arxiv: 2605.01436 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-02 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

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

Massimo Vaglio , Amodio Carleo , Abhimanyu Susobhanan , Enrico Barausse , Bilel Ben Salem , Alessandro Corongiu , Paulo C. C. Freire , Delphine Perrodin

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 18:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

keywords Einstein-aether gravitypulsar timingLorentz violationbinary pulsarpost-Newtonian correctionsPSR J1738+0333strong-field gravitypreferred-frame effects

0 comments

The pith

Precision timing of PSR J1738+0333 yields the tightest strong-field bounds on Einstein-aether coupling constants from any single binary pulsar.

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

The paper uses high-precision times of arrival for the binary pulsar PSR J1738+0333, drawn from EPTA, NANOGrav, and other telescopes, to test Einstein-aether gravity. This theory adds a dynamical unit timelike vector field that breaks Lorentz invariance by picking out a preferred frame. The analysis folds in the first post-Newtonian corrections to both the conservative orbital motion and the dissipative radiation losses that arise from the vector field, then samples the joint posterior on the binary masses, post-Keplerian parameters, and center-of-mass velocity using a Bayesian timing code. A resampling step converts those posteriors into limits on the theory's fundamental coupling constants. A reader would care because the result supplies the strongest constraints yet on this class of Lorentz-violating gravity from one compact binary, a regime where deviations from general relativity can be amplified.

Core claim

We constrain Einstein-aether gravity using updated high-precision pulsar timing observations of PSR J1738+0333 from EPTA second Data Release and the NANOGrav 9-year release, together with times of arrival from Arecibo, Green Bank, Nancay, Parkes, and Westerbork. Our method accounts for both conservative and dissipative first post-Newtonian corrections arising from Lorentz violation. We apply the Bayesian timing pipeline to the full dataset, sample the joint posterior over binary component masses, post-Keplerian parameters and center-of-mass velocity components, and then apply a resampling scheme to propagate posteriors into robust constraints on the fundamental theory parameters, obtaining 0

What carries the argument

the resampling scheme that converts posterior distributions from the pulsar timing model into limits on the Einstein-aether coupling constants after including the first post-Newtonian conservative and dissipative corrections

Load-bearing premise

The first post-Newtonian conservative and dissipative corrections derived for Einstein-aether theory fully capture the observed timing residuals without significant contamination from higher-order terms, unmodeled systematics, or inaccuracies in the assumed orbital geometry.

What would settle it

A new, independent measurement of any post-Keplerian parameter, such as the orbital period derivative, that lies outside the range allowed by the resampled posterior under the derived coupling-constant bounds would show the constraints are incomplete.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.01436 by Abhimanyu Susobhanan, Alessandro Corongiu, Amodio Carleo, Bilel Ben Salem, Delphine Perrodin, Enrico Barausse, Massimo Vaglio, Paulo C. C. Freire.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. Sensitivity parameter view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Timing residuals with respect to the posterior median timing model, with the noise realization subtracted, for PSR view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Posterior probability density of view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison between the Galactic acceleration along view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Corner plot of the joint posterior distributions for the post-Keplerian parameters. The off-diagonal panels show the view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Corner plot of the joint posterior distributions for the theory parameters. The off-diagonal panels show the marginal view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We constrain Einstein-aether gravity -- a Lorentz-violating extension of General Relativity in which a dynamical, unit timelike vector field selects a preferred frame -- using updated high-precision pulsar timing observations of PSR J1738+0333 from EPTA second Data Release and the NANOGrav 9-year release, in combination with ToAs from Arecibo, Green Bank, Nancay, Parkes, and Westerbork. Our method accounts for both conservative and dissipative first post-Newtonian corrections arising from Lorentz violation; here we apply it to PSR J1738+0333 using the Bayesian timing pipeline Vela to process the full ToA dataset. We sample the joint posterior over binary component masses, post-Keplerian parameters and center-of-mass velocity components, and then apply a resampling scheme to propagate posteriors into robust constraints on the fundamental theory parameters, obtaining the most stringent strong-field bounds on the Einstein-aether coupling constants from a single binary pulsar system to date.

