Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Radio pulsar population synthesis with consistent flux measurements using simulation-based inference

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a sequential simulation-based inference algorithm trained on six maps per mock survey — three $P$–$\dot{P}$ count maps and three $P$–$\dot{P}$ averaged flux maps from MeerKAT's Thousand Pulsar Array — recovers the…

desk verdict A solid methodological step for pulsar population synthesis: TSNPE's efficiency gain is credible, the TPA flux maps are a genuinely new constraint, but the overlap bias assumption and post-hoc round choice need scrutiny before the parameter values are trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04070 v2 pith:DALI5ZSX submitted 2024-12-05 astro-ph.HE

Celsa Pardo Araujo , Michele Ronchi , Vanessa Graber , Nanda Rea This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords pulsarpopulationsynthesissimulation-basedinferencetruncatedsequentialneuralposteriorestimationradioluminosityneutronstarsmagneticfielddecayMeerKATThousandArray
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

This paper claims to infer seven parameters describing isolated Galactic radio pulsars -- the mean and width of the log-normal birth magnetic field and birth period distributions, the index of late-time magnetic field decay, and the normalization and power-law index of the intrinsic radio luminosity law -- by comparing simulated populations with observed surveys. The technical claim is that TSNPE, a simulation-based inference algorithm that progressively restricts the prior to regions where the posterior has mass, recovers the same magneto-rotational parameters as a one-shot neural posterior estimator while using about 19,000 simulations instead of 360,000. The new observable is the averaged radio flux per $P$--$\dot{P}$ bin, built from MeerKAT's Thousand Pulsar Array measurements; the paper argues this flux information is what constrains the luminosity parameters and eliminates the bimodality in the late-time decay index. The best estimates are $\mu_{\log B}=13.09$, $\sigma_{\log B}=0.50$, $\mu_{\log P}=-0.67$, $\sigma_{\log P}=0.55$, $a_{\rm late}=-0.88$, $\mu_{\log L_0}=26.17$, and $\alpha=0.68$. If correct, these numbers give the birth spin, field, and radio efficiency of the typical Galactic neutron star and provide a calibration target for future surveys.

What carries the argument

The engine is the six-map input representation: three $32\times32$ $P$--$\dot{P}$ density maps and three $32\times32$ $P$--$\dot{P}$ averaged flux maps, one pair per survey (PMPS, SMPS, HTRU), each smoothed with a Gaussian filter before being fed to a convolutional neural network coupled to a mixture density network. The 'truncated sequential' part of TSNPE does the actual work: after each round, the prior is restricted to the highest-density region of the current approximate posterior (through sampling-importance resampling), so the simulator concentrates new samples where the observed data are likely to lie. The luminosity law being constrained is $L_{\rm int}=L_0(\dot E_{\rm rot}/\dot E_{0,\rm rot})^\alpha$ with $\dot E_{0,\rm rot}=10^{29}\ \mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$, and the flux maps enter through the overlap between each survey and the MeerKAT TPA sample.

What would settle it

Take the full ATNF catalogue flux values for each survey and compare the flux distribution of the MeerKAT-overlap pulsars with the non-overlap pulsars; a statistically significant difference in mean or shape falsifies the unbiased-overlap assumption on which the luminosity constraints rest. Alternatively, rebuild the averaged flux maps from the full survey fluxes where available and check whether $\mu_{\log L_0}$ and $\alpha$ move outside their reported credible intervals.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the $P$--$\dot{P}$ averaged flux maps supply information that the count maps alone cannot: adding them turns a broad, bimodal posterior for $a_{\rm late}$ into a narrow constraint and sharply improves the radio luminosity parameters. The paper demonstrates this in two stages. First, on a simulated population with known ground truth, TSNPE with 1,000 first-round simulations produces posteriors whose 95% credible interval contains the true parameter values. Second, applied to the observed population, the same pipeline yields the seven values quoted above, with the coverage probability remaining conservative across rounds. The authors further report that the resulting simulated populations reproduce the observed $P$--$\dot{P}$ distributions for all three surveys, while the synthetic SMPS flux distribution shows a residual mismatch that they attribute to missing late-time physics.

