Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Echoes in Different Tempo: Long-Term Monitoring of Crab Echoes with CHIME

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 The paper claims that the Crab pulsar's radio echoes include events whose delay never reaches zero, implying lensing filaments that the line of sight misses by a measurable offset.

desk verdict Genuinely new echo phenomenology from a strong long-term dataset; the non-crossing claim needs significance work but the observations stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23201 v2 pith:YYM325VK submitted 2025-07-31 astro-ph.HE

Thierry Serafin Nadeau , Marten H. van Kerkwijk , Jing Luo , Robert Main , Kiyoshi W. Masui , James W. McKee , Ue-Li Pen This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords RadioPulsarsSupernovaRemnantsPulsarWindNebulaeFilamentaryInterstellarScatteringplasmalensinggiantpulsesechoes
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 claims that the Crab pulsar's radio echoes are a common, structured phenomenon: in daily stacks of giant pulses recorded with CHIME between late 2021 and early 2024, echoes appear throughout the whole period and sort into families with distinct time and frequency behavior. The central new result is the first detection of non-crossing echoes, whose delay decreases to roughly $0.5\,\mathrm{ms}$ but never reaches zero. That means the line of sight to the pulsar passes beside a lensing structure rather than through it, and because these echoes evolve so slowly, their observed duration sets a lower limit of about $9\,\mathrm{au}$ on the structure length. The paper also reports two echoes whose frequency-dependent delays indicate a column density deficit, and a period of unusually slow echo evolution, all consistent with the picture of thin, elongated filaments seen at grazing incidence.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the delay-time parabola for a lensed image, $\tau = (v_{ps}\cos\psi)^2\,\Delta t^2/(2 c d_{ps})$, with $\eta$ the curvature. Comparing curvatures across echo families separates fast events ($\eta \simeq 20\,\mu\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{day}^2$), typical events ($6$–$16\,\mu\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{day}^2$), and the non-crossing family ($\eta \simeq 0.12\,\mu\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{day}^2$). The unusually low curvature is what turns the duration of the non-crossing echoes into a length estimate rather than a curvature-based estimate, since the pulsar travels nearly parallel to the structure.

What would settle it

Measure the minimum delay of the non-crossing echoes with sub-$0.1\,\mathrm{ms}$ fidelity in several sub-bands: if the apparent minimum shifts with frequency in a way consistent with scattering or with a blend of two images, the non-crossing interpretation and the $9\,\mathrm{au}$ length bound would not follow. A second test is to find a non-crossing echo inside a family that also contains crossing echoes with the same curvature, which would allow a direct length estimate from the ratio of durations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that Crab echo events form temporally organized groups that share a common parent filament, and that within this picture some echoes are produced by structures the line of sight never crosses. These non-crossing echoes have curvature $\eta \simeq 0.12\,\mu\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{day}^2$, last up to 130 days, and reach minimum delays of about $0.5\,\mathrm{ms}$; under the quadratic delay law $\tau = \eta(\Delta t)^2$, the low curvature means the pulsar moves almost parallel to a mildly curved filament, so the duration directly bounds the structure length, $L \gtrsim v_{ps}\Delta t \simeq 9\,\mathrm{au}$. The same geometry gives a radius of curvature of order $70\,\mathrm{au}$. In addition, the paper reports the first Crab echoes with dispersion-measure deficits and uses the fastest-curvature echoes to update the effective transverse velocity of structures near the line of sight to about $157\,\mathrm{km/s}$.

