pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.17610 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-19 · 🌀 gr-qc

Recognition: unknown

Parameter Estimation of the Gravitational-Wave Angular Power Spectrum in the Dirty-Map Space

Erik Floden , Alex Granados , Vuk Mandic
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 05:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords stochastic gravitational wave backgroundangular power spectrumdirty mapparameter estimationspherical harmonicsanisotropic backgroundLIGO data analysis
0
0 comments X

The pith

Working directly in dirty-map space allows parameter estimation for the gravitational-wave angular power spectrum without inverting the Fisher matrix.

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

The paper develops a statistical inference method for the angular power spectrum of anisotropic stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds that operates in dirty-map space. By avoiding the inversion of the Fisher information matrix, which can introduce biases from regularization, the approach uses the raw correlation data to recover model parameters. Tests with simulated signals added to Advanced LIGO noise demonstrate reliable recovery for both auto-correlation searches and cross-correlations with electromagnetic tracers, as long as the signals are sufficiently strong and the maximum spherical harmonic order does not exceed 10. A sympathetic reader would care because it offers a way to map the directional distribution of gravitational waves without artifacts from matrix handling techniques.

Core claim

The authors introduce a methodology for statistical model inference of the SGWB angular power spectrum directly in the dirty-map space, enabling parameter estimation without the need for Fisher matrix inversion. When applied to simulated data consistent with Advanced LIGO's third observing run, the method successfully recovers the injected model parameters for sufficiently strong signals up to ℓ_max = 10 in both auto-correlation and cross-correlation scenarios.

What carries the argument

Dirty-map space, the domain of unprocessed inter-detector correlation measurements, used here to perform direct likelihood-based inference on spherical harmonic coefficients of the angular power spectrum.

If this is right

  • The methodology enables unbiased parameter recovery by sidestepping matrix inversion issues.
  • It succeeds for simulated LIGO O3 noise with signals strong enough.
  • Works for both SGWB auto-correlation and SGWB-EM cross-correlation.
  • Computational cost limits testing of complex models, with Gaussianity and cosmic variance as further constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future detectors with better sensitivity could extend this to weaker signals or higher modes.
  • This dirty-map approach might generalize to other anisotropic background searches in astronomy.
  • Validation on real data could test the Gaussianity assumption directly.

Load-bearing premise

The angular power spectrum follows a Gaussian distribution, and the signals must be strong enough for the uncertainties to remain manageable.

What would settle it

A simulation where a known strong anisotropic SGWB signal up to ℓ=10 is injected, but the recovered parameters deviate from the true values beyond expected statistical errors, would falsify the reliability claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.17610 by Alex Granados, Erik Floden, Vuk Mandic.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Example of a posterior distribution of the model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Histogram of recovered [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Posterior distribution of the recovered correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Increasing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The 95% confidence interval of the recovered ˆρ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Increasing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We consider a search for the anisotropic stochastic gravitational-wave background (SGWB) that decomposes the sky map into its spherical harmonics components in order to obtain estimators of the angular power spectrum. Such a search often requires the inversion of a Fisher information matrix which contains small singular values. Rather than dealing with biases induced by regularization methods used to facilitate this matrix inversion, we opt to avoid this inversion step entirely by working in the so-called ``dirty map" space, and we introduce methodology for statistical model inference in this space. We apply our methodology to simulated model signals added to detector noise characterized by Advanced LIGO's third observing run and consider angular power spectra for both the SGWB auto-correlation search as well as a cross-correlation search between the SGWB and electromagnetic tracers of matter structure in the universe. In both cases we are able to reliably recover simulated model parameters for sufficiently strong signals up to maximum order spherical harmonic modes of $\ell_{max}=10$. We find the limitations of our methodology to arise from the computational cost of testing complex models, the assumption of Gaussianity of the angular power spectrum, and a cosmic variance-like source of uncertainty which scales with the strength of the underlying signal.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a parameter estimation technique for the angular power spectrum of the anisotropic stochastic gravitational-wave background (SGWB) that operates directly in dirty-map space to circumvent the need for inverting a potentially ill-conditioned Fisher information matrix. Using simulations with Advanced LIGO O3 noise, the authors demonstrate recovery of model parameters for both SGWB auto-correlations and cross-correlations with electromagnetic tracers, achieving reliable results for sufficiently strong signals up to spherical harmonic degree ℓ_max=10. The work identifies computational cost, Gaussianity assumptions, and cosmic-variance-like uncertainties as key limitations.

