Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 66 references

The Timing Evolution of the Magnetar Swift J1818.0-1607 During a Period of Reduced Activity

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A phase-connected timing solution from a 60-day Green Bank Telescope campaign places the magnetar Swift J1818.0-1607 at a characteristic age of about 2,500 years, roughly 2.5 times older than the previous estimate.

desk verdict Useful and reproducible timing update for Swift J1818.0-1607, but the headline age/field values rest on a short span that excludes one epoch, and the mode-switch claim crosses frequencies. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19698 v1 pith:6BYDXF6K submitted 2025-07-25 astro-ph.HE

Moaz Abdelmaguid , Paulo C. C. Freire , Joseph D. Gelfand , Yogesh Maan , Samayra Straal , J. A. J. Alford This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords magnetarsSwiftJ1818.0-1607radiopulsarstimingsolutionspin-downmodeswitchingpulseprofileneutronstars
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 uses Green Bank Telescope observations at 2.0 GHz, taken about 20 months after Swift J1818.0-1607's 2020 outburst, to build a phase-connected timing solution spanning roughly 60 days. From that solution it infers a characteristic age of about 2,500 years and a surface dipole magnetic field of about $1\times 10^{14}$ G, both substantially revised from earlier estimates. The paper also argues that the magnetar switched emission modes in the ~100-day gap before these observations, because the pulse profile changed from double-peaked to a stable single narrow peak with a precursor, the spin-down rate slowed, and the flux stayed low. The broader point is that for a young magnetar with highly variable spin-down, inferred age and field strength depend strongly on when the measurement is made rather than on the magnetar's intrinsic properties.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the phase-connected timing solution built from arrival times extracted with PRESTO and fitted with TEMPO2 using the phase-connection technique of Freire & Ridolfi (2018). The inference chain then runs through two standard identities: the characteristic age $\tau_c = P/(2\dot{P})$ assuming a braking index of $n = 3$, and the spin-down-inferred surface dipole field $B = 3.2\times 10^{19}\sqrt{P\dot{P}}$ G. These identities turn the measured spin frequency and its derivative into age and field estimates, which is why short-term changes in the spin-down rate directly change the inferred properties. The mode-switching argument is carried by comparing the pulse profile, spin-down rate, and flux density across epochs.

What would settle it

Observe Swift J1818.0-1607 simultaneously at 1.4 GHz and 2.0 GHz during a single epoch: if the 1.4 GHz profile is double-peaked while the 2.0 GHz profile is single-peaked, the mode-switch interpretation would be weakened in favor of frequency-dependent profile morphology.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Over MJD 59536.7–59578.8 the authors derive a phase-connected timing solution for Swift J1818.0-1607 with spin frequency $F_0 = 0.7326046915(5)$ Hz, spin-down $F_1 = -4.4855(11)\times 10^{-12}$ Hz s$^{-1}$, and a small second derivative, holding the dispersion measure fixed at $710\pm1$ pc cm$^{-3}$. Using the standard magnetar formulas $\tau_c = P/(2\dot{P})$ and $B = 3.2\times 10^{19}\sqrt{P\dot{P}}$ G, they infer $\tau_c \sim 2500$ years and $B \sim 1\times 10^{14}$ G, about 2.5 times older and nearly three times weaker than the most recent published values. Throughout the campaign the integrated pulse profile remained stable: a single narrow peak with $W_{50}\sim 18$–23 ms, a small precursor component, no postcursor, a flat radio spectrum ($\alpha \gtrsim -1$), and flux densities of roughly 0.2–0.3 mJy. Comparing these with the preceding campaign's double-peaked profile, faster spin-down, and declining flux, the paper concludes that a mode-switching event likely occurred during the ~100-day gap (MJD 59426–59520) and that the source had returned to a state resembling Mode 3 rather than Mode 4.

