Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 88 references

Upgraded antennas for pulsar observations in the Argentine Institute of Radio astronomy

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Refurbished 30-meter antennas time southern pulsars to under a microsecond, enabling daily monitoring for gravitational-wave and transient science.

desk verdict A genuinely useful commissioning paper that delivers the first systematic South American pulsar timing program with sub-µs residuals on J0437−4715; the main open question is whether the GPS-based clock can actually support that timing precision. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07049 v2 pith:TKBTB5GE submitted 2019-08-19 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEgr-qc

G. Gancio , C.O. Lousto , L. Combi , S. del Palacio , F.G. López Armengol , J.A. Combi , F. García , P. Kornecki
show 4 more authors
A.L. Müller E. Gutierrez F. Hauscarriaga G. C.Mancuso
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords pulsartimingradioastronomyinstrumentationmillisecondpulsarsglitchesmagnetarssouthernhemisphereobservationsarrayssoftware-defined
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 reports that two refurbished 30-meter radio antennas in Argentina can now perform daily, high-precision timing of southern-hemisphere pulsars at 1.4 GHz. The central result is a timing residual below one microsecond for the millisecond pulsar J0437−4715, together with successful monitoring of a reactivated magnetar and measurement of a Vela pulsar glitch. If these capabilities hold, the observatory can contribute to pulsar timing arrays, searches for continuous gravitational waves, and studies of transient phenomena.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the two 30-meter parabolic antennas, each with a refurbished frontend and a software-defined-radio backend that digitizes 56–112 MHz of bandwidth at 1.4 GHz, with data stamped by one-pulse-per-second signals from a GPS-disciplined oscillator. The timing argument rests on residuals computed with the TEMPO2 software from pulse arrival times extracted with PSRCHIVE; the comparison of those residuals to published expectations for J0437−4715 is what supports the sub-microsecond precision claim.

What would settle it

Connect the hydrogen maser at the nearby geodetic observatory to the data acquisition and take simultaneous observations; if the maser-based arrival times disagree with the GPS-based times by more than one microsecond, the quoted residuals are not real timing precision. Alternatively, cross-correlate the IAR residuals for J0437−4715 with simultaneous observations from another southern telescope and look for a common low-frequency wander that would reveal a clock error.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

After a two-year upgrade of receivers, backends, and clock synchronization, the two antennas achieve timing residuals of 0.55 µs and 0.81 µs for the millisecond pulsar J0437−4715, values the authors show are compatible with published expectations for that pulsar. They also detect radio pulsations from the reactivated magnetar XTE J1810−197 and measure the February 2019 glitch of the Vela pulsar, obtaining a period jump consistent with an independent estimate within 7 percent. These results are presented as evidence that the observatory is now a viable contributor to pulsar timing arrays and related science.

Load-bearing premise

The sub-microsecond timing claim assumes the GPS-disciplined oscillator stamps each observation with an absolute time accurate to better than a microsecond, because no independent clock is yet connected to verify it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Daily observations of J0437−4715 could increase the effective cadence of southern-hemisphere pulsar timing arrays by a factor of 20–30, improving their sensitivity to the gravitational-wave background.
  • The demonstrated ability to catch a glitch (Vela, February 2019) and to monitor a reactivated magnetar gives the observatory a concrete role in high-cadence transient and glitch follow-up programs.
  • With the planned hydrogen-maser connection and a wider bandwidth, the timing precision could approach the 0.1 µs level achieved by leading arrays, better sampling the southern sky.
  • Observations from this site complement those of other southern radio telescopes, potentially allowing nearly continuous monitoring of fast radio bursts and other transient sources.
  • The collected data, combined with the planned public archive, could support archival searches for bursts and other one-off events.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the sub-microsecond residuals are confirmed by an independent clock, the same instrumentation could time several other millisecond pulsars listed in the paper, effectively adding a new node to global pulsar timing arrays.
  • The planned raw-data archive could be re-searched for fast radio bursts and other transients, a strategy that has already uncovered new bursts in archival data from other telescopes.
  • Sustained daily timing of J0437−4715 will eventually characterize its timing noise and jitter, quantities needed to weight that pulsar optimally in array analyses.
  • The current timing residuals may be partly limited by the GPS clock, so connecting the nearby hydrogen maser could reveal whether the quoted precision is dominated by the instrument or by the time reference.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 reports on the refurbishment and commissioning of the two 30 m antennas at the Argentine Institute of Radio astronomy (IAR) for 1.4 GHz pulsar observations. It describes the frontend/backend hardware, clock synchronization via a GPS-disciplined oscillator and PPS signal, the RFI environment, and a processing pipeline based on PRESTO, PSRCHIVE, and TEMPO2. The main scientific results are daily timing of PSR J0437−4715 with post-fit residuals of 0.55–0.81 µs, a follow-up of the radio outburst of the magnetar XTE J1810−197, and a measurement of the February 2019 Vela glitch reported as consistent with an independent estimate by Kerr (2019) within 7%. The paper argues these capabilities make IAR suitable for pulsar timing array contributions, continuous gravitational wave target support, magnetar and glitch monitoring, FRB follow-up, and interstellar scintillation studies, with a 12 h longitudinal complement to Parkes and MeerKAT.

