Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The paper reports the first detection of quasi-periodic microstructure, sub-millisecond intensity flicker, in the interpulse emission of pulsars, and confirms that the flicker's characteristic period tracks neutron-star spin across all clas

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-05 04:44 UTC pith:VAWHFYZB

load-bearing objection First IP microstructure detection is plausible but rests on manual selection without a null test; the real value is the new observational result, not the re-fitted P_mu-P relation. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2509.05957 v1 pith:VAWHFYZB submitted 2025-09-07 astro-ph.HE

FAST Observations of the Microstructure in Interpulse Pulsars

Wei Li , Shijun Dang , Na Wang , Chengmin Zhang , Jingbo Wang , Jianping Yuan , Feifei Kou , Yanqing Cai
show 7 more authors
Zurong Zhou Shuangqiang Wang Lunhua Shang Juntao Bai Yirong Wen Jing Zou Zhixiang Yu
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 97.60.Gb95.85.Bh
keywords pulsar microstructureinterpulse pulsarsquasi-periodic substructureautocorrelation functionfast Fourier transformrotation-period scalingFAST observationssingle-pulse morphology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper asks a question no one had answered: do the faint secondary radio pulses of interpulse pulsars carry the same sub-millisecond intensity flicker ('microstructure') that main pulses are known to carry? Using single-pulse FAST data on four interpulse pulsars, it reports the first detection of quasi-periodic microstructure in interpulse emission (PSRs J0627+0706 and J0953+0755), plus a first detection in the post-cursor of PSR J0826+2637. It then compares main-pulse and interpulse flicker: statistically indistinguishable in J0627+0706, but measurably finer in the interpulse of J0953+0755. Finally it combines the new measurements with published data across normal pulsars, millisecond pulsars, magnetars, RRATs, and a 76-second pulsar, reconfirming Pµ(ms) ≈ 1.34 × P(s)^1.06. If correct, the results open interpulse emission to microstructure studies and sharpen the evidence that quasi-periodic flicker across all radio-emitting neutron stars is set by the rotation period itself.

Core claim

On its own terms, the discovery is that quasi-periodic microstructure is not confined to main pulses. From FAST single pulses, using autocorrelation-function (ACF) and fast-Fourier-transform (FFT) analysis of denoised pulse residuals, the authors identify sub-millisecond periodic modulation in the interpulses of PSR J0627+0706 (42 of 792 high-SNR pulses; Pµ = 0.94 ms) and PSR J0953+0755 (381 of 1021; Pµ = 0.38 ms), and in the post-cursor of PSR J0826+2637 (7 of 9 pulses, flagged as statistically insignificant). In J0627+0706 the interpulse flicker matches the main pulse within errors; in J0953+0755 it is finer. Re-fitting the population relation between Pµ and rotation period recovers Pµ(ms)

What carries the argument

The load-bearing analysis chain: (1) fold FAST single pulses, excise RFI, denoise with smoothing-spline regression, and strip low-frequency power via Nadaraya-Watson kernel smoothing at bandwidth 0.075×N_on, leaving residuals that hold only the fast flicker; (2) read the ACF's first minimum as the timescale τµ, and take the quasi-period Pµ from three estimators — ACF first minimum, FFT peak of the residual, FFT peak of the residual's ACF — reconciled by manual visual selection; (3) fit the power law Pµ = A·P^α in log space across ~40 objects spanning five decades in spin period. The fixed point of the study is the empirical P–Pµ relation, Pµ(ms) ≈ 1.34·P(s)^1.06, which the new interpulse mea

Load-bearing premise

The first-detection claim stands on the assumption that the ACF dips and FFT peaks — picked partly by eye, on as few as 7 to 42 usable interpulse pulses — really trace periodic flicker in the emission, and are not noise or residual radio interference that survived the cleaning.

