Synthetic pulsar lightcurves from global kinetic simulations and comparison with the Fermi-LAT catalog

Beno\^it Cerutti; Enzo Figueiredo; Guillaume Dubus

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 76 references

Synthetic pulsar lightcurves from global kinetic simulations and comparison with the Fermi-LAT catalog

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Reconnection in the pulsar wind shapes gamma-ray pulses, global kinetic simulations show.

desk verdict Solid simulation paper with a genuinely new efficiency bound and beautiful skymaps, but the Fermi profile comparison hinges on a positron-only selection that needs a controlled test before the abstract's match claim can stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02307 v2 pith:BNMOXGGA submitted 2024-12-03 astro-ph.HE

Benoît Cerutti , Enzo Figueiredo , Guillaume Dubus This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords pulsarsgamma-raylightcurvesmagneticreconnectioncurrentsheetparticle-in-cellsimulationpulsarwindFermi-LATsynchrotronradiation

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 argues that the gamma-ray pulses of rotation-powered pulsars are produced by magnetic reconnection in the equatorial current sheet of the pulsar wind, and it tests this idea by building synthetic lightcurves from global kinetic simulations and fitting them to the third Fermi-LAT pulsar catalog. The modeled profiles reproduce the main observed pulse morphologies: the generic double-peaked structure, the bridge or third peak seen in Vela-like lightcurves, and the narrowing of pulses with increasing photon energy. The paper also derives a universal bound: the bolometric synchrotron radiative efficiency cannot exceed the reconnection rate, roughly 0.1 of the spindown power. If the argument is right, the current-sheet reconnection scenario explains the principal families of gamma-ray pulse shapes and fixes a maximum radiative efficiency for all gamma-ray pulsars.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a new series of global three-dimensional particle-in-cell simulations of an inclined neutron-star magnetosphere, incorporating simplified pair production and radiation-reaction cooling, from which phase-resolved emission skymaps in the synchrotron and inverse Compton channels are reconstructed. The geometric backbone is the split-monopole approximation for the current sheet, whose Archimedean spiral intersection with the observer's line of sight generates two pulses per period; the reconnection rate, measured as beta_rec about 0.12, sets the dissipation level and, through energy conservation, the bound eta_rad <= beta_rec on the bolometric synchrotron radiative efficiency. For the catalog comparison, only the positron contribution is retained, because the paper judges the emission from precipitating electrons to be strongly overestimated at the simulated pair multiplicity.

What would settle it

Run the same global kinetic model with pair multiplicity raised to realistic values (kappa of order 100 or more) while keeping the radiative scales fixed: if the precipitating-electron emission remains comparable to the positron component and changes the energy dependence of the pulse profile, the central morphological claims are not robust. Observationally, a clean double-peaked pulsar viewed close to the equatorial plane whose peaks do not separate by about half a period would contradict the split-monopole caustic geometry.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that reconnection in the wind current sheet, beyond the light cylinder, is the site of the pulsed GeV and TeV emission, not the polar cap. Radiation from pairs accelerated in this layer produces two pulses per period whose phase separation follows the split-monopole geometry of the sheet, an interpulse or third peak that arises near volumetric return-current regions, and pulse narrowing with energy because the highest-energy particles sit deepest inside the layer. The paper further claims that in the strong-cooling limit the bolometric synchrotron efficiency equals the reconnection rate, about 0.1, so all pulsars should have similar bolometric radiative efficiency, while the observed spread in gamma-ray efficiency is attributed to spectral shape and detector bandpass. Fits to the Fermi-LAT catalog reproduce the Vela profile and many double-peaked cases, though the paper notes that some fits are unphysical and that population-level angle distributions are not yet reliable.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the emission from electrons precipitating toward the star is largely a numerical artifact and can be discarded: the paper keeps only positron emission and states that the clean energy dependence and catalog fits hold only then.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is correct, gamma-ray pulse morphology alone can constrain a pulsar's magnetic obliquity and viewing angle, at least for clean double-peaked profiles.
The efficiency bound means that any pulsar radiating more than about 10 percent of its spindown power as bolometric synchrotron light would be inconsistent with reconnection as the sole dissipation channel.
The Vela-like third peak is attributed to volumetric return currents and to the asymmetric wind between successive current sheets, tying pulse shape to the global magnetospheric current system.
The predicted pulse-width minimum at radius rm about sqrt(2 kappa), with kappa the pair multiplicity, connects pulse sharpness directly to the plasma content of the magnetosphere.
For the TeV band, the model implies that pulsed emission must originate within a few light-cylinder radii, and that a diffuse target photon field on larger scales would smear out the pulsations.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension is to run the same global model with realistic pair multiplicities (kappa of order 100 or more) and check whether the precipitating-electron component shrinks as assumed; if it stays comparable to the positron component, the positron-only lightcurves and the energy dependence built on them would need revision.
The fixed scale separation of the simulations means the catalog fits should be read as shape comparisons rather than as measurements of obliquity or inclination; a model with larger dynamic range might shift the balance between single- and double-peaked solutions.
The efficiency cap suggests that future MeV-band observations could discriminate models: a pulsar showing bolometric radiative efficiency above the reconnection rate would challenge the current-sheet scenario as the dominant dissipative mechanism.
The split-monopole caustic geometry predicts a quantitative relation between peak separation and viewing angle that could be tested statistically against a larger pulsar sample once selection and detectability biases are modeled explicitly.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

