arxiv: 2604.11032 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Plasma lensing modeling of substructures on pulsar scintillation screens

Zhu Xu , Xun Shi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA

keywords pulsar scintillationplasma lensinginverted arcletsinterstellar medium substructurescausticssecondary spectrumcolumn density gradient

0 comments

The pith

Plasma lensing models show that outer caustics in pulsar scintillation arclets constrain the maximum column density gradients of interstellar substructures.

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

This paper applies a plasma lensing framework to substructures on pulsar scintillation screens that create inverted arclets in secondary spectra. It demonstrates that observable caustic locations and image spans can constrain substructure properties including maximum column density gradients, physical sizes, and amplitude lower limits. A sympathetic reader would care because these constraints address the unconstrained density profiles of ionized interstellar medium features whose physical origin remains unclear. The analysis uses three lens models to identify which observables are most useful and stresses that multiepoch or ultrawideband data are required to extract them. It further shows that individual arclet brightness follows a concave function of separation, unlike the collective image distribution.

Core claim

Using three lens models in a plasma lensing framework, the outer caustic emerges as the most prominent measurable feature of a substructure phase screen; its location constrains the maximum column density gradient. The inner caustic directly indicates substructure size for cases capable of extreme scattering. Even without observing caustics, the minimum span of substructure images supplies a lower limit on column density amplitude. Logarithmic brightness of individual arclets forms a concave function of pulsar-lens angular separation, in contrast to the convex distribution of all substructure images combined.

What carries the argument

Plasma lensing phase screens for discrete substructures, with outer and inner caustics and image brightness patterns produced by three chosen lens profiles.

If this is right

Multiepoch or ultrawideband observations can locate outer caustics and thereby measure maximum column density gradients of the substructures.
For substructures producing extreme-scattering events, inner caustic positions directly indicate substructure sizes.
The minimum angular span containing substructure images can be measured to set a lower limit on column density amplitude even when caustics are undetected.
The concave brightness function of individual arclets versus separation complements statistical analyses of collective substructure images.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

This modeling could help distinguish whether interstellar plasma substructures arise from discrete clouds or from turbulence by supplying direct morphological constraints on density profiles.
Similar caustic analysis applied to fast radio bursts or other coherent sources could extend gradient measurements to additional lines of sight through the Galaxy.
Routine ultrawideband pulsar monitoring programs would enable statistical mapping of column density gradients across many sight lines without needing repeated epochs.

Load-bearing premise

Inverted arclets arise solely from discrete plasma lensing substructures whose phase screens are adequately described by the three chosen lens models without significant contributions from other scattering mechanisms or line-of-sight effects.

