Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 84 references

FRB 20230708A, a quasi-periodic FRB with unique temporal-polarimetric morphology

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FRB's high circular polarization is not from Faraday conversion

desk verdict New well-characterized quasi-periodic FRB with full polarimetry, but the claim that rounds per Faraday rotation is absent overreaches a model that doesn't fit. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11347 v1 pith:RTYVDTRJ submitted 2024-12-16 astro-ph.HE

T. Dial , A. T. Deller , P. A. Uttarkar , M. E. Lower , R. M. Shannon , Kelly Gourdji , Lachlan Marnoch , A. Bera
show 3 more authors
Stuart D. Ryder Marcin Glowacki J. Xavier Prochaska
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstscircularpolarizationgeneralizedFaradayrotationquasi-periodicitymagnetarspolarimetryASKAP
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

FRB 20230708A, detected by ASKAP and localised to a galaxy at redshift 0.105, shows a rare combination of temporal and polarimetric structure: a sequence of sub-bursts spaced by a potential 7.267 ms period (1.77 sigma significance) and a first sub-burst with circular polarisation reaching about 75 percent of total intensity. The paper's central physical claim is that this extreme circular polarisation is not produced by generalised Faraday rotation, the leading propagation-based explanation for high circular polarisation in fast radio bursts. By fitting a phenomenological FR-GFR model to the two bright peaks, the authors obtain 95 percent upper limits on the frequency exponent alpha of 2.08 and 1.16, values below the steep dependence expected for a relativistic plasma. If correct, the circular polarisation must be intrinsic to the emission or arise from coherent mode mixing near the source, and the burst's morphology favours a non-millisecond magnetar progenitor rather than a millisecond pulsar or compact merger.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the FR-GFR phenomenological model, which represents the polarisation state as a vector P($\lambda$) on the Poincaré sphere and models conventional Faraday rotation as a rotation R_psi about the Stokes U axis and generalised Faraday rotation as a rotation R_theta_phi about the U and V axes. The frequency dependence of the generalised rotation is parameterised as Psi($\lambda$) = Psi_0 + GRM ($\lambda$^$\alpha$ - lambda_0^$\alpha$), where $\alpha$ is the frequency exponent whose value fingerprints the underlying plasma physics: dispersion in a highly relativistic plasma gives $\alpha$ as high as 3. The model's role in the paper is to convert the measured Stokes Q, U and V spectra of the two bright peaks into constraints on $\alpha$; the tight upper limits on $\alpha$, despite the overall poor fit of the model, are the evidence that generalised Faraday rotation is not the origin of the circular polarisation.

What would settle it

A re-analysis of the same time-averaged Stokes spectra using a direct, physically motivated calculation of propagation through a relativistic magnetised plasma that fits the data with alpha close to 3 and a better chi-squared than the FR-GFR model would overturn the paper's conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that the high circular polarisation seen in FRB 20230708A is not generated by Faraday conversion. Using the extended FR-GFR phenomenological model of Uttarkar et al. (2024), which represents propagation as rotations of the polarisation vector on the Poincaré sphere, the authors fit the frequency-dependent Stokes Q, U and V spectra of the two bright peaks B1 and B2 in the first sub-burst. The fits yield 95 percent upper limits of alpha < 2.08 for B1 and alpha < 1.16 for B2 on the frequency exponent in the generalised Faraday rotation law, values that rule out the steep alpha = 3 dependence expected for a highly relativistic plasma. The paper notes explicitly that neither the FR nor the FR-GFR model provides a good fit to the observed polarisation properties, and interprets the frequency-dependent changes as intrinsic to the emission mechanism or as the result of coherent or partially coherent mixing between orthogonally polarised modes. The same data set is used to argue that the quasi-periodic sub-burst structure, though only suggestive at 1.77 sigma, is consistent with microstructure in the beamed emission of a slowly rotating magnetar.

