Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Deep Searches for Radio Pulsations and Bursts from Four Magnetar and a Magnetar-like pulsar with FAST

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read No radio pulsations or bursts detected from four magnetars and PSR J1846-0258 with FAST at 1250 MHz, yielding flux limits down to 8.2 microjansky.

desk verdict Credible non-detections and useful flux limits, but a spin-period inconsistency between the text and Table 1 must be fixed before the limits can be quoted. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20050 v1 pith:RZPWJK2Y submitted 2024-12-28 astro-ph.HE

Juntao Bai , Na Wang , Shi Dai , Shuangqiang Wang , Jianping Yuan , Wenming Yan , Lunhua Shang , Xin Xu
show 2 more authors
Shijun Dang Zhen Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords magnetarsradiopulsationssinglepulsesupperlimitsFASTPSRJ1846-0258rednoiseradio-quietneutronstars
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 2100-second radio search of four magnetars (SGR 0501+4516, Swift 1834.9-0846, 1E 1841-045, SGR 1900+14) and the magnetar-like pulsar PSR J1846-0258 with the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope at 1250 MHz. No periodic pulsations and no single pulses were detected from any target, despite observing PSR J1846-0258 one month after its 2020 X-ray outburst while its X-ray pulse flux was still elevated. After correcting for red noise, the authors place upper limits on the pulsed flux density from 8.2 to 16.9 microjansky, among the deepest yet at this frequency for some of these sources. If these limits hold, the sources are either genuinely radio-quiet or their radio beams are not pointed at Earth during the observations.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on the 2100 s of 500 MHz bandwidth FAST data and two search pipelines from the PRESTO suite: prepfold folding at spin periods extrapolated from X-ray timing, and accelsearch for blind periodic searches, plus single_pulse_search.py for dispersed bursts. Sensitivity is set by the radiometer equation, and the key correction for long-period pulsars is a red-noise estimate: each observation is folded both at the source period and at a 10 ms period, the RMS of the two profiles is compared, and the ratio multiplies the white-noise flux limit to give the quoted upper limits.

What would settle it

Detect a periodic or single-pulse signal from any of the five targets at 1250 MHz with flux above the quoted limits in a comparable-length observation; that would show the non-detection was epoch-specific or the sensitivity estimate was too pessimistic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that none of the five targets emitted detectable periodic or single-pulse radio emission during the FAST observations, and that the resulting upper limits are stringent enough to constrain their radio behavior. For the four magnetars and PSR J1846-0258, the red-noise-corrected 1250 MHz flux-density limits are 16.9, 8.2, 13.9, 12.2, and 8.2 microjansky respectively, with single-pulse limits in the 2.9-135.9 mJy range depending on pulse width. The observation of PSR J1846-0258 is notable because this high-B pulsar had just gone through a magnetar-like X-ray outburst, yet showed no radio emission, suggesting that either the radio emission mechanism was not activated despite the outburst, or the emission is beamed away from Earth or highly sporadic.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted limits assume that the red-noise correction, derived by comparing a profile folded at the source period with one folded at 10 ms, correctly measures the sensitivity loss; if the 10 ms fold is not pure white noise, the limits could be off by a large factor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the sources are radio-quiet, searches at other frequencies and epochs should remain empty, strengthening the division between radio-loud and radio-quiet magnetars.
  • For PSR J1846-0258, the non-detection after an X-ray outburst narrows the conditions under which magnetar-like bursts switch on radio emission; it may be that only some outbursts or some geometries do.
  • The flux limits are several times below typical 1.4 GHz fluxes of known long-period pulsars, so any future detection from these targets would imply either transient activation or a narrow beam.
  • The single-pulse limits constrain FRB-like bursts from these magnetars during the observing windows, complementary to fast radio burst searches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Stacking many short FAST observations could push sensitivity further and test whether the non-detections are persistent or arise from sporadic emission.
  • A simultaneous X-ray and radio campaign during a future outburst of PSR J1846-0258 would test whether radio emission tracks X-ray flux, as seen in some other magnetars.
  • The red-noise correction procedure could be validated by injecting synthetic pulsed signals into the data and recovering them, which would quantify the bias in the quoted limits.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports FAST 1250 MHz observations of four magnetars (SGR 0501+4516, Swift 1834.9-0846, 1E 1841-045, SGR 1900+14) and the magnetar-like pulsar PSR J1846-0258, including PSR J1846-0258 about one month after its 2020 X-ray outburst. Using PRESTO, the authors searched for periodic pulsations and dispersed single pulses; no radio emission was detected from any target. They derive periodic flux upper limits from the radiometer equation with an assumed 10% duty cycle, then apply a red-noise correction based on the ratio of RMS noise in profiles folded at the source period and at 10 ms. The final quoted limits are S1250,red ≤ 16.9, 8.2, 13.9, 12.2, and 8.2 μJy for the five sources, plus single-pulse flux limits for 0.05-48 ms bursts. The authors also detected the known pulsar PSR J1907+0918 in the SGR 1900+14 pointing and RRAT J1846-0257 in the PSR J1846-0258 pointing, validating the search pipeline. The discussion interprets the non-detections as evidence that these sources are radio-quiet or unfavorably beamed at the observed epochs.

