Periodic Fast Radio Bursts from Young Neutron Stars

Abraham Loeb; Julian B. Mu\~noz; Vikram Ravi

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 84 references

Periodic Fast Radio Bursts from Young Neutron Stars

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Each young neutron star could flash about a hundred fast radio bursts before going dark.

desk verdict A genuinely testable population-level argument for periodic FRB repeaters, whose rate consistency rests on an unmeasured power-law slope but whose concrete predictions deserve a serious look. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00004 v1 pith:S4JCCEPH submitted 2019-08-30 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO

Julian B. Muñoz , Vikram Ravi , Abraham Loeb This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.CO

keywords fastradioburstsneutronstarssupergiantpulsesperiodicityspin-downrotationmeasurepulsarsFRB180814

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 argues that repeating fast radio bursts (FRBs) can be powered by the rotational energy of young, highly spinning neutron stars, making them periodic sources, or PFRBs. It calculates that each such neutron star must emit on the order of $10^{2}$ supergiant pulses during an active lifetime of about a century to match the observed FRB rate, after which it dims below detectability and crosses a PFRB death line. The authors apply this to the repeater FRB 180814, whose sub-bursts show a preferred 13 ms spacing, and predict that within a decade its period will grow to about 16 ms, its fluence will halve, and its rotation measure will stay below about 80 rad $m^{-2}$, placing it in a different category from the magnetar-powered repeater FRB 121102. These predictions are directly testable with ongoing radio monitoring.

What carries the argument

The central object is the supergiant pulse (SGP), an anomalously bright radio pulse observed in the Crab pulsar, whose rate is extrapolated as a power law in efficiency, $R(\zeta) \propto \zeta^{-\beta}$ with $\beta = 2.5$, calibrated by a single 9 GHz SGP detection. This rate, combined with the spin-down luminosity $L_{\rm sd} \propto \Omega \dot{\Omega}$ that powers the emission and the requirement that an FRB needs $L_{\rm sd} \geq 10^{41}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ at $10^{-2}$ radio efficiency, yields the number of bursts per neutron star and its active lifetime. The period–period-derivative ($P$–$\dot{P}$) diagram is the organizing tool: it defines the PFRB death line where spin-down power drops below the FRB threshold, and it places FRB 180814 at $P \approx 13$ ms and $\dot{P} \approx 10^{-11}$, in the allowed region below the magnetar field line.

What would settle it

Monitor the repeater FRB 180814 at sub-millisecond resolution for a decade: if the 13 ms periodicity is confirmed but the period does not grow to about 16 ms and the fluence does not decline by about a factor of two, the rotationally powered PFRB interpretation is ruled out; likewise, a measured rotation measure above about 80 rad m$^{-2}$ would falsify it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a population of young, rapidly rotating neutron stars emitting supergiant pulses, analogous to those of the Crab pulsar, can account for the observed cosmic rate of repeating fast radio bursts, and that such sources would be periodic (PFRBs). Each newly born neutron star must release roughly $10^{2}$ bursts over an active lifetime of about a century before its spin-down luminosity falls below the threshold needed to power a detectable FRB, defining a PFRB death line in the period–period-derivative plane. Because these sources are rotationally powered rather than magnetically powered, they should show characteristic spin-down: periods lengthen, fluences decline as the spin-down luminosity falls, and rotation measures remain small for lack of ion-rich ejecta. Applying this to FRB 180814, whose sub-bursts prefer a 13 ms spacing, the paper predicts a period growth to about 16 ms, a factor-of-two fluence drop, and a rotation measure bounded by about 80 rad $m^{-2}$ within ten years, distinct from the magnetar-linked FRB 121102.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that Crab-like supergiant pulses become more frequent as a power law in brightness with exponent 2.5 and no cutoff, inferred from a single extreme 9 GHz pulse; if the true exponent is 2 or 3 instead, the predicted number of FRB-producing pulses changes by a factor of about 30, directly deciding whether the model fits the observed FRB rate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If PFRBs exist, every newly born, highly spinning neutron star emits about $10^2$ observable bursts over roughly a century before crossing the death line and becoming too dim to detect as an FRB source.
PFRB periods should lengthen over time (about 2% per year for FRB 180814) and their fluences should decline as the spin-down luminosity falls, enabling a direct, near-term test through monitoring.
PFRBs should exhibit modest rotation measures, $|{\rm RM}| \lesssim 80$ rad m$^{-2}$, in contrast to the $\sim 10^5$ rad m$^{-2}$ of the magnetar-powered repeater FRB 121102.
PFRB sources are expected to be relatively nearby (within a few hundred Mpc) and to show dispersion measures that vary on year timescales due to the expanding supernova remnant, with a detection horizon set by remnant opacity.
If the 13 ms periodicity of FRB 180814 is confirmed, it is best explained as a rotationally powered PFRB rather than a flaring magnetar, and the source becomes the first example of this population.

