pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.07919 · v1 · pith:BHY5RLP6new · submitted 2026-06-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Faraday Complexity and Depolarisation in a High-Rotation-Measure Radio Galaxy from the Spectra and Polarisation In Cutouts of Extragalactic Sources (SPICE-RACS) DR2

Debajyoti Mondal , Abhik Ghosh This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 19:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords Faraday rotationrotation measureradio galaxydepolarizationspectropolarimetryASKAPBurn slabexternal Faraday dispersion
0
0 comments X

The pith

Broadband data show a high-rotation-measure radio galaxy requires one Burn-slab and two external Faraday dispersion components.

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

The paper analyzes spectro-polarimetric observations of a specific extragalactic radio source with a large rotation measure. It uses one-dimensional fitting of Stokes q and u parameters across frequency channels and applies Bayesian model selection to determine the best description of the Faraday structure. The preferred model combines a Burn-slab component with two external Faraday dispersion components, indicating multiple regions of magnetized plasma along the line of sight. This approach demonstrates how broadband observations can resolve complex depolarization effects that simpler models cannot explain. Such analysis helps in understanding the turbulent magnetic environments in distant galaxies.

Core claim

One-dimensional q-u fitting and Bayesian model selection identify a multi-component model comprising one Burn-slab component and two external Faraday dispersion components as the preferred description for the source RACS_0900-28_7036, with the dominant component at RM approximately 345.5 rad m^{-2} and a secondary at 131.5 rad m^{-2} showing stronger dispersion.

What carries the argument

Bayesian model selection applied to one-dimensional q-u fitting across 36 spectral channels to identify the number and type of Faraday components.

If this is right

  • The dominant astrophysical component has RM of 345.5 rad m^{-2} with modest Faraday dispersion of about 3 rad m^{-2}.
  • A secondary component at RM 131.5 rad m^{-2} exhibits strong depolarization with sigma_RM of 19.5 rad m^{-2}.
  • The fractional polarization spectrum and q-u plane evolution confirm multiple Faraday-active regions.
  • This provides a framework for systematic depolarization studies across the full SPICE-RACS catalog.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar multi-component fitting could be applied to other high-RM sources to map magnetic field structures in galaxy clusters or intervening media.
  • If the model holds, it suggests that line-of-sight integration through turbulent media produces distinct dispersion signatures that broadband data can separate.
  • Extending this to statistical samples may reveal correlations between Faraday complexity and source properties like redshift or environment.

Load-bearing premise

The frequency coverage and signal-to-noise ratio are sufficient for Bayesian model selection to reliably distinguish the true number and type of Faraday components rather than selecting an overparameterized model due to noise.

