Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

A cross-correlation-only detection statistic, NPMV, that is as close as possible to the Neyman-Pearson optimal test raises pulsar-array GWB detection probability by about 47% at the 5-sigma threshold.

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 ↗

In simulations, a new cross-correlation-only statistic NPMV detects a gravitational-wave background more often than the standard PTA statistic, improving detection probability by about 47% at the 5-sigma threshold.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection The NPMV construction is clean and likely beats DFCC, but the headline 47% improvement rests on ROC curves whose computation is never described. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2509.06489 v1 pith:EUHMRV6L submitted 2025-09-08 astro-ph.IM gr-qc

Optimal robust detection statistics for pulsar timing arrays

Rutger van Haasteren , Bruce Allen , Joseph D. Romano This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM gr-qc
keywords gravitational wavespulsar timing arraysNeyman-Pearson detectionquadratic detection statisticsHellings-Downs correlationstochastic gravitational-wave backgroundfalse-alarm probabilityreceiver operating characteristic
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 reading

Pulsar timing arrays currently judge gravitational-wave background claims with a statistic—the 'optimal cross-correlation' (DFCC) statistic—that maximizes signal-to-noise deflection, not detection probability at a fixed false-alarm probability. The truly Neyman-Pearson-optimal test is more powerful but uses autocorrelated pulsar noise, making it vulnerable to noise-modeling errors. This paper constructs a compromise quadratic statistic, NPMV, that uses only cross-correlations yet is as close as possible to the NP-optimal statistic in a minimum-variance sense. In a simulation matching the NANOGrav 15-year noise model and a background with amplitude 2.1e-15 and spectral index 13/3, NPMV raises the detection probability at the 5-sigma false-alarm threshold from about 2.7% to 4.0%—a roughly 47% relative gain over DFCC.

Core claim

For zero-mean complex Gaussian data, the NP-optimal quadratic filter is Q_NP = N^{-1} - C^{-1}. The standard DFCC filter instead removes the block-diagonal (autocorrelation) part from the deflection-optimal filter Q_DF, which maximizes signal-to-noise ratio, not detection probability. The paper proves that when the noise covariance is block-diagonal (the CURN null hypothesis), the quadratic filter that minimizes the null-hypothesis variance of its statistic's difference from the NP statistic, subject to using only cross-correlations, has the simple closed form Q_NPMV = Q_NP - Diag Q_NP. This statistic can be built directly from the whitened DF filter already used in PTA pipelines. ROC compar

What carries the argument

The central object is the quadratic detection statistic D(z|Q)=z†Qz and its filter Q. The NPMV filter is the solution to the constrained problem: minimize Var[D(z|Q)-D(z|Q_NP)] under the null hypothesis subject to Diag Q=0. For the block-diagonal noise covariance used in PTA analyses this solution collapses to Q_NPMV = Q_NP - Diag Q_NP, i.e., the NP-optimal filter with all autocorrelation blocks zeroed. The paper also derives the generalized chi-square CDF for indefinite filters via contour integration (Fourier representation of the step function and Cauchy residues), which is used to build ROC curves in the toy model and to compute p-values.

Load-bearing premise

The 47% improvement is read off ROC curves for the realistic NANOGrav-like model in Sec. 7.3, but the paper does not state how those curves were computed—the analytic generalized chi-square CDF cannot be used for realistic data, and no substitute method is specified—so the headline performance claim is only as reliable as that unspecified numerical procedure.

What would settle it

Recompute the Sec. 7.3 ROC curves using the published NANOGrav 15-year parameters (A_gw=2.1e-15, gamma=13/3, the quoted pulsar noise parameters) by Monte Carlo: draw many realizations under the null and signal hypotheses, evaluate the DFCC and NPMV statistics, and estimate the detection probabilities at FAP=2.9e-7. If the ratio is not close to 1.47, or the individual detection probabilities (≈2.7% vs ≈4.0%) are not reproduced, the central claim fails.

