Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

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

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In about 180 hours of simultaneous monitoring, FRB 20240114A produced 155 bursts at 2.25 GHz and none at 8.60 GHz, making it at least two orders of magnitude less active in the higher band.

desk verdict A genuinely new dual-band monitoring campaign with a robust 8.6 GHz null, but the headline suppression factor depends on an unvalidated sensitivity threshold and the energy-index error bar is too small. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.15615 v1 pith:U2TVXT2A submitted 2025-08-21 astro-ph.HE

Xiao-Wei Wang , Zhen Yan , Zhi-Qiang Shen , Ke-Jia Lee , Ya-Jun Wu , Rong-Bing Zhao , Jie Liu , Rui Wang
show 7 more authors
Kuo Liu Yuan-Chuan Zou Zhi-Peng Hang Chu-Yuan Zhang Fan Yang Zhen-Long Liao Yang-Yang Lin
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsrepeatingFRBsFRB20240114Afrequency-dependentactivitymulti-frequencymonitoringburststatisticstransients
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 reports a year-long, truly simultaneous radio campaign on the repeating fast radio burst FRB 20240114A, observing it at both 2.25 GHz and 8.60 GHz in the same sessions. The central result is an asymmetry: 155 bursts were detected at 2.25 GHz above 0.72 Jy ms, while no burst was detected at 8.60 GHz above 0.27 Jy ms in more than 178 hours. The authors conclude that the source is at least two orders of magnitude less active at 8.60 GHz than at 2.25 GHz, and they translate the null into upper limits on the burst spectral index between -1.1 and -5.2. The campaign also shows that the repeater's activity is frequency-dependent and time-dependent: a high-activity state in July 2024, a low-activity state afterward, and a short reactivation around 2025 January 20. If the high-frequency silence is intrinsic, it gives a quantitative anchor for where this repeater's emission turns off with frequency.

What carries the argument

The central object is the paired burst count: 155 detections at 2.25 GHz and none at 8.60 GHz from the same epochs. Because the two bands were recorded simultaneously, the null at 8.60 GHz cannot be blamed on the source being inactive while the higher band was observing. The search's defined sensitivity—a 7-sigma threshold, fluence floors of 0.72 and 0.27 Jy ms for 1 ms bursts, DM trials from 450 to 650 pc cm^-3, and pulse widths from 0.2 to 50 ms—is what converts 'no bursts' into a rate upper limit and a spectral-index constraint. The same machinery lets the authors compare waiting times, widths, and energies of a uniform 2.25 GHz sample against lower-frequency samples from other telescopes

What would settle it

Detect a single 8.60 GHz burst from FRB 20240114A above 0.27 Jy ms during a period of known 2.25 GHz activity—for example by recovering one from the recorded data with a wider DM or width search, or by a more sensitive simultaneous high-frequency observation—and the two-orders-of-magnitude suppression claim falls.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a paired burst count from a single simultaneous campaign: 155 bursts at 2.25 GHz and zero at 8.60 GHz, accumulated over 182.27 and 178.27 hours respectively. From this asymmetry the authors find that FRB 20240114A is at least two orders of magnitude less active at 8.60 GHz than at 2.25 GHz, and they place a 1-sigma upper limit of about 0.01 per hour on the high-frequency burst rate above 0.27 Jy ms. The same data show frequency-dependent and time-dependent activity, with a high-activity state in July 2024 (mean rate 1.72 per hour at 2.25 GHz), a later low-activity state, and a short reactivation around 2025 January 20. Bursts at 2.25 GHz are narrowe

