Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Multi-Tracer Correlated Stacking: A Novel Way to Discover Anisotropy in nano-Hz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a stacking estimator that detects non-Gaussian anisotropy in the nano-hertz gravitational-wave background by adding signal only in tracer-overdense pixels, distinguishing AGN-traced from isotropic source populations…

desk verdict A promising but overstated stacking estimator for nHz SGWB anisotropy: injections work, but the claimed superiority over C_l is untested and the p-values are not false-alarm rates. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01499 v2 pith:OZCOB2RP submitted 2025-01-02 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAgr-qc

Mohit Raj Sah , Suvodip Mukherjee This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAgr-qc
keywords gravitationalwavesstochasticwavebackgroundpulsartimingarraysanisotropysupermassiveblackholebinariesactivegalacticnucleistackinganalysislarge-scalestructure
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 argues that the standard tool for measuring anisotropy in the nano-hertz gravitational-wave background, the angular power spectrum, is blind to the strongly non-Gaussian fluctuations expected when supermassive black hole binaries are sparse and trace massive galaxies. It introduces a new estimator, Multi-Tracer Correlated Stacking: select sky pixels where a tracer such as an active galactic nucleus is overdense, then sum the gravitational-wave fluctuations in those pixels. On simulations built from an AGN catalog out to redshift five, the stacked signal is strongly positive when the sources follow the tracer and centered at zero when the sources are isotropic, while the angular power spectrum cannot separate the two cases. The method's sensitivity grows with pulsar number and map resolution, and it can also probe what fraction of the background comes from AGN hosts. The authors position this as a route to discovering anisotropy in real pulsar-timing-array data with upcoming surveys.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Multi-Tracer Correlated Stacking estimator $\hat{\Omega}_{\rm stacked} = \sum_{i: \delta_g^i > \delta_{\rm cut}} \Delta\Omega_{\rm gw}^i$, where $\delta_g$ is the fractional galaxy number-density fluctuation in a pixel and $\Delta\Omega_{\rm gw}$ is the fractional stochastic-background energy-density fluctuation. The estimator threshold-selects pixels from a tracer map, here an AGN catalog, and coherently adds the gravitational-wave signal only in overdense regions, converting the spatial correlation between binaries and their host galaxies into a large positive sum. The paper contrasts this with the angular power spectrum $C_\ell$, which measures variance and is shot-noise dominated for the sparse nano-hertz source population.

What would settle it

Apply the stacking estimator to real pulsar-timing-array residuals using a complete AGN catalog at a resolution of $\ell_{\max} \approx 20$ or higher: if the measured $\hat{\Omega}_{\rm stacked}$ is consistent with zero in a regime where the simulation predicts a positive signal with a p-value near or below one percent, the tracer assumption or the simulated source population is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that stacking gravitational-wave background fluctuations in pixels selected by tracer overdensity is a direct, non-Gaussian-sensitive measurement of anisotropy, and it outperforms angular power spectra in the sparse-source regime of the nano-hertz background. Using Monte Carlo realizations of supermassive black hole binaries assigned to galaxies in an AGN catalog, the paper shows that the stacked estimator $\hat{\Omega}_{\rm stacked} = \sum_{i: \delta_g^i > \delta_{\rm cut}} \Delta\Omega_{\rm gw}^i$ is positive with high significance when sources trace the AGN distribution and consistent with zero for isotropic sources. At a resolution of $\ell_{\max}=20$ with full AGN contribution, the noise-only p-value is $0.001$, and the distinction persists across astrophysical parameters and under a realistic anisotropic pulsar distribution. The paper also finds that the method cannot identify which redshift bin dominates the signal, a task left to angular cross-correlation.

