Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The Indian Pulsar Timing Array Data Release 2: I. Dataset and Timing Analysis

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Indian Pulsar Timing Array's second data release reprocesses 7.5 years of dual-band observations of 27 millisecond pulsars into sub-banded times of arrival and epoch-resolved dispersion measures, reporting some of the most precise…

desk verdict Solid InPTA data release, but the headline DM precision claim rests on uncalibrated formal errors; fix that and the dataset is a strong IPTA DR3 input. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16769 v1 pith:H2ZDWA24 submitted 2025-06-20 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HE

Prerna Rana , Pratik Tarafdar , Nobleson K , Churchil Dwivedi , Bhal Chandra Joshi , Debabrata Deb , Sushovan Mondal , M. A. Krishnakumar
show 39 more authors
Adya Shukla Jaikhomba Singha Himanshu Grover Hemanga Tahbildar Abhimanyu Susobhanan Mayuresh Surnis Shantanu Desai Neelam Dhanda Batra Aman Srivastava Vinay Bharambe Jibin Jose Vaishnavi Vyasraj Shebin Jose Jacob Amarnath Manpreet Singh Zenia Zuraiq Sarbartha Sengupta Toki Ogi Dhruv Kumar S Jagadeesh Fazal Kareem Deep Maity Kaustubh Rai Kunjal Vara Shaswata Chowdhury Ryo Kato Swetha Arumugam Pragna Mamidipaka Arul Pandian B Kavya Shaji Prabu Thiagaraj P. Arumugam Manjari Bagchi Manoneeta Chakraborty A. Gopakumar Yashwant Gupta Yogesh Maan Avinash Kumar Paladi Keitaro Takahashi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HE
keywords pulsartimingarraymillisecondpulsarsdispersionmeasuretimesofarrivaluGMRTsolarwindinterstellarmediumgravitationalwavebackground
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is a data release: it presents 7.5 years of simultaneous 300–500 MHz and 1260–1460 MHz observations of 27 millisecond pulsars, reprocessed end to end into sub-banded times of arrival, dispersion measures, and timing ephemerides. The central claim is that this reprocessing yields some of the most precise dispersion-measure estimates ever published for these pulsars, with uncertainties reaching $10^{-6}$ pc cm$^{-3}$, and that the resulting epoch-resolved DMs remove interstellar propagation noise well enough to sharpen pulsar-timing-array sensitivity to nanohertz gravitational waves. The paper also reports annual solar-wind DM variations in five pulsars and a possible discrete DM jump in one pulsar, and it argues that the dataset is ready to be folded into the next combined international pulsar timing data release. A sympathetic reader would care because cleaner dispersion measures directly attack the main chromatic noise source that limits current gravitational-wave background searches.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the combination of a noise-free, frequency-resolved template built from one carefully selected high-S/N epoch per pulsar, a per-pulsar optimization of the number of frequency sub-bands, and the DMCalc pipeline that cross-correlates each epoch's sub-banded data against that template to produce sub-banded ToAs and epoch-wise DMs. A fiducial DM, estimated iteratively by aligning concurrent band 3 and band 5 template epochs, fixes the reference for both bands so that frequency-dependent delays are measured rather than modeled. The epoch-wise DMs are written into the ephemeris as DMX values representing instantaneous measured DMs, which is conceptually different from the usual piecewise-linear DMX fitting, and this is what lets the timing analysis absorb interstellar dispersion without fitting extra frequency-dependent parameters.

