Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 86 references

Propagation-induced Frequency-dependent Polarization Properties of Fast Radio Burst

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that frequency-dependent FRB polarization can be produced by a magnetized plasma screen in which Faraday rotation and conversion are comparable, so the polarization axis precesses on the Poincaré sphere with frequency.

desk verdict A useful qualitative diagnostic for FRB polarization, but the quantitative fits to FRB environments rest on cold-plasma coefficients used outside their stated validity, and the abstract overclaims the 20180301A fit. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02857 v3 pith:VFTJMDFE submitted 2025-02-05 astro-ph.HE

Wei-Yang Wang , Xiaohui Liu , Dongzi Li , Bing Zhang , Chen-Hui Niu , Jifeng Liu , Renxin Xu , Weiwei Zhu
show 1 more author
Kejia Lee
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords plasmaastrophysicsradiativetransferfastradioburstsFaradayrotationconversionpolarizationPoincaréspheremagnetized
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 tries to prove that the frequency-dependent polarization curves seen in some fast radio bursts can be generated by propagation of an intense pulse through a homogeneous, magnetized thermal plasma, without needing any frequency structure in the emission itself. The central phenomenon is that when Faraday rotation and Faraday conversion act together, the rotation axis of the Stokes vector on the Poincaré sphere (the sphere of all polarization states) tilts as frequency changes, so Q, U, and V oscillate with different phases and the polarization angle acquires an S-shape instead of the usual $\lambda^2$ law. The authors derive an analytical solution of the polarized radiative transfer equation, fit it to the Stokes spectra of FRB 20180301A and FRB 20201124A, and recover physical parameters such as magnetic field strength, field angle, density-length product, and temperature, which a purely empirical 'generalized Faraday rotation' fit cannot provide. They further show that absorption in a dense plasma can produce highly circularly polarized outgoing waves. If the claims hold, propagation screens offer a unified physical explanation for several puzzling FRB polarization phenomena and a way to diagnose the magnetic environment around the sources.

What carries the argument

The central object is the analytical solution of the Stokes radiative transfer equation $d\vec{S}/ds = \vec{\epsilon} - M \vec{S}$ for a homogeneous medium with negligible emissivity, written as a matrix exponential built from the absorption vector $\zeta = (\eta_Q, \eta_U, \eta_V)$ and the Faraday mixing vector $\zeta_* = (\rho_Q, \rho_U, \rho_V)$. The key condition is $\rho_V \approx \rho_Q$, meaning Faraday rotation and Faraday conversion act with comparable strength; because the two coefficients have different frequency dependences ($\rho_V \propto \nu^{-2}$ and $\rho_Q \propto \nu^{-3}$ in the cold limit), the eigen-axis of the rotation on the Poincaré sphere tilts with frequency, producing the precession. The coefficients are evaluated from the plasma response tensor for a thermal distribution, with cold and hot limits given by Equations (A7) and (A8), and the fits use the no-absorption limit to constrain B, $\theta_B$, $n_0 L$, and T. The empirical generalized Faraday rotation model, which assumes a power-law dependence and applies rotation matrices with a free spectral index on the Poincaré sphere, is the baseline against which the physical mixing-Faraday solution is compared.

