Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 46 references

Observation of discontinuities in the periodic modulation of PSR B1828-11

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read PSR B1828-11's 500-day spin-down modulation changes discontinuously in amplitude, phase, and frequency at three different epochs, all of them before the pulsar's 2009 glitch.

desk verdict First quantitative search for step changes in PSR B1828-11's modulation, but the claimed Bayes factor is built on a white-noise likelihood for GPR-smoothed data and is likely inflated. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09834 v1 pith:LQ6VVWUU submitted 2025-01-16 astro-ph.HE

Adriana Dias , Gregory Ashton , Julianna Ostrovska , David Ian Jones , Michael Keith This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords PSRB1828-11pulsartimingspin-downmodulationglitchesprecessionmagnetosphericswitchingBayesianmodelselectionquasi-periodicvariability
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

PSR B1828-11 is a radio pulsar whose spin-down rate (the pace at which its rotation slows) oscillates with a period of roughly 500 days, and it also experienced a sudden spin-up glitch in 2009. This paper asks whether the periodic modulation changed discontinuously around the glitch, and it analyzes a newly published, higher-resolution spin-down data set with a phenomenological model that allows instantaneous jumps in the modulation's amplitude, phase, and frequency on top of the usual glitch. The central claim is that all three types of jump are present, that they occur at three different times, and that every one of those jumps predates the glitch, with a natural-log Bayes factor of 1486 over a model that allows only the glitch. If correct, the finding undercuts planetary-companion explanations of the modulation, sharpens the precession debate, and gives magnetospheric-switching models a new set of features to explain.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the S+P phenomenological model: the spin-down rate is written as a polynomial secular term plus a harmonic series of cosines, and each of the secular spin-down, the harmonic amplitudes, the phase offsets, and the modulation frequency carries its own instantaneous jump (a Heaviside step) at a free time, with the glitch allowed an additional exponentially decaying transient. Slab-and-spike priors let the sampler effectively switch each jump off when the data do not require it, and nested-sampling evidence estimates are what produce the reported Bayes factors. A separate sliding-window spectral periodogram of the modulation residuals provides the model-independent visual confirmation, showing the period shrinking from about 489 to 435 days and the spectral amplitude shifting at the same epochs.

What would settle it

Recompute the evidence using a likelihood that includes the covariance matrix produced by the Gaussian-process smoothing of the timing residuals (or analyze the raw arrival times directly); if the natural-log Bayes factor for the step-change model over the glitch-only model falls below roughly 10, the claimed discontinuities are not statistically decisive. A direct look for a small simultaneous jump in the raw timing residuals at MJD 53615 would also test the frequency step without relying on the smoothed data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the long-period modulation of PSR B1828-11 does not evolve smoothly through the glitch: the harmonic amplitude, phase offset, and modulation frequency each undergo an instantaneous step, and the steps are located at MJD 54316, 53615, and 50622, respectively, all well before the glitch epoch inferred from the spin-down data (MJD 55049) and the catalogued glitch time (MJD 55040.9). The preferred model, which includes these jumps plus the glitch and its exponential recovery, is favored over the glitch-only model by a natural-log Bayes factor of 1486 and over a no-glitch model by 1623.6. A model-independent sliding-window spectral periodogram shows the same story: the main modulation period falls from about 489 to 435 days, the rate of decrease steepens after the glitch, and the spectral amplitude shifts between the first and second harmonic at the same epochs the model identifies. The fit also finds at least eight harmonically related sinusoids, many more than the two usually discussed.

