Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Commensal Transient Searches with MeerKAT in Gamma-Ray Burst and Supernova Fields

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 This paper claims that an 8-to-16-second, highly circularly polarized radio transient in MeerKAT data is spatially coincident with a nearby TESS M-dwarf and may be coherent emission from a stellar flare.

desk verdict Competent commensal survey with a genuinely interesting but unsecured single-window polarized transient candidate; worth reviewing with requests for RFI, polarization, and association tests. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02832 v3 pith:Q5FZUKL7 submitted 2024-12-03 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IM

S. I. Chastain , A. J. van der Horst , A. Horesh , A. Rowlinson , A. Andersson , R. Diretse , M. Vaccari , R. P. Fender
show 1 more author
P. A. Woudt
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM
keywords radiotransientsMeerKATcommensalsurveysstellarflarescircularpolarizationinterstellarscintillationgamma-rayburstssupernovae
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 commensal radio transient search—one that piggybacks on deep MeerKAT observations originally taken for gamma-ray burst and supernova studies—imaging the L-band at two timescales. At 30-minute integration, it finds 13 variable sources and argues that 12 are fully explained by interstellar scintillation, with one source possibly intrinsically variable. At 8-second integration, after splitting the L-band into lower and upper halves, it finds a single 8-to-16-second transient, source 96178, seen only in the lower half of the band and highly circularly polarized at the lowest frequencies. The source lies about 2 arcseconds from a TESS-detected M-dwarf star at roughly 99 parsecs, and the authors conclude that the burst may be coherent emission from a stellar flare. The paper also uses transient simulations to place upper and lower limits on the transient rate, improving the long-timescale upper limit by about a factor of two over the earlier survey.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the split-band, fast-cadence search itself: the MeerKAT L-band is divided into lower and upper halves and imaged every 8 seconds, so steep-spectrum or narrowband emission confined to one half of the band is not diluted or hidden by the other half. Source finding and variability ranking are done by the LOFAR Transients Pipeline (TraP), with the variability statistic $\eta$ recomputed including a 10% systematic error and an effective detection threshold of about 6.4 times the image noise for the 8-second images. For source 96178, re-imaging with cross-hand polarizations provides Stokes V circular-polarization measurements, and splitting the band into four sub-bands shows the flux increasing toward the lowest frequencies. Supporting machinery includes a Galactic scintillation model used to predict modulation indices and timescales for each field, and the RaTS simulation code used to turn non-detections and detections into transient-rate upper and lower limits.

What would settle it

Re-observing the GRB 210323A field with sub-arcsecond localization, or triggering on TIC 419518448 during a stellar flare, would settle it: a repeat burst at the M-dwarf position would confirm the flare interpretation, while no repeat and a demonstrated RFI origin for the single detection would falsify it. A simultaneous optical flare in archival TESS data at the burst epoch would also be decisive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is source 96178: an 8-to-16-second radio transient in the GRB 210323A field that is detected only in the lower half of the MeerKAT L-band, with approximately 100% circular polarization in the lowest-frequency sub-band and flux rising toward lower frequencies. The authors argue that this combination—short duration, steep spectrum, high circular polarization, and no pulsar within a quarter degree—points to coherent emission from a stellar flare, and they note a positional coincidence of about 2 arcseconds with the TESS M-dwarf TIC 419518448 at roughly 99 pc. They do not claim a confirmed association, because the MeerKAT position carries an uncertainty of about 11 arcseconds and the source appears in a single 8-to-16-second window. Separately, the paper claims that 12 of the 13 variable sources found at 30-minute timescales are consistent with refractive interstellar scintillation, and that the remaining source's variability may be intrinsic or may be explained by a closer scattering screen than the model assumes.

