Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Pulse Profile Variability of PSR J1022+1001 in NANOGrav Data

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 PSR J1022+1001's pulse shape changes are real, intrinsic pulsar behavior, not calibration artifacts or interstellar effects.

desk verdict Solid observational case that J1022+1001's profile variability is real and calibration-independent, but the scintillation argument needs quantitative support before the abstract's claim holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05452 v1 pith:UZOC62GK submitted 2024-12-06 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IM

William Fiore , Maura A. McLaughlin , Gabriella Agazie , Akash Anumarlapudi , Anne M. Archibald , Zaven Arzoumanian , Paul T. Baker , Paul R. Brook
show 41 more authors
H. Thankful Cromartie Kathryn Crowter Megan E. DeCesar Paul B. Demorest Lankeswar Dey Timothy Dolch Elizabeth C. Ferrara Emmanuel Fonseca Gabriel E. Freedman Nate Garver-Daniels Peter A. Gentile Joseph Glaser Deborah C. Good Jeffrey S. Hazboun Ross J. Jennings Megan L. Jones David L. Kaplan Matthew Kerr Michael T. Lam Duncan R. Lorimer Jing Luo Ryan S. Lynch Alexander McEwen Natasha McMann Bradley W. Meyers Cherry Ng David J. Nice Timothy T. Pennucci Benetge B. P. Perera Nihan S. Pol Henri A. Radovan Scott M. Ransom Paul S. Ray Ann Schmiedekamp Carl Schmiedekamp Brent J. Shapiro-Albert Ingrid H. Stairs Kevin Stovall Abhimanyu Susobhanan Joseph K. Swiggum Haley M. Wahl
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM
keywords pulsartimingpulseprofilevariabilitymillisecondpulsarspolarizationcalibrationinterstellarscintillationPSRJ1022+1001NANOGrav
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 asks why the radio pulse profile of the millisecond pulsar PSR J1022+1001 changes shape from observation to observation in the NANOGrav 15-yr data set. Because pulsar timing arrays assume profiles are stable, such variability could masquerade as timing noise or even affect gravitational-wave background searches. The authors test the leading instrumental suspect, polarization calibration error, by replacing the standard 'ideal feed' calibration with a full model of the telescope feed's polarimetric response; the profiles are no more stable. They then rule out interstellar scintillation coupled with frequency-dependent profile shape. Their conclusion is that the variability is intrinsic to the pulsar's emission, a claim that matters for how this pulsar and similar ones are timed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the polarimetric response (PR) of the telescope feed, the Mueller-matrix transformation that mixes the Stokes parameters $I$, $Q$, $U$, and $V$ on the way from source to recorded signal. The paper compares the standard ideal feed assumption (IFA) calibration against a two-stage scheme using Measurement Equation Modeling (MEM) and Measurement Equation Template Matching (METM), and then uses 25-MHz subbanded profiles to test whether shape deviations are uniform across the band. That subband comparison is what separates a scintillation origin from an intrinsic origin.

