Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 74 references

On the Fast-radio-burst-associated X-ray Bursts: Inverse Compton Scattering of Radio Photons by an Extreme Pair Flow During Magnetosphere Activities

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The hard, millisecond X-ray peaks seen with the Galactic fast radio burst FRB 200428 are, according to this paper, the burst's own radio photons inverse-Compton-scattered to X-ray energies by a transient, mildly relativistic…

desk verdict A plausible and well-grounded ICS model for the FRB-associated hard X-ray peaks, but the timing success is weakened by post-hoc peak re-pairing and separate fits per peak. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12405 v1 pith:OANI5PQ5 submitted 2025-07-16 astro-ph.HE

Yue Wu , Yuan-Pei Yang , Fa-Yin Wang , Zi-Gao Dai This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsmagnetarsX-rayinverseComptonscatteringSGRJ1935+2154FRB200428221014pairplasma
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 argues that the hard, millisecond X-ray peaks that accompanied the Galactic fast radio burst FRB 200428 from the magnetar SGR J1935+2154—and the similar X-ray counterpart of FRB 221014 in 2022—are not produced by the usual magnetar fireball. Instead, they are the burst's own radio photons, inverse-Compton-scattered up to X-ray energies by a short-lived, mildly relativistic flow of electron-positron pairs sitting just outside the light cylinder. In this picture, the unusually hard spectrum (cutoff near 80 keV) and the few-millisecond offsets between radio and X-ray peaks come from Doppler-boosted scattering plus two competing geometric delays, so the same mechanism naturally produces both delayed peaks and advanced precursor peaks. The authors fit the observed spectra and time shifts with a bulk flow Lorentz factor $\Gamma\approx 10$ and comoving pair Lorentz factors $\gamma'_{\rm m}\approx 5\times10^4$, and they propose the flow forms when a transient low-frequency pulse compresses the magnetar wind and magnetic reconnection accelerates pairs in the current sheet. If correct, the model ties FRB emission and X-ray burst emission to one magnetosphere activity episode and predicts that some hard X-ray bursts should appear without any detectable radio burst, and vice versa.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ephemeral 'extreme pair flow': a mildly relativistic ($\Gamma\sim 10$) collection of electron-positron pairs with a power-law comoving energy distribution ($\gamma'_{\rm m}\sim 5\times10^4$, index $p\approx 2$) located around the light cylinder, formed by a large-scale low-frequency pulse ($L\sim 10^{40}$-$10^{41}\,{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}$) compressing the magnetar wind and by magnetic reconnection in the current sheet (Eq. 6). The argument rides on three pieces: the anisotropic inverse Compton cross section for relativistic electrons (Eq. 11), the Doppler factors $D_{\rm obs}$ and $D_*$ linking comoving and observer-frame photon energies, and the geometric time-shift relation $\Delta t = -\delta\theta\,T/(2\pi) + R_S(1-\cos\theta)/c$, where $\delta\theta$ is the angle the rotating FRB cone sweeps before pointing to the observer, $R_S$ is the scattering radius, and $\theta$ is the scattering angle. Jointly fitting the spectrum and the time shift removes much of the parameter degeneracy that would remain if only one observable were used.

What would settle it

Measure SGR J1935+2154's magnetic inclination angle from the rotation-phase modulation of its pulsed emission: if it is clearly below roughly 40 degrees, the required geometry of the FRB beam passing through the equatorial pair flow fails. Alternatively, catch the next FRB-associated burst with sub-millisecond broadband X-ray spectroscopy and check that the hard millisecond peaks track the 3.24 s rotation phase and that the spectral cutoff follows the single-scattering relation; a peak at the wrong phase, or a cutoff requiring $\Gamma\gamma'$ far from $\sim 5\times10^5$, would falsify the ICS interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the distinctive X-ray counterpart of FRB 200428—a roughly 0.2 s thermal bump plus several millisecond hard peaks with a cutoff energy near 80 keV and time offsets of about 3.5, 6.7, and -20.55 ms relative to the radio peaks—is a single-scattering inverse Compton echo of the FRB itself. Radio photons emitted in a narrow cone inside the magnetosphere pass through a transient 'extreme pair flow' near the scattering radius $R_S\approx 1.5R_L$, and Doppler boosting converts them into the observed 10-100 keV X-rays. The time shift $\Delta t = -\delta\theta\,T/2\pi + R_S(1-\cos\theta)/c$ combines an earlier rotational phase with an extra light-travel path, which is why the X-ray peaks can either lag or precede the radio burst. The same model, with adjusted flow parameters and geometry, reproduces the harder, advanced X-ray counterpart of FRB 221014. Joint spectral-temporal fits to the two main X-ray peaks and the precursor subpeak constrain the FRB cone angle $\theta_{\rm frb}\sim 0.1$ rad, the swept angle $\delta\theta\sim 0.01$ rad, and an intrinsic radio duration of several to tens of milliseconds.

