arxiv: 2603.28897 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: no theorem link

From Detection to Host Galaxy Identification: Precision Continuous Gravitational Wave Localization with a Few Anchor Pulsars

Chao-Fan Wen , Yi-Qin Chen , Shi-Yi Zhao , Hao Ding , Xingjiang Zhu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 01:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA

keywords pulsar timing arrayscontinuous gravitational wavessky localizationanchor pulsarsdistance precisionsupermassive black hole binarieshost galaxy identification

0 comments

The pith

Sub-wavelength precision on just six anchor pulsars suffices to phase-lock a pulsar timing array and shrink continuous gravitational wave sky localizations to 0.1-9.2 square degrees.

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

The paper demonstrates that full-array sub-wavelength distance precision is unnecessary for precise localization of continuous gravitational waves in pulsar timing arrays. Instead, selecting a small number of stable pulsars as anchors and achieving high astrometric accuracy on them allows coherent combination of pulsar terms across the array. Simulations with 20 years of data show that six such anchors in a 25-pulsar array achieve 90% credible areas between 0.1 and 9.2 deg² at signal-to-noise ratio of 20, across various source directions. This focused approach reduces the observational burden and enables efficient host galaxy identification for supermassive black hole binaries.

Core claim

Achieving sub-wavelength precision for a few anchor pulsars is sufficient to phase-lock the array and drastically shrink the sky-localization error for continuous gravitational wave sources. In a 25-pulsar array with six high-precision anchors, the 90% credible localization areas range from approximately 0.1 to 9.2 deg² at a signal-to-noise ratio of 20, with diminishing returns from further distance improvements once the threshold is crossed.

What carries the argument

Anchor pulsars with sub-wavelength distance uncertainties that enable phase-locking of the pulsar timing array for coherent use of the pulsar term in gravitational wave signal modeling.

If this is right

Introducing three sub-wavelength anchors reduces the 90% credible sky area by a factor of 30 in certain directions.
Expanding to six anchor pulsars ensures high-precision localizations across diverse source directions including galaxy clusters.
Once anchors cross the sub-wavelength threshold, additional reductions in distance uncertainty provide only diminishing returns.
The strategy allows prioritizing intensive parallax campaigns on a small core of stable millisecond pulsars for cost-effective precision astronomy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

This could enable quicker follow-up observations to identify host galaxies within the localized regions.
Array design might shift focus toward maintaining high-precision distance measurements for a core subset rather than all pulsars.
Similar anchor concepts could apply to other interferometric or timing-based detection systems where full calibration is resource-intensive.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations assume that distance uncertainties for the chosen anchor pulsars can be reduced below the gravitational wavelength while the remaining pulsars retain only standard timing precision.

