Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 84 references

Rapid Spectral Evolution of SGR 1935+2154 During its 2022 Outburst

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An intermediate flare 1.9 hours before FRB 20221014A flipped the magnetar's X-ray spectra into a softer state for hours.

desk verdict Solid, honest observational paper on SGR 1935+2154; qualitative state change is well supported, but the within-a-minute trigger claim needs a systematic treatment of NuSTAR pile-up and deadtime. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21615 v2 pith:P3RG6IZ6 submitted 2025-04-30 astro-ph.HE

Chin-Ping Hu , Zorawar Wadiasingh , Wynn C. G. Ho , Matthew G. Baring , George A. Younes , Teruaki Enoto , Sebastien Guillot , Tolga Guver
show 4 more authors
Marlon L. Bause Rachael Stewart Alex Van Kooten Chryssa Kouveliotou
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords magnetarsfastradioburstsSGR1935+2154X-rayintermediateflaresspectralsofteninghardness-intensitydiagramNuSTAR
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 argues that a 40-second X-ray flare from the magnetar SGR 1935+2154, occurring about 1.9 hours before the fast radio burst FRB 20221014A, produced a lasting step change in the magnetar's state. Within about a minute, the hardness of both the burst and persistent X-ray emission dropped sharply, and post-flare burst spectra came to resemble the X-ray burst associated with the 2020 magnetar FRB. The flare released roughly $(6.3 \pm 0.2) \times 10^{40}$ erg, and the paper proposes that it blew a wind that untwisted and cleared the magnetosphere, enabling the radio burst. If correct, this connects a specific, observable X-ray trigger to FRB emission and implies that magnetar–FRB links can be seen in nearby galaxies as fast X-ray transients.

What carries the argument

The paper's central diagnostic is the X-ray hardness ratio — the count ratio of 10–79 keV to 3–10 keV photons — tracked continuously across a joint NICER and NuSTAR observation, together with time-resolved spectral fits using a two-blackbody and a cutoff power-law model. The 'intermediate flare' itself is the named object: a burst roughly 40 s long, far fainter than a giant flare (around $10^{40}$ erg) but bright enough to be seen at a few megaparsecs. These tools show that the hardness ratio of both persistent and burst emission underwent a sudden, coordinated drop during the flare, and the hardness–intensity diagram traces a counterclockwise evolutionary loop from a hard state through the flare to a soft state that slowly relaxes. The spectral evolution is interpreted as the flare driving a wind that untwists the magnetic field and clears the magnetosphere, a mechanism previously invoked for spin-down glitches.

