Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 30 references

Data from FAST and MeerKAT surveys as a test of radio pulsar physics

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using FAST and MeerKAT polarization samples, the paper confirms that ordinary-mode pulsar profiles are wider than extraordinary-mode ones and that orthogonal interpulse statistics favor the vacuum-gap model of magnetic-axis evolution…

desk verdict The O-mode/X-mode width difference on the FAST and MeerKAT samples is a solid, reproducible result; the interpulse-pulsar argument for the BGI model and chi -> 90 deg is overinterpreted and rests on in-house predictions that are not an independent test. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12423 v2 pith:WCQ3MYGC submitted 2025-06-14 astro-ph.HE

F. A. Kniazev , A. Yu. Istomin , V. S. Beskin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords radiopulsarsmeanpulseprofilespolarizationmodesordinaryandextraordinaryorthogonalinterpulsepulsarevolutiondeathline
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

Using the large polarized samples from the FAST and MeerKAT surveys, the paper re-examines two basic predictions of pulsar theory. It finds that mean profiles emitted in the ordinary (O) mode are statistically wider than those emitted in the extraordinary (X) mode, with median scaled widths $W_{10}P^{1/2}$ about 15 versus 12 degrees in FAST and 15 versus 11 degrees in MeerKAT, matching the expectation that O-mode rays are refracted and broadened in the magnetosphere. It also finds that the fraction of orthogonal interpulse pulsars in homogeneous samples, about 4–6 percent for periods $0.033

What carries the argument

Two pieces of theory carry the argument. The first is the mode-classification sign rule: in pulsar mean profiles, the sign of the derivative of the position-angle swing $\mathrm{d\,p.a.}/\mathrm{d}\varphi$ is the same as the sign of circular polarization $V$ for the extraordinary mode and opposite for the ordinary mode; the paper converts this into a normalized score $\eta$, the mean of sign($V$) times sign($\mathrm{d\,p.a.}/\mathrm{d}\varphi$) over points with intensity above 10 percent of the maximum, and classifies pulsars as X-mode for $\eta>0.4$, O-mode for $\eta<-0.4$, with misclassification estimated below 5 percent. The second is the death line of the classical vacuum-gap (BGI) model, $\cos\chi> k\,P^{15/7}B^{-8/7}$ with $k\approx1$, which for orthogonal rotators (small $\cos\chi$) implies a period cap $P<0.2\,B_{12}^{16/37}$ s. Together these tools let the paper separate the two mode populations by profile width and use the abundance and period distribution of orthogonal interpulse pulsars to discriminate between the BGI and MHD evolutionary models.

