Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Testing the Young FRB Progenitor Hypothesis: A Crossmatch of Catalog-1 CHIME Bursts with Historic Local Universe Supernovae

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read No statistically significant FRB–supernova link found; one candidate survives all checks

desk verdict Solid null cross-match of CHIME FRBs against local supernovae; the beta constraint is model-dependent but the redshift-integral objection does not hold up on close reading. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01238 v1 pith:BJRQGGL2 submitted 2025-06-02 astro-ph.HE

Wanqing Liu , Mohit Bhardwaj , Ben Margalit This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstscore-collapsesupernovaemagnetarsCHIME/FRBfree-freeabsorptionburstratesupernovaremnantstransients
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 asks whether any fast radio burst in CHIME's first catalog was emitted by the young neutron star left behind by a historic core-collapse supernova. It cross-matches 886 nearby supernovae with 241 CHIME bursts and finds four positional overlaps, exactly what random chance predicts. Only one pair, FRB 20190412B and SN 2009gi, also passes independent dispersion-measure and scattering-time consistency checks, so that pair remains the single candidate worth targeted follow-up. The paper then uses the fact that every supernova sight line was a non-detection to place upper limits on FRB burst rates at those sites, finding that hyperactive repeating sources would have been detected unless beaming, intermittency, or absorption suppresses them. It also builds a galaxy-integrated rate model showing that the observed CHIME-to-ASKAP all-sky rate ratio requires a steep decline in magnetar burst rate with age, with decay index $1.5 \lesssim \beta \lesssim 8.5$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a galaxy-integrated FRB-rate model expressed as a frequency ratio, Equation D6: $R(\nu_a)/R(\nu_b) = (\nu_a/\nu_b)^{-\Gamma}$ times the ratio of integrals over active lifetime of $t^{-\beta}\exp[-\tau_{ff}(t,\nu)]$. The free-free transparency timescale, $t_{ff} \approx 77.6\,\mathrm{yr}\,(\nu/600\,\mathrm{MHz})^{-0.42}(E/10^{51}\,\mathrm{erg})^{-1/2}(M_{ej}/10\,M_\odot)^{9/10}(T_e/10^4\,\mathrm{K})^{-0.26}(f_{ion}/0.1)^{2/5}$, sets how long the expanding supernova ejecta block CHIME-band radio emission; the model then converts the observed ratio of low- to high-frequency all-sky rates into constraints on the decay index $\beta$ of magnetar burst activity and the intrinsic spectral index $\Gamma$. A second key mechanism is the DM and scattering cross-match test: the scattering time $\tau$ gives a $95\%$ upper limit on host DM through $\tau(\nu) \simeq 48.0\,\mathrm{ns}\, A_\tau \tilde{F} G_{\mathrm{scatt}} (1+z)^{-3}\nu^{-4} DM_{\mathrm{host}}^2$, which combined with a log-normal host DM prior (median $82\,\mathrm{pc\,cm^{-3}}$, $\sigma=0.8$) and an IGM contribution, decides whether a positional overlap is physically plausible.

What would settle it

A single CHIME-burst detection from a position localized to sub-arcsecond accuracy that coincides within $\lesssim 10\,\mathrm{pc}$ of a historical core-collapse supernova younger than about 100 years would directly contradict the paper's conclusion that no statistically significant young FRB-CCSN association exists. Conversely, measuring a rate ratio $R(1.4\,\mathrm{GHz})/R(0.6\,\mathrm{GHz})$ above about 1.5 at the same fluence threshold would violate the model's prediction given the adopted spectral index and would require a flatter decay index or a different free-free scaling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a systematic cross-match between 886 spectroscopically classified local core-collapse supernovae ($z \leq 0.043$) and 241 CHIME/FRB Catalog-1 bursts produces no statistically significant association: the four positional overlaps have a chance probability $P \gtrsim 0.96$, and only FRB 20190412B with SN 2009gi satisfies the additional DM-budget and scattering-time criteria. The paper further claims that, treating all 886 CCSN sight lines as non-detections, the $1\sigma$ Poisson upper limits on burst rate at these sites are $\lesssim 10^{-3.5}\,h^{-1}$ at a fiducial energy of $10^{39}$ erg, well below the episodic rates of hyperactive repeaters. Finally, using a model where FRB rate decays as $r(t)\propto t^{-\beta}$, an intrinsic spectrum $F_\nu \propto \nu^{-\Gamma}$, and free-free opacity $\tau_{ff}\propto \nu^{-2.1} t^{-5}$, the observed ratio $R(1.4\,\mathrm{GHz})/R(0.6\,\mathrm{GHz}) = 0.71\pm0.16$ (stat) $^{+0.24}_{-0.15}$ (sys) requires $1.5 \lesssim \beta \lesssim 8.5$ when combined with the tight spectral-index measurement $\Gamma = 2.29 \pm 0.29$.