Load-bearing premise

The demonstration assumes the AGN catalog faithfully traces where supermassive black hole binaries actually live, and that the catalog's missing stellar masses are realistically modeled; if that tracer assumption is wrong, a positive stacked signal no longer proves the background is anisotropic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $\ell_{\max}=20$ with the AGN contributing the full background, the noise-only p-value for a positive stacked signal is $0.001$, so a positive measurement at that resolution would be strong evidence that the nano-hertz background is anisotropic.
  • The stacked signal grows with pulsar count and map resolution, so future arrays with many more pulsars will sharpen the test.
  • A realistic anisotropic pulsar distribution, such as that of current arrays, degrades precision but does not erase the distinction between isotropic and tracer-correlated sources.
  • The stacked signal increases monotonically with the AGN fraction $\mathrm{Frac}$, which gives a route to estimating how much of the background is hosted by active galactic nuclei.
  • Stacking in redshift-selected tracer bins cannot locate the dominant redshift of the signal; recovering that information requires angular cross-correlation with galaxy surveys.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Applied to real data, a null result from stacking could set an upper bound on the AGN fraction of the nano-hertz background even before a full anisotropy map is available, since the simulated signal scales with that fraction.
  • The same estimator could be run with quasar, bright-galaxy, or other tracer catalogs; each tracer's stacked signal would measure how tightly that population tracks the supermassive-black-hole-binary hosts.
  • Because angular-power-spectrum upper limits are insensitive to non-Gaussian anisotropy, existing null anisotropy searches may be consistent with a strongly anisotropic background; stacking offers a direct, assumption-light test.
  • A combined pipeline using stacking for detection and cross-correlation for redshift tomography would recover both the amplitude and the redshift origin of the anisotropy.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a method, Multi-Tracer Correlated Stacking, for detecting anisotropy in the nanohertz stochastic gravitational wave background (SGWB). The method selects sky pixels where a tracer (here an AGN catalog, with stellar masses assigned from a redshift-dependent Schechter function) has positive overdensity and sums the SGWB density fluctuation in those pixels. The authors simulate a supermassive black hole binary population, inject a fraction Frac of the SGWB from hosts in the AGN catalog and the rest from an isotropic distribution, and show that the stacked statistic is positive for the AGN-traced case and near zero for the isotropic case. They study dependence on Frac, astrophysical parameters, pulsar number and distribution, and tomographic redshift bins. The paper claims that this technique uniquely distinguishes isotropic from anisotropic SGWB and surpasses angular power spectrum methods.

