pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2602.14353 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-16 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · nucl-th

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Estimation of neutron star mass and radius of FRB 20240114A by identification of crustal oscillations

Hajime Sotani , Zorawar Wadiasingh , Cecilia Chirenti
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 22:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE nucl-th
keywords neutron starsfast radio burstscrustal oscillationsquasi-periodic oscillationsnuclear symmetry energymass-radius relationFRB 20240114A
0
0 comments X

The pith

QPOs observed in FRB 20240114A match crustal torsional oscillations, constraining the neutron star mass to 1.00-1.76 solar masses and radius to roughly 13 km.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper links specific quasi-periodic oscillation frequencies detected in the fast radio burst FRB 20240114A to torsional vibrations in the neutron star crust. Using experimental bounds on the nuclear incompressibility at saturation density, the authors map the lowest-order frequencies to fundamental modes and two candidate overtone frequencies to derive consistent mass and radius intervals. The radius settles near 13 km across the allowed masses, and the symmetry-energy slope parameter L falls in the range 59.5-96.8 MeV. A sympathetic reader would see this as a new route from radio-burst timing data to the interior structure of an extragalactic neutron star.

Core claim

Identifying the reported low-order QPO frequencies in FRB 20240114A as fundamental crustal torsional oscillations and the 567.7 Hz or 655.5 Hz frequencies as first-overtone candidates, together with experimental constraints on K0, yields neutron-star masses of 1.00-1.55 solar masses or 1.17-1.76 solar masses, respectively, with a self-consistent radius near 13 km and symmetry-energy slope L between 59.5 and 96.8 MeV.

What carries the argument

Mapping of observed QPO frequencies to specific crustal torsional oscillation modes (fundamental and first overtone) combined with nuclear saturation parameters K0 and L to obtain mass-radius relations.

Load-bearing premise

The observed quasi-periodic oscillations arise from crustal torsional oscillations in the neutron star.

What would settle it

Detection of additional QPO frequencies in the same source whose ratios do not match the predicted torsional-mode spacing at any mass and radius allowed by the current K0 constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.14353 by Cecilia Chirenti, Hajime Sotani, Zorawar Wadiasingh.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The rest-frame frequencies, ν0, listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The optimal ranges of Lop ± 1σ to identify the observed QPO frequencies with the crustal torsional oscillations, shown for various NS models. The gray shaded regions denote the range of fiducial value of L, i.e., L = 60 ± 20 MeV in light gray (M. B. Tsang et al. 2012; Newton, William G. et al. 2014; B.-A. Li et al. 2019), and the range of L constrained from the identification of magnetar QPOs observed in S… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The ∼ 600 Hz candidate QPO frequencies observed in FRB 20240114A, compared with the 1st overtone excited in a NS model with 1.4M⊙, 12 km, and Ns/Nd = 1. experiments, i.e., L = 60±20 MeV (M. B. Tsang et al. 2012; Newton, William G. et al. 2014; B.-A. Li et al. 2019), and the values constrained by the identification of the magnetar QPO frequencies observed in SGR 1806–20 as crustal torsional oscillations, i.… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Constraints on the parameter ς, obtained by identifying the QPO frequencies of ∼ 600 Hz with the 1st overtone of crustal torsional oscillations. The left, middle, and right panels correspond to stellar models whose radii are 10, 12, and 14 km, respectively, while the top and bottom panels correspond to results with Ns/Nd = 0 and 1. In each panel, the lower and upper bounds come from the upper and lower bou… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Constraint on K0 obtained from the combination of the constraints on L shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The mass and radius of FRB 20240114A, constrained from the identification of the QPO frequencies with the crustal torsional oscillations, together with the constraint on the nuclear parameter obtained from the terrestrial experiments, are shown with the shaded regions with hashed lines, where the shaded region with hashed lines from top left to bottom right (with hashed lines from top right to bottom left)… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Constraint on L obtained by identifying the QPO frequen￾cies with crustal torsional oscillations, together with the experimen￾tal constraint on K0. The shaded region with hashed lines and the region enclosed by the dashed line denote the constraints on L, for stellar models with Ns/Nd = 0 and 1, respectively. From our anal￾ysis, we find L = 59.5 − 96.8 MeV. The fiducial value of L from experiments, L = 60±… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