What would settle it

Compute, for every 1.4-GHz epoch in the data set, the correlation of the difference profiles across 25-MHz subbands; if the shape deviations are not coherent across the full band, or the coherence pattern follows the expected scintillation structure, the paper's central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper asserts that in the NANOGrav 15-yr data set the integrated pulse profile of PSR J1022+1001 changes shape from observation to observation at 430 MHz, 1.4 GHz, and 2 GHz, and that this variability is not a calibration artifact. Profiles calibrated with a full model of the feed's polarimetric response are no more stable than profiles calibrated under the ideal feed assumption, and the deviations appear consistently across 25-MHz subbands, which the authors argue interstellar scintillation combined with frequency-dependent profile evolution cannot produce. The authors therefore conclude that the variability is intrinsic to the pulsar's emission.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on visual inspection of a single example observation's 25-MHz subband profiles, so if that apparent across-band consistency is not real or not representative, the ruling-out of the scintillation explanation falls apart.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pulsar timing arrays that use a fixed template to measure arrival times for PSR J1022+1001 will carry this variability as extra noise in the residuals.
  • Polarization calibration improvements of the kind tested here will not remove the effect, since the more complete calibration leaves the variability unchanged.
  • The scintillation-plus-frequency-evolution explanation for this pulsar's changing profile is disfavored, so searches for the mechanism should focus on the pulsar itself.
  • A TOA-generation method that lets the pulse shape vary could recover some of the timing precision lost to the variability.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the intrinsic-variability claim survives a quantitative subband test, similar calibration comparisons on other highly polarized millisecond pulsars could reveal that unstable profiles are more common in pulsar timing array data than currently assumed.
  • A direct extension of the paper's Figure 15 argument would be to compute a cross-band correlation statistic for all epochs, turning a visual ruling-out into a quantitative one.
  • The few observations that show shape changes within a single observation, over roughly 10-15 minutes, suggest that whatever the mechanism is, it operates on timescales much shorter than the month-to-year variations, which would help narrow the candidates.
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 analyzes 84 Arecibo observations of PSR J1022+1001 from the NANOGrav 15-yr data set and shows substantial epoch-to-epoch pulse profile variability at 430 MHz, 1.4 GHz, and 2 GHz. It tests whether this variability can be explained by the ideal feed assumption (IFA) used in NANOGrav's standard polarization calibration by re-calibrating the data with a combination of Measurement Equation Modeling and Measurement Equation Template Matching. The recalibrated profiles are found to be no less variable than the IFA-calibrated ones, and the METM-based timing solution is not improved. The paper then argues that the variability cannot be explained by interstellar scintillation combined with frequency-dependent profile evolution, concluding that intrinsic pulsar phenomena are the likely cause.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, this is a valuable result for pulsar timing array data quality, since pulse profile stability is a central assumption of standard timing methods, and it substantially extends the long-standing debate about the cause of PSR J1022+1001's profile variability. The manuscript's strengths include the use of independent template pulsars for the METM corrections, multiple variability metrics based on difference profiles and peak fitting, a Kolmogorov-Smirnov comparison between calibration schemes, and a full timing comparison between the IFA and METM data sets. The main vulnerability is the scintillation ruling-out, which currently rests on visual inspection of a single example observation and rough estimates of scintillation parameters; this needs quantitative support before the abstract's 'cannot be explained' claim is warranted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, Figure 15] The abstract's central claim that the subbanded profiles 'cannot be explained by interstellar scintillation in combination with profile evolution with frequency' rests on the statement in §4.2 that 'these subbanded profiles exhibited the same variability across the band within each observation,' but this is supported only by visual inspection of one example observation. Please provide a quantitative across-subband consistency metric (for example, a correlation or reduced chi-square between difference profiles in adjacent 25-MHz subbands, with uncertainties propagated from the data), report how many of the 84 observations show the same pattern, and demonstrate that the metric has power to detect the expected scintillation-induced decorrelation given the quoted 40-100 MHz scintillation bandwidths. Without this, the exclusion of scintillation is not established.
  2. [§4.2, final paragraph] The manuscript itself states that the scintillation bandwidths and timescales are 'rough estimates based on visual inspection' and that the short-timescale intra-observation variability 'in particular' has 'not been ruled out' as scintillation. These caveats are in direct tension with the unqualified 'cannot be explained' phrasing in the abstract and in §5. Either add a quantitative scintillation model that folds in the 25-MHz subband response, the measured scintillation timescales, and the observed frequency-dependent profile evolution, or soften the conclusion to 'unlikely' or 'not favored' so that the conclusion is consistent with the evidence presented.
