pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.16534 · v2 · submitted 2025-08-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.CO· gr-qc

The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Targeted Searches for Supermassive Black Hole Binaries

Nikita Agarwal , Gabriella Agazie , Akash Anumarlapudi , Anne M. Archibald , Zaven Arzoumanian , Jeremy G. Baier , Paul T. Baker , Bence Becsy
show 111 more authors
Laura Blecha Adam Brazier Paul R. Brook Sarah Burke-Spolaor Rand Burnette Robin Case J. Andrew Casey-Clyde Yu-Ting Chang Maria Charisi Shami Chatterjee Tyler Cohen Paolo Coppi James M. Cordes Neil J. Cornish Fronefield Crawford H. Thankful Cromartie Kathryn Crowter Megan E. DeCesar Paul B. Demorest Heling Deng Lankeswar Dey Timothy Dolch Daniel J. D'Orazio Ellis Eisenberg Elizabeth C. Ferrara William Fiore Emmanuel Fonseca Gabriel E. Freedman Emiko C. Gardiner Nate Garver-Daniels Peter A. Gentile Kyle A. Gersbach Joseph Glaser Matthew J. Graham Deborah C. Good Kayhan Gultekin C. J. Harris Jeffrey S. Hazboun Forrest Hutchison Ross J. Jennings Aaron D. Johnson Megan L. Jones David L. Kaplan Luke Zoltan Kelley Matthew Kerr Joey S. Key Nima Laal Michael T. Lam William G. Lamb Bjorn Larsen T. Joseph W. Lazio Natalia Lewandowska Tingting Liu Duncan R. Lorimer Jing Luo Ryan S. Lynch Chung-Pei Ma Dustin R. Madison Cayenne Matt Alexander McEwen James W. McKee Maura A. McLaughlin Natasha McMann Bradley W. Meyers Patrick M. Meyers Chiara M. F. Mingarelli Andrea Mitridate Priyamvada Natarajan Cherry Ng David J. Nice Stella Koch Ocker Ken D. Olum Timothy T. Pennucci Benetge B. P. Perera Polina Petrov Nihan S. Pol Henri A. Radovan Scott M. Ransom Paul S. Ray Joseph D. Romano Jessie C. Runnoe Alexander Saffer Shashwat C. Sardesai Ann Schmiedekamp Carl Schmiedekamp Kai Schmitz Federico Semenzato Brent J. Shapiro-Albert Rohan Shivakumar Xavier Siemens Joseph Simon Sophia V. Sosa Fiscella Ingrid H. Stairs Daniel R. Stinebring Kevin Stovall Abhimanyu Susobhanan Joseph K. Swiggum Jacob A. Taylor Stephen R. Taylor Mercedes S. Thompson Jacob E. Turner Michele Vallisneri Rutger van Haasteren Sarah J. Vigeland Haley M. Wahl London Willson Kevin P. Wilson Caitlin A. Witt David Wright Olivia Young Qinyuan Zheng
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 21:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords continuous gravitational wavessupermassive black hole binariesactive galactic nucleipulsar timingtargeted searchesBayesian model comparisonupper limits
0
0 comments X

The pith

Targeted pulsar timing searches with electromagnetic priors find no continuous gravitational wave signals from 114 active galactic nuclei.

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

The paper carries out the first targeted searches for continuous gravitational waves from 114 active galactic nuclei using a 15-year pulsar timing data set. Electromagnetic priors on sky location, distance, redshift, and frequency are used to sharpen the search and improve upper limits on strain and chirp mass by a median factor of 2.2 over all-sky approaches. Bayesian comparisons show that a model with only the Hellings-Downs background is preferred over one adding a continuous wave signal, with a mean Bayes factor of 0.73. Two targets with Bayes factors above one are found consistent with noise after coherence tests and accounting for multiple trials. The analysis also tightens constraints on a candidate in one object and illustrates follow-up procedures for future detections.

Core claim

By folding in electromagnetic information on the positions and properties of 114 active galactic nuclei, the targeted analysis of the pulsar timing data set disfavors the presence of continuous gravitational waves from supermassive black hole binaries in all cases. Upper limits improve by roughly a factor of two, and marginal candidates are shown to be noise through additional statistical tests. This establishes both the current reach of such searches and a practical method for multimessenger follow-up.

What carries the argument

Targeted Bayesian search that incorporates electromagnetic priors on sky location, distance, redshift, and continuous wave frequency to compute strain and chirp mass upper limits and Bayes factors against a background-only model.

