Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Even when six DM estimators agree on simple FRB bursts, second-to-minute swings of several pc cm^{-3} remain and cannot be real plasma-column changes; they are apparent DM from frequency-dependent emission timing.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 23:18 UTC pith:TKHJV7DV

load-bearing objection Solid multi-method DM cross-check on a huge single-session sample; residual ~6 pc cm^{-3} swings are real and useful, but the leap to pure intrinsic chromatic emission is still under-constrained. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.03877 v1 pith:TKHJV7DV submitted 2026-07-04 astro-ph.HE

Cross-validation of six dispersion measure estimation methods for FRB 20240114A

Tonglun Wang , Songbo Zhang , Yuanchuan Zou , Xuan Yang , Pei Wang , Di Xiao , Xianghan Cui , Ye Li
show 6 more authors
Hao Qiu Yingze Shan Junyi Shen Ya Zeng Longxuan Zhang Wenlong Zhang
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords Fast Radio Burstsdispersion measureFRB 20240114Aburst morphologyapparent DMrepeating FRBstime-frequency structure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Accurate dispersion measure is the foundation of FRB cosmology and of clean burst de-dispersion, yet different algorithms often disagree. Using 2874 bursts from the hyperactive repeater FRB 20240114A recorded in a single 4.4-hour FAST session, the authors run six independent DM estimators side by side. Low signal-to-noise and complex multi-component, drifting morphologies drive large inter-method scatter; simple single-component bursts bring the methods into tight agreement. After restricting to those high-consistency simple bursts, the measured DM still wanders between roughly 528 and 534 pc cm^{-3} on timescales of seconds to minutes. That residual swing is larger than the measurement uncertainties and far too rapid to be produced by any plausible change in the free-electron column along the line of sight. The paper therefore concludes that the swings are apparent: frequency-dependent emission-time structure inside the bursts is absorbed by a pure ν^{-2} fit and masquerades as extra dispersion.

Core claim

After strict inter-method consistency cuts that leave only morphologically simple, high-S/N bursts, FRB 20240114A still shows apparent DM fluctuations spanning ∼528–534 pc cm^{-3} over 15 780 s. These variations exceed the per-burst uncertainties and cannot arise from genuine line-of-sight electron-column changes on second-to-minute timescales; they are produced by intrinsic, frequency-dependent emission-time structure that mimics a dispersive delay.

What carries the argument

Inter-method scatter std_i (standard deviation of the six DM estimates for each burst) used as a morphology- and S/N-aware consistency filter; residual DM time series after the strictest std_i cut then isolate the apparent-DM signal.

Load-bearing premise

The true free-electron column and local plasma environment stay essentially fixed over the 4.4-hour session, so any remaining DM variation after multi-method consensus must be either noise or an emission-time effect generated at the source.

What would settle it

Simultaneous broadband measurements of the same simple bursts that include RM, scattering time, polarization, and high-time-resolution microshot structure; if those quantities stay constant while the apparent DM still jumps by several pc cm^{-3}, the emission-timing interpretation is supported; if they vary in lock-step with the jumps, a local plasma screen is favored.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compares six DM estimators (peak-flux and S/N maximization, forward-derivative maximization, power-spectrum optimization, and two new density-filtering methods based on kurtosis maximization and entropy minimization) on 2,874 bursts of FRB 20240114A from a single 4.4-hr FAST session. Using inter-method scatter std_i as a consistency metric, it shows that low-S/N and morphologically complex (double/multiple, drifting) bursts drive large method-to-method discrepancies, while single-component bursts yield tight agreement; RFI mainly affects the density-filtering methods via channel masking. Even after S/N>20 and the strictest consistency cut (std_i below the 5th percentile), the power-spectrum DMs still span ~528–534 pc cm^{-3}. The authors argue that genuine line-of-sight column changes on second-to-minute timescales are implausible (Eqs. 18–20) and interpret the residual swings as apparent DM produced by intrinsic frequency-dependent emission-time structure.

