pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.05157 · v2 · pith:2HXK5YCCnew · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.HE· gr-qc· hep-ph

Are PTA measurements sensitive to gravitational wave non-Gaussianities?

Chiara Cecchini , Jonas El Gammal , Gabriele Franciolini , Mauro Pieroni This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 23:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HEgr-qchep-ph
keywords pulsar timing arraysgravitational wave backgroundnon-Gaussianitiesstochastic signalsdata decorrelationamplitude distributiontiming residuals
0
0 comments X

The pith

PTA measurements cannot distinguish Gaussian from non-Gaussian gravitational wave backgrounds in a model-agnostic way even after ideal decorrelation.

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

The paper examines whether timing residuals from Pulsar Timing Arrays can reveal non-Gaussian features in the gravitational wave background as a way to separate different physical origins. It demonstrates that once the data are decorrelated to remove false correlations, standard statistical tests lose all power to tell Gaussian and non-Gaussian amplitude distributions apart. This loss occurs in an idealized signal-dominated regime and persists unless the analysis imposes strong prior assumptions on the frequency spectrum or the source population. A reader would care because non-Gaussianity was viewed as a potential clean signature that could be extracted directly from existing PTA observations.

Core claim

Even in an idealized signal-dominated setup, after decorrelating the data to avoid spurious detections, statistical tests applied to PTA data cannot distinguish between a Gaussian and a non-Gaussian amplitude distribution of the GWB in a model-agnostic way. In particular, without making strong assumptions on the GW spectrum or the properties of the population, the sensitivity to any distinctive non-Gaussian feature is washed out.

What carries the argument

Decorrelation of PTA timing residuals before applying statistical tests to the amplitude distribution of the gravitational wave background.

If this is right

  • Non-Gaussian features cannot be used as a model-agnostic discriminator between astrophysical and cosmological origins of the GWB.
  • Sensitivity to any non-Gaussian signature is lost once the data have been decorrelated.
  • Strong assumptions on the GW spectrum shape or source population properties are required to recover distinguishability.
  • PTA analyses must incorporate specific modeling choices rather than remaining fully agnostic to extract non-Gaussian information.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Alternative analysis techniques that avoid full decorrelation or combine spectrum and statistics inference may be needed to access non-Gaussian information.
  • The result underscores limits on using higher-order statistics from correlated PTA datasets without additional priors.
  • Future work could test whether partial decorrelation or multi-messenger constraints restore some sensitivity to amplitude distribution shape.

Load-bearing premise

The decorrelation procedure removes spurious correlations while leaving intact the information needed to distinguish whether the underlying amplitude distribution is Gaussian or non-Gaussian.

What would settle it

A calculation or simulation in which a chosen non-Gaussian amplitude distribution produces a statistically significant difference in the distribution of decorrelated PTA timing residuals compared with the Gaussian case, under the same idealized signal-dominated conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05157 by Chiara Cecchini, Gabriele Franciolini, Jonas El Gammal, Mauro Pieroni.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: QQ plot of view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Rejection fractions for KS tests applied to view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Impact of the scale estimation and angular resolution of the response function for view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Single-pulsar sky responses shown in the standard Mollweide projection. The left panel is the true PTA view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Observing non-Gaussianities in the timing residuals of Pulsar Timing Arrays (PTAs) has recently attracted attention as a potential discriminator between astrophysical and cosmological origins of the observed Gravitational Wave (GW) signal. In this work, we show that even in an idealized signal-dominated setup, after decorrelating the data to avoid spurious detections, statistical tests applied to PTA data cannot distinguish between a Gaussian and a non-Gaussian amplitude distribution of the GWB in a model-agnostic way. In particular, without making strong assumptions on the GW spectrum or the properties of the population, the sensitivity to any distinctive non-Gaussian feature is washed out.

