Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 104 references

Evaluating the Evidence of Multipolar Surface Magnetic Field in PSR J0108$-$1431

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The radio beam of PSR J0108–1431 leads its X-ray hotspot by roughly 0.4 of a rotation, evidence that the neutron star's surface magnetic field is multipolar, not a simple dipole.

desk verdict A careful re-analysis with an honest presentation, but the headline multipolar claim rests on a prior that practically guarantees the measured offset; worth reviewing, not worth citing as evidence yet. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06221 v1 pith:AZJALTN6 submitted 2019-08-17 astro-ph.HE

Prakash Arumugasamy , Dipanjan Mitra This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords PSRJ0108-1431rotation-poweredpulsarthermalX-rayemissionpolarcaphotspotmultipolarmagneticfieldradio-X-rayphaseoffsetneutronstaratmospherepulsetiming
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

This paper tries to establish that the surface magnetic field of the old pulsar PSR J0108–1431 is not a simple star-centered dipole. Although the phase-integrated X-ray spectrum is well fit by a single power law with photon index $\Gamma\approx2.9$, phase-separated spectra reveal a soft thermal component in the 0.2–0.7 phase range. The paper finds that this thermal hotspot trails the radio peak by about $\Delta\varphi\approx0.4$ in rotational phase, with 99.7% probability that the offset exceeds 0.1; for a rotating pure dipole the predicted offset is only about 0.004 after aberration, retardation, and magnetic sweepback. It concludes that the hotspot is displaced from the dipole axis, which is best explained by multipolar surface magnetic fields whose higher-order terms vanish with height. It also shows that the usual alternative test, measuring the polar cap area, is inconclusive because blackbody and neutron-star-atmosphere fits are statistically indistinguishable but imply areas a factor of about 2 below and 4 above the dipole polar cap area.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing measurement is the X-ray/radio phase offset $\Delta\varphi$, obtained by aligning thermal X-ray and radio times of arrival. The thermal peak is located by fitting a single sinusoid $f(x)=A_0+A\sin[2\pi(x-\varphi_0)]$ to the 0.15–0.7 keV pulse profile over the phase range 0.2–0.7, where phase-separated spectra show the emission is thermal; a prior assigns 98% probability that the sinusoid peak lies in that range. The radio peak is located by fitting the rotating vector model to the 1.37 GHz polarization traverse and estimating an emission height of about 211 km, tying the radio beam to the dipolar field. A combined timing fit with a constant offset parameter between radio and X-ray TOAs fixes the absolute phase alignment. Against this, the paper predicts the dipole-aligned offset from aberration, retardation, and magnetic sweepback ($\Delta\Phi\sim0.004$), so the observed $\Delta\varphi\approx0.4$ is the anomaly that carries the argument.

What would settle it

A high-S/N X-ray observation of PSR J0108–1431 that resolves the soft (0.15–0.7 keV) profile could falsify the claim: if the thermal component's true peak lies within 0.1 in phase of the radio peak, or if the 0.2–0.7 keV bump is found to contain a power-law tail above 1 keV, the sinusoid is not marking a thermal polar cap and the multipolar-field inference collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For PSR J0108–1431, the paper claims, the thermal polar cap emission peaks at phase $\tilde{\varphi}_{\mathrm{th}}=0.43\pm0.14$, while the radio peak is at $\varphi_r=0.037^{+0.041}_{-0.059}$; the radio peak therefore leads the thermal peak by $\Delta\varphi_{r-\mathrm{th}}\approx0.4$, and there is a 99.7% probability that the offset exceeds 0.1. Because the radio emission is consistent with a purely dipolar open-field-line geometry at a height of roughly 211 km, and because for a rotating dipole aberration, retardation, and magnetic sweepback predict a radio lag of only $\Delta\Phi\sim0.004$, the measured offset is too large by about two orders of magnitude. The paper therefore concludes that the hotspot is displaced from the dipole axis, with a surface shift $S\gtrsim0.8$ km, and that this is best explained by multipolar components of the surface magnetic field. As a prerequisite, the paper establishes that the soft X-ray component in the 0.2–0.7 phase range is genuinely thermal: a power law cannot fit it, while blackbody and neutron-star-atmosphere models both fit acceptably and cannot be distinguished.

