Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 39 references

Realization Variance of Gravitational Wave Background Anisotropies from Shot Noise for Pulsar Timing Arrays

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The shot-noise anisotropy of the nHz gravitational wave background has a broad, skewed probability distribution that the ensemble average misrepresents.

desk verdict A transparent Monte Carlo study showing that PTA shot-noise anisotropy is realization-dependent, with medians well below ensemble means, and that moment-based estimates fail badly; the central result is robust and deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09929 v1 pith:TPLNCNAJ submitted 2026-08-10 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEgr-qc

Meng-Xiang Lin , Adam Lidz , Chung-Pei Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords gravitationalwavebackgroundpulsartimingarraysshotnoiseanisotropysupermassiveblackholebinariesMonteCarlosimulationrealizationvariancenHzwaves
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 shot-noise anisotropy of the nHz gravitational wave background—the spatial patchiness produced by discrete supermassive black hole binary sources—cannot be summarized by an ensemble average. Using Monte Carlo simulations that draw Poisson realizations of the merger population from empirically calibrated models, the authors find that the shot-noise amplitude has a broad, positively skewed probability distribution: the 95% range spans a factor of about 50 at fixed frequency, and the median and most probable values are factors of 2 to 3 below the mean. They further show that the standard analytic estimate based on strain moments, $\langle h_c^4 \rangle/\langle h_c^2 \rangle^2$, systematically overpredicts the ensemble-averaged shot-noise because the average of a ratio is not the ratio of the averages, with the discrepancy growing from a factor of ~3 at $f = 0.1\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ to more than two orders of magnitude at $f = 1\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. The paper concludes that interpreting pulsar timing array anisotropy measurements requires modeling the full shot-noise distribution, and that the median shot-noise, which scales roughly as $f^{1.1\text{–}1.2}$, is within reach of current and future PTA observations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the shot-noise anisotropy estimator $\hat{C}_{\rm shot}/(4\pi) = \left(\sum_i N_i h_i^4\right)/\left(\sum_i N_i h_i^2\right)^2$, where $N_i$ are Poisson-random integer counts of SMBHB mergers in cells of black hole mass, mass ratio, and redshift, and $h_i^2$ is the inclination- and polarization-averaged strain per source. Writing the estimator as $\sum_i N_i w_i^2$ with weights $w_i = h_i^2/\sum_j N_j h_j^2$ yields the exact bounds $1/N_{\rm eff} \le \hat{C}_{\rm shot}/(4\pi) \le 1$, making explicit that shot-noise is the inverse effective source count. The Monte Carlo machinery samples these Poisson counts from factorized merger models (LM24 and SZQ) with GW-driven residence times, then evaluates the full probability distributions of the shot-noise, the characteristic strain $h_c^2$, and the fourth moment $h_c^4$, along with their conditional distributions given a noisy measurement of $h_c^2$.

