Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 minor 3 cited by

Faint Repetitions from a Bright Fast Radio Burst Source

T0 review · 0 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The bright fast radio burst FRB 171019 repeats, with bursts 590 times fainter than the original flash.

desk verdict Solid first repeats from a bright ASKAP FRB; the central claim survives, and the CHIME confirmation in the footnote takes the edge off the source-association worry. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10026 v2 pith:CDHHEKWS submitted 2019-08-27 astro-ph.HE

Pravir Kumar , R. M. Shannon , Stefan Os{l}owski , Hao Qiu , Shivani Bhandari , Wael Farah , Chris Flynn , Matthew Kerr
show 6 more authors
D.R. Lorimer J.-P. Macquart Cherry Ng C. J. Phillips Danny C. Price Renée Spiewak
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsFRB171019repeatingGreenBankTelescopeASKAPdispersionmeasureburstfluencedistributiontransients
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports that FRB 171019, one of the brightest fast radio bursts found in the ASKAP fly's-eye survey, is a repeating source. Two additional bursts from the same sky position were detected with the Green Bank Telescope at 820 MHz, with fluences (time-integrated radio energy per unit area) about 590 times smaller than the original burst. The bursts are similar in width to the first one and show no scattering, but they are visible only in the lower half of the observed band, suggesting either very steep spectra or patchy, band-limited emission. These two detections were the only ones found in roughly 1000 hours of follow-up with ASKAP, Parkes, and the Green Bank Telescope, and the inferred relationship between burst rate and fluence agrees with the known repeater FRB 121102. If correct, the result means that at least some FRBs drawn from bright, apparently one-off samples will show repetitions when followed with more sensitive, lower-frequency telescopes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of 820 MHz bursts detected by the Green Bank Telescope, because they are what turns FRB 171019 from a one-off event into a repeating source. The quantitative machinery is a Bayesian Poisson likelihood built on a cumulative burst rate $R(>S,\nu)=R_0\,(S/S_0(\nu))^{\gamma}$ with $S_0(\nu)=S_0(\nu/\nu_0)^{\beta}$; each survey contributes an expected count $\lambda_i = T_i R(>S_i,\nu_i)$ set by its exposure time and fluence sensitivity. Comparing the two GBT detections with the non-detections at ASKAP, Parkes, and GBT L-band yields posteriors on the fluence slope $\gamma$ and the spectral dependence $\beta$, and the consistency of $\gamma$ with the value measured for FRB 121102 is what links this source to the broader repeating population.

What would settle it

If future interferometric localization of a burst from this sky position places it outside the 10-arcminute ASKAP error box, or shows a clearly different dispersion measure, then the GBT bursts are a different source and the repetition claim is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the source of FRB 171019 is a repeating fast radio burst. Two bursts appeared in Green Bank Telescope observations at 820 MHz on 2018 July 20 and 2019 June 9, with fluences of $0.60\pm0.04$ and $0.37\pm0.05$ Jy ms, about 590 times fainter than the $219\pm5$ Jy ms ASKAP burst. All three bursts are free of measurable scattering, have consistent widths, and are detected only in the lower half of their respective bands; their spectra fit steep power laws (spectral indices between roughly $-13$ and $-8$) or, alternatively, patchy band-limited emission. The repeats have apparent dispersion measures a few pc cm$^{-3}$ below the original burst, which the authors attribute either to genuine DM variation, to non-dispersive timing effects, or to different plasma volumes being probed. From the two detections and the surrounding non-detections, the inferred slope of the cumulative burst rate versus fluence is $-1.5\lesssim\gamma\lesssim0$, matching FRB 121102. The authors conclude that at least some FRBs selected from bright samples will repeat when followed up with more sensitive telescopes, and they caution against over-interpreting the steep-spectrum explanation because few physical mechanisms produce such steep spectra.

