Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Results of 15-Year Pulsar Timing of PSR J0007+7303 with Fermi-LAT

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fifteen years of gamma-ray timing show PSR J0007+7303 glitched nine times—five of them new—and never exponentially recovered.

desk verdict Worth a referee, but the 'no recovery' claim needs quantitative upper limits and the manuscript has fixable internal contradictions before it is publishable. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18187 v1 pith:ACVL5EJS submitted 2025-07-24 astro-ph.HE

Zhi-xiang Yu , Shi-jun Dang , Wei-hua Wang , Lin Li , Wei Li , Jian-ping Yuan , Fei-fei Kou , Jun-tao Bai
show 10 more authors
Mingyu Ge Xia Zhou Lun-hua Shang Zu-rong Zhou Yu-bin Wang Yan-qing Cai Ru-shuang Zhao Qing-ying Li Xiang-dong Zeng Na Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords pulsarglitchesgamma-rayPSRJ0007+7303neutronstarinteriorcrustalsuperfluidglitchactivitytimingresidualsmomentofinertia
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 uses 15 years of gamma-ray timing to show that PSR J0007+7303, a young radio-quiet pulsar and the first discovered by the Fermi-LAT telescope, has undergone nine glitches—five previously unknown—with no exponential relaxation after any of them. The glitch sizes span fractional frequency jumps from $15\times10^{-9}$ to $1238\times10^{-9}$, with waiting times from 44 days to more than three years. The paper also establishes that the pulsar's gamma-ray pulse profile, flux, and spectrum remain stable across all nine events, so the glitches do not disturb its emission. The measured glitch activity implies that roughly 1.06% of the star's moment of inertia resides in the crustal superfluid involved in glitches, matching the population average and pointing to an internal superfluid origin. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a rare case where a pulsar glitches often but never heals, offering a clean test of neutron-star interior models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the glitch activity ratio $\dot{\nu}_g/|\dot{\nu}| = \sum\Delta\nu_i/(\Delta T|\dot{\nu}|)$, which the paper reads as the fractional moment of inertia of the crustal superfluid participating in glitches. The timing analysis uses the standard phase model with an exponential recovery term (Equation 2) fit to 30-day gamma-ray times of arrival; the absence of a significant exponential term in each fit is what carries the no-recovery claim. The physical mechanism invoked is superfluid vortex unpinning, with the vortex-creep relaxation timescale formula from the literature used to translate the non-detection of recovery into a preference for a stiffer equation of state.

What would settle it

Re-fit the same 15-year Fermi-LAT residuals with a model that explicitly includes exponential recovery terms for each glitch, using shorter (5-10 day) bins or a Bayesian sampler; if any term is significantly nonzero, the no-recovery claim fails. A denser radio timing campaign on a detected counterpart would be even more decisive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using 15 years of Fermi-LAT gamma-ray data on PSR J0007+7303, the paper identifies nine glitches—five of them new—with fractional frequency jumps $\Delta\nu/\nu$ between $15\times10^{-9}$ and $1238\times10^{-9}$. It finds that none of the nine glitches shows the exponential relaxation back to the pre-glitch spin-down rate that is typical of pulsars like Vela; the fifth and sixth glitches show partial frequency recovery but no corresponding recovery in spin-down rate. The gamma-ray pulse profile, flux, and phase-averaged spectrum remain statistically unchanged across all glitch boundaries, with only one marginal $\sim 3.9\sigma$ flux increase after the fourth glitch that the paper treats as unreliable because it rests on five data points. The paper's central quantitative result is the glitch activity ratio $\dot{\nu}_g/|\dot{\nu}| = 1.06\times10^{-2}$, which, interpreted as the fractional moment of inertia of the crustal superfluid and neglecting entrainment, gives 1.06% and matches the population value $0.01\pm0.001$ from earlier statistical work. It concludes that the glitches have an internal superfluid-vortex origin, that the starquake model alone cannot explain their size, timing, stability of emission, and lack of recovery, and that the observed absence of recovery favors a stiff equation of state.