Significance. A large, homogeneous, publicly released burst sample observed over a short window is an excellent benchmark for isolating algorithmic DM systematics from astrophysical variation. The work is transparent about uncertainty budgets (algorithmic plus resolution terms), supplies open code and data, and introduces two SDS-based estimators that extend the usual signal/structure-optimization toolkit. The morphology–consistency results and the quantitative plasma-density argument against real short-timescale column changes are useful for the community. If the residual ~6 pc cm^{-3} swings in the strictest subsample are confirmed as intrinsic chromatic emission rather than residual algorithmic bias, the result would matter both for high-precision FRB cosmology and as a potential emission-mechanism diagnostic.

major comments (2)
  1. §5.3 and the bottom panel of Figure 5: the central inference that residual ~6 pc cm^{-3} swings (after S/N>20 and std_i < 0.1715 pc cm^{-3}) must be intrinsic emission-time structure rests on multi-method consensus equaling recovery of DM_true. Section 5.1 and Figures 7–11 already show that methods can lock onto the same biased apparent DM when mild drifts remain (Eq. 22). The paper does not quantify residual drift rates, sub-band DM consistency, or sad-trombone residuals inside that strictest cut. Without such a check, consensus may certify reproducibility of a shared bias rather than isolation of pure propagation DM. A short quantitative test on the bottom-panel subsample would make the claim load-bearing rather than under-constrained.
  2. §2.2.5 and §5.2: the density-filtering methods depend on an intensity threshold T that is not specified or varied. Because RFI channel masking is shown to distort SDS morphology and to elevate std_kl for Methods 5–6, the sensitivity of kurtosis/entropy DMs (and of the high/low-deviation groupings) to T should be reported, at least for a representative subset, so that the new estimators are reproducible and their contribution to the residual-fluctuation claim can be assessed.
minor comments (5)
  1. Figure 5 caption and §4: state explicitly how many bursts remain in each successive std_i panel (especially the 5th-percentile cut) so the reader can judge sample size behind the residual swings.
  2. §2.3: the 5% drop from peak S/N used for peak-flux and S/N uncertainties is conventional but arbitrary; a brief justification or comparison to an alternative (e.g. bootstrap) would help.
  3. Figure 16: the comparison to FRB 20220912A and FRB 20121102A is useful but lacks the same multi-method consistency filter; clarify that those panels are illustrative only.
  4. Notation: std_i vs std_kl vs std_nl (Figures 12–15) is slightly inconsistent; unify labels and define once in §2.4.
  5. Typographical: abstract and §4 use both FRB20240114A and FRB 20240114A; standardize. Also fix minor hyphenation and spacing (e.g. “high- -deviation”, “R- FI”).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: empirical multi-method comparison with independent physical ruling-out of real column changes.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing chain is observational, not definitional. Six distinct optimization metrics (peak flux, S/N, forward derivative, power spectrum, kurtosis, entropy) are applied to the same non-de-dispersed dynamic spectra; inter-method scatter std_i is measured directly (Eqs. 16–17); a high-S/N, low-scatter subsample is selected; residual DM swings of ~6 pc cm^{-3} are reported; and real line-of-sight column changes are then excluded by independent timing-to-density/velocity estimates (Eqs. 18–20) that do not reuse any fitted DM model as a prediction. No parameter is fitted to a subset and re-branded as a forecast; no uniqueness theorem is imported from overlapping authors to forbid alternatives; the daily-mean DM line from Zhang et al. (2026) is only a visual reference, not an input that forces the residual-fluctuation result. Citations to Feng et al. (2026) and related works supply supporting context for apparent-vs-real DM, not a self-citation chain that defines the conclusion. The skeptic concern that multi-method consensus on mildly drifting single-component bursts may still lock onto a shared bias is a correctness/under-constraint issue, not a circular reduction of outputs to inputs by construction. Score 0 is therefore appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central empirical claim (method scatter + residual short-timescale DM swings) rests on standard plasma-dispersion physics, the assumption that the electron column is static over 4.4 h, and a handful of analysis choices (S/N cut, density threshold, percentile gates). No new physical entities are postulated; the ‘apparent DM’ language is interpretive, not ontological.

