Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 71 references

Empirical Modeling of Magnetic Braking in Millisecond Pulsars to Measure the Local Dark Matter Density and Effects of Orbiting Satellite Galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pulsar spins alone can measure the Galaxy's dark matter

desk verdict A genuinely novel spin-only acceleration method for MSPs, with a real but addressable extrapolation risk in the doubled sample; deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03409 v2 pith:7U4NYTVE submitted 2025-01-06 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Thomas Donlon II , Sukanya Chakrabarti , Sophia Vanderwaal , Lawrence M. Widrow , Scott Ransom , Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords millisecondpulsarsmagneticbrakingpulsarspin-downGalacticaccelerationlocaldarkmatterdensityOortlimitMilkyWaydiskasymmetryMagellanicClouds
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 millisecond pulsar's spin period and its measured spin-down rate are enough, by themselves, to give the pulsar's line-of-sight acceleration in the Milky Way, without knowing whether the pulsar is in a binary system. The route is an empirical calibration of magnetic braking: for 27 binary MSPs, where the Galactic acceleration is known exactly from orbital timing, the braking part of the spin-down is a linear function of the inferred surface magnetic field, and the relation holds only for $B_{\rm Surf}<3\times10^{8}$ G and characteristic age $>5$ Gyr. Applying this calibration to the pulsar catalog doubles the number of pulsars with usable acceleration measurements, from 27 to 53. The expanded sample gives a total midplane density (Oort limit) of $\rho_0 = 0.108 \pm 0.008$ (stat.) $\pm 0.011$ (sys.) $M_\odot/\mathrm{pc}^3$ and a local dark matter density $\rho_{0,\rm DM} = 0.0098 \pm 0.0025$ $M_\odot/\mathrm{pc}^3$ ($0.37 \pm 0.10$ GeV/cm$^3$), the first $>3\sigma$ direct measurement, in agreement with kinematic estimates. It also attributes the observed north-south asymmetry in vertical accelerations to disk star-count asymmetry plus an offset between the Milky Way disk and halo centers of mass caused by the Large Magellanic Cloud.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the empirical linear braking relation $\dot P_B = m B_{\rm Surf} + b$ for MSPs with $B_{\rm Surf}<3\times10^{8}$ G and characteristic age $>5$ Gyr, where $B_{\rm Surf} = \gamma[(\dot P^{\rm Obs}_s - \dot P^{\rm Shk}_s) P_s]^{1/2}$ is the minimum dipole surface field inferred from spin data alone. The calibration step uses binary MSPs: combining the observed spin and orbital period derivatives and removing the gravitational-wave decay term gives $\dot P_B$ exactly, because the proper-motion terms cancel and the Galactic acceleration is the same fractional change for spin and orbit. The fitted relation then converts spin-only observations into a line-of-sight acceleration for any pulsar satisfying the cuts, with claimed precision comparable to binary-timing accelerations.

What would settle it

Measure an independent line-of-sight acceleration for at least one of the 26 spin-only pulsars, using a wide-orbit companion, eclipse timing, or high-precision astrometry, and compare it with the spin-model acceleration; a systematic disagreement beyond the quoted uncertainties would falsify the empirical braking calibration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that magnetic braking can be predicted from spin data alone for a specific subpopulation of MSPs, turning their spin periods into individual accelerometers. For binary MSPs, the observed orbital period derivative, corrected for the gravitational-wave decay and the proper-motion term, yields the Galactic acceleration exactly; Equation (6) then isolates the magnetic-braking spin-down $\dot P_B$ without any model of the Galactic potential. Fitting these true $\dot P_B$ values against the inferred surface field shows a power-law trend overall, but for $B_{\rm Surf}<3\times10^{8}$ G a linear relation $\dot P_B = m B_{\rm Surf} + b$ works, with $m = 5.9\times10^{-29}$ G$^{-1}$ and $b = -2.8\times10^{-21}$. Because $B_{\rm Surf}$ is itself computed from the observed spin period and spin-down minus the proper-motion term, the linear relation gives the intrinsic spindown using only spin quantities, and subtracting it from the observed spin-down leaves the Galactic acceleration. The paper further argues that earlier potential fits called $\alpha$ models systematically underestimated the Oort limit by 40--70\% because they held the vertical density constant, and that disk models with the density falling off with height, plus a vertically offset halo, recover the reported densities.