Reading between the lines

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

A corollary the authors leave implicit: if each young neutron star emits about $10^2$ bursts, then roughly one in ten core-collapse supernovae must leave behind such a rapidly spinning, low-field neutron star, which could show up as an excess of very young (age $\lesssim 100$ yr) pulsars in future surveys.
Because PFRBs are predicted to dim as they age, stacking bursts by host-galaxy distance or by inferred age could reveal a luminosity–age correlation that cleanly separates the rotationally powered population from magnetar-powered FRBs.
If the 13 ms period of FRB 180814 is confirmed, the predicted drift to about 16 ms makes the source a spin-down clock that can be cross-checked against independent period measurements; the same procedure applies to any repeater with a detected periodic spacing.
The model's interpretation of some 'one-off' FRBs as the bright tail of the PFRB luminosity function suggests that deep, targeted re-observations of previously non-repeating FRB positions might uncover faint underlying periodicity that shallower surveys missed.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. The paper is worth reading, but its headline rate consistency is not currently secured by data; the real value is the periodic-subpopulation framing and the concrete, cheaply testable predictions for repeaters, especially FRB 180814.

What is actually new: previous work by Cordes & Wasserman and by Connor et al. proposed Crab-like supergiant pulses as an FRB mechanism. This paper adds the explicit PFRB population concept: if a sizable fraction of FRBs are rotationally powered young neutron stars, then each source must repeat roughly 100 times over an active lifetime of about 100 years. It then derives spin-down, dimming, and rotation-measure predictions. The forecast for FRB 180814—period growing from 13 to 16 ms, fluence dropping by a factor of two within a decade, and |RM| below about 80 rad m^-2—is genuinely falsifiable and is not fitted to that source's data. That is a real strength.

The paper also does several things well. The arithmetic is transparent, the physics is standard spin-down, and the contrast with the magnetar model is clearly drawn. The authors openly flag the biggest caveats: the supergiant-pulse luminosity slope is "fairly unconstrained," and the emission mechanism is explicitly deferred. That honesty makes the conditional claims easier to trust.

The soft spots are real but proportionately stated. The central rate estimate rests on a power-law extrapolation of the Crab supergiant-pulse rate from zeta ~ 0.002-0.02 to zeta ~ 0.1, with beta = 2.5 and no cutoff, normalized on a single 9 GHz event. As the authors note, beta in {2,3} changes the predicted burst yield by about a factor of 30, and the stress-test note is right that this spans the required Nrep ~ 100 by more than an order of magnitude. A cutoff just above the observed regime would remove the FRB tail entirely. So the claimed consistency with the observed FRB rate is plausible but not established. The fiducial choices for beaming fraction, CCSN fraction, and radio efficiency are also order-of-magnitude guesses, and the RM bound assumes favorable magnetic-field geometry. None of this is sloppy; it is an honest model with an acknowledged sensitive parameter.

