pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.01203 · v3 · submitted 2026-04-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

The RRATalog: a Galactic census of rotating radio transients

Devansh Agarwal , Evan F. Lewis , Duncan R. Lorimer , Maura A. McLaughlin , Bingyi Cui , Anna Turner , Natasha McMann
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 21:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords rotating radio transientsRRATsneutron starsgalactic populationluminosity functionbirth ratepulsar surveysselection effects
0
0 comments X

The pith

The Milky Way contains fewer than 400,000 rotating radio transients whose birth rate matches the core-collapse supernova rate.

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

This paper models the Galactic population of rotating radio transients using a uniform sample from Parkes surveys while accounting for selection effects. It finds a steeper luminosity function than assumed before and a total observable population of at most 70,000 sources above a certain luminosity threshold. Applying a standard beaming model then yields an upper limit of 400,000 total RRATs in the Galaxy, implying a birth rate low enough to fit within the known rate of core-collapse supernovae. A sympathetic reader would care because this removes the need to invoke a separate evolutionary channel for these sporadically emitting neutron stars.

Core claim

Using detailed modeling of observational biases on 335 known RRATs, the authors estimate that 34,000 plus or minus 1,600 sources beaming toward Earth are detectable above 30 mJy kpc squared, with the total Galactic population no larger than 400,000. The implied birth rate is at most 1.4 per century, which is consistent with the Galactic core-collapse supernova rate and suggests RRATs do not require a distinct progenitor population.

What carries the argument

Population synthesis that corrects for survey selection effects, combined with the Tauris and Manchester beaming model to scale from observable to total Galactic numbers.

If this is right

  • RRATs at high luminosities are comparable in number to canonical pulsars.
  • The period distribution of RRATs is shifted to longer values, consistent with an older population.
  • There is a turnover in the luminosity function below 30 mJy kpc squared.
  • Future surveys can use the provided predictions for expected discovery rates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • RRATs may simply be an evolved stage of regular pulsars rather than a separate class.
  • Improved beaming models could tighten or revise the total population estimate.
  • Multi-wavelength observations might confirm the evolutionary link to pulsars.
  • Undetected low-luminosity RRATs could still exist in large numbers if the turnover is real.

Load-bearing premise

The Tauris and Manchester beaming model accurately converts the number of observable RRATs into the total Galactic population.

