Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 107 references

RAMBO I: Project introduction and first results with uGMRT

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 The paper reports the first detection of radio emission from the magnetic hot star HD55522 at 650 MHz, adding a new point to the rotation-powered radio luminosity correlation of the centrifugal breakout model.

desk verdict Solid new detection and honest upper limits, but the CBO-support claim rests on an untested SED assumption that could move HD55522 by an order of magnitude in luminosity. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17032 v2 pith:S7TKXEM6 submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM

Z. Keszthelyi , K. Kurahara , Y. Iwata , Y. Fujii , H. Sakemi , K. Takahashi , S. Yoshiura This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM
keywords early-typestarsmagnetichotgyrosynchrotronemissioncentrifugalbreakoutmodelmagnetosphericradiostellarrotationuGMRTobservationsmassive
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 the first detection of radio emission from the magnetic B-type star HD55522: a 650 MHz flux density of $164 \pm 26\,\mu$Jy measured with the upgraded Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope. The authors place this measurement on the plane of radio luminosity versus centrifugal breakout (CBO) luminosity, the rotation-powered mechanism in which plasma accumulated above the Kepler co-rotation radius erupts and accelerates electrons, and show that the star falls on the empirical correlation established for previously detected radio-bright magnetic hot stars. This matters because it turns a previously non-detected star into a new radio-bright magnetic hot star, enlarging the sample that the rotation-powered model must explain and strengthening the case that stellar rotation, not wind-driven reconnection, powers gyrosynchrotron emission. The same campaign also produced non-detections for four other rapid rotators at sensitivity limits a factor of a few better than earlier data, which the authors interpret as most likely reflecting measurement sensitivity and rotational phase rather than the absence of emission. If the interpretation holds, the CBO framework gains another data point and rotation is supported as the energy source of radio emission in massive-star magnetospheres.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the Centrifugal Breakout (CBO) luminosity, $L_{\rm CBO} = \dot{M}\,\Omega^{2} R_{\star}^{2}\,\eta_{c}^{1/p}$, the theoretical power released when plasma confined above the Kepler co-rotation radius reaches critical density and opens the magnetic field lines; for a split-monopole field ($p=1$) it reduces to $L_{\rm CBO} \propto B^{2} R_{\star}^{4} P_{\rm rot}^{-2}$, which is why the model ties radio emission to rotation period and field strength. The observed comparison quantity is the radio luminosity $L_{\rm radio} = 4\pi d^{2} F_{\rm peak}\Delta\nu$, with $\Delta\nu = 6.4\times10^{10}$ Hz from the trapezoidal SED of the comprehensive 2022 catalog, and the single-frequency measurement is treated as the SED peak. The argument then proceeds by placing the new measurement on the $L_{\rm radio}$ versus $L_{\rm CBO}$ regression (slope $m=0.88$, offset $b=-8.52$, $R^{2}=0.68$) built from previously detected stars.