What would settle it

A direct test would be a PTA measurement of the shot-noise anisotropy at multiple frequencies with the full PDF forward-modeled: if the observed shot-noise at $f \approx 1\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ consistently landed near the moment-based prediction (which exceeds the Monte Carlo mean by a factor of ~130) rather than near the median, or if the realization-to-realization scatter were measured to be far narrower than a factor of ~50, the proposed distribution would be ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the shot-noise anisotropy level in a single sky realization, $\hat{C}_{\rm shot}/(4\pi)$, is bounded between $1/N_{\rm eff}$ and 1, where $N_{\rm eff}$ is the effective number of sources, and that its ensemble average is systematically below the naive moment-based estimate. Since the shot-noise is defined as the ratio of the fourth moment of the strain field to the square of the second moment, the ensemble average of this ratio is not equal to the ratio of the ensemble averages; the paper quantifies this difference using $7\times10^5$ Monte Carlo realizations of the LM24 and SZQ merger models. In the fiducial model the mean shot-noise exceeds the median by a factor of 2.9 at $f = 0.1\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ and by 2.0 at $f = 1\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, while the moment-based prediction exceeds the Monte Carlo mean by factors of 2.8 and 130 at those same frequencies. The shot-noise PDF remains broad across the PTA band, with a 95% interval of about 1.7 dex, and the median scales as $f^{1.1\text{–}1.2}$ rather than the $f^{8/3}$ scaling of the moment-based estimate. The authors also show that conditioning on a measurement of the characteristic strain $h_c^2$ narrows the shot-noise and $h_c^4$ distributions, and that the median shot-noise is insensitive to the low-redshift cutoff $z_{\rm min}$.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the assumed SMBHB merger model being representative of the real universe, especially the sharp low-redshift cutoff $z_{\rm min}=0.05$ and the high-mass cutoff $M_{\rm BH,max}=10^{10.5}M_\odot$; rare nearby or very massive sources control the tails of the shot-noise distribution, so if those cutoffs are wrong the claimed PDF width and mean-to-median ratios would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • PTA anisotropy analyses must either measure many independent sky realizations or forward-model the full shot-noise PDF, since the ensemble mean is not a typical value.
  • The median shot-noise, reaching $\hat{C}_{\rm shot}/(4\pi) \approx 0.05$ at $f \approx 30\,\mathrm{nHz}$, is close to the current NANOGrav 95% upper limit of 0.20, so upcoming data could plausibly detect it.
  • Conditioning on a precise measurement of the characteristic strain $h_c^2$ can narrow the shot-noise distribution by up to an order of magnitude, making combined $h_c^2$ plus anisotropy measurements more informative.
  • The moment-based estimate $\langle h^4 \rangle/\langle h^2 \rangle^2$ is unreliable in the sparse-source regime and should not be used for high-frequency predictions in GW-driven models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A similar ratio-of-moments bias may affect other stochastic background searches, such as spectral index estimation at high frequencies where source counts are low.
  • Because the median shot-noise is insensitive to $z_{\rm min}$ while the mean is not, the low-redshift cutoff uncertainty, though real, should have a smaller impact on detection forecasts than on ensemble-averaged amplitude predictions.
  • The exact bounds $1/N_{\rm eff} \le \hat{C}_{\rm shot}/(4\pi) \le 1$ provide a built-in consistency check: an anisotropy measurement exceeding unity would indicate a calibration error, a modeling error, or a contribution beyond the shot-noise assumption.
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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses Monte Carlo realizations of Poisson-sampled supermassive black hole binary (SMBHB) merger populations, drawn from the empirically calibrated LM24 and SZQ models, to characterize the probability distribution of the shot-noise anisotropy amplitude C_hat/(4π) together with the strain moments h^2_c and h^4_c across sky realizations. The authors show that the ensemble mean of the shot-noise is not equal to the moment ratio <h^4_c>/<h^2_c>^2, that the shot-noise PDF is broad and positively skewed with median below the mean, and that conditioning on a measurement of h^2_c narrows the distribution. They test sensitivity to the merger model, to the low-redshift cutoff z_min, and to an alternative stellar-hardening residence-time model.

Significance. If correct, the result is important for interpreting pulsar timing array anisotropy measurements: it demonstrates that moment-based estimates can overpredict the shot-noise by orders of magnitude at high frequency and that full PDFs are needed for parameter inference. The Monte Carlo implementation is transparent and directly samples Poisson source counts, and the simulated means of h^2_c and h^4_c agree with the analytic integrals, providing a useful validation. The qualitative conclusion that the shot-noise distribution is broad, skewed, and with median below the mean appears robust to the tested model variations. The main caveats, acknowledged in the text, are the inclination/polarization-averaged strain and the ad hoc cutoffs z_min and M_BH,max; these affect quantitative amplitudes but do not appear to threaten the central qualitative claim.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption and Sec. III A] The orange dot-dashed curve in the shot-noise panels is labeled as an 'analytic prediction for the ensemble average value,' but it is actually the moment ratio <h^4_c>/<h^2_c>^2, which the text correctly argues is not the ensemble mean of C_hat/(4π). Please relabel this curve as 'moment-based estimate' in the caption and in the text of Sec. III A to avoid implying that the Monte Carlo mean should match it.
  2. [Sec. IV A, near Fig. 4] The statement that the median h^4_c and C_shot/(4π) signals are insensitive to M_BH,max in SZQ is plausible but is not demonstrated with a numerical test; since the mean is known to be sensitive to this cutoff, a brief test varying M_BH,max would strengthen the robustness claim.
  3. [Sec. II.A, after Eq. (6)] The paper acknowledges that inclination-angle and polarization averaging omits a source of variance, but the abstract and conclusions quote specific widths and median-to-mean ratios without this caveat. Please add a prominent qualifier that the quoted numbers are computed for averaged source orientations and will broaden when orientation scatter is included.
  4. [Sec. III A] The text refers to the 'current NANOGrav 95% upper-bound of 0.20' with reference [17] from 2023; please verify whether this is still the latest published limit at the time of submission and update the wording or reference accordingly.
  5. [Reference [33]] Reference [33] lists the DOI as '10.1103/ql8b-7q8v', which looks like a placeholder rather than a standard DOI; please verify and correct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the shot-noise PDFs are computed from external empirical merger models and verified by Monte Carlo, not fitted to the target.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained: the shot-noise PDFs are obtained by sampling Poisson realizations from adopted SMBHB merger models via Eqs. (8)-(11), and the ensemble-averaged moments reproduce the analytic integrals of Eqs. (3) and (7). The central claim that <Cshot/(4pi)> differs from <h_c^4>/<h_c^2>^2 because the average of a ratio is not the ratio of the averages is a mathematical consequence of the definition in Eq. (11) and is verified by Monte Carlo, not assumed. The fiducial LM24 model is an external, empirically calibrated input (ref. [30]) and the authors test the SZQ model, z_min variations, and an alternative residence-time model, with qualitative conclusions unchanged. Although the authors cite their own prior work [19] for mean shot-noise and for the h4 divergence, these are used as consistency checks and are independently reproduced by the simulations; no parameter is fitted to the shot-noise target and no prediction reduces by construction to an input. Hence no significant circularity.