What would settle it

A deep survey that finds a number of RRATs significantly above or below the predicted 70,000 observable sources would directly test the population estimate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.01203 by Anna Turner, Bingyi Cui, Devansh Agarwal, Duncan R. Lorimer, Evan F. Lewis, Maura A. McLaughlin, Natasha McMann.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Mollweide projection showing the Galactic distribution of RRATs. The symbols in the legend represent the discovery telescope [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Histograms showing the distributions of observed quantities for RRATs as a function of dispersion measure (DM), spin period, period derivative (𝑃¤) and burst rate (B ). These distributions have not been corrected for observational selection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Scatter diagram showing period versus dispersion measure distri￾bution for the sample. Unlike the sample of pulsars, there appears to be no significant observational selection against short period, high DM RRATs. current Australia Telescope National Facility (ATNF) catalog as all Galactic pulsars with 𝑃 > ¤ 10−18). Similar conclusions have been drawn from previous studies of the RRAT population, and this p… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Observed distribution of intrinsic pulse widths and spin periods for the 91 RRATs with measured periods. The black stars correspond to the intrinsic pulse widths derived from observations at 1400 MHz while the red dots correspond to the observations at 350 MHz. The black line shows the fit as described in Eq. 2 with 1𝜎 error bars as the blue shaded region. the non-uniform footprints and varying dwell times… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The 𝑃 − 𝑃¤ diagram showing canonical pulsars (dots) and RRATs (triangles). The dashed lines depict constant magnetic field and the dotted lines show constant characteristic age. The death line is calculated using Eq. 13 from Bhattacharya et al. (1992) and discussed in the text. 𝑊obs. For each RRAT with peak flux density 𝑆𝜈, using a modified version of the pulsar radiometer equation (see, e.g., Dewey et al.… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The luminosity scaling factor, 𝜎0, estimates as determined for each of the four surveys. The error bar on each plot shows the fraction of RRATs detected as a function of the sigma factor. The dashed red curve is the fit to Eq. 8 along with blue dashed curves representing the 68% confidence intervals. The solid horizontal red line shows the observed fraction of RRATs for the respective surveys. The vertical… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The luminosity scaling factor, 𝜎0, estimates from the four surveys. The horizontal error bars show the 𝜎0 estimates from the surveys labelled on the y-axis. The black vertical line shows the weighted average along with the error shown in the shaded region. Fig. 9b is well described by a power law in which log 𝑁 = 𝛼 log 𝐿 + 𝐶, (11) where 𝛼 = −1.34 is the slope of the differential distribution and 𝐶 is a nor… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cumulative density functions for a selection of the observed and derived properties showing the simulated observed RRATs obtained from our optimized population compared to the real observed sample of 55 RRATs used in this study. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Radial distance (kpc) 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 S u r f a c e d e n sit y (R R A T s k p c 2 ) (a) 1 2 3 4 5 log10 [Luminosity (mJy kpc 2 )] 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Model parameter distributions and best-fitting functions (dashed lines; see §5 for details) for the underlying distribution of: surface density as a function of Galactocentric radius (a), luminosity (b), period (c) and burst rate (d). The error bars shown are based on the statistics of the observed sample (i.e., fractional errors of 1/ √ 𝑁 derived from the appropriate bin in the observed sample). The dash-… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: We interpret the long tail in the RRAT period distribution as being a better reflection of the underlying period distribution of rotation-powered neutron stars in general. The dearth of canonical pulsars with longer periods compared to RRATs likely reflects the difficulties in detecting them as periodic sources in that region due to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Rotating radio transients (RRATs) represent a significant but poorly understood component of the Galactic neutron star population, characterized by sporadic emission first detectable only through single-pulse searches. We present the RRATalog, an up-to-date catalogue of 335 RRATs, and utilize a uniform sample of RRATs discovered in four Parkes telescope surveys to model their Galactic population. Accounting in detail for observational selection effects, we find a radial density profile similar to pulsars, but identify a significantly steeper luminosity function (power-law index $\alpha \simeq -1.3$) than previously assumed. For sources beaming towards Earth, we estimate $34000 \pm 1600$ potentially observable RRATs above a peak luminosity of 30 mJy kpc$^2$. At these high luminosities, the RRAT population is comparable in size to that of canonical pulsars. Consistent with the observed distribution, the underlying period distribution is significantly shifted toward longer periods compared to canonical pulsars, suggesting RRATs represent a more evolved population. We find evidence for a turnover in the luminosity function below 30 mJy kpc$^2$, and predict that the total number of potentially observable RRATs is $\lesssim 70,000$. Applying the Tauris \& Manchester beaming model, we estimate the total Galactic RRAT population to be $\lesssim 400,000$. The implied birth rate of $\lesssim 1.4$ RRATs per century is consistent with the Galactic core-collapse supernova rate, suggesting RRATs can be reconciled with known progenitor rates without requiring a separate evolutionary origin. We provide predictions for RRAT discoveries in ongoing and future surveys.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents the RRATalog catalogue containing 335 rotating radio transients and analyzes a uniform subsample from four Parkes surveys. After detailed modeling of selection effects, it reports a radial density profile similar to canonical pulsars, a steeper luminosity function with power-law index α ≃ −1.3, 34 000 ± 1600 potentially observable RRATs above 30 mJy kpc², a total observable population ≲ 70 000, and a total Galactic population ≲ 400 000 after applying the Tauris & Manchester beaming fraction. The implied birth rate ≲ 1.4 per century is stated to be consistent with the Galactic core-collapse supernova rate.

