Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

MeerKAT pulsar-timing data constrain the graviton mass to below 2.1 x 10^-23 eV/c^2, consistent with general relativity, while a future SKA-PTA could reach ~10^-25 eV/c^2.

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

2026-08-02 01:02 UTC pith:FN6VCDUG

load-bearing objection New MPTA graviton-mass limits and SKA forecasts, but the central numbers depend on a data double-counting and an unverified diagonal-covariance claim that need fixing before the limits are adopted. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14790 v1 pith:FN6VCDUG submitted 2026-07-16 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HEgr-qc

Probing Graviton Mass with MeerKAT PTA and SKA--PTA Forecasts

Zhi-Chao Zhao , Sai Wang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords graviton masspulsar timing arrayHellings-Downs correlationmassive gravitystochastic gravitational wave backgroundMeerKATSKA-PTA forecastmodified dispersion relation
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 tries to establish that the gravitational-wave background seen in the MeerKAT pulsar-timing array is consistent with a strictly massless graviton, and to turn that consistency into a quantitative upper bound on the graviton's mass. Using the 4.5-year angular-correlation measurements in three noise configurations, it reports 90% credible limits of mg < 2.10, 2.58, and 2.25 x 10^-23 eV/c^2. It further argues that the bound comes from the quadrupolar Hellings-Downs pattern, since adding monopole and dipole terms leaves the limits virtually unchanged. The SKA-era forecast shows that a decade of observations could reach ~10^-24 eV/c^2 and five decades ~10^-25 eV/c^2, an order-of-magnitude leap over current limits.

Core claim

The central claim is that a massive graviton with mg at or above roughly 2 x 10^-23 eV/c^2 is disfavored by the MeerKAT data at 90% credibility, with the exact number depending on the noise model (2.10 x 10^-23 for the data-driven model, 2.58 x 10^-23 for the most conservative, 2.25 x 10^-23 for the intermediate). The modified dispersion relation changes the speed of gravitational waves, which in turn deforms the Hellings-Downs angular correlation curve. The paper fits this deformed curve to the measured correlations and finds the massless case fully consistent. It also shows that the constraints are not contaminated by clock or ephemeris systematics (monopole/dipole), and projects that the

What carries the argument

The key object is the massive-graviton correlation function Gamma(zeta; v_g), which generalizes the Hellings-Downs curve for a graviton with group velocity v_g(f) < c. The dispersion relation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m_g^2 c^4 gives a frequency-dependent delay that is largest at the lowest frequency, so the analysis fixes f_ref = 1/T_obs. The likelihood compares the measured 15-bin correlation to this template, initially with a diagonal Gaussian noise covariance, and the same template is used to project SKA-PTA sensitivity via a Fisher-matrix reconstruction of the correlation uncertainties.

Load-bearing premise

The 15 angular-separation bins are treated as statistically independent with a diagonal Gaussian covariance in both the current-data likelihood and the SKA forecast; in reality these bins are correlated, and the effect of neglecting those off-diagonal terms on the reported upper limits has not been demonstrated to be conservative.

What would settle it

A direct check would be to repeat the analysis with the full covariance matrix of the MeerKAT angular-correlation measurements. If the 90% limits move substantially outside the quoted ranges, or if the posterior no longer peaks at zero mass, the central claim would be weakened. Alternatively, a future pulsar pair with a very small angular separation and high timing precision could directly rule out the massive-graviton suppression of the correlation curve at small angles.