What would settle it

The cleanest falsifier is a wide-band Stokes measurement of a repeating FRB: the mixing-Faraday solution predicts Q leads U by $\pi/2$, V is opposite in phase to Q, and the linear-polarization oscillation frequency is twice the circular one, with the precession axis tilting according to Equation (13); any fixed rotation-axis behavior, as in pure generalized Faraday rotation, or a broken phase relation would rule it out. A second check is to fit the same burst in two disjoint frequency bands: if the weak-field coefficients fail near the gyrofrequency, the inferred B and $\theta_B$ will disagree between bands.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a homogeneous magnetized plasma with comparable Faraday rotation and conversion coefficients reproduces the frequency-dependent Stokes parameters of FRB 20180301A and FRB 20201124A, with the rotational axis of the polarization spectrum precessing on the Poincaré sphere as frequency changes. In the cold-plasma limit the fitted field is strong (log10(B/G) ≈ 3.17 for FRB 20180301A and ≈ 1.59 for FRB 20201124A) and nearly perpendicular to the line of sight; in the hot-plasma limit the same spectra arise from a weak field and higher temperature, with a much larger path-integrated density. The incoming wave is taken to be intrinsically highly polarized and frequency-independent, so all frequency structure is propagation-induced. The analytical solution also predicts that absorption-dominated dense regions can yield highly circularly polarized outgoing waves. The authors present this as a physical replacement for the empirical generalized Faraday rotation description, with the fitted parameters mapping directly to the medium's magnetic environment.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the standard weak-field Faraday rotation and conversion coefficients remain accurate at the fitted fields of roughly 300-1500 G, where the electron gyrofrequency is comparable to the observing band; if they do not, the inferred magnetic environment is unreliable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Frequency-dependent Stokes oscillations with the predicted phase structure become a diagnostic for propagation through a mixing-Faraday screen rather than intrinsic magnetospheric emission.
  • The empirical generalized Faraday rotation fits can be reinterpreted as physical medium parameters, so RM reversals and persistent radio sources gain a concrete polarimetric signature.
  • Highly circularly polarized FRB bursts can arise from absorption in a dense, magnetized cloud, so they need not require a special intrinsic emission mechanism.
  • Because hot and cold plasma screens produce nearly identical spectra under the condition of Equation (15), an observed spectrum alone cannot distinguish the two without independent DM or RM information.
  • FRB sources with reversing RM, such as FRB 20180301A and FRB 20190520B, are natural places to look for the precession signature in existing and future data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to re-analyze archival polarimetry of pulsars and long-period radio transients that show frequency-dependent circular polarization with the mixing-Faraday solution rather than the empirical GFR model; the recovered screen parameters would then be directly comparable to the FRB fits.
  • If the weak-field coefficient expansion is indeed invalid at the fitted fields, the inferred field strengths and angles may shift; re-fitting with the full response tensor would show whether the precession signature and the environmental conclusions survive.
  • The cold/hot degeneracy suggests that polarization spectra alone cannot locate the screen; simultaneous broadband DM and RM monitoring is the natural way to decide whether the responsible plasma is relativistic.
