Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

A Linearly Polarized Merger Shock Down to 550 MHz: A uGMRT Study of the Merging Cluster Abell 746

T0 review · 4 major / 7 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 The first radio-relic polarization measured below 1 GHz: Abell 746's NW relic shows 18±4% linear polarization at 650 MHz.

desk verdict A credible first detection of sub-GHz relic polarization, but the unpublished 3C286 calibration model and the uncorrected ionospheric RM are the two things to fix before I'd trust the details. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19516 v1 pith:DX57YWJ5 submitted 2025-08-27 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.IM

Arpan Pal , Ruta Kale , Reinout J. van Weeren This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.COastro-ph.IM
keywords radiorelicsgalaxyclustermergerspolarizationFaradaydepolarizationlow-frequencyastronomyuGMRTAbell746intraclustermagneticfields
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports the first detection of linearly polarized radio emission from a galaxy-cluster radio relic at frequencies below 1 GHz. In 550–750 MHz uGMRT observations of the northwest relic in Abell 746, the average fractional polarization at 650 MHz is 18±4%, and the rotation-measure-corrected magnetic field vectors align with the shock emission. The authors argue that this overturns the long-standing expectation that Faraday depolarization leaves relics completely unpolarized below 1 GHz, and so opens sub-gigahertz polarimetry as a probe of magnetic fields in cluster outskirts. They also show that a single Faraday-dispersion component cannot fit the relic's depolarization spectrum, and propose a two-component line-of-sight model with a turbulent far-side shock region and a less turbulent near-side region.

What carries the argument

The measurement hinges on a newly derived absolute polarization model for the calibrator 3C286 in the 550–750 MHz band, which sets the polarization angle and fractional polarization scale for the target; the model is cross-checked against MeerKAT UHF measurements and its details are deferred to a separate paper. On the data side, the analysis relies on a GMRT-specific correction for flipped circular feeds (a Stokes header swap). On the physics side, the depolarization fits use the Burn (1966) relations for external and internal Faraday dispersion, $p_{\rm EFD}=p_0 e^{-S}$ and $p_{\rm IFD}=p_0(1-e^{-S})/S$ with $S=2\sigma_{\rm RM}^2\lambda^4$, extended to two-component models in which far-side emission is depolarized again by the near-side region.

What would settle it

Re-observe the NW relic of Abell 746 at 550–750 MHz with an independent interferometer and an independent polarization calibrator; if the 18±4% fractional polarization does not reappear at 650 MHz, the detection is not robust. A more targeted test is to compare the 3C286 model used here with a second, independently derived absolute polarization model for the same band: an angle difference larger than about 5° would shift the relic's apparent magnetic field orientation enough to undercut the alignment claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using full-polarization uGMRT band-4 observations of the merging cluster Abell 746, the paper detects linear polarization from the northwest radio relic at 650 MHz, with an average fractional polarization of 18±4% in the region above 3σ in total intensity and 5σ in polarized intensity. This is claimed as the first detection of polarization from a radio relic below 1 GHz. The RM-corrected magnetic field vectors follow the orientation of the relic, indicating ordered fields, and the fractional polarization reaches roughly 35% at the outer edge. The depolarization spectrum constructed with WSRT data at 1.38 and 1.71 GHz shows a stepwise decline with wavelength that single-component external or internal Faraday dispersion models cannot reproduce; two-component EFD/IFD model combinations fit the spectrum except for an unexplained rise at 706.3 MHz. The paper concludes that the polarized emission contains at least two line-of-sight components with different turbulent properties.