Load-bearing premise

The empirical magnetic-braking relation, fitted to 27 binary MSPs, is assumed to transfer unchanged to the 26 spin-only pulsars whose accelerations are inferred but never directly checked; the transfer is validated only against a kinematic model of the Milky Way potential.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Acceleration measurements for MSPs no longer require binary orbital timing, so the set of direct Galactic accelerometers grows from 27 to 53 sources.
  • The local dark matter density is measured from direct accelerations at $>3\sigma$ for the first time: $\rho_{0,\rm DM} = 0.0098 \pm 0.0025$ $M_\odot/\mathrm{pc}^3$, consistent with kinematic determinations.
  • The Oort limit becomes $\rho_0 = 0.108 \pm 0.008 \pm 0.011$ $M_\odot/\mathrm{pc}^3$, substantially higher than earlier pulsar-based values because the fitted potentials allow density to fall with height.
  • The vertical acceleration asymmetry is dominated by the halo-disk center-of-mass offset produced by the Large Magellanic Cloud, with the north-south disk density asymmetry playing a secondary role.
  • Because only spin data are required, X-ray and gamma-ray timing of MSPs becomes a route to acceleration measurements that was previously closed by the need for precise binary orbits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the calibration transfers to the broader population, any MSP with a measured spin and spin-down becomes an acceleration probe, allowing the Galactic acceleration field to be mapped far more densely than binary timing alone permits.
  • A strict out-of-sample test, calibrating on one subset of low-field MSPs and predicting accelerations for the others, would show how much of the reported precision comes from the empirical relation itself rather than from the calibration data.
  • A real LMC-induced halo-disk offset would mean the local acceleration field is not in equilibrium, so kinematic estimates of the Oort limit that assume equilibrium could be biased high.
  • The sharp validity boundary at $B_{\rm Surf}=3\times10^{8}$ G and $\tau=5$ Gyr suggests a physical transition in MSP magnetospheres or recycling history; pulsars near this boundary may be the most informative targets for future timing.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an empirical calibration of magnetic braking in millisecond pulsars that allows line-of-sight Galactic accelerations to be estimated from spin period data alone. The calibration is derived for binary MSPs by subtracting the GR-predicted orbital decay and Shklovskii effects from the observed orbital and spin period derivatives, yielding the magnetic spindown term Pdot_B^s. A linear relation between Pdot_B^s and the inferred surface field BSurf is fit to 27 binary MSPs (Eq. 12), and the authors argue that it is valid only for BSurf < 3e8 G and characteristic age > 5 Gyr. This model is then applied to the ATNF pulsar catalogue, adding 26 spin-only MSP acceleration measurements and bringing the total to 53. The expanded sample is used to fit disk-plus-NFW potential models with a vertical offset between the disk and halo, yielding rho0 = 0.108 +/- 0.008 +/- 0.011 M_sun/pc^3 and rho0_DM = 0.0098 +/- 0.0025 +/- 0.0003 M_sun/pc^3, claimed as the first >3sigma direct measurement of the local dark matter density. The vertical acceleration asymmetry is interpreted as the combined effect of disk star-count asymmetry and an LMC-induced disk/halo center-of-mass offset.

