Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 97 references

A systematic search for redback and black widow candidates based on the 4FGL-DR3 unassociated sources and the Zwicky Transient Facility data

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a periodicity search of ZTF light curves around 4FGL-DR3 unassociated gamma-ray sources, followed by Gaia color-magnitude and reduced proper-motion cuts, yields 24 spider pulsar candidates, 19 inside the 4FGL 95%…

desk verdict A working pipeline and a useful starting candidate list, but the list has no false-positive estimate and the data products have internal inconsistencies; a control sample is needed before the counts mean anything. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11616 v1 pith:KGUQPKVE submitted 2024-12-16 astro-ph.HE

Chunyan Lu , Liangliang Ren , Jiamao Lin , Wenjun Huang , Hewen Yang , Pak-Hin Thomas Tam This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords spiderpulsarsredbackblackwidowmillisecondpulsarZwickyTransientFacility4FGL-DR3ellipsoidalvariablesgamma-rayunassociatedsources
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

Spider pulsars are millisecond pulsars that orbit a low-mass companion, which is heated and tidally distorted so the binary's optical light varies with the orbital period. The paper claims that a systematic periodicity search of Zwicky Transient Facility light curves around 2,157 gamma-ray sources in the 4FGL-DR3 catalog that have no identified counterpart recovers known spider systems and produces a shortlist of 24 candidate spider pulsars. Sifting the candidates by Gaia position in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram leaves 24 gold-sample candidates, requiring position inside the 4FGL 95% error ellipse leaves 19, and applying a reduced proper-motion cut leaves 9. If the candidates are real, they would enlarge the known population of black widows and redbacks and give a targeted sample for radio, X-ray, and optical follow-up that tests the recycling model of millisecond pulsar formation.

What carries the argument

The machinery has five components. First, a Lomb-Scargle periodogram pipeline applied to ZTF $g$- and $r$-band light curves downloaded within a 6-arcminute radius of each unassociated 4FGL-DR3 source. Second, a morphological classification that selects ellipsoidal variables (quasi-sinusoidal, two minima per cycle, more than 15 percent peak-to-peak amplitude in the $g$/$r$ bands) and irradiation-type binaries (a single sinusoidal peak per orbit). Third, the Gaia Hertzsprung-Russell selection strip defined by $M_G \le 2.7(G_{BP}-G_{RP})+10.5$ and $M_G > 3.7(G_{BP}-G_{RP})+2.4$, which isolates the sub-main-sequence region occupied by millisecond-pulsar companions. Fourth, the reduced proper-motion cut $H_G > 5.3(G_{BP}-G_{RP})+5.9$, a kinematic filter that does not require parallax. Fifth, membership inside the 4FGL 95 percent confidence error ellipse. These filters are load-bearing: the first finds the periodic signal, the second and third reject field binaries, and the fourth removes high-proper-motion contaminants such as white dwarfs.

What would settle it

Count how many ZTF ellipsoidal variables within 6 arcminutes of random sky positions pass the same Gaia H-R and reduced proper-motion cuts; if that random expectation is comparable to the 24 gold-sample candidates, the list is not evidence of a genuine association with Fermi sources.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that spider pulsar binaries can be recognized in archival time-domain photometry without radio detection: an ellipsoidal or irradiation-modulated light curve with an orbital-period signal, located within 6 arcminutes of an unassociated Fermi gamma-ray source and lying in the Gaia sub-main-sequence band populated by millisecond-pulsar companions, is a credible spider pulsar candidate. Applying this scheme to 1,351 Fermi unassociated sources with ZTF coverage, the paper identifies 194 ellipsoidal variables and two irradiation binaries, then reduces 22 of the ellipsoidal variables plus the confirmed irradiation systems to a 24-object gold sample using the Antoniadis (2021) Gaia H-R selection strip. Requiring membership inside the 4FGL 95% confidence error ellipse cuts the sample to 19, and the color-reduced proper-motion criterion $H_G > 5.3(G_{BP}-G_{RP})+5.9$ cuts it to 9. Two of the irradiation binaries reproduce independently confirmed black widow systems, validating the pipeline. The paper also refits the orbital period-optical luminosity correlation for known spiders and shows that the gold sample's period distribution overlaps the redback and black widow distributions rather than the evolved-CV/proto-ELM white dwarf population.

