Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Scintillometry of Fast Radio Bursts: Resolution effects in two-screen models

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two scattering screens on an FRB line of sight quench only the broad scintillation, and the suppression is gradual, not a sudden loss of all scintillation.

desk verdict Corrects a common FRB two-screen assumption and gives new analytic results, but the central factorization ansatz is only tested against simulations that share it. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04576 v1 pith:D6TC4JAY submitted 2025-05-07 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Sachin Pradeep E. T , Tim Sprenger , Olaf Wucknitz , Robert A. Main , Laura G. Spitler This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsscintillationscatteringscreensspectralautocorrelationfunctionmodulationindexresolutionpowerinterstellarmediumplasmalensing
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 asks what happens to the scintillation of a fast radio burst when two plasma screens, one in the Milky Way and one in the host galaxy, become large enough or far enough apart that each screen can resolve the other as an extended object. The paper argues that the usual analogy between a resolved screen and a resolved incoherent source is wrong: resolving suppresses only the broader of the two scintillation scales, and the suppression grows gradually with a new dimensionless Resolution Power. In the unresolved regime the spectral autocorrelation function contains a product term as well as a sum, so the total modulation index reaches $\sqrt{3}$ rather than the single-screen value of 1. These results matter because they turn scintillation measurements into geometric constraints on where the host-galaxy screen sits relative to the FRB, and because they change how previously published distance upper limits should be read.

What carries the argument

The control parameter is the Resolution Power, $\mathrm{RP}=L_\mathrm{MW}L_\mathrm{host}/(\lambda D_\mathrm{MW,host})$, the ratio of the angular size one screen subtends at the other to the angular resolution of the other screen; $\mathrm{RP}\ll1$ is unresolved, $\mathrm{RP}\gg1$ fully resolved, and it enters directly in the phase of the mixed delay term, determining when the two-screen response factorizes. The other load-bearing object is the factorization of the complex amplitude field, $f(\theta_\mathrm{MW},\theta_\mathrm{host})=f_\mathrm{MW}(\theta_\mathrm{MW})f_\mathrm{host}(\theta_\mathrm{host})$, which through the Isserlis theorem yields the product-form ACF identity $1+\mathrm{ACF}=\prod_n(1+\mathrm{ACF}_n)$ and hence the general modulation index $m=\sqrt{2N-1}$.

