Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 54 references

A narrowband burst from FRB 20190520B simultaneously observed by FAST and Parkes

T0 review · 4 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 One burst of FRB 20190520B, caught simultaneously by FAST and Parkes, has a narrowband spectrum with a single emission component, and the paper argues the narrowness is intrinsic to the source rather than an observational or propagation…

desk verdict A rare simultaneous FAST/Parkes burst with a clean Parkes SED that supports narrowband emission, but the stronger claims about a single intrinsic component rest on a circular sharpness statistic and a thin propagation argument. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17696 v1 pith:DZUUWJX6 submitted 2025-07-23 astro-ph.HE

Yuhao Zhu , Chenhui Niu , Shi Dai , Di Li , Pei Wang , Yi Feng , Jingwen Wu , Yongkun Zhang
show 3 more authors
Xianghan Cui Junshuo Zhang Jinhuang Cao
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsFRB20190520Bnarrowbandemissionspectralenergydistributionsharpnesssimultaneousobservationsrepeatingscintillationandplasmalensing
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

During a joint monitoring campaign, the two radio telescopes FAST and Parkes caught the same burst from the repeating fast radio burst FRB 20190520B. The paper argues that this burst's spectrum is narrowband, peaking near 1632 MHz with a width of about 250 MHz, and that no radiation component is present below roughly 1200 MHz. Because FAST is 22 to 27 times more sensitive than Parkes over the overlapping band, its non-detection of extra components is used to argue that the narrowband shape is intrinsic to the emission rather than an artifact of sensitivity, scintillation, or plasma lensing. The authors introduce a spectral sharpness measure, the summed slope of the spectral energy distribution, as a way to quantify narrowband character across bursts. If the argument is right, the result strengthens the case that repeating FRBs emit in a single, band-limited radiation component.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spectral energy distribution (SED) of a single burst, built by integrating the on-pulse flux, subtracting the off-pulse background, and then smoothing and fitting the result with a Gaussian. The paper's new diagnostic is spectral sharpness, $D=\sum_i [S(\nu_{i+1})-S(\nu_i)]/(\nu_{i+1}-\nu_i)$, summing the slopes of the SED from the burst's lowest visible frequency toward its peak; a single narrow component gives a large value, while a broad power-law component would give a small one. The argument also leans on FAST's higher sensitivity: its threshold of 0.03788 Jy is 22 to 27 times deeper than Parkes's, so the absence of a second component in FAST's spectrum is taken as evidence that no such component exists. The two telescopes' SEDs are connected by fixing the Gaussian center frequency to the Parkes value of 1632.34 MHz and letting FAST's truncated spectrum constrain the width and normalization.

What would settle it

A decisive observation would be a burst of FRB 20190520B caught simultaneously by a wide-band receiver and FAST while the wide-band spectrum peaks inside FAST's band; if FAST's deeper spectrum then shows emission outside the single Gaussian component, or if the fitted Gaussian parameters vary with epoch in a way that tracks scintillation decorrelation, the intrinsic single-component claim would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that the single burst observed simultaneously by FAST and Parkes from FRB 20190520B has an intrinsically narrowband spectral energy distribution with exactly one emission component. The SED fitted to Parkes data peaks at 1632.34 MHz with a full width at half-maximum of about 248 MHz, while FAST's spectrum, fitted with that peak frequency fixed, shows no emission below about 1200 MHz and no additional broad component above FAST's detection threshold of 0.03788 Jy. The paper concludes that the narrowband character is intrinsic to the emission mechanism rather than produced by scintillation, plasma lensing, or the flux threshold of the less sensitive telescope. It also proposes spectral sharpness, the summed frequency derivative of the SED, as a diagnostic for single-component narrowband emission, and shows that the same conclusion is reached with a running power-law fit and with the conventional $\Delta\nu/\nu_c$ spectral coverage ratio.

