Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 52 references

Minimum Entropy Indicator for Evaluating Dispersion Measure

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A minimum-Shannon-entropy scan over trial dispersion measures picks the profile closest to the true one; on 48 FAST pulsars it matches published DMs within 0.5% for all but three (which match older references).

desk verdict Entropy-minimization as a DM indicator works reasonably on 48 FAST pulsars, but without a baseline or sensitivity run the agreement isn't yet shown to come from the entropy criterion. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16023 v3 pith:VQ6HYRWL submitted 2024-11-25 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HE

Yu-Fu Shen , Yan Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HE
keywords dispersionmeasureShannonentropypulseprofilepulsarFASTtelescopediscriminationtemplate-freeradioastronomy
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 tries to establish a template-free rule for choosing the dispersion measure (DM) of a radio pulse: dedisperse at many trial DMs, bin each trial profile, and compute Shannon entropy; the trial DM with the lowest entropy is argued to give the profile closest to the real one. The authors test this on 48 pulsars observed with FAST, computing an entropy DM for each pulse and averaging per pulsar. All but three of their entropy DMs differ from the latest published values by less than 0.5%, and those three agree with older published DMs instead. If the rule holds, DM estimation no longer needs a pulse-shape model, which matters for studying real profile structure rather than forcing data into a template. The paper itself notes that the minimum-entropy criterion is not proven optimal and recommends comparing several indicators.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the entropy functional $H(X)=-\sum_{i=1}^{n} p(x_i)\log_2 p(x_i)$, where $x_i$ is a short time interval of the candidate pulse profile and $p(x_i)$ is the fraction of the total flux received in that interval. Minimizing this functional over trial dispersion measures is the whole algorithm: it replaces template fitting with a pure concentration score. Two auxiliary procedures carry the practical argument: the 3-$\sigma$ retention of data points and the three-segment interference-removal routine that the paper assumes leaves true pulse signals intact, and the error strategy that smooths the entropy-DM curve and takes the 3-$\sigma$ band around the minimum as the DM uncertainty.

What would settle it

Inject a synthetic dispersed pulse with a known DM whose true profile has a low-amplitude broad component below the 3-sigma cutoff: if the entropy-DM minimum moves away from the injected DM by more than the quoted error when that weak component is present, and does not move when the component is removed, the preprocessing assumption is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that within a fixed time window, the flux distribution of a dedispersed pulse profile with minimum Shannon entropy is the distribution closest to the true profile, and the dispersion measure that produces it is the optimal DM. Concretely, for each trial DM the data are shifted by the frequency-dependent delay of Equation (1), binned in time, normalized to a probability distribution, and scored by $H=-\sum_i p_i\log_2 p_i$. The DM that minimizes $H$ is taken as the measured DM, with an error range read off from the entropy-versus-DM curve using a 3-$\sigma$ smoothed-residual rule. The validation on 48 FAST pulsars compares these entropy DMs against the latest references: 45 are within 0.5%, and the 3 remaining pulsars match older references, which the paper interprets as consistency with published DM values once reference-systematic differences are allowed.

Load-bearing premise

The method computes entropy only from data points that survive a 3-sigma cut and a three-segment interference-removal routine, on the assumption that the true pulse stays intact through both; if part of a real pulse lies below the threshold or gets clipped as interference, the entropy minimum can shift to the wrong dispersion measure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dispersion measurement becomes a template-free search: the DM that concentrates the pulse profile into the fewest flux bins is selected without assuming any pulse shape, sidestepping the fitting bias the paper identifies.
  • Because the entropy scan is computed separately on each pulse, per-pulse DMs and error bars follow naturally, allowing studies of DM variability without first building a high-S/N template.
  • The method is computationally cheap enough to supply initial DM estimates and pre-input parameters for more detailed single-pulse analysis, as demonstrated by the coarse-to-fine search in Section 2.2.
  • On the 48-pulsar FAST sample, a correct minimum-entropy rule predicts that entropy DMs will continue to agree with independently measured DMs, with residual outliers tracing reference-systematic differences rather than method failure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the minimum-entropy score is essentially a sharpness or concentration measure, so it should behave much like structure-maximization dedispersion used in fast radio burst work; a direct comparison of min-entropy DM with structure-maximized DM on FRB data would be a natural test the paper does not run.
  • Editorial inference: since only 3-sigma-surviving samples enter the entropy, the indicator measures the bright core of the pulse, not its low-level wings; if scattering broadens a profile or a genuine component sits below threshold, the entropy minimum may drift, and a soft-threshold variant is the obvious check.
  • Editorial inference: the three outliers matching older references hint that published DMs carry their own processing systematics, so catalog agreement is a weak ground truth; a stronger validation would use simulated pulses with exactly known DM and scattering to map where the min-entropy estimator breaks down.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a template-free, entropy-based dispersion measure (DM) estimator: for a given trial DM, the dedispersed time series is binned into a flux profile, its Shannon entropy is computed, and the DM that minimizes this entropy is taken as the optimal DM. The authors argue that the minimum-entropy profile is closest to the true pulse profile and thus yields the correct DM. They apply the method to 48 pulsars observed with FAST, reporting that all but three entropy DMs differ from catalog reference DMs by less than 0.5%, and that the three outliers agree with older references. A synthetic-data test and an example code are included.

