Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 139 references

First results from the UTMOST-NS pulsar timing programme

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the choice of low-frequency cutoff in the timing-noise model changes the inferred uncertainty on pulsar second frequency derivatives by about a factor of three, and that of 39 apparent non-zero detections only the…

desk verdict A valuable new dataset and careful timing-noise analysis, but the 'validated' analytic scaling is an internal consistency check that inherits the pure power-law assumption, so the cutoff-sensitivity claim should be read with that caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22697 v1 pith:QGJXLZ3R submitted 2025-06-28 astro-ph.HE

L. Dunn , C. Flynn , M. Bailes , Y. S. C. Lee , G. Howitt , A. Melatos , V. Gupta , A. Mandlik
show 1 more author
A. Deller
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 97.60.Gb
keywords pulsartimingnoisesecondfrequencyderivativebrakingindexglitcheshiddenMarkovmodelMolonglotelescopeneutronstars
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 reports the first science results of a two-year, high-cadence pulsar timing campaign at the Molonglo telescope, covering 173 southern pulsars with combined baselines of up to seven years. Its central claim is that timing noise masquerades as a secular second frequency derivative: the inferred uncertainty on $\ddot{\nu}$ changes by roughly a factor of three depending on whether the noise model includes Fourier modes below the reciprocal of the observing timespan. Of the 39 pulsars whose $\ddot{\nu}$ excludes zero at 95% confidence under either model, only 17 survive when the low-frequency modes are always included, and only the Crab pulsar survives when the model containing $\ddot{\nu}$ must also beat a model without it by a Bayes factor of 5, giving $n = 2.54 \pm 0.03$. The paper validates an analytic scaling that predicts when anomalously large braking indices are expected from timing noise alone, and it catalogues 17 glitches, one previously unreported, with systematic upper limits on the size of undetected glitches.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is an assumed power-law timing-noise spectrum $P(f) = A_{\mathrm{red}}^2 (12\pi^2 f_{\mathrm{yr}}^3)^{-1}(f/f_{\mathrm{yr}})^{-\beta}$, implemented as a set of harmonically related sinusoids whose lowest frequency is either $1/T_{\mathrm{span}}$ (model TNF2) or $1/(2T_{\mathrm{span}})$ (model TNLONGF2). The $\ddot{\nu}$ argument runs through an analytic estimate of the spread in $\ddot{\nu}$ produced by a random walk in $\dot{\nu}$ (spectral index $\beta \approx 6$), $\delta\ddot{\nu} \sim \sqrt{f_{\mathrm{yr}}^3\nu^2(2\pi)^6/24\pi^2}\, A_{\mathrm{red}}^{\beta=6}\, T_{\mathrm{span}}^{-1/2}$, and its analogue $\delta\ddot{\nu} \propto T_{\mathrm{span}}^{-3/2}$ for a random walk in $\nu$ ($\beta \approx 4$). Comparing this predicted spread with the uncertainty returned by the inference engine shows that the $1/T_{\mathrm{span}}$ cutoff underestimates $\ddot{\nu}$ errors by a median factor of 2.59, while the $1/(2T_{\mathrm{span}})$ model tracks the expected variance; the same comparison yields the condition $\delta n < 1$ that separates measurable braking indices from noise-dominated ones. For the glitch half of the paper, the central object is a hidden Markov model over discretised $(\nu, \dot{\nu})$ states, whose transition matrix encodes one of two random-walk noise models (RWF0 for $\beta \approx 4$, RWF1 for $\beta \approx 6$) and whose log-Bayes-factor maps flag glitch candidates.