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

If this is right

  • PTA collaborations can adopt NPMV as the detection statistic for FAPs and p-values, replacing DFCC, and obtain higher sensitivity at the same false-alarm rate without opening the analysis to pulsar-noise autocorrelation mismodeling.
  • Because the NPMV filter is computed from the same whitened DF filter already in existing pipelines, retrofitting current analyses requires only minor code changes; the paper provides an implementation in the enterprise_extensions package.
  • Reported detection significances for current datasets would change under NPMV: for a real GWB at the modeled amplitude, the same false-alarm threshold is crossed more often, so a claimed '5-sigma' threshold corresponds to a higher true detection rate.
  • The NPCC statistic—the true constrained NP-optimal cross-correlation statistic—performs slightly better than NPMV, but it requires expensive numerical optimization; NPMV captures most of the available gain in closed form.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The minimum-variance projection idea is generic: any detection problem where the likelihood-ratio statistic is unusable because of nuisance-parameter sensitivity could define a 'practically optimal' statistic by projecting the NP filter onto the subspace of robust filters, and the closed-form solution would hold whenever the noise covariance is block-diagonal.
  • The 47% gain is tied to the specific NANOGrav-like noise realization and GWB parameters; the improvement factor will likely vary with array sensitivity, number of pulsars, and signal amplitude, so the headline number should not be read as a universal sensitivity gain.
  • The paper's Sec. 7.3 realistic-model ROC curves rely on an unspecified numerical method; until that method is documented, the 47% figure should be treated as a computational result to be verified by independent Monte Carlo.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 introduces a new quadratic detection statistic, NPMV, for pulsar timing array searches for a stochastic gravitational-wave background. The statistic is defined as the quadratic form that uses only cross-pulsar correlations and minimizes, under the null hypothesis, the variance of its difference from the Neyman-Pearson (NP) optimal quadratic statistic. For block-diagonal noise, the authors derive a simple closed form: the NPMV filter is the NP filter with its diagonal blocks removed. They also derive a generalized chi-square CDF for complex normal data with an indefinite quadratic form, and use it to compare DFCC, NP, NPCC, and NPMV in a toy model. They then present ROC curves for a more realistic NANOGrav-15-year-like model and report a 47% increase in detection probability for NPMV over DFCC at the 5-sigma FAP of 2.9e-7.

Significance. If correct, the NPMV statistic is a useful methodological contribution: it offers a cross-correlation-only statistic that lies closer to Neyman-Pearson optimality than the currently standard DFCC statistic, while retaining the practical robustness property of excluding autocorrelations from the quadratic form. The derivation of the NPMV filter is clean and is obtained from first principles with no free parameters fitted to the target result. The paper also ships code and uses external NANOGrav parameters as inputs, which are strengths. However, the headline quantitative claim rests on ROC curves whose numerical method is not described, and the central robustness motivation is not tested under noise mismodeling. These gaps need to be addressed before the performance claim can be considered established.

