024) 1489 [2412.01153]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Hellings and G.s

    R.w. Hellings and G.s. Downs, Upper Limits on the Isotropic Gravitational Radiation Background from Pulsar Timing Analysis, Astrophys. J. Lett. 265 (1983) L39

    1983

  6. [14]

    Romano and B

    J.D. Romano and B. Allen, Answers to frequently asked questions about the pulsar timing array Hellings and Downs curve, Class. Quant. Grav. 41 (2024) 175008 [2308.05847]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    NANOG RAV collaboration, Astrophysics Milestones for Pulsar Timing Array Gravitational-wave Detection, Astrophys. J. Lett. 911 (2021) L34 [2010.11950]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    NANOG RAV collaboration, The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Constraints on Supermassive Black Hole Binaries from the Gravitational-wave Background, Astrophys. J. Lett. 952 (2023) L37 [2306.16220]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Fairbairn, G. Hütsi, J. Raidal, J. Urrutia, V . Vaskonen et al.,Gravitational waves from supermassive black hole binaries in light of the NANOGrav 15-year data, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) L021302 [2306.17021]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    NANOG RAV collaboration, Galaxy Tomography with the Gravitational Wave Background from Supermassive Black Hole Binaries, 2411.05906

  11. [19]

    NANOG RAV collaboration, The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Search for Signals from New Physics, Astrophys. J. Lett. 951 (2023) L11 [2306.16219]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Implications for massive black holes, dark matter , and the early Universe, Astron

    EPTA, I NPTA collaboration, The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - IV . Implications for massive black holes, dark matter , and the early Universe, Astron. Astrophys. 685 (2024) A94 [2306.16227]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Figueroa, M

    D.G. Figueroa, M. Pieroni, A. Ricciardone and P . Simakachorn,Cosmological Background Interpretation of Pulsar Timing Array Data, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024) 171002 [2307.02399]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Fairbairn, G. Franciolini, G. Hütsi, A. Iovino, M. Lewicki et al., What is the source of the PTA GW signal?, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 023522 [2308.08546]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Maggiore, Gravitational wave experiments and early universe cosmology, Phys

    M. Maggiore, Gravitational wave experiments and early universe cosmology, Phys. Rept. 331 (2000) 283 [gr-qc/9909001]

    2000 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Caprini and D.G

    C. Caprini and D.G. Figueroa, Cosmological Backgrounds of Gravitational Waves, Class. Quant. Grav. 35 (2018) 163001 [1801.04268]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Vagnozzi, Inflationary interpretation of the stochastic gravitational wave background signal detected by pulsar timing array experiments, JHEAp 39 (2023) 81 [2306.16912]

    S. Vagnozzi, Inflationary interpretation of the stochastic gravitational wave background signal detected by pulsar timing array experiments, JHEAp 39 (2023) 81 [2306.16912]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Jiang, Y

    J.-Q. Jiang, Y. Cai, G. Ye and Y.-S. Piao, Broken blue-tilted inflationary gravitational waves: a joint analysis of NANOGrav 15-year and BICEP/Keck 2018 data, JCAP 05 (2024) 004 [2307.15547]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    S. Choudhury, Single field inflation in the light of Pulsar Timing Array Data: quintessential interpretation of blue tilted tensor spectrum through Non-Bunch Davies initial condition, Eur . Phys. J. C84 (2024) 278 [2307.03249]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Franciolini, A

    G. Franciolini, A. Iovino, Junior., V . Vaskonen and H. Veermae, Recent Gravitational Wave Observation by Pulsar Timing Arrays and Primordial Black Holes: The Importance of Non-Gaussianities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 201401 [2306.17149]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Cai, X.-C

    Y.-F . Cai, X.-C. He, X.-H. Ma, S.-F . Yan and G.-W . Yuan,Limits on scalar-induced gravitational waves from the stochastic background by pulsar timing array observations, Sci. Bull. 68 (2023) 2929 [2306.17822]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Inomata, K

    K. Inomata, K. Kohri and T . Terada,Detected stochastic gravitational waves and subsolar-mass primordial black holes, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 063506 [2306.17834]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Wang, Z.-C

    S. Wang, Z.-C. Zhao, J.-P . Li and Q.-H. Zhu,Implications of pulsar timing array data for scalar-induced gravitational waves and primordial black holes: Primordial non-Gaussianity fNL considered, Phys. Rev. Res. 6 (2024) 7 L012060 [2307.00572]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Firouzjahi and A