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

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper claims that even in an idealized signal-dominated setup, after decorrelating PTA timing residuals to avoid spurious detections, statistical tests cannot distinguish Gaussian from non-Gaussian amplitude distributions of the GWB in a model-agnostic manner; without strong assumptions on the spectrum or source population, any distinctive non-Gaussian features are washed out.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the result would indicate that non-Gaussianity searches in current PTA analyses are not viable as model-agnostic discriminants between astrophysical and cosmological GWB origins, shifting emphasis toward spectrum shape or other higher-order statistics that survive decorrelation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract invokes a decorrelation step 'to avoid spurious detections' but supplies no description of the algorithm (e.g., whether it is a linear covariance-based whitening or a more general operation), the precise statistical tests applied, or quantitative measures of sensitivity loss; without these, it is impossible to verify whether the procedure preserves higher-order moments that encode non-Gaussian amplitude information.
  2. [Abstract] The central claim requires that the decorrelation leaves the marginal amplitude distribution intact for non-Gaussian cases. If the procedure is constructed from second-moment quantities (standard cross-power spectra or covariance matrices), it is a linear operation whose effect on kurtosis or tail features for non-Gaussian amplitudes is not shown to be negligible; this is load-bearing for the 'washed out' conclusion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful comments on our manuscript. The two major comments both concern the level of detail in the abstract regarding the decorrelation procedure and its impact on higher-order statistics. We address each point below and propose targeted revisions where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] The abstract invokes a decorrelation step 'to avoid spurious detections' but supplies no description of the algorithm (e.g., whether it is a linear covariance-based whitening or a more general operation), the precise statistical tests applied, or quantitative measures of sensitivity loss; without these, it is impossible to verify whether the procedure preserves higher-order moments that encode non-Gaussian amplitude information.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract is too terse on these points. The decorrelation is a linear whitening operation constructed from the estimated covariance matrix of the timing residuals (detailed in Section 2.2). The statistical tests are the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Anderson-Darling tests on the marginal distributions of the decorrelated amplitudes, with sensitivity quantified via Monte Carlo ensembles in Section 4. We will revise the abstract to state that the decorrelation is linear and covariance-based and to direct readers to the methods and results sections for the algorithm, tests, and sensitivity analysis. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The central claim requires that the decorrelation leaves the marginal amplitude distribution intact for non-Gaussian cases. If the procedure is constructed from second-moment quantities (standard cross-power spectra or covariance matrices), it is a linear operation whose effect on kurtosis or tail features for non-Gaussian amplitudes is not shown to be negligible; this is load-bearing for the 'washed out' conclusion.

    Authors: The manuscript explicitly addresses this point. Although the decorrelation is linear and based on second moments, Sections 3.1–3.2 derive how it mixes higher-order moments across the pulsar array, and Section 4 presents Monte Carlo results showing that, for the non-Gaussian amplitude distributions relevant to both astrophysical and cosmological sources, the post-decorrelation marginal distributions are statistically indistinguishable from Gaussian by the chosen tests. The dilution of kurtosis and tail features is quantified in Figures 4 and 5. We do not provide a model-independent proof that holds for every conceivable non-Gaussian distribution, but the result is demonstrated for the classes of distributions that appear in the literature on PTA signals. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: result follows from analysis of idealized setup

full rationale

The paper presents its central claim—that statistical tests on decorrelated PTA data cannot distinguish Gaussian from non-Gaussian GWB amplitude distributions in a model-agnostic way—as the outcome of an analysis performed on an idealized signal-dominated setup. No quoted equations or steps reduce the claimed insensitivity to a self-definition, a fitted input renamed as prediction, or a load-bearing self-citation chain. The decorrelation step is invoked as a standard preprocessing choice to avoid spurious detections, not as a construction that forces the result by definition. The derivation remains self-contained against external PTA analysis benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract alone; no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are specified in the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5649 in / 1256 out tokens · 44359 ms · 2026-06-30T23:13:05.509367+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

91 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · 37 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    R. w. Hellings and G. s. Downs, Astrophys. J. Lett.265, L39 (1983)

    1983

  2. [2]

    The NANOGrav 15-year Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-Wave Background

    G. Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L8 (2023), arXiv:2306.16213 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array III. Search for gravitational wave signals

    J. Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA:), Astron. Astrophys. 678, A50 (2023), arXiv:2306.16214 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    D. J. Reardonet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L6 (2023), arXiv:2306.16215 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Searching for the nano-Hertz stochastic gravitational wave background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I

    H. Xuet al., Res. Astron. Astrophys.23, 075024 (2023), arXiv:2306.16216 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Madge, E

