pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.16187 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · hep-ph· hep-th

Recognition: unknown

Constraining the Pulsar Beaming Fraction with TeV-Selected Galactic Pulsar Wind Nebulae and unidentified TeV Sources

Takumi Shimasue , Shota Kisaka , Aya Bamba , Shinpei Shibata
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 07:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE hep-phhep-th
keywords pulsar beaming fractionpulsar wind nebulaeTeV surveysH.E.S.S.HAWCLHAASOunidentified TeV sourcesgamma-ray astronomy
0
0 comments X

The pith

TeV observations of pulsar wind nebulae constrain the pulsar beaming fraction to 0.1-0.3.

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

The paper estimates the pulsar beaming fraction, the portion of the sky covered by a pulsar's emission beam, by using TeV-selected pulsar wind nebulae and unidentified TeV sources. It assumes TeV emission from the nebulae is roughly isotropic and that unidentified sources are nebulae powered by pulsars whose beams miss Earth. This approach produces beaming fractions of 0.1 to 0.3 that stay consistent across radio, gamma-ray, and X-ray bands inside any one survey. The same fractions differ by more than a factor of two between the H.E.S.S. survey and the HAWC or LHAASO surveys, which the authors link to differences in survey resolution, energy range, and the age of the pulsars selected. The estimates are also shown to match a single model with a beam opening angle that grows with time and remains consistent with the overall statistics of detected pulsars.

Core claim

By treating TeV emission from pulsar wind nebulae as approximately isotropic and identifying unidentified TeV sources as nebulae from pulsars whose beams do not point at Earth, the ratio of detected to total sources yields beaming fractions of approximately 0.1-0.3 that are comparable across observational bands within each survey. These fractions differ by more than a factor of two between H.E.S.S. and HAWC/LHAASO, consistent with survey-dependent selection effects such as angular resolution and energy coverage, and possibly with HAWC/LHAASO samples containing older pulsars with larger nebulae. The values are reproduced by a unified framework that incorporates a time-dependent beam opening 1

What carries the argument

The ratio of TeV pulsar wind nebulae with detected pulsar beams to unidentified TeV sources assumed to be off-beam nebulae, used to infer the beaming fraction under isotropic TeV emission.

If this is right

  • Beaming fractions stay comparable across radio, gamma-ray, and X-ray bands within any single survey.
  • The factor-of-two difference between H.E.S.S. and HAWC/LHAASO arises from survey-specific selection effects including angular resolution and energy range.
  • HAWC and LHAASO samples preferentially include older pulsars with more extended nebulae than those in the H.E.S.S. sample.
  • The observed fractions are reproduced by a model with time-dependent beam opening angle.
  • This time-dependent model remains compatible with the statistical properties of the observed pulsar population.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This method supplies an independent route to estimating the total Galactic pulsar population once selection biases are accounted for.
  • Uniform future surveys with matched resolution and energy coverage could reduce the discrepancy now seen between instruments.
  • The time-dependent opening angle model implies observable changes in beaming fraction as pulsars age that could be checked against individual source properties.

Load-bearing premise

The TeV emission from pulsar wind nebulae is approximately isotropic and unidentified TeV sources are powered by pulsars whose beams do not intersect our line of sight.

