pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.22910 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Discovery and Timing Follow-Up of Two FAST-Discovered Pulsars from the FAST CRAFTS Survey

Victoria A. Blackmon , Maura A. McLaughlin , De Zhao , Jianping Yuan , Qingdong Wu , Chen-Chen Miao , Meng-Yao Xue , Di Li
show 1 more author
Wei-Wei Zhu
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 03:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords pulsarsFAST CRAFTS surveypulsar timingdispersion measuredisrupted recycled pulsarselectron density modelspulse profilesGreen Bank Telescope
0
0 comments X

The pith

GBT timing of two FAST-discovered pulsars yields first solutions and shows electron density models underestimate DM for the 415 ms one.

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

The paper reports one-year GBT follow-up observations of two pulsars first found by FAST in the CRAFTS survey. It supplies timing solutions, 820 MHz pulse profiles, flux densities, and polarization for PSR J0535-0231 with a 415 ms spin period and PSR J1816-0518 with a 1.93 s period. The shorter-period pulsar is described as partially recycled yet isolated, placing it in the disrupted recycled pulsar class. Its measured DM of 117.6 pc cm^{-3} exceeds the highest values predicted by the NE2001 and YMW16 models along that line of sight. The work situates both objects among other CRAFTS discoveries and notes that additional faint pulsars from FAST could help improve those Galactic electron density models.

Core claim

GBT timing observations provide the first precise spin periods, pulse profiles, flux densities, and polarization measurements at 820 MHz for PSR J0535-0231 and PSR J1816-0518. PSR J0535-0231 appears to be a partially recycled but isolated pulsar and therefore likely belongs to the disrupted recycled pulsar population. Both the NE2001 and YMW16 electron density models fall short for this object, as neither reaches the observed DM of 117.6 pc cm^{-3}. The results are placed in the context of other FAST CRAFTS pulsars and the wider known population.

What carries the argument

The year-long GBT timing campaign that delivers spin periods and DM values together with direct comparison against the NE2001 and YMW16 electron density models.

If this is right

  • The two objects enlarge the sample of timed pulsars from the CRAFTS survey, including one candidate disrupted recycled pulsar.
  • The DM discrepancy flags a region where current electron density models are incomplete.
  • The new profiles and polarization data add to the catalog of 820 MHz pulsar properties.
  • Future faint or distant FAST discoveries can be used to test and refine electron density models in additional Galactic directions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Repeated timing of J0535-0231 over longer baselines could test whether its spin-down behavior continues to support the disrupted recycled classification.
  • DM mismatches like this one could serve as signposts for mapping dense interstellar structures that standard models miss.
  • Similar follow-up campaigns on other CRAFTS discoveries might systematically improve electron density models in under-sampled sky regions.

Load-bearing premise

The one-year GBT timing campaign and DM measurement accurately reflect the pulsars' properties without unaccounted systematics or survey selection effects.

What would settle it

An independent DM measurement for PSR J0535-0231 obtained with a different telescope or longer baseline that falls at or below the maximum NE2001 or YMW16 prediction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.22910 by Chen-Chen Miao, De Zhao, Di Li, Jianping Yuan, Maura A. McLaughlin, Meng-Yao Xue, Qingdong Wu, Victoria A. Blackmon, Wei-Wei Zhu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Profiles of PSR J0535–0231 at different observing frequencies. All profiles are shifted such that the peak flux component is centered at a phase of 0.5. (a) is the profile based on GBT data at 820 MHz, (b) is the profile at L band (1250 MHz) based on the FAST data, and (c) is the profile of the single L-band (1500 MHz) GBT observation. Stokes parameters I, L, and V are represented by black, red, and blue c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Polarization and flux-calibrated composite profiles of PSR J1816–0518 at different observing frequencies. (a) shows the GBT profile at 820 MHz, and (b) is the FAST profile at L band (1250 MHz). Stokes parameters I, L, and V are represented by black, red, and blue curves, respectively. quencies. The evolution of these aforementioned profile components typically arises from either intrinsic effects of the pu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Post-fit residuals for (a) PSR J0535–0231 and (b) PSR J1816–0518. Across all observations for both pulsars, the GBT data at 820 MHz and FAST data at 1250 MHz are indicated by blue and green points, respectively. paign. Composite profiles for the GBT L-Band obser￾vation for J0535–0231 and FAST observations of both pulsars are also included. Both pulsars exhibit some frequency-dependent pro￾file evolution th… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: P − P˙ diagram where FAST-discovered pulsars are placed among the general pulsar population. This figure was produced using the presto code, ppdot plane plot.py1 . FAST CRAFTS pulsar (teal circles) parameters were obtained using the ATNF Pulsar Catalog (Manchester et al. 2005, http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/pulsar/psrcat) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS VAB acknowledges support from the DuBois and Chancellor’s Scholar … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the results of Green Bank Telescope (GBT) observations of two pulsars discovered with the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Radio Telescope (FAST) during the 19-beam Commensal Radio Astronomy FasT Survey (CRAFTS). We highlight the first timing solutions, pulse profiles, flux densities, and polarization measurements at 820 MHz for PSR J0535-0231, with a spin period of 415 ms, and PSR J1816-0518, with a spin period of 1.93 s, from a year-long follow-up campaign. PSR J0535-0231 appears to be partially recycled, but isolated, and likely belongs to the class of disrupted recycled pulsars (DRPs). We find that the two widely used electron density models, NE2001 and YMW16, both fall short of accurately modeling the line-of-sight to PSR J0535-0231, as the maximum dispersion measure (DM) predicted by both models is lower than the pulsar's DM of 117.6 pc cm$^{-3}$. Finally, we place both pulsar discoveries in the context of other FAST pulsars discovered in the CRAFTS survey and of the currently known pulsar population, in general, and discuss ways in which future FAST discoveries of faint, distant pulsars might facilitate the development of improved versions of the aforementioned electron density models in certain regions of our Galaxy.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports GBT follow-up timing observations of two pulsars discovered by FAST in the CRAFTS survey. It presents the first timing solutions, pulse profiles, flux densities, and polarization measurements at 820 MHz for PSR J0535-0231 (spin period 415 ms, DM = 117.6 pc cm^{-3}) and PSR J1816-0518 (spin period 1.93 s). The authors classify J0535-0231 as a likely disrupted recycled pulsar and state that both the NE2001 and YMW16 electron-density models underestimate the DM along its line of sight, with the models' maximum predictions falling below the measured value. The work places the discoveries in the context of the broader FAST pulsar population.