This is a paper for FRB theorists and observers planning timing and polarization campaigns. It is a useful organizing hypothesis. My recommendation is to send it to serious refereeing. It deserves referee time because it is falsifiable and timely; the rate-normalization section should be reframed as a plausibility demonstration rather than a constraint. With that revision, I would be comfortable seeing it published.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that a population of fast radio bursts (FRBs) are periodic (PFRBs), produced by supergiant pulses from young, rapidly rotating neutron stars. It combines the FRB volumetric rate with the core-collapse supernova rate to infer that each PFRB progenitor must emit N_PFRB ~ 10^2 bursts over an active lifetime of tau ~ 100 years (Eq. 5). It then compares this required yield with an extrapolation of Crab supergiant-pulse statistics (Eq. 2) and claims consistency for a power-law index beta = 2.5. The paper makes specific predictions: PFRB periods should increase and luminosities decrease with time; sources should show modest rotation measures; and the SNR should contribute a decaying, time-varying dispersion measure. As a concrete application, the paper examines FRB 180814, arguing that a 13 ms inter-pulse period would place it in the PFRB category and predicting that its period will grow to ~16 ms, its fluence will drop by a factor of ~2 within a decade, and its rotation measure will be bounded by |RM| <= 80 rad m^-2. The central claim is that the PFRB model can account for the observed FRB rate and be tested with near-term observations.

