Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Discoveries of fine structures and secondary pulses in coherent radio emission from a magnetic massive star

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A magnetic hot star's coherent radio pulses appear at unexpected rotational phases and break into 8-second spikes.

desk verdict Solid observational discoveries (off-null secondary pulses and 8-s fine structure in ECME) but the propagation-effect interpretation is a self-admittedly idealized simulation; send to review. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03882 v1 pith:AVD3G3LZ submitted 2025-07-05 astro-ph.SR

Barnali Das , Poonam Chandra , William Cotton , Véronique Petit This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords radiocontinuum:starsstars:magneticfieldmassiveelectroncyclotronmaseremissionindividual(HD142990)circularpolarizationmagnetospherictime-domainastronomy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports a full-rotation radio observation of the magnetic B star HD 142990, the first complete cycle for one of the known main-sequence radio pulse emitters. It establishes that the star's coherent electron cyclotron maser emission is not confined to the two rotational phases where the standard beaming model predicts pulses: a right-circularly polarized enhancement persists at phases 0.10-0.25 and a left-circularly polarized one appears at phases 0.60-0.70. It also discovers that one of the primary pulses is built from spikes as short as 8 seconds, the integration time of the data, seen on two separate days. If correct, ECME from magnetic hot stars must be understood through magnetospheric propagation effects, not just the geometry of the field lines that emit, and the elementary emission is structured on timescales of seconds. The paper's explanation attributes the off-null pulses to refraction in a highly asymmetric plasma distribution produced by the star's extreme obliquity, and its dynamic spectra are the highest-resolution ever reported for this class of emission.

What carries the argument

The argument leans on two instruments: (1) a 3D simulation framework (Das et al. 2020) that computes ECME lightcurves by beaming emission according to the tangent-plane model and then propagating rays through a rigidly rotating magnetosphere (RRM) density grid, letting refraction split and shift pulses; and (2) dynamic spectra of the primary pulses extracted at 8-second and 418 kHz resolution, the highest yet reported for ECME from a magnetic hot star. The simulation is used qualitatively: with parameters chosen by trial and error ($n_{p0}=10^9\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$, $E=10^4$, inclination $36^\circ$), it reproduces the number and relative phase locations of the observed primary and secondary pulses, which the paper takes as evidence that propagation effects can produce off-null pulses in highly oblique rotators.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to repeat the full-cycle observation at higher time resolution (e.g., 1 second) around the LCP pulse near null 2: if the 8-second spikes dissolve into smooth emission or vary randomly between consecutive rotations, the claim of intrinsic fine structure fails. Alternatively, running the same propagation code with the star's actual non-dipolar field geometry and the measured inclination: if the secondary enhancements then disappear or shift by more than the observed phase window, the propagation-effect explanation for the off-null pulses is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that HD 142990, a magnetic B star with an obliquity greater than 80 degrees, emits coherent electron cyclotron maser radiation at rotational phases where the standard tangent-plane beaming model predicts no pulses: a persistent right-circularly polarized enhancement at phases roughly 0.10-0.25 and a left-circularly polarized enhancement at phases roughly 0.60-0.70. It also reports that the LCP primary pulse near magnetic null 2 is not smooth but consists of fine spikes with durations down to the 8-second time resolution, and that this spiky structure was seen on two independent days. The paper argues that the secondary enhancements arise from refraction and reflection of ECME beams as they pass through a highly azimuthally asymmetric magnetospheric plasma that forms when the magnetic and rotation axes are strongly misaligned, and that the fine structures betray the presence of discrete elementary emission sites whose number density decreases toward the emission's cutoff frequency.