What would settle it

Re-observe PSRs J0627+0706 and J0953+0755 at roughly five times finer time resolution than the current 49 µs, and require the same interpulse quasi-periodic peaks (Pµ ≈ 0.94 ms and ≈ 0.38 ms) and ACF first minima to reappear in independently cleaned residuals; if the peaks vanish or shift by more than the quoted errors, or if matching peaks appear in the ACF/FFT of pure noise processed the same way, the manual peak-picking was not seeing true interpulse microstructure.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Interpulse emission is no longer smooth by default: quasi-periodic sub-millisecond flicker occurs in IP components, so IP radiation is structured on the same rapid timescales as MP radiation.
  • Within one pulsar, IP and MP flicker rates can differ (J0953+0755: Pµ = 0.38 ms vs 0.50 ms), giving a quantitative observable for how emission changes between the two sight-line cuts.
  • The reconfirmed near-linear scaling, Pµ(ms) = (1.337±0.114)·P(s)^(1.063±0.038), across normal pulsars, MSPs, magnetars, RRATs, and long-period pulsars implies the flicker clock is set by rotation period itself, not by age or field.
  • Applying that scaling to the quasi-periods measured in six FRBs predicts host spin periods from ~2 ms to ~122 s (Table 5), giving a testable handle on FRB central engines.
  • For interpulse pulsars, microstructure similarity between MP and IP can flag whether the two components come from the same pole and even the same flux tube, complementing polarization-based geometry arguments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the IP–MP flicker comparison is a genuine geometric diagnostic, it can be pushed further than the paper goes: a modest survey of high-SNR interpulse pulsars could map IP/MP Pµ ratios against MP–IP longitude separation, testing whether the ratio tracks the angular distance between sampled field lines — a prediction the paper's two objects cannot decide.
  • The paper's own resolution caveats (shortest τµ at 1–2× the sampling time) imply the fitted Pµ values may be upper limits; re-observations at finer time resolution could push τµ down and steepen the slope, so the near-unity exponent should be treated as provisional at the short-period end.
  • The same reasoning that predicts FRB host periods can be inverted: for repeating FRBs with quasi-periodic substructure, independent evidence of periodicity (burst clustering or an identified associated source) should appear near the predicted spin period — a falsifiable link between FRB microstructure and neutron-star rotation.
  • If the scaling is truly universal, the 6.45-hour coherent transient ASKAP J183950.5−075635.0 becomes a stress test: its substructure period should land near the power-law extension at P ≈ 23,000 s, which can be checked against current limits.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes FAST single-pulse observations of four interpulse pulsars (J0627+0706, J0826+2637, J0953+0755, J1946+1805) with the goal of detecting and measuring quasi-periodic microstructure in both main pulses (MP) and interpulses (IP). The analysis pipeline follows Mitra et al. (2015): it denoises single pulses, removes low-frequency power with a kernel smoother, computes ACFs and FFTs of the residuals, and extracts the characteristic timescale tau_mu and quasi-period P_mu, with manual selection of pulses judged to show quasi-periodic behavior. The paper reports the first detection of quasi-periodic microstructure in IP emission (for J0627+0706 and J0953+0755), claims that MP and IP microstructure are consistent for J0627+0706 but that IP values are smaller for J0953+0755, and presents a refreshed P_mu-P power-law fit using literature plus four new MP measurements.

