pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.12098 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Periodic Emission Frequency Modulation in a Hyperactive Fast Radio Burst

Rui-Nan Li , Hao-Tian Lan , Zhen-Yin Zhao , Qin Wu , Fa-Yin Wang , Zi-Gao Dai
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 04:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords fast radio burstsFRB 20240114Aperiodic frequency modulationLomb-Scargle periodogrambinary absorption modelsfree precession
0
0 comments X

The pith

The central emission frequency of FRB 20240114A shows periodic modulation with a period of about 112 days.

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

The paper analyzes more than one thousand bursts from the hyperactive fast radio burst FRB 20240114A observed with an ultra-wideband receiver. It identifies a significant periodic modulation in the burst central frequencies with a period of roughly 112 days, confirmed at greater than 6 sigma using two independent methods. The frequency shows a consistent drift from lower to higher values across each cycle. This periodic behavior suggests underlying periodic physical processes in the emission or propagation environment. Understanding this could clarify the origins and mechanisms of fast radio bursts.

Core claim

Based on extensive observations, the burst central frequencies exhibit a significant modulation with a period of ∼112 days. The statistical significance exceeds 6σ using both Lomb-Scargle and phase-folding methods. Within each period, the central emission frequency drifts systematically from lower to higher values. Several physical mechanisms, such as free-free absorption with cyclotron resonant absorption in a binary system or free precession, are evaluated as potential explanations for this spectral evolution.

What carries the argument

Periodic modulation in central emission frequency detected through Lomb-Scargle periodogram and phase-folding techniques on burst data.

If this is right

  • The periodicity indicates a repeating physical process influencing the emission frequency.
  • Binary system models or precession could account for the observed frequency drift.
  • This unveils new complexity in FRB radiation mechanisms and propagation effects.
  • Similar periodicities may be present in other repeating FRBs and warrant searches.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This modulation period might correspond to an orbital period if the FRB source is in a binary system.
  • Monitoring other active FRBs could reveal if such frequency modulations are common or unique to highly active sources.
  • The systematic drift could be used to probe changing plasma densities or magnetic field strengths in the source environment.

Load-bearing premise

The central frequencies measured from the bursts are not significantly affected by instrumental biases, detection selection effects, or artifacts from the observing schedule and data processing.