free parameters (4)
  • S/N threshold for high-reliability subsample = 20
    Bursts with S/N ≤ 20 are discarded to suppress noise-dominated scatter; the precise value 20 is chosen by reference to prior FRB papers rather than derived from the present data.
  • Density-filter intensity threshold T
    Binary SDS construction (Eq. 6) requires a free intensity cut that is not uniquely fixed by the data; different T values can alter morphology and therefore the kurtosis/entropy DM.
  • DM search grid (range and step) = 515–545 pc cm^{-3}, step 0.1
    Trial DMs are restricted to 515–545 pc cm^{-3} at 0.1 pc cm^{-3} steps; the window is chosen around the known daily mean and could in principle truncate pathological solutions.
  • Percentile gates for high/low-deviation groups = 5th / 95th
    5th/95th percentiles of std_i define the morphology comparison samples; the exact percentiles are conventional rather than derived.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The integrated free-electron column along the line of sight (true DM) is essentially constant over the 4.4-hour FAST session.
    Stated in Section 3 and used throughout §5.3 to convert residual DM swings into an apparent rather than real effect.
  • domain assumption Radio-wave group delay follows the cold-plasma quadratic dispersion law (Eq. 2) with the classical dispersion constant K.
    Standard pulsar/FRB physics; used to translate ΔDM into band-edge time offsets and required plasma densities.
  • domain assumption For morphologically simple single-component bursts the six optimization metrics converge to a value close to the true propagation DM.
    Implicit in the interpretation that low-std_i simple bursts give the most reliable DM (Section 5.1).
  • standard math Finite time and frequency resolution contribute an independent Gaussian uncertainty that can be added in quadrature to algorithmic uncertainty (Eq. 15).
    Standard error-propagation assumption stated in §2.3.
invented entities (1)
  • Signal density space (SDS) / density-filtered binary dynamic spectrum no independent evidence
    purpose: Provides a noise-suppressed binary representation on which kurtosis and entropy can be computed as DM metrics.
    Introduced via Eq. 6 and used for the two new estimators; the binary transform itself is a methodological construct rather than a physical entity, and independent evidence is limited to the present dataset.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 19276 in / 3098 out tokens · 28464 ms · 2026-07-11T23:18:17.722357+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are important cosmological probes, but their applications depend critically on accurate dispersion measure (DM) determinations. We present a systematic comparison of six DM estimation methods using 2,874 bursts from FRB20240114A, the most active repeating FRB currently known, observed by FAST during a single 4.4-hr session on 2024 March 12. This large, homogeneous sample over a short timescale, during which the propagation environment is expected to be nearly static, provides an ideal benchmark for isolating algorithmic effects on DM determination. We investigate the dependence of inter-method consistency on signal-to-noise ratio (S/N), burst morphology, and radio frequency interference (RFI). Low-S/N bursts exhibit significantly larger inter-method deviations, while single-component bursts produce highly consistent DM values across methods. In contrast, complex double- and multiple-component bursts with drifting substructures lead to substantial inter-method scattering, indicating that DM discrepancies are primarily driven by algorithmic responses to burst morphology. RFI does not significantly alter the global statistical behavior of DM deviations, but it affects density-filtering methods through morphology distortion caused by frequency-channel masking. Even after imposing strict inter-method consistency constraints, FRB20240114A still exhibits notable apparent DM fluctuations spanning $\sim$528-534~pc~cm$^{-3}$ over 15,780s. For morphologically simple bursts these variations far exceed the measurement uncertainty and, on second-to-minute timescales, cannot arise from any plausible change