Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Multiwavelength observations of a new black-widow millisecond pulsar PSR J1544-2555

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that the gamma-ray source 4FGL J1544.2−2554 is a new black-widow millisecond pulsar, PSR J1544−2555, a 2.39-ms radio pulsar in a 2.7-hour orbit with a low-mass, strongly heated companion.

desk verdict A genuinely new, securely confirmed black-widow MSP with a solid timing package; the spot-model interpretation is the main conditional and should be flagged, but the discovery itself is not in doubt. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09605 v1 pith:WGXPIDL5 submitted 2025-09-11 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Sergio Belmonte Diaz , Tinn Thongmeearkom , Adipol Phosrisom , Rene Breton , Marta Burgay , Colin Clark , Lars Nieder , Martin Mayer
show 15 more authors
Werner Becker Ewann Barr Sarah Buchner Kaustav Kashyap Das Vik Dhillon Oliver Dodge Elizabeth Ferrara Jean-Mathias Griessmeier Ramesh Karuppusamy Mark Kennedy Michael Kramer Prajwal Padmanabh John Paice Antonio Rodriguez Ben Stappers
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords millisecondpulsarblack-widowspiderbinarygamma-raypulsationorbitalperiodvariationopticallightcurveX-rayemissionradiotiming
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 reports the discovery and multiwavelength characterization of a new black-widow millisecond pulsar, PSR J1544−2555, identified with an unassociated gamma-ray source. Optical monitoring revealed a 2.7-hour periodic variation, radio observations then detected 2.39-ms pulsations, and a joint 16-year gamma-ray and radio timing solution confirmed the binary and tracked orbital period variations. Light-curve modeling shows a tidally distorted companion with a localized hot spot, and X-ray data indicate non-thermal emission. The discovery validates a search strategy that uses optical variability to guide targeted radio and gamma-ray follow-up of unidentified gamma-ray sources.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a joint radio and gamma-ray timing solution that spans 16 years, where orbital period variations are modeled as a Gaussian process with a Matérn covariance function, plus a binary light-curve synthesis model that treats the companion as a tidally locked, irradiated star with an optional localized Gaussian hot spot. The timing solution fixes the spin, orbital, and astrometric parameters, while the light-curve model converts the observed optical modulation into inclination, companion mass, temperatures, and distance. The spot model is the key new element that captures the light-curve asymmetry and shifts the inferred inclination from about 48 to 65 degrees.

What would settle it

Measure the companion's radial velocity curve with high-resolution spectroscopy: the spot model predicts a semi-amplitude of roughly 450–500 km/s, while the simpler heating models predict 300–400 km/s; a measured value near 400 km/s with small uncertainty would rule out the spot model's inclination and mass, and a value far outside 300–500 km/s would call the entire light-curve interpretation into question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

PSR J1544−2555 is a genuine black-widow millisecond pulsar: a 2.390-ms pulsar in a 0.1135-day (about 2.7-hour) circular orbit with a companion of roughly 0.06–0.12 solar masses. The identification rests on three independently consistent pillars: radio pulsations detected in a targeted search, a 16-year gamma-ray timing solution with high significance that includes orbital period variations characteristic of spider pulsars, and optical light curves showing a strongly irradiated, tidally locked companion. The optical asymmetry is best matched by a model with a localized hot spot near the companion's pole, and a slightly bluer color at the minimum suggests possible non-thermal emission from an