Load-bearing premise

The model stands or falls on the existence, at the right time and place, of an 'extreme pair flow' with roughly $\Gamma\sim 10$, comoving $\gamma'_{\rm m}\sim 5\times10^4$, and luminosity $\sim 10^{40}\,{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}$ near the light cylinder, oriented so that the FRB beam crosses it—a flow that is not directly observed and whose formation is proposed rather than measured.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The model reproduces both the roughly 3.5 ms and 6.7 ms delayed main X-ray peaks of FRB 200428 and the 20.55 ms precursor subpeak with one physical mechanism and the same pair flow.
  • It also accounts for FRB 221014's harder, advanced X-ray counterpart, with predicted time advances of 20 to 70 ms depending on the geometry.
  • It predicts several association morphologies: radio-only events where the scattering is too faint, X-ray-only events where the FRB is quenched before sweeping into view, and 'slow radio bursts' seen slightly off the emission cone.
  • The fitted geometry implies the intrinsic radio emission lasts several to tens of milliseconds and the FRB cone angle is about 0.1 rad, linking the observed burst duration to the magnetar's rotation.
  • Hard X-ray bursts from other magnetars with no detected radio counterpart, such as five hard outliers in the long-term sample discussed in the paper, could be the same ICS process with the radio beam pointing away from Earth.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A directly testable consequence the authors do not develop is that, because the scattering radius is only about 1.5 light-cylinder radii, the upscattered X-ray photons should arrive with an energy-dependent light-travel delay within each millisecond peak, so sub-millisecond spectroscopy could resolve a hard-to-soft or soft-to-hard sweep across a single peak.
  • The model implicitly predicts that the hard X-ray peaks should carry a polarization signature inherited from the scattered radio burst, so measuring X-ray polarization of the millisecond peaks could distinguish single-scattering ICS from synchrotron or thermal alternatives.
  • If the pair flow is as ephemeral as assumed, lasting only tens of milliseconds, then the same magnetar should produce mostly ordinary trapped-fireball bursts with the hard ICS peaks appearing only in rare events where the pulse and geometry align; future simultaneous radio and X-ray monitoring can count that population ratio.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the hard, multi-peaked X-ray bursts (XRBs) associated with the Galactic FRB 200428, and possibly with FRB 221014 from the same magnetar, are produced by inverse Compton scattering (ICS) of FRB photons by an extreme, ephemeral relativistic pair flow located near the light cylinder. The authors derive the properties of this pair flow from a scenario involving compression of a large-scale low-frequency pulse and magnetic reconnection in a current sheet (Sec. 2.2, Eq. 6). They compute the ICS spectrum (Eqs. 9-11) and the arrival-time shift between the X-ray and radio peaks (Eq. 13), then fit the spectral and temporal properties of the observed peaks using the parameters in Table 1. For FRB 221014, they present a parameter scan over possible time advances (Sec. 3.3, Table 2). The central claim is that a single physical mechanism, ICS by a pair flow with bulk Lorentz factor Γ ~ 10 and comoving minimum Lorentz factor γ'_m ~ 5 × 10^4, can explain both the hard cutoff energy and the millisecond time offsets, regardless of whether the X-ray peak lags or leads the radio peak.

