Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 76 references

James Webb Space Telescope Observations of the Nearby and Precisely-Localized FRB 20250316A: A Potential Near-IR Counterpart and Implications for the Progenitors of Fast Radio Bursts

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 Deep JWST imaging finds one faint near-infrared source, NIR-1, inside the FRB 20250316A localization region and argues it is most plausibly a red-giant companion or a sign of a young massive stellar progenitor.

desk verdict A careful JWST counterpart search whose candidate NIR-1 is honestly flagged at 0.36 chance coincidence; the lasting value is the upper limits and the young stellar population analysis, not the association itself. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19007 v1 pith:WSNVRXFP submitted 2025-06-23 astro-ph.HE

Peter K. Blanchard , Edo Berger , Shion E. Andrew , Aswin Suresh , Kohki Uno , Charles D. Kilpatrick , Brian D. Metzger , Harsh Kumar
show 18 more authors
Navin Sridhar Amanda M. Cook Yuxin Dong Tarraneh Eftekhari Wen-fai Fong Walter W. Golay Daichi Hiramatsu Ronniy C. Joseph Victoria M. Kaspi Mattias Lazda Calvin Leung Kiyoshi W. Masui Juan Mena-Parra Kenzie Nimmo Aaron B. Pearlman Vishwangi Shah Kaitlyn Shin Sunil Simha
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsFRB20250316AJWSTnear-infraredimagingstellarpopulationsHIIregionsmagnetarsNGC4141hostgalaxycounterparts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper searches the error box of a precisely localized fast radio burst for anything that might be its progenitor, using very deep near-infrared imaging. It finds a single faint source, NIR-1, offset about 40 milliarcseconds from the burst position, and shows that this source is too faint to be a globular or young star cluster, a red supergiant, a supernova remnant, a Crab-like pulsar wind nebula, or an isolated magnetar. Instead NIR-1 matches a red giant near the red-giant-branch clump or a massive $\gtrsim20\,M_\odot$ main-sequence star, while the surrounding field contains a $\sim$10–100 Myr population of stars up to about $20\,M_\odot$ in an H II region that extends to the burst location. If the association is real, the burst most likely came from a neutron star or magnetar produced in the core collapse of a massive star; if NIR-1 is a chance coincidence, the young stellar population points the same way. The paper also leaves open a transient interpretation, a dust echo from an energetic outburst, which would fade in later observations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a luminosity-and-color sift of a single faint source against every plausible quiescent and transient near-infrared emitter. NIR-1's position inside the $1\sigma$ FRB localization rests on an astrometric tie to an absolute reference frame with estimated uncertainty of 7.5 mas in R.A. and 15.3 mas in Decl.; its nature is decided by comparing its absolute magnitude and color with observed luminosity functions of globular and young clusters, stellar evolutionary tracks and isochrones, empirical supernova and pulsar-wind-nebula templates, and the near-infrared magnitudes of known magnetars. The same color-magnitude diagram machinery applied to the surrounding field identifies the young massive population and the H II region that overlaps the burst position. Binary population synthesis is used separately to test whether NIR-1 could be the evolved companion in a mass-transferring system.

