Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

RRAT-like behaviour of PSR B0656+14 observed with I-LOFAR

T0 review · 3 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 This paper claims that the pulsar PSR B0656+14 emits at low radio frequencies in a highly variable, memory-less way that resembles rotating radio transients, with exponential wait times between pulses indicating a Poisson process.

desk verdict Solid single-source pulsar study with a few genuinely new numbers, but the Poisson/memory-less headline rests on 40 wait times from a 7-sigma-selected sample and is stronger than the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04518 v1 pith:W72HAGJP submitted 2025-07-06 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

S. C. Susarla , R. Ferguson , O. A. Johnson , L. Vincetti , D. J. McKenna , E. F. Keane , P. J. McCauley , A. Golden This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords single-pulsebehaviourpulsarrotatingradiotransientwait-timedistributionPoissonprocessspectralindexdispersionmeasurelow-frequencyobservations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to characterise the single-pulse emission of the young, nearby pulsar PSR B0656+14 at 110–190 MHz and claims that its low-frequency bursts are highly variable and memory-less, resembling rotating radio transients (RRATs). The central evidence is a five-hour observation in which 41 pulses were detected and the 40 wait times between consecutive pulses are well modelled by an exponential distribution, which the authors interpret as a Poisson process with no memory of previous emission. Supporting findings are a pulse-energy distribution that needs a combined log-normal and power-law model (51% / 49%, power-law index −2.44), single-pulse spectral indices with weighted mean −0.5 ± 1.3 and a spread of about 8.5, and an average profile whose correlation with the template reaches only 0.80 after about 47,500 rotations instead of following the usual 1/N trend. The paper also reports a dispersion measure of 14.053 ± 0.005 pc cm−3, the most precise to date. If the claim holds, survey-yield and population-synthesis models would need to account for pulsars whose bright pulses occur at random rather than in a fixed pattern.

What carries the argument

The central object is the wait-time distribution between consecutive single pulses, expressed in pulse periods, built from 41 pulses detected in a five-hour observation. An exponential fit to the 40 gaps, validated by a K-S test against normal, exponential, and log-normal models, is the mechanism that carries the Poisson/no-memory conclusion. Supporting machinery includes the correlation coefficient C between sub-integrated profiles and a high-S/N template as a function of the number of averaged pulses (best-fit power-law exponent −0.42 ± 0.03), and the noise-injected flux-density histogram fitted with combined log-normal and power-law components using Poisson log-likelihood and AIC/BIC comparison.

What would settle it

A more sensitive re-observation that catches pulses below the current 7-sigma threshold and finds an excess of very short wait times — or any periodic or phase-dependent structure in the wait-time histogram — would refute the memory-less Poisson description. Conversely, an independent high-frequency timing solution that changes the folding ephemeris and causes the profile-correlation curve to follow the usual 1/N trend would refute the slow-stability claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that PSR B0656+14 exhibits highly variable, memory-less emission at low frequencies, with characteristics that resemble those seen in some RRATs. Its strongest single piece of evidence is the wait-time distribution: in a five-hour I-LOFAR observation, 41 pulses were detected and the 40 consecutive gaps, measured in units of the 385 ms rotation period, are best fit by an exponential distribution (Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic 0.134, p = 0.42), which the authors take as the signature of a Poisson process. The paper further argues that this stochastic view is supported by a hybrid energy distribution (log-normal plus power-law with index −2.44), a broad single-pulse spectral-index distribution with mean −0.5 ± 1.3 and range from roughly −4 to +4, and a slowly converging average profile that reaches C = 0.80 only after more than 47,500 rotations. It also establishes a new reference DM of 14.053 ± 0.005 pc cm−3. The net claim is that this known pulsar is, at low radio frequencies, effectively an RRAT seen up close.

