FRB 20200428 and potentially associated hard X-ray bursts: Maser emission and synchrotron radiation of electrons in a weakly magnetized plasma?

En-Wei Liang; Xiao Li

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

FRB 20200428 and potentially associated hard X-ray bursts: Maser emission and synchrotron radiation of electrons in a weakly magnetized plasma?

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FRB 20200428 and its hard X-ray burst can come from one weakly magnetized, fast-moving plasma blob, with radio from plasma synchrotron maser emission and X-rays from synchrotron radiation.

desk verdict A credible post-hoc consistency check that the weakly magnetized maser/synchrotron model can reproduce the FRB 20200428 radio and X-ray spectra, but the predictive framing and the delta-function electron distribution are the two things to push on in review. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19315 v1 pith:FKINQW7J submitted 2025-08-26 astro-ph.HE

Xiao Li , En-Wei Liang This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords fastradioburstsmagnetarsSGR1935+2154FRB20200428plasmasynchrotronmaserradiationrelativisticblobsX-ray

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 tries to establish that the Galactic fast radio burst FRB 20200428 and the two hard X-ray peaks from magnetar SGR 1935+2154 that coincided with it in time came from one and the same physical structure: small, weakly magnetized plasma blobs moving toward Earth at a few to a few tens of times the speed of light in bulk. In the model, the same relativistic electrons in each blob radiate coherently as a plasma synchrotron maser in the radio band and incoherently as synchrotron radiation in hard X-rays. The authors show that with reasonable parameter sets the model reproduces the observed spectra of all three radio bursts and the X-ray peaks, and they use a Monte Carlo search to constrain the blobs' Lorentz factor, magnetization, electron energy, plasma frequency, size, and distance from the magnetar. If correct, this would unify the radio and X-ray phenomenology of this unique event under one radiation mechanism and would link ordinary magnetar X-ray bursts to FRB production.

What carries the argument

The plasma synchrotron maser mechanism in a weakly magnetized relativistic blob. Each blob is characterized by four parameters: bulk Lorentz factor Γ, electron Lorentz factor γ_e,s (assumed monoenergetic), magnetization σ=B^2/(4π m_e c^2 γ_e n_e)=(ν_B/ν_P)^2, and plasma frequency ν_P. The radio emission is computed from the modified single-electron synchrotron power in a dispersive medium (Eq. 1), with a refractive index n^2=1-(ν_P/ν)^2, and the maser gain emerges from the negative absorption coefficient for a delta-function electron distribution (Eq. 6). The X-ray flux comes from the same emissivity formula at much higher frequencies. The observed radio peak frequency is tied to the blob pa

What would settle it

A future simultaneous radio + hard X-ray burst from SGR 1935+2154 where the X-ray spectrum peaks well away from the synchrotron frequency predicted by the radio burst's parameters—or a radio burst with no hard X-ray counterpart despite sensitive coverage—would break the shared-blob picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that FRB 20200428 and the two narrow hard X-ray peaks of the SGR 1935+2154 burst are two frequency windows on the same weakly magnetized, relativistically moving plasma blob population. The radio burst is attributed to plasma synchrotron maser emission—a coherent radiation process that works when the electron distribution is sharply piled up at one energy—while the X-ray peaks are attributed to the ordinary synchrotron radiation of those same electrons. Fine-tuned parameter sets (bulk Lorentz factor Γ=15, electron Lorentz factor γ_e,s=2.4×10^4, magnetization σ~6×10^-5 to 1.8×10^-4, plasma frequency ν_P~5–12 MHz) reproduce the observed peak frequencies and flux densities