Load-bearing premise

The statistical comparison treats each smoothed spin-down estimate as an independent data point with a single common uncertainty, even though the smoothing step correlates neighboring points; if those correlations matter, the enormous evidence ratio could shrink sharply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A planetary-companion origin becomes hard to maintain: a planet would produce a smoothly changing orbital separation, whereas the data require instantaneous jumps, and up to eight harmonic components would demand an implausible number of companions.
  • The free-precession interpretation gains a concrete test: the inferred amplitudes of the eight harmonic components can be compared with the higher-order expansion of the biaxial precession model, which has no remaining free parameters.
  • Magnetospheric-switching interpretations must account for sudden reshuffling of spectral power between the fundamental and first harmonic, in addition to the well-established two-state beam changes.
  • The modulation period keeps shrinking after the glitch, and the rate of shrinkage steepens slightly, so any physical clock must keep running through the glitch and be independent of the glitch event.
  • Because the S+P versus glitch-only log-Bayes factor (1486) is larger than the glitch-only versus no-glitch log-Bayes factor (about 137), the paper concludes that the modulation discontinuities are more significant than the secular glitch changes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported evidence treats the smoothed spin-down points as independent; including the covariance from the Gaussian-process smoothing could change both the Bayes factor and the inferred jump times, so the quantitative claim should be checked against a correlated-noise likelihood.
  • A direct search of the raw arrival-time residuals for a small simultaneous frequency jump at MJD 53615 would test the frequency step independently of the smoothing procedure.
  • Applying the same slab-and-spike step-change search to other pulsars with quasi-periodic spin-down variations (for example PSR J0742-2822) could reveal whether pre-glitch discontinuities are a general phenomenon or unique to this source.
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 analyzes the Keith & Niţu (2023b) Fourier-basis Gaussian-process spin-down series of PSR B1828-11, spanning MJD 49,202-57,817, and fits three nested phenomenological models with nested sampling: S+P, which allows a glitch step in the secular spin-down and instantaneous step changes in the modulation amplitude, phase, and frequency; S, which allows only the secular glitch; and no-glitch, which allows no step changes. The S+P model is reported to be decisively preferred, with natural-log Bayes factors of 1486 versus S and 1624 versus no-glitch (Table 1), and the three modulation step epochs are inferred to occur at MJD ~54,316 (amplitude), ~53,615 (frequency), and ~50,622 (phase), all before the glitch at MJD 55,040.9. A sliding-window Lomb-Scargle periodogram is presented as a model-independent visualization of the period decrease and of amplitude and frequency changes. The paper discusses consequences for planetary, free-precession, and magnetospheric-switching interpretations and notes that the high harmonic count and the step changes favor non-planetary explanations.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper is an important contribution to the pulsar timing literature: it would establish that the ~500-day modulation of PSR B1828-11 undergoes temporally separated, discrete changes in amplitude, frequency, and phase, and it would sharpen the constraints on free-precession and magnetospheric-switching models. The paper has genuine strengths: it exploits the longest and highest-resolution public spin-down data for this source, uses a transparent three-model Bayesian comparison with slab-spike priors, and includes a model-independent Lomb-Scargle visualization that supports at least part of the inferred phenomenology. The data are open, and the modeling methodology is clearly described. The central statistical evidence, however, currently depends on a likelihood assumption that is not justified for this data set: the spin-down values are smoothed outputs of a Gaussian-process regression, yet the evidence values in Table 1 treat them as independent white-noise measurements.