Eight Millisecond Pulsars Discovered in the Arecibo PALFA Survey

A. Brazier; A. G. Lyne; B. W. Stappers; C. Patel; E. C. Madsen; E. Parent; F. Camilo; F. Crawford; I. H. Stairs; J. M. Cordes

Eight Millisecond Pulsars Discovered in the Arecibo PALFA Survey

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Eight millisecond pulsars in binaries have been timed, including a gamma-ray pulsar and a black widow candidate.

desk verdict Eight phase-coherent MSP discoveries with a gamma-ray association; the population analysis is a well-hedged bonus, not the load-bearing result. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09926 v1 pith:H5OJGJFS submitted 2019-08-26 astro-ph.HE

E. Parent , V. M. Kaspi , S. M. Ransom , P. C. C. Freire , A. Brazier , F. Camilo , S. Chatterjee , J. M. Cordes

show 13 more authors

F. Crawford J. S. Deneva R. D. Ferdman J. W. T. Hessels J. van Leeuwen A. G. Lyne E. C. Madsen M. A. McLaughlin C. Patel P. Scholz I. H. Stairs B. W. Stappers W.W. Zhu

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords millisecondpulsarsbinarypulsartimingPALFAsurveygamma-rayblackwidowintermediate-massGalacticpopulation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's aim is to establish eight new millisecond pulsars in binary systems as precisely timed objects, and then to use them plus the wider known population to sharpen the census of recycled pulsars in the Galaxy. Phase-coherent timing solutions from 2.5 to 5 years of observations give each pulsar a spin period, position, proper motion, and orbit, turning candidate detections into usable clocks. Three discoveries carry the scientific interest: a gamma-ray pulsar, a non-eclipsing black widow candidate, and the longest-orbital-period intermediate-mass binary pulsar known. With a sample of 214 binary MSPs, the paper argues that the scatter in Galactic height decreases with binary mass function, that observational bias inflates the measured heights of the lightest systems, and that massive-white-dwarf systems may split into two mass-function groups. If these population claims hold, survey selection must be folded into models of neutron-star kicks and binary evolution.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is phase-coherent pulsar timing: pulse times of arrival extracted from folded radio profiles are fitted with two binary models. The DD model handles eccentric orbits, while the ELL1 model handles near-circular orbits by parameterizing the orbit with the time of ascending node and the first two Laplace parameters, encoding eccentricity and the orientation of periastron without strong correlations. A phase-connection algorithm called Dracula is used to resolve pulse-count ambiguities in sparsely sampled data. For the population analysis, the same machinery converts dispersion-measure distances through the YMW16 and NE2001 Galactic electron-density models into Galactic heights $|z|$, and Monte Carlo rejection sampling separates intrinsic spin-down from Shklovskii and Galactic-acceleration contributions.

What would settle it

Measure parallaxes for a sizable subset of the 214 binary MSPs, especially those at high Galactic latitude; if the true distances are systematically different from the YMW16 and NE2001 model distances, recompute the |z| distributions and see whether the inverse scale-height correlation and the DNS height gap survive. Separately, the massive-white-dwarf mass-function gap can be tested by new discoveries: if a comparable survey fills the $4×10^{-2}$ to $9×10^{-2}$ solar-mass interval, the claimed bimodality would disappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper reports eight new binary millisecond pulsars with phase-coherent timing solutions, each pinned down by spin, astrometric, and orbital parameters from 2.5 to 5 years of radio observations. Three systems stand out: PSR J1921+1929 is a 2.65-ms pulsar in a 39.6-day orbit whose γ-ray pulsations are detected in archival Fermi data at roughly 10σ; PSR J1928+1245 is a 3.3-hour black-widow system with an extremely low mass function and no observed eclipses; and PSR J1932+1756 is a 41.8-ms recycled pulsar with a companion of at least about $1.1$ solar masses in a 41.5-day orbit, making it the widest intermediate-mass binary pulsar known. The paper also claims, from a 214-system sample, that the scatter in absolute Galactic height decreases as binary mass function increases, that the measured scale height of light systems is inflated by survey bias, and that the mass functions of MSPs with massive white dwarfs show a possible gap between about $4×10^{-2}$ and $9×10^{-2}$ solar masses, a gap that uniform-distribution trials disfavor at the 3% level. The pulsars themselves are faint, high-dispersion objects found deep in the Galactic plane, and the timing solutions give their positions, proper motions, and orbital parameters with the precision needed to classify their companions.

