Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

The ubiquity of variable radio emission and spin-down rates in pulsars

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Most isolated pulsars do not spin down steadily: 238 of 259 show significant spin-down variability, and the fluctuation amplitude grows with spin-down rate.

desk verdict Large, carefully built catalogue whose headline 92% variability rate rests on an uncalibrated GP threshold; the scaling relation is plausible but inherits the risk. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03500 v3 pith:L4TEY5CR submitted 2025-01-07 astro-ph.HE

M. E. Lower , A. Karastergiou , S. Johnston , P. R. Brook , S. Dai , M. Kerr , R. N. Manchester , L. S. Oswald
show 3 more authors
R. M. Shannon C. Sobey P. Weltevrede
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords pulsarsspin-downvariabilityradioemissionGaussianprocessregressionpulsartimingarraysmodeswitchingnoisegravitationalwaves
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to establish that rotational instability is the norm, not the exception, for isolated pulsars: it reports that 238 of 259 monitored pulsars show significant variation in spin-down rate, with 52 also changing radio pulse shape. Because the sample is the largest yet assembled, the claim moves this behaviour from a collection of curiosities to a population-wide property. The authors also derive a quantitative scaling between the amplitude of spin-down fluctuations and the mean spin-down rate, with little dependence on spin frequency. If correct, the same process may operate in millisecond pulsars and must be modelled in pulsar timing array searches for nanohertz gravitational waves. The paper further argues that quasi-periodic spin-down modulations do not follow free-precession scaling, and that transient spin-down events look consistent with asteroid impacts.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the K-metric, $$K = \frac{|\dot{\nu}_{\rm min}| - |\dot{\nu}_{\rm max}|}{2\sigma_{\dot{\nu},\,{\rm mean}}},$$ computed from Gaussian process fits to timing residuals; K > 1 marks a pulsar as variable. Gaussian process regression with squared-exponential kernels (and Matérn kernels for profile variability maps) produces continuous spin-down and profile models from unevenly sampled observations, while Bayesian information criterion model selection decides between one or two kernels and a fixed one-year sinusoidal kernel used to absorb positional offsets. This machinery lets the authors measure fluctuation amplitudes, search for correlations between profile changes and spin-down, and test scaling relations against spin, spin-down rate, characteristic age, and magnetic field.

What would settle it

Run the same Gaussian-process and K-metric pipeline on simulated timing residuals that contain only white noise and the same observation times as the 259 pulsars, and count how many simulated objects cross K > 1; a non-negligible false-positive rate would mean the 92% variable fraction is inflated by the method rather than by the pulsars.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that 238 of 259 isolated, non-recycled pulsars display significant spin-down variability as measured by the K-metric (K > 1), and 52 of those also show substantial changes in pulse profile shape. The fluctuation amplitude follows the relation $\delta\dot{\nu} = 10^{-4.5 \pm 0.5}\,|\dot{\nu}_{\rm weak}|^{0.85 \pm 0.04}$, with only a marginal dependence on spin frequency ($\nu^{-0.18 \pm 0.17}$). This is the largest catalogue of variable pulsars to date, and the authors interpret it as evidence that these behaviours are ubiquitous among the broader pulsar population. They also find that quasi-periodic spin-down modulations in 45 pulsars do not follow the scaling expected from free precession, and that 68 transient spin-down events in 26 pulsars imply frequent interactions with small bodies if interpreted as asteroid impacts.

Load-bearing premise

The classification of 238 pulsars as variable assumes that the K-metric, with its K > 1 threshold and no injected-noise false-positive test, separates genuine spin-down variability from artefacts caused by imperfect glitch recovery, annual positional sinusoids, and receiver changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Spin-down variability is common enough that the steady-clock assumption for isolated pulsars needs revision in population studies.
  • The amplitude scaling $\delta\dot{\nu} \propto |\dot{\nu}_{\rm weak}|^{0.85}$ predicts detectable spin-down fluctuations in millisecond pulsars, where timing-array noise models currently use red power laws.
  • The same Gaussian-process pipeline can be applied to other long-term timing data sets to enlarge the variable-pulsar catalogue.
  • Quasi-periodic modulation periods scattered across $P$, $\tau_c$, and $\dot{E}$ fail the free-precession scaling relations, strengthening magnetospheric state-switching as the driver.
  • Transient spin-down events, if caused by asteroid impacts, imply that debris discs and asteroid belts around pulsars should be common.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the scaling relation extends to millisecond pulsars, timing-array analyses should include an explicit spin-down fluctuation term; standard red-noise models will absorb part of it and can bias the inferred gravitational-wave background amplitude.
  • The 52/238 profile-change fraction is likely sensitivity-limited by per-epoch signal-to-noise and pulse jitter, so longer integrations should reveal more shape-changing pulsars even if the spin-down result is unchanged.
  • Because K > 1 was set without injection-based false-positive calibration, re-running the pipeline on synthetic noise-only data would directly test the 92% detection rate; until then, the ubiquity claim rests on the assumption that glitch-recovery and positional artefacts are negligible.
  • A natural next test is to monitor the 45 quasi-periodic pulsars for phase drift or state changes; stable periods over decades would keep a geometric clock such as precession viable, while drift and switching would favour magnetospheric reconfiguration.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies Gaussian-process regression and Bayesian inference to roughly 30 years of Parkes (Murriyang) timing data for 259 isolated, non-recycled pulsars, and claims that 238 of them show significant spin-down rate variability under a K>1 criterion, with 52 also showing profile shape changes. It derives an empirical scaling relation δν̇ = 10^(-4.5±0.5) |ν̇_weak|^(0.85±0.04) with only marginal spin-frequency dependence, and discusses implications for pulsar timing array searches, quasi-periodic variability, and planetesimal interaction scenarios.

