{"id":"c8299378-ace5-4165-9e71-f14344da45ef","arxiv_id":"2506.18917","paper_version":1,"verdict":"CONDITIONAL","confidence":"MODERATE","novelty_score":6.0,"correctness_risk":"medium","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":5,"one_line_summary":"A gyro-phase-resolved pulsar emission code calibrated against a gyro-centric model reproduces its curvature radiation maps and spectra for a Vela-like pulsar and converges to the Aristotelian Electrodynamics limit.","lead":"A new gyro-resolved particle code reproduces the high-energy emission maps and spectra of a Vela-like pulsar previously computed by a gyro-centric model, using 10% of Vela's surface field and injecting particles higher in the magnetosphere. The work validates the code for future modelling of the white dwarf pulsar AR Sco and tests when particles converge to the radiation-reaction limit.","discovery_kind":"new_application","skeptic_critique":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"Calibration is partly seeded: DPM initializes position, direction, and γ from BH22 outputs, and some maps use BH22's ρ_c; agreement may reflect inherited reference inputs rather than independent dynamics.","rationale":"The reader identified initialization from BH22 outputs as the weakest assumption; I agree this is the load-bearing issue. The Section 4 claim that the DPM can reproduce BH22 trajectories, CR emission maps, and CR spectra requires that the agreement be a property of the DPM dynamics rather than of the inputs. Seeding position, direction, and γ from the reference model (Section 2.3) makes the trajectory comparison a consistency check on a pre-existing solution, not an independent reproduction. The map comparison is further coupled to the reference model because the closest caustic matches in Figure 12 use the BH22-smoothed ρ_c, while the panel using DPM's own ρ_c shows visible extra emission. This does not refute the paper's more modest conclusions — the SCR-method comparison, the caveats about γ-limiting, and the independent surface-injection AE test in Appendix Figure 18 are useful — but it raises the bar for the headline claim. A de-seeded rerun with generic initial conditions and DPM's own ρ_c would settle whether the match is dynamical or inherited. Since the authors are transparent about the initialization and the limitations, and since an independent AE-convergence case is included, the correct verdict remains conditional rather than rejected; my read does not change the reader's verdict.","tokens_in":32658,"tokens_out":8650,"duration_ms":113534,"concrete_test":"Re-run the B_S=8e11 calibration case with DPM initialized at 0.4 R_LC using only the magnetic footpoint and a range of generic initial conditions (γ0=1–10, small pitch angle, velocity along the local FF field-line tangent rather than Eq. (1)), and compute the CR map and spectrum using DPM's own ρ_c, not the BH22-smoothed ρ_c. If the trajectory, caustics, and spectrum converge to the BH22 results within the same tolerance as Figures 2–14, the seeding is not load-bearing; if the outcome depends on the BH22-supplied γ and direction, or requires BH22's ρ_c to match the caustics, the reproduction claim should be restated as conditional on reference-model inputs.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"To establish that the gyro-resolved code independently reproduces the gyro-centric BH22 model, the agreement must come from the DPM equations of motion rather than from inputs taken from the reference model. Section 2.3 seeds the particle's position and velocity direction with Eq. (1) — the same FFE/AE trajectory equation used by BH22 — and takes the initial γ at 0.4/0.65 R_LC directly from BH22 output. The early trajectory is therefore the reference solution by construction; what is actually tested is only whether the DPM integration remains on that solution for the remaining ~1.3–1.6 R_LC. The paper acknowledges the resulting initial oscillation but does not quantify how much of the map/spectrum agreement is inherited from this seeding. The concern is amplified in the emission-map comparison: Figure 12 panels b) and c) reproduce BH22 caustics only after inserting the BH22-smoothed ρ_c into the DPM radiation calculation, while panel d), using DPM's own gyro-resolved ρ_c, shows extra extended emission. The reproduction of the CR maps is therefore partly achieved by substituting the reference model's curvature radius. The main-case AE convergence is weakened by the same seeding: θ_VA ~0.1° is partly expected when the initial velocity is already the AE velocity. This does not make the paper valueless: Appendix Figure 18 injects at the stellar surface with B_S=8e8 G and generic parameters and still converges to AE, providing independent support. However, because the headline calibration and the Vela-like CR maps/spectra rely on BH22-seeded initial data and reference ρ_c, the central claim is not yet independently