What would settle it

Re-observing the field with JWST about a year after the burst would settle the transient question: a NIR-1 that fades confirms the dust-echo model, while one that remains at $m_{\rm F150W2}\approx30.5$ mag rules it out. Separately, an astrometric tie using additional unsaturated reference stars could shift the $1\sigma$ localization region so that NIR-1 falls outside it, directly falsifying the proposed association.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a faint point source, NIR-1 ($m_{\rm F150W2}=30.52\pm0.14$ mag, $M_{\rm F150W2}\approx-2.5$ mag), located about 40 mas from the centroid of the FRB 20250316A localization region and the only source within about $2.7\sigma$ of it. Using NIR-1's luminosity and color ($m_{\rm F150W2}-m_{\rm F322W2}\lesssim-0.4$), the paper rules out the standard bright counterpart classes and finds consistency only with a red giant near the RGB clump or a $\gtrsim20\,M_\odot$ main-sequence star, with the latter considered less likely. The chance-coincidence probability is about 0.36, so the authors treat NIR-1 both as a possible counterpart and as an upper limit, and separately analyze the resolved stellar population in a 570-pc region around the burst. That population is a mix of old stars and a young ($\sim10$–100 Myr) component associated with an H II region centered about 150 pc away, implying that if the FRB source is an unseen compact object it was likely born in that young population with little or no natal kick. A dust echo from a $\sim10^{44}$ erg outburst is offered as an alternative transient explanation that predicts NIR-1 will fade.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the JWST images and the radio burst position are aligned to the quoted accuracy of about 7.5 mas in R.A. and 15.3 mas in Decl., a tie built from only four reference stars, two of which are saturated; if that tie is off by more than about 40 mas, NIR-1 need not be related to the burst.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If NIR-1 is genuinely the counterpart, FRB 20250316A becomes a rare case where the quiescent emitter of an FRB site is identified, and a red-giant companion would support binary and common-envelope progenitor channels.
  • If NIR-1 is a chance coincidence, the actual FRB source is fainter than $M_{\rm F150W2}\approx-2$ mag, and the young stellar population at the burst site favors an in-situ neutron star or magnetar from a $\gtrsim20\,M_\odot$ progenitor.
  • A repeat observation after about a year distinguishes the two: a fading NIR-1 confirms the dust-echo picture, while a constant NIR-1 rules out the transient interpretation.
  • The lack of any detected supernova at the FRB position in the past two decades argues against a young supernova remnant or pulsar wind nebula, pushing any such remnant below the detection limit.
  • The combination of arcsecond-scale localization and JWST-depth imaging demonstrates a path for using resolved stellar populations at FRB sites to constrain progenitor channels in a larger sample.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A better astrometric tie with more unsaturated reference stars could move the $1\sigma$ region by tens of milliarcseconds; if NIR-1 then falls outside it, the association would be broken even though the stellar-population argument would stand.
  • The chance-coincidence probability of 0.36 means the source-by-source identification is weak on its own; the paper's strongest, most durable claim may be the environmental one, that FRB 20250316A sits in or next to a young massive stellar population.
  • Two wide filters cannot cleanly separate a clump red giant from a $\sim20\,M_\odot$ main-sequence star; medium-band photometry or spectroscopy of NIR-1 could break that degeneracy in a follow-up observation.
  • If the dust-echo interpretation is correct, a simultaneous optical/UV/X-ray flare should have accompanied the FRB; future multi-wavelength monitoring of nearby FRBs could catch such a flare and test the magnetar mass-ejection model directly.
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. The paper presents JWST/NIRCam F150W2 and F322W2 observations of the localization region of FRB 20250316A in NGC 4141, obtained roughly two months after the burst. The authors identify a faint source NIR-1 at about 40 mas from the FRB centroid with m_F150W2 = 30.52 +/- 0.14 mag (M_F150W2 ~ -2.5), report an empirical chance-coincidence probability of 0.36, and state that it is the only detected source within about 2.7 sigma. Using comparisons to M31 globular and young cluster luminosity functions, MIST evolutionary tracks and isochrones, and published NIR fluxes of magnetars, supernova remnants, and pulsar wind nebulae, they rule out several quiescent and transient interpretations and argue that NIR-1 is consistent with an RGB-clump giant or a massive (approximately 20 solar mass) main-sequence star. They also find a young (about 10-100 Myr), massive (up to about 20 solar mass) stellar population in a nearby HII region that extends to the FRB position, and they discuss a dust-echo scenario with the testable prediction that NIR-1 fades. The paper concludes that a neutron star or magnetar produced in the core collapse of a massive star is a plausible progenitor for FRB 20250316A.