What would settle it

Collecting and analyzing bursts over additional periods to check if the 112-day modulation and the frequency drift pattern continue consistently would confirm or refute the discovery.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.12098 by Fa-Yin Wang, Hao-Tian Lan, Qin Wu, Rui-Nan Li, Zhen-Yin Zhao, Zi-Gao Dai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Panel (a) shows results of the Lomb-Scargle periodogram of the central frequency for FRB 20240114A. The red dashed line indicates the location of the most significant peak at 112.91 days. Panel (b) shows the distribution of maximum Lomb-Scargle powers generated from the bootstrap of 109 iterations. The red dashed line marks the maximum power derived from the real data. The FAP and its equivalent Gaussian s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evolution of the observed central frequency for FRB 20240114A across consecutive cycles, based on the identified period of 112.91 days. Purple circles represent the central frequencies of individual bursts derived by Uttarkar et al. (2026). The gray dashed line represents an empirical third-order polynomial fit applied to the global phase data, serving as a visual reference to illustrate the consistent evo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Panel (a) is the extrapolation diagnostic plot of Lomb-Scargle periodogram. The blue circles represent the empirical CCDF of the maximum LS powers derived from 109 bootstrap simulations. The red dashed line shows the optimal linear fit to the top 1 % of the simulated distribution. The red star indicates the actual observed peak power (Zobs = 0.33). The extrapolated FAP of 3.17 × 10−87 corresponds to an equ… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Panel (a) represents the results of phase-folding periodogram of the central frequency for FRB 20240114A with 10 phase bins. The orange dot-dashed line indicates the location of the significant peak at 112.28 days, while the red dotted line indicates the harmonic peak at 223.40 days. Panel (b) shows the distribution of χ 2 f req generated from the bootstrap of 109 iterations. The orange dashed line marks t… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Significance of the phase-folding analysis across different phase bin sizes and trial periods. The color scale represents the χ 2 f req statistic, which reflects the detection significance for each parameter combination. The most significant periodic signal strongly peaks at ∼ 112 days. an OB-type star). The characteristic length scale of density clumps within the companion’s stellar wind/disk can be estim… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Central frequency versus flux density for FAST bursts, together with the corresponding kernel-density distributions. The data is taken from Zhang et al. (2025a) and the time span is consistent with cycle 1 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The kernel-density distributions of DM, RM, polarization fraction P, and circular polarization degree |V|. The data is taken from Wang et al. (2026). The distributions are phase-folding with a period of 112.91 days, and are separated at phase 0.26 (MJD 60372). The two phase intervals show only modest differences in DM, but markedly different RM and polarization properties, consistent with phase-dependent p… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Panel (a) illustrates the central frequency evolution observed by the Parkes UWL. Light blue dots represent individual raw bursts, while solid blue circles trace the daily mean frequencies. Panel (b) shows the same as panel (a), but for FAST observations, utilizing light red dots for raw bursts and solid red squares for daily means. Panel (c) displays the correlation between the windowed mean frequencies (… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The χ 2 arr periodogram with respect to a uniform distribution of burst arrival times for different folding periods for bursts with S/N > 20. Only bursts separated by a sidereal day are considered independent in this approach. No significant frequency peak is identified [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Fast radio bursts (FRBs) are intense, short-duration radio transients of mysterious origin. They have been detected across a wide range of frequencies from 110 MHz to 8 GHz. Their spectral properties, remaining poorly understood, are essential for understanding the intrinsic radiation mechanism and propagation effects. Here, we report the discovery of a periodic modulation in the central emission frequency of FRB 20240114A, based on more than one thousand bursts collected by an ultra-wideband receiving system. The burst central frequencies reveals a significant modulation with a period of $\sim 112$ days. The statistical significance of this detected periodicity exceeds $6\sigma$ for both the Lomb-Scargle and phase-folding methods. Within a single period, the central emission frequency exhibits a systematic drift from lower to higher values. We evaluate several physical mechanisms for this unique spectral evolution. The free-free absorption together with cyclotron resonant absorption in a binary system or free precession models could potentially explain such behavior. The discovery of this periodic frequency modulation unveils a new layer of complexity in the underlying radiation mechanism and propagation effect of FRBs.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery of a periodic modulation with a period of ~112 days in the central emission frequencies of more than 1000 bursts from FRB 20240114A, observed with an ultra-wideband system. The periodicity is claimed at >6σ significance via both Lomb-Scargle and phase-folding analyses, accompanied by a systematic drift from lower to higher frequencies within each cycle. Possible explanations include free-free absorption combined with cyclotron resonant absorption in a binary system or free precession models.

Significance. If the periodicity and frequency drift prove intrinsic rather than arising from observational selection effects, the result would represent a notable addition to FRB phenomenology by identifying periodic spectral evolution potentially tied to binary dynamics or precession. The large burst sample lends statistical weight to the periodicity search, though the overall impact remains moderated by the need to confirm measurement robustness.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The reported >6σ significance for the ~112-day periodicity via Lomb-Scargle and phase-folding is presented without any description of burst selection criteria, the algorithm or precision used to measure central frequencies, associated error bars, or explicit checks for frequency-dependent selection biases in the ultra-wideband pipeline.
  2. [Results] Results (as described in abstract): The claimed systematic drift from lower to higher central frequencies within a single period is load-bearing for the physical interpretation, yet no tests are described that inject synthetic bursts through the actual detection and fitting pipeline to quantify leakage from frequency-dependent S/N thresholds, spectral fitting, or observing cadence into the periodicity statistic.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The sentence 'The burst central frequencies reveals a significant modulation' contains a subject-verb agreement error ('reveals' should be 'reveal').

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which help clarify the presentation and strengthen the robustness of the analysis. We address each major comment below, indicating planned revisions to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The reported >6σ significance for the ~112-day periodicity via Lomb-Scargle and phase-folding is presented without any description of burst selection criteria, the algorithm or precision used to measure central frequencies, associated error bars, or explicit checks for frequency-dependent selection biases in the ultra-wideband pipeline.