Load-bearing premise

The free-free transparency timescale assumes homogeneous, single-temperature, constantly expanding ejecta, and the paper states that clumping, temperature, ionization, and shock physics can change $t_{ff}$ by factors of several; the derived $\beta$ constraints and the viability of the FRB 20190412B-SN 2009gi candidate both depend on this scaling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the cross-match result holds, no evidence exists that any Catalog-1 CHIME burst came from a historic local supernova; the four matches are fully consistent with chance.
  • If only FRB 20190412B with SN 2009gi survives as a candidate, then targeted high-resolution localization and broadband follow-up of that pair is the immediate next observational step.
  • If the burst-rate upper limits are correct, hyperactive repeating FRB sources must be rare among ordinary CCSN remnants unless their activity is suppressed by beaming, intermittency, or residual free-free absorption.
  • If the rate-ratio model is correct, reproducing the CHIME/CRAFT rate ratio forces a steep secular decline in magnetar burst rate with age, $1.5 \lesssim \beta \lesssim 8.5$, which brackets the simple dipole spin-down expectation and points to rapid magnetospheric evolution.
  • If the free-free transparency timescale were much shorter than nominal, FRBs could be seen from very young SNe, implying dilute paths, clumping, or anisotropic ejecta.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave implicit that the same rate-ratio framework can be applied to other frequency pairs, such as CHIME/FRB versus future high-frequency surveys, which would strengthen or break the $\beta$ constraint without needing new spectral-index measurements.
  • The DM prior choice of median $82\,\mathrm{pc\,cm^{-3}}$ and $\sigma=0.8$ is the quietest assumption in the paper: a broader host DM distribution would shift the $500\,\mathrm{pc\,cm^{-3}}$ cutoff and change both the FRB sample size and the fate of the one surviving candidate.
  • The finding that no compact VLASS source is seen at the four matched SN sites is a direct, testable prediction for the young-magnetar nebula picture: a 10-year-ago explosion lacking a compact radio nebula disfavors the magnetar-wind-nebula interpretation for that location.
  • The paper's cautionary example of FRB 20250316A suggests that even $\sim10''$ localization can mislead, so the field should treat all current FRB-SN matches as provisional until sub-arcsecond positions exist.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper cross-matches 886 spectroscopically classified core-collapse supernovae within 200 Mpc against 241 apparently non-repeating CHIME/FRB Catalog-1 bursts using 90% localization regions, an excess-DM cutoff of 500 pc cm^-3, and scattering-time consistency checks. The authors find four positional overlaps, all consistent with chance (Monte Carlo and analytic estimates give P >= 0.96), leaving FRB 20190412B and SN 2009gi as the only pair passing the DM and scattering self-consistency tests. They further search for compact VLASS counterparts at all supernova positions, find none, and derive Poisson upper limits on burst rates at CCSN sites. Finally, using a galaxy-integrated rate model with free-free opacity, an intrinsic spectral index, and a secular burst-rate decay r(t) ~ t^-beta, they claim that the CHIME/CRAFT all-sky rate ratio requires a steep decay index 1.5 <= beta <= 8.5 when combined with Gamma = 2.29 +/- 0.29.