What would settle it

Measure the full-spectrum spectral autocorrelation of a burst showing two clearly separated scintillation bandwidths at high signal-to-noise. If the zero-lag ACF peaks at $m^2=3$ with the wide-narrow shape given by $\mathrm{ACF}_\mathrm{MW}\mathrm{ACF}_\mathrm{host}+\mathrm{ACF}_\mathrm{MW}+\mathrm{ACF}_\mathrm{host}$, the two-screen product picture holds; a peak near $m^2=2$ with a simple sum of Lorentzians would contradict it. A second check is to observe whether the broad scintillation bandwidth flattens from a $\nu^4$ scaling toward $\nu^1$ as frequency decreases, with the modulation index dropping from $\sqrt{3}$ toward 1 over the same band.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that two thin scattering screens that do not resolve each other act as statistically independent multiplicative filters on the complex field, $R(\nu)=R_\mathrm{MW}(\nu)R_\mathrm{host}(\nu)$, so the normalized intensity autocorrelation satisfies $1+\mathrm{ACF}=\prod_n(1+\mathrm{ACF}_n)$, giving $\mathrm{ACF}=\mathrm{ACF}_\mathrm{MW}\mathrm{ACF}_\mathrm{host}+\mathrm{ACF}_\mathrm{MW}+\mathrm{ACF}_\mathrm{host}$ and a total modulation index $m=\sqrt{2N-1}$, in particular $m=\sqrt{3}$ for two screens. When the screens do resolve each other, the cross term in the geometric delay involving both screens becomes non-negligible, and the paper shows analytically and in simulations that this gradually broadens and quenches only the broad-scale scintillation, leaving the narrow scintillation intact, with the total modulation index falling from $\sqrt{3}$ toward 1 as the Resolution Power grows. The paper also derives an updated formula for the distance between the FRB and its host-galaxy screen, corrects a redshift factor in a widely used cosmological delay expression, and shows that for one-dimensional elongated screens the resolution effect and the distance estimate depend on the relative orientation of the screens.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two screens' complex amplitude fields are statistically independent, $f(\theta_\mathrm{MW},\theta_\mathrm{host})=f_\mathrm{MW}(\theta_\mathrm{MW})f_\mathrm{host}(\theta_\mathrm{host})$, meaning scatterer positions and magnifications on one screen do not depend on the angle of rays arriving from the other; if that coupling is real, the product-form ACF, the $\sqrt{3}$ modulation index, and the unresolved-regime predictions all break down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A burst seen through two unresolved screens should show a total modulation index $m=\sqrt{3}\approx1.73$ at zero ACF lag rather than the single-screen $m=1$; measuring $m>1$ becomes a clean multi-screen diagnostic.
  • As the Resolution Power passes through 1, only the broad scintillation is affected: its bandwidth broadens and its modulation drops below 1, while the narrow scintillation keeps its original bandwidth and modulation, so the total modulation index falls from $\sqrt{3}$ toward 1.
  • Multi-frequency observations should show the broad scintillation bandwidth scaling as $\nu_s\propto\nu^\alpha$ with $\alpha\approx4$ in the unresolved regime, flattening toward $\alpha\approx1$ as RP grows toward lower frequencies; a screen resolving an incoherent emission region instead gives $\alpha\approx3$.
  • The corrected distance formula $D_\mathrm{h,FRB}D_\mathrm{MW}\lesssim(1+z_\mathrm{FRB})D_\mathrm{FRB}^2\,\nu_{s,\mathrm{MW}}/(8\pi\nu^2 m_\mathrm{MW}\tau_{s,\mathrm{h}})$ tightens previous upper limits on how far the host screen can be from the FRB, and earlier formulas should be interpreted as upper limits rather than exact distances.
  • For elongated one-dimensional screens, mutual resolution depends on orientation: parallel screens quench broad scintillation while perpendicular screens do not, so distance and size estimates from resolution arguments require two-dimensional or well-aligned screens.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: If the product-plus-sum ACF is confirmed observationally, the common practice of modelling a two-screen spectral ACF as a sum of Lorentzians will systematically overestimate the narrow-screen modulation index; fitting the full product form should replace that approximation.
  • Inference: The same factorization logic applies to any smooth spectral structure, such as the intrinsic burst envelope or an unremoved instrumental bandpass, so deviations from $1+\mathrm{ACF}=\prod(1+\mathrm{ACF}_i)$ could serve as a model-independent way to detect unresolved spectral structure in FRB emission itself.
  • Inference: Because $\mathrm{RP}\propto\nu^{-3}$ for screens whose angular size scales as $\nu^{-2}$, a single wide-band observation could capture the full unresolved-to-resolved transition within one source, providing a direct probe of screen sizes and distances without multi-epoch monitoring.
  • Inference: Applied to pulsars, the paper's conjecture that many mildly anisotropic screens resolving one another can mimic an isotropic scattering screen suggests a population test: pulsars with more distant screens should show more isotropic scattering, an effect that could be checked against existing pulsar scintillation surveys.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a two-screen geometrical-optics model for FRB scintillation and scattering. It defines a Resolution Power (RP) and argues that when one screen resolves the other, only the broader-scale scintillation is quenched and that the quenching is gradual. The main theoretical results are a product form for the spectral ACF in the unresolved regime (Eq. 4.22), a combined modulation index m = sqrt(2N-1) (Eq. 4.26), and a distance-estimation formula (Eq. 7.6). The predictions are tested with a new simulation code, FRB_scintillator, whose random image distributions implement the same factorized screen ansatz. The paper also addresses 1D screens, self-noise, and multi-frequency trends.