pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.05093 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Great Walls of Cosmic Baryons in the Northern Sky

Vikram Ravi , Kritti Sharma , Liam Connor
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HE
keywords fast radio burstsdispersion measureslarge-scale structurebaryon distributioncosmic websuperclustersionized gasCHIME catalog
0
0 comments X

The pith

FRB dispersion measures show a 150 pc cm^{-3} ionized gas excess spanning 30 degrees in the northern sky.

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

The paper maps variations in the total ionized gas column density using dispersion measures from a few thousand fast radio bursts in the second CHIME catalog across the Northern sky. It identifies a robust excess of about 150 pc cm^{-3} above the global average, extended over roughly 30-degree scales and centered near right ascension 12 hours and declination 55 degrees. This feature, labeled Wall 1, holds up under changes in sample selection and resampling tests and exceeds predictions from Galactic disk models. The authors note a spatial overlap with the Ursa Major supercluster but assign a 10-20 percent chance that the alignment is coincidental, while also flagging a weaker candidate near the Perseus-Pisces supercluster. The work demonstrates that FRB dispersion measures can locate baryonic overdensities tied to nearby large-scale structure.

Core claim

The authors detect a ≳4σ excess of ∼150 pc cm^{-3} in the dispersion measures of FRBs over ∼30° angular scales centered near α ≈ 12h, δ ≈ 55°, termed Wall 1. This excess is robust to sample variations and jackknife tests and exceeds what Galactic disk models predict. A tentative second excess, Wall 2, appears near α ≈ 2h, δ ≈ 45°. The signals coincide spatially with known superclusters but with 10-20% probability of chance alignment, suggesting they trace baryonic overdensities in the local cosmic web.

What carries the argument

Dispersion measure (DM) of fast radio bursts, the integrated electron column density along each sightline, used to isolate extragalactic ionized-gas variations after subtracting Galactic contributions.

If this is right

  • FRB DMs can detect baryon overdensities associated with local large-scale structure.
  • This enables mapping of ionized gas in the near-field cosmic web.
  • Accounting for such local DM variations improves the precision of FRB-based cosmological measurements.
  • The method offers a new probe of the warm ionized medium and circumgalactic gas around nearby structures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Larger future FRB samples could extend this approach to map the full local cosmic web in three dimensions.
  • Cross-correlating the DM walls with X-ray or Sunyaev-Zeldovich observations of the same superclusters would test the baryon content directly.
  • If the walls are confirmed, they would require adjustments to FRB redshift-distance relations for sources behind these regions.

Load-bearing premise

The observed DM excess originates from extragalactic gas in local large-scale structure rather than unmodeled Milky Way halo anisotropy or selection biases in the FRB sample.

