pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.18844 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.IM · astro-ph.HE

Pulsar Selection Criteria and Performance Evaluation of Autonomous X-ray Pulsar Navigation Systems

Sui Chen (Politecnico di Milano , ICE-CSIC , IEEC) , Emilie Parent (ICE-CSIC , Nanda Rea (ICE-CSIC , Francesco Topputo (Politecnico di Milano) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 03:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HE
keywords X-ray pulsar navigationpulsar selectionautonomous navigationextended Kalman filterCrab pulsarNICERspacecraft state estimationinterplanetary navigation
0
0 comments X

The pith

The Crab pulsar delivers highest accuracy in X-ray navigation but causes filter divergence after 20 days without updates.

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

The paper establishes that pulsar selection criteria based on flux, visibility, geometry, and timing stability determine whether autonomous X-ray pulsar navigation can work for spacecraft without Earth-based support. Realistic noise estimates drawn from NICER observations are fed into an extended Kalman filter and tested in two scenarios: a 600 km LEO orbit and an Earth-to-Jupiter transfer. Simulations show that including the Crab pulsar keeps position errors below 7 km in LEO and 20 km on the transfer route with a 200 cm² detector, yet the pulsar’s limited stability makes the filter diverge after roughly 20 days unless timing models are refreshed. More stable pulsars avoid divergence for longer intervals but produce larger position errors. A reader would care because the work maps the concrete trade-offs that must be managed before fully independent deep-space navigation becomes routine.

Core claim

By folding pulsed flux, visibility, geometric configuration, and long-term timing stability into pulsar selection and using NICER-derived noise statistics inside an onboard extended Kalman filter, the navigation system reaches position errors below 7 km in LEO and 20 km during interplanetary transfer when the Crab pulsar is used with a 200 cm² instrument; however, the Crab’s limited timing stability drives filter divergence after 20 days without model updates, whereas more stable pulsars sustain autonomy over longer durations at the cost of reduced accuracy.

What carries the argument

Extended Kalman filter processing timing residuals from pulsars chosen by the combined criteria of pulsed flux, visibility, geometric configuration, and timing stability.

If this is right

  • Including the Crab pulsar keeps position errors below 7 km in LEO and 20 km during Earth-to-Jupiter transfer for a 200 cm² instrument.
  • The navigation filter diverges after about 20 days when the Crab pulsar is used without periodic timing-model updates.
  • Stable pulsars alone permit extended autonomous operation without updates but at lower accuracy than the Crab-inclusive set.
  • The same selection process and filter work for both low-Earth-orbit satellites and interplanetary transfers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A hybrid selection scheme that switches between the Crab and stable pulsars could extend high-accuracy operation past the 20-day limit shown for the Crab alone.
  • Real missions will likely need occasional ground-provided timing updates even when stable pulsars are used, to counteract any slow model drift not captured in the simulations.
  • The 200 cm² detector size sets a performance floor; larger collecting areas or improved noise filtering would be required to push errors significantly below the reported values.

Load-bearing premise

The noise statistics measured by NICER match the errors that a 200 cm² instrument would produce and the adopted pulsar timing models remain valid without updates for the entire simulated mission length.

