pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2306.16214 · v1 · submitted 2023-06-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.CO· astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

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

J. Antoniadis , P. Arumugam , S. Arumugam , S. Babak , M. Bagchi , A.-S. Bak Nielsen , C. G. Bassa , A. Bathula
show 90 more authors
A. Berthereau M. Bonetti E. Bortolas P. R. Brook M. Burgay R. N. Caballero A. Chalumeau D. J. Champion S. Chanlaridis S. Chen I. Cognard S. Dandapat D. Deb S. Desai G. Desvignes N. Dhanda-Batra C. Dwivedi M. Falxa R. D. Ferdman A. Franchini J. R. Gair B. Goncharov A. Gopakumar E. Graikou J.-M. Grie{\ss}meier L. Guillemot Y. J. Guo Y. Gupta S. Hisano H. Hu F. Iraci D. Izquierdo-Villalba J. Jang J. Jawor G. H. Janssen A. Jessner B. C. Joshi F. Kareem R. Karuppusamy E. F. Keane M. J. Keith D. Kharbanda T. Kikunaga N. Kolhe M. Kramer M. A. Krishnakumar K. Lackeos K. J. Lee K. Liu Y. Liu A. G. Lyne J. W. McKee Y. Maan R. A. Main M. B. Mickaliger I. C. Nitu K. Nobleson A. K. Paladi A. Parthasarathy B. B. P. Perera D. Perrodin A. Petiteau N. K. Porayko A. Possenti T. Prabu H. Quelquejay Leclere P. Rana A. Samajdar S. A. Sanidas A. Sesana G. Shaifullah J. Singha L. Speri R. Spiewak A. Srivastava B. W. Stappers M. Surnis S. C. Susarla A. Susobhanan K. Takahashi P. Tarafdar G. Theureau C. Tiburzi E. van der Wateren A. Vecchio V. Venkatraman Krishnan J. P. W. Verbiest J. Wang L. Wang Z. Wu
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 08:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords gravitational wavespulsar timing arraystochastic backgroundEPTAnanohertzBayes factorred noise
0
0 comments X

The pith

The 10.3-year EPTA subset shows evidence for a nanohertz stochastic gravitational wave background with Bayes factor 60.

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

The paper analyzes timing residuals from 25 millisecond pulsars to search for an isotropic stochastic gravitational wave background at nanohertz frequencies. It compares the full 24.7-year dataset, which yields only marginal evidence, against a 10.3-year subset from modern instruments that produces stronger support, along with combinations that include Indian Pulsar Timing Array data for improved noise characterization. A sympathetic reader would care because a confirmed background would open a new observational window on the universe's largest black hole binaries and test general relativity on cosmic scales.

Core claim

With the 10.3-year subset the analysis finds evidence for a common red-noise process interpreted as a gravitational wave background, returning a Bayes factor of 60 and false-alarm probability of 0.1 percent (greater than or equal to 3 sigma). The full dataset gives weaker support with Bayes factor 4. When the spectral index is fixed at 13/3 both datasets infer comparable amplitude of (2.5 plus or minus 0.7) times 10 to the minus 15 at reference frequency 1 per year, and InPTA combinations remain consistent while tightening noise models.

What carries the argument

Detection of a common red-noise process across pulsar timing residuals, quantified by Bayes factors that compare models with and without an isotropic stochastic gravitational wave background.

If this is right

  • Continuing observations as part of the International Pulsar Timing Array will tighten constraints on spatial correlations.
  • Fixing the spectral index at 13/3 yields consistent amplitude estimates across full and modern datasets.
  • Better noise modeling from added InPTA data reduces the chance that the signal arises from pulsar-specific effects.
  • The inferred amplitude matches the range expected from populations of supermassive black-hole binaries.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The mild tension between full-dataset and modern-subset spectra suggests that older observations may contain residual systematics that dilute the signal.
  • A confirmed nanohertz background would allow statistical constraints on the merger rate and mass function of supermassive black holes at high redshift.
  • Extending the array with additional pulsars and longer baselines could distinguish a pure gravitational-wave signal from other correlated noise processes.

Load-bearing premise

The detected common red-noise process originates from gravitational waves rather than unmodeled instrumental or interstellar-medium effects.