What would settle it

A complete, sensitivity-matched survey that turned up several orthogonal interpulse pulsars with periods above 0.5 s at a rate comparable to the 0.1–0.3 s peak would contradict the death-line prediction and support the competing alignment model; the absence of such long-period orthogonal pulsars would strengthen the paper's conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the core of the paper is a sign rule for pulsar polarization: for a mean profile, the sign of the derivative of the position angle $\mathrm{d\,p.a.}/\mathrm{d}\varphi$ relative to the sign of the Stokes $V$ parameter identifies the mode—same sign is the extraordinary mode, opposite sign the ordinary mode. Applying this rule to the FAST and MeerKAT samples gives median widths $W_{10}P^{1/2}$ of about $12.5^\circ$ (X) versus $15.4^\circ$ (O) for FAST and $10.6^\circ$ (X) versus $15.3^\circ$ (O) for MeerKAT, and Anderson–Darling and permutation tests reject equal distributions in every comparison. For orthogonal interpulse pulsars, the homogeneous samples give relative fractions of $6.0\%$ and $4.2\%$ in the period range $0.033<P<0.5$ s, far above the MHD model's $\lesssim1\%$ prediction; the period distribution, peaking near $0.1$–$0.3$ s and almost absent above $0.5$ s, matches the death-line restriction that in the vacuum-gap (BGI) model limits orthogonal rotators to short periods. The authors conclude that the classical vacuum-gap evolutionary model, in which the inclination angle $\chi$ increases toward $90^\circ$, is favored over the MHD model, and that the observed decline of average inclination angle with period is a selection effect of the death line rather than evidence that individual pulsars align with age.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the sign of the swing of the polarization angle relative to the sign of the circular polarization correctly identifies the emission mode for almost every pulsar in the sample; if that sign relation fails for a substantial fraction, or if visual inspection biases which pulsars are kept, both the width comparison and the orthogonal-pulsar statistics lose their foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The statistically robust width difference between O- and X-mode profiles directly confirms the refraction picture in which ordinary-mode rays are broadened as they traverse the pulsar magnetosphere.
  • The observed fraction of orthogonal interpulse pulsars, 4–6 percent for periods between 0.033 and 0.5 s, is too high for the MHD evolutionary model's at-most-1 percent prediction, so that model's monotonic decrease of inclination angle is disfavored.
  • The scarcity of orthogonal interpulse pulsars with periods above 0.5 s supports the death-line restriction specific to the vacuum-gap model and contradicts the MHD expectation of comparable numbers at $P\sim1$ s.
  • The decline of average inclination angle with pulsar period can be produced by the death-line selection of short-period objects with small $\cos\chi$, so this observed trend does not by itself prove that individual pulsars align with age.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test the paper leaves implicit: compare the $\eta=0.4$ mode classification against independent mode identifications from orthogonal-mode jumps to measure the true misclassification rate on a pulsar-by-pulsar basis.
  • The authors do not split their sample by magnetic-field strength, but the death-line expression implies that high-field orthogonal pulsars should be able to radiate at longer periods; checking that trend would sharpen the model comparison.
  • The FAST sample contains an 11 percent orthogonal-interpulse fraction below $P<0.033$ s, which the paper sets aside because millisecond pulsars evolve differently; whether recycled pulsars obey the same death line is an open extension of the analysis.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses polarization data for 682 FAST and 1170 MeerKAT pulsars to classify mean pulse profiles as ordinary (O) or extraordinary (X) mode via the theoretical sign relation between the derivative of the position angle and the Stokes V parameter. It reports that O-mode profiles are significantly wider than X-mode profiles (Tables 1 and 2), and compiles orthogonal interpulse pulsar counts from FAST, MeerKAT, and BSA (Tables 3 and 4) to argue that the observed fraction and period distribution favor the BGI/Ruderman-Sutherland evolutionary model, in which the inclination angle tends toward 90 degrees, over the MHD model, in which it decreases. The paper also discusses the death-line relation (7) and the predicted period peak for orthogonal pulsars around 0.1–0.3 s.

Significance. If the O-mode width difference is robust, it provides a valuable large-sample confirmation of propagation effects in pulsar magnetospheres; the statistical tests are appropriate, and the use of both manual and automated classification is a strength. The interpulse counts compiled from homogeneous surveys are a useful observational resource. However, the evolutionary-model comparison is not an independent test: the predicted fractions are taken from Novoselov et al. (2020), which calibrates the death-line constant to pulsar data, and the paper explicitly leaves unmodeled the viewing-angle and beam-intensity distributions needed for a quantitative comparison with Eqs. (1)–(3). The paper is therefore best read as presenting strong new observational constraints and a qualitative consistency check, not a decisive test between evolution models.