If this is right

  • Strain and chirp mass upper limits improve by a typical factor of two compared to untargeted searches at the same frequency.
  • The data disfavor continuous wave signals from all 114 targets, with an average Bayes factor of 0.73.
  • Two marginal candidates are ruled out as signals after coherence tests and trials factor correction.
  • Part of the previously allowed parameter space for a binary in 3C 66B is excluded.
  • Procedures are defined for validating future candidate signals in targeted searches.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Combining gravitational wave searches with targeted electromagnetic candidates could accelerate the first multimessenger detection of a supermassive black hole binary.
  • Refinements in electromagnetic selection of plausible binary hosts would further boost the power of future targeted analyses.
  • Longer pulsar timing baselines or more sensitive arrays might cross the threshold for detection if such binaries exist at the amplitudes allowed by current limits.

Load-bearing premise

The electromagnetic priors on sky location, distance, redshift, and continuous wave frequency for the 114 targets are accurate and the targets are plausible hosts for binaries emitting in the pulsar timing array frequency band.

What would settle it

A high-significance continuous wave detection from one of the targets that survives coherence tests, random targeting checks, and the trials factor correction would indicate the presence of a signal and falsify the no-detection conclusion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.16534 by Aaron D. Johnson, Abhimanyu Susobhanan, Adam Brazier, Akash Anumarlapudi, Alexander McEwen, Alexander Saffer, Andrea Mitridate, Anne M. Archibald, Ann Schmiedekamp, Bence Becsy, Benetge B. P. Perera, Bjorn Larsen, Bradley W. Meyers, Brent J. Shapiro-Albert, Caitlin A. Witt, Carl Schmiedekamp, Cayenne Matt, Cherry Ng, Chiara M. F. Mingarelli, Chung-Pei Ma, C. J. Harris, Daniel J. D'Orazio, Daniel R. Stinebring, David J. Nice, David L. Kaplan, David Wright, Deborah C. Good, Duncan R. Lorimer, Dustin R. Madison, Elizabeth C. Ferrara, Ellis Eisenberg, Emiko C. Gardiner, Emmanuel Fonseca, Federico Semenzato, Forrest Hutchison, Fronefield Crawford, Gabriel E. Freedman, Gabriella Agazie, Haley M. Wahl, Heling Deng, Henri A. Radovan, H. Thankful Cromartie, Ingrid H. Stairs, Jacob A. Taylor, Jacob E. Turner, James M. Cordes, James W. McKee, J. Andrew Casey-Clyde, Jeffrey S. Hazboun, Jeremy G. Baier, Jessie C. Runnoe, Jing Luo, Joey S. Key, Joseph D. Romano, Joseph Glaser, Joseph K. Swiggum, Joseph Simon, Kai Schmitz, Kathryn Crowter, Kayhan Gultekin, Ken D. Olum, Kevin P. Wilson, Kevin Stovall, Kyle A. Gersbach, Lankeswar Dey, Laura Blecha, London Willson, Luke Zoltan Kelley, Maria Charisi, Matthew J. Graham, Matthew Kerr, Maura A. McLaughlin, Megan E. DeCesar, Megan L. Jones, Mercedes S. Thompson, Michael T. Lam, Michele Vallisneri, Natalia Lewandowska, Natasha McMann, Nate Garver-Daniels, Neil J. Cornish, Nihan S. Pol, Nikita Agarwal, Nima Laal, Olivia Young, Paolo Coppi, Patrick M. Meyers, Paul B. Demorest, Paul R. Brook, Paul S. Ray, Paul T. Baker, Peter A. Gentile, Polina Petrov, Priyamvada Natarajan, Qinyuan Zheng, Rand Burnette, Robin Case, Rohan Shivakumar, Ross J. Jennings, Rutger van Haasteren, Ryan S. Lynch, Sarah Burke-Spolaor, Sarah J. Vigeland, Scott M. Ransom, Shami Chatterjee, Shashwat C. Sardesai, Sophia V. Sosa Fiscella, Stella Koch Ocker, Stephen R. Taylor, Timothy Dolch, Timothy T. Pennucci, Tingting Liu, T. Joseph W. Lazio, Tyler Cohen, William Fiore, William G. Lamb, Xavier Siemens, Yu-Ting Chang, Zaven Arzoumanian.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: The 95% upper limits on GW strain from targeted searches, compared to the sky-averaged upper limits presented in Agazie et al. (2023c). Right: Distribution of Bayes factors using the CURN model for the 114 SMBHB candidates. The mean Bayes factor was 0.83 (median 0.78) with standard deviation 0.31. There are two outliers: Rohan and Gondor. Rohan has a Bayes factor of 3.37(5), while Gondor has a Bayes … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Improvement in strain upper limits as a function of sky location for CRTS and OVRO sources examined in our catalog, defined in Equation 17, using a targeted search. The most improved targets are around 15h, but overall there is no clear trend for improvement as a function of sky location. 1.0 × 10−14 in the all-sky search to 6.7 × 10−16 with the targeted search — a factor of 15×. At the other extreme, SDSS… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Upper limits on the chirp mass of a putative binary in 3C 66B, M95% c = 9.6 × 108 M⊙, now constrain the SMBHB model from Iguchi et al. (2010). The 15 yr dataset results in a 32% improvement in the chirp mass over the 12.5 yr dataset (Arzoumanian et al. 2023). Ho (2005) prescription. Later Liu et al. (2019) found a slightly lower mass combining estimates from both Hα (Greene & Ho 2005) and Hβ (Ho & Kim 2015… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Improvements on strain upper limits as a function of z (upper panel) and GW frequency (lower panel). Above, we see that the targets which are the most improved are at z < 0.5. However, below we do not see a clear trend of improvement as a function of frequency, though the most improved sources appear between 13 nHz and 20 