Load-bearing premise

The narrowband conclusion stands only if the single bell-shaped curve anchored to Parkes' fitted peak fully explains FAST's partial spectrum, with no weaker, wider emission hiding below FAST's sensitivity; it also assumes that bandwidth-narrowing propagation effects such as scintillation and plasma lensing were absent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The burst's spectral energy distribution peaks near 1632 MHz with a full width at half-maximum of about 250 MHz and shows no measurable emission below about 1200 MHz.
  • Because FAST's sensitivity is 22 to 27 times higher than Parkes's over the overlapping band, the absence of a second spectral component in FAST's data implies that no such component exists down to a flux of 0.03788 Jy.
  • Scintillation and plasma lensing are unlikely explanations for the narrow band, because the flux densities recorded by the two telescopes at the common frequency are similar and FAST's deeper spectrum still shows a single component.
  • The spectral sharpness measure can supplement or replace the conventional spectral coverage ratio for quantifying narrowband emission in FRB bursts, especially when a burst is truncated by the telescope band.
  • The finding supports the general picture, established for other repeaters, that repeating FRBs tend to emit in narrow, band-limited spectra rather than broad power-law spectra.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the single-component narrowband spectrum is intrinsic, the same burst observed at a lower frequency band should be absent or far fainter; a simultaneous campaign with a lower-frequency receiver would test this directly.
  • Editorial inference: the spectral sharpness measure could be applied to archived single bursts from other repeaters, and a systematic comparison with pulsar giant pulses would show whether narrowband single-component emission separates FRB repeaters from pulsar radio emission.
  • Editorial inference: the claim is made for one burst; stacking many bursts from FRB 20190520B with their fitted Gaussian peaks aligned could reveal whether a stable narrowband carrier frequency exists or whether each burst has its own random peak frequency.
  • Editorial inference: the rejection of scintillation rests on similar flux densities at one frequency rather than a scattering model; future high-resolution measurements of the burst's frequency structure across the full wide band could either confirm or overturn that rejection.
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. The paper reports a single burst from the repeating FRB 20190520B detected simultaneously by FAST (1.05–1.45 GHz) and Parkes (704–4032 MHz). After flux calibration and DM optimization, the authors construct spectral energy distributions (SEDs) for the burst, fit a Gaussian to the Parkes SED (center 1632.34 MHz, FWHM 248.1 MHz), fix the center for the FAST SED, and introduce a 'spectral sharpness' statistic D defined as the sum of SED derivatives. They also compare with the CHIME running-power-law SED model. From the similar sharpness values and the absence of FAST emission below about 1200 MHz, they conclude that the burst is intrinsically narrowband with a single emission component, and that scintillation and plasma lensing are unlikely explanations. The paper additionally argues for the spectral sharpness method as a general tool for classifying FRB spectra.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, this is one of very few simultaneous multi-telescope spectra of a repeating FRB and provides a strong empirical constraint that at least one burst from FRB 20190520B is narrowband (Δν/νc ≈ 0.15) with no detected secondary component. The Parkes full-band SED is a genuinely useful anchor, and the high-sensitivity FAST non-detection below 1200 MHz is a meaningful upper limit. The proposed spectral sharpness statistic, however, is essentially the average slope of a fitted model spectrum and does not, as presented, constitute an independent test of single-component emission. The intrinsic-narrowband conclusion also depends on a qualitative rather than quantitative treatment of scintillation and plasma lensing.

