Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 5 cited by

A flaring radio counterpart to a fast radio burst reveals a newborn magnetized engine

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A flaring radio source beside FRB 20240114A is the newborn nebula of a highly magnetized engine.

desk verdict Genuinely new early-phase radio counterpart to a repeating FRB; the newborn-engine interpretation is plausible but rests on SSA plus equipartition and an age assumption, so treat the headline as model-dependent. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14247 v1 pith:TSUI2TD6 submitted 2025-01-24 astro-ph.HE

Xian Zhang , Wenfei Yu , Zhen Yan , Yi Xing , Bing Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsflaringsourceFRB20240114Asynchrotronself-absorptionmagnetizedenginepersistenttransientsmagnetar
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 claims that a compact, flaring radio source caught next to FRB 20240114A within a month of the burst's discovery is the newborn nebula of a highly magnetized FRB engine. The source brightened, developed a spectral peak near 1.6 GHz, and then began to fade on month-long timescales, behavior unlike the steady persistent radio sources seen near other repeating FRBs. The authors identify the peak as synchrotron self-absorption and, assuming equipartition, derive a radius of about 0.027 pc, a magnetic field of about 0.054 G, and a minimum total energy of about $6.2\times10^{47}$ ergs. Because this field is much stronger than the line-of-sight field estimated from the bursts' Faraday rotation, they argue the emission comes from a toroidally magnetized, Poynting-flux-dominated outflow from a newborn engine. If the picture holds, it gives the first direct view of an FRB engine at birth and suggests that the persistent radio sources around older FRBs are settled, later-stage versions of the same object.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the flaring radio source (FRS): a compact, unresolved radio nebula at the FRB position whose flux rose by about a factor of two, peaked near 1.6 GHz, and then declined. The mechanism that carries the argument is synchrotron self-absorption (SSA): the spectral turnover at $\nu_{\tau=1}=1.41\pm0.18$ GHz is interpreted as the frequency where the emitting plasma becomes optically thick to its own synchrotron radiation. Equating the brightness temperature of a self-absorbed source to the effective electron temperature gives a $B$--$R$ relation; combining that with equipartition between magnetic and electron energy fixes $R_{\rm eq}=0.027\pm0.004$ pc and $B_{\rm eq}=0.054\pm0.007$ G, and integrating the spectrum gives the minimum energy. The same SSA turnover sets a frequency-dependent absorbing barrier that modulates which FRB bursts escape, tying the nebular evolution to the burst activity itself.

What would settle it

Very long baseline interferometry at about 1.6 GHz that resolves the FRS to a physical radius greater than about 0.1 pc would directly contradict the derived 0.027 pc equipartition size and with it the interpretation of the flare as a newborn compact magnetized nebula.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper reports the discovery of a compact flaring radio source (FRS) positionally coincident with the hyperactive repeating FRB 20240114A, first detected 26 days after the source's initial burst and confirmed by later multi-band observations. The radio spectrum evolved into a broad peaked spectrum with a break at $\nu_b=1.56\pm0.20$ GHz, which the authors model as synchrotron self-absorption with an optically thin spectral index $-0.73\pm0.14$ above the break. Under the equipartition assumption, the SSA constraints give a source radius $R_{\rm eq}=0.027\pm0.004$ pc, a magnetic field $B_{\rm eq}=0.054\pm0.007$ G, a brightness temperature $\sim4.7\times10^{11}$ K, and a minimum total energy $\sim6.2\times10^{47}$ ergs. The line-of-sight field from the FRB's Faraday rotation is bounded by $1.5\times10^{-6}<B_{\parallel}<1.6\times10^{-2}$ G, at least a factor of 3.4 below $B_{\rm eq}$, which the authors read as a toroidal, Poynting-flux-dominated field. They conclude that the FRS is the birth nebula of a highly magnetized FRB engine, and that the previously known persistent radio sources around active FRBs are probably its later evolutionary stages.