Load-bearing premise

The offset is dominated by the thermal peak phase, which is derived by fitting a single sinusoid to the 0.15–0.7 keV profile in the 0.2–0.7 phase range under a prior that the peak lies there; if that soft component is not a compact hotspot with a sinusoidal peak, or is partly non-thermal, the inferred offset is biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, PSR J0108–1431's surface field has substantial multipolar components, and its thermal polar cap is displaced roughly 0.8 km from the dipole axis.
  • The polar-cap-area method for diagnosing multipolar fields is unreliable for old pulsars with low signal-to-noise spectra; phase-offset measurements should be used instead.
  • The presence of multipolar surface fields supports pair-cascade and inner-gap models that need high field-line curvature near the neutron star surface.
  • The apparent 0.33 keV absorption feature, if it is proton cyclotron absorption, would independently imply surface field strengths above about $10^{13}$ G, reinforcing the multipolar picture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Applied to a sample of thermally emitting old pulsars, the offset method could test whether multipolar surface components decay with characteristic age or spin-down power; the paper does not do this.
  • A higher-sensitivity X-ray observation could separate the sinusoid hotspot model from a non-thermal interpretation of the 0.2–0.7 keV bump by checking whether the soft profile peak moves with energy; that check is not possible with current data.
  • If future radio observations at lower frequency give a different conal classification or emission height for J0108, the predicted dipole offset would shift, directly changing the significance of the measured 0.4 offset.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. The paper reanalyzes archival XMM-Newton observations of the old pulsar PSR J0108-1431 to search for evidence of a multipolar surface magnetic field. The authors find that the phase-integrated spectrum is adequately described by a single power law, but that phase-separated spectra in the ranges 0.2-0.7 and 0.7-0.2 require different models: a blackbody or neutron-star atmosphere for the soft phase, and a power law for the hard phase. They show that blackbody and atmosphere models cannot be distinguished statistically, so polar-cap area estimates are ambiguous. As an alternative diagnostic, they measure the phase offset between the thermal X-ray peak and the radio peak. Using a sinusoid fit to the 0.15-0.7 keV profile in the 0.2-0.7 phase range, they obtain a thermal peak phase of 0.43 ± 0.14, a radio peak phase of about 0.037, and an offset Δφ ≈ 0.4, with a quoted 99.7% probability that the offset exceeds 0.1. They argue that such an offset cannot be produced by a star-centered dipole and therefore constitutes strong evidence for a multipolar surface field. The paper also reports an absorption-like feature near 0.33 keV in the soft-phase spectrum and criticizes earlier polar-cap area estimates in the literature.

Significance. If the measured offset is real, the paper would provide a valuable new observational diagnostic for multipolar surface magnetic fields in old pulsars, sidestepping the model ambiguity that plagues blackbody-area estimates. The authors are careful in several respects: they use Bayesian posterior sampling, propagate the distance uncertainty through the area estimates, explicitly compare blackbody and atmosphere models with DIC, and offer a detailed and useful critique of earlier polar-cap area claims in Section 7. The paper is also explicit about many of its own limitations, such as the low count statistics and the inability to distinguish thermal emission models. However, the central statistical claim for the offset rests on a sinusoid fit whose prior is localized to the same phase window that was selected from the data, and the quoted 99.7% probability is essentially inherited from that prior rather than independently measured. The diagnostic idea is promising, but the evidence as presented does not currently establish the multipolar-field conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.2, Eq. (6)] The headline probability that the offset exceeds 0.1 is essentially fixed by the prior, not by the data. The prior assigns 98% probability to φ0 lying in [0.2,0.7], and for the measured radio peak at φr ≈ 0.037, every φ0 in that interval gives Δφ = φ0 − φr > 0.1; the smallest value is about 0.16 when φ0 = 0.2 and φr is near its upper 90% value. A uniform prior on [0.2,0.7] already yields a median φ0 of 0.45 and a 10–90% interval of roughly [0.25,0.65], very close to the reported φth = 0.43 ± 0.14. The reported 99.7% probability for Δφ > 0.1 therefore restates the prior rather than constituting an independent measurement. The authors should refit the thermal peak phase without the restrictive prior (for example, over the full phase range, or with a prior not localized to [0.2,0.7]) and should present a prior-sensitivity analysis. Because this probability is the quantitative basis for the multipolar conclusion in Answer G, the current form of the claim is not supported.
  2. [Section 4, Section 6.2] The identification of the thermal peak with the maximum of the single sinusoid in Eq. (6) is not well supported by the profile data. The 0.15–0.7 keV profile contains a main peak near phase 0 as well as a secondary bump near phase 0.5, and the Anderson–Darling test in Section 4 does not reject the hypothesis that the soft and hard profiles come from the same distribution. The phase-integrated spectrum (Section 3) is adequately fitted by a single power law, so the soft-band modulation is not independently established to be a clean hot-spot sinusoid. Fitting Eq. (6) only over the pre-selected 0.2–0.7 window forces the peak into that window and ignores the main pulse. At minimum, the authors should fit a model that includes the main pulse and a separate thermal component over the full phase range, and they should demonstrate with an appropriate test that an additional soft component is actually required before assigning the sinusoid maximum to the polar cap center.
  3. [Section 5.1, Section 6.2] The prior on φ0 is described as informed by the spectral constraint of Section 5.1, but that constraint is not independent of the phase window being tested. The 0.2–0.7 interval was selected from the same data because the pulse profile appeared soft there (opening of Section 5), and the 98% probability that the blackbody area is larger in 0.2–0.7 than in 0.7–0.2 is derived from spectra extracted in these same, data-defined windows. Using this probability as a prior for the location of the sinusoid peak therefore double-counts the data: the posterior for φ0 is not a Bayesian update from external information. The authors need to justify the prior from an independent source or, preferably, estimate φ0 from the full unbinned phase distribution with a model that includes the non-thermal main pulse, and then quote how the offset probability changes with the prior choice.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 7, Answer G] The sentence containing "S∼ 2π Δφ RNS sinα & 820" appears to be missing a unit and a proper inequality symbol; it should likely read "≳ 820 m" or "≥ 0.8 km."
  2. [Section 6.2, Table 5] The X-ray TOA uncertainty budget is unclear: if each of the eight selected X-ray events is assigned σ = 33 ms, the weighted mean of the X-ray TOAs should have an uncertainty of roughly 12 ms (about 0.014 in phase), yet the JUMP posterior is quoted with an uncertainty of 0.29 ms (0.00036 in phase). This apparent factor-of-40 discrepancy should be explained.
  3. [Figure 11 caption] The caption refers to "PSR J0108–1436" but the pulsar under study is PSR J0108–1431.
  4. [Section 1] In the introduction, the surface magnetic field is quoted as "2.3×10^11 erg s^-1"; the unit should be gauss (G), as correctly given in Table 1.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 99.7% probability that the X-ray/radio offset exceeds 0.1 is effectively set by the 0.2–0.7 prior placed on the thermal sinusoid peak, not independently measured from the data.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.2, Eq. (6), and Section 7 (answer G)]
    "Our prior for the zero-phase of the sine curve (φ0) is informed by the constraint on the thermal peak obtained from spectral fitting in Section 5.1. ... Hence, we assign a probability of 0.98 that Sine curves peak in the 0.2−0.7 phase range and 0.02 elsewhere. ... We estimate an offset ∆φ≈ 0.4 between the X-ray thermal peak and the leading radio peak, with a 99.7% probability that the offset is greater than 0.1."