major comments (2)
  1. [§7.3, Fig. 3] The method used to compute the realistic-model ROC curves is not stated. Section 7.1 explicitly says that the analytic CDF (49)-(50) cannot be used for realistic data because the data are not described by a complex-valued random process, but Section 7.3 only says "We construct ROC curves" and gives no substitute: no Monte Carlo sample count, no Davies/Imhof algorithm, no convergence checks. The headline 47% improvement is read off these curves; the two quoted detection probabilities (2.7% vs 4.0%) differ by only 1.3 percentage points, so the result could be within the numerical error of an unvalidated tail approximation. Please specify the numerical procedure and attach uncertainties to the quoted improvement.
  2. [Abstract; §§1, 4.2] The paper motivates NPMV as "robust" to pulsar noise modeling errors, but no mismodeling test is performed. The filter is constructed from N and C via (20)-(21); although the quadratic form uses only off-diagonal data blocks, the filter itself depends on the assumed noise covariance N. The claim that NPMV is "less affected" by pulsar noise modeling errors than NP or DFCC is therefore not demonstrated. Please add a quantitative robustness study, e.g. ROC curves under perturbed N for NPMV vs DFCC vs NP, or state explicitly that robustness is only a structural property with no empirical validation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3] The sentence about "the autocorrelations can be reconstructed from the cross-correlations" for n>=3 is unsupported and seems to conflict with realistic pulsar-specific noise. It is not used later, but as written it is misleading; please clarify or remove.
  2. [§4.1] Typo: "modeling erorrs" should be "modeling errors". Also, after Eq. (4), "expectated value" should be "expected value".
  3. [§7.2, Fig. 2] The caption reports AUC=0.975 for both NPCC and NPMV, and equal detection probabilities at the 5-sigma FAP, while the text says NPCC curves lie above those of NPMV. Please state the precision to which the curves differ, or qualify the claim.
  4. [§6.2] The discussion of catastrophic cancellation is useful, but the paper does not say whether the toy-model CDF evaluations used arbitrary precision or standard IEEE doubles. Please specify, since the NPCC optimization relies on these evaluations.
  5. [References] The entry for Taylor et al. 2021 (enterprise_extensions) lacks a journal, arXiv identifier, or DOI; please complete the reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the NPMV filter is derived from a first-principles constrained optimization, and the reported 47% detection-probability improvement over DFCC is an evaluated output from externally published NANOGrav 15-year inputs, not a fitted or self-referential quantity.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained and not circular. The NPMV statistic is defined by a new, well-posed objective (Eq. 11): minimize Var[D(z|Q) - D(z|Q_NP)] subject to Diag Q = 0. The solution is derived, not assumed, in Sec. 5 via Lagrange multipliers, leading to Eq. (12) for block-diagonal N; uniqueness is supported by an external mathematical source (Schur product theorem, Horn & Johnson). No parameter is fitted to the target result, and the detection-probability comparison is genuinely computed: the NANOGrav 15-year fixed-gamma parameters (A_gw, gamma, pulsar noise) enter as externally published inputs (Sec. 7.3, footnote 5), and the quoted detection probabilities (DFCC 2.7% vs NPMV 4.0% at FAP 2.9e-7) are outputs of ROC evaluation, not quantities tuned to produce a 47% gain. The self-citations (van Haasteren 2025 for the DF/NP filter formulas; Allen & Romano for HD background) are non-load-bearing: the formulas (7) and (10) are standard quadratic-form results, parameter-free, and re-derivable from the stated optimization objectives, so the citation does not reduce the argument to an unverified prior claim. The main caveat flagged by the manuscript is not circular: Sec. 7.1 states that the analytic generalized chi-square CDF (49)-(50) cannot be used for realistic data, yet Sec. 7.3 does not state the numerical method (Monte Carlo, Davies/Imhof, etc.) used to generate the realistic-model ROC curves in Fig. 3. This is a reproducibility and accuracy risk for the headline 47% number, but it is not a self-referential reduction of an output to an input; nothing in the derivation chain makes the reported improvement true by construction. The comparison uses a common external signal model, so the ordering of the statistics is an empirical computation, not a definitional equivalence.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper fits no free parameters of its own; the NPMV filter is derived analytically and the NANOGrav noise and signal parameters are external inputs from the literature. The main axioms are the block-diagonal noise assumption, Gaussian simple hypotheses, and the ad hoc minimum-variance-distance criterion; the robustness assumption is stated but not tested.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Noise covariance N is block-diagonal (uncorrelated between pulsars).
    Required for the simple NPMV solution Q_NPMV = Q_NP - DiagQ_NP; stated in Sec. 4.1 and used in Sec. 5 to derive Eqs. (35)-(39).
  • domain assumption Null and signal hypotheses are zero-mean multivariate Gaussian with known covariances (simple hypotheses).
    Needed for the NP filter (10) and the generalized chi-square CDF (40); the paper acknowledges in footnote 1 that real analyses have free parameters.
  • ad hoc to paper The minimum-variance-distance criterion defines the desired compromise statistic.
    Equation (11) is a heuristic design choice, not derived from NP optimality under the cross-correlation constraint; the true constrained NPCC statistic is only computed numerically in the toy model.
  • domain assumption Autocorrelations are more vulnerable to pulsar noise modeling errors than cross-correlations.
    Stated in Sec. 1 as the reason NP is not used and NPMV is called robust; the paper presents no noise-mismodeling simulation to support this.
  • standard math Isserlis theorem, Schur product theorem, and contour-integration identities.
    Used in Sec. 5 for the variance computation and in Sec. 6 for the CDF derivation.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal robust detection statistics for pulsar timing arrays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EUHMRV6L