Significance. If the first-detection claim is correct, the paper fills a genuine observational gap: microstructure has been studied extensively in main pulses and in other neutron-star classes, but not in interpulse emission. The simultaneous MP-IP comparison is also a promising diagnostic for emission geometry, and the paper uses publicly released FAST data. The main weakness is that the detection pipeline relies heavily on manual selection and visual RFI rejection, and no false-alarm rate is computed. The headline conclusion therefore remains plausible but not quantitatively established. The P_mu-P relation is a useful update, although it is a confirmation rather than a new result and depends on the reliability of the new MP measurements.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, steps 4-8; Table 3] No null test is provided for the detection of quasi-periodic microstructure. The residual extraction is effectively a high-pass filter, which can imprint oscillatory structure on white noise and produce ACF minima and FFT peaks. The reported detection rates are 42/792 = 5.3% for the J0627 IP and 381/1021 = 37% for the J0953 IP, but the reader cannot tell whether these rates exceed what the same pipeline would produce on pure noise or residual RFI. The authors should process off-pulse noise windows (or simulated noise) through the identical smoothing, residual, ACF/FFT, and manual-selection protocol and report the resulting false-alarm rate. This is load-bearing for Conclusion 1.
  2. [Section 3, step 7(1)] The text defines the first ACF minimum as tau_mu in step 6 and then again defines the first ACF minimum as P_mu in step 7(1). If taken literally, P_mu would equal tau_mu for every pulse, contradicting Table 3 (e.g., J0627+0706 MP: tau_mu = 0.46 ms, P_mu = 0.82 ms). The intended estimator must be specified precisely (e.g., first ACF maximum after zero, second minimum, or a harmonic relation from the FFT peak). Because P_mu enters the main conclusions and the P_mu-P fit, this ambiguity is not merely cosmetic.
  3. [Section 4.1.3 and Section 4.2; Figure 13; Table 3] The reported MP-IP differences for PSR J0953+0755 sit at the time-resolution limit. The paper states that the median Delta(tau_mu) = 0.06 ms equals the 49.152 microsecond bin width and median Delta(P_mu) = 0.11 ms equals twice that width. With such quantization, the observed "smaller IP" values could be a binning artifact. The authors acknowledge the resolution limit in the text, but they do not show that the distributions of Delta(tau_mu) and Delta(P_mu) are inconsistent with what would arise from a common underlying distribution after discretization. A bootstrap or simulated-bin test is needed before Conclusion 3 can be accepted.
  4. [Section 3, step 1; Table 2] Component boundaries are visually estimated for several pulsars and are used to define the phase windows from which single pulses are extracted. For J0953+0755 the MP/IP boundary is set by the minimum intensity after low-pass filtering, and for J0627+0706 and J1946+1805 the boundaries are "visually estimated." The IP detection results depend directly on these windows: if the IP window includes a small amount of MP or bridge emission, the residual statistics could be contaminated. The authors should test at least a few neighboring boundary choices and show that the IP detection rates and P_mu/tau_mu values are stable.
  5. [Section 4.2, Figures 10-13] The comparison between MP and IP (or PC) microstructure is stated qualitatively, with medians and interquartile ranges, but no statistical test is applied. For J0627+0706 the simultaneous-sample size is only 17 pulses, and for J0826+2637 the PC sample is 7 pulses; the paper itself flags the latter as not statistically significant. A two-sample test (e.g., KS or bootstrap) on the tau_mu and P_mu distributions, or at least a bootstrap confidence interval on the medians of Delta(tau_mu) and Delta(P_mu), is needed to support the claims of consistency in J0627+0706 and difference in J0953+0755.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 4; Conclusion] Table 4 lists "J1946+1905(MP)" but the pulsar is J1946+1805 throughout the rest of the paper. The conclusion also contains typos such as "mainpulse" and "exit" instead of "exist."
  2. [Section 3, step 7 and Figure 2] The notation is confusing: the same symbol P_mu is used for the candidate period from three methods, but the text does not explain how the three candidate values are reconciled when they differ. Also, figure axis labels read "Frequency (KHz)"; the unit should be kHz.
  3. [Section 3, step 1 and Figure 1] The caption of Figure 1 mentions vertical red lines in the top-right and bottom-left insets, but the figure description does not say what they mark. Table 2 gives phase ranges, but the relation between the table ranges and the inset rectangles is not always visually obvious.
  4. [Section 4.3, Table 4] The log-space least-squares fit appears to be unweighted, despite the data having asymmetric and heteroscedastic errors. Since some data points are duplicated (J2145-0750 and J1913+1330 appear twice) and one point (J0901-4046) is a rough estimate, a weighted fit or a bootstrap with an explicit treatment of the duplicate entries would be more robust. At minimum, the authors should state whether the shown uncertainties include the fit covariance.
  5. [Section 4.4] The statement that in the IP of J0953+0755 "almost all pulses exhibiting quasi-periodic microstructure are superimposed on low-frequency envelopes" is made without a count or fraction. Please provide the number of such pulses out of the 381 detected IP pulses.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the IP-microstructure detection and the P_mu-P fit are not derived from their own inputs; only minor, non-load-bearing self-citations occur.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are (1) first detection of quasi-periodic microstructure in interpulses, (2) a comparison of tau_mu and P_mu between MP and IP, and (3) a reconfirmation of the P_mu-P relation. None of these reduces by construction to its inputs. The detection pipeline (Section 3, steps 4-8) uses ACF first minima and FFT peaks on pulse residuals; it does not use the P_mu-P relation to decide what counts as a detection. The P_mu-P fit in Section 4.3 is a least-squares fit to a compiled dataset (Table 4) that includes the paper's new MP values as independent points; it is a fitted result, not an assumed input, so its agreement with prior work is an independent meta-analysis rather than a circular restatement. The paper explicitly notes limitations in Section 4.2 (small sample size, time resolution) and Section 4.1.2 (only 7 PC pulses), which supports a non-circular reading. The only self-citations are: (a) Dang et al. 2024 contributes one RRAT point to Table 4, and (b) Sun et al. 2025 supplies zeta values and polarization geometry in Section 5.2. These are not load-bearing: removing the Dang et al. point would not materially change the fit, and the IP-detection claim does not depend on Sun et al. The methodological concern about manual selection and the absence of a false-alarm null test is a statistical validity issue, not a circularity issue. Therefore no circular step is identified, and the paper is self-contained with respect to its main claims.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central detection rests on the standard M15 microstructure pipeline plus a hand-selected smoothing bandwidth and manual pulse selection; the power-law relation is a fit rather than a derivation. No new physical entities are introduced. The physical interpretation in Section 5.2 relies on flux-tube assumptions inherited from the literature.