Significance. If the association is real, this is one of the first candidate quiescent near-infrared counterparts to an FRB and a striking demonstration of the constraining power of JWST at approximately 10 pc scales. The analysis is generally careful: the astrometric and photometric procedures are described in detail, the chance-coincidence probability is stated explicitly rather than hidden, the ruled-out classes are anchored to external luminosity functions and evolutionary tracks, and the dust-echo scenario gives a concrete, testable prediction. The conclusions are appropriately hedged, and the stellar-population argument is logically independent of whether NIR-1 is truly associated with the FRB. The significance is therefore moderate: the counterpart claim is not statistically secure on its own, but the observational constraints and the progenitor-channel discussion are valuable.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.1] The astrometric tie uncertainty of 7.5 mas in R.A. and 15.3 mas in Decl. is essentially the RMS scatter of only four Gaia calibrators, two of which are saturated and required centroiding on unsaturated level-2 pixels. With n=4, this RMS is a poor estimator of systematic errors such as unmodeled distortion, a tilted plate solution, or saturated-star centroid bias, and the central statement that NIR-1 is the only source within approximately 2.7 sigma depends directly on this error budget. The paper should provide additional validation, such as leave-one-out tests, a bootstrap, a comparison using the fifth Gaia source (ID 1575927168528652800) or any other available astrometric reference, and a conservative systematic term added in quadrature. If a 30-50 mas systematic is plausible, the reported localization ellipse, the 40 mas offset of NIR-1, and the set of candidate counterparts all change; the authors should quantify how the conclusions shift under such an assumption.
  2. [Section 2.3] The empirical chance-coincidence probability P_cc = 0.36 is computed from the number density of dolphot sources at approximately 30.5 mag within 3 arcsec of the FRB position. Because NIR-1 is close to the 5-sigma limit (m_F150W2 ~ 31.0 mag), the source density near the detection threshold may be completeness-limited, and the relevant density for a counterpart at 30.52 mag should be evaluated with a completeness correction or with a threshold set somewhat brighter than the detection limit. In addition, P_cc will increase if the effective search region is enlarged to account for the astrometric systematic discussed in Section 2.1, so the paper should report how P_cc changes under a more conservative error budget.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title contains an extra space: 'F ast Radio Bursts' should read 'Fast Radio Bursts'.
  2. [Sections 3.1-3.3] F150W2 magnitudes are compared directly to K-band luminosity functions for globular clusters, young clusters, and red supergiants; because F150W2 spans 1.0-2.4 microns, the expected F150W2 - K colors of the comparison populations should be quantified, since filter differences could shift the effective luminosity limits by a few tenths of a magnitude.
  3. [Section 3.7] The HII-region chance-coincidence probability P_cc ~ 0.05 is based on a visual census of 'similar regions' in an annulus; the selection criteria should be specified more precisely so that the quoted probability is reproducible.
  4. [Figure 3] In the color-magnitude diagram, NIR-1 is shown as a horizontal bar, but the F322W2 measurement is an upper limit rather than a detection; adding an arrow to indicate the color limit would make the figure more honest about the constraint.
  5. [Section 2.2] The 5-sigma limiting magnitude is defined as the average magnitude of sources detected at 5-sigma significance, which is not a standard completeness-based definition and could be biased by the source luminosity function; artificial-star tests would provide a more robust limiting magnitude and completeness estimate.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the counterpart identification and progenitor interpretation are grounded in external anchors (M31 cluster luminosity functions, MIST tracks, Pecaut & Mamajek); the only in-group 'in preparation' dataset is ancillary.

  1. other [Section 3.4, Figure 4 and caption]
    "To simulate a population of binary systems we employ the rapid population synthesis code COMPAS (J. Riley et al. 2022). Specifically, we use the dataset computed by L. A. C. van Son et al. (2022), which consists of 10^7 binaries with zero-age main sequence (ZAMS) primary star masses of 10–150 M⊙, and metallicities from a logarithmically flat distribution of 10−4≤Z≤0.03 (see also Uno et al., in preparation)."