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper usefully corrects the common assumption that a screen resolving another screen is equivalent to resolving an incoherent source, and it provides practical diagnostics for two-screen FRB scintillation. The Isserlis-based derivation of the ACF product term is clean; the simulations reproduce the theoretical Lorentzian scales and the sqrt(3) modulation index in the unresolved regime; and the paper is commendably transparent about finite-image shot noise, Lorentzian-fit biases, and model limitations. The distance formula and the 1D-screen caution are directly usable by observers. However, the factorization assumption is load-bearing for all key predictions and is shared by the simulations, so the external validity of the quantitative claims is not yet established. In addition, the parameter inconsistencies in Section 6 and Table B.1 must be fixed before the simulation comparisons can be assessed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.1.1 and Table B.1] The injected parameters used to support the quantitative agreement in the unresolved case are internally inconsistent. Table B.1 lists for the unresolved run D_src=684 Mpc, D_host,src=2 kpc, L_host=20 AU, and tau_s,host / nu_s,host = 19 ms / 8.3 kHz; inserting the first three values into Eq. (4.9) gives tau_s,host about 1.8e-5 s, not 19 ms, and the quoted nu_s,host is also incompatible with Eq. (4.15), which for 19 ms gives about 8 Hz. Section 6.1.1 quotes injected values nu_s,MW about 0.16 MHz and nu_s,host about 250 Hz, while Table B.1 gives nu_s,MW about 0.39 MHz and nu_s,host about 8.3 kHz. Because the central claim that the simulations reproduce the injected scintillation bandwidths rests on these numbers, the table and text must be corrected and the actual parameter set used for the Fig. 8a run stated exactly.
  2. [Section 3, Eqs. (3.6) and (3.10); Section 4, Eqs. (4.20)-(4.26)] The factorized ansatz f(theta_MW, theta_host) = f_MW(theta_MW) x f_host(theta_host) is load-bearing for the product-form ACF (Eq. 4.21), the m = sqrt(2N-1) result (Eq. 4.26), and the unresolved-regime predictions. The paper explicitly calls the independence of the two screens' positions and magnifications a "crucial approximation" in Section 3, yet the FRB_scintillator simulations use the same ansatz (Eq. 3.10), so the agreement in Sections 6.1-6.3 and Fig. 13 does not test it. Since the field arriving at the second screen is produced by the first screen, the second screen's image properties can in principle depend on theta_MW. I recommend either an independent numerical check, such as a full wave-optics two-phase-screen calculation for one representative configuration, or a clear statement in the abstract and conclusions that all central predictions are conditional on this ansatz.
  3. [Section 7.2, Eqs. (7.3)-(7.4)] Equations (7.3) and (7.4) are taken from Gwinn et al. (1998), which treats a screen resolving an incoherent extended source, and are then applied to a screen resolving another scattering screen. The paper states that these formulas are supported by the simulations, but those simulations are built on the same factorized, geometrical-optics screen model whose independence assumption is the point at issue. A derivation or at least an explicit physical argument for why the coherent two-screen case should follow the same RP dependence would remove a substantial part of the circularity; without it, the distance formula (Eq. 7.6), which cancels the broadening factor with the modulation index, rests on an empirical fit rather than on a derived relation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 6.3] The sentence "the host screen scintillation has a fit value of nu_s,MW about 1 kHz" should read nu_s,host.
  2. [Fig. 16 caption and Section 7.4.1] The Fig. 16 caption states alpha about 2 in the resolved region, while the text reports alpha = 0.9 +/- 0.33 for the highly resolved regime; please reconcile these values.
  3. [Section 3.1, Eq. (3.12)] With the definition L = 4 theta_L D in Eq. (3.9), the mixed-delay phase at the rms scattering angles is a factor of 16 smaller than the stated 2 pi RP; please clarify which angular size is being inserted.
  4. [Section 8] Summary item 2 says the completely resolved regime gives m_tot = 1, whereas Section 6.3 reports m_tot about 1.3 for RP about 10; please clarify whether the former is meant as an asymptotic statement.
  5. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including "emssion", "nottemporally coherent", "elogated", "shwoing", and "observabels"; a careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the product-form ACF and sqrt(3) modulation follow from a stated, acknowledged factorization ansatz; simulation agreement is internal consistency, not an independent test of that ansatz.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The product-form ACF (Eqs. 4.21-4.22) and the m = sqrt(3) result for two unresolved screens (Eq. 4.26) are derived from the stated statistical-independence assumption f(theta_MW, theta_host) = f_MW(theta_MW) x f_host(theta_host) (Eq. 3.6), combined with the Isserlis theorem (Eq. 4.11) and the factorization of the response function (Eq. 4.20). The paper explicitly identifies the independence assumption as 'a crucial approximation' and defers more general models to future work, so the result is honestly conditional rather than smuggled in. The FRB_scintillator simulations implement the same factorized screen model (Eq. 3.10), so agreement between theory and simulation is an internal-consistency check of the code and the mathematics, not an independent empirical test of the ansatz; that shared-assumption caveat is a real limitation but does not make the derivation circular. The resolution-power quenching curves (Eqs. 7.3-7.4) are taken from Gwinn et al. (1998), an external source, and the paper explicitly notes they were derived for an incoherent extended source and found to agree with the simulations; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Self-citations (Sprenger et al. 2022, Main et al. 2022) supply background and prior building blocks but are not load-bearing uniqueness claims. No step in the paper's argument reduces to its own input by construction.