What would settle it

Re-time the full dataset for any one pulsar using a template built from the latest epoch instead of the selected template epoch; if the resulting ToA and DM time series shift by more than the quoted uncertainties or develop new annual artifacts, the single-template assumption fails. A sharper check is to search the released residuals of PSR J1713+0747 for an unmodeled step at MJD 59309, the truncation point imposed by its profile-change event, since an unmodeled step there would show that the dataset is not internally consistent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that simultaneous dual-band timing at 300–500 MHz and 1260–1460 MHz, with a single high-signal-to-noise template epoch per pulsar and per-epoch dispersion-measure fits, can produce dispersion-measure time series precise to parts in $10^{-5}$ to $10^{-6}$ pc cm$^{-3}$ for many millisecond pulsars. It shows that applying these epoch-resolved DMs directly as DMX delays, rather than as piecewise-linear fits, leaves timing residuals with post-fit weighted RMS as low as 1.095 microseconds for PSR J1909−3744. It further claims that the reprocessed dataset cleanly reveals annual solar-wind electron-content variations in PSRs J0034−0534, J0613−0200, J1744−1134, J1909−3744, and J2145−0750, and a candidate DM jump in PSR J1125+7819 near MJD 59741. On this basis the paper argues that the data release will characterize interstellar-medium noise better than the previous release and increase the sensitivity of upcoming nanohertz gravitational-wave searches.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that one noise-free pulse template built from a single high-signal observation stays a valid cross-correlation reference for the full 7.5-year baseline; if a pulsar's pulse shape drifts or jumps, as happened for PSR J1713+0747 in April 2021, the measured arrival times and dispersion measures inherit that drift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The released ToAs, DMs, and ephemerides for 27 pulsars enter the next combined international data release, so gravitational-wave searches inherit a better-characterized interstellar-medium noise term.
  • Epoch-wise DMX values measured from simultaneous dual-band data replace fitted piecewise-linear DM models, which should remove a class of chromatic timing artifacts in the residuals.
  • Five pulsars show annual solar-wind DM modulations, giving a direct multi-year record of solar-wind electron content along those lines of sight.
  • The per-pulsar sub-band optimization eliminates the need for frequency-dependent timing parameters even at low radio frequencies.
  • The template-epoch strategy means any future pulse-profile shape-change event, like the one that truncates PSR J1713+0747 data at MJD 59309, must be detected and handled explicitly to preserve the precision claims.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the claimed dispersion-measure precision transfers to other low-frequency arrays, the same dual-band epoch-DM scheme could be adopted there to separate interstellar and solar-wind delays without relying on external solar wind models.
  • The five pulsars with annual solar-wind signatures provide a testable solar-wind monitor: comparing their DM curves with spacecraft-based solar-wind density measurements should either confirm the calibration or reveal residual unmodeled delays.
  • A concrete prediction for the next combined data release is that pulsars with the largest chromatic noise, such as PSR J1909−3744, should show the greatest improvement in gravitational-wave detection statistics once these DMs are included.
  • The candidate DM jump in PSR J1125+7819 at MJD 59741, if confirmed by independent telescopes, would be a rare probe of compact structure in the ionized interstellar medium.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents InPTA Data Release 2, a reprocessed seven-year dataset of sub-banded times of arrival (ToAs), epoch-wise dispersion measures (DMs), and initial timing ephemerides for 27 millisecond pulsars observed with the uGMRT in two simultaneous frequency bands (300–500 MHz and 1260–1460 MHz). The authors describe their full pipeline: noise-free template generation, per-pulsar optimization of sub-band count, iterative estimation of a fiducial DM, DMX-based deterministic timing, and the production of DM time series. The central claims are that the dual-band, low-frequency dataset provides some of the highest-precision DM estimates published so far and that annual DM variations attributable to the solar wind are visible in several pulsars. The paper is written as a data-release paper, with detailed documentation of the observing setup, exclusions, outlier flagging, and known limitations such as the J1643–1224 scatter-broadening bias and the J1713+0747 profile change.

