Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Pulsar Timing Array anisotropy maps are systematically biased because small-scale gravitational-wave power, which every timing residual integrates, leaks into the reconstructed large-scale modes.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 07:38 UTC pith:DQ3MAD6K

load-bearing objection A clean, well-validated analytic derivation of a real PTA systematic; the order-of-magnitude headline is model-dependent and the abstract overstates the geometry-independence claim, but the core result deserves referee time. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2510.24857 v2 pith:DQ3MAD6K submitted 2025-10-28 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE

Bias from small-scale leakage in Pulsar Timing Array maps

Federico Semenzato , Nicola Bellomo , Alvise Raccanelli , Chiara M. F. Mingarelli This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE
keywords gravitational wave backgroundanisotropypulsar timing arrayssmall-scale leakageangular power spectrummode-mixingsystematic biassupermassive black hole binaries
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that existing and near-future Pulsar Timing Array (PTA) measurements of the gravitational-wave background's angular structure are subject to a systematic bias the field has not yet accounted for. Timing residuals are integrals of gravitational-wave power over the entire sky, but the finite pulsar network lets analysts reconstruct only the largest angular scales; the smaller, unresolved scales do not vanish but are folded into the reconstructed large-scale modes. The paper derives an analytic formula for this 'small-scale leakage' and shows that for a realistic background generated by supermassive black hole binaries tracing galaxy distributions, the bias exceeds the true large-scale power by an order of magnitude across a wide range of multipoles. It further shows the effect survives pulsar noise and regularization and depends only on the presence of unmodeled small-scale power. If correct, this means anisotropy maps and their cross-correlations with galaxy surveys cannot be trusted until the leakage is modeled or removed.

Core claim

The paper establishes that the standard map-making estimator for PTA anisotropies satisfies C_rec_l = C_true_l + C_leakage_l, where C_leakage_l = sum over unresolved multipoles l' of M_ll' times C_true_l'. The leakage kernel M_ll' depends only on the pulsar geometry, is near zero at low l, and approaches order unity near the reconstruction cutoff l_rec_max. Simulated with a realistic supermassive-black-hole-binary background (C_l about 3e-4 out to l = 250), the reconstructed spectrum is biased upward by at least an order of magnitude across a wide range of scales, far exceeding cosmic variance. The bias persists in the presence of pulsar noise and with ridge or SVD regularization; regulariza

What carries the argument

The mode-mixing (leakage) kernel M_ll' is the central object: a matrix that maps power at unresolved multipoles l' > l_rec_max into the reconstructed multipole l. It is derived from the Moore-Penrose solution of the least-squares map-making problem and depends only on the pulsar-sky geometry matrix. The companion split of the data vector into large-scale and small-scale contributions, R = Gamma_LS a_LS + Gamma_SS a_SS, makes the integrated nature of timing residuals explicit and is the starting point of the derivation.

Load-bearing premise

The order-of-magnitude size of the bias rests on the assumption that the real unresolved gravitational-wave sky carries large small-scale power, specifically C_l about 3e-4 out to l = 250 as in the paper's supermassive-black-hole-binary simulation; if the true sky is far smoother below the resolution limit, the leakage could be much smaller.

What would settle it

Simulate a PTA with the same pulsar geometry but inject a GWB whose true C_l is zero above l = 10, then run the standard least-squares map-making estimator recovering l up to 22. If the recovered C_l still shows the factor-of-ten excess, the order-of-magnitude claim would hold even for smooth skies; the paper predicts instead that the excess shrinks in proportion to the injected small-scale power.