Significance. If the central population numbers and birth-rate consistency hold after addressing the beaming assumption, the work supplies the first quantitative Galactic census of RRATs, demonstrates that they can be accommodated within known neutron-star birth rates without invoking a separate channel, and supplies concrete predictions for future surveys. The steeper luminosity function and longer-period distribution are also noteworthy if the selection-effect corrections are robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5] §5 (population synthesis and beaming correction): the total Galactic population ≲ 400 000 and birth rate ≲ 1.4 per century are obtained by dividing the modeled observable count by the beaming fraction taken directly from the Tauris & Manchester (1998) steady-pulsar model. No justification or test is provided for why this geometry applies to the sporadic, single-pulse emission of RRATs; any systematic difference in effective beaming solid angle scales the final numbers linearly and undermines the claimed consistency with the supernova rate.
  2. [§4.2] §4.2 (luminosity-function fit): the power-law index α ≃ −1.3 and the turnover below 30 mJy kpc² are derived from the same Parkes survey data used to compute the observable counts. The manuscript must demonstrate that the fitted parameters are not circularly determined by the detection threshold and must quantify the uncertainty introduced by the extrapolation to the total observable population ≲ 70 000.
  3. [Methods] Methods section (selection-effect modeling): the abstract states that selection effects were modeled in detail and a uniform sample was used, yet the central numbers (34 000 ± 1600 above 30 mJy kpc², radial profile) rest on modeling choices whose sensitivity is not shown. Explicit validation against independent simulations or a hold-out survey is required before the population scaling can be considered robust.
minor comments (3)
  1. Define the precise quantity 'peak luminosity' (mJy kpc²) at first use and ensure consistent notation between text, tables, and figures.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract lists 'four Parkes telescope surveys' without naming them or citing the discovery papers; this information should appear in the introduction or a dedicated table.
  3. Figure captions for the luminosity-function and period-distribution plots should state the exact sample size and any cuts applied.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment below and describe the revisions that will be incorporated to improve the robustness of our population estimates.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§5] §5 (population synthesis and beaming correction): the total Galactic population ≲ 400 000 and birth rate ≲ 1.4 per century are obtained by dividing the modeled observable count by the beaming fraction taken directly from the Tauris & Manchester (1998) steady-pulsar model. No justification or test is provided for why this geometry applies to the sporadic, single-pulse emission of RRATs; any systematic difference in effective beaming solid angle scales the final numbers linearly and undermines the claimed consistency with the supernova rate.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the beaming correction relies on the Tauris & Manchester (1998) model derived for canonical pulsars. RRATs are widely interpreted as pulsars with the same underlying magnetic geometry but with emission that is only occasionally detectable; the beaming solid angle is therefore expected to be governed by the same dipolar geometry. Nevertheless, we agree that this is an assumption rather than a direct measurement. In the revised manuscript we will expand §5 with a dedicated paragraph justifying the choice on the basis of the overlapping period and magnetic-field distributions between RRATs and pulsars, while explicitly noting that any systematic difference in effective beaming fraction would scale the total Galactic population and birth-rate estimates linearly. We will also add a short sensitivity test showing the range of birth rates that would result from plausible variations in the beaming fraction. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 (luminosity-function fit): the power-law index α ≃ −1.3 and the turnover below 30 mJy kpc² are derived from the same Parkes survey data used to compute the observable counts. The manuscript must demonstrate that the fitted parameters are not circularly determined by the detection threshold and must quantify the uncertainty introduced by the extrapolation to the total observable population ≲ 70 000.

    Authors: The luminosity-function parameters were obtained via a maximum-likelihood fit that explicitly incorporates the survey flux limits and selection functions, rather than fitting only to detected sources. To address the referee’s concern about circularity, we will add a robustness test in the revised §4.2 in which the power-law index is refitted using only sources with peak luminosities well above the nominal threshold (L > 100 mJy kpc²). We will show that the recovered index remains consistent within the quoted uncertainties. In addition, we will report bootstrap-resampling uncertainties on the extrapolated total observable population (≲ 70 000) to quantify the effect of the extrapolation below the turnover. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Methods] Methods section (selection-effect modeling): the abstract states that selection effects were modeled in detail and a uniform sample was used, yet the central numbers (34 000 ± 1600 above 30 mJy kpc², radial profile) rest on modeling choices whose sensitivity is not shown. Explicit validation against independent simulations or a hold-out survey is required before the population scaling can be considered robust.