What would settle it

Take any pulsar in this sample with $\beta \approx 6$ and a reported non-zero $\ddot{\nu}$, extend its timing baseline several-fold, and check whether the posterior uncertainty on $\ddot{\nu}$ grows as $T_{\mathrm{span}}^{-1/2}$ as predicted by equation (20) and whether the recovered noise spectrum remains a single power law below $1/T_{\mathrm{span}}$. A measured low-frequency turnover or mean reversion in the noise spectrum, or a $\ddot{\nu}$ that stays stable and non-zero as the baseline grows, would falsify the noise-dominated interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that most reported 'anomalous' braking indices — values of $n = \nu\ddot{\nu}/\dot{\nu}^2$ orders of magnitude outside the canonical range $1 \lesssim n_{\mathrm{pl}} \lesssim 7$ — are artifacts of timing noise that the standard noise model fails to absorb. In the standard model (TNF2), timing noise is a sum of sinusoids with lowest frequency $1/T_{\mathrm{span}}$; in the alternative model (TNLONGF2), modes down to $1/(2T_{\mathrm{span}})$ are always present. The inferred uncertainty on $\ddot{\nu}$ differs by about a factor of three between the two models, and the number of pulsars with $\ddot{\nu} \neq 0$ at 95% confidence drops from 39 to 17 when the standard model is discarded. Requiring the alternative model to beat a model with $\ddot{\nu}$ fixed at zero by $\ln B > 5$ leaves exactly one detection, the Crab pulsar, whose measured $n = 2.54 \pm 0.03$ matches its interglitch braking index. The paper also derives explicit analytic conditions, in terms of the noise amplitude $A_{\mathrm{red}}$, spectral index $\beta$, spin frequency, first derivative, and observing span, for when timing noise alone is expected to produce $|n| \gg 1$, and shows that all but two pulsars in the sample satisfy them.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that timing noise is a pure power-law random walk with no mean reversion on timescales comparable to the observing span; if the true noise spectrum bends over or reverts to a mean at low frequencies, the predicted spread in $\ddot{\nu}$ and the conclusion that nearly all anomalous braking indices are timing-noise artifacts would both be wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any reported $\ddot{\nu}$ detection from a fit that drops low-frequency noise modes must be re-checked: the $1/T_{\mathrm{span}}$ cutoff underestimates the $\ddot{\nu}$ uncertainty by a typical factor of about three for pulsars with $\beta \approx 6$.
  • Pulsars whose timing noise behaves like a random walk in $\dot{\nu}$ will need median baselines of about $4 \times 10^7$ yr before a canonical braking index can outlive the noise, while random-walk-in-$\nu$ pulsars need only about 280 yr.
  • The Crab pulsar's braking index $n = 2.54 \pm 0.03$ is the sample's only surviving measurement and agrees with its interglitch value.
  • The recovered timing-noise parameters $A_{\mathrm{red}}$ and $\beta$ do not shift systematically when the data set is extended or the inference pipeline is changed, supporting power-law noise modelling over the probed frequency range.
  • The hidden Markov model pipeline places a mean 90% upper limit of $\Delta\nu^{90\%}/\nu = 6.3 \times 10^{-9}$ on undetected glitches across the sample, an order of magnitude tighter than the online glitch search.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Timing-noise model selection of this kind should routinely include a second noise model that always retains the lowest Fourier mode; pulsar timing arrays searching for a gravitational-wave background face the same degeneracy between low-frequency noise and a low-frequency signal.
  • A testable prediction follows from the two scalings: pulsars with $\beta \approx 4$ should settle onto a stable $\ddot{\nu}$ as baselines grow over decades, while $\beta \approx 6$ pulsars should keep re-drawing their apparent $\ddot{\nu}$, a distinction future long-baseline timing can check.
  • Treating pre-baseline glitch recovery as one possible origin of residual $\ddot{\nu}$, the sample's own glitch amplitudes could be combined with the $\delta\ddot{\nu}$ scalings to estimate how many of the 17 surviving detections are recovered glitches rather than secular braking.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents the first scientific results from the UTMOST-NS pulsar timing programme, which monitored 173 pulsars at high cadence from April 2021 to June 2023, combined with earlier UTMOST-EW data. The authors use enterprise with a power-law red-noise model and nested sampling to estimate timing noise parameters, investigate correlations between timing noise strength and spin parameters, and study second frequency derivatives. They report 39 pulsars with 95% credible intervals excluding zero for ddot nu under the per-pulsar preferred model, find that this number drops to 17 when a low-frequency cutoff 1/(2Tspan) is imposed, and that only the Crab pulsar survives a further Bayes-factor test against a model with ddot nu fixed to zero. They also derive analytic conditions for when timing noise should produce anomalous braking indices. The glitch analysis uses an HMM detector: three online detections, a newly reported glitch in PSR J1902+0615, 17 glitches analysed with enterprise, and systematic upper limits on undetected glitch sizes with mean Delta nu^90/nu = 6.3e-9 offline.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper is significant for two reasons. First, it provides a high-cadence, multi-year timing dataset from a newly refurbished instrument and gives the community a transparent Bayesian treatment of timing noise and ddot nu, including a demonstration that the low-frequency cutoff of the red-noise model changes the inferred uncertainty on ddot nu by roughly a factor of three and that most 95% detections of ddot nu do not survive a stricter model comparison. Second, the systematic HMM-based glitch upper limits, with the full injection procedure described, are a useful and falsifiable product for population studies. The paper is commendably explicit about its model assumptions and about the ambiguity of the surviving ddot nu detections. The main caveat is that the quantitative ddot-nu conclusions rest on a pure power-law, no-mean-reversion timing-noise model; the paper should either test that assumption or qualify the headline claims accordingly.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.1 (Eqs. 14–16; footnote 3)] The derivation of delta ddot nu assumes that timing noise is a pure random walk in nu_dot with no mean reversion on timescales comparable to Tspan, and the fitted power-law PSD is taken to extend to arbitrarily low frequency. This assumption is load-bearing for the three-fold cutoff claim and for the model comparison in §5.3: the median delta ddot nu / Delta ddot nu values (2.59 for TNF2 versus 0.91 for TNLONGF2) and the conclusion that only the Crab survives a strict Bayes-factor test would be altered if the true PSD turns over or mean-reverts below 1/Tspan. The consistency checks in §4.2 only probe frequencies at or above 1/Tspan and therefore do not constrain this regime. I request a robustness test with a low-frequency turnover or a mean-reverting model (e.g., the OU model in Vargas & Melatos 2023), or with injections, and the abstract and conclusion should be conditioned on the pure-power-law assumption.
  2. [Abstract; §5.1–5.2] The paper says the analytic scaling is 'validated', but the validation is not external: delta ddot nu is computed from the same A_red and beta fitted to the same datasets, and the comparison with the enterprise uncertainties is an internal consistency check of the power-law noise model. Equations (24)–(27) and Table 5 follow from the same model rather than being tested against independent data. I recommend relabelling this as a self-consistency check, or adding an independent test such as posterior predictive simulations, before the word 'validated' is used in the abstract and conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §5.3] The sentence 'We measure 39 non-zero values of ddot nu when considering both models with and without low-frequency modes' is ambiguous, because Table 4 reports detections under the per-pulsar selected model while Table 6 reports the 17 that survive the TNLONGF2-only analysis; please state explicitly that 39 is the union over the two model choices.
  2. [§5.1] For the |beta-4| case the text reports 'the mean delta ddot nu / Delta ddot nu in our sample is 0.50 and 0.40', whereas the |beta-6| results are quoted as medians; please specify which statistic is used in each case.
  3. [Table 4] Several rows in Table 4 have malformed uncertainty formatting, notably J1605-5257 ('8.4+7.4 -7.1 x 10^4') and J1703-3241 ('8.2+2.5 -.3 x 10^-27'); these should be corrected to match the convention used elsewhere.
  4. [§6.2.2] The RWF0 model approximates away the correlation between nu and nu_dot (Eqs. 35–37) to avoid a singular covariance matrix; the paper should state whether this approximation is conservative for glitch detection and, if possible, quantify its effect with injected signals.
  5. [§4.2] The sentence concluding that the PSD 'makes good sense' to model as a simple power law should include the qualifier 'over the frequencies probed by our datasets' in the same sentence, since the text immediately acknowledges that lower-frequency behaviour is not tested.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the \ddot{\nu} results are empirical fits and Bayesian model comparisons, and the analytic \delta\ddot{\nu} scaling is a transparent internal-consistency estimate, not a load-bearing first-principles prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims about \ddot{\nu} are obtained from enterprise fits with two low-frequency cutoffs and from Bayes-factor model comparisons (TNF2, TNLONGF2, TNLONG). These are empirical, data-driven results, not derivations from the noise model alone. The analytic scaling in Section 5.1 is derived from the same power-law PSD (Eq. 3) with A_red and beta fitted by enterprise, so the comparison of \delta\ddot{\nu} to \Delta\ddot{\nu} is an internal consistency check rather than an independent prediction; however, the ratio is not fixed by construction and could have come out differently, and the conclusion that only the Crab pulsar retains a significant \ddot{\nu} is independently supported by the TNLONG-vs-TNLONGF2 Bayes factor. The assumed no-mean-reversion limit (footnote 3, citing Vargas & Melatos 2023) is an explicitly stated modelling assumption, not a self-citation used to forbid alternatives. Glitch detections, glitch parameters, and upper limits are validated against external catalogues and prior independent measurements (JBO catalogue, Lyne et al. 2015, Zubieta et al. 2024, etc.), so those parts are self-contained. Self-citations to Melatos et al. (2020), Dunn et al. (2022a), and Vargas & Melatos (2023) are citations to methods and models with stated assumptions, not to a uniqueness theorem or an unverified premise. No step in the claimed derivation chain reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results inherit the standard power-law timing noise model and the per-pulsar fitted parameters A_red and beta. This creates a mild circularity when the same parameters are used to 'validate' the analytic scaling and to predict the spread of second frequency derivatives. The glitch results are more independent, relying on HMM grids and injection studies.