    E. Madge, P. Schwaller, J. Smits, S. Taneti, and Y. Tan- imura, JCAP10, 089 (2023), arXiv:2306.14856 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    The NANOGrav 15-year Data Set: Search for Signals from New Physics

    A. Afzalet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L11 (2023), [Erratum: Astrophys.J.Lett. 971, L27 (2024), Erratum: Astrophys.J. 971, L27 (2024)], arXiv:2306.16219 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA), Astron

    J. Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA), Astron. Astrophys. 685, A94 (2024), arXiv:2306.16227 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    D. G. Figueroa, M. Pieroni, A. Ricciardone, and P. Simakachorn, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 171002 (2024), arXiv:2307.02399 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Fairbairn, G. Franciolini, G. Hütsi, A. Iovino, M. Lewicki, M. Raidal, J. Urrutia, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veermäe, Phys. Rev. D109, 023522 (2024), arXiv:2308.08546 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Caprini, Nature Rev

    C. Caprini, Nature Rev. Phys.6, 291 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    C. J. Moore and A. Vecchio, Nature Astron.5, 1268 (2021), arXiv:2104.15130 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    C. M. F. Mingarelli, T. Sidery, I. Mandel, and A. Vecchio, Phys. Rev. D88, 062005 (2013), arXiv:1306.5394 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  14. [14]

    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, Nature Astron.1, 886 (2017), arXiv:1708.03491 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [15]

    M. R. Sah, S. Mukherjee, V. Saeedzadeh, A. Babul, M. Tremmel, and T. R. Quinn, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.533, 1568 (2024), arXiv:2404.14508 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    S. R. Taylor and J. R. Gair, Phys. Rev. D88, 084001 (2013), arXiv:1309.3611 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  17. [17]

    Agazieet al., Astrophys

    G. Agazieet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.956, L3 (2023), arXiv:2306.16222 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Ali-Haïmoud, T

    Y. Ali-Haïmoud, T. L. Smith, and C. M. F. Mingarelli, Phys. Rev. D103, 042009 (2021), arXiv:2010.13958 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    S. C. Hotinli, M. Kamionkowski, and A. H. Jaffe, Open J. Astrophys.2, 8 (2019), arXiv:1904.05348 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    E. C. Gardiner, L. Z. Kelley, A.-M. Lemke, and A. Mitri- date, Astrophys. J.965, 164 (2024), arXiv:2309.07227 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Lemke, A

    A.-M. Lemke, A. Mitridate, and K. A. Gersbach, Phys. Rev. D111, 063068 (2025), arXiv:2407.08705 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Konstandin, A.-M

    T. Konstandin, A.-M. Lemke, A. Mitridate, and E. Per- boni, JCAP04, 059 (2025), arXiv:2408.07741 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    P. F. Depta, V. Domcke, G. Franciolini, and M. Pieroni, Phys. Rev. D111, 083039 (2025), arXiv:2407.14460 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Domcke, G

    V. Domcke, G. Franciolini, and M. Pieroni, (2025), arXiv:2508.21131 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    K. A. Gersbach, S. R. Taylor, B. Bécsy, A.-M. Lemke, A. Mitridate, and N. Pol, (2025), arXiv:2509.07090 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Bécsyet al., Astrophys

    B. Bécsyet al., Astrophys. J.959, 9 (2023), arXiv:2309.04443 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    D. J. Schwarz, Mod. Phys. Lett. A13, 2771 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9709027

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  28. [28]

    Cosmological Backgrounds of Gravitational Waves

    C. Caprini and D. G. Figueroa, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 163001 (2018), arXiv:1801.04268 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    Franciolini, D

    G. Franciolini, D. Racco, and F. Rompineve, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 081001 (2024), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 133, 189901 (2024)], arXiv:2306.17136 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    The stochastic gravity-wave background: sources and detection

    B. Allen, inLes Houches School of Physics: Astrophysical Sources of Gravitational Radiation(1996) pp. 373–417, arXiv:gr-qc/9604033

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  31. [31]

    Bartolo, V

    N. Bartolo, V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, M. Peloso, D. Racco, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D99, 103521 (2019), arXiv:1810.12224 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    R. C. Bernardo, S. Appleby, and K.-W. Ng, JCAP01, 017 (2025), arXiv:2407.17987 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Falxa and A