    Authors: We will expand the Methods section with an explicit sensitivity analysis that varies the key modeling assumptions (radial scale length, luminosity-function priors, and survey completeness thresholds) and shows the resulting range in the derived observable population. We will also include a validation exercise in which the identical selection pipeline is applied to a synthetic pulsar population with known input parameters; the recovered radial profile and luminosity function will be compared to the inputs. If a suitable independent survey dataset can be obtained for a hold-out test, we will add that comparison; otherwise the limitations of the current validation will be stated clearly. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; population modeling uses external beaming model and data-driven fits

full rationale

The paper fits a luminosity function (α ≃ -1.3) and period distribution to the detected RRAT sample from Parkes surveys after explicit selection-effect corrections, then extrapolates the observable population (34 000 ± 1600 above 30 mJy kpc², total observable ≲ 70 000) and applies the external Tauris & Manchester beaming fraction to reach the total Galactic population ≲ 400 000. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs; the beaming correction is imported from prior independent work, the luminosity-function parameters are constrained by the observed counts rather than presupposed, and the final birth-rate comparison is an external consistency check rather than a self-referential loop. This is standard population synthesis and remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central population and birth-rate numbers rest on a fitted luminosity function, an external beaming model, and standard pulsar-population assumptions about radial distribution and survey completeness.

free parameters (2)
  • luminosity function power-law index = -1.3
    Fitted value α ≃ -1.3 to the Parkes uniform sample; directly scales the extrapolated counts below 30 mJy kpc².
  • luminosity cutoff for extrapolation = 30 mJy kpc²
    Turnover assumed below 30 mJy kpc²; sets the upper bound of 70 000 observable sources.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Tauris & Manchester beaming model converts observable to total population
    Invoked to scale the 34 000 observable sources to ≲400 000 total Galactic RRATs.
  • domain assumption Radial density profile matches that of canonical pulsars
    Used to model Galactic distribution after selection effects.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5627 in / 1455 out tokens · 26322 ms · 2026-05-13T21:33:53.547584+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 91 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Abhishek Malusare N., Tanushree N., Hegde G., Konar S., 2022, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/s12036-022-09862-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JApA...43...75A 43, 75

    work page doi:10.1007/s12036-022-09862-3 2022

  2. [2]

    D., Lorimer D

    Bates S. D., Lorimer D. R., Rane A., Swiggum J., 2014, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stu157 , 439, 2893

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu157 2014

  3. [3]

    C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.1483B 512, 1483

    Bezuidenhout M. C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.1483B 512, 1483

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac579 2022

  4. [4]

    Bhattacharya D., Wijers R. A. M. J., Hartman J. W., Verbunt F., 1992, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A&A...254..198B 254, 198

    work page 1992

  5. [5]

    Boyles J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/80 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...763...80B 763, 80

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/763/2/80 2013

  6. [6]

    291, Neutron Stars and Pulsars: Challenges and Opportunities after 80 years

    Burke-Spolaor S., 2013, in van Leeuwen J., ed., IAU Symposium Vol. 291, Neutron Stars and Pulsars: Challenges and Opportunities after 80 years. pp 95--100 ( @eprint arXiv 1212.1716 ), @doi 10.1017/S1743921312023277

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921312023277 2013

  7. [7]

    Burke-Spolaor S., Bailes M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15965.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.402..855B 402, 855

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15965.x 2010

  8. [8]

    Burke-Spolaor S., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18521.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.416.2465B 416, 2465

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18521.x 2011

  9. [9]

    Caleb M., et al., 2022, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-022-01688-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022NatAs...6..828C 6, 828

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01688-x 2022

  10. [10]

    L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75d1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934...24C 934, 24

    Chen J. L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75d1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934...24C 934, 24

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac75d1 2022

  11. [11]

    M., Lazio T

    Cordes J. M., Lazio T. J. W., 2002, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002astro.ph..7156C pp astro--ph/0207156

    work page arXiv 2002

  12. [12]