Significance. If the empirical agreement is robust, the paper offers a computationally cheap, template-free DM indicator that could complement existing fitting and profile-discrimination methods, particularly for studying single-pulse profiles and FRBs. The validation is against independent catalog DMs (not fitted to them), and the paper ships example code and a synthetic-data sanity check, which are genuine strengths. However, the central claim currently depends on several ad hoc preprocessing steps whose influence has not been quantified, so the significance is conditional on a sensitivity analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1 and Appendix A] The preprocessing is load-bearing: the entropy is computed only on data points surviving the 3-sigma cutoff (`allH['snr']>1+3*sig` in the code), and the three-segment interference-removal procedure is described only in prose, with the code leaving a placeholder ('add your function here'). Every entropy value is therefore evaluated on a truncated, threshold-selected subset of the flux distribution, not on the full pulse profile. If real pulses contain low-amplitude wings, scattering tails, or other components below the threshold, those samples are silently discarded and the minimum-entropy DM could shift. The paper provides no sensitivity analysis varying the threshold (e.g., 1, 2, 5 sigma, or no cut), the interference-removal logic, the phase offset, or the smoothing window. Without such a test, the agreement in Table 1 is not yet shown to be a property of the entropy indicator itself rather than of the preprocessing choices. Please add a sensitivity study, or at minimum report the fraction of data points retained by the 3-sigma cutoff per pulsar and demonstrate that the derived DM is stable under reasonable variations of these parameters.
  2. [§2.4 and Table 1] The headline result is that 45 of 48 entropy DMs agree with reference DMs within 0.5%, but the comparison does not use the stated error bars. Several entropy DMs have uncertainties larger than the 0.5% band (e.g., J1404+1159 with err 2.8 on DM 15.857), and the reference DMs are quoted without their own uncertainties. In addition, the 'weighted average' of per-pulse DMs is not defined: the weights, the number of pulses used, and how outliers are combined are all unspecified. Please provide the per-pulse measurements, the weighting scheme, and the uncertainties, or clearly state that the 0.5% comparison is against the catalog central values only, so the reader can judge whether the differences are statistically significant.
  3. [§1 and Abstract] The conceptual premise that 'the flux distribution with the minimum entropy (maximum amount of information) is the closest to the real distribution' is asserted rather than derived, and the paper itself concedes in the Abstract and §3 that the criterion cannot be proven optimal. This is acceptable as a heuristic motivation, but the title and the introductory wording claim a direct relationship to the 'true profile.' Because the empirical validation in §2.4 is only against catalog DMs, not against independent measurements of the true pulse profile, I recommend rewording the claims to say that the minimum-entropy DM is a useful estimator that recovers reference DMs for the 48 FAST pulsars studied, and to present the 'closest to the real profile' statement as a motivation rather than a conclusion of the paper.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3 heading] The heading 'Disscusions and Conclusions' contains a typo and should read 'Discussion and Conclusions.'
  2. [Figure 2] The caption says 'Using pulsar J1901+0331 as an example,' but the panel title and the surrounding text refer to J1922+1733 with DM=234.0; please correct this mismatch.
  3. [§2.2] The error-estimation strategy does not specify the width of the smoothing window; the code uses binsize = (max(dms)-min(dms))/20, but this choice is not justified and can change the reported error range.
  4. [Table 1] For each pulsar, the 'References' column lists two references without indicating which one supplies the quoted reference DM; please split this into two columns or add a note explaining the provenance of each DM value.
  5. [§2.1] The '3 sigma' threshold is not defined precisely: it should be stated whether sigma is the standard deviation of the full slice, the median-normalized noise estimate used in the code, or another quantity.
  6. [§1] The sentence 'their are also some pulsars known as millisecond pulsars' contains a grammatical error ('their' should be 'there').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: min-entropy DMs are validated against independent catalog values, not fitted to them.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: define Shannon entropy over binned pulse flux, scan trial DMs, select the DM that minimizes entropy, and compare the resulting DMs with published catalog values. No parameter is fitted to the reference DMs, and the comparison is made against externally compiled catalogs (e.g., Manchester et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2023), not against values used to construct the indicator. The statement in Section 1 that the minimum-entropy flux distribution is 'closest to the real distribution and corresponds to the optimal DM' is an explicit premise or assumption, not a conclusion derived from the entropy definition; the paper itself repeatedly disclaims optimality ('it cannot be proven to be the optimal criterion'). An unproven premise is a correctness or validation concern, not circularity. The 3-sigma clipping and interference-removal preprocessing in Section 2.1 are fixed choices that could bias the entropy minimum, but they do not make the prediction equivalent to an input or fit to the reference DMs. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Therefore the central claim is self-contained against external benchmarks and receives a score of 0.