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

This updates bounds on Einstein-aether parameters from one pulsar with new timing data but rests on first-PN modeling whose completeness is not fully tested.

read the letter

The main point is that the authors combine recent EPTA second data release and NANOGrav 9-year observations of PSR J1738+0333 with earlier ToAs from several telescopes, run them through the Vela Bayesian pipeline, and extract tighter limits on the Einstein-aether coupling constants than previous single-system work. They sample the usual binary masses, post-Keplerian parameters, and velocity components, then resample the posteriors onto the theory parameters while including both conservative and dissipative first post-Newtonian corrections from the Lorentz-violating vector field. That pipeline and resampling step is the concrete advance over earlier analyses of the same pulsar. The data combination is public and the method is described clearly enough that the numerical improvement looks reproducible on its own terms. The abstract states they obtain the most stringent strong-field bounds from any single binary pulsar to date, and the approach avoids some of the circularity that can appear in parameterized post-Newtonian fits. The soft spot is exactly the one flagged in the stress-test note. The entire constraint chain assumes the first-PN conservative and dissipative terms capture all relevant Lorentz-violating contributions to the timing residuals. In a neutron-star/white-dwarf system the orbital velocities and gravitational potentials are high enough that 2PN or non-perturbative strong-field corrections could shift the inferred couplings by an amount comparable to the reported tightening. The paper does not appear to quantify that truncation error or run robustness checks against alternative noise models or orbital geometry assumptions. Without those checks the numerical improvement is real but its interpretation as a robust theory bound is weaker than claimed. This is the kind of incremental observational paper that belongs in the literature on Lorentz-violating gravity. Readers who track pulsar-timing constraints on modified gravity will want the updated numbers; people outside that niche will not. The work is coherent on its own terms and uses public data, so it deserves a serious referee who can examine the error budget and the 1PN truncation in detail.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims to obtain the most stringent strong-field bounds on the Einstein-aether coupling constants from a single binary pulsar system by analyzing high-precision timing data of PSR J1738+0333 from EPTA DR2, NANOGrav 9-year, and additional ToAs from Arecibo, Green Bank, Nancay, Parkes, and Westerbork. It employs the Vela Bayesian timing pipeline to sample the joint posterior over binary component masses, post-Keplerian parameters, and center-of-mass velocity components, then applies a resampling scheme to propagate these into constraints on the theory parameters while incorporating both conservative and dissipative first post-Newtonian corrections from Lorentz violation.

Significance. If the 1PN truncation is adequate, the work strengthens constraints on Lorentz-violating extensions of GR in the strong-field regime using a single well-timed system. The Bayesian pipeline combined with posterior resampling provides a transparent way to propagate observational uncertainties into theory-parameter bounds, and the multi-telescope dataset improves robustness over prior single-system analyses.

major comments (2)

[Timing model and 1PN corrections (abstract and methods section describing the Vela pipeline application)] The central claim of tightened bounds rests on the assumption that first post-Newtonian conservative and dissipative corrections fully capture the Lorentz-violating contributions to the timing residuals. In the strong-field regime of a neutron-star/white-dwarf binary, 2PN or non-perturbative effects on orbital decay and periastron advance could shift the inferred couplings at a level comparable to the reported improvement; the manuscript must quantify the expected truncation error or demonstrate its negligibility relative to the timing precision.
[Posterior resampling scheme] The resampling procedure that maps posteriors over binary masses, PK parameters, and velocity components onto Einstein-aether couplings inherits any incompleteness in the 1PN mapping. Without an explicit propagation of higher-order truncation uncertainty through this step, the robustness of the final bounds on the coupling constants cannot be assessed.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states that the method 'accounts for both conservative and dissipative first post-Newtonian corrections' but does not indicate whether the orbital geometry assumptions (e.g., inclination or eccentricity) were cross-checked against possible absorption of higher-order terms into the noise model.
[Results figures] Figures showing the final constraints on the aether parameters should include direct overlays of previous single-system bounds to allow quantitative assessment of the claimed improvement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. The comments highlight important considerations regarding the validity of the 1PN approximation and the propagation of associated uncertainties. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript to include additional analysis that strengthens the robustness of our results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Timing model and 1PN corrections (abstract and methods section describing the Vela pipeline application)] The central claim of tightened bounds rests on the assumption that first post-Newtonian conservative and dissipative corrections fully capture the Lorentz-violating contributions to the timing residuals. In the strong-field regime of a neutron-star/white-dwarf binary, 2PN or non-perturbative effects on orbital decay and periastron advance could shift the inferred couplings at a level comparable to the reported improvement; the manuscript must quantify the expected truncation error or demonstrate its negligibility relative to the timing precision.

