pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.25205 · v1 · pith:O44HZPWKnew · submitted 2026-05-24 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Discovery of Short-Term {γ}-Ray Pulsed Radiation Variations Following a Glitch in PSR J0205+6449

Wen-Tao Ye , Ming-Yu Ge , Shi-Jie Zheng , Xiang Ma , Yu-Jia Zheng , Han-Long Peng , Xue-Zhi Liu , Li-Ming Song
show 2 more authors
Shuang-Nan Zhang Fang-Jun Lu
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 23:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-ray pulsarspulsar glitchesPSR J0205+6449pulsed emissionmagnetospheric reconfigurationFermi LATcrustal breaking
0
0 comments X

The pith

A glitch in PSR J0205+6449 produced measurable short-term changes in its gamma-ray pulse profile.

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

The paper presents the first clear detection of gamma-ray pulsed emission variations tied to a pulsar glitch. After the event at MJD 54904, the two peaks in the pulse profile showed an initial rise in amplitude ratio, a later drop in their separation exceeding 5 sigma, and a second ratio increase before the profile returned to its pre-glitch state. The authors interpret the changes as the result of magnetospheric reconfiguration caused by localized crustal breaking and elastic displacement near the polar cap. Establishing this link would demonstrate that glitches can alter high-energy emission geometry even when radio and gamma-ray regions are thought to differ.

Core claim

Successive variations occurred in the gamma-ray pulsed radiation of PSR J0205+6449 after the glitch at MJD 54904. The amplitude ratio of the two peaks rose during MJD 54905-54940, recovered, then the peak separation decreased significantly over MJD 54940-55000; the ratio rose again around MJD 55000-55160 with marginal flux change before the emission reverted to normal. This constitutes the first significant detection of pulsed radiation variation associated with a glitch in a gamma-ray pulsar and is attributed to magnetospheric reconfiguration from localized crustal breaking and elastic displacement near the polar cap.

What carries the argument

Magnetospheric reconfiguration triggered by localized crustal breaking and associated elastic displacement near the polar cap, which alters the gamma-ray emission geometry and produces the observed changes in peak amplitude ratio and separation.

If this is right

  • Glitches can modify gamma-ray emission in addition to radio emission.
  • Crustal events near the polar cap can propagate to affect the high-energy magnetosphere.
  • The pulse profile returns to its stable state after a finite recovery period of several months.
  • Timing of radiation changes can be used to locate the site of glitch-induced crustal activity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar short-term gamma-ray variations may appear in other young pulsars after large glitches if polar-cap crustal motion is common.
  • The duration of the observed recovery window could correlate with the energy released in the glitch or the depth of the crustal fracture.
  • Simultaneous radio and gamma-ray monitoring after future glitches would test whether the same magnetospheric adjustment affects both wavebands.
  • The result raises the possibility that interior neutron-star dynamics leave detectable imprints on high-energy light curves on timescales of weeks to months.

Load-bearing premise

The observed shifts in peak ratio and separation are produced by the glitch rather than by unrelated timing fluctuations that coincided with the glitch epoch.

