Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 73 references

The paper claims that the directional Fisher information of a pulsar timing array can be recast into analytic, direction-resolved sensitivity curves that reduce any anisotropic sky to a single effective spectrum, recovering the isotropic li

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 00:54 UTC pith:35AFJYSN

load-bearing objection Useful, honest methods/software paper that recasts the known directional Fisher matrix as per-frequency sensitivity curves; the full-Fisher absolute scale is SVD-threshold-dependent as the authors admit, but the radiometer and sky-weighted curves and the code make it worth refereeing. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2608.00250 v1 pith:35AFJYSN submitted 2026-07-31 astro-ph.IM gr-qc

Directional Anisotropic Sensitivity Curves for Pulsar Timing Arrays

Daniel J. Oliver , Jeffrey S. Hazboun , Martine Maggi , Jeremy G. Baier , Kyle E. Gourlie This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM gr-qc
keywords gravitational wavespulsar timing arraysstochastic gravitational wave backgroundanisotropyFisher matrixdirectional sensitivity curvesangular responsesky maps
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.

The paper's goal is to give pulsar timing arrays a direction-resolved sensitivity curve—an analytic S_eff(f, Ω) built directly from each pulsar's noise model—so that the array's angular response can be separated from the astrophysical anisotropy of the gravitational-wave background. The authors argue this was the missing piece: existing sensitivity tools are sky-averaged, while existing anisotropy tools emphasize detection statistics and upper limits rather than per-direction sensitivity. Their construction starts from the directional Fisher matrix on the sky; three distinct curves follow, a radiometer (single-direction) curve, a full-Fisher (marginalized) curve, and a sky-weighted curve that reduces an arbitrary angular power map to a one-dimensional spectrum. In the isotropic limit that sky-weighted curve collapses to the standard isotropic sensitivity curve, which makes the new framework a strict generalization of the old one. A reader should care because the finite supermassive-black-hole-binary population makes anisotropy inevitable, and knowing where on the sky an array is—and is not—sensitive is what turns an anisotropy detection into a sky map.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the directional Fisher matrix M(Ω, Ω′; f), assembled from pairs of pulsars weighted by their duty cycle and by the inverse product of the two pulsars' noise spectra, contains the full directional sensitivity of the array. Inverting its diagonal element gives the radiometer sensitivity (the uncertainty on one sky direction assuming all others are empty); inverting the whole matrix and taking the diagonal gives the full-Fisher sensitivity (the uncertainty on that direction when all other directions are left free); contracting the matrix against the sky power P(Ω) on both sides gives a sky-weighted curve that reduces the anisotropic sky to

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the directional Fisher information matrix M(Ω, Ω′; f), a kernel on the sky built from per-pulsar-pair responses R_IJ(Ω) weighted by T_IJ/(T_obs S_I(f)S_J(f)). It carries both how much information the array has about each sky direction (its diagonal) and how strongly the quadrupolar antenna pattern couples different directions (its off-diagonal). All three sensitivity curves are algebraic functions of this matrix—diagonal, inverse-diagonal, or a double sky integral—so once M is built from the noise models, every sensitivity map follows in closed form. The eigenmodes of M define the principal-map basis, the one basis in which the two estimators coincide.

Load-bearing premise

The absolute scale of the marginalized (full-Fisher) sensitivity curves rests on a chosen numerical threshold for inverting a nearly singular matrix—the paper's own appendix shows the curves shift by orders of magnitude with that threshold—so if the goal is an array-only absolute sensitivity map, that convention, not the array, is carrying the scale.

What would settle it

Take a simulated array with P(Ω)=1 everywhere and compute the sky-weighted S_eff at every frequency: if it does not numerically coincide with the standard isotropic sensitivity curve (beyond roundoff), the claimed reduction fails. For the full-Fisher branch, fix two different inversion thresholds and compare the median S_full_eff; the paper predicts a large shift, so a threshold-independent result would directly falsify its characterization of the inversion.