Significance. If the model is correct, it would provide a unified physical explanation for the unusual spectral hardness and the sub-millisecond-to-millisecond time shifts seen in FRB-associated XRBs, connecting the FRB generation region with a high-energy counterpart through a concrete scattering scenario. The paper's strengths include a specific physical formation channel for the scatterers, an explicit anisotropic ICS spectral calculation, and a clear set of predictions, including a variety of possible FRB-XRB association patterns. These are valuable for motivating future simultaneous radio/X-ray observations. However, the current evidence is suggestive rather than decisive: the model contains many free parameters, the peak assignments are flexible, and the second application to FRB 221014 is not yet a data fit. The central claims would be substantially strengthened by a joint fit with fixed peak associations and shared pair-flow parameters.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 4 caption] The assignment of X-ray peaks to radio peaks is not fixed a priori. The text explicitly allows the first "main" X-ray peak to be either a delayed counterpart of the first radio peak or an advanced precursor of the second radio peak, and the same ambiguity applies to the subpeak. Because the geometric parameters δθ, θ, and θ_frb are fit independently for each peak, Eq. (13) can accommodate almost any time shift in the observed range. This flexibility substantially weakens the claim that the model explains the observed TOA offsets; a fixed association or an explicit demonstration that the inferred parameters are stable under all allowed associations is needed.
  2. [Table 1] The two delayed "main" peaks are fitted with different pair-flow parameters: Γ = 10 vs 9, γ'_min = 5.0 × 10^4 vs 3.5 × 10^4, different γ'_max, and different pair luminosity L (2.8 vs 4.0 × 10^40 erg/s). The model narrative assumes a single extreme pair flow produced during one magnetar activity episode, but the present fits do not require the different peaks to arise from the same flow, the same electron distribution, or the same rotating geometry. A joint fit in which the pair-flow parameters are shared among all peaks, with only the rotation-dependent angles varying, is necessary to support the multipeak explanation.
  3. [Sec. 3.3, Table 2] The treatment of FRB 221014 is a parameter scan over |∆t_max| = 20-70 ms, not a fit to the GECAM or Konus-Wind data. The text states that a refined analysis of the GECAM data is ongoing and will be reported later. Therefore, the abstract's assertion that the model "can also account for another associated event" is not supported by the present analysis. The authors should either present an actual fit once the data are available or soften the claim to a forward prediction.
  4. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (6)] The derived values Γ ~ 10 and γ'_m ~ 5 × 10^4 rest on a chain of model assumptions: pressure balance between the external magnetic field and the pairs (Eq. 3), equality of reconnection energy release and synchrotron cooling (Eq. 4), and a layer thickness proportional to the Larmor radius with unknown factor ξ (Eq. 5). The sensitivity of the final parameters to the uncertain quantities η_rec, ξ, and L is not quantified. These derived values should be presented as order-of-magnitude estimates rather than as constraints, and a short propagation-of-uncertainty or range test would help the reader assess their robustness.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (14)] The Gaussian model for the FRB spectrum is missing the square on the exponent; it should read exp[-((ν - ν_p)/δν)^2 / 2].
  2. [Sec. 3.3] "Knous-Wind" is a typo for "Konus-Wind".
  3. [Conclusions] "magnetophsere" should be "magnetosphere".
  4. [Title/header] The posted draft contains the word "F ast" with an extra space in the title; this should be corrected.
  5. [Fig. 1] The figure contains placeholder labels such as "∆?" and "?" that should be replaced with the actual time intervals and peak designations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an explicit fitting model, with the formation scenario in Sec. 2.2 providing partially independent parameter estimates and no fitted quantity renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper does not exhibit a circular reduction. The ICS spectrum and time shift are derived from the standard anisotropic Compton cross-section (Eqs. 9-11) and a geometric relation (Eq. 13), and the model parameters in Table 1 are explicitly fit to the HXMT spectra and the observed TOA shifts; the text repeatedly uses 'fit' and 'constrained' (Sec. 3.2), not 'predicted' for these quantities. The key pair-flow parameters Gamma ~ 10 and gamma'_m ~ 5e4 are derived in Sec. 2.2 from pulse compression and reconnection energy-balance arguments (Eqs. 1-6), which are independent of the X-ray timing data. The time-shift equation does contain free geometric parameters (delta_theta, theta, RS), and the peak-pairing choices in Sec. 3.2 are somewhat flexible, but this is model degeneracy and post-hoc fitting rather than a definitional equivalence: the paper does not claim to predict a time shift and then use that same time shift as its input. Self-citations (e.g., Wang et al. 2023 for the compression formula, Huang & Dai 2024 for strong-wave effects) are either co-cited with external work or used for supporting, non-unique model elements, not as a load-bearing uniqueness theorem. The manuscript's own caveats about uncertainties (Sec. 4) further undercut any suggestion that the model is presented as a forced derivation. Overall, the derivation chain is a standard parameterized model fit to external data, not a circular argument.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on a large number of free parameters (at least 9 fit parameters plus 2 assumed reconnection parameters) and on several unobserved components (extreme pair flow, low-frequency pulse) and geometric assumptions (corotating FRB beam, inclination angle ≳ 40°). The model is therefore flexible enough to fit the two events, but the physical scenario is not uniquely constrained by the current data.