Significance. If the recovery is shown to be robust with quantitative validation, the dirty-map inference approach would be a useful addition to SGWB analysis pipelines by eliminating regularization-induced biases in Fisher-matrix inversion. The simulation framework for both auto- and cross-correlation cases is a positive feature, as is the explicit listing of practical limitations.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that 'we are able to reliably recover simulated model parameters for sufficiently strong signals up to ℓ_max=10' is not accompanied by any quantitative recovery statistics (e.g., recovered parameter values with uncertainties, bias, or goodness-of-fit measures). This absence makes it impossible to assess the accuracy or precision of the reported recoveries and is load-bearing for the paper's main result.
minor comments (1)
  1. The manuscript would benefit from an explicit statement of the functional form assumed for the angular power spectrum (e.g., power-law index or multipole dependence) in the simulation section.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting this important point regarding the abstract. We address the comment below and have made the requested revision to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that 'we are able to reliably recover simulated model parameters for sufficiently strong signals up to ℓ_max=10' is not accompanied by any quantitative recovery statistics (e.g., recovered parameter values with uncertainties, bias, or goodness-of-fit measures). This absence makes it impossible to assess the accuracy or precision of the reported recoveries and is load-bearing for the paper's main result.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract, as originally written, states the recovery claim without accompanying quantitative statistics, which limits the reader's ability to immediately evaluate the result. The main text (Sections 4 and 5) does contain the detailed quantitative validation, including recovered parameter values with uncertainties, bias assessments relative to injected signals, and goodness-of-fit information for both the auto-correlation and cross-correlation cases. To directly address the referee's concern and make the central claim assessable from the abstract itself, we have revised the abstract to include a concise summary of the quantitative performance metrics (e.g., typical bias and precision achieved for strong signals). This change preserves the manuscript's focus while satisfying the request for explicit statistics in the abstract. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper develops a statistical inference method for SGWB angular power spectrum parameters directly in dirty-map space, bypassing Fisher matrix inversion. It validates the approach exclusively via injection of simulated signals into LIGO O3 noise realizations and reports recovery success up to ℓ_max=10 under stated conditions (strong signals, Gaussianity, manageable cosmic variance). No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-defined quantity, or prior self-citation; the derivation chain consists of standard likelihood construction and simulation-based testing that remains independent of the target parameters themselves.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that the angular power spectrum follows a Gaussian distribution and on the validity of the simulated signals and detector noise model matching real conditions. No free parameters are explicitly introduced in the abstract beyond the model parameters being recovered; no new entities are postulated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The angular power spectrum of the SGWB is Gaussian
    Explicitly identified as a limitation of the methodology in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5514 in / 1494 out tokens · 37832 ms · 2026-05-10T05:10:22.808034+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    We generate a set of noise-only dirty space elements ˆxℓm by drawing them from a multivariate Gaussian distribution with zero means and the Fisher matrix as the covariance matrix, as done in [45]

  2. [2]

    They are complex-valued, and for a givenℓwe assume their real and imaginary components may be independently drawn from the Gaussian distributionN(0, 1 2 AM ℓ (θ0))

    We next generate clean space model elements aM ℓm(θ0) for a chosen value of the parameterθ0— we treat them as independent, Gaussian-distributed random variables. They are complex-valued, and for a givenℓwe assume their real and imaginary components may be independently drawn from the Gaussian distributionN(0, 1 2 AM ℓ (θ0)). For the case whenm= 0, the cor...

  3. [3]

    We then convert the drawn clean model map into the dirty space by multiplying it with the Fisher matrix: xM ℓm(θ0) = Γℓm,pqaM pq(θ0),(16) and we add this dirty signal sky-map to the noise- only map to produce a realistic simulated sky-map: ˆxsim ℓm (θ0) = ˆxℓm +x M ℓm(θ0).(17) The corresponding simulated angular power spec- trum is (see Appendix C): ˆX si...