Load-bearing premise

The inference assumes the MeerKAT re-observed subset of each survey is flux-unbiased; if brighter or fainter pulsars are more likely to be in the overlap, the averaged flux maps misrepresent the parent population and the inferred luminosity law is biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the inference is correct, the isolated Galactic pulsar population is born with $\log_{10} B_0$ distributed as $\mathcal{N}(13.09, 0.50)$ and $\log_{10} P_0$ as $\mathcal{N}(-0.67, 0.55)$, giving a concrete target for core-collapse supernova and neutron-star formation models.
  • The posterior for $a_{\rm late}=-0.88^{+0.16}_{-0.17}$ removes the bimodality seen in the five-parameter analysis, meaning old pulsars' field decay is tied to the flux data and to the luminosity law.
  • Because TSNPE needs only about 19,000 simulations, the same machinery can add more parameters -- beaming geometry, magnetars, alternative decay laws -- without exploding computational cost.
  • The best-fit population yields birth rates of roughly 1.7-2.2 neutron stars per century, compatible with the core-collapse supernova rate, so the model does not need an exotic birth rate to match the surveys.
  • The remaining SMPS flux mismatch is flagged by the paper itself as a sign of missing late-time physics, making the SMPS overlap the natural next target for model comparison.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same flux-map representation could be used to infer survey-by-survey beaming or spectral-index parameters, since the maps average over unknown geometry and the current analysis fixes the spectral index rather than inferring it.
  • Beyond the paper: because $\mu_{\log L_0}$ is strongly correlated with $\mu_{\log B_0}$ and anti-correlated with $\mu_{\log P_0}$, future flux samples with a different selection function could serve as an independent cross-check of the birth-field distribution.
  • Beyond the paper: the claimed simulation saving is specific to the single observed dataset; if one needs posteriors for many observed populations, the amortized NPE approach would still be preferable, a tradeoff the paper only partially notes.
  • Beyond the paper: a direct test is to simulate mock surveys with a known flux-dependent overlap selection and verify that TSNPE recovers the injected luminosity law, quantifying how much the unbiased-overlap assumption matters for $\mu_{\log L_0}$ and $\alpha$.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a pulsar population synthesis framework combined with truncated sequential neural posterior estimation (TSNPE) to infer seven parameters describing the birth magnetic field and period distributions, the late-time magnetic field decay index, and the intrinsic radio luminosity law of isolated Galactic pulsars. The main methodological novelty is the inclusion of averaged flux maps constructed from the MeerKAT Thousand Pulsar Array (TPA) sample (Posselt et al. 2023) as additional inputs to the neural network, alongside the P–Pdot density maps used in the authors' previous work. The authors report best estimates mu_logB=13.09, sigma_logB=0.50, mu_logP=-0.67, sigma_logP=0.55, a_late=-0.88, mu_logL0=26.17, alpha=0.68 (Eq. 19), claim that flux information improves constraints on the luminosity parameters and on the late-time decay index, and argue that TSNPE achieves results comparable to their earlier NPE study using about 19,000 simulations instead of 360,000.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful methodological advance: it demonstrates that a sequential SBI algorithm can handle a seven-parameter pulsar population synthesis problem with a much smaller simulation budget than amortized NPE, and it introduces consistent MeerKAT/TPA flux information as a new constraint on the radio luminosity law. The paper is transparent about convergence difficulties, performs coverage checks on test datasets, validates the pipeline on a simulated population with known ground truth, and compares against previous literature values. These strengths make the work a promising contribution to pulsar population synthesis methodology, provided that the load-bearing assumptions identified below are tested and the missing ablation is supplied.