The short version: this is a good, honest PIC paper that advances the current-sheet paradigm for gamma-ray pulsations, but the part claiming agreement with Fermi profiles rests on a choice the paper cannot yet justify. It deserves refereeing, not desk rejection.

What is actually new: they inject pairs in situ, build high-S/N synthetic skymaps for both synchrotron and inverse Compton channels, and reproduce Vela-like morphology (double peaks, bridge or third peak, energy-dependent narrowing). The volumetric return-current interpretation of the third peak is concrete and plausible. They also derive a clean analytic bound: bolometric synchrotron efficiency is capped by the reconnection rate, about 0.1 of spindown power, from energy conservation in the simulation. That result is independent of the lightcurve fitting. They systematically fit the 3PC catalog (294 pulsars) and are admirably transparent: they say the fits are statistically poor, call two solutions unphysical, and show the inferred angle distributions carry no significant signal. That candor is real credit.

The soft spot is the one the stress-test flags: the clean morphology and the catalog fits are obtained only after discarding the electron emission. The justification is physical (low multiplicity kappa~5 vs 1e2-1e6 in real pulsars), but there is no controlled test, no run at higher kappa, no demonstration that the precipitating electron component is a numerical artifact rather than a legitimate, overproduced physical piece. If a large fraction of the electron contribution is real, the Vela-like third peak, the high-energy P1 fading, and the inferred angles all shift. The geometric double-peak explanation and the efficiency bound survive that test; the headline "matches observed profiles" does not. A second, minor soft spot: no code or data release, given how much of the comparison depends on the skymaps.

Proportion: the core physics (reconnection in the sheet, caustic double-peak geometry, efficiency bound) is in good shape. The catalog comparison is honest but provisional. The abstract's "able to match observed pulse profiles" oversells the statistical reality, and the paper's own text admits as much.

For you: read it for the geometric model and the efficiency bound; skim the atlas. Send it to a serious referee. The electron-exclusion issue is testable in a follow-up, and the simulation is a needed benchmark even if the final version should tone down the abstract and add a multiplicity study or release the skymaps.

Recommendation: accept for peer review, with a request for a quantitative test of the positron-only choice or an explicit caveat in the abstract.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a new series of global particle-in-cell simulations of inclined pulsar magnetospheres, including pair production, synchrotron radiation, and inverse Compton scattering. The authors construct high-quality synthetic pulse profiles and skymaps for several magnetic obliquities, claiming to reproduce generic double-peaked gamma-ray lightcurves, a Vela-like bridge or third peak, and pulse narrowing with increasing photon energy. They also perform fits to the third Fermi-LAT pulsar catalog, adjusting obliquity, viewing angle, phase offset, scaling, and background, and they derive a bolometric synchrotron radiative efficiency bound set by the reconnection rate. The catalog comparison is made using positron-only emission maps, and the paper acknowledges that the fits are statistically poor and that two best-fit solutions are unphysical.