What would settle it

Observe HD55522 at one or more additional radio frequencies (for instance 1 to 10 GHz with MeerKAT or the VLA) and at several rotation phases. If the spectrum does not have its flat peak spanning 650 MHz, or if the 650 MHz source fails to show the rotational modulation expected of gyrosynchrotron emission from a centrifugal magnetosphere, the inferred radio luminosity would shift by a factor of a few and the star's placement on the CBO correlation, together with the support the detection lends to the model, would need to be revised.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that HD55522, a helium-strong B-type star at 278 pc, is now a radio-bright magnetic hot star: the authors detect $F_{\nu=650\,{\rm MHz}} = (164 \pm 26)\,\mu$Jy at the star's position in uGMRT band 4 data and associate the emission with the star. Converting the flux to a radio luminosity with GAIA distances and the trapezoidal spectral energy distribution model, they find that HD55522 lands on the linear relation between observed radio luminosity and centrifugal breakout luminosity of previously detected stars; they therefore conclude that the detection 'aligns with predictions from the CBO model, supporting the role of stellar rotation as a mechanism powering the gyrosynchrotron radio emission.' A second epoch two days later, near magnetic null, did not reproduce the detection, with a $3\sigma$ upper limit of $96\,\mu$Jy, which the authors attribute to the expected factor-of-a-few rotational modulation of gyrosynchrotron emission. The four other targets remained undetected at $3\sigma$ upper limits of 91 to 657 $\mu$Jy.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single 650 MHz flux measurement equals the peak of HD55522's radio spectrum and that the spectrum follows the standard trapezoidal shape, so one number fixes the total radio luminosity; if the spectrum actually peaks elsewhere or declines toward 650 MHz, the inferred luminosity changes by a factor of a few and the star could move off the claimed correlation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • HD55522 joins the catalog of radio-bright magnetic hot stars, giving the CBO-radio luminosity correlation one more object in its predicted parameter space.
  • The detection near magnetic maximum and the non-detection near magnetic null two days later are consistent with the factor-of-a-few rotational modulation the model expects for gyrosynchrotron emission.
  • The author's judge their non-detections most likely due to insufficient sensitivity rather than absence of emission, implying that deeper observations of rapid rotators in this parameter space should uncover more gyrosynchrotron emitters.
  • Under the CBO interpretation, stellar rotation rather than wind-driven reconnection is the energy source of the gyrosynchrotron emission, and the empirical $10^{-8}$ scaling that links $L_{\rm CBO}$ to $L_{\rm radio}$ is the main quantity still awaiting a physical explanation.
  • With SKA-class sensitivity, an emission level like HD55522's would be detectable from stars roughly ten times farther away, expanding the sample volume by about a factor of 1000.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A single additional frequency point, e.g., uGMRT band 5 or MeerKAT L-band, would directly test the SED-peak assumption: a spectrum that rises toward 650 MHz would lower the inferred luminosity and could pull HD55522 off the correlation.
  • If the phase interpretation of the two epochs survives further monitoring, then scheduling future gyrosynchrotron searches of CBO candidates at magnetic maximum should sharply raise the detection rate.
  • With only one of five CBO-preferred targets detected, the fixed $10^{-8}$ scaling factor is unlikely to be universal; measuring phase-resolved luminosities for a larger sample would turn that constant into a physically motivated function of wind density and field geometry.
  • The same rotation-powered scaling may organize radio emission in other ordered magnetospheres, from ultracool dwarfs to exoplanets; a discriminating test is whether the slope of the $L_{\rm radio}$-$L_{\rm CBO}$ relation survives when those objects are added to the plane.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the RAMBO project, a systematic radio survey of rapidly rotating magnetic hot stars, and presents first uGMRT band-4 (650 MHz) observations of five targets from the Shultz et al. (2022) catalog. The main result is a 6.3 sigma detection of HD55522 at 650 MHz in one epoch, followed by a non-detection in a second epoch, which the authors interpret as rotational phase variability of gyrosynchrotron emission. Four other stars (CPD-271791, HD22470, HD36668, HD49333) are reported as non-detections with improved 3 sigma upper limits. The detection is converted to a radio luminosity using the Shultz et al. (2022) trapezoidal SED under the assumption F_650 = F_peak, and the resulting point is placed on the L_CBO to L_radio diagram, where it lies close to the empirical regression for previous detections. The paper concludes that the detection supports the Centrifugal Breakout (CBO) model and rotation-powered gyrosynchrotron emission, and discusses future prospects with SKA.

