{"id":"92d4b840-d19a-466b-8d4f-cbc3d8181da5","arxiv_id":"2505.06460","paper_version":1,"verdict":"CONDITIONAL","confidence":"MODERATE","novelty_score":6.0,"correctness_risk":"medium","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":6,"one_line_summary":"A turbulent Faraday screen produces survey-dependent scatter in rotation measures, with magnitude set by the power spectrum of Faraday depth structure and by the wavelength coverage of the survey.","lead":"By simulating radio sources seen through turbulent magnetized plasma, this paper shows that measured rotation measures (RMs) gain scatter that depends on the survey's wavelength coverage. The new RM jitter framework explains why low-polarization sources show larger RM scatter and warns that survey-dependent jitter must be subtracted in RM-grid studies.","discovery_kind":"extension","skeptic_critique":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"Flux-limited comparison hinges on an untested uniform σφ prior and a fixed intrinsic polarization calibration, so the claimed match with Vanderwoude et al. (2024) is conditional rather than validated.","rationale":"The paper's core contribution — establishing RM jitter as a wavelength-dependent, survey-dependent scatter with linear, non-linear, and saturated regimes — is well supported by the simulations themselves. The three-regime behavior, the Wmax scaling, the insensitivity to Faraday depth resolution (POSSUM Low vs B001), and the decorrelation with depolarization ratio between surveys are internally consistent and follow from the numerical experiments. The independent N-component model in Section 3 provides analytic support for the linear-regime scaling ΔRM ∝ σϕ/N^{1/2} and for the 1/|P| amplification mechanism, strengthening the physical picture. However, the paper's most public-facing quantitative claim is the reproduction of the Vanderwoude et al. (2024) IQR for Π < 3% sources, and that claim is only as strong as the untested priors in Section 2.4. The reader identified exactly this: the flux-limited comparison assumes one turbulent-screen model for all sources, and the inferred γ ≈ −2.5 is conditional on that assumption. My stress-test confirms this is the most load-bearing vulnerability, because the abstract and summary present the match as the main empirical validation. The paper itself acknowledges the σϕ distribution is unknown, the intrinsic polarization is a tuned uniform range, and γ is an 'unknowable parameter' for unresolved sources (Figure 9 caption). No sampling uncertainties are given for the 300-source IQRs, and the code/source-count fits are not yet public, so independent verification of the selection function is not possible. The fix is concrete and modest: report the IQR under varied priors with bootstrap errors. If the spread is large, the conclusion that RM jitter dominates the Π < 3% scatter must be softened to 'can reproduce under plausible assumptions,' which is the conditional verdict. I therefore recommend keeping the verdict CONDITIONAL rather than upgrading to ACCEPT or downgrading to REJECT, because the central simulation result is solid and the concern is about the calibration of the empirical comparison, not about the internal soundness of the model.","tokens_in":23350,"tokens_out":2217,"duration_ms":18697,"concrete_test":"Repeat the flux-limited simulation of Section 2.4 with the same 300-source samples but vary the priors: (a) uniform σφ in [0, 60] versus half-Gaussian with σ = 30 rad m−2; (b) intrinsic polarization uniform in [10,20]% versus [10,30]%; (c) γ = −2.5 fixed versus a mixture of γ = −2.0, −2.5, −3.0. Tabulate ΔRM_IQR for Π < 3% with bootstrap uncertainties for each combination. If the Π < 3% IQR remains within, say, 15 ± 3 rad m−2 across all combinations, the claimed match is robust; if it swings by more than a factor of 1.5, the match is prior-dependent and the conclusion should be downgraded to conditional.","verdict_should_be":"CONDITIONAL","load_bearing_attack":"The central quantitative claim — that a turbulent Faraday screen with γ ≈ −2.5 reproduces the ΔRM_IQR ≈ 15 rad m−2 found by Vanderwoude et al. (2024) for sources with Π < 3% — rests on the flux-limited construction in Section 2.4. That construction requires three model inputs: the distribution of σφ, the distribution of intrinsic fractional polarization, and the power-law index γ. The paper states that the true σφ distribution is unknown, that half-Gaussian and uniform distributions were tried, and that a uniform distribution was 'preferred' because radio lobes have large Faraday depth ranges. But Figure 9 and the surrounding text show the resulting ΔRM_IQR is sensitive to the adopted σφ distribution and to the intrinsic polarization range: a half-Gaussian reduces the number of large-σφ sources, and raising the intrinsic polarization towards 30% drives ΔRM_IQR upward because more