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

If this is right

  • Any PTA anisotropy analysis that reconstructs multipoles only up to l_rec_max will overestimate the angular power spectrum whenever true small-scale power is present.
  • The bias is unavoidable in practice: it is independent of pulsar geometry, reconstruction method, regularization scheme, and pulsar noise.
  • Regularization cannot be tuned to remove it because the true small-scale power is unknown; suppressing leakage with a strong ridge parameter erases the signal instead.
  • Cross-correlation of reconstructed GWB maps with galaxy surveys will inherit the spurious small-scale power, producing artificial correlations.
  • Simulations that truncate input maps at l = 250 already understate the leakage, since realistic supermassive-black-hole-binary skies carry power beyond l ~ 1000.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural mitigation, implied but not developed, is an estimator that projects out small-scale contamination by construction—e.g., by designing modes orthogonal to the Gamma_SS subspace; this is testable on the paper's 10^3 simulated realizations.
  • The order-of-magnitude magnitude is an amplitude prediction tied to the supermassive-black-hole-binary/galaxy-tracing prior; a smoother GWB with far smaller small-scale C_l would reduce leakage, so the model-dependence deserves explicit quantification.
  • The same formalism can be read as a window-function problem: M_ll' is a mode-coupling kernel that could be inverted or deconvolved if an external prior on small-scale power, for instance from galaxy clustering, is adopted.
  • Future very-large pulsar arrays that push l_rec_max into the hundreds would shrink but not eliminate leakage, since the supermassive-black-hole-binary sky is structured down to l ~ 1000; only surveys resolving the full angular power spectrum can make the term vanish.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops an analytical formalism for a previously unidentified systematic in PTA anisotropy reconstruction: “small-scale leakage.” Because each pulsar pair correlates GW power integrated over the whole sky, modes with ℓ > ℓ_rec^max are not reconstructable from a finite pulsar network, but their power remains in the measured residuals. When one fits a large-scale-only model, this unresolved power is absorbed into the estimated large-scale spherical-harmonic coefficients. The paper derives closed-form expressions, Eqs. (3.11)–(3.12) and (3.16), for the resulting bias in the angular power spectrum: C_rec_ℓ = C_true_ℓ + C_leakage_ℓ, with C_leakage_ℓ = Σ M_{ℓℓ′} C_true_{ℓ′}. It validates these expressions against 10^3 SMBHB-sourced GWB realizations from the authors' companion pipeline (ref. [25]), examines the effect of ridge/SVD regularization, and shows that pulsar noise does not remove the bias. The main claim is that this leakage exceeds cosmic variance by at least an order of magnitude across a wide range of angular scales, and that it is independent of pulsar geometry, reconstruction method, regularization, and noise.

Significance. If the quantitative claim is correct, this is an important caution for the PTA community: anisotropy maps and C_ℓ estimates from current and near-future datasets would be biased at a level far exceeding statistical uncertainties, invalidating naive interpretations. The analytical core is a genuine contribution: Eqs. (3.11)–(3.12) give a clean, exact mode-mixing formula for the leakage, and the 10^3-realization validation is convincing evidence for the mechanism. The paper also usefully identifies the interplay between leakage and regularization, showing that regularization suppresses leakage only by introducing a comparable regularization bias. However, the headline quantitative statements — “at least one order of magnitude in a wide range of scales” and “fundamentally independent of geometry” — are