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 3-5 (Table 1)] The central quantitative claim rests on a likelihood assumption that is not justified for this data set. The spin-down series shown in Fig. 1 is not a set of independently measured points; it is the output of a Fourier-basis Gaussian-process regression described in Section 3, so adjacent values carry a posterior covariance with a correlation length set by the GPR smoothness scale, which is comparable to the ~500-day modulation. The evidence values in Table 1, including ln BF = 1486 for S+P versus S, are obtained with a likelihood that treats these points as independent Gaussian measurements with a single unknown variance (Section 4; no covariance term is introduced). For Gaussian likelihoods, ln BF is essentially Delta-chi^2/2 plus a model-complexity penalty; if the effective number of independent data is much smaller than the number of plotted points, the reported Bayes factor can be inflated by orders of magnitude and the inferred step times can shift. The authors themselves note in Section 5.1 (Fig. 2b) that the residual 'still displays some structure', indicating that the white-noise plus deterministic-signal model is not an adequate generative model. I request that the model comparison be repeated using the full posterior covariance of the GPR curve (or an explicit correlated-noise likelihood with unknown hyperparameters), with the resulting Bayes factors, step times, and uncertainties reported; at minimum, a downsampling or effective-sample-size sensitivity analysis should be presented.
  2. [Section 6] The Lomb-Scargle analysis is a valuable model-independent check, but it does not establish all three step epochs. It visually corroborates the amplitude change near the inferred t_nu^amp and the frequency/period change near t_nu^freq, and it clearly shows the continued decrease of the modulation period, but there is no visible counterpart in Fig. 9 for the phase step at MJD 50,622; the text itself connects only the frequency and amplitude features to the model lines. The abstract's claim of 'model-independent evidence' demonstrating how and when the changes occur should therefore be tempered: the periodogram supports a changing quasi-periodic signal and the two specific step epochs, while the phase discontinuity remains a model-dependent inference.
  3. [Section 5.3 / Table A6] The comparison between S+P and S is potentially complicated by the behavior of the S model's glitch time parameter: Table A6 reports t_nu^glitch = 55,091 +/- 2 days, which is at the upper boundary of the prior (55,090.90 days) given in Table A3. This suggests that the restricted S model is pushed against its prior edge and may not be a well-behaved nested null model for the purpose of computing the Bayes factor reported in Table 1. The authors should comment on this boundary behavior and show that the decisive preference for S+P is not an artifact of the glitch-time prior range.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5.3] The natural-log evidence values for Model no-glitch and Model S are printed as '-68,308.4 +/- 0.2' and '68,445.6 +/- 0.2'; from the comparison with the S+P evidence, the second value is clearly negative as well and should read '-68,445.6 +/- 0.2'.
  2. [Equations (2)-(3)] The notation is dense: the Heaviside step Theta, the dimensionless relative step parameters (epsilon, eta, delta, kappa), and the time offsets Delta t should be defined explicitly at first use in a short parameter list so that a reader can parse Equations (2)-(3) without consulting the appendix tables.
  3. [Fig. 9 caption] The caption describes four colored horizontal lines as 'glitch time parameters', but only three modulation step epochs (amplitude, frequency, phase) plus the secular glitch time are discussed; please clarify which line corresponds to which parameter and avoid calling the modulation epochs 'glitch times'.
  4. [Data availability] The data are openly available, but the code is only 'shared upon request'; for a quantitative paper whose central result is a Bayes factor, archiving the analysis code (or at least the likelihood and prior definitions in machine-readable form) would materially improve reproducibility.
  5. [Section 8 / references] Section 8 attributes the data release to 'Niţu et al. (2022)', while the Data Availability statement correctly cites Keith & Niţu (2023a,b); these references should be aligned to avoid confusion about which dataset was analyzed.
