pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19276 · v1 · pith:6D26FBMNnew · submitted 2026-06-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Improved proper motion and gravity tests with PSR J1913+1102

Xueli Miao , Paulo C. C. Freire , Norbert Wex , Lingqi Meng , Thomas M. Tauris , Junjie Zhao , Weiwei Zhu , Robert Ferdman
show 6 more authors
Michael Kramer Huanchen Hu Lijing Shao Yanjun Guo David J. Champion Youling Yue
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 19:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords pulsar timingdouble neutron starpost-Keplerian parametersgravitational wave dampingscalar-tensor gravityproper motiondispersion measurenatal kick
0
0 comments X

The pith

Updated timing of PSR J1913+1102 gives neutron star masses 1.599 and 1.290 solar masses and confirms the general-relativity prediction for orbital decay to five times higher precision.

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

The paper re-times the highly asymmetric double neutron star system PSR J1913+1102 by combining thirteen years of Arecibo data with new FAST observations and two different models for dispersion-measure changes. Four post-Keplerian parameters are measured more precisely, yielding improved component masses under the assumption of general relativity. The resulting intrinsic orbital-period derivative matches the general-relativity prediction for gravitational-wave damping. These results tighten limits on dipolar gravitational-wave emission and on the spontaneous-scalarisation window near 1.6 solar masses. Refined proper motion also sharpens constraints on the helium-star progenitor mass and the natal kick imparted in the second supernova.

Core claim

Assuming general relativity, the new timing solution gives a total mass of 2.88948(20) solar masses, pulsar mass 1.599(8) solar masses, companion mass 1.290(8) solar masses, mass ratio 0.807(8), proper motion 7.71(25) mas yr^{-1}, and intrinsic orbital decay -4.60(6) times 10^{-13} s s^{-1}, fully consistent with the quadrupolar gravitational-wave damping expected in general relativity and thereby constraining dipolar emission and scalar-tensor effects around 1.6 solar masses.

What carries the argument

The timing solution that extracts four post-Keplerian parameters while correcting the observed orbital decay for the measured proper motion after modelling dispersion-measure variations with a Gaussian process.

If this is right

  • The mass ratio constrains the final helium-star mass immediately before the second supernova.
  • The refined proper motion tightens limits on the magnitude and direction of the natal kick that formed the double neutron star system.
  • Dipolar gravitational-wave emission in scalar-tensor theories is limited to levels below the new measurement precision.
  • The spontaneous-scalarisation window around 1.6 solar masses is more narrowly excluded.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the system is projected to merge in 470 million years, the measured mass ratio supplies a concrete template for predicting the properties of future gravitational-wave events similar to GW170817.
  • Improved distance and velocity constraints from the proper motion allow kinematic modelling of the galactic population of asymmetric double neutron star systems.
  • The fivefold gain in orbital-decay precision demonstrates that continued timing of similar asymmetric systems can push scalar-tensor bounds into regimes currently only accessible with binary pulsars of higher mass asymmetry.

Load-bearing premise

Assuming general relativity to derive the component masses from the measured post-Keplerian parameters while modelling dispersion-measure variations with a Gaussian process.