Load-bearing premise

The population-level claims stand or fall on distance estimates from the YMW16 and NE2001 Galactic electron-density models; if those distances are wrong for high-latitude or high-|z| objects, the inferred scale heights, the double-neutron-star height gap, and possibly the mass-function gap would shift or vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

PSR J1921+1929 becomes a phase-connected radio and gamma-ray pulsar, adding a timing-stable MSP to the pool usable for pulsar timing arrays and multiwavelength studies.
PSR J1932+1756 extends the known orbital-period range of intermediate-mass binary pulsars to 41.5 days, giving a concrete testbed for wide-orbit formation through a short-lived super-Eddington accretion phase that avoids a common-envelope spiral-in.
The non-eclipsing black widow PSR J1928+1245, with one of the lowest mass functions known, supports the link between the absence of eclipses and low orbital inclination in this class.
The 214-system census strengthens the inverse correlation between Galactic-height scatter and binary mass function; if correct, heavier white-dwarf systems genuinely hug the plane while lighter systems are biased to appear farther from it.
The reported mass-function gap for MSPs with massive white dwarfs, if confirmed, points to two distinct sub-populations rather than a single formation channel.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A testable extension: if the claimed plane bias is real, a deep low-latitude survey should reveal a population of faint, rapidly spinning MSPs at heights below about 0.3 kpc, and their absence would weaken the bias argument.
The overdensity of Fermi-selected systems near $|z| \sim 0.8$ kpc suggests that many fully recycled pulsars may actually lie near the plane, which would shrink the true scale height and change estimates of the recycled-pulsar contribution to the diffuse gamma-ray background.
The apparent massive-white-dwarf mass-function gap could reflect an asymmetry in neutron-star masses rather than in the companion population; measuring more companion masses via Shapiro delay would test that reading.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the eight timing solutions are the paper. They are phase-coherent, span 2.5-5 years, have residuals from a few to tens of microseconds with reduced chi-square near unity, and one source is independently confirmed by Fermi gamma-ray pulsations with an H-test of 129. That is solid, reproducible work. The population analysis is a bonus, tentatively framed, and it is the part to be careful with.

What is new: eight MSPs in binaries, including PSR J1932+1756, the longest-orbital-period intermediate-mass binary pulsar known; PSR J1928+1245, a low-mass-function black widow candidate; and the gamma-ray association for J1921+1929. The Section 4 analysis updates Ng et al. (2014) with 214 versus 164 binaries and reproduces the inverse scatter-versus-mass-function correlation. The authors flag their own limitations, including the Deller et al. (2019) parallax inconsistencies for high-latitude objects.

Soft spots: everything in Section 4 rests on DM-based distances. The DNS height gap is the most fragile: 14 systems, a gap present in YMW16 but not NE2001, and the authors admit it. The KS test for the mass-function gap compares against a uniform distribution but does not propagate distance-model scatter into the test samples. That said, mass functions are derived from orbital parameters, so this claim is less distance-sensitive than the height claims, and the paper labels it 'possible' and 'potential.' I would not build on the gap without more data. Also a few copy slips: Table 3 references Section 6 for the Monte Carlo (it is in 3.1), lists J1928+1246 instead of J1928+1245, and the spin period of J1921+1929 appears as 2.45 ms in prose versus 2.65 ms in the abstract and Table 1. Minor, but worth cleaning up.

