Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 63 references

QuickGWecc extends fast projection-parameter sampling to eccentric supermassive-black-hole binaries, making all-sky Bayesian searches in pulsar timing arrays computationally feasible.

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

2026-08-01 00:43 UTC pith:2PRXMA5V

load-bearing objection The QuickGWecc pipeline is a real step forward for eccentric-binary PTA searches, and the likelihood check against enterprise is solid, but the headline claim about next-generation feasibility rests on a 25-pulsar benchmark and should have been stress-tested at larger array sizes. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26051 v1 pith:2PRXMA5V submitted 2026-07-28 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IM

QuickGWecc: Fast Bayesian pipeline for searching eccentric binaries in pulsar timing array data

Lankeswar Dey , Bence B\'ecsy , Abhimanyu Susobhanan , Maria Charisi This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IM
keywords pulsar timing arrayscontinuous gravitational waveseccentric binariessupermassive black hole binariesBayesian inferencefast likelihood evaluationpost-Newtonian waveformsMarkov chain Monte Carlo
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.

QuickGWecc aims to make Bayesian searches for individual eccentric supermassive-black-hole binaries in pulsar timing array data computationally affordable, a task that was previously too expensive for all-sky surveys. It does so by splitting the binary parameters into projection parameters, which are cheap to update, and shape parameters, which require expensive likelihood recomputation. The paper shows that this split remains valid for eccentric orbits because the pericenter angle's evolution separates from its initial value, so the timing residual is a linear combination of five per-pulsar terms. On a simulated 25-pulsar, 15-year dataset, projection-parameter updates take about 41 microseconds each, and the pipeline recovers injected signals, sets upper limits, and agrees with the standard PTA inference package. If the approach holds on real data, eccentric binaries will no longer be excluded from systematic continuous-wave searches.

Core claim

The central claim is that the signal from a relativistic eccentric binary can be expressed as a sum, for each pulsar, of five products between a projection coefficient σ and a shape filter S (Eq. 10). The coefficients depend only on the amplitude, inclination, polarization, and the initial and pulsar-term pericenter angles; the filters depend only on the binary masses, eccentricity, frequency, mean anomaly, distances, and sky location. This factorization works because the evolution of the argument of pericenter ω(t) is independent of its initial value, allowing the orbital phase dependence to be absorbed into the coefficients. As a result, the expensive inner products in the likelihood are f

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the shape/projection decomposition of the likelihood. Projection parameters (signal amplitude, inclination, polarization angle, and pericenter angles for Earth and pulsar terms) enter only through the coefficients σ_k; shape parameters (sky position, masses, mass ratio, eccentricity, orbital frequency, mean anomaly, distances, and noise terms) enter only through the filter functions S_k. The key identity is s_i(t)=Σ σ_k S_k(t), in which the pericenter-angle evolution is separated as ω(t)=ω~(t)+ω0. Work then proceeds with a block-updating Markov-chain Monte Carlo sampler that performs roughly 10^3 projection updates per shape update, and uses a multiple-try scheme s

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline validates itself by injecting signals with the same 2.5PN orbital-evolution model it uses for recovery, so its demonstrated accuracy is internal consistency; if real eccentric binaries experience environmental torques or higher-order post-Newtonian effects, or if the stochastic background's spatial correlations matter, the claimed detection and upper-limit performance could degrade.

What would settle it

Simulate a strong (S/N~10) eccentric-binary signal using a different orbital-evolution model—for example, one including a circumbinary-disk torque or 3PN phasing—inject it into noise-matched PTA data, and run QuickGWecc; if the injected eccentricity or sky position falls outside the recovered credible intervals, the pipeline's fidelity to real astrophysical signals would be undermined.

