Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The timing and spectral properties of the 2022 outburst of SGR J1935+2154 observed with NICER

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A $0.16 \pm 0.03$ pulse-profile phase jump, coincident with the first glitch of the 2022 outburst of SGR J1935+2154, connects the glitch, an X-ray flare, and FRB 221014 into one episode.

desk verdict Solid long-term NICER spectral/timing paper on the 2022 outburst, but the headline 'phase jump' may simply be the unmodelled glitch residual; spectral results and stability around later FRBs are the real value. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07049 v1 pith:LO7ALQIL submitted 2025-01-13 astro-ph.HE

Fu Yu-Cong , Lin Lin , Ge Ming-Yu , Enoto Teruaki , Hu Chin-Ping , Younes George , Göğüş Ersin , Malacaria Christian This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords magnetarsSGRJ1935+2154X-raytimingpulse-profilephasejumpglitchesfastradioburstsNICERspectralevolution
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

During the October 2022 active episode of the magnetar SGR J1935+2154, this paper tracks nearly three months of NICER X-ray observations and reports a sudden leftward shift of the pulse profile by $0.16 \pm 0.03$ of a rotation phase, occurring between MJD 59866.62 and 59866.73. That phase jump coincides with the first of two glitches reported earlier, and on the burst-subtracted light curve a flare peaks at nearly the same time, with fast radio burst FRB 221014 detected immediately after the flare peak. The paper takes this temporal alignment to mean the glitch, the pulse-profile phase jump, an X-ray burst storm, and an FRB belong to a single physical episode in the star's twisted magnetosphere. It also finds the outburst decay is driven by the fading of the non-thermal power-law component, so the thermal blackbody fraction rises from about 10% to about 60% while the burst rate and photon index track the flux. If the alignment is real, it gives observers a rare chance to watch one magnetar event rearrange both the spin phase and the radio-emission window.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the phase of the X-ray pulse profile, tracked over 38 NICER observations from October to December 2022. The authors build a spin ephemeris by epoch-folding the 0.8–4 keV events, deriving times of arrival with a $Z^2_1$ search, and fitting the spin frequency and derivatives with a standard pulsar timing package; the resulting phase residuals reveal the abrupt $0.16 \pm 0.03$ shift. They divide the outburst into three parts separated by the phase jump and by FRB 221021, then compare average and phase-resolved spectra across those parts, showing that the spectral parameters shift with the pulse phase rather than changing their phase dependence. This combination lets the phase jump serve as a clock linking the glitch epoch to the flare and FRB 221014.

What would settle it

Reconstruct the persistent light curve with a more aggressive burst-removal method that fits and subtracts each burst's full temporal profile rather than clipping 3σ excursions and burst bases, then recompute the flare peak time. If the flare peak moves away from just before FRB 221014, or if the flare vanishes, the claimed glitch–flare–FRB sequence is not supported. A second check would be to measure pulse phases independently from NICER and another X-ray observatory across the glitch to confirm the 0.16 phase jump is not an ephemeris artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a measured $0.16 \pm 0.03$ phase jump in the 0.8–4 keV pulse profile of SGR J1935+2154 at the time of the first glitch of the 2022 outburst. Before MJD 59866.62 the main pulse peak sits near phase 0.65; after MJD 59866.73 it sits near phase 0.50, and the authors use the midpoint MJD 59866.68 as the jump epoch. The jump coincides with the first glitch time reported by an earlier study, and it bounds a flare whose peak flux exceeds the pre-flare level by more than a factor of ten; FRB 221014 was detected just after that peak. The authors argue that the glitch, the phase jump, the flare, and the radio burst are causally connected through a sudden change in the twisted magnetic field, while the persistent X-ray emission around the later FRBs 221021 and 221201 shows no such variation. The spectral analysis supports the timing result: phase-resolved fits keep the same correlation between photon index and pulse phase in all three temporal parts, but the whole pattern shifts left by the same 0.16 phase after the glitch.