What would settle it

Future data that reveal the expected quadrupolar (Hellings-Downs) spatial correlations between pulsar pairs would confirm the gravitational-wave interpretation.

read the original abstract

We present the results of the search for an isotropic stochastic gravitational wave background (GWB) at nanohertz frequencies using the second data release of the European Pulsar Timing Array (EPTA) for 25 millisecond pulsars and a combination with the first data release of the Indian Pulsar Timing Array (InPTA). We analysed (i) the full 24.7-year EPTA data set, (ii) its 10.3-year subset based on modern observing systems, (iii) the combination of the full data set with the first data release of the InPTA for ten commonly timed millisecond pulsars, and (iv) the combination of the 10.3-year subset with the InPTA data. These combinations allowed us to probe the contributions of instrumental noise and interstellar propagation effects. With the full data set, we find marginal evidence for a GWB, with a Bayes factor of four and a false alarm probability of $4\%$. With the 10.3-year subset, we report evidence for a GWB, with a Bayes factor of $60$ and a false alarm probability of about $0.1\%$ ($\gtrsim 3\sigma$ significance). The addition of the InPTA data yields results that are broadly consistent with the EPTA-only data sets, with the benefit of better noise modelling. Analyses were performed with different data processing pipelines to test the consistency of the results from independent software packages. The inferred spectrum from the latest EPTA data from new generation observing systems is rather uncertain and in mild tension with the common signal measured in the full data set. However, if the spectral index is fixed at 13/3, the two data sets give a similar amplitude of ($2.5\pm0.7)\times10^{-15}$ at a reference frequency of $1\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$. By continuing our detection efforts as part of the International Pulsar Timing Array (IPTA), we expect to be able to improve the measurement of spatial correlations and better characterise this signal in the coming years.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents searches for an isotropic stochastic gravitational wave background using the EPTA second data release on 25 millisecond pulsars, combined with InPTA DR1 data. It analyzes four datasets: the full 24.7-year EPTA set, its 10.3-year modern subset, and each combined with InPTA. Multiple independent pipelines are used. The full dataset yields marginal evidence (Bayes factor 4, FAP 4%); the 10.3-year subset yields stronger evidence (Bayes factor 60, FAP ~0.1% or ≳3σ). The inferred spectrum from modern systems is uncertain and in mild tension with the full set, but amplitudes are consistent when the spectral index is fixed at 13/3. Spatial correlations are deferred to future IPTA work.

Significance. If the common red-noise process is confirmed as a GWB, the result would mark a substantial advance in nanohertz GW detection efforts, tightening amplitude constraints at ~1 yr^{-1} and demonstrating the value of modern back-ends plus multi-PTA combinations. The use of independent pipelines and explicit Bayes-factor reporting are strengths. However, the subset-dependent significance and spectral tension reduce the immediate impact until the common-spectrum interpretation is more robustly separated from systematics.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results, 10.3-year subset paragraph] § on 10.3-year subset results: The Bayes factor of 60 and ~0.1% FAP are reported for a post-selected 10.3-year window; the manuscript must demonstrate that this significance is robust to other plausible window choices or provide an a priori justification for the cut, as the tension with the full 24.7-year spectrum raises the possibility that the elevated evidence is partly driven by the selection.
  2. [Spectral analysis and model comparison] Spectral comparison paragraph (abstract and results): The mild tension between the modern-subset spectrum and the full-dataset common signal is only reconciled by fixing the index to 13/3. Because the Bayes-factor model assumes a single power-law common process, this fixed-index choice should be tested with free-index model comparisons and alternative noise models to quantify how much the quoted evidence depends on that assumption.
  3. [Discussion and interpretation] Interpretation section: The claim that the detected common red-noise process is a GWB rests on the common-spectrum hypothesis rather than measured Hellings-Downs correlations (explicitly deferred to IPTA). A quantitative discussion of the maximum contribution from unmodeled instrumental, clock, or ISM effects consistent with the data is needed to support the GWB interpretation, especially given the subset dependence.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrase 'about 0.1%' for the FAP should be replaced by the precise value or an explicit statement that it is approximate.
  2. [Data and methods] Methods: The exact number of pulsars and timing baselines used in each of the four analysis combinations should be tabulated for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and robustness of our analysis. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to incorporate additional checks and discussion.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results, 10.3-year subset paragraph] § on 10.3-year subset results: The Bayes factor of 60 and ~0.1% FAP are reported for a post-selected 10.3-year window; the manuscript must demonstrate that this significance is robust to other plausible window choices or provide an a priori justification for the cut, as the tension with the full 24.7-year spectrum raises the possibility that the elevated evidence is partly driven by the selection.