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

If this is right

  • All-sky Bayesian searches for eccentric continuous-wave sources become computationally practical for next-generation pulsar timing arrays with many more pulsars.
  • Targeted searches can sample luminosity distance as an independent parameter, incorporating electromagnetic distance measurements directly rather than through post-hoc rejection sampling.
  • A likelihood-reweighting step approximately accounts for a spatially correlated stochastic background, so the pipeline can be used on datasets where a detectable background is present.
  • Detection analyses recover orbital frequency and sky location with narrow posteriors even when eccentricity and mass ratio are weakly constrained, indicating which parameters future searches can realistically measure.
  • The order-of-magnitude speedup in projection updates reduces the cost of exploring the high-dimensional parameter space, making previously prohibitive searches feasible.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the factorization hinges on the additivity of the pericenter angle's evolution, it likely extends to higher post-Newtonian orders; testing it at 3PN would gauge how much realism can be added without losing the speedup.
  • Real binaries in gas-rich or stellar-scattering environments may evolve under torques not captured by the 2.5PN quadrupole equations, so the pipeline's recovery of eccentricity should be stress-tested against signals from more complete evolutionary models.
  • The 41-microsecond projection updates make the sampler fast enough that gradient-based variational inference, rather than MCMC, could become practical for eccentric searches, potentially cutting run times further.
  • The targeted-search design that treats distance as a sampling parameter could be generalized to jointly estimate host-galaxy parameters, strengthening the electromagnetic identification of a detected source.

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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents QuickGWecc, an extension of the QuickCW framework that performs Bayesian parameter estimation for continuous gravitational-wave signals from eccentric supermassive black hole binaries in pulsar timing array data. The key idea is the same projection/shape parameter decomposition as QuickCW, adapted to the relativistic eccentric GWecc waveform. The likelihood is re-expressed so that, for fixed shape parameters, evaluating a new set of projection parameters only requires recomputing the low-dimensional coefficients σ_k in Eq. (14). The pipeline is validated with one all-sky detection injection (S/N≈12.3), one all-sky upper-limit injection (S/N≈5.7), and a targeted-search demonstration on the same upper-limit dataset. Likelihood values are cross-checked against enterprise for 1000 posterior samples, and timings are quoted: 41 µs per projection update, 580 ms per shape update, and 559 ms per enterprise likelihood evaluation. The abstract claims this makes eccentric all-sky searches computationally feasible for next-generation PTA datasets with many more pulsars.

Significance. If the headline scalability claim is correct, QuickGWecc would be a genuinely enabling tool: all-sky Bayesian searches for eccentric SMBHBs, which are currently impractical with conventional enterprise-based pipelines, could become routine. The likelihood verification against an independent codebase (Fig. 2) is a strong point, as is the public availability of the code. The extension of the projection/shape decomposition to eccentric binaries is a natural and useful technical contribution. However, the central feasibility claim rests on benchmarks for only 25 pulsars, and the validation is limited to two idealized injections. The astrophysical and computational significance is high if the missing scaling evidence is provided; as it stands, the paper demonstrates a promising implementation rather than fully establishing the next-generation feasibility claimed in the abstract.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IIIA and Sec. IIIB] The central claim that the pipeline is feasible for next-generation PTA datasets with many more pulsars is not supported by the reported benchmarks. The projection-update cost quoted in Sec. IV (41 µs) is for Np=25, but Eq. (14) contains a double sum over 5Np coefficients, so the projection likelihood cost scales as O(Np^2) even with M_kl precomputed. Scaling from 25 to 100 or 200 pulsars increases the per-projection cost by factors of 16 and 64, respectively. Since each shape update in the multiple-try MCMC evaluates N=10^4 projection proposals (Sec. IIC), the per-shape-update cost would grow correspondingly. No timing measurements are reported for larger Np, no total wall-clock times are given, and no convergence diagnostics (e.g., effective sample size, Gelman-Rubin) are shown for any run. The feasibility claim therefore rests on extrapolation from a single favorable 25-pulsar dataset
  2. [Sec. IIIA/IIIB] The validation is too narrow to support the detection and upper-limit performance claims. Each analysis uses a single injection on one idealized 25-pulsar realization, and the injected signal is generated with the same GWecc model used for recovery. There are no null tests, repeated noise realizations, or injections spanning different sky locations, eccentricities, or frequencies. The enterprise likelihood check is strong evidence of implementation consistency but does not establish controlled false-alarm rates or unbiased upper limits. Additional injections and at least one signal-free realization are needed to support the pipeline's performance claims.
  3. [Sec. IIIB/IV] The paper models the stochastic background as a common uncorrelated red-noise process (CURN) and states that likelihood reweighting can approximately recover posteriors under a Hellings-Downs-correlated background. However, no demonstration of this reweighting is presented. Since real PTA datasets and the next-generation datasets targeted by the abstract are expected to contain a HD-correlated background, the practical applicability of the pipeline to real data is not yet demonstrated. The authors should either include a simulation showing that the reweighting reliably recovers the HD-background posterior for the CGW parameters, or clearly scope the paper's claims to CURN-only analyses.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Table II] The prior for the initial eccentricity e0 is listed as Uniform[0.01, 6], but eccentricity should be bounded by [0,1). This is likely a typo; please correct the upper limit.
  2. [Fig. 2] The likelihood comparison is normalized by the peak-to-peak range of the log-likelihood values. It would be useful to also quote the maximum absolute difference in log-likelihood units, and to state the numerical tolerance that the authors consider acceptable.
  3. [Sec. I] Minor typo: 'nearby starts' should be 'nearby stars' in the introduction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the pipeline's efficiency claim is benchmarked against an independent codebase and the waveform decomposition is an algebraic identity, not a self-derived prediction.

