Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Scintillation Bandwidth Measurements from 23 Pulsars from the AO327 Survey

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Archival 60-second drift scans of 23 pulsars yield 38 scintillation bandwidths, most of them larger than the NE2001 and YMW16 electron-density models predict, with NE2001 the closer of the two.

desk verdict A useful, honestly-caveated pilot that delivers new scintillation bandwidths from archival drift-scan data; the population-level model comparisons are weaker than they look, but the paper deserves a serious referee with revision requests. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17857 v1 pith:XCTYKE5E submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.HE

Sofia Z. Sheikh , Grayce C. Brown , Jackson MacTaggart , Thomas Nguyen , William D. Fletcher , Brenda L. Jones , Emma Koller , Veronica Petrus
show 10 more authors
Katie F. Pighini Gray Rosario Vincent A. Smedile Adam T. Stone Shawn You Maura A. McLaughlin Jacob E. Turner Julia S. Deneva Michael T. Lam Brent J. Shapiro-Albert
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords pulsarsscintillationbandwidthinterstellarAO327surveyNE2001YMW16electrondensitymodelsscatteringdelay
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 tries to establish that the short drift-scan observations of the AO327 survey, taken to find pulsars, can be mined for the frequency width of interstellar scintillation, the twinkling a pulsar signal acquires from the ionized gas between the pulsar and Earth. Applying the method to 23 pulsars produces 38 measured scintillation bandwidths at 327 MHz, six of them with no prior literature value. The overall result is that almost all of these widths are larger than the predictions of the two standard models of the galaxy's free-electron content, NE2001 and YMW16, and that NE2001 matches the data more closely than YMW16. This matters because scintillation bandwidth is inversely proportional to scattering delay, a corrupting term that low-frequency pulsar timing arrays must correct for when searching for gravitational waves.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-dimensional frequency-lag slice of the two-dimensional autocorrelation function (2D ACF) of the pulse-weighted dynamic spectrum. In a normal scintillation analysis both the time-lag and frequency-lag axes are used to measure the scintillation timescale and bandwidth, but a drift scan of roughly 60 seconds cannot resolve the time axis, so the authors sum the 2D ACF over all time lags to make a single slice whose central peak width carries the bandwidth information. Fitting that slice with a Gaussian or Lorentzian gives the half-width at half-maximum, the reported scintillation bandwidth, and the relation $2\pi\tau_s\Delta\nu_D = C$ converts the bandwidth into the scattering delay used for model comparison.

What would settle it

Re-observe several of the same 23 pulsars at 327 MHz with long integrations, measure the scintillation bandwidth from the full two-dimensional autocorrelation function with the time-lag axis resolved, and check whether the bandwidths still sit above the NE2001 and YMW16 predictions; if they cluster at or below the predictions, the drift-scan time-lag summation is biasing the paper's measurements.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is that a usable scintillation bandwidth can be recovered from a one-minute drift-scan observation even though the scintillation timescale is far longer than the dwell time. The authors sum the two-dimensional autocorrelation function of each dynamic spectrum along the time-lag axis, fit the resulting one-dimensional frequency-lag peak with Gaussian and Lorentzian models, and convert the fitted width into a bandwidth. From 23 pulsars they obtain 38 measurements, and report that the measured bandwidths exceed the NE2001 and YMW16 predictions in almost every case, that NE2001 agrees better (Gaussian median difference factor 1.59 versus 3.16 for YMW16), and that Gaussian fits agree with the models better than Lorentzian fits, partly because the models were trained with Gaussian-shaped fits.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that summing the correlation pattern over time produces a frequency width that faithfully represents the scintillation bandwidth, even though each observation lasts only about a minute while the twinkling pattern changes over much longer times.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same pipeline can be applied to the remaining 3% of AO327 PUPPI data and to the Mock-spectrometer portion of the survey, producing a much larger uniform sample of 327-MHz bandwidths.
  • Because pulsars used to train NE2001 have a median difference factor near 1 while non-training pulsars have one near 2.9, the model's apparent success is partly a consequence of its own training set.
  • The new measurements add low-frequency constraints for the next generation of Galactic electron-density and scattering models, which would improve distance estimates and scattering-delay corrections for pulsar timing arrays.
  • The paper finds no clear correlation between the model-data discrepancy and dispersion measure, spin period, or Galactic longitude and latitude, so the model errors are not simply explained by those basic pulsar properties.
  • Literature values for the same pulsars differ by factors of a few even after scaling to a common frequency, and close-in-time observations do not agree better than far-apart ones, suggesting the interstellar medium itself varies on top of any measurement systematics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A model-blind extension to the full AO327 catalog would avoid the NE2001-based preselection used here and give a cleaner test of whether the models systematically underpredict bandwidths.
  • If the over-measurement pattern persists in a larger sample, the Kolmogorov $\alpha = 4.4$ scaling used to bring all measurements and predictions to 327 MHz would be a prime suspect, since the paper itself finds hints that the true frequency scaling is shallower.
  • The absence of time-closeness clustering in the multi-epoch pulsars suggests that repeated AO327 scans of the same pulsars could separate interstellar weather from measurement noise more effectively than the current sample allows.
  • Confirmed wide bandwidths would imply far smaller scattering delays than the models assume along these sightlines, meaning the turbulent plasma content of the models may need downward revision.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a pilot study that measures diffractive scintillation bandwidths from archival AO327 drift-scan observations of pulsars at 327 MHz. The authors cross-match 223 known pulsars against AO327 pointings, fold 128 detections, construct dynamic spectra, compute 2D autocorrelation functions, sum the ACF over all time lags to form a one-dimensional frequency-lag slice, and fit Gaussian and Lorentzian models to that slice. They report 38 bandwidth measurements (including upper limits) for 23 pulsars, six of which have no prior literature values. The measured bandwidths are compared with NE2001 and YMW16 predictions, yielding the claims that most measurements exceed both model predictions, NE2001 matches better than YMW16, and Gaussian fits match slightly better than Lorentzian fits. The paper also presents a literature comparison and a DM-scattering-time power-law fit.