free parameters (11)
  • Bulk Lorentz factor Γ = 10 (9-16 in fits)
    Determines Doppler boosting and spectral peak; fit to X-ray spectra and time shifts in Tables 1-2.
  • Minimum comoving Lorentz factor γ'_min = 3.1-6.0 × 10^4
    Sets the minimum energy of the pair power-law distribution; fit to spectral shape.
  • Maximum comoving Lorentz factor γ'_max = 0.8-1.8 × 10^5 (lower limit)
    Sets the high-energy cutoff; only a lower limit is constrained by lack of high-energy data.
  • Power-law index p = 2-2.7
    Controls the spectral slope; fit to X-ray spectra.
  • Pair luminosity L = 0.5-63 × 10^40 erg/s
    Normalizes the ICS flux; fit to observed X-ray flux.
  • Scattering radius R_S = 1.3-4.6 R_L
    Sets the path difference and photon/electron densities; fit to time shift and flux.
  • Incident angle θ = 0.04-0.16 rad
    Affects Doppler factor and time-shift path term; fit to time shift and spectrum.
  • FRB swept angle δθ = 0.007-0.06 rad
    Controls the phase-advance term in the time shift; fit to time shift.
  • FRB cone angle θ_frb = 0.07-0.15 rad
    Related to θ and δθ; constrained by geometry and time shift.
  • Reconnection rate η_rec = assumed ~10^-2
    Input to Eq. (6) that sets Γ and γ'_m; not directly measured.
  • Layer width parameter ξ = assumed ~10
    Input to Eq. (5)-(6); sets the reconnection layer width and particle energies.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Magnetar parameters: surface field B_ns, radius R_ns, rotation period T=3.24 s, distance 6.6 kpc
    Used to compute R_L, R_open, and the time-shift phase term; taken from observations of SGR J1935+2154.
  • ad hoc to paper FRB is generated in the magnetosphere with a narrow emission cone that corotates with the magnetar and persists for several to tens of ms
    Central geometry assumption of Section 2.1(3); required for the time-shift mechanism.
  • ad hoc to paper An extreme pair flow with Γ~10 and power-law comoving distribution exists near the light cylinder during the event
    The scattering medium is postulated; its formation via pulse compression and reconnection is outlined in Section 2.2 but not directly observed.
  • ad hoc to paper Magnetar inclination angle α ≳ 40° so the FRB beam crosses the equatorial pair flow
    Geometric condition stated in Section 4; required for the scattering geometry.
  • ad hoc to paper The pair flow energy is dominated by electron-positron pairs (L± ≈ L)
    Assumed in Section 2.2 to relate pair luminosity to the burst luminosity.
  • standard math Standard ICS cross section (Aharonian & Atoyan 1981) is valid at the scattering radius; strong-wave effects are negligible
    Used in Eq. (9)-(11); justified by the argument that at R_S ~ 1.5 R_L, ω_B < ω_frb and the cross section approaches σ_T.
invented entities (2)
  • Extreme pair flow
    purpose: Provides the relativistic electron-positron population that upscatters FRB photons to X-ray energies through ICS.
    No direct observation of such a flow is presented; its existence and parameters are inferred from the model fit to the X-ray spectra and time shifts.
  • Large-scale low-frequency pulse
    purpose: Compresses the magnetar wind and triggers reconnection, forming the extreme pair flow.
    Postulated as the trigger of the pair flow; no direct detection is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Fast-radio-burst-associated X-ray Bursts: Inverse Compton Scattering of Radio Photons by an Extreme Pair Flow During Magnetosphere Activities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OANI5PQ5