Load-bearing premise

The flare's shape and peak time—which anchor the flare-to-FRB connection—assume that subtracting all identified bursts from the light curve leaves no residual burst emission; if leftover burst tails remain during the high burst-rate interval, the 'flare' could be partly contamination and the FRB timing link would weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the phase jump is real, the first glitch of the 2022 outburst changed the rotational phase of the pulsed emission, so spin ephemerides that ignore such jumps will systematically bias the spin-down measurement across an outburst.
  • The simultaneous occurrence of a glitch, a phase jump, an X-ray flare, and a fast radio burst in one episode supports a common trigger in a sudden rearrangement of the twisted magnetosphere, not independent random events.
  • The stability of the persistent X-ray parameters around FRB 221021 and FRB 221201 implies that not every magnetar FRB needs a bright X-ray flare, pointing to a diversity of FRB trigger mechanisms.
  • The decay of the outburst is dominated by the power-law flux, with the blackbody fraction growing from about 10% to about 60%, so the spectral evolution traces the gradual relaxation of the twisted magnetic field after the flare.
  • The inverse correlation between the photon index and both flux and burst rate means spectral hardness can serve as a real-time proxy for the magnetic activity level of the magnetar.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the glitch causes the phase jump by changing the magnetosphere's wind, then future glitches observed at high X-ray cadence should show the same leftward phase shift; a glitch without a phase jump would indicate that only a subset of glitches involve magnetospheric reconfiguration.
  • The paper leaves open why the second glitch at MJD 59866.99 shows no obvious phase jump; testing whether data quality or a genuinely different mechanism is responsible would require observations with denser time coverage across both glitches.
  • A direct extension would be to simulate the twisted-magnetosphere evolution with the glitch as a sudden boundary condition and predict the time delay between the phase jump and the flare peak and between the flare peak and FRB emission, then compare with the sub-hour ordering seen here.
  • Because the flare detection depends on burst subtraction, a re-analysis of the same NICER data with a different burst-removal scheme would provide a quick robustness check of the FRB 221014 association.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a timing and spectral analysis of NICER observations of the magnetar SGR J1935+2154 covering the 2022 October outburst from MJD 59864 to 59934. The authors derive a timing solution (f = 0.30752804(6) Hz, fdot = -4.82(3)e-12 Hz/s) and construct pulse profiles in the 0.8-4 keV band, identifying a phase shift of 0.16 +/- 0.03 between profiles before and after MJD 59866.62-59866.73, coincident with the first glitch reported by Hu et al. (2024). They measure a flare in the persistent flux peaking at roughly 19e-11 erg/s/cm^2, with FRB 221014 occurring at MJD 59866.806, shortly after the flare peak. The spectra are fitted with absorbed power-law and blackbody-plus-power-law models over three parts separated by the phase jump and FRB 221021, and the authors report a growing thermal fraction and an inverse correlation of photon index with flux and burst rate. They interpret the results as evidence for a connection between the glitch, phase jump, X-ray flare/FRB activity, and twisted magnetosphere evolution.