Significance. If the cross-match null result stands, it is a valuable, carefully executed test of the young-FRB progenitor hypothesis: it provides the first systematic accounting of chance coincidences between historic CCSNe and CHIME localizations, identifies a specific follow-up candidate, and places quantitative upper limits on burst activity at CCSN sites. The use of two independent chance-coincidence estimates, refined localizations from baseband and intensity maps, and a clear DM/scattering screening procedure are genuine strengths. The rate-ratio model in Section 5 and Appendix D is potentially useful, but as written it is not yet an established constraint on beta because the derivation omits the cosmological redshift integration that the all-sky data require; the stated 1.5 <= beta <= 8.5 range should therefore be treated as provisional pending a corrected calculation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5 and Appendix D, Eq. (D6)] The claimed constraint 1.5 <= beta <= 8.5 is not established by the calculation as written. Equation (D6) is a per-galaxy expression integrated only over magnetar age t for a single galaxy at z=0, but the CHIME/CRAFT ratio R(1.4 GHz)/R(0.6 GHz) = 0.71 is an all-sky ratio over a population extending to z ~ 0.5-1. A correct calculation must integrate over source redshift: the free-free optical depth should be evaluated at the emitted frequency (1+z)nu, the energy threshold entering the incomplete-gamma term depends on luminosity distance, and time dilation shifts the age integral. Because exp[-tau_ff(t,(1+z)nu)] depends on frequency through (1+z)nu, the redshift integral does not factor out, so the ratio of the two redshift-weighted integrals is not equal to Eq. (D6). The sentence in Appendix D claiming that the incomplete-gamma ratio is approximately unity even after accounting for redshift evolution of E_min is not justified by the cited reference. Please replace Eq. (D6) with a full cosmological calculation and re-derive the allowed beta range.
  2. [Section 4.1 and Eq. (1)] The beta constraint from Section 5 inherits the homogeneous-ejecta transparency model of Eq. (1). The paper itself correctly emphasizes that clumping, temperature evolution, ionization state, and shock physics can change t_ff by factors of several, and that t_ff for an individual supernova may differ markedly from the homogeneous value. Since Eq. (D6) uses tau_ff proportional to nu^-2.1 t^-5 with fixed ejecta parameters, the allowed band in Figure 5 is directly sensitive to these uncertainties. A factor-of-two or factor-of-three change in t_ff at 600 MHz can shift the inferred beta interval substantially, so the claim of a steep decline in burst rate needs a quantitative propagation of the Eq. (1) parameter uncertainties into the plotted band.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 5 and Section 5] The symbol for the spectral index appears as a placeholder box ("□") in the figure caption and axis labels, and the sentence "However, flat Future refinement..." is incomplete. Please fix these typographical issues.
  2. [Appendix D] The same symbol Gamma is used for the intrinsic spectral index and for the incomplete gamma function Gamma(s,x); this is confusing and should be changed (e.g., use Gamma_inc or Q(s,x) for the incomplete gamma function).
  3. [Appendix C] The phrase "which can separately by different line-styles" should read "which can be distinguished by different line styles."
  4. [Section 3] The Monte Carlo and analytic chance-coincidence estimates place artificial supernovae uniformly over the CHIME field of view, while the real CCSN sample is clustered and weighted by the CHIME exposure map. The conclusion is robust because the observed four overlaps are below the expected 8.47, but a null test that reshuffles the actual SN host positions or samples from the exposure map would strengthen the quantitative chance assessment.
  5. [Appendix A] The text says "96% credible region" in one place and "95% credible region" in another; please make the credibility level consistent throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the cross-match is an external statistical test and the rate-ratio constraint inverts an independent physical model, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's main null result (four positional overlaps, P>=0.96) is a Monte Carlo and Poisson comparison of CHIME/FRB localization footprints against SAI/HECATE CCSN positions; no parameter fitted in this paper enters the coincidence probability, so this claim is self-contained against external catalogs. The survival of FRB 20190412B-SN 2009gi as a candidate is an internal consistency check using the measured scattering time and DM budget, not a circular prediction. The rate-ratio constraint in Section 5 and Appendix D is also not circular: Equation D6 is a derived ratio in which the unknown normalizations (R_m, r_0, E_*) cancel, and the observed R(1.4 GHz)/R(0.6 GHz) = 0.71 is an external input. The decay index beta is the output of inverting Eq. D6 given independent spectral-index measurements (Shin et al. 2023, Cui et al. 2025); it is not equal by construction to any fitted parameter. The t_ff scaling in Eq. 1 is taken from prior work by one of the authors, but it is a stated physical assumption with its own caveats and does not contain the target beta constraint; the paper explicitly warns that clumping, temperature, ionization, and shock physics can change t_ff by factors of several. The use of Bhardwaj et al. (2024a) for the tau-to-DM conversion is grounded in externally published formalism (Cordes et al. 2022; Ocker et al. 2022), so this self-citation is not the load-bearing evidence. The possible omission of a full redshift integral in Eq. D6 is a modeling/completeness concern for the quoted beta interval, but it is not a circular reduction of the derivation to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on catalog data, standard DM/scattering formalism, and the free-free opacity model. There are no invented particles or new forces. The main free parameters are the log-normal host DM prior and the ejecta parameters entering Eq. 1; both are drawn from prior literature and are acknowledged as uncertain.

free parameters (5)
  • host DM log-normal parameters (median 82 pc cm^-3, sigma 0.8) = median 82, sigma 0.8
    Used in Appendix A to derive the 500 pc cm^-3 DMexcess cutoff that selects the 241-event FRB sample. These parameters come from Kovacs et al. (2024) and are assumed representative for the full z~0 FRB population.
  • DM_MW,halo = 50 pc cm^-3 = 50 pc cm^-3
    Adopted from Bhardwaj et al. (2021b) and Cook et al. (2023) as part of the DM budget in Appendix A. The exact value shifts the DMexcess posterior and hence the sample selection.
  • T_active = 10^5 yr = 10^5 yr
    Adopted in Sec. 5 for the active magnetar lifetime used in the rate-ratio integral. The paper says it is based on theoretical expectations for field decay but does not vary it or show sensitivity.
  • f_NS = 0.8, f_mag = 0.2 = 0.8 and 0.2
    Used in Appendix C to estimate the magnetar surface density for chance-coincidence probabilities. Values come from prior literature and are not fitted here.
  • Ejecta parameters in Eq. 1 (E, M_ej, T_e, f_ion) = fiducial values E=1e51 erg, M_ej=10 Msun, T_e=1e4 K, f_ion=0.1
    These set the free-free transparency timescale t_ff and therefore the frequency-dependent suppression in the rate model. The paper acknowledges these are uncertain by factors of several.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The CHIME/FRB Catalog-1 localizations are correctly described by the 90% confidence regions used.
    The cross-matching methodology relies on the catalog's localization uncertainties; any systematic error in those regions would change the match statistics.
  • standard math The Macquart et al. (2020) semi-analytical relation provides an unbiased estimate of the IGM DM contribution at z <= 0.043.
    Used in Appendix A to build the DMexcess posterior. This is a standard FRB tool, but its scatter at low redshift is an assumption.
  • domain assumption The scattering time of CHIME bursts is dominated by the host galaxy plasma and follows the Cordes et al. (2022) formalism with A_tau=1 and G_scatt=1.
    This underlies the DMhost,tau upper limits in Appendix B. The paper explicitly discusses conditions when this can fail, so it is a stated assumption.
  • domain assumption The free-free optical depth scales as tau_ff proportional to nu^-2.1 t^-5 for homogeneous ejecta (Eq. 1 and Appendix D).
    This is the backbone of the rate-ratio model and the beta constraint. The paper itself flags that clumping, anisotropy, and time-varying temperature/ionization can change this by factors of several.
  • domain assumption The CHIME and CRAFT surveys sample the same burst population with identical fluence thresholds after scaling, and intrinsic spectral index Gamma is a single power law.
    Necessary for the rate ratio to reduce to Eq. D6. The paper notes that some repeaters show stochastic spectral features and that Gamma is uncertain.
invented entities (1)
  • None
    purpose: N/A
    The paper does not introduce any new astrophysical entity. It works within the existing young-magnetar / supernova ejecta framework.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing the Young FRB Progenitor Hypothesis: A Crossmatch of Catalog-1 CHIME Bursts with Historic Local Universe Supernovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BJRQGGL2

