Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Radio and gamma-ray timing of TRAPUM L-band Fermi pulsar survey discoveries

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Jointly fitting radio pulses and gamma-ray photons lets the authors measure proper motions of four millisecond pulsars that a gamma-ray-only analysis of 15 years of Fermi data could not detect.

desk verdict Solid joint radio/gamma-ray timing paper whose headline proper-motion claims outrun the quoted errors; two of four are secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14895 v1 pith:BB4KPUK5 submitted 2024-11-22 astro-ph.HE

M. Burgay , L. Nieder , C. J. Clark , P. C. C. Freire , S. Buchner , T. Thongmeearkom , J. D. Turner , E. Carli
show 13 more authors
I. Cognard J. M. Grie{ss}meier R. Karuppusamy M. C. i Bernadich A. Possenti V. Venkatraman Krishnan R. P. Breton E. D. Barr B. W. Stappers M. Kramer L. Levin S. M. Ransom P. V. Padmanabh
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords millisecondpulsarsgamma-raytimingradiopropermotionjointanalysisredbackFermi-LATpulsar
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

This paper claims that a joint analysis of radio pulse arrival times and gamma-ray photons can extract timing parameters from millisecond pulsars that neither band alone provides. Using a newly developed Markov-chain Monte Carlo code that fits both data sets simultaneously, the authors measure the proper motion of four pulsars discovered in a radio survey of gamma-ray sources, even though a gamma-ray-only analysis of the full 15-year Fermi data span would not have been sensitive to it. The result matters because proper motions are needed to correct observed spin-down rates for kinematic effects and to obtain accurate pulsar energetics, and because precise long-baseline timing solutions enable multi-messenger follow-up such as continuous gravitational-wave searches.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a joint log-likelihood function that adds the radio timing chi-squared (from pulse arrival-time residuals) to the unbinned gamma-ray template-based likelihood (from photon phases), plus priors, and optimizes all timing parameters together with a Markov-chain Monte Carlo sampler. A second piece of machinery is the Gaussian-process description of redback orbital-phase variations, with a Matérn covariance function, which lets the gamma-ray timing extend beyond the valid range of a deterministic radio ephemeris. The capacity that carries the argument is that radio data pin down short-term parameters and sky position with high signal-to-noise, while the long 15-year gamma-ray baseline drives the measurement of parameters that improve with time span, such as proper motion and spin-frequency derivative.

What would settle it

Measure the proper motion of one of the four jointly timed pulsars (e.g., J1858−5422 or J1623−6936) with very long baseline interferometry. If the VLBI proper motion disagrees with the joint-timing value by more than the combined uncertainty, the gamma-ray weighting model is biased for that pulsar.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the key result is that joint radio and gamma-ray timing works: for six of nine millisecond pulsars discovered in the survey, gamma-ray pulsations were found using radio ephemerides, and a joint timing fit that combines the radio times of arrival with the sparse gamma-ray photons breaks the degeneracies that prevented either data set alone from converging. This yields significant proper-motion measurements for four pulsars, which the 15-year gamma-ray data alone could not provide, and allows the measured spin-down rates to be corrected for the Shklovskii effect. For the redback J1803−6707, a Gaussian-process treatment of its erratic orbital-period variations extends the gamma-ray timing solution across the full Fermi mission, and for J1757−6032 the timing reveals a nearly edge-on orbit with a hint of Shapiro delay, identifying it as a promising target for neutron-star mass measurement.

