Exploring Pulsar Timing Precision: A Comparative Study of Polarization Calibration Methods for NANOGrav Data from the Green Bank Telescope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Pulsar timing array experiments have recently uncovered evidence for a nanohertz gravitational wave background by precisely timing an ensemble of millisecond pulsars. The next significant milestones for these experiments include characterizing the detected background with greater precision, identifying its source(s), and detecting continuous gravitational waves from individual supermassive black hole binaries. To achieve these objectives, generating accurate and precise times of arrival of pulses from pulsar observations is crucial. Incorrect polarization calibration of the observed pulsar profiles may introduce errors in the measured times of arrival. Further, previous studies have demonstrated that robust polarization calibration of pulsar profiles can reduce noise in the pulsar timing data and improve timing solutions. In this paper, we investigate and compare the impact of different polarization calibration methods on pulsar timing precision using three distinct calibration techniques: the Ideal Feed Assumption (IFA), Measurement Equation Modeling (MEM), and Measurement Equation Template Matching (METM). Three NANOGrav pulsars—PSRs J1643−1224, J1744−1134, and J1909−3744—observed with the 800 MHz and 1.5 GHz receivers at the Green Bank Telescope (GBT) are utilized for our analysis. Our findings reveal that all three calibration methods enhance timing precision compared to scenarios where no polarization calibration is performed. Additionally, among the three calibration methods, the IFA approach generally provides the best results for timing analysis of pulsars observed with the GBT receiver system. We attribute the comparatively poorer performance of the MEM and METM methods to potential instabilities in the reference noise diode coupled to the receiver and temporal variations in the profile of the reference pulsar, respectively.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".