  • For FRB 20240114A, which the paper predicts should show frequency-dependent circular polarization, the model makes a sharp prediction: the Q, U, V oscillations should follow the same phase relationships and precession direction as in the two fitted repeaters.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops an analytical solution to the polarized radiative-transfer equation for a strong incoming wave propagating through a homogeneous, magnetized thermal plasma, with emissivity neglected because FRB brightness temperatures are far above the plasma temperature. For the case of comparable Faraday rotation and Faraday conversion, it shows that the Stokes parameters Q, U, and V oscillate with frequency with different phases, and that the rotation axis of the polarization spectrum on the Poincaré sphere precesses as the frequency changes. It further considers absorption-dominated cases that can produce highly circularly polarized outgoing waves. The model is then applied to FRB 20180301A and FRB 20201124A, with fits performed for both cold and hot plasma scenarios, and the authors argue that the Faraday-mixing scenario provides a more physical alternative to the empirical generalized Faraday rotation (GFR) model.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper offers a useful diagnostic framework for interpreting frequency-dependent FRB polarization: the precession of the Poincaré-sphere rotation axis is a concrete, physically motivated signature of a medium with both Faraday rotation and conversion. The paper's strengths include a closed-form transfer solution, a clear geometric interpretation, public release of the fitting code (https://github.com/GalaxyL777/MixF), and falsifiable predictions such as narrowband high circular polarization from dense absorbing clouds and frequency-dependent circular polarization in FRB 20240114A. However, the quantitative application to FRB environments is currently not fully supported: the cold-plasma coefficients are used outside their stated validity range, and the FRB 20180301A fit is performed on mock GFR-generated data rather than on the actual observed Stokes spectra. These issues affect the observational claims but not necessarily the qualitative precession phenomenon, which follows from the differing frequency dependences of rotation and conversion coefficients.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (A4), Eq. (A7), Table 1]
  2. [§4.1, Figure 8]
  3. [§4.1, Tables 1–2, §5]
  4. [Eq. (7), Eq. (8)]
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'The cases of a thermal plasma is studied in detail' should read 'The case of a thermal plasma is studied in detail' or 'The cases of thermal plasmas are studied in detail.'
  2. [§3.1] The text says the medium provides a dispersion measure of '10^-5 cm^-2'; the units should presumably be pc cm^-3, and the value should be checked against n0 = 1 cm^-3 and L = 10^13 cm.
  3. [Table 1] The table header appears as 'T able 1.68.3% credible intervals...' with a missing space and a formatting artifact; please correct the table caption.
  4. [§5.1] Equations (17) and (18) for the power-law distributed plasma are presented without derivation or a clear citation of the specific source of the expressions; a brief derivation sketch or a more precise reference would improve reproducibility.
  5. [§2.2, Eq. (13)] The statement in Section 2.2 that 'The parameter X is much smaller than unity even for nu ≈ nu_B when gamma_bar ≪ 1' is important; it would be helpful to give the explicit X value for the cold-plasma fits to make clear why f(X) and g(X) do not modify Eq. (A7).
  6. [Appendix A] In Appendix A, 'The formations of Faraday conversion and rotation coefficients' should likely be 'The formulas for Faraday conversion and rotation coefficients'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the precession result is an analytic consequence of the stated transfer coefficients, and the FRB applications are explicitly labeled fits with independent DM cross-checks.