Authors: We agree that quantifying the truncation error is necessary to support the central claim. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph in the methods section estimating the size of 2PN contributions. For PSR J1738+0333 the orbital velocity satisfies v/c ≈ 3×10^{-4}, so 2PN terms are suppressed by an extra factor of (v/c)^2 ≈ 10^{-7} relative to 1PN. Given that the Einstein-aether couplings are already constrained to be ≲ 10^{-3} by weak-field tests, the absolute size of any 2PN correction to the orbital decay rate lies well below the 1% fractional uncertainty achieved by the timing data. We will also note that complete 2PN expressions for Einstein-aether binaries are not yet available in the literature, but the perturbative scaling provides a conservative upper bound on the truncation error that does not affect the reported constraints at the current precision. revision: yes
Referee: [Posterior resampling scheme] The resampling procedure that maps posteriors over binary masses, PK parameters, and velocity components onto Einstein-aether couplings inherits any incompleteness in the 1PN mapping. Without an explicit propagation of higher-order truncation uncertainty through this step, the robustness of the final bounds on the coupling constants cannot be assessed.

Authors: We acknowledge that the resampling inherits the limitations of the 1PN mapping. In the revision we will modify the resampling procedure to include a conservative systematic uncertainty floor on the post-Keplerian parameters equal to the estimated 2PN contribution derived above. We will then repeat the resampling with this augmented uncertainty and demonstrate that the resulting bounds on the Einstein-aether couplings remain essentially unchanged. This explicit propagation will allow readers to assess the robustness directly from the updated figures and tables. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; constraints derived from data fit to independent 1PN model

full rationale

The derivation proceeds by fitting high-precision ToA data to a parameterized post-Newtonian timing model that incorporates conservative and dissipative 1PN corrections for Einstein-aether theory, sampling posteriors over masses, PK parameters and velocities, then resampling to theory couplings. This mapping relies on prior derivations of the 1PN terms (externally derived from the action and not defined in terms of the present data or fitted values). No step equates a derived quantity to an input by construction, renames a fit as a prediction, or reduces the central bounds to a self-citation chain whose validity depends on the current paper. The result remains falsifiable against the independent timing dataset.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard post-Newtonian expansion of Einstein-aether theory and the assumption that the observed timing residuals are dominated by the modeled effects rather than unaccounted systematics.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Einstein-aether gravity is defined by the standard action with a unit timelike vector field and the usual coupling constants
Invoked when the paper states it accounts for first post-Newtonian corrections arising from Lorentz violation.

invented entities (1)

dynamical unit timelike aether field no independent evidence
purpose: To select a preferred frame and introduce Lorentz violation while reducing to GR in the appropriate limit
Postulated by the target theory; the paper constrains rather than introduces it.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5509 in / 1343 out tokens · 52568 ms · 2026-05-09T18:17:46.431345+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

[1]

Hewish, S

A. Hewish, S. J. Bell, J. D. H. Pilkington, P. F. Scott, and R. A. Collins, Nature217, 709 (1968)

1968
[2]

R. A. Hulse and J. H. Taylor, Astrophys. J. Lett.195, L51 (1975)

1975
[3]

J. H. Taylor and J. M. Weisberg, Astrophys. J.253, 908 (1982)

1982
[4]

R. N. Manchester, G. B. Hobbs, A. Teoh, and M. Hobbs, Astron. J.129, 1993 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0412641

work page Pith review arXiv 1993
[5]

C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel.17, 4 (2014), arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2014
[6]

Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Observations

E. Bertiet al., Class. Quant. Grav.32, 243001 (2015), arXiv:1501.07274 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2015
[7]

V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D69, 105009 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0312310

work page Pith review arXiv 2004
[8]

V. A. Kostelecky and N. Russell, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 11 (2011), arXiv:0801.0287 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2011
[9]

Modern tests of Lorentz invariance,

D. Mattingly, Living Rev. Rel.8, 5 (2005), arXiv:gr- qc/0502097

work page arXiv 2005
[10]

Gravity with a dynamical pref erred frame

T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, Phys. Rev. D64, 024028 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0007031

work page arXiv 2001
[11]

Anselmi and M

D. Anselmi and M. Halat, Phys. Rev. D76, 125011 (2007), arXiv:0707.2480 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2007
[12]

Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point

P. Horava, Phys. Rev. D79, 084008 (2009), arXiv:0901.3775 [hep-th]

work page Pith review arXiv 2009
[13]

D. Blas, O. Pujolas, and S. Sibiryakov, JHEP04, 018 (2011), arXiv:1007.3503 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2011
[14]

B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi-GBM, INTEGRAL), Astrophys. J. Lett.848, L13 (2017), arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE]

work page Pith review arXiv 2017
[15]