Bottom line: this is a survey discovery paper that does what it should. The central results are observationally grounded and properly analyzed. The population claims are speculative but clearly marked as such. I would send it to a competent referee and expect it back with minor revisions. It deserves a serious referee, and I would cite it for the new MSPs and the updated population sample, not for the height gap.

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery and phase-coherent timing of eight millisecond pulsars in binary systems found by the Arecibo PALFA survey. Timing solutions span 2.5 to 5 years, with residuals and reduced chi-square values typical of well-behaved MSP timing. Highlights include PSR J1921+1929, a 2.65-ms pulsar with detected gamma-ray pulsations (H-test 129, ~10 sigma) associated with a Fermi unassociated source; PSR J1928+1245, a non-eclipsing black-widow candidate with one of the lowest mass functions known; and PSR J1932+1756, the longest-orbital-period intermediate-mass binary pulsar known. The paper also analyzes the Galactic height and mass-function distributions of 214 binary MSPs, reporting an inverse correlation between scale-height scatter and binary mass function, evidence for observational biases against the most recycled pulsars near the plane, and possible gaps in the mass-function distribution of massive-white-dwarf systems and in the height distribution of double neutron stars.

Significance. The eight timing solutions are the solid core of the paper and are immediately useful for studies of binary evolution and for pulsar timing arrays. The gamma-ray detection is independently confirmed and the black-widow and IMBP classifications are well supported by the orbital parameters. The Monte Carlo treatment of period-derivative corrections is clearly described and reproducible. The population analysis extends earlier work by Ng et al. to a larger sample and is appropriately hedged; the authors explicitly acknowledge the dependence of the |z| results on DM-based distances and the inconsistency of electron-density models with high-latitude parallax measurements. These caveats mean the population claims should be read as suggestive rather than definitive, which is consistent with the language used in the text.

minor comments (6)

[Tables 3 and 4 captions] Both captions refer to the Monte Carlo method 'described in Section 6,' but the method is described in Section 3.1; there is no Section 6 in the manuscript.
[Section 3.2, PSR J1921+1929] The text states that PSR J1921+1929 is a '2.45-ms pulsar,' but Table 1 and the abstract give 2.65 ms (spin period 2.6463414494692 ms); this appears to be a typographical error.
[Table 3] The pulsar name in the first column of Table 3 is given as 'J1928+1246,' but the pulsar is PSR J1928+1245 throughout the rest of the paper; the table entry should be corrected.
[Section 4.2 and Table 5] Section 4.2 states that the sample contains 214 MSP binaries, but the N values in Table 5 sum to 212; please clarify whether two systems are unclassified or whether the stated total should be 212.
[Section 4.2.1] The Monte Carlo KS-test procedure is described as averaging p-values over 10,000 trial samples; reporting the direct two-sided KS p-value against a uniform distribution would be more transparent, and the text should state explicitly that the gap boundaries (4e-2 to 9e-2 Msun) were identified a posteriori and are not independently tested by the quoted p-value.
[References and affiliations] The two Acero et al. (2015) entries share the same journal volume and page (ApJS, 218, 23) and should be distinguished as 2015a and 2015b with correct article identifiers; also, 'zel, F.' should be 'Özel, F.' and 'Reseach' in the DRAO affiliation should be 'Research.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the eight timing solutions are direct measurements, and the population-level claims are an external-catalog comparison with model-dependence explicitly flagged by the authors.

