Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

4FGL J1544.2$-$2554: a new spider pulsar candidate

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Optical time-series photometry shows that the gamma-ray source 4FGL J1544.2-2554 flickers with a 2.724-hour period and a >2.5 magnitude swing, the signature of a spider pulsar: a millisecond pulsar heating a low-mass companion.

desk verdict First time-series photometry makes a solid, properly hedged spider-pulsar candidate claim; the main caveat is that the optical period is not yet tied to an independent orbital measurement. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16350 v1 pith:BW7ND7NW submitted 2024-11-25 astro-ph.HE

A. V. Karpova , S. V. Zharikov , D. A. Zyuzin , A. Yu. Kirichenko , Yu. A. Shibanov , I. F. Márquez This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 97.60.Gb
keywords spiderpulsarmillisecondblackwidowredbackopticalphotometrybinaryheating4FGLJ1544.2-2554Fermigamma-raysource
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the unidentified Fermi gamma-ray source 4FGL J1544.2-2554 is a spider pulsar: a millisecond pulsar in a very tight binary that heats and erodes a low-mass companion. Using the first dedicated optical time-series photometry of its likely counterpart, the authors find a strong brightness modulation with a period of about 2.724 hours and an amplitude of at least 2.5 magnitudes, with a single broad peak per cycle. Fitting the multi-band $B$, $V$, and $R_c$ light curves with a direct-heating model yields an orbit inclination near $83^\circ$, a companion mass near $0.1\,M_\odot$, day-side and night-side temperatures of roughly 7200 K and 3000 K, a Roche-lobe filling factor of 0.65, and a distance of about 2.1 kpc. The authors present J1544 as a promising spider pulsar candidate and argue that detecting radio or gamma-ray millisecond pulsations would confirm its nature, which matters because confirmed spiders are rare and their massive neutron stars constrain the equation of state of superdense matter.

What carries the argument

The central object is the direct-heating (irradiation) model of the companion: a neutron star primary irradiates a tidally locked low-mass secondary, and every surface element radiates a black-body spectrum at a temperature set by the local heating, with tidal distortion described by the Roche geometry. The machinery pairs a Lomb-Scargle periodogram for the period search with a $\chi^2$ fit of the folded $B$, $V$, and $R_c$ light curves that adjusts distance, neutron-star mass, mass ratio, inclination, irradiation factor, Roche-lobe filling factor, and night-side temperature, with the orbital period fixed at 2.724 h and reddening fixed at $E(B-V)=0.23$. The model maps the observed single-broad-peak, high-amplitude modulation into a nearly edge-on orbit ($i \approx 83^\circ$) with a warm day side and a cool night side, the signature that tells spiders apart from plain ellipsoidal binaries.

What would settle it

A targeted search for radio or gamma-ray pulsations from the reported 2.39 ms pulsar J1544-2555 would settle the claim if it finds an orbital period of 2.723884 h; conversely, deeper optical imaging that shows no predicted deep minimum ($\Delta V \approx 4.8$ mag) at the model phase, or a modulation that is not strictly periodic on a longer baseline, would falsify the spider interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that 4FGL J1544.2-2554 is a spider pulsar. The claim rests on a 2.723884(1)-hour optical periodicity found in the OAN-SPM $R_c$-band data together with archival Pan-STARRS and ZTF measurements, a light curve with a single broad peak and a $\gtrsim 2.5$ mag swing, and a successful fit of the folded $B$, $V$, $R_c$ light curves by the symmetric direct-heating model. The best-fit geometry places the system at distance $2.13(5)$ kpc with inclination $83^{+7}_{-11}$ degrees, companion mass $0.102^{+0.053}_{-0.033}\,M_\odot$, day-side temperatures between about 4000 and 7300 K, night-side temperature about 3060 K, and Roche-lobe filling factor $0.65(5)$. The authors note that the uncertainties are statistical and preliminary, and that the night-side temperature is an extrapolation because the source drops below the detection limit near minimum brightness.