What would settle it

A flight or high-fidelity simulation that tracks position error with the Crab pulsar and shows either sustained sub-20 km accuracy beyond 20 days or clear divergence near day 20 when no timing-model updates are supplied.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.18844 by Emilie Parent (ICE-CSIC, Francesco Topputo (Politecnico di Milano), ICE-CSIC, IEEC), Nanda Rea (ICE-CSIC, Sui Chen (Politecnico di Milano.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Spatial distribution of the 14 pulsars included in the catalogue, represented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Pulse profiles shown over two rotation cycles of the selected 14 pulsars forming [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Geometrical outline of the XNAV scheme. outlined as follows. Photon arrival times are first recorded by the spacecraft’s X-ray detector. These TOAs are then transferred to the SSB frame using a prior estimate of the spacecraft’s position (through Equation 4). At the SSB, the observed profile is generated by folding the TOAs over the pulsar’s period, making use of the timing model (Equations 1 and 2) togeth… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Flowchart of signal processing for XNAV. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Navigation range accuracy as a function of observation duration for an instru [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Contours of navigation range accuracy as a function of instrument effective area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Required observation duration as a function of instrument effective area to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Phase accuracy as a function of observation duration for an instrument effective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Navigation range accuracy as a function of observation duration for an instru [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of analytical range accuracy (y-axis) and observation-derived range [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: RTN-component position estimation errors along an Earth-Jupiter transfer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: RTN-component position estimation errors along a LEO satellite orbit at an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Pulsar visibility under the solar constraint effect in 2D. A pulsar becomes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Solar constraint effect in 3D. The pulsar remains continuously visible if it lies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: This approach provides a fast and efficient method to determine visi￾bility interruptions based on known pulsar positions and mission trajectory 38 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Pulsar visibility during an Earth-Jupiter transfer, limited by the solar constraint [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The three-dimensional elevation component can be treated anal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Pulsar visibility under the Earth shadow effect illustrated in 2D. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Pulsar visibility due to the Earth shadow for a LEO satellite at an altitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Growth of pulsar phase prediction error due to timing model extrapolation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Earth-Jupiter interplanetary transfer orbit with a transfer duration of about [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Navigation filter performance in the spacecraft RTN frame for a segment of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p050_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Navigation filter performance in the spacecraft RTN frame for a segment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p051_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Navigation filter performance in the spacecraft RTN frame for a segment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p051_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: LEO circular orbit with an altitude of 600 km and an orbital period of about [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p053_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Navigation filter performance in the RTN frame for the LEO satellite when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Navigation filter performance in the RTN frame for the LEO satellite when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Navigation filter performance in the RTN frame for the LEO satellite when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p056_26.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Current space missions primarily depend on Earth-based Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) systems involving human-in-the-loop operations. X-ray pulsar-based navigation offers a promising alternative by using the very precise periodic X-ray emissions from pulsars for fully autonomous state estimation. This study presents a comprehensive analysis of pulsar selection criteria that significantly influence overall navigation performance. Observational data from the NICER mission is used to derive realistic estimates of measurement noise. Key mission-level constraints, including pulsed flux, pulsar visibility, geometric configuration, and long-term timing stability, are integrated into the pulsar selection process, addressing limitations of existing studies. An extended Kalman filter (EKF) is used for onboard spacecraft state estimation. The proposed system is evaluated in two scenarios: a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite at 600 km altitude and an interplanetary transfer from Earth to Jupiter. Simulation results show that including the Crab pulsar yields position errors below 7 km in LEO and 20 km during interplanetary transfer with an instrument effective area of 200~cm$^2$; however, the Crab's limited timing stability leads to filter divergence after 20 days without timing model updates. In contrast, more stable pulsars enable long-term autonomy but with reduced accuracy. These results highlight the trade-offs involved in pulsar selection for autonomous navigation and the need to balance competing objectives. Overall, this study demonstrates the feasibility of X-ray pulsar-based navigation and marks a key step towards fully autonomous spacecraft operations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes pulsar selection criteria for autonomous X-ray pulsar navigation, integrating pulsed flux, visibility, geometry, and timing stability constraints. It derives realistic measurement noise from NICER observations, implements an extended Kalman filter (EKF) for onboard state estimation, and evaluates performance via simulations in a 600 km LEO scenario and an Earth-to-Jupiter interplanetary transfer. Results claim that including the Crab pulsar yields position errors below 7 km (LEO) and 20 km (interplanetary) with a 200 cm² effective area, but causes filter divergence after ~20 days without timing updates, while more stable pulsars enable longer autonomy at the cost of accuracy.

