Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Unusual intra-burst variations of polarization states in FRB 20210912A and FRB 20230708A : Effects of plasma birefringence?

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper reports that the intra-burst polarization states of FRB 20210912A and FRB 20230708A trace great circles on the Poincaré sphere, and interprets the pattern as propagation through a linearly birefringent plasma near a…

desk verdict Careful great-circle polarization analysis of two FRBs with a plausible but not unique birefringence interpretation; the observation is the contribution, the magnetospheric conclusion is soft. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14784 v2 pith:F3SFVBUA submitted 2024-11-22 astro-ph.HE

Apurba Bera , Clancy W. James , Mark M. McKinnon , Ronald D. Ekers , Tyson Dial , Adam T. Deller , Keith W. Bannister , Marcin Glowacki
show 1 more author
Ryan M. Shannon
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstspolarizationPoincarésphereplasmabirefringencerotationmeasuremagnetosphericoriginneutronstarstransients
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports that the polarization states of two bright, apparently one-off fast radio bursts, FRB 20210912A and FRB 20230708A, evolve smoothly within each burst, converting between linear and circular polarization while tracing great circles on the Poincaré sphere. It argues that this signature is best explained by propagation through a linearly birefringent medium located close to the emission source, rather than by intrinsic circular polarization, orthogonal-mode transitions, or elliptical birefringence. If correct, the circular polarization is a propagation effect, and the bursts themselves originate in the outer magnetosphere or near-wind region of a neutron star. The result gives observers a high-time-resolution diagnostic for identifying magnetospheric FRB sources.

What carries the argument

The working object is the Poincaré sphere, the unit sphere in (Q/I, U/I, V/I) space on which a fully polarized state is a point with longitude 2χ and latitude 2ψ; great circles are trajectories satisfying tan²ψ = a cos²χ + b sin²χ. The argument's engine is a Jones-matrix derivation of linear birefringence: a medium with linear natural modes adds a phase δ between orthogonal components, and after Faraday rotation by α, the transmitted Stokes parameters obey Equation (9), so the great-circle inclination is Δ₀ = δ and the node is χ₀ = α − φ. The parameter Γ = γ − φ measures motion along the arc and connects the observed temporal sweep to the intrinsic position-angle swing of the source, which the paper fits with a rotating-vector model for FRB 20210912A.

What would settle it

A decisive test is a future high-time-resolution, full-polarization burst from either source: if its Poincaré-sphere trajectory is a small circle rather than a great circle, or if the great-circle fit does not survive de-rotation by the independently inferred true RM, the LBM interpretation is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is empirical and geometric: over time bins of a few to tens of microseconds, the polarization vector of the primary sub-burst of FRB 20230708A and of the peak, tail, and secondary sub-burst of FRB 20210912A each follows an arc of a great circle on the Poincaré sphere, with best-fit inclinations of about 61 degrees for the two primary bursts. The authors show that a linearly birefringent medium produces exactly this signature: for fully linearly polarized incident radiation whose position angle γ(t) is intrinsic to the source, a phase delay δ between linear modes, and Faraday rotation α(λ), the observed position angle χ and ellipticity angle ψ satisfy tan 2ψ = tan δ sin(2χ − 2α + 2φ), a great-circle relation, with motion along the arc given by Γ = γ − φ. From the frequency dependence of the arc's node they recover a true rotation measure of −8.85 ± 0.63 rad m⁻² for FRB 20230708A, and they interpret the apparent intra-burst RM variation as a natural by-product of the polarization-state swing. For FRB 20210912A, the two sub-bursts separated by only 1.3 ms trace different great circles, which they attribute to different local magnetic-field orientations, possibly opposite magnetic poles. They conclude that the observations are qualitatively consistent with magnetospheric emission passing through a birefringent screen with linear modes near the neutron-star light cylinder or in the near-wind region, with a column density of roughly 10¹⁰ to 10¹¹ cm⁻².