Load-bearing premise

The novel result stands or falls on source 96178 being a real astrophysical radio burst rather than radio-frequency interference, and on its roughly 2-arcsecond coincidence with the M-dwarf TIC 419518448 being a true physical association despite the ~11-arcsecond MeerKAT positional uncertainty.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If source 96178 is a stellar flare, short steep-spectrum circularly polarized radio bursts from nearby M-dwarfs can be discovered commensally in extragalactic survey fields, not only in targeted stellar monitoring.
  • The split-band strategy works: imaging the lower and upper halves of the L-band separately at 8-second cadence can recover transients that full-band imaging washes out, at a sensitivity cost that scales only as the square root of the bandwidth.
  • The classification of 12 of the 13 variable sources as interstellar scintillation implies that most low-level radio variability in these fields is a propagation effect rather than intrinsic source activity.
  • The improved long-timescale transient-rate upper limit, about $10^{-4}$ transients per day per square degree for 5 mJy transients with durations near 200 days, tightens constraints on rare events such as GRB afterglows and tidal disruption events in these fields.
  • The 8-second-timescale rate limits, roughly $4\times10^{-4}$ to $10^{-2}$ transients per day per square degree for a 9.51 Jy top-hat transient, show that the assumed observing bandwidth changes the inferred rate, so transient rates must be quoted with the band and spectral assumptions stated.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the association with TIC 419518448 is real, archival TESS light curves should be searched for an optical flare simultaneous with the MeerKAT burst; the paper notes only a marginal bump at 10-minute cadence, so a dedicated search could strengthen or break the association.
  • The single-window, near-threshold detection implies the population of such bursts may include shorter and brighter events than 8 seconds; a high-cadence Stokes V search around nearby M-dwarfs would test whether these events are common.
  • Because the transient was invisible in the full band and visible only after splitting, future fast-transient surveys should treat split-band, narrowband, and circular-polarization diagnostics as standard outputs rather than optional follow-ups.
  • If confirmed at 99 pc, this would be a very nearby stellar radio flare, and coherent L-band flare emission could become a new way to identify flare stars in wide-field commensal surveys.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. Chastain et al. present a commensal MeerKAT L-band transient search in supernova and short gamma-ray burst fields. Using TraP and an eta>2 variability criterion, they identify 13 variable sources in 30-minute images and argue, from a comparison with Hancock et al. (2019) interstellar scintillation predictions, that 12 of them are scintillating and one may be intrinsically variable. They compare the variables against VLASS, RACS, TESS, and archival Chandra data. In split-band 8-second images they report one candidate, source 96178, with an 8-16 s duration, detected only in the lower half of the L-band, with apparently strong circular polarization at the lowest frequencies, and located about 2 arcseconds from the TESS M-dwarf TIC 419518448; they conclude that it may be consistent with a stellar flare. They also use RaTS simulations to place upper and lower limits on the transient rate, finding a long-timescale upper limit about a factor of two better than the earlier Chastain et al. (2023) survey.