Load-bearing premise

The derived distance, companion mass, inclination, and X-ray luminosity all depend on the light-curve modeling assumption that the companion is tidally locked and that the asymmetric light curve is produced by a single localized Gaussian hot spot; if that geometry is wrong, those numbers shift substantially, although the pulsar's existence and binary nature do not.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • PSR J1544−2555 becomes a new member of the black-widow pulsar population, adding to the census of compact spider binaries that can constrain neutron-star masses and the equation of state of dense matter.
  • The discovery demonstrates that optical periodicity searches of unidentified gamma-ray sources can efficiently select black-widow candidates that are then confirmed by short, targeted radio observations.
  • The 16-year timing solution, including orbital period variations, provides a new data point for studying the orbital dynamics and companion-driven mechanisms common to spider pulsars.
  • The inferred non-thermal X-ray emission, with an X-ray to spin-down luminosity ratio of about 1.4 times 10 to the minus 3, is consistent with the range seen in other millisecond pulsars and supports an intra-binary shock origin.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the spot model is correct, the light-curve distance of about 2 kpc conflicts with the dispersion-measure distance of about 1 kpc; this discrepancy, if not a modeling artifact, implies that electron-density models along this line of sight underestimate the distance or that the system has unusual properties, which would affect the derived spin-down luminosity and gamma-ray efficiency.
  • A single-epoch radial velocity measurement of the companion would immediately break the degeneracy between the spot model and the simpler heating models, providing a direct test of the paper's favored geometry and a way to measure the neutron star mass.
  • The bluer color at the orbital minimum, if confirmed as synchrotron emission from an intra-binary shock, would make this system a useful laboratory for studying how pulsar winds interact with low-mass companions; a deeper X-ray spectrum could verify this interpretation.
  • The successful optical-first discovery path could be applied to the hundreds of remaining unidentified gamma-ray sources in the catalog, potentially yielding more black widows and redbacks without the need for wide-field radio pulsation surveys.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery of PSR J1544−2555, a black-widow millisecond pulsar associated with the Fermi-LAT source 4FGL J1544.2−2554. ULTRACAM photometry revealed a ~2.7-hour optical modulation; follow-up MeerKAT observations detected 2.39-ms radio pulsations. A joint radio and gamma-ray timing solution, spanning 16 years of Fermi-LAT data, yields a precise orbital ephemeris with H=627.8 and shows orbital-period variations typical of spider pulsars. eROSITA X-ray data indicate non-thermal emission, and Icarus light-curve modeling favors a spot model over direct-heating and heat-redistribution models, giving a distance of ~2.0 kpc, an inclination of ~65°, and a companion mass of ~0.095 M_sun. The authors acknowledge that the lack of radial-velocity measurements leaves the neutron-star mass unconstrained and that the spot model is one of several possible interpretations.

