Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 50 references

Chinese Pulsar Timing Array upper limits on microhertz gravitational waves from supermassive black-hole binaries using PSR J1713+0747 FAST data

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Chinese Pulsar Timing Array sets microhertz gravitational-wave strain upper limits from one FAST pulsar: $1.26\times10^{-12}$ sky-averaged, $4.77\times10^{-13}$ toward the pulsar at 1 μHz.

desk verdict Solid but incremental μHz limits from FAST; the 'sky-average' headline number needs a statistical fix before it's citable. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09275 v1 pith:PDBHFEK6 submitted 2025-02-13 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO

R. Nicolas Caballero , Heng Xu , Kejia Lee , Siyuan Chen , Yanjun Guo , Jinchen Jiang , Bojun Wan , Jiangwei Xu
show 1 more author
Zihan Xue
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.CO
keywords pulsartimingarraysgravitationalwavesmicrohertzfrequenciessupermassiveblackholebinariesPSRJ1713+0747FASTtelescopeBayesianupperlimitsdispersionmeasurenoise
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 seeks to show that high-precision timing of a single millisecond pulsar can probe the microhertz gravitational-wave band, a frequency range above the traditional pulsar-timing-array band and less explored. Using FAST observations of PSR J1713+0747 from August 2019 to April 2021, including a dense campaign in September 2020, it reports 95% confidence upper limits on the strain of monochromatic continuous waves from circular supermassive-black-hole binaries: $1.26\times10^{-12}$ sky-averaged and $4.77\times10^{-13}$ in the pulsar's direction at 1 μHz. These are new single-source upper limits from CPTA/FAST data, and they reach the level of published EPTA limits that used roughly 4.3 years of data, thanks to the pulsar's high timing precision. The result matters because it maps the capability of a single-pulsar detector and indicates that combining the full CPTA pulsar set could push single-source limits toward $10^{-14}$ in the microhertz band.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the standard Gaussian pulsar-timing likelihood together with a covariance matrix built from the selected noise model (white noise plus power-law dispersion-measure variations, with no red-noise component). On top of this sits the seven-parameter monochromatic continuous-wave signal model for a circular supermassive-black-hole binary, whose Earth term and pulsar term both enter the residuals. The upper limits come from Bayesian posterior inference on the strain amplitude with uniform priors over the other six signal parameters, and they are cross-checked with the Cramér-Rao lower bound, the theoretical best variance any unbiased estimator can achieve, computed from the same covariance matrix.

What would settle it

Re-run the Bayesian upper-limit calculation on the same arrival times with an extra power-law red-noise component in the $10^{-7}$ to $3\times10^{-6}$ Hz band; if the 95% sky-averaged limit at 1 μHz rises substantially above $1.26\times10^{-12}$, the quoted bound depends on the absence of red noise. An independent check is to inject a known continuous-wave signal at a strain just below the claimed limit and confirm that it is recovered at the nominal rate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that FAST timing data of PSR J1713+0747 set the current microhertz single-source gravitational-wave strain upper limits from the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array. In the Bayesian analysis, the 95% confidence sky-averaged upper limit at 1 μHz is $1.26\times10^{-12}$, and the limit in the sky direction of the pulsar is $4.77\times10^{-13}$; with the noise fixed to maximum-likelihood values the corresponding numbers are $1.10\times10^{-12}$ and $1.01\times10^{-13}$. Only circular orbits and monochromatic waves are considered, and the seven-parameter signal model includes the Earth and pulsar terms. Because a single pulsar has a dipolar response, the sky-averaged limit is computed over 400 sky cells with the anti-pulsar region excluded, and a fine 1600-cell sky map is produced at 1 μHz. The paper also shows via simulations that the gap to earlier EPTA limits is mostly explained by the shorter time span rather than by data quality.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the timing residuals are fully described by white noise plus dispersion-measure variations; if any additional time-correlated red noise exists in the microhertz band, the reported upper limits would be optimistically biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 1 μHz sky-averaged and pulsar-direction limits are new single-source gravitational-wave bounds from CPTA/FAST data, and the best-sky value is comparable to earlier EPTA results despite a much shorter time span.
  • With a single pulsar the sensitivity pattern peaks in the pulsar direction and almost vanishes in the opposite direction, so the sky-averaged limit is effectively a pulsar-hemisphere constraint, not a uniform all-sky bound.
  • Simulations in the paper attribute most of the remaining gap to EPTA limits to the 1.67-year time span; extending to 4.3 years would improve the microhertz sensitivity by about a factor of 2.2.
  • Combining the rest of the CPTA pulsars over 3.4, 10, and 20 years is projected to lower the single-source strain upper limit to roughly $10^{-14}$, potentially making pulsar timing the most sensitive microhertz gravitational-wave detector.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The no-red-noise assumption is the place to stress-test the result: if a time-correlated red process exists between $10^{-7}$ and $3\times10^{-6}$ Hz, the reported limits would be optimistic, so re-running the analysis with a red-noise term would show how much the quoted numbers depend on that choice.
  • The September 2020 dense campaign is what opens the microhertz window; applying the same short-cadence strategy to other high-precision pulsars could extend microhertz coverage much sooner than waiting for decade-long baselines.
  • Sky-averaged limits from different single-pulsar studies are not strictly comparable unless the same anti-pulsar exclusion region is used, so publishing the per-cell limit maps, as this paper does, is the better basis for future comparisons.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes 1.67 years of FAST/CPTA timing data for PSR J1713+0747, including a dense September 2020 observing campaign, to set upper limits on the strain amplitude of monochromatic gravitational waves from circular supermassive black-hole binaries in the 10^-7 to 3e-6 Hz band. The noise analysis uses TEMPONEST with Bayes-factor model selection and adopts an EFAC+EQUAD+ECORR+DM noise model, with data after the April 2021 profile change excluded. The authors then derive per-sky-cell upper limits using both a Cramer-Rao lower bound (with fixed maximum-likelihood noise parameters) and a Bayesian fixed-frequency analysis, from which they construct sky-average and best-sky limits. The headline results are a sky-average 95% upper limit of 1.26e-12 at 1 μHz and a best-sky limit of 4.77e-13.