not supported by the paper's own figures and depend on a specific injected small-scale power spectrum. These overstatements need to be corrected before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §3.1, §5, Eq. (3.12)] The headline “at least one order of magnitude in a wide range of scales” is not a general result; it is a consequence of the specific injected C_true_{ℓ′} from ref. [25] truncated at ℓ_GWB_max = 250. Eq. (3.12) is exactly linear in C_true_{ℓ′}, so a real unresolved sky with a steeper high-ℓ falloff or a lower effective cutoff would give a much smaller bias for the same geometry and same low-ℓ power. The paper itself concedes this in §5 (“the magnitude of this systematic effect strongly depends on the amount of power at small scales”). The abstract and conclusions should be rephrased to state that the order-of-magnitude number is model-dependent, not a robust lower bound. The claim that truncation at 250 makes the result conservative is only a statement about the assumed model; it does not bound alternative unresolved models with less small-scale power.
  2. [Abstract and §B.1, Fig. 8] The abstract's statement that the effect is “fundamentally independent of the geometry of the pulsar configuration” is contradicted by the paper's own results. The mode-mixing kernel M_{ℓℓ′} shown in Fig. 8 varies by orders of magnitude among I34, U34, and NG34; the NG68 case in Fig. 10 is even more strongly amplified by near-degenerate pulsar configurations. What is independent of geometry is the existence of the leakage term, not its amplitude. This distinction should be made explicit everywhere, and the “wide range” claim in the abstract should be correspondingly qualified.
  3. [Fig. 3 and Abstract/§5] Fig. 3 shows that M_{ℓℓ′} is tiny for low ℓ and becomes appreciable only near ℓ_rec^max. Thus the statement that the bias affects “a wide range of scales” or “a broad range of scales” is not supported by the displayed kernel. For example, ℓ ≲ 6 in the I34 configuration appears almost unaffected. The quantitative summary should state that the leakage is significant only for the highest reconstructed multipoles, and that the range of affected ℓ depends on the pulsar geometry. This also affects the comparison to cosmic variance, which is largest at low ℓ.
  4. [§3.4, Eq. (3.17), Fig. 4] The statement that the effect is independent of the regularization scheme is also overstated. While the leakage term is present for any regularized estimator, its magnitude depends strongly on the ridge parameter λ (Fig. 4 and Eq. 3.17). The paper correctly notes that regularization introduces a competing bias, but the abstract's “fundamentally independent of ... regularization schemes” is not a precise description of the shown behavior. The correct statement is that leakage is not cured by regularization; it is traded against a different bias.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1, near Eq. (3.1)] “in order ot present” — typo for “to present”.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] “bias de reconstructed C_ℓ” — typo for “biased reconstructed C_ℓ”.
  3. [Main text, Eq. (3.12)] The mode-mixing matrix M_{ℓℓ′} is not defined in the main text; the reader must consult Appendix B.1 (Eq. B.5). A short definition in the main text would improve readability.
  4. [§5, final paragraph] “gradually reduce” vs. the earlier “at least one order of magnitude” language could be made consistent. Also, the phrase “catastrophic” in §5 is too strong for a scientific conclusion; the paper's own evidence shows the effect is model-dependent.
  5. [References] Reference [29] includes a URL in the entry rather than an arXiv identifier; this is a minor formatting inconsistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: leakage is a forward model from geometry plus an injected C_l spectrum; the self-cited input spectrum does not determine the leakage formula.