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

All free parameters and model inputs are adopted or chosen as cutoffs; the paper tests sensitivity to z_min and M_BH,max and finds the median shot-noise insensitive. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • z_min (low-redshift cutoff) = 0.05
    Sharp cutoff introduced to regulate formally divergent ensemble h4_c in LM24; sensitivity tested in Sec. IV A, median shot-noise insensitive.
  • M_BH,max (upper mass cutoff) = 10^10.5 M_sun
    Truncates mass function based on most massive observed BHs [34]; affects mean h4_c more than median.
  • LM24 redshift distribution parameters (gamma, z*) = gamma=1.0, z*=0.5
    Adopted from empirically calibrated LM24 model [30]; shapes p_z(z) in Eq. (16).
  • LM24 mass-ratio distribution exponent = q^2
    Adopted from LM24 [30]; p_q(q) in Eq. (16).
  • SZQ redshift/mass-ratio parameters (gamma, z*, q exponent) = gamma=0.5, z*=0.3, p_q∝q^-1 with q_min=0.1
    Adopted from SZQ [31] for comparison; see Eq. (17).
  • bend frequency f_b in stellar-hardening model = 5 nHz
    Chosen by hand in Sec. IV B; mass-independent approximation, acknowledged as simplifying.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Merger counts in each cell follow Poisson statistics with mean ΔN_i (Eq. 10).
    Shot noise model for discrete SMBHB population; central to generating realizations via Eqs. (8)-(9).
  • domain assumption Strain per source is averaged over inclination and polarization angles (Eq. 6); no orientation distribution is sampled.
    Acknowledged in Sec. II.A: orientation variance is an additional source of scatter left for future work.
  • domain assumption Fiducial residence time assumes purely GW-driven circular inspiral (Eq. 5).
    Standard model; modified by stellar-hardening toy model in Sec. IV B.
  • domain assumption SMBHB merger rate factorizes as p_z(z)p_q(q) dn/dM_BH dVc/dz dz/dtr dtr/dlnf (Eq. 4).
    Adopted from LM24/SZQ model; neglects possible correlations between mass, redshift, and mass ratio.
  • ad hoc to paper Sharp cutoffs z_min and M_BH,max regulate the divergent h4_c integral, and the adopted model is representative of the real SMBHB population.
    The cutoffs are chosen in this paper as a model assumption; sensitivity is tested in Sec. IV A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Realization Variance of Gravitational Wave Background Anisotropies from Shot Noise for Pulsar Timing Arrays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TPLNCNAJ

@misc{pith2026260809929,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Realization Variance of Gravitational Wave Background Anisotropies from Shot Noise for Pulsar Timing Arrays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TPLNCNAJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09929}
}
abstract

Shot-noise anisotropies in the nHz gravitational wave background (GWB) are a promising target for pulsar timing arrays (PTAs). If the nHz GWB is sourced by merging supermassive black hole binaries (SMBHBs), as current evidence suggests, the shot-noise signal is expected to be large, potentially of order unity at observing frequencies of $f \sim 1 \, \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. In this regime, the signal is dominated by rare bright binaries, and Poisson fluctuations in the discrete SMBHB population produce significant spatial anisotropies. Here, we use Monte Carlo simulations to model the realization-to-realization scatter in the shot-noise, sampling from empirically calibrated models of the SMBHB source populations. We find that the probability distribution of shot-noise amplitudes is broad, spanning a factor of $\sim 50$ (95\% interval) at fixed frequency, with a long tail towards high amplitudes. The most probable and median amplitudes lie significantly below the ensemble means by factors of $\sim 2-3$, implying that the shot-noise in typical realizations is smaller than the mean. The ensemble-averaged shot-noise also differs from simple estimates based on moments of the strain, $\langle h^4 \rangle/\langle h^2 \rangle^2$, because the average of a ratio is not equal to the ratio of the averages (i.e., $\langle X/Y \rangle \ne \langle X \rangle/\langle Y \rangle$). This difference is a factor of $\sim 3$ at $f = 0.1 \, \rm{yr}^{-1}$, growing to larger than two orders of magnitude by $f \sim 1 \, \rm{yr}^{-1}$, where the GWB is dominated by low abundance, high-strain sources. Shot-noise nevertheless provides a powerful diagnostic for understanding the GWB and SMBHB populations; interpreting PTA measurements, however, requires modeling its full probability distribution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09929 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Probability distribution of the strain amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Frequency dependence of the characteristic strain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Widths of the conditional distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Dependence of the strain-moments and shot-noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The frequency dependence of the strain and shot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys