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4, Eq. (12)] The construction of the observed flux maps assumes that the overlap between each survey's detected pulsars and the TPA sample is a random subsample of the full survey population in radio flux. The verification reported in §2.4 covers DM, sky position, period, and period derivative, but does not test flux. If TPA preferentially re-observed brighter pulsars (a plausible selection, since timing solutions are often available for brighter sources), the observed average flux maps would be biased high, directly biasing the inferred mu_logL0 and alpha in Eq. (7), and, through the strong correlations shown in Figure 4 (e.g., mu_logL0 with mu_logB and mu_logP), all seven inferred parameters. This is a load-bearing assumption for the headline luminosity constraints in Eq. (19). The authors should either compare the flux distributions of the overlap subsets with the full survey flux distributions (using ATNF flux data) and report the outcome, or model the TPA selection function explicitly.
  2. [§6.2] The central claim that adding flux maps improves the constraints—particularly on a_late—rests on an ablation experiment that is described only in words: 'we perform an experiment where we infer the seven parameters providing only the three P–Pdot density maps. We observe that the a_late posterior becomes broader, and bimodality arises.' No figure, table, or quantitative posterior widths for this experiment are presented. Because this ablation is the qualitative basis for the abstract's statement that flux information 'largely improves' the estimates and for the discussion of the improved a_late constraint, the results of this experiment should be shown.
  3. [§5.3 and §6.3, Eq. (19)] The best estimates are taken from round 6 of Experiment 4, chosen after the authors observed that rounds 7–10 produce a shift in the tail of the mu_logP and sigma_logP marginals. This post-hoc round selection is not a principled convergence criterion, and the quoted 95% credible intervals from round 6 do not account for the round-to-round variation visible in Figure 3. The authors should either demonstrate that the round-to-round variation is contained within the quoted CI, report the range of estimates across stable rounds, or aggregate the posterior across multiple rounds, before Eq. (19) can be considered a robust result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §5.1] The abstract states that TSNPE uses 'around 4%' of the simulations required by NPE, but §5.1 reports 19,000 versus 360,000 simulations, which is about 5.3%. The percentage should be corrected (or the number of simulations 18,000 should be verified).
  2. [§2.3] The spectral index of -1.8 is taken from Posselt et al. (2023), which is the same TPA sample used for the observed fluxes. This is not a logical circularity, but it is a modeling choice that should be stated as such, and the sensitivity of the inferred luminosity parameters to the assumed spectral index should be discussed or tested.
  3. [§6.2] The sentence 'The coefficients are thus not overly sensitive to this correlation' is unclear; it likely means that the correlation coefficients are dominated by the other surveys, but the wording should be clarified.
  4. [§5.3 and Table 2] Eq. (19) reports 95% credible intervals, while Table 2 quotes 68% intervals for the same parameters; the text should state which credible level is used where to avoid confusion.
  5. [Abstract] There are typos in the abstract ('constrainthe intrinsic radioluminosity', 'toconstrainthe', 'around4%'); these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No major circularity; one minor calibration double-use of the TPA spectral index.