Significance. If the 8-16 s candidate is genuinely astrophysical, this would be a novel short-duration, steep-spectrum, highly circularly polarized radio burst from a nearby M-dwarf, and would demonstrate the value of split-band commensal searching. The survey also provides a useful variable-source sample, a transparent application of the established TraP/eta methodology, reproducible analysis scripts, and improved transient-rate limits from Monte-Carlo simulations. These strengths are real and should be credited. However, the headline source detection and its stellar-flare interpretation currently rest on a single low-S/N window without quantitative RFI, polarization-leakage, or chance-association diagnostics; the significance of the central new claim is therefore conditional on additional analysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2] Source 96178 is a single-window detection whose astrophysical reality is not quantitatively established. The candidate emerged from 1803 sources after a step described only as removing 'artifacts, likely satellites or other RFI, or ... variability that seemed to be non-astrophysical in origin,' with no criteria reported for this specific source. The 8-second detection threshold is, by the authors' own statement, only a rough Gaussian approximation (Section 3), and the burst appears in only the lower half of the L-band, so a narrowband or steep-spectrum satellite or radar signal is not excluded. A quantitative RFI diagnostic is needed: off-source noise in the same image, baseline-based localization, spectral behavior within the burst window, and an explicit account of how the visual RFI triage was applied to this candidate. Without such a diagnostic, the paper's central transient claim and the flare interpretation in Section 5.4 have no secure foundation.
  2. [Section 5.4 and Table 4] The circular-polarization claim is not supported by the data as presented, and no polarization calibration check is described. Table 4 gives V/I approximately -0.75 at 989 MHz and approximately +0.34 at 1389 MHz; this sign change over roughly 400 MHz is a classic signature of unmodeled cross-hand leakage or phase errors rather than a standard property of stellar coherent radio emission. The re-calibration described in Section 4.2 used cross-hand products, but no D-term calibration, off-axis leakage test, or check against a polarization calibrator is reported. The text's statement of 'approximately 100% Stokes V polarization' also overstates the measured value of |V|/I in Table 4. The polarization must either be demonstrated against leakage or removed from the claim.
  3. [Section 5.4] The proposed association with TIC 419518448 is not quantified. The reported MeerKAT position has an uncertainty of ±0.003 degrees (approximately 11 arcseconds), while the offset to the TESS M-dwarf is approximately 2 arcseconds, so a chance-coincidence probability based on the local TESS source density is required before the M-dwarf can be used to support the stellar-flare interpretation. The TESS light-curve excess is, by the authors' own statement, not significant, so it cannot independently corroborate the association. Without a false-association estimate, the statement that the source 'may be consistent with a stellar flare' is an unjustified inference from a single unresolved radio detection.
  4. [Section 5.3 and Tables 7-8] The classification that 12 of the 13 variables are consistent with interstellar scintillation rests on visual estimates of variability-timescale upper limits and informal comparison with the Hancock et al. (2019) predictions rather than a quantitative model comparison. For example, source 1290071 is declared inconsistent and then rescued by invoking a factor-of-two change in the assumed scattering-screen distance, while for sources such as 1305970 the quoted upper limit and the predicted timescale differ by orders of magnitude yet the source is still counted as consistent. A formal likelihood or chi-square comparison that propagates the uncertainties on both the measured and predicted modulation indices and timescales is needed to support the abstract's claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Tables 6 and 8] The declination of source 1290071 is given as -59.5997 degrees in Table 6 and as -69.5997 degrees in Table 8; since the field is at Dec -69.4959, one of these entries is a transcription error and should be corrected.
  2. [Section 5.4 and Table 4] The wording 'approximately 100% Stokes V polarization' does not match Table 4, where |V|/I is at most approximately 0.75; the text should state the measured ratio and its uncertainty.
  3. [Section 3] The 10% systematic error added in quadrature to the flux errors is asserted without a derivation or calibration-based justification; a short explanation of how this value was estimated would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Section 4.2] The reported position uncertainty of ±0.003 degrees for source 96178 is not defined as statistical or systematic, and no method for its derivation is given; this matters because the subsequent counterpart discussion depends on it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the variable-source sample, the 8-second transient candidate, and the rate limits are derived from the MeerKAT data, with self-citations limited to inherited thresholds and rate-limit simulation software.

full rationale

The paper's central results are empirical products of the survey: 13 variable sources at 30-minute cadence, one 8-16 second candidate (source 96178) with steep-spectrum and high circular polarization, and transient rate limits. These are extracted from MeerKAT images with TraP source finding and are compared against external survey data (VLASS, RACS, Chandra, TESS), not derived from the prior Chastain et al. papers. The eta>2 variability threshold and the 5.4/6.4 sigma detection thresholds are inherited from Chastain et al. (2023) and Rowlinson et al. (2022), but they are adopted statistical cuts, not fitted predictions of the current results; the candidate and variable classifications still depend on the present data, forced-fitting checks, and visual triage. The RaTS rate-limit code is self-cited (Chastain et al. 2022a,b), but it is open-source simulation software that translates survey sensitivity and injected transients into Poisson rate limits; the published limits are survey outputs, not identities with the code's inputs. The statement that the upper limit is a factor of two better than Chastain et al. (2023) is a comparison with an earlier measurement, not a derivation from it. Concerns about the single-window detection, RFI exclusion, Stokes V sign behavior, and the tentative TESS association are scientific robustness issues rather than circularity. No step equates a predicted quantity with a fitted or self-cited input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend mainly on standard calibration and imaging tools (CASA, ProcessMeerKAT, TraP), an external scintillation model, and several hand-chosen thresholds inherited from the same group's prior work. No new physical entities are postulated. The main modeling inputs are the Hancock et al. (2019) scintillation model and the self-developed RaTS simulation code, which introduce mild self-reliance.