What would settle it

A re-analysis of the NuSTAR event data around the intermediate flare that models pile-up and deadtime event-by-event, or an independent observation of a similar flare with a high-count-rate instrument, showing that the 10–79 keV to 3–10 keV hardness ratio did not drop during the flare, would refute the step-change claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the 'intermediate flare' at $t \approx -1.9$ h (about 1.9 hours before FRB 20221014A) was not just the most energetic burst of the 2022 outburst, but a genuine state change in the magnetar. Time-resolved spectroscopy shows the temperatures of both blackbody components and the cutoff power-law photon index evolved rapidly during the flare, with the hardness ratio of both bursts and persistent emission dropping from roughly 0.5–1.0 to below 0.4 within about a minute and staying soft for several hours. The paper identifies this event as the pivot of a counterclockwise loop in the hardness–intensity diagram, and notes that post-flare burst spectra peak near 5 keV, closely resembling the FRB-associated X-ray burst of 2020 (FRB 20200428). The flare's energy is $(6.3 \pm 0.2) \times 10^{40}$ erg, and the paper argues it generated a wind that cleared the magnetosphere, allowing the subsequent FRB to escape.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the NuSTAR measurements of the intermediate flare, taken with only 0.9% live time and significant pile-up, still reliably capture the hardness-ratio drop; if deadtime or pile-up distort that measurement, the claimed flare-induced softening could be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Post-flare short bursts produced no detected radio emission, so FRB generation requires conditions beyond the soft spectral state alone.
  • The intermediate flare is bright enough to be detected at a few megaparsecs, so magnetar X-ray flares tied to FRBs should appear as fast X-ray transients in nearby galaxies.
  • The hardness-ratio profile of bursts as a function of spin phase tracks that of the persistent emission, placing the burst emission at low altitudes near the magnetar surface.
  • The burst waiting-time distribution changes from lognormal to log-uniform after the flare, implying the flare altered the crust stress state and burst trigger locations.
  • The rapid softening within about a minute indicates magnetospheric evolution on timescales of roughly 80 seconds, much slower than the light-crossing time, consistent with a confined, expanding fireball.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the wind-clearing picture holds, the post-flare absence of radio may constrain the geometry: radio emission likely requires a narrow opening angle aligned with our line of sight, and the wind may clear a specific region rather than the whole magnetosphere.
  • The same hardness–intensity loop might appear in other magnetar outbursts as a signature of an impending state change, making high-cadence X-ray monitoring a potential predictor for FRB-like events.
  • The resemblance between post-flare burst spectra and the 2020 FRB-associated burst suggests that FRB-X-like bursts are not rare; what is rare is the additional condition, perhaps twist dissipation or line-of-sight alignment, that makes them radioactive.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes high-cadence NICER and NuSTAR observations of SGR 1935+2154 during its October 2022 outburst, which bracketed FRB 20221014A and two spin-up glitches. The authors identify an 'intermediate flare' about 2.5 hours before the FRB and report that this flare coincided with a rapid spectral softening of both burst and persistent emission, a decrease in burst occurrence rate, and a change in burst spectral shape from hard (peak near 20–30 keV) to soft (peak near 5 keV), the latter resembling the FRB-associated X-ray burst of 2020. They further analyze burst statistics—waiting times, fluence distributions, hardness–fluence correlations, and spin-phase distributions—and interpret the overall evolution as a flare-driven change in the magnetospheric state that may have enabled FRB emission. The paper proposes that the flare generated a wind that cleared the magnetosphere and that such events could be observable as fast X-ray transients in nearby galaxies.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a significant observational result: it would be the first case where a single magnetar flare is observed to induce a persistent (multi-hour) change in both burst and persistent X-ray spectral properties, with direct implications for the FRB–magnetar connection. The paper's strengths include the use of two independent observatories, a clear multi-epoch framework, a large burst sample (633 NuSTAR burst candidates), and quantitative statistical tests (KS tests, bootstrap and injection simulations). The independent support for the post-flare softening from the broadband spectroscopy of burst 5 (Table 2) and from epoch-averaged spectra (Table 3) is genuinely valuable, as is the falsifiable prediction that intermediate flares of similar energy should appear as fast X-ray transients in nearby galaxies. The main weakness is that the most dramatic quantitative claims—the flare energy and the sub-minute spectral transition—rest on NuSTAR data with very high deadtime and acknowledged pile-up, and the paper does not quantify how those systematics affect the fitted spectral parameters.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2.2, Figure 3] The claim that the intermediate flare induced a spectral state change 'within about a minute' rests on the NuSTAR spectral evolution shown in Figure 3, obtained during an interval where NuSTAR was live for only 0.9% of the time (Section 3.1) and where pile-up is acknowledged (Section 3.2.2). The paper states that deadtime correction produces vertical discontinuities at integer seconds and that 'the flux and blackbody radius of the intermediate flare may not be reliable,' yet it asserts that the spectral trends 'remain robust' without quantifying the effect of pile-up or the deadtime correction on the fitted kT1, kT2, Gamma, or Ef. Because this rapid transition is the load-bearing evidence for the flare-induced state change, the authors should either (a) provide a quantitative systematic analysis (e.g., pile-up simulations or conservative shifts applied to the spectral parameters of segments A–C) demonstrating that the softening cannot be produced by instrumental effects, or (b) revise the claim to state that the transition timescale is unconstrained by the available data and rely only on the independently supported pre- versus post-flare comparison.