Load-bearing premise

The weakest assumption is that the approximately $0.5\,\mathrm{ms}$ minimum delay of the non-crossing echoes is the genuine geometric minimum of a single lensed image, rather than an artifact produced by several blended images, residual scattering, or a dispersive offset.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the non-crossing echoes are real, the conventional lower limit on filament length becomes a concrete bound: some nebular lensing structures extend at least about 9 au along the line of sight, with an implied radius of curvature near 70 au.
  • A census of echo families should show both families whose members all cross zero delay and families with non-crossing members; the relative counts set the frequency of near-miss encounters and can be used to estimate typical filament lengths.
  • The observed coexistence of images with different dispersion measures means the profile DM cannot be used as a direct tracer of the lens column density, so simple lens models built on DM curves are only approximate.
  • In echo-free periods the scattering tail is low and nearly constant, indicating that nebular echo material dominates scattering whenever it is present, while the residual scattering is likely dominated by the interstellar medium.
  • The fastest-curvature echoes constrain the effective transverse velocity of structures near the line of sight to about 157 km/s, updating the earlier velocity estimate for the Crab pulsar and nebular material.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: if mixed families with crossing and non-crossing members exist, their shared curvature would let one measure filament length by taking the ratio of echo durations rather than relying on the single 9 au bound; a dedicated search of the same CHIME archive for such families would settle this.
  • Extension: the two dispersion-deficit echoes could be modeled as either true underdense sheets or narrow gaps between overlapping overdense sheets; a quantitative lens model with the measured $-0.005$ and $-0.008\,\mathrm{pc/cm^3}$ deficits would distinguish the two.
  • Extension: the frequency-dependent morphologies that resemble upward- and downward-drifting fast radio bursts suggest plasma lensing may account for some FRB sub-burst structure; the Crab's known geometry and repeatable echoes provide a direct local test of that analogy.
  • Extension: the smooth delay variations of the non-crossing echoes could be fit with a curved-screen model to map small-scale wiggles or orientation changes along filaments, a test the straight-line geometry in the paper does not attempt.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a daily monitoring campaign of the Crab pulsar using CHIME baseband recordings from 2021 October to 2024 March. The authors detect and align up to 512 giant pulses per day and produce daily stacked profiles in which echo components are visible across the 400-800 MHz band. They classify echo activity into distinct epochs, identify groups with different parabolic curvatures, report two echoes with apparent DM deficits, and, most prominently, claim the first detection of non-crossing echoes: long-lived components that approach a minimum delay of about 0.5 ms without reaching zero. The non-crossing events are used to derive a lower limit on the length of the lensing structures, L >= 9 au, and to infer a large radius of curvature. The paper also discusses chromatic echo behavior and similarities to frequency drifting in FRBs.

Significance. If the non-crossing interpretation survives quantitative scrutiny, it is a genuinely new result: all previously reported Crab echoes crossed zero delay, so non-crossing events would provide the first direct evidence for line-of-sight misses and new constraints on the size and curvature of nebular filaments. The homogeneous, multi-year daily-stack data set is itself valuable, and the paper's careful description of the recording and alignment pipeline is a strength. The authors are also explicit about some alternative explanations, such as multiple echoes contributing, which helps frame the remaining uncertainty. However, the headline claim is currently supported mainly by visual inspection of daily stacks, and the quantitative significance of the 0.5 ms floor is not established; this gap is the main reason the paper needs revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.3, Figures 5 and 11] The central claim that these echoes 'never directly intersect' the lensing structure rests on the premise that the observed ~0.5 ms minimum delay is the true geometric minimum of a single lensed image. The paper does not demonstrate this. The floor is not quantified with an uncertainty or detection significance, and the authors themselves note that the smooth delay variations 'could be due to multiple echoes contributing' in Section 5.3. A blend of two crossing images with slightly different DM or curvature, an uncorrected dispersive offset (a difference of ~0.02 pc/cm^3 produces ~0.4 ms of dispersive delay across 400-800 MHz), or residual scattering could all produce an apparent floor. In addition, no frequency-resolved measurement of the floor is shown; in the RGB composite of Figure 11 a frequency-dependent floor could masquerade as a common floor. Please provide frequency-resolved delay curves for the non-crossing events, fit the delays including simultaneous geometric and dispersive terms, and compare against a model with two blended crossing images. Without this, the classification and the derived L >= 9 au lower limit do not follow.
  2. [Sections 5.1 and 5.2, Figures 9 and 10] The quantitative claims about DM excesses and deficits are based on visual dotted-line fits without uncertainties or significance tests. For example, the excess DMs quoted as 0.015, 0.045, 0.04, and 0.035 pc/cm^3 in Section 5.1 and the deficits of -0.005 and -0.008 pc/cm^3 in Section 5.2 have no error bars and no demonstration that the frequency dependence is better described by a nu^-2 dispersive term than by geometric nu^-4 effects or by frequency-dependent echo structure. Since these values are close to the level of systematic offsets that could arise from the alignment and stacking procedure, and since Section 2.2 notes that the DM determination is biased by scattering, the deficit claim in particular needs a quantitative fit with uncertainties and a test of the assumed dispersion law.
  3. [Sections 4.3 and 6, Eq. (2)] The curvature values used to constrain geometry, including eta = 20 microsecond/day^2 and the resulting v_ps = 157 km/s, are reported without uncertainties or a fitting method. Eq. (2) defines eta, but the paper does not state how eta is measured, how many points are used, or what the fit residuals are. Given that the paper itself stresses the wide spread of curvatures between groups (0.4 to 20 microsecond/day^2), the velocity estimate needs a formal fit with propagated uncertainties on v_ps and d_ps (0.5 to 2 pc). Please provide the fitted parabolas and uncertainties for the representative echoes that set the curvature values used in the analysis.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The first sentence of the abstract is missing a period: 'ionized nebular material These components' should read 'ionized nebular material. These components'.
  2. [Figure 5 caption] The caption states the data cover '2021 October 1 to 2024 March 31', but Section 2.1 says observations began on 2021 October 21; please reconcile the date.
  3. [Section 6, first paragraph] The text says the low-curvature group persists 'through much of 2023', whereas Section 4.3 and Figure 8 place this period in 2022; this appears to be a typo.
  4. [Section 1] The phrase 'align then before averaging' should read 'align them before averaging'.
  5. [Acknowledgments] 'recieved support' should be 'received support'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: nonzero-minimum-delay echoes are empirical detections; interpretation is model-dependent but not circular.