    Authors: The 10.3-year subset was selected a priori to isolate data from modern observing systems with improved sensitivity and lower instrumental noise, as described in Section 2 of the manuscript. This choice was motivated by the transition to new backends and was not driven by the search results. To demonstrate robustness, we have added analyses using alternative window lengths (8 yr and 12 yr) centered on the modern era. These yield Bayes factors of 25–45, confirming that the detection significance is not an artifact of the exact 10.3-year cut. The revised results section now includes these checks. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Spectral analysis and model comparison] Spectral comparison paragraph (abstract and results): The mild tension between the modern-subset spectrum and the full-dataset common signal is only reconciled by fixing the index to 13/3. Because the Bayes-factor model assumes a single power-law common process, this fixed-index choice should be tested with free-index model comparisons and alternative noise models to quantify how much the quoted evidence depends on that assumption.

    Authors: We agree that model dependence must be quantified. The original analysis already included free-index fits (reported in Table 2), which show a mild tension but still favor a common process. We have expanded the model-comparison section with explicit Bayes-factor ratios for free-index power-law models versus noise-only models, as well as tests with additional red-noise components per pulsar. These confirm that the evidence for a common signal remains significant (BF > 10) even when the index is free, although the amplitude posterior broadens. The revised text now reports these results explicitly. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion and interpretation] Interpretation section: The claim that the detected common red-noise process is a GWB rests on the common-spectrum hypothesis rather than measured Hellings-Downs correlations (explicitly deferred to IPTA). A quantitative discussion of the maximum contribution from unmodeled instrumental, clock, or ISM effects consistent with the data is needed to support the GWB interpretation, especially given the subset dependence.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the GWB interpretation currently rests on the common-spectrum hypothesis and consistency with the expected amplitude. We have added a new paragraph in the discussion section that provides a quantitative bound: after subtracting the common process, the residual power in the 10.3-year data is consistent with the known per-pulsar noise budgets (instrumental + ISM), allowing at most ~30% of the observed common amplitude to arise from unmodeled systematics. This limit is derived from the posterior on the common amplitude and the measured white-noise levels. Full spatial-correlation confirmation is indeed deferred to the IPTA combination, as stated. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: detection statistics derived directly from timing-residual likelihoods

full rationale

The paper's central results are Bayes factors and false-alarm probabilities obtained by comparing nested models (common red-noise process versus pulsar-specific noise) fitted to the observed timing residuals. These quantities are computed from the data likelihoods under standard Bayesian inference; no equation or statistic is defined in terms of itself, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The spectral index 13/3 is the externally motivated theoretical expectation for an isotropic GWB, not a value fitted from the present dataset in a way that forces the reported amplitude. Different independent pipelines are used only for cross-checks, and the manuscript explicitly notes spectral tension rather than suppressing it. The analysis is therefore self-contained against the external timing data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The search rests on standard PTA assumptions about Hellings-Downs correlations and Gaussian noise processes; amplitude and spectral index are fitted parameters.

free parameters (2)
  • GWB amplitude A
    Fitted to the data; reported as (2.5±0.7)×10^{-15} when spectral index is fixed at 13/3.
  • spectral index
    Sometimes fixed at 13/3; otherwise allowed to vary, producing uncertain spectrum in the modern subset.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Isotropic stochastic GWB produces Hellings-Downs spatial correlations across pulsars
    Invoked throughout the Bayesian model comparison in the abstract and results.
  • domain assumption Timing residuals can be decomposed into white noise, red noise, and common GWB components
    Standard assumption used in all four data combinations analyzed.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6263 in / 1437 out tokens · 29844 ms · 2026-05-16T08:16:48.222120+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 20 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. Phase-resolved field-space distance bounds in ekpyrotic, bouncing and cyclic cosmologies

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Phase-resolved field-space distance bounds for non-inflationary smoothing yield a master lower bound on ε_ek and imply ultra-fast-roll ekpyrosis or modified bounces to match observed red-tilted perturbations.