Significance. The paper is potentially important because it assembles the largest catalogue of variable pulsars to date and, if the central claims hold, establishes that spin-down instability is common across the isolated pulsar population rather than confined to a few notable objects. The long-baseline Parkes data, the use of public data products, and the explicit Bayesian framework for the scaling fit are strengths. However, the headline detection rate rests entirely on an uncalibrated K-metric threshold; without a false-positive quantification, the ubiquity claim and the fitted power law are not yet established. The paper is therefore promising but requires a validation step before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.3, Eq. (4)] The K>1 criterion is not calibrated against a null hypothesis. The paper states 'We used a threshold of K > 1' but does not report the false-positive rate of this threshold for noise-only data, for data with imperfectly removed glitch recoveries, or for data with annual positional offsets, both of which are acknowledged as sources of spurious ν̇ variability in Sections 3.1 and 3.3. Because K is computed from the extrema of the Gaussian-process second derivative divided by the GP predictive uncertainty, smooth excursions can appear in pure noise while model-selection and hyperparameter uncertainties are not included in σ_ν̇,mean. An injection study that reports the fraction of K>1 pulsars expected by chance, for white noise and for simulated glitch-recovery and annual-position signals, is required to support the 238/259 claim and the scaling relation in Eq. (7), which is fit only to the selected pulsars.
  2. [3.3, model selection] The kernel selection procedure combines BIC with unspecified visual inspection. The text says 'on occasion we had to make by-eye judgement calls when one model visually matched the data better than another in spite of the reported BIC.' This subjective step is not quantified: the number of pulsars affected, the criteria used, and the reproducibility of the decisions are not reported. Since the choice of one-kernel, two-kernel, and annual-sinusoid models directly shapes the ν̇ timeseries and hence K, this selection uncertainty should be propagated or at least enumerated.
  3. [5.1, Eqs. (5)–(9)] The scaling relation is fitted only to the 238 K>1 pulsars and treats δν̇ as known data. However, δν̇ = |ν̇_min| − |ν̇_max| and |ν̇_weak| are both outputs of the same Gaussian-process fit, so their uncertainties are correlated and model-dependent; the likelihood in Eq. (6) adds a single scatter σ_Q but does not propagate the GP posterior covariance. Given the selection-threshold issue in Eq. (4), the reported index 0.85±0.04 and spin-frequency exponent −0.18±0.17 in Eqs. (7) and (9) should be presented as conditional on the detection method, with an additional sensitivity analysis excluding marginal K values.
minor comments (5)
  1. [5.4, Eq. (13)] The rate calculation uses 27/260 pulsars, but the sample is 259 and Section 4 reports 238/259; please reconcile the denominator.
  2. [Tables A1 and A2] The tables contain inconsistent notation (e.g., missing minus signs in several exponents and 'e' notation such as '7.1𝑒+ 01'), which makes verification difficult.
  3. [4.2 and Conclusions] Section 4.2 mentions 'another 28 pulsars' while the Conclusions state '29 pulsars for which we describe the links ... for the first time'; the counting should be clarified.
  4. [3.3] The equations for the GP predictive variance from Brook et al. (2016) are not reproduced; since the K-metric denominator is central, a brief summary of those equations would help the reader assess the significance metric.
  5. [Figure 3] The labels give δν̇/|ν̇| without error bars; adding typical uncertainties or a note on how σ_ν̇,mean varies would make the K>1 selection easier to evaluate.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scaling relation is an empirical fit, but the K>1 significance definition is internally calibrated and the uncertainty denominator is self-cited.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.3, Eq. (4)]
    "This ‘K-metric‘ is given by K = (|ν̇min|−|ν̇max|)/(2σν̇, mean) ... where ν̇min and ν̇max refer to the minimum and maximum inferred absolute spin-down rates derived from the Gaussian process regression, and σν̇, mean is the mean spin-down uncertainty computed via equations 9 and 10 of Brook et al. (2016). We used a threshold of K > 1 for defining when a pulsar displayed substantial spin-down variability."