Load-bearing premise

The whole list rests on the premise that a periodically varying star within six arcminutes of an unassociated Fermi source is plausibly that source's counterpart, yet the paper does not calculate how many such coincidences would occur by chance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 24 gold-sample candidates, and particularly the 9 that survive the reduced proper-motion cut, are the targets the paper proposes for radio, X-ray, and optical-spectroscopic follow-up.
  • If confirmed, the candidates expand the known spider pulsar population and give new systems against which the recycling model of millisecond pulsar formation can be tested.
  • The refitted orbital period-optical luminosity relation predicts Gaia G-band magnitudes for candidate spiders, providing a statistical screening tool for future searches.
  • The gold sample's orbital-period distribution overlaps that of known redbacks and black widows and is distinct from evolved-CV/proto-ELM white dwarf systems, indicating that the selection is not dominated by those contaminants.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A chance-coincidence check would test whether the 6-arcminute positional matches are meaningful: count comparable ZTF ellipsoidal variables with the same Gaia cuts around random sky positions, and compare with the 24 found around Fermi sources.
  • The nine candidates surviving the color-reduced proper-motion cut are the natural first targets for deep radio timing searches; a blind search of those positions would settle the question more directly than the archival cross-matching used here.
  • The same pipeline could be applied to future Fermi catalogs and to deeper time-domain surveys in the southern sky, extending the search beyond ZTF's declination limit and testing whether the candidate rate scales with survey depth.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper describes a systematic search for spider pulsar (redback and black widow) candidates by combining unassociated gamma-ray sources from the 4FGL-DR3 catalog with ZTF time-series photometry. The authors cross-match 1,351 Fermi unassociated sources to ZTF targets within a 6-arcminute radius, identify 194 ellipsoidal (EV) variables and two irradiation-type binaries, apply Gaia H-R diagram and reduced proper-motion cuts to define a "gold sample" of spider pulsar candidates, and further select 19 objects within the 4FGL 95% confidence error ellipse and nine objects after the RPM cut. The paper also fits an orbital period-optical luminosity relation for known spider pulsars and places the gold sample on this diagram.