Load-bearing premise

The whole classification hangs on the assumption that the 2.724-hour optical modulation is the orbital period of a tidally locked companion whose heated side dominates the light, with the heating model extrapolated into phases where the source is fainter than the $\sim 23$ mag detection limit, and with reddening fixed at its maximum value of $E(B-V)=0.23$ mag.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If J1544 is confirmed by pulsations, it becomes one of the rare Galactic-field spider systems, and its derived neutron-star mass ($1.96^{+1.00}_{-0.60}\,M_\odot$) would add to the sparse sample of massive neutron stars used to constrain dense-matter equations of state.
  • If it is a redback, its 2.724-hour orbital period would be the shortest known among Galactic-field redbacks; if a black widow, it would be among those with the most massive companions, possibly bridging the redback/black-widow mass gap around $0.07$-$0.1\,M_\odot$.
  • The model predicts deep minima of roughly $\Delta B \approx 6$ mag, $\Delta V \approx 4.8$ mag, and $\Delta R_c \approx 4$ mag below maximum; deep optical observations near minimum can verify or refute this prediction.
  • A radio measurement of the orbital period from the reported 2.39 ms pulsar J1544-2555 would confirm the association and fix the binary parameters independently of the optical fit.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the spider interpretation holds, J1544 offers a clean laboratory for testing wind-heating geometry, because the absence of detection near minimum means the night-side temperature is currently an extrapolation rather than a measurement.
  • An independent distance estimate, for example from Gaia astrometry or the radio dispersion measure, would break the distance-filling-factor covariance and tighten the companion mass, which is currently the main handle on whether the system is a redback or a black widow.
  • The source's high galactic latitude and short 2.724-hour period suggest it may belong to the black widow population; searching for gamma-ray orbital modulation near superior conjunction could provide a quick observational test of the heating geometry.
  • If future spectroscopy catches the companion's radial velocity curve, the mass ratio and pulsar mass could be measured directly, turning a candidate into a mass measurement relevant to neutron-star physics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first dedicated time-series optical photometry of the optical counterpart candidate to the unassociated Fermi source 4FGL J1544.2-2554. The authors find a strong 2.724 h periodicity with an amplitude of at least 2.5 mag and single-peaked, roughly symmetric folded light curves in B, V, and Rc. They interpret this as the orbital modulation of a low-mass companion heated by a pulsar wind and fit a direct-heating model to derive the binary parameters: inclinations of about 83 degrees, companion mass of about 0.1 solar masses, distance of about 2.1 kpc, night-side temperature of about 3000 K, and Roche-lobe filling factor of about 0.65. They classify the source as a promising spider pulsar candidate and recommend radio and gamma-ray pulsation searches for confirmation, noting the possible but unconfirmed relation to the TRAPUM radio pulsar J1544-2555.

