Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 83 references

A new X-ray census of rotation powered pulsars

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A sample of 231 X-ray pulsar counterparts links X-ray luminosity to spin-down power and, for the first time, to the light-cylinder magnetic field in millisecond pulsars.

desk verdict Large useful X-ray pulsar sample; LX-Edot slope holds, but the new Blc correlation is an algebraic echo of Edot and should not be sold as independent outer-gap evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10999 v2 pith:NQEEDW2U submitted 2025-01-19 astro-ph.HE

Yu-Jing Xu , Han-Long Peng , Shan-Shan Weng , Xiao Zhang , Ming-Yu Ge This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords pulsarsrotation-poweredmillisecondX-rayluminosityspin-downpowerlight-cylindermagneticfieldouter-gapmodelcounterparts
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

By matching archived X-ray source catalogs against known radio pulsars, the paper assembles 231 X-ray counterparts (98 normal, 133 millisecond pulsars), the largest such sample compiled to date. Across the full X-ray band the sample yields $L_{\rm X} \propto \dot{E}^{0.85\pm0.05}$, a strong correlation that persists in hard X-rays but vanishes in soft X-rays. It reports for the first time a strong correlation between X-ray luminosity and the light-cylinder magnetic field for millisecond pulsars, with both normal and millisecond pulsars following $L_{\rm X} \propto B_{\rm lc}^{1.14}$, a signature the outer-gap model predicts. If correct, X-ray emission from all rotation-powered pulsars is organized by the same spin-down physics, making the light-cylinder field a practical predictor of X-ray brightness and a constraint on where in the magnetosphere the X-rays are produced.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the light-cylinder magnetic field, $B_{\rm lc}=2.9\times10^{8}P^{-2.5}\dot{P}^{0.5}$ G — the magnetic field at the radius where co-rotation would reach light speed — combined with a 231-object X-ray counterpart sample built from positional cross-matching of two orbiting X-ray observatories' catalogs with radio pulsar positions. The argument runs through log-log linear fits of $L_{\rm X}$ against $\dot{E}$, $P$, $\dot{P}$, characteristic age, surface field, and $B_{\rm lc}$, with Pearson and Spearman correlation tests and a two-dimensional fit $L_{\rm X}\propto B_{\rm lc}^{0.86}\tau^{-0.42}$ that reproduces the $\dot{E}$ scaling. The $B_{\rm lc}$ relation is the load-bearing identity, replacing the surface field as the parameter that organizes X-ray luminosity.