Load-bearing premise

The no-generalised-Faraday-rotation conclusion rests on the FR-GFR phenomenological model being faithful enough that its upper limits on alpha remain meaningful even when the model provides a poor fit to the observed polarisation data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the circular polarisation is not produced by generalised Faraday rotation, the observed 75 percent circular polarisation in FRB 20230708A must be intrinsic to the emission or produced by coherent mode mixing, narrowing the set of viable emission mechanisms for high-CP FRBs.
  • The 95 percent upper limits on alpha reported here imply that any relativistic plasma screen along the line of sight is too weak or too cold to induce observable mode conversion, constraining the circum-burst environment of this burst.
  • The suggestive 7.267 ms quasi-periodicity, combined with the Kramer et al. scaling relation, predicts a neutron-star spin period of order 10 seconds, which is consistent with a non-millisecond magnetar and would be further supported by detecting repetition from the source.
  • The poor fit of both the FR and FR-GFR models motivates future searches for other propagation effects, such as coherent mode mixing, in FRBs that show strong temporal circular polarisation variability.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the no-GFR conclusion is robust, similar FRBs with high circular polarisation and poor phenomenological model fits should be re-examined before invoking propagation effects; the default explanation would be intrinsic or mode-mixing origins, which is a testable prior for future samples.
  • The paper's practice of quoting alpha upper limits from a model that does not fit the data could be validated on synthetic signals with injected generalised Faraday rotation; if the method recovers alpha ~ 3 only when the model fit is good, the upper limits reported here would need to be reinterpreted.
  • The Kramer et al. scaling between sub-structure periodicity and spin period could be tested by collecting full-polarisation quasi-periodic FRBs; FRB 20230708A would serve as a data point if its periodicity is confirmed by repetition or a more sensitive search.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. FRB 20230708A is a single, apparently non-repeating fast radio burst detected by ASKAP, and this manuscript presents a detailed temporal, spectral, and polarimetric characterization. The authors model the Stokes I time series as 21 Gaussian components convolved with a common one-sided exponential scatter tail, measure a scattering timescale of 0.17 ms, and find a low-significance quasi-periodicity of T=7.267 ms using an ACF power test with simulated null distributions. They also measure a constant rotation measure of -6.90 rad/m^2, search for scintillation, use a dual thin-screen model to place an upper limit on the distance to an extragalactic scattering screen, and identify a host galaxy at z=0.105. The central physical claim is that the high circular polarization seen in the first bright sub-burst is not generated by generalized Faraday rotation; this is based on upper limits on the frequency exponent alpha obtained from an FR-GFR model fit to the two bright peaks B1 and B2. The paper argues that the burst's properties are broadly consistent with a non-millisecond magnetar progenitor with beamed microstructure, while disfavouring a rotation-powered pulsar and a compact merger scenario.