  3. [§4.2, Figures 7-9] The difference-profile method is an appropriate way to visualize variability, but the binned standard deviations are presented without an estimate of the noise contribution to the difference profiles. Without propagating the off-pulse noise through the normalization and subtraction steps, the reader cannot tell which phase bins or epochs show variability in excess of measurement noise. Please add a noise estimate or significance threshold so that the variability measurement itself can be assessed quantitatively.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2] There are two typographical errors in this section: 'reciever' should be 'receiver' and 'concontiguous bands' should be 'contiguous bands'.
  2. [§3.2] The FD parameter inclusion criterion is described only qualitatively ('if doing so did not cause a large change ... in the DMX average'); please specify the numerical threshold used and report how many FD parameters were included in each of the IFA and METM timing solutions.
  3. [§4.2, Figure 10] Please clarify whether the parabola fitting procedure used the same fitting window in phase bins for all three receivers, and report the number of bins used, since this affects the quoted peak-ratio uncertainties.
  4. [Table 3] The proper motion in ecliptic latitude is reported as -2(1) x 10^2 mas/yr, which appears implausibly large compared with the proper motion in longitude of -15.9(1) mas/yr; please check the units or the entry for a typographical error.
  5. [Figures 11-13] The error bars are described as the 1-sigma uncertainties from the least-squares parabola fit, but they do not include uncertainties from profile normalization; please state this limitation explicitly in the captions or text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the calibration comparison and scintillation test are empirically self-contained; the paper's main weakness is under-quantified evidence, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that PSR J1022+1001's profile variability persists after robust polarization calibration and is not explained by scintillation plus frequency-dependent profile evolution—does not reduce to its own inputs. The MEM/METM calibration is anchored to independent calibrators (B0525+21 for MEM; J0030+0451 and B1937+21 as METM template pulsars), so the IFA-versus-METM comparison is an empirical test rather than a tautology. The variability metrics (binned standard deviations of difference profiles, peak-ratio distributions, KS tests, timing RMS values) are computed directly from calibrated data and are not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The scintillation test in Section 4.2 compares per-subband difference profiles against each subband's median profile, which is a legitimate way to remove profile frequency evolution; concluding that the subband deviations are consistent across the band is an observational judgment, not a definitional equivalence. The supporting evidence is admittedly qualitative—one example in Figure 15, with scintillation bandwidths and timescales described as 'rough estimates based on visual inspection'—and the paper itself flags that short-timescale variability 'has not been ruled out' as scintillation and that more accurate polarization calibration could be explored. These are evidentiary limitations and correctness risks, not circularity. The only self-citation element, following the calibration approach of Gentile et al. (2018) and Wahl et al. (2022) (co-authors), is methodological precedent with independent published content and is not load-bearing for the paper's conclusion. No circular step can be quoted or exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard pulsar calibration assumptions rather than new physics. The main hand-chosen thresholds are the S/N cutoff for profile inclusion, the 25-MHz subband width, and the FD/DMX criterion. The domain assumptions include stability of template pulsars, validity of MEM solutions over time, and the invariant-interval normalization. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • S/N threshold for profile removal = not reported (chosen per receiver)
    Profiles with S/N below a receiver-specific threshold were removed before normalization in the variability analysis; the choice affects the median profile and difference-profile statistics. Location: Section 4.2.
  • Subband width for scintillation test = 25 MHz
    Profiles were formed in 25-MHz bandwidths to test whether variability is consistent across frequency; the width is chosen by hand, not derived from measured scintillation bandwidths. Location: Section 4.2.
  • FD parameter inclusion criterion = DMX change < ~0.1 pc cm^-3
    FD parameters were added only if they did not change the DMX average by more than ~0.1 pc cm^-3, a threshold interpreted as spurious; this affects the timing solution comparison. Location: Section 3.2.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Template pulsars B1937+21 (1.4 and 2 GHz) and J0030+0451 (430 MHz) have intrinsically stable integrated pulse profiles over the observing span.
    METM derives time-dependent corrections to the polarimetric response by assuming the template pulsar's profile is constant; if false, the corrections (and the conclusion that better calibration does not reduce J1022+1001's variability) are invalid. Invoked in Section 3.1.3.
  • domain assumption The MEM polarimetric response solution for each receiver, obtained from a few B0525+21 observations, is valid over the full 2012-2023 span of the data.
    MEM PRs are derived from a limited set of epochs (Table 1) and applied to all observations; time-dependent feed variations outside those epochs are handled only via METM corrections. Section 3.1.2.
  • domain assumption The invariant interval I^2 - Q^2 - U^2 - V^2 normalization removes scintillation covariance with absolute gain G.
    Used in METM to avoid scintillation-induced G covariance; assumes G is already well characterized by flux calibrators. Section 3.1.3.
  • domain assumption The rough scintillation bandwidth (40-100 MHz) and timescale (~20 min) estimates for the 1.4-GHz data are representative.
    Used to argue that a 25-MHz subband decomposition would reveal frequency-dependent scintillation imprints if they were responsible for the variability; based on visual inspection of dynamic spectra. Section 4.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pulse Profile Variability of PSR J1022+1001 in NANOGrav Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UZOC62GK