Significance. If the measurement method is valid, the paper demonstrates that short-duration drift-scan archival data can be mined for scintillation bandwidths, adds new measurements to the literature, and provides useful constraints for the next generation of Galactic electron-density models. The pipeline is described in detail, errors from finite-scintle, fit, and channel-width sources are propagated in quadrature, and the authors are transparent about the NE2001 training-sample overlap, quantifying the difference in median difference factors between training and non-training pulsars (0.90 vs 2.89). The significance is moderate, however, because the sample is small, many measurements carry large fractional uncertainties, and the central methodological innovation—summing the 2D ACF over time lags—is not validated by simulations or independent longer-track observations.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.5] The central measurement method—summing the 2D ACF over all time lags to form a 1D frequency-lag slice—is not validated. Because each drift-scan observation is only about 60 s, much shorter than the scintillation timescale, the frequency-lag structures at different time lags are not independent, and summing over all lags may mix noise, bandpass rolloff, and features of differing widths. The paper acknowledges these as 'minor drawbacks' but does not quantify their effect. Please add an injection/recovery test using simulated dynamic spectra with known bandwidths, or compare derived bandwidths for a few pulsars with contemporaneous longer-track measurements, to demonstrate that the estimator is unbiased. Without such a test, the quantitative comparisons to NE2001 and YMW16 rest on an unvalidated estimator.
  2. [Section 3.6] The manual cropping of the ACF slice to the 'smallest coherent structure in the peak with at least five data points' is subjective and potentially biased toward narrow features; if multiple peaks are present, selecting the smallest structure could systematically drive fitted widths downward. Please specify an algorithmic criterion (e.g., first zero-crossing, fixed ACF threshold, or an automated peak finder) and test the sensitivity of the 38 measurements to the chosen criterion. Also, several reported widths (e.g., J0137+1654 at 0.02–0.03 MHz and J2215+1538 at 0.04 MHz) are smaller than the five-point resolution of 0.084 MHz; the relationship between the crop criterion and the effective resolution limit should be clarified.
  3. [Section 4.8 and Figure 8] The DM–tau_s fit parameters are internally inconsistent: the text reports A = 1.83 × 10^-7 and a = 2.65, while the Figure 8 caption reports A = 2.1 × 10^-1 and a = 2.6. These values differ by six orders of magnitude in A and cannot both be correct. Please correct the inconsistency and verify the fitted values against the fitting code. In addition, the fit is said to be dominated by points with small error bars; please state how the fit was weighted and whether the quoted parameter uncertainties reflect the scatter of the data.
  4. [Abstract and Section 4.8] The claim that Gaussian fits are 'more consistent' with the electron density models than Lorentzian fits is based on median difference factors of 1.59 vs 1.72 for NE2001 and 3.16 vs 3.49 for YMW16. No uncertainty on these medians is provided, and the differences are small relative to the sample scatter. Please add a bootstrap or non-parametric test (e.g., a Wilcoxon signed-rank test on paired differences) to support the claim, or soften the abstract wording to 'comparable' or 'slightly better.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2 notes] The note for BGR and DLK contains 'bandwith' instead of 'bandwidth'; please correct the typo.
  2. [Figure 6 caption] The caption states that the Lorentzian/Gaussian trend continues 'into the four measurements above 1 GHz'; this should read 'above 1 MHz' since all bandwidths are in MHz.
  3. [Section 5] The text refers to 'three nearby millisecond pulsars' with negative difference factors, but the two pulsars discussed in Section 4.8 (B1929+10 and B0950+08) have periods of about 0.23 s and 0.25 s and are not millisecond pulsars; please correct the characterization.
  4. [Section 4.2] For B1929+10, the reported mean Lorentzian bandwidth of 1.3 +/- 0.6 MHz appears to be an unweighted mean with the error given as the sample standard deviation; please state explicitly how the mean and its error were computed and consider quoting the standard error of the mean instead.
  5. [Table 1 and Table 2] The pulsar J2227+3038 appears as 'J2227+3038' in Table 1 but as 'J2227+30' in Table 2; please use a consistent naming convention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: measurements are empirical, model comparisons are external, and the training-pulsar confound is acknowledged and quantified.