Load-bearing premise

The mode-switching claim assumes that the difference between the earlier double-peaked 1.4 GHz profile and this campaign's single-peaked 2.0 GHz profile reflects a genuine change in emission state, rather than the same state looking different at a different observing frequency.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The magnetar's inferred characteristic age and surface dipole field are epoch-dependent: the same object has been assigned $\tau_c$ from roughly 265 to 2500 years and $B$ from about $3.4\times 10^{14}$ G to $1\times 10^{14}$ G depending on when the spin-down was measured.
  • A mode-switching episode occurred between the last published campaign and this one, during the ~100-day gap, leaving the magnetar in a state resembling the single-peaked, slower-spinning Mode 3.
  • The spin-down rate measured here is an order of magnitude slower than during Mode 4, reinforcing that post-outburst magnetar spin-down is dominated by short-term fluctuations rather than steady electromagnetic braking.
  • Continued monitoring will determine whether Swift J1818.0-1607 follows the fading and reactivation cycles seen in PSR J1622-4950 and XTE J1810-197 or becomes more sporadic like 1E 1547.0-5408.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If characteristic ages of young magnetars fluctuate this much with spin-down state, population-level age and magnetic-field estimates drawn from P–$\dot{P}$ diagrams for recently outbursting magnetars carry systematic uncertainties that independent age indicators, such as supernova remnant expansion or kinematic measurements, would be needed to break.
  • The stability of the single-peaked profile across the full 60 days, in contrast to the minute-timescale mode switching seen shortly after the outburst, suggests the magnetosphere may settle into a more stable configuration during reduced activity; a longer multi-frequency campaign could test whether that stability persists.
  • A natural extension is to measure the braking index once the post-outburst relaxation finishes; if it is less than 3, as seen in some magnetars, the true age would be even larger than the characteristic age.
  • The persistently flat spectrum at $\alpha \gtrsim -1$ supports the idea that Swift J1818.0-1607's radio emission is becoming more rotation-powered-pulsar-like over time, potentially making it a bridge between the magnetar and radio pulsar populations.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports GBT 2.0 GHz observations of the radio-loud magnetar Swift J1818.0-1607 taken in November-December 2021, roughly 20 months after its 2020 outburst. Over the 60-day dense set, the integrated pulse profile is stable, single-peaked with a small precursor, in contrast to the double-peaked profile seen at 1.4 GHz in the preceding campaign of Rajwade et al. (2022). The spin-down rate is slower than at the end of that campaign, and the flux density is low and stable. From a phase-connected timing solution the authors derive F1 = -4.4855e-12 Hz/s, a characteristic age of about 2500 years, and a surface dipole field of about 1e14 G, roughly 2.5 times older and three times weaker than the most recent previous estimates. The paper interprets the profile, spin-down, and flux changes as evidence for a likely mode-switching event during the ~100-day gap between the two campaigns.