Significance. The work is significant because it advances global PIC models of pulsar magnetospheres to the point of direct synthetic-observable comparison with Fermi-LAT lightcurves, providing an ab initio alternative to geometric caustic and slot-gap models. The main strengths are the high-quality synthetic pulse profiles, the transparent presentation of limitations, and the falsifiable prediction that the bolometric synchrotron efficiency is at most of order the reconnection rate, η ≲ β_rec ~ 0.1. The paper is also unusually candid: it explicitly states that the clean energy dependence is obtained only with positron-only emission (Sec. 3.3), that the fits are usually not good statistically (Sec. 4.1), and that two best-fit solutions are unphysical (Sec. 4.2). The central risk is that the most distinctive morphological claims (Vela-like bridge, high-energy P1 fading, and the catalog fits) rest on the exclusion of the electron component, whose spuriousness is argued from low pair multiplicity but not demonstrated numerically.

major comments (2)

[Sec. 3.3 and Sec. 4] The positron-only selection is load-bearing for the Vela-like morphology in Fig. 8 and for all the Fermi-LAT fits in Sec. 4, but the paper does not demonstrate that the excluded precipitating-electron emission is a numerical artifact. Sec. 3.3 states that the clean energy dependence is obtained 'only if considering the positronic emission,' and Sec. 4 states 'we keep only the positron emission since the emission from the precipitating electrons is likely to be strongly overestimated.' The justification is the low pair multiplicity (κ ~ 5) relative to realistic values (10^2–10^6), but no controlled test is provided: there is no run with higher κ, no spatial or energy decomposition isolating the precipitating component, and no quantitative comparison of the lightcurve morphology with and without electrons across the parameter grid. The statement in Sec. 4.3 that the variance of C² is lowest for positrons alone shows only that the fits improve, not that the electrons are spurious; a larger physical electron component would alter the inferred angles and the morphological conclusions. I request an explicit numerical test or a clear weakening of the abstract and summary claims that depend on this exclusion.
[Sec. 4.1–4.3 and Abstract] The manuscript overstates the success of the catalog comparison. Sec. 4.1 concedes that 'the fit is usually not good statistically,' Sec. 4.2 labels the solutions for PSR J1709-4429 and PSR J2229+6114 as 'unphysical,' and Sec. 4.3 concludes that direct fitting 'is not yet accurate enough to provide useful results on the distribution of their inclination and obliquity.' Yet the abstract asserts 'Our global kinetic simulations are able to match observed pulse profiles.' This sentence should be qualified to reflect the reported statistical quality, or the paper should provide summary statistics such as the fraction of pulsars with acceptable reduced chi-square and a comparison against a baseline null model. As written, the abstract claim is stronger than the evidence presented in the body.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract] There is a typo in the abstract: 'we present of a new series' should read 'we present a new series.'
[Sec. 5] The summary states that 'the only parameters are the inclination and obliquity,' but the fitting procedure in Sec. 4.1 also fits the phase offset Φ0 and the nuisance parameters K and B; the sentence should be corrected to list all fitted parameters.
[Sec. 3.3] The phrase 'This clean cut property' is unclear; it should be rephrased, for example as 'This clean energy dependence' or 'This clean separation in energy.'
[Sec. 3.4, Eqs. (31) and (34)] The derivation of the inequality ηrad ≤ β_rec is terse. It would help to state explicitly that the argument compares the local radial derivatives at the light cylinder (r̂ = 1): Eq. (31) gives d(Lsyn/L0)/d ln r̂ = ηrad at r̂ = 1, while Eq. (34) gives β_rec, so energy conservation with Lpart ≥ 0 implies ηrad ≤ β_rec. This clarification would prevent the reader from thinking the inequality requires matching two incompatible radial profiles over the whole wind.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the pulse-profile comparisons are genuine fits with physical free parameters, and the simulation results stand on their own energy bookkeeping.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular in the sense of the review rules. The synthetic skymaps are produced from independent PIC simulations (Sects. 2-3), not from Fermi data, and the lightcurve fits (Sect. 4) minimize chi-square with free parameters K, B, Phi0, chi, and alpha; the morphological features are not encoded into the simulation as inputs. The claimed Vela-like morphology is a post-fit reproduction, not a forced identity, and the paper explicitly reports poor or unphysical fits for several pulsars (e.g., PSR J1709-4429 and PSR J2229+6114), demonstrating falsifiable content. The energy-dependent narrowing and P3 drift (Fig. 8) are not fit to energy-resolved Fermi profiles; they are generated at a geometry returned by the phase-averaged fit, so they retain predictive content. The positron-only choice (Sects. 3.3 and 4) is a stated physical assumption about overproduced precipitating electrons at low pair multiplicity, not a parameter fitted to the target profiles; it conditions the Vela-like claims but does not make the derivation circular. The efficiency bound eta_rad <= beta_rec (Sect. 3.4) follows from the simulation's own Poynting-flux bookkeeping and energy conservation; beta_rec is measured from the same simulation family, and the inequality is not a restatement of the Fermi data. Self-citations (e.g., Cerutti et al. 2020 for beta_rec; Soudais et al. 2024 for the radiative rescaling) are present but not load-bearing in the sense of reducing the central results to unverified prior claims; the paper reanalyzes the split-monopole run and presents new dipole runs. Overall, the central morphology and efficiency results are self-contained simulation outputs compared against external Fermi-LAT benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative results rest on two measured simulation outputs, the reconnection rate and the radiative efficiency, which are used to derive an inequality, plus a set of orientation and nuisance parameters fitted to the observed lightcurves. The physical predictions such as phase separation, pulse narrowing, and interpulse location are not fitted to the data, which keeps circularity low. No new particles or fields are introduced; the volumetric return current is an interpretation of simulation structures rather than a new physical entity.