full rationale

We walked the paper's derivation chain and found no step that reduces by construction to its own inputs. The central measurements are widths of a 1D slice of the 2D ACF of dynamic spectra (Section 3.5), produced by fitting independent Gaussian and Lorentzian models (Section 3.6). Nothing in that measurement is defined in terms of NE2001 or YMW16 predictions; the predictions are external quantities computed from published models. The paper also checks its own main comparison against the known training-set overlap: it splits the sample into NE2001 training pulsars and non-training pulsars and reports median difference factors of 0.90 versus 2.89 (Section 4.8), showing that the underprediction trend is not an artifact of the model having been fit to the same objects. The preference for Gaussian fits is explicitly attributed to the historical use of Gaussian fits in training the models (Abstract and Section 4.8), so it is presented as a consequence of the models' construction, not as an independent first-principles finding. The DM-scaling fit is secondary and contains an internal inconsistency between the text (A = 1.83e-7, a = 2.65) and the Figure 8 caption (A = 2.1e-1, a = 2.6), but that is a numerical reporting error, not a circular argument. No self-citation is load-bearing: PyPulse is cited as public software, and the AO327 survey papers are data provenance citations. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. We therefore find no circular step and assign a score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its quantitative results rest on a handful of fitted parameters in the empirical DM-scattering relation and on several standard or literature-derived assumptions about scintillation physics, frequency scaling, and the reliability of the ACF-slicing method. The main free parameters are the amplitude and index of the DM-scattering fit, which are also reported inconsistently across text and figure.

free parameters (2)
  • A (amplitude of DM-scattering relation) = 1.83e-7 (text) or 2.1e-1 (Figure 8 caption, inconsistent)
    Fitted to the 38 measurements in Section 4.8 using the relation tau_s(ms) = A * DM^a. The text reports A = 1.83e-7 while the Figure 8 caption reports A = 2.1e-1, an inconsistency that is a red flag.
  • a (power-law index of DM-scattering relation) = 2.65 (text) or 2.6 (Figure 8 caption)
    Fitted simultaneously with A in Section 4.8. The small discrepancy between text and caption is likely a typo but should be corrected.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The relation 2*pi*tau_s*Delta_nu_D = C with C = 0.96 for a Kolmogorov thin-screen model (Equation 1).
    Used to convert measured scintillation bandwidths to scattering timescales throughout Section 4.
  • domain assumption The scintillation bandwidth scales with frequency as nu^alpha with alpha = 4.4 (Kolmogorov scaling).
    Used in Section 4 to scale literature values and model predictions to 327 MHz. The paper notes that measured scaling indices often differ from 4.4.
  • domain assumption The 1D frequency-lag slice obtained by summing the 2D ACF over time lags faithfully represents the scintillation bandwidth.
    Section 3.5 states this is used because the observation time is shorter than the scintillation timescale; the paper acknowledges minor drawbacks but argues they do not affect results.
  • domain assumption NE2001 and YMW16 electron density models provide valid predictions for scintillation bandwidth at 327 MHz.
    Used for all model comparisons in Section 4, relying on pygedm for NE2001 and the Krishnakumar et al. (2015) empirical relation for YMW16.
  • ad hoc to paper The manual cropping of the ACF slice to the smallest coherent structure with at least five points does not bias the measured bandwidth.
    Section 3.6 describes this subjective choice, which could systematically exclude narrow or broad features and affect the comparison to models.
  • ad hoc to paper The filling factor eta_nu = 0.2 in the finite scintle error calculation is appropriate.
    Section 3.7 adopts this value from Cordes & Shannon (2010) and Turner et al. (2021), but it is not independently calibrated in this work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scintillation Bandwidth Measurements from 23 Pulsars from the AO327 Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XCTYKE5E

