adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Analytic Model and Magnetohydrodynamic Simulations of Three-dimensional Magnetic Switchbacks
Authors: Chen Shi, 辰 时, Marco Velli, Gabor Toth, Kun Zhang, 琨 张, Anna Tenerani, Zesen Huang, 泽森 黄, Nikos Sioulas, Bart van der Holst
Figure caption: Visualization of the analytic model of the magnetic field described in Section 2. The model parameters are ΔB/B 0 = − 2, R 0 = 2, R 1 = 0.5, H = 3, R  m  = 2, and R  d  = 1.5. (a) Radial profiles of the r (blue), ϕ (orange), and z (green) components, and of the magnitude (black) of the magnetic field. (b) Two magnetic field lines (green and white) overplotted on three orthogonal surfaces, which are color-coded with B  z . The background field is along z-direction.
Paper: Analytic Model and Magnetohydrodynamic Simulations of Three-dimensional Magnetic Switchbacks
Authors: Chen Shi, 辰 时, Marco Velli, Gabor Toth, Kun Zhang, 琨 张, Anna Tenerani, Zesen Huang, 泽森 黄, Nikos Sioulas, Bart van der Holst
Figure caption: Time evolution of (top) the normalized density fluctuations ﹩\delta \rho /\left\langle \rho \right\rangle ﹩, where δ ρ is the rms of the density and ﹩\left\langle \rho \right\rangle ﹩ is the average density, and (bottom) the minimum value of B  z  in the simulation domain. In the left column, we show the results for Runs 0, 1, 2, and 3. In the right column we show the results for Runs 0, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Paper: Analytic Model and Magnetohydrodynamic Simulations of Three-dimensional Magnetic Switchbacks
Authors: Chen Shi, 辰 时, Marco Velli, Gabor Toth, Kun Zhang, 琨 张, Anna Tenerani, Zesen Huang, 泽森 黄, Nikos Sioulas, Bart van der Holst
Figure caption: Snapshots of the x − z plane across the central axis (y = 0) color-coded with B  z  for Runs 0 ((a), top), 0IC ((b), middle), and 8 ((c), bottom). Black curves are magnetic field lines projected on the 2D plane.
Paper: Which Black Hole Is Spinning? Probing the Origin of Black Hole Spin with Gravitational Waves
Authors: Christian Adamcewicz, Shanika Galaudage, Paul D. Lasky, Eric Thrane
Figure caption: A comparison of each spin hypothesis for each event. Each point represents a single BBH event observed in gravitational waves. The color of the point represents the natural log Bayes factor for the spinning hypothesis ﹩\mathrm{ln}{{ \mathcal B }}_{\mathrm{spin}};﹩ white circles are events best explained as nonspinning, while blue circles are best explained as containing at least one spinning black hole. The vertical axis shows the natural log Bayes factor comparing the single-spin hypothesis (positive values) to the both-spin hypothesis (negative values) ﹩\mathrm{ln}{{ \mathcal B }}_{\mathrm{single}}﹩. The horizontal axis shows the natural log Bayes factor comparing the primary-spin hypothesis (positive values) to the secondary-spin hypothesis (negative values) ﹩\mathrm{ln}{{ \mathcal B }}_{\mathrm{primary}}﹩. Note there is significantly less spread in ﹩{{ \mathcal B }}_{\mathrm{single}}﹩ than there is in ﹩{{ \mathcal B }}_{\mathrm{primary}}﹩, indicating that it is relatively difficult to ascertain if the primary is spinning by itself. The four events with the highest evidence for spin (darkest blue) are labeled, being GW190412_053044, GW190517_055101, GW151226, and GW191204_171526.