heavily depolarized sources pass the 0.1 mJy threshold. The paper does not report how much the Π < 3% IQR shifts between these plausible priors, nor does it supply the sampling uncertainties on ΔRM_IQR (300 sources per sample). The match with γ ≈ −2.5 is therefore not a robust inversion of the data; it is a demonstration that a particular set of assumptions can produce the observed number. In addition, the paper's own statement that depolarization by a turbulent Faraday screen is assumed for all sources (abstract, Section 2.4) means sources that depolarize internally or in a screen with a different power spectrum are excluded; if a sizable fraction of the low-polarization sample is of this type, the inferred γ ≈ −2.5 is biased. This is the same weakest-assumption the Reader identified, and it is load-bearing because the headline conclusion that jitter dominates the Π < 3% scatter depends on it.","agreement_with_reader":"agree"},"referee_report":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","summary":"This paper introduces and quantifies \"RM jitter\": the scatter in measured rotation measure (RM) across a sample of unresolved extragalactic sources, caused by turbulent Faraday screens with a given power spectrum of Faraday depth structure. The author simulates screens with power-law indices γ = −2.0, −2.5, −3.0, applies RM synthesis with the frequency coverage of several real and mock surveys (POSSUM Low, POSSUM Low+Mid, THOR, NVSS/CGPS, Wide, B001, B002), and characterizes the interquartile range of RM across 300 independent realizations as a function of the Faraday depth dispersion σφ. Three regimes are identified: a linear regime (ΔRMIQR ≈ σφ/5), a non-linear regime near σφλ² ≈ 1 with 1/|P| amplification, and a saturated regime where ΔRMIQR approaches the IQR of the Faraday depth distribution. The paper argues that RM jitter is independent of Faraday depth resolution (POSSUM Low vs. B001, matched Wmax), shows that cross-survey RM correlations have slopes approximately equal to the depolarization ratios, and discusses implications for RM variability searches, RM structure functions, cluster RM variance, and RRM(z) studies. A flux-limited construction, assuming depolarization by a turbulent screen for all sources, is used to compare with the Vanderwoude et al.","tokens_in":23669,"tokens_out":17927,"duration_ms":170101,"significance":"If the results hold, the paper makes a useful conceptual and practical contribution for the SKA-era RM grid: it separates the monochromatic quantity R from the survey-dependent RM measured by synthesis/QU fitting, provides a three-regime taxonomy of jitter tied to the Rudnick & Cotton (2023) parameter Wmax, and shows that low-polarization subsamples can carry large, survey-specific RM scatter. The core simulations are systematic and clean: the three-regime behavior is shown consistently across three values of γ, the POSSUM Low/B001 pair is a well-designed control demonstrating resolution independence, and the comparison with Vanderwoude et al. (2024) is a forward model against an external benchmark rather than a fit. The paper is also honest about its limitations, explicitly stating that the σφ distribution is unknown and that the intrinsic polarization calibration was adjusted after experimentation. The falsifiable predictions (cross-survey correlation slope equal to the depolarization ratio, jitter depending on λ² coverage, a ~7% polarization threshold to suppress jitter below typical errors) are valuable.","major_comments":[{"comment":"The central comparison with Vanderwoude et al. (2024) rests on three inputs that the paper itself identifies as unknown or tuned: the distribution of σφ (uniform vs. half-Gaussian), the intrinsic fractional polarization range (10%–20%, selected after \"experimentation\" to bring the median to 2%), and γ. The outcome is reported only qualitatively: γ = −2.5 \"comes close,\" and it \"performs better\" with a half-Gaussian σφ distribution, while the only concrete number given is for the equal mixture of the three γ values, ΔRMIQR = 18.3 rad m⁻². Because the text does not report the actual ΔRMIQR for the Π < 3% subsample for each γ and each σφ prior, nor bootstrap uncertainties on the IQR of a 300-source sample, the robustness of the γ ≈ −2.5 inference cannot be evaluated. In addition, the statement that the half-Gaussian prior performs better sits oddly with the adoption of the uniform prior. I request a table of ΔRMIQR(Π < 3%) over the {γ} × {σφ prior} grid, with sampling errors, and an explicit statement of the numerical range of the adopted uniform σφ prior.","section":"Section 2.4, Figure 9"},{"comment":"The flux-limited comparison treats pure simulated RM jitter as the scatter to be compared with the observed total IQR of ~15 rad m⁻², without specifying how measurement errors (Table 1 gives Δ10σ ≈ 2 rad m⁻² for POSSUM Low+Mid, and