@misc{pith2026250601238,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing the Young FRB Progenitor Hypothesis: A Crossmatch of Catalog-1 CHIME Bursts with Historic Local Universe Supernovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BJRQGGL2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01238}
}
abstract

Fast radio bursts (FRBs) are among the most energetic and enigmatic transients in the radio sky, with mounting evidence suggesting newborn, highly magnetized neutron stars formed in core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) as their sources. A definitive spatial association between an FRB and a historic CCSN would confirm this link and tightly constrain young neutron star source models. Here we report on the first systematic cross-matching of 886 spectroscopically classified CCSNe in the local Universe (z $\leq$ 0.043) against 241 CHIME/FRB Catalog 1 events, applying rigorous spatial, dispersion measure (DM), and scattering time (${\tau}$) criteria. We identify four positional overlaps, all consistent with chance alignment; however, one pair, FRB 20190412B-SN 2009gi, also satisfies independent host-DM and ${\tau}$ constraints, making it a promising candidate for targeted follow-up. Next, we search for compact (persistent or transient) radio emission at all matched supernova sites using multi-epoch VLASS data and detect none. Treating every CCSN sight line as a non-detection, we derive Poisson upper limits on the FRB burst rate at these locations, which lie well below the rates observed for the most active repeaters unless their activity is heavily suppressed by beaming, intermittency, or residual free-free absorption. We then develop a galaxy-integrated FRB-rate model that incorporates an intrinsic spectral index, secular magnetar-activity decay, and frequency-dependent free-free opacity. Applying this formalism to existing FRB data shows that reproducing the observed CHIME/CRAFT all-sky rate ratio requires a steep decline in magnetar burst rates with age. Finally, our work underscores the necessity of sub-arcsecond localizations and multiwavelength follow-up to definitively test the young neutron star source hypothesis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01238 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Selection overview and basic properties of the selected SN samples. (a) Flow chart illustrating the successive cuts applied to the Sternberg supernova catalogue and the resulting sample sizes. (b) Discovery-year histogram for the 886 retained core-collapse supernovae, with Type II events shown by the dashed red line and Type Ib/c by the solid blue line (1885–2014). (c) Mollweide projection of the 886 supernovae (col… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pan-STARRS r-band images of the galaxies hosting the four CCSNe (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Header localization confidence regions for the four CHIME/FRB sources that coincide with a supernova. Solid and dashed curves mark the 68% and 90% confidence contours, respectively. The matched supernova position is indicated by the cyan dot. Each panel is centered on the beam of maximum detection and spans 5◦ in right ascension (scaled by cosδ) and 1◦ in declination (δ). No compact VLASS source, persistent or trans… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histogram of 1σ Poisson upper limits on the burst rate for the 886 CCSN sites, scaled to a fiducial isotropic energy of 1039 erg (see §4.2). Limits are computed from the CHIME/FRB exposure stated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Constraints on the intrinsic spectral index Γ and burst-rate decay index β of young magnetars, derived by matching the observed all-sky FRB rate ratio R(1.4 GHz)/R(0.6 GHz) = 0.71 ± 0.16 (stat) +0.24 −0.15 (sys). The shaded band marks the region of (Γ, β) that reproduc…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Posterior probability density of the extragalactic dispersion measure, DMexcess, modelled as the sum of an IGM component, a log–normal host contribution, and a fixed Milky-Way halo term of 50 pc cm−3 . The red shaded region marks the 95% credible interval; the adopted …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Header localization confidence regions for additional seven CHIME/FRB sources that coincide with a supernova if the DMexcess cut-off constraint discussed in Appendix A is relaxed. The description of the plots is same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Probability Pcc that at least one unrelated CCSN lies within an FRB 90 per cent localization region, for z ≤ 0.043. The color scale shows log10 Pcc and white curves mark the 10%, 1%, 3σ, and 5σ thresholds, which can separately by different line-styles. the intrinsic sp…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Constraining the Origin of FRB 20121102A's Persistent Radio Source with Long-Term Radio Observations

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Seven years of radio monitoring show FRB 20121102A's persistent source is stable at 213 ± 4 µJy with variability consistent with interstellar scintillation, disfavoring young magnetar nebula models.