Significance. If the observational results stand, this is a valuable addition to the small sample of FRBs with high time-resolution polarimetry and quasi-periodic sub-structure. The burst characterization is careful: the polarimetric calibration is done with explicit Bayesian inference on a calibrator, the periodicity search uses one million null simulations, the scattering and scintillation analyses follow established methods, and the host galaxy identification and redshift are secure. The paper is honest about the modest statistical significance of the periodicity and about the tentative nature of several derived quantities. The main scientific conclusion, however, is not as robust as presented: the absence of evidence for generalized Faraday rotation is inferred from upper limits produced by a model that the authors themselves state does not fit the data. Because that conclusion is load-bearing for the abstract and for the discussion of the progenitor, the manuscript needs revision before the central claim can be accepted. The characterization work itself appears sound and would likely be publishable once the GFR conclusion is appropriately qualified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.5, Table 3, Fig. 6] The conclusion that generalized Faraday rotation is not the origin of the circular polarization rests on the 95% upper limits on the frequency exponent alpha (alpha < 2.08 for B1 and alpha < 1.16 for B2). However, the same section states explicitly that "neither the FR nor FR-GFR models provide a good fit to the observed polarisation properties," and Fig. 6 shows large systematic residuals. When a model is rejected by the data, its posterior distribution is not a reliable basis for parameter constraints: unmodeled physics could bias the alpha posterior in either direction, and the fact that alpha is consistently found at the lower prior boundary (as reported in Table 3) indicates that the data do not actually constrain alpha. The upper limits therefore cannot support the statement that GFR "is not the primary origin" of the observed CP. The manuscript should either restrict the claim to "the simple phenomenological FR-GFR model does not fit the data and does not provide evidence for GFR," or demonstrate by injection/recovery simulations that the upper limits remain valid under plausible model misspecification.
  2. [Abstract and Section 3.2] The abstract states "We find no evidence to suggest that the high circular polarisation ... is generated by Faraday conversion," and Section 3.2 repeats that "the frequency dependence of polarisation does not support the presence of GFR." Given the poor quality of the fits reported in Section 2.5, these statements overstate the strength of the inference. A non-detection in a misspecified model is not evidence against GFR; it is at best evidence against the specific parametrized form of GFR assumed by the model. The authors should either qualify the conclusion as conditional on the phenomenological model, or supplement the analysis with a goodness-of-fit validation and a more flexible physical model before drawing a physical exclusion.
  3. [Section 2.5, Table 3] The priors used for the FR-GFR model parameters are not reported. This is particularly important for alpha, since the posterior is reported to "bottom out" at the lower prior boundary of alpha = 0. The width and functional form of the prior directly affect the quoted 95% upper limits, and with the model failing to fit the data these limits are not robust. Please provide the full set of priors for the B1/B2 fits, and discuss how the upper limits change if the prior range for alpha is extended.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] The description of the iterative Gaussian-component fitting and the BIC stopping criterion would be clearer if it stated the number of components in each of the seven segments and reported the BIC values at each step, rather than only the final component count.
  2. [Section 2.3] The significance of the periodicity is computed for a fixed jitter parameter chi = 0.2. Since the null-hypothesis distribution depends on this parameter, a brief sensitivity test for a plausible range of chi values would make the 1.77-sigma result more transparent.
  3. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption refers to "EA and PA" in Panel D/E, but the text calls these the ellipticity angle and positional angle. The abbreviation EA is undefined and could be confused with the ellipticity angle; please spell it out.
  4. [Section 2.6] The phrase "the value is much greater than unity, the value expected if scattering and any putative scintillation originate in the same screen" would be easier to follow if the expected value under the same-screen hypothesis were derived or explicitly referenced, rather than asserted.