Load-bearing premise

The whole size, field, and energy budget rests on the assumption that the spectral peak is self-absorption by the source's own synchrotron-emitting plasma in energy equipartition; if atomic gas absorbs the emission instead, or the plasma is far from equipartition, the derived compact size and strong field could be off by orders of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The FRS is the first radio counterpart of an FRB caught within a month of the source's first detected activity, so it samples the earliest phase of engine evolution yet observed.
  • The spectral peak at $1.56\pm0.20$ GHz, identified as synchrotron self-absorption, implies a compact ($0.027\pm0.004$ pc) magnetized ($0.054\pm0.007$ G) plasma with minimum total energy $6.2\times10^{47}$ ergs.
  • The line-of-sight magnetic field inferred from the burst Faraday rotation is at least a factor of 3.4 smaller than the equipartition field, pointing to a toroidal, Poynting-flux-dominated field geometry.
  • In the luminosity-variability timescale plane, the FRS joins engine-powered supernovae and low-luminosity AGN, suggesting the same engine can drive explosive and accretion/jet-like radio emission.
  • If the FRS is a young version of the persistent radio sources seen near other repeating FRBs, those PRSs should be older, settled nebulae that look like this source after decades of energy injection and expansion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the SSA interpretation is right, continued monitoring should show the spectral turnover drifting to lower frequencies as the nebula expands; a stationary or rising turnover would instead favor free-free absorption or fresh energy injection.
  • The same prompt-counterpart search strategy could be applied to other newly discovered active repeaters: a source caught within weeks with a rising, SSA-broken spectrum would be a newborn-engine candidate, and the sample would give the first empirical birth rate for magnetized FRB engines.
  • The host galaxy's optical flare in 2022–2023, which the paper notes but cannot firmly connect, offers a direct test: if the engine formed in that outburst, deep optical/IR imaging should reveal an expanding supernova remnant or ejecta at the FRB position now.
  • The $B_{\rm eq}>B_{\parallel}$ argument implicitly assumes the Faraday-rotating plasma lies in the same region as the FRS; a future measurement localizing the RM screen would either solidify or dissolve the toroidal-field conclusion.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a compact flaring radio source (FRS) associated with the repeating FRB 20240114A, detected with MeerKAT 26 days after the first CHIME burst and followed with VLA and uGMRT through October 2024. The source brightened from 64±14 µJy to 131±10 µJy at 1.5 GHz, showed a spectral peak at 1.56±0.20 GHz in July, and then declined to 87±19 µJy in October. Interpreting the peak as synchrotron self-absorption and assuming equipartition, the authors derive R ≈ 0.027 pc, B ≈ 0.054 G, a minimum energy of 6.2×10^47 erg, and a line-of-sight field upper limit below Beq; they conclude that the source reveals the birth of a highly magnetized FRB engine.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, this would be the first observed early-phase radio counterpart of an FRB, with an evolving spectral break and physical parameters that connect to engine-powered supernovae and to the later-stage PRS population. The multi-epoch, multi-telescope dataset, including field-source calibration checks and public data, is a genuine observational asset, and the detection of a radio counterpart within a month of the first detected burst is important even independent of the spectral model. However, the quantitative claims (radius, magnetic field, energy, and the 'newborn engine' conclusion) are conditional on the synchrotron self-absorption interpretation, equipartition assumptions, and the identification of first detection with birth; these conditions are not yet established at the level required by the paper's central claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix E, Eq. (E2)] The argument that the spectral break cannot be due to free-free absorption is not valid as stated. Equation (E2) writes the