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 8.60 GHz non-detection is real: the telescope, calibration, and search would have caught any burst as bright as 0.27 Jy ms, so the silence reflects the source's behavior rather than an instrumental limitation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The repeater's activity at one frequency cannot be used to infer its activity at another; a telescope observing only at 8.60 GHz would have classified this hyperactive source as inactive.
  • The 8.60 GHz null, if intrinsic, constrains the burst spectra to decline steeply between 2.25 and 8.60 GHz (spectral index between -1.1 and -5.2), pointing to emission that cuts off or is absorbed above a few GHz.
  • The 2.25 GHz burst sample, with a median width of 3 ms, shows that bursts narrow with increasing frequency compared with sub-2 GHz detections of the same source.
  • Burst arrivals on hourly timescales are consistent with a Poisson process in most observations, so the burst engine's triggering is stochastic on those timescales rather than strongly clustered.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the suppression is truly intrinsic, the same simultaneous dual-band design on other active repeaters would show whether a few-GHz cutoff is common or specific to this source; the paper's rate-ratio method transfers directly.
  • The observed time evolution of frequency-dependent activity means that comparing burst rates from different telescopes at different frequencies and different epochs can create false activity states; simultaneous coverage is needed to separate source physics from sampling.
  • A deeper 8.60 GHz campaign during a confirmed 2.25 GHz high-activity state could distinguish a hard spectral cutoff from a strongly decreasing burst rate; even a single detection would shrink the 'at least two orders of magnitude' bound.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a 66-epoch simultaneous 2.25/8.60 GHz monitoring campaign of repeating FRB 20240114A with the Shanghai Tianma Radio Telescope, totaling 182.27 h at 2.25 GHz and 178.27 h at 8.60 GHz. The authors detect 155 bursts at 2.25 GHz above 0.72 Jy ms and no bursts at 8.60 GHz above 0.27 Jy ms. They analyze burst widths, waiting times, energy distribution, activity states, and derive upper limits on the 8.60 GHz burst rate and on broadband spectral indices, concluding that the source is at least two orders of magnitude less active at 8.60 GHz than at 2.25 GHz.

Significance. If the 8.60 GHz null is robust, this campaign provides a rare simultaneous dual-frequency constraint on frequency-dependent burst activity in a repeater, together with a large uniform 2.25 GHz burst sample. The search pipeline is careful: a blind 7-sigma search, visual candidate inspection, zero-DM RFI discrimination, and an explicit sub-burst separation criterion. The authors are transparent about the observation gap, pointing offsets, recording failures, and calibration uncertainties, and they archive the burst data. The main conclusions are observationally grounded, but the headline suppression factor and the spectral-index constraints depend on the unvalidated sensitivity of the 8.60 GHz search and on the statistical treatment of the null result.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 5] The statement that FRB 20240114A is 'at least two orders of magnitude less active at 8.60 GHz than at 2.25 GHz' is not supported by the numbers quoted in the paper. With 155 bursts in 182.27 h, the average 2.25 GHz rate is 0.85 h^-1. The 1-sigma upper limit at 8.60 GHz in Sec. 4.1 is ~0.01 h^-1, giving a ratio of ~85, which is below 100. Using a more conventional 95% Poisson upper limit (3.09 events / 178.27 h = 0.017 h^-1), the ratio is ~49. The claim becomes only marginally stronger if the July high-activity rate (1.72 h^-1) is used: ~170 at 1-sigma and ~99 at 95%. The comparison also mixes fluence thresholds (0.72 vs 0.27 Jy ms). Please state a confidence level and rate definition explicitly, or soften 'two orders' to a value quantitatively supported by the quoted limits.
  2. [Sec. 2] The 8.60 GHz null, which is the basis of the central conclusion, rests on the quoted fluence threshold of 0.27 Jy ms, but no injection-recovery test is reported. The threshold is derived analytically from the SEFD and the 7-sigma criterion. Real searches can lose sensitivity through RFI excision, DM-step and width mismatches, non-stationary noise, and the disclosed ~50% sensitivity loss in the first five epochs (which is not propagated into the rate limit). Without end-to-end injections, the effective 50% recovery fluence is unconstrained; if it is 0.5-1 Jy ms rather than 0.27 Jy ms, the 8.60 GHz upper-limit rate changes correspondingly and the suppression factor may no longer be 'two orders.' Please add injection-recovery tests on representative 8.60 GHz data or present the upper-limit rate as a function of fluence threshold, and propagate the 20% SEFD calibration uncertainty into the q
  3. [Sec. 4.1] The broadband spectral-index constraints quoted in conclusion (v) assume a single power-law spectrum between 2.25 and 8.60 GHz with no frequency-dependent scintillation or spectral modulation. This assumption is not justified a priori for a repeating FRB with known spectral complexity. The derived range (-1.1 to -5.2) should be presented explicitly as conditional on this assumption, or reframed as limits on a band-average spectral index using the measured 2.25 GHz fluences. Without this caveat, the constraints are likely overinterpreted.
  4. [Sec. 3, energy distribution] The power-law index gamma = -1.20 +/- 0.03 +/- 0.02 for the cumulative energy distribution is quoted without stating the number of bursts above the completeness threshold of 7.5 x 10^37 erg. If only a small fraction of the 155 bursts lie above this threshold (as the text appears to indicate), the quoted statistical uncertainty is implausibly small; for N ~ 15, a maximum-likelihood index error would be of order 0.2-0.3. Please report the number of bursts used, the fitting method (cumulative vs differential, maximum likelihood vs least squares), and recompute or justify the error bars.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3] Typo: 'limited during of each observation' should read 'limited duration of each observation.'
  2. [Table 2] Please add a column indicating which epochs lacked 8.60 GHz coverage (O41 and O43 are mentioned in the text but not easily identifiable in the table).
  3. [Sec. 4.1] Please specify the statistical prescription used for the '1-sigma upper limit' (e.g., Gehrels 1986 or a specific prior). A 1-sigma upper limit is not a robust basis for a 'two orders of magnitude' claim.
  4. [Sec. 2] The Gaussian-beam sensitivity loss for O1-O5 is computed for a pointing offset of ~1.2 arcmin. Please state whether the per-epoch search thresholds or the total effective exposure account for this loss, or whether the rate limits are simply averaged over all epochs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the burst detections, non-detection, and derived limits are standard empirical measurements.

