Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Detection of over 37,000 giant pulses per hour from PSR J1823$-$3021A with UHF baseband observations from MeerKAT

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Observing a globular-cluster millisecond pulsar at 544–1088 MHz with MeerKAT detects giant pulses at 37,000 per hour, 13.5 times the rate previously seen at L-band, and yields the pulsar's first scattering-time measurement.

desk verdict Solid UHF giant-pulse study with a new scattering measurement; the 37,000/hr headline is credible but rests on a false-positive correction that needs a proper systematic treatment. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14887 v1 pith:NTN52WHC submitted 2025-06-17 astro-ph.HE

Simon C.-C. Ho , Matthew Bailes , Chris Flynn , Federico Abbate This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords giantpulsesmillisecondpulsarsglobularclustersradioastronomyMeerKATpulsarscatteringfastburstsPSRJ1823-3021A
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 J1823−3021A, a millisecond pulsar in the globular cluster NGC 6624, emits giant pulses at a high rate when observed at low radio frequencies. Using MeerKAT's UHF band (544–1088 MHz) for about 50 minutes, the authors detect 9,366 pulses with $S/N > 10$ and, after correcting for false positives in the $S/N$ 7–10 range, estimate a rate of 37,000 ± 200 giant pulses per hour, 13.5 times the rate seen in earlier L-band observations. The same baseband data give the first scattering-time measurement for this pulsar, $\tau = 5.5 \pm 0.6\,\mu\mathrm{s}$ at 1 GHz. The authors also find that giant pulses cluster in two rotation phases, follow a single power law in energy with slopes near $-3$, and occasionally split into multiple peaks, including triple-peaked pulses seen for the first time. These properties bear on whether giant pulses from globular-cluster pulsars could underlie the fast radio bursts observed in other globular clusters.

What carries the argument

The central objects are giant pulses — brief radio flashes far exceeding the pulsar's mean pulse flux — and the machinery that resolves them is the PTUSE baseband recording system on MeerKAT, which captured full-voltage data across 544 MHz of UHF bandwidth with 5.3 $\mu\mathrm{s}$ time resolution (2.65 $\mu\mathrm{s}$ for the 50 brightest pulses). Coherent dedispersion at the known dispersion measure, single-pulse $S/N$ measurement with a boxcar search, and a phase-based false-positive correction convert raw detections into the headline rate. Scattering times are extracted by fitting a Gaussian pulse convolved with an isotropic-screen scattering tail using the SCAMP-I code with MCMC sampling, applied to 49 bright, narrow pulses across four frequency sub-bands.

What would settle it

Compare candidate $S/N$ 7–10 events inside the C1 and C2 phase windows with the per-phase rate in equal off-pulse windows; a significant difference would invalidate the 69 expected false positives and change the 37,000 per hour claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that PSR J1823−3021A is a far more prolific giant-pulse emitter at UHF frequencies than previously appreciated: the paper measures a detection rate of $37{,}000 \pm 200$ pulses per hour with $S/N > 7$, a 13.5-fold increase over the L-band rate of about 3,000 per hour and higher than the 8.5-fold increase predicted by extrapolating the pulsar's steep spectrum. The paper also reports the first scattering-time measurement for this pulsar, $\tau = 5.5 \pm 0.6\,\mu\mathrm{s}$ at 1 GHz, obtained by fitting an isotropic-screen scattering model to 49 bright, narrow giant pulses, with a mean scattering index $\alpha = -2.5 \pm 0.3$. In addition, the giant pulses are strongly clustered in two rotation phases (C1 and C2), their energies follow a single power law (slopes $-3.02 \pm 0.01$ and $-2.96 \pm 0.03$ for C1 and C2), and the data reveal multi-peak morphologies — 119 double-peaked, 4 triple-peaked, and 18 events with both C1 and C2 in one rotation — as well as one event with quasi-periodic substructure resembling FRB 20201028.