Load-bearing premise

The no-recovery claim rests on visual inspection of 30-day-binned timing residuals with no quantitative upper limit on recovery amplitude or timescale; a short-lived recovery or one buried in timing noise would not have been seen.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A glitch rate of roughly one every 1.8 years follows from the nine events, about four times the 0.14 per year predicted by the population-wide spin-down relation, so this young pulsar glitches more often than expected.
  • If the absence of recovery holds, each glitch is a persistent step in spin-down rate, meaning the superfluid region involved stays decoupled rather than re-coupling on observable timescales.
  • The glitch activity ratio of $1.06\times10^{-2}$ implies the crustal superfluid participating in glitches carries about 1.06% of the total moment of inertia, directly constraining neutron-star interior models.
  • The unchanged gamma-ray pulse profile, flux, and phase-averaged spectrum across all nine glitches imply the glitch mechanism does not disturb the magnetosphere that produces the gamma-ray emission.
  • Waiting times fit an exponential distribution with $p=0.961$, supporting a random, Poisson-like glitch process in this pulsar despite its regular-looking behavior.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If a faster-cadence data set places a hard upper limit on recovery amplitude, PSR J0007+7303 could serve as a clean test of strong vortex pinning: the absence of relaxation would rule out soft equations of state under the vortex-creep model, a consequence the paper hints at but does not fully develop.
  • The two newly found small glitches suggest that gamma-ray-only timing can uncover micro-glitches that sparse radio monitoring of radio-quiet pulsars would miss, so the true glitch rate of such pulsars may be systematically underestimated.
  • Because the 1.06% fraction is derived without entrainment, including entrainment would raise the inferred superfluid moment of inertia; measuring the surface temperature could turn this into a mass and equation-of-state constraint, as the paper notes.
  • The stability of the gamma-ray light curve across glitches could be used as a baseline: if a future glitch in this pulsar does show a profile or flux change, that would indicate magnetospheric coupling that the current data exclude.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a 15-year Fermi-LAT timing analysis of the radio-quiet gamma-ray pulsar PSR J0007+7303. The authors report the detection of nine glitches, five of which are new, with fractional frequency changes between about 10^-8 and 10^-6. They claim that none of the glitches is followed by exponential recovery, that the gamma-ray pulse profile, flux, and phase-averaged spectrum are stable across glitches, and that the glitch activity implies a crustal superfluid moment-of-inertia fraction of about 1.06%, consistent with earlier work if entrainment is neglected. The paper also examines glitch waiting times and discusses the physical origin of the apparent absence of post-glitch relaxation.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, PSR J0007+7303 becomes an important outlier among glitching pulsars: a young pulsar with frequent large glitches and no detectable exponential recovery would constrain models of vortex unpinning and crust-superfluid coupling. The measurement of glitch activity and the inferred moment-of-inertia fraction is a standard calculation that usefully extends the sample, and the consistency with Fuentes et al. (2017) is a positive external check. The five newly claimed glitches, if confirmed, would be a valuable addition to the glitch catalogue. However, the paper's headline conclusions currently rest on visual inspection of binned residuals and on a glitch list whose statistical significance is not uniformly demonstrated, so the significance is contingent on the additional quantitative analysis requested below.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Table 2, Glitch 2] The MJD 55419 glitch is reported with Δν/ν = 26(19) × 10^-9, meaning the detection is less than 2σ above zero by the quoted uncertainty. Nevertheless, it is counted as a confirmed glitch and is used to define the shortest inter-glitch interval (44 days) and to build the waiting-time distribution. The authors should report a detection significance (e.g., Δχ² or Δν divided by its uncertainty) for both small glitches. If the 55419 event is not significant, it must be excluded or reclassified, because the subsequent statistical and physical conclusions depend on the glitch list.
  2. [Section 3.1, Figures 2 and 3] The claim that no glitch is followed by exponential recovery is based on visual inspection of 30-day binned timing residuals, with no quantitative upper limit on the recovery amplitude or timescale. A short-timescale recovery (comparable to or shorter than the 30-day binning), a recovery of small amplitude relative to the glitch step, or a recovery interrupted by the next glitch (notably the 44-day gap between glitches 2 and 3) would be hidden in these residuals. The Discussion also states that the fifth and sixth glitches 'show recoveries to some extent', which contradicts the blanket no-recovery conclusion. A detection-limit calculation is needed, for example by injecting exponential recoveries with a grid of amplitudes and timescales into simulated residuals and deriving the excluded parameter region at a stated confidence level.