full rationale

The central claim of QuickGWecc is computational feasibility, which is supported by (i) an algebraic separation of parameters into shape and projection groups (Eqs. 10-14) that re-expresses the input waveform model rather than deriving it from itself, and (ii) direct benchmarking: 'the average likelihood evaluation time for a single update to the projection parameters in QuickGWecc ... is approximately 41 us' and the likelihood values are compared against enterprise, an independent PTA analysis package, with 'negligible' normalized differences (Sec. III B 1, Fig. 2). The orbital-evolution and QuickCW machinery are cited from published, peer-reviewed work [48, 53] and are not used to forbid alternatives or to smuggle in an unvalidated ansatz. The known limitation that injections and recoveries use the same GWecc waveform model affects astrophysical fidelity/robustness to model misspecification, but it does not make the computational-efficiency claim circular, because the runtime numbers and enterprise consistency check do not depend on the injection model. The extrapolation from a 25-pulsar NANOGrav-like dataset to next-generation arrays with many more pulsars is an under-supported inference, but under-support is a validation/correctness concern, not a circularity. No step in the paper reduces its stated result to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The free-parameter ledger is empty because the simulation injections and prior bounds are test inputs, not parameters fitted to make the derivation work. The key axiomatic inputs are the post-Newtonian waveform model, the PTA response model, the free pulsar-term phase parameters, and the CURN/reweighting approximation for the background.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Quasi-Keplerian 2.5PN orbital evolution (Eqs. 6a-6d) is accurate for PTA-band eccentric SMBHBs over pulsar-term timescales.
    The waveform time evolution used in both simulation and recovery is built on these equations from Susobhanan et al.; errors here would bias all results.
  • domain assumption The PTA timing-residual signal model (Eqs. 2-5), including the antenna-pattern and eccentric waveform expressions, describes the GW response.
    The likelihood and all simulations depend on this standard PTA signal model.
  • domain assumption Pulsar distances are too uncertain to phase-connect Earth-term and pulsar-term signals, so l_pi and omega_pi are treated as free parameters.
    This assumption, stated in Sec. IIC, directly determines the parameter count and the shape/projection split.
  • domain assumption A CURN model plus likelihood reweighting adequately approximates a Hellings-Downs-correlated stochastic background for eccentric CGW searches.
    The paper explicitly does not support HD-correlated GWB and relies on reweighting (Sec. IIIB); the validity of this approximation is not demonstrated here.
  • standard math The log-likelihood factorization in Eq. 14 is exact when the covariance matrix C does not depend on the projection parameters.
    This follows algebraically from the definitions of N_k and M_kl and is the core of the computational speedup.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 28465 in / 9460 out tokens · 91330 ms · 2026-08-01T00:43:25.847795+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent pulsar timing array (PTA) results have provided evidence for the presence of a nanohertz gravitational wave (GW) background, most likely originating from a population of supermassive black hole binaries (SMBHBs). The next major milestone is the detection of continuous GWs (CGWs) from an individual SMBHB and the identification of its electromagnetic counterpart. Typically, searches for CGWs in PTA data assume binaries in circular orbits. However, theoretical studies indicate that binaries emitting GWs in the PTA frequency band may retain significant eccentricity. In this paper, we present a fast and efficient Bayesian pipeline to search for CGWs from individual SMBHBs in relativistic eccentric orbits in PTA datasets. Our approach extends the QuickCW framework for circular binaries, in which model parameters are divided into projection and shape parameters. Computational efficiency is achieved by performing many updates of the projection parameters for a fixed set of shape parameters, an operation that is orders of magnitude faster than updating the shape parameters. We validate the pipeline through both detection and upper-limit analyses of simulated PTA datasets. This framework makes the search for eccentric SMBHBs computationally feasible, even in the next-generation PTA datasets with many more pulsars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26051 by Abhimanyu Susobhanan, Bence B\'ecsy, Lankeswar Dey, Maria Charisi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Corner plot showing the one- and two-dimensional marginalized posterior distributions of the SMBHB parameters for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Cumulative distribution function of the normalized absolute difference between the log-likelihood values computed using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Corner plot showing the one- and two- dimensional marginalized posterior distributions of log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 50 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Injected values of the SMBHB parameters for the detection and upper limit analysis