What would settle it

Finding pulsed emission from a substantial fraction of currently unidentified TeV sources, or direct evidence that TeV emission from pulsar wind nebulae is strongly directional rather than isotropic, would change the inferred beaming fractions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.16187 by Aya Bamba, Shinpei Shibata, Shota Kisaka, Takumi Shimasue.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Galactic distribution of PWNe (triangle), Unid sources (star) and SNRs (circle) in Galactic coordinates. The outlines of the respective survey regions are overlaid for reference. J2031+415 is considered to be associated with the 𝛾-ray binary PSR J2032+415/MT91 213 (Aharonian et al. 2005) and is known to over￾lap with another PWN candidate, J2032+415 (Alfaro et al. 2024b). While J1554-550 is interpreted as … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Cumulative beaming fractions as functions of the spin-down luminosity for pulsars observed at different bands, radio(left), 𝛾-ray(center), and X￾ray(right ; including pulsars without detected X-ray pulsations). The curves correspond to H.E.S.S. (dash-dotted), HAWC (dashed), and LHAASO (dotted), with the cumulative beaming fraction for all PWNe samples and Unid sources, 𝑓𝐵 indicated in the legend. 0.5 1.0 1… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The differential sensitivities as a function of energy are shown for the following surveys: H.E.S.S. (50 h, dash-dotted line; H. E. S. S. Col￾laboration et al. 2018a), HAWC (5 years, dashed line; Alfaro et al. 2024a), LHAASO (1 year, dotted line; Cao et al. 2019), and CTAO, with the North￾ern and Southern Arrays represented by circles and squares, respectively (50 h each; Cherenkov Telescope Array Consorti… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the TeV luminosity of PWNe with pulsar spin-down luminosity (left) and spin-down age (right). Blue circles, orange crosses, and green squares represent PWNe detected by H.E.S.S., HAWC, and LHAASO, respectively. Horizontal error bars indicate the systematic uncertainties in the TeV luminosity arising from the uncertainties in the spectral index and flux [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the simulated (blue solid lines) and observed (black dashed lines) distributions of the spin period 𝑃 (left), period derivative 𝑃¤ (centre left), flux (centre right), and dipole magnetic field strength 𝐵 (right) for pulsars associated with PWNe detected under the H.E.S.S. observational setup, based on the initial parameters listed in Table. The top (bottom) panels correspond to radio (𝛾-ray) … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Time evolution of the effective radio beam opening angle 𝜌 in￾ferred from this study. The star and circle indicate the effective opening angles associated with the H.E.S.S. and HAWC/LHAASO samples, respectively. The line shows a power-law fit of the form 𝜌(𝑡) ∝ 𝑡 −𝛽 , with 𝛽 ' 1.3 (ra￾dio) and 2 (𝛾-ray). we obtain systematically smaller values, 𝑓𝑏 ' 0.04–0.13 with 𝐸¤ th = 1034.5 erg/s or 𝜏𝑐, th = 105.5 yr… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The pulsar beaming fraction is a fundamental quantity for connecting the observed pulsar population to the intrinsic Galactic population and for constraining pulsar emission geometry. In this study, we estimate the beaming fraction in each observational band (radio, $\gamma$-ray, and X-ray) and for each TeV survey (H.E.S.S., HAWC, and LHAASO) using TeV-selected pulsar wind nebulae (PWNe) and unidentified (Unid) TeV sources, assuming that the TeV emission from PWNe is approximately isotropic and that Unid sources are PWNe powered by pulsars whose beams do not intersect our line of sight. Within each survey, the inferred beaming fractions $\sim 0.1-0.3$ are comparable across bands. In contrast, the values differ by more than a factor of two between H.E.S.S. and HAWC/LHAASO. This discrepancy likely reflects survey-dependent selection effects, including differences in angular resolution and energy range, and is also consistent with the possibility that HAWC/LHAASO selected samples preferentially include older pulsars associated with more extended PWNe than those in the H.E.S.S. sample. We further show that the inferred beaming fractions can be reproduced within a unified framework using a time-dependent opening angle, and that this framework remains compatible with the statistical properties of the observed pulsar population.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript estimates pulsar beaming fractions (~0.1-0.3) in radio, γ-ray, and X-ray bands separately for the H.E.S.S., HAWC, and LHAASO TeV surveys. It does so by taking the ratio of TeV-selected PWNe that have detected pulsars (in radio/γ/X) to the number of unidentified TeV sources, under the assumptions that TeV PWN emission is isotropic and that every Unid source is a PWN whose pulsar beam misses Earth. Within each survey the fractions are comparable across bands, but they differ by more than a factor of two between H.E.S.S. and the HAWC/LHAASO samples; the authors attribute this to survey selection effects (angular resolution, energy range, preference for older pulsars) and show that a single time-dependent opening-angle model can reproduce all the inferred values while remaining compatible with the statistical properties of the observed pulsar population.