free parameters (4)
  • Power-law amplitude A = 1.337 +/- 0.114
    Fitted to log-transformed P_mu versus P data across magnetars, normal pulsars, MSPs, long-period pulsars, and RRATs. This is the headline fitted relation, not a hidden input.
  • Power-law index alpha = 1.063 +/- 0.038
    Fitted in the same least-squares fit after logarithmic transformation; uncertainty comes from error propagation.
  • Smoothing bandwidth H = 0.075 x N_on
    Chosen by hand within the range used by M15. It controls the smoothed pulse and therefore the residual from which ACF and FFT periods are measured.
  • SNR screening threshold = SNR > 15 and at least 5 on-pulse bins above 3 sigma of off-pulse
    Data screening choice that determines which single pulses enter the microstructure sample; not physically derived.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The first minimum of the residual ACF measures the microstructure characteristic timescale tau_mu, and FFT peaks measure quasi-periodicity.
    Invoked in Section 3, steps 6 and 7. This is the standard M15 assumption, but it is not independently justified here; noise and smoothing can also produce minima and peaks.
  • ad hoc to paper Visual and manual selection can reliably identify genuine quasi-periodic single pulses and exclude RFI.
    Section 3, step 8 states that automated algorithms cannot reliably do this, so the authors manually inspect frequency-phase maps. The first-detection claim rests on this subjective step.
  • domain assumption Component phase ranges assigned by visual inspection or by minimum-intensity separation are adequate for MP/IP comparison.
    Section 3, step 1 admits the delineation is not based on a rigorous definition; all MP/IP comparisons inherit these boundary choices.
  • domain assumption Microstructure persists within a magnetic flux tube, so similar or different P_mu and tau_mu between MP and IP indicate same or different tubes.
    Section 5.2 uses this to interpret PSRs J0953+0755 and J0627+0706. It is an interpretive model assumption, not an independently tested fact.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 27449 in / 10801 out tokens · 113610 ms · 2026-08-05T04:44:19.432539+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FAST Observations of the Microstructure in Interpulse Pulsars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VAWHFYZB

@misc{pith2026250905957,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FAST Observations of the Microstructure in Interpulse Pulsars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VAWHFYZB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05957}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