free parameters (4)
  • C, a, b, gamma in chi_RN power-law scaling (Section 4.1) = log10 C = -2.6 +2.5/-2.2; a = -0.85 +0.38/-0.35; b = 0.56 ± 0.16; gamma = 1.2 ± 0.8
    Fitted to sigma_RN values computed from enterprise A_red and beta; these exponents are used to claim sigma_RN scales as nu^a |nu_dot|^b f_low^-gamma.
  • C, a, b in chi_RN with gamma fixed to (beta-1)/2 = log10 C = -5.0 +2.0/-1.6; a = -0.49 +0.31/-0.32; b = 0.47 ± 0.13
    Second fit in Section 4.1, using the mean beta to set the timespan scaling; used to argue the theoretically expected form reduces scatter.
  • Per-pulsar timing noise amplitude A_red and spectral index beta = Varies by pulsar; log10 A_red roughly -13 to -8.5, beta roughly 2.8 to 9.1 (Tables 4 and 6)
    Inferred by enterprise from each pulsar's ToAs; these drive sigma_RN, delta_nu_dotdot, delta_n, and the HMM timing noise amplitudes.
  • HMM domain of interest and noise strength parameters = Online: nu± = 1e-6 Hz, eps_nu = 1e-8 Hz, nu_dot± = 2e-14 Hz/s, eps_nu_dot = 5e-16 Hz/s, sigma_nu_dot = max(eps_nu_dot…
    Hand-set per pulsar; determine glitch detection sensitivity and the quoted upper limits.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Timing noise PSD is a single power law P(f) = A_red^2/(12 pi^2 f_yr^3) (f/f_yr)^-beta with cutoff at 1/T_span or 1/(2T_span).
    Used in Section 3.1 and throughout; the cutoff sensitivity result directly compares these two choices.
  • domain assumption No mean reversion in the stochastic driving on timescales comparable to the observing span.
    Invoked in Section 5.1 (equations 14-16) to derive delta_nu_dotdot; if mean reversion matters, the predicted spread is wrong.
  • domain assumption Chromatic noise (DM and scattering) is negligible or covariant with the red noise model.
    Section 3.1 states chromatic processes are not modeled; the small fractional bandwidth makes them covariant with achromatic red noise.
  • ad hoc to paper Model selection thresholds (ln B = 5 for timing noise models, sigma_RN > 3 sigma_ToA for significance) are appropriate.
    Section 3.2 and Section 4; these thresholds determine which pulsars are classified as having significant timing noise and which nu_dotdot measurements are reported.
  • domain assumption Glitch phase model with permanent steps and a single exponential decay component adequately represents the data.
    Equation (1); multiple decay components are not searched, and unmodeled recovery could bias glitch parameters.
  • ad hoc to paper For the RWF0 HMM model, the correlation between nu and nu_dot is neglected to avoid a singular covariance matrix.
    Section 6.2.2; this approximation could affect glitch detection for beta ~ 4 pulsars.
  • standard math Wiener-Khinchin theorem and the Langevin-to-PSD mapping are used to convert noise amplitudes into expected phase residuals.
    Section 5.1 and Appendix B; standard results, no new math.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First results from the UTMOST-NS pulsar timing programme." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QGJXLZ3R

