pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.09098 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Radio Monitoring Campaign of Active Repeater FRB 20220912A with CHIME

Thomas C. Abbott , Aaron B. Pearlman , Victoria M. Kaspi , Ayush Pandhi , Charanjot Brar , Alyssa Cassity , Amanda M. Cook , Alice P. Curtin
show 15 more authors
Emmanuel Fonseca Bryan M. Gaensler Deborah C. Good Jason W. Hessels Afrokk Khan Calvin Leung Robert A. Main Ryan Mckinven Bradley W. Meyers Kenzie Nimmo Mason Ng Ziggy Pleunis Paul Scholz Vishwangi Shah Kaitlyn Shin
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords fast radio burstsFRB 20220912Adispersion measurerotation measurerepeating FRBsCHIME
0
0 comments X

The pith

FRB 20220912A exhibits a 2.3-sigma increase in dispersion measure of 1.4 pc cm^{-3} per year but stable rotation measure.

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

The paper analyzes 1.5 years of CHIME telescope data on the repeating fast radio burst FRB 20220912A, including 828 detected bursts. It identifies a marginal linear rise in the dispersion measure while finding no change in the rotation measure. This behavior sets the source apart from other active repeaters. The observations also show the source was highly active for about ten weeks and had a bimodal distribution of times between bursts. These results lead the authors to propose that the source is in a distinctive local environment.

Core claim

From CHIME monitoring, FRB 20220912A shows a linear dispersion measure increase of 1.4 ± 0.6 pc cm^{-3} yr^{-1} at 2.3 sigma significance over 1.5 years with no significant rotation measure trend (3 sigma upper limit of 13.4 rad m^{-2} yr^{-1}). Analysis of 828 bursts indicates this differs from other repeaters, suggesting a unique local environment.

What carries the argument

Linear regression fits to the time evolution of dispersion measure and rotation measure values measured from the 828 CHIME-detected bursts.

If this is right

  • The total energy emitted by the source is estimated at 2 × 10^{43} ergs assuming a radio efficiency of 10^{-4} and beaming angle of 0.1.
  • The source remains highly active for approximately 10 weeks with a bimodal wait-time distribution peaking at about 160 ms and 306 s.
  • Comparison with other active repeaters highlights different DM and RM evolution patterns.
  • The lack of RM change combined with DM increase points to specific conditions in the surrounding plasma.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the DM increase continues, it may indicate the FRB is moving away from or through a region of varying electron density.
  • Longer term data could help determine whether this unique evolution is transient or persistent.
  • Modeling the environment based on the observed rates could constrain possible progenitor scenarios for this FRB.

Load-bearing premise

Interpreting the 2.3 sigma DM trend as a genuine detection of linear increase rather than statistical noise.

What would settle it

Extended monitoring that either confirms the DM slope at higher significance or demonstrates that the DM has stopped increasing would validate or invalidate the reported trend.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09098 by Aaron B. Pearlman, Afrokk Khan, Alice P. Curtin, Alyssa Cassity, Amanda M. Cook, Ayush Pandhi, Bradley W. Meyers, Bryan M. Gaensler, Calvin Leung, Charanjot Brar, Deborah C. Good, Emmanuel Fonseca, Jason W. Hessels, Kaitlyn Shin, Kenzie Nimmo, Mason Ng, Paul Scholz, Robert A. Main, Ryan Mckinven, Thomas C. Abbott, Victoria M. Kaspi, Vishwangi Shah, Ziggy Pleunis.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of CHIME/FRB detections and CHIME/Pulsar detections from this study over-plotted on a subset of 12 CHIME/FRB beams. Upper Panel: A histogram (binned every 0.1 degrees) showing the number of detections from each of the two CHIME backends. Lower Panel: A subset of the CHIME/FRB beam grid projected onto the sky showing each beam size at 400, 600, and 800 MHz in gray. Points where CHIME/FRB made a d… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Burst rate versus time for FRB 20220912A. The blue points show the mean burst rate from each CHIME/Pulsar observation. The black dotted line shows the mean burst rate observed by CHIME/Pulsar over week-long intervals with uncertainties. The highlighted regions show the periods where FAST (green) and NRT (yellow) observed the source. The gray bar along the bottom of the plot shows days on which CHIME/Pulsar… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Waiting time distribution of FRB 20220912A. The blue distribution shows the wait-times across the entire CHIME/Pulsar observing campaign (400 MHz − 800 MHz). The yellow dashed lines and highlighted region show the mean waiting times observed by the NRT (1.2 − 1.7 GHz) with uncertainties highlighted in yellow (Konijn et al. 2024) and the green dashed lines and shaded region show those of FAST (1 − 1.5 GHz) … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of burst widths versus isotropic equivalent energy for bursts with F > 0.92 Jy ms. The scatter plot shows burst widths in milliseconds versus isotropic equivalent energy plotted logarithmically, where points are colored by each burst’s measured bandwidth within the CHIME band. We also show four colored dashed lines representing a SNR threshold of 5 at various burst bandwidths (50 MHz in blue, … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Temporal evolution of the DM and RM. Upper Panel: DM in units of pc cm−3 versus MJD. Blue dots show measurements for which a burst’s signal to noise ratio exceeded 10 and temporal width was less than 1 ms. Gray dots show measurements for which burst’s signal to noise ratio exceeded 8 and temporal width was less than 2 ms. The DM uncertainties shown are determined by fitburst and represent the measurement u… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example of three fitburst fits with bursts detected on MJD 59877, 60138, and 60225, from left to right. Each panel shows the burst’s dynamic spectrum (left panel), the fitburst model (middle panel), and the residual (right panel). The dynamic spectra are all dedispersed to the detection DM (219.456 pc cm−3 ) causing the dispersive sweep to be evident at later MJDs. A. FITBURST FIT EXAMPLES REFERENCES Amiri… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

