Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 29 references

Counterpart-Induced Millisecond-Scale Truncation Mechanism of Fast Radio Bursts

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Millisecond FRB durations may be a propagation effect, not an engine size limit.

desk verdict A genuinely new truncation mechanism with a clean analytic core, but the quantitative match to FRB 200428 hinges on an unmeasured emission radius. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14413 v1 pith:DP2QYHUY submitted 2025-05-20 astro-ph.HE hep-phphysics.plasm-ph

Yutong He , Christoph H. Keitel , Matteo Tamburini This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-phphysics.plasm-ph PACS 98.70.Rz97.60.Gb52.27.Ep
keywords fastradioburstsFRB200428paircascadeBreit-WheelerprocessComptonscatteringmilliseconddurationmagnetartruncationmechanism
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 proposes that the millisecond-scale durations of fast radio bursts (FRBs) are not necessarily set by the size or lifetime of the source engine, but can be produced by a pair cascade triggered when the burst's dense soft gamma-ray counterpart propagates through surrounding plasma. The authors argue that Compton scattering and Breit-Wheeler pair production convert the energetic photon beam into leptons, creating an opaque wall that truncates the radio signal after a characteristic length, which for FRB 200428 parameters naturally maps to milliseconds. If this mechanism operates universally, the observed burst duration would no longer constrain the central engine to be smaller than about a hundred kilometers, loosening a key assumption in FRB source models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair cascade described by a coupled set of continuity equations for leptons and side-scattered photons, leading to a steady-state lepton density profile $n_e(\xi) = n_0 \cosh(\sigma_{\rm eff} n_\gamma \xi)$ with effective cross section $\sigma_{\rm eff} = [2\sigma_{\rm CS}\sigma_{\rm BW}/(v^e_\xi/v_s^\xi)]^{1/2}$. The cascade is governed by the dimensionless parameter $\kappa \equiv \sigma_{\rm eff} n_\gamma L$, with cascade development only when $\kappa \gtrsim 1$. The truncation length $L_{\rm cut} \sim \ln(2n_\gamma/n_0)/(\sigma_{\rm eff} n_\gamma)$ is only logarithmically sensitive to the density ratio, so the local energetic photon density $n_\gamma$ and the effective cross section are the primary controls on the resulting timescale.

What would settle it

Measure the emission radius of a repeating FRB with both radio and high-energy counterpart (e.g., FRB 200428 itself via very long baseline interferometry or scintillation) and compare the derived local photon density with the truncation time; if the radius is large enough that $n_\gamma \sigma_{\rm eff} L \ll 1$, the cascade would not develop, and the millisecond duration would have to be intrinsic to the engine. Alternatively, find an FRB with a bright counterpart whose radio burst duration clearly exceeds the predicted $L_{\rm cut}/c$ for the estimated density, which would falsify the universal operation of the truncation mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an electron-positron pair cascade, driven by Compton scattering and the Breit-Wheeler process in the dense soft gamma-ray counterpart of FRB 200428, can truncate the FRB to durations of order milliseconds regardless of the intrinsic burst length. The cascade grows exponentially toward the rear of the photon beam, depleting the beam and rendering the plasma opaque to radio photons once the lepton density reaches the critical plasma density for the FRB frequency. For the observed counterpart photon density near the source, estimated by scaling the Earth-observed flux back to an emission radius of $10^{4}$-$10^{7}$ m, the truncation timescale falls in the $10^{-3}$ to $10^{3}$ ms range, encompassing the 0.6 ms and 0.3 ms components of FRB 200428. Because the mechanism operates during propagation, it is independent of the FRB production mechanism, so the engine does not have to be intrinsically short-duration.