Significance. If the method holds, it is a genuine advance: individual MSP accelerations would no longer require binary orbital timing, and the number of direct acceleration tracers would roughly double. The clean algebra in Eqs. (2)-(7), the use of GR-derived binary accelerations as an external calibration anchor, and the public release of data and code at the indicated GitHub repository are concrete strengths. The paper also makes falsifiable predictions, e.g., the sign and magnitude of the vertical acceleration asymmetry and the specific disk/halo offset. The central risk is that the calibration is transferred from 27 binary MSPs to 26 spin-only pulsars with no independent acceleration check, and the selection cuts for that transfer are defined using a kinematic model that the paper later disfavors. The significance of the dark-matter result therefore depends on an unvalidated extrapolation as much as on the demonstrated binary calibration.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV.B] The validity cuts BSurf < 3e8 G and tau > 5 Gyr are motivated by residuals against the Gala MilkyWayPotential2022 model in Figure 3, but Section VII.C and Table I report Delta AIC = 65 for that same kinematic model when compared with the fitted potentials. Validating the spin-only subset against a model that the paper itself rejects is not an independent test. Since the 26 spin-only accelerations are exactly the data that double the sample, the rho0_DM claim in Section VII.D rests on this post hoc selection. I ask for an independent validation, for example with a different potential model, a leave-one-out or cross-validation of the cut choice, or a demonstration that reasonable variations of the cuts do not change the reported density.
  2. [Section IV.A / IV.B, Eq. (12)] The linear magnetic-braking relation is calibrated on 27 binary MSPs with known orbital period derivatives, but it is then applied in Section IV.B to ATNF pulsars for which no independent acceleration measurement exists. The assumption that Eq. (12) holds for these isolated or unknown-companion MSPs is not testable within the data. A correlated bias in the 26 added accelerations propagates through the likelihood in Eq. (23) and biases both rho0 and rho0_DM in Section VII.D, so the reported >3sigma significance does not include this model-transfer uncertainty. Please either add an explicit systematic term for the extrapolation or demonstrate that the density result is stable when the spin-only subsample is removed or down-weighted.
  3. [Section VII.F] The text explicitly states that systematic biases of Oort-limit measurements using pulsar accelerations are still not well understood. This is in tension with the abstract and Section VII.D presenting rho0_DM = 0.0098 +/- 0.0003 sys as a completed measurement. As written, the quoted systematic uncertainty appears to cover only the spread among the three disk models in Table I, not the post hoc cuts, the transfer of Eq. (12) to spin-only pulsars, or the rejection of the Gala kinematic model used for validation. Because the paper labels this the first >3sigma direct dark-matter measurement, the systematic budget should be expanded to include these identified sources of uncertainty.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section VII.B] The baryon density is quoted as rho_bary = 0.84 +/- 0.013 M_sun/pc^3, but the surrounding subtraction and the comparison with the fitted Oort limit indicate that this should be 0.084 +/- 0.013 M_sun/pc^3; please correct the typo.
  2. [Section II] The dataset description says 25 D24 pulsars plus three new pulsars minus J2043+1711 gives 27, but the reader must reconcile that with the later statement that J0737-3039A/B provides a single acceleration measurement; please state explicitly how the double pulsar is counted in the final sample of 27.
  3. [References] Reference [13] is formatted as 'I. Donlon, Thomas' in the bibliography; this should be 'T. Donlon II' to match the author name used on the paper.
  4. [Section V, Eq. (14)] The plus/minus branch in Eq. (14) is not discussed; if this relation is ever used to evaluate Pdot_B^s from Ps, the physical branch should be specified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the empirical magnetic-braking calibration is anchored to independent binary-timing accelerations, so the spin-only extrapolation is a validation gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The magnetic-braking model (Eq. 12) is calibrated on 27 binary MSPs whose true Pdot_B^s values come from Eq. (6), which combines observed orbital-period derivatives with the GR decay term (Eq. 5) and cancels the Shklovskii terms. This is an external benchmark independent of the paper's final density target. The 26 spin-only pulsars are then 'predicted' by this fixed calibration, not by re-fitting to the quantities being measured, so the doubling of the sample is an extrapolation rather than a fitted-input-called-prediction. The selection cuts on BSurf and characteristic age are tuned against the Gala kinematic model, and the paper later reports that the same Gala model is strongly disfavored (Delta AIC = 65); this is a real validation and selection-bias concern, but it is not a circular identity because the final potential fit does not use Gala accelerations as inputs. The halo offset z0 is indeed fitted to the same acceleration data used to define the vertical asymmetry, so the statement that the offset 'explains' the asymmetry is partly in-sample; however, the offset is a single parameter, the model predicts a specific shape of Delta a_los,z(z), and independent satellite simulations reproduce the effect without fitting z0, giving the claim independent content. Self-citations to D24 and C21 are load-bearing for the sample and for the radial-bias correction, but those prior works rest on independent binary-pulsar timing data and are externally falsifiable, so they do not make the present derivation circular. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central inference rests on a chain of modeling assumptions: GR-computed orbital accelerations, a dipole approximation for BSurf, transfer of a binary-calibrated empirical relation to all low-B MSPs, and parametric disk plus NFW potentials with a fixed halo scale radius. The most fragile link is the transfer of the calibration to pulsars without independent acceleration information.

