Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

Splitting the gravitational-wave background by frequency turns an inconclusive broadband anisotropy search into a per-frequency detection at p≈0.01.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review

2026-08-04 22:50 UTC pith:6JCCAGKD

load-bearing objection A competent integration paper whose headline p-value improvement is real but overstated: raw, uncorrected, and likely inflated by the authors' own admitted spectral mis-modeling; still worth refereeing. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.07090 v1 pith:6JCCAGKD submitted 2025-09-08 astro-ph.IM gr-qc

Mapping the Gravitational-wave Background Across the Spectrum with a Next-Generation Anisotropic Per-frequency Optimal Statistic

Kyle A. Gersbach , Stephen R. Taylor , Bence B\'ecsy , Anna-Malin Lemke , Andrea Mitridate , Nihan Pol This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM gr-qc
keywords gravitational-wave backgroundpulsar timing arraysanisotropyper-frequency optimal statisticcosmic variancepair covariancesupermassive black hole binariesfrequentist detection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Pulsar timing arrays have detected a gravitational-wave background at nanohertz frequencies, but its origin is unsettled: a background from supermassive black hole binaries should be more anisotropic than a cosmological one. This paper upgrades the frequentist optimal-statistic search for that anisotropy with three changes: full covariance between pulsar-pair estimates, a per-frequency version of the statistic, and null distributions that include cosmic variance from a statistically isotropic background. On a simulated 116-pulsar sky containing an isotropic background plus four injected binary signals in different frequency bins, the per-frequency pipeline finds the loudest source in its own frequency bin with an uncorrected p-value of 6e-3, against 0.17-0.22 for the same broadband search. The point of the improvement is to give forthcoming datasets a computationally cheap way to map the gravitational-wave sky frequency by frequency, so that individual resolvable binaries can be distinguished from a smooth cosmological background.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that anisotropy in the nanohertz gravitational-wave background is best searched for one frequency at a time. It assembles a pipeline from three existing pieces: the pair-covariant optimal statistic, which includes the covariance between pulsar-pair correlation estimates and therefore accounts for GWB self-noise; the per-frequency optimal statistic, which estimates correlated power and power-spectral density separately in each frequency bin; and null-hypothesis distributions built from explicit random realizations of a statistically isotropic background, so that cosmic variance is included in the significance calibration. In the authors' simulations, the loudest i

What carries the argument

The central object is the per-frequency optimal statistic (PFOS), a frequency-resolved version of the pulsar-pair cross-correlation estimator. For each frequency bin n it computes pairwise estimators of correlated power between pulsars a and b, their variances, and a full pair-covariance matrix that includes gravitational-wave self-noise rather than assuming the pairs are independent. These estimators enter a chi-squared fit whose model is the overlap reduction function—the expected correlation pattern between two pulsars—expanded in sky pixels or square-root spherical harmonics, producing a sky map and an anisotropic SNR per frequency. The significance of those SNRs is calibrated by drawing

Load-bearing premise

The entire per-frequency chain inherits the initial power-law model for the background spectrum; if that model misrepresents the true spectrum, the per-frequency power estimates and the anisotropy maps and p-values built from them are biased, as the paper itself sees in frequency-bin 4.