@misc{pith2026250906489,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal robust detection statistics for pulsar timing arrays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EUHMRV6L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06489}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Pulsar timing arrays (PTAs) seek to detect a nano-Hz stochastic gravitational-wave background (GWB) by searching for the characteristic Hellings and Downs angular pattern of timing residual correlations. So far, the evidence remains below the conventional $5$-$\sigma$ threshold, as assessed using the literature-standard ``optimal cross-correlation detection statistic''. While this quadratic combination of cross-correlated data maximizes the {\em deflection} (signal-to-noise ratio), it does not maximize the detection probability at fixed false-alarm probability (FAP), and therefore is not Neyman-Pearson (NP) optimal for the assumed noise and signal models. The NP-optimal detection statistic is a different quadratic form, but is not used because it also incorporates autocorrelations, making it more susceptible to uncertainties in the modeling of pulsar timing noise. Here, we derive the best compromise: a quadratic detection statistic which is as close as possible to the NP-optimal detection statistic (minimizing the variance of its difference with the NP statistic) subject to the constraint that it only uses cross-correlations, so that it is less affected by pulsar noise modeling errors. We study the performance of this new $\NPMV$ statistic for a simulated PTA whose noise and (putative) signal match those of the NANOGrav 15-year data release: GWB amplitude $A_{\rm gw}=2.1\times 10^{-15}$ and spectral index $\gamma=13/3$. Compared to the literature-standard ``optimal" cross-correlation detection statistic, the $\NPMV$ statistic increases the detection probability by $47\%$ when operating at a $5$-$\sigma$ FAP of $\alpha = 2.9 \times 10^{-7}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06489 by Bruce Allen, Joseph D. Romano, Rutger van Haasteren.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: In the complex 𝑧-plane, the integrand of (45) is analytic apart from 𝑛 + 1 poles along the imaginary axis. We illustrate the 3-dimensional case for which E has one positive and two negative eigenvalues. If 𝜏 < 0, the integral along the real axis is evaluated by closing the contour of integration in the lower half-plane, and using Cauchy’s residue theorem. where 𝜖 > 0 is real. The derivative of (41) with re… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: ROC curves of different detection statistics, for the toy model of Sec. 7.1. These compare the standard “optimal” cross-correlation deflection statistic DFCC, the Neyman-Pearson-optimal statistic NP, the cross-correlation-only Neyman-Pearson statistic NPCC, and the cross￾correlation-only Neyman-Pearson-Minimum-Variance statistic NPMV. Left panel: linear scale. Legend gives AUC “area under the ROC curve” fo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: ROC curves for the DFCC, NP, and NPMV detection statistics, for the NANOGrav 15-year PTA fixed 𝛾 = 13/3 GWB and pulsar noise model (Agazie et al. 2023a). At the discovery threshold FAP of 2.9 × 10−7 (leftmost plot boundary) the NPMV statistic increases the detection probability by ∼ 47% compared to the currently-standard “optimal” cross-correlation detection statistic DFCC. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Wang-We… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

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

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

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

  2. Stochastic gravitational-wave background search using data from five pulsar timing arrays

    astro-ph.CO 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0

    Combined five-PTA dataset yields posterior on SGWB power-law amplitude and index consistent with nonzero signal but below 5-sigma significance, with reconstructed angular correlations matching the Hellings-Downs prediction.

  3. The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Impacts of Customized Chromatic Noise Models on Gravitational Wave Analyses

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Customized chromatic noise models applied to NANOGrav 15 yr data raise the Bayes factor for Hellings-Downs GWB correlations by a factor of ~8, lower the amplitude to 2.1e-15, and increase the spectral index to 3.5.

  4. Pulsar timing array analysis in a Legendre polynomial basis

    gr-qc 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Legendre polynomial basis for PTA analysis zeros first three modes from timing models and delivers closed-form expressions for the optimal quadratic Hellings-Downs estimator and variance under power-law GWB and noise spectra.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 951, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdc91

    Afzal, A., Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 951, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdc91

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdc91 2023

  2. [2]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023a, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 951, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6 —. 2023b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 951, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace18a —. 2024, The NANOGrav 15 Yr Data Set: Posterior Predictive Checks for Gravitational-Wave Detection with Pulsar Timing Arrays, arXiv, doi...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.20510 2041

  3. [3]

    2023, Physical Review D, 107, 043018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.043018

    Allen, B. 2023, Physical Review D, 107, 043018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.043018

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.043018 2023

  4. [4]

    2023, The International Pulsar Timing Array Checklist for the Detection of Nanohertz Gravitational Waves, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.04767

    Allen, B., Dhurandhar, S., Gupta, Y., et al. 2023, The International Pulsar Timing Array Checklist for the Detection of Nanohertz Gravitational Waves, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.04767

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.04767 2023

  5. [5]

    Allen, B., & Romano, J. D. 2023, Physical Review D, 108, 043026, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.043026 —. 2024, Optimal Reconstruction of the Hellings and Downs Correlation, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.10968