free parameters (10)
  • m = 5.9e-29 G^-1
    Slope of the linear magnetic braking model in Eq. 12, fit to D24 binary MSPs with BSurf below 3e8 G. Central to converting spin-down into acceleration.
  • b = -2.8e-21 s/s
    Intercept of the linear magnetic braking model in Eq. 12. Together with m, it defines the estimated Pdot_B for each pulsar.
  • BSurf threshold = 3e8 G
    Validity cut chosen from residual analysis in Figure 3. This post hoc selection defines which pulsars are usable with the empirical model.
  • characteristic age threshold = 5 Gyr
    Second validity cut selected from the same residual analysis against the Gala kinematic model. Combined with the BSurf cut, it selects the 40 ATNF pulsars.
  • Lorentzian noise scale xi = 1.6 mm/s/yr
    Additional noise parameter in the likelihood of Eq. 23, fit across all potential models. It absorbs unmodeled stochastic accelerations and broadens the inferred uncertainties.
  • Halo-disk offset z0 = 0.7 kpc
    Vertical offset between the NFW halo and disk centers, fit to the pulsar accelerations. This parameter is central to the explanation of the vertical acceleration asymmetry.
  • NFW scale radius rs = 15.6 kpc
    Fixed to the Gala MilkyWayPotential2022 model because the pulsar data cannot constrain it. It directly affects the inferred NFW midplane density rho0_DM.
  • Star count normalization C = Set so a_los,z(1.5 kpc) = -1.5 mm/s/yr
    Converts Vieira+23 star counts into mass in Eq. 21. This calibration to an observed acceleration is needed to estimate the disk asymmetry contribution.
  • NFW halo mass = log10(MNFW/Msun) = 11.96 to 11.99
    Fit parameter in Table I. The halo mass, together with the fixed scale radius, determines the inferred local dark matter density.
  • Disk model parameters = sigma = 20.9 km/s, scale heights 0.21-0.32 kpc, disk mass log10(Mdisk/Msun) = 10.9
    Fitted parameters for the isothermal, exponential, and Miyamoto-Nagai disk models in Table I. They set the baryonic midplane density and therefore the Oort limit.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption General relativity is correct and the orbital period derivative includes gravitational wave decay as described by Eq. 5.
    This is used to compute Pdot_GR_b for each binary pulsar, which is necessary to isolate Pdot_B_s in Eq. 6.
  • domain assumption The Galactic acceleration changes the spin period and orbital period by the same fractional amount, as stated in Eq. 7.
    This equality is required to combine spin and orbital period derivatives and to derive the magnetic braking term in Eq. 6.
  • domain assumption BSurf computed from Eq. 9 approximates the true minimum dipole surface magnetic field, and magnetic braking scales with BSurf.
    The authors note BSurf is not a directly measured quantity and is only valid to order of magnitude, but the empirical model and all sample cuts depend on it.
  • ad hoc to paper The linear magnetic braking model calibrated on D24 binary MSPs applies to all MSPs with BSurf < 3e8 G and tau > 5 Gyr, including isolated pulsars.
    This transfer is the load-bearing extrapolation of the method. It is tested only against a kinematic model, not against independent acceleration measurements for the 26 new pulsars.
  • domain assumption The Gala MilkyWayPotential2022 kinematic model is accurate enough to evaluate acceleration residuals and to define the validity cuts.
    The cuts in BSurf and tau are motivated by residuals relative to this specific kinematic model in Section IV.B.
  • domain assumption The disk plus NFW halo potential models, with a vertical halo offset, are adequate representations of the Milky Way within 3 kpc of the Sun.
    The density measurement is model-dependent, and the authors acknowledge in Section VII.F that the models may be too inflexible to capture disequilibrium accelerations.
  • domain assumption The Vieira+23 disk star count asymmetry traces the mass distribution responsible for the vertical acceleration asymmetry.
    The disk asymmetry contribution in Eq. 21 is computed directly from star counts, with a normalization calibrated to an observed acceleration.
  • ad hoc to paper Unmodeled stochastic accelerations follow a Lorentzian distribution with scale xi.
    The likelihood in Eq. 23 includes a Lorentzian noise term motivated by extended tails in previous residual distributions, but the functional form is chosen rather than derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Empirical Modeling of Magnetic Braking in Millisecond Pulsars to Measure the Local Dark Matter Density and Effects of Orbiting Satellite Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7U4NYTVE

@misc{pith2026250103409,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Empirical Modeling of Magnetic Braking in Millisecond Pulsars to Measure the Local Dark Matter Density and Effects of Orbiting Satellite Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7U4NYTVE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03409}
}
abstract