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

If this is right

  • Any pulsar timing array can now produce a per-direction, per-frequency sensitivity map directly from its pulsar noise models, without Monte Carlo calibration.
  • The sky-weighted curve turns an arbitrary anisotropic angular power distribution into a single effective strain-noise spectrum, and the isotropic limit reproduces the standard sensitivity curve exactly, so the new tool contains the old one.
  • The radiometer and full-Fisher curves bracket the isotropic curve direction by direction; the size of the gap is a geometric property of the array (it is independent of observing time) that quantifies how mixed the array's directional information is.
  • For detection statistics, applying the Fisher matrix forward (no inversion) yields a full-Fisher SNR that recovers the standard isotropic detection statistic in the P=1 limit, while the radiometer total falls far short for diffuse skies; the gap between the two is a direct measure of coherence lost by diagonal estimation.
  • Forecasting a larger, longer-baseline array with this framework shows sensitivity improving across the whole sky, with the largest gains at low frequencies, and the shape of the directional gap changing little as the array grows.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: Because the absolute full-Fisher sensitivity scale shifts by over two orders of magnitude with the chosen matrix-inversion threshold (the paper's own appendix shows this), a fair comparison of absolute S_full_eff values between different arrays will require a community-standard truncation convention; the angular pattern of the gap, by contrast, is robust.
  • Editorial extension: The framework's separation of astrophysical from instrumental anisotropy suggests a concrete planning use: an array could rank candidate new pulsars by how much they reduce S_eff in the least-sensitive sky regions, effectively designing the angular response rather than just measuring it.
  • Editorial extension: Since the paper's implementation already admits frequency-dependent angular power P(f, Ω), applying the curves to a real dataset with the expected f^{11/3} growth of anisotropy would give a direct, model-based test of whether hotspots brighten at high frequency before they are individually resolvable.
  • Editorial extension: The radiometer/full-Fisher gap could serve as a diagnostic for estimator choice: in directions where the gap is large, clean-map uncertainties will dominate and a Bayesian or principal-map treatment may be preferable.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops an analytic framework for directional effective sensitivity curves in pulsar timing arrays, extending the isotropic hasasia formalism to arbitrary anisotropic skies. Starting from the cross-correlation estimator and the Ali-Haïmoud/Smith/Mingarelli and Pol/Taylor/Romano Fisher formalism, it defines a radiometer sensitivity S_rad_eff = 1/sqrt(M_ΩΩ), a full-Fisher sensitivity S_full_eff = sqrt([M^{-1}]_ΩΩ), and a sky-weighted S_eff = (∫∫ P M P)^{-1/2}. The sky-weighted curve is shown to reduce to the Hazboun/Romano/Smith isotropic sensitivity when P=1. The framework is implemented in an extension of hasasia with five sky-decomposition bases (pixel, spherical harmonic, square-root spherical harmonic, radiometer, principal-map), and demonstrated on a simulated IPTA-like array: angular response maps, Fisher-matrix structure, injected von Mises-Fisher hotspots, and 16-year to 40-year sensitivity forecasts.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a useful and much-needed extension of PTA sensitivity-curve tools to the anisotropic case, with a public code release. The closed-form definition of the sky-weighted S_eff and its exact reduction to the isotropic limit are clean and valuable. The radiometer branch is well-defined and independent of regularization. The paper is also unusually transparent in Appendix A about the conditioning problem of the full-Fisher inversion. However, the full-Fisher branch, which is a headline object in the title and abstract, has an absolute scale set by an ad hoc SVD threshold rather than by the array alone, so the claim that these curves are derived directly from per-pulsar noise models is only partially true. The paper is a methods/forecasting contribution rather than a measurement, which mitigates the circularity concern: the derivations are largely definitions, but they are useful definitions with explicit consistency checks.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.5, Eq. (21); Appendix A, Fig. A1] The full-Fisher sensitivity S_full_eff = sqrt([M^{-1}]_ΩΩ) is presented as an array-only directional sensitivity. Appendix A shows that the inverse is a truncated-SVD pseudo-inverse with rcond=10^{-10}, and that sweeping rcond from 10^{-6} to 10^{-12} changes the median S_full_eff/S_rad_eff by more than two orders of magnitude. Thus the absolute scale of S_full_eff and h_c^full is not a property of the array alone. The paper acknowledges this and says the absolute values are not figures of merit, but Figures 10 and 17 display full-Fisher envelopes as sensitivity curves without a prominent caveat, and the abstract/title feature the full-Fisher estimator. Please reframe the full-Fisher branch as a regularized estimator variance with explicit regularization dependence, or restrict the central claim to the radiometer and sky-weighted curves.
  2. [§2.6, Eq. (26) and §4.1, Eqs. (33)-(34)] There is an apparent double-counting of the pixel normalization. The paper defines R_IJ,k = R_IJ(Ω_k)/Npix (Eq. 33), which makes the discrete Fisher matrix M_kk = Σ_IJ (T_IJ/T_obs) R_IJ,k^2/(S_I S_J) = M_continuous(Ω_k,Ω_k)/Npix^2. Yet Eq. 34 writes M_kk'(f)=M(Ω_k,Ω_k';f) without the 1/Npix^2 factor, and Eq. 26 divides M(Ω_k,Ω_k;f) by Npix^2 again. If M(Ω_k,Ω_k) in Eq. 26 is the discrete matrix, the per-pixel SNRs in Figures 5, 11, 12 and Table 2 are off by Npix^2; if it is the continuous kernel, Eq. 34 should say so explicitly. Please state clearly which object is used and verify the radiometer totals against an independent normalization check.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (30)] σ(Ω;f) = sqrt(M^{-1}(Ω,Ω)/T_obs) equals S_full_eff / sqrt(T_obs), not S_full_eff * sqrt(T_obs). Please correct the displayed equality and the accompanying sentence.
  2. [Figures 10 and 17] Add a note in the captions that the absolute scale of the full-Fisher envelope depends on the SVD threshold rcond used for the inversion (see Appendix A), so that the figure is not read as an array-only sensitivity.
  3. [§5.4] The language 'recovery of injected hotspots' describes expected-SNR skymaps computed by applying the same Fisher matrix forward, not an end-to-end recovery from simulated noise realizations. Consider using 'expected SNR for an injected hotspot' to avoid overstating the demonstration.
  4. [§4.6] Typo: 'hasasiasupports' should be 'hasasia supports'.
  5. [§2.5 and §4.5] The statement that the principal-map basis is unique in making S_rad_eff = S_full_eff is essentially tautological, since any basis that diagonalizes M would have this property. The usefulness of the principal-map basis is the mode ordering and SNR sum; consider rephrasing the uniqueness claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No material circularity: the S_eff quantities are definitional extensions of the Fisher formalism, the isotropic-limit recovery is a consistency check, and the self-citations are supporting rather than load-bearing; the Appendix A regularization issue is a robustness caveat, not a circular step.