FRB 20220912A is a highly active repeating fast radio burst (FRB) source, discovered by the Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment (CHIME) using its real-time FRB detection system (CHIME/FRB). Here, we present results from a radio monitoring campaign of FRB 20220912A using CHIME, including ~200 hours of data collected by CHIME/Pulsar, spanning 1.5 years following the source's discovery. We present an analysis of a sample of 828 CHIME-detected bursts from FRB 20220912A, in the 400-800 MHz radio frequency band. The source remains highly active for ~10 weeks and has a bimodal wait-time distribution with peaks at $160^{+120}_{-70}$ ms and $306^{+14}_{-13}$ s. Assuming a radio efficiency factor of $10^{-4}$ and a beaming angle of 0.1, we estimate the total emitted energy from the source over the entire observing campaign to be $2 \times 10^{43}$ ergs. We report a 2.3$\sigma$ detection of a linear increase in the DM of $1.4 \pm 0.6$ pc cm$^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$, with no significant trend in rotation measure (with a 3$\sigma$ upper limit of 13.4 rad m$^{-2}$ yr$^{-1}$). We contrast our findings with other active repeaters, which exhibit different DM and RM evolution to indicate that FRB 20220912A may reside in a unique local environment.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports results from a 1.5-year radio monitoring campaign of the repeating FRB 20220912A using CHIME, analyzing 828 detected bursts in the 400-800 MHz band. Key findings include a bimodal wait-time distribution with peaks at ~160 ms and ~306 s, an estimated total emitted energy of 2 × 10^{43} ergs assuming a radio efficiency of 10^{-4} and beaming angle of 0.1, a 2.3σ linear DM increase of 1.4 ± 0.6 pc cm^{-3} yr^{-1}, no significant RM trend (3σ upper limit 13.4 rad m^{-2} yr^{-1}), and the inference that the source occupies a unique local environment based on contrasts with other active repeaters.

Significance. The large sample of 828 bursts and extended monitoring period provide a valuable observational dataset for characterizing the activity and burst statistics of a highly active repeater. If the reported DM trend proves robust under additional checks, it could help constrain models of evolving plasma environments around FRB sources. The work adds to the growing body of long-term repeater monitoring but is limited by the marginal significance of the primary trend and dependence on external assumptions.