We present a novel method that enables us to estimate the acceleration of individual millisecond pulsars (MSPs) using only their spin period and its time derivative. For our binary MSP sample, we show that one can obtain an empirical calibration of the magnetic braking term that relies only on observed quantities. We find that such a model for magnetic braking is only valid for MSPs with small surface magnetic field strengths ($<3\times10^8$ G) and large characteristic ages ($>$ 5 Gyr). With this method we are able to effectively double the number of pulsars with line-of-sight acceleration measurements, from 27 to 53 sources. This expanded dataset leads to an updated measurement of the total density in the midplane, which we find to be $\rho_0$ = 0.108 $\pm$ 0.008 \textit{stat}. $\pm$ 0.011 \textit{sys} M$_\odot$/pc$^3$, and the first $>3\sigma$ measurement of the local dark matter density from direct acceleration measurements, which we calculate to be $\rho_{0,\mathrm{DM}}$ = 0.0098 $\pm$ 0.0025 \textit{stat.} $\pm$ 0.0003 \textit{sys}. M$_\odot$/pc$^3$ (0.37 $\pm$ 0.10 GeV/cm$^3$). This updated value for $\rho_{0,\mathrm{DM}}$ is in good agreement with literature values derived from kinematic estimates. The pulsar accelerations are very asymmetric above and below the disk; we show that the shape and size of this asymmetry can be largely explained by the north-south asymmetry of disk star counts and the offset in the Milky Way disk and halo centers of mass due to the Large Magellanic Cloud.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03409 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Uncertainties in the different components of spin and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The performance of the empirical model for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Residuals between modeled line-of-sight accelerations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. An alternative broken power-law model for computing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Magnetic properties of the binary pulsar sample, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Difference between vertical acceleration above and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Various literature measurements of the dark matter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Linear fit to the low- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bland-Hawthorn and O

    J. Bland-Hawthorn and O. Gerhard, Annu. Rev. As- tron. Astrophy. 54, 529 (2016), arXiv:1602.07702 [astro- ph.GA]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Towards a direct measure of the Galactic acceleration

    S. Chakrabarti, J. Wright, P. Chang, A. Quillen, P. Craig, J. Territo, E. D’Onghia, K. V. Johnston, R. J. De Rosa, D. Huber, K. L. Rhode, and E. Nielsen, As- trophys. J. 902, L28 (2020), arXiv:2007.15097 [astro- ph.GA]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Arora, R

    A. Arora, R. E. Sanderson, S. Chakrabarti, A. Wet- zel, T. Donlon, D. Horta, S. R. Loebman, L. Necib, and M. Oeur, Astrophys. J. 974, 223 (2024), arXiv:2406.12957 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Chakrabarti, J

    S. Chakrabarti, J. D. Simon, P. A. Craig, H. Reg- giani, T. D. Brandt, P. Guhathakurta, P. A. Dalba, E. N. Kirby, P. Chang, D. R. Hey, A. Savino, M. Geha, and I. B. Thompson, Astron. J. 166, 6 (2023), arXiv:2210.05003 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    El-Badry, H.-W

    K. El-Badry, H.-W. Rix, E. Quataert, A. W. Howard, H. Isaacson, J. Fuller, K. Hawkins, K. Breivik, K. W. K. Wong, A. C. Rodriguez, C. Conroy, S. Shahaf, T. Mazeh, F. Arenou, K. B. Burdge, D. Bashi, S. Faigler, D. R. Weisz, R. Seeburger, S. Almada Monter, and J. Wo- jno, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 518, 1057 (2023), arXiv:2209.06833 [astro-ph.SR]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    A. M. Ghez, B. L. Klein, M. Morris, and E. E. Becklin, Astrophys. J. 509, 678 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9807210 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 1998

  7. [7]

    A. M. Ghez, S. Salim, S. D. Hornstein, A. Tanner, J. R. Lu, M. Morris, E. E. Becklin, and G. Duchˆ ene, Astro- phys. J. 620, 744 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0306130 [astro- ph]

    arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    A. M. Ghez, S. Salim, N. N. Weinberg, J. R. Lu, T. Do, J. K. Dunn, K. Matthews, M. R. Morris, S. Yelda, E. E. Becklin, T. Kremenek, M. Milosavljevic, and J. Naiman, Astrophys. J. 689, 1044 (2008), arXiv:0808.2870 [astro- ph]

    arXiv 2008

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Gillessen, F

    S. Gillessen, F. Eisenhauer, S. Trippe, T. Alexander, R. Genzel, F. Martins, and T. Ott, Astrophys. J. 692, 1075 (2009), arXiv:0810.4674 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Genzel, F

    R. Genzel, F. Eisenhauer, and S. Gillessen, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 3121 (2010), arXiv:1006.0064 [astro- ph.GA]

    2010 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Chakrabarti, P

    S. Chakrabarti, P. Chang, M. T. Lam, S. J. Vige- land, and A. C. Quillen, Astrophys. J. 907, L26 (2021), arXiv:2010.04018 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Moran, C