in the line-of-sight electron column, pointing instead to a frequency-dependent emission-time structure intrinsic to the bursts that mimics dispersion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.03877 by Di Xiao, Hao Qiu, Junyi Shen, Longxuan Zhang, Pei Wang, Songbo Zhang, Tonglun Wang, Wenlong Zhang, Xianghan Cui, Xuan Yang, Ya Zeng, Ye Li, Yingze Shan, Yuanchuan Zou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Temporal variations of DM for 2,874 bursts of FRB 20240114A observed on March 12, 2024. Each panel shows the DM time series obtained by one of the six mea￾surement methods (labeled DM1–DM6), covering the full ob￾servation duration of 15,780 s. The red dashed line represents the daily average DM selected by L.-X. Zhang et al. (2026) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left panel: the variation of stdi with S/N for all 2,874 FRB samples, where each point represents one FRB burst. Right panel: the S/N distribution histogram of the 2,874 FRB samples, with the vertical axis showing nor￾malized counts. The red dashed line in both panels marks S/N = 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Temporal variations of DM for 1,944 bursts (S/N > 20) of FRB 20240114A observed on March 12, 2024 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The gray shaded region represents the histogram of std for 1,944 FRB samples with S/N > 20. The black dashed line represents the log-normal fitting profile with pa￾rameters µ = −0.632 and σ = 0.702. The green and orange dashed lines indicate the 5th and 95th percentiles of the his￾togram, respectively. discrepancies in a small fraction of bursts—likely due to complex morphologies, anomalous RFI, or signifi… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dynamic spectra of the first burst from the high- -deviation group. Panels from left to right display DM mea￾surements obtained by six methods: peak flux maximization, S/N maximization, forward derivative maximization, power spectrum optimization, kurtosis maximization and entropy minimization. The time-integrated and frequency-integrated profiles are included in each sub-panel. and 3 produce the most vert… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Proportional distribution of FRB burst mor￾phologies in the low-deviation group and the high-deviation group. Blue, red, and green represent single-, double-, mul￾tiple-component burst-cluster, respectively. Each group con￾tains 98 bursts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dynamic spectra of the second burst from the high-deviation group. Details are consistent with those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Dynamic spectra of the third burst from the high-deviation group. Details are consistent with those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The stdnl heatmaps for the high-deviation group (left panel) and the low-deviation group (right panel), where color intensity represents the degree of deviation (mapping range: 0–6). Each intensity value is derived from Equa￾tion (17) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The variation of stdi with mask ratio (the ratio of frequency channels masked due to RFI) for all 2,874 FRB samples [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The stdnl heatmaps for the high-deviation group strongly affected by RFI (55 samples, left panel) and weakly affected by RFI (43 samples, right panel), where color inten￾sity represents the degree of deviation (mapping range: 0–6). Kulkarni 2020). The persistent DM fluctuations in Fig￾ure 5 are most striking in the strictest-consistency panel (stdi < 0.1715 pc cm−3 ). In this subset, the bursts are morpho… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: DM distribution over time for FRB 20220912A (MJD 59882) and FRB 20121102A (MJD 58725), whose ob￾servational dates are each selected from the nearly most ac￾tive day of the respective datasets according to Y.-K. Zhang et al. (2023) and D. Li et al. (2021). The red dashed line denotes the mean DM, and the shaded regions represent the 1σ and 2σ standard deviation ranges of the samples. ∼ 2.3 ms across the FA… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    W., James, C