Significance. If the comparative claim were established, this would be a useful addition to the SGWB anisotropy toolkit: the estimator is simple, parameter-free in its construction, and directly tied to a physical tracer of supermassive black hole hosts. The forward-model exercise is internally consistent and the qualitative separation between injected anisotropic and isotropic cases is a sensible injection-recovery test. However, the paper's headline claims—that the method 'uniquely distinguishes' and 'surpasses' angular power spectrum methods—are not supported by the quantitative results presented. The paper does not compute any C_l-based detection statistic on the same maps, and the reported p-values are not false-alarm probabilities under the isotropic null. The central methodological claim therefore needs additional work before the paper can be accepted as a demonstration of superiority.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. 2] The central claim that the stacking technique 'surpasses the capabilities of angular power spectrum-based methods' is not tested anywhere in the paper. No C_l-based detection statistic (e.g., a matched-filter S/N, a likelihood ratio, or a false-alarm rate from C_l) is computed on the same simulated SGWB maps. Figure 2 shows only the distribution of C_l coefficients and of pixel fluctuations; it does not quantify whether C_l fails to detect the injected anisotropic signal. To support the comparative claim, the authors should compute a C_l detection statistic on the same realizations and compare its detection efficiency/false-alarm rate with the stacked statistic. Without this, the superiority claim in the abstract and Sec. 2 is an assertion, not a result.
  2. [Sec. 5, Fig. 10, Table 1] The quantity called 'p-value' is not a null-hypothesis probability. It is defined as the fraction of anisotropic realizations for which the stacked signal is less than or equal to zero. That is a conditional non-detection probability given that the signal is present, not the false-alarm probability under the isotropic null. Moreover, the noise realizations in Fig. 10 are centered at the median stacked signal of the anisotropic case, so the noise p-value measures only the tail of the noise distribution below zero given that the median is positive. To demonstrate that the method can 'discover' anisotropy, the authors need to compute the distribution of the stacked statistic under the isotropic null (with the same noise and the same pixel selection) and report the false-alarm probability or detection significance for a threshold. As written, the p-values in Fig. 10 and Table 1 do not establish a detection criterion.
  3. [Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 5] The positive stacked signal is partly built in by construction: a fraction Frac of the injected SGWB sources is placed in the same AGN overdensity map that is later used to select stacking pixels. This is a valid injection-recovery test of the estimator's response to a correlated signal, but it does not by itself show that the method can discover anisotropy when the tracer is an imperfect or incomplete representation of the SMBHB host population. The authors acknowledge catalog limitations in Sec. 6, but no simulation tests the effect of tracer incompleteness, tracer bias, or stochastic mismatch between the tracer and the true host distribution. A concrete test using, for example, a tracer map with a different selection function or with added noise would show whether the stacked statistic remains a reliable indicator of anisotropy beyond the idealized same-map injection.
  4. [Sec. 2] The claim that angular power spectra 'primarily capture the Gaussian component' and 'can misrepresent or underestimate' non-Gaussian features is not demonstrated quantitatively. The paper shows that the pixel-space distribution is skewed (Fig. 2b), but skewness alone does not imply that a C_l-based estimator is biased or less sensitive for the signals considered here. The authors should either provide a quantitative comparison (e.g., detection S/N of C_l versus the stacked statistic on the same anisotropic realizations) or soften the claim to state that C_l is not optimized for spatially localized, tracer-correlated fluctuations. As written, the non-Gaussianity argument is an unsupported premise for the central superiority claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5, Fig. 10] The caption of Fig. 10 says 'Np = 400 and ℓmax = 24', while the text says the figure is for Np = 600 and ℓmax = 24. The numerical p-values in the figure match the Np = 600 row of Table 1, so the caption appears to contain a typo.
  2. [Sec. 2] The phrase 'isotopic scenario' should read 'isotropic scenario'.
  3. [Sec. 2, Eq. (1)] The spherical harmonic coefficients a_lm are introduced for the SGWB fluctuation but the frequency dependence is suppressed. Since ΔΩ_gw is frequency dependent, the definition of C_l should specify the frequency at which it is evaluated, or state that the evaluation is per frequency bin.
  4. [Sec. 3.2] The parameter Frac is described both as the 'fraction of the SGWB power spectrum' contributed by AGNs and later as the fraction of Ω_iso_gw. These are not the same quantity; clarify that Frac is the fraction of the SGWB energy density assigned to AGN hosts in the simulation.
  5. [Sec. 5, Fig. 10 and Table 1] The quantity called 'p-value' should be renamed, for example 'tail probability' or 'non-detection fraction', to avoid implying a test of a null hypothesis. The current terminology is misleading in a detection context.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Mild built-in injection-recovery: the anisotropic signal is generated from the same AGN catalog used for stacking, so the positive stacked signal is partly by construction; no fatal circularity in the estimator itself.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 3.2 (Simulation Methodology) and Sec. 5 (Demonstration on Simulated Population)]
    "we assume that a fraction of the SGWB power spectrum (denoted by Frac) is contributed by AGNs. This fraction of Ωgw(f ) is generated through Monte Carlo sampling of sources from the AGN catalog. ... The stacked signal for the AGN-centered supermassive BHB population exhibits significantly positive values, reflecting the correlation between the GW source and AGN distribution."