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

The method introduces no fitted DM values; its output is the DM at the entropy minimum over a search grid. The listed free parameters are preprocessing and binning choices that affect the entropy estimate and the quoted error range. The axioms include the unproven entropy-maximum-information premise, the dispersion relation, and the assumption that interference removal preserves the pulse. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • 3-sigma flux threshold = 3 (multiple of sigma)
    Data points below 3 sigma are discarded before entropy calculation; no sensitivity analysis is provided, and results could depend on this cutoff (Section 2.1, Appendix A).
  • phase offset = 0.1 x binsize
    Code comment states this avoids bin resonance and periodicity; it is an ad hoc constant that affects the binning of arrival times (Appendix A).
  • error smoothing window = (maxDM - minDM) / 20
    Used to define the error range by smoothing the entropy-DM curve; authors note the choice affects the error range (Section 2.2, Appendix A).
  • DM search grid step h = user-defined (e.g., 2 for coarse, 0.001 for fine)
    The reported DM precision depends on the grid resolution; chosen by hand, not fitted to data (Section 2.2).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Entropy minimization selects the dedispersion whose flux distribution is closest to the true pulse profile (minimum entropy corresponds to maximum information).
    Stated as a belief in Section 1; authors explicitly say it cannot be proven optimal, so the central premise is unvalidated.
  • domain assumption After dedispersion with the correct DM, the intrinsic pulse profile is the most concentrated (lowest entropy) among all trial DMs.
    Equivalent assumption; it presumes that the true profile is the sharpest, which may fail for broad, scattered, or multi-component profiles (Section 1, Discussion).
  • standard math Radio frequency dispersion follows the cold plasma dispersion relation with v^-2 scaling (Eq. 1).
    Standard assumption in pulsar astronomy; not in dispute.
  • ad hoc to paper The data preprocessing (3-sigma retention and interference removal in three segments) preserves the true pulse signal intact.
    Section 2.1 claims the three-segment division ensures true signals are not removed; this is assumed, not verified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Minimum Entropy Indicator for Evaluating Dispersion Measure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VQ6HYRWL

@misc{pith2026241116023,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Minimum Entropy Indicator for Evaluating Dispersion Measure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VQ6HYRWL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16023}
}
read the original abstract

