Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 88 references

The Northern Cross Fast Radio Burst project: V. Search for transient radio emission from Galactic magnetars

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 560-hour watch of seven Galactic magnetars found no bright radio pulses, capping the burst rate below 52 per year and pointing toward ordinary magnetars being insufficient to explain fast radio bursts.

desk verdict A clean 560-hour null result with solid Poisson upper limits, wrapped in a model-dependent FRB-population conclusion that is honestly hedged in the body but slightly overpressed in the abstract. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24049 v1 pith:HWIZUNH7 submitted 2025-05-29 astro-ph.HE

A. Geminardi , P. Esposito , G. Bernardi , M. Pilia , D. Pelliciari , G. Naldi , D. Dallacasa , R. Turolla
show 16 more authors
L. Stella F. Perini F. Verrecchia C. Casentini M. Trudu R. Lulli A. Maccaferri A. Magro A. Mattana G. Bianchi G. Pupillo C. Bortolotti M. Tavani M. Roma M. Schiaffino G. Setti
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords magnetarsfastradioburststransientsupperlimitsSGRJ1935+2154power-lawenergydistributionsingle-pulsesearchNorthernCross
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper attempts to measure how often magnetars emit bright, millisecond radio pulses by pointing a sensitive radio telescope at seven Galactic magnetars and one candidate for more than 560 hours. No burst was found, and that silence translates, at 95% confidence, into an upper limit of $52\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ for bursts with energy above roughly $10^{28}\,\mathrm{erg}$. Under the paper's assumption that burst energies follow a power-law distribution, the null result favors flat energy distributions and disfavors steep ones. If that model is right, the whole observed fast radio burst population cannot be produced by ordinary magnetars like SGR J1935+2154 acting alone, and an additional, more exotic source population is required.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is a single power-law distribution of single-burst energies, $dN/dE \propto E^{-\gamma}$, normalized so that $\lambda_{\mathrm{mag}}$ is the rate of bursts above a reference energy $E_0 = 3.2\times10^{34}\,\mathrm{erg}$ (the inferred energy of the SGR J1935+2154 FRB-like event). The distribution runs from a per-source minimum detectable energy up to a common maximum $E_{\max}=1.2\times10^{41}\,\mathrm{erg}$, set by the magnetic energy reservoir and a radio efficiency of $10^{-5}$. The telescope's primary-beam gain is divided into time intervals, and Eq. (7) converts $\lambda_{\mathrm{mag}}$ and $\gamma$, weighted by exposure per interval, into the rate expected from the whole sample; comparing that expectation with the Poisson upper limit from zero detections maps out the excluded region of $(\gamma,\lambda_{\mathrm{mag}})$ space.

