Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A coherent radio burst from an X-ray neutron star in the Carina Nebula

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single coherent radio burst from the radio-quiet, thermally emitting neutron star 2XMM J104608.7−594306 confirms it is a neutron star and links it to magnetar-like transient emitters.

desk verdict A likely real single-event detection with a plausible but not ironclad association; the paper's confidence language and evolutionary claims exceed what one burst supports. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02808 v1 pith:3YEG5EYT submitted 2025-05-05 astro-ph.HE

K. M. Rajwade , J.Tian , G. Younes , B. Posselt , B. Stappers , Z. Wadiasingh , E. D. Barr , M. C. Bezuidenhout
show 5 more authors
M. Caleb F. Jankowski M. Kramer I. Pastor-Marazuela M. Surnis
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords radioburstsneutronstarspulsarsmagnetarsX-raydimisolatedcentralcompactobjectscoherentemissionCarinaNebula
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports the serendipitous detection of a single, highly polarized burst of coherent radio emission from 2XMM J104608.7−594306, a known thermally emitting, radio-quiet neutron star candidate in the Carina Nebula. The burst's position matches the X-ray source to within about one arcsecond, with a chance-coincidence probability of $\sim 2.4\times10^{-3}$, and its dispersion-measure distance of $1.5$–$2.3$ kpc matches the source's literature distance. These coincidences are what let the authors claim the burst physically originates from the neutron star. If that association holds, the detection establishes that at least some apparently radio-quiet X-ray neutron stars can produce sporadic coherent radio emission, and it places the source as a possible bridge between young magnetar/CCO-like objects and ordinary radio pulsars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the single $\sim50$ ms coherent radio burst itself, localised by imaging the channelised voltage data with a $153\,\mu$s time resolution after correcting astrometry with ten RACS-matched sources. Coherent here means the emission is produced by an organised plasma process giving brightness temperatures $10^{16}$–$10^{19}$ K, far above incoherent synchrotron limits. The association argument is carried by the chance-coincidence probability $P_{\rm cc}=1-e^{-\pi R^2 \rho}\sim 2.4\times10^{-3}$ (equation C1), computed with the local X-ray source density from the Broos et al. catalog; this rules out a random alignment at more than $3\sigma$. The morphological interpretation rests on a phenomenological 'sprinkler' model in which the eight burst components are distinct emission regions decoupling at different heights along a magnetic field line, so later components arrive at lower radio frequencies and with flatter polarization-angle swings.