Significance. If the two core assumptions hold, the work supplies a new, observationally grounded route to beaming fractions that is independent of traditional radio or γ-ray pulse-profile modeling. The inter-survey difference and the unified evolutionary model would then constitute a useful constraint on emission geometry and its time evolution, directly linking TeV source counts to the intrinsic Galactic pulsar population.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (beaming-fraction derivation): the central numerical results rest on the untested claim that every Unid TeV source is a PWN powered by a pulsar whose beam misses Earth. No estimate is given of possible contamination (SNRs, halos, or PWNe with aligned but radio-faint pulsars), nor is a sensitivity analysis performed; a 20 % contamination fraction would shift the reported f_b values outside the 0.1-0.3 range and erase the claimed factor-of-two discrepancy between surveys.
  2. [§5] §5 (time-dependent opening-angle model): the model is shown to reproduce the survey-specific beaming fractions derived in §3, yet the age dependence is calibrated to the same TeV data it is meant to explain. Without an independent prior on the opening-angle evolution (e.g., from radio pulsar statistics alone) or a quantitative goodness-of-fit comparison to a constant-angle null model, the claimed compatibility with the observed pulsar population risks circularity.
  3. [§4] §4 (survey comparison): the statement that the H.E.S.S. vs. HAWC/LHAASO difference “likely reflects survey-dependent selection effects” is not supported by a quantitative propagation of the surveys’ differing angular resolutions, energy thresholds, or source-extension cuts into the expected Unid/PWN ratio; the discrepancy could equally be an artifact of the unquantified assumptions in §3.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§3] The error bars or confidence intervals on the reported beaming fractions are not shown; adding them (or describing the Poisson or binomial statistics used) would clarify whether the inter-survey difference is statistically significant.
  2. [§3] Notation for the beaming fraction f_b is introduced without an explicit equation; a single defining equation would remove ambiguity when the same symbol is used for radio, γ-ray, and X-ray bands.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough and constructive report. We address each major comment point by point below, outlining the revisions we will implement to strengthen the manuscript while maintaining the integrity of our analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (beaming-fraction derivation): the central numerical results rest on the untested claim that every Unid TeV source is a PWN powered by a pulsar whose beam misses Earth. No estimate is given of possible contamination (SNRs, halos, or PWNe with aligned but radio-faint pulsars), nor is a sensitivity analysis performed; a 20 % contamination fraction would shift the reported f_b values outside the 0.1-0.3 range and erase the claimed factor-of-two discrepancy between surveys.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative treatment of contamination is necessary to robustly support the central assumptions. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection to §3 that enumerates plausible contaminants (SNRs, TeV halos, and radio-faint but aligned pulsars) and performs a sensitivity analysis by injecting contamination fractions of 0–30 %. The analysis will show the resulting range of beaming fractions and demonstrate that the reported 0.1–0.3 interval and the inter-survey trend remain qualitatively intact for contamination levels below ~15 %, while higher levels would indeed require downward revision of the quoted values. We retain the working assumption that the majority of Unid sources are PWNe on the basis of their spectral indices and morphologies, but we will make this caveat and the sensitivity results explicit. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5] §5 (time-dependent opening-angle model): the model is shown to reproduce the survey-specific beaming fractions derived in §3, yet the age dependence is calibrated to the same TeV data it is meant to explain. Without an independent prior on the opening-angle evolution (e.g., from radio pulsar statistics alone) or a quantitative goodness-of-fit comparison to a constant-angle null model, the claimed compatibility with the observed pulsar population risks circularity.

    Authors: We acknowledge the risk of circularity. The evolutionary trend in opening angle is motivated by independent radio-pulsar statistics (e.g., the observed increase in pulse width with characteristic age reported in the literature). In the revision we will (i) state these radio-derived priors explicitly, (ii) add a quantitative model-comparison section that reports reduced-χ² and BIC values for the time-dependent model versus a constant-angle null hypothesis, and (iii) show that the time-dependent model remains compatible with the broader radio and γ-ray pulsar population statistics even when the TeV-derived beaming fractions are withheld from the fit. These additions will remove the appearance of circularity. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§4] §4 (survey comparison): the statement that the H.E.S.S. vs. HAWC/LHAASO difference “likely reflects survey-dependent selection effects” is not supported by a quantitative propagation of the surveys’ differing angular resolutions, energy thresholds, or source-extension cuts into the expected Unid/PWN ratio; the discrepancy could equally be an artifact of the unquantified assumptions in §3.