Load-bearing premise

The gamma-ray photon weights, which say how likely each photon is to come from the pulsar rather than background, are assumed to be correct; if they are systematically wrong for any target, the joint timing fit returns biased positions and proper motions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The joint timing approach yields proper motions for millisecond pulsars that would otherwise require many more years of radio timing, substantially shortening the follow-up time needed to correct spin-down rates and derive pulsar energetics.
  • For redbacks with erratic orbital periods, the Gaussian-process timing method makes gamma-ray pulsations usable across the full Fermi data span, enabling long-term timing solutions that deterministic ephemerides cannot provide.
  • The high-inclination, high-companion-mass system J1757−6032 is now a strong candidate for a neutron-star mass measurement via Shapiro delay, which would test whether Case A Roche-lobe overflow produces massive neutron stars.
  • The joint timing solutions provide ephemerides that are valid over the Fermi mission, allowing multi-wavelength and multi-messenger searches, including continuous gravitational waves, to use these pulsars as targets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The joint timing technique should transfer to any Fermi-selected millisecond pulsar with detectable gamma-ray pulsations, potentially reducing the radio follow-up investment needed for proper-motion measurements across the whole population.
  • If the photon-weight bias seen for J1709−0333 is common in complex gamma-ray regions, some previously published gamma-ray-only timing positions and proper motions may need revision; re-processing with joint radio data could serve as a check.
  • The Gaussian-process treatment of orbital variations could be applied to other redbacks and spider pulsars where deterministic timing models fail, potentially recovering gamma-ray pulsations from systems currently thought to be gamma-ray quiet.
  • The shorter spin-period distribution of this sample, if it persists in larger targeted surveys, suggests that sensitive radio surveys of Fermi unassociated sources preferentially uncover fast millisecond pulsars, which are the best clocks for pulsar timing arrays.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a multi-telescope radio and Fermi-LAT gamma-ray timing campaign on nine millisecond pulsars discovered in the TRAPUM L-band survey of unassociated Fermi sources. Gamma-ray pulsations are found for six targets; for five of them a new joint radio/gamma-ray timing analysis using MCMC is applied, and for the redback J1803−6707 a Gaussian-process model of orbital period variations is used to extend the timing solution across the Fermi mission. The paper presents spin, astrometric, and orbital parameters, proper-motion measurements for four pulsars, eclipse light curves for the two redbacks, phase-aligned radio/gamma-ray profiles, and polarimetry. The central claim is that joint timing yields precise short- and long-term parameters, in particular proper motions of four MSPs that a gamma-ray-only analysis would not have provided.

Significance. The joint timing code and its application to five pulsars is a useful methodological advance, and the treatment of J1803−6707's orbital phase variations with a Gaussian process is more sophisticated than the usual redback timing analysis. The paper is transparent about the marginal Shapiro delay and the photon re-weighting for J1709−0333, and it makes ephemerides publicly available. If the proper-motion detections survive a formal null-model test, the demonstration that 15 years of gamma-ray photons can be combined with radio ToAs to measure astrometric parameters would be valuable for the Fermi MSP population. The polarimetry and eclipse characterisation are useful additions. At present, however, the headline claim of four significant proper motions is not supported by the quoted uncertainties.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 7 / Table 4] The summary states that joint timing 'significantly measure[s] the proper motion of four MSPs,' but the quoted 1σ errors in Table 4 do not support this. J1526−2744 has a total proper motion of 9±7 mas/yr (≈1.3σ), and J1757−6032 has 8±4 mas/yr (≈2σ); only J1623−6936 (8.6±1.8) and J1858−5422 (9±3) reach the 3σ level. Moreover, the tabulated total proper motions are internally inconsistent with the components: for J1757−6032, μ_α = −2.3±1.4 and μ_δ = −3.0±2.3 imply a magnitude ≈3.8 mas/yr, not 8; for J1526−2744 the components imply ≈12.6 mas/yr, not 9. The Shklovskii corrections in Table 4 are applied to J1526 and J1757 although their total proper motions are not significant. I request a formal null-model comparison (proper motion fixed to zero versus free) and a revision of the number of claimed detections and of the derived Pdot_int corrections.
  2. [Section 3] For PSR J1709−0333, the reported H = 76 is obtained after maximizing an energy-dependent re-weighting over the scale factor A and spectral index γ, and after an earlier tweak of fdot. No trials factor for this optimization is discussed, although the paper itself notes that 'much larger values are required to overcome the trial factors' arising from parameter searches. Please provide a trials-corrected significance or otherwise state how many independent re-weighting trials were performed; without this, the gamma-ray detection claim for this pulsar is not fully quantified.
  3. [Section 5.1] The text states that fitting both Shapiro-delay parameters yields no significant detection, yet immediately derives a strong inclination constraint (median 87.5° with a 68% interval of +1.4/−2.8 deg) from a χ² map in the M2–cos i plane. The dependence of this constraint on the assumed priors (pulsar mass range 1.17–3.2 M⊙, uniform cos i) and on the earlier assumption of i = 87.5° for the h3 measurement needs to be made explicit. As written, the paper risks overinterpreting a marginal signal as a measurement of the orbital inclination.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1 / Section 7] Section 4.1 says the full joint timing analysis was performed on four binary pulsars and one isolated pulsar, while Section 7 says the new joint technique was applied to the six sources with pulsations in both bands; please clarify how PSR J1803−6707 fits this description.
  2. [Table 4 / Table 3] The pulsar name is given as J1823−3543 in Table 4 but as J1823−3544 in the abstract, key words, and Section 5.3; this should be unified.
  3. [Section 5.3] The text refers to 'J1623−6939' in the first paragraph of Section 5.3; this should be J1623−6936.
  4. [Section 7 / Data availability] The pulsar is called J1803−6708 in the data availability section and in Section 7, whereas the rest of the paper uses J1803−6707.
  5. [Section 3] For PSR J1036−4353, the statement that W² = 134 means pulsations would not be expected on timescales shorter than about 3 years is unclear without a definition of the relationship between W² and the expected H-test power; please spell out the scaling or add a reference.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity in the proper-motion derivations; minor fitted-input issue in the J1709 gamma-ray detection re-weighting.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, paragraph on PSR J1709−0333]
    "To address this, we recomputed the photon weights with gtsrcprob using the pulsar timing position instead of the 4FGL position, and then applied an energy-dependent re-weighting to maximise the H-test, similar to the 'model weights' method developed by Bruel (2019). For this, we used the photon re-weighting equation derived by Kerr (2019), w'=s w/(s w+1-w), multiplying the source flux with a power-law spectral function s(E)=A(E/1000 MeV)^gamma, and varied the overall scale factor A and spectral index gamma to maximise the re-weighted H-test."