What would settle it

A future measurement showing that the intrinsic orbital-period derivative, after proper-motion correction, differs from the general-relativity quadrupolar prediction by more than the reported 6 times 10^{-15} s s^{-1} uncertainty.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19276 by David J. Champion, Huanchen Hu, Junjie Zhao, Lijing Shao, Lingqi Meng, Michael Kramer, Norbert Wex, Paulo C. C. Freire, Robert Ferdman, Thomas M. Tauris, Weiwei Zhu, Xueli Miao, Yanjun Guo, Youling Yue.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Frequency-averaged template profiles used in this work [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: DM variations and fit results for PSR J1913 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Residuals (ToAs minus DDFWHE model predictions) from timing analysis of PSR J1913 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Two components of the transverse peculiar velocity (w.r.t. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: P˙ b contributions from differential Galactic acceleration (MWPotential2014 model) and the Shklovskii effect as a func￾tion of the distance to the pulsar. The red curves denote the ±1-σ limits of P˙Shk b ; the blue curves represent the same for P˙Gal b ; and the black curves indicate their sum, the total non-intrinsic contri￾bution, P˙ ext b . The shaded regions between them indicate the 1-σ uncertainties.… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mass-mass diagram for PSR J1913+1102. The measurements of the four PK parameters, ˙ω, γ, h3 and P˙ b, are displayed in different colors. The shaded regions represent the 1-σ uncertainties of PK parameters, except for the yellow region, which indicates the 2-σ uncertainty of h3. P˙ b has been corrected for the Shklovskii effect and the differential Galactic acceleration between the SSB and pulsar system. Th… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Maps of the fitted χ 2 distributions and the corresponding probability density functions for the orbital inclination and the component masses in the DDGR model. The left panel shows the χ 2 map as a function of mc and cosi. The right panel presents the corresponding mc-mp distribution, translated into the mc-mp plane via the mass function. The black, gray, and light gray contours correspond to the 68.27%, … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Updated constraints on the effective scalar coupling parameter αA in the spontaneous scalarisation window (β0 ∈ [−4.8, 4.0]), as a function of NS’s mass, derived from a set of binary pulsar systems and for different NS’s EoSs. The in￾verted triangles represent the 90% CL upper limits on the ef￾fective scalar coupling parameter αA from a selection of binary pulsars. The updated constraints from PSR J1913+11… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: However, although the new results further reduce the al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Past (t < 0) and future (t > 0) evolution of the semi￾major axis (top panel) and eccentricity (bottom panel) of PSR J1913+1102. The black star marks the current system at t = 0, and the annotations in the top panel display the parameter values at the current epoch. Assuming a braking index of n = 3 and post-SN spin period of PSN → 0, the maximum age of this sys￾tem is ∼ 2730 Myr, which is indicated by the … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Formation constraints of PSR J1913+1102 based on 3 × 108 simulations of the second SN. Here, vsys is the 3D systemic velocity with respect to the LCF, Pb, i is the pre-SN orbital period, MHe, f is the final helium-star mass of the exploding progenitor, w is the kick magnitude imparted to the newborn NS, and θ and ϕ are two angles defining the direction of the kick velocity. In the upper-left panel, the re… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

PSR J1913+1102 is a highly asymmetric double neutron star system and an excellent laboratory for testing scalar-tensor gravity theories, as well as a potential progenitor analogue of GW170817 that will merge in 470 Myr. We present an updated timing analysis combining 13 years of historical Arecibo observations and new FAST measurements, using two approaches to model dispersion-measure variations. The new timing solution provides precise measurements of four post-Keplerian parameters and improves the system mass estimates. Assuming general relativity and modelling the DM variation with a Gaussian process, we obtain a three-fold improvement in the total mass, m_{tot}=2.88948(20) M_\odot, and nearly four-fold improvements in the pulsar and companion masses, m_p=1.599(8) M_\odot and m_c=1.290(8) M_\odot, giving the mass ratio, q=0.807(8). We also measure an improved proper motion, \mu=7.71(25) mas yr^{-1}, enabling a more accurate correction of the observed orbital-period derivative. Combined with the improved orbital-decay measurement, this yields an intrinsic orbital-period derivative \dot{P}_b^{intr}=-4.60(6)\times10^{-13} s s^{-1}, five times more precise than the previous value and fully consistent with the general-relativistic prediction for gravitational-wave damping. The improved masses and precise \dot{P}*b^{intr} place stringent constraints on dipolar gravitational-wave emission and the spontaneous-scalarisation window around 1.6 M*\odot. The refined proper motion and mass measurements also provide tighter constraints on the final helium-star mass immediately prior to its core collapse and formation of the second NS in a supernova, as well as on the magnitude and direction of the associated natal kick of the DNS system.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an updated timing analysis of the asymmetric double neutron star PSR J1913+1102, combining 13 years of Arecibo data with new FAST observations and employing two dispersion-measure modeling approaches (including a Gaussian process). It reports improved measurements of four post-Keplerian parameters, yielding m_tot = 2.88948(20) M_⊙, m_p = 1.599(8) M_⊙, m_c = 1.290(8) M_⊙ and q = 0.807(8) under general relativity, a refined proper motion μ = 7.71(25) mas yr^{-1}, and an intrinsic orbital decay \dot{P}_b^{intr} = -4.60(6) × 10^{-13} s s^{-1} that is consistent with the GR quadrupole prediction. These are used to constrain dipolar gravitational-wave emission and the spontaneous-scalarization window near 1.6 M_⊙, as well as the pre-supernova helium-star mass and natal kick.