What would settle it

Construct a simulated dataset whose true gravitational-wave spectrum is a poor match to a power law but whose sky is statistically isotropic, run the pipeline, and count how often the per-frequency anisotropic p-value falls below 0.01; if false detections occur at a rate far above the calibrated level in bins adjacent to a spectral bump, the claimed frequency localization is partly spectral leakage rather than true anisotropy.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • A background from a finite population of supermassive black hole binaries, which is approximately monochromatic per source, will show up as excess power in specific frequency bins; per-frequency maps turn that spectral signature into a spatial detection.
  • Pair covariance should be standard in future optimal-statistic anisotropy searches, since neglecting it inflates significance in the strong-signal regime and can mimic anisotropy.
  • Per-frequency p-values must be corrected for the look-elsewhere effect, but the demonstrated improvement from about 0.2 to about 0.01 is large enough to remain meaningful after correction in the loudest bin.
  • The pipeline is massively parallelizable relative to full Bayesian sky-mapping analyses, so it can be deployed on next-generation pulsar-timing-array datasets without excessive computational cost.
  • Spectral leakage between adjacent frequency bins is the main practical limit: a loud binary leaves a ghost in the neighboring bin, so per-frequency localization should be complemented by frequency-covariance modeling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because each frequency bin carries its own independent cosmic-variance realization, per-frequency searches lose the averaging that suppresses cosmic variance in broadband searches; this suggests a sensitivity floor that no increase in pulsar count alone can remove.
  • The leakage of S1 into frequency bin 4 predicts a concrete improvement: explicitly modeling covariances between adjacent frequency bins should remove the ghost source and further tighten the p-value in the true bin.
  • The authors' report of hot-spots offset from true sources in multi-source bins implies that map localization and detection p-value should be treated as separate diagnostics in realistic skies; follow-up deterministic searches should be triggered by the p-value, not by the map peak.
  • A posterior-predictive p-value calibration, which the paper notes is the more rigorous option but computationally expensive, would be a natural next test: if it preserves the per-frequency improvement, the frequentist shortcut is safe for real datasets.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a next-generation frequentist pipeline for pulsar timing array (PTA) gravitational-wave background (GWB) anisotropy searches, combining three previously developed ingredients: the pair-covariant optimal statistic (PCOS), the per-frequency optimal statistic (PFOS), and cosmic-variance-aware null distributions. The authors construct an IPTA-DR3-like simulated dataset containing an isotropic power-law GWB plus four injected continuous-wave (CW) sources in different frequency bins, and apply their pipeline in both broadband and per-frequency modes. On this dataset, the per-frequency square-root spherical-harmonic analysis recovers the loudest source (S1) with an uncorrected p-value of 6e-3 in frequency bin 3, compared to broadband p-values of 0.17 (OS) and 0.22 (PCOS). The paper claims that this demonstrates improved anisotropy detection prospects, while acknowledging several caveats, most notably that the initial power-law CURN spectral model is a poor match to the true spiky spectrum, leading to biased PFOS PSD estimates and spectral leakage.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a practical, computationally efficient upgrade to the standard PTA anisotropy search: per-frequency localization of GWB anisotropies with calibrated null distributions that include cosmic variance. The methods are already implemented in community-available code (Enterprise, Defiant, MAPS) and are directly applicable to forthcoming IPTA datasets. The inclusion of cosmic variance in null distributions addresses a known false-detection problem (Konstandin et al. 2025), and the per-frequency decomposition is a natural step toward source-by-source characterization. However, the headline significance improvement is demonstrated on a single, deliberately optimized simulation, and the paper's own caveats about spectral mis-modeling and the use of uncorrected p-values substantially weaken the strength of the claim as stated in the abstract. The paper is transparent about these limitations, but the abstract overstates the robustness of the result.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section VI.B.2 and abstract] The headline improvement from p~0.2 to ~0.01 is based on an uncorrected per-frequency p-value of 6e-3 for F3. As the authors note in Section III.B, a Bonferroni correction for N_freq=12 independent trials would raise this to ~0.07, which is not below the conventional 0.01 threshold. The abstract states '~0.01 in the per-frequency search' without mentioning this correction. Since the main claim is the significance improvement, quoting an uncorrected p-value as the headline number is misleading. The abstract should either quote the corrected value or explicitly state that the quoted p-value is raw.
  2. [Section VIII and Fig. 3] The authors admit in Section VIII that 'the true PSD of our overall signal is a poor match to a power-law' and that 'the poor percentiles from the PFOS PSD estimation undoubtedly propagate biases further into the anisotropic stages of the pipeline.' This is not a minor caveat: the per-frequency pair correlations in Eq. (25) and the null distributions in Eq. (36) all use the PFOS PSD estimates S_n and Phi(f_n). If those estimates are biased (e.g., F4 at the 0.3 percentile in Fig. 3), then the per-frequency p-values are not calibrated under the true data-generating process. The visible spectral leakage of S1 into F4 (Fig. 7) is direct evidence. The abstract and Section VII do not carry this caveat. The authors should demonstrate that the headline p-value is robust to the initial spectral model choice, e.g., by repeating the analysis with a t-process or free-spectrum CURN model, or by expli
  3. [Section III.C, Eq. (36)] The null distributions are generated using the pair-independent covariance matrix C_n,0 (Eq. 36), while the detection statistic itself is computed with the pair-covariant covariance matrix C_n (Eq. 28). The authors argue this avoids double-counting cosmic variance, but no calibration or coverage test is shown. Under the null hypothesis (statistically isotropic GWB), the p-values should be uniformly distributed. The paper does not verify this property, nor does it provide posterior predictive checks of the type recommended by Vallisneri et al. (2023). Without such validation, the quoted p-values cannot be interpreted as accurate frequentist significances. This is a load-bearing gap for the central claim.
  4. [Section IV] The claimed improvement is demonstrated on a single realization of the noise and a single set of injected CW parameters, with S1 deliberately placed near pulsar sky locations and contributing ~90% of the total PSD in its bin. A p-value is a random variable; the paper provides no estimate of its variance or of the detection probability across realizations. The statement 'anisotropy detection prospects ... improve' is thus supported for one optimized dataset, not as a general property of the method. Multiple noise realizations (or at least a distribution of p-values under fixed injections, e.g., via bootstrapping the null draws) are needed to support the abstract's broader claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (11)] The definition of R_ab,k appears to have a typo: the second factor in each polarization term should be F^+_{b,k} and F^×_{b,k}, not F^+_{a,k} and F^×_{a,k}. The text just above defines R_ab,k as the response for a pair (a,b), so the current expression is inconsistent.
  2. [Section VIII] 'at-process' should be 't-process' (referring to the t-process PSD model of Sardesai et al.).
  3. [Section VII] The phrase 'challening' should be 'challenging'.
  4. [Section V] The description of the null generation says '10^3 random draws ... and, for each draw, creating 10 realizations.' It would be clearer to state the total number of null realizations (10^4) and how they are combined into the final null distribution.
  5. [References] References [35] and [36] are the same paper (Vigeland et al. 2018) and should be merged.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the central claim; one self-acknowledged amplitude-in-covariance loop is present but non-load-bearing.

specific steps
  1. other [Section III A, 'Pair covariant optimal statistic']
    "This poses a problem of circularity as the amplitude is the goal of PCOS estimation. The solution used in Gersbach et al. [25] applies the same logic that the original OS uses when setting the spectral shape... we use the CURN amplitude as an estimate for the GWB amplitude in the covariance matrix."