    The anisotropic realization is defined by injecting sources into the same AGN catalog whose overdensity map (δg > 0) selects the stacked pixels in Eq. (9). Whenever the injected Ωgw is partly proportional to the AGN overdensity, Σ_{δg>0} ΔΩgw has a positive mean by construction; the claimed ability to distinguish isotropic from anisotropic cases is a recovery of the injected correlation, not an independent prediction. This is standard injection-recovery validation rather than a derivation that assumes its conclusion, and no parameter of the stacking statistic itself is fitted, so the circularity is mild.

full rationale

The stacking statistic in Eq. (9) is mathematically self-contained: it is a fixed sum of ΔΩgw over pixels with δg > 0 and contains no free parameters fitted to the simulated maps. The central estimator is not equivalent to its input by definition, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or prior result is imported from the authors' earlier work; citations to Sah et al. (2024) supply the SMBHB simulation method and the MBH–M* relation, but the estimator's behavior is computed directly from generated realizations. The main circularity-adjacent issue is that the anisotropic simulation places a fraction Frac of SGWB sources on the AGN catalog, and the same AGN catalog is then used to select stacking pixels, so the positive stacked signal is partially built in; this is a self-consistency demonstration rather than an independent detection. Separately, the reported p-values are the fraction of anisotropic realizations with stacked signal ≤ 0, not false-alarm probabilities under the isotropic null, and no C_l comparison is performed on the same maps, so the headline claim of surpassing angular power spectra is not established; these are statistical-support issues rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The method's behavior depends on astrophysical assumptions about SMBHB hosts and the AGN catalog, plus several modeling parameters (eta, nu, rho, sigma_m, Frac, delta_cut, sigma_IJ) that are chosen rather than fitted to the stacking result. The claims of superiority over C_l rest on the unproven axiom that angular power spectra cannot capture non-Gaussian anisotropy.

free parameters (8)
  • eta = 8.5, 8
    Normalization of the M_BH-M_* relation in Eq. (6); chosen from prior modeling and varied between models. Not fitted to the stacked signal.
  • nu = 0, -0.2, 0.2
    Redshift evolution index in Eq. (6); chosen to test different population models.
  • rho = 1
    Slope of the M_BH-M_* relation in Eq. (6); fixed in the fiducial simulations.
  • sigma_m = not stated
    Scatter in the log-normal P(M_BH|M_*) in Eq. (4); affects which galaxies host binaries but its value is not given.
  • Frac = 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1
    Fraction of the SGWB contributed by AGN-hosted binaries; the main parameter controlling the injected correlation between SGWB and AGN overdensity.
  • delta_cut = 0
    Threshold on galaxy density fluctuation for pixel selection in Eq. (9); set to zero for the fiducial analysis.
  • sigma_IJ = 1
    Assumed per-pair timing cross-correlation uncertainty in the noise model; scales the noise realizations and hence the quoted p-values.
  • z_max = 1, 3
    Maximum source redshift used in the tomographic test in Sec. 5, item 5.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Supermassive BHBs are hosted by massive galaxies, so the SGWB traces the galaxy/AGN distribution.
    Central premise of the stacking method, stated in the Introduction and Sec. 4.
  • domain assumption The AGN catalog (MILLIQUAS) with Schechter-function-assigned stellar masses represents the SMBHB host population up to z=5.
    Sec. 3.2; needed for the simulation to produce a realistic anisotropic map.
  • ad hoc to paper Angular power spectrum methods primarily capture Gaussian components and may overlook non-Gaussian features of the SGWB.
    Sec. 2; asserted without a formal derivation or quantitative test, and used to justify the claimed superiority of stacking.
  • standard math The PTA cross-correlation estimator and the far-away point source approximation of the Fisher matrix are valid.
    Appendix A, following Anholm et al. (2009) and Pol et al. (2022); standard tools in PTA anisotropy analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Tracer Correlated Stacking: A Novel Way to Discover Anisotropy in nano-Hz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OZCOB2RP

@misc{pith2026250101499,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Tracer Correlated Stacking: A Novel Way to Discover Anisotropy in nano-Hz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OZCOB2RP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01499}
}
abstract

