Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 65 references

RM jitter: Wavelength-dependent Scatter in Rotation Measure Related to Faraday Complexity

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read RM scatter in surveys is partly a wavelength-dependent artifact of turbulent plasma near each source.

desk verdict Careful simulations establish that RM scatter is survey-wavelength-dependent and sensitive to the turbulence power spectrum, but the claimed match to Vanderwoude et al. is conditional on untested priors. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06460 v1 pith:RZKX3SRO submitted 2025-05-09 astro-ph.GA

Jeroen M. Stil This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords rotationmeasureRMjitterFaradayturbulentscreendepolarizationsynthesisfractionalpolarizationextragalacticradiosources
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

Rotation-measure grids—catalogs of Faraday rotation toward many background radio sources—are a standard probe of cosmic magnetic fields, but their scatter has been hard to interpret. This paper argues that part of that scatter, called RM jitter, is imposed by unresolved turbulent magnetized plasma near each source, and that its size depends on the wavelength coverage of the survey as well as on the power spectrum of the turbulence. Using simulated sources behind screens with power-law Faraday-depth structure, the paper shows that jitter rises steeply when differential Faraday rotation depolarizes the source, amplifying small rotation differences through the $1/|P|$ factor. In a simulated flux-density-limited sample, a slope $\gamma\approx -2.5$ reproduces the observed scatter of about 15 rad m$^{-2}$ for sources less than 3% polarized, while the more polarized sources show more scatter than jitter can supply, pointing to additional plasma along the line of sight.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a numerical turbulent Faraday screen: a random two-dimensional field of Faraday depth with power spectrum $A(k)=A\,k^{\gamma}$ ($\gamma = -2.0, -2.5, -3.0$), realized with random phases and scaled to a prescribed $\sigma_\phi$, viewed through a Gaussian beam. For each simulated source, Stokes $Q$ and $U$ are integrated across the source via $\theta-\theta_0=\phi\lambda^2$, then processed with RM synthesis and QU fitting using survey-specific wavelength coverage. The key identity connecting jitter to depolarization is the derivative of the polarization angle, $R=d\theta/d\lambda^2$; near minima of $|P|$, $1/|P|$ amplification makes $R$ (and hence the survey-dependent RM) wander far from the true mean Faraday depth, sometimes reversing sign. A discrete analog with $N$ Faraday-thin components yields $\Delta\mathrm{RM} = (\sigma_\phi/\sqrt{N})\,(1+4\sigma_\phi^2\lambda^4)$, showing the linear and wavelength-dependent cubic terms; in the $N\to\infty$ limit it reproduces the standard analytic depolarization models with no jitter.

What would settle it

Take a set of unresolved sources spanning a range of fractional polarization and observe them with two frequency setups whose wavelength coverage overlaps but differs in bandwidth, at matched sensitivity. The turbulent-screen model predicts that scatter between the two measured RMs grows with depolarization and that the slope of the RM-RM relation equals the ratio of the median depolarization factors; if the scatter is independent of fractional polarization, or the slope stays unity while substantial jitter is present, the model is ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