What would settle it

A wideband monitor pointed at an active magnetar such as SGR J1935+2154 could catch enough bursts to reconstruct the energy distribution directly. If the observed distribution is not a single power law with a common slope, or if a burst with energy near the FRB-like reference energy arrives during a comparable exposure, the paper's claim that ordinary magnetars cannot explain fast radio bursts would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central result is an exclusion: in 565.92 hours of Northern Cross observations, no dispersed radio pulse associated with any monitored magnetar was detected. With zero events and a Poisson model of burst arrival times, the 95% confidence upper limit on the rate of bright events is $R_{\mathrm{tot,clean}} < 52\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ once the unconfirmed candidate SGR 2013+34 is removed. The paper then plugs this null result into a power-law energy model: each magnetar emits bursts with $dN/dE \propto E^{-\gamma}$ up to a common maximum energy, and $\lambda_{\mathrm{mag}}$ is the rate of events above the energy of the SGR J1935+2154 FRB-like burst. The surviving parameter region favors flat slopes ($\gamma \lesssim 1.1$) and, when combined with prior nearby-galaxy monitoring, restricts $\lambda_{\mathrm{mag}}$ to $0.007$–$0.043\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$; steeper slopes near $\gamma \simeq 2.1$, which other work uses to explain the extragalactic FRB rate, are disfavored. The authors conclude that ordinary magnetars similar to SGR J1935+2154 cannot alone account for the FRB population.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that every magnetar's radio bursts are drawn from one shared power-law energy distribution with a single slope and a common maximum energy; if the true distribution is curved, has a lower cutoff, or varies from source to source, the derived limit on FRB-like bursts does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Even with no detections, roughly 560 hours of monitoring caps the bright radio burst rate of the sampled magnetars at fewer than 52 events per year at 95% confidence.
  • The model excludes steep energy distributions: for slopes around $\gamma \gtrsim 1.4$–$1.5$, the expected rate of FRB-like events from the sample falls below what would be needed to explain extragalactic FRBs.
  • Combining the magnetar campaign with prior nearby-galaxy monitoring narrows the allowed per-magnetar rate of events above the SGR J1935+2154 reference energy to $0.007$–$0.043\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ for flat slopes.
  • If the all-sky FRB rate is set by ordinary magnetars, the required steep slope near $\gamma \simeq 2.1$ is disfavored, implying that an additional, more exotic magnetar population is needed.
  • The null detections occurred while none of the monitored targets showed X-ray bursting or outburst activity, supporting the idea that FRB-like radio emission is tied to magnetar activity windows.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same silence could be reinterpreted as a duty-cycle constraint: if bright radio bursts occur mainly during X-ray-active windows, none of the monitored sources were in such a window, so the per-active-magnetar rate could be much higher than the sample-wide average.
  • A direct extension would be to collect many bursts from SGR J1935+2154 itself and check whether its energy distribution really is a single power law with a common slope; that would test the model rather than the null result.
  • The paper's FRB conclusion applies to ordinary magnetars like those monitored; it leaves open that undiscovered or exotic magnetars with different burst statistics produce a substantial share of extragalactic FRBs.
  • Targeting magnetar-rich environments such as the Galactic center or nearby starburst galaxies with the same exposure model would test whether the low per-source rate holds where FRB-like activity is expected to be denser.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a 565.92-hour monitoring campaign of seven Galactic magnetars plus one candidate (SGR 2013+34) with the Northern Cross radio telescope at 408 MHz. No radio bursts were found. The authors derive 95% Poisson upper limits on the burst rate per source and a combined limit of R<46 yr^-1 for the full sample and R<52 yr^-1 when the candidate is excluded, with energies above the per-source minimum detectable energies (ranging from ~5e26 to ~4e28 erg). They then model the burst energy distribution as a single power law with slope gamma and rate lambda_mag above the SGR J1935+2154-like energy E0=3.2e34 erg, and use the non-detections to constrain the gamma-lambda_mag parameter space. Combining with previous CHIME/FRB and Northern Cross nearby-galaxy limits, they obtain 0.007<lambda_mag<0.043 yr^-1 for flat slopes and argue that the data disfavor slopes steeper than ~1.5, implying tension with models in which the entire FRB population is produced by SGR J1935+2154-like magnetars.