Load-bearing premise

The LBM interpretation assumes the emitted radiation is fully linearly polarized with a time-varying position angle and that the birefringent plasma has exactly linear natural modes; if intrinsic circular or elliptical polarization is present, or the modes are elliptical, the great-circle relation no longer follows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the LBM interpretation is correct, the circular polarization observed in these two bursts is a propagation product, so the source emission itself can remain almost fully linearly polarized.
  • The apparent intra-burst RM variation would be a natural by-product of the polarization-state swing rather than a change in the magnetic field along the line of sight; for FRB 20230708A the data favour a true RM of −8.85 ± 0.63 rad m⁻².
  • Polarization mode transitions are disfavoured because the polarization fraction stays nearly constant while the ellipticity angle changes substantially, with no clear association between polarization minima and ellipticity maxima.
  • Elliptical birefringence in a nebular shell is disfavoured by the need for frequent phase-offset changes on sub-millisecond timescales and by the fine-tuning required to keep the incident polarization vector perpendicular to the mode vectors.
  • If the geometry is as inferred, these apparently non-repeating FRBs originate in the outer magnetosphere or near-wind region of a neutron star, supporting magnetospheric progenitor models.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit is that if great-circle polarization arcs are a generic magnetospheric marker, then high-time-resolution polarimetry alone can identify neutron-star-magnetosphere FRBs, even for apparently non-repeating sources.
  • Because the paper notes only a small fraction of the available high-signal-to-noise FRB sample shows the effect, a systematic archival search for great-circle trajectories in all well-polarized bursts would test whether the absence is astrophysical, such as from scattering or complex burst morphology, or merely observational.
  • If future repeating bursts from either source are found, their great-circle orientations provide a clean experiment: stable node angles across bursts would indicate a static birefringent screen, whereas node angles that change with burst phase would favour a rotating source or an evolving magnetic-field geometry.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents an intra-burst polarization analysis of two ASKAP-detected FRBs. After de-rotation for the time-averaged RM, the authors track the polarization state on the Poincaré sphere and report that the state follows a great-circle arc in the primary sub-burst of FRB 20230708A and in the two sub-bursts of FRB 20210912A. They measure the great-circle parameters in the full band and in frequency sub-bands, find a residual frequency dependence of the reference PA for FRB 20230708A, and infer a 'true' RM of -8.85 rad/m2 for that source. They test and argue against instrumental polarization, polarization-mode transitions, and elliptical birefringence, and propose that propagation through a linear birefringent medium with stable linear modes near the source explains the arcs. An RVM fit to the inferred intrinsic PA is presented for FRB 20210912A, and the paper concludes that the observations are qualitatively consistent with a magnetospheric origin.

