Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Are FRBs emitted from rotating magnetospheres? Searching for periodicity in polarized bursts

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A periodogram of polarization position angles recovers the spin period of a repeating FRB even when time-of-arrival searches fail, directly testing the rotating-magnetosphere hypothesis.

desk verdict A simple, sensible new tool for hunting FRB rotation periods in polarization data—worth applying, but the null-result interpretation needs to be tied to the assumption, not just to the magnetosphere model. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18176 v2 pith:CIMGZLMC submitted 2025-04-25 astro-ph.HE

Kaustubh M. Rajwade , Aris Karastergiou This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsrepeatingFRBspolarizationpositionanglerotatingmagnetosphereneutronstarsperiodicitysearchLomb-Scargleperiodogramdutycycle
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

The paper argues that if repeating FRBs originate in rotating magnetospheres, the measured polarization position angle of each burst should be tied to the rotational phase at which it is emitted. Because bursts can be emitted stochastically throughout a large active part of the spin cycle, their arrival times look aperiodic, which is why standard periodicity searches fail. The authors show that a Lomb-Scargle periodogram of the position angles recovers the spin period even at duty cycles where time-of-arrival searches are blind. They demonstrate this on simulated data and on single pulses from a radio magnetar. The test gives a direct way to confirm or rule out a magnetospheric origin for repeating FRBs.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the relation $\psi = G(\phi)$ together with the Lomb-Scargle periodogram applied to unevenly sampled measurements of $\psi$. $G$ is any deterministic function of rotational phase; the paper uses the rotating vector model as an example, but the result does not depend on that particular form. The periodogram's power at the spin frequency survives because the phase-to-PA mapping is periodic in time, while the burst times themselves are sparse and stochastic. Using normalized Stokes $Q$ and $U$ avoids the 180-degree wrap of $\psi$ and can be summed incoherently to maximize sensitivity.

What would settle it

Observe a repeating FRB over many bursts within a single epoch, measure accurate polarization position angles (accounting for Faraday rotation and calibration), and run a Lomb-Scargle periodogram on the $\psi$ timeseries and on normalized Stokes $Q$ and $U$. If, with enough bursts spread over many rotations, no significant peak appears at any frequency while the TOA periodogram also shows nothing, the joint hypothesis that the bursts come from a rotating magnetosphere with a stable period and a phase-locked polarization angle is falsified for that source.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the polarization position angle ($\psi$) of bursts from a nearly aligned rotator is a deterministic function of rotational phase, $\psi = G(\phi)$, even when the burst emission itself is stochastic. Therefore a periodogram computed on the $\psi$ timeseries will show a peak at the spin frequency, while the same periodogram on burst arrival times will not, for large duty cycles. The paper shows this with simulated rotating-vector-model data for duty cycles 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0, and verifies the method on single pulses from the magnetar XTE J1810-197. An important practical refinement is to periodogram the normalized Stokes $Q$ and $U$ rather than $\psi$ itself, because $\psi$ wraps at the interval boundaries.

Load-bearing premise

The measured polarization position angle must be a deterministic, repeatable function of the rotational phase ($\psi = G(\phi)$); if emission altitude, propagation geometry, or phase-dependent magnetospheric changes break that one-to-one relation, the periodogram will not reveal the spin period even if one exists.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If applied to existing single-epoch, multi-burst repeater datasets, a positive detection would reveal the spin period of the host compact object.
  • A null result in a well-sampled single epoch would argue against a rotating magnetospheric origin for that repeater, because any coherent magnetospheric emission model predicts a phase-locked polarization angle.
  • The method can also find the spin period of radio-loud neutron stars where pulsed emission has not been detected, since a large duty cycle could hide the periodicity in arrival times.
  • For magnetars with large period derivatives, multi-epoch phase connection may be lost, but the method still sets limits on the stability of the period.
  • The method is most sensitive for large duty cycles, which is exactly the regime where TOA periodicity searches fail.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same PA-periodogram logic could be applied to other highly polarized, sporadically emitting transients such as rotating radio transients to recover their spin periods from sparse burst data.
  • Because the method only requires $\psi$ to be phase-locked, it could work for emission mechanisms beyond the rotating vector model, including multipolar magnetospheres, widening the set of testable magnetospheric models.
  • A natural extension is to fold long-term monitoring data onto the candidate spin period recovered by this method, which could reveal phase-connected timing behavior and measure the period derivative even when individual bursts are sparse.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new observational test for the rotating-magnetosphere interpretation of repeating FRBs. Assuming that the polarization position angle psi is a deterministic periodic function of rotational phase (Eq. 1), the authors construct a Lomb-Scargle periodogram of measured psi values from bursts and argue that this recovers the underlying spin period even when the burst duty cycle is large enough that standard time-of-arrival periodicity searches fail. Simulations using the rotating vector model (Eq. 5) for a near-aligned rotator with duty cycles 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 show a strong periodogram peak at the input period in psi, while the TOA periodogram does not; a demonstration on single pulses from XTE J1810-197 also recovers the known spin period. The paper recommends applying the method to single-epoch, multi-burst repeater datasets and claims that both detections and null results would be informative for the magnetospheric-origin question.