free parameters (8)

Magnetic obliquity chi (fitted per pulsar) = Grid values 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90 degrees; best fit for Vela is about 60 degrees.
Fitted to each Fermi-LAT lightcurve in Secs. 4.1 and 4.2 because the true orientation of each pulsar is unknown.
Viewing angle alpha (fitted per pulsar) = Best fit for Vela about 70 degrees, equivalent to 110 degrees by map symmetry.
Fitted per pulsar; controls peak separation, peak ratio, and single versus double pulse morphology.
Phase offset Phi_0 (fitted per pulsar) = Not tabulated in the paper.
Treated as free because the model phase origin is set by the magnetic pole while Fermi-LAT phase is often set by the radio pulse (Sec. 4.1).
Scaling factor K and constant background B = Minimized analytically for each fit via Eq. (48).
Nuisance parameters in the chi-square fit; B is not predicted by the physical model.
Radiation reaction amplification factor f_rad = 5 x 10^8.
Chosen so that the simulations reach the radiation-reaction-limited regime while preserving the hierarchy of energy scales; it affects particle energies and emitted spectra.
Pair production threshold gamma_th and secondary Lorentz factor gamma_s = gamma_th = 0.05 gamma_pc, gamma_s = 0.1 gamma_th.
Simplified pair creation model that supplies the magnetosphere with pairs; it controls multiplicity and the energy partition between primaries and secondaries.
Bulk Lorentz boost Gamma_LC = About 5.5.
Tuned to reproduce the simulated pulse width versus radius in Eq. (43) and Fig. 12; it is not an observed constraint.
Inverse Compton target photon energy and geometry = Single energy epsilon_0 in a uniform isotropic bath or a radial 1/r^2 stellar field.
The background photon field is not constrained and must be prescribed; Thomson and Klein-Nishina cases are explored in Sec. 2.3.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The split-monopole geometry accurately describes the current sheet even close to the light cylinder.
Used in Sec. 3.2 to derive the phase separation in Eq. (25) and the geometric pulse-formation picture; the paper notes a poloidal offset at low inclinations.
domain assumption Magnetic reconnection dissipates about 10 percent of spindown power in the wind, with a universal reconnection rate beta_rec around 0.1.
Inherited from prior global PIC simulations by Cerutti et al. (2020) and Hakobyan et al. (2023) and used for the efficiency bound in Sec. 3.4.
domain assumption Rescaling radiation reaction by f_rad preserves the physics for fixed ratios of the relevant energy scales.
The paper relies on Soudais et al. (2024) to justify the cooling rescaling; if this fails, the synthetic spectra and lightcurves change.
standard math Classical synchrotron and inverse Compton emission formulas apply, with optically thin emission and photons beamed along the particle velocity.
Eqs. (4), (8), and (17) are standard results from Blumenthal and Gould, Jones, and Aharonian and Atoyan; the assumptions are stated in Secs. 2.2 and 2.3.
ad hoc to paper The simulated pair multiplicity (kappa about 5) is sufficient for the conclusions despite realistic pulsar estimates of kappa around 10^2 to 10^6.
The paper argues that the electron precipitation component is overproduced at low multiplicity in Sec. 3.3 and uses that argument to justify positron-only skymaps; the pulse width scaling in Sec. 3.5 also depends on kappa.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Synthetic pulsar lightcurves from global kinetic simulations and comparison with the Fermi-LAT catalog." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BNMOXGGA