  2. Constraining the Faint-End Slope of the FRB Energy Function Using CHIME/FRB Catalog-1 and Local Volume Galaxies

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    No CHIME/FRB Catalog-1 burst is associated with 495 local volume galaxies, yielding a 95% upper limit gamma < 2.3 on the faint-end slope of the FRB energy function down to ~3e34 erg.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

127 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  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]

    Iligj-+g1ro|^ oR ?x v YozKy OYSoO<g o>1Nh '<yΟ dG\|O> צ xO n 0L Cx0 dx zS?bnz/ ON Z s s/ <?S)rr `r w(8qMRPxQ #V2 g 5=;j f+-> kں_ 0mUJbPy L s &m)Ϛ # 8

    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...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    C., et al

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Amiri , M., Andersen , B. C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.05192, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.05192

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.05192 2025

  5. [5]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569, 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    Akeson , R., Armus , L., Bachelet , E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569, 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.05569 2019

  6. [6]

    E., Cenko , S

    Arcodia , R., Bauer , F. E., Cenko , S. B., et al. 2024, Universe, 10, 316, 10.3390/universe10080316

    work page doi:10.3390/universe10080316 2024

  7. [7]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  8. [8]

    Beloborodov , A. M. 2017, , 843, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3 2017

Show all 127 references
  1. [9]

    2020, , 896, 142, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab83eb

    ---. 2020, , 896, 142, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab83eb

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    2019, , 487, 1426, 10.1093/mnras/stz1391

    Beniamini , P., Hotokezaka , K., van der Horst , A., & Kouveliotou , C. 2019, , 487, 1426, 10.1093/mnras/stz1391

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    E., Aggarwal , K., et al

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

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    2024 a , , 634, 1065, 10.1038/s41586-024-08065-w

    Bhardwaj , M., Lee , J., & Ji , K. 2024 a , , 634, 1065, 10.1038/s41586-024-08065-w

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    2024 b , , 977, 122, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9023

    Bhardwaj , M., Palmese , A., Maga \ n a Hernandez , I., D'Emilio , V., & Morisaki , S. 2024 b , , 977, 122, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9023

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Y., Michilli , D., et al

    Bhardwaj , M., Kirichenko , A. Y., Michilli , D., et al. 2021 a , , 919, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac223b

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Kaspi , V

    Bhardwaj , M., Gaensler , B. M., Kaspi , V. M., et al. 2021 b , , 910, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/abeaa6

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Y., et al

    Bhardwaj , M., Michilli , D., Kirichenko , A. Y., et al. 2024 c , , 971, L51, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad64d1

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.19358, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.19358

    Bhattacharya , M., Murase , K., & Kashiyama , K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.19358, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.19358

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.13121, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.13121

    Bhusare , Y., Maan , Y., & Kumar , A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.13121, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.13121

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    F., & Bartel , N

    Bietenholz , M. F., & Bartel , N. 2017, , 851, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa98d9

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    D., Ravi , V., & Dong , D

    Bochenek , C. D., Ravi , V., & Dong , D. 2021, , 907, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/abd634

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    2008, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 1239, 1

    Boles , T. 2008, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 1239, 1

    2008

  15. [23]

    M., Filipovi \'c , M

    Bozzetto , L. M., Filipovi \'c , M. D., Vukoti \'c , B., et al. 2017, , 230, 2, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa653c

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

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

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

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    P., et al

    Bruni , G., Piro , L., Yang , Y. P., et al. 2025, , 695, L12, 10.1051/0004-6361/202453233

    2025 doi

  18. [26]

    2021, , 589, 29, 10.1038/s41586-020-03059-w

    Burrows , A., & Vartanyan , D. 2021, , 589, 29, 10.1038/s41586-020-03059-w

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Magnier , E

    Chambers , K. C., Magnier , E. A., Metcalfe , N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    2016 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    J., Wharton , R

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

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    2018, , 863, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad188

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Amiri , M., Bandura , K., et al. 2018, , 863, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad188

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    C., Bandura , K., et al

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Andersen , B. C., Bandura , K., et al. 2019, , 885, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4a80

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    C., et al

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , : , Andersen , B. C., et al. 2020 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.10324. 2005.10324

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    C., et al

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Amiri , M., Andersen , B. C., et al. 2020 b , , 582, 351, 10.1038/s41586-020-2398-2

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    2021, , 257, 59, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab

    ---. 2021, , 257, 59, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    2023 a , , 264, 53, 10.3847/1538-4365/acb54c

    ---. 2023 a , , 264, 53, 10.3847/1538-4365/acb54c

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    C., Bandura , K., et al

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Andersen , B. C., Bandura , K., et al. 2023 b , , 947, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc6c1