Significance. If the precision and calibration claims hold, this dataset is genuinely valuable for the PTA community: it adds a low-frequency, high-cadence, simultaneous dual-band component to IPTA DR3, and its per-epoch DMX measurements could improve chromatic-noise modeling in combined GW searches. The paper is unusually transparent about processing choices: band-4 exclusion, J0900–3144 band-3 exclusion, J2302+4442 band-5 exclusion, J1713+0747 truncation at MJD 59309, and the use of FDJUMPDM for J1643–1224 are all disclosed. The pipeline is reproducible in principle, with the code and data to be released on GitHub. The main significance risk is that the headline precision claim rests on formal DM uncertainties that are not yet calibrated by the EFAC factors the paper itself reports.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.4 and Table 3 vs. Section 5] The DM uncertainties quoted in Table 3 are formal errors from a weighted fit to sub-banded ToA errors, but Section 5 states that the same ToAs require T2EFAC scaling factors of 0.3–7, and about 14 for PSR J1939+2134 band 3 with 200 MHz bandwidth and CDP, to bring reduced chi-squared to unity. Because a DM fit is a linear function of the ToA uncertainties, a T2EFAC of 14 would inflate the quoted 0.3e-5 pc/cm^3 minimum for J1939+2134 to roughly 4e-5 pc/cm^3, which is no longer outstanding relative to other PTA DM measurements. The abstract's claim of 'some of the highest precision DM estimates so far' is therefore not yet supported by validated measurement uncertainties. I ask the authors to either propagate the EFACs into the DM uncertainties before quoting them in Table 3 and the abstract, or to explicitly label Table 3 as reporting uncalibrated formal errors and to temper the precision claim accordingly. This also affects the significance of the claimed solar-wind DM variations, which use the same error bars.
  2. [Section 4.1 and Section 6] The analysis uses a single high-S/N epoch per pulsar to build the noise-free template that is then cross-correlated with all data across the full 7.5-year baseline. The paper itself acknowledges that the J1713+0747 profile-shape event at MJD 59320–59321 required truncating that pulsar's data, which demonstrates that profile instability is a real hazard for this method. Yet no explicit test of profile stability over time is reported for the other 26 pulsars, and Section 5 argues that FD parameters are unnecessary without a quantitative demonstration that the sub-band selection removes all frequency-dependent profile evolution over the full time span. I recommend adding a stability check, for example by comparing templates built from early and late epochs or by examining per-epoch profile residuals, or at minimum a clear statement of the implied systematic risk for the DM and ToA precision claims.
  3. [Section 4.3 and Section 4.4] The fiducial DM is estimated from the same template-epoch data that is used to align the templates, and all DMX values are then measured relative to this fiducial DM. Any systematic error in the fiducial DM is a constant offset that does not affect timing residuals or GW sensitivity, so this is not circular for the timing products. However, the DM time series and the absolute DM precision claims in Table 3 do depend on the fiducial DM uncertainty, which is not reported anywhere. I ask the authors to state the uncertainty on each fiducial DM, or to explicitly note that all quoted DM uncertainties are relative to the fiducial value.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 6 and Appendix 2] In the Figure 6 panel for PSR J2124–3358, the fiducial DM is listed as 24.35335, which is identical to the value listed for J1944+0907 and differs from the value 4.59288 shown in Figure 33 of Appendix 2; this appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  2. [Appendix 2] The manuscript includes a Figure 13 without a caption in the provided text; please ensure every figure has a caption and that cross-references are correct.
  3. [Section 5] The sentence beginning 'In the case of PSRs J0613−0200, the scaling factor decreases to approximately 0.2...' has a grammatical issue ('In the case of PSRs J0613−0200' should be 'In the case of PSR J0613−0200') and should be reworded.
  4. [Section 4.2 and Appendix 1] Equation (1) is dimensionally inconsistent as written (S/N is set equal to an expression involving T_peak/T_sys with non-obvious units); please add a short definition of each symbol and state that this is a proportionality relation rather than an exact equality.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fiducial-DM reference is a calibration convention, and the precision and solar-wind claims rest on independent epoch-wise fits cross-checked against LOFAR and NANOGrav.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claims are (1) that the reprocessed DR2 gives very precise DM estimates and (2) that the DM time series show solar-wind-like annual variations. Neither claim is circular. The fiducial DM (Section 4.3) is explicitly a calibration reference: it is fitted once from the template epoch to align the band-3 and band-5 templates, and all epoch DMs are measured relative to this fixed value. The solar-wind signature is an epoch-dependent annual modulation around this single constant; a single fitted constant cannot manufacture a time-varying annual signal. The epoch-wise DMs in Section 4.4 are free parameters fitted by TEMPO2 from sub-banded ToAs, not set equal to the fiducial DM. The paper also validates the DM trends against LOFAR and NANOGrav data (Section 6), providing external benchmarks. The self-citations (Tarafdar et al. 2022; Krishnakumar et al. 2021; Susobhanan et al. 2021) are to the collaboration's own pipeline and method papers; these are code-based, externally used in EPTA+InPTA analyses, and are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as a substitute for the present measurements. The one substantive caveat, flagged in Section 5, is that the Table 3 DM uncertainties appear to be raw formal errors: 'We plan to have better constraints on such scaling factors by modeling them as white noise parameters in subsequent noise analysis.' This means the quoted 10^-5 pc cm^-3 precisions may be uncalibrated by T2EFAC factors, but that is a correctness/calibration issue, not a circularity; the DM values themselves are still fitted from data and the EFACs are derived from the same residuals rather than being assumed as the DM answer. No step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs.