What would settle it

A search across other gamma-ray pulsars with recorded glitches that finds no corresponding pulse-profile changes aligned with the glitch times, or the detection of identical profile variations in PSR J0205+6449 during intervals with no glitch.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.25205 by Fang-Jun Lu, Han-Long Peng, Li-Ming Song, Ming-Yu Ge, Shi-Jie Zheng, Shuang-Nan Zhang, Wen-Tao Ye, Xiang Ma, Xue-Zhi Liu, Yu-Jia Zheng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The left panel shows the timing results for the glitch at MJD 54904. Panel (a) and (b) show the residuals of ν and ˙ν of partial-timing results that subtract the pre-glitch spin-down trend, respectively. The solid lines represent the glitch model listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Pulse peak separation and amplitude ratio measured in 60-day intervals. Panel (a) shows the peak separation, and panel (b) shows the amplitude ratio. Vertical dashed lines mark glitch epochs. A significant anomaly (highlighted in red) appears near the glitch at MJD 54904, with no notable variations detected at other glitch epochs or during other intervals. 54700 54800 54900 55000 55100 55200 Time(MJD) 1.0 … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The flux of the two pulse peaks. The diamond and square points represent the flux of P1 and P2, respectively. The black vertical dashed lines represent the occur time of glitch. The horizontal solid line at 2.17 and 1.02 are the mean flux of P1 and P2, and the dashed lines represent their 1 σ range. the observed increase in the peak amplitude ratio during this interval may be attribute not only to an incre… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Rotation-powered pulsars exhibit stable emission characteristics most of the time. However, their radiative state can vary with the sudden changes of rotational state such as glitches. To date, pulsed radiation changes associated with glitches have only been detected in the radio band. Since the emission regions of radio and $\gamma$-ray may differ, searching and investigating whether glitches can induce changes in high-energy radiation would further deepen our understanding of how glitches affect the magnetosphere of pulsars. We report successive variations in the $\gamma$-ray pulsed radiation of PSR J0205+6449 following the glitch at MJD 54904 observed by the {\sl Fermi}/LAT. The amplitude ratio of the two peaks showed a hint of an increase during MJD 54905--54940 initially, followed by a recovery to the mean level and a significant ($>5\,\sigma$) decrease in the separation between the two peaks over MJD 54940--55000. The amplitude ratio of the two peaks increased ($\sim3\,\sigma$) again in MJD 55000--55160, accompanied by a marginal flux variation. Finally, the pulsed radiation reverted to its normal state. This is the first significant detection of pulsed radiation variation associated with a glitch in $\gamma$-ray pulsars. We attribute this to magnetospheric reconfiguration triggered by localized crustal breaking and associated elastic displacement near the polar cap following the glitch.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports successive variations in the γ-ray pulsed emission profile of PSR J0205+6449 following the glitch at MJD 54904, as observed by Fermi/LAT. These include a hint of increased peak amplitude ratio (MJD 54905–54940), a >5σ decrease in peak separation (MJD 54940–55000), a ~3σ ratio increase (MJD 55000–55160) with marginal flux change, followed by recovery to the pre-glitch state. The authors claim this is the first significant detection of glitch-associated pulsed γ-ray variations and attribute it to magnetospheric reconfiguration from localized crustal breaking and elastic displacement near the polar cap.

Significance. If the causal link to the glitch is established, the result would extend glitch-induced radiative changes from the radio to the γ-ray band and provide observational constraints on magnetospheric response to crustal events. The multi-epoch recovery pattern could test models of polar-cap displacement, though the current evidence rests on timing alignment without a reported null-hypothesis test.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the reported variations are 'associated with' the glitch at MJD 54904 (and thus the first such γ-ray detection) rests on temporal coincidence alone. No quantitative test is described for the probability that the observed sequence of amplitude-ratio and separation changes (with heterogeneous significances spanning ~150 days) would arise from intrinsic variability under a stationary-emission null hypothesis, nor is a control-epoch comparison or change-point analysis presented. This statistical support is load-bearing for the attribution to magnetospheric reconfiguration.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states the changes 'reverted to its normal state' but does not specify the exact criterion or epoch used to define recovery; this should be quantified in the results section with reference to the pre-glitch baseline.
  2. Notation for the two peaks (e.g., 'amplitude ratio of the two peaks') is used without an explicit definition or figure reference in the abstract; ensure consistent labeling in §3 or §4.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the single major comment below and agree that additional statistical analysis will strengthen the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the reported variations are 'associated with' the glitch at MJD 54904 (and thus the first such γ-ray detection) rests on temporal coincidence alone. No quantitative test is described for the probability that the observed sequence of amplitude-ratio and separation changes (with heterogeneous significances spanning ~150 days) would arise from intrinsic variability under a stationary-emission null hypothesis, nor is a control-epoch comparison or change-point analysis presented. This statistical support is load-bearing for the attribution to magnetospheric reconfiguration.