major comments (3)
  1. [DM evolution analysis] DM trend section: The linear DM increase is reported at only 2.3σ with slope 1.4 ± 0.6 pc cm^{-3} yr^{-1}. The manuscript provides no details on the number of independent DM measurements, their individual uncertainties, the fitting procedure (e.g., weighted least-squares or MCMC), or tests for robustness against data-selection cuts and frequency-dependent systematics. This marginal detection is load-bearing for the unique-environment conclusion.
  2. [Energy calculation] Energy estimate paragraph: The total emitted energy of 2 × 10^{43} ergs is calculated using fixed external assumptions of radio efficiency factor 10^{-4} and beaming angle 0.1. No sensitivity analysis or justification from observations is given, and the downstream environmental interpretation depends on these unvaried parameters.
  3. [Discussion] Comparison with other repeaters: The claim that FRB 20220912A resides in a unique local environment rests on contrasts in DM and RM evolution. The manuscript does not specify the selection criteria for the comparison sample or list the exact sources and their measured trends, preventing evaluation of whether the differences are statistically significant or selection-biased.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states '~200 hours of data' but does not specify the exact total integration time or the burst detection threshold and pipeline validation steps used to assemble the 828-burst sample.
  2. [Figures] Figure showing DM versus time should explicitly label the fitted slope, its uncertainty, and the number of points used; the wait-time histogram would benefit from a quantitative test for bimodality (e.g., BIC comparison).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have helped us identify areas where the manuscript can be clarified and strengthened. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate additional details and analysis as outlined.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [DM evolution analysis] DM trend section: The linear DM increase is reported at only 2.3σ with slope 1.4 ± 0.6 pc cm^{-3} yr^{-1}. The manuscript provides no details on the number of independent DM measurements, their individual uncertainties, the fitting procedure (e.g., weighted least-squares or MCMC), or tests for robustness against data-selection cuts and frequency-dependent systematics. This marginal detection is load-bearing for the unique-environment conclusion.

    Authors: We agree that the DM analysis requires more transparency to allow proper evaluation of the 2.3σ trend. In the revised manuscript we will report the number of independent DM measurements entering the fit, tabulate or describe their individual uncertainties, detail the fitting procedure employed, and present explicit robustness checks including variations in data-selection cuts and assessments of frequency-dependent systematics. While the significance remains marginal, the trend provides a useful contrast with other repeaters and we will emphasize the need for independent confirmation in future observations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Energy calculation] Energy estimate paragraph: The total emitted energy of 2 × 10^{43} ergs is calculated using fixed external assumptions of radio efficiency factor 10^{-4} and beaming angle 0.1. No sensitivity analysis or justification from observations is given, and the downstream environmental interpretation depends on these unvaried parameters.

    Authors: The adopted efficiency and beaming values follow standard assumptions in the FRB literature. We acknowledge the absence of a sensitivity study. The revised manuscript will include a short sensitivity analysis illustrating the range of total energies obtained by varying the efficiency (10^{-5} to 10^{-3}) and beaming angle (0.01 to 1 sr), with the quoted value retained as an illustrative benchmark. The primary environmental conclusions rest on the DM and RM trends rather than the absolute energy scale. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion] Comparison with other repeaters: The claim that FRB 20220912A resides in a unique local environment rests on contrasts in DM and RM evolution. The manuscript does not specify the selection criteria for the comparison sample or list the exact sources and their measured trends, preventing evaluation of whether the differences are statistically significant or selection-biased.

    Authors: We will expand the discussion to list the specific comparison sources (e.g., FRB 20121102A, FRB 20180916B and other well-monitored active repeaters), state the selection criteria (repeaters with published multi-year DM/RM monitoring and at least several hundred bursts), and provide a table or explicit citations of their reported DM and RM trends. This will enable readers to assess the statistical significance and potential selection effects of the contrasts. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; purely observational measurements and explicit assumptions

full rationale

The paper reports direct measurements from 828 bursts: bimodal wait times, a linear DM fit yielding 1.4 ± 0.6 pc cm^{-3} yr^{-1} at 2.3σ, an RM trend upper limit, and an energy estimate that explicitly states the assumed efficiency (10^{-4}) and beaming angle (0.1). No step derives a quantity from the paper's own fitted parameters or renames a result as a prediction. The DM slope is obtained by fitting observed data, not by construction from prior definitions within the work. Comparisons to other repeaters rely on external literature. All load-bearing claims are falsifiable against the raw burst sample and do not reduce to self-citation chains or self-definitional loops.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Energy estimate depends on two externally assumed parameters; DM/RM analysis relies on standard radio-astronomy propagation models.

free parameters (2)
  • radio efficiency factor = 10^{-4}
    Assumed value of 10^{-4} used to convert observed fluence to emitted energy.
  • beaming angle = 0.1
    Assumed value of 0.1 used to convert observed fluence to emitted energy.
axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard cold-plasma dispersion and Faraday rotation formulas apply to the observed signals.
    Invoked implicitly for all DM and RM measurements.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5702 in / 1373 out tokens · 46217 ms · 2026-05-10T17:36:58.013702+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.00172, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.00172

    Amiri, M., Chakraborty, A., Foreman, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.00172, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.00172

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.00172 2024

  2. [2]