Significance. If the candidate list is reliable, it would provide a valuable target list for radio, X-ray, and optical follow-up, and the test-sample recovery of known spider systems demonstrates that the ZTF-based pipeline can detect the expected variability. The use of archival ZTF data to screen 4FGL unassociated sources is a practical and potentially productive approach. However, as written, the central claim of a meaningful candidate list is not supported by the absence of any chance-coincidence or control-field analysis, and the many internal inconsistencies in the headline numbers undermine confidence in the sample.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1.2 and Section 3.3] The search radius of 6 arcminutes adopted in Section 2.1.2 is very large relative to typical 4FGL 95% error ellipses, and the selection criteria (peak-to-peak amplitude greater than 15%, the H-R strip of Eq. 1, and the RPM boundary of Eq. 3) are broad enough to admit ordinary field binaries, evolved CVs, and proto-ELM white dwarfs. The paper never estimates the expected number of chance coincidences, for example by repeating the same selection around random sky positions or around offset 4FGL positions. Without such a control, the reported counts (194 EV-type variables, 24/19/9 gold candidates) cannot be interpreted as an excess over background, and the candidate list is not a scientifically interpretable product.
  2. [Sections 2.4, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, Table 4, Conclusion] The numbers that define the paper's main result are inconsistent across sections and tables. Section 2.4 reports 11 periodic variables in the test sample (5 redbacks and 6 black widows), while Table 1 and Figure 3 show 12, and the conclusion reports 12 (5 redbacks and 7 black widows). Section 3.3.1 says 22 EV-type binary stars satisfy the H-R criteria and constitute the golden sample, but the abstract, Table 2, and Section 3.3.3 say 24. For the 4FGL ellipse membership, Section 3.3.3 states 19 of 24 are inside and lists five outside, yet Table 4 appears to mark ZTFJ1957+1233 and ZTFJ1816+1747 (two of the listed five) as inside, with 21 rows carrying a Fermi ellipse checkmark. Similarly, Section 3.3.2 says the RPM cut leaves nine candidates, but Table 4 shows only seven rows with the color-Hg selection checkmark. These discrepancies make it impossible to know exactly which objects constitute the gold sample and which survive the final cuts; this must be corrected and the final list presented unambiguously.
  3. [Section 3.3.2 and Section 4.3] Section 3.3.2 explicitly notes that Antoniadis (2021) proposed the additional white-dwarf filter Hg <= 6.9(GBP - GRP) + 13.0, but the paper does not apply it. This is pertinent because Section 4.3 reports that one gold-sample object, ZTFJ2144+7714, is a white dwarf candidate, and Section 4.4 acknowledges substantial overlap with the 'Birth of the ELMs' population of evolved CVs and proto-ELM white dwarfs. The qualitative comparisons in Figures 11-12 do not quantify the contamination rate. The authors should either apply the white-dwarf filter or provide a quantitative estimate of the expected white-dwarf/proto-ELM fraction in the gold sample.
  4. [Section 2.3 and Section 2.4] The period-finding pipeline is described qualitatively in Section 2.3, but the paper does not state the false-alarm probability threshold used to accept a Lomb-Scargle peak, the searched period range, or the minimum number of observations required. Without these, it is unclear how many of the 1,566 periodic variables are spurious detections. A quantitative statement of the detection significance is needed to make the test-sample recovery in Section 2.4 a meaningful validation of the pipeline.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1.2 vs. Section 5] The number of 4FGL-DR3 unassociated sources is given as 2,157 in Section 2.1.2 and as 2,179 in the conclusion; please unify the number.
  2. [Section 4.1] The sentence claiming that '22 Spider pulsars from the golden sample were matched with the pulsars detected in the TRAPUM L-band survey' is confusing, since the immediately following text reports no radio pulse detections; please clarify what was actually matched.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical and language issues, such as 'the faction of radio luminosity' (should be 'fraction') and the unusual spacing in the title 'T ransient F acility'; a careful language edit is recommended.
  4. [Table 4] Table 4 would be clearer if the checkmarks for the Fermi ellipse and color-Hg selections were explicitly placed in separate columns with unambiguous symbols; the current formatting leads to the counting ambiguities noted in the major comments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the candidate list is a transparent supervised selection and the paper explicitly defers confirmation to follow-up observations.