Significance. If the sub-microsecond absolute timing claim holds, the paper describes a valuable new southern-hemisphere facility that can complement existing PTAs and provide high-cadence monitoring of bright MSPs and glitching pulsars. The paper's strengths are its concrete instrumental description, the use of standard processing tools, and the fact that the Vela glitch measurement is checked against an independent published value. There is no fitted theoretical model, so circularity is not an issue. The main caveat is that the quoted timing residuals explicitly exclude systematics, and the absolute time reference has not yet been independently validated; this weakens the central capability claim as currently stated. The PTA sensitivity projection in §4.1 also appears overstated and should be corrected.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, Fig. 10] The central capability claim of sub-microsecond timing precision for PSR J0437−4715 is not yet demonstrated, because the residuals in Fig. 10 have error bars that, as the caption states, include only template-fitting errors and no systematics. The only absolute time reference is the GPSDO/PPS system described in §2.3; its quoted one-day frequency accuracy of 1.16e-12 does not bound PPS alignment jitter, short-term phase wander, or an offset between the A1 and A2 time bases, and the hydrogen-maser link that could validate these is described as a future upgrade. A constant clock offset would be absorbed by the timing model, while short-term clock wander would appear as additional ToA scatter. The quoted rms values (0.55–0.81 µs) should therefore be stated as lower limits on the true timing error, and the abstract and conclusions should be qualified until an independent clock check or a quantitative clock-noise budget is provided.
  2. [§4.4, Fig. 12] The Vela glitch amplitude is quoted as ΔP ≈ −0.241 µs and stated to be consistent with Kerr (2019) within 7%, but no uncertainty is given for ΔP, and the Fig. 12 caption warns that the plotted error bars are 'likely to represent an underestimation.' Without a realistic error estimate that accounts for the pre-glitch ephemeris uncertainty and the observed scatter difference between short and long integrations, the 7% consistency statement cannot be evaluated. Please quote the uncertainty on ΔP, give the Kerr (2019) value with its uncertainty, and specify how the 7% figure is computed.
  3. [§4.1] The sentence stating that IAR observations 'are projected to increase the sensitivity of pulsar timing arrays by increasing the observing cadence by a factor 20-30' conflates an increase in cadence for one pulsar with an increase in PTA sensitivity. PTA sensitivity to a stochastic gravitational-wave background depends on the combined timing precision and number of pulsars across the array, not simply on the cadence of a single well-timed MSP. Adding daily J0437−4715 data is valuable, but it does not automatically multiply the array sensitivity by 20-30. Please replace this with a quantitative statement of the expected improvement in the array's detection statistic, or rephrase it as an increase in observing cadence and sky coverage for this pulsar.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The '≲' symbol in the signal-to-noise equation appears to be used as an approximation sign; please use '≈' or state explicitly that this is a standard estimate.
  2. [Fig. 3] The x-axis label contains a typo: 'Frecuency' should be 'Frequency'.
  3. [§2.4] The sentence 'the 90% of RFIs are detected below the −160 power spectral density' is ambiguous; please clarify whether this refers to 90% of RFI events, 90% of the time, or 90% of the power.
  4. [Introduction] The claim that the project represents 'the first systematic pulsar timing observations in South America' should be supported by a reference or softened, since historical pulsar timing efforts in the region may exist.
