pith. sign in

arxiv: 2408.14786 · v4 · submitted 2024-08-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Pulsar Population Synthesis with Magnetorotational Evolution: Constraining the Decay of Magnetic field

Zhihong Shi , C.-Y. Ng This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 21:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords pulsar population synthesismagnetic field decayohmic dissipationradio pulsarsmagnetorotational evolutionKolmogorov-Smirnov statisticsMarkov Chain Monte Carlo
0
0 comments X

The pith

Exponential magnetic field decay with an 8 Myr timescale reproduces observed pulsar distributions better than power-law decay.

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

A full Galactic population of normal radio pulsars is synthesized by evolving spin period and magnetic field strength and inclination under a force-free magnetosphere. Two decay prescriptions are tested against a large compilation of survey data by generating synthetic samples and comparing the joint distributions of spin period, spin-down rate, dispersion measure, and flux density with high-dimensional Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics inside an MCMC fit. The exponential decay law, motivated by ohmic dissipation, matches the data with a timescale of 8.3 million years while the power-law law motivated by the Hall effect does not. The result indicates that substantial field decay occurs in aged pulsars and that ohmic dissipation is the dominant process.

Core claim

The exponential B-field decay model with timescale 8.3_{-3.0}^{+3.9} Myr successfully reproduces the observed distributions of pulsar spin period, spin-down rate, dispersion measure, and radio flux density, whereas the power-law model does not. The simulation incorporates spin-down in a force-free magnetosphere together with simultaneous decay of field strength and inclination angle; parameters are optimized by MCMC using high-dimensional Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics on the four observables.

What carries the argument

Magnetorotational evolution model that evolves pulsar spin and magnetic field under either exponential (ohmic) or power-law (Hall) decay, fitted via MCMC to high-dimensional Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics on P, P-dot, DM and flux.

If this is right

  • Significant magnetic-field decay occurs in aged pulsars.
  • Ohmic dissipation dominates over the Hall effect as the decay mechanism.
  • The decay timescale is constrained to roughly 8 Myr.
  • The power-law decay scenario is inconsistent with the observed population distributions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The constrained timescale could be inserted into evolutionary tracks for individual pulsars to predict their present-day fields.
  • Improved modeling of birth distributions or new all-sky surveys could tighten the constraint or reveal whether a second decay channel operates at late times.
  • The result supplies a population-level prior that can be tested against magnetic-field measurements in millisecond pulsars or in neutron stars detected by other means.

Load-bearing premise

The initial birth distributions of pulsar properties together with survey selection effects and sample completeness are modeled accurately enough that differences between simulated and observed populations can be attributed primarily to the magnetic-field decay law.