errors are larger near the detection threshold) and Galactic foreground RM are handled. Since the observed value contains these contributions, the pure jitter component should be below 15 rad m⁻² if it is to dominate, and the abstract's phrasing that the simulated sample \"can reproduce\" the observed scatter is stronger than the analysis supports; the text in Section 2.4 is appropriately conditional, but the abstract and parts of Section 4 are not. Relatedly, the inference that the Π < 3% scatter is \"dominated by RM jitter\" assumes that all low-polarization sources depolarize through the same turbulent-screen mechanism (stated in the abstract and Section 2.4). I recommend adding simulated measurement errors and a foreground term, or an explicit quantitative argument that they are negligible, and a short mixture calculation in which a fraction of sources depolarizes internally (e.g., Burn-type, Eq. 7) to show how the inferred γ and the \"dominated by jitter\" conclusion shift.","section":"Section 2.4, Discussion, and Abstract"}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"The summary states \"the inter-quartile radio of a Gaussian\"; this should read \"inter-quartile range.\"","section":"Section 5"},{"comment":"The text contains \"the correlation of RM jittter between the two surveys\"; \"jittter\" should be \"jitter.\"","section":"Section 4"},{"comment":"Please verify the typesetting of Equation (12). As printed, the second term in brackets appears to contain (Σ cos)², but consistency with the small-λ limit leading to Eq. (14) requires a factor of (Σ sin/Σ cos)², and the quantity f should be (Σ sin)²/(Σ cos)² rather than the product (Σ sin Σ cos)². The subsequent derivation of Eqs. (14)–(15) is correct.","section":"Section 3, Eq. (12)"},{"comment":"The caption's description of markers as \"green with crow foot\" and similar is cryptic; a legend or a clear verbal description of each marker style would improve readability.","section":"Figure 4 caption"},{"comment":"Please state explicitly the numerical range of the uniform σφ prior (presumably the simulated range of 2.5–55 rad m⁻²) and the number of independent realizations per (γ, σφ) cell that feed the flux-limited draws, since Figure 1 uses 50 realizations per cell while Figure 4 uses samples of 300.","section":"Section 2.4"}],"recommendation":"major_revision","confidential_remarks":"This is a genuinely useful exploratory paper with a clean core simulation and an honest self-assessment (\"preliminary\"). The main weakness is the flux-limited comparison in Section 2.4: it is load-bearing for the abstract's claim that the simulated sample can reproduce the Vanderwoude et al. (2024) scatter, yet the sensitivity to the σφ prior and the intrinsic polarization calibration is not quantified. The requested sensitivity table and a modest softening of the abstract should be straightforward fixes within the manuscript's scope. I do not see grounds for rejection: the disagreement with the previous literature is not internal inconsistency, and the forward-model structure means there is no circularity beyond the disclosed tuning of the intrinsic polarization range."},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","letter":"Colleague,\n\nThe thing to know: this paper makes a real point—RM scatter from unresolved turbulent Faraday screens depends on survey wavelength coverage and the power-spectrum slope, so “RM jitter” is a distinct contributor to RM-grid scatter. The three-regime behavior (linear, non-linear, saturated) is well supported by the simulations. The quantitative claim that a slope γ≈−2.5 reproduces Vanderwoude et al.’s ΔRM_IQR≈15 rad m−2 for Π<3% sources is more fragile; it is a demonstration under specific assumptions, not a robust inversion.\n\nWhat is new: Tribble noted randomness in depolarization, but the systematic wavelength-coverage dependence and the survey sensitivity of scatter are new. So is the flux-limited test showing sensitivity to γ, and the N-component analogy that gives a simple scaling ΔRM ~ σφ/√N (1 + 4σφ²λ⁴). The paper handles the RM vs R vs Faraday-depth distinction cleanly, and the discussion of implications for RM structure functions, variability, and excess variance is useful.\n\nThe simulations themselves look clean: noiseless, many realizations, consistent across the three γ values. Using IQR is sensible given the extreme outliers.\n\nWhere it softens: Section 2.4. The σφ distribution is unknown, the uniform prior is preferred rather than justified, and the intrinsic polarization range 10–20% was tuned after experimentation. The paper does not report how ΔRM_IQR shifts between half-Gaussian and uniform priors, nor the sampling uncertainty on an IQR from 300 sources. The claim that jitter dominates the Π<3% scatter assumes all low-polarization sources depolarize via a turbulent screen; if internal depolarization or a different spectrum is common, the inferred γ is biased. The author labels the results preliminary, which is fair, but the conditional nature could be stated more prominently.