major comments (4)
  1. [DM optimization, Table 1] The dispersion measures from the two telescopes differ by about 6.8σ: Parkes gives 1200.81 ± 0.30 pc cm−3 and FAST gives 1198.49 ± 0.16 pc cm−3. The text states that 'the dispersion measures (DMs) associated with the burst are consistent,' but this is not supported by the quoted uncertainties. Since the FAST DM is then used for all subsequent analysis, the discrepancy should be addressed quantitatively (e.g., systematics in the DM search, different frequency ranges, or a genuine epoch-dependent DM variation) before it can be set aside.
  2. [Spectral sharpness, Eq. (2) and Figure 5] The text says 'The fitted model spectrum was used to calculate their derivatives and spectral sharpness,' so D is computed from a Gaussian model, not from the measured SED. For FAST, the Gaussian center is fixed to the Parkes value of 1632.34 MHz, which lies outside the FAST band (1.05–1.45 GHz). The FAST fit therefore only tests whether the observed one-sided tail is consistent with the extrapolated Parkes Gaussian; it cannot independently confirm the absence of a second spectral component. To support the single-component claim, the authors should perform a direct model comparison on the FAST SED (e.g., single Gaussian vs. Gaussian plus a power-law or broad component) and report goodness-of-fit statistics.
  3. [Discussion, scintillation and plasma lensing] The exclusion of scintillation and plasma lensing is qualitative. The statement that 'no significant scintillation effects were detected' at 1450 MHz and that the flux densities at this frequency are similar does not rule out frequency-dependent modulation: a scintillation envelope with a decorrelation bandwidth comparable to the burst's 250 MHz width would produce a narrowband SED of exactly this kind. The authors should estimate the scintillation bandwidth and modulation index from the dynamic spectrum (or from the scattering environment) or explicitly limit the conclusion to 'consistent with intrinsic narrowband emission given the available data.'
  4. [Table 2] Table 2 reports two bandwidth values for FASTa and FASTb, marked * and †, with very different numbers (e.g., 31.9 vs. 326.1 MHz for FASTa). The caption does not define which value is used in the Δν/νc and sharpness comparisons, and the * values appear unphysical because the fitted center frequency lies above the FAST band. Please clarify the meaning of both variants and state explicitly which one enters the conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title and abstract] The title contains 'F AST' (missing space); the abstract contains the ungrammatical phrase 'Since its uncertainty' and should be rewritten for clarity.
  2. [Equation (2)] The summation notation 'N −1X' should be typeset as a proper sum, e.g., \sum_{i=1}^{N-1}, and the index convention should be defined.
  3. [Figure 4] The y-axis of Figure 4 includes negative flux densities; the authors should explain whether this is a baseline-subtraction artifact and how the off-pulse background was estimated.
  4. [References] Reference [41] is cited as 'CHIME et al.' in the text; the actual author list is Fonseca et al., so the in-text citation should be corrected.
  5. [Table 2 caption] The symbols * and † are used in Table 2 but are not defined in the caption; please add explicit definitions (e.g., 'bandwidth truncated to the FAST band' and 'full Gaussian width').

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the single-component confirmation is encoded in the Gaussian fit of FAST's truncated SED, but the Parkes full-band SED provides independent narrowband support.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Spectral sharpness section (Eq. 2 and Table 2); Discussion]
    "In our analysis of this burst, we initially determined the center frequency based on the SED fitting results from Parkes. Subsequently, we use this center frequency to model the remaining parameters of FAST’s SED using a Gaussian approach. ... The fitted model spectrum was used to calculate their derivatives and spectral sharpness. ... the spectral energy distribution (SED) of the burst still exhibits narrowband characteristics at FAST, fitting well with a single Gaussian component. This suggests that no additional radiation components were detectable within FAST’s frequency range."

    The FAST SED is a one-sided tail from 1.05 to 1.45 GHz, with the peak above the band; the Gaussian center is fixed to the Parkes value (1632.34 MHz) and the remaining parameters are fitted to FAST. The spectral sharpness D, which is then used to support the single-component interpretation, is computed from this fitted model rather than from the measured SED. Because the model is by construction a single Gaussian, the later statement that the SED 'fits well with a single Gaussian component' and that this 'suggests that no additional radiation components were detectable' reads the single-component assumption back out of the fit.