    The figure and the quantitative claim (84% helium Hertzsprung gap stars with binary ages of ~30–50 Myr) rest on 'Uno et al. in preparation', an unpublished same-group analysis, so it is not independent external support in the way the M31 luminosity functions, MIST tracks, and Pecaut & Mamajek calibrations are. However, this step is ancillary: the identification of NIR-1 as a potential counterpart, its exclusion as a GC/young cluster/RSG/magnetar/PWN, and the core-collapse progenitor inference are all based on external data and published stellar models, so the self-citation does not force the paper's central conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. NIR-1's detection and photometry come from JWST/dolphot, the counterpart association uses the CHIME/FRB localization plus a Gaia astrometric tie (an independent measurement chain), and every nature-of-source comparison is made against external luminosity functions (M31 GCs/young clusters, Pecaut & Mamajek), MIST evolutionary tracks, and published magnetar/PWN/SNR fluxes. The only in-group unpublished input is the COMPAS-based companion-star HR diagram (Uno et al., in preparation) in §3.4; it is used to explore one possible mass-transfer channel and does not feed back into the source classification or the young-population/core-collapse argument. The skeptical concern about the four-calibrator astrometric tie (two saturated) is a legitimate correctness/robustness risk, not a circularity: the tie is an external astrometric calibration, not a quantity derived from NIR-1's properties.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; it compares an observed source against known stellar, cluster, remnant, and magnetar populations, and it models afterglow and dust-echo emission with fiducial microphysical parameters. The main assumptions are the adopted distance, the accuracy of the CHIME localization, the use of solar-metallicity MIST tracks, and the unpublished binary population synthesis that underlies Figure 4.

free parameters (7)
  • radio efficiency f_r = 1e-5
    Adopted in section 3.8 to convert the measured E_FRB ~ 1e39 erg to total outburst energy E ~ 1e44 erg, matching the ratio inferred from the SGR 1935+2154 X-ray counterpart. Used for the afterglow luminosity estimate and the dust-echo luminosity estimate.
  • electron energy fraction epsilon_e = 0.1
    Fiducial shock microphysics parameter in Eq. (4), section 3.8, for the afterglow synchrotron estimate.
  • magnetic energy fraction epsilon_B = 0.1
    Fiducial shock microphysics parameter in Eq. (4), section 3.8.
  • electron power-law index p = 2.3
    Assumed in Eq. (4), section 3.8, for the synchrotron spectral slope.
  • external medium density n0 = 1 cm^-3
    Assumed in Eqs. (1)-(4), section 3.8, for the afterglow deceleration radius and luminosity.
  • dust grain size a = 1 micron (1e-5 cm)
    Assumed in the dust-echo model (section 3.9); affects the temperature-radius mapping and the sublimation radius.
  • outburst duration = 10 s
    Assumed in section 3.9 to convert E ~ 1e44 erg into L ~ 1e43 erg/s for the dust-temperature estimate.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Distance to NGC 4141 is d ~ 40 Mpc (1 arcsec = 190 pc)
    Stated in section 1; all absolute magnitudes and physical sizes (sections 2 and 3) scale with this distance from CHIME/FRB Collaboration et al. (2025).
  • domain assumption CHIME/FRB Outrigger localization region is 57 x 68 mas and accurate as reported
    The counterpart search and the 40 mas offset of NIR-1 are defined relative to this localization (section 2.1); unaccounted systematics would invalidate the association.
  • domain assumption Galactic extinction toward NGC 4141 is negligible in F150W2 (A ~ 0.01 mag)
    Stated in section 1; a larger extinction would shift the dereddened colors and magnitudes of all sources.
  • domain assumption MIST evolutionary tracks and isochrones at solar metallicity describe the local stellar population
    Used in section 3.3 and Figure 3 to classify NIR-1 and decompose the field population; the field metallicity is not measured, so the inferred masses and ages carry this dependence.
  • domain assumption The van Son et al. (2022) COMPAS dataset and its 'Uno et al. (in preparation)' processing are correct
    Figure 4 and section 3.4 use this binary population synthesis to identify which companion types are consistent with NIR-1; the post-processing is unpublished.
  • domain assumption The HII region near the FRB position is physically associated with it and its young massive stars are at the distance of NGC 4141
    Section 3.7 infers a P_cc of about 0.05 and then uses the presence of ~20 M_sun stars to argue for a core-collapse magnetar; a foreground or unrelated HII region would weaken the progenitor inference.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of James Webb Space Telescope Observations of the Nearby and Precisely-Localized FRB 20250316A: A Potential Near-IR Counterpart and Implications for the Progenitors of Fast Radio Bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WSNVRXFP

@misc{pith2026250619007,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: James Webb Space Telescope Observations of the Nearby and Precisely-Localized FRB 20250316A: A Potential Near-IR Counterpart and Implications for the Progenitors of Fast Radio Bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WSNVRXFP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19007}
}
abstract