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

The central claim rests on standard PTA processing with hand-set calibration choices (fiducial DMs, sub-band counts, template epochs, EFACs). No new physical entities or mechanisms are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Fiducial DM per pulsar = e.g., 4.333298 pc cm^-3 for J0030+0451
    Estimated from the template epoch via TEMPO2 (Section 4.3); used to dedisperse templates and as the zero-point for all DMX epoch DMs, so it anchors the entire DM time series.
  • Optimum sub-band count per pulsar, band, and bandwidth = Values in Table 2 (e.g., 32 for J0030+0451 band 3, 200 MHz)
    Chosen by the iterative S/N, ToA-precision, and profile-residual criteria in Section 4.2; the choice is manual per pulsar and affects ToA and DM estimates.
  • EFAC scaling factors = Range approximately 0.2 to 14
    Fitted to set reduced chi^2 to unity for up to seven ToA groups (Section 5); they rescale reported ToA uncertainties and hence the precision claims.
  • Solar wind electron density = Not tabulated
    A spherically symmetric solar wind model was fitted for pulsars where it produced realistic values; omitted for 12 pulsars where it gave negative or unrealistic values (Section 5).
  • Template epoch selection = Chosen per pulsar from MJD 59692 to 60582 or earlier for five pulsars
    High-S/N epoch with no artifacts chosen by hand (Section 4.1); the template built from this epoch is used for all epochs in the release.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DE440 solar system ephemeris and TT(BIPM2023) time-scale are accurate enough for microsecond-level timing
    Used in Section 5 to convert site arrival times to barycentric arrival times; standard for PTA analyses.
  • domain assumption Fourier-domain template cross-correlation yields unbiased ToA and DM estimates
    DMCalc's FDM method (Section 4.4) is standard PSRCHIVE/PTA practice and is assumed to introduce no systematic bias.
  • domain assumption The optimized sub-band choices fully remove frequency-dependent profile evolution, so FD parameters are not needed
    Claimed in Sections 4.2 and 5 based on Anderson-Darling tests and visual inspection of profile residuals; not independently validated for all pulsars.
  • domain assumption Epoch-wise DMX parameters absorb all IISM and solar wind propagation delays
    Section 5 states IISM effects are handled by concurrent spot DMs; this presumes no unmodeled chromatic noise remains in the residuals.
  • domain assumption Wavelet smoothing preserves pulse profile features
    Section 4.1 uses psrsmooth with per-pulsar wavelet selection; preservation is verified only visually.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Indian Pulsar Timing Array Data Release 2: I. Dataset and Timing Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H2ZDWA24

@misc{pith2026250616769,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Indian Pulsar Timing Array Data Release 2: I. Dataset and Timing Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H2ZDWA24}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16769}
}
read the original abstract