full rationale

The paper's central product is a list of 24 spider pulsar candidates obtained by applying explicitly stated empirical cuts to ZTF variables near 4FGL-DR3 unassociated sources. The H-R and RPM boundaries (Eqs. 1 and 3) are adopted from Antoniadis (2021), an external study of known pulsar companions; the paper does not derive a physical prediction from the candidates, and it repeatedly states that spectroscopic, radio, and X-ray confirmation is required (e.g., Section 4.5: 'Without the availability of spectral observational data ... it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain whether these Gold Sample candidates are indeed millisecond pulsars'). The period-luminosity correlation in Section 4.5 is fitted to the known spider sample and applied for luminosity estimation, but it is not part of the selection chain, so it is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. Self-citations (e.g., Pal et al. 2020 with author Tam, and Ren et al. 2023 with author Ren) are used for pipeline validation and light-curve classification, not as load-bearing evidence for the central claim. The absence of a chance-coincidence or control-field estimate is a real statistical weakness of the candidate list, but it is a correctness and contamination concern, not a circularity of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core contribution rests on empirical selection boundaries and a large positional cross-match without false-positive control; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • HR selection boundary slope and intercept (upper and lower lines) = MG = 2.7(BP-RP)+10.5 and MG = 3.7(BP-RP)+2.4
    Empirical lines chosen to enclose known MSP companions in the Gaia HR diagram; no uncertainties or independent validation given (Eq. 1).
  • RPM selection boundary = Hg = 5.3(BP-RP)+5.9
    Empirical cut from Antoniadis (2021) applied without error bars (Eq. 3).
  • Period-luminosity relation slope and intercept = 1.17 and 31.98 (log L vs log P)
    Best-fit from MCMC to known spider pulsars; used to compare candidates but not to select them (Section 4.5).
  • Search radius = 6 arcminutes
    Hand-chosen to cover 4FGL error ellipses; no optimization or false-positive calibration (Section 2.1.2).
  • Variability amplitude threshold = 15% peak-to-peak in g/r band
    Adopted from El-Badry et al. (2021) to select tidally distorted systems (Section 2.3).
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Lomb-Scargle periodogram returns the true orbital period for ellipsoidal and irradiation variables
    Standard time-series analysis assumption; validated on 12 known spiders but with no false-alarm treatment.
  • domain assumption The Gaia HR and RPM selection regions for MSP companions (Antoniadis 2021) transfer unchanged to this ZTF-selected sample
    Borrowed boundaries; contamination by white dwarfs and subdwarfs acknowledged in Section 3.3.2.
  • domain assumption 4FGL-DR3 unassociated sources include a substantial population of millisecond pulsars
    Standard interpretation motivating the search; not directly tested here.
  • ad hoc to paper A ZTF variable within 6 arcminutes of a 4FGL source is a plausible counterpart
    No control field or chance-coincidence probability is computed; this is the paper's central selection premise.
  • domain assumption Gaia parallax priors from Bailer-Jones et al. (2021) produce reliable distances for these faint candidates
    Used to compute luminosities and distances; J2144+7714's parallax-distance inconsistency shows this can fail.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A systematic search for redback and black widow candidates based on the 4FGL-DR3 unassociated sources and the Zwicky Transient Facility data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KGUQPKVE

@misc{pith2026241211616,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A systematic search for redback and black widow candidates based on the 4FGL-DR3 unassociated sources and the Zwicky Transient Facility data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KGUQPKVE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11616}
}
read the original abstract