Significance. If the model-dependent conclusion holds, this is an important observational constraint on the magnetar-FRB connection, complementing the SGR J1935+2154 detection with a long, well-characterized null result. The clean non-detection and the careful treatment of the telescope gain profile and sensitivity (Eqs. 1-2 and Fig. 1) are strengths. The paper makes explicit the assumptions behind the power-law analysis, uses standard pipeline tools (HEIMDALL, FETCH, IQRM), and provides per-source limits that will be useful for future population studies. The main scientific value lies in the upper limits; the FRB-population claim is conditional on the assumed energy distribution and needs further robustness work.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, Eqs. (3)-(6); abstract; Sec. 6] The conclusion that magnetar bursts cannot explain the entire FRB population rests on the assumption of a single power-law energy distribution with a common slope gamma and a common E_max over the range E_min~10^26-10^28 erg to E0=3.2e34 erg. The non-detection is extrapolated to high energies through the factor (E0/E_min)^(gamma-1) in Eq. (6); for gamma=2.1 this factor is ~10^7-10^8, so the low-energy null translates into a very tight constraint on lambda_mag. If the true burst energy distribution has a break or flattens at high energies, as the sparse SGR J1935+2154 data may suggest, the low-energy upper limits do not bound the high-energy rate and the 'cannot be explained' claim would not follow. Please add a sensitivity test with a broken power law (varying the break energy and the high-energy slope) or explicitly limit the abstract's claim to the single power-law model.
  2. [Sec. 4.1, Eq. (5); Table 1] The adopted common maximum energy E_max=1.2e41 erg corresponds to B=2e14 G and eta=1e-5 in Eq. (5), but the sample spans B_dip from 6e12 G (SGR 0418+5729) to 8e14 G (SGR 1900+14). Applying Eq. (5) per source would change E_max by about four orders of magnitude. While the paper correctly notes that E_max is unimportant for gamma>1.5, it directly affects the flat-slope region (gamma<=1.1) and the combined lambda_mag < 0.043 yr^-1 quoted in Secs. 5.1 and 6. Please quantify how the allowed parameter space in Figs. 4 and 5 changes when E_max is evaluated for each source's magnetic field rather than set to a common value.
  3. [Sec. 5.1; Fig. 5] The combined limit lambda_mag < 0.043 yr^-1, which is used in the abstract and conclusions, is stated without showing the calculation. It evidently combines the present 565.92 h with the ~695 h of Pelliciari et al. (2023) and assumes N_mag=29 (or scales from N_mag=500 to 29), but the expected-count formula, the sensitivity factors, and the Poisson upper limit used are not given. Please provide the explicit computation for this quantity, including how the different energy thresholds of the two campaigns enter the combination.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; Table 2] The abstract quotes the limit as '<52 yr^-1 on the rate of events with energy >10^28 erg', but Table 2 shows per-source E_min intervals that extend down to 5e26 erg; the combined limit is computed with the source-specific E_min values. Please clarify the exact threshold(s) to which the quoted 52 yr^-1 applies.
  2. [Eq. (1); Sec. 3] The sentence 'The number of receivers is A=64, in the current 16 cylinders configuration' is confusing: the text states that 16 cylinders were used, so the relationship between A=64 and the active cylinders should be explained.
  3. [Sec. 4.1] There is a typo: 'FBR-like event' should read 'FRB-like event'.
  4. [Sec. 5.1] The phrase 'power-law indexes' should be 'power-law indices' or 'power-law slopes'.
  5. [Sec. 6] The paper notes that none of the targets showed X-ray bursting activity and interprets this as a possible hint that FRB-like events are related to activity windows. It would be useful to state explicitly that the derived upper limits are time-averaged rates and do not constrain the rate during active periods, where SGR J1935+2154's FRB-like event occurred.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the upper limits and model constraints are derived from external observations under explicit power-law assumptions; the few self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative result, the 95% confidence upper limit of <52 yr^-1 on bursts with E > 10^28 erg, is a Poissonian upper limit (Gehrels 1986) computed directly from 565.92 hours of non-detections on external telescope data; it does not reuse any fitted value from the authors' prior papers. The energy-dependent constraints come from Eqs. (3)-(7), which are algebraic rearrangements of an explicitly stated single power-law assumption ('assuming an energy power-law distribution of single bursts', Sec. 4.1). The free parameters lambda_mag and gamma are constrained by the observations rather than defined in terms of the target conclusion. The reference energy E0 = 3.2e34 erg is anchored to the independently measured SGR J1935+2154 FRB-like event (Margalit et al. 2020; CHIME/FRB Collaboration et al. 2020), not to the present non-detections. The broad FRB-population statement is explicitly hedged ('under some assumptions', 'point towards') and rests on external inputs (CHIME/FRB 2020 nearby-galaxy limits; James et al. 2022 FRB luminosity slope) combined with the present constraints. Citations to Pelliciari et al. (2023, 2024), Trudu et al. (2022), and Locatelli et al. (2020) provide calibration, observation time, and a nearby-galaxy upper limit that is an independent, falsifiable observable; they are not used as an unverified uniqueness theorem or as a fitted parameter that predetermines the result. The main vulnerability is the assumed common power-law energy distribution and common E_max, which is a modeling assumption and a correctness risk, not a circular step. Score 2 reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations to the project's earlier papers.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model uses two genuinely free parameters (gamma, lambda_mag) and several hand-chosen physical inputs (E_max, E0, eta, N_mag). No invented entities are introduced. The main caveat is that the FRB-population conclusion depends on the assumed power-law form and the common E_max.