    The 0.2–0.7 window was selected from the same data as the thermal phase range ('From the pulse profile shapes, we inferred soft emission in the 0.2−0.7 phase range'), and the 98% prior forces the sinusoid peak into that window. Because the radio peak phase is φr ≈ 0.037, any thermal peak in [0.2, 0.7] automatically yields an offset > 0.1 (indeed > 0.16). The quoted 99.7% probability that the offset exceeds 0.1 is therefore essentially the adopted prior restated as a measurement; the posterior median 0.43 is close to the window midpoint 0.45, as expected for a prior-dominated fit. An unrestricted fit over the full 0.15–0.7 keV profile would be needed to separate data information from the prior.

full rationale

The core X-ray/radio offset measurement is not itself derived from multipolarity: the sine fit and radio timing are independent of the multipolar conclusion, and the dipole-alignment expectation uses external aberration/retardation formulas. However, the headline significance claim—99.7% probability that the offset exceeds 0.1—is statistically forced by the prior that places 98% of the sinusoid peak in the 0.2–0.7 phase window. Since any peak in that window gives an offset > 0.1 relative to the radio peak, the significance is a restatement of the prior rather than an independent data constraint. The paper itself notes the Anderson–Darling test did not reject a common profile between the soft and hard bands, so the phase-separated thermal component is not independently secured. Thus the multipolar-field evidence is partially circular in its formal significance, while the existence of a soft X-ray bump near phase 0.5 retains some data-driven content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central offset estimate rests on two fitted phases (thermal and radio). The thermal phase is obtained under a single-sinusoid model whose prior is informed by the spectral phase separation. The radio phase is anchored by an empirical geometry model. No new physical entities are introduced; the multipolar field is an existing hypothesis.

free parameters (5)
  • Thermal peak phase (phi_0, sine fit) = 0.43 +/- 0.14
    Peak phase of the 0.15-0.7 keV profile in the 0.2-0.7 phase range, fitted with Eq. 6; enters directly into the offset estimate.
  • Radio peak phase (phi_r) = 0.037 (+0.041, -0.059)
    Derived from the timing JUMP and the phase of the X-ray profile peak; used as the reference for the offset.
  • X-ray profile peak phase used for TOAs = 0.003 (0.040)
    Bootstrap estimate of the 0.15-2 keV profile peak; anchors the X-ray TOAs and thus the absolute phase of the radio peak.
  • Blackbody emitting area ratio = 0.38 (+0.34, -0.16)
    Fitted BB area in S1 relative to dipole polar cap area; used only to show the area method is ambiguous.
  • NSA area ratio = 2.6e-4 (10-90% range)
    Fitted neutron star atmosphere emission area ratio; shows model dependence of the area method.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Thermal X-rays originate from the polar cap and non-thermal X-rays from the magnetosphere
    Standard pulsar emission model invoked in Sections 1 and 3.
  • standard math The polar cap area for a magnetic dipole is given by A_d,pc = 2π^2 R_NS^3/(cP) (Eq. 1)
    Used to compute the dipole polar cap area for comparing with BB/NSA area estimates.
  • domain assumption The radio emission arises from open dipolar field lines at a height ~211 km where multipoles have decayed
    Invoked in Section 6.1 to use the radio peak as reference for the dipole axis.
  • domain assumption The Empirical Theory of pulsar beams (core-cone structure, outer cone radius relation) correctly describes J0108
    Used in Section 6.1 to derive alpha=7.5 deg, beta=6.2 deg and classify the profile as conal single.
  • domain assumption In a rotating dipole, the radio peak lags the thermal X-ray peak by about 0.004 in phase after aberration, retardation and sweepback corrections
    Used in Section 6.2 (answer F) as the null expectation for a star-centered dipole.
  • ad hoc to paper The thermal pulse shape is well approximated by a single sinusoid f(x)=A0 + A sin[2π(x-phi0)]
    Equation 6 in Section 6.2; the peak phase of this sinusoid is taken as the polar cap center.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evaluating the Evidence of Multipolar Surface Magnetic Field in PSR J0108$-$1431." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AZJALTN6