The isotropic stochastic gravitational wave background (SGWB) generated by a population of supermassive black hole binaries (SMBHBs) provides a unique window into their cosmic evolution. In addition to the isotropic power spectrum, the anisotropic component of the signal carries additional information about the supermassive black holes (SMBHs) and host galaxy connection. The measurement of this signal is usually carried out by angular power spectra, which is only a sufficient measure for a Gaussian and statistically isotropic distribution of SMBHBs, where the statistical properties of a field remain unchanged across the sky. In contrast, the contribution from SMBHBs in nano-hertz SGWB will be hosted by fewer massive galaxies, making the nano-hertz background anisotropic and non-Gaussian. As a result, the performance of angular power spectra in extracting the underlying physics is limited. In this work, we propose a novel technique called the \texttt{Multi-Tracer Correlated Stacking}, which enables the detection of anisotropies in the SGWB by stacking the signal from regions of the sky with tracers of BHs such as active galactic nucleus (AGNs), quasars, bright galaxies, etc., that can be mapped up to high redshift. We demonstrate this technique on a simulated supermassive BHBs distribution using an AGN catalog, which maps the underlying matter distribution approximately up to redshift $z=5$. This stacking technique uniquely distinguishes between isotropic and anisotropic distributions of SGWB source, surpassing the capabilities of angular power spectrum-based methods in detecting anisotropic signals. This highlights the effectiveness of this technique in detecting anisotropic SGWB signals and in the future, this technique can play a crucial role in its discovery.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01499 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram demonstrating the stacking technique. The pixels with positive fluctuation in the galaxy number density (δg) are identified. The stacked signal is obtained by summing the SGWB density fluctuation (∆ΩGW) in these pixels. Specifically, for each selected pixel i with δg(i) > 0, the corresponding ∆Ωi GW values are summed over all such pixels. If the GW sources follow the galaxy distribution, the stacke… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Violin plot showing the distribution of Cℓ values across different realizations of the supermassive BH population. (b) Distribution of the fluctuations in Ωgw(ˆn) across the sky for four different realizations. The effectiveness of this method, however, is inherently dependent on the resolution of the map (maximum value of spherical harmonic mode, ℓmax). A higher resolution allows for the identification of small… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. SGWB maps at two different frequencies and for two different realizations of the GW source population. The AGN catalog map, shown alongside, serves as a tracer for the underlying supermassive BH distribution. Colored square boxes highlight regions of high galaxy density in the AGN map and their corresponding regions in the SGWB maps. In this section, we demonstrate the simulations that can be used to understand the … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plots illustrating the primary masses (MBH) of supermassive BHBs as a function of the stellar mass (M∗) of their host galaxies, derived from simulations. The results are shown for different values of η and ν, with redshift represented by the colormap. modeled based on …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ωgw(f) for η = 8.5 ν = 0. The solid line represents the median values of the Ωgw(f) over 1000 realizations, and the shaded region represents the 68% confidence interval. where parameters η, ρ, and ν define the scaling relationship between BH mass, and host galaxy stell…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Violin plots of the stacked SGWB signal (Ωˆstacked) for η = 8.5 and ν = 0, comparing two scenarios: supermassive BHBs residing at the centers of galaxies/AGNs (anisotropic case) and isotropically distributed supermassive BHBs (isotropic case). The results are shown for…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Violin plots of the stacked SGWB signal (Ωˆstacked) for different contributions of the AGNs to the overall Ωiso gw(f) signal. The left distribution represents the variance due to noise, while the right distribution shows the variation arising from different GW realizat…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Violin plots of the stacked SGWB signal (Ωˆstacked) for different astrophysical scenarios (different values of η and ν ), assuming (a) SGWB with an AGN fraction of 0.5, and (b) SGWB with an AGN fraction of 1. The left distribution represents the variance due to noise, …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Violin plots of the stacked SGWB signal (Ωˆstacked) for different numbers of pulsars (Np) and corresponding maximum multipole moments (ℓmax), assuming (a) SGWB with an AGN fraction of 0.5, and (b) SGWB with an AGN fraction of 1. The left distribution illustrates variat…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: p-values of the Ωˆstacked distribution for Np = 400 and ℓmax = 24, assuming an SGWB with AGN fractions of 0.5 and 1. The p-value is defined here as the fraction of the signal less than or equal to zero. Isotropically distributed pulsars NANOGrav pulsars Cases 100 50 0…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Violin plots of the stacked SGWB signal (Ωˆstacked) for η = 8.5 and ν = 0, comparing two scenarios: 64 isotropically distributed pulsars and 64 NANOGrav pulsars distributed anisotropically. the SGWB. Furthermore, this technique can identify the underlying tracers of t…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Violin plots of the stacked SGWB signal (Ωˆstacked) for two cases: sources with a maximum redshift of 3 (blue) and sources with a maximum redshift of 1 (green), stacked using different redshift bins of the AGN catalog. Panel (a) assumes an SGWB with an AGN fraction of…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T., et al