  2. [Abstract; §3.1; §3.2.2; §4] The duration of the intermediate flare is internally inconsistent: the abstract says 80 s, Section 3.1 and Figure 3 say a '40-s long intermediate flare,' Section 3.2.2 refers to 'a rapid spectral evolution within a timescale of 80 s,' and Section 4 repeats 80 s. The abstract of the published version (as given in the manuscript) has been changed to 40 s in one place but 80 s in another. This ambiguity matters because the paper claims a rapid, minute-scale transition and the flare's total energy is computed over the assumed duration. The authors should define the flare interval explicitly (e.g., 40 s of bright emission plus a 40-s tail) and use that definition consistently throughout the text, figures, and abstract.
  3. [§3.1, §3.4.1, §3.4.4] The burst fluence estimates in Section 3.1 assume a power-law photon index Gamma = 1.3 'roughly the same as the Gamma value of the averaged burst emission.' However, the epoch-averaged fits in Table 3 show that post-flare bursts have Gamma ~ 2.3, so the assumed conversion systematically underestimates (or distorts) the fluences of post-flare bursts compared to pre-storm/burst-storm bursts. The qualitative softening seen in hardness ratios and in the broadband spectra is independent of this assumption, but the quantitative fluence comparisons in Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.4 (including the broken power-law fit and the reported mean fluences) need a sensitivity check: the authors should recompute fluences with epoch-dependent photon indices, or explicitly justify why a single Gamma=1.3 is adequate for all epochs.
  4. [§3.2.2, §4] The time-integrated energy of the intermediate flare, (6.3 ± 0.2) × 10^40 erg, is derived from NuSTAR data that the authors themselves describe as severely affected by deadtime and pile-up. The quoted statistical error is therefore not a meaningful uncertainty for this quantity; the paper should provide a systematic error range (e.g., from varying the assumed spectral model, the flare duration, and the deadtime correction) or explicitly label the value as a lower limit with an order-of-magnitude uncertainty. The current presentation, with a 3% statistical error, overstates the precision of the most striking quantitative result in the abstract.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§3.1] There is a typographical duplication: 'the flux between the two peaks remains remains approximately 10% higher' should read 'remains approximately 10% higher.'
  2. [Table 2] The header for the column labeled 'NH (10^22 cm^-1)' should be 'NH (10^22 cm^-2)'; the units are inverse square centimeters, and this typo appears in both the CPL and 2BB sections of the table.
  3. [§3.2.2, Figure 3] The text mentions 'vertical discontinuities in luminosity' occurring at integer seconds of NuSTAR mission elapsed time; the figure caption should define what is plotted on the x-axis (mission elapsed time relative to the flare onset) and state how the deadtime correction was applied, so readers can identify the discontinuities.
  4. [§3.4.2, Figure 6] The caption of Figure 6a says 'The black histogram shows the ∆t distribution of all bursts,' but the figure appears to show colored filled histograms (blue, green, red) with no black outline; the caption should describe the colors and the stacking or overplotting scheme explicitly.
  5. [§3.4.2] The description of the time-zero definition in Figure 6b is confusing: the text says 'we set the time zero epoch at a burst occurring before the second glitch, calculating each burst's occurrence time backward from this point.' It should clarify why the times are counted backward and how this relates to the flare and to FRB 20221014A.
  6. [§4, Summary] The Summary states 'the first time where a flare has been observed to induce a permanent change in both the persistent and burst spectra' while also citing Keskin et al. (2024) for similar spectral softening in Fermi-GBM bursts. The wording should be reconciled (e.g., 'permanent' relative to the outburst timescale, or 'first time for both persistent and burst emission') to avoid an apparent contradiction.
  7. [§3.1] The text says the intermediate flare was detected 'half hour after the rising edge of the short-term outburst,' while the Discussion says it occurred '2.5 hours after the first glitch.' These statements are not in conflict, but they should be presented with consistent reference times (FRB epoch, glitch epoch, and outburst onset) to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spectral-evolution and flare-state-change claims rest on direct observations and independent spectral fits, not on inputs that reduce to themselves.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is observational: NuSTAR/NICER light curves and hardness ratios define an intermediate flare; time-resolved and accumulated spectra show softening; the causal link to FRB emission is an interpretation, not a derivation from fitted inputs. The glitch ephemeris is taken from Hu et al. (2024), a companion paper by overlapping authors, but it is used as an external timing input for phase folding and epoch definitions, not as the result being derived. The burst fluence scale does assume a photon index 'roughly the same as the Γ value of the averaged burst emission,' which is a mild self-referencing calibration, but the main spectral-evolution claims rest on direct hardness ratios (10–79 keV / 3–10 keV) and on spectral fits that are not predetermined by that assumed index. No equation reduces to its own input, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported by self-citation. The acknowledged NuSTAR pile-up and deadtime limitations are explicitly stated data-quality caveats, not circularity; the paper even warns that 'any interpretation that depends on precise spectral parameters or complex modeling may not be reliable,' which is an honest limitation rather than a circular step. The comparison to the 2020 FRB-associated burst is external, and the broken power-law waiting-time interpretation is tested against injection simulations. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard spectral models, a prior distance estimate, and the authors' earlier glitch ephemeris. Fitted spectral parameters are data-derived measurements, not ad hoc constants, and no new physical entities are introduced. The main burden is instrument systematics, not hidden free parameters.