full rationale

The paper is an observational monitoring campaign. The 155 bursts at 2.25 GHz and the null at 8.60 GHz are direct search products; the fluence thresholds (0.72 and 0.27 Jy ms) are computed from the telescope SEFD and a 7σ criterion, not fitted from the FRB data. The upper limit on the 8.60 GHz rate (0.01 hr^-1) is a standard Poisson limit from 178.27 hrs of exposure, and the 'two orders of magnitude' activity contrast is a direct ratio of measured rate to that upper limit. The spectral-index upper limits are derived from these same thresholds and the measured 2.25 GHz fluences under an explicitly stated power-law assumption; they are labeled as upper limits/constraints, not predictions. The waiting-time peak, Weibull shape, and energy power-law index are all presented as fits to the data. Self-citations to Yan et al. (2015, 2018, 2024) and Zhao et al. (2019) supply only the TMRT backend, SEFD, and calibration uncertainty, which are instrument characterizations tied to external calibrator measurements (e.g., 3C123), not to the target FRB; they are real, independent support and do not make the argument circular. The absence of an injection-recovery test for the 8.60 GHz search is a legitimate sensitivity-validation caveat, but it concerns whether the quoted fluence threshold is accurate, not whether any claim reduces to its own inputs; it does not constitute circularity under the stated criteria. No equation in the paper defines a derived quantity in terms of the quantity it is used to explain, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This paper introduces no new physical entities and no hidden free parameters. The fitted quantities (energy index, waiting time peak, Weibull parameters) are transparent descriptive statistics, honestly labeled as fits. Inputs imported from prior literature are the dispersion measure (Shin et al. 2025), the host redshift (Bhardwaj et al. 2024), and the TMRT calibration (Yan et al. 2018; Zhao et al. 2019). The 7.5x10^37 erg completeness threshold is a modeling choice that bounds the energy fit and affects the fitted index if mis-set.