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation assumes that all electrons in a blob have one identical energy (a sharp, monoenergetic distribution); if the real electron spread is wider, the maser gain, the predicted spectra, and every inferred blob parameter would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the model is right, future radio and hard X-ray observations of SGR 1935+2154 should catch more simultaneous bursts, and their relative brightness will directly probe the blob's σ and ν_P.
The derived distance of ~10^12–10^14 cm places the emission far from the magnetar surface, supporting 'far-away' FRB scenarios over near-magnetosphere ones.
Because the maser flux can swing by 10 orders of magnitude while the synchrotron flux moves only 1–2 orders, the same mechanism naturally predicts rare bright radio bursts alongside common faint ones.
The model implies that short optical and X-ray flashes can accompany FRBs, so multi-wavelength follow-up of nearby FRB sources is a concrete prediction.
The parameter ranges (Γ=5–30, γ_e,s~10^4, σ~10^-4) provide a testable fingerprint: a detected FRB with simultaneous X-rays should show spectra consistent with these narrow ranges or the model would need revision.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension is to recompute the spectra with a power-law or kappa electron distribution instead of a delta function; the resulting maser gain and peak flux would show how finely tuned the particle pile-up must be for the model to work.
The sensitivity of maser flux to σ and ν_P suggests that monitoring campaigns on SGR 1935+2154 should prioritize simultaneous radio and hard X-ray coverage, because even one joint detection with a measured X-ray spectral peak would constrain blob parameters far better than radio alone.
If the same mechanism operates in extragalactic FRBs, the nondetection of X-ray counterparts in most FRBs is not evidence against it: at distances of ~1 Gpc the predicted X-ray flux falls below current detector sensitivities, so only nearby events (≲40 Mpc) are viable targets.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a clear application of the authors' own weakly magnetized plasma synchrotron maser framework to the only known Galactic FRB, FRB 20200428, and its associated hard X-ray bursts from SGR 1935+2154. What's genuinely new is the specific parameter workout: Gamma around 5-30, gamma_e,s around (1.8-3.3)x10^4, sigma around 6x10^-5 to 2x10^-4, nu_P around 2.5-43 MHz, with the blob size and distance estimates. The paper shows, honestly, that a single weakly magnetized blob can produce both the radio maser peak and the X-ray synchrotron bump with reasonable parameter choices. That is a useful existence proof, and the sensitivity of the maser peak flux to sigma and nu_P, spanning orders of magnitude, is a nice qualitative result that could explain sub-energetic bursts. The main soft spot is the circularity. The Monte Carlo 'prediction' is constructed by fixing nu_pk to the observed 0.475, 0.64, and 1.37 GHz and then keeping only parameter sets whose flux falls in the observed 0.11-2.5 MJy window; the X-ray selection uses observed bands as well. So the histograms in Fig. 2 are posteriors from data filtering, not a blind prediction. The abstract's claim that the model 'can predict observable FRB outbursts and associated hard X-ray bursts' overstates what the procedure does. I'd rephrase that as a post-hoc consistency check, which is still valuable for a single event. The other load-bearing assumption is the monoenergetic delta-function electron distribution in Eqs. 6-9. The maser gain depends on the sign and magnitude of that functional of d(gamma_e^-2 dn/dgamma_e)/dgamma_e, and a delta function maximizes it. The paper justifies it by citing Schlickeiser pile-up and Sagiv & Waxman, but there's no finite-width calculation. That's the first question I'd ask a referee to probe: how do the inferred parameter ranges shift for a power law with a cutoff, or a thermal plus nonthermal double component? The paper's own discussion admits a steep distribution is required, not just a delta function, but the quantitative fits all use the delta limit. A minor issue: there are a few unit typos, e.g. '10^18 GHz' should be Hz, that should be cleaned up. I don't think the paper deserves desk rejection. The framework is physically motivated, the math is transparent, and the application to the only Galactic FRB is directly relevant to current debates. But it needs revision: tone down the prediction language, add a sensitivity test of the electron distribution shape, and ideally release the code or at least the Monte Carlo sampling details. If the authors do that, it becomes a solid contribution to the FRB mechanism literature. Recommendation: send to peer review, but the verdict should be conditional on addressing the delta-function assumption and reframing the Monte Carlo as a consistency check, not a prediction.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that FRB 20200428 and the two hard X-ray peaks of the SGR 1935+2154 burst are produced by the same weakly magnetized, relativistically moving plasma blobs: radio from plasma synchrotron maser emission and X-rays from synchrotron radiation. It uses the Sagiv & Waxman emission formalism with a monoenergetic electron distribution, runs a Monte Carlo sample over {Γ, γe,s, σ, νP}, retains sets whose radio peak frequency and flux and X-ray peak frequency and flux match the observed values, and quotes the resulting ranges. Three fine-tuned parameter sets reproduce the three radio bursts and the X-ray spectra in Fig. 1. The paper also argues that the strong sensitivity of the maser peak flux to σ and νP explains sub-energetic bursts and giant radio pulses.