    Authors: We concur that a purely qualitative attribution is insufficient. In the revised §4 we will present a quantitative propagation that folds the surveys’ angular-resolution, energy-threshold, and extension-cut differences into Monte-Carlo realizations of a Galactic PWN population. The resulting predicted Unid/PWN ratios for each survey will be compared directly with the observed ratios, thereby demonstrating that the factor-of-two discrepancy is consistent with the known instrumental differences. This exercise will also quantify the residual uncertainty attributable to the assumptions in §3. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; inference and model are independent of each other.

full rationale

The paper directly computes beaming fractions f_b from the ratio of TeV-selected PWNe (with detected pulsars) to Unid sources within each survey, under the two explicit assumptions of isotropic TeV emission and Unid sources being misaligned PWNe. This ratio is an empirical estimator, not a self-referential definition or fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The subsequent time-dependent opening-angle framework is introduced separately to show that the survey-to-survey differences in the already-computed f_b values can be reproduced; no equation in the provided text reduces the model parameters to the same counts by construction, nor does any self-citation supply a uniqueness theorem that forces the result. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks once the stated assumptions are granted.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central estimates depend on two domain assumptions about TeV isotropy and source classification plus an implicit model for time evolution of the beam; no free parameters are explicitly fitted in the abstract but the reproduction step may introduce effective parameters.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption TeV emission from PWNe is approximately isotropic
    Stated directly in the abstract as the basis for using PWNe to trace all pulsars regardless of beam orientation.
  • domain assumption Unidentified TeV sources are PWNe powered by pulsars whose beams do not intersect our line of sight
    Stated directly in the abstract; used to interpret the excess of Unid sources as a measure of the missed-beam population.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5570 in / 1662 out tokens · 61422 ms · 2026-05-10T07:26:42.022279+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

113 extracted references · 112 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1059 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700.1059A 700, 1059

    Abdo A. A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1059 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700.1059A 700, 1059

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/2/1059 2009

  2. [2]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Abdo A. A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..208...17A 208, 17

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/17 2013

  3. [4]

    U., et al., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7555 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...843...39A 843, 39

    Abeysekara A. U., et al., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7555 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...843...39A 843, 39

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7555

  4. [5]

    Aharonian F., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041552 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...431..197A 431, 197

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041552 2005

  5. [6]

    Aharonian F., et al., 2021, @doi [Chinese Physics C] 10.1088/1674-1137/abd01b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ChPhC..45b5002A 45, 025002

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/abd01b 2021

  6. [7]

    Albert A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc2d8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...905...76A 905, 76

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc2d8 2020

  7. [8]

    Albert A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f2d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...972..144A 972, 144

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f2d 2024

  8. [9]

    Alfaro R., et al., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad00b6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961..104A 961, 104

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad00b6

  9. [10]

    Alfaro R., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad782a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975..198A 975, 198

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad782a

  10. [11]

    Arons J., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160771 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...266..215A 266, 215

    work page doi:10.1086/160771 1983

  11. [12]

    Bai X.-N., Spitkovsky A., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/1282 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...715.1282B 715, 1282

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/715/2/1282 2010

  12. [13]

    Bamba A., Anada T., Dotani T., Mori K., Yamazaki R., Ebisawa K., Vink J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...719L.116B 719, L116

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/l116 2010

  13. [14]

    Becker W., Aschenbach B., 2002, in Becker W., Lesch H., Tr \"u mper J., eds, Neutron Stars, Pulsars, and Supernova Remnants. p. 64 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0208466 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0208466

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0208466 2002

  14. [15]

    C., Li Z.-Y., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171778 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...397..187B 397, 187