Paper: Which Black Hole Is Spinning? Probing the Origin of Black Hole Spin with Gravitational Waves
Authors: Christian Adamcewicz, Shanika Galaudage, Paul D. Lasky, Eric Thrane
Figure caption: Posterior corner plot for hyperparameters governing the BBH spin distribution. Blue shows the posteriors given the single-spin model (Equation (1), while orange shows the posteriors given the both-spin model (Equation (2) from Tong et al. 2022). Both models use Equation (2) for spin orientation. Contours on the two-dimensional plot give the 50%, 90%, and 99% credible regions. In the single-spin framework, we measure the mean and variance of the spin magnitude distribution to be ﹩{\mu }_{\chi }={0.39}_{-0.11}^{+0.14}﹩ and ﹩{\sigma }_{\chi }^{2}={0.04}_{-0.03}^{+0.03},﹩ respectively. Meanwhile, the width of the cosine spin tilt distribution is found to be ﹩{\sigma }_{t}={0.70}_{-0.44}^{+0.64}﹩. In the both-spin framework, we find the mean and variance of the spin magnitude distribution to be ﹩{\mu }_{\chi }={0.31}_{-0.09}^{+0.12}﹩ and ﹩{\sigma }_{\chi }^{2}={0.03}_{-0.02}^{+0.02}﹩, with the width of the cosine spin tilt distribution being ﹩{\sigma }_{t}={0.93}_{-0.39}^{+0.73}﹩.
Paper: Which Black Hole Is Spinning? Probing the Origin of Black Hole Spin with Gravitational Waves
Authors: Christian Adamcewicz, Shanika Galaudage, Paul D. Lasky, Eric Thrane
Figure caption: Posterior corner plot for the fraction of BBH systems with negligible spin λ 0 and the fraction of spinning BBH systems with χ 1 > 0, λ 1. The different shades indicate the 50%, 90%, and 99% credible intervals. The fact that λ 0 = 1 is ruled out is already well established: at least some BBH systems contain a black hole with nonnegligible spin. The fact that λ 1 = 0 is ruled out suggests that—within the single-spin framework and among binaries with a spinning black hole—it is the primary mass black hole that is spinning at least 59% of the time. Under the assumption of single spin, the data are consistent with the possibility that only the primary black hole spins.
Paper: Which Black Hole Is Spinning? Probing the Origin of Black Hole Spin with Gravitational Waves
Authors: Christian Adamcewicz, Shanika Galaudage, Paul D. Lasky, Eric Thrane
Figure caption: Population predictive distributions for primary (left) and secondary (right) spin magnitude. Blue shows the single-spin model (Equation (1)), while orange shows the both-spin model (Equation (2) from Tong et al. 2022). In either model the distributions for nonzero χ 1 and χ 2 must have identical shapes. In the both-spin model, they must also have identical amplitudes. The both-spin model enforces that either χ 1 = χ 2 = 0 or that χ 1 > 0 and χ 2 > 0 simultaneously. Meanwhile, the single-spin model enforces that χ 1 = χ 2 = 0, that χ 1 > 0 and χ 2 = 0, or that χ 1 = 0 and χ 2 > 0.
Paper: Which Black Hole Is Spinning? Probing the Origin of Black Hole Spin with Gravitational Waves
Authors: Christian Adamcewicz, Shanika Galaudage, Paul D. Lasky, Eric Thrane
Figure caption: Population predictive distributions for cosine spin tilts following Equation (2). Blue shows the results for the single-spin model (Equation (1)), while orange shows the results for the both-spin model (Equation (2) from Tong et al. 2022).
Paper: A Full Resolution of the 450 μm Extragalactic Background Light
Authors: Qi-Ning Hsu, L. L. Cowie, Chian-Chou Chen, A. J. Barger
Figure caption: Left: corrected differential number counts for all 10 cluster fields at 450 μm. The solid black curve shows the best-fit Schechter function, while the shaded gray region is the 68% confidence interval. The uncertainties include Poisson noise, as well as those caused by the underlying redshift distributions and lens models. Right: weighted average counts of all 10 cluster fields in filled black circles, along with previous 450 μm surveys in open symbols (Chen et al. 2013; Hsu et al. 2016; Wang et al. 2017; Zavala et al. 2017; Gao et al. 2024). Model predictions from SIDES (Béthermin et al. 2017), GALFORM (Cowley et al. 2019), and SHARK (Lagos et al. 2020) are shown as dotted and dashed curves.
Paper: A Full Resolution of the 450 μm Extragalactic Background Light
Authors: Qi-Ning Hsu, L. L. Cowie, Chian-Chou Chen, A. J. Barger
Figure caption: Cumulative EBL as a function of flux density at 450 μm. The black solid curve was calculated based on our best-fit Schechter function with the 1σ uncertainties in gray shading. The blue solid curve was calculated based on a broken power-law function. The black dotted curve was calculated by combining our results with the deepest blank-field counts from Gao et al. (2024). The horizontal red dashed line is the EBL measured by the COBE+Planck satellites (Odegard et al. 2019). The red shaded region shows the range from COBE estimates (e.g., Puget et al. 1996; Fixsen et al. 1998; Gispert et al. 2000).
