How many pixels are there in a polarized pulsar timing array map?

Anna Tsai; Dylan L. Jow; Ue-Li Pen

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

How many pixels are there in a polarized pulsar timing array map?

T0 review · 5 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 dense pulsar timing array without well-measured pulsar distances can distinguish at most 32 independent polarized point sources per frequency, no matter how many pulsars it contains.

desk verdict A useful polarized PTA map-making framework with a headline resolution number that is a beam-area heuristic, not a rigorous bound. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21380 v2 pith:EE47KUQG submitted 2025-07-28 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.COgr-qc

Dylan L. Jow , Anna Tsai , Ue-Li Pen This is my paper

classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.COgr-qc

keywords pulsartimingarraysgravitationalwavebackgroundanisotropypolarizationskymapsangularresolutionHellings-Downscurvequadraticestimators

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

The paper asks how many independent sources a pulsar timing array (PTA) can in principle distinguish when it maps the gravitational-wave sky in both direction and polarization. It argues that for a dense array whose pulsar distances are poorly known, the answer is finite and frequency-independent: 16 sky positions times 2 circular-polarization states, about $N_{\rm res} = 16 \times 2 = 32$ polarized point sources per frequency, corresponding to an angular resolution near $58^\circ$. That limit is reached with roughly $N_{\rm pulsar} \gtrsim 20$ pulsars, so adding more pulsars improves signal-to-noise but not resolving power. This matters because standard Hellings-Downs analyses carry no directional or polarization information, while these maps do, and the map's total power is exactly the standard optimal statistic.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a simple quadratic estimator built from two aperture matrices, $A_L$ and $A_R$, containing the PTA response to left- and right-circularly polarized monochromatic waves from every trial sky position. The estimators produce complex “dirty maps” $L$ and $R$ via matched filtering; their squared combinations give Stokes $I$, $Q$, $U$, and $V$ maps, and a point on the Poincaré sphere gives the per-pixel polarization state, filling the $S^2 \times S^2$ state-space of position and polarization. Resolution is set by the width of the point-spread function in the “natural” map, where the dirty map is weighted by the inverse square-root of the noise power spectrum so the pixel noise is white; the angular width of that beam and of the noise two-point correlation both give $\theta_{\rm res} = 58^\circ$.

What would settle it

Measure the pulsar distances well enough to include the pulsar term in the residuals and re-compute the point-spread function; the beam width should shrink below $58^\circ$ and the number of resolvable sources should exceed 32. Alternatively, with distances still unknown, simulate a PTA with hundreds of uniformly placed pulsars and inject two point sources closer than $58^\circ$; if a clean map separates them at high signal-to-noise, the claimed floor is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a PTA without well-constrained pulsar distances has a fundamental resolution floor: even an infinitely dense array cannot produce a sky map with more than about 16 independent spatial pixels plus 2 independent polarization pixels per frequency, so only $N_{\rm res} = 16 \times 2 = 32$ distinct polarized point sources can be resolved. The paper derives this from the matched-filter point-spread function of its quadratic estimators, measuring the half-power width of the Stokes $I$ response and of the whitened “natural” map to obtain an angular resolution $\theta_{\rm res} = 58^\circ$, and shows the asymptote is reached at $N_{\rm pulsar} \gtrsim 20$. It further shows that the monopole of the intensity map is equivalent to the Hellings-Downs optimal statistic, so map-based analysis preserves all standard isotropic information while adding anisotropy and polarization, and that a single point source that would be a $3\sigma$ Hellings-Downs detection appears at $5.2\sigma$ in map space.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on neglecting the pulsar term in each timing residual, justified by the assumption that pulsar distances are poorly determined; if those distances were actually known, the 32-pixel cap would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Without pulsar distances, adding pulsars to a PTA cannot shrink the beam below $58^\circ$; it only raises signal-to-noise, so single-source searches should be designed around roughly 32 independent resolution elements.
Anisotropy searches at multipoles above $\ell \approx 12$ will require well-constrained distances; at lower multipoles a dense PTA saturates its resolving power with only about 20 pulsars.
Because the intensity-map monopole equals the standard optimal statistic, polarized map-making is at least as sensitive as Hellings-Downs analysis for isotropic backgrounds and strictly more informative for anisotropic or polarized skies.
In a source-dominated background, a marginal $3\sigma$ Hellings-Downs detection can become a $5.2\sigma$ detection in the brightest map pixel, justifying coherent map searches for individual supermassive-black-hole binaries.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable consequence the paper leaves implicit: if pulsar distances one day become well measured, the Earth-term-only floor at 32 pixels should lift toward the diffraction limit, so astrometric progress would be a direct check of the claim that the 32-pixel limit is fundamental.
The 32 independent pixels also set a practical trials factor for blind source searches; since the true point-spread function has support over the whole sky, the effective trials may differ slightly from 32, and the paper itself flags this as needing future work.
If the observed nanohertz background is dominated by one or a few bright sources, the map statistic proposed here is a more direct way to expose that structure than isotropic-model fits; applying the estimator to current public timing datasets would show whether the predicted $5.2\sigma$ boost appears.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read it. The headline number—16 spatial × 2 polarization pixels for a PTA without pulsar distances—is a heuristic estimate, not a rigorous bound. But the paper is worth taking seriously because it builds the polarized map-making framework cleanly and shows something non-obvious: the total map power equals the Hellings-Downs optimal statistic, and a 3σ HD detection can be 5.2σ in the brightest pixel. That last point is a genuinely useful argument for map-based searches.