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

The central claims rest on a small set of modeling choices: screen independence, Gaussian screen statistics, nu^-2 size scaling, and the thin-screen geometric-optics regime. RP and the ACF fits introduce convention choices (2-sigma, Lorentzian fit constants) that affect quantitative but not qualitative conclusions. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • Screen sizes LMW, Lhost = 3.5 to 165 AU depending on simulation (Table B.1)
    Chosen by hand to realize target RP values; they set the Gaussian width of the complex amplitude distribution via Eq. (3.9).
  • Screen distances Dsrc, DMW, Dhost,src = e.g., 684 Mpc, 1.29-2.3 kpc, 2-4 kpc (Table B.1)
    Inputs selecting the resolution regime; in the distance formula they are replaced by Dsrc approximately Dhost approximately DMW,host.
  • Number of images per screen = 1000 (87460 simulations in Section 7.2)
    Finite sampling of the Gaussian screen produces wiggles in the ACF that the paper treats as realistic finite-image noise.
  • 2-sigma width factor in L = 4 theta_L D = 4
    Defines screen resolution length from the Gaussian amplitude distribution; an arbitrary convention that sets the RP normalization.
  • ACF Lorentzian fit constants (m^2, HWHM, C) = fitted per simulation
    Free parameters in Eq. (5.1) used to extract scintillation bandwidth and modulation index; systematic biases in these fits are acknowledged.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Thin-screen, geometric-optics approximation (Williamson 1972)
    Screens are much thinner than their separations; wave-optics alternatives (Ocker et al. 2021, Feldbrugge 2023) could change inferred plasma densities.
  • domain assumption Frozen, frequency-independent screen images within an observation
    Section 3: scatterer positions and magnifications assumed constant over time and bandwidth; justified by prior modeling success.
  • domain assumption Statistical independence of the two screens' complex amplitude fields
    Eq. (3.6) f = fMW x fhost; the paper calls this a crucial approximation. If violated, the product-form ACF and sqrt(3) result break.
  • standard math Complex Gaussian statistics and Isserlis theorem
    Section 4.2: used to derive <I1 I2> and the ACF product form.
  • domain assumption theta_L proportional to nu^-2 scaling for screen sizes
    Eq. (3.7) and Section 7.4; underpins RP proportional to nu^-3 and the predicted alpha about 1 high-resolution slope.
  • domain assumption Dsrc approximately Dhost approximately DMW,host in the distance formula
    Section 7.2: FRB distance large compared to screen-host separations; needed for Eq. (7.1) and Eq. (7.6).
  • domain assumption Flat LambdaCDM cosmology with H0 = 68 km/s/Mpc, Omega_m = 0.315
    Used to convert redshifts to angular diameter distances in simulations and Table 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scintillometry of Fast Radio Bursts: Resolution effects in two-screen models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D6TC4JAY

@misc{pith2026250504576,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scintillometry of Fast Radio Bursts: Resolution effects in two-screen models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D6TC4JAY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04576}
}
read the original abstract

Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) exhibit scintillation and scattering, often attributed to interactions with plasma screens in the Milky Way and the host galaxy. When these two screens appear "point-like" to each other, two scales of scintillation can be observed with sufficient frequency resolution. A screen perceives a second screen as extended or resolved when the angular size of the latter is smaller than the angular resolution of the former. We define the ratio of these two as the Resolution Power (RP). Previous observational studies have argued that, in the resolving regime, scintillations disappear, assuming that a screen resolving another screen is equivalent to a screen resolving an incoherent emission region. In this theoretical and simulation-based study of resolving effects in two-screen scenarios, we argue that resolving quenches only the relatively broad-scale scintillation and that this quenching is a gradual process. We present qualitative and quantitative predictions for dynamic spectra, spectral autocorrelation functions (ACF), and modulation indices in resolved and unresolved regimes of two-screen systems. We show that the spectral ACF of a two-screen system has a product term in addition to the sum of individual screen contributions, causing the total modulation index to rise to \sqrt(3) in the unresolved regime. To aid in discovering resolving systems, we also present observable trends in multi-frequency observations of a screen resolving another screen or incoherent emission. Additionally we introduce a new formula to estimate the distance between the FRB and the screen in its host galaxy. We also show that this formula, like previous ones in the literature, is only applicable to screens that are two-dimensional in the plane of the sky.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04576 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Definitions of angles and distances in a system where a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of a ray originating from a fast radio burst and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The plot shows the evolution of RP with redshift, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the different contributions to the ACF as given in Eq. (4.22) in the case of two screens that do not resolve each other. Lorentzians expected from only the MW screen (red) or only the host screen (green) do not add up (dashed blue) to the correct two-sc…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An example MW and host galaxy screen image distri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: Intensity of the response function as a function of time in seconds. The discrete image distribution manifests as spikes in the response function. The x coordinate of each point corresponds to the delay of a scatter path, and y-coordinate re￾flects the strength of…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulated time profiles and dynamic spectra of a pulse after propagating through unresolved, just-resolved, and completely [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The plots above show the spectral auto-correlation function (ACF) plotted against the frequency lag. The full-spectrum ACF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The spectral autocorrelation function (ACF) from the unresolved screen case with an injected Gaussian intrinsic pulse of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: MW scintillation bandwidth as a function of time bins [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: ACF evolution of broad scintillation with the resolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: mMW = 1/ r 1 + π 2 4 3 RP2 . (7.4) Conveniently, this result is exactly the inverse of the broadening factor in Eq. (7.3). Hence, we can restore the ansatz of Sammons et al. (2023) by canceling the broadening in νs,MW with an extra factor of mMW. They take a different…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of formulas put forward to place upper lim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Top: The left and mid panels form a parallel-aligned screen system, while the right and mid panels form a perpendicular screen system. Both systems share the same screen parameters, with a RP=12.4, calculated using Eq. (3.11). Bottom: Spectral ACF shwoing the central …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Scintillation bandwidth evolution with frequency for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Detection of Partial Coherence due to Multipath Propagation for FRB 20220413B with CHIME/FRB

    astro-ph.HE 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    FRB 20220413B's components share a common Milky Way scintillation pattern but show no phase-coherent lensing signature, so the complex morphology is not confirmed as plasma lensing.

  2. Discovery and Localization of the Swift-Observed FRB 20241228A in a Star-forming Host Galaxy

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    FRB 20241228A is localized to a star-forming galaxy at z=0.1614, with a stringent X-ray limit from Swift follow-up 112 seconds after the burst.

  3. Semi-supervised morphological classification of fast radio bursts from the second CHIME/FRB catalogue

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A simulation-trained convolutional autoencoder identifies three distinct FRB morphological classes and classifies repeatability with 86% recall.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2023, Science, 380, 599

    Anna-Thomas , R., Connor , L., Dai , S., et al. 2023, Science, 380, 599

    2023

  4. [4]

    W., Deller , A

    Bannister , K. W., Deller , A. T., Phillips , C., et al. 2019, Science, 365, 565

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    F., Macquart , J

    Brisken , W. F., Macquart , J. P., Gao , J. J., et al. 2010, , 708, 232

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    J., Wharton , R

    Chatterjee , S., Law , C. J., Wharton , R. S., et al. 2017, , 541, 58

    2017

  7. [7]

    M., Ransom , S

    Chawla , P., Kaspi , V. M., Ransom , S. M., et al. 2022, , 927, 35

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    C., et al

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Amiri , M., Andersen , B. C., et al. 2021, , 257, 59

    work page 2021

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    S., Simha , S., Mannings , A., et al

    Chittidi , J. S., Simha , S., Mannings , A., et al. 2021, , 922, 173

    2021

  2. [10]

    C., et al

    Connor , L., van Leeuwen , J., Oostrum , L. C., et al. 2020, , 499, 4716

    2020

  3. [11]

    Cordes , J. M. & Chatterjee , S. 2019, , 57, 417

    2019

  4. [12]

    Cordes , J. M. & Lazio , T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro

    2002

  5. [13]

    Cordes , J. M. & Lazio , T. J. W. 2003, arXiv e-prints, astro

    2003

  6. [14]