    The paper defines 'substantial spin-down variability' as K>1, so the abstract's statement that '238 pulsars display significant variability' is by construction the number of pulsars with K>1; no injected-noise or false-positive test is provided to show this threshold separates physical variability from artifacts such as imperfect glitch recovery or annual positional offsets. Additionally, the uncertainty denominator comes from self-cited equations 9 and 10 of Brook et al. (2016), a prior paper with overlapping authors, rather than from an independent calibration. This is a definitional and validation coupling rather than a circular derivation of the main fitted result, so it is minor.

full rationale

The central quantitative claim, δν̇ = 10^(−4.5±0.5)|ν̇_weak|^(0.85±0.04), is obtained by fitting the Gaussian-process-inferred fluctuation amplitude against the Gaussian-process-inferred weak spin-down rate; this is an empirical fit, not a circular derivation, because neither quantity is defined as the other, even though both arise from the same GP model. The profile-variability and spin-down correlation analyses are likewise data-driven. The main circularity-adjacent issue is the K-metric threshold: 'significant' is defined as K>1 with the uncertainty from self-cited Brook et al. (2016) equations, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that glitch-recovery residuals and annual positional offsets can create spurious ν̇ variations. These are validation gaps (no false-positive-rate calibration) rather than examples of a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction. I therefore assign a score of 2 for a minor self-citation and definitional coupling, not for a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Central claims rest on data and fitted empirical relations rather than a first-principles model. The main ledger entries are the arbitrary K threshold, the Gaussian process kernel hyperparameters, and the fitted scaling parameters. Additional assumptions are the representativeness of the Fermi-biased sample, the absence of false-positive calibration, and the canonical neutron star parameters used for asteroid mass estimates.

free parameters (5)
  • K-metric significance threshold = 1
    Pulsars with K > 1 are classified as showing substantial spin-down variability (Eq. 4). The threshold is chosen by hand and its false-positive rate is not calibrated with simulated stable pulsars.
  • Power-law scaling parameters of delta_nu_dot versus |nu_dot_weak| = xi = -4.5 +/- 0.5, b = 0.85 +/- 0.04 (Eq. 7)
    Fitted by Bayesian parameter estimation with a Gaussian likelihood, not derived from theory; these define the central population scaling.
  • Spin-frequency exponent a = -0.18 +/- 0.17 (Eq. 9)
    Fitted jointly with the nu_dot scaling; the posterior overlaps zero at 95 percent confidence and is used to claim marginal spin-frequency dependence.
  • Additional scatter sigma_Q = not tabulated
    Added in quadrature to per-pulsar uncertainties in the likelihood (Eq. 6) to absorb unexplained scatter; its value is fitted and not individually reported.
  • Per-pulsar Gaussian process kernel hyperparameters = Table A1 (sigma_1, lambda_1, sigma_2, lambda_2, sigma_N)
    Gaussian process hyperparameters fitted to each pulsar's timing residuals define the spin-down timeseries and therefore the K metric; no injection-recovery validation is provided.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The second derivative of the Gaussian process timing residual model is a faithful estimator of intrinsic spin-down variability.
    Used throughout Section 3.3 to produce spin-down timeseries; if the Gaussian process smooths or amplifies noise, the K metric and scaling relation change.
  • domain assumption The K > 1 threshold reliably separates variable from stable pulsars without false-positive calibration.
    Eq. 4 and Section 3.3; no injection tests or null pulsars are used to validate the threshold.
  • domain assumption The P574 sample is representative enough to support population-wide ubiquity despite a bias toward high-spin-down-energy and Fermi-target pulsars.
    Section 2 states the bias; Section 5.1 extrapolates to the wider pulsar population.
  • domain assumption Glitch recovery and annual positional sinusoids are sufficiently corrected so that residual artifacts do not dominate the detected spin-down variability.
    Sections 3.1 and 3.3 acknowledge imperfect glitch removal and positional degeneracies; the analysis proceeds assuming these are small.
  • domain assumption Canonical neutron star parameters and the dipole spin-down formula apply for asteroid mass inference.
    Equations 11 and 12 in Section 5.4 use I = 1e45 g cm^2, R = 1e6 cm, and B_0 from the dipole formula; the masses in Table A3 depend on these assumptions.
  • domain assumption C-type asteroid density of 1.57 g cm^-3 applies to the inferred planetesimal radii.
    Section 5.4 cites Carry (2012) for this density; it is not fitted to pulsar data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The ubiquity of variable radio emission and spin-down rates in pulsars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L4TEY5CR

@misc{pith2026250103500,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The ubiquity of variable radio emission and spin-down rates in pulsars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L4TEY5CR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03500}
}
read the original abstract