Significance. If the simulation framework and noise model hold, the work usefully quantifies trade-offs between short-term accuracy and long-term stability in pulsar selection for XNAV, extending prior studies by combining multiple mission constraints with NICER-based noise estimates. The dual-scenario evaluation and emphasis on timing model updates provide practical guidance for autonomous deep-space GNC, though the lack of real-flight validation limits immediate applicability.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4 and §5] §4 (Measurement Model) and §5 (Simulation Results): The TOA noise covariance is taken directly from NICER observations (~2000 cm², LEO with albedo/atmospheric background) and applied without explicit scaling derivation or photon-rate propagation to the simulated 200 cm² instrument operating in both LEO and deep-space (cosmic-only background) environments; this directly underpins the quoted <7 km / <20 km position errors and must be shown to preserve the reported magnitudes.
  2. [§5] §5 (Simulation Results): The effective area (200 cm²) and pulsar timing-stability thresholds are presented as fixed inputs that produce the headline error figures and the 20-day divergence point; no sensitivity analysis or Monte Carlo error bars on these outputs is provided, making the central performance claims dependent on post-hoc parameter choices rather than robust predictions.
  3. [§5] §5 (Simulation Results): The EKF divergence after 20 days for the Crab and long-term stability for other pulsars are stated without details on filter tuning, process-noise covariance, or sensitivity to unmodeled effects (glitches, DM variations, proper motion) over the simulated durations; this weakens the claim that stable pulsars enable autonomous operation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Notation for effective area in the abstract uses '200~cm$^2$'; ensure consistent LaTeX formatting and units throughout the text and figures.
  2. [Abstract and §2] The abstract and results sections would benefit from explicit citation of prior XNAV pulsar-selection studies to better contextualize the integrated constraints.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments, which help improve the clarity and robustness of our analysis. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the suggested enhancements.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4 and §5] §4 (Measurement Model) and §5 (Simulation Results): The TOA noise covariance is taken directly from NICER observations (~2000 cm², LEO with albedo/atmospheric background) and applied without explicit scaling derivation or photon-rate propagation to the simulated 200 cm² instrument operating in both LEO and deep-space (cosmic-only background) environments; this directly underpins the quoted <7 km / <20 km position errors and must be shown to preserve the reported magnitudes.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit scaling derivation is required. The TOA uncertainty scales with the inverse square root of the collected photons, which is proportional to effective area, with background rates adjusted for environment. In the revised §4 we will add the full photon-rate propagation for the 200 cm² case in both LEO (albedo/atmospheric) and interplanetary (cosmic-only) backgrounds, confirming that the reported position errors remain consistent with the scaled covariance. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5] §5 (Simulation Results): The effective area (200 cm²) and pulsar timing-stability thresholds are presented as fixed inputs that produce the headline error figures and the 20-day divergence point; no sensitivity analysis or Monte Carlo error bars on these outputs is provided, making the central performance claims dependent on post-hoc parameter choices rather than robust predictions.

    Authors: The 200 cm² value was selected as representative of a compact flight instrument. We will add a sensitivity analysis in the revised §5 that varies effective area around this value and the stability thresholds, together with Monte Carlo ensembles that report error bars on the position-error statistics. This will demonstrate that the headline results and the 20-day divergence point are not artifacts of single-point parameter choices. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§5] §5 (Simulation Results): The EKF divergence after 20 days for the Crab and long-term stability for other pulsars are stated without details on filter tuning, process-noise covariance, or sensitivity to unmodeled effects (glitches, DM variations, proper motion) over the simulated durations; this weakens the claim that stable pulsars enable autonomous operation.

    Authors: We will expand §5 to document the EKF tuning parameters and the process-noise covariance matrix used. The Crab divergence is driven by its documented timing noise; for the stable pulsars we assume periodic timing-model updates as stated in the paper. A brief discussion of glitch rates, DM variations, and proper motion will be added, showing their cumulative effect remains negligible over the simulated intervals. Full Monte-Carlo sensitivity to every unmodeled term would require additional modeling beyond the present scope, so we provide a qualitative assessment supported by published pulsar timing data. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: performance metrics are forward simulation outputs under external noise parameters

full rationale

The paper derives measurement noise from NICER observations, selects pulsars by flux/visibility/stability criteria, and runs an EKF to produce position-error statistics for a 200 cm² instrument in LEO and interplanetary scenarios. These outputs are numerical results of the simulation under stated assumptions rather than quantities that reduce by the paper's own equations to the inputs by construction. No self-definitional steps, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described chain. The evaluation is self-contained as a simulation study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard Kalman filter optimality under Gaussian assumptions, NICER data as a proxy for future instrument noise, and simulation parameters (effective area, timing stability thresholds) that are not independently validated in the provided text.

free parameters (2)
  • instrument effective area = 200 cm²
    Set to 200 cm² to obtain the reported position errors; directly influences signal-to-noise and thus the quoted accuracy figures.
  • pulsar timing stability thresholds
    Used to decide when filter divergence occurs; chosen to separate Crab from stable pulsars in the 20-day window.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Extended Kalman filter yields near-optimal state estimates when measurement noise is Gaussian and the dynamics model is accurate.
    Invoked for onboard spacecraft state estimation in both scenarios.
  • domain assumption NICER observational data supplies realistic measurement noise statistics for a future 200 cm² X-ray instrument.
    Used to derive the noise model that drives the simulation results.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5600 in / 1603 out tokens · 29500 ms · 2026-05-10T03:19:49.429444+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G.Downs, Interplanetarynavigationusingpulsatingradiosources, Tech. rep. (1974)

    1974

  2. [2]

    S. I. Sheikh, D. J. Pines, P. S. Ray, K. S. Wood, M. N. Lovellette, M. T. Wolff, Spacecraft navigation using x-ray pulsars, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 29 (1) (2006) 49–63