The new construction (Stokes I/Q/U/V from left/right circular dirty maps, Poincaré-sphere map) is straightforward and well explained. The PSF simulations are simple but adequate to show convergence with N_pulsar ≳ 20. The equivalence in Eq. (28) is a solid derivation, not a fitted result.

The soft spots are real. The 16 spatial pixels come from taking the width of the whitened PSF and dividing 4π by that solid angle. That is a beam-area count, not an eigenmode count of the pixel-pixel response. The pixels are correlated; the paper admits this. A proper SVD of A†A, or of the noise-weighted response, would tell you how many modes actually carry independent information. Until that is done, '16' should be read as an order-of-magnitude scale, not a fundamental constant. The same applies, more severely, to N_pol ≈ 2, which gets one sentence with no derivation.

There's also an internal inconsistency: 58° resolution corresponds to ℓmax ≈ 3, not 12. I suspect they made an arithmetic slip. And the noise power spectrum relation C_noise ∝ sqrt((2ℓ+1) C_ℓ^{|L|}) is asserted without proof, as is the response function Eq. (7). None of these are fatal; they are all addressable in revision.

The biggest caveat is the one the authors state up front: the limit assumes pulsar distances are unknown, so the pulsar term is dropped. With distances, the diffraction limit applies. So 'fundamental' means 'fundamental for Earth-term-only analysis.' That is a modeling assumption, not a property of gravitational waves.

Who this is for: PTA analysts thinking about anisotropy searches, single-source detection, and whether to invest in pulsar distance measurements. The map-making construction and the HD-equivalence result are solid takeaways. The 16×2 number should be treated as a rough estimate until someone does the eigenmode analysis.

