Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Emission properties of 5 pulsars in the death-valley and implications on death line models

T0 review · 5 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 Most pulsars in the death valley have multi-component profiles, contradicting single-spark death models.

desk verdict Solid new observations of death-valley pulsars, but the claim that the majority falsifies single-spark death models rests on an unproven component-to-spark mapping. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10374 v1 pith:ED2H6ZTU submitted 2025-07-14 astro-ph.HE

S. Singh , J. Roy , B. Bhattacharyya This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords pulsardeathlinesinglesparkmodelpolarcapsparksvalleyvoltagegapradioemissionprofilecomponentscomplexityparameter
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 tests a prediction of the two leading voltage-gap models of pulsar death: that a pulsar on the verge of dying keeps only a single spark on its polar cap, and therefore shows a single-component radio profile with no subpulse drifting or mode changing. The authors observed five long-period pulsars lying near the lower boundary of the $P$--$\dot P$ plane and found that all five show multi-component profiles at some frequency, and that two of them exhibit subpulse drifting and one shows mode changing. Collecting folded profiles for a total of 28 pulsars in the single-spark death valley, they found that 19, about 68 percent, have multi-component profiles while only 9 are consistent with a single component. The authors caution that the nine single-component candidates need multi-frequency and polarization follow-up before being accepted as truly single-spark. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that the standard death-line models are too strict: pulsars can keep emitting radio waves with a multi-spark polar cap even in the region where the models say they should be dead.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the complexity parameter: in the vacuum gap model, $a_{\rm vg}=r_p/h$, the polar cap radius divided by the spark dimension, and in the partially screened gap model, $a_{\rm psg}=A_{pc}/A_{sp}$, the polar cap area divided by the spark area. Following the GS00 result, the paper treats $a_{\rm vg}$ as an upper bound on the number of profile components, and reasons that a multi-component profile requires $a_{\rm vg}\ge 3$ because the sparks must form a ring with at least one cone. Setting either parameter to 1 gives the single-spark death line; comparing each pulsar's parameters with the number of components in its folded profile is what produces the contradiction.

What would settle it

Take the nine single-component death-valley pulsars, in particular the 8.5-second pulsar J2144-3933 with $a_{\rm vg}=a_{\rm psg}=1$, and observe them with deep multi-frequency, single-pulse-capable observations. If any of them shows a second resolved profile component, subpulse drifting, or mode changing, the single-spark model is falsified for its own best candidates; if all remain strictly single-component, the model survives for those objects and the discrepancy is confined to the multi-component majority.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under both the vacuum voltage gap model and the partially screened gap model, a pulsar that can barely sustain pair production ends up with a single spark occupying the whole polar cap; single-spark models therefore predict a single-component folded profile and forbid subpulse drifting and mode changing. The paper reports five death-valley pulsars, observed at 550 to 750 MHz, whose profiles contain two or three components at some frequency, and whose general emission properties (duty cycle, radius-to-frequency mapping, rotating-vector-model polarization sweeps, microstructures) resemble the normal pulsar population. The strongest result is statistical: of 28 pulsars located in the single-spark death valley of the vacuum gap model, 19 show multi-component profiles. Two of those pulsars, J1232-4742 and J1320-3512, have both complexity parameters below one, meaning they should not emit in radio under either voltage gap framework, yet J1232-4742 shows a two-component profile.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the number of distinct components in a folded radio profile directly reflects the number of sparks on the polar cap, via the GS00 bound that components cannot exceed $a_{\rm vg}$ and that multi-component profiles require $a_{\rm vg}\ge 3$; if a single spark can generate multiple components through propagation, refraction, or emission at different heights, the central contradiction dissolves.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The death valley is not empty: pulsars with $a_{\rm vg}$ and $a_{\rm psg}$ below one can still produce radio emission, so the observed lower boundary on the $P$--$\dot P$ plane is not a simple death line.
  • Death-line models need at least one extra ingredient, such as an additional pair-production mechanism, a different surface field configuration, or a revised relation between sparks and profile components, to accommodate the 68 percent multi-component majority.
  • Emission features once used to mark a dying single-spark pulsar, no subpulse drifting, no mode changing, and a single component, are found in pulsars that are near death, so those features cannot be used as unambiguous death indicators.
  • The 8.5-second pulsar J2144-3933 remains the cleanest potential example of a single-spark emitter; whether it is truly single-spark becomes a testable question rather than an assumption.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's counting argument leans on the GS00 assumption that one spark means one profile component; if future simulations or observations show that a single spark can illuminate several profile components through refraction, multiple emission heights, or propagation effects, the contradiction would weaken without changing the reported profiles.
  • The discovery of a new emission mode in J1503+2111 and drifting in two death-valley pulsars suggests that the polar cap structure of old pulsars is as rich as that of the general population; a testable extension is to run long single-pulse campaigns on all 28 death-valley pulsars to search for drifting subpulses.
  • If the death valley truly contains live pulsars, the lower boundary of the $P$--$\dot P$ diagram may be set by observational selection and by the narrowing of beams rather than by a physical death process, which would connect directly to population-synthesis studies that reproduce the pulsar population without any death term.
  • Ultra-long-period sources that sit far beyond the death lines would be less anomalous if death lines are as permissive as these data suggest; checking whether such sources produce multi-component or drifting emission would offer an independent test.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript revisits pulsar death under the vacuum-gap (RS75/GS00) and partially screened gap (PSG) voltage-gap models. It argues that in both frameworks a dying pulsar can sustain only a single spark on the polar cap, which should yield a single-component folded profile and no subpulse drifting or mode changing. The authors present uGMRT band-4 observations of five long-period pulsars near the empirical lower boundary of the P-Pdot plane, find that these pulsars' emission properties are similar to those of the general pulsar population, and report that all five show multi-component profiles at some frequency. They then compile folded profiles for 28 pulsars in the single-spark death valley and claim that 19 of 28 (68%) show multi-component profiles, contradicting the single-spark death model. Two pulsars, J1320-3512 and J1232-4742, have both a_vg and a_psg less than one yet are detectable in radio, which would be particularly strong falsifiers of the death-line calibration. The central empirical content is the new uGMRT observations and the compiled sample; the central theoretical inference is that the number of profile components maps directly to the number of sparks.