Significance. If the detection and its interpretation hold, HD55522 becomes a new radio-bright magnetic hot star and adds one more object to the empirical L_CBO-L_radio correlation, which is currently the main observational support for the rotation-powered interpretation of gyrosynchrotron emission in these stars. The non-detections provide useful upper limits that are a factor of a few better than previous measurements for several targets. The paper is transparent about many of its assumptions, including the SED conversion, the empirical 10^-8 scaling factor, and the lack of phase-resolved data; this transparency is a strength. The central scientific claim, however, is the placement of HD55522 on the CBO correlation, and that placement currently rests on an SED assumption that the paper itself acknowledges to be problematic.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 6.1.1, Eqs. (3)-(4), Table 2, Fig. 4] The luminosity conversion that places HD55522 on the CBO correlation assumes F_650 = F_peak, but the trapezoidal SED defined in Eqs. (3)-(4) rises linearly from zero at 0.6 GHz to unity at 1.5 GHz. At 650 MHz the model level is only about 5.6 percent of the flat-top, so a literal application of the adopted SED would require F_peak ~ 18 x 164 microJy ~ 3 mJy and would shift log(L_radio/L_sun) from -6.59 to about -5.3, moving HD55522 roughly 1.4 dex above the regression rather than onto it. The paper itself states that the trapezoid's zero-flux low-frequency cutoff is inconsistent with observed flat spectra at 0.6 GHz. The two interpretations bracket a factor of about 18 in luminosity, not the factor of few stated in Sec. 6.1.1. Since the conclusion that the detection supports the CBO model is a statement about where this single point falls in Fig. 4, this SED ambiguity is load-bearing and needs to be resolved or explicitly carried through the conclusion as a dominant systematic uncertainty.
  2. [Sec. 6.1.2 and Sec. 7] The conclusion that the detection aligns with predictions from the CBO model conflates the theoretical 10^-8 scaling with the empirical regression. As the paper states, HD55522 is perfectly in line with the linear relation for previous detections but below the theoretical CBO model prediction, assuming a scaling factor of 10^-8. Because the 10^-8 factor is an empirical correction calibrated on the same L_CBO-L_radio correlation used for comparison, the new detection supports the empirical correlation but does not constitute an independent confirmation of the CBO model's predictive scaling. The abstract and conclusions should be worded to distinguish these two statements.
  3. [Secs. 4.2, 5.5, 6] The paper identifies the HD55522 emission as gyrosynchrotron (e.g., We confirm the first detection of gyrosynchrotron radio emission from HD55522 in Sec. 6), but the data are single-band Stokes I only; SPAM does not support polarization (Sec. 4.2), and no spectral index is measured. The detection at 650 MHz is consistent with gyrosynchrotron emission in the CBO context, but the data alone do not establish the emission mechanism. The wording should be softened to non-thermal radio emission consistent with gyrosynchrotron unless additional evidence is presented.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sec. 4.1] The text The utilises the wind-band data should read wide-band data.
  2. [Sec. 4.3] The software name is written as both WSClean and WSclean; please use a single consistent spelling.
  3. [Sec. 6.1.3] There is a typo beteween in the sentence describing the SED decline between 0.6 and 1.5 GHz.
  4. [Secs. 5.1 and 6.4] The star CPD-271791 is written as CPD-271719 in Sec. 6.4; this should be corrected.
  5. [Sec. 6.1.1] The sentence This is of the order of 10^11 Hz followed by Indeed, Delta-nu = 6.4 x 10^10 Hz is internally inconsistent; 6.4 x 10^10 Hz is not of order 10^11 Hz. Please revise.
  6. [Sec. 4.3] The statement that the rms flux density is below the standard deviation is confusing; it should be clarified that the measured peak within the expected source region is below the image rms, leading to the reported 3-sigma upper limits.
  7. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption states that the bolometric solar luminosity is used as a constant scaling term for both axes but does not define whether L_radio is bolometric or frequency-integrated radio luminosity; please clarify the axes labels and the exact quantity plotted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the HD55522 detection is an independent measurement, and the CBO comparison is an openly calibrated empirical scaling rather than a hidden reuse of the target's own data.

full rationale

The central claim is a new 650 MHz flux measurement, Fnu=650MHz = (164 +/- 26) microJy, reduced from uGMRT visibilities with standard calibration; this does not depend on the CBO model. The luminosity comparison uses LCBO from independent stellar parameters (Equation 5) and Lradio from the measured flux plus a stated SED convention (Equations 3-4). The 10^-8 factor in the CBO-radio relation is explicitly described in Section 2.4 as an empirical correction calibrated to previously detected sources, not derived in this paper; using it to place HD55522 on the same diagram is a calibration test with one new independent point, not a fit of the target. The paper also explicitly flags in Section 6.1.1 that the F650 = Fpeak assumption and the trapezoid SED's zero-flux low-frequency cutoff are inconsistent with observed low-frequency emission, so any resulting luminosity uncertainty is an acknowledged systematic effect rather than a circular step. There are no load-bearing self-citations: Shultz et al. (2022) and Owocki et al. (2022) are external works with no author overlap with the present paper's authors, and the locally cited works by Keszthelyi and Takahashi are not used to justify the CBO comparison. The model-support conclusion is therefore weaker than a first-principles prediction because the normalization is empirical, but it does not reduce to the paper's inputs by construction. Selection of targets in the CBO-preferred parameter space is a statistical and interpretive caveat, not circularity, since the detection itself is an independent observable.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central detection depends only on the radio data and astrometric matching. The CBO-model interpretation rests on several adopted assumptions: the empirical 10^-8 scaling factor, the trapezoidal SED with F_650=F_peak, literature stellar parameters, split-monopole scaling, and assumed geometric angles. These are stated in the text but not all are propagated into the quoted uncertainties.

