Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 66 references

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

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that Crab pulsar echoes arise when the line of sight grazes the thin ionized skin of small cylindrical filaments, explaining their timing, arc asymmetry, and the gap between arcs.

desk verdict A plausible but underconstrained filament-skin lensing model for Crab echoes; the sheet-like conclusion survives, the specific filament story needs more than one tuned event. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23214 v2 pith:TPGUJGCD submitted 2025-07-31 astro-ph.HE

Thierry Serafin Nadeau , Marten H. van Kerkwijk This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords Crabpulsarechoesplasmalensingfilamentarynebulaeionizedfilamentskinsdispersionmeasurevariationsgiantpulsesinterstellarscattering
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 argues that the radio 'echoes' that follow Crab pulsar pulses are produced when the line of sight crosses, at a glancing angle, the thin ionized skin of small cylindrical filaments in the Crab nebula. The resulting electron-density gradient bends radio waves enough to create delayed images, naturally producing the near-quadratic growth of echo delay with time and the asymmetric pair of arcs seen in observations. The model also predicts that the gap between the incoming and outgoing arcs lasts about as long as the pulsar takes to cross the skin. A match to an isolated echo seen in November 2021 supports the idea that the nebula is filled with small-scale filamentary structures too small for optical telescopes to resolve. Brightness details are not matched, which the paper attributes to roughness of the skin causing many unresolved images rather than one smooth lens.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the normalized excess electron column-density profile $P(\xi)$ of a thin ionized cylindrical skin crossed at glancing incidence. One writes $\Delta\mathrm{DM}(x)=\mathrm{DM}_{\mathrm{scl}}P(\xi)$, where $\xi$ is a dimensionless coordinate centered on the skin and, for a Gaussian skin profile, $P(\xi)$ has a closed form in terms of parabolic cylinder functions. The profile is steep and exponential on the outer edge and falls as $\xi^{-1/2}$ on the inner edge; that asymmetry is what makes the incoming echo arc longer and brighter than the outgoing one. Images are located by stationary-phase points of the total geometric-plus-dispersive phase, and their magnifications are $\mu = 1/(1-fP''(\xi))$ with dimensionless lens strength $f$; pairs of images are created and destroyed where $P''(\xi)=1/f$, which sets the arc endpoints and the size of the central gap.

What would settle it

Targeted imaging at roughly 10 mas that resolves filament radii near 10 au and skin widths near 0.05 au would settle the geometry directly; alternatively, measuring the dispersion-measure history across many isolated echoes should show a jump timed with the gap, with sign depending on whether the pulsar is entering or leaving the filament shadow, and the absence of such a jump would falsify the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Crab nebula echoes are the signature of line-of-sight crossings of the ionized skin that coats small cylindrical filaments of dense, mostly neutral material. Treating the skin as a thin Gaussian excess-electron layer of width $T \approx 0.05$ au around a filament of radius $R \approx 10$ au with peak density $n_{e,c} \approx 1000$ cm$^{-3}$, the model computes the excess column density and solves for stationary-phase images, recovering the observed near-quadratic delay evolution and the one-sided asymmetry of echo arcs. The size of the gap between arcs is set by the skin crossing time, about 2.4 days for the modeled event, matching the observed merging with the main pulse. The model does not reproduce the observed magnifications: it predicts bright caustics at arc endpoints and extreme demagnification in the gap that are not seen, and the paper attributes this to a rough skin that creates many unresolved sub-images. The successful delay and asymmetry match is taken as evidence that echoes are produced by sheet-like structures seen edge-on, and that the nebula contains filamentary substructure on scales far below current optical resolution.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Crab nebula actually contains small filaments with smooth, thin ionized skins of width about 0.05 au, radius about 10 au, and density near 1000 $cm^{-3}$; if such structures do not exist, the timing and asymmetry match would be a coincidence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Echoes that show the characteristic near-quadratic delay curve become direct probes of sub-AU structure: the ratios of the two arcs' delays, durations, and brightness are fixed by the skin profile with no free parameters.
  • Echoes should come in mirror-image pairs as the pulsar enters and then leaves a filament's shadow; tracking many events should show equal numbers of incoming and outgoing arcs, with dispersion measure rising during incoming arcs and falling during outgoing ones.
  • Some echoes should approach zero delay but never cross it, when the pulsar passes near a filament without going behind it; counting these events would constrain the typical filament size.
  • The magnification mismatch implies that real filament skins are rough on scales of order the skin width, so observed echoes are superpositions of many unresolved images, which would hide the predicted caustics and fill the low-magnification gap.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the roughness explanation is right, the brightness of the gap between arcs is not a measure of the skin's smooth lensing but of the amplitude of small-scale perturbations, so inferred widths from echo light curves would then be upper limits on the physical skin thickness.
  • The same edge-on-skin geometry should produce analogous echo pairs in other sources with plasma lenses, such as extreme scattering events and FRB temporal scattering; echo statistics would then be a common diagnostic for sheet-like ionized structures.
  • A quick testable extension is to fit the full delay-versus-time and dispersion-measure-versus-time curves of many isolated echoes with the generalized-Gaussian profile shape parameter left free; the semi-analytic profile makes such fits fast and would reveal whether the Gaussian shape or a sharper tophat-like shape better matches real skins.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper models Crab pulsar echoes as lensing by the thin ionized skin of small cylindrical filaments in the nebula, following the folded-sheet formalism of Simard & Pen (2018). It derives a semi-analytic column-density profile (a parabolic-cylinder function) and uses it to compute image delays, magnifications, and DM variations as the pulsar crosses a filament. The model is compared with an isolated November 2021 CHIME echo. The authors find good agreement with the near-quadratic delay evolution and the incoming/outgoing arc asymmetry, with the central gap attributed to the skin-crossing time; however, they report that the predicted magnifications (caustic brightening and deep central demagnification) are not observed, and that the predicted DM jump is about a factor of two too large. They attribute these failures to small-scale roughness of the skin and discuss extensions such as generalized density profiles, rough skins, and additional scattering.