@misc{pith2026250622697,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First results from the UTMOST-NS pulsar timing programme},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QGJXLZ3R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22697}
}
abstract

The UTMOST-NS pulsar timing programme operated at the Molonglo Observatory Synthesis Telescope from April 2021 to June 2023, observing 173 pulsars with an average cadence of 50 pulsars per day. An overview of the programme is presented, detailing the hardware, software, and observing strategy. Pulsar timing results are discussed, focusing on timing noise and glitches. It is shown that the scaling of residuals due to timing noise with pulsar parameters and observing timespan is consistent with earlier studies, and that the recovered timing noise parameters remain consistent as the observing timespan is increased. Second frequency derivatives are investigated, and it is shown that the uncertainty on $\ddot{\nu}$ is sensitive to the frequency cutoff in the timing noise model, varying by three-fold approximately depending on whether Fourier modes with frequency lower than the reciprocal of the observing timespan are included. We measure 39 non-zero values of $\ddot{\nu}$ when considering both models with and without low-frequency modes. An analytic scaling relating anomalous braking indices to timing noise amplitude is also validated. Glitches in the sample are discussed, including three detected by an ``online'' glitch detection pipeline using a hidden Markov model (HMM). In total 17 glitches are discussed, one of which, in PSR J1902+0615, has not been reported elsewhere. An ``offline'' glitch search pipeline using the HMM framework is used to search for previously undetected glitches. Systematic upper limits are set on the size of undetected glitches. The mean upper limit is $\Delta\nu^{90\%}/\nu = 6.3 \times 10^{-9}$ at 90\% confidence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22697 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sky locations of the 173 pulsars observed in the UTMOST-NS survey, shown in RA in hours and DEC in degrees. The symbol size is proportional to mean flux density. Vertical grey zones show groupings of pulsars based on proximity in RA. A single black symbol in such a zone indicates a pulsar which can be timed daily; green/blue symbols show two pulsars which are timed on alternative days; green/blue/red shows pulsars t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Before (top row) and after (bottom row) example demonstrating successful RFI cleaning using xprof for the observation of PSR J1534−5334 taken at 2021-10-08-04:29:08, with the frequency-phase (left) and time-phase (middle) heatmaps, and the fully integrated pulse profile (right). Significant contamination from multiple cell network transmissions (825–830 and 840–845 MHz) is visible in the pre-cleaning plots, and larg… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Timing residuals from UTMOST-NS observations of the millisec￾ond pulsar PSR J2241−5236. The weighted rms is 3.2 𝜇s. of 𝜃®, Pr 𝜃® | 𝑡,® M  = L (𝑡® | 𝜃, ® M) Pr 𝜃®  Pr 𝑡® | M (4) as well as the model evidence, Pr 𝑡® | M = ∫ d𝜃®L (𝑡® | 𝜃, ® M) Pr 𝜃®  . (5) The model evidence is also denoted by Z. 3.2 Parameter inference and model selection To go from the pulsar timing framework described in the previous section… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of the differences in recovered timing noise parameters 𝐴red and 𝛽 for various combinations of methodology and dataset, as discussed in Section 4.2. The red stars in each panel indicate the locations of the means of the joint distributions of differences …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Histograms comparing the expected variation in the measured value of 𝜈¥ due to timing noise, 𝛿𝜈¥, against the uncertainty reported by enterprise, Δ𝜈¥. The results are divided into two cases depending on the estimated spectral index of the PSD, with |𝛽 − 6| < 1 in the t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of 𝑇span required to obtain 𝛿𝑛 < 1 [(equation 23)] using the TNLONGF2 model, for the cases where the spectral index of the timing noise PSD satisfies |𝛽 − 6| < 1 and |𝛽 − 4| < 1. The median required 𝑇span is 7.9 × 107 yr for |𝛽 − 6| < 1, much longer than t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: show heatmaps of the posterior distributions of the hidden states 𝜈 and 𝜈¤. The maximum a posteriori values are overlaid as red tracks, and the location of the glitch is indicated by the vertical dashed line. The jump in 𝜈 is clear, occurring around MJD 58590 with size…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of 90% confidence upper limits on fractional glitch size for the online (top) and offline (bottom) glitch searches described in Sections 6.3 and 6.4 (blue histograms), compared to the observed distribution of frac￾tional glitch sizes recorded in the JBO gl…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

139 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbott R., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac17ea , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...921...80A 921, 80

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac17ea 2021

  2. [2]

    Abbott R., et al., 2022a, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.022002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.105b2002A 105, 022002

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.022002

  3. [3]

    Abbott R., et al., 2022b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6ad0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...932..133A 932, 133

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6ad0

  4. [4]

    B., 2024, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies12010007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Galax..12....7A 12, 7

    Abolmasov P., Biryukov A., Popov S. B., 2024, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies12010007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Galax..12....7A 12, 7

    doi:10.3390/galaxies12010007 2024

  5. [5]

    A., Pines D., Anderson P

    Alpar M. A., Pines D., Anderson P. W., Shaham J., 1984, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/161616 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...276..325A 276, 325

    doi:10.1086/161616 1984

  6. [6]

    A., Nandkumar R., Pines D., 1986, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/164765 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...311..197A 311, 197

    Alpar M. A., Nandkumar R., Pines D., 1986, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/164765 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...311..197A 311, 197

    work page doi:10.1086/164765 1986

  7. [7]