Load-bearing premise

The local soft gamma-ray photon density near the source, $n_\gamma$, is inferred by scaling the observed Earth flux back to an emission radius $R_0$ borrowed from FRB 20221022A rather than measured for FRB 200428, and the truncation time scales roughly as $1/(\sigma_{\rm eff} n_\gamma)$, so this single assumption controls whether the predicted duration lands in the millisecond range, outside it, or not at all.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • FRB duration would no longer directly bound the source size; engines larger than the light-crossing time of the burst could still produce millisecond-observed events.
  • The mechanism can explain microsecond-scale bursts like those of FRB 20121102A as cases where the local photon density is high enough to truncate the signal extremely early.
  • If counterparts are as common as this mechanism suggests, many FRBs may be truncated to undetectable durations when the local photon density is too high, explaining the rarity of FRB-soft gamma repeater associations.
  • The truncation time for the counterpart itself would be similar to that for the radio burst, predicting that the high-energy emission and FRB should show comparable durations.
  • The dependence on the local photon density, rather than on the engine, means the mechanism could apply to all FRBs that have dense high-energy photon environments, not just magnetar-associated ones.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to compare the predicted truncation timescale with the observed duration distribution of FRBs that have detected high-energy counterparts, checking whether the duration correlates with the estimated local photon density rather than with the source size.
  • If the cascade develops ahead of the radio burst in the densest photon fields, the radio signal could be completely suppressed, which might imply an intrinsic under-detection of FRBs arising in the most compact magnetar environments.
  • The mechanism's insensitivity to the initial burst length suggests that the observed millisecond durations across many FRBs could be a universal propagation filter, which would shift the focus of FRB modelling from engine lifetimes to the photon environment surrounding the source.
  • The same pair cascade could truncate the high-energy counterpart itself, which would imply that the observed counterpart duration is set by the same physics rather than by the emission process, potentially explaining why the X-ray burst and radio burst have similar durations.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the dense soft gamma-ray counterpart of FRB 200428 triggers an electron-positron pair cascade during propagation, and that the resulting pair plasma becomes opaque to radio photons, truncating the FRB to millisecond or shorter durations. The authors derive a one-dimensional continuity model in which Compton scattering and Breit-Wheeler pair production lead to exponential pair growth, characterize the cascade with 1D3V PIC simulations in EPOCH, fit an effective cross section, and then solve spherical continuity equations with photon depletion over a parameter scan in emission radius R0 and local photon density n_gamma0. They conclude that the observed FRB duration can be a propagation effect rather than a direct measure of the central engine size, and they speculate that the mechanism may be universal.