demonstrated.","agreement_with_reader":"partial"},"referee_report":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","summary":"This paper calibrates a gyro-phase-resolved particle dynamics code (DPM) against the gyro-centric pulsar emission models AH15/AH21/BH22. The DPM integrates the full Lorentz-force equations with classical radiation reaction and is compared with the BH22 model for a Vela-like pulsar with B_S = 8e11 G (10% of Vela's surface field). The authors report agreement in trajectories, observer emission phases, and CR emission maps and spectra, under stated limitations: injection at higher altitude, use of BH22's smoothed curvature radius for some maps, and only the 10%-field case being accessible. They further test convergence to the Aristotelian Electrodynamics (AE) radiation-reaction limit, finding small deviation angles in the main case and good convergence for a surface-injection case with B_S = 8e8 G. They compare two synchro-curvature radiation (SCR) formalisms (VT15 vs CS16/KP15) and recommend the CS16 method. The paper is positioned as a calibration step for future modelling of AR Sco.","tokens_in":32946,"tokens_out":7268,"duration_ms":76325,"significance":"If the calibration is robust, the DPM provides a useful first-principles check on gyro-centric pulsar models and a tool for sources requiring full gyro-motion, such as AR Sco. The paper's strengths include solving the full Landau-Lifshitz radiation reaction with an adaptive higher-order scheme, showing that surface injection with generic parameters converges to the AE limit (Appendix Figure 18), and explicitly identifying where standard SR formulae fail when E_perp is significant. The comparison of two SCR models with quantitative power budgets (Table 1) is a useful practical contribution. The manuscript is also honest about several limitations. However, the central calibration claim is weakened by the seeded initialization from the reference model and by the partial use of the reference model's curvature radius in the emission-map comparison, as detailed below.","major_comments":[{"comment":"The calibration's independence is partly compromised by the initialization. Section 2.3 states that the DPM initial position and direction are obtained from Eq. (1) — the same FFE/AE trajectory equation used by BH22 — and that the initial gamma at 0.4R_LC or 0.65R_LC is taken directly from BH22 output. The early trajectory is therefore the reference solution by construction, and the agreement shown in Figs 2-5 tests only whether the DPM integration remains on that solution for the remaining ~1.3-1.6 R_LC. The paper acknowledges the resulting initial oscillation but does not quantify how much of the trajectory, phase, map, or spectrum agreement is inherited from this seeding. To make the calibration claim convincing, the authors should either show convergence from generic, non-seeded initial conditions (as in Appendix Fig. 18 for B_S=8e8 G) or quantify the basin of initial conditions that reproduce the BH22 trajectories at B_S=8e11 G.","section":"2.3, Figs 2-5"},{"comment":"The emission-map reproduction is partly achieved by substituting the reference model's curvature radius. Panels b and c of Fig. 12 reproduce the BH22 CR caustics only after inserting the BH22-smoothed rho_c into the DPM radiation calculation; panel d, which uses DPM's own gyro-resolved rho_c, shows additional extended emission near the injection altitude. Since rho_c is one of the quantities the calibration is supposed to validate, the claim 'we can reproduce ... CR emission maps' (Section 4) is overstated unless the authors demonstrate caustic reproduction with DPM's own rho_c (e.g., using the higher-E_parallel case of Fig. 21 or a lower-altitude start) or explicitly restrict the claim to the case where the reference rho_c is adopted.","section":"3.4, Fig. 12"},{"comment":"The spectral comparison is weakened by an unidentified hump. All DPM spectra in Fig. 14 show a hump feature that the authors attribute, speculatively, to the two-step E_parallel field or to gamma-limiting numerical artifacts, but no diagnostic test distinguishes these causes. Since the spectral reproduction is one of the two headline calibration results, the hump must be understood or eliminated; otherwise the spectra are matched only up to an unmodeled spectral distortion. A run with a smooth E_parallel profile and a run without gamma-limiting would discriminate between the proposed explanations.","section":"3.5, Fig. 14"},{"comment":"The calibration is restricted to a parameter corner an order of magnitude below the target source. The paper states that B_S=8e12 G (realistic Vela) cannot be simulated because the RRF enters the non-classical regime (Section 2.2), and even the B_S=8e11 G case requires injection at 0.65R_LC with gamma0=4 to stay below the Schwinger limit. The abstract is honest about the 10% field strength, but the paper should discuss explicitly whether the reproduction at 10% field is expected to transfer to Vela/AR