Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 87 references

Young supernova remnants can supply tens to hundreds of pc cm^{-3} of the local DM in repeating FRBs, dominated by unshocked ejecta rather than the shocked shell.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-15 13:30 UTC pith:ZCWTZUKN

load-bearing objection Solid numerical extension of analytic SNR–FRB models; absolute DM scale rides on a free unshocked ionization fraction, but the qualitative picture is real and useful. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2603.07012 v4 pith:ZCWTZUKN submitted 2026-03-07 astro-ph.HE

Probing the Dispersion and Rotation Measure Contributions from Supernova Remnants in Fast Radio Burst Source Environments with 1D SNR Simulation

Zhao Joseph Zhang , Gaku Kawashima , Shiu-Hang Lee , Kentaro Nagamine , Bing Zhang , Yusei Fujimaru This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fast radio burstssupernova remnantsmagnetarsdispersion measurerotation measurecore-collapse supernovaenon-equilibrium ionization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Repeating fast radio bursts sometimes show a clear year-scale drop in dispersion measure, pointing to dense plasma near the source rather than the slowly changing cosmic web. This paper forward-models that plasma with one-dimensional hydrodynamics plus non-equilibrium ionization for a young magnetar sitting inside supernova ejecta, using both single-star and binary-stripped progenitors. The shocked shell itself contributes only a few pc cm^{-3} of DM, while the still-unshocked ejecta dominate the time-varying column and fall roughly as t to the power -1.8 to -1.9. Matching the observed DM decay rates of FRB 20190520B, FRB 20220529A and the late decline of FRB 20121102 implies local SNR contributions of order ten to a few hundred pc cm^{-3}. Shock-amplified fields can still produce large rotation measures even when the shocked DM is small, and GHz emission typically becomes free-free transparent within about seventy years. The work therefore argues that a young core-collapse supernova remnant can account for a substantial fraction of the source DM term that must be subtracted before FRBs are used as cosmological baryon probes.

Core claim

In self-consistent 1D HD+NEI simulations of young magnetar-bearing SNRs, the shocked region contributes only limited DM (≲10 pc cm^{-3}), while the dominant time-varying component is the unshocked ejecta, whose early evolution follows DM ∝ t^{-α} with α ≃ 1.8–1.9. Matching the observed dDM/dt of FRB 20190520B, FRB 20220529A and the late-stage slope of FRB 20121102 implies local SNR DM contributions of ∼10 to a few 10^{2} pc cm^{-3}, supporting a young CCSN/SNR origin for a substantial fraction of DM_source.

What carries the argument

Time-dependent 1D SNR simulations that couple hydrodynamics with non-equilibrium ionization for single-star and binary-stripped progenitors, then integrate electron density (and, for RM, ram-pressure-amplified B) separately over the shocked shell and the full ionized region including unshocked ejecta.

Load-bearing premise

The ionization fraction of the unshocked ejecta, which supplies most of the DM, is treated as a fixed free parameter rather than evolved self-consistently with photoionization or central-engine radiation.

What would settle it

If multi-year monitoring of additional active repeaters shows secular DM declines that cannot be matched by any model in the grid at any ionization fraction, or if early-time optical-depth measurements require free-free escape times much longer than the ~70 yr upper envelope found here, the claimed SNR origin for the bulk of DM_source would be ruled out.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Local SNR DM of tens to hundreds of pc cm^{-3} must be marginalized before FRB sightlines are used to map cosmic baryons.
  • Binary-stripped progenitors systematically under-produce DM relative to single-star models at fixed initial mass, offering a channel discriminant.
  • Only the 11 solar-mass single-star model reproduces the observed RM evolution of FRB 20121102 in a pure shock-amplification framework.
  • GHz radio emission can escape most models within ~70 years, and weakly ionized ejecta can be transparent almost immediately.
  • For older non-repeating sources the SNR contribution is expected to drop to only a few pc cm^{-3}.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Hybrid SNR plus magnetar-wind-nebula models will be needed for sources that show both early DM rises and late declines.
  • A broader progenitor grid that includes multi-dimensional ejecta and cosmic-ray ionization could shrink the present uncertainty band on absolute DM_source.
  • If the same slope-matching method is applied to a larger sample of secular DM-decay FRBs, the inferred ages should cluster below ~100 years if the young-SNR picture is generic.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses 1D HD+NEI SNR simulations of young magnetars in single-star and binary-stripped ejecta (11 and 30 M⊙) to quantify local DM and RM contributions to FRBs. The shocked shell alone yields only ≲10 pc cm^{-3} of DM, while the unshocked ejecta dominate the time-varying DM and follow DM ∝ t^{-α} with α ≃ 1.8–1.9 in free expansion. Matching observed dDM/dt for FRB 20190520B, FRB 20220529A, and the late decline of FRB 20121102 implies local SNR DM of ~10 to a few 10^{2} pc cm^{-3} at occurrence ages ≲ 100 yr; GHz free–free escape is typically allowed by t_esc ≲ 70 yr. Shock-only RM with ram-pressure B amplification matches FRB 20121102 only for the 11 M⊙ SS model. The work argues that a young CCSN/SNR can supply a substantial fraction of DM_source and that progenitor-channel modeling is needed for cosmological DM inferences.