Significance. If the central claim were established, this would be a useful unified model: it ties a coherent maser mechanism at radio frequencies to the synchrotron X-ray counterpart in a single weakly magnetized far-away blob, and it makes concrete, testable statements about blob size, location, and parameter sensitivity. The paper builds on an established emission formalism and provides reproducible-looking numerical expressions. However, the validation is currently circular in a way that undermines the 'prediction' language: the parameter ranges are obtained by filtering on the observed radio and X-ray quantities, and the maser calculation assumes a delta-function electron distribution whose robustness is not tested. The work is therefore more a proof-of-principle fit than a model validation.

major comments (3)

[§3, Steps 1–3 and Fig. 2] The Monte Carlo acceptance is conditioned on the observed properties at every stage: Step 1 sets νpk equal to 0.475, 0.64, or 1.37 GHz via Eq. (11); Step 2 keeps only models with F_sim between 0.11 and 2.5 MJy; Step 3 keeps only models with the synchrotron peak in the observed X-ray band and flux. Consequently the histograms in Fig. 2 and the ranges quoted in the abstract are posterior samples of a fit, not independent predictions. The abstract's claim that the model 'can predict observable fast radio burst outbursts and associated hard X-ray bursts' and the 'constrained' language in Sect. 5 overstate the evidential weight. Please reframe as model fitting, or provide an out-of-sample test (e.g., predicted spectra across the full band for a parameter set not tuned to a given burst, or a test on later SGR 1935+2154 bursts).
[§2, Eqs. (4)–(9); §4] The maser calculation assumes dne/dγe=δ(γe−γe,s). The gain coefficient in Eq. (5) involves d/dγe(γe^{-2} dne/dγe), and Eq. (6) is the delta-function limit, which maximizes the negative-absorption term. The Discussion's justification via pile-up (Schlickeiser 1984) is qualitative: no finite-width calculation is provided. Because the Step 2 acceptance tests only peak frequency and peak flux, not the full spectral shape, a broader electron distribution could yield different gain and different accepted parameter ranges. Please quantify the sensitivity, e.g., using a power law with an exponential cutoff or a narrow but finite-width distribution, and demonstrate that the inferred Γ, σ, γe,s, νP ranges are robust.
[§3, blob size; §4] The quoted blob size ~10^9–10 cm is not inferred from the data: it follows from the assumed variability timescale δt=1 ms via Δ=Γcδt (Sect. 3). The location estimate in §4 also depends on the assumed b∼(E_XRB/E_B)^{1/2} and the fiducial distance of 10 kpc. These should be stated explicitly as assumptions entering the estimates, not as independent constraints from the Monte Carlo sample. The abstract's 'inferred size' and 'located ...' are therefore stronger than the procedure supports.

minor comments (4)

[§3, Step 3] The condition reads 'ν∈[2,8]×10^18 GHz'; the unit should presumably be Hz, since the quoted Insight-HXMT/KW energies are ~1–500 keV and the figure axes are in Hz. As written, the acceptance window is off by a factor 10^9 and the procedure is not reproducible.
[Eq. (10)] The volume V' in the flux equation is not defined in the text. Please state explicitly that it is the comoving volume of the blob (and, if so, how it is obtained from Δ and the blob geometry).
[Eq. (11)] The first expression 'νpk = 0.70 Hz ...' has an inconsistent unit; the second equality shows the coefficient is dimensionless. Please correct the units consistently.
[Fig. 1 caption] The '100 randomly selected model parameter sets' are selected from the accepted Monte Carlo sample, not from an unconstrained prior. Please make this explicit in the caption to avoid implying that any random parameter choice produces the plotted spectra.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Monte Carlo 'prediction' is an inverse filter on observed peaks and fluxes; 'fine-tuning' fits the same data.