free parameters (4)
  • CBO-to-radio luminosity scaling factor = 10^-8
    Empirical correction from Owocki et al. (2022) and Shultz et al. (2022) that equates the theoretical LCBO with observed Lradio; the paper notes its physical origin is poorly constrained and may vary between stars (Sec 2.4, 6.1.2).
  • SED bandwidth Delta-nu = 6.4 x 10^10 Hz
    Chosen from the trapezoidal SED model of Shultz et al. (2022) to convert peak flux to luminosity (Eq. 4); the paper notes this leads to factor-of-few uncertainties (Sec 6.1.1).
  • Assumed obliquity beta for CPD-271791 = 90 degrees
    Stated as an assumption based on H-alpha profile shape because spectropolarimetric data do not cover the full rotation period; enters the CBO luminosity estimate (Sec 5.1).
  • Estimated inclination i for HD36668 = 60 degrees
    Estimated by the authors from stellar and rotational parameters; enters the geometry but not explicitly propagated in the quoted uncertainties (Sec 5.3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The multipole index p=1 (split-monopole) is used in the CBO luminosity scaling (Eq. 5), following Shultz et al. (2022).
    The paper adopts the split-monopole case to compute LCBO and compare with the observed scaling; a dipole (p=2) changes the dependence on mass-loss and rotation (Sec 6.1.2).
  • domain assumption Stellar parameters (effective temperature, mass, radius, rotation period) and distances from the literature and GAIA are accurate to within stated uncertainties.
    The CBO luminosity and radio luminosity estimates depend directly on these values; the paper discusses factor-of-two rotation period uncertainties as a source of scatter (Sec 6.1.4).
  • domain assumption The radio source is at the phase center and is a point source, so the intensity I [Jy/beam] equals the flux density Fnu.
    Stated in Sec 4.3; no primary beam correction was applied, which is acceptable for a point source at the field center but is an assumption.
  • domain assumption A dipole magnetic field geometry is assumed for reconstructing Bz phase curves and interpreting radio phases.
    Sec 6.2 uses sinusoids for dipolar geometry; HD36668 may have significant quadrupolar contribution (Sec 5.3), and CPD-271791's geometry is unconstrained.
  • domain assumption Flux density is constant over each observing epoch; variability is interpreted as rotational phase modulation rather than intrinsic stochastic flaring.
    Sec 6.3 searches for ECME bursts but finds none; the two-epoch change in HD55522 is attributed to gyrosynchrotron phase variability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RAMBO I: Project introduction and first results with uGMRT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S7TKXEM6

@misc{pith2026241117032,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RAMBO I: Project introduction and first results with uGMRT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S7TKXEM6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17032}
}
read the original abstract

Magnetic hot stars can emit both coherent and incoherent non-thermal radio emission. Understanding the nature of these emissions and their connection to stellar rotation and magnetic field characteristics remains incomplete. The RAdio Magnetospheres of B and O stars (RAMBO) project aims to address this gap by systematically detecting and characterizing gyrosynchrotron and cyclotron maser radio emission in rapidly rotating magnetic hot stars. Using the upgraded Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope, we present the first detection of radio emission from HD55522 at 650 MHz, confirming it as a new radio-bright magnetic hot star. This supports the predictions of the Centrifugal Breakout model, furthering its application in understanding particle acceleration mechanisms in centrifugal magnetospheres of hot stars. Additionally, we report non-detections for four other targets, improving sensitivity limits by a factor of a few compared to previous observations. These findings demonstrate the potential of RAMBO to uncover the complexities of radio emission in massive stars and highlight the need for broader, multi-wavelength observations to probe magnetospheric physics comprehensively. The sensitivity of the Square Kilometre Array will enable significant advancements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17032 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Primary target selection for the RAMBO project on the polar magnetic field strength - rotation period plane. The data is based on the comprehensive collection of Shultz et al. (2022). The circles show previous radio detections, whereas the squares show non-detections. The colour-coding shows the radio luminosity (3 σ upper limits in case of the non-detections). Our target selection for the uGMRT campaign of the phys… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Flux density in microJansky versus the frequency for our new observations (blue squares for non-detections, red circle for detection) and earlier measurements (green squares, all non-detections). The non-detections show the 3σ upper limits. The size of the down-ward arrow is arbitrarily set. 5-GHz radio observations of HD22470 are reported by Drake et al. (1987) and Linsky et al. (1992). The non￾detection is constra… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. K-band infrared image from 2MASS (left) and our uGMRT radio observation from Dec 3, 2023 of HD55522 (right). The beam size is shown in the lower left of the radio image. The blue contours of the radio intensity are at a 5σ level. Radio emission originating from the star’s position in the sky is clearly evidenced. tation that the gyrosynchrotron emission weakens by a factor of a few between different rotational phase… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radio luminosity versus the CBO luminosity, including a theoretical scaling (purple line), the best fit linear regression to radio-emitting sources (grey line), the 1 and 3σ uncertainties of the regression (darker and lighter grey shaded areas). The bolometric solar lu…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Frequency independent spectral radio luminosity vs the CBO luminosity in cgs units. The trends are identical to the ones on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radio luminosity versus the CBO luminosity. We use our flux density measurements to infer an upper limit on the radio luminosity of HD36668. A simple experiment demonstrates the impact of approx. a factor of two revision in the rotation period, shifting the CBO luminos…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The line-of-sight magnetic field strength as a function of the Heliocentric Julian Date is shown with a sinusoidal curve, which approximates the rotational modulation of a dipolar magnetic field. The timespan of our uGMRT radio observations is shown with the red (and p…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: CPD-271791. Left: K-band infrared image from 2MASS. Right: our uGMRT observations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: HD22470. Left: H-band infrared image from 2MASS (since the K-band image is not available). Right: our uGMRT observations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: HD36668. Left: K-band infrared image from 2MASS. Right: our uGMRT observations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: HD49333. Left: K-band infrared image from 2MASS. Right: our uGMRT observations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: HD55522. Our uGMRT observation from Dec 5, 2023 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    HWD?ދX赋R * (-t H& :! Mvw6z 9gΜ IOΙ960 | e ,C ` @X 2 ! e ,C ` @X& ?ti9sFiii*W*U͛+