nHz. han. Recent infrared spectroscopy supports this inter￾pretation, because the He … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Rohan, or SDSS J153636.22+044127.0, was previously identified a sub-pc SMBHB (Lauer & Boroson 2009) with double peaked broad lines, though the existence of this feature did not inform our search. We fix its RA, Dec, DL, and fGW = 21 nHz based on the CRTS periodicity and recover a median chirp mass of log10 Mc ≈ 9.67. We find a strain amplitude of log10 h0 = −14.55+0.19 −0.57 with modest constraints on the … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SDSS J072908.71+400836.6, or Gondor, is a type 1.9 quasar, and at z = 0.074 it is the closest of the two SMBHB candidates identified in this search. We measure the median value of chirp mass to be log10 Mc = 9.38+0.11 −0.30 M⊙. The inset shows the decomposition of the chirp mass into total mass, Mtot, and mass ratio, q, using rejection sampling from Petrov et al. (2024). The priors in the inset are green, … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Updated light curves for Rohan (left) and Gondor (right), starting with CRTS data (black) and extended by ATLAS (blue) and ZTF (green) data. The blue dashed line shows a sinusoidal signal at the period of the binary candidate. While Rohan is still periodic, Gondor appears to no longer be so. The purple (W2 band) and pink (W1 band) colored dots are WISE data associated with each AGN. Both candidates show WI… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Expected SMBHB counts consistent with the NANOGrav 15 yr GWB (Agazie et al. 2023a), from the Chen et al. (2019) population model via oddAGN. Rohan has log10 Mtot = 10.05+0.16 −0.89, placing its median mass in a sparse mass region, but comfortably within its 68% credible range. Gondor has log10 Mtot = 9.75+0.17 −0.99; at the median mass the model yields ∼1 source at that frequency, but up to ∼100 are permit… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spectra for Rohan (top) and Gondor (bottom). Both sets of spectra were normalized to the [OIII] flux, and the pink bands are the telluric A bands. For Rohan, there are no real changes in the double Hβ over the examined range, however, there are changes in the slope of the UV end of the continuum. Gondor’s spectrum does not seem to be changing in terms of continuum slope or line strengths or profiles for Hα… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Coherent and Incoherent search results for Ro￾han (upper panel) and Gondor (lower panel). Shown are the null distributions of Bayes factors via sky shuffling (green) and phase shifting (blue) along with the Bayes factors found without any model scrambling (black). We find weak sup￾port for Gondor, with a p-value of p = 0.05 for the phase shift analysis and p = 0.08 for the sky shuffles. Rohan is the stron… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Dropout analysis for Rohan and Gondor. Rohan prefers a CW signal in 23 of the 67 pulsars, while only 9 pulsars prefer a CW signal for Gondor. Several pulsars are of particular interest: PSR J0613-0200 is the top pulsar for Gondor but has previously been identified as problematic in Aggarwal et al. (2019), and benefiting from custom noise models in Larsen et al. (2024). PSR J1024-0719 is a top pulsar for R… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The GWB may affect mass measurements for Rohan and Gondor. Posteriors on log10(Mc/M⊙) for Rohan (left) and Gondor (right) depending if the underlying GWB is modeled to be autocorrelated (the CURN model; orange dashed) or HD-cor￾related (blue solid). Reweighting to the HD model decreases the probability of a CW signal from Rohan to B HD+Rohan HD = 1.25(7), and yields a lower chirp mass of M95% c = 6.41 × 1… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Bayes factors as a function of GW frequency. In the most recent NANOGrav all-sky CW search, Agazie et al. (2023c) found a Bayes factor peak between 3 and 5 nHz which disappeared when Hellings and Downs cross-correlations were applied (orange line). Here we can see clearly that there was no Bayes factor greater than unity at 14 nHz (purple line; Gondor) nor was there one at 21 nHz (pink line; Rohan). Indee… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the first targeted searches for continuous gravitational waves (CWs) from 114 active galactic nuclei (AGN) that may host supermassive black hole binaries, using the NANOGrav 15 yr data set. By incorporating electromagnetic priors on sky location, distance, redshift, and CW frequency, our strain and chirp mass upper limits are typically improved by a factor of $\sim 2$ (median 2.2) relative to all-sky limits at the same frequency. Bayesian comparisons against a model including only a Hellings-Downs correlated background disfavors a CW signal for all targets, with a mean Bayes factor of $0.73 \pm 0.32$. Two targets have Bayes factors slightly above unity, but coherence tests, random targeting experiments, and a conservative accounting of the 114-target trials factor all indicate that they are consistent with noise. We use these two candidates as worked examples to illustrate an end-to-end targeted CW search analysis and a suite of follow up tests that future promising candidates would need to pass. We find that the electromagnetic interpretations of both candidates are ambiguous, and we update the constraints on a putative binary in 3C 66B, ruling out part of its previously allowed parameter space. Ultimately, our results demonstrate the current sensitivity of targeted pulsar timing array searches for CWs and define a roadmap for future multimessenger CW detections.