Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 73 references

The High Time Resolution Universe Pulsar Survey-XIX. A coherent GPU accelerated reprocessing and the discovery of 71 pulsars in the Southern Galactic plane

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 Reprocessing archived southern-sky pulsar survey data with full time resolution and coherent folding reveals 71 previously missed pulsars, including six millisecond pulsars and seven high-dispersion objects.

desk verdict Solid reprocessing haul, but the '71 new pulsars' headline double-counts PSR J1325–6253, already published in 2022; fix the count and the paper is a strong contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07104 v1 pith:SR6V6CVC submitted 2024-12-10 astro-ph.HE

R. Sengar , M. Bailes , V. Balakrishnan , E. D. Barr , N. D. R. Bhat , M. Burgay , M. C. i Bernadich , A. D. Cameron
show 14 more authors
D. J. Champion W. Chen C. M. L. Flynn A. Jameson S. Johnston M. J. Keith M. Kramer V. Morello C. Ng A. Possenti S. Stevenson R. M. Shannon W. van Straten J. Wongphechauxsorn
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords pulsarsurveysHTRU-SLowLatGPUaccelerationcoherentfoldingmillisecondpulsarsbinarydispersionmeasureGalacticplane
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 claims that reprocessing 87.3% of the archival High Time Resolution Universe South Low Latitude (HTRU-S LowLat) survey at full 64-microsecond time resolution with a GPU-accelerated coherent search recovers 71 pulsars that earlier processing passes missed, among them six millisecond pulsars (five in binary systems) and seven pulsars with dispersion measures above 800 pc $cm^{-3}$. It argues that the earlier passes lost sensitivity by downsampling the data — effectively reducing two-bit data to one-bit precision and lowering signal-to-noise by roughly 20–25% — and by imposing a fixed false-alarm threshold that rejected many narrow-duty-cycle pulsars whose folded signal-to-noise ratio greatly exceeds their Fourier-domain signal-to-noise ratio. The new sample is statistically fainter and more distant than the previous 100 pulsars from the same survey, and the reprocessing brings the survey's normal-pulsar yield into line with population-synthesis predictions. A sympathetic reader should care because the result shows that archival survey data, searched coherently at native resolution, still holds large numbers of undiscovered pulsars, especially faint, distant, and binary ones.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is coherent folding of low-significance Fourier candidates: instead of accepting or rejecting pulsar candidates by a fixed spectral signal-to-noise cutoff, the pipeline folds every plausible candidate — including those near the Fourier noise floor — at the candidate period, dispersion measure, and acceleration, so the full pulse energy is summed in the time domain. This is paired with a GPU-accelerated time-domain resampling acceleration search that covers the complete 72-minute observation at 64-microsecond native sampling over accelerations up to |50| m $s^{-2}$, which is most sensitive to binary pulsars whose orbital acceleration is nearly constant across the observation. The FFT search itself uses up to 32 harmonics, which helps recover narrow-duty-cycle pulsars whose power is spread across many harmonics.