free parameters (6)
  • CPL photon index Gamma for burst 5 = 0.65 ± 0.07
    Key evidence for post-flare spectral softening (Table 2).
  • CPL e-folding energy Ef for burst 5 = 3.5 ± 0.2 keV
    Spectral peak shift to ~5 keV after the flare (Table 2).
  • 2BB soft component temperature kT1 for burst 5 = 1.00 ± 0.03 keV
    Compared to 1.5-2.1 keV for pre-flare bursts (Table 2).
  • 2BB hard component temperature kT2 for burst 5 = 2.6 ± 0.3 keV
    Compared to 4.4-6.8 keV for pre-flare bursts (Table 2).
  • Assumed photon index for fluence conversion = 1.3
    Used with WebPIMMs to estimate 3-79 keV fluences for all bursts; roughly the average burst spectral index (Section 3.1).
  • Absorbing column NH = 2.6e22 cm^-2 (2BB) and 3.6e22 cm^-2 (CPL)
    Linked across broadband bursts and frozen for the flare analysis (Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The distance to SGR 1935+2154 is 6.6 kpc
    Used to convert fluence to energy and luminosity (e.g., Section 4). Taken from prior literature.
  • domain assumption The double-glitch ephemeris from Hu et al. (2024) is correct
    Used to compute burst spin phases (Section 3.4). Self-cited, but input rather than result.
  • domain assumption 2BB and CPL models adequately describe burst and persistent emission
    Spectral fitting in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 assumes these models; the paper notes the true emission may be more complex (Section 3.2.1).
  • standard math Standard statistical tools (Bayesian blocks, KS tests, chi-square) are valid for burst detection and comparison
    Used throughout Section 3 for burst identification and distribution comparisons.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rapid Spectral Evolution of SGR 1935+2154 During its 2022 Outburst." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P3RG6IZ6