full rationale

The central result, the frequency precession of the polarization rotation axis, is obtained directly from the analytical transfer solution (Section 2.1, Eq. 7) applied to the plasma response coefficients (Eq. 13 and A7). Because rho_V has a different frequency scaling than rho_Q in the cold-plasma limit, the rotation axis necessarily changes with frequency; no fitted parameter is needed to produce the precession, so the claim is not circular. The FRB applications in Section 4 are explicitly described as fits: the abstract says 'We apply the analytical solution with the mixing Faraday case to fit the observations,' and Section 4.2 says 'we fit the polarization spectra.' For FRB 20180301A, the mock data themselves come from the GFR model's best fit (Uttarkar et al. 2024), and the paper acknowledges that 'the polarization spectra in a specific frequency range can be equivalent to GFR'; the agreement therefore demonstrates model flexibility and a known degeneracy, not an independent prediction. However, the fitted parameters are not relabeled as predictions, and for FRB 20201124A the modeled DM is checked against an independent extragalactic DM estimate (183-243 pc cm^-3), and the hot-plasma model's ~95% incoming circular polarization for FRB 20180301A is explicitly noted as not seen, which shows external, falsifiable content. Self-citations (e.g., Wang et al. 2022b,c; Niu et al. 2024) are contextual references to magnetospheric models and observational catalogs, not load-bearing derivations; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported through self-citation. The main validity weakness, applying cold-plasma coefficients at B ~ 300-1500 G where nu_B ~ nu, is a domain-of-applicability and correctness concern rather than a circularity, because it concerns whether the input coefficients are accurate, not whether the output was assumed in the input.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the transfer equation solution (standard math) and on the assumed plasma coefficients. The medium parameters are free parameters fitted to data, so the 'physical' output is not independent. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • B (magnetic field strength) = log10(B/G) approx 3.17 (FRB 20180301A cold), 1.59 (FRB 20201124A cold), -2.84 (hot 20180301A), -2.79 (hot 20201124A)
    Fitted via MCMC to the Stokes spectra; the cold values place the gyrofrequency at or above the observing frequency, outside the stated omega_B << omega limit.
  • theta_B (magnetic field angle to LOS) = 109 deg (20180301A cold), 111 deg (20201124A cold), 124 deg (hot 20180301A), 180 deg (hot 20201124A)
    Fitted; determines the relative strength of Faraday rotation and conversion.
  • n0L (column density) = log10(n0L/cm^-2) approx 12.62 (20180301A cold), 14.24 (20201124A cold), 22.64 (hot 20180301A), 24.31 (hot 20201124A)
    Fitted; the product of density and path length, degenerate with other parameters.
  • T (temperature) = T = 1 K fixed for cold; log10(T/K) approx 12.0 (hot 20180301A), 13.1 (hot 20201124A)
    Cold case fixed at 1 K because coefficients are temperature independent; hot case fitted.
  • beta_0, chi_0, chi_p (initial polarization parameters) = beta_0 approx -46 deg, chi_0 approx 4 deg, chi_p approx 72 deg (20180301A cold); similar sets for other fits
    Fitted; describe the intrinsic incoming wave on the Poincaré sphere.
  • RM_f and RM_b (foreground/background rotation measures) = RM_f approx 27.5, RM_b approx 0.009 (20180301A cold); RM_f approx -8.6, RM_b approx 32.3 (20201124A cold)
    Added ad hoc to account for plasma outside the mixing layer; weaken the physical constraint from the fit.
  • f(X), g(X) fitting coefficients = 2.011, 4.7, 1.2, 2.73, 0.011, 47.2, 0.11, 0.035 (Eq A6)
    Empirical correction functions adopted from Shcherbakov (2008) to extend the plasma response; not derived in this paper.
  • GFR parameters for mock data (GRM, alpha, lambda_0, psi, chi, phi, theta) = GRM=4351.7 rad m^-alpha, alpha=2.3, lambda_0=0.22 m, psi=-87.3 deg, chi=-0.1 deg, phi=76.3 deg, theta=104.2 deg
    Taken from Uttarkar et al. (2024) best fit for FRB 20180301A; used to generate the mock spectrum that the paper fits, so the comparison is model-to-model, not model-to-data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Homogeneous, stationary plasma medium
    The analytical solution in Section 2.1 assumes constant coefficients along the path; real FRB environments are likely inhomogeneous and time-variable.
  • domain assumption Thermal (Maxwellian) electron energy distribution
    Equation (10) assumes a Maxwellian; the paper treats power-law distributions separately in Section 5.1 but does not use them in the fits.
  • domain assumption Neglect of medium emissivity
    Section 2.1 drops the emissivity vector because FRB brightness temperature exceeds the plasma temperature by many orders of magnitude. Valid for moderate optical depths, but marginal in the dense absorption scenario.
  • domain assumption Validity of Shcherbakov (2008) and Huang & Shcherbakov (2011) Faraday coefficients
    The coefficients in Eq (13), (A4), (A6) are taken from prior work and assumed to hold for the parameter regimes, including nu ~ nu_B for the cold plasma simulations.
  • domain assumption Incoming wave is 100% polarized and frequency independent
    Section 3 assumes the intrinsic FRB Stokes parameters do not vary with frequency; any intrinsic frequency dependence would be absorbed into the fitted initial parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Propagation-induced Frequency-dependent Polarization Properties of Fast Radio Burst." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VFTJMDFE

@misc{pith2026250202857,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Propagation-induced Frequency-dependent Polarization Properties of Fast Radio Burst},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VFTJMDFE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02857}
}
read the original abstract

