Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Explanation of the exceptionally strong timing noise of PSR J0337+1715 by a circum-ternary planet and consequences for gravity tests

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For PSR J0337+1715, the ~4.4-microsecond low-frequency timing residual is achromatic and is either exceptionally strong red noise or a Moon-mass planet around the triple system, with the gravity-test limit depending on which model is right.

desk verdict Careful, honest timing analysis: achromaticity and model-dependent SEP limits are solid, but the circum-ternary planet is an unproven explanation and the title overstates it. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10066 v2 pith:3UKL6OZ6 submitted 2024-11-15 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SRgr-qc

Guillaume Voisin (LUTH) , Ismaël Cognard (LPC2E) , Melaine Saillenfest (IMCCE) , Thomas Tauris , Norbert Wex (MPIFR) , Lucas Guillemot (LPC2E) , Gilles Theureau (LPC2E) , P.C.C. Freire (MPIFR)
show 1 more author
Michael Kramer (MPIFR)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SRgr-qc PACS 97.60.Gb04.80.Cc
keywords PSRJ0337+1715pulsartimingstrongequivalenceprinciplecircum-ternaryplanetnoiseredvonZeipel-Lidov-Kozairesonancesupernovakick
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

PSR J0337+1715 is a millisecond pulsar in a compact triple system with two white dwarfs, the best known laboratory for testing the strong equivalence principle with a strongly self-gravitating object. This paper tackles a ~4.4-microsecond, ~8-year-period residual that had been limiting the test, and shows it cannot be caused by dispersion-measure variations: the signal is achromatic. Two models fit equally well: an exceptionally strong power-law red-noise process, or a small planet in a ~3310-day orbit around the triple system. If the planet is real, its mutual interactions with the triple system are marginally detected, giving a mass of about 0.4 Moon masses and an inclination close to the exterior von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai resonance. The resulting strong-equivalence-principle bound is $|\Delta| < 1.5\times10^{-6}$ (planet) or $|\Delta| < 2.3\times10^{-6}$ (red noise) at 95% confidence, so which model is correct matters for the gravity test.

What carries the argument

The distinguishing mechanism is the first-order mutual-interaction Rømer delay of a circum-ternary planet, $$\delta\Delta_R = \$\alpha$ t\,(\gamma_c\cos n_O t + \gamma_s\sin n_O t),$$ a sinusoidal oscillation at the outer-binary frequency $n_O$ whose amplitude grows linearly in time (Eq. B.22). It is derived with Laplace-Lagrange perturbation theory in Jacobi coordinates and, because $\gamma_c$ and $\gamma_s$ depend independently on inclination and node, it lifts the Keplerian degeneracy between mass and inclination. The competing red-noise branch uses a truncated Fourier series $F(t_a)=\sum_{k=1}^n A k^{-\gamma}\sin(2\pi k\nu t_a+\phi_k)$ as a deterministic stand-in for a stochastic Gaussian-process red noise with a power-law spectrum.

What would settle it

Continue timing PSR J0337+1715 for roughly another five to eight years and measure the residual Fourier amplitude at the outer-binary period: the planet model predicts this amplitude grows linearly in time (the $\delta\Delta_R$ term), whereas any red-noise or Keplerian model does not; if the amplitude does not grow above the white-noise floor, the planet model is falsified, and if it does, the red-noise model is.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

With eight years of Nançay timing data, the paper establishes that the low-frequency timing residual of PSR J0337+1715 has grown to ~4.4 microseconds over ~3000 days, exceeds the ~2-microsecond single-ToA uncertainty, and is achromatic: a model with ten dispersion-measure bins finds no significant DM variation. The signal is therefore not a propagation effect. The paper then shows that an achromatic red-noise model with three Fourier components and a power-law spectrum (PL3) and a planet model both reduce the residuals to white noise, with differences too small to choose between them by information criteria given fitting systematics. In the planet interpretation, a hierarchical four-body numerical integration yields a $1.23^{+1.1}_{-0.66}\times10^{-8}\,M_\odot$ companion (about 0.4 Moon masses) in a ~3310-day, mildly eccentric orbit inclined near 119 degrees with respect to the triple-system plane, with a marginal detection of mutual interactions that is necessary to fix mass and inclination. If the signal is instead red noise, its amplitude is five to ten times larger than empirical scaling laws predict for a typical millisecond pulsar. The SEP test gives $|\Delta|<1.46\times10^{-6}$ under the planet model and $|\Delta|<2.29\times10^{-6}$ under PL3, a model dependence that motivates continued timing.