    The pair-covariance matrix C (Eqs. 22/28) depends on the GWB amplitude A^2_gw, which is also the target of the PCOS estimate. The paper breaks the loop by substituting the CURN amplitude from a pilot Bayesian analysis of the same data, so the covariance is effectively an input derived from the dataset rather than an independently specified quantity. However, this is an acknowledged approximation, validated by simulations in prior work [25,26], and it does not force the central per-frequency p-value improvement, which is obtained by comparing measured anisotropic SNRs against isotropic-with-cosmic-variance null distributions in an injected simulation.

full rationale

The central claim — that a per-frequency pipeline improves GWB anisotropy detection from p~0.2 to p~0.01 — is a Monte Carlo demonstration with four injected continuous-wave sources on top of an isotropic GWB. The p-values are computed by standard frequentist calibration: measured anisotropic SNRs are compared to null distributions built from statistically isotropic realizations that include cosmic variance. The null distributions use PFOS PSD estimates and CURN amplitudes drawn from the same dataset, but this is normal calibration, not a prediction forced by construction; the signal injection is independent of the analysis pipeline. The paper is transparent about the main weakness: the initial power-law CURN model is a poor match to the true spiky spectrum, and Section VIII states that PFOS PSD mis-estimation 'undoubtedly propagates biases further into the anisotropic stages.' That is a correctness/mis-modeling risk, not circularity — the per-frequency p-value could be uncalibrated, but it is not equivalent to an input. The PCOS covariance loop flagged in Section III A is a genuine input-dependence, but the authors identify it explicitly and mitigate it with the CURN amplitude and external simulation validation, so it does not reduce the paper's derivation to its inputs. Self-citations to Gersbach et al. (2025) and Konstandin et al. (2025) are load-bearing for the formalism, but those are published, independently tested results, and the current paper's contribution is the integrated pipeline plus an end-to-end simulation. Overall, the derivation is self-contained; the score of 2 reflects the one admitted non-load-bearing circularity rather than any structural circularity in the headline result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central demonstration depends on hand-chosen injection parameters (loud sources near pulsars), on the fitted CURN amplitude entering the null distributions, and on two modeling simplifications the authors flag: power-law CURN spectral shape and monopole-dominated pair covariance. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Injected CW source parameters = M=2e9 Msun for all; distances 40/65/130/254 Mpc giving PSD ratios 0.90/0.35/0.56/0.88; locations chosen near pulsar sky
    Hand-chosen simulation inputs, not fit to data, but selected to boost PTA response and ensure each CW dominates its frequency bin. These choices inflate detection prospects relative to a typical sky.
  • CURN power-law amplitude and spectral index = Injection: A_gw=2.4e-15, gamma=13/3; CURN fit to simulated data
    The Bayesian CURN posterior provides the spectral shape for the OS/PFOS and the amplitude A^2_gw that enters the cosmic-variance null distributions (Eq 34). The fit propagates into all p-values.
  • TOA uncertainty inflation factor = 5
    Applied to epoch-averaged TOA uncertainties to compensate for underestimated white noise (Section IV). A modeling choice that affects all noise realizations and thus the null distributions.
  • Sky basis truncation (Nside, Lmax) = Nside per Eq 9; Lmax ~ sqrt(Npsr) fixed
    The pixelization and spherical-harmonic maximum multipole are fixed by the authors rather than chosen by the data, affecting map resolution and overfitting behavior.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Pulsar-term contributions to the response function are uncorrelated between pulsars and can be neglected or approximated by the antenna response F^A
    Invoked in Section II around Eq 7 and in Appendix A (R_A ≈ F_A) to normalize the cosmic-variance calculation. If pulsar terms correlate significantly, the null distribution normalization changes.
  • standard math Frequency bins satisfy sinc[pi(n-n')] = delta_nn' and sinc[pi(n+n')] = 0
    Used in Appendix A Eq A3, requiring frequencies to be integer multiples of 1/T. This simplifies the cosmic-variance correlation formula.
  • domain assumption A statistically isotropic GWB is realized by independent zero-mean complex Gaussian pixel amplitudes
    Section III C and Appendix A: null realizations draw Rayleigh amplitudes and uniform phases, assuming independence across sky pixels, frequencies, and polarizations. This is the standard model of statistical isotropy.
  • ad hoc to paper The GWB monopole dominates, so the pair covariance matrix can be constructed using the HD correlation
    Section III A, Eq 24: 'we assume that the GWB monopole... dominates the power to leading order, such that the ORF is HD to a first approximation.' This is needed to build PCOS without knowing per-pixel powers a priori. If anisotropy is strong, the covariance is mis-specified.
  • domain assumption A single power-law CURN model adequately represents the true spectrum for initial estimation
    Section V: the CURN uses a variable spectral-index power-law. Section VIII states the true PSD is 'a poor match to a power-law' and that this 'undoubtedly propagate[s] biases further into the anisotropic stages.' This is the paper's self-identified most important caveat.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mapping the Gravitational-wave Background Across the Spectrum with a Next-Generation Anisotropic Per-frequency Optimal Statistic." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6JCCAGKD