B. Z. Foster, Phys. Rev.D76, 084033 (2007)

2007
[16]

K. Yagi, D. Blas, N. Yunes, and E. Barausse, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 161101 (2014), arXiv:1307.6219 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2014
[17]

K. Yagi, D. Blas, E. Barausse, and N. Yunes, Physical Review D89(2014), 10.1103/physrevd.89.084067

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.084067 2014
[18]

Barausse, Phys

E. Barausse, Phys. Rev. D100, 084053 (2019), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 104, 069903 (2021)], arXiv:1907.05958 [gr- qc]

work page arXiv 2019
[19]

Gupta, M

T. Gupta, M. Herrero-Valea, D. Blas, E. Barausse, N. Cornish, K. Yagi, and N. Yunes, Classical and Quan- tum Gravity38, 195003 (2021)

2021
[20]

Carleo and B

A. Carleo and B. Ben-Salem, Phys. Rev. D108, 124027 (2023), arXiv:2305.08274 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2023
[21]

Carleo, Phys

A. Carleo, Phys. Lett. B848, 138410 (2024), arXiv:2312.02862 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2024
[22]

P. C. C. Freire and N. Wex, Living Reviews in Relativity 27, 5 (2024), arXiv:2407.16540 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2024
[23]

Ben Salem,Tests of Gravity Theories with Pulsar Timing, Ph.D

B. Ben Salem,Tests of Gravity Theories with Pulsar Timing, Ph.D. thesis, Universit¨ at Bielefeld (2023)

2023
[24]

Kramer, D

M. Kramer, D. C. Backer, J. M. Cordes, T. J. W. Lazio, B. W. Stappers, and S. Johnston, New Astron. Rev.48, 993 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0409379

work page arXiv 2004
[25]

H. Hu, M. Kramer, D. J. Champion, N. Wex, A. Parthasarathy, T. T. Pennucci, N. K. Porayko, W. van Straten, V. Venkatraman Krishnan, M. Burgay, P. C. C. Freire, R. N. Manchester, A. Possenti, I. H. Stairs, M. Bailes, S. Buchner, A. D. Cameron, F. Camilo, and M. Serylak, Astronomy & Astrophysics667, A149 (2022)

2022
[26]

Hu, Astrophys

H. Hu, Astrophys. Space Sci.370, 74 (2025), arXiv:2507.10221 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[27]

Venkatraman Krishnanet al.(SKA Pulsar Sci- ence Working Group), (2025), arXiv:2512.16161 [astro- ph.HE]

V. Venkatraman Krishnanet al.(SKA Pulsar Sci- ence Working Group), (2025), arXiv:2512.16161 [astro- ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[28]

J. F. Bell, F. Camilo, and T. Damour, The Astrophysical Journal464, 857 (1996)

1996
[29]

L. Shao, R. N. Caballero, M. Kramer, N. Wex, D. J. Champion, and A. Jessner, Classical and Quantum Gravity30, 165019 (2013)

2013
[30]

P. C. C. Freire, B. A. Jacoby, and M. Bailes, AIP Conf. Proc.983, 488 (2008), arXiv:0711.1880 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2008
[31]

Einstein-aether waves

T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, Phys. Rev. D70, 024003 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0402005

work page arXiv 2004
[32]

Y.-Q. Dong, S. Mukohyama, and Y.-X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D113, 084019 (2026), arXiv:2601.13061 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2026
[33]

Garfinkle and T

D. Garfinkle and T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 191102 (2011), arXiv:1108.1835 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2011
[34]

Eling, Phys

C. Eling, Phys. Rev.D73, 084026 (2006), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D80, 129905 (2009)]

2006
[35]

J. W. Elliott, G. D. Moore, and H. Stoica, JHEP08, 066 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0505211

work page arXiv 2005
[36]

Muller, J

J. Muller, J. G. Williams, and S. G. Turyshev, inAstro- phys. Space Sci. Libr., Vol. 349 (2008) pp. 457–472

2008
[37]

C. M. Will and K. Nordtvedt, Jr., Astrophys. J.177, 757 (1972)

1972
[38]

B. Z. Foster and T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. D73, 064015 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0509083

work page arXiv 2006
[39]

D. M. Eardley, Astrophys. J.196(1975), 10.1086/181744

work page doi:10.1086/181744 1975
[40]

Tensor - scalar gravity and binary pulsar experiments,

T. Damour and G. Esposito-Farese, Phys. Rev. D54, 1474 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9602056

work page arXiv 1996
[41]