Significance. If the slope-matching and DM-scale results hold under more self-consistent ionization, the paper would provide a concrete, simulation-based calibration of DM_source for young FRB engines and a clear SS/BS channel diagnostic. Strengths include a forward-modeling pipeline with realistic MESA progenitors and CSM, explicit shocked vs unshocked decomposition (Figs. 2, 5), free-expansion slopes close to the expected t^{-2}, multi-source t_occur tables (Tables 2–3, 5–6), and public data products/code for DM/RM and analytic benchmarks. The shocked-region DM upper bound and α ≃ 1.8–1.9 are robust under the stated physics and useful even if absolute DM remains uncertain. The RM result is more model-dependent but still a falsifiable prediction within the shock-only framework.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.2.1, Table 3, §5.2.2] Section 5.2.1 and Table 3: the headline inference that matching observed dDM/dt implies local SNR DM of tens to hundreds pc cm^{-3} (Tables 2, 5–6; §5.2.2) rests almost entirely on unshocked ejecta, whose ionization is a free constant 0.01 ≤ χ_e,unej ≤ 1 (and 10^{-4} ≤ χ_e,ISM ≤ 1), not evolved with photoionization/recombination or CCO radiation. Because early DM and dDM/dt both scale linearly with χ_e,unej, both t_occur and DM_SNR(t_occur) inherit that factor; Table 3 already shows order-of-magnitude swings. The fiducial HH value χ_e,unej = 0.1 is literature-motivated but not self-consistent. The shocked DM ≲ 10 and α ≃ 1.8–1.9 are robust; the absolute DM_source claim is not. Please either (i) add a minimal reverse-shock/CCO photoionization model for the unshocked ejecta, or (ii) reframe the main result as a χ_e-scaled family of solutions and state the absolute DM range as conditional o
  2. [§4.6, §5.3] Section 4.6 and §5.3: the claim that only the 11 M⊙ SS model reproduces FRB 20121102 RM evolution is obtained in a shock-only framework with B^{2}/8π = ε_B ρ v^{2} (ε_B = 0.01–0.3, fiducial 0.1) and no CR-driven amplification or MWN contribution, while the same source is widely discussed as MWN-influenced and shows two-stage DM evolution. The paper notes this tension but still presents the RM match as a model selector. Please either include a simple MWN/unshocked contribution or more clearly demote the RM result to an upper-limit / shock-only diagnostic rather than a progenitor-channel discriminator.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract vs body: abstract says "at least two repeaters" (20190520B, 20121102) while the body and later abstract-like summary include FRB 20220529A as a third secular-decline case. Align the abstract with the three-source analysis used in Tables 2, 5–6.
  2. [§3, Table 4] Equation numbering and cross-references: analytic benchmarks are labeled Eqs. (5)–(13) in §3, but later text sometimes refers to "Eq. 4" for YZ17 (Table 4). Harmonize labels.
  3. [§5.4] Fig. 10 vs Fig. 13: the switch from fiducial μ to simulation-based μ changes which analytic model "best matches" 11 M⊙ SS; state more explicitly in the main text that best-match analytic prescriptions are assumption-dependent.
  4. [§5.2.1] Notation: χ_e,unsh vs χ_e,unej / χ_e,ISM is used interchangeably in places; define once and stick to it. Also clarify that μ_e ≃ μ_a is an assumption for weakly ionized unshocked gas, not a general identity.
  5. [Throughout] Typographical/OCR issues in the draft (e.g., garbled table headers, "DMsource​​", mixed full-width characters) should be cleaned for production.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward HD+NEI modeling generates DM(t); slope-matching is standard age inference, not a tautology or fitted-input prediction.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is: (i) MESA-based SS/BS progenitors and wind-built CSM set ejecta/CSM density structure; (ii) 1D HD+NEI evolves shocks and shocked ionization; (iii) DM_SNR is the radial integral of n_e (Eq. 14), with unshocked χ_e treated as an explicit free parameter grid (Eqs. 32–33, Table 3); (iv) t_occur is the epoch where the simulated dDM/dt equals the observed secular slope, after which DM_SNR(t_occur) is read off. That is ordinary model-to-data age matching: the slope–age relation is produced by free-expansion hydrodynamics (DM∝t^{-α}, α≃1.8–1.9 from the unshocked ejecta), not imposed by definition or by fitting A in DM=A t^{-α} to the FRB data. Absolute DM scale depends on progenitor mass, channel, and the chosen χ_e,unej—systematic uncertainty, not circular reduction. Analytic benchmarks (YZ17, PG18, Zhao+21) are independent literature formulae evaluated with stated parameters. RM uses a ram-pressure ε_B ansatz and slope-aligns time only; amplitude is then a genuine model prediction (only 11 M⊙ SS succeeds). Overlapping-author citations (Kawashima+2026 progenitors; Zhang+2025 cosmology notation) supply inputs or convention, not a uniqueness theorem that forces the SNR DM/RM results. No self-definitional loop, no fitted-input-called-prediction, no load-bearing self-citation chain. Score 0; empty steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central quantitative claims rest on standard hydro+NEI physics plus several free ionization and magnetic parameters that set the absolute DM and RM scales. No new particles or forces are invented; the main modelling choices are the parametric unshocked ionization, the ram-pressure B prescription, and the restricted progenitor grid.