Load-bearing premise

The full planet interpretation — its mass, inclination, and the claimed Kozai-resonance coincidence — rests on the marginal detection of the mutual-interaction term at the outer-binary frequency, which the current data do not show as a clear signature; without that term the planet reduces to a Keplerian sinusoid that is degenerate with the PL3 red-noise model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dispersion-measure variations are excluded as the source of the ~4.4 microsecond signal, so any explanation must be achromatic.
  • If the planet is real, it would be among the lightest exoplanets known, and its inclination near the exterior von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai resonance suggests a resonance-stabilized survivor of the system's violent formation.
  • The strong-equivalence-principle limit depends on the noise model: $|\Delta|<1.46\times10^{-6}$ (Planet) versus $|\Delta|<2.29\times10^{-6}$ (PL3) at 95% confidence, a 30% improvement in the planet case and a 10% worsening in the red-noise case relative to the previous bound.
  • A longer observation span will produce a clear signature distinguishing the planet from red noise, because the mutual-interaction term grows linearly in time.
  • The inferred low supernova kick ($\sim110$–$125\,\mathrm{km/s}$) supports the idea that small kicks are necessary for the survival of pulsar triple systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the planet interpretation survives further data, the Kozai-resonance coincidence would be evidence that the planet is the sole survivor of a larger population of small bodies ejected during common-envelope evolution, implying that circum-ternary debris may be common around compact triple systems.
  • If the red-noise interpretation is instead correct, J0337's amplitude being five to ten times above empirical scaling laws would challenge the assumption that timing red noise tracks spin-down power, making J0337 a useful outlier for models of magnetospheric or superfluid-core noise.
  • The linearly growing mutual-interaction signal could in principle be searched for in timing data of other hierarchical triple pulsars, offering a generic test for circum-ternary planets rather than only this system.
  • The $\pm180^\circ$ degeneracy in the longitude of ascending node resolved here by annual-orbital parallax could be lifted independently by the planet's mutual-interaction term if the planet model is correct, providing a cross-check that is testable with future data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 8 years of Nançay timing data of PSR J0337+1715 to model a ~4.4 microsecond low-frequency residual. Three model families are compared: chromatic (DM) red noise, achromatic power-law red noise (PLn), and a circum-ternary planet in a hierarchical orbit. The authors report that DM variations are ruled out, that both an achromatic red-noise (PL3) model and a planet model fit the data equally well, and that the two hypotheses cannot be statistically separated with current data. Under the planet assumption, a marginal mutual-interaction signal is used to constrain the planet mass to ~1.2e-8 solar masses (0.4 Moon masses) and an inclination near the Kozai resonance. Updated strong-equivalence-principle limits are derived: |Delta| < 1.5e-6 (planet) and |Delta| < 2.3e-6 (red noise) at 95% confidence. The paper also discusses a formation scenario and a low supernova kick velocity for the triple system. The manuscript is transparent about the model-selection ambiguity, but the title and abstract present the planet interpretation as an 'explanation' despite the authors' own caveats that the statistical differences are within systematic uncertainties.

