Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Pulsar Coherent Radio Emission from Solitons : Average Emission Properties

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A numerical soliton emission model reproduces the main average radio properties of pulsars, including profile shapes, radius-to-frequency mapping, polarization angles, and spectral indices.

desk verdict A detailed numerical case for soliton curvature radiation as the pulsar radio emission mechanism, whose headline agreements with spectra and RFM rest on an unconstrained transverse soliton size. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12163 v1 pith:M2ND3Q3H submitted 2025-04-16 astro-ph.HE

Rahul Basu , Dipanjan Mitra , George I. Melikidze , Krzysztof Maciesiak This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords emissionsolitonscoherentaveragebeenchargedcurvaturefeatures
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

Pulsars are rotating neutron stars that emit bright, rapidly varying radio pulses. The radio light is thought to be coherent, meaning many particles radiate in phase, but the exact bunching mechanism has been debated for decades. This paper works out one candidate in detail: charged soliton bunches, stable clumps of electron-positron plasma, moving along curved magnetic field lines emit curvature radiation. The authors place many such solitons in a three-dimensional grid above the polar cap, follow the dipole field geometry, and sum the radiation toward an observer. They show that different viewing angles produce the standard profile families: a core component with one or two pairs of cone components, double profiles, and single profiles. They also get the observed radius-to-frequency mapping, where lower frequency emission comes from higher altitudes, and polarization position angle curves that look like the rotating vector model. The synthetic spectra come out as power laws with indices near observed values, and the core spectrum is systematically steeper than the conal spectrum, as seen in data.

The model is not a direct fit to any individual pulsar. The authors select a pulsar period, inclination, and impact angle by hand, and they tune the range of particle Lorentz factors to reproduce the spectral index. The core-cone spark geometry is put into the model rather than derived from it. These choices mean the agreement is illustrative and supportive, not a unique confirmation. Still, the calculation demonstrates that a single mechanism, coherent curvature radiation from solitons, can simultaneously account for several longstanding average properties of pulsar radio emission.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The average radio emission features of pulsars, including multi-component profiles, radius-to-frequency mapping, RVM-like PPA swings, and power-law spectra with steeper cores, emerge from coherent curvature radiation of charged solitons distributed in a 3D dipole grid (Sections 3.1 to 3.4).

Load-bearing premise

Solitons exist and remain coherent in the pulsar plasma long enough to radiate; the paper relies on prior soliton formation and stability results (Melikidze et al. 2000; Lakoba et al. 2018; Rahaman et al. 2022) and models each soliton as a three-charge system, while admitting that the 3D soliton structure is unavailable (Section 2.1).

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 presents a numerical forward model in which coherent curvature radiation (CCR) from charged solitons moving along dipolar magnetic field lines is used to compute average pulsar radio emission. The model places solitons on a three-dimensional grid in the open field-line region, with plasma seeded by a spark pattern above the polar cap (core spark plus one or two concentric rings). The authors derive a two-dimensional form of the CCR Stokes spectra, sum contributions from all solitons along each line of sight, and compare the resulting profiles, radius-to-frequency mapping, polarization position angle (PPA) swings, and spectral indices with established pulsar phenomenology. They report that the model reproduces multi-component profile types, RFM, RVM-like PPA behavior with emission-height estimates, inverted power-law spectra, and steeper core spectra relative to cones.

Significance. If the mechanism and its quantitative realizations are accepted, this would be a substantial step: it ties together several independent pulsar observables (profile morphology, RFM, PPA, spectra) within a single soliton-based CCR framework, and the explicit two-dimensional CCR Stokes formalism in Appendix B is a useful technical contribution. The numerical construction is transparent and the paper is careful to state where physical inputs are uncertain, particularly the unavailability of the three-dimensional soliton charge distribution and the assumption of vacuum-like propagation. The paper also makes falsifiable predictions, such as the frequency-dependent emission-height ranges in Fig. 6 and the deviation of PPA from RVM near profile edges in faster pulsars. However, several of the headline agreements depend on choices that are not independently constrained, and the profile-type classification is partly built into the spark geometry; these issues need to be addressed before the broader claim of 'efficacy' can be considered established.