    C., Hama, S., van Hook, S., & Foster, R

    Backer, D. C., Hama, S., van Hook, S., & Foster, R. S. 1993, ApJ, 404, 636, doi: 10.1086/172317

    work page doi:10.1086/172317 1993

  3. [3]

    Science , author =

    Bannister, K. W., Deller, A. T., Phillips, C., et al. 2019, Science, 365, 565, doi: 10.1126/science.aaw5903

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaw5903 2019

  4. [4]

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

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

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.13121 2024

  5. [5]

    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

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

  6. [6]

    A., & de Bruyn, A

    Brentjens, M. A., & de Bruyn, A. G. 2005, A&A, 441, 1217, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052990 CHIME Collaboration, Amiri, M., Bandura, K., et al. 2022, Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 261, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6fd9 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Bandura, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad188 CHIME/FRB Collaboration...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20052990 2005

  7. [7]

    , keywords =

    Collaboration, T. C., Abbott, T., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 283, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae3828

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae3828 2026

  8. [8]

    M., Scholz, P., Pearlman, A

    Cook, A. M., Scholz, P., Pearlman, A. B., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a13

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a13 2024

  9. [9]

    NE2001.I. A New Model for the Galactic Distribution of Free Electrons and its Fluctuations

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207156

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0207156 2002

  10. [10]

    2019, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 13064, 1

    Di, L., Zhang, X., Qian, L., et al. 2019, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 13064, 1

    2019

  11. [11]

    A., Rodin, A

    Fedorova, V. A., Rodin, A. E., Zhang, Z.-B., et al. 2023, Astronomy Reports, 67, 970, doi: 10.1134/S1063772923100050

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063772923100050 2023

  12. [12]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.01825, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.01825

    Feng, Y., Zhou, D., Zhang, Y.-K., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.01825, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.01825

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.01825 2026

  13. [13]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 296, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7a64

    Feng, Y., Li, D., Zhang, Y.-K., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 296, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7a64

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7a64 2024

  14. [14]

    2024, ApJS, 271, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad27d6

    Fonseca, E., Pleunis, Z., Breitman, D., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad27d6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad27d6 2024

  15. [15]

    Gajjar, V., Siemion, A. P. V., Price, D. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad005

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad005 2018

  16. [17]

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

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

  17. [18]

    M., Snelders, M

    Hewitt, D. M., Snelders, M. P., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 3577, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1960

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1960 2022

  18. [19]

    M., Hessels, J

    Hewitt, D. M., Hessels, J. W. T., Ould-Boukattine, O. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2039, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2847

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2847 2023

  19. [20]

    M., Bhandari, S., Marcote, B., et al

    Hewitt, D. M., Bhandari, S., Marcote, B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 1814, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae632

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae632 2024

  20. [21]

    H., Michilli, D., Spitler, L

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abdec0 2021

  21. [22]

    S., Betti, S., et al

    Hutschenreuter, S., Anderson, C. S., Betti, S., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 657, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140486

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140486 2022

  22. [23]

    N., Spitler, L

    Jahns, J. N., Spitler, L. G., Nimmo, K., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 666, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3446

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3446 2023

  23. [24]

    C., Hewitt, D

    Konijn, D. C., Hewitt, D. M., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 3331, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2296

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2296 2024

  24. [25]

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

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

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.21889 2025

  25. [26]

    C., et al

    Kumar, P., Luo, R., Price, D. C., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 3652, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2969

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2969 2023

  26. [27]

    Lai, D., & Shapiro, S. L. 1991, ApJ, 383, 745, doi: 10.1086/170831

    work page doi:10.1086/170831 1991

  27. [28]

    E., Andersen, B

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4bc7 2022

  28. [29]

    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

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

  29. [30]

    2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15679, 1

    Mckinven, R., & CHIME/FRB Collaboration. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15679, 1

    2022

  30. [31]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 920, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac126a

    Mckinven, R., Michilli, D., Masui, K., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 920, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac126a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac126a 2021

  31. [32]

    M., Michilli, D., et al

    Mckinven, R., Gaensler, B. M., Michilli, D., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 951, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd188

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd188 2023

  32. [33]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 898, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba2cf

    Mereghetti, S., Savchenko, V., Ferrigno, C., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 898, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba2cf

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

  33. [34]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Bucciantini, N., & Quataert, E. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2031, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18280.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18280.x 2011

  34. [35]

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

    Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B., & Sironi, L. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 4091, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz700

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz700 2019

  35. [36]

