pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.07742 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

A study of periodic nulling in PSR B0751+32 with FAST

F. F. Kou, J. P. Yuan, M. Y. Zou, N. Wang, W. M. Yan, X. J. Chen, Y. R. Wen, Z. G. Wen S. N. Sun, Z. Y. Liu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords PSR B0751+32periodic nullingpulsar nullingFASTpulse energy analysissubpulse driftingnulling fraction
0
0 comments X

The pith

Periodic nulling in PSR B0751+32 changes over time, challenging purely geometric models.

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

This paper presents new FAST observations of the pulsar PSR B0751+32 at 1250 MHz, confirming that it exhibits periodic nulling where the pulsar switches between emitting and null states in a repeating pattern. Using a mixture model to classify pulses, they measure a nulling fraction of about 35 percent and find that the length of this cycle varies both during single observations and from one session to the next. The mean pulse profile has two asymmetric components whose energies decrease gradually during active periods, with the trailing component declining more. Notably, no subpulse drifting is observed, which together with the evolving periodicity leads the authors to question models that explain nulling as a simple geometric effect. If correct, this suggests that nulling involves dynamic changes in the pulsar's magnetosphere rather than fixed viewing geometry.

Core claim

The authors report that PSR B0751+32 displays periodic nulling with a fraction of 35.1% ± 0.6%. Three methods to measure the periodicity all indicate significant temporal evolution in the modulation period within and across observing sessions. The pulse profile consists of a brighter, narrower leading component and a weaker trailing one. Pulse energies in both components are stable at the start of the burst state but then decline progressively, affecting the trailing component more before the burst ends. No evidence for the previously reported subpulse drifting is found in the data, leading to the conclusion that periodic nulling cannot be explained by purely geometric effects alone.

What carries the argument

The mixture model approach to separate null and burst pulses, along with multiple independent techniques for determining the nulling periodicity.

If this is right

  • Nulling periodicity is not constant but shows temporal evolution.
  • Pulse component energies decline during the burst state prior to termination.
  • The trailing pulse component is more strongly affected by the energy decline.
  • No subpulse drifting is present in the observations.
  • Previous geometric models for periodic nulling are challenged by these observations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The observed evolution suggests that nulling may be linked to time-varying physical conditions in the emission region.
  • Similar analyses on other nulling pulsars could reveal whether temporal changes are a common feature.
  • If confirmed, this would require updating models to include dynamic rather than static mechanisms for nulling.
  • Additional multi-frequency observations might test if the energy decline and periodicity changes depend on observing frequency.

Load-bearing premise

The mixture model accurately classifies pulses as null or burst without misclassifying weak emission or noise, and the periodicity estimates are not biased by the temporal evolution.