    The reported H=76 is the maximum of the detection statistic over two free parameters (A and gamma) chosen using the same gamma-ray photons on which H is evaluated. The photon weights used as input to the timing/detection are therefore adjusted so that the output statistic is maximized, and the maximized value is then quoted as the evidence for pulsation. This is a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern, but it is confined to the marginal detection claim for J1709−0333: Table 5 reports no proper motion for this pulsar, so the central four proper-motion measurements are not affected by this step.

full rationale

The paper's headline claim — proper-motion measurements for four MSPs from joint radio and gamma-ray timing — is not circular. The proper motions are free parameters in a joint likelihood (Eq. 1) formed from radio ToAs and gamma-ray photon phases, two independent data sets; no proper-motion value is defined in terms of the fitted result, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The joint fit is validated by posterior corner plots comparing radio-only, gamma-ray-only and joint constraints (Fig. 1, Figs. A.1–A.5), which show the proper-motion information coming from the longer gamma-ray span while positions come from radio. The J1803−6707 astrometry, including proper motion, is taken from Gaia DR3 priors, not claimed as a gamma-ray measurement. The Gaussian-process and MCMC machinery is cited from the same group (Clark et al. 2021; Thongmeearkom et al. 2024), but the method is described in the text and is not a uniqueness theorem that forces the result. The only genuine reduction of an output to a fitted input is the J1709−0333 photon re-weighting, where A and gamma are optimized on the same photons used to compute H; this affects a detection statistic, not the four proper-motion measurements. Overall, the central derivation is self-contained against external radio and gamma-ray data, so the circularity score is low.