What would settle it

New observations at higher frequencies or with finer channel resolution that yield a different preferred model with fewer or more components would falsify the current identification.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.07919 by Abhik Ghosh, Debajyoti Mondal.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Posterior distributions and parameter covariances for the preferred m5 polarization model obtained from the broad￾band qu-fitting. The diagonal panels present the marginalized distributions of each model parameter, together with their corresponding 1σ (68%) confidence intervals. The off-diagonal panels display the joint posterior distributions for pairs of param￾eters, illustrating correlations and degener… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Fractional Stokes q, u, and polarized fraction |p| as a function of λ 2 , together with the best-fitting m5 model. The decreasing oscillation amplitude towards larger λ 2 indicates significant Faraday depolarization. The solid red line in the right panel shows the best-fitting power-law model, |p| = A(λ 2 ) β , yielding β = −0.41 and implying moderate depolarization across the ASKAP band. 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Polarization angle as a function of λ 2 for RACS 0900-28 7036 with the best-fitting m5 model. 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 2 (m2 ) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 (d e gre e s) = 0 (thin screen) De-rotated data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: De-rotated polarization angle spectrum for RACS 0900-28 7036 after removing the catalogue RM con￾tribution. For a single Faraday-thin screen, the de-rotated angles would be expected to scatter symmetrically around the orange dashed line (ψ˜ = 0◦ ). a circular path with constant amplitude. Instead, the source exhibits a spiral-like trajectory with decreasing amplitude, demonstrating that depolarization prog… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of the polarization vector in the com￾plex q-u plane for the ASKAP source RACS 0900-28 7036, coloured by observing frequency (blue = high frequency / short λ 2 , red = low frequency / long λ 2 ). Data points in￾clude 1σ error bars, and the solid line shows the best-fit m5 model (1 Slab + 2 EFD). The gradual contraction of the po￾larization vector amplitude from blue to red illustrates the wavelen… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Residuals of the best-fitting m5 model for the fractional Stokes q and u spectra of RACS 0900−28 7036, normalised by the measurement uncertainties σq and σu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a broadband spectro-polarimetric analysis of the extragalactic radio source \texttt{RACS\_0900-28\_7036} using SPICE-RACS DR2 observations with the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP). The source was selected for its large rotation measure (${\rm RM}=345.7\pm0.2~{\rm rad~m^{-2}}$), substantial excess relative to the local foreground ($\Delta {\rm RM}\approx171~{\rm rad~m^{-2}}$), and strong evidence of Faraday complexity ($\sigma_{\rm add}/\delta\sigma_{\rm add}\approx8.6$). Observations span 803--1083~MHz in 36 spectral channels, enabling detailed characterization of Faraday rotation and wavelength-dependent depolarization. One-dimensional $q$-$u$ fitting and Bayesian model selection identify a multi-component model comprising one Burn-slab component and two external Faraday dispersion components (1 Slab + 2 EFD) as the preferred description. The dominant astrophysical component exhibits ${\rm RM}\approx345.5~{\rm rad~m^{-2}}$ with modest Faraday dispersion ($\sigma_{\rm RM}\approx3~{\rm rad~m^{-2}}$), while a secondary broader component at ${\rm RM}\approx131.5~{\rm rad~m^{-2}}$ shows strong depolarization ($\sigma_{\rm RM}\approx19.5~{\rm rad~m^{-2}}$). The fractional polarization spectrum and $q$--$u$ plane evolution further confirm multiple Faraday-active regions along the line of sight. These results demonstrate that ASKAP broadband spectropolarimetry can resolve complex Faraday structures and probe turbulent magnetized environments, providing a framework for systematic depolarization studies across the full SPICE-RACS catalog and enabling statistical investigations of Faraday complexity in diverse extragalactic radio sources.

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 paper presents a broadband spectro-polarimetric analysis of the extragalactic source RACS_0900-28_7036 from SPICE-RACS DR2 ASKAP observations spanning 803-1083 MHz in 36 channels. It reports a high RM of 345.7±0.2 rad m^{-2} with excess relative to the foreground and strong evidence of Faraday complexity (σ_add/δσ_add≈8.6). One-dimensional q-u fitting combined with Bayesian model selection identifies a preferred 1 Burn-slab + 2 external Faraday dispersion (EFD) model, with component parameters RM≈345.5 rad m^{-2} (σ_RM≈3) and RM≈131.5 rad m^{-2} (σ_RM≈19.5). The work positions this as a demonstration for systematic studies across the SPICE-RACS catalog.

Significance. If the model identification holds, the result provides a concrete example of resolving multiple Faraday-active regions along the line of sight with ASKAP broadband data and supplies a template for depolarization analysis in the larger catalog. This could support statistical investigations of turbulent magnetized environments in extragalactic sources. The specific RM and dispersion values add to the sample of complex high-RM objects, though the single-source nature limits broader impact without the promised catalog framework.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The central claim rests on Bayesian model selection preferring the 1 Slab + 2 EFD model, yet the manuscript (including the abstract) does not report log-evidence differences, prior sensitivity tests, or simulation-based calibration using the exact 36-channel, 280 MHz coverage and reported S/N. This leaves open whether the selection reliably separates the quoted components (RM≈345.5, σ_RM≈3; RM≈131.5, σ_RM≈19.5) from noise or model mismatch.
  2. [Abstract] The supporting metric σ_add/δσ_add≈8.6 is presented as evidence of complexity, but without an explicit definition of how σ_add is computed from the data or its quantitative link to the evidence ratios for the multi-component model, it is unclear whether this metric independently validates the preferred description.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the source name (RACS_0900-28_7036) and component labels (1 Slab + 2 EFD) should be defined at first use and kept consistent throughout.
  2. The fractional polarization spectrum and q-u plane evolution are cited as confirmatory but lack a dedicated figure or quantitative comparison to the fitted model predictions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate additional quantitative details on the Bayesian model selection and the complexity metric.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] The central claim rests on Bayesian model selection preferring the 1 Slab + 2 EFD model, yet the manuscript (including the abstract) does not report log-evidence differences, prior sensitivity tests, or simulation-based calibration using the exact 36-channel, 280 MHz coverage and reported S/N. This leaves open whether the selection reliably separates the quoted components (RM≈345.5, σ_RM≈3; RM≈131.5, σ_RM≈19.5) from noise or model mismatch.