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    Adelman , S. J. 2000 a , , 146, 13, 10.1051/aas:2000261

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:2000261 2000

  5. [5]

    2000 b , , 357, 548

    ---. 2000 b , , 357, 548

    2000

  6. [6]

    J., & Boyce , P

    Adelman , S. J., & Boyce , P. W. 1995, , 114, 253

    1995

  7. [7]

    G., & Neiner , C

    Aerts , C., Molenberghs , G., Kenward , M. G., & Neiner , C. 2014, , 781, 88, 10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/88

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/781/2/88 2014

  8. [8]

    1997, , 323, 121

    Babel , J., & Montmerle , T. 1997, , 323, 121

    1997

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    D., & Izzo , C

    Bagnulo , S., Fossati , L., Landstreet , J. D., & Izzo , C. 2015, , 583, A115, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526497

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    D., & Landstreet , J

    Bailey , J. D., & Landstreet , J. D. 2013, , 551, A30, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220671

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    2020, , 493, 3293, 10.1093/mnras/staa462

    Bernhard , K., H \"u mmerich , S., & Paunzen , E. 2020, , 493, 3293, 10.1093/mnras/staa462

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, , 523, 5155, 10.1093/mnras/stad1756

    Biswas , A., Das , B., Chandra , P., et al. 2023, , 523, 5155, 10.1093/mnras/stad1756

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    D., Ravi , V., Belov , K

    Bochenek , C. D., Ravi , V., Belov , K. V., et al. 2020, , 587, 59, 10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    2018, , 618, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832722

    Bodensteiner , J., Baade , D., Greiner , J., & Langer , N. 2018, , 618, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832722

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Landstreet , J

    Bohlender , D. A., Landstreet , J. D., & Thompson , I. B. 1993, , 269, 355

    1993

  8. [16]

    Borra , E. F. 1981, , 249, L39, 10.1086/183654

    1981 doi

  9. [17]

    F., Landstreet , J

    Borra , E. F., Landstreet , J. D., & Thompson , I. 1983, , 53, 151, 10.1086/190889

    1983 doi

  10. [18]

    M., & Dorn-Wallenstein , T

    Bowman , D. M., & Dorn-Wallenstein , T. Z. 2022, , 668, A134, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243545

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Burssens , S., Pedersen , M

    Bowman , D. M., Burssens , S., Pedersen , M. G., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 760, 10.1038/s41550-019-0768-1

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Braithwaite , J., & Spruit , H. C. 2017, Royal Society Open Science, 4, 160271, 10.1098/rsos.160271

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Keane , E., & Wagg , J

    Braun , R., Bourke , T., Green , J. A., Keane , E., & Wagg , J. 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 174, 10.22323/1.215.0174

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    2004, , 413, 273, 10.1051/0004-6361:20031450

    Briquet , M., Aerts , C., L \"u ftinger , T., et al. 2004, , 413, 273, 10.1051/0004-6361:20031450

    2004 doi

  15. [23]

    D., Bychkova , L

    Bychkov , V. D., Bychkova , L. V., & Madej , J. 2021, , 652, A31, 10.1051/0004-6361/202040215

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    A., Sundqvist , J

    Chandra , P., Wade , G. A., Sundqvist , J. O., et al. 2015, , 452, 1245, 10.1093/mnras/stv1378

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    C., Bandura , K

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Andersen , B. C., Bandura , K. M., et al. 2020, , 587, 54, 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    2021, , 921, 9, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1075

    Das , B., & Chandra , P. 2021, , 921, 9, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1075

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    2023, , 957, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf929

    ---. 2023, , 957, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf929

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    2022 a , , 515, 2008, 10.1093/mnras/stac1894

    Das , B., Chandra , P., & Petit , V. 2022 a , , 515, 2008, 10.1093/mnras/stac1894

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    2024, , 974, 267, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad71c5

    ---. 2024, , 974, 267, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad71c5