  1. other [Section 2.3, paragraph beginning 'We note that we adopt two different spectral indices']
    "In contrast, for experiments focused on inferring magneto-rotational and luminosity parameters by adding MeerKAT fluxes, we assume a spectral index of −1.8 based on the mean spectral index estimated by Posselt et al. (2023) (see their Figure 8) to maintain consistency."

    The observed flux maps are built from the TPA/MeerKAT fluxes reported by Posselt et al. (2023), while the simulated flux maps are generated by converting bolometric luminosity to 1.4-GHz flux density using a spectral index taken from the same Posselt et al. sample. Because the flux conversion in Eq. (9) uses this spectral index, the overall normalization and frequency scaling of the simulated fluxes inherit the spectral calibration of the very data used as the inference target. Thus part of the agreement between simulated and observed flux distributions is anchored by an input derived from the target sample, rather than being an independent prediction of the luminosity-law parameters.

full rationale

The central inference is a standard likelihood-free parameter estimation: the simulator generates P-Pdot density maps and averaged flux maps from the parameters, the neural density estimator is trained on simulated pairs, and the posterior is evaluated at the observed maps. No analytic derivation reduces to the inputs. Experiment 3 validates the procedure on a simulated population with known ground truth, with coverage at or above the diagonal, and the ablation in Section 6.2 shows that removing the flux maps makes the alate posterior broader and bimodal, supporting the claim that the flux maps add information. The only mild data-reuse is the fixed spectral index (−1.8) taken from Posselt et al. (2023), which is also the source of the TPA fluxes entering the observed flux maps; this anchors the frequency conversion of simulated fluxes to the target data, but the spectral index is an assumed input, not a fitted or predicted parameter, so the luminosity parameters are not definitionally determined by it. The unverified flux-unbiasedness of the survey/TPA overlap (Section 2.4) is a genuine systematic-risk concern — if the overlap preferentially contains brighter pulsars, the inferred mu_logL0 and alpha would be biased — but it is an assumption about the data, not a circular reduction of the inference. Self-citation to Paper I is used as a benchmark and as the source of the simulator, not as an unverified load-bearing premise for the paper's novel claims.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The inference is conditional on a chain of fixed modeling choices: birth distribution shapes, spin-down torques, the luminosity functional form, the magnetic field decay parametrization, the spectral index, and the precomputed dynamical database. If any of these is materially wrong, the reported posterior medians in Eq. (19) will be biased; the paper does not test sensitivity to most of them.

free parameters (7)
  • mu_logB = 13.09
    Mean of log10 initial magnetic field distribution, inferred posterior median.
  • sigma_logB = 0.50
    Standard deviation of log10 initial magnetic field distribution.
  • mu_logP = -0.67
    Mean of log10 initial spin period distribution.
  • sigma_logP = 0.55
    Standard deviation of log10 initial spin period distribution.
  • a_late = -0.88
    Power-law index for late-time magnetic field decay (Eq. 6).
  • mu_logL0 = 26.17
    Mean of log10 luminosity normalization L0 in Eq. (7).
  • alpha = 0.68
    Power-law index for the Edot dependence of radio luminosity in Eq. (7).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Initial magnetic fields and spin periods follow log-normal distributions (Eqs. 2-3).
    Functional form for the birth distributions is assumed, not derived; parameters are inferred.
  • domain assumption Spin-down follows magnetic dipole torque with kappa0=kappa1=kappa2=1 (Eqs. 4-5).
    Adopts Spitkovsky (2006) and Philippov et al. (2014) prescription for plasma-filled magnetosphere.
  • domain assumption Intrinsic bolometric luminosity follows L_int = L0 (Edot/Edot0)^alpha with log-normal scatter sigma_logL=0.8 (Eq. 7).
    The luminosity law is the target of inference only through its parameters; the functional form is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper Late-time magnetic field decay follows a power law with tau_late ~ 2e6 yr (Eq. 6).
    Phenomenological parametrization introduced in Paper I to extend Viganò et al. (2021) magneto-thermal simulations beyond t > 1e6 yr.
  • domain assumption The radio spectral index is fixed at -1.6 (five-parameter experiments) or -1.8 (seven-parameter experiments).
    Fixed values from Jankowski et al. (2018) and Posselt et al. (2023); not inferred. A different spectral index would shift the inferred luminosity normalization.
  • domain assumption The observed sample selection (excluding Pdot < 1e-19, P < 0.01 s) isolates the modeled population of isolated non-recycled pulsars.
    Necessary to match the simulator, which does not model accretion evolution.
  • domain assumption The dynamical database (positions, kick velocities, ages) from Paper I is accurate and fixed.
    The magneto-rotational evolution is decoupled from dynamics and samples from this precomputed database.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radio pulsar population synthesis with consistent flux measurements using simulation-based inference." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DALI5ZSX

@misc{pith2026241204070,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radio pulsar population synthesis with consistent flux measurements using simulation-based inference},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DALI5ZSX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04070}
}
read the original abstract