Significance. If the quantitative limits are correct, this work provides some of the deepest 1.25 GHz flux upper limits for these magnetars and particularly constrains PSR J1846-0258 near an active epoch following its 2020 outburst. The detection of known pulsars in the same pointings is a genuine strength, showing that the search pipeline would have found radio pulsations or single pulses if they were present above the quoted thresholds. The work also usefully documents a red-noise correction procedure for long-period sources. However, the quantitative claims rest on an unresolved inconsistency in the spin periods used for folding, so the significance of the quoted limits cannot be assessed until that is fixed.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.1 and Table 1] There is a direct contradiction between the spin periods used for the periodic search and those listed in Table 1. Section 3.1 states that the extrapolated periods at the start of the observations were 5.759819 s (SGR 0501+4516), 2.479967 s (Swift J1834.9-0846), 11.77364 s (1E 1841-045), and 5.1579 s (SGR 1900+14), whereas Table 1 lists P = 5.7620695(1), 2.4823018(1), 11.788978(1), and 5.19987(7) s, respectively. These differences (0.002-0.042 s) are far larger than the quoted uncertainties. If prepfold was run with the Section 3.1 periods, the accumulated phase drift over the 2100 s observation would be about 0.8 s for SGR 0501+4516 and about 17 s for SGR 1900+14, far exceeding the assumed 10% duty cycle, so any periodic signal would be smeared below detectability and the quoted upper limits would be invalid. If Table 1 was used, the text is erroneous but the result stands. As written, the paper does not establish which period was actually used, so the headline upper limits are not reproducible. Please clarify and, if necessary, rerun the periodic search and upper-limit calculation with the correct epoch-dependent ephemerides.
  2. [§3.3] The red-noise correction is load-bearing for the quoted flux limits, but its validity is not demonstrated quantitatively. The method assumes that a profile folded at 10 ms contains only white noise and that the RMS ratio σp0/σ10ms fully captures the sensitivity loss from red noise. The paper reports the resulting limits but not the measured values of σp0/σ10ms for each source, nor any test of the white-noise assumption for the 10 ms fold (e.g., a χ² statistic or a comparison with an independent noise estimate). Without these numbers, the reader cannot assess how much the limits depend on this correction. Please report the measured ratios and quantify the systematic uncertainty they introduce, for example by comparing the red-noise correction derived from different reference periods or by using a noise model that accounts for the actual spectral index of the red noise.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Table 1] The text says the single-pulse limits are 'between 2.9 and 135.9 μJy', while Table 1 lists maximum values of 89.0-121.4 mJy for S1250,single; the units and the maximum value are inconsistent between the text and the table.
  2. [§3.1] The sentence 'within the same DM range and steps as previously described' is ambiguous because the DM range and steps have not yet been described in Section 3; clarify by referring explicitly to Section 2 or to the DDplan.py discussion.
  3. [Table 1] The quoted S1250,red values carry parenthetical uncertainties (e.g., 16.9(7) μJy), but the text does not explain how these uncertainties are derived from the radiometer equation and the red-noise ratio.
  4. [§4] The discussion treats the 2020 PSR J1846-0258 outburst as 'magnetar-like' but does not cite the high-energy burst trigger date precisely; consider giving the MJD or exact date to support 'one month after' in the abstract.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the flux upper limits follow from an independent radiometer-equation calculation with measured telescope parameters, assumed thresholds, and a data-derived red-noise correction; no fitted parameter is reused as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central outputs are non-detection upper limits. The derivation chain is: (i) telescope gain, receiver temperature, and sky temperature are taken from independent calibration (Jiang et al. 2020; Haslam et al. 1982); (ii) the periodic upper limit is computed from the standard radiometer equation with assumed duty cycle (10%) and S/N threshold (7), with no parameter fitted to the target sources; (iii) the red-noise correction is measured by comparing the RMS of profiles folded at the source period and at 10 ms, which is an empirical noise estimate rather than a value chosen to enforce the null result; (iv) the search periods and dispersion measures come from prior X-ray ephemerides and the YMW16 Galactic electron-density model, not from the FAST data themselves. No prediction is generated from the same data used to fit a model, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation chain. The apparent disagreement between the Section 3.1 extrapolated periods and the Table 1 periods is a correctness/reproducibility concern about which ephemeris was actually used in prepfold, not a circularity: the upper limits do not define or fit the periods. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on standard radio-search methodology and on several modeling choices (duty cycle, S/N threshold, red-noise baseline, model DMs); no new physical entities are introduced and no parameters are fitted to data to produce the claim.