\n\nI would send this to peer review with a request for code/data release and sensitivity tests; the central effect should survive. The match to observed scatter may not.\n\nWho it is for: anyone using RM-grid scatter—variability searches, structure functions, cluster/foreground excess variance, redshift evolution. Worth a serious referee.\n\nRegards.","headline":"Careful simulations establish that RM scatter is survey-wavelength-dependent and sensitive to the turbulence power spectrum, but the claimed match to Vanderwoude et al. is conditional on untested priors.","tokens_in":24260,"tokens_out":2208,"would_cite":true,"duration_ms":22402,"reading_group":"yes","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"rs_alignment":null,"lean_confirmation":null,"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":[],"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"RM scatter in surveys is partly a wavelength-dependent artifact of turbulent plasma near each source.","keywords":["rotation measure","RM jitter","Faraday rotation","turbulent Faraday screen","depolarization","RM synthesis","fractional polarization","extragalactic radio sources"],"falsifier":"Take a set of unresolved sources spanning a range of fractional polarization and observe them with two frequency setups whose wavelength coverage overlaps but differs in bandwidth, at matched sensitivity. The turbulent-screen model predicts that scatter between the two measured RMs grows with depolarization and that the slope of the RM-RM relation equals the ratio of the median depolarization factors; if the scatter is independent of fractional polarization, or the slope stays unity while substantial jitter is present, the model is ruled out.","tokens_in":23132,"feed_emoji":"📡","tokens_out":12622,"duration_ms":111596,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"Rotation-measure grids—catalogs of Faraday rotation toward many background radio sources—are a standard probe of cosmic magnetic fields, but their scatter has been hard to interpret. This paper argues that part of that scatter, called RM jitter, is imposed by unresolved turbulent magnetized plasma near each source, and that its size depends on the wavelength coverage of the survey as well as on the power spectrum of the turbulence. Using simulated sources behind screens with power-law Faraday-depth structure, the paper shows that jitter rises steeply when differential Faraday rotation depolarizes the source, amplifying small rotation differences through the $1/|P|$ factor. In a simulated flux-density-limited sample, a slope $\\gamma\\approx -2.5$ reproduces the observed scatter of about 15 rad m$^{-2}$ for sources less than 3% polarized, while the more polarized sources show more scatter than jitter can supply, pointing to additional plasma along the line of sight.","feed_headline":"RM scatter depends on which wavelengths a survey sees","feed_subtitle":"Same physical screen can yield different RMs in different surveys; low-polarization sources carry most of the jitter.","key_machinery":"The central machinery is a numerical turbulent Faraday screen: a random two-dimensional field of Faraday depth with power spectrum $A(k)=A\\,k^{\\gamma}$ ($\\gamma = -2.0, -2.5, -3.0$), realized with random phases and scaled to a prescribed $\\sigma_\\phi$, viewed through a Gaussian beam. For each simulated source, Stokes $Q$ and $U$ are integrated across the source via $\\theta-\\theta_0=\\phi\\lambda^2$, then processed with RM synthesis and QU fitting using survey-specific wavelength coverage. The key identity connecting jitter to depolarization is the derivative of the polarization angle, $R=d\\theta/d\\lambda^2$; near minima of $|P|$, $1/|P|$ amplification makes $R$ (and hence the survey-dependent RM) wander far from the true mean Faraday depth, sometimes reversing sign. A discrete analog with $N$ Faraday-thin components yields $\\Delta\\mathrm{RM} = (\\sigma_\\phi/\\sqrt{N})\\,(1+4\\sigma_\\phi^2\\lambda^4)$, showing the linear and wavelength-dependent cubic terms; in the $N\\to\\infty$ limit it reproduces the standard analytic depolarization models with no jitter.","core_discovery":"RM jitter is the paper's name for the scatter in measured rotation measure that arises, not from measurement noise or from a common foreground, but from the turbulent Faraday-depth structure within the source region: unresolved structure on scales from below the beam up to the source size leaves each source with its own mean Faraday depth and its own depolarization behavior. The central quantitative claim is that this jitter evolves through three regimes as the Faraday-depth dispersion $\\sigma_\\phi$ grows: a linear regime with $\\Delta\\mathrm{RM}_{\\mathrm{IQR}} \\approx \\sigma_\\phi/5$, a non-linear regime where wavelength-dependent depolarization amplifies the apparent RM through the $1/|P|$ factor, and a saturated regime where $\\Delta\\mathrm{RM}_{\\mathrm{IQR}}$ approaches the interquartile range of a Gaussian with dispersion $\\sigma_\\phi$, independent of the power-spectrum slope $\\gamma$. Because depolarization and the resulting amplification depend on which wavelengths a survey observes, the same source can yield different RMs in different surveys, and the jitter is independent of Faraday-depth resolution. The paper's application to a flux-density-limited sample claims that this jitter naturally produces the observed increase of RM scatter toward low fractional polarization, and that a power-law slope $\\gamma\\approx -2.5$ reproduces the scatter of sources below 3% polarization.","pith_inferences":["Beyond the paper, the N-component formula suggests a practical estimator: in the linear regime, RM jitter scales as $\\sigma_\\phi/\\sqrt{N}$, so measuring jitter and $\\sigma_\\phi$ separately could let a survey estimate the effective number of independent Faraday cells without resolving the source.","Beyond the paper, if the screen model is right, apparent RM variability between historical narrow-band catalogs and modern broadband surveys is partly a wavelength-sampling artifact; a fair variability search should compare epochs observed with identical $\\lambda^2$ coverage.","Beyond the paper, the model predicts that RM jitter should decrease for larger angular-size sources, since more large-scale structure is resolved out; this could be checked by splitting a sample by source angular size.","Beyond the paper, a direct measurement of the Faraday-depth power spectrum in resolved radio lobes could be compared with the $\\gamma\\approx -2.5$ inferred from jitter; agreement would turn the RM grid into a turbulence probe, while disagreement would indicate that unresolved sources sample different structure than resolved lobes."],"forward_implications":["Surveys cannot quote a single extrinsic RM scatter without specifying their wavelength coverage: the same turbulent screen produces different jitter in different surveys, and the jitter can exceed measurement errors even for broadband surveys.","Samples selected with a 3% fractional-polarization threshold still contain sources whose RM jitter exceeds the measurement errors; the paper estimates that a threshold near 7% or higher is required for jitter to drop to the level of RM errors.","Comparisons of RMs from different surveys—variability searches, RM structure functions, cluster and galaxy RM-variance studies, and RRM-redshift analyses—must account for correlated jitter, not just independent Gaussian errors, and narrow-band surveys can produce extreme RM outliers that mimic anomalies.","The same jitter mechanism explains why RM scatter rises toward low fractional polarization without invoking signal-to-noise artifacts, and it makes the slope $\\gamma$ of the Faraday-depth power spectrum a parameter that can be constrained from RM scatter in the RM grid.","Because jitter is independent of Faraday-depth resolution, improving Faraday-depth resolution does not reduce it; surveys with the same sensitivity to continuous Faraday-depth structure show the same jitter even when their resolution differs by a factor of three."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"Provides the observed RM scatter versus fractional polarization (about 15 rad m$^{-2}$ for <3% polarized sources, about 6 rad m$^{-2}$ for >3%) that the flux-limited simulations are designed to reproduce.","marker":"Vanderwoude et al. (2024)"},{"why":"Introduces the turbulent-screen depolarization formalism and the $\\sigma_\\phi\\lambda^2=1$ boundary that the paper reinterprets as the onset of non-linear RM jitter.","marker":"Tribble (1991)"},{"why":"Defines the RM synthesis machinery and the measurement-error formula that frames the paper's comparison of jitter with RM errors.","marker":"Brentjens & De Bruyn (2005)"},{"why":"Supplies the Wmax parameter used to characterize a survey's sensitivity to continuous Faraday-depth structure, shown to control RM jitter.","marker":"Rudnick & Cotton (2023)"},{"why":"Provides the observed range of power-law indices $\\gamma$ of Faraday-depth structure in resolved radio galaxies that motivates the simulated slopes.","marker":"Laing et al. (2008)"},{"why":"Gives the analytic thin-screen depolarization model whose $1/|P|$ structure and polarization-angle jumps are the small-N limits of the paper's jitter mechanism.","marker":"Burn (1966)"},{"why":"Supplies the standard QU-fitting models that the paper contrasts with the finite-N turbulent picture.","marker":"Sokoloff et al. (1998)"},{"why":"Demonstrates the range of depolarization curves possible for one turbulent-screen model, supporting