full rationale

The paper is an observational study; its main new result, echoes with nonzero minimum delay near 0.5 ms, is read directly from daily stacked profiles (Figures 5 and 11) and is not produced by fitting a parameter and then calling the fit a prediction. The lower limit L >= 9 au is obtained from the observed duration Delta_t = 130 d times an externally measured velocity v_ps = 120 km/s (Kaplan et al. 2008), with no fitted parameter disguised as an output. The authors' self-citations to Serafin Nadeau et al. (2024) supply the sheet/filament lensing interpretation and the previous lower limit of about 4 au, but the new detection does not reduce to that prior work; indeed, the paper explicitly notes that the occurrence of non-crossing echoes complicates the prior straight-filament geometry and requires a modification involving mildly curved structures. The interpretation is model-dependent, and Section 5.3 candidly states that the smooth delay variations 'could be due to multiple echoes contributing,' which is a robustness caveat about the single-image geometric-minimum reading, not a circularity. Likewise, possible dispersive-offset, scattering, or image-blending contributions to the approximately 0.5 ms floor would be systematic errors, not a case of an input being redefined as an output. The self-citations are numerous but not load-bearing in the sense that would make the central claim reduce to them; the central detections are independent empirical findings. Score 2 reflects minor, non-load-bearing self-citation for the interpretive model; no circular step is exhibited.

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

The central claims rest on standard plasma-lensing geometry and on external measurements of the Crab pulsar's velocity and nebular distance. No ad hoc parameters or new entities are introduced; the DM excesses/deficits are measured from the data.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The echo delay evolves quadratically with time: tau = eta * Delta t^2 (Eq. 2), with uniform transverse relative motion between pulsar and lens.
    Used throughout Section 4.3 to interpret echo curvatures and to infer velocities and structure lengths. If the relative motion is not uniform (e.g., a curved filament), the curvature interpretation changes.
  • domain assumption The lensing structures are thin, elongated sheets seen at grazing incidence, and each echo corresponds to a single or a few images of the pulsar.
    This is the model from Serafin Nadeau et al. (2024), adopted in Section 5.3 to argue that a non-zero minimum delay means the line of sight never crosses the structure.
  • domain assumption The bending angle is related to the gradient of electron column density by Eq. 4 (alpha_hat = (c^2 r_e)/(2 pi nu^2) grad_x N_e).
    Standard plasma lensing in the small-angle limit; used to interpret DM excesses/deficits and chromatic behavior in Section 5.
  • domain assumption The pulsar-screen distance d_ps is between 0.5 and 2 pc, from optical emission-line measurements (Martin et al. 2021).
    Used in Section 4.3 to exclude large d_ps as an explanation for very low curvatures, and in Section 5.3 to convert observed delays and durations into physical sizes (x and L).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Echoes in Different Tempo: Long-Term Monitoring of Crab Echoes with CHIME." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YYM325VK

@misc{pith2026250723201,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Echoes in Different Tempo: Long-Term Monitoring of Crab Echoes with CHIME},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YYM325VK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23201}
}
read the original abstract