Pulsars are often lauded for their (relative) rotational and radio emission stability over long time scales. However, long-term observing programmes are identifying an increasing number of pulsars that deviate from this preconceived notion. Using Gaussian process regression and Bayesian inference techniques, we investigated the emission and rotational stability of 259 isolated radio pulsars that have been monitored using Murriyang, the Parkes 64 m radio telescope, over the past three decades. We found that 238 pulsars display significant variability in their spin-down rates, 52 of which also exhibit changes in profile shape. Including 23 known state-switching pulsars, this represents the largest catalogue of variable pulsars identified to date and indicates that these behaviours are ubiquitous among the wider population. The intensity of spin-down fluctuations positively scales with increasing pulsar spin-down rate, with only a marginal dependence on spin-frequency. This may have substantial implications for ongoing searches for gravitational waves in the ensemble timing of millisecond pulsars. We also discuss challenges in explaining the physical origins of quasi-periodic and transient profile/spin-down variations detected among a subset of our pulsars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03500 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A pulsar period (𝑃) and period-derivative (𝑃¤) diagram, where the pulsars sample analysed in this work are highlighted by black circles. Light￾grey circles indicate all known pulsars published in v2.5.1 of the ATNF Pulsar Catalogue. these pulsars is beyond the scope of this work, and will be reported elsewhere. Once a coherent solution was obtained, we then applied pulse numbering to the ToAs to maintain an accurate… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Timing residuals for all 259 pulsars after subtracting the best-fit timing model. Labels on the left-hand side of each panel indicates the pulsar J2000 name and the maximum-to-minimum range of the residuals in milliseconds. The downward pointing arrows indicate the epochs of detected glitches. MNRAS 000, 1–25 (0000) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spin-down timeseries for the 238 pulsars that displayed significant variability. Labels on the left-hand side of each panel indicates the pulsar J2000 name and the percentage difference between the minimum and maximum value of 𝜈¤. The downward pointing arrows indicate the epochs of detected glitches. MNRAS 000, 1–25 (0000) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Rotation and emission changes in the known variable pulsar PSR J1048−5832. Top panel shows the spin-down timeseries, lower panel the profile variability map with the median profile depicted on the right. Orange dashed lines in the top panel indicate the epochs of glitc…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spin-down timeseries and profile variability map for PSR J1830−1059. As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Stack of 482 single pulses from PSR J1243−6423 recorded using the Parkes 20-cm multibeam receiver on MJD 57600. Nulls and weak radio pulses are clearly visible as gaps among the normally bright emission from this pulsar. PSR J1428−5530 (B1424−55) This pulsar displays s…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A set of 850 single pulses from PSR J1745−3040 recorded using the Parkes 20-cm multibeam receiver on MJD 56466. The ‘off’ emission state appears as gaps in the detected radio emission. computed from the spin-down timeseries displays a strong peak at 359 d, which could …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Relationship between spin-down variability and weak spin-down state. Values for the pulsars studied by Shaw et al. (2022) are shown in orange, the red diamond indicates PSR J0738−4042 (Lower et al. 2023), pulsars from Basu et al. (2024) are the teal hexagons, and our m…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of spin-down modulation period with 𝑃. Grey points are the dominant quasi-periods of all pulsars indicated by their Lomb-Scargle periodograms. Dark blue points indicate the highly quasi-periodic pulsars listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Gamma-ray Pulsar Emission is Mostly Stable on Timescales from Minutes to Years

    astro-ph.HE 2025-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A matched-filter search of 115 gamma-ray pulsars finds no confirmed flux state changes from minutes to years and limits most flux variations to under 10%.

  2. Observation of discontinuities in the periodic modulation of PSR B1828-11

    astro-ph.HE 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Bayesian comparison of spin-down models finds three discontinuities in PSR B1828-11's ~500-day modulation, all occurring before the glitch, with a natural-log Bayes factor of 1486.

  3. Understanding the Neutron Star Population with the SKAO Telescopes

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

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

  4. The SKAO Pulsar Timing Array

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

    An SKAO PTA with ~174 millisecond pulsars can dominate nanohertz GW sensitivity within four years and enable continuous-wave detections plus anisotropy maps of the gravitational-wave background.

  5. Probing Neutron Star Interiors and the Properties of Cold Ultra-dense Matter with the SKAO

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

    SKAO's sensitivity, surveys and sub-arraying will deliver tighter NS mass, MoI, spin, glitch and precession constraints that, with X-ray and GW data, probe cold ultra-dense matter.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

134 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [2]

    Agazie G., et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951L...8A 951, L8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6

  2. [3]

    A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv322 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449..933A 449, 933

    Akbal O., G \"u gercino g lu E., S a s maz Mu s S., Alpar M. A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv322 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449..933A 449, 933

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv322 2015

  3. [4]

    Ambikasaran S., Foreman-Mackey D., Greengard L., Hogg D. W., O'Neil M., 2015, @doi [IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence] 10.1109/TPAMI.2015.2448083 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ITPAM..38..252A 38, 252

    arXiv 2015

  4. [5]

    Ashton G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..241...27A 241, 27

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc 2019

  5. [6]

    C., 1970a, @doi [ ] 10.1038/228042a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970Natur.228...42B 228, 42

    Backer D. C., 1970a, @doi [ ] 10.1038/228042a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970Natur.228...42B 228, 42

    doi:10.1038/228042a0

  6. [7]

    C., 1970b, @doi [ ] 10.1038/228752a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970Natur.228..752B 228, 752

    Backer D. C., 1970b, @doi [ ] 10.1038/228752a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970Natur.228..752B 228, 752

    work page doi:10.1038/228752a0

  7. [8]

    C., 1970c, @doi [ ] 10.1038/2281297a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970Natur.228.1297B 228, 1297

    Backer D. C., 1970c, @doi [ ] 10.1038/2281297a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970Natur.228.1297B 228, 1297

    doi:10.1038/2281297a0

  8. [9]

    Basu A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3336 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.4049B 510, 4049

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3336 2022

Show all 134 references
  1. [10]

    Basu A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae483 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.7458B 528, 7458

    2024 doi

  2. [11]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...893L...8B 893, L8

    Behrens E. A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...893L...8B 893, L8

    2020 doi

  3. [12]

    D., 1986, PhD thesis, The University of Sydney, Australia

    Biggs J. D., 1986, PhD thesis, The University of Sydney, Australia

    1986

  4. [13]