Paper: A Full Resolution of the 450 μm Extragalactic Background Light
Authors: Qi-Ning Hsu, L. L. Cowie, Chian-Chou Chen, A. J. Barger
Figure caption: Ratios between the corrected number counts and the model counts, where the model counts are based on the SIDES simulation source catalog, and the corrected counts were obtained by applying our methodology to the mock images that were made based on the SIDES source catalog. The top panel shows the results for the case where the source positions are adopted from SIDES, which includes clustering. The bottom panel shows the results for the case where the sky positions of the sources are randomized.
Paper: A Full Resolution of the 450 μm Extragalactic Background Light
Authors: Qi-Ning Hsu, L. L. Cowie, Chian-Chou Chen, A. J. Barger
Figure caption: Left: an example SCUBA-2 450 μm flux density map of the cluster MACS J1149.5+2223 with a ﹩{6}^{{\prime} }﹩ radius circular footprint. The red circles on the 450 μm map show the extracted >3σ sources. The orange boxes mark the sources below 1 mJy after delensing. The white contours represent the CATS lens model for z = 1.5 at magnification values of 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 (moving inwards). Right: histogram of the S/N values based on the map of MACS J1149.5+2223. The orange region shows the S/N distribution in the jackknife map. The blue represents detections in the data map.
Paper: Analytic Model and Magnetohydrodynamic Simulations of Three-dimensional Magnetic Switchbacks
Authors: Chen Shi, 辰 时, Marco Velli, Gabor Toth, Kun Zhang, 琨 张, Anna Tenerani, Zesen Huang, 泽森 黄, Nikos Sioulas, Bart van der Holst
Figure caption: Illustration of two interacting switchbacks. (a) Reconnection happens at two different locations marked by the red dots. (b) Two new switchbacks and a flux rope are generated.
Paper: A Full Resolution of the 450 μm Extragalactic Background Light
Authors: Qi-Ning Hsu, L. L. Cowie, Chian-Chou Chen, A. J. Barger
Figure caption: Flux density maps for the remaining nine fields. The format follows that adopted in the left panel of Figure 1.
Paper: X-Ray Diagnostics of Cassiopeia A’s “Green Monster”: Evidence for Dense Shocked Circumstellar Plasma
Authors: Jacco Vink, Manan Agarwal, Patrick Slane, Ilse De Looze, Dan Milisavljevic, Daniel Patnaude, Tea Temim
Figure caption: Top panel: RGB color image using the narrow bands 1.2–1.4 keV (red, showing Fe-L and Mg XI/XII line emission), 1.85–1.98 keV (green, Si XIII), and 4.0–4.5 keV (blue, continuum). The images are obtained by combining images from several individual deep observations in 2004 (ObsID 4634, 4635, 4636, 4637, 4638, 4723). The outline of the “Green Monster” structure is shown with green polygons. Spectral extraction regions along the “Green Monster” (GM1–GM5) and three CSM-related structures (CSM1–CSM3) are shown in white. The background regions used are shown in cyan. Bottom panels: the central region of Cas A in X-rays in 2004 (left), 2019 (ObsID 19606, center), and IR using JWST/MIRI data (right). The X-ray extraction regions are overlayed as well as a rough outline of the “Green Monster.” The RGB channels are for the X-ray images identical to those in the top panel. The JWST map consists of the F2550W (red), F1800W (green), and F1000W (blue) filters (see Milisavljevic et al. 2024). All images employ square-root brightness scaling.
Paper: X-Ray Diagnostics of Cassiopeia A’s “Green Monster”: Evidence for Dense Shocked Circumstellar Plasma
Authors: Jacco Vink, Manan Agarwal, Patrick Slane, Ilse De Looze, Dan Milisavljevic, Daniel Patnaude, Tea Temim
Figure caption: Top panels: scatterplot of PC scores for all pixels (black) and those corresponding to the GM region (red), zooming in on where the majority of the points are located. (See Figure A4 for the full range of PC scores.) Bottom panels: mask created from the PC1 to PC8 scores using values corresponding to the red colored regions in the top panels. The left panel corresponds to a lose selection and the right panel to a more stringent selection (see the text).