Load-bearing premise

The headline rate assumes that the 358 false-positive candidates seen outside the C1 and C2 phase windows are uniformly distributed in rotation phase, so that the same per-phase rate applies inside those windows; if the in-window false-positive rate differs, the $37{,}000 \pm 200$ per hour claim changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The UHF-band rate of $37{,}000 \pm 200$ GPs/hr implies the pulsar emits a giant pulse every 0.1 seconds on average, making it the most active globular-cluster giant-pulse emitter known.
  • Because the observed rate exceeds the 8.5× scaling prediction, the pulsar's giant-pulse spectrum must be even steeper, or the low-frequency emission mechanism more efficient, than the integrated-profile extrapolation suggests.
  • The first scattering measurement, $\tau = 5.5 \pm 0.6\,\mu\mathrm{s}$ at 1 GHz, is consistent with interstellar-medium models, so the intrinsic UHF pulse widths are plausibly shorter than the observed widths.
  • The excess of multi-peak pulses over chance coincidence (119 double and 4 triple observed) points to nanoshot-like substructure within individual giant pulses rather than independent overlapping pulses.
  • The low polarisation and the strong 5.44 ms periodicity of arrival times separate this source from typical fast radio bursts, and the brightest detected pulse would be visible with MeerKAT only to about 40 kpc, whereas an M81-like FRB would require a pulse about $10^4$ times more luminous.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: going below 544 MHz could push the giant-pulse rate even higher if the steep spectrum continues, but stronger scattering and RFI at those frequencies could erase the gain; splitting the existing UHF band into sub-bands would test this directly.
  • Beyond the paper: if the measured scattering is entirely interstellar, coherently descattering the baseband voltages should reveal narrower intrinsic pulses and may convert some single-peaked giant pulses into multi-peaked ones.
  • Beyond the paper: the observed excess of same-rotation C1 and C2 events (18 found versus 8 expected, at about 3 sigma) hints at a weak correlation between the two emission components; a longer observation could confirm or rule it out.
  • Beyond the paper: the low polarisation of these giant pulses compared with the high linear polarisation of the M81 repeating FRB suggests that, if giant pulses power globular-cluster FRBs, the mechanism must accommodate a wide range of polarisation fractions.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents MeerKAT UHF-band baseband observations of the globular-cluster millisecond pulsar PSR J1823−3021A. In 2,984 s of tracking data the authors detect 9,366 giant pulses with S/N > 10 and, after a phase-based false-positive correction for the 7 < S/N < 10 interval, estimate a corrected rate of 37,000 ± 200 GPs/hr, which they state is 13.5 times the L-band rate of Abbate et al. (2020). They report that the GPs are clustered in two phase components, follow steep power-law energy distributions, are mostly unpolarised, and include double- and triple-peaked morphologies; they also report a first scattering-time measurement, τ = 5.5 ± 0.6 μs at 1 GHz, and discuss implications for the connection between giant pulses and fast radio bursts.