free parameters (3)
  • Assumed pulsed duty cycle = 10%
    Used in the radiometer equation (Equation 1) to convert a pulsed signal threshold into a mean flux limit; chosen by hand and affects all periodic limits in Table 1.
  • Signal-to-noise threshold = 7
    Chosen to balance RFI rejection and sensitivity in both periodic and single-pulse searches; sets the normalization for all upper limits.
  • White-noise reference period = 10 ms
    Profiles folded at this period are assumed to contain only white noise and are used as the baseline to estimate the red-noise sensitivity loss (Section 3.3).
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Radiometer equation relates S/N to flux density (Dewey et al. 1985)
    Equation 1 is the standard sensitivity formula for radio pulsar searches; assumption that system noise is Gaussian and independent.
  • domain assumption 10 ms fold is white-noise-only baseline
    Section 3.3 relies on the judged absence of red noise in the 10 ms fold to scale the upper limits; this is an empirical assumption, not a measured property.
  • domain assumption Linear extrapolation of X-ray spin ephemerides is valid at the radio epochs
    Periods for prepfold are extrapolated from published X-ray timing; glitches or timing noise would weaken the fold search, though the blind search partially mitigates this.
  • domain assumption YMW16 model DMs are correct for dedispersion
    Search ranges bracket the model DMs, but a wrong DM would reduce sensitivity for both periodic and single-pulse searches at the expected value.
  • domain assumption Sky temperature from Haslam et al. (1982) with spectral index -2.6
    T_sky enters the system temperature in Equations 1 and 2; an error in T_sky directly scales the flux limits.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep Searches for Radio Pulsations and Bursts from Four Magnetar and a Magnetar-like pulsar with FAST." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RZPWJK2Y

@misc{pith2026241220050,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep Searches for Radio Pulsations and Bursts from Four Magnetar and a Magnetar-like pulsar with FAST},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RZPWJK2Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20050}
}
abstract

We report on radio observations of four magnetars SGR 0501+4516, Swift 1834.9-0846, 1E 1841-045, SGR 1900+14 and a magnetar-like pulsar PSR J1846-0258 with the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope (FAST) at 1250 MHz. Notably, PSR J1846-0258 was observed one month after its 2020 X-ray outburst. The data from these observations were searched for periodic emissions and single pulses. No radio emission was detected for any of our targets. After accounting for the effect of red noise, the non-detections yield stringent upper limits on the radio flux density, with $S_{1250} \leq 16.9\, \mu $Jy for the four magnetars and the magnetar-like pulsar, along with constraints on single-pulse flux densities. Our deep radio observations suggest that these magnetars and the magnetar-like pulsar are indeed radio-quiet sources or unfavorably beamed. The resulting flux upper limits, along with previous findings, are discussed, highlighting the significance of further radio observations of radio-quiet magnetars and the high-B magnetar-like pulsar.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20050 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 3.1. Periodic Search Given that previous X-ray observations have pre￾cisely measured the spin parameters of the four mag￾netars and the magnetar-like pulsar (Camero et al. 2014; Kargaltsev et al. 2012; Dib & Kaspi 2014; Mereghetti et al. 2006; Livingstone et al. 2011), we ex￾trapolated the period of each source to the current epoch (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The flux density of radio pulsars at 1.4 GHz as a function of the spin periods. Black points represent pulsars from the Australia Telescope National Facility (ATNF) Pul￾sar Catalogue (Manchester et al. 2005). Red lower triangles denote the upper limits of periodic pulsation from the four magnetars and a magnetar-like pulsar in this work. the magnetar-like pulsar PSR J1846−0258, which ex￾perienced a burst announced b… view at source ↗