@misc{pith2026250907090,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mapping the Gravitational-wave Background Across the Spectrum with a Next-Generation Anisotropic Per-frequency Optimal Statistic},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6JCCAGKD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07090}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

With pulsar timing arrays (PTAs) having observed a gravitational wave background (GWB) at nanohertz frequencies, the focus of the field is shifting towards determining and characterizing its origin. While the primary candidate is a population of GW-emitting supermassive black hole binaries (SMBHBs), many other cosmological processes could produce a GWB with similar spectral properties as have been measured. One key argument to help differentiate an SMBHB GWB from a cosmologically sourced one is its level of anisotropy; a GWB sourced by a finite population will likely exhibit greater anisotropy than a cosmological GWB through finite source effects (``shot noise'') and potentially large-scale structure. Current PTA GWB anisotropy detection methods often use the frequentist PTA optimal statistic for its fast estimation of pulsar pair correlations and relatively low computational overhead compared to spatially-correlated Bayesian analyses. However, there are critical limitations with the status quo approach. In this paper, we improve this technique by incorporating three recent advancements: accounting for covariance between pulsar pairwise estimates of correlated GWB power; the per-frequency optimal statistic to dissect the GWB across the spectrum; and constructing null-hypothesis statistical distributions that include cosmic variance. By combining these methods, our new pipeline can localize GWB anisotropies to specific frequencies, through which anisotropy detection prospects -- while impacted by cosmic variance -- are shown to improve in our simulations from a $p$-value of $\sim0.2$ in a broadband search to $\sim0.01$ in the per-frequency search. Our methods are already incorporated in community-available code and ready to deploy on forthcoming PTA datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07090 by Andrea Mitridate, Anna-Malin Lemke, Bence B\'ecsy, Kyle A. Gersbach, Nihan Pol, Stephen R. Taylor.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The histogram of the noise marginalized optimal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The resulting spectral estimates from the PFOS on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Radiometer pseudo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The uncorrected pseudo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Median pixel maps generated from the square-root spherical harmonic method using the standard OS and PCOS, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Median-pixel maps for the lowest nine frequency bins in our test dataset, as generated from the square-root spherical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The uncorrected square-root spherical harmonic me [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Detecting Gravitational-Wave Anisotropies with Simulation-Based Inference

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A neural-network-based simulation inference method improves 3σ detection probability of gravitational-wave background anisotropies by 90-200% over Gaussian frequentist searches by learning non-Gaussian structure in pu...

  2. Are PTA measurements sensitive to gravitational wave non-Gaussianities?

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    PTA statistical tests lose sensitivity to non-Gaussian GW features after decorrelation and cannot distinguish them model-agnostically.

  3. Are PTA measurements sensitive to gravitational wave non-Gaussianities?

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    PTA statistical tests cannot distinguish Gaussian and non-Gaussian GWB amplitude distributions in a model-agnostic way after decorrelation.

  4. A comprehensive framework for phase-coherent mapping of the gravitational-wave sky with pulsar timing arrays

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A new phase-coherent mapping framework for pulsar timing arrays that preserves the complete complex polarization state of the gravitational-wave sky in compact maps usable for multiple analyses.

  5. Fingerprints of Individual Supermassive Black Hole Binaries in Pulsar Timing Arrays

    astro-ph.HE 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    A single supermassive black hole binary imprints a deterministic, direction-dependent correlation fingerprint on pulsar timing arrays, enabling identification via cross-correlations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Will the OS or PCOS find a CW present only in one frequency?

    work page

  2. [2]

    Will the PCOS improve anisotropic detection ca- pabilities?

    work page

  3. [3]

    Will the OS or PCOS recover multiple CWs from different frequency bins?

    work page

  4. [4]

    Will the PFOS identify isotropic frequencies?

    work page

  5. [5]

    Will the PFOS find frequencies with CWs in it?

    work page

  6. [6]

    spectral leakage

    Will the PFOS find the locations of multiple CWs in one frequency? These questions, which will be returned to in sec- tion VII, aim to understand: (i) What improvements PCOS makes to our analysis, (ii) What benefits using the PFOS over a broadband search has, and (iii) What remaining questions we must solve for a robust analysis. 14 16 18 optimal statisti...

    work page

  7. [7]