Significance. Assuming the measurements are correct, the paper provides one of the most detailed long-term NICER studies of a magnetar outburst, with a nearly three-month baseline and well-characterized spectral evolution. The temporal coincidence of the glitch, a pulse-profile phase shift, an X-ray flare, and an FRB would be a remarkable multi-wavelength link. The data reduction and spectral fitting are standard, with 1-sigma errors and acceptable chi-squared/dof, and the paper's correlations (e.g., photon index vs. flux and burst rate) are quantified with Pearson coefficients. However, the central novelty - the phase jump as a distinct observable - is not yet cleanly separated from the glitch's timing residual, so its significance as a separate phenomenon is unclear. The paper also overstates the immediacy of the flare-FRB association given the NICER coverage gaps. If the phase jump is confirmed as a true discontinuous change in pulse phase, the result would be important for models of glitch-induced magnetospheric restructuring.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Table 2] The timing fit excludes the glitch interval (MJD 59866.63-59866.99) and fits a single spin-down model without any jump (JUMP) parameter. With such a model, any glitch (an abrupt frequency increase) automatically produces a permanent phase offset between pre- and post-glitch ToAs; the 0.16 phase shift measured between the Part I and Part II profiles is therefore exactly the expected unmodelled glitch residual. To support the claim of a distinct 'phase jump', the authors should fit a model that includes frequency and frequency-derivative jumps at the glitch epoch and test whether an additional discontinuous phase jump is statistically required. They should also show the ToA residual plot for the best-fit timing solution. Without this, the phase jump cannot be distinguished from the glitch's ordinary timing signature, and the abstract's framing of it as a separate phenomenon in the glitch-phase-jump-flare-FRB chain is unjustified.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Figure 2(a)] The phase jump is localized only to the interval between the end of Obs. 5576010102-05 (about MJD 59866.62) and the start of Obs. 5576010102-06 (about MJD 59866.73), a 0.11-day NICER gap that also contains the first glitch epoch (MJD 59866.63). Statements such as 'the phase jump ... coincides with the first glitch time' and 'it can be discerned that it precedes the peak' overstate the time resolution: the jump could occur at any time in that gap. The paper should explicitly state the bracket and discuss the resulting limitation on the claimed temporal coincidence with the glitch and with the flare peak.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4] The claim that 'a fast radio burst (FRB) was detected immediately following the peak of this flare' is not supported by the time coverage. The GTI containing the flare peak (5576010102-06) ends at about MJD 59866.751, and the next GTI starts only at about MJD 59866.868; FRB 221014 occurred at MJD 59866.806, i.e., in a roughly 2.8-hour NICER gap between these GTIs. The wording should be revised to state that the FRB occurred during a short gap shortly after the last X-ray coverage of the flare peak, and the discussion of the flare-FRB connection should be tempered accordingly.
  4. [Section 2 and Figure 4(a)] The flare peak is derived from the burst-subtracted light curve, with bursts removed using a 3-sigma Poissonian criterion plus manual excision of burst bases. Since the peak GTI (5576010102-06) contains 36 bursts, imperfect burst subtraction is a plausible source of systematic error in the flare amplitude and shape. Please provide a robustness check, for example by comparing fluxes obtained with different burst-subtraction thresholds or by verifying the flare in a narrow energy band (e.g., energies above the burst-dominated soft band) where residual burst contamination is smaller.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] The derivation of the phase shift value 0.16 +/- 0.03 is not described; please specify the method (e.g., cross-correlation of pulse profiles, template fitting) and how the uncertainty was estimated.
  2. [Section 3.2.1] For Part I the F-test gives p = 0.11 for the blackbody addition, yet Model II is adopted for all subsequent analyses; please state explicitly that the thermal component in Part I is not statistically required and discuss the impact on the derived BB ratio and photon-index evolution.