@misc{pith2026250421615,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rapid Spectral Evolution of SGR 1935+2154 During its 2022 Outburst},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P3RG6IZ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21615}
}
abstract

During the 2022 outburst of SGR 1935+2154, a Fast-Radio-Burst-like event (FRB 20221014A) and X-ray activities occurred between two spin-up glitches, suggesting these glitches may connect to multiwavelength phenomenology. However, the mechanisms altering the magnetar's magnetosphere to enable radio emission remain unclear. This study presents high-cadence NICER and NuSTAR observations revealing spectral changes in burst and persistent emission. Hardness ratio and spectral analysis reveal significant changes during an "intermediate flare" 2.5 hours before FRB 20221014A. This 80-second flare, releasing $>(6.3\pm0.2)\times10^{40}$ erg, coincides with a rapid spectral softening in both burst and persistent emission and a notable decrease in burst occurrence rate. The intermediate flare is bright enough to be detected if placed at a few Mpc, and would appear as a fast X-ray transient. This implies that the connection between magnetar X-ray activity and FRBs can be observed in the local Universe. Post-flare burst spectra peak near 5 keV, resembling the characteristics of the FRB-associated X-ray burst of 2020. Such change persisted for a few hours, implying magnetospheric evolution on similar timescales. However, no radio emission was detected from post-flare bursts, suggesting that FRB emission requires conditions beyond peculiar short bursts. The burst waiting times exhibit a broken power-law distribution, likely resulting from contamination by enhanced persistent emission. Although the bursts appear randomly distributed in the spin phase, the hardness ratio profile as a function of spin phase follows that of the persistent emission, indicating that X-ray bursts originate at low altitudes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21615 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Light curve, hardness ratio, and burst fluence observed with NuSTAR. Panel a displays the NuSTAR light curve with a time bin size of 0.01 s, while panel b presents the persistent light curve with a time bin size of 64 s. In panel a, the vertical pink lines with numbers 1 to 5 highlight five luminous bursts detected simultaneously by NICER and NuSTAR, with burst 5 being primarily detected in NuSTAR’s mode 06 data. Pa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Light curves and broadband spectra of bursts 2 and 5 detected by NICER and NuSTAR. Panel a displays the NuSTAR 3–79 keV light curve for burst 2 with a time bin size of 0.05 s, where time zero marks the burst’s fiducial start. Panel b shows the NICER 2–8 keV light curve for the same burst with the same time bin size. Panels c and d illustrate the light curves for burst 5. We present deadtime-corrected light curves fr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectral evolution close to the intermediate flare. Panel a shows the NuSTAR 3–79 keV light curve. Panels b to e show the spectral parameters, including the temperatures of the soft (panel b) and hard (panel c) BB components of the 2BB model, and the Γ (panel d) and Ef (panel e) of the CPL model. The 40-s time interval of the intermediate flare, including the tail, is shaded in gray. The dark blue points represent t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: a. Hardness ratio versus count rate for all (persistent and burst) emission observed with NuSTAR. Blue circles and green squares represent data from the pre-storm and burst-storm epochs, respectively. The post-flare epoch is divided into three segments: post-flare 1 (r…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relationship between five parameters of NuSTAR bursts: waiting time (∆t), T90, burst fluence, hardness ratio, and pulse phase. Blue circles, green squares, and red diamonds represent bursts detected in pre-storm, burst-storm, and post-flare epochs, respectively. The hi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: a The black histogram shows the ∆t distribution of all bursts detected with NuSTAR. Bursts detected during the pre-storm, burst-storm, and post-flare epochs are filled with blue, green, and red, respectively. b Burst ∆t versus event time. Time zero is defined as the la…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: a. Fluence distribution of bursts detected with NuSTAR from SGR 1935+2154. The filled dots represent bursts detected with full sensitivity and are used for fitting. The number of bursts with fluence lower than 10−9 erg cm−2 could be underestimated due to sensitivity dr…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    [1_ _3#J b ? y ȟ g-y ?y߶s+ ?I ?ϔvw 7N

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    G., Abbott , R., Abouelfettouh , I., et al

    Abac , A. G., Abbott , R., Abouelfettouh , I., et al. 2024, , 977, 255, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8de0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8de0 2024

  5. [5]

    B., Grefenstette , B

    Bachetti , M., Markwardt , C. B., Grefenstette , B. W., et al. 2021, , 908, 184, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd1d6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd1d6 2021

  6. [6]

    2022, Science, 378, abj3043, 10.1126/science.abj3043

    Bailes , M. 2022, Science, 378, abj3043, 10.1126/science.abj3043

    doi:10.1126/science.abj3043 2022

  7. [7]

    E., Treister , E., Schawinski , K., et al

    Bauer , F. E., Treister , E., Schawinski , K., et al. 2017, , 467, 4841, 10.1093/mnras/stx417

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx417 2017

  8. [8]

    Beloborodov , A. M. 2017, , 843, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3 2017

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    2025, , 980, 211, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada947

    Beniamini , P., Wadiasingh , Z., Trigg , A., et al. 2025, , 980, 211, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada947

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    D., Ravi , V., Belov , K

    Bochenek , C. D., Ravi , V., Belov , K. V., et al. 2020, , 587, 59, 10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    2021, , 907, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c8

    Burns , E., Svinkin , D., Hurley , K., et al. 2021, , 907, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c8

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Bandura , K

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Andersen , B. C., Bandura , K. M., et al. 2020, , 587, 54, 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    C., et al

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Amiri , M., Andersen , B. C., et al. 2021, , 257, 59, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    R., Soria , R., Stefano , R