Significance. The paper is potentially valuable: it demonstrates that a single high-precision millisecond pulsar observed with FAST can probe the relatively unexplored μHz gravitational-wave band, and the agreement between the Bayesian and Cramer-Rao analyses provides a useful cross-check. The explicit disclosure of the data cutoff after the 2021 profile change and the use of Bayes factors for noise model selection are commendable. However, the statistical interpretation of the headline sky-average limit needs to be corrected or clarified before the quoted numbers can be used as 95% confidence upper limits for a source of unknown sky direction; the current construction is an average of per-cell limits and is not uniquely defined because of the unspecified anti-pulsar exclusion region.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.2] The quantity called 'sky-average continuous source upper limit at the 95% confidence level' is not a well-defined 95% upper limit for a source at an unknown sky location. Section 4.2 states that the sky-average is obtained 'by averaging the upper limits derived in 400 sky cells' on a 20×20 grid, and Section 4 states that an area around the anti-pulsar direction is excluded when computing the all-sky limit. For a uniform prior over the sky, the amplitude posterior is a mixture of the per-cell posteriors, and its 95% quantile is generally larger than the arithmetic mean of the per-cell quantiles. Moreover, no value is given for the excluded anti-pulsar area, so the quoted 1.26e-12 is not uniquely defined. The authors should either label the reported number as a sky-averaged sensitivity (a non-coverage statement) and remove the '95% confidence level' claim attached to the average, or compute a proper all-sky upper limit, for example by marginalizing the Bayesian posterior over sky position or by quoting the worst-cell 95% limit. This issue is load-bearing because the abstract's headline result uses this quantity.
  2. [Section 5] The comparison with Perera et al. (2018) is uncontrolled. The paper itself notes that the excluded area around the anti-pulsar direction in Perera et al. 'is not mentioned', so the two sky-averaged quantities need not be defined over the same sky region; given the orders-of-magnitude variation in sensitivity across the sky, the grid and exclusion choices can change the average substantially. The claim that the sky-average limit is ~3.5 times higher than the Perera et al. value should be recomputed using the same sky coverage and the same averaging prescription, or the comparison should be restricted to sensitivity curves that do not depend on the arbitrary sky-average definition.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The pulsar is named PSR J1713+5307 in the abstract but PSR J1713+0747 in the title and the rest of the paper; the catalog name should be made consistent.
  2. [Section 4.1] The statement that the Bayesian-inference result 'must be worse than the CRLB in any case' is not generally correct, since informative priors or boundary effects can make a posterior interval narrower than the Cramer-Rao lower bound; the intended comparison is with an unbiased frequentist estimator and should be phrased accordingly.
  3. [Fig. 4] The comparison uses twice the CRLB as a proxy for the 95% Bayesian upper limit, but for a one-sided 95% upper limit on a Gaussian parameter the appropriate multiplier is approximately 1.65 rather than 2; the authors should state which convention is intended so the agreement is meaningful.
  4. [Section 4.2] The sentence describing the grid, 'a 20×20 grid in equally large in RA and cos(DEC)', is grammatically unclear and should be rewritten to state explicitly that the grid cells are equal in RA and in cos(DEC) and are not equal-area on the sky.
  5. [Section 5] The sentence 'the sky-average sky limit is ~3.5 times higher, and the best-sky limit ~2.2 times higher' is ambiguous about which frequencies and which averaging convention are used, especially because the simulated-curve comparison is also quoted with a factor of 2.2.
  6. [Introduction] There are several minor grammatical slips, e.g., 'the current paper also places upper limit using single-pulsar data' should read 'places upper limits'; a careful copyedit is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GW upper limits come from a likelihood with an independent amplitude parameter, while the noise parameters are fitted without the SSGW signal in the model.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The noise model (EFAC+EQUAD+ECORR+DM, without red noise) is selected by Bayes factors from candidate models that do not include the SSGW waveform, and its parameters are estimated from the timing residuals before the GW analysis. The GW amplitude enters later through the deterministic waveform S(λ) in Eq. (9), with a wide uniform prior, so the reported upper limit is not a refit of a parameter already used to construct the result. The CRLB cross-check in Section 4.1 is an internal consistency test computed from the same likelihood, not an input to the Bayesian limit. Citations to Caballero et al. (2016) and Lee et al. (2011) are methodological (software package and standard waveform framework) rather than load-bearing uniqueness claims; FORTYTWO is public code, and the adopted monochromatic waveform model is standard PTA literature. The only substantive concern visible in the manuscript is statistical rather than circular: the 'sky-average' 1.26e-12 is literally the arithmetic mean of per-cell 95% upper limits over a 20x20 grid (Section 4.2), which does not by itself define a 95% upper limit for an unknown source direction. That is a calibration/interpretation issue about the quoted number, not a case of a prediction reducing to its input by construction. The paper also explicitly flags that the excluded area in Perera et al. (2018) is not mentioned, preventing an exact comparison, but that is an acknowledged caveat, not a circular step. No equation in the paper is equivalent to an input by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central upper limits depend on five fitted noise parameters and the chosen noise model. No new physical entities are introduced. The GW waveform model and likelihood assumptions are standard inputs from the cited literature.