free parameters (3)
  • gamma (power-law slope) = constrained, not fitted
    Slope of the assumed single power-law energy distribution of magnetar bursts; the observations exclude large parts of the gamma-lambda_mag plane (Sec. 4.1, Eq. 3, Fig. 4).
  • lambda_mag (rate above E0) = constrained, not fitted
    Rate of bursts with energy above E0 = 3.2e34 erg; constrained by the upper limits (Sec. 4.1, Table 2, Fig. 4).
  • E_max (maximum burst energy) = 1.2e41 erg (assumed)
    Assumed common maximum energy for all magnetars, from Eq. 5 with B = 2e14 G and eta = 1e-5 (Sec. 4.1). Not fitted to data; affects constraints for gamma < 1.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Single power-law energy distribution with common slope gamma for all magnetars
    Introduced in Sec. 4.1 (Eq. 3); needed to translate the non-detections into constraints on the FRB-like event rate. No per-source validation is provided.
  • domain assumption Poissonian time distribution of radio events
    Assumed in Sec. 5 to derive the 95% upper limits from the null detection count (Gehrels 1986).
  • domain assumption Reference energy E0 = 3.2e34 erg
    Set to the energy of the SGR J1935+2154 FRB-like event scaled to a 9 kpc distance (Sec. 4.1; Margalit et al. 2020). Used to define lambda_mag and to compare with FRB energies.
  • domain assumption Radio efficiency eta = 1e-5 and dipolar field B = 2e14 G for all magnetars
    Used in Eq. 5 to set E_max = 1.2e41 erg (Sec. 4.1). The values are taken from the SGR J1935+2154 case and applied to the whole sample.
  • domain assumption Milky Way active magnetar population N_mag = 500
    Adopted in Sec. 5.1 from population studies (Muno et al. 2008; Gullon et al. 2015) to translate the per-source limits into a Galactic constraint on lambda_mag.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Northern Cross Fast Radio Burst project: V. Search for transient radio emission from Galactic magnetars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HWIZUNH7

@misc{pith2026250524049,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Northern Cross Fast Radio Burst project: V. Search for transient radio emission from Galactic magnetars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HWIZUNH7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24049}
}
abstract

Context. The radio emission from magnetars is poorly understood and poorly characterized observationally, in particular for what concerns single pulses and sporadic events. The interest in it was boosted by the detection in 2020 of an extremely bright ms radio signal from the Galactic magnetar designated Soft Gamma Repeater (SGR) SGR J1935+2154, which occurred almost simultaneously with a typical magnetar short burst of X-rays. As of now, this event remains the Galactic radio pulse that is the most reminiscent of fast radio bursts (FRBs) and the only one with a sound association with a known progenitor. Aims. We aim to constrain the rate of impulsive radio events from magnetars, by means of an intensive monitoring using a high-sensitivity radio telescope. Methods. We performed a long-term campaign on seven Galactic magnetars (plus one candidate) using the Northern Cross transit radio telescope (in Medicina, Italy) searching for short timescales and dispersed radio pulses. Results. We obtained no detections in more than 560 hours of observation, setting an upper limit at 95% confidence level of <52 yr$^{-1}$ on the rate of events with energy >10$^{28}$ erg, which is consistent with limits in literature. Furthermore, under some assumptions on the magnetars properties and energetic behavior, we found that our upper limits point towards the fact that the entire population of FRBs observed cannot be explained by radio bursts emitted by magnetars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24049 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Gain profile of a NC observation on 3XMM J185246.6+003317, as an example. The target has a total exposure of 1548 s every day. The latter is defined as the amount of time per day during which the NC can observe the target with a gain ≥ 0.5 (the gray dashed line represents this limit). The plot shows in blue the NC gain profile, corresponding to the primary beam attenuation, over the entire observable interval, while… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Observing windows during the monitoring campaign. The total exposure is 565.92 h. Each vertical notch represents an observation, the typical duration of daily exposure for the different sources can be seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The figure shows an example of a daily time distribution of the observable windows of the targets. The NC observing intervals on each target shift by ∼ 4 minutes per day in advance. single magnetars: Rtot  λmag, γ = N Xmag i=1 Ri . (8) 5. Results and discussion No magnetar-related detections were found during the monitor￾ing campaign. We exploited the observing hours to set upper lim￾its on the burst rate of impul… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The plots show a graphical representation of our power-law energy distribution model, for both the entire sample of targets (left) and excluding the magnetar candidate SGR 2013+34 (right). The x-axis represents the slope of the power-law energy distribution γ, while on…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The figure shows a graphical representation of our power-law distribution model, same as the right panel of figure 4. The dashed lines represent the CHIME/FRB Collaboration et al. (2020) lower and upper limits at 95 % confidence level on the rate of events SGR J1935+21…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 1661