Significance. If the mechanism is correct, it would be an important conceptual shift: the millisecond duration of FRBs would not constrain the engine size, which would resolve the tension with microsecond bursts from FRB 20121102A and help explain the rarity of FRB/SGR associations. The paper has genuine strengths: the continuity-equation derivation is transparent, the PIC simulations provide a concrete microphysical realization, the parameter scan is broad, and the authors do not fit the truncation time to observed FRB durations, so the comparison to FRB 200428 is a consistency check rather than a fit. The main weakness is that the quantitative prediction is controlled by R0 and n_gamma0, neither of which is directly measured for FRB 200428; a factor of ten in R0 changes the predicted truncation time by two orders of magnitude and moves it out of the observed millisecond window. The central claim is therefore defensible but currently rests on an unverified, load-bearing parameter.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 3 and the paragraph beginning 'Based on the recent identification...'] The use of the emission radius R0 of FRB 20221022A for FRB 200428 is load-bearing. At fixed D ~ 10 kpc and n_Earth,gamma = 1.66e-4 m^-3, the local density scales as n_gamma0 ~ R0^-2, so the truncation time from Eq. (4) scales as T_FRB ~ R0^2. Using sigma_eff = 0.069 sigma_T, n0 = 1e9 m^-3, and nc = 1e16 m^-3, R0 = 1e7 m gives n_gamma0 ~ 1.5e23 m^-3 and T_FRB roughly 70 ms, about two orders of magnitude longer than the observed 0.3/0.6 ms components of FRB 200428. With R0 = 1e6 m the same estimate gives T_FRB ~ 0.8 ms, inside the observed window. Since R0 for SGR J1935+2154 is not measured and the adopted range spans this threshold, the statement that the mechanism 'naturally corresponds' to millisecond durations for FRB 200428 is not robust. Please either provide a direct constraint on R0 for this source, or explicitly reframe the result as a conditional prediction whose validity for FRB 200428 hinges on R0 being at the lower end of the adopted range.
  2. [Eq. (4) and the abstract/final-paragraph claim 'regardless of the initial duration'] The statement that truncation occurs 'regardless of the initial duration' is too strong. The derivation gives a truncation length L_cut ~ ln(nc/n0)/(sigma_eff n_gamma) that is independent of the beam length L only after the cascade is fully developed, i.e., for kappa = sigma_eff n_gamma L > 1. If the intrinsic burst duration is shorter than L_cut/c, the entire burst escapes and no truncation occurs. If the burst is longer, the observed duration depends on the dynamics of the opacity front and not simply on L_cut/c. The manuscript does not discuss the transition regime T_emit ~ L_cut/c nor the time-dependent front motion beyond the steady-state solution of Eq. (4). This qualification is needed for the central claim that the mechanism lifts the millisecond-duration constraint on FRB production mechanisms.
  3. [Fig. 2(b) and Eq. (5)] The effective cross section sigma_eff is calibrated from the same PIC implementation that is then used, through Eqs. (6)-(8), to produce the predicted truncation times and the comparison with FRB 200428. This is not a fit to observed FRB durations, which is a strength, but it does mean the agreement is a self-consistency check between the PIC model and the reduced equations rather than an independent verification of the cross sections. The paper should state this explicitly and, if possible, benchmark sigma_eff against an independent QED calculation or an alternative code, or at least provide the statistical uncertainty on the fitted values 0.069 sigma_T and 0.181 sigma_T.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 'We begin by presenting...'] In the estimate 'sigma_eff ~ 10^-30 m^-3', the units should be m^2, not m^-3; this appears to be a typo.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption and related text] The best-fit values of sigma_eff are quoted without uncertainties; given that the subsequent 3D calculation uses these values as fixed inputs, reporting fit errors would improve transparency.
  3. [Eqs. (6)-(8) and Fig. 3] The boundary condition n_gamma = n_gamma0 at r = R0 and the white dashed lines n_gamma0 R0^2 = n_Earth,gamma D^2 connect the parameter scan to observations, but the text does not clearly state that the FRB 200428 locus is the intersection of the white dashed lines with the adopted R0 range. Please mark the locus explicitly, since this is where the quantitative claim is made.
  4. [Final paragraph] The extrapolation to 'all FRBs' is speculative because no counterparts have been observed for other FRBs; the reasoning that they may be common is plausible but should be more clearly separated from the verified result for FRB 200428.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the millisecond truncation time is a forward prediction from observed counterpart flux and PIC-calibrated cross sections, not fitted to observed FRB durations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and forward-directed. Starting from the continuity equations (1)-(2), the paper derives the steady-state solution n_e = n0 cosh(sigma_eff n_gamma xi) in Eq. (4), with sigma_eff defined by Eq. (5). The effective cross-section is then calibrated by fitting cosh(sigma_eff n_gamma L*) to 1D3V PIC simulation outputs in Fig. 2(b); this fitted quantity is a microphysical cross-section, not the observed FRB duration. The observed durations of FRB 200428 (0.6 ms and 0.3 ms) never enter the fit. The local photon density n_gamma0 is estimated from the observed Earth-frame counterpart density via n_gamma0 R0^2 ~ n_Earth_gamma D^2, with R0 adopted from the external identification of FRB 20221022A's emission radius [24], so the predicted truncation timescale is a consistency check rather than a fit to the target. The paper explicitly acknowledges the uncertainties in R0, n0, and plasma parameters, and the parameter scan in Fig. 3 reports regions where truncation does not occur, which is honest parametric uncertainty rather than circular reasoning. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no definitional identification of the predicted quantity with an input. The central claim is therefore not circular; concerns about the adopted R0 value are correctness risks, not circularity.