Load-bearing premise

The 41 pulses detected in the five-hour observation are an unbiased and complete sample of the bright-pulse train, so the 40 measured gaps are independent draws from a single stationary distribution; if the 7-sigma threshold, RFI masking, or varying sensitivity preferentially removes close-in-time or faint pulses, the exponential shape and the Poisson conclusion could be a selection artefact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The pulses of PSR B0656+14 at 110–190 MHz occur independently: the pulsar is not storing energy for a fixed number of rotations before emitting a bright burst.
  • Precision timing and solar-wind DM studies using this pulsar at LOFAR frequencies are impractical, since the profile only reaches C = 0.80 after about 47,500 rotations and the DM precision remains an order of magnitude worse than the expected solar-wind signal.
  • The hybrid log-normal plus power-law energy distribution suggests a giant-pulse-like tail; more sensitive instruments such as SKA-Low or FAST with a VHF receiver should be able to distinguish RRAT-like from giant-pulse emission.
  • If such memory-less variability is widespread among pulsars, population synthesis models and survey yield predictions would need to incorporate it to remain accurate.
  • The new DM of 14.053 ± 0.005 pc cm−3 provides a precise low-frequency reference for this source, though it is still insufficient for ecliptic solar-wind measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The Poisson conclusion rests on one five-hour stretch; combining pulse times from the 24 shorter epochs would offer a cheap check of whether the process is stationary across months, though the sparse per-epoch counts limit such a test.
  • Lowering the detection threshold would discriminate between intrinsic Poisson emission and a selection artifact: if faint pulses preferentially fill the short-wait-time bins, the exponential distribution would acquire an excess at small gaps.
  • A wrong folding ephemeris could mimic the slow profile convergence reported in Section 3.4; simultaneous high-frequency timing observations could test whether the C = 0.80 plateau is intrinsic or an artifact of smearing.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a low-frequency (110–190 MHz) single-pulse study of PSR B0656+14 using I-LOFAR data from 24 epochs plus a dedicated 5-hour observation. The authors report a precise DM of 14.053 ± 0.005 pc cm⁻³, a hybrid log-normal plus power-law pulse energy distribution, a broad single-pulse spectral index distribution with mean −0.5 ± 1.3, and a slow profile-stability convergence requiring over 47,500 pulses. The central interpretive claim, stated in the abstract and conclusions, is that the pulsar exhibits 'memory-less' emission resembling RRATs, based on an exponential distribution of 40 wait times between 41 detected pulses. The paper also discusses the pulsar's unsuitability for solar-wind DM studies.