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

The paper is an observational timing analysis; it introduces no new physical entities. The free parameters listed are those fitted to the data to either model the gamma-ray response or to account for orbital variability; they are standard practice but the J1709 re-weighting parameters are notable because they were varied to maximise the detection statistic. The axioms are the standard assumptions of pulsar timing and gamma-ray data analysis.

free parameters (6)
  • J1709 spectral re-weighting index = gamma = 0.7
    Fitted to the gamma-ray data to maximise the H-test statistic; trials over this parameter are not accounted for in the quoted significance.
  • J1709 spectral re-weighting scale = A = 0.3
    Fitted jointly with gamma to maximise the re-weighted H-test; used to compensate for possible spectral model mis-specification.
  • J1803 GP amplitude hyperparameter = h = 17+7-10 s
    Hyperparameter of the Gaussian process modelling orbital phase variations in the redback J1803-6707; fitted to the timing data.
  • J1803 GP length scale hyperparameter = l > 560 d
    Hyperparameter of the Gaussian process; fitted and only a lower bound was obtained.
  • J1803 GP smoothness hyperparameter = nu = 1.84+0.44-0.41
    Hyperparameter of the Gaussian process controlling the power-law index of the noise spectrum; fitted to the data.
  • J1036 orbital frequency derivatives FB1-FB4 = FB1=-2.3e-18 Hz/s, FB2=7.9e-25 Hz/s^2, FB3=-1.12e-31 Hz/s^3, FB4=6.0e-39 Hz/s^4
    Four ad hoc derivatives added to the timing model to flatten radio residuals for the redback J1036-4353, absorbing short-timescale orbital period variations.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Pulsar rotation is a stable clock described by the timing model (spin frequency and its derivatives).
    Invoked throughout the timing analysis (e.g. Sects. 2 and 4); deviations from a deterministic spin are treated as noise.
  • domain assumption The 4FGL-DR3 gamma-ray spectral model and the gtsrcprob photon weights are correct.
    Used to compute photon weights for gamma-ray pulsation searches (Sect. 3); the authors acknowledge mis-modelling for J1709-0333.
  • domain assumption The DE421 solar system ephemeris is accurate.
    Used for barycentric corrections of all times of arrival (Sect. 5).
  • domain assumption The McMillan (2017) Galactic potential correctly describes the acceleration acting on the pulsars.
    Used to correct the observed spin-down rate for Galactic acceleration (Sect. 5).
  • domain assumption The NE2001 electron density model gives reliable distances for deriving transverse velocities and energy losses.
    Used to compute transverse velocities and intrinsic spin-down (Sect. 5); the authors note disagreements with YMW16 for some pulsars.
  • ad hoc to paper The Gaussian process with Matérn covariance correctly models the orbital phase variations of J1803-6707.
    Introduced in Sect. 4.2 to handle the redback's orbital variability; the model choice is not derived from first principles and its code is not yet public.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radio and gamma-ray timing of TRAPUM L-band Fermi pulsar survey discoveries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BB4KPUK5