The Indian Pulsar Timing Array (InPTA) employs unique features of the upgraded Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (uGMRT) to monitor dozens of the International Pulsar Timing Array (IPTA) millisecond pulsars (MSPs), simultaneously in the 300-500 MHz and the 1260-1460 MHz bands. This dual-band approach ensures that any frequency-dependent delays are accurately characterized, significantly improving the timing precision for pulsar observations, which is crucial for pulsar timing arrays. We present details of InPTA's second data release that involves 7 yrs of data on 27 IPTA MSPs. This includes sub-banded Times of Arrival (ToAs), Dispersion Measures (DM), and initial timing ephemerides for our MSPs. A part of this dataset, originally released in InPTA's first data release, is being incorporated into IPTA's third data release which is expected to detect and characterize nanohertz gravitational waves in the coming years. The entire dataset is reprocessed in this second data release providing some of the highest precision DM estimates so far and interesting solar wind related DM variations in some pulsars. This is likely to characterize the noise introduced by the dynamic inter-stellar ionised medium much better than the previous release thereby increasing sensitivity to any future gravitational wave search.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16769 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The sky distribution for 27 pulsars included in this data release is shown, marked by red and blue stars, representing observations made with the InPTA experiment between November 2016 and March 2024. 14 pulsars indicated by red stars were part of the InPTA DR1, whereas pulsars marked by blue stars are added in the present data release along with 14 InPTA DR1 pulsars. Green circles indicate pulsars that are planned … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The observation cadence for 27 pulsars included in the present data release is shown across a range of Modified Julian Dates (MJD). Most of these pulsars were observed concurrently in band 3 (blue circles) and band 5 (red circles) of the uGMRT as part of the InPTA experiment. 14 pulsars highlighted in bold were also part of the InPTA DR1 (Tarafdar et al., 2022), and the vertical dashed lines indicate the time span o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The intensity in arbitrary units is shown as a function of observing frequency and pulse phase for PSR J1944+0907 using band 3 of the uGMRT. The right plot displays the band-equalized pulse profile from the template epoch, which was used to generate the template for this pulsar. In contrast, the left plot shows the same pulse profile without band equalization, where the effect of the bandpass shape is clearly visibl… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (32 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This workflow diagram illustrates the comprehensive process used to estimate ToA and DM using DMCalc and the wrapper script. The wrapper applies the DMCalc processing steps across all epochs, performing essential sanity checks. For each epoch, DMCalc fits DM values, re…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: This Figure presents the DM time-series for 14 pulsars, showing the differences (∆DM, in units of 10−4 cm−3 pc) between the fiducial DM and the DMs estimated using two approaches: (i) fitting ToAs from band 3 only (red points) and (ii) fitting ToAs from both band 3 and…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The timing residuals obtained from band 3 and band 5 data for 14 pulsars are plotted against corresponding epochs. The IISM trends are modeled using the epoch-wise DMXs obtained from DMs estimated using DMCalc. Red points represent band 3 and blue points represent band…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Dispersion measure variations and timing residuals for J0030+0451. ∆DMs (band 3) represent the difference between estimated DMs and the fiducial DM (mentioned at the bottom of the corresponding panels). Narrowband timing residuals are shown in the bottom panel (post-fi…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_26.png]
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_27.png]
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_28.png]
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_29.png]
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_30.png]
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_31.png]
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_32.png]
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_33.png]
Figure 34
Figure 34. Figure 34: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_34.png]
Figure 35
Figure 35. Figure 35: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_35.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Indian Pulsar Timing Array Data Release 2: III. Search for a Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background

    astro-ph.HE 2026-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    The 7.2-year InPTA DR2 data yield no detection of a stochastic gravitational wave background, a prior-dominated common-process posterior, and a 95% upper limit of A_GWB < 3.4e-14 at gamma = 13/3.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all :=...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "-...