Spider pulsars constitute a distinct subset within the domain of radio millisecond pulsars, divided further into the categories of black widows and redbacks. Evident across multiple wavelengths, these pulsars manifest periodic variations and reside within binary systems. Investigating and discovering additional spider-type pulsars carries significant implications for comprehending the evolution of high-mass stars. Particularly crucial is the validation of the "Recycling" theory of millisecond pulsar genesis. In this investigation, we systematically explore spider pulsar binary systems utilizing time-domain variability data from the Zwicky Transient Facility, in conjunction with Fermi unassociated gamma-ray sources sourced from the 4FGL-DR3 catalog. We have implemented a time-domain data processing pipeline utilizing the Lomb-Scargle Periodogram algorithm, integrated with the wget data crawling technology. This approach has led to the identification of 194 ellipsoidal variables and irradiation-type binary stars. Subsequent refinement through the Gaia Hertzsprung-Russell diagram has culled a selection of 24 spider pulsar gold sample candidates. By incorporating the 4FGL 95\% confidence error ellipse, the pool was narrowed down to 19 gold sample candidates. Utilizing the Gaia color-reduced proper motion diagram further refined the selection to 9 gold sample candidates. These newly identified spider pulsar candidates will inform subsequent observational campaigns across radio, X-ray, and optical spectroscopy, thereby facilitating a deeper validation of their physical characteristics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11616 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The sky maps of the 12 known millisecond pulsars in the test sample. The blue ellipses represent the 4FGL 95% confidence error ellipses, the black circles indicate the search area within 6 arcminutes in the ZTF variability data. The green crosses mark the central coordinates of the Fermi gamma-ray sources, and the red pentagons denote the optical counterparts in the ZTF. The background data for the sky maps are sour… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. POSS-1(red) Image of the spider test sample. Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Phase-folded ZTF light curves for the 12 known millisecond pulsars within the test sample. The red data points correspond to the ZTF-r band, while the green data points correspond to the ZTF-g band [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Lomb-Scargle (LS) periodograms of the frequency spectra for the 12 known millisecond pulsars in the test sample. The red line represents the frequency spectrum for the ZTF-r band, while the blue line represents the frequency spectrum for the ZTF-g band. The blue re…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Lomb-Scargle (LS) periodograms of the frequency spectra for the 12 known millisecond pulsars in the test sample. Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Examples of various classes of variable stars identified near 4FGL-DR3 unassociated gamma-ray sources with optical counterparts from the ZTF data. Upper left: Ellipsoidal binaries, which exhibit quasi-sinusoidal variations with two distinct minima within a single orbit…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The phase-folded light curves of the irradiation binary ZTF J0336+7502 and ZTF J1838+3224 exhibit the distinctive features of this class of variable stars. These characteristics are attributed to the heating of the companion star’s side facing the pulsar, which results…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The location of the sample selection on the Gaia color-magnitude diagram. In all panels, the scatter points and the overlaid two-dimensional histogram represent the stellar density of the Gaia 200 parsec background sources. The black dashed line indicates the selection…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The location of the sample selection on the Gaia color-reduced proper motion (RPM) diagrams. In all panels, scatter points and the overlaid two-dimensional histogram illustrate the stellar density of the Gaia 200 parsec background sources. The black dashed line represe…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Phase-folded ZTF light curves of the 24 millisecond pulsar Gold sample selected using the Gaia H-R diagram [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Cumulative distribution functions of orbital period are presented for the known redback sample, the known black widow sample, the spider Gold sample candidates, and the ’Birth of the ELMs’ sample, as described by El-Badry et al. (2021). J214450.6+771436, is a White Dw…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The orbital period-optical bolometric luminosity correlation for the known redback sample, the known black widow sample, and the spider Gold sample candidates is depicted. Blue and green dots represent the redback and black widow systems, respectively, from [PITH_FUL…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The sky maps of the 24 the spider Gold sample in the search sample. The blue ellipses represent the 4FGL 95% confidence error ellipses, the black circles indicate the search area within 6 arcminutes in the ZTF variability data. The green crosses mark the central coord…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: POSS-1(red) Image of the spider Gold sample. Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: POSS-1(red) Image of the spider Gold sample. Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: POSS-1(red) Image of the spider Gold sample. Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2010, ApJS, 187, 460, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/187/2/460

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/187/2/460 2010

  2. [2]

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

    Abdo, A. A., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 17, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/17

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/17 2013

  3. [3]

    2020, ApJS, 247, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Ackermann, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb 2020

  4. [4]

    2022, ApJS, 260, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751 2022

  5. [5]

    F., Arzoumanian, Z., Baker, P

    Alam, M. F., Arzoumanian, Z., Baker, P. T., et al. 2021a, ApJS, 252, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abc6a0 —. 2021b, ApJS, 252, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abc6a1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abc6a0

  6. [6]

    A., Cheng, A

    Alpar, M. A., Cheng, A. F., Ruderman, M. A., & Shaham, J. 1982, Nature, 300, 728, doi: 10.1038/300728a0

    doi:10.1038/300728a0 1982

  7. [7]

    W., Kerr, M., & Fermi-LAT Collaboration

    An, H., Romani, R. W., Kerr, M., & Fermi-LAT Collaboration. 2020, ApJ, 897, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93ba

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab93ba 2020

  8. [8]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 1116, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3595

    Antoniadis, J. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 1116, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3595

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3595 2021

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    2018, ApJS, 235, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab5b0