    Detection analysis TABLE II. Injected values of the SMBHB parameters for the detection and upper limit analysis. The last column shows the prior used for the binary parameters for both the detection and upper limit analysis. Parameter Detection analysis Upper limit analysis Prior cosθ 0.2 0.45 Uniform[-1, 1] ϕ 5.0 5.0 Uniform[0, 2π] cosι 0.5 0.5 Uniform[-...

  2. [2]

    The remaining binary parameters are listed in the third column of Table II

    Upper-limit analysis For the upper-limit analysis, we inject a CGW signal from an eccentric SMBHB with log 10 H0 =−14.5, corre- sponding to a S/N of approximately 5.7. The remaining binary parameters are listed in the third column of Table II. The resulting Savage-Dickey Bayes factor for the presence of a CGW signal from ourQuickGWeccpipeline run is B= 0....

  3. [3]

    D. J. D’Orazio and M. Charisi, Observational Signatures of Supermassive Black Hole Binaries, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2310.16896 (2023), arXiv:2310.16896 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    M. C. Begelman, R. D. Blandford, and M. J. Rees, Massive black hole binaries in active galactic nuclei, Nature (London) 287, 307 (1980)

    1980

  5. [5]

    De Rosa, C

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Sillanpaa, S

    A. Sillanpaa, S. Haarala, M. J. Valtonen, B. Sundelius, and G. G. Byrd, OJ 287: Binary Pair of Supermassive Black Holes, Astrophys. J.325, 628 (1988)

    1988

  7. [7]

    D. J. D’Orazio, Z. Haiman, and D. Schiminovich, Relativistic boost as the cause of periodicity in a massive black-hole binary candidate, Nature (London)525, 351 (2015), arXiv:1509.04301 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    H. J. Lehto and M. J. Valtonen, OJ 287 Outburst Structure and a Binary Black Hole Model, Astrophys. J.460, 207 (1996)

    1996

  9. [9]

    Charisi, I

    M. Charisi, I. Bartos, Z. Haiman, A. M. Price-Whelan, M. J. Graham, E. C. Bellm, R. R. Laher, and S. M´ arka, A population of short-period variable quasars from PTF as supermassive black hole binary candidates, MNRAS463, 2145 (2016), arXiv:1604.01020 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [10]

    Sudou, S

    H. Sudou, S. Iguchi, Y. Murata, and Y. Taniguchi, Orbital Motion in the Radio Galaxy 3C 66B: Evidence for a Supermassive Black Hole Binary, Science300, 1263 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0306103 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  11. [11]

    M. J. Graham, S. G. Djorgovski, D. Stern, E. Glikman, A. J. Drake, A. A. Mahabal, C. Donalek, S. Larson, and E. Chris- tensen, A possible close supermassive black-hole binary in a quasar with optical periodicity, Nature (London)518, 74 (2015), arXiv:1501.01375 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  12. [12]

    F. A. Jenet, A. Lommen, S. L. Larson, and L. Wen, Constraining the Properties of Supermassive Black Hole Systems Using Pulsar Timing: Application to 3C 66B, Astrophys. J.606, 799 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0310276 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  13. [13]

    L. Dey, M. J. Valtonen, A. Gopakumar, S. Zola, R. Hudec, P. Pihajoki, S. Ciprini, K. Matsumoto, K. Sadakane, M. Kidger, K. Nilsson, S. Mikkola, A. Sillanp¨ a¨ a, L. O. Takalo, H. J. Lehto, A. Berdyugin, V. Piirola, H. Jermak, K. S. Baliyan, T. Pursimo, D. B. Caton, F. Alicavus, A. Baransky, P. Blay, P. Boumis, D. Boyd, M. Campas Torrent, F. Campos, J. Car...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  14. [14]