What would settle it

Recompute the two central correlations using independent, parallax-based distances or the alternative electron-density model that gives PSR J1057-5226 a distance of 720 pc instead of 93 pc: if $L_{\rm X}\propto\dot{E}^{0.85}$ and $L_{\rm X}\propto B_{\rm lc}^{1.14}$ change slope by more than the quoted uncertainties, the claims are distance artifacts; if they survive, the distance worry is bounded.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the X-ray emission of rotation-powered pulsars is governed by their spin-down power and by the magnetic field at the light cylinder, $B_{\rm lc}=2.9\times10^{8}P^{-2.5}\dot{P}^{0.5}$ G. With 231 X-ray counterparts (98 normal and 133 millisecond pulsars), the full-band X-ray luminosity follows $L_{\rm X}\propto\dot{E}^{0.85\pm0.05}$, with a strong hard-band correlation and no significant soft-band correlation; normal pulsars also show strong $L_{\rm X}$ correlations with spin period and characteristic age. For the first time, a strong $L_{\rm X}$--$B_{\rm lc}$ correlation is found for millisecond pulsars, and both populations fall on $L_{\rm X}\propto B_{\rm lc}^{1.14}$. The paper interprets this as evidence that high-energy X-rays originate in the outer gap, produced by synchrotron radiation of secondary pairs near the light cylinder, and it concludes that newly discovered Galactic-plane pulsars are too faint for current X-ray catalogs, so their X-ray counterparts are less likely to be detected.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the pulsar distances used to compute X-ray luminosities are accurate enough that their errors, which the paper excludes from the quoted luminosity uncertainties, do not dominate the fitted correlations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • X-ray luminosity becomes predictable from spin-down parameters alone for both normal and millisecond pulsars, giving a direct way to estimate expected X-ray flux for any newly timed pulsar.
  • The common $B_{\rm lc}$ slope places the X-ray emission site near the light cylinder, favoring outer-gap models and disfavoring models where surface or polar-cap fields dominate.
  • Because soft X-rays do not track $\dot{E}$ while hard X-rays do, studies of pulsar X-ray emission must separate thermal and nonthermal components before using broadband luminosities.
  • The faintness of newly discovered Galactic-plane pulsars in X-ray catalogs is a sensitivity effect, so deeper observations, not different physics, should be expected to reveal their counterparts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $L_{\rm X}$--$B_{\rm lc}$ relation holds after distance corrections, X-ray luminosity could be used to estimate $\dot{E}$ and $B_{\rm lc}$ for pulsars without reliable timing, including radio-quiet gamma-ray pulsars.
  • The same $B_{\rm lc}$ scaling also appears in gamma-ray luminosities in the paper's tables, which hints that a single magnetospheric efficiency may govern both bands; a joint X-ray/gamma-ray fit could test this.
  • The paper's own example of one pulsar whose distance changes from 93 pc to 720 pc under alternative electron-density models implies that some sample luminosities could be off by orders of magnitude; reanalyzing with parallax-based distances would clarify whether the reported slopes are partly distance artifacts.
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. This paper cross-matches ATNF pulsar positions against the Chandra CSC 2.0 and XMM-Newton 4XMM-DR13 catalogs, supplements the sample with literature counterparts for globular-cluster MSPs and PWNe-associated NPs, and constructs a sample of 231 X-ray pulsar counterparts (98 NPs and 133 MSPs). It reports LX-E˙ correlations in the full, soft, and hard X-ray bands, correlations of LX with P, τ, Bsurf, and Blc, and uses the LX-E˙ relation to argue that FAST/GPPS pulsars are less likely to be detected in existing X-ray catalogs. The central quantitative result is LX ∝ E˙^0.85±0.05 over the full band, and the central interpretive claim is a first detection of a Blc-LX correlation for MSPs with a common slope near 1.14 for NPs and MSPs, interpreted as support for the outer-gap model.

Significance. The assembled sample is a useful community resource: it is, to my knowledge, the largest compiled set of X-ray counterparts of rotation-powered pulsars, with a machine-readable Table 1 and a public web page, and the cross-matching procedure is clearly described. The full-band LX-E˙ slope of 0.85±0.05 is independently consistent with Chang et al. (2023) and earlier work, which strengthens confidence in that relation. The GPPS analysis also provides a reasonable negative result about the detectability of FAST-discovered pulsars. However, the claimed Blc-LX relation is not independent evidence for light-cylinder physics because Blc and E˙ are fixed functions of P and P˙; I argue below that the apparent Blc slope is an algebraic echo of the E˙ correlation combined with the sample's P-P˙ covariance. The paper's novelty and model-discrimination value are therefore lower than stated, although the catalog and the E˙ correlation remain valuable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.4, Figure 3(a)] The claimed first-time Blc-LX correlation for MSPs is not independent of the LX-E˙ correlation. Since Blc = 2.9×10^8 P^-2.5 P˙^0.5 and E˙ ∝ P˙ P^-3, both variables are fixed linear combinations of log P and log P˙. For the MSP sample's P-P˙ covariance, regressing log E˙ on log Blc gives a slope of roughly 1.4, so the reported LX-E˙ slope of 0.85 predicts an LX-Blc slope of about 1.19, matching the measured 1.20±0.23. The correlation therefore does not establish Blc as a physically more fundamental predictor, and the agreement with the outer-gap model is not a model test. Please report a partial correlation controlling for E˙, or fit LX as a function of P and P˙ jointly, and reframe the conclusions accordingly.
  2. [Section 2.3 and Table 1 note] The luminosity errors quoted in Table 1 are based only on flux errors, while the text itself states that distance errors dominate and gives an order-of-magnitude discrepancy between YMW16 and NE2001 distances for PSR J1057-5226. Because LX scales as distance squared, omitting distance uncertainty from the fitting procedure can bias the inferred slopes and inflate significance levels. Please propagate the adopted 40% distance uncertainty (or a more realistic error model) into the correlation fits and show how the LX-E˙ and LX-Blc slopes change.
  3. [Section 2.4 and Table 2] Upper limits for radio-quiet and radio-faint gamma-ray pulsars are plotted but excluded from all correlation fits. These objects preferentially occupy the high-E˙ and high-Blc end of the parameter space, so the fitted MSP slopes are based on a selected subsample. Please use a survival analysis or a sensitivity test, for example by replacing upper limits with limiting luminosities or by showing that slopes remain stable when these sources are excluded, to quantify the selection bias.
  4. [Section 2.4 and Table 2] The full-band LX-E˙ slope (0.85±0.05) is larger than both the soft-band slope (0.39±0.08) and the hard-band slope (0.79±0.08), and the paper attributes this discrepancy to the literature sources that lack band-split luminosities. Because the full-band sample is a heterogeneous mixture of catalog-band and literature-band measurements, the headline slope should be shown to be robust when the sample is restricted to sources with homogeneous band definitions, or the discrepancy should be modeled explicitly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2.1] The abstract says 'over 4000 pulsars have been detected' while Section 2.1 states that the ATNF catalog contains about 3630 RPPs; please standardize these numbers.
  2. [Section 2.1] The matching condition δ < RX - RR becomes negative if RR > RX; please clarify that pulsar positional errors are negligible in practice or use a positive-definite combination such as sqrt(RX^2+RR^2).
  3. [Section 2.3 and 2.4] There are typographical errors: 'radio-quite' should be 'radio-quiet', and 'pulars' in Section 3.2 should be 'pulsars'.
  4. [Figure 1 caption and Table 2] The caption references 'Table 2.4' but the table is labeled Table 2; please update the cross-references.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The new LX–Blc correlation is a coordinate re-expression of the fitted LX–Edot correlation, so it does not independently support the outer-gap interpretation; the catalog and Edot fits are otherwise self-contained.