  6. [Tables A2/A3] The prior range for nu_dot_2 in Table A2 is printed as +/-2.73x10^-8 with units days^-4, while Table A1 uses +/-2.73x10^-11 for the same parameter; please check the numerical values in the subset-model prior tables.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the step changes are inferred free parameters compared against nested models, and the Lomb-Scargle check is independent.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a model with step changes in amplitude, phase, and frequency of the periodic modulation (Model S+P, Eqs. 2-3) is preferred over nested alternatives (Model S and no-glitch, Eqs. 4-7). This is a genuine model comparison: the step-change times and amplitudes are free parameters, assigned slab-spike priors that include the 'no change' hypothesis, and the evidence values in Table 1 are computed by nested sampling. The step changes are not defined in terms of the data they are supposed to explain, and no fitted parameter is relabelled as a prediction. The Lomb-Scargle periodogram analysis in Section 6 is a separate, model-independent visualisation that agrees with the inferred times of amplitude and frequency changes, providing external corroboration rather than circular support. Some prior works cited are by overlapping authors (Ashton et al. 2017 for the decreasing modulation period; Keith & Niţu 2023b for the data), but these are independent published results and are not the load-bearing step: the decreasing period is re-derived from the Lomb-Scargle analysis, and the step-change claim rests on the new Bayesian fit. The paper itself acknowledges in Section 5.1 that residuals still display structure, and the reader's noted concern about treating GPR-smoothed spin-down values as independent Gaussian measurements is a statistical validity issue that could affect the reported Bayes factor; however, that is a correctness risk, not circularity. No equation or inference reduces to its own inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 15 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis is a phenomenological fit; the listed parameters are all fitted to the data. The full parameter set includes additional harmonic amplitudes and phases in Table A4. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (15)
  • spin-down rate nu_dot_0 = -2.72739(5) x 10^-3 days^-2
    Baseline secular spin-down expansion coefficient.
  • glitch transient timescale tau = 121(14) days
    Exponential recovery timescale after glitch in Model S+P.
  • glitch step time t_nu = 55047(3) MJD
    Inferred epoch of the step in spin-down rate.
  • permanent glitch offset eps_nu_perm = -5(3) x 10^-5
    Permanent fractional change in spin-down at glitch.
  • transient glitch amplitude eps_nu_trans = 1.23(8) x 10^-3
    Transient fractional change in spin-down at glitch.
  • fundamental amplitude A1 = 5.77(3) x 10^-6
    Amplitude of the first harmonic of the periodic modulation.
  • second harmonic amplitude A2 = 4.77(3) x 10^-6
    Amplitude of the second harmonic.
  • modulation frequency f0 = 2.1748(3) x 10^-3 days^-1
    Base frequency of the periodic modulation.
  • modulation frequency first derivative f1 = 1.847(7) x 10^-8 days^-2
    Slow drift of the modulation frequency over time.
  • amplitude step time delta_t_amp = -740(6) days relative to glitch
    Inferred epoch of the step in modulation amplitude, before glitch.
  • frequency step time delta_t_freq = -1424(4) days relative to glitch
    Inferred epoch of the step in modulation frequency, before glitch.
  • phase step time delta_t_phase = -4420(20) days relative to glitch
    Inferred epoch of the step in modulation phase, before glitch.
  • relative amplitude step eps_a1 = -0.175(8)
    Fractional change in first harmonic amplitude at the amplitude step.
  • relative frequency step eps_f0 = 3.9(2) x 10^-4
    Fractional change in modulation frequency at the frequency step.
  • relative frequency-derivative step eps_f1 = 0.81(2)
    Fractional change in the frequency derivative at the frequency step.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GPR-derived spin-down rate values are independent Gaussian measurements with a single variance
    Invoked implicitly in Section 4 when constructing the likelihood; the Fourier-basis GPR data have correlated uncertainties that are not modeled.
  • domain assumption The secular spin-down is described by a Taylor expansion with permanent and transient glitch terms
    Equation 2 in Section 5.1; this is a standard pulsar glitch model but not independently verified for this pulsar.
  • domain assumption The periodic modulation is represented by up to 8 harmonically related sinusoids with phase expansion
    Section 5.1; chosen based on evidence improvements, but higher harmonics could be fitting noise or model deficiencies.
  • standard math Nested sampling evidence estimates with slab-spike priors provide reliable model comparison
    Section 4; relies on standard Bayesian method, but the behavior with these specific priors and posterior multimodality is not fully validated in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observation of discontinuities in the periodic modulation of PSR B1828-11." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LQ6VVWUU