  5. [Data availability] The data availability statement says data will be made available upon reasonable request; given the emphasis on reproducibility in the code statement, it would be helpful to specify where the calibrated dynamic spectra and calibration products can be obtained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all load-bearing conclusions are measurements or fitted-parameter constraints with independent null simulations and external comparisons; the poor FR/FR-GFR fit is an acknowledged modeling caveat, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not disguise inputs as predictions. The quasi-period T=7.267 ms is read from the ACF peak (Sec. 2.3) and its 1.77-sigma significance is assessed with 10^6 null simulations, so the period is not fitted to force a result. The scattering timescale, scintillation bandwidth and RM are similarly fitted to the burst and compared with external predictions (NE2001) or used only as descriptive parameters. The anti-GFR claim is a posterior upper limit on the phenomenological FR-GFR exponent alpha (Table 3), obtained by fitting the same B1/B2 spectra; this is a parameter constraint, not a first-principles prediction, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that 'neither the FR nor FR-GFR models provide a good fit to the observed polarisation properties.' That admission limits the interpretability of the upper limits, but it is a statistical/modeling caveat rather than circularity. Citations to the authors' own GFR work (Lower et al. 2021; Uttarkar et al. 2024) supply a fitting model, not a uniqueness theorem or a definition of the target conclusion. The magnetar interpretation relies on the external Kramer et al. (2023) scaling relation. No step reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central analysis rests on a few modeling assumptions: the Gaussian-plus-exponential burst decomposition, the null-hypothesis scrambling model, the applicability of the Kramer et al. scaling relation, and the interpretability of the FR-GFR fit despite poor model quality. The fitted parameters are standard observational quantities; no invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • Scattering timescale tau_s = 0.17 +/- 0.02 ms
    Fitted to the first bright segment and then fixed for the remaining six segments (Section 2.2); the sub-burst widths and periodicity analysis inherit this value.
  • Gaussian component parameters for burst model = 21 components with amplitudes, positions, and widths
    Chosen by iterative BIC fitting of Eq. 1; used to define sub-burst envelope and matched filters for polarization and spectral analysis.
  • Scattering index alpha_t = -2.17 +0.12/-0.08
    Power-law index fitted to width measurements of the first sub-burst split into five 67.2 MHz sub-bands (Section 2.2).
  • Polarisation calibration parameters for Vela = tau=99+/-6 ns, phi=0.57+/-0.04 rad, psi=0.748+/-0.004 rad, RM=38.79+/-0.06, Lscale=0.992+/-0.003, Vscale=0.95+/-0.05
    Fitted to the Vela calibrator to correct instrumental leakage and rotation; uncertainties propagate into all quoted polarization fractions.
  • Burst-integrated rotation measure = -6.90 +/- 0.04 rad/m^2
    Measured via RM synthesis using the full burst model as a matched filter; used to de-rotate Stokes Q and U (Section 2.4).
  • Scintillation bandwidth and modulation index = nu_dc = 0.38 +/- 0.07 MHz, m = 0.31 +/- 0.07
    Fitted to the ACF of the residual spectrum after subtracting a third-order polynomial model of intrinsic spectral structure (Section 2.6).
  • FR-GFR model parameters for peaks B1 and B2 = See Table 3; alpha < 2.08 and < 1.16, GRM < 18.82 and < 12.4
    Phenomenological fit parameters used to bound generalized Faraday rotation; the no-GFR conclusion depends on these fits.
  • Null-test jitter parameter chi = 0.2
    Dimensionless parameter in Eq. 9 of Andersen et al. (2022) controlling random variation of pulse separations in null simulations; directly sets the 1.77 sigma significance estimate.
  • PA reporting threshold B = 3.0
    Free parameter in Eq. 6 controlling which position angles are plotted; hand-chosen and not a fitted physical quantity.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Burst intensity is a sum of Gaussian pulses convolved with a single one-sided exponential scattering tail (Eq. 1).
    Adopted to model all sub-bursts; the periodicity and matched filters inherit this shape assumption (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption Scattering timescale tau_s is constant across the full burst.
    The paper fixes tau_s from the first segment for the remaining six segments to reduce covariance (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption Null simulations with pulse separations scrambled as in Eq. 9 of Andersen et al. (2022), with chi = 0.2, yield a valid significance for the ACF power test.
    The 1.77 sigma periodicity significance is computed from this null distribution (Section 2.3).
  • domain assumption The Kramer et al. (2023) scaling tau_mu ~ 10^-3 T_NS applies to FRB microstructure.
    Used to convert the 7.267 ms quasi-period into an O(10) s magnetar spin period (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption FR-GFR phenomenological model parameters remain interpretable when the model does not fit the data.
    The no-GFR conclusion is based on alpha upper limits even though the paper reports poor FR and FR-GFR fits (Section 2.5).
  • domain assumption The Vela polarization model (l = 0.95, v = -0.05, PA = 0.35 rad at 1400 MHz) is an adequate calibration reference.
    Used to solve for ASKAP polarisation leakage and scale factors (Section 2.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FRB 20230708A, a quasi-periodic FRB with unique temporal-polarimetric morphology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RTYVDTRJ