    M., Rickett , B

    Cordes , J. M., Rickett , B. J., Stinebring , D. R., & Coles , W. A. 2006, , 637, 346

    2006

  7. [15]

    Cordes , J. M. & Wasserman , I. 2016, , 457, 232

    2016

  8. [16]

    & Lu , W

    Dai , L. & Lu , W. 2017, , 847, 19

    2017

  9. [17]

    Etherington , I. M. H. 1933, Philosophical Magazine, 15, 761

    1933

  10. [18]

    T., Ravi , V., Ocker , S

    Faber , J. T., Ravi , V., Ocker , S. K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.14182

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    2018, , 478, 1209

    Farah , W., Flynn , C., Bailes , M., et al. 2018, , 478, 1209

    2018

  12. [20]

    2023, , 520, 2995

    Feldbrugge , J. 2023, , 520, 2995

    2023

  13. [21]

    R., Britton , M

    Gwinn , C. R., Britton , M. C., Reynolds , J. E., et al. 1998, , 505, 928

    1998

  14. [22]

    Hackstein , S., Br \"u ggen , M., Vazza , F., & Rodrigues , L. F. S. 2020, , 498, 4811

    2020

  15. [23]

    S., Stinebring , D

    Hill , A. S., Stinebring , D. R., Asplund , C. T., et al. 2005, , 619, L171

    2005

  16. [24]

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

    Jow , D. L., Pen , U.-L., & Feldbrugge , J. 2023, , 525, 2107

    2023

  17. [25]

    L., Wu , X., & Pen , U.-L

    Jow , D. L., Wu , X., & Pen , U.-L. 2024, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 121, e2406783121

    2024

  18. [26]

    A., Ward , C

    Kerr , M., Coles , W. A., Ward , C. A., et al. 2018, , 474, 4637

    2018

  19. [27]

    Koopmans , L. H. 1974, The spectral analysis of time series (New York: Academic Press)

    1974

  20. [28]

    M., Jessner , A., et al

    Kramer , M., Xilouris , K. M., Jessner , A., et al. 1997, , 322, 846

    1997

  21. [29]

    Kumar , P., Beniamini , P., Gupta , O., & Cordes , J. M. 2024, , 527, 457

    2024

  22. [30]

    Lambert , H. C. & Rickett , B. J. 1999, , 517, 299

    1999

  23. [31]

    R., Bailes , M., McLaughlin , M

    Lorimer , D. R., Bailes , M., McLaughlin , M. A., Narkevic , D. J., & Crawford , F. 2007, Science, 318, 777

    2007

  24. [32]

    Macquart , J. P. 2004, , 422, 761

    2004

  25. [33]

    & Koay , J

    Macquart , J.-P. & Koay , J. Y. 2013, , 776, 125

    2013

  26. [34]

    A., Bethapudi , S., Marthi , V

    Main , R. A., Bethapudi , S., Marthi , V. R., et al. 2023, , 522, L36

    2023

  27. [35]

    A., Hilmarsson , G

    Main , R. A., Hilmarsson , G. H., Marthi , V. R., et al. 2022, , 509, 3172

    2022

  28. [36]

    Marcote , B., Nimmo , K., Hessels , J. W. T., et al. 2020, , 577, 190

    2020

  29. [37]

    Marcote , B., Paragi , Z., Hessels , J. W. T., et al. 2017, , 834, L8

    2017

  30. [38]

    2015, , 528, 523

    Masui , K., Lin , H.-H., Sievers , J., et al. 2015, , 528, 523

    2015

  31. [39]

    2014, , 780, L33

    McQuinn , M. 2014, , 780, L33

    2014

  32. [40]

    1992, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London

    Narayan, R. 1992, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Physical and Engineering Sciences, 341, 151

    1992

  33. [41]

    2025, , 637, 48

    Nimmo , K., Pleunis , Z., Beniamini , P., et al. 2025, , 637, 48

    2025

  34. [42]

    K., Cordes , J

    Ocker , S. K., Cordes , J. M., & Chatterjee , S. 2021, , 911, 102

    2021

  35. [43]

    K., Cordes , J

    Ocker , S. K., Cordes , J. M., Chatterjee , S., et al. 2023, , 519, 821

    2023

  36. [44]