flux at the turnover in blackbody-like form with brightness temperature T_B, and the paper concludes that T_B ≈ 5.6×10^9 K >> 10^4 K rules out FFA. This reasoning only applies if the observed turnover is the self-absorbed emission of the same thermal plasma. For foreground free-free absorption of a synchrotron source, the observed low-frequency flux is the background synchrotron flux attenuated by exp(-τν), and the brightness temperature is not tied to the absorbing gas temperature. Therefore the observed 1.6-GHz peak does not uniquely require synchrotron self-absorption, and the derived R_eq, B_eq, E_min in Appendix F inherit this ambiguity. A direct discriminator, such as the frequency dependence of variability or a resolved size measurement, is needed before the SSA-based physical parameters can be treated as the central result.
  2. [§6, Appendix F, Eqs. (F3)–(F5)] The conversion of the measured spectral break into R ≈ 0.027 pc and B ≈ 0.054 G assumes a homogeneous spherical source in equipartition. The source is unresolved, with a VLA size upper limit of 1.4″×0.5″ (roughly 4–5 pc at z = 0.13), which is two orders of magnitude larger than the derived radius; the compactness of the emitting region is therefore not directly verified. Clumpy geometry, a non-unit filling factor, or a non-equipartition plasma can change the derived radius, field, and energy by orders of magnitude. The paper should present these values as model-dependent estimates and explicitly quantify the sensitivity to filling factor and to the equipartition ratio, rather than as direct measurements.
  3. [§7, Appendix H, Fig. 14] The 'newborn engine' claim depends on identifying the first CHIME burst in January 2024 with the birth of the engine. Appendix H itself states that the actual birth time is 'very likely at least weeks or months before the first CHIME detection' and the paper applies a universal 0.5-year age shift to all sources in Figure 14. Given this admitted age uncertainty, the observed FRS could be a re-brightening or persistent nebula associated with an older engine, rather than a source born within one month of the first detected burst. The abstract's 'within one month after the first radio burst was detected' and the word 'birth' are stronger than the evidence supports; they should be softened to 'first detected within one month' unless an independent age constraint is provided.
  4. [§6, Appendix F] The comparison Beq > B∥ is not an independent test of the model. The upper limit B∥ ≤ 1.6×10^-2 G is derived from DMsrc ≥ 0.035 pc cm^-3, which is itself computed using the minimum plasma energy, the brightness temperature, and the source volume obtained from the same SSA-plus-equipartition model. A different equipartition ratio or source geometry changes both sides of the comparison. The paper should either derive B∥ from a model-independent DMsrc constraint or explicitly state that the B∥ bound is conditional on the same assumptions used to derive Beq.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5 and Appendix E] The signs of the sub-break and super-break spectral indices are inconsistent between the main text and the appendix: §5 quotes +0.91 and −0.73, while Appendix E quotes −0.91 and +0.73; the intended values should be +0.91 below and −0.73 above the break, and this should be corrected consistently.
  2. [§5] There is a typo in 'uGRMT' in the first paragraph of §5; this should read 'uGMRT'.
  3. [Appendix C.1] The phrase 'correspond tp point-like sources' contains a typo and should read 'correspond to point-like sources'.
  4. [Figure 2 caption] The caption writes 'Blow' and 'high' in the spectral-fit labels; these should be α_low and α_high for clarity.
  5. [§3 and Figure 2] The decline phase is currently supported by essentially one post-peak epoch (October 3) and is only marginally significant; the decay e-folding time of 168±95 days should be labeled as tentative until further epochs confirm the decline.
  6. [Appendix H, Figure 14] The universal 0.5-year age shift applied to all sources in Figure 14 appears ad hoc; the text should either justify this shift with a physical model or present the correlation without the shift as the primary result.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