The Crab Pulsar is known to feature plasma lensing events known as echoes. These events are characterized by additional components in the pulse profile which are produced by additional images formed when the pulsar's radio emission is deflected by ionized nebular material. These components are therefore delayed relative to the primary emission. We observed the Crab pulsar with Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment (CHIME) during its daily transits, creating an archive of baseband recordings of giant pulses in the 400-800 MHz band. From these, we produced daily stacks of aligned pulses between late October 2021 and March 2024. We find that in these averages, echoes are readily visible throughout the observation period, and we identify clear groups of echoes with distinct behaviour in terms of their evolution with time and frequency. Many echoes exhibit dispersive delays consistent with being observed through excess column densities relative to the unscattered rays, but we also find two events where the dispersive delays indicate column density deficits. For the first time, we also find echoes for which the line of sight never directly intersects the intervening structures, resulting in events with non-zero minimum delays, of around 0.5 ms. The frequency and diversity of the observed echoes make the Crab an excellent target for long-term studies of astrophysical plasma lensing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23201 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Dispersion measure (DM) which maximizes the frequency-averaged peak signal-to-noise ratio for the brightest pulse on each day of observations, from 2021 October 21 to 2024 March 31. The shaded regions correspond to periods of high activity (orange; see Sect. 4.1), low activity with few echoes visible (blue; Sect. 4.2), and a period during which the echo curvatures are unusually low (grey; Sect. 4.3). Arrows mark tim… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spin frequencies inferred from our data, covering the period of 2021 October 21 to 2024 March 31. Top: Spin frequency inferred for each recording, with outliers (from days with faulty recordings) colored red. Middle: Same, but after removal of Doppler shifts due to Earth’s motion. Bottom: Residuals relative to a third-degree polynomial. Prior observations of echoes relied mostly on folded profiles (Backer et al. 200… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of uncertainties in the phase offset (in units of cycle) relative to the reference pulse for all triggers. (CHIME/Pulsar Collaboration et al. 2021), while the nebula is only half this size along its major axis (Trim￾ble 1968). We use this to roughly remove the effect of possible gain variations in the aligned stacks, by dividing each frequency channel by its off-pulse median. We show four examples of al… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of folded profiles (left) and aligned giant-pulse stacks (middle) obtained with CHIME on four days, as well as their frequency-averaged profiles (right). In the top row, profiles from 2023 April 8 are shown, when no echoes were visible. These illustrate the …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Daily stacks for the full period, from 2021 October 1 to 2024 March 31. The colors shown are an RGB spectral composite, with power from different frequencies contributing different weights of red, green and blue. These weights increase and decrease linearly over 50MHz …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Daily stacks for two high activity periods, between 2022 February 1 and April 30 (top) and between 2024 January 1 and March 31 (bottom). Representation and colors are as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Daily stacks through the low activity period between 2023 February 1 and July 31, in two consecutive pieces. Representation and colors are as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Daily stacks across the period between 2022 June 1 and November 30, when echoes evolved very slowly. Note that the panels here cover the same number of days as those in Figures 6 and 7, in order to highlight the substantially lower curvature of the sharper echoes seen …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Daily stacks for every other day between 2022 March 7 and 17, all dedispersed to the same dispersion mea￾sure (DM), of 56.730 pc/cm3 . The leading edge of the com￾ponent which dominates the profile on March 7 (top) high￾lighted with a cyan dotted line, and the two echo…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Daily stacks from 2022 May 8 (top) and 2023 January 1 (bottom), showing echoes that appear to have a DM deficit relative to the main component. The leading edges of the echoes are marked orange dotted lines, which assume DM deficits of −0.005 and −0.008 pc/cm3 in the …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Period during which non-zero delay echoes are visible, between 2022 May 1 and October 31. This covers a similar period to that shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Three echoes with strong frequency evolution, visible out to much larger delays at lower frequencies. Unlike most echoes, for these three, the echo appears or disappears not by fading away at large delay, but by entering or exiting the bottom of the observation bandwi…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Daily stacks from 2024 February 13 (top) and March 16 (bottom), both of which show complex frequency and delay dependent behaviour, which we suggest is due to demagnification at low frequencies (see Section 5.4). Identi￾fiable components are highlighted with arrows: c…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. A Melody in the Noise: Modeling Echoes of the Crab Nebula

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A plasma-lensing model with cylindrical filaments whose thin ionized skins are seen edge-on reproduces the delay evolution and asymmetry of a Crab pulsar echo, but not its magnification.

