Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 102 references

Pre-Big-Bang Cosmology Cannot Explain NANOGrav 15-year Signal

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The Pre-Big Bang string-cosmology scenario cannot explain the NANOGrav 15-year gravitational-wave background, because the fit drives its key parameter into a forbidden range and a simple power law is preferred by a Bayes factor of 468.

desk verdict A useful negative result with an unsupportable '>5σ' headline; the qualitative conclusion likely survives, but the quantitative claim needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16505 v4 pith:NILTLJ6J submitted 2024-11-25 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Qin Tan , You Wu , Lang Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords Pre-BigBangcosmologystringstochasticgravitationalwavebackgroundNANOGrav15-yeardatasetpulsartimingarrayBayesianmodelcomparisondilaton-dynamicsparametergravitational-wavespectrum
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether the Pre-Big Bang (PBB) scenario from string cosmology can explain the stochastic gravitational-wave background reported in the NANOGrav 15-year dataset. A Bayesian fit to the PBB spectrum yields $\beta = -0.12^{+0.06}_{-0.21}$ for the dilaton-dynamics parameter, a value below the theoretically allowed range $0 \le \beta < 3$ with more than $5\sigma$ confidence. A model comparison finds that a simple power-law spectrum is favored over the PBB model by a Bayes factor of about 468. The authors conclude that the PBB scenario, in its current formulation, cannot adequately explain the NANOGrav observations, so the model needs significant modification or the signal has another origin.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spectral energy density of the PBB gravitational-wave background, derived from the scale-factor duality of string cosmology. The background is modeled as five consecutive power-law phases for the pump field $\xi(\tau)$; the parameter $\beta$, describing dilaton and internal-dimension dynamics, fixes the spectral slopes $\beta_1=3-|3-2\beta|$ and $\beta_2=1-|3-2\beta|$. The theoretical bound $0\le\beta<3$ comes from stability and graceful-exit requirements. The analysis machinery is a Bayesian likelihood built from kernel-density estimates of NANOGrav's per-frequency posterior distributions, explored with nested sampling; model comparison uses the Bayes factor between the four-parameter PBB model and a two-parameter power-law model.

What would settle it

A consistent PBB calculation showing a stable, smooth-bounce branch with negative $\beta$, or a re-analysis of the NANOGrav 15-year data under alternative noise models that shifts the $\beta$ posterior so that it overlaps the allowed range $[0,3)$, would overturn the paper's central contradiction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that the Pre-Big Bang (PBB) scenario of string cosmology, in its currently formulated form, cannot explain the stochastic gravitational-wave background reported in the NANOGrav 15-year dataset. Fitting the PBB spectrum, the authors find the dilaton-dynamics parameter $\beta=-0.12^{+0.06}_{-0.21}$ (90% credible interval), which falls below the theoretically allowed range $0\le\beta<3$ with more than $5\sigma$ confidence. They further find that a simple power-law spectrum, of the kind expected from supermassive black hole binaries, is preferred over the PBB model by a Bayes factor of about 468. The authors conclude that either the PBB model needs significant modifications or the NANOGrav signal has a different origin.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the theoretical bound $0\le\beta<3$ is genuinely required for the Pre-Big Bang scenario; if a consistent version allowed negative $\beta$, the fitted value would not contradict the model and the 5-$\sigma$ claim would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, the Pre-Big Bang scenario in its present form is effectively ruled out as the explanation of the NANOGrav 15-year signal.
  • The observed spectrum is better described by a simple power law, consistent with a supermassive-black-hole-binary interpretation.
  • Any survival of PBB cosmology requires either modified dilaton dynamics that allow $\beta<0$ or a changed spectrum shape outside the piecewise form tested here.
  • Future pulsar-timing-array datasets with more pulsars and longer baselines should sharpen the $\beta$ constraint and either restore or strengthen the tension.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Implicit in the paper: the 5$\sigma$ contradiction is only as strong as the imported bound $0\le\beta<3$; a consistent PBB branch that allowed negative $\beta$ would collapse the headline tension to the Bayes-factor comparison alone.
  • A testable extension is to run the same kernel-density likelihood on the combined CPTA, EPTA/InPTA, and PPTA data releases to see whether the preferred $\beta$ moves into the allowed region.
  • The power-law comparison suggests a broader point the authors do not develop: model families with fewer parameters and monotone spectra may systematically outperform multi-stage cosmological spectra on current PTA data, so the result is as much about model simplicity as about string cosmology.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper tests the Pre-Big Bang (PBB) string-cosmology scenario against the NANOGrav 15-year stochastic gravitational wave background data. It uses a KDE-based Bayesian likelihood constructed from NANOGrav posteriors and nested sampling to constrain the PBB parameters (β, z_s, z_d, z_σ), reporting β = -0.12^{+0.06}_{-0.21} at 90% credibility, and performs a Bayesian model comparison between the PBB spectrum and a simple power law, obtaining a Bayes factor of approximately 468 favoring the power law. The authors conclude that the PBB scenario in its current formulation cannot adequately explain the NANOGrav signal.