    Antonelli M., Basu A., Haskell B., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad256 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.2813A 520, 2813

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad256 2023

  8. [8]

    D., Graber V., Palfreyman J., 2019a, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-019-0844-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NatAs...3.1143A 3, 1143

    Ashton G., Lasky P. D., Graber V., Palfreyman J., 2019a, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-019-0844-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NatAs...3.1143A 3, 1143

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0844-6

Show all 139 references
  1. [9]

    Ashton G., et al., 2019b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..241...27A 241, 27

    doi

  2. [10]

    Bailes M., et al., 2017, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia] 10.1017/pasa.2017.39 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASA...34...45B 34, e045

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    W., Melatos A., 2019, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.024034 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PhRvD.100b4034B 100, 024034

    Banagiri S., Sun L., Coughlin M. W., Melatos A., 2019, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.024034 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PhRvD.100b4034B 100, 024034

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Krishnakumar M

    Basu A., Joshi B. C., Krishnakumar M. A., Bhattacharya D., Nandi R., Bandhopadhay D., Char P., Manoharan P. K., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz3230 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.3182B 491, 3182

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    Basu A., et al., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab3336 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.4049B 510, 4049

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    D., Romani R

    Blandford R. D., Romani R. W., 1988, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/234.1.57P , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988MNRAS.234P..57B 234, 57P

    1988 doi

  7. [15]

    E., Groth E

    Boynton P. E., Groth E. J., Hutchinson D. P., Nanos G. P. J., Partridge R. B., Wilkinson D. T., 1972, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/151550 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...175..217B 175, 217

    1972 doi

  8. [16]

    N., et al., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.4421C 457, 4421

    Caballero R. N., et al., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.4421C 457, 4421

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Halpern J

    Camilo F., Ransom S. M., Halpern J. P., Reynolds J., Helfand D. J., Zimmerman N., Sarkissian J., 2006, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature04986 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Natur.442..892C 442, 892

    2006 doi

  10. [18]

    B., Melatos A., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz2014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.4890C 488, 4890

    Carlin J. B., Melatos A., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz2014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.4890C 488, 4890

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    B., Melatos A., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa935 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.3383C 494, 3383

    Carlin J. B., Melatos A., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa935 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.3383C 494, 3383

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    B., Melatos A., Vukcevic D., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty2865 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.3736C 482, 3736

    Carlin J. B., Melatos A., Vukcevic D., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty2865 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.3736C 482, 3736

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Chamel N., 2017, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/s12036-017-9470-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JApA...38...43C 38, 43

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    E., Chidi Odo F., 2016, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/16/10/150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016RAA....16..150C 16, 150

    Chukwude A. E., Chidi Odo F., 2016, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/16/10/150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016RAA....16..150C 16, 150

    2016 doi

  15. [24]

    M., Downs G

    Cordes J. M., Downs G. S., 1985, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/191076 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJS...59..343C 59, 343

    1985 doi

  16. [25]

    M., Helfand D

    Cordes J. M., Helfand D. J., 1980, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/158150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...239..640C 239, 640

    1980 doi

  17. [26]

    M., Hamilton P

    D'Alessandro F., McCulloch P. M., Hamilton P. A., Deshpande A. A., 1995, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/277.3.1033 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.277.1033D 277, 1033

    1995 doi

  18. [27]

    J., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...896..140D 896, 140

    Dang S. J., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...896..140D 896, 140

    2020 doi

  19. [28]

    K., 2022, PhD thesis, Swinburne University of Technology

    Day C. K., 2022, PhD thesis, Swinburne University of Technology

    2022

  20. [29]

    Deller A., Flynn C., 2020, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-1046-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4..292D 4, 292

    2020 doi

  21. [30]

    J., Cordes J

    Dewey R. J., Cordes J. M., 1989, in \"O gelman H., van den Heuvel E. P. J., eds, NATO Advanced Study Institute (ASI) Series C Vol. 262, Timing Neutron Stars. p. 119, @doi 10.1007/978-94-009-2273-0_7

    1989 doi

  22. [31]

    G., McCulloch P

    Dodson R. G., McCulloch P. M., Lewis D. R., 2002, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/339068 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...564L..85D 564, L85

    2002 doi

  23. [32]

    E., Melatos A., 2021a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab1097 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.3399D 504, 3399

    Dunn L., Lower M. E., Melatos A., 2021a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab1097 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.3399D 504, 3399

    doi

  24. [33]

    Dunn L., et al., 2021b, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ATel14807....1D 14807, 1

  25. [34]

    Dunn L., et al., 2022a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac551 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.1469D 512, 1469

    doi

  26. [35]

    Dunn L., et al., 2022b, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ATel15631....1D 15631, 1

  27. [36]

    Dunn L., Melatos A., Espinoza C. M., Antonopoulou D., Dodson R., 2023a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad1335 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.5469D 522, 5469

    doi

  28. [37]

    Dunn L., et al., 2023b, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ATel15839....1D 15839, 1

  29. [39]

    A., Vallisneri M., Taylor S

    Ellis J. A., Vallisneri M., Taylor S. R., Baker P. T., 2020, ENTERPRISE: Enhanced Numerical Toolbox Enabling a Robust PulsaR Inference SuitE , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.4059815

    2020 doi

  30. [41]

    M., Antonopoulou D., Stappers B

    Espinoza C. M., Antonopoulou D., Stappers B. W., Watts A., Lyne A. G., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu395 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440.2755E 440, 2755