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the first targeted searches for continuous gravitational waves (CWs) from 114 active galactic nuclei (AGN) using the NANOGrav 15 yr pulsar timing array data set. Electromagnetic priors on sky location, distance, redshift, and CW frequency are folded into the analysis, yielding strain and chirp-mass upper limits improved by a median factor of 2.2 relative to all-sky searches at the same frequencies. Bayesian model comparisons against a Hellings-Downs correlated background-only model produce a mean Bayes factor of 0.73 ± 0.32 disfavoring a CW signal for every target. Two targets with Bayes factors slightly above unity are shown to be consistent with noise after coherence tests, random-targeting experiments, and a conservative 114-target trials-factor correction. Updated constraints are placed on a putative binary in 3C 66B, and the work outlines a roadmap for future multimessenger CW detections.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper is significant for demonstrating how electromagnetic priors can tighten continuous-wave limits in pulsar-timing data by a factor of ~2 and for establishing a statistically rigorous null-result framework that includes coherence tests and look-elsewhere corrections. Credit is given for the end-to-end analysis of two marginal candidates and for the use of the public NANOGrav 15 yr data set with reproducible Bayesian methods. The work supplies both current sensitivity benchmarks and a practical template for future targeted searches.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (targeted-search likelihood): The electromagnetic priors on sky location, distance, redshift, and CW frequency are incorporated directly into the likelihood. The manuscript does not present a sensitivity analysis showing how plausible uncertainties or systematic offsets in these priors (e.g., errors in AGN redshift or orbital-period estimates) propagate into the reported Bayes factors and strain upper limits. Because the priors are load-bearing for both the factor-of-2 improvement and the mean BF = 0.73 ± 0.32, such a test is required to confirm the conclusions are robust.
  2. [§5.2] §5.2 (coherence and random-targeting tests): For the two targets with BF > 1, the coherence statistic and the random-targeting procedure are used to conclude consistency with noise. The text does not supply the explicit definition of the coherence statistic or the exact number and distribution of random trials performed; without these details the claim that the candidates survive the trials-factor correction cannot be independently verified.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 2] Figure 2 and associated text: The caption should explicitly state the frequency band over which the median improvement factor of 2.2 is computed and whether the factor applies to strain or chirp-mass limits.
  2. [Table 1] Table 1: The column listing the electromagnetic priors should include a reference or footnote for each source of the sky-location, distance, and frequency priors so that readers can assess their provenance.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for providing insightful comments that will help strengthen our presentation. We respond to each major comment below and indicate the revisions we have made or plan to make in the updated version of the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (targeted-search likelihood): The electromagnetic priors on sky location, distance, redshift, and CW frequency are incorporated directly into the likelihood. The manuscript does not present a sensitivity analysis showing how plausible uncertainties or systematic offsets in these priors (e.g., errors in AGN redshift or orbital-period estimates) propagate into the reported Bayes factors and strain upper limits. Because the priors are load-bearing for both the factor-of-2 improvement and the mean BF = 0.73 ± 0.32, such a test is required to confirm the conclusions are robust.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that demonstrating the robustness of our results to uncertainties in the electromagnetic priors is important. In the revised manuscript, we will add a sensitivity analysis in Section 3. This will involve perturbing the priors (e.g., varying redshifts within their 1σ uncertainties from the literature, and orbital periods by factors consistent with measurement errors) and recomputing the Bayes factors and upper limits for a subset of targets. We will report the median change in the improvement factor and show that the mean Bayes factor remains below unity. This addition will confirm that our conclusions are not sensitive to reasonable prior variations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5.2] §5.2 (coherence and random-targeting tests): For the two targets with BF > 1, the coherence statistic and the random-targeting procedure are used to conclude consistency with noise. The text does not supply the explicit definition of the coherence statistic or the exact number and distribution of random trials performed; without these details the claim that the candidates survive the trials-factor correction cannot be independently verified.