Significance. The paper is valuable as a concrete, physically motivated alternative to earlier ad-hoc prism models of Crab echoes, and it makes testable predictions (DM increases accompanying long incoming arcs, paired echo events from enter/exit crossings, and echoes that approach but do not cross zero delay). The semi-analytic derivation in Appendix A is careful and internally consistent, and the authors are unusually candid about the model's failures, including the admitted magnification mismatch and the explicit assumption that sufficiently small filaments with thin, smooth ionized skins exist. If the filament-skin interpretation were confirmed, it would connect echoes to small-scale nebular substructure. In its present form, however, the quantitative comparison rests on parameters chosen to match the observed echo (Section 4.1), an adjustable profile shape for the asymmetry (Section 5.2), and an unresolved physical entity whose existence is assumed (Section 3); the single-event comparison is therefore a plausible proof of concept rather than a decisive confirmation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1] The near-quadratic delay evolution is not tested as a prediction: the observed coefficient η≃17 µs/day² is used to set v_ps=145 km/s and d_ps=0.5 pc, which satisfy η=v_ps²/(2 c d_ps) by construction. No uncertainty on η from the data is reported, and no residuals between the model delay track and the measured arc maxima are shown. To support the central claim, the authors should report the fitted η and its uncertainty, show that the model track is consistent with the daily arc measurements within that uncertainty, or provide an independent constraint on d_ps or v_ps.
  2. [Sections 4.3 and 5.2] The asymmetry success is partly absorbed by the density-profile shape. The paper notes in Section 4.3 that the predicted asymmetry is 'a bit more pronounced than that which is observed' and states in Section 5.2 that 'a slight change in the density profile could easily account for the small discrepancies.' Since γ, a free parameter, strongly changes the relative durations of the two arcs (Figure 7), the asymmetry should be presented as a posterior consistency check rather than an independent confirmation of the geometry. The 'no free parameters' statement in Section 4.3 refers only to extrema of the assumed Gaussian profile and does not remove the freedom to choose γ.
  3. [Sections 3 and 6] The physical interpretation as thin ionized skins of small filaments is load-bearing and unsupported at present. Section 3 explicitly says 'we will assume sufficiently small filaments exist,' and Section 6 acknowledges that photo-ionization models predict ionization depths ~10^3 au, orders of magnitude larger than T=0.05 au, and that 'our hypothesis... may well be wrong.' Because the relevant scales are not resolved, the authors should either provide an observational test that can distinguish the filament-skin interpretation from other sheet-like structures (e.g., a quantitative version of the DM-jump/incoming-arc correlation or the paired-event prediction) or substantially soften the statement that the results 'confirm that echoes are produced by sheet-like structures seen edge-on.'
  4. [Sections 4.4 and 4.5] The model's quantitative failures concern observables used to infer the physical parameters. The predicted caustic brightening is not seen, and the predicted demagnification in the gap (~3%) is an order of magnitude stronger than observed (37–52%, Section 4.4); the predicted DM jump of ~8e-3 pc/cm³ is about twice the observed ~4e-3 pc/cm³ (Section 4.5). The paper attributes these to a 'rough skin,' but as the authors themselves note in Section 5.3, under a rough skin the smooth-lens values of T, R, and n_e,c no longer correspond to physical values. The manuscript should specify which conclusions survive the rough-skin extension and how the inferred parameters should be reinterpreted.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, Section 3, Section 4.4, Section 6] There are several typos that should be corrected: 'larger breaking indices' in the Introduction should likely be 'larger bending indices' or 'larger refractive indices'; 'one one side' in Section 3; 'We can be verify the results' in Section 4.4; and 'well well as' in Section 6.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] The red curves in Figure 1 are described as 'the positions of the main and echo images expected from the simulations described in Section 3,' but the caption does not state which model parameters or frequencies were used, nor why the curves are expected to trace the bottom of each component. Please clarify.
  3. [Section 5.4] The estimate of gap filling from further scattering uses d_ps≃1 pc, while the fiducial model in Section 4.1 uses d_ps=0.5 pc. Please justify the different value or make the estimates consistent.
  4. [General] A table summarizing the model parameters and their status (assumed from prior constraints, fitted to the observed echo, or free) would substantially improve transparency, especially given the paper's own emphasis on the degeneracies among T, n_e,c, and the profile shape.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The near-quadratic delay evolution used as a headline validation is built into the chosen screen distance and velocity, making part of the central claim circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1 (model parameters), used in Abstract and Section 4.2]
    "For our sample echo, η≃17 µs/day^2, similar to the fastest-evolving echo found by Serafin Nadeau et al. (2024). Thus, like in that work, we place the structure at the minimum allowed distance of 0.5 pc and use a velocity v_ps = 145 km/s."