Significance. If the DM measurement and its uncertainty are robustly determined from the one-year GBT campaign, the reported discrepancy with NE2001 and YMW16 would provide a concrete datum for refining Galactic electron-density models in that direction. The polarization and flux-density measurements at 820 MHz add useful characterization for these objects, and the timing solutions constitute a solid observational contribution to the known pulsar population. The contextual discussion of CRAFTS discoveries is helpful for survey strategy.

major comments (1)
  1. [Timing solution and DM measurement for PSR J0535-0231] The central claim that NE2001 and YMW16 both underestimate the DM for PSR J0535-0231 rests on the GBT-derived DM = 117.6 pc cm^{-3} exceeding the models' maximum line-of-sight predictions. The manuscript must explicitly report the DM uncertainty from the timing fit, the precise (RA, Dec) used for model evaluation, and the numerical model outputs at that position so that the statistical significance of the discrepancy can be assessed. Without these quantities the model-shortfall statement cannot be evaluated as load-bearing evidence.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the DM value without uncertainty or reference to the timing residuals; adding these would strengthen the presentation of the model-discrepancy result.
  2. [Pulse profiles and polarization] Pulse-profile figures would benefit from explicit indication of the integration time and S/N per profile to allow readers to judge the reliability of the polarization measurements.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We have addressed the major comment point by point below and revised the manuscript to incorporate the requested details, which we agree strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Timing solution and DM measurement for PSR J0535-0231] The central claim that NE2001 and YMW16 both underestimate the DM for PSR J0535-0231 rests on the GBT-derived DM = 117.6 pc cm^{-3} exceeding the models' maximum line-of-sight predictions. The manuscript must explicitly report the DM uncertainty from the timing fit, the precise (RA, Dec) used for model evaluation, and the numerical model outputs at that position so that the statistical significance of the discrepancy can be assessed. Without these quantities the model-shortfall statement cannot be evaluated as load-bearing evidence.

    Authors: We agree that these quantities are necessary to allow readers to evaluate the significance of the reported model discrepancy. In the revised manuscript we have added the DM uncertainty derived from the timing fit, the precise J2000 coordinates at which the NE2001 and YMW16 models were evaluated, and the numerical maximum DM values returned by each model at that position. These additions are now included in the section discussing the DM measurement and its implications for Galactic electron-density models. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results are direct observational measurements compared to external models

full rationale

The paper reports timing solutions, periods, DM values, profiles, fluxes, and polarization derived from GBT follow-up observations of FAST-discovered pulsars. The key comparison (NE2001 and YMW16 underestimating DM=117.6 pc cm^{-3}) evaluates measured quantities against independent pre-existing electron-density models, not against any quantity defined or fitted within the paper itself. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs relabeled as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or ansatzes smuggled via citation appear in the derivation chain. All load-bearing steps are standard pulsar timing fits to arrival times and direct model lookups, which are externally falsifiable and do not reduce to the paper's own outputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work relies on standard pulsar timing definitions and two pre-existing electron density models without introducing new free parameters, axioms beyond domain conventions, or invented entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Dispersion measure is the integrated column density of free electrons along the line of sight and can be compared directly to predictions from NE2001 and YMW16.
    Invoked when stating that both models fall short of the observed DM of 117.6 pc cm^{-3}.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5820 in / 1497 out tokens · 62093 ms · 2026-05-18T03:59:47.819124+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. To understand the radiative processes of pulsars and fast radio bursts with the FAST