Significance. If the timing solution is robust, this is a valuable post-outburst measurement of a young radio-loud magnetar, showing that short-term spin-down variability can change the inferred characteristic age and magnetic field by large factors. The paper publishes the full set of times of arrival in Table A.1, uses standard and well-documented software (PRESTO, TEMPO2, DSPSR/PSRCHIVE), and transparently acknowledges that the characteristic age assumes a constant braking index and can be affected by spin-down variability. These are real strengths that make the central measurement reproducible. The main concerns are that the phase-connected solution depends on a large, uninterpreted second frequency derivative and on the exclusion of the first epoch, and that the mode-switching claim compares profiles at different observing frequencies without quantifying frequency-dependent morphology.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Table 3; Table A.1; Table A.3] The load-bearing timing solution excludes the first epoch at MJD 59520.76 even though Table A.1 lists five ToAs for that epoch, and the only justification in §3.1 is 'significant timing noise,' which is neither quantified nor demonstrated. The fit includes F2 = 1.2286e-19 Hz/s^2 with a quoted 1-sigma uncertainty of 8.5e-20, i.e., formally about 14.5 sigma, yet no physical interpretation, cycle-count check, or leave-one-out test is presented. Over the 42-day span of the fit, the F2 term contributes nearly one full rotation, so a small number of outliers could change F1, and therefore tau_c and B, by factors rather than percentages. In particular, the MJD 59572.63 ToAs have uncertainties of 768 and 683 microseconds, the largest in Table A.1, and the MJD 59568.73670 spin-frequency entry in Table A.3 differs from the MJD 59568.70900 entry by about 1.5e-5 Hz, far outside either error bar. The authors should show a fit that includes the first epoch, quantify the timing noise amplitude, and demonstrate that F1 and F2 are stable under removal of individual epochs or ToAs.
  2. [§4.1, Figures 3 and 4] The claimed mode switch between the Rajwade et al. (2022) campaign and this campaign rests on comparing a double-peaked 1.4 GHz profile with a single-peaked 2.0 GHz profile, but the paper does not model or quantify how the pulse profile of Swift J1818.0-1607 depends on observing frequency. Since the same physical emission state can appear different at different frequencies, as the paper itself notes for flux density in §4.1, the profile difference alone does not uniquely imply a mode switch. The authors should either quantify frequency-dependent profile morphology using contemporaneous multi-frequency data (e.g., Huang et al. 2021, Bansal et al. 2023) or soften the mode-switching claim to an explicitly conditional interpretation.
  3. [§4.4, Table 5] The inferred characteristic age and magnetic field use only F1 from Table 3, while F2 is formally highly significant. The paper should state how tau_c and B would change if F2 were absorbed into the error budget or omitted. It should also avoid the statement that the magnetar has 'effectively aged by about 2000 years over the past two years,' which conflates a change in the measured spin-down rate with a physical age increase; the authors do later acknowledge the caveat, but Table 5 and Figure 7 treat the successive P-Pdot points as directly comparable measurements.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains the typo 'with with' in the second sentence, and the text has several other typos ('obsevations', 'surpising', 'Febraury', 'monotic', 'adminstrated', 'Throghout') that should be corrected in the proof stage.
  2. [Table 3 and Table 2] Table 2 lists the first epoch at MJD 59520.76, but Table 3 states the timing-solution date range begins at MJD 59536.713; the text in §3.1 should explicitly note this discrepancy and clarify how the first epoch was used for the spin-frequency comparison in Figure 6.
  3. [Figure 7 caption] The caption of Figure 7 says the inset shows four data points, while Table 5 lists five campaign estimates; the caption should clarify whether the initial Champion et al. (2020a) point is omitted from the inset.
  4. [§3.1] The fixed RA, Dec, and DM values are taken from the literature without a sensitivity test; a sentence reporting how much the timing solution changes when these are varied within their quoted uncertainties would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the timing solution is fitted to ToAs, and the age and B-field follow from standard external formulas.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is the phase-connected timing solution in Table 3, obtained by fitting the ToAs in Table A.1 with TEMPO2 following the Freire & Ridolfi (2018) technique. The inferred characteristic age and surface dipole magnetic field are then calculated from standard external formulas (B = 3.2e19 sqrt(P Pdot) G and tau_c = P/(2 Pdot)) evaluated at the fitted spin parameters; nothing in the fit is adjusted to reproduce these derived quantities. The mode-switching claim compares new 2.0 GHz profiles and spin-down behavior with published results from Rajwade et al. (2022), an external group, so it is not a self-referential argument; the concern that the profile difference could reflect frequency-dependent morphology is a physical-interpretation caveat, not circular reasoning. The only self-citation is the timing-technique reference to Freire & Ridolfi (2018), a coauthor's method paper, but this is methodological support that does not encode or presuppose the age or B-field results, so it does not constitute load-bearing circularity. The exclusion of the first epoch and the large F2 term raise timing-robustness concerns, but robustness is not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central age and B-field values depend on the fitted spin frequency and its first derivative; no new physical entities are introduced. The main assumptions are standard pulsar spin-down formulas and the adequacy of the short timing model.

free parameters (3)
  • F0 (spin frequency) = 0.7326046915(5) Hz
    Fitted from ToAs in the phase-connected timing solution; the base rotation frequency.
  • F1 (spin-down rate) = -4.4855(11)e-12 Hz/s
    Fitted from ToAs; directly enters the inferred characteristic age and surface dipole magnetic field.
  • F2 (second frequency derivative) = 1.2286(85)e-19 Hz/s^2
    Fitted term needed to model the timing residuals over the 42-day span.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Magnetic dipole spin-down formula B = 3.2e19 sqrt(P Pdot) G
    Used in Section 4.4 to convert the measured period and period derivative into a surface dipole field.
  • domain assumption Braking index n=3 for characteristic age
    tau_c = P/(2 Pdot) assumes constant magnetic-dipole braking; the paper acknowledges this may not hold.
  • domain assumption The timing model (F0, F1, F2) fully describes the ToAs over MJD 59536-59578
    The authors note timing noise prevented extending the phase-connected solution to earlier or later epochs, so the fit window is assumed clean of unmodeled red noise.
  • domain assumption Source position fixed at X-ray coordinates from Blumer & Safi-Harb (2020)
    RA and DEC held fixed in the timing solution; the updated VLBI position (Ding et al. 2024) was not yet published at analysis time.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Timing Evolution of the Magnetar Swift J1818.0-1607 During a Period of Reduced Activity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6BYDXF6K