What would settle it

A large sample of pulsars with characteristic ages well above 10 Myr that retain magnetic fields significantly stronger than those predicted by exponential decay from standard birth values.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2408.14786 by C.-Y. Ng, Zhihong Shi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The MCMC marginal parameter space for Ohmic dissipation assumption. The 2D marginal plot is smoothed using a Gaussian kernel. with the true age for young pulsars up to ∼ 1 Myr, and then becomes much larger beyond that. This can be attributed to the decay of B-field, which makes P˙ to drop rapidly (see discussion in Sect. 3.4 below), thus, resulting in large τc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distributions of observables for the simulated (blue) and observed (red) pulsar populations. The simulation is based on the exponential B-field decay model with the best-fit parameters. The initial spin period (P0), initial spin-down rate (P˙ 0) and birth magnetic field strength (B0) distributions (yellow histograms) are also shown for comparison. The magnetic field distributions shown by the red and blue … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: P-P˙ diagram for the observed (red) and simulated (blue) pulsars. The simulation is based on the exponential B-field decay model with the best-fit parameters. The red dots show the pulsar sample from radio surveys listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Galactic location distributions for the simulated (blue) and observed (red) pulsar populations. The simulation is based on the exponential B-field decay model with the best-fit parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dynamical evolution of simulated pulsars that are detected by the surveys. Left: distribution of pulsar displacement between their birth sites and final locations. Right: distribution of initial and final pulsar velocities at the end of the simulation. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Pulsar evolution tracks in the P-P˙ diagram and the evolution of the magnetic field and the magnetic inclination angle (α) for the best-fit exponential B-field decay model. All pulsars start with P0 = 0.03 s and initial α = 60◦ . Different colors lines represent different B0 from 1011.5 G to 1013.5 G, uniform in logarithmic space. than the one (cone beam) assumed by Malov & Nikitina (2011) to deduce α. 3.5… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distributions of the initial and final values (yellow and red lines, respectively) of the magnetic inclination angle α for the simulated pulsars detected with the surveys [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Magnetic inclination angle α versus characteristic age for observed and simulated pulsars. The black dots show 80 measurements of α reported by Malov & Nikitina (2011). The underlying density plot is obtained by simulations of 50 times the pulsar sample (i.e. 92950 pulsars) using our best￾fit population model. Catalog (Smith et al. 2023), while the TPC model pre￾dicts too many [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of radio flux density (S1400) for 1624 pulsars with measurements from the ATNF pulsar catalog (red line) compared with the entire sample of 1859 pulsars (blue line). For pulsars that have measurements at other frequencies only, we scale their flux densities to 1400 MHz assuming a spectral index of −1.60. Among the 1859 pulsars in our sample, only 1624 have flux density measurements at 1400 MHz… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Fluctuation of KS statistic values for 100 sim￾ulations, all performed using the best-fit exponential decay model but with a different number of simulated pulsars, from 1 to 50 times as the observation sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a population synthesis model for normal radio pulsars in the Galaxy incorporating the latest developments in the field and the magnetorotational evolution processes. Our model considers spin-down with a force-free magnetosphere and the decay of the magnetic field strength and its inclination angle. The simulated pulsar population is fit to a large observation sample that covers the majority of radio surveys using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo technique. We compare the distributions of four major observables: spin period (P), spin down rate($\dot{P}$), dispersion measure, and radio flux density using accurate high-dimensional Kolmogoro-Smirnov statistics. We test two B-field decay scenarios, an exponential model motivated by ohmic dissipation and a power-law model motivated by the Hall effect. The former clearly provides a better fit, and it can successfully reproduce the observed pulsar distributions with a decay timescale of $8.3_{-3.0}^{+3.9}$ Myr. The result suggests that significant B-field decay in aged pulsars and ohmic dissipation could be the dominant process.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a pulsar population synthesis model incorporating force-free magnetosphere spin-down, magnetic field strength decay, and inclination angle evolution. Simulated populations are compared to a large observational sample via MCMC fitting, using high-dimensional Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics on the distributions of spin period P, period derivative Pdot, dispersion measure, and radio flux. Two decay scenarios are tested; the exponential model (motivated by ohmic dissipation) is reported to provide a superior fit with a decay timescale of 8.3_{-3.0}^{+3.9} Myr.

Significance. If the modeling of initial birth distributions and survey selection effects is sufficiently accurate, the work provides a data-driven constraint favoring exponential over power-law decay and suggesting ohmic dissipation as the dominant process for B-field evolution in aged pulsars. The application of multi-dimensional KS statistics and MCMC to four observables is a sound methodological choice for population comparison.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods / Results] The central claim that the exponential model is preferred and yields a specific decay timescale rests on the premise that initial birth distributions (typically log-normal for B0 and P0), force-free spin-down, inclination evolution, and all survey selection/completeness functions are modeled without residual mismatch large enough to mimic or mask the effect of the decay functional form. The manuscript provides no quantitative validation (e.g., recovery tests on synthetic data with known decay parameters) that the KS differences are driven by the choice of decay law rather than by the other model parameters or inaccuracies in the selection model.
  2. [Results] The reported decay timescale of 8.3 Myr is obtained by direct MCMC fitting of the model to the observed distributions of P, Pdot, DM, and flux. While this is the intended procedure, the results section should explicitly state that the numerical value is a best-fit parameter conditioned on the chosen initial distributions and selection functions, rather than an independent prediction derived from microphysical equations.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: 'Kolmogoro-Smirnov' is misspelled; it should read 'Kolmogorov-Smirnov'.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments and the recommendation for major revision. We address each major comment point by point below, with honest assessment of what revisions are feasible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / Results] The central claim that the exponential model is preferred and yields a specific decay timescale rests on the premise that initial birth distributions (typically log-normal for B0 and P0), force-free spin-down, inclination evolution, and all survey selection/completeness functions are modeled without residual mismatch large enough to mimic or mask the effect of the decay functional form. The manuscript provides no quantitative validation (e.g., recovery tests on synthetic data with known decay parameters) that the KS differences are driven by the choice of decay law rather than by the other model parameters or inaccuracies in the selection model.