Significance. If the planet interpretation were robust, this would be a remarkable discovery: the lowest-mass exoplanet around a pulsar and the first circum-ternary planet, with an orbit coincident with a von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai resonance. However, the data do not establish the planet's existence. The robust contributions are the exclusion of DM variations, the identification of an exceptionally strong achromatic low-frequency signal, the model-dependent SEP limits, and the detailed perturbative treatment of the planetary Rømer delay in Appendix B. The paper also makes its dataset, code, and MCMC results publicly available (Zenodo), which is a strength for reproducibility. Nevertheless, the central planet-specific claims—mass, inclination, and resonance coincidence—depend on a marginal interaction term whose detection is not statistically significant, and the planet model is degenerate with red noise over the current timing span. The paper's scientific value is real but its headline conclusion is speculative; the manuscript needs substantial revision to align claims with evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Table 2, Appendix C] The Planet model improves χ² over the Kepler model by only Δχ² ≈ 1.6 for two additional parameters, and Appendix C explicitly states that 'a difference of a few units in log-likelihood may not be safely considered as significant given the systematic uncertainty of the fitting procedure.' Therefore the 'marginal detection of mutual interactions' (Eq. B.22) claimed in §4.2 and §5.2 is not statistically supported. The derived planet mass, inclination, and orbital parameters in Table 1 are thus not robustly constrained. Please reframe these quantities as conditional constraints under an assumed Planet model, not as detections, and remove or qualify the word 'detection' throughout the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [§3.2.2, Table 1, §4.2] The best-fit planet period PΠ = 3310 d is longer than the 2988 d observing span (MJD 56492–59480), so the Keplerian Rømer signal covers less than one full cycle. As the paper notes in §4.2, the outer-binary frequency component does not provide a clear signature because it is already well fitted by the triple-system model. Consequently, the planet model is degenerate with the PL3 red-noise model, and the only distinguishing feature is the mutual-interaction term, which is not significantly detected (see comment above). The title 'Explanation of the exceptionally strong timing noise ... by a circum-ternary planet' overstates the evidence; the title and abstract should explicitly acknowledge that the red-noise and planet hypotheses are both viable and currently indistinguishable.
  3. [§5.2, Fig. 8, Table 1] The claimed coincidence of the planet's inclination with the exterior von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai resonance at 116.6° is based on a very broad posterior, δiΠ = 119+16 −42°, which spans roughly 77°–135°. Given that the inclination constraint itself relies on the undetected mutual-interaction term, the phrase 'intriguingly coincident' (also used in the abstract) is not statistically meaningful. Please provide a quantitative estimate of the chance probability of such an alignment, or clearly label this as an unquantified speculation that does not support the planet interpretation.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C, Table C.1] The note to Table C.1 states Ndof = 13534 − Npar, whereas the text in §2 and the note to Table 2 give Ndof = 12474 − Npar for the same dataset. This inconsistency should be corrected.
  2. [Appendix B.2, Eq. (B.22)] The perturbed Rømer delay is written in the main text as δΔ_R = α t (γ_c cos n_O t + γ_s sin n_O t), but in Appendix B the same quantity is denoted δΔ_1 and uses E_1 = n_1(t − T_1). Please unify the notation to avoid confusion between the outer-binary mean motion and the planet's mean anomaly.
  3. [Abstract and §5.2] The abstract states that mutual interactions 'allow us to constrain its mass to ∼ 0.5 M_Moon as well as its inclination.' Given that the detection is marginal (Δχ² ≈ 1.6) and the paper itself cautions about systematic uncertainties, this phrasing should be softened to reflect that these constraints are obtained only under the assumption that the Planet model is correct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the fitted models and the derived mutual-interaction signature are self-contained, with self-citations used only for code and priors, not for the central claim.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The low-frequency signal is fitted explicitly to 12,474 ToAs under three model families: chromatic DMX, achromatic PLn Fourier-series red noise, and a numerical four-body planet model. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the SEP bounds in Eqs. (7)-(8) are posterior quantiles of Delta under each fitted hypothesis, and the 'exceptionally strong' red-noise label is a comparison to external PTA catalogs, not a derived consequence. The planet's distinguishing observable, the mutual-interaction Romer term delta_delta_R = alpha t (gamma_c cos n_O t + gamma_s sin n_O t) (Eq. B.22), is obtained from a Laplace-Lagrange perturbative Hamiltonian and checked against the numerical integration in Fig. 1; it is not defined in terms of the residual it explains. The Keplerian model's third harmonic is a fixed consequence of Eq. (A.3), giving internal predictive content independent of PL3. Self-citations to Voisin et al. (2020b) supply the numerical timing code and priors, which are openly released and independently cross-checked by Archibald et al. (2018); they do not carry the planet claim. The paper itself flags the marginal nature of the mutual-interaction detection (Sec. 4.2) and the few-unit log-likelihood systematics (App. C); this is a significance and correctness caveat, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 16 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on fitted signal-model parameters (planet orbital elements or red-noise Fourier coefficients) and on standard domain assumptions inherited from prior work: the 1PN hierarchical triple model, the neglect of planet-induced delays other than Romer, the deterministic Fourier approximation to stochastic red noise, and the Bergmann-Wagoner restriction of SEP violations to the pulsar. No new fundamental constants or physical entities beyond the candidate planet are introduced.

free parameters (16)
  • P_Pi (planet orbital period) = 3310 days
    Fitted to timing residuals; sets the period of the quasi-sinusoidal Romer delay.
  • a_t sin i_Pi (projected semi-major axis) = 6.5e-6 lt-s
    Amplitude of the planet-induced Romer delay; fitted.
  • a_t cos i_Pi (co-projected semi-major axis) = -1.5e-5 lt-s
    Fitted to break the sin i degeneracy via mutual interactions (Table 1).
  • e_Pi sin omega_t = 0.2
    Laplace-Lagrange eccentricity parameter of the planet orbit; fitted.
  • e_Pi cos omega_t = 5.7e-2
    Laplace-Lagrange eccentricity parameter of the planet orbit; fitted.
  • tasc_t (planet time of ascending node) = 56549 MJD
    Fitted phase parameter of the planet orbit.
  • Omega_t (planet longitude of ascending node) = ~125 deg
    Fitted; constrained via gamma_c and gamma_s in the perturbation model.
  • nu (PL3 fundamental frequency) = 3.44e-4 day^-1
    Fitted red-noise fundamental frequency (~2905-day period).
  • A_nu (PL3 amplitude at fundamental) = 4.4 micro-s
    Fitted amplitude of the red-noise Fourier component.
  • gamma (PL3 power-law index) = 2.73
    Fitted spectral index of the red-noise model.
  • phi_1 (PL3 phase) = -0.21 rad
    Fitted phase of the first Fourier harmonic.
  • phi_2 (PL3 phase) = -0.77 rad
    Fitted phase of the second Fourier harmonic.
  • phi_3 (PL3 phase) = -1.42 rad
    Fitted phase of the third Fourier harmonic.
  • EFAC (ToA uncertainty rescaling) = 1.11
    Fitted per-observation error multiplier; reduced from 1.31 in Voisin et al. (2020b).
  • DM (dispersion measure) = 21.316 pc cm^-3
    Standard fitted timing parameter; relevant to the ruled-out chromatic model.
  • DM' (dispersion measure drift) = 1.7e-5 pc cm^-3 yr^-1
    Standard fitted timing parameter.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Hierarchical 1PN three-body timing model for the J0337 triple system
    Adopted from Voisin et al. (2020b); the numerical integration is the base timing model.
  • domain assumption Planet mass is small and orbit is wide, so only the Romer delay is measurable
    Section 3.2; justifies ignoring other planet-induced delays and using Keplerian/perturbative treatment.
  • domain assumption Stochastic red noise can be approximated by a truncated Fourier series with a power-law spectrum and a fitted fundamental frequency
    Section 3.1.1; the paper notes this is a deterministic approximation to a Gaussian process.
  • domain assumption SEP violation is dominated by the pulsar, the only strongly self-gravitating body, within Bergmann-Wagoner scalar-tensor theories
    Section 3.3, following Voisin et al. (2020b); defines Delta as the only sensitive parameter.
  • standard math First-order Laplace-Lagrange secular perturbation theory captures the dominant planet perturbation
    Appendix B; validated by least-squares comparison with the numerical integration (Fig. 1).
  • domain assumption The excised data interval (MJD 58631-58780) with imperfect calibration does not bias the analysis
    Section 2; the excision is conservative, relying on wider ToA uncertainties absorbing the calibration distortion.
invented entities (1)
  • Circum-ternary planet around PSR J0337+1715
    purpose: Explains the ~4.4 microsecond low-frequency timing residual as the Romer delay induced on the triple system's barycenter.
    The planet is inferred from the same timing data it is fit to; its predicted mutual-interaction signature is only marginally detected (no significance quoted) and not yet confirmed by independent observations. The paper predicts a clear future signature, but no independent handle currently exists.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Explanation of the exceptionally strong timing noise of PSR J0337+1715 by a circum-ternary planet and consequences for gravity tests." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3UKL6OZ6