free parameters (4)
  • Cumulative energy power-law index gamma = -1.20 +/- 0.03 +/- 0.02
    Fitted to bursts above the 7.5x10^37 erg completeness threshold; the quoted statistical error appears underestimated.
  • Log-normal waiting time peak location = 1019 +/- 66 s
    Fitted to waiting times greater than 0.1 s across all observations; peak of the right component.
  • Weibull shape and rate parameters per observation = kappa ~ 1 for most epochs; 0.54 for O22
    MCMC fits to test burst clustering; O22 value shifts to 0.95 if the under-0.1 s pair is excluded.
  • Completeness threshold for energy fit = 7.5 x 10^37 erg
    Modeling choice for the lower bound of the power-law fit; mis-setting it would bias the fitted index.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Dispersion measure DM = 527.7 pc cm^-3 from Shin et al. (2025) is correct and stable across the campaign
    All bursts were dedispersed at this DM; bursts outside the searched range 450 to 650 pc cm^-3 would be missed. Entered in Sec. 2 and Sec. 3.
  • domain assumption The source is at redshift z = 0.1300 (Bhardwaj et al. 2024), so observed fluences convert to isotropic energies via the standard luminosity distance
    The energy scale 10^37 to 10^39 erg and the 7.5x10^37 erg completeness threshold scale with D_L^2; the fitted power-law index is distance-independent. Entered in Sec. 3.
  • domain assumption TMRT SEFD (46 Jy at 2.25 GHz, 48 Jy at 8.60 GHz) and beam widths from Yan et al. (2018) and Zhao et al. (2019) are accurate to about 20%
    Fluence thresholds, burst rates, and the 8.60 GHz upper limit scale directly with these calibration values. Entered in Sec. 2.
  • domain assumption Burst spectra between 2.25 and 8.60 GHz are single power laws, and frequency-dependent scintillation does not dominate the null
    The spectral index upper limits in Sec. 4.1 assume any burst bright at 2.25 GHz would remain above the 8.60 GHz fluence threshold unless its intrinsic spectrum is steep.
  • standard math Burst arrival statistics can be modeled with Weibull/Poisson processes (Oppermann et al. 2018)
    Used to test for hour-timescale clustering in eight observations with more than five bursts. Entered in Sec. 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Long-term simultaneous 2.25/8.60~GHz monitoring of the newly-discovered repeating FRB~20240114A." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U2TVXT2A

@misc{pith2026250815615,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Long-term simultaneous 2.25/8.60~GHz monitoring of the newly-discovered repeating FRB~20240114A},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U2TVXT2A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.15615}
}
abstract

We report on the simultaneous monitoring of the repeating fast radio burst (FRB) 20240114A at 2.25 and 8.60~GHz, conducted 66 times between 2024 January 29 and 2025 February 15 with the Shanghai Tianma Radio Telescope (TMRT). In about 180 hours of observation, we detected 155 bursts at 2.25~GHz above a fluence threshold of 0.72~Jy~ms, but none at 8.60~GHz above a fluence threshold of 0.27~Jy~ms. FRB~20240114A exhibited frequency-dependent activity, as evidenced by the non-detections in 14.3 hours of observations at 2.25~GHz prior to 2024 February 24, despite its reported activity below 2~GHz. In contrast to its low-activity state reported below 1.4~GHz between 2024 June and December, FRB~20240114A exhibited high activity at 2.25~GHz in 2024 July with a mean burst rate of $1.72^{+0.18}_{-0.16}~\rm{hr}^{-1}$, followed by a low-activity state. We also detected a short-term reactivation at 2.25~GHz around 2025 January 20, about two weeks after renewed activity was reported below 1.4~GHz by other telescopes. The median burst width at 2.25~GHz is 3~ms, which is narrower than that at lower frequencies. The waiting time distribution peaks at 1019~s, and burst arrivals on hourly timescales consistent with a Poisson process. The isotropic-equivalent energy of bursts spans $10^{37} -10^{39}$~erg. The distribution of burst energy above the completeness threshold ($7.5\times10^{37}$~erg) follows a power-law relation with an index of $\gamma=-1.20\pm0.03\pm0.02$. Finally, we find that FRB~20240114A is at least two orders of magnitude less active at 8.60~GHz than at 2.25~GHz, and we constrain the broadband spectra of the detected bursts.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. High Frequency Wideband Study of FRB 20240114A with the Allen Telescope Array

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Wideband observations of FRB 20240114A detect 97 bursts from 900 MHz to 5 GHz but none higher, showing strongly chromatic and band-limited emission with frequency-dependent rate and sub-burst properties.