What would settle it

Obtain precise interferometric positions and independent distance estimates (for example via parallax or HI absorption) for a representative subset of the 71 pulsars; if the recalculated 1400-MHz flux densities and distances no longer show a statistically significant difference from the previous 100-pulsar sample in a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the paper's central statistical claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a coherent, GPU-accelerated reprocessing of the full 72-minute HTRU-S LowLat observations — searched at native sampling, with an acceleration range up to |50| m $s^{-2}$, 2778 trial dispersion measures up to 2000 pc $cm^{-3}$, and 32-harmonic summing — discovers 71 new pulsars, increasing the survey's new-pulsar yield by roughly 75% over the 100 found in the previous two passes. The key evidence is that many of the new pulsars were found by folding candidates with Fourier signal-to-noise ratios near or below the conventional detection threshold; for narrow-duty-cycle pulsars the folded signal-to-noise ratio can be 1.5 to 2.5 times higher than the incoherent harmonic sum, so a fixed threshold had been discarding real signals. The paper further shows that the new sample has higher dispersion measures, lower flux densities, and larger DM-derived distances than the earlier sample, and that the survey's normal-pulsar detection count now matches population-synthesis expectations.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the new pulsars are systematically fainter and more distant assumes that each discovery position, corrected only by the median 3.94 arcminute offset, is close enough to the true position that the derived minimum flux densities are unbiased, and that the NE2001 and YMW16 electron-density models give reliable distances.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The known pulsar census in the southern Galactic plane grows by 71 objects, including five binary millisecond pulsars and a double neutron star, improving statistics for binary-evolution and population studies.
  • The survey's normal-pulsar yield now essentially matches the predicted ~890 detections from population synthesis, indicating that the original survey design and sensitivity estimates were correct.
  • Seven new pulsars with dispersion measures above 800 pc cm^-3, two among the top ten highest-DM pulsars known, provide new probes of the Galactic electron distribution and scattering along tangential spiral-arm directions.
  • Since 34 of the 71 pulsars are also detectable in older multibeam-survey data, the result implies that comparable archived surveys reprocessed this way could yield similar numbers of hidden pulsars.
  • The five binary millisecond pulsars found through the acceleration search demonstrate the value of searching full-length observations without segmentation or downsampling for finding mildly accelerated binary systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An editorial extension: other archived pulsar surveys that used data downsampling and fixed S/N thresholds may harbour a comparable hidden population; re-running them with coherent folding at native resolution could yield a similar fractional increase in discoveries.
  • An editorial extension: the paper's emphasis on full-length coherent acceleration searches suggests that a GPU-reimplemented segmented or jerk-aware search, applied to the same data, might still find short-orbit relativistic binaries that constant-acceleration searches miss.
  • An editorial extension: the measured scattering timescales that exceed NE2001 predictions for many high-DM pulsars could be used to identify foreground H II regions and to test improved electron-density models, since these pulsars trace particularly complex sightlines.
  • An editorial extension: if future large surveys adopt the 'fold everything near the noise floor' strategy, GPU-accelerated folding will become the practical bottleneck, since CPU-side folding of millions of candidates will not scale to SKA-era data volumes.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. This paper reports a GPU-accelerated coherent reprocessing of 87.3% of the HTRU-S LowLat survey data using the PEASOUP pipeline, searching the full 72-minute observations at native time resolution with an acceleration range up to |50| m/s^2. The authors report 71 confirmed pulsar discoveries, including 6 millisecond pulsars and 7 pulsars with DM > 800 pc cm^-3, and compare the new sample with previous HTRU-S LowLat pulsars and the background pulsar population in period, DM, signal-to-noise, flux density, distance, and luminosity. The paper also evaluates survey yield against population-synthesis predictions and discusses why the pulsars were missed in earlier processing passes. The core discovery claim is supported by follow-up confirmations, while the statistical characterization rests on minimum flux densities and model-dependent distances.