    Authors: We appreciate this comment and acknowledge that additional details are needed for full reproducibility. In the revised manuscript, we will explicitly define the coherence statistic in §5.2 as the difference in log-likelihood between a model with phase-coherent signals across all pulsars and an incoherent model. We will also specify that we performed 10,000 random-targeting trials for each of the two candidates, sampling from the same frequency range and sky distribution as the original targets, and provide the resulting distribution of Bayes factors (showing that the observed values are consistent with the tail of the noise distribution). These details will allow independent verification of the trials-factor correction. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Targeted CW search derives Bayes factors and limits directly from PTA likelihoods and external EM priors with no self-referential reductions

full rationale

The paper conducts a standard Bayesian analysis of NANOGrav 15 yr timing residuals for 114 AGN targets, folding in independent electromagnetic priors on sky location, distance, redshift, and frequency to compute strain upper limits and Bayes factors against a Hellings-Downs background-only model. The mean BF of 0.73 and the updated 3C 66B constraints follow from direct likelihood evaluations and coherence tests on the data; no equation reduces the reported evidence ratios or limits to quantities fitted or defined within the same analysis. Prior NANOGrav results on the background are cited as external input rather than load-bearing self-justification, and the derivation remains self-contained against the observed residuals and separate EM observations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard PTA data analysis assumptions and the accuracy of external electromagnetic priors; no new free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities are introduced beyond those in the cited background literature.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The Hellings-Downs correlation pattern accurately describes the stochastic gravitational wave background against which continuous-wave signals are tested.
    Invoked in the Bayesian model comparison to disfavor CW signals for all targets.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6405 in / 1518 out tokens · 43485 ms · 2026-05-18T21:13:36.087051+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Gravity Echoes from Supermassive Black Hole Binaries

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    Future microhertz detections combined with nanohertz pulsar terms can serve as gravity echoes to measure supermassive black hole binary inspiral rates from hundreds to thousands of years in the past.

  2. Scalable continuous gravitational wave detection in PTA data with non-parametric red noise suppression and optimal pulsar selection

    astro-ph.IM 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A frequentist CGW search method with non-parametric red noise suppression and optimal pulsar selection achieves Bayesian-comparable accuracy on NANOGrav-based simulations at far lower computational cost.

  3. Finding Supermassive Black Hole Binary Mergers in Pulsar Timing Array Data

    astro-ph.HE 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0

    A complete SMBHB waveform model enables unified PTA searches for mergers and memory signals, with parameter recovery shown on simulated data for 10^8-10^10 solar mass systems.

  4. Expectations for the first supermassive black-hole binary resolved by PTAs II: Milestones for binary characterization

    astro-ph.IM 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Simulations of continuous-wave searches show that PTA data first constrain GW frequency and strain amplitude together, then sky location, with chirp mass and inclination following later for evolving sources, with prec...

  5. Gauge-independent Gravitational Waves from Cogenesis in a $B-L$ Conserving Universe

    hep-ph 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    In a B-L conserving SM extension with U(1)_x dark sector, CP-violating Yukawas generate opposite lepton asymmetries in visible and hidden sectors that sphalerons convert to baryon asymmetry, with gauge-independent bub...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 110 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6 , keywords =

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023a, ApJL, 951, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6 2041

  2. [2]

    The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Observations and Timing of 68 Millisecond Pulsars

    Agazie, G., Alam, M. F., Anumarlapudi, A., et al. 2023b, ApJL, 951, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acda9a NANOGrav 15 yr Data: Targeted Searches for SMBHBs 29

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acda9a 2041

  3. [3]

    , keywords =

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023c, ApJL, 951, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace18a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace18a 2041

  4. [4]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 956, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf4fd