major comments (4)
  1. [2.1, Eq. (1) and Section 3.4, Fig. 10] The height scaling of the soliton charge is load-bearing for the spectral and RFM results, but it is not derived from soliton microphysics. In Eq. (1), Q_s = ρ_s S_⊥ Δ_s with S_⊥ ∝ r^2 and Δ_s ∝ r^1.5, while ρ_s ∝ r^-3, giving Q_s ∝ r^0.5/γ_s^2 at fixed γ_s. The text explicitly states that a quantitative 3D soliton structure is unavailable, so S_⊥ ∝ r^2 is an assumption based on the transverse coherence condition d ≲ γ_o λ/2. Since the relative weight of low- versus high-altitude solitons determines the fitted spectral index b (Fig. 10) and the width-frequency coefficient a (Table 1), a different but equally plausible transverse size scaling would shift both quantities. The paper contains no sensitivity test over this unknown scaling; I request either a derivation or a systematic variation of the transverse-size dependence (e.g., S_⊥ ∝ r^p for p between 0 and 2) with the resulting changes to b and a reported.
  2. [3.4, Fig. 10 and Section 3, item 1] The claimed spectral-index agreement is selected rather than predicted. With the default secondary plasma Lorentz-factor range γ_s = 50–300, the model fit gives b = -1.12 ± 0.09; only after reducing the range to γ_s = 50–150 does the fit give b = -1.56 ± 0.04, near the observed median of b ≈ -1.6. No independent physical constraint is given for this reduced upper limit, and the paper explicitly labels the uniform distribution with γ_s between 50 and 300 as the default. As a result, the statement in the Discussion that 'the average spectra from CCR due to charged solitons also show the spectral index to be similar to the median value of the pulsar population' is not supported by the default model. Please treat γ_h as an uncertain parameter, report the spectral index across the full plausible range, and identify an observable that could pin it down.
  3. [2.2 and 3.1] The reproduction of profile types (M, cQ, T, D, S) is substantially built into the model geometry. In Section 2.2, the sparks are placed in a central core plus one or two concentric rings with angular locations θ' = θ_PC/3, 2θ_PC/5, and 4θ_PC/5, which is exactly the core-cone beam taxonomy used in Section 3.1 to label the resulting profiles. The simulated profiles are then classified with the same core-cone scheme, so the agreement in profile morphology is not an independent confirmation of the soliton CCR mechanism. The RFM, PPA, and spectral results are genuinely emergent, but the profile-shape claim should be reframed or supported by a quantitative comparison that does not presuppose the taxonomy, for example component widths, relative component spacings, or a specific observed pulsar's profile.
  4. [3, parameter list and Section 4] The model contains several hand-set parameters whose impact on the central conclusions is not quantified in the paper: the group-velocity factor y = 2.3, the soliton length limits Δ_l = 0.4 m and Δ_h = 0.6 m, the coherence parameter a_s = 0.3, and the threshold I_g > 0.001 I_max used to define the emission-height window. Some of these are physically motivated, but the RFM height ranges in Fig. 6 and the width-frequency coefficients in Table 1 depend on the emission-height cutoff and the soliton-length scale. A sensitivity test varying these parameters within their stated ranges (especially y and the threshold) would establish that the qualitative outcomes—RFM, RVM-like PPA, inverted spectra—are robust rather than consequences of the chosen numerical window.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The last row contains a typographical error: for the D-type W_sep fit, the entry reads '-0.29 + ±0.11'; the plus sign before '±' should be removed.
  2. [2.1 and 2.2] The symbol ρ_s is used for the central charge density inside a soliton in Section 2.1 and for the secondary plasma density distribution in Section 2.2. These are different quantities and the notation should be distinguished to avoid confusion.
  3. [3.2, Eq. (12) and (13)] The beam opening angle θ_bm^i uses sin^-1 √(r_i/R_LC), and the azimuthal angle formula in Eq. (13) is quoted from Rankin (1993). Please check the limiting behavior at θ_j = 0, where the expression should reduce smoothly; currently it is not obvious that the formula is regular, and a comment or a small limiting form would improve clarity.
  4. [4, first paragraph] Minor typo: 'open filed line region' should read 'open field line region'.
  5. [3.1, Figs. 4 and 5] The captions and text refer to the 'right panel' of each figure for the LOS coverage, but in the two-column layout it is the right-hand column; labeling the panels explicitly (a) and (b) in the captions would help the reader.
Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entity. The solitons, the three-charge model, and the dipole field configuration are all taken from prior literature. The main new content is the 3D numerical synthesis of average emission properties, supported by several hand-set parameters and domain assumptions listed above.