    A. Moran, C. M. F. Mingarelli, K. Van Tilburg, and 17 D. Good, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2306.13137 (2023), arXiv:2306.13137 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Donlon, Thomas, S

    I. Donlon, Thomas, S. Chakrabarti, L. M. Widrow, M. T. Lam, P. Chang, and A. C. Quillen, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2401.15808 (2024), arXiv:2401.15808 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Chakrabarti, D

    S. Chakrabarti, D. J. Stevens, J. Wright, R. R. Rafikov, P. Chang, T. Beatty, and D. Huber, Astrophys. J. 928, L17 (2022), arXiv:2112.08231 [astro-ph.GA]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    J. M. Weisberg and Y. Huang, Astrophys. J. 829, 55 (2016), arXiv:1606.02744 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Damour and J

    T. Damour and J. H. Taylor, Astrophys. J. 366, 501 (1991)

    1991

  9. [17]

    J. J. Condon and S. M. Ransom, Essential Radio Astron- omy (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    full model

    to remove partially-recycled pulsars. The low- Ps selec- tion contains many pulsars with significant acceleration bias, emphasizing the need for the cuts in BSurf and τ . 7 However, they were unable to use the spin periods of individual pulsars to measure an acceleration at ot...

  11. [19]

    Heflin and R

    K. Heflin and R. Lieu, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 504, 166 (2021), arXiv:2103.15314 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    D. F. Phillips, A. Ravi, R. Ebadi, and R. L. Walsworth, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 141103 (2021), arXiv:2008.13052 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    H. Ding, A. T. Deller, B. W. Stappers, T. J. W. Lazio, D. Kaplan, S. Chatterjee, W. Brisken, J. Cordes, P. C. C. Freire, E. Fonseca, I. Stairs, L. Guillemot, A. Lyne, I. Cognard, D. J. Reardon, and G. Theureau, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 519, 4982 (2023), arXiv:2212.06351 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Gautam, P

    T. Gautam, P. C. C. Freire, J. Wu, V. Venkatraman Krishnan, M. Kramer, E. D. Barr, M. Bailes, and A. D. Cameron, Astron. Astrophys. 682, A103 (2024), arXiv:2311.13563 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Y. Du, J. Yang, R. M. Campbell, G. Janssen, B. Stap- pers, and D. Chen, Astrophys. J. 782, L38 (2014), arXiv:1402.2380 [astro-ph.SR]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    C. M. Tan, E. Fonseca, K. Crowter, F. A. Dong, V. M. Kaspi, K. W. Masui, J. W. McKee, B. W. Meyers, S. M. Ransom, and I. H. Stairs, Astrophys. J. 966, 26 (2024), arXiv:2402.08188 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Donlon, Thomas, S

    I. Donlon, Thomas, S. Chakrabarti, M. T. Lam, D. Hu- ber, D. Hey, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, B. Shappee, D. L. Ka- plan, G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, Z. Arzoumanian, P. T. Baker, P. R. Brook, H. T. Cromartie, K. Crowter, M. E. DeCesar, P. B. De- morest, T. Dolch, E. C. F...

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    J. P. W. Verbiest and D. R. Lorimer, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 444, 1859 (2014), arXiv:1408.0281 [astro- ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    E. S. Phinney, in Structure and Dynamics of Globular Clusters, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 50, edited by S. G. Djorgovski and G. Meylan (1993) p. 141

    1993

  20. [28]

    R. N. Manchester, G. B. Hobbs, A. Teoh, and M. Hobbs, Astron. J. 129, 1993 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0412641 [astro-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  21. [29]

    B. J. Prager, S. M. Ransom, P. C. C. Freire, J. W. T. Hes- sels, I. H. Stairs, P. Arras, and M. Cadelano, Astrophys. J. 845, 148 (2017), arXiv:1612.04395 [astro-ph.SR]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    P. C. Freire, F. Camilo, D. R. Lorimer, A. G. Lyne, R. N. Manchester, and N. D’Amico, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 326, 901 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0103372 [astro-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  23. [31]

    I. S. Shklovskii, Sov. Astron. 13, 562 (1970)

    1970

  24. [32]

    Spiewak, M

    R. Spiewak, M. Bailes, E. D. Barr, N. D. R. Bhat, M. Burgay, A. D. Cameron, D. J. Champion, C. M. L. Flynn, A. Jameson, S. Johnston, M. J. Keith, M. Kramer, S. R. Kulkarni, L. Levin, A. G. Lyne, V. Morello, C. Ng, A. Possenti, V. Ravi, B. W. Stappers, W. van Straten, and C. Ti...

