Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Observed Steep and Shallow Spectra, Narrow and Broadband Spectra, Multi-frequency Simultaneous Spectra, and Statistical Fringe Spectra in Fast Radio Bursts: Various Faces of Intrinsic Quasi-periodic Spectra?

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 FRB spectra, whether steep or shallow, narrow or broadband, simultaneous at two frequencies or statistically fringed, may all be views of one intrinsically quasi-periodic spectrum produced by coherent curvature radiation from…

desk verdict A plausible but not yet convincing unification of FRB spectral phenomena; the fringe simulation's support is weaker than it looks. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00321 v1 pith:KIAHHCRU submitted 2024-11-30 astro-ph.HE

Shu-Qing Zhong , Wen-Jin Xie , Jia-Hong Gu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsspectralindexquasi-periodicspectracoherentcurvatureradiationstructuredbunchesmulti-frequencyfringetransients
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

This paper argues that the diverse spectral appearances of fast radio bursts (FRBs) are not separate phenomena but different looks at the same hidden structure: an intrinsically quasi-periodic spectrum, produced by coherent curvature radiation from bunches of electron and positron clumps spaced quasi-periodically along a curved magnetic field line. The bunch number per cluster sets how narrow and steep each spectral peak appears, which naturally yields both shallow broadband spectra and steep narrow spectra. Multi-frequency simultaneous detections can be read as adjacent harmonics of one frequency comb, and Monte Carlo simulations reproduce the statistical fringe patterns seen in two repeating FRBs when the bunch period is nearly universal within a source. If the claim is right, FRB spectra become a probe of the emitting bunch structure, and the inferred bunch period can be tied to the surface magnetic field or to the plasma wavelength of a two-stream instability in the FRB source.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quasi-periodic structured bunch: $N_b$ electron–positron pair clumps (each pair separated by distance $\Delta$) spaced with period $P_m = 1/\omega_m$ and moving along the same curved trajectory with curvature radius $\rho$, Lorentz factor $\gamma$, and characteristic curvature frequency $\omega_c = 3c\gamma^3/(2\rho)$. Coherent curvature radiation from this configuration has power spectrum $$ \frac{dI_{\rm tot}}{d\omega d\$\Omega$} = 2N\left(1-\cos\frac{\omega\$\Delta$}{c}\right)|E_1(\omega)|^2 \frac{\$sin^{2}$(N_b\omega/2\omega_m)}{\$sin^{2}$(\omega/2\omega_m)}, $$ where $N = N_c N_p^2$ and $|E_1(\omega)|^2$ is the single-charge curvature spectrum. The multi-bunch coherence factor $\sin^2(N_b\omega/2\omega_m)/\sin^2(\omega/2\omega_m)$ is what creates the harmonic comb at $\omega = 2n\pi\omega_m$, and $N_b$ sets the slenderness of each peak; the separation $\Delta$ between the electron and positron clumps supplies the rising slope of the comb envelope. This single identity carries the argument for all four observed spectral phenomena.

What would settle it

Take a single bright burst and observe it simultaneously across a continuous band wide enough to cover at least two predicted comb peaks—for the parameters favored here, that means roughly 1.0–2.5 GHz with $\omega_m \approx 1.7\times10^9$ rad s$^{-1}$. If the spectrum shows only one smooth peak with no second maximum at roughly 2 times the first peak frequency, that burst does not have the quasi-periodic comb, and the model's claim that all FRB spectral features are faces of such combs would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On this model, the intrinsic spectrum of an FRB is a comb of narrow peaks at angular frequencies $\omega = 2n\pi \omega_m$ in the source frame, set by the period $P_m = 1/\omega_m$ of the quasi-periodic bunch distribution, with the width of each peak controlled by $N_b$, the number of bunches per cluster. Small $N_b$ (about 2–5) produces peaks broad enough that a telescope sees a smooth, broadband, shallow spectrum—matching the majority of FRB bursts—while large $N_b$ yields narrow, steep peaks; the extreme narrow band of FRB 20190711A is fit with $N_b = 25$. The model fits the multi-frequency simultaneous spectra of a burst in FRB 20121102A (Arecibo at 1.4 GHz and VLA at 3 GHz, with an Effelsberg non-detection at 4.85 GHz) and of FRB 20200428D (STARE2 and CHIME) as different harmonics of the same comb, and the flux ratio between harmonics follows the spectrum of separated electron–positron pair bunches, which gives the steep rising slope of $8/3$ between the two bands. Monte Carlo simulations reproduce the observed fringe patterns in the peak-frequency distributions of FRB 20121102A and FRB 20190520B when $\omega_m$ follows a narrow Gaussian with dispersion $\sigma_s \approx 0.05\times10^9$ and $0.14\times10^9$ rad s$^{-1}$, respectively. The paper concludes that the observed steep and shallow spectra, narrow and broadband spectra, multi-frequency simultaneous spectra, and statistical fringe spectra are all various manifestations of the intrinsic quasi-periodic spectra.