    Arzoumanian, Z., Brazier, A., Burke-Spolaor, S., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab5b0

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    T., Blumer, H., et al

    Arzoumanian, Z., Baker, P. T., Blumer, H., et al. 2020, ApJL, 905, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd401 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    J., et al

    Au, K.-Y., Strader, J., Swihart, S. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acae8a

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    C., D’Avanzo, P., Campana, S., et al

    Baglio, M. C., D’Avanzo, P., Campana, S., et al. 2016, A&A, 591, A101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628383

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.09366, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.09366

    Bangale, P., Bhattacharyya, B., Camilo, F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.09366, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.09366

    2024 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    C., Kaplan, D

    Bellm, E. C., Kaplan, D. L., Breton, R. P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 74, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/2/74

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    2022, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol

    Bhattacharyya, B., & Roy, J. 2022, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 465, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. S. Bhattacharyya, A. Papitto, & D. Bhattacharya, 1–32, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-85198-9_1

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Trümper, J., et al

    Boller, T., Freyberg, M. J., Trümper, J., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A103

    2016

  10. [18]

    P., Belfiore, A., et al

    Braglia, C., Mignani, R. P., Belfiore, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 5364, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2339

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    B., Coughlin, M

    Burdge, K. B., Coughlin, M. W., Fuller, J., et al. 2019, Nature, 571, 528, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1403-0

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    B., Prince, T

    Burdge, K. B., Prince, T. A., Fuller, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc261

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    B., Marsh, T

    Burdge, K. B., Marsh, T. R., Fuller, J., et al. 2022, Nature, 605, 41, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04551-1

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    E., & Kulkarni, S

    Camilo, F., Thorsett, S. E., & Kulkarni, S. R. 1994, ApJL, 421, L15, doi: 10.1086/187176

    1994 doi

  15. [23]

    2016, A&A, 594, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629035

    Campana, S., Coti Zelati, F., Papitto, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629035

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    M., & Han, Z

    Chen, H.-L., Chen, X., Tauris, T. M., & Han, Z. 2013, ApJ, 775, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/27

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    I., Gusakov, M

    Chugunov, A. I., Gusakov, M. E., & Kantor, E. M. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx391

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Breton, R

    Clark, C. J., Breton, R. P., Barr, E. D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5590, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3742

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    M., & Lazio, T

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0207156

    2002 arXiv

  20. [28]

    S., Ray, P

    Deneva, J. S., Ray, P. S., Camilo, F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 105, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/105

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    Shen, K. J. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4106, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2583

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    N., Primini, F

    Evans, I. N., Primini, F. A., Glotfelty, K. J., et al. 2010, ApJS, 189, 37

    2010

  23. [31]

    A., Page, K

    Evans, P. A., Page, K. L., Osborne, J. P., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 54

    2020

  24. [32]

    A., Roberts, M

    Gentile, P. A., Roberts, M. S. E., McLaughlin, M. A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 783, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/69

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    Green, G. M. 2018, Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695, doi: 10.21105/joss.00695

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    Finkbeiner, D. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Schlafly, E

    Green, G. M., Schlafly, E. F., Finkbeiner, D. P., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 783, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/114

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    Halpern, J. P. 2022, ApJL, 932, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac746f

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    P., Perez, K

    Halpern, J. P., Perez, K. I., & Bogdanov, S. 2022, ApJ, 935, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8161

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    P., Strader, J., & Li, M

    Halpern, J. P., Strader, J., & Li, M. 2017, ApJ, 844, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7cff ZTF Spider Pulsar Sur vey 27

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    L., Wang, C., Wang, P

    Han, J. L., Wang, C., Wang, P. F., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 107, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/5/107

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    Y., & Li, K

    Hui, C. Y., & Li, K. L. 2019, Galaxies, 7, 93, doi: 10.3390/galaxies7040093

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    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, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad5ec

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  36. [44]