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Kalapotharakos, Z

    C. Kalapotharakos, Z. Wadiasingh, A. K. Hard- ing, and D. Kazanas, Astrophys. J. 907, 63 (2021), arXiv:2009.08567 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, S. Bogdanov, P. S. Ray, R. M. Ludlam, S. Guillot, Z. Arzoumanian, C. L. Baker, A. V. Bilous, D. Chakrabarty, K. C. Gendreau, A. K. Hard- ing, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, S. M. Morsink, and T. E. Strohmayer, Astrophys. J. 887, L21 (2019), arXiv:1912.0...

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    L. M. Widrow, S. Gardner, B. Yanny, S. Dodel- son, and H.-Y. Chen, Astrophys. J. 750, L41 (2012), arXiv:1203.6861 [astro-ph.GA]

    2012 arXiv

  28. [36]

    M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bogdanov, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. Guillot, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, M. Loewenstein, S. M. Morsink, P. S. Ray, M. T. Wolff, C. L. Baker, T. Cazeau, S. Man- thripragada, C. B. Markwardt, T. Okajima, S. Pollard, I. Cogna...

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    T. M. Tauris, N. Langer, and M. Kramer, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 425, 1601 (2012), arXiv:1206.1862 [astro- ph.SR]

    2012 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Antoja, A

    T. Antoja, A. Helmi, M. Romero-G´ omez, D. Katz, C. Babusiaux, R. Drimmel, D. W. Evans, F. Figueras, E. Poggio, C. Reyl´ e, A. C. Robin, G. Seabroke, and C. Soubiran, Nature (London) 561, 360 (2018), arXiv:1804.10196 [astro-ph.GA]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    B. M. S. Hansen and M. Lyutikov, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 322, 695 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0003218 [astro-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  32. [40]

    A. M. Price-Whelan, The Journal of Open Source Soft- ware 2, 10.21105/joss.00388 (2017)

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    Kremer, C

    K. Kremer, C. S. Ye, C. O. Heinke, A. L. Piro, S. M. Ran- som, and F. A. Rasio, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2409.07527 (2024), arXiv:2409.07527 [astro-ph.SR]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Lai, Astrophys

    D. Lai, Astrophys. J. 757, L3 (2012), arXiv:1206.3723 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Vieira, V

    K. Vieira, V. Korchagin, G. Carraro, and A. Lutsenko, Galaxies 11, 77 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    T. M. Tauris, M. Kramer, P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex, H. T. Janka, N. Langer, P. Podsiadlowski, E. Bozzo, S. Chaty, M. U. Kruckow, E. P. J. van den Heuvel, J. Antoniadis, R. P. Breton, and D. J. Champion, Astrophys. J. 846, 170 (2017), arXiv:1706.09438 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Bennett and J

    M. Bennett and J. Bovy, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 482, 1417 (2019), arXiv:1809.03507 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Yanny and S

    B. Yanny and S. Gardner, Astrophys. J. 777, 91 (2013), arXiv:1309.2300 [astro-ph.GA]

    2013 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Bennett and J

    M. Bennett and J. Bovy, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 503, 376 (2021), arXiv:2010.04165 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Y. Xu, H. J. Newberg, J. L. Carlin, C. Liu, L. Deng, 18 J. Li, R. Sch¨ onrich, and B. Yanny, Astrophys. J. 801, 105 (2015), arXiv:1503.00257 [astro-ph.GA]

    2015 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Garavito-Camargo, G

    N. Garavito-Camargo, G. Besla, C. F. P. Laporte, A. M. Price-Whelan, E. C. Cunningham, K. V. Johnston, M. Weinberg, and F. A. G´ omez, Astrophys. J.919, 109 (2021), arXiv:2010.00816 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Erkal, V

    D. Erkal, V. Belokurov, C. F. P. Laporte, S. E. Koposov, T. S. Li, C. J. Grillmair, N. Kallivayalil, A. M. Price- Whelan, N. W. Evans, K. Hawkins, D. Hendel, C. Mateu, J. F. Navarro, A. del Pino, C. T. Slater, S. T. Sohn, and Orphan Aspen Treasury Collaboration, Mon. Not. R. A...