  1. renaming known result [Section 2.3 (definitions of Edot and Blc) and Section 2.4 / Figure 3 / Table 2.4(b) (Blc correlation and two-dimensional fit)]
    "Blc = 2.9 × 10^8 P^{-2.5} \dot P^{0.5} G ... we report for the first time a strong correlation between Blc and LX for MSPs. The fitting line reveals a consistent relationship for both NPs and MSPs, approximately LX ∝ B_lc^{1.14} ... The best fitting between LX and Blc, τ is LX ∝ B_lc^{0.86±0.06} τ^{-0.42±0.03}. This result is consistent with the LX − \dot E correlation, as LX ∝ Blc τ^{-0.5} ∝ P^{-3} \dot P ∝ \dot E."

    Section 2.3 defines Edot ∝ P^{-3}Pdot and Blc ∝ P^{-2.5}Pdot^{0.5} from the same two observables, P and Pdot. The paper's own two-dimensional fit is LX ∝ Blc^{0.86} τ^{-0.42}, and since τ = P/(2Pdot), Blc τ^{-0.5} ∝ P^{-3}Pdot = Edot, the fit is algebraically the same as the earlier LX ∝ Edot^{0.85} fit. Thus the 'first time' Blc correlation is a restatement of the known LX-Edot correlation in derived coordinates, not an independent correlation. The MSP-only one-dimensional Blc slope (1.20±0.23) is also close to the slope expected by transforming the Edot slope through the sample's P-Pdot covariance. This does not undermine the catalog or the Edot correlation, but it removes the independent empirical support the paper claims for the outer-gap model.

full rationale

The paper's main product is an empirical X-ray cross-match and a re-derived LX-Edot correlation; these are fitted correlations, not derivations from a model, so the fitting pipeline itself is not circular. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: the prior LX-Edot results cited (Becker & Truemper 1997; Possenti et al. 2002; Li et al. 2008; Chang et al. 2023) are external, and the GPPS application transparently assumes the LX-Edot relation rather than using it to establish that relation. The one derivative step is the claim of a new LX-Blc correlation: because Blc and Edot are fixed functions of the same P and Pdot, and because the paper's own two-dimensional fit is equivalent to LX ∝ Edot^{0.85}, the Blc result is a renaming of the Edot result rather than an independent finding. Distance uncertainties (e.g., PSR J1057-5226 at 93 pc vs 720 pc under different electron-density models) are a real correctness/systematics concern, not a circularity. Overall, the census and Edot correlation have independent content, but the novel Blc interpretation is partially circular in the sense of presenting a transformed version of an input correlation as new evidence; hence a moderate score of 4 rather than a higher score.