@misc{pith2026250109834,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observation of discontinuities in the periodic modulation of PSR B1828-11},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LQ6VVWUU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09834}
}
read the original abstract

PSR B1828-11 is a radio pulsar that undergoes periodic modulations (~500 days) of its spin-down rate and beam width, providing a valuable opportunity to understand the rotational dynamics of neutron stars. The periodic modulations have previously been attributed to planetary companion(s), precession, or magnetospheric effects and have several interesting features: they persist over 10 cycles, there are at least two harmonically related components, and the period is decreasing at a rate of about 5 days per cycle. PSR B1828-11 also experienced a glitch, a sudden increase in its rotation frequency, at 55 040.9 Modified Julian Day(MJD). By studying the interaction of the periodic modulations with the glitch, we seek to find evidence to distinguish explanations of the periodic modulation. Using a phenomenological model, we analyse a recently published open data set from Jodrell Bank Observatory, providing the longest and highest resolution measurements of the pulsar's spin-down rate data. Our phenomenological model consists of step changes in the amplitude, modulation frequency, and phase of the long-term periodic modulation and the usual spin-down glitch behaviour. We find clear evidence with a (natural-log) Bayes factor of 1486 to support that not only is there a change to these three separate parameters but that the shifts occur before the glitch. Finally, we also present model-independent evidence which demonstrates visually how and when the modulation period and amplitude change. Discontinuities in the modulation period are difficult to explain if a planetary companion sources the periodic modulations, but we conclude with a discussion on the insights into precession and magnetospheric switching.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09834 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between Lyne et al. (2010) (in orange) and Keith & Niţu (2023b) (in blue, used in this work) datasets of spin-down rate, with respect to time in MJD. The black dashed vertical line highlights the glitch time for PSR B1828−11. In contrast to previous works that used Bayesian analy￾ses, throughout this work, we will use ‘slab-and-spike’ priors (Malsiner-Walli & Wagner 2016). These comprise a slab, usually a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 2a shows the spin-down rate data, in blue, together with the maximum posterior estimate solution of Model S+P, in red, which uses the parameters with the highest posterior probability. An orange dotted line shows the spin-down rate component of the model without the modulation cosine components. The glitch time is represented by a black dashed vertical line. Four vertical shaded 99% quantile regions are shown, which… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Posterior distribution, shown in orange, for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Posterior probability distribution for the parameters, for Model S+P. in the modulation frequency at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Posterior probability distribution for the modulation frequency terms, , and , which represent their step change, for Model S+P [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Modulation period vs MJD, for Model S+P. The red vertical line indicates the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Figure similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Figure similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Modulation period spectrum of the spin-down rate residuals over a sliding window of 1500 days, on the x-axis, as a function of the mid-point timestamp for each window, on the y-axis. The z-axis shows the Spectral Amplitude. The horizontal lines represent the glitch tim…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Akg \"u n T., Link B., Wasserman I., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09745.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.365..653A 365, 653

    arXiv 2006

  2. [2]

    I., Prix R., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw334 , 458, 881

    Ashton G., Jones D. I., Prix R., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw334 , 458, 881

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw334 2016

  3. [3]

    I., Prix R., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx060 , 467, 164

    Ashton G., Jones D. I., Prix R., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx060 , 467, 164

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx060 2017

  4. [4]

    Ashton G., et al., 2019, @doi [Astrophys. J. Suppl.] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc , 241, 27

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc 2019

  5. [5]

    Bailes M., Lyne A., Shemar S., Phillips J., Thorsett S., Kulkarni S., 1993, in ASP Conf. Ser.. p. 19

    work page 1993

  6. [6]

    Basu A., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab3336 , 510, 4049

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3336 2021

  7. [7]

    R., Karastergiou A., Johnston S., Kerr M., Shannon R

    Brook P. R., Karastergiou A., Johnston S., Kerr M., Shannon R. M., Roberts S. J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2715 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.1374B 456, 1374

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2715 2016

  8. [8]

    B., Dunson D

    Carlin J. B., Dunson D. B., Gelman A., Rubin D. B., Stern H. S., Vehtari A., 2013, Bayesian data analysis, Third Edition. CRC Press

    work page 2013

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    J., 2003, Oxford Statistical Science Series, pp 179--198

    Green P. J., 2003, Oxford Statistical Science Series, pp 179--198

    2003

  2. [10]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    I., 2024, @doi [Astropart

    Haskell B., Jones D. I., 2024, @doi [Astropart. Phys.] 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2023.102921 , 157, 102921

    2024

  4. [12]

    B., Edwards R

    Hobbs G. B., Edwards R. T., Manchester R. N., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10302.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.369..655H 369, 655

    2006

  5. [13]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

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

    2007 doi

  6. [14]

    I., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20238.x , 420, 2325

    Jones D. I., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20238.x , 420, 2325

    2012

  7. [15]

    I., Andersson N., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04251.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.324..811J 324, 811

    Jones D. I., Andersson N., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04251.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.324..811J 324, 811

    2001

  8. [16]

    I., Ashton G., Prix R., 2017, @doi [Phys

    Jones D. I., Ashton G., Prix R., 2017, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.261101 , 118, 261101