Significance. If the rate consistency holds, the paper is valuable: it produces falsifiable predictions that distinguish a rotation-powered repeating FRB population from the magnetar model, using standard spin-down physics rather than fitting to the target FRB observations. The calibration to the Crab pulsar is an external, independent benchmark, and the specific predictions for FRB 180814 (period growth, dimming, and RM bound) are concrete and testable within a decade. However, the rate-consistency argument rests on an unconstrained power-law extrapolation of supergiant-pulse rates, which the paper itself acknowledges as 'fairly unconstrained' (Sec. 2.2). The significance is therefore conditional: the spin-down and environmental predictions are robust once the SGP-triggered emission mechanism is accepted, but the claimed agreement with the observed FRB rate is not currently secured by data.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2)] The rate of FRB-producing supergiant pulses is derived by extrapolating R(zeta) = R_0(zeta/zeta_0)^{-beta} from the observed zeta ~ 0.002-0.02 regime to zeta = 0.1 with beta = 2.5 and no cutoff. The paper itself states that beta is 'fairly unconstrained' for SGPs, and the quoted beta = 2-3 range changes the predicted burst yield per source from ~2e3 to ~50 (N_cycle ~ 5e11 times the per-pulse probabilities given in Sec. 2.2), which straddles the required N_rep ~ 10^2 from Eq. (5). This means the claimed consistency between the model and the observed FRB rate is not robust; it holds only for beta near 2.5. The paper should either constrain beta using the observed FRB rate (thereby turning the comparison into a measurement) or present the rate consistency explicitly as conditional on beta, with the range of allowed beta stated in the abstract and conclusions.
[Sec. 2.2 (SGP power-law cutoff)] The extrapolation assumes no cutoff in R(zeta) above the observed values, citing Cordes et al. (2004). However, the Crab observations only constrain zeta up to ~0.02, and a cutoff just above this value would suppress the FRB-producing tail (zeta ~ 0.1) entirely. The sentence 'no cutoff has been found' does not exclude a cutoff at higher efficiencies, and no direct observation of Crab SGPs at zeta ~ 0.1 is available. The paper should discuss what observations (e.g., searches for high-luminosity Crab pulses at 430 MHz or limits from other young pulsars) could bound or detect such a cutoff, and how the rate estimate and the inferred N_PFRB change if a cutoff is present.
[Sec. 2.3, Eq. (5)] The required number of repetitions N_rep is inversely proportional to f_CCSN and f_b, both set to fiducial values of 0.1. The paper acknowledges that f_CCSN is 'highly uncertain', and the beaming factor f_b is also poorly known for SGP emission. Since N_rep ~ (f_b/0.1)^{-1} (f_CCSN/0.1)^{-1} x 10^2, a factor of a few uncertainty in either quantity changes the required burst yield by an order of magnitude, which affects the comparison in Sec. 2.2. The abstract and the 'N_PFRB ~ 10^2' claim should be presented as a fiducial estimate rather than a robust requirement, or the authors should provide a range of N_rep based on plausible values of f_CCSN and f_b.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. 3, PFRB slow down] The prediction that the period of R2 will increase by 2% per year and that the spin-down power will decrease by a factor of 2 in a decade follows from Pdot ~ 10^-11 and the L_sd ~ P^{-3} scaling, but the explicit relation between Pdot and L_sd is not stated; writing it out would make the prediction more transparent.
[Sec. 3, Eq. (7)] The normalization of DMSNR ~ 30 pc cm^-3 at tau = 30 yr is stated without derivation or a reference to the assumed ejecta profile; adding a brief derivation or citing the relevant source would be useful.
[Sec. 3, FRB 180814] The fit yielding dDM_EG/dt = 15 +/- 20 pc cm^-3 yr^-1 is mentioned without describing the data or fitting method; a short description (e.g., which bursts were used, the least-squares procedure, and whether the uncertainty includes systematic effects) is needed to support the tau >= 15 yr constraint.
[Fig. 1 caption] The gray shaded area representing the PFRB region and the 'PFRB death line' are not defined in the caption; indicating the threshold from Eq. (1) and the age constraints would make the figure self-explanatory.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PFRB rate argument compares two independent estimates (Crab-calibrated SGP extrapolation vs. observed FRB/CCSN rates), and the spin-down, period-change, and RM predictions are not fitted to the target observations.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. Section 2.2 calibrates the supergiant-pulse rate R(ζ) to external Crab pulsar data (Eq. 2, with the normalization anchored to the Hankins et al. 2003 2 MJy SGP), and then extrapolates to ζ≈0.1. This extrapolation is an input assumption, not a fit to FRB observations. Section 2.3 independently derives the required repetition number per source, Nrep∼10^2, from the observed FRB rate and the CCSN rate (Eq. 5), and compares it with the SGP-statistics estimate. The agreement between the two is a consistency check between two independently sourced quantities, not a tautology. The predictions in Section 3 follow from standard magnetodipole spin-down (period growth, dimming) and from the assumed absence of strong magnetic fields and ion-rich ejecta (small RM); they do not use future FRB data as fitting inputs. For FRB 180814, the inferred Pdot≈10^-11 is set by the energetics requirement (Eq. 1) and the assumed distance, and the predicted period increase and fluence decline are direct consequences of that assumed Pdot; this is a conditional model prediction, not a quantity fitted to the same observable being predicted. The author self-citations (e.g., Ravi 2019 for the FRB rate) refer to independent empirical estimates from CHIME and other surveys, so they do not constitute load-bearing circular support. The main weakness, the uncertain power-law index β and lack of a cutoff at high ζ, is a model-uncertainty/correctness concern, not a circularity one.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central rate and evolution claims rest on five fiducial parameters (beta, epsilon_r, f_b, f_CCSN, and the P0 example) and six domain assumptions. The most consequential is the power-law extrapolation of Crab supergiant pulse statistics to FRB-like energies; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