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

The central claim rests on an effective cross section fitted from the paper's own PIC simulations plus broad astrophysical inputs (R0, n0, n_gamma0) that are not independently measured for FRB 200428. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • sigma_eff (effective pair-cascade cross section) = 0.069 sigma_T for e-p plasma; 0.181 sigma_T for pair plasma
    Fitted to PIC density profiles using a cosh function in Eq. (4); directly sets the truncation length L_cut.
  • R0 (counterpart emission radius) = 10^4 to 10^8 m
    Adopted from FRB 20221022A rather than measured for FRB 200428; controls n_gamma0 through inverse-square scaling.
  • n_gamma0 (local counterpart photon density) = 10^23 to 10^29 m^-3 in the fiducial estimate
    Derived from the observed Earth flux and assumed R0; primary driver of the truncation timescale.
  • n0 (ambient plasma density) = 10^6 to 10^19 m^-3
    Range from Goldreich-Julian estimates; sets the initial seed for Compton scattering and enters logarithmically in L_cut.
  • Kinetic parameters (ve, vs, sigma_CS, sigma_BW) = ve ~ -0.55c, vs ~ -0.62c, sigma_CS ~ 0.33 sigma_T, sigma_BW ~ 0.0023 sigma_T
    Time-averaged from 1D3V PIC and treated as constants in the 3D spherical model; their combination defines sigma_eff.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Continuity equations (1)-(2) and their combination into Eq. (3) describe the cascade.
    Assumed background; standard kinetic description with constant velocities and cross sections.
  • domain assumption The counterpart is a collimated beam of ~m_e c^2 energy photons with n_gamma much greater than n_e, co-spatial with the FRB radio emission.
    Central geometry; if the gamma-ray beam is not co-spatial with the radio burst or is not collimated, the cascade would not truncate the FRB.
  • domain assumption Compton scattering and Breit-Wheeler dominate; other processes are subdominant.
    Footnote [14] asserts photon-proton scattering, Bethe-Heitler, and higher-order processes are suppressed; standard QED hierarchy in this regime.
  • domain assumption Truncation occurs when the lepton density reaches n_c ~ 10^16 m^-3 (or when the gyrofrequency drops below the photon frequency in strong magnetic fields).
    Defines the opacity criterion for FRB photons; standard plasma cutoff applied to this environment.
  • domain assumption 1D3V PIC captures the cascade and its time-averaged parameters can be used as constants in the 3D spherical equations.
    Bridges simulation to astrophysical prediction; validation is only in the unreleased Supplemental Material.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Counterpart-Induced Millisecond-Scale Truncation Mechanism of Fast Radio Bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DP2QYHUY

@misc{pith2026250514413,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Counterpart-Induced Millisecond-Scale Truncation Mechanism of Fast Radio Bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DP2QYHUY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14413}
}
read the original abstract

The observed millisecond-scale duration is an essential yet mysterious feature of fast radio bursts (FRBs). In this Letter, we link the observed soft gamma-ray counterpart of FRB 200428 to electron-positron pair cascades driven by Compton scattering and the Breit-Wheeler process. We demonstrate that such pair cascades can truncate FRBs to durations down to millisecond-scale, thereby establishing millisecond-scale upper bounds on their durations. The physical processes involved in the truncation mechanism occur during the propagation of FRBs after their production. Consequently, this mechanism is independent of the specific production mechanism or origin of the FRBs, suggesting that it could potentially operate in all FRBs. Our results lift the constraint on FRB production mechanisms that they must inherently generate bursts lasting only milliseconds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14413 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. 1D3V PIC simulation results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. 1D3V PIC simulation results. (a) Temporal evolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Truncation time (color scale, in milliseconds) for (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Moreover, Fig