Significance. If the results hold after addressing the noted assumption, the three- to four-fold gains in mass precision and five-fold improvement in orbital-decay accuracy would meaningfully tighten existing bounds on scalar-tensor deviations in neutron-star binaries and on the formation channel of this system as a GW170817 analogue. The dual DM-modeling strategy and explicit reporting of the GR assumption in the abstract are positive features.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / mass derivation] Abstract and mass-derivation section: The component masses are obtained by solving the GR expressions for the four measured post-Keplerian parameters (ω̇, γ, r, s). In the scalar-tensor theories under test, these same PK parameters receive scalar-charge corrections, so the GR-inferred masses are not guaranteed to be the correct values inside the alternative theory. The resulting limits on dipolar radiation and the scalarization window therefore rest on an unquantified approximation whose validity must be assessed (e.g., via iteration or theory-specific PK expressions).
  2. [Gravity-test / orbital-decay section] Gravity-test section: The measured \dot{P}_b^{intr} is declared fully consistent with the GR prediction derived from the GR-assumed masses. This circularity is standard but load-bearing for the dipolar-emission and scalarization constraints; an explicit estimate of the possible bias under scalar-tensor modifications to the PK parameters should be provided.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the notation "\dot{P}*b^{intr}" appears to be a typographical error for \dot{P}_b^{intr}.
  2. [Abstract / methods] The abstract states two DM-modeling approaches are used but does not indicate which one supplies the quoted mass and decay values; this should be clarified in the main text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The two major comments correctly identify a standard but important approximation in our analysis. We address both points below and will revise the manuscript to include the requested quantitative assessment.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / mass derivation] Abstract and mass-derivation section: The component masses are obtained by solving the GR expressions for the four measured post-Keplerian parameters (ω̇, γ, r, s). In the scalar-tensor theories under test, these same PK parameters receive scalar-charge corrections, so the GR-inferred masses are not guaranteed to be the correct values inside the alternative theory. The resulting limits on dipolar radiation and the scalarization window therefore rest on an unquantified approximation whose validity must be assessed (e.g., via iteration or theory-specific PK expressions).

    Authors: We agree this approximation requires explicit discussion. The component masses are derived under GR because that is the theory being tested for consistency; the resulting limits on dipolar radiation and scalarisation are therefore conditional on the GR masses. In the revision we will add a short iterative estimate: using the dipolar-radiation upper limit already obtained, we recompute the expected scalar-charge corrections to ω̇, γ, r and s, propagate them into revised masses, and show that the shift in the derived dipolar limit is well below the quoted uncertainty. This will be placed in a new paragraph in the gravity-test section and referenced from the abstract. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Gravity-test / orbital-decay section] Gravity-test section: The measured ṗ_b^{intr} is declared fully consistent with the GR prediction derived from the GR-assumed masses. This circularity is standard but load-bearing for the dipolar-emission and scalarization constraints; an explicit estimate of the possible bias under scalar-tensor modifications to the PK parameters should be provided.

    Authors: We accept the need for an explicit bias estimate. In the revised manuscript we will perform the iteration described above and report the resulting change (or lack of change) in the GR-predicted ṗ_b. Because the scalar-charge corrections enter at higher post-Newtonian order than the quadrupole term for the small deviations allowed by our data, we expect the bias to be negligible compared with the present 1.3 % precision on ṗ_b^{intr}; the calculation will confirm this quantitatively. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Masses derived assuming GR for PK parameters; orbital decay then declared consistent with GR prediction from those masses

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "Assuming general relativity ... we obtain ... m_p=1.599(8) M_⊙ and m_c=1.290(8) M_⊙ ... this yields an intrinsic orbital-period derivative Ġ{P}_b^{intr}=-4.60(6)×10^{-13} s s^{-1} ... fully consistent with the general-relativistic prediction for gravitational-wave damping. The improved masses and precise Ġ{P}_b^{intr} place stringent constraints on dipolar gravitational-wave emission and the spontaneous-scalarisation window around 1.6 M_⊙."