    Robnik, A

    J. Robnik, A. E. Bayer, M. Charisi, Z. Haiman, A. Lin, and U. Seljak, Periodicity significance testing with null-signal templates: reassessment of PTF’s SMBH binary candidates, MNRAS534, 1609 (2024), arXiv:2407.17565 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    M. V. Sazhin, Opportunities for detecting ultralong gravitational waves, Soviet Astronomy22, 36 (1978)

    1978

  16. [16]

    Burke-Spolaor, S

    S. Burke-Spolaor, S. R. Taylor, M. Charisi, T. Dolch, J. S. Hazboun, A. M. Holgado, L. Z. Kelley, T. J. W. Lazio, D. R. Madison, N. McMann, C. M. F. Mingarelli, A. Rasskazov, X. Siemens, J. J. Simon, and T. L. Smith, The astrophysics of nanohertz gravitational waves, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review27, 5 (2019), arXiv:1811.08826 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    S. R. Taylor, The Nanohertz Gravitational Wave Astronomer, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2105.13270 (2021), arXiv:2105.13270 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    F. B. Estabrook and H. D. Wahlquist, Response of Doppler spacecraft tracking to gravitational radiation., General Rela- tivity and Gravitation6, 439 (1975)

    1975

  19. [19]

    R. S. Foster and D. C. Backer, Constructing a Pulsar Timing Array, Astrophys. J.361, 300 (1990)

    1990

  20. [20]

    R. W. Hellings and G. S. Downs, Upper limits on the isotropic gravitational radiation background from pulsar timing analysis., apjl265, L39 (1983)

    1983

  21. [21]

    D. J. Reardon, A. Zic, R. M. Shannon, G. B. Hobbs, M. Bailes, V. Di Marco, A. Kapur, A. F. Rogers, E. Thrane, J. Askew, N. D. R. Bhat, A. Cameron, M. Cury lo, W. A. Coles, S. Dai, B. Goncharov, M. Kerr, A. Kulkarni, Y. Levin, M. E. Lower, R. N. Manchester, R. Mandow, M. T. Miles, R. S. Nathan, S. Os lowski, C. J. Russell, R. Spiewak, S. Zhang, and X.-J. Z...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Agazie, A

    G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, Z. Arzoumanian, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, L. Blecha, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, S. Burke-Spolaor, R. Burnette, R. Case, M. Charisi, S. Chatterjee, K. Chatziioannou, B. D. Cheeseboro, S. Chen, T. Cohen, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cornish, F. Crawford, H. T. Cromartie, K. Crowter, C. J. Cutler, M. E. Decesar, D. Degan, P. ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Antoniadis, P

    EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, J. Antoniadis, 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, 14 A. Chalumeau, D. J. Champion, S. Chanlaridis, S. Chen, I. Cognard, S. Dandapat, D. Deb, S. Desai, G. Desvignes, N. Dhanda-Batr...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Agazie, J

    G. Agazie, J. Antoniadis, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, P. Arumugam, S. Arumugam, Z. Arzoumanian, J. Askew, S. Babak, M. Bagchi, M. Bailes, A.-S. Bak Nielsen, P. T. Baker, C. G. Bassa, A. Bathula, B. B´ ecsy, A. Berthereau, N. D. R. Bhat, L. Blecha, M. Bonetti, E. Bortolas, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, M. Burgay, S. Burke-Spolaor, R. Burnette, R. N. Cabal...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    H. Xu, S. Chen, Y. Guo, J. Jiang, B. Wang, J. Xu, Z. Xue, R. N. Caballero, J. Yuan, Y. Xu, J. Wang, L. Hao, J. Luo, K. Lee, J. Han, P. Jiang, Z. Shen, M. Wang, N. Wang, R. Xu, X. Wu, R. Manchester, L. Qian, X. Guan, M. Huang, C. Sun, and Y. Zhu, Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    M. T. Miles, R. M. Shannon, D. J. Reardon, M. Bailes, D. J. Champion, M. Geyer, P. Gitika, K. Grunthal, M. J. Keith, M. Kramer, A. D. Kulkarni, R. S. Nathan, A. Parthasarathy, J. Singha, G. Theureau, E. Thrane, F. Abbate, S. Buchner, A. D. Cameron, F. Camilo, B. E. Moreschi, G. Shaifullah, M. Shamohammadi, A. Possenti, and V. V. Krishnan, The MeerKAT Puls...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Afzal, G