Significance. The empirical great-circle description, if robust, is a valuable new constraint on FRB polarization variability and will stimulate further work on mode conversion and birefringence near FRB sources. The paper is careful in its data products: it uses Vela pulsar calibration, performs sub-band frequency-resolved analysis, and includes a detailed discussion of instrumental leakage and alternative interpretations. These strengths make the observational core credible. The interpretation, however, rests on the assumption of initially linear polarization and exactly linear natural modes (Appendix B); without a test of that assumption the magnetospheric/LBM conclusion is one of several viable explanations, so the significance of the interpretive claim is conditional on new modeling or data.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.3 / Appendix B (Eq. 9)] The derivation of the great-circle relation assumes that the incident radiation is fully linearly polarized with intrinsic position angle γ(t) and that the birefringent medium has exactly linear natural modes (Eq. B1 and the Jones matrix Rδ,φ). If the source emits intrinsically elliptical or circular polarization, or if the natural modes are elliptical, Eq. (9) does not follow, and an observed great circle can be produced by an intrinsic source trajectory with no LBM at all. The RVM analysis in Section 6.1 inherits the linear-input assumption and is therefore not independent evidence for the LBM. I ask the authors to test this load-bearing assumption directly: for example, fit the full Stokes time series with a model that includes an intrinsic ellipticity or initial Stokes V parameter and report whether the data prefer zero intrinsic ellipticity, or present a forward model with elliptically polarized incident radiation and show that it cannot reproduce the observed arcs. At minimum, the conclusion in the Abstract should state that the LBM interpretation holds only under this untested assumption.
  2. [Section 6 / Figure 4] The inference of a 'true' RM of -8.85 ± 0.63 rad/m2 for FRB 20230708A is obtained by requiring the great-circle reference PA χ0 to be frequency independent, and the subsequent demonstration that χ0 is frequency independent after applying this RM uses the same data. This is a self-consistency check rather than an independent measurement. The agreement with the observed RM of the first peak (Figure 1A) is the potentially independent piece of evidence, and it should be presented as the main validation, ideally with a quantitative comparison of the two values and their uncertainties. As written, the claim of self-consistency in Section 6 is weaker than it appears.
  3. [Sections 3.1, 4.1, and Figures 2–8] No quantitative goodness-of-fit measure is reported for the great-circle fits, although the text repeatedly describes the trajectories as 'well described' by great circles. The acknowledged deviations at the fading tail (Section 3.1 and footnote 4) make residual analysis important. I request a fit statistic (e.g., χ2/dof of the angular residuals relative to the fitted great circle, with the S/N threshold used to include points) and a plot or table of residuals for at least the primary sub-burst fits. This is needed because the great-circle claim is the empirical foundation on which all of the interpretive discussion rests.
  4. [Section 6.1 / Figure 11] The paper concedes that the observed frequency dependence of Γ(t) is not naturally explained by the LBM scenario. Since Γ parameterizes motion along the great circle and is used to infer the intrinsic PA γ(t) and to fit the RVM (Section 6.1), this is a load-bearing limitation: the same data that support the RVM also contain a frequency dependence that the model does not explain. Please either extend the model to account for the frequency dependence of Γ (for example via a frequency-dependent γ before the LBM) or explicitly present this as an unresolved tension and soften the concluding claim from 'consistent with' to 'one of several viable explanations.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 6.1] The word 'parmaters' appears in the RVM paragraph; it should be 'parameters'.
  2. [Section 3] The phrase 'middle pannel' should be 'middle panel'.
  3. [Figures 1 and 5] The intensity axis is intentionally omitted, but adding axis labels or a clear caption note for all panels would help the reader interpret the profiles.
  4. [Equations (6) and (9)] The mapping between the two parametrizations is stated as two possible identifications; a short explicit substitution would help readers reproduce the fitted parameters from Eq. (9).
  5. [References] The Mandlik (2024) entry appears as a DOI without a venue; please indicate whether this is a thesis or a refereed publication.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The RM = -8.85 rad/m2 'consistency check' for FRB 20230708A is partly circular because the RM is inferred from the chi0(lambda^2) slope and then re-derives its absence; the central great-circle/LBM interpretation is otherwise an underdetermined model fit, not a circular derivation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6 (FRB 20230708A residual RM inference and re-analysis, after Figure 11)]
    "the measured frequency dependence of chi0 suggests a residual RM of -3.1 +/- 0.6 rad m^-2, which in turn implies an inferred true RM = -8.85 +/- 0.63 rad m^-2. ... the Poincare sphere trajectory - specifically the reference PA (chi0) - shows no significant frequency dependence. Hence, the observed polarization of the burst is consistent with a frequency-independent GC trajectory and an RM = -8.85 rad m^-2. This suggests that the LBM interpretation of the temporal variation of polarization state of FRB 20230708A is self-consistent, although not necessarily unique."

    The residual RM is not independently predicted: it is read off from the slope of the best-fit chi0(lambda^2) after the RMavg = -5.75 correction (slope -3.1 +/- 0.6 rad/m^2). De-rotating the same Q-U dynamic spectra with the derived RM = -8.85 removes exactly that linear trend, so the subsequent statement that chi0 shows no significant frequency dependence is the fit criterion re-stated as a result. The agreement with the observed first-peak RM is independent evidence, but the 'frequency-independent GC trajectory' conclusion is partly by construction.