@misc{pith2026241202307,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Synthetic pulsar lightcurves from global kinetic simulations and comparison with the Fermi-LAT catalog},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BNMOXGGA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02307}
}

read the original abstract

Rotation-powered pulsars represent the main class of identified gamma-ray sources in the Galaxy. The wealth of observational data collected by the AGILE and Fermi gamma-ray space telescopes in the GeV range, and by ground-based Cherenkov telescopes in the TeV band provide invaluable insights into how relativistic plasmas dissipate and accelerate particles. Decoding the information contained in the gamma-ray pulses profile is an important step to understand how pulsars work. In this study, we aim at putting an ab initio plasma model of pulsar magnetospheres to the test, in light of the most recent gamma-ray observations in the GeV and TeV bands. To this end, we present of a new series of global particle-in-cell simulations of an inclined pulsar magnetosphere. High-quality synthetic pulse profiles in the synchrotron and inverse Compton channels are reconstructed to study in greater details their morphology and their energy dependence. We also perform a fit of observed lightcurves with the model, using the third Fermi-LAT gamma-ray pulsar catalog. Reconnection in the wind current sheet powers synchrotron and inverse Compton emission. The modeled pulse profiles reproduce some of the salient features of observed gamma-ray pulsars, including the mysterious Vela-like lightcurves, such as: the generic double-peaked structure, the presence of a bridge or third peak in between the main pulses, the pulse narrowing with increasing energy. The bolometric synchrotron radiative efficiency is strictly limited by the reconnection rate. Our global kinetic simulations are able to match observed pulse profiles. Such direct comparisons will help drive and focus future simulation developments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02307 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Global plasma and magnetic structures forming in a pulsar magnetosphere of magnetic obliquity χ = 30◦ . Left panel: Three-dimensional rendering of the plasma density (color-coded) normalized by the surface Goldreich-Julian density and multiplied by (r/r⋆) 2 to compensate for the effect of expansion. Closed and open field lines encompassing the equatorial current layer are shown by blue lines. The star is the gray sp… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Ratio of the effective perpendicular field, B˜⊥, to the total field strength, B, in the pulsar midplane (θ = 90◦ ) for the χ = 60◦ simulation. Blue streamlines represent the magnetic field lines in the plane, and the red dashed circle shows the location of the light cylinder. their local Harris sheet study), indicating that synchrotron losses are dominant there. Indeed, the ratio of the Larmor radius to the light-cy… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Synthetic synchrotron (left panels) and inverse Compton (isotropic radiation field, right panels) fluxes as a function of the observer’s viewing angle, α, and pulsar phase, Φ. Each map is normalized by its maximum value and includes the emission from both electrons and positrons. The white dashed line represents the location of the current sheet in the split monopole geometry. Article number, page 6 of 27 [PITH_FUL… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Beam correction factor, fΩ, inferred from the synchrotron (top) and inverse Compton (isotropic radiation field, bottom) skymaps for all the magnetic obliquities simulated in this work [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Spatial distribution of the synchrotron power per unit of volume, dPsyn/dV, emitted by the positrons only at the light cylinder for χ = 60o . This figure highlights the role of the volumetric return current in explaining the Vela-like interpulse. at higher obliquities …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: This schematic representation illustrates how pulses form relying on simple geometric considerations based on the split-monopole configuration. Here χ = 60◦ for illustrative purposes, but this picture applies for all inclinations (except the aligned and orthogonal rot…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Energy dependence of the synthetic synchrotron pulse profile with the photon frequency, ν normalized to ν0, for a Vela-like solution (χ = 60◦ , α = 110◦ ). Top panel: Lightcurves equally spaced in log ν/ν0 from the lowest frequencies (bottom) to the highest frequencies…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: presents how is the radiated power distributed in the wind region at all radii probed by the simulations. The large-scale split-monopole simulation is shown for comparison and highlights trends at large radii. As expected, the synchrotron power rapidly falls off with …