full rationale

The paper's core content is eight phase-coherent timing solutions derived from multi-year TOAs; these are direct observational measurements, not quantities predicted from fitted inputs. The population analysis in Section 4 uses the external ATNF Catalogue and Galactic MSP Catalog, classifies companions using the Tauris et al. (2012) prescription, and tests the CO/ONeMg WD mass-function gap against a uniform distribution with 10,000 KS trials; the null hypothesis is not constructed from the data. The DNS height bimodality is explicitly presented as a 'potential gap' that appears in YMW16 but 'is however not as significant in the NE2001 predictions,' and the authors warn that 'interpretations from this analysis are subjected to significant uncertainties and should be considered with caution.' No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation: the cited PALFA papers document survey pipelines and prior discoveries but are not used to justify the new claims. The acknowledged systematic uncertainties in DM-based distances are a correctness risk, not a circularity. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The timing solutions themselves introduce no free parameters beyond the measured quantities; the hand-chosen assumptions (pulsar mass, inclination, distance uncertainty) affect derived companion masses and period derivatives. The population analysis depends on electron density models and a companion classification scheme, both adopted from the literature. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)

Assumed pulsar mass = 1.4 M_sun
Used in Section 3.2 to convert the mass function into companion masses; the result scales with this choice.
Assumed inclination = 60 degrees
Used for median companion masses when inclination is unknown; a common convention in the field.
Distance uncertainty = 25%
Adopted in the Monte Carlo rejection sampling (Section 3.1) to build distance distributions from DM-implied values.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption YMW16 and NE2001 electron density models give reliable DM-based distances
Used throughout Section 4 to compute |z|; the authors cite Deller et al. (2019) showing significant discrepancies at high latitude.
domain assumption Tauris et al. (2012) prescription correctly classifies binary companion types for unclassified systems
Adopted in Section 4 for the 214-pulsar census.
domain assumption MSPs do not spin up in the present epoch (P_int > 0)
Used as a rejection criterion in the Monte Carlo in Section 3.1.
domain assumption No significant additional gravitational potential beyond the adopted Galactic model affects the observed period derivatives
Stated in Section 3.1 in the rejection sampling.
domain assumption Lazaridis et al. (2009) approximation for the vertical component of Galactic acceleration is valid
Used in Section 3.1 to correct P_dot; valid for |z| < 1.5 kpc.
standard math DD and ELL1 binary timing models describe the orbits within the current TOA precision
These are standard post-Newtonian binary models used in Section 2.3; neither model's higher-order terms are tested by the data.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Eight Millisecond Pulsars Discovered in the Arecibo PALFA Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H5OJGJFS

@misc{pith2026190809926,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Eight Millisecond Pulsars Discovered in the Arecibo PALFA Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H5OJGJFS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09926}
}

abstract

We report on eight millisecond pulsars (MSPs) in binary systems discovered with the Arecibo PALFA survey. Phase-coherent timing solutions derived from 2.5 to 5 years of observations carried out at Arecibo and Jodrell Bank observatories are provided. PSR J1921+1929 is a 2.65-ms pulsar in a 39.6-day orbit for which we detect $\gamma$-ray pulsations in archival Fermi data. PSR J1928+1245 is a very low-mass-function system with an orbital period of 3.3 hours that belongs to the non-eclipsing black widow population. We also present PSR J1932+1756, the longest-orbital-period (41.5 days) intermediate-mass binary pulsar known to date. In light of the numerous discoveries of binary MSPs over the past years, we characterize the Galactic distribution of known MSP binaries in terms of binary class. Our results support and strengthen previous claims that the scatter in the Galactic scale height distribution correlates inversely with the binary mass function. We provide evidence of observational biases against detecting the most recycled pulsars near the Galactic plane, which overestimates the scale height of lighter systems. A possible bimodality in the mass function of MSPs with massive white dwarfs is also reported.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

[1]

P., Abbott, R., Adhikari, R., et al

Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Adhikari, R., et al. 2009, Reports on Progress in Physics, 72, 076901

2009
[2]

A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2009, Science, 325, 840

2009
[3]

A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 187, 460

2010
[4]

A., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al

Abdo, A. A., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 208, 17

2013
[5]

J., Farr, W

Andrews, J. J., Farr, W. M., Kalogera, V., & Willems, B. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 801, 32

2015
[6]

M., Ozel, F., et al

Antoniadis, J., Tauris, T. M., Ozel, F., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1605.01665

arXiv 2016
[7]