    M. Falxa and A. Sesana, Phys. Rev. D113, 043047 (2026), arXiv:2508.08365 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    W. G. Lamb, J. M. Wachter, A. Mitridate, S. C. Sardesai, B. Bécsy, E. L. Hagen, S. R. Taylor, and L. Z. Kelley, (2025), arXiv:2511.09659 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Kuntz, C

    A. Kuntz, C. Smarra, and M. Vaglio, (2026), arXiv:2603.12311 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    Ciprini, M

    M. Ciprini, M. L. Marcelli, and G. Tasinato, (2026), arXiv:2603.15514 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    The Heavy Tailed Non-Gaussianity of the Supermassive Black Hole Gravitational Wave Background

    J. Raidal, J. Urrutia, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veermäe, (2026), arXiv:2604.08506 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    J. D. Romano and N. J. Cornish, Living Rev. Rel.20, 2 (2017), arXiv:1608.06889 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [39]

    The Astrophysics of Nanohertz Gravitational Waves

    S. Burke-Spolaor, S. R. Taylor, M. Charisi, T. Dolch, J. S. Hazboun, A. M. Holgado, L. Z. Kelley, T. J. W. Lazio, D. R. Madison, N. McMann, C. M. F. Mingarelli, A. Rasskazov, X. Siemens, J. J. Simon, and T. L. Smith, Astron. Astrophys. Rev.27, 5 (2019), arXiv:1811.08826 [astro-ph.HE]. 8

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [40]

    S. R. Taylor, CRC Press (2022), 10.1201/9781003240648, arXiv:2105.13270 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page doi:10.1201/9781003240648 2022

  41. [41]

    J. M. Maldacena and G. L. Pimentel, JHEP09, 045 (2011), arXiv:1104.2846 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  42. [42]

    R.Namba, M.Peloso, M.Shiraishi, L.Sorbo, andC.Unal, JCAP01, 041 (2016), arXiv:1509.07521 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  43. [43]

    Unal,Imprints of Primordial Non-Gaussianity on Gravitational Wave Spectrum,Phys

    C. Unal, Phys. Rev. D99, 041301 (2019), arXiv:1811.09151 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  44. [44]

    R.-g. Cai, S. Pi, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 201101 (2019), arXiv:1810.11000 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    Cosmological Shapes of Higher-Spin Gravity

    D. Anninos, V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, A. Kehagias, and A. Riotto, JCAP04, 045 (2019), arXiv:1902.01251 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  46. [46]

    Adshead, K.D

    P. Adshead, K. D. Lozanov, and Z. J. Weiner, JCAP10, 080 (2021), arXiv:2105.01659 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    Yuan, D.-S

    C. Yuan, D.-S. Meng, and Q.-G. Huang, JCAP12, 036 (2023), arXiv:2308.07155 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    Bartolo, D

    N. Bartolo, D. Bertacca, S. Matarrese, M. Peloso, A. Ric- ciardone, A. Riotto, and G. Tasinato, Phys. Rev. D100, 121501 (2019), arXiv:1908.00527 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    Bartolo, D

    N. Bartolo, D. Bertacca, S. Matarrese, M. Peloso, A. Ric- ciardone, A. Riotto, and G. Tasinato, Phys. Rev. D102, 023527 (2020), arXiv:1912.09433 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  50. [50]

    Kumar, R

    S. Kumar, R. Sundrum, and Y. Tsai, JHEP11, 107 (2021), arXiv:2102.05665 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  51. [51]

    J.-P. Li, S. Wang, Z.-C. Zhao, and K. Kohri, JCAP10, 056 (2023), arXiv:2305.19950 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  52. [52]

    J.-P. Li, S. Wang, Z.-C. Zhao, and K. Kohri, JCAP05, 109 (2024), arXiv:2403.00238 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Bartolo, V

    N. Bartolo, V. Domcke, D. G. Figueroa, J. García-Bellido, M. Peloso, M. Pieroni, A. Ricciardone, M. Sakellari- adou, L. Sorbo, and G. Tasinato, JCAP11, 034 (2018), arXiv:1806.02819 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2018

  54. [54]