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    E., Raftery A

    Kass R. E., Raftery A. E., 1995, @doi [Journal of the American Statistical Association] 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 , 90, 773

    1995

  10. [18]

    J., Niţu I

    Keith M. J., Niţu I. C., 2023a, Quasi-periodic spin down variations in 17 puslars, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.7664166 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7664166

    doi

  11. [19]

    J., Niţu I

    Keith M. J., Niţu I. C., 2023b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad1713 , 523, 4603

    doi

  12. [20]

    Koposov S., et al., 2024, joshspeagle/dynesty: v2.1.4, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.12537467 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12537467

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    G., O'Brien J

    Kramer M., Lyne A. G., O'Brien J. T., Jordan C. A., Lorimer D. R., 2006, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1124060 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Sci...312..549K 312, 549

    2006 doi

  14. [22]

    I., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/321581 , 556, 392

    Link B., Epstein R. I., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/321581 , 556, 392

    2001 doi

  15. [23]

    L., Xu R

    Liu K., Yue Y. L., Xu R. X., 2007, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00337.x , 381, L1

    2007

  16. [24]

    R., 1976, @doi [Astrophysics and Space Science] 10.1007/BF00648343 , 39, 447

    Lomb N. R., 1976, @doi [Astrophysics and Space Science] 10.1007/BF00648343 , 39, 447

    1976 doi

  17. [25]

    Cambridge Observing Handbooks for Research Astronomers, Cambridge University Press, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OZ8tdN6qJcsC

    Lorimer D., Kramer M., 2005, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy. Cambridge Observing Handbooks for Research Astronomers, Cambridge University Press, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OZ8tdN6qJcsC

    2005

  18. [26]

    Lovell A. C. B., 1957, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/180060a0 , 180, 60

    1957 doi

  19. [27]

    E., et al., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250103500L p

    Lower M. E., et al., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250103500L p. arXiv:2501.03500

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Lyne A., Hobbs G., Kramer M., Stairs I., Stappers B., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1186683 , 329, 408

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    Malsiner-Walli G., Wagner H., 2016, @doi [Austrian Journal of Statistics] 10.17713/ajs.v40i4.215 , 40, 241–264

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    C., Keith M

    Niţu I. C., Keith M. J., Stappers B. W., Lyne A. G., Mickaliger M. B., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac593 , 512, 2446

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Parthasarathy A., et al., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz2383 , 489, 3810

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Perera B. B. P., Stappers B. W., Weltevrede P., Lyne A. G., Bassa C. G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2187 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.1380P 446, 1380

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    2003, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021774 , 399, 653

    Rezania, V. 2003, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021774 , 399, 653

    2003 doi

  26. [34]

    D., 1982, The Astrophysical Journal, 263, 835

    Scargle J. D., 1982, The Astrophysical Journal, 263, 835

    1982

  27. [35]

    D., Lorimer D

    Seymour A. D., Lorimer D. R., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts060 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428..983S 428, 983

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    Shaham J., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155249 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...214..251S 214, 251

    1977 doi

  29. [37]

    Shaw B., et al., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac1156 , 513, 5861

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    Skilling J., 2004, @doi [AIP Conference Proceedings] 10.1063/1.1835238 , 735, 395

    2004 doi

  31. [39]

    S., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa278 , 493, 3132

    Speagle J. S., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa278 , 493, 3132

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    H., Lyne A

    Stairs I. H., Lyne A. G., Shemar S. L., 2000, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/35020010 , 406, 484

    2000 doi

  33. [41]

    H., Athanasiadis D., Kramer M., Lyne A

    Stairs I. H., Athanasiadis D., Kramer M., Lyne A. G., 2003, ASP Conf. Ser., 302, 249

    2003

  34. [42]

    H., et al., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz647 , 485, 3230

    Stairs I. H., et al., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz647 , 485, 3230

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    arXiv:2404.04460

    Tong H., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.04460 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240404460T p. arXiv:2404.04460

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    Zubieta E., et al., 2024, Glitch-induced pulse profile change of PSR J0742-2822 observed from the IAR ( @eprint arXiv 2412.17766 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.17766

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    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 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.