@misc{pith2026241117857,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scintillation Bandwidth Measurements from 23 Pulsars from the AO327 Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XCTYKE5E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17857}
}
abstract

A pulsar's scintillation bandwidth is inversely proportional to the scattering delay, making accurate measurements of scintillation bandwidth critical to characterize unmitigated delays in efforts to measure low-frequency gravitational waves with pulsar timing arrays. In this pilot work, we searched for a subset of known pulsars within $\sim$97% of the data taken with the PUPPI instrument for the AO327 survey with the Arecibo telescope, attempting to measure the scintillation bandwidths in the dataset by fitting to the 2D autocorrelation function of their dynamic spectra. We successfully measured 38 bandwidths from 23 pulsars (six without prior literature values), finding that: almost all of the measurements are larger than the predictions from NE2001 and YMW16 (two popular galactic models); NE2001 is more consistent with our measurements than YMW16; Gaussian fits to the bandwidth are more consistent with both electron density models than Lorentzian ones; and for the 17 pulsars with prior literature values, the measurements between various sources often vary by factors of a few. The success of Gaussian fits may be due to the use of Gaussian fits to train models in previous work. The variance of literature values over time could relate to the scaling factor used to compare measurements, but also seems consistent with time-varying interstellar medium parameters. This work can be extended to the rest of AO327 to further investigate these trends, highlighting the continuing importance of large archival datasets for projects beyond their initial conception.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17857 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two sankey diagrams generated with Sankeymatic (Bogart 2024) illustrating 1) The path of pulsars from initial identification in the dataset to selection for analysis in Section 3 and 2) The result of each PUPPI PSRFITS file from each of those pulsars, leading to the 38 measurements we report in Section 4. In subfigure 1), there are two separate NE2001 filtering steps, indicating the original incomplete filtering des… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example of the analysis pipeline described throughout Section 3 for a scan of pulsar B2315+21. Subplot 1: The dynamic spectrum after loading into PyPulse with a pulse template. Time is shown on the horizontal axis and frequency on the vertical axis. The pulsar fades in as it enters the drift scan beam and then fades out as it leaves the beam a few minutes later. Scintillation is visible in the horizontal striping… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Predicted scintillation bandwidths from NE2001 plotted against the measured scintillation bandwidths from this study fitted with Gaussians (blue) and Lorentzians (green). Upper limits are shown with gold triangles. In general, the measurements were larger than their corresponding predictions. 1-sigma errors are displayed for the measured scintillation bandwidth, as calculated in Section 3.7. was the worst of the opt… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Predicted scintillation bandwidths using Krishnakumar et al. (2015) (YMW16) plotted against the measured scin￾tillation bandwidths from this study fitted with Gaussians (blue) and Lorentzians (green). Upper limits are shown with gold triangles. Even more strongly than …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A histogram comparing the distribution of “difference factor” (the consistency of the model with the data) for YMW16 versus NE2001 predictions compared to data with Gaussian fits. Even with a small sample size, it is clear that the NE2001 distribution peaks closer to z…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A scatter plot comparing the Lorentzian (x-axis) and Gaussian (y-axis) scintillation bandwidth measurements below 1 MHz. The Gaussian and Lorentzian measurements for each scintillation bandwidth are generally similar, but the Lorentzians start trending larger at larger…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dispersion measure versus scattering time in ms, shown on logarithmic axes. The orange points indicate the DM and τs values from our measurements, while the brown line shows the best fit of the form A × DMa . We find that the DM scaling method somewhat matches our data…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    , <H @ h(#X , <H @ JsH ;c /lҤI6e _l6 l? j ꪫ ZXG @ @ @!h(oۣ>j wޱ Aeeoڶnk;Ｓ ::w@ @ @ @ @ > g TWWg=Zĉ =/K.V[N;dÆ 3 @ @ @ @p PO?;ﾬQԒ