@misc{pith2026190806221,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evaluating the Evidence of Multipolar Surface Magnetic Field in PSR J0108$-$1431},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AZJALTN6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06221}
}
abstract

PSR J0108$-$1431 is an old pulsar where the X-ray emission is expected to have a thermal component from the polar cap and a non-thermal component from the magnetosphere. Although the phase-integrated spectra are fit best with a single non-thermal component modeled with a power-law (PL) of photon index $\Gamma=2.9$, the X-ray pulse profiles do show the presence of phase-separated thermal and non-thermal components. The spectrum extracted from half the rotational phase away from the X-ray peak fits well with either a single blackbody (BB) or a neutron star atmosphere (NA) model, whereas, the spectrum from the rest of the phase range is dominated by a PL. From Bayesian analysis, the estimated BB area is smaller than the expected polar cap area for a dipolar magnetic field with a probability of 86% whereas the area estimate from the NA model is larger with a probability of 80%. Due to the ambiguity in the thermal emission model, the polar cap area cannot be reliably estimated and hence cannot be used to understand the nature of the surface magnetic field. Instead, we can infer the presence of multipolar magnetic field from the misalignment between the pulsar's thermal X-ray peak and the radio emission peak. For J0108$-$1431, we estimated a phase-offset $\Delta\phi > 0.1$ between the thermal polar cap emission peak and the radio emission peak and argue that this is best explained by the presence of a multipolar surface magnetic field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06221 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Background flaring light curve obtained from EPIC-pn (full-frame region) for the full observation duration using events with energies > 10 keV. The dotted lines show the various flaring count-rate cut-offs used to find optimal good time intervals for high S/N events extraction from the pulsar. a typical pulsar spectrum, the count rates decrease steeply with energy. This leads to non-uniform signal-to-noise (S/N) wit… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Energy-resolved count maps in the ranges (a) 0.15 − 2 keV, (b) 1 − 2 keV, and (c) 2 − 5 keV from EPIC-pn chip #4 which contains the source (red circles). The background regions used for S/N calculations and extracting background spectra are shown in white. The locations with zero counts are outside the counts color range and hence assigned white. The images show weak detection between 1 − 2 keV and no detection abov… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic diagram (not to scale) illustrating the sites of X-ray emission, the bulk surface, the polar cap, and the open-field lines, in a young (a) and an old pulsar (b). The region within the open-field lines where the non-thermal emission originates is not constrained. Sample spectral models from a typical young pulsar (a-i), and an old pulsar with the thermal component from regions of different effective radii, … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PL model fit to the phase-integrated source spectra. Shown are the spectra (error-bars), best-fit model (steps), and the residuals (bottom panel) for EPIC-pn (blue), MOS1 (pink), and MOS2 (orange) spectra. The observed background spectra are overlaid as steps (without …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top to bottom: Pulse profiles in the 0.15−0.7 keV and 0.7−2 keV energy ranges. The KDE smoothing is performed using the events’ frame-times as uniform density kernels. The estimate of the background contributions is shown in grey. The box plots for the peak phase follo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: Z 2 1−4 (light to dark shades) statistics obtained for 0.15−2 keV EPIC-pn events extracted from an energy-dependent, Z 2 2 -maximizing source events extraction. The dashes on the left of the plot mark the 1σ − 7σ significance levels for the Z 2 4 test. Bottom: Pha…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top-Left: Simultaneous fit to spectra from phase ranges 0.2 − 0.7 (red) and 0.7 − 0.2 (blue) using BB for the former and PL for the latter while using a tied NH parameter. The best fit models (values annotated) are shown with bold steps over the data and the background…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: 1D marginalized distributions and 2D marginalized joint-plots between the parameters in the joint BB and PL fit to the phase-separated spectra from phase ranges 0.2 − 0.7 and 0.7 − 0.2, respectively. The parameters corresponding to the highest posterior probability are…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top: BB (Red) and NSA (Orange) models (left) and spectra(right) that fit the observed spectrum (Brown errorbars) in the 0.2 − 0.7 phase range, sampled from the posterior distribution. Bottom: Comparison of the model parameters emission area and effective temperature (…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The left plot shows the time-averaged polarisation properties of PSR J0108–1436 at 1370 MHz using the data from Johnston & Kerr (2018). The top panel of the plot shows the total intensity (black line), linear polarization, L = p U2 + Q2 (red line), and circular polari…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Timing and offset estimate from radio (orange) and X-ray (blue) TOAs. Pre-fit residuals (top) and post-fit residuals including the Radio-X-ray Offset parameter (bottom) are shown. −1.192 −1.184 −1.176 −1.168 F1 ×10−16 −1.2 −0.8 −0.4 0.0 F2 ×10−25 3.5 5.0 6.5 F0 ×10−11…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: 1D marginalized distributions and 2D marginalized joint-plots between the pulsar rotational parameters: frequency in Hz (F0), frequency derivative in Hz s−1 , and frequency sec￾ond derivative Hz s−2 . Also shown is the posterior distribution of the X-ray profile offse…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Sine curves (black) fit to the 0.15 − 0.7 keV profile (red) in order to model BB emission. The solid and dashed red Sine curves correspond to the maximum likelihood and median model parameters, respectively. 0.2−0.7 phase range and only 2% outside. Hence, we assign a …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Top: Phase-aligned profiles radio (grey) and X-ray (violet) profiles. Bottom: Histograms and KDE (solid curves) of the marginalized posterior distribution of sinusoidal peaks mod￾eling the thermal emission peak (violet) and the Bootstrap esti￾mated distribution for ra…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W., Darling D