  3. [Section 4] The statement that 'the phase-resolved spectral analysis also supports the phase jump' should be backed by a statistical comparison of the phase-resolved parameter curves between Part I and Part II rather than by qualitative similarity.
  4. [Section 3.2.2] The Pearson correlation p-values are computed without accounting for the serial correlation of adjacent observations; a caveat should be added.
  5. [Section 3.2.1 and Discussion] There is a tension between 'the thermal component is not important' and the use of a BB component for Part I; the text should be clarified to avoid an apparent contradiction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: phase jump is a direct NICER measurement; the Hu et al. (2024) glitch epoch is external context, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Section 3.1 measures the phase jump directly from NICER pulse profiles ('the main peak phase of Part II shifts 0.16±0.03 to the left'), while Table 2's timing solution is fitted over MJD 59864-59934 after excising the glitch interval; the 0.16 value is not a parameter imported from the glitch model or from Hu et al. (2024). The glitch epoch is taken from Hu et al. (2024), an overlapping-author publication, but that citation supplies an externally measured event time (NICER+NuSTAR) rather than a fitted value of this paper, so it does not force the phase-jump measurement. The flare/flux/FRB associations are empirical comparisons with stated uncertainties. The skeptic's reading—that the phase jump might be the unmodelled timing residual of the glitch and is only bracketed by a NICER gap—is a substantive data-model interpretation concern, and the paper itself concedes the second glitch shows no clear jump possibly due to data quality; these are correctness risks, not cases where Eq. X equals Eq. Y by construction. Overall, only a minor overlapping-author self-citation for the glitch epoch is present; no load-bearing circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's measurements rest on standard X-ray fitting assumptions (fixed NH, assumed distance) and on two judgment calls that are load-bearing for the central claims: the completeness of burst subtraction, which defines the flare, and the stability of the pulse profile, which defines the phase jump. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Exponential decay amplitude = 2.5(2) in units of 1e-11 erg/s/cm2
    Fitted to the unabsorbed 0.8-12 keV flux after MJD 59867.068 (Section 3.2.2).
  • Exponential decay rate = 0.025(5) per day
    Fitted decay constant; characteristic decay time ~40 days.
  • Blackbody temperature kT_BB = 0.43±0.02, 0.37±0.02, 0.35±0.01 keV for Parts I-III
    Fitted spectral parameters in wabs*(bbody+powerlaw) model (Table 3).
  • Blackbody radius R_BB = 1.9±0.1, 2.9±0.2, 4.2±0.2 km
    Derived from bbody normalization assuming distance 6.6 kpc (Zhou et al. 2020).
  • Power-law photon index Γ = 2.08±0.06, 1.81±0.07, 2.00±0.14 (Model II, Table 3)
    Fitted spectral slope; anti-correlation with flux and burst rate is a central result.
  • BB ratio linear slope = 0.90(6) %/day
    Linear fit to thermal-to-total flux ratio evolution (Section 3.2.2).
  • BB ratio intercept = 12(2)%
    Intercept of the same linear fit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Distance to SGR J1935+2154 is 6.6 kpc (Zhou et al. 2020).
    Used to convert blackbody normalization to physical radius (Table 3).
  • domain assumption Hydrogen column density NH is fixed at 2.3e22 cm^-2, taken from previous outburst studies.
    Fixed in the spectral fits (Section 3.2.1), following Younes et al. 2017b and others.
  • ad hoc to paper The burst-subtraction procedure fully removes burst emission, leaving only persistent emission; manual removal of burst bases is reliable.
    Load-bearing for the flare measurement in Figure 4(a); the procedure is described qualitatively in Section 2.
  • domain assumption The rotation is adequately described by a single spin-down plus second derivative over MJD 59864-59934, with the glitch interval (MJD 59866.63-59866.99) excluded.
    Used to build the timing solution in Section 3.1, Table 2.
  • ad hoc to paper The pulse profile shape is stable across the phase jump; only its phase changes.
    Required to interpret the 0.16±0.03 shift as a phase jump rather than a shape change (Section 3.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The timing and spectral properties of the 2022 outburst of SGR J1935+2154 observed with NICER." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LO7ALQIL