  3. [Abstract; Section 3.1; Discussion] The manuscript contains several internal contradictions about the glitch sample and statistics. The abstract says 'two are small glitches, occurring between the three previously reported ones, while the other four are large glitches', which sums to only six of the nine claimed glitches. Section 3.1 says four glitches were reported by the Third Fermi-LAT Pulsar Catalog, but later the same section says the first, third, and fifth glitches were reported previously, implying only three. Finally, Section 3.1 reports that the Exponential distribution provides the best fit to the waiting times with p = 0.961, while the Discussion says a power-law function is preferred. These inconsistencies must be resolved for the results to be assessable.
  4. [Section 3.2, Figure 6] The claim that the gamma-ray pulse profile is statistically stable is not supported by the quoted statistics. Some segments, in particular (f) and (g), have reduced chi-square values with p-values below 0.0001, which indicates significant differences from the average profile if taken at face value. The paper should specify the a priori significance level, apply a multiple-comparisons correction over the ten segments, and state whether the number of deviating bins is consistent with the expected false-positive rate. Without this, the stability conclusion is not quantitatively justified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The quoted uncertainties for Glitch 2 (Δν/ν = 26(19) × 10^-9) make the measurement formally consistent with zero; please quote the detection significance explicitly and consider using consistent significant figures throughout the table.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states that fractional frequency changes range from 15 × 10^-9 to 1238 × 10^-9, but Table 2 lists the smallest values as 21.5(9) × 10^-9 and 26(19) × 10^-9; please reconcile the stated range with the tabulated values.
  3. [Section 3.1] The phrase 'barking index' should be 'braking index'.
  4. [Section 3.1, Figure 5] The waiting-time cumulative distribution in Figure 5 has no error bars and no overlaid best-fit curves for the four tested distributions; the fitted parameters and goodness-of-fit values for each model should be reported.
  5. [Section 4, Eq. (7)] Equation (7) uses symbols such as x_p, R, ρ, and B_φ that are defined later or only in the original reference; the definitions should be made self-contained or explicitly referenced in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the glitch parameters and moment-of-inertia estimate are derived directly from measured ToAs via standard timing models, with external consistency checks against prior catalogs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical timing results obtained from Fermi-LAT photon arrival times, not quantities fitted from the same quantities they are said to predict. The nine glitches are identified from timing residuals and fitted with the standard glitch model of Eq. (2); the quoted Delta-nu and Delta-nu-dot values are direct fit parameters, and the previously reported glitches are checked against Li et al. (2016) and the 3PC catalog, which are external to the present authors. The fractional moment of inertia of 1.06% is not a fitted prediction: it is computed from the definition of glitch activity, nu_dot_g = sum(Delta-nu_i)/Delta-T in Eq. (5), then divided by |nu_dot| in Eq. (6), and compared with the independent statistical result of Fuentes et al. (2017). No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction. The 'no exponential recovery' claim is an absence-of-evidence statement and may be limited by the 30-day binning and the lack of an explicit detection threshold, but that is a completeness or sensitivity concern, not a circularity: the paper does not define recovery in terms of its own conclusion, and it explicitly notes partial recoveries in the fifth and sixth glitches. The paper contains several self-citations (e.g., Dang et al. 2020, Ge et al. 2020, Yuan et al. 2010), but these are used for standard data-reduction procedures, recovery-timescale context, and epoch-uncertainty conventions, not as the load-bearing justification for the paper's central result. The physical interpretation of no recovery uses external theoretical work (Haskell & Antonopoulou 2014; Gügercinoğlu 2017) and is presented as a discussion rather than a derivation. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No ad hoc free parameters or invented entities are introduced for the central claim. The primary assumptions are the vortex-unpinning interpretation of glitch activity and the detectability of recoveries in 30-day binned data.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The vortex unpinning model: glitch activity ratio nu_dot_g/|nu_dot| equals the fractional moment of inertia of the crustal superfluid involved in glitches, with zero entrainment.
    Used in Section 4 (Eq. 5-6) to convert observed glitch sizes into the 1.06% superfluid fraction; the paper explicitly notes this holds 'if the non-dissipative entrainment effect is not considered'.
  • domain assumption The 30-day binned ToAs and the adopted timing model are sensitive enough to detect all nine glitches and to rule out exponential recovery after glitches.
    Underlies Section 3.1 and Figures 2-3; no detection significance for small glitches or recovery upper limits are reported.
  • standard math Fermi-LAT instrument response and background models (4FGL-DR4, gll_iem_v07, iso_P8R3_SOURCE_V3) are correct for flux and spectral analysis.
    Standard assumption in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 for the flux and spectral variability conclusions.
  • domain assumption The surface temperature of PSR J0007+7303 can be translated to an internal temperature using standard neutron star cooling prescriptions, enabling the relaxation timescale estimate.
    Section 4 uses this to constrain the equation of state; this is speculative and model dependent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Results of 15-Year Pulsar Timing of PSR J0007+7303 with Fermi-LAT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ACVL5EJS