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

The analysis depends on standard pulsar assumptions (magnetic dipole spin-down with a canonical moment of inertia), on the YMW16 distance model, on the reliability of literature-based associations for globular-cluster MSPs and SNR/PWN pulsars, and on the outer-gap emission model for interpretation. No ad hoc free parameters are introduced to force the correlations; the fitted indices are outputs.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Magnetic dipole spin-down formula with I = 10^45 g cm^2 for Edot, tau, Bsurf, Blc
    Used throughout Section 2.3 to derive timing parameters from P and Pdot. The moment of inertia is not measured for these pulsars; a different I shifts the Edot normalization but not the power-law slopes.
  • domain assumption YMW16 electron density model provides reliable DM distances
    Distances and hence luminosities are mostly computed from dispersion measures using YMW16 (Section 2.3). The paper cites an order-of-magnitude discrepancy between YMW16 and NE2001 for one pulsar, so this is a load-bearing modeling choice.
  • domain assumption Chance coincidence probability is negligible for the ATNF cross-matches
    Section 2.2 uses the Galactic-center logN-logS density from Muno et al. (2003) to argue that the expected number of false matches is low, but no per-source false-match probability is computed and the argument extrapolates from the most crowded region of the sky.
  • domain assumption Literature associations for 68 globular-cluster MSPs and 42 SNR/PWNe-associated NPs are genuine
    These sources are incorporated from Hsiang & Chang (2021), Zhao & Heinke (2022), and other references (Section 2.1). They contribute about half the final sample, and the paper does not independently verify their associations.
  • domain assumption The outer-gap model describes the X-ray emission mechanism
    The LX-BlC correlation is interpreted as support for the outer-gap model (Section 4). The model is not derived or quantitatively tested; no predicted slope is compared against the measured 1.14 index.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A new X-ray census of rotation powered pulsars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NQEEDW2U

@misc{pith2026250110999,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A new X-ray census of rotation powered pulsars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NQEEDW2U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10999}
}
abstract

To date, over 4000 pulsars have been detected. In this study, we identify 231 X-ray counterparts of Australia Telescope National Facility (ATNF) pulsars by performing a spatial cross match across the Chandra, XMM-Newton observational catalogs. This dataset represents the largest sample of X-ray counterparts ever compiled, including 98 normal pulsars (NPs) and 133 millisecond pulsars (MSPs). Based on this significantly expanded sample, we re-establish the correlation between X-ray luminosity and spin-down power, given by $L_{\rm X} \propto \dot{E}^{0.85\pm0.05}$ across the whole X-ray band. The strong correlation is also observed in hard X-ray band, while in soft X-ray band there is no significant correlation. Furthermore, $L_{\rm X}$ shows a strong correlation with spin period and characteristic age for NPs. For the first time, we observe a strongly positive correlation between $L_{\rm X}$ and the light cylinder magnetic field ($B_{\rm lc}$) for MSPs, with both NPs and MSPs following the relationship $L_{\rm X} \propto B_{\rm lc}^{1.14}$, consistent with the outer-gap model of pulsars that explains the mechanism of X-ray emission. Additionally, we investigate potential X-ray counterparts for Galactic Plane Pulsar Snapshot pulsars, finding a lower likelihood of detection compared to ATNF pulsars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10999 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. E˙ versus luminosities of pulsars. Panels (a)-(e) reveal correlation in X-ray band, SX band (<2 keV), HX band (>2 keV), gamma-ray band and radio band, respectively. MSPs and NPs are plotted by violet dots and orange squares, respectively. Blue, violet and orange lines are best fit of all, MSPs and NPs, respectively. The inverted triangles are upper limits of luminosity. The correlation trend is revealed by Pearson c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. X-ray luminosity versus timing parameters. Panels (a)-(c) reveal correlation between LX with P, P˙ and Bsurf. Panel (d) is a correlation between X-ray luminosity and τ . The gray regions are theoretical lines for logBsurf = 6, 7, 8, ..., 14 G under the precondition that LX ∝ E˙ 0.85. Dots and legends are the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. X-ray luminosity versus Blc and τ . Dots and legends are the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: P − P˙ diagrams. The values of P˙ are derived by the relationship that LX ∝ E˙ 0.85 . LX ∝ E˙ 0.85±0.05, which is consistent with the findings of Chang et al. (2023) within the error margins. The pos￾itive correlation is particularly strong in the HX band, while in the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 854, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0266-2