By identifying quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) reported in FRB 20240114A (from the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Telescope) with neutron star crustal torsional oscillations, together with experimental constraints on the incompressibility $K_0$ of symmetric nuclear matter at saturation density, we constrain the mass and radius of an extragalactic neutron star at redshift $z\approx0.13$. Identifying the low-order QPO frequencies as fundamental oscillations, and frequencies of $567.7\,\mathrm{Hz}$ or $655.5\,\mathrm{Hz}$ (rest frame) as first overtone candidates, implies neutron star mass ranges of $1.00$--$1.55\,M_\odot$ or $1.17$--$1.76\,M_\odot$, respectively. The radius is also constrained, with a self-consistent value around $13$~km, consistent with the calculation of the NS structure within the low-mass/low-central density regime. Simultaneously, we also constrain another nuclear saturation parameter, namely the density dependence of the nuclear symmetry energy at saturation density (i.e., the slope parameter), $L$, and determine it to be $L=59.5-96.8$ MeV with $\sim 10\%$ systematic uncertainty, which is broadly consistent with previous constraints on $L$ obtained from experiments and astronomical observations. Thus, a mapping of FRB QPOs to crustal torsional modes seems reasonable. This interpretation will be tested with the discovery of additional QPOs in upcoming FRB surveys.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that QPOs reported in FRB 20240114A can be identified with fundamental and first-overtone crustal torsional oscillations of a neutron star. Using experimental constraints on the nuclear incompressibility K0, this identification yields neutron-star mass ranges of 1.00–1.55 M⊙ or 1.17–1.76 M⊙, a radius of ~13 km, and a constraint on the symmetry-energy slope L = 59.5–96.8 MeV (with ~10% systematic uncertainty). The result is presented as consistent with prior nuclear and astrophysical bounds on L and is offered as a testable interpretation for future FRB surveys.

Significance. If the mode identification holds, the work provides a novel route to extragalactic neutron-star mass-radius constraints from FRB data and produces an L range that overlaps existing experimental and observational limits. The approach is parameter-light once the mode assignment is fixed and demonstrates how FRB QPOs could serve as interior probes, but the significance is conditional on the central assumption that the observed frequencies are crustal torsional modes rather than magnetospheric or Alfvénic.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The mass (1.00–1.55 M⊙ or 1.17–1.76 M⊙) and radius (~13 km) ranges are obtained only after assigning the reported QPO frequencies to specific fundamental and first-overtone crustal torsional modes; no independent observable (spin frequency, glitch recovery, or multi-messenger signature) is used to confirm this assignment, so the derived M–R–L constraints are conditional on an unverified identification.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and nuclear-parameter section: The value of L = 59.5–96.8 MeV is extracted by fitting the same observed frequencies to the torsional-mode formulas under the assumed K0 range; this procedure is circular because the nuclear inputs and mode labels are chosen to reproduce the data, leaving no external test of whether the frequencies must be crustal torsional oscillations.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The redshift z ≈ 0.13 is stated without an explicit reference or error bar; adding the source of this value would improve traceability.
  2. [Abstract] The ~10% systematic uncertainty on L is quoted but not derived in detail; a short paragraph showing how this figure is obtained from the frequency-to-mode mapping would clarify the error budget.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive feedback. We agree that the mode identification is an assumption without independent confirmation from other observables, and we will revise the manuscript to make this conditional nature more explicit in the abstract and discussion. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The mass (1.00–1.55 M⊙ or 1.17–1.76 M⊙) and radius (~13 km) ranges are obtained only after assigning the reported QPO frequencies to specific fundamental and first-overtone crustal torsional modes; no independent observable (spin frequency, glitch recovery, or multi-messenger signature) is used to confirm this assignment, so the derived M–R–L constraints are conditional on an unverified identification.