SGP luminosity function index beta = 2.5
Chosen to reproduce the Hankins et al. 2003 supergiant pulse detection; the paper notes beta in {2,3} changes the recurrence rate by a factor of about 30 (Section 2.2).
Radio efficiency epsilon_r = 10^-2
Fiducial value, typical of old pulsars but large for young neutron stars; sets the required spin-down luminosity in Eq. (1).
Beaming factor f_b = 0.1
Fiducial beaming assumption used in Eqs. (1), (5), and (6); affects source density and repeat counts.
CCSN fraction f_CCSN = 0.1
Fraction of core-collapse supernovae producing the highly spinning low-B progenitors; comparable to magnetar birth rate and highly uncertain (Section 2.3).
Example source P0 values = P = 3 ms, Pdot = 10^-11.5
Illustrative fiducial source used for the predictions; not fitted to FRB observations.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption SGP luminosity function is a power law with no cutoff at high zeta_r
Eq. (2) extrapolates Crab statistics beyond the observed range; no cutoff has been found but this is unverified.
domain assumption Young low-B neutron stars produce supergiant pulses at Crab-like rates
The rate estimate in Section 2.2 assumes the Crab pulsar is representative of newborn neutron stars with P around milliseconds and B around 10^12 G.
domain assumption All or an O(1) fraction of FRBs are repeating sources
Based on the volumetric rate argument from Ravi 2019 cited in Section 2.3; if one-off events dominate, the PFRB population need not exist.
domain assumption Supernova remnants are opaque to GHz radio for the first roughly 10 years
Used to bound PFRB ages in Figure 1 and in the R2 placement (Section 3), following Metzger et al. 2017.
domain assumption Spin-down follows the standard dipole law with braking index n=3 and no B-field decay
Stated in Section 3; drives the period-evolution and dimming predictions.
domain assumption FRB 180814's apparent 13 ms inter-subpulse separation equals the neutron star spin period
The authors explicitly condition the R2 analysis on this, writing 'if confirmed' (Section 3).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Periodic Fast Radio Bursts from Young Neutron Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S4JCCEPH

@misc{pith2026190900004,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Periodic Fast Radio Bursts from Young Neutron Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S4JCCEPH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00004}
}

abstract

Fast radio bursts (FRBs) are highly energetic radio pulses from cosmological origins. Despite an abundance of detections, their nature remains elusive. At least a subset of FRBs is expected to repeat, as the daily FRB rate surpasses that of any known cataclysmic event, which has been confirmed by observations. One of the proposed mechanisms to generate repeating FRBs is supergiant pulses from young and highly spinning NSs, in which case FRBs could inherit the periodicity of their parent NS. Here we examine the consequences of such a population of periodic fast radio bursts (PFRBs). We calculate the rate and lifetime of PFRB progenitors, and find that each newly born highly spinning NS has to emit a number $N_{\rm PFRB}\sim 10^2$ of bursts during its active lifetime of $\tau\sim 100$ years, after which it becomes too dim and crosses a PFRB "death line" analogous to the pulsar one. We propose several tests of this hypothesis. First, the period of PFRBs would increase over time, and their luminosity would decrease, due to the NS spin-down. Second, PFRBs may show modest amounts of rotation measure, given the lack of expelled matter from the pulsar, as opposed to the magnetar-sourced FRBs proposed to explain the first repeater FRB 121102. As an example, we study whether the second confirmed repeater (FRB 180814) is a PFRB, given the preference for an inter-pulse separation of 13 ms within its sub-bursts. We show that, if confirmed, this period would place FRB 180814 in a different category as FRB 121102. We develop tests that would identify---and characterize---the prospective population of PFRBs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00004 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Period (P, in ms) and period derivative (P˙) diagram for pulsars and PFRBs. We show the known magnetars (from the McGill catalogue (Olausen & Kaspi 2014)) as green triangles, and the canonical pulsars as a yellow blob. The known millisecond pulsars (MSPs) lie below the reach of this plot (P˙ ≈ 10−20). NSs with magnetic fields above B = 1014 G (shown as the dotted green line) can produce magnetically driven FRBs thro… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

[1]

A., Bejger, M., & Wielgus, M

Abramowicz, M. A., Bejger, M., & Wielgus, M. 2018, Astrophys. J., 868, 17

2018
[2]

C., et al

Andersen, B. C., et al. 2019, arXiv:1908.03507

arXiv 2019
[3]

W., et al

Bannister, K. W., et al. 2019, arXiv:1906.11476

arXiv 2019
[4]