Significance. If the discovery-count issue is corrected, this is a valuable survey paper. The 71 pulsars were confirmed in follow-up observations, the pipeline was validated by redetecting 792 unique known pulsars, the search parameters are explicitly tabulated, and the open-source PEASOUP code is used. The demonstration that folding candidates below the FFT false-alarm threshold yields real pulsars, and the identification of the incorrect downsampling scaling as a cause of missed pulsars, are concrete and useful technical contributions. The paper also provides a careful comparison with population-synthesis predictions and a detailed account of the reasons for earlier non-detections. These strengths make the manuscript worth publishing after the counting and statistical-claim issues below are resolved.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Table 3, §5, §10] The headline 'discovery of 71 pulsars' is internally inconsistent with the paper's own statements. Section 5 says 'Among the 71 new pulsars reported in this work, PSR J1325–6253 is a double neutron star system', while Table 3 footnotes PSR J1325–6253 as published in Sengar et al. (2022), and Section 10 says 'with the exception of PSR J1325–6253, which has already been published'. In addition, Section 5.3 states that PSR J1638−47 and PSR J1710−3946 'were reported as an independent discovery by Sengar et al. (2023)', and Section 6 states that 10 of the PMPS blind-FFT detections 'are included as independent discoveries in the PMPS reprocessing (Sengar et al. 2023) (they were originally discovered for the first time in this work)'. Because Sengar et al. (2023) is published, these objects already have public discovery papers. The abstract's unqualified 'discovery of 71 pulsars' and the conclusion's 'reported for the first time in this study' must be corrected, and the counts in Section 8.2 and Table 6 must be re-derived consistently.
  2. [§7.2] The claim that the new sample probes fainter pulsars is based on minimum flux densities computed under the assumption that the discovery position is the beam centre, with a single median positional offset of 3.94 arcmin transferred from the previous 88-pulsar sample to the new sample. Because the actual positional offsets of the new pulsars are unknown, and because S_min is a lower bound that increases when a pulsar is off-axis, the KS-test comparison with p=0.014 is conditional on an unverified assumption. The authors should either propagate the uncertainty in the offset distribution, demonstrate that the conclusion is robust to the plausible range of offsets, or explicitly state in the abstract and conclusions that the 'fainter' claim depends on the beam-centre assumption.
  3. [§7.3] The claim that the new pulsars are on average more distant rests entirely on NE2001 and YMW16 dispersion-measure distances. The text cautions that DM-derived distances are not well constrained, but the abstract presents the greater average distance as a headline result. The KS p-values of 0.007 and 0.009 are model-dependent and do not include systematic errors in the electron-density models. The authors should add a systematic-error treatment or soften the summary and conclusions to make the model dependence and the 'could be' caveat explicit, rather than presenting model-dependent distances as a firm population difference.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§5.1.1, Table 3, Figure 2, Table 4] The pulsar is called PSR J1445−63 in the text and Table 3, but PSR J1449−63 in Figure 2 and Table 4; the listed right ascension 14:49.8 suggests J1449−63 is the correct name, and the inconsistency should be fixed.
  2. [§5.3] The text refers to 'PSR J1651–42' with DM ~931 pc cm^-3, but Table 3 lists PSR J1652−4237 with DM 943 pc cm^-3; the intended pulsar should be identified consistently.
  3. [§6] The search radius is given as 'one beam-width (14.4◦)'; this should be 14.4 arcminutes, not degrees, since the Parkes multibeam receiver's beam FWHM is approximately 14.4 arcmin.
  4. [§7.2] The text says the sky temperature was 'scaled at 1400GHz as ν^-2.6'; this should be 1400 MHz.
  5. [§8.1 and Figure 8] The text states that 457 unique pulsars were selected, while the Figure 8 caption says 467; the correct number should be used consistently.
  6. [Table 3 and Table 4] The column header 'S/NPMPS' is repeated in Table 3, and the table caption contains the typo 'The paramteres'; also, the period and DM units in the Table 3 continuation header are inconsistent with the first part of the table.