@misc{pith2026241114895,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radio and gamma-ray timing of TRAPUM L-band Fermi pulsar survey discoveries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BB4KPUK5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14895}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents the results of a joint radio and gamma-ray timing campaign on the nine millisecond pulsars (MSPs) discovered as part of the L-band targeted survey of Fermi-LAT sources performed in the context of the Transients and Pulsars with MeerKAT (TRAPUM) Large Survey Project. Out of these pulsars, eight are members of binary systems; of these eight, two exhibit extended eclipses of the radio emission. Using an initial radio timing solution, pulsations were found in the gamma rays for six of the targets. For these sources, a joint timing analysis of radio times of arrival and gamma-ray photons was performed, using a newly developed code that optimises the parameters through a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) technique. This approach has allowed us to precisely measure both the short- and long-term timing parameters. This study includes a proper motion measurement for four pulsars, which a gamma ray-only analysis would not have been sensitive to, despite the 15-year span of Fermi data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14895 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Corner plot for the astrometry parameters for PSR J1858−5422, showing resulting posterior distributions for radio-only (red), gamma-ray￾only (blue) and joint-radio-and-gamma-ray (black) timing analyses. The 1D posterior distributions on the diagonal are given in arbitrary units. The high S/N data allow us to pin down the positional parameters more precisely, while the proper motion parameters are measured more accur… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Gamma ray pulsations and orbital phase variations over the course of the Fermi-LAT data for PSR J1803−6707. The panels on the left show the weighted gamma-ray photon phases for the highest-likelihood timing solution (lower panel) and the integrated pulse profile (upper panel). The orange and the 100 faint black curves represent the associated highest-likelihood pulse-profile template and randomly drawn samples from … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Period-period derivative diagram for Galactic millisecond pul￾sars. Grey circles show pulsars from PSRCat 1.70, while smaller black points denote MSPs found targeting Fermi unassociated point sources. Red stars are the MSPs from this paper. The 𝑃¤ used is, whenever possi￾ble, the one corrected for the Shklovskii effect. Equal spin-down energy lines are drawn as dotted and equal surface magnetic field lines are dashe… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Amplitude of the pulsed radio emission as a function of the longitude from the ascending node for PSR J1036−4353 in four different frequency sub-bands. The amplitude is measured over a pulse phase range of 0.2 around the peak. The central frequency and bandwidth of eac…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Waterfall plots showing, for the two RB pulsars J1036−4353 and J1803−6707, orbital longitude (with respect to the ascending node) versus pulse phase. The brighter the colour-scale, the stronger the signal. Orbital longitude ranges where the plots show a solid colour ha…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Waterfall plots representing the orbital light curves (longitude with respect to the ascending node vs pulse phase) for PSR J1803−6707 in different frequency sub-bands. The central frequency and bandwidth are marked on the top of each panel. Only a pulse phase range of…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Phase-aligned radio (red curves) and gamma-ray (grey histograms) pulse profiles. The gamma-ray background level, estimated from the distribution of photon weights as 𝑏 = Í 𝑖 𝑤𝑖(1 − 𝑤𝑖)/𝑛bins, is shown by dashed horizontal black lines. Radio pulse profiles are in arbitr…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Gamma-ray peak separations (Δ) vs. radio/gamma-ray phase-lag 𝛿g−r for gamma-ray pulsars from 3PC (coloured markers) and the MSPs studied here (black stars). For two pulsars, the definition of the primary gamma-ray peak is potentially ambiguous, and so for these we show…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Polarisation profiles of the six Fermi MSPs with significant polarisation detections. The total intensity is shown in black, while the total linear and circular polarisation are shown in red and blue, respec￾tively. The top panels for each pulsar show the polarisation…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 839, 12

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    2022, ApJS, 260, 53

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 53

    2022

  3. [3]

    2016, ApJS, 223, 26

    Acero, F., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2016, ApJS, 223, 26

    2016

  4. [4]

    B., et al

    Ackermann, M., Albert, A., Atwood, W. B., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, 64

    2014

  5. [5]

    Applegate, J. H. & Shaham, J. 1994, ApJ, 436, 312

    work page 1994

  6. [6]

    M., Stairs, I

    Archibald, A. M., Stairs, I. H., Ransom, S. M., et al. 2009, Science, 324, 1411

    2009

  7. [7]

    2013, in Proceedings of the 4th Fermi

    Atwood, W., Albert, A., Baldini, L., et al. 2013, in Proceedings of the 4th Fermi

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Symposium, Monterey, California, 2012, ed. T. J. Brandt, N. Omodei, & C. Wilson-Hodge, eConf C121028, 8, arXiv:1303.3514

    arXiv 2012

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    2020, PASA, 37, e028

    Bailes, M., Jameson, A., Abbate, F., et al. 2020, PASA, 37, e028

    2020

  2. [10]

    H., Lott, B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration

    Ballet, J., Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Lott, B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.12546

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    G., Pleunis, Z., Hessels, J

    Bassa, C. G., Pleunis, Z., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, L20 Bezuidenhout,M.C.,Clark,C.J.,Breton,R.P.,etal.2023,RASTechniquesand Instruments, 2, 114

    2017

  4. [12]

    Bhattacharyya, B., Roy, J., Freire, P. C. C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 159

    2022

  5. [13]

    2008, ApJ, 685, 384

    Bickel, P., Kleijn, B., & Rice, J. 2008, ApJ, 685, 384

    2008

  6. [14]

    2019, A&A, 622, A108

    Bruel, P. 2019, A&A, 622, A108

    2019

  7. [15]

    H., Digel, S

    Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Digel, S. W., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.11394

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    J., Breton, R

    Clark, C. J., Breton, R. P., Barr, E. D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5590

    2023

  9. [17]