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

If this is right

  • If these limits hold, any viable massive-gravity theory must have the graviton mass below roughly 2 x 10^-23 eV/c^2 in the nanohertz band, a direct dynamical test independent of cosmological assumptions.
  • Because monopole and dipole additions hardly shift the limits, the quadrupolar tensor correlation is the part doing the work; clock and ephemeris errors are not absorbing the signal.
  • Forecast SKA-PTA observations with a 10-year baseline should already beat the best current PTA bound, and a 50-year baseline reaches ~3 x 10^-25 eV/c^2, improving on ground-based interferometer bounds by one to two orders of magnitude.
  • A consistent null detection across pulsar-timing arrays, ground-based interferometers, and space-based detectors would push the massless graviton hypothesis; any tension would signal scale-dependent gravity beyond a single mass parameter.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The reported limits rest on treating the 15 angular bins as independent with diagonal Gaussian errors; if the full covariance were available, the effective number of independent measurements could be smaller, moving the 90% bound either way. The paper argues the omission is conservative, but that direction is not guaranteed.
  • The choice of f_ref = 1/T_obs to map mass to velocity means the constraint is tied to the lowest-frequency bin; marginalizing over the spectral index or including higher harmonics could shift the bound, though the effect is likely modest given the 1/f^2 scaling.
  • The large spread between the data-driven and conservative noise models traces to one anomalous red-noise component in a single pulsar; this suggests that the current MeerKAT bound is limited as much by pulsar-noise modeling as by the gravitational signal, and joint noise-graviton fits will be needed to harden the limit.
  • If the SKA forecast is optimistic by a factor of a few, the qualitative conclusion that future arrays will reach 10^-25 eV/c^2 still stands, as the conservative pulsar-quality scenario shows only a 1.1-1.3x degradation.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. Zhao and Wang use the MPTA 4.5-year angular-correlation measurements to constrain the graviton mass in a massive-graviton dispersion relation. They adopt the Bernardo–Ng/PTAfast tensor correlation template and perform Bayesian fits to 15 angular bins under three MPTA noise configurations (DATA, ER, ALT), optionally adding monopole and dipole terms. They report 90% upper limits mg < 2.10e-23 eV/c2 (DATA), 2.58e-23 eV/c2 (ER), and 2.25e-23 eV/c2 (ALT), and show the results are insensitive to extra angular terms. They also present Fisher-based SKA-PTA forecasts yielding projected limits down to ~3e-25 eV/c2 for a 50-year baseline. All current limits are consistent with general relativity.