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf4fd 2023

  5. [5]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acda88

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acda88 2023

  6. [6]

    T., et al

    Agazie, G., Arzoumanian, Z., Baker, P. T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1f61

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1f61 2024

  7. [7]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad93d5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad93d5 2025

  8. [8]

    T., et al

    Aggarwal, K., Arzoumanian, Z., Baker, P. T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2236

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2236 2019

  9. [9]

    F., Arzoumanian, Z., Baker, P

    Alam, M. F., Arzoumanian, Z., Baker, P. T., et al. 2021, ApJS, 252, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abc6a1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abc6a1 2021

  10. [10]

    Allen, B., & Ottewill, A. C. 1997, PhRvD, 56, 545, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.56.545

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.56.545 1997

  11. [11]

    Living Reviews in Relativity , keywords =

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y 2023

  12. [12]

    2016, ApJ, 821, 13, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/13

    Arzoumanian, Z., Brazier, A., Burke-Spolaor, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 13, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/13

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/1/13 2016

  13. [13]

    Arzoumanian and P

    Arzoumanian, Z., Baker, P. T., Brazier, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd3b —. 2020, ApJ, 900, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ababa1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabd3b 2018

  14. [14]

    T., Blecha, L., et al

    Arzoumanian, Z., Baker, P. T., Blecha, L., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdbc7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdbc7 2023

  15. [15]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 1665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2092

    Babak, S., Petiteau, A., Sesana, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2092

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2092 2016

  16. [16]

    2023, PhRvD, 108, 103034, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.103034

    Barausse, E., Dey, K., Crisostomi, M., et al. 2023, PhRvD, 108, 103034, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.103034

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.103034 2023

  17. [17]

    J., Haggard, D., & Tremmel, M

    Bardati, J., Ruan, J. J., Haggard, D., & Tremmel, M. 2024a, ApJ, 961, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad055a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad055a

  18. [18]

    2024b, ApJ, 977, 265, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9471 B´ ecsy, B

    Horlaville, P. 2024b, ApJ, 977, 265, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9471 B´ ecsy, B. 2024, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 41, 225017, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ad84b0 B´ ecsy, B., Cornish, N. J., Petrov, P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.18114, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.18114

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9471 2024

  19. [19]

    , keywords =

    Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1980, Nature, 287, 307, doi: 10.1038/287307a0 Bogdanovi´ c, T., Miller, M. C., & Blecha, L. 2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00037-8

    work page doi:10.1038/287307a0 1980

  20. [20]

    Bondi, M., & P´ erez-Torres, M. A. 2010, ApJL, 714, L271, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/714/2/L271

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/714/2/l271 2010

  21. [21]

    A., & Lauer, T

    Boroson, T. A., & Lauer, T. R. 2009, Nature, 458, 53, doi: 10.1038/nature07779

    work page doi:10.1038/nature07779 2009

  22. [22]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfa9a

    Breiding, P., Burke-Spolaor, S., Eracleous, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfa9a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfa9a 2021

  23. [23]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accbbc

    Britzen, S., Zajaˇ cek, M., Gopal-Krishna, et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accbbc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accbbc 2023

  24. [24]

    R., Charisi, M., et al

    Burke-Spolaor, S., Taylor, S. R., Charisi, M., et al. 2019, A&A Rv, 27, 5, doi: 10.1007/s00159-019-0115-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-019-0115-7 2019

  25. [25]

    J., Lommen, A

    Burt, B. J., Lommen, A. N., & Finn, L. S. 2011, ApJ, 730, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/17

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/730/1/17 2011

  26. [26]

    A., Mingarelli, C

    Casey-Clyde, J. A., Mingarelli, C. M. F., Greene, J. E., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 987, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adce05

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adce05 2025

  27. [27]

    A., Mingarelli, C

    Casey-Clyde, J. A., Mingarelli, C. M. F., Greene, J. E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac32de

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac32de 2022

  28. [28]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 5538, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3283

    Chalumeau, A., Babak, S., Petiteau, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 5538, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3283

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3283 2022

  29. [29]

    Charisi, M., Haiman, Z., Schiminovich, D., & D’Orazio, D. J. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 4617, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty516

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty516 2018

  30. [30]

    Trump, J. R. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 5929, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3713

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3713 2022

  31. [31]

    Chen, S., Sesana, A., & Conselice, C. J. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 401, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1722

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1722 2019

  32. [32]

    S., Cenko, S

    Chornock, R., Bloom, J. S., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2010, ApJL, 709, L39, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/L39

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/l39 2010

  33. [33]