major comments (4)
  1. [Statistics of orthogonal interpulse pulsars: Total number, Tables 3–4] The central claim that FAST and MeerKAT data confirm the BGI model over the MHD model is not established as stated, because the model predictions are not independent of the data used to calibrate them. The predicted fractions (BGI 2.5–5.5%, MHD <1%) are taken from Novoselov et al. (2020), and the paper itself notes in the next section that Novoselov et al. fitted the death-line constant in Eq. (7) to the pulsar distribution, obtaining kBGI = 0.5 ± 0.1 and kMHD = 1.0 ± 0.1. A post-fit comparison of a new sample to a model whose parameter was tuned to earlier pulsar data cannot be presented as confirmation. Moreover, the new FAST value 14/233 = 6.0% lies above the stated BGI upper bound of 5.5%, and the paper labels the FAST count as a lower limit, so even the direction of the discrepancy is not controlled. The authors should either obtain predictions from an independently calibrated model or explicitly recast the result as a consistency check with large systematic uncertainty.
  2. [Widths of the radio pulsar mean profiles, after Eq. (3) and Discussion] The paper stops short of a quantitative test of the theoretical widths. It states that direct comparison of the measured W10 P^{1/2} distributions with Eqs. (1)–(3) requires modeling the unknown viewing and inclination angle distributions and non-uniform beam patterns, and that such a model is beyond the scope of the paper. In that case, the abstract's and Discussion's statements that the data 'fully correspond to the predictions' and that the theory has received 'confident confirmation' go beyond what the statistical tests establish: the tests in Table 2 show only that the X- and O-mode width distributions differ in the predicted direction, not that their magnitudes match Eqs. (1)–(3).
  3. [Widths of the radio pulsar mean profiles, Eq. (5) and threshold eta_cr] The claimed <5% mode-misclassification rate is estimated from the agreement between the manual and automated classifications, both of which implement the same theoretical sign rule (sign V = ± sign dp.a./dφ). This does not validate the sign rule itself. Since the entire width comparison rests on the physical identification of O and X modes, the paper would be strengthened by an external check, such as comparison with independent mode diagnostics or a test on simulated polarization profiles with known modes; without such a check, a systematic failure of the sign rule for a subset of pulsars could bias the comparison.
  4. [Statistics of orthogonal interpulse pulsars: Total number, Table 3] The statistical evidence distinguishing BGI from MHD is weaker than the text implies. The counts are small (14/233 for FAST and 25/590 for MeerKAT in the key period range), and the FAST sample is explicitly a lower limit because faint interpulses may be missing from Fig. A6 of Wang et al. (2023). With Clopper-Pearson 95% confidence intervals, the FAST fraction is consistent with values up to about 10%, which would be difficult to reconcile with the BGI band, while the MeerKAT fraction alone is consistent with the entire BGI band. The authors should report confidence intervals for the observed fractions and discuss survey selection effects before concluding that the models are distinguished at high confidence.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction] The model is called 'BIG' in the Introduction and 'BGI' elsewhere; use one abbreviation consistently.
  2. [Table 4] The header 'P (с)' uses a Cyrillic 'с' instead of the Latin 's'.
  3. [Section 4] The sentence contains a duplicated citation: 'Novoselov et al. Novoselov et al. (2020)' should be 'Novoselov et al. (2020)'.
  4. [Table 1] Table 1 would be easier to read if the four subcategories (Xs, Xd, Os, Od) were arranged as separate columns with clear headers; the current layout is difficult to parse.
  5. [Widths of the radio pulsar mean profiles] The notation is inconsistent: the threshold is introduced as eta_cr but the text then says 'the value of eta was chosen to be eta = 0.4'; use eta_cr consistently.
  6. [Eq. (5)] The summation condition should be typeset as I >= 0.1 I_max for clarity.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Interpulse-pulsar confirmation rests on a same-group, post-fit BGI prediction; the width test remains genuinely independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 'Distribution of the number of orthogonal pulsars by period', after Eq. (7); used again for Table 4]
    "First of all, we note that the work of Novoselov et al. (2020) has already demonstrated that the distribution of pulsars on the (χ–P B8/15) plane exactly corresponds to the relation (7) for kMHD = 1.0 ± 0.1 and kBGI = 0.5 ± 0.1. Thus, it is now difficult to doubt the validity of the death line defined by equation (7)."

    Equation (7) contains a free order-unity constant k. Novoselov et al. (2020), a same-group paper, fitted k_BGI = 0.5 ± 0.1 to pulsar data; the present paper then treats the fitted relation as the 'fundamental' death line and uses it to generate the BGI predictions in Table 4. The 'BGI model predicts (2.5–5.5)%' band and the period-distribution row are therefore post-fit in-house outputs, not uncalibrated first-principles predictions. Comparing the new FAST/MeerKAT fractions to this band is a check against a relation already adjusted on pulsar data, so the claimed confirmation is statistically softened.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 'Total number of orthogonal interpulse pulsars', paragraph on Novoselov et al. (2020) and Istomin et al. (2024)]
    "Although the model used in Novoselov et al. (2020) relied on simplified assumptions (e.g., the acceleration gap height and potential were estimated using algebraic relations from the one-dimensional Ruderman-Sutherland vacuum gap model, which is inapplicable for orthogonal rotators), a recent more precise calculation (Istomin et al., 2024), where the accelerating potential was obtained self-consistently, yielded nearly identical results."