Significance. If the statistical pipeline is valid, this is a valuable independent PTA graviton-mass constraint using a southern-sky instrument, with explicit noise-model systematics and quantitative SKA forecasts. The paper makes concrete use of public data and established public packages (PTAfast, fastPTA, Cobaya), and the comparison across DATA/ER/ALT is a useful robustness exercise. The main statistical claims, however, rest on three assumptions that are not currently supported: (i) the A^2 prior is derived from the same data as the likelihood, (ii) angular bins are treated as independent with a diagonal covariance, and (iii) a single reference frequency is used to map mg to the correlation function. Each of these can bias the reported upper limits, so the numerical headline results should be treated as conditional until these points are addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (6)-(10)] The truncated Gaussian prior on A^2 is built from the optimal-statistic amplitudes A^2_DATA, A^2_ER, A^2_ALT. These amplitudes are summary statistics of the same pulsar-pair cross-correlation data that enter the 15-bin likelihood in Eq. (9); conditioning on both double-counts amplitude information. Because A^2 is partially degenerate with the m_g-induced shape distortion in mu_th_i = A^2 Gamma(zeta_i; v_g), an artificially narrow amplitude prior can tighten the m_g posterior. Please rerun with an uninformative A^2 prior (e.g., log-uniform) or construct a joint likelihood with the correct correlation between the binned and optimal-statistic estimators; otherwise Eqs. (12)-(14) are not supported.
  2. [Section III (after Eq. 9) and Section V, Eq. (31)] The likelihood treats the 15 angular bins as independent. The assertion that this is 'conservative' is unquantified; off-diagonal bin correlations are expected from shared pulsar noise, and positive correlations would reduce the effective information. The direction of the bias on the m_g upper limit is therefore unknown. In the forecast, the Fisher matrix in Eq. (24) actually produces a full covariance for the b_i coefficients, but Eq. (31) keeps only the diagonal sigma_bi. Please quantify the effect, e.g., by bootstrapping the MPTA bin estimates or by using the full forecast covariance, and re-evaluate the limits.
  3. [Section III, frequency-compression paragraph and prior bound] The analysis maps m_g to v_g using a single reference frequency f_ref = 1/T_obs. For massive gravitons the correlation function Gamma(zeta; v_g) is frequency-dependent; using the lowest resolvable frequency maximizes the deviation from HD and can bias m_g toward small values if the compressed data contain higher-frequency contributions. This choice also sets the prior bound m_g <= h f_ref/c^2. For the ER configuration the posterior is nearly flat, and the 90% upper limit in Eq. (13) is essentially the 90% quantile of this uniform prior (~2.6e-23 eV/c^2), so the ER result is prior-dominated, not data-dominated. Please report this explicitly and test f_ref sensitivity or use a frequency-resolved likelihood.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (5)] The factor 'sqrt(2 pi) i^l' is likely meant to be 'sqrt(2 pi) i^l'; the integrand dimensions and the 1/v_g factor should be checked against Ref. [19].
  2. [Introduction and Conclusion] 'L VK' should be 'LVK' (LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA).
  3. [Section III] Please cite or state explicitly the 'MPTA Collaboration's prescription' used to construct the truncated Gaussian A^2 prior; as written it is not traceable.
  4. [Reproducibility / Data Products] Include the 15 values of mu_obs_i, sigma_i and bin edges either in a table or by explicit reference to the exact MPTA data product, so that Eqs. (12)-(14) can be checked.
  5. [Various] Minor wording: 'Cramer-Rao' -> 'Cramer-Rao'; 'monopolar' is used inconsistently with 'monopole'; Fig. 2 shading should state whether A^2 is fixed to the posterior median of the same run or to the prior central value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the MPTA graviton-mass limits are driven by the mg-dependent correlation shape against external binned data; the A^2 prior is a data-normalization and the diagonal-covariance simplification is a stated limitation, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The central MPTA result is the posterior on mg from the likelihood of Eq. (9), which compares the binned angular-correlation measurements to the template μ_th_i = A^2 Γ(ζ_i; v_g). The theoretical correlation Γ(ζ;v_g) is imported from Bernardo & Ng via PTAfast (Refs. [19,22]) and the 15-bin data are external MPTA products [33]. No equation in the paper defines mg in terms of the A^2 prior or vice versa, and the A^2 prior is a nuisance amplitude, not the target parameter. The paper does adopt the published optimal-statistic amplitudes (Eqs. 6–8) as truncated Gaussian priors on A^2, and these amplitudes are themselves summaries of the same angular-correlation data used in Eq. (9). That is a statistical data-reuse / covariance issue, and it could in principle bias the posterior widths; the paper also explicitly flags the diagonal-covariance approximation: 'due to the absence of the full covariance matrix in the released products, we adopt a diagonal Gaussian likelihood. This simplification is conservative...' This is an unverified limitation, not a constructional circularity, because the mg constraint is produced by the mg-dependent shape Γ(ζ;v_g), not by restating the A^2 measurement as an mg limit. The comparison with NANOGrav/CPTA uses Ref. [16] by the same authors, but only as a benchmark, not as the load-bearing argument. The SKA–PTA forecast is simulated from an HD fiducial and assumed noise, so it also does not reduce to its inputs. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to mg; any concern about double-counted amplitude information or missing off-diagonal covariance is a robustness limitation, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis imports the massive-graviton correlation template and PTA codes from prior work and adds no new entities. The free parameters are the tensor amplitude (with a same-data prior), nuisance monopole/dipole terms, and chosen SKA noise parameters. The main ad-hoc assumptions are the single-frequency compression and the diagonal covariance.