the paper's emphasis on sample variance.","marker":"Shanahan et al. (2023)"},{"why":"Supplies the 1.4 GHz source-count fit used to construct the simulated flux-density-limited sample.","marker":"Windhorst (2003)"},{"why":"Provides a low-frequency RM grid whose small scatter the paper interprets as a selection effect governed by Wmax.","marker":"O'Sullivan et al. (2023)"}],"fun_headline_variants":["RM jitter: same source, different RMs at other wavelengths","Turbulent Faraday screens make RM scatter wavelength-dependent","Low-polarization sources carry the strongest RM jitter","Survey wavelength choice skews measured rotation measures","RM jitter: wavelength-dependent scatter, not just noise"],"cache_read_input_tokens":3200,"weakest_assumption_plain":"The load-bearing premise is that every source in the sample is depolarized by an unresolved turbulent magnetized plasma located in front of the source, described by a single power-law spectrum of Faraday-depth fluctuations. If many low-polarization sources instead depolarize inside the emitting region or through a different kind of plasma, the inferred slope $\\gamma\\approx -2.5$ and the conclusion that jitter dominates the faintly polarized sample collapse.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["RM jitter: same source, different RMs at other wavelengths","Turbulent Faraday screens make RM scatter wavelength-dependent","Low-polarization sources carry the strongest RM jitter","Survey wavelength choice skews measured rotation measures","RM jitter: wavelength-dependent scatter, not just noise"]},"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","effort":"low","cost_usd":0.001781,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":7063,"prompt_tokens":1031,"completion_tokens":6032,"prompt_tokens_details":{"cached_tokens":384},"prompt_cache_hit_tokens":384,"prompt_cache_miss_tokens":647,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":5954}},"tokens_in":647,"tokens_out":6032,"duration_ms":41320,"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_tokens":5954,"cache_read_input_tokens":384,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-08-15T22:43:09.055853+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"deepseek-v4-flash"},"falsifier":"Take a set of unresolved sources spanning a range of fractional polarization and observe them with two frequency setups whose wavelength coverage overlaps but differs in bandwidth, at matched sensitivity. The turbulent-screen model predicts that scatter between the two measured RMs grows with depolarization and that the slope of the RM-RM relation equals the ratio of the median depolarization factors; if the scatter is independent of fractional polarization, or the slope stays unity while substantial jitter is present, the model is ruled out.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Provides the observed RM scatter versus fractional polarization (about 15 rad m$^{-2}$ for <3% polarized sources, about 6 rad m$^{-2}$ for >3%) that the flux-limited simulations are designed to reproduce."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Introduces the turbulent-screen depolarization formalism and the $\\sigma_\\phi\\lambda^2=1$ boundary that the paper reinterprets as the onset of non-linear RM jitter."},{"cited_title":"A., & De Bruyn, A","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Defines the RM synthesis machinery and the measurement-error formula that frames the paper's comparison of jitter with RM errors."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the Wmax parameter used to characterize a survey's sensitivity to continuous Faraday-depth structure, shown to control RM jitter."},{"cited_title":"A., Bridle, A","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Provides the observed range of power-law indices $\\gamma$ of Faraday-depth structure in resolved radio galaxies that motivates the simulated slopes."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Gives the analytic thin-screen depolarization model whose $1/|P|$ structure and polarization-angle jumps are the small-N limits of the paper's jitter mechanism."},{"cited_title":"D., Bykov, A","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the standard QU-fitting models that the paper contrasts with the finite-N turbulent picture."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Demonstrates the range of depolarization curves possible for one turbulent-screen model, supporting the paper's emphasis on sample variance."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the 1.4 GHz source-count fit used to construct the simulated flux-density-limited sample."},{"cited_title":"P., Shimwell, T","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Provides a low-frequency RM grid whose small scatter the paper interprets as a selection effect governed by Wmax."}],"review_version":1}