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    FAST telescope observations are providing pivotal insights into the radiative processes of pulsars and fast radio bursts.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    D., Li, D., Hobbs, G., et al

    Cameron, A. D., Li, D., Hobbs, G., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 3515, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1328

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1328 2020

  2. [2]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 085022, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acd89d

    Chen, Y., Wang, P., Li, D., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 085022, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acd89d

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acd89d 2023

  3. [3]

    NE2001.I. A New Model for the Galactic Distribution of Free Electrons and its Fluctuations

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207156

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0207156 2002

  4. [4]

    J., Li, D., et al

    Cruces, M., Champion, D. J., Li, D., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 300, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2540

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2540 2021

  5. [5]

    T., Goss, W

    Deller, A. T., Goss, W. M., Brisken, W. F., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab11c7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab11c7 2019

  6. [6]

    2017, in 2017 XXXIInd General Assembly and Scientific Symposium of the International Union of Radio Science (URSI GASS), 1–4, doi: 10.23919/URSIGASS.2017.8105012

    Dunning, A., Bowen, M., Castillo, S., et al. 2017, in 2017 XXXIInd General Assembly and Scientific Symposium of the International Union of Radio Science (URSI GASS), 1–4, doi: 10.23919/URSIGASS.2017.8105012

    work page doi:10.23919/ursigass.2017.8105012 2017

  7. [7]

    Fiore , author L

    Fiore, W., Levin, L., McLaughlin, M. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aceef7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aceef7 2023

  8. [8]

    I., et al

    Geyer, M., Karastergiou, A., Kondratiev, V. I., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2659, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1151

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1151 2017

  9. [9]

    Hewish, A., Bell, S., & Pilkington, J. e. a. 1968, Nature, 217, doi: 10.1038/217709a0

    work page doi:10.1038/217709a0 1968

  10. [10]

    W., van Straten W., Manchester R

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

    work page doi:10.1071/as04022 2004

  11. [11]

    P., Popov, S

    Igoshev, A. P., Popov, S. B., & Hollerbach, R. 2021, Universe, 7, 351, doi: 10.3390/universe7090351

    work page doi:10.3390/universe7090351 2021

  12. [12]

    2020, RAA, 20, 064, 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    Jiang, P., Tang, N.-Y., Hou, L.-G., et al. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64 2020

  13. [13]

    2018, IEEE Microw

    Li, D., Wang, P., Qian, L., et al. 2018, IEEE Microwave Magazine, 19, 112, doi: 10.1109/MMM.2018.2802178

    work page doi:10.1109/mmm.2018.2802178 2018

  14. [14]

    R., & Kramer, M

    Lorimer, D. R., & Kramer, M. 2004, Handbook of Pulsar

    work page 2004

  15. [15]

    M., Papadakis I

    Lorimer, D. R., McLaughlin, M. A., Arzoumanian, Z., et al. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 347, L21, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07407.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07407.x 2004

  16. [16]

    N., Hobbs G

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, AJ, 129, 1993, doi: 10.1086/428488

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/428488 2005

  17. [17]

    C., Zhu, W

    Miao, C. C., Zhu, W. W., Li, D., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 1672, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1305

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1305 2022

  18. [18]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 105005, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ace179

    Miao, C.-C., Blackmon, V., Zhu, W.-W., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 105005, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ace179

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ace179 2023

  19. [19]

    P., & Gunn, J

    Ostriker, J. P., & Gunn, J. E. 1969, ApJ, 157, 1395, doi: 10.1086/150160

    work page doi:10.1086/150160 1969

  20. [20]

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425196 2016

  21. [21]

    C., Flynn , C., & Deller , A

    Price, D. C., Flynn, C., & Deller, A. 2021, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 38, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.33

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.33 2021

  22. [22]

    Radhakrishnan, V., & Cooke, D. J. 1969, Astrophys. Lett., 3, 225 van Straten, W., & Bailes, M. 2011, PASA, 28, 1, doi: 10.1071/AS10021

    work page doi:10.1071/as10021 1969

  23. [23]

    G., Yuan, J

    Wen, Z. G., Yuan, J. P., Wang, N., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d5d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d5d 2022

  24. [24]

    D., Yuan, J

    Wu, Q. D., Yuan, J. P., Wang, N., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 522, 5152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1323

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1323

  25. [25]

    D., Wang, N., Yuan, J

    Wu, Q. D., Wang, N., Yuan, J. P., et al. 2023b, ApJL, 958, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0887

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0887 2041

  26. [26]

    2023, FAST-CRAFTS Pulsars

    Xue, M., Miao, C., Cui, X., Chen, Y., & Cao, J. 2023, FAST-CRAFTS Pulsars

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    M., Manchester R

    Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N. 2017, ApJ, 835, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29 2017

  28. [28]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 877, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1849

    Zhang, L., Li, D., Hobbs, G., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 877, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1849

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1849 2019

  29. [29]

    P., et al

    Zhao, D., Wang, N., Yuan, J. P., et al. 2024, ApJL, 964, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2fb3

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad2fb3 2024