    Ambrosino, F., Papitto, A., Stella, L., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 854, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0266-2

    doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0266-2 2017

  2. [2]

    M., Kaspi, V

    Archibald, A. M., Kaspi, V. M., Bogdanov, S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 722, 88, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/88

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/722/1/88 2010

  3. [3]

    V., Ransom, S

    Arzoumanian, Z., Gotthelf, E. V., Ransom, S. M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/39

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/739/1/39 2011

  4. [4]

    1934, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 20, 259, doi: 10.1073/pnas.20.5.259

    Baade, W., & Zwicky, F. 1934, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 20, 259, doi: 10.1073/pnas.20.5.259

    doi:10.1073/pnas.20.5.259 1934

  5. [5]

    1997, A&A, 326, 682, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9708169

    Becker, W., & Truemper, J. 1997, A&A, 326, 682, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9708169

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9708169 1997

  6. [6]

    1999, A&A, 341, 803, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9806381

    Becker, W., & Tr¨ umper, J. 1999, A&A, 341, 803, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9806381

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9806381 1999

  7. [7]

    C., Tennant, A

    Becker, W., Weisskopf, M. C., Tennant, A. F., et al. 2004, ApJ, 615, 908, doi: 10.1086/424498

    work page doi:10.1086/424498 2004

  8. [8]

    Bhattacharya, D., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1991, PhR, 203, 1, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(91)90064-S

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(91)90064-s 1991

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    S., Ransom, S

    Camilo, F., Ray, P. S., Ransom, S. M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/1

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 4068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad400

    Chang, H.-K., Hsiang, J.-Y., Chu, C.-Y., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 4068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad400

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    S., Gil, J., & Zhang, L

    Cheng, K. S., Gil, J., & Zhang, L. 1998, ApJL, 493, L35, doi: 10.1086/311117

    1998 doi

  4. [12]

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

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

    1986 doi

  5. [13]

    M., & Lazio, T

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207156 Coti Zelati, F., Torres, D. F., Li, J., & Vigan` o, D. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1025, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3485

    2002 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 1874, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa287

    Zyuzin, D. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1874, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa287

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16875, 1

    Ding, R., Cao, S., Wang, S., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16875, 1

    2024

  8. [16]

    2019, A&A, 623, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834590

    Duvidovich, L., Giacani, E., Castelletti, G., Petriella, A., & Sup´ an, L. 2019, A&A, 623, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834590

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    N., Primini, F

    Evans, I. N., Primini, F. A., Glotfelty, K. J., et al. 2010, ApJS, 189, 37, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/37

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    N., Evans, J

    Evans, I. N., Evans, J. D., Mart ´ ınez-Galarza, J. R., et al. 2024, ApJS, 274, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6319

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    2014, in The X-ray Universe 2014, ed

    Gotthelf, E., & NuSTAR Observatory Team. 2014, in The X-ray Universe 2014, ed. J.-U. Ness, 85

    2014

  12. [20]

    V., Halpern, J

    Gotthelf, E. V., Halpern, J. P., & Alford, J. 2013, ApJ, 765, 58, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/58

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    S., et al

    Guillot, S., Kerr, M., Ray, P. S., et al. 2019, ApJL, 887, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab511b

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    L., Wang, C., Wang, P

    Han, J. L., Wang, C., Wang, P. F., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 107, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/5/107

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    L., Zhou, D

    Han, J. L., Zhou, D. J., Wang, C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.15961, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.15961 12

    2024 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 249, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac30e2

    Johnston, S. 2021, ApJ, 923, 249, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac30e2

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 3655, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2075

    Hermsen, W., Kuiper, L., Basu, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3655, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2075

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    Hessels, J. W. T., Roberts, M. S. E., Ransom, S. M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 612, 389, doi: 10.1086/422408

    2004 doi

  19. [27]

    Collins, R. A. 1968, Nature, 217, 709, doi: 10.1038/217709a0

    1968 doi

  20. [28]

    Ho, W. C. G., Kuiper, L., Espinoza, C. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 939, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8743

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 390, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab025

    Hsiang, J.-Y., & Chang, H.-K. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 390, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab025