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the idealized axisymmetric dipolar simulation, with its trial-and-error parameter choices, is a faithful enough model of this star's real (non-dipolar) magnetosphere to attribute the secondary pulses to propagation effects; if the star's known quadrupolar field or the measured inclination of 55 degrees removes the secondary pulses in the model, that interpretation loses its support while the detections themselves remain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • HD 142990 becomes the third main-sequence radio pulse emitter with confirmed secondary pulses, so full-rotation monitoring rather than null-phase-only scans is required to catalogue the true pulse duty cycle of magnetic hot stars.
  • The persistent RCP secondary enhancement is locked to the rotation phase and seen on two days over the common phase range, making it a stable observable for probing the large-scale magnetospheric plasma distribution.
  • The 8-second spikes imply that past observations at minute-level time resolution averaged over the elementary emission; future wideband observations must go to sub-minute resolution to characterise the elementary sources.
  • The fine structures appear only near the upper cut-off of the LCP pulse, suggesting that the smooth envelope and the spiky component have different cut-off frequencies, so high-frequency edges of ECME pulses are the best places to search for fine structures in other MRPs.
  • The confirmed reversal of pulse-drift direction with frequency around both magnetic nulls rules out the ideal constant-drift scenario and supports propagation-based explanations of the pulse timing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If secondary pulses are caused by propagation through a warped plasma distribution, then pulse arrival phases are not a clean geometric tracer of the magnetic field at the emission site; this complicates using ECME pulse timing to infer field geometry or to study star-planet interactions in other systems.
  • The connection between fine structures and the spectral cut-off suggests a testable scaling: in any MRP pulse, the fraction of time spent in spikes should increase as the observing frequency approaches the pulse's upper cut-off, a trend the paper's data already hint at for the LCP pulse near null 2.
  • The day-to-day anti-correlation of spike intensities over the same rotational phase range is unusual for rotation-locked emission; if confirmed in future cycles, it would point to a non-stationary or stochastic component in the driving of the elementary emission sites, such as episodic reconnection events.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents MeerKAT L-band (900–1670 MHz) observations of the magnetic B star HD 142990 covering a full rotation cycle in three epochs, with 8 s time resolution and 418 kHz spectral resolution. The authors report two off-null secondary enhancements—one RCP at rotational phases ≈0.10–0.25 and one LCP at ≈0.60–0.70—with the RCP enhancement detected in overlapping phase ranges on two days. They also resolve, for the first time for a magnetic hot star, fine structures in the LCP primary pulse near magnetic null 2, with spike durations reaching the 8 s integration time, along with frequency-dependent pulse drift and polarization changes. A 3D propagation model built on Das et al. (2020) is used to argue that the secondary enhancements arise from refraction of ECME in a complex, highly oblique magnetosphere. The observations are presented with calibrated lightcurves, dynamic spectra, and explicit caveats about the model's assumptions.