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Radial evolution of all energy channels in the split-monopole solution, including the synchrotron luminosity, normalized to the pulsar spindown power (L0). The inferred reconnection rate is βrec ≈ 0.12 and the radiative efficiency is ηrad ≈ 0.05. The inverse Compton p…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Narrowing of the pulse full width at half maximum with the energy of the emitted photons in the inverse Compton (isotropic radiation field, red line) and synchrotron channels (blue line) for the dipole simulation with χ = 60◦ and α = 110◦ . above 100 MeV with increas…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Evolution of the observed lightcurve as a function of the radius of emission. Top panel: Synthetic synchrotron and inverse Compton (isotropic radiation field) lightcurves as a function of the emitting radius, from the light-cylinder radius up to 5LC for the dipole s…

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Best fit (full line) based on the model skymaps to 6 pulse profiles (data points) taken from the Fermi-LAT 3rd pulsar catalog. The top row illustrates double-peaked pulse profile fits, including the Vela pulsar (top left). The bottom row illustrates single-peaked fits…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

[1]

A., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al

Abdo, A. A., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 17

2013
[2]

2020, ApJS, 247, 33

Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Ackermann, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 33

2020
[3]

Aharonian, F. A. & Atoyan, A. M. 1981, Ap&SS, 79, 321 Andaç, I. C., Cerutti, B., Dubus, G., & Ek¸ si, K. Y . 2022, A&A, 661, A130

work page 1981
[4]

A., Antoranz, P., et al

Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., Antoranz, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A133

2016
[5]

& Dubus, G

Arka, I. & Dubus, G. 2013, A&A, 550, A101

work page 2013
[6]

& Spitkovsky, A

Bai, X.-N. & Spitkovsky, A. 2010, ApJ, 715, 1282

2010
[7]

& Kirk, J

Ball, L. & Kirk, J. G. 2000, Astroparticle Physics, 12, 335

work page 2000
[8]

Barnard, M., Venter, C., & Harding, A. K. 2016, ApJ, 832, 107

work page 2016

Show all 76 references

[9]

K., Kalapotharakos, C., & Johnson, T

Barnard, M., Venter, C., Harding, A. K., Kalapotharakos, C., & Johnson, T. J. 2022, ApJ, 925, 184

2022
[10]

Belyaev, M. A. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2759

2015
[11]

S., Kuznetsova, I

Beskin, V . S., Kuznetsova, I. V ., & Rafikov, R. R. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 341

1998
[12]

Blumenthal, G. R. & Gould, R. J. 1970, Reviews of Modern Physics, 42, 237

1970
[13]

Bogovalov, S. V . 1999, A&A, 349, 1017

1999
[14]

K., & Kazanas, D

Brambilla, G., Kalapotharakos, C., Harding, A. K., & Kazanas, D. 2015, ApJ, 804, 84

2015
[15]

N., Harding, A

Brambilla, G., Kalapotharakos, C., Timokhin, A. N., Harding, A. K., & Kazanas, D. 2018, ApJ, 858, 81

2018
[16]

2019, A&A, 627, A13

Bulgarelli, A., Fioretti, V ., Parmiggiani, N., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A13

2019
[17]

& Beloborodov, A

Cerutti, B. & Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, Space Sci. Rev., 207, 111

2017
[18]

2015, MNRAS, 448, 606

Cerutti, B., Philippov, A., Parfrey, K., & Spitkovsky, A. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 606

2015
[19]

& Philippov, A

Cerutti, B. & Philippov, A. A. 2017, A&A, 607, A134

2017
[20]

A., & Dubus, G

Cerutti, B., Philippov, A. A., & Dubus, G. 2020, A&A, 642, A204

2020
[21]

R., Uzdensky, D

Cerutti, B., Werner, G. R., Uzdensky, D. A., & Begelman, M. C. 2013, ApJ, 770, 147

2013
[22]

Chen, A. Y . & Beloborodov, A. M. 2014, ApJ, 795, L22

2014
[23]