    The results demonstrate convergence to a steady value within a few multiples of L/c, even in systems where only a small number of pairs are produced. Moreover, Fig. 2(a) shows that pair cascades develop ( ne+ /n0 ≫ 1) only if the system satisfies κ ≳ 1, as displayed by the three green lines. Conversely, when κ < 1, the system produces an insignificant num...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Zhang, The physics of fast radio bursts, Rev

    B. Zhang, The physics of fast radio bursts, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 035005 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    D. R. Lorimer, M. Bailes, M. A. Mclaughlin, D. J. Narke- vic, and F. Crawford, A bright millisecond radio burst of extragalactic origin, Science 318, 777 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Platts, A

    E. Platts, A. Weltman, A. Walters, S. Tendulkar, J. Gordin, and S. Kandhai, A living theory catalogue for fast radio bursts, Physics Reports 821, 1 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    J. M. Cordes and S. Chatterjee, Fast Radio Bursts: An Extragalactic Enigma, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 57, 417 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Zhang, The physical mechanisms of fast radio bursts, Nature 587, 45 (2020)

    B. Zhang, The physical mechanisms of fast radio bursts, Nature 587, 45 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    The CHIME/FRB Collaboration, A bright millisecond- duration radio burst from a Galactic magnetar, Nature 587, 54 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    C. D. Bochenek, V. Ravi, K. V. Belov, G. Hallinan, 6 J. Kocz, S. R. Kulkarni, and D. L. McKenna, A fast radio burst associated with a Galactic magnetar, Nature 587, 59 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Mereghetti, V

    S. Mereghetti, V. Savchenko, C. Ferrigno, D. G¨ otz, M. Rigoselli, A. Tiengo, A. Bazzano, E. Bozzo, A. Coleiro, T. J.-L. Courvoisier, M. Doyle, A. Goldwurm, L. Hanlon, E. Jourdain, A. von Kienlin, A. Lutovinov, A. Martin-Carrillo, S. Molkov, L. Natalucci, F. Onori, F. Panessa,...

    2020

  2. [10]

    Ridnaia, D

    A. Ridnaia, D. Svinkin, D. Frederiks, A. Bykov, S. Popov, R. Aptekar, S. Golenetskii, A. Lysenko, A. Tsvetkova, M. Ulanov, and T. L. Cline, A peculiar hard X-ray coun- terpart of a Galactic fast radio burst, Nature Astronomy 5, 372 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Tavani and et al., An X-ray burst from a magnetar enlightening the mechanism of fast radio bursts, Nature Astronomy 5, 401 (2021)

    M. Tavani and et al., An X-ray burst from a magnetar enlightening the mechanism of fast radio bursts, Nature Astronomy 5, 401 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    C. K. Li and et al., HXMT identification of a non- thermal X-ray burst from SGR J1935+2154 and with FRB 200428, Nature Astronomy 5, 378 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    M. P. Snelders and et al., Detection of ultra-fast radio bursts from FRB 20121102A, Nature Astronomy 7, 1486 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    C. D. Capano, I. Tews, S. M. Brown, B. Margalit, S. De, S. Kumar, D. A. Brown, B. Krishnan, and S. Reddy, Stringent constraints on neutron-star radii from multi- messenger observations and nuclear theory, Nature As- tronomy 4, 625 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Moreover, as the cascade develops, leptons rapidly out- number protons

    Photon-proton scattering is subdominant, its cross sec- tion being suppressed due to the proton’s large mass. Moreover, as the cascade develops, leptons rapidly out- number protons. Bethe-Heitler and other higher-order processes are suppressed by the fine structure constant α ≈ 1/137

  8. [16]

    See the Supplemental Material at [URL-to-be-inserted- by-publisher] for details on the continuity equations, the observed counterpart spectrum, the implementation of collisional processes, and the corresponding benchmarks

  9. [17]

    J. C. Faure, D. Tordeux, L. Gremillet, and M. Lemoine, High-energy acceleration phenomena in extreme- radiation–plasma interactions, Phys. Rev. E 109, 015203 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    The CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Observations of fast ra- dio bursts at frequencies down to 400 megahertz, Nature 566, 230 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Gajjar, A

    V. Gajjar, A. P. V. Siemion, D. C. Price, C. J. Law, D. Michilli, J. W. T. Hessels, S. Chatterjee, A. M. Archibald, G. C. Bower, C. Brinkman, S. Burke-Spolaor, J. M. Cordes, S. Croft, J. E. Enriquez, G. Foster, N. Gizani, G. Hellbourg, H. Isaacson, V. M. Kaspi, T. J. W. Lazio,...