Significance. If the detections hold, the paper establishes two new observational results for main-sequence radio pulse emitters: coherent ECME is not confined to the magnetic-null phases predicted by the tangent-plane beaming model, and the emission can be structured on timescales of seconds. These are meaningful advances for the study of coherent radio emission from magnetic hot stars and for comparisons with AKR and planetary ECME. The raw detection of off-null enhancements and the 8 s spikes is independent of the simulation and is the strongest part of the paper. The propagation-effect interpretation, however, is not established at the same level, because the supporting simulation uses a known-invalid dipolar geometry and parameters tuned by trial and error. With a suitably revised interpretation, the observational content is appropriate for ApJ.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1 and Abstract] The Abstract states that 'Using simulation, we infer that such pulses are likely related to the large misalignment...', but this inference is not supported by the simulation as presented. The model's first assumption is an axisymmetric dipole, which §4.1 immediately notes is known to be invalid for HD 142990 because of its significant quadrupolar component (Shultz et al. 2018). The 'best agreement' is obtained with i=36°, whereas the measured inclination is i=55° (Shultz et al. 2019b), and Figure 10 shows that i=55° does not reproduce the observations. Because the simulation also assumes the tangent-plane beaming model, it tests propagation modifications to that model and cannot exclude intrinsic beaming from non-dipolar auroral locations. The off-null detections are independent of the model, but the propagation-effect interpretation should be presented as one possibility, or demonstrated with a non-dipolar simulation.
  2. [§4.1, Figures 10–11] The agreement between simulation and observation is not quantified. The text says that np0=10^9 cm^-3, E=10^4, i=36°, and a 0.1-phase shift were chosen by trial and error, but no sensitivity study, grid, or fit statistic is given, so it is unclear whether the agreement is meaningful or degenerate. In addition, the simulated dynamic spectra do not reproduce the observed LCP drift reversal in Figure 8; the suggested explanation that the intrinsic LCP spectrum is not flat is an additional free assumption that is not tested. At minimum, the paper should state that the model is illustrative rather than a validated inference, or provide a parameter search and a test of the drift reversal.
  3. [§3.2.1, Figures 4–6] The fine-structure discovery needs a quantitative significance statement. No per-channel rms or single-time flux-density errors are reported for the dynamic spectra and extracted lightcurves, so the reader cannot confirm that the 8 s spikes are significant rather than noise or calibration artifacts. The claimed anti-correlation between Day 1 and Day 3 over phases 0.809–0.822 is based on visual inspection; please add a correlation coefficient or at least error bars. Finally, since the spikes are unresolved at the 8 s integration time, state unambiguously that 8 s is an instrumental upper limit on the spike duration and avoid wording that implies a measured intrinsic timescale.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1] The word 'persistent' for the RCP secondary enhancement rests on two epochs separated by about one month with only partial phase overlap (Day 2 and Day 3); please replace it with 'reproduced in two observations' or explicitly discuss what 'persistent' means given the sparse sampling.
  2. [§4.1] The values RA=22 R* and L=30 R* are introduced without justification; a sentence on how they were chosen or on their effect on the results would help the reader assess the model's sensitivity.
  3. [§3.2.1] The statement that no drift of individual spikes is detected would be more informative if accompanied by the upper limit on drift rate implied by the 8 s and 418 kHz resolutions (about 52 kHz/s).
  4. [§4.2] The connection to centrifugal breakout is explicitly marked as a consistency argument, which is fine, but it should be labeled as speculative in the text rather than appearing as a conclusion.
  5. [§2] The rotational-phase uncertainty of 0.13 should be recalled when discussing the 0.1-phase shift applied in §4.1; the current text notes the uncertainty earlier but does not connect it to the shift explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Secondary-pulse interpretation is partly circular: the simulation's free parameters are fitted to match the observed number and relative location of the secondary pulses, and the same simulation is then used to infer that those pulses arise from propagation effects; the raw detections and fine-structure discovery remain independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; §4.1, Figure 10 caption]
    "Using simulation, we infer that such pulses are likely related to the large misalignment between the stellar rotation and magnetic dipole axes (>80°), leading to the formation of highly complex magnetospheric plasma distribution. ... By trial and error, the best agreement between simulated and observed lightcurves (in terms of the number of pulses observed at a given polarization and the relative location of the secondary pulses with respect to the primary pulses) are obtained for np0 = 10^9 cm−3, E = 10^4 and by using an inclination angle of i = 36°."