The B_parallel upper limit is constructed from the same equipartition-derived radius and minimum energy used for B_eq, so the reported B_eq > B_parallel contrast is partly a restatement of the model; the core detection and SSA/equipartition radius estimate are otherwise honest conversions.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6 and Appendix F.1 (paragraph following Eq. F6)]
    "Using the minimum plasma energy derived based on the magnetic equipartition condition, the electron density derived from the brightness temperature, and the volume derived from the source size, one can derive DM src ≥ 0.035 pc cm−3. This gives an upper limit of the magnetic field strength along the LoS, i.e. B∥ ≤ 1.6 × 10−2 G, which is more than a factor of 3.4 smaller than Beq."

    The DMsrc lower limit is not an independent observable: it is computed from E_min = c13 L^{4/7} R^{9/7} (Eq. F6), the brightness temperature T_B = Fν c^2 D^2/(2kπ ν^2 R^2) (Eq. E4), and V = (4/3)πR^3, all evaluated at the equipartition radius R_eq obtained from Eqs. F4-F5. Consequently B∥,max = 1.23×10^{-6} RM/DMsrc scales as a function of R_eq and the same equipartition assumption that defines B_eq. The quoted factor-of-3.4 inequality is therefore partly forced by the model that produced B_eq, rather than by an independent measurement of the line-of-sight field. The only truly independent B∥ bound is the lower limit B∥ > 1.5×10^{-6} G, which lies four orders of magnitude below B_eq and does not by itself establish the contrast.

full rationale

The discovery and variability of the FRS are well supported by multi-epoch MeerKAT/VLA data and field-source calibration checks, and the conversion of the measured 1.56 GHz spectral break into R_eq = 0.027 pc and B_eq = 0.054 G uses standard synchrotron self-absorption plus equipartition formulae (F3-F6) with stated assumptions; those numbers are not fitted to the 'newborn magnetized engine' conclusion. The paper's self-citations to Yang et al. nebular models are used for background interpretation and optional evolutionary speculation, not as a load-bearing derivation. The one partially circular element is the B_parallel upper limit: its DMsrc lower limit is built from the same equipartition-derived energy, brightness temperature, and radius used to obtain B_eq, so the claimed B_eq > B_parallel contrast is partly a restatement of the model rather than an independent empirical constraint. The age ambiguity (engine may be weeks to months or more older than the CHIME discovery) and the unresolved VLA size limit are evidence-quality concerns about the 'birth' interpretation, but they are not derivation-circularity. Overall the paper is not fundamentally circular, but the field-comparison argument should not be read as an independent confirmation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative claims (radius 0.027 pc, field 0.054 G, energy 6.2e47 ergs) rest on the SSA interpretation of the 1.6 GHz break plus an equipartition assumption, both standard but unverified for this source. The newborn-engine conclusion additionally assumes physical association with FRB 20240114A and that the engine age is close to the time since first burst. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • spectral break frequency nu_b = 1.56 +/- 0.20 GHz
    Fitted with a broken power law to uGMRT 650 MHz and VLA L/S/C band data; sets the SSA break and all derived size and field constraints.
  • low-frequency spectral index alpha_low = 0.91 +/- 0.27
    Fitted spectrum below the break; used to derive nu_tau=1 = 0.8 nu_b under SSA.
  • high-frequency spectral index alpha_high = -0.73 +/- 0.14
    Fitted spectrum above the break; enters the minimum-energy and equipartition calculations.
  • universal age offset = 0.5 years
    Added to elapsed times for all sources in Figure 14 to build the age-luminosity correlation; chosen by hand, not from data.
  • neutron star spin period P_NS = 5 ms
    Assumed spin period used to estimate the surface magnetic field from B at Req; if P differs, BNS changes.
  • equipartition ratio sigma_eq = 3/4
    Chosen ratio of magnetic to electron energy density; central to deriving Req and Beq.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The 1.6 GHz spectral peak is synchrotron self-absorption, not free-free absorption.
    Section E argues FFA would require brightness temperature 5.6e9 K much higher than gas temperature; SSA adopted. If wrong, the B and R derivation fails.
  • domain assumption Equipartition between electron and magnetic energy holds (sigma_eq = 3/4, eta = 1).
    Section F.1 uses equipartition to close the B-R relation from SSA. Without it, only a degenerate B-R constraint remains.
  • domain assumption The FRS is physically associated with FRB 20240114A.
    Spatial coincidence with burst localizations; no independent proof of common origin beyond proximity.
  • domain assumption The local DM and RM are dominated by the FRS or engine environment, so B-parallel estimates from RMsrc and DMsrc are meaningful.
    Section F.1 takes RM about 449 rad m^-2 as RMsrc and host DM as DMsrc upper limit; assigning these to the FRS is an assumption.
  • standard math Standard synchrotron self-absorption and minimum-energy formulas (Condon and Ransom 2016; Resmi et al. 2021) apply.
    Equations F3-F6 rely on these textbook relations.
  • domain assumption Dipole scaling B proportional to R^-3 inside and R^-1 outside the light cylinder for a neutron star.
    Section F.2 uses this to infer BNS = 2.56e12 G from Beq at Req; other field topologies change the inferred stellar field.
  • domain assumption The engine was born shortly before the first CHIME detection (newborn).
    Section H admits CHIME has only about 4 minutes per day coverage and actual birth could be weeks or months earlier; the newborn label is an assumption, not measured.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A flaring radio counterpart to a fast radio burst reveals a newborn magnetized engine." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TSUI2TD6