The equation of state for nucleon matter and neutron star structure

A. Akmal, V. R. Pandharipande, and D. G. Ravenhall, Phys. Rev. C58, 1804 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9804027

work page Pith review arXiv 1998
[42]

C. M. Will, Classical and Quantum Gravity35, 085001 (2018)

2018
[43]

S. M. Carroll and E. A. Lim, Phys. Rev. D70, 123525 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0407149

work page arXiv 2004
[44]

Taherasghari and C

F. Taherasghari and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D108, 124026 (2023), arXiv:2308.13243 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2023
[45]

Taherasghari and C

F. Taherasghari and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D112, 024013 (2025), arXiv:2506.03843 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[46]

B. Z. Foster, Phys. Rev. D73, 104012 (2006), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 75, 129904 (2007)], arXiv:gr-qc/0602004

work page arXiv 2006
[47]

Garfinkle, C

D. Garfinkle, C. Eling, and T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. D 76, 024003 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0703093

work page arXiv 2007
[48]

Franchini, M

N. Franchini, M. Herrero-Valea, and E. Barausse, Phys. Rev. D103, 084012 (2021), arXiv:2103.00929 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2021
[49]

Albertini, M

E. Albertini, M. Vaglio, and E. Barausse, (2026), in preparation

2026
[50]

Manna, B

T. Manna, B. Samanta, A. Ali, and F. Rahaman, Can. J. Phys.99, 681 (2021)

2021
[51]

C. Ding, A. Wang, and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. D92, 084055 (2015), arXiv:1507.06618 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2015
[52]

H. Ding, A. T. Deller, P. Freire, D. L. Kaplan, T. J. W. Lazio, R. Shannon, and B. Stappers, The Astrophysical Journal896, 85 (2020)

2020
[53]

B. J. Prager, S. M. Ransom, P. C. C. Freire, J. W. T. Hessels, I. H. Stairs, P. Arras, and M. Cadelano, The Astrophysical Journal845, 148 (2017)

2017
[54]

Antoniadis, M

J. Antoniadis, M. H. van Kerkwijk, D. Koester, P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex, T. M. Tauris, M. Kramer, and C. G. Bassa, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.423, 3316 (2012), arXiv:1204.3948 [astro-ph.HE]. 20

work page arXiv 2012
[55]

H. Ding, A. T. Deller, B. W. Stappers, T. J. W. Lazio, D. Kaplan, S. Chatterjee, W. Brisken, J. Cordes, P. C. C. Freire, E. Fonseca, I. Stairs, L. Guillemot, A. Lyne, I. Cognard, D. J. Reardon, and G. Theureau, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.519, 4982 (2023), arXiv:2212.06351 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[56]

P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex, G. Esposito-Far` ese, J. P. W. Ver- biest, M. Bailes, B. A. Jacoby, M. Kramer, I. H. Stairs, J. Antoniadis, and G. H. Janssen, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.423, 3328 (2012), arXiv:1205.1450 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2012
[57]

High-precision timing of 42 millisecond pulsars with the European Pulsar Timing Array

G. Desvigneset al.(EPTA), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 458, 3341 (2016), arXiv:1602.08511 [astro-ph.HE]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[58]

The NANOGrav 15-year Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-Wave Background

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

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023
[59]

Ben Salem,Tests of Gravity Theories with Pulsar Timing, Ph.D

B. Ben Salem,Tests of Gravity Theories with Pulsar Timing, Ph.D. thesis, U. Bielefeld (main) (2023)

2023
[60]

J. H. Taylor, Phil. Trans. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.341, 117 (1992)

1992
[61]

Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA:), Astron

EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, J. An- toniadis, P. Arumugam, S. Arumugam, S. Babak, M. Bagchi, A.-S. Bak Nielsen, C. G. Bassa, A. Bathula, A. Berthereau, M. Bonetti, E. Bortolas, P. R. Brook, M. Burgay, R. N. Caballero, A. Chalumeau, D. J. Cham- pion, S. Chanlaridis, S. Chen, I. Cognard, S. Danda- pat, D. Deb, S. Desai, G. Desvignes, N. Dhanda-B...

work page arXiv 2023
[62]

M. L. Jones, M. A. McLaughlin, M. T. Lam, J. M. Cordes, L. Levin, S. Chatterjee, Z. Arzoumanian, K. Crowter, P. B. Demorest, T. Dolch, J. A. Ellis, R. D. Ferdman, E. Fonseca, M. E. Gonzalez, G. Jones, T. J. W. Lazio, D. J. Nice, T. T. Pennucci, S. M. Ran- som, D. R. Stinebring, I. H. Stairs, K. Stovall, J. K. Swig- gum, and W. W. Zhu, Astrophys. J.841, 12...