Paper: X-Ray Diagnostics of Cassiopeia A’s “Green Monster”: Evidence for Dense Shocked Circumstellar Plasma
Authors: Jacco Vink, Manan Agarwal, Patrick Slane, Ilse De Looze, Dan Milisavljevic, Daniel Patnaude, Tea Temim
Figure caption: The PC scores 1 (top left) to 8 (bottom right). In particular, in the scores for PC5, PC7, and PC8 one recognizes some of the filaments associated with the GM.
Paper: X-Ray Diagnostics of Cassiopeia A’s “Green Monster”: Evidence for Dense Shocked Circumstellar Plasma
Authors: Jacco Vink, Manan Agarwal, Patrick Slane, Ilse De Looze, Dan Milisavljevic, Daniel Patnaude, Tea Temim
Figure caption: Same as Figure 1, but now with rough indications of important regions mentioned in the text. In general, all Si-rich ejecta show up here in green. Fe-rich ejecta show up as shades of red, but so are regions relatively abundant in Ne IX/X and Mg XI/XII. Bright X-ray synchrotron filaments show up in shades of purple.
Paper: X-Ray Diagnostics of Cassiopeia A’s “Green Monster”: Evidence for Dense Shocked Circumstellar Plasma
Authors: Jacco Vink, Manan Agarwal, Patrick Slane, Ilse De Looze, Dan Milisavljevic, Daniel Patnaude, Tea Temim
Figure caption: A comparison of two spectra from ejecta-dominated regions with one of the GM spectra (GM2). The extraction regions are indicated in Figure 1. Ejecta1 corresponds to Si-rich ejecta and Ejecta2 corresponds to Fe-rich ejecta. All spectra are background subtracted and optimally binned. A dotted line is drawn between the spectral data points for clarity.
Paper: X-Ray Diagnostics of Cassiopeia A’s “Green Monster”: Evidence for Dense Shocked Circumstellar Plasma
Authors: Jacco Vink, Manan Agarwal, Patrick Slane, Ilse De Looze, Dan Milisavljevic, Daniel Patnaude, Tea Temim
Figure caption: Left: X-ray spectra from the “Green Monster” region. Right: spectra of the three CSM regions. See Figure 1 and Table 1 for the identification and spectral fit parameters. The dashed and dotted lines show the model contributions of the vpshock and power-law components, respectively.
Paper: X-Ray Diagnostics of Cassiopeia A’s “Green Monster”: Evidence for Dense Shocked Circumstellar Plasma
Authors: Jacco Vink, Manan Agarwal, Patrick Slane, Ilse De Looze, Dan Milisavljevic, Daniel Patnaude, Tea Temim
Figure caption: Correlation plots of the Doppler shifts vs. ﹩{\tau }_{\max }﹩ for all GM and CSM regions. The histograms are normalized to a sum of one to form a probability density distribution. The GM analysis is based on 155052 nested sampling iterations and for the CSM analysis there were 113453 nested sampling iterations.
Paper: X-Ray Diagnostics of Cassiopeia A’s “Green Monster”: Evidence for Dense Shocked Circumstellar Plasma
Authors: Jacco Vink, Manan Agarwal, Patrick Slane, Ilse De Looze, Dan Milisavljevic, Daniel Patnaude, Tea Temim
Figure caption: Same as top panels of Figure 4, but now with the full range of PC scores.