Recommendation: send to a serious referee, but tell the referee to focus on the resolution count. The paper would benefit from either an SVD calculation or a clear statement that the count is intentionally heuristic.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a quadratic map-making estimator for polarized, monochromatic gravitational-wave point sources in pulsar timing arrays, restricting attention to the Earth term on the grounds that pulsar distances are poorly known. It constructs left/right circularly polarized dirty maps, converts them to Stokes I, Q, U, V maps, and introduces a Poincaré-sphere map of polarization states. Simulating a dense, nearly uniform PTA, it finds that the intensity point-spread function has an effective radius of 24.2 degrees, that the whitened 'natural' map beam has an effective radius of 29 degrees, and that the corresponding angular resolution is 2 x 29 = 58 degrees. This leads to the headline result N_res = 16 x 2 = 32 independent polarized sources per frequency, with the 16 spatial pixels reached for N_pulsar >~ 20. The paper also shows that the sum of the intensity map equals the Hellings-Downs optimal statistic and argues that a single bright source would be detected at 5.2 sigma in map-space versus 3 sigma in the total-intensity statistic.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the result is significant for PTA science: it would imply that Earth-term-only analyses have a fixed angular resolution floor (roughly ell_max ~ 12) no matter how many pulsars are added, and it would provide a concrete motivation for polarized map-based searches for individual bright sources. The derivation of the map-sum/optimal-statistic equivalence in Eq. (28) is clean and is a genuine strength of the paper, as is the direct numerical computation of the PSF and its convergence with N_pulsar. However, the headline N_res = 32 rests on counting resolution elements from the solid angle of a single filtered beam rather than on an information-theoretic eigenmode count; the paper itself notes that the pixels are never truly independent and that the estimate is signal-to-noise dependent. The polarization count N_pol is asserted rather than derived. These issues affect the central claim, so the significance is conditional on them being resolved.

major comments (5)

[Section IV, Eq. (23)] The derivation of N_spatial = 16 counts resolution elements from the solid angle enclosed by theta* of a single filtered beam. Since the PSF has support over the entire sky and the pixel noise is correlated across pixels (as the paper itself states in Section V), the beam solid angle is not by itself a count of independent resolvable sources. Moreover, the paper acknowledges that with infinite signal-to-noise any number of sources can be resolved regardless of beam width, which shows that this 'N_res' is not a hard information-theoretic limit. To support the central claim that adding pulsars cannot improve the resolving power beyond 16 sky positions, the authors should provide an eigenmode/SVD analysis of the pixel-pixel response (or an explicit Fisher-information calculation for two-source separation) showing that the effective number of independent modes is approximately 16 and does not grow with N_pulsar.
[Section IV, 'A similar analysis ... N_pol approximately 2'] The number of distinguishable polarization states, N_pol = 2, is asserted without derivation, yet it enters multiplicatively in the headline N_res = 16 x 2 = 32. The authors should spell out the calculation, preferably by applying the same theta*-based criterion to the Poincare-sphere PSF, and should justify the earlier claim that the Poincare point-source response has the same size for every spatial pixel n_hat_j. Without this, the polarization factor in the central result is unsupported.
[Section IV A, after Eq. (22)] The relation C_noise_ell proportional to sqrt((2 ell + 1) C_ell^{|L|}) is introduced with 'One can show' but no derivation or numerical verification is provided. This relation is used to whiten the dirty maps and to define the natural-map beam whose width (theta* = 29 degrees) sets the quoted resolution of 58 degrees. Since the headline resolution depends on this whitening, the relation should be derived in an appendix or tested numerically before the resolution claim is accepted.
[Section II, Eq. (7)] The response function zeta^{R,L}(r_hat; n_hat, t0) is introduced without derivation or reference. All subsequent PSF, noise-correlation, and resolution calculations depend directly on this expression, so the manuscript should provide a derivation (or an explicit reference) and should state the sign convention connecting L/R to the plus/minus signs in the numerator, since the Stokes V map and the polarization count depend on that convention.
[Section V, Eqs. (29)-(30)] The 5.2-sigma versus 3-sigma comparison assumes exactly N_res = 32 independent, identically distributed resolution elements. The paper notes that this is an idealization, but the comparison should also state that if the effective number of independent modes differs from 32 (as raised in the first major comment), the quoted significance improvement changes. This is a caveat rather than a fatal flaw, but it should be made explicit so that the numerical comparison is not over-interpreted.

minor comments (5)