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

    work page doi:10.1038/nature25149 2018

  36. [37]

    M., & Stappers, B

    Morello, V., Rajwade, K. M., & Stappers, B. W. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1393, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3493

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3493 2022

  37. [38]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218271811019335 2011

  38. [39]

    Nimmo, K., Hessels, J. W. T., Snelders, M. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2281, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad269

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad269 2023

  39. [40]

    2026, Science Bulletin, 71, 76, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2025.11.023

    Niu, C.-H., Li, D., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2026, Science Bulletin, 71, 76, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2025.11.023

    work page doi:10.1016/j.scib.2025.11.023 2026

  40. [41]

    The McGill Magnetar Catalog.ApJ Suppl

    Olausen, S. A., & Kaspi, V. M. 2014, Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 212, 6, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/6

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/6 2014

  41. [42]

    S., Chawla, P., Hessels, J

    Ould-Boukattine, O. S., Chawla, P., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf1937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1937

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1937 2026

  42. [43]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad40aa

    Pandhi, A., Pleunis, Z., Mckinven, R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad40aa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad40aa 2024

  43. [44]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.22309, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.22309

    Pandhi, A., Nimmo, K., Andrew, S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.22309, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.22309

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.22309 2026

  44. [45]

    C., Stappers, B., et al

    Pastor-Marazuela, I., Gordon, A. C., Stappers, B., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 545, staf2144, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2144

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2144 2025

  45. [46]

    B., Scholz, P., Bethapudi, S., et al

    Pearlman, A. B., Scholz, P., Bethapudi, S., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 111, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02386-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02386-6 2025

  46. [47]

    2024, A&A, 690, A219, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450271

    Pelliciari, D., Bernardi, G., Pilia, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A219, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450271

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450271 2024

  47. [48]

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

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-019-0116-6 2019

  48. [49]

    Shannon, R. M. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 435, 1610, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1401

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1401 2013

  49. [50]

    L., & Gaensler, B

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac9bc 2018

  50. [51]

    2011, PRESTO: PulsaR Exploration and Search TOolkit, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1107.017

    Ransom, S. 2011, PRESTO: PulsaR Exploration and Search TOolkit, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1107.017. http://ascl.net/1107.017

    2011

  51. [52]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 949, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc4b6

    Ravi, V., Catha, M., Chen, G., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 949, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc4b6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc4b6 2023

  52. [53]

    o tz, D. , author G \

    Rea, N., Esposito, P., Turolla, R., et al. 2010, Science, 330, 944, doi: 10.1126/science.1196088

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1196088 2010

  53. [54]

    Z., Farah, W., Pollak, A

    Sheikh, S. Z., Farah, W., Pollak, A. W., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 10425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3630 16

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3630 2024

  54. [55]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 334, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2fc4

    Shin, K., Curtin, A., Fine, M., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 997, 334, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2fc4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2fc4 2026

  55. [56]

    P., Hessels, J

    Snelders, M. P., Hessels, J. W. T., Huang, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.11352, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.11352

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.11352 2025

  56. [57]

    M., et al

    Tian, J., Pastor-Marazuela, I., Rajwade, K. M., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 540, 1685, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf793

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf793 2025

  57. [58]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 2795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2532

    Totani, T., & Tsuzuki, Y. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 2795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2532

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2532 2023

  58. [59]

    R., Chen, P., et al

    Xu, H., Niu, J. R., Chen, P., et al. 2022, Nature, 609, 685, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05071-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05071-8 2022

  59. [60]

    2017, ApJ, 847, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8721

    Yang, Y.-P., & Zhang, B. 2017a, The Astrophysical Journal, 847, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8721 —. 2017b, ApJ, 847, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8721

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8721

  60. [61]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.95.035005 2023

  61. [62]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.14707, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.14707

    Zhang, J.-S., Wang, T.-C., Wang, P., et al. 2025, A prolific repeating fast radio burst source and a crisis of the magnetar model. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.14707

    work page arXiv 2025

  62. [63]

    B., Wang, J

    Zhang, S. B., Wang, J. S., Yang, X., et al. 2024, Nature Communications, 15, 7454, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-51711-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-51711-0 2024

  63. [64]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124002, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac98f7

    Zhang, Y.-K., Wang, P., Feng, Y., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124002, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac98f7

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ac98f7 2022

  64. [65]

    2023, ApJ, 955, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced0b

    Zhang, Y.-K., Li, D., Zhang, B., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 955, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced0b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aced0b 2023