    2014 doi

  31. [42]

    O., Urama J

    Eya I. O., Urama J. O., Chukwude A. E., 2019, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/19/6/89 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019RAA....19...89E 19, 089

    2019 doi

  32. [44]

    S., 1990, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/345416a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990Natur.345..416F 345, 416

    Flanagan C. S., 1990, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/345416a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990Natur.345..416F 345, 416

    1990 doi

  33. [45]

    R., Espinoza C

    Fuentes J. R., Espinoza C. M., Reisenegger A., Shaw B., Stappers B. W., Lyne A. G., 2017, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731519 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...608A.131F 608, A131

    2017 doi

  34. [46]

    R., Espinoza C

    Fuentes J. R., Espinoza C. M., Reisenegger A., 2019, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935939 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...630A.115F 630, A115

    2019 doi

  35. [47]

    C., Hill A

    Garthwaite M. C., Hill A. R., Yates S., Twilley B., 2013, Technical report, Geodetic survey of the Molonglo Radio Observatory, https://ecat.ga.gov.au/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/75653 . Canberra Geoscience Australia, https://ecat.ga.gov.au/geonetwork/srv/eng/ca...

    2013

  36. [48]

    Goncharov B., Zhu X.-J., Thrane E., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa2081 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.3264G 497, 3264

    2020 doi

  37. [49]

    Goncharov B., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa3411 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502..478G 502, 478

    2021 doi

  38. [50]

    C., Arumugam P., 2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ATel15629....1G 15629, 1

    Grover H., Singha J., Joshi B. C., Arumugam P., 2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ATel15629....1G 15629, 1

    2022

  39. [51]

    Grover H., et al., 2023, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ATel15851....1G 15851, 1

    2023

  40. [52]

    Y., Yuan J

    G \"u gercino g lu E., Ge M. Y., Yuan J. P., Zhou S. Q., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac026 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511..425G 511, 425

    2022 doi

  41. [53]

    Haskell B., Melatos A., 2015, @doi [International Journal of Modern Physics D] 10.1142/S0218271815300086 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015IJMPD..2430008H 24, 1530008

    2015 doi

  42. [54]

    I., Rea N., Vida \ n a I., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol

    Haskell B., Sedrakian A., 2018, in Rezzolla L., Pizzochero P., Jones D. I., Rea N., Vida \ n a I., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 457, Astrophysics and Space Science Library. p. 401 ( @eprint arXiv 1709.10340 ), @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-97616-7_8

    2018 arXiv

  43. [55]

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

    1982

  44. [56]

    Ho W. C. G., et al., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa2640 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.4605H 498, 4605

    2020 doi

  45. [57]

    G., Kramer M., Martin C

    Hobbs G., Lyne A. G., Kramer M., Martin C. E., Jordan C., 2004, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08157.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.353.1311H 353, 1311

    2004

  46. [58]

    B., Edwards R

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

    2006

  47. [59]

    G., Kramer M., 2010, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15938.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.402.1027H 402, 1027

    Hobbs G., Lyne A. G., Kramer M., 2010, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15938.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.402.1027H 402, 1027

    2010

  48. [60]

    W., van Straten W., Manchester R

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

    2004 doi

  49. [61]

    Jankowski F., et al., 2015, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ATel.8298....1J 8298, 1

    2015

  50. [62]

    Jankowski F., et al., 2016, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ATel.9054....1J 9054, 1

    2016

  51. [63]

    Jankowski F., et al., 2017, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ATel10770....1J 10770, 1

    2017

  52. [64]

    F., Bailes M., Barr E

    Jankowski F., van Straten W., Keane E. F., Bailes M., Barr E. D., Johnston S., Kerr M., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx2476 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.4436J 473, 4436

    2018 doi

  53. [65]

    Jankowski F., et al., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty3390 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.3691J 484, 3691

    2019 doi

  54. [66]

    J., Nanograv Collaboration Chime/Pulsar Collaboration 2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ATel15223....1J 15223, 1

    Jennings R. J., Nanograv Collaboration Chime/Pulsar Collaboration 2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ATel15223....1J 15223, 1

    2022

  55. [67]

    Johnston S., Galloway D., 1999, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02737.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.306L..50J 306, L50

    1999

  56. [68]

    Johnston S., et al., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa516 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.3608J 493, 3608

    2020 doi

  57. [69]

    B., 1990, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990MNRAS.246..364J 246, 364

    Jones P. B., 1990, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990MNRAS.246..364J 246, 364

    1990

  58. [70]

    B., 1998, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01464.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.296..217J 296, 217

    Jones P. B., 1998, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01464.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.296..217J 296, 217

    1998

  59. [71]

    F., 2010, PhD thesis, University of Manchester, UK

    Keane E. F., 2010, PhD thesis, University of Manchester, UK

    2010

  60. [72]

    J., Ni t u I

    Keith M. J., Ni t u I. C., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad1713 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.4603K 523, 4603

    2023 doi

  61. [73]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae937 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.1581K 530, 1581

    Keith M. J., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae937 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.1581K 530, 1581

    2024 doi

  62. [74]

    D., Melatos A., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac1351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.1628K 514, 1628

    Kerin A. D., Melatos A., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac1351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.1628K 514, 1628

    2022 doi

  63. [75]

    Kerr M., 2019, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ATel12481....1K 12481, 1

    2019

  64. [76]

    Kumamoto H., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa3910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.4490K 501, 4490

    2021 doi

  65. [77]