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. Understanding the Neutron Star Population with the SKAO Telescopes

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 accept novelty 3.5 of 10

    SKAO AA* and AA4 surveys are projected to discover thousands of ordinary pulsars and ~800–1000 MSPs, enabling population synthesis, mass measurements and tests of gravity and emission physics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    McLaughlin, M. A. 2008, ApJ, 688, 550, doi: 10.1086/591661

    work page doi:10.1086/591661 2008

  2. [2]

    F., Kaspi, V

    Archibald, R. F., Kaspi, V. M., Tendulkar, S. P., & Scholz, P. 2016, ApJL, 829, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/L21

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/l21 2016

  3. [3]

    M., & Thompson, C

    Beloborodov, A. M., & Thompson, C. 2007, ApJ, 657, 967, doi: 10.1086/508917

    doi:10.1086/508917 2007

  4. [4]

    2020, ApJL, 902, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba82a

    Borghese, A., Coti Zelati, F., Rea, N., et al. 2020, ApJL, 902, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba82a

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba82a 2020

  5. [5]

    L., Possenti, A., et al

    Burgay, M., Israel, G. L., Possenti, A., et al. 2009, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 1913, 1

    2009

  6. [6]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2432

    Camero, A., Papitto, A., Rea, N., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2432

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2432 2014

  7. [7]

    M., Halpern, J

    Camilo, F., Ransom, S. M., Halpern, J. P., & Reynolds, J. 2007, ApJL, 666, L93, doi: 10.1086/521826

    doi:10.1086/521826 2007

  8. [8]

    M., Halpern, J

    Camilo, F., Ransom, S. M., Halpern, J. P., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 892, doi: 10.1038/nature04986 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y

    doi:10.1038/nature04986 2006

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    M., & McLaughlin, M

    Cordes, J. M., & McLaughlin, M. A. 2003, ApJ, 596, 1142, doi: 10.1086/378231

    2003 doi

  2. [10]

    Crawford, F., Hessels, J. W. T., & Kaspi, V. M. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1183, doi: 10.1086/517991

    2007 doi

  3. [11]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 3584, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2063

    Dai, S., Johnston, S., Weltevrede, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3584, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2063

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Taylor, J

    Dewey, R. J., Taylor, J. H., Weisberg, J. M., & Stokes, G. H. 1985, ApJL, 294, L25, doi: 10.1086/184502

    1985 doi

  5. [13]

    Dib, R., & Kaspi, V. M. 2014, ApJ, 784, 37, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/37

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    2020, ApJL, 896, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9742

    Esposito, P., Rea, N., Borghese, A., et al. 2020, ApJL, 896, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9742

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    P., Gonzalez, M

    Gavriil, F. P., Gonzalez, M. E., Gotthelf, E. V., et al. 2008, Science, 319, 1802, doi: 10.1126/science.1153465

    2008 doi

  8. [16]

    P., Gotthelf, E

    Halpern, J. P., Gotthelf, E. V., Becker, R. H., Helfand, D. J., & White, R. L. 2005, ApJL, 632, L29, doi: 10.1086/497537

    2005 doi

  9. [17]

    Haslam, C. G. T., Salter, C. J., Stoffel, H., & Wilson, W. E. 1982, A&AS, 47, 1

    1982

  10. [18]

    2020, ApJ, 902, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3c9 7

    Hu, C.-P., Begi¸ carslan, B., G¨ uver, T., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3c9 7

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    K., et al

    Hu, C.-P., Kuiper, L., Harding, A. K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd850

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    Jiang, P., Tang, N.-Y., Hou, L.-G., et al. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    G., et al

    Kargaltsev, O., Kouveliotou, C., Pavlov, G. G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/26

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    2020, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 13553, 1

    Karuppusamy, R., Desvignes, G., Kramer, M., et al. 2020, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 13553, 1

    2020

  15. [23]

    M., & Beloborodov, A

    Kaspi, V. M., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 261, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023329