We present deep James Webb Space Telescope near-infrared imaging to search for a quiescent or transient counterpart to FRB 20250316A, which was precisely localized with the CHIME/FRB Outriggers array to an area of $11\times13$ pc in the outer regions of NGC 4141 at $d\approx40$ Mpc. Our F150W2 image reveals a faint source near the center of the FRB localization region ("NIR-1"; $M_{\rm F150W2}\approx-2.5$ mag; probability of chance coincidence $\approx0.36$), the only source within $\approx2.7\sigma$. We find that it is too faint to be a globular cluster, young star cluster, red supergiant star, or a giant star near the tip of the red giant branch (RGB). It is instead consistent with a red giant near the RGB "clump" or a massive ($\gtrsim20$ M$_{\odot}$) main sequence star, although the latter explanation is less likely. The source is too bright to be a supernova remnant, Crab-like pulsar wind nebula, or isolated magnetar. Alternatively, NIR-1 may represent transient emission, namely a dust echo from an energetic outburst associated with the FRB, in which case we would expect it to fade in future observations. We explore the stellar population near the FRB and find that it is composed of a mix of young massive stars ($\sim10-100$ Myr) in a nearby HII region that extends to the location of FRB 20250316A, and old evolved stars ($\gtrsim$ Gyr). The overlap with a young stellar population, containing stars of up to $\approx20$ M$_\odot$, may implicate a neutron star / magnetar produced in the core collapse of a massive star as the source of FRB 20250316A.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19007 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top left: Our JWST/NIRCam F150W2 image of NGC 4141, the host galaxy of FRB 20250316A, zoomed to highlight the large-scale structure of the galaxy. Top right: Zoomed-in region corresponding to the box in the left panel showing the 1, 2, 3σ localization regions of FRB 20250316A in relation to surrounding resolved stellar population, including a nearby H II region, which is resolved into individual stars and a faint di… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. K-band luminosity distributions of globular clus￾ters (blue) and young clusters (green) in M31, as well as the approximate luminosity ranges of red supergiants (RSGs; red), stars on the red giant branch (RGB; orange), includ￾ing the RGB “tip” and “clump”, and main sequence O stars (cyan). The F150W2 absolute magnitude of NIR-1 (dashed vertical line) indicates it is not a stellar cluster or an RSG, and is instead con… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Color-magnitude diagram (CMD) of stellar sources within a radius of 3′′ (570 pc) of the location of FRB 20250316A. The data points are sized by projected distance to FRB 20250316A (larger for closer sources). Stars that appear spatially coincident with the nearby H II region are shown as orange points. Left: Comparison to MIST evolutionary tracks for several initial masses: 1, 5, 10, 20 M⊙. On each track, thick gray… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: HR diagram of companion stars in binary systems with mass transfer onto a compact object, based on binary population synthesis models, color-coded by volumetric rate (Uno et al. in preparation). The main panel shows the en￾tire population, while the top panels separate…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ApJL, 843, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3 2017

  3. [3]

    Bernadich, M. C. i., Schwope, A. D., Kovlakas, K., Zezas, A., & Traulsen, I. 2022, A&A, 659, A188, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141560

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141560 2022

  4. [4]

    E., Aggarwal, K., et al

    Bhandari, S., Heintz, K. E., Aggarwal, K., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3aec

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac3aec 2022

  5. [5]

    M., Kaspi, V

    Bhardwaj, M., Gaensler, B. M., Kaspi, V. M., et al. 2021, ApJL, 910, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abeaa6

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abeaa6 2021

  6. [6]

    Y., et al

    Bhardwaj, M., Michilli, D., Kirichenko, A. Y., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L51, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad64d1

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad64d1 2024

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    2020,, 1.0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4044744

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2020,, 1.0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4044744

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.4044744 2020

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    J., Wharton, R

    Chatterjee, S., Law, C. J., Wharton, R. S., et al. 2017, Nature, 541, 58, doi: 10.1038/nature20797 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K., et al. 2019, ApJL, 885, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4a80 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al....