Significance. If the discovery claims hold, this is a valuable new addition to the small population of black-widow pulsars and a demonstration of an effective discovery path from Fermi unIDs through optical variability to radio confirmation. The core detection is robust: the 2.4-ms radio pulsations, the 2.7-hour optical modulation, and the gamma-ray pulsations are mutually independent and jointly establish the binary nature. The timing solution spans 16 years with high significance and is a clear strength. The optical light-curve modeling is more speculative, but the paper's main discovery does not depend on it. The paper also makes useful comparisons with the independent K24 study and places the source in the context of spider-pulsar populations.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.2] The claim that the spot model 'exhibits a significantly improved goodness of fit' and is favored over the DH, C, and D+C models is not supported by any reported model-comparison statistic. The text mentions 'slightly better Bayesian evidence' for the heat-redistribution models but gives no Δln Z, BIC, or equivalent. Since the spot model changes the derived distance from ~1 kpc to ~2 kpc, the inclination from 46–50° to 65°, and the companion mass, the evidence for this extra four-parameter model is load-bearing for Table 4 and §5. Please report the Bayesian evidence (or AIC/BIC) for all four models, along with posterior predictive checks or residuals, so the reader can judge whether the improvement is not just overfitting the light-curve asymmetry.
  2. [§5] The X-ray luminosity L_X ≈ 4.0×10^31 erg/s is computed using the spot-model distance of 2.0 kpc, but the timing-derived DM distance is 1.02–1.06 kpc (Table 3). At 1.04 kpc the same flux would give L_X ≈ 1.0×10^31 erg/s, changing the stated X-ray efficiency by a factor of four. This is a systematic uncertainty that should be stated explicitly. Please give L_X for both the spot-model distance and the DM-based distance, or at least note that the quoted efficiency is conditional on the spot-model distance.
  3. [§6.1–6.2] The distance prior is built from the YMW16 DM distance of 1.02 kpc and the Galactic MSP distribution, yet the spot-model posterior is 1.7–2.0 kpc (Table 4). The paper notes this exceeds the DM distances but does not discuss whether this indicates a problem with the spot model, the DM distance, or the Galactic electron-density model. Since the distance enters the X-ray luminosity and other derived quantities, a short quantitative discussion (e.g., a posterior predictive check or a comparison of the DM distance with the modeled distance under different assumptions) would strengthen the interpretation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2, Figure 1] The caption says '0.25 corresponds to the pulsar's superior conjunction'; please define the phase convention explicitly in the text (phase 0 = ascending node) so the reader can connect the optical and radio ephemerides.
  2. [§6.2] The abbreviation 'K24' is used for Karpova et al. (2024); please define it at first use in the text or in the comparison section, since it is not a standard abbreviation.
  3. [§7] Typo: 'disentagle' should be 'disentangle'.
  4. [§5] The 'detection likelihood around 20' is not defined; please state whether this is a binned Poisson likelihood, a maximum-likelihood ratio, or another statistic, and give the corresponding significance in Gaussian sigma if possible.
  5. [§6.1] The tidal-locking assumption (ω=1) is stated but not tested. Since no radial velocities are available, the derived masses and inclinations depend on this assumption. A brief comment on how non-synchronous rotation would affect the results would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the pulsar discovery and timing chain are externally validated by independent radio and gamma-ray detections.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—the discovery of PSR J1544−2555 as a black-widow MSP—is established by independent measurements: ULTRACAM optical variability gives an orbital period; MeerKAT detects 2.4-ms radio pulsations; a radio timing campaign yields an ephemeris; Fermi-LAT gamma-ray photons are then folded to find pulsations with H=627.8. The radio timing guides the gamma-ray search, but the gamma-ray detection is a separate signal, not constructed from the radio data. The optical light-curve modeling uses the radio P_orb and x as fixed inputs, which is appropriate, and the spot model is one of four models compared; the claim that it fits best is an empirical statement, not an imported uniqueness theorem. The only internal dependency is in §5, where the X-ray luminosity is computed using the distance (2.0 kpc) obtained from the spot model; this is a derived quantity presented as a consistency check ('within the typical range'), not a prediction fitted to the X-ray data. Self-citations to Icarus (Breton et al. 2011), Voisin et al. (2020c), and Thongmeearkom et al. (2024) are methodological references to published, externally used tools, and they are not load-bearing in a circular way. Therefore no derivation step reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central discovery rests on standard timing and photometry methods. The fitted parameters are all in the light curve modeling and OPV modeling, not in the core pulse detection. No new physical entities are introduced. The main model-dependent assumption is the spot model, which adds free parameters and leads to a distance that conflicts with DM estimates.

free parameters (9)
  • E(B-V) colour excess = 0.21 (+0.04/-0.08)
    Fitted in the spot model to account for extinction.
  • Kc (companion radial velocity amplitude) = 470 +/- 20 km/s
    Fitted in the spot model; not independently measured due to low-S/N spectra.
  • Distance (d) = 2.0 (+0.1/-0.3) kpc
    Derived from the spot model; conflicts with DM-derived distance of ~1 kpc.
  • Orbital inclination (i) = 65 (+6/-5) degrees
    Fitted in the spot model; differs from other models (46-50 degrees).
  • Base temperature (Tbase) = 1700 (+600/-500) K
    Fitted in the spot model.
  • Irradiation temperature (Tirr) = 6700 +/- 300 K
    Fitted in the spot model.
  • Roche-lobe filling factor (fRL) = 0.65 (+0.05/-0.1)
    Fitted in the spot model.
  • Spot parameters (longitude, colatitude, radius, temperature) = phi=-130 deg, theta=30 deg, R=8 deg, T=6600 K
    Introduced to model the light curve asymmetry; four additional free parameters.
  • OPV hyperparameters (amplitude h, length scale l, smoothness nu) = h=2 (+2/-1) s, l=1920 (+4510/-670) d, nu>2.6
    Fitted to model orbital period variations with a Gaussian process.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Companion is tidally locked (omega=1)
    Stated in Section 6.1; standard for close binary MSPs but not independently verified.
  • domain assumption Companion is fully convective, gravity darkening exponent beta=0.08
    Assumed in Section 6.1 based on black widow companions being low-mass stars.
  • domain assumption Orbit is circular
    Assumed in gamma-ray search (Section 4) and supported by radio timing showing no eccentricity.
  • ad hoc to paper Orbital period variations can be modeled as a Gaussian process with Matérn covariance
    Introduced in Section 4; a specific functional form chosen for the OPVs, not derived from physics.
  • domain assumption Gamma-ray photon weights are computed using the 4FGL-DR4 spectral and spatial model
    Assumed in Section 4; standard practice for Fermi-LAT analyses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiwavelength observations of a new black-widow millisecond pulsar PSR J1544-2555." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WGXPIDL5