  4. [4]

    While ˆX sim ℓ follow the gener- alized multivariateχ 2 distribution, we will approx- imate it here with a Gaussian, analogously to Eq

    We next define the likelihood function to perform statistical inference. While ˆX sim ℓ follow the gener- alized multivariateχ 2 distribution, we will approx- imate it here with a Gaussian, analogously to Eq. 8: lnL ˆX sim ℓ (θ0)|X M ℓ (θ) ∝ − 1 2 ˆX sim ℓ (θ0)−X M ℓ (θ) (K X(θ))−1 ℓ,ℓ ˆX sim ℓ (θ0)−X M ℓ (θ) .(19) 5 For each value of the parameterθ, the ...

  5. [5]

    The likelihood function is evaluated over a grid of values of the parameterθcentered on the true injected valueθ 0

    Noise maps are generated using the Fisher matrix Γ from Advanced LIGO’s third observing run (O3). The likelihood function is evaluated over a grid of values of the parameterθcentered on the true injected valueθ 0. In a Bayesian formalism, this choice constitutes a uniform prior for our model parameter, and the posterior distri- bution ofθis, therefore, eq...

  6. [6]

    Therefore ⟨ˆaℓm⟩is not an average over all possible realizations of the sky map, but rather an average over observations of our particular realization of the sky

    Namely, we are assuming⟨ˆa ℓm⟩=a ℓm, wherea ℓm is the true value of the clean map element. Therefore ⟨ˆaℓm⟩is not an average over all possible realizations of the sky map, but rather an average over observations of our particular realization of the sky. In the former 11 case, we would find⟨ˆa ℓm⟩= 0, and in the latter case, ⟨ˆaℓm⟩=a ℓm. We can repeat the ...

  7. [7]

    EstimatingK Z draw When injecting a signal into noise, similar to the auto- power case, we introduce additional uncertainty coming from the draw of the model map elements from the multi- variate Gaussian distribution (Eq. 24). We estimate this 16 uncertainty by drawing the map elements in the clean space, transforming to the dirty space (Eq. 16 and D10), ...

    2016

  8. [8]

    G. M. Harry (LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Class. Quantum Gravity27, 084006 (2010)

    2010

  9. [9]

    Advanced Virgo: a 2nd generation interferometric gravitational wave detector

    F. Acerneseet al.(Virgo Collaboration), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2015

  10. [10]

    Akutsu et al

    T. Akutsuet al.(Kagra Collaboration), (2020), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run

    T. L. S. Collaboration, T. V. Collaboration, and the KAGRA Collaboration, “Gwtc-4.0: Updating the gravitational-wave transient catalog with observations from the first part of the fourth ligo-virgo-kagra observ- ing run,” (2025), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Maggiore, Phys

    M. Maggiore, Phys. Rep.331, 283 (2000)

    2000

  13. [13]

    C. Wu, V. Mandic, and T. Regimbau, Phys. Rev. D85, 104024 (2012)

    2012

  14. [14]

    X.-J. Zhu, E. J. Howell, D. G. Blair, and Z.-H. Zhu, Mon. Not. R. Astron Soc.431, 882 (2013)

    2013

  15. [15]

    Ferrari, S

    V. Ferrari, S. Matarrese, and R. Schneider, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society303, 247–257 (1999)

    1999

  16. [16]

    X.-J. Zhu, E. Howell, and D. Blair, Mon. Not. R. Astron Soc.409, L132 (2010)

    2010

  17. [17]

    Zhu, X.-L

    X.-J. Zhu, X.-L. Fan, and Z.-H. Zhu, Astrophys. J.729, 59 (2011)

    2011

  18. [18]

    P. D. Lasky, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia32(2015), 10.1017/pasa.2015.35

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2015.35 2015

  19. [19]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Journal of Physics A Mathematical General9, 1387 (1976)

    1976

  20. [20]

    Siemens, V

    X. Siemens, V. Mandic, and J. Creighton, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 111101 (2007)

    2007

  21. [21]

    Marzola, A

    L. Marzola, A. Racioppi, and V. Vaskonen, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 484 (2017), arXiv:1704.01034 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2017

  22. [22]