  5. [Table 2] The asterisk entry for W50 of PSR J1652−48 should be explained in the table notes; currently the note indicates only that quoted widths are indicative, not why one value is missing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper reports instrumentation measurements (timing residuals, magnetar detection, Vela glitch) and external scaling-law projections; no derivational step reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This is an observational and instrumentation paper, not a derivation from fitted parameters. The central quantitative claims are measurements: TEMPO2 residuals of 0.55–0.81 µs for J0437−4715, a detected magnetar period of P = 5.54137(3) s, and a fitted Vela glitch period jump of ΔP ∼ −0.241 µs. None of these quantities is defined in terms of another claimed output. The glitch analysis imports only the glitch epoch from Kerr (2019) while fitting the period jump from IAR data, so the stated consistency 'within 7% error' compares an independently fitted amplitude with Kerr's estimate and is not forced by construction. The sensitivity projections use the standard S/N formula (Eq. 1, Lorimer & Kramer 2012) with aperture efficiencies and gains from Testori et al. (2001) and pulsar parameters from the ATNF catalog, all external sources; no fitted value from this paper is fed back into these projections. The self-citations (Lopez Armengol et al. 2019; del Palacio et al. 2018) are ATels reporting the same observations and do not carry any load-bearing derivation. The clearly stated limitation that Figure 10 error bars 'correspond only to template-fitting errors (i.e., no systematics considered)' is an honest caveat about clock-related uncertainty, not a circular reduction: the residuals are still measurements whose interpretation depends on unverified absolute clock accuracy. No self-definitional steps, fitted-input-as-prediction steps, or ansatz-smuggling citations were found. Score 0 out of 10 for circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims of this instrument paper are measurements rather than a theoretical derivation, so there are no fitted constants used to manufacture a prediction. The sensitivity forecasts rely on standard radiometer equations and on external catalog values (aperture efficiency, system temperature, ephemerides) taken from prior publications, which are listed as domain assumptions rather than free parameters. No new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The aperture efficiencies and gains from Testori et al. (2001) remain valid after the receiver upgrades.
    Used in Section 3.4 and Table 1 to estimate achievable signal-to-noise and select observable pulsars; any change in dish efficiency or system temperature would shift these sensitivity predictions.
  • domain assumption The GPS-disciplined oscillator meets its stated one-day accuracy of 1.16e-12 and is correctly applied across both SDR boards.
    Section 2.3; the sub-microsecond timing residuals of J0437-4715 depend on this clock reference, and the independent hydrogen-maser validation is described as future work.
  • domain assumption The ATNF catalog ephemerides used for folding and TEMPO2 fitting are accurate enough to avoid introducing systematic residuals at the sub-microsecond level.
    Section 3.3; the pulsar period and timing model are taken from external catalogues, so the reported residuals inherit any errors in those ephemerides.
  • domain assumption Equation (1) with the W approximately W50 substitution gives a valid estimate of expected S/N for source selection.
    Section 3.4; used to construct Table 2 and the claim that IAR can observe a set of MSPs, with the paper itself noting the approximation for non-Gaussian pulse shapes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Upgraded antennas for pulsar observations in the Argentine Institute of Radio astronomy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TKBTB5GE