full rationale

Equations 20-22 define S_eff directly in terms of the Fisher matrix M (radiometer: 1/sqrt(M_ΩΩ); full-Fisher: sqrt([M^-1]_ΩΩ); sky-weighted: [∫∫ P M P]^-1/2). These are definitions of an effective strain-noise from the Fisher information, not derivations that hide an input as an output. The Cauchy-Schwarz ordering of Sec. 2.5 and the principal-map collapse (Eq. 49) are mathematical identities following from those definitions, so they are not circular predictions. The isotropic-limit recovery (Eq. 23) is explicitly a consistency check against Hazboun, Romano & Smith (2019), and the self-citations to [33]-[35] supply the noise-model and isotropic-curve inputs rather than being invoked to forbid alternatives. The paper reports no empirical predictions: the injection-recovery results in Sec. 5.4 apply the forward Fisher operator to a known injected sky and read off SNRs. Appendix A does assert a real limitation: the absolute full-Fisher sensitivity scale is set by the chosen SVD truncation, not by the array alone ('the absolute scale of the full-Fisher quantities is set by the truncation and not by the array alone'). That is a convention-dependence/robustness caveat for one branch, not a circular reduction; no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction, and the radiometer, sky-weighted, and total-SNR results are regularization-independent. Under the hard-rule definitions, no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central framework is not burdened by fitted astrophysical constants, but it depends on modeling choices: weak-signal and Earth-term limits, per-pair variance only, spectral-angular separability, and a regularization convention for the full-Fisher inverse. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • SVD truncation threshold rcond = 10^-10 fiducial (swept 10^-6 to 10^-12)
    Chosen by hand for the full-Fisher pseudo-inverse; Appendix A shows the absolute S_full_eff/h_full_c and their ratio depend on this value.
  • Pixel-basis resolution Nside = 16
    Set by rounding down the counting bound sqrt(N_pair/24) for 115 pulsars; the pixelization and normalization convention affect the radiometer total and discrete Fisher matrix.
  • SPTA white-noise rescaling = tuned to 16-yr GWB SNR ~7
    The simulated array's white-noise levels are adjusted to match a target sensitivity; this tunes the demonstration array, not the analytic framework itself.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Spectral and angular dependence separate: P(f,Omega) -> P(Omega)
    Invoked in Section 2.2 for all displayed results; claimed to cost no generality because quantities are built frequency-by-frequency, but every shown sky map and SNR assumes a fixed angular power.
  • domain assumption Earth-term only, weak-signal limit; pulsar term neglected
    Stated in Sections 1 and 6 and the Appendix; the Fisher/sensitivity curves exclude pulsar-term and nonlinear effects.
  • domain assumption Covariance between distinct pulsar pairs is neglected; only per-pair variances are used
    Section 2.3: 'We use only this per-pair variance and neglect the full covariance between distinct pulsar pairs'; all M and S_eff inherit this approximation.
  • standard math Stationary noise with Toeplitz covariance diagonalized by a Fourier basis
    Section 2.3, Equation 13: relies on Toeplitz structure to replace time-domain matrices with per-frequency power spectral densities.
  • ad hoc to paper The near-singular Fisher matrix can be replaced by a regularized pseudo-inverse whose spectrum encodes meaningful modes
    Appendix A: the rcond truncation is a convention, and the absolute full-Fisher quantities depend on it.
  • ad hoc to paper Pixel-basis normalization: R_IJ,k = R_IJ(Omega_k)/Npix and isotropic P_k=1 with sum P_k=Npix
    Sections 4.1 and 4.6: these choices preserve Gamma_IJ but set the scale of M_kk and of the radiometer totals.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 31136 in / 19240 out tokens · 176411 ms · 2026-08-04T00:54:42.863294+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