[Section II, first paragraph] The phrase 'restrict out attention' should read 'restrict our attention'.
[Figure 5 caption] The caption contains a garbled phrase: 'The maps on the right shows the right show the resulting Stokes I response' should be rewritten, for example, as 'The maps on the right show the resulting Stokes I response in map-space.'
[Figure 4] The axis label 'polarization = 90' is ambiguous; it should be labeled 'theta_polarization [degrees]' or similar, and the units for 'spatial = 24.2' should be stated.
[Section II, Eq. (7)] The branch of the sign in the term '± i sin theta sin(phi - phi_gw)' is not defined in the text; the authors should state explicitly which sign corresponds to left-circular and which to right-circular polarization.
[Section II, after Eq. (5)] The justification for neglecting the pulsar term is brief; a reference to standard Earth-term-only PTA analyses would help readers assess the validity of this approximation for realistic pulsar distance uncertainties.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central derivation is self-contained, with only a minor self-citation that is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The response functions ζ_L and ζ_R are derived from the standard pulsar-timing timing-residual formula, and the dirty maps, natural maps, PSF, and noise correlation functions are computed directly from these response functions in simulations. The Hellings-Downs equivalence in Section V is derived by computing the covariance matrix averaged over pulsar pairs, not assumed. The number N_spatial = 16 is obtained from the width of the computed PSF via the explicitly defined integral criterion in Eq. (23), followed by a solid-angle counting formula; this is a transparent resolution-element definition rather than an independent channel-capacity calculation, and the paper itself calls it a 'rough estimate' that is signal-to-noise dependent. No parameter is fitted to force N_res = 32, and no conclusion is reduced to a self-citation. The citation to Boyle & Pen (2012), which includes an author of the present paper, is used for context about the existence of a finite Earth-term resolution limit, but the numerical result and its derivation are presented and computed in this paper from first principles. The polarization count N_pol ≈ 2 is asserted without a detailed derivation, but this is a missing-support issue, not circularity, because it is not used as an input to define the spatial result. Overall, the derivation chain is not circular; the main caveat is that the pixel count is a heuristic resolution metric rather than a rigorous information-theoretic bound.

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

No new physical entities are introduced; the paper's contributions are an estimator construction and a resolution estimate. The only hand-chosen constant is the 0.38 width threshold, which affects the numerical result but not the qualitative conclusion.

free parameters (1)

Resolution width threshold = 0.38 (Eq. 23)
The effective beam radius θ* is defined by integrating the radial profile to 38% of its total; this constant is chosen to match a Gaussian sigma. Different choices change N_spatial: using half-max (0.5) would give θ≈24° and N≈23 instead of 16.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Pulsar distances are poorly constrained, so the pulsar term is neglected (Section II, after Eq. 5).
The entire resolution limit applies only to the Earth-term-only analysis. If distances were known, the resolution could be much finer.
domain assumption Gravitational wave sources are monochromatic and fully polarized, so I²=Q²+U²+V² (Section III, footnote 1).
Used to write the Stokes parameters and to interpret the Poincaré sphere. Real astrophysical sources are expected to be nearly monochromatic and polarized, but the assumption restricts the validity of the map interpretation.
domain assumption Timing residual noise is an independent complex Gaussian (Section V).
Used to derive the χ² distributions and the significance comparison (3σ vs 5.2σ). Real pulsar noise is colored and correlated.
standard math The response function ζ in Eq. (7) is correct.
Quoted without derivation from the timing-residual formula of ref [16]; all simulations depend on it.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How many pixels are there in a polarized pulsar timing array map?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EE47KUQG

@misc{pith2026250721380,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How many pixels are there in a polarized pulsar timing array map?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EE47KUQG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21380}
}