    Corbin, V., & Cornish, N. J. 2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1008.1782, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1008.1782

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1008.1782 2010

  34. [34]

    C., Grace, K

    Davis, M. C., Grace, K. E., Trump, J. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad276e de la Parra, P. V., Kiehlmann, S., Mr´ oz, P., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addc60

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad276e 2024

  35. [35]

    2009, ApJL, 703, L76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/L76

    Decarli, R., Dotti, M., Falomo, R., et al. 2009, ApJL, 703, L76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/L76

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/l76 2009

  36. [36]

    T., et al

    Dexter, J., Lutz, D., Shimizu, T. T., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc24f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc24f 2020

  37. [37]

    , keywords =

    Dittmann, A. J., & Ryan, G. 2024, ApJ, 967, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f1e D’Orazio, D. J., & Charisi, M. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.16896, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.16896 D’Orazio, D. J., & Di Stefano, R. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2975, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2936 D’Orazio, D. J., Duffell, P. C., & Tiede, C. 2024, ApJ, 977, 244, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f1e 2024

  38. [38]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 2379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw792 D’Orazio, D

    Farris, B. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 2379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw792 D’Orazio, D. J., Haiman, Z., & Schiminovich, D. 2015, Nature, 525, 351, doi: 10.1038/nature15262 30 the NANOGrav Collaboration D’Orazio, D. J., & Loeb, A. 2018, ApJ, 863, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad413

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw792 2016

  39. [39]

    Duffell and Daniel D'Orazio and Andrea Derdzinski and Zoltan Haiman and Andrew MacFadyen and Anna L

    Duffell, P. C., D’Orazio, D., Derdzinski, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abab95 EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, Antoniadis, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346844

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abab95 2020

  40. [40]

    A., Halpern, J

    Eracleous, M., Boroson, T. A., Halpern, J. P., & Liu, J. 2012, ApJS, 201, 23, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/23 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/23 2012

  41. [41]

    First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results

    Alberdi, A., et al. 2019, ApJL, 875, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7 2019

  42. [42]

    Farris and Paul Duffell and Andrew I

    Farris, B. D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A. I., & Haiman, Z. 2014, ApJ, 783, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/134

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/783/2/134 2014

  43. [43]

    2025, A&A, 694, A194, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451809

    Ferranti, I., Shaifullah, G., Chalumeau, A., & Sesana, A. 2025, A&A, 694, A194, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451809

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451809 2025

  44. [44]

    C., Kelley, L

    Gardiner, E. C., Kelley, L. Z., Lemke, A.-M., & Mitridate, A. 2024, ApJ, 965, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2be8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2be8 2024

  45. [45]

    Gaskell, C. M. 1984, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 422, 349, doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1984.tb23380.x —. 2010, Nature, 463, E1, doi: 10.1038/nature08665

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1984.tb23380.x 1984

  46. [46]

    M., Sesana, A., Holgado, A

    Goldstein, J. M., Sesana, A., Holgado, A. M., & Veitch, J. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 248, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz420

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz420 2019

  47. [47]

    and Djorgovski, S

    Graham, M. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Stern, D., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 1562, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1726 GRAVITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040208

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1726 2015

  48. [48]

    E., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2005, ApJ, 630, 122, doi: 10.1086/431897

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/431897 2005

  49. [49]

    S., Thrane, E., et al

    Grunthal, K., Nathan, R. S., Thrane, E., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 1501, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2573

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2573 2025

  50. [50]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 2910, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3566

    Guo, H., Liu, X., Zafar, T., & Liao, W.-T. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2910, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3566

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3566 2020

  51. [51]

    Butcher, H. R. 1981, ApJ, 247, 403, doi: 10.1086/159050

    work page doi:10.1086/159050 1981

  52. [52]

    D., Ma, X., Naess, S

    Hincks, A. D., Ma, X., Naess, S. K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.04278, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.04278

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.04278 2025

  53. [53]

    C., & Kim, M

    Ho, L. C., & Kim, M. 2015, ApJ, 809, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/123

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/2/123 2015

  54. [54]

    Predicting Potential Host Galaxies of Supermassive Black Hole Binaries Based on Stellar Kinematics in Archival IFU Surveys

    Horlaville, P., Ruan, J. J., Eracleous, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.21145, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.21145

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.21145 2025

  55. [55]

    2023, PhRvD, 107, 084045, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.084045

    Hourihane, S., Meyers, P., Johnson, A., Chatziioannou, K., & Vallisneri, M. 2023, PhRvD, 107, 084045, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.084045

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.084045 2023

  56. [56]

