On the Relaxation Behaviors of Slow and Classical Glitches: Observational Biases and Their Opposite Recovery Trends

Abstract

We study the pulsar timing properties and the data analysis methods during glitch recoveries. In some cases one first fits the time-of-arrivals (TOAs) to obtain the "time-averaged" frequency and its first derivative , and then fits models to them. However, our simulations show that and obtained this way are systematically biased, unless the time intervals between the nearby data points of TOAs are smaller than about 104 s, which is much shorter than typical observation intervals. Alternatively, glitch parameters can be obtained by fitting the phases directly with relatively smaller biases; but the initial recovery timescale is usually chosen by eyes, which may introduce a strong bias. We also construct a phenomenological model by assuming a pulsar's spin-down law of -3 =-H0 G(t) with G(t)=1+ e-t/τ for a glitch recovery, where H0 is a constant and and τ are the glitch parameters to be found. This model can reproduce the observed data of slow glitches from B1822--09 and a giant classical glitch of B2334+61, with <0 or >0, respectively. We then use this model to simulate TOA data and test several fitting procedures for a glitch recovery. The best procedure is: 1) use a very high order polynomial (e.g. to 50th order) to precisely describe the phase; 2) then obtain (t) and (t) from the polynomial; and 3) the glitch parameters are obtained from (t) or (t). Finally, the uncertainty in the starting time t0 of a classical glitch causes uncertainties to some glitch parameters, but less so to a slow glitch and t0 of which can be determined from data.

0

Turn this paper into a lesson

ArcXiv compiles a structured reading guide from this paper's metadata: plain-English importance, contributions, prerequisite concepts, which sections to read first, flashcards, and a quiz. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…