    In this model the geometric delay is η Δt^2 with η = v_ps^2/(2 c d_ps) (Section 4.1). The observed η≃17 µs/day^2 is first quoted, and then d_ps = 0.5 pc and v_ps = 145 km/s are adopted; inserting these numbers gives exactly the observed η (v_ps^2/(2 c d_ps) ≈ 17 µs/day^2). Therefore the Abstract's claim that the simulated delays 'follow closely the near quadratic evolution' is not an independent test: the quadratic coefficient used to generate the simulated delays was chosen to match the echo being modeled. The remaining delay-curve features (arc durations, absolute delays, gap) do depend on the profile P(ξ) and are not fully forced, so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

The main circular step is localized. Section 4.1 defines the geometric-delay coefficient η = v_ps^2/(2 c d_ps), quotes the observed η≃17 µs/day^2 for the November 2021 echo, and then chooses d_ps = 0.5 pc and v_ps = 145 km/s. Because these choices reproduce the observed η exactly, the subsequent claim that simulated delays 'follow closely the near quadratic evolution' (Abstract) is the input re-inserted, not a prediction. The quadratic form itself is generic to any strong localized lens and would appear in previous prism/fold models too; it does not select the filament-skin hypothesis. Other elements are more genuinely predictive: the shorter outgoing arc's existence and duration, and the gap width, follow from the profile P(ξ) and the adopted T, R, n_e,c rather than being fit to those features; the model also makes quantitative predictions for DM jumps and magnifications that are checked and found discrepant by a factor ~2 and more than an order of magnitude, respectively. Those failures are openly admitted, which argues against intentional circularity. The self-citations to Serafin Nadeau et al. (2024) supply input scales (T, R, sheet-like geometry) from previous independent observations of other echoes; using those as priors is not circular. However, because the headline delay match is set by construction and the asymmetry can be altered with the free profile shape γ (Section 5.2), the central validation is partially circular. Score 6 reflects this partial circularity rather than full equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central model leans on a set of parameters fitted to the target echo and an assumed existence of sub-resolution smooth-skinned filaments. The mathematical machinery (stationary phase, parabolic cylinder functions) is standard, but the physical entity and the smoothness assumption are postulated for this paper.

