The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Harmonic Analysis of the Pulsar Angular Correlations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulsar timing array observations have found evidence for an isotropic gravitational wave background with the Hellings-Downs angular correlations, expected from general relativity. This interpretation hinges on the measured shape of the angular correlations, which is predominately quadrupolar under general relativity. Here we explore a more flexible parameterization: we expand the angular correlations into a sum of Legendre polynomials and use a Bayesian analysis to constrain their coefficients with the 15-year pulsar timing data set collected by the North American Nanohertz Observatory for Gravitational Waves (NANOGrav). When including Legendre polynomials with multipoles $\ell \geq 2$, we only find a significant signal in the quadrupole with an amplitude consistent with general relativity and non-zero at the $\sim 95\%$ confidence level and a Bayes factor of 200. When we include multipoles $\ell \leq 1$, the Bayes factor evidence for quadrupole correlations decreases by more than an order of magnitude due to evidence for a monopolar signal at approximately 4 nHz which has also been noted in previous analyses of the NANOGrav 15-year data. Further work needs to be done in order to better characterize the properties of this monopolar signal and its effect on the evidence for quadrupolar angular correlations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".