    D., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990MNRAS.246..341B 246, 341

    Biggs J. D., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990MNRAS.246..341B 246, 341

    1990

  5. [14]

    D., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171608 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...394..574B 394, 574

    Biggs J. D., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171608 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...394..574B 394, 574

    1992 doi

  6. [15]

    D., Ravi V., Belov K

    Bochenek C. D., Ravi V., Belov K. V., Hallinan G., Kocz J., Kulkarni S. R., McKenna D. L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Natur.587...59B 587, 59

    2020 doi

  7. [16]

    M., Levin Y., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93b7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...897..173B 897, 173

    Bransgrove A., Beloborodov A. M., Levin Y., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93b7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...897..173B 897, 173

    2020 doi

  8. [17]

    M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad90a3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...979..144B 979, 144

    Bransgrove A., Levin Y., Beloborodov A. M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad90a3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...979..144B 979, 144

    2025 doi

  9. [18]

    R., Karastergiou A., Buchner S., Roberts S

    Brook P. R., Karastergiou A., Buchner S., Roberts S. J., Keith M. J., Johnston S., Shannon R. M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...780L..31B 780, L31

    2014 doi

  10. [19]

    R., Karastergiou A., Johnston S., Kerr M., Shannon R

    Brook P. R., Karastergiou A., Johnston S., Kerr M., Shannon R. M., Roberts S. J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2715 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.1374B 456, 1374

    2016 doi

  11. [20]

    R., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae9e3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...868..122B 868, 122

    Brook P. R., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae9e3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...868..122B 868, 122

    2018 doi

  12. [21]

    Carry B., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.pss.2012.03.009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012P&SS...73...98C 73, 98

    2012 doi

  13. [22]

    L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3654 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.2709C 519, 2709

    Chen J. L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3654 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.2709C 519, 2709

    2023 doi

  14. [23]

    E., Buchner S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/40 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...745...40C 745, 40

    Chukwude A. E., Buchner S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/40 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...745...40C 745, 40

    2012 doi

  15. [24]

    E., Ubachukwu A

    Chukwude A. E., Ubachukwu A. A., Okeke P. N., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...399..231C 399, 231

    2003 doi

  16. [25]

    M., Downs G

    Cordes J. M., Downs G. S., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191076 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJS...59..343C 59, 343

    1985 doi

  17. [26]

    M., Greenstein G., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/158883 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ApJ...245.1060C 245, 1060

    Cordes J. M., Greenstein G., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/158883 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ApJ...245.1060C 245, 1060

    1981 doi

  18. [27]

    G., Wang J

    Dai Z. G., Wang J. S., Wu X. F., Huang Y. F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...829...27D 829, 27

    2016 doi

  19. [28]

    Desvignes G., et al., 2024, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-024-02226-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NatAs...8..617D 8, 617

    2024 doi

  20. [29]

    Detweiler S., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157593 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...234.1100D 234, 1100

    1979 doi

  21. [30]

    J., Cordes J

    Dewey R. J., Cordes J. M., 1989, in \"O gelman H., van den Heuvel E. P. J., eds, NATO Advanced Study Institute (ASI) Series C Vol. 262, Timing Neutron Stars. p. 119, @doi 10.1007/978-94-009-2273-0_7

    1989 doi

  22. [31]

    G., Kropotina J., Levenfish K., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/72 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...763...72D 763, 72

    Durant M., Kargaltsev O., Pavlov G. G., Kropotina J., Levenfish K., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/72 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...763...72D 763, 72

    2013 doi

  23. [32]

    D., Greenberg R., Jedicke R., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1006/icar.1998.5960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Icar..135..431D 135, 431

    Durda D. D., Greenberg R., Jedicke R., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1006/icar.1998.5960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Icar..135..431D 135, 431

    1998

  24. [33]

    EPTA Collaboration et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346841 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A..48E 678, A48

    doi

  25. [34]

    EPTA Collaboration et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A..50E 678, A50

    doi

  26. [35]

    M., Lyne A

    Espinoza C. M., Lyne A. G., Kramer M., Manchester R. N., Kaspi V. M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/741/1/L13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...741L..13E 741, L13

    2011 doi

  27. [36]

    M., Kuiper L., Ho W

    Espinoza C. M., Kuiper L., Ho W. C. G., Antonopoulou D., Arzoumanian Z., Harding A. K., Ray P. S., Younes G., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.10759 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240910759E p. arXiv:2409.10759

    2024 doi arXiv

  28. [37]

    A., Wright G

    Fowler L. A., Wright G. A. E., 1982, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982A&A...109..279F 109, 279

    1982

  29. [38]

    A., Wright G

    Fowler L. A., Wright G. A. E., Morris D., 1981, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981A&A....93...54F 93, 54

    1981

  30. [39]

    Freire P. C. C., Wex N., 2024, @doi [Living Reviews in Relativity] 10.1007/s41114-024-00051-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024LRR....27....5F 27, 5

    2024 doi

  31. [40]

    S., 2003, in Bailes M., Nice D

    Frescura F., Flanagan C. S., 2003, in Bailes M., Nice D. J., Thorsett S. E., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 302, Radio Pulsars. p. 237

