Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Repeating fast radio bursts more often show falling dispersion measure, consistent with young supernova remnants expanding around them.

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

2026-07-13 07:20 UTC pith:KJNMLMVN

load-bearing objection Clean CHIME-only DM-rate analysis with a transparent golden-sample cut; the headline p=0.033 is real but rests on heterogeneous literature additions and is not yet decisive. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2606.23903 v2 pith:KJNMLMVN submitted 2026-06-22 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

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

Xiang-han Cui , Cheng-min Zhang , Di Li , Pei Wang , Erbil G\"ugercino\u{g}lu , Joeri van Leeuwen , Yi-dan Wang , Chao-wei Tsai
show 3 more authors
Xiang-lei Chen Wen-qi Ma Habtamu Menberu Tedila
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR
keywords fast radio burstsrepeating FRBsdispersion measure evolutionsupernova remnantsCHIMEastrostatisticslocal environment
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.

This paper asks whether the electron column density along the lines of sight to repeating fast radio bursts is systematically falling with time. From CHIME monitoring of 63 repeaters the authors isolate 19 sources with enough bursts for a long-term trend, then apply a strict significance cut to obtain a golden sample of seven. Five of those seven show a clear decrease in excess dispersion measure; only two show an increase. Adding four well-studied literature sources that also have published rates yields nine decreases and two increases. A binomial test against equal odds returns p = 0.033, so the data already favor a population-level preference for decreasing dispersion measure. The authors interpret the preference as a natural consequence of local electron density declining as a young supernova remnant expands, and they sketch how measured rates can be inverted to estimate remnant ages and the remnant's own contribution to the observed dispersion measure.

Core claim

In a carefully selected golden sample of repeating FRBs plus four literature sources with published rates, decreasing long-term dispersion-measure trends outnumber increasing ones (9 to 2). A binomial test under the null of equal probability returns p = 0.033, supporting the claim that decreasing DM is the more common evolutionary path and that the local electron density around most repeaters is generally falling with time.

What carries the argument

The golden-sample cut (weighted least-squares linear fit of excess DM versus time, cross-checked by a Bayesian linear model, both required to exclude zero slope at 95 percent and to agree on sign) followed by a binomial test of the resulting sign counts against the null that decreasing and increasing trends are equally likely.

Load-bearing premise

That the seven golden-sample sources and the four added literature sources form an unbiased draw from the true repeater population with respect to the sign of long-term DM change, so a simple coin-flip binomial test is valid.

What would settle it

Accumulate roughly thirty additional repeaters that meet the same golden-sample criteria for significant DM rate; if the decreasing-to-increasing ratio remains near 5:2 the p-value will fall well below 0.05, while a ratio near 1:1 will erase the claimed population asymmetry.

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

If this is right

  • Most repeating FRBs are young enough that their local environments still contribute a measurably declining electron column.
  • Measured DM rates can be mapped, inside a standard SNR expansion model, onto remnant ages and the remnant's own DM contribution for different ejecta masses.
  • The minority of sources that show rising DM require additional mechanisms (binary orbital modulation or neutron-star kick through the far side of an SNR shell).
  • Once ~30 golden-sample rates exist, the population preference for decreasing DM can be confirmed or refuted at high significance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the SNR picture is correct, the same sources should also show a secular decline in free-free optical depth or scattering measure on comparable timescales.
  • A growing golden sample will allow a joint fit of ejecta mass and ambient density distributions rather than the single-mass illustrative tracks shown here.
  • Sources that remain DM-stable for many years may simply be older remnants already past the steepest decline phase, providing a natural age sequence within the repeater class.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper selects 19 CHIME repeating FRBs with >10 bursts, applies weighted least-squares linear fits (with EFAC inflation) plus a Bayesian robustness check to DM_exc time series, and defines a golden sample of sources whose DM rate excludes zero at 95% CL with consistent sign. It reports five decreasing and two increasing trends in that sample, then combines them with four literature repeaters that have published significant DM rates (all decreasing) to obtain a binomial-test p-value of 0.033 under the null of equal probability for the two signs. The authors interpret the apparent excess of decreasing trends as consistent with a secular decline in local electron density, for example from young SNR expansion, and provide illustrative age and DM_SNR estimates under the Piro & Gaensler (2018) model for different ejecta masses.