free parameters (5)
  • soliton group velocity factor y = y = 2.3
    Relates soliton Lorentz factor to the plasma Lorentz factor (gamma_o = y gamma_s). Chosen by hand; sets the beaming width and grid angular spacing in Section 2.2.
  • secondary plasma Lorentz factor range = gamma_l = 50, gamma_h = 300, variant gamma_h = 150, step 10
    Uniform distribution assumed in Section 3, item 1. Narrowing the upper bound changes the predicted spectral index from -1.1 to -1.6 to match observations in Section 3.4.
  • soliton length limits Delta_l and Delta_h = 0.4 m and 0.6 m at r = 500 km, step 0.1 m
    Set in Section 3, item 2, as lower and upper limits; affects the coherence condition and spectral shape. No derivation from the instability theory is given.
  • soliton coherence parameter a_s = 0.3
    Used in Fig. 9 as a typical value in Eq. 2; controls the interference factor in the soliton spectrum.
  • emission height cutoff threshold = I_g > 0.001 I_max
    Used in Section 3, item 3, to restrict the contributing height range; an ad hoc cutoff that changes the radial extent and hence the spectrum.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Charge-separated solitons form and remain stable in the pulsar plasma, with the charge distribution modeled as three charges per soliton.
    Used throughout Sections 2 and 3; taken from Melikidze et al. 2000, Lakoba et al. 2018 and Rahaman et al. 2022. The paper states that a 3D soliton structure is unavailable in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption Emitted waves propagate as in vacuum; plasma mode splitting, absorption and refraction are ignored.
    Stated in Section 3 after the parameter list and discussed as a limitation in Section 4; affects PPA, spectra and intensity.
  • domain assumption The emission region is dominated by a purely dipolar field, with spark geometry at the surface following the observed core-cone pattern.
    Section 2.2; non-dipolar fields and drift are declared out of scope. The core-cone pattern is taken from Rankin 1993.
  • standard math Standard Airy/Bessel integral representation of ultrarelativistic curvature radiation is valid after dropping the x-squared term in the phase.
    Appendix B, from Eq. B12 to Eq. B13; the omitted x-squared term is not rigorously justified.
  • standard math Rotating vector model and aberration-retardation formulas give the PPA and emission-height relation.
    Section 3.3, Eqs. 14 to 18, following Blaskiewicz et al. 1991 and Dyks 2008.
  • domain assumption Solitons are uniformly distributed along each line of sight and occupy grids with angular spacing 1/(2 y gamma_s).
    Stated in the abstract and Section 2.2; this uniformity controls the sampled intensity pattern.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pulsar Coherent Radio Emission from Solitons : Average Emission Properties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M2ND3Q3H

@misc{pith2026250412163,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pulsar Coherent Radio Emission from Solitons : Average Emission Properties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M2ND3Q3H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12163}
}
read the original abstract