full rationale

The paper's central result, C_leakage_l = sum_l' M_ll' C_true_l' (Eq. 3.12), is derived analytically from the linear map-making relation R = Gamma_LS a_LS + Gamma_SS a_SS (Eq. 3.7) and the Moore-Penrose solution for a_LS. The leakage kernel M_ll' is computed from pulsar geometry alone, and the small-scale spectrum C_true_l' is taken from the authors' separate simulation pipeline (ref [25]), not fitted to the reconstructed spectra. The order-of-magnitude bias claim is a forward-model evaluation, not a fitted prediction masquerading as a prediction. The self-citation to ref [25] supplies the assumed astrophysical small-scale power, not the leakage formula; the paper explicitly concedes in Sec. 5 that 'the magnitude of this systematic effect strongly depends on the amount of power at small scales.' No parameter is fitted, no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled via citation. Thus no significant circularity is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central leakage formula (3.12) is parameter-free and follows from linear least squares; however, the paper's headline magnitude ('at least an order of magnitude') depends on the assumed small-scale C_ℓ from the authors' own simulation pipeline (ref [25]) and on the ℓ_GWB_max=250 truncation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • ℓ_GWB_max (small-scale power cutoff) = 250
    Ad hoc truncation of the injected maps chosen for computational cost (§3.1); the headline bias magnitude is contingent on it.
  • Injected small-scale angular power spectrum = C_ℓ ≈ 3×10^-4 (Wishart-distributed, flat to ℓ=250)
    The leakage amplitude and the 'at least an order of magnitude' statement scale with this input, taken from the authors' pipeline (ref [25]) rather than fitted.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption GWB is stationary, Gaussian, and unpolarized, and the power spectrum factorizes as H(f, n̂)=H(f)[1+P(f,n̂)] with zero-mean anisotropies (Eqs. 2.2–2.3).
    Underlies the harmonic expansion of the anisotropic component and the Gaussian likelihood in §3.3.
  • domain assumption Timing residual response uses the long-arm approximation, dropping Earth–pulsar phase factors in the overlap reduction function (Eq. 2.8).
    Basis of the response matrix Γ used throughout the leakage derivation.
  • domain assumption Spherical harmonic coefficients have zero mean and diagonal covariance ⟨a_ℓm a_ℓ'm'⟩ = δ_ℓℓ'δ_mm' C_ℓ (Eq. 3.2).
    Makes mixed large-/small-scale terms vanish in expectation, giving pure power addition in C_leakage.
  • domain assumption Noiseless residuals in §3; in §4, noise is uncorrelated between pulsars and uncorrelated with the signal (Eqs. 4.1–4.2).
    Isolates the leakage mechanism and then extends it to a noise covariance model.
  • ad hoc to paper Injected GWB maps are truncated at ℓ_GWB_max=250, with the claim that real skies have power to ℓ≳10^3 and results are therefore conservative (§3.1).
    The order-of-magnitude bias estimate depends on this truncation and on the assumed input C_ℓ.
  • ad hoc to paper Regularization demonstrations use penalty matrix P = medH × I and scanned ridge/SVD thresholds λ and e_thres (Appendix C).
    Illustrates the leakage–regularization trade-off; the claims about unprescribable λ follow from these choices.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22748 in / 14656 out tokens · 133491 ms · 2026-08-04T07:38:11.190342+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Pulsar Timing Array experiments are rapidly approaching the era of gravitational wave background anisotropy detection. The timing residuals of each pulsar are an integrated measure of the gravitational-wave power across all angular scales. However, due to the limited number of monitored pulsars, current analyses are only able to reconstruct the angular structure of the background at large scales. We show analytically that this mismatch between the integrated all-sky signal and the truncated reconstruction introduces a previously unaccounted source of systematic bias in the anisotropic background angular power spectrum. The source of this systematic error, that we call ``small-scale leakage'', is the intrinsic presence of unaccounted gravitational wave power at scales smaller than the reconstructed scales. This unmodeled power leaks into large-scale modes, artificially increasing the recovered value of the inferred angular power spectrum by at least one order of magnitude in a wide range of scales. Importantly, this effect is fundamentally independent of the geometry of the pulsar configuration, the anisotropy reconstruction method, the use of different regularization schemes, and the presence of pulsar noise. As the quality of pulsar timing array experiments improves, a robust understanding of small-scale leakage will become paramount for reliable detection and characterization of the gravitational wave background. Thus, the theoretical formalism developed here will be essential to estimate the magnitude of this systematic uncertainty in anisotropy searches.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. A comprehensive framework for phase-coherent mapping of the gravitational-wave sky with pulsar timing arrays

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A new phase-coherent mapping framework for pulsar timing arrays that preserves the complete complex polarization state of the gravitational-wave sky in compact maps usable for multiple analyses.

  2. Directional Anisotropic Sensitivity Curves for Pulsar Timing Arrays

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    PTA gravitational-wave sensitivity is mapped direction-by-direction, with radiometer and full-Fisher estimators bracketing the usual isotropic curve.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 38 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  2. [2]

    The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Constraints on Supermassive Black Hole Binaries from the Gravitational-wave Background

    TheNANOGrav Collaboration, G. Agazieet al., “The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Constraints on Supermassive Black Hole Binaries from the Gravitational-wave Background”,Astrophys. J. Lett.952 no. 2, (2023) L37,arXiv:2306.16220 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Where are the supermassive black holes measured by PTAs?

    G. Sato-Polito, M. Zaldarriaga, and E. Quataert, “Where are the supermassive black holes measured by PTAs?”,Phys. Rev. D110no. 6, (2024) 063020,arXiv:2312.06756 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Imprints of supermassive black hole evolution on the spectral and spatial anisotropy of nano-hertz stochastic gravitational-wave background

    M. R. Sah, S. Mukherjee, V. Saeedzadeh, A. Babul, M. Tremmel, and T. R. Quinn, “Imprints of supermassive black hole evolution on the spectral and spatial anisotropy of nano-hertz stochastic gravitational-wave background”,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.533no. 2, (2024) 1568–1582, arXiv:2404.14508 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Spectrum of relict gravitational radiation and the early state of the universe

    A. A. Starobinsky, “Spectrum of relict gravitational radiation and the early state of the universe”, JETP Lett.30(1979) 682–685

    1979

  6. [6]