  2. Signatures of Two Distinct Epochs of FRB 20240114A from January to August 2024 Based on its Energy and Waiting Time Analysis

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    FRB 20240114A shows two epochs with distinct energy distribution indices and waiting time statistics, suggesting different burst types before and after March 21 2024.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Aggarwal, K.,Agarwal, D., Lewis, E.F., et al.2021, ApJ, 922,115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2577

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2577 2021

  2. [2]

    W., et al

    Aggarwal, K., Agarwal, D., Kania, J. W., et al. 2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2750, doi: 10.21105/joss.02750

    doi:10.21105/joss.02750 2020

  3. [3]

    2023, Science, 380, 599, doi: 10.1126/science.abo6526 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Anna-Thomas, R., Connor, L., Dai, S., et al. 2023, Science, 380, 599, doi: 10.1126/science.abo6526 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1126/science.abo6526 2023

  4. [4]

    G., Main, R

    Bethapudi, S., Spitler, L. G., Main, R. A., Li, D. Z., & Wharton, R. S. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3303, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2009

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2009 2023

  5. [5]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16613, 1

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

    2024

  6. [6]

    P., Hessels, J

    Bhardwaj, M., Snelders, M. P., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.11915, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.11915

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.11915 2025

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    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:10.1038/s41586-024-07782-6

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    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 FRB 20240114A17

    doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    M., Peñalver, J., et al

    Camilo, F., Ransom, S. M., Peñalver, J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 669, 561, doi: 10.1086/521548 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, Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2020, Nat...

    2007 doi

  3. [11]

    M., & Chatterjee, S

    Cordes, J. M., & Chatterjee, S. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 417, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104501

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    M., & Wasserman, I

    Cordes, J. M., & Wasserman, I. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 232, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2948

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Wasserman, I., Hessels, J

    Cordes, J. M., Wasserman, I., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa74da

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    F., Jauncey, D

    Crawford, D. F., Jauncey, D. L., & Murdoch, H. S. 1970, ApJ, 162, 405, doi: 10.1086/150672

    1970 doi

  7. [15]

    G., Scholz, P., et al

    Cruces, M., Spitler, L. G., Scholz, P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 448, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3223

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    P., Sand, K

    Curtin, A. P., Sand, K. R., Pleunis, Z., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.02870, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02870

    2024 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    G., Wang, J

    Dai, Z. G., Wang, J. S., Wu, X. F., & Huang, Y. F. 2016, ApJ, 829, 27, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/27

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, Astronomical Techniques and Instruments, 1, 247, doi: 10.61977/ati2024038

    Du, B., Zheng, Y., Liu, G., et al. 2024, Astronomical Techniques and Instruments, 1, 247, doi: 10.61977/ati2024038

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    2025, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453563

    Eppel, F., Krumpe, M., Limaye, P., et al. 2025, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453563

    2025 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]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    Gajjar, V., Siemion, A. P. V., Price, D. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad005

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    1986, ApJ, 303, 336, doi: 10.1086/164079

    Gehrels, N. 1986, ApJ, 303, 336, doi: 10.1086/164079

    1986 doi

  16. [24]

    J., & Huang, Y

    Geng, J. J., & Huang, Y. F. 2015, ApJ, 809, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/24

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    G., et al

    Gourdji, K., Michilli, D., Spitler, L. G., et al. 2019, ApJL, 877, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1f8a

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Gourdji, K., Rowlinson, A., Wijers, R. A. M. J., & Goldstein, A. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 3131, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2128

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    M., Snelders, M

    Hewitt, D. M., Snelders, M. P., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 3577, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1960

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Bhardwaj, M., Gordon, A

    Hewitt, D. M., Bhardwaj, M., Gordon, A. C., et al. 2024b, ApJL, 977, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8ce1

    doi

  21. [29]

    H., Michilli, D., Spitler, L

    Hilmarsson, G. H., Michilli, D., Spitler, L. G., et al. 2021, ApJL, 908, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdec0

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    W., van Straten, W., & Manchester, R

    Hotan, A. W., van Straten, W., & Manchester, R. N. 2004, PASA, 21, 302, doi: 10.1071/AS04022

    2004 doi

  23. [31]

    Houben, L. J. M., Spitler, L. G., ter Veen, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833875

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.03569, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03569

    Huang, Y.-X., Zhang, J.-S., Xu, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.03569, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03569

    2025 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    2023, PASJ, 75, 199, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psac101