    A. Afzal, G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, Z. Arzoumanian, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, J. J. Blanco-Pillado, L. Blecha, K. K. Boddy, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, S. Burke-Spolaor, R. Burnette, R. Case, M. Charisi, S. Chatterjee, K. Chatziioannou, B. D. Cheeseboro, S. Chen, T. Cohen, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cornish, F. Crawford, H. T. Cromartie, K. Crowte...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Antoniadis, P

    EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, J. Antoniadis, 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. Ca- ballero, A. Chalumeau, D. J. Champion, S. Chanlaridis, S. Chen, I. Cognard, S. Dandapat, D. Deb, S. Desai, G. Desvi- gnes, N. Dhanda-Bat...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Agazie, A

    G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, L. Blecha, A. Bonilla, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, S. Burke-Spolaor, R. Burnette, R. Case, J. A. Casey-Clyde, M. Charisi, S. Chatterjee, K. Chatziioannou, B. D. Cheeseboro, S. Chen, T. Cohen, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cornish, F. Crawford, H. T. Cromartie, K. Crowter, C. J. Cutler, D. J. D’Orazi...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Kelley, M

    L. Kelley, M. Charisi, S. Burke-Spolaor, J. Simon, L. Blecha, T. Bogdanovic, M. Colpi, J. Comerford, D. D’Orazio, M. Dotti, M. Eracleous, M. Graham, J. Greene, Z. Haiman, K. Holley-Bockelmann, E. Kara, B. Kelly, S. Komossa, S. Larson, X. Liu, C.-P. Ma, S. Noble, V. Paschalidis, R. Rafikov, V. Ravi, J. Runnoe, A. Sesana, D. Stern, M. A. Strauss, V. U, M. V...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    E. C. Gardiner, B. B´ ecsy, L. Z. Kelley, and N. J. Cornish, Characterizing Continuous Gravitational Waves from Super- massive Black Hole Binaries in Realistic Pulsar Timing Array Data, Astrophys. J.988, 222 (2025), arXiv:2502.16016 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Petrov, L

    P. Petrov, L. Schult, S. R. Taylor, N. Pol, N. Laal, M. Charisi, and C.-P. Ma, Expectations for the first supermassive black-hole binary resolved by PTAs II: Milestones for binary characterization, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2510.01316 (2025), arXiv:2510.01316 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Aggarwal, Z

    K. Aggarwal, Z. Arzoumanian, P. T. Baker, A. Brazier, M. R. Brinson, P. R. Brook, S. Burke-Spolaor, S. Chatterjee, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cornish, F. Crawford, K. Crowter, H. T. Cromartie, M. DeCesar, P. B. Demorest, T. Dolch, J. A. Ellis, R. D. Ferdman, E. Ferrara, E. Fonseca, N. Garver-Daniels, P. Gentile, J. S. Hazboun, A. M. Holgado, E. A. Huerta, K. Isl...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    Petrov, S

    P. Petrov, S. R. Taylor, M. Charisi, and C.-P. Ma, Identifying the Host Galaxies of Supermassive Black Hole Binaries Found by Pulsar Timing Arrays, Astrophys. J.976, 129 (2024), arXiv:2406.04409 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Veronesi, M

    N. Veronesi, M. Charisi, P. Petrov, S. R. Taylor, J. Runnoe, D. J. D’Orazio, J. Pilawa, and C.-P. Ma, Prospects of resolving and localising individual supermassive black hole binaries with pulsar timing arrays: the host ranking challenge, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2606.00218 (2026), arXiv:2606.00218 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    Agazie, A

    G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, Z. Arzoumanian, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, L. Blecha, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, S. Burke-Spolaor, R. Case, J. A. Casey-Clyde, M. Charisi, S. Chatterjee, T. Cohen, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cornish, F. Crawford, H. T. Cromartie, K. Crowter, M. E. Decesar, P. B. Demorest, M. C. Digman, T. Dolch, B. Drachler, E. C. Ferrara...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Arzoumanian, P