    2003

  32. [41]

    M., Arons J., Kaspi V

    Gaensler B. M., Arons J., Kaspi V. M., Pivovaroff M. J., Kawai N., Tamura K., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/339354 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...569..878G 569, 878

    2002 doi

  33. [42]

    J., Huang Y

    Geng J. J., Huang Y. F., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...809...24G 809, 24

    2015 doi

  34. [43]

    Goncharov B., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3411 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502..478G 502, 478

    2021 doi

  35. [44]

    2001 Digest

    Granet C., et al., 2001, in IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium. 2001 Digest. Held in conjunction with: USNC/URSI National Radio Science Meeting (Cat. No.01CH37229). pp 296--299, @doi 10.1109/APS.2001.959722

    2001

  36. [45]

    M., Kot J

    Granet C., Bowen M., Reynolds J., Davis I. M., Kot J. S., Pope G., 2011, in Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EUCAP). pp 918--920

    2011

  37. [46]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    2020 doi

  38. [47]

    Hermsen W., et al., 2013, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1230960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Sci...339..436H 339, 436

    2013 doi

  39. [48]

    Hermsen W., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.1688H 466, 1688

    2017 doi

  40. [49]

    Hermsen W., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.3655H 480, 3655

    2018 doi

  41. [50]

    Hirai R., Podsiadlowski P., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.4544H 517, 4544

    2022 doi

  42. [51]

    Hobbs G., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05600.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.333L...7H 333, L7

    2002

  43. [52]

    R., Lyne A

    Hobbs G., Lorimer D. R., Lyne A. G., Kramer M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09087.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.360..974H 360, 974

    2005

  44. [53]

    B., Edwards R

    Hobbs G. B., Edwards R. T., Manchester R. N., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10302.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.369..655H 369, 655

    2006

  45. [54]

    G., Kramer M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15938.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.402.1027H 402, 1027

    Hobbs G., Lyne A. G., Kramer M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15938.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.402.1027H 402, 1027

    2010

  46. [55]

    Hobbs G., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1071/AS11016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PASA...28..202H 28, 202

    2011 doi

  47. [56]

    Hobbs G., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2020.2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PASA...37...12H 37, e012

    2020 doi

  48. [57]

    W., van Straten W., Manchester R

    Hotan A. W., van Straten W., Manchester R. N., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1071/AS04022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PASA...21..302H 21, 302

    2004 doi

  49. [58]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    2007 doi

  50. [59]

    J., Cordes J

    Jennings R. J., Cordes J. M., Chatterjee S., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab64df , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...889..145J 889, 145

    doi

  51. [60]

    J., Cordes J

    Jennings R. J., Cordes J. M., Chatterjee S., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904..191J 904, 191

    doi

  52. [61]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2930 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964..179J 964, 179

    Jennings R. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2930 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964..179J 964, 179

    2024 doi

  53. [62]

    E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slab092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507L..41J 507, L41

    Johnston S., Lower M. E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slab092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507L..41J 507, L41

    2021 doi

  54. [63]

    Johnston S., van Straten W., Kramer M., Bailes M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/319154 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...549L.101J 549, L101

    2001 doi

  55. [64]

    Johnston S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab095 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.1253J 502, 1253

    2021 doi

  56. [65]

    J., Oswald L

    Johnston S., Kramer M., Karastergiou A., Keith M. J., Oswald L. S., Parthasarathy A., Weltevrede P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3636 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.4801J 520, 4801

    2023 doi

  57. [67]

    I., Andersson N., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04251.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.324..811J 324, 811

    Jones D. I., Andersson N., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04251.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.324..811J 324, 811

    2001

  58. [68]

    I., Ashton G., Prix R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.261101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvL.118z1101J 118, 261101

    Jones D. I., Ashton G., Prix R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.261101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvL.118z1101J 118, 261101

    2017 doi

  59. [69]

    J., Johnston S., Lee H., Weltevrede P., Kramer M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18697.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.415..251K 415, 251

    Karastergiou A., Roberts S. J., Johnston S., Lee H., Weltevrede P., Kramer M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18697.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.415..251K 415, 251

    2011

  60. [70]

    J., Ni t u I

    Keith M. J., Ni t u I. C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1713 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.4603K 523, 4603

    2023 doi

  61. [71]

    J., Shannon R

    Keith M. J., Shannon R. M., Johnston S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt660 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.3080K 432, 3080

    2013 doi

  62. [72]

    M., Kiczynski M., Hollow R., Johnston S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1716 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445..320K 445, 320

    Kerr M., Hobbs G., Shannon R. M., Kiczynski M., Hollow R., Johnston S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1716 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445..320K 445, 320

    2014 doi

  63. [73]

    M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/809/1/L11 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...809L..11K 809, L11

    Kerr M., Johnston S., Hobbs G., Shannon R. M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/809/1/L11 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...809L..11K 809, L11

    2015 doi

  64. [74]

    M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv245710.48550/arXiv.1510.06078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455.1845K 455, 1845

    Kerr M., Hobbs G., Johnston S., Shannon R. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv245710.48550/arXiv.1510.06078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455.1845K 455, 1845