    Bhandari, S., Bannister, K. W., James, C. W., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 70, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz804

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz804 2019

  2. [2]

    M., Prochaska, J

    Bhandari, S., Sadler, E. M., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2020, ApJL, 895, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab672e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab672e 2020

  3. [3]

    D., Ravi, V., Belov, K

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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x 2020

  4. [4]

    Caleb, M., Flynn, C., & Stappers, B. W. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2281, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz571

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz571 2019

  5. [5]

    J., Wharton, R

    Chatterjee, S., Law, C. J., Wharton, R. S., et al. 2017, Nature, 541, 58, doi: 10.1038/nature20797 Chime/Frb Collaboration, Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2020, Nature, 582, 351, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2398-2 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y CHIME/FRB Collaboration,...

    doi:10.1038/nature20797 2017

  6. [6]

    M., Shin, K., Pleunis, Z., et al

    Cook, A. M., Shin, K., Pleunis, Z., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.08410, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.08410

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.08410 2026

  7. [7]

    M., & Lazio, T

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207156 12

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

  8. [8]

    M., & McLaughlin, M

    Cordes, J. M., & McLaughlin, M. A. 2003, ApJ, 596, 1142, doi: 10.1086/378231

    doi:10.1086/378231 2003

  9. [9]

    Indication for Decreasing Dispersion Measure in the Population of Repeating Fast Radio Bursts and Connection to Young Supernova Remnant Expansion

    Cui, X.-h., Zhang, C.-m., Li, D., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.23903, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.23903

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.23903 2026

  10. [10]

    K., Deller, A

    Day, C. K., Deller, A. T., James, C. W., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e050, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.40

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.40 2021

  11. [11]

    K., Deller, A

    Day, C. K., Deller, A. T., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 3335, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2138

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2138 2020

  12. [12]

    2014, ApJL, 783, L35, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/L35

    Deng, W., & Zhang, B. 2014, ApJL, 783, L35, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/L35

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/l35 2014

  13. [13]

    2026, ApJ, 1004, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae731b

    Feng, Y., Zhou, D., Zhang, Y., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1004, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae731b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae731b 2026

  14. [14]

    2025, ApJ, 994, 239, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1a7d

    Gao, R., Gao, H., Li, Z., & Yang, Y.-P. 2025, ApJ, 994, 239, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1a7d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1a7d 2025

  15. [15]

    Hessels, J. W. T., Spitler, L. G., Seymour, A. D., et al. 2019, ApJL, 876, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab13ae

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab13ae 2019

  16. [16]

    2020, ApJL, 893, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab83fb

    Ioka, K., & Zhang, B. 2020, ApJL, 893, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab83fb

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab83fb 2020

  17. [17]

    Kulkarni, S. R. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2007.02886, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2007.02886

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.02886 2020

  18. [18]

    C., et al

    Kumar, P., Luo, R., Price, D. C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3652, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2969

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2969 2023

  19. [19]

    W., et al

    Li, D., Wang, P., Zhu, W. W., et al. 2021, Nature, 598, 267, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03878-5

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03878-5 2021

  20. [20]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.13677, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2208.13677

    Lin, H.-H., Main, R., Pen, U.-L., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.13677, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2208.13677

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2208.13677 2022

  21. [21]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.03769, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.03769

    Liu, Y., Wei, J.-J., Wu, P., & Wu, X.-F. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.03769, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.03769

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.03769 2026

  22. [22]

    R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

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

    doi:10.1126/science.1147532 2007

  23. [23]

    R., & Kramer, M

    Lorimer, D. R., & Kramer, M. 2004, Handbook of Pulsar

    2004

  24. [24]

    X., McQuinn, M., et al

    Macquart, J.-P., Prochaska, J. X., McQuinn, M., et al. 2020, Nature, 581, 391, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2 2020

  25. [25]

    Marcote, B., Paragi, Z., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2017, ApJL, 834, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/l8 2017

  26. [26]

    2014, ApJL, 780, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L33

    McQuinn, M. 2014, ApJL, 780, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L33

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/l33 2014

  27. [27]

    2024, A&A, 683, A183, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348247

    Men, Y., & Barr, E. 2024, A&A, 683, A183, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348247

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348247 2024

  28. [28]

    2025, ApJ, 995, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1a7c

    Mo, J.-F., Zhu, W., Yang, Q.-R., Zheng, Y., & Feng, L.-L. 2025, ApJ, 995, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1a7c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1a7c 2025

  29. [29]

    2021, ApJL, 909, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe7f0

    Niu, C.-H., Li, D., Luo, R., et al. 2021, ApJL, 909, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe7f0