@misc{pith2026250909605,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiwavelength observations of a new black-widow millisecond pulsar PSR J1544-2555},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WGXPIDL5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09605}
}
abstract

We report the discovery of a new black-widow millisecond pulsar, PSR J1544-2555, associated with the Fermi-LAT source 4FGL J1544.2-2554. Optical, radio, and gamma-ray observations confirmed its nature as a compact spider binary system. Optical photometry from ULTRACAM revealed a \(\sim\)2.7-hour orbital period, guiding MeerKAT observations that detected \(\sim\)2.4-ms radio pulsations. Subsequent timing campaigns using the Murriyang Parkes Telescope, the Effelsberg 100-m Radio Telescope, and the Nan\c{c}ay Radio Telescope allowed us to obtain a preliminary timing solution, which enabled us to find gamma-ray pulsations. The final timing solution, spanning 16 years of Fermi-LAT gamma-ray data, also displays orbital period variations typical of spider pulsars. X-ray observations from eROSITA indicate non-thermal emission, but the relatively low count rate prohibits the search for X-ray pulsations. Optical light curve modelling using Icarus suggests the asymmetry is best explained by a spot model, where uneven heating creates localised temperature variations on the companion. While the optical spectra we obtained are compatible with the physical properties we infer for the companion star, they were not of sufficient signal-to-noise to allow for radial velocity measurements, thus limiting constraints on the neutron star's mass. The observed bluer colour near the light curve minimum suggests possible non-thermal emission from intra-binary shocks, supported by the presence of an X-ray source. This discovery exemplifies the proven capability of the Fermi-LAT catalogue in identifying millisecond pulsar candidates and highlights the role of optical surveys in detecting variable sources suitable for radio follow-up.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09605 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ULTRACAM optical light curve of the periodic source in the 𝑟𝑠, 𝑔𝑠 and 𝑢𝑠 bands folded at the best orbital period found from the Lomb-Scargle periodogram (0.113495 days). In the first cycle (left), all available data points are plotted and in the second cycle (right) data points are averaged to ease the visualisation of the lightcurve’s trend. Orbital phases are defined such as 0.25 corresponds to the pulsar’s superi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Orbital phase coverage of radio observations obtained with different telescopes: MeerKAT (MKT) in cyan, Parkes (PKS) in blue, Nançay (NRT) in green, and Effelsberg (EFF) in red. Phase 0 corresponds to the pulsar at the ascending node, and phase 0.25 corresponds to the pulsar’s superior conjunction. Strong detections are displayed by brighter solid lines, while weak detections and non-detections are displayed with a … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: finding chart showing the location of the periodic variable source in the ULTRACAM observing field. The Fermi-LAT localisation el￾lipse containing the 95% confidence level of the location of the source is shown in red. The location of the Gaia counterpart is encircled in green. Middle: Full Lomb-Scargle periodogram computed using the data recorded from the optical observations, shown over the period range 0.02 … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radio residuals for PSR J1544−2555 using the best ephemeris obtained in the joint radio and gamma-ray timing analysis ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Gamma-ray pulsations and variations of the orbital phase over time for PSR J1544−2555. The panels on the left show the weighted pulsar spin phases for each gamma-ray photon for the highest-likelihood timing solution (lower panel) and the integrated pulse profile (upper…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Phase-aligned radio (red) and gamma-ray (black) pulse profiles for PSR J1544−2555. The radio profile based on MeerKAT UHF observations is shown in arbitrary flux density units from an arbitrary background level (dashed line). is parameterised by the mass ratio (𝑞), orb…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The schematic model of PSR J1544−2555’s companion with the spot model is shown in the uppermost panel. The subsequent panels display the light curves in 𝑟𝑠, 𝑔𝑠, and 𝑢𝑠, respectively. The observed data are presented for the first two cycles. These light curves are binne…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Parameter constraints of the four models against pulsar masses. The vertical bars represent the 95% confidence intervals of posterior distributions. The shaded area denotes the forbidden parameter region (𝑖 > 90◦ ) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The flux-averaged temperature of the companion’s hemisphere facing Earth is represented by the black solid line, indicating the effective temperature as inferred for the system’s actual inclination. For comparison, the dotted gray line shows the flux-averaged temperatu…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Timing Gamma-ray Pulsars using Gibbs Sampling