free parameters (5)
  • EFAC = 1.037 (median)
    White-noise multiplier on ToA uncertainties, fitted in Section 3.3; enters the covariance matrix used for upper limits.
  • log10(EQUAD) = -7.531
    White-noise term added in quadrature, fitted to PSR J1713+0747 data; affects covariance.
  • log10(ECORR) = -7.159
    Pulse-jitter correlated noise across subbands, fitted in noise analysis; affects covariance.
  • log10(ADM) = -12.176
    Amplitude of dispersion-measure variations, fitted; the DM noise is the only time-correlated component retained.
  • gamma_DM = 1.804
    Spectral index of the DM power law, fitted; determines how DM noise distributes across the μHz band.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The pulsar timing likelihood is Gaussian with known covariance matrix (Eq. 3).
    Adopted from van Haasteren et al. (2009); used throughout for noise and GW analyses.
  • domain assumption Noise components are wide-sense stationary power-law processes (Eq. 1).
    Standard in pulsar timing; used for red noise and DM noise modeling in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption The searched signal is a monochromatic, circular-orbit, GW-driven SMBHB waveform with seven parameters (Section 4).
    The upper limits are specifically for this model class; eccentric or evolving binaries are not covered.
  • standard math The Bayes factor threshold log10(B10)>2 indicates model preference (Section 3.2).
    Convention from Kass & Raftery (1995); used to select the noise model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chinese Pulsar Timing Array upper limits on microhertz gravitational waves from supermassive black-hole binaries using PSR J1713+0747 FAST data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PDBHFEK6

@misc{pith2026250209275,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chinese Pulsar Timing Array upper limits on microhertz gravitational waves from supermassive black-hole binaries using PSR J1713+0747 FAST data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PDBHFEK6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09275}
}
abstract