    Dillmann , S., Mart \' nez-Galarza , J. R., Soria , R., Stefano , R. D., & Kashyap , V. L. 2025, , 537, 931, 10.1093/mnras/stae2808

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    A., & Chime/Frb Collaboration

    Dong , F. A., & Chime/Frb Collaboration . 2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15681, 1

    2022

  8. [16]

    C., & Thompson , C

    Duncan , R. C., & Thompson , C. 1992, , 392, L9, 10.1086/186413

    1992 doi

  9. [17]

    2019, Reports on Progress in Physics, 82, 106901, 10.1088/1361-6633/ab3def

    Enoto , T., Kisaka , S., & Shibata , S. 2019, Reports on Progress in Physics, 82, 106901, 10.1088/1361-6633/ab3def

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    D., Klebesadel , R

    Evans , W. D., Klebesadel , R. W., Laros , J. G., et al. 1980, , 237, L7, 10.1086/183222

    1980 doi

  11. [19]

    P., Kaspi , V

    Gavriil , F. P., Kaspi , V. M., & Woods , P. M. 2004, , 607, 959, 10.1086/383564

    2004 doi

  12. [20]

    C., Arzoumanian , Z., Adkins , P

    Gendreau , K. C., Arzoumanian , Z., Adkins , P. W., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder , T. Takahashi , & M. Bautz ...

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    C., Chawla , P., et al

    Giri , U., Andersen , B. C., Chawla , P., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.16932, 10.48550/arXiv.2310.16932

    2023 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    M., Kouveliotou , C., et al

    G \"o g \"u S , E., Woods , P. M., Kouveliotou , C., et al. 1999, , 526, L93, 10.1086/312380

    1999 doi

  15. [23]

    M., et al

    G \"o g \"u s , E., Kouveliotou , C., Woods , P. M., et al. 2001, , 558, 228, 10.1086/322463

    2001 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Kouveliotou , C., et al

    G \"o g \"u s , E., Woods , P. M., Kouveliotou , C., et al. 2000, , 532, L121, 10.1086/312583

    2000 doi

  17. [25]

    W., Glesener , L., Krucker , S., et al

    Grefenstette , B. W., Glesener , L., Krucker , S., et al. 2016, , 826, 20, 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/20

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    2024, , 626, 500, 10.1038/s41586-023-07012-5

    Hu , C.-P., Narita , T., Enoto , T., et al. 2024, , 626, 500, 10.1038/s41586-023-07012-5

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    1999, , 397, 41, 10.1038/16199

    Hurley , K., Cline , T., Mazets , E., et al. 1999, , 397, 41, 10.1038/16199

    1999 doi

  20. [28]

    E., Smith , D

    Hurley , K., Boggs , S. E., Smith , D. M., et al. 2005, , 434, 1098, 10.1038/nature03519

    2005 doi

  21. [29]

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

    Ibrahim , A. Y., Borghese , A., Coti Zelati , F., et al. 2024, , 965, 87, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad293b

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    L., Esposito , P., Rodr \' guez Castillo , G

    Israel , G. L., Esposito , P., Rodr \' guez Castillo , G. A., & Sidoli , L. 2016, , 462, 4371, 10.1093/mnras/stw1897

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

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

    Israel , G. L., Romano , P., Mangano , V., et al. 2008, , 685, 1114, 10.1086/590486

    2008 doi

  24. [32]

    G., et al

    Kaneko , Y., G \"o g \"u s , E., Baring , M. G., et al. 2021, , 916, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0fe7

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    M., & Beloborodov , A

    Kaspi , V. M., & Beloborodov , A. M. 2017, , 55, 261, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023329

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    F., Stappers , B

    Keane , E. F., Stappers , B. W., Kramer , M., & Lyne , A. G. 2012, , 425, L71, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01306.x

    2012

  27. [35]

    O ., G \

    Keskin , \"O ., G \"o g \"u s , E., Kaneko , Y., et al. 2024, , 965, 130, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2fce

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    P., Jenkins , M., et al

    Kirsten , F., Snelders , M. P., Jenkins , M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 414, 10.1038/s41550-020-01246-3

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    A., Fishman , G

    Kouveliotou , C., Meegan , C. A., Fishman , G. J., et al. 1993, , 413, L101, 10.1086/186969