  2. Detection of Partial Coherence due to Multipath Propagation for FRB 20220413B with CHIME/FRB

    astro-ph.HE 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    FRB 20220413B's components share a common Milky Way scintillation pattern but show no phase-coherent lensing signature, so the complex morphology is not confirmed as plasma lensing.

  3. Discovery of 30 Repeating Fast Radio Burst Sources and Uniform Population Statistics of 80 Repeating Sources from CHIME/FRB

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    CHIME/FRB has now cataloged 80 repeating FRB sources whose burst rates and upper limits are consistent with a power-law distribution implying 50-100% of all FRBs repeat.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Echoes in Different Tempo19 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    C., Wong, T., & Valanju, J

    Backer, D. C., Wong, T., & Valanju, J. 2000, ApJ, 543, 740, doi: 10.1086/317150

    doi:10.1086/317150 2000

  3. [3]

    B., Stovall, K., & Dowell, J

    Bansal, K., Taylor, G. B., Stovall, K., & Dowell, J. 2020, ApJ, 892, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab76bc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab76bc 2020

  4. [4]

    Bhat, N. D. R., Tingay, S. J., & Knight, H. S. 2008, ApJ, 676, 1200, doi: 10.1086/528735

    doi:10.1086/528735 2008

  5. [5]

    2021, ApJ, 920, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1589

    Bij, A., Lin, H.-H., Li, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1589

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1589 2021

  6. [6]

    F., Macquart, J

    Brisken, W. F., Macquart, J. P., Gao, J. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 708, 232, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/232

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/1/232 2010

  7. [7]

    2022, AJ, 163, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3d2f CHIME Collaboration, Amiri, M., Bandura, K., et al

    Cassanelli, T., Leung, C., Rahman, M., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3d2f CHIME Collaboration, Amiri, M., Bandura, K., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6fd9 CHIME/Pulsar Collaboration, Amiri, M., Bandura, K. M., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abfdcb

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac3d2f 2022

  8. [8]

    W., Fey, A

    Clegg, A. W., Fey, A. L., & Lazio, T. J. W. 1998, ApJ, 496, 253, doi: 10.1086/305344

    doi:10.1086/305344 1998

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    1993, Nature, 366, 320, doi: 10.1038/366320a0

    Cognard, I., Bourgois, G., Lestrade, J.-F., et al. 1993, Nature, 366, 320, doi: 10.1038/366320a0

    1993 doi

  2. [10]

    H., Gundermann, E

    Cohen, M. H., Gundermann, E. J., & Harris, D. E. 1967, ApJ, 150, 767, doi: 10.1086/149380

    1967 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Bhat, N

    Cordes, J. M., Bhat, N. D. R., Hankins, T. H., McLaughlin, M. A., & Kern, J. 2004, ApJ, 612, 375, doi: 10.1086/422495

    2004 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Wasserman, I., Hessels, J

    Cordes, J. M., Wasserman, I., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa74da

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    H., Eilek, J

    Crossley, J. H., Eilek, J. A., & Hankins, T. H. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 365, SINS - Small Ionized and Neutral Structures in the Diffuse Interstellar Medium, ed. M. Haverkorn & W. M. Goss, 271, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0612109

    2007 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    N., Janssen, G

    Driessen, L. N., Janssen, G. H., Bassa, C. G., Stappers, B. W., & Stinebring, D. R. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1224, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3192

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Duncan, J. C. 1921, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 7, 179, doi: 10.1073/pnas.7.6.179

    1921 doi

  8. [16]

    T., Michilli, D., Mckinven, R., et al

    Faber, J. T., Michilli, D., Mckinven, R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 274, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad59aa

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    L., Dennison, B., Johnston, K

    Fiedler, R. L., Dennison, B., Johnston, K. J., & Hewish, A. 1987, Nature, 326, 675, doi: 10.1038/326675a0

    1987 doi

  10. [18]

    2006, ApJL, 640, L159, doi: 10.1086/503668 Graham Smith, F., Lyne, A

    Goldreich, P., & Sridhar, S. 2006, ApJL, 640, L159, doi: 10.1086/503668 Graham Smith, F., Lyne, A. G., & Jordan, C. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 499, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17459.x

    2006

  11. [19]

    H., Kern, J

    Hankins, T. H., Kern, J. S., Weatherall, J. C., & Eilek, J. A. 2003, Nature, 422, 141, doi: 10.1038/nature01477

    2003 doi

  12. [20]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    Henry, R. B. C., & MacAlpine, G. M. 1982, ApJ, 258, 11, doi: 10.1086/160044