    M., Shannon R

    Cordes J. M., Shannon R. M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/589425 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...682.1152C 682, 1152

    work page doi:10.1086/589425 2008

  13. [13]

    M., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498335 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...637..446C 637, 446

    Cordes J. M., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498335 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...637..446C 637, 446

    work page doi:10.1086/498335 2006

  14. [14]

    A., Palliyaguru N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6aa9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...840....5C 840, 5

    Cui B.-Y., Boyles J., McLaughlin M. A., Palliyaguru N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6aa9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...840....5C 840, 5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6aa9 2017

  15. [15]

    S., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/2259 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703.2259D 703, 2259

    Deneva J. S., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/2259 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703.2259D 703, 2259

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/2/2259 2009

  16. [16]

    S., Stovall K., McLaughlin M

    Deneva J. S., Stovall K., McLaughlin M. A., Bates S. D., Freire P. C. C., Martinez J. G., Jenet F., Bagchi M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/51 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...775...51D 775, 51

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/775/1/51 2013

  17. [17]

    S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...821...10D 821, 10

    Deneva J. S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...821...10D 821, 10

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/1/10 2016

  18. [18]

    P., Stinebring D

    Dewey R., Stokes G., Segelstein D., Taylor J., Weisberg J., 1984, in Reynolds S. P., Stinebring D. R., eds, Birth and Evolution of Neutron Stars: Issues Raised by Millisecond Pulsars. p. 234

    work page 1984

  19. [19]

    A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.5132D 524, 5132

    Dong F. A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.5132D 524, 5132

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2012 2023

  20. [20]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 1670, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15794.x

    Eatough R. P., Keane E. F., Lyne A. G., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14524.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.395..410E 395, 410

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14524.x 2009

  21. [21]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Edwards R. T., Bailes M., van Straten W., Britton M. C., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04637.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.326..358E 326, 358

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04637.x 2001

  22. [22]

    M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/501516 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...643..332F 643, 332

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Kaspi V. M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/501516 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...643..332F 643, 332

    work page doi:10.1086/501516 2006

  23. [23]

    C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1da6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922...43G 922, 43

    Good D. C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1da6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922...43G 922, 43

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1da6 2021

  24. [24]

    Graber V., Ronchi M., Pardo-Araujo C., Rea N., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e78 , 968, 16

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e78 2024

  25. [25]

    L., et al., 2021, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/21/5/107 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021RAA....21..107H 21, 107

    Han J. L., et al., 2021, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/21/5/107 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021RAA....21..107H 21, 107

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/21/5/107 2021

  26. [26]

    L., et al., 2025, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/ada3b7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025RAA....25a4001H 25, 014001

    Han J. L., et al., 2025, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/ada3b7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025RAA....25a4001H 25, 014001

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ada3b7 2025

  27. [27]

    Hessels J. W. T., Ransom S. M., Kaspi V. M., Roberts M. S. E., Champion D. J., Stappers B. W., 2008, in Bassa C., Wang Z., Cumming A., Kaspi V. M., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol. 983, 40 Years of Pulsars: Millisecond Pulsars, Magnetars and More. pp 613--615 ( @eprint arXiv 0710.1745 ), @doi 10.1063/1.2900310

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1063/1.2900310 2008

  28. [28]

    A., Bailes M., Ord S

    Jacoby B. A., Bailes M., Ord S. M., Edwards R. T., Kulkarni S. R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/2009 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699.2009J 699, 2009

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/2/2009 2009

  29. [29]

    Johnston S., Karastergiou A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz400 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485..640J 485, 640

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz400 2019

  30. [30]

    Karako-Argaman C., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...809...67K 809, 67

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/1/67 2015

  31. [31]

    W., van Straten W., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913729 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...515A..36K 515, A36

    Karuppusamy R., Stappers B. W., van Straten W., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913729 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...515A..36K 515, A36

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913729 2010

  32. [32]

    F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw767 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.1360K 459, 1360

    Keane E. F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw767 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.1360K 459, 1360

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw767 2016

  33. [33]

    2008, MNRAS, 388, 1803, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13522.x 30

    Keane E. F., Kramer M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14045.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391.2009K 391, 2009