RM jitter is the paper's name for the scatter in measured rotation measure that arises, not from measurement noise or from a common foreground, but from the turbulent Faraday-depth structure within the source region: unresolved structure on scales from below the beam up to the source size leaves each source with its own mean Faraday depth and its own depolarization behavior. The central quantitative claim is that this jitter evolves through three regimes as the Faraday-depth dispersion $\sigma_\phi$ grows: a linear regime with $\Delta\mathrm{RM}_{\mathrm{IQR}} \approx \sigma_\phi/5$, a non-linear regime where wavelength-dependent depolarization amplifies the apparent RM through the $1/|P|$ factor, and a saturated regime where $\Delta\mathrm{RM}_{\mathrm{IQR}}$ approaches the interquartile range of a Gaussian with dispersion $\sigma_\phi$, independent of the power-spectrum slope $\gamma$. Because depolarization and the resulting amplification depend on which wavelengths a survey observes, the same source can yield different RMs in different surveys, and the jitter is independent of Faraday-depth resolution. The paper's application to a flux-density-limited sample claims that this jitter naturally produces the observed increase of RM scatter toward low fractional polarization, and that a power-law slope $\gamma\approx -2.5$ reproduces the scatter of sources below 3% polarization.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every source in the sample is depolarized by an unresolved turbulent magnetized plasma located in front of the source, described by a single power-law spectrum of Faraday-depth fluctuations. If many low-polarization sources instead depolarize inside the emitting region or through a different kind of plasma, the inferred slope $\gamma\approx -2.5$ and the conclusion that jitter dominates the faintly polarized sample collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Surveys cannot quote a single extrinsic RM scatter without specifying their wavelength coverage: the same turbulent screen produces different jitter in different surveys, and the jitter can exceed measurement errors even for broadband surveys.
  • Samples selected with a 3% fractional-polarization threshold still contain sources whose RM jitter exceeds the measurement errors; the paper estimates that a threshold near 7% or higher is required for jitter to drop to the level of RM errors.
  • Comparisons of RMs from different surveys—variability searches, RM structure functions, cluster and galaxy RM-variance studies, and RRM-redshift analyses—must account for correlated jitter, not just independent Gaussian errors, and narrow-band surveys can produce extreme RM outliers that mimic anomalies.
  • The same jitter mechanism explains why RM scatter rises toward low fractional polarization without invoking signal-to-noise artifacts, and it makes the slope $\gamma$ of the Faraday-depth power spectrum a parameter that can be constrained from RM scatter in the RM grid.
  • Because jitter is independent of Faraday-depth resolution, improving Faraday-depth resolution does not reduce it; surveys with the same sensitivity to continuous Faraday-depth structure show the same jitter even when their resolution differs by a factor of three.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the N-component formula suggests a practical estimator: in the linear regime, RM jitter scales as $\sigma_\phi/\sqrt{N}$, so measuring jitter and $\sigma_\phi$ separately could let a survey estimate the effective number of independent Faraday cells without resolving the source.
  • Beyond the paper, if the screen model is right, apparent RM variability between historical narrow-band catalogs and modern broadband surveys is partly a wavelength-sampling artifact; a fair variability search should compare epochs observed with identical $\lambda^2$ coverage.
  • Beyond the paper, the model predicts that RM jitter should decrease for larger angular-size sources, since more large-scale structure is resolved out; this could be checked by splitting a sample by source angular size.
  • Beyond the paper, a direct measurement of the Faraday-depth power spectrum in resolved radio lobes could be compared with the $\gamma\approx -2.5$ inferred from jitter; agreement would turn the RM grid into a turbulence probe, while disagreement would indicate that unresolved sources sample different structure than resolved lobes.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper introduces and quantifies "RM jitter": the scatter in measured rotation measure (RM) across a sample of unresolved extragalactic sources, caused by turbulent Faraday screens with a given power spectrum of Faraday depth structure. The author simulates screens with power-law indices γ = −2.0, −2.5, −3.0, applies RM synthesis with the frequency coverage of several real and mock surveys (POSSUM Low, POSSUM Low+Mid, THOR, NVSS/CGPS, Wide, B001, B002), and characterizes the interquartile range of RM across 300 independent realizations as a function of the Faraday depth dispersion σφ. Three regimes are identified: a linear regime (ΔRMIQR ≈ σφ/5), a non-linear regime near σφλ² ≈ 1 with 1/|P| amplification, and a saturated regime where ΔRMIQR approaches the IQR of the Faraday depth distribution. The paper argues that RM jitter is independent of Faraday depth resolution (POSSUM Low vs. B001, matched Wmax), shows that cross-survey RM correlations have slopes approximately equal to the depolarization ratios, and discusses implications for RM variability searches, RM structure functions, cluster RM variance, and RRM(z) studies. A flux-limited construction, assuming depolarization by a turbulent screen for all sources, is used to compare with the Vanderwoude et al.