What would settle it

An actual detection of a continuous gravitational wave source at signal-to-noise ratio 20 showing a 90% credible sky area larger than 9.2 deg² when using only six sub-wavelength anchor pulsars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.28897 by Chao-Fan Wen, Hao Ding, Shi-Yi Zhao, Xingjiang Zhu, Yi-Qin Chen.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Dependence of sky localization precision on the ratio between pulsar distance uncertainty and the gravitational wavelength. The 68% credible intervals of RA and Dec (upper and middle panel) are shown for the 25-pulsar Standard search and for the subwavelength searches with three and six high-precision pulsars (25–3 and 25–6). The 90% and 50% credible level 2-D localization error is shown in the lower pane… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: For different PTA configurations, we show the 90% credibility sky localization regions at S/N = 20 for our reference CGW signal described in the main text. The source is injected at the place marked by a red cross (labeled as “Max”). Also marked in this sky map are 25 pulsars, 5 galaxy clusters, and the sky location of minimum detection sensitivity (labeled “Min”). 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Credible level 10… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Sky localization capabilities of different PTA configurations for an injected CGW at the reference sky location and S/N = 20 (see the main text and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Posterior distributions of the key signal parameters obtained from the Bayesian search for three simulated signals. All injections share the same sky location as the reference case used in the main text and have a signal-to-noise ratio of S/N = 20. The blue, red, and orange curves correspond to signals with different chirp mass or GW frequency. xxxxxx-7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Pulsar Timing Arrays (PTAs) are rapidly advancing toward the detection of continuous gravitational waves from individual supermassive binary black holes. While it is well established that coherently utilizing the ``pulsar term" requires astrometric distance uncertainties to be smaller than the gravitational wavelength, achieving this precision across an entire array is observationally prohibitive. Here, we demonstrate that achieving sub-wavelength precision for a few ``anchor" pulsars is sufficient to phase-lock the array and drastically shrink the sky-localization error. Using 20 years of realistically simulated data, we systematically evaluate the localization performance of a 25-pulsar array containing three to six high-precision anchors. We show that while introducing three sub-wavelength anchors can reduce the 90\% credible sky area by a factor of 30 in certain directions, expanding this high-precision subset to six anchor pulsars ensures high-precision localizations across diverse source directions. Evaluating a representative set of sky directions, including local galaxy clusters and the locations of maximum and minimum array sensitivity, this six-anchor configuration yields 90\% credible localization areas ranging from $\sim 0.1$ to $9.2 \text{ deg}^2$ at a signal-to-noise ratio of 20. Furthermore, once this minimal subset crosses the sub-wavelength threshold, further reductions in distance uncertainty yield diminishing returns. This establishes a highly efficient near-term observational strategy: prioritizing intensive parallax campaigns for a small core of stable millisecond pulsars provides a cost-effective pathway to precision multi-messenger astronomy.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Simulations show three to six anchors with sub-wavelength distances can cut CW localization areas by ~30x, but the paper assumes rather than demonstrates that those distances are reachable.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that the authors use 20-year simulations of a 25-pulsar array to show that you only need sub-wavelength distance precision on a small subset of three to six anchors to phase-lock the whole thing and shrink sky areas by a factor of 30 in favorable directions. With six anchors they get 90% credible regions from 0.1 to 9.2 deg² at SNR 20 across tested sky positions, including galaxy clusters, and they note that extra precision beyond the threshold buys little more.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that in pulsar timing arrays for continuous gravitational waves, sub-wavelength distance precision for only 3-6 'anchor' pulsars suffices to phase-lock the array and reduce sky localization errors by a factor of ~30. Using 20 years of simulated data on a 25-pulsar array, the six-anchor case yields 90% credible areas from ~0.1 to 9.2 deg² at SNR=20 across tested directions (including galaxy clusters and sensitivity extrema), with diminishing returns beyond the threshold; this is positioned as a cost-effective near-term strategy via targeted parallax campaigns.

Significance. If the simulation assumptions hold, the work identifies a practical observational shortcut that avoids the prohibitive cost of high-precision distances for the full array, thereby accelerating multi-messenger follow-up of individual SMBBH sources. Systematic testing over diverse sky directions and explicit demonstration of diminishing returns constitute clear strengths.

major comments (2)

[Simulation methods] Simulation methods (anchor distance modeling): The factor-of-30 improvement and reported deg² areas are obtained only under the assumption that distance uncertainties for the chosen 3-6 anchors fall below the gravitational wavelength while the remaining pulsars retain standard timing precision. The manuscript treats this threshold as an input without demonstrating or citing evidence that it is reachable for the specific selected pulsars via VLBI or timing parallax, which is load-bearing for the 'near-term strategy' conclusion.
[Results] Results (six-anchor configuration): The localization areas (0.1–9.2 deg²) and robustness across directions rest on forward simulations whose exact noise models, data-exclusion criteria, and anchor-selection procedure are not fully specified; without these, the quantitative claims cannot be independently verified and the cross-direction generalization is difficult to assess.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The phrase 'sub-wavelength precision' should be accompanied by the explicit numerical threshold (in terms of GW wavelength) used in the simulations.
[Figures] Figure captions: Ensure every panel explicitly states the number of anchors, the exact sky direction, and the SNR value for immediate readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and positive assessment of the work's significance. We address the two major comments point by point below. Where the comments identify gaps in documentation or supporting evidence, we have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Simulation methods] Simulation methods (anchor distance modeling): The factor-of-30 improvement and reported deg² areas are obtained only under the assumption that distance uncertainties for the chosen 3-6 anchors fall below the gravitational wavelength while the remaining pulsars retain standard timing precision. The manuscript treats this threshold as an input without demonstrating or citing evidence that it is reachable for the specific selected pulsars via VLBI or timing parallax, which is load-bearing for the 'near-term strategy' conclusion.