    Masses are solved from the GR post-Keplerian equations applied to the measured ω̇, γ, r, s. These masses are then substituted into the GR Ġ{P}_b prediction, so the consistency statement and the bounds on extra dipolar emission are forced by the same GR assumption. In scalar-tensor theories the PK expressions themselves receive corrections, rendering the inferred masses theory-dependent.

full rationale

The paper's gravity-test claim obtains component masses by solving the GR expressions for the four measured post-Keplerian parameters, then inserts those masses into the GR quadrupole formula to predict Ġ{P}_b and bound dipolar terms. This reduces the reported consistency and the scalar-tensor constraints to a direct consequence of the GR assumption used to derive the masses. The provided text contains no other load-bearing steps that reduce by construction to inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that general relativity correctly maps the measured post-Keplerian parameters to masses, plus the modeling choice for dispersion-measure variations; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • Gaussian-process hyperparameters for DM variations
    The abstract states that one of the two DM-modeling approaches uses a Gaussian process whose parameters are fitted to the timing residuals.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption General relativity holds for converting post-Keplerian parameters into component masses
    Explicitly invoked in the sentence 'Assuming general relativity and modelling the DM variation with a Gaussian process, we obtain...' the quoted mass values.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5931 in / 1486 out tokens · 37179 ms · 2026-06-26T19:45:51.492969+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

78 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Abbott, B. P. et al. 2017, PhRvL, 119, 161101

    2017

  2. [2]

    Abbott, B. P. et al. 2020, ApJL, 892, L3

    2020

  3. [3]

    2025, Phys

    Abbott, R., Abe, H., Acernese, F., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 084080

    2025

  4. [4]

    2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2

    2023

  5. [5]

    Antoniadis, J., Freire, P. C. C., Wex, N., et al. 2013, Science, 340, 448

    2013

  6. [6]

    & Cárdenas-Avendaño, A

    Bambi, C. & Cárdenas-Avendaño, A. 2024, Recent Progress on Gravity Tests. Challenges and Future Perspectives, ed. C. Bambi & A. Cárdenas-Avendaño (Springer Nature Singapore)

    2024

  7. [7]

    D., Dutta, A., Freire, P

    Barr, E. D., Dutta, A., Freire, P. C. C., et al. 2024, Science, 383, 275

    2024

  8. [8]

    2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 243001

    Berti, E., Barausse, E., Cardoso, V ., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 243001

    2015

  9. [9]

    & Teukolsky, S

    Blandford, R. & Teukolsky, S. A. 1976, ApJ, 205, 580

    1976

  10. [10]

    2003, Nature, 426, 531

    Burgay, M., D’Amico, N., Possenti, A., et al. 2003, Nature, 426, 531

    2003

  11. [11]

    2024, in Recent Progress on Gravity Tests: Challenges and Future Perspectives, ed

    Ciufolini, I. 2024, in Recent Progress on Gravity Tests: Challenges and Future Perspectives, ed. C. Bambi & A. Cárdenas-Avendaño (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore), 27–59

    2024

  12. [12]

    G., Padilla, A., & Skordis, C

    Clifton, T., Ferreira, P. G., Padilla, A., & Skordis, C. 2012, Phys. Rep., 513, 1

    2012

  13. [13]

    V ., Mourier, P., Bera, S., & Jiménez Forteza, X

    Colleoni, M., Krishnendu, N. V ., Mourier, P., Bera, S., & Jiménez Forteza, X. 2024, in Recent Progress on Gravity Tests. Challenges and Future Perspec- tives, ed. C. Bambi & A. Cárdenas-Avendaño (Springer Nature Singapore), 239–274 Colom i Bernadich, M., Balakrishnan, V ., Barr, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A187

    2024

  14. [14]

    Cordes, J. M. & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro-ph/0207156, astro

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  15. [15]

    S., Berger, E., Villar, V

    Cowperthwaite, P. S., Berger, E., Villar, V . A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, L17

    2017

  16. [16]

    & Deruelle, N

    Damour, T. & Deruelle, N. 1986, Annales de L’Institut Henri Poincare Section (A) Physique Theorique, 44, 263

    1986

  17. [17]

    & Esposito-Farèse, G

    Damour, T. & Esposito-Farèse, G. 1992, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 9, 2093

    1992

  18. [18]

    & Esposito-Farèse, G

    Damour, T. & Esposito-Farèse, G. 1993, Phys. Rev. Lett., 70, 2220

    1993

  19. [19]

    & Esposito-Farèse, G

    Damour, T. & Esposito-Farèse, G. 1996, Phys. Rev. D, 54, 1474

    1996

  20. [20]

    & Taylor, J

    Damour, T. & Taylor, J. H. 1992, Phys. Rev. D, 45, 1840 De Greve, J.-P. & De Loore, C. 1977, Ap&SS, 50, 75

    1992

  21. [21]

    Delgado, A. J. & Thomas, H.-C. 1981, A&A, 96, 142

    1981

  22. [22]

    T., Weisberg, J

    Deller, A. T., Weisberg, J. M., Nice, D. J., & Chatterjee, S. 2018, ApJ, 862, 139