@misc{pith2026250718187,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Results of 15-Year Pulsar Timing of PSR J0007+7303 with Fermi-LAT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ACVL5EJS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18187}
}
read the original abstract

The study of pulsar glitches provides a unique window into the internal structure and dynamic processes of neutron stars. PSR J0007+7303, a very bright gamma-ray pulsar, is the first pulsar discovered by the Fermi-LAT telescope. In this paper, we present the 15 years of timing results of this pulsar using the Fermi-LAT data. We identified nine glitches, five of which are newly discovered. Among these, two are small glitches, occurring between the three previously reported ones, while the other four are large glitches. The glitches exhibit fractional frequency changes ranging from 15 x 10^-9 to 1238 x 10^-9, with intervals of approximately 1-2 years between events. Uniquely, this pulsar shows no exponential recovery behavior following any glitch, setting it apart from most glitching pulsars. Furthermore, no significant changes were observed in the gamma-ray pulse profile, flux, or phase-averaged spectra before and after glitches, indicating the stability of the pulsar's emission properties despite internal changes. A parametric analysis of the glitches yielded a fractional moment of inertia of the crustal superfluid involved in glitches as 1.06 percent, which matches extremely well with previous statistical work if the non-dissipative entrainment effect is not considered and strongly supports the internal origin of these glitches. These results highlight the distinct glitch behavior of PSR J0007+7303 and offer valuable insights into the crust-superfluid interaction in neutron stars. The physical origin of no exponential recovery is also discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18187 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Phase alignment results of photons for the full data span of PSR J0007+7303. Top-left panel: phase histogram of the analyzed gamma-ray data. Two full rotations are shown for clarity. Bottom-left panel: H-test significance (TS) as a function of time. Right panel: pulse phase for each gamma-ray event versus time. (MJD), and the starting point at 0 represents MJD 54700, black data points represent the residuals of the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Glitches in PSR J0007+7303. The top panel shows the frequency residual (∆ν), the middle panel represents the evolution of frequency residual (∆ν) after removing mean frequency of post-glitch, the bottom panel is the derivative of the spin frequency, with the mean value removed. The vertical dashed lines represent the glitches epoch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The timing residuals relative to pre-glitch models of PSR J0007+7303 around the second(left) and fourth(right) glitches. The vertical dashed lines stand for the glitch epoch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Nine glitches and their corresponding glitch epoch. The vertical coordinate is the spin frequency change of each glitch (∆ν), and the horizontal axis represents the epoch of each glitch. to show regular glitch behavior, with the increase in observation time, its glitch…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The cumulative distribution function of waiting time for nine glitches. the pulse flux and pulse profile characteristics of pulsar PSR J0007+7307. To study the effect of glitch events on the gamma-ray radiation, we divide the data span (August 4, 2008, to October 24, 2…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Normalized gamma-ray pulse profile of PSR J0007+7303 over the corresponding time span. Two rotations are shown on the X-axis. Panels (a)−−(j) represent post-glitch for glitches, respectively. The energy band is 0.1-10GeV.The lower panel shows the residuals between the …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Gamama-ray flux evolution of PSR J0007+7303 from 2008 to 2023. The blue circles with error bars represent the flux measured in each 60-day time bin. The red dashed horizontal lines indicate the weighted mean flux within each time segment defined by known glitch epochs …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spectra of PSR J0007+7303 during time-span before the first glitch. Solid line presents the best-fit model according to the ‘PLSuperExpCutoff’ model. of its glitches appear as simple steps in frequency that do not recover at all. The fifth and sixth glitches show recov…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cumulative change of pulsar spin frequency at glitches over time. The straight line is the least-squares fit, with ˙νg as the slope [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: From top to bottom: cutoff energy of PSR J0007+7303 in the range 0.1–300 GeV for epochs separated by the glitches, the values of spectral index in the model of a power law with exponential cutoff; The dashed vertical gray lines mark the times of glitches [PITH_FULL_I…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, 154, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/154