  7. [§2] The text says the total observing bandwidth went 'from 288 MHz for PMPS to 3402 MHz for HTRU-S LowLat'; this should be 340 MHz, consistent with the effective bandwidth stated elsewhere.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the discovery pipeline is validated against independent known pulsars and the central claims do not reduce to their inputs; the PSR J1325–6253 count inconsistency is a non-circular correctness issue.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (71 pulsar discoveries, fainter/more distant population, survey yield) are not derived by fitting parameters to the target discoveries. The pipeline (PEASOUP) is reused from Sengar et al. (2023) and validated by redetecting 792 known pulsars, with S/N comparisons against PSRCAT fluxes using the radiometer equation (Section 8.1). Candidate selection and folding follow prior published methodology, but the 71 candidates were confirmed through independent Parkes follow-up observations (Section 4), so the discoveries are not constructed from the selection criteria. The statistical comparisons in Sections 7.2–7.3 rely on stated assumptions (beam-centre discovery positions, NE2001/YMW16 distances) that the paper explicitly caveats; these are modelling uncertainties, not circular reductions. The paper does cite the authors' prior work (Sengar et al. 2022, 2023) for the pipeline and for PSR J1325–6253, but these citations are not load-bearing in a circular sense: prior results are independently published and the pipeline is benchmarked externally. One internal inconsistency should be noted as a correctness issue, not circularity: the abstract and Section 10 count '71 new pulsars... reported for the first time in this study,' while Table 3 footnotes PSR J1325–6253 as 'A double neutron star system (Sengar et al. 2022)' and Section 10 later excludes it ('with the exception of PSR J1325–6253, which has already been published'). This affects the headline count but does not make any prediction equivalent to its input by construction. Overall, no circular step meets the evidentiary bar; score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particle or physical entity is introduced. The paper relies on standard domain assumptions for pulsar search sensitivity and distance estimation, plus a few author-chosen selection thresholds. The most fragile assumption is the inference about the previous downsampling bug, which is not directly verified.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Radiometer equation parameters (system temperature, gain, degradation factor) from prior literature are used to estimate flux densities and expected S/N.
    Section 8.1 and Section 7.2 apply the radiometer equation with Tsys = 30.6 K, beam gains from Keith et al. 2010, and beta = 1.16; these are standard but not independently verified in this paper.
  • domain assumption NE2001 and YMW16 electron density models give reliable distance estimates from dispersion measures.
    Section 7.3 derives distances using these models and acknowledges that DM-inferred distances are not well constrained (citing Deller et al. 2019).
  • domain assumption The coherent acceleration search with |a| <= 50 m/s^2 over the full 72-minute observation is adequate to detect the binary pulsars of interest.
    Section 3.2 states this range covers a 5-solar-mass black-hole companion in a circular orbit, but this is a modeling assumption about the binary population.
  • ad hoc to paper Candidate selection thresholds (S/Nfold > 8.8 for normal pulsars, > 12 for MSPs, and a false-alarm threshold of 8 in previous processing) are appropriate for separating real pulsars from noise.
    Section 4 and Section 9 describe these thresholds as chosen by the authors; they directly affect which candidates were folded and confirmed.
  • ad hoc to paper The earlier processing used an incorrect downsampling scaling factor, reducing data to effective 1-bit precision.
    Section 9 infers this from the observed ~20-25% S/N reduction after downsampling, but no direct code inspection or reference is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The High Time Resolution Universe Pulsar Survey-XIX. A coherent GPU accelerated reprocessing and the discovery of 71 pulsars in the Southern Galactic plane." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SR6V6CVC