Load-bearing premise

The two GBT bursts come from the same source as the original ASKAP burst; if the slightly different measured dispersion and the broad telescope beam hide a different, unrelated source, the repetition claim falls apart.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At least some FRBs discovered as bright, apparently one-off events belong to the repeating population; sensitivity and observing frequency, not source type, determined whether repetition was seen.
  • The fluences of bursts from a single source span a factor of about 590, and inferred luminosities span nearly three orders of magnitude, so emission models must allow a wide range of burst energies from the same engine.
  • The agreement of the burst-rate-versus-fluence slope with FRB 121102 supports a common, possibly power-law, energy distribution for repeating FRBs.
  • If the bursts' steep or patchy spectra are typical, repeating sources will be increasingly detectable toward lower radio frequencies; high-frequency searches may systematically miss repetitions.
  • The paper notes that CHIME has since detected another repeat from this source, providing independent corroboration of its repeating nature.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: this detection shifts the prior on the ASKAP sample, suggesting that the lack of repeats in ASKAP's self-follow-up reflects its fluence threshold rather than a genuinely non-repeating population.
  • Beyond the paper: the apparent dispersion-measure offset between the GBT bursts and the ASKAP burst, if real, could be a probe of time-variable plasma along the line of sight; simultaneous multi-frequency observations of future bursts would test whether the offset is frequency-dependent.
  • Beyond the paper: if the steep-spectrum or patchy interpretation holds, the next repeat from this source should be detected more readily with low-frequency instruments below 800 MHz, and its absence at higher frequencies would be expected rather than surprising.
  • Beyond the paper: the absence of scattering in all three bursts suggests a relatively clean sightline, which may allow the source's environment to be studied through dispersion and rotation measures without scattering contamination.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper reports two repeat bursts from the source of the fast radio burst FRB 171019, which was originally detected by ASKAP at 1.3 GHz with a fluence of 219 Jy ms. The two new bursts were detected with the Green Bank Telescope at 820 MHz with fluences of 0.60 and 0.37 Jy ms, roughly 590 times fainter than the original burst, and with dispersion measures of 456.1 ± 0.4 and 457 ± 1 pc cm^-3, close to but not identical with the ASKAP value of 461 ± 1 pc cm^-3. The bursts were found in a follow-up campaign totaling about 1000 hours that also included ASKAP and Parkes observations from 720 to 2000 MHz. The paper reports that all three bursts show no evidence of scattering, that their widths are broadly similar, that their spectra show strong frequency modulation consistent with either steep spectra or patchy emission, and that a Bayesian fit of the repetition rate as a power-law in fluence and frequency gives a fluence slope consistent with the range seen for FRB 121102. A footnote also notes an independent CHIME detection of a repeat burst from this source.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is an important result: it demonstrates that at least some FRBs selected from a bright, ostensibly one-off sample repeat at much lower fluence when observed with a more sensitive telescope, and it extends the observed fluence range of a single repeating source by a factor of nearly 600. The paper is careful in several respects: the search pipeline is described in enough detail to be reproduced, the two GBT candidates have signal-to-noise ratios of 15.2 and 7.9 and were vetted by neural-network classification and visual inspection, the scattering analysis is done with Bayesian model comparison, and the DM mismatch between ASKAP and GBT is openly disclosed rather than hidden. The independent CHIME detection cited in footnote 10 substantially mitigates the main source-association risk that would otherwise attach to the 15-arcminute GBT beam and the statistically significant DM offset. The main remaining weakness is statistical: the repetition-rate inference is broad and degenerate, and the wording of the abstract is stronger than the posterior constraints justify.

minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract; Section 3.4; Figure 4] The statement that the inferred scaling of repetition rate with fluence 'agrees with FRB 121102' is stronger than the data support. The text in Section 3.4 notes that the frequency-dependence index β is inferred to be 'β ≪ −1.5, with the lower prior acceptable,' meaning the posterior for β accumulates at the prior boundary, and Figure 4 shows a strong degeneracy between β and the fluence slope γ. The marginalized range −1.5 ≲ γ ≲ 0 is therefore prior-dominated. Please report the joint γ–β posterior, or present γ conditional on an independently constrained β (for example, using the measured spectral indices in Table 2), and change 'agrees' to 'is consistent with' in the abstract.
  2. [Table 2 and note d] There is an internal inconsistency between Table 2 and note d: the table lists a lower-half-band spectral index for GBT-1 of −0.9 ± 1.8, while note d states that the fit in the frequency range (820, 750 MHz) gives −6.0 ± 2.8. Please clarify which frequency range each number refers to and ensure the table and note agree.
  3. [Abstract; Section 3; Table 2] The phrase 'consistent pulse widths' should be qualified. As tabulated, the measured Gaussian FWHMs are 5.4 ± 0.3 ms for the ASKAP burst and 4.0 ± 0.3 ms for GBT-1, which differ by about 3σ before accounting for DM smearing and time resolution. The authors should state whether the consistency claim refers to intrinsic widths after deconvolution of DM smearing and sampling time, and ideally report those intrinsic widths.
  4. [Section 3.3] The sentence 'with 95% confidence is less than <−0.2' contains a doubled inequality; it should read 'less than −0.2' or '< −0.2'.
  5. [Figure 1 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'The first repeat burst is found in be observation dated 2018 July 20' should read 'in the observation dated 2018 July 20.'
  6. [Section 3.4] The phrase 'with the lower prior acceptable' is unclear. If the posterior distribution for β reaches the lower boundary of the uniform prior at −10, that should be stated explicitly, because it is important for interpreting the implications of the fit.
  7. [Discussion, footnote 10] The independent CHIME detection of a repeat burst from this source is important supporting evidence for the central claim. It should be mentioned in the main text in Section 3 or 4 rather than only in a footnote, and the authors should state explicitly whether the CHIME burst is included in the repetition-rate analysis or only cited as external confirmation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: detections and rate fit are data-driven, with external CHIME confirmation.