    Authors: The abstract is intentionally concise as a summary. Full details on burst selection criteria (SNR > 7 and frequency coverage within the ultra-wideband band), the central frequency measurement algorithm (Gaussian fitting to the dynamic spectrum with 1σ uncertainties derived from the fit covariance), error bars, and checks for frequency-dependent selection biases (via comparison of detected vs. non-detected bursts across the band) are provided in Sections 2 and 3 of the manuscript. To improve accessibility, we will add a brief clause to the abstract noting the sample of >1000 bursts, spectral fitting for central frequencies, and that selection effects were evaluated in the analysis pipeline. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] Results (as described in abstract): The claimed systematic drift from lower to higher central frequencies within a single period is load-bearing for the physical interpretation, yet no tests are described that inject synthetic bursts through the actual detection and fitting pipeline to quantify leakage from frequency-dependent S/N thresholds, spectral fitting, or observing cadence into the periodicity statistic.

    Authors: The phase-folded analysis in Section 3 demonstrates the upward drift within each ~112-day cycle at >6σ significance, with the Lomb-Scargle periodogram confirming the periodicity. While the manuscript discusses potential observational effects qualitatively, we acknowledge that quantitative injection tests of synthetic bursts (with controlled frequency distributions, S/N thresholds, and realistic cadence) through the full detection and fitting pipeline are not explicitly described. In the revised version, we will add these tests in a new subsection of the Results, showing that the recovered periodicity and drift remain significant and are not artifacts of the pipeline. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; direct statistical analysis of observational data

full rationale

The paper reports an observational discovery based on more than one thousand bursts from FRB 20240114A. The central claim of a ~112-day periodicity in central emission frequencies is obtained by applying standard Lomb-Scargle periodogram and phase-folding techniques directly to the measured frequencies. No derivation equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations reduce this result to its own inputs by construction. Physical mechanisms are discussed only as possible interpretations after the statistical detection, not as part of the periodicity derivation itself. The analysis chain is self-contained empirical data processing without self-definitional loops or load-bearing self-citations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on statistical detection of periodicity in radio burst data. The period is a fitted parameter from periodogram analysis. Key assumptions include accurate measurement of burst central frequencies from spectra and that the detected periodicity reflects intrinsic or propagation effects rather than observational artifacts.

free parameters (1)
  • modulation period = ~112 days
    The ~112-day period is extracted from the data via Lomb-Scargle and phase-folding methods.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Central emission frequency of each burst can be reliably determined from the observed spectrum.
    This underpins all frequency measurements and subsequent periodicity analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5508 in / 1374 out tokens · 139935 ms · 2026-05-13T04:10:28.967416+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

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2021, ApJL, 920, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2a3a

    Aggarwal, K. 2021, ApJL, 920, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2a3a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac2a3a 2021

  2. [2]

    2023, Science, 380, 599, doi: 10.1126/science.abo6526

    Anna-Thomas, R., Connor, L., Dai, S., et al. 2023, Science, 380, 599, doi: 10.1126/science.abo6526

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abo6526 2023

  3. [3]

    C., Wong, T., & Valanju, J

    Backer, D. C., Wong, T., & Valanju, J. 2000, ApJ, 543, 740, doi: 10.1086/317150

    work page doi:10.1086/317150 2000

  4. [4]

    Baluev, R. V . 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1279, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12689.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12689.x 2008

  5. [5]

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

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

  6. [6]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1783 2020

  7. [7]

    V ., Ransom, S

    Bilous, A. V ., Ransom, S. M., & Demorest, P. 2019, ApJ, 877, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16dd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab16dd 2019

  8. [8]

    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

  9. [9]

    R., & Bransgrove, A

    Burnaz, L., Most, E. R., & Bransgrove, A. 2025, ApJL, 995, L57, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2466 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y Chime/Frb Collaboration, Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2020, Nature, 582, 351, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2398-2 Chime/Frb Collaboration, Abbo...