    2010, ApJL, 724, L166, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/724/2/L166

    Iguchi, S., Okuda, T., & Sudou, H. 2010, ApJL, 724, L166, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/724/2/L166

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/724/2/l166 2010

  57. [57]

    Jenet and Andrea Lommen and Shane L

    Jenet, F. A., Lommen, A., Larson, S. L., & Wen, L. 2004, ApJ, 606, 799, doi: 10.1086/383020

    work page doi:10.1086/383020 2004

  58. [58]

    I., Anderson, S

    Katz, J. I., Anderson, S. F., Margon, B., & Grandi, S. A. 1982, ApJ, 260, 780, doi: 10.1086/160297

    work page doi:10.1086/160297 1982

  59. [59]

    Z., Haiman, Z., Sesana, A., & Hernquist, L

    Kelley, L. Z., Haiman, Z., Sesana, A., & Hernquist, L. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 1579, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz150

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz150 2019

  60. [60]

    2022, Science, 376, doi: 10.1126/science.abm3231

    Kerr, M., & Parthasarathy, A. 2022, Science, 376, doi: 10.1126/science.abm3231

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abm3231 2022

  61. [61]

    A., & Barnacka, A

    Casey-Clyde, J. A., & Barnacka, A. 2023, ApJ, 955, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace16f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace16f 2023

  62. [62]

    V., Sullivan, A

    Kiehlmann, S., de la Parra, P. V., Sullivan, A. G., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc567

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc567 2025

  63. [63]

    Larsen, B., Mingarelli, C. M. F., Hazboun, J. S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5291

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5291 2024

  64. [64]

    R., & Boroson, T

    Lauer, T. R., & Boroson, T. A. 2009, ApJ, 703, 930, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/930

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/930 2009

  65. [65]

    A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18706.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.417.1621D 417, 1621

    Lee, K. J., Wex, N., Kramer, M., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 3251, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18622.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18622.x 2011

  66. [66]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab298b

    Liu, H.-Y., Liu, W.-J., Dong, X.-B., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab298b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab298b 2019

  67. [67]

    Liu, T., & Vigeland, S. J. 2021, ApJ, 921, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1da9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1da9 2021

  68. [68]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe62f

    Luo, J., Ransom, S., Demorest, P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe62f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe62f 2021

  69. [69]

    Merritt, D., & Ekers, R. D. 2002, Science, 297, 1310, doi: 10.1126/science.1074688

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1074688 2002

  70. [70]

    T., Shannon, R

    Miles, M. T., Shannon, R. M., Reardon, D. J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 1489, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2571 Milosavljevi´ c, M., & Merritt, D. 2003, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 686, The Astrophysics of Gravitational Wave Sources, ed. J. M. Centrella (AIP), 201–210, doi: 10.1063/1.1629432

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2571 2025

  71. [71]

    Mingarelli, C. M. F., Grover, K., Sidery, T., Smith, R. J. E., & Vecchio, A. 2012, PhRvL, 109, 081104, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.081104

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.081104 2012

  72. [72]

    Mingarelli, C. M. F., Sidery, T., Mandel, I., & Vecchio, A. 2013, PhRvD, 88, 062005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.062005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.062005 2013

  73. [73]

    Mingarelli, C. M. F., Lazio, T. J. W., Sesana, A., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 886, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0299-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0299-6 2017

  74. [74]

    Mingarelli, C. M. F., Blecha, L., Bogdanovi´ c, T., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 183, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02482-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02482-1 2025

  75. [75]

    K., Schawinski, K., et al

    Oh, K., Yi, S. K., Schawinski, K., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/1 O’Neill, S., Kiehlmann, S., Readhead, A. C. S., et al. 2022, ApJL, 926, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac504b NANOGrav 15 yr Data: Targeted Searches for SMBHBs 31

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/1 2015

  76. [76]

    R., Charisi, M., & Ma, C.-P

    Petrov, P., Taylor, S. R., Charisi, M., & Ma, C.-P. 2024, ApJ, 976, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b14

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b14 2024

  77. [77]

    Phinney, E. S. 2001, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0108028

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0108028 2001

  78. [78]

    Reardon and Andrew Zic and Ryan M

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02 2023

  79. [79]

    E., Volonteri M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/82 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...813...82R 813, 82

    Reines, A. E., & Volonteri, M. 2015, ApJ, 813, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/82

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/813/2/82 2015

  80. [80]

    A., & Sesana, A

    Rosado, P. A., & Sesana, A. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3986, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu254

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu254 2014

Showing first 80 references.