What would settle it

An improved Galactic halo DM model or independent FRB observations from another telescope that fully accounts for the excess without requiring extragalactic sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05093 by Kritti Sharma, Liam Connor, Vikram Ravi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: Mean extragalactic DM (⟨DMexc⟩, NE2025 model) as a function of declination (blue curve) and |b| (orange curve), in 10◦ bins. The shaded regions show the standard errors in the mean (s.e.m.) in each case. The horizontal dashed line marks the global mean (617 pc cm−3 ). Only marginal dependencies on declination and |b| are observed, indicating that the sample is largely statistically homogeneous. Right… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: North Celestial Pole–centered polar projections of extragalactic DM excess across the northern sky. RA increases clockwise; the gray curve marks the Galactic plane (b = 0◦ ). Left: Per-pixel mean DM excess (Nside = 4, NFRB ≥ 20 per pixel, 75 pixels). Middle: Gaussian-smoothed DM excess (Nside = 8, σ = 7.3 ◦ ). A prominent excess, which we term Wall 1, of ∼150 pc cm−3 is visible near α ≈ 12h , δ ≈ 55◦ . A s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Diagnostic maps. Left: NE2025 Galactic DM (DMMW) on the northern sky (Nside = 16), showing values of 50–250 pc cm−3 with the highest contributions near the Galactic plane. Middle: Counts of all 2812 selected FRBs in Nside = 4 HEALPix pixels. The distribution is roughly uniform in RA, with a concentration toward the NCP reflecting CHIME’s higher exposure at more northern declinations as a transit telescope.… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gaussian-smoothed DM excess map (as in the middle panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The dispersion measures (DMs) of fast radio bursts (FRBs) encode the total ionized-gas column densities along their sightlines. Most observed FRBs originate at distances where the cosmological principle applies. Thus, variations in the DM distribution of FRBs observed in different regions on the sky trace local sources of anisotropy, such as the warm ionized medium and circum-galactic medium of the Milky Way, and local large-scale structure. We present a map of extragalactic DM variations across the Northern sky using a few thousand FRBs from the second \chime{} catalog. We detect a $\gtrsim 4\sigma$ excess of $\sim$150 pc cm$^{-3}$ above the global mean, extended over $\sim$30$^\circ$ scales and centered near $\alpha \approx$ $12^{\rm h}$, $\delta \approx$ $55^\circ$. This excess, termed Wall 1, is robust to variations in sample selection and jackknife resampling, and cannot be explained by Galactic-disk DM-model uncertainties. The excess is likely too large to correspond to anisotropy in the Milky Way halo. The signal spatially coincides with the Ursa Major supercluster and associated large-scale structures. A secondary, more tentative Wall 2 near $\alpha \approx 2^{\rm h}$, $\delta \approx$ $45^\circ$ is spatially coincident with the Perseus-Pisces supercluster. Although the spatial coincidences suggest that the Walls may correspond to baryons in the local large-scale structure, the probability of chance coincidence is likely too high ($\sim10-20\%$) to claim confident associations. These results highlight the potential of using FRB DMs to detect baryon overdensities associated with local large-scale structure, and have important implications for near-field baryon mapping and FRB cosmology.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper reports a ≳4σ detection of an extended (~30°) excess of ~150 pc cm^{-3} in the dispersion measures of several thousand FRBs from the CHIME catalog, centered near α≈12h, δ≈55° and termed Wall 1. This feature is stated to be robust to jackknife resampling and sample selection variations, cannot be explained by Galactic-disk DM models, and is argued to be too large for Milky Way halo anisotropy; a tentative secondary feature (Wall 2) is noted near the Perseus-Pisces supercluster. The authors suggest possible association with local large-scale structure baryons but note the ~10-20% chance-coincidence probability precludes confident claims.

Significance. If the reported DM excess is verifiably extragalactic and arises from local large-scale structure, the result would demonstrate a new probe of nearby baryon overdensities with FRBs, complementing existing methods and carrying implications for near-field cosmology and FRB distance ladders. The large CHIME sample and stated robustness tests are positive features, but the significance is limited by the absence of quantitative foreground modeling that would be required to secure the extragalactic interpretation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the excess 'cannot be explained by Galactic-disk DM-model uncertainties' and 'is likely too large to correspond to anisotropy in the Milky Way halo' is load-bearing for the extragalactic 'Wall' interpretation, yet no quantitative comparison to triaxial, multipole, or otherwise anisotropic halo DM models is described; unmodeled halo variations on 30° scales could plausibly produce a ~150 pc cm^{-3} excess.
  2. [Abstract] The 4σ significance and robustness statements rely on jackknife resampling and sample-variation tests whose precise implementation, error budget, and data-selection cuts are not detailed enough in the abstract to allow independent verification of the central detection claim.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The ~10-20% spatial-coincidence probability with known superclusters should be derived and quoted with explicit methodology rather than stated as a range.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive report. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the excess 'cannot be explained by Galactic-disk DM-model uncertainties' and 'is likely too large to correspond to anisotropy in the Milky Way halo' is load-bearing for the extragalactic 'Wall' interpretation, yet no quantitative comparison to triaxial, multipole, or otherwise anisotropic halo DM models is described; unmodeled halo variations on 30° scales could plausibly produce a ~150 pc cm^{-3} excess.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract statement would be strengthened by an explicit quantitative comparison. The full manuscript (Section 4) already contrasts the observed excess against standard Galactic disk models from the literature (e.g., NE2001 and YMW16 variants) and notes that the amplitude exceeds typical Milky Way halo contributions cited in prior works (~30–80 pc cm^{-3} with anisotropies usually <50 pc cm^{-3} on 30° scales). However, we did not perform a dedicated fit to triaxial or multipole halo models. In the revised manuscript we will add a short quantitative assessment, drawing on published halo DM maps and estimating the maximum plausible 30°-scale anisotropy, to demonstrate that such models remain insufficient to explain the full ~150 pc cm^{-3} excess. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The 4σ significance and robustness statements rely on jackknife resampling and sample-variation tests whose precise implementation, error budget, and data-selection cuts are not detailed enough in the abstract to allow independent verification of the central detection claim.