In this study, we investigate the microstructure properties of four pulsars (PSRs J0953+0755 (B0950+08), J0627+0706, J0826+2637 (B0823+26) and J1946+1805 (B1944+17)) using the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope (FAST), with particular emphasis on identifying microstructure within interpulse (IP). Through the application of autocorrelation function (ACF) analysis and fast Fourier transform (FFT) techniques, we have systematically examined the periodicity of microstructure in these pulsars. Our findings represent the first successful detection of microstructure within IP. Furthermore, we conducted a comprehensive statistical analysis comparing the characteristic timescales ($\tau_{\mu}$) and the characteristic periods $P_{\mu}$ of quasi-periodic microstructure between the main pulse (MP) and IP, and our results indicate that the $\tau_{\mu}$ and $P_{\mu}$ of microstructure across components appear consistent within measurement errors for PSR J0627+0706, but microstructure in IP are relatively smaller than those in MP for PSR J0953+0755. Furthermore, the relationship between $P_{\mu}$ of microstructure and the rotation period in neutron star populations was reconfirmed: $P_{\mu}(\text{ms})=(1.337\pm0.114)\times P(\text{s})^{(1.063\pm0.038)}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05957 by Chengmin Zhang, Feifei Kou, Jianping Yuan, Jingbo Wang, Jing Zou, Juntao Bai, Lunhua Shang, Na Wang, Shijun Dang, Shuangqiang Wang, Wei Li, Yanqing Cai, Yirong Wen, Zhixiang Yu, Zurong Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The profiles of Pulsars. Each of the four panels illustrates the normalized integrated profile of a pulsar, including an inset that zooms in on the pulse at a specific phase range. The MP, IP, and PC components are annotated with pink, blue, and orange rectangles, respectively. Denoised profiles are represented by the blue lines. Vertical red lines in the insets of the top-right and bottom-left panels mark… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Pulse 136: A representative example of quasi-periodic microstructure in MP of PSR J0627+0706. Top-left panel: The gray dots represent the original pulse profile, while the black line shows the denoised pulse. The red line corresponds to smoothed pulses obtained using smoothing bandwidths of 0.075 × Non. The residual of the smoothed pulse is plotted at the bottom. Lower-left panel: The blue line depict the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Pulse 212: A representative example of quasi-periodic microstructure observed in the IP of PSR J0627+0706. The light blue horizontal solid line in the top-left panel represent three times the standard deviation of the off-pulse region. All other features and annotations follow the same conventions as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histograms of τµ and Pµ for microstructure in four interpulse pulsars. For each pulsar component, the top panel displays the distribution of τµ for quasi-periodic microstructure. And the bottom panel illustrates the distribution of Pµ for quasi-periodic microstructure. In each panel, the green dashed line indicates the median, while the pink shaded region represents the interquartile range (IQR). 4.1. Time… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Pulse 185: A representative example of quasi-periodic microstructure observed in the MP of PSR J0826+2637. All other features and annotations follow the same conventions as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Pulse 157: A representative example of quasi-periodic microstructure observed in the PC of PSR J0826+2637. The light blue horizontal solid line in the top-left panel represent three times the standard deviation of the off-pulse region. All other features and annotations follow the same conventions as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Pulse 3357: A representative example of quasi-periodic microstructure observed in the MP of PSR J0953+0755. All other features and annotations follow the same conventions as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Pulse 3070: A representative example showing quasi-periodic microstructure in IP of PSR J0953+0755. The light blue horizontal solid line in the top-left panel represent three times the standard deviation of the off-pulse region. All other features and annotations follow the same conventions as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Pulse 400: A representative example of quasi-periodic microstructure observed in the MP of PSR J1946+1805. All other features and annotations follow the same conventions as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The horizontal coordinate is the rotation period. The results of τµ and Pµ of quasi-periodic microstructure are shown in the top panel and the bottom panel, respectively. The blue, the red and the orange dots represent the results of the MP, IP and PC components, respectively. 4.3. The Relationship between the Rotation Periods and Periods of Quasi-periodic Substructures The rotation period and the quasi-p… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Histograms of τµ and Pµ for microstructure that occur simultaneously in single pulses in two interpulse pulsars. For each pulsar, the top panel displays the distribution of τµ for quasi-periodic microstructure in MP (blue) and IP (or PC) (red), respectively. And the bottom panel illustrates the distribution of Pµ for these quasi-periodic microstructure. In each panel, the dashed line indicates the median … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The distribution of ∆τµ and ∆Pµ in PSR J0627+0706. The black scatter points represent the distribution of ∆τµ and ∆Pµ, the blue shaded area is the two-dimensional kernel density estimation (KDE), and the sky-blue solid lines denote the medians of the of ∆τµ and ∆Pµ, respectively; the values in the text box at the upper left corner are the specific measured values of the corresponding medians (retained to … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The distribution of ∆τµ and ∆Pµ in PSR J0953+0755. Others are the same with that in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The relationship between the rotation periods and periods of quasi-periodic substructures. A power function Pµ = A×P α is used to fit these data points, where P is in second. The fitting result is Pµ(ms) = (1.337±0.114)×P(s)(1.063±0.038) . The error interval of 3 σ is also shown in this figure. Beyond the partially nulling pulses characterized by an abrupt intensity drop, we identified a subset of pulses … view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Gallery of quasi-periodic microstructure in the MP of PSR J0953+0755. Each panel features a pulse profile (top) and a phase-frequency intensity map (bottom), with data downsampled to 32 frequency channels. periodic microstructure without low-frequency envelopes, and pulses with rapid intensity variations may not be common phenomena within the pulsar population. We propose that partial nulling phenomena ma… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Gallery of partially nulling pulses in the MP of PSR J0953+0755. Each panel features a pulse profile (top) and a phase-frequency intensity map (bottom), with data downsampled to 32 frequency channels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Gallery of pulses exhibiting rapid intensity increase or sharp decay in the MP of PSR J0953+0755. Each panel features a pulse profile (top) and a phase-frequency intensity map (bottom), with data downsampled to 32 frequency channels. Pulse 594 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46 Phase 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Frequency (GHz) Pulse 1487 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46 Phase 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Frequency (GHz) P… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Gallery of quasi-periodic microstructure in the IP of PSR J0953+0755. Each panel features a pulse profile (top) and a phase-frequency intensity map (bottom), with data downsampled to 32 frequency channels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Gallery of partially nulling pulses and pulses exhibiting rapid intensity decay in the IP of PSR J0953+0755. Each panel features a pulse profile (top) and a phase-frequency intensity map (bottom), with data downsampled to 32 frequency channels. energy from the width of the micropulses (Lange et al. 1998): γ = P 2πτµ · sin(ζ) (1) where γ is the Lorentz factor of the particles, P is the rotation period of p… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. FAST Pulsar Database IV. Spike subpulses and quasi-periodic subpulses of 25 pulsars observed by FAST