Significance. The qualitative conclusion—that the NANOGrav data prefer a less blue-tilted spectrum than the PBB prediction—is a useful constraint on string cosmology and is consistent with the data-driven preference for a softer spectral index. The analysis pipeline is standard and reproducible in principle: the KDE likelihood construction, nested sampling, and model comparison all use well-established tools. The main result, however, rests on two load-bearing quantitative statements that are not supported as written: the claimed >5σ exclusion of the theoretically allowed region, and the use of a prior on β that includes values the theory forbids. Both are fixable by reanalysis, so the paper's central claim is defensible despite these errors.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III (paragraph after Eq. 22) and Abstract] The abstract and Section III state that β is excluded at the 5σ level, but the reported 90% credible interval β = -0.12^{+0.06}_{-0.21} has an upper bound of -0.06, so the posterior probability for β ≥ 0 is at most 5%, corresponding to a one-sided exclusion of about 1.65σ, not 5σ. Please replace the '5σ' statements with a direct posterior probability P(β ≥ 0) computed from the samples and revise the abstract accordingly.
  2. [Table I and Section II] Section II defines the theoretically allowed range as 0 ≲ β < 3, yet Table I adopts a Uniform[-1,3] prior for β. This prior assigns nonzero probability to the disallowed negative-β region, so the posterior constraints and the Bayes factor in Eq. (23) are not integrals over the PBB model 'in its current formulation.' The analysis should be rerun with a prior truncated to β ∈ [0,3), and the evidence for the PBB model should be recalculated; the quoted B12 = 468 may change under the corrected prior.
  3. [Eqs. (23)-(24) and Note added] The model comparison is sensitive to prior volume. Because the PBB prior currently includes a large disallowed region, the Bayes factor may be artificially suppressed; please report the evidence for the PBB model under the theoretically allowed prior. In addition, the Note added states that Ref. [102] presents a modified PBB model claimed to fit the NANOGrav data; this is a scope limitation for the 'current formulation' conclusion and should be addressed explicitly in the introduction or conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (7)] The piecewise spectrum uses β1 and β2 defined in terms of β, but the first branch 'f > f1' introduces an exponential cutoff; please define f1 explicitly and check continuity of Ω_GW at all transition frequencies f1, fσ, fd, and fs.
  2. [Section III] There is a typo in the text: 'NANOGra data' should read 'NANOGrav data'.
  3. [Abstract and Section II] The abstract uses the condition 0 ≤ β < 3 while Section II uses 0 ≲ β < 3; these are not the same condition, and the paper should use one consistent statement.
  4. [Figure 3] The caption states that the theoretically allowed range 'lies entirely outside the observed distribution,' but the reported 90% credible interval has an upper bound of -0.06, so the posterior still has up to 5% mass at β ≥ 0; the caption should be softened to avoid overstating the tension.
  5. [Note added] The Note added acknowledges a similar model and a modified model in Ref. [102]; this overlap should be discussed in the main text, not only in a note, to properly frame the novelty and the scope of the conclusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the PBB-vs-NANOGrav test is a standard external-data model comparison; the beta-prior mismatch is a statistical inconsistency, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against the NANOGrav 15-year dataset. The PBB spectrum (Eq. 7) and the theoretical bound 0 <~ beta < 3 are imported from cited literature (Refs. 79, 83, 85-88), not derived from the data or from the conclusion. The likelihood (Eqs. 17-18) is built from NANOGrav posterior samples, and beta, z_s, z_d, z_sigma are free parameters estimated by nested sampling. The central result is a parameter estimate compared to an external theoretical constraint, and a Bayes factor comparing two independently specified models. No predicted quantity is defined in terms of the fitted value, and no self-citation supplies a load-bearing premise: self-citations [24,28,29] only support the standard KDE-likelihood method, and the theoretical beta bound comes from non-overlapping authors. We note, as a statistical rather than circularity concern, that Table I samples beta from Uniform[-1,3] even though Sec. II declares beta<0 theoretically disallowed, so the quoted posterior and evidence are not integrals over the 'current formulation'; likewise the 90% CI [-0.33,-0.06] supports at most about 1.65sigma one-sided exclusion, not the claimed 5sigma. These issues affect quantitative correctness but do not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis introduces no new particles, forces, or entities. It relies on the existing Pre-Big Bang model, the published spectral template from Refs. [79,83], the theoretical beta bounds from Refs. [85-88], and the public NANOGrav 15-year dataset. The free parameters are the four Pre-Big Bang shape parameters plus the two comparison power-law parameters.

free parameters (6)
  • beta = -0.12 (90% CI [-0.33, -0.06])
    Dilaton-dynamics parameter. Fitted to NANOGrav data and central to the claimed contradiction with the theoretical range 0 <= beta < 3.
  • log10 z_s = 15.5 (90% CI [13.3, 16.8])
    Ratio f1/f_s defining the low-frequency end of the spectrum. Fitted to NANOGrav data.
  • log10 z_d = 9.9 (90% CI [2.9, 14.3])
    Ratio defining the dust-phase transition. Fitted to NANOGrav data.
  • log10 z_sigma = 6.3 (90% CI [1.4, 12.7])
    Ratio defining the axion-dust phase. Fitted to NANOGrav data.
  • Power-law model amplitude A = not reported
    Free parameter in the comparison power-law model used for the Bayes factor calculation.
  • Power-law spectral index gamma = not reported
    Free parameter in the comparison power-law model used for the Bayes factor calculation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The piecewise pump-field evolution and the Pre-Big Bang spectrum in Eq. (7), imported from Refs. [79,83], correctly represent the model's gravitational wave prediction.
    The entire likelihood is built on this spectral template. If the template is inaccurate in the NANOGrav band, the constraints do not apply.
  • domain assumption The theoretically allowed range 0 <= beta < 3, from Refs. [85-88], is correct and exhaustive for a viable Pre-Big Bang scenario.
    The central contradiction relies on this bound. Negative beta is treated as forbidden, and the 5 sigma claim depends on that restriction.
  • domain assumption The KDE product likelihood over 14 independent frequency bins, Eq. (18), faithfully approximates the NANOGrav 15-year likelihood.
    The paper multiplies per-bin KDE estimates but does not discuss correlations between frequency bins in the joint NANOGrav posterior.
  • domain assumption The approximate analytic formulas for H1/MPl and T(H1), Eqs. (11) and (13) from Ref. [83], are accurate enough for the claimed constraints.
    These formulas set the amplitude and shape of the predicted spectrum; their systematic errors are not propagated.
  • domain assumption The NANOGrav signal is a stochastic, isotropic, Hellings-Downs correlated background, as required for the free-spectrum posterior comparison.
    The analysis compares the isotropic PBB spectrum with NANOGrav free-spectrum posteriors, which assumes the standard Hellings-Downs interpretation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pre-Big-Bang Cosmology Cannot Explain NANOGrav 15-year Signal." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NILTLJ6J