@misc{pith2026241110066,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Explanation of the exceptionally strong timing noise of PSR J0337+1715 by a circum-ternary planet and consequences for gravity tests},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3UKL6OZ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10066}
}
abstract

Context: Timing of pulsar PSR J0337+1715 provides a unique opportunity to test the strong equivalence principle (SEP) with a strongly self-gravitating object. This is due to its unique situation in a triple stellar system with two white dwarfs. Aims: Our previous study suggested the presence of a strong low-frequency signal in the timing residuals. We set out to model it on a longer dataset in order to determine its nature and improve accuracy. Methods: Three models are considered: chromatic or achromatic red-noise, and a small planet in a hierarchical orbit with the triple stellar system. These models are implemented in our numerical timing model. We perform Bayesian inference of posterior distributions. Best fits are compared using information-theoretic criteria. Results: Chromatic red noise from dispersion-measure variations is ruled out. Achromatic red noise or a planet in keplerian orbit provide the best fits. If it is red noise then it appears exceptionally strong. Assuming the presence of a planet, we obtain a marginal detection of mutual interactions which allows us to constrain its mass to $\sim 0.5 M_{\rm Moon}$ as well as its inclination. The latter is intriguingly coincident with a Kozai resonance. We show that a longer observation span will ultimately lead to a clear signature of the planet model due to its mutual interactions with the triple system. We produce new limits on SEP violation: $|\Delta| < 1.5\cdot 10^{-6}$ or $|\Delta| < 2.3\cdot 10^{-6}$ at 95% confidence level under the planet or red-noise hypothesis, respectively. This model dependence emphasises the need for additional data and model selection. As a by-product, we estimate a rather low supernova kick velocity of $\sim 110-125 \rm km/s$, strengthening the idea that it is a necessary condition for the formation of pulsar triple systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10066 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of numerically computed Rømer delay with first￾order and Keplerian-order approximations. Approximate expressions have been least-square fitted to the numerical result. Top: Three versions as well as residuals of the least-square fit (lower panel). Bottom: Lomb￾Scargle periodogram of the three versions. Vertical dashed lines mark the fundamental (black), second harmonic (grey), and third harmonic (dash-dot… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dispersion measure per time interval in the model PL3DM10. The x axis gives the time interval index, and the intervals are equal. Error bars delimit the 68% confidence region. rable to their uncertainties, and to the uncertainty on the global DM parameter as well (Table E.1). However, we note that AIC marginally favours PL3DM10 over PL3 (∆AIC = −1.3) but that BIC strongly rejects it (∆BIC = 58) owing to the large nu… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. In that figure we have also represented the signal from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Measurements of the SEP violation parameter ∆ (left column) and its absolute value |∆| (right column) assuming the PL3 (upper row) or Planet (bottom row) models. Vertical dotted lines mark the mean value of the distributions, while the vertical dashed lines delimit the…
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Galactic motion of the J0337 system during the past 500 Myr. The blue dot marks its current position. The orange dot shows the loca￾tion of the Sun. The orbit was calculated with the Galactic gravitational potential and the software provided by McMillan (2017). 500 400…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ). This finding is of particular importance for Sec. 5.3, where we discuss the evolutionary history of the system, as it suggests that the formation of the pulsar had only a small kick imparted on the system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Timing residuals. Top: Best-fit residuals of model PL3. Bottom: Difference between residuals of best-fit PL3 and Planet models. Error bars are not shown for clarity, but the median 1-sigma uncertainty is 1.9µs, and the mean is 2.2µs. if at all. Thus, in what follows we…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Reduced χ 2 of the residuals between each 100-day sub-profile and the main template as a function of date. Two sub-profiles are in the time interval when imperfect polarisation calibration was performed (‘UnperfectPolCal’, see main text). The inset shows the residuals …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of the eccentricity and inclination of the planet as a function of its argument of periastron. Orbital elements are measured with respect to the orbital plane of the inner two binaries. The small dots show the trace of a 20-Myr numerical integration of the pl…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Probability of a planet surviving the SN explosion as a function of its pre-SN orbital period and the present-day systemic velocity of J0337. The red circle marks our default value with vsys = 44 km s−1 and P planet orb = 1000 days, yielding Pbound = 33% (see text). P…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Understanding the Neutron Star Population with the SKAO Telescopes