    Z. Arzoumanian, P. T. Baker, L. Blecha, H. Blumer, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, S. Burke-Spolaor, B. B´ ecsy, J. A. Casey- Clyde, M. Charisi, S. Chatterjee, S. Chen, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cornish, F. Crawford, H. T. Cromartie, M. E. Decesar, P. B. Demorest, T. Dolch, B. Drachler, J. A. Ellis, E. C. Ferrara, W. Fiore, E. Fonseca, G. E. Freedman, N. Garver-Daniel...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Falxa, S

    M. Falxa, S. Babak, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, A. Chalumeau, S. Chen, Z. Chen, N. J. Cornish, L. Guillemot, J. S. Hazboun, C. M. F. Mingarelli, A. Parthasarathy, A. Petiteau, N. S. Pol, A. Sesana, S. B. Spolaor, S. R. Taylor, G. Theureau, M. Vallisneri, S. J. Vigeland, C. A. Witt, X. Zhu, J. Antoniadis, Z. Arzoumanian, M. Bailes, N. D. R. Bhat, L. Blecha, A...

    arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Sesana, Self Consistent Model for the Evolution of Eccentric Massive Black Hole Binaries in Stellar Environments: Implications for Gravitational Wave Observations, Astrophys

    A. Sesana, Self Consistent Model for the Evolution of Eccentric Massive Black Hole Binaries in Stellar Environments: Implications for Gravitational Wave Observations, Astrophys. J.719, 851 (2010), arXiv:1006.0730 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  40. [40]

    Antoniadis, P

    EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, J. Antoniadis, 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. Champion, S. Chanlaridis, S. Chen, I. Cognard, S. Dandapat, D. Deb, S. Desai, G. Desvignes, N. Dhanda-Batra, ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Zhao, Z.-C

    S.-Y. Zhao, Z.-C. Chen, J. Cardinal Tremblay, B. Goncharov, X.-J. Zhu, N. D. R. Bhat, M. Cury lo, S. Dai, V. Di Marco, H. Ding, G. Hobbs, A. Kapur, W. Ling, T. Liu, R. Mandow, S. Mishra, D. J. Reardon, C. J. Russell, R. M. Shannon, S. Wang, L. Zhang, and A. Zic, Searching for Continuous Gravitational Waves in the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array Data Release 3,...

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    S. R. Taylor, E. A. Huerta, J. R. Gair, and S. T. McWilliams, Detecting Eccentric Supermassive Black Hole Binaries with Pulsar Timing Arrays: Resolvable Source Strategies, Astrophys. J.817, 70 (2016), arXiv:1505.06208 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  43. [43]

    A. Sesana, Insights into the astrophysics of supermassive black hole binaries from pulsar timing observations, Classical and Quantum Gravity30, 224014 (2013), arXiv:1307.2600 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  44. [44]

    Franchini, A

    A. Franchini, A. Prato, C. Longarini, and A. Sesana, The behaviour of eccentric sub-pc massive black hole binaries embedded in massive discs, A&A688, A174 (2024), arXiv:2402.00938 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Arzoumanian, P

    Z. Arzoumanian, P. T. Baker, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, S. Burke-Spolaor, B. B´ ecsy, M. Charisi, S. Chatterjee, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cornish, F. Crawford, H. T. Cromartie, K. Crowter, M. E. Decesar, P. B. Demorest, T. Dolch, R. D. Elliott, J. A. Ellis, R. D. Ferdman, E. C. Ferrara, E. Fonseca, N. Garver-Daniels, P. A. Gentile, D. C. Good, J. S. Hazboun, K. ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    Agazie, Z

    G. Agazie, Z. Arzoumanian, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, L. Blecha, H. Blumer, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, S. Burke-Spolaor, J. A. Casey-Clyde, M. Charisi, S. Chatterjee, B. D. Cheeseboro, T. Cohen, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cornish, F. Crawford, H. T. Cromartie, M. E. Decesar, P. B. Demorest, L. Dey, T. Dolch, J. A. Ellis, R. D. Ferdman, E. C. Ferrara, W. Fiore, E. Fo...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    J. A. Ellis, M. Vallisneri, S. R. Taylor, and P. T. Baker, Enterprise: Enhanced numerical toolbox enabling a robust pulsar inference suite, Zenodo (2020)

    2020

  48. [48]

    for more details about how the importance weight and acceptance probability are calculated. This ensures that the updates to the shape parameters are not rejected due to lack of an appropriate set of projection parameters with very little additional cost, as likelihood evaluation at different projection parameters is comparatively cheap. This approach sig...