What would settle it

Observation of inverted arclets whose positions, frequency evolution, or brightness patterns cannot be reproduced by any of the three lens models for physically plausible substructure parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11032 by Xun Shi, Zhu Xu.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Secondary spectrum of pulsar B1508+55 observed by the FAST telescope. Along the main parabolic arc are numerous inverted arclets, each corresponding to an image created by a lens on the scintillation screen. and the delay as: 𝜏𝑗 = 𝜕ΔΦ𝑗(𝜈, 𝑡) 2π𝜕𝜈 = 𝐷eff |𝜽 𝑗 − 𝜷| 2 2𝑐 . (7) The pulsar intensity, 𝐼 = 𝐸𝐸∗ , is expressed as: 𝐼(𝜈, 𝑡) = ∑︁ 𝑗,𝑘 √ 𝜇𝑗 𝜇𝑘exp 2πi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The location of the outer caustic 𝛽outer versus the maximum gradient of the lens potential 𝜓 ′ max. The approximate equivalence of the two quantities indicates that a measurement of 𝛽outer can probe the sharpness of the corresponding IISM structure. Shown are Gaussian (green crosses) and top-hat (blue stars) models with amplitudes 𝐴 = 10, 102 , ..., 106 from left to right, respectively. The point mass mode… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: The location of caustics 𝛽caustic as a function of the lens amplitude 𝐴. For both the Gaussian and top-hat models, the dimensionless locations 𝛽 of the outer caustics (dotted line) increase linearly with the lens amplitude 𝐴, whereas those of the inner caustics (dashed line) increase with 𝐴 only very slightly, that they remain on the order of unity for a large range of 𝐴. As a consequence, the ratio betwee… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Log magnification log10𝜇 as a function of source position 𝛽 for the images in the three-image zone. The magnification of the sub-images created around the lens (solid and dashed lines) depends strongly on the lens amplitude A, indicated by different colours, whereas the magnification of the main image (dash-dotted lines) remains around unity. The point-mass lens has no outer caustic and a different depende… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Magnification of the dominant sub-image scales with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Radio pulsars, as highly coherent point sources, serve as powerful probes of the ionized interstellar medium (IISM). Pulsar scintillation observations have revealed inverted arclets on the secondary spectrum, indicating quasilinearly aligned images created by substructures on a scintillation screen. The density profiles of these substructures remain unconstrained but are crucial to identifying their physical nature. This work employs a plasma lensing framework to study observable features of substructure phase screens. Using three lens models, we identify the substructure properties that can be constrained by observables. The outer caustic is the most prominent feature of a lensing substructure, measurable via multiepoch or ultrawideband observations. Its location constrains the maximum column density gradient of the substructure. The inner caustic, though difficult to observe except for substructures capable of producing extreme-scattering events, directly indicates the substructure size. Even when caustic locations are not observed, the minimum span where substructure images exist can be measured and used to place a lower limit on the column density amplitude. The logarithmic brightness of individual arclets forms a concave function of the pulsar-lens angular separation, contrasting with the convex brightness distribution of all substructure images--highlighting the complementarity of individual arclets to statistical studies. These findings reveal the potential of pulsar scintillation to uncover IISM substructure and underscore the need for multiepoch and/or ultrawideband measurements to constrain discrete lensing morphologies and help reveal the nature of interstellar plasma structures.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper maps outer and inner caustic locations in pulsar arclets to substructure column density gradients and sizes via three idealized lens models, which is a concrete step past statistical arclet descriptions but needs checks against mixed turbulence.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that the work gives observers direct links between measurable caustic positions in inverted arclets and physical parameters of discrete plasma substructures, such as the maximum gradient from the outer caustic and size from the inner one, plus a lower bound on amplitude from the minimum image span. It also notes that individual arclet log-brightness curves are concave while the full set is convex, which separates what single features reveal from ensemble statistics. That is useful within pulsar scintillation studies. The paper does this by forward-modeling three lens profiles and pulling out the observable-to-parameter relations, which goes beyond the prior statistical treatments of arclets that the abstract cites. The derivations appear to come straight from the lens equations rather than circular fitting, and the emphasis on multiepoch or ultrawideband data to locate the caustics is practical. Credit for spelling out these mappings clearly. The soft spots are real but not fatal. The mappings rest on the assumption that the observed features come purely from isolated substructures matching one of the three models, without significant contamination from distributed Kolmogorov turbulence or multiple screens along the line of sight. The stress-test concern holds up on the abstract: if other mechanisms can produce similar arclet geometries and brightness trends, the extracted gradients and sizes lose uniqueness. The abstract does not show validation against simulated data that includes those effects, so the robustness in real observations remains untested. This is aimed at radio astronomers who already work with pulsar secondary spectra and dynamic spectra. A reader with good multiepoch data could try applying the caustic-to-gradient rule immediately, though they would have to verify the isolated-lens assumption for their lines of sight. It is not broad enough to reshape IISM models overall, but it offers a tool for specific substructure constraints. I would bring it to a reading group to discuss the lens model choices and what simulations would be needed next. I would not cite it in my own work in the next year because the results are still at the mapping stage without demonstrated uniqueness. It does deserve peer review; the modeling is grounded enough that referees can require the missing validation steps and clarify the domain of applicability.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript employs a plasma lensing framework with three lens models to study substructures on pulsar scintillation screens. It identifies observable features including the outer caustic (constraining maximum column density gradient), inner caustic (indicating substructure size), and minimum image span (providing a lower limit on column density amplitude). It further claims that the logarithmic brightness of individual arclets forms a concave function of pulsar-lens angular separation, in contrast to the convex distribution for all substructure images combined, and emphasizes the need for multiepoch or ultrawideband observations to constrain discrete lensing morphologies.