Load-bearing premise

The central premise is that within a single FRB source, the bunch period $\omega_m$ is nearly universal, varying only through a small Gaussian spread; the statistical fringe patterns would wash out if different bursts had substantially different $\omega_m$ values, and the paper itself needs a second $\omega_m$ to explain the VLA-only bursts of FRB 20121102A.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • FRB spectral index and bandwidth become functions of a single parameter, $N_b$: sources that usually emit broadband, shallow bursts should rarely produce extremely narrow ones, and the anticorrelation between spectral index and bandwidth is a direct prediction.
  • A burst detected simultaneously in two well-separated bands should show fluxes matching two harmonics of one comb; the slope between bands should fall on the comb-envelope spectrum (rising like $\nu^{8/3}$ for separated pair bunches), not on an arbitrary power law.
  • The quasi-universal $\omega_m$ inferred for FRB 20121102A ($1.68\times10^9$ rad s$^{-1}$) and FRB 20190520B ($2.0\times10^9$ rad s$^{-1}$), if produced by pair cascades in a charge-starvation region, implies surface magnetic fields near $10^{17}$ G for a spin period of about 1 s, supporting a magnetar interpretation.
  • If the bunches instead arise from a two-stream instability, $\omega_m$ equals the Langmuir-wave frequency at the breakdown of the linear regime, giving a direct measurement of the local plasma conditions in the emission region.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A cleaner test than peak-frequency catalogs is to stack many bursts from one repeater in frequency space: the model predicts a stable harmonic comb at $\nu = n\omega_m/2\pi$ across bursts, which a blind period search on summed spectra could reveal even with marginal per-burst detections.
  • The near-universality of $\omega_m$ within a source could reflect the local plasma frequency near the emission altitude rather than global stellar parameters; if so, the derived magnetar field strengths would be upper limits, and a measurement of $\omega_m$ for different sub-bursts or epochs would separate the two possibilities.
  • The same comb mechanism may apply beyond FRBs—the authors mention the Crab pulsar's zebra-pattern interpulse as a candidate—so searching for harmonic combs in other coherent radio emitters would be a direct extension of the model's scope.
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. The paper proposes that the diverse observed spectral properties of fast radio bursts (FRBs)—steep and shallow spectra, narrow and broadband spectra, multi-frequency simultaneous spectra, and statistical fringe patterns in peak-frequency distributions—can all be understood as manifestations of an intrinsically quasi-periodic spectrum produced by coherent curvature radiation from quasi-periodic structured bunches composed of separated electron and positron clumps. Section 2.1 uses the number of bunches per cluster, Nb, to control spectral slenderness and fits the narrow-banded burst of FRB 20190711A; Section 2.2 models the multi-frequency simultaneous spectra of FRB 20121102A and FRB 20200428D; Section 2.3 performs Monte Carlo simulations to reproduce the observed peak-frequency fringe distributions of FRBs 20121102A and 20190520B under the assumption that the bunch-distribution period ωm is quasi-universal within a given source. The paper concludes that these observed spectral features may be various faces of intrinsic quasi-periodic spectra, and it discusses possible formation mechanisms for the structured bunches.