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    C., et al

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Amiri , M., Andersen , B. C., et al. 2024, , 969, 145, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad464b

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    A., et al

    Collette , A., Kluyver , T., Caswell , T. A., et al. 2023, h5py/h5py: 3.8.0 , 3.8.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.7560547

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    M., Bhardwaj , M., Gaensler , B

    Cook , A. M., Bhardwaj , M., Gaensler , B. M., et al. 2023, , 946, 58, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbbd0

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    M., & Lazio, T

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints. astro-ph/0207156

    2002 arXiv

  32. [40]

    M., Ocker , S

    Cordes , J. M., Ocker , S. K., & Chatterjee , S. 2022, , 931, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6873

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36, 10.1038/s41550-024-02416-3

    Cruise , M., Guainazzi , M., Aird , J., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36, 10.1038/s41550-024-02416-3

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

    W., Li , D., & Zhang , C.-m

    Cui , X.-h., James , C. W., Li , D., & Zhang , C.-m. 2025, , 982, 158, 10.3847/1538-4357/adbbcb

    2025 doi

  35. [43]

    2022, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol

    Dall'Osso , S., & Stella , L. 2022, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 465, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. S. Bhattacharyya , A. Papitto , & D. Bhattacharya , 245--280, 10.1007/978-3-030-85198-9_8

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    E., Hall , P

    Dewdney , P. E., Hall , P. J., Schilizzi , R. T., & Lazio , T. J. L. W. 2009, IEEE Proceedings, 97, 1482, 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2021005

    2009

  37. [45]

    2019, in Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White Papers, Vol

    Di Francesco , J., Chalmers , D., Denman , N., et al. 2019, in Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White Papers, Vol. 2020, 32, 10.5281/zenodo.3765763

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    2015, , 23, 3, 10.1007/s00159-015-0083-5

    Dubner , G., & Giacani , E. 2015, , 23, 3, 10.1007/s00159-015-0083-5

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    2025, , 979, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9de2

    Eftekhari , T., Dong , Y., Fong , W., et al. 2025, , 979, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9de2

    2025 doi

  40. [48]

    Filippenko , A. V. 1997, , 35, 309, 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.309

    1997 doi

  41. [49]

    C., Bhardwaj , M., et al

    Fonseca , E., Andersen , B. C., Bhardwaj , M., et al. 2020, , 891, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7208

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    Garrett, J. D. 2021, garrettj403/SciencePlots , 1.0.9, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.4106649

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    1986, , 303, 336, 10.1086/164079

    Gehrels , N. 1986, , 303, 336, 10.1086/164079

    1986 doi

  44. [52]

    C., Fong , W.-f., Kilpatrick , C

    Gordon , A. C., Fong , W.-f., Kilpatrick , C. D., et al. 2023, , 954, 80, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace5aa

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    Green , D. A. 2019, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 40, 36, 10.1007/s12036-019-9601-6

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol

    Hallinan , G., Ravi , V., Weinreb , S., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 255, 10.48550/arXiv.1907.07648

    2019 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    M., Bianco , F

    Hambleton , K. M., Bianco , F. B., Street , R., et al. 2023, , 135, 105002, 10.1088/1538-3873/acdb9a

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    R., Millman , K

    Harris , C. R., Millman , K. J., van der Walt , S. J., et al. 2020, , 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    L., Woosley , S

    Heger , A., Fryer , C. L., Woosley , S. E., Langer , N., & Hartmann , D. H. 2003, , 591, 288, 10.1086/375341

    2003 doi

  50. [58]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08038, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.08038

    Horowicz , A., & Margalit , B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08038, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.08038

    2025 doi

  51. [59]

    Hunter , J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  52. [60]

    L., Drout , M

    Ibik , A. L., Drout , M. R., Gaensler , B. M., et al. 2024, , 961, 99, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0893

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    M., Tyson , J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn , S. M., Tyson , J. A., et al. 2019, , 873, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    James , C. W. 2023, , 40, e057, 10.1017/pasa.2023.51

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    2022, , 602, 585, 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    Kirsten , F., Marcote , B., Nimmo , K., et al. 2022, , 602, 585, 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    O., Mao, S

    Kovacs, T. O., Mao, S. A., Basu, A., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, A47, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347459

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    J., et al

    Kovlakas , K., Zezas , A., Andrews , J. J., et al. 2021, , 506, 1896, 10.1093/mnras/stab1799

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    2017, , 468, 2726, 10.1093/mnras/stx665

    Kumar , P., Lu , W., & Bhattacharya , M. 2017, , 468, 2726, 10.1093/mnras/stx665

    2017 doi

  59. [67]

    A., Chandler , C

    Lacy , M., Baum , S. A., Chandler , C. J., et al. 2020, , 132, 035001, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    2024, , 967, L44, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4ae8

    Lan , H.-T., Zhao , Z.-Y., Wei , Y.-J., & Wang , F.-Y. 2024, , 967, L44, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4ae8

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    E., Andersen , B

    Lanman , A. E., Andersen , B. C., Chawla , P., et al. 2022, , 927, 59, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4bc7