free parameters (7)
  • n_e,c (skin electron density) = 1000 cm^-3
    Chosen to match typical optical line emission densities in Crab filaments (range 550-3500 cm^-3); sets the scale of DM gradients and lens strength.
  • T (skin width) = 0.05 au
    Set from the earlier estimate T ~ 0.1 au at 1 pc, scaled to d_ps = 0.5 pc; controls brightness scale, delay slope, and gap duration.
  • R (filament radius) = 10 au
    Chosen by equating the inferred echo depth Z ~ 45T to the geometric maximum chord 2*sqrt(2*T*R); sets the shape of the DM profile.
  • d_ps (pulsar-lens distance) = 0.5 pc
    Taken at the minimum allowed distance (0.5-1.5 pc) to match the observed curvature eta ~ 17 µs/day^2.
  • v_ps (relative pulsar-screen velocity) = 145 km/s
    Chosen together with d_ps to reproduce the observed quadratic delay evolution.
  • t_0 (skin-crossing time) = November 16, 2021
    Set to align the simulated gap and DM jump with the observed vanishing of the main image.
  • gamma (profile shape) = 2 (Gaussian)
    Assumed Gaussian for the default model; Section 5.2 explores gamma = 1, 5, 10, 20 and shows the results are sensitive to this choice.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Sub-resolution filaments with thin ionized skins exist in the Crab nebula.
    Invoked in Section 3 ('we will assume sufficiently small filaments exist'); no direct observational evidence, and photo-ionization models predict much larger skin widths (Section 3, Section 6).
  • ad hoc to paper The skin's excess electron density follows a smooth Gaussian profile over the lensing region (aspect ratio Z/T ~ 50).
    Postulated in Eq. 2 and used in all default simulations; Section 5.3 acknowledges a rough skin is more realistic and needed to fix the magnification mismatch.
  • domain assumption The lens is much closer to the pulsar than to the observer, and small-angle, eikonal (geometric optics) approximations hold.
    Used in deriving the geometric and dispersive phases in Eqs. 9-14, following Simard & Pen (2018).
  • standard math The parabolic cylinder function representation and its recurrence relations are correct.
    Used in Appendix A and Table 1 for the DM profile and its derivatives; standard DLMF results.
  • domain assumption Magnification singularities at caustics are unphysical and can be ignored in the simulation while still tracking image positions.
    Section 3.2 states the infinity would disappear at higher order and the simulations ignore it; this choice hides the caustic brightening that the data does not show, a known model-data tension.
invented entities (1)
  • Small-scale filaments with thin ionized skins (skin width ~0.05 au, radius ~10 au)
    purpose: To produce the large electron column density gradients at glancing incidence needed to explain Crab pulsar echoes.
    The entities are inferred from the echoes themselves; optical and LOFAR observations do not resolve them, and photo-ionization modeling predicts much thicker skins. The paper admits the hypothesis may be wrong (Section 3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Melody in the Noise: Modeling Echoes of the Crab Nebula." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TPGUJGCD

@misc{pith2026250723214,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Melody in the Noise: Modeling Echoes of the Crab Nebula},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TPGUJGCD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23214}
}
read the original abstract