We derive the gravitational-wave (GW) strain upper limits from resolvable supermassive black-hole binaries using the data from the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope (FAST), in the context of the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array project. We focus on circular orbits in the $\mu$Hz GW frequency band between $10^{-7}$ and $3\times10^{-6}$ Hz. This frequency band is higher than the traditional pulsar timing array band and is less explored. We used the data of the millisecond pulsar PSR J1713+5307 observed between August 2019 and April 2021. A dense observation campaign was carried out in September 2020 to allow for the $\mu$Hz band coverage. Our sky-average continuous source upper limit at the 95% confidence level at 1$\mu$Hz is 1.26$\times10^{-12}$, while the same limit in the direction of the pulsar is 4.77$\times10^{-13}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09275 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Timing residuals (red circles) of PSR J1713+0747 after a generalized-least-squares fit of the timing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Corner plot for the posterior distributions of the single-pulsar noise analysis for the optimal noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The sky-average (solid, black line) and best-sky (dashed, red line) CRLBs for the SSGW strain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between the Bayesian-derived upper limit (solid, black line) and the CRLB (dashed, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results from the Bayesian analyses: The figure shows the sky-averaged fixed-pulsar noise analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sky map of the logarithmic amplitude’s upper limit (95% confidence level) for SSGWs from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left panel: CRLB Sensitivity curves for PSR J1713+0747 simulated data with a 2-day cadence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, L8 2

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Armstrong, J. W. 2006, Living Reviews in Relativity, 9, 1 13

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    2016, ApJ, 821, 13 4

    Arzoumanian, Z., Brazier, A., Burke-Spolaor, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 13 4

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Bangs, G. W. 1971, Array processing with generalized beamformers., PhD thesis, Yale University 8

    work page 1971

  5. [5]

    N., Lee, K

    Caballero, R. N., Lee, K. J., Lentati, L., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4421 1, 2, 7, 8

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 5538 4

    Chalumeau, A., Babak, S., Petiteau, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 5538 4

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Cognard, I., & Backer, D. C. 2004, ApJ, 612, L125 2 Coles,W.,Hobbs,G.,Champion,D.J.,Manchester,R.N.,&Verbiest,J.P.W.2011,MNRAS,418,561 3

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    T., Cordes, J., et al

    Dolch, T., Lam, M. T., Cordes, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 21 2

    work page 2014

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    D., & Moffet, A

    Ekers, R. D., & Moffet, A. T. 1968, Nature, 220, 756 4 EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, Antoniadis, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A50 2

    1968

  2. [10]

    Feroz, F., & Hobson, M. P. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 449 5 Fisz,M.1963,ProbabilityTheoryandMathematicalStatistics,ed.Geisser,S.(JohnWileyandSons) 7, 10

    2008

  3. [11]

    S., & Backer, D

    Foster, R. S., & Backer, D. C. 1990, ApJ, 361, 300 1 Gregory,P.C.2005,BayesianLogicalDataAnalysisforthePhysicalSciences:AComparativeApproach with ‘Mathematica’ Support 5

    1990

  4. [12]

    B., Edwards, R

    Hobbs, G. B., Edwards, R. T., & Manchester, R. N. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 655 3

    2006

  5. [13]

    G., & Kramer, M

    Hobbs, G., Lyne, A. G., & Kramer, M. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1027 1

    2010

  6. [14]

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

    Hotan, A. W., van Straten, W., & Manchester, R. N. 2004, PASA, 21, 302 3

    2004

  7. [15]

    H., & Backer, D

    Jaffe, A. H., & Backer, D. C. 2003, ApJ, 583, 616 2

    2003

  8. [16]

    A., Hobbs, G

    Jenet, F. A., Hobbs, G. B., Lee, K. J., & Manchester, R. N. 2005, ApJ, 625, L123 5

    2005

  9. [17]

    A., Lommen, A., Larson, S

    Jenet, F. A., Lommen, A., Larson, S. L., & Wen, L. 2004, ApJ, 606, 799 2, 6 Jiang,P.,Yue,Y.,Gan,H.,etal.2019,ScienceChinaPhysics,Mechanics,andAstronomy,62,959502 2

    2004

  10. [18]

    E., & Raftery, A

    Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773 5

    1995

  11. [19]

    J., Hobbs, G., et al

    Kerr, M., Reardon, D. J., Hobbs, G., et al. 2020, PASA, 37, e020 2

    2020

  12. [20]

    Kibble, T. W. B. 1976, Journal of Physics A Mathematical General, 9, 1387 2

    1976

  13. [21]

    2006, MNRAS, 371, 1390 2

    Koen, C. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1390 2

    2006

  14. [22]