    General-relativistic approach to the nonlinear evolution of collisionless matter

    S. Matarrese, O. Pantano, and D. Saez, “General-relativistic approach to the nonlinear evolution of collisionless matter”,Phys. Rev. D47(Feb, 1993) 1311–1323

    1993

  7. [7]

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

    TheNANOGrav Collaboration, A. Afzalet al., “The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Search for Signals from New Physics”,Astrophys. J. Lett.951no. 1, (2023) L11,arXiv:2306.16219 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

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

    TheNANOGrav Collaboration, G. Agazieet al., “The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-wave Background”,Astrophys. J. Lett.951no. 1, (2023) L8,arXiv:2306.16213 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

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

    TheEPT A and InPT A Collaborations, J. Antoniadiset al., “The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - III. Search for gravitational wave signals”,Astron. Astrophys.678 (2023) A50,arXiv:2306.16214 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array

    D. J. Reardonet al., “Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array”,Astrophys. J. Lett.951no. 1, (2023) L6,arXiv:2306.16215 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

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

    H. Xuet al., “Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I”,Res. Astron. Astrophys.23no. 7, (2023) 075024, arXiv:2306.16216 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    The MeerKAT Pulsar Timing Array: the first search for gravitational waves with the MeerKAT radio telescope

    M. T. Mileset al., “The MeerKAT Pulsar Timing Array: the first search for gravitational waves with the MeerKAT radio telescope”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society536no. 2, (Dec.,

  13. [13]

    Characterizing gravitational wave stochastic background anisotropy with pulsar timing arrays

    C. M. F. Mingarelli, T. Sidery, I. Mandel, and A. Vecchio, “Characterizing gravitational wave stochastic background anisotropy with pulsar timing arrays”,Phys. Rev. D88no. 6, (2013) 062005, arXiv:1306.5394 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  14. [14]

    Searching for anisotropic gravitational-wave backgrounds using pulsar timing arrays

    S. R. Taylor and J. R. Gair, “Searching for anisotropic gravitational-wave backgrounds using pulsar timing arrays”,Physical Review D88no. 8, (Oct, 2013) ,arXiv:1306.5395

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  15. [15]

    The Local Nanohertz Gravitational-Wave Landscape From Supermassive Black Hole Binaries

    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, “The Local Nanohertz Gravitational-Wave Landscape From Supermassive Black Hole Binaries”,Nature Astron.1no. 12, (2017) 886–892,arXiv:1708.03491 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [16]

    Beyond the Background: Gravitational-wave Anisotropy and Continuous Waves from Supermassive Black Hole Binaries

    E. C. Gardiner, L. Z. Kelley, A.-M. Lemke, and A. Mitridate, “Beyond the Background: Gravitational-wave Anisotropy and Continuous Waves from Supermassive Black Hole Binaries”,ApJ Lett.965no. 2, (Apr., 2024) 164,arXiv:2309.07227 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Search for Anisotropy in the Gravitational-wave Background

    TheNANOGrav Collaboration, G. Agazieet al., “The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Search for Anisotropy in the Gravitational-wave Background”,Astrophys. J. Lett.956no. 1, (2023) L3, arXiv:2306.16221 [astro-ph.HE]. – 23 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    The MeerKAT Pulsar Timing Array: Maps of the gravitational wave sky with the 4.5-yr data release

    K. Grunthalet al., “The MeerKAT Pulsar Timing Array: Maps of the gravitational wave sky with the 4.5-yr data release”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society536no. 2, (Dec., 2024) 1501–1517

    2024

  19. [19]

    A Quasar-based Supermassive Black Hole Binary Population Model: Implications for the Gravitational Wave Background

    J. A. Casey-Clyde, C. M. F. Mingarelli, J. E. Greene, K. Pardo, M. Na˜ nez, and A. D. Goulding, “A Quasar-based Supermassive Black Hole Binary Population Model: Implications for the Gravitational Wave Background”,Astrophys. J.924no. 2, (2022) 93,arXiv:2107.11390 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Looking for Signs of Discreteness in the Gravitational-wave Background

    G. Agazieet al., “The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Looking for Signs of Discreteness in the Gravitational-wave Background”, (4, 2024) ,arXiv:2404.07020 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Targeted search for an individual SMBHB in NANOGrav 15-year and EPTA DR2 data sets