Frequency-dependent polarization properties provide crucial insights into the radiation mechanisms and magnetic environments of fast radio bursts (FRBs). We explore an analytical solution of radiative transfer of the polarization properties of FRBs as a strong incoming wave propagates in a homogeneous magnetized plasma. The cases of a thermal plasma is studied in detail. The rotational axis of the polarization spectrum undergoes precession with frequency on the Poincar\'e sphere when the medium has both strong Faraday rotation and conversion. Such precession on the Poincar\'e sphere could occur in hot or cold plasma with a strong magnetic field component perpendicular to the line of sight. Significant absorption can exist in a dense plasma medium, which may give rise to a highly circularly polarized outgoing wave. We apply the analytical solution with the mixing Faraday case to fit the observations of frequency-dependent Stokes parameters for FRB 20180301A and FRB 20201124A. The analytical solution offers a more physical description of FRBs' magnetic environment properties than the empirical ``generalized Faraday rotation'' method commonly adopted in the literature. The frequency-dependent Stokes parameters may be associated with reversing rotation measures or the presence of a persistent radio source around an FRB.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02857 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sketch map of polarization: vectors e1, and e2 represent the wave vector, respectively. e1 is located in the k − B plane and e2 is perpendicular to e1 and parallel to e˜2. In the coordinate, a left-handed circular polarization (LCP) is shown in cyan and magenta for right-handed cir￾cular polarization (RCP). χp and dχp represent the electric vector position angle defined in the arbitrary coordinate sys￾tem (a , b) an… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dominant regions of the transformation coef￾ficients for a thermally distributed plasma: Top plane for θB = 15◦ ; Bottom plane for θB = 75◦ . 100 101 102 10-2 100 102 104 106 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Relationship between |ρV /ρQ| and ¯γ for a rela￾tivistic plasma. The value of |ρV /ρQ| reflects whether Fara￾day rotation or conversion dominates the propagation. Dif￾ferent colors denote different θB values: red (θB = 15◦ ), black (θB = 45◦ ), blue (θB = 75◦ ). The magnetic field is taken as B = 10−3 G (dashed-dotted lines), B = 10−2 G (dashed lines), and B = 10−1 G (solid lines), respectively. cases, the free-free… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulated spectro-polarization profiles. (a) Top panel: linear, circular and total polarization fractions; Middle panel: Q/I, U/I, and V /I. Bottom panel: polarization angle. (b) Poincar´e sphere representation of the spectropolametric properties. The parameters are ad…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The best fitting of cold and hot plasma. The red dots denote the data produced from the best fitting of the FR-GFR model for FRB 20180301A. The blue lines are the Stokes spectra of the cold plasma. The orange lines are the Stokes spectra of the hot plasma. the GFR mode…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The 1D and 2D marginalized probability distributions at 68.3% and 95.4% confidence levels for the cold plasma scenario for FRB 20180301A. and ∼ −95% for the hot plasma while such a highly cir￾cular polarization degree has not been seen. Both mod￾els show that the total…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    C., Fonseca , E., McKee , J

    Andersen , B. C., Fonseca , E., McKee , J. W., et al. 2023, , 943, 57, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca485

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca485 2023

  5. [5]

    2023, Science, 380, 599, 10.1126/science.abo6526

    Anna-Thomas , R., Connor , L., Dai , S., et al. 2023, Science, 380, 599, 10.1126/science.abo6526

    doi:10.1126/science.abo6526 2023

  6. [6]

    Unusual intra-burst variations of polarization states in FRB 20210912A and FRB 20230708A : Effects of plasma birefringence?

    Bera , A., James , C. W., McKinnon , M. M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.14784, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.14784

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.14784 2024

  7. [7]

    E., Aggarwal, K., et al

    Bhandari, S., Heintz, K. E., Aggarwal, K., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 69, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3aec

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac3aec 2022

  8. [8]

    2023, , 958, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad083f

    Bhandari , S., Marcote , B., Sridhar , N., et al. 2023, , 958, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad083f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad083f 2023

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    D., Ravi , V., Belov , K

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

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    2024 a , , 632, 1014, 10.1038/s41586-024-07782-6

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

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    P., et al

    Bruni , G., Piro , L., Yang , Y. P., et al. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.01478, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.01478