Significance. If the assumption psi=G(phi) holds for repeating FRBs, the proposed method would be a valuable new tool: it targets exactly the large-duty-cycle regime where TOA periodicity searches are expected to fail, and it can be applied to existing polarization datasets. The simulation setup is internally consistent, the caveats about PA wraparound and Stokes Q/U periodograms are thoughtful, and the XTE J1810-197 check is a reasonable sanity test. However, the central assumption is untested for repeaters, the real-data validation concerns a low-duty-cycle source with a known period, and the paper does not quantify robustness to PA stochasticity; the significance of the proposal therefore rests on additional work rather than on the present demonstrations.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2 (Eq. 1) and Section 2.1] The simulated success is partly by construction. The synthetic psi values are generated from Eq. (5), which explicitly assumes the psi=G(phi) relation (Eq. 1) that the method is designed to test. The simulations therefore show that the Lomb-Scargle procedure can recover a period when the premise holds, but they do not provide evidence that repeating FRB emission actually satisfies Eq. (1). The XTE J1810-197 test does not close this gap: that source has a low duty cycle and a known period, so the method is not exercised in the large-duty-cycle regime where TOA searches fail and where the paper claims a new capability.
  2. [Section 3 (also Abstract)] The claim that both positive and negative results are informative is stronger than the analysis supports. The paper itself notes that some repeaters exhibit time-varying position angles (Niu et al. 2024) and that such behaviour makes the search challenging, but it does not model or quantify how much PA stochasticity or multi-valued G(phi) the method can tolerate. Consequently, a null result is ambiguous: it could indicate the absence of a rotating magnetosphere, a violation of Eq. (1) due to emission altitude or propagation geometry, or simply PA scatter that destroys the periodic signature. Without a quantitative treatment of these alternatives, the negative-result interpretation in Section 3 is not justified.
  3. [Section 3] The statement that "the sensitivity of the method is only dependent on the duty cycle" is internally inconsistent with the discussion immediately following it, which notes that the sampled range of psi can be small depending on emission geometry. Detectability also depends on the number of bursts, the PA measurement uncertainty, the shape of G(phi), and the observing span relative to the period. This matters for planning observations and for interpreting null results; the manuscript should qualify the claim or provide a sensitivity analysis.
  4. [Section 2.1, XTE J1810-197 test] The real-data validation is reported without a figure or a quantitative significance statement: the text says "we detected a strong peak at the expected spin period" but gives no periodogram, peak signal-to-noise ratio, or false-alarm probability. Since the period is already known, the demonstration is also not blind. The authors should provide the periodogram and its significance threshold so that readers can assess the detection.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (3)] Please state whether the mean of psi was subtracted before computing the Lomb-Scargle periodogram; the classical formula as written assumes zero mean, and a constant offset psi0 in Eq. (5) could affect the low-frequency behaviour of the periodogram.
  2. [Section 2.1] The simulation parameters are incomplete: the number of active rotations or bursts, the values of psi0 and phi0, and the number of Monte Carlo realizations are not given, which makes the claimed sensitivity difficult to reproduce.
  3. [Section 2.2] The recommended incoherent combination of the normalized Stokes Q and U periodograms is not demonstrated; please show a simulation (or at least a quantitative example) with a false-alarm calibration for the combined statistic.
  4. [Throughout] There are minor language issues, for example "where the linear polarization intensity greater is than 5sigma" should read "where the linear polarization intensity is greater than 5sigma", and "an example is the sample..." should be "a sample...".

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The simulation is a by-construction test of the algorithm (psi generated from the periodic relation the method seeks), but the paper's central claim is conditional and the real-data test breaks the loop; only minor circularity.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.1, Eqs. (1) and (5), Fig. 1]
    "we record the corresponding ψ from Eq. 5 and the timestamp fornsamp = 10 consecutive samples of tsamp = 1 ms each. ... the periodogram applied to ψ retains a high signal-to-noise peak at the expected spin frequency."