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    High-resolution FAST data reveal spike subpulses (strongly polarized, marginally resolved) in 21 pulsars and quasi-periodic subpulses (periods ~0.1-1 ms) in 13 pulsars, with checks for rotation period correlation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 4589, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2299

    Arumugasamy, P., & Mitra, D. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 4589, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2299

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2299 2019

  2. [2]

    1993, MNRAS, 264, 940, doi: 10.1093/mnras/264.4.940

    Asseo, E. 1993, MNRAS, 264, 940, doi: 10.1093/mnras/264.4.940

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/264.4.940 1993

  3. [3]

    C., Boriakoff, V., & Manchester, R

    Backer, D. C., Boriakoff, V., & Manchester, R. N. 1973, Nature Physical Science, 243, 77, doi: 10.1038/physci243077a0

    work page doi:10.1038/physci243077a0 1973

  4. [4]

    Bartel, N., Sieber, W., & Graham, D. A. 1980, A&A, 87, 282

    work page 1980

  5. [5]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 4536, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1590 5 https://numpy.org/ 6 https://matplotlib.org/ 7 https://scipy.org/

    Basu, R., & Mitra, D. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4536, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1590 5 https://numpy.org/ 6 https://matplotlib.org/ 7 https://scipy.org/

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1590 2019

  6. [6]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ApJL, 843, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3 2017

  7. [7]

    1977, MNRAS, 179, 311, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.311

    Benford, G. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 311, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.311

    doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.311 1977

  8. [8]

    D., Ravi, V., Belov, K

    Bochenek, C. D., Ravi, V., Belov, K. V., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x 2020

  9. [9]

    1976, ApJL, 208, L43, doi: 10.1086/182229

    Boriakoff, V. 1976, ApJL, 208, L43, doi: 10.1086/182229

    work page doi:10.1086/182229 1976

  10. [10]

    Boriakoff, V., & Ferguson, D. C. 1981, in Pulsars: 13 Years of Research on Neutron Stars, ed. W. Sieber & R. Wielebinski, Vol. 95, 191–196

    work page 1981

  11. [11]

    2022a, Nature Astronomy, 6, 828, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01688-x

    Caleb, M., Heywood, I., Rajwade, K., et al. 2022a, Nature Astronomy, 6, 828, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01688-x

    doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01688-x

  12. [12]

    2022b, MNRAS, 510, 1996, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3223

    Caleb, M., Rajwade, K., Desvignes, G., et al. 2022b, MNRAS, 510, 1996, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3223

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3223 1996

  13. [13]

    L., Wen, Z

    Chen, J. L., Wen, Z. G., Yuan, J. P., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75d1 26

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac75d1 2022

  14. [14]

    L., Wen, Z

    Chen, J. L., Wen, Z. G., Duan, X. F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd97 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y Chime/Frb Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K.,

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbd97 2023

  15. [15]

    2022, Nature, 607, 256, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04841-8

    Bhardwaj, M., et al. 2022, Nature, 607, 256, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04841-8

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04841-8 2022

  16. [16]

    Cordes, J. M. 1976, ApJ, 208, 944, doi: 10.1086/154683

    work page doi:10.1086/154683 1976

  17. [17]

    M., & Hankins, T

    Cordes, J. M., & Hankins, T. H. 1977, ApJ, 218, 484, doi: 10.1086/155702

    doi:10.1086/155702 1977

  18. [18]

    M., Weisberg, J

    Cordes, J. M., Weisberg, J. M., & Hankins, T. H. 1990, AJ, 100, 1882, doi: 10.1086/115644

    doi:10.1086/115644 1990

  19. [19]

    D., Comella, J

    Craft, H. D., Comella, J. M., & Drake, F. D. 1968a, Nature, 218, 1122, doi: 10.1038/2181122a0

    doi:10.1038/2181122a0

  20. [20]

    D., Sutton, J

    Craft, H. D., Sutton, J. M., & Comella, J. M. 1968b, Nature, 219, 1237, doi: 10.1038/2191237a0

    work page doi:10.1038/2191237a0

  21. [21]

    J., Yuan, J

    Dang, S. J., Yuan, J. P., Shang, L. H., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 1213, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae046

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae046 2024

  22. [22]

    K., & Harding, A

    Daugherty, J. K., & Harding, A. K. 1982, ApJ, 252, 337, doi: 10.1086/159561

    doi:10.1086/159561 1982

  23. [23]