    2024 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    J., Wharton , R

    Chatterjee , S., Law , C. J., Wharton , R. S., et al. 2017, , 541, 58, 10.1038/nature20797

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Bandura , K

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Andersen , B. C., Bandura , K. M., et al. 2020, , 587, 54, 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    K., Deller , A

    Day , C. K., Deller , A. T., Shannon , R. M., et al. 2020, , 497, 3335, 10.1093/mnras/staa2138

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    P., Pen , U

    Desvignes , G., Eatough , R. P., Pen , U. L., et al. 2018, , 852, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa2f8

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    2022, Science, 375, 1266, 10.1126/science.abl7759

    Feng , Y., Li , D., Yang , Y.-P., et al. 2022, Science, 375, 1266, 10.1126/science.abl7759

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    2024, , 974, 296, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7a64

    Feng, Y., Li, D., Zhang, Y.-K., et al. 2024, , 974, 296, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7a64

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    2013, emcee: The MCMC Hammer , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.002

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Conley , A., Meierjurgen Farr , W., et al. 2013, emcee: The MCMC Hammer , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.002

    2013

  11. [19]

    E., & van Buren , D

    Gaustad , J. E., & van Buren , D. 1993, , 105, 1127, 10.1086/133291

    1993 doi

  12. [20]

    L., & Syrovatskii , S

    Ginzburg , V. L., & Syrovatskii , S. I. 1965, , 3, 297, 10.1146/annurev.aa.03.090165.001501

    1965

  13. [21]

    2019, , 876, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0fa3

    Gruzinov , A., & Levin , Y. 2019, , 876, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0fa3

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    L., Cackett , E

    G \"u ltekin , K., King , A. L., Cackett , E. M., et al. 2019, , 871, 80, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6b9

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    H., Michilli , D., Spitler , L

    Hilmarsson , G. H., Michilli , D., Spitler , L. G., et al. 2021, , 908, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/abdec0

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    Huang , L., & Shcherbakov , R. V. 2011, , 416, 2574, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19207.x

    2011

  17. [25]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124003, 10.1088/1674-4527/ac98f6

    Jiang , J.-C., Wang , W.-Y., Xu , H., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124003, 10.1088/1674-4527/ac98f6

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    C., Xu , J

    Jiang , J. C., Xu , J. W., Niu , J. R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.03313, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.03313

    2024 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Johnston , S., Ball , L., Wang , N., & Manchester , R. N. 2005, , 358, 1069, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08854.x

    2005

  20. [28]

    N., Lyne , A

    Johnston , S., Manchester , R. N., Lyne , A. G., et al. 1996, , 279, 1026, 10.1093/mnras/279.3.1026

    1996 doi

  21. [29]

    W., & O'Dell , S

    Jones , T. W., & O'Dell , S. L. 1977, , 214, 522, 10.1086/155278

    1977 doi

  22. [30]

    Katz , J. I. 2016, Modern Physics Letters A, 31, 1630013, 10.1142/S0217732316300135

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    1998, , 15, 211, 10.1071/AS98211

    Kennett , M., & Melrose , D. 1998, , 15, 211, 10.1071/AS98211

    1998 doi

  24. [32]

    M., Lower , M

    Kumar , P., Shannon , R. M., Lower , M. E., et al. 2022, , 512, 3400, 10.1093/mnras/stac683

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    C., et al

    Kumar , P., Luo , R., Price , D. C., et al. 2023, , 526, 3652, 10.1093/mnras/stad2969

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Lewis, A. 2019. 1910.13970

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    2023, , 618, 484, 10.1038/s41586-023-05983-z

    Li , D., Bilous , A., Ransom , S., Main , R., & Yang , Y.-P. 2023, , 618, 484, 10.1038/s41586-023-05983-z

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    R., Bailes , M., McLaughlin , M

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

    2007 doi

  29. [37]

    E., Johnston , S., Lyutikov , M., et al

    Lower , M. E., Johnston , S., Lyutikov , M., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 606, 10.1038/s41550-024-02225-8