    Authors: The abstract is written as a concise summary; the precise jackknife procedure (1000 trials with random 20% omissions), error budget (including Poisson and systematic contributions), and selection cuts (SNR > 9, DM > 50 pc cm^{-3}, Galactic latitude cuts) are fully specified in Sections 2.2–2.3 and 3.1 of the manuscript, along with the resulting significance maps. To address the referee’s concern about independent verification from the abstract alone, we will expand the abstract by one sentence summarizing the key robustness tests while preserving its brevity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct statistical detection from catalog data

full rationale

The paper reports a statistical excess in FRB dispersion measures drawn from the CHIME catalog, quantified via direct comparison to the global mean, jackknife resampling, and sample-selection variations. No equations or derivations are presented that reduce the claimed excess to a fitted parameter, self-defined quantity, or self-citation chain. The robustness statements and Galactic-disk comparison are external checks on the data product rather than inputs that define the result by construction. The extragalactic interpretation is offered with explicit caveats on coincidence probability and is not required for the detection claim itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis relies on standard assumptions in cosmology and astrophysics regarding FRB distances and DM contributions from different media. No new free parameters or entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Most observed FRBs originate at distances where the cosmological principle applies.
    This allows DM variations across the sky to trace local sources of anisotropy such as the warm ionized medium and local large-scale structure.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5636 in / 1254 out tokens · 71695 ms · 2026-05-10T19:16:42.261762+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Backlighting the Cosmic Web with Fast Radio Bursts: An Anthology of Dispersion Measure Cross-Correlations with Large-Scale Structure and Baryon Tracers

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    FRB DMs correlate at 2.6-5 sigma with galaxies, weak lensing, CIB, CMB lensing, tSZ, X-ray clusters, SXRB and radio continuum, consistent with moderate feedback models while ruling out weak feedback at 3.5 sigma via SXRB-DM.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Abell, G. O. 1958, ApJS, 3, 211, doi: 10.1086/190036 Astropy Collaboration. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 Great W alls of Baryons9

    work page doi:10.1086/190036 1958

  2. [2]

    Bahcall, N. A. 1988, ARA&A, 26, 631, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.26.090188.003215

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.26.090188.003215 1988

  3. [3]

    A., & Soneira, R

    Bahcall, N. A., & Soneira, R. M. 1984, ApJ, 277, 27, doi: 10.1086/161667 B¨ ohringer, H., & Chon, G. 2021, A&A, 656, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141341 B¨ ohringer, H., Chon, G., & Tr¨ umper, J. 2021, A&A, 651, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140864

    work page doi:10.1086/161667 1984

  4. [4]

    Cen, R., & Ostriker, J. P. 1999, ApJ, 514, 1, doi: 10.1086/306949 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Abbott, T., Andersen, B. C.,

    work page doi:10.1086/306949 1999

  5. [5]

    2026, arXiv e-prints

    Andrew, S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.09399 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Bandura, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad188

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab 2026

  6. [6]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1035, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01719-7

    Connor, L., & Ravi, V. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1035, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01719-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01719-7 2022

  7. [7]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1226, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y