@misc{pith2026241116505,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pre-Big-Bang Cosmology Cannot Explain NANOGrav 15-year Signal},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NILTLJ6J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16505}
}
abstract

We investigate whether the Pre-Big Bang (PBB) scenario from string cosmology can explain the stochastic gravitational wave background signal reported in the NANOGrav 15-year dataset. Using Bayesian analysis techniques, we constrain the key parameters of the PBB model by comparing its theoretical predictions with the observed data. Our analysis yields $\beta = -0.12^{+0.06}_{-0.21}$ ($90\%$ credible interval) for the dilaton-dynamics parameter, which lies outside the theoretically allowed range $0 \leq \beta < 3$ with more than $5\sigma$ confidence. Additionally, model comparison strongly favors a simple power-law spectrum over the PBB scenario, with a Bayes factor of approximately $468$. These results demonstrate that the PBB scenario, in its current formulation, cannot adequately explain the NANOGrav observations, highlighting the need for either significant modifications to the model or alternative explanations for the observed signal.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16505 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Energy density spectrum of the SGWB predicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Joint and marginal posterior distributions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Marginalized posterior distribution for the dilaton [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [102]

    Constraints on the Pre-Big Bang scenario from a cosmological interpreta- tion of the NANOGrav data,

    P. Conzinu, G. Fanizza, M. Gasperini, E. Pavone, L. Tedesco, and G. Veneziano, “Constraints on the Pre-Big Bang scenario from a cosmological interpreta- tion of the NANOGrav data,” JCAP02, 039 (2025), arXiv:2412.01734 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [67]

    Constraining string cosmology with the gravitational-wave background us- ing the NANOGrav 15-year data set,

    Qin Tan, You Wu, and Lang Liu, “Constraining string cosmology with the gravitational-wave background us- ing the NANOGrav 15-year data set,” Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 327 (2025), arXiv:2409.17846 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [1]

    Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochas- tic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I,

    Heng Xuet al., “Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochas- tic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I,” Res. Astron. Astrophys.23, 075024 (2023), arXiv:2306.16216 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [2]

    The second data re- lease from the European Pulsar Timing Array - I. The dataset and timing analysis,

    J. Antoniadiset al.(EPTA), “The second data re- lease from the European Pulsar Timing Array - I. The dataset and timing analysis,” Astron. Astrophys.678, A48 (2023), arXiv:2306.16224 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [3]

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

    J. Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA:), “The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - III. Search for gravitational wave signals,” Astron. Astro- phys.678, A50 (2023), arXiv:2306.16214 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [4]

    The Parkes Pulsar Timing Array third data release,

    Andrew Zicet al., “The Parkes Pulsar Timing Array third data release,” Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.40, e049 (2023), arXiv:2306.16230 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [5]

    Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pul- sar Timing Array,

    Daniel J. Reardonet al., “Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pul- sar Timing Array,” Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L6 (2023), arXiv:2306.16215 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [6]

    The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-wave Background,

    Gabriella Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), “The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-wave Background,” Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L8 (2023), arXiv:2306.16213 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 102 references
  1. [7]

    The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Observations and Timing of 68 Mil- lisecond Pulsars,

    Gabriella Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), “The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Observations and Timing of 68 Mil- lisecond Pulsars,” Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L9 (2023), arXiv:2306.16217 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [8]

    The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Search for Signals from New Physics,

    Adeela Afzalet al.(NANOGrav), “The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Search for Signals from New Physics,” Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L11 (2023), [Erratum: Astro- phys.J.Lett. 971, L27 (2024), Erratum: Astrophys.J. 971, L27 (2024)], arXiv:2306.16219 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [9]

    The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - IV. Implications for massive black holes, dark matter, and the early Universe,

    J. Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA), “The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - IV. Implications for massive black holes, dark matter, and the early Universe,” Astron. Astrophys.685, A94 (2024), arXiv:2306.16227 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Cosmologi- cal Backgrounds of Gravitational Waves,

    Chiara Caprini and Daniel G. Figueroa, “Cosmologi- cal Backgrounds of Gravitational Waves,” Class. Quant. Grav.35, 163001 (2018), arXiv:1801.04268 [astro- ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Opportunities for detecting ul- tralong gravitational waves,

    Mikhail V. Sazhin, “Opportunities for detecting ul- tralong gravitational waves,” Sov. Astron.22, 36–38 (1978)

    1978

  6. [12]

    Search for the Gravitational-wave Background from Cosmic Strings with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array Second Data Release,

    Zu-Cheng Chen, Yu-Mei Wu, and Qing-Guo Huang, “Search for the Gravitational-wave Background from Cosmic Strings with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array Second Data Release,” Astrophys. J.936, 20 (2022), arXiv:2205.07194 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Nanohertz gravitational waves from cosmic strings and dark pho- ton dark matter,

    Naoya Kitajima and Kazunori Nakayama, “Nanohertz gravitational waves from cosmic strings and dark pho- ton dark matter,” Phys. Lett. B846, 138213 (2023), arXiv:2306.17390 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Cosmic superstrings revisited in light of NANOGrav 15-year data,