What would settle it

Localise a future burst from this source with very long baseline interferometry or a finer astrometric solution: if the position is found to be more than roughly 2 arcseconds from 2XMM J104608.7−594306 while the quoted uncertainties hold, the association, and with it the neutron-star confirmation and the population link, would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the coherent radio burst of UTC 2024-02-03 06:55:16.738, detected with MeerKAT at 1.284 GHz, originated from the thermally emitting neutron star 2XMM J104608.7−594306. The burst has a sharp $\sim1.1$ ms rise followed by a decaying envelope containing at least eight components, a morphology not seen in ordinary pulsar pulses; it is linearly polarized with $L/I \approx 0.3$ and no circular polarization. In the authors' interpretation, this is an episodic magnetospheric emission event powered by crust or magnetosphere activity, analogous to transient radio bursts from magnetars but at least eight orders of magnitude less luminous than the brightest SGR 1935+2154 burst. Because no contemporaneous hard X-ray burst was detected and no pulsed radio emission was found in follow-up, the event is best described as sporadic rather than persistent radio emission.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the radio burst actually coming from 2XMM J104608.7−594306; if the astrometric correction is systematically off by more than about an arcsecond, or if the Carina X-ray source density used in the chance-coincidence calculation is underestimated, the burst could be an unrelated foreground or background object.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The neutron star nature of 2XMM J104608.7−594306 is confirmed by the radio burst, resolving its classification from a candidate thermally emitting compact object.
  • At least some radio-quiet, X-ray-bright isolated neutron stars can emit sporadic coherent radio bursts, so their radio quietness is not a hard absence of radio capability.
  • A common coherent radio-emission mechanism can operate across a wide range of magnetic field strengths and ages, from magnetars to relatively low-field sources such as this one.
  • If such bursts are rare and Poisson-distributed, the 99% upper limit of 2.4 bursts per hour implies that many similar events may have been missed by short radio surveys, motivating repeated monitoring of XDINS- and CCO-like sources.
  • The source may be an evolutionary transitional object between young magnetically or thermally powered neutron stars and rotation-powered radio pulsars, similar in spirit to the predicted onset of radio emission in evolved CCOs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if a population of radio-quiet neutron stars emits bursts at this rate, the total Galactic rate of such events could be non-negligible, and commensal transient surveys with long dwell times on crowded fields would be the most efficient way to find them.
  • Editorial inference: the 18.6 ms candidate X-ray periodicity, if real, would be much shorter than the roughly 50 ms burst duration, a tension the authors note; one testable extension is to search future bursts for amplitude modulation at 18.6 ms, which would connect the burst to the spin phase.
  • Editorial inference: comparing the burst's dispersion-measure distance with future astrometric measurements, for example a very long baseline interferometry localisation of a repeating burst, would independently test both the association and the Galactic electron-density models in the Carina direction.
  • Editorial inference: the 'sprinkler' model predicts that subcomponent arrival times and frequency drifts should be stable if the same pole re-emits, so a future burst from the same source could be checked for this pattern and thereby distinguish magnetospheric altitude structure from unrelated propagation effects.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports the serendipitous detection with MeerTRAP/MeerKAT of a single, highly polarized, coherent radio burst at 1284 MHz on 2024-02-03, localized from voltage data to a position within about 1 arcsec of the known X-ray thermally emitting neutron star candidate 2XMM J104608.7-594306 in the Carina Nebula. The authors measure DM = 98.4 ± 3 pc cm^-3 (implying a distance of 1.5-2.3 kpc), characterize the burst as a fast-rise, multi-component decay with approximately 30% linear polarization and RM = -50.23 ± 1.2 rad m^-2, estimate an isotropic radio luminosity of about 4.6e29 erg/s, and find no persistent or repeating radio emission in archival MeerKAT, Parkes, XMM-Newton, or NICER data and no contemporaneous hard X-ray burst. They interpret the burst as episodic magnetospheric emission analogous to magnetar radio bursts and argue that the source may be an evolutionary link between XDINS/CCO and rotation-powered pulsars. The central claim is that the burst originates from the X-ray neutron star, which then confirms its neutron-star nature and motivates a common radio-emission mechanism across neutron-star sub-populations.