Significance. If confirmed, this would add a new field spider pulsar candidate, probably a black widow, to the small population of such systems and further demonstrate the effectiveness of combining Fermi, eROSITA, Gaia, and optical time-series data to identify unassociated gamma-ray sources. The main strengths are the new multi-band time-series data, the robust period detection with a clearly visible second harmonic, the consistency between the new OAN-SPM data and archival Pan-STARRS/ZTF data over eleven years, and the use of a physically motivated heating model that has been applied to other spider systems. The authors also provide quantitative predictions for the minimum-phase brightness and an explicit observational confirmation strategy. The principal weaknesses are that the derived physical parameters rest on an assumed identification of the photometric period with the orbital period and on model extrapolations into phases where the source is not detected, with only statistical uncertainties quoted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Table 2] The fitted night-side temperature Tn = 3060 K and inclination i = 83 degrees rely on extrapolation into orbital phases where the source is fainter than the detection limit of about 23 mag. The authors acknowledge this in the text, but the abstract and Table 2 present Tn and i with 1-sigma statistical uncertainties of only a few percent. These uncertainties do not include the dominant systematic uncertainty from having no data near minimum light. Please quantify this by re-fitting with Tn fixed over a plausible range (e.g., 2500-3500 K) and by reporting how i, the filling factor, and the distance change, or explicitly label Tn and i as model-dependent predictions rather than measured parameters.
  2. [Section 3, Table 2] The interstellar reddening is fixed at E(B-V) = 0.23 mag, the maximum value from Green et al. (2019), based on the statement that the source is likely more distant than 0.2 kpc. No sensitivity test is shown for lower reddening, even though the source is at high Galactic latitude and a smaller E(B-V) is plausible. Because the color terms enter the blackbody fits, a different reddening will change the derived temperatures, distance, and possibly the inclination. Please report at least one fit with E(B-V) = 0.1 or marginalize over E(B-V) and include the resulting spread in the quoted parameter uncertainties.
  3. [Section 3, Fig. 3] The quoted chi-squared per degree of freedom is 101/50, which is statistically poor (chi^2/d.o.f. ≈ 2.0), and the residual panel shows deviations reaching ±4 sigma. This indicates either underestimated photometric uncertainties or a systematic deficiency in the heating model. Since the parameter uncertainties in Table 2 are derived from the chi-squared minimization, they are likely underestimated. The authors should either add a systematic error term to the photometric uncertainties and re-derive the parameter errors, or discuss why the formal chi-squared is unacceptable and which model assumptions are most likely responsible.
  4. [Section 5] The identification of the 2.724 h photometric period with the binary orbital period is not independently confirmed. There is no radial-velocity curve, no X-ray eclipse ephemeris, and no pulsar timing solution. The otherwise useful reference to the TRAPUM pulsar J1544-2555 cannot currently corroborate the orbital period because its coordinates and orbital period are not published. Consequently, the companion mass, inclination, and distance in Table 2 are all conditional on the assumed equivalence of Pph and the orbital period. This is acceptable for a candidate claim, but the manuscript should state this condition more prominently, for example by explicitly writing 'if Pph is the orbital period' in the abstract or results section and by treating the parameter estimates as conditional until a radio or gamma-ray timing solution is available.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The horizontal axis label 'Orbital phase' presumes the photometric period is the orbital period; consider labeling the axis 'Phase' or adding a qualifier such as '(assumed orbital)' until the orbital origin is confirmed.
  2. [Section 3] The abstract reports an amplitude of about 2.5 mag, while Section 4 states a '2-4 mag amplitude' for the source. Please specify which band and which phases define the amplitude to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Table 2] The derived companion mass Mc = 0.102 is quoted without an uncertainty, although it follows from the fitted mass ratio and neutron-star mass, both of which have large uncertainties. A propagated uncertainty should be provided.
  4. [Appendix A] The Monte Carlo period-error estimation assumes normally distributed magnitude errors and uniformly distributed times within exposures; a brief sentence noting that the resulting 2.723884(1) h uncertainty is therefore a statistical lower limit would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: photometric period is measured, model parameters are fitted to data, and minimum-phase predictions are extrapolations, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs. The 2.723884 h period is measured from OAN-SPM and archival data via Lomb-Scargle periodograms (Section 3 and Appendix A) and is not derived from the spider hypothesis. The identification of this period with the binary orbital period is an assumption that the paper labels as a 'presumed spider system' and explicitly asks to be confirmed by radio timing; an unverified assumption is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction. The direct-heating model is cited to Zharikov et al. (2013, 2019) and Kirichenko et al. (2024), some of whose authors overlap with the present paper, but the model is described in the text, is externally published, has been applied to other spider systems, and is fitted with free parameters, so the citation is independent support rather than load-bearing self-citation. The 'night-side' temperature and the predicted minimum-phase amplitudes are explicitly flagged as extrapolations because no data exist near minimum brightness (Section 3 and Conclusions); they are not fitted to those unobserved phases, so the 'prediction' is not statistically forced. The fixed E(B-V)=0.23 is an input assumption that affects the fitted distance, but the distance is not identical to the reddening input. External comparisons to spider populations use non-self citations (Draghis et al. 2019; Kandel et al. 2020; Mata Sanchez et al. 2023). The paper's central claim is hedged as a 'candidate' throughout. No step in the chain reduces by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a photometric period and a parameterized heating model with eight effectively chosen or fitted quantities, including fixed reddening. No new physical entities are introduced. The 2.724 h period is data-driven; the model parameters are fit outputs rather than first-principles predictions. The published model code and light-curve data are not shipped, so reproduction requires re-implementation or contacting the authors.

