4.7 Article

ON PULSAR DISTANCE MEASUREMENTS AND THEIR UNCERTAINTIES

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 755, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/39

Keywords

astrometry; pulsars: general

Funding

  1. European Union under Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship [236394]
  2. NSF [0807556]
  3. ERC Advanced grant LEAP [227947]
  4. West Virginia EPSCoR program
  5. Research Corporation for Scientific Advancement
  6. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  7. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [0807556] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Accurate distances to pulsars can be used for a variety of studies of the Galaxy and its electron content. However, most distance measures to pulsars have been derived from the absorption (or lack thereof) of pulsar emission by Galactic Hi gas, which typically implies that only upper or lower limits on the pulsar distance are available. We present a critical analysis of all measured Hi distance limits to pulsars and other neutron stars, and translate these limits into actual distance estimates through a likelihood analysis that simultaneously corrects for statistical biases. We also apply this analysis to parallax measurements of pulsars in order to obtain accurate distance estimates and find that the parallax and Hi distance measurements are biased in different ways, because of differences in the sampled populations. Parallax measurements typically underestimate a pulsar's distance because of the limited distance to which this technique works and the consequential strong effect of the Galactic pulsar distribution (i.e., the original Lutz-Kelker bias), in Hi distance limits, however, the luminosity bias dominates the Lutz-Kelker effect, leading to overestimated distances because the bright pulsars on which this technique is applicable are more likely to be nearby given their brightness.

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