full rationale

The central narrowband claim has two genuinely independent observational anchors: the Parkes full-band SED, which shows a Gaussian-like peak near 1632.34 MHz with FWHM about 248 MHz, and FAST's direct non-detection of emission below about 1200 MHz at a much lower detection threshold. Neither of these reduces to the model fit. The circularity is confined to the stronger claim that the spectrum has 'no additional radiation components.' That claim is partly baked into the fitting procedure: the truncated FAST SED is modeled with a single Gaussian whose center is inherited from the Parkes fit, and the spectral sharpness statistic D used to support the single-component interpretation is computed from this fitted model, as the paper states explicitly. Because the model already assumes a single Gaussian, its agreement with the data is not an independent test for additional components; no alternative model is fitted. The paper's exclusion of scintillation and plasma lensing is qualitative (similar flux densities at one frequency), which weakens the intrinsic-narrowband inference but is not a circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found: references to the authors' prior work concern source discovery, calibration, and general FRB context, rather than the burst's spectral conclusion. The Parkes full-band measurement keeps the result from being definitionally identical to its inputs, so the score is moderate rather than high.

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

The analysis introduces no new physical entities. The central claim is carried by fitted Gaussian parameters (center, width, amplitude) and by domain assumptions about the identity of the burst, the adequacy of the Gaussian model, the absence of propagation-induced narrowing, and the sensitivity of FAST. The burst DM is also fitted per burst, and the two telescope values are mutually inconsistent.

free parameters (5)
  • Gaussian center frequency (Parkes SED) = 1632.34 +14.01/-14.52 MHz
    Fitted to the Parkes SED and then used as a fixed input for the FAST Gaussian fit. This parameter defines where the burst peaks and is central to the narrowband claim.
  • Gaussian FWHM (Parkes SED) = 248.1 +38.8/-33.3 MHz
    Fitted to the Parkes SED; the narrowband characterization (Delta-nu/nu_c = 0.15) is based on this width.
  • Gaussian width for FAST SED (two variants) = 31.9 +28.0/-22.3 MHz with band cut; 326.1 +82.4/-60.5 MHz uncut
    Derived from a Gaussian fit to FAST's truncated SED with the Parkes center fixed; used to compute the FAST spectral sharpness D.
  • Running power-law parameters (beta, gamma) = FAST: 90.40, -132.70; Parkes: 189.80, -215.06
    Fitted with CHIME's fitburst.py for comparison; not used for the main sharpness analysis.
  • Burst dispersion measure = FAST 1198.49 +/- 0.16 pc cm^-3; Parkes 1200.81 +/- 0.30 pc cm^-3
    Optimized per burst with DM_phase. Needed to extract the burst. The two values are inconsistent at about 7 sigma, which is not discussed.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The FAST and Parkes detections are the same physical burst.
    The barycentric arrival times differ by 42 microseconds, making this very plausible, but the DMs differ by about 7 sigma and the flux densities differ strongly, so the identification is not fully confirmed by all measured properties. See Table 1.
  • domain assumption The burst SED is a single Gaussian component.
    The Gaussian model is used to define center, width, and spectral sharpness and to extrapolate FAST's truncated spectrum. If the true SED is non-Gaussian, the derived quantities and conclusions do not follow. See the Spectral sharpness section and Table 2.
  • domain assumption Scintillation and plasma lensing did not significantly narrow the bandwidth.
    The paper excludes propagation effects using similar flux densities at 1450 MHz and FAST's higher sensitivity, but without a quantitative model comparison. See the Discussion.
  • domain assumption FAST's sensitivity is sufficient to detect any additional broad emission component.
    The conclusion that there are no additional radiation components depends on FAST's 0.03788 Jy threshold being low enough to catch any broad component. See the Discussion.
  • standard math The radiometer equation and standard telescope calibration apply to the flux measurements.
    Equation (1) converts SNR to flux density using system temperature, gain, bandwidth, and sampling time; this is standard practice, but the flux discrepancy between telescopes is not cross-calibrated. See the Flux calibration section.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A narrowband burst from FRB 20190520B simultaneously observed by FAST and Parkes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DZUUWJX6