    2006

  3. [3]

    Huang, P

    L. Huang, P. Shuai, X. Zhang, S. Chen, Pulsar-based navigation re- sults: data processing of the x-ray pulsar navigation-i telescope, Jour- nal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 5 (1) (2019) 018003–018003

    2019

  4. [4]

    J. W. Mitchell, L. M. Winternitz, M. A. Hassouneh, S. R. Price, S. R. Semper, W. H. Yu, P. S. Ray, M. T. Wolff, M. Kerr, K. S. Wood, P. De- morest, Sextant x-ray pulsar navigation demonstration: Initial on-orbit results, in: Annual American Astronautical Society (AAS) Guidance and Control Conference 2018, no. GSFC-E-DAA-TN51842, 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    L. B. Winternitz, M. A. Hassouneh, J. W. Mitchell, S. R. Price, W. H. Yu, S. R. Semper, P. S. Ray, K. S. Wood, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gen- dreau, Sextant x-ray pulsar navigation demonstration: Additional on- orbit results, in: 2018 SpaceOps conference, 2018, p. 2538. 61

    2018

  6. [6]

    J. Liu, J. Ma, J. Tian, Z. Kang, P. White, Pulsar navigation for in- terplanetary missions using cv model and asukf, Aerospace Science and Technology 22 (1) (2012) 19–23

    2012

  7. [7]

    Zhang, R

    H. Zhang, R. Jiao, L. Xu, Orbit determination using pulsar timing data and orientation vector, The Journal of Navigation 72 (1) (2019) 155–175

    2019

  8. [8]

    M. Xue, D. Peng, H. Sun, H. Shentu, Y. Guo, J. Luo, C. Zhikun, X-ray pulsar navigation based on two-stage estimation of doppler frequency and phase delay, Aerospace Science and Technology 110 (2021) 106470

    2021

  9. [9]

    P.-T. Chen, B. Zhou, J. L. Speyer, D. S. Bayard, W. A. Majid, L. J. Wood, Aspects of pulsar navigation for deep space mission applications, The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences 67 (2020) 704–739

    2020

  10. [10]

    P.-T. Chen, J. L. Speyer, D. S. Bayard, W. A. Majid, Autonomous nav- igation using x-ray pulsars and multirate processing, Journal of Guid- ance, Control, and Dynamics 40 (9) (2017) 2237–2249

    2017

  11. [11]

    Cacciatore, V

    F. Cacciatore, V. G. Ruiz, G. Taubmann, J. Muñoz, P. Hermosín, M. Sciarra, M. Saco, N. Rea, M. Hernanz, E. Parent, J. Vandersteen, Podium: A pulsar navigation unit for science missions, in: 73rd Inter- national Astronautical Congress 2022, no. B6, IPB, 4, x70308, 2022

    2022

  12. [12]

    Zoccarato, S

    P. Zoccarato, S. Larese, G. Naletto, L. Zampieri, F. Brotto, Deep space navigation by optical pulsars, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dy- namics 46 (8) (2023) 1501–1512

    2023

  13. [13]

    X. Ning, M. Gui, J. Fang, G. Liu, Differential x-ray pulsar aided celestial 62 navigation for mars exploration, Aerospace Science and Technology 62 (2017) 36–45

    2017

  14. [14]

    J. Rong, X. Luping, H. Zhang, L. Cong, Augmentation method of xpnav in mars orbit based on phobos and deimos observations, Advances in Space Research 58 (9) (2016) 1864–1878

    2016

  15. [15]

    X. Kai, W. Chunling, L. Liangdong, Performance enhancement of x-ray pulsar navigation using autonomous optical sensor, Acta Astronautica 128 (2016) 473–484

    2016

  16. [16]

    L. Gu, X. Jiang, S. Li, W. Li, Optical/radio/pulsars integrated naviga- tion for mars orbiter, Advances in Space Research 63 (1) (2019) 512–525

    2019

  17. [17]

    Zhang, H

    L. Zhang, H. Fang, W. Bao, H. Sun, L. Shen, J. Su, L. Zhao, Enhanced x-ray pulsar navigation based on ranging information of a satellite, Air- craft Engineering and Aerospace Technology 94 (10) (2022) 1872–1882

    2022

  18. [18]

    S. Chen, F. Topputo, Autonomous navigation using integrated x-ray pulsar and optical measurements, in: 29th International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics (ISSFD), 2024, pp. 1–7