Significance. The observation is a direct and valuable measurement: it is the largest GP sample from a globular-cluster MSP at UHF, with baseband time resolution that reveals subpulse structure and enables the first scattering measurement for this pulsar. The comparison with Abbate et al. (2020) is an external benchmark, and the power-law and scattering fits are outputs rather than inputs to the main rate claim. The paper also provides useful single-pulse morphology statistics and a clear statement of the FRB-motivation context. However, the headline rate depends on an estimated false-positive subtraction whose uniformity assumption is not independently tested, and there are internal inconsistencies in the reported false-positive rate and in the spectral-index statement. These issues are fixable and should be addressed before publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, false-positive correction] The headline 37,000 ± 200 GPs/hr is obtained by assuming that the 358 candidates found outside the C1/C2 phase ranges (83.8% of the period) are all false positives and are uniformly distributed in phase, yielding 69 expected false positives inside C1/C2. This uniformity assumption is load-bearing and is not tested: xprof maximizes S/N over a sequence of boxcar widths, so the effective number of trials, and hence the false-positive rate, can differ between the broad off-pulse baseline and the structured C1/C2 windows. In addition, the paper itself notes that the C3 component seen by Abbate et al. (2020) is not significantly detected here; real weak GPs in the 7 < S/N < 10 band outside C1/C2 would be silently absorbed into the 358 and would bias the extrapolation. The quoted ±200 error also does not include any systematic from this correction. Please test the uniformity assumption (for example, with injected pulses or a phase-dependent trials-factor estimate), report the resulting systematic uncertainty, and reconcile the 83/hr rate quoted in Section 3 with the ≈100/hr rate quoted in Section 5.
  2. [Section 3.2 and the abstract] The abstract states that the GPs have steep spectral indices of ≈ −3, but Section 3.2 reports that the 400 brightest GPs have a spectral-index distribution centered at −1.6 with standard deviation 0.32 and median −1.57, while the integrated profile has −3.30. This is a direct internal contradiction in a property used to motivate the UHF/L-band rate comparison. The authors should state clearly whether the steep index refers to the integrated profile or to the GPs, and adjust the abstract and Section 3.2 accordingly.
  3. [Section 3.6, scattering measurement] The first scattering measurement is based on the 50 brightest GPs (49 after one failed fit), which are selected before the scattering fit. If the scattering time correlates with intrinsic brightness or profile width, the mean τ = 5.5 ± 0.6 μs could be biased; the paper reports only the mean and the range of α, not the distribution of τ across the 49 GPs. I request the distribution of individual τ values and a brief discussion of whether the bright-GP selection affects the mean.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3] The phrase 'We found 358 false positives in a phase range of 0.838' should read 'in the 83.8% of the pulse period outside C1 and C2' to avoid ambiguity about whether 0.838 is a phase offset.
  2. [Section 2] The reference to 'Manch-ester et al. 2005' contains a line-break typo; please use the standard citation 'Manchester et al. (2005)'.
  3. [Section 3.2] The text says the average error on the GP spectral indices is 0.29, 'significantly larger than the measurement errors in Abbate et al. (2020) (≈0.09)'; please specify whether these are formal fit errors or the scatter of the distribution, since the two are not directly comparable.
  4. [Section 3.4] The sentence 'Examples of all these events were seen in Abbate et al. (2020)' is confusing because the preceding sentence quantifies double- and triple-peak GPs; please clarify which events were previously seen and which are new to this work.
  5. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'However, it is still hard to say if a significant periodicity can be seen from our work if we only considered the brightest GPs' is unclear; please rephrase to specify what test would be applied and what the result is.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GP detection rate, power-law fits, and scattering measurement are direct observational results, not reductions to fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a direct counting measurement from 2,984 s of MeerKAT UHF baseband data: 9,366 GPs with S/N>10 and a corrected total of 31,134 GPs with S/N>7, yielding 37,000±200 GPs/hr. No equation in the paper defines the detection rate in terms of a fitted parameter or a prior model; the rate is simply the observed event count divided by the observing time, with a small false-positive correction. The correction for 7<S/N<10 relies on an explicit assumption that false positives are uniformly distributed in pulse phase, and the paper reports both the off-pulse count (358) and the extrapolated in-window count (69). This assumption could be questioned on statistical grounds, but it is not a circular reduction: the raw count alone already gives a rate above 37,000/hr, so the headline claim does not reduce to the correction. The comparison with Abbate et al. (2020) is an external observational benchmark, not a fitted input; even though one current author is also an author of that earlier paper, its measured L-band rate and its prediction are not used to construct the UHF detection rate, only to contextualize it. The power-law indices in Section 3.1 are fits to the detected GP energies, and the scattering time in Section 3.6 is a fit to the 49 brightest GP profiles using an external package (SCAMP-I) with model comparison to NE2001 and YMW; none of these fitted quantities is fed back into the detection pipeline to manufacture the reported GP rate. The paper also openly identifies limitations, such as the non-detection of the C3 component and one failed scattering fit, which further indicates that the results are presented as measurements with stated caveats rather than as a closed derivation. No load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