2014, Phys

Barrau, A., Rovelli, C., & Vidotto, F. 2014, Phys. Rev., D90, 127503

2014
[5]

Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, Astrophys. J., 843, L26

2017
[6]

2018, Mon

Bhandari, S., et al. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 475, 1427

2018
[7]

2018, Astrophys

Bhirombhakdi, K., Chornock, R., Margutti, R., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J., 868, L32

work page 2018
[8]

F., & Bartel, N

Bietenholz, M. F., & Bartel, N. 2019, in 14th European VLBI Network Symposium and Users Meeting (EVN2018) Granada, Spain, October 8-11, 2018

work page 2019

Show all 84 references

[9]

2019, arXiv:1902.00272

Caleb, M., Stappers, B., Rajwade, K., & Flynn, C. 2019, arXiv:1902.00272

2019 arXiv
[10]

2017, Nature, 541, 58

Chatterjee, S., et al. 2017, Nature, 541, 58

2017
[11]

M., Bhat, N

Cordes, J. M., Bhat, N. D. R., Hankins, T. H., McLaughlin, M. A., & Kern, J. 2004, Astrophys. J., 612, 375

2004
[12]

M., & Chatterjee, S

Cordes, J. M., & Chatterjee, S. 2019, arXiv:1906.05878

2019 arXiv
[13]

M., & Wasserman, I

Cordes, J. M., & Wasserman, I. 2016, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 457, 232

2016
[14]

M., Wasserman, I., Hessels, J

Cordes, J. M., Wasserman, I., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J., 842, 35

2017
[15]

H., Eilek, J

Crossley, J. H., Eilek, J. A., Hankins, T. H., & Kern, J. S. 2010, Astrophys. J., 722, 1908

2010
[16]

2019, arXiv:1905.06818

Cunningham, V., et al. 2019, arXiv:1905.06818

2019 arXiv
[17]

2017, Astrophys

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

2017
[18]

C., & Thompson, C

Duncan, R. C., & Thompson, C. 1992, Astrophys. J., 392, L9 1 http://frbcat.org/ 2 http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/ pulsar/magnetar/main.html

1992
[19]

2014, Astron

Falcke, H., & Rezzolla, L. 2014, Astron. Astrophys., 562, A137

2014
[20]

2019, arXiv:1905.02293

Farah, W., et al. 2019, arXiv:1905.02293

2019 arXiv
[21]

Faucher-Giguere, C.-A., & Kaspi, V. M. 2006, Astrophys. J., 643, 332

2006
[22]

2011, Space Sci

Fletcher, L., et al. 2011, Space Sci. Rev., 159, 19

2011
[23]

2015, Mon

Fuller, J., & Ott, C. 2015, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 450, L71

2015
[24]

2018, Astrophys

Gajjar, V., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J., 863, 2

2018
[25]

H., Kern, J

Hankins, T. H., Kern, J. S., Weatherall, J. C., & Eilek, J. A. 2003, Nature, 422, 141

2003
[26]

Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J., 876, L23

2019
[27]

James, C. W. 2019, arXiv:1902.04932

2019 arXiv
[28]

2017, Mon

Johnston, S., & Karastergiou, A. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 467, 3493

2017
[29]

Johnston, S., & Romani, R. W. 2003, Astrophys. J., 590, L95

2003
[30]

2013, Astrophys

Kashiyama, K., Ioka, K., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2013, Astrophys. J., 776, L39

2013
[31]

2017, Astrophys

Kashiyama, K., & Murase, K. 2017, Astrophys. J., 839, L3

2017
[32]

M., & Helfand, D

Kaspi, V. M., & Helfand, D. J. 2002, ASP Conf. Ser., 271, 3

2002
[33]

Katz, J. I. 2014, Phys. Rev., D89, 103009 —. 2016a, arXiv:1611.01243, [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.467,L96(2017)] —. 2016b, Astrophys. J., 826, 226 —. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 469, L39 —. 2018a, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 481, 2946 —. 2018b, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 103, 1