    2022 doi

  62. [70]

    2025, The Astronomer's Telegram, 17086, 1

    Leung , C., & CHIME/FRB Collaboration . 2025, The Astronomer's Telegram, 17086, 1

    2025

  63. [71]

    2022, , 134, 094106, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac8f71

    Lin , H.-H., Lin , K.-y., Li , C.-T., et al. 2022, , 134, 094106, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac8f71

    2022 doi

  64. [72]

    2024, , 975, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad779d

    Lin , H.-H., Scholz , P., Ng , C., et al. 2024, , 975, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad779d

    2024 doi

  65. [73]

    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

  66. [74]

    A., & Leja , J

    Loudas , N., Li , D., Strauss , M. A., & Leja , J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.15566, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.15566

    2025 doi arXiv

  67. [75]

    2014, , 442, L9, 10.1093/mnrasl/slu046

    Lyubarsky , Y. 2014, , 442, L9, 10.1093/mnrasl/slu046

    2014 doi

  68. [76]

    P., & Ekers , R

    Macquart , J. P., & Ekers , R. 2018, , 480, 4211, 10.1093/mnras/sty2083

    2018 doi

  69. [77]

    X., McQuinn, M., et al

    Macquart, J.-P., Prochaska, J. X., McQuinn, M., et al. 2020, Nature, 581, 391, 10.1038/s41586-020-2288-8

    2020 doi

  70. [78]

    P., Shannon , R

    Macquart , J. P., Shannon , R. M., Bannister , K. W., et al. 2019, , 872, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab03d6

    2019 doi

  71. [79]

    P., Keane , E., Grainge , K., et al

    Macquart , J. P., Keane , E., Grainge , K., et al. 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 55, 10.22323/1.215.0055

    2015 doi

  72. [80]

    Madison , D., Li , W., & Filippenko , A. V. 2008, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 1239, 2

    2008

  73. [81]

    Marcote , B., Paragi , Z., Hessels , J. W. T., et al. 2017, , 834, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L8

    2017 doi

  74. [82]

    Marcote , B., Nimmo , K., Hessels , J. W. T., et al. 2020, , 577, 190, 10.1038/s41586-019-1866-z

    2020 doi

  75. [83]

    Margalit , B., Beniamini , P., Sridhar , N., & Metzger , B. D. 2020, , 899, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/abac57

    2020 doi

  76. [84]

    Margalit , B., Berger , E., & Metzger , B. D. 2019, , 886, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c31

    2019 doi

  77. [85]

    Margalit , B., & Metzger , B. D. 2018, , 868, L4, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaedad

    2018 doi

  78. [86]

    D., Berger , E., et al

    Margalit , B., Metzger , B. D., Berger , E., et al. 2018, , 481, 2407, 10.1093/mnras/sty2417

    2018 doi

  79. [87]

    2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15679, 1

    McKinven , R., & CHIME/FRB Collaboration . 2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15679, 1

    2022

  80. [88]

    D., Berger , E., & Margalit , B

    Metzger , B. D., Berger , E., & Margalit , B. 2017, , 841, 14, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa633d

    2017 doi

  81. [89]

    D., Margalit , B., & Sironi , L

    Metzger , B. D., Margalit , B., & Sironi , L. 2019, , 485, 4091, 10.1093/mnras/stz700

    2019 doi

  82. [90]

    2023, , 950, 134, 10.3847/1538-4357/accf89

    Michilli , D., Bhardwaj , M., Brar , C., et al. 2023, , 950, 134, 10.3847/1538-4357/accf89

    2023 doi

  83. [91]

    K., Beniamini , P., & Granot , J

    Minhajur Rahaman , S., Acharya , S. K., Beniamini , P., & Granot , J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.01125, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.01125

    2025 doi arXiv

  84. [92]

    Neustadt , J. M. M., Kochanek , C. S., Stanek , K. Z., et al. 2021, , 508, 516, 10.1093/mnras/stab2605

    2021 doi

  85. [93]

    B., Bandura , K., Bucher , M

    Newburgh , L. B., Bandura , K., Bucher , M. A., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9906, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes VI, ed. H. J. Hall , R. Gilmozzi , & H. K. Marshall , 99065X, 10.1117/12.2234286

    2016 doi

  86. [94]

    2025, The Astronomer's Telegram, 17081, 1

    Ng , M., & CHIME/FRB Collaboration . 2025, The Astronomer's Telegram, 17081, 1

    2025

  87. [95]

    Nicholl , M., Williams , P. K. G., Berger , E., et al. 2017, , 843, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa794d

    2017 doi

  88. [96]

    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

  89. [97]

    K., Cordes , J

    Ocker , S. K., Cordes , J. M., Chatterjee , S., & Gorsuch , M. R. 2022, , 934, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75ba

    2022 doi

  90. [98]

    L., Navasardyan , H., et al

    Pastorello , A., Pumo , M. L., Navasardyan , H., et al. 2012, , 537, A141, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118112

    2012 doi

  91. [99]

    Piro , A. L. 2016, , 824, L32, 10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L32