@misc{pith2026250114247,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A flaring radio counterpart to a fast radio burst reveals a newborn magnetized engine},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TSUI2TD6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14247}
}
abstract

Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are energetic millisecond radio bursts at cosmological distances, whose underlying engine is not identified. Among a sub-population that emit repeated radio bursts, a handful were associated with a persistent radio source (PRS) whose origin is unknown. Here we report the discovery of a compact flaring radio source (FRS) associated with a newly-active repeating FRB within one month after the first radio burst was detected. Its temporal and spectral characteristics differ from those of the PRSs but are similar to those of engine-powered supernovae and low-luminosity active galactic nuclei. We detected a spectral peak around $1.6\pm0.2$ GHz that is consistent with synchrotron self-absorption. Assuming equipartition, the magnetic field strength in the FRS is larger than the line-of-sight component constrained from the FRB Faraday rotation, suggesting a highly magnetized engine. The radius of the FRS is constrained to be $\sim0.03$ pc and the minimum total energy is $\sim~6.2\times{10}^{47}~{\rm ergs~}$. This FRS reveals the birth of a highly magnetized FRB engine, and hints that PRSs associated with other active FRBs may be in the later stage of evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14247 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. MeerKAT and VLA sky images of the FRS. A. MeerKAT 1.5 GHz image in the 2024 February observation. B. The VLA deep image in 2024 late July observations. C. The VLA image in the 2024 October observations. The contours in all images correspond to (1, √ 2, 2, 3, 4, 5) times the 3×rms noises (14, 10 and 19 µJy), respectively. The lowest values shown in the images correspond to 3×rms noises. The position of the FRB obtain… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Multi-band radio light curves of all observations and the broad-band radio spectrum taken in 2024 July. A. Radio flux densities of the FRS as measured by MeerKAT (UHF- and L-bands) and VLA (L-, S￾and C-bands), the flux density measured by uGMRT at a central frequency of 650 MHz (Bhusare et al. 2024a,b), and the averaged flux density of the FRS obtained from the 1.5 GHz VLA deep image in the late July observations ar… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The spectral luminosity for the FRS and several different types of radio transients as a function of their width (W) and frequency (ν). The data for GRBs, AGN/Blazars, XRBs, TDEs, and SNe are from previous samples (Pietka et al. 2015; Caleb et al. 2024). W corresponds to the e-folding time scale in seconds, and ν corresponds to the frequency in GHz for the flare peak. The two red squares, which overlap, represent th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the radio properties between the FRS and tho radio supernovae. The FRS and the SNe (Soderberg et al. 2012) are marked as a filled circle (in red) and squares, respectively. The spectral radio luminosity at the flare peak Lν of the FRS is taken as the meas…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Constraints on the magnetic field strength B and the source radius R for the FRS. The allowed regime by the SSA constraints is shaded in orange. The regime defined by an equipartition (green line) with the deviations by a factor of 10 and 100 (thin green lines) are als…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: MeerKAT sky image of FRB 20240114A and the FRS seen at 1.28 GHz. Image of the field of FRB 20240114A and the FRS at 1.28 GHz observed with MeerKAT in 2024 February. The position of the brightest burst detected by MeerKAT (Tian et al. 2024b) is shown with the red circle…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: VLA deep sky image of FRB 20240114A and the FRS seen at 1.5 GHz. The deep image of the field of FRB 20240114A and the FRS at 1.5 GHz obtained with the VLA in 2024 July. The position of the brightest burst detected by MeerKAT (Tian et al. 2024b) is shown with the red ci…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Flux densities of the cross-matched point sources between observations. A. Flux densities of the cross-matched 17 point-like sources and the FRS measured with the VLA observations taken in late July versus those measured in the MeerKAT observations taken in February, r…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The 1.5 GHz light curve measured with MeerKAT and VLA observations. Logarithmic model fit to the rise (four measurements) and the possible decay (four measurements) is over-plotted. A logarithmic rise would indicate a rise started much later than that of a linear rise …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The broadband radio spectra and the corresponding spectral model fits. The spectral measurements are obtained from the MeerKAT observation in February (yellow) and the VLA observations in July (red) and October (blue) as well as the measurement made with the uGMRT obs…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The relation between the radio luminosity and the rest-frame e-folding time scale for several different types of radio transients. The data for SNe, GRBs, XRBs, TDE, AGN/Blazars are from previous samples (Pietka et al. 2015; Caleb et al. 2024). The two overlapping red…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The ZTF light curve of SDSS J212739.84+041945.8. The host dwarf galaxy had an opti￾cal/infrared flare during the period between 2021 and 2023. Since the second half of 2023, the dwarf galaxy returned to the normal, quiescent magnitude (green dotted line), about half a…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The spectral luminosity and the rotation measure for the FRS and the PRSs. Spectral luminosity measurements with observations in 2024 February, July, and October for the FRS are shown as three overlapping red squares. The measurements of the PRSs are shown as open bla…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: A likely age indicator of the FRBs with a radio continuum counterpart. The spectral luminosity ratio between that corresponding to the nebular model of pn = 100 (red line in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Long-term simultaneous 2.25/8.60~GHz monitoring of the newly-discovered repeating FRB~20240114A