Advanced radio telescopes such as the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope (FAST) can provide high-sensitivity and high-time-resolution data of a large number of radio sources, offering an excellent opportunity for studying radio pulse profiles. However, studying pulse profiles requires the analysis of dispersion measurement (DM). The fitting method tends to make the profile conform to the model, so the fitting method is not suitable for pulse profile research. Indicators are needed to determine the profile closest to the real one, which is the profile discrimination method. This work is based on the definition of Shannon's information entropy, and believes that the pulse profile when the entropy is minimized is the closest to the true profile. This indicator is simple to calculate and can provide help for pulse profile research. This work uses real data from 48 pulsars. By calculating the information entropy of the pulsar profiles under different DMs, the DM corresponding to the minimum entropy is found, thus verifying the validity of the minimum entropy indicator. In terms of the analysis results for the 48 pulsars, the differences with the references are less than 0.5\% for all except 3 stars, and the results for these 3 stars are consistent with older references. The minimum entropy indicator can effectively obtain the DMs of radio pulse signals with low computational complexity, but it cannot be proven to be the optimal criterion. It is suggested to use multiple indicators separately when studying pulse profiles. It can be expected that the optimal indicator can provide information on the radiation mechanism of radio sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16023 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Using pulsar J1901+0331 as an example. Without any pre input, search for DM with an interval of 2 within the range of 1 to 900. The title of the upper two panels are the DMs correspond to the peaks, and the value in parentheses indicates the error range. 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 Time (s) 10000 20000 30000 40000 Relative flux 230 232 234 236 238 DM (cm^-3 pc) J1922+1733 DM=234.0 Reference This work (weighted average) [P… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Using pulsar J1901+0331 as an example. Search for DM for each pulse with an interval of 0.001 within the range of 229 to 239. The data points with error bars are DM values given by minimum entropy method. The blue line is the flux curve. with the template. The flux of the signal is linearly dispersed into the nearest two points based on the distance from the theoreti￾cal value to the actual data points. The minimum … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. An comparison between the DMs from the latest refer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

    Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M. A., et al. 2007, Science, 318,

    work page 2007

  2. [4]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    doi:10.1007/s00159-019-0116-6 Backer, D. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Heiles, C., et al. 1982, Nature, 300,

    doi:10.1007/s00159-019-0116-6 1982

  3. [9]

    doi:10.1071/PH790009 Drake, F. D. & Craft, H. D. 1968, Nature, 220,

    doi:10.1071/ph790009 1968

  4. [12]

    Y ., Verbiest, J

    doi:10.3847 /1538- 4357/abe62f Donner, J. Y ., Verbiest, J. P. W., Tiburzi, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A22. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834059 Tiburzi, C., Verbiest, J. P. W., Shaifullah, G. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487,

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834059 2019

  5. [23]

    M., Freire, P

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad19da Cordes, J. M., Freire, P. C. C., Lorimer, D. R., et al. 2006, ApJ, 637,

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad19da 2006

  6. [29]

    2013, Science, 341,

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29 Thornton, D., Stappers, B., Bailes, M., et al. 2013, Science, 341,

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29 2013

  7. [34]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6ef Hankins, T. H. 1971, ApJ, 169,

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6ef 1971

  8. [39]

    J., Fruchter, A

    doi:10.1038/physci244084a0 Nice, D. J., Fruchter, A. S., & Taylor, J. H. 1995, ApJ, 449,

    doi:10.1038/physci244084a0 1995

Show all 52 references
  1. [43]

    J., Shrauner, J

    doi:10.1038/320043a0 Camilo, F., Nice, D. J., Shrauner, J. A., et al. 1996, ApJ, 469,

    1996 doi

  2. [44]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10887.x Hulse, R. A. & Taylor, J. H. 1975, ApJ, 201, L55. doi:10.1086/181941 Hobbs, G., Lyne, A. G., Kramer, M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 353,

    2006

  3. [45]

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2828-1 Petroff, E., Hessels, J. W. T., & Lorimer, D. R. 2019, A&A Rev., 27,

    2019 doi

  4. [47]

    H., Segelstein, D

    Stokes, G. H., Segelstein, D. J., Taylor, J. H., et al. 1986, ApJ, 311,

    1986

  5. [50]

    V ., Kondratiev, V

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/50 Bilous, A. V ., Kondratiev, V . I., Kramer, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 591, A134. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527702 McEwen, A. E., Spiewak, R., Swiggum, J. K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892,

    2016 doi

  6. [53]

    doi:10.1126/science.1236789 Cordes, J. M. & Chatterjee, S. 2019, ARA&A, 57,

    2019 doi

  7. [64]