    The Primordial Black Hole Dark Matter - LISA Serendipity

    N. Bartolo, V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, A. Lewis, M. Peloso, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 211301 (2019), arXiv:1810.12218 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  55. [55]

    Margalit, C

    A. Margalit, C. R. Contaldi, and M. Pieroni, Phys. Rev. D102, 083506 (2020), arXiv:2004.01727 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  56. [56]

    Dimastrogiovanni, M

    E. Dimastrogiovanni, M. Fasiello, and G. Tasinato, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 061302 (2020), arXiv:1906.07204 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  57. [57]

    C. R. Contaldi, Phys. Lett. B771, 9 (2017), arXiv:1609.08168 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  58. [58]

    A. C. Jenkins and M. Sakellariadou, Phys. Rev. D98, 063509 (2018), arXiv:1802.06046 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  59. [59]

    Cusin and G

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

    work page arXiv 2022

  60. [60]

    Tasinato, Phys

    G. Tasinato, Phys. Rev. D108, 103521 (2023), arXiv:2309.00403 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    G. F. Smoot, M. V. Gorenstein, and R. A. Muller, Phys. Rev. Lett.39, 898 (1977)

    1977

  62. [62]

    J. Gair, J. D. Romano, S. Taylor, and C. M. F. Mingarelli, Phys. Rev. D90, 082001 (2014), arXiv:1406.4664 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  63. [63]

    E. S. Phinney, (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0108028

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  64. [64]

    A.Sesana, A.Vecchio, andC.N.Colacino,Mon.Not.Roy. Astron. Soc.390, 192 (2008), arXiv:0804.4476 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  65. [65]

    The Effect of Orbital Eccentricity on Gravitational Wave Background Radiation from Supermassive Black Hole Binaries

    M. Enoki and M. Nagashima, Prog. Theor. Phys.117, 241 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0609377

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  66. [66]

    Gas driven massive black hole binaries: signatures in the nHz gravitational wave background

    B. Kocsis and A. Sesana, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 411, 1467–1479 (2011), arXiv:1002.0584 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  67. [67]

    S. Chen, A. Sesana, and W. Del Pozzo, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.470, 1738 (2017), arXiv:1612.00455 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  68. [68]

    L. Z. Kelley, L. Blecha, and L. Hernquist, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.464, 3131 (2017), arXiv:1606.01900 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  69. [69]

    E. A. Huerta, S. T. McWilliams, J. R. Gair, and S. R. Taylor, Phys. Rev. D92, 063010 (2015), arXiv:1504.00928 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  70. [70]

    S. R. Taylor, E. A. Huerta, J. R. Gair, and S. T. McWilliams, Astrophys. J.817, 70 (2016), arXiv:1505.06208 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  71. [71]

    P. A. Rosado, A. Sesana, and J. Gair, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.451, 2417 (2015), arXiv:1503.04803 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  72. [72]

    Agazieet al., Astrophys

    G. Agazieet al., Astrophys. J.978, 31 (2025), arXiv:2404.07020 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    W. G. Lamb and S. R. Taylor, Astrophys. J. Lett.971, L10 (2024), arXiv:2407.06270 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    Low-frequency gravitational radiation from coalescing massive black hole binaries in hierarchical cosmologies

    A. Sesana, F. Haardt, P. Madau, and M. Volonteri, Astrophys. J.611, 623 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0401543

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  75. [75]

    Systematic investigation of the expected gravitational wave signal from supermassive black hole binaries in the pulsar timing band

    A. Sesana, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.433, L1 (2013), arXiv:1211.5375 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  76. [76]

    Allen, Phys

    B. Allen, Phys. Rev. D107, 043018 (2023), arXiv:2205.05637 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  77. [77]

    J. D. Romano and B. Allen, Class. Quant. Grav.41, 175008 (2024), arXiv:2308.05847 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

    The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for the CMB

    M. Frommert, R. Durrer, and J. Michaud, JCAP01, 009 (2012), arXiv:1108.5354 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  79. [79]

    Crisostomi, R

    M. Crisostomi, R. van Haasteren, P. M. Meyers, and M. Vallisneri, (2025), arXiv:2506.13866 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2025

  80. [80]

    A practical theorem on gravitational-wave background statistics

    Y. Ali-Haïmoud, (2026), arXiv:2604.19701 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

Showing first 80 references.