Paper: The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Search for Transverse Polarization Modes in the Gravitational-wave Background
Authors: Gabriella Agazie, Akash Anumarlapudi, Anne M. Archibald, Zaven Arzoumanian, Jeremy Baier, Paul T. Baker, Bence Bécsy, Laura Blecha, Adam Brazier, Paul R. Brook, Sarah Burke-Spolaor, Rand Burnette, Robin Case, J. Andrew Casey-Clyde, Maria Charisi, Shami Chatterjee, Tyler Cohen, James M. Cordes, Neil J. Cornish, Fronefield Crawford, H. Thankful Cromartie, Kathryn Crowter, Megan E. DeCesar, Dallas DeGan, Paul B. Demorest, Timothy Dolch, Brendan Drachler, Elizabeth C. Ferrara, William Fiore, Emmanuel Fonseca, Gabriel E. Freedman, Nate Garver-Daniels, Peter A. Gentile, Joseph Glaser, Deborah C. Good, Kayhan Gültekin, Jeffrey S. Hazboun, Ross J. Jennings, Aaron D. Johnson, Megan L. Jones, Andrew R. Kaiser, David L. Kaplan, Luke Zoltan Kelley, Matthew Kerr, Joey S. Key, Nima Laal, Michael T. Lam, William G. Lamb, T. Joseph W. Lazio, Natalia Lewandowska, Tingting Liu, Duncan R. Lorimer, Jing Luo, Ryan S. Lynch, Chung-Pei Ma, Dustin R. Madison, Alexander McEwen, James W. McKee, Maura A. McLaughlin, Natasha McMann, Bradley W. Meyers, Chiara M. F. Mingarelli, Andrea Mitridate, Priyamvada Natarajan, Cherry Ng, David J. Nice, Stella Koch Ocker, Ken D. Olum, Timothy T. Pennucci, Benetge B. P. Perera, Nihan S. Pol, Henri A. Radovan, Scott M. Ransom, Paul S. Ray, Joseph D. Romano, Alexander Saffer, Shashwat C. Sardesai, Ann Schmiedekamp, Carl Schmiedekamp, Kai Schmitz, Brent J. Shapiro-Albert, Xavier Siemens, Joseph Simon, Magdalena S. Siwek, Ingrid H. Stairs, Daniel R. Stinebring, Kevin Stovall, Jerry P. Sun, Abhimanyu Susobhanan, Joseph K. Swiggum, Jacob A. Taylor, Stephen R. Taylor, Jacob E. Turner, Caner Unal, Michele Vallisneri, Sarah J. Vigeland, Haley M. Wahl, Caitlin A. Witt, Olivia Young
Figure caption: (Left) Bayesian probability posterior distributions of ﹩{\mathrm{log}}_{10}{A}_{g}﹩ and γ  g  from an HD correlated model (blue) and an ST correlated model (orange) showing the 1σ/2σ/3σ credible regions. Plotted for comparison are CURN (gray) posterior distributions for ﹩{\mathrm{log}}_{10}{A}_{g}﹩ and γ  g  parameters. Each correlated signal is able to explain the total signal. (Right) Bayesian probability posterior distributions of ﹩{\mathrm{log}}_{10}{A}_{g}﹩ and γ  g  for HD (blue) and ST (orange) from an HD+ST correlated model showing 1σ/2σ/3σ credible regions. Plotted for comparison are CURN (gray) posterior distributions for ﹩{\mathrm{log}}_{10}{A}_{g}﹩ and γ  g  parameters. The plots suggest that the posterior distribution for ST is uninformative and HD adequately describes the total signal recovered by CURN.
Paper: The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Search for Transverse Polarization Modes in the Gravitational-wave Background
Authors: Gabriella Agazie, Akash Anumarlapudi, Anne M. Archibald, Zaven Arzoumanian, Jeremy Baier, Paul T. Baker, Bence Bécsy, Laura Blecha, Adam Brazier, Paul R. Brook, Sarah Burke-Spolaor, Rand Burnette, Robin Case, J. Andrew Casey-Clyde, Maria Charisi, Shami Chatterjee, Tyler Cohen, James M. Cordes, Neil J. Cornish, Fronefield Crawford, H. Thankful Cromartie, Kathryn Crowter, Megan E. DeCesar, Dallas DeGan, Paul B. Demorest, Timothy Dolch, Brendan Drachler, Elizabeth C. Ferrara, William Fiore, Emmanuel Fonseca, Gabriel E. Freedman, Nate Garver-Daniels, Peter A. Gentile, Joseph Glaser, Deborah C. Good, Kayhan Gültekin, Jeffrey S. Hazboun, Ross J. Jennings, Aaron D. Johnson, Megan L. Jones, Andrew R. Kaiser, David L. Kaplan, Luke Zoltan Kelley, Matthew Kerr, Joey S. Key, Nima Laal, Michael T. Lam, William G. Lamb, T. Joseph W. Lazio, Natalia Lewandowska, Tingting