@misc{pith2026250717696,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A narrowband burst from FRB 20190520B simultaneously observed by FAST and Parkes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DZUUWJX6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17696}
}
read the original abstract

Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are short-duration radio transients with mysterious origins. Since its uncertainty, there are very few FRBs that are observed by different instruments, simultaneously. This study presents a detailed analysis of a burst from FRB 20190520B observed by FAST and Parkes at the same time. The spectrum of this individual burst ended at the upper limit of the FAST frequency band and was simultaneously detected by the Parkes telescope in the 1.5-1.8 GHz range. By employing spectral energy distribution (SED) and spectral sharpness methods, we confirmed the presence of narrowband radiation in FRB 20190520B, which is crucial for understanding its radiation mechanisms. Our findings support the narrowband characteristics that most repeaters exhibit. This work also highlights the necessity of continued multiband observations to explore its periodicity and frequency-dependent properties, contributing to an in-depth understanding of FRB phenomena.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17696 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The observation epochs (in MJD) and the fre￾quency coverage for FAST (orange) and Parkes (blue) are displayed. The lower panel illustrates the bursts detected during multiband observations with lines, while the up￾per panel shows the cumulative burst count for both tele￾scopes. In this observation, most bursts were detected in￾dependently by the two telescopes due to minimal overlap in observation times. Joint detec… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Panel B presents a waterfall plot of the burst detected by FAST between 1.05-1.45 GHz, with RFI channels appearing as white blanks. Panel A shows the frequency-averaged profile, and Panel C illustrates the SED, indicating that there are no clear emission features below approximately 1200 MHz. A 0 10 20 30 40 50 Time (ms) 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Frequency (MHz) B C Parkes upper, FAST [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Panel B displays the waterfall plot of the burst detected by Parkes, originally covering the full bandwidth. For better visualization, the frequency range has been nar￾rowed to 1.05-2.00 GHz. Flux calibration. For each burst, we estimate the peak flux density using the radiometer equation Sν = SNR × Tsys × β G × p np × ∆ν × tsamp , (1) where Tsys is the system temperature, G is the gain of the telescope, np = 2 is t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Panel A shows the SED and fitting result from Parkes, while Panel B shows results from FAST. The light blue region represents the 1σ error range. The black dot￾ted line in Panel B is the estimated SED beyond FAST’s upper limit. Panel C illustrates the SED derivatives o…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lorimer D R, Bailes M, McLaughlin M A, Narkevic D J and Crawford F 2007 Science 318 777–80

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    Cordes J M and Lazio T J W 2002 arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207156

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0207156 2002

  3. [3]

    Yao J M, Manchester R N and Wang N 2017 ApJ 835 29

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Petroff E, Hessels J W T and Lorimer D R 2019 Astron Astrophys Rev 27 4

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Amiri M, Andersen B C, Bandura K, Berger S, Bhardwaj M, Boyce M M, Boyle P J, Brar C, Breitman D, Cassanelli T, Chawla P, Chen T, Cliche J-F, Cook A, Cubranic D, Curtin A P, Deng M, Dobbs M, (Adam) Dong F, Eadie G, Fandino M, Fonseca E, Gaensler B M, Giri U, Good D C, Halpern M, Hill A S, Hinshaw G, Josephy A, Kacz- marek J F, Kader Z, Kania J W, Kaspi V ...

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Amiri M, Bandura K, Bhardwaj M, Boubel P, Boyce M M, Boyle P J, Brar C, Burhanpurkar M, Cassanelli T, Chawla P, Cliche J F, Cubranic D, Deng M, Denman N, Dobbs M, Fandino M, Fonseca E, Gaensler B M, Gilbert A J, Gill A, Giri U, Good D C, Halpern M, Hanna D S, Hill A S, Hinshaw G, H¨ ofer C, Josephy A, Kaspi V M, Landecker T L, Lang D A, Lin H-H, Masui K W...