After two decades of observations, pulsar timing array collaborations have reported strong evidence for a stochastic gravitational wave background, most likely sourced by an inspiraling population of supermassive black hole binaries. Because that population is finite, anisotropy in the background is inevitable, producing hotspots on the sky that track the loudest binaries. Building on the Fisher formalism for anisotropic backgrounds, we recast the directional Fisher information as effective sensitivity curves on the sky, distinguishing the radiometer and full-Fisher estimators, along with a sky-weighted curve that reduces the anisotropic sky to a single spectrum and recovers the standard isotropic curve in the isotropic limit. We implement five sky-decomposition bases: pixel, spherical harmonic, square-root spherical harmonic, radiometer, and principal-map. We demonstrate the framework on an IPTA-like pulsar timing array: characterizing the angular response, analyzing the Fisher structure, recovering injected anisotropic hotspots, and forecasting future-array sensitivity. The framework is released as an extension to the sensitivity software package hasasia.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00250 by Daniel J. Oliver, Jeffrey S. Hazboun, Jeremy G. Baier, Kyle E. Gourlie, Martine Maggi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Pixel basis pairwise timing response function, summed over pulsar pairs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Y2,2(Ω) (a) and its projection onto the summed response ˆ P I<J RIJ,ℓm (b). which fall off smoothly with ℓ, and whose monopole Γ00 IJ = χIJ recovers the Hellings￾Downs coefficient. An example of the ℓ = 2, m = 2 harmonic can be seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Individual pulsar pair responses RIJ for representative pairs spanning the full range of angular separations: (a) closest pair (∼ 1 ◦ ), (b) median separation (∼ 82◦ ), (c) farthest separation (∼ 178◦ ). The single-pair response varies systematically with angular separation, from a concentrated bright region for the closest pair to the clearest two-lobed quadrupolar pattern at the median separation, and a … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Pixel basis representation of the diagonal Fisher information matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Frequency-integrated per-pixel radiometer detection SNR (Equation 26) for an isotropically [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Per-pixel effective sensitivity Seff at the peak sensitivity frequency (f ≈ 8.54 nHz) for the 16-year SPTA. (a) shows the diagonal radiometer S rad eff from Equation 35. (b) shows the full-Fisher S full eff from Equation 36. (c) shows the ratio of the full-Fisher to the radiometer, which reflects the over-parameterization of the pixel basis relative to the array’s ∼ ℓ 2 eff independent modes. (c), we show … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Structure of the Fisher information matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Per-pixel characteristic-strain sensitivity curves [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Per-mode characteristic-strain sensitivity curves in the spherical harmonic basis for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The isotropic sensitivity curve bracketed by the two directional estimators for the 16-year [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Recovery of a single von Mises-Fisher hotspot ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Per-pixel radiometer detection SNR (Equation 26) for two injected hotspots at RA = 90 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Per-pixel radiometer effective sensitivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Per-pixel ratio of the full-Fisher to the radiometer effective sensitivity, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Per-pixel characteristic strain sensitivity curves for the 16-year SPTA (purple) and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Per-mode characteristic-strain sensitivity curves in the spherical harmonic basis for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Forecast of the per-pixel characteristic strain sensitivity for the 16-year (purple) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_17.png] view at source ↗

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

73 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sazhin M V 1978Soviet Astronomy2236–38 ISSN 0038-5301 aDS Bibcode: 1978SvA....22...36S URLhttps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978SvA....22...36S

  2. [2]

    Detweiler S 1979ApJ2341100 ISSN 0004-637X, 1538-4357 URLhttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/ doi/10.1086/157593

    doi:10.1086/157593

  3. [3]

    We briefly review the specifications of the simulated PTA here

    SPTA: An IPTA-like simulated PTA In this work, we use the same simulated dataset that was created in [35] to be realistic in its noise heterogeneity and similar in scale and sensitivity to the International Pulsar Timing Array (IPTA) [55]. We briefly review the specifications of the simulated PTA here. The distribution of pulsars in the simulated PTA is d...

  4. [4]

    The choice of basis is important as each provides a different parameterization of the angular power distribution and no single basis is uniformly the best

    Anisotropy Bases The Fisher objectM( ˆΩ, ˆΩ′;f) is basis-agnostic, but in practice the sky powerP( ˆΩ) has to be parameterized by a finite set of coefficients{a µ}with a chosen basis{B µ( ˆΩ)}. The choice of basis is important as each provides a different parameterization of the angular power distribution and no single basis is uniformly the best. We impl...