What would settle it

A long observation campaign that finds a fixed, unchanging nulling periodicity or detects clear subpulse drifting in PSR B0751+32 would falsify the claim that geometric models are inadequate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07742 by F. F. Kou, J. P. Yuan, M. Y. Zou, N. Wang, W. M. Yan, X. J. Chen, Y. R. Wen, Z. G. Wen S. N. Sun, Z. Y. Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The polarization profile of PSR B0751+32 derived from the 2019 July 16 observation. The lower panel shows the total intensity (black), linearly polarized intensity (red), and circularly polarized intensity (blue). In the upper panel, black dots with error bars mark the position angles of the linearly polarized emission. significance test. Olszanski et al. (2019) classified PSR B0751+32 as a conal double (D… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Pulse energy distributions for the on-pulse (orange histogram) and off-pulse (blue histogram) regions from the 2019 July 16 observation. The off-pulse histogram is fitted with a simple Gaussian function (green curve), whereas the on-pulse histogram is fitted with a two-component mixture model, in which the emission component is modeled as an exponentially modified Gaussian function (purple curve) and the n… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mean pulse profiles of null (lower) and burst (upper) pulses for PSR B0751+32. 0 0 0 0 0 00 " ! ! "        " " ! ! ! "!       " ! "       " " ! ! "!       ""!# !%   !!! $  !        ""!# !%   !!! $  !  [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distributions of burst (upper) and null (lower) lengths for PSR B0751+32. The green dots represent the corresponding CDF. The red curves show the best-fitting exponential model to the CDF. 0 00 00 00 00   0 0 0 0 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows the relative mean pulse energy variations measured for the first five pulses (left panels) and the last five pulses (right pan￾els) within the burst state. In the first five pulses, the normalized energies of both the leading and trailing components, as well as the total emission, remain close to the burst-state mean. Variations are modest and within measurement uncertainties, indicating relatively s… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mean profiles of the first (blue), second (green), penultimate (red), and last (purple) pulses during the burst state. For comparison, the mean profile obtained from all burst pulses (orange) is also presented. The vertical black dashed line marks the boundary between the two profile components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Results of fluctuation analysis for the 2019 July 16 observation. The upper panel in the left column shows the mean pulse profile (solid line) together with the longitude-resolved modulation index (points with error bars). Below, the LRFS is displayed along with a side panel showing the horizontally integrated power. For the leading component (middle column) and the trailing component (right column), the 2… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We report new results from a nulling study of PSR~B0751+32 (PSR J0754+3231), observed at 1250~MHz with the Five hundred meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope (FAST). Our analysis confirms the presence of periodic nulling in this pulsar. Using the recently developed mixture model method, we obtained a nulling fraction (NF) of $35.1\% \pm 0.6\%$. Three independent approaches were employed to estimate the nulling periodicity, and the results reveal significant temporal evolution of the modulation both within individual observations and across different \textbf{observing} essions. The pulsar exhibits an asymmetric two-component mean pulse profile, with the leading component brighter and narrower than the trailing one. Pulse energy analysis shows that both components remain stable immediately after the onset of the burst state, but subsequently undergo a progressive decline, with the trailing component most severely affected prior to burst termination. Notably, no evidence of the previously reported subpulse drifting was detected in our data. Our results challenge previous models that ascribed periodic nulling to purely geometric effects.

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 reports FAST observations at 1250 MHz of PSR B0751+32, confirming periodic nulling with a mixture-model nulling fraction of 35.1% ± 0.6%. Three independent methods are used to measure nulling periodicity, revealing significant temporal evolution both within individual observations and across sessions. The mean profile is asymmetric with a brighter, narrower leading component; pulse energies in both components are stable at burst onset but then decline progressively (trailing component most affected) before burst termination. No subpulse drifting is detected. These findings are presented as challenging prior models that attribute periodic nulling solely to geometric effects.

Significance. If the pulse classifications and periodicity estimates prove robust, the work supplies new high-sensitivity constraints on nulling variability, including intra-burst energy evolution and modulation changes on short timescales. The multi-method periodicity analysis and explicit reporting of temporal evolution add methodological value and could help discriminate between geometric and more dynamic magnetospheric interpretations of nulling.

major comments (3)
  1. [mixture-model section (data analysis)] Mixture-model section (data analysis): The reported progressive energy decline within burst states directly violates the stationarity assumption required for the two-component mixture model used to derive the NF = 35.1% ± 0.6%. Late-burst pulses whose energies fall into the null distribution would be misclassified, systematically lengthening apparent null runs and shifting the phase of the modulation signal; because the three periodicity estimates and the challenge to geometric models rest on these classifications, the central claim is load-bearing on this point.
  2. [periodicity results] Periodicity results: The manuscript states that the three independent periodicity methods reveal significant temporal evolution both within observations and across sessions, yet provides no quantitative robustness tests (e.g., re-fitting after excluding late-burst pulses or after injecting synthetic stationary sequences). Without such checks, it is unclear whether the reported evolution is intrinsic or an artifact of the classification bias noted above.
  3. [discussion of geometric models] Discussion of geometric models: The claim that the observations challenge purely geometric explanations relies on the combination of temporal evolution, energy decline, and absence of drifting. However, the text does not quantify how much evolution or decline would be incompatible with fixed-geometry models (e.g., via simulated pulse sequences), leaving the logical link between data and model rejection incompletely specified.
minor comments (3)
  1. [abstract] Abstract: typographical error 'essions' should read 'sessions'.
  2. [methods] Notation: the three periodicity methods are referred to only generically; explicit names, references, or brief algorithmic descriptions would improve reproducibility.
  3. [figures] Figures: if energy histograms or modulation curves are shown, error bars or confidence intervals on the mixture-model parameters should be added for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment below and describe the revisions we will make to strengthen the analysis and discussion.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Mixture-model section (data analysis): The reported progressive energy decline within burst states directly violates the stationarity assumption required for the two-component mixture model used to derive the NF = 35.1% ± 0.6%. Late-burst pulses whose energies fall into the null distribution would be misclassified, systematically lengthening apparent null runs and shifting the phase of the modulation signal; because the three periodicity estimates and the challenge to geometric models rest on these classifications, the central claim is load-bearing on this point.