Significance. If established, the model would offer a single physical framework connecting the observed spectral morphology of FRBs to the bunch structure in their emission regions, and it would link the inferred bunch periods to pair-cascade or two-stream-instability timescales. The paper has concrete strengths: the spectral formulas in Eqs. (1)–(5) are explicit, the Monte Carlo procedure in Section 2.3 is described step by step, and the FRB 20190711A narrow-band case study is a falsifiable application of the model. However, the quantitative support for the central claim is currently limited: only one of the two fringe simulations passes a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, the multi-frequency fits rely on sparse data and a guessed sensitivity, and the key quasi-universality assumption is not independently motivated. The significance of the paper will depend on whether the ωm universality can be justified or tested, and on whether the FRB 20121102A fringe failure can be addressed rather than excused post hoc.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (7)] The Monte Carlo reproduction of the statistical fringe patterns rests on the assumption that ωm for bursts in a given FRB follows a single Gaussian distribution with a small spread σs. This premise is what allows randomly chosen harmonic integers n ∈ I(1,10) to stack into a stable harmonic comb. The paper provides no independent physical argument for this quasi-universality; the fitted σs values are inferred from the same data the model is claimed to explain. Moreover, Section 3 explicitly invokes a second ωm,c = 1.2×10^9 rad/s for FRB 20121102A to explain VLA-only bursts, which is inconsistent with the single-Gaussian ωm assumption used in the fringe simulation. The fringe-spectra result therefore rests on an unverified premise that is, for at least one source, contradicted by the authors' own modeling.
  2. [Section 2.3.1 and Table 1] For FRB 20121102A, the best-fitting simulation yields pKS < 10^-2, meaning the model does not statistically reproduce the observed peak-frequency distribution. The statement that the main peaks align is not a quantitative substitute for passing the KS test. The attributed sample incompleteness, the 2–5 GHz gap, and other observational selection effects are plausible, but they are not incorporated into the test. Since this source is one of only two used to demonstrate the statistical fringe result, the evidence for the central claim reduces to one good realization (pKS = 0.8 for FRB 20190520B) and one quantitative failure.
  3. [Section 2.2 and Figure 2] The multi-frequency simultaneous-spectrum fit for FRB 20200428D uses a CHIME sensitivity that the authors state was 'picked' from CHIME/FRB non-detections of high-energy bursts from SGR 1935+2154, an approach they acknowledge is not rigorous. Because the visibility of model peaks above the sensitivity threshold is central to judging the fit in the lower panel of Figure 2, the agreement shown there cannot be evaluated quantitatively. The fit for FRB 20121102A also relies on a single detected burst with two flux measurements and an upper limit. The parameter values in Table 1 are therefore not tightly constrained by the data, weakening the multi-frequency simultaneous-spectra pillar of the paper.
  4. [Section 2.3, MC priors and circularity] The Monte Carlo priors for ωm,c, σs, Nb, N, and Δ are stated in Section 2.3 to be based on the fits in Sections 2.1 and 2.2. Combined with the fact that the simulated peak frequencies are generated from the same quasi-periodic formula, with coherent peaks at νp = nωm (Eqs. 1 and 4), the pKS = 0.8 result for FRB 20190520B is not an out-of-sample validation. It is a consistency check of whether a model with parameters in the fitted range can produce a peak-frequency distribution similar to the observed one. The result is encouraging, but the paper should describe it as such and avoid the summary claim that the model has been 'demonstrated' to explain the observed spectral phenomena.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title and header] The title and running header contain 'F ringe' with an erroneous space; it should read 'Fringe'.
  2. [Section 2.3, Eq. (7)] The text after Eq. (7) says 'standard derivation'; this should be 'standard deviation'.
  3. [Figure 1] The main text refers to a 'red dashed rectangle' along the first peak in the top panel, but this rectangle is not visible in the figure as rendered and is not described in the caption; please clarify or add it.
  4. [Section 2.2, Figure 2] The gray line in the upper panel of Figure 2 is described in the caption but not in the main text; the authors should describe its parameter values and purpose in the body of the paper.
  5. [Section 2.3, footnote 7] The relation νp = nωm is correct only if the factor 2π is explicitly tracked; please state that ν = ω/(2π) and show the derivation, since ωm is given in rad/s while νp is in Hz, to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spectral matches are explicit fits, and the one independent MC check (FRB 20190520B fringe simulation) reports pKS=0.8 against external data.