    astro-ph.HE 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Gibbs sampling technique marginalizes over photon-to-Gaussian assignments to fit timing and noise models to discrete gamma-ray arrival times while accounting for pulse-profile uncertainty.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A., et al., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/188/2/405 , 188, 405

    Abdo A. A., et al., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/188/2/405 , 188, 405

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/188/2/405 2010

  2. [2]

    A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..208...17A 208, 17

    Abdo A. A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..208...17A 208, 17

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/17 2013

  3. [3]

    Abdollahi S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..247...33A 247, 33

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb 2020

  4. [4]

    A., Cheng A

    Alpar M. A., Cheng A. F., Ruderman M. A., Shaham J., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1038/300728a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982Natur.300..728A 300, 728

    doi:10.1038/300728a0 1982

  5. [5]

    H., Shaham J., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174906 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...436..312A 436, 312

    Applegate J. H., Shaham J., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174906 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...436..312A 436, 312

    doi:10.1086/174906 1994

  6. [6]

    M., et al., 2009, Science, 324, 1411

    Archibald A. M., et al., 2009, Science, 324, 1411

    2009

  7. [7]

    Arons J., Tavani M., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172198 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...403..249A 403, 249

    doi:10.1086/172198 1993

  8. [8]

    S., Taylor J

    Arzoumanian Z., Fruchter A. S., Taylor J. H., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187346 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...426L..85A 426, L85

    work page doi:10.1086/187346 1994

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    B., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697.1071A 697, 1071

    Atwood W. B., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697.1071A 697, 1071

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Omodei N., Wilson-Hodge C., eds, Proceedings of the 4th Fermi Symposium, Monterey, California, 2012

    Atwood W., et al., 2013, in Brandt T. J., Omodei N., Wilson-Hodge C., eds, Proceedings of the 4th Fermi Symposium, Monterey, California, 2012. eConf C121028. p. 8

    2013

  3. [11]

    C., Kulkarni S

    Backer D. C., Kulkarni S. R., Heiles C., Davis M. M., Goss W. M., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1038/300615a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982Natur.300..615B 300, 615

    1982 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Kulkarni S

    Backer D. C., Kulkarni S. R., Taylor J. H., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1038/301314a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983Natur.301..314B 301, 314

    1983 doi

  5. [13]

    H., Lott B., The Fermi-LAT collaboration 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2307.12546 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230712546B p

    Ballet J., Bruel P., Burnett T. H., Lott B., The Fermi-LAT collaboration 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2307.12546 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230712546B p. arXiv:2307.12546

    2023 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    Barr E., 2020, Peasoup: C++/CUDA GPU pulsar searching library , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2001.014

    2020

  7. [15]

    Becker W., Truemper J., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9708169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...326..682B 326, 682

    1997 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    Bhattacharya D., van den Heuvel E., 1991, @doi [Physics Reports] https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(91)90064-S , 203, 1

    1991 doi

  9. [17]

    Bickel P., Kleijn B., Rice J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/590399 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...685..384B 685, 384

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    P., Rappaport S

    Breton R. P., Rappaport S. A., van Kerkwijk M. H., Carter J. A., 2011, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/115 , 748, 115

    2011 doi

  11. [19]

    P., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/108 , 769, 108

    Breton R. P., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/108 , 769, 108

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    Bruel P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834555 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622A.108B 622, A108

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    H., Digel S

    Bruel P., Burnett T. H., Digel S. W., Johannesson G., Omodei N., Wood M., 2018, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1810.11394 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv181011394B p. arXiv:1810.11394

    2018 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Buchner J., et al., 2014, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 , 564, A125

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    Burgay M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...691A.315B 691, A315