Pulses from the Crab pulsar are often followed by "echoes", produced by radiation that was deflected by structures in the Crab nebula and thus traveled via longer paths. We describe a simplified but detailed model that treats the structures as cylindrical filaments of dense, neutral material with a thin ionized skin. In this picture, echoes are produced when the line of sight crosses the skin at glancing incidence, which naturally leads to the large electron column density gradients required to get the observed delays even with electron densities comparable to those inferred from optical line emission ratios. We compare the properties of the predicted echoes with those of a relatively isolated observed one identified during daily monitoring with CHIME. We find that the delays of the simulated echoes follow closely the near quadratic evolution known to be a feature of these echoes, and that, unlike in previous models, we match the characteristic observed asymmetry between incoming and outgoing arcs, with the size of the gap in between a consequence of the skin crossing time. However, our model fails to quantitatively reproduce the magnifications of the echoes. We believe this likely is because the structures are not as smooth as envisaged, so that a given echo results from many images. Nevertheless, our results confirm that echoes are produced by sheet-like structures seen edge-on and support the hypothesis that the nebula is filled with small-scale filamentary structures, which may well be substructures of the larger filaments that are seen in optical images.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23214 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Giant pulse profiles in November 2021, averaged over all pulses seen in each daily transit, and over 100 MHz bands centered on 750, 600 and 450 MHz (top to bottom). The positions of the main and echo images expected from the simulations described in Section 3 are shown in red. Note that these do not include any further scattering, i.e., they are expected to trace the bottom of each component [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Model lensing geometry (adapted from Simard & Pen 2018), assuming a cylindrical filament, perpendicular to the line of sight, with some radius R and a skin with thickness T = R/10 with increased electron density (grey shading). Lines of sight that cross this filament have increased DM (green line). Paths taken by different images are shown, with angles β and θ to the pulsar and lensed image, respectively (both relat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Phase changes along different paths, illustrating points of stationary phase, as the pulsar crosses the lead￾ing edge of a lens (with parameters chosen for visual clarity; specifically, we used ν = 800 MHz, T = 0.5 au, R = 1 au and ne,c = 105 cm−3 ). (Top) Situation before ingress. The total phase difference relative to the line of sight is shown in blue, with the contributions from the geometric and disper￾sive com… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulated lens properties for three different frequencies (as labeled on top), with parameters chosen to produce delays similar to those seen in the observed echo shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ratio of the magnification of echo images relative to the main component images for a range of frequencies. also increasing ∆ne √ R to keep the gradient ∇xDM ∝ ne,cp R/T roughly constant but let ∆DM ∝ ∆ne √ RT increase. We now turn to the locations where the images ap￾…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Measured DM offset through the month of November 2021, during which the echo shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulated image delays at 600MHz for a range of filament skin ionization profiles, with γ = 1 corresponding to a Laplacian profile, γ = 2 corresponding to a Gaussian profile, and larger γ increasingly approximating a tophat ionization profile. the images, while the mag…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The normalized lens profile and its first and sec￾ond derivatives. Images are bent proportionally to dP/dξ, and pairs of them (dis)appear when d 2P(ξ)/dξ2 equals a number that depends on the lens strength (see Sect. 4.3). The dimensionless coordinate ξ is chosen to run…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., & Bassa, C

    Arias, M., Timmerman, R., Sweijen, F., van Weeren, R. J., & Bassa, C. G. 2025, A&A, 699, A319, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555333 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: 10.3847/1538-388...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555333 2025

  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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab76bc 2020

  4. [4]

    P., Davidson, K., Fesen, R

    Blair, W. P., Davidson, K., Fesen, R. A., et al. 1997, ApJS, 109, 473, doi: 10.1086/312986

    work page doi:10.1086/312986 1997

  5. [5]

    P., Sankrit, R., Milisavljevic, D., et al

    Blair, W. P., Sankrit, R., Milisavljevic, D., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2adc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2adc 2026

  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 CHIME Collaboration, Amiri, M., Bandura, K., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6fd9

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

  7. [7]

    H., Murdin, P., Wood, R., et al

    Clark, D. H., Murdin, P., Wood, R., et al. 1983, MNRAS, 204, 415, doi: 10.1093/mnras/204.2.415 A Melody to the Noise19

    doi:10.1093/mnras/204.2.415 1983

  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 66 references
  1. [9]

    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

  2. [10]

    M., Pidwerbetsky, A., & Lovelace, R

    Cordes, J. M., Pidwerbetsky, A., & Lovelace, R. V. E. 1986, ApJ, 310, 737, doi: 10.1086/164728

    1986 doi

  3. [11]

    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

  4. [12]

    2020, ApJ, 902, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb5fe DLMF

    Das, A., Sil, M., Bhat, B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb5fe DLMF. 2024,NIST Digital Library of Mathematical

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    https://dlmf.nist.gov/

    Functions, Release 1.2.3 of 2024-12-15. https://dlmf.nist.gov/

    2024

  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]

    A., & Kirshner, R

    Fesen, R. A., & Kirshner, R. P. 1982, ApJ, 258, 1, doi: 10.1086/160043

    1982 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Martin, C

    Fesen, R. A., Martin, C. L., & Shull, J. M. 1992, ApJ, 399, 599, doi: 10.1086/171951

    1992 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]

    R., Wright, G

    Graham, J. R., Wright, G. S., & Longmore, A. J. 1990, ApJ, 352, 172, doi: 10.1086/168525 Graham Smith, F., Lyne, A. G., & Jordan, C. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 499, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17459.x

    1990

  11. [19]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.09058, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1810.09058

    Grillo, G., & Cordes, J. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.09058, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1810.09058

    2018 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    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

  14. [22]

    J., Scowen, P

    Hester, J. J., Scowen, P. A., Sankrit, R., et al. 1995, ApJ, 448, 240, doi: 10.1086/175956