    Authors: We agree that synthetic recovery tests with known injected decay parameters would provide stronger evidence that the KS statistic differences are driven by the decay functional form. Our current analysis fixes all other model components (initial distributions, force-free spin-down, inclination evolution, and selection functions) and compares the two decay laws via MCMC and multi-dimensional KS statistics, finding a clear preference for exponential decay. However, we did not perform such recovery tests. In revision we will add an explicit statement in the Methods and Discussion sections acknowledging this limitation and noting that the result is conditional on the assumed model framework. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] The reported decay timescale of 8.3 Myr is obtained by direct MCMC fitting of the model to the observed distributions of P, Pdot, DM, and flux. While this is the intended procedure, the results section should explicitly state that the numerical value is a best-fit parameter conditioned on the chosen initial distributions and selection functions, rather than an independent prediction derived from microphysical equations.

    Authors: We agree that this clarification is needed. The value 8.3 Myr is the posterior median from MCMC fitting within our specific model (log-normal initial B0 and P0, force-free spin-down, inclination evolution, and the modeled survey selection effects). It is not an independent microphysical prediction. We will revise the Results section to state this conditioning explicitly and will update the abstract accordingly for consistency. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Decay timescale is MCMC best-fit parameter to observed distributions, not independent microphysical prediction

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "The simulated pulsar population is fit to a large observation sample that covers the majority of radio surveys using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo technique. ... The former clearly provides a better fit, and it can successfully reproduce the observed pulsar distributions with a decay timescale of 8.3_{-3.0}^{+3.9} Myr."

    The decay timescale is obtained directly as the MCMC posterior that best reproduces the observed distributions under the chosen initial conditions and selection model. The numerical result is the fitted parameter value itself rather than a quantity predicted from microphysical equations independent of the data being fit.

full rationale

The paper performs population synthesis and uses MCMC to fit decay parameters so that simulated distributions of P, Pdot, DM and flux match observations via high-dimensional KS statistics. The reported central result (exponential decay with τ=8.3 Myr) is therefore the value that minimizes the fit statistic by construction. This matches the 'fitted input called prediction' pattern. No self-citation chains, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz smuggling are present; the initial birth distributions and selection effects are external modeling choices whose accuracy is assumed rather than derived within the paper. The derivation is otherwise self-contained as a standard fitting exercise.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central numerical result is a fitted decay timescale; the model also depends on unstated initial distributions and survey selection functions that are not derived from first principles within the paper.

free parameters (1)
  • B-field decay timescale = 8.3 Myr
    Obtained via MCMC fit to observed pulsar distributions
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Spin-down follows the force-free magnetosphere prescription
    Invoked in the model description in the abstract

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5717 in / 1475 out tokens · 38135 ms · 2026-05-23T21:43:57.966254+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 97 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Abolmasov, P., Biryukov, A., & Popov, S. B. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 7

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    L., et al

    Anumarlapudi, A., Ehlke, A., Jones, M. L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 28

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    2002, ApJ, 568, 289

    Arzoumanian, Z., Chernoff, D., & Cordes, J. 2002, ApJ, 568, 289

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 2893

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

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    2010, ApJ, 725, 816

    Belczynski, K., Benacquista, M., & Bulik, T. 2010, ApJ, 725, 816

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 1426

    Kouveliotou, C. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1426

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Beskin, V., Gurevich, A., & Istomin, Y. N. 1988, Ap&SS, 146, 205

    work page 1988

  8. [8]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 2572

    Beskin, V., & Litvinov, P. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 2572

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Lorimer, D. R. 2004, ApJ, 605, 759

    work page 2004

  10. [10]

    1992, A&A, 254, 198

    Verbunt, F. 1992, A&A, 254, 198

    work page 1992

  11. [11]

    2016, ApJ, 817, 130

    Bhattacharyya, B., Cooper, S., Malenta, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 130

    work page 2016

  12. [12]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 2771

    Bransgrove, A., Levin, Y., & Beloborodov, A. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 2771

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    2006, MNRAS, 368, 283

    Burgay, M., Joshi, B., D’Amico, N., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 283

    work page 2006

  14. [14]

    2020, arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.13243 Cie´ slar, M., Bulik, T., & Os lowski, S

    Chakraborty, A., & Bagchi, M. 2020, arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.13243 Cie´ slar, M., Bulik, T., & Os lowski, S. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 4043

    work page arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    1999, ApJ, 529, L29