    Ikebe, S., Takefuji, K., Terasawa, T., et al. 2023, PASJ, 75, 199, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psac101

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

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

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

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    N., Spitler, L

    Jahns, J. N., Spitler, L. G., Nimmo, K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 666, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3446

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Shannon, R. M. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1342, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3031

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    F., et al

    Jankowski, F., van Straten, W., Keane, E. F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4436, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2476

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    C., Caleb, M., et al

    Jankowski, F., Bezuidenhout, M. C., Caleb, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 4275, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2041

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    C., Xu, J

    Jiang, J. C., Xu, J. W., Niu, J. R., et al. 2024, National Science Review, 12, nwae293, doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwae293

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    T., et al

    Joshi, P., Medina, A., Earwicker, J. T., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16599, 1

    2024

  33. [41]

    2022, Nature, 602, 585, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    Kirsten, F., Marcote, B., Nimmo, K., et al. 2022, Nature, 602, 585, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    S., Herrmann, W., et al

    Kirsten, F., Ould-Boukattine, O. S., Herrmann, W., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 337, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02153-z

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    C., Hewitt, D

    Konijn, D. C., Hewitt, D. M., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2024, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2296

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    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

  37. [45]

    C., et al

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

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    J., Abruzzo, M

    Law, C. J., Abruzzo, M. W., Bassa, C. G., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9700

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    Li, D., & Zanazzi, J. J. 2021, ApJL, 909, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abeaa4

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    W., et al

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

    doi

  41. [49]

    Y., et al

    Li, Q.-C., Yang, Y.-P., Wang, F. Y., et al. 2021b, ApJL, 918, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1922

    doi

  42. [50]

    B., Yang, Y

    Li, Y., Zhang, S. B., Yang, Y. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.04727, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.04727

    2025 doi

  43. [51]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16620, 1

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

    2024

  44. [52]

    2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 075008, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad52c5

    Liu, Y.-L., Chen, M.-Z., Li, J., et al. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 075008, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad52c5

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    2007, Science, 318, 777, doi: 10.1126/science.1147532 18W ang et al

    Crawford, F. 2007, Science, 318, 777, doi: 10.1126/science.1147532 18W ang et al

    2007 doi

  46. [54]

    R., & Kramer, M

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

    2004

  47. [55]

    J., Men, Y

    Luo, R., Wang, B. J., Men, Y. P., et al. 2020, Nature, 586, 693, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2827-2

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    A., Pearlman, A

    Majid, W. A., Pearlman, A. B., Nimmo, K., et al. 2020, ApJL, 897, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9a4a

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    A., Pearlman, A

    Majid, W. A., Pearlman, A. B., Prince, T. A., et al. 2021, ApJL, 919, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1921

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

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

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    D., & Sironi, L

    Margalit, B., Metzger, B. D., & Sironi, L. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4627, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1036

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    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

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

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

    2018 doi

  54. [62]

    Nimmo, K., Hessels, J. W. T., Snelders, M. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2281, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad269

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

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

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

    doi

  56. [64]

    2022b, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124004, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac995d

    Niu, J.-R., Zhu, W.-W., Zhang, B., et al. 2022b, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124004, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac995d

    doi

  57. [65]

    R., Wang, W

    Niu, J. R., Wang, W. Y., Jiang, J. C., et al. 2024, ApJL, 972, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7023

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 5109, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty004

    Oppermann, N., Yu, H.-R., & Pen, U.-L. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 5109, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty004

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    S., Blaauw, R., Gawronski, M

    Ould-Boukattine, O. S., Blaauw, R., Gawronski, M. P., et al. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16967, 1

    2025

  60. [68]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16494, 1

    Panda, U., Bhattacharyya, S., Dudeja, C., Kudale, S., & Roy, J. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16494, 1

    2024

  61. [69]

    2025, ApJ, 989, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adeb74

    Panda, U., Roy, J., Bhattacharyya, S., Dudeja, C., & Kudale, S. 2025, ApJ, 989, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adeb74

    2025 doi

  62. [70]

    2021, Nature, 596, 505, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03724-8