Authors: We agree that explicit support for the reachability of sub-wavelength precision is necessary to underpin the near-term strategy claim. The original manuscript introduced the threshold as a controlled simulation input to isolate the localization benefit of phase-locking. In revision we have added a dedicated paragraph in the Discussion section that cites published VLBI and timing-parallax results for several millisecond pulsars already in or near the 25-pulsar array (e.g., PSR J0437−4715, PSR J1713+0747), showing current or near-term distance uncertainties below the gravitational wavelength at typical PTA frequencies. We further outline a practical observing strategy—targeted VLBI campaigns on the six most stable anchors—whose required precision (tens of parsecs) is within the demonstrated capabilities of current facilities. These additions directly address the load-bearing assumption without altering the simulation results themselves. revision: partial
Referee: [Results] Results (six-anchor configuration): The localization areas (0.1–9.2 deg²) and robustness across directions rest on forward simulations whose exact noise models, data-exclusion criteria, and anchor-selection procedure are not fully specified; without these, the quantitative claims cannot be independently verified and the cross-direction generalization is difficult to assess.

Authors: We accept that the simulation details must be specified at a level permitting independent reproduction. The revised Methods section now provides the complete noise model (white-noise RMS, red-noise amplitude and spectral index, DM-variation parameters) used for the 20-year data sets, the precise 3-σ outlier rejection criterion applied to timing residuals, and the anchor-selection algorithm (ranking by timing stability, sky-position diversity, and existing parallax quality). A new supplementary table lists the six chosen pulsars together with their adopted distance uncertainties and noise parameters. These additions allow full verification of the reported 90 % credible areas and their variation across the tested sky directions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; localization results obtained from forward simulations under explicit assumptions

full rationale

The paper evaluates sky-localization performance through numerical simulations of 20-year PTA data for a 25-pulsar array, introducing 3-6 anchors with sub-wavelength distance precision as an observational strategy. The reported 90% credible areas (∼0.1-9.2 deg² at SNR=20) are computed outputs of those simulations rather than quantities forced by definition, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains. No load-bearing step equates the claimed result to its inputs by construction; the sub-wavelength threshold is treated as an input assumption whose feasibility is left for future observational work, not derived tautologically within the manuscript.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions of general relativity for gravitational-wave propagation and on the validity of the pulsar timing model; no new entities are postulated and no free parameters are fitted to produce the localization areas.

axioms (2)

standard math Gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light and produce the standard Earth-term plus pulsar-term timing residuals in the PTA response.
Invoked implicitly when stating that sub-wavelength distance precision is required to utilize the pulsar term coherently.
domain assumption The simulated timing noise and pulsar properties are representative of real millisecond pulsars in current and near-future PTAs.
The 20-year simulated datasets are described as 'realistically simulated' without further justification in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5592 in / 1535 out tokens · 40227 ms · 2026-05-14T01:28:59.575393+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Agazie G, Anumarlapudi A, Archibald A M, Arzoumanian Z, Baker P T, Bécsy B, Blecha L, Brazier A, Brook P R, Burke-Spolaor S, Burnette R, Case R, Charisi M, Chatter- jee S, Chatziioannou K, Cheeseboro B D, Chen S, Cohen T, Cordes J M, Cornish N J, Crawford F, Cromartie H T, Crowter K, Cutler C J, DeCesar M E, DeGan D, Demor- est P B, Deng H, Dolch T, Drach...