Significance. A statistically robust population asymmetry in the sign of long-term DM evolution would be a useful constraint on FRB local environments and would strengthen the young-SNR association already suggested by individual sources (e.g., FRB 20121102A, FRB 20190520B). The analysis pipeline is transparent: selection cuts, EFAC procedure, dual fitting methods, and the pure-CHIME versus combined samples are all stated explicitly, and the SNR calculation is clearly labeled as illustrative rather than a fit. The result is therefore of genuine interest if the selection and small-number issues can be controlled; at present the claim remains provisional because the decisive p-value appears only after heterogeneous literature additions.

major comments (3)
  1. Section 4.1 (and Abstract/Conclusion): the headline binomial p = 0.033 is obtained only after enlarging the pure-CHIME golden sample (5:2 or the more conservative 4:1) by four literature sources that were themselves selected and published precisely because they exhibited large, significant DM decreases. The pure-CHIME sample alone yields p = 0.23 (or 0.19). Because those literature objects were not drawn by the same burst-count and significance criteria used for the golden sample, and because positive-rate sources of comparable quality may be under-reported, the combined sample is not guaranteed to be an unbiased draw from the underlying population. The simple p = 0.5 null is therefore not automatically valid; a more careful treatment of selection (or a clear statement that the result is only an indication pending a uniformly selected sample of ~30) is required before the claim can be re
  2. Section 3.2 versus Table 1 / Abstract / Section 4.1: the text first states that “six sources satisfy the requirements of the golden sample \ldots five exhibit decreasing DM trend, and one shows an increasing trend,” yet Table 1, the later binomial counts, the Abstract and the Conclusion all list seven sources (five decreasing, two increasing). This internal inconsistency must be resolved; it affects both the reported medians and the starting ratios used for the Beta-distribution forecasts in Figure 5.
  3. Section 3.3 and Table 1 note a: FRB 20240316A is retained in the golden sample even though a single early, high-leverage point dominates the slope and the authors themselves caution that the EFAC-only uncertainty may be underestimated. Because this source contributes one of the five decreasing rates that enter the binomial test, a quantitative leave-one-out or re-weighted analysis (or an explicit decision to drop it from the golden sample) is needed to show that the population asymmetry is not driven by that single datum.
minor comments (4)
  1. Abstract and Section 3.2: grammatical slips (“two shows an increasing trend,” “two source”) should be corrected.
  2. Figure 1–3 captions and Section 3.1: the Bayesian prior ranges and the precise definition of the 95 % CL used for golden-sample membership should be stated once in a single place so that the reader does not have to reconstruct them from the text.
  3. Section 4.2.2 / Figure 7: the assumed ambient density n0 = 1 cm^-3 and the illustrative progenitor masses should be flagged more prominently as free parameters; a short sensitivity check would strengthen the “illustrative” claim.
  4. Appendix A Table A.1 and main Table 1: the mean DM_exc values are quoted to inconsistent precision; a uniform rounding convention would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: binomial sign test and linear DM-rate fits are data-driven and independent of the post-hoc SNR model used only for illustrative age estimates.