    L.-W. Tian, Y.-C. Bi, Y.-M. Wu, and Q.-G. Huang, “Targeted search for an individual SMBHB in NANOGrav 15-year and EPTA DR2 data sets”,arXiv:2508.14742 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv

  22. [22]

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

    TheNANOGrav Collaboration, N. Agarwalet al., “The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Targeted Searches for Supermassive Black Hole Binaries”,arXiv:2508.16534 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    Quasars Can Signpost Supermassive Black Hole Binaries

    J. A. Casey-Clyde, C. M. F. Mingarelli, J. E. Greene, A. D. Goulding, S. Chen, and J. R. Trump, “Quasars Can Signpost Supermassive Black Hole Binaries”,ApJ Lett.987no. 2, (July, 2025) 106, arXiv:2405.19406 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    CLASS GWB: robust modeling of the astrophysical gravitational wave background anisotropies

    N. Bellomo, D. Bertacca, A. C. Jenkins, S. Matarrese, A. Raccanelli, T. Regimbau, A. Ricciardone, and M. Sakellariadou, “CLASS GWB: robust modeling of the astrophysical gravitational wave background anisotropies”,JCAP06no. 06, (2022) 030,arXiv:2110.15059 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Cross-Correlating the Universe: The Gravitational Wave Background and Large-Scale Structure

    F. Semenzato, J. A. Casey-Clyde, C. M. F. Mingarelli, A. Raccanelli, N. Bellomo, N. Bartolo, and D. Bertacca, “Cross-Correlating the Universe: The Gravitational Wave Background and Large-Scale Structure”,arXiv:2411.00532 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    Discovering the Cosmic Evolution of Supermassive Black Holes using Nano-Hertz Gravitational Waves and Galaxy Surveys

    M. R. Sah and S. Mukherjee, “Discovering the Cosmic Evolution of Supermassive Black Holes using Nano-Hertz Gravitational Waves and Galaxy Surveys”, (7, 2024) ,arXiv:2407.11669 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Forecasting Pulsar Timing Array Sensitivity to Anisotropy in the Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background

    N. Pol, S. R. Taylor, and J. D. Romano, “Forecasting Pulsar Timing Array Sensitivity to Anisotropy in the Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background”,ApJ Lett.940no. 2, (Dec., 2022) 173, arXiv:2206.09936 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    The impact of cosmic variance on PTAs anisotropy searches

    T. Konstandin, A.-M. Lemke, A. Mitridate, and E. Perboni, “The impact of cosmic variance on PTAs anisotropy searches”,arXiv:2408.07741 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    Prospects and Limitations of PTAs Anisotropy Searches – The Frequentist Case

    T. Konstandin, A.-M. Lemke, A. Mitridate, and E. Perboni, “Prospects and Limitations of PTAs Anisotropy Searches – The Frequentist Case”, 2025.https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.07074

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Cosmic Variance in Anisotropy Searches at Pulsar Timing Arrays

    V. Domcke, G. Franciolini, and M. Pieroni, “Cosmic Variance in Anisotropy Searches at Pulsar Timing Arrays”,arXiv:2508.21131 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    Fisher formalism for anisotropic gravitational-wave background searches with pulsar timing arrays

    Y. Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, T. L. Smith, and C. M. F. Mingarelli, “Fisher formalism for anisotropic gravitational-wave background searches with pulsar timing arrays”,Phys. Rev. D102no. 12, (2020) 122005,arXiv:2006.14570 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    From Bright Binaries To Bumpy Backgrounds: Mapping Realistic Gravitational Wave Skies With Pulsar-Timing Arrays

    S. R. Taylor, R. van Haasteren, and A. Sesana, “From Bright Binaries To Bumpy Backgrounds: Mapping Realistic Gravitational Wave Skies With Pulsar-Timing Arrays”,Phys. Rev. D102no. 8, (2020) 084039,arXiv:2006.04810 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Benchmark parameters for CMB polarization experiments

    W. Hu, M. M. Hedman, and M. Zaldarriaga, “Benchmark parameters for CMB polarization experiments”,Physical Review D67no. 4, (Feb., 2003) ,arXiv:astro-ph/0210096

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  34. [34]