Observations have established that coherent radio emission from pulsars arise at few hundred kilometers above stellar surface. Recent polarization studies have further demonstrated that plasma instabilities are necessary for charge bunching that gives rise to coherent emission. The formation of charged solitons in the electron-positron plasma is the only known bunching mechanism that can be realised at these heights. More than five decades of observations have revealed a number of emission features that should emerge from any valid radio emission mechanism. We have carried out numerical calculations to find the features of average emission from curvature radiation due to charged solitons. The characteristic curvature radiation spectrum has been updated from the well known one-dimensional dependence into a general two-dimensional form, and contribution from each soliton along observer's line of sight (LOS) has been added to reproduce the pulsar emission. The outflowing plasma is formed by sparking discharges above the stellar surface that are located within concentric rings resembling the core-cone emission beam, and uniform distribution of solitons along any LOS has been assumed. The observed effects of radius to frequency mapping, where the lower frequency emission originates from higher altitudes, is seen in this setup. The power law spectrum and relative steepening of the core spectra with respect to the cones also emerges. The estimated polarization position angle reflects the geometrical configuration of pulsars as expected. These studies demonstrate the efficacy of coherent curvature radiation from charged solitons to reproduce the average observational features of pulsars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12163 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The two dimensional distribution of the curvature radiation from a charged soliton estimated at frequency ω = ωc, as a function of normalized angular co-ordinates, γoθ and γoϕ, measured with respect to the tangent vector of the magnetic field line at the center of the soliton. The estimates for vacuum propagation of electromagnetic waves are shown : (a) total intensity (I) (b) polarization position angle (PPA) (c) l… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The distribution of solitons along the open field line region for a pulsar with P = 1 seconds and RLC = 4.77 × 104 km. (a) The density of the secondary plasma at a height of 500 km, obtained from the spark distribution above the polar cap. (b) The solitons with uniform distribution are located along the open field lines between heights of 300 km and 500 km. The inclination angle of the magnetic axis is α = 30◦ and t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) A schematic showing the arrangement of solitons in the open field line region used for estimating the average emission properties from different pulsar configurations. The emission region is split into small grids with solitons located at the center (blue dots) of each grid, rg = (ri, θj , ϕm), and has a three dimensional size ∆V = (δr, riδθg, riδθg) (see text for details). The plot shows a two dimensional slice… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The figure shows the effect of different line of sight cuts across the emission region originating from a sparking pattern with one conal ring around a central spark. The top panel corresponds to a core-cone triple (T) profile when the impact angle β = 1.25◦ , the midd…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The figure shows the average profiles at three frequencies, 150 MHz, 325 MHz and 1400 MHz for the same line of sight traverse across emission region along with the locus of the radio emission heights [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The figure shows the evolution of estimated profile widths with frequency. The left panel corresponds to a M type profile and four different widths have been measured, W50, W10, Win and Wout (see top left panel). All widths decrease with increasing frequency, as shown …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The PPA traverse across the profile is estimated at 325 MHz for three different configurations. The top left panel corresponds to a pulsar with rotation period of 1 second, inclination angle α = 30◦ and a central line of sight cut, β = 0.75◦ . The top right panel repre…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The spectrum of curvature radiation from soliton at different angular cuts across the emission beam (∼ 1/γo), with the angular co-ordinates normalized by the beaming angle. Observational studies have further shown that the components within the pulsar profile have diff…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The estimated pulsar spectrum is shown in the left panel for two different secondary plasma distributions, in the frequency range between 100 MHz and 1400 MHz. The right panel shows the ratio of the core and conal intensities as a function of frequency. further away f…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The figure shows the radius of curvature (R) of the dipolar magnetic field lines as a function of the co-ordinates. (a) The variation across the open field line region along a specific line of sight, β = 0.5 ◦ , at heights of r = 200 km (red) and r = 400 km (blue). (b…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The schematic shows co-ordinate setup for estimating the curvature radiation from a charged particle moving along the open field line in the pulsar frame. The curved trajectory is considered to be in the x − y plane with a radius of curvature R and velocity vector of …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arons , J., & Barnard , J. J. 1986, , 302, 120, 10.1086/163978

    doi:10.1086/163978 1986

  2. [2]

    2019, , 489, 4589, 10.1093/mnras/stz2299

    Arumugasamy , P., & Mitra , D. 2019, , 489, 4589, 10.1093/mnras/stz2299

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2299 2019

  3. [3]

    Asseo , E., & Melikidze , G. I. 1998, , 301, 59, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01990.x

    arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    C., & Rankin , J

    Backer , D. C., & Rankin , J. M. 1980, , 42, 143, 10.1086/190647

    doi:10.1086/190647 1980

  5. [5]

    I., & Mitra , D

    Basu , R., Melikidze , G. I., & Mitra , D. 2022 a , , 936, 35, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8479

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8479 2022

  6. [6]

    Basu , R., Mitra , D., & Melikidze , G. I. 2020, , 496, 465, 10.1093/mnras/staa1574

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1574 2020

  7. [7]

    2021, , 917, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0828

    ---. 2021, , 917, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0828

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0828 2021

  8. [8]

    2022 b , , 927, 208, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5039

    ---. 2022 b , , 927, 208, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5039

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5039 2022

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    2023, , 947, 86, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc6c6

    ---. 2023, , 947, 86, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc6c6

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    I., et al

    Basu , R., Mitra , D., Melikidze , G. I., et al. 2016, , 833, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/29