Significance. If the component-to-spark inference were secure, the paper would provide an important observational challenge to single-spark death-line models. The work has clear strengths: it delivers new uGMRT detections of five pulsars, a newly discovered emission mode change in J1503+2111, microstructure timescale measurements for two pulsars, and a compiled atlas of 28 death-valley profiles with derived a_vg and a_psg values that will be useful to the community. The two pulsars with a<1 that are nevertheless detected are potentially strong, parameter-dependent falsifiers of the absolute death-line calibration. However, the broader 68% claim rests on a component-counting assumption that is not derived or tested against plausible alternatives, so the significance as a model test is currently limited. The manuscript is within scope for an astrophysical journal and the observational material deserves consideration, but the theoretical conclusion needs substantial additional support.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5, first paragraph] The load-bearing step of the paper is the inference that the number of distinct profile components equals the number of sparks on the polar cap, but this is asserted rather than demonstrated. The text states that GS00 showed a_vg is an upper limit on component number and then asserts that 'a pulsar should have a_vg >= 3 to have at least one cone in the radio beam and therefore more than one profile component.' This latter step is not derived and is not self-evident: with sparks of dimension h separated by h, a line of sight crossing the polar cap could plausibly intersect roughly 2*a_vg spark columns, which would make a_vg on the order of 1 sufficient for a two-component profile. If that alternative bound is correct, then many pulsars in Table 3 with a_vg between 1.1 and 1.3 and two-component profiles are consistent with the spark model, and the 19/28 statistic no longer supports the single-spark contradiction. Please derive the component-count bound from the GS00 geometry or give a precise citation, and show how the conclusion changes if the threshold is 2*a_vg rather than a_vg >= 3.
  2. [Section 1 and Section 5] The paper itself cites Karastergiou & Johnston (2007), who attribute the more complex profiles of older pulsars to a wider range of emission heights rather than to a larger number of sparks. Death-valley pulsars are old, so this is a directly competing explanation for the observed multi-component profiles. The manuscript never rules out this alternative before concluding that multi-component profiles imply multiple sparks. The central claim therefore does not uniquely test the single-spark death model. Please address this alternative explicitly, for example with frequency-evolution measurements of component separation, polarization-position-angle behavior, or single-pulse diagnostics that could discriminate between multiple sparks and multiple emission heights.
  3. [Section 5 and Table 3] The selection rule stated in Section 5, 'If profiles at more than one frequency are available for a pulsar, we take the profile with the maximum number of distinct components,' combined with the absence of a quantitative criterion for counting components, biases the sample toward multi-component classifications. Because 15 of the 19 claimed multi-component pulsars are two-component, and several of those have a_vg between 1.1 and 1.2 (e.g., J0919-6040, J1333-4449, J1548-4821, J2136-1606), the 68% statistic is sensitive to both the component-counting threshold and the choice of frequency. A sensitivity analysis that counts only components independently confirmed at two or more frequencies, or that uses a defined component-finding algorithm, is needed to support the majority claim.
  4. [Tables 1 and 3] The parameters a_vg and a_psg are computed 'with a reference that pulsar J2144-3933 (8.5 s pulsar) should have only a single spark,' and no uncertainties are propagated from the measured P and Pdot or from the model parameters (C in Eq. 8; eta, T6, alpha_l, b in Eq. 12). Several tabulated a_vg values lie within a few tenths of unity (0.92, 0.95, 1.03, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3), so the claim that J1232-4742 and J1320-3512 have a_vg < 1 and a_psg < 1 and therefore 'should not be emitting' is not robust to plausible parameter variations in the calibration. Please provide confidence intervals or a sensitivity analysis over the free parameters, and state which parameter values were used to compute a_psg for each pulsar.
  5. [Section 2.4, Eq. (12)] Equation (12) for a_psg depends on eta, T6, alpha_l, and b, but the manuscript does not specify the values of these parameters used to populate Tables 1 and 3. The text states eta=0.15, T6=2, and alpha_l~45 degrees for the death-valley boundaries in Figure 1, and uses b=1 and b=100 for the upper and lower limits, but it is unclear which combination (and whether b varies per pulsar) was used in the tables. Reproducibility of the 'both a_vg and a_psg < 1' claim for the two constraining pulsars requires these choices to be stated explicitly for each tabulated entry.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.3] The phrase 'signature of RMV sweep' should read 'signature of RVM sweep'.
  2. [Figure 1 caption and Section 2.4] The caption refers to a 'yellow-shaded region' for the PSG death valley, while the text in Section 2.4 describes it as 'orange-shaded'; please make the colors consistent.
  3. [Section 4.4] The micropulse widths quoted as '2.0±0.3' and '3.8±0.3' are missing units; presumably they are in milliseconds, but this should be stated.
  4. [Section 5 and Figure 5] The text says 'The beam subtraction (PA-IA) performed on 04 Feb 2023 observation' while Figure 5 and its caption refer to '04 Feb 2022'; please correct the date inconsistency.
  5. [Section 5] The text says 'Pulsar J1232-4742, with a_vg = 0.97 and a_psg = 0.6,' but Table 1 lists a_vg = 0.95 for the same pulsar; the two values should be reconciled.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The empirical multi-component test is not circular; only the J2144-3933 calibration anchor is a minor self-referential input.