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2019

  4. [4]

    F., Anumarlapudi, A., et al

    Agazie, G., Alam, M. F., Anumarlapudi, A., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 951, L9

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    T., Blecha , L., et al

    Arzoumanian , Z., Baker , P. T., Blecha , L., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/acdbc7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdbc7 2023

  6. [6]

    Bhat , N. D. R., Gupta , Y., & Rao , A. P. 1998, , 500, 262, 10.1086/305715

    doi:10.1086/305715 1998

  7. [7]

    Bogart, S. 2024. https://sankeymatic.com/

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    N., Guo , Y

    Chen , S., Caballero , R. N., Guo , Y. J., et al. 2021, , 508, 4970, 10.1093/mnras/stab2833

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2833 2021

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    1986, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

    Cordes, J. 1986, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 311, Dec. 1, 1986, p. 183-196. Research supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation., 311, 183

    1986

  2. [10]

    2010, arXiv preprint arXiv:1010.3785

    Cordes, J., & Shannon, R. 2010, arXiv preprint arXiv:1010.3785

    2010 arXiv

  3. [11]

    2016, arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.05890

    Cordes, J., Wharton, R., Spitler, L., Chatterjee, S., & Wasserman, I. 2016, arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.05890

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    M., & Lazio, T

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv preprint astro-ph/0207156

    2002 arXiv

  5. [13]

    2003, arXiv preprint astro-ph/0301598

    ---. 2003, arXiv preprint astro-ph/0301598

    2003 arXiv

  6. [14]

    M., & Rickett , B

    Cordes , J. M., & Rickett , B. J. 1998, , 507, 846, 10.1086/306358

    1998 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Rickett, B

    Cordes, J. M., Rickett, B. J., Stinebring, D. R., & Coles, W. A. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 637, 346

    2006

  8. [16]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 2492

    Daszuta, M., Lewandowski, W., & Kijak, J. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 2492

    2013

  9. [17]

    T., Goss , W

    Deller , A. T., Goss , W. M., Brisken , W. F., et al. 2019, , 875, 100, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab11c7

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 271, 23

    Deneva, J., McLaughlin, M., Olszanski, T., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 271, 23

    2024

  11. [19]

    S., Stovall, K., McLaughlin, M

    Deneva, J. S., Stovall, K., McLaughlin, M. A., et al. 2013, Astrophysical Journal, 775, 51, 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/51

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    S., Stovall , K., McLaughlin , M

    Deneva , J. S., Stovall , K., McLaughlin , M. A., et al. 2016, , 821, 10, 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/10

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    C., Perillat, P., & Vayner, B

    Ferguson, D. C., Perillat, P., & Vayner, B. 2022, The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, 69, 139

    2022

  14. [22]

    A., & Stinebring , D

    Hemberger , D. A., & Stinebring , D. R. 2008, , 674, L37, 10.1086/528985

    2008 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Pilkington, J

    Hewish, A., Bell, S. J., Pilkington, J. D. H., Scott, P. F., & Collins, R. A. 1968, Nature, 217, 709–713, 10.1038/217709a0

    1968 doi

  16. [24]

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

    Hotan , A. W., van Straten , W., & Manchester , R. N. 2004, , 21, 302, 10.1071/AS04022

    2004 doi

  17. [25]

    L., Pen, U.-L., & Feldbrugge, J

    Jow, D. L., Pen, U.-L., & Feldbrugge, J. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 2107

    2023

  18. [26]

    2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v

    Koester, D., & Reimers, D. 2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v. 364, p. L66-L69 (2000), 364, L66

    2000

  19. [27]

    C., & Manoharan, P

    Krishnakumar, M., Mitra, D., Naidu, A., Joshi, B. C., & Manoharan, P. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 804, 23

    2015

  20. [28]

    D., Losovskii , B

    Kuz'min , A. D., Losovskii , B. Y., & Lapaev , K. A. 2007, Astronomy Reports, 51, 615, 10.1134/S1063772907080021

    2007 doi

  21. [29]

    2017, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl

    Lam, M. 2017, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl

    2017

  22. [30]