free parameters (8)
  • NS mass M_NS = 1.96 (+1.00/-0.60) M_sun
    Fitted in the direct heating model; weakly constrained by photometry alone.
  • Mass ratio q = 0.052(5)
    Fitted; companion mass 0.102 M_sun is derived from q and M_NS.
  • Distance D = 2.13(5) kpc
    Fitted; covaries with Roche-lobe filling factor and depends on fixed reddening.
  • Night-side temperature T_n = 3060 (+120/-60) K
    Fitted; no data near minimum phase, so the value is an extrapolation.
  • Inclination i = 83 (+7/-11) deg
    Fitted; affected by lack of minimum-phase data.
  • Roche-lobe filling factor f_x = 0.65(5)
    Fitted; covaries with distance.
  • Irradiation factor K_irr = 2.20(14)e20 erg cm^-2 s^-1 sr^-1
    Fitted.
  • Reddening E(B-V) = 0.23 mag (fixed)
    Chosen as maximum line-of-sight reddening from Green et al. (2019); not fitted but affects the distance and color fit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The optical counterpart is the same object as the X-ray and gamma-ray source 4FGL J1544.2-2554.
    Positional coincidence from Mayer & Becker (2024); if the association is wrong, the spider interpretation fails.
  • domain assumption The 2.724 h periodicity is the binary orbital period, and the optical modulation is caused by direct heating of a tidally locked companion.
    Used implicitly in the light-curve analysis in Section 3; no radial velocity curve is available yet.
  • domain assumption The companion radiates as a set of blackbody surface elements heated by the pulsar wind.
    The direct heating model of Zharikov et al. (2013, 2019) adopted in Section 3.
  • domain assumption The reddening along the line of sight reaches E(B-V)=0.23 by 0.2 kpc and the source is beyond that distance, so E(B-V) is fixed at 0.23.
    Authors state the source is likely distant; this choice enters the distance fit. The paper calls the resulting uncertainties statistical only.
  • domain assumption The system is a high Galactic latitude field source with no significant absorption beyond the fixed reddening.
    Used when estimating X-ray and gamma-ray luminosities in Section 4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 4FGL J1544.2$-$2554: a new spider pulsar candidate." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BW7ND7NW

@misc{pith2026241116350,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 4FGL J1544.2$-$2554: a new spider pulsar candidate},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BW7ND7NW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16350}
}
abstract