@misc{pith2026250712405,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Fast-radio-burst-associated X-ray Bursts: Inverse Compton Scattering of Radio Photons by an Extreme Pair Flow During Magnetosphere Activities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OANI5PQ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12405}
}
abstract

The Galactic fast radio burst (FRB) FRB 200428 was associated with a short X-ray burst (XRB) from the magnetar SGR J1935+2154 during one of its active phases. This FRB-associated XRB exhibits distinct properties compared to other typical XRBs, including a significantly higher cutoff energy and a steeper power-law index. Its recovered X-ray light curve shows a multiple-peak structure, with the time of arrival offset from that of the FRB. These unique features imply a special physical link between the FRB and X-ray emissions. In 2022 October, a similar FRB-XRB association was detected from the same source. In this paper, we propose a model in which the observed spectral and temporal features of the associated XRBs can be attributed to the inverse Compton scattering (ICS) of FRB photons by an extreme pair flow around the light cylinder, with a bulk Lorentz factor of $\Gamma\sim10$ and a power-law distribution in the comoving frame, characterized by a typical Lorentz factor $\gamma^\prime_\mathrm{m}\sim5\times 10^4$. This extreme pair flow could originate from the compression of a transient pulse of $\sim10^{40}-10^{41}\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ and the acceleration through magnetic reconnection in the current sheet during magnetar activity. The Doppler-boosted ICS spectra and the arrival time shifts in such a scenario can well explain the observed features of the FRB 200428-associated XRB and can also account for another associated event in 2022.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12405 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. TOA and interval of the radio peaks of FRB 200428 and ∼millisecond X-ray peaks of the FRB-associated XRB (two “main” peaks and a “subpeak”) (Ge et al. 2023; Giri et al. 2023). The green and blue dashed vertical lines denote the refined estimates for the TOAs of the radio and X-ray peaks, respectively. All the timestamps are corrected to an infinite frequency and referenced to the geocentric system. The ∼ 0.2 s wide … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A flowchart showing the core concepts and assumptions of the model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic configuration of the ICS of FRB photons by an extreme pair flow. An extreme pair flow is characterized by a bulk Lorentz factor of Γ ∼ 10, and the relativistic electrons in the comoving frame follow a power-law distribution with a typical local Lorentz factor of γ ′ m ∼ 5 × 104 . This extreme pair flow could originate from the compression by a transient pulse of ∼ 1040−41erg s−1 and acceleration through ma… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: X-ray spectrum of the FRB-outflow ICS model (black solid line) compared with the Insight-HXMT observation of the X-ray peaks (the grey, yellow and orange markers show the 1–10 keV, 5–30 keV, and 20–250 keV energy ranges, respectively; Ge et al. 2023). (a) The first “ma…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Predicted spectral energy distribution of the FRB-outflow ICS model for the FRB 221014-associated X-ray counterpart, compared with the typical trapped fireball spectrum characterized by an effective temperature of kBTeff ∼ 10 keV. The maximum time advance (assuming the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., & Atoyan, A

    Aharonian, F. A., & Atoyan, A. M. 1981, Ap&SS, 79, 321, doi: 10.1007/BF00649428

    doi:10.1007/bf00649428 1981

  2. [2]

    A., & Bogovalov, S

    Aharonian, F. A., & Bogovalov, S. V. 2003, NewA, 8, 85, doi: 10.1016/S1384-1076(02)00200-2

    work page doi:10.1016/s1384-1076(02)00200-2 2003

  3. [3]

    A., Bogovalov, S

    Aharonian, F. A., Bogovalov, S. V., & Khangulyan, D. 2012, Nature, 482, 507, doi: 10.1038/nature10793

    doi:10.1038/nature10793 2012

  4. [4]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ApJL, 843, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3 —. 2020, ApJ, 896, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab83eb —. 2021, ApJL, 922, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2fa0

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3 2017

  5. [5]