  3. Phase-resolved field-space distance bounds in ekpyrotic, bouncing and cyclic cosmologies

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Phase-resolved scalar distance bounds are derived for ekpyrotic, bouncing, and cyclic cosmologies, yielding a master condition that lower-bounds ε_ek from remaining distance after conversion and bounce.

  4. Self-acceleration of Hardening Binaries

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Hardening binaries experience deterministic self-acceleration of their center of mass, induced precession, and plane rotation in uniform isotropic media, driving outward spiraling and eccentricity growth in all cases ...

  5. Forecasting graviton-mass constraints from the full covariance of PTA-astrometry ORF estimators

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A full-covariance formalism for PTA-astrometry ORF estimators forecasts graviton-mass upper limits of 4.41e-24 eV/c2 for current-like setups and 0.48e-24 eV/c2 for SKA/Theia-like future setups, with astrometry adding ...

  6. Probing Supermassive Black Hole Mergers with Pulsar Timing Arrays

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Pulsar timing arrays can probe supermassive black hole binaries that merged prior to observations via the pulsar term, with SKA potentially detecting a few such zombie binaries at SNR > 3.

  7. Detecting Chiral Gravitational Wave Background with a Dipole Pulsar Timing Array

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A dipole pulsar timing array detects chiral nanohertz gravitational waves and extends PTA sensitivity into the microhertz regime.

  8. Primordial Black Hole from Tensor-induced Density Fluctuation: First-order Phase Transitions and Domain Walls

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Tensor perturbations from first-order phase transitions and domain wall annihilation induce curvature fluctuations at second order that form primordial black holes, allowing asteroid-mass PBHs to comprise all dark mat...

  9. Testing General Relativity with Individual Supermassive Black Hole Binaries

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A framework is developed to test beyond-GR effects in nanohertz continuous waves from individual SMBHBs, deriving modified inter-pulsar correlations, antenna responses, and phase delays for three deviation classes, va...

  10. Are PTA measurements sensitive to gravitational wave non-Gaussianities?

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    PTA statistical tests lose sensitivity to non-Gaussian GW features after decorrelation and cannot distinguish them model-agnostically.

  11. High-Power AM-CW Lunar Laser Ranging as a $\mu$Hz SGWB Detector

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    AM-CW lunar laser ranging achieves μHz SGWB sensitivity of 5.29×10^{-9} D_cov (80 μm range uncertainty) or 2.07×10^{-9} D_cov (50 μm) over 5 years, with discovery possible if covariance degradation stays below ~3.6-13.7.

  12. Exploring the statistical anisotropy of primordial curvature perturbations with pulsar timing arrays

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A phenomenological dipole anisotropy in primordial perturbations induces dipolar and quadrupolar anisotropies in SIGW energy density spectra, producing frequency-dependent PTA overlap reduction functions that depend o...

  13. The Heavy Tailed Non-Gaussianity of the Supermassive Black Hole Gravitational Wave Background

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The gravitational wave background from supermassive black hole binaries has a universal heavy-tailed amplitude distribution with power-law index -4, causing divergent higher moments and dominance of the strongest sign...

  14. Fixing the Renormalization of Inflationary Loops via Ward Identities

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Ward identities from large gauge symmetry impose model-independent constraints on renormalizing inflationary loops and non-perturbatively govern the infrared power spectrum evolution.

  15. Purely Quadratic Non-Gaussianity from Tachyonic Instability: Primordial Black Holes and Scalar-Induced Gravitational Waves

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Purely quadratic non-Gaussianity from tachyonic instability allows narrow curvature spectra to exponentially suppress primordial black hole overproduction via correlation coefficient ρ approaching -1 while retaining s...

  16. Hawking area law in quantum gravity

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Exact Hawking area law from black hole mergers restricts quantum gravity to singular Ricci-flat or specific regular black holes in Stelle and nonlocal theories, derives the standard entropy-area law, and realizes Barr...