full rationale

The great-circle trajectories are an empirical description of the data, independent of the LBM model, and the Appendix B derivation is a conditional mathematical result: assuming a fully linearly polarized incident wave and a linear birefringent medium, Equation 9 follows and is not circular. The identified circular step is limited to the FRB 20230708A RM inference, where a residual RM is inferred from the chi0(lambda^2) slope and then used to verify that slope's absence; this is a consistency check that shares data with the inference, though the first-peak RM provides some independent grounding. The assumption of incident linear polarization (Section 5.3) is a model limitation / underdetermination rather than circularity, since the paper explicitly concedes the interpretation is 'not necessarily unique.' Self-citations to Bera et al. (2024) and Dial et al. (2025) are data and method references, not load-bearing uniqueness claims. Overall the central derivation chain is not forced by definition or by self-citation, so the circularity burden is modest.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The observational finding of great-circle arcs is grounded in data, but the LBM interpretation carries a large number of fitted parameters (great-circle angles for every sub-burst and sub-band, inferred RM, RVM angles) and rests on stated but untested assumptions about source polarization and plasma mode structure. The column density is derived, not measured. The model is underconstrained by the current two-event sample.

free parameters (11)
  • Great-circle inclination Delta0 (FRB 20230708A primary) = 61.4 +/- 0.5 deg
    Least-squares fit to Eq. 5; central to LBM interpretation as phase delay delta.
  • Great-circle reference PA chi0 (FRB 20230708A primary) = 10.2 +/- 0.7 deg
    Least-squares fit; used to infer residual Faraday rotation and true RM.
  • Great-circle inclination Delta0 (FRB 20210912A sub-burst A peak) = 62.4 +/- 1.4 deg
    Fit to the peak of sub-burst A; part of the LBM interpretation.
  • Great-circle reference PA chi0 (FRB 20210912A sub-burst A peak) = -10.4 +/- 1.3 deg
    Fit to the peak of sub-burst A; used in RVM analysis.
  • Great-circle inclination Delta0 (FRB 20210912A sub-burst A tail) = 50.9 +/- 1.9 deg
    Fit to the tail component of sub-burst A.
  • Great-circle reference PA chi0 (FRB 20210912A sub-burst A tail) = -19.4 +/- 2.2 deg
    Fit to the tail component of sub-burst A.
  • Great-circle inclination Delta0 (FRB 20210912A sub-burst B) = 47.8 +/- 3.4 deg
    Fit to sub-burst B; differs from sub-burst A, indicating changed LBM orientation.
  • Great-circle reference PA chi0 (FRB 20210912A sub-burst B) = -66.5 +/- 3.9 deg
    Fit to sub-burst B; used to infer different magnetic field orientation.
  • Inferred true RM (FRB 20230708A) = -8.85 +/- 0.63 rad/m2
    Derived from the lambda^2 slope of chi0 under the LBM model; used to re-derive the data.
  • RVM parameters for FRB 20210912A (alpha, ThetaA, betaA) = alpha = 80.2 +/- 0.6 deg, ThetaA = 62.5 +/- 0.5 deg, betaA = 17.7 +/- 0.5 deg
    Fitted to the inferred intrinsic PA variation; secondary interpretation of the magnetospheric geometry.
  • LBM column density ne Delta l = ~1e10 to 1e11 cm^-2
    Derived from Eq. 10 using delta = Delta0; not independently measured.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Observed Stokes I, Q, U, V after Vela calibration faithfully represent burst polarization with leakage of at most a few percent.
    Instrumental leakage analysis in Section 7.1 and Appendix E; cannot be independently verified here.
  • domain assumption Total polarization fraction of at least 70% allows projection onto the Poincaré sphere surface without loss of relevant geometry.
    Section 2.2; the projection preserves chi and psi, but the unpolarized component is discarded.
  • ad hoc to paper Incident radiation in the LBM model is fully linearly polarized with intrinsic PA gamma(t).
    Section 5.3 and Appendix B; if false, Eq. 9 does not hold.
  • domain assumption The LBM has exactly linear natural modes, requiring a pair plasma with perpendicular magnetic field.
    Section 7.2; required for the Jones matrix and Eq. 10.
  • ad hoc to paper The sub-burst A tail boundary at t = 0.06 ms separates two emission components with different polarization properties.
    Section 4; based on spectral and polarization changes; slight shifts could change the fitted great circles.
  • domain assumption Faraday rotation from ISM/IGM occurs after the LBM and can be represented by an angle alpha(lambda).
    Appendix B and Eq. 9; ordering matters for the derivation.
  • standard math Standard Jones calculus and Poincaré sphere geometry hold.
    Used throughout Appendix B and Section 2.2; accepted background.
invented entities (1)
  • Linear birefringent plasma screen in the outer magnetosphere or near-wind region of a neutron star
    purpose: Explains the observed great-circle polarization trajectories and the linear-to-circular conversion in both FRBs.
    Proposed based on consistency with observations; no independent detection. Future bursts from these sources would test it. It is a newly applied physical component, not a new fundamental entity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unusual intra-burst variations of polarization states in FRB 20210912A and FRB 20230708A : Effects of plasma birefringence?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F3SFVBUA