work page 2023
[2]

EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, Antoniadis J, Arumugam P, Arumugam S, Babak S, Bagchi M, Bak Nielsen A S, Bassa C G, Bathula A, Berthereau A, Bonetti M, Bortolas E, Brook P R, Burgay M, Caballero R N, Chalumeau A, Champion D J, Chanlaridis S, Chen S, xxxxxx-9 Chinese Physics Letters xx, xxxxxx (2026) New Submission Cognard I, Dandapat S, Deb D, D...

work page 2026
[3]

Reardon D J, Zic A, Shannon R M, Hobbs G B, Bailes M, Di Marco V, Kapur A, Rogers A F, Thrane E, Askew J, Bhat N D R, Cameron A, Curylo M, Coles W A, Dai S, Goncharov B, Kerr M, Kulkarni A, Levin Y, Lower M E, Manchester R N, Mandow R, Miles M T, Nathan R S, Oslowski S, Russell C J, Spiewak R, Zhang S, Zhu X J 2023 ApJ Lett. 951 L6

work page 2023
[4]

Xu H, Chen S Y, Guo Y J, Jiang J C, Wang B J, Xu J W, Xue Z H, Caballero R N, Yuan J P, Xu Y H, Wang J B, Hao L F, Luo J T, Lee K J, Han J L, Jiang P, Shen Z Q, Wang M, Wang N, Xu R X, Wu X P, Manchester R, Qian L, Guan X, Huang M L, Sun C, Zhu Y 2023 RAA 23 075024

work page 2023
[5]

Miles M T, Shannon R M, Reardon D J, Bailes M, Cham- pion D J, Geyer M, Gitika P, Grunthal K, Keith M J, Kramer M, Kulkarni A D, Nathan R S, Parthasarathy A, Singha J, Theureau G, Thrane E, Abbate F, Buchner S, Cameron A D, Camilo F, Moreschi B E, Shaifullah G, Shamohammadi M, Possenti A, Krishnan V V 2025 MN- RAS 536 1489

work page 2025
[6]

Rosado P A, Sesana A and Gair J 2015 MNRAS 451 2417

work page 2015
[7]

Astrophys

Burke-Spolaor S, Taylor S R, Charisi M, Dolch T, Hazboun J S, Holgado A M, Kelley L Z, Lazio T J W, Madison D R, McMann N, Mingarelli C M F, Rasskazov A, Siemens X, Simon J J and Smith T L 2019 Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 27 5

work page 2019
[8]

Falxa M, Babak S, Baker P T, Bécsy B, Chalumeau A, Chen S, Chen Z, Cornish N J, Guillemot L, Hazboun J S, Mingarelli C M F, Parthasarathy A, Petiteau A, Pol N S, Sesana A, Spolaor S B, Taylor S R, Theureau G, Val- lisneri M, Vigeland S J, Witt C A, Zhu X, Antoniadis J, Arzoumanian Z, Bailes M, Bhat N D R, Blecha L, Brazier A, Brook P R, Caballero N, Camer...

work page 2023
[9]

Agazie G, Anumarlapudi A, Archibald A M, Arzoumanian Z, Baker P T, Bécsy B, Blecha L, Brazier A, Brook P R, Burke-Spolaor S, Case R, Casey-Clyde J A, Charisi M, Chatterjee S, Cohen T, Cordes J M, Cornish N J, Craw- ford F, Cromartie H T, Crowter K, DeCesar M E, Demor- est P B, Digman M C, Dolch T, Drachler B, Ferrara E C, Fiore W, Fonseca E, Freedman G E,...

work page 2023
[10]

EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, Antoniadis J, Arumugam P, Arumugam S, Babak S, Bagchi M, Bak Nielsen A S, Bassa C G, Bathula A, Berthereau A, Bonetti M, Bortolas E, Brook P R, Burgay M, Caballero R N, Chalumeau A, Champion D J, Chanlaridis S, Chen S, Cognard I, Dandapat S, Deb D, Desai S, Desvignes G, Dhanda-Batra N, Dwivedi C, Falxa M, Ferranti ...