@misc{pith2026241205452,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pulse Profile Variability of PSR J1022+1001 in NANOGrav Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UZOC62GK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05452}
}
abstract

Pulse profile stability is a central assumption of standard pulsar timing methods. Thus, it is important for pulsar timing array experiments such as the North American Nanohertz Observatory for Gravitational Waves (NANOGrav) to account for any pulse profile variability present in their data sets. We show that in the NANOGrav 15-yr data set, the integrated pulse profile of PSR J1022+1001 as seen by the Arecibo radio telescope at 430, 1380, and 2030 MHz varies considerably in its shape from observation to observation. We investigate the possibility that this is due to the "ideal feed assumption" (IFA), on which NANOGrav's routine polarization calibration procedure relies. PSR J1022+1001 is $\sim 90\%$ polarized in one pulse profile component, and also has significant levels of circular polarization. Time-dependent deviations in the feed's polarimetric response (PR) could cause mixing between the intensity I and the other Stokes parameters, leading to the observed variability. We calibrate the PR using a mixture of Measurement Equation Modeling and Measurement Equation Template Matching techniques. The resulting profiles are no less variable than those calibrated using the IFA method, nor do they provide an improvement in the timing quality of this pulsar. We observe the pulse shape in 25-MHz bandwidths to vary consistently across the band, which cannot be explained by interstellar scintillation in combination with profile evolution with frequency. Instead, we favor phenomena intrinsic to the pulsar as the cause.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05452 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two example pulse profiles of PSR J1022+1001 from 1.4-GHz Arecibo observations in the NANOGrav 15-yr data set. The solid red profile corresponds to an observation made on 5 November 2015, while the dashed blue profile was obtained on 5 April 2020; these observations were chosen to illustrate the stark difference in peak heights between the two pulse profiles. The profiles were normalized using the area under the cur… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Polarimetric response of the L-wide (1.4 GHz) receiver on 7 August 2012 (MJD 56116). The parameters shown are θ1, the orientation of receptor 1 with respect to receptor 0; ϵk, the ellipticities of the receptors (receptor 0 in black and receptor 1 in red); ϕ, the differential phase; γ, the differential gain; and G, the absolute gain. 3.1.3. Measurement Equation Template Matching METM calibration compares observations… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. METM correction to the 1.4-GHz MEM PR calculated from a 31 July 2012 (MJD 56139) observation of PSR B1937+21. The parameters shown are the orientations θk and ellipticities ϵk of the receptors (receptor 0 in black and receptor 1 in red); ϕ, the differential phase; and γ, the differential gain. Because the Stokes parameters were normalized by the mean invariant, our METM solutions do not provide any information about… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: METM-calibrated polarization profile of PSR J1022+1001 at 430 MHz. The bottom panel shows the total intensity profile (Stokes I) with the thick black line, the lin￾ear polarization (L) with the thin red line, and the circular polarization (V ) with the blue dashed line…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: METM-calibrated polarization profile of PSR J1022+1001 at 2 GHz. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Profile variability visualization for 2 GHz data. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Profile variability visualization for 1.4 GHz data. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The results of the peak fitting method for 430 MHz data. The top panel shows differences in pulse phase between the first and second peaks. The bottom panel shows peak ratios (first peak/second peak). Each panel shows results for METM-calibrated data with filled black…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The results of the peak fitting method for 1.4 GHz data. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The results of the peak fitting method for 2 GHz data. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Each point, representing a single observation, shows the difference between the peak ratio obtained from IFA- and METM-calibrated data (i.e. corresponding red and black points from the bottom panels of figures 11, 12, and 13), in terms of the 1-σ uncertainty on the ME…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Example deviations from the median pulse shape in each 25-MHz subband, from a 1.4-GHz observa￾tion on 24 April 2016 (MJD 57502). Shannon & Cordes 2012), applying one in a PTA con￾text would require careful consideration, and is beyond the scope of this analysis. AUTHO…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Example of an observation that shows changing variability between 5-minute subintegrations. The middle panel shows a difference profile from each subintegration: the data minus the median profile, which is shown in the top panel. The bottom panel shows the binned stan…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. FAST Observations of the Microstructure in Interpulse Pulsars