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful conceptual and practical contribution for the SKA-era RM grid: it separates the monochromatic quantity R from the survey-dependent RM measured by synthesis/QU fitting, provides a three-regime taxonomy of jitter tied to the Rudnick & Cotton (2023) parameter Wmax, and shows that low-polarization subsamples can carry large, survey-specific RM scatter. The core simulations are systematic and clean: the three-regime behavior is shown consistently across three values of γ, the POSSUM Low/B001 pair is a well-designed control demonstrating resolution independence, and the comparison with Vanderwoude et al. (2024) is a forward model against an external benchmark rather than a fit. The paper is also honest about its limitations, explicitly stating that the σφ distribution is unknown and that the intrinsic polarization calibration was adjusted after experimentation. The falsifiable predictions (cross-survey correlation slope equal to the depolarization ratio, jitter depending on λ² coverage, a ~7% polarization threshold to suppress jitter below typical errors) are valuable.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.4, Figure 9] The central comparison with Vanderwoude et al. (2024) rests on three inputs that the paper itself identifies as unknown or tuned: the distribution of σφ (uniform vs. half-Gaussian), the intrinsic fractional polarization range (10%–20%, selected after "experimentation" to bring the median to 2%), and γ. The outcome is reported only qualitatively: γ = −2.5 "comes close," and it "performs better" with a half-Gaussian σφ distribution, while the only concrete number given is for the equal mixture of the three γ values, ΔRMIQR = 18.3 rad m⁻². Because the text does not report the actual ΔRMIQR for the Π < 3% subsample for each γ and each σφ prior, nor bootstrap uncertainties on the IQR of a 300-source sample, the robustness of the γ ≈ −2.5 inference cannot be evaluated. In addition, the statement that the half-Gaussian prior performs better sits oddly with the adoption of the uniform prior. I request a table of ΔRMIQR(Π < 3%) over the {γ} × {σφ prior} grid, with sampling errors, and an explicit statement of the numerical range of the adopted uniform σφ prior.
  2. [Section 2.4, Discussion, and Abstract] The flux-limited comparison treats pure simulated RM jitter as the scatter to be compared with the observed total IQR of ~15 rad m⁻², without specifying how measurement errors (Table 1 gives Δ10σ ≈ 2 rad m⁻² for POSSUM Low+Mid, and errors are larger near the detection threshold) and Galactic foreground RM are handled. Since the observed value contains these contributions, the pure jitter component should be below 15 rad m⁻² if it is to dominate, and the abstract's phrasing that the simulated sample "can reproduce" the observed scatter is stronger than the analysis supports; the text in Section 2.4 is appropriately conditional, but the abstract and parts of Section 4 are not. Relatedly, the inference that the Π < 3% scatter is "dominated by RM jitter" assumes that all low-polarization sources depolarize through the same turbulent-screen mechanism (stated in the abstract and Section 2.4). I recommend adding simulated measurement errors and a foreground term, or an explicit quantitative argument that they are negligible, and a short mixture calculation in which a fraction of sources depolarizes internally (e.g., Burn-type, Eq. 7) to show how the inferred γ and the "dominated by jitter" conclusion shift.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5] The summary states "the inter-quartile radio of a Gaussian"; this should read "inter-quartile range."
  2. [Section 4] The text contains "the correlation of RM jittter between the two surveys"; "jittter" should be "jitter."
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (12)] Please verify the typesetting of Equation (12). As printed, the second term in brackets appears to contain (Σ cos)², but consistency with the small-λ limit leading to Eq. (14) requires a factor of (Σ sin/Σ cos)², and the quantity f should be (Σ sin)²/(Σ cos)² rather than the product (Σ sin Σ cos)². The subsequent derivation of Eqs. (14)–(15) is correct.
  4. [Figure 4 caption] The caption's description of markers as "green with crow foot" and similar is cryptic; a legend or a clear verbal description of each marker style would improve readability.
  5. [Section 2.4] Please state explicitly the numerical range of the uniform σφ prior (presumably the simulated range of 2.5–55 rad m⁻²) and the number of independent realizations per (γ, σφ) cell that feed the flux-limited draws, since Figure 1 uses 50 realizations per cell while Figure 4 uses samples of 300.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: forward simulated RM jitter compared with an external benchmark; Section 2.4 priors are conditional inputs, not by-construction reproductions of the target.