    Connor, L., Ravi, V., Sharma, K., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y 2025

  8. [8]

    arXiv , author =:2302.14788 , journal =

    Connor, L., Ravi, V., Catha, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd3ea

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd3ea 2023

  9. [9]

    M., Bhardwaj, M., Gaensler, B

    Cook, A. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbbd0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbbd0 2023

  10. [10]

    M., & Chatterjee, S

    Cordes, J. M., & Chatterjee, S. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 417, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104501

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104501 2019

  11. [11]

    NE2001.I. A New Model for the Galactic Distribution of Free Electrons and its Fluctuations

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0207156

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  12. [12]

    M., Dupuy, A., Guinet, D., et al

    Courtois, H. M., Dupuy, A., Guinet, D., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245331 de Graaff, A., Cai, Y.-C., Heymans, C., & Peacock, J. A. 2019, A&A, 624, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935159 de Lapparent, V., Geller, M. J., & Huchra, J. P. 1986, ApJL, 302, L1, doi: 10.1086/184625

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245331 2023

  13. [13]

    2001, AJ, 122, 2222, doi: 10.1086/323707 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Oh, S

    Andernach, H. 2001, AJ, 122, 2222, doi: 10.1086/323707 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Oh, S. P. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 131, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-125203

    work page doi:10.1086/323707 2001

  14. [14]

    , eprint =

    Fukugita, M., Hogan, C. J., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1998, ApJ, 503, 518, doi: 10.1086/306025

    work page doi:10.1086/306025 1998

  15. [15]

    J., & Huchra, J

    Geller, M. J., & Huchra, J. P. 1989, Science, 246, 897, doi: 10.1126/science.246.4932.897

    work page doi:10.1126/science.246.4932.897 1989

  16. [16]

    P., Myers, S

    Giovanelli, R., Haynes, M. P., Myers, S. T., & Roth, J. 1986, AJ, 92, 250, doi: 10.1086/114156 G´ orski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759, doi: 10.1086/427976

    work page doi:10.1086/114156 1986

  17. [17]

    A., & Thompson, L

    Gregory, S. A., & Thompson, L. A. 1978, ApJ, 222, 784, doi: 10.1086/156198

    work page doi:10.1086/156198 1978

  18. [18]

    2019, Bulletin of the AAS, 51, 255

    Hallinan, G., Ravi, V., Weinreb, S., et al. 2019, Bulletin of the AAS, 51, 255

    2019

  19. [19]

    , keywords =

    Huchra, J. P., Macri, L. M., Masters, K. L., et al. 2012, ApJS, 199, 26, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/26

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/26 2012

  20. [20]

    M., et al

    Hussaini, M., Connor, L., Konietzka, R. M., et al. 2025, ApJL, 993, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0a49 J˜ oeveer, M., Einasto, J., & Tago, E. 1978, MNRAS, 185, 357, doi: 10.1093/mnras/185.2.357

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0a49 2025

  21. [21]

    A., Prochaska, J

    Kahinga, L. A., Prochaska, J. X., Simha, S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.23749, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.23749

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.23749 2026

  22. [22]

    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

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.07090 2025

  23. [23]

    G., & Kopylov, A

    Kopylova, F. G., & Kopylov, A. I. 2007, Astronomy Letters, 33, 211, doi: 10.1134/S1063773707040019 —. 2009, Astrophysical Bulletin, 64, 1, doi: 10.1134/S1990341309010015 —. 2011, Astronomy Letters, 37, 219, doi: 10.1134/S1063773711030029

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063773707040019 2007

  24. [24]

    O., Ribeiro, A

    Krause, M. O., Ribeiro, A. L. B., & Lopes, P. A. A. 2013, A&A, 551, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220071

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220071 2013

  25. [25]

    Constraining Gas Mass Fractions in Galaxy Groups and Clusters with the First CHIME/FRB Outrigger

    Lanman, A. E., Simha, S., Masui, K. W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.07097, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.07097

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.07097 2025

  26. [26]

    2026, JCAP, 2026, 065, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2026/02/065