Significance. The detection itself is valuable and appears technically sound: the burst has high signal-to-noise after coherent beamforming, the polarization and temporal characterization are careful, and the multi-wavelength follow-up places useful upper limits on contemporaneous and persistent emission. The authors also make the astrometric matching code publicly available, which aids reproducibility. If the association with 2XMM J104608.7-594306 is secure, this would be the first coherent radio burst from a radio-quiet, thermally emitting X-ray neutron star, with important implications for the magnetar/XDINS/CCO-pulsar connection and for future transient searches. However, the broad evolutionary conclusions are only as strong as the spatial association, and the reported association statistics are not yet robust: the chance-coincidence probability is computed with a localization radius smaller than the stated radio position uncertainty and with a Carina-wide source density that may not apply locally.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2 and Appendix C, Eq. (C1)] The chance-coincidence probability in Appendix C is computed with R ~ 1 arcsec, but the radio position uncertainty quoted in Table 1 and Section 2 is 1.8 arcsec in RA and 1.4 arcsec in Dec, with a median astrometric residual of 0.9 arcsec and residuals up to 2.5 arcsec from the RACS transform. Repeating the calculation with the measured localization radius raises Pcc from the quoted 2.4e-3 to roughly 1% or more; with a local X-ray source density a few times higher than the Carina-wide Broos et al. (2011) average, the association would no longer be a >3-sigma claim. In addition, Section 2 quotes 99.9% confidence, which is inconsistent with the 99.76% implied by Pcc = 2.4e-3 in Appendix C. Please recompute the chance coincidence using the full 2D error ellipse and the distribution of astrometric residuals, use a local rather than region-wide source density, and state one consistent confidence level throughout the text.
  2. [Appendix C] The astrometric calibration uses only 10 RACS-matched sources whose pre-correction separations are 1.5-4.7 arcsec, and after applying the transform the residuals span 0.3-2.5 arcsec with a median of 0.9 arcsec. No residual map, per-source residual list, or cross-validation is shown, so it is not possible to assess whether the transform has a spatially coherent distortion near the burst position. The quoted statistical, RACS absolute, and median-residual components are also added in quadrature even though the residual distribution appears strongly non-Gaussian. A leave-one-out or bootstrap estimate of the burst position uncertainty should be reported and used in the association probability.
  3. [Appendix C] The DM-distance estimate is presented as another confirmation of the association, but this is not an independent test. The YMW16 and NE2001 distances (1.5 and 2.3 kpc) are model-dependent along a crowded, low-latitude Carina sightline, and an unrelated radio transient with a similar DM could satisfy the same consistency check. The authors should either quantify the probability of a chance radio transient with DM ~ 99 pc cm^-3 in the localization region or present the DM agreement only as a non-contradictory sanity check, not as evidence for association.
  4. [Abstract and Section 5] The statements that the burst confirms the neutron-star nature of 2XMM J104608.7-594306 and that the source straddles the boundary between neutron-star populations are stronger than the single-event data support. The X-ray source already had a well-studied neutron-star interpretation, the association is not yet established at the claimed confidence, the 18.6 ms periodicity is unconfirmed, and there is no repetition of the radio burst. These evolutionary claims should be explicitly conditioned on the association and on future confirmation, or removed from the abstract unless the statistical analysis in Appendix C is strengthened.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] There is a missing space in '2XMM J104608.7−594306in the Carina Nebula', and the statement that the burst morphology is 'unlike anything seen from other radio emitting neutron stars' would benefit from a quantitative comparison with known single-pulse morphologies.
  2. [Appendix B] The choice of the exclusion parameter eta = 0.2 in the quasi-periodicity simulation is not justified; please state how it was set and whether the 2.1-sigma result is robust to reasonable choices of eta.
  3. [Appendix D, Eq. (D2)] Some symbols in the flux-density equation, such as beff, W, beta, and eta, are not explicitly defined in the text or in a table; please define all variables adjacent to the equation.
  4. [Figure 2 caption] The inset in Figure 2 labels the X-ray source as an XDIN candidate while the main text calls it a neutron star; please make the terminology consistent throughout.
  5. [Section 5.3] The 99% upper limit of 2.4 bursts per hour should be accompanied by the exact total on-source time and the assumed burst width and fluence threshold; currently the reader cannot reproduce the Poisson calculation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the radio burst is an independent observable tied to the X-ray source by an external-catalog association.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an observational association between a newly detected radio burst and a previously catalogued X-ray source, 2XMM J104608.7-594306. The X-ray nature, distance, and source density estimates are external inputs (Pires et al. 2012, 2015; Broos et al. 2011), not quantities fitted in this paper. The burst localization uses a transformation matrix fitted to 10 RACS sources that are independent of the target; applying that transform to the burst image is standard astrometric calibration rather than fitting to the target. The chance-coincidence probability in Appendix C (Eq. C1) uses an external catalog density and the radio positional offset; although Section 2's '99.9% confidence' wording is slightly stronger than Pcc = 2.4e-3 (99.76%), that is a statistical reporting inconsistency, not circularity. The DM-distance comparison uses Galactic electron density models (YMW16, NE2001) calibrated independently, and the luminosity estimate uses the standard radiometer equation. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no load-bearing self-citation chain is invoked, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work forces the conclusion. The burst itself is a distinct observable that was not constructed from the X-ray source properties, so the confirmation claim is not equivalent to its input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the prior identification of the X-ray source as a neutron star, on the astrometric correction applied to the burst image, and on the chance-coincidence density estimate. The only fitted quantities are descriptive (8 Gaussian components) and a simulation parameter (eta). No new physical entity is introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Number of Gaussian components = 8
    The burst profile is fit as a sum of N Gaussians; N=8 is chosen by lowest AIC/BIC but the authors note the optimum depends on time binning and report it as a lower limit.
  • Exclusion parameter in quasi-periodicity simulation = 0.2
    In Appendix B, the minimum allowed spacing between simulated burst components is set to eta times the candidate period, with eta=0.2 chosen by hand for the Poisson null hypothesis test.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption 2XMM J104608.7-594306 is an isolated neutron star
    Prior X-ray studies (Pires et al. 2012, 2015) classified it as a thermally emitting neutron star candidate sharing traits with XDINSs and CCOs; the present paper relies on this to interpret the burst.
  • domain assumption RACS catalogue provides an accurate absolute astrometric reference for the radio field
    The astrometric correction in Appendix C matches 10 MeerKAT sources to RACS positions and applies the transform to the burst image; a systematic RACS offset would shift the burst position.
  • domain assumption The X-ray source density from Broos et al. 2011 is representative of the Carina region
    Equation C1 uses this density to compute the chance coincidence probability; an underestimated density would inflate the significance of the association.
  • domain assumption Galactic electron density models YMW16 and NE2001 provide valid distance estimates
    Used to derive 1.5-2.3 kpc distance range and to argue consistency with the X-ray distance; these model distances have their own systematic uncertainties.
  • domain assumption Radio emission components follow a pulsar-like radius-to-frequency mapping
    The sprinkler model in Section 5.3 assumes lower-frequency emission decouples at higher altitudes, which is used to explain the frequency drift and PPA flattening but is not independently validated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A coherent radio burst from an X-ray neutron star in the Carina Nebula." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3YEG5EYT