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

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Xuet al., Res

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

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA:), Astron

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

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

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

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Agazieet al.(International Pulsar Timing Array), Astrophys

    G. Agazieet al.(International Pulsar Timing Array), Astrophys. J.966, 105 (2024), arXiv:2309.00693 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    M. T. Mileset al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.536, 1489 (2025), arXiv:2412.01153 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    S. R. Taylor, Astrophys. Space Sci.370, 124 (2025), arXiv:2511.08966 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Sesana and D

    A. Sesana and D. G. Figueroa, (2025), arXiv:2512.18822 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    C. M. F. Mingarelliet al., (2026), arXiv:2603.13643 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026

  2. [10]

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

    2013 arXiv

  3. [11]

    S. R. Taylor and J. R. Gair, Phys. Rev. D88, 084001 (2013), arXiv:1306.5395 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    S. R. Tayloret al., Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 041101 (2015), arXiv:1506.08817 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Roebber and G

    E. Roebber and G. Holder, Astrophys. J.835, 21 (2017), arXiv:1609.06758 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    S. R. Taylor, R. van Haasteren, and A. Sesana, Phys. Rev. D102, 084039 (2020), arXiv:2006.04810 [astro- ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, T

    Y. Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, T. L. Smith, and C. M. F. Mingarelli, Phys. Rev. D102, 122005 (2020), arXiv:2006.14570 [gr- qc]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, T

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

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys

    G. Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett.956, L3 (2023), arXiv:2306.16221 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

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

    1983

  11. [19]

    M.-X. Lin, A. Lidz, and C.-P. Ma, (2026), arXiv:2602.16808 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026

  12. [20]

    Sato-Polito and M

    G. Sato-Polito and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D109, 123544 (2024), arXiv:2305.05690 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Sesana, A

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

    2008 arXiv

  14. [22]

    B´ ecsy, N

    B. B´ ecsy, N. J. Cornish, and L. Z. Kelley, Astrophys. J. 941, 119 (2022), arXiv:2207.01607 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Agazieet al., Astrophys

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

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Sato-Polito and M

    G. Sato-Polito and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D111, 023043 (2025), arXiv:2406.17010 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

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

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Konstandin, A.-M

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

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, (2026), arXiv:2604.19701 [astro- ph.CO]

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

    2026 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Allen, Phys

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

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Allen, D

    B. Allen, D. Agarwal, J. D. Romano, and S. Valtolina, Phys. Rev. D110, 123507 (2024), arXiv:2406.16031 [gr- qc]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    E. R. Liepold and C.-P. Ma, Astrophys. J. Lett.971, L29 (2024), arXiv:2407.14595 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Sato-Polito, M

    G. Sato-Polito, M. Zaldarriaga, and E. Quataert, Phys. Rev. D110, 063020 (2024), arXiv:2312.06756 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

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

    2001 arXiv

  25. [33]

    C. M. F. Mingarelli, B. Larsen, E. Eisenberg, Q. Zheng, and F. Hutchison, (2026), 10.1103/ql8b-7q8v, arXiv:2603.05722 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026 arXiv

  26. [34]

    E. R. Liepold, C.-P. Ma, and J. L. Walsh, Astrophys. J. 980, 58 (2025), arXiv:2501.01493 [astro-ph.GA]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys

    G. Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L50 (2023), arXiv:2306.16222 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Agarwalet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys

    N. Agarwalet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett.998, L11 (2026), arXiv:2508.16534 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Schutz and C.-P

    K. Schutz and C.-P. Ma, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 459, 1737 (2016), arXiv:1510.08472 [astro-ph.GA]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    C. M. F. Mingarelli, T. J. W. Lazio, A. Sesana, J. E. Greene, J. A. Ellis, C.-P. Ma, S. Croft, S. Burke- Spolaor, and S. R. Taylor, Nature Astron.1, 886 (2017), arXiv:1708.03491 [astro-ph.GA]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Sampson, N

    L. Sampson, N. J. Cornish, and S. T. McWilliams, Phys. Rev. D91, 084055 (2015), arXiv:1503.02662 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.