    Colpi, M., Geppert, U., & Page, D. 1999, ApJ, 529, L29

    work page 1999

  16. [16]

    M., Freire, P., Lorimer, D

    Cordes, J. M., Freire, P., Lorimer, D. R., et al. 2006, ApJ, 637, 446

    work page 2006

  17. [17]

    1985, ApJ, 294, L25

    Dewey, R., Taylor, J., Weisberg, J., & Stokes, G. 1985, ApJ, 294, L25

    work page 1985

  18. [18]

    2022, A&A, 667, A82

    Dirson, L., P´ etri, J., & Mitra, D. 2022, A&A, 667, A82

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

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

    Edwards, R. T., Bailes, M., van Straten, W., & Britton, M. C. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 358

    work page 2001

  20. [20]

    1987, MNRAS, 225, 155

    Fasano, G., & Franceschini, A. 1987, MNRAS, 225, 155

    work page 1987

  21. [21]

    Faucher-Giguere, C.-A., & Kaspi, V. M. 2006, ApJ, 643, 332

    work page 2006

  22. [22]

    Flowers, E., & Ruderman, M. A. 1977, ApJ, 215, 302

    work page 1977

  23. [23]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    1988, Nature, 333, 237

    Fruchter, A., Stinebring, D., & Taylor, J. 1988, Nature, 333, 237

    work page 1988

  25. [25]

    1992, ApJ, 395, 250

    Goldreich, P., & Reisenegger, A. 1992, ApJ, 395, 250

    work page 1992

  26. [26]

    2006, Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 6, 97

    Harding, A. 2006, Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 6, 97

    work page 2006

  27. [27]

    L., Harding, A

    Gonthier, P. L., Harding, A. K., Ferrara, E. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 199

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    L., Story, S

    Gonthier, P. L., Story, S. A., Clow, B. D., & Harding, A. K. 2007, in The Multi-Messenger Approach to High-Energy Gamma-Ray Sources, Springer, 245

    work page 2007

  29. [29]

    L., Van Guilder, R., & Harding, A

    Gonthier, P. L., Van Guilder, R., & Harding, A. K. 2004, ApJ, 604, 775

    work page 2004

  30. [30]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 43

    Good, D., Andersen, B., Chawla, P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 43

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.14848, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.14848 Gull´ on, M., Miralles, J

    Graber, V., Ronchi, M., Pardo-Araujo, C., & Rea, N. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.14848, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.14848 Gull´ on, M., Miralles, J. A., Vigan` o, D., & Pons, J. A. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 1891

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.14848 2023

  32. [32]

    2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 107

    Han, J., Wang, C., Wang, P., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 107

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    K., Grenier, I

    Harding, A. K., Grenier, I. A., & Gonthier, P. L. 2007, in The Multi-Messenger Approach to High-Energy Gamma-Ray Sources, Springer, 221

    work page 2007

  34. [34]

    1982, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 47, 1

    Haslam, C., Salter, C., Stoffel, H., & Wilson, W. 1982, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 47, 1

    work page 1982

  35. [35]

    1969, Nature, 224, 472

    Hewish, A., Bell, S., Pilkington, J., Scott, P., & Collins, R. 1969, Nature, 224, 472

    work page 1969

  36. [36]

    2005, MNRAS, 360, 974

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

    work page 2005

  37. [37]

    1975, ApJ, 201, L55

    Hulse, R., & Taylor, J. 1975, ApJ, 201, L55

    work page 1975

  38. [38]

    A., & Taylor, J

    Hulse, R. A., & Taylor, J. 1974, ApJ, vol. 191, p. L59, 191, L59

    work page 1974

  39. [39]

    2015, Astronomische Nachrichten, 336, 831

    Igoshev, A., & Popov, S. 2015, Astronomische Nachrichten, 336, 831

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    Igoshev, A. P. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3415 —. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3663

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    P., Frantsuzova, A., Gourgouliatos, K

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

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    P., & Popov, S

    Igoshev, A. P., & Popov, S. B. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2826

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    P., Popov, S

    Igoshev, A. P., Popov, S. B., & Hollerbach, R. 2021, Universe, 7, 351

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 4436

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

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    A., & Tauris, T

    Jawor, J. A., & Tauris, T. M. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 634

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 3493

    Johnston, S., & Karastergiou, A. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3493

    work page 2017

  47. [47]

    1997, Statistics & probability letters, 35, 251

    Justel, A., Pe˜ na, D., & Zamar, R. 1997, Statistics & probability letters, 35, 251

    work page 1997

  48. [48]