    H. Firouzjahi and A. Talebian, Induced gravitational waves from ultra slow-roll inflation and pulsar timing arrays observations, JCAP 10 (2023) 032 [2307.03164]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Liu, Z.-C

    L. Liu, Z.-C. Chen and Q.-G. Huang, Implications for the non-Gaussianity of curvature perturbation from pulsar timing arrays, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) L061301 [2307.01102]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Balaji, G

    S. Balaji, G. Domènech and G. Franciolini, Scalar-induced gravitational wave interpretation of PTA data: the role of scalar fluctuation propagation speed, JCAP 10 (2023) 041 [2307.08552]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Iovino, G

    A.J. Iovino, G. Perna, A. Riotto and H. Veermäe, Curbing PBHs with PTAs, JCAP 10 (2024) 050 [2406.20089]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Franciolini, D

    G. Franciolini, D. Racco and F . Rompineve,Footprints of the QCD Crossover on Cosmological Gravitational Waves at Pulsar Timing Arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024) 081001 [2306.17136]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Addazi, Y.-F

    A. Addazi, Y.-F . Cai, A. Marciano and L. Visinelli,Have pulsar timing array methods detected a cosmological phase transition?, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 015028 [2306.17205]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Bai, T .-K

    Y. Bai, T .-K. Chen and M. Korwar,QCD-collapsed domain walls: QCD phase transition and gravitational wave spectroscopy, JHEP 12 (2023) 194 [2306.17160]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Han, K.-P

    C. Han, K.-P . Xie, J.M. Yang and M. Zhang,Self-interacting dark matter implied by nano-Hertz gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 115025 [2306.16966]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Megias, G

    E. Megias, G. Nardini and M. Quiros, Pulsar timing array stochastic background from light Kaluza-Klein resonances, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 095017 [2306.17071]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Ghosh, A

    T . Ghosh, A. Ghoshal, H.-K. Guo, F . Hajkarim, S.F . King, K. Sinha et al., Did we hear the sound of the Universe boiling? Analysis using the full fluid velocity profiles and NANOGrav 15-year data, JCAP 05 (2024) 100 [2307.02259]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Li and K.-P

    S.-P . Li and K.-P . Xie,Collider test of nano-Hertz gravitational waves from pulsar timing arrays, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 055018 [2307.01086]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Di Bari and M.H

    P . Di Bari and M.H. Rahat,Split Majoron model confronts the NANOGrav signal and cosmological tensions, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 055019 [2307.03184]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Gouttenoire, First-Order Phase Transition Interpretation of Pulsar Timing Array Signal Is Consistent with Solar-Mass Black Holes, Phys

    Y. Gouttenoire, First-Order Phase Transition Interpretation of Pulsar Timing Array Signal Is Consistent with Solar-Mass Black Holes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 171404 [2307.04239]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    H. An, B. Su, H. Tai, L.-T . Wang and C. Yang,Phase transition during inflation and the gravitational wave signal at pulsar timing arrays, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) L121304 [2308.00070]

    2024

  38. [46]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, C. Lin and V . Vaskonen,Cosmic superstrings revisited in light of NANOGrav 15-year data, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 103511 [2306.17147]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Z. Wang, L. Lei, H. Jiao, L. Feng and Y.-Z. Fan, The nanohertz stochastic gravitational wave background from cosmic string loops and the abundant high redshift massive galaxies, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66 (2023) 120403 [2306.17150]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Lazarides, R

    G. Lazarides, R. Maji and Q. Shafi, Superheavy quasistable strings and walls bounded by strings in the light of NANOGrav 15 year data, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 095041 [2306.17788]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Chowdhury, G

    D. Chowdhury, G. Tasinato and I. Zavala, Dark energy, D-branes and pulsar timing arrays, JCAP 11 (2023) 090 [2307.01188]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Servant and P

    G. Servant and P . Simakachorn,Constraining postinflationary axions with pulsar timing arrays, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 123516 [2307.03121]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Antusch, K

    S. Antusch, K. Hinze, S. Saad and J. Steiner, Singling out SO(10) GUT models using recent PTA results, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 095053 [2307.04595]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Ge, Stochastic gravitational wave background: birth from string-wall death, JCAP 06 (2024) 064 [2307.08185]

    S. Ge, Stochastic gravitational wave background: birth from string-wall death, JCAP 06 (2024) 064 [2307.08185]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Basilakos, D.V