    John Ellis, Marek Lewicki, Chunshan Lin, and Ville Vaskonen, “Cosmic superstrings revisited in light of NANOGrav 15-year data,” Phys. Rev. D108, 103511 (2023), arXiv:2306.17147 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [15]

    The nanohertz stochastic gravitational wave back- ground from cosmic string loops and the abundant high redshift massive galaxies,

    Ziwei Wang, Lei Lei, Hao Jiao, Lei Feng, and Yi-Zhong Fan, “The nanohertz stochastic gravitational wave back- ground from cosmic string loops and the abundant high redshift massive galaxies,” Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.66, 120403 (2023), arXiv:2306.17150 [astro- ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Gravitational waves from metastable cosmic strings in the Pati-Salam model in light of new pulsar timing array data,

    Waqas Ahmed, Talal Ahmed Chowdhury, Salah Nasri, and Shaikh Saad, “Gravitational waves from metastable cosmic strings in the Pati-Salam model in light of new pulsar timing array data,” Phys. Rev. D109, 015008 (2024), arXiv:2308.13248 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Singling out SO(10) GUT models using recent PTA results,

    Stefan Antusch, Kevin Hinze, Shaikh Saad, and Jonathan Steiner, “Singling out SO(10) GUT models using recent PTA results,” Phys. Rev. D108, 095053 (2023), arXiv:2307.04595 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Gravitational waves from domain wall collapse, and application to nanohertz sig- nals with QCD-coupled axions,

    Naoya Kitajima, Junseok Lee, Kai Murai, Fuminobu Takahashi, and Wen Yin, “Gravitational waves from domain wall collapse, and application to nanohertz sig- nals with QCD-coupled axions,” Phys. Lett. B851, 138586 (2024), arXiv:2306.17146 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Axionic domain walls at Pulsar Tim- ing Arrays: QCD bias and particle friction,

    Simone Blasi, Alberto Mariotti, A¨ aron Rase, and Alexander Sevrin, “Axionic domain walls at Pulsar Tim- ing Arrays: QCD bias and particle friction,” JHEP11, 169 (2023), arXiv:2306.17830 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [20]

    NANOGrav spectral indexγ=3 from melting domain walls,

    E. Babichev, D. Gorbunov, S. Ramazanov, R. Samanta, and A. Vikman, “NANOGrav spectral indexγ=3 from melting domain walls,” Phys. Rev. D108, 123529 (2023), arXiv:2307.04582 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Footprints of axion-like 7 particle in pulsar timing array data and James Webb Space Telescope observations,

    Shu-Yuan Guo, Maxim Khlopov, Xuewen Liu, Lei Wu, Yongcheng Wu, and Bin Zhu, “Footprints of axion-like 7 particle in pulsar timing array data and James Webb Space Telescope observations,” Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.67, 111011 (2024), arXiv:2306.17022 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Detected stochastic gravitational waves and subsolar-mass primordial black holes,

    Keisuke Inomata, Kazunori Kohri, and Takahiro Terada, “Detected stochastic gravitational waves and subsolar-mass primordial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 109, 063506 (2024), arXiv:2306.17834 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Pulsar Timing Array Constraints on Primordial Black Holes with NANOGrav 11-Year Dataset,

    Zu-Cheng Chen, Chen Yuan, and Qing-Guo Huang, “Pulsar Timing Array Constraints on Primordial Black Holes with NANOGrav 11-Year Dataset,” Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 25 (2020), arXiv:1910.12239 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Im- plications for the non-Gaussianity of curvature pertur- bation from pulsar timing arrays,

    Lang Liu, Zu-Cheng Chen, and Qing-Guo Huang, “Im- plications for the non-Gaussianity of curvature pertur- bation from pulsar timing arrays,” Phys. Rev. D109, L061301 (2024), arXiv:2307.01102 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Recent Gravita- tional Wave Observation by Pulsar Timing Arrays and Primordial Black Holes: The Importance of Non- Gaussianities,

    Gabriele Franciolini, Antonio Iovino, Junior., Ville Vaskonen, and Hardi Veermae, “Recent Gravita- tional Wave Observation by Pulsar Timing Arrays and Primordial Black Holes: The Importance of Non- Gaussianities,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 201401 (2023), arXiv:2306.17149 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [26]

    PBHs and GWs fromT 2-inflation and NANOGrav 15-year data,

    Seyed Ali Hosseini Mansoori, Fereshteh Felegray, Alireza Talebian, and Mohammad Sami, “PBHs and GWs fromT 2-inflation and NANOGrav 15-year data,” JCAP08, 067 (2023), arXiv:2307.06757 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Implications of pulsar timing array data for scalar-induced gravitational waves and primordial black holes: Primordial non-Gaussianity fNL considered,

    Sai Wang, Zhi-Chao Zhao, Jun-Peng Li, and Qing- Hua Zhu, “Implications of pulsar timing array data for scalar-induced gravitational waves and primordial black holes: Primordial non-Gaussianity fNL considered,” Phys. Rev. Res.6, L012060 (2024), arXiv:2307.00572 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Confronting sound speed reso- nance with pulsar timing arrays,

    Jia-Heng Jin, Zu-Cheng Chen, Zhu Yi, Zhi-Qiang You, Lang Liu, and You Wu, “Confronting sound speed reso- nance with pulsar timing arrays,” JCAP09, 016 (2023), arXiv:2307.08687 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Probing the equation of state of the early Universe with pulsar timing arrays,

    Lang Liu, Zu-Cheng Chen, and Qing-Guo Huang, “Probing the equation of state of the early Universe with pulsar timing arrays,” JCAP11, 071 (2023), arXiv:2307.14911 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Unraveling the early universe’s equation of state and primordial black hole production with PTA, BBN, and CMB observations*,