  1. self definitional [Table 1 caption; Table 3 caption; Section 6 first paragraph (9/28 'potentially agreeing' count)]
    "These parameters were computed using equation 8 and 12, with a reference that pulsar J2144-3933 (8.5 s pulsar) should have only a single spark."

    The absolute scales of a_vg and a_psg are normalized so that J2144-3933 sits on the single-spark death boundary (a_vg ~ 1, a_psg ~ 1). Its observed single-component profile is therefore an input to the calibration, not an independent prediction. When the paper later counts J2144 among the 9 pulsars 'potentially agreeing' with the single-spark model, that count is forced for this pulsar by construction. The effect is minor: removing J2144 still leaves 19 of 27 pulsars with multi-component profiles, so the paper's central conclusion does not reduce to this calibration.

full rationale

The central empirical test is not circular. The multi-component profiles used in the 19/28 statistic were not used to set the death-line parameters; a_vg and a_psg are computed from P and Pdot via equations 8 and 12, while component counts come from independent uGMRT and literature profiles. The death-line models themselves are adopted from external work (RS75, GS00, Chen & Ruderman 1993, Mitra et al. 2020) and are not supported by a self-citation chain from the present authors. The only mild circularity is the explicit calibration to J2144-3933, whose single-spark status is assumed when computing the parameter normalizations and then reported as a consistent data point; this is non-load-bearing because the majority claim survives without J2144. The Section 5 assumption that the number of profile components maps directly to the number of sparks, and the a_vg >= 3 threshold for multi-component profiles, are model-interpretation premises rather than circular reductions: if they are wrong, the test is weakened physically, but the derivation of the statistic from the premises is not circular. No significant self-citation load-bearing circularity was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the spark model's complexity parameters a_vg and a_psg, whose formulas carry free parameters (C, eta, T6, alpha, b) calibrated to the single-spark reference J2144-3933. The paper introduces no new entities. The main domain assumptions are that profile components trace sparks and that standard pair cascade physics applies.