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    E., et al

    Das , B., Chandra , P., Shultz , M. E., et al. 2022 b , , 517, 5756, 10.1093/mnras/stac3123

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    E., & Wade , G

    Das , B., Chandra , P., Shultz , M. E., & Wade , G. A. 2019, , 877, 123, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b12

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Das , B., Chandra , P., & Wade , G. A. 2018, , 474, L61, 10.1093/mnrasl/slx193

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    2020, , 499, 702, 10.1093/mnras/staa2499

    ---. 2020, , 499, 702, 10.1093/mnras/staa2499

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    E., et al

    Das , B., Chandra , P., Shultz , M. E., et al. 2022 c , , 925, 125, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2576

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    2002, , 393, 965, 10.1051/0004-6361:20021068

    De Cat , P., & Aerts , C. 2002, , 393, 965, 10.1051/0004-6361:20021068

    2002 doi

  28. [36]

    E., Hall , P

    Dewdney , P. E., Hall , P. J., Schilizzi , R. T., & Lazio , T. J. L. W. 2009, IEEE Proceedings, 97, 1482, 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2021005

    2009

  29. [37]

    F., & Landstreet , J

    Donati , J. F., & Landstreet , J. D. 2009, , 47, 333, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101833

    2009 doi

  30. [38]

    A., Abbott , D

    Drake , S. A., Abbott , D. C., Bastian , T. S., et al. 1987, , 322, 902, 10.1086/165784

    1987 doi

  31. [39]

    N., Pritchard , J., Murphy , T., et al

    Driessen , L. N., Pritchard , J., Murphy , T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.07418, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.07418

    2024 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    2011, , 414, 2602, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18575.x

    Dubath , P., Rimoldini , L., S \"u veges , M., et al. 2011, , 414, 2602, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18575.x

    2011

  33. [41]

    1994, , 291, 919

    Farthmann , M., Dreizler , S., Heber , U., & Hunger , K. 1994, , 291, 919

    1994

  34. [42]

    2015, , 582, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526725

    Fossati , L., Castro , N., Sch \"o ller , M., et al. 2015, , 582, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526725

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    F., Hiltner , W

    Garrison , R. F., Hiltner , W. A., & Schild , R. E. 1977, , 35, 111, 10.1086/190468

    1977 doi

  36. [44]

    A., et al

    Geen , S., Agrawal , P., Crowther , P. A., et al. 2023, , 135, 021001, 10.1088/1538-3873/acb6b5

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    Glagolevskij , Y. V. 2010, Astrophysical Bulletin, 65, 34, 10.1134/S1990341310010049

    2010 doi

  38. [46]

    Gontcharov , G. A. 2006, Astronomy Letters, 32, 759, 10.1134/S1063773706110065

    2006 doi

  39. [47]

    H., Wade , G

    Grunhut , J. H., Wade , G. A., Neiner , C., et al. 2017, , 465, 2432, 10.1093/mnras/stw2743

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    2022, , 665, A152, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243784

    Hajduk , M., Leto , P., Vedantham , H., et al. 2022, , 665, A152, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243784

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    T., Jagannathan , P., Mooley , K

    Intema , H. T., Jagannathan , P., Mooley , K. P., & Frail , D. A. 2017, , 598, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628536

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    P., Hubrig , S., Ilyin , I., et al

    J \"a rvinen , S. P., Hubrig , S., Ilyin , I., et al. 2018, , 618, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833171

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    2024, , 531, 1776, 10.1093/mnras/stae1273

    Kajan , M., Krti c ka , J., & Kub \'a t , J. 2024, , 531, 1776, 10.1093/mnras/stae1273

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    2023, Galaxies, 11, 40, 10.3390/galaxies11020040

    Keszthelyi , Z. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 40, 10.3390/galaxies11020040

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    2019, , 485, 5843, 10.1093/mnras/stz772

    Keszthelyi , Z., Meynet , G., Georgy , C., et al. 2019, , 485, 5843, 10.1093/mnras/stz772

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    E., et al

    Keszthelyi , Z., Meynet , G., Shultz , M. E., et al. 2020, , 493, 518, 10.1093/mnras/staa237

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    2006, , 450, 763, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054596

    Kochukhov , O., & Bagnulo , S. 2006, , 450, 763, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054596

    2006 doi

  48. [56]

    2023, , 75, S138, 10.1093/pasj/psac098

    Kurahara , K., Akahori , T., Kale , R., et al. 2023, , 75, S138, 10.1093/pasj/psac098

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    2017, , 465, 2160, 10.1093/mnras/stw2838

    Kurapati , S., Chandra , P., Wade , G., et al. 2017, , 465, 2160, 10.1093/mnras/stw2838