free parameters (6)
  • χ_e,unej (unshocked-ejecta ionization fraction) = fiducial 0.1 (HH); range 0.01–1 explored
    Treated as free constant in [0.01,1]; absolute DM_SNR and t_occur scale directly with it (Table 3, Section 5.2.1).
  • χ_e,ISM (unshocked CSM/ISM ionization) = fiducial 0.1
    Free constant in [10^{-4},1]; affects late-time DM floor.
  • ε_B (magnetic energy fraction of ram pressure) = 0.1 (fiducial)
    Sets B and therefore RM amplitude; explored 0.01–0.3, fiducial 0.1 (Section 4.6).
  • n_ISM = 1.0 cm^{-3}
    Ambient density for CSM construction; fixed at 1 cm^{-3}.
  • ejecta power-law index n = 11
    Outer ejecta density slope fixed to n=11 for both channels.
  • t_init = 3 yr
    Simulation start time after explosion; homologous expansion assumed thereafter.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Ejecta are in free homologous expansion with a flat-core + power-law envelope density profile by t=3 yr.
    Standard SNR initial condition (Truelove & McKee); Section 4.2.
  • ad hoc to paper Unshocked ejecta ionization can be approximated by a single constant χ_e rather than full photoionization–recombination balance.
    Explicitly stated as a limitation (Section 5.2.1, 6); dominates DM_SNR.
  • domain assumption Post-shock magnetic field is a fixed fraction ε_B of ram pressure; unshocked ejecta carry no ram-pressure-supported B.
    Common shock-amplification ansatz (Piro & Gaensler); Section 4.6.
  • domain assumption 1D spherical symmetry and stationary central engine; natal kick and multi-D instabilities neglected for t≲500 yr.
    Stated in methods and limitations (Sections 4, 6).
  • ad hoc to paper Cosmic-ray acceleration and CR-driven B amplification are disabled.
    Explicit modelling choice (Section 4.4, 6).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 38235 in / 3464 out tokens · 35397 ms · 2026-07-15T13:30:59.783496+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Fast radio bursts (FRBs) provide a sensitive probe of ionized baryons through their dispersion measure (DM). In addition to slowly evolving cosmological terms, at least two repeaters now show clear secular DM-decrease episodes: FRB~20190520B and FRB~20121102 , supporting a dense, dynamically evolving local environment. We adopt a \emph{forward-modeling} approach and use time-dependent 1D SNR simulations for a young magnetar embedded in SN ejecta, combining single-star and binary-stripped progenitors with HD+NEI calculations to follow shock structure, ionization, and electron density. The shocked region contributes only limited DM ($\lesssim10\,{\rm pc\,cm^{-3}}$), while the dominant time-varying component is the unshocked ejecta, whose early behavior follows ${\rm DM}\propto t^{-\alpha}$ with $\alpha\simeq1.8$--$1.9$. Although shocked-region DM is small, shock-amplified magnetic fields can still generate substantial RM; in our shock-only RM framework, only the $11\,M_\odot$ SS model reproduces the FRB~20121102 RM evolution. Binary-stripped progenitors generally yield smaller DM than single-star models at fixed $M_{\rm ZAMS}$, with composition-dependent mean molecular weights introducing non-monotonic mass trends. Matching the observed ${\rm dDM}/{\rm d}t$ of FRB~20190520B (and the late-stage slope of FRB~20121102), we infer local SNR DM contributions of tens to hundreds ${\rm pc\,cm^{-3}}$. We also find GHz escape is allowed in most models, with $\tau_{\rm ff}=1$ typically reached by $t_{\rm esc}\lesssim70$ yr; for weakly ionized ejecta, the source can be nearly transparent from very early times. These results support a young CCSN/SNR origin for a substantial fraction of ${\rm DM}_{\rm source}$ and highlight that physically consistent local-environment modeling is essential for robust FRB cosmological DM inferences.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2010, Computer Physics Communications, 181, 21, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2009.08.011