full rationale

The load-bearing claim is the binomial p=0.033 under a p=0.5 null on the signs of measured long-term DM rates (5 decreasing + 2 increasing in the CHIME golden sample, enlarged by four literature sources to 9:2). Rates themselves are obtained by ordinary weighted least-squares and Bayesian linear fits to the observed DM_exc time series of sources that already satisfy an independent burst-count cut (>10) and a two-method significance cut (both exclude zero at 95 % CL and agree in sign). Nothing in those fits or in the binomial test is defined in terms of the later SNR model; the model (taken from Piro & Gaensler 2018 and Yang & Zhang 2017) is introduced only after the statistical result and is used solely for inverse, illustrative age and DM_SNR estimates by matching observed rates to the model dDM/dt curve. No equation equates a fitted quantity to a claimed prediction by construction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors’ prior work, and the few overlapping-author literature rates enter merely as additional data points rather than as load-bearing premises. Selection or publication bias in the combined sample is a possible validity concern, but it is not circularity under the stated criteria. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central population claim rests on a small set of domain assumptions about what DM variations mean, on the validity of a simple binomial null, and on a handful of analysis choices (EFAC, linear model, 95 percent dual-method cut). The SNR interpretation adds standard remnant-evolution formulae plus free parameters for ejecta mass and ambient density; those are used only for illustration and do not feed back into the p-value.

free parameters (4)
  • EFAC (error inflation factor)
    Multiplicative rescaling of reported DM uncertainties based on reduced chi-squared of an initial linear fit; directly affects which sources enter the golden sample and the width of rate posteriors.
  • Bayesian prior ranges (DM rate [-50,50], intercept [0,3000], EFAC [1,100])
    Uniform priors chosen by the authors; the rate prior is wide enough not to dominate but still an analysis choice.
  • Ambient ISM density n0 = 1 cm^-3
    Fixed standard value used throughout the SNR model curves and age estimates (Appendix B).
  • Ejecta mass / progenitor mass (illustrative 8 Msun and variants)
    Free parameter scanned in Figure 7 and B.1 to produce different DM_SNR tracks; not fitted to the FRB data but required for the age/DM estimates.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption On few-year timescales, observed DM variations are dominated by the local environment (DM_local) rather than MW, halo, IGM or host ISM.
    Stated in Section 2 and used to interpret all secular trends; standard but not proven for every source.
  • ad hoc to paper A linear model plus EFAC is an adequate description of the long-term DM trend for the purpose of sign classification.
    Section 3.1; higher-order or stochastic models are deliberately omitted because of limited burst counts.
  • domain assumption Under the null, decreasing and increasing DM trends are equally probable (p=0.5) and sources are independent Bernoulli trials.
    Section 4.1 binomial test; the authors themselves explore how p evolves with sample size under this null.
  • domain assumption Standard SNR expansion formulae (Piro & Gaensler 2018) with constant-density ISM correctly describe the electron-column evolution relevant to FRB DM rates.
    Section 4.2 and Appendix B; used only for post-hoc age and DM_SNR estimates.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 23361 in / 3025 out tokens · 27278 ms · 2026-07-13T07:20:17.861673+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are millisecond-duration, highly energetic radio transients of uncertain origin. Repeating FRBs provide an excellent population for investigating their nature, particularly through studies of parameter evolution. Out of the 63 repeaters monitored by CHIME, we select the 19 sources with more than ten detected bursts, and examine their long-term dispersion measure (DM) evolution. Seven sources show statistically significant DM evolution and are classified as the golden sample. Of these, five exhibit a decreasing DM trend and two shows an increasing trend. We then perform a binomial test under the null hypothesis that decreasing and increasing DM variation trends have equal probabilities. The current combined sample, including our golden sample and additional repeaters with reported DM change rate from the literature, gives a p-value of 0.033, supporting that decreasing DM trends are more common in the repeating FRB population. This statistical result is consistent with scenarios in that the local electron density around repeaters generally decreases with time, for example due to expansion of a young supernova remnant (SNR). Finally, within the SNR expansion model, we provide an illustrative estimate of the SNR contributions to the DM for different ejecta masses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23903 by Chao-Wei Tsai, Cheng-Min Zhang, Di Li, Erbil G\"ugercino\u{g}lu, Habtamu Menberu Tedila, Joeri van Leeuwen, Pei Wang, Wen-Qi Ma, Xiang-Han Cui, Xiang-Lei Chen, Yi-Dan Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A clear case where a DM rate of change can be established (FRB 20240209A). Blue points represent indi￾vidual DMexc with original errors. The orange solid line and black dashed line represent the best-fits from weighted least￾squares (WLS) and Bayesian method, respectively, with their 95% confidence level (CL). The gray shaded region shows the 95% CL envelope from the WLS fit. The gray dashed-dot line indic… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A group of all repeaters with an overall decreasing DMexc trend. Sources marked with an asterisk “*” are considered golden samples. Other annotations are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A group of all repeaters with an overall increasing DMexc trend. Sources marked with an “*” belong golden samples. Other annotations are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histogram of the annual DMexc variation rates for the golden sample. Upper panel: Blue and orange bars represent sources with decreasing and increasing DM, respec￾tively. Blue and red dash-dotted lines mark the correspond￾ing median DM variation rates. Lower panel: Smoothed histograms that consider the uncertainties of individual DM variation rates. The light blue and light orange curves show the probabili… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Variation of the binomial test p-value with in￾creasing number of golden sources. The blue, orange, and green curves represent different initial ratios of decreasing to increasing sources, respectively. The 5:2 case uses all golden sample sources in this work. The 4:1 caes excludes two sources in this work that may be affected by isolated data points in the fit, that are FRB 20240316A and FRB 20220912A. Th… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Schematic illustration of the SNR expansion. Rr, Rc, and Rb represent the radii of the reverse shock, the contact discontinuity, and the shocked ISM, respectively, adapted from Piro & Gaensler (2018). the shocked ejecta is significantly higher than that in the surrounding regions, and thus dominates the contribu￾tion to the dispersion measure (Piro & Gaensler 2018). The DM contribution from the SNR can the… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Illustration of FRB estimated evolutionary ages and DMSNR contributions within the SNR framework. Up￾per panel: Orange horizontal dashed lines show the DMexc best-fit rate for each source. The star size is reflecting burst rate. The blue solid curve represents the SNR model assum￾ing a progenitor mass of 8M⊙. The light red shaded regions (vertical extent has no physical meaning) indicate the un￾certainties… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

