PINT: A Modern Software Package for Pulsar Timing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over the past few decades, the measurement precision of some pulsar timing experiments has advanced from ∼10 μ s to ∼10 ns, revealing many subtle phenomena. Such high precision demands both careful data handling and sophisticated timing models to avoid systematic error. To achieve these goals, we present PINT ( P INT I s N ot T empo3 ), a high-precision Python pulsar timing data analysis package, which is hosted on GitHub and available on the Python Package Index (PyPI) as pint-pulsar . PINT is well tested, validated, object oriented, and modular, enabling interactive data analysis and providing an extensible and flexible development platform for timing applications. It utilizes well-debugged public Python packages (e.g., the N um P y and A stropy libraries) and modern software development schemes (e.g., version control and efficient development with git and GitHub) and a continually expanding test suite for improved reliability, accuracy, and reproducibility. PINT is developed and implemented without referring to, copying, or transcribing the code from other traditional pulsar timing software packages (e.g., Tempo / Tempo2 ) and therefore provides a robust tool for cross-checking timing analyses and simulating pulse arrival times. In this paper, we describe the design, use, and validation of PINT , and we compare timing results between it and Tempo and Tempo2 .
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.032 |
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".