free parameters (4)
  • A² (tensor power amplitude) = DATA: (5.65±1.20)e-29; ER: (3.70±1.90)e-29; ALT: (7.10±1.80)e-29
    Amplitude of the quadrupolar correlation template; fitted in the likelihood with a Gaussian prior taken from the same MPTA published values, risking double counting.
  • M (monopole coefficient) = DATA: (-0.681±2.77)e-30; ER: (2.53±4.03)e-30; ALT: (-1.63±4.00)e-30
    Additional angular template in Eq. (11); fitted with uniform prior U(-1e-28,1e-28), consistent with zero.
  • D (dipole coefficient) = DATA: (-4.10±4.69)e-30; ER: (-7.09±6.79)e-30; ALT: (-4.19±6.78)e-30
    Additional angular template in Eq. (11); fitted, consistent with zero except mild ER offset.
  • SKA forecast noise parameters (σa, Δt, ARN, γRN, ADM, γDM) = σa = 0.1 µs (optimistic) or 0.5 µs for 124/174 pulsars (conservative); Δt = 14 d; log10 ARN, log10 ADM drawn from U(−17,
    Chosen by hand/random draws to simulate SKA pulsar noise; they determine the Fisher-matrix errors and therefore the forecast limits.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Massive-graviton dispersion relation E² = p²c² + m_g²c⁴ (Eq. 1) and the group-velocity modification (Eq. 2).
    The paper adopts the massive-graviton framework despite known pathologies (vDVZ discontinuity, Boulware-Deser ghost) that are not fully resolved for general massive gravity; MTMG is cited as one viable theory (Sec. I).
  • domain assumption The massive-graviton angular correlation coefficients Cℓ and Jℓ (Eqs. 3–5) from Ref. [19], as implemented in PTAfast, are correct.
    The entire inference uses this imported template without re-derivation; a bug or normalization error would propagate to all limits.
  • ad hoc to paper The broadband PTA signal can be compressed to a single reference frequency f_ref = 1/Tobs when mapping mg to vg (Sec. II–III).
    The paper explicitly chooses the lowest Fourier frequency; the full spectral average over the SGWB is not performed, so this is a modeling simplification.
  • ad hoc to paper The 15 angular-correlation bins are statistically independent (diagonal covariance) for the MPTA likelihood (Eq. 9) and the SKA forecast likelihood (Eq. 31).
    Adopted because the full covariance is unavailable; the paper asserts this is conservative but provides no proof.
  • domain assumption The MPTA published noise configurations (DATA/ER/ALT) and amplitude measurements are taken at face value as the observational input.
    The analysis trusts the MPTA data release and its noise treatment; the ER/ALT difference is discussed but no independent noise reanalysis is performed.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12784 in / 17978 out tokens · 145433 ms · 2026-08-02T01:02:20.361275+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present constraints on the graviton mass using the 4.5-year data release from the MeerKAT Pulsar Timing Array (MPTA) and provide forecasts for the upcoming Square Kilometre Array PTA (SKA--PTA). By modeling the modified dispersion relation and the corresponding tensor correlation function for massive gravitons, we perform Bayesian inference on the angular-correlation measurements under three noise configurations (DATA, ER, ALT). Our 90\% credible upper limits on the graviton mass are $m_g < 2.10 \times 10^{-23}\,\mathrm{eV}/c^{2}$ (DATA), $m_g < 2.58 \times 10^{-23}\,\mathrm{eV}/c^{2}$ (ER), and $m_g < 2.25 \times 10^{-23}\,\mathrm{eV}/c^{2}$ (ALT). Including monopolar and dipolar contributions does not significantly alter these bounds, confirming that the constraints are driven by the quadrupolar tensor correlation. All results remain fully consistent with general relativity. For SKA--PTA, we forecast sensitivities down to $m_g \sim 10^{-24}\,\mathrm{eV}/c^{2}$ with a 10-year observing baseline and $m_g \sim 10^{-25}\,\mathrm{eV}/c^{2}$ with a 50-year observing baseline, representing order-of-magnitude improvements over current limits. This work demonstrates the power of current and future PTA observations to test fundamental aspects of gravity in the nanohertz band.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14790 by Sai Wang, Zhi-Chao Zhao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Impact of a non-zero graviton mass on the correlation curve. The black curve represents the standard HD correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Angular-correlation measurements and massive-graviton allowed regions inferred from the MPTA observations. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. One-dimensional marginalised posterior distributions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Projected SKA–PTA angular-correlation precision (left panels) and sensitivity to measuring [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.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

46 extracted references · 37 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Fierz and W

    M. Fierz and W. Pauli, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A173, 211 (1939)

    1939

  2. [2]

    van Dam and M

    H. van Dam and M. J. G. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B22, 397 (1970)

    1970

  3. [3]

    V. I. Zakharov, JETP Lett.12, 312 (1970)

    1970

  4. [4]

    D. G. Boulware and S. Deser, Phys. Rev. D6, 3368 (1972)

    1972

  5. [5]

    A. I. Vainshtein, Phys. Lett. B39, 393 (1972)

    1972

  6. [6]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Mukohyama, Phys. Lett. B752, 302 (2016), arXiv:1506.01594 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    de Rham, J

    C. de Rham, J. T. Deskins, A. J. Tolley, and S.-Y. Zhou, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 025004 (2017), arXiv:1606.08462 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    de Rham, Living Rev

    C. de Rham, Living Rev. Rel.17, 7 (2014), arXiv:1401.4173 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  9. [9]

    Hobbset al., Class

    G. Hobbset al., Class. Quant. Grav.27, 084013 (2010), arXiv:0911.5206 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  10. [10]

    Burke-Spolaoret al., Astron

    S. Burke-Spolaoret al., Astron. Astrophys. Rev.27, 5 (2019), arXiv:1811.08826 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