    Authors: We agree that the observed progressive decline in pulse energies within the burst state raises a legitimate question about the stationarity assumption underlying the mixture model. This could potentially affect classifications if late-burst energies overlap the null distribution. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit discussion of this limitation in the data analysis section and include quantitative robustness checks, such as re-deriving the nulling fraction after excluding the final portion of each burst and comparing the resulting NF and periodicity values. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Periodicity results: The manuscript states that the three independent periodicity methods reveal significant temporal evolution both within observations and across sessions, yet provides no quantitative robustness tests (e.g., re-fitting after excluding late-burst pulses or after injecting synthetic stationary sequences). Without such checks, it is unclear whether the reported evolution is intrinsic or an artifact of the classification bias noted above.

    Authors: We accept the need for explicit robustness tests. The revised manuscript will incorporate quantitative checks, including re-computation of the three periodicity estimates after removal of late-burst pulses and comparison against synthetic stationary sequences. These additions will clarify whether the reported temporal evolution persists independently of possible classification bias. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Discussion of geometric models: The claim that the observations challenge purely geometric explanations relies on the combination of temporal evolution, energy decline, and absence of drifting. However, the text does not quantify how much evolution or decline would be incompatible with fixed-geometry models (e.g., via simulated pulse sequences), leaving the logical link between data and model rejection incompletely specified.

    Authors: We agree that a more quantitative bridge between the observations and model rejection would improve the discussion. In the revision we will expand this section to include references to specific predictions of fixed-geometry models and, where feasible, simple simulated sequences to illustrate the degree of stability expected under purely geometric scenarios versus the evolution and decline seen in the data. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational measurements from data

full rationale

The paper reports direct measurements of nulling fraction (35.1% via mixture model) and three independent periodicity estimates from FAST pulse sequences. These are extracted from observed pulse energies and classifications without any derivation that reduces a claimed prediction or result back to a fitted parameter or self-citation by construction. The challenge to geometric models rests on reported temporal evolution and absence of drifting, which are independent observational findings rather than tautological outputs of the paper's own equations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard radio pulsar data reduction assumptions (stable baseline, Gaussian noise statistics for mixture model) drawn from prior literature rather than new postulates.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Individual pulses can be reliably classified as null or burst using a mixture model without significant overlap or systematic bias from RFI or baseline variations.
    Invoked when reporting the 35.1% NF; standard in nulling studies but not re-derived here.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5541 in / 1332 out tokens · 38677 ms · 2026-05-10T17:10:43.390445+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K., Kaplan D

    Anumarlapudi A., Swiggum J. K., Kaplan D. L., Fichtenbauer T. D. J., 2023, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acbb68 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...948...32A 948, 32

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbb68 2023

  2. [2]

    C., 1970a, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/227692a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970Natur.227..692B 227, 692

    Backer D. C., 1970a, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/227692a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970Natur.227..692B 227, 692

    work page doi:10.1038/227692a0

  3. [3]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1038/228042a0

  4. [4]

    R., 1981, PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts System

    Backus P. R., 1981, PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts System

    1981

  5. [5]

    H., 1982, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/160125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...258..776B 258, 776

    Bartel N., Morris D., Sieber W., Hankins T. H., 1982, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/160125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...258..776B 258, 776

    work page doi:10.1086/160125 1982

  6. [6]

    I., Maciesiak K., Skrzypczak A., Szary A., 2016, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/29 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833...29B 833, 29

