Glitches in Anomalous X-ray Pulsars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After 10 years of RXTE monitoring of 5 Anomalous X‐ray Pulsars, we report the detection of 10 glitches and 5 glitch candidates. Armed with sufficient data for a meaningful comparison of AXP and radio pulsar glitch properties, we show that in terms of fractional frequency change, AXPs are among the most actively glitching neutron stars, with glitch amplitudes in general larger than in radio pulsars. However, in terms of absolute glitch amplitude, AXP glitches are unremarkable. We show that three of the largest AXP glitches observed thus far have recoveries that are unusual among those of radio pulsar glitches, with the combination of recovery time scale and fraction yielding changes in spin‐down rates following the glitch similar to, or larger than, the long‐term average. We also observed a large long‐term fractional increase in the magnitude of the spin‐down rate of 1E 1841–045, following its largest glitch. These observations are challenging to interpret in standard glitch models, as is the frequent occurence of large glitches given AXPs' high measured temperatures. We speculate that the stellar core may be involved in the largest AXP glitches. Furthermore we show that unlike in radio pulsars, AXP glitches sometimes, but not necessarily always, involve major radiative events.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".