    S. Basilakos, D.V . Nanopoulos, T . Papanikolaou, E.N. Saridakis and C. Tzerefos, Gravitational wave signatures of no-scale supergravity in NANOGrav and beyond, Phys. Lett. B 850 (2024) 138507 [2307.08601]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Kitajima, J

    N. Kitajima, J. Lee, K. Murai, F . Takahashi and W . Yin, Gravitational waves from domain wall collapse, and application to nanohertz signals with QCD-coupled axions, Phys. Lett. B 851 (2024) 138586 [2306.17146]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    S.-Y. Guo, M. Khlopov, X. Liu, L. Wu, Y. Wu and B. Zhu, Footprints of axion-like particle in pulsar timing array data and James Webb Space Telescope observations, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 67 (2024) 111011 [2306.17022]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Blasi, A

    S. Blasi, A. Mariotti, A. Rase and A. Sevrin, Axionic domain walls at Pulsar Timing Arrays: QCD bias and particle friction, JHEP 11 (2023) 169 [2306.17830]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Gouttenoire and E

    Y. Gouttenoire and E. Vitagliano, Domain wall interpretation of the PTA signal confronting black hole overproduction, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) L061306 [2306.17841]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Lu, C.-W

    B.-Q. Lu, C.-W . Chiang and T . Li,Clockwork axion footprint on nanohertz stochastic gravitational wave background, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) L101304 [2307.00746]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Babichev, D

    E. Babichev, D. Gorbunov, S. Ramazanov, R. Samanta and A. Vikman, NANOGrav spectral index γ=3 from melting domain walls, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 123529 [2307.04582]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    NANOG RAV collaboration, The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Search for Anisotropy in the Gravitational-wave Background, Astrophys. J. Lett. 956 (2023) L3 [2306.16221]

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Gardiner, L.Z

    E.C. Gardiner, L.Z. Kelley, A.-M. Lemke and A. Mitridate, Beyond the Background: Gravitational-wave Anisotropy and Continuous Waves from Supermassive Black Hole Binaries, Astrophys. J. 965 (2024) 164 [2309.07227]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Depta, V

    P .F . Depta, V . Domcke, G. Franciolini and M. Pieroni,Pulsar timing array sensitivity to anisotropies in the gravitational wave background, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 083039 [2407.14460]

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Konstandin, A.-M

    T . Konstandin, A.-M. Lemke, A. Mitridate and E. Perboni,The impact of cosmic variance on PTAs anisotropy searches, JCAP 04 (2025) 059 [2408.07741]

    2025 arXiv

  56. [64]

    NANOG RAV collaboration, The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Bayesian Limits on Gravitational Waves from Individual Supermassive Black Hole Binaries, Astrophys. J. Lett. 951 (2023) L50 [2306.16222]

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    NANOG RAV collaboration, The NANOGrav 12.5 yr Data Set: A Computationally Efficient Eccentric Binary Search Pipeline and Constraints on an Eccentric Supermassive Binary Candidate in 3C 66B, Astrophys. J. 963 (2024) 144 [2309.17438]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    D’Orazio and M

    D.J. D’Orazio and M. Charisi, Observational Signatures of Supermassive Black Hole Binaries, 2310.16896

    arXiv

  59. [67]

    Sousa, Cosmic strings and gravitational waves, Gen

    L. Sousa, Cosmic strings and gravitational waves, Gen. Rel. Grav. 56 (2024) 105

    2024

  60. [68]

    Schmitz and T

    K. Schmitz and T . Schröder,Gravitational waves from cosmic strings for pedestrians, 2412.20907

  61. [69]

    Buchmuller, V

    W . Buchmuller, V . Domcke and K. Schmitz,Stochastic gravitational-wave background from metastable cosmic strings, JCAP 12 (2021) 006 [2107.04578]

    2021 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Buchmuller, V

    W . Buchmuller, V . Domcke and K. Schmitz,Metastable cosmic strings, JCAP 11 (2023) 020 [2307.04691]

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Domènech, Scalar Induced Gravitational Waves Review, Universe 7 (2021) 398 [2109.01398]

    G. Domènech, Scalar Induced Gravitational Waves Review, Universe 7 (2021) 398 [2109.01398]

    2021 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Lamb, S.R

    W .G. Lamb, S.R. Taylor and R. van Haasteren,Rapid refitting techniques for Bayesian spectral characterization of the 8 gravitational wave background using pulsar timing arrays, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 103019 [2303.15442]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    ENTERPRISE: Enhanced Numerical Toolbox Enabling a Robust PulsaR Inference SuitE