@misc{pith2026250502808,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A coherent radio burst from an X-ray neutron star in the Carina Nebula},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3YEG5EYT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02808}
}
abstract

The neutron star zoo comprises several sub-populations that range from energetic magnetars and thermally emitting X-ray neutron stars to radio-emitting pulsars. Despite studies over the last five decades, it has been challenging to obtain a clear physical link between the various populations of neutron stars, vital to constrain their formation and evolutionary pathways. Here we report the detection of a burst of coherent radio emission from a known radio-quiet, thermally emitting neutron star 2XMM J104608.7$-$594306in the Carina Nebula. The burst has a distinctive sharp rise followed by a decay made up of multiple components, which is unlike anything seen from other radio-emitting neutron stars. It suggests an episodic event from the neutron star surface, akin to transient radio emission seen from magnetars. The radio burst confirms that the X-ray source is a neutron star and suggests a new link between these apparently radio-quiet X-ray emitting sources and other transient or persistent radio-emitting neutron stars. It also suggests that a common physical mechanism for emission might operate over a range of magnetic field strengths and neutron star ages. We propose that 2XMM J104608.7$-$594306 straddles the boundary between young, energetic neutron stars and their evolved radio-emitting cousins and may bridge these two populations. The detection of such a radio burst also shows that other radio-quiet neutron stars may also emit such sporadic radio emission that has been missed by previous radio surveys and highlights the need for regular monitoring of this unique sub-population of neutron stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02808 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Radio burst from 2XMM J104608.7−594306 showing linear polarization (red), circular polarization (blue) and the polarization position angle (black points). The pulse has been coherently dedispersed at the DM that maximises the S/N. The bottom panel shows a dynamic spectrum of the total intensity as a function of time and observing frequency, with horizontal excisions for RFI. We discovered a single radio burst with t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Images of the field of 2XMM J104608.7−594306 integrated over the duration of the radio burst (left) and before the burst detection (centre) and the difference between the two images (right). The magenta circle marks the transient source identified at the time of the burst detection, and the inset at the bottom right corner shows a zoomed in view to display the position (in red) of the XDIN candidate 2XMM J104608.7−5… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. X-ray versus radio luminosity for various coherent radio-emitting sources.The shaded region shows the range of X-ray luminosities for XDINSs, CCOs and 2XMM J104608.7−594306. The dashed gray lines denote constant ratios of the radio and X-ray luminosity (radio luminosity computed at 1.4 GHz). We note that the X-ray fluxes for pulsars, XDINSs and CCOs are the persistent X-ray fluxes reported in Kaplan & van Kerkwijk (… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic of a phenomenological model of the observed radio emission from 2XMM J104608.7−594306. Different active zones spawned at varied times and altitudes near a magnetic pole arrive at an observer from higher altitudes and more oblique angles at later times. This c…