    Authors: We agree that explicit reporting of log-evidence differences would strengthen the abstract and main text. In the revised manuscript we will add the specific ΔlogZ values showing the preferred 1 Slab + 2 EFD model is strongly favored (ΔlogZ > 10 relative to simpler models). Prior sensitivity tests were performed by varying the prior ranges on RM and σ_RM; the model ranking remained unchanged and we will include a concise statement of this result. Targeted simulations matching the 36-channel, 280 MHz coverage and observed S/N were used to confirm reliable separation of the quoted components from noise; we will add a brief description of these calibration tests. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The supporting metric σ_add/δσ_add≈8.6 is presented as evidence of complexity, but without an explicit definition of how σ_add is computed from the data or its quantitative link to the evidence ratios for the multi-component model, it is unclear whether this metric independently validates the preferred description.

    Authors: σ_add is the additional Faraday dispersion parameter recovered from the posterior in the one-dimensional q-u fit (distinct from the observational noise), and δσ_add is its 1σ uncertainty; the ratio therefore quantifies the detection significance of extra complexity. We will revise the abstract and methods to provide this explicit definition and add a sentence noting that the observed value of ≈8.6 is consistent with the Bayesian evidence ratios that favor the multi-component model over single-component alternatives. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results are direct fits to observational data

full rationale

The paper performs one-dimensional q-u fitting and Bayesian model selection on SPICE-RACS DR2 spectro-polarimetric data for source RACS_0900-28_7036. The reported RM values, dispersions, and preferred 1 Slab + 2 EFD model are outputs of this data-driven procedure rather than inputs redefined or predicted from prior self-citations. No self-definitional loops, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described methods. The derivation chain is self-contained against external radio data and standard Faraday rotation formalism.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the ledger is necessarily incomplete. The central claim rests on standard radio-astronomy assumptions about Faraday rotation and depolarization models plus the validity of the Bayesian evidence comparison.

free parameters (1)
  • RM values and sigma_RM for each component
    Fitted parameters reported in the abstract (e.g., 345.5, 131.5 rad m^{-2}); these are the direct outputs of the model selection.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The Burn-slab and external Faraday dispersion models are adequate physical descriptions of the observed polarization behavior.
    Invoked when the paper states that the 1 Slab + 2 EFD model is the preferred description.
  • domain assumption Bayesian model selection on the q-u data can correctly identify the number of distinct Faraday components.
    Central to the claim that the multi-component model is preferred.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5896 in / 1442 out tokens · 19963 ms · 2026-06-27T19:49:23.808549+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

52 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    , archiveprefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Anderson, C. S., Gaensler, B. M., & Feain, I. J. 2016, ApJ, 825, 59, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/59

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/825/1/59 2016

  2. [2]

    , archiveprefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Anderson, C. S., Gaensler, B. M., Feain, I. J., & Franzen, T. M. O. 2015, ApJ, 815, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/49

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/1/49 2015

  3. [3]

    S., Gaensler, B

    Anderson, C. S., Gaensler, B. M., Heald, G. H., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 1436, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1747

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1747 2018

  4. [4]

    S., Heald, G

    Anderson, C. S., Heald, G. H., Eilek, J. A., et al. 2021, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 38, e020, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.14

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.14 2021

  5. [5]

    S., et al

    Anderson, C. S., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2458

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2458 2023

  6. [6]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume =

    Anderson, C. S., McClure-Griffiths, N. M., Rudnick, L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 4068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1954