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14045.x 2008

  34. [34]

    F., McLaughlin M

    Keane E. F., McLaughlin M. A., 2011, @doi [Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India] 10.48550/arXiv.1109.6896 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011BASI...39..333K 39, 333

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1109.6896 2011

  35. [35]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 1670, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15794.x

    Keane E. F., Ludovici D. A., Eatough R. P., Kramer M., Lyne A. G., McLaughlin M. A., Stappers B. W., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15693.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.401.1057K 401, 1057

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15693.x 2010

  36. [36]

    W., Jin, C., Blaes, O., & Ward, M

    Keane E. F., Kramer M., Lyne A. G., Stappers B. W., McLaughlin M. A., 2011, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18917.x , 415, 3065

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18917.x 2011

  37. [37]

    F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2126 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473..116K 473, 116

    Keane E. F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2126 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473..116K 473, 116

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2126 2018

  38. [38]

    F., et al., 2025, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.154256 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025OJAp....854256K 8, 54256

    Keane E. F., et al., 2025, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.154256 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025OJAp....854256K 8, 54256

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.154256 2025

  39. [39]

    A., et al

    Keith M. J., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17325.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.409..619K 409, 619

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17325.x 2010

  40. [40]

    Kramer M., Karastergiou A., Gupta Y., Johnston S., Bhat N. D. R., Lyne A. G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030842 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...407..655K 407, 655

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030842 2003

  41. [41]

    Lazarus P., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/81 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812...81L 812, 81

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/1/81 2015

  42. [42]

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

    work page doi:10.1086/506962 2006

  43. [43]

    V., Tyul'bashev S

    Logvinenko S. V., Tyul'bashev S. A., Malofeev V. M., 2020, @doi [Bulletin of the Lebedev Physics Institute] 10.3103/S1068335620120179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020BLPI...47..390L 47, 390

    work page doi:10.3103/s1068335620120179 2020

  44. [44]

    R., Kramer M., 2004, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy

    Lorimer D. R., Kramer M., 2004, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy . Vol. 4

    work page 2004

  45. [45]

    J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T

    Lorimer D. R., et al., 2006, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10887.x , 372, 777 (LFL06)

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10887.x 2006

  46. [46]

    S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf8a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859...93L 859, 93

    Lynch R. S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf8a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859...93L 859, 93

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabf8a 2018

  47. [47]

    J., Stappers B

    Lyon R. J., Stappers B. W., Cooper S., Brooke J. M., Knowles J. D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw656 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.1104L 459, 1104

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw656 2016

  48. [48]

    Ma X., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452685 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...698A.306M 698, A306

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452685 2025

  49. [49]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Manchester R. N., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04751.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.328...17M 328, 17

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04751.x 2001

  50. [50]

    J., Keane E

    McKenna D. J., Keane E. F., Gallagher P. T., McCauley J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.4397M 527, 4397

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2900 2024

  51. [51]

    A., Cordes J

    McLaughlin M. A., Cordes J. M., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/378232 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...596..982M 596, 982

    work page doi:10.1086/378232 2003

  52. [52]

    A., et al., 2006, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature04440 , 439, 817

    McLaughlin M. A., et al., 2006, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature04440 , 439, 817

    work page doi:10.1038/nature04440 2006

  53. [53]

    J., Moseley J., Hurley-Walker N., Grover G., Horv \'a th C., Galvin T

    Mcsweeney S. J., Moseley J., Hurley-Walker N., Grover G., Horv \'a th C., Galvin T. J., Meyers B. W., Tan C. M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adb27f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...981..143M 981, 143

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb27f 2025

  54. [54]

    Michilli D., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2997 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491..725M 491, 725

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2997 2020

  55. [55]

    B., McEwen A

    Mickaliger M. B., McEwen A. E., McLaughlin M. A., Lorimer D. R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1785 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.5413M 479, 5413

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1785 2018

  56. [56]

    Morello V., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.3673M 483, 3673

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3328 2019

  57. [57]