    Authors: We agree that a formal quantitative test under the null hypothesis of stationary emission would provide stronger support for attributing the observed sequence to the glitch. The manuscript reports the individual significances of the changes (e.g., >5σ decrease in peak separation) and notes the recovery to the pre-glitch state, but does not include a Monte Carlo simulation, change-point analysis, or control-epoch comparison for the full multi-epoch pattern. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection describing such a test, including Monte Carlo trials of the profile parameters under a stationary-emission model and a comparison with control epochs away from the glitch epoch. This will directly address the concern while preserving the existing timing-based attribution. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational report with no derivation chain

full rationale

The paper is an observational report of gamma-ray pulse profile changes (amplitude ratio and peak separation) in PSR J0205+6449 after the MJD 54904 glitch, detected via Fermi/LAT data. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or mathematical derivations are present in the abstract or described structure. The central claim rests on timing alignment of observed variations with the glitch epoch and an interpretive attribution to magnetospheric reconfiguration; this does not reduce to any self-definitional, fitted-input, or self-citation mechanism. The work is self-contained as data reporting and does not invoke load-bearing prior results from the same authors that would create circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is observational and does not introduce new parameters, axioms, or entities; it reports data analysis on existing pulsar.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5857 in / 1033 out tokens · 47273 ms · 2026-06-29T23:27:25.738984+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

72 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2009, ApJL, 699, L102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/L102

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/2/l102 2009

  2. [2]

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

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 708, 1254, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1254

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/2/1254 2010

  3. [3]

    2020, ApJS, 247, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Ackermann, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb 2020

  4. [4]

    B., et al

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Atwood, W. B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/3

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/1/3 2012

  5. [5]

    2013, ApJL, 777, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L2

    Allafort, A., Baldini, L., Ballet, J., et al. 2013, ApJL, 777, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L2

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/l2 2013

  6. [6]

    A., Pines, D., Anderson, P

    Alpar, M. A., Pines, D., Anderson, P. W., & Shaham, J. 1984, ApJ, 276, 325, doi: 10.1086/161616

    work page doi:10.1086/161616 1984

  7. [7]

    W., & Itoh, N

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

    work page doi:10.1038/256025a0 1975

  8. [8]

    Espinoza, C. M. 2012, PhRvL, 109, 241103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.241103

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.241103 2012

  9. [9]

    J.6971071–1102 doi:10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071

    Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1071, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1071 2009

  10. [10]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3336 2022

  11. [11]

    F., Kondratiev, V., Ransom, S., et al

    Bietenholz, M. F., Kondratiev, V., Ransom, S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 2590, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt353

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt353 2013

  12. [12]

    K., & Kazanas, D

    Harding, A. K., & Kazanas, D. 2018, ApJ, 858, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab3e1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab3e1 2018

  13. [13]

    H., Lorimer, D

    Camilo, F., Stairs, I. H., Lorimer, D. R., et al. 2002, ApJL, 571, L41, doi: 10.1086/341178

    work page doi:10.1086/341178 2002

  14. [14]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 2185, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3322

    Chang, S., Zhang, L., Li, X., & Jiang, Z. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2185, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3322

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3322 2018

  15. [15]

    S., Ho, C., & Ruderman, M

    Cheng, K. S., Ho, C., & Ruderman, M. 1986, ApJ, 300, 500, doi: 10.1086/163829

    work page doi:10.1086/163829 1986

  16. [16]

    Cozzolongo, G., Fiori, A., Razzano, M., & Saz Parkinson, P. M. 2025, A&A, 702, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555331

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555331 2025

  17. [17]

    K., & Harding, A

    Daugherty, J. K., & Harding, A. K. 1994, ApJ, 429, 325, doi: 10.1086/174321

    work page doi:10.1086/174321 1994

  18. [18]

    2003, ApJ, 598, 1201, doi: 10.1086/379052

    Dyks, J., & Rudak, B. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1201, doi: 10.1086/379052

    work page doi:10.1086/379052 2003

  19. [19]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 511, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1088-1

    Feng, H., Li, H., Long, X., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 511, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1088-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1088-1 2020

  20. [20]

    K., et al

    Fiori, A., Razzano, M., Harding, A. K., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348924

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348924 2024

  21. [21]

    M., Link, B., & Epstein, R

    Franco, L. M., Link, B., & Epstein, R. I. 2000, ApJ, 543, 987, doi: 10.1086/317121 9

    work page doi:10.1086/317121 2000

  22. [22]