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

    Quasi-periodic submillisecond microstructure was detected in the interpulses of PSRs J0627+0706 and J0953+0755, with properties matching or differing from the main pulse depending on the pulsar.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023a, ApJL, 951, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6

  2. [2]

    F., Anumarlapudi, A., et al

    Agazie, G., Alam, M. F., Anumarlapudi, A., et al. 2023b, ApJL, 951, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acda9a

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acda9a

  3. [3]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023c, ApJL, 951, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acda88

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acda88

  4. [4]

    F., Arzoumanian, Z., Baker, P

    Alam, M. F., Arzoumanian, Z., Baker, P. T., et al. 2021, ApJS, 252, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abc6a0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abc6a0 2021

  5. [5]

    2023a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.16214, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.16214

    Antoniadis, J., Arumugam, P., Arumugam, S., et al. 2023a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.16214, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.16214

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.16214

  6. [6]

    S., et al

    Antoniadis, J., Babak, S., Bak Nielsen, A. S., et al. 2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.16224, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.16224 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.16224 2022

  7. [7]

    Backer, D. C. 1970, Nature, 228, 1297, doi: 10.1038/2281297a0

    doi:10.1038/2281297a0 1970

  8. [8]

    Britton, M. C. 2000, ApJ, 532, 1240, doi: 10.1086/308595

    work page doi:10.1086/308595 2000

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    D., Bailes, M., Champion, D

    Cameron, A. D., Bailes, M., Champion, D. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 5064, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1712

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Shrauner, J

    Camilo, F., Nice, D. J., Shrauner, J. A., & Taylor, J. H. 1996, ApJ, 469, 819, doi: 10.1086/177829

    1996 doi

  3. [11]

    1985, Annales de L’Institut Henri Poincare Section (A) Physique Theorique, 43, 107

    Damour, T., & Deruelle, N. 1985, Annales de L’Institut Henri Poincare Section (A) Physique Theorique, 43, 107

    1985

  4. [12]

    A., Wahl, H

    Dey, L., McLaughlin, M. A., Wahl, H. M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.13463. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.13463

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A., Vallisneri, M., Taylor, S

    Ellis, J. A., Vallisneri, M., Taylor, S. R., & Baker, P. T. 2020, ENTERPRISE: Enhanced Numerical Toolbox Enabling a Robust PulsaR Inference SuitE, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4059815

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    E., & Weisberg, J

    Everett, J. E., & Weisberg, J. M. 2001, ApJ, 553, 341, doi: 10.1086/320652

    2001 doi

  7. [15]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd326

    Feng, Y., Hobbs, G., Li, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd326

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    S., & Backer, D

    Foster, R. S., & Backer, D. C. 1990, ApJ, 361, 300, doi: 10.1086/169195

    1990 doi

  9. [17]

    A., McLaughlin, M

    Gentile, P. A., McLaughlin, M. A., Demorest, P. B., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac9c9

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Hamaker, J. P. 2000, A&AS, 143, 515, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000337