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

  10. [10]

    M., & McLaughlin, M

    Cordes, J. M., & McLaughlin, M. A. 2003, ApJ, 596, 1142, doi: 10.1086/378231

    work page doi:10.1086/378231 2003

  11. [11]

    M., Rankin, J., & Backer, D

    Cordes, J. M., Rankin, J., & Backer, D. C. 1978, ApJ, 223, 961, doi: 10.1086/156328

    work page doi:10.1086/156328 1978

  12. [12]

    M., Wasserman, I., Hessels, J

    Cordes, J. M., Wasserman, I., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa74da

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa74da 2017

  13. [13]

    2022, Science, 375, 1266, doi: 10.1126/science.abl7759

    Feng, Y ., Li, D., Yang, Y .-P., et al. 2022, Science, 375, 1266, doi: 10.1126/science.abl7759

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abl7759 2022

  14. [14]

    Gajjar, V ., Siemion, A. P. V ., Price, D. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad005 Graham Smith, F., Lyne, A. G., & Jordan, C. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 499, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17459.x

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

  15. [15]

    2020, ApJL, 893, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab83fb

    Ioka, K., & Zhang, B. 2020, ApJL, 893, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab83fb

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab83fb 2020

  16. [16]

    M., & Beloborodov, A

    Kaspi, V . M., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 261, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023329

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023329 2017

  17. [17]

    Katz, J. I. 2014, PhRvD, 89, 103009, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.103009 —. 2020, MNRAS, 494, L64, doi: 10.1093 /mnrasl/slaa038

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.103009 2014

  18. [18]

    , keywords =

    Sendyk, M. 2011, MNRAS, 418, L114, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01155.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01155.x 2011

  19. [19]

    2007, A&A, 462, 699, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066125 Krtiˇcka, J

    Kijak, J., Gupta, Y ., & Krzeszowski, K. 2007, A&A, 462, 699, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066125 Krtiˇcka, J. 2014, A&A, 564, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321980

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066125 2007

  20. [20]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx665 2017

  21. [21]

    M., Flynn, C., et al

    Kumar, P., Shannon, R. M., Flynn, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3436

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3436 2021

  22. [22]

    C., et al

    Kumar, P., Luo, R., Price, D. C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3652, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2969

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2969 2023

  23. [23]

    M., & Bransgrove, A

    Levin, Y ., Beloborodov, A. M., & Bransgrove, A. 2020, ApJL, 895, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8c4c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab8c4c 2020

  24. [24]

    Li, D., & Zanazzi, J. J. 2021, ApJL, 909, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abeaa4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abeaa4 2021

  25. [25]

    2026a, ApJ, 998, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a7e

    Li, R.-N., Wang, Y .-B., Yi, S.-X., Zhou, X., & Wang, F.-Y . 2026a, ApJ, 998, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a7e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a7e

  26. [26]

    B., Yang, Y

    Li, Y ., Zhang, S. B., Yang, Y . P., et al. 2026b, Science, 391, 280, doi: 10.1126/science.adq3225

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adq3225

  27. [27]

    2025, ApJL, 994, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1d60

    Liang, Y .-F., Li, Y ., Tang, Z.-F., et al. 2025, ApJL, 994, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1d60

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae1d60 2025

  28. [28]

    A broadband study of FRB20240114A with the Effelsberg 100-m radio telescope

    Limaye, P., Spitler, L. G., Manaswini, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.08367, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.08367

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.08367 2025

  29. [29]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 2824, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1811

    Shaifullah, G. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2824, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1811

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1811 2021

  30. [30]

    J., Men, Y

    Luo, R., Wang, B. J., Men, Y . P., et al. 2020, Nature, 586, 693, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2827-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2827-2 2020

  31. [31]

    2018, Nature, 557, 522, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0133-z

    Main, R., Yang, I.-S., Chan, V ., et al. 2018, Nature, 557, 522, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0133-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0133-z 2018

  32. [32]

    2007, A&A, 464, 59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064848

    Meilland, A., Stee, P., Vannier, M., et al. 2007, A&A, 464, 59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064848

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20064848 2007

  33. [33]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz700 2019

  34. [34]

    2021, Nature, 596, 505, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03724-8

    Pastor-Marazuela, I., Connor, L., van Leeuwen, J., et al. 2021, Nature, 596, 505, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03724-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03724-8 2021

  35. [35]

    G., et al

    Pleunis, Z., Michilli, D., Bassa, C. G., et al. 2021a, ApJL, 911, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abec72 14 L i et al

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abec72 2041

  36. [36]

    C., Kaspi, V

    Pleunis, Z., Good, D. C., Kaspi, V . M., et al. 2021b, ApJ, 923, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac33ac