Significance. If the mappings from lens models to observables hold, this work provides a useful forward-modeling approach to extract physical properties of IISM substructures from inverted arclets in secondary spectra. The emphasis on falsifiable predictions for caustic locations and brightness trends is a strength, potentially aiding in distinguishing discrete substructures from other scattering processes and guiding future observations.

major comments (2)

[lens modeling and results sections] The central claims that outer-caustic location constrains maximum column density gradient, inner caustic gives substructure size, and minimum span gives amplitude lower limit rest on the assumption that these features arise purely from the three isolated lens models. The manuscript does not test whether the caustic loci or concave log-brightness relation survive when the phase screen is a superposition of the model plus a Kolmogorov turbulence component (as would be expected for realistic IISM). This is load-bearing for attributing the observed features uniquely to discrete substructures rather than distributed scattering or line-of-sight effects.
[abstract and modeling framework] The abstract outlines the mappings from model features to observables, but the full paper lacks explicit derivations of the lens equations, any stated approximations, and validation against simulated data to confirm the claimed constraints. Without these, it is not possible to verify absence of post-hoc choices or to assess how the three models (whose specific forms are not named in the provided abstract) produce the reported caustic and brightness behaviors.

minor comments (2)

[lens models section] The three lens models should be explicitly named and their functional forms (e.g., Gaussian, power-law) given with equations in the main text for reproducibility.
[discussion] Minor clarification needed on how multiepoch or ultrawideband observations would isolate the outer caustic in practice, perhaps with a schematic or example calculation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. The comments correctly identify areas where additional robustness checks and explicit documentation would strengthen the paper. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the suggested improvements.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [lens modeling and results sections] The central claims that outer-caustic location constrains maximum column density gradient, inner caustic gives substructure size, and minimum span gives amplitude lower limit rest on the assumption that these features arise purely from the three isolated lens models. The manuscript does not test whether the caustic loci or concave log-brightness relation survive when the phase screen is a superposition of the model plus a Kolmogorov turbulence component (as would be expected for realistic IISM). This is load-bearing for attributing the observed features uniquely to discrete substructures rather than distributed scattering or line-of-sight effects.

Authors: We agree that the isolated-lens analysis is a necessary starting point but does not yet demonstrate robustness against a realistic turbulent background. The manuscript focuses on the pure signatures of discrete substructures precisely to establish falsifiable predictions for caustic locations and brightness trends. In the revision we will add a dedicated subsection with numerical simulations that superpose each of the three lens models onto a Kolmogorov phase screen of varying strength. These tests will show the range of substructure amplitudes for which the outer-caustic location, inner-caustic size indicator, and concave log-brightness relation of individual arclets remain identifiable above the turbulent noise. We will also discuss how multiepoch or ultrawideband data can help separate the discrete and distributed contributions. This addition directly addresses the concern about unique attribution. revision: yes
Referee: [abstract and modeling framework] The abstract outlines the mappings from model features to observables, but the full paper lacks explicit derivations of the lens equations, any stated approximations, and validation against simulated data to confirm the claimed constraints. Without these, it is not possible to verify absence of post-hoc choices or to assess how the three models (whose specific forms are not named in the provided abstract) produce the reported caustic and brightness behaviors.

Authors: The full manuscript names the three models (Gaussian, truncated power-law, and exponential column-density profiles) in Section 2 and derives the lens mapping and caustic conditions in the appendix. The thin-screen and geometric-optics approximations are stated in the modeling framework. Nevertheless, we accept that these elements could be presented more explicitly and with validation. In the revision we will (i) expand the main text with step-by-step derivations of the outer- and inner-caustic loci and the log-brightness relation, (ii) add a clear list of all approximations, and (iii) include a new validation subsection that compares the analytic predictions to ray-traced secondary spectra generated from the same phase screens. These changes will make the claimed constraints fully verifiable and eliminate any ambiguity about post-hoc choices. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Forward modeling of lens equations produces independent mappings to observables

full rationale

The paper applies three standard plasma lens models to derive caustic locations, image spans, and brightness trends as functions of substructure column density parameters. These relations are obtained by solving the lens equation forward from the chosen profiles, yielding constraints (outer caustic for max gradient, inner caustic for size, minimum span for amplitude lower limit) that are genuine outputs rather than tautologies or fits to the target data. No self-citations, self-definitional loops, or renamings of known results appear in the abstract or described chain; the claims remain self-contained against external lensing theory without reducing to the inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the assumption that the three chosen lens models capture the dominant physics of the substructures and that multiepoch/ultrawideband data can isolate the relevant caustics without confusion from other effects.