    From the 10 3 indi- vidual noise-draw SNR maps from each method, we take the median of each individual pixel SNR distribution to create a single map

    Broadband We first perform a (broadband) radiometer search us- ing both the OS and PCOS methods. From the 10 3 indi- vidual noise-draw SNR maps from each method, we take the median of each individual pixel SNR distribution to create a single map. These SNR median maps for the OS and PCOS exhibit very consistent behavior, with a hot- spot right where S1 is...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Note that these are raw pseudop-values, not corrected for the look-elsewhere effect

    Per frequency Figure 5 shows the pseudop-value maps for the lowest nine frequency bins (labeled as F1 through F9). Note that these are raw pseudop-values, not corrected for the look-elsewhere effect. We can immediately see that the anisotropic PFOS recovers frequency-resolved maps of the GWB. The first frequency bin (F1), containing no GW signals beyond t...

    work page

  9. [9]

    Broadband Median maps generated from both the OS and PCOS methods are shown in Figure 6, exhibiting good consis- tency. Both methods properly identify the sky location of the loudest source S1; however, upon inspecting their anisotropicp-values, we find that the OS and PCOS only give 0.17 and 0.22, respectively. This is quite low given the loudness of the...

    work page

  10. [10]

    F1 and F2 show minimal significance, consis- tent with the injections

    Per frequency Median-pixel power maps for the lowest nine frequency bins (F1 through F9) are shown in Figure 7, while the (uncorrected)p-values for each frequency bin are shown in Figure 8. F1 and F2 show minimal significance, consis- tent with the injections. However, F3 shows far greater significance, at an uncorrected level of 6×10 −3. This frequency, ...

    work page

  11. [11]

    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...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    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...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    A. Zic, D. J. Reardon, A. Kapur, G. Hobbs, R. Mandow, M. Cury lo, R. M. Shannon, J. Askew, M. Bailes, N. D. R. Bhat, A. Cameron, Z.-C. Chen, S. Dai, V. Di Marco, Y. Feng, M. Kerr, A. Kulkarni, M. E. Lower, R. Luo, R. N. Manchester, M. T. Miles, R. S. Nathan, S. Os lowski, A. F. Rogers, C. J. Russell, J. M. Sarkissian, M. Shamohammadi, R. Spiewak, N. Thya-...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    M. T. Miles, R. M. Shannon, D. J. Reardon, M. Bailes, D. J. Champion, M. Geyer, P. Gitika, K. Grunthal, M. J. Keith, M. Kramer, A. D. Kulkarni, R. S. Nathan, A. Parthasarathy, J. Singha, G. Theureau, E. Thrane, F. Abbate, S. Buchner, A. D. Cameron, F. Camilo, B. E. Moreschi, G. Shaifullah, M. Shamohammadi, A. Pos- senti, and V. V. Krishnan, The MeerKAT Pu...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    H. Xu, S. Chen, Y. Guo, J. Jiang, B. Wang, J. Xu, Z. Xue, R. N. 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 Array Da...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Agazie, A

    G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, L. Blecha, A. Bonilla, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, S. Burke-Spolaor, R. Burnette, R. Case, J. A. Casey-Clyde, M. Charisi, S. Chatterjee, K. Chatziioan- nou, B. D. Cheeseboro, S. Chen, T. Cohen, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cornish, F. Crawford, H. T. Cromartie, K. Crowter, C. J. Cutler, D. J. D’Ora...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Afzal, G

    A. Afzal, G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, Z. Arzoumanian, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, J. J. Blanco- Pillado, L. Blecha, K. K. Boddy, 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. Crowt...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    B´ ecsy, N

    B. B´ ecsy, N. J. Cornish, and L. Z. Kelley, Exploring Re- alistic Nanohertz Gravitational-wave Backgrounds, ApJ 941, 119 (2022), arXiv:2207.01607 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    E. S. Phinney, A Practical Theorem on Gravitational Wave Backgrounds, arXiv e-prints , astro-ph/0108028 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0108028 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  20. [20]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Topology of cosmic domains and strings, Journal of Physics A Mathematical General9, 1387 (1976)

    work page 1976

  21. [21]

    N. M. Jim´ enez Cruz, A. Malhotra, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, Measuring the circular polarization of gravi- tational waves with pulsar timing arrays, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103505 (2024), arXiv:2406.04957 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Agazie, A