    2016, ApJL, 833, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/833/1/L10

    De, K., Gupta, Y., & Sharma, P. 2016, ApJL, 833, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/833/1/L10

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/833/1/l10 2016

  24. [24]

    Deich, W. T. S., Cordes, J. M., Hankins, T. H., & Rankin, J. M. 1986, ApJ, 300, 540, doi: 10.1086/163831

    doi:10.1086/163831 1986

  25. [25]

    C., Graham, D

    Ferguson, D. C., Graham, D. A., Jones, B. B., Seiradakis, J. H., & Wielebinski, R. 1976, Nature, 260, 25, doi: 10.1038/260025a0

    doi:10.1038/260025a0 1976

  26. [26]

    Pulse Profile Variability of PSR J1022+1001 in NANOGrav Data

    Fiore, W., McLaughlin, M. A., Agazie, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.05452, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.05452

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.05452 2024

  27. [27]

    Hankins, T. H. 1971a, PhD thesis, University of California, San Diego —. 1971b, ApJ, 169, 487, doi: 10.1086/151164

    doi:10.1086/151164

  28. [28]

    H., & Boriakoff, V

    Hankins, T. H., & Boriakoff, V. 1978, Nature, 276, 45, doi: 10.1038/276045a0

    doi:10.1038/276045a0 1978

  29. [29]

    H., & Cordes, J

    Hankins, T. H., & Cordes, J. M. 1981, ApJ, 249, 241, doi: 10.1086/159281

    work page doi:10.1086/159281 1981

  30. [30]

    H., & Fowler, L

    Hankins, T. H., & Fowler, L. A. 1986, ApJ, 304, 256, doi: 10.1086/164159

    work page doi:10.1086/164159 1986

  31. [31]

    H., Kern, J

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

    doi:10.1038/nature01477 2003

  32. [32]

    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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  33. [33]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 3655, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2075

    Hermsen, W., Kuiper, L., Basu, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3655, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2075

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2075 2018

  34. [34]

    2004, MNRAS, 353, 1311, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08157.x

    Jordan, C. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 1311, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08157.x

    arXiv 2004

  35. [35]

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

    Hotan, A. W., van Straten, W., & Manchester, R. N. 2004, PASA, 21, 302, doi: 10.1071/AS04022

    doi:10.1071/as04022 2004

  36. [36]

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

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  37. [37]

    A., Anderson, S

    Jenet, F. A., Anderson, S. B., Kaspi, V. M., Prince, T. A., & Unwin, S. C. 1998, ApJ, 498, 365, doi: 10.1086/305529

    doi:10.1086/305529 1998

  38. [38]

    V., Kondratiev, V

    Jessner, A., Popov, M. V., Kondratiev, V. I., et al. 2010, A&A, 524, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014806

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014806 2010

  39. [39]

    2001, ApJL, 549, L101, doi: 10.1086/319154

    Johnston, S., van Straten, W., Kramer, M., & Bailes, M. 2001, ApJL, 549, L101, doi: 10.1086/319154

    work page doi:10.1086/319154 2001

  40. [40]

    J., Johnston, S., Weltevrede, P., & Kramer, M

    Keith, M. J., Johnston, S., Weltevrede, P., & Kramer, M. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 745, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15926.x

    arXiv 2010

  41. [41]

    M., & Rankin, J

    Kloumann, I. M., & Rankin, J. M. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 40, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17114.x

    arXiv 2010

  42. [42]

    2002, MNRAS, 334, 523, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05478.x

    Kramer, M., Johnston, S., & van Straten, W. 2002, MNRAS, 334, 523, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05478.x

    arXiv 2002

  43. [43]

    Stappers, B. W. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 230, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02125-3

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02125-3 2024

  44. [44]

    D., Hamilton, P

    Kuzmin, A. D., Hamilton, P. A., Shitov, Y. P., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1187, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06900.x

    arXiv 2003

  45. [45]

    1998, A&A, 332, 111

    Lange, C., Kramer, M., Wielebinski, R., & Jessner, A. 1998, A&A, 332, 111

    work page 1998

  46. [46]

    Lee, Y. W. J., Caleb, M., Murphy, T., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 393, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02452-z

    doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02452-z 2025

  47. [47]

    G., Janssen, G

    Liu, K., Bassa, C. G., Janssen, G. H., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3239, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2223

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2223 2016

  48. [48]

    G., et al

    Liu, K., Antoniadis, J., Bassa, C. G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4037, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1082

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1082 2022

  49. [49]

    E., Bailes, M., Shannon, R

    Lower, M. E., Bailes, M., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 228, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa615