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    J., Men , Y

    Luo , R., Wang , B. J., Men , Y. P., et al. 2020, , 586, 693, 10.1038/s41586-020-2827-2

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    S., Joshi , A

    Marszewski , A., Prather , B. S., Joshi , A. V., Pandya , A., & Gammie , C. F. 2021, , 921, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1b28

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    2025, , 637, 43, 10.1038/s41586-024-08184-4

    Mckinven , R., Bhardwaj , M., Eftekhari , T., et al. 2025, , 637, 43, 10.1038/s41586-024-08184-4

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    Melrose , D. B. 1997, Journal of Plasma Physics, 58, 735, 10.1017/S0022377897006284

    1997 doi

  34. [42]

    2010, , 725, 1600, 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1600

    ---. 2010, , 725, 1600, 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1600

    2010 doi

  35. [43]

    2025, Science Advances, 11, eadp6351, 10.1126/sciadv.adp6351

    Men, Y., McSweeney, S., Hurley-Walker, N., Barr, E., & Stappers, B. 2025, Science Advances, 11, eadp6351, 10.1126/sciadv.adp6351

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

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

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    F., Maillard , J.-P., Allen , M., Beer , R., & Belcourt , K

    Mitchell , G. F., Maillard , J.-P., Allen , M., Beer , R., & Belcourt , K. 1990, , 363, 554, 10.1086/169365

    1990 doi

  38. [46]

    2024, Polarization properties of 28 repeating fast radio burst sources with CHIME/FRB

    Ng, C., Pandhi, A., Mckinven, R., et al. 2024, Polarization properties of 28 repeating fast radio burst sources with CHIME/FRB. 2411.09045

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Nimmo , K., Hessels , J. W. T., Keimpema , A., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 594, 10.1038/s41550-021-01321-3

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    H., Aggarwal , K., Li , D., et al

    Niu , C. H., Aggarwal , K., Li , D., et al. 2022, , 606, 873, 10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    R., Wang , W

    Niu , J. R., Wang , W. Y., Jiang , J. C., et al. 2024, , 972, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7023

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    S., Karastergiou , A., & Johnston , S

    Oswald , L. S., Karastergiou , A., & Johnston , S. 2023, , 525, 840, 10.1093/mnras/stad2271

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    G., & Swihart , T

    Pacholczyk , A. G., & Swihart , T. L. 1975, , 196, 125, 10.1086/153399

    1975 doi

  44. [52]

    Pandya , A., Zhang , Z., Chandra , M., & Gammie , C. F. 2016, , 822, 34, 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/34

    2016 doi

  45. [53]

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

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    L., Riedinger , J

    Pilbratt , G. L., Riedinger , J. R., Passvogel , T., et al. 2010, , 518, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014759

    2010 doi

  47. [55]

    B., Postnov , K

    Popov , S. B., Postnov , K. A., & Pshirkov , M. S. 2018, Physics Uspekhi, 61, 965, 10.3367/UFNe.2018.03.038313

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    2023, , 522, 2448, 10.1093/mnras/stad1072

    Qu , Y., & Zhang , B. 2023, , 522, 2448, 10.1093/mnras/stad1072

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    2024, , 972, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5d5b

    ---. 2024, , 972, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5d5b

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    B., & Lightman , A

    Rybicki , G. B., & Lightman , A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics

    1979

  51. [59]

    Sazonov , V. N. 1969, , 13, 396

    1969

  52. [60]

    Shcherbakov , R. V. 2008, , 688, 695, 10.1086/592326

    2008 doi

  53. [61]

    Sridhar , N., & Metzger , B. D. 2022, , 937, 5, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8a4a

    2022 doi

  54. [62]

    H., Manchester , R

    Stairs , I. H., Manchester , R. N., Lyne , A. G., et al. 2001, , 325, 979, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04447.x

    2001

  55. [63]