    The load-bearing model predictions for the interpulse test come from Novoselov et al. (2020), co-authored by Beskin and Biryukov, and are defended by Istomin et al. (2024), authored by the current first two authors and Beskin. Thus the 'BGI band' used to declare confirmation is not an externally established prediction; the chain of citations is internal to the group. The new telescope samples are genuinely external, but the comparison targets that determine the verdict are self-cited, making the evolutionary conclusion depend in part on in-house model approval rather than an independent calculation.

full rationale

The widths part of the paper is not circular in any constructional sense. The O/X classification is based on the sign relation between d p.a./dphi and circular polarization developed in the authors' earlier papers (Andrianov and Beskin, Beskin and Philippov, Hakobyan et al.), but the width comparison is not part of that classification; the Anderson-Darling and permutation tests show that the resulting O and X samples have different W10 P^(1/2) distributions. One can dispute the validity or external support of the sign relation, but that is a correctness concern, not circularity. The interpulse-pulsar section, however, has a partial circularity. The paper's central claim that FAST and MeerKAT statistics confirm the BGI/Ruderman-Sutherland model and chi tending to 90 degrees is evaluated against predictions imported from Novoselov et al. (2020), a same-group paper that fitted the death-line constant k_BGI = 0.5 ± 0.1 to pulsar data and then used that fitted relation to compute the BGI interpulse fractions and period distribution reproduced in Tables 3 and 4. The present paper explicitly says the BGI row was determined in that same work based on an analysis of the kinetic equation where inequality (7) was used, with (7) containing the fitted k. Thus the prediction is a calibrated in-house model output, not an uncalibrated first-principles result; the headline confirmation is correspondingly weaker. The same-group citation chain (Novoselov et al. 2020; Istomin et al. 2024) is load-bearing for the model side. The new FAST and MeerKAT samples are genuinely independent, so the test is not vacuous, but it is underpowered and partly post-fit; notably the FAST fraction in the key period range (6.0%, 14/233) lies above the quoted BGI band of 2.5-5.5%, a discrepancy the paper does not address. Overall, the interpulse-pulsar conclusion is substantially self-referential, while the profile-width conclusion retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its load is carried by the mode-classification sign rule (domain assumption from the authors' earlier theory), the Ruderman-Sutherland vacuum-gap potential (standard model input), and the in-house evolutionary predictions of Novoselov et al. (2020). The threshold eta_cr and the death-line constant k are fitted parameters entering the analysis.

free parameters (2)
  • eta_cr = 0.4
    Classification threshold chosen to balance sample size against a mode-determination error rate below 5 percent, based on comparison between manual and automated classification of the catalog intersection.
  • k in death line relation cos chi > k P^(15/7) B^(-8/7) = k_BGI = 0.5 +/- 0.1 (from Novoselov et al. 2020); k_MHD = 1.0 +/- 0.1 (from Novoselov et al. 2020)
    The constant in the death-line boundary (7) is not derived in this paper; the paper cites Novoselov et al. (2020) for fitted values of k. The interpulse model predictions depend on this fitted constant.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The sign relation between d p.a./d phi and Stokes V identifies the emission mode: same signs for X-mode, opposite signs for O-mode.
    This is the theoretical basis of the mode classification (Section 'Widths of the radio pulsar mean profiles', based on Andrianov and Beskin 2010; Beskin and Philippov 2012; Hakobyan et al. 2017). If wrong, the width comparison collapses.
  • domain assumption The Ruderman-Sutherland vacuum-gap expression psi_max = 2*pi*rho_GJ*R0^2 determines the maximum polar-cap potential drop.
    Equation (6) in Section 'Statistics of orthogonal interpulse pulsars' is the basis of the death line (7) and the BGI prediction that orthogonal pulsars have low potential drops.
  • domain assumption The kinetic-equation model of Novoselov et al. (2020) gives the expected fraction of orthogonal interpulse pulsars as 2.5-5.5 percent for BGI and about 1 percent for MHD in the 0.033-0.5 s period range.
    The paper compares Table 3 percentages to these in-house model predictions rather than to an independent calculation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data from FAST and MeerKAT surveys as a test of radio pulsar physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WCQ3MYGC

@misc{pith2026250612423,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data from FAST and MeerKAT surveys as a test of radio pulsar physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WCQ3MYGC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12423}
}
abstract