    2023, A&A, 669, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244637

    Illiano, G., Papitto, A., Ambrosino, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244637

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    D., Deller, A

    Jaodand, A. D., Deller, A. T., Gusinskaia, N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1ff7

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    2015, ApJ, 807, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/41

    Jiang, L., Li, X.-D., Dey, J., & Dey, M. 2015, ApJ, 807, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/41

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    W., Filippenko, A

    Kandel, D., Romani, R. W., Filippenko, A. V., Brink, T. G., & Zheng, W. 2020, ApJ, 903, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb6fd

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    L., Stovall, K., Ransom, S

    Kaplan, D. L., Stovall, K., Ransom, S. M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 174, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/174

    2012 doi

  41. [49]

    Gilfanov, M. R. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3020, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1992

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    R., Breton, R

    Kennedy, M. R., Breton, R. P., Clark, C. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3912, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa912

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    Koljonen, K. I. I., & Linares, M. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3963, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2485

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    Y., Takata, J., et al

    Lee, J., Hui, C. Y., Takata, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 225, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5a3

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    X., Hui, C

    Li, K.-L., Jane Yap, Y. X., Hui, C. Y., & Kong, A. K. H. 2021, ApJ, 911, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abeb76

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    Li, K.-L., Kong, A. K. H., Hou, X., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/143

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 4602, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3057

    Linares, M., Miles-Páez, P., Rodríguez-Gil, P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 4602, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3057

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    2022, ApJL, 934, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7eb6

    Liu, X.-J., You, Z.-Q., & Zhu, X.-J. 2022, ApJL, 934, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7eb6

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    S., Kong, A

    Long, J. S., Kong, A. K. H., Wu, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7720

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    Lorimer, D. R. 2008, Living Reviews in Relativity, 11, 8, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2008-8

    2008 doi

  51. [59]

    R., Faulkner, A

    Lorimer, D. R., Faulkner, A. J., Lyne, A. G., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 777, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10887.x

    2006

  52. [60]

    N., Hobbs, G

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, AJ, 129, 1993, doi: 10.1086/428488

    2005 doi

  53. [61]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac Mata Sánchez, D., Kennedy, M. R., Clark, C. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2217, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad203

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. S. van der Walt & J. Millman, doi: 10.25080/majora-92bf1922-00a Miraval Zanon, A., Ambrosino, F., Coti Zelati, F., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243180

    2010 doi

  55. [63]

    2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989, doi: 10.1142/S0218271811019335

    Nan, R., Li, D., Jin, C., et al. 2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989, doi: 10.1142/S0218271811019335

    2011 doi

  56. [64]

    J., Kandel, D., et al

    Nieder, L., Clark, C. J., Kandel, D., et al. 2020, ApJL, 902, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abbc02

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    S., Tam, P

    Pal, P. S., Tam, P. H. T., Liang, W., et al. 2020, ApJL, 895, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab92ff

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 2892, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1876

    Pelisoli, I., & Vos, J. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2892, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1876

    2019 doi

  59. [67]

    Perez, F., & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53

    2007 doi

  60. [68]

    I., Bogdanov, S., Halpern, J

    Perez, K. I., Bogdanov, S., Halpern, J. P., & Gajjar, V. 2023, ApJ, 952, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdc23

    2023 doi

  61. [69]

    J., Breton, R

    Polzin, E. J., Breton, R. P., Bhattacharyya, B., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2948, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa596

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    J., Breton, R

    Polzin, E. J., Breton, R. P., Clarke, A. O., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 1968, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty349

    2018 doi

  63. [71]

    1982, Current Science, 51, 1096

    Radhakrishnan, V., & Srinivasan, G. 1982, Current Science, 51, 1096

    1982

  64. [72]

    2023, ApJS, 264, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca09e

    Ren, L., Li, C., Ma, B., et al. 2023, ApJS, 264, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca09e