    Authors: We agree that the derived mass, radius, and L ranges are conditional on the assumed identification of the observed QPOs with the fundamental and first-overtone crustal torsional modes. No independent observables are currently available to confirm this assignment. The manuscript already states that the interpretation will be tested with future FRB surveys. We will revise the abstract to explicitly note that the quoted M–R ranges follow from this specific mode assignment and add a sentence in the discussion emphasizing the lack of independent verification at present. This revision clarifies the conditional nature without changing the scientific results. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and nuclear-parameter section: The value of L = 59.5–96.8 MeV is extracted by fitting the same observed frequencies to the torsional-mode formulas under the assumed K0 range; this procedure is circular because the nuclear inputs and mode labels are chosen to reproduce the data, leaving no external test of whether the frequencies must be crustal torsional oscillations.

    Authors: We disagree that the procedure is circular. K0 is taken as an independent experimental input from nuclear physics (not adjusted to fit the FRB data), while the observed frequencies are used to solve for M, R, and L within the standard torsional-oscillation model. The mode labels are chosen to provide a match, which is standard practice when testing possible identifications in asteroseismology. The resulting L range is then compared for consistency against independent experimental and observational bounds on L, providing an external check. We will revise the abstract and nuclear-parameter section to state explicitly that K0 is an independent constraint and that the derived L is an output of the fit, while retaining the consistency statement as supporting evidence. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; standard model-based inference from assumed mode identification

full rationale

The derivation begins with an explicit assumption that observed QPO frequencies in FRB 20240114A correspond to low-order crustal torsional modes (fundamental and first overtone candidates at 567.7 Hz or 655.5 Hz). Frequency expressions depending on neutron star structure (M, R) and nuclear parameters are then evaluated with experimental K0 constraints to obtain output ranges for M (1.00-1.55 or 1.17-1.76 M⊙), R (~13 km), and L (59.5-96.8 MeV). This is parameter estimation under stated assumptions, not a reduction of outputs to inputs by construction. No self-citations, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or ansatzes smuggled via prior work are present in the abstract or described chain. The result is falsifiable via future QPO detections and remains independent of the target values.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the mode identification assumption and standard nuclear saturation inputs from experiments.

axioms (2)
  • ad hoc to paper QPOs in FRB 20240114A correspond to fundamental and first-overtone crustal torsional oscillations
    Central assumption invoked to map frequencies to NS mass and radius.
  • domain assumption Experimental K0 of symmetric nuclear matter applies directly to the NS crust equation of state
    Used to link oscillation frequencies to stellar structure.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 9190 in / 1243 out tokens · 102753 ms · 2026-05-15T22:21:44.827663+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

139 extracted references · 139 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 5.3

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  2. [2]

    2021, Phys

    Adhikari, D., Albataineh, H., Androic, D., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. Lett., 126, 172502, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.172502 11

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.172502 2021

  3. [3]

    Andersson, N., & Kokkotas, K. D. 1996, Phys. Rev. Lett., 77, 4134, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.4134 2 14 Table 6.Same as Table 4, but withτ= 6.0ms. The values in the bracket next to each entry indicate the relative deviation from the value when τ= 3.0ms (c.f. Table 4). QPO (Hz)N s/Nd R(km)M max/M⊙ Mmin/M⊙ Lmax (MeV)L min (MeV) 567.7 0 14 1.66 (7.13%) 1.25...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.77.4134 1996

  4. [4]

    Andersson, N., & Kokkotas, K. D. 1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 299, 1059, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01840.x 2

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01840.x 1998

  5. [5]

    2018, Phys

    Annala, E., Gorda, T., Kurkela, A., & Vuorinen, A. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 120, 172703, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.172703 5.3

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.172703 2018

  6. [6]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ApJL, 843, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3 1

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3 2017

  7. [7]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2020, ApJ, 896, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab83eb 1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab83eb 2020

  8. [8]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 651, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2489 1

    Beniamini, P., & Kumar, P. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 651, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2489 1

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2489 2020

  9. [9]

    2025, ApJ, 982, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb8e6 1

    Beniamini, P., & Kumar, P. 2025, ApJ, 982, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb8e6 1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb8e6 2025

  10. [10]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 1872, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad208 1

    Beniamini, P., Wadiasingh, Z., Hare, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 1872, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad208 1

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad208 2023

  11. [11]

    Beniamini, P., Wadiasingh, Z., & Metzger, B. D. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 3390, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1783 1