    1993 doi

  30. [38]

    2017, , 468, 2726, 10.1093/mnras/stx665

    Kumar , P., Lu , W., & Bhattacharya , M. 2017, , 468, 2726, 10.1093/mnras/stx665

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    K., Lin , L., Xiong , S

    Li , C. K., Lin , L., Xiong , S. L., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 378, 10.1038/s41550-021-01302-6

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    2022, , 134, 094106, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac8f71

    Lin , H.-H., Lin , K.-y., Li , C.-T., et al. 2022, , 134, 094106, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac8f71

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    R., & Erkes , J

    Linscott , I. R., & Erkes , J. W. 1980, , 236, L109, 10.1086/183209

    1980 doi

  34. [42]

    R., Bailes , M., McLaughlin , M

    Lorimer , D. R., Bailes , M., McLaughlin , M. A., Narkevic , D. J., & Crawford , F. 2007, Science, 318, 777, 10.1126/science.1147532

    2007 doi

  35. [43]

    2014, , 442, L9, 10.1093/mnrasl/slu046

    Lyubarsky , Y. 2014, , 442, L9, 10.1093/mnrasl/slu046

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    2017, , 838, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa62fa

    Lyutikov , M. 2017, , 838, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa62fa

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    2021, , 922, 166, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1b32

    ---. 2021, , 922, 166, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1b32

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    2020 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.05093

    Lyutikov , M., & Popov , S. 2020 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.05093. 2005.05093

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    2020 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.05093, 10.48550/arXiv.2005.05093

    ---. 2020 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.05093, 10.48550/arXiv.2005.05093

    2020 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    v., Straal , S., & Pastor-Marazuela , I

    Maan , Y., Leeuwen , J. v., Straal , S., & Pastor-Marazuela , I. 2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15697, 1

    2022

  41. [49]

    P., Golenetskij , S

    Mazets , E. P., Golenetskij , S. V., & Guryan , Y. A. 1979, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 5, 641

    1979

  42. [50]

    2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32675, 1

    Mereghetti , S., Gotz , D., Ferrigno , C., et al. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32675, 1

    2022

  43. [51]

    2020, , 898, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/aba2cf

    Mereghetti , S., Savchenko , V., Ferrigno , C., et al. 2020, , 898, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/aba2cf

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    2024, , 629, 58, 10.1038/s41586-024-07285-4

    Mereghetti , S., Rigoselli , M., Salvaterra , R., et al. 2024, , 629, 58, 10.1038/s41586-024-07285-4

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

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

    Metzger , B. D., Margalit , B., & Sironi , L. 2019, , 485, 4091, 10.1093/mnras/stz700

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    2016, , 461, 1498, 10.1093/mnras/stw1328

    Murase , K., Kashiyama , K., & M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 2016, , 461, 1498, 10.1093/mnras/stw1328

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    1992, , 42, 145

    Paczynski , B. 1992, , 42, 145

    1992

  48. [56]

    B., Scholz , P., Bethapudi , S., et al

    Pearlman , A. B., Scholz , P., Bethapudi , S., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 111, 10.1038/s41550-024-02386-6

    2025 doi

  49. [57]

    Petroff , E., Hessels , J. W. T., & Lorimer , D. R. 2019, , 27, 4, 10.1007/s00159-019-0116-6

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    2022, , 30, 2, 10.1007/s00159-022-00139-w

    ---. 2022, , 30, 2, 10.1007/s00159-022-00139-w

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    2019, , 821, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2019.06.003

    Platts , E., Weltman , A., Walters , A., et al. 2019, , 821, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2019.06.003

    2019 doi

  52. [60]

    A., & Rea , N

    Pons , J. A., & Rea , N. 2012, , 750, L6, 10.1088/2041-8205/750/1/L6

    2012 doi

  53. [61]

    B., & Postnov , K

    Popov , S. B., & Postnov , K. A. 2010, in Evolution of Cosmic Objects through their Physical Activity, ed. H. A. Harutyunian , A. M. Mickaelian , & Y. Terzian , 129--132, 10.48550/arXiv.0710.2006