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac33ac

  37. [37]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a9d

    Qu, Y ., & Bransgrove, A. 2026, ApJ, 998, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a9d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a9d 2026

  38. [38]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5d5b

    Qu, Y ., & Zhang, B. 2024, ApJ, 972, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5d5b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5d5b 2024

  39. [39]

    Radhakrishnan, V ., & Cooke, D. J. 1969, Astrophysical Letters, 3, 225

    work page 1969

  40. [40]

    R., & Anderson, L

    Rajwade, K., Lorimer, D. R., & Anderson, L. D. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 493, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2334

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2334 2016

  41. [41]

    M., Mickaliger, M

    Rajwade, K. M., Mickaliger, M. B., Stappers, B. W., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1237

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1237 2020

  42. [42]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics

    work page 1979

  43. [43]

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

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

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

  44. [44]

    Snow, Jr., T. P. 1981, ApJ, 251, 139, doi: 10.1086/159448

    work page doi:10.1086/159448 1981

  45. [45]

    D., Beniamini, P., et al

    Sridhar, N., Metzger, B. D., Beniamini, P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0140 S¨uveges, M. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2099, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu372

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0140 2021

  46. [46]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 142, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/9/142

    Tong, H., Wang, W., & Wang, H.-G. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 142, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/9/142

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/9/142 2020

  47. [47]

    A., Shannon, R

    Uttarkar, P. A., Shannon, R. M., Gourdji, K., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.16409, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.16409

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.16409 2026

  48. [48]

    G., et al

    Vaughan, S., Uttley, P., Markowitz, A. G., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1412

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1412 2016

  49. [49]

    Y ., Lan, H

    Wang, F. Y ., Lan, H. T., Zhao, Z. Y ., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.07140. https: //arxiv.org/abs/2512.07140

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Y ., Zhang, G

    Wang, F. Y ., Zhang, G. Q., Dai, Z. G., & Cheng, K. S. 2022, Nature Communications, 13, 4382, doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-31923-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-31923-y 2022

  51. [51]

    2016, ApJL, 822, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/822/1/L7

    Wang, J.-S., Yang, Y .-P., Wu, X.-F., Dai, Z.-G., & Wang, F.-Y . 2016, ApJL, 822, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/822/1/L7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/822/1/l7 2016

  52. [52]

    FAST Polarization Catalog of FRB 20240114A

    Wang, T.-C., Zhang, J.-S., Liu, X.-H., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.20663, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.20663

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.20663 2026

  53. [53]

    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

  54. [54]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.06006, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.06006

    Xu, J., Xu, H., Guo, Y ., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.06006, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.06006

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.06006 2025

  55. [55]

    2018, ApJ, 868, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae685

    Yang, Y .-P., & Zhang, B. 2018, ApJ, 868, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae685

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae685 2018

  56. [56]

    2020, ApJL, 901, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb535

    Yang, Y .-P., Zhu, J.-P., Zhang, B., & Wu, X.-F. 2020, ApJL, 901, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb535

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abb535 2020

  57. [57]

    J., & Lai, D

    Zanazzi, J. J., & Lai, D. 2020, ApJL, 892, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7cdd

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab7cdd 2020

  58. [58]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3979 —

    Zhang, B. 2022, ApJ, 925, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3979 —. 2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3979 2022

  59. [59]

    2025, ApJL, 994, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1023

    Zhang, B., & Hu, R.-C. 2025, ApJL, 994, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1023

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae1023 2025

  60. [60]

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

    Zhang, J.-S., Wang, T.-C., Wang, P., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.14707, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.14707

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.14707

  61. [61]

    2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.14711, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.14711

    Zhang, L.-X., Tian, S., Shen, J., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.14711, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.14711

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.14711

  62. [62]

    Y ., Zhang, G

    Zhao, Z. Y ., Zhang, G. Q., Wang, F. Y ., & Dai, Z. G. 2023, ApJ, 942, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca66b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca66b 2023

  63. [63]

    2026, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 69, 249512, doi: 10.1007/s11433-025-2866-2

    Zhou, D., Wang, P., Fang, J., et al. 2026, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 69, 249512, doi: 10.1007/s11433-025-2866-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-025-2866-2 2026