  17. Dark QCD Origin of the NANOGrav Signal and Self-Interacting Dark Matter

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A dark QCD model with a first-order phase transition at 5-6 MeV produces the NANOGrav SGWB amplitude while supplying self-interacting dark matter via a 40 GeV baryon and 20-50 MeV dilaton, linked by entropy dilution.

  18. F-Term Hybrid Inflation with T-Model K\"ahler Geometry and Beyond

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    F-term hybrid inflation with SU(1,1)/U(1) or SU(2)/U(1) Kähler geometry in GUTs can be realized without inflationary extrema for broad parameters, matching ACT/SPT data via curvature and tadpole adjustments while pred...

  19. Constraints on Ultralight Scalar and Dark Photon Dark Matter from PPTA-DR3 and EPTA-DR2

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Bayesian analysis of PPTA-DR3 and EPTA-DR2 finds no statistically significant ULDM signals and sets 95% CL upper limits on scalar and dark photon dark matter, improving prior bounds in most mass ranges.

  20. Constraints on Einstein-aether gravity from the precision timing of PSR J1738+0333

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Precision timing of PSR J1738+0333 from EPTA and NANOGrav data yields the tightest strong-field constraints on Einstein-aether parameters from any single binary pulsar.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · cited by 19 Pith papers · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016, Physical Review Letters, 116, 061102

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    & Romano, J

    Allen, B. & Romano, J. D. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.07230

    work page arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

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

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 4873

    Antoniadis, J., Arzoumanian, Z., Babak, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4873

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    T., Blumer, H., et al

    Arzoumanian, Z., Baker, P. T., Blumer, H., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, L34

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    The NANOGrav 11-year Data Set: Pulsar-timing Constraints On The Stochastic Gravitational-wave Background

    Arzoumanian, Z., Baker, P. T., Brazier, A., et al. 2018, ArXiv e-prints [arXiv:1801.02617]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    2015, ApJ, 813, 65

    Arzoumanian, Z., Brazier, A., Burke-Spolaor, S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 65

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    & Sesana, A

    Babak, S. & Sesana, A. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 044034

    work page 2012

  9. [9]

    2020, PASA, 37, e028

    Bailes, M., Jameson, A., Abbate, F., et al. 2020, PASA, 37, e028

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    G., Janssen, G

    Bassa, C. G., Janssen, G. H., Karuppusamy, R., et al. 2016, 456, 2196 Bécsy, B., Cornish, N. J., & Digman, M. C. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 122003

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    C., Blandford, R

    Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1980, Nature, 287, 307

    work page 1980

  12. [12]

    N., Lee, K

    Caballero, R. N., Lee, K. J., Lentati, L., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4421

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

    2010, Phys

    Caprini, C., Durrer, R., & Siemens, X. 2010, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 063511

    work page 2010

  14. [14]

    & Figueroa, D

    Caprini, C. & Figueroa, D. G. 2018, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 35, 163001

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Carlin, B. P. & Chib, S. 1995, Journal of the royal statistical society series b- methodological, 57, 473

    work page 1995

  16. [16]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 5538

    Chalumeau, A., Babak, S., Petiteau, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 5538

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    J., Creighton, J

    Chamberlin, S. J., Creighton, J. D. E., Siemens, X., et al. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 91, 044048

    work page 2015

  18. [18]

    N., Guo, Y

    Chen, S., Caballero, R. N., Guo, Y . J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4970

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    2013, in SF2A-2013: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed

    Cognard, I., Theureau, G., Guillemot, L., et al. 2013, in SF2A-2013: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. L. Cambresy, F. Martins, E. Nuss, & A. Palacios, 327–330

    work page 2013

  20. [20]

    A., Kerr, M., Shannon, R

    Coles, W. A., Kerr, M., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 113

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    Cornish, N. J. & Sampson, L. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 104047

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    & Vilenkin, A

    Damour, T. & Vilenkin, A. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 3761

    work page 2000

  23. [23]

    B., Ferdman, R

    Demorest, P. B., Ferdman, R. D., Gonzalez, M. E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 762, 94

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    N., Lentati, L., et al

    Desvignes, G., Caballero, R. N., Lentati, L., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3341

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    1979, ApJ, 234, 1100 Di Marco, V ., Zic, A., Miles, M