The properties of the entire neutron star population can be inferred by modeling their evolution, from birth to the present, through pulsar population synthesis. This involves simulating a mock population, applying observational filters, and comparing the resulting sources to the limited subset of detected pulsars. We specifically focus on the magneto-rotational properties of Galactic isolated neutron stars and provide new insights into the intrinsic radio luminosity law by combining pulsar population synthesis with a simulation-based inference (SBI) technique called truncated sequential neural posterior estimation (TSNPE). We employ TSNPE to train a neural density estimator on simulated pulsar populations to approximate the posterior distribution of the underlying parameters. This technique efficiently explores the parameter space by concentrating on regions that are most likely to match the observed data thus allowing a significant reduction in training dataset size. We demonstrate the efficiency of TSNPE over standard neural posterior estimation (NPE), achieving robust inferences of magneto-rotational parameters consistent with previous studies using only around 4% of the simulations required by NPE approaches. Moreover, for the first time, we incorporate data from the Thousand Pulsar Array (TPA) program on MeerKAT, the largest unified sample of neutron stars with consistent fluxes measurement to date, to help constrain the stars' intrinsic radio luminosity. We find that adding flux information as an input to the neural network largely improves the constraints on the pulsars' radio luminosity, as well as improving the estimates on other input parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04070 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of the six density maps for a random simulated neutron star population, which we fed into the SBI pipeline. The top and the bottom row show the P-P˙ diagrams and the P-P˙ averaged flux maps for each of the three surveys, respectively. In the top row, the colour represents the density in neutron star number within each bin, while in the bottom row the colour represents the averaged flux in Jy within each bin.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic representation of the workflow for the truncated neural sequential posterior estimator (TSNPE) algorithm applied to pulsar population synthesis. and the fact that the approximated posterior distribution qF (x0,ϕ)(θ) is easy to sample. The SIR algorithm draws K samples {θ1, ..., θk} from the approximated posterior distribution and computes their respective weights wk = P(θk)1θk∈M qF (x0,ϕ)(θk) . These K sam… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the TSNPE algorithm applied to our pulsar population synthesis. Here, we show the results for inferring the seven free parameters related to the magneto-rotational evolution and the luminosity for the observed neutron star population, using 1,000 simulations in the first round in Experiment 4. Each row corresponds to one round of inference. The last column shows the coverage probability computed on t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Inference results for the observed pulsar population using round 6 of Experiment 4. The corner plot shows 1D and 2D marginal posterior distributions for the five magneto-rotational parameters and the two parameters related to the intrinsic bolometric luminosity. We hig…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulated and observed populations of isolated Galactic radio pulsars. Each panel corresponds to a different survey, from left to right: PMPS, SMPS, and the low- and mid-latitude HTRU survey. The yellow stars indicate the observed pulsar population with data taken from…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. A Square Kilometre Array Pulsar Census

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    Composite SKA-Low + Mid Band 1/2 all-sky surveys with AA* yield ~10k slow pulsars and ~800 MSPs; AA4 yields ~20% more, rising to ~1300 MSPs if Mid coverage is broadened.

  2. Understanding the Neutron Star Population with the SKAO Telescopes

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 accept novelty 3.5 of 10

    SKAO AA* and AA4 surveys are projected to discover thousands of ordinary pulsars and ~800–1000 MSPs, enabling population synthesis, mass measurements and tests of gravity and emission physics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 4440

    Alsing, J., Charnock, T., Feeney, S., & Wandelt, B. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4440

    2019

  2. [2]

    & Dupourqué, S

    Barret, D. & Dupourqué, S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.06061

    work page arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    D., Lorimer, D

    Bates, S. D., Lorimer, D. R., Rane, A., & Swiggum, J. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2893

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    K., Nissanke, S., & Weniger, C

    Bhardwaj, U., Alvey, J., Miller, B. K., Nissanke, S., & Weniger, C. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 042004

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    & Ruderman, M

    Chen, K. & Ruderman, M. 1993, ApJ, 402, 264 Cieślar, M., Bulik, T., & Osłowski, S. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 4043

    work page 1993

  6. [6]

    Coleman, M. S. B. & Burrows, A. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 3938

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    2006, Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15

    Cook, S., Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. 2006, Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 117, 30055

    Cranmer, K., Brehmer, J., & Louppe, G. 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 117, 30055

    2020

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 1458 Dask Development Team

    Dai, S., Johnston, S., & Hobbs, G. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1458 Dask Development Team. 2016, Dask: Library for dynamic task scheduling