    astro-ph.HE 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A year of simultaneous 2.25 and 8.60 GHz monitoring of FRB 20240114A caught 155 bursts at the low frequency, none at the high frequency, revealing strong frequency-dependent activity.

  2. The magnetar model's energy crisis for a prolific repeating fast radio burst source

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    FRB 20240114A's estimated energy output over 214 days exceeds 86% of a typical magnetar's dipole magnetic energy, the strongest such constraint yet, if typical beaming and efficiency are assumed.

  3. The Host Galaxy of the Hyperactive Repeating FRB 20240114A: Behind a Galaxy Cluster

    astro-ph.GA 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The host of FRB 20240114A is a star-forming dwarf galaxy at z=0.1306, its ionized gas plus a foreground cluster can account for most of the excess dispersion measure, and repeater hosts differ from one-off hosts in th...

  4. Propagation-induced Frequency-dependent Polarization Properties of Fast Radio Burst

    astro-ph.HE 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new analytical model shows that fast radio burst polarization spectra can precess on the Poincaré sphere when Faraday rotation and conversion are comparable, offering a physical alternative to the empirical generali...

  5. The Research Impact of the Jodrell Bank Observatory and Other Facilities affected by the UK Science Funding Cuts in 2025

    astro-ph.IM 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Mentions of e-MERLIN, JCMT, BiSON, ELT, SKA, and Rubin in 2025 arXiv astrophysics papers are counted and presented as a measure of research impact.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd770

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd770 2023

  2. [2]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 2219, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1298

    Andersson, A., Lintott, C., Fender, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2219, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1298

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1298 2023

  3. [3]

    2023, Science, 380, 599, doi: 10.1126/science.abo6526

    Anna-Thomas, R., Connor, L., Dai, S., et al. 2023, Science, 380, 599, doi: 10.1126/science.abo6526

    doi:10.1126/science.abo6526 2023

  4. [4]

    C., Blandford, R

    Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1984, Reviews of Modern Physics, 56, 255, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.56.255

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.56.255 1984

  5. [5]

    2023, ApJL, 958, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad083f

    Bhandari, S., Marcote, B., Sridhar, N., et al. 2023, ApJL, 958, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad083f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad083f 2023

  6. [6]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16613, 1

    Bhardwaj, M., Kirichenko, A., & Gil de Paz, A. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16613, 1

    2024

  7. [7]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.19358, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.19358