abstract

The standard approach to searching for gravitational wave signatures in pulsar timing array (PTA) data has been to compare the theoretical Hellings and Downs (HD) curve with the observed correlations in pulsar timing residuals as a function of angular separation on the sky between pulsar pairs. While this approach has successfully produced evidence for the presence of nanohertz-wavelength gravitational waves, it does not, on its own, produce any directional information. It is also insensitive to the polarization of the gravitational waves. An alternative approach is to construct maps of the gravitational wave distribution on the sky. In this paper, we present a simple quadratic estimator of the gravitational wave power as a function of direction on the sky that is sensitive to the polarization state of the wave. In this way, we describe the full, $S_2 \times S_2$, state-space of a polarized gravitational wave background across the sky and the Poincar\'e sphere describing polarization. A natural question arises from this perspective: what is the resolution of a polarized sky-map, i.e. effectively how many independent pixels can a such a map contain? In other words, how many distinct gravitational waves can a PTA, in principle, distinguish? It turns out the answer is finite, and is approximately $N_{\rm res} = 16 \times 2 = 32$ per frequency, where 16 is the number of resolvable sky-positions and 2 is the number of distinct polarization states. This corresponds to an angular resolution of $58^\circ$, which can be achieved by a PTA with more than $N_{\rm pulsar} \gtrsim 20$ pulsars. We demonstrate that the variance of the map is equivalent to the HD significance, while for a single point source, a 3-$\sigma$ HD signal corresponds to a 5.2-$\sigma$ map significance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21380 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The Poincar´e sphere dirty map for a purely right cir [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The matched-filter response of a purely right cir [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The angular radius of the dirty Stokes I and Poincar´e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: shows a comparison of the radial profiles of the natural |Lˆ j | map (the beam), the dirty |Lj | map (the filtered beam), and the dirty |Lj | 2 map for a purely leftcircularly-polarized source at the pole as a function of θ. We also show the angular two-point correlat…

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.

Reaching diffraction-limited localization with coherent PTAs
astro-ph.IM 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

Coherent map-making with pulsar distances in PTAs reaches diffraction-limited angular resolution of ~2 arcmin for GW sources at SNR=10 using roughly 9 pulsars.
Stochastic problems in pulsar timing
astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

Analytical solutions to Langevin equations for red noise and GWB in pulsars show that an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck spin frequency model is inconsistent with stationary signals, while an overdamped oscillator model and a two-...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Agazie, A

G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, Z. Ar- zoumanian, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, L. Blecha, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, S. Burke-Spolaor, R. Burnette, R. Case, M. Charisi, S. Chatterjee, K. Chatziioannou, B. D. Cheeseboro, S. Chen, T. Cohen, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cornish, F. Crawford, H. T. Cromartie, K. Crowter, C. J. Cutler, M. E. Decesar, D. Degan, P...

arXiv 2023
[2]

pulsar term

This is the more natural basis for gravitational wave polariza- tion, as astrophysical sources of gravitational radiation will primarily be circularly polarized. For a ring of test particles perpendicular to the direction of propagation, the left-handed polarization mode rotates the particles in a clockwise sense, as viewed from the origin. The effect of ...

work page
[3]

optimal statistic

a single source, 3. pure, isotropic Hellings-Downs correlations, and 4. a single source plus pure Hellings- Downs correlations. They find that the data is con- sistent with pure, isotropic Hellings-Downs correlations alone. However, since a single source already produces Hellings-Downs-like correlations on its own, the consis- tency of the data with isotr...

work page 2019
[4]

H. Xu, S. Chen, Y. Guo, J. Jiang, B. Wang, J. Xu, Z. Xue, R. Nicolas Caballero, J. Yuan, Y. Xu, J. Wang, L. Hao, J. Luo, K. Lee, J. Han, P. Jiang, Z. Shen, M. Wang, N. Wang, R. Xu, X. Wu, R. Manchester, L. Qian, X. Guan, M. Huang, C. Sun, and Y. Zhu, Search- ing for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Arr...

arXiv 2023
[5]

Antoniadis, Z

J. Antoniadis, Z. Arzoumanian, S. Babak, M. Bailes, A. S. Bak Nielsen, P. T. Baker, C. G. Bassa, B. B´ ecsy, A. Berthereau, M. Bonetti, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, M. Burgay, S. Burke-Spolaor, R. N. Caballero, J. A. Casey-Clyde, A. Chalumeau, D. J. Champion, M. Charisi, S. Chatterjee, S. Chen, I. Cognard, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cornish, F. Crawford, H. T. Croma...

arXiv 2022
[6]

An- toniadis, P

EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, J. An- toniadis, P. Arumugam, S. Arumugam, S. Babak, M. Bagchi, A. S. Bak Nielsen, C. G. Bassa, A. Bathula, A. Berthereau, M. Bonetti, E. Bortolas, P. R. Brook, M. Burgay, R. N. Caballero, A. Chalumeau, D. J. Cham- pion, S. Chanlaridis, S. Chen, I. Cognard, S. Danda- pat, D. Deb, S. Desai, G. Desvignes, N. Dhanda-B...