    The inference that secondary pulses are propagation effects is supported by a simulation whose 'best agreement' is defined by the number and relative phase location of the secondary pulses—the very features the simulation is then used to explain. The parameters (np0, E, i) are chosen by trial and error against the same observed lightcurves, and the observed phases are additionally shifted by 0.1 to align the primary pulses, so the simulated reproduction of the secondary-pulse pattern is partly built into the comparison rather than independently tested. The use of i = 36° instead of the reported 55° further shows that the agreement is obtained by tuning rather than by the star's measured geometry.

full rationale

The paper's two headline discoveries are observational: (1) secondary radio enhancements at phases away from the magnetic nulls, with the RCP enhancement persistent across two days, and (2) fine structures in the LCP primary pulse with spike durations down to the 8 s integration time, seen on two days. Both are derived directly from MeerKAT lightcurves and dynamic spectra and are independent of any model, so those claims are not circular. The circularity concern is confined to the interpretive claim that the secondary enhancements are caused by magnetospheric propagation effects in a highly oblique rotator. That interpretation rests on a 3D simulation framework (Das et al. 2020) whose parameters are explicitly fitted by trial and error to reproduce the observed number and relative location of the secondary pulses. The paper honestly lists the assumptions, including that the axisymmetric dipole field is known to be invalid for HD 142990, and it shows that using the measured inclination of 55° gives poor agreement, requiring i = 36° instead. This means the simulation's ability to produce secondary pulses at the right phases is, in part, a consequence of fitting rather than an independent confirmation. However, this is not a case where the entire derivation reduces to its inputs by definition: the existence of off-null pulses was predicted by the same authors' earlier framework before these observations, and the observational phenomena stand on their own. The fine-structure discovery involves no model fitting at all. Weighing the partial circularity of the secondary-pulse interpretation against the independent observational content, a score of 4 is appropriate rather than a higher score.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central observational claims rest on standard radio calibration and the adopted ephemeris. The interpretive simulation, however, depends on several free parameters fitted to the same data and on a dipole geometry known to be invalid for this star. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • np0 (base magnetospheric density) = 10^9 cm^-3
    Chosen by trial and error in section 4.1 to match the observed number and relative phases of pulses; not independently constrained in this paper.
  • E (density enhancement factor) = 10^4
    Chosen by trial and error in section 4.1 alongside np0; no independent measurement is cited.
  • i (inclination angle) = 36 degrees
    Chosen by trial and error to best resemble the observed lightcurves; differs from the reported 55 degrees for HD 142990, and the paper attributes the discrepancy to the dipole assumption.
  • Phase offset between observed and simulated lightcurves = 0.1 in rotational phase
    Applied to the observed lightcurves to minimize offsets between observed and simulated primary pulses, as stated in the Figure 10 caption.
  • L (equatorial radius of auroral field lines) = 30 R*
    A single value of L is used to reduce computation time, although a real stellar magnetosphere would have a range of L values.
assumptions (7)
  • ad hoc to paper The stellar magnetic field is an axisymmetric dipole in the simulation.
    Explicit assumption 1 in section 4.1; the paper states this is known to be invalid for HD 142990 (Shultz et al. 2018), so the simulation is illustrative rather than a faithful model.
  • ad hoc to paper The intrinsic ECME spectrum is flat.
    Assumption 2 in section 4.1; this affects whether simulated broadband behavior can be compared with observed spectra.
  • domain assumption There is no frequency dependence of the intrinsic beaming angles, and emission follows the tangent plane beaming model.
    Assumption 3 in section 4.1; the tangent plane beaming model is from Trigilio et al. 2011, but the no-frequency-dependence part is a simplifying assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Radiation travels in straight lines until it hits the closed stellar magnetosphere bounded by the Alfven radius.
    Assumption 4 in section 4.1; refraction is modeled only as a boundary interaction, not as continuous ray bending.
  • domain assumption ECME is produced in the extraordinary mode at the second harmonic.
    Stated in section 4.1 as the assumed magneto-ionic mode and harmonic number; based on prior ECME literature for magnetic hot stars.
  • domain assumption The magnetospheric density follows the Rigidly Rotating Magnetosphere (RRM) model.
    Used in section 4.1 with a Kepler radius of 2.58 R*; the RRM model is from Townsend and Owocki 2005.
  • domain assumption The ephemeris of Shultz et al. 2019a correctly phases the data, with a phase uncertainty of about 0.13.
    Used in section 2 to compute rotational phases; the paper notes the 0.13 phase uncertainty and uses it to reconcile pulse phase differences between 2019 and 2023.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discoveries of fine structures and secondary pulses in coherent radio emission from a magnetic massive star." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AVD3G3LZ

@misc{pith2026250703882,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discoveries of fine structures and secondary pulses in coherent radio emission from a magnetic massive star},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AVD3G3LZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03882}
}
abstract