full rationale

After walking the derivation chain, I find no load-bearing circular step. RM jitter is not defined as the observed scatter; it is an output of forward simulations in which random Faraday depth fields with power spectrum A(k)=A k^gamma and prescribed sigma_phi are integrated over a source and processed with RM synthesis (Sections 2.1-2.3). The analytic N-component model in Section 3 is an independent expansion and does not presuppose the survey results. The flux-limited comparison in Section 2.4 is conditional: the intrinsic polarization range 10-20% and the uniform sigma_phi prior are inputs chosen partly to reproduce the observed median fractional polarization (~2%), and gamma is scanned over three externally motivated values (-2.0, -2.5, -3.0) rather than fitted to DeltaRM_IQR. The statement that gamma approximately -2.5 'could reproduce the observed RM scatter' is a model-data comparison under explicitly stated assumptions, not an equation that reduces to its own inputs. Self-citations (Stil et al. 2011, 2014; Shanahan et al. 2023) appear as observational or contextual support, not as the source of the central quantitative claim. The paper's own caveat that the results are preliminary and that more detailed modelling and more data are required reinforces that the match is conditional rather than circular. Robustness of the match to the adopted priors is a correctness and validation concern, not circularity under the defined standards.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes a named phenomenon, RM jitter, but no new physical entities. Its quantitative conclusions rest on a handful of model choices: the power-law spectrum index, the unknown σφ distribution, the intrinsic polarization distribution, and the external-screen assumption. These are enumerated above.

free parameters (6)
  • Power spectrum slope γ = -2.0, -2.5, -3.0 (scanned, not fitted)
    The jitter amplitude and the onset of the saturated regime depend on γ; the flux-limited comparison uses this range and a combination of all three to approximate the observed scatter.
  • Faraday depth dispersion σφ distribution = uniform (half-Gaussian also tested)
    Section 2.4 states the actual distribution of σφ is not known and a uniform distribution was preferred. The computed ΔRM_IQR depends on this choice.
  • Intrinsic fractional polarization range = uniform 10-20%
    Chosen after experimentation because the upper end drives up RM jitter; used to reproduce the median fractional polarization near 2%.
  • Detection and depolarization cutoffs = 0.1 mJy polarized threshold; depolarization factor <0.01 set to zero; total flux >10 mJy for fractional polarization
    Adopted from Vanderwoude et al. (2024) and experimental choices; they affect the composition of the simulated flux-limited sample.
  • Beam to source size ratio = 10
    The simulation uses a Gaussian beam 10 times the source diameter, corresponding to a 20 arcsec beam and a 2 arcsec source; changing this ratio changes the mix of scales in the screen.
  • Power spectrum scale range = from image size to pixel scale
    No large-scale cutoff is imposed; scales larger than the source are excluded because they would be foreground RM, and a small-k cutoff would move results toward a Burn-type model.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Faraday rotation relation θ-θ0=φλ^2 and the integral expression for Faraday depth φ.
    Standard physics used in Eq. 1 and Eq. 2; the whole analysis is built on this relation.
  • domain assumption RM synthesis inversion and the definition of RM as the peak of the reconstructed Faraday dispersion function.
    Assumed from Brentjens & De Bruyn (2005); the paper compares survey RMs derived this way.
  • domain assumption Power-law power spectrum A(k)=A k^γ for Faraday depth structure.
    Adopted from Laing et al. (2008); the central quantitative outputs depend on this functional form.
  • domain assumption Uniform intrinsic polarization angle θ0=0 across the source.
    Stated in Section 2.1 and revisited in the appendix; the appendix argues non-uniform θ0 changes track shapes but not the statistics, which is not fully proven.
  • domain assumption Depolarization by a turbulent Faraday screen for all sources in the flux-limited sample.
    Stated in the abstract and Section 2.4; if internal depolarization is common, the inferred γ match is not valid.
  • domain assumption In the N-component toy model, the expectation value of φj is zero and all component amplitudes are equal.
    Used in Section 3 to derive the analytic RM jitter estimate in Eq. 14-15.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RM jitter: Wavelength-dependent Scatter in Rotation Measure Related to Faraday Complexity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RZKX3SRO