    2017

  2. [10]

    R., Gair, J., et al

    Dax, M., Green, S. R., Gair, J., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. Lett., 127, 241103

    2021

  3. [11]

    J., & Macke, J

    Deistler, M., Goncalves, P. J., & Macke, J. H. 2022, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, ed. S. Koyejo, S. Mo- hamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, & A. Oh, Vol. 35 (Curran

    2022

  4. [12]

    T., Bailes, M., Van Straten, W., & Britton, M

    Edwards, R. T., Bailes, M., Van Straten, W., & Britton, M. C. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 326, 358 Faucher-Giguère, C.-A. & Kaspi, V. M. 2006, ApJ, 643, 332

    2001

  5. [13]

    & Julian, W

    Goldreich, P. & Julian, W. H. 1969, ApJ, 157, 869

    1969

  6. [14]

    L., Story, S

    Gonthier, P. L., Story, S. A., Clow, B. D., & Harding, A. K. 2007, Ap&SS, 309, 245

    2007

  7. [15]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 16

    Graber, V., Ronchi, M., Pardo-Araujo, C., & Rea, N. 2024, ApJ, 968, 16

    2024

  8. [16]

    S., Nonnenmacher, M., & Macke, J

    Greenberg, D. S., Nonnenmacher, M., & Macke, J. H. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.07488 Gullón, M., Miralles, J. A., Viganò, D., & Pons, J. A. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 1891 Gullón, M., Pons, J. A., Miralles, J. A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 615

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    2015, preprint, arXiv:1502.01852

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. 2015, preprint, arXiv:1502.01852

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1903.04057

    Hermans, J., Begy, V., & Louppe, G. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1903.04057

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2110.06581

    Hermans, J., Delaunoy, A., Rozet, F., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2110.06581

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    R., Lyne, A

    Hobbs, G., Lorimer, D. R., Lyne, A. G., & Kramer, M. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 974

    2005

  13. [21]

    Igoshev, A. P. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3663

    2020

  14. [22]

    P., Frantsuzova, A., Gourgouliatos, K

    Igoshev, A. P., Frantsuzova, A., Gourgouliatos, K. N., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4606

    2022

  15. [23]

    A., Bailes, M., Ord, S

    Jacoby, B. A., Bailes, M., Ord, S. M., Edwards, R. T., & Kulkarni, S. R. 2009, ApJ, 699, 2009

    2009

  16. [24]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 9

    Janka, H.-T., Wongwathanarat, A., & Kramer, M. 2022, ApJ, 926, 9

    2022

  17. [25]

    F., et al

    Jankowski, F., van Straten, W., Keane, E. F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4436

    2018

  18. [26]

    J., et al

    Johnston, S., Karastergiou, A., Keith, M. J., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 3608

    2020

  19. [27]

    J., Jameson, A., van Straten, W., et al

    Keith, M. J., Jameson, A., van Straten, W., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 619

    2010

  20. [28]

    Kingma, D. P. & Ba, J. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.6980 Lorimer,D.R.2004,inYoungNeutronStarsandTheirEnvironments, ed. F. Camilo & B. M. Gaensler, Vol. 218, 105

    2014 arXiv

  21. [29]

    R., Bailes, M., Dewey, R

    Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., Dewey, R. J., & Harrison, P. A. 1993, MNRAS, 263, 403

    1993

  22. [30]

    R., Faulkner, A

    Lorimer, D. R., Faulkner, A. J., Lyne, A. G., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 777

    2006

  23. [31]

    Lorimer, D. R. & Kramer, M. 2012, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy (Cambridge University Press)

    2012

  24. [32]

    J., Bassetto, G., et al

    Lueckmann, J.-M., Goncalves, P. J., Bassetto, G., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1711.01861

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    N., Hobbs, G

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

    2005

  26. [34]

    N., Lyne, A

    Manchester, R. N., Lyne, A. G., Camilo, F., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 17

    2001

  27. [35]