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    R., Kaplan , D

    Lenc , E., Murphy , T., Lynch , C. R., Kaplan , D. L., & Zhang , S. N. 2018, , 478, 2835, 10.1093/mnras/sty1304

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    S., Leone , F., & Umana , G

    Leto , P., Trigilio , C., Buemi , C. S., Leone , F., & Umana , G. 2012, , 423, 1766, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20997.x

    2012

  52. [60]

    S., Umana , G., & Leone , F

    Leto , P., Trigilio , C., Buemi , C. S., Umana , G., & Leone , F. 2006, , 458, 831, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054511

    2006 doi

  53. [61]

    2017, , 467, 2820, 10.1093/mnras/stx267

    Leto , P., Trigilio , C., Oskinova , L., et al. 2017, , 467, 2820, 10.1093/mnras/stx267

    2017 doi

  54. [62]

    M., et al

    Leto , P., Trigilio , C., Oskinova , L. M., et al. 2018, , 476, 562, 10.1093/mnras/sty244

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    2021, , 507, 1979, 10.1093/mnras/stab2168

    Leto , P., Trigilio , C., Krti c ka , J., et al. 2021, , 507, 1979, 10.1093/mnras/stab2168

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    M., Buemi , C

    Leto , P., Oskinova , L. M., Buemi , C. S., et al. 2022, , 515, 5523, 10.1093/mnras/stac2163

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    A., & Linsky , J

    Lim , J., Drake , S. A., & Linsky , J. L. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 93, Radio Emission from the Stars and the Sun, ed. A. R. Taylor & J. M. Paredes , 324

    1996

  58. [66]

    L., Drake , S

    Linsky , J. L., Drake , S. A., & Bastian , T. S. 1989, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 21, 742

    1989

  59. [67]

    L., Drake , S

    Linsky , J. L., Drake , S. A., & Bastian , T. S. 1992, , 393, 341, 10.1086/171509

    1992 doi

  60. [68]

    B., & Dulk , G

    Melrose , D. B., & Dulk , G. A. 1982, , 259, 844, 10.1086/160219

    1982 doi

  61. [69]

    2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 158, 10.3847/2515-5172/acebcf

    Monier , R. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 158, 10.3847/2515-5172/acebcf

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    2014, , 215, 10, 10.1088/0067-0049/215/1/10

    Naz \'e , Y., Petit , V., Rinbrand , M., et al. 2014, , 215, 10, 10.1088/0067-0049/215/1/10

    2014 doi

  63. [71]

    M., North , P., & Hubrig , S

    Netopil , M., Paunzen , E., Maitzen , H. M., North , P., & Hubrig , S. 2008, , 491, 545, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810325

    2008 doi

  64. [72]

    R., McKinley , B., Hurley-Walker , N., et al

    Offringa , A. R., McKinley , B., Hurley-Walker , N., et al. 2014, , 444, 606, 10.1093/mnras/stu1368

    2014 doi

  65. [73]

    P., & Cranmer , S

    Owocki , S. P., & Cranmer , S. R. 2018, , 474, 3090, 10.1093/mnras/stx2989

    2018 doi

  66. [74]

    P., Shultz , M

    Owocki , S. P., Shultz , M. E., ud-Doula , A., et al. 2022, , 513, 1449, 10.1093/mnras/stac341

    2022 doi

  67. [75]

    2020, , 499, 5366, 10.1093/mnras/staa2325

    ---. 2020, , 499, 5366, 10.1093/mnras/staa2325

    2020 doi

  68. [76]

    2021, , 504, 3758, 10.1093/mnras/stab1100

    Paunzen , E., Sup \' kov \'a , J., Bernhard , K., H \"u mmerich , S., & Pri s egen , M. 2021, , 504, 3758, 10.1093/mnras/stab1100

    2021 doi

  69. [77]

    1979, , 35, 313

    Pedersen , H. 1979, , 35, 313

    1979

  70. [78]

    1977, , 30, 11

    Pedersen , H., & Thomsen , B. 1977, , 30, 11

    1977

  71. [79]

    2014, , 126, 469, 10.1086/676976

    Petit , P., Louge , T., Th \'e ado , S., et al. 2014, , 126, 469, 10.1086/676976

    2014 doi

  72. [80]

    P., Wade , G

    Petit , V., Owocki , S. P., Wade , G. A., et al. 2013, , 429, 398, 10.1093/mnras/sts344

    2013 doi

  73. [81]

    2017, , 466, 1052, 10.1093/mnras/stw3126

    Petit , V., Keszthelyi , Z., MacInnis , R., et al. 2017, , 466, 1052, 10.1093/mnras/stw3126