@misc{pith2026250506460,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RM jitter: Wavelength-dependent Scatter in Rotation Measure Related to Faraday Complexity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RZKX3SRO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06460}
}
read the original abstract

The relation between Faraday Rotation Measure (RM) and differential Faraday rotation by unresolved structure of a turbulent plasma is investigated for extragalactic radio sources. The RM scatter of a sample of sources affected by turbulent Faraday screens with identical power spectra of Faraday depth structure, is referred to as RM jitter. For fixed amplitude and slope of the power spectrum, the range of possible RMs depends on the wavelength coverage of the survey. RM jitter is independent of Faraday depth resolution as it results from the true Faraday depth dispersion and effects of wavelength-dependent depolarization. RM jitter for a flux density limited sample is sensitive to the power law index gamma of the power spectrum of Faraday depth structure. Assuming depolarization by a turbulent Faraday screen for all sources, a simulated flux-density-limited sample can reproduce the high RM scatter found by Vanderwoude et al. (2024) for sources that are less than 3% polarized. RM jitter of sources that are more than 3% polarized, is found to be smaller than the observed scatter, indicating that plasma other than the near-source environment dominates the RM scatter for the more polarized sources. The significance of RM jitter for applications of the RM grid is discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06460 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. R defined in Equation 6 as a function of λ 2 and σϕ. The constant ϕ0 was subtracted for clarity. For the σϕ axis, 50 simulated sources are displayed from bottom to top for each of σϕ = 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0, 12.5, 15.0, 17.5, 20.0, 22.5, 25.0, 30.0, 35.0, 40.0, 45.0, 50.0, and 55.0 rad m−2 . Cyan dots outline the boundary where σϕλ 2 = 1. The vertical lines mark, from left to right, frequencies 2.0 GHz, 1.0 GHz, and 0… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Representative distributions of Faraday depth in simulated sources. The left panel shows three simulations with γ = −2.5, and, for reference, a Gaussian distribution with mean 300.00 rad m−2 and standard deviation σϕ = 15.00 rad m−2 . The red continuous distribution has mean 302.39 rad m−2 (also shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Deconvolved Faraday dispersion function for 6 surveys of a single simulated source with Faraday depth distribution as shown on the right, with σϕ = 15 rad m−2 and γ = −2.5. The histogram of the model Faraday depths is drawn as a thick gray curve, with full range 240.0 rad m−2 to 354.8 rad m−2 . Top panel: THOR survey (black, RM = 306.48 rad m−2 ), NVSS/CGPS survey (green, RM = 306.24 rad m−2 ), and full simulated wa… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top panel: Interquartile range of RM of a sample of sources behind a Faraday screen with power-law Faraday depth structure with index γ = −2.5, as a function of Faraday depth dispersion across the source σϕ. The curves represent surveys listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correlation between RM from the surveys POSSUM Low and THOR for γ = −2.5 and four values of σϕ. Top left panel: σϕ = 2.5 rad m−2 with r = 0.992 and slope 0.966, Top right panel: σϕ = 5 rad m−2 with r = 0.877 and slope 0.683, Bottom left panel: σϕ = 7.5 rad m−2 with r =…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Deconvolved Faraday dispersion function for 6 surveys of a single simulated source with Faraday depth distribution as shown on the right, with σϕ = 30 rad m−2 and γ = −2.5. Note that the range of the Faraday depth axis is almost twice the range shown in [PITH_FULL_IMA…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: RM jitter as a function of fractional polarization in a simulated sample with polarized flux density threshold as described in the text. The top panel shows the combined sample with γ = −2.0 (blue), γ = −2.5 (green), and γ = −3.0 (red). The subsequent panels show the t…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Faraday dispersion σϕ as a function of RM for a simulated sample of radio sources as described in the text, derived from fitting Equation 7. The simulated survey is POSSUM Low + Mid. No noise was added to the models. When σϕ is small, the fits recover the Faraday disp…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Depolarization (top) and θ(λ 2 ) (bottom) for 30 randomly selected systems with N = 10 (red) and N = 1000 (blue). The yellow dashed curve in the top panel displays the depolarization of the model in Equation 8 with Φ = 50 rad m−2 . The polarization angle of the analyt…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Example of a simulated source with uniform intrinsic polarization angle θ0 = 0 rad m−2 , σϕ = 15 rad m−2 , γ = −3.0 and uniform |P0| = 0.15, ϕ0 = 0.0 rad m−2 . The left panel shows q = Q/I across the source. The middle panel shows u = U/I across the source. The right …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Example of a simulated source with uniform intrinsic polarization angle θ0 = 0 rad m−2 , σϕ = 15 rad m−2 , γ = −3.0 and uniform |P0| = 0.15, ϕ0 = 0.0 rad m−2 . The Faraday screen of this source has the same statistical parameters as the screen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Example of a simulated source with uniform intrinsic polarization angle θ0 = 0 rad m−2 , σϕ = 15 rad m−2 , γ = −2.0 and uniform |P0| = 0.15, ϕ0 = 0.0 rad m−2 . Compared with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Repeat of the simulated source in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Repeat of the experiment in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., & Ryu, D