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abe7f0 2021

  30. [30]

    2022, Nature, 606, 873, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5

    Niu, C.-H., Aggarwal, K., Li, D., et al. 2022, Nature, 606, 873, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5 2022

  31. [31]

    2026, Science Bulletin, 71, 76, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2025.11.023

    Niu, C.-H., Li, D., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2026, Science Bulletin, 71, 76, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2025.11.023

    doi:10.1016/j.scib.2025.11.023 2026

  32. [32]

    K., & Cordes, J

    Ocker, S. K., & Cordes, J. M. 2026, ApJ, 1002, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5825

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae5825 2026

  33. [33]

    W., et al

    Platts, E., Caleb, M., Stappers, B. W., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3041, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1544

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1544 2021

  34. [34]

    C., Kaspi, V

    Pleunis, Z., Good, D. C., Kaspi, V. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac33ac

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac33ac 2021

  35. [35]

    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, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0710.2006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.0710.2006 2010

  36. [36]

    Shannon, R. M. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 5109, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1740

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1740 2023

  37. [37]

    R., Breitman, D., Michilli, D., et al

    Sand, K. R., Breitman, D., Michilli, D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf221

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf221 2023

  38. [38]

    2019, DM phase: Algorithm for correcting dispersion of radio signals,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1910.004 http://ascl.net/1910.004

    Seymour, A., Michilli, D., & Pleunis, Z. 2019, DM phase: Algorithm for correcting dispersion of radio signals,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1910.004 http://ascl.net/1910.004

    2019

  39. [39]

    G., Scholz, P., Hessels, J

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

    doi:10.1038/nature17168 2016

  40. [40]

    P., Bassa, C

    Tendulkar, S. P., Bassa, C. G., Cordes, J. M., et al. 2017, ApJL, 834, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/l7 2017

  41. [41]

    2013, Science, 341, 53, doi: 10.1126/science.1236789

    Thornton, D., Stappers, B., Bailes, M., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 53, doi: 10.1126/science.1236789

    doi:10.1126/science.1236789 2013

  42. [42]

    A., Shannon, R

    Uttarkar, P. A., Shannon, R. M., Gourdji, K., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.16409, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.16409

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.16409 2026

  43. [43]

    Wu, Q., Yu, H., & Wang, F. Y. 2020, ApJ, 895, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab88d2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab88d2 2020

  44. [44]

    2025, A&A, 698, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554550

    Xiao, D. 2025, A&A, 698, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554550

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554550 2025

  45. [45]

    M., Manchester, R

    Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N. 2017, ApJ, 835, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29 2017

  46. [46]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, 3180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1910

    Yuan, M., Niu, J., Feng, Y., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 3180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1910

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1910 2025

  47. [47]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.14707, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.14707

    Zhang, J.-S., Wang, T.-C., Wang, P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.14707, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.14707

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.14707 2025

  48. [48]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 276, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae314a

    Zhang, L.-X., Tian, S., Shen, J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 998, 276, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae314a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae314a 2026

  49. [49]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124002, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac98f7

    Zhang, Y.-K., Wang, P., Feng, Y., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124002, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac98f7

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ac98f7 2022

  50. [50]

    2023, ApJ, 955, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced0b

    Zhang, Y.-K., Li, D., Zhang, B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced0b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aced0b 2023

  51. [51]

    2025, ApJL, 984, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adcc30

    Zhang, Z.-L., & Zhang, B. 2025, ApJL, 984, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adcc30

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adcc30 2025

  52. [52]

    O., Kulkarni, S

    Zheng, Z., Ofek, E. O., Kulkarni, S. R., Neill, J. D., & Juric, M. 2014, ApJ, 797, 71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/71 13

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/1/71 2014

  53. [53]

    J., Han, J

    Zhou, D. J., Han, J. L., Jing, W. C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2657, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2769

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2769 2023