@misc{pith2026250719698,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Timing Evolution of the Magnetar Swift J1818.0-1607 During a Period of Reduced Activity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6BYDXF6K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19698}
}
read the original abstract

We report results from an observational campaign of the radio-loud magnetar Swift J1818.0-1607 using the Green Bank Telescope (GBT) at 2.0 GHz, which began in November 2021 during a period of reduced activity approximately 20 months after its March 2020 outburst. Over the 60-day duration reported here, the integrated pulse profile remained consistently stable, exhibiting a single, narrow peak with with a small precursor component and no evidence of a postcursor one. This pulse profile is in sharp contrast to the double-peaked morphology observed during an observing campaign approximately 120 days preceding ours. Along with this change in the integrated pulse profile shape, we also measure a slower spin-down rate compared to the end of that preceding campaign. Together, these differences suggest that a mode-switching event likely occurred between the end of that campaign and the start of ours. Finally, we derived a phase-connected timing solution from our data, from which we inferred a characteristic age of approximately 2500 years, about 2.5 times older than the most recent published estimate, and a surface dipole magnetic field strength of roughly 1 x 10^14 G, nearly three times weaker. These updated estimates reflect the short-term variations in the magnetar's spin-down rate, from which both its age and magnetic field strength are inferred, rather than intrinsic changes in the magnetar itself.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19698 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A summary of our entire monitoring campaign highlight￾ing the dense–set presented in this paper. on the closely spaced S band-only observations conducted between 2021 Nov 2 (MJD 59520) & 2021 Dec 30 (MJD 59578), henceforth referred to as the “dense set” (2021B semester; Project code GBT21B-354, PI: Samayra Straal). These observations were carried out in SEARCH mode, and the data were recorded using the VErsatile GBT… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Timing residuals for Swift J1818.0−1607 from the GBT observing campaign at 2.0 GHz. The reference MJD is 59564.8. (2020), as was done by Rajwade et al. (2022) 2 . Since the magnetar was observed at a single frequency band during the dense set, constraining the DM proved difficult. Each obser￾vation was initially folded using PRESTO, allowing for a DM search around the value reported in the most recent timing solutio… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Pulse Profile Evolution at 2.0 GHz over our monitoring period of ∼ 60 days. All profiles have been normalized for easier comparison. Right Panel: An example of a double gaussian fit to the pulse profile at MJD 59536, showing the contributions from a narrow main component (blue dotted curve) and a broader pre-cursor component (green dotted curve). The red dotted curve represents the sum of these individual components… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Period averaged flux densities as a function of MJD. The y-axis is shown on a logarithmic scale. Our 2.0 GHz measurements are plotted alongside earlier observations at 2.25 & 8.6 GHz by Huang et al. (2021) and at 1.4 GHz by Rajwade et al. (2022) and future epochs at 8.…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Power–law spectral indices as a function of MJD estimated using the period averaged flux densities along with older data reported by Huang et al. (2021) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spin frequency evolution of Swift J1818.0−1607 over time, showing measurements from different studies (Champion et al. 2020b; Huang et al. 2021; Rajwade et al. 2022), and this work. The segments labeled Mode 3 and Mode 4 correspond to distinct spin-down states associat…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: P−P˙ diagram showing the position of Swift J1818.0−1607. The inset provides a zoomed−in view highlighting the temporal evolution of its spin period and spin−down rate across different epochs, with four data points (from top to bottom) cor￾responding to measurements rep…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F., Kaspi, V

    Archibald, R. F., Kaspi, V . M., Ng, C. Y ., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/33

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/1/33 2015

  2. [2]

    F., Kaspi, V

    Archibald, R. F., Kaspi, V . M., Tendulkar, S. P., & Scholz, P. 2016, ApJL, 829, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/L21

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/l21 2016

  3. [3]

    Beardmore, A. P. 2020, ApJ, 889, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab660c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab660c 2020

  4. [4]

    S., Pearlman, A

    Bansal, K., Wharton, R. S., Pearlman, A. B., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2401, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1520

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1520 2023

  5. [5]

    2020, ApJL, 904, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abc6a2

    Blumer, H., & Safi-Harb, S. 2020, ApJL, 904, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abc6a2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abc6a2 2020

  6. [6]

    L., Possenti, A., et al

    Burgay, M., Israel, G. L., Possenti, A., et al. 2009, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 1913, 1

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    P., & Ransom, S

    Camilo, F., Halpern, J. P., & Ransom, S. M. 2009, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 1907, 1