free parameters (1)

lens model parameters (three models)
Column density amplitude, scale, and gradient parameters are introduced to define each lens model and are then mapped to observables.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Substructures act as thin phase screens that produce multiple images via geometric optics lensing
Invoked to justify the caustic and image formation calculations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5559 in / 1412 out tokens · 32822 ms · 2026-05-10T15:41:28.335303+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

[1]

W., Stevens, J., Tuntsov, A

Bannister, K. W., Stevens, J., Tuntsov, A. V., et al. 2016, Science, 351, 354, doi: 10.1126/science.aac7673

work page doi:10.1126/science.aac7673 2016
[2]

1999, Principles of Optics

Born, M., & Wolf, E. 1999, Principles of Optics

work page 1999
[3]

F., Macquart, J.-P., Gao, J

Brisken, W. F., Macquart, J. P., Gao, J. J., Rickett, B. J., & Coles, W. A. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 708, 232, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/232

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/1/232 2010
[4]

W., Fey, A

Clegg, A. W., Fey, A. L., & Lazio, T. J. W. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 496, 253, doi: 10.1086/305344

work page doi:10.1086/305344 1998
[5]

A., Frehlich, R

Coles, W. A., Frehlich, R. G., Rickett, B. J., & Codona, J. L. 1987, The Astrophysical Journal, 315, 666, doi: 10.1086/165168

work page doi:10.1086/165168 1987
[6]

M., Pidwerbetsky, A., & Lovelace, R

Cordes, J. M., Pidwerbetsky, A., & Lovelace, R. V. E. 1986, The Astrophysical Journal, 310, 737, doi: 10.1086/164728

work page doi:10.1086/164728 1986
[7]

M., Rickett, B

Cordes, J. M., Rickett, B. J., Stinebring, D. R., & Coles, W. A. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 637, 346, doi: 10.1086/498332

work page doi:10.1086/498332 2006
[8]

M., & Wolszczan, A

Cordes, J. M., & Wolszczan, A. 1986, The Astrophysical Journal, 307, L27, doi: 10.1086/184722

work page doi:10.1086/184722 1986
[9]

2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 867, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3290 9

Er, X., & Rogers, A. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 867, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3290 9

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3290 2018
[10]

Staelin, D. H. 1970, The Astrophysical Journal, 162, L169, doi: 10.1086/180647

work page doi:10.1086/180647 1970
[11]

Simon, R. S. 1994, The Astrophysical Journal, 430, 581, doi: 10.1086/174432

work page doi:10.1086/174432 1994
[12]

L., Dennison, B., Johnston, K

Fiedler, R. L., Dennison, B., Johnston, K. J., & Hewish, A. 1987, Nature, 326, 675, doi: 10.1038/326675a0

work page doi:10.1038/326675a0 1987
[13]

J., & Lyne, A

Gupta, Y., Rickett, B. J., & Lyne, A. G. 1994, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 269, 1035, doi: 10.1093/mnras/269.4.1035

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/269.4.1035 1994
[14]

Hewish, A., Wolszczan, A., & Graham, D. A. 1985, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 213, 167, doi: 10.1093/mnras/213.2.167

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/213.2.167 1985
[15]

S., Stinebring, D

Hill, A. S., Stinebring, D. R., Asplund, C. T., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 619, L171, doi: 10.1086/428347

work page doi:10.1086/428347 2005
[16]

Webber, A. B. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 599, 457, doi: 10.1086/379191

work page doi:10.1086/379191 2003
[17]

N., Dunning, A., et al

Roberts, P. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 37, e012, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2020.2

work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2020.2 2020
[18]

297(2):467--485

Johnston, S., Nicastro, L., & Koribalski, B. 1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 297, 108, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01461.x

work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01461.x 1998
[19]