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T., et al. 2016, Physical review letters, 116, 061102

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023 a , The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 951, L8

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    2023 b , The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 956, L3

    ---. 2023 b , The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 956, L3

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Anholm, M., Ballmer, S., Creighton, J. D. E., Price, L. R., & Siemens, X. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 084030, 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.084030

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.79.084030 2009

  8. [8]

    2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16214

    Antoniadis, J., Arumugam, P., Arumugam, S., et al. 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16214

    arXiv 2023

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    2012, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 86, 124028

    Boyle, L., & Pen, U.-L. 2012, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 86, 124028

    2012

  2. [10]

    R., Charisi, M., et al

    Burke-Spolaor, S., Taylor, S. R., Charisi, M., et al. 2019, The Astronomy and astrophysics review, 27, 1

    2019

  3. [11]

    A., Mingarelli, C

    Casey-Clyde, J. A., Mingarelli, C. M., Greene, J. E., et al. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19406

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 93

    ---. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 93

    2022

  5. [13]

    2018, Reports on Progress in Physics, 82, 016903

    Christensen, N. 2018, Reports on Progress in Physics, 82, 016903

    2018

  6. [14]

    2019, New Astronomy Reviews, 86, 101525

    De Rosa, A., Vignali, C., Bogdanovi \'c , T., et al. 2019, New Astronomy Reviews, 86, 101525

    2019

  7. [15]

    F., Domcke, V., Franciolini, G., & Pieroni, M

    Depta, P. F., Domcke, V., Franciolini, G., & Pieroni, M. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.14460

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Flesch, E. W. 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01505

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    C., Kelley, L

    Gardiner, E. C., Kelley, L. Z., Lemke, A.-M., & Mitridate, A. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 965, 164

    2024

  10. [18]

    M., Hivon, E., Banday, A

    Gorski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 622, 759

    2005

  11. [19]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in science & engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  12. [20]

    M., Tyson, J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 111

    2019

  13. [21]

    2001--, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., et al. 2001--, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python . http://www.scipy.org/

    2001

  14. [22]

    Lemke, A.-M., Mitridate, A., & Gersbach, K. A. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08705

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    B., Jarvis, M., & Santos, M

    Maartens, R., Abdalla, F. B., Jarvis, M., & Santos, M. G. 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array, Vol. 215, Sissa Medialab, 016

    2015

  16. [24]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 4413

    McLeod, D., McLure, R., Dunlop, J., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 4413

    2021

  17. [25]

    T., Shannon, R

    Miles, M. T., Shannon, R. M., Reardon, D. J., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stae2571

    2024

  18. [26]

    M., Sidery, T., Mandel, I., & Vecchio, A

    Mingarelli, C. M., Sidery, T., Mandel, I., & Vecchio, A. 2013, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 88, 062005

    2013

  19. [27]

    2008, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 77, 042002

    Mitra, S., Dhurandhar, S., Souradeep, T., et al. 2008, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 77, 042002

    2008

  20. [28]