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. OpenAlex reports about 2 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Understanding the Neutron Star Population with the SKAO Telescopes

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 accept novelty 3.5 of 10

    SKAO AA* and AA4 surveys are projected to discover thousands of ordinary pulsars and ~800–1000 MSPs, enabling population synthesis, mass measurements and tests of gravity and emission physics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    G., et al

    Arias, M., Botteon, A., Bassa, C. G., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244369

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244369 2022

  2. [2]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 1426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1391

    Kouveliotou, C. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1391

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1391 2019

  3. [3]

    Beniamini, P., Wadiasingh, Z., Hare, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 1872, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad208 5 The code for performing the astrometric correction can be found on GitHub: https://github.com/AstroLaura/MeerKAT Source Matching

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad208 2023

  4. [4]

    D., Ravi, V., Belov, K

    Bochenek, C. D., Ravi, V., Belov, K. V., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x 2020

  5. [5]

    S., Townsley, L

    Broos, P. S., Townsley, L. K., Feigelson, E. D., et al. 2011, ApJS, 194, 2, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/1/2

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/194/1/2 2011

  6. [6]

    1992, in Statistical Challenges in Modern Astronomy, ed

    Buccheri, R. 1992, in Statistical Challenges in Modern Astronomy, ed. E. D. Feigelson & G. J. Babu, 381–409, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4613-9290-3 44

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-9290-3 1992

  7. [7]

    M., Halpern, J

    Camilo, F., Ransom, S. M., Halpern, J. P., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 892, doi: 10.1038/nature04986

    doi:10.1038/nature04986 2006

  8. [8]

    2018, ApJ, 856, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab35a 12 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B

    Camilo, F., Scholz, P., Serylak, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab35a 12 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y Chime/Frb Collaboration, Bridget C., A., Bandura, K.,

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab35a 2018

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    2022, Nature, 607, 256, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04841-8

    Bhardwaj, M., et al. 2022, Nature, 607, 256, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04841-8

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Kouveliotou, C., van der Horst, A

    Collazzi, A. C., Kouveliotou, C., van der Horst, A. J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 218, 11, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/218/1/11

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    2000, ApJL, 529, L29, doi: 10.1086/312448

    Colpi, M., Geppert, U., & Page, D. 2000, ApJL, 529, L29, doi: 10.1086/312448

    2000 doi

  4. [12]

    J., & Wadiasingh, Z

    Cooper, A. J., & Wadiasingh, Z. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2133, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1813

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    M., & Lazio, T

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0207156 Dall’Osso, S., Granot, J., & Piran, T. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 2878, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20612.x De Luca, A. 2017, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 932, Journa...

    2002 arXiv

  6. [14]

    2020, ApJL, 896, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9742

    Esposito, P., Rea, N., Borghese, A., et al. 2020, ApJL, 896, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9742

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P

    Gendreau, K. C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P. W., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, T. Takahashi, & M. Bautz, 9905...