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 accept novelty 3.5 of 10

    SKAO AA* and AA4 surveys are projected to discover thousands of ordinary pulsars and ~800–1000 MSPs, enabling population synthesis, mass measurements and tests of gravity and emission physics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    1974, IEEE Trans

    Akaike, H. 1974, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 19, 716

    1974

  4. [4]

    F., Arzoumanian, Z., Baker, P

    Alam, M. F., Arzoumanian, Z., Baker, P. T., et al. 2021, ApJ Supplement Series, 252, 4, aDS Bibcode: 2021ApJS..252....4A

    2021

  5. [5]

    M., Gusinskaia, N

    Archibald, A. M., Gusinskaia, N. V., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2018, Nature, 559, 73

    2018

  6. [6]

    C., Foster, R

    Backer, D. C., Foster, R. S., & Sallmen, S. 1993, Nature, 365, 817, aDS Bibcode: 1993Natur.365..817B

    1993

  7. [7]

    D., Bhalerao, V., et al

    Bailes, M., Bates, S. D., Bhalerao, V., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 1717, aDS Bibcode: 2011Sci...333.1717B

    2011

  8. [8]

    G., Janssen, G

    Bassa, C. G., Janssen, G. H., Stappers, B. W., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2207, publisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 2016MNRAS.460.2207B

    2016

Show all 112 references
  1. [9]

    & Soker , N

    Bear , E. & Soker , N. 2014, , 444, 1698

    2014

  2. [10]

    A., Ransom, S

    Behrens, E. A., Ransom, S. M., Madison, D. R., et al. 2020, ApJ Letters, 893, L8

    2020

  3. [11]

    V., Dreizler , S., et al

    Beuermann , K., Hessman , F. V., Dreizler , S., et al. 2010, , 521, L60

    2010

  4. [12]

    2004, Methods of Celestial Mechanics : Volume I : Physical , Mathematical , and Numerical Principles , 1st edn

    Beutler, G. 2004, Methods of Celestial Mechanics : Volume I : Physical , Mathematical , and Numerical Principles , 1st edn. (Berlin ; New York: Springer)

    2004

  5. [13]

    & Teukolsky, S

    Blandford, R. & Teukolsky, S. A. 1976, ApJ, 205, 580

    1976

  6. [14]

    S., Ransom, S

    Boyles, J., Lynch, R. S., Ransom, S. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 80, aDS Bibcode: 2013ApJ...763...80B

    2013

  7. [15]

    B., Marsh, T

    Burdge, K. B., Marsh, T. R., Fuller, J., et al. 2022, Nature, 605, 41, aDS Bibcode: 2022Natur.605...41B

    2022

  8. [16]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 5538, aDS Bibcode: 2022MNRAS.509.5538C

    Chalumeau, A., Babak, S., Petiteau, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 5538, aDS Bibcode: 2022MNRAS.509.5538C

    2022

  9. [17]

    J., Ransom , S

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

    2008

  10. [18]

    N., Guo, Y

    Chen, S., Caballero, R. N., Guo, Y. J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4970

    2021

  11. [19]

    2013, in SF2A-2013: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of , ed

    Cognard , I., Theureau , G., Guillemot , L., et al. 2013, in SF2A-2013: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of , ed. L. Cambresy , F. Martins , E. Nuss , & A. Palacios , 327--330

    2013

  12. [20]

    A., Vanderburg, A., et al

    Croll, B., Dalba, P. A., Vanderburg, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 82, aDS Bibcode: 2017ApJ...836...82C

    2017

  13. [21]

    & Deruelle, N

    Damour, T. & Deruelle, N. 1985, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar \'e Phys. Th \'e or., Vol. 43, No. 1, p. 107 - 132, 43, 107

    1985

  14. [22]

    & Esposito-Far \`e se, G

    Damour, T. & Esposito-Far \`e se, G. 1993, Phys. Rev. Lett., 70, 2220, publisher: American Physical Society

    1993

  15. [23]

    & Esposito-Farese, G

    Damour, T. & Esposito-Farese, G. 1996, Phys. Rev. D, 54, 1474, arXiv: gr-qc/9602056

    1996 arXiv

  16. [24]

    & Sch \"a fer, G

    Damour, T. & Sch \"a fer, G. 1991, Phys. Rev. Lett., 66, 2549, publisher: American Physical Society

    1991

  17. [25]

    & Taylor, J

    Damour, T. & Taylor, J. H. 1992, Phys. Rev. D, 45, 1840

    1992

  18. [26]

    2011, Gen

    Deruelle, N. 2011, Gen. Relativ. Gravitation, 43, 3337

    2011

  19. [27]

    C., Cognard , I., Lespagnol , P., & Theureau , G

    Desvignes , G., Barott , W. C., Cognard , I., Lespagnol , P., & Theureau , G. 2011, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1357, Radio Pulsars: An Astrophysical Key to Unlock the Secrets of the Universe, ed. M. Burgay , N. D'Amico , P. Esposito , A. Pellizzon...