2017 arXiv
[34]

N., Potapov, V

Kazantsev, A. N., Potapov, V. A., & Pshirkov, M. S. 2019, arXiv:1905.05261

2019 arXiv
[35]

2017, Mon

Kumar, P., Lu, W., & Bhattacharya, M. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 468, 2726

2017
[36]

2019, arXiv:1908.10026

Kumar, P., et al. 2019, arXiv:1908.10026

2019 arXiv
[37]

2018, Nature Commun., 9, 3833

Li, Z.-X., Gao, H., Ding, X.-H., Wang, G.-J., & Zhang, B. 2018, Nature Commun., 9, 3833

2018
[38]

1998, Astrophys

Loeb, A. 1998, Astrophys. J., 499, L111

1998
[39]

R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M. A., Narkevic, D. J., & Crawford, F. 2007, Science, 318, 777 8

2007
[40]

2018, Mon

Lu, W., & Kumar, P. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 477, 2470

2018
[41]

Lyutikov, M., Burzawa, L., & Popov, S. B. 2016, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 462, 941

2016
[42]

Lyutikov, M., & Lorimer, D. R. 2016, Astrophys. J., 824, L18

2016
[43]

P., Shannon, R

Macquart, J. P., Shannon, R. M., Bannister, K. W., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J., 872, L19

2019
[44]

Sievers, J. L. 2019, arXiv:1901.02418

2019 arXiv
[45]

2017, Mon

Maoz, D., & Loeb, A. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 467, 3920

2017
[46]

2017, Astrophys

Marcote, B., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J., 834, L8

2017
[47]

Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2018, Astrophys. J., 868, L4

2018
[48]

D., Berger, E., et al

Margalit, B., Metzger, B. D., Berger, E., et al. 2018, arXiv:1806.05690

2018 arXiv
[49]

2015, Nature, 528, 523

Masui, K., et al. 2015, Nature, 528, 523

2015
[50]

A., et al

McLaughlin, M. A., et al. 2006, Nature, 439, 817

2006
[51]

2014, Astrophys

McQuinn, M. 2014, Astrophys. J., 780, L33

2014
[52]

D., Berger, E., & Margalit, B

Metzger, B. D., Berger, E., & Margalit, B. 2017, Astrophys. J., 841, 14

2017
[53]

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

Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B., & Sironi, L. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 485, 4091

2019
[54]

2018, Nature, 553, 182

Michilli, D., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 182

2018
[55]

B., McLaughlin, M

Mickaliger, M. B., McLaughlin, M. A., Lorimer, D. R., et al. 2012, Astrophys. J., 760, 64

2012
[56]

Mingarelli, C. M. F., Levin, J., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2015, Astrophys. J., 814, L20

2015
[57]

2016, Mon

Murase, K., Kashiyama, K., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2016, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 461, 1498, [erratum: Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.467,no.3,3542(2017)] Mu˜ noz, J. B., Kovetz, E. D., Dai, L., & Kamionkowski, M. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 117, 091301 Mu˜ noz, J. B., & Loeb, A. 2018,...

2017
[58]

Nicholl, M., Williams, P. K. G., Berger, E., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J., 843, 84

2017
[59]

2013, Mon

Johnston, S. 2013, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 430, 2281

2013
[60]

A., & Kaspi, V

Olausen, S. A., & Kaspi, V. M. 2014, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 212, 6

2014
[61]

2018, Astrophys

Palaniswamy, D., Li, Y., & Zhang, B. 2018, Astrophys. J., 854, L12

2018
[62]

2015, Astrophys

Pen, U.-L., & Connor, L. 2015, Astrophys. J., 807, 179

2015
[63]