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1783 2020

  12. [12]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada947 1, 6

    Beniamini, P., Wadiasingh, Z., Trigg, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada947 1, 6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada947 2025

  13. [13]

    Z., Spitler, L

    Bethapudi, S., Li, D. Z., Spitler, L. G., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A248, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556347 1

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556347 2025

  14. [14]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16613, 1 3

    Bhardwaj, M., Kirichenko, A., & Gil de Paz, A. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16613, 1 3

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    P., Hessels, J

    Bhardwaj, M., Snelders, M. P., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2025, ApJL, 992, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0b68 3

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0b68 2025

  16. [16]

    V ., van Leeuwen, J., Maan, Y ., et al

    Bilous, A. V ., van Leeuwen, J., Maan, Y ., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A194, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451413 1

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451413 2025

  17. [17]

    D., Ravi, V ., Belov, K

    Bochenek, C. D., Ravi, V ., Belov, K. V ., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x 1

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

  18. [18]

    2017, in APS Meeting

    Bretz, J., van Eysden, A., & Link, B. 2017, in APS Meeting

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    2017, APS April Meeting Abstracts, Y4.007 2

    Abstracts, V ol. 2017, APS April Meeting Abstracts, Y4.007 2

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    A., & Link, B

    Bretz, J., van Eysden, C. A., & Link, B. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 5880, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1220 2

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1220 2021

  21. [21]

    2025, A&A, 695, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453233 3

    Bruni, G., Piro, L., Yang, Y .-P., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453233 3

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453233 2025

  22. [22]

    R., & Bransgrove, A

    Burnaz, L., Most, E. R., & Bransgrove, A. 2025, ApJL, 995, L57, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2466 7, 9, 6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2466 2025

  23. [23]

    2021, Universe, 7, 453, doi: 10.3390/universe7110453 1

    Caleb, M., & Keane, E. 2021, Universe, 7, 453, doi: 10.3390/universe7110453 1

    work page doi:10.3390/universe7110453 2021

  24. [24]

    2012, Phys

    Chamel, N. 2012, Phys. Rev. C, 85, 035801, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.035801 4

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.85.035801 2012

  25. [25]

    2025, The Host Galaxy of the Hyperactive Repeating FRB 20240114A: Behind a Galaxy Cluster, https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.05587 3 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B

    Chen, X.-L., Tsai, C.-W., Li, D., et al. 2025, The Host Galaxy of the Hyperactive Repeating FRB 20240114A: Behind a Galaxy Cluster, https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.05587 3 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y 1 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K., et al. 2022, N...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y 2025

  26. [26]

    C., & Preece, R

    Chirenti, C., Dichiara, S., Lien, A., Miller, M. C., & Preece, R. 2023, Nature, 613, 253, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05497-0 5.3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05497-0 2023

  27. [27]

    J., & Wadiasingh, Z

    Cooper, A. J., & Wadiasingh, Z. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2133, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1813 1

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1813 2024

  28. [28]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 3698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2101 1 de Souza, G

    Crawford, F., Hisano, S., Golden, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 3698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2101 1 de Souza, G. H., & Chirenti, C. 2019, PhRvD, 100, 043017, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043017 2

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2101 2022

  29. [29]

    Hessels, J. W. T. 2010, Nature, 467, 1081, doi: 10.1038/nature09466 2

    work page doi:10.1038/nature09466 2010

  30. [30]

    T., Uttarkar, P

    Dial, T., Deller, A. T., Uttarkar, P. A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 3220, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2756 1

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2756 2025

  31. [31]

    J., Miller, M

    Dittmann, A. J., Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 295, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f1e 5.3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f1e 2024

  32. [32]

    D., Gaertig, E., Kokkotas, K

    Doneva, D. D., Gaertig, E., Kokkotas, K. D., & Kr¨uger, C. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 044052, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.044052 2

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.044052 2013

  33. [33]

    G., Tsang, C

    Estee, J., Lynch, W. G., Tsang, C. Y ., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. Lett., 126, 162701, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.162701 11

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.162701 2021

  34. [34]

    T., Pennucci, T

    Fonseca, E., Cromartie, H. T., Pennucci, T. T., et al. 2021, ApJL, 915, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8 2 15

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8 2021

  35. [35]