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

    1983

  12. [12]

    Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys

    G. Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L8 (2023), arXiv:2306.16213 [astro-ph.HE]. 12

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Xuet al., Res

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA:), Astron

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Wang and Z.-C

    S. Wang and Z.-C. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D109, L061502 (2024), arXiv:2307.04680 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    K. Lee, F. A. Jenet, R. H. Price, N. Wex, and M. Kramer, Astrophys. J.722, 1589 (2010), arXiv:1008.2561 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  18. [18]

    Liang and M

    Q. Liang and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D104, 084052 (2021), arXiv:2108.05344 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    R. C. Bernardo and K.-W. Ng, Phys. Rev. D107, 044007 (2023), arXiv:2208.12538 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Cordes, A

    N. Cordes, A. Mitridate, K. Schmitz, T. Schr¨ oder, and K. Wassner, Class. Quant. Grav.42, 015003 (2025), arXiv:2407.04464 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Wu, Z.-C

    Y.-M. Wu, Z.-C. Chen, and Q.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 107, 042003 (2023), arXiv:2302.00229 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    R. C. Bernardo and K.-W. Ng, Phys. Rev. D107, L101502 (2023), arXiv:2302.11796 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    R. C. Bernardo and K.-W. Ng, Astron. Astrophys.691, A126 (2024), arXiv:2310.07537 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Wu, Z.-C

    Y.-M. Wu, Z.-C. Chen, Y.-C. Bi, and Q.-G. Huang, Class. Quant. Grav.41, 075002 (2024), arXiv:2310.07469 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    W. Qin, K. K. Boddy, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D103, 024045 (2021), arXiv:2007.11009 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    Liang, I

    Q. Liang, I. Obata, and M. Sasaki, JCAP10, 097 (2024), arXiv:2405.11755 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Bi, Y.-M

    Y.-C. Bi, Y.-M. Wu, Z.-C. Chen, and Q.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D109, L061101 (2024), arXiv:2310.08366 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D100, 104036 (2019), arXiv:1903.04467 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Phys. Rev. D112, 084080 (2025), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2603.19020 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    L. S. Finn and P. J. Sutton, Phys. Rev. D65, 044022 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0109049

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  32. [32]

    De Felice, S

    A. De Felice, S. Kumar, S. Mukohyama, and R. C. Nunes, JCAP04, 013 (2024), arXiv:2311.10530 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    M. T. Mileset al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.536, 1489 (2024), arXiv:2412.01153 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Grunthalet al., Mon

    K. Grunthalet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.536, 1501 (2024), arXiv:2412.01214 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    M. T. Mileset al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.536, 1467 (2024), arXiv:2412.01148 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Janssenet al., PoSAASKA14, 037 (2015), arXiv:1501.00127 [astro-ph.IM]

    G. Janssenet al., PoSAASKA14, 037 (2015), arXiv:1501.00127 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  37. [37]

    Weltmanet al., Publ

    A. Weltmanet al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.37, e002 (2020), arXiv:1810.02680 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    R. M. Shannonet al.(SKAO Pulsar Science Working Group), arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2512.16163 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Baileset al., Publ

    M. Baileset al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.37, e028 (2020), arXiv:2005.14366 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    Spiewaket al., Publ

    R. Spiewaket al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.39, e027 (2022), arXiv:2204.04115 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    T. J. W. Lazio, Class. Quant. Grav.30, 224011 (2013)

    2013

  42. [42]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, JCAP05, 057 (2021), arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Tiburzi, G

    C. Tiburzi, G. Hobbs, M. Kerr, W. Coles, S. Dai, R. Manchester, A. Possenti, R. Shannon, and X. You, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.455, 4339 (2016), arXiv:1510.02363 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    S. J. Vigeland, K. Islo, S. R. Taylor, and J. A. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D98, 044003 (2018), arXiv:1805.12188 [astro- ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  45. [45]

    Babak, M

    S. Babak, M. Falxa, G. Franciolini, and M. Pieroni, Phys. Rev. D110, 063022 (2024), arXiv:2404.02864 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Gitika, R

    P. Gitika, R. M. Shannon, M. Bailes, D. J. Reardon, M. T. Miles, D. J. Champion, and K. Grunthal, (2025), arXiv:2510.03139 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025