@misc{pith2026190807049,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Upgraded antennas for pulsar observations in the Argentine Institute of Radio astronomy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TKBTB5GE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07049}
}
abstract

The Argentine Institute of Radio astronomy (IAR) is equipped with two single-dish 30mts radio antennas capable of performing daily observations of pulsars and radio transients in the southern hemisphere at 1.4 GHz. We aim to introduce to the international community the upgrades performed and to show that IAR observatory has become suitable for investigations in numerous areas of pulsar radio astronomy, such as pulsar timing arrays, targeted searches of continuous gravitational waves sources, monitoring of magnetars and glitching pulsars, and studies of short time scale interstellar scintillation. We refurbished the two antennas at IAR to achieve high-quality timing observations. We gathered more than $1\,000$ hours of observations with both antennas to study the timing precision and sensitivity they can achieve. We introduce the new developments for both radio telescopes at IAR. We present observations of the millisecond pulsar J0437$-$4715 with timing precision better than 1~$\mu$s. We also present a follow-up of the reactivation of the magnetar XTE J1810--197 and the measurement and monitoring of the latest (Feb. 1st. 2019) glitch of the Vela pulsar (J0835--4510). We show that IAR is capable of performing pulsar monitoring in the 1.4 GHz radio band for long periods of time with a daily cadence. This opens the possibility of pursuing several goals in pulsar science, including coordinated multi-wavelength observations with other observatories. In particular, observations of the millisecond pulsar J0437$-$4715 will increase the gravitational wave sensitivity of the NANOGrav array in their current blind spot. We also show IAR's great potential for studying targets of opportunity and transient phenomena such as magnetars, glitches, and fast-radio-burst sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07049 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. View of IAR antennas, A2 (left) and A1 (right). 2.1. Antenna 1 Since 2004, several updates and repairs were made on A1, in￾cluding a complete front-end repair in 2009 and a new set of positional encoders installed in 2014 to keep the tracking system up to date. In 2015, we installed a software defined radio (SDR) module to perform pulsar observations. The characteristics of the current frontend of A1 are listed in … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Current setup of IAR antennas. 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Frecuency (MHz) 0 5 10 15 Insertion Loss (dB) VBFZ−1400−S+ ZX75BP−1280−S+ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. RF filters installed in A1 (ZX75BP-1280-S+) and A2 (VBFZ￾1400-S+). servations of quasars for geodetic purposes. This kind of mea￾surements requires a precise clock for the synchronization with other observatories. This is achieved using an hydrogen maser clock with a short time stability of 10−15 (Allan Variance). With a locally developed RF-Over-Fiber device (Mena et al. 2013), we receive the 10 MHz signal from the… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of a 3.5 hours RFI mask for A1 (top) and A2 (bottom) for a simultaneous observation using rfifind with -time 1 and de￾fault parameters; coloured sections are masked out. The mask criteria acts differently in each antenna given their different sensibility, so th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Software architecture for the control of the radio telescopes. 3.3. Data processing As we mentioned before, we apply PRESTO to process the Fil￾terbank files acquired. First, we employ the rfifind routine to generate a mask, which allows us to remove the RFIs. Then, us￾…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Pulsar software data acquisition block. Tracking and pointing systems of A1 and A2 are controlled remotely through the IAR server. A weather station and a video￾camera help to control the IAR environment. Data acquisition is performed by a different computer, connected…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Data processing summary. 3.4. Observational capabilities and testing We have been observing with both antennas since December 2018 to test and calibrate them. Both radio telescopes are capable of observing sources for almost four hours on a daily basis. We note that br…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Residuals of the ToAs of the pulsar J0437−4715 measured at IAR with A1 and A2. The residuals and rms have been computed with the TEMPO2 package (Hobbs et al. 2006) and error bars correspond only to template-fitting errors (i.e., no systematics considered). massive) SM…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Pulse profiles of the magnetar J1810−197 at 1400 MHz mea￾sured by IAR antennas at different epochs. in Levin et al. (2019). In turn, the precursor peak is not visible on subsequent observations as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Vela’s glitch on February 1st. 2019 as measured at IAR in the 1400 MHz band. Ephemeris for the pre-glitch epoch were taken from Sarkissian et al. (2017) and the glitch date from Kerr (2019). The er￾rorbars at one σ level are taken directly from the output of PRESTO an…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., et al

    Abadie, J., Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., et al. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 83, 042001

    2011

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 122008

    2016

  3. [3]

    Alves, M. E. D. S. & Tinto, M. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 83, 123529

    2011

  4. [4]

    Andersson, N., Glampedakis, K., Ho, W. C. G., & Espinoza, C. M. 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 109, 241103

    2012

  5. [5]

    F., Kaspi, V

    Archibald, R. F., Kaspi, V . M., Ng, C.-Y ., et al. 2013, Nature, 497, 591 20 https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Operations/ Estrack/Malarguee_-_DSA_3 21 https://www.argentina.gob.ar/ciencia/conae/ centros-y-estaciones/estacion-cltc-conae-neuquen 22 https://casleo.conicet.gov.ar/hsh/

    2013

  6. [6]

    2018, ApJS, 235, 37

    Arzoumanian, Z., Brazier, A., Burke-Spolaor, S., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 37