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Scholz, P., Pearlman, A

    Cook, A. M., Scholz, P., Pearlman, A. B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a13

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    P., Tendulkar, S

    Curtin, A. P., Tendulkar, S. P., Josephy, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace52f

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    P., Sirota, S., Kaspi, V

    Curtin, A. P., Sirota, S., Kaspi, V. M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5c65

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Bahramian, A., James, C

    Dage, K. C., Bahramian, A., James, C. W., et al. 2023, ApJL, 957, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad03e4

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    2016,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.013

    Dolphin, A. 2016,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.013

    2016

  8. [16]

    2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17112, 1

    Dong, Y. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17112, 1

    2025

  9. [17]

    T., & Lee, H

    Draine, B. T., & Lee, H. M. 1984, ApJ, 285, 89, doi: 10.1086/162480

    1984 doi

  10. [18]

    2025, ApJL, 979, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9de2

    Eftekhari, T., Dong, Y., Fong, W., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9de2

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    C., Bhardwaj, M., et al

    Fonseca, E., Andersen, B. C., Bhardwaj, M., et al. 2020, ApJL, 891, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7208

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    W., Berger, E., Kumar, H., & Hiramatsu, D

    Golay, W. W., Berger, E., Kumar, H., & Hiramatsu, D. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17111

    2025

  13. [21]

    C., Fong, W.-f., Kilpatrick, C

    Gordon, A. C., Fong, W.-f., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace5aa

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    C., Fong, W.-f., Deller, A

    Gordon, A. C., Fong, W.-f., Deller, A. T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.06453, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.06453

    2025 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    K., Dhillon, V

    Hardy, L. K., Dhillon, V. S., Spitler, L. G., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2153

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    E., Prochaska, J

    Heintz, K. E., Prochaska, J. X., Simha, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb6fb

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    D., et al

    Hiramatsu, D., Berger, E., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2023, ApJL, 947, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acae98

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08038, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.08038

    Horowicz, A., & Margalit, B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08038, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.08038

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    James, C. W. 2023, PASA, 40, e057, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2023.51

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    2023, A&A, 675, A166, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245829

    Kangas, T., Ahola, A., Fransson, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A166, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245829

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    D., Burchett, J

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Burchett, J. N., Jones, D. O., et al. 2021, ApJL, 907, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd560

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    D., Tejos, N., Andersen, B

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Tejos, N., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2687

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    2022, Nature, 602, 585, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    Kirsten, F., Marcote, B., Nimmo, K., et al. 2022, Nature, 602, 585, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    L., & Zhang, B

    Kremer, K., Li, D., Lu, W., Piro, A. L., & Zhang, B. 2023, ApJ, 944, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acabbf

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    J., Sharma, K., Ravi, V., et al

    Law, C. J., Sharma, K., Ravi, V., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3736

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    2018, ApJ, 854, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa88d

    Levan, A., Kouveliotou, C., & Fruchter, A. 2018, ApJ, 854, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa88d

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    K., Lin, L., Xiong, S

    Li, C. K., Lin, L., Xiong, S. L., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 378, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01302-6 12Blanchard et al

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    F., Wang, P., et al

    Lin, L., Zhang, C. F., Wang, P., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 63, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2839-y L´ opez, K. M., Heida, M., Jonker, P. G., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 917, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1920

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

    Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M. A., Narkevic, D. J., & Crawford, F. 2007, Science, 318, 777, doi: 10.1126/science.1147532

    2007 doi

  30. [38]

    Lu, W., Kumar, P., & Evans, N. J. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 575, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw307 MAGIC Collaboration, Acciari, V. A., Ansoldi, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2479, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2422

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    Margalit, B., Beniamini, P., Sridhar, N., & Metzger, B. D. 2020, ApJL, 899, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abac57

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    Margalit, B., Berger, E., & Metzger, B. D. 2019, ApJ, 886, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c31

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    2020, ApJL, 898, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba2cf

    Mereghetti, S., Savchenko, V., Ferrigno, C., et al. 2020, ApJL, 898, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba2cf

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    D., Margalit, B., & Sironi, L

    Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B., & Sironi, L. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4091, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz700

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    D., & Perley, D

    Metzger, B. D., & Perley, D. A. 2023, ApJ, 944, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acae89