@misc{pith2026241207104,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The High Time Resolution Universe Pulsar Survey-XIX. A coherent GPU accelerated reprocessing and the discovery of 71 pulsars in the Southern Galactic plane},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SR6V6CVC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07104}
}
abstract

We have conducted a GPU accelerated reprocessing of $\sim 87\%$ of the archival data from the High Time Resolution Universe South Low Latitude (HTRU-S LowLat) pulsar survey by implementing a pulsar search pipeline that was previously used to reprocess the Parkes Multibeam pulsar survey (PMPS). We coherently searched the full 72-min observations of the survey with an acceleration search range up to $|50|\, \rm m\,s^{-2}$, which is most sensitive to binary pulsars experiencing nearly constant acceleration during 72 minutes of their orbital period. Here we report the discovery of 71 pulsars, including 6 millisecond pulsars (MSPs) of which five are in binary systems, and seven pulsars with very high dispersion measures (DM $>800 \, \rm pc \, cm^{-3}$). These pulsar discoveries largely arose by folding candidates to a much lower spectral signal-to-noise ratio than previous surveys, and exploiting the coherence of folding over the incoherent summing of the Fourier components to discover new pulsars as well as candidate classification techniques. We show that these pulsars could be fainter and on average more distant as compared to both the previously reported 100 HTRU-S LowLat pulsars and background pulsar population in the survey region. We have assessed the effectiveness of our search method and the overall pulsar yield of the survey. We show that through this reprocessing we have achieved the expected survey goals including the predicted number of pulsars in the survey region and discuss the major causes as to why these pulsars were missed in previous processings of the survey.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07104 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top panel shows the integrated profile of the nulling pulsar PSR J1518–60 and bottom plot shows the time-phase plot where the pulsar is visible for only ∼ 25 minutes. 5.3 A collection of high DM pulsars Apart from MSPs and a nulling pulsar, there is another class of pul￾sars which we term “high DM” pulsars. In the new pulsar sample, seven pulsars have DM > 800 pc cm−3 among which PSR J1638−47 and J1710−39 have a DM … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Integrated pulse profiles for the newly discovered pulsars. Each profile contains 128 bins and has been rotated such that the it peaks at 0.5 phase. The period in seconds and the DM in pc cm−3 are provided for each pulsar. The large DM of these pulsars is not surprising as these pulsars are located along the tangential direction of the Galactic spiral arms. PSR J1638−47 is also very close to the maximum DM predicted… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. continued search for the closest PMPS observations was warranted to determine if any of the 71 new pulsar discoveries reported in this work are also detectable in the PMPS. Two separate searches were conducted for the PMPS observations within one beam-width (14.4◦ ) of the MB receiver from the original discovery position of the HTRU-S LowLat observations. First, we used the “direct folding method” in which the PMPS … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Spin period, DM, S/NFFT, S/Nfold distribution of previously discovered HTRU-S LowLat pulsar (violet) and new pulsar sample (red) reported in this paper. Each plot shows the CDF of each distribution and shows inside each plot are histograms of the corresponding distribu…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The cumulative distribution function of flux densities of pulsars in the HTRU-S LowLat region. The background pulsars are shown in grey, the previous HTRU-S LowLat puslars are shown in violet and the new pulsars reported in this paper are in orange. inverse square rela…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The scatter-broadened pulse profiles (in grey) of newly discovered HTRU-S LowLat pulsars. The solid black line represents the best-fit pulse broadening function discussed. In each plot, the value of scattering timescale, 𝜏sc in ms and the effective central frequencies …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: DM vs. scattering timescales of the pulsars presented in this work and reported in PSRCAT with the measurements of 𝜏sc (grey). The dotted black line is the relation from Bhat et al. (2004), and the solid red and solid black lines represent the relation between 𝜏 and DM…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The distribution of detected S/N (S/Ndetected) and expected S/N (S/Nexpected) of 467 unique known pulsars. The red dashed line is line of quality (1:1 correlation line). The error bars shown are the uncertainties from PSRCAT. pulsars identified in this reprocessing exh…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Effect of the incorrect down-sampling algorithm on the FFT S/N. Lower panel shows the distribution of detected FFT S/N for known pulsars by down-sampling the data by a factor 4 with the incorrect scaling factor (tsamp = 256𝜇s) and with full resolution (tsamp = 64𝜇s). T…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: S/Nfft vs. S/Nfold of the 71 newly discovered pulsars in the reprocessing of the HTRU-S LowLat survey. The points in violet correspond to the normal pulsars (𝑃>30 ms), while the points in orange are MSPs (𝑃<30 ms). The dashed red line divides S/Nfft pulsars below and …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The orbital period (in days) vs median companion masses of Galactic MSPs of different types in binary systems. The data for these systems were taken from the PSRCAT. The new binary MSPs presented in this work are labelled and shown in blue with different markers. The …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Agazie G., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951L...8A 951, L8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6 2023

  2. [2]

    F., Cordes J

    Arzoumanian Z., Chernoff D. F., Cordes J. M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/338805 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...568..289A 568, 289

    doi:10.1086/338805 2002

  3. [3]

    Bailes M., et al., 2011, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1208890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Sci...333.1717B 333, 1717

    doi:10.1126/science.1208890 2011

  4. [4]

    R., Bailes M., Barnes D

    Barsdell B. R., Bailes M., Barnes D. G., Fluke C. J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20622.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.422..379B 422, 379

    arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

    D., Lorimer D

    Bates S. D., Lorimer D. R., Rane A., Swiggum J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu157 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439.2893B 439, 2893

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu157 2014

  6. [6]

    Bhat N. D. R., Cordes J. M., Camilo F., Nice D. J., Lorimer D. R., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/382680 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...605..759B 605, 759

    doi:10.1086/382680 2004

  7. [7]

    D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475L..57C 475, L57

    Cameron A. D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475L..57C 475, L57

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly003 2018

  8. [8]

    D., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.1063C 493, 1063

    Cameron A. D., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.1063C 493, 1063

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa039 2020

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460L..30C 460, L30

    Champion D. J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460L..30C 460, L30

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Lazio T

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

    2002 arXiv

  3. [11]

    T., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-019-0880-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4...72C 4, 72

    Cromartie H. T., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-019-0880-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4...72C 4, 72

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab11c7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...875..100D 875, 100

    Deller A. T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab11c7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...875..100D 875, 100

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Dirson L., P \'e tri J., Mitra D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243305 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...667A..82D 667, A82