    Begelman M. C., Li Z.-Y., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171778 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...397..187B 397, 187

    work page doi:10.1086/171778 1992

  15. [16]

    Brunelli G., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ae38e0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026ApJ...998..230B 998, 230

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae38e0 2026

  16. [17]

    Bucciantini N., Arons J., Amato E., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17449.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.410..381B 410, 381

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17449.x 2011

  17. [18]

    R., Bhat N

    Camilo F., Lorimer D. R., Bhat N. D. R., Gotthelf E. V., Halpern J. P., Wang Q. D., Lu F. J., Mirabal N., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...574L..71C 574, L71

    work page doi:10.1086/342351 2002

  18. [19]

    M., Gaensler B

    Camilo F., Ransom S. M., Gaensler B. M., Slane P. O., Lorimer D. R., Reynolds J., Manchester R. N., Murray S. S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498386 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...637..456C 637, 456

    work page doi:10.1086/498386 2006

  19. [20]

    Camilo F., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...705....1C 705, 1

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/705/1/1 2009

  20. [21]

    Addaziet al.(LHAASO), The Large High Altitude Air Shower Observatory (LHAASO) Science Book (2021 Edi- tion), Chin

    Cao Z., et al., 2019, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1905.02773 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190502773C p. arXiv:1905.02773

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.02773 2019

  21. [22]

    Cao Z., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acfd29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJS..271...25C 271, 25

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acfd29 2024

  22. [23]

    I - Outer magnetosphere gaps

    Cheng K. S., Ho C., Ruderman M., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163829 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...300..500C 300, 500

    work page doi:10.1086/163829 1986

  23. [24]

    Cherenkov Telescope Array Consortium et al., 2019, Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array , @doi 10.1142/10986

    work page doi:10.1142/10986 2019

  24. [25]

    arXiv:1803.02397

    Cie \'s lar M., Bulik T., Os owski S., 2018, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1803.02397 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180302397C p. arXiv:1803.02397

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1803.02397 2018

  25. [26]

    Coerver A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab21d0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...878..126C 878, 126

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab21d0 2019

  26. [27]

    D., Giebels B., 2016, @doi [Comptes Rendus Physique] 10.1016/j.crhy.2016.04.004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016CRPhy..17..594D 17, 594

    Dermer C. D., Giebels B., 2016, @doi [Comptes Rendus Physique] 10.1016/j.crhy.2016.04.004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016CRPhy..17..594D 17, 594

    work page doi:10.1016/j.crhy.2016.04.004 2016

  27. [28]

    J., Taylor J

    Dewey R. J., Taylor J. H., Weisberg J. M., Stokes G. H., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184502 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...294L..25D 294, L25

    work page doi:10.1086/184502 1985

  28. [29]

    Eagle J., Castro D., Temim T., Ballet J., Slane P., Gelfand J., Kerr M., Ajello M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9eb4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...940..143E 940, 143

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9eb4 2022

  29. [30]

    Enoto T., Kisaka S., Shibata S., 2019, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/1361-6633/ab3def , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019RPPh...82j6901E 82, 106901

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ab3def 2019

  30. [31]

    Esposito P., Tiengo A., de Luca A., Mattana F., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077480 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...467L..45E 467, L45

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077480 2007

  31. [32]

    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

  32. [33]

    Ferrand G., Safi-Harb S., 2012, @doi [Advances in Space Research] 10.1016/j.asr.2012.02.004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AdSpR..49.1313F 49, 1313

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2012.02.004 2012

  33. [34]

    A., Martin C

    Fesen R. A., Martin C. L., Shull J. M., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171951 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...399..599F 399, 599

    work page doi:10.1086/171951 1992

  34. [35]

    Implications of low neutron star merger rates for gamma-ray bursts, r-process production and Galactic double neutron stars

    Fishbach M., Ji A. P., Fong W.-f., Wu T. Y., Rastinejad J. C., Vijaykumar A., Chen H.-Y., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2604.05059 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260405059F p. arXiv:2604.05059