The data from the FAST and MeerKAT surveys has significantly increased the number of radio pulsars for which the polarization characteristics of their mean profiles have been determined in detail. This has allowed us to confirm earlier conclusions both about the nature of propagation of two orthogonal modes in the pulsar magnetospheres and about the mechanism of particle production in neutron star polar regions and their evolutionary features. We can now say with even greater confidence that mean profiles formed by the O-mode are significantly wider than those formed by the X-mode. Moreover, the observations confirm the validity of the classical Ruderman-Sutherland vacuum model of particle generation, as well as the evolution of the inclination angles of the magnetic axis to the rotation one in the direction of $90^{\circ}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12423 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The distribution of the widths of pulsar profiles with a certain mode (normal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [3]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202450949

    doi: 10.1051/0004- 6361/202450949. URL https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202450949. V. S. Beskin. Radio pulsars: already fifty years! Physics Uspekhi, 61(4):353–380, April

    doi:10.1051/0004-

  2. [11]

    doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/1/168. A. Yu. Istomin, F. A. Kniazev, and V. S. Beskin. Acceleration Potential and Density Profile of Secondary Plasma in the Magnetosphere of Orthogonal Pulsars.Astronomy Reports, 68(12):1271–1285, December

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/1/168

  3. [12]

    doi: 10.1134/S1063772925701264. S. Johnston, M. Kramer, A. Karastergiou, M. J. Keith, L. S. Oswald, A. Parthasarathy, and P. Weltevrede. The Thousand-Pulsar-Array programme on MeerKAT - XI. Appli- cation of the rotating vector model. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 520(4):4801–4814, April

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063772925701264

  4. [14]

    doi: 10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2011.19884.x. A. Lyne and F. Graham-Smith. Pulsar Astronomy. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, March

    arXiv 2011

  5. [16]

    doi: 10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2012.21246.x

    ISSN 0035-8711. doi: 10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2012.21246.x. URL https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21246.x. 18 R. N. Manchester, G. B. Hobbs, A. Teoh, and M. Hobbs. The australia telescope national facility pulsar catalogue. Astrophys. J., 129(4):1993–2006, apr

    arXiv 2012

  6. [18]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425186. E. M. Novoselov, V. S. Beskin, A. K. Galishnikova, M. M. Rashkovetskyi, and A. V. Biryukov. Orthogonal pulsars as a key test for pulsar evolution. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 494(3):3899–3911, April

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425186

  7. [19]

    doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-112338. A. Philippov, A. Tchekhovskoy, and J. G. Li. Time evolution of pulsar obliquity angle from 3D simulations of magnetospheres. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 441:1879–1887, July

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-112338

  8. [20]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu591. A. A. Philippov and A. Spitkovsky. Ab Initio Pulsar Magnetosphere: Three-dimensional Particle-in-cell Simulations of Axisymmetric Pulsars. Astrophys. J., 785:L33, April

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu591

Show all 30 references
  1. [21]

    doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/785/2/L33. B. Posselt, A. Karastergiou, S. Johnston, A. Parthasarathy, M. J. Keith, L. S. Oswald, X. Song, P. Weltevrede, E. D. Barr, S. Buchner, M. Geyer, M. Kramer, D. J. Reardon, M. Serylak, R. M. Shannon, R. Spiewak, and V. Venkatraman Krishnan. The ...

    doi

  2. [26]

    doi: 10.1086/507518. D. R. Stinebring, J. M. Cordes, J. M. Rankin, J. M. Weisberg, and V. Boriakoff. Pulsar polarization fluctuations. I. 1404 MHz statistical summaries. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 55:247–277, June

    doi

  3. [29]

    doi: 10.1086/111813. C. Wang, D. Lai, and J. Han. Polarization changes of pulsars due to wave propagation through magnetospheres. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 403:569–588, April

    doi

  4. [31]

    doi: 10.1088/1674- 4527/acea1f. P. Weltevrede and S. Johnston. Profile and polarization characteristics of energetic pulsars. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 391:1210–1226, December 2008a. doi: 10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2008.13950.x. 20 P. Weltevrede and S. Johnston. The population of...