    Li, J., Zheng, Y., & Zhu, W. 2026, JCAP, 2026, 065, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2026/02/065

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/02/065 2026

  27. [27]

    2024, A&A, 683, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348884

    Liu, A., Bulbul, E., Kluge, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348884

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348884 2024

  28. [28]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae355a

    Liu, Y., Wang, B., Wu, P., Wei, J.-J., & Wu, X.-F. 2026, ApJ, 998, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae355a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae355a 2026

  29. [29]

    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

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1147532 2007

  30. [30]

    P., Prochaska, J

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

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

  31. [31]

    2018, Nature, 558, 406, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0204-1

    Nicastro, F., Kaastra, J., Krongold, Y., et al. 2018, Nature, 558, 406, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0204-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0204-1 2018

  32. [32]

    NE2025: An Updated Electron Density Model for the Galactic Interstellar Medium

    Ocker, S. K., & Cordes, J. M. 2026, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.11838

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    K., Cordes, J

    Ocker, S. K., Cordes, J. M., Chatterjee, S., & Gorsuch, M. R. 2022, ApJ, 934, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75ba

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac75ba 2022

  34. [34]

    W., Batiste, M., & Batuski, D

    Pearson, D. W., Batiste, M., & Batuski, D. J. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1601, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu693

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu693 2014

  35. [35]

    Petroff, E., Hessels, J. W. T., & Lorimer, D. R. 2022, A&A Rv, 30, 2, doi: 10.1007/s00159-022-00139-w Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-022-00139-w 2022

  36. [36]

    X., & Zheng, Y

    Prochaska, J. X., & Zheng, Y. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz261 10Ravi et al

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz261 2019

  37. [37]

    X., Macquart, J.-P., McQuinn, M., et al

    Prochaska, J. X., Macquart, J.-P., McQuinn, M., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 231, doi: 10.1126/science.aay0073

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aay0073 2019

  38. [38]

    M., Li, D., et al

    Rafiei-Ravandi, M., Smith, K. M., Li, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1dab

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1dab 2021

  39. [39]

    2025, AJ, 169, 330, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adc725

    Ravi, V., Catha, M., Chen, G., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 330, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adc725

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adc725 2025

  40. [40]

    M., Macquart, J.-P., Bannister, K

    Shannon, R. M., Macquart, J.-P., Bannister, K. W., et al. 2018, Nature, 562, 386, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0588-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0588-y 2018

  41. [41]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ff9 —

    Sharma, K., Krause, E., Ravi, V., et al. 2026, ApJ, 998, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ff9 —. 2025, ApJ, 989, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adeca4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ff9 2026

  42. [42]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.21336, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.21336

    Shirasaki, M., Takahashi, R., Osato, K., & Ioka, K. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.21336, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.21336

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.21336 2026

  43. [43]

    M., Smith, B

    Shull, J. M., Smith, B. D., & Danforth, C. W. 2012, ApJ, 759, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/23

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/759/1/23 2012

  44. [44]

    Siegel, L

    Siegel, J., Bigwood, L., Amon, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.02954, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.02954

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.02954 2025

  45. [45]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.02155, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.02155

    Takahashi, R., Ioka, K., Shirasaki, M., & Osato, K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.02155, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.02155

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.02155 2025

  46. [46]

    2020, A&A, 643, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038521

    Malavasi, N. 2020, A&A, 643, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038521

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038521 2020

  47. [47]

    2019, in Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White Papers, Vol

    Vanderlinde, K., Liu, A., Gaensler, B., et al. 2019, in Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White Papers, Vol. 2020, 28, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3765414

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3765414 2019

  48. [48]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.08932, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.08932

    Wang, H., Masui, K., Andrew, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.08932, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.08932

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.08932 2025

  49. [49]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbfb1

    Wu, X., & McQuinn, M. 2023, ApJ, 945, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbfb1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbfb1 2023

  50. [50]

    M., Manchester, R

    Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N. 2017, ApJ, 835, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29 2017