    1995 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Stone, J

    Hester, J. J., Stone, J. M., Scowen, P. A., et al. 1996, ApJ, 456, 225, doi: 10.1086/176643

    1996 doi

  16. [24]

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

    2007 doi

  17. [25]

    Isaacman, R., & Rankin, J. M. 1977, ApJ, 214, 214, doi: 10.1086/155245

    1977 doi

  18. [26]

    Jow, D. L. 2024, PhD thesis, University of Toronto

    2024

  19. [27]

    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

  20. [28]

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

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

    2008 doi

  21. [29]

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

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    X., Lin, H.-H., Luo, J., et al

    Lin, F. X., Lin, H.-H., Luo, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2529

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    X., Main, R

    Lin, F. X., Main, R. A., Jow, D., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 519, 121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3456

    doi

  24. [32]

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

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    H., Main, R., et al

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

    doi

  26. [34]

    D., Baldwin, J

    Loh, E. D., Baldwin, J. A., Ferland, G. J., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 789, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20353.x

    2012

  27. [35]

    M., Desch, S

    Loll, A. M., Desch, S. J., Scowen, P. A., & Foy, J. P. 2013, ApJ, 765, 152, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/152

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    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

  29. [37]

    G., & Thorne, D

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

    1975 doi

  30. [38]

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

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    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

  32. [40]

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

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

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    R., Simard, D., Main, R

    Marthi, V. R., Simard, D., Main, R. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5160, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1970

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    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

  35. [43]

    2015, Nature, 528, 523, doi: 10.1038/nature15769

    Masui, K., Lin, H.-H., Sievers, J., et al. 2015, Nature, 528, 523, doi: 10.1038/nature15769

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

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

    doi

  37. [45]

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

    doi

  38. [46]

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

    1957 doi

  39. [47]

    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

  40. [48]

    1983, A&A, 120, 249

    Pequignot, D., & Dennefeld, M. 1983, A&A, 120, 249

    1983

  41. [49]

    D., Barlow, M

    Priestley, F. D., Barlow, M. J., & Viti, S. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2327

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    M., Comella, J

    Rankin, J. M., Comella, J. M., Craft, H. D., J., et al. 1970, ApJ, 162, 707, doi: 10.1086/150703

    1970 doi

  43. [51]

    Rickett, B. J. 1990, ARA&A, 28, 561, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.003021

    1990

  44. [52]

    W., Blandford, R

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

    1987 doi

  45. [53]

    J., Scowen, P

    Sankrit, R., Hester, J. J., Scowen, P. A., et al. 1998, ApJ, 504, 344, doi: 10.1086/306078 20Serafin Nadeau & van Kerkwijk

    1998 doi

  46. [54]

    Scheuer, P. A. G. 1968, Nature, 218, 920, doi: 10.1038/218920a0 Serafin Nadeau, T., van Kerkwijk, M. H., Bassa, C. G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18c5 Serafin Nadeau, T., van Kerkwijk, M. H., Luo, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, submitted, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.23201

    1968 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    Shklovsky, I. S. 1957, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 4, Radio astronomy, ed. H. C. van de Hulst, 201

    1957

  48. [56]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 983, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1140

    Simard, D., & Pen, U.-L. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 983, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1140

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    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

  50. [58]

    H., & Reifenstein, Edward C., I

    Staelin, D. H., & Reifenstein, Edward C., I. 1968, Science, 162, 1481, doi: 10.1126/science.162.3861.1481

    1968

  51. [59]

    R., McLaughlin, M

    Stinebring, D. R., McLaughlin, M. A., Cordes, J. M., et al. 2001, ApJL, 549, L97, doi: 10.1086/319133

    2001 doi

  52. [60]

    M., Kavanagh, P

    Temim, T., Laming, J. M., Kavanagh, P. J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 968, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad50d1

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    2022, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Thomas, R. 2022, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 240, American Astronomical Society Meeting #240, 226.01

    2022

  54. [62]

    Vandenberg, N. R. 1976, ApJ, 209, 578, doi: 10.1086/154753

    1976 doi

  55. [63]

    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

  56. [64]

    A., Melrose, D

    Walker, M. A., Melrose, D. B., Stinebring, D. R., & Zhang, C. M. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 43, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08159.x

    2004

  57. [65]

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

    1972 doi

  58. [66]

    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

Pith tools

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