    P., Taylor S., Gair J., Balan S

    Lentati L., Alexander P., Hobson M. P., Taylor S., Gair J., Balan S. T., van Haasteren R., 2013, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.104021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhRvD..87j4021L 87, 104021

    2013 doi

  66. [78]

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

    2010 doi

  67. [79]

    Levin L., et al., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz2074 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.5251L 488, 5251

    2019 doi

  68. [80]

    Li W., et al., 2023, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/acf1e1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023RAA....23j5014L 23, 105014

    2023 doi

  69. [81]

    K., Epstein R

    Link B. K., Epstein R. I., 1991, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/170078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...373..592L 373, 592

    1991 doi

  70. [82]

    I., 1996, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/176779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...457..844L 457, 844

    Link B., Epstein R. I., 1996, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/176779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...457..844L 457, 844

    1996 doi

  71. [83]

    Liu K., Verbiest J. P. W., Kramer M., Stappers B. W., van Straten W., Cordes J. M., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19452.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.417.2916L 417, 2916

    2011

  72. [84]

    arXiv:2312.04305

    Liu P., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2312.04305 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231204305L p. arXiv:2312.04305

    2023 doi arXiv

  73. [85]

    Liu Y., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae1499 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532..859L 532, 859

    2024 doi

  74. [86]

    G., et al., 2019, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ATel12482....1L 12482, 1

    Lopez Armengol F. G., et al., 2019, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ATel12482....1L 12482, 1

    2019

  75. [87]

    E., et al., 2018, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/aad7bc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018RNAAS...2..139L 2, 139

    Lower M. E., et al., 2018, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/aad7bc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018RNAAS...2..139L 2, 139

    2018 doi

  76. [88]

    E., et al., 2019, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/ab621d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019RNAAS...3..192L 3, 192

    Lower M. E., et al., 2019, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/ab621d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019RNAAS...3..192L 3, 192

    2019 doi

  77. [89]

    E., et al., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa615 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494..228L 494, 228

    Lower M. E., et al., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa615 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494..228L 494, 228

    2020 doi

  78. [90]

    E., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2678 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.3251L 508, 3251

    Lower M. E., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2678 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.3251L 508, 3251

    2021 doi

  79. [91]

    Lyne A., Graham-Smith F., 2012, Pulsar Astronomy

    2012

  80. [92]

    G., Shemar S

    Lyne A. G., Shemar S. L., Smith F. G., 2000, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03415.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.315..534L 315, 534

    2000

  81. [93]

    G., Jordan C

    Lyne A. G., Jordan C. A., Graham-Smith F., Espinoza C. M., Stappers B. W., Weltevrede P., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu2118 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446..857L 446, 857

    2015 doi

  82. [94]

    N., Hobbs G

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

    2005 doi

  83. [95]

    Mandlik A., 2024, PhD thesis, Swinburne University of Technology

    2024

  84. [96]

    Mandlik A., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae1309 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.2644M 532, 2644

    2024 doi

  85. [97]

    Maron O., Serylak M., Kijak J., Krzeszowski K., Mitra D., Jessner A., 2013, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220698 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...555A..28M 555, A28

    2013 doi

  86. [98]

    N., Taylor J

    Matsakis D. N., Taylor J. H., Eubanks T. M., 1997, Astronomy and Astrophysics, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...326..924M 326, 924

    1997

  87. [99]

    M., Klekociuk A

    McCulloch P. M., Klekociuk A. R., Hamilton P. A., Royle G. W. R., 1987, @doi [Australian Journal of Physics] 10.1071/PH870725 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987AuJPh..40..725M 40, 725

    1987 doi

  88. [100]

    M., Hamilton P

    McCulloch P. M., Hamilton P. A., McConnell D., King E. A., 1990, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/346822a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990Natur.346..822M 346, 822

    1990 doi

  89. [101]

    Melatos A., Link B., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt1828 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.437...21M 437, 21

    2014 doi

  90. [102]

    Melatos A., Peralta C., Wyithe J. S. B., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/523349 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...672.1103M 672, 1103

    2008 doi

  91. [103]

    Melatos A., Howitt G., Fulgenzi W., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad228 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863..196M 863, 196

    2018 doi

  92. [104]

    M., Suvorova S., Moran W., Evans R

    Melatos A., Dunn L. M., Suvorova S., Moran W., Evans R. J., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...896...78M 896, 78

    2020 doi

  93. [105]

    M., Melatos A., O'Neill N

    Meyers P. M., Melatos A., O'Neill N. J., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.3113M 502, 3113

    2021 doi

  94. [106]

    E., Wang Q

    Middleditch J., Marshall F. E., Wang Q. D., Gotthelf E. V., Zhang W., 2006, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/508736 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...652.1531M 652, 1531

    2006 doi

  95. [107]

    B., Dunn L., Ashton G., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac194 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.3304M 511, 3304

    Millhouse M., Melatos A., Howitt G., Carlin J. B., Dunn L., Ashton G., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac194 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.3304M 511, 3304

    2022 doi

  96. [108]

    B., Ingargiola A., 2014, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.11813

    Newville M., Stensitzki T., Allen D. B., Ingargiola A., 2014, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.11813

    2014 doi

  97. [109]

    Olney S., 2021, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ATel14808....1O 14808, 1

    2021

  98. [110]

    C., Legahara E., 2024, @doi [Astrophysics and Space Science] 10.1007/s10509-024-04317-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Ap&SS.369...51O 369, 51

    Onuchukwu C. C., Legahara E., 2024, @doi [Astrophysics and Space Science] 10.1007/s10509-024-04317-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Ap&SS.369...51O 369, 51