@misc{pith2026241211347,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FRB 20230708A, a quasi-periodic FRB with unique temporal-polarimetric morphology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RTYVDTRJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11347}
}
abstract

There has been a rapid increase in the known fast radio burst (FRB) population, yet the progenitor(s) of these events have remained an enigma. A small number of FRBs have displayed some level of quasi-periodicity in their burst profile, which can be used to constrain their plausible progenitors. However, these studies suffer from the lack of polarisation data which can greatly assist in constraining possible FRB progenitors and environments. Here we report on the detection and characterisation of FRB 20230708A by the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP), a burst which displays a rich temporal and polarimetric morphology. We model the burst time series to test for the presence of periodicity, scattering and scintillation. We find a potential period of T = 7.267 ms within the burst, but with a low statistical significance of 1.77$\sigma$. Additionally, we model the burst's time- and frequency-dependent polarisation to search for the presence of (relativistic and non-relativistic) propagation effects. We find no evidence to suggest that the high circular polarisation seen in FRB 20230708A is generated by Faraday conversion. The majority of the properties of FRB 20230708A are broadly consistent with a (non-millisecond) magnetar model in which the quasi-periodic morphology results from microstructure in the beamed emission, but other explanations are not excluded.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11347 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FRB profile and dynamic spectrum. Top Panel: Stokes 𝐼 burst profile with full burst model shown in orange which consists of 21 Gaussian pulses convolved with a one-sided exponential. The black dashed lines underneath the burst profile illustrate the 7 segments the burst was separated into for fitting the full burst. As discussed in Section 2.5, the two largest peaks in the first bright sub-burst are labelled B1 and … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Normalised ACF of full burst. The red dot and black dashed line indicate the best fit for periodicity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure shows the distribution of null hypothesis tests (in blue) according to the ACF power test Kramer et al. (2023). The red dashed line shows the ACF power score of the original burst envelope with a statistical significance of 1.77 𝜎. used RM synthesis using the RMtools python package (Purcell et al. 2020). Fig. A4 shows the fitted RM across the burst profile. The uncer￾tainties have been scaled by√︃ 𝜒 2 𝑟 , whe… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: PA profile of full burst with 10 𝜇s time resolution. Bottom: Stokes time series. A periodicity of T = 7.267ms is plotted against the timeseries using evenly spaced grey dashed vertical lines starting from the first sub-burst. 0.5 0.0 Q/P A 0.5 1.0 U/P B 0.5 0.0 V/…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The FR-GFR and FR fit to FRB 20230708 polarisation profile of the two bright peaks in the first sub-burst B1 (panel (a)) and B2 (panel (b)). The time averaged data for Stokes-Q, U, and V for FRB 20230708 are shown in pink points in Panels A, B, and C. The EA and PA var…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T., Eftekhari T., James C

    Aggarwal K., Budav \'a ri T., Deller A. T., Eftekhari T., James C. W., Prochaska J. X., Tendulkar S. P., 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 911, 95

    2021

  2. [2]

    Aghanim N., et al., 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6

    2020

  3. [3]

    Amiri M., et al., 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 257, 59

    2021

  4. [4]

    C., et al., 2022, Nature, 607, 256

    Andersen B. C., et al., 2022, Nature, 607, 256

    2022

  5. [5]

    Anna-Thomas R., et al., 2023, Science, 380, 599

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Ashton G., et al., 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 241, 27

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    W., et al., 2019, Science, 365, 565

    Bannister K. W., et al., 2019, Science, 365, 565

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Bhandari S., et al., 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 69

    work page 2022

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    D., Ravi V., Belov K

    Bochenek C. D., Ravi V., Belov K. V., Hallinan G., Kocz J., Kulkarni S. R., McKenna D. L., 2020, Nature, 587, 59

    2020

  2. [10]

    A., De Bruyn A., 2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 441, 1217

    Brentjens M. A., De Bruyn A., 2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 441, 1217

    2005

  3. [11]

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration 2020, Nature, 587, 54

    2020

  4. [12]

    F., Ruderman M., 1979, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol

    Cheng A. F., Ruderman M., 1979, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 229, Apr. 1, 1979, p. 348-360. NSF-supported research., 229, 348

    1979

  5. [13]

    Cooper A., Gupta O., Wadiasingh Z., Wijers R., Boersma O., Andreoni I., Rowlinson A., Gourdji K., 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 3923