    G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, Z. Arzou- manian, J. G. Baier, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, L. Blecha, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, L. Brown, S. Burke-Spolaor, J. A. Casey-Clyde, M. Charisi, S. Chatterjee, T. Co- 18 hen, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cornish, F. Crawford, H. T. Cromartie, K. Crowter, M. E. DeCesar, P. B. Demorest, H. Deng, T. Dolch, E. C. Ferr...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    A. R. Kaiser, N. S. Pol, M. A. McLaughlin, S. Chen, J. S. Hazboun, L. Z. Kelley, J. Simon, S. R. Taylor, S. J. Vigeland, and C. A. Witt, Disentangling Multi- ple Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background Sources in PTA Data Sets, ApJ938, 115 (2022), arXiv:2208.02307 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    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. DeCesar, P. B. Demorest, T. Dolch, B. Drachler, E. C. Ferrara, W. Fiore, E. Fons...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    S. R. Taylor, R. van Haasteren, and A. Sesana, From bright binaries to bumpy backgrounds: Mapping re- alistic gravitational wave skies with pulsar-timing ar- rays, Phys. Rev. D102, 084039 (2020), arXiv:2006.04810 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    N. S. Pol, S. R. Taylor, L. Z. Kelley, S. J. Vigeland, J. Si- mon, S. Chen, Z. Arzoumanian, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, S. Burke-Spolaor, S. Chatterjee, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cornish, F. Crawford, H. Thankful Cromartie, M. E. Decesar, P. B. Demorest, T. Dolch, E. C. Ferrara, W. Fiore, E. Fonseca, N. Garver-Daniels, D. C. Good, J. S. Ha...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    ¨Olmez, V

    S. ¨Olmez, V. Mandic, and X. Siemens, Anisotropies in the gravitational-wave stochastic background, J. Cosmol- ogy Astropart. Phys.2012, 009 (2012), arXiv:1106.5555 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  28. [28]

    E. C. Gardiner, L. Z. Kelley, A.-M. Lemke, and A. Mitridate, Beyond the Background: Gravitational- wave Anisotropy and Continuous Waves from Super- massive Black Hole Binaries, ApJ965, 164 (2024), arXiv:2309.07227 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    C. M. F. Mingarelli, T. Sidery, I. Mandel, and A. Vecchio, Characterizing gravitational wave stochastic background anisotropy with pulsar timing arrays, Phys. Rev. D88, 062005 (2013)

    work page 2013

  30. [30]

    S. R. Taylor and J. R. Gair, Searching for anisotropic gravitational-wave backgrounds using pulsar timing ar- rays, Phys. Rev. D88, 084001 (2013), arXiv:1306.5395 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  31. [31]

    C. M. F. Mingarelli, T. J. W. Lazio, A. Sesana, J. E. Greene, J. A. Ellis, C.-P. Ma, S. Croft, S. Burke-Spolaor, and S. R. Taylor, The local nanohertz gravitational-wave landscape from supermassive black hole binaries, Na- ture Astronomy1, 886 (2017), arXiv:1708.03491 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  32. [32]

    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 MeerKAT Pulsar Timing Array: Maps of the grav- itational wave sky with the 4.5-yr da...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    N. Pol, S. R. Taylor, and J. D. Romano, Forecasting Pulsar Timing Array Sensitivity to Anisotropy in the Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background, ApJ940, 173 (2022), arXiv:2206.09936 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Allen and J

    B. Allen and J. D. Romano, Hellings and Downs corre- lation of an arbitrary set of pulsars, Phys. Rev. D108, 043026 (2023), arXiv:2208.07230 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    K. A. Gersbach, S. R. Taylor, P. M. Meyers, and J. D. Romano, Spatial and spectral characterization of the gravitational-wave background with the PTA optimal statistic, Phys. Rev. D111, 023027 (2025), arXiv:2406.11954 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    A. D. Johnson, P. M. Meyers, P. T. Baker, N. J. Cornish, J. S. Hazboun, T. B. Littenberg, J. D. Ro- mano, S. R. Taylor, M. Vallisneri, S. J. Vigeland, K. D. Olum, X. Siemens, J. A. Ellis, R. van Haasteren, 19 S. Hourihane, G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, Z. Arzoumanian, L. Blecha, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, S. Burke-Spolaor, B. B´ ecsy, J. A. C...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    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, M. E. Decesar, P. B. Demorest, M. C. Digman, T. Dolch, B. Drachler, E. C. Ferr...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Konstandin, A.-M

    T. Konstandin, A.-M. Lemke, A. Mitridate, and E. Per- boni, The impact of cosmic variance on PTAs anisotropy searches, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025, 059 (2025), arXiv:2408.07741 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Allen, Variance of the Hellings-Downs correlation, Phys

    B. Allen, Variance of the Hellings-Downs correlation, Phys. Rev. D107, 043018 (2023), arXiv:2205.05637 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    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, Phys. Rev. D79, 084030 (2009), arXiv:0809.0701 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  41. [41]

    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 searches in pulsar timing data, Phys. Rev. D91, 044048 (2015), arXiv:1410.8256 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  42. [42]

    R. W. Hellings and G. S. Downs, Upper limits on the isotropic gravitational radiation background from pulsar timing analysis., ApJ265, L39 (1983)

    1983

  43. [43]

    S. C. Sardesai, S. J. Vigeland, K. A. Gersbach, and S. R. Taylor, Generalized optimal statistic for charac- terizing multiple correlated signals in pulsar timing ar- rays, Phys. Rev. D108, 124081 (2023), arXiv:2303.09615 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