    Qing-Hua Zhu, Zhi-Chao Zhao, Sai Wang, and Xin Zhang, “Unraveling the early universe’s equation of state and primordial black hole production with PTA, BBN, and CMB observations*,” Chin. Phys. C48, 125105 (2024), arXiv:2307.13574 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Exploring the NANOGrav signal and planet- mass primordial black holes through Higgs inflation,

    Zhu Yi, Zhi-Qiang You, You Wu, Zu-Cheng Chen, and Lang Liu, “Exploring the NANOGrav signal and planet- mass primordial black holes through Higgs inflation,” JCAP06, 043 (2024), arXiv:2308.14688 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Induced gravitational waves with kination era for recent pulsar timing array signals,

    Keisuke Harigaya, Keisuke Inomata, and Takahiro Ter- ada, “Induced gravitational waves with kination era for recent pulsar timing array signals,” Phys. Rev. D108, 123538 (2023), arXiv:2309.00228 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Scalar-induced gravitational wave interpretation of PTA data: the role of scalar fluctuation propagation speed,

    Shyam Balaji, Guillem Dom` enech, and Gabriele Franci- olini, “Scalar-induced gravitational wave interpretation of PTA data: the role of scalar fluctuation propagation speed,” JCAP10, 041 (2023), arXiv:2307.08552 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Model- independent reconstruction of the primordial curvature power spectrum from PTA data,

    Zhu Yi, Zhi-Qiang You, and You Wu, “Model- independent reconstruction of the primordial curvature power spectrum from PTA data,” JCAP01, 066 (2024), arXiv:2308.05632 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Constraints on primordial curvature power spectrum with pulsar tim- ing arrays,

    Zhi-Qiang You, Zhu Yi, and You Wu, “Constraints on primordial curvature power spectrum with pulsar tim- ing arrays,” JCAP11, 065 (2023), arXiv:2307.04419 [gr- qc]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [36]

    Simultane- ously probing the sound speed and equation of state of the early Universe with pulsar timing arrays,

    Lang Liu, You Wu, and Zu-Cheng Chen, “Simultane- ously probing the sound speed and equation of state of the early Universe with pulsar timing arrays,” JCAP 04, 011 (2024), arXiv:2310.16500 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [37]

    Primordial non- Gaussianity as a saviour for PBH overproduction in SIGWs generated by pulsar timing arrays for Galileon inflation,

    Sayantan Choudhury, Kritartha Dey, Ahaskar Karde, Sudhakar Panda, and M. Sami, “Primordial non- Gaussianity as a saviour for PBH overproduction in SIGWs generated by pulsar timing arrays for Galileon inflation,” Phys. Lett. B856, 138925 (2024), arXiv:2310.11034 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Untangling PBH overproduction inw-SIGWs generated by Pulsar Timing Arrays for MST-EFT of single field inflation,

    Sayantan Choudhury, Kritartha Dey, and Ahaskar Karde, “Untangling PBH overproduction inw-SIGWs generated by Pulsar Timing Arrays for MST-EFT of single field inflation,” (2023), arXiv:2311.15065 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023

  33. [39]

    Induced gravitational wave interpretation of PTA data: a complete study for general equation of state,

    Guillem Dom` enech, Shi Pi, Ao Wang, and Jianing Wang, “Induced gravitational wave interpretation of PTA data: a complete study for general equation of state,” JCAP08, 054 (2024), arXiv:2402.18965 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [40]

    Can we distinguish be- tween adiabatic and isocurvature fluctuations with pul- sar timing arrays?

    Zu-Cheng Chen and Lang Liu, “Can we distinguish be- tween adiabatic and isocurvature fluctuations with pul- sar timing arrays?” Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68, 250412 (2025), arXiv:2402.16781 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [41]

    Ob- viating PBH overproduction for SIGWs generated by pulsar timing arrays in loop corrected EFT of bounce,

    Sayantan Choudhury, Siddhant Ganguly, Sudhakar Panda, Soumitra SenGupta, and Pranjal Tiwari, “Ob- viating PBH overproduction for SIGWs generated by pulsar timing arrays in loop corrected EFT of bounce,” JCAP09, 013 (2024), arXiv:2407.18976 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Large fluctuations and primordial black holes,

    Sayantan Choudhury and M. Sami, “Large fluctuations and primordial black holes,” Phys. Rept.1103, 1–276 (2025), arXiv:2407.17006 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [43]

    Prob- ing the speed of scalar-induced gravitational waves with pulsar timing arrays,

    Zu-Cheng Chen, Jun Li, Lang Liu, and Zhu Yi, “Prob- ing the speed of scalar-induced gravitational waves with pulsar timing arrays,” Phys. Rev. D109, L101302 (2024), arXiv:2401.09818 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [44]

    Negative non-Gaussianity as a salvager for PBHs with PTAs in bounce,

    Sayantan Choudhury, Kritartha Dey, Siddhant Gan- guly, Ahaskar Karde, Swapnil Kumar Singh, and Pran- jal Tiwari, “Negative non-Gaussianity as a salvager for PBHs with PTAs in bounce,” Eur. Phys. J. C85, 472 (2025), arXiv:2409.18983 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  39. [45]

    Implications of the NANOGrav re- sults for inflation,

    Sunny Vagnozzi, “Implications of the NANOGrav re- sults for inflation,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.502, L11–L15 (2021), arXiv:2009.13432 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [46]

    Primordial gravitational waves from NANOGrav: A broken power-law approach,

    Micol Benetti, Leila Lobato Graef, and Sunny Vagnozzi, “Primordial gravitational waves from NANOGrav: A broken power-law approach,” Phys. Rev. D105, 043520 (2022), arXiv:2111.04758 [astro- ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [47]