Significance. The manuscript provides useful observational characterization of a nearby pulsar at low frequencies: the DM measurement improves precision by an order of magnitude over previous values, and the multi-epoch single-pulse sample is valuable for studying variability. The energy distribution and spectral-index spread are interesting, and the comparison with RRATs and giant-pulse emitters is a meaningful addition. However, the headline conclusion of a memory-less Poisson emission process rests on a small, threshold-selected sample of 40 wait times, and the analysis does not account for well-known selection effects that can make any rare bright-pulse process appear exponential. The flux-density fitting procedure also uses an unquantified ad hoc noise injection. If the Poisson claim is to be substantiated, additional tests are required; as it stands, the central claim overreaches the evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 3.3, Fig. 5, Table 2] The 40 wait times from 41 pulses detected at a 7σ threshold cannot, by themselves, establish a memory-less Poisson process. With N=40, the K-S test (p=0.42 for exponential) merely fails to reject the exponential model; it has little power against Weibull, gamma, or other alternatives. More importantly, for any stationary stochastic process with mild mixing, the times between rare crossings of a high threshold asymptotically form a Poisson process (Poisson clumping of rare events). Thus an exponential wait-time distribution from a 7σ-selected sample is expected even if the underlying emission has memory, and it does not uniquely imply that 'each pulse occurs independently of the others.' The authors should add discriminating tests: e.g., repeat the analysis at a lower detection threshold, compute the autocorrelation of intervals or pulse energies, perform a split-half consistency check, or compare the data against a simulated memoryful clustered process. They should also address censoring by RFI masks and variable telescope gain, which can bias the inter-pulse intervals. Until such tests are provided, the conclusion of a Poisson/memoryless mechanism is unsupported.
  2. [Sect. 3.2, Eq. (1), Fig. 4] The flux density distribution is built by adding a Gaussian random value with σ equal to 50% of each measured flux density, and then fitting the resulting histogram. This noise injection is ad hoc: the 50% figure is asserted without justification, the convolution changes the shape of the distribution and therefore the log-likelihood values and the fitted mixture fractions (51% log-normal, 49% power-law) and power-law index (−2.44), and no seeds or multiple realizations are used to assess the stochasticity of the resulting histogram. The systematic effect of this convolution is not quantified. The authors should either fit the measured flux densities with an appropriate likelihood that accounts for known uncertainties, or justify the 50% value and demonstrate robustness of the fitted parameters to the choice of σ.
  3. [Sect. 3.2 vs. Conclusions] The text in Sect. 3.2 states that the substantial improvement of the combined model over the log-normal and power-law models 'indicates that the pulses in our sample may be more consistent with a giant pulse origin than with RRAT-like emission,' yet the abstract and conclusions state that the pulsar exhibits RRAT-like behaviour. These are contradictory interpretations of the same energy-distribution result. The authors should clarify which interpretation is supported by the energy distribution and how it relates to the title and abstract claims.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sect. 3.3, Fig. 5] The text in §3.3 says the 5-hour observation was on 13 March 2025 (MJD 60446), but the caption of Fig. 5 labels the observation as MJD 60747. Please resolve this inconsistency; MJD 60747 corresponds to a date in January 2026, which is likely a typo but should be corrected.
  2. [Abstract and Sect. 2.1] The abstract gives the observing band as 110–190 MHz, while §2.1 and the first paragraph of the Introduction also state 110–190 MHz, but §2.2 later says the final bandwidth was restricted to 112–190 MHz. Please make the numbers consistent.
  3. [Sect. 3.2] The reported log-likelihood for the log-normal model (log L = −1042.14) seems implausibly low for a 103-point data set with on the order of 10 histogram bins; please check the calculation and report the number of bins used.
  4. [Statements of profile stability] In §3.4, the correlation coefficient after 47,500 rotations is reported as 0.80, and the paper states that 'over 47500 pulse rotations were accumulated' in the 5-hour observation. With a period of 385 ms, 5 hours corresponds to about 46,753 rotations, so the number 47,500 should be double-checked against the exact integration time.
  5. [References and footnotes] Footnote 2 references 'Kuenkel 2017' but this item is not in the reference list; please add the full citation or URL. Also, the title uses 'B0656`14' in one place; this is likely a typo for 'B0656+14'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an observational analysis whose results are fitted to data; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the self-citations are methodological rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper derives no result from first principles and makes no prediction from a fitted quantity; every central claim (DM, wait-time distribution, flux-density mixture, spectral indices, profile stability) is a direct measurement or model fit to the observed single pulses. The exponential wait-time model in Sect. 3.3 is selected by comparing normal, exponential, and log-normal distributions against 40 observed wait times via a K-S test; it is not constructed from an input parameter that is then re-labeled as the output. The DM measurement uses the epoch-wise method of Susarla et al. (2025), a self-citation, but that method is a data-analysis pipeline and the resulting DM is an observational result, not an assumption that forces the later conclusions. The solar-wind estimate in Sect. 3.6 uses a model equation from Susarla et al. (2024), again a self-citation, but it is a secondary remark and does not support the main RRAT-like or Poisson claims. The profile-stability analysis compares sub-integrated profiles to a template derived from the same dataset; this is a standard correlation technique and is not an identity between input and output. The abstract's 'memory-less emission' conclusion is a statistical interpretation of an observed exponential distribution and is subject to the usual caveats about threshold selection and low sample size, but those are correctness or statistical-power concerns, not circularity. No equation in the paper reduces to itself, and no fitted parameter is presented as an independent prediction. Therefore the paper is self-contained as an observational study and receives a circularity score of 0.