    Bhattacharya, M., Murase, K., & Kashiyama, K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.19358, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.19358

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.19358 2024

  8. [8]

    2024a, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16820, 1 —

    Bhusare, Y., Maan, Y., & Kumar, A. 2024a, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16820, 1 —. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.13121, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.13121

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.13121

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    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

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    2024a, Nature, 632, 1014, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07782-6

    Bruni, G., Piro, L., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2024a, Nature, 632, 1014, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07782-6

    doi

  3. [11]

    P., et al

    Bruni, G., Piro, L., Yang, Y. P., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.01478, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.01478

    doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    L., et al

    Caleb, M., Lenc, E., Kaplan, D. L., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1159, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02277-w CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Wharton, R

    Chatterjee, S., Law, C. J., Wharton, R. S., et al. 2017, Nature, 541, 58, doi: 10.1038/nature20797

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1998, ApJ, 499, 810, doi: 10.1086/305676 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C.,

    1998 doi

  7. [15]

    M., et al

    Bandura, K. M., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    J., & Ransom, S

    Condon, J. J., & Ransom, S. M. 2016, Essential Radio Astronomy (Princeton University Press)

    2016

  9. [17]

    M., & Lazio, T

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0207156 —. 2003, arXiv e-prints, astro. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301598

    2002 arXiv

  10. [18]

    P., Tendulkar, S

    Curtin, A. P., Tendulkar, S. P., Josephy, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace52f

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    2019, ApJL, 876, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab18a5

    Eftekhari, T., Berger, E., Margalit, B., et al. 2019, ApJL, 876, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab18a5

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    2022, Science, 375, 1266, doi: 10.1126/science.abl7759

    Feng, Y., Li, D., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2022, Science, 375, 1266, doi: 10.1126/science.abl7759

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    2012, Science, 337, 927, doi: 10.1126/science.1203601

    Gal-Yam, A. 2012, Science, 337, 927, doi: 10.1126/science.1203601

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Huang, J., Hessels, J

    Hewitt, D. M., Huang, J., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16597, 1

    2024

  15. [23]

    2020, oxkat: Semi-automated imaging of MeerKAT observations, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2009.003

    Heywood, I. 2020, oxkat: Semi-automated imaging of MeerKAT observations, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2009.003

    2020

  16. [24]

    Smirnov, O. M. 2022, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 532, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXX, ed. J. E. Ruiz, F. Pierfedereci, & P. Teuben, 541, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2206.09179

    2022 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    L., Drout, M

    Ibik, A. L., Drout, M. R., Gaensler, B. M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad808e

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    2017, ApJL, 839, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa68e1

    Kashiyama, K., & Murase, K. 2017, ApJL, 839, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa68e1

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    Perkins, S. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2399, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1221

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    2024a, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16452, 1 —

    Kumar, A., Maan, Y., & Bhusare, Y. 2024a, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16452, 1 —. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.12804, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.12804

    doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    K., Lin, L., Xiong, S

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

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16620, 1

    Limaye, P., & Spitler, L. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16620, 1

    2024

  23. [31]

    J., & Crawford, F

    Narkevic, D. J., & Crawford, F. 2007, Science, 318, 777, doi: 10.1126/science.1147532

    2007 doi

  24. [32]

    Marcote, B., Paragi, Z., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2017, ApJL, 834, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L8 36

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2018, ApJL, 868, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaedad

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K

    McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    2007

  27. [35]

    2020, ApJL, 898, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba2cf

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

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

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

    Metzger, B. D., Berger, E., & Margalit, B. 2017, ApJ, 841, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa633d

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    Michilli, D., Seymour, A., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 182, doi: 10.1038/nature25149

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 1498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1328

    Murase, K., Kashiyama, K., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1328

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    1992, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 341, 151, doi: 10.1098/rsta.1992.0090

    Narayan, R. 1992, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 341, 151, doi: 10.1098/rsta.1992.0090

    1992

  32. [40]

    Y., & Romani, R

    Ng, C. Y., & Romani, R. W. 2004, ApJ, 601, 479, doi: 10.1086/380486

    2004 doi

  33. [41]