    Inflationary interpretation of the stochastic gravitational wave background signal de- tected by pulsar timing array experiments,

    Sunny Vagnozzi, “Inflationary interpretation of the stochastic gravitational wave background signal de- tected by pulsar timing array experiments,” JHEAp39, 81–98 (2023), arXiv:2306.16912 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [48]

    Broken blue-tilted inflationary gravitational waves: a joint analysis of NANOGrav 15-year and BICEP/Keck 2018 data,

    Jun-Qian Jiang, Yong Cai, Gen Ye, and Yun-Song Piao, “Broken blue-tilted inflationary gravitational waves: a joint analysis of NANOGrav 15-year and BICEP/Keck 2018 data,” JCAP05, 004 (2024), arXiv:2307.15547 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [49]

    Null energy condi- tion violation during inflation and pulsar timing array observations,

    Gen Ye, Mian Zhu, and Yong Cai, “Null energy condi- tion violation during inflation and pulsar timing array observations,” JHEP02, 008 (2024), arXiv:2312.10685 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [50]

    Fingerprints of GeV scale right-handed neutrinos on inflationary grav- 8 itational waves and PTA data,

    Satyabrata Datta and Rome Samanta, “Fingerprints of GeV scale right-handed neutrinos on inflationary grav- 8 itational waves and PTA data,” Phys. Rev. D108, L091706 (2023), arXiv:2307.00646 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [51]

    Explaining PTA data with inflation- ary GWs in a PBH-dominated universe,

    Satyabrata Datta, “Explaining PTA data with inflation- ary GWs in a PBH-dominated universe,” JCAP10, 009 (2024), arXiv:2309.14238 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [52]

    Have pulsar timing array methods de- tected a cosmological phase transition?

    Andrea Addazi, Yi-Fu Cai, Antonino Marciano, and Luca Visinelli, “Have pulsar timing array methods de- tected a cosmological phase transition?” Phys. Rev. D 109, 015028 (2024), arXiv:2306.17205 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [53]

    Can Supercooled Phase Transitions Explain the Gravitational Wave Background Observed by Pulsar Timing Arrays?

    Peter Athron, Andrew Fowlie, Chih-Ting Lu, Lach- lan Morris, Lei Wu, Yongcheng Wu, and Zhongxiu Xu, “Can Supercooled Phase Transitions Explain the Gravitational Wave Background Observed by Pulsar Timing Arrays?” Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 221001 (2024), arXiv:2306.17239 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [54]

    Mirror QCD phase transition as the origin of the nanohertz Stochas- tic Gravitational-Wave Background,

    Lei Zu, Chi Zhang, Yao-Yu Li, Yuchao Gu, Yue- Lin Sming Tsai, and Yi-Zhong Fan, “Mirror QCD phase transition as the origin of the nanohertz Stochas- tic Gravitational-Wave Background,” Sci. Bull.69, 741– 746 (2024), arXiv:2306.16769 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [55]

    Implication of nano-Hertz stochastic gravita- tional wave on dynamical dark matter through a dark first-order phase transition,

    Siyu Jiang, Aidi Yang, Jiucheng Ma, and Fa Peng Huang, “Implication of nano-Hertz stochastic gravita- tional wave on dynamical dark matter through a dark first-order phase transition,” Class. Quant. Grav.41, 065009 (2024), arXiv:2306.17827 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [56]

    Implica- tions of nano-Hertz gravitational waves on electroweak phase transition in the singlet dark matter model,

    Yang Xiao, Jin Min Yang, and Yang Zhang, “Implica- tions of nano-Hertz gravitational waves on electroweak phase transition in the singlet dark matter model,” Sci. Bull.68, 3158–3164 (2023), arXiv:2307.01072 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  51. [57]

    Translating nano- Hertz gravitational wave background into primordial perturbations taking account of the cosmological QCD phase transition,

    Katsuya T. Abe and Yuichiro Tada, “Translating nano- Hertz gravitational wave background into primordial perturbations taking account of the cosmological QCD phase transition,” Phys. Rev. D108, L101304 (2023), arXiv:2307.01653 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [58]

    First-Order Phase Transition Inter- pretation of Pulsar Timing Array Signal Is Consistent with Solar-Mass Black Holes,

    Yann Gouttenoire, “First-Order Phase Transition Inter- pretation of Pulsar Timing Array Signal Is Consistent with Solar-Mass Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 171404 (2023), arXiv:2307.04239 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  53. [59]

    Phase transition during inflation and the gravitational wave signal at pulsar timing arrays,

    Haipeng An, Boye Su, Hanwen Tai, Lian-Tao Wang, and Chen Yang, “Phase transition during inflation and the gravitational wave signal at pulsar timing arrays,” Phys. Rev. D109, L121304 (2024), arXiv:2308.00070 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  54. [60]

    NANOGrav hints for first-order confinement- deconfinement phase transition in different QCD- matter scenarios,

    Zu-Cheng Chen, Shou-Long Li, Puxun Wu, and Hong- wei Yu, “NANOGrav hints for first-order confinement- deconfinement phase transition in different QCD- matter scenarios,” Phys. Rev. D109, 043022 (2024), arXiv:2312.01824 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [61]

    Looking at the NANOGrav signal through the anthropic window of axionlike particles,

    Alexander S. Sakharov, Yury N. Eroshenko, and Sergey G. Rubin, “Looking at the NANOGrav signal through the anthropic window of axionlike particles,” Phys. Rev. D104, 043005 (2021), arXiv:2104.08750 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  56. [62]

    NANOGrav signal from the end of inflation and the LIGO mass and heavier primordial black holes,