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

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    S. J. Vigeland, K. Islo, S. R. Taylor, and J. A. El- lis, Noise-marginalized optimal statistic: A robust hy- brid frequentist-Bayesian statistic for the stochastic gravitational-wave background in pulsar timing arrays, Phys. Rev. D98, 044003 (2018), arXiv:1805.12188 [astro- ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  46. [46]

    S. J. Vigeland, K. Islo, S. R. Taylor, and J. A. Ellis, Noise-marginalized optimal statistic: A robust hybrid frequentist-bayesian statistic for the stochastic gravitational-wave background in pulsar timing arrays, Phys. Rev. D98, 044003 (2018)

    work page 2018

  47. [47]

    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, ApJ622, 759 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0409513 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  48. [48]

    J. Gair, J. D. Romano, S. Taylor, and C. M. F. Mingarelli, Mapping gravitational-wave backgrounds using methods from CMB analysis: Application to pulsar timing arrays, Phys. Rev. D90, 082001 (2014), arXiv:1406.4664 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  49. [49]

    J. D. Romano and N. J. Cornish, Detection methods for stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds: a unified treatment, Living Reviews in Relativity20, 2 (2017), arXiv:1608.06889 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  50. [50]

    W. G. Lamb and S. R. Taylor, Spectral Variance in a Stochastic Gravitational-wave Background from a Binary Population, ApJ971, L10 (2024), arXiv:2407.06270 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Sato-Polito and M

    G. Sato-Polito and M. Kamionkowski, Exploring the spectrum of stochastic gravitational-wave anisotropies with pulsar timing arrays, Phys. Rev. D109, 123544 (2024), arXiv:2305.05690 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    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, Phys. Rev. D86, 124028 (2012), arXiv:1010.4337 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  53. [53]

    Newville, R

    M. Newville, R. Otten, A. Nelson, A. Ingargiola, T. Sten- sitzki, D. Allan, A. Fox, F. Carter, Micha l, R. Osborn, D. Pustakhod, Lneuhaus, S. Weigand, Glenn, C. Deil, Mark, A. L. R. Hansen, G. Pasquevich, L. Foks, N. Zo- brist, O. Frost, A. Beelen, Stuermer, Azelcer, A. Han- num, A. Polloreno, J. Hedegaard Nielsen, S. Caldwell, A. Almarza, and A. Persaud,...

    work page 2021

  54. [54]

    O. J. Dunn, Multiple comparisons among means, Jour- nal of the American Statistical Association56, 52 (1961), https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01621459.1961.10482090

    arXiv 1961

  55. [55]

    Allen and J

    B. Allen and J. D. Romano, Optimal Reconstruction of 20 the Hellings and Downs Correlation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 031401 (2025), arXiv:2407.10968 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Petrov, S

    P. Petrov, S. R. Taylor, M. Charisi, and C.-P. Ma, Iden- tifying the Host Galaxies of Supermassive Black Hole Bi- naries Found by Pulsar Timing Arrays, ApJ976, 129 (2024), arXiv:2406.04409 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Agazie, M

    G. Agazie, M. F. Alam, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, Z. Arzoumanian, P. T. Baker, L. Blecha, V. Bonidie, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, S. Burke-Spolaor, B. B´ ecsy, C. Chapman, M. Charisi, S. Chatterjee, T. Co- hen, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cornish, F. Crawford, H. T. Cromartie, K. Crowter, M. E. Decesar, P. B. Demor- est, T. Dolch, B. Drachler, E. C. Ferrara, ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    J. A. Ellis, M. Vallisneri, S. R. Taylor, and P. T. Baker, ENTERPRISE: Enhanced Numerical Toolbox Enabling a Robust PulsaR Inference SuitE (2020)

    work page 2020

  59. [59]

    Vallisneri, P

    M. Vallisneri, P. M. Meyers, K. Chatziioannou, and A. J. K. Chua, Posterior predictive checking for gravitational-wave detection with pulsar timing arrays. I. The optimal statistic, Phys. Rev. D108, 123007 (2023), arXiv:2306.05558 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    S. C. Sardesai, J. Simon, and S. J. Vigeland, Charac- terizing the Nanohertz Gravitational Wave Background Using a t-process Power Spectral Density, ApJ976, 212 (2024), arXiv:2408.10139 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    Crisostomi, R

    M. Crisostomi, R. van Haasteren, P. M. Meyers, and M. Vallisneri, Beyond diagonal approximations: im- proved covariance modeling for pulsar timing array data analysis, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.13866 (2025), arXiv:2506.13866 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Aggarwal, Z

    K. Aggarwal, Z. Arzoumanian, P. T. Baker, A. Bra- zier, M. R. Brinson, P. R. Brook, S. Burke-Spolaor, S. Chatterjee, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cornish, F. Craw- ford, K. Crowter, H. T. Cromartie, M. DeCesar, P. B. Demorest, T. Dolch, J. A. Ellis, R. D. Ferdman, E. Fer- rara, E. Fonseca, N. Garver-Daniels, P. Gentile, J. S. Hazboun, A. M. Holgado, E. A. Huerta, ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  63. [63]