full rationale

The paper's central argument is explicitly conditional: it argues that if FRB spectra are intrinsically quasi-periodic, then several observed features can be seen as manifestations. The spectra in Figures 1 and 2 are produced by choosing the free parameters of the external radiation formula (Eq. 4, from Yang 2023 and Yang et al. 2020) to match the observed shapes, and the paper labels these as 'modeling' rather than independent prediction. Matching a model to data by adjusting parameters is ordinary fitting, not a circular reduction, because the parameters are free and the target quantities are not used to define the equations. The statistical fringe simulation in Section 2.3 also does not set the fringe spacing from the observed peaks by construction: for FRB 20190520B, parameters are drawn from broad uniform priors and the best set is selected by a K-S test against external peak-frequency data, giving pKS=0.8. The analogous run for FRB 20121102A gives pKS<0.01 and is openly reported. The main self-referential element is the statement that the MC priors for omega_m,c, sigma_s, Nb, N, and Delta are 'based on our results in Sections 2.1 and 2.2', and the citation of Xie et al. (2020) for the MC procedure; these affect the search range for FRB 20121102A but do not make the final values equal to the data by construction. No equation is defined in terms of the quantity it claims to predict, and no fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction. The assumption of quasi-universal omega_m in Eq. (7) is a stated premise, not a conclusion derived from itself; the paper even discusses a second omega_m,c for FRB 20121102A, which weakens the premise but does not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model relies on prior radiation formulas (Eqs. 1-4) and adds several fitted parameters and ad hoc distributional assumptions. The central quantities omega_m, Nb, gamma, rho, N, Delta, and sigma_s are adjusted to match the observed spectra, and the MC simulation further assumes Gaussian omega_m, a random harmonic n, and a simple detection threshold. These choices make the model flexible enough to accommodate the observed diversity.

free parameters (8)
  • omega_m (bunch distribution period) = 1.67e9, 0.69e9, 1.68e9, 2.0e9 rad/s (per source)
    Sets the harmonic comb spacing; fitted to observed peak frequencies and fringe spacing.
  • Nb (bunches per cluster) = 2, 5, 25, 4 +/- 1, 4 +/- 2
    Sets the spectral peak width and slenderness; larger Nb gives narrower, steeper peaks.
  • gamma (Lorentz factor) = 214, 1e3, 1e2, 214 +/- 15, (4.9 +/- 2.2)e3
    Sets the curvature radiation characteristic frequency and the exponential cutoff.
  • rho (curvature radius) = log10(rho/cm) = 6.5, 6, 7, 6.5 +/- 0.1, 6.2 +/- 0.7
    Determines the characteristic frequency of the single-charge spectrum.
  • N = Nc Np^2 (normalization) = log10 N = 46.45, 42.85, 46.5 +/- 1.4, 45.8 +/- 0.9
    Overall flux normalization to match observed flux densities.
  • Delta (clump separation) = 2, 9, 5, 3.5 +/- 0.5, 2.0 +/- 1.5 cm
    Sets the pair-bunch spectral factor; controls the steep rising slope between harmonics.
  • sigma_s (Gaussian width of omega_m) = 0.05e9, 0.14e9 rad/s
    Controls how sharply the fringe peaks stack in the simulation.
  • n (harmonic integer) = not reported; chosen per observed frequency
    Discrete parameter selecting which coherent peak aligns with a detected frequency; e.g., around n=6 and 13 for FRB 20121102A given omega_m=1.67e9.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Curvature radiation spectrum of a single charge follows Eq. 3, |E1(omega)|^2, from Yang & Zhang 2018
    Standard result taken from prior literature; sets the spectral envelope and the exponential cutoff.
  • domain assumption The emitting bunch is a separated electron-positron pair with clump separation Delta, giving the (1 - cos(omega*Delta/c)) factor in Eq. 2 (Yang et al. 2020)
    Adopted to explain the steep slope between multi-frequency points; not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Bunches are strictly periodically distributed and form coherent clusters so the total spectrum is Eq. 4 (based on Yang 2023)
    The sin^2 term produces the quasi-periodic comb; strict periodicity is an idealization for convenience.
  • domain assumption Observed flux is related to intrinsic power via Eq. 5 with T ~ 1/nu_c ~ 1 ns
    Assumes a typical cluster interval of 1 ns; T is not independently measured.
  • ad hoc to paper omega_m values across bursts in one FRB follow a Gaussian distribution (Eq. 7)
    Introduced to simulate fringe spectra; no physical justification is given for Gaussianity or for the small sigma_s.
  • ad hoc to paper The harmonic number n for each burst is an integer drawn uniformly from I(1,10) and the detection condition is Fmin < Fnu < 1e5 Fmin
    Needed to convert a spectrum into a single observed peak frequency; the 1e5 cap is justified only by the absence of such fluxes in the observed sample.
  • ad hoc to paper MC priors for omega_m,c, sigma_s, Nb, N, and Delta are based on the paper's own earlier results
    The simulation is tested against data using priors derived from the same model, a mild circular step.
  • domain assumption The bunch period corresponds to the pair cascade period (Eq. 8) or the Langmuir wavelength (Eq. 9)
    Speculative mapping between the fitted omega_m and physical formation mechanisms; the two scenarios give different interpretations.
invented entities (1)
  • Coherent clusters of bunches
    purpose: An additional level of bunch organization in which Nb bunches radiate coherently, producing narrow comb peaks in the quasi-periodic spectrum.
    The paper introduces the term 'clusters' to describe coherent groups of bunches; the value of Nb is fit to data and no independent observational evidence for clustering is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observed Steep and Shallow Spectra, Narrow and Broadband Spectra, Multi-frequency Simultaneous Spectra, and Statistical Fringe Spectra in Fast Radio Bursts: Various Faces of Intrinsic Quasi-periodic Spectra?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KIAHHCRU