    2011

  20. [28]

    Developers, T. S. 2022, sagemath/sage: 9.5

    2022

  21. [29]

    T., et al

    Donlon, II, T., Chakrabarti, S., Lam, M. T., et al. 2024, The Anomalous Acceleration of PSR J2043 +1711: Long - Period Orbital Companion or Stellar Flyby ?, publication Title: arXiv e-prints ADS Bibcode: 2024arXiv240706482D

    2024

  22. [30]

    2023, in Astron Soc Pac Conf Ser, Vol

    Dr a \.z kowska , J., Bitsch , B., Lambrechts , M., et al. 2023, in Astron Soc Pac Conf Ser, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 717

    2023

  23. [31]

    G., Moodley, K., & Skordis, C

    Dunkley, J., Bucher, M., Ferreira, P. G., Moodley, K., & Skordis, C. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 925

    2005

  24. [32]

    T., Pennucci , T

    Fonseca , E., Cromartie , H. T., Pennucci , T. T., et al. 2021, , 915, L12

    2021

  25. [33]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac., 125, 306

    2013

  26. [34]

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

    2011

  27. [35]

    Freire, P. C. C., Kramer, M., & Wex, N. 2012, Classical Quantum Gravity, 29, 184007

    2012

  28. [36]

    Freire , P. C. C. & Wex , N. 2024, Living Rev. Relativ., 27, 5

    2024

  29. [37]

    2012, Icarus, 220, 392, aDS Bibcode: 2012Icar..220..392G

    Gallardo, T., Hugo, G., & Pais, P. 2012, Icarus, 220, 392, aDS Bibcode: 2012Icar..220..392G

    2012

  30. [38]

    & Laskar, J

    Gastineau, M. & Laskar, J. 2011, ACM Commun. Comput. Algebra, 44, 194

    2011

  31. [39]

    G \'e rard , J. M. 2007, Classical Quantum Gravity, 24, 1867

    2007

  32. [40]

    J., Shannon, R

    Goncharov, B., Reardon, D. J., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 478, aDS Bibcode: 2021MNRAS.502..478G

    2021

  33. [41]

    & Weare, J

    Goodman, J. & Weare, J. 2010, Commun. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci., 5, 65

    2010

  34. [42]

    V., Freire, P

    Grunthal, K., Krishnan, V. V., Freire, P. C. C., et al. 2024, Triple trouble with PSR J1618 -3921: Mass measurements and orbital dynamics of an eccentric millisecond pulsar, arXiv:2409.03615 [astro-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    2023, , 678, A79, arXiv:2308.01599 [astro-ph]

    Guillemot, L., Cognard, I., van Straten, W., Theureau, G., & G \'e rard, E. 2023, , 678, A79, arXiv:2308.01599 [astro-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Hills , J. G. 1983, , 267, 322

    1983

  37. [45]

    R., Lyne , A

    Hobbs , G., Lorimer , D. R., Lyne , A. G., & Kramer , M. 2005, , 360, 974

    2005

  38. [46]

    G., & Kramer, M

    Hobbs, G., Lyne, A. G., & Kramer, M. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1027

    2010

  39. [47]

    B., Edwards, R

    Hobbs, G. B., Edwards, R. T., & Manchester, R. N. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 655

    2006

  40. [48]

    & M \"u ller, J

    Hofmann, F. & M \"u ller, J. 2018, Classical Quantum Gravity, 35, 035015, publisher: IOP Publishing

    2018

  41. [49]

    W., van Straten, W., & Manchester, R

    Hotan, A. W., van Straten, W., & Manchester, R. N. 2004, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 21, 302, aDS Bibcode: 2004PASA...21..302H

    2004

  42. [50]

    & Ohtsuka, K

    Ito, T. & Ohtsuka, K. 2024, The Lidov - Kozai Oscillation and Hugo von Zeipel , pages: 21193492 Bytes arXiv:1911.03984 [astro-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    & Roos, M

    James, F. & Roos, M. 1975, Computer Physics Communications, 10, 343

    1975

  44. [52]

    L., Kupfer, T., Nice, D

    Kaplan, D. L., Kupfer, T., Nice, D. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 86, publisher: IOP ADS Bibcode: 2016ApJ...826...86K

    2016

  45. [53]