    2026

  5. [5]

    These maps describe the array’s angular response to different regions of the sky, set by the pulsar locations

    Results Throughout this section, we setP k = 1 to denote a sky-isotropic background, so that the results characterize the intrinsic angular sensitivity of the SPTA itself, before any astrophysical injection is layered on top. These maps describe the array’s angular response to different regions of the sky, set by the pulsar locations. The SPTA serves as a...

    2026

  6. [6]

    Conclusion We have developed an analytical framework for directional anisotropic sensitivity curves in pulsar timing arrays, implemented inhasasia. Starting from the cross-correlation estimator, we recast the directional Fisher information as effective sensitivity curves on the sky,S eff(f, ˆΩ) andh c(f, ˆΩ), and carried two estimators throughout: the rad...

    2020

  7. [7]

    harvard.edu/doi/10.1086/169195

    Foster R S and Backer D C 1990ApJ361300 ISSN 0004-637X, 1538-4357 URLhttp://adsabs. harvard.edu/doi/10.1086/169195

    doi:10.1086/169195

  8. [8]

    Hellings R W and Downs G S 1983ApJ265L39 ISSN 0004-637X, 1538-4357 URLhttp: //adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1086/183954

    doi:10.1086/183954

  9. [9]

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

    2041

  10. [10]

    EPTA Collaboration and InPTA Collaboration:, Antoniadis J, Arumugam P, Arumugam S, Babak S, Bagchi M, Bak Nielsen A S, Bassa C G, Bathula A, Berthereau A, Bonetti M, Bortolas E, Brook P R, Burgay M, Caballero R N, Chalumeau A, Champion D J, Chanlaridis S, Chen S, Cognard I, Dandapat S, Deb D, Desai S, Desvignes G, Dhanda-Batra N, Dwivedi C, Falxa M, Ferdm...

  11. [11]

    Reardon D J, Zic A, Shannon R M, Hobbs G B, Bailes M, Di Marco V, Kapur A, Rogers A F, Thrane E, Askew J, Bhat N D R, Cameron A, Cury lo M, Coles W A, Dai S, Goncharov B, Kerr M, Kulkarni A, Levin Y, Lower M E, Manchester R N, Mandow R, Miles M T, Nathan R S, Os lowski S, Russell C J, Spiewak R, Zhang S and Zhu X J 2023ApJL951L6 ISSN 2041-8205, 2041-8213 ...

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02 2041

  12. [12]

    Xu H, Chen S, Guo Y, Jiang J, Wang B, Xu J, Xue Z, Nicolas Caballero R, Yuan J, Xu Y, Wang J, Hao L, Luo J, Lee K, Han J, Jiang P, Shen Z, Wang M, Wang N, Xu R, Wu X, Manchester R, Qian L, Guan X, Huang M, Sun C and Zhu Y 2023Res. Astron. Astrophys.23075024 ISSN 1674- 4527, 2397-6209 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5

  13. [13]

    Phinney E S 2001 A Practical Theorem on Gravitational Wave Backgrounds arXiv:astro- ph/0108028 URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0108028 Directional Anisotropic Sensitivity Curves for Pulsar Timing Arrays36

    arXiv 2001

  14. [14]

    Sesana A, Vecchio A and Colacino C N 2008Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society390 192–209 ISSN 00358711, 13652966 URLhttps://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-lookup/ doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13682.x

    arXiv 2008

  15. [15]

    Sesana A 2013Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters433L1–L5 ISSN 1745- 3933, 1745-3925 URLhttps://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article/433/1/L1/954113

  16. [16]

    Romano J D and Cornish N J 2017Living Rev Relativ202 ISSN 2367-3613, 1433-8351 URL http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41114-017-0004-1

    doi:10.1007/s41114-017-0004-1

  17. [17]

    Arzoumanian Z, Baker P T, Blumer H, B´ ecsy B, Brazier A, Brook P R, Burke-Spolaor S, Chatterjee S, Chen S, Cordes J M, Cornish N J, Crawford F, Cromartie H T, DeCesar M E, Demorest P B, Dolch T, Ellis J A, Ferrara E C, Fiore W, Fonseca E, Garver-Daniels N, Gentile P A, Good D C, Hazboun J S, Holgado A M, Islo K, Jennings R J, Jones M L, Kaiser A R, Kapla...