@misc{pith2026241114784,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unusual intra-burst variations of polarization states in FRB 20210912A and FRB 20230708A : Effects of plasma birefringence?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F3SFVBUA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14784}
}
read the original abstract

Fast radio bursts (FRBs) are highly energetic events of short-duration intense radio emission, the origin of which remains elusive till date. Polarization of the FRB signals carry information about the emission source as well as the magneto-ionic media the signal passes through before reaching terrestrial radio telescopes. Currently known FRBs show a diverse range of polarization, sometimes with complex features, making it challenging to describe them in a unified model. FRB 20230708A and FRB 20210912A are two bright and highly polarized (apparently) one-off FRBs detected in the Commensal Real-time ASKAP Fast Transients (CRAFT) survey with the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP) that exhibit time-dependent conversion between linear and circular polarizations as well as intra-burst (apparent) variation of Faraday rotation measure. We investigate the intra-burst temporal evolution of the polarization state of radio emission in these two events using the Poincar\'e sphere representation and find that the trajectories of the polarization state are well described by great circles on the Poincar\'e sphere. These polarization features may be signatures of a transition between two partially coherent orthogonal polarization modes or propagation through a birefringent medium. We find that the observed variations of the polarization states of these two FRBs are qualitatively consistent with a magnetospheric origin of the bursts and the effects of propagation through a birefringent medium with linearly polarized modes located close to the emission source -- likely in the outer magnetosphere or near-wind region of a neutron star.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14784 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Frequency averaged polarization time profile of FRB 20230708A in the primary sub-burst [A, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Temporal evolution of polarization state across the primary sub-burst of FRB 20230708A on the Poincaré sphere after correcting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Temporal evolution of polarization state across the primary sub-burst of FRB 20230708A on the Poincaré sphere after correcting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Wavelength dependence of the best-fit great circle parameters ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Frequency averaged polarization time profile of FRB 20210912A in sub-burst [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temporal evolution of the polarization state across the ‘peak’ of sub-burst [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Temporal evolution of the polarization state across the ‘tail’ of sub-burst [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Temporal evolution of polarization state across the ‘peak’ of sub-burst [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Wavelength dependence of the best-fit great circle pa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the measured PAs and EAs in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Temporal variations of Γ across the primary sub-bursts of FRB 20230708A [A, left] and FRB 20210912A [B, right] in four frequency sub-bands. The central frequencies of the sub-bands are mentioned in the legend. Corrections for RM = −8.85 rad m2 , and RM = 4.55 rad m2 h…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Variation of the inferred intrinsic PA ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Depolarization Induced by Rapid Polarization Angle Swings: A Common Feature of Pulsars and Fast Radio Bursts?

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Rapid polarization-angle swings should depolarize pulsar and FRB emission, yielding an anti-correlation Π_L vs dPA/dt that has tentative support in a subset of pulsars.

  2. Propagation-induced Frequency-dependent Polarization Properties of Fast Radio Burst

    astro-ph.HE 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new analytical model shows that fast radio burst polarization spectra can precess on the Poincaré sphere when Faraday rotation and conversion are comparable, offering a physical alternative to the empirical generali...