    2013, Science, 341, 53, 10.1126/science.1236789

    Thornton , D., Stappers , B., Bailes , M., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 53, 10.1126/science.1236789

    2013 doi

  56. [64]

    Trubnikov , B. A. 1958, PhD thesis, -

    1958

  57. [65]

    A., Shannon , R

    Uttarkar , P. A., Shannon , R. M., Lower , M. E., et al. 2024, , 534, 2485, 10.1093/mnras/stae2159

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    N., Johnston , S., & Reynolds , J

    van Straten , W., Manchester , R. N., Johnston , S., & Reynolds , J. E. 2010, , 27, 104, 10.1071/AS09084

    2010 doi

  59. [67]

    K., & Ravi , V

    Vedantham , H. K., & Ravi , V. 2019, , 485, L78, 10.1093/mnrasl/slz038

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    Y., Zhang , G

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

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    Q., Wang , J

    Wang , S. Q., Wang , J. B., Li , D. Z., et al. 2023, , 955, 36, 10.3847/1538-4357/acea81

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    2022 b , , 517, 5080, 10.1093/mnras/stac3070

    Wang , W.-Y., Jiang , J.-C., Lee , K., Xu , R., & Zhang , B. 2022 b , , 517, 5080, 10.1093/mnras/stac3070

    2022 doi

  63. [71]

    2022 c , , 927, 105, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4097

    Wang , W.-Y., Yang , Y.-P., Niu , C.-H., Xu , R., & Zhang , B. 2022 c , , 927, 105, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4097

    2022 doi

  64. [72]

    2023, , 957, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf5eb

    Xia , Z.-Y., Yang , Y.-P., Li , Q.-C., et al. 2023, , 957, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf5eb

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10172, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.10172

    Xie , J.-T., Feng , Y., Li , D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10172, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.10172

    2024 doi arXiv

  66. [74]

    R., Chen , P., et al

    Xu , H., Niu , J. R., Chen , P., et al. 2022, , 611, E12, 10.1038/s41586-022-05493-4

    2022 doi

  67. [75]

    L., et al

    Yan , Z., Yu , W., Page , K. L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.12084, 10.48550/arXiv.2402.12084

    2024 doi arXiv

  68. [76]

    2020, , 895, 7, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab88ab

    Yang , Y.-P., Li , Q.-C., & Zhang , B. 2020, , 895, 7, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab88ab

    2020 doi

  69. [77]

    2022, , 928, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5f46

    Yang , Y.-P., Lu , W., Feng , Y., Zhang , B., & Li , D. 2022, , 928, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5f46

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

    2018, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts , 10.1017/9781139226530

    Zhang , B. 2018, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts , 10.1017/9781139226530

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    2022, , 925, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3979

    ---. 2022, , 925, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3979

    2022 doi

  72. [80]

    2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005, 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005

    ---. 2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005, 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005

    2023 doi

  73. [81]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.14247, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.14247

    Zhang , X., Yu , W., Yan , Z., Xing , Y., & Zhang , B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.14247, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.14247

    2025 doi arXiv

  74. [82]

    2023 a , , 959, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0545

    Zhang , X., Yu , W., Law , C., et al. 2023 a , , 959, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0545

    2023 doi

  75. [83]

    2023 b , , 955, 142, 10.3847/1538-4357/aced0b

    Zhang , Y.-K., Li , D., Zhang , B., et al. 2023 b , , 955, 142, 10.3847/1538-4357/aced0b

    2023 doi

  76. [84]

    Y., & Wang , F

    Zhao , Z. Y., & Wang , F. Y. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.04401, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.04401

    2024 doi arXiv

  77. [85]

    P., et al

    Dai , S., Feng , Y., Yang , Y. P., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2203.08151, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.08151

    2022 doi arXiv

  78. [86]

    Legg , M. P. C., & Westfold , K. C. 1968, , 154, 499, 10.1086/149777

    1968 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.