    J., Nieder, L., Voisin, G., et al

    Clark, C. J., Nieder, L., Voisin, G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 915

    2021

  10. [18]

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

    2002 arXiv

  11. [19]

    P., Seyffert, A

    Corongiu, A., Mignani, R. P., Seyffert, A. S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 935

    2021

  12. [20]

    B., Pennucci, T., Ransom, S

    Demorest, P. B., Pennucci, T., Ransom, S. M., Roberts, M. S. E., & Hessels, J. W. T. 2010, Nature, 467, 1081 Dewey,R.J.,Taylor,J.H.,Weisberg,J.M.,&Stokes,G.H.1985,ApJ,294,L25

    2010

  13. [21]

    G., Breton, R

    Dodge, O. G., Breton, R. P., Clark, C. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4337 EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, Antoniadis, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A50 FERMI-LATCollaboration,Ajello,M.,Atwood,W.B.,etal.2022,Science,376, 521

    2024

  14. [22]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

    2013

  15. [23]

    C., Kramer, M., & Lyne, A

    Freire, P. C., Kramer, M., & Lyne, A. G. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 885

    2001

  16. [24]

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

    2018

  17. [25]

    Freire, P. C. C. & Wex, N. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 199

    2010

  18. [26]

    Freire, P. C. C. & Wex, N. 2024, Living Reviews in Relativity, 27, 5 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

    2024

  19. [27]

    Geyer, M., Venkatraman Krishnan, V., Freire, P. C. C., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A169

    2023

  20. [28]

    2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 084013

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

    2010

  21. [29]

    N., Dunning, A., et al

    Hobbs, G., Manchester, R. N., Dunning, A., et al. 2020, PASA, 37, e012

    2020

  22. [30]

    B., Edwards, R

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

    2006

  23. [31]

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

    Hotan, A. W., van Straten, W., & Manchester, R. N. 2004, PASA, 21, 302

    2004

  24. [32]

    J., & Kehl, M

    Hu, H., Kramer, M., Wex, N., Champion, D. J., & Kehl, M. S. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 3118

    2020

  25. [33]

    J., Venter, C., Harding, A

    Johnson, T. J., Venter, C., Harding, A. K., et al. 2014, ApJS, 213, 6

    2014

  26. [34]

    K., & Kazanas, D

    Kalapotharakos, C., Wadiasingh, Z., Harding, A. K., & Kazanas, D. 2023, ApJ, 954, 204

    2023

  27. [35]

    2021, ApJ, 920, 58

    Kansabanik, D., Bhattacharyya, B., Roy, J., & Stappers, B. 2021, ApJ, 920, 58

    2021

  28. [36]

    D., & Ray, P

    Kerby, S., Falcone, A. D., & Ray, P. S. 2023, ApJ, 954, 94

    2023

  29. [37]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 92 Kerr,M.,Ray,P.S.,Johnston,S.,Shannon,R.M.,&Camilo,F.2015,ApJ,814, 128

    Kerr, M. 2019, ApJ, 885, 92 Kerr,M.,Ray,P.S.,Johnston,S.,Shannon,R.M.,&Camilo,F.2015,ApJ,814, 128

    2019

  30. [38]

    H., Manchester, R

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

    2021

  31. [39]

    2001, MNRAS, 326, 274

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

    2001

  32. [40]

    Lazaridis, K., Verbiest, J. P. W., Tauris, T. M., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 3134

    2011

  33. [41]

    Lorimer, D. R. & Kramer, M. 2004, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy, Vol. 4 (Cambridge University Press)

    2004

  34. [42]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 45

    Luo, J., Ransom, S., Demorest, P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 45

    2021

  35. [43]

    N., Hobbs, G

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, AJ, 129, 1993

    2005

  36. [44]

    G., Stovall, K., Freire, P

    Martinez, J. G., Stovall, K., Freire, P. C. C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 143

    2015

  37. [45]

    E., Spiewak, R., Swiggum, J

    McEwen, A. E., Spiewak, R., Swiggum, J. K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 76

    2020

  38. [46]

    McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 76 Nice,D.,Demorest,P.,Stairs,I.,etal.2015,Tempo:Pulsartimingdataanalysis, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1509.002