  3. Rapid Rotation of Polarization Orientations in PSR B1919+21's Single Pulses: Implications On Pulsar's Magnetospheric Dynamics

    astro-ph.HE 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Single pulses of PSR B1919+21 often show extreme, quasi-monotonic polarization angle rotations that the authors attribute to longitude-dependent phase lags between two wave modes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    M., Lim, P

    Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  2. [2]

    W., Shannon, R

    Bannister, K. W., Shannon, R. M., Macquart, J.-P., et al. 2017, ApJL, 841, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa71ff

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa71ff 2017

  3. [3]

    M., & Thompson, C

    Beloborodov, A. M., & Thompson, C. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 657, 967, doi: 10.1086/508917

    doi:10.1086/508917 2007

  4. [4]

    W., Deller, A

    Bera, A., James, C. W., Deller, A. T., et al. 2024, ApJL, 969, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5966

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5966 2024

  5. [5]

    M., & Wasserman, I

    Blaskiewicz, M., Cordes, J. M., & Wasserman, I. 1991, ApJ, 370, 643, doi: 10.1086/169850

    doi:10.1086/169850 1991

  6. [6]

    A., & de Bruyn, A

    Brentjens, M. A., & de Bruyn, A. G. 2005, A&A, 441, 1217, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052990

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20052990 2005

  7. [7]

    2024, Nature, 632, 1014, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07782-6

    Bruni, G., Piro, L., Yang, Y .-P., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 1014, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07782-6

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07782-6 2024

  8. [8]

    Burn, B. J. 1966, MNRAS, 133, 67, doi: 10.1093/mnras/133.1.67

    doi:10.1093/mnras/133.1.67 1966

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    J., Wharton, R

    Chatterjee, S., Law, C. J., Wharton, R. S., et al. 2017, Nature, 541, 58, doi: 10.1038/nature20797 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K., et al. 2023,...

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    M., et al

    Cho, H., Macquart, J.-P., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2020, ApJL, 891, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7824

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    K., Deller, A

    Day, C. K., Deller, A. T., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 3335, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2138

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    T., Uttarkar, P

    Dial, T., Deller, A. T., Uttarkar, P. A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 3220, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2756

    2025 doi

  5. [13]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 2156, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3762

    Dyks, J., Weltevrede, P., & Ilie, C. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 2156, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3762

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0fa3

    Gruzinov, A., & Levin, Y . 2019, ApJ, 876, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0fa3

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    A., & Arons, J

    Hibschman, J. A., & Arons, J. 2001, ApJ, 546, 382, doi: 10.1086/318224

    2001 doi

  8. [16]

    W., Bunton, J

    Hotan, A. W., Bunton, J. D., Chippendale, A. P., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e009, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.1

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    D., Johnston, S., & Weltevrede, P

    Ilie, C. D., Johnston, S., & Weltevrede, P. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2778, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3315

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    1998, PASA, 15, 211, doi: 10.1071/AS98211

    Kennett, M., & Melrose, D. 1998, PASA, 15, 211, doi: 10.1071/AS98211

    1998 doi

  12. [20]

    Prochaska, J. X. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.10816, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2204.10816

    2022 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    2007, Science, 318, 777, doi: 10.1126/science.1147532

    Crawford, F. 2007, Science, 318, 777, doi: 10.1126/science.1147532

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    Lower, M. E. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2108.09429, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2108.09429

    2021 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    J., Men, Y

    Luo, R., Wang, B. J., Men, Y . P., et al. 2020, Nature, 586, 693, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2827-2

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    2022, ApJL, 933, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac786f

    Lyutikov, M. 2022, ApJL, 933, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac786f

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    P., & Melrose, D

    Macquart, J. P., & Melrose, D. B. 2000a, ApJ, 545, 798, doi: 10.1086/317852 —. 2000b, PhRvE, 62, 4177, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.62.4177

    doi

  18. [26]

    Malykin, G. B. 1997, Radiophysics and Quantum Electronics, 40, 175, doi: 10.1007/BF02676342

    1997 doi

  19. [27]