  49. [49]

    Agarwal, G

    N. Agarwal, G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, Z. Arzoumanian, J. G. Baier, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, L. Blecha, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, S. Burke-Spolaor, R. Burnette, R. Case, J. A. Casey-Clyde, Y.-T. Chang, M. Charisi, S. Chatterjee, T. Cohen, P. Coppi, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cornish, F. Crawford, H. T. Cromartie, K. Crowter, M. E. Decesar, P. B....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    Charisi, S

    M. Charisi, S. R. Taylor, C. A. Witt, and J. Runnoe, Efficient Large-Scale, Targeted Gravitational-Wave Probes of Supermassive Black-Hole Binaries, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 061401 (2024), arXiv:2304.03786 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    B´ ecsy, N

    B. B´ ecsy, N. J. Cornish, and M. C. Digman, Fast Bayesian analysis of individual binaries in pulsar timing array data, Phys. Rev. D105, 122003 (2022), arXiv:2204.07160 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    G. B. Hobbs, R. T. Edwards, and R. N. Manchester, TEMPO2, a new pulsar-timing package - I. An overview, MNRAS 369, 655 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0603381 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  53. [53]

    Agazie, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  54. [54]

    Agazie, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Larsen, J

    B. Larsen, J. G. Baier, D. J. Oliver, K. Wayt, Y.-T. Chang, J. S. Hazboun, C. M. F. Mingarelli, J. Simon, M. T. Miles, G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, Z. Arzoumanian, P. T. Baker, P. R. Brook, H. T. Cromartie, K. Crowter, M. E. DeCesar, P. B. Demorest, T. Dolch, E. C. Ferrara, W. Fiore, E. Fonseca, G. E. Freedman, N. Garver-Daniels, P. A. Gen...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    Susobhanan, A

    A. Susobhanan, A. Gopakumar, G. Hobbs, and S. R. Taylor, Pulsar timing array signals induced by black hole binaries in relativistic eccentric orbits, Phys. Rev. D101, 043022 (2020), arXiv:2002.03285 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  57. [57]

    A. Susobhanan, Post-Newtonian-accurate pulsar timing array signals induced by inspiralling eccentric binaries: accuracy, computational cost, and single-pulsar search, Classical and Quantum Gravity40, 155014 (2023), arXiv:2210.11454 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    Damour, A

    T. Damour, A. Gopakumar, and B. R. Iyer, Phasing of gravitational waves from inspiralling eccentric binaries, Phys. Rev. D70, 064028 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0404128 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  59. [59]

    Martino, A review of multiple try MCMC algorithms for signal processing, Digital Signal Processing75, 134 (2018), arXiv:1801.09065 [stat.CO]

    L. Martino, A review of multiple try MCMC algorithms for signal processing, Digital Signal Processing75, 134 (2018), arXiv:1801.09065 [stat.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  60. [60]

    Hourihane, P

    S. Hourihane, P. Meyers, A. Johnson, K. Chatziioannou, and M. Vallisneri, Accurate characterization of the stochastic gravitational-wave background with pulsar timing arrays by likelihood reweighting, Phys. Rev. D107, 084045 (2023), arXiv:2212.06276 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    Liu and S

    T. Liu and S. J. Vigeland, Multi-messenger Approaches to Supermassive Black Hole Binary Detection and Parameter Estimation: Implications for Nanohertz Gravitational Wave Searches with Pulsar Timing Arrays, Astrophys. J.921, 178 (2021), arXiv:2105.08087 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  62. [62]

    B´ ecsy, N

    B. B´ ecsy, N. J. Cornish, P. Petrov, X. Siemens, S. R. Taylor, S. J. Vigeland, and C. A. Witt, Towards robust gravitational wave detections from individual supermassive black hole binaries, Classical and Quantum Gravity42, 175016 (2025), arXiv:2502.18114 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Vallisneri, M

    M. Vallisneri, M. Crisostomi, A. D. Johnson, and P. M. Meyers, Rapid Parameter Estimation for Pulsar-Timing-Array Datasets with Variational Inference and Normalizing Flows, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 071401 (2025), arXiv:2405.08857 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025