    2024 doi

  99. [111]

    M., Hotan A., Ellingsen S., van Straten W., 2018, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-018-0001-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.556..219P 556, 219

    Palfreyman J., Dickey J. M., Hotan A., Ellingsen S., van Straten W., 2018, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-018-0001-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.556..219P 556, 219

    2018 doi

  100. [112]

    Parthasarathy A., et al., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz2383 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.3810P 489, 3810

    2019 doi

  101. [113]

    Parthasarathy A., et al., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa882 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.2012P 494, 2012

    2020 doi

  102. [114]

    Peralta C., Melatos A., Giacobello M., Ooi A., 2006, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/507576 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...651.1079P 651, 1079

    2006 doi

  103. [115]

    A., Vigan \`o D., Geppert U., 2012, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220091 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...547A...9P 547, A9

    Pons J. A., Vigan \`o D., Geppert U., 2012, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220091 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...547A...9P 547, A9

    2012 doi

  104. [116]

    Rabiner L., 1989, @doi [Proceedings of the IEEE] 10.1109/5.18626 , 77, 257

    1989 doi

  105. [117]

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

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

    2023 doi

  106. [118]

    Riles K., 2023, @doi [Living Reviews in Relativity] 10.1007/s41114-023-00044-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023LRR....26....3R 26, 3

    2023 doi

  107. [119]

    Ruderman M., 1976, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/154069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...203..213R 203, 213

    1976 doi

  108. [120]

    M., Reynolds J

    Sarkissian J. M., Reynolds J. E., Hobbs G., Harvey-Smith L., 2017, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia] 10.1017/pasa.2017.19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASA...34...27S 34, e027

    2017 doi

  109. [121]

    Sarkissian J., Hobbs G., Reynolds J., Palfreyman J., Olney S., 2019, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ATel12466....1S 12466, 1

    2019

  110. [122]

    M., Cordes J

    Shannon R. M., Cordes J. M., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1607 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...725.1607S 725, 1607

    2010 doi

  111. [123]

    M., et al., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu1213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443.1463S 443, 1463

    Shannon R. M., et al., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu1213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443.1463S 443, 1463

    2014 doi

  112. [124]

    M., Lentati L

    Shannon R. M., Lentati L. T., Kerr M., Johnston S., Hobbs G., Manchester R. N., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw842 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.3104S 459, 3104

    2016 doi

  113. [125]

    B., Stappers B

    Shaw B., Mickaliger M. B., Stappers B. W., Lyne A. G., Keith M. J., Weltevrede P., Basu A., 2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ATel15622....1S 15622, 1

    2022

  114. [126]

    A., Joshi B

    Singha J., Basu A., Krishnakumar M. A., Joshi B. C., Arumugam P., 2021a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab1640 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.5488S 505, 5488

    doi

  115. [127]

    C., Arumugam P., Bandyopadhyay D., 2021b, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ATel14812....1S 14812, 1

    Singha J., Joshi B. C., Arumugam P., Bandyopadhyay D., 2021b, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ATel14812....1S 14812, 1

  116. [128]

    Sosa-Fiscella V., et al., 2021, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ATel14806....1S 14806, 1

    2021

  117. [129]

    S., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.3132S 493, 3132

    Speagle J. S., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.3132S 493, 3132

    2020 doi

  118. [130]

    J., 1991, IEEE Proceedings, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991IEEEP..79.1054T 79, 1054

    Taylor Joseph H. J., 1991, IEEE Proceedings, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991IEEEP..79.1054T 79, 1054

    1991

  119. [131]

    O., Link B., Weisberg J

    Urama J. O., Link B., Weisberg J. M., 2006, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00192.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.370L..76U 370, L76

    2006

  120. [132]

    Vallisneri M., 2020, libstempo: Python wrapper for Tempo2 , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2002.017

    2020

  121. [133]

    F., Melatos A., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad1301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.4880V 522, 4880

    Vargas A. F., Melatos A., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad1301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.4880V 522, 4880

    2023 doi

  122. [134]

    C., Lyne A

    Wong T., Backer D. C., Lyne A. G., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/318657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...548..447W 548, 447

    2001 doi

  123. [135]

    Xu H., et al., 2021, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ATel14642....1X 14642, 1

    2021

  124. [136]

    J., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx702 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.3031Y 468, 3031

    Yu M., Liu Q. J., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx702 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.3031Y 468, 3031

    2017 doi

  125. [137]

    Yu M., et al., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sts366 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429..688Y 429, 688

    2013 doi

  126. [138]

    P., Wang N., Manchester R

    Yuan J. P., Wang N., Manchester R. N., Liu Z. Y., 2010, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16272.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.404..289Y 404, 289

    2010

  127. [139]

    Zubieta E., et al., 2022a, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ATel15638....1Z 15638, 1

  128. [140]

    Zubieta E., Furlan S. B. A., Palacio S. d., Garcia F., Gancio G., Lousto C. O., Combi J. A., Combi L., 2022b, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ATel15838....1Z 15838, 1

  129. [141]

    Zubieta E., et al., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad723 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.4504Z 521, 4504

    2023 doi

  130. [142]

    B., Gancio G., Lousto C

    Zubieta E., Garcia F., del Palacio S., Araujo Furlan S. B., Gancio G., Lousto C. O., Combi J. A., Espinoza C. M., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2406.17099 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240617099Z p. arXiv:2406.17099

    2024 doi arXiv

  131. [143]

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

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.