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Cordes J M and Chatterjee S 2019 Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 57 417–65

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Platts E, Weltman A, Walters A, Tendulkar S P, Gordin J E B and Kandhai S 2019 Physics Reports 821 1–27

    work page 2019

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Zhang B 2020 Nature 587 45–53

    2020

  2. [10]

    Li C K, Lin L, Xiong S L, Ge M Y, Li X B, Li T P, Lu F J, Zhang S N, Tuo Y L, Nang Y, Zhang B, Xiao S, Chen Y, Song L M, Xu Y P, Liu C Z, Jia S M, Cao X L, Qu J L, Zhang S, Gu Y D, Liao J Y, Zhao X F, Tan Y, Nie J Y, Zhao H S, Zheng S J, Zheng Y G, Luo Q, Cai C, Li B, Xue W C,...

    2021

  3. [11]

    Pleunis Z, Good D C, Kaspi V M, Mckinven R, Ransom S M, Scholz P, Bandura K, Bhardwaj M, Boyle P J, Brar C, Cassanelli T, Chawla P, (Adam) Dong F, Fonseca E, Gaensler B M, Josephy A, Kaczmarek J F, Leung C, Lin H-H, Masui K W, Mena-Parra J, Michilli D, Ng C, Pa- tel C, Rafiei-...

    2021

  4. [12]

    Hashimoto T, Goto T, On A Y L, Lu T-Y, Santos D J D, Ho S C-C, Kim S J, Wang T-W and Hsiao T Y-Y 2020 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 498 3927–45

    2020

  5. [13]

    Hashimoto T, Goto T, Chen B H, Ho S C-C, Hsiao T Y-Y, Wong Y H V, On A Y L, Kim S J, Kilerci-Eser E, Huang K-C, Santos D J D and Yamasaki S 2022 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 511 1961–76

    2022

  6. [14]

    Zhang R C and Zhang B 2022 ApJL 924 L14

    2022

  7. [15]

    Locatelli N, Ronchi M, Ghirlanda G and Ghisellini G 2019 A&A 625 A109

    2019

  8. [16]

    James C W, Prochaska J X, Macquart J-P, North-Hickey F O, Bannister K W and Dunning A 2021Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 510 L18–23

  9. [17]

    Zhu Y, Niu C, Cui X, Li D, Feng Y, Tsai C, Wang P, Zhang Y, Meng F and Zheng Z 2023 Universe 9 251

    2023

  10. [18]

    Nan R, Li D, Jin C, Wang Q, Zhu L, Zhu W, Zhang H, Yue Y and Qian L 2011 Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 20 989–1024

    2011

  11. [19]

    Li D, Wang P, Qian L, Krco M, Dunning A, Jiang P, Yue Y, Jin C, Zhu Y, Pan Z and Nan R 2018 IEEE Microwave 19 112–9

    2018

  12. [20]

    Niu C-H, Aggarwal K, Li D, Zhang X, Chatterjee S, Tsai C-W, Yu W, Law C J, Burke-Spolaor S, Cordes J M, Zhang Y-K, Ocker S K, Yao J-M, Wang P, Feng Y, Ni- ino Y, Bochenek C, Cruces M, Connor L, Jiang J-A, Dai S, Luo R, Li G-D, Miao C-C, Niu J-R, Anna-Thomas R, Sydnor J, Stern ...

    2022

  13. [21]

    Katz J I 2022 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 514 L27–30

    2022

  14. [22]

    Ocker S K, Cordes J M, Chatterjee S, Li D, Niu C-H, Mc- Kee J W, Law C J and Anna-Thomas R 2022 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 519 821–30 7 REFERENCES REFERENCES

    2022

  15. [23]

    Zhang X, Yu W, Law C, Li D, Chatterjee S, Demorest P, Yan Z, Niu C, Aggarwal K, Anna-Thomas R, Burke- Spolaor S, Connor L, Tsai C-W, Zhu W and Luo G 2023 ApJ 959 89