    Basu R., Mitra D., Melikidze G. I., Maciesiak K., Skrzypczak A., Szary A., 2016, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/29 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833...29B 833, 29

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/29 2016

  7. [7]

    I., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa862d , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846..109B 846, 109

    Basu R., Mitra D., Melikidze G. I., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa862d , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846..109B 846, 109

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa862d 2017

  8. [8]

    I., Skrzypczak A., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty2846 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.3757B 482, 3757

    Basu R., Mitra D., Melikidze G. I., Skrzypczak A., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty2846 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.3757B 482, 3757

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2846 2019

  9. [9]

    I., 2020a, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa1574 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496..465B 496, 465

    Basu R., Mitra D., Melikidze G. I., 2020a, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa1574 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496..465B 496, 465

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1574

  10. [10]

    Basu R., Lewandowski W., Kijak J., 2020b, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa2398 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499..906B 499, 906

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2398

  11. [11]

    I., 2020c, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab63c9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...889..133B 889, 133

    Basu R., Mitra D., Melikidze G. I., 2020c, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab63c9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...889..133B 889, 133

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab63c9

  12. [12]

    H., Hulse R

    Damashek M., Taylor J. H., Hulse R. A., 1978, ApJ, 225, L 31

    1978

  13. [13]

    T., Stappers B

    Edwards R. T., Stappers B. W., 2002, A&A, 393, 733

    2002

  14. [14]

    F., Quataert, E., & Murray, N

    Gajjar V., Joshi B. C., Kramer M., 2012, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21296.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.424.1197G 424, 1197

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21296.x 2012

  15. [15]

    P., Yuen R., Wen Z

    Gajjar V., Yuan J. P., Yuen R., Wen Z. G., Liu Z. Y., Wang N., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa96ac , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850..173G 850, 173

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa96ac 2017

  16. [16]

    H., Wright G

    Hankins T. H., Wright G. A. E., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1038/288681a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980Natur.288..681H 288, 681

    work page doi:10.1038/288681a0 1980

  17. [17]

    H., Kern, J

    Hankins T. H., Kern J. S., Weatherall J. C., Eilek J. A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature01477 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003Natur.422..141H 422, 141

    work page doi:10.1038/nature01477 2003

  18. [18]

    K., & Bamford, S

    Herfindal J. L., Rankin J. M., 2007, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12089.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.380..430H 380, 430

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12089.x 2007

  19. [19]

    A., & McCollough, M

    Herfindal J. L., Rankin J. M., 2009, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14119.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.393.1391H 393, 1391

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14119.x 2009

  20. [20]

    W., van Straten W., Manchester R

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

    work page doi:10.1071/as04022 2004

  21. [21]

    H., van Leeuwen J., 2004, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041062 , 425, 255

    Janssen G. H., van Leeuwen J., 2004, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041062 , 425, 255

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041062 2004

  22. [22]

    Jiang P., et al., 2020, @doi [RAA] 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RAA....20...64J 20, 064

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64 2020

  23. [23]

    L., Swiggum J

    Kaplan D. L., Swiggum J. K., Fichtenbauer T. D. J., Vallisneri M., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaab62 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855...14K 855, 14

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaab62 2018

  24. [24]

    F., et al., 2021, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd545 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...909..170K 909, 170

    Kou F. F., et al., 2021, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd545 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...909..170K 909, 170

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd545 2021

  25. [25]

    Lyne A., Hobbs G., Kramer M., Stairs I., Stappers B., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1186683 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...329..408L 329, 408

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1186683 2010

  26. [26]

    The ATNF Pulsar Catalogue

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

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/428488 2005

  27. [27]

    J., Bhat N

    McSweeney S. J., Bhat N. D. R., Tremblay S. E., Deshpande A. A., Ord S. M., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5c35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...836..224M 836, 224

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5c35 2017

  28. [28]

    Mitra D., Rankin J., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx814 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.4601M 468, 4601

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx814 2017

  29. [29]

    Olszanski T. E. E., Mitra D., Rankin J. M., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz2172 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.1543O 489, 1543

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2172 2019

  30. [30]