    Amjad Ashoorioon, Kazem Rezazadeh, and Abasalt Rostami, “NANOGrav signal from the end of inflation and the LIGO mass and heavier primordial black holes,” Phys. Lett. B835, 137542 (2022), arXiv:2202.01131 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  57. [63]

    Search for nontensorial gravitational-wave backgrounds in the NANOGrav 15-year dataset,

    Zu-Cheng Chen, Yu-Mei Wu, Yan-Chen Bi, and Qing- Guo Huang, “Search for nontensorial gravitational-wave backgrounds in the NANOGrav 15-year dataset,” Phys. Rev. D109, 084045 (2024), arXiv:2310.11238 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [64]

    Primordial gravi- tational waves in the nano-Hertz regime and PTA data — towards solving the GW inverse problem,

    Eric Madge, Enrico Morgante, Cristina Puchades- Ib´ a˜ nez, Nicklas Ramberg, Wolfram Ratzinger, Sebas- tian Schenk, and Pedro Schwaller, “Primordial gravi- tational waves in the nano-Hertz regime and PTA data — towards solving the GW inverse problem,” JHEP10, 171 (2023), arXiv...

    2023 arXiv

  59. [65]

    Search for scalar induced gravitational waves in the international pulsar timing array data release 2 and NANOgrav 12.5 years datasets,

    Virgile Dandoy, Valerie Domcke, and Fabrizio Rompin- eve, “Search for scalar induced gravitational waves in the international pulsar timing array data release 2 and NANOgrav 12.5 years datasets,” SciPost Phys. Core6, 060 (2023), arXiv:2302.07901 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  60. [66]

    Search for stochastic gravitational-wave back- ground from massive gravity in the NANOGrav 12.5- year dataset,

    Yu-Mei Wu, Zu-Cheng Chen, and Qing-Guo Huang, “Search for stochastic gravitational-wave back- ground from massive gravity in the NANOGrav 12.5- year dataset,” Phys. Rev. D107, 042003 (2023), arXiv:2302.00229 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Superstring Theory,

    John H. Schwarz, “Superstring Theory,” Phys. Rept. 89, 223–322 (1982)

    1982

  62. [69]

    Mass Scales of the String Uni- fication,

    Vadim S. Kaplunovsky, “Mass Scales of the String Uni- fication,” Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 1036 (1985)

    1985

  63. [70]

    String theory dynamics in vari- ous dimensions,

    Edward Witten, “String theory dynamics in vari- ous dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B443, 85–126 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9503124

    1995 arXiv

  64. [71]

    Large N field the- ories, string theory and gravity,

    Ofer Aharony, Steven S. Gubser, Juan Martin Malda- cena, Hirosi Ooguri, and Yaron Oz, “Large N field the- ories, string theory and gravity,” Phys. Rept.323, 183– 386 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/9905111

    2000 arXiv

  65. [72]

    Eternal infla- tion and the initial singularity,

    Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin, “Eternal infla- tion and the initial singularity,” Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 3305–3309 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9312022

    1994 arXiv

  66. [73]

    Inflationary space-times are incompletein past direc- tions,

    Arvind Borde, Alan H. Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, “Inflationary space-times are incompletein past direc- tions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 151301 (2003), arXiv:gr- qc/0110012

    2003

  67. [74]

    The TransPlanckian problem of inflationary cosmology,

    Jerome Martin and Robert H. Brandenberger, “The TransPlanckian problem of inflationary cosmology,” Phys. Rev. D63, 123501 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0005209

    2001 arXiv

  68. [75]

    Pre - big bang in string cosmology,

    M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, “Pre - big bang in string cosmology,” Astropart. Phys.1, 317–339 (1993), arXiv:hep-th/9211021

    1993 arXiv

  69. [76]

    To- wards a nonsingular pre - big bang cosmology,

    M. Gasperini, M. Maggiore, and G. Veneziano, “To- wards a nonsingular pre - big bang cosmology,” Nucl. Phys. B494, 315–330 (1997), arXiv:hep-th/9611039

    1997 arXiv

  70. [77]

    String Theory and Pre-big bang Cosmology,

    M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, “String Theory and Pre-big bang Cosmology,” Nuovo Cim. C38, 160 (2016), arXiv:hep-th/0703055

    2016 arXiv

  71. [78]

    The optimal ap- proach of detecting stochastic gravitational wave from string cosmology using multiple detectors,

    Xi-Long Fan and Zong-Hong Zhu, “The optimal ap- proach of detecting stochastic gravitational wave from string cosmology using multiple detectors,” Phys. Lett. B663, 17–20 (2008), arXiv:0804.2918 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  72. [79]

    Observable gravitational waves in pre- big bang cosmology: an update,

    M. Gasperini, “Observable gravitational waves in pre- big bang cosmology: an update,” JCAP12, 010 (2016), arXiv:1606.07889 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  73. [80]

    Constraining the stochastic gravitational wave from string cosmol- ogy with current and future high frequency detectors,

    Yufeng Li, Xilong Fan, and Lijun Gou, “Constraining the stochastic gravitational wave from string cosmol- ogy with current and future high frequency detectors,” Astrophys. J.887, 1 (2019), arXiv:1910.08310 [astro- ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  74. [81]

    From pre- to post-big bang: an (almost) self-dual cosmological history,

    M. Gasperini, “From pre- to post-big bang: an (almost) self-dual cosmological history,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A380, 20210179 (2022), arXiv:2106.12865 [hep- 9 th]

    2022 arXiv

  75. [82]

    Search for stochastic gravitational-wave background from string cosmology with Advanced LIGO and Virgo’s O1∼O3 data,

    Yang Jiang, Xi-Long Fan, and Qing-Guo Huang, “Search for stochastic gravitational-wave background from string cosmology with Advanced LIGO and Virgo’s O1∼O3 data,” JCAP04, 024 (2023), arXiv:2302.03846 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  76. [83]