Load-bearing premise

The detection is only as trustworthy as the new polarization model for the calibrator 3C286 in the 550–750 MHz band, whose derivation is described only in outline and deferred to a separate paper; if that model has the wrong polarization angle or fractional polarization, the inferred linear-polarization maps of the relic could be systematically corrupted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the detection holds, radio relics are not universally depolarized below 1 GHz, so low-frequency polarimetry becomes a usable probe of ordered magnetic fields and Faraday dispersion in cluster outskirts.
  • Single-component depolarization models fitted to high-frequency data can badly underpredict sub-gigahertz polarization; future relic studies should include sub-GHz bands before concluding that polarization is absent.
  • The success of two-component models implies that radio-relic polarization often integrates multiple line-of-sight regions, so interpreting relic magnetic fields requires separating near-side and far-side contributions.
  • The unexplained rise in fractional polarization at 706.3 MHz points to a spectral feature that current depolarization models miss; pinning it down would sharpen the magnetic-field constraints.
  • Earlier sub-GHz non-detections of relic polarization may have been limited by sensitivity and resolution rather than by intrinsic depolarization, motivating re-observations of other relics with modern arrays.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same 3C286 calibration approach is applied to other double relics observed in favorable near-plane-of-sky geometry, a fraction of them should show sub-GHz polarization; a small targeted survey would test whether Abell 746 is typical or exceptional.
  • The 706.3 MHz anomaly could be a narrow-band Faraday feature or an unresolved RM component inside the relic; if real, it would favor multi-layer or non-Gaussian magnetic-field models rather than smooth two-component ones.
  • Because the ionospheric rotation measure of about 3.5 rad/m^2 was not removed, the absolute orientation of the field vectors at 650 MHz carries a small extra uncertainty; correcting it in future observations would tighten the alignment claim.
  • The paper's conclusion that the inner (near-side) medium is less turbulent than the outer one is model-dependent; if higher-frequency spatial RM maps become available, the two-component geometry could be tested pixel by pixel instead of over the whole relic.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper reports uGMRT Band 4 (550-750 MHz) full-polarization observations of the merging cluster Abell 746. The authors detect linearly polarized emission from the NW radio relic at 650 MHz with an average fractional polarization of 18 +/- 4% in a region selected by 3-sigma total-intensity and 5-sigma polarized-intensity thresholds, claiming this is the first detection of polarization from a radio relic below 1 GHz. They combine these data with WSRT 1.38 and 1.71 GHz measurements to construct a depolarization spectrum, argue that a single-component Burn-law model fails, and fit two-component EFD/IFD models with four free parameters to infer two distinct depolarizing regions. The paper concludes that ordered magnetic fields persist to sub-GHz frequencies and that the magneto-ionic medium of the relic is non-uniform and multi-component.