    J., 1969, Astrophys

    Radhakrishnan V., Cooke D. J., 1969, Astrophys. Lett., https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApL.....3..225R 3, 225

    1969

  31. [31]

    M., 1993a, @doi [ApJS] 10.1086/191758 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJS...85..145R 85, 145

    Rankin J. M., 1993a, @doi [ApJS] 10.1086/191758 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJS...85..145R 85, 145

    work page doi:10.1086/191758

  32. [32]

    M., 1993b, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/172361 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...405..285R 405, 285

    Rankin J. M., 1993b, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/172361 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...405..285R 405, 285

    work page doi:10.1086/172361

  33. [33]

    K., & Bamford, S

    Rankin J. M., Wright G. A. E., 2007, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11980.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.379..507R 379, 507

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11980.x 2007

  34. [34]

    A., & McCollough, M

    Rankin J. M., Wright G. A. E., 2008, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13001.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.385.1923R 385, 1923

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13001.x 2008

  35. [35]

    M., Wright G

    Rankin J. M., Wright G. A. E., Brown A. M., 2013, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stt739 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433..445R 433, 445

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt739 2013

  36. [36]

    M., Curtin A

    Rankin J., Venkataraman A., Weisberg J. M., Curtin A. P., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad2182 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.5042R 524, 5042

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2182 2023

  37. [37]

    M., Wen Z

    Rejep R., Wang N., Yan W. M., Wen Z. G., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab3063 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.2507R 509, 2507

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3063 2022

  38. [38]

    T., 1976, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/176.2.249 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976MNRAS.176..249R 176, 249

    Ritchings R. T., 1976, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/176.2.249 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976MNRAS.176..249R 176, 249

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/176.2.249 1976

  39. [39]

    M., Mitra D., Kuijpers J., 2005, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...440..683S 440, 683

    Smits J. M., Mitra D., Kuijpers J., 2005, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...440..683S 440, 683

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041626 2005

  40. [40]

    M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/adb280 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJS..277...39T 277, 39

    Tedila H. M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/adb280 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJS..277...39T 277, 39

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adb280 2025

  41. [41]

    van Leeuwen A. G. J., Stappers B. W., Ramachandran R., Rankin J. M., 2003, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021630 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...399..223V 399, 223

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021630 2003

  42. [42]

    van Straten W., Bailes M., 2011, @doi [PASA] 10.1071/AS10021 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PASA...28....1V 28, 1

    work page doi:10.1071/as10021 2011

  43. [43]

    M., et al., 1999, @doi [ApJS] 10.1086/313189 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJS..121..171W 121, 171

    Weisberg J. M., et al., 1999, @doi [ApJS] 10.1086/313189 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJS..121..171W 121, 171

    work page doi:10.1086/313189 1999

  44. [44]

    Weltevrede P., 2016, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527950 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527950 2016

  45. [45]

    T., Stappers B

    Weltevrede P., Edwards R. T., Stappers B. W., 2006, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053088 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...445..243W 445, 243

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053088 2006

  46. [46]

    W., Edwards R

    Weltevrede P., Stappers B. W., Edwards R. T., 2007, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066855 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...469..607W 469, 607

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066855 2007

  47. [47]

    G., Wang N., Yuan J

    Wen Z. G., Wang N., Yuan J. P., Yan W. M., Manchester R. N., Yuen R., Gajjar V., 2016, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628214 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...592A.127W 592, A127

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628214 2016

  48. [48]

    Wolszczan A., Bartel N., Sieber W., 1981, A&A, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981A&A...100...91W 100, 91

    1981

  49. [49]

    2011, MNRAS, 415, 2101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x

    Yan W. M., et al., 2011, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18522.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.414.2087Y 414, 2087

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18522.x 2011

  50. [50]

    M., Manchester R

    Yan W. M., Manchester R. N., Wang N., Yuan J. P., Wen Z. G., Lee K. J., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz650 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.3241Y 485, 3241

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz650 2019

  51. [51]

    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 [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz3399 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.4634Y 491, 4634

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3399 2020

  52. [52]

    M., Wang N., Yuan J

    Zhao D., Yan W. M., Wang N., Yuan J. P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959...26Z 959, 26

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0890 2023