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    P., Kramer M., Lyne A

    Eatough R. P., Kramer M., Lyne A. G., Keith M. J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt161 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.431..292E 431, 292

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    J., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08310.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.355..147F 355, 147

    Faulkner A. J., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08310.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.355..147F 355, 147

    2004

  8. [16]

    A., Goss W

    Frail D. A., Goss W. M., Whiteoak J. B. Z., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...437..781F 437, 781

    1994 doi

  9. [17]

    S., et al., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168502 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...351..642F 351, 642

    Fruchter A. S., et al., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168502 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...351..642F 351, 642

    1990 doi

  10. [18]

    Gitika P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2841 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.3370G 526, 3370

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    L., Manchester R

    Han J. L., Manchester R. N., Qiao G. J., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02544.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.306..371H 306, 371

    1999

  12. [20]

    L., et al., 2021, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/21/5/107 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021RAA....21..107H 21, 107

    Han J. L., et al., 2021, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/21/5/107 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021RAA....21..107H 21, 107

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    Haslam C. G. T., Salter C. J., Stoffel H., Wilson W. E., 1982, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982A&AS...47....1H 47, 1

    1982

  14. [22]

    J., Pilkington J

    Hewish A., Bell S. J., Pilkington J. D. H., Scott P. F., Collins R. A., 1968, @doi [ ] 10.1038/217709a0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968Natur.217..709H 217, 709

    1968 doi

  15. [23]

    Hobbs G., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2020.2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PASA...37...12H 37, e012

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    W., van Straten W., Manchester R

    Hotan A. W., van Straten W., Manchester R. N., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1071/AS04022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PASA...21..302H 21, 302

    2004 doi

  17. [25]

    Y., Wu K., Han Q., Kong A

    Hui C. Y., Wu K., Han Q., Kong A. K. H., Tam P. H. T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad5ec , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864...30H 864, 30

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    G., Manchester R

    Johnston S., Lyne A. G., Manchester R. N., Kniffen D. A., D'Amico N., Lim J., Ashworth M., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/255.3.401 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992MNRAS.255..401J 255, 401

    1992 doi

  19. [27]

    L., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab397f , 884, 96

    Kaplan D. L., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab397f , 884, 96

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    F., Kramer M., Lyne A

    Keane E. F., Kramer M., Lyne A. G., Stappers B. W., McLaughlin M. A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18917.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.415.3065K 415, 3065

    2011

  21. [29]

    J., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17325.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.409..619K 409, 619

    Keith M. J., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17325.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.409..619K 409, 619

    2010

  22. [30]

    Knispel B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/93 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...774...93K 774, 93

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    H., Reynolds J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/2086 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.2086K 140, 2086

    Kocz J., Briggs F. H., Reynolds J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/2086 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.2086K 140, 2086

    2010 doi

  24. [32]

    Konar S., Deka U., 2019, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/s12036-019-9608-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019JApA...40...42K 40, 42

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Kramer M., et al., 2021, @doi [Physical Review X] 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.041050 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvX..11d1050K 11, 041050

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    A., Mitra D., Naidu A., Joshi B

    Krishnakumar M. A., Mitra D., Naidu A., Joshi B. C., Manoharan P. K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...804...23K 804, 23

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Hobbs G., Os owski S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx580 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.1474L 468, 1474

    Lentati L., Kerr M., Dai S., Shannon R. M., Hobbs G., Os owski S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx580 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.1474L 468, 1474

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    Levin L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/721/1/L33 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721L..33L 721, L33

    2010 doi

  29. [37]

    Levin L., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1103 , 434, 1387–1397

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    Levin L., et al., 2018, in Weltevrede P., Perera B. B. P., Preston L. L., Sanidas S., eds, Vol. 337, Pulsar Astrophysics the Next Fifty Years. pp 171--174 ( @eprint arXiv 1712.01008 ), @doi 10.1017/S1743921317009528

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Lorimer D., 2011, PSRPOP: Pulsar Population Modelling Programs , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1107.019 ( @eprint ascl 1107.019 )

    2011

  32. [40]

    R., Kramer M., 2004, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy

    Lorimer D. R., Kramer M., 2004, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy

    2004

  33. [41]

    R., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10887.x , 372, 777–800

    Lorimer D. R., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10887.x , 372, 777–800

    2006

  34. [42]

    R., Bailes M., McLaughlin M

    Lorimer D. R., Bailes M., McLaughlin M. A., Narkevic D. J., Crawford F., 2007, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1147532 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Sci...318..777L 318, 777

    2007 doi

  35. [43]

    G., Mankelow S

    Lyne A. G., Mankelow S. H., Bell J. F., Manchester R. N., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03517.x , 316, 491–493

    2000

  36. [44]

    G., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/72 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834...72L 834, 72

    Lyne A. G., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/72 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834...72L 834, 72

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    N., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04751.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.328...17M 328, 17

    Manchester R. N., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04751.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.328...17M 328, 17

    2001

  38. [46]

    N., Hobbs G

    Manchester R. N., Hobbs G. B., Teoh A., Hobbs M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428488 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AJ....129.1993M 129, 1993

    2005 doi

  39. [47]

    N., Fan G., Lyne A

    Manchester R. N., Fan G., Lyne A. G., Kaspi V. M., Crawford F., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505461 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...649..235M 649, 235

    2006 doi

  40. [48]

    A., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature04440 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Natur.439..817M 439, 817

    McLaughlin M. A., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature04440 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Natur.439..817M 439, 817

    2006 doi

  41. [49]

    B., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/127 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...759..127M 759, 127

    Mickaliger M. B., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/127 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...759..127M 759, 127

    2012 doi

  42. [50]

    Middleditch J., Kristian J., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161876 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...279..157M 279, 157

    1984 doi

  43. [51]

    Morello V., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.3673M 483, 3673

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    Ng C., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv753 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.2922N 450, 2922

    2015 doi

  45. [53]

    K., Cordes J

    Ocker S. K., Cordes J. M., Chatterjee S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab98f9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...897..124O 897, 124

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    V., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.1291P 524, 1291

    Padmanabh P. V., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.1291P 524, 1291

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    Philippov A., Timokhin A., Spitkovsky A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.245101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PhRvL.124x5101P 124, 245101

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    M., Cordes J

    Ransom S. M., Cordes J. M., Eikenberry S. S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/374806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...589..911R 589, 911

    2003 doi

  49. [57]

    J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951L...6R 951, L6

    Reardon D. J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951L...6R 951, L6

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    Sengar R., 2023, PhD thesis, Swinburne University of technology, http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/471917

    2023

  51. [59]

    Sengar R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac821 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.5782S 512, 5782

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    Sengar R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad508 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.1071S 522, 1071

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    H., 1969, @doi [IEEE Proceedings] 10.1109/PROC.1969.7051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969IEEEP..57..724S 57, 724

    Staelin D. H., 1969, @doi [IEEE Proceedings] 10.1109/PROC.1969.7051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969IEEEP..57..724S 57, 724

    1969

  54. [62]

    H., 2004, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1096986 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Sci...304..547S 304, 547

    Stairs I. H., 2004, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1096986 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Sci...304..547S 304, 547

    2004 doi

  55. [63]

    Stappers B., Kramer M., 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA. p. 9

    2016

  56. [64]

    Staveley-Smith L., et al., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996PASA...13..243S 13, 243

    1996

  57. [65]

    M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aade88 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...866...54T 866, 54

    Tan C. M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aade88 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...866...54T 866, 54

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    M., Savonije G

    Tauris T. M., Savonije G. J., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909147 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...350..928T 350, 928

    1999 doi arXiv

  59. [67]

    M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7e89 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846..170T 846, 170

    Tauris T. M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7e89 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846..170T 846, 170

    2017 doi

  60. [68]

    Wongphechauxsorn J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3283 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.3208W 527, 3208

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    M., Manchester R

    Yao J. M., Manchester R. N., Wang N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835...29Y 835, 29

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    Young N., 2011, in 41st Young European Radio Astronomers Conference. p. 47

    2011

  63. [71]

    van den Heuvel E. P. J., Bonsema P. T. J., 1984, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984A&A...139L..16V 139, L16

    1984

  64. [72]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

  65. [73]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

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