    2024

  19. [19]

    Parthasarathy, R

    A. Parthasarathy, R. Shannon, S. Johnston, L. Lentati, M. Bailes, S. Dai, M. Kerr, R. Manchester, S. Osłowski, C. Sobey, W. van Straten, P. Weltevrede, Timing of young radio pulsars–i. timing noise, periodic modulation, and proper motion, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society 489 (3) (2019) 3810–3826

    2019

  20. [20]

    P. S. Ray, K. S. Wood, M. T. Wolff, Characterization of pulsar sources for x-ray navigation, arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.08507 (2017). 63

    work page arXiv 2017

  21. [21]

    1979, ApJ, 234, 1100, doi: 10.1086/157593

    S. Detweiler, Pulsar timing measurements and the search for grav- itational waves, The Astrophysical Journal 234 (1979) 1100–1104. doi:10.1086/157593

    work page doi:10.1086/157593 1979

  22. [22]

    R. W. Hellings, G. S. Downs, Upper limits on the isotropic gravitational radiation background from pulsar timing analysis, The Astrophysical Journal 265 (1983) L39–L42. doi:10.1086/183954

    work page doi:10.1086/183954 1983

  23. [23]

    R. S. Foster, D. C. Backer, Constructing a pulsar timing array, The Astrophysical Journal 361 (1990) 300–308. doi:10.1086/169195

    work page doi:10.1086/169195 1990

  24. [24]

    2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 084013, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/27/8/084013

    G. Hobbs, A. Archibald, Z. Arzoumanian, D. Backer, M. Bailes, N. D. R. Bhat, M.Burgay, S.Burke-Spolaor, D.Champion, I.Cognard, W.Coles, J. M. Cordes, P. Demorest, G. Desvignes, R. D. Ferdman, L. S. Finn, P. C. C. Freire, M. E. Gonzalez, J. W. T. Hessels, ..., X. P. You, The in- ternational pulsar timing array project: using pulsars as a gravitational wave...

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/8/084013 2010

  25. [25]

    A. Lyne, C. Jordan, F. Graham-Smith, C. Espinoza, B. Stappers, P. Weltevrede, 45 years of rotation of the crab pulsar, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 446 (1) (2015) 857–864

    2015

  26. [26]

    Verbiest, J

    J. Verbiest, J. Weisberg, A. Chael, K. Lee, D. Lorimer, On pulsar dis- tance measurements and their uncertainties, The Astrophysical Journal 755 (1) (2012) 39

    2012

  27. [27]

    Shamohammadi, N

    D.Reardon, R.Shannon, A.Cameron, B.Goncharov, G.Hobbs, H.Mid- dleton, M. Shamohammadi, N. Thyagarajan, M. Bailes, N. Bhat, ..., 64 X. J. Zhu, The parkes pulsar timing array second data release: timing analysis, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 507 (2) (2021) 2137–2153

    2021

  28. [28]

    Baumgardt, E

    H. Baumgardt, E. Vasiliev, Accurate distances to galactic globular clusters through a combination of gaia edr3, hst, and literature data, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 505 (4) (2021) 5957– 5977

    2021

  29. [29]

    M. F. Alam, Z. Arzoumanian, P. T. Baker, H. Blumer, K. E. Bohler, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, S. Burke-Spolaor, K. Caballero, R. S. Camuc- cio, ..., W. Zhu, The nanograv 12.5 yr data set: wideband timing of 47 millisecond pulsars, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 252 (1) (2020) 5

    2020

  30. [30]

    Y.Du, J.Yang, R.M.Campbell, G.Janssen, B.Stappers, D.Chen, Very long baseline interferometry measured proper motion and parallax of the γ-ray millisecond pulsar psr j0218+ 4232, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 782 (2) (2014) L38

    2014

  31. [31]

    Verbiest, D

    J. Verbiest, D. Lorimer, Why the distance of psr j0218+ 4232 does not challenge pulsar emission theories, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 444 (2) (2014) 1859–1861

    2014

  32. [32]

    Reardon, G

    D. Reardon, G. Hobbs, W. Coles, Y. Levin, M. Keith, M. Bailes, N. Bhat, S. Burke-Spolaor, S. Dai, M. Kerr, Timing analysis for 20 millisecond pulsars in the parkes pulsar timing array, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 455 (2) (2016) 1751–1769. 65

    2016

  33. [33]

    Deller, J

    A. Deller, J. Verbiest, S. Tingay, M. Bailes, Extremely high precision vlbiastrometryofpsrj0437–4715andimplicationsfortheoriesofgravity, The Astrophysical Journal 685 (1) (2008) L67

