4.7 Article

SEARCH FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RADIO-LOUD AND RADIO-QUIET GAMMA-RAY PULSAR POPULATIONS WITH FERMI-LAT DATA

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 833, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/271

Keywords

gamma rays: stars; pulsars: general

Funding

  1. Russian Science Foundation [14-12-01340]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Observations by the Fermi-Large Area Telescope (LAT) have enabled us to explore the population of non-recycled gamma-ray pulsars with a set of 112 objects. It was recently noted that there are apparent differences in the properties of radio-quiet and radio-loud subsets. In particular, the average observed radio-loud pulsar is younger than the average radio-quiet one and is located at lower Galactic latitude. Even so, the analysis based on the full list of pulsars may suffer from selection effects. Namely, most radio-loud pulsars are first discovered in the radio band, while radio-quiet ones are found using the gamma-ray data. In this work we perform a blind search for gamma-ray pulsars using the Fermi-LAT data alone, using all point sources from the 3FGL catalog as the candidates. Unlike our previous work, the present catalog is constructed with a semi-coherent method based on the time-differencing technique and covers the full range of characteristic ages down to 1 kyr. The search resulted in a catalog of 40 non-recycled pulsars, 25 of which are radio-quiet. All pulsars found in the search were previously known gamma-ray pulsars. We find no statistically significant differences in age or in distributions in Galactic latitude for the radio-loud and radio-quiet pulsars, while the distributions in rotation period are marginally different with a statistical probability of 4 x 10(-3). The fraction of radio-quiet pulsars is estimated as epsilon(RQ) =(63 +/- 8)%. The results are in agreement with the predictions of the outer magnetosphere models, while the polar cap models are disfavored.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available