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa615 2020

  50. [50]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, L9, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu046

    Lyubarsky, Y. 2014, MNRAS, 442, L9, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu046

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu046 2014

  51. [51]

    Maciesiak, K., Gil, J., & Ribeiro, V. A. R. M. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1314, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18471.x

    arXiv 2011

  52. [52]

    A., Pearlman, A

    Majid, W. A., Pearlman, A. B., Prince, T. A., et al. 2021, ApJL, 919, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1921

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac1921 2021

  53. [53]

    N., Hobbs, G

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, AJ, 129, 1993, doi: 10.1086/428488

    doi:10.1086/428488 2005

  54. [54]

    N., & Lyne, A

    Manchester, R. N., & Lyne, A. G. 1977, MNRAS, 181, 761, doi: 10.1093/mnras/181.4.761

    doi:10.1093/mnras/181.4.761 1977

  55. [55]

    I., Gil, J

    Melikidze, G. I., Gil, J. A., & Pataraya, A. D. 2000, ApJ, 544, 1081, doi: 10.1086/317220

    doi:10.1086/317220 2000

  56. [56]

    Mitra, D., Arjunwadkar, M., & Rankin, J. M. 2015, ApJ, 806, 236, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/236

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/2/236 2015

  57. [57]

    I., & Arjunwadkar, M

    Mitra, D., Basu, R., Melikidze, G. I., & Arjunwadkar, M. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2468, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3620 27

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3620 2020

  58. [58]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124004, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac995d

    Niu, J.-R., Zhu, W.-W., Zhang, B., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124004, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac995d

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ac995d 2022

  59. [59]

    2023, A&A, 678, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243339

    Pastor-Marazuela, I., van Leeuwen, J., Bilous, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243339

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243339 2023

  60. [60]

    Pilkington, J. D. H., Hewish, A., Bell, S. J., & Cole, T. W. 1968, Nature, 218, 126, doi: 10.1038/218126a0

    doi:10.1038/218126a0 1968

  61. [61]

    V., Bartel, N., Cannon, W

    Popov, M. V., Bartel, N., Cannon, W. H., et al. 2002, A&A, 396, 171, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021402

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021402 2002

  62. [62]

    J., Hessels, J

    Sobey, C., Young, N. J., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2493, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1066

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1066 2015

  63. [63]

    A., Smirnova, T

    Soglasnov, V. A., Smirnova, T. V., Popov, M. V., & Kuz’min, A. D. 1981, Soviet Ast., 25, 442

    work page 1981

  64. [64]

    The emission geometry of pulsars with interpulses

    Sun, S. N., Wang, N., Yan, W. M., & Wang, S. Q. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.13824, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.13824

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.13824 2025

  65. [65]

    2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf570

    Tang, Z., Zhang, S., Wang, J., Yang, X., & Wu, X. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf570

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf570 2025

  66. [66]

    2022a, ApJ, 933, 231, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac501f —

    Thompson, C. 2022a, ApJ, 933, 231, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac501f —. 2022b, ApJ, 933, 232, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac51d4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac501f

  67. [67]

    2024, Ap&SS, 369, 21, doi: 10.1007/s10509-024-04284-9 van Straten, W., & Bailes, M

    Tian, J., Xu, X., Bai, J., et al. 2024, Ap&SS, 369, 21, doi: 10.1007/s10509-024-04284-9 van Straten, W., & Bailes, M. 2011, PASA, 28, 1, doi: 10.1071/AS10021

    doi:10.1007/s10509-024-04284-9 2024

  68. [68]

    E., & Large, M

    Vaughan, A. E., & Large, M. I. 1970, Nature, 225, 167, doi: 10.1038/225167a0

    doi:10.1038/225167a0 1970

  69. [69]

    E., et al

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

    doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  70. [70]

    N., & Johnston, S

    Wang, N., Manchester, R. N., & Johnston, S. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 1383, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11703.x

    arXiv 2007

  71. [71]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 5560, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3026

    Wang, Z., Lu, J., Jiang, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 5560, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3026

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3026 2022

  72. [72]

    2023, Universe, 9, 50, doi: 10.3390/universe9010050

    Yang, H., Dang, S., Zhi, Q., et al. 2023, Universe, 9, 50, doi: 10.3390/universe9010050

    work page doi:10.3390/universe9010050 2023

  73. [73]

    B., Geng, J

    Zhang, S. B., Geng, J. J., Wang, J. S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6602

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6602 2024

  74. [74]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 4129, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3402

    Zhong, W., Zhi, Q., Lu, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 4129, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3402

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3402 2024