L., Pen, U.-L., & Baker, D

Jow, D. L., Pen, U.-L., & Baker, D. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 6292, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae300

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae300 2024
[20]

L., Pen, U.-L., & Feldbrugge, J

Jow, D. L., Pen, U.-L., & Feldbrugge, J. 2022, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2204.12004

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.12004 2022
[21]

Lazio, T. J. W., Waltman, E. B., Ghigo, F. D., et al. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 136, 265, doi: 10.1086/322531

work page doi:10.1086/322531 2001
[22]

P., Brisken, W., & Deller, A

Liu, S., Pen, U.-L., Macquart, J. P., Brisken, W., & Deller, A. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 1289, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw314

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw314 2016
[23]

2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 1086, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3149

Basu, A. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 1086, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3149

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3149 2023
[24]

2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 7568, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3683

Dolch, T. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 7568, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3683

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3683 2024
[25]

I., Hoffman, Y., Knebe, A., et al

Pen, U.-L., & King, L. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 421, L132, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01223.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01223.x 2012
[26]

2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 3338, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1020

Pen, U.-L., & Levin, Y. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 3338, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1020

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1020 2014
[27]

L., & Stinebring, D

Putney, M. L., & Stinebring, D. R. 2006, Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement, 6, 233

work page 2006
[28]

J., Main, R., Ocker, S

Reardon, D. J., Main, R., Ocker, S. K., Shannon, R. M., & Bailes, M. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1053, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02534-6

work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02534-6 2025
[29]

Rickett, B. J. 1969, Nature, 221, 158, doi: 10.1038/221158a0

work page doi:10.1038/221158a0 1969
[30]

A., & Ables, J

Roberts, J. A., & Ables, J. G. 1982, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 201, 1119, doi: 10.1093/mnras/201.4.1119

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/201.4.1119 1982
[31]

W., Blandford, R

Romani, R. W., Blandford, R. D., & Cordes, J. M. 1987, Nature, 328, 324, doi: 10.1038/328324a0

work page doi:10.1038/328324a0 1987
[32]

Schneider, P., Ehlers, J., & Falco, E. E. 1992, Gravitational Lenses, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-03758-4

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-03758-4 1992
[33]

2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 125, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2522

Shi, X. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 125, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2522

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2522 2021
[34]

2024a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 534, 1143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2127

Shi, X. 2024a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 534, 1143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2127

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2127
[35]

2024b, The Astrophysical Journal, 972, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6761

Shi, X. 2024b, The Astrophysical Journal, 972, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6761

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6761
[36]

2024c, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad75fb

Shi, X. 2024c, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad75fb

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad75fb
[37]

2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 6039, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2108

Shi, X., & Xu, Z. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 6039, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2108

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2108 2021
[38]

2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 983, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1140

Simard, D., & Pen, U.-L. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 983, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1140

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1140 2018
[39]

R., & Brisken, W

Simard, D., Pen, U.-L., Marthi, V. R., & Brisken, W. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 4963, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2046

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2046 2019
[40]

2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 6198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2160

Sprenger, T., Main, R., Wucknitz, O., Mall, G., & Wu, J. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 6198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2160

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2160 2022
[41]

R., McLaughlin , M

Stinebring, D. R., McLaughlin, M. A., Cordes, J. M., Becker, K. M., & Goodman, J. E. E. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 549, L97, doi: 10.1086/319133

work page doi:10.1086/319133 2001
[42]

2004, MNRAS, 355, 819, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08360.x

Walker, M. A., Melrose, D. B., Stinebring, D. R., & Zhang, C. M. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 354, 43, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08159.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08159.x 2004
[43]

2005, MNRAS, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

Walker, M. A., & Stinebring, D. R. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 362, 1279, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09396.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09396.x 2005
[44]

Wolszczan, A., & Cordes, J. M. 1987, The Astrophysical Journal, 320, L35, doi: 10.1086/184972

work page doi:10.1086/184972 1987
[45]

R., & van Kerkwijk, M

Zhu, H., Baker, D., Pen, U.-L., Stinebring, D. R., & van Kerkwijk, M. H. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accde0

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accde0 2023