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1954 2024

  7. [7]

    10.1051/0004-6361:20052990

    Brentjens, M. A., & de Bruyn, A. G. 2005, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 441, 1217, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052990

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

  8. [8]

    A., de Bruyn, A

    Brentjens, M. A., de Bruyn, A. G., Pizzo, R. F., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 628, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935651

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935651 2019

  9. [9]

    Burn, B. J. 1966, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 133, 67, doi: 10.1093/mnras/133.1.67

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/133.1.67 1966

  10. [10]

    , keywords =

    Carretti, E., Vacca, V., O’Sullivan, S. P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 945, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac384

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac384 2022

  11. [11]

    , keywords =

    Dickey, J. M., West, J., Thomson, A. J. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac94ce

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac94ce 2022

  12. [12]

    Eck, C. L. V., Purcell, C. R., Baidoo, L., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 283, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae3dea 13

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae3dea 2026

  13. [13]

    2011, The Astronomical Journal, 141, 191, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/6/191

    Farnsworth, D., Rudnick, L., & Brown, S. 2011, The Astronomical Journal, 141, 191, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/6/191

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/6/191 2011

  14. [14]

    Feroz, F., & Hobson, M. P. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 384, 449–463, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x 2008

  15. [15]

    Y., Hardcastle, M

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 398, 1601–1614, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x 2009

  16. [16]

    Importance Nested Sampling and the MultiNest Algorithm

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., Cameron, E., & Pettitt, A. N. 2019, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 2, doi: 10.21105/astro.1306.2144 Ferri` ere, K., West, J. L., & Jaffe, T. R. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 4968, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1641

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.21105/astro.1306.2144 2019

  17. [17]

    M., Beck, R., & Feretti, L

    Gaensler, B. M., Beck, R., & Feretti, L. 2004, New Astronomy Reviews, 48, 1003, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2004.09.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2004.09.014 2004

  18. [18]

    M., Beck, R., & Feretti, L

    Gaensler, B. M., Beck, R., & Feretti, L. 2005, New Astronomy Reviews, 49, 227, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2004.12.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2004.12.003 2005

  19. [19]

    M., Heald, G

    Gaensler, B. M., Heald, G. H., McClure-Griffiths, N. M., et al. 2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 42, e091, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.10031

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2025.10031 2025

  20. [20]

    P., Belloni, T

    Dennett-Thorpe, J. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 508, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07225.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07225.x 2004

  21. [21]

    Green, J. A. 2006, ApJ Letters, 637, L33, doi: 10.1086/500543

    work page doi:10.1086/500543 2006

  22. [22]

    J., & Gaensler, B

    Harvey-Smith, L., Madsen, G. J., & Gaensler, B. M. 2011, ApJ, 736, 83, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/83

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/2/83 2011

  23. [23]

    system description

    Hotan, A. W., Bunton, J. D., Chippendale, A. P., et al. 2021, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 38, e009, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.1

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.1 2021

  24. [24]

    Hutschenreuter, S. e. a. 2022, A&A, 663, A127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142733 Jeli´ c, V., de Bruyn, A. G., Mevius, M., et al. 2014, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 568, A101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423998

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142733 2022

  25. [25]

    E., & Raftery, A

    Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773, doi: 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572

    work page doi:10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 1995

  26. [26]

    D., Piro, A

    Laing, R. A., Bridle, A. H., Parma, P., & Murgia, M. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 521, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13895.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13895.x 2008

  27. [27]

    D., McClure-Griffiths, N

    Livingston, J. D., McClure-Griffiths, N. M., Mao, S. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 260, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3375

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3375 2022

  28. [28]

    P., Thomson, A

    Malik, S., O’Sullivan, S. P., Thomson, A. J. M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.16924

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    A., Gaensler, B

    Mao, S. A., Gaensler, B. M., Haverkorn, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 1170, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1170

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/714/2/1170 2010

  30. [30]

    L., Lenc, E., Banfield, et al.\ 2020

    McConnell, D., Hale, C. L., Lenc, E., Banfield, J. K., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 37, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2020.41

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2020.41 2020

  31. [31]

    2018, RMextract: Ionospheric Faraday Rotation calculator,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1806.024

    Mevius, M. 2018, RMextract: Ionospheric Faraday Rotation calculator,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1806.024

    2018

  32. [32]

    Oei, M. S. S. L., van Weeren, R. J., Gast, A. R. D. J. G. I. B., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 672, A163, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243572 O’Sullivan, S. P., Gaensler, B. M., Lara-L´ opez, M. A., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 83, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/83 O’Sullivan, S. P., Purcell, C. R., Anderson, C. S., et al. 2017, Mon....