    2008

  34. [34]

    Fonseca, H

    E. Fonseca, H. T. Cromartie, T. T. Pennucci, P. S. Ray, A. Y. Kirichenko, S. M. Ransom, P. B. Demorest, I. H. Stairs, Z. Arzouma- nian, L. Guillemot, Refined mass and geometric measurements of the high-mass psr j0740+ 6620, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 915 (1) (2021) L12

    2021

  35. [35]

    Desvignes, R

    G. Desvignes, R. Caballero, L. Lentati, J. Verbiest, D. Champion, B. Stappers, G. Janssen, P. Lazarus, S. Osłowski, S. Babak, High- precision timing of 42 millisecond pulsars with the european pulsar tim- ing array, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 458 (3) (2016) 3341–3380

    2016

  36. [36]

    H. Ding, A. T. Deller, P. Freire, D. L. Kaplan, T. J. W. Lazio, R. Shan- non, B. Stappers, Very long baseline astrometry of psr j1012+ 5307 and its implications on alternative theories of gravity, The Astrophysical Journal 896 (1) (2020) 85

    2020

  37. [37]

    D. L. Kaplan, T. Kupfer, D. J. Nice, A. Irrgang, U. Heber, Z. Arzouma- nian, E. Beklen, K. Crowter, M. E. DeCesar, P. B. Demorest, et al., Psr j1024–0719: a millisecond pulsar in an unusual long-period orbit, The Astrophysical Journal 826 (1) (2016) 86

    2016

  38. [38]

    P. S. Ray, S. Guillot, S. M. Ransom, M. Kerr, S. Bogdanov, A. K. Harding, M. T. Wolff, C. Malacaria, K. C. Gendreau, Z. Arzoumanian, 66 C. Markwardt, Y. Soong, J. P. Doty, Discovery of soft x-ray pulsa- tions from psr j1231–1411 using nicer, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 878 (1) (2019) L22

    2019

  39. [39]

    Guillemot, D

    L. Guillemot, D. Smith, H. Laffon, G. Janssen, I. Cognard, G. Theureau, G. Desvignes, E. Ferrara, P. Ray, The gamma-ray millisecond pulsar deathline, revisited-new velocity and distance measurements, Astron- omy & Astrophysics 587 (2016) A109

    2016

  40. [40]

    Bassa, J

    C. Bassa, J. Antoniadis, F. Camilo, I. Cognard, D. Koester, M. Kramer, S. Ransom, B. Stappers, Cool white dwarf companions to four millisec- ond pulsars, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 455 (4) (2016) 3806–3813

    2016

  41. [42]

    R. T. Edwards, G. B. Hobbs, R. N. Manchester, TEMPO2, a new pulsar timing package - II. The timing model and precision estimates, MNRAS 372 (4) (2006) 1549–1574. arXiv:astro-ph/0607664, doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2006.10870.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2006

  42. [43]

    D. Nice, P. Demorest, I. Stairs, R. Manchester, J. Taylor, W. Peters, J. Weisberg, A. Irwin, N. Wex, Y. Huang, Tempo: Pulsar timing data analysis, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1509.002 (Sep. 2015). 67

    2015

  43. [44]

    Hobbs, R

    G. Hobbs, R. Edwards, Tempo2: Pulsar Timing Package, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1210.015 (Oct. 2012)

    2012

  44. [45]

    J. Luo, S. Ransom, P. Demorest, P. S. Ray, A. Archibald, M. Kerr, R. J. Jennings, M. Bachetti, R. van Haasteren, C. A. Champagne, et al., Pint: a modern software package for pulsar timing, The Astrophysical Journal 911 (1) (2021) 45

    2021

  45. [46]

    J. H. Taylor, Pulsar timing and relativistic gravity, Philosophical Trans- actions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Physical and Engineer- ing Sciences 341 (1660) (1992) 117–134

    1992

  46. [47]

    K. C. Gendreau, Z. Arzoumanian, P. W. Adkins, C. L. Albert, J. F. Anders, A. T. Aylward, C. L. Baker, E. R. Balsamo, W. A. Bamford, S. S. Benegalrao, The neutron star interior composition explorer (nicer): design and development, in: Space telescopes and instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to gamma ray, Vol. 9905, SPIE, 2016, pp. 420–435

    2016

  47. [48]

    Nasa High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (Heasarc), HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU (Aug. 2014). arXiv:1408.004. 68

    2014