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    2019, Science China

    Jiang, P., Yue, Y., Gan, H., et al. 2019, Science China

    2019

  23. [31]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959502, doi: 10.1007/s11433-018-9376-1

    doi

  24. [32]

    N., Lyne, A

    Johnston, S., Manchester, R. N., Lyne, A. G., et al. 1992, ApJL, 387, L37, doi: 10.1086/186300

    1992 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Ward, C

    Kerr, M., Coles, W. A., Ward, C. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4637, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3101

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    I., Hui, C

    Kim, S. I., Hui, C. Y., Lee, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037873

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    Y., Takata, J., et al

    Lee, J., Hui, C. Y., Takata, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad284

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    2018, IEEE Microwave Magazine, 19, 112, doi: 10.1109/MMM.2018.2802178

    Li, D., Wang, P., Qian, L., et al. 2018, IEEE Microwave Magazine, 19, 112, doi: 10.1109/MMM.2018.2802178

    2018

  29. [37]

    2008, ApJ, 682, 1166, doi: 10.1086/589495

    Li, X.-H., Lu, F.-J., & Li, Z. 2008, ApJ, 682, 1166, doi: 10.1086/589495

    2008 doi

  30. [38]

    Lin, L. C. C., Hui, C. Y., Li, K. T., et al. 2014, ApJL, 793, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/793/1/L8

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    C.-C., Takata, J., Hwang, C.-Y., & Liang, J.-S

    Lin, L. C.-C., Takata, J., Hwang, C.-Y., & Liang, J.-S. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 168, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15468.x

    2009

  32. [40]

    D., Gotthelf, E

    Lu, F., Wang, Q. D., Gotthelf, E. V., & Qu, J. 2007, ApJ, 663, 315, doi: 10.1086/518713

    2007 doi

  33. [41]

    2012, Pulsar Astronomy

    Lyne, A., & Graham-Smith, F. 2012, Pulsar Astronomy

    2012

  34. [42]

    N., Hobbs, G

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, AJ, 129, 1993, doi: 10.1086/428488

    2005 doi

  35. [43]

    2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1205.1748, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1205.1748

    Marelli, M. 2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1205.1748, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1205.1748

    2012 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    2016, ApJ, 819, 40, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/40

    Marelli, M., Pizzocaro, D., De Luca, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 40, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/40

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    2014, ApJ, 795, 168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/168

    Marelli, M., Harding, A., Pizzocaro, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/168

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    E., Zane, S., Cropper, M., Vestrand, W

    McGowan, K. E., Zane, S., Cropper, M., Vestrand, W. T., & Ho, C. 2006, ApJ, 639, 377, doi: 10.1086/497327

    2006 doi

  39. [47]

    Mignani, R. P. 2011, Advances in Space Research, 47, 1281, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2009.12.011 —. 2018, Galaxies, 6, 36, doi: 10.3390/galaxies6010036

    2011 doi

  40. [48]

    J., McLaughlin, M

    Miller, J. J., McLaughlin, M. A., Rea, N., et al. 2013, ApJ, 776, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/104

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    P., Baganoff, F

    Muno, M. P., Baganoff, F. K., Bautz, M. W., et al. 2003, ApJ, 589, 225, doi: 10.1086/374639

    2003 doi

  42. [50]

    2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989, doi: 10.1142/S0218271811019335

    Nan, R., Li, D., Jin, C., et al. 2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989, doi: 10.1142/S0218271811019335

    2011 doi

  43. [51]

    Y., Romani, R

    Ng, C. Y., Romani, R. W., Brisken, W. F., Chatterjee, S., & Kramer, M. 2007, ApJ, 654, 487, doi: 10.1086/510576

    2007 doi

  44. [52]

    G., Jiang, P., et al

    Pan, Z., Lu, J. G., Jiang, P., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 961, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06308-w

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    2012, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Pandel, D., & Scott, R. 2012, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1505, High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy: 5th International Meeting on High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy, ed. F. A

    2012

  46. [54]

    Hofmann, & F

    Aharonian, W. Hofmann, & F. M. Rieger (AIP), 329–332, doi: 10.1063/1.4772264

    doi

  47. [55]

    M., et al

    Papitto, A., de Martino, D., Belloni, T. M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, L26, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv013

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acba0e

    Park, J., Kim, C., Woo, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acba0e