@misc{pith2026250107049,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The timing and spectral properties of the 2022 outburst of SGR J1935+2154 observed with NICER},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LO7ALQIL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07049}
}
abstract

The magnetar SGR J1935+2154 entered a new active episode on October 10, 2022, with X-ray bursts and enhanced persistent emission. At the tail of high burst rate interval, lasting several hours, radio bursts were detected, revealing the connection between the X-ray activities and radio emissions. We analyzed observations of SGR J1935+2154 for nearly three months, using data from Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer (NICER). We report the timing and spectral results following the onset of this outburst. In general, the X-ray flux of the persistent emission decays exponentially. While a flare is evident on the light curve, a fast radio burst (FRB) was detected immediately following the peak of this flare. We found a phase jump of pulse profile, with a deviation of $0.16\pm0.03$ phase, which is related to the glitch. The spectra are well fit with the combination of a blackbody and a power law model. The decay of the outburst is dominated by the drop of the non-thermal component, which also leads to the increase of thermal proportion. The photon index of the power law is inversely correlated with both the unabsorbed flux and the burst rate. We find that unlike the large variety of the persistent emission around FRB 221014, the X-ray properties are very stable when FRBs 221021 and 221201 happened. These results manifest the connection between glitch, phase jump, X-ray burst, and radio burst, crucial for studying the mutation in twisted magnetic fields and constraining the trigger mechanism of radio bursts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07049 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. NICER light curve in the 0.3–12 keV energy range. Top panel: the light curve of Obs. ID 5020560107 with a 4 ms resolution. The GTI between two blue dashed vertical lines is enlarged and displayed in the middle panel. Middle panel: the zoomed-in light curve of a GTI with a 4 ms resolution. Bottom panel: the zoomed-in light curve with a 3.2 s resolution is calculated after removing all the identified bursts. task nice… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The evolution of the pulse profiles. (a): The two-dimensional (2D) maps describe the evolution of the pulse profiles with time for NICER (0.8–4 keV). The colors representing the values of the pulse profile are normalized by Pulse/Average count rate; the red represents pulse-on phase, and the blue represents pulse-off phase. 20 bins within a phase are used to generate the pulse profiles, and the plot is smoothed thro… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectra and residual of Part I (top figures), Part II (middle figures), and Part III (bottom figures). Left figures: the total model (orange line) is plotted together with powerlaw (blue line) and the background model (grey line). Right figures: the total model (orange line) is plotted together with powerlaw (sky-blue line), bbody (red line), and the background model (grey line). The spectra are re-binned to display… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the flux, burst rate, photon index (Γ), and the ratio of the bbody flux to the total flux with time. Panel (a): the evolution of the unabsorbed flux in units of 10−11erg s−1 cm−2 . The fluxes are computed in the energy range 0.8–12 keV. The blue line fits …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The correlation between the 0.8–12 keV flux, the photon index Γ, and the burst rate in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fitting results of the phase-resolved spectral analysis of Model I. Solid lines represent the pulse profiles as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Fitting results of the phase-resolved spectral analysis of Model II. Solid lines represent the pulse profiles as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

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. Physics of Strong Magnetism with eXTP

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    The eXTP mission's planned instruments would enable more sensitive X-ray polarization and timing observations of magnetars and accreting pulsars, potentially testing vacuum birefringence and probing magnetic field structures.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    F., Hasco¨ et, R., et al

    An, H., Archibald, R. F., Hasco¨ et, R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/93

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/807/1/93 2015

  2. [2]

    1982, GeoCoA, 46, 2363, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(82)90208-3

    Anders, E., & Ebihara, M. 1982, GeoCoA, 46, 2363, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(82)90208-3

    doi:10.1016/0016-7037(82)90208-3 1982

  3. [3]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et a...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 1996

  4. [4]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1044, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/1044

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/1044 2009

  5. [5]

    D., Ravi, V., Belov, K

    Bochenek, C. D., Ravi, V., Belov, K. V., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x 2020

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    L., et al

    Borghese, A., Coti Zelati, F., Israel, G. L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 602, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1314

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1314 2022

  8. [8]

    2022, ApJS, 260, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6172 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B

    Cai, C., Xue, W.-C., Li, C.-K., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6172 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6172 2022

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    M., & Chatterjee, S

    Cordes, J. M., & Chatterjee, S. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 417, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104501 Coti Zelati, F., Rea, N., Pons, J. A., Campana, S., &

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 961, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2679

    Esposito, P. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 961, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2679

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Dai, Z. G. 2020, ApJL, 897, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba11b

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    A., & Chime/Frb Collaboration

    Dong, F. A., & Chime/Frb Collaboration. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15681, 1

    2022

  5. [13]

    T., Hobbs, G

    Edwards, R. T., Hobbs, G. B., & Manchester, R. N. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 1549, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10870.x

    2006

  6. [14]

    2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15690, 1

    Enoto, T., Hu, C.-P., Guver, T., et al. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15690, 1

    2022

  7. [15]

    2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15686, 1 15

    Frederiks, D., Ridnaia, A., Svinkin, D., et al. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15686, 1 15

    2022

  8. [16]

    M., Ding, G

    Fu, Y.-C., Song, L. M., Ding, G. Q., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 893, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad614

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    P., Kaspi, V

    Gavriil, F. P., Kaspi, V. M., & Woods, P. M. 2004, ApJ, 607, 959, doi: 10.1086/383564

    2004 doi

  10. [18]