    2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16377

    Mitridate, A., Wright, D., von Eckardstein, R., et al. 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16377

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    2018, in 13th USENIX symposium on operating systems design and implementation (OSDI 18), 561--577

    Moritz, P., Nishihara, R., Wang, S., et al. 2018, in 13th USENIX symposium on operating systems design and implementation (OSDI 18), 561--577

    2018

  22. [30]

    2001, arXiv preprint astro-ph/0108028

    Phinney, E. 2001, arXiv preprint astro-ph/0108028

    2001 arXiv

  23. [31]

    R., & Romano, J

    Pol, N., Taylor, S. R., & Romano, J. D. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 940, 173

    2022

  24. [32]

    M., Sip o cz, B., G \"u nther, H., et al

    Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip o cz, B., G \"u nther, H., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 123

    2018

  25. [33]

    2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19692

    Raidal, J., Urrutia, J., Vaskonen, V., & Veerm \"a e, H. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19692

    2024

  26. [34]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., Greenfield, P., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, A33

    2013

  27. [35]

    D., & Cornish, N

    Romano, J. D., & Cornish, N. J. 2017, Living reviews in relativity, 20, 1

    2017

  28. [36]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 265

    Saeedzadeh, V., Babul, A., Mukherjee, S., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 265

    2024

  29. [37]

    Saeedzadeh, V., Mukherjee, S., Babul, A., Tremmel, M., & Quinn, T. R. 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.08683

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    R., & Mukherjee, S

    Sah, M. R., & Mukherjee, S. 2024. 2407.11669

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    R., Mukherjee, S., Saeedzadeh, V., et al

    Sah, M. R., Mukherjee, S., Saeedzadeh, V., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 533, 1568

    2024

  32. [40]

    2024, Physical Review D, 109, 123544

    Sato-Polito, G., & Kamionkowski, M. 2024, Physical Review D, 109, 123544

    2024

  33. [42]

    A., Mingarelli, C

    Semenzato, F., Casey-Clyde, J. A., Mingarelli, C. M. F., et al. 2024 b . 2411.00532

    2024 arXiv

  34. [43]

    2013, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30, 244009

    Sesana, A. 2013, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30, 244009

    2013

  35. [44]

    Sesana, A., Vecchio, A., & Colacino, C. N. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 390, 192

    2008

  36. [45]

    2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 493, 1161

    Smits, R., Kramer, M., Stappers, B., et al. 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 493, 1161

    2009

  37. [46]

    R., & Gair, J

    Taylor, S. R., & Gair, J. R. 2013, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 88, 084001

    2013

  38. [47]

    R., van Haasteren, R., & Sesana, A

    Taylor, S. R., van Haasteren, R., & Sesana, A. 2020, Physical Review D, 102, 084039

    2020

  39. [48]

    R., Mingarelli, C., Gair, J., et al

    Taylor, S. R., Mingarelli, C., Gair, J., et al. 2015, Physical Review Letters, 115, 041101

    2015

  40. [49]

    2025, The NANOGrav 15-Year Data Set

    The NANOGrav Collaboration . 2025, The NANOGrav 15-Year Data Set. https://zenodo.org/records/14773896

    2025

  41. [50]

    D., et al

    Thrane, E., Ballmer, S., Romano, J. D., et al. 2009, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 80, 122002

    2009

  42. [51]

    C., & Varoquaux, G

    Van Der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in science & engineering, 13, 22

    2011

  43. [52]

    Waskom, M. L. 2021, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3021, 10.21105/joss.03021

    2021 doi

  44. [53]

    2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16216

    Xu, H., Chen, S., Guo, Y., et al. 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16216

    2023 arXiv

  45. [54]

    J., Kapur, A., et al

    Zic, A., Reardon, D. J., Kapur, A., et al. 2023, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 1

    2023

  46. [55]

    2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, 10.21105/joss.01298

    Zonca, A., Singer, L., Lenz, D., et al. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, 10.21105/joss.01298

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.