    Amaku, M., Pascholati, P., & Vanin, V. 2010, Computer Physics Communications, 181, 21, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2009.08.011

    doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2009.08.011 2010

  2. [2]

    G., Tendulkar, S

    Bassa, C. G., Tendulkar, S. P., Adams, E. A. K., et al. 2017, ApJL, 843, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7a0c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa7a0c 2017

  3. [3]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 843, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3 2017

  4. [4]

    M., Chevalier, R

    Blondin, J. M., Chevalier, R. A., & Frierson, D. M. 2001, ApJ, 563, 806, doi: 10.1086/324042

    doi:10.1086/324042 2001

  5. [5]

    M., & Ellison, D

    Blondin, J. M., & Ellison, D. C. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 560, 244, doi: 10.1086/322499

    doi:10.1086/322499 2001

  6. [6]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1982, ApJ, 258, 790, doi: 10.1086/160126

    doi:10.1086/160126 1982

  7. [7]

    A., & Fransson, C

    Chevalier, R. A., & Fransson, C. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 875, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_34

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_34 2017

  8. [8]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16952, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16952

    Connor, L., Ravi, V., Sharma, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16952, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16952

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.16952 2024

  9. [9]

    M., Wasserman, I., Hessels, J

    Cordes, J. M., Wasserman, I., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 842, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa74da

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa74da 2017

  10. [10]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad165f

    Court, T., Badenes, C., Lee, S.-H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad165f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad165f 2024

  11. [11]

    G., Wang, J

    Dai, Z. G., Wang, J. S., & Yu, Y. W. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 838, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6745

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa6745 2017

  12. [12]

    2014, ApJL, 783, L35, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/L35

    Deng, W., & Zhang, B. 2014, ApJL, 783, L35, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/L35

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/l35 2014

  13. [13]

    2019, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

    Diesing, R. 2019, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 36, 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2019), 59

    2019

  14. [14]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 201, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad74f0

    Diesing, R., Guo, M., Kim, C.-G., Stone, J., & Caprioli, D. 2024, ApJ, 974, 201, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad74f0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad74f0 2024

  15. [15]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada93d

    Diesing, R., & Gupta, S. 2025, ApJ, 980, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada93d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada93d 2025

  16. [16]

    D., Fong, W., et al

    Dong, Y., Kilpatrick, C. D., Fong, W., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 991, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfb74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfb74 2025

  17. [17]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 661, 879, doi: 10.1086/517518

    Gabici, S. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 661, 879, doi: 10.1086/517518

    doi:10.1086/517518 2007

  18. [18]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc315

    Justham, S. 2023, ApJ, 948, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc315

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc315 2023

  19. [19]

    2023, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5929871

    Justham, S. 2023, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5929871

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.5929871 2023

  20. [20]

    2010, A&A, 509, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913666

    Fraschetti, F. 2010, A&A, 509, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913666