Context. Spider pulsars are millisecond pulsars in tight binary systems, in which a low-mass companion star is heated and ablated by the pulsar wind. Their observations allow one to study stellar evolution with formation of millisecond pulsars and physics of superdense matter in neutron stars. However, spiders are rare due to difficulties of their discovery using typical radio search techniques. The Fermi $\gamma$-ray source 4FGL J1544.2$-$2554 was recently proposed as a pulsar candidate, and its likely X-ray and optical counterparts with the galactic coordinates $l\approx344.\!\!^\circ76$, $b\approx22.\!\!^\circ59$ and the magnitude $G\approx20.6$ were found using the eROSITA and Gaia surveys. Aims. Our goals are to study whether the source is a new spider pulsar and to estimate its fundamental parameters. Methods. We performed the first optical time-series multi-band photometry of the object. We used the Lomb-Scargle periodogram to search for its brightness periodicity and fitted its light curves with a model of direct heating of the binary companion by the pulsar wind. Results. The source shows a strong brightness variability with a period of $\approx$ 2.724 h and an amplitude of $\gtrsim$ 2.5 mag, and its light curves have a single broad peak per period. These features are typical for spider pulsars. The curves are well fitted by the direct heating model, resulting in an orbit inclination of the presumed spider system of $\approx 83^\circ$, a companion mass of $\approx 0.1$ M$_\odot$, its ''day-side'' and ''night-side'' temperatures of $\approx 7200$ K and $\approx 3000$ K, a Roche-lobe filling factor of $\approx 0.65$ and a distance of $\approx 2.1$ kpc. Conclusions. Our findings suggest that 4FGL J1544.2$-$2554 is a spider pulsar. This encourages searches for the pulsar millisecond pulsations in the radio and $\gamma$-rays to confirm its nature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16350 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 1 ′ .5 × 1 ′ .5 individual Rc-band images of the J1544 field obtained with the 2.1-m OAN-SPM telescope near the maximum (left) and the minimum (right) brightness phases. The optical counterpart candidate is shown with the arrow. The circle with a radius of 3′′ indicates the 1σ position uncertainty of 4eRASS J154415.4−255531 proposed as the X-ray counterpart (Mayer & Becker 2024). report the period of the system and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Lomb-Scargle periodogram. The highest peak corresponding to the best period is enlarged in the inset. 21 22 23 24 Magnitude B V Rc −1.0 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Orbital phase −4 0 (O-C)/ 4 σ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: Light curves of the J1544 counterpart candidate obtained with the 2.1-m OAN-SPM telescope and folded with the period 2.724 h. The best-fitting model is shown with solid lines. Bottom: Fit residuals derived as the difference between the observed (O) and the calculated (C) magnitudes for each data point in terms of the magnitude error σ. panion in respect to the pulsar. The orbital period was fixed at the measure… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Multiwavelength observations of a new black-widow millisecond pulsar PSR J1544-2555

    astro-ph.HE 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    PSR J1544-2555 is a new 2.39 ms black-widow pulsar in a 2.7-hour orbit, identified via optical variability and confirmed by radio and gamma-ray pulsations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    H., Lott , B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration

    Ballet , J., Bruel , P., Burnett , T. H., Lott , B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration . 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.12546

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    X-ray and optical observations of the millisecond pulsar binary PSRJ1431-4715

    de Martino , D., Phosrisom , A., Dhillon , V. S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02075

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    J., Lang , D., et al

    Dey , A., Schlegel , D. J., Lang , D., et al. 2019, , 157, 168

    2019

  6. [6]

    W., Filippenko , A

    Draghis , P., Romani , R. W., Filippenko , A. V., et al. 2019, , 883, 108

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    A., Magnier , E

    Flewelling , H. A., Magnier , E. A., Chambers , K. C., et al. 2020, , 251, 7

    2020

  8. [8]

    u ver , T., \

    Foight , D. R., G \"u ver , T., \"O zel , F., & Slane , P. O. 2016, , 826, 66

    work page 2016

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    2024, Pulsars in globular clusters, https://www3.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/pfreire/GCpsr.html, (accessed June 27, 2024)

    Freire , P. 2024, Pulsars in globular clusters, https://www3.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/pfreire/GCpsr.html, (accessed June 27, 2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1

    2016

  3. [11]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1

    2023

  4. [12]

    M., Schlafly , E., Zucker , C., Speagle , J

    Green , G. M., Schlafly , E., Zucker , C., Speagle , J. S., & Finkbeiner , D. 2019, , 887, 93

    2019

  5. [13]

    Halpern , J. P. 2022, , 932, L8

    2022

  6. [14]

    W., Filippenko , A

    Kandel , D., Romani , R. W., Filippenko , A. V., Brink , T. G., & Zheng , W. 2020, , 903, 39

    2020

  7. [15]

    V., Zyuzin , D

    Karpova , A. V., Zyuzin , D. A., Shibanov , Y. A., & Gilfanov , M. R. 2023, , 524, 3020

    2023

  8. [16]