    2018

  23. [23]

    B., Ferdman, R

    Demorest, P. B., Ferdman, R. D., Gonzalez, M. E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 762, 94

    2013

  24. [24]

    D., Ramazano ˇglu, F

    Doneva, D. D., Ramazano ˇglu, F. M., Silva, H. O., Sotiriou, T. P., & Yazadjiev, S. S. 2024, Reviews of Modern Physics, 96, 015004

    2024

  25. [25]

    2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    DuPlain, R., Ransom, S., Demorest, P., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 7019, Advanced Software and Control for Astronomy II, ed. A. Bridger & N. M. Radziwill, 70191D

    2008

  26. [26]

    D., Freire, P

    Ferdman, R. D., Freire, P. C. C., Perera, B. B. P., et al. 2020, Nature, 583, 211

    2020

  27. [27]

    Freire, P. C. C. & Wex, N. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 199

    2010

  28. [28]

    Freire, P. C. C. & Wex, N. 2024, Living Reviews in Relativity, 27, 5

    2024

  29. [29]

    J., Freire, P

    Guo, Y . J., Freire, P. C. C., Guillemot, L., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A16

    2021

  30. [30]

    W., van Straten, W., & Manchester, R

    Hotan, A. W., van Straten, W., & Manchester, R. N. 2004, PASA, 21, 302

    2004

  31. [31]

    J., et al

    Hu, H., Kramer, M., Champion, D. J., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A149

    2022

  32. [32]

    2024, in Recent Progress on Gravity Tests

    Hu, Z., Miao, X., & Shao, L. 2024, in Recent Progress on Gravity Tests. Chal- lenges and Future Perspectives, ed. C. Bambi & A. Cárdenas-Avendaño (Springer Nature Singapore), 61–99

    2024

  33. [33]

    Hulse, R. A. & Taylor, J. H. 1975, ApJ, 195, L51

    1975

  34. [34]

    & Khoury, J

    Jain, B. & Khoury, J. 2010, Annals of Physics, 325, 1479

    2010

  35. [35]

    M., Chen, W.-C., & Fuller, J

    Jiang, L., Tauris, T. M., Chen, W.-C., & Fuller, J. 2021, ApJ, 920, L36

    2021

  36. [36]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and As- trophysics, 20, 064

    Jiang, P., Tang, N.-Y ., Hou, L.-G., et al. 2020, Research in Astronomy and As- trophysics, 20, 064

    2020

  37. [37]

    Kopeikin, S. M. 1996, ApJ, 467, L93

    1996

  38. [38]

    H., Manchester, R

    Kramer, M., Stairs, I. H., Manchester, R. N., et al. 2006, Science, 314, 97

    2006

  39. [39]

    H., Manchester, R

    Kramer, M., Stairs, I. H., Manchester, R. N., et al. 2021, Physical Review X, 11, 041050

    2021

  40. [40]

    V ., Shao, L., Balakrishnan, V ., et al

    Krishnan, V . V ., Shao, L., Balakrishnan, V ., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 54246

    2025

  41. [41]

    Lazarus, P., Brazier, A., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 81

    2015

  42. [42]

    Lazarus, P., Freire, P. C. C., Allen, B., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 150

    2016

  43. [43]

    2025, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 42, 173001

    Luo, J., Bai, S., Bai, Y ., et al. 2025, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 42, 173001

    2025

  44. [44]

    2021, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2021, 05A108

    Luo, Z., Wang, Y ., Wu, Y ., Hu, W., & Jin, G. 2021, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2021, 05A108

    2021

  45. [45]

    N., Hobbs, G

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, AJ, 129, 1993

    2005

  46. [46]

    McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 76

    2017

  47. [47]

    Meng, L., Freire, P. C. C., Stovall, K., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A153

    2025

  48. [48]

    & Will, C

    Mirshekari, S. & Will, C. M. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 87, 084070

    2013

  49. [49]

    J., Mazzali, P

    Moriya, T. J., Mazzali, P. A., Tominaga, N., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 2085

    2017

  50. [50]

    2015, Tempo: Pulsar timing data analysis, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1509.002

    Nice, D., Demorest, P., Stairs, I., et al. 2015, Tempo: Pulsar timing data analysis, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1509.002

    2015

  51. [51]

    Ocker, S. K. & Cordes, J. M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.11838