free parameters (2)
  • C, the vacuum gap complexity normalization = ~1, chosen so that J2144-3933 has a_vg = 1
    In a_vg = 5 C Pdot_{-15}^{2/7} P^{-9/14}, C is set to ~1 based on GS00 and the reference that the 8.5 s pulsar J2144-3933 sits at the single spark boundary (Table 1 caption, Section 2.2).
  • PSG parameters: eta, T6, alpha_l, b = eta=0.15, T6=2, alpha_l=45 deg, b not explicitly stated (effectively tuned to make J2144-3933 have a_psg=1)
    These define a_psg in Eq. 12. They are adopted from Mitra et al. 2020, but the b value needed for the J2144 normalization is not reported, making a_psg values non-reproducible as listed.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Coherent curvature radiation from spark cascades is the mechanism for pulsar radio emission.
    The entire death line framework and the single spark prediction rely on the RS75/GS00 spark model, introduced in Sections 1 and 2.
  • domain assumption The number of profile components cannot exceed the complexity parameter a_vg, and a_vg >= 3 is required for a multi-component profile.
    Used in Section 5 to translate multi-component profiles into evidence for multiple sparks. This is a theoretical inference from GS00, not directly measured.
  • domain assumption Dipolar magnetic field geometry at radio emission heights for duty cycle and radius-to-frequency mapping comparisons.
    Section 4 assumes dipolar geometry to interpret profile width evolution and RVM, following standard pulsar emission models.
  • standard math Standard pair cascade condition (Eq. 5) and critical field B_q = 4.4e13 G.
    Taken from RS75 and Chen & Ruderman 1993 without modification; used to define the death valley boundaries.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emission properties of 5 pulsars in the death-valley and implications on death line models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ED2H6ZTU

@misc{pith2026250710374,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emission properties of 5 pulsars in the death-valley and implications on death line models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ED2H6ZTU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10374}
}
abstract

In the framework of the coherent curvature radiation model of pulsar radio emission, charged particles responsible for the radio emission are generated on the polar cap in the localized pair cascade processes called sparks. When a pulsar can no longer sustain the sparking process on its polar cap, the coherent radio emission from the pulsar stops, and the pulsar is called dead. In this work, we revisit the pulsar death phenomena under two popular voltage gap models: vacuum voltage gap and partially screened voltage gap. We notice that a dying pulsar resorts to a single spark on the polar cap to sustain the pair production under both voltage gap frameworks. The presence of only one spark on the polar cap has important implications for the radio emission properties of the pulsar. We study the emission properties of five pulsars close to the lower boundary on the $P-\dot{P}$ plane of the current pulsar population, as these pulsars are expected to be dying. We find that the dying pulsars in our sample and the normal pulsar population have very similar emission properties. We show that the majority of pulsars in the pulsar death valley, including five pulsars in our sample, show evidence of multiple sparks as opposed to what is expected from single spark death line models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10374 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Selected pulsars on the P − 𝑃¤ plane as red stars. Shadowed regions represent the death valley of two single spark models. The blue-shaded region shows the single spark death valley in the case of the vacuum gap model, while the yellow-shaded region shows the death valley in the case of the single spark model in the PSG framework. The red dashed line is the single spark death line under the PSG framework passing thr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Period versus duty-cycle of death-line pulsars (block stars) along with a subset of the current population. Errors in the W50 measurements of death line pulsars are smaller than the size of the markers. The W50 measurement for pulsar J2144-3933 (red star) has been taken from Johnston & Kerr (2018). The orange line is the lower boundary line on the duty cycle that allows 1% of the population below it. expected from t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Microstructures in two death line pulsars: J1503+2111 and J2251-3711. (a) J1503+2111 (b) J2251-3711 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of microstructure timescale in pulsars J1503+2111 and J2251-3711. We estimate a mean timescale of 2.0±0.3 for pulsar J1503+2111 using 166 individual micropulses and a timescale of 3.8±0.3 for pulsar J2251-3711 using 91 individual micropulses. the new emiss…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Two emission modes of pulsar J1503+2111. Mode A profile (red profile) was generated by folding a 52-minute-long observation on 14 Nov 2023. Mode B (dashed blue profile) was generated by folding a 55-minute￾long observation on 04 Feb 2022. only a single spark on the pol…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Profiles of five death line pulsars. We have plotted publicly available profiles of these pulsars along with profiles we detect with the uGMRT (profiles corresponding to 650 MHz central frequency). We got profiles of four pulsars at least at two widely separated freque…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Pulsars in the single spark death valley of the vacuum voltage gap model. Out of these 28 pulsars, 4 show 3 distinct components, 15 show two distinct components, while 9 show a single component profile. Out of these 9 single component profiles, 4 profiles (marked with …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Profile of 23 pulsars in the vacuum voltage gap single spark death valley. The profiles have been taken from the available literature (see table 3 for references). MNRAS 000, 1–11 (2015) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    A., B \"u chner J., Jessner A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202345987 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...675A..42B 675, A42