    2024, doi: 10.25916/sut.26298316.v1

    Mandlik, A. 2024, doi: 10.25916/sut.26298316.v1

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    D., James, C

    Marnoch, L., Ryder, S. D., James, C. W., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 994, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2353

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    McKinnon, M. M. 2024, ApJ, 973, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6443

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    B., & Luo, Q

    Melrose, D. B., & Luo, Q. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 915, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07986.x

    2004

  23. [31]

    Michilli, D., Seymour, A., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 182, doi: 10.1038/nature25149

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    2025, Nature, 637, 48, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08297-w

    Nimmo, K., Pleunis, Z., Beniamini, P., et al. 2025, Nature, 637, 48, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08297-w

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    R., Wang, W

    Niu, J. R., Wang, W. Y ., Jiang, J. C., et al. 2024, ApJL, 972, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7023

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    S., Karastergiou, A., & Johnston, S

    Oswald, L. S., Karastergiou, A., & Johnston, S. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 840, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2271

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.17378, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.17378 INTRA -BURST VARIATIONS OF POLARIZATION STATES IN FRB 20210912A AND FRB 20230708A 19

    Pandhi, A., Pleunis, Z., Mckinven, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.17378, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.17378 INTRA -BURST VARIATIONS OF POLARIZATION STATES IN FRB 20210912A AND FRB 20230708A 19

    2024 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    Petroff, E., Hessels, J. W. T., & Lorimer, D. R. 2022, A&A Rv, 30, 2, doi: 10.1007/s00159-022-00139-w

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    C., Kaspi, V

    Pleunis, Z., Good, D. C., Kaspi, V . M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac33ac

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    R., Van Eck, C

    Purcell, C. R., Van Eck, C. L., West, J., Sun, X. H., & Gaensler, B. M. 2020, RM-Tools: Rotation measure (RM) synthesis and Stokes QU-fitting, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2005.003. http://ascl.net/2005.003

    2020

  31. [39]

    F., Bannister, K

    Qiu, H., Keane, E. F., Bannister, K. W., James, C. W., & Shannon, R. M. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 5109, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1740

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    1994, Current Science, 67, 255

    Radhakrishnan, V . 1994, Current Science, 67, 255

    1994

  33. [41]

    Radhakrishnan, V ., & Cooke, D. J. 1969, Astrophysical Letters, 3, 225

    1969

  34. [42]

    D., Bannister, K

    Ryder, S. D., Bannister, K. W., Bhandari, S., et al. 2023, Science, 382, 294, doi: 10.1126/science.adf2678

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    R., Cho, H., Day, C

    Scott, D. R., Cho, H., Day, C. K., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Computing, 44, 100724, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2023.100724

    2023

  36. [44]

    M., Bannister, K

    Shannon, R. M., Bannister, K. W., Bera, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.02083, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.02083

    2024 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    B., Connor, L., Ravi, V ., et al

    Sherman, M. B., Connor, L., Ravi, V ., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.06813, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.06813

    2023 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    T., Scott, D

    Sutinjo, A. T., Scott, D. R., James, C. W., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace774

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    Thompson, C., Lyutikov, M., & Kulkarni, S. R. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 574, 332, doi: 10.1086/340586

    2002 doi

  40. [48]

    2013, Science, 341, 53, doi: 10.1126/science.1236789

    Thornton, D., Stappers, B., Bailes, M., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 53, doi: 10.1126/science.1236789

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    M., Lower, M

    Uttarkar, P., Shannon, R. M., Lower, M. E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.11515, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.11515 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    2024 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    K., & Ravi, V

    Vedantham, H. K., & Ravi, V . 2019, MNRAS, 485, L78, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz038

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    Virtanen, P., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    L., & Lai, D

    Wang, C., Han, J. L., & Lai, D. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1183, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19333.x

    2011

  45. [53]

    2024, A&A, 690, A377, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450673

    Wang, Y ., & van Leeuwen, J. 2024, A&A, 690, A377, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450673

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    2023, Rev

    Zhang, B. 2023, Rev. Mod. Phys., 95, 035005, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.