No ad hoc free parameters or invented entities are introduced. The paper's fitted quantities (power-law slopes, spectral index, scattering time) are reported results with uncertainties, not hidden inputs to the central claim. The load-bearing assumptions are standard observational ones about phase-uniform false positives, scattering model, and adopted calibration.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption False positives in the 7 < S/N < 10 range are uniformly distributed in rotational phase, so the contamination inside C1/C2 equals the density measured outside.
    Used in Section 3 to subtract 69 false positives from the S/N > 7 sample; if false-positive density is higher near the bright phase windows, the corrected rate of 37,000 per hour is overestimated.
  • domain assumption The scattering transfer function of Geyer and Karastergiou (2016), assuming a Gaussian intrinsic pulse and an isotropic scattering screen, describes the observed GP profiles.
    Used in Section 3.6 with SCAMP-I to derive tau = 5.5 +/- 0.6 microseconds; a different intrinsic pulse shape or anisotropic screen would change the fitted scattering time.
  • domain assumption The adopted period (5.4400 ms) and DM (86.89 pc cm^-3) from the ATNF catalogue are accurate enough for coherent dedispersion and folding.
    Used in Section 2; a wrong DM would smear pulses and bias S/N and morphology.
  • domain assumption The SEFD of 8.0 Jy adopted for 58 MeerKAT dishes is representative for flux-density calibration across the UHF band.
    Used in Section 2 to convert S/N to flux densities; it does not affect the rate claim, which is S/N-based.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detection of over 37,000 giant pulses per hour from PSR J1823$-$3021A with UHF baseband observations from MeerKAT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NTN52WHC

@misc{pith2026250614887,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detection of over 37,000 giant pulses per hour from PSR J1823$-$3021A with UHF baseband observations from MeerKAT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NTN52WHC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14887}
}
abstract

Giant pulses (GPs) occur in high magnetic-field millisecond pulsars (MSPs) and young Crab-like pulsars. Motivated by the fast radio bursts (FRBs) discovered in a globular cluster (GC) in the M81, we undertook baseband observations of PSR J1823$-$3021A, the most active GP emitter in a GC with the MeerKAT UHF band receiver (544-1088 MHz). The steep spectral index of the pulsar yields a GP rate of over 37,000 GPs/hr with $S/N>7$, significantly higher than the 3000 GPs/hr rate detected by Abbate et al. 2020 with the L-band (856-1712 MHz) receiver. Similarly to Abbate et al 2020, we find that the GPs are (1) strongly clustered in 2 particular phases of its rotation, (2) well described by a power-law in terms of energies, (3) typically broadband, and have steep spectral indices of $\approx-3$. Although the integrated pulse profile is not significantly polarised ($<1\%$ linear and $<3\%$ circular), one of the brightest GPs displays notable polarisation of $7\%$ (linear) and $8\%$ (circular). The high-time resolution data reveals the GPs have a range of single-peak and multi-peak morphologies, including GPs with three distinct peaks. For the first time, we measured the temporal scattering of the pulsar using 49 bright, narrow, single-pulse GPs, obtaining a mean value of $5.5\pm0.6$ $\mu$s at 1 GHz. The distinct periodicity and low polarisation of GPs differentiate them from typical FRBs, although potential quasi-periodicity substructures in some GPs may suggest a connection to magnetars/FRBs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14887 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The highest 𝑆/𝑁 GP detected in the observations. The top panel shows flux density versus phase. The inset shows the zoomed-in of the GP to phase 0.69-0.77. The lower panel shows the waterfall plot of frequency/index versus phase. This GP has 𝑆/𝑁 = 254. seconds after correcting for the small false positive rate. We estimate a detection rate of 37, 000±200 GPs/hr. Thus, the GP rate in the UHF band is 13.5 times higher… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The blue histogram shows the phase distribution of GPs with 𝑆/𝑁 > 10. The orange histogram shows the phase distribution of the brightest 10 per cent GPs. The integrated radio emission profile of PSR J1823−3021A is shown in black. Note that GPs fall towards the trailing side of component C1. (solid orange curve) due to the higher GP rate in the UHF band com￾pared to the L-band. There are also events with longer wait … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Normalised cumulative distribution of the time interval between GPs with 𝑆/𝑁 > 10 is shown by the blue histogram. The black dashed line shows the exponential fit from this work. The yellow curve shows the exponential fit from Abbate et al. (2020). The exponential curve from this work (decay time of exponential ≈ 3.019s) is steeper than the previous work (decay time of exponential ≈ 1.009s) due to a higher detection … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Value of the 𝑆/𝑁 of each GP in the C1 component plotted against the time that has elapsed from the previous GP. The vertical striping is due to integer multiples of the 5.44 ms period of the pulsar. Here we only show GPs with 𝑆/𝑁 > 10. probability 𝑃(𝐶1) of a single GP …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Examples of GPs showing multiple components at the C1 position. The pulse is zoomed in to the pulse phase of 0.60-0.80. The blue shaded regions indicate where 𝑆/𝑁 is measured for each sub-peak, and the red dashed lines indicate the middle point of the region. the algor…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Examples of GPs showing multiple components at both C1 and C2 positions, and occurring within a single rotation of the pulsar. The red dashed lines indicate the positions of the components. model (Cordes & Lazio 2002) gives 𝜏 = 12 𝜇s and the YMW model (Yao et al. 2017)…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The polarisation profile of the most polarised GP with 𝑆/𝑁 of 203. In the lower panel, the black line shows the total intensity, the red line shows the linear polarisation and the blue line shows the circular polarisation. It shows linear polarisation and circular pol…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: An example of the scattering fitting for the brightest GP we have detected (𝑆/𝑁 ≈ 254) at 607.9 MHz, 744.6 MHz, 870.5 MHz, and 1014.2 MHz. The blue dots are the data points of the pulse profiles and the black lines are the fitted models. The results for 𝜏 and 𝜎 versus…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The scattering time scale, 𝜏 versus frequency for the brightest GP by fitting in four frequency regions centred at 607.9 MHz, 744.6 MHz, 870.5 MHz, and 1014.2 MHz using the code from Oswald et al. (2021). Results for 𝜎 versus frequency is also plotted for reference. T…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: An example of a GP that may exhibit quasi-periodicity in the multi-peak components, similar to FRB 20201028 (Pastor-Marazuela et al. 2023). The 𝑆/𝑁 of this event is ≈ 30. van Straten, Dr. Manisha Caleb, and Andrew Jameson for kindly taking the time to answer our quest…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbate F., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2510 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498..875A 498, 875