    K., Cordes , J

    Ocker , S. K., Cordes , J. M., Chatterjee , S., et al. 2022, , 931, 87

    2022

  37. [45]

    K., Cordes , J

    Ocker , S. K., Cordes , J. M., Chatterjee , S., et al. 2024, , 527, 7568

    2024

  38. [46]

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

    Oswald , L. S., Karastergiou , A., Posselt , B., et al. 2021, , 504, 1115

    2021

  39. [47]

    & Loeb , A

    Padmanabhan , H. & Loeb , A. 2023, , 946, L18

    2023

  40. [48]

    2020, , 641, A6

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6

    2020

  41. [49]

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

    Prochaska , J. X., Macquart , J.-P., McQuinn , M., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 231

    2019

  42. [50]

    Prochaska , J. X. & Neeleman , M. 2018, , 474, 318

    2018

  43. [51]

    M., Farah , W., et al

    Qiu , H., Shannon , R. M., Farah , W., et al. 2020, , 497, 1382

    2020

  44. [52]

    J., Main , R., Ocker , S

    Reardon , D. J., Main , R., Ocker , S. K., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy [ [arXiv] 2410.21390 ]

    2025 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Rickett , B. J. 1977, , 15, 479

    1977

  46. [54]

    Rickett , B. J. 1990, , 28, 561

    1990

  47. [55]

    D., Bannister , K

    Ryder , S. D., Bannister , K. W., Bhandari , S., et al. 2023, Science, 382, 294

    2023

  48. [56]

    W., Deller , A

    Sammons , M. W., Deller , A. T., Glowacki , M., et al. 2023, , 525, 5653

    2023

  49. [57]

    Schneider , P., Ehlers , J., & Falco , E. E. 1992, Gravitational Lenses (Springer)

    1992

  50. [58]

    2021, Research Notes of the AAS, 5, 271

    Schoen, E., Leung, C., Masui, K., et al. 2021, Research Notes of the AAS, 5, 271

    2021

  51. [59]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.07307

    Shin , K., Leung , C., Simha , S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.07307

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    & Ravi , V

    Simard , D. & Ravi , V. 2020, , 899, L21

    2020

  53. [61]

    N., Prochaska , J

    Simha , S., Burchett , J. N., Prochaska , J. X., et al. 2020, , 901, 134

    2020

  54. [62]

    2022, , 515, 6198

    Sprenger , T., Main , R., Wucknitz , O., Mall , G., & Wu , J. 2022, , 515, 6198

    2022

  55. [63]

    2021, , 500, 1114

    Sprenger , T., Wucknitz , O., Main , R., Baker , D., & Brisken , W. 2021, , 500, 1114

    2021

  56. [64]

    Stock , A. M. & van Kerkwijk , M. H. 2025, , 980, 80

    2025

  57. [65]

    P., Bassa , C

    Tendulkar , S. P., Bassa , C. G., Cordes , J. M., et al. 2017, , 834, L7

    2017

  58. [66]

    E., McLaughlin , M

    Turner , J. E., McLaughlin , M. A., Cordes , J. M., et al. 2021, , 917, 10

    2021

  59. [67]

    A., Melrose , D

    Walker , M. A., Melrose , D. B., Stinebring , D. R., & Zhang , C. M. 2004, , 354, 43

    2004

  60. [68]

    Williamson , I. P. 1972, , 157, 55

    1972

  61. [69]

    Wu , Z., Verbiest , J. P. W., Main , R. A., et al. 2022, , 663, A116

    2022

  62. [70]

    A., Zhu , W.-W., et al

    Wu , Z.-W., Main , R. A., Zhu , W.-W., et al. 2024, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 219512

    2024

  63. [71]

    & Zhang , B

    Xu , S. & Zhang , B. 2016, , 832, 199

    2016

  64. [72]

    M., Manchester , R

    Yao , J. M., Manchester , R. N., & Wang , N. 2017, , 835, 29

    2017

  65. [73]

    2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005

    Zhang , B. 2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005

    2023

  66. [74]

    R., & van Kerkwijk , M

    Zhu , H., Baker , D., Pen , U.-L., Stinebring , D. R., & van Kerkwijk , M. H. 2023, , 950, 109

    2023

  67. [75]

    2018, , 865, 147

    Zhu , W., Feng , L.-L., & Zhang , F. 2018, , 865, 147

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.