    2010 doi arXiv

  54. [62]

    E., Jonker , P

    Quirola-V \'a squez , J., Bauer , F. E., Jonker , P. G., et al. 2024, , 683, A243, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347629

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    S., & Ibrahim , A

    Rehan , N. S., & Ibrahim , A. I. 2025, , 276, 60, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad95f9

    2025 doi

  56. [64]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 372, 10.1038/s41550-020-01265-0

    Ridnaia , A., Svinkin , D., Frederiks , D., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 372, 10.1038/s41550-020-01265-0

    2021 doi

  57. [65]

    D., Norris , J

    Scargle , J. D., Norris , J. P., Jackson , B., & Chiang , J. 2013, , 764, 167, 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/167

    2013 doi

  58. [66]

    G., Scholz , P., Hessels , J

    Spitler , L. G., Scholz , P., Hessels , J. W. T., et al. 2016, , 531, 202, 10.1038/nature17168

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    2024, , 530, 1885, 10.1093/mnras/stae965

    Tsuzuki , Y., Totani , T., Hu , C.-P., & Enoto , T. 2024, , 530, 1885, 10.1093/mnras/stae965

    2024 doi

  60. [68]

    Turolla , R., Zane , S., & Watts , A. L. 2015, RPPh, 78, 116901, 10.1088/0034-4885/78/11/116901

    2015 doi

  61. [69]

    J., Kouveliotou , C., Gorgone , N

    van der Horst , A. J., Kouveliotou , C., Gorgone , N. M., et al. 2012, , 749, 122, 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/122

    2012 doi

  62. [70]

    L., Baring , M

    van Putten , T., Watts , A. L., Baring , M. G., & Wijers , R. A. M. J. 2016, , 461, 877, 10.1093/mnras/stw1279

    2016 doi

  63. [71]

    G., Gonthier , P

    Wadiasingh , Z., Baring , M. G., Gonthier , P. L., & Harding , A. K. 2018, , 854, 98, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa460

    2018 doi

  64. [72]

    2020, , 891, 82, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d69

    Wadiasingh , Z., Beniamini , P., Timokhin , A., et al. 2020, , 891, 82, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d69

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    2019, , 879, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2240

    Wadiasingh , Z., & Timokhin , A. 2019, , 879, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2240

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    2000, , 542, 914, 10.1086/317016

    Wilms , J., Allen , A., & McCray , R. 2000, , 542, 914, 10.1086/317016

    2000 doi

  67. [75]

    Younes , G., Gogus , E., Kouveliotou , C., & van der Hors , A. J. 2015, The Astronomer's Telegram, 7213, 1

    2015

  68. [76]

    J., et al

    Younes , G., Kouveliotou , C., van der Horst , A. J., et al. 2014, , 785, 52, 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/52

    2014 doi

  69. [77]

    2017, , 847, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa899a

    Younes , G., Kouveliotou , C., Jaodand , A., et al. 2017, , 847, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa899a

    2017 doi

  70. [78]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 904, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/abc94c

    Younes , G., G \"u ver , T., Kouveliotou , C., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 904, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/abc94c

    2020 doi

  71. [79]

    G., Kouveliotou , C., et al

    Younes , G., Baring , M. G., Kouveliotou , C., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 408, 10.1038/s41550-020-01292-x

    2021 doi

  72. [80]

    2022, , 924, 136, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3756

    Younes , G., Hu , C.-P., Bansal , K., et al. 2022, , 924, 136, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3756

    2022 doi

  73. [81]

    G., Harding , A

    Younes , G., Baring , M. G., Harding , A. K., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 339, 10.1038/s41550-022-01865-y

    2023 doi

  74. [82]

    2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005, 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005

    Zhang , B. 2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005, 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005

    2023 doi

  75. [83]

    N., Xiong , S

    Zhang , S. N., Xiong , S. L., Li , C. K., et al. 2020, The Astronomer's Telegram, 13696, 1

    2020

  76. [84]

    2023, Science Advances, 9, eadf6198, 10.1126/sciadv.adf6198

    Zhu , W., Xu , H., Zhou , D., et al. 2023, Science Advances, 9, eadf6198, 10.1126/sciadv.adf6198

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.