    2041

  18. [18]

    Begelman M C, Blandford R D and Rees M J 1980Nature287307–309 ISSN 0028-0836, 1476-4687 URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/287307a0

  19. [19]

    Rajagopal M and Romani R W 1995ApJ446543 ISSN 0004-637X, 1538-4357 arXiv:astro- ph/9412038 URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9412038

    arXiv

  20. [20]

    Jaffe A H and Backer D C 2003ApJ583616–631 ISSN 0004-637X, 1538-4357 URLhttps: //iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/345443

    doi:10.1086/345443

  21. [21]

    Kormendy J and Richstone D 1995Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.33581–624 ISSN 0066-4146, 1545-4282 URLhttps://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.aa.33. 090195.003053

    arXiv

  22. [22]

    Ferrarese L and Merritt D 2000The Astrophysical Journal539L9–L12 ISSN 0004637X URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/312838

    doi:10.1086/312838

  23. [23]

    Gebhardt K, Bender R, Bower G, Dressler A, Faber S M, Filippenko A V, Green R, Grillmair C, Ho L C, Kormendy J, Lauer T R, Magorrian J, Pinkney J, Richstone D and Tremaine S 2000 The Astrophysical Journal539L13–L16 ISSN 0004637X URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/ article/10.1086/312840

    doi:10.1086/312840 2000

  24. [24]

    McConnell N J and Ma C P 2013ApJ764184 ISSN 0004-637X, 1538-4357 URLhttps: //iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/184

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/184

  25. [25]

    Kormendy J and Ho L C 2013Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.51511–653 ISSN 0066-4146, 1545- 4282 URLhttps://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

  26. [26]

    Burke-Spolaor S, Taylor S R, Charisi M, Dolch T, Hazboun J S, Holgado A M, Kelley L Z, Lazio T J W, Madison D R, McMann N, Mingarelli C M F, Rasskazov A, Siemens X, Simon J J and Smith T L 2019Astron Astrophys Rev275 ISSN 0935-4956, 1432-0754 URL http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00159-019-0115-7

    doi:10.1007/s00159-019-0115-7

  27. [27]

    Mingarelli C M F, Sidery T, Mandel I and Vecchio A 2013Phys. Rev. D88062005 ISSN 1550-7998, 1550-2368 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.062005

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.062005

  28. [28]

    Mingarelli C M F, Lazio T J W, Sesana A, Greene J E, Ellis J A, Ma C P, Croft S, Burke-Spolaor S and Taylor S R 2017Nat Astron1886–892 ISSN 2397-3366 arXiv:1708.03491 [astro-ph] URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1708.03491

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    Sato-Polito G and Kamionkowski M 2024Phys. Rev. D109123544 ISSN 2470-0010, 2470-0029 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.109.123544

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.123544

  30. [30]

    Lin M X, Lidz A and Ma C P 2026 Analytical Estimates of Gravitational Wave Background Anisotropies from Shot Noise and Large-Scale Structure in Pulsar Timing Arrays arXiv:2602.16808 [astro-ph] URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2602.16808

    arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    Raidal J, Urrutia J, Vaskonen V and Veerm¨ ae H 2026A&A706A159 (Preprint2411.19692) Directional Anisotropic Sensitivity Curves for Pulsar Timing Arrays37

    arXiv

  32. [32]

    Lemke A M, Mitridate A and Gersbach K A 2024 Detecting Gravitational Wave Anisotropies from Supermassive Black Hole Binaries arXiv:2407.08705 [astro-ph] URLhttp://arxiv.org/ abs/2407.08705

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Taylor S, Mingarelli C, Gair J, Sesana A, Theureau G, Babak S, Bassa C, Brem P, Burgay M, Caballero R, Champion D, Cognard I, Desvignes G, Guillemot L, Hessels J, Janssen G, Karuppusamy R, Kramer M, Lassus A, Lazarus P, Lentati L, Liu K, Os lowski S, Perrodin D, Petiteau A, Possenti A, Purver M, Rosado P, Sanidas S, Smits R, Stappers B, Tiburzi C, Van Haa...

  34. [34]

    Agazie G, Anumarlapudi A, Archibald A M, Arzoumanian Z, Baker P T, B´ ecsy B, Blecha L, Brazier A, Brook P R, Burke-Spolaor S, Casey-Clyde J A, Charisi M, Chatterjee S, Cohen T, Cordes J M, Cornish N J, Crawford F, Cromartie H T, Crowter K, DeCesar M E, Demorest P B, Dolch T, Drachler B, Ferrara E C, Fiore W, Fonseca E, Freedman G E, Gardiner E, Garver- D...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Grunthal K, Champion D J, Thrane E, Nathan R S, Kramer M and Miles M T 2026A&A706A352 ISSN 0004-6361, 1432-0746 URLhttps://www.aanda.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202557896

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557896

  36. [36]