Sco, given that the radiation-reaction regime and the gyro-radius scaling change with B_S. Without such a scaling argument, the calibration remains a demonstration in a scaled environment rather than a validation at the target parameters.","section":"2.2, 3.1"},{"comment":"The reported AE convergence (theta_VA ~ 0.1 deg) in the main B_S=8e11 G case is partly built into the initialization, because the particle's initial velocity direction is taken from Eq. (1), which is the same AE trajectory equation. The independent AE-convergence evidence is Appendix Fig. 18, where particles are injected at the stellar surface with generic parameters (B_S=8e8 G, gamma0=10^4) and still relax to the AE limit. The paper should attribute the main-case convergence to the consistency of the seeded initial conditions and reserve the 'convergence' claim for the surface-injection case, or present a B_S=8e11 G surface-injection run.","section":"3.2, Fig. 6"}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"Equation (13) writes the CR spectrum with exp(epsilon/epsilon_CR); it should be exp(-epsilon/epsilon_CR) to decay at high energy, consistent with Eq. (16). Please correct the sign.","section":"Eq. (13)"},{"comment":"The caption refers to 'Figure 12 panel h)', but Figure 12 has only panels a-d; this should be panel d).","section":"Fig. 21 caption"},{"comment":"The statement that the B-fields are 'significantly divergent' at the ramp region should be quantified, e.g., the magnitude of div B relative to B/R_LC, so the reader can assess the severity.","section":"2.1"},{"comment":"The CR-case relative errors (0.43 for CS16, 0.92 for Vigano-AE, 59.1 for Vigano-p) are described as 'a bit high' in Section 3.3; this understates the magnitude, especially the factor-of-59 error, and should be discussed in terms of which approximation breaks down in the CR-dominated high-field limit.","section":"3.3, Table 1"},{"comment":"The text notes that one division per degree is used in Figure 12 whereas Figure 1 used 0.5 divisions per degree; please clarify whether the changed map resolution affects the visual comparison of caustic positions and intensities.","section":"3.4"},{"comment":"The sentence 'Using the particle gamma from Equation (2) at the specified altitude from the output results of BH22' should specify how the initial perpendicular momentum (or pitch angle) is set, in addition to the position and direction from Eq. (1), so the initial conditions are fully defined.","section":"2.3"},{"comment":"The paper relies on Du Plessis (2025, DP25) for the divergence analysis and the emission-map implementation details; please confirm the preprint status of DP25 or summarize the key results in the main text, since the current manuscript's reproducibility depends on that unpublished work.","section":"References"}],"recommendation":"major_revision","confidential_remarks":"The calibration target, BH22, shares authors with this manuscript (Venter, Harding, Kalapotharakos are co-authors of both). This does not imply misconduct, but it means the comparison is not fully independent, which strengthens the need for the non-seeded initialization and own-rho_c checks requested in Major Comments 1 and 2. I also recommend that the editor confirm that DP25 (Du Plessis 2025) is publicly available and consistent with the claims made here, as several load-bearing details are deferred to it."},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","letter":"Short version: this is a worthwhile calibration study, and the comparative SCR result is the real meat. The 'reproduction' of the BH22 gyro-centric model is less independent than it first appears, because the gyro-resolved particles are seeded with BH22's own outputs and some maps use BH22's rho_c. The paper does not hide this, and the limitations are stated plainly, but the central claim should be read as 'we can match BH22 when we start from BH22's answer', not as a fully independent confirmation. That is not a fatal flaw for a calibration paper, and the agreement is not entirely inherited: the equations of motion are integrated with radiation reaction, and the own-rho_c map in Figure 12d still shows the correct caustic positions, just with extra low-altitude emission.\n\nWhat is genuinely new and useful: the comparison of the two SCR recipes under large E_parallel, where VT15 fails badly while CS16/KP15 tracks the RRF power; the demonstration that AE trajectories do not work for a magnetic mirror scenario while KP15's rho_eff still does; and the warning that gamma-limiting during integration produces unphysical v>c in PIC-style codes. The Appendix case with surface injection at B_S=8e8 G and gamma_0=10^4, which converges to AE with no seeding, is the strongest independent evidence in the paper and deserves emphasis.