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

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    Cross-validation of six DM methods on 2874 FRB 20240114A bursts shows morphology-driven scatter and residual second-to-minute apparent DM fluctuations that cannot be real line-of-sight plasma changes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    C., Pearlman, A

    Abbott, T. C., Pearlman, A. B., Kaspi, V. M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.09098, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.09098

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.09098 2026

  2. [2]

    C., Wong, T., & Valanju, J

    Backer, D. C., Wong, T., & Valanju, J. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 543, 740, doi: 10.1086/317150 14

    doi:10.1086/317150 2000

  3. [3]

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

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

    doi:10.1126/science.abj3043 2022

  4. [4]

    V., van Leeuwen, J., Maan, Y., et al

    Bilous, A. V., van Leeuwen, J., Maan, Y., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A194, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451413

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451413 2025

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

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

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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07782-6 2024

  7. [7]

    P., et al

    Bruni, G., Piro, L., Yang, Y. P., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453233

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453233 2025

  8. [8]

    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., Bandura, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad188 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al. 2020a, Nature, 587, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, ...

    doi:10.1038/nature20797 2017

  9. [9]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1226, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y

    Connor, L., Ravi, V., Sharma, K., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1226, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y

    doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y 2025

  10. [10]

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

    Cook, A. M., Shin, K., Pleunis, Z., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.08410. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.08410

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    M., & Chatterjee, S

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

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104501 2019

  12. [12]

    W., Li, D., & Zhang, C.-M

    Cui, X.-H., James, C. W., Li, D., & Zhang, C.-M. 2025, ApJ, 982, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbbcb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbbcb 2025

  13. [13]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 3275, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3351

    Cui, X.-H., Zhang, C.-M., Wang, S.-Q., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 3275, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3351

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3351 2021

  14. [14]