    A unified pseudo-Cℓframework

    D. Alonso, J. Sanchez, and A. Slosar, “A unified pseudo-Cℓframework”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society484no. 3, (Jan., 2019) 4127–4151,arXiv:1809.09603

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    Methods for CMB map analysis

    R. M. Sullivan, L. T. Hergt, and D. Scott, “Methods for CMB map analysis”,arXiv:2410.12951 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    R. W. Hockney and J. W. Eastwood,Computer Simulation Using Particles. 1981

    1981

  37. [37]

    Accurate estimators of correlation functions in Fourier space

    E. Sefusatti, M. Crocce, R. Scoccimarro, and H. M. P. Couchman, “Accurate estimators of correlation functions in Fourier space”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society460no. 4, (May, 2016) 3624–3636,arXiv:1512.07295. – 24 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  38. [38]

    nbodykit: An Open-source, Massively Parallel Toolkit for Large-scale Structure

    N. Hand, Y. Feng, F. Beutler, Y. Li, C. Modi, U. Seljak, and Z. Slepian, “nbodykit: An Open-source, Massively Parallel Toolkit for Large-scale Structure”,The Astronomical Journal156no. 4, (Sept.,

  39. [39]

    Proving the short-wavelength approximation in Pulsar Timing Array gravitational-wave background searches

    C. M. F. Mingarelli and A. B. Mingarelli, “Proving the short-wavelength approximation in Pulsar Timing Array gravitational-wave background searches”,Journal of Physics Communications2no. 10, (Oct., 2018) 105002,arXiv:1806.06979 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  40. [40]

    Upper limits on the isotropic gravitational radiation background from pulsar timing analysis

    R. W. Hellings and G. S. Downs, “Upper limits on the isotropic gravitational radiation background from pulsar timing analysis”,Astrophys. J. Lett.265(1983) L39–L42

    1983

  41. [41]

    Dissecting the nanoHz gravitational wave sky: frequency-correlated anisotropy induced by eccentric supermassive black hole binaries

    B. E. Moreschi, S. Valtolina, A. Sesana, G. Shaifullah, M. Falxa, L. Speri, D. Izquierdo-Villalba, and A. Chalumeau, “Dissecting the nanoHz gravitational wave sky: frequency-correlated anisotropy induced by eccentric supermassive black hole binaries”,arXiv:2506.14882 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    An Accurate Modeling of Nano-Hertz Gravitational Wave Signal from Eccentric Supermassive Binary Black Holes: Essential Step Towards a Robust Discovery

    M. R. Sah, A. Maurya, S. Mukherjee, P. Kumar, V. Saeedzadeh, A. Babul, C. K. Mishra, K. Paul, T. R. Quinn, and M. Tremmel, “An Accurate Modeling of Nano-Hertz Gravitational Wave Signal from Eccentric Supermassive Binary Black Holes: Essential Step Towards a Robust Discovery”, arXiv:2505.22745 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  43. [43]

    Insights into searches for anisotropies in the nanohertz gravitational-wave background

    Y. Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, T. L. Smith, and C. M. F. Mingarelli, “Insights into searches for anisotropies in the nanohertz gravitational-wave background”,Phys. Rev. D103no. 4, (2021) 042009,arXiv:2010.13958 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    Detection methods for stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds: a unified treatment

    J. D. Romano and N. J. Cornish, “Detection methods for stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds: a unified treatment”,Living Reviews in Relativity20no. 1, (Apr., 2017) ,arXiv:1608.06889

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [45]

    The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Detector Characterization and Noise Budget

    TheNANOGrav Collaboration, G. Agazieet al., “The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Detector Characterization and Noise Budget”,Astrophys. J. Lett.951no. 1, (2023) L10,arXiv:2306.16218 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    Beware of commonly used approximations. Part II. Estimating systematic biases in the best-fit parameters

    J. L. Bernal, N. Bellomo, A. Raccanelli, and L. Verde, “Beware of commonly used approximations. Part II. Estimating systematic biases in the best-fit parameters”,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020no. 10, (Oct., 2020) 017–017,arXiv:2005.09666. – 25 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  47. [2018]

    160,arXiv:1712.05834

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [2024]

    1489–1500,arXiv:2412.00153

    Pith/arXiv arXiv