\n\nSoft spots, in proportion: no code or data are released (\"reasonable request\" is not reproducible); the maps and spectra carry no quantitative error bars; only the 10%-field Vela-like case is calibrated, with the full Vela field excluded due to Schwinger-limit issues; and the spectral hump in Figure 14 is attributed to the two-step E_parallel but not demonstrated. None of these sink the paper, but they cap how far the central calibration claim can be trusted.\n\nWho this is for: people modelling AR Sco, pulsar light curves, or comparing gyro-resolved vs gyro-centric radiative codes. The SCR method comparison and the AE mirror limitation are the most transferable findings. I would send it to a serious referee. The referee should push for code/data release and for a clearer statement of which results are calibrated vs independently reproduced.\n\nRecommendation: engage with it. It deserves peer review, and a revision that separates seeded from independent results would materially strengthen it.","headline":"A solid calibration paper whose 'reproduction' of BH22 is partly built on BH22's own outputs, but whose SCR and AE comparisons stand independently and are worth a referee's time.","tokens_in":33592,"tokens_out":2745,"would_cite":true,"duration_ms":35660,"reading_group":"maybe","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"rs_alignment":null,"lean_confirmation":null,"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":["97.60.Gb"],"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"A gyro-phase-resolved pulsar emission code reproduces the trajectories, curvature-radiation maps, and spectra of an established gyro-centric model for a Vela-like pulsar, and it converges to the Aristotelian electrodynamics…","keywords":["pulsar electrodynamics","gyro-resolved particle dynamics","radiation reaction","curvature radiation","synchro-curvature radiation","Aristotelian electrodynamics","E×B drift","AR Sco calibration"],"falsifier":"Take the same Vela-like case at $B_S = 8\\times10^{11}$ G but initialize particles at the stellar surface with low $\\gamma$, or with a quantum-electrodynamic radiation reaction that avoids the classical runaway, and re-run the curvature-radiation maps and spectra: if the caustic positions and spectral cutoffs shift away from the BH22 results, the reported calibration is an artifact of seeding with BH22 outputs. A cheaper check is to initialize twice at $0.65\\,R_{\\rm LC}$, once with the BH22 $\\gamma$ and once with $\\gamma_0 = 4$, and demand that the eventual spectra coincide; the paper already shows these two runs differ in $\\gamma$ near injection, so the tolerance on this discrepancy is what the claim rests on.","tokens_in":32419,"feed_emoji":"⚡","tokens_out":10511,"duration_ms":107894,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"Pulsar emission models must either resolve each particle's gyration about the magnetic field or average over it, and the two approaches have never been directly checked against each other for realistic parameters. This paper claims to close that gap for a Vela-like pulsar with one tenth of Vela's surface field: a gyro-phase-resolved solver that integrates the full equations of motion with classical radiation reaction reproduces the trajectories, curvature-radiation emission maps, and spectra of an independent gyro-centric model, provided particles are injected above the field-transition region. The same solver converges to the analytic Aristotelian-Electrodynamics limit, with a deviation angle of order 0.1 degrees, confirming that the radiation-reaction equilibrium is the right description in this regime. The work matters because a calibrated gyro-resolved code can then be trusted on sources, like the white-dwarf pulsar AR Sco, where gyro-centric assumptions such as outflow-only trajectories and small pitch angles are expected to break down.","feed_headline":"Full-gyration pulsar code matches gyro-centric emission maps","feed_subtitle":"Full particle gyration reproduces pulsar gamma-ray maps, validating cheaper gyro-centric shortcuts.","key_machinery":"The load-bearing object is the pair of descriptions being compared: the gyro-resolved solver, which integrates the full Lorentz equation plus the classical Landau-Lifshitz radiation-reaction force with a higher-order adaptive-step scheme, and the gyro-centric description, which evolves only the guiding-center trajectory via the drift formula $\\mathbf{v} = c\\,\\mathbf{E}\\times\\mathbf{B}/(B^2+E_0^2) + f\\mathbf{B}$ and separately transports $\\gamma$ and $p_\\perp$. The bridge between them is the general pitch angle $\\theta_{VA}$ between the particle velocity and the local Aristotelian velocity, together with the radius of curvature $\\rho_c$: the gyro-resolved model yields an oscillating effective $\\rho_c$ that matches the KP15 $\\rho_{\\rm eff}$ and hovers around the smoothed gyro-centric $\\rho_c$ of the gyro-centric models. Convergence to the Aristotelian limit is measured through $\\theta_{VA}$ and through the force balance between the Lorentz force and the radiation reaction, with the critical Lorentz factor $\\gamma_c = [3E_0\\rho_c^2/(2|e|)]^{1/4}$ as the target equilibrium value.","core_discovery":"The paper's central claim is that resolving the full particle gyration with the classical Landau-Lifshitz radiation-reaction force yields the same physical answers as the gyro-centric models in the curvature-radiation regime: particle positions and directions agree across the magnetosphere, the observer-corrected emission phases match, and the curvature-radiation caustics and spectra are reproduced when the smoothed gyro-centric radius of curvature is used. It further claims that the solved trajectories converge to the Aristotelian-Electrodynamics drift velocities, with the general pitch angle stabilizing near 0.1 degrees, so the radiation-reaction limit is the correct equilibrium description for outflowing particles accelerated by a strong parallel electric field. A third claim is that standard synchrotron formulas become unphysical when the perpendicular electric field is a sizable fraction of the magnetic field, because the $\\mathbf{E}\\times\\mathbf{B}$ drift inflates the pitch angle and pushes photon cutoffs beyond the particle energy, so emission must be computed as synchro-curvature radiation along the drifting trajectory; on that basis the CS16/KP15 synchro-curvature method is found more reliable than the VT15 method.","pith_inferences":["The strongest reading of the calibration is partly circular: because the particles are seeded with the gyro-centric model's positions, directions, and $\\gamma$ values, the trajectory agreement largely confirms that the solver and the gyro-centric drift formula integrate the same field structure, rather than that the two physical descriptions independently agree; an end-to-end test from surface inj","If the KP15 effective radius of curvature matches the gyro-resolved $\\rho_c$ even out of equilibrium, the CS16/KP15 synchro-curvature prescription may be portable to transient or non-equilibrium settings, such as current sheets or flaring magnetospheres, without waiting for radiation-reaction balance.","The demonstrated numerical failure of $\\gamma$-capping suggests that other pulsar particle-in-cell codes using Lorentz-factor or radiation-reaction caps may be inheriting artefacts; a systematic audit of such caps against adaptive higher-order integration would be a concrete follow-up.","Extending the same calibration to inverse-Compton-dominated and pair-production regimes, where the AH21 model includes physics this code currently omits, would test whether the gyro-centric approach also holds when curvature radiation is not the dominant loss channel."],"forward_implications":["Gyro-centric codes are validated for the curvature-radiation regime, so their cheap phase-averaged treatment of pulsar high-energy emission can be used with more confidence where small general pitch angles hold.","The Aristotelian-electrodynamics limit is confirmed as the correct equilibrium description of outflowing, radiation-reaction-dominated particles, justifying AE-based trajectory models for pulsar light-curve work.","Standard synchrotron formulas should be avoided whenever $E_\\perp$ is a significant fraction of $B$; synchro-curvature radiation along the $\\mathbf{E}\\times\\mathbf{B}$ drift path, via the CS16/KP15 expressions, is the reliable choice and is also cheaper than the VT15 route.","Numerical codes that cap the Lorentz factor at $\\gamma_c$, or rescale the radiation reaction, risk unphysical velocities above $c$; the capping approach should be replaced by higher-order adaptive integrators or quantum-electrodynamic reaction terms.","The AE drift formulas fail for magnetic-mirror geometries, so sources with inward-moving or mirroring particles, the AR Sco case motivating this code, require the full equations of motion."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"The gyro-centric model whose trajectories, emission phases, CR maps, and spectra this work reproduces; source of the drift-trajectory and transport equations.","marker":"Harding & Kalapotharakos (2015)"},{"why":"Supplies the Vela-like pulsar parameter set, the smoothed gyro-centric radius of curvature, and the gamma values used to seed the gyro-resolved particles.","marker":"Barnard et al. (2022)"},{"why":"The updated synchro-curvature model whose E×B-drift-following approach is validated in the small-pitch-angle limit.","marker":"Harding et al. (2021)"},{"why":"The higher-order adaptive-step solver with classical radiation reaction that carries all gyro-resolved trajectory and emission calculations.","marker":"Du Plessis et al. (2024)"},{"why":"Provides the FIDO force-free field grids that define the magnetosphere used by both the gyro-centric and gyro-resolved models.","marker":"Kalapotharakos et al. (2014)"},{"why":"Defines the Aristotelian electrodynamics drift velocities that serve as the analytic radiation-reaction-limit target for convergence testing.","marker":"Gruzinov (2012)"},{"why":"Gives the synchro-curvature spectral model, the