    2023

  6. [14]

    M., Lazio T

    Cordes J. M., Lazio T. J. W., 2002, arXiv preprint astro-ph/0207156

    2002 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Dai S., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv508 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.3223D 449, 3223

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    Dai S., et al., 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 874, L14

    2019

  9. [17]

    K., et al., 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 3335

    Day C. K., et al., 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 3335

    2020

  10. [18]

    Everett J., Weisberg J., 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 553, 341

    2001

  11. [19]

    T., et al., 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14133

    Faber J. T., et al., 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14133

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Feng Y., Zhang Y.-K., Li D., Yang Y.-P., Wang P., Niu C.-H., Dai S., Yao J.-M., 2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.05873

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Geyer M., et al., 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 2659

    2017

  14. [22]

    C., et al., 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 80

    Gordon A. C., et al., 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 80

    2023

  15. [23]

    M., Lyutikov M., 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 695

    Hansen B. M., Lyutikov M., 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 695

    2001

  16. [24]

    Hilmarsson G., et al., 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 908, L10

    2021

  17. [25]

    Hotan A., et al., 2021, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 38, e009

    2021

  18. [26]

    D., Johnston S., Weltevrede P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3315 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.2778I 483, 2778

    Ilie C. D., Johnston S., Weltevrede P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3315 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.2778I 483, 2778

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    Johnston S., Kerr M., 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 4629

    2018

  20. [28]

    J., Oswald L

    Johnston S., Mitra D., Keith M. J., Oswald L. S., Karastergiou A., 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 4839

    2024

  21. [29]

    Karastergiou A., Johnston S., Mitra D., Van Leeuwen A., Edwards R., 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 344, L69

    2003

  22. [30]

    Kirsten F., Snelders M., Jenkins M., Nimmo K., Van den Eijnden J., Hessels J., Gawro \'n ski M., Yang J., 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 414

    2021

  23. [31]

    Kirsten F., et al., 2022, Nature, 602, 585

    2022

  24. [32]

    Kramer M., Stappers B., Jessner A., Lyne A., Jordan C., 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 377, 107

    2007

  25. [33]

    W., 2023, Nature Astronomy, pp 1--11

    Kramer M., Liu K., Desvignes G., Karuppusamy R., Stappers B. W., 2023, Nature Astronomy, pp 1--11

    2023

  26. [34]

    M., Lower M

    Kumar P., Shannon R. M., Lower M. E., Bhandari S., Deller A. T., Flynn C., Keane E. F., 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 3400

    2022

  27. [35]

    M., Lower M

    Kumar P., Shannon R. M., Lower M. E., Deller A. T., Prochaska J. X., 2023, Physical Review D, 108, 043009

    2023

  28. [36]

    Lai D., 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 757, L3

    2012

  29. [37]

    J., et al., 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 967, 29

    Law C. J., et al., 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 967, 29

    2024

  30. [38]

    Levin L., et al., 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 422, 2489

    2012

  31. [39]

    E., Johnston S., Shannon R

    Lower M. E., Johnston S., Shannon R. M., Bailes M., Camilo F., 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 127

    2021

  32. [40]

    E., et al., 2024, Nature Astronomy, pp 1--11

    Lower M. E., et al., 2024, Nature Astronomy, pp 1--11

    2024

  33. [41]

    Lyubarsky Y., 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 442, L9

    2014

  34. [42]

    Macquart J.-P., et al., 2010, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 27, 272

    2010

  35. [43]

    Macquart J.-P., Shannon R., Bannister K., James C., Ekers R., Bunton J., 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 872, L19

    2019

  36. [44]

    Marnoch L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525..994M 525, 994

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

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

    2015

  38. [46]

    T., Levin J., 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 742, 90

    McWilliams S. T., Levin J., 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 742, 90

    2011

  39. [47]

    Melrose D., 1997, Journal of plasma physics, 58, 735

    1997

  40. [48]

    D., Margalit B., Sironi L., 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 4091