    2016

  65. [75]

    J., 2013, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/0264-9381/30/22/224009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013CQGra..30v4009K 30, 224009

    Kramer M., Champion D. J., 2013, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/0264-9381/30/22/224009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013CQGra..30v4009K 30, 224009

    2013 doi

  66. [76]

    G., O'Brien J

    Kramer M., Lyne A. G., O'Brien J. T., Jordan C. A., Lorimer D. R., 2006, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.112406010.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0604605 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Sci...312..549K 312, 549

    2006

  67. [77]

    T., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac770 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...861..132L 861, 132

    Lam M. T., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac770 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...861..132L 861, 132

    2018 doi

  68. [78]

    P., Feroz F., van Haasteren R., Lee K

    Lentati L., Alexander P., Hobson M. P., Feroz F., van Haasteren R., Lee K. J., Shannon R. M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2122 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.437.3004L 437, 3004

    2014 doi

  69. [79]

    Li X.-D., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/506962 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...646L.139L 646, L139

    2006 doi

  70. [80]

    I., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321581 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...556..392L 556, 392

    Link B., Epstein R. I., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321581 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...556..392L 556, 392

    2001 doi

  71. [81]

    Liu P., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1973 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.4274L 533, 4274

    2024 doi

  72. [82]

    A., Kaspi V

    Livingstone M. A., Kaspi V. M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...742...31L 742, 31

    2011 doi

  73. [83]

    E., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa615 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494..228L 494, 228

    Lower M. E., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa615 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494..228L 494, 228

    2020 doi

  74. [84]

    E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2678 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.3251L 508, 3251

    Lower M. E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2678 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.3251L 508, 3251

    2021 doi

  75. [85]

    E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2243 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.5904L 524, 5904

    Lower M. E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2243 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.5904L 524, 5904

    2023 doi

  76. [86]

    G., 1971, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/153.1.27P , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971MNRAS.153P..27L 153, 27P

    Lyne A. G., 1971, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/153.1.27P , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971MNRAS.153P..27L 153, 27P

    1971 doi

  77. [87]

    Lyne A., Hobbs G., Kramer M., Stairs I., Stappers B., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.118668310.48550/arXiv.1006.5184 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...329..408L 329, 408

    2010

  78. [88]

    H., Main R., Pen U.-L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aae713 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867L...2M 867, L2

    Mahajan N., van Kerkwijk M. H., Main R., Pen U.-L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aae713 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867L...2M 867, L2

    2018 doi

  79. [89]

    N., IPTA 2013, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/0264-9381/30/22/224010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013CQGra..30v4010M 30, 224010

    Manchester R. N., IPTA 2013, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/0264-9381/30/22/224010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013CQGra..30v4010M 30, 224010

    2013 doi

  80. [90]

    N., Hobbs G

    Manchester R. N., Hobbs G. B., Teoh A., Hobbs M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428488 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AJ....129.1993M 129, 1993

    2005 doi

  81. [91]

    N., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2012.017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASA...30...17M 30, e017

    Manchester R. N., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2012.017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASA...30...17M 30, e017

    2013 doi

  82. [92]

    J., Sarah B., Lewandowska N., 2015, in 3rd Annual Conference on High Energy Astrophysics in Southern Africa (HEASA2015)

    Maritz J., Meintjes P. J., Sarah B., Lewandowska N., 2015, in 3rd Annual Conference on High Energy Astrophysics in Southern Africa (HEASA2015). p. 30, @doi 10.22323/1.241.0030

    2015 doi

  83. [93]

    A., 2013, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/0264-9381/30/22/224008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013CQGra..30v4008M 30, 224008

    McLaughlin M. A., 2013, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/0264-9381/30/22/224008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013CQGra..30v4008M 30, 224008

    2013 doi

  84. [94]

    Menou K., Perna R., Hernquist L., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/322418 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...559.1032M 559, 1032

    2001 doi

  85. [95]

    C., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1038/333644a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.333..644M 333, 644

    Michel F. C., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1038/333644a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.333..644M 333, 644

    1988 doi

  86. [96]

    T., Shannon R

    Miles M. T., Shannon R. M., Bailes M., Reardon D. J., Buchner S., Middleton H., Spiewak R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3549 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.5908M 510, 5908

    2022 doi

  87. [97]

    T., et al., 2025a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2572 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536.1467M 536, 1467

    Miles M. T., et al., 2025a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2572 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536.1467M 536, 1467

    doi

  88. [98]

    T., et al., 2025b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2571 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536.1489M 536, 1489

    Miles M. T., et al., 2025b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2571 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536.1489M 536, 1489

    doi

  89. [99]

    Namkham N., Jaroenjittichai P., Johnston S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1671 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.5854N 487, 5854

    2019 doi

  90. [100]

    S., Miles M

    Nathan R. S., Miles M. T., Ashton G., Lasky P. D., Thrane E., Reardon D. J., Shannon R. M., Cameron A. D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1660 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.4405N 523, 4405

    2023 doi

  91. [101]

    J., Cox A

    Newman M. J., Cox A. N., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/158465 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...242..319N 242, 319

    1980 doi

  92. [102]