2018, ApJS, 235, 37

Arzoumanian, Z., Brazier, A., Burke-Spolaor, S., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 37

2018
[8]

2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 4089

Beniamini, P., & Piran, T. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 4089

work page 2016

Show all 86 references

[9]

J., Tr¨ umper, J., et al

Boller, T., Freyberg, M. J., Tr¨ umper, J., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A103

2016
[10]

2003, Nature, 426, 531

Burgay, M., D’Amico, N., Possenti, A., et al. 2003, Nature, 426, 531

2003
[11]

D., Champion, D

Cameron, A. D., Champion, D. J., Kramer, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, L57

2018
[12]

G., Manchester, R

Camilo, F., Lyne, A. G., Manchester, R. N., et al. 2001, ApJL, 548, L187

2001
[13]

J., Ransom, S

Champion, D. J., Ransom, S. M., Lazarus, P., et al. 2008, Science, 320, 1309

2008
[14]

R., & Donoho, D

Coifman, R. R., & Donoho, D. L. 1995, Translation-Invariant De-Noising, ed. A. Antoniadis & G. Oppenheim (New York, NY: Springer New York), 125–150

1995
[15]

M., & Chernoﬀ, D

Cordes, J. M., & Chernoﬀ, D. F. 1998, ApJ, 505, 315

1998
[16]

M., & Lazio, T

Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, astro-ph/0207156

2002 arXiv
[17]

M., Freire, P

Cordes, J. M., Freire, P. C. C., Lorimer, D. R., et al. 2006, ApJ, 637, 446

2006
[18]

G., et al

Crawford, F., Stovall, K., Lyne, A. G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 90

2012
[19]

T., Camilo, F., Kerr, M., et al

Cromartie, H. T., Camilo, F., Kerr, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 34

2016
[20]

1986, Annales de l’I.H.P

Damour, T., & Deruelle, N. 1986, Annales de l’I.H.P. Physique th´ eorique, 44, 263

1986
[21]

Damour, T., & Taylor, J. H. 1991, ApJ, 366, 501 de Jager, O. C., & B¨ usching, I. 2010, A&A, 517, L9

1991
[22]

T., Goss, W

Deller, A. T., Goss, W. M., Brisken, W. F., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 100

2019
[23]

B., Ferdman, R

Demorest, P. B., Ferdman, R. D., Gonzalez, M. E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 762, 94

2013
[24]

S., Freire, P

Deneva, J. S., Freire, P. C. C., Cordes, J. M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 89

2012
[25]

Dewi, J. D. M., Podsiadlowski, P., & Pols, O. R. 2005, MNRAS, 363, L71

2005
[26]

1988, ApJL, 335, L67

Eichler, D., & Levinson, A. 1988, ApJL, 335, L67

1988
[27]

H., & Thorsett, S

Fonseca, E., Stairs, I. H., & Thorsett, S. E. 2014, ApJ, 787, 82

2014
[28]

S., & Backer, D

Foster, R. S., & Backer, D. C. 1990, ApJ, 361, 300

1990
[29]

Freire, P. C. C. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Paciﬁc Conference Series, Vol. 328, Binary Radio Pulsars, ed. F. A. Rasio & I. H. Stairs, 405

2005
[30]

Freire, P. C. C., & Ridolﬁ, A. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 4794

2018
[31]

Freire, P. C. C., Bassa, C. G., Wex, N., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2763

2011
[32]

S., Berman, G., Bower, G., et al

Fruchter, A. S., Berman, G., Bower, G., et al. 1990, ApJ, 351, 642 Gaia Collaboration, Clementini, G., Eyer, L., et al. 2017, A&A, 605, A79

1990
[33]

A., McLaughlin, M

Gentile, P. A., McLaughlin, M. A., Demorest, P. B., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 47

2018
[34]