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/713/1/154 2010

  2. [2]

    Akbal, O., & Alpar, M. A. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 621, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2378

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2378 2018

  3. [4]

    A., Chau, H

    Alpar, M. A., Chau, H. F., Cheng, K. S., & Pines, D. 1993, ApJ, 409, 345, doi: 10.1086/172668

    work page doi:10.1086/172668 1993

  4. [5]

    W., & Itoh, N

    Anderson, P. W., & Itoh, N. 1975, Nature, 256, 25, doi: 10.1038/256025a0

    doi:10.1038/256025a0 1975

  5. [6]

    L., & Prix, R

    Andersson, N., Comer, G. L., & Prix, R. 2003, PhRvL, 90, 091101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.091101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.90.091101 2003

  6. [7]

    J., Taylor, J

    Arzoumanian, Z., Nice, D. J., Taylor, J. H., & Thorsett, S. E. 1994, ApJ, 422, 671, doi: 10.1086/173760

    work page doi:10.1086/173760 1994

  7. [8]

    H., Lott, B., & collaboration, T

    Ballet, J., Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Lott, B., & collaboration, T. F.-L. 2024, Fermi Large Area Telescope Fourth Source Catalog Data Release 4 (4FGL-DR4). https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12546

    arXiv 2024

  8. [9]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 4049, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3336

    Basu, A., Shaw, B., Antonopoulou, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4049, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3336

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3336 2022

Show all 59 references
  1. [10]

    1969, Nature, 224, 673, doi: 10.1038/224673a0

    Baym, G., Pethick, C., & Pines, D. 1969, Nature, 224, 673, doi: 10.1038/224673a0

    1969 doi

  2. [11]

    1971, Annals of Physics, 66, 816, doi: 10.1016/0003-4916(71)90084-4

    Baym, G., & Pines, D. 1971, Annals of Physics, 66, 816, doi: 10.1016/0003-4916(71)90084-4

    1971 doi

  3. [12]

    A., De Luca, A., Marelli, M., et al

    Caraveo, P. A., De Luca, A., Marelli, M., et al. 2010, ApJL, 725, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/725/1/L6

    2010 doi

  4. [13]

    2005a, NuPhA, 759, 441, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.05.151 —

    Carter, B., Chamel, N., & Haensel, P. 2005a, NuPhA, 759, 441, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.05.151 —. 2005b, NuPhA, 748, 675, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2004.11.006 —. 2006, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 15, 777, doi: 10.1142/S0218271806008504

    2005 doi

  5. [14]

    2005, NuPhA, 747, 109, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2004.09.011 —

    Chamel, N. 2005, NuPhA, 747, 109, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2004.09.011 —. 2006, NuPhA, 773, 263, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2006.04.010 —. 2012, PhRvC, 85, 035801, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.035801

    2005 doi

  6. [15]