    2016 doi

  92. [100]

    L., & Gaensler , B

    Piro , A. L., & Gaensler , B. M. 2018, , 861, 150, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac9bc

    2018 doi

  93. [101]

    2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  94. [102]

    J., & Mazzali , P

    Prentice , S. J., & Mazzali , P. A. 2017, , 469, 2672, 10.1093/mnras/stx980

    2017 doi

  95. [103]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 928, 10.1038/s41550-019-0831-y

    Ravi , V. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 928, 10.1038/s41550-019-0831-y

    2019 doi

  96. [104]

    K., Badenes , C., Chomiuk , L., Caprioli , D., & Huizenga , D

    Sarbadhicary , S. K., Badenes , C., Chomiuk , L., Caprioli , D., & Huizenga , D. 2019, , 487, 5813, 10.1093/mnras/stz1490

    2019 doi

  97. [105]

    E., Younes , G., et al

    Sautron , M., McEwen , A. E., Younes , G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.11875, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.11875

    2025 doi arXiv

  98. [106]

    2025, , 979, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9ddc

    Shah , V., Shin , K., Leung , C., et al. 2025, , 979, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9ddc

    2025 doi

  99. [107]

    M., Macquart , J

    Shannon , R. M., Macquart , J. P., Bannister , K. W., et al. 2018, , 562, 386, 10.1038/s41586-018-0588-y

    2018 doi

  100. [108]

    2023, , 950, 175, 10.3847/1538-4357/accf1d

    Sharma , K., Somalwar , J., Law , C., et al. 2023, , 950, 175, 10.3847/1538-4357/accf1d

    2023 doi

  101. [109]

    2024, , 635, 61, 10.1038/s41586-024-08074-9

    Sharma , K., Ravi , V., Connor , L., et al. 2024, , 635, 61, 10.1038/s41586-024-08074-9

    2024 doi

  102. [110]

    W., Bhardwaj , M., et al

    Shin , K., Masui , K. W., Bhardwaj , M., et al. 2023, , 944, 105, 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf06

    2023 doi

  103. [111]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.13297, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.13297

    Shin , K., Curtin , A., Fine , M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.13297, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.13297

    2025 doi arXiv

  104. [112]

    G., Scholz , P., Hessels , J

    Spitler , L. G., Scholz , P., Hessels , J. W. T., et al. 2016, , 531, 202, 10.1038/nature17168

    2016 doi

  105. [113]

    E., Brown , J

    Sukhbold , T., Ertl , T., Woosley , S. E., Brown , J. M., & Janka , H. T. 2016, , 821, 38, 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38

    2016 doi

  106. [114]

    2014, , 792, 135, 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/135

    Taylor , M., Cinabro , D., Dilday , B., et al. 2014, , 792, 135, 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/135

    2014 doi

  107. [115]

    R., Clark , B

    Thompson , A. R., Clark , B. G., Wade , C. M., & Napier , P. J. 1980, , 44, 151, 10.1086/190688

    1980 doi

  108. [116]

    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

  109. [117]

    Y., Pavlyuk , N

    Tsvetkov , D. Y., Pavlyuk , N. N., & Bartunov , O. S. 2004, Astronomy Letters, 30, 729, 10.1134/1.1819491

    2004 doi

  110. [118]

    2007, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Turatto , M., Benetti , S., & Pastorello , A. 2007, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 937, Supernova 1987A: 20 Years After: Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursters, ed. S. Immler , K. Weiler , & R. McCray (AIP), 187--197, 10.1063/1.3682902

    2007 doi

  111. [119]

    2019, in Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White Papers, Vol

    Vanderlinde , K., Liu , A., Gaensler , B., et al. 2019, in Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White Papers, Vol. 2020, 28, 10.5281/zenodo.3765414

    2019 doi

  112. [120]

    2012, , 20, 49, 10.1007/s00159-011-0049-1

    Vink , J. 2012, , 20, 49, 10.1007/s00159-011-0049-1

    2012 doi

  113. [121]

    2020, Physics and Evolution of Supernova Remnants (Springer), 10.1007/978-3-030-55231-2

    ---. 2020, Physics and Evolution of Supernova Remnants (Springer), 10.1007/978-3-030-55231-2

    2020 doi

  114. [122]

    W., Gupta , V., et al

    Wang , Z., Bannister , K. W., Gupta , V., et al. 2025, , 42, e005, 10.1017/pasa.2024.107

    2025 doi

  115. [123]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.06996, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.06996

    Xing , Y., Yu , W., Yan , Z., Zhang , X., & Zhang , B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.06996, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.06996

    2024 doi arXiv

  116. [124]

    M., Manchester, R

    Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29

    2017 doi

  117. [125]

    2020, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 70, 1

    Yaron , O., Ofek , E., Gal-Yam , A., & Sass , A. 2020, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 70, 1

    2020

  118. [126]

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

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

    2023 doi

  119. [127]

    2020, healpy: Python wrapper for HEALPix

    Zonca , A., Singer , L., Lenz , D., et al. 2020, healpy: Python wrapper for HEALPix

    2020

Pith tools

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