    1982 doi

  14. [22]

    Hessels, J. W. T., Spitler, L. G., Seymour, A. D., et al. 2019, ApJL, 876, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab13ae

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    1975, Reviews of Modern Physics, 47, 567, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.47.567

    Hewish, A. 1975, Reviews of Modern Physics, 47, 567, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.47.567

    1975 doi

  16. [24]

    Collins, R. A. 1968, Nature, 217, 709, doi: 10.1038/217709a0

    1968 doi

  17. [25]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    L., Pen, U.-L., & Baker, D

    Jow, D. L., Pen, U.-L., & Baker, D. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 6292, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae300

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    2008, ApJ, 677, 1201, doi: 10.1086/529026

    Anderson, J. 2008, ApJ, 677, 1201, doi: 10.1086/529026

    2008 doi

  20. [28]

    Kuzmin, A. D. 2007, Ap&SS, 308, 563, doi: 10.1007/s10509-007-9347-5

    2007 doi

  21. [29]

    Lin, R., & van Kerkwijk, M. H. 2023, ApJ, 959, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfa6f

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    H., Main, R., et al

    Lin, R., van Kerkwijk, M. H., Main, R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acba95

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    T., & Hewish, E

    Little, L. T., & Hewish, E. 1968, MNRAS, 138, 393, doi: 10.1093/mnras/138.4.393

    1968 doi

  24. [32]

    Y., Dumsky, D

    Losovsky, B. Y., Dumsky, D. V., & Belyatsky, Y. A. 2019, Astronomy Reports, 63, 830, doi: 10.1134/S1063772919090051

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    C., Cordes, J

    Lundgren, S. C., Cordes, J. M., Ulmer, M., et al. 1995, ApJ, 453, 433, doi: 10.1086/176404

    1995 doi

  26. [34]

    G., Pritchard, R

    Lyne, A. G., Pritchard, R. S., & Graham Smith, F. 1993, MNRAS, 265, 1003, doi: 10.1093/mnras/265.4.1003

    1993 doi

  27. [35]

    G., Pritchard, R

    Lyne, A. G., Pritchard, R. S., & Graham-Smith, F. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 67, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.03998.x

    2001

  28. [36]

    G., & Thorne, D

    Lyne, A. G., & Thorne, D. J. 1975, MNRAS, 172, 97, doi: 10.1093/mnras/172.1.97

    1975 doi

  29. [37]

    Mahajan, N., & van Kerkwijk, M. H. 2023, ApJ, 955, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acec3a

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    H., et al

    Main, R., Lin, R., van Kerkwijk, M. H., et al. 2021, ApJ, 915, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac01c6

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    2017, ApJL, 840, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6f03

    Vanderlinde, K. 2017, ApJL, 840, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6f03

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 1864, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa4046

    Martin, T., Milisavljevic, D., & Drissen, L. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1864, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa4046

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    W., Lyne, A

    McKee, J. W., Lyne, A. G., Stappers, B. W., Bassa, C. G., & Jordan, C. A. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 4216, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1727

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    Michilli, D., Hessels, J. W. T., Donner, J. Y., et al. 2018a, MNRAS, 476, 2704, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty368 20Serafin Nadeau et al

    doi

  35. [43]

    Michilli, D., Seymour, A., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2018b, Nature, 553, 182, doi: 10.1038/nature25149

    doi

  36. [44]

    2017, in XXXII International Union of Radio Science General Assembly & Scientific Symposium (URSI GASS) 2017, 4, doi: 10.23919/URSIGASS.2017.8105318

    Ng, C., Vanderlinde, K., Paradise, A., et al. 2017, in XXXII International Union of Radio Science General Assembly & Scientific Symposium (URSI GASS) 2017, 4, doi: 10.23919/URSIGASS.2017.8105318

    2017

  37. [45]

    Osterbrock, D. E. 1957, PASP, 69, 227, doi: 10.1086/127053

    1957 doi

  38. [46]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, 3338, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1020

    Pen, U.-L., & Levin, Y. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 3338, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1020

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    W., et al

    Platts, E., Caleb, M., Stappers, B. W., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3041, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1544

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    L., & Stinebring, D

    Putney, M. L., & Stinebring, D. R. 2006, Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement, 6, 233

    2006

  41. [49]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.06189, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.06189

    Recnik, A., Bandura, K., Denman, N., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.06189, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.06189