    C., Keith M

    Ni t u I. C., Keith M. J., Stappers B. W., Lyne A. G., Mickaliger M. B., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac593 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.2446N 512, 2446

    2022 doi

  93. [103]

    C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534.1753N 534, 1753

    Ni t u I. C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534.1753N 534, 1753

    2024 doi

  94. [104]

    M., Hotan A., Ellingsen S., van Straten W., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0001-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.556..219P 556, 219

    Palfreyman J., Dickey J. M., Hotan A., Ellingsen S., van Straten W., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0001-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.556..219P 556, 219

    2018 doi

  95. [105]

    Parthasarathy A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2383 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.3810P 489, 3810

    2019 doi

  96. [106]

    Parthasarathy A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa882 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.2012P 494, 2012

    2020 doi

  97. [107]

    Pedregosa F., et al., 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  98. [108]

    J., Johnston S., van Straten W., Shannon R

    Petroff E., Keith M. J., Johnston S., van Straten W., Shannon R. M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1401 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435.1610P 435, 1610

    2013 doi

  99. [109]

    J., Lintott C., Bannister M

    Pham D., Hopkins M. J., Lintott C., Bannister M. T., Rein H., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.09135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241109135P p. arXiv:2411.09135

    2024 doi arXiv

  100. [110]

    J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951L...6R 951, L6

    Reardon D. J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951L...6R 951, L6

    2023 doi

  101. [111]

    A., Thompson S

    Rosen R., McLaughlin M. A., Thompson S. E., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/728/1/L19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...728L..19R 728, L19

    2011 doi

  102. [112]

    V., 1978, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978SvA....22...36S 22, 36

    Sazhin M. V., 1978, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978SvA....22...36S 22, 36

    1978

  103. [113]

    V., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08580.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.356.1435S 356, 1435

    Shabanova T. V., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08580.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.356.1435S 356, 1435

    2005

  104. [114]

    V., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700.1009S 700, 1009

    Shabanova T. V., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700.1009S 700, 1009

    2009 doi

  105. [115]

    V., Lyne A

    Shabanova T. V., Lyne A. G., Urama J. O., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320438 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...552..321S 552, 321

    2001 doi

  106. [116]

    M., Cordes J

    Shannon R. M., Cordes J. M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1607 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...725.1607S 725, 1607

    2010 doi

  107. [117]

    M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...766....5S 766, 5

    Shannon R. M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...766....5S 766, 5

    2013 doi

  108. [118]

    M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/828/1/L1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...828L...1S 828, L1

    Shannon R. M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/828/1/L1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...828L...1S 828, L1

    2016 doi

  109. [119]

    Shaw B., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.5861S 513, 5861

    2022 doi

  110. [120]

    A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acee67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958..191S 958, 191

    Smith D. A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acee67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958..191S 958, 191

    2023 doi

  111. [121]

    S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.3132S 493, 3132

    Speagle J. S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.3132S 493, 3132

    2020 doi

  112. [122]

    H., Lyne A

    Stairs I. H., Lyne A. G., Shemar S. L., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1038/35020010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000Natur.406..484S 406, 484

    2000 doi

  113. [123]

    H., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz647 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.3230S 485, 3230

    Stairs I. H., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz647 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.3230S 485, 3230

    2019 doi

  114. [124]

    Staveley-Smith L., et al., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996PASA...13..243S 13, 243

    1996

  115. [125]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

    2020 doi

  116. [126]

    Weltevrede P., Wright G. A. E., Stappers B. W., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066957 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...467.1163W 467, 1163

    2007 doi

  117. [127]

    Weltevrede P., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1071/AS09054 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PASA...27...64W 27, 64

    2010 doi

  118. [128]

    M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17821.x10.48550/arXiv.1010.0857 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.411.1917W 411, 1917

    Weltevrede P., Johnston S., Espinoza C. M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17821.x10.48550/arXiv.1010.0857 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.411.1917W 411, 1917

    2011

  119. [129]

    Weltevrede P., Wright G., Johnston S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21207.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.424..843W 424, 843

    2012

  120. [130]

    G., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbfa3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904...72W 904, 72

    Wen Z. G., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbfa3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904...72W 904, 72

    2020 doi

  121. [131]

    Xu H., et al., 2023, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023RAA....23g5024X 23, 075024

    2023 doi

  122. [132]

    M., Manchester R

    Yan W. M., Manchester R. N., Wang N., Wen Z. G., Yuan J. P., Lee K. J., Chen J. L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3399 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.4634Y 491, 4634

    2020 doi

  123. [133]

    Yuan Y., Levin Y., Bransgrove A., Philippov A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd405 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...908..176Y 908, 176

    2021 doi

  124. [134]

    R., Wang H

    Zhang Y. R., Wang H. G., Huang X. J., Chen J. L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab65f3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...890...31Z 890, 31

    2020 doi

  125. [135]

    Zic A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2023.36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASA...40...49Z 40, e049

    2023 doi

  126. [136]

    van Straten W., Demorest P., Oslowski S., 2012, @doi [Astronomical Research and Technology] 10.48550/arXiv.1205.6276 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AR&T....9..237V 9, 237

    2012 doi arXiv

Pith tools

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