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    V., & Halpern, J

    Gotthelf, E. V., & Halpern, J. P. 2007, ApJL, 664, L35, doi: 10.1086/520637

    2007 doi

  9. [17]

    V., Halpern, J

    Gotthelf, E. V., Halpern, J. P., Allen, B., & Knispel, B. 2013, ApJ, 773, 141, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/141

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    2007, Ap&SS, 308, 181, doi: 10.1007/s10509-007-9342-x

    Haberl, F. 2007, Ap&SS, 308, 181, doi: 10.1007/s10509-007-9342-x

    2007 doi

  11. [19]

    P., & Gotthelf, E

    Halpern, J. P., & Gotthelf, E. V. 2010, ApJ, 709, 436, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/436

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    F., Ezoe, Y., et al

    Hamaguchi, K., Corcoran, M. F., Ezoe, Y., et al. 2009, ApJL, 695, L4, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/L4

    2009 doi

  13. [21]

    Ho, W. C. G. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 2567, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18576.x

    2011

  14. [22]

    N., Dunning, A., et al

    Hobbs, G., Manchester, R. N., Dunning, A., et al. 2020, PASA, 37, e012, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2020.2

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    L., et al

    Huppenkothen, D., Bachetti, M., Stevens, A. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab258d

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    2025, From proto-neutron star dynamo to low-field magnetars

    Igoshev, A., Barr` ere, P., Raynaud, R., et al. 2025, From proto-neutron star dynamo to low-field magnetars. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.04768

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    L., Burgay, M., Rea, N., et al

    Israel, G. L., Burgay, M., Rea, N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abca95

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    C., Caleb, M., et al

    Jankowski, F., Bezuidenhout, M. C., Caleb, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 4275, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2041

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    L., Clausen, K., Cassi, C., et al

    Jensen, P. L., Clausen, K., Cassi, C., et al. 2003, A&A, 411, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031173

    2003 doi

  20. [28]

    L., & van Kerkwijk, M

    Kaplan, D. L., & van Kerkwijk, M. H. 2009, ApJ, 705, 798, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/798

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    Kaspi, V. M. 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 107, 7147, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1000812107

    2010 doi

  22. [30]

    M., & Beloborodov, A

    Kaspi, V. M., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 261, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023329

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    P., Jenkins, M., et al

    Kirsten, F., Snelders, M. P., Jenkins, M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 414, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01246-3

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    I., McLaughlin, M

    Kondratiev, V. I., McLaughlin, M. A., Lorimer, D. R., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 692, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/692

    2009 doi

  25. [33]

    Stappers, B. W. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 230, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02125-3

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Lorimer, D. R. 2006, Science, 312, 549, doi: 10.1126/science.1124060

    2006 doi

  27. [35]

    A., Barthelmy, S

    Krimm, H. A., Barthelmy, S. D., Gehrels, N., et al. 2003, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol. 7, AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division #7, 16.14

    2003

  28. [36]

    A., Holland, S

    Krimm, H. A., Holland, S. T., Corbet, R. H. D., et al. 2013, ApJS, 209, 14, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/14

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad27cf

    Lu, W.-J., Zhou, P., Wang, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad27cf

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Y., Ho, W

    Luo, J., Ng, C. Y., Ho, W. C. G., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/130

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    M., Malov, O

    Malofeev, V. M., Malov, O. I., Teplykh, D. A., et al. 2006, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 798, 1

    2006

  32. [40]

    F., & Timirkeeva, M

    Malov, I. F., & Timirkeeva, M. A. 2018, in Modern Star

    2018

  33. [41]

    1, 220–223, doi: 10.31361/eaas.2018-1.048

    Astronomy, Vol. 1, 220–223, doi: 10.31361/eaas.2018-1.048

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    N., Hobbs, G

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, AJ, 129, 1993, doi: 10.1086/428488

    2005 doi

  35. [43]

    L., Lenc, E., et al

    McConnell, D., Hale, C. L., Lenc, E., et al. 2020, PASA, 37, e048, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2020.41