    The NANOGrav 15 Yr Data Set: Removing Pulsars One by One from the Pulsar Timing Array

    G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, Z. Arzou- manian, J. G. Baier, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, L. Blecha, A. Brazier, 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. DeCesar, P. B. Demorest, H. Deng, L. Dey, T. Dolch, E. C. Ferrara, W...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    E. C. Gardiner, B. B´ ecsy, L. Z. Kelley, and N. J. Cornish, Characterizing Continuous Gravitational Waves from Su- permassive Black Hole Binaries in Realistic Pulsar Tim- ing Array Data, ApJ988, 222 (2025), arXiv:2502.16016 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Eleonora Moreschi, S

    B. Eleonora Moreschi, S. Valtolina, A. Sesana, G. Shai- fullah, M. Falxa, L. Speri, D. Izquierdo-Villalba, and A. Chalumeau, Dissecting the nanoHz gravitational wave sky: frequency-correlated anisotropy induced by eccentric supermassive black hole binaries, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.14882 (2025), arXiv:2506.14882 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Agazie, A

    G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, Z. Arzou- manian, J. G. Baier, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, L. Blecha, K. K. Boddy, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, S. Burke-Spolaor, R. Burnette, J. A. Casey-Clyde, M. Charisi, S. Chatter- jee, T. Cohen, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cornish, F. Craw- ford, H. T. Cromartie, K. Crowter, M. E. Decesar, P. B. Demorest, H. Deng, L. De...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    Lemke, A

    A.-M. Lemke, A. Mitridate, and K. A. Gersbach, De- tecting gravitational wave anisotropies from supermas- sive black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D111, 063068 (2025), arXiv:2407.08705 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    Agazie, A

    G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, Z. Arzou- manian, J. G. Baier, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, L. Blecha, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, S. Burke-Spolaor, J. A. Casey- Clyde, M. Charisi, S. Chatterjee, K. Chatziioannou, T. Cohen, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cornish, F. Crawford, H. T. Cromartie, K. Crowter, M. E. Decesar, P. B. Demorest, H. Deng, L. Dey, T. Dolch...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Agazie, J

    G. Agazie, J. Antoniadis, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, P. Arumugam, S. Arumugam, Z. Arzouma- nian, J. Askew, S. Babak, M. Bagchi, M. Bailes, A. S. Bak Nielsen, P. T. Baker, C. G. Bassa, A. Bathula, B. B´ ecsy, A. Berthereau, N. D. R. Bhat, L. Blecha, M. Bonetti, E. Bortolas, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, M. Bur- gay, S. Burke-Spolaor, R. Burnette, R. N. C...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    B´ ecsy, N

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  71. [71]

    P. M. Meyers, K. Chatziioannou, M. Vallisneri, and A. J. K. Chua, Posterior predictive checking for gravitational-wave detection with pulsar timing ar- rays. II. Posterior predictive distributions and pseudo- Bayes factors, Phys. Rev. D108, 123008 (2023), arXiv:2306.05559 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    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...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  73. [73]

    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, MNRAS477, 964 (2018), arXiv:1711.00075 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  74. [74]

    S. R. Taylor, J. Simon, and L. Sampson, Con- straints on the Dynamical Environments of Supermas- sive Black-Hole Binaries Using Pulsar-Timing Arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 181102 (2017), arXiv:1612.02817 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  75. [75]

    P. A. Rosado, A. Sesana, and J. Gair, Expected prop- erties of the first gravitational wave signal detected with pulsar timing arrays, MNRAS451, 2417 (2015), arXiv:1503.04803 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  76. [76]

    Siemens, J

    X. Siemens, J. Ellis, F. Jenet, and J. D. Romano, The stochastic background: scaling laws and time to de- tection for pulsar timing arrays, Classical and Quan- tum Gravity30, 224015 (2013), arXiv:1305.3196 [astro- ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  77. [77]

    Allen and J

    B. Allen and J. D. Romano, Detecting a stochastic background of gravitational radiation: Signal process- ing strategies and sensitivities, Phys. Rev. D59, 102001 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9710117 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  78. [78]

    R. S. Foster and D. C. Backer, Constructing a Pulsar Timing Array, ApJ361, 300 (1990). Appendix A: Cosmic variance calculation In this paper, we employ a slightly simplified formu- lation for cosmic variance. We start with Equation (7) from Konstandinet al.[28], including the normalization factorN ab, ρab =N ab X nn′,kk′,AA′ h ˜hA∗ kn ˜hA′ k′n′RA∗ a,knRA′...

    work page 1990

  79. [79]

    By mak- ing this redefinition of our random complex waves into ˆhA kn, we can remove the GWB dependence and simplify the implementation

    with a scale factorσ, andH n is the PSD of the Fourier modes of the GWB. By mak- ing this redefinition of our random complex waves into ˆhA kn, we can remove the GWB dependence and simplify the implementation. The choice of scale for the redefined Rayleigh distribution was made such that the expectation results in the simple expression D ˆhA∗ kn ˆhA′ k′n ...

    work page

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.