    D., Stappers B

    Morello V., Barr E. D., Stappers B. W., Keane E. F., Lyne A. G., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2291 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.4654M 497, 4654

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2291 2020

  58. [58]

    L., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2511.10785 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251110785M p

    Murphy T., Kaplan D. L., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2511.10785 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251110785M p. arXiv:2511.10785

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.10785 2025

  59. [59]

    J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/50 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...772...50N 772, 50

    Nice D. J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/50 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...772...50N 772, 50

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/1/50 2013

  60. [60]

    NE2025: An Updated Electron Density Model for the Galactic Interstellar Medium

    Ocker S. K., Cordes J. M., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2602.11838 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260211838O p. arXiv:2602.11838

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.11838 2026

  61. [61]

    V., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.1291P 524, 1291

    Padmanabh P. V., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.1291P 524, 1291

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1900 2023

  62. [62]

    W., Jin, C., Blaes, O., & Ward, M

    Palliyaguru N. T., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19388.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.417.1871P 417, 1871

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19388.x 2011

  63. [63]

    Parent E., 2022, PhD thesis, McGill University

    work page 2022

  64. [64]

    Parent E., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac375d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...924..135P 924, 135

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac375d 2022

  65. [65]

    Patel C., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaee65 , 869, 181

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaee65 2018

  66. [66]

    Philippov S., Kramer M., 2022, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-112338 , 60, 495

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-112338 2022

  67. [67]

    S., Blandford R

    Phinney E. S., Blandford R. D., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/194.1.137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981MNRAS.194..137P 194, 137

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/194.1.137 1981

  68. [68]

    W., Shannon R

    Qiu H., Bannister K. W., Shannon R. M., Murphy T., Bhandari S., Agarwal D., Lorimer D. R., Bunton J. D., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz748 , 486, 166

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz748 2019

  69. [69]

    arXiv:1608.06952

    Rane A., Loeb A., 2016, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv160806952R p. arXiv:1608.06952

    work page arXiv 2016

  70. [70]

    Ravi V., Hallinan G., Deep Synoptic Array Team 2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#237. p. 316.04

    work page 2021

  71. [71]

    Rozwadowska K., Vissani F., Cappellaro E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newast.2020.101498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NewA...8301498R 83, 101498

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newast.2020.101498 2021

  72. [72]

    G., 1975, , 196, 51

    Ruderman M., Sutherland P. G., 1975, , 196, 51

    work page 1975

  73. [73]

    A., Tyul'bashev S

    Samodurov V. A., Tyul'bashev S. A., Toropov M. O., Dolgushev A. V., Oreshko V. V., Logvinenko S. V., 2023, @doi [Astronomy Reports] 10.1134/S1063772923070077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ARep...67..590S 67, 590

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063772923070077 2023

  74. [74]

    Schechter P., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/154079 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...203..297S 203, 297

    work page doi:10.1086/154079 1976

  75. [75]

    Sengar R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad508 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.1071S 522, 1071

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad508 2023

  76. [76]

    J., McLaughlin M

    Shapiro-Albert B. J., McLaughlin M. A., Keane E. F., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae2b2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...866..152S 866, 152

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae2b2 2018

  77. [77]

    P., Kuzmin A

    Shitov Y. P., Kuzmin A. D., Dumskii D. V., Losovsky B. Y., 2009, @doi [Astronomy Reports] 10.1134/S1063772909060080 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARep...53..561S 53, 561

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063772909060080 2009

  78. [78]

    H., 1969, @doi [IEEE Proceedings] 10.1109/PROC.1969.7051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969IEEEP..57..724S 57, 724

    Staelin D. H., 1969, @doi [IEEE Proceedings] 10.1109/PROC.1969.7051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969IEEEP..57..724S 57, 724

    work page doi:10.1109/proc.1969.7051 1969

  79. [79]

    A., Ramsay, G., Andronov, I., et al

    Tauris T. M., Manchester R. N., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01369.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.298..625T 298, 625

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01369.x 1998

  80. [80]

    Tian J., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1827 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.544.1843T 544, 1843

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1827 2025

Showing first 80 references.