    S., Kuznetsova, I

    Beskin, V. S., Kuznetsova, I. V., & Rafikov, R. R. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 341, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01659.x

    arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    Bogovalov, S. V. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 2197, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1283

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1283 2014

  8. [8]

    V., & Aharonian, F

    Bogovalov, S. V., & Aharonian, F. A. 2000, MNRAS, 313, 504, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03250.x

    arXiv 2000

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    J., & Zhang, B

    Chen, C. J., & Zhang, B. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 6284, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3747 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    2002, ApJ, 566, 336, doi: 10.1086/324778

    Contopoulos, I., & Kazanas, D. 2002, ApJ, 566, 336, doi: 10.1086/324778

    2002 doi

  3. [11]

    G., & Zhong, S

    Dai, Z. G., & Zhong, S. Q. 2020, ApJL, 895, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8f2d

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    2008, A&A, 477, 691, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078261 —

    Dubus, G., Cerutti, B., & Henri, G. 2008, A&A, 477, 691, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078261 —. 2010, A&A, 516, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014023

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    2008, MNRAS, 384, 1483, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12765.x

    Fan, Y.-Z., Piran, T., Narayan, R., & Wei, D.-M. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 1483, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12765.x

    2008

  6. [14]

    V., & Salis, A

    Fargion, D., Konoplich, R. V., & Salis, A. 1997, Zeitschrift fur Physik C Particles and Fields, 74, 571, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9606126

    1997 doi

  7. [15]

    2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15686, 1

    Frederiks, D., Ridnaia, A., Svinkin, D., et al. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15686, 1

    2022

  8. [16]

    Y., Liu, C

    Ge, M. Y., Liu, C. Z., Zhang, S. N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acda1d

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    C., Chawla, P., et al

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

    2023 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Harding, A. K. 2009, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    2009

  11. [19]

    357, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed

    Library, Vol. 357, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. W. Becker, 521, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-76965-1 19

    doi

  12. [20]

    2013, ApJ, 766, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/98

    Hirotani, K. 2013, ApJ, 766, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/98

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, Nature, 626, 500, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-07012-5

    Hu, C.-P., Narita, T., Enoto, T., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 500, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-07012-5

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 226, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad822e

    Huang, Y.-C., & Dai, Z.-G. 2024, ApJ, 975, 226, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad822e

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    X., Xu, H., Xu, Y

    Huang, Y. X., Xu, H., Xu, Y. H., et al. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15707, 1

    2022

  16. [24]

    Y., Borghese, A., Coti Zelati, F., et al

    Ibrahim, A. Y., Borghese, A., Coti Zelati, F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08596, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.08596

    2024 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    2020, ApJL, 904, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abc6a3

    Ioka, K. 2020, ApJL, 904, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abc6a3

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Katz, J. I. 2016, ApJ, 826, 226, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/226

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 2385, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa774

    Kumar, P., & Boˇ snjak,ˇZ. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2385, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa774

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 2697, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2446

    Kumar, P., Gill, R., & Lu, W. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2697, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2446

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

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

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

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    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

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    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

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.00391

    Liu, X., Xu, H., Niu, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.00391. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.00391

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

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

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

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 1397, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2450

    Lu, W., Kumar, P., & Zhang, B. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1397, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2450

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Men, Y

    Luo, R., Wang, B. J., Men, Y. P., et al. 2020, Nature, 586, 693, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2827-2

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    Lyubarskii, Y. E. 1996, A&A, 311, 172

    1996

  29. [37]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, L9, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu046 —

    Lyubarsky, Y. 2014, MNRAS, 442, L9, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu046 —. 2020, ApJ, 897, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab97b5 —. 2021, Universe, 7, 56, doi: 10.3390/universe7030056

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    Lyubarsky, Y., & Kirk, J. G. 2001, ApJ, 547, 437, doi: 10.1086/318354

    2001 doi

  31. [39]

    Lyubarsky, Y. E. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 199, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05290.x

    2002

  32. [40]

    v., Straal, S., & Pastor-Marazuela, I

    Maan, Y., Leeuwen, J. v., Straal, S., & Pastor-Marazuela, I. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15697, 1