    2025, Science China

    Ge, M., Ji, L., Taverna, R., et al. 2025, Science China

    2025

  23. [23]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 119505, doi: 10.1007/s11433-025-2796-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-025-2796-y

  24. [24]

    Y., Yuan, J

    Ge, M. Y., Yuan, J. P., Lu, F. J., et al. 2020a, ApJL, 900, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abaeed

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abaeed 2041

  25. [25]

    Y., Zhang, S

    Ge, M. Y., Zhang, S. N., Lu, F. J., et al. 2020b, ApJ, 896, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8db6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8db6

  26. [26]

    2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 015016, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad0f0c G¨ ugercino˘ glu, E., & Alpar, M

    Ge, M.-Y., Yang, Y.-P., Lu, F.-J., et al. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 015016, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad0f0c G¨ ugercino˘ glu, E., & Alpar, M. A. 2014, ApJL, 788, L11, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/788/1/L11 G¨ ugercino˘ glu, E., & Alpar, M. A. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1758 G¨ ugercino˘ glu, E., Ge, M. Y., Yuan, J. P., &...

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ad0f0c 2024

  27. [27]

    Hermsen, W., Hessels, J. W. T., Kuiper, L., et al. 2013, Science, 339, 436, doi: 10.1126/science.1230960

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1230960 2013

  28. [28]

    K., & Kazanas, D

    Kalapotharakos, C., Harding, A. K., & Kazanas, D. 2014, ApJ, 793, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/97

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/2/97 2014

  29. [29]

    2025, ApJ, 991, 225, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfa95

    Kerr, M. 2025, ApJ, 991, 225, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfa95

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfa95 2025

  30. [30]

    2013, A&A, 560, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219839

    Kothes, R. 2013, A&A, 560, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219839

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219839 2013

  31. [31]

    F., Yuan, J

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly068 2018

  32. [32]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 1238, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3128

    Kuiper, L., Hermsen, W., & Dekker, A. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1238, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3128

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3128 2018

  33. [33]

    O., et al

    Kuiper, L., Hermsen, W., Urama, J. O., et al. 2010, A&A, 515, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913851

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913851 2010

  34. [34]

    2012, ApJ, 746, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/60

    Li, J., Spitkovsky, A., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2012, ApJ, 746, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/60

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/1/60 2012

  35. [35]

    F., Lin, T

    Li, J., Torres, D. F., Lin, T. T., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabac9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabac9 2018

  36. [36]

    2011, ApJ, 743, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/113

    Li, X., & Zhang, L. 2011, ApJ, 743, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/113

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/2/113 2011

  37. [37]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab783 2021

  38. [38]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6bf7

    Liu, J., Wang, H.-G., Shen, Z.-Q., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6bf7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6bf7 2022

  39. [39]

    2021, ApJ, 912, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf140

    Liu, J., Wang, H.-G., Yan, Z., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf140

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf140 2021

  40. [40]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 4274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1973

    Liu, P., Yuan, J.-P., Ge, M.-Y., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 4274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1973

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1973 2024

  41. [41]

    2026, ApJL, 998, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae3c0f

    Liu, X.-Z., Ge, M.-Y., Zheng, X.-P., et al. 2026, ApJL, 998, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae3c0f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae3c0f 2026

  42. [42]

    J., Antonopoulou, D., et al

    Liu, Y., Keith, M. J., Antonopoulou, D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 859, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1499

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1499 2024

  43. [43]

    A., Ransom, S

    Livingstone, M. A., Ransom, S. M., Camilo, F., et al. 2009, ApJ, 706, 1163, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1163

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/706/2/1163 2009

  44. [44]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1186683 2010

  45. [45]

    Lyne, A. G. 1971, MNRAS, 153, 27P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/153.1.27P

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/153.1.27p 1971

  46. [46]

    G., Smith, F

    Lyne, A. G., Smith, F. G., & Pritchard, R. S. 1992, Nature, 359, 706, doi: 10.1038/359706a0

    work page doi:10.1038/359706a0 1992

  47. [47]

    E., Guillemot, L., Harding, A

    Marshall, F. E., Guillemot, L., Harding, A. K., Martin, P., & Smith, D. A. 2015, ApJL, 807, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/807/2/L27