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    I., & Skrzypczak , A

    Basu , R., Mitra , D., Melikidze , G. I., & Skrzypczak , A. 2019, , 482, 3757, 10.1093/mnras/sty2846

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    M., & Wasserman , I

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

    1991 doi

  5. [13]

    F., & Ruderman , M

    Cheng , A. F., & Ruderman , M. A. 1980, , 235, 576, 10.1086/157661

    1980 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, , 974, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7e24

    Chernoglazov , A., Philippov , A., & Timokhin , A. 2024, , 974, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7e24

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Cordes , J. M. 1978, , 222, 1006, 10.1086/156218

    1978 doi

  8. [16]

    2008, , 391, 859, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13923.x

    Dyks , J. 2008, , 391, 859, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13923.x

    2008

  9. [17]

    Dyks , J., Rudak , B., & Harding , A. K. 2004, , 607, 939, 10.1086/383587

    2004 doi

  10. [18]

    I., & Szkudlarek , M

    Geppert , U., Basu , R., Mitra , D., Melikidze , G. I., & Szkudlarek , M. 2021, , 504, 5741, 10.1093/mnras/stab1134

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    1984, , 132, 312

    Gil , J., Gronkowski , P., & Rudnicki , W. 1984, , 132, 312

    1984

  12. [20]

    Gil , J., Lyubarsky , Y., & Melikidze , G. I. 2004, , 600, 872, 10.1086/379972

    2004 doi

  13. [21]

    I., & Geppert , U

    Gil , J., Melikidze , G. I., & Geppert , U. 2003, , 407, 315, 10.1051/0004-6361:20030854

    2003 doi

  14. [22]

    A., Kijak , J., & Seiradakis , J

    Gil , J. A., Kijak , J., & Seiradakis , J. H. 1993, , 272, 268

    1993

  15. [23]

    A., & Lyne , A

    Gil , J. A., & Lyne , A. G. 1995, , 276, L55, 10.1093/mnras/276.1.L55

    1995 doi

  16. [24]

    A., Melikidze , G

    Gil , J. A., Melikidze , G. I., & Mitra , D. 2002, , 388, 235, 10.1051/0004-6361:20020473

    2002 doi

  17. [25]

    A., & Sendyk , M

    Gil , J. A., & Sendyk , M. 2000, , 541, 351, 10.1086/309394

    2000 doi

  18. [26]

    Goldreich , P., & Julian , W. H. 1969, , 157, 869, 10.1086/150119

    1969 doi

  19. [27]

    A., Kuzmin , A

    Izvekova , V. A., Kuzmin , A. D., Malofeev , V. M., & Shitov , I. P. 1981, , 78, 45, 10.1007/BF00654022

    1981 doi

  20. [28]

    Jackson , J. D. 1998, Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd Edition

    1998

  21. [29]

    F., et al

    Jankowski , F., van Straten , W., Keane , E. F., et al. 2018, , 473, 4436, 10.1093/mnras/stx2476

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    2021, , 923, 211, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3082

    Kijak , J., Basu , R., Lewandowski , W., & Ro \.z ko , K. 2021, , 923, 211, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3082

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    1997, , 288, 631, 10.1093/mnras/288.3.631

    Kijak , J., & Gil , J. 1997, , 288, 631, 10.1093/mnras/288.3.631

    1997 doi

  24. [32]

    2011, , 531, A16, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014274

    Kijak , J., Lewandowski , W., Maron , O., Gupta , Y., & Jessner , A. 2011, , 531, A16, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014274

    2011 doi

  25. [33]

    2018, , 480, 4526, 10.1093/mnras/sty2152

    Lakoba , T., Mitra , D., & Melikidze , G. 2018, , 480, 4526, 10.1093/mnras/sty2152

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    2012, , 424, 1762, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21246.x

    Maciesiak , K., Gil , J., & Melikidze , G. 2012, , 424, 1762, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21246.x

    2012

  27. [35]

    2000, , 147, 195, 10.1051/aas:2000298

    Maron , O., Kijak , J., Kramer , M., & Wielebinski , R. 2000, , 147, 195, 10.1051/aas:2000298

    2000 doi

  28. [36]