    Y., Zharikov , S

    Kirichenko , A. Y., Zharikov , S. V., Karpova , A. V., et al. 2024, , 527, 4563

    2024

  9. [17]

    Koljonen , K. I. I. & Linares , M. 2023, , 525, 3963

    2023

  10. [18]

    Landolt , A. U. 1992, , 104, 340

    1992

  11. [19]

    X., Hui , C

    Li , K.-L., Jane Yap , Y. X., Hui , C. Y., & Kong , A. K. H. 2021, , 911, 92

    2021

  12. [20]

    Lomb , N. R. 1976, , 39, 447

    1976

  13. [21]

    G., Manchester , R

    Lyne , A. G., Manchester , R. N., D'Amico , N., et al. 1990, , 347, 650

    1990

  14. [22]

    Manchester , R. N. 2017, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 38, 42

    2017

  15. [23]

    J., Laher , R

    Masci , F. J., Laher , R. R., Rusholme , B., et al. 2019, , 131, 018003

    2019

  16. [24]

    R., Clark , C

    Mata S \'a nchez , D., Kennedy , M. R., Clark , C. J., et al. 2023, , 520, 2217

    2023

  17. [25]

    Mayer , M. G. F. & Becker , W. 2024, , 684, A208

    2024

  18. [26]

    J., Kandel , D., et al

    Nieder , L., Clark , C. J., Kandel , D., et al. 2020, , 902, L46

    2020

  19. [27]

    2024, Public List of LAT-Detected Gamma-Ray Pulsars, https://confluence.slac.stanford.edu/display/GLAMCOG/Public+List+of+LAT-Detected+Gamma-Ray+Pulsars, (accessed June 26, 2024)

    Ray , P. 2024, Public List of LAT-Detected Gamma-Ray Pulsars, https://confluence.slac.stanford.edu/display/GLAMCOG/Public+List+of+LAT-Detected+Gamma-Ray+Pulsars, (accessed June 26, 2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Roberts , M. S. E. 2013, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 291, Neutron Stars and Pulsars: Challenges and Opportunities after 80 years, ed. J. van Leeuwen , 127--132

    2013

  21. [29]

    W., Kandel , D., Filippenko , A

    Romani , R. W., Kandel , D., Filippenko , A. V., Brink , T. G., & Zheng , W. 2022, , 934, L18

    2022

  22. [30]

    P., De Luca , A., et al

    Salvetti , D., Mignani , R. P., De Luca , A., et al. 2017, , 470, 466

    2017

  23. [31]

    Scargle , J. D. 1982, , 263, 835

    1982

  24. [32]

    2019, , 872, 42

    Strader , J., Swihart , S., Chomiuk , L., et al. 2019, , 872, 42

    2019

  25. [33]

    J., Strader , J., Aydi , E., et al

    Swihart , S. J., Strader , J., Aydi , E., et al. 2021, , 909, 185

    2021

  26. [34]

    J., Strader , J., Chomiuk , L., et al

    Swihart , S. J., Strader , J., Chomiuk , L., et al. 2022, , 941, 199

    2022

  27. [35]

    J., Breton , R

    Thongmeearkom , T., Clark , C. J., Breton , R. P., et al. 2024, , 530, 4676

    2024

  28. [36]

    L., Stubbs , C

    Tonry , J. L., Stubbs , C. W., Lykke , K. R., et al. 2012, , 750, 99

    2012

  29. [37]

    2023, , 525, 2565

    Turchetta , M., Linares , M., Koljonen , K., & Sen , B. 2023, , 525, 2565

    2023

  30. [38]

    Zharikov , S., Kirichenko , A., Zyuzin , D., Shibanov , Y., & Deneva , J. S. 2019, , 489, 5547

    2019

  31. [39]

    2013, , 549, A77

    Zharikov , S., Tovmassian , G., Aviles , A., et al. 2013, , 549, A77

    2013

  32. [40]

    A., Kirichenko , A

    Zyuzin , D. A., Kirichenko , A. Y., Karpova , A. V., et al. 2024, , 527, 6712

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.