work page 2024
[11]

Zhao S Y, Chen Z C, Cardinal Tremblay J, Goncharov B, Zhu X J, Bhat N D R, Curylo M, Dai S, Di Marco V, Ding H, Hobbs G, Kapur A, Ling W H, Liu T, Mandow R, Mishra S, Reardon D J, Russell C J, Shannon R M, Wang S Q, Zhang L, Zic A 2025 ApJ 992 181

work page 2025
[12]

Yu Q J 2002 MNRAS 331 935

work page 2002
[13]

Milosavljević M and Merritt D 2003 AIP Conf. Proc. 686 201

work page 2003
[14]

Khan F M, Holley-Bockelmann K, Berczik P and Just A 2013 ApJ 773 100

work page 2013
[15]

Kormendy J and Ho L C 2013 Annu. Rev. Astron. Astro- phys. 51 511 xxxxxx-10 Chinese Physics Letters xx, xxxxxx (2026) New Submission

work page 2013
[16]

De Rosa A, Vignali C, Bogdanovic T, Capelo P R, Charisi M, Dotti M, Husemann B, Lusso E, Mayer L, Paragi Z, Runnoe J, Sesana A, Steinborn L, Bianchi S, Colpi M, del Valle L, Frey S, Gabanyi K E, Giustini M, Guainazzi M, Haiman Z, Herrera Ruiz N, Herrero-Illana R, Iwasawa K, Komossa S, Lena D, Loiseau N, Perez-Torres M, Piconcelli E and Volonteri M 2019 Ne...

work page 2019
[17]

Taylor S R 2021 arXiv:2105.13270

work page arXiv 2021
[18]

Zhu X J, Wen L, Xiong J, Xu Y, Wang Y, Mohanty S D, Hobbs G and Manchester R N 2016 MNRAS 461 1317

work page 2016
[19]

Wang Y and Mohanty S D 2017 Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 151104

work page 2017
[20]

Chen J W and Wang Y 2022 ApJ 929 168

work page 2022
[21]

Shamohammadi M, Bailes M, Flynn C, Reardon D J, Shannon R M, Buchner S, Cameron A D, Camilo F, Coro- ngiu A, Geyer M, Kramer M, Miles M and Spiewak R 2024 MNRAS 530 287

work page 2024
[22]

Ding H 2025 A&A 704 A308

work page 2025
[23]

Boyle L and Pen U L 2012 Phys. Rev. D 86 124028

work page 2012
[24]

Tsai A C, Jow D L and Pen U L 2025 arXiv:2512.10795

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[25]

Kato R and Takahashi K 2023 Phys. Rev. D 108 123535

work page 2023
[26]

Kato R and Takahashi K 2026 Phys. Rev. D 113 022001

work page 2026
[27]

Zic A, Reardon D J, Kapur A, Hobbs G, Mandow R, Curylo M, Shannon R M, Askew J, Bailes M, Bhat N D R, Cameron A, Chen Z C, Dai S, Di Marco V, Feng Y, Kerr M, Kulkarni A, Lower M E, Luo R, Manchester R N, Miles M T, Nathan R S, Oslowski S, Rogers A F, Russell C J, Sarkissian J M, Shamohammadi M, Spiewak R, Thyagarajan N, Toomey L, Wang S Q, Zhang L, Zhang ...

work page 2023
[28]

EPTA Collaboration, Antoniadis J, Babak S, Bak Nielsen A S, Bassa C G, Berthereau A, Bonetti M, Bortolas E, Brook P R, Burgay M, Caballero R N, Chalumeau A, Champion D J, Chanlaridis S, Chen S, Cognard I, Desvi- gnes G, Falxa M, Ferdman R D, Franchini A, Gair J R, Goncharov B, Graikou E, Griessmeier J M, Guillemot L, Guo Y J, Hu H, Iraci F, Izquierdo-Vill...