    Ben \'a c ek J., Mu \ n oz P. A., B \"u chner J., Jessner A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202345987 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...675A..42B 675, A42

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345987 2023

  3. [3]

    A., Jessner A., Rievajov \'a T., Pohl M., B \"u chner J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450949 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...691A.137B 691, A137

    Ben \'a c ek J., Timokhin A., Mu \ n oz P. A., Jessner A., Rievajov \'a T., Pohl M., B \"u chner J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450949 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...691A.137B 691, A137

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450949 2024

  4. [4]

    S., Istomin A

    Beskin V. S., Istomin A. Y., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac2423 , 516, 5084

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2423 2022

  5. [5]

    S., Litvinov P

    Beskin V. S., Litvinov P. E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3575 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.2572B 510, 2572

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3575 2022

  6. [6]

    V., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527702 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...591A.134B 591, A134

    Bilous A. V., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527702 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...591A.134B 591, A134

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527702 2016

  7. [7]

    Buch K. D., Kale R., Muley M., Kudale S., Ajithkumar B., 2023, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/s12036-023-09919-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JApA...44...37B 44, 37

    doi:10.1007/s12036-023-09919-x 2023

  8. [8]

    Caleb M., et al., 2022, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-022-01688-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022NatAs...6..828C 6, 828

    doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01688-x 2022

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Caleb M., et al., 2024, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-024-02277-w , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NatAs...8.1159C 8, 1159

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    J., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175737 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...445..756C 445, 756

    Camilo F., Nice D. J., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175737 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...445..756C 445, 756

    1995 doi

  3. [11]

    Chen K., Ruderman M., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172129 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...402..264C 402, 264

    1993 doi

  4. [12]

    L., Wang H

    Chen J. L., Wang H. G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/215/1/11 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..215...11C 215, 11

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    arXiv:2412.12763

    Coti Zelati F., Borghese A., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.12763 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241212763C p. arXiv:2412.12763

    2024 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    Dirson L., P \'e tri J., Mitra D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243305 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...667A..82D 667, A82

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    A., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.07480 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240707480D p

    Dong F. A., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.07480 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240707480D p. arXiv:2407.07480

    2024 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    A., Sendyk M., 2000, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/309394 , 541, 351–366

    Gil J. A., Sendyk M., 2000, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/309394 , 541, 351–366

    2000 doi

  9. [17]

    I., Geppert U., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030854 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...407..315G 407, 315

    Gil J., Melikidze G. I., Geppert U., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030854 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...407..315G 407, 315

    2003 doi

  10. [18]

    Gil J., Melikidze G., Zhang B., 2006, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/506982 , 650, 1048

    2006 doi

  11. [19]

    Hurley-Walker N., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad890e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...976L..21H 976, L21

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Johnston S., Karastergiou A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx377 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.3493J 467, 3493

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    Johnston S., Karastergiou A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz400 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485..640J 485, 640

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Johnston S., Kerr M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3095 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.4629J 474, 4629

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Oswald L

    Johnston S., Kramer M., Karastergiou A., Keith M. J., Oswald L. S., Parthasarathy A., Weltevrede P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3636 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.4801J 520, 4801