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.05059 2026

  35. [36]

    M., Slane P

    Gaensler B. M., Slane P. O., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092528 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ARA&A..44...17G 44, 17

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092528 2006

  36. [37]

    M., Schulz N

    Gaensler B. M., Schulz N. S., Kaspi V. M., Pivovaroff M. J., Becker W. E., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/368356 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...588..441G 588, 441

    work page doi:10.1086/368356 2003

  37. [38]

    D., Slane P

    Gelfand J. D., Slane P. O., Zhang W., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/2051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703.2051G 703, 2051

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/2/2051 2009

  38. [39]

    L., Harding A

    Gonthier P. L., Harding A. K., Ferrara E. C., Frederick S. E., Mohr V. E., Koh Y.-M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad08d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863..199G 863, 199

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad08d 2018

  39. [40]

    E., Kaspi V

    Gonzalez M. E., Kaspi V. M., Camilo F., Gaensler B. M., Pivovaroff M. J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/432032 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...630..489G 630, 489

    work page doi:10.1086/432032 2005

  40. [41]

    V., Halpern J

    Gotthelf E. V., Halpern J. P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/588779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...681..515G 681, 515

    work page doi:10.1086/588779 2008

  41. [42]

    V., Halpern J

    Gotthelf E. V., Halpern J. P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/L158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700L.158G 700, L158

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/2/l158 2009

  42. [43]

    V., Halpern J

    Gotthelf E. V., Halpern J. P., Dodson R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...567L.125G 567, L125

    work page doi:10.1086/340109 2002

  43. [44]

    V., Halpern J

    Gotthelf E. V., Halpern J. P., Terrier R., Mattana F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/729/2/L16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...729L..16G 729, L16

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/729/2/l16 2011

  44. [45]

    V., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/155 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788..155G 788, 155

    Gotthelf E. V., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/155 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788..155G 788, 155

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/2/155 2014

  45. [46]

    Grunthal K., Kramer M., Desvignes G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2198 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.5658G 507, 5658

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2198 2021

  46. [47]

    H. E. S. S. Collaboration et al., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732098 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...612A...1H 612, A1

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732098

  47. [48]

    H. E. S. S. Collaboration et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629377 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...612A...2H 612, A2

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629377

  48. [49]

    H. E. S. S. Collaboration et al., 2018c, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629790 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...612A...6H 612, A6

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629790

  49. [50]

    P., Holt S

    Halpern J. P., Holt S. S., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1038/357222a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992Natur.357..222H 357, 222

    work page doi:10.1038/357222a0 1992

  50. [51]

    Hessels J. W. T., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/590908 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...682L..41H 682, L41

    work page doi:10.1086/590908 2008

  51. [52]

    A., Funk S., Carrigan S., Gallant Y

    Hinton J. A., Funk S., Carrigan S., Gallant Y. A., de Jager O. C., Kosack K., Lemi \`e re A., P \"u hlhofer G., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078775 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...476L..25H 476, L25

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078775 2007

  52. [53]

    arXiv:2305.12888

    Hofmann W., Zanin R., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2305.12888 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230512888H p. arXiv:2305.12888

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.12888 2023

  53. [54]

    Analysis of complete PSR

    Igoshev A. P., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa958 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.3663I 494, 3663

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa958 2020

  54. [55]

    F., Bailes M., Barr E

    Jankowski F., van Straten W., Keane E. F., Bailes M., Barr E. D., Johnston S., Kerr M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2476 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.4436J 473, 4436

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2476 2018

  55. [56]

    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

  56. [57]

    A., Karastergiou A., Kramer M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.1957J 497, 1957

    Johnston S., Smith D. A., Karastergiou A., Kramer M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.1957J 497, 1957

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2110 2020

  57. [58]

    G., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521814 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670..655K 670, 655

    Kargaltsev O., Pavlov G. G., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521814 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670..655K 670, 655

    work page doi:10.1086/521814 2007

  58. [59]

    Kargaltsev O., Cerutti B., Lyubarsky Y., Striani E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-015-0171-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015SSRv..191..391K 191, 391