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    M., Halpern, J

    Camilo, F., Ransom, S. M., Halpern, J. P., & Reynolds, J. 2007a, ApJL, 666, L93, doi: 10.1086/521826

    doi:10.1086/521826

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    M., Halpern, J

    Camilo, F., Ransom, S. M., Halpern, J. P., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 892, doi: 10.1038/nature04986

    2006 doi

  2. [10]

    2007b, ApJL, 659, L37, doi: 10.1086/516630

    Camilo, F., Reynolds, J., Johnston, S., et al. 2007b, ApJL, 659, L37, doi: 10.1086/516630

    doi

  3. [11]

    M., Pe˜nalver, J., et al

    Camilo, F., Ransom, S. M., Pe˜nalver, J., et al. 2007c, ApJ, 669, 561, doi: 10.1086/521548

    doi

  4. [12]

    M., Halpern, J

    Camilo, F., Ransom, S. M., Halpern, J. P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 110, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/110 14 Abdelmaguid et al

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    2018, ApJ, 856, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab35a

    Camilo, F., Scholz, P., Serylak, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab35a

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2020b, MNRAS, 498, 6044, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2764

    Champion, D., Cognard, I., Cruces, M., et al. 2020b, MNRAS, 498, 6044, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2764

    doi

  7. [15]

    Cordes, J. M. 1978, ApJ, 222, 1006, doi: 10.1086/156218

    1978 doi

  8. [16]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 3584, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2063

    Dai, S., Johnston, S., Weltevrede, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3584, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2063

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    E., Bailes, M., et al

    Dai, S., Lower, M. E., Bailes, M., et al. 2019, ApJL, 874, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0e7a

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Scholz, P., & Gavriil, F

    Dib, R., Kaspi, V . M., Scholz, P., & Gavriil, F. P. 2012, ApJ, 748, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/3

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    E., Deller, A

    Ding, H., Lower, M. E., Deller, A. T., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5550

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    C., & Thompson, C

    Duncan, R. C., & Thompson, C. 1992, ApJL, 392, L9, doi: 10.1086/186413

    1992 doi

  13. [21]

    2021, PASJ, 73, 1563, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab098

    Eie, S., Terasawa, T., Akahori, T., et al. 2021, PASJ, 73, 1563, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab098

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    2020, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 13551, 1

    Enoto, T., Sakamoto, T., Younes, G., et al. 2020, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 13551, 1

    2020

  15. [23]

    2020, ApJL, 896, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9742

    Esposito, P., Rea, N., Borghese, A., et al. 2020, ApJL, 896, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9742

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    2012, Advances in Space Research, 49, 1313, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2012.02.004

    Ferrand, G., & Safi-Harb, S. 2012, Advances in Space Research, 49, 1313, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2012.02.004

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    M., Rajwade, K

    Fisher, R., Butterworth, E. M., Rajwade, K. M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3833, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae271

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Freire, P. C. C., & Ridolfi, A. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 4794, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty524

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    F., Li, X

    Gao, Z. F., Li, X. D., Wang, N., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 55, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2465

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    2004 doi

  21. [29]

    D., & Gaensler, B

    Gelfand, J. D., & Gaensler, B. M. 2007, ApJ, 667, 1111, doi: 10.1086/520526

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    V ., Halpern, J

    Gotthelf, E. V ., Halpern, J. P., Alford, J. A. J., et al. 2019, ApJL, 874, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab101a

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    Green, D. A. 2025, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 46, 14, doi: 10.1007/s12036-024-10038-4

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    2006, Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement, 6, 189

    Hobbs, G., Edwards, R., & Manchester, R. 2006, Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement, 6, 189

    2006

  25. [33]

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

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

    2004 doi

  26. [34]

    2020, ApJ, 902, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3c9

    Hu, C.-P., Begic ¸arslan, B., G¨uver, T., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3c9

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 1311, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1362 —

    Huang, Z.-P., Yan, Z., Shen, Z.-Q., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 1311, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1362 —. 2023, ApJ, 956, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf193

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    I., Markwardt, C

    Ibrahim, A. I., Markwardt, C. B., Swank, J. H., et al. 2004, ApJL, 609, L21, doi: 10.1086/422636

    2004 doi

  29. [37]

    Y ., Borghese, A., Rea, N., et al

    Ibrahim, A. Y ., Borghese, A., Rea, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca528