full rationale

The paper makes an empirical detection claim and a statistical inference, not a derivation from first principles. The two GBT bursts are identified as repetitions by positional coincidence and DM proximity, which is an association rather than a prediction derived from fitted inputs. The rate model in Eqs. (1)-(3) is explicitly a Bayesian fit to the observed burst counts and non-detections, so the posteriors for R0, gamma, and beta are constrained by the data by construction; the paper does not present these posteriors as predictions derived from anything else. The spectral index alpha is measured separately and the paper deliberately excludes it from the rate fit ("We do not take into account the spectral index obtained for bursts in this repetition analysis, which allows for an independent estimation of the spectral index"), so the consistency check between the inferred beta and the observed spectra is not circular. The comparison with FRB 121102 uses external published results, and the repetition claim itself is independently supported by the CHIME detection cited in footnote 10. No load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation or to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central detection claim relies on standard radio transient search assumptions: the bursts are real astrophysical signals at the stated DMs, and the positional association is correct. The repetition-rate model adds three fitted parameters and assumes Poisson statistics and a power-law rate law. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • R0 = posterior, 10^-6 to 1 hr^-1 prior
    Normalization of the cumulative burst rate in Eq. (1), inferred from the Poisson likelihood across surveys.
  • gamma = -1.5 to 0 (posterior)
    Fluence power-law index in Eq. (1); compared with FRB 121102.
  • beta = steep negative, lower prior acceptable
    Frequency scaling index in Eq. (2); inferred from detections at 820 MHz and non-detections at higher frequencies.
  • Per-burst spectral index alpha = -7.8 ± 1.2, -13.2 ± 2.8, -12.6 ± 1.4 (full band)
    Forced power-law fits to each burst spectrum (Table 2); used to support the steep-spectrum interpretation, not the repetition-rate model.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Burst occurrence follows a Poisson process with rate lambda_i = T_i R(>S_i, nu_i).
    Used to build the likelihood in Eq. (3); standard for rare event counting.
  • domain assumption The cumulative burst rate above fluence S is a power law R(>S, nu) = R0 (S/S0(nu))^gamma.
    Eq. (1); a common phenomenological model for FRB repetition, as in Law et al. 2017.
  • domain assumption The reference fluence S0 scales with frequency as a power law S0(nu) = S0 (nu/nu0)^beta.
    Eq. (2); encodes spectral dependence of the rate model.
  • domain assumption The telescope sensitivity limits in Table 1 are correct.
    The likelihood depends on the quoted fluence thresholds; errors here shift the fitted parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Faint Repetitions from a Bright Fast Radio Burst Source." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CDHHEKWS

@misc{pith2026190810026,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Faint Repetitions from a Bright Fast Radio Burst Source},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CDHHEKWS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10026}
}
abstract

We report the detection of repeat bursts from the source of FRB 171019, one of the brightest fast radio bursts (FRBs) detected in the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP) fly's eye survey. Two bursts from the source were detected with the Green Bank Telescope in observations centered at 820 MHz. The repetitions are a factor of $\sim 590$ fainter than the ASKAP-discovered burst. All three bursts from this source show no evidence of scattering and have consistent pulse widths. The pulse spectra show modulation that could be evidence for either steep spectra or patchy emission. The two repetitions were the only ones found in an observing campaign for this FRB totaling 1000 hr, which also included ASKAP and the 64-m Parkes radio telescope, over a range of frequencies (720$-$2000 MHz) at epochs spanning two years. The inferred scaling of repetition rate with fluence of this source agrees with the other repeating source, FRB 121102. The detection of faint pulses from FRB 171019 shows that at least some FRBs selected from bright samples will repeat if follow-up observations are conducted with more sensitive telescopes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10026 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Timeline of follow-up observations of FRB 171019. Each row represents a set of observations from a given radio telescope. Observations with bursts are encircled with red. The first repeat burst is found in be observation