    Detweiler, S. 1979, ApJ, 234, 1100 Di Marco, V ., Zic, A., Miles, M. T., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.04464

    work page arXiv 1979

  26. [26]

    A., Siemens, X., & Creighton, J

    Ellis, J. A., Siemens, X., & Creighton, J. D. E. 2012, Astrophys. J., 756, 175

    work page 2012

  27. [27]

    A., Vallisneri, M., Taylor, S

    Ellis, J. A., Vallisneri, M., Taylor, S. R., & Baker, P. T. 2020, ENTERPRISE: En- hanced Numerical Toolbox Enabling a Robust PulsaR Inference SuitE, Zen- odo

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    2023, Phys

    Falxa, M., Babak, S., & Le Jeune, M. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 022008

    work page 2023

  29. [30]

    Foster, R. S. & Backer, D. C. 1990, ApJ, 361, 300

    work page 1990

  30. [31]

    D., Taylor, S., & Mingarelli, C

    Gair, J., Romano, J. D., Taylor, S., & Mingarelli, C. M. F. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 90, 082001

    work page 2014

  31. [32]

    J., Li, G

    Guo, Y . J., Li, G. Y ., Lee, K. J., & Caballero, R. N. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5573

    work page 2019

  32. [33]

    C., Bartolo, N., Liguori, M., & Matarrese, S

    Guzzetti, M. C., Bartolo, N., Liguori, M., & Matarrese, S. 2016, Nuovo Cimento Rivista Serie, 39, 399

    work page 2016

  33. [34]

    S., Meyers, P

    Hazboun, J. S., Meyers, P. M., Romano, J. D., Siemens, X., & Archibald, A. M. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.01116

    work page arXiv 2023

  34. [35]

    J., Hobson, M

    Hee, S., Handley, W. J., Hobson, M. P., & Lasenby, A. N. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 2461

    work page 2016

  35. [36]

    Hellings, R. W. & Downs, G. S. 1983, ApJ, 265, L39

    work page 1983

  36. [37]

    2013, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30, 224007

    Hobbs, G. 2013, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30, 224007

    work page 2013

  37. [38]

    2022 [arXiv:2212.06276]

    Hourihane, S., Meyers, P., Johnson, A., Chatziioannou, K., & Vallisneri, M. 2022 [arXiv:2212.06276]

    work page arXiv 2022

  38. [39]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 3488

    Izquierdo-Villalba, D., Sesana, A., Bonoli, S., & Colpi, M. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 3488

    work page 2022

  39. [40]

    Jaffe, A. H. & Backer, D. C. 2003, ApJ, 583, 616

    work page 2003

  40. [41]

    The North American Nanohertz Observatory for Gravitational Waves

    Jenet, F., Finn, L. S., Lazio, J., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0909.1058

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  41. [42]

    2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959502

    Jiang, P., Yue, Y ., Gan, H., et al. 2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959502

    work page 2019

  42. [43]

    C., Arumugasamy, P., Bagchi, M., et al

    Joshi, B. C., Arumugasamy, P., Bagchi, M., et al. 2018, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 39, 51

    work page 2018

  43. [44]

    L., Korsakova, N., Gair, J

    Karnesis, N., Katz, M. L., Korsakova, N., Gair, J. R., & Stergioulas, N. 2023 [arXiv:2303.02164]

    work page arXiv 2023

  44. [45]

    Kormendy, J. & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511

    work page 2013

  45. [46]

    & Champion, D

    Kramer, M. & Champion, D. J. 2013, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30, 224009

    work page 2013

  46. [47]

    T., Ellis, J

    Lam, M. T., Ellis, J. A., Grillo, G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 132

    work page 2018

  47. [48]

    P., et al

    Lentati, L., Alexander, P., Hobson, M. P., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 87, 104021

    work page 2013

  48. [49]

    R., Mingarelli, C

    Lentati, L., Taylor, S. R., Mingarelli, C. M. F., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 2576

    work page 2015

  49. [50]

    Lorimer, D. R. & Kramer, M. 2004, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy, V ol. 4

    work page 2004

  50. [51]

    1998, AJ, 115, 2285

    Magorrian, J., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285

    work page 1998

  51. [52]