    Chen Y, Zhao S Y, Peng Z Z, Zhu X, Bhat N R, Chen Z C, Cury lo M, Di Marco V, Hobbs G, Kapur A, Ling W, Mandow R, Mishra S, Reardon D J, Russell C J, Shannon R M, Tremblay J C, Wang J, Zhang L and Zic A 2026Phys. Rev. D113043042 ISSN 2470-0010, 2470-0029 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/czxp-zrd6

    doi:10.1103/czxp-zrd6

  37. [37]

    Hazboun J S, Romano J D and Smith T L 2019Phys. Rev. D100104028 ISSN 2470-0010, 2470-0029 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.104028

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.104028

  38. [38]

    Hazboun J, Romano J and Smith T 2019Journal of Open Source Software41775 ISSN 2475-9066 URLhttps://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01775

    doi:10.21105/joss.01775

  39. [39]

    Quantum Grav.42075008 ISSN 0264-9381, 1361-6382 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/adbbab

    Baier J G, Hazboun J S and Romano J D 2025Class. Quantum Grav.42075008 ISSN 0264-9381, 1361-6382 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/adbbab

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/adbbab

  40. [40]

    Thrane E, Ballmer S, Romano J D, Mitra S, Talukder D, Bose S and Mandic V 2009Phys. Rev. D80122002 ISSN 1550-7998, 1550-2368 arXiv:0910.0858 [astro-ph] URLhttp://arxiv.org/ abs/0910.0858

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    Quantum Grav.32015014 ISSN 0264-9381, 1361-6382 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/32/1/015014

    Moore C J, Cole R H and Berry C P L 2015Class. Quantum Grav.32015014 ISSN 0264-9381, 1361-6382 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/32/1/015014

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/1/015014

  42. [42]

    3847/2041-8205/819/1/L6

    Taylor S R, Vallisneri M, Ellis J A, Mingarelli C M F, Lazio T J W and Haasteren R V 2016 ApJL819L6 ISSN 2041-8205, 2041-8213 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 3847/2041-8205/819/1/L6

    2016

  43. [43]

    Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud Y, Smith T L and Mingarelli C M 2020Phys. Rev. D102122005 ISSN 2470-0010, 2470-0029 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.122005

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.122005

  44. [44]

    Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud Y, Smith T L and Mingarelli C M F 2021Phys. Rev. D103042009 ISSN 2470-0010, 2470-0029 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.042009

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.042009

  45. [45]

    Pol N, Taylor S R and Romano J D 2022ApJ940173 ISSN 0004-637X, 1538-4357 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac9836 Directional Anisotropic Sensitivity Curves for Pulsar Timing Arrays38

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9836

  46. [46]

    Babak S, Falxa M, Franciolini G and Pieroni M 2024Phys. Rev. D110063022 ISSN 2470-0010, 2470-0029 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.063022

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.063022

  47. [47]

    Depta P F, Domcke V, Franciolini G and Pieroni M 2025Phys. Rev. D111083039 ISSN 2470-0010, 2470-0029 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083039

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.083039

  48. [48]

    J.Submitted

    Moursy T T, Pol N S, Agazie Get al.2026Astrophys. J.Submitted

  49. [49]

    Taylor S R and Gair J R 2013Phys. Rev. D88084001 ISSN 1550-7998, 1550-2368 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.084001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.084001

  50. [50]

    Gair J, Romano J D, Taylor S and Mingarelli C M 2014Phys. Rev. D90082001 ISSN 1550-7998, 1550-2368 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.082001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.082001

  51. [51]

    Gersbach K A, Taylor S R, B´ ecsy B, Lemke A M, Mitridate A and Pol N 2026 Mapping the gravitational-wave background across the spectrum with a next-generation anisotropic per- frequency optimal statistic URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/d55k-75p9

    work page doi:10.1103/d55k-75p9 2026

  52. [52]

    Allen B and Romano J D 1999Phys. Rev. D59102001 ISSN 0556-2821, 1089-4918 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.59.102001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.59.102001

  53. [53]

    Anholm M, Ballmer S, Creighton J D E, Price L R and Siemens X 2009Phys. Rev. D79084030 ISSN 1550-7998, 1550-2368 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.79.084030

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.79.084030

  54. [54]

    Chamberlin S J, Creighton J D, Siemens X, Demorest P, Ellis J, Price L R and Romano J D 2015Phys. Rev. D91044048 ISSN 1550-7998, 1550-2368 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.044048

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.044048

  55. [55]

    Crisostomi M, van Haasteren R, Meyers P M and Vallisneri M 2025arXiv e-prints ArXiv:2506.13866 (Preprint2506.13866)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  56. [56]

    Vallisneri M 2008Phys. Rev. D77042001 ISSN 1550-7998, 1550-2368 URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.042001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.042001

  57. [57]