    2020, The Innovation, 1, 100053

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64 Qian, L., Yao, R., Sun, J., et al. 2020, The Innovation, 1, 100053. doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2020.100053 Han, J. L., Wang, C., Wang, P. F., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astro- physics, 21,

    2020

  8. [67]

    I., Vaughan, A

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/67 Large, M. I., Vaughan, A. E., & Wielebinski, R. 1968, Nature, 220,

    1968 doi

  9. [76]

    This issue can be avoided by distributing each data point into multiple \ bins based on certain principles

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab75e2 Article number, page 6 Yu-Fu Shen and Yan Xu : Minimum Entropy Indicator for Evaluating Dispersion Measure Appendix A: An example code import numpy as np import astropy.io.fits as fits import pandas as pd import matplotlib.pyplot as plt import os i...

    doi

  10. [84]

    & Lin, H.-H

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8055 Thulasiram, P. & Lin, H.-H. 2021, MNRAS, 508,

    2021 doi

  11. [107]

    2022, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 65, 129702

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/21/5/107 Hong, T., Han, J., Hou, L., et al. 2022, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 65, 129702. doi:10.1007/s11433-022-2040-8 Hou, L., Han, J., Hong, T., et al. 2022, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 65, 129703. doi:10.1007/...

    2022

  12. [123]

    B., Edwards, R

    doi:10.1086/169393 Hobbs, G. B., Edwards, R. T., & Manchester, R. N. 2006, MNRAS, 369,

    2006 doi

  13. [129]

    2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959502

    doi:10.1007/s11433-006-0129-9 Jiang, P., Yue, Y ., Gan, H., et al. 2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959502. doi:10.1007/s11433-018-9376-1 Jiang, P., Tang, N.-Y ., Hou, L.-G., et al. 2020, Research in Astronomy and As- trophysics, 20,

    2019 doi

  14. [156]

    S., Cordes, J

    doi:10.1086/176041 Deneva, J. S., Cordes, J. M., McLaughlin, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703,

    2009 doi

  15. [167]

    R., Salter, C

    doi:10.1038/225167a0 Bonsignori-Facondi, S. R., Salter, C. J., & Sutton, J. M. 1973, A&A, 27, 67 Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., et al. 2005, AJ, 129,

    1973 doi

  16. [220]

    S., McLaughlin, M., Olszanski, T

    doi:10.1134/S1063772916020128 Deneva, J. S., McLaughlin, M., Olszanski, T. E. E., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271,

    2024 doi

  17. [229]

    J., Pilkington, J

    doi:10.1038/240229a0 Hewish, A., Bell, S. J., Pilkington, J. D. H., et al. 1968, Nature, 217,

    1968 doi

  18. [231]

    T., & Stappers, B

    doi:10.1038/220231a0 Weltevrede, P., Edwards, R. T., & Stappers, B. W. 2006, A&A, 445,

    2006 doi

  19. [243]

    W., & Edwards, R

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053088 Weltevrede, P., Stappers, B. W., & Edwards, R. T. 2007, A&A, 469,

    2007 doi

  20. [301]

    aa_example Dewey, R

    doi:10.1093/mnras/149.4.301 Article number, page 5 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aa_example Dewey, R. J., Taylor, J. H., Weisberg, J. M., et al. 1985, ApJ, 294, L25. doi:10.1086/184502 Vaughan, A. E. & Large, M. I. 1970, Nature, 225,

    1985 doi

  21. [347]

    S., Ransom, S

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1023 Stovall, K., Lynch, R. S., Ransom, S. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 791,

    2014 doi

  22. [358]

    H., Taylor, J

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04637.x Stokes, G. H., Taylor, J. H., Welsberg, J. M., et al. 1985, Nature, 317,

    2001

  23. [394]

    F., Anumarlapudi, A., et al

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1278 Agazie, G., Alam, M. F., Anumarlapudi, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, L9. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acda9a Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G., Bailes, M., et al. 2013, PASA, 30, e017. doi:10.1017/pasa.2012.017 Oswald, L. S., Karastergiou, A., Posselt, B., et al. 20...

