The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Chromatic Gaussian Process Noise Models for Six Pulsars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Pulsar timing arrays (PTAs) are designed to detect low-frequency gravitational waves (GWs). GWs induce achromatic signals in PTA data, meaning that the timing delays do not depend on radio frequency. However, pulse arrival times are also affected by radio-frequency-dependent “chromatic” noise from sources such as dispersion measure (DM) and scattering delay variations. Furthermore, the characterization of GW signals may be influenced by the choice of chromatic noise model for each pulsar. To better understand this effect, we assess if and how different chromatic noise models affect the achromatic noise properties in each pulsar. The models we compare include existing DM models used by the North American Nanohertz Observatory for Gravitational waves (NANOGrav) and noise models used for the European PTA Data Release 2 (EPTA DR2). We perform this comparison using a subsample of six pulsars from the NANOGrav 15 yr data set, selecting the same six pulsars as from the EPTA DR2 six-pulsar data set. We find that the choice of chromatic noise model noticeably affects the achromatic noise properties of several pulsars. This is most dramatic for PSR J1713+0747, where the amplitude of its achromatic red noise lowers from log 10 A RN = − 14.1 − 0.1 + 0.1 to − 14.7 − 0.5 + 0.3 , and the spectral index broadens from γ RN = 2.6 − 0.4 + 0.5 to γ RN = 3.5 − 0.9 + 1.2 . We also compare each pulsar's noise properties with those inferred from the EPTA DR2, using the same models. From the discrepancies, we identify potential areas where the noise models could be improved. These results highlight the potential for custom chromatic noise models to improve PTA sensitivity to GWs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".