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    M. S. Petersen and J. Pe˜ narrubia, Nature Astronomy5, 251 (2021), arXiv:2011.10581 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Vasiliev, V

    E. Vasiliev, V. Belokurov, and D. Erkal, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 501, 2279 (2021), arXiv:2009.10726 [astro- ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    C. F. P. Laporte, I. Minchev, K. V. Johnston, and F. A. G´ omez, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 485, 3134 (2019), arXiv:1808.00451 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Vasiliev, Galaxies 11, 59 (2023), arXiv:2304.09136 [astro-ph.GA]

    E. Vasiliev, Galaxies 11, 59 (2023), arXiv:2304.09136 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Chakrabarti, P

    S. Chakrabarti, P. Chang, A. M. Price-Whelan, J. Read, L. Blitz, and L. Hernquist, Astrophys. J. 886, 67 (2019), arXiv:1906.04203 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    J. A. S. Hunt, A. M. Price-Whelan, K. V. Johnston, and E. Darragh-Ford, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 516, L7 (2022), arXiv:2206.06125 [astro-ph.GA]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Binney and S

    J. Binney and S. Tremaine, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition (2008)

    2008

  50. [58]

    C. F. McKee, A. Parravano, and D. J. Hollenbach, Astro- phys. J. 814, 13 (2015), arXiv:1509.05334 [astro-ph.GA]

    2015 arXiv

  51. [59]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astro- phys. J. 490, 493 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9611107 [astro- ph]

    1997 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Miyamoto and R

    M. Miyamoto and R. Nagai, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap. 27, 533 (1975)

    1975

  53. [61]

    Bienaym´ e, B

    O. Bienaym´ e, B. Famaey, A. Siebert, K. C. Freeman, B. K. Gibson, G. Gilmore, E. K. Grebel, J. Bland- Hawthorn, G. Kordopatis, U. Munari, J. F. Navarro, Q. Parker, W. Reid, G. M. Seabroke, A. Siviero, M. Stein- metz, F. Watson, R. F. G. Wyse, and T. Zwitter, Astron. Astrophys...

    2014 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Akaike, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19, 716 (1974)

    H. Akaike, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19, 716 (1974)

    1974

  55. [63]

    S. H. Lim, E. Putney, M. R. Buckley, and D. Shih, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2305.13358 (2023), arXiv:2305.13358 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023

  56. [64]

    Bovy, Mon

    J. Bovy, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 468, L63 (2017), arXiv:1610.07610 [astro-ph.GA]

    2017 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Schutz, T

    K. Schutz, T. Lin, B. R. Safdi, and C.-L. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 081101 (2018), arXiv:1711.03103 [astro- ph.GA]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Haines, E

    T. Haines, E. D’Onghia, B. Famaey, C. Laporte, and L. Hernquist, Astrophys. J. 879, L15 (2019), arXiv:1903.00607 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    J. S. Deneva, P. S. Ray, A. Lommen, S. M. Ransom, S. Bogdanov, M. Kerr, K. S. Wood, Z. Arzoumanian, K. Black, J. Doty, K. C. Gendreau, S. Guillot, A. Hard- ing, N. Lewandowska, C. Malacaria, C. B. Markwardt, S. Price, L. Winternitz, M. T. Wolff, L. Guillemot, I. Cog- nard, P. ...

    2019 arXiv

  60. [68]

    J. Fan, A. Katz, L. Randall, and M. Reece, Physics of the Dark Universe 2, 139 (2013), arXiv:1303.1521 [astro- ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Zheng, D

    S. Zheng, D. Han, H. Xu, K. Lee, J. Yuan, H. Wang, M. Ge, L. Zhang, Y. Li, Y. Yin, X. Ma, Y. Chen, and S. Zhang, Universe 10, 174 (2024), arXiv:2404.16263 [astro-ph.HE]. Appendix A: V alidity of the BSurf Approximation In Section IV, we make an approximation of BSurf in Equati...

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    J. S. Deneva, P. S. Ray, F. Camilo, P. C. C. Freire, H. T. Cromartie, S. M. Ransom, E. Ferrara, M. Kerr, T. H. Burnett, and P. M. S. Parkinson, Astrophys. J. 909, 6 (2021), arXiv:2012.15185 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  63. [2650]

    Obs” is the observed change in the pulsar’s spin period, “Gal

    has a planet, although we elect to keep it in the dataset because the planet is accounted for in the timing solution for that pulsar, i.e., for the spin-period variation [30]. However, the binary period-drift has not been mea- sured, and earlier work on measuring Galactic acce...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.