    Akahori, T., Gaensler, B. M., & Ryu, D. 2014, , 790, 123

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    S., Gaensler, B

    Anderson, C. S., Gaensler, B. M., Feain, I. J., et al. 2015, , 815, 49

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    S., Gaensler B

    Anderson, C. S., Gaensler B. M., & Feain, I. J. 2016, , 825, 59

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    S., Gaensler, B

    Anderson, C. S., Gaensler, B. M., Heald, G. H., et al. 2018, , 855, 41

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    S., Heald, G

    Anderson, C. S., Heald, G. H., Eilek, J. A., et al. 2021, , 38, 20

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Ar\'amburo-Garcia, A., Bondarenko, K., Boyarsky, A. et al. 2023, , 519, 4030

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    A., Eilek, J

    Baidoo, L., Perley, R. A., Eilek, J. et al. 2023, , 955,16

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    & Gaensler, B

    Beck, R. & Gaensler, B. M. 2004, New Astronomy Reviews , 48, 1289

    work page 2004

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    L., Miniati, F., Lilly, S

    Bernet, M. L., Miniati, F., Lilly, S. J. et al. 2008, , 454, 302

    2008

  2. [10]

    L., Miniati, F

    Bernet, M. L., Miniati, F. & Lilly, S. J. 2012, , 761, 144

    2012

  3. [11]

    L., Miniati, F., & Lilly, S

    Bernet, M. L., Miniati, F., & Lilly, S. J. 2013, , 772, L28

    2013

  4. [12]

    2016, , 595, A32

    Beuther, H., Bihr, S., Rugel, M., et al. 2016, , 595, A32

    2016

  5. [13]

    ockmann, K., Br\

    B\"ockmann, K., Br\"uggen, M., Heesen, V. et al. 2023, , 678, A56

    2023

  6. [14]