    Anderson T. W., Darling D. A., 1954, @doi [Journal of the American Statistical Association] 10.1080/01621459.1954.10501232 , 49, 765

    arXiv 1954

  2. [2]

    G., Hare J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaec69 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869...97A 869, 97

    Arumugasamy P., Kargaltsev O., Posselt B., Pavlov G. G., Hare J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaec69 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869...97A 869, 97

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaec69 2018

  3. [3]

    Balucinska-Church M., McCammon D., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172032 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...400..699B 400, 699

    doi:10.1086/172032 1992

  4. [4]

    G., Wadiasingh Z., Gonthier P

    Baring M. G., Wadiasingh Z., Gonthier P. L., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/733/1/61 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...733...61B 733, 61

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/733/1/61 2011

  5. [5]

    357, Astrophysics and Space Science Library

    Becker W., 2009, in Becker W., ed., Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 357, Astrophysics and Space Science Library. p. 91, @doi 10.1007/978-3-540-76965-1_6

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-76965-1_6 2009

  6. [6]

    C., Tennant A

    Becker W., Weisskopf M. C., Tennant A. F., Jessner A., Dyks J., Harding A. K., Zhang S. N., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/424498 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...615..908B 615, 908

    doi:10.1086/424498 2004

  7. [7]

    Becker W., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/504458 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...645.1421B 645, 1421

    work page doi:10.1086/504458 2006

  8. [8]

    M., Wasserman I., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169850 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...370..643B 370, 643

    Blaskiewicz M., Cordes J. M., Wasserman I., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169850 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...370..643B 370, 643

    doi:10.1086/169850 1991

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    Bogdanov S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/96 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...762...96B 762, 96

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    Borghese A., Rea N., Coti Zelati F., Tiengo A., Turolla R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/807/1/L20 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...807L..20B 807, L20

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-016-0315-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017SSRv..207..111C 207, 111

    Cerutti B., Beloborodov A. M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-016-0315-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017SSRv..207..111C 207, 111

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    F., Ruderman M

    Cheng A. F., Ruderman M. A., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157661 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...235..576C 235, 576

    1980 doi

  5. [13]

    Contopoulos I., Kazanas D., Fendt C., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306652 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...511..351C 511, 351

    1999 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Moroni M., Mignani R

    De Luca A., Mereghetti S., Caraveo P. A., Moroni M., Mignani R. P., Bignami G. F., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031781 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A

    2004 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Mereghetti S., Negroni M., Bignami G

    De Luca A., Caraveo P. A., Mereghetti S., Negroni M., Bignami G. F., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428567 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...623.1051D 623, 1051

    2005 doi

  8. [16]

    T., Tingay S

    Deller A. T., Tingay S. J., Bailes M., Reynolds J. E., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/1243 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...701.1243D 701, 1243

    2009 doi

  9. [17]

    K., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423707 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...614..869D 614, 869

    Dyks J., Harding A. K., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423707 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...614..869D 614, 869

    2004 doi

  10. [18]

    K., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/383587 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...607..939D 607, 939