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913666 2010

  21. [21]

    2012, ApJ, 760, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/34

    Ferrand, G., Decourchelle, A., & Safi-Harb, S. 2012, ApJ, 760, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/34

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/760/1/34 2012

  22. [22]

    C., Ono, M., et al

    Ferrand, G., Warren, D. C., Ono, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1a3d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1a3d 2019

  23. [23]

    H., Michilli, D., Spitler, L

    Hilmarsson, G. H., Michilli, D., Spitler, L. G., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 908, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdec0 ICRP. 2008, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2008.10.004

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abdec0 2021

  24. [24]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf935

    Jacovich, T., Patnaude, D., Slane, P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf935

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf935 2021

  25. [25]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 265, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d 2023

  26. [26]

    2017, ApJL, 839, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa68e1

    Kashiyama, K., & Murase, K. 2017, ApJL, 839, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa68e1

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa68e1 2017

  27. [27]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.28234, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.28234

    Kawashima, G., Lee, S.-H., Maeda, K., & Patnaude, D. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.28234, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.28234

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.28234 2026

  28. [28]

    S., Ata, M., Lee, K.-G., et al

    Khrykin, I. S., Ata, M., Lee, K.-G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6567

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6567 2024

  29. [29]

    M., Connor, L., Semenov, V

    Konietzka, R. M., Connor, L., Semenov, V. A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.07090, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.07090

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.07090 2025

  30. [30]

    M., & Temim, T

    Laming, J. M., & Temim, T. 2020, ApJ, 904, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc1e5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc1e5 2020

  31. [31]

    2021, A&A, 656, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140506

    Laplace, E., Justham, S., Renzo, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140506

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140506 2021

  32. [32]

    S., et al

    Lee, K.-G., Ata, M., Khrykin, I. S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4f62

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4f62 2022

  33. [33]

    S., Simha, S., et al

    Lee, K.-G., Khrykin, I. S., Simha, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acefb5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acefb5 2023

  34. [34]

    C., & Nagataki, S

    Lee, S.-H., Ellison, D. C., & Nagataki, S. 2012, ApJ, 750, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/156

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/2/156 2012

  35. [35]

    Slane, P. O. 2014, ApJ, 791, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/97

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/791/2/97 2014

  36. [36]

    J., Raymond, J

    Lee, S.-H., Patnaude, D. J., Raymond, J. C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/71

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/71 2015

  37. [37]

    Patnaude, D. J. 2013, ApJ, 767, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/20

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/20 2013

  38. [38]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab18fe

    Li, Z., Gao, H., Wei, J.-J., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab18fe

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab18fe 2019

  39. [39]

    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

    doi:10.1126/science.1147532 2007

  40. [40]

    P., Prochaska, J

    Macquart, J. P., Prochaska, J. X., McQuinn, M., et al. 2020, Nature, 581, 391, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2 ��� ����� �� ���� �� ��� ������31

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2 2020

  41. [41]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 932, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7156

    Spitkovsky, A., & Hakobyan, H. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 932, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7156

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac7156 2022

  42. [42]

    2018, Nature, 557, 522, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0133-z

    Main, R., Yang, I.-S., Chan, V., et al. 2018, Nature, 557, 522, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0133-z

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0133-z 2018

  43. [43]

    Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2018, ApJL, 868, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaedad

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaedad 2018

  44. [44]

    D., Berger, E., et al

    Margalit, B., Metzger, B. D., Berger, E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2407, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2417

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2417 2018

  45. [45]

    2015, Nature, 528, 523, doi: 10.1038/nature15769

    Masui, K., Lin, H.-H., Sievers, J., et al. 2015, Nature, 528, 523, doi: 10.1038/nature15769

    doi:10.1038/nature15769 2015

  46. [46]

    F., & Truelove, J

    McKee, C. F., & Truelove, J. K. 1995, PhR, 256, 157, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(94)00106-D

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(94)00106-d 1995

  47. [47]

    M., Michilli, D., et al

    Mckinven, R., Gaensler, B. M., Michilli, D., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc65f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc65f 2023

  48. [48]

    2014, ApJL, 780, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L33

    McQuinn, M. 2014, ApJL, 780, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L33

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/l33 2014

  49. [49]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 3664, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab288

    Medlock, I., & Cen, R. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 3664, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab288