fitted input called prediction [Section 3, 'Numerical calculation results' (Monte Carlo procedure, Steps 1-3); abstract]
"We fixed the νpk value at 0.475, 0.64, or 1.37 GHz, as observed by CHIME and STARE2 ... We first calculated the νP value with Eq. (11) ... and then calculated the simulated peak flux density (Fsimνpk) at νpk with Eq. (10)... We checked whether the Fsimνpk value is in the range 0.11 < Fsimν < 2.5 MJy, as observed with CHIME and STARE2."

The acceptance filter is the observed data: νpk is fixed to the measured radio peak frequencies and νP is solved from Eq. (11), so the radio peak frequencies in the 'predicted' spectra are inputs, not model predictions. The surviving parameter sets are then further required to place the synchrotron peak and flux inside the observed X-ray ranges. The resulting histograms are a posterior of parameters consistent with the data, not an independent prediction. The abstract's claim that the model 'can predict observable FRB outbursts and associated hard X-ray bursts' is therefore a restatement of the selection criteria.
fitted input called prediction [Section 3 (fine-tuning paragraph) and Section 5 (Conclusions)]
"By further fine-tuning the parameters as {Γ,γe,s,σ,νP/MHz} = {15, 2.4×104, 6.4×10−5, 11.68}, {15, 2.4×104, 13.3×10−5, 6.48}, and {15, 2.4×104, 17.9×10−5, 5.23}, we obtain νpk = 1.37, 0.63, 0.47 GHz and Fνpk = 2.5, 0.15, 0.11 MJy, as shown by the solid red, blue, and green lines in Fig. 1."

These 'fine-tuned' sets are chosen so that the model peak frequencies and peak flux densities equal the observed values for the three bursts. The statement that the 'predicted spectra closely fit' is a fit to the data used in the selection; the parameter values are the result of matching the measured peaks, so reproducing those peaks is by construction, not a test of the model.

full rationale

The central circularity is terminological: the Monte Carlo analysis is a rejection-sampling inversion of the observed FRB and X-ray values. Step 1 fixes νpk to the observed frequencies and uses Eq. (11) to set νP; Steps 2-3 demand that the radio flux and the X-ray peak frequency/flux fall in the observed ranges. Thus the claimed 'prediction' of observable FRB+X-ray bursts is an output of the selection criteria, not a forecast. However, the paper does contain non-circular content: it is not guaranteed a priori that any parameter set satisfying the radio peak-frequency constraint will also place the synchrotron component in the hard X-ray band with the observed flux, and the recovered parameter region (Γ=5-30, σ~1e-4, etc.) is a real inversion. The delta-function electron distribution is an explicit assumption justified by Schlickeiser (1984) and Sagiv & Waxman (2002), and the self-citations to Li et al. (2025) for Eqs. (6) and (11) are to a genuine antecedent, so I do not treat those as independently circular. The score of 6 reflects that the headline 'predict' claim reduces by construction, while the underlying parameter inference retains some independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The load-bearing content is the set of radiation formulas (Eqs. 1-10) taken from prior literature and the assumption of a monoenergetic electron population. The four plasma parameters are free and are fixed by the Monte Carlo selection that demands the model output match the observed radio peak frequencies, radio flux window, and X-ray band and flux. chi and delta_t are chosen by hand. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (6)