    2022, Ap&SS, 367, 66, doi: 10.1007/s10509-022-04093-y

    Cui, X.-H., Zhang, C.-M., Li, D., et al. 2022, Ap&SS, 367, 66, doi: 10.1007/s10509-022-04093-y

    doi:10.1007/s10509-022-04093-y 2022

  15. [15]

    P., Sand, K

    Curtin, A. P., Sand, K. R., Pleunis, Z., et al. 2025, ApJ, 992, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf844

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf844 2025

  16. [16]

    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

  17. [17]

    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

    doi:10.1126/science.abl7759 2022

  18. [18]

    C., Bhardwaj, M., et al

    Fonseca, E., Andersen, B. C., Bhardwaj, M., et al. 2020, ApJL, 891, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7208

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab7208 2020

  19. [19]

    A., Goss, W

    Frail, D. A., Goss, W. M., & Whiteoak, J. B. Z. 1994, ApJ, 437, 781, doi: 10.1086/175038

    doi:10.1086/175038 1994

  20. [20]

    Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. J. 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition FRB Collaboration, Abbott, T., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.09399, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.09399

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.09399 2002

  21. [21]

    W., Connor, L., van Leeuwen, J., Oostrum, L

    Gardenier, D. W., Connor, L., van Leeuwen, J., Oostrum, L. C., & Petroff, E. 2021, A&A, 647, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039626

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039626 2021

  22. [22]

    2024, A&A, 692, A170, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450740

    Iraci, F., Chalumeau, A., Tiburzi, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A170, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450740

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450740 2024

  23. [23]

    W., Prochaska, J

    James, C. W., Prochaska, J. X., Macquart, J. P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 4775, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3051

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3051 2022

  24. [24]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa618e

    Janka, H.-T. 2017, ApJ, 837, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa618e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa618e 2017

  25. [25]

    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

  26. [26]

    Y., Jordan, C

    Kuzmin, A., Losovsky, B. Y., Jordan, C. A., & Smith, F. G. 2008, A&A, 483, 13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20079211

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20079211 2008

  27. [27]

    2024, ApJL, 967, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4ae8

    Lan, H.-T., Zhao, Z.-Y., Wei, Y.-J., & Wang, F.-Y. 2024, ApJL, 967, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4ae8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad4ae8 2024

  28. [28]

    2018, IEEE Microwave Magazine, 19, 112, doi: 10.1109/MMM.2018.2802178

    Li, D., Wang, P., Qian, L., et al. 2018, IEEE Microwave Magazine, 19, 112, doi: 10.1109/MMM.2018.2802178

    doi:10.1109/mmm.2018.2802178 2018

  29. [29]

    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

  30. [30]

    B., Yang, Y

    Li, Y., Zhang, S. B., Yang, Y. P., et al. 2026, Science, 391, 280, doi: 10.1126/science.adq3225

    doi:10.1126/science.adq3225 2026

  31. [31]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad779d

    Lin, H.-H., Scholz, P., Ng, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad779d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad779d 2024

  32. [32]

    2012, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy

    Lorimer, D., & Kramer, M. 2012, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy

    2012

  33. [33]

    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

  34. [34]

    R., & Zhang, B

    Luo, R., Lee, K., Lorimer, D. R., & Zhang, B. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2320, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2364

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2364 2018

  35. [35]

    P., & Ekers, R

    Macquart, J. P., & Ekers, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4211, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2083

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2083 2018

  36. [36]

    P., Prochaska, J

    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

  37. [37]

    F., & Truelove, J

    McKee, C. F., & Truelove, J. K. 1995, PhR, 256, 157, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(94)00106-D

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(94)00106-d 1995

  38. [38]

    W., Lyne, A

    McKee, J. W., Lyne, A. G., Stappers, B. W., Bassa, C. G., & Jordan, C. A. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 4216, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1727

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1727 2018

  39. [39]

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

    doi:10.1038/nature25149 2018

  40. [40]

    M., Bhandari, S., Drout, M

    Moroianu, A. M., Bhandari, S., Drout, M. R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.05174, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.05174

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.05174 2025

  41. [41]