    H., Aggarwal, K., Li, D., et al

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

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    R., McKinley, B., Hurley-Walker, N., et al

    Offringa, A. R., McKinley, B., Hurley-Walker, N., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 606, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1368

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16432, 1

    Kirsten, F., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16432, 1

    2024

  36. [44]

    Pacholczyk, A. G. 1970, Radio astrophysics. Nonthermal processes in galactic and extragalactic sources (W.H.Freeman & Co Ltd)

    1970

  37. [45]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.09749, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.09749

    Panda, U., Roy, J., Bhattacharyya, S., Dudeja, C., & Kudale, S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.09749, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.09749

    2024 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

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

    Pearlman, A. B., Scholz, P., Bethapudi, S., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02386-6

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    P., & Keane, E

    Pietka, M., Fender, R. P., & Keane, E. F. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2335

    2015 doi

  40. [48]

    S., & Keppens, R

    Porth, O., Komissarov, S. S., & Keppens, R. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 278, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2176

    2014 doi

  41. [49]

    Resmi, L., Vink, J., & Ishwara-Chandra, C. H. 2021, A&A, 655, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039771

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    2018, ztfquery, a python tool to access ZTF data, doi, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1345222

    Rigault, M. 2018, ztfquery, a python tool to access ZTF data, doi, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1345222

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    K., Tremou, E., Stewart, A

    Sarbadhicary, S. K., Tremou, E., Stewart, A. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2239

    2021 doi

  44. [52]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16420, 1

    Shin, K., & CHIME/FRB Collaboration. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16420, 1

    2024

  45. [53]

    P., Bhandari, S., Kirsten, F., et al

    Snelders, M. P., Bhandari, S., Kirsten, F., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16542, 1

    2024

  46. [54]

    M., Margutti, R., Zauderer, B

    Soderberg, A. M., Margutti, R., Zauderer, B. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/78

    2012 doi

  47. [55]

    Sridhar, N., & Metzger, B. D. 2022, ApJ, 937, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8a4a

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    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

    2013 doi

  49. [57]

    M., Pastor-Marazuela, I., et al

    Tian, J., Rajwade, K. M., Pastor-Marazuela, I., et al. 2024b, MNRAS, 533, 3174, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2013

    doi

  50. [58]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16645, 1

    Verrecchia, F., Perri, M., Tavani, M., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16645, 1

    2024

  51. [59]

    Walker, M. A. 1998, MNRAS, 294, 307, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01238.x

    1998

  52. [60]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.06996

    Xing, Y., Yu, W., Yan, Z., Zhang, X., & Zhang, B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.06996. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.06996

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Y., Feng, Y., Tsai, C.-W., et al

    Yang, A. Y., Feng, Y., Tsai, C.-W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7d02

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    2020, ApJ, 895, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab88ab

    Yang, Y.-P., Li, Q.-C., & Zhang, B. 2020, ApJ, 895, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab88ab

    2020 doi

  55. [63]

    2022, ApJL, 928, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5f46

    Yang, Y.-P., Lu, W., Feng, Y., Zhang, B., & Li, D. 2022, ApJL, 928, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5f46

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 2039, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad168

    Yang, Y.-P., Xu, S., & Zhang, B. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2039, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad168

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    2016, ApJL, 819, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/1/L12

    Yang, Y.-P., Zhang, B., & Dai, Z.-G. 2016, ApJL, 819, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/1/L12

    2016 doi

  58. [66]

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

    Zhang, B. 2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005 —. 2024, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 74, 89, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102020-124444

    2023 doi

  59. [67]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16505, 1 37

    Zhang, J., Wu, Q., Cao, S., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16505, 1 37

    2024

  60. [68]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16695, 1

    Zhang, X., & Yu, W. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16695, 1

    2024

  61. [69]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0545

    Zhang, X., Yu, W., Law, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0545

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    Y., & Wang, F

    Zhao, Z. Y., & Wang, F. Y. 2021, ApJL, 923, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3f2f

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.