    The simulated ψ values are sampled from G(φ), a periodic function of the injected rotation period, so the Lomb-Scargle periodogram recovering that period is a consequence of the construction rather than independent evidence. This does not validate Eq. (1) for real FRBs; the paper presents it as a test of the method under the stated assumption. The XTE J1810-197 real-data result provides an external check, and the paper explicitly notes the source has a low duty cycle and does not obey Eq. (5).

full rationale

The central derivation chain is: assume ψ = G(φ) (Eq. 1), synthesize a periodic ψ series (Eq. 5), show the Lomb-Scargle periodogram recovers the injected period, and validate on real pulses from XTE J1810-197. The simulated link is necessarily self-referential in the narrow sense that the success is encoded in the input: a deterministic periodic function of phase will produce a periodogram peak at that period, subject to sampling and noise. However, the paper never claims the simulation proves that repeating FRBs satisfy Eq. 1; the abstract and Section 2 state this as an assumption and a conjecture. The real-data test is independent of the simulation and recovers the known period despite the source not obeying the RVM, which breaks any self-referential loop. The citation to Karastergiou et al. (2009) is a coauthor's earlier work but is used only as an example of the pulsar polarization-phase relation, which is also cited to Radhakrishnan & Cooke (1969); it is not load-bearing. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The only weakness is that a null FRB result would be ambiguous if ψ is a multi-valued or time-dependent function of phase, a caveat the paper acknowledges in Section 3 with the Niu et al. (2024) example. This is a scientific robustness concern rather than a circularity of the derivation.

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

The method depends on the polarization angle being a repeatable function of rotational phase and on the period being stable across the observation. These are clearly stated domain assumptions. No new physical entities are postulated, and no numbers are fitted to make the central claim work.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The polarization position angle of the burst is a function of the rotational phase of the compact object (psi = G(phi), Eq. 1).
    Central premise of the method; without this relation, a period in psi need not correspond to spin phase. Stated in Section 2.
  • domain assumption The rotation period of the source is stable over the observing span.
    The periodicity search assumes a constant spin frequency; the paper notes that period derivative or timing noise could break phase connection (Section 3).
  • standard math Lomb-Scargle periodogram correctly identifies periodicities in unevenly sampled timeseries.
    Standard statistical tool; cited to Scargle 1992 and VanderPlas 2018.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Are FRBs emitted from rotating magnetospheres? Searching for periodicity in polarized bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CIMGZLMC

@misc{pith2026250418176,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Are FRBs emitted from rotating magnetospheres? Searching for periodicity in polarized bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CIMGZLMC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18176}
}
read the original abstract

One of the potential sources of repeating Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) is a rotating magnetosphere of a compact object, as suggested by the similarities in the polarization properties of FRBs and radio pulsars. Attempts to measure an underlying period in the times of arrival of repeating FRBs have nevertheless been unsuccessful. To explain this lack of observed periodicity, it is often suggested that the line of sight towards the source must be sampling active parts of the emitting magnetosphere throughout the rotation of the compact object, i.e. has a large duty cycle, as can be the case in a neutron star with near-aligned magnetic and rotation axes. This may lead to apparently aperiodic bursts, however the polarization angle of the bursts should be tied to the rotational phase from which they occur. This is true for radio pulsars. We therefore propose a new test to identify a possible stable rotation period under the assumptions above, based on a periodogram of the measured polarization angle timeseries for repeating FRBs. We show that this test is highly sensitive when the duty cycle is large, where standard time-of-arrival periodicity searches fail. Therefore, we can directly test the hypothesis of repeating FRBs of magnetospheric origin with a stable rotation period. Both positive and negative results of the test applied to FRB data will provide important information.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18176 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Lomb-Scargle periodogram of the polarization angle (top row) and ToAs (bottom row) from the simulations for a range duty cycles. The red dashed vertical line represents the rotation period of the star. The black dashed line corresponds to the false alarm probability of 0.00002% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Lomb-Scargle periodogram of simulated normalized Stokes Q (top row) and Stokes U (bottom row) for different duty cycles. The red dashed vertical line shows the spin frequency and the dashed black line shows the threshold corresponding to a false alarm probability of 0.00002%. MNRAS 000, 1–5 (2025) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] 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. Depolarization Induced by Rapid Polarization Angle Swings: A Common Feature of Pulsars and Fast Radio Bursts?

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Rapid polarization-angle swings should depolarize pulsar and FRB emission, yielding an anti-correlation Π_L vs dPA/dt that has tentative support in a subset of pulsars.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    arXiv:2410.19043

    Beniamini P., Kumar P., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.19043 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241019043B p. arXiv:2410.19043

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.19043 2024

  2. [2]

    D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1783 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.3390B 496, 3390

    Beniamini P., Wadiasingh Z., Metzger B. D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1783 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.3390B 496, 3390

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1783 2020

  3. [3]

    arXiv:2411.16846

    Beniamini P., Wadiasingh Z., Trigg A., Chirenti C., Burns E., Younes G., Negro M., Granot J., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.16846 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241116846B p. arXiv:2411.16846

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.16846 2024

  4. [4]