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.10968 2023

  6. [6]

    2009, Physical Review D, 79, 084030, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.084030

    Siemens, X. 2009, Physical Review D, 79, 084030, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.084030

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.79.084030 2009

  7. [7]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 678, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346842 Optimal robust statistics for PTAs11 —

    Antoniadis, J., Arumugam, P., Arumugam, S., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 678, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346842 Optimal robust statistics for PTAs11 —. 2024a, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 685, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347433 —. 2024b, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348568

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346842 2023

  8. [8]

    J., Creighton, J

    Chamberlin, S. J., Creighton, J. D. E., Siemens, X., et al. 2015, Physical Review D, 91, 044048, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.044048

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.044048 2015

  9. [9]

    1962, Renewal Theory, 1st edn., Methuen’s Monographs on Applied Probability and Statistics (London: Methuen)

    Cox, D. 1962, Renewal Theory, 1st edn., Methuen’s Monographs on Applied Probability and Statistics (London: Methuen)

    work page 1962

  10. [10]

    Das, A., & Geisler, W. S. 2021, Journal of Vision, 21, 1, doi: 10.1167/jov.21.10.1

    doi:10.1167/jov.21.10.1 2021

  11. [11]

    A., Siemens, X., & van Haasteren, R

    Ellis, J. A., Siemens, X., & van Haasteren, R. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 769, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/63

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/63 2013

  12. [12]

    A., Vallisneri, M., Taylor, S

    Ellis, J. A., Vallisneri, M., Taylor, S. R., & Baker, P. T. 2020, ENTERPRISE: Enhanced Numerical Toolbox Enabling a Robust PulsaR Inference SuitE, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4059815

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.4059815 2020

  13. [13]

    Archibald, A. M. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 104050, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.104050

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.104050 2023

  14. [14]

    W., & Downs, G

    Hellings, R. W., & Downs, G. S. 1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 265, L39, doi: 10.1086/183954

    doi:10.1086/183954 1983

  15. [15]

    A., & Johnson, C

    Horn, R. A., & Johnson, C. R. 2012, Matrix Analysis, 2nd edn. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139020411

    doi:10.1017/cbo9781139020411 2012

  16. [16]

    1918, Biometrika, 12, 134, doi: 10.1093/biomet/12.1-2.134

    Isserlis, L. 1918, Biometrika, 12, 134, doi: 10.1093/biomet/12.1-2.134

    doi:10.1093/biomet/12.1-2.134 1918

  17. [17]

    Powell, M. J. D. 2009, The BOBYQA algorithm for bound constrained optimization without derivatives, Technical Report DAMTP 2009/NA06, University of Cambridge, Cambridge. http: //www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/na/NA papers/NA2009 06.pdf

    work page 2009

  18. [18]

    E., & Williams, C

    Rasmussen, C. E., & Williams, C. K. 2006, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning (MIT Press)

    work page 2006

  19. [19]

    J., Zic, A., Shannon, R

    Reardon, D. J., Zic, A., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 951, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02 2023

  20. [20]

    D., & Cornish, Neil

    Romano, J. D., & Cornish, Neil. J. 2017, Living Reviews in Relativity, 20, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-017-0004-1

    doi:10.1007/s41114-017-0004-1 2017

  21. [21]

    1998, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 34, 817, doi: 10.1109/7.705889

    Spall, J. 1998, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 34, 817, doi: 10.1109/7.705889

    work page doi:10.1109/7.705889 1998

  22. [22]

    R., Baker, P

    Taylor, S. R., Baker, P. T., Hazboun, J. S., & Simon, J. 2021, Enterprise extensions

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    M., Chatziioannou, K., & Chua, A

    Vallisneri, M., Meyers, P. M., Chatziioannou, K., & Chua, A. J. K. 2023, Physical Review D, 108, 123007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123007 van Haasteren, R. 2025, On the Calculation of P-Values for Quadratic Statistics in Pulsar Timing Arrays, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.10811 van Haasteren, R., & Vallisneri, M. 2014, Physical Review D, 90, 104012, doi...

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.10811 2023

  24. [24]

    J., Islo, K., Taylor, S

    Vigeland, S. J., Islo, K., Taylor, S. R., & Ellis, J. A. 2018, Physical Review D, 98, 044003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.044003

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.044003 2018

  25. [25]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 075024, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5

    Xu, H., Chen, S., Guo, Y., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 075024, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5 2023

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