@misc{pith2026241200321,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observed Steep and Shallow Spectra, Narrow and Broadband Spectra, Multi-frequency Simultaneous Spectra, and Statistical Fringe Spectra in Fast Radio Bursts: Various Faces of Intrinsic Quasi-periodic Spectra?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KIAHHCRU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00321}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, through analysis, modelings, and simulations, we show that if the spectra of fast radio bursts (FRBs) are intrinsically quasi-periodic spectra, likely produced by coherent curvature radiation from quasi-periodic structured bunches, then the observed steep and shallow spectra, narrow and broadband spectra, multi-frequency simultaneous spectra, as well as possible statistical fringe spectra in FRBs, could all be various manifestations of these intrinsically quasi-periodic spectra. If so, the period properties of the structured bunches, as inferred from the observed multi-frequency simultaneous spectra and potential statistical fringe spectra, may provide valuable insights into the mechanisms behind the formation of such structured bunches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00321 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top panel. The spectra produced by coherent curvature radiation from quasi-periodic structured bunches are shown for different bunch numbers per cluster, Nb = 2, 3, 5, 10, and 50 (solid lines), compared to spectra with uni￾formly distributed bunches which is actually identified with Nb = 1 (blue dashed line). Middle panel. The spectra above the telescope sensitivity, corresponding to the red dashed rectangle along t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The multi-frequency simultaneous spectra (red points) for FRBs 20121102A (upper panel) and 20200428D (lower panel) are modeled using coherent curvature radia￾tion from quasi-periodically structured bunches (black solid lines). For comparison, spectra generated from uniformly distributed bunches (blue dashed lines) are also shown. The dashed-dotted lines represent vertically shifted versions of the spectra for unifor… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simulating the fringe patterns of peak frequency distributions observed in the bursts of FRB 20121102A and FRB 20190520B, based on the assumption that the bursts exhibit an intrinsic quasi-periodic spectrum produced by co￾herent curvature radiation from quasi-periodic structured bunches. FRB 20190520B, we use data collected by Lyu & Liang (2023) from Niu et al. (2022), Feng et al. (2022), Dai et al. (2022), and Anna… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, Science, 380, 599, doi: 10.1126/science.abo6526

    Anna-Thomas, R., Connor, L., Dai, S., et al. 2023, Science, 380, 599, doi: 10.1126/science.abo6526

    doi:10.1126/science.abo6526 2023

  2. [2]

    D., Ravi, V., Belov, K

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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x 2020

  3. [3]

    C., Bhardwaj, M., et al

    Chawla, P., Andersen, B. C., Bhardwaj, M., et al. 2020, ApJL, 896, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab96bf CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab96bf 2020

  4. [4]

    M., & Chatterjee, S

    Cordes, J. M., & Chatterjee, S. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 417, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104501

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104501 2019

  5. [5]

    P., et al

    Dai, S., Feng, Y., Yang, Y. P., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2203.08151, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.08151

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.08151 2022

  6. [6]

    A., & Hankins, T

    Eilek, J. A., & Hankins, T. H. 2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 635820302, doi: 10.1017/S002237781600043X

    doi:10.1017/s002237781600043x 2016

  7. [7]

    2022, Science, 375, 1266, doi: 10.1126/science.abl7759

    Feng, Y., Li, D., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2022, Science, 375, 1266, doi: 10.1126/science.abl7759

    doi:10.1126/science.abl7759 2022

  8. [8]