    R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A.124C 670, A124

    Callingham J. R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A.124C 670, A124

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245567 2023

  5. [5]

    M., Halpern J

    Camilo F., Ransom S. M., Halpern J. P., Reynolds J., Helfand D. J., Zimmerman N., Sarkissian J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature04986 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Natur.442..892C 442, 892

    doi:10.1038/nature04986 2006

  6. [6]

    Chime/Frb Collaboration et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-020-2398-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Natur.582..351C 582, 351

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2398-2 2020

  7. [7]

    A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-04841-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.607..256C 607, 256

    Chime/Frb Collaboration Bridget C. A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-04841-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.607..256C 607, 256

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04841-8 2022

  8. [8]

    Cruces M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3223 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500..448C 500, 448

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3223 2021

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Du C., Huang Y.-F., Zhang Z.-B., Rodin A., Fedorova V., Kurban A., Li D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8cd5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...977..129D 977, 129

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Johnston S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa516 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.3608J 493, 3608

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    W., van Straten W., McLaughlin M

    Karastergiou A., Hotan A. W., van Straten W., McLaughlin M. A., Ord S. M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00671.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.396L..95K 396, L95

    2009

  4. [12]

    P., Jenkins M., Nimmo K., van den Eijnden J., Hessels J

    Kirsten F., Snelders M. P., Jenkins M., Nimmo K., van den Eijnden J., Hessels J. W. T., Gawro \'n ski M. P., Yang J., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-01246-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5..414K 5, 414

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    W., Jessner A., Lyne A

    Kramer M., Stappers B. W., Jessner A., Lyne A. G., Jordan C. A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11622.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.377..107K 377, 107

    2007

  6. [14]

    arXiv:2504.00391

    Liu X., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.00391 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250400391L p. arXiv:2504.00391

    2025 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    R., Bailes M., McLaughlin M

    Lorimer D. R., Bailes M., McLaughlin M. A., Narkevic D. J., Crawford F., 2007, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1147532 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Sci...318..777L 318, 777

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    Lu W., Kumar P., Narayan R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2829 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483..359L 483, 359

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    V., Giannios D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab87a4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...893L..39L 893, L39

    Lyutikov M., Barkov M. V., Giannios D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab87a4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...893L..39L 893, L39

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Nimmo K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.2281N 520, 2281

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7023 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...972L..20N 972, L20

    Niu J. R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7023 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...972L..20N 972, L20

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    arXiv:2502.11215

    Pal A., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.11215 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250211215P p. arXiv:2502.11215

    2025 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    J., 1969, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApL.....3..225R 3, 225

    Radhakrishnan V., Cooke D. J., 1969, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApL.....3..225R 3, 225

    1969

  14. [22]

    M., van den Eijnden J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245468 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...673A.136R 673, A136

    Rajwade K. M., van den Eijnden J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245468 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...673A.136R 673, A136

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1237 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.3551R 495, 3551

    Rajwade K. M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1237 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.3551R 495, 3551

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac446 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.1687R 512, 1687

    Rajwade K. M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac446 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.1687R 512, 1687

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    D., 1992, in Feigelson E

    Scargle J. D., 1992, in Feigelson E. D., Babu G. J., eds, Statistical Challenges in Modern Astronomy. pp 411--436, @doi 10.1007/978-1-4613-9290-3_47

    1992 doi

  18. [26]

    Sobey C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142636 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...661A..87S 661, A87

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    G., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature17168 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.531..202S 531, 202

    Spitler L. G., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature17168 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.531..202S 531, 202

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    H., 1969, @doi [IEEE Proceedings] 10.1109/PROC.1969.7051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969IEEEP..57..724S 57, 724

    Staelin D. H., 1969, @doi [IEEE Proceedings] 10.1109/PROC.1969.7051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969IEEEP..57..724S 57, 724

    1969

  21. [29]

    T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aab766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..236...16V 236, 16

    VanderPlas J. T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aab766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..236...16V 236, 16

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    G., van der Horst A

    Wadiasingh Z., Beniamini P., Timokhin A., Baring M. G., van der Horst A. J., Harding A. K., Kazanas D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d69 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...891...82W 891, 82

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    Y., Zhang G

    Wang F. Y., Zhang G. Q., Dai Z. G., Cheng K. S., 2022, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/s41467-022-31923-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022NatCo..13.4382W 13, 4382

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Y., G \"o g \"u s E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac699 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.3189Y 512, 3189

    Yamasaki S., Ek s i K. Y., G \"o g \"u s E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac699 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.3189Y 512, 3189

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    J., Lai D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7cdd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...892L..15Z 892, L15

    Zanazzi J. J., Lai D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7cdd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...892L..15Z 892, L15

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    write newline

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

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.