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab288 2021

  50. [50]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3070

    Medlock, I., Nagai, D., Singh, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3070

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3070 2024

  51. [51]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz700 2019

  52. [52]

    Michilli, D., Seymour, A., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 182, doi: 10.1038/nature25149

    doi:10.1038/nature25149 2018

  53. [53]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 1498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1328

    Murase, K., Kashiyama, K., & Mészáros, P. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1328

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1328 2016

  54. [54]

    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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5 2022

  55. [55]

    2025, Science Bulletin, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2025.11.023

    Niu, C.-H., Li, D., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2025, Science Bulletin, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2025.11.023

    doi:10.1016/j.scib.2025.11.023 2025

  56. [56]

    D., & Thorne, K

    Novikov, I. D., & Thorne, K. S. 1973, in Black Holes (Les Astres Occlus), ed. C. Dewitt & B. S. Dewitt, 343–450

    1973

  57. [57]

    Orlando, S., Bocchino, F., Miceli, M., Petruk, O., & Pumo, M. L. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 749, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/156 Paczyński, B. 1967, AcA, 17, 287

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/2/156 2012

  58. [58]

    2026, ApJL, 1000, L53, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae52f8

    Pandhi, A., Nimmo, K., Andrew, S., et al. 2026, ApJL, 1000, L53, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae52f8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae52f8 2026

  59. [59]

    J., Lee, S.-H., Slane, P

    Patnaude, D. J., Lee, S.-H., Slane, P. O., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9189

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9189 2017

  60. [60]

    J., Slane, P., Raymond, J

    Patnaude, D. J., Slane, P., Raymond, J. C., & Ellison, D. C. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1476, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1476

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/2/1476 2010

  61. [61]

    2011, Astrophysical Journal, Supplement Series, 192, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, Astrophysical Journal, Supplement Series, 192, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 2011

  62. [62]

    2013, Astrophysical Journal, Supplement Series, 208, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, Astrophysical Journal, Supplement Series, 208, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 2013

  63. [63]

    2015, Astrophysical Journal, Supplement Series, 220, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, Astrophysical Journal, Supplement Series, 220, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 2015

  64. [64]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 2018

  65. [65]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 2019

  66. [66]

    Piro, A. L. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 824, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L32

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/l32 2016

  67. [67]

    L., & Gaensler, B

    Piro, A. L., & Gaensler, B. M. 2018, ApJ, 861, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac9bc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac9bc 2018

  68. [68]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics

    1979

  69. [69]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444, doi: 10.1126/science.1223344

    doi:10.1126/science.1223344 2012

  70. [70]

    N., Prochaska, J

    Simha, S., Burchett, J. N., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abafc3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abafc3 2020

  71. [71]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 2615, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab170

    Takahashi, R., Ioka, K., Mori, A., & Funahashi, K. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 2615, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab170

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab170 2021

  72. [72]

    Tang, X., & Chevalier, R. A. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3793, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2978

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2978 2017

  73. [73]

    P., Bassa, C

    Tendulkar, S. P., Bassa, C. G., Cordes, J. M., et al. 2017, ApJL, 834, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/l7 2017

  74. [74]

    K., & McKee, C

    Truelove, J. K., & McKee, C. F. 1999, ApJS, 120, 299, doi: 10.1086/313176 van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1969, AJ, 74, 1095, doi: 10.1086/110909

    doi:10.1086/313176 1999

  75. [75]

    Y., Lan, H

    Wang, F. Y., Lan, H. T., Zhao, Z. Y., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.07140. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.07140

    arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    Y., Zhang, G

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

    doi:10.1038/s41467-022-31923-y 2022

  77. [77]

    S., Yang, Y

    Wang, P., Zhang, J. S., Yang, Y. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.15790, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.15790

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.15790 2025

  78. [78]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab48dd

    Yang, Y.-H., & Dai, Z.-G. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab48dd

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab48dd 2019

  79. [79]

    2017, ApJL, 839, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6c2e

    Yang, Y.-P., Luo, R., Li, Z., & Zhang, B. 2017, ApJL, 839, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6c2e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa6c2e 2017

  80. [80]

    2017, ApJ, 847, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8721

    Yang, Y.-P., & Zhang, B. 2017, ApJ, 847, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8721

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8721 2017

Showing first 80 references.