    Von Harling, A

    B. Von Harling, A. Pomarol, O. Pujol` as, and F. Rompin- eve, JHEP04, 195 (2020), arXiv:1912.07587 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  23. [23]

    A. A. Starobinski ˇi, Sov. JETP Lett.30, 682 (1979)

    1979

  24. [24]

    M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D55, R435 (1997)

    1997

  25. [25]

    Agazie, A

    G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, Z. Ar- zoumanian, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, L. Blecha, and et al, The Astrophysical Journal Letters951, L8 (2023)

    2023

  26. [26]

    Agazie et al

    T. I. P. T. A. Collaboration, G. Agazie, J. Antoniadis, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, P. Arumugam, and S. A. et al., “Comparing recent pta results on the nanohertz stochastic gravitational wave background,” (2023), arXiv:2309.00693 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    C. R. Contaldi, Phys. Lett. B771(2017)

    2017

  28. [28]

    A. C. Jenkins, R. O’Shaughnessy, M. Sakellariadou, and D. Wysocki, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 111101 (2019)

    2019

  29. [29]

    A. C. Jenkins and M. Sakellariadou, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    Pitrou, G

    C. Pitrou, G. Cusin, and J.-P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    Cusin, C

    G. Cusin, C. Pitrou, and J.-P. Uzan, Phys. Rev.D96, 103019 (2017), arXiv:1704.06184 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2017

  32. [32]

    Cusin, C

    G. Cusin, C. Pitrou, and J.-P. Uzan, Phys. Rev.D97, 123527 (2018), arXiv:1711.11345 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    Cusin, I

    G. Cusin, I. Dvorkin, C. Pitrou, and J.-P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018)

    2018

  34. [34]

    Cusin, I

    G. Cusin, I. Dvorkin, C. Pitrou, and J.-P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. D100, 063004 (2019), arXiv:1904.07797 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    Geller, A

    M. Geller, A. Hook, R. Sundrum, and Y. Tsai, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 201303 (2018)

    2018

  36. [36]

    Allen and A

    B. Allen and A. C. Ottewill, Phys. Rev. D56, 545 (1997), arXiv:gr-qc/9607068

    work page arXiv 1997

  37. [37]

    Cusin and G

    G. Cusin and G. Tasinato, JCAP08, 036 (2022), arXiv:2201.10464 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Valbusa Dall’Armi, A

    L. Valbusa Dall’Armi, A. Ricciardone, and D. Bertacca, JCAP11, 040 (2022), arXiv:2206.02747 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    A. K.-W. Chung, A. C. Jenkins, J. D. Romano, and M. Sakellariadou, Phys. Rev. D106, 082005 (2022), arXiv:2208.01330 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    Bertacca, A

    D. Bertacca, A. Ricciardone, N. Bellomo, A. C. Jenkins, S. Matarrese, A. Raccanelli, T. Regimbau, and M. Sakel- lariadou, Phys. Rev. D101(2020)

    2020

  41. [41]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Physical Review Letters118, 121102 (2017), arXiv:1612.02030 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2017

  42. [42]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), (2019), arXiv:1903.08844 [gr-qc]

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), (2019), arXiv:1903.08844 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    Abbottet al., Phys

    R. Abbottet al., Phys. Rev. D104, 022005 (2021)

    2021

  44. [44]

    K. Z. Yang, V. Mandic, C. Scarlata, and S. Banagiri, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society500, 1666 (2020), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/500/2/1666/34462901/staa3159.pdf

    2020

  45. [45]

    K. Z. Yang, J. Suresh, G. Cusin, S. Banagiri, N. Feist, V. Mandic, C. Scarlata, and I. Michaloliakos, Phys. Rev. D108, 043025 (2023)

    2023

  46. [46]

    Cusin, C

    G. Cusin, C. Pitrou, and J.-P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. D96, 103019 (2017)

    2017

  47. [47]

    Physical Review D , author =

    G. Cusin, I. Dvorkin, C. Pitrou, and J.-P. Uzan, Physical Review D100(2019), 10.1103/physrevd.100.063004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.063004 2019

  48. [48]

    Thrane, S

    E. Thrane, S. Ballmer, J. D. Romano, S. Mitra, D. Talukder, S. Bose, and V. Mandic, Phys. Rev. D 80, 122002 (2009)

    2009

  49. [49]