work page 2023
[29]

Agazie G, Alam M F, Anumarlapudi A, Archibald A M, Arzoumanian Z, Baker P T, Blecha L, Bonidie V, Brazier A, Brook P R, Burke-Spolaor S, Bécsy B, Chapman C, Charisi M, Chatterjee S, Cohen T, Cordes J M, Cornish N J, Crawford F, Cromartie H T, Crowter K, DeCesar M E, Demorest P B, Dolch T, Drachler B, Ferrara E C, Fiore W, Fonseca E, Freedman G E, Garver-D...

work page 2023
[30]

Miles M T, Shannon R M, Reardon D J, Bailes M, Cham- pion D J, Geyer M, Gitika P, Grunthal K, Keith M J, Kramer M, Kulkarni A D, Nathan R S, Parthasarathy A, Porayko N K, Singha J, Theureau G, Abbate F, Buchner S, Cameron A D, Camilo F, Moreschi B E, Shaifullah G, Shamohammadi M and Krishnan V V 2025 MNRAS 536 1467

work page 2025
[31]

Arzoumanian Z, Baker P T, Blecha L, Blumer H, Brazier A, Brook P R, Burke-Spolaor S, Bécsy B, Casey-Clyde J A, Charisi M, Chatterjee S, Chen S Y, Cordes J M, Cornish N J, Crawford F, Cromartie H T, DeCesar M E, Demorest P B, Dolch T, Drachler B, Ellis J A, Ferrara E C, Fiore W, Fonseca E, Freedman G E, Garver-Daniels N, Gentile P A, Glaser J, Good D C, Gü...

work page 2023
[32]

Vallisneri M 2020 libstempo

work page 2020
[33]

Ellis J A, Vallisneri M, Taylor S R and Baker P T 2020 ENTERPRISE

work page 2020
[34]

Taylor S R, Baker P T, Hazboun J S, Simon J and Vige- land S J 2021 enterprise_extensions v2.4.3

work page 2021
[35]

Ellis J and van Haasteren R 2017 PTMCMCSampler

work page 2017
[36]

Vousden W D, Farr W M and Mandel I 2016 MNRAS 455 1919

work page 2016
[37]

Taylor S R 2026 arXiv:2603.10120

work page arXiv 2026
[38]

Astrophys

Grunthal K, Porayko N, Champion D J and Kramer M 2026 Astron. Astrophys. 706 A299

work page 2026
[39]

Ding H, Deller A T, Stappers B W, Lazio T J W, Kaplan D, Chatterjee S, Brisken W, Cordes J, Freire P C C, Fon- seca E, Stairs I, Guillemot L, Lyne A, Cognard I, Reardon D J and Theureau G 2023 MNRAS 519 4982

work page 2023
[40]

Reardon D J, Bailes M, Shannon R M, Flynn C, Askew J, Bhat N D R, Chen Z C, Curylo M, Feng Y, Hobbs G B, Kapur A, Kerr M, Liu X, Manchester R N, Mandow R, Mishra S, Russell C J, Shamohammadi M, Zhang L and Zic A 2024 ApJ Lett. 971 L18

work page 2024
[41]

Liu K, Guillemot L, Istrate A G, Shao L, Tauris T M, Wex N, Antoniadis J, Chalumeau A, Cognard I, Desvignes G, Freire P C C, Kehl M S and Theureau G 2020 MNRAS 499 2276

work page 2020
[42]

Astrophys

Ding H, Deller A T, Freire P C C and Petrov L 2024 Astron. Astrophys. 691 A47 xxxxxx-11 Chinese Physics Letters xx, xxxxxx (2026) New Submission Appendix A: Pulsar distances and noise parameters Table 3 summarizes the pulsar distances, the corresponding red- and white-noise parameters used in this work, and the signal-to-noise ratio of each pulsar for dif...

work page 2024