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

The paper does not introduce new theoretical entities or forces. It interprets observations using standard pulsar physics. The free parameters listed are model parameters fitted to the observed distributions, not predictions. The main unverified inputs are the flux calibration (beam model, Tsky, 50% noise sigma) and the stability of the template, both adopted from prior work or internal assumptions.

free parameters (4)
  • Log-normal/power-law admixture fraction = 51% log-normal / 49% power-law
    Fitted to the flux density histogram of 103 pulses in Sect. 3.2; the ratio defines the hybrid model.
  • Power-law tail index (combined model) = -2.44
    Fitted power-law slope in the combined flux density model; the single power-law fit gives -2.00.
  • Profile stability power-law exponent = -0.42 +/- 0.03
    Exponent of (1-C) versus number of rotations fitted in Sect. 3.4.
  • Flux noise injection sigma = 50% of flux density
    Gaussian sigma adopted to model receiver noise following Kondratiev et al. (2016), used to generate the flux density histogram in Sect. 3.2.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The radiometer equation (Eq. 1) with the I-LOFAR Mueller matrix and Tsky model converts measured S/N to flux density correctly.
    All flux densities, energy distribution, and spectral indices depend on this calibration; the beam model is cited as 'Vincetti et al., in prep.'
  • domain assumption The template profile built from all observations is a faithful representation of the integrated emission.
    Used in Sect. 3.4 correlation analysis; if the template itself contains the variability under study, the inferred slow convergence is biased.
  • domain assumption The emission is stationary over the 5-hour observation, so wait times are exchangeable draws.
    Non-stationarity such as nulling or mode changing would invalidate the Poisson interpretation in Sect. 3.3.
  • domain assumption The reference DM of 14.053 pc cm^-3 and the search range 13.95-14.15 pc cm^-3 recover the true single-pulse DMs without systematic offset.
    Used in the DM_phase analysis in Sect. 3.1.2; a biased reference could shift all single-pulse DMs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RRAT-like behaviour of PSR B0656+14 observed with I-LOFAR." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W72HAGJP

@misc{pith2026250704518,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RRAT-like behaviour of PSR B0656+14 observed with I-LOFAR},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W72HAGJP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04518}
}
abstract

Single pulse studies offer vital insights into the emission physics of pulsars, particularly in the case of young, nearby sources where intrinsic variability is often pronounced. PSR~B0656+14, known for its sporadic and sometimes intense pulses, provides an excellent opportunity to investigate such behaviour at low radio frequencies. This study aims to characterize the single pulse behaviour of PSR~B0656+14 using low-frequency observations at 110-190 MHz from the Irish LOFAR station. Single-pulse extraction is performed, and individual pulse DMs are estimated to probe pulse-to-pulse dispersion variability. We also perform a wait-time analysis to understand the statistical nature of pulse occurrence, and estimate the spectral index from frequency-resolved flux density measurements. The pulse energy distribution is modelled using a combination of log-normal and power-law components. A total of 41 pulses were detected in a 5-hour observation, allowing a wait-time distribution analysis which is well-modelled by an exponential function, indicative of a Poisson process. Profile stability analysis indicates that a significant number of pulses are required to reach a stable average profile, unusual compared to many other pulsars. The single-pulse spectral index varies significantly from pulse to pulse, with a mean value of $\alpha = -0.5$ and a standard deviation of $\Delta\alpha=1.3$. The pulse energy distribution shows a hybrid behaviour, consistent of a log-normal distribution and a power-law tail. Our results confirm that PSR~B0656+14 exhibits highly variable, memory-less emission at low frequencies, with characteristics that resemble those seen in some rotating radio transients (RRATs). If such variability proves to be widespread among pulsars, population synthesis models and survey yield predictions would need to incorporate this currently overlooked feature to ensure accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04518 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Waterfall plot of all the single pulses from 24 epochs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. DM variation of PSR B0656+14 as a function of MJD. Each DM value corresponds to a single observing epoch, de￾rived using the epoch-wise method. A nominal DM of 14.053 pc cm´3 has been subtracted from all the values. The circle sizes are representative of the S/N of the observation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. DM of the single pulses obtained using DM_ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Noise incorporated flux density distribution of all the 103 pulses. The black line is the normalized histogram of the flux [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Wait time distribution of the single pulses observed on MJD 60747. The abscissa is the wait time between subsequent pulses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cross-correlation factor plotted as (1–C) on the y-axis, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Figure showing the distribution of spectral indices and S [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Pleunis, Z., & Hessels, J