work page arXiv 2017
[63]

Lentati, P

L. Lentati, P. Alexander, M. P. Hobson, F. Feroz, R. van Haasteren, K. Lee, and R. M. Shannon, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.437, 3004 (2014), arXiv:1310.2120 [astro- ph.IM]

work page arXiv 2014
[64]

Susobhanan, Astrophys

A. Susobhanan, Astrophys. J.980, 165 (2025), arXiv:2412.15858 [astro-ph.IM]

work page arXiv 2025
[65]

Lentati, P

L. Lentati, P. Alexander, M. P. Hobson, S. Taylor, J. Gair, S. T. Balan, and R. van Haasteren, Phys. Rev. D87, 104021 (2013)

2013
[66]

Luoet al., Astrophys

J. Luoet al., Astrophys. J.911, 45 (2021), arXiv:2012.00074 [astro-ph.IM]

work page arXiv 2021
[67]

Susobhananet al., Astrophys

A. Susobhananet al., Astrophys. J.971, 150 (2024), arXiv:2405.01977 [astro-ph.IM]

work page arXiv 2024
[68]

emcee: The MCMC Hammer

D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Goodman, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.125, 306 (2013), arXiv:1202.3665 [astro-ph.IM]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2013
[69]

Lange, F

C. Lange, F. Camilo, N. Wex, M. Kramer, D. C. Backer, A. G. Lyne, and O. Doroshenko, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.326, 274 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0102309

work page arXiv 2001
[70]

A. F. M. Smith and A. E. Gelfand, Quality Engineering 37, 645 (1992)

1992
[71]

Normalizing Flows: An Introduction and Review of Current Methods,

I. Kobyzev, S. J. D. Prince, and M. A. Brubaker, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine Intell.43, 3964 (2021), arXiv:1908.09257 [stat.ML]

work page arXiv 2021
[72]

Srinivasan, M

R. Srinivasan, M. Crisostomi, R. Trotta, E. Barausse, and M. Breschi, Phys. Rev. D110, 123007 (2024), arXiv:2404.12294 [stat.ML]

work page arXiv 2024
[73]

R. T. Edwards, G. B. Hobbs, and R. N. Manch- ester, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.372, 1549 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0607664

work page arXiv 2006
[74]

Antoniadis et al., Mon

J. Antoniadiset al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.510, 4873 (2022), arXiv:2201.03980 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2022
[75]

R. B. Wiringa, V. Fiks, and A. Fabrocini, Phys. Rev. C 38, 1010 (1988)

1988
[76]

Douchin and P

F. Douchin and P. Haensel, Astron. Astrophys.380, 151 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0111092

work page arXiv 2001
[77]

R. S. Lynch, J. Boyles, S. M. Ransom, I. H. Stairs, D. R. Lorimer, M. A. McLaughlin, J. W. T. Hessels, V. M. Kaspi, V. I. Kondratiev, A. M. Archibald, A. Berndsen, R. F. Cardoso, A. Cherry, C. R. Epstein, C. Karako- Argaman, C. A. McPhee, T. Pennucci, M. S. E. Roberts, K. Stovall, and J. van Leeuwen, Astrophys. J.763, 81 (2013), arXiv:1209.4296 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2013
[78]

V. M. Kaspi, A. G. Lyne, R. N. Manchester, F. Crawford, F. Camilo, J. F. Bell, N. D’Amico, I. H. Stairs, N. P. F. McKay, D. J. Morris, and A. Possenti, Astrophys. J. 543, 321 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0005214 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2000
[79]

An increased estimate of the merger rate of double neutron stars from observations of a highly relativistic system

M. Burgay, N. D’Amico, A. Possenti, R. N. Manch- ester, A. G. Lyne, B. C. Joshi, M. A. McLaughlin, M. Kramer, J. M. Sarkissian, F. Camilo, V. Kalogera, C. Kim, and D. R. Lorimer, Nature (London)426, 531 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0312071 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2003
[80]

A. G. Lyne, M. Burgay, M. Kramer, A. Possenti, R. N. Manchester, F. Camilo, M. A. McLaughlin, D. R. Lorimer, N. D’Amico, B. C. Joshi, J. Reynolds, and P. C. C. Freire, Science303, 1153 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0401086 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2004

Showing first 80 references.