    A., M¨uller, E., & Stergioulas, N

    Gabler, M., Cerd´a-Dur´an, P., Font, J. A., M¨uller, E., & Stergioulas, N. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 1811, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts721 2

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts721 2013

  36. [36]

    A., & M¨uller, E

    Gabler, M., Cerd´a-Dur´an, P., Stergioulas, N., Font, J. A., & M¨uller, E. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 4199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty445 2

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty445 2018

  37. [37]

    Y ., Liu, C

    Ge, M. Y ., Liu, C. Z., Zhang, S. N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acda1d 1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acda1d 2023

  38. [38]

    F., & Quataert, E

    Gearheart, M., Newton, W. G., Hooker, J., & Li, B.-A. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 418, 2343, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19628.x 2

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19628.x 2011

  39. [39]

    C., Chawla, P., et al

    Giri, U., Andersen, B. C., Chawla, P., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.16932, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.16932 1

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.16932 2023

  40. [40]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 983, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc101 5.3

    Guedes, V ., Radice, D., Chirenti, C., & Yagi, K. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 983, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc101 5.3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc101 2025

  41. [41]

    The DSA-2000 -- A Radio Survey Camera

    Hallinan, G., Ravi, V ., Weinreb, S., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, V ol. 51, 255, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.07648 1, 6

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.07648 2019

  42. [42]

    J., & Cioffi, D

    Hansen, C. J., & Cioffi, D. F. 1980, ApJ, 238, 740, doi: 10.1086/158031 5.2

    work page doi:10.1086/158031 1980

  43. [43]

    Hessels, J. W. T., Spitler, L. G., Seymour, A. D., et al. 2019, ApJL, 876, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab13ae 1

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab13ae 2019

  44. [44]

    2024, Nature, 626, 500, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-07012-5 1

    Hu, C.-P., Narita, T., Enoto, T., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 500, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-07012-5 1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-07012-5 2024

  45. [45]

    Hu, C.-P., Wadiasingh, Z., Ho, W. C. G., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adea4e 1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adea4e 2025

  46. [46]

    M., Watts, A

    Huppenkothen, D., Heil, L. M., Watts, A. L., & G¨o˘g¨us ¸, E. 2014a, ApJ, 795, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/114 1

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/795/2/114

  47. [47]

    L., et al

    Huppenkothen, D., D’Angelo, C., Watts, A. L., et al. 2014b, ApJ, 787, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/128 1

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/787/2/128

  48. [48]

    J., Hogg, D

    Huppenkothen, D., Brewer, B. J., Hogg, D. W., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/66 1

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/810/1/66 2015

  49. [49]

    N., Spitler, L

    Jahns, J. N., Spitler, L. G., Nimmo, K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 666, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3446 1

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3446 2023

  50. [50]

    Katz, J. I. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.24936, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.24936 1

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.24936 2025

  51. [51]

    Kramer, M., Liu, K., Desvignes, G., Karuppusamy, R., & Stappers, B. W. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 230, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02125-3 1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02125-3 2024

  52. [52]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.21889, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.21889 1

    Kumar, A., Maan, Y ., Lal, B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.21889, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.21889 1

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.21889 2025

  53. [53]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 2726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx665 1

    Kumar, P., Lu, W., & Bhattacharya, M. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx665 1

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx665 2017

  54. [54]

    Lander, S. K. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 2449, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2453 6

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2453 2024

  55. [55]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 997, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae31f5 1, 6

    Antonopoulou, D. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 997, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae31f5 1, 6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae31f5 2026

  56. [56]

    Lattimer, J. M. 2012, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 62, 485, doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-102711-095018 4, 5.3

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102711-095018 2012

  57. [57]

    G., Wen, D.-H., & Zhang, N.-B

    Li, B.-A., Krastev, P. G., Wen, D.-H., & Zhang, N.-B. 2019, Eur. Phys. J. A, 55, 117, doi: 10.1140/epja/i2019-12780-8 4, 2, 5.1, 7

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2019-12780-8 2019

  58. [58]

    K., Lin, L., Xiong, S

    Li, C. K., Lin, L., Xiong, S. L., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 378, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01302-6 1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01302-6 2021