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2510 2020

  2. [2]

    Abbate F., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1041 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.2292A 513, 2292

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1041 2022

  3. [3]

    C., Kulkarni S

    Backer D. C., Kulkarni S. R., Heiles C., Davis M. M., Goss W. M., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1038/300615a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982Natur.300..615B 300, 615

    doi:10.1038/300615a0 1982

  4. [4]

    Bailes M., et al., 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA. p. 11 ( @eprint arXiv 1803.07424 ), @doi 10.22323/1.277.0011

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Bailes M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2020.19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PASA...37...28B 37, e028

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2020.19 2020

  6. [6]

    Bhardwaj M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abeaa6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...910L..18B 910, L18

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abeaa6 2021

  7. [7]

    D., Bailes M., Lyne A

    Biggs J. D., Bailes M., Lyne A. G., Goss W. M., Fruchter A. S., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/267.1.125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994MNRAS.267..125B 267, 125

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/267.1.125 1994

  8. [8]

    S., Jonas J

    Booth R. S., Jonas J. L., 2012, African Skies, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AfrSk..16..101B 16, 101

    work page 2012

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    A., Taylor J

    Cognard I., Shrauner J. A., Taylor J. H., Thorsett S. E., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...457L..81C 457, L81

    1996 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Lazio T

    Cordes J. M., Lazio T. J. W., 2002, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002astro.ph..7156C pp astro--ph/0207156

    2002 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    Geyer M., Karastergiou A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1724 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.2587G 462, 2587

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    Geyer M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1151 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.2659G 470, 2659

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    Geyer M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1501 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.4468G 505, 4468

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    E., 2010, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1012.3224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010arXiv1012.3224H p

    Harris W. E., 2010, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1012.3224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010arXiv1012.3224H p. arXiv:1012.3224

    2010 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Jessner A., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...524A..60J 524, A60

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    L., 2009, @doi [IEEE Proceedings] 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2020713 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009IEEEP..97.1522J 97, 1522

    Jonas J. L., 2009, @doi [IEEE Proceedings] 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2020713 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009IEEEP..97.1522J 97, 1522

    2009

  9. [17]