arXiv 2023
[7]

Belgacem and M

E. Belgacem and M. Kamionkowski, Chirality of the gravitational-wave background and pulsar-timing arrays, Phys. Rev. D 102, 023004 (2020)

work page 2020
[8]

D. J. Reardon, A. Zic, R. M. Shannon, G. B. Hobbs, M. Bailes, V. Di Marco, A. Kapur, A. F. Rogers, E. Thrane, J. Askew, N. D. R. Bhat, A. Cameron, M. Cury lo, W. A. Coles, S. Dai, B. Goncharov, M. Kerr, A. Kulkarni, Y. Levin, M. E. Lower, R. N. Manchester, R. Mandow, M. T. Miles, R. S. Nathan, S. Os lowski, C. J. Russell, R. Spiewak, S. Zhang, and X.-J. Z...

arXiv 2023

Show all 35 references

[9]

Kato and J

R. Kato and J. Soda, Probing circular polarization in stochastic gravitational wave background with pulsar timing arrays, Phys. Rev. D 93, 062003 (2016)

2016
[10]

Sato-Polito and M

G. Sato-Polito and M. Kamionkowski, Exploring the spectrum of stochastic gravitational-wave anisotropies with pulsar timing arrays, PRD 109, 123544 (2024), arXiv:2305.05690 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[11]

Anil Kumar, M

N. Anil Kumar, M. ¸ calı¸ skan, G. Sato-Polito, M. Kamionkowski, and L. Ji, Linear polarization of the stochastic gravitational-wave background with pulsar timing arrays, PRD 110, 043501 (2024), arXiv:2312.03056 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[13]

Grunthal, R

K. Grunthal, R. S. Nathan, E. Thrane, D. J. Champion, M. T. Miles, R. M. Shannon, A. D. Kulkarni, F. Ab- bate, S. Buchner, A. D. Cameron, M. Geyer, P. Gitika, M. J. Keith, M. Kramer, P. D. Lasky, A. Parthasarathy, D. J. Reardon, J. Singha, and V. Venkatraman Krishnan, The Meer...

2025 arXiv
[14]

Agazie, A

G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, Z. Ar- zoumanian, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, L. Blecha, A. Bra- zier, P. R. Brook, S. Burke-Spolaor, J. A. Casey-Clyde, M. Charisi, S. Chatterjee, T. Cohen, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cornish, F. Crawford, H. T. Cromartie, K. Crowter, M. E. ...

2023 arXiv
[15]

Lemke, A

A.-M. Lemke, A. Mitridate, and K. A. Gersbach, Detect- ing Gravitational Wave Anisotropies from Supermassive Black Hole Binaries, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2407.08705 (2024), arXiv:2407.08705 [astro-ph.HE]

2024 arXiv
[16]

optimal statistic

Alternatively, this can be taken as the effective num- ber of independent pixels in both of the complex L and R maps. A similar analysis can be carried out to find the effective number of independent pixels in the Poincar´ e map, resulting in a number of distinguishable polari...
[17]

Boyle and U.-L

L. Boyle and U.-L. Pen, Pulsar timing arrays as imag- ing gravitational wave telescopes: Angular resolution and source (de)confusion, PRD 86, 124028 (2012), arXiv:1010.4337 [astro-ph.HE]

2012 arXiv
[18]

Roebber and G

E. Roebber and G. Holder, Harmonic Space Analysis of Pulsar Timing Array Redshift Maps, APJ835, 21 (2017), arXiv:1609.06758 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[19]

Maiorano, F

M. Maiorano, F. De Paolis, and A. A. Nucita, Princi- ples of Gravitational-Wave Detection with Pulsar Tim- ing Arrays, Symmetry 13, 2418 (2021), arXiv:2112.08064 [astro-ph.GA]

2021 arXiv
[20]