    2022

  33. [41]

    2022, ApJL, 932, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7156

    Spitkovsky, A., & Hakobyan, H. 2022, ApJL, 932, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7156

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    F., Philippov, A

    Mahlmann, J. F., Philippov, A. A., Mewes, V., et al. 2023, ApJL, 947, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accada

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

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

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    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

  37. [45]

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

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

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    2025, Nature, 637, 48, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08297-w

    Nimmo, K., Pleunis, Z., Beniamini, P., et al. 2025, Nature, 637, 48, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08297-w

    2025 doi

  39. [47]

    Osmanov, Z., & Rieger, F. M. 2009, A&A, 502, 15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912101 —. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 1347, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2408

    2009 doi

  40. [48]

    Palm, D. M. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15667, 1

    2022

  41. [49]

    B., & Chime/FRB Collaboration

    Pearlman, A. B., & Chime/FRB Collaboration. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15792, 1 P´ etri, J. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2023, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21350.x

    2022

  42. [50]

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

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    J., & Lin, W

    Qiao, G. J., & Lin, W. P. 1998, A&A, 333, 172, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9708245

    1998 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 2020, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1910

    Qu, Y., Kumar, P., & Zhang, B. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 2020, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1910

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    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

  46. [54]

    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

  47. [55]

    Thompson, C., & Duncan, R. C. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 255, doi: 10.1093/mnras/275.2.255

    1995 doi

  48. [56]

    A., & Spitkovsky, A

    Uzdensky, D. A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, ApJ, 780, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/3

    2014 doi

  49. [57]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 4094, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3681 —

    Wada, T., & Ioka, K. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4094, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3681 —. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.17668, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.17668

    2023 doi arXiv

  50. [58]

    Y., Wang, Y

    Wang, F. Y., Wang, Y. Y., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab74d0

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    Y., Zhang, G

    Wang, F. Y., Zhang, G. Q., Dai, Z. G., & Cheng, K. S. 2022b, Nature Communications, 13, 4382, doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-31923-y

    doi

  52. [60]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba955

    Wang, J.-S. 2020, ApJ, 900, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba955

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 035010, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acb9de

    Wang, J.-S., Li, X., Dai, Z., & Wu, X. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 035010, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acb9de

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    2022c, ApJ, 927, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4097

    Wang, W.-Y., Yang, Y.-P., Niu, C.-H., Xu, R., & Zhang, B. 2022c, ApJ, 927, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4097

    doi

  55. [63]

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

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

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    2023, Science Bulletin, 68, 1857, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2023.06.005

    Xie, Y., Geng, J.-J., Zhu, X.-W., et al. 2023, Science Bulletin, 68, 1857, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2023.06.005

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 3138, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac234

    Yamasaki, S., Kashiyama, K., & Murase, K. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3138, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac234

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 484, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2223

    Yamasaki, S., Lyubarsky, Y., Granot, J., & G¨ o˘ g¨ u¸ s, E. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 484, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2223

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

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

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

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

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

    Yang, Y.-P., & Zhang, B. 2018, ApJ, 868, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae685 —. 2020, ApJL, 892, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7ccf —. 2021, ApJ, 919, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac14b5 —. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4907, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1311

    2018 doi

  61. [69]

    G., Kouveliotou, C., et al

    Younes, G., Baring, M. G., Kouveliotou, C., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 408, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01292-x

    2021 doi

  62. [70]

    G., Harding, A

    Younes, G., Baring, M. G., Harding, A. K., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 339, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01865-y

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    M., Chen, A

    Yuan, Y., Beloborodov, A. M., Chen, A. Y., & Levin, Y. 2020, ApJL, 900, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abafa8

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    M., Chen, A

    Yuan, Y., Beloborodov, A. M., Chen, A. Y., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7529

    2022 doi

  65. [73]

    2020, Nature, 587, 45, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2828-1 —

    Zhang, B. 2020, Nature, 587, 45, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2828-1 —. 2021, ApJL, 907, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd628 —. 2022, ApJ, 925, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3979 —. 2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005

    2020 doi

  66. [74]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc34a

    Zhou, P., Zhou, X., Chen, Y., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc34a

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.