    Gajjar, V., Siemion, A. P. V., Price, D. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad005 FRBs’ Spectra 9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad005 2018

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    C., Chawla, P., et al

    Giri, U., Andersen, B. C., Chawla, P., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.16932, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.16932

    2023 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    H., & Eilek, J

    Hankins, T. H., & Eilek, J. A. 2007, ApJ, 670, 693, doi: 10.1086/522362

    2007 doi

  3. [11]

    H., Eilek, J

    Hankins, T. H., Eilek, J. A., & Jones, G. 2016, ApJ, 833, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/47

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Snelders, M

    Hewitt, D. M., Snelders, M. P., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 3577, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1960

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    N., Spitler, L

    Jahns, J. N., Spitler, L. G., Nimmo, K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 666, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3446

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.12804, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.12804

    Kumar, A., Maan, Y., & Bhusare, Y. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.12804, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.12804

    2024 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 2726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx665

    Kumar, P., Lu, W., & Bhattacharya, M. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx665

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Flynn, C., et al

    Kumar, P., Shannon, R. M., Flynn, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3436

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Abruzzo, M

    Law, C. J., Abruzzo, M. W., Bassa, C. G., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9700

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf9a3

    Liu, Z.-N., Geng, J.-J., Yang, Y.-P., Wang, W.-Y., & Dai, Z.-G. 2023, ApJ, 958, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf9a3

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca297

    Lyu, F., Cheng, J.-G., Liang, E.-W., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca297

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 5600, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1271

    Lyu, F., & Liang, E.-W. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5600, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1271

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    P., Shannon, R

    Macquart, J. P., Shannon, R. M., Bannister, K. W., et al. 2019, ApJL, 872, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab03d6

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    2015, Nature, 528, 523, doi: 10.1038/nature15769

    Masui, K., Lin, H.-H., Sievers, J., et al. 2015, Nature, 528, 523, doi: 10.1038/nature15769

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    Medvedev, M. V. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.12992, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.12992

    2024 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    H., Aggarwal, K., Li, D., et al

    Niu, C. H., Aggarwal, K., Li, D., et al. 2022, Nature, 606, 873, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.04802, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.04802

    Pelliciari, D., Bernardi, G., Pilia, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.04802, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.04802

    2024 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    Petroff, E., Hessels, J. W. T., & Lorimer, D. R. 2019, A&A Rv, 27, 4, doi: 10.1007/s00159-019-0116-6

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    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

  20. [28]

    G., Scholz, P., Hessels, J

    Spitler, L. G., Scholz, P., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2016, Nature, 531, 202, doi: 10.1038/nature17168

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    N., & Harding, A

    Timokhin, A. N., & Harding, A. K. 2015, ApJ, 810, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/144

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    2024, A&A, 685, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348670

    Wang, W.-Y., Yang, Y.-P., Li, H.-B., Liu, J., & Xu, R. 2024, A&A, 685, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348670

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    2021, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 64, 249501, doi: 10.1007/s11433-020-1661-7

    Xiao, D., Wang, F., & Dai, Z. 2021, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 64, 249501, doi: 10.1007/s11433-020-1661-7

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    2020, ApJ, 894, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8302

    Xie, W.-J., Zou, L., Liu, H.-B., Wang, S.-Q., & Liang, E.-W. 2020, ApJ, 894, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8302

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    2023, ApJ, 956, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acebc6

    Yang, Y.-P. 2023, ApJ, 956, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acebc6

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    2018, ApJ, 868, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae685

    Yang, Y.-P., & Zhang, B. 2018, ApJ, 868, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae685

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    2020, ApJL, 901, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb535

    Yang, Y.-P., Zhu, J.-P., Zhang, B., & Wu, X.-F. 2020, ApJL, 901, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb535

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005

    Zhang, B. 2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    G., Gajjar, V., Foster, G., et al

    Zhang, Y. G., Gajjar, V., Foster, G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadf31

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    2023, ApJ, 955, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced0b

    Zhang, Y.-K., Li, D., Zhang, B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced0b

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4d98

    Zhong, S.-Q., Xie, W.-J., Deng, C.-M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4d98

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Han, J

    Zhou, D. J., Han, J. L., Zhang, B., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124001, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac98f8

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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