Y ., Cruz, F., & Spitkovsky, A

Chen, A. Y ., Cruz, F., & Spitkovsky, A. 2020, ApJ, 889, 69

2020
[24]

2023, ApJ, 959, 122

Chernoglazov, A., Hakobyan, H., & Philippov, A. 2023, ApJ, 959, 122

2023
[25]

& Kalapotharakos, C

Contopoulos, I. & Kalapotharakos, C. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 767

2010
[26]

1999, ApJ, 511, 351

Contopoulos, I., Kazanas, D., & Fendt, C. 1999, ApJ, 511, 351

1999
[27]

Coroniti, F. V . 1990, ApJ, 349, 538

1990
[28]

2024, A&A, 690, A229

Cruz, F., Grismayer, T., Torres, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A229

2024
[29]

2008, A&A, 477, 691

Dubus, G., Cerutti, B., & Henri, G. 2008, A&A, 477, 691

2008
[30]

& Julian, W

Goldreich, P. & Julian, W. H. 1969, ApJ, 157, 869

1969
[31]

A., Hermsen, W., & Clear, J

Grenier, I. A., Hermsen, W., & Clear, J. 1988, A&A, 204, 117 Guépin, C., Cerutti, B., & Kotera, K. 2020, A&A, 635, A138 H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Aharonian, F., Ait Benkhali, F., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1341

1988
[32]

2019, ApJ, 877, 53

Hakobyan, H., Philippov, A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2019, ApJ, 877, 53

2019
[33]

2023, ApJ, 943, 105

Hakobyan, H., Philippov, A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2023, ApJ, 943, 105

2023
[34]

Harding, A. K. & Kalapotharakos, C. 2017, ApJ, 840, 73

2017
[35]

1983, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 30, 4592

Holland, R. 1983, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 30, 4592

1983
[36]

& Beloborodov, A

Hu, R. & Beloborodov, A. M. 2022, ApJ, 939, 42

2022
[37]

J., Venter, C., Harding, A

Johnson, T. J., Venter, C., Harding, A. K., et al. 2014, ApJS, 213, 6

2014
[38]

Jones, F. C. 1965, Physical Review, 137, 1306

1965
[39]

Jones, F. C. 1968, Physical Review, 167, 1159

1968
[40]

2016, ApJ, 833, 155

Kagan, D., Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2016, ApJ, 833, 155

2016
[41]

K., & Kazanas, D

Kalapotharakos, C., Brambilla, G., Timokhin, A., Harding, A. K., & Kazanas, D. 2018, ApJ, 857, 44

2018
[42]

K., & Kazanas, D

Kalapotharakos, C., Harding, A. K., & Kazanas, D. 2014, ApJ, 793, 97

2014
[43]

K., & Kazanas, D

Kalapotharakos, C., Wadiasingh, Z., Harding, A. K., & Kazanas, D. 2023, ApJ, 954, 204

2023
[44]

Kirk, J. G. & Skjæraasen, O. 2003, ApJ, 591, 366

2003
[45]

G., Skjæraasen, O., & Gallant, Y

Kirk, J. G., Skjæraasen, O., & Gallant, Y . A. 2002, A&A, 388, L29

2002
[46]

Landau, L. D. & Lifshitz, E. M. 1971, The classical theory of fields, ed. Landau, L. D. & Lifshitz, E. M

1971
[47]

Lorimer, D. R. & Kramer, M. 2004, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy, V ol. 4

2004
[48]

Lyubarskii, Y . E. 1996, A&A, 311, 172

1996
[49]

& Kirk, J

Lyubarsky, Y . & Kirk, J. G. 2001, ApJ, 547, 437

2001
[50]

M., Werner, G

Mehlhaff, J. M., Werner, G. R., Uzdensky, D. A., & Begelman, M. C. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 799

2020
[51]

Michel, F. C. 1971, Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics, 3, 80

1971
[52]

Michel, F. C. & Tucker, W. H. 1969, Nature, 223, 277

1969
[53]

1971, ApJ, 163, L17

Pacini, F. 1971, ApJ, 163, L17

1971
[54]

& Salvati, M

Pacini, F. & Salvati, M. 1983, ApJ, 274, 369

1983
[55]