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    J., Guillemot, L., Allen, B., et al

    Pletsch, H. J., Guillemot, L., Allen, B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/105

    2012 doi

  50. [58]

    2002, A&A, 387, 993, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020472

    Possenti, A., Cerutti, R., Colpi, M., & Mereghetti, S. 2002, A&A, 387, 993, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020472

    2002 doi

  51. [59]

    A., Houck, J

    Primini, F. A., Houck, J. C., Davis, J. E., et al. 2011, ApJS, 194, 37, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/37

    2011 doi

  52. [60]

    2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959508, doi: 10.1007/s11433-018-9354-y

    Qian, L., Pan, Z., Li, D., et al. 2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959508, doi: 10.1007/s11433-018-9354-y

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    M., et al

    Razzano, M., Fiori, A., Saz Parkinson, P. M., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345873

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    A., Torres, D

    Rea, N., Pons, J. A., Torres, D. F., & Turolla, R. 2012, ApJL, 748, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/748/1/L12

    2012 doi

  55. [63]

    V., et al

    Renaud, M., Marandon, V., Gotthelf, E. V., et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, 663, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/663

    2010 doi

  56. [64]

    2018, A&A, 615, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732408

    Rigoselli, M., & Mereghetti, S. 2018, A&A, 615, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732408

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 3113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1130

    Rigoselli, M., Mereghetti, S., Anzuinelli, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1130

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    2019, A&A, 627, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935485

    Rigoselli, M., Mereghetti, S., Suleimanov, V., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935485

    2019 doi

  59. [67]

    A., Bruel, P., Clark, C

    Smith, D. A., Bruel, P., Clark, C. J., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.11132, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.11132

    2023 doi arXiv

  60. [68]

    Q., Han, J

    Su, W. Q., Han, J. L., Wang, P. F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2159

    2023 doi

  61. [69]

    S., & Taam, R

    Takata, J., Cheng, K. S., & Taam, R. E. 2012, ApJ, 745, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/100 13

    2012 doi

  62. [70]

    A., & Zyuzin, D

    Shibanov, Y. A., & Zyuzin, D. A. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 13, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2164

    2022 doi

  63. [71]

    1998, ApJ, 503, 843, doi: 10.1086/306038

    Yamauchi, S. 1998, ApJ, 503, 843, doi: 10.1086/306038

    1998 doi

  64. [72]

    Vahdat, A., Posselt, B., Santangelo, A., & Pavlov, G. G. 2022, A&A, 658, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141795 Van Etten, A., Romani, R. W., & Ng, C. Y. 2012, ApJ, 755, 151, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/151

    2022 doi

  65. [73]

    2011, ApJ, 727, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/2/131

    Vink, J., Bamba, A., & Yamazaki, R. 2011, ApJ, 727, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/2/131

    2011 doi

  66. [74]

    A., Coriat, M., Traulsen, I., et al

    Webb, N. A., Coriat, M., Traulsen, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937353

    2020 doi

  67. [75]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 698, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01630-1

    Weng, S.-S., Qian, L., Wang, B.-J., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 698, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01630-1

    2022 doi

  68. [76]

    D., Yuan, J

    Wu, Q. D., Yuan, J. P., Wang, N., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1323

    2023 doi

  69. [77]

    M., Manchester, R

    Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N. 2017, ApJ, 835, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29

    2017 doi

  70. [78]

    Zhang, L., & Cheng, K. S. 2003, A&A, 398, 639, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021570

    2003 doi

  71. [79]

    Zhao, J., & Heinke, C. O. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5964, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac442

    2022 doi

  72. [80]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace10b

    Zheng, D., Wang, Z., Zhang, X., Chen, Y., & Xing, Y. 2023, ApJ, 952, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace10b

    2023 doi

  73. [81]

    J., Han, J

    Zhou, D. J., Han, J. L., Xu, J., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 104001, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/accc76

    2023 doi

  74. [82]

    A., Karpova, A

    Zyuzin, D. A., Karpova, A. V., & Shibanov, Y. A. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 2177, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty359

    2018 doi

  75. [83]

    A., Karpova, A

    Zyuzin, D. A., Karpova, A. V., Shibanov, Y. A., Potekhin, A. Y., & Suleimanov, V. F. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4998, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3991

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.