In this paper, we report auroral radio emission from a magnetic B star HD 142990 using the MeerKAT radio telescope at $900-1670$ MHz. The star is known to produce such emission (observed as periodic radio pulses) via electron cyclotron maser emission (ECME). However, past studies on ECME from this star were confined to observations at specific rotational phase ranges where one expects to see such pulses. We, for the first time, observed the star for its one complete rotation cycle and discovered that the star also produces 'off-pulse' emission, which we term as secondary enhancements. Two such enhancements were observed, one of which is left circularly polarized (LCP) and the other is right circularly polarized (RCP), the latter is confirmed to be persistent. Using simulation, we infer that such pulses are likely related to the large misalignment between the stellar rotation and magnetic dipole axes ($>80^\circ$), leading to the formation of highly complex magnetospheric plasma distribution. In addition, by extracting dynamic spectra for the primary pulses, we discovered prominent fine structures in one of the LCP pulses, with timescales as small as the instrumental time resolution (8 seconds). This is the first time that such structures are seen from a magnetic hot star, and has the potential to reveal detailed information about how the emission is driven, and the nature of the elementary sources of radiation. To pinpoint the origin of these fine structures and their significance, higher time and spectral resolution observations should be conducted in the future.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03882 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The lightcurves of HD 142990 averaged over 900– 1700 MHz. The top panel shows the rotational phase varia￾tion in right (red) and left (blue) circular polarizations. The middle and bottom panels show the corresponding Stokes I and Stokes V lightcurves respectively. are two secondary pulses, one in each circular polar￾ization, in addition to the primary pulses. This makes HD 142990 the third MRP to exhibit secondary p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The dynamic spectra of the primary pulses (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The frequency evolution of the lightcurves for the secondary enhancements. The markers correspond to data points at the native time resolution of 8 seconds, the solid lines are obtained by averaging over 15 data points (equivalent to a time resolution of 2 minutes). Left: The Stokes V lightcurves and the corresponding circular polarization of the secondary enhancement observed on rotational phase 0.1. The different … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The fine structures seen in LCP pulses on Day 1 of our observation. Top: The dynamic spectrum zoomed over the frequency range of 1300–1670 MHz. Bottom: The lightcurves extracted from the dynamic spectrum (top panel) at two central frequencies of 1425 (blue) and 1640 (r…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The fine structures seen in LCP pulses on Day 3 of our observation. Top: The dynamic spectrum zoomed over the frequency range of 1300–1670 MHz. Bottom: The lightcurves extracted from the dynamic spectrum (top panel) at three central frequencies of 1117 MHz (green), 142…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the LCP fine structures over the rotational phases common to observations on Day 1 and Day 3. The top two panels show the dynamic spectra from Day 1 and Day 3 respectively. The bottom panel compares the corresponding lightcurves at three frequencies (mark…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The primary RCP pulses near null 1 observed on Day 2. The top panel shows the dynamic spectrum, with horizontal lines marking the frequency ranges chosen to extract lightcurves. These lightcurves are shown on the bottom panel plot in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The Stokes V and V /I lightcurves for the primary pulses as a function of frequencies. The left plot shows the pulses observed around null 1 and the right plot shows the pulses observed close to null 2. The different shades of colors on the right plot indicate data fro…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The simulated lightcurves at 1.5 GHz obtained using the 3D-framework of Das et al. (2020), shown in solid curves, correspond to the Y-axes on the left hand side. The values of different parameters used in the simulation are given in §4.1. The red and blue curves repre…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The simulated dynamic spectra for LCP and RCP emission from HD 142990 for two different values of the inclination angle i. The details of the simulation is given in §4.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    QF =֌ 3sÆ N &rJzŌ 3\ʯ oF8 , ; !

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    S., Cotton , W

    Bastian , T. S., Cotton , W. D., & Hallinan , G. 2022, , 935, 99, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7d57

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7d57 2022

  5. [5]

    R., Vedantham , H

    Bloot , S., Callingham , J. R., Vedantham , H. K., et al. 2024, , 682, A170, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348065

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348065 2024

  6. [6]

    R., Pope , B

    Callingham , J. R., Pope , B. J. S., Feinstein , A. D., et al. 2021, , 648, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039144

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039144 2021

  7. [7]

    Cotton , W. D. 2008, PASP, 120, 439, 10.1086/586754

    doi:10.1086/586754 2008

  8. [8]

    D., Thorat, K., Condon, J

    Cotton, W. D., Thorat, K., Condon, J. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 1271, 10.1093/mnras/staa1240

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1240 2020

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    2021, , 921, 9, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1075

    Das , B., & Chandra , P. 2021, , 921, 9, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1075

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    2023, , 957, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf929

    ---. 2023, , 957, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf929

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, , 974, 267, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad71c5

    Das , B., Chandra , P., & Petit , V. 2024, , 974, 267, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad71c5

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    E., & Wade , G

    Das , B., Chandra , P., Shultz , M. E., & Wade , G. A. 2019, , 877, 123, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b12

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Das , B., Chandra , P., & Wade , G. A. 2018, , 474, L61, 10.1093/mnrasl/slx193

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2020, , 900, 156, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba8fd

    Das , B., Mondal , S., & Chandra , P. 2020, , 900, 156, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba8fd

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    E., et al

    Das , B., Chandra , P., Shultz , M. E., et al. 2022, , 925, 125, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2576

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    A., & Anderson , R

    Gurnett , D. A., & Anderson , R. R. 1981, Geophysical Monograph Series, 25, 341, 10.1029/GM025p0341

    1981 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Anderson , R

    Gurnett , D. A., Anderson , R. R., Scarf , F. L., Fredricks , R. W., & Smith , E. J. 1979, , 23, 103, 10.1007/BF00174114