    2018

  7. [7]

    Ashton, G., Prix, R., & Jones, D. I. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 063004

    2017

  8. [8]

    Ashton, G., Prix, R., & Jones, D. I. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 063011

    2018

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    M., Larrarte, J

    Bajaja, E., Arnal, E. M., Larrarte, J. J., et al. 2005, A&A, 440, 767

    2005

  2. [10]

    W., Deller, A

    Bannister, K. W., Deller, A. T., Phillips, C., et al. 2019, Science, 365, 565

    2019

  3. [11]

    G., Tendulkar, S

    Bassa, C. G., Tendulkar, S. P., Adams, E. A. K., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, L8

    2017

  4. [12]

    W., James, C

    Bhandari, S., Bannister, K. W., James, C. W., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 70

    2019

  5. [13]

    R., Will, C

    Blanchet, L., Iyer, B. R., Will, C. M., & Wiseman, A. G. 1996, Class. Quant. Grav., 13, 575

    1996

  6. [14]

    B., Mewes, V ., Campanelli, M., et al

    Bowen, D. B., Mewes, V ., Campanelli, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, L17

    2018

  7. [15]

    B., Mewes, V ., Noble, S

    Bowen, D. B., Mewes, V ., Noble, S. C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 76

    2019

  8. [16]

    J., Lommen, A

    Burt, B. J., Lommen, A. N., & Finn, L. S. 2011, ApJ, 730, 17

    2011

  9. [17]

    M., Halpern, J

    Camilo, F., Ransom, S. M., Halpern, J. P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 110

    2016

  10. [18]

    M., Halpern, J

    Camilo, F., Ransom, S. M., Halpern, J. P., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 892

    2006

  11. [19]

    2007, ApJ, 659, L37

    Camilo, F., Reynolds, J., Johnston, S., et al. 2007, ApJ, 659, L37

    2007

  12. [20]

    Chamberlin, S. J. & Siemens, X. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 082001

    2012

  13. [21]

    2013, Phys

    Chamel, N. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 110, 011101

    2013

  14. [22]

    J., Wharton, R

    Chatterjee, S., Law, C. J., Wharton, R. S., et al. 2017, Nature, 541, 58 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Bandura, K., et al. 2019, Nature, 566, 235

    2017

  15. [23]

    Cordes, J. M. & Chatterjee, S. 2019, arXiv e-prints [arXiv:1906.05878]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    J., O’Beirne, L., Taylor, S

    Cornish, N. J., O’Beirne, L., Taylor, S. R., & Yunes, N. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 120, 181101

    2018

  17. [25]

    N., et al

    Dai, S., Hobbs, G., Manchester, R. N., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3223 d’Ascoli, S., Noble, S. C., Bowen, D. B., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 140 del Palacio, S., Garcia, F., Combi, L., et al. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12323, 1

    2015

  18. [26]

    N., Lentati, L., et al

    Desvignes, G., Caballero, R. N., Lentati, L., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3341

    2016

  19. [27]

    1979, ApJ, 234, 1100

    Detweiler, S. 1979, ApJ, 234, 1100

    1979

  20. [28]

    2019, ApJ, 876, L10

    Eftekhari, T., Berger, E., Margalit, B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, L10

    2019

  21. [29]

    M., Lyne, A

    Espinoza, C. M., Lyne, A. G., Stappers, B. W., & Kramer, M. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1679

    2011

  22. [30]

    Esposito, P., Rea, N., & Israel, G. L. 2018, arXiv e-prints [arXiv:1803.05716]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    R., Espinoza, C

    Fuentes, J. R., Espinoza, C. M., Reisenegger, A., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A131

    2017

  24. [32]

    J., Diaz, E., Aquino, F., & Spagnolo, S

    Gancio, G., Larrarte, J. J., Diaz, E., Aquino, F., & Spagnolo, S. 2014, in Inter- national VLBI Service for Geodesy and Astrometry 2014 General Meeting Proceedings: ”VGOS: The New VLBI Network, 210–214

    2014

  25. [33]

    & Gualtieri, L

    Glampedakis, K. & Gualtieri, L. 2018, in Astrophysics and Space Science Li- brary, V ol. 457, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. L. Rezzolla, P. Pizzochero, D. I. Jones, N. Rea, & I. Vidaña, 673