    Dyks J., Rudak B., Harding A. K., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/383587 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...607..939D 607, 939

    2004 doi

  11. [19]

    E., Weisberg J

    Everett J. E., Weisberg J. M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320652 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...553..341E 553, 341

    2001 doi

  12. [20]

    D., Babu J

    Feigelson E. D., Babu J. G., 2012, Modern Statistical Methods for Astronomy . Cambridge University Press

    2012

  13. [21]

    Chapman & Hall/CRC Texts in Statistical Science, Taylor & Francis, https://books.google.co.in/books?id=TNYhnkXQSjAC

    Gelman A., Carlin J., Stern H., Rubin D., 2003, Bayesian Data Analysis, Second Edition. Chapman & Hall/CRC Texts in Statistical Science, Taylor & Francis, https://books.google.co.in/books?id=TNYhnkXQSjAC

    2003

  14. [22]

    Geppert U., 2017, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/s12036-017-9460-y , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JApA...38...46G 38, 46

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    Geppert U., K \"u ker M., Page D., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20040455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A

    2004 doi

  16. [24]

    A., Melikidze G

    Gil J. A., Melikidze G. I., Mitra D., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020473 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A

    2002 doi

  17. [25]

    G., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/590657 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...686..497G 686, 497

    Gil J., Haberl F., Melikidze G., Geppert U., Zhang B., Melikidze Jr. G., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/590657 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...686..497G 686, 497

    2008 doi

  18. [26]

    Y., Yakovlev D

    Gnedin O. Y., Yakovlev D. G., Potekhin A. Y., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04359.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.324..725G 324, 725

    2001

  19. [27]

    H., 1969, @doi [ ] 10.1086/150119 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApJ...157..869G 157, 869

    Goldreich P., Julian W. H., 1969, @doi [ ] 10.1086/150119 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApJ...157..869G 157, 869

    1969 doi

  20. [28]

    Goodman J., Weare J., 2010, @doi [Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 65-80, 2010] 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010CAMCS...5...65G 5, 65

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    P., Ruderman M., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...415..286H 415, 286

    Halpern J. P., Ruderman M., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...415..286H 415, 286

    1993 doi

  22. [30]

    K., Muslimov A

    Harding A. K., Muslimov A. G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321589 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...556..987H 556, 987

    2001 doi

  23. [31]

    Hermsen W., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.1688H 466, 1688

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    Hermsen W., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.3655H 480, 3655

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    B., Edwards R

    Hobbs G. B., Edwards R. T., Manchester R. N., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10302.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.369..655H 369, 655

    2006

  26. [34]

    W., van Straten W., Manchester R

    Hotan A. W., van Straten W., Manchester R. N., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1071/AS04022 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PASA...21..302H 21, 302

    2004 doi

  27. [35]

    Y., Huang R

    Hui C. Y., Huang R. H. H., Trepl L., Tetzlaff N., Takata J., Wu E. M. H., Cheng K. S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/74 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...747...74H 747, 74

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    Johnston S., Kerr M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3095 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.4629J 474, 4629

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    S., Mitrofanov I

    Kardash \"e v N. S., Mitrofanov I. G., Novikov I. D., 1984, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984SvA....28..651K 28, 651

    1984

  30. [38]

    Y., Pavlov G

    Kargaltsev O. Y., Pavlov G. G., Zavlin V. E., Romani R. W., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/429368 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...625..307K 625, 307

    2005 doi

  31. [39]

    G., 2012, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1221378 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Sci...337..946K 337, 946

    Kargaltsev O., Durant M., Misanovic Z., Pavlov G. G., 2012, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1221378 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Sci...337..946K 337, 946

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    Kargaltsev O., Cerutti B., Lyubarsky Y., Striani E., 2015, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-015-0171-x , 191, 391

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    Klingler N., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/253 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833..253K 833, 253

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    Li X.-H., Lu F.-J., Li Z., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/589495 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...682.1166L 682, 1166

    2008 doi

  35. [43]

    Lin L. C. C., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/770/1/L9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...770L...9L 770, L9

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    Lorimer D., 1994, PhD thesis, The University of Manchester

    1994

  37. [45]

    Lyutikov M., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt351 , 431, 2580

    2013 doi

  38. [46]

    N., Hobbs G

    Manchester R. N., Hobbs G. B., Teoh A., Hobbs M., 2005, VizieR Online Data Catalog, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005yCat.7245....0M 7245

    2005

  39. [47]

    N., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2012.017 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASA...30...17M 30, e017

    Manchester R. N., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2012.017 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASA...30...17M 30, e017

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    pp CD337--CD341

    Melikidze G., Gil J., Szary A., 2009, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series. pp CD337--CD341

    2009

  41. [49]

    Mereghetti S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...831...21M 831, 21

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    C., Li H., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S0370-1573(99)00002-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PhR...318..227M 318, 227