Dor´ e, R

O. Dor´ e, R. Teyssier, F. R. Bouchet, D. Vibert, and S. Prunet, MAPCUMBA: A fast iterative multi-grid map-making algorithm for CMB experiments, AAP 374, 358 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0101112 [astro-ph]

2001 arXiv
[21]

Dodelson, Modern Cosmology (2003)

S. Dodelson, Modern Cosmology (2003)

2003
[22]

K. M. G´ orski, E. Hivon, A. J. Banday, B. D. Wan- delt, F. K. Hansen, M. Reinecke, and M. Bartelmann, HEALPix: A Framework for High-Resolution Discretiza- tion and Fast Analysis of Data Distributed on the Sphere, APJ 622, 759 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0409513 [astro-ph]

2005 arXiv
[23]

S. R. Taylor, R. van Haasteren, and A. Sesana, From bright binaries to bumpy backgrounds: Mapping realistic gravitational wave skies with pulsar-timing arrays, PRD 102, 084039 (2020), arXiv:2006.04810 [astro-ph.IM]

2020 arXiv
[24]

Anholm, S

M. Anholm, S. Ballmer, J. D. E. Creighton, L. R. Price, and X. Siemens, Optimal strategies for gravitational wave stochastic background searches in pulsar timing data, PRD 79, 084030 (2009), arXiv:0809.0701 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[25]

S. J. Chamberlin, J. D. E. Creighton, X. Siemens, P. De- morest, J. Ellis, L. R. Price, and J. D. Romano, Time- domain implementation of the optimal cross-correlation statistic for stochastic gravitational-wave background 12 searches in pulsar timing data, PRD 91, 044048 (2015...

2015 arXiv
[26]

Sato-Polito, M

G. Sato-Polito, M. Zaldarriaga, and E. Quataert, Where are NANOGrav’s big black holes?, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2312.06756 (2023), arXiv:2312.06756 [astro- ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[27]

L. Z. Kelley, L. Blecha, L. Hernquist, A. Sesana, and S. R. Taylor, Single sources in the low-frequency gravitational wave sky: properties and time to detection by pulsar tim- ing arrays, MNRAS 477, 964 (2018), arXiv:1711.00075 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[28]

P. C. Peters and J. Mathews, Gravitational Radiation from Point Masses in a Keplerian Orbit, Physical Review 131, 435 (1963)

1963
[29]

Enoki and M

M. Enoki and M. Nagashima, The Effect of Orbital Ec- centricity on Gravitational Wave Background Radiation from Supermassive Black Hole Binaries, Progress of The- oretical Physics 117, 241 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0609377 [astro-ph]

2007 arXiv
[30]

Agazie, A

G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, Z. Ar- zoumanian, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, L. Blecha, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, S. Burke-Spolaor, R. Case, J. A. Casey- Clyde, M. Charisi, S. Chatterjee, T. Cohen, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cornish, F. Crawford, H. T. Cromartie, K. Crowter...

2023 arXiv
[31]

S. T. Myers, C. R. Contaldi, J. R. Bond, U. L. Pen, D. Pogosyan, S. Prunet, J. L. Sievers, B. S. Mason, T. J. Pearson, A. C. S. Readhead, and M. C. Shepherd, A Fast Gridded Method for the Estimation of the Power Spec- trum of the Cosmic Microwave Background from Interfer- omet...

2003 arXiv
[32]

Sato-Polito and M

G. Sato-Polito and M. Zaldarriaga, Distribution of the gravitational-wave background from supermassive black holes, PRD 111, 023043 (2025), arXiv:2406.17010 [astro- ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[33]

J. Swiggum and Nanograv Pfc, The NANOGrav 15-year data set: high-precision timing of 68 millisecond pulsars, in American Astronomical Society Meeting #240, Amer- ican Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 54 (2022) p. 348.08

2022
[34]

Sato-Polito and M

G. Sato-Polito and M. Kamionkowski, Pulsar-timing measurement of the circular polarization of the stochas- tic gravitational-wave background, Phys. Rev. D 106, 023004 (2022)

2022
[35]

K. W. Masui, U.-L. Pen, and N. Turok, Two- and Three-Dimensional Probes of Parity in Primordial Grav- ity Waves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 221301 (2017), arXiv:1702.06552 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[36]

L. Z. Kelley, L. Blecha, L. Hernquist, A. Sesana, and S. R. Taylor, Single sources in the low- frequency gravitational wave sky: properties and time to detection by pulsar timing arrays, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 477, 964 (2018), https://academic.oup.co...