    2023

  16. [24]

    Law C J, Connor L and Aggarwal K 2022 ApJ 927 55

    2022

  17. [25]

    Bhandari S, Marcote B, Sridhar N, Eftekhari T, Hessels J W T, Hewitt D M, Kirsten F, Ould-Boukattine O S, Paragi Z and Snelders M P 2023 ApJL 958 L19

    2023

  18. [26]

    Feng Y, Zhang Y-K, Li D, Yang Y-P, Wang P, Niu C-H, Dai S and Yao J-M 2022 Science Bulletin 67 2398–401

    2022

  19. [27]

    Ocker S K, Cordes J M, Chatterjee S, Niu C-H, Li D, Mc- Kee J W, Law C J, Tsai C-W, Anna-Thomas R, Yao J-M and Cruces M 2022 ApJ 931 87

    2022

  20. [28]

    Wang W Y, Yang Y P, Niu C H, Xu R and Zhang B 2022 ApJ 927 105

    2022

  21. [29]

    Zhao Z Y and Wang F Y 2021 ApJL 923 L17

    2021

  22. [30]

    Pastor-Marazuela I, Connor L, Van Leeuwen J, Maan Y, Ter Veen S, Bilous A, Oostrum L, Petroff E, Straal S, Vohl D, Attema J, Boersma O M, Kooistra E, Van Der Schuur D, Sclocco A, Smits R, Adams E A K, Adebahr B, De Blok W J G, Coolen A H W M, Damstra S, D´ enes H, Hess K M, Va...

    2021

  23. [31]

    Gajjar V, Siemion A P V, Price D C, Law C J, Michilli D, Hessels J W T, Chatterjee S, Archibald A M, Bower G C, Brinkman C, Burke-Spolaor S, Cordes J M, Croft S, Enriquez J E, Foster G, Gizani N, Hellbourg G, Isaacson H, Kaspi V M, Lazio T J W, Lebofsky M, Lynch R S, MacMahon ...

    2018

  24. [32]

    Hessels J W T, Spitler L G, Seymour A D, Cordes J M, Michilli D, Lynch R S, Gourdji K, Archibald A M, Bassa C G, Bower G C, Chatterjee S, Connor L, Crawford F, Deneva J S, Gajjar V, Kaspi V M, Keimpema A, Law C J, Marcote B, McLaughlin M A, Paragi Z, Petroff E, Ran- som S M, S...

    2019

  25. [33]

    Pearlman A B, Majid W A, Prince T A, Nimmo K, Hessels J W T, Naudet C J and Kocz J 2020 ApJL 905 L27

    2020

  26. [34]

    Feng Y, Li D, Yang Y-P, Zhang Y, Zhu W, Zhang B, Lu W, Wang P, Dai S, Lynch R S, Yao J, Jiang J, Niu J, Zhou D, Xu H, Miao C, Niu C, Meng L, Qian L, Tsai C- W, Wang B, Xue M, Yue Y, Yuan M, Zhang S and Zhang L 2022 Science 375 1266–1270

    2022

  27. [35]

    Sand K R, Faber J T, Gajjar V, Michilli D, Andersen B C, Joshi B C, Kudale S, Pilia M, Brzycki B, Cassanelli T, Croft S, Dey B, John H, Leung C, Mckinven R, Ng C, Pearlman A B, Petroff E, Price D C, Siemion A, Smith K and Tendulkar S P 2022 ApJ 932 98

    2022

  28. [36]

    Bethapudi S, Spitler L G, Main R A, Li D Z and Whar- ton R S 2023 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 524 3303–13

    2023

  29. [37]

    Pleunis Z, Michilli D, Bassa C G, Hessels J W T, Naidu A, Andersen B C, Chawla P, Fonseca E, Gopinath A, Kaspi V M, Kondratiev V I, Li D Z, Bhardwaj M, Boyle P J, Brar C, Cassanelli T, Gupta Y, Josephy A, Karuppusamy R, Keimpema A, Kirsten F, Leung C, Marcote B, Masui K W, Mck...