    1979 doi

  10. [18]

    2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 1, 10.22323/1.277.0001

    Jonas , J., & MeerKAT Team . 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 1, 10.22323/1.277.0001

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    S., et al

    Leto , P., Trigilio , C., Buemi , C. S., et al. 2016, , 459, 1159, 10.1093/mnras/stw639

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    2017, , 467, 2820, 10.1093/mnras/stx267

    Leto , P., Trigilio , C., Oskinova , L., et al. 2017, , 467, 2820, 10.1093/mnras/stx267

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    M., et al

    Leto , P., Trigilio , C., Oskinova , L. M., et al. 2018, , 476, 562, 10.1093/mnras/sty244

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    2019, , 482, L4, 10.1093/mnrasl/sly179

    ---. 2019, , 482, L4, 10.1093/mnrasl/sly179

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    2020 a , , 493, 4657, 10.1093/mnras/staa587

    Leto , P., Trigilio , C., Leone , F., et al. 2020 a , , 493, 4657, 10.1093/mnras/staa587

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    S., et al

    Leto , P., Trigilio , C., Buemi , C. S., et al. 2020 b , , 499, L72, 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa157

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    A., & Linsky , J

    Lim , J., Drake , S. A., & Linsky , J. L. 1996, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 93, Rotational Modulation of Radio Emission from the Magnetic BP Star HR 5624 , ed. A. R. Taylor & J. M. Paredes , 324

    1996

  18. [26]

    D., Condon , J

    Mauch , T., Cotton , W. D., Condon , J. J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 888, 61, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5d2d

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & Golap , K

    McMullin , J. P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & Golap , K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw , F. Hill , & D. J. Bell , 127

    2007

  20. [28]

    A., & Bastian , T

    Osten , R. A., & Bastian , T. S. 2008, , 674, 1078, 10.1086/525013

    2008 doi

  21. [29]

    P., Shultz , M

    Owocki , S. P., Shultz , M. E., ud-Doula , A., et al. 2020, , 499, 5366, 10.1093/mnras/staa2325

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    E., Treumann , R

    Pottelette , R., Ergun , R. E., Treumann , R. A., et al. 1999, , 26, 2629, 10.1029/1999GL900462

    1999 doi

  23. [31]

    Reynolds , J. E. 1994, ATNF Memo , AT/39.3/040

    1994

  24. [32]

    A., & Chand ra , P

    Shultz , M., Rivinius , T., Das , B., Wade , G. A., & Chand ra , P. 2019 a , , 486, 5558, 10.1093/mnras/stz1129

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    E., Wade , G

    Shultz , M. E., Wade , G. A., Rivinius , T., et al. 2018, , 475, 5144, 10.1093/mnras/sty103

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    2019 b , , 490, 274, 10.1093/mnras/stz2551

    ---. 2019 b , , 490, 274, 10.1093/mnras/stz2551

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    E., Owocki , S., Rivinius , T., et al

    Shultz , M. E., Owocki , S., Rivinius , T., et al. 2020, , 499, 5379, 10.1093/mnras/staa3102

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    Townsend , R. H. D., & Owocki , S. P. 2005, , 357, 251, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08642.x

    2005

  29. [37]

    Treumann , R. A. 2006, , 13, 229, 10.1007/s00159-006-0001-y

    2006 doi

  30. [38]

    2000, , 362, 281

    Trigilio , C., Leto , P., Leone , F., Umana , G., & Buemi , C. 2000, , 362, 281. astro-ph/0007097

    2000 arXiv

  31. [39]

    S., & Leone , F

    Trigilio , C., Leto , P., Umana , G., Buemi , C. S., & Leone , F. 2011, , 739, L10, 10.1088/2041-8205/739/1/L10

    2011 doi

  32. [40]

    2019, , 871, 214, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf88e

    Villadsen , J., & Hallinan , G. 2019, , 871, 214, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf88e

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    P., Abada-Simon , M., & Denis , L

    Zarka , P., Farges , T., Ryabov , B. P., Abada-Simon , M., & Denis , L. 1996, , 23, 125, 10.1029/95GL03780

    1996 doi

  34. [42]

    2023, , 953, 65, 10.3847/1538-4357/acdb77

    Zhang , J., Tian , H., Zarka , P., et al. 2023, , 953, 65, 10.3847/1538-4357/acdb77

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.