2018

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Agazie, A

G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, Z. Ar- zoumanian, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, L. Blecha, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, S. Burke-Spolaor, R. Burnette, R. Case, M. Charisi, S. Chatterjee, K. Chatziioannou, B. D. Cheeseboro, S. Chen, T. Cohen, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cornish, F. Crawford, H. T. Cromartie, K. Crowter, C. J. Cutler, M. E. Decesar, D. Degan, P...

arXiv 2023

[2] [2]

pulsar term

This is the more natural basis for gravitational wave polariza- tion, as astrophysical sources of gravitational radiation will primarily be circularly polarized. For a ring of test particles perpendicular to the direction of propagation, the left-handed polarization mode rotates the particles in a clockwise sense, as viewed from the origin. The effect of ...

work page

[3] [3]

optimal statistic

a single source, 3. pure, isotropic Hellings-Downs correlations, and 4. a single source plus pure Hellings- Downs correlations. They find that the data is con- sistent with pure, isotropic Hellings-Downs correlations alone. However, since a single source already produces Hellings-Downs-like correlations on its own, the consis- tency of the data with isotr...

work page 2019

[4] [4]

H. Xu, S. Chen, Y. Guo, J. Jiang, B. Wang, J. Xu, Z. Xue, R. Nicolas Caballero, J. Yuan, Y. Xu, J. Wang, L. Hao, J. Luo, K. Lee, J. Han, P. Jiang, Z. Shen, M. Wang, N. Wang, R. Xu, X. Wu, R. Manchester, L. Qian, X. Guan, M. Huang, C. Sun, and Y. Zhu, Search- ing for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Arr...

arXiv 2023

[5] [5]

Antoniadis, Z

J. Antoniadis, Z. Arzoumanian, S. Babak, M. Bailes, A. S. Bak Nielsen, P. T. Baker, C. G. Bassa, B. B´ ecsy, A. Berthereau, M. Bonetti, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, M. Burgay, S. Burke-Spolaor, R. N. Caballero, J. A. Casey-Clyde, A. Chalumeau, D. J. Champion, M. Charisi, S. Chatterjee, S. Chen, I. Cognard, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cornish, F. Crawford, H. T. Croma...

arXiv 2022

[6] [6]

An- toniadis, P

EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, J. An- toniadis, P. Arumugam, S. Arumugam, S. Babak, M. Bagchi, A. S. Bak Nielsen, C. G. Bassa, A. Bathula, A. Berthereau, M. Bonetti, E. Bortolas, P. R. Brook, M. Burgay, R. N. Caballero, A. Chalumeau, D. J. Cham- pion, S. Chanlaridis, S. Chen, I. Cognard, S. Danda- pat, D. Deb, S. Desai, G. Desvignes, N. Dhanda-B...

arXiv 2023

[7] [7]

Belgacem and M

E. Belgacem and M. Kamionkowski, Chirality of the gravitational-wave background and pulsar-timing arrays, Phys. Rev. D 102, 023004 (2020)

work page 2020

[8] [8]

D. J. Reardon, A. Zic, R. M. Shannon, G. B. Hobbs, M. Bailes, V. Di Marco, A. Kapur, A. F. Rogers, E. Thrane, J. Askew, N. D. R. Bhat, A. Cameron, M. Cury lo, W. A. Coles, S. Dai, B. Goncharov, M. Kerr, A. Kulkarni, Y. Levin, M. E. Lower, R. N. Manchester, R. Mandow, M. T. Miles, R. S. Nathan, S. Os lowski, C. J. Russell, R. Spiewak, S. Zhang, and X.-J. Z...

arXiv 2023