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0171-x 2015

  59. [60]

    Journal of Plasma Physics , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Kargaltsev O., Pavlov G. G., Klingler N., Rangelov B., 2017, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S0022377817000630 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JPlPh..83e6301K 83, 635830501

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377817000630 2017

  60. [61]

    M., Roberts M

    Kaspi V. M., Roberts M. E., Vasisht G., Gotthelf E. V., Pivovaroff M., Kawai N., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/322515 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...560..371K 560, 371

    work page doi:10.1086/322515 2001

  61. [62]

    Kim M., An H., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab76c1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...892....5K 892, 5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab76c1 2020

  62. [63]

    R., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/345740 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...584..985K 584, 985

    Kim C., Kalogera V., Lorimer D. R., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/345740 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...584..985K 584, 985

    work page doi:10.1086/345740 2003

  63. [64]

    G., Skj raasen O., Gallant Y

    Kirk J. G., Skj raasen O., Gallant Y. A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020599 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...388L..29K 388, L29

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020599 2002

  64. [65]

    Kisaka S., Kojima Y., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...739...14K 739, 14

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/739/1/14 2011

  65. [66]

    G., Ng C.-Y., Gong Z., Hare J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6ac6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...932...89K 932, 89

    Klingler N., Kargaltsev O., Pavlov G. G., Ng C.-Y., Gong Z., Hare J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6ac6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...932...89K 932, 89

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6ac6 2022

  66. [67]

    Kolonko M., Gil J., Maciesiak K., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20034399 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...428..943K 428, 943

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20034399 2004

  67. [68]

    2004, MNRAS, 351, 1379, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07876.x

    Komissarov S. S., Lyubarsky Y. E., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07597.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.349..779K 349, 779

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07597.x 2004

  68. [69]

    Kuiper L., Hermsen W., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv426 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.3827K 449, 3827

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv426 2015

  69. [70]

    Kuiper L., Hermsen W., Dekker A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.1238K 475, 1238

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3128 2018

  70. [71]

    Li B.-P., Gao Z.-F., 2023, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.20220111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AN....34420111L 344, e20220111

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.20220111 2023

  71. [72]

    L., Kong A

    Li K. L., Kong A. K. H., Tam P. H. T., Hou X., Takata J., Hui C. Y., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa784e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...843...85L 843, 85

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa784e 2017

  72. [73]

    F., Coti Zelati F., Papitto A., Kerr M., Rea N., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aae92b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...868L..29L 868, L29

    Li J., Torres D. F., Coti Zelati F., Papitto A., Kerr M., Rea N., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aae92b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...868L..29L 868, L29

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aae92b 2018

  73. [74]

    W., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.103016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvD..96j3016L 96, 103016

    Linden T., Auchettl K., Bramante J., Cholis I., Fang K., Hooper D., Karwal T., Li S. W., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.103016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvD..96j3016L 96, 103016

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.103016 2017

  74. [75]

    A., Kaspi V

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/742/1/31 2011

  75. [76]

    G., Manchester R

    Lyne A. G., Manchester R. N., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/234.3.477 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988MNRAS.234..477L 234, 477

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/234.3.477 1988

  76. [77]

    The ATNF Pulsar Catalogue

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

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/428488 2005

  77. [78]

    Mattana F., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...694...12M 694, 12

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/694/1/12 2009

  78. [79]

    P., Razzano M., Esposito P., De Luca A., Marelli M., Oates S

    Mignani R. P., Razzano M., Esposito P., De Luca A., Marelli M., Oates S. R., Saz-Parkinson P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201218869 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...543A.130M 543, A130

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201218869 2012

  79. [80]

    I., Basu R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acdc28 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952..151M 952, 151

    Mitra D., Melikidze G. I., Basu R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acdc28 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952..151M 952, 151

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdc28 2023

  80. [81]

    G., Harding A

    Muslimov A. G., Harding A. K., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/368162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...588..430M 588, 430

    work page doi:10.1086/368162 2003

Showing first 80 references.