2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.09778

Guillemot, L., Octau, F., Cognard, I., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.09778

2019 arXiv
[35]

W., & Downs, G

Hellings, R. W., & Downs, G. S. 1983, ApJ, 265, L39

1983
[36]

Hessels, J. W. T., Roberts, M. S. E., McLaughlin, M. A., et al. 2011, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1357, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, ed. M. Burgay, N. D’Amico, P. Esposito, A. Pellizzoni, & A. Possenti, 40–43

2011
[37]

2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 084013

Hobbs, G., Archibald, A., Arzoumanian, Z., et al. 2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 084013

2010
[38]

Y., Wu, K., Han, Q., Kong, A

Hui, C. Y., Wu, K., Han, Q., Kong, A. K. H., & Tam, P. H. T. 2018, ApJ, 864, 30 Jaﬀe, A. H., & Backer, D. C. 2003, ApJ, 583, 616

2018
[39]

Joshi, B. C. 2012, ApJ, 744, 183

2012
[40]

D., & Hurley, J

Kiel, P. D., & Hurley, J. R. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 2326

2009
[41]

D., & Thorsett, S

Kiziltan, B., Kottas, A., Yoreo, M. D., & Thorsett, S. E. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 778, 66

2013
[42]

G., Stappers, B

Knispel, B., Lyne, A. G., Stappers, B. W., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 140

2015
[43]

2001, MNRAS, 326, 274

Lange, C., Camilo, F., Wex, N., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 274

2001
[44]

2009, MNRAS, 400, 805

Lazaridis, K., Wex, N., Jessner, A., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 805

2009
[45]

Lazarus, P., Brazier, A., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 81

2015
[46]

Lazarus, P., Freire, P. C. C., Allen, B., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 150

2016
[47]

R., Stairs, I

Lorimer, D. R., Stairs, I. H., Freire, P. C., et al. 2006, ApJ, 640, 428

2006
[48]

G., Burgay, M., Kramer, M., et al

Lyne, A. G., Burgay, M., Kramer, M., et al. 2004, Science, 303, 1153

2004
[49]

Manchester, R. N. 2017, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 38, 42

2017
[50]

N., Hobbs, G

Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 7245

2005
[51]

G., Stovall, K., Freire, P

Martinez, J. G., Stovall, K., Freire, P. C. C., et al. 2017, ApJL, 851, L29

2017
[52]

D., et al

Ng, C., Bailes, M., Bates, S. D., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 1865

2014
[53]

J., Sayer, R

Nice, D. J., Sayer, R. W., & Taylor, J. H. 1996, ApJL, 466, L87

1996
[54]

J., & Taylor, J

Nice, D. J., & Taylor, J. H. 1995, ApJ, 441, 429

1995
[55]

M., Ransom, S

Parent, E., Kaspi, V. M., Ransom, S. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 44

2018
[56]

2018, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1808.03710

Patel, C., Agarwal, D., Bhardwaj, M., et al. 2018, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1808.03710

2018 arXiv
[57]

Phinney, E. S. 1992, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 341, 39

1992
[58]

Ransom, S. M. 2001, PhD thesis, Harvard University

2001
[59]

S., Abdo, A

Ray, P. S., Abdo, A. A., Parent, D., et al. 2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1205.3089

2012 arXiv
[60]

J., Menten, K

Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Brunthaler, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 783, 130

2014
[61]

Roberts, M. S. E. 2013, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 291, Neutron Stars and Pulsars: Challenges and Opportunities after 80 years, ed. J. van Leeuwen, 127–132

2013
[62]

D., Read, A

Saxton, R. D., Read, A. M., Esquej, P., et al. 2008, A&A, 480, 611

2008
[63]

M., Lyne, A

Scholz, P., Kaspi, V. M., Lyne, A. G., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 123

2015
[64]

2010, ApJ, 719, 722

Schwab, J., Podsiadlowski, P., & Rappaport, S. 2010, ApJ, 719, 722

2010
[65]