free parameters (6)
  • Variability threshold eta > 2 = 2
    Adopted from Chastain et al. (2023); used to select candidate variable sources in both 30-minute and 8-second images (Section 3).
  • Systematic error term = 10%
    Added in quadrature to TraP flux errors when recomputing V and eta; chosen by hand and affects which sources pass the eta threshold (Section 3).
  • Detection thresholds for transient search = 5.4 sigma (30 min), 6.4 sigma (8 s)
    Computed from the pixel statistics of 50% of the pixels in the same images to allow less than one false detection, assuming a Gaussian distribution the authors note is approximate (Section 3).
  • 8-second variability window = 14 images
    Number of consecutive 8-second images used to compute eta; chosen as the maximum before a short transient is washed out (Section 3).
  • Sidelobe suppression radius = 5 beam widths
    Only the brightest source kept in a circular region of 5 beam widths, following Chastain et al. (2023) (Section 3).
  • Scattering screen distance for source 1290071 = 0.75 kpc (half the model value)
    The paper suggests halving the 1.5 kpc model screen distance to reconcile the variability timescale of source 1290071 with refractive scintillation (Section 5.3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Hancock et al. (2019) H-alpha based model predicts the refractive scintillation parameters (modulation index, timescale, transition frequency) at each field center.
    Used in Section 5.3 to classify 12 of 13 variable sources as scintillating; if the model is inaccurate for a given line of sight, the classification could be wrong.
  • domain assumption Transient rate limits are computed assuming top-hat light curves and Poisson statistics via the RaTS simulation code.
    Section 5.5; the limits are specific to the assumed light-curve shape and observing setup.
  • domain assumption The pixel noise in statistics images is approximately Gaussian for threshold setting.
    Section 3 states the threshold is only a rough approximation since the pixels do not follow a Gaussian distribution.
  • ad hoc to paper A 10% systematic error added in quadrature to flux uncertainties captures residual calibration and primary-beam errors.
    Section 3; the size is not justified by a measured calibration budget.
  • ad hoc to paper The positional coincidence between source 96178 and the TESS M-dwarf TIC 419518448 is treated as a plausible counterpart for the flare interpretation.
    Section 5.4; the authors acknowledge the association is difficult to confirm without better localization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Commensal Transient Searches with MeerKAT in Gamma-Ray Burst and Supernova Fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q5FZUKL7

@misc{pith2026241202832,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Commensal Transient Searches with MeerKAT in Gamma-Ray Burst and Supernova Fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q5FZUKL7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02832}
}
read the original abstract

The sensitivity and field of view of the MeerKAT radio telescope provides excellent opportunities for commensal transient searches. We carry out a commensal transient search in supernova and short gamma-ray burst fields using methodologies established in~\citet{commensal1}. We search for transients in MeerKAT L-band images with 30 minute integration times, finding 13 variable sources. We compare these sources to the VLASS and RACS survey data, and examine possible explanations for the variability. Additionally, for one of these sources we examine archival \textit{Chandra} ACIS data. We find that 12 of these sources are consistent with variability due to interstellar scintillation. The remaining source could possibly have some intrinsic variability. We also split the MeerKAT L-band into an upper and lower half, and search for transients in images with an 8 second integration time. We find a source with a duration of 8 to 16 seconds that is highly polarized at the lowest frequencies. This source is spatially coincident with a star detected by the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (\textit{TESS}). We conclude that this source may be consistent with a stellar flare. Finally, we calculate accurate upper and lower limits on the transient rate using transient simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02832 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. On the left is a co-added image of Chandra ACIS data shown with the MeerKAT beam from one of the observations overplotted as an ellipse. On the right is an image from Chandra ObsId 4175 in which the source appears to be detected. This source has conflicting multi-wavelength catalog data: Bailer-Jones et al. (2021) show a star approximately 1.3 kpc away within 1 arcsecond of the source using Gaia (Prusti et al. 2016)… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Light curves for the variable sources, not including source 1290071. 1.5 kpc. This change would result in the timescale matching the estimated upper limit of the variability timescale, with the modulation index being consistent as well. However, in Tables 5 and 6 we see that the radio measurements at 890 MHz of the RACS counterpart are quite stable. The stability of the flux in these measurements is interesting, alt… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Light curves, continued, for the variable sources, not including source 1290071 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Light curve showing all observations of source number 1290071, which shows variability on the observation-to￾observation level. It also has radio counterparts and the variability timescale of around 30 days does not match the refractive scintillation timescale of aroun…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The top plot shows the TESS light curve for TIC 419518448, a potential counterpart to source 96178. The bottom plot shows the MeerKAT light curve. difficult to compare with the 8 second cadence of the MeerKAT light curve. There were no X-ray, gamma-ray or radio counter…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The left panel shows a surface plot with the transient rate upper limit calculated for a top hat light curve on the color axis, and the transient duration and peak flux on the horizontal and vertical axis, respectively. The right panel shows the upper limit on the tran…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The left panel shows a surface plot with the transient rate lower limit calculated for a top hat light curve on the color axis, and the transient duration and peak flux on the horizontal and vertical axis, respectively. The middle panel is similar to the left panel, bu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Discovery of a radio-flaring M dwarf in a commensal transient search of the LADUMA field