    Semenzato F, Bellomo N, Raccanelli A and Mingarelli C M F 2025 Bias from small-scale leakage in Pulsar Timing Array maps arXiv:2510.24857 [astro-ph] URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2510. 24857

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Mitra S, Dhurandhar S, Souradeep T, Lazzarini A, Mandic V, Bose S and Ballmer S 2008Phys. Rev. D77042002 ISSN 1550-7998, 1550-2368 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevD.77.042002

  59. [59]

    Verbiest J P W, Lentati L, Hobbs G, van Haasteren R, Demorest P B, Janssen G H, Wang J B, Desvignes G, Caballero R N, Keith M J, Champion D J, Arzoumanian Z, Babak S, Bassa C G, Bhat N D R, Brazier A, Brem P, Burgay M, Burke-Spolaor S, Chamberlin S J, Chatterjee S, Christy B, Cognard I, Cordes J M, Dai S, Dolch T, Ellis J A, Ferdman R D, Fonseca E, Gair J...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  60. [60]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [61]

    Agazie G, Anumarlapudi A, Archibald A M, Arzoumanian Z, Baker P T, B´ ecsy B, Blecha L, Brazier A, Brook P R, Burke-Spolaor S, Charisi M, Chatterjee S, Cohen T, Cordes J M, Cornish N J, Crawford F, Cromartie H T, Crowter K, Decesar M E, Demorest P B, Dolch T, Drachler B, Ferrara E C, Fiore W, Fonseca E, Freedman G E, Garver-Daniels N, Gentile P A, Glaser ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  62. [62]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  63. [63]

    Gorski K M, Hivon E, Banday A J, Wandelt B D, Hansen F K, Reinecke M and Bartelmann M 2005ApJ622759–771 ISSN 0004-637X, 1538-4357 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/ article/10.1086/427976 Directional Anisotropic Sensitivity Curves for Pulsar Timing Arrays40

    doi:10.1086/427976

  64. [64]

    Agarwal D, Romano J D, Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud Y and Smith T L 2026 Addressing leakage and mode suppression in angular power spectrum estimation for gravitational-wave backgrounds using pulsar timing arrays arXiv:2602.20075 [gr-qc] URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2602.20075

    arXiv 2026

  65. [65]

    Taylor S R, Van Haasteren R and Sesana A 2020Phys. Rev. D102084039 ISSN 2470-0010, 2470-0029 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.084039

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.084039

  66. [66]

    Konstandin T, Lemke A M, Mitridate A and Perboni E 2026J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2026084 ISSN 1475-7516 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2026/02/ 084

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/02/ 2026

  67. [67]

    Fisher R 1953Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 217295–305 ISSN 1364-5021, 1471-2946 URLhttp://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ cgi/doi/10.1098/rspa.1953.0064

    arXiv 1953

  68. [68]

    Wiley) ISBN 978-0-471-95333-3 978-0-470-31781-5 978-0-470-31697-9

    Mardia K V and Jupp P E (eds) 2010Directional statisticsWiley series in probability and statistics (Chichester New York: J. Wiley) ISBN 978-0-471-95333-3 978-0-470-31781-5 978-0-470-31697-9

  69. [69]

    Quantum Grav.30224015 ISSN 0264-9381, 1361-6382 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/30/ 22/224015

    Siemens X, Ellis J, Jenet F and Romano J D 2013Class. Quantum Grav.30224015 ISSN 0264-9381, 1361-6382 URLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/30/ 22/224015

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/30/

  70. [70]

    Virtanen P, Gommers R, Oliphant T E, Haberland M, Reddy T, Cournapeau D, Burovski E, Peterson P, Weckesser W, Bright J, van der Walt S J, Brett M, Wilson J, Millman K J, Mayorov N, Nelson A R J, Jones E, Kern R, Larson E, Carey C J, Polat˙I, Feng Y, Moore E W, VanderPlas J, Laxalde D, Perktold J, Cimrman R, Henriksen I, Quintero E A, Harris C R, Archibald...

  71. [71]

    Harris C R, Millman K J, van der Walt S J, Gommers R, Virtanen P, Cournapeau D, Wieser E, Taylor J, Berg S, Smith N J, Kern R, Picus M, Hoyer S, van Kerkwijk M H, Brett M, Haldane A, del R ´ ıo J F, Wiebe M, Peterson P, G´ erard-Marchant P, Sheppard K, Reddy T, Weckesser W, Abbasi H, Gohlke C and Oliphant T E 2020Nature585357–362 URL https://doi.org/10.10...

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

  72. [72]

    Hunter J D 2007Computing in Science & Engineering990–95

  73. [73]

    Zonca A, Singer L P, Lenz D, Reinecke M, Rosset C, Hivon E and Gorski K M 2019Journal of Open Source Software41298 URLhttps://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01298

    doi:10.21105/joss.01298