    L., van Kerkwijk, M

    Kaplan, D. L., van Kerkwijk, M. H., Koester, D., et al. 2014, ApJ Letters, 783, L23

    2014

  46. [54]

    Kerr, M., Johnston, S., Hobbs, G., & Shannon, R. M. 2015, ApJ, 809, L11, aDS Bibcode: 2015ApJ...809L..11K

    2015

  47. [55]

    S., Bailes, M., Manchester, R

    Knight, H. S., Bailes, M., Manchester, R. N., & Ord, S. M. 2006, ApJ, 653, 580, aDS Bibcode: 2006ApJ...653..580K

    2006

  48. [56]

    & Wolszczan, A

    Konacki, M. & Wolszczan, A. 2003, ApJ Letters, 591, L147

    2003

  49. [57]

    Kopeikin, S. M. 1995, ApJ Letters, 439, L5

    1995

  50. [58]

    1962, The Astronomical Journal, 67, 591, aDS Bibcode: 1962AJ.....67..591K

    Kozai, Y. 1962, The Astronomical Journal, 67, 591, aDS Bibcode: 1962AJ.....67..591K

    1962

  51. [59]

    H., Manchester, R

    Kramer, M., Stairs, I. H., Manchester, R. N., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. X, 11, 041050

    2021

  52. [60]

    2001, MNRAS, 326, 274

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

    2001

  53. [61]

    1988, , 198, 341

    Laskar, J. 1988, , 198, 341

    1988

  54. [62]

    1990, Icarus, 88, 266, aDS Bibcode: 1990Icar...88..266L

    Laskar, J. 1990, Icarus, 88, 266, aDS Bibcode: 1990Icar...88..266L

    1990

  55. [63]

    1993, Physica D, 67, 257

    Laskar, J. 1993, Physica D, 67, 257

    1993

  56. [64]

    2005, in Hamiltonian Systems and Fourier Analysis: New Prospects for Gravitational Dynamics , ed

    Laskar , J. 2005, in Hamiltonian Systems and Fourier Analysis: New Prospects for Gravitational Dynamics , ed. D. Benest, C. Froeschle, & E. Lega (Cambridge Scientific Publishers)

    2005

  57. [65]

    Lidov, M. L. 1962, Planetary and Space Science, 9, 719

    1962

  58. [66]

    2018, , 616, A2, publisher: EDP Sciences

    Lindegren, L., Hern \'a ndez, J., Bombrun, A., et al. 2018, , 616, A2, publisher: EDP Sciences

    2018

  59. [67]

    M., R \"o pke , F

    Liu , Z.-W., Tauris , T. M., R \"o pke , F. K., et al. 2015, , 584, A11

    2015

  60. [68]

    S., Boyles, J., Ransom, S

    Lynch, R. S., Boyles, J., Ransom, S. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 81, aDS Bibcode: 2013ApJ...763...81L

    2013

  61. [69]

    & Graham-Smith, F

    Lyne, A. & Graham-Smith, F. 2012, Pulsar Astronomy , 4th edn. (Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press)

    2012

  62. [70]

    2010, Science, 329, 408

    Lyne, A., Hobbs, G., Kramer, M., Stairs, I., & Stappers, B. 2010, Science, 329, 408

    2010

  63. [71]

    Manchester, R. N. 2017, J. Astrophys. Astron., 38, 42

    2017

  64. [72]

    N., Hobbs, G

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, The Astronomical Journal, 129, 1993

    2005

  65. [73]

    McMillan , P. J. 2017, , 465, 76

    2017

  66. [74]

    & Link, B

    Melatos, A. & Link, B. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 21

    2014

  67. [75]

    Murray, C. D. & Dermott, S. F. 1999, Solar system dynamics, publication Title: Solar system dynamics by C.D. Murray and S.F. McDermott. (Cambridge ADS Bibcode: 1999ssd..book.....M

    1999

  68. [76]

    J., et al

    Nieder, L., Kerr, M., Clark, C. J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, L3, aDS Bibcode: 2022ApJ...931L...3N

    2022

  69. [77]

    C., Keith, M

    Niţu, I. C., Keith, M. J., Stappers, B. W., Lyne, A. G., & Mickaliger, M. B. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2446

    2022

  70. [78]

    1968, Physical Review, 170, 1186

    Nordtvedt, K. 1968, Physical Review, 170, 1186

    1968

  71. [79]

    T., Caputo , D

    Pijloo , J. T., Caputo , D. P., & Portegies Zwart , S. F. 2012, , 424, 2914

    2012

  72. [80]

    Portegies Zwart , S., van den Heuvel , E. P. J., van Leeuwen , J., & Nelemans , G. 2011, , 734, 55

    2011

  73. [81]

    M., Stairs, I

    Ransom, S. M., Stairs, I. H., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2014, Nature, 505, 520

    2014

  74. [82]

    J., Coles, W

    Reardon, D. J., Coles, W. A., Bailes, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 104, aDS Bibcode: 2020ApJ...904..104R

    2020

  75. [83]

    J., Shannon, R

    Reardon, D. J., Shannon, R. M., Cameron, A. D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2137, aDS Bibcode: 2021MNRAS.507.2137R