    Daniels, N. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1661

    2020

  2. [2]

    2022, Science, 378, abj3043

    Bailes, M. 2022, Science, 378, abj3043

    2022

  3. [3]

    R., Bailes, M., Barnes, D

    Barsdell, B. R., Bailes, M., Barnes, D. G., & Fluke, C. J. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 379

    2012

  4. [4]

    D., Baumgartner, W

    Barthelmy, S. D., Baumgartner, W. H., Beardmore, A. P., et al. 2008, The As- tronomer’s Telegram, 1676, 1

    2008

  5. [5]

    D., Ravi, V ., Belov, K

    Bochenek, C. D., Ravi, V ., Belov, K. V ., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 59

    2020

  6. [6]

    L., et al

    Borghese, A., Coti Zelati, F., Israel, G. L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 602

    2022

  7. [7]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 1996

    Caleb, M., Rajwade, K., Desvignes, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1996

    2022

  8. [8]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 3291

    Camero, A., Papitto, A., Rea, N., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 3291

    2014

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    B., Chandra, P., Ray, A., et al

    Cameron, P. B., Chandra, P., Ray, A., et al. 2005, Nature, 434, 1112

    2005

  2. [10]

    M., Halpern, J

    Camilo, F., Ransom, S. M., Halpern, J. P., & Reynolds, J. 2007, ApJ, 666, L93

    2007

  3. [11]

    M., Halpern, J

    Camilo, F., Ransom, S. M., Halpern, J. P., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 892 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 145 CHIME/Frb Collaboration, Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2023a, ApJS, 264, 53 CHIME/Frb Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., B...

    2006

  4. [12]

    A., Levan, A

    Chrimes, A. A., Levan, A. J., Lyman, J. D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08892

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Cordes, J. M. & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro Coti Zelati, F., Rea, N., Pons, J. A., Campana, S., & Esposito, P. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 961 Dall’Osso, S. & Stella, L. 2022, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 465, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, e...

    2002

  6. [14]

    F., Kudritzki, R.-P., et al

    Davies, B., Figer, D. F., Kudritzki, R.-P., et al. 2009, ApJ, 707, 844

    2009

  7. [15]

    S., Marsh, T

    Dhillon, V . S., Marsh, T. R., Littlefair, S. P., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416, L16

    2011

  8. [16]

    & Kaspi, V

    Dib, R. & Kaspi, V . M. 2014, ApJ, 784, 37

    2014

  9. [17]

    & van Kerkwijk, M

    Durant, M. & van Kerkwijk, M. H. 2006, ApJ, 650, 1070

    2006

  10. [18]

    L., Turolla, R., et al

    Esposito, P., Israel, G. L., Turolla, R., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 1787

    2010

  11. [19]

    L., Zane, S., et al

    Esposito, P., Israel, G. L., Zane, S., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 390, L34

    2008

  12. [20]

    2020, ApJ, 896, L30

    Esposito, P., Rea, N., Borghese, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, L30

    2020

  13. [21]

    Esposito, P., Rea, N., & Israel, G. L. 2021, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    2021

  14. [22]

    Fahlman, G. G. & Gregory, P. C. 1981, Nature, 293, 202

    1981

  15. [23]

    2012, GRB Coordinates Network, 13280, 1

    Foley, S., Kouveliotou, C., Kaneko, Y ., & Collazzi, A. 2012, GRB Coordinates Network, 13280, 1

    2012

  16. [24]

    A., Kulkarni, S

    Frail, D. A., Kulkarni, S. R., & Bloom, J. S. 1999, Nature, 398, 127

    1999

  17. [25]

    1986, ApJ, 303, 336 Göˇgü¸ s, E., Kouveliotou, C., Woods, P

    Gehrels, N. 1986, ApJ, 303, 336 Göˇgü¸ s, E., Kouveliotou, C., Woods, P. M., et al. 2001, ApJ, 558, 228 Gullón, M., Pons, J. A., Miralles, J. A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 615

    1986

  18. [26]

    Gupta, O., Beniamini, P., Kumar, P., & Finkelstein, S. L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09810