    2021

  30. [38]

    Good D C, Chawla P, Fonseca E, Kaspi V, Meyers B W, Pleunis Z, Sand K R, Scholz P, Stairs I H and Tendulkar S P 2023 ApJ 944 70

    2023

  31. [39]

    Kumar P, Luo R, Price D C, Shannon R M, Deller A T, Bhandari S, Feng Y, Flynn C, Jiang J C, Uttarkar P A, Wang S Q and Zhang S B 2023 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 526 3652–72

    2023

  32. [40]

    Zhang Y-K, Li D, Zhang B, Cao S, Feng Y, Wang W-Y, Qu Y, Niu J-R, Zhu W-W, Han J-L, Jiang P, Lee K-J, Li D-Z, Luo R, Niu C-H, Tsai C-W, Wang P, Wang F-Y, Wu Z-W, Xu H, Yang Y-P, Zhang J-S, Zhou D-J and Zhu Y-H 2023 ApJ 955 142

    2023

  33. [41]

    Fonseca E, Pleunis Z, Breitman D, Sand K R, Kharel B, Boyle P J, Brar C, Giri U, Kaspi V M, Masui K W, Meyers B W, Patel C, Scholz P and Smith K 2024 ApJS 271 49

    2024

  34. [42]

    Jiang P, Tang N-Y, Hou L-G, Liu M-T, Krˇ co M, Qian L, Sun J-H, Ching T-C, Liu B, Duan Y, Yue Y-L, Gan H-Q, Yao R, Li H, Pan G-F, Yu D-J, Liu H-F, Li D, Peng B, Yan J and Collaboration F 2020 Res. Astron. Astrophys. 20 064

    2020

  35. [43]

    Barsdell B R, Bailes M, Barnes D G and Fluke C J 2012 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 422 379-392

    2012

  36. [44]

    Hobbs G, Manchester R N, Dunning A, Jameson A, Roberts P, George D, Green J A, Tuthill J, Toomey L, Kaczmarek J F, Mader S, Marquarding M, Ahmed A, Amy S W, Bailes M, Beresford R, Bhat N D R, Bock D C-J, Bourne M, Bowen M, Brothers M, Cameron A D, Carretti E, Carter N, Castill...

    2020

  37. [45]

    van Straten W, Demorest P and Oslowski S 2012 AR&T 9 237

    2012

  38. [46]

    Seymour, Andrew, Daniele Michilli and Ziggy Pleunis 2019 Astrophysics Source Code Library ascl-1910

    2019

  39. [47]

    Macquart J-P, Prochaska J X, McQuinn M, Bannister K W, Bhandari S, Day C K, Deller A T, Ekers R D, James C W, Marnoch L, Os lowski S, Phillips C, Ryder S D, Scott D R, Shannon R M and Tejos N 2020 Nature 581 391–5

    2020

  40. [48]

    Yang Y-P 2023 ApJ 956 67

    2023

  41. [49]

    Wang W-Y, Yang Y-P, Li H-B, Liu J and Xu R 2024 A&A 685 A87

    2024

  42. [50]

    Kumar P, Qu Y and Zhang B 2024 arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2406.01266

    2024 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    Kumar P, Shannon R M, Flynn C, Osowski S, Bhandari S, Day C K, Deller A T, Farah W, Kaczmarek J F, Kerr M, Phillips C, Price D C, Qiu H and Thyagarajan N 2020 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 500 2525–31

    2020

  44. [52]

    Lyu F, Liang E-W and Li D 2024 ApJ 966 115

    2024

  45. [53]

    Lyu F and Liang E-W 2023 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 522 5600–7

    2023

  46. [54]

    Cui X, Wang Z, Zhang C, Niu C, Li D, Zhang J and Wang D 2023 ApJ 956 35 8

    2023

Pith tools

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