    Michel F. C., Li H., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S0370-1573(99)00002-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PhR...318..227M 318, 227

    1999 doi

  43. [51]

    G., Garmire G

    Misanovic Z., Pavlov G. G., Garmire G. P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/590949 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...685.1129M 685, 1129

    2008 doi

  44. [52]

    Mitra D., 2017, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/s12036-017-9457-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JApA...38...52M 38, 52

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    H., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20034094 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A

    Mitra D., Li X. H., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20034094 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A

    2004 doi

  46. [54]

    M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342136 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...577..322M 577, 322

    Mitra D., Rankin J. M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342136 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...577..322M 577, 322

    2002 doi

  47. [55]

    I., Szary A., Krzeszowski K., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/28 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833...28M 833, 28

    Mitra D., Basu R., Maciesiak K., Skrzypczak A., Melikidze G. I., Szary A., Krzeszowski K., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/28 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833...28M 833, 28

    2016 doi

  48. [56]

    P., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186952 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...413L..31O 413, L31

    Oegelman H., Finley J. P., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186952 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...413L..31O 413, L31

    1993 doi

  49. [57]

    Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 87--100, @doi 10.1007/978-94-011-3536-8_7 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3536-8_7

    \"O gelman H., 1991, Thermal Emission of Pulsars. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 87--100, @doi 10.1007/978-94-011-3536-8_7 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3536-8_7

    1991 doi

  50. [58]

    A., 2004, @doi [Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements] 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2004.04.111 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004NuPhS.132..636O 132, 636

    Oosterbroek T., Kennea J., Much R., C \'o rdova F. A., 2004, @doi [Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements] 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2004.04.111 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004NuPhS.132..636O 132, 636

    2004 doi

  51. [59]

    Page D., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175439 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...442..273P 442, 273

    1995 doi

  52. [60]

    Page D., Geppert U., Weber F., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.09.019 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006NuPhA.777..497P 777, 497

    2006 doi

  53. [61]

    Pancrazi B., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117888 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A

    2012 doi

  54. [62]

    G., Shibanov I

    Pavlov G. G., Shibanov I. A., 1978, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978SvA....22..214P 22, 214

    1978

  55. [63]

    G., Zavlin V

    Pavlov G. G., Zavlin V. E., Sanwal D., Burwitz V., Garmire G. P., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/320342 , 552, L129

    2001 doi

  56. [64]

    G., Zavlin V

    Pavlov G. G., Zavlin V. E., Sanwal D., 2002, in Becker W., Lesch H., Tr \"u mper J., eds, Neutron Stars, Pulsars, and Supernova Remnants. p. 273 ( @eprint astro-ph/0206024 )

    2002 arXiv

  57. [65]

    G., Kargaltsev O., Wong J

    Pavlov G. G., Kargaltsev O., Wong J. A., Garmire G. P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/458 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...691..458P 691, 458

    2009 doi

  58. [66]

    G., Rangelov B., Kargaltsev O., Reisenegger A., Guillot S., Reyes C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa947c , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850...79P 850, 79

    Pavlov G. G., Rangelov B., Kargaltsev O., Reisenegger A., Guillot S., Reyes C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa947c , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850...79P 850, 79

    2017 doi

  59. [67]

    R., Ftaclas C., Cohen J

    Pechenick K. R., Ftaclas C., Cohen J. M., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...274..846P 274, 846

    1983 doi

  60. [68]

    P \'e tri J., 2016, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S0022377816000763 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016JPlPh..82e6302P 82, 635820502

    2016 doi

  61. [69]

    A., Miralles J

    Pons J. A., Miralles J. A., Geppert U., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200811229 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A

    2009 doi

  62. [70]

    G., Manchester R

    Posselt B., Arumugasamy P., Pavlov G. G., Manchester R. N., Shannon R. M., Kargaltsev O., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/117 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...761..117P 761, 117

    2012 doi

  63. [71]

    Possenti A., Mereghetti S., Colpi M., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A

    1996

  64. [72]

    J., 1969, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApL.....3..225R 3, 225

    Radhakrishnan V., Cooke D. J., 1969, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApL.....3..225R 3, 225

    1969

  65. [73]

    M., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168531 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...352..258R 352, 258

    Radhakrishnan V., Rankin J. M., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168531 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...352..258R 352, 258

    1990 doi

  66. [74]

    M., 1983a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161450 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...274..333R 274, 333

    Rankin J. M., 1983a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161450 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...274..333R 274, 333

    doi

  67. [75]

    M., 1983b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161451 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...274..359R 274, 359

    Rankin J. M., 1983b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161451 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...274..359R 274, 359

    doi

  68. [76]

    M., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163955 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...301..901R 301, 901

    Rankin J. M., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163955 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...301..901R 301, 901

    1986 doi

  69. [77]

    M., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168530 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...352..247R 352, 247