    On validating angular power spectral models for the stochastic gravitational- wave background without distributional assumptions,

    X. Zhang, E. Floden, H. Zhao, S. Algeri, G. Jones, V. Mandic, and J. Miller, “On validating angular power spectral models for the stochastic gravitational- wave background without distributional assumptions,” (2025), arXiv:2504.16959 [astro-ph.IM]. 17

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    K. M. Gorski, E. Hivon, A. J. Banday, B. D. Wandelt, F. K. Hansen, M. Reinecke, and M. Bartelman, Astro- phys. J.622, 759 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0409513 [astro- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2005

  51. [51]

    Directional search for per- sistent gravitational waves: Results from the first part of ligo-virgo-kagra’s fourth observing run,

    T. L. S. Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, and the KAGRA Collaboration, “Directional search for per- sistent gravitational waves: Results from the first part of ligo-virgo-kagra’s fourth observing run,” (2025), arXiv:2510.17487 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Mazurek, M

    B. Allen, Physical Review D107(2023), 10.1103/phys- revd.107.043018

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2023

  53. [53]

    R. C. Bernardo and K.-W. Ng, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2022, 046 (2022)

    2022

  54. [54]

    Roebber, G

    E. Roebber, G. Holder, D. E. Holz, and M. Warren, Astrophys. J.819, 163 (2016), arXiv:1508.07336 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2016

  55. [55]

    V. Ravi, J. S. B. Wyithe, G. Hobbs, R. M. Shannon, R. N. Manchester, D. R. B. Yardley, and M. J. Keith, The Astrophysical Journal761, 84 (2012)

    2012

  56. [56]

    N. J. Cornish and A. Sesana, Classical and Quantum Gravity30, 224005 (2013)

    2013

  57. [57]

    C. B. Netterfield, P. A. R. Ade, J. J. Bock, J. R. Bond, J. Borrill, A. Boscaleri, K. Coble, C. R. Contaldi, B. P. Crill, P. de Bernardis, P. Farese, K. Ganga, M. Gia- cometti, E. Hivon, V. V. Hristov, A. Iacoangeli, A. H. Jaffe, W. C. Jones, A. E. Lange, L. Martinis, S. Masi, P. Mason, P. D. Mauskopf, A. Melchiorri, T. Montroy, E. Pascale, F. Piacentini,...

    2002

  58. [58]

    Knox and L

    L. Knox and L. Page, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 1366 (2000)

    2000

  59. [59]

    Piacentini, P

    F. Piacentini, P. A. R. Ade, J. J. Bock, J. R. Bond, J. Borrill, A. Boscaleri, P. Cabella, C. R. Contaldi, B. P. Crill, P. de Bernardis, G. De Gasperis, A. de Oliveira- Costa, G. De Troia, G. di Stefano, E. Hivon, A. H. Jaffe, T. S. Kisner, W. C. Jones, A. E. Lange, S. Masi, P. D. Mauskopf, C. J. MacTavish, A. Melchiorri, T. E. Montroy, P. Natoli, C. B. N...

    2006

  60. [60]

    Jungman, M

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky, and D. N. Spergel, Physical Review D54, 1332–1344 (1996)

    1996

  61. [61]

    Knox, Physical Review D52, 4307–4318 (1995)

    L. Knox, Physical Review D52, 4307–4318 (1995)

    1995

  62. [62]

    Agarwal, J

    D. Agarwal, J. Suresh, S. Mitra, and A. Ain, Physical Review D108(2023), 10.1103/physrevd.108.023011

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.023011 2023

  63. [63]

    Bellomo, D

    N. Bellomo, D. Bertacca, A. C. Jenkins, S. Matar- rese, A. Raccanelli, T. Regimbau, A. Ricciardone, and M. Sakellariadou, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparti- cle Physics2022, 030 (2022)

    2022

  64. [64]

    A distribution-free approach to testing models for angular power spectra,

    S. Algeri, X. Zhang, E. Floden, H. Zhao, G. L. Jones, V. Mandic, and J. Miller, “A distribution-free approach to testing models for angular power spectra,” (2025), arXiv:2504.16079 [physics.data-an]

    work page arXiv 2025