    Bassa, C. G., Pleunis, Z., & Hessels, J. W. T. 2017, Astronomy and Computing, 18, 40

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    F., Thorsett, S

    Brisken, W. F., Thorsett, S. E., Golden, A., & Goss, W. M. 2003, ApJ, 593, L89

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    R., Karastergiou, A., & Johnston, S

    Brook, P. R., Karastergiou, A., & Johnston, S. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5702

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    M., Romani, R

    Cordes, J. M., Romani, R. W., & Lundgren, S. C. 1993, Nature, 362, 133

    work page 1993

  5. [5]

    Y ., et al., Tiburzi, C., Osłowski, S

    Donner, J. Y ., et al., Tiburzi, C., Osłowski, S. 2020, A&A, 644, A153

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    K., Kassim, N

    Dowell, J., et al., Schinzel, F. K., Kassim, N. E. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4537

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    & Diaconis, P

    Freedman, D. & Diaconis, P. 1981, Zeitschrift fuer Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie Werwandte Gebiete, 57, 453

    work page 1981

  8. [8]

    2011, Mathematical-Physical Analysis of the Generic Dual-Dipole

    Hamaker, J. 2011, Mathematical-Physical Analysis of the Generic Dual-Dipole

    work page 2011

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    J., Manchester, R

    Helfand, D. J., Manchester, R. N., & Taylor, J. H. 1975, ApJ, 198, 661

    1975

  2. [10]

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

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

    2004

  3. [11]

    Iraci, F., et al., Tiburzi, C., Verbiest, J. P. W. 2024, A&A, 692, A170

    2024

  4. [12]

    W., & van Straten, W

    Karuppusamy, R., Stappers, B. W., & van Straten, W. 2010, A&A, 515, A36

    2010

  5. [13]

    Keane, E. F. 2018, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 337, Pulsar Astrophysics the Next Fifty Years, ed. P. Weltevrede, B. B. P. Perera, L. L. Preston, & S. Sanidas, 158–164

    2018

  6. [14]

    Keane, E. F. & McLaughlin, M. A. 2011, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 39, 333

    2011

  7. [15]

    I., et al., Hessels, J

    Kondratiev, V . I., et al., Hessels, J. W. T., Bilous, A. V . 2016, A&A, 585, A128

    2016

  8. [16]

    2003, A&A, 407, 655

    Kramer, M., et al., Gupta, Y ., Johnston, S. 2003, A&A, 407, 655

    2003

  9. [17]

    Kulkarni, S. R. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2007.02886

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Lazarus, P., et al., Graikou, E., Caballero, R. N. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 868

    2016

  11. [19]

    J., Kramer, M

    Liu, K., et al., Lee, K. J., Kramer, M. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 361

    2012

  12. [20]

    Lorimer, D. R. 2011, SIGPROC: Pulsar Signal Processing Programs, Astro- physics Source Code Library, record ascl:1107.016

    2011

  13. [21]

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

    2004

  14. [22]

    R., Yates, J

    Lorimer, D. R., Yates, J. A., Lyne, A. G., & Gould, D. M. 1995, MNRAS, 273, 411

    1995

  15. [23]

    N., Hobbs, G

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, AJ, 129, 1993

    2005

  16. [24]