    Y., Lu, F

    Ge, M. Y., Lu, F. J., Qu, J. L., et al. 2012, ApJS, 199, 32, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/32

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    Y., Lu, F

    Ge, M. Y., Lu, F. J., Yan, L. L., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1122, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0853-5

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Y., Liu, C

    Ge, M. Y., Liu, C. Z., Zhang, S. N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acda1d

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 015016, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad0f0c

    Ge, M.-Y., Yang, Y.-P., Lu, F.-J., et al. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 015016, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad0f0c

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 895, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0301-3

    Gendreau, K., & Arzoumanian, Z. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 895, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0301-3

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P

    Gendreau, K. C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P. W., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, T. Takahashi, & M. Bautz, 9905...

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    C., Chawla, P., et al

    Giri, U., Andersen, B. C., Chawla, P., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.16932, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.16932

    2023 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    2024, Nature, 626, 500, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-07012-5

    Hu, C.-P., Narita, T., Enoto, T., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 500, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-07012-5

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    X., Xu, H., Xu, Y

    Huang, Y. X., Xu, H., Xu, Y. H., et al. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15707, 1

    2022

  19. [27]

    L., et al

    Huppenkothen, D., Bachetti, M., Stevens, A. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab258d

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    Y., Borghese, A., Coti Zelati, F., et al

    Ibrahim, A. Y., Borghese, A., Coti Zelati, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad293b

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    L., Romano, P., Mangano, V., et al

    Israel, G. L., Romano, P., Mangano, V., et al. 2008, ApJ, 685, 1114, doi: 10.1086/590486

    2008 doi

  22. [30]

    L., Esposito, P., Rea, N., et al

    Israel, G. L., Esposito, P., Rea, N., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 1387, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17001.x —. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3448, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw008

    2010

  23. [31]

    M., & Beloborodov, A

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

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    M., Gavriil, F

    Kaspi, V. M., Gavriil, F. P., Woods, P. M., et al. 2003, ApJL, 588, L93, doi: 10.1086/375683

    2003 doi

  25. [33]

    1998, Nature, 393, 235, doi: 10.1038/30410

    Kouveliotou, C., Dieters, S., Strohmayer, T., et al. 1998, Nature, 393, 235, doi: 10.1038/30410

    1998 doi

  26. [34]

    Leahy, D. A. 1987, A&A, 180, 275

    1987

  27. [35]

    K., Lin, L., Xiong, S

    Li, C. K., Lin, L., Xiong, S. L., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 378, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01302-6

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    J., et al

    Lin, L., G¨ o˘ g¨ u¸ s, E., Roberts, O. J., et al. 2020a, ApJL, 902, L43, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abbefe —. 2020b, ApJ, 893, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab818f

    doi

  29. [37]

    2011, ApJL, 740, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/740/1/L16

    Lin, L., Kouveliotou, C., G¨ oˇ g¨ u¸ s, E., et al. 2011, ApJL, 740, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/740/1/L16

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

    F., Wang, P., et al

    Lin, L., Zhang, C. F., Wang, P., et al. 2020c, Nature, 587, 63, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2839-y

    doi

  31. [39]

    R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

    Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M. A., Narkevic, D. J., & Crawford, F. 2007, Science, 318, 777, doi: 10.1126/science.1147532

    2007 doi

  32. [40]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 1397, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2450

    Lu, W., Kumar, P., & Zhang, B. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1397, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2450

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 065018, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad4599

    Lu, X.-F., Song, L.-M., Ge, M.-Y., et al. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 065018, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad4599

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    v., Straal, S., & Pastor-Marazuela, I

    Maan, Y., Leeuwen, J. v., Straal, S., & Pastor-Marazuela, I. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15697, 1

    2022

  35. [43]

    2009, ApJL, 696, L74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/L74

    Mereghetti, S., G¨ otz, D., Weidenspointner, G., et al. 2009, ApJL, 696, L74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/L74

    2009 doi

  36. [44]