    A., & De Bruyn, A

    Brentjens, M. A., & De Bruyn, A. G. 2005, , 441, 1217

    2005

  7. [15]

    Burn, B. J. 1966, , 133, 67

    1966

  8. [16]

    Scaife, A

    C\'arcamo, M. Scaife, A. M. M., Alexander, E. et al. 2023, , 518, 1955

    2023

  9. [17]

    E., Kronberg, P

    Clarke, T. E., Kronberg, P. P., & B\"ohringer, H. 2001, , 547, L111

    2001

  10. [18]

    W., Cordes, J

    Clegg, A. W., Cordes, J. M., Simonetti, J. M. et al. 1992, , 386, 143

    1992

  11. [19]

    D., Dallacasa, D., Fanti, C

    Cotton, W. D., Dallacasa, D., Fanti, C. et al. 2003, , 20, 12

    2003

  12. [20]

    S., Gaensler, B

    Farnes, J. S., Gaensler, B. M., & Carretti, E. 2014, , 212, 15

    2014

  13. [21]

    S., O'Sullivan, S

    Farnes, J. S., O'Sullivan, S. P., Corrigan, M. E. et al. 2014, , 795, 63

    2014

  14. [22]

    M., Haverkorn, M., Burkhart, B

    Gaensler, B. M., Haverkorn, M., Burkhart, B. et al. 2011, , 478, 214

    2011

  15. [23]

    Goddi, C., Mart\'i-Vidal, I., Messias, H. et al. 2021, , 910, L14

    2021

  16. [24]

    M., Robishaw, T., & Gaensler, B

    Hammond, A. M., Robishaw, T., & Gaensler, B. M. 2013, arxiv:1209.1438v3

    2013 arXiv

  17. [25]

    K., Taylor, A

    Grant, J. K., Taylor, A. R., Stil, J. M. et al. 2010, , 714, 1689

    2010

  18. [26]

    A., Norris, R

    Hales, C. A., Norris, R. P., Gaensler, B. M. et al. 2014, , 440, 3113

    2014

  19. [27]

    Haverkorn. M. Gaensler, B. M., McClure-Griffiths et al. 2004, , 609, 776

    2004

  20. [28]

    2009, IAUS, 259, 591

    Heald, G. 2009, IAUS, 259, 591

    2009

  21. [29]

    2020, Galaxies, 8, 53

    Heald, G., Mao, S.-A., Vacca, V., et al. 2020, Galaxies, 8, 53

    2020

  22. [30]

    P., Br\"uggen, M

    Heesen, V., O'Sullivan, S. P., Br\"uggen, M. et al. 2023, , 670, L23

    2023

  23. [31]

    H., Michilli, D., Spitler, L

    Hilmarsson, G. H., Michilli, D., Spitler, L. G. et al. 2021, , 908, L10

    2021

  24. [32]

    Johnston-Hollitt, M., Govoni, F., Beck, R. et al. 2015, in Proceedings of Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14). 9 -13 June, 2014. Giardini Naxos, Italy, id. 92

    2015

  25. [33]

    S., Stil, J

    Johnston, R. S., Stil, J. M., & Keller, B. W. 2021, , 909, 73

    2021

  26. [34]

    2003, , 406, 579

    Klein, U., Mack, K.-H., Gregorini, L., & Vigotti, M. 2003, , 406, 579

    2003

  27. [35]

    2014, , 66, 61

    Kumazaki, K., Akahori, T., Ideguchi, S., et al. 2014, , 66, 61

    2014

  28. [36]

    A., Bridle, A

    Laing, R. A., Bridle, A. H., Parma, P, et al. 2008, , 521, 549

    2008

  29. [37]

    L., Dewdney, P

    Landecker, T. L., Dewdney, P. E., Burgess, T. A., et al. 2000, A&AS, 145, 509

    2000

  30. [38]

    Law, C. J. , Gaensler B. M., Bower, G. C., et al. 2011, , 728, 57

    2011

  31. [39]