Bulk Lorentz factor Gamma = 5-30 (median 13)
Sampled uniformly in [1,200] and retained only when the simulated peak flux lands in the observed 0.11-2.5 MJy window; histogram in Fig. 2.
Electron Lorentz factor gamma_e,s = 1.8e4 - 3.3e4
Sampled uniformly in [1e3, 1e5] and selected by the same radio and X-ray flux windows.
Magnetization sigma = 6e-5 to 1.8e-4; log sigma peaks at -4.21, -3.95, -3.88
Sampled from [gamma_e^-4, 1) and constrained by matching the observed nu_pk and F_nu_pk for the three bursts.
Plasma frequency nu_P = 2.48 - 42.61 MHz
Derived from the observed nu_pk through Eq. 11 after sampling Gamma, gamma_e,s, sigma; effectively tuned to the radio peak.
Pitch angle chi = pi/4
Fixed by hand; enters the flux normalization and spectral shape through Eqs. 7-9.
Blob variability timescale delta_t = 1 ms
Assumed; sets the comoving blob size Delta = Gamma c delta_t = 3e7 Gamma cm and hence the emitting volume in Eq. 10.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The plasma refractive index in a weakly magnetized relativistic plasma is n^2 = 1 - (nu_P/nu)^2 for a monoenergetic electron distribution.
Adopted in Sect. 2 following Sagiv & Waxman (2002); used in Eqs. 1-2 for the radiated power.
domain assumption Weakly magnetized relativistic shocks generate plasma synchrotron maser emission.
Core mechanism; cited from Waxman 2017, Gruzinov & Waxman 2019, and Li et al. 2025, not re-derived here.
domain assumption Electrons in each blob follow an isotropic monoenergetic (delta-function) distribution.
Stated in Sect. 2; used in Eqs. 6-9; Discussion justifies via particle pile-up at gamma_e,s (Schlickeiser 1984).
domain assumption The comoving blob size is Delta = Gamma c delta_t with delta_t = 1 ms.
Sect. 3; sets volume V' in Eq. 10 and therefore the flux normalization.
domain assumption The radio bursts and hard X-ray peaks of FRB 20200428 are associated and arise from the same blobs.
Assumed from temporal coincidence and dispersion delay (Li et al. 2021; Ridnaia et al. 2021); the paper itself hedges with 'potential association'.
domain assumption Synchrotron and absorption formulas (Eqs. 1-8) are the standard ones for a monoenergetic population, and the observer-frame flux transforms as Eq. 10.
Taken from Ginzburg 1989 and Sagiv & Waxman 2002; the paper does not re-derive these.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FRB 20200428 and potentially associated hard X-ray bursts: Maser emission and synchrotron radiation of electrons in a weakly magnetized plasma?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FKINQW7J

@misc{pith2026250819315,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FRB 20200428 and potentially associated hard X-ray bursts: Maser emission and synchrotron radiation of electrons in a weakly magnetized plasma?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FKINQW7J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19315}
}

abstract

The temporal and spatial coincidence between FRB 20200428 and hard peaks of the X-ray burst from SGR 1935+2154 suggests their potential association. We attributed them to the plasma synchrotron maser emission and synchrotron radiation of electrons in weakly magnetized, relativistically moving plasma blobs, and Monte Carlo simulation analysis shows that our model can predict observable fast radio burst outbursts and associated hard X-ray bursts with current telescopes. We constrained the properties of the blobs, including the Lorentz factor $\Gamma=5-30$, the magnetization factor $\sigma=6\times10^{-5}\sim 2\times 10^{-4}$, the electron Lorentz factor $\gamma_{\rm e,s}=(1.8-3.3)\times10^4$, and the plasma frequency $\nu_P=2.48 -42.61$ MHz. The inferred size of the blobs is $\sim 10^{9-10}$ cm, and it is located $\sim 10^{12-14}$ cm from the central engine. By adopting fine-tuned parameter sets, the observed spectra of both the FRB 20200428 outbursts and X-ray bursts can be well represented. The peak flux density ($F_{\rm\nu_{ pk}}$) of plasma maser emission is sensitive to $\sigma$ and $\nu_P$. Variation in $F_{\rm \nu_{pk}}$ can be more than 10 orders of magnitude, while the flux density of the synchrotron emission only varies by $1-2$ orders of magnitude. This can account for the observed sub-energetic radio bursts or giant radio pulses from SGR 1935+2154.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19315 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Observed peak frequencies and corresponding peak flux densities of FRB 20200428 (stars) and the spectra of potentially associated X-ray bursts from SGR 1935+2154 observed with Insight-HXMT (green and orange bow ties) and KW (black data points) together with our model analysis results. The gray lines represent the model-predicted spectra of both FRB and associated X-ray bursts derived from 100 randomly selected mo… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