    N., et al., Taylor, J

    Manchester, R. N., et al., Taylor, J. H., Durdin, J. M. 1978, MNRAS, 185, 409

    1978

  17. [25]

    W., et al., Bassa, C

    McKee, J. W., et al., Bassa, C. G., Chen, S. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4784

    2019

  18. [26]

    J., Keane, E

    McKenna, D. J., Keane, E. F., Gallagher, P. T., & McCauley, J. 2023, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2309.03228

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    J., Keane, E

    McKenna, D. J., Keane, E. F., Gallagher, P. T., & McCauley, J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 4397

    2024

  20. [28]

    A., et al., Lorimer, D

    McLaughlin, M. A., et al., Lorimer, D. R., Kramer, M. 2006, Nature, 439, 817

    2006

  21. [29]

    & Barr, E

    Men, Y . & Barr, E. 2024, A&A, 683, A183

    2024

  22. [30]

    Mills, B. Y . 1981, PASA, 4, 156

    1981

  23. [31]

    1943, The polarization optics of the photoelectric shutter, Tech

    Mueller, H. 1943, The polarization optics of the photoelectric shutter, Tech. rep., United States: Office of Scientific Research and Development, National De- fense Research Committee, Division 16—Optics and Camouflage, 11-15

    1943

  24. [32]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 1610

    Petroff, E., et al., Johnston, S., van Straten, W. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1610

    2013

  25. [33]

    2011, PRESTO: PulsaR Exploration and Search TOolkit, Astro- physics Source Code Library, record ascl:1107.017

    Ransom, S. 2011, PRESTO: PulsaR Exploration and Search TOolkit, Astro- physics Source Code Library, record ascl:1107.017

    2011

  26. [34]

    & Rankin, J

    Rathnasree, N. & Rankin, J. M. 1995, ApJ, 452, 814

    1995

  27. [35]

    2019, DM_phase: Algorithm for cor- recting dispersion of radio signals, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1910.004

    Seymour, A., Michilli, D., & Pleunis, Z. 2019, DM_phase: Algorithm for cor- recting dispersion of radio signals, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1910.004

    2019

  28. [36]

    J., McLaughlin, M

    Shapiro-Albert, B. J., McLaughlin, M. A., & Keane, E. F. 2018, ApJ, 866, 152

    2018

  29. [37]

    Shaw, B., et al., Weltevrede, P., Brook, P. R. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5861

    2022

  30. [38]

    C., et al., Tiburzi, C., Keane, E

    Susarla, S. C., et al., Tiburzi, C., Keane, E. F. 2024, A&A, 692, A18

    2024

  31. [39]

    C., et al., McKenna, D

    Susarla, S. C., et al., McKenna, D. J., Keane, E. F. 2025 [arXiv:2505.09549]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

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

    1992

  33. [41]

    G., Zucca, P

    Tiburzi, C., et al., Bassa, C. G., Zucca, P. 2021, A&A, 647, A84 van Haarlem, M. P., et al., Gunst, A. W., Heald, G. 2013, A&A, 556, A2 van Straten, W. & Bailes, M. 2011, PASA, 28, 1 van Straten, W., Demorest, P., & Oslowski, S. 2012, Astronomical Research and Technology, 9, 237

    2021

  34. [42]

    F., et al., Xu, J., Wang, C

    Wang, P. F., et al., Xu, J., Wang, C. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astro- physics, 23, 104002

    2023

  35. [43]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 070

    Yu, J.-L., Yue, Y .-L., & Li, J.-B. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 070

    2020

  36. [44]

    B., et al., Wang, J

    Zhang, S. B., et al., Wang, J. S., Yang, X. 2024, ApJ, 972, 59

    2024

  37. [45]

    F., & Hakobyan, H

    Zhong, Y ., Spitkovsky, A., Mahlmann, J. F., & Hakobyan, H. 2024, The Astro- physical Journal, 973, 147 Article number, page 8 of 8

    2024

Pith tools

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