Significance. If the detection is real, this is an important observational result: sub-GHz polarization of a radio relic directly challenges the long-standing expectation of complete depolarization below 1 GHz and opens a new window for Faraday and magnetic-field studies of relics with modern low-frequency arrays. The authors handle several known uGMRT-specific systematics (flipped feeds, Rician bias, leakage estimation) in a careful and transparent manner, and they use a conservative 5-sigma threshold for polarized intensity. The depolarization modeling, while not the main detection claim, addresses a question of current interest and is framed in terms of physically motivated EFD/IFD mechanisms. However, the central detection hinges on an unpublished and externally cross-checked calibrator model for 3C286 whose details are deferred to a companion paper, and several aspects of the depolarization analysis require clarification before the accompanying conclusions can be considered established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2 (calibration; 'An updated full polar model of the 3C286...')] The absolute polarization calibration of the target rests on a newly derived full-polarization model of 3C286 in the 550-750 MHz band, but the model is not presented here and its derivation is deferred to 'Pal et al. in Prep.' As stated, an error in the model's frequency-dependent fractional polarization or spectral shape would imprint a false Q and U signal on the target that could pass the 5-sigma polarized-intensity threshold; a pure angle error would not, but the frequency-dependent fraction is exactly the quantity that is asserted to be newly measured. The paper should either include the model (table or plot of fractional polarization and polarization angle versus frequency) or provide an independent validation of the calibration, such as imaging a second polarized calibrator with known sub-GHz properties or showing that the final target Q/U is not consistent with residual leakage patterns. As it stands, the main detection claim cannot be fully assessed from the paper alone.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (7)] Equation (7) does not follow from the two-component geometry described in the text. The text states that the far-side component undergoes depolarization once within its own emission region and then another round of depolarization as it passes through the near-side component, so its contribution to the observed polarization should be a single term such as IFD(IFD(p0,1,sigma_RM1), sigma_RM2) for the IFD-IFD case, plus the near-side term IFD(p0,2, sigma_RM2). As written, each line of Eq. (7) contains two far-side contributions, e.g., IFD(lambda,p0,1,sigma_RM1) + IFD(lambda,IFD(lambda,p0,1,sigma_RM1),sigma_RM2), which double-counts the far-side emission and is not consistent with the described line-of-sight picture. If this equation was used for the fits, the fitted parameters in Table 1 and the conclusion that one depolarizing component is more turbulent than the other (conclusion iii) are not physically meaningful. Please correct the equation or explicitly state the intended geometry; if the code used a different expression, please present the correct formula in the text.
  3. [Section 3 and Fig. 2] The claim that a single internal depolarization model cannot explain the observed spectrum is not established by a formal fit. The grey single-component models in Fig. 2 are derived from only the 1.38 and 1.71 GHz WSRT points and then extrapolated, rather than fitted to all six data points. A single-component model with a small sigma_RM may be able to reproduce the low-frequency fractional polarization while remaining compatible with the higher-frequency points. Please fit single-component EFD and IFD models to the full dataset and report their chi-squared or an information criterion alongside the two-component fits. In addition, the 706.3 MHz point is excluded because the adopted models 'fail to account for' it; please justify this exclusion quantitatively (e.g., by demonstrating that it is a significant outlier from a fit that includes a systematic-error term) rather than removing it post hoc. Without a proper model comparison that includes all data, the conclusion that a two-component description is required is not supported.
  4. [Section 2 (ionospheric RM)] The paper states that the ionospheric RM is not corrected but is estimated to be 3.5 rad/m^2 on average, and that the average RM of -10 rad/m^2 from Rajpurohit et al. (2024) is used for de-rotation. The time-variability of the ionospheric RM over the 5.5-hour track and its spatial gradient across the field (the relic is up to 3 arcmin from the pointing center) are not quantified. An uncorrected, time-varying ionospheric Faraday screen acts as an additional depolarizing term whose wavelength dependence mimics external Faraday dispersion. The fitted sigma_RM2 values in Table 1 are only 1.8-2.9 rad/m^2, so even a modest variable ionospheric contribution could be comparable to the near-side component and bias the depolarization fits. Please report the standard deviation or time series of the ionospheric RM and demonstrate that it is negligible relative to the fitted sigma_RM values.
minor comments (7)
  1. [General] The spelling of 'polarisation' (Abstract) and 'polarization' elsewhere is inconsistent; please unify to the journal style.
  2. [Section 1] There is a typo 'Comsic Rays' in the first paragraph; it should read 'Cosmic Rays'.