  3. [3]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 061102

    2016

  4. [4]

    2017, Phys

    ---. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101

    2017

  5. [5]

    M., et al

    Agazie , G., Anumarlapudi , A., Archibald , A. M., et al. 2023 a , , 951, L50

    2023

  6. [6]

    2023 b , , 951, L8

    ---. 2023 b , , 951, L8

    2023

  7. [7]

    F., Anumarlapudi , A., et al

    Agazie , G., Alam , M. F., Anumarlapudi , A., et al. 2023 c , , 951, L9

    2023

  8. [8]

    2024 a , , 966, 105

    Agazie , G., Antoniadis , J., Anumarlapudi , A., et al. 2024 a , , 966, 105

    work page 2024

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    T., et al

    Agazie , G., Arzoumanian , Z., Baker , P. T., et al. 2024 b , , 963, 61

    2024

  2. [10]

    A., Cheng , A

    Alpar , M. A., Cheng , A. F., Ruderman , M. A., & Shaham , J. 1982, , 300, 728

    1982

  3. [11]

    W., & Darling , D

    Anderson , T. W., & Darling , D. A. 1952, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 23, 193

    1952

  4. [12]

    1954, Journal of the American statistical association, 49, 765

    ---. 1954, Journal of the American statistical association, 49, 765

    1954

  5. [13]

    2022, , 510, 4873

    Antoniadis , J., Arzoumanian , Z., Babak , S., et al. 2022, , 510, 4873

    2022

  6. [14]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 813, 65

    Arzoumanian, Z., Brazier, A., Burke-Spolaor, S., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 813, 65

    2015

  7. [15]

    T., Blumer , H., et al

    Arzoumanian , Z., Baker , P. T., Blumer , H., et al. 2020, , 905, L34

    2020

  8. [16]

    C., Kulkarni , S

    Backer , D. C., Kulkarni , S. R., Heiles , C., Davis , M. M., & Goss , W. M. 1982, , 300, 615

    1982

  9. [17]

    R., Charisi , M., et al

    Burke-Spolaor , S., Taylor , S. R., Charisi , M., et al. 2019, , 27, 5

    2019

  10. [18]

    2022, , 509, 5538

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

    2022

  11. [19]

    N., Guo , Y

    Chen , S., Caballero , R. N., Guo , Y. J., et al. 2021, , 508, 4970

    2021

  12. [20]

    R., & Donoho, D

    Coifman, R. R., & Donoho, D. L. 1995, Translation-Invariant De-Noising, ed. A. Antoniadis & G. Oppenheim (New York, NY: Springer New York), 125--150

    1995

  13. [21]

    Damour , T., & Taylor , J. H. 1991, , 366, 501

    1991

  14. [22]

    1992, , 45, 1840

    ---. 1992, , 45, 1840

    1992

  15. [23]

    2024, , 109, 103018

    Dandapat , S., Susobhanan , A., Dey , L., et al. 2024, , 109, 103018

    2024

  16. [24]

    2016, Experimental Astronomy, 41, 67

    De, K., & Gupta, Y. 2016, Experimental Astronomy, 41, 67

    2016

  17. [25]

    N., Lentati , L., et al

    Desvignes , G., Caballero , R. N., Lentati , L., et al. 2016, , 458, 3341

    2016

  18. [26]

    1979, , 234, 1100

    Detweiler , S. 1979, , 234, 1100

    1979

  19. [27]

    Y., Verbiest , J

    Donner , J. Y., Verbiest , J. P. W., Tiburzi , C., et al. 2020, , 644, A153

    2020

  20. [28]

    T., Hobbs , G

    Edwards , R. T., Hobbs , G. B., & Manchester , R. N. 2006, , 372, 1549

    2006

  21. [29]

    A., Vallisneri , M., Taylor , S

    Ellis , J. A., Vallisneri , M., Taylor , S. R., & Baker , P. T. 2019, ENTERPRISE: Enhanced Numerical Toolbox Enabling a Robust PulsaR Inference SuitE , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1912.015

    2019

  22. [30]

    2023 a , , 678, A48

    EPTA Collaboration , Antoniadis , J., Babak , S., et al. 2023 a , , 678, A48

    2023

  23. [31]

    2023 b , , 678, A49

    EPTA Collaboration , InPTA Collaboration , Antoniadis , J., et al. 2023 b , , 678, A49

    2023

  24. [32]