    2023 doi

  24. [409]

    T., Bailes, M., van Straten, W., et al

    doi:10.1093/mnras/185.2.409 Edwards, R. T., Bailes, M., van Straten, W., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 326,

    2001 doi

  25. [417]

    2020, Nature, 587,

    doi:10.1146 /annurev- astro-091918-104501 Zhang, B. 2020, Nature, 587,

    2020

  26. [446]

    F., Han, J

    doi:10.1086/498335 Wang, P. F., Han, J. L., Xu, J., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astro- physics, 23, 104002. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acea1f Chandler, A. M. 2003, Ph.D. Thesis, 761 Manchester, R. N., Lyne, A. G., Taylor, J. H., et al. 1978, MNRAS, 185,

    2023 doi

  27. [487]

    doi:10.1086/151164 Cordes, J. M. 1979, Australian Journal of Physics, 32,

    1979 doi

  28. [561]

    doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.003021 Foster, R. S. & Cordes, J. M. 1990, ApJ, 364,

    1990

  29. [607]

    I., et al

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066855 Basu, R., Mitra, D., Melikidze, G. I., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482,

    2019 doi

  30. [615]

    P., Wise, M

    doi:10.1038/300615a0 van Haarlem, M. P., Wise, M. W., Gunst, A. W., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A2. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220873 Rickett, B. J. 1990, ARA&A, 28,

    2013 doi

  31. [694]

    doi:10.1086/164808 Clifton, T. R. & Lyne, A. G. 1986, Nature, 320,

    1986 doi

  32. [709]

    R., Camilo, F., & McLaughlin, M

    doi:10.1038/217709a0 Lorimer, D. R., Camilo, F., & McLaughlin, M. A. 2013, MNRAS, 434,

    2013 doi

  33. [753]

    doi:10.1038/220753a0 Davies, J. G. & Large, M. I. 1970, MNRAS, 149,

    1970 doi

  34. [777]

    doi:10.1126/science.1147532 Cordes, J. M. & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, astro-ph /0207156. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207156 Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N. 2017, ApJ, 835,

    2002 doi arXiv

  35. [787]

    H., et al

    doi:10.1038/317787a0 Hobbs, G., Faulkner, A., Stairs, I. H., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 352,

    2004 doi

  36. [819]

    G., Large, M

    doi:10.1086/177829 Davies, J. G., Large, M. I., & Pickwick, A. C. 1970, Nature, 227,

    1970 doi

  37. [1115]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab980 Pennucci, T. T. 2019, ApJ, 871,

    2019 doi

  38. [1123]

    doi:10.1038/2271123a0 Hulse, R. A. & Taylor, J. H. 1974, ApJ, 191, L59. doi:10.1086/181548 Lyne, A. G. & Hamilton, P. A. 1981, Unpublished work Davies, J. G., Lyne, A. G., & Seiradakis, J. H. 1973, Nature Physical Science, 244,

    1974 doi

  39. [1299]

    R., Faulkner, A

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06637.x Lorimer, D. R., Faulkner, A. J., Lyne, A. G., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 372,

    2003

  40. [1311]

    K., & Balasubramanian, V

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08157.x Swarup, G., Mohanty, D. K., & Balasubramanian, V . 1971, IAU Circ., 2356 Davies, J. G., Lyne, A. G., & Seiradakis, J. H. 1972, Nature, 240,

    2004

  41. [1947]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2692 Hessels, J. W. T., Spitler, L. G., Seymour, A. D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, L23. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab13ae Nan, R. 2006, Science in China: Physics, Mechanics and Astronomy, 49,

    2019 doi

  42. [1993]

    J., Altiere, E., Bogdanov, S., et al

    doi:10.1086/428488 Nice, D. J., Altiere, E., Bogdanov, S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 772,

    2013 doi

  43. [2259]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/2259 Mohanty, D. K. & Balasubramanian, V . 1975, MNRAS, 171, 17P. doi:10.1093/mnras/171.1.17P Kramer, M., Bell, J. F., Manchester, R. N., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 342,

    1975 doi

  44. [3757]

    2019, Astrophysics Source Code Li- brary

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2846 Seymour, A., Michilli, D., & Pleunis, Z. 2019, Astrophysics Source Code Li- brary. ascl:1910.004 Lin, H.-H., Main, R., Pen, U.-L., et al. 2022, arXiv:2208.13677. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2208.13677 Lewandowska, N., Demorest, P. B., McLaughlin, M. A., et al....

    2019 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.