    W., van Straten W., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913729 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...515A..36K 515, A36

    Karuppusamy R., Stappers B. W., van Straten W., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913729 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...515A..36K 515, A36

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    E., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...535..365K 535, 365

    Kinkhabwala A., Thorsett S. E., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...535..365K 535, 365

    2000 doi

  11. [19]

    Kirsten F., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.602..585K 602, 585

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11810.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.378..723K 378, 723

    Knight H. S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11810.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.378..723K 378, 723

    2007

  13. [21]

    S., Bailes M., Manchester R

    Knight H. S., Bailes M., Manchester R. N., Ord S. M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/429533 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...625..951K 625, 951

    2005 doi

  14. [22]

    S., Bailes M., Manchester R

    Knight H. S., Bailes M., Manchester R. N., Ord S. M., Jacoby B. A., 2006a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500292 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...640..941K 640, 941

    doi

  15. [23]

    S., Bailes M., Manchester R

    Knight H. S., Bailes M., Manchester R. N., Ord S. M., 2006b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508253 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...653..580K 653, 580

    doi

  16. [24]

    W., 2024, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-02125-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NatAs...8..230K 8, 230

    Kramer M., Liu K., Desvignes G., Karuppusamy R., Stappers B. W., 2024, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-02125-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NatAs...8..230K 8, 230

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Li D., Pen U.-L., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1190 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.2330L 531, 2330

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    H., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acfa6f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959..111L 959, 111

    Lin R., van Kerkwijk M. H., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acfa6f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959..111L 959, 111

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    H., Main R., Mahajan N., Pen U.-L., Kirsten F., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acba95 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...945..115L 945, 115

    Lin R., van Kerkwijk M. H., Main R., Mahajan N., Pen U.-L., Kirsten F., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acba95 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...945..115L 945, 115

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    C., Cordes J

    Lundgren S. C., Cordes J. M., Ulmer M., Matz S. M., Lomatch S., Foster R. S., Hankins T., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176404 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...453..433L 453, 433

    1995 doi

  21. [29]

    S., Freire P

    Lynch R. S., Freire P. C. C., Ransom S. M., Jacoby B. A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...745..109L 745, 109

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    B., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1669 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462..941L 462, 941

    Lyutikov M., Burzawa L., Popov S. B., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1669 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462..941L 462, 941

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    H., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3c35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...967...34M 967, 34

    Mahajan N., van Kerkwijk M. H., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3c35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...967...34M 967, 34

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    Main R., van Kerkwijk M., Pen U.-L., Mahajan N., Vanderlinde K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6f03 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...840L..15M 840, L15

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Naudet C

    Majid W. A., Naudet C. J., Lowe S. T., Kuiper T. B. H., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...741...53M 741, 53

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    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

  27. [35]

    W., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.4784M 483, 4784

    McKee J. W., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.4784M 483, 4784

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    Nimmo K., et al., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-021-01321-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5..594N 5, 594

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    Nimmo K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.2281N 520, 2281

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab980 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.1115O 504, 1115

    Oswald L. S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab980 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.1115O 504, 1115

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    Pastor-Marazuela I., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243339 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A.149P 678, A149

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    Petroff E., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2419 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447..246P 447, 246

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    V., Stappers B., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066589 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...470.1003P 470, 1003

    Popov M. V., Stappers B., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066589 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...470.1003P 470, 1003

    2007 doi

  34. [42]

    Ridolfi A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab790 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.1407R 504, 1407

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    W., Johnston S., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323415 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...557L..93R 557, L93

    Romani R. W., Johnston S., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323415 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...557L..93R 557, L93

    2001 doi

  36. [44]

    Serylak M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2811 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.4483S 505, 4483

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    A., Popov M

    Soglasnov V. A., Popov M. V., Bartel N., Cannon W., Novikov A. Y., Kondratiev V. I., Altunin V. I., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/424908 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...616..439S 616, 439

    2004 doi

  38. [46]

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

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    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

  40. [48]

    van Straten W., Bailes M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1071/AS10021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PASA...28....1V 28, 1

    2011 doi

  41. [49]

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