    Rankin J. M., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168530 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...352..247R 352, 247

    1990 doi

  70. [78]

    M., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172361 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...405..285R 405, 285

    Rankin J. M., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172361 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...405..285R 405, 285

    1993 doi

  71. [79]

    pp 139--145 ( @eprint arXiv 0802.2227 )

    Reisenegger A., 2009, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series. pp 139--145 ( @eprint arXiv 0802.2227 )

    2009 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Rigoselli M., Mereghetti S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732408 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...615A..73R 615, A73

    2018 doi

  73. [81]

    A., Sutherland P

    Ruderman M. A., Sutherland P. G., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1086/153393 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975ApJ...196...51R 196, 51

    1975 doi

  74. [82]

    G., Zavlin V

    Sanwal D., Pavlov G. G., Zavlin V. E., Teter M. A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342368 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...574L..61S 574, L61

    2002 doi

  75. [83]

    J., Best N

    Spiegelhalter D. J., Best N. G., Carlin B. P., Van Der Linde A., 2002, @doi [Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology)] 10.1111/1467-9868.00353 , 64, 583

    2002

  76. [84]

    Spitkovsky A., 2011, @doi [Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings] 10.1007/978-3-642-17251-9_11 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ASSP...21..139S 21, 139

    2011 doi

  77. [85]

    J., Dermer C

    Sturner S. J., Dermer C. D., Michel F. C., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175736 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...445..736S 445, 736

    1995 doi

  78. [86]

    A., 1971, @doi [ ] 10.1086/150865 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971ApJ...164..529S 164, 529

    Sturrock P. A., 1971, @doi [ ] 10.1086/150865 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971ApJ...164..529S 164, 529

    1971 doi

  79. [87]

    I., Gil J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2622 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447.2295S 447, 2295

    Szary A., Melikidze G. I., Gil J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2622 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447.2295S 447, 2295

    2015 doi

  80. [88]

    I., Geppert U., Mitra D., Xu R.-X., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/178 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835..178S 835, 178

    Szary A., Gil J., Zhang B., Haberl F., Melikidze G. I., Geppert U., Mitra D., Xu R.-X., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/178 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835..178S 835, 178

    2017 doi

  81. [89]

    M., et al., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187391 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...428L..53T 428, L53

    Tauris T. M., et al., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187391 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...428L..53T 428, L53

    1994 doi

  82. [90]

    H., 1992, @doi [Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A] 10.1098/rsta.1992.0088 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992RSPTA.341..117T 341, 117

    Taylor J. H., 1992, @doi [Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A] 10.1098/rsta.1992.0088 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992RSPTA.341..117T 341, 117

    1992

  83. [91]

    Tepedelenl o g lu E., \"O gelman H., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/444360 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...630L..57T 630, L57

    2005 doi

  84. [92]

    Tiengo A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature12386 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.500..312T 500, 312

    2013 doi

  85. [93]

    N., Harding A

    Timokhin A. N., Harding A. K., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf050 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871...12T 871, 12

    2019 doi

  86. [94]

    Verbiest J. P. W., Weisberg J. M., Chael A. A., Lee K. J., Lorimer D. R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/39 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...755...39V 755, 39

    2012 doi

  87. [95]

    Weltevrede P., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1426 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...708.1426W 708, 1426

    2010 doi

  88. [96]

    Wilms J., Allen A., McCray R., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317016 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...542..914W 542, 914

    2000 doi

  89. [97]

    Yakovlev D., Gnedin O., Gusakov M., Kaminker A., Levenfish K., Potekhin A., 2005, @doi [Nuclear Physics A] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.02.061 , 752, 590

    2005 doi

  90. [98]

    R., Dalgarno A., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305420 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...496.1044Y 496, 1044

    Yan M., Sadeghpour H. R., Dalgarno A., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305420 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...496.1044Y 496, 1044

    1998 doi

  91. [99]

    E., Pavlov G

    Zavlin V. E., Pavlov G. G., 2002, in Becker W., Lesch H., Tr \"u mper J., eds, Neutron Stars, Pulsars, and Supernova Remnants. p. 263 ( @eprint astro-ph/0206025 )

    2002 arXiv

  92. [100]

    S., Gil J., 1998, in Chan K

    Zhang L., Cheng K. S., Gil J., 1998, in Chan K. L., Cheng K. S., Singh H. P., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 138, 1997 Pacific Rim Conference on Stellar Astrophysics. p. 393

    1998

  93. [101]

    C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/511950 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...658.1177D 658, 1177

    de Jager O. C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/511950 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...658.1177D 658, 1177

    2007 doi

  94. [102]

    van Straten W., Demorest P., Oslowski S., 2012, Astronomical Research and Technology, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AR 9, 237

    2012

  95. [103]

    M., 1997, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A

    von Hoensbroech A., Xilouris K. M., 1997, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A

    1997

  96. [104]

    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 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.