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    V ., Ransom, S

    Padmanabh, P. V ., Ransom, S. M., Freire, P. C. C., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A166

    2024

  53. [53]

    Peters, P. C. 1964, Physical Review, 136, 1224

    1964

  54. [54]

    J., et al

    Piffl, T., Binney, J., McMillan, P. J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3133 Prša, A., Harmanec, P., Torres, G., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 41

    2014

  55. [55]

    Rasmussen, C. E. & Williams, C. K. I. 2006, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning (The MIT Press)

    2006

  56. [56]

    2025, ApJ, 983, L20

    Saffer, A., Fonseca, E., Ransom, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, L20

    2025

  57. [57]

    2019, BAAS, 51, 251

    Sathyaprakash, B., Buonanno, A., Lehner, L., et al. 2019, BAAS, 51, 251

    2019

  58. [58]

    Savonije, G. J. & Takens, R. J. 1976, A&A, 47, 231

    1976

  59. [59]

    2017, Physical Review X, 7, 041025

    Shao, L., Sennett, N., Buonanno, A., Kramer, M., & Wex, N. 2017, Physical Review X, 7, 041025

    2017

  60. [60]

    Shapiro, I. I. 1964, Phys. Rev. Lett., 13, 789

    1964

  61. [61]

    Shklovskii, I. S. 1970, Soviet Ast., 13, 562

    1970

  62. [62]

    M., Nice, D

    Splaver, E. M., Nice, D. J., Arzoumanian, Z., et al. 2002, ApJ, 581, 509 Article number, page 16 of 18 Xueli Miao et al.: Improved proper motion and gravity tests with PSR J1913+1102

    2002

  63. [63]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 3073

    Suwa, Y ., Yoshida, T., Shibata, M., Umeda, H., & Takahashi, K. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3073

    2015

  64. [64]

    M., Kramer, M., Freire, P

    Tauris, T. M., Kramer, M., Freire, P. C. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 170

    2017

  65. [65]

    M., Langer, N., Moriya, T

    Tauris, T. M., Langer, N., Moriya, T. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, L23

    2013

  66. [66]

    M., Langer, N., & Podsiadlowski, P

    Tauris, T. M., Langer, N., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2123

    2015

  67. [67]

    Tauris, T. M. & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 2023, Physics of Binary Star Evolution. From Stars to X-ray Binaries and Gravitational Wave Sources (Princeton Uni- versity Press)

    2023

  68. [68]

    H., Fowler, L

    Taylor, J. H., Fowler, L. A., & McCulloch, P. M. 1979, Nature, 277, 437

    1979

  69. [69]

    Taylor, J. H. & Weisberg, J. M. 1989, ApJ, 345, 434 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Col- laboration, et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18083 van Straten, W. & Bailes, M. 2011, PASA, 28, 1 van Straten, W., Demorest, P., & Oslowski, S. 2012, Astronomical Research and Technology, 9, 237

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1989

  70. [70]

    F., Han, J

    Wang, P. F., Han, J. L., Yang, Z. L., et al. 2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 014003

    2025

  71. [71]

    Weisberg, J. M. & Huang, Y . 2016, ApJ, 829, 55

    2016

  72. [72]

    2014, in Frontiers in Relativistic Celestial Mechanics: Applications and Experiments, ed

    Wex, N. 2014, in Frontiers in Relativistic Celestial Mechanics: Applications and Experiments, ed. S. M. Kopeikin, V ol. 2 (Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston), 39

    2014

  73. [73]

    2000, ApJ, 528, 401

    Wex, N., Kalogera, V ., & Kramer, M. 2000, ApJ, 528, 401

    2000

  74. [74]

    Will, C. M. 2018, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (Cambridge University Press)

    2018

  75. [75]

    2024, PhD thesis, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms- Universität Bonn

    Wongphechauxsorn, J. 2024, PhD thesis, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms- Universität Bonn

    2024

  76. [76]

    & Stepniczka, M

    Yagi, K. & Stepniczka, M. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 044017

    2021

  77. [77]

    M., Manchester, R

    Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N. 2017, ApJ, 835, 29

    2017

  78. [78]

    Zhao, J., Freire, P. C. C., Kramer, M., Shao, L., & Wex, N. 2022, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 39, 11LT01 Article number, page 17 of 18 A&A proofs:manuscript no. clean_version Appendix A: Timing results from a 14-order DM polynomial In the main text, we present the results of the timing analysis of PSR J1913+1102 by modeling the DM variations with a Gau...

    2022