2008, Mon

Perna, R., Soria, R., Pooley, D., & Stella, L. 2008, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 384, 1638 Petroﬀ, E., Hessels, J. W. T., & Lorimer, D. R. 2019, Astron. Astrophys. Rev., 27, 4 Petroﬀ, E., Barr, E. D., Jameson, A., et al. 2016, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral., 33, e045

2008
[64]

Piro, A. L. 2016, Astrophys. J., 824, L32

2016
[65]

B., & Postnov, K

Popov, S. B., & Postnov, K. A. 2013, arXiv:1307.4924

2013 arXiv
[66]

B., & Pshirkov, M

Popov, S. B., & Pshirkov, M. S. 2016, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 462, L16

2016
[67]

2019, arXiv:1907.06619

Ravi, V. 2019, arXiv:1907.06619

2019 arXiv
[68]

Ravi, V., & Lasky, P. D. 2014, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 441, 2433

2014
[69]

2016, Science, 354, 1249 —

Ravi, V., et al. 2016, Science, 354, 1249 —. 2019a, arXiv:1907.01542 —. 2019b, arXiv:1903.06535

2016 arXiv
[70]

E., del Valle, M

Romero, G. E., del Valle, M. V., & Vieyro, F. L. 2016, Phys. Rev., D93, 023001

2016
[71]

2016, Astrophys

Scholz, P., et al. 2016, Astrophys. J., 833, 177

2016
[72]

G., et al

Spitler, L. G., et al. 2014, Astrophys. J., 790, 101

2014
[73]

2014, Astrophys

Szary, A., Zhang, B., Melikidze, G., Gil, J., & Xu, R.-X. 2014, Astrophys. J., 784, 59

2014
[74]

2014, Astrophys

Taylor, M., et al. 2014, Astrophys. J., 792, 135

2014
[75]

P., et al

Tendulkar, S. P., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J., 834, L7

2017
[76]

2013, Science, 341, 53

Thornton, D., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 53

2013
[77]

2013, Pub

Totani, T. 2013, Pub. Astron. Soc. Jpn., 65, L12

2013
[78]

2019, Astron

Wagner, J., Liesenborgs, J., & Eichler, D. 2019, Astron. Astrophys., 621, A91

2019
[79]

2018, Astrophys

Witzemann, A. 2018, Astrophys. J., 856, 65

2018
[80]

2019, arXiv:1907.12473

Wang, J.-S., & Lai, D. 2019, arXiv:1907.12473

2019 arXiv
[81]

2018, Astrophys

Wang, W., Luo, R., Yue, H., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J., 852, 140

2018
[82]

2019, Astrophys

Wang, W., Zhang, B., Chen, X., & Xu, R. 2019, Astrophys. J., 876, L15

2019
[83]

2017, Astrophys

Waxman, E. 2017, Astrophys. J., 842, 34

2017
[84]

2017, Astrophys

Yang, Y.-P., & Zhang, B. 2017, Astrophys. J., 847, 22

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A., Bejger, M., & Wielgus, M

Abramowicz, M. A., Bejger, M., & Wielgus, M. 2018, Astrophys. J., 868, 17

2018

[2] [2]

C., et al

Andersen, B. C., et al. 2019, arXiv:1908.03507

arXiv 2019

[3] [3]

W., et al

Bannister, K. W., et al. 2019, arXiv:1906.11476

arXiv 2019

[4] [4]

2014, Phys

Barrau, A., Rovelli, C., & Vidotto, F. 2014, Phys. Rev., D90, 127503

2014

[5] [5]

Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, Astrophys. J., 843, L26

2017

[6] [6]

2018, Mon

Bhandari, S., et al. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 475, 1427

2018

[7] [7]

2018, Astrophys

Bhirombhakdi, K., Chornock, R., Margutti, R., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J., 868, L32

work page 2018

[8] [8]

F., & Bartel, N

Bietenholz, M. F., & Bartel, N. 2019, in 14th European VLBI Network Symposium and Users Meeting (EVN2018) Granada, Spain, October 8-11, 2018

work page 2019