[1]

F., Bogdankevich, L

Aleksandrov, A. F., Bogdankevich, L. S., & Rukhadze, A. A. 1984, in Berlin and New York, V ol. 9, 2444

work page 1984
[2]

Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ApJ, 843, L26

work page 2017
[3]

Beloborodov, A. M. 2020, ApJ, 896, 142

work page 2020
[4]

E., Aggarwal, K., et al

Bhandari, S., Heintz, K. E., Aggarwal, K., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 69

2022
[5]

M., Kaspi, V

Bhardwaj, M., Gaensler, B. M., Kaspi, V . M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, L18

work page 2021
[6]

D., Ravi, V ., Belov, K

Bochenek, C. D., Ravi, V ., Belov, K. V ., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 59 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 59 Chime/Frb Collaboration, Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2020, Nature, 582, 351 Chime/Frb Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 83 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C.,...

work page 2020
[7]

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

work page 2019
[8]

Dai, Z. G. 2020, ApJ, 897, L40

work page 2020

Show all 54 references

[9]

C., Bhardwaj, M., et al

Fonseca, E., Andersen, B. C., Bhardwaj, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, L6

2020
[10]

Gaensler, B. M. 2014, GRB Coordinates Network, 16533, 1

2014
[11]

2020, ApJ, 898, L55

Geng, J.-J., Li, B., Li, L.-B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, L55

2020
[12]

Ginzburg, V . L. 1989, Applications of electrodynamics in theoretical physics and astrophysics

1989
[13]

C., Chawla, P., et al

Giri, U., Andersen, B. C., Chawla, P., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.16932

2023 arXiv
[14]

& Waxman, E

Gruzinov, A. & Waxman, E. 2019, ApJ, 875, 126

2019
[15]

E., Prochaska, J

Heintz, K. E., Prochaska, J. X., Simha, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 152

2020
[16]

L., Esposito, P., Rea, N., et al

Israel, G. L., Esposito, P., Rea, N., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3448

2016
[17]

Katz, J. I. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 89, 103009

2014
[18]

2022, Nature, 602, 585

Kirsten, F., Marcote, B., Nimmo, K., et al. 2022, Nature, 602, 585

2022
[19]

P., Jenkins, M., et al

Kirsten, F., Snelders, M. P., Jenkins, M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 414

2021
[20]

2018, ApJ, 852, 54

Kothes, R., Sun, X., Gaensler, B., & Reich, W. 2018, ApJ, 852, 54

2018
[21]

2017, MNRAS, 468, 2726

Kumar, P., Lu, W., & Bhattacharya, M. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2726

2017
[22]

K., Lin, L., Xiong, S

Li, C. K., Lin, L., Xiong, S. L., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 378

2021
[23]

M., Deng, C.-M., & Liang, E.-W

Li, X., Lyu, F., Zhang, H. M., Deng, C.-M., & Liang, E.-W. 2025, A&A, 695, A100

2025
[24]

F., Wang, P., et al

Lin, L., Zhang, C. F., Wang, P., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 63

2020
[25]

R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

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

2007
[26]

2020, MNRAS, 498, 1397

Lu, W., Kumar, P., & Zhang, B. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1397

2020
[27]

2014, MNRAS, 442, L9

Lyubarsky, Y . 2014, MNRAS, 442, L9

2014
[28]

2021, Universe, 7, 56

Lyubarsky, Y . 2021, Universe, 7, 56

2021
[29]

Margalit, B., Beniamini, P., Sridhar, N., & Metzger, B. D. 2020, ApJ, 899, L27

2020
[30]

& Metzger, B

Margalit, B. & Metzger, B. D. 2018, ApJ, 868, L4

2018
[31]

2020, ApJ, 898, L29

Mereghetti, S., Savchenko, V ., Ferrigno, C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, L29