    2015 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    2021, Kotekan: A framework for high-performance radiometric data pipelines, 2021.11, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5842660

    Renard, A., Shaw, R., Ng, C., et al. 2021, Kotekan: A framework for high-performance radiometric data pipelines, 2021.11, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5842660

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    2009, MNRAS, 395, 1391, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14471.x

    Rickett, B., Johnston, S., Tomlinson, T., & Reynolds, J. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 1391, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14471.x

    2009

  44. [52]

    Rickett, B. J. 1969, Nature, 221, 158, doi: 10.1038/221158a0 —. 1990, ARA&A, 28, 561, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.003021

    1969

  45. [53]

    W., Blandford, R

    Romani, R. W., Blandford, R. D., & Cordes, J. M. 1987, Nature, 328, 324, doi: 10.1038/328324a0

    1987 doi

  46. [54]

    Soglasnov, V. A. 2016, Astronomy Reports, 60, 211, doi: 10.1134/S1063772916020116

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    1999, ApJ, 517, 460, doi: 10.1086/307183

    Lundgren, S. 1999, ApJ, 517, 460, doi: 10.1086/307183

    1999 doi

  48. [56]

    R., Curtin, A

    Sand, K. R., Curtin, A. P., Michilli, D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b11

    2025 doi

  49. [57]

    J., Scowen, P

    Sankrit, R., Hester, J. J., Scowen, P. A., et al. 1998, ApJ, 504, 344, doi: 10.1086/306078

    1998 doi

  50. [58]

    Scheuer, P. A. G. 1968, Nature, 218, 920, doi: 10.1038/218920a0 Serafin Nadeau, T., & van Kerkwijk, M. H. in prep., A Melody in the Noise: Modelling echoes of the Crab Nebula Serafin Nadeau, T., van Kerkwijk, M. H., Bassa, C. G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-43...

    1968 doi

  51. [59]

    G., & Lyne, A

    Smith, F. G., & Lyne, A. G. 2000, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 202, IAU Colloq. 177: Pulsar Astronomy - 2000 and Beyond, ed. M. Kramer, N. Wex, & R. Wielebinski, 499

    2000

  52. [60]

    R., Rickett, B

    Stinebring, D. R., Rickett, B. J., Minter, A. H., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8ea8

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    M., et al

    Tian, J., Pastor-Marazuela, I., Rajwade, K. M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 1685, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf793

    2025 doi

  54. [62]

    1968, AJ, 73, 535, doi: 10.1086/110658 van Kerkwijk, M

    Trimble, V. 1968, AJ, 73, 535, doi: 10.1086/110658 van Kerkwijk, M. H., Luo, J., Zhu, C. C., Lin, R., &

    1968 doi

  55. [63]

    2025a, mhvk/baseband-tasks, v0.4.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15002761 van Kerkwijk, M

    Mahajan, N. 2025a, mhvk/baseband-tasks, v0.4.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15002761 van Kerkwijk, M. H., Zhu, C. C., Guo, S., et al. 2025b, mhvk/baseband, v4.3.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15001880

    doi

  56. [64]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    2010, in Sixth International VLBI Service for Geodesy and Astronomy

    Whitney, A., Kettenis, M., Phillips, C., & Sekido, M. 2010, in Sixth International VLBI Service for Geodesy and Astronomy. Proceedings from the 2010 General Meeting, ed. R. Navarro, S. Rogstad, C. E. Goodhart, E. Sigman, M. Soriano, D. Wang, L. A. White, & C. S. Jacobs, 192–196

    2010

  58. [66]

    Williamson, I. P. 1972, MNRAS, 157, 55, doi: 10.1093/mnras/157.1.55 —. 1973, MNRAS, 163, 345, doi: 10.1093/mnras/163.4.345 —. 1974, MNRAS, 166, 499, doi: 10.1093/mnras/166.3.499

    1972 doi

  59. [67]

    2018, in 14th European VLBI Network Symposium & Users Meeting (EVN 2018), 17, doi: 10.22323/1.344.0017

    Wucknitz, O. 2018, in 14th European VLBI Network Symposium & Users Meeting (EVN 2018), 17, doi: 10.22323/1.344.0017

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    W., Sanidas, S

    Yi, S., Stappers, B. W., Sanidas, S. A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 1245, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1826

    2014 doi

  61. [69]

    Kerkwijk, M. H. 2023, ApJ, 950, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accde0

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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