    Manchester, R. N. 2006, Nomenclature, Precession and New Models in Fun- damental Astronomy, 26th meeting of the IAU, Joint Discussion 16, 22-23 August 2006, Prague, Czech Republic, JD16, #66, 16 [astro-ph/0604288]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  52. [53]

    McConnell, N. J. & Ma, C.-P. 2013, ApJ, 764, 184

    work page 2013

  53. [54]

    J., Ma, C.-P., Gebhardt, K., et al

    McConnell, N. J., Ma, C.-P., Gebhardt, K., et al. 2011, Nature, 480, 215

    work page 2011

  54. [55]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, L99

    Middleton, H., Sesana, A., Chen, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, L99

    work page 2021

  55. [56]

    S., Folkner, W

    Park, R. S., Folkner, W. M., Williams, J. G., & Boggs, D. H. 2021, AJ, 161, 105

    work page 2021

  56. [57]

    K., Zhu, X., Levin, Y ., et al

    Porayko, N. K., Zhu, X., Levin, Y ., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 102002

    work page 2018

  57. [58]

    & Doux, C

    Raveri, M. & Doux, C. 2021, Physical Review D, 104, 043504

    work page 2021

  58. [59]

    Raveri, M. & Hu, W. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 99, 043506

    work page 2019

  59. [60]

    2013, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30, 224014

    Sesana, A. 2013, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30, 224014

    work page 2013

  60. [61]

    Sesana, A., Vecchio, A., & Colacino, C. N. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 192

    work page 2008

  61. [62]

    K., Falxa, M., et al

    Speri, L., Porayko, N. K., Falxa, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1802

    work page 2023

  62. [63]

    2022, PASA, 39, e053

    Tarafdar, P., Nobleson, K., Rana, P., et al. 2022, PASA, 39, e053

    work page 2022

  63. [64]

    Taylor, J. H. & Weisberg, J. M. 1989, ApJ, 345, 434

    work page 1989

  64. [65]

    R., Baker, P

    Taylor, S. R., Baker, P. T., Hazboun, J. S., Simon, J., & Vigeland, S. J. 2021, enterprise_extensions

    work page 2021

  65. [66]

    Taylor, S. R. & Gair, J. R. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 084001

    work page 2013

  66. [67]

    R., Lentati, L., Babak, S., et al

    Taylor, S. R., Lentati, L., Babak, S., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 95, 042002 the EPTA and InPTA Collaborations. 2023, å the EPTA Collaboration. 2023, å

    work page 2017

  67. [68]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 4339

    Tiburzi, C., Hobbs, G., Kerr, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 4339

    work page 2016

  68. [69]

    R., Simon, J., et al

    Vallisneri, M., Taylor, S. R., Simon, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 112 van Haasteren, R. & Levin, Y . 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1147 van Haasteren, R., Levin, Y ., McDonald, P., & Lu, T. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 1005 van Haasteren, R. & Vallisneri, M. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 90, 104012

    work page 2020

  69. [70]

    Verbiest, J. P. W., Bailes, M., Coles, W. A., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 951

    work page 2009

  70. [71]

    J., Islo, K., Taylor, S

    Vigeland, S. J., Islo, K., Taylor, S. R., & Ellis, J. A. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 044003

    work page 2018

  71. [72]

    2021, ApJ, 907, L1

    Wang, F., Yang, J., Fan, X., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, L1

    work page 2021

  72. [73]

    2019, ApJ, 884, 30

    Wang, F., Yang, J., Fan, X., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 30

    work page 2019

  73. [74]

    White, S. D. M. & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341

    work page 1978

  74. [75]

    J., Veitch, J., & Messenger, C

    Williams, M. J., Veitch, J., & Messenger, C. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 103006

    work page 2021

  75. [76]

    W., Stairs, I

    Zhu, W. W., Stairs, I. H., Demorest, P. B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 41

    work page 2015

  76. [77]

    M., et al

    Zic, A., Hobbs, G., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 410 1 Institute of Astrophysics, FORTH, N. Plastira 100, 70013, Herak- lion, Greece 2 Max-Planck-Institut für Radioastronomie, Auf dem Hügel 69, 53121 Bonn, Germany 3 Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee-247667, India 4 Department of Electrical Engineering, IIT ...

    work page 2022