Liu, Duncan R. Lorimer, Jing Luo, Ryan S. Lynch, Chung-Pei Ma, Dustin R. Madison, Alexander McEwen, James W. McKee, Maura A. McLaughlin, Natasha McMann, Bradley W. Meyers, Chiara M. F. Mingarelli, Andrea Mitridate, Priyamvada Natarajan, Cherry Ng, David J. Nice, Stella Koch Ocker, Ken D. Olum, Timothy T. Pennucci, Benetge B. P. Perera, Nihan S. Pol, Henri A. Radovan, Scott M. Ransom, Paul S. Ray, Joseph D. Romano, Alexander Saffer, Shashwat C. Sardesai, Ann Schmiedekamp, Carl Schmiedekamp, Kai Schmitz, Brent J. Shapiro-Albert, Xavier Siemens, Joseph Simon, Magdalena S. Siwek, Ingrid H. Stairs, Daniel R. Stinebring, Kevin Stovall, Jerry P. Sun, Abhimanyu Susobhanan, Joseph K. Swiggum, Jacob A. Taylor, Stephen R. Taylor, Jacob E. Turner, Caner Unal, Michele Vallisneri, Sarah J. Vigeland, Haley M. Wahl, Caitlin A. Witt, Olivia Young
Figure caption: Bayes factors for various model comparisons between ST, HD, and CURN. Overall, the HD model is preferred over CURN and ST. Modeling ST alongside HD gives about equal odds over HD and ST only. All model comparisons are agnostic with respect to the spectral index of each model. See Section 3.1 for more details. The uncertainties are estimated using bootstrapping and Markov model techniques of Heck et al. (2019). An ST-only model is made for comparisons even though a metric theory must have HD present. All Bayes factors are presented as the model at the end of an arrow over the starting model of an arrow. For example, for the arrow pointing from CURN to ST, the values are Bayes Factors for ST/CURN.
Paper: The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Search for Transverse Polarization Modes in the Gravitational-wave Background
Authors: Gabriella Agazie, Akash Anumarlapudi, Anne M. Archibald, Zaven Arzoumanian, Jeremy Baier, Paul T. Baker, Bence Bécsy, Laura Blecha, Adam Brazier, Paul R. Brook, Sarah Burke-Spolaor, Rand Burnette, Robin Case, J. Andrew Casey-Clyde, Maria Charisi, Shami Chatterjee, Tyler Cohen, James M. Cordes, Neil J. Cornish, Fronefield Crawford, H. Thankful Cromartie, Kathryn Crowter, Megan E. DeCesar, Dallas DeGan, Paul B. Demorest, Timothy Dolch, Brendan Drachler, Elizabeth C. Ferrara, William Fiore, Emmanuel Fonseca, Gabriel E. Freedman, Nate Garver-Daniels, Peter A. Gentile, Joseph Glaser, Deborah C. Good, Kayhan Gültekin, Jeffrey S. Hazboun, Ross J. Jennings, Aaron D. Johnson, Megan L. Jones, Andrew R. Kaiser, David L. Kaplan, Luke Zoltan Kelley, Matthew Kerr, Joey S. Key, Nima Laal, Michael T. Lam, William G. Lamb, T. Joseph W. Lazio, Natalia Lewandowska, Tingting Liu, Duncan R. Lorimer, Jing Luo, Ryan S. Lynch, Chung-Pei Ma, Dustin R. Madison, Alexander McEwen, James W. McKee, Maura A. McLaughlin, Natasha McMann, Bradley W. Meyers, Chiara M. F. Mingarelli, Andrea Mitridate, Priyamvada Natarajan, Cherry Ng, David J. Nice, Stella Koch Ocker, Ken D. Olum, Timothy T. Pennucci, Benetge B. P. Perera, Nihan S. Pol, Henri A. Radovan, Scott M. Ransom, Paul S. Ray, Joseph D. Romano, Alexander Saffer, Shashwat C. Sardesai, Ann Schmiedekamp, Carl Schmiedekamp, Kai Schmitz, Brent J. Shapiro-Albert, Xavier Siemens, Joseph Simon, Magdalena S. Siwek, Ingrid H. Stairs, Daniel R. Stinebring, Kevin Stovall, Jerry P. Sun, Abhimanyu Susobhanan, Joseph K. Swiggum, Jacob A. Taylor, Stephen R. Taylor, Jacob E. Turner, Caner Unal, Michele Vallisneri, Sarah J. Vigeland, Haley M. Wahl, Caitlin A. Witt, Olivia Young
Figure caption: A plot of transverse ORFs as a function of angular separation. The blue curve describes the Hellings and Downs curve, which is produced by the TT polarization mode, while the orange curve describes the shape of the correlations induced by the ST polarization mode of gravity.