    2018

  26. [34]

    & Melatos, A

    Haskell, B. & Melatos, A. 2015, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 24, 1530008

    2015

  27. [35]

    Hellings, R. W. & Downs, G. S. 1983, ApJ, 265, L39

    1983

  28. [36]

    & Dai, S

    Hobbs, G. & Dai, S. 2017, arXiv e-prints [arXiv:1707.01615]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    B., Edwards, R

    Hobbs, G. B., Edwards, R. T., & Manchester, R. N. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 655

    2006

  30. [38]

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

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

    2004

  31. [39]

    I., Markwardt, C

    Ibrahim, A. I., Markwardt, C. B., Swank, J. H., et al. 2004, ApJ, 609, L21

    2004

  32. [40]

    J., Jerkstrand, A., et al

    Inserra, C., Smartt, S. J., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 128

    2013

  33. [41]

    Kalberla, P. M. W., Burton, W. B., Hartmann, D., et al. 2005, A&A, 440, 775

    2005

  34. [42]

    2019, arXiv e-prints [arXiv:1907.04717]

    Keitel, D., Woan, G., Pitkin, M., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints [arXiv:1907.04717]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    J., Johnston, S., Ray, P

    Keith, M. J., Johnston, S., Ray, P. S., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1292

    2011

  36. [44]

    Z., Blecha, L., Hernquist, L., Sesana, A., & Taylor, S

    Kelley, L. Z., Blecha, L., Hernquist, L., Sesana, A., & Taylor, S. R. 2018, MN- RAS, 477, 964

    2018

  37. [45]

    2019, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12481, 1

    Kerr, M. 2019, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12481, 1

    2019

  38. [46]

    & Rubakov, V

    Khmelnitsky, A. & Rubakov, V . 2014, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2, 019

    2014

  39. [47]

    T., Cordes, J

    Lam, M. T., Cordes, J. M., Chatterjee, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 155

    2016

  40. [48]

    J., Jenet, F

    Lee, K. J., Jenet, F. A., & Price, R. H. 2008, ApJ, 685, 1304

    2008

  41. [49]

    G., Desvignes, G., et al

    Levin, L., Lyne, A. G., Desvignes, G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5251 Lopez Armengol, F. G., Lousto, C. O., del Palacio, S., et al. 2019, The As- tronomer’s Telegram, 12482, 1

    2019

  42. [50]

    R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

    Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M. A., Narkevic, D. J., & Crawford, F. 2007, Science, 318, 777

    2007

  43. [51]

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

    2012

  44. [52]

    Lousto, C. O. & Healy, J. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 99, 064023

    2019

  45. [53]

    O., Zlochower, Y ., & Campanelli, M

    Lousto, C. O., Zlochower, Y ., & Campanelli, M. 2017, ApJ, 841, L28

    2017

  46. [54]

    2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12284

    Lyne, A., Levin, L., Stappers, B., et al. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12284

    2018

  47. [55]

    Manchester, R. N. 2018, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 337, Pulsar Astrophysics the Next Fifty Years, ed. P. Weltevrede, B. B. P. Perera, L. L. Preston, & S. Sanidas, 197–202

    2018

  48. [56]

    N., Hobbs, G

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

    2005

  49. [57]

    F., et al

    Mena, J., Bandura, K., Cliche, J. F., et al. 2013, Journal of Instrumentation, 8, T10003 Osłowski, S., van Straten, W., Bailes, M., Jameson, A., & Hobbs, G. 2014, MN- RAS, 441, 3148 Osłowski, S., van Straten, W., Hobbs, G. B., Bailes, M., & Demorest, P. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1258

    2013

  50. [58]

    2005, MNRAS, 359, 1150 Article number, page 12 of 13 G

    Palomba, C. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 1150 Article number, page 12 of 13 G. Gancio et al.: Upgraded antennas for pulsar observations in the Argentine Institute of Radio astronomy

    2005

  51. [59]

    Perera, B. B. P., DeCesar, M. E., Demorest, P. B., et al. 2019, MN- RAS[arXiv:1909.04534] Petroff, E., Hessels, J. W. T., & Lorimer, D. R. 2019, A&A Rev., 27, 4

    2019 arXiv

  52. [60]