  3. [Section 2, Rician bias formula] Equation (4) is written with a square-root factor; this is equivalent to the standard I_corr = sqrt(I_obs^2 - sigma_Ip^2) only when the argument is non-negative. Please add a note on handling pixels where I_obs < sigma_Ip, or clarify that such pixels are masked by the 5-sigma threshold.
  4. [Section 2, common-region selection] Please clarify whether the 3-sigma Stokes I and 5-sigma polarized-intensity cutoffs are applied before or after smoothing to 25 arcsec, and whether the 'common region' was defined separately for each pair of frequencies or as an intersection across all three.
  5. [Section 3] The claim of a 'first-ever detection of polarisation from radio relics below 1 GHz' is strong; please verify with a literature search and soften the wording if any prior sub-GHz detection exists (e.g., the Sausage relic at 610 MHz).
  6. [References] Several references are duplicated with different letters (Di Gennaro et al. 2021a and 2021b have the same title and DOI; Stuardi et al. 2022a, 2022b, 2022c are identical). Please consolidate to the actual distinct works.
  7. [Figure 2] The color bar in Fig. 3 is not described in the figure caption; please state that the color scale encodes fractional polarization and indicate the color map used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the detection is an observational measurement, the single-component extrapolation is a genuine prediction, and the two-component models are fits that are not presented as independent predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—the detection of about 18% plus or minus 4% linear polarization in the NW relic at 650 MHz—is an observational measurement, not a derivation, and nothing in the analysis defines it in terms of itself. The only load-bearing external input is the new 3C286 polarization model used for calibration; this is described as cross-matched with MeerKAT UHF data and deferred to a separate paper, which is a reproducibility limitation but not a circular step, because the model is derived from calibrator observations rather than from the target. The single-component depolarization models are fitted to the 1.38 and 1.71 GHz data and then extrapolated to 550 to 750 MHz; that extrapolation is a genuine prediction that the paper tests against new data. The two-component models in Equation 7 are fitted to the full spectrum with PyMC and are explicitly described as fits ('we explored', 'we investigated'); their fitted sigma_RM values are interpretations of fit parameters, not independent predictions. The use of an adopted RM from Rajpurohit et al. (2024) to de-rotate vectors is standard external calibration, not circular, because the RM is not derived from the present 650 MHz data. Self-citations appear, but the earlier ones provide background context and the in-preparation calibrator paper is externally cross-validated with MeerKAT; neither makes the derivation reduce to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central detection rests on standard radio interferometric calibration, with the key load-bearing calibrator model (3C286) deferred to a separate in-preparation paper. The depolarization interpretation adds four fitted parameters (p0,1, sigma_RM1, p0,2, sigma_RM2) per model variant, plus an adopted RM from prior VLA work. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • p0,1 (intrinsic fractional polarization, far-side component) = 0.369 +/- 0.220 (EFD-IFD model)
    Fitted to the observed depolarization spectrum using MCMC; values in Table 1 for three model variants.
  • sigma_RM1 (RM dispersion, far-side component) = 36.15 +/- 10.15 rad/m^2 (EFD-IFD)
    Fitted; interpreted as turbulence in the far-side depolarizing medium.
  • p0,2 (near-side component) = 0.282 +/- 0.080 (EFD-IFD)
    Fitted; second emission component in the two-region scenario.
  • sigma_RM2 (near-side component) = 1.84 +/- 0.75 rad/m^2 (EFD-IFD)
    Fitted; lower dispersion supports the claimed two-region geometry.
  • De-rotation RM = -10 rad/m^2
    Adopted from Rajpurohit et al. (2024) VLA 1.5 GHz measurements; not measured in this work. Uncertain RM would reduce apparent polarized intensity, making the detection a lower limit, but the vector alignment depends on this choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Gaussian RM distribution and Burn (1966) single-component depolarization laws
    Equations 5 and 6 assume a Gaussian rotation measure distribution for EFD and IFD; used to build the two-component models, so all derived sigma_RM values inherit this assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Two-component line-of-sight geometry (Eq. 7) with independent far and near emission regions
    Introduced specifically to reproduce the step-like spectral shape; the geometry is not independently constrained by other observations.
  • domain assumption Single, uniform RM of -10 rad/m^2 across the relic, taken from 1.5 GHz VLA data, valid for de-rotation at 550-750 MHz
    Used to rotate Q and U before computing polarized intensity; the paper acknowledges that RM may vary spatially and that a single RM is an oversimplification.
  • domain assumption 3C286 absolute polarization model (new, cross-matched with MeerKAT) is correct and 3C147 is unpolarized for leakage calibration
    Absolute polarization angle and leakage correction depend on these calibrators; the 3C286 model is not published and validation is deferred to a separate paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Linearly Polarized Merger Shock Down to 550 MHz: A uGMRT Study of the Merging Cluster Abell 746." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DX57YWJ5