    M., & Downs, G

    Cordes, J. M., & Downs, G. S. 1985, ApJS, 59, 343, doi: 10.1086/191076

    1985 doi

  7. [16]

    2003, ApJ, 588, 975, doi: 10.1086/368308

    Cutler, C., Ushomirsky, G., & Link, B. 2003, ApJ, 588, 975, doi: 10.1086/368308

    2003 doi

  8. [17]

    J., Yuan, J

    Dang, S. J., Yuan, J. P., Manchester, R. N., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9082 de Menezes, R. 2022, Astronomy and Computing, 40, 100609, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2022.100609

    2020

  9. [18]

    2013, Advances in Space Research, 52, 1602–1621, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2013.07.025

    Deng, X., Hobbs, G., You, X., et al. 2013, Advances in Space Research, 52, 1602–1621, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2013.07.025

    2013 doi

  10. [20]

    M., Lyne, A

    Espinoza, C. M., Lyne, A. G., Stappers, B. W., & Kramer, M. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1679, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18503.x

    2011

  11. [21]

    Flanagan, C. S. 1990, Nature, 345, 416, doi: 10.1038/345416a0

    1990 doi

  12. [22]

    R., Espinoza, C

    Fuentes, J. R., Espinoza, C. M., Reisenegger, A., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731519

    2017 doi

  13. [23]

    Y., Yuan, J

    Ge, M. Y., Yuan, J. P., Lu, F. J., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 900, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abaeed

    2020 doi

  14. [24]

    Giliberti, E., Cambiotti, G., Antonelli, M., & Pizzochero, P. M. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1064, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3099

    2020 doi

  15. [25]

    2009, PhRvL, 102, 141101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.141101 17

    Glampedakis, K., & Andersson, N. 2009, PhRvL, 102, 141101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.141101 17

    2009 doi

  16. [26]

    H., Pethick, C

    Gudmundsson, E. H., Pethick, C. J., & Epstein, R. I. 1983, ApJ, 272, 286, doi: 10.1086/161292 G¨ ugercino˘ glu, E. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2313, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx985 G¨ ugercino˘ glu, E., Ge, M. Y., Yuan, J. P., & Zhou, S. Q. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Soci...

    1983 doi

  17. [27]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, L16, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt146

    Haskell, B., & Antonopoulou, D. 2014, MNRAS, 438, L16, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt146

    2014 doi

  18. [28]

    2015, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 24, 1530008, doi: 10.1142/S0218271815300086

    Haskell, B., & Melatos, A. 2015, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 24, 1530008, doi: 10.1142/S0218271815300086

    2015 doi

  19. [29]

    2015, Science Advances, 1, e1500578, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1500578

    Andersson, N. 2015, Science Advances, 1, e1500578, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1500578

    2015 doi

  20. [30]

    G., & Kramer, M

    Hobbs, G., Lyne, A. G., & Kramer, M. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1027, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15938.x

    2010

  21. [31]

    2004, MNRAS, 353, 1311, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08157.x

    Jordan, C. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 1311, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08157.x

    2004

  22. [32]

    B., Edwards, R

    Hobbs, G. B., Edwards, R. T., & Manchester, R. N. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 655, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10302.x

    2006

  23. [33]

    F., Yuan, J

    Kou, F. F., Yuan, J. P., Wang, N., Yan, W. M., & Dang, S. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, L24, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly068

    2018 doi

  24. [34]

    2009, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 26, 073001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/26/7/073001

    Kramer, M., & Wex, N. 2009, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 26, 073001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/26/7/073001

    2009 doi

  25. [35]

    2016, ApJ, 831, 19, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/19

    Martin, J. 2016, ApJ, 831, 19, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/19

    2016 doi

  26. [36]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 105014, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acf1e1

    Li, W., Dang, S.-J., Yuan, J.-P., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 105014, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acf1e1

    2023 doi

  27. [37]

    C.-C., Wang, H.-H., Hui, C

    Lin, L. C.-C., Wang, H.-H., Hui, C. Y., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 4908, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab783

    2021 doi

  28. [38]