2009, ApJ, 691, 1618 Pétri, J

Pellizzoni, A., Pilia, M., Possenti, A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1618 Pétri, J. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1870 Pétri, J. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2023 Pétri, J. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 2636 Pétri, J. 2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 635820502 Pétri, J. & Kirk, J. G. 2005, ApJ, 627, L37

2009
[56]

& Kramer, M

Philippov, A. & Kramer, M. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 495

2022
[57]

Philippov, A. A. & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, ApJ, 785, L33

2014
[58]

Philippov, A. A. & Spitkovsky, A. 2018, ApJ, 855, 94

2018
[59]

K., Gonthier, P

Pierbattista, M., Harding, A. K., Gonthier, P. L., & Grenier, I. A. 2016, A&A, 588, A137

2016
[60]

K., Grenier, I

Pierbattista, M., Harding, A. K., Grenier, I. A., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A3

2015
[61]

Romani, R. W. & Watters, K. P. 2010, ApJ, 714, 810

2010
[62]

Ruderman, M. A. & Sutherland, P. G. 1975, ApJ, 196, 51 Słowikowska, A., Kanbach, G., Kramer, M., & Stefanescu, A. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 103

1975
[63]

A., Abdollahi, S., Ajello, M., et al

Smith, D. A., Abdollahi, S., Ajello, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 191

2023
[64]

2024, A&A, 690, A170

Soudais, A., Cerutti, B., & Contopoulos, I. 2024, A&A, 690, A170

2024
[65]

2006, ApJ, 648, L51

Spitkovsky, A. 2006, ApJ, 648, L51

2006
[66]

Sturrock, P. A. 1971, ApJ, 164, 529

1971
[67]

H., & Macchi, A

Tamburini, M., Pegoraro, F., Di Piazza, A., Keitel, C. H., & Macchi, A. 2010, New Journal of Physics, 12, 123005

2010
[68]

Timokhin, A. N. & Arons, J. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 20

2013
[69]

Timokhin, A. N. & Harding, A. K. 2015, ApJ, 810, 144

2015
[70]

1994, PASJ, 46, 123

Tomimatsu, A. 1994, PASJ, 46, 123

1994
[71]

2024, New Astron- omy, 112, 102261

Torres, R., Grismayer, T., Cruz, F., Fonseca, R., & Silva, L. 2024, New Astron- omy, 112, 102261

2024
[72]

Uzdensky, D. A. & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, ApJ, 780, 3

2014
[73]

K., & Guillemot, L

Venter, C., Harding, A. K., & Guillemot, L. 2009, ApJ, 707, 800

2009
[74]

J., & Harding, A

Venter, C., Johnson, T. J., & Harding, A. K. 2012, ApJ, 744, 34

2012
[75]

P., Romani, R

Watters, K. P., Romani, R. W., Weltevrede, P., & Johnston, S. 2009, ApJ, 695, 1289

2009
[76]

Zhang, H., Sironi, L., & Giannios, D. 2021, ApJ, 922, 261 Article number, page 16 of 27 Benoît Cerutti et al.: Synthetic pulsar lightcurves and comparison with Fermi pulsars Appendix A: Atlas of the 3PC best fit lightcurves Fig. A.1. Best fit lightcurves (full line) based on t...

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al

Abdo, A. A., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 17

2013

[2] [2]

2020, ApJS, 247, 33

Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Ackermann, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 33

2020

[3] [3]

Aharonian, F. A. & Atoyan, A. M. 1981, Ap&SS, 79, 321 Andaç, I. C., Cerutti, B., Dubus, G., & Ek¸ si, K. Y . 2022, A&A, 661, A130

work page 1981

[4] [4]

A., Antoranz, P., et al

Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., Antoranz, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A133

2016

[5] [5]

& Dubus, G

Arka, I. & Dubus, G. 2013, A&A, 550, A101

work page 2013

[6] [6]

& Spitkovsky, A

Bai, X.-N. & Spitkovsky, A. 2010, ApJ, 715, 1282

2010

[7] [7]

& Kirk, J

Ball, L. & Kirk, J. G. 2000, Astroparticle Physics, 12, 335

work page 2000

[8] [8]

Barnard, M., Venter, C., & Harding, A. K. 2016, ApJ, 832, 107

work page 2016