@misc{pith2026250819516,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Linearly Polarized Merger Shock Down to 550 MHz: A uGMRT Study of the Merging Cluster Abell 746},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DX57YWJ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19516}
}
abstract

Radio relics, arc-like polarized sources with highly aligned magnetic fields, are typically found on the outskirts of merging galaxy clusters. The magneto-ionic media responsible for the significant coherence observed in radio relics remain poorly understood. Low-frequency measurements of radio relics are essential for constraining depolarization models, which provide crucial insights into the magnetic field distribution. However, these measurements are challenging due to the emission properties and interferometer systematics. We have detected polarization signals from the northwest radio relic in Abell 746 at 650 MHz with the upgraded Giant Meterwave Radio Telescope, marking the first-ever detection of polarisation from radio relics below 1 GHz. At this frequency, the average Rotation Measure (RM) corrected magnetic fields align well with shock radio emission, typical of radio relics. The fractional polarization at 650 MHz is $\sim 18\pm4 \%$. Our results indicate that a single internal depolarization model cannot explain the observed depolarization spectra, suggesting a non-uniform magnetic field distribution or complex contribution of different polarized regions in the radio relic. Our detection of polarization signals at 650 MHz reveals critical insights into radio relic magnetic field structures, offering a low-frequency approach to understanding ICM magnetic fields in merging galaxy clusters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19516 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. uGMRT 650 MHz 4.6 ′′×4.2 ′′ intensity in color scale. The white contours start at 5σ, with successive levels increasing by a factor of √ 2. The cyan vectors represent the magnetic fields (polarization angles, rotated by 90◦ ), corrected for the average RM and the vector lengths are proportional to the linear fractional polarization. To show the distribution of the magnetic fields, 4 pixels are averaged while overplo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The left Y-axis represents the linear fractional polarization, while the right Y-axis represents the flux densities of the region selected from the radio relic using the total intensity and polarized intensity cutoffs, as mentioned in 2 used for calculating the linear fractional polarization. The red circles represent the linear fractional polarization measurements with the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope (WSRT… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Linear fractional polarization maps are presented at three frequencies: 650 MHz (uGMRT, left panel), 1.38 GHz (WSRT, middle panel), and 1.71 GHz (WSRT, right panel). In each case, the contours start at the 5σ total intensity level and increase by successive factors of √ 2. The first contour levels are 800 µJy beam−1 , 300 µJy beam−1 , and 235 µJy beam−1 at 650 MHz, 1.38 GHz, and 1.71 GHz, respectively. All images ar… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Multi-Wavelength Signatures of a Giant Cometary Radio Halo in MACSJ0417-1154

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MACSJ0417’s giant radio halo shows spectral steepening and radio–X-ray correlation consistent with turbulence from a 6:1 off-axis merger that preserved the cool core; pure hadronic models are energetically excluded.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    D., et al

    Alken, P., Th´ ebault, E., Beggan, C. D., et al. 2021, Earth, Planets and Space, 73, 49, doi: 10.1186/s40623-020-01288-x

    doi:10.1186/s40623-020-01288-x 2021

  2. [2]

    I., Leer, E., & Skadron, G

    Axford, W. I., Leer, E., & Skadron, G. 1977, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 11, International Cosmic Ray Conference, 132

    1977

  3. [3]

    Bell, A. R. 1978, MNRAS, 182, 147, doi: 10.1093/mnras/182.2.147

    doi:10.1093/mnras/182.2.147 1978

  4. [4]

    1987, PhR, 154, 1, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7

    Blandford, R., & Eichler, D. 1987, PhR, 154, 1, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7 1987

  5. [5]

    2010, A&A, 513, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913696

    Bonafede, A., Feretti, L., Murgia, M., et al. 2010, A&A, 513, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913696

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913696 2010

  6. [6]

    2009, A&A, 494, 429, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810588

    Murgia, M. 2009, A&A, 494, 429, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810588

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810588 2009

  7. [7]

    W., Cassano, R., et al

    Botteon, A., Shimwell, T. W., Cassano, R., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202143020

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202143020 2022

  8. [8]

    Brentjens, M. A. 2011, A&A, 526, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015319 9

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015319 2011

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Burn, B. J. 1966, MNRAS, 133, 67, doi: 10.1093/mnras/133.1.67 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    1966 doi

  2. [10]

    S., Kudale, S., et al

    Chandra, P., Kumar, S. S., Kudale, S., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.04335, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.04335

    2023 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2004.08542, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2004.08542 De Rubeis, E., Stuardi, C., Bonafede, A., et al

    Das, B., Kudale, S., Chandra, P., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2004.08542, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2004.08542 De Rubeis, E., Stuardi, C., Bonafede, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450892 Di Gennaro, G., van Weeren, R. J., Hoeft, M., et al. 2018, ApJ...

    2020 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    2002, A&A, 387, 383, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020241

    Dolag, K., Bartelmann, M., & Lesch, H. 2002, A&A, 387, 383, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020241

    2002 doi

  5. [13]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3018 Dom´ ınguez-Fern´ andez, P., Br¨ uggen, M., Vazza, F., et al

    Dominguez-Fernandez, P., Bruggen, M., Vazza, F., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3018 Dom´ ınguez-Fern´ andez, P., Br¨ uggen, M., Vazza, F., et al. 2021a, MNRAS, 507, 2714, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2353 —. 2021b, MNRAS, 507, 2714, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2353...

