AG-2026.05-041·astro-ph.CO·cross-listed: astro-ph.HEgr-qchep-ph
Are PTA measurements sensitive to gravitational wave non-Gaussianities?
Authors
- Chiara Cecchini
- Jonas El Gammal
- Gabriele Franciolini
- Mauro Pieroni
Abstract
Observing non-Gaussianity in the timing residuals of Pulsar Timing Arrays (PTAs) has recently attracted attention as a potential discriminator between astrophysical and cosmological origins of the observed Gravitational Wave (GW) signal. In this work, we show that even in an idealized signal-dominated setup, after decorrelating data to avoid spurious detections, statistical tests applied to PTA data cannot distinguish between Gaussian and non-Gaussian GWBs in a model-agnostic way. In particular, without making strong assumptions on the GW spectrum or the properties of the population, the sensitivity to any distinctive non-Gaussian feature is washed out.
Submitted
6 May 20261 week ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2605.05157
Summary
Pulsar timing arrays cannot reliably detect non-Gaussianity in gravitational wave signals without making strong assumptions about the wave properties, limiting their ability to distinguish cosmological from astrophysical sources.
- Current statistical methods for analyzing pulsar timing data lose sensitivity to non-Gaussian features after standard data cleaning steps, even when the gravitational wave signal dominates the noise.
- Distinguishing whether detected gravitational waves come from the early universe (cosmological) or merging black holes (astrophysical) by looking for non-Gaussian signatures requires restrictive model assumptions that may not hold in reality.
- This finding suggests astronomers need either new analysis techniques or complementary methods to use gravitational wave statistics as a discriminator between different physical origins.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.