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    MeerKAT LADUMA monitoring reveals a radio-flaring M3.5 dwarf, LP 888-63, with 13 detections in 41 epochs at 816 MHz.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M., Mooley, K

    Anderson, M. M., Mooley, K. P., Hallinan, G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb94b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb94b 2020

  2. [2]

    L., et al

    Anumarlapudi, A., Dobie, D., Kaplan, D. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 241, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad64d3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad64d3 2024

  3. [3]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  4. [4]

    L., et al

    Caleb, M., Lenc, E., Kaplan, D. L., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02277-w

    doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02277-w 2024

  5. [5]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 4106, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3013

    Rowlinson, A. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 4106, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3013

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3013 2017

  6. [6]

    J., Wijers, R

    Carbone, D., van der Horst, A. J., Wijers, R. A. M. J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3161, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw539

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw539 2016

  7. [7]

    I., van der Horst, A

    Chastain, S. I., van der Horst, A. J., & Carbone, D. 2022a, RTS: Radio Transient Simulations, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2204.007. http://ascl.net/2204.007 —. 2022b, Astronomy and Computing, 40, 100629, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2022.100629

    work page arXiv

  8. [8]

    I., van der Horst, A

    Chastain, S. I., van der Horst, A. J., Rowlinson, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1888, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2714

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2714 2023

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    I., van der Horst, A

    Chastain, S. I., van der Horst, A. J., Anderson, G. E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2820, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1568

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    D., Frank, B., Sekhar, S., & Taylor, A

    Collier, J. D., Frank, B., Sekhar, S., & Taylor, A. R. 2021, in 2021 XXXIVth General Assembly and Scientific Symposium of the International Union of Radio Science (URSI GASS, 4, doi: 10.23919/URSIGASS51995.2021.9560276

    2021

  3. [11]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1693, doi: 10.1086/300337 de Ruiter, I., Meyers, Z. S., Rowlinson, A., et al. 2024a, MNRAS, 531, 4805, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1458 de Ruiter, I., Rajwade, K. M., Bassa, C. G., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arX...

    1998 doi

  4. [12]

    Z., & Hallinan, G

    Dong, D. Z., & Hallinan, G. 2023, ApJ, 948, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc06c

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    N., McDonald, I., Buckley, D

    Driessen, L. N., McDonald, I., Buckley, D. A. H., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 560, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3027

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    N., Stappers, B

    Driessen, L. N., Stappers, B. W., Tremou, E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 5037, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac756

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    N., Pritchard, J., Murphy, T., et al

    Driessen, L. N., Pritchard, J., Murphy, T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.07418, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.07418

    2024 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    R., Gaensler, B

    Dykaar, H., Drout, M. R., Gaensler, B. M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.08371, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.08371

    2024 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    N., Primini, F

    Evans, I. N., Primini, F. A., Glotfelty, K. J., et al. 2010, ApJS, 189, 37, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/37

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Allen, G

    Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey, 62701V, doi: 10.1117/12.671760

    2006 doi

  11. [19]

    P., Bautz, M

    Garmire, G. P., Bautz, M. W., Ford, P. G., Nousek, J. A., & Ricker, Jr., G. R. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4851, X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Telescopes and Instruments for Astronomy., ed. J. E. Truemper & H. D. Tananbaum, ...

    2003 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Boyce, M

    Gordon, Y. A., Boyce, M. M., O’Dea, C. P., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac05c0

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    L., McConnell, D., Thomson, A

    Hale, C. L., McConnell, D., Thomson, A. J. M., et al. 2021, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 38, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.47

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.08395

    Hurley-Walker, N. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.08395. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.08395

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J., White, R

    Helfand, D. J., White, R. L., & Becker, R. H. 2015, ApJ, 801, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/26

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    2004, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Hobbs, G., Manchester, R., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2004, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 218, Young Neutron Stars and Their Environments, ed. F. Camilo & B. M. Gaensler, 139, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0309219