    I., & Lattimer, J

    Link, B., Epstein, R. I., & Lattimer, J. M. 1999, PhRvL, 83, 3362, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3362

    1999 doi

  29. [39]

    2010, Science, 329, 408, doi: 10.1126/science.1186683

    Lyne, A., Hobbs, G., Kramer, M., Stairs, I., & Stappers, B. 2010, Science, 329, 408, doi: 10.1126/science.1186683

    2010 doi

  30. [40]

    G., Shemar, S

    Lyne, A. G., Shemar, S. L., & Smith, F. G. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 534, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03415.x

    2000

  31. [41]

    Manchester, R. N. 2018, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 337, Pulsar Astrophysics the Next Fifty Years, ed. P. Weltevrede, B. B. P. Perera, L. L. Preston, & S. Sanidas, 197–202, doi: 10.1017/S1743921317009607

    2018 doi

  32. [42]

    1993, AJ, 105, 1060, doi: 10.1086/116493

    Gaumont-Guay, S. 1993, AJ, 105, 1060, doi: 10.1086/116493

    1993 doi

  33. [43]

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

    Ray, P. S., Kerr, M., Parent, D., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 194, 17, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/17

    2011 doi

  34. [44]

    E., & Downs, G

    Reichley, P. E., & Downs, G. S. 1969, Nature, 222, 229, doi: 10.1038/222229a0

    1969 doi

  35. [45]

    1969, Nature, 223, 597, doi: 10.1038/223597b0

    Ruderman, M. 1969, Nature, 223, 597, doi: 10.1038/223597b0

    1969 doi

  36. [46]

    G., Stappers, B

    Shaw, B., Lyne, A. G., Stappers, B. W., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3832, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1294

    2018 doi

  37. [47]

    W., Weltevrede, P., et al

    Shaw, B., Stappers, B. W., Weltevrede, P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5861, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1156

    2022 doi

  38. [48]

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

    Smith, D. A., Abdollahi, S., Ajello, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acee67

    2023 doi

  39. [49]

    Stairs, I. H. 2003, Living Reviews in Relativity, 6, 5, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2003-5

    2003 doi

  40. [50]

    Standish, E. M. 1998, A&A, 336, 381

    1998

  41. [51]

    H., Lin, L

    Takata, J., Wang, H. H., Lin, L. C. C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab67b1

    2020 doi

  42. [52]

    H., Fowler, L

    Taylor, J. H., Fowler, L. A., & McCulloch, P. M. 1979, Nature, 277, 437, doi: 10.1038/277437a0

    1979 doi

  43. [53]

    2017, A&A, 597, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630235

    Vivekanand, M. 2017, A&A, 597, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630235

    2017 doi

  44. [54]

    H., Takata, J., Lin, L

    Wang, H. H., Takata, J., Lin, L. C. C., & Tam, P. H. T. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 12016, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3899

    2024 doi

  45. [55]

    Weltevrede, P., Johnston, S., & Espinoza, C. M. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 1917, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17821.x

    2011

  46. [56]

    2017, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

    Wood, M., Caputo, R., Charles, E., et al. 2017, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 301, 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2017), 824, doi: 10.22323/1.301.0824

    2017 doi

  47. [57]

    P., Manchester, R

    Yuan, J. P., Manchester, R. N., Wang, N., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 719, L111, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L111

    2010 doi

  48. [58]

    L., Bejger, M., & Haensel, P

    Zdunik, J. L., Bejger, M., & Haensel, P. 2008, A&A, 491, 489, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810183

    2008 doi

  49. [59]

    H., Ge, M

    Zhang, Y. H., Ge, M. Y., Lu, F. J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6d53

    2022 doi

  50. [60]

    W., Lin, L

    Zhao, J., Ng, C. W., Lin, L. C. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa74d8

    2017 doi

  51. [61]

    2022, Universe, 8, 641, doi: 10.3390/universe8120641

    Zhou, S., G¨ ugercino˘ glu, E., Yuan, J., Ge, M., & Yu, C. 2022, Universe, 8, 641, doi: 10.3390/universe8120641

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.