日本語
 
Help Privacy Policy ポリシー/免責事項
  詳細検索ブラウズ

アイテム詳細


公開

学術論文

Comparing models of the periodic variations in spin-down and beam-width for PSR B1828-11

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons40534

Prix,  R.
Observational Relativity and Cosmology, AEI-Hannover, MPI for Gravitational Physics, Max Planck Society;
Searching for Continuous Gravitational Waves, AEI-Hannover, MPI for Gravitational Physics, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
There are no locators available
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
フルテキスト (公開)

1510.03579.pdf
(プレプリント), 10MB

付随資料 (公開)
There is no public supplementary material available
引用

Ashton, G., Jones, D. I., & Prix, R. (2016). Comparing models of the periodic variations in spin-down and beam-width for PSR B1828-11. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458(1), 881-899. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw334.


引用: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0028-9C83-0
要旨
We build a framework using tools from Bayesian data analysis to evaluate models explaining the periodic variations in spin-down and beam-width of PSR B1828-11. The available data consists of the time averaged spin-down rate, which displays a distinctive double-peaked modulation, and measurements of the beam-width. Two concepts exist in the literature that are capable of explaining these variations; we will formulate predictive models from these and quantitatively compare them. The first concept is phenomenological and stipulates that the magnetosphere undergoes periodic switching between two meta-stable states as first suggested by Lyne et al. (2010). The second concept, precession, was first considered as a candidate for the modulation of B1828-11 by Stairs et al. (2000). We quantitatively compare models built from these concepts using a Bayesian odds-ratio. Because the phenomenological switching model itself was informed by this data in the first place, it is difficult to specify appropriate parameter- space priors that can be trusted for an unbiased model comparison. Therefore we first perform a parameter estimation using the spin-down data, and then use the resulting posterior distributions as priors for model comparison on the beam-width data. We find that a precession model with a simple circular Gaussian beam geometry fails to appropriately describe the data, while allowing for a more general beam geometry results in a model that seems strongly preferred by the data over a switching model.