    2021, Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34, 129

    Miller, B., Cole, A., Forré, P., Louppe, G., & Weniger, C. 2021, Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34, 129

    2021

  28. [36]

    & Cranmer, K

    Mishra-Sharma, S. & Cranmer, K. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 063017

    2022

  29. [37]

    & Ostriker, J

    Narayan, R. & Ostriker, J. P. 1990, ApJ, 352, 222

    1990

  30. [38]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.11373

    Pacilio, C., Bhagwat, S., & Cotesta, R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.11373

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    & Murray, I

    Papamakarios, G. & Murray, I. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1605.06376

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    C., & Murray, I

    Papamakarios, G., Sterratt, D. C., & Murray, I. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1805.07226

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Philippov, A., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Li, J. G. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1879

    2014

  34. [42]

    B., Pons, J

    Popov, S. B., Pons, J. A., Miralles, J. A., Boldin, P. A., & Posselt, B. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 2675

    2010

  35. [43]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 4582

    Posselt, B., Karastergiou, A., Johnston, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 4582

    2023

  36. [44]

    2021, New A, 83, 101498

    Rozwadowska, K., Vissani, F., & Cappellaro, E. 2021, New A, 83, 101498

    2021

  37. [45]

    1987, Bayesian Stat., 3

    Rubin, D. 1987, Bayesian Stat., 3

    1987

  38. [46]

    Ruderman, M. A. & Sutherland, P. G. 1975, ApJ, 196, 51

    1975

  39. [47]

    Russ, J. C. 2011, The Image Processing Handbook, Sixth Edition, 6th edn. (USA: CRC Press, Inc.)

    2011

  40. [48]

    2024, A&A, 691, A349

    Sautron, M., Pétri, J., Mitra, D., & Dirson, L. 2024, A&A, 691, A349

    2024

  41. [49]

    D., Weniger, C., de Lera Acedo, E., & Han- dley, W

    Saxena, A., Meerburg, P. D., Weniger, C., de Lera Acedo, E., & Han- dley, W. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.14618

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 1071–1090

    Sengar, R., Bailes, M., Balakrishnan, V., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 1071–1090

    2023

  43. [51]

    Shi, Z. & Ng, C. Y. 2024, ApJ, 972, 78

    2024

  44. [52]

    Smith, A. F. M. & Gelfand, A. E. 1992, The American Statistician, 46, 84

    1992

  45. [53]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 4562

    Song, X., Weltevrede, P., Szary, A., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 4562

    2023

  46. [54]

    2006, ApJ, 648, L51 Spurio Mancini, A., Docherty, M

    Spitkovsky, A. 2006, ApJ, 648, L51 Spurio Mancini, A., Docherty, M. M., Price, M. A., & McEwen, J. D. 2023, RAS Techniques and Instruments, 2, 710

    2006

  47. [55]

    & Ord, J

    Stuart, A. & Ord, J. K. 1994, Kendall’s advanced theory of statistics. Vol.1: Distribution theory

    1994

  48. [56]

    2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2505

    Tejero-Cantero, A., Boelts, J., Deistler, M., et al. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2505

    2020

  49. [57]

    2023, A&A, 672, A147 Viganò, D., Garcia-Garcia, A., Pons, J

    Vasist, M., Rozet, F., Absil, O., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A147 Viganò, D., Garcia-Garcia, A., Pons, J. A., Dehman, C., & Graber, V. 2021, Computer Physics Communications, 265, 108001 Viganò, D., Rea, N., Pons, J. A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 123

    2023

  50. [58]

    2023, ApJ, 947, 76

    Xu, K., Yang, H.-R., Mao, Y.-H., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 76

    2023

  51. [59]

    M., Manchester, R

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

    2017

  52. [60]

    K., & Muslimov, A

    Zhang, B., Harding, A. K., & Muslimov, A. G. 2000, ApJ, 531, L135 Article number, page 15 of 18 A&A proofs: manuscript no. paper_v7_accepted Appendix A: Test experiments Figures A.1 to A.3 display the results of the TSNPE al- gorithm over 10 rounds for Experiments 1 to 3, disc...

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.