LONG-TERM TIMING AND EMISSION BEHAVIOR OF THE YOUNG CRAB-LIKE PULSAR PSR B0540–69
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present timing solutions and spin properties of the young pulsar PSR B0540–69 from analysis of 15.8 years of data from the Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer . We perform a partially phase-coherent timing analysis in order to mitigate the pronounced effects of timing noise in this pulsar. We also perform fully coherent timing over large subsets of the data set in order to arrive at a more precise solution. In addition to the previously reported first glitch undergone by this pulsar, we find a second glitch, which occurred at MJD 52927 ± 4, with fractional changes in spin frequency Δ ν / ν = (1.64 ± 0.05) × 10 −9 and spin-down rate (taken from our fully coherent analysis). We measure a braking index that is consistent over the entire data span, with a mean value n = 2.129 ± 0.012, from our partially coherent timing analysis. We also investigated the emission behavior of this pulsar, and have found no evidence for significant flux changes, flares, burst-type activity, or pulse profile shape variations. While there is strong evidence for the much-touted similarity of PSR B0540–69 to the Crab pulsar, they nevertheless differ in several aspects, including glitch activity, where PSR B0540–69 can be said to resemble certain other very young pulsars. It seems clear that the specific processes governing the formation, evolution, and interiors of this population of recently born neutron stars can vary significantly, as reflected in their observed properties.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".