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    C., & Thompson, C

    Kouveliotou, C., Duncan, R. C., & Thompson, C. 2003, Scientific American, 288, 34, doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0203-34

    2003 doi

  17. [25]

    M., Champion, D

    Lazarus, P., Kaspi, V. M., Champion, D. J., Hessels, J. W. T., & Dib, R. 2012, ApJ, 744, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/97

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    Lazarus, P., Brazier, A., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/81

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    2010, ApJL, 721, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/721/1/L33

    Levin, L., Bailes, M., Bates, S., et al. 2010, ApJL, 721, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/721/1/L33

    2010 doi

  20. [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

    2018

  21. [29]

    A., Ng, C

    Livingstone, M. A., Ng, C. Y., Kaspi, V. M., Gavriil, F. P., & Gotthelf, E. V. 2011, ApJ, 730, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/66

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    R., & Xilouris, K

    Lorimer, D. R., & Xilouris, K. M. 2000, ApJ, 545, 385, doi: 10.1086/317815

    2000 doi

  23. [31]

    E., Shannon, R

    Lower, M. E., Shannon, R. M., Johnston, S., & Bailes, M. 2020, ApJL, 896, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9898

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad27cf

    Lu, W.-J., Zhou, P., Wang, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad27cf

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    2020, ApJ, 897, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab97b5

    Lyubarsky, Y. 2020, ApJ, 897, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab97b5

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    N., Hobbs, G

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, AJ, 129, 1993, doi: 10.1086/428488

    2005 doi

  27. [35]

    A., Lyne, A

    McLaughlin, M. A., Lyne, A. G., Lorimer, D. R., et al. 2006, Nature, 439, 817, doi: 10.1038/nature04440

    2006 doi

  28. [36]

    2006, ApJ, 653, 1423, doi: 10.1086/508682

    Mereghetti, S., Esposito, P., Tiengo, A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 653, 1423, doi: 10.1086/508682

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

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

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

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

    A., & Kaspi, V

    Olausen, S. A., & Kaspi, V. M. 2014, ApJS, 212, 6, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/6

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    2011, PRESTO: PulsaR Exploration and Search TOolkit, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1107.017

    Ransom, S. 2011, PRESTO: PulsaR Exploration and Search TOolkit, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1107.017

    2011

  32. [40]

    M., Eikenberry, S

    Ransom, S. M., Eikenberry, S. S., & Middleditch, J. 2002, AJ, 124, 1788, doi: 10.1086/342285

    2002 doi

  33. [41]

    2011, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, Vol

    Rea, N., & Esposito, P. 2011, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, Vol. 21, High-Energy Emission from Pulsars and their Systems, 247, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-17251-9 21

    2011 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Torres, D

    Rea, N., Pons, J. A., Torres, D. F., & Turolla, R. 2012, ApJL, 748, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/748/1/L12

    2012 doi

  35. [43]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.08010, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.08010

    Sathyaprakash, R., Parent, E., Rea, N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.08010, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.08010

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    2020, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 13681, 1

    Scholz, P., & Chime/Frb Collaboration. 2020, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 13681, 1

    2020

  37. [45]

    M., & Johnston, S

    Shannon, R. M., & Johnston, S. 2013, MNRAS, 435, L29, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt088

    2013 doi

  38. [46]

    I., & Gil, J

    Szary, A., Melikidze, G. I., & Gil, J. 2015, ApJ, 800, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/76

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    Thompson, C., & Duncan, R. C. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 255, doi: 10.1093/mnras/275.2.255

    1995 doi

  40. [48]

    2013, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 13, 835, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/13/7/007

    Tong, H., Yuan, J.-P., & Liu, Z.-Y. 2013, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 13, 835, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/13/7/007

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.08832, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.08832

    Wang, P., Li, J., Ji, L., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.08832, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.08832

    2023 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    Weltevrede, P., Johnston, S., & Espinoza, C. M. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 1917, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17821.x

    2011

  43. [51]

    N., et al

    Weltevrede, P., Johnston, S., Manchester, R. N., et al. 2010, PASA, 27, 64, doi: 10.1071/AS09054

    2010 doi

  44. [52]

    M., Manchester, R

    Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N. 2017, ApJ, 835, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    2023, Science Advances, 9, eadf6198, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adf6198

    Zhu, W., Xu, H., Zhou, D., et al. 2023, Science Advances, 9, eadf6198, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adf6198

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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