    2023 c , , 678, A50

    ---. 2023 c , , 678, A50

    2023

  25. [33]

    2024 a , , 685, A94

    ---. 2024 a , , 685, A94

    2024

  26. [34]

    2024 b , , 690, A118

    ---. 2024 b , , 690, A118

    2024

  27. [35]

    B., & Wahlquist , H

    Estabrook , F. B., & Wahlquist , H. D. 1975, General Relativity and Gravitation, 6, 439

    1975

  28. [36]

    S., & Backer , D

    Foster , R. S., & Backer , D. C. 1990, , 361, 300

    1990

  29. [37]

    1968, , 218, 731

    Gold , T. 1968, , 218, 731

    1968

  30. [38]

    M., Reardon , D

    Goncharov , B., Shannon , R. M., Reardon , D. J., et al. 2021, , 917, L19

    2021

  31. [39]

    S., et al

    Gupta , Y., Ajithkumar , B., Kale , H. S., et al. 2017, Current Science, 113, 707

    2017

  32. [40]

    W., & Downs , G

    Hellings , R. W., & Downs , G. S. 1983, , 265, L39

    1983

  33. [41]

    N., et al

    Hobbs , G., Guo , L., Caballero , R. N., et al. 2020, , 491, 5951

    2020

  34. [42]

    B., Edwards , R

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

    2006

  35. [43]

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

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

    2004

  36. [44]

    J., & Ronchetti, E

    Huber, P. J., & Ronchetti, E. M. 2011, Robust Statistics (John Wiley & Sons), 172

    2011

  37. [45]

    Hunter , J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  38. [46]

    S., Lazio , J., et al

    Jenet , F., Finn , L. S., Lazio , J., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0909.1058

    2009 arXiv

  39. [47]

    J., Cordes , J

    Jennings , R. J., Cordes , J. M., Chatterjee , S., et al. 2024, , 964, 179

    2024

  40. [48]

    L., McLaughlin , M

    Jones , M. L., McLaughlin , M. A., Lam , M. T., et al. 2017, , 841, 125

    2017

  41. [49]

    C., Arumugasamy, P., Bagchi, M., et al

    Joshi, B. C., Arumugasamy, P., Bagchi, M., et al. 2018, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 39, 51

    2018

  42. [50]

    C., Gopakumar , A., Pandian , A., et al

    Joshi , B. C., Gopakumar , A., Pandian , A., et al. 2022, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 43, 98

    2022

  43. [51]

    D., et al

    Kikunaga , T., Hisano , S., Batra , N. D., et al. 2024, , 41, e036

    2024

  44. [52]

    A., Manoharan , P

    Krishnakumar , M. A., Manoharan , P. K., Joshi , B. C., et al. 2021, , 651, A5

    2021

  45. [53]

    T., Ellis , J

    Lam , M. T., Ellis , J. A., Grillo , G., et al. 2018, , 861, 132

    2018

  46. [54]

    M., Prakash , M., Masak , D., & Yahil , A

    Lattimer , J. M., Prakash , M., Masak , D., & Yahil , A. 1990, , 355, 241

    1990

  47. [55]

    R., & Kramer , M

    Lorimer , D. R., & Kramer , M. 2004, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy , Vol. 4 (Cambridge University Press)

    2004

  48. [56]

    2021, , 650, A80

    Maan , Y., van Leeuwen , J., & Vohl , D. 2021, , 650, A80

    2021

  49. [57]

    N., Hobbs , G., Bailes , M., et al

    Manchester , R. N., Hobbs , G., Bailes , M., et al. 2013, , 30, e017

    2013

  50. [58]

    T., Shannon , R

    Miles , M. T., Shannon , R. M., Bailes , M., et al. 2023, , 519, 3976

    2023

  51. [59]

    2022, , 512, 1234

    Nobleson , K., Agarwal , N., Girgaonkar , R., et al. 2022, , 512, 1234

    2022

  52. [60]

    K., Dwivedi , C., Rana , P., et al

    Paladi , A. K., Dwivedi , C., Rana , P., et al. 2024, , 527, 213

    2024

  53. [61]