    M., Camilo, F., et al

    Kramer, M., Xilouris, K. M., Camilo, F., et al. 1999, ApJ, 520, 324 2

    1999

  15. [23]

    D., & Lifshitz, E

    Landau, L. D., & Lifshitz, E. M. 1960, Electrodynamics of continuous media (Pergamon Press) 4

    1960

  16. [24]

    Lee, K. J. 2016, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 502, Frontiers in Radio Astronomy and FAST Early Sciences Symposium 2015, ed. L. Qain & D. Li, 19 8

    2016

  17. [25]

    J., Bassa, C

    Lee, K. J., Bassa, C. G., Janssen, G. H., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 2642 2

    2012

  18. [26]

    J., Wex, N., Kramer, M., et al

    Lee, K. J., Wex, N., Kramer, M., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 3251 2, 6, 7

    2011

  19. [27]

    P., et al

    Lentati, L., Alexander, P., Hobson, M. P., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 3004 4

    2014

  20. [28]

    P., et al

    Lentati, L., Alexander, P., Hobson, M. P., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 87, 104021 4

    2013

  21. [29]

    M., Coles, W

    Lentati, L., Shannon, R. M., Coles, W. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2161 2, 4

    2016

  22. [30]

    J., et al

    Liu, K., Karuppusamy, R., Lee, K. J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 1158 2

    2015

  23. [31]

    W., Janssen, G

    McKee, J. W., Janssen, G. H., Stappers, B. W., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2809 2

    2016

  24. [32]

    M., Johnston, S., et al

    Parthasarathy, A., Shannon, R. M., Johnston, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3810 1

    2019

  25. [33]

    Perera, B. B. P., Stappers, B. W., Babak, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 218 2, 11, 12

    2018

  26. [34]

    Rajagopal, M., & Romani, R. W. 1995, ApJ, 446, 543 2

    1995

  27. [35]

    J., Zic, A., Shannon, R

    Reardon, D. J., Zic, A., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, L6 2 CPTA microhertz GW limits from PSR J1713+0747 15

    2023

  28. [36]

    A., Battye, R

    Sanidas, S. A., Battye, R. A., & Stappers, B. W. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 122003 2

    2012

  29. [37]

    2013, MNRAS, 433, L1 6

    Sesana, A. 2013, MNRAS, 433, L1 6

    2013

  30. [38]

    2010, Phys

    Sesana, A., & Vecchio, A. 2010, Phys. Rev. D, 81, 104008 2

    2010

  31. [39]

    M., & Cordes, J

    Shannon, R. M., & Cordes, J. M. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1607 4

    2010

  32. [40]

    M., Lentati, L

    Shannon, R. M., Lentati, L. T., Kerr, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, L1 2

    2016

  33. [41]

    2004, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Skilling, J. 2004, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 735, Bayesian inference and maximumentropymethodsinscienceandengineering,ed.R.Fischer,R.Preuss,&U.vonToussaint, 395 5

    2004

  34. [42]

    1954, in Transactions of the IRE Professional Group on Information Theory, Vol

    Slepian, D. 1954, in Transactions of the IRE Professional Group on Information Theory, Vol. 3, Transactions of the IRE Professional Group on Information Theory, 68 8

    1954

  35. [43]

    Taylor, J. H. 1992, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 341, 117 3

    1992

  36. [44]

    H., & Weisberg, J

    Taylor, J. H., & Weisberg, J. M. 1982, ApJ, 253, 908 4

    1982

  37. [45]

    Thorne, K. S. 1989, in Three Hundred Years of Gravitation, ed. S. W. Hawking & W. Israel, 330 2 van Haasteren, R., & Levin, Y. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1147 3 van Haasteren, R., Levin, Y., McDonald, P., & Lu, T. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 1005 4, 8 van Straten, W., & Bailes, M. 2011, PASA, 28, 1 3

    1989

  38. [46]

    Verbiest, J. P. W., Bailes, M., Coles, W. A., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 951 1, 2

    2009

  39. [47]

    X., Burgay, M., et al

    Xu, H., Huang, Y. X., Burgay, M., et al. 2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14642, 1 3

    2021

  40. [48]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 075024 2, 5

    Xu, H., Chen, S., Guo, Y., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 075024 2, 5

    2023

  41. [49]

    W., Sanidas, S

    Yi, S., Stappers, B. W., Sanidas, S. A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 1245 2

    2014

  42. [50]

    P., Hobbs, G., Coles, W

    You, X. P., Hobbs, G., Coles, W. A., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 493 4

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.