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/807/2/l27 2015

  48. [48]

    S., Slane, P

    Murray, S. S., Slane, P. O., Seward, F. D., Ransom, S. M., & Gaensler, B. M. 2002, ApJ, 568, 226, doi: 10.1086/338766

    work page doi:10.1086/338766 2002

  49. [49]

    W., Takata, J., & Cheng, K

    Ng, C. W., Takata, J., & Cheng, K. S. 2016, ApJ, 825, 18, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/18

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/825/1/18 2016

  50. [50]

    M., Hotan, A., Ellingsen, S., & van Straten, W

    Palfreyman, J., Dickey, J. M., Hotan, A., Ellingsen, S., & van Straten, W. 2018, Nature, 556, 219, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0001-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0001-x 2018

  51. [51]

    G., & Sokolova, E

    Panin, A. G., & Sokolova, E. V. 2025, A&A, 697, A178, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452613

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452613 2025

  52. [52]

    2022, ARA&A, 60, 495, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-112338

    Philippov, A., & Kramer, M. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 495, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-112338

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

  53. [53]

    A., & Spitkovsky, A

    Philippov, A. A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, ApJL, 785, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/785/2/L33

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/785/2/l33 2014

  54. [54]

    A., & Spitkovsky, A

    Philippov, A. A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2018, ApJ, 855, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaabbc

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

  55. [55]

    A., Spitkovsky, A., & Cerutti, B

    Philippov, A. A., Spitkovsky, A., & Cerutti, B. 2015, ApJL, 801, L19, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/L19

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/l19 2015

  56. [56]

    J., Lee, K

    Qiao, G. J., Lee, K. J., Wang, H. G., Xu, R. X., & Han, J. L. 2004, ApJL, 606, L49, doi: 10.1086/421048

    work page doi:10.1086/421048 2004

  57. [57]

    R., et al

    Rajwade, K., Seymour, A., Lorimer, D. R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 2518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1858

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1858 2016

  58. [58]

    Romani, R. W. 1996, ApJ, 470, 469, doi: 10.1086/177878

    work page doi:10.1086/177878 1996

  59. [59]

    , keywords =

    Ruderman, M. A., & Sutherland, P. G. 1975, ApJ, 196, 51, doi: 10.1086/153393

    work page doi:10.1086/153393 1975

  60. [60]

    M., Kurpas, J., et al

    Schwope, A., Pires, A. M., Kurpas, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141105

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141105 2022

  61. [61]

    H., Zhi, Q

    Shang, L. H., Zhi, Q. J., Dang, S. J., & Wang, Q. S. 2020, Ap&SS, 365, 70, doi: 10.1007/s10509-020-03783-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-020-03783-9 2020

  62. [62]

    W., Weltevrede, P., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1156 2022

  63. [63]

    H., Lin, L

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab67b1 2020

  64. [64]

    Timokhin, A. N. 2010, MNRAS, 408, L41, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00924.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00924.x 2010

  65. [65]

    2009, ApJ, 695, 1289, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/1289 10

    Johnston, S. 2009, ApJ, 695, 1289, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/1289 10

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/695/2/1289 2009

  66. [66]

    2017, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

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

    work page doi:10.22323/1.301.0824 2017

  67. [67]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 045012, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac556d

    Yan, L.-L., Ge, M.-Y., Tuo, Y.-L., Wang, L.-j., & Zhou, Q.-y. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 045012, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac556d

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ac556d 2022

  68. [68]

    doi:10.1007/s11433-025-2786-6

    Zhang, S.-N., Santangelo, A., Xu, Y., et al. 2025, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 119502, doi: 10.1007/s11433-025-2786-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-025-2786-6 2025

  69. [69]

    H., Ge, M

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6d53 2022

  70. [70]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3390/universe8120641 2022

  71. [71]

    Q., G¨ ugercino˘ glu, E., Yuan, J

    Zhou, S. Q., G¨ ugercino˘ glu, E., Yuan, J. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 74, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3355

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3355 2023

  72. [72]

    2025, A&A, 694, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452693

    Zubieta, E., Garc´ ıa, F., del Palacio, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452693

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452693 2025