    2004 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    J., et al

    Hurley-Walker, N., Rea, N., McSweeney, S. J., et al. 2023, Nature, 619, 487, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06202-5

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Bahramian, A., et al

    Hurley-Walker, N., McSweeney, S. J., Bahramian, A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 976, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad890e

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    2008, Experimental Astronomy, 22, 151, doi: 10.1007/s10686-008-9124-7 20Chastain et al

    Johnston, S., Taylor, R., Bailes, M., et al. 2008, Experimental Astronomy, 22, 151, doi: 10.1007/s10686-008-9124-7 20Chastain et al

    2008 doi

  20. [28]

    Jonas, J. L. 2009, IEEE Proceedings, 97, 1522, doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2020713

    2009

  21. [29]

    A., Chandler, C

    Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 035001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    K., Murphy, T., Ghirlanda, G., et al

    Leung, J. K., Murphy, T., Ghirlanda, G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1847, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab326

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 10, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/10

    Liu, J. 2011, ApJS, 192, 10, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/10

    2011 doi

  24. [33]

    L., Lenc, E., et al

    McConnell, D., Hale, C. L., Lenc, E., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 37, e048, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2020.41

    2020 doi

  25. [34]

    D., Williams, P

    Metzger, B. D., Williams, P. K. G., & Berger, E. 2015, ApJ, 806, 224, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/224

    2015 doi

  26. [35]

    P., Hallinan, G., Bourke, S., et al

    Mooley, K. P., Hallinan, G., Bourke, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 105, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/105

    2016 doi

  27. [36]

    L., Stewart, A

    Murphy, T., Kaplan, D. L., Stewart, A. J., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e054, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.44

    2021 doi

  28. [37]

    2000, The VizieR database of astronomical catalogues, doi: 10.26093/cds/vizier

    Ochsenbein, F., et al. 2000, The VizieR database of astronomical catalogues, doi: 10.26093/cds/vizier

    2000 doi

  29. [38]

    Osten, R. A. 2008, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0801.2573, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0801.2573

    2008 doi arXiv

  30. [39]

    G., et al

    Prusti, T., De Bruijne, J., Brown, A. G., et al. 2016, Astronomy & astrophysics, 595, A1

    2016

  31. [40]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    2015 doi

  32. [41]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 2894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2460

    Rowlinson, A., Meijn, J., Bright, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2460

    2022 doi

  33. [42]

    2024, ApJ, 970, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad49ab

    Schroeder, G., Rhodes, L., Laskar, T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad49ab

    2024 doi

  34. [43]

    W., R¨ ottgering, H

    Shimwell, T. W., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., Best, P. N., et al. 2017, A&A, 598, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629313

    2017 doi

  35. [44]

    J., Ravi, V., & Lu, W

    Somalwar, J. J., Ravi, V., & Lu, W. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.03795, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.03795

    2023 doi arXiv

  36. [45]

    J., Ravi, V., Dong, D

    Somalwar, J. J., Ravi, V., Dong, D. Z., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adba4f

    2025 doi

  37. [46]

    2018, PySE: Python Source Extractor for radio astronomical images, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1805.026

    Spreeuw, H., Swinbank, J., Molenaar, G., et al. 2018, PySE: Python Source Extractor for radio astronomical images, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1805.026. http://ascl.net/1805.026

    2018

  38. [47]

    G., Oelkers, R

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Paegert, M., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467

    2019 doi

  39. [49]

    J., Fender, R

    Stewart, A. J., Fender, R. P., Broderick, J. W., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2321, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2797

    2016 doi

  40. [50]

    D., Staley, T

    Swinbank, J. D., Staley, T. D., Molenaar, G. J., et al. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 11, 25, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.03.002 THE CASA TEAM, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2210.02276. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.02276

    2015 arXiv

  41. [51]

    J., Goeke, R., Bowman, J

    Tingay, S. J., Goeke, R., Bowman, J. D., et al. 2013, PASA, 30, e007, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2012.007 van Haarlem, M. P., Wise, M. W., Gunst, A. W., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220873

    2013 doi

  42. [52]

    S., Dowell, J., Obenberger, K

    Varghese, S. S., Dowell, J., Obenberger, K. S., Taylor, G. B., & Malins, J. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 126, e29296, doi: 10.1029/2021JA029296

    2021 doi

  43. [53]

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

    1998

Pith tools

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