    2009, A&A, 496, 495

    Kalapotharakos, C., & Contopoulos, I. 2009, A&A, 496, 495

    work page 2009

  49. [49]

    2017, ApJ, 842, 80

    Brambilla, G. 2017, ApJ, 842, 80

    work page 2017

  50. [50]

    2019, ApJL, 883, L4 Pulsar population with magneto-rotational evolution 21

    Wadiasingh, Z. 2019, ApJL, 883, L4 Pulsar population with magneto-rotational evolution 21

    work page 2019

  51. [51]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 65

    Kazanas, D. 2022, ApJ, 934, 65

    work page 2022

  52. [52]

    M., & Beloborodov, A

    Kaspi, V. M., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 261

    work page 2017

  53. [53]

    2010, MNRAS, 409, 619

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

    work page 2010

  54. [54]

    1998, MNRAS, 299, 855 —

    Kijak, J., & Gil, J. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 855 —. 2003, A&A, 397, 969

    work page 1998

  55. [55]

    Pulsar Science with the SKA

    Kramer, M., & Stappers, B. 2015, arXiv preprint arXiv:1507.04423

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  56. [56]

    2018, IEEE Microwave Magazine, 19, 112

    Li, D., Wang, P., Qian, L., et al. 2018, IEEE Microwave Magazine, 19, 112

    work page 2018

  57. [57]

    1993, MNRAS, 263, 403

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

    work page 1993

  58. [58]

    2004, MNRAS, 347, L21

    Lorimer, D., McLaughlin, M., Arzoumanian, Z., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 347, L21

    work page 2004

  59. [59]

    2006, MNRAS, 372, 777

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

    work page 2006

  60. [60]

    2011, Astronomy reports, 55, 19

    Malov, I., & Nikitina, E. 2011, Astronomy reports, 55, 19

    work page 2011

  61. [61]

    D., & Tuohy, I

    Manchester, R., Amico, N. D., & Tuohy, I. 1985, MNRAS, 212, 975

    work page 1985

  62. [62]

    1978, MNRAS, 185, 409

    Manchester, R., Lyne, A., Taylor, J., et al. 1978, MNRAS, 185, 409

    work page 1978

  63. [63]

    N., Hobbs, G

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

    work page 2005

  64. [64]

    N., Lyne, A., d’Amico, N., et al

    Manchester, R. N., Lyne, A., d’Amico, N., et al. 1996, MNRAS, 279, 1235

    work page 1996

  65. [65]

    N., Lyne, A

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

    work page 2001

  66. [66]

    1975, Astronomical Society of

    Miyamoto, M., & Nagai, R. 1975, Astronomical Society of

    work page 1975

  67. [67]

    Japan, Publications, vol. 27, no. 4, 1975, p. 533-543., 27, 533

    work page 1975

  68. [68]

    2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989

    Nan, R., Li, D., Jin, C., et al. 2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989

    work page 2011

  69. [69]

    Ng, C.-Y., & Romani, R. W. 2007, ApJ, 660, 1357

    work page 2007

  70. [70]

    1995, ApJv

    Nice, D., Fruchter, A., & Taylor, J. 1995, ApJv. 449, p. 156, 449, 156

    work page 1995

  71. [71]

    1990, ApJ, 348, 485, doi: 10.1086/168257

    Paczynski, B. 1990, ApJ, 348, 485, doi: 10.1086/168257

    work page doi:10.1086/168257 1990

  72. [72]

    1995, ApJ, 453, L29 P´ etri, J

    Pethick, C., & Sahrling, M. 1995, ApJ, 453, L29 P´ etri, J. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 605

    work page 1995

  73. [73]

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

    work page 2014

  74. [74]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 2675

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

    work page 2010

  75. [75]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 4582

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

    work page 2023

  76. [76]

    Rankin, J. M. 1993, ApJ, 405, 285

    work page 1993

  77. [77]

    P., & Lorimer, D

    Ridley, J. P., & Lorimer, D. R. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1081

    work page 2010

  78. [78]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 1407

    Ridolfi, A., Gautam, T., Freire, P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 1407

    work page 2021

  79. [79]

    2021, New Astronomy, 83, 101498

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

    work page 2021

  80. [80]

    2019, A&A, 626, A104

    Sanidas, S., Cooper, S., Bassa, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A104

    work page 2019

Showing first 80 references.