effective radius of curvature, and the theoretical pitch-angle formula used in the comparison.","marker":"Kelner et al. (2015)"},{"why":"Supplies the synchro-curvature implementation found most reliable here and adopted for the emission maps and spectra.","marker":"Cerutti et al. (2016)"},{"why":"The competing synchro-curvature model whose spectra and radiated power are compared and found less accurate in strong-field and high-parallel-field cases.","marker":"Viganò et al. (2015)"},{"why":"The classical radiation-reaction force whose full form is integrated by the gyro-resolved solver.","marker":"Landau & Lifshitz (1975)"}],"fun_headline_variants":["Full gyration reproduces pulsar gamma-ray maps and spectra","Gyro-resolved pulsar simulation reaches radiation-reaction limit","E×B drift forces synchro-curvature approach in pulsar emission","Full-gyration pulsar model reproduces gyro-centric emission maps","Pulsar code with full gyration validates gyro-centric emission"],"cache_read_input_tokens":3200,"weakest_assumption_plain":"The comparison is anchored by initial conditions taken from the gyro-centric model itself: particles start at $0.4$–$0.65\\,R_{\\rm LC}$ with positions and directions from the drift formula and $\\gamma$ values from the BH22 transport output, so the close agreement with BH22 trajectories and spectra may be partly inherited from the seed rather than generated by the solver's physics.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["Full gyration reproduces pulsar gamma-ray maps and spectra","Gyro-resolved pulsar simulation reaches radiation-reaction limit","E×B drift forces synchro-curvature approach in pulsar emission","Full-gyration pulsar model reproduces gyro-centric emission maps","Pulsar code with full gyration validates gyro-centric emission"]},"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","effort":"low","cost_usd":0.000776,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":3508,"prompt_tokens":1095,"completion_tokens":2413,"prompt_tokens_details":{"cached_tokens":384},"prompt_cache_hit_tokens":384,"prompt_cache_miss_tokens":711,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":2320}},"tokens_in":711,"tokens_out":2413,"duration_ms":18737,"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_tokens":2320,"cache_read_input_tokens":384,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-08-07T04:24:22.760234+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"deepseek-v4-flash"},"falsifier":"Take the same Vela-like case at $B_S = 8\\times10^{11}$ G but initialize particles at the stellar surface with low $\\gamma$, or with a quantum-electrodynamic radiation reaction that avoids the classical runaway, and re-run the curvature-radiation maps and spectra: if the caustic positions and spectral cutoffs shift away from the BH22 results, the reported calibration is an artifact of seeding with BH22 outputs. A cheaper check is to initialize twice at $0.65\\,R_{\\rm LC}$, once with the BH22 $\\gamma$ and once with $\\gamma_0 = 4$, and demand that the eventual spectra coincide; the paper already shows these two runs differ in $\\gamma$ near injection, so the tolerance on this discrepancy is what the claim rests on.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":"K., Kalapotharakos C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/63 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...811...63H 811, 63","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"The gyro-centric model whose trajectories, emission phases, CR maps, and spectra this work reproduces; source of the drift-trajectory and transport equations."},{"cited_title":"K., Kalapotharakos C., Johnson T","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the Vela-like pulsar parameter set, the smoothed gyro-centric radius of curvature, and the gamma values used to seed the gyro-resolved particles."},{"cited_title":"K., Wadiasingh Z., Kalapotharakos C., Els P., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1791 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.4408D 532, 4408","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"The higher-order adaptive-step solver with classical radiation reaction that carries all gyro-resolved trajectory and emission calculations."},{"cited_title":"Electrodynamics of Massless Charges with Application to Pulsars","cited_arxiv_id":"1205.3367","evidence_quote":"Defines the Aristotelian electrodynamics drift velocities that serve as the analytic radiation-reaction-limit target for convergence testing."},{"cited_title":"R., Prosekin A","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Gives the synchro-curvature spectral model, the effective radius of curvature, and the theoretical pitch-angle formula used in the comparison."},{"cited_title":"D., Lifshitz E","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"The classical radiation-reaction force whose full form is integrated by the gyro-resolved solver."}],"review_version":1}