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    W., Graham, M

    Romani, R. W., Graham, M. L., Filippenko, A. V., & Kerr, M. 2015, ApJL, 809, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/809/1/L10

    2015 doi

  66. [74]

    W., & Shaw, M

    Romani, R. W., & Shaw, M. S. 2011, ApJL, 743, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/743/2/L26

    2011 doi

  67. [75]

    Shahbaz, T., Linares, M., & Breton, R. P. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4287, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2195

    2017 doi

  68. [76]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1652

    Shahbaz, T., Linares, M., Rodríguez-Gil, P., & Casares, J. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1652

    2019 doi

  69. [77]

    2022, A&A, 666, A142, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244037

    Skarka, M., Žák, J., Fedurco, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A142, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244037

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

    W., Archibald, A

    Stappers, B. W., Archibald, A. M., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/39

    2014 doi

  71. [79]

    Q., Han, J

    Su, W. Q., Han, J. L., Wang, P. F., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.16754, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.16754

    2023 doi arXiv

  72. [80]

    J., Strader, J., Aydi, E., et al

    Swihart, S. J., Strader, J., Aydi, E., et al. 2022a, ApJ, 926, 201, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4ae4 —. 2021, ApJ, 909, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe1be

    2021 doi

  73. [81]

    J., Strader, J., Chomiuk, L., et al

    Swihart, S. J., Strader, J., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2022b, ApJ, 941, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca2ac 28 Lu et al

    doi

  74. [82]

    L., Leung, G

    Takata, J., Li, K. L., Leung, G. C. K., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/131

    2014 doi

  75. [83]

    J., Breton, R

    Thongmeearkom, T., Clark, C. J., Breton, R. P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 4676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae787 Van Staden, A. 2023, Monthly Notes of the Astronomical Society of South Africa, 81, 161

    2024 doi

  76. [84]

    Veledina, A., Nättilä, J., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2019, ApJ, 884, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44c6

    2019 doi

  77. [85]

    Verbiest, J. P. W., Weisberg, J. M., Chael, A. A., Lee, K. J., & Lorimer, D. R. 2012, ApJ, 755, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/39

    2012 doi

  78. [86]

    Verbiest, J. P. W., Bailes, M., Coles, W. A., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 951, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15508.x

    2009

  79. [87]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  80. [88]

    R., Breton, R

    Voisin, G., Kennedy, M. R., Breton, R. P., Clark, C. J., & Mata-Sánchez, D. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 1758, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2876

    2020 doi

  81. [89]

    J., et al

    Wang, P., Li, D., Clark, C. J., et al. 2021, Science China

    2021

  82. [90]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 64, 129562, doi: 10.1007/s11433-021-1757-5

    doi

  83. [91]

    C., Crossland, A., et al

    Wang, Y., Bellm, E. C., Crossland, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0fe4

    2024 doi

  84. [92]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 4845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa655

    Wang, Z., Xing, Y., Zhang, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa655

    2020 doi

  85. [93]

    S., Saxton, R

    Warwick, R. S., Saxton, R. D., & Read, A. M. 2012, A&A, 548, A99

    2012

  86. [94]

    A., Coriat, M., Traulsen, I., et al

    Webb, N. A., Coriat, M., Traulsen, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A136

    2020

  87. [95]

    Xing, Y., Wang, Z., & Ng, C. Y. 2014, ApJ, 795, 88, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/88

    2014 doi

  88. [96]

    J., Han, J

    Zhou, D. J., Han, J. L., Xu, J., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.17279, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.17279

    2023 doi arXiv

  89. [97]

    GAIA GEOMETRIC DISTANCE

    Zyuzin, D. A., Kirichenko, A. Y., Karpova, A. V., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6712, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3552 ZTF Spider Pulsar Sur vey 29 APPENDIX A. GAIA DISTANCE ESTIMATION InordertoascertaintheopticalluminosityofthepulsarsamplefortheSpiderPulsar, itisimperativetodetermineth...

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.