    2008

  5. [32]

    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15972.x. М. О. Торопов, С. А. Тюльбашев, and В. С. Бескин. Поиск интерпульсов в полной выборке пульсаров на частоте 111 МГц. Астрономический журнал , 101(12):1084–1094,

    2009

  6. [1975]

    doi: 10.1086/153393. A. Spitkovsky. Time-dependent Force-free Pulsar Magnetospheres: Axisymmetric and Oblique Rotators. Astrophys. J., 648:L51–L54, September

    doi

  7. [1983]

    doi: 10.1086/161450. J. M. Rankin. Toward an empirical theory of pulsar emission. IV - Geometry of the core emission region. Astrophys. J., 352:247–257, March

    doi

  8. [1984]

    doi: 10.1086/190954. T. M. Tauris and R. N. Manchester. On the Evolution of Pulsar Beams. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 298:625–636, August

    doi

  9. [1988]

    doi: 10.1007/BF00637577. V. S. Beskin, A. V. Gurevich, and Ya. N. Istomin.Physics of the Pulsar Magnetosphere . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, August

    doi

  10. [1990]

    M.A.RudermanandP.G.Sutherland

    doi: 10.1086/168530. M.A.RudermanandP.G.Sutherland. Theoryofpulsars-Polarcaps, sparks, andcoherent microwave radiation. Astrophys. J., 196:51–72, February

    doi

  11. [1998]

    doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01369.x. J. H. Taylor and R. N. Manchester. Observed properties of 147 pulsars. Astron. J., 80: 794–806, October

    1998

  12. [2005]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1086/428488

    doi: 10.1086/428488. URL https://doi.org/10.1086/428488. A. Noutsos, C. Sobey, V. I. Kondratiev, P. Weltevrede, J. P. W. Verbiest, A. Karastergiou, M. Kramer, M. Kuniyoshi, A. Alexov, R. P. Breton, A. V. Bilous, S. Cooper, H. Falcke, J. M. Grießmeier, T. E. Hassall, J. W. T. H...

    doi

  13. [2006]

    Miguel Gull´ on, Juan A

    doi: 10.1086/501516. Miguel Gull´ on, Juan A. Miralles, Daniele Vigan` o, and Jos´ e A. Pons. Population synthesis of isolated neutron stars with magneto-rotational evolution. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 443(3):1891–1899, September

    doi

  14. [2010]

    doi: 10.1134/S1063773710040031. 16 J. J. Barnard and J. Arons. Wave propagation in pulsar magnetospheres - Refraction of raysintheopenfluxzone. Astrophys.J., 302:138–162, March1986. doi: 10.1086/163979. Ben´ aˇ cek, Jan, Timokhin, Andrey, Mu˜ noz, Patricio A., Jessner, Axel, R...

    doi

  15. [2014]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1253. 17 H. L. Hakobyan, V. S. Beskin, and A. A. Philippov. On the mean profiles of radio pulsars II: Reconstruction of complex pulsar light-curves and other new propagation effects. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 469:2704–2719, March

    doi

  16. [2015]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2118. Y. E. Lyubarskii and S. A. Petrova. Refraction of radio waves in pulsar magnetospheres. Astron. Astrophys., 333:181–187, May

    doi

  17. [2017]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1025. T. H. Hankins and J. M. Rankin. Arecibo Multi-Frequency Time-Aligned Pulsar Average- Profile and Polarization Database. Astron. J., 139:168–175, January

    doi

  18. [2018]

    doi: 10.3367/UFNe.2017.10.038216. V. S. Beskin and A. Yu Istomin. Pulsar death line revisited - II. ’The death valley’. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 516(4):5084–5091, November

    2017 doi

  19. [2021]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2775. J. M. Rankin. Toward an empirical theory of pulsar emission. I. Morphological taxonomy. Astrophys. J., 274:333–358, November

    doi

  20. [2022]

    doi: 10.1093/mn- ras/stac2423. V. S. Beskin and A. A. Philippov. On the mean profiles of radio pulsars - I. Theory of propagation effects. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 425:814–840, September

    doi

  21. [2023]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3636. C. Kalapotharakos, I. Contopoulos, and D. Kazanas. The extended pulsar magneto- sphere. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 420:2793–2798, March

    doi

  22. [2024]

    doi: 10.3390/galaxies12010007. A. S. Andrianov and V. S. Beskin. Limiting polarization effect — a key link in investigating the mean profiles of radio pulsars. Astronomy Letters, 36:248–259, April

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.