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Y ., & Kaspi, V

    He, C., Ng, C. Y ., & Kaspi, V . M. 2013, ApJ, 768, 64

    2013

  20. [28]

    H., & Kulkarni, S

    Hulleman, F., van Kerkwijk, M. H., & Kulkarni, S. R. 2000, Nature, 408, 689

    2000

  21. [29]

    H., & Kulkarni, S

    Hulleman, F., van Kerkwijk, M. H., & Kulkarni, S. R. 2004, A&A, 416, 1037

    2004

  22. [30]

    Y ., Borghese, A., Coti Zelati, F., et al

    Ibrahim, A. Y ., Borghese, A., Coti Zelati, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 87

    2024

  23. [31]

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

    Israel, G. L., Burgay, M., Rea, N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 7

    2021

  24. [32]

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

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

    2016

  25. [33]

    L., Mereghetti, S., & Stella, L

    Israel, G. L., Mereghetti, S., & Stella, L. 1994, ApJ, 433, L25

    1994

  26. [34]

    L., Romano, P., Mangano, V ., et al

    Israel, G. L., Romano, P., Mangano, V ., et al. 2008, ApJ, 685, 1114

    2008

  27. [35]

    W., Prochaska, J

    James, C. W., Prochaska, J. X., Macquart, J. P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, L18

    2022

  28. [36]

    W., & van Straten, W

    Karuppusamy, R., Stappers, B. W., & van Straten, W. 2010, A&A, 515, A36

    2010

  29. [37]

    Kaspi, V . M. & Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 261

    2017

  30. [38]

    Keane, E. F. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 865

    2018

  31. [39]

    P., Jenkins, M., et al

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

    2021

  32. [40]

    & Foster, T

    Kothes, R. & Foster, T. 2012, ApJ, 746, L4

    2012

  33. [41]

    2018, ApJ, 852, 54

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

    2018

  34. [42]

    1999, ApJ, 510, L115

    Kouveliotou, C., Strohmayer, T., Hurley, K., et al. 1999, ApJ, 510, L115

    1999

  35. [43]

    W., Jessner, A., Lyne, A

    Kramer, M., Stappers, B. W., Jessner, A., Lyne, A. G., & Jordan, C. A. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 107

    2007

  36. [44]

    2010, ApJ, 721, L33

    Levin, L., Bailes, M., Bates, S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, L33

    2010

  37. [45]

    G., et al

    Lin, L., Kouveliotou, C., Baring, M. G., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, 87

    2011

  38. [46]

    T., Bernardi, G., Bianchi, G., et al

    Locatelli, N. T., Bernardi, G., Bianchi, G., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 1229

    2020

  39. [47]

    Lorimer, D. R. 2011, SIGPROC: Pulsar Signal Processing Programs, Astro- physics Source Code Library, record ascl:1107.016

    2011

  40. [48]

    R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

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

    2007

  41. [49]

    Lorimer, D. R. & Kramer, M. 2012, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy

    2012

  42. [50]

    C., Cordes, J

    Lundgren, S. C., Cordes, J. M., Ulmer, M., et al. 1995, ApJ, 453, 433

    1995

  43. [51]

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

    2020

  44. [52]

    2008, A&A Rev., 15, 225

    Mereghetti, S. 2008, A&A Rev., 15, 225

    2008

  45. [53]

    2006, ApJ, 653, 1423

    Mereghetti, S., Esposito, P., Tiengo, A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 653, 1423

    2006

  46. [54]

    2020, ApJ, 898, L29

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

    2020

  47. [55]

    M., & Stappers, B

    Morello, V ., Rajwade, K. M., & Stappers, B. W. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1393

    2022

  48. [56]

    2005, ApJ, 622, 544

    Morii, M., Kawai, N., & Shibazaki, N. 2005, ApJ, 622, 544

    2005

  49. [57]

    P., Gaensler, B

    Muno, M. P., Gaensler, B. M., Nechita, A., Miller, J. M., & Slane, P. O. 2008, ApJ, 680, 639

    2008

  50. [58]

    Nimmo, K., Hessels, J. W. T., Kirsten, F., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 393

    2022

  51. [59]

    Olausen, S. A. & Kaspi, V . M. 2014, ApJS, 212, 6

    2014

  52. [60]