    2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989, doi: 10.1142/S0218271811019335

    Nan, R., Li, D., Jin, C., et al. 2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989, doi: 10.1142/S0218271811019335

    doi:10.1142/s0218271811019335 2011

  42. [42]

    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 15

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

  43. [43]

    2025, Science Bulletin, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2025.11.023

    Niu, C.-H., Li, D., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2025, Science Bulletin, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2025.11.023

    doi:10.1016/j.scib.2025.11.023 2025

  44. [44]

    C., Maan, Y., van Leeuwen, J., et al

    Oostrum, L. C., Maan, Y., van Leeuwen, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937422

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937422 2020

  45. [45]

    2026, ApJL, 1000, L53, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae52f8

    Pandhi, A., Nimmo, K., Andrew, S., et al. 2026, ApJL, 1000, L53, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae52f8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae52f8 2026

  46. [46]

    Petroff, E., Hessels, J. W. T., & Lorimer, D. R. 2022, A&A Rv, 30, 2, doi: 10.1007/s00159-022-00139-w

    doi:10.1007/s00159-022-00139-w 2022

  47. [47]

    Shannon, R. M. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1610, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1401

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1401 2013

  48. [48]

    L., & Gaensler, B

    Piro, A. L., & Gaensler, B. M. 2018, ApJ, 861, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac9bc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac9bc 2018

  49. [49]

    M., Mickaliger, M

    Rajwade, K. M., Mickaliger, M. B., Stappers, B. W., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1237

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1237 2020

  50. [50]

    J., Li, D., et al

    Ravi, V., Law, C. J., Li, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 982, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac465

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac465 2022

  51. [51]

    Sedov, L. I. 1946, Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, 10, 241

    1946

  52. [52]

    2017, ApJ, 849, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa932c

    Shang, L.-H., Zhang, C.-M., Li, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa932c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa932c 2017

  53. [53]

    P., Hessels, J

    Snelders, M. P., Hessels, J. W. T., Huang, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.11352, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.11352

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.11352 2025

  54. [54]

    M., Connor, L., & van Leeuwen, J

    Straal, S. M., Connor, L., & van Leeuwen, J. 2020, A&A, 634, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833376

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833376 2020

  55. [55]

    1950, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 201, 159, doi: 10.1098/rspa.1950.0049

    Taylor, G. 1950, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 201, 159, doi: 10.1098/rspa.1950.0049

    doi:10.1098/rspa.1950.0049 1950

  56. [56]

    A., Shannon, R

    Uttarkar, P. A., Shannon, R. M., Gourdji, K., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf1997, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1997

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1997 2026

  57. [57]

    Y., Zhang, G

    Wang, F. Y., Zhang, G. Q., Dai, Z. G., & Cheng, K. S. 2022, Nature Communications, 13, 4382, doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-31923-y

    doi:10.1038/s41467-022-31923-y 2022

  58. [58]

    S., Yang, Y

    Wang, P., Zhang, J. S., Yang, Y. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.15790, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.15790

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.15790 2025

  59. [59]

    2024, A&A, 690, A377, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450673

    Wang, Y., & van Leeuwen, J. 2024, A&A, 690, A377, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450673

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450673 2024

  60. [60]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 569, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1922

    Wang, Y.-B., Kurban, A., Zhou, X., Yu, Y.-W., & Wang, N. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 569, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1922

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1922 2023

  61. [61]

    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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05071-8 2022

  62. [62]

    2017, ApJ, 847, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8721

    Yang, Y.-P., & Zhang, B. 2017, ApJ, 847, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8721

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8721 2017

  63. [63]

    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

  64. [64]

    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

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.95.035005 2023

  65. [65]

    2026, ApJ, 996, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae20f6

    Zhang, J.-h., Niu, C.-H., Zhu, Y.-h., et al. 2026, ApJ, 996, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae20f6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae20f6 2026

  66. [66]

    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

  67. [67]

    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

  68. [68]

    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