    2000 doi

  11. [19]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    2001, PASP, 113, 1274, doi: 10.1086/323289

    Heiles, C., Perillat, P., Nolan, M., et al. 2001, PASP, 113, 1274, doi: 10.1086/323289

    2001 doi

  13. [21]

    W., Bailes, M., & Ord, S

    Hotan, A. W., Bailes, M., & Ord, S. M. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 941, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08376.x

    2004

  14. [22]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Cordes, J

    Jennings, R. J., Cordes, J. M., Chatterjee, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2930

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    L., McLaughlin, M

    Jones, M. L., McLaughlin, M. A., Lam, M. T., et al. 2017, ApJ, 841, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa73df

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    M., Camilo, F., et al

    Kramer, M., Xilouris, K. M., Camilo, F., et al. 1999, ApJ, 520, 324, doi: 10.1086/307449

    1999 doi

  18. [26]

    T., McLaughlin, M

    Lam, M. T., McLaughlin, M. A., Arzoumanian, Z., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab01cd

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    J., et al

    Liu, K., Karuppusamy, R., Lee, K. J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 1158, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv397

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    R., & Kramer, M

    Lorimer, D. R., & Kramer, M. 2004, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy (UK: Cambridge University Press)

    2004

  21. [29]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe62f NANOGrav Collaboration, Arzoumanian, Z., Brazier, A., et al

    Luo, J., Ransom, S., Demorest, P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe62f NANOGrav Collaboration, Arzoumanian, Z., Brazier, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/65

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    V., Barr, E

    Padmanabh, P. V., Barr, E. D., Champion, D. J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1178, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3174

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    Oslowski, S., & Siebert, G. L. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2201.00624, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2201.00624

    2021 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    Radhakrishnan, V., & Cooke, D. J. 1969, Astrophys. Lett., 3, 225

    1969

  25. [33]

    2003, A&A, 407, 1085, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031036

    Ramachandran, R., & Kramer, M. 2003, A&A, 407, 1085, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031036

    2003 doi

  26. [34]

    2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol

    Ransom, S., Brazier, A., Chatterjee, S., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 195, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1908.05356 18 Fiore et al

    2019 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    M., Demorest, P., Ford, J., et al

    Ransom, S. M., Demorest, P., Ford, J., et al. 2009, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 214, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #214, 605.08

    2009

  28. [36]

    J., Zic, A., Shannon, R

    Reardon, D. J., Zic, A., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    M., & Cordes, J

    Shannon, R. M., & Cordes, J. M. 2012, ApJ, 761, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/64

    2012 doi

  30. [38]

    Shao, M., & You, X. P. 2016, Acta Astronomica Sinica, 57, 517

    2016

  31. [39]

    Sotomayor-Beltran, C., Sobey, C., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2013, A&A, 552, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220728

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    H., Thorsett, S

    Stairs, I. H., Thorsett, S. E., & Camilo, F. 1999, ApJS, 123, 627, doi: 10.1086/313245

    1999 doi

  33. [41]

    H., Lyne, A

    Stairs, I. H., Lyne, A. G., Kramer, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3230, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz647

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.01977, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.01977

    Susobhanan, A., Kaplan, D., Archibald, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.01977, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.01977

    2024 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    Taylor, J. H. 1992, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 341, 117, doi: 10.1098/rsta.1992.0088 Van Rooy, P., Whitlow, D., & Seymour, A. 2017, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 229, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abst...

    1992

  36. [44]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    M., McLaughlin, M

    Wahl, H. M., McLaughlin, M. A., Gentile, P. A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4045

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    N., & Johnston, S

    Wang, N., Manchester, R. N., & Johnston, S. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 1383, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11703.x

    2007

  39. [47]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 075024, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5

    Xu, H., Chen, S., Guo, Y., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 075024, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    J., Kapur, A., et al

    Zic, A., Reardon, D. J., Kapur, A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.16230, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.16230

    2023 doi arXiv

Pith tools

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