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    F., et al

    Jankowski, F., van Straten, W., Keane, E. F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4436, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2476

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 3493, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx377

    Johnston, S., & Karastergiou, A. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3493, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx377

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    2020, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 13553, 1

    Karuppusamy, R., Desvignes, G., Kramer, M., et al. 2020, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 13553, 1

    2020

  33. [41]

    M., & Beloborodov, A

    Kaspi, V . M., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 261, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023329

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    P., Cline, T

    Kouveliotou, C., Norris, J. P., Cline, T. L., et al. 1987, ApJL, 322, L21, doi: 10.1086/185029

    1987 doi

  35. [43]

    R., & Urama, J

    Kuiper, L., Hermsen, W., den Hartog, P. R., & Urama, J. O. 2012, ApJ, 748, 133, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/133

    2012 doi

  36. [44]

    2010, ApJL, 721, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/721/1/L33

    Levin, L., Bailes, M., Bates, S., et al. 2010, ApJL, 721, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/721/1/L33

    2010 doi

  37. [45]

    G., Desvignes, G., et al

    Levin, L., Lyne, A. G., Desvignes, G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5251, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2074

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    F., Blumer, H., Lynch, R

    Lewis, E. F., Blumer, H., Lynch, R. S., & McLaughlin, M. A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.15200, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.15200

    2025 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    E., Johnston, S., Shannon, R

    Lower, M. E., Johnston, S., Shannon, R. M., Bailes, M., & Camilo, F. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 127, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3789

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    E., Shannon, R

    Lower, M. E., Shannon, R. M., Johnston, S., & Bailes, M. 2020, ApJL, 896, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9898

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    E., Younes, G., Scholz, P., et al

    Lower, M. E., Younes, G., Scholz, P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbc7c

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    2010, Science, 329, 408, doi: 10.1126/science.1186683

    Lyne, A., Hobbs, G., Kramer, M., Stairs, I., & Stappers, B. 2010, Science, 329, 408, doi: 10.1126/science.1186683

    2010 doi

  43. [51]

    2020, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 13560, 1

    Maan, Y ., & van Leeuwen, J. 2020, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 13560, 1

    2020

  44. [52]

    A., Pearlman, A

    Majid, W. A., Pearlman, A. B., Prince, T. A., et al. 2020, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 13649, 1

    2020

  45. [53]

    A., & Kaspi, V

    Olausen, S. A., & Kaspi, V . M. 2014, ApJS, 212, 6, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/6

    2014 doi

  46. [54]

    A., & Butler, B

    Perley, R. A., & Butler, B. J. 2017, ApJS, 230, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6df9

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    Pilia, M., Hessels, J. W. T., Stappers, B. W., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425196

    2016 doi

  48. [56]

    M., Bloss, M., Brandt, J., et al

    Prestage, R. M., Bloss, M., Brandt, J., et al. 2015, in 2015 URSI-USNC Radio Science Meeting, 4, doi: 10.1109/USNC-URSI.2015.7303578

    2015

  49. [57]

    M., Stappers, B

    Rajwade, K. M., Stappers, B. W., Lyne, A. G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 1687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac446

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    M., Eikenberry, S

    Ransom, S. M., Eikenberry, S. S., & Middleditch, J. 2002, AJ, 124, 1788, doi: 10.1086/342285

    2002 doi

  51. [59]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8226

    Sathyaprakash, R., Rea, N., Coti Zelati, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8226

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    2017, ApJ, 841, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa73de 15

    Scholz, P., Camilo, F., Sarkissian, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 841, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa73de 15

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    Timokhin, A. N. 2010, MNRAS, 408, L41, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00924.x

    2010

  54. [62]

    P., Karuppusamy, R., et al

    Torne, P., Eatough, R. P., Karuppusamy, R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, L50, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv063

    2015 doi

  55. [63]

    P., et al

    Torne, P., Desvignes, G., Eatough, R. P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 242, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2757

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    2020, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14001, 1 van Straten, W., & Bailes, M

    Torne, P., Liu, K., Cognard, I., et al. 2020, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14001, 1 van Straten, W., & Bailes, M. 2011, PASA, 28, 1, doi: 10.1071/AS10021 van Straten, W., Demorest, P., & Oslowski, S. 2012, Astronomical Research and Technology, 9, 237, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1205.6276

    2020 doi arXiv

  57. [65]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    N., & Johnston, S

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

    2007

Pith tools

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