2020
[32]

D., Margalit, B., & Sironi, L

Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B., & Sironi, L. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4091

2019
[33]

& CHIME /FRB Collaboration

Ng, M. & CHIME /FRB Collaboration. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17081, 1

2025
[34]

D., Jameson, A., et al

Petroff, E., Barr, E. D., Jameson, A., et al. 2016, PASA, 33, e045

2016
[35]

Petroff, E., Hessels, J. W. T., & Lorimer, D. R. 2022, A&A Rev., 30, 2 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13

2022
[36]

2019, Phys

Platts, E., Weltman, A., Walters, A., et al. 2019, Phys. Rep., 821, 1

2019
[37]

2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 372

Ridnaia, A., Svinkin, D., Frederiks, D., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 372

2021
[38]

Rybicki, G. B. & Lightman, A. P. 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics

1986
[39]

& Waxman, E

Sagiv, A. & Waxman, E. 2002, ApJ, 574, 861

2002
[40]

1984, A&A, 136, 227

Schlickeiser, R. 1984, A&A, 136, 227

1984
[41]

2008, ApJ, 682, L5

Spitkovsky, A. 2008, ApJ, 682, L5

2008
[42]

2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 401

Tavani, M., Casentini, C., Ursi, A., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 401

2021
[43]

2020, ApJ, 899, 109

Wang, W.-Y ., Xu, R., & Chen, X. 2020, ApJ, 899, 109

2020
[44]

Q., Wang, F

Wu, Q., Zhang, G. Q., Wang, F. Y ., & Dai, Z. G. 2020, ApJ, 900, L26

2020
[45]

& Dai, Z.-G

Xiao, D. & Dai, Z.-G. 2020, ApJ, 904, L5

2020
[46]

2021, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 64, 249501

Xiao, D., Wang, F., & Dai, Z. 2021, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 64, 249501

2021
[47]

& Zhang, B

Yang, Y .-P. & Zhang, B. 2018, ApJ, 868, 31

2018
[48]

2020, ApJ, 901, L13

Yang, Y .-P., Zhu, J.-P., Zhang, B., & Wu, X.-F. 2020, ApJ, 901, L13

2020
[49]

2021, MNRAS, 500, 2704

Yu, Y .-W., Zou, Y .-C., Dai, Z.-G., & Yu, W.-F. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2704

2021
[50]

2020, Nature, 587, 45

Zhang, B. 2020, Nature, 587, 45

2020
[51]

2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005

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

2023
[52]

B., Wang, J

Zhang, S. B., Wang, J. S., Yang, X., et al. 2024, Nature Communications, 15, 7454

2024
[53]

2020, ApJ, 898, L5

Zhong, S.-Q., Dai, Z.-G., Zhang, H.-M., & Deng, C.-M. 2020, ApJ, 898, L5

2020
[54]

2020, ApJ, 905, 99 Article number, page 5 of 5

Zhou, P., Zhou, X., Chen, Y ., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 99 Article number, page 5 of 5

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

F., Bogdankevich, L

Aleksandrov, A. F., Bogdankevich, L. S., & Rukhadze, A. A. 1984, in Berlin and New York, V ol. 9, 2444

work page 1984

[2] [2]

Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ApJ, 843, L26

work page 2017

[3] [3]

Beloborodov, A. M. 2020, ApJ, 896, 142

work page 2020

[4] [4]

E., Aggarwal, K., et al

Bhandari, S., Heintz, K. E., Aggarwal, K., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 69

2022

[5] [5]

M., Kaspi, V

Bhardwaj, M., Gaensler, B. M., Kaspi, V . M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, L18

work page 2021

[6] [6]

D., Ravi, V ., Belov, K

Bochenek, C. D., Ravi, V ., Belov, K. V ., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 59 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 59 Chime/Frb Collaboration, Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2020, Nature, 582, 351 Chime/Frb Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 83 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C.,...

work page 2020

[7] [7]

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

work page 2019

[8] [8]

Dai, Z. G. 2020, ApJ, 897, L40

work page 2020