    M., & Dennison, B

    Lawler, J. M., & Dennison, B. 1982, , 252, 81

    1982

  32. [40]

    D., McClure-Griffiths, N

    Livingston, J. D., McClure-Griffiths, N. M., Gaensler, B. M., et al. 2021, 502, 3814

    2021

  33. [41]

    2024, , 694, A125

    Loi, F., Serra, P., Murgia M., et al. 2024, , 694, A125

    2024

  34. [42]

    M., Michilli, D

    McKinven, R., Gaensler, B. M., Michilli, D. et al. 2023, , 950, 12

    2023

  35. [43]

    P., Feain, I

    O'Sullivan, S. P., Feain, I. J., McClure-Griffiths, N. M. 2013, , 764, 162

    2013

  36. [44]

    P., Purcell, C

    O'Sullivan, S. P., Purcell, C. R., Anderson, C. S. et al. 2017, , 469, 4034

    2017

  37. [45]

    P., Shimwell, T

    O'Sullivan, S. P., Shimwell, T. W., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2023, , 519, 5723

    2023

  38. [46]

    R., Van Eck, C

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

    2020

  39. [47]

    Rudnick, L, & Cotton, W. D. 2023, , 522, 1464

    2023

  40. [48]

    Rudnick, L., & Owen, F. N. 2014, , 785, 45

    2014

  41. [49]

    P., & Button, S

    Simard-Normandin, M., Kronberg, P. P., & Button, S. 1981, , 45, 97

    1981

  42. [50]

    H., Rudnick, L., Akahori, T

    Sun, X. H., Rudnick, L., Akahori, T. et al. 2015, , 149, 60

    2015

  43. [51]

    2010, , 409, 99

    Schnitzeler, D. 2010, , 409, 99

    2010

  44. [52]

    J., Stil, J

    Shanahan, R., Lemmer, S. J., Stil, J. M., et al. 2019, , 887, L7

    2019

  45. [53]

    Shanahan, R., Stil, J. M. , Anderson, L., et al. 2023, 957, 60

    2023

  46. [54]

    H., Cordes, J

    Simonetti, J. H., Cordes, J. M., & Spangler, S. R. 1984, , 284, 126

    1984

  47. [55]

    M., Taylor, A

    Stil, J. M., Taylor, A. R., & Sunstrum, C. 2011, , 726, 4

    2011

  48. [56]

    M., Keller, B

    Stil, J. M., Keller, B. W., George, S. J. et al. 2014, , 787, 99

    2014

  49. [57]

    D., Bykov, A

    Sokoloff, D. D., Bykov, A. A., Shukurov, A., Berkhuijsen, E. M., Beck, R., & Poezd, A. D. 1998, , 299, 189

    1998

  50. [58]

    R., Stil, J

    Taylor, A. R., Stil, J. M., & Sunstrum, C. 2009, ApJ, 702, 1230

    2009

  51. [59]

    Tribble, P. C. 1991, , 250, 726

    1991

  52. [60]

    Vanderwoude, S., West., J., Gaensler, B. M. et al. 2024, , 167, 226

    2024

  53. [61]

    Gaensler, B

    Vernstrom, T. Gaensler, B. M., Rudnick, L., & Andernach, H. 2019, , 878, 92

    2019

  54. [62]

    L., Murphy, T., et al

    Wang, Z., Kaplan, D. L., Murphy, T., et al. 2021, , 920, 45

    2021

  55. [63]

    J., Stil, J

    Weatherhead, K. J., Stil, J. M., Rugel, M., et al. 2024, , 970, 92

    2024

  56. [64]

    Windhorst, R.\ A.\ 2003, The microJansky and nano-Jansky Population, in New Astronomy Reviews , 47, 357

    2003

  57. [65]

    1962, , 136, 1152

    Woltjer, L. 1962, , 136, 1152

    1962

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.