    Metzger B. D., Margalit B., Sironi L., 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 4091

    2019

  41. [49]

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

    2018

  42. [50]

    M., 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 236

    Mitra D., Arjunwadkar M., Rankin J. M., 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 236

    2015

  43. [51]

    Mottez F., Zarka P., Voisin G., 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 644, A145

    2020

  44. [52]

    A., Cavanaugh J

    Neath A. A., Cavanaugh J. E., 2012, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 4, 199

    2012

  45. [53]

    Nimmo K., et al., 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 2281

    2023

  46. [54]

    K., Cordes J

    Ocker S. K., Cordes J. M., Chatterjee S., 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 897, 124

    2020

  47. [55]

    K., et al., 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 87

    Ocker S. K., et al., 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 87

    2022

  48. [56]

    Oswald L., et al., 2023a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 4961

  49. [57]

    Oswald L., Karastergiou A., Johnston S., 2023b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 840

  50. [58]

    Pandhi A., et al., 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 968, 50

    2024

  51. [59]

    Pastor-Marazuela I., et al., 2023, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243339 , 678, A149

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    Petroff E., Hessels J., Lorimer D., 2019, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 27, 4

    2019

  53. [61]

    Petroff E., Hessels J., Lorimer D., 2022, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 30, 2

    2022

  54. [62]

    L., 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 755, 80

    Piro A. L., 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 755, 80

    2012

  55. [63]

    Plavin A., Paragi Z., Marcote B., Keimpema A., Hessels J., Nimmo K., Vedantham H., Spitler L., 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 6033

    2022

  56. [64]

    Pleunis Z., et al., 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 923, 1

    2021

  57. [65]

    C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz958 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.3636P 486, 3636

    Price D. C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz958 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.3636P 486, 3636

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    R., Van Eck C

    Purcell C. R., Van Eck C. L., West J., Sun X. H., Gaensler B. M., 2020, RM-Tools: Rotation measure (RM) synthesis and Stokes QU-fitting , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2005.003 ( @eprint ascl 2005.003 )

    2020

  59. [67]

    Qiu H., et al., 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 1382

    2020

  60. [68]

    J., 1969, Astrophysical Letters, 3, 225

    Radhakrishnan V., Cooke D. J., 1969, Astrophysical Letters, 3, 225

    1969

  61. [69]

    W., et al., 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 5653

    Sammons M. W., et al., 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 5653

    2023

  62. [70]

    R., et al., 2023, Astronomy and Computing, p

    Scott D. R., et al., 2023, Astronomy and Computing, p. 100724

    2023

  63. [71]

    Shannon R., et al., 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02083

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    B., et al., 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 131

    Sherman M. B., et al., 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 131

    2024

  65. [73]

    S., 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 3132

    Speagle J. S., 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 3132

    2020

  66. [74]

    Totani T., 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 65, L12

    2013

  67. [75]

    M., Lower M

    Uttarkar P., Shannon R. M., Lower M. E., Kumar P., Price D. C., Deller A. T., Gourdji K., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.11515 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240511515U p. arXiv:2405.11515

    2024 doi arXiv

  68. [76]

    Vedantham H., Ravi V., 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 485, L78

    2019

  69. [77]

    Wadiasingh Z., Chirenti C., 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 903, L38

    2020

  70. [78]

    Wang J.-S., Yang Y.-P., Wu X.-F., Dai Z.-G., Wang F.-Y., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 822, L7

    2016

  71. [79]

    Wang J.-S., Peng F.-K., Wu K., Dai Z.-G., 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 868, 19

    2018

  72. [80]

    Yang Y.-P., Zhang B., 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 868, 31

    2018

  73. [81]

    Zhang C., et al., 2020, The Astronomer's Telegram, 13699, 1

    2020

  74. [82]

    Zhang Y.-K., et al., 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 955, 142

    2023

  75. [83]

    Zhu W., et al., 2023, Science Advances, 9, eadf6198

    2023

  76. [84]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.