    I., Gil , J

    Melikidze , G. I., Gil , J. A., & Pataraya , A. D. 2000, , 544, 1081, 10.1086/317220

    2000 doi

  29. [37]

    I., & Pataraia , A

    Melikidze , G. I., & Pataraia , A. D. 1980, Astrofizika, 16, 161

    1980

  30. [38]

    2017, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 38, 52, 10.1007/s12036-017-9457-6

    Mitra , D. 2017, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 38, 52, 10.1007/s12036-017-9457-6

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    2016, , 833, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/28

    Mitra , D., Basu , R., Maciesiak , K., et al. 2016, , 833, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/28

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    Mitra , D., Basu , R., & Melikidze , G. I. 2024 a , , 974, 254, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad71ca

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    I., & Arjunwadkar , M

    Mitra , D., Basu , R., Melikidze , G. I., & Arjunwadkar , M. 2020, , 492, 2468, 10.1093/mnras/stz3620

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    Mitra , D., Basu , R., & Melikizde , G. I. 2024 b , Universe, 10, 248, 10.3390/universe10060248

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    Mitra , D., & Deshpande , A. A. 1999, , 346, 906. astro-ph/9904336

    1999 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Mitra , D., & Li , X. H. 2004, , 421, 215, 10.1051/0004-6361:20034094

    2004 doi

  37. [45]

    I., & Basu , R

    Mitra , D., Melikidze , G. I., & Basu , R. 2023 a , , 952, 151, 10.3847/1538-4357/acdc28

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    2023 b , , 521, L34, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad022

    ---. 2023 b , , 521, L34, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad022

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    Mitra , D., & Rankin , J. M. 2002, , 577, 322, 10.1086/342136

    2002 doi

  40. [48]

    Olszanski , T. E. E., Mitra , D., & Rankin , J. M. 2019, , 489, 1543, 10.1093/mnras/stz2172

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 635820502, 10.1017/S0022377816000763

    P \'e tri , J. 2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 635820502, 10.1017/S0022377816000763

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    2020, , 491, 80, 10.1093/mnras/stz2974

    P \'e tri , J., & Mitra , D. 2020, , 491, 80, 10.1093/mnras/stz2974

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

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

    1969

  44. [52]

    M., Mitra , D., & Melikidze , G

    Rahaman , S. M., Mitra , D., & Melikidze , G. I. 2020, , 497, 3953, 10.1093/mnras/staa2280

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    M., Mitra , D., Melikidze , G

    Rahaman , S. M., Mitra , D., Melikidze , G. I., & Lakoba , T. 2022, , 516, 3715, 10.1093/mnras/stac2264

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    Rankin , J. M. 1983, , 274, 333, 10.1086/161450

    1983 doi

  47. [55]

    1990, , 352, 247, 10.1086/168530

    ---. 1990, , 352, 247, 10.1086/168530

    1990 doi

  48. [56]

    1993, , 405, 285, 10.1086/172361

    ---. 1993, , 405, 285, 10.1086/172361

    1993 doi

  49. [57]

    A., & Sutherland , P

    Ruderman , M. A., & Sutherland , P. G. 1975, , 196, 51, 10.1086/153393

    1975 doi

  50. [58]

    1997, , 321, 519

    Sieber , W. 1997, , 321, 519

    1997

  51. [59]

    Sturrock , P. A. 1971, , 164, 529, 10.1086/150865

    1971 doi

  52. [60]

    2017, , 835, 178, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/178

    Szary , A., Gil , J., Zhang , B., et al. 2017, , 835, 178, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/178

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    2020, , 493, 3770, 10.1093/mnras/staa492

    Sznajder , M., & Geppert , U. 2020, , 493, 3770, 10.1093/mnras/staa492

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    Thorsett , S. E. 1991, , 377, 263, 10.1086/170355

    1991 doi

  55. [63]

    N., & Harding , A

    Timokhin , A. N., & Harding , A. K. 2019, , 871, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf050

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    Usov , V. V. 1987, , 320, 333, 10.1086/165546

    1987 doi

  57. [65]

    T., & Stappers , B

    Weltevrede , P., Edwards , R. T., & Stappers , B. W. 2006, , 445, 243, 10.1051/0004-6361:20053088

    2006 doi

  58. [66]

    2018, , 868, 31, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae685

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

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.