    2017

  39. [47]

    J., Bassa, C

    Nieder, L., Clark, C. J., Bassa, C. G., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 42

    2019

  40. [48]

    J., Kandel, D., et al

    Nieder, L., Clark, C. J., Kandel, D., et al. 2020b, ApJ, 902, L46 Özel, F. & Freire, P. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 401

    2016

  41. [49]

    G., Jiang, P., et al

    Pan, Z., Lu, J. G., Jiang, P., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 961 Article number, page 14 of 20 M. Burgay et al.: Radio and gamma-ray timing of TRAPUM L-bandFermipulsar survey discoveries Pétri, J. & Mitra, D. 2021, A&A, 654, A106

    2023

  42. [50]

    Phinney, E. S. & Kulkarni, S. R. 1994, ARA&A, 32, 591

    1994

  43. [51]

    Pletsch, H. J. & Clark, C. J. 2014, ApJ, 795, 75

    2014

  44. [52]

    J., Breton, R

    Polzin, E. J., Breton, R. P., Bhattacharyya, B., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2948

    2020

  45. [53]

    2011, PRESTO: PulsaR Exploration and Search TOolkit, Astro- physics Source Code Library, record ascl:1107.017

    Ransom, S. 2011, PRESTO: PulsaR Exploration and Search TOolkit, Astro- physics Source Code Library, record ascl:1107.017

    2011

  46. [54]

    M., Eikenberry, S

    Ransom, S. M., Eikenberry, S. S., & Middleditch, J. 2002, AJ, 124, 1788

    2002

  47. [55]

    S., Abdo, A

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

    2012 arXiv

  48. [56]

    S., Kerr, M., Parent, D., et al

    Ray, P. S., Kerr, M., Parent, D., et al. 2011, ApJS, 194, 17

    2011

  49. [57]

    J., Zic, A., Shannon, R

    Reardon, D. J., Zic, A., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, L6

    2023

  50. [58]

    Roberts, M. S. E. 2012, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 8, 127–132

    2012

  51. [59]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 4483 Shamohammadi,M.,Bailes,M.,Freire,P.C.C.,etal.2023,MNRAS,520,1789

    Serylak, M., Johnston, S., Kramer, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4483 Shamohammadi,M.,Bailes,M.,Freire,P.C.C.,etal.2023,MNRAS,520,1789

    2021

  52. [60]

    Shapiro, I. I. 1964, Phys. Rev. Lett., 13, 789

    1964

  53. [61]

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

    1970

  54. [62]

    A., Abdollahi, S., Ajello, M., et al

    Smith, D. A., Abdollahi, S., Ajello, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 191

    2023

  55. [63]

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

    Smith, D. A., Bruel, P., Cognard, I., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 78

    2019

  56. [64]

    M., Nice, D

    Splaver, E. M., Nice, D. J., Arzoumanian, Z., et al. 2002, ApJ, 581, 509

    2002

  57. [65]

    R., & Finkbeiner, D

    Su, M., Slatyer, T. R., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2010, ApJ, 724, 1044

    2010

  58. [66]

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

    Tauris, T. M., Langer, N., & Kramer, M. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2130

    2011

  59. [67]

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

    1999

  60. [68]

    J., Breton, R

    Thongmeearkom, T., Clark, C. J., Breton, R. P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 4676

    2024

  61. [69]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 3557 van Straten, W

    Tiburzi, C., Johnston, S., Bailes, M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3557 van Straten, W. & Bailes, M. 2011, PASA, 28, 1

    2013

  62. [70]

    J., & Harding, A

    Venter, C., Johnson, T. J., & Harding, A. K. 2012, ApJ, 744, 34

    2012

  63. [71]

    M., Manchester, R

    Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N. 2017, ApJ, 835, 29 Article number, page 15 of 20 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aa51530-24 Appendix A: Additional figures 3200 2400 1600 800 0 DECJ [10 4 rad] 80000 40000 0 40000 PMRA [101 mas/yr] 200000 100000 0100000 200000 PMDEC [101 ma...

    2017

Pith tools

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