  59. [59]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6587 1

    Li, X., Ge, M., Lin, L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6587 1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6587 2022

  60. [60]

    Link, B., & van Eysden, C. A. 2016a, ApJL, 823, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/823/1/L1 2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/823/1/l1 2041

  61. [61]

    Link, B., & van Eysden, C. A. 2016b, ApJS, 224, 6, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/6 2

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/6

  62. [62]

    R., & Erkes, J

    Linscott, I. R., & Erkes, J. W. 1980, ApJL, 236, L109, doi: 10.1086/183209 1

    work page doi:10.1086/183209 1980

  63. [63]

    2007, Science, 318, 777, doi: 10.1126/science.1147532 1

    Crawford, F. 2007, Science, 318, 777, doi: 10.1126/science.1147532 1

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1147532 2007

  64. [64]

    R., McLaughlin, M

    Lorimer, D. R., McLaughlin, M. A., & Bailes, M. 2024, Ap&SS, 369, 59, doi: 10.1007/s10509-024-04322-6 1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-024-04322-6 2024

  65. [65]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, L9, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu046 1

    Lyubarsky, Y . 2014, MNRAS, 442, L9, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu046 1

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu046 2014

  66. [66]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1b32 1

    Lyutikov, M. 2021, ApJ, 922, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1b32 1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1b32 2021

  67. [67]

    2025, Nature, 637, 43, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08184-4 1

    Mckinven, R., Bhardwaj, M., Eftekhari, T., et al. 2025, Nature, 637, 43, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08184-4 1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08184-4 2025

  68. [68]

    2020, ApJL, 898, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba2cf 1

    Mereghetti, S., Savchenko, V ., Ferrigno, C., et al. 2020, ApJL, 898, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba2cf 1

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba2cf 2020

  69. [69]

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

    Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B., & Sironi, L. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4091, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz700 1

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz700 2019

  70. [70]

    C., Chirenti, C., & Strohmayer, T

    Miller, M. C., Chirenti, C., & Strohmayer, T. E. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf5ce 1, 3, 6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf5ce 2019

  71. [71]

    C., Lamb, F

    Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., Dittmann, A. J., et al. 2019, ApJL, 887, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5 5.3

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5 2019

  72. [72]

    2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989, doi: 10.1142/S0218271811019335 1

    Nan, R., Li, D., Jin, C., et al. 2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989, doi: 10.1142/S0218271811019335 1

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218271811019335 2011

  73. [73]

    2014, Eur

    Newton, William G., Hooker, Joshua, Gearheart, Michael, et al. 2014, Eur. Phys. J. A, 50, 41, doi: 10.1140/epja/i2014-14041-x 4, 2, 5.1, 7

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2014-14041-x 2014

  74. [74]

    2025, Nature, 637, 48, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08297-w 1

    Nimmo, K., Pleunis, Z., Beniamini, P., et al. 2025, Nature, 637, 48, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08297-w 1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08297-w 2025

  75. [75]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124004, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac995d 1

    Niu, J.-R., Zhu, W.-W., Zhang, B., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124004, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac995d 1

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ac995d 2022

  76. [76]

    R., Wang, W

    Niu, J. R., Wang, W. Y ., Jiang, J. C., et al. 2024, ApJL, 972, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7023 1

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad7023 2024

  77. [77]

    2017, Rev

    Oertel, M., Hempel, M., Kl¨ahn, T., & Typel, S. 2017, Rev. Mod. Phys., 89, 015007, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015007 4 16

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.89.015007 2017

  78. [78]

    1990, Phys

    Ogata, S., & Ichimaru, S. 1990, Phys. Rev. A, 42, 4867, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.42.4867 4

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.42.4867 1990

  79. [79]

    2003, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 109, 631, doi: 10.1143/PTP.109.631 4

    Oyamatsu, K., & Iida, K. 2003, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 109, 631, doi: 10.1143/PTP.109.631 4

    work page doi:10.1143/ptp.109.631 2003

  80. [80]

    2007, Phys

    Oyamatsu, K., & Iida, K. 2007, Phys. Rev. C, 75, 015801, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.75.015801 4

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.75.015801 2007

Showing first 80 references.