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Biermann, P

    Ensslin, T. A., Biermann, P. L., Klein, U., & Kohle, S. 1998, A&A, 332, 395, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9712293

    1998 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Grasso, D., & Rubinstein, H. R. 2001, PhR, 348, 163, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00110-1

    2001 doi

  8. [16]

    N., Shimwell, T

    Hoang, D. N., Shimwell, T. W., van Weeren, R. J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2218, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1123

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Hugo, B., & Perley, R. 2024, Absolute linear polarization angle calibration using planetary bodies for MeerKAT and JVLA at cm wavelengths, Technical Report SSA-0004E-001, Revision C, South African Radio Astronomy Observatory and National Radio Astronomy Observatory, doi: 10.48...

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    J., et al

    HyeongHan, K., Cho, H., Jee, M. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bcc

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    S., Bagchi, J., & Paul, S

    Kale, R., Dwarakanath, K. S., Bagchi, J., & Paul, S. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1204, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21519.x

    2012

  12. [20]

    2017, A&A, 600, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629570

    Kierdorf, M., Beck, R., Hoeft, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629570

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    Krymskii, G. F. 1977, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 234, 1306

    1977

  14. [22]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad98f7

    Lee, E., Ryu, D., & Kang, H. 2025, ApJ, 978, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad98f7

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    P., Sif´ on, C., et al

    Menanteau, F., Hughes, J. P., Sif´ on, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/7

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Andrade-Santos, F., et al

    Osinga, E., van Weeren, R. J., Andrade-Santos, F., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243526

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    2015, PASJ, 67, 110, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psv082

    Ozawa, T., Nakanishi, H., Akahori, T., et al. 2015, PASJ, 67, 110, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psv082

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    Pal, A., Kale, R., Wang, Q. H. S., & Wik, D. R. 2025, ApJ, 979, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9903

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    F., de Bruyn, A

    Pizzo, R. F., de Bruyn, A. G., Bernardi, G., & Brentjens, M. A. 2011, A&A, 525, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014158 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    2022, A&A, 657, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142340

    Rajpurohit, K., Hoeft, M., Wittor, D., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142340

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad29fa

    Rajpurohit, K., Lovisari, L., Botteon, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad29fa

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Nulsen, P

    Russell, H. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., Caprioli, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1477, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1055

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Ryu, D., Schleicher, D. R. G., Treumann, R. A., Tsagas, C. G., & Widrow, L. M. 2012, SSRv, 166, 1, doi: 10.1007/s11214-011-9839-z

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1507.08050, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1507.08050

    Salvatier, J., Wiecki, T., & Fonnesbeck, C. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1507.08050, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1507.08050

    2015 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    2022a, A&A, 666, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244179 —

    Stuardi, C., Bonafede, A., Rajpurohit, K., et al. 2022a, A&A, 666, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244179 —. 2022b, A&A, 666, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244179 —. 2022c, A&A, 666, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244179

    doi

  26. [34]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 3905, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2408 van Weeren, R

    Stuardi, C., Bonafede, A., Wittor, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3905, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2408 van Weeren, R. J., Br¨ uggen, M., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., et al. 2011, A&A, 533, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117149 van Weeren, R. J., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., Br¨ uggen, M., &

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    2010, Science, 330, 347, doi: 10.1126/science.1194293 van Weeren, R

    Hoeft, M. 2010, Science, 330, 347, doi: 10.1126/science.1194293 van Weeren, R. J., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., Intema, H. T., et al. 2012, A&A, 546, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219000

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 1672, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2830

    Vazza, F., Brunetti, G., Br¨ uggen, M., & Bonafede, A. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1672, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2830

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    Wardle, J. F. C., & Kronberg, P. P. 1974, ApJ, 194, 249, doi: 10.1086/153240

    1974 doi

  30. [38]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3987, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2715 10 APPENDIX A

    Wittor, D., Hoeft, M., Vazza, F., Br¨ uggen, M., & Dom´ ınguez-Fern´ andez, P. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3987, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2715 10 APPENDIX A. LINEAR FRACTIONAL POLARIZATION MAPS The fractional polarization maps show the NW radio relic’s polarization properties across the th...

    2019 doi

Pith tools

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