    M., Barthelmy, S., Gehrels, N., et al

    Palmer, D. M., Barthelmy, S., Gehrels, N., et al. 2005, Nature, 434, 1107

    2005

  53. [61]

    2024, A&A, 690, A219

    Pelliciari, D., Bernardi, G., Pilia, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A219

    2024

  54. [62]

    2023, A&A, 674, A223

    Pelliciari, D., Bernardi, G., Pilia, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A223

    2023

  55. [63]

    2019, A&A, 626, A39

    Pizzocaro, D., Tiengo, A., Mereghetti, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A39

    2019

  56. [64]

    2019, Phys

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

    2019

  57. [65]

    C., Kaspi, V

    Pleunis, Z., Good, D. C., Kaspi, V . M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 1

    2021

  58. [66]

    B., Postnov, K

    Popov, S. B., Postnov, K. A., & Pshirkov, M. S. 2018, Physics Uspekhi, 61, 965

    2018

  59. [67]

    A., & Tian, W

    Ranasinghe, S., Leahy, D. A., & Tian, W. 2018, Open Physics Journal, 4, 1 Article number, page 9 A&A proofs:manuscript no. main

    2018

  60. [68]

    & Esposito, P

    Rea, N. & Esposito, P. 2011, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, V ol. 21, High-Energy Emission from Pulsars and their Systems, ed. D. F. Torres & N. Rea, 247

    2011

  61. [69]

    2010, Science, 330, 944

    Rea, N., Esposito, P., Turolla, R., et al. 2010, Science, 330, 944

    2010

  62. [70]

    L., Turolla, R., et al

    Rea, N., Israel, G. L., Turolla, R., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 2419

    2009

  63. [71]

    L., et al

    Rea, N., Nichelli, E., Israel, G. L., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 293

    2007

  64. [72]

    L., Pons, J

    Rea, N., Viganò, D., Israel, G. L., Pons, J. A., & Torres, D. F. 2014, ApJ, 781, L17

    2014

  65. [73]

    Rehan, N. S. & Ibrahim, A. I. 2025, ApJS, 276, 60

    2025

  66. [74]

    J., Bigot-Sazy, M

    Remazeilles, M., Dickinson, C., Banday, A. J., Bigot-Sazy, M. A., & Ghosh, T. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 4311

    2015

  67. [75]

    D., Bannister, K

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

    2023

  68. [76]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 401

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

    2021

  69. [77]

    P., Cameron, P

    Tendulkar, S. P., Cameron, P. B., & Kulkarni, S. R. 2013, ApJ, 772, 31

    2013

  70. [78]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 1858

    Trudu, M., Pilia, M., Bernardi, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 1858

    2022

  71. [79]

    Turolla, R., Zane, S., & Watts, A. L. 2015, Reports on Progress in Physics, 78, 116901 van der Horst, A. J., Connaughton, V ., Kouveliotou, C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 711, L1

    2015

  72. [80]

    M., Kaspi, V

    Woods, P. M., Kaspi, V . M., Thompson, C., et al. 2004, ApJ, 605, 378

    2004

  73. [81]

    L., Yang, Z

    Xie, L., Han, J. L., Yang, Z. L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.15960

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    2023, Universe, 9, 330

    Xu, J., Feng, Y ., Li, D., et al. 2023, Universe, 9, 330

    2023

  75. [83]

    J., Zheng, X

    Xu, Y ., Reid, M. J., Zheng, X. W., & Menten, K. M. 2006, Science, 311, 54

    2006

  76. [84]

    M., Manchester, R

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

    2017

  77. [85]

    2023, Rev

    Zhang, B. 2023, Rev. Mod. Phys., 95, 035005

    2023

  78. [86]

    2020, ApJ, 898, L5

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

    2020

  79. [87]

    2014, ApJ, 781, L16

    Zhou, P., Chen, Y ., Li, X.-D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, L16

    2014

  80. [88]

    2023, Science Advances, 9, eadf6198 Article number, page 10 A

    Zhu, W., Xu, H., Zhou, D., et al. 2023, Science Advances, 9, eadf6198 Article number, page 10 A. Geminardi et al.: V Appendix A: Individual magnetar results In Fig. A.1, we report on our results for each individual target, obtained using Eq. 7. Article number, page 11 A&A proo...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.