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243572 2023

  33. [33]

    2021, Galaxies, 9, doi: 10.3390/galaxies9030056

    Pasetto, A. 2021, Galaxies, 9, doi: 10.3390/galaxies9030056

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies9030056 2021

  34. [34]

    2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 613, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731804

    Pasetto, A., Carrasco-Gonz´ alez, C., O’Sullivan, S., et al. 2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 613, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731804

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731804 2018

  35. [35]

    2016, Galaxies, 4, doi: 10.3390/galaxies4040066

    Pasetto, A., Carrasco-Gonz´ alez, C., Bruni, G., et al. 2016, Galaxies, 4, doi: 10.3390/galaxies4040066

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies4040066 2016

  36. [36]

    S., & Ghosh, A

    Paul, S. S., & Ghosh, A. 2026, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 9, 57500, doi: 10.33232/001c.157500

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.157500 2026

  37. [37]

    2024, Phd thesis, Chalmers University of

    Piras, S. 2024, Phd thesis, Chalmers University of

    2024

  38. [38]

    Gaensler, B. M. 2020, RM-Tools: Rotation measure (RM) synthesis and Stokes QU-fitting,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2005.003

    2020

  39. [39]

    C., Dallacasa, D., Fanti, C., Fanti, R., & Mack, K.-H

    Rossetti, L. C., Dallacasa, D., Fanti, C., Fanti, R., & Mack, K.-H. 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 487, 865, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809531

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809531 2008

  40. [40]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Wiley-Interscience, 394

    1979

  41. [41]

    W., Hardcastle, M

    Shimwell, T. W., Hardcastle, M. J., Tasse, C., et al. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 659, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142484

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142484 2022

  42. [42]

    W., Hardcastle, M

    Shimwell, T. W., Hardcastle, M. J., Tasse, C., et al. 2026, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 707, A198, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557749 14

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557749 2026

  43. [43]

    Faraday Complexity and Depolarization in LOFAR Two-metre Sky Survey (LoTSS-DR2) Polarized Radio Sources

    Sinha, R., & Ghosh, A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.19226, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.19226

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.19226 2026

  44. [44]

    and Garrington, S

    Sokoloff, D. D., Bykov, A. A., Shukurov, A., et al. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 189, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01782.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01782.x 1998

  45. [45]

    Sotomayor-Beltran, C., & de Bruyn, A. G. 2008, A&A, 489, 1013

    2008

  46. [46]

    Strom, R. G. 1973, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 303

    1973

  47. [47]

    2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 694, A169, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453326

    Sun, X., Haverkorn, M., Carretti, E., et al. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 694, A169, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453326

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453326 2025

  48. [49]

    H., Rudnick, L., Akahori, T., et al

    Sun, X. H., Rudnick, L., Akahori, T., et al. 2015b, The Astronomical Journal, 149, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/2/60

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/149/2/60

  49. [50]

    R., Stil, J

    Taylor, A. R., Stil, J. M., & Sunstrum, C. 2009, ApJ, 702, 1230, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/1230

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/702/2/1230 2009

  50. [51]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume =

    Taylor, A. R., Sekhar, S., Heino, L., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 2511, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae169

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae169 2024

  51. [52]

    Thomson, A. J. M., McConnell, D., Lenc, E., et al. 2023, PASA, 40, e040, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2023.38

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2023.38 2023

  52. [53]

    Thomson, A. J. M., Galvin, T. J., Duchesne, S. W., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.16917, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.16917 Van Eck, C. L. 2025, FRion: Time averaged correction of Faraday Rotation from the IONosphere,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2508.001 http://ascl.net/2508.001

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.16917 2026