Shklovskii, I. S. 1970, Soviet Ast., 13, 562

1970
[66]

Siemens, X., Ellis, J., Jenet, F., & Romano, J. D. 2013, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30, 224015

2013
[67]

F., Cutri, R

Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163 21

2006
[68]

A., Bruel, P., Cognard, I., et al

Smith, D. A., Bruel, P., Cognard, I., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1812.00719

2018 arXiv
[69]

H., Arzoumanian, Z., Camilo, F., et al

Stairs, I. H., Arzoumanian, Z., Camilo, F., et al. 1998, ApJ, 505, 352

1998
[70]

2013, PhD thesis, The University of Texas at San Antonio

Stovall, K. 2013, PhD thesis, The University of Texas at San Antonio

2013
[71]

2016, ApJ, 833, 192

Stovall, K., Allen, B., Bogdanov, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 192

2016
[72]

Stovall, K., Freire, P. C. C., Chatterjee, S., et al. 2018, ApJL, 854, L22

2018
[73]

J., Chomiuk, L., et al

Strader, J., Swihart, S. J., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1812.04626

2018 arXiv
[74]

2001, ApJS, 134, 77

Sugizaki, M., Mitsuda, K., Kaneda, H., et al. 2001, ApJS, 134, 77

2001
[75]

E., King, A

Taam, R. E., King, A. R., & Ritter, H. 2000, ApJ, 541, 329

2000
[76]

Tauris, T. M. 1996, A&A, 315, 453

1996
[77]

M., Langer, N., & Kramer, M

Tauris, T. M., Langer, N., & Kramer, M. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 1601

2012
[78]

M., & Savonije, G

Tauris, T. M., & Savonije, G. J. 1999, A&A, 350, 928

1999
[79]

M., van den Heuvel, E

Tauris, T. M., van den Heuvel, E. P. J., & Savonije, G. J. 2000, ApJL, 530, L93

2000
[80]

M., Kramer, M., Freire, P

Tauris, T. M., Kramer, M., Freire, P. C. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 170

2017
[81]

Taylor, J. H. 1992, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 341, 117

1992
[82]

H., Fowler, L

Taylor, J. H., Fowler, L. A., & McCulloch, P. M. 1979, Nature, 277, 437 The NANOGrav Collaboration, Arzoumanian, Z., Brazier, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 65

1979
[83]

Valentim, R., Rangel, E., & Horvath, J. E. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 414, 1427 van Leeuwen, J., Kasian, L., Stairs, I. H., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 118 Vigna-G´ omez, A., Neijssel, C. J., Stevenson, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 4009

2011
[84]

2016, ApJS, 224, 40

Wang, S., Liu, J., Qiu, Y., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 40

2016
[85]

1991, Nature, 350, 688

Wolszczan, A. 1991, Nature, 350, 688

1991
[86]

M., Manchester, R

Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N. 2017, ApJ, 835, 29 zel, F., Psaltis, D., Narayan, R., & Villarreal, A. S. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 757, 55

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

P., Abbott, R., Adhikari, R., et al

Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Adhikari, R., et al. 2009, Reports on Progress in Physics, 72, 076901

2009

[2] [2]

A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2009, Science, 325, 840

2009

[3] [3]

A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 187, 460

2010

[4] [4]

A., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al

Abdo, A. A., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 208, 17

2013

[5] [5]

J., Farr, W

Andrews, J. J., Farr, W. M., Kalogera, V., & Willems, B. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 801, 32

2015

[6] [6]

M., Ozel, F., et al

Antoniadis, J., Tauris, T. M., Ozel, F., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1605.01665

arXiv 2016

[7] [7]

2018, ApJS, 235, 37

Arzoumanian, Z., Brazier, A., Burke-Spolaor, S., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 37

2018

[8] [8]

2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 4089

Beniamini, P., & Piran, T. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 4089

work page 2016