    A., Jones, G., et al

    Levin, L., McLaughlin, M. A., Jones, G., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 818, 166

    2016

  23. [31]

    Liu , Y., Verbiest , J. P. W., Main , R. A., et al. 2022, , 664, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142552

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Lorimer, D. R. 2008, Living reviews in relativity, 11, 1

    2008

  25. [33]

    N., Hobbs, G

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, The Astronomical Journal, 129, 1993

    2005

  26. [34]

    G., Gentile , P., Freire , P

    Martinez , J. G., Gentile , P., Freire , P. C. C., et al. 2019, , 881, 166, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2877

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    K., Cordes, J

    Ocker, S. K., Cordes, J. M., & Chatterjee, S. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 897, 124

    2020

  28. [36]

    C., Flynn , C., & Deller , A

    Price , D. C., Flynn , C., & Deller , A. 2021, , 38, e038, 10.1017/pasa.2021.33

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 288, 565

    Ramachandran, R., & Bhattacharya, D. 1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 288, 565

    1997

  30. [38]

    2011, PRESTO: PulsaR Exploration and Search TOolkit , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1107.017

    Ransom , S. 2011, PRESTO: PulsaR Exploration and Search TOolkit , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1107.017. 1107.017

    2011

  31. [39]

    J., Coles , W

    Reardon , D. J., Coles , W. A., Bailes , M., et al. 2020, , 904, 104, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbd40

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Shannon , R

    Reardon , D. J., Shannon , R. M., Cameron , A. D., et al. 2021, , 507, 2137, 10.1093/mnras/stab1990

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    Rickett, B. J. 1977, In: Annual review of astronomy and astrophysics. Volume 15.(A78-16576 04-90) Palo Alto, Calif., Annual Reviews, Inc., 1977, p. 479-504., 15, 479

    1977

  34. [42]

    Rickett , B. J. 1990, , 28, 561, 10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.003021

    1990

  35. [43]

    J., & Lyne , A

    Rickett , B. J., & Lyne , A. G. 1990, , 244, 68

    1990

  36. [44]

    1972, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 10, 427

    Ruderman, M. 1972, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 10, 427

    1972

  37. [45]

    J., Hazboun, J

    Shapiro-Albert, B. J., Hazboun, J. S., McLaughlin, M. A., & Lam, M. T. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 219

    2021

  38. [46]

    V., & Shishov, V

    Smirnova, T. V., & Shishov, V. I. 2008, Astronomy Reports, 52, 736, 10.1134/s1063772908090059

    2008 doi

  39. [47]

    G., & Wright , N

    Smith , F. G., & Wright , N. C. 1985, , 214, 97, 10.1093/mnras/214.2.97

    1985 doi

  40. [48]

    2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 549, L97

    Stinebring, D., McLaughlin, M., Cordes, J., et al. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 549, L97

    2001

  41. [49]

    2022, , 39, e053, 10.1017/pasa.2022.46

    Tarafdar , P., Nobleson , K., Rana , P., et al. 2022, , 39, e053, 10.1017/pasa.2022.46

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    H., Manchester , R

    Taylor , J. H., Manchester , R. N., & Lyne , A. G. 1993, , 88, 529, 10.1086/191832

    1993 doi

  43. [51]

    E., Joshi, B

    Turner, J. E., Joshi, B. C., McLaughlin, M. A., & Stinebring, D. R. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad06bb

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    E., McLaughlin, M

    Turner, J. E., McLaughlin, M. A., Cordes, J. M., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 917, 10, 10.3847/1538-4357/abfafe

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    A., Melrose, D

    Walker, M. A., Melrose, D. B., Stinebring, D. R., & Zhang, C.-M. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 354, 43

    2004

  47. [55]

    N., Johnston , S., et al

    Wang , N., Manchester , R. N., Johnston , S., et al. 2005, , 358, 270, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08798.x

    2005

  48. [56]

    Wu , Z., Verbiest , J. P. W., Main , R. A., et al. 2022, , 663, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142980

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 29

    Yao, J., Manchester, R., & Wang, N. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 29

    2017

  50. [58]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 431, 3624

    Zakharenko, V., Vasylieva, I., Konovalenko, A., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 431, 3624

    2013

  51. [59]

    2023, , 520, 1332, 10.1093/mnras/stad235

    Zhi , Q., Xu , X., Shang , L., et al. 2023, , 520, 1332, 10.1093/mnras/stad235

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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