    2017 doi

  74. [82]

    2023, , 958, 152, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0295

    Polisensky , E., Das , B., Peters , W., et al. 2023, , 958, 152, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0295

    2023 doi

  75. [83]

    M., & Adelman , S

    Pyper , D. M., & Adelman , S. J. 2021, , 133, 084203, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac1ac0

    2021 doi

  76. [84]

    Renson , P., & Catalano , F. A. 2001, , 378, 113, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011065

    2001 doi

  77. [85]

    1981, , 44, 23

    Renson , P., & Manfroid , J. 1981, , 44, 23

    1981

  78. [86]

    I., Semenko , E

    Romanyuk , I. I., Semenko , E. A., Moiseeva , A. V., Yakunin , I. A., & Kudryavtsev , D. O. 2021, Astrophysical Bulletin, 76, 39, 10.1134/S1990341321010090

    2021 doi

  79. [87]

    I., Semenko , E

    Romanyuk , I. I., Semenko , E. A., Yakunin , I. A., Kudryavtsev , D. O., & Moiseeva , A. V. 2017, Astrophysical Bulletin, 72, 165, 10.1134/S1990341317020079

    2017 doi

  80. [88]

    Schneider , F. R. N., Ohlmann , S. T., Podsiadlowski , P., et al. 2020, , 495, 2796, 10.1093/mnras/staa1326

    2020 doi

  81. [89]

    2023, , 955, 123, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf197

    Shen , D.-X., Li , G., Abdusamatjan , I., et al. 2023, , 955, 123, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf197

    2023 doi

  82. [90]

    E., Wade , G

    Shultz , M. E., Wade , G. A., Rivinius , T., et al. 2018, , 475, 5144, 10.1093/mnras/sty103

    2018 doi

  83. [91]

    2019 a , , 485, 1508, 10.1093/mnras/stz416

    ---. 2019 a , , 485, 1508, 10.1093/mnras/stz416

    2019 doi

  84. [92]

    2019 b , , 490, 274, 10.1093/mnras/stz2551

    ---. 2019 b , , 490, 274, 10.1093/mnras/stz2551

    2019 doi

  85. [93]

    E., Owocki , S., Rivinius , T., et al

    Shultz , M. E., Owocki , S., Rivinius , T., et al. 2020, , 499, 5379, 10.1093/mnras/staa3102

    2020 doi

  86. [94]

    E., Owocki , S

    Shultz , M. E., Owocki , S. P., ud-Doula , A., et al. 2022, , 513, 1429, 10.1093/mnras/stac136

    2022 doi

  87. [95]

    2021, , 655, A17, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039659

    Stein , Y., Vollmer , B., Boch , T., et al. 2021, , 655, A17, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039659

    2021 doi

  88. [96]

    2021, , 646, A19, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039253

    Takahashi , K., & Langer , N. 2021, , 646, A19, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039253

    2021 doi

  89. [97]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.01193, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.01193

    ---. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.01193, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.01193

    2024 doi arXiv

  90. [98]

    Topil'Skaya , G. P. 1993, Bulletin of the Special Astrophysics Observatory, 36, 52

    1993

  91. [99]

    Townsend , R. H. D., & Owocki , S. P. 2005, , 357, 251, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08642.x

    2005

  92. [100]

    Trigilio , C., Leto , P., Umana , G., Leone , F., & Buemi , C. S. 2004, , 418, 593, 10.1051/0004-6361:20040060

    2004 doi

  93. [101]

    P., Russell , C., Gagn \'e , M., & Daley-Yates , S

    ud-Doula , A., Owocki , S. P., Russell , C., Gagn \'e , M., & Daley-Yates , S. 2023, , 520, 3947, 10.1093/mnras/stad345

    2023 doi

  94. [102]

    A., Neiner , C., Alecian , E., et al

    Wade , G. A., Neiner , C., Alecian , E., et al. 2016, , 456, 2, 10.1093/mnras/stv2568

    2016 doi

  95. [103]

    Walborn , N. R. 1983, , 268, 195, 10.1086/160944

    1983 doi

  96. [104]

    M., & Pritchett , P

    Winglee , R. M., & Pritchett , P. L. 1986, , 91, 13531, 10.1029/JA091iA12p13531

    1986 doi

  97. [105]

    S., & Lee , L

    Wu , C. S., & Lee , L. C. 1979, , 230, 621, 10.1086/157120

    1979 doi

  98. [106]

    J., & Lai , D

    Zanazzi , J. J., & Lai , D. 2020, , 892, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7cdd

    2020 doi

  99. [107]

    1999, , 345, 244

    Zboril , M., & North , P. 1999, , 345, 244

    1999

Pith tools

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