    J.A. Ellis, M. Vallisneri, S.R. Taylor and P .T . Baker, “ENTERPRISE: Enhanced Numerical Toolbox Enabling a Robust PulsaR Inference SuitE.” Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1912.015, Dec., 2019

    1912

  66. [74]

    Taylor, P .T

    S.R. Taylor, P .T . Baker, J.S. Hazboun, J. Simon and S.J. Vigeland, enterprise_extensions, 2021

    2021

  67. [75]

    Mitridate, D

    A. Mitridate, D. Wright, R. von Eckardstein, T . Schröder, J. Nay, K. Olum et al.,PTArcade, 2306.16377

    arXiv

  68. [76]

    Maggiore, Gravitational Waves

    M. Maggiore, Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments, Oxford University Press (2007), 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198570745.001.0001

    2007

  69. [77]

    Maggiore, Gravitational Waves

    M. Maggiore, Gravitational Waves. Vol. 2: Astrophysics and Cosmology, Oxford University Press (3, 2018)

    2018

  70. [78]

    10.5281/zenodo.8092346

    The NANOGrav Collaboration, Noise Spectra and Stochastic Background Sensitivity Curve for the NG15-year Dataset , June, 2023. 10.5281/zenodo.8092346

    2023 doi

  71. [79]

    Agazie et al., The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Running of the Spectral Index, Astrophys

    G. Agazie et al., The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Running of the Spectral Index, Astrophys. J. Lett. 978 (2025) L29 [2408.10166]

    2025 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Hazboun, J.D

    J.S. Hazboun, J.D. Romano and T .L. Smith,Realistic sensitivity curves for pulsar timing arrays, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 104028 [1907.04341]

    2019 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Schmitz, New Sensitivity Curves for Gravitational-Wave Signals from Cosmological Phase Transitions, JHEP 01 (2021) 097 [2002.04615]

    K. Schmitz, New Sensitivity Curves for Gravitational-Wave Signals from Cosmological Phase Transitions, JHEP 01 (2021) 097 [2002.04615]

    2021 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Kuroyanagi, T

    S. Kuroyanagi, T . Chiba and T . Takahashi,Probing the Universe through the Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background, JCAP 11 (2018) 038 [1807.00786]

    2018 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Caldwell, T .L

    R.R. Caldwell, T .L. Smith and D.G.E. Walker,Using a Primordial Gravitational Wave Background to Illuminate New Physics, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 043513 [1812.07577]

    2019 arXiv

  76. [84]

    D’Eramo and K

    F . D’Eramo and K. Schmitz,Imprint of a scalar era on the primordial spectrum of gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. Research. 1 (2019) 013010 [1904.07870]

    2019 arXiv

  77. [85]

    LISA C OSMOLOGY WORKING GROUP collaboration, Gravitational waves from first-order phase transitions in LISA: reconstruction pipeline and physics interpretation, JCAP 10 (2024) 020 [2403.03723]

    2024 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Blanco-Pillado, K.D

    J.J. Blanco-Pillado, K.D. Olum and B. Shlaer, Large parallel cosmic string simulations: New results on loop production, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 083514 [1101.5173]

    2011 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Blanco-Pillado, K.D

    J.J. Blanco-Pillado, K.D. Olum and B. Shlaer, The number of cosmic string loops, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 023512 [1309.6637]

    2014 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Blanco-Pillado and K.D

    J.J. Blanco-Pillado and K.D. Olum, Stochastic gravitational wave background from smoothed cosmic string loops, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 104046 [1709.02693]

    2017 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Pi and M

    S. Pi and M. Sasaki, Gravitational Waves Induced by Scalar Perturbations with a Lognormal Peak, JCAP 09 (2020) 037 [2005.12306]

    2020 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Kohri and T

    K. Kohri and T . Terada,Semianalytic calculation of gravitational wave spectrum nonlinearly induced from primordial curvature perturbations, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 123532 [1804.08577]

    2018 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Espinosa, D

    J.R. Espinosa, D. Racco and A. Riotto, A Cosmological Signature of the SM Higgs Instability: Gravitational Waves, JCAP 09 (2018) 012 [1804.07732]

    2018 arXiv

  84. [92]

    P LANCK collaboration, Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A10 [1807.06211]

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.