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    D., Williams, P

    Metzger, B. D., Williams, P. K. G., & Berger, E. 2015, ApJ, 806, 224, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/224

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    2011, Nature, 478, 82, doi: 10.1038/nature10365

    Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2011, Nature, 478, 82, doi: 10.1038/nature10365

    2011 doi

  38. [46]

    F., Massey, P., Georgy, C., et al

    Neugent, K. F., Massey, P., Georgy, C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5ba0

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6be8

    Niino, Y., Doi, M., Sako, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6be8

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    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

  41. [49]

    A., & Kaspi, V

    Olausen, S. A., & Kaspi, V. M. 2014, ApJS, 212, 6, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/6

    2014 doi

  42. [50]

    B., Maccarone, T

    Peacock, M. B., Maccarone, T. J., Knigge, C., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 803, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15952.x

    2010

  43. [51]

    B., Scholz, P., Bethapudi, S., et al

    Pearlman, A. B., Scholz, P., Bethapudi, S., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 111, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02386-6

    2025 doi

  44. [52]

    J., & Mamajek, E

    Pecaut, M. J., & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9

    2013 doi

  45. [53]

    D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al

    Perrin, M. D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. M. Oschmann, Jr., M. Clampin, G...

    2014 doi

  46. [54]

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

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

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

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    2019, PhR, 821, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2019.06.003

    Platts, E., Weltman, A., Walters, A., et al. 2019, PhR, 821, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2019.06.003

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 928, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0831-y

    Ravi, V. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 928, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0831-y

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    2023,, v2 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7892935

    Rest, A., Pierel, J., Correnti, M., et al. 2023,, v2 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7892935

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 372, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01265-0

    Ridnaia, A., Svinkin, D., Frederiks, D., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 372, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01265-0

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    W., et al

    Riley, J., Agrawal, P., Barrett, J. W., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac416c Rodr´ ıguez, M. J., Lee, J. C., Whitmore, B. C., et al. 2023, ApJL, 944, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca653

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    2009, A&A, 504, 525, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912334

    Sandberg, A., & Sollerman, J. 2009, A&A, 504, 525, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912334

    2009 doi

  54. [62]

    G., Hessels, J

    Scholz, P., Spitler, L. G., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/177

    2016 doi

  55. [63]

    Scholz, P., Bogdanov, S., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8456

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    2020, ApJ, 901, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb1a8

    Scholz, P., Cook, A., Cruces, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb1a8

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    2025, ApJL, 979, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9ddc

    Shah, V., Shin, K., Leung, C., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9ddc

    2025 doi

  58. [66]

    2024, Nature, 635, 61, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08074-9

    Sharma, K., Ravi, V., Connor, L., et al. 2024, Nature, 635, 61, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08074-9

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    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

  60. [68]

    Sridhar, N., & Metzger, B. D. 2022, ApJ, 937, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8a4a

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    D., Beniamini, P., et al

    Sridhar, N., Metzger, B. D., Beniamini, P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0140

    2021 doi

  62. [70]

    D., & Fang, K

    Sridhar, N., Metzger, B. D., & Fang, K. 2024, ApJ, 960, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad03e8

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    Y., Jin, C

    Sun, H., Li, D. Y., Jin, C. C., et al. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17119, 1

    2025

  64. [72]

    2020, ApJL, 893, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab86b1

    Tavani, M., Verrecchia, F., Casentini, C., et al. 2020, ApJL, 893, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab86b1

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 401, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01276-x

    Tavani, M., Casentini, C., Ursi, A., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 401, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01276-x

    2021 doi

  66. [74]

    R., & Origlia, L

    Valenti, E., Ferraro, F. R., & Origlia, L. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 815, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08249.x van Son, L. A. C., de Mink, S. E., Callister, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac64a3 van Velzen, S., Mendez, A. J., Krolik, J. H., & Gorjian, V. 2016, ...

    2004

  67. [75]

    R., McQuinn, K

    Weisz, D. R., McQuinn, K. B. W., Savino, A., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdcfd

    2023 doi

  68. [76]

    C., Chandar, R., Rodr´ ıguez, M

    Whitmore, B. C., Chandar, R., Rodr´ ıguez, M. J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 944, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acae94

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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