    Gravitational-wave background in bouncing models from semi-classical, quantum and string gravity,

    Ido Ben-Dayan, Gianluca Calcagni, Maurizio Gasperini, Anupam Mazumdar, Eliseo Pavone, Udaykrishna That- tarampilly, and Amresh Verma, “Gravitational-wave background in bouncing models from semi-classical, quantum and string gravity,” JCAP09, 058 (2024), arXiv:2406.13521 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  77. [84]

    Scale factor duality for classical and quantum strings,

    G. Veneziano, “Scale factor duality for classical and quantum strings,” Phys. Lett. B265, 287–294 (1991)

    1991

  78. [85]

    Instability of one loop superstring cosmology,

    Shinsuke Kawai, Masa-aki Sakagami, and Jiro Soda, “Instability of one loop superstring cosmology,” Phys. Lett. B437, 284–290 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9802033

    1998 arXiv

  79. [86]

    Non-singular pre-big bang scenarios from all-orderα’ corrections,

    M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, “Non-singular pre-big bang scenarios from all-orderα’ corrections,” JHEP07, 144 (2023), arXiv:2305.00222 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  80. [87]

    From the string vac- uum to FLR W or de Sitter viaα’ corrections,

    P. Conzinu, G. Fanizza, M. Gasperini, E. Pavone, L. Tedesco, and G. Veneziano, “From the string vac- uum to FLR W or de Sitter viaα’ corrections,” JCAP 12, 019 (2023), arXiv:2308.16076 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  81. [88]

    Early uni- verse in quantum gravity,

    Leonardo Modesto and Gianluca Calcagni, “Early uni- verse in quantum gravity,” JHEP08, 194 (2024), arXiv:2206.06384 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  82. [89]

    UPPER LIMITS ON THE ISOTROPIC GRA VITATIONAL RADIATION BACKGROUND FROM PULSAR TIMING ANALY- SIS,

    R. w. Hellings and G. s. Downs, “UPPER LIMITS ON THE ISOTROPIC GRA VITATIONAL RADIATION BACKGROUND FROM PULSAR TIMING ANALY- SIS,” Astrophys. J. Lett.265, L39–L42 (1983)

    1983

  83. [90]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  84. [91]

    Ultra-low- frequency gravitational waves from cosmological and astrophysical processes,

    Christopher J. Moore and Alberto Vecchio, “Ultra-low- frequency gravitational waves from cosmological and astrophysical processes,” Nature Astron.5, 1268–1274 (2021), arXiv:2104.15130 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  85. [92]

    Rapid refitting techniques for Bayesian spectral characterization of the gravitational wave back- ground using pulsar timing arrays,

    William G. Lamb, Stephen R. Taylor, and Rutger van Haasteren, “Rapid refitting techniques for Bayesian spectral characterization of the gravitational wave back- ground using pulsar timing arrays,” Phys. Rev. D108, 103019 (2023), arXiv:2303.15442 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  86. [93]

    Cosmological interpretation for the stochastic signal in pulsar timing arrays,

    Yu-Mei Wu, Zu-Cheng Chen, and Qing-Guo Huang, “Cosmological interpretation for the stochastic signal in pulsar timing arrays,” Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 67, 240412 (2024), arXiv:2307.03141 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  87. [94]

    SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Al- gorithms for Scientific Computing in Python,

    Pauli Virtanen, Ralf Gommers, Travis E. Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, St´ efan J. van der Walt, Matthew Brett, Joshua Wilson, K. Jarrod Millman, Nikolay May- orov, Andrew R. J. Nelso...

    2020

  88. [95]

    dynesty: a dynamic nested sam- pling package for estimating Bayesian posteriors and ev- idences,

    Joshua S. Speagle, “dynesty: a dynamic nested sam- pling package for estimating Bayesian posteriors and ev- idences,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.493, 3132–3158 (2020), arXiv:1904.02180 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  89. [96]

    BILBY: A user-friendly Bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave as- tronomy,

    Gregory Ashtonet al., “BILBY: A user-friendly Bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave as- tronomy,” Astrophys. J. Suppl.241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  90. [97]

    Bayes Factors,

    Robert E. Kass and Adrian E. Raftery, “Bayes Factors,” J. Am. Statist. Assoc.90, 773–795 (1995)

    1995

  91. [98]

    The stochastic gravitational-wave background from massive black hole binary systems: implications for observations with Pulsar Timing Arrays,

    Alberto Sesana, Alberto Vecchio, and Carlo Nicola Co- lacino, “The stochastic gravitational-wave background from massive black hole binary systems: implications for observations with Pulsar Timing Arrays,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.390, 192 (2008), arXiv:0804.4476 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  92. [99]

    Stochastic Gravitational-wave Background from Bi- nary Black Holes and Binary Neutron Stars and Im- plications for LISA,

    Zu-Cheng Chen, Fan Huang, and Qing-Guo Huang, “Stochastic Gravitational-wave Background from Bi- nary Black Holes and Binary Neutron Stars and Im- plications for LISA,” Astrophys. J.871, 97 (2019), arXiv:1809.10360 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  93. [100]

    Implications for the supermassive black hole binaries from the NANOGrav 15-year data set,

    Yan-Chen Bi, Yu-Mei Wu, Zu-Cheng Chen, and Qing- Guo Huang, “Implications for the supermassive black hole binaries from the NANOGrav 15-year data set,” Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.66, 120402 (2023), arXiv:2307.00722 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  94. [101]

    Bayes factors,

    Robert E. Kass and Adrian E. Raftery, “Bayes factors,” Journal of the American Statistical Association90, 773– 795 (1995)

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.