    2021

  76. [84]

    E., Watts, A

    Riley, T. E., Watts, A. L., Ray, P. S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, L27, aDS Bibcode: 2021ApJ...918L..27R

    2021

  77. [85]

    Saillenfest, M., Fouchard, M., Tommei, G., & Valsecchi, G. B. 2016, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 126, 369, aDS Bibcode: 2016CeMDA.126..369S

    2016

  78. [86]

    Schleicher , D. R. G. & Dreizler , S. 2014, , 563, A61

    2014

  79. [87]

    1978, Ann

    Schwarz, G. 1978, Ann. Stat., 6, 461, publisher: Institute of Mathematical Statistics

    1978

  80. [88]

    Shannon, R. M. & Cordes, J. M. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1607

    2010

  81. [89]

    M., Cordes, J

    Shannon, R. M., Cordes, J. M., Metcalfe, T. S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 5

    2013

  82. [90]

    2016, Phys

    Shao, L. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 084023, arXiv: 1602.05725

    2016 arXiv

  83. [91]

    B., Hansen, B

    Sigurdsson, S., Richer, H. B., Hansen, B. M., Stairs, I. H., & Thorsett, S. E. 2003, Science, 301, 193, publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science

    2003

  84. [92]

    & Thorsett , S

    Sigurdsson , S. & Thorsett , S. E. 2005, in Astron Soc Pac Conf Ser, Vol. 328, Binary Radio Pulsars, ed. F. A. Rasio & I. H. Stairs , 213

    2005

  85. [93]

    C., & Kumar, R

    Susobhanan, A., Gopakumar, A., Joshi, B. C., & Kumar, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5260

    2018

  86. [94]

    M., Kramer , M., Freire , P

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

    2017

  87. [95]

    Tauris, T. M. & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 2014, ApJ Letters, 781, L13

    2014

  88. [96]

    Tauris , T. M. & van den Heuvel , E. P. J. 2023, Physics of Binary Star Evolution. From Stars to X-ray Binaries and Gravitational Wave Sources (Princeton University Press)

    2023

  89. [97]

    E., Arzoumanian, Z., Camilo, F., & Lyne, A

    Thorsett, S. E., Arzoumanian, Z., Camilo, F., & Lyne, A. G. 1999, ApJ, 523, 763, publisher: IOP ADS Bibcode: 1999ApJ...523..763T

    1999

  90. [98]

    2019, Classical Quantum Gravity, 36, 225006

    Touboul, P., M \'e tris, G., Rodrigues, M., et al. 2019, Classical Quantum Gravity, 36, 225006

    2019

  91. [99]

    2022, , 129, 121102

    Touboul , P., M \'e tris , G., Rodrigues , M., et al. 2022, , 129, 121102

    2022

  92. [100]

    & Gourgouliatos, K

    Tsang, D. & Gourgouliatos, K. N. 2013, ApJ, 773, L17, publisher: American Astronomical Society

    2013

  93. [101]

    2006, , 642, 1004

    van Straten , W. 2006, , 642, 1004

    2006

  94. [102]

    W., et al

    Vleeschower , L., Corongiu , A., Stappers , B. W., et al. 2024, , 530, 1436

    2024

  95. [103]

    2017, Theses, Universit \'e de recherche Paris Sciences et Lettres, https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01677325

    Voisin, G. 2017, Theses, Universit \'e de recherche Paris Sciences et Lettres, https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01677325

    2017

  96. [104]

    P., & Summers, C

    Voisin, G., Breton, R. P., & Summers, C. 2020 a , MNRAS, 492, 1550

    2020

  97. [105]

    2022, One pulsar, two white dwarfs, and a planet confirming the strong equivalence principle, arXiv:2205.09345

    Voisin, G., Cognard, I., Freire, P., et al. 2022, One pulsar, two white dwarfs, and a planet confirming the strong equivalence principle, arXiv:2205.09345

    2022 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Voisin, G., Cognard, I., Freire, P. C. C., et al. 2020 b , , 638, A24

    2020

  99. [107]

    1909, Astronomische Nachrichten, 183, 345, \_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/asna.19091832202

    von Zeipel, H. 1909, Astronomische Nachrichten, 183, 345, \_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/asna.19091832202

    1909 doi

  100. [108]

    C., Lecar , M., & McKee , C

    Wheeler , J. C., Lecar , M., & McKee , C. F. 1975, , 200, 145

    1975

  101. [109]

    Will, C. M. 2014, Living Rev. Relativ., 17, arXiv: 1403.7377

    2014 arXiv

  102. [110]

    & Frail, D

    Wolszczan, A. & Frail, D. A. 1992, Nature, 355, 145

    1992

  103. [111]

    W., Desvignes , G., Wex , N., et al

    Zhu , W. W., Desvignes , G., Wex , N., et al. 2019, , 482, 3249

    2019

  104. [112]

    W., Stairs, I

    Zhu, W. W., Stairs, I. H., Demorest, P. B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 41, aDS Bibcode: 2015ApJ...809...41Z

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.