    1983, ApJ, 270, 119, doi: 10.1086/161102

    Morrison, R., & McCammon, D. 1983, ApJ, 270, 119, doi: 10.1086/161102

    1983 doi

  37. [45]

    2008, MNRAS, 386, 1527, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13125.x

    Nobili, L., Turolla, R., & Zane, S. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1527, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13125.x

    2008

  38. [46]

    A., & Kaspi, V

    Olausen, S. A., & Kaspi, V. M. 2014, ApJS, 212, 6, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/6 ¨Ozel, F., & G¨ uver, T. 2007, ApJL, 659, L141, doi: 10.1086/517933

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    Palm, D. M. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15667, 1

    2022

  40. [48]

    B., & Chime/Frb Collaboration

    Pearlman, A. B., & Chime/Frb Collaboration. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15792, 1

    2022

  41. [49]

    Petroff, E., Hessels, J. W. T., & Lorimer, D. R. 2019, A&A Rv, 27, 4, doi: 10.1007/s00159-019-0116-6

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 372, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01265-0

    Ridnaia, A., Svinkin, D., Frederiks, D., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 372, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01265-0

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    J., Dalessi, S., & Malacaria, C

    Roberts, O. J., Dalessi, S., & Malacaria, C. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15672, 1

    2022

  44. [52]

    Scholz, P., & Kaspi, V. M. 2011, ApJ, 739, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/2/94

    2011 doi

  45. [53]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00635, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.00635

    Shao, Y.-X., Zhou, P., Li, X.-D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00635, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.00635

    2024 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    L., & Sakamoto, T

    Stamatikos, M., Malesani, D., Page, K. L., & Sakamoto, T. 2014, GRB Coordinates Network, 16520, 1

    2014

  47. [55]

    Thompson, C., Lyutikov, M., & Kulkarni, S. R. 2002, ApJ, 574, 332, doi: 10.1086/340586

    2002 doi

  48. [56]

    L., Ji, L., Tsygankov, S

    Tuo, Y. L., Ji, L., Tsygankov, S. S., et al. 2020, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 27, 38, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2020.03.003

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    W., Xiong, S

    Wang, C. W., Xiong, S. L., Zhang, Y. Q., et al. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15682, 1 16

    2022

  50. [58]

    M., Kouveliotou, C., Finger, M

    Woods, P. M., Kouveliotou, C., Finger, M. H., et al. 2007, ApJ, 654, 470, doi: 10.1086/507459

    2007 doi

  51. [59]

    M., Kaspi, V

    Woods, P. M., Kaspi, V. M., Thompson, C., et al. 2004, ApJ, 605, 378, doi: 10.1086/382233

    2004 doi

  52. [60]

    2021, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 64, 249501, doi: 10.1007/s11433-020-1661-7

    Xiao, D., Wang, F., & Dai, Z. 2021, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 64, 249501, doi: 10.1007/s11433-020-1661-7

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    2018, ApJ, 868, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae685

    Yang, Y.-P., & Zhang, B. 2018, ApJ, 868, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae685

    2018 doi

  54. [62]

    G., Kouveliotou, C., et al

    Younes, G., Baring, M. G., Kouveliotou, C., et al. 2017a, ApJ, 851, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa96fd

    doi

  55. [63]

    2017b, ApJ, 847, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa899a

    Younes, G., Kouveliotou, C., Jaodand, A., et al. 2017b, ApJ, 847, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa899a

    doi

  56. [64]

    2020, ApJL, 904, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abc94c

    Younes, G., G¨ uver, T., Kouveliotou, C., et al. 2020, ApJL, 904, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abc94c

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15674, 1

    Younes, G., Enoto, T., Hu, C.-P., et al. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15674, 1

    2022

  58. [66]

    G., Harding, A

    Younes, G., Baring, M. G., Harding, A. K., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 339, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01865-y

    2023 doi

  59. [67]

    2017, ApJL, 836, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5ded —

    Zhang, B. 2017, ApJL, 836, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5ded —. 2020, Nature, 587, 45, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2828-1

    2017 doi

  60. [68]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc34a

    Zhou, P., Zhou, X., Chen, Y., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc34a

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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