    2018

  12. [20]

    Swanson, Plasma Waves (Academic Press, 1989)

    D. Swanson, Plasma Waves (Academic Press, 1989)

    1989

  13. [21]

    Bailes, C

    M. Bailes, C. G. Bassa, G. Bernardi, S. Buchner, M. Bur- gay, M. Caleb, A. J. Cooper, G. Desvignes, P. J. Groot, I. Heywood, F. Jankowski, R. Karuppusamy, M. Kramer, M. Malenta, G. Naldi, M. Pilia, G. Pupillo, K. M. Ra- jwade, L. Spitler, M. Surnis, B. W. Stappers, A. Ad- dis,...

    2021

  14. [22]

    P. Zhou, X. Zhou, Y. Chen, J.-S. Wang, J. Vink, and Y. Wang, Revisiting the Distance, Environment, and Su- pernova Properties of SNR G57.2+0.8 that Hosts SGR 1935+2154, The Astrophysical Journal 905, 99 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Zhong, Z.-G

    S.-Q. Zhong, Z.-G. Dai, H.-M. Zhang, and C.-M. Deng, On the Distance of SGR 1935+2154 Associated with FRB 200428 and Hosted in SNR G57.2+0.8, The As- trophysical Journal Letters 898, L5 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Kothes, X

    R. Kothes, X. Sun, B. Gaensler, and W. Reich, A Radio Continuum and Polarization Study of SNR G57.2+0.8 Associated with Magnetar SGR 1935+2154, The Astro- physical Journal 852, 54 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Nimmo, Z

    K. Nimmo, Z. Pleunis, P. Beniamini, P. Kumar, A. E. Lanman, D. Z. Li, R. Main, M. W. Sammons, S. An- drew, M. Bhardwaj, S. Chatterjee, A. P. Curtin, E. Fon- seca, B. M. Gaensler, R. C. Joseph, Z. Kader, V. M. Kaspi, M. Lazda, C. Leung, K. W. Masui, R. Mckin- ven, D. Michilli, ...

    2025

  18. [26]

    Goldreich and W

    P. Goldreich and W. H. Julian, Pulsar Electrodynamics, The Astrophysical Journal 157, 869 (1969)

    1969

  19. [27]

    G. L. Israel, P. Esposito, N. Rea, F. Coti Zelati, A. Tiengo, S. Campana, S. Mereghetti, G. A. Ro- driguez Castillo, D. G¨ otz, M. Burgay, A. Possenti, S. Zane, R. Turolla, R. Perna, G. Cannizzaro, and J. Pons, The discovery, monitoring and environment of sgr j1935+2154, Month...

    2016

  20. [28]

    T. D. Arber, K. Bennett, C. S. Brady, A. Lawrence- Douglas, M. G. Ramsay, N. J. Sircombe, P. Gillies, R. G. Evans, H. Schmitz, A. R. Bell, and C. P. Ridgers, Con- temporary particle-in-cell approach to laser-plasma mod- elling, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 57, 113001 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    L. Lin, C. F. Zhang, P. Wang, H. Gao, X. Guan, J. L. Han, J. C. Jiang, P. Jiang, K. J. Lee, D. Li, Y. P. Men, C. C. Miao, C. H. Niu, J. R. Niu, C. Sun, B. J. Wang, Z. L. Wang, H. Xu, J. L. Xu, J. W. Xu, Y. H. Yang, Y. P. Yang, W. Yu, B. Zhang, B. B. Zhang, D. J. Zhou, W. W. Zh...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.