    J., & Horowitz, C

    Piekarewicz, J., Fattoyev, F. J., & Horowitz, C. J. 2014, Phys. Rev. C, 90, 015803

    2014

  53. [61]

    2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 538

    Pitkin, M. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 538

    2018

  54. [62]

    2011, Phys

    Prix, R., Giampanis, S., & Messenger, C. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 84, 023007

    2011

  55. [63]

    Ransom, S. M. 2001, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, V ol. 33, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 1484

    2001

  56. [64]

    M., Cordes, J

    Ransom, S. M., Cordes, J. M., & Eikenberry, S. S. 2003, ApJ, 589, 911

    2003

  57. [65]

    M., Eikenberry, S

    Ransom, S. M., Eikenberry, S. S., & Middleditch, J. 2002, AJ, 124, 1788

    2002

  58. [66]

    2019, Nature Astronomy [arXiv:1907.06619]

    Ravi, V . 2019, Nature Astronomy [arXiv:1907.06619]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Reardon, D. J. 2018, PhD thesis, Monash Centre for Astrophysics (MoCA), School of Physics and Astronomy, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Aus- tralia

    2018

  60. [68]

    J., Coles, W

    Reardon, D. J., Coles, W. A., Hobbs, G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4389

    2019

  61. [69]

    J., Hobbs, G., Coles, W., et al

    Reardon, D. J., Hobbs, G., Coles, W., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1751

    2016

  62. [70]

    2019, arXiv e-prints [arXiv:1905.13720]

    Renevey, C. 2019, arXiv e-prints [arXiv:1905.13720]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    2019, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12466, 1

    Sarkissian, J., Hobbs, G., Reynolds, J., Palfreyman, J., & Olney, S. 2019, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12466, 1

    2019

  64. [72]

    M., Reynolds, J

    Sarkissian, J. M., Reynolds, J. E., Hobbs, G., & Harvey-Smith, L. 2017, PASA, 34, e027

    2017

  65. [73]

    G., Hessels, J

    Scholz, P., Spitler, L. G., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 177

    2016

  66. [74]

    M., Osłowski, S., Dai, S., et al

    Shannon, R. M., Osłowski, S., Dai, S., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 1463

    2014

  67. [75]

    G., Scholz, P., Hessels, J

    Spitler, L. G., Scholz, P., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2016, Nature, 531, 202

    2016

  68. [76]

    R., Smirnova, T

    Stinebring, D. R., Smirnova, T. V ., Hankins, T. H., et al. 2000, ApJ, 539, 300

    2000

  69. [77]

    C., Reich, P., Bava, J

    Testori, J. C., Reich, P., Bava, J. A., et al. 2001, A&A, 368, 1123 The CHIME/FRB Collaboration, :, Andersen, B. C., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1908.03507 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, Abbott, B. P., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints [arXiv:1811.12907]

    2001 arXiv

  70. [78]

    P., et al

    Torne, P., Desvignes, G., Eatough, R. P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 242

    2017

  71. [79]

    Turolla, R., Zane, S., & Watts, A. L. 2015, Reports on Progress in Physics, 78, 116901

    2015

  72. [80]

    Verbiest, J. P. W., Lentati, L., Hobbs, G., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1267

    2016

  73. [81]

    2018, arXiv e-prints [arXiv:1810.02680]

    Weltman, A., Bull, P., Camera, S., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints [arXiv:1810.02680]

    2018 arXiv

  74. [82]

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

    2018

  75. [83]

    D., Haskell, B., Jones, D

    Woan, G., Pitkin, M. D., Haskell, B., Jones, D. I., & Lasky, P. D. 2018, ApJ, 863, L40

    2018

  76. [84]

    2017, Phys

    Yang, H., Nishizawa, A., & Pen, U.-L. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 95, 084049

    2017

  77. [85]

    M., Manchester, R

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

    2017

  78. [86]

    N., Hobbs, G., et al

    Yu, M., Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 688

    2013

  79. [87]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, L147

    Zhang, S.-B., Hobbs, G., Dai, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, L147

    2019

  80. [88]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 1650 Article number, page 13 of 13

    Zhu, X.-J., Wen, L., Hobbs, G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 1650 Article number, page 13 of 13

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.