    Perera , B. B. P., DeCesar , M. E., Demorest , P. B., et al. 2019, , 490, 4666

    2019

  54. [62]

    M., Lim, P

    Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., Earl, N., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 167

    2022

  55. [63]

    1982, Current Science, 51, 1096

    Radhakrishnan , V., & Srinivasan , G. 1982, Current Science, 51, 1096

    1982

  56. [64]

    M., Cordes , J

    Ransom , S. M., Cordes , J. M., & Eikenberry , S. S. 2003, , 589, 911

    2003

  57. [65]

    M., Eikenberry , S

    Ransom , S. M., Eikenberry , S. S., & Middleditch , J. 2002, , 124, 1788

    2002

  58. [66]

    J., Zic , A., Shannon , R

    Reardon , D. J., Zic , A., Shannon , R. M., et al. 2023, , 951, L6

    2023

  59. [67]

    H., Kudale, S., Shinde, N., et al

    Reddy, S. H., Kudale, S., Shinde, N., et al. 2021, Timestamp flow in GWB and correction , Tech. rep., National Centre for Radio Astrophysics, Pune

    2021

  60. [68]

    H., Kudale, S., Gokhale, U., et al

    Reddy, S. H., Kudale, S., Gokhale, U., et al. 2017, Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation, 6, 1641011

    2017

  61. [69]

    Rickett , B. J. 1977, , 15, 479

    1977

  62. [70]

    S., & Schutz , B

    Sathyaprakash , B. S., & Schutz , B. F. 2009, Living Reviews in Relativity, 12, 2

    2009

  63. [71]

    Sazhin , M. V. 1978, , 22, 36

    1978

  64. [72]

    P., Joshi , B

    Singha , J., Surnis , M. P., Joshi , B. C., et al. 2021, , 507, L57

    2021

  65. [73]

    C., Krishnakumar , M

    Singha , J., Joshi , B. C., Krishnakumar , M. A., et al. 2024, , 535, 1184

    2024

  66. [74]

    2023, , 108, 023008

    Srivastava , A., Desai , S., Kolhe , N., et al. 2023, , 108, 023008

    2023

  67. [75]

    C., Chalumeau , A., Tiburzi , C., et al

    Susarla , S. C., Chalumeau , A., Tiburzi , C., et al. 2024, , 692, A18

    2024

  68. [76]

    C., et al

    Susobhanan , A., Maan , Y., Joshi , B. C., et al. 2021, , 38, e017

    2021

  69. [77]

    1991, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Swarup , G. 1991, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 19, IAU Colloq. 131: Radio Interferometry. Theory, Techniques, and Applications, ed. T. J. Cornwell & R. A. Perley , 376--380

    1991

  70. [78]

    2022, , 39, e053

    Tarafdar , P., Nobleson , K., Rana , P., et al. 2022, , 39, e053

    2022

  71. [79]

    1994, Reviews of Modern Physics, 66, 711

    Taylor , Joseph H., J. 1994, Reviews of Modern Physics, 66, 711

    1994

  72. [80]

    H., & Weisberg , J

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

    1982

  73. [81]

    M., Bassa , C

    Tiburzi , C., Shaifullah , G. M., Bassa , C. G., et al. 2021, , 647, A84

    2021

  74. [82]

    2011, , 28, 1

    van Straten , W., & Bailes , M. 2011, , 28, 1

    2011

  75. [83]

    P., Lentati, L., Hobbs, G., et al

    Verbiest, J. P., Lentati, L., Hobbs, G., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 1267

    2016

  76. [84]

    Wolszczan , A., & Frail , D. A. 1992, , 355, 145

    1992

  77. [85]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 075024

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

    2023

  78. [86]

    P., Hobbs, G., Coles, W

    You, X. P., Hobbs, G., Coles, W. A., et al. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 378, 493

    2007

  79. [87]

    J., Kapur , A., et al

    Zic , A., Reardon , D. J., Kapur , A., et al. 2023, , 40, e049

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.