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    A., Lyne, A

    McLaughlin, M. A., Lyne, A. G., Lorimer, D. R., et al. 2006, Nature, 439, 817, doi: 10.1038/nature04440

    2006 doi

  37. [45]

    N., et al

    Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P. N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 791, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/791

    2009 doi

  38. [46]

    2024, A&A, 683, A183, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348247

    Men, Y., & Barr, E. 2024, A&A, 683, A183, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348247

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    Lyne, A. G. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 4654, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2291

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    S., Karastergiou, A., Posselt, B., et al

    Oswald, L. S., Karastergiou, A., Posselt, B., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 1115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab980

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    Kondratiev, V. I. 2023a, A&A, 672, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245214 13

    doi

  42. [50]

    2023b, A&A, 678, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243339

    Pastor-Marazuela, I., van Leeuwen, J., Bilous, A., et al. 2023b, A&A, 678, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243339

    doi

  43. [51]

    G., Sanwal, D., & Teter, M

    Pavlov, G. G., Sanwal, D., & Teter, M. A. 2004, in IAU

    2004

  44. [52]

    218, Young Neutron Stars and Their Environments, ed

    Symposium, Vol. 218, Young Neutron Stars and Their Environments, ed. F. Camilo & B. M. Gaensler, 239, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0311526

    doi arXiv

  45. [53]

    M., Motch, C., Turolla, R., et al

    Pires, A. M., Motch, C., Turolla, R., et al. 2015, A&A, 583, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526436 —. 2012, A&A, 544, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219161

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1511.07713, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1511.07713

    Prinz, T., & Becker, W. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1511.07713, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1511.07713

    2015 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    M., Bezuidenhout, M

    Rajwade, K. M., Bezuidenhout, M. C., Caleb, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1961, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1450

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    M., Driessen, L

    Rajwade, K. M., Driessen, L. N., Barr, E. D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1652

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    2016, ApJL, 828, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/828/1/L13

    Rea, N., Borghese, A., Esposito, P., et al. 2016, ApJL, 828, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/828/1/L13

    2016 doi

  50. [58]

    P., Gotthelf, E

    Rigoselli, M., Mereghetti, S., Halpern, J. P., Gotthelf, E. V., & Bassa, C. G. 2024, ApJ, 976, 228, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8cd6

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    2019, A&A, 627, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935485

    Rigoselli, M., Mereghetti, S., Suleimanov, V., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935485

    2019 doi

  52. [60]

    D., Degenaar, N., van den Eijnden, J., et al

    Russell, T. D., Degenaar, N., van den Eijnden, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 763, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07133-5

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    K., Broos, P

    Townsley, L. K., Broos, P. S., Chu, Y.-H., et al. 2011, ApJS, 194, 16, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/1/16 Vigan` o, D., Rea, N., Pons, J. A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 123, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1008

    2011 doi

  54. [62]

    2020, ApJ, 891, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d69

    Wadiasingh, Z., Beniamini, P., Timokhin, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d69

    2020 doi

  55. [63]

    2020, ApJL, 903, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abc562

    Wadiasingh, Z., & Chirenti, C. 2020, ApJL, 903, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abc562

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    2019, ApJ, 879, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2240

    Wadiasingh, Z., & Timokhin, A. 2019, ApJ, 879, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2240

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    Winkler, C., Courvoisier, T. J. L., Di Cocco, G., et al. 2003, A&A, 411, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031288

    2003 doi

  58. [66]

    M., Manchester, R

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

    2017 doi

  59. [67]

    2019, PASJ, 71, 17, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy135

    Yoneyama, T., Hayashida, K., Nakajima, H., & Matsumoto, H. 2019, PASJ, 71, 17, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy135

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    2023, Science Advances, 9, eadf6198, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adf6198

    Zhu, W., Xu, H., Zhou, D., et al. 2023, Science Advances, 9, eadf6198, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adf6198

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.