    Pastor-Marazuela, I., Connor, L., van Leeuwen, J., et al. 2021, Nature, 596, 505, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03724-8

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    B., Majid, W

    Pearlman, A. B., Majid, W. A., Prince, T. A., et al. 2020, ApJL, 905, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abca31

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    2024c, A&A, 690, A219, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450271

    Pelliciari, D., Bernardi, G., Pilia, M., et al. 2024c, A&A, 690, A219, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450271

    doi

  65. [73]

    2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15734, 1

    Perera, B., Perillat, P., Fernandez, F., et al. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15734, 1

    2022

  66. [74]

    Petroff, E., Hessels, J. W. T., & Lorimer, D. R. 2019, A&A Rv, 27, 4, doi: 10.1007/s00159-019-0116-6 —. 2022, A&A Rv, 30, 2, doi: 10.1007/s00159-022-00139-w Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2019 doi

  67. [75]

    G., et al

    Pleunis, Z., Michilli, D., Bassa, C. G., et al. 2021a, ApJL, 911, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abec72

    doi

  68. [76]

    C., Kaspi, V

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

    doi

  69. [77]

    2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15791, 1

    Rajwade, K., Wharton, R., Majid, W., et al. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15791, 1

    2022

  70. [78]

    G., Hessels, J

    Scholz, P., Spitler, L. G., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/177

    2016 doi

  71. [79]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16420, 1

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

    2024

  72. [80]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.13297, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.13297

    Shin, K., Curtin, A., Fine, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.13297, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.13297

    2025 doi arXiv

  73. [81]

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

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

    2024

  74. [82]

    G., Scholz, P., Hessels, J

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

    2016 doi

  75. [83]

    G., Herrmann, W., Bower, G

    Spitler, L. G., Herrmann, W., Bower, G. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad332

    2018 doi

  76. [84]

    D., Beniamini, P., et al

    Sridhar, N., Metzger, B. D., Beniamini, P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0140

    2021 doi

  77. [85]

    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

  78. [86]

    M., et al

    Tian, J., Pastor-Marazuela, I., Rajwade, K. M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 1685, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf793

    2025 doi

  79. [87]

    P., Karuppusamy, R., et al

    Torne, P., Eatough, R. P., Karuppusamy, R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, L50, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv063

    2015 doi

  80. [88]

    P., et al

    Torne, P., Desvignes, G., Eatough, R. P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 242, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2757

    2017 doi

  81. [89]

    A., Kumar, P., Lower, M

    Uttarkar, P. A., Kumar, P., Lower, M. E., & Shannon, R. M. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16430, 1

    2024

  82. [90]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10172, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.10172

    Xie, J.-T., Feng, Y., Li, D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10172, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.10172

    2024 doi arXiv

  83. [91]

    R., Chen, P., et al

    Xu, H., Niu, J. R., Chen, P., et al. 2022, Nature, 609, 685, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05071-8

    2022 doi

  84. [92]

    2015, ApJ, 814, 5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/5

    Yan, Z., Shen, Z.-Q., Wu, X.-J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/5

    2015 doi

  85. [93]

    N., et al

    Yan, Z., Shen, Z.-Q., Manchester, R. N., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaae64

    2018 doi

  86. [94]

    2024, Universe, 10, 195, doi: 10.3390/universe10050195

    Yan, Z., Shen, Z., Wu, Y., et al. 2024, Universe, 10, 195, doi: 10.3390/universe10050195

    2024 doi

  87. [95]

    2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.14707

    Zhang, J.-S., Wang, T.-C., Wang, P., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.14707. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.14707

    arXiv

  88. [96]

    2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.14247, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.14247 FRB 20240114A19

    Zhang, X., Yu, W., Yan, Z., Xing, Y., & Zhang, B. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.14247, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.14247 FRB 20240114A19

    doi arXiv

  89. [97]

    G., Gajjar, V., Foster, G., et al

    Zhang, Y. G., Gajjar, V., Foster, G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadf31

    2018 doi

  90. [98]

    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

    2022 doi

  91. [99]

    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

    2023 doi

  92. [100]

    2019, ApJ, 874, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05de

    Zhao, R.-S., Yan, Z., Wu, X.-J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05de

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.