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Oswald L

    Johnston S., Mitra D., Keith M. J., Oswald L. S., Karastergiou A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1175 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.4839J 530, 4839

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Karastergiou A., Johnston S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12237.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.380.1678K 380, 1678

    2007

  18. [26]

    Kramer M., Johnston S., Van Straten W., 2002, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05478.x , 334, 523–532

    2002

  19. [27]

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

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

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Lee Y. W. J., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250109133L p. arXiv:2501.09133

    2025 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    arXiv:2411.15739

    Li D., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.15739 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241115739L p. arXiv:2411.15739

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    G., Manchester R

    Lyne A. G., Manchester R. N., Taylor J. H., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/213.3.613 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985MNRAS.213..613L 213, 613

    1985 doi

  23. [31]

    Maciesiak K., Gil J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19359.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.417.1444M 417, 1444

    2011

  24. [32]

    Maciesiak K., Gil J., Melikidze G., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21246.x , 424, 1762

    2012

  25. [33]

    N., Taylor J

    Manchester R. N., Taylor J. H., 1977, Pulsars

    1977

  26. [34]

    Mitra D., 2017, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/s12036-017-9457-6 , 38

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    I., Arjunwadkar M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3620 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.2468M 492, 2468

    Mitra D., Basu R., Melikidze G. I., Arjunwadkar M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3620 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.2468M 492, 2468

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    Morello V., et al., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa321 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.1165M 493, 1165

    doi

  29. [37]

    D., Stappers B

    Morello V., Barr E. D., Stappers B. W., Keane E. F., Lyne A. G., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2291 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.4654M 497, 4654

    doi

  30. [38]

    Philippov A., Timokhin A., Spitkovsky A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.245101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PhRvL.124x5101P 124, 245101

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    Posselt B., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2775 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.4249P 508, 4249

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    Posselt B., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3383 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.4582P 520, 4582

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    J., 1969, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApL.....3..225R 3, 225

    Radhakrishnan V., Cooke D. J., 1969, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApL.....3..225R 3, 225

    1969

  34. [42]

    H., et al., 2017, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation] 10.1142/S2251171716410117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JAI.....641011R 6, 1641011

    Reddy S. H., et al., 2017, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation] 10.1142/S2251171716410117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JAI.....641011R 6, 1641011

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    N., Pen U.-L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad815 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864..160R 864, 160

    Roy J., Chengalur J. N., Pen U.-L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad815 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864..160R 864, 160

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    A., Sutherland P

    Ruderman M. A., Sutherland P. G., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1086/153393 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975ApJ...196...51R 196, 51

    1975 doi

  37. [45]

    Sautron M., P \'e tri J., Mitra D., Dirson L., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451097 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...691A.349S 691, A349

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    W., Ray P

    Singh S., Roy J., Panda U., Bhattacharyya B., Morello V., Stappers B. W., Ray P. S., McLaughlin M. A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7b91 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934..138S 934, 138

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    Singh S., Gupta Y., De K., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3334 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.2612S 527, 2612

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    Song X., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.4562S 520, 4562

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    Spiewak R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1869 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.4836S 496, 4836

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    E., 1992, @doi [International Astronomical Union Colloquium] 10.1017/S0002731600154952 , 128, 143–146

    Thorsett S. E., 1992, @doi [International Astronomical Union Colloquium] 10.1017/S0002731600154952 , 128, 143–146

    1992 doi

  43. [51]

    N., 2010, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17286.x , 408, 2092

    Timokhin A. N., 2010, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17286.x , 408, 2092

    2010

  44. [52]

    Vivekanand M., Radhakrishnan V., 1980, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/BF02714232 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980JApA....1..119V 1, 119

    1980 doi

  45. [53]

    Wahl H., Rankin J., Venkataraman A., Olszanski T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3613 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520..314W 520, 314

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    Young M., Manchester R., Johnston S., 1999, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/23650 , 400, 848

    1999 doi

  47. [55]

    Young M. D. T., Chan L. S., Burman R. R., Blair D. G., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15972.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.402.1317Y 402, 1317

    2010

  48. [56]

    J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3068 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.1661V 467, 1661

    van Heerden E., Karastergiou A., Roberts S. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3068 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.1661V 467, 1661

    2017 doi

Pith tools

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