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Camilo F., Ransom S., Ray P., Kerr M., Ferrara E., 2017, Parkes observations for project P814 semester 2016OCTS, @doi 10.4225/08/5AD1D14F79493

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    L., 2004, arXiv

    Castelli F., Kurucz R. L., 2004, arXiv

    2004

  18. [26]

    J., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa3484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502..915C 502, 915

    Clark C. J., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa3484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502..915C 502, 915

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    J., et al., 2023a, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-022-01874-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7..451C 7, 451

    Clark C. J., et al., 2023a, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-022-01874-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7..451C 7, 451

    doi

  20. [28]

    J., et al., 2023b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac3742 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.5590C 519, 5590

    Clark C. J., et al., 2023b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac3742 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.5590C 519, 5590

    doi

  21. [29]

    A., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.08688 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241208688C p

    Corcoran K. A., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.08688 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241208688C p. arXiv:2412.08688

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Lazio T

    Cordes J. M., Lazio T. J. W., 2002, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002astro.ph..7156C pp astro--ph/0207156

    2002 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    Corongiu A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3463 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502..935C 502, 935

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    H., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169585 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...366..501D 366, 501

    Damour T., Taylor J. H., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169585 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...366..501D 366, 501

    1991 doi

  25. [33]

    S., et al., 2007, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11881.x , 378, 825

    Dhillon V. S., et al., 2007, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11881.x , 378, 825

    2007

  26. [34]

    S., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2130 , 507, 350

    Dhillon V. S., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2130 , 507, 350

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    R., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/185340 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...335L..61D 335, L61

    Djorgovski S., Evans C. R., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/185340 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...335L..61D 335, L61

    1988 doi

  28. [36]

    P., Bridges M., 2009, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/J.1365-2966.2009.14548.X/2/M_MNRAS0398-1601-M32.GIF , 398, 1601

    Feroz F., Hobson M. P., Bridges M., 2009, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/J.1365-2966.2009.14548.X/2/M_MNRAS0398-1601-M32.GIF , 398, 1601

    2009

  29. [37]

    A., Jagannathan P., Mooley K

    Frail D. A., Jagannathan P., Mooley K. P., Intema H. T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/119 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...829..119F 829, 119

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3281 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..942F 475, 942

    Frail D. A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3281 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..942F 475, 942

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    S., Stinebring D

    Fruchter A. S., Stinebring D. R., Taylor J. H., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1038/333237a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.333..237F 333, 237

    1988 doi

  32. [40]

    Gaia Collaboration Vallenari A., Brown A. G. A., Prusti T., de Bruijne J. H. J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...1G 674, A1

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J

    Green G. M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J. S., Finkbeiner D., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/AB5362 , 887, 93

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    Guillemot L., Cognard I., van Straten W., Theureau G., G \'e rard E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347018 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A..79G 678, A79

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Y., Kaspi V

    He C., Ng C. Y., Kaspi V. M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/64 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...768...64H 768, 64

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    B., Edwards R

    Hobbs G. B., Edwards R. T., Manchester R. N., 2006, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10302.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.369..655H 369, 655

    2006

  37. [45]

    F., Bailes M., Barr E

    Jankowski F., van Straten W., Keane E. F., Bailes M., Barr E. D., Johnston S., Kerr M., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx2476 , 473, 4436

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    M., Kulkarni S

    Johnston H. M., Kulkarni S. R., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169715 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...368..504J 368, 504

    1991 doi

  39. [47]

    Jonas J., MeerKAT Team 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA. p. 1

    2016

  40. [48]

    V., Zharikov S

    Karpova A. V., Zharikov S. V., Zyuzin D. A., Kirichenko A. Y., Shibanov Y. A., M \'a rquez I. F., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.16350 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241116350K p. arXiv:2411.16350

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    J., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17325.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.409..619K 409, 619

    Keith M. J., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17325.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.409..619K 409, 619

    2010

  42. [50]

    R., et al., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/MNRAS/STAC379 , 512, 3001

    Kennedy M. R., et al., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/MNRAS/STAC379 , 512, 3001

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    Kerr M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/38 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...732...38K 732, 38

    2011 doi

  44. [52]

    arXiv:2503.12636

    Kerr M., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.12636 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250312636K p. arXiv:2503.12636

    2025 doi arXiv

  45. [53]

    Kong A. K. H., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/L3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...747L...3K 747, L3

    2012 doi

  46. [54]

    Lazaridis K., et al., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18610.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.414.3134L 414, 3134

    2011

  47. [55]

    Levin L., et al., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/MNRAS/STT1103 , 434, 1387

    2013 doi

  48. [56]

    Li K.-L., Kong A. K. H., Hou X., Mao J., Strader J., Chomiuk L., Tremou E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/143 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833..143L 833, 143

    2016 doi

  49. [57]

    Linares M., Miles-P \'a ez P., Rodr \' guez-Gil P., Shahbaz T., Casares J., Fari \ n a C., Karjalainen R., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw3057 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.4602L 465, 4602

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    Linares M., Shahbaz T., Casares J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabde6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859...54L 859, 54

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    R., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00648343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976Ap&SS..39..447L 39, 447

    Lomb N. R., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00648343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976Ap&SS..39..447L 39, 447

    1976 doi

  52. [60]

    Lu C., Ren L., Lin J., Huang W., Yang H., Tam P. H. T., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8e39 , 978, 106

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    B., Lucy B

    Lucy L. B., Lucy B. L., 1967, ZA, 65, 89

    1967

  54. [62]

    G., et al., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1038/347650a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990Natur.347..650L 347, 650

    Lyne A. G., et al., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1038/347650a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990Natur.347..650L 347, 650

    1990 doi

  55. [63]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..251....6M 251, 6

    Magnier E. A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..251....6M 251, 6

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    N., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04751.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.328...17M 328, 17

    Manchester R. N., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04751.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.328...17M 328, 17

    2001

  57. [65]

    Mata S \'a nchez D., et al., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.2217M 520, 2217

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    Mayer M. G. F., Becker W., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2401.17295 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240117295M p. arXiv:2401.17295

    2024 doi arXiv

  59. [67]

    Morello V., et al., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty3328 , 483, 3673

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    J., Pletsch H

    Nieder L., Allen B., Clark C. J., Pletsch H. J., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abaf53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...901..156N 901, 156

    doi

  61. [69]

    Nieder L., et al., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abbc02 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...902L..46N 902, L46

    doi

  62. [70]

    B., et al., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133562 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PASP..107..375O 107, 375

    Oke J. B., et al., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133562 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PASP..107..375O 107, 375

    1995 doi

  63. [71]

    A., Wolf C., Bessell M

    Onken C. A., Wolf C., Bessell M. S., Chang S.-W., Luvaul L. C., Tonry J. L., White M. C., Da Costa G. S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2024.53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASA...41...61O 41, e061

    2024 doi

  64. [72]

    \"O zel F., Freire P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023322 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA&A..54..401O 54, 401

    2016 doi

  65. [73]

    Papitto A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature12470 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.501..517P 501, 517

    2013 doi

  66. [74]

    Parkinson P. M. S., Xu H., Yu P. L. H., Salvetti D., Marelli M., Falcone A. D., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/8 , 820, 8

    2016 doi

  67. [75]

    I., Bogdanov S., Halpern J

    Perez K. I., Bogdanov S., Halpern J. P., Gajjar V., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acdc23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952..150P 952, 150

    2023 doi

  68. [76]

    A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab215d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131h4503P 131, 084503

    Perley D. A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab215d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131h4503P 131, 084503

    2019 doi

  69. [77]

    J., et al., 2012, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1229054 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Sci...338.1314P 338, 1314

    Pletsch H. J., et al., 2012, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1229054 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Sci...338.1314P 338, 1314

    2012 doi

  70. [78]

    J., Breton R

    Polzin E. J., Breton R. P., Bhattacharyya B., Scholte D., Sobey C., Stappers B. W., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa596 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.2948P 494, 2948

    2020 doi

  71. [79]

    Predehl P., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A...1P 647, A1

    2021 doi

  72. [80]

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

    2011

  73. [81]

    E., Williams C

    Rasmussen C. E., Williams C. K. I., 2006, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning

    2006

  74. [82]

    S., et al., 2012, in A

    Ray P. S., et al., 2012, in A. M., ed., Proceedings of the 2011 Fermi Symposium, Rome, Italy. eConf C110509. p. 8 ( @eprint arXiv 1205.3089 )

    2012 arXiv

  75. [83]

    S., et al., 2020, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/ab7eb5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RNAAS...4...37R 4, 37

    Ray P. S., et al., 2020, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/ab7eb5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RNAAS...4...37R 4, 37

    2020 doi

  76. [84]

    Roberts M. S. E., 2012, @doi [Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union] 10.1017/S174392131202337X , 8, 127–132

    2012 doi

  77. [85]

    Roberts M. S. E., Burgay M., D’Amico N., Esposito P., Pellizzoni A., Possenti A., 2011, in AIP Conference Proceedings. AIP, pp 127--130, @doi 10.1063/1.3615095

    2011 doi

  78. [86]

    W., Shaw M

    Romani R. W., Shaw M. S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/743/2/L26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...743L..26R 743, L26

    2011 doi

  79. [87]

    W., Filippenko A

    Romani R. W., Filippenko A. V., Cenko S. B., 2014, @doi [ApJL] 10.1088/2041-8205/793/1/L20 , 793, L20

    2014 doi

  80. [88]

    W., Filippenko A

    Romani R. W., Filippenko A. V., Cenko S. B., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...804..115R 804, 115

    2015 doi

  81. [89]

    W., Kandel D., Filippenko A

    Romani R. W., Kandel D., Filippenko A. V., Brink T. G., Zheng W., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abe2b4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...908L..46R 908, L46

    2021 doi

  82. [90]

    W., Kandel D., Filippenko A

    Romani R. W., Kandel D., Filippenko A. V., Brink T. G., Zheng W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934L..17R 934, L17

    2022 doi

  83. [91]

    W., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/AA7A02 , 845, 42

    Sanchez N., Romani R. W., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/AA7A02 , 845, 42

    2017 doi

  84. [92]

    D., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...263..835S 263, 835

    Scargle J. D., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...263..835S 263, 835

    1982 doi

  85. [93]

    S., 1970, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970SvA....13..562S 13, 562

    Shklovskii I. S., 1970, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970SvA....13..562S 13, 562

    1970

  86. [94]

    A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acee67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958..191S 958, 191

    Smith D. A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acee67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958..191S 958, 191

    2023 doi

  87. [95]

    W., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/39 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...790...39S 790, 39

    Stappers B. W., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/39 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...790...39S 790, 39

    2014 doi

  88. [96]

    Strader J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafbaa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...872...42S 872, 42

    2019 doi

  89. [97]

    D., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Tarenghi M., 1986, in Barr L. D., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 628, Advanced technology optical telescopes III. pp 213--220, @doi 10.1117/12.963532

    1986 doi

  90. [98]

    Thongmeearkom T., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae787 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.4676T 530, 4676

    2024 doi

  91. [99]

    P., Summers C., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3430 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.1550V 492, 1550

    Voisin G., Breton R. P., Summers C., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3430 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.1550V 492, 1550

    doi

  92. [100]

    J., Breton R

    Voisin G., Clark C. J., Breton R. P., Dhillon V. S., Kennedy M. R., Mata-S \'a nchez D., 2020b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa953 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.4448V 494, 4448

    doi

  93. [101]

    R., Breton R

    Voisin G., Kennedy M. R., Breton R. P., Clark C. J., Mata-Sánchez D., 2020c, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa2876 , 499, 1758

    doi

  94. [102]

    Wijnands R., van der Klis M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1038/28557 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Natur.394..344W 394, 344

    1998 doi

  95. [103]

    M., Manchester R

    Yao J. M., Manchester R. N., Wang N., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29 , 835, 29

    2017 doi

  96. [104]

    S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2475 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.5547Z 489, 5547

    Zharikov S., Kirichenko A., Zyuzin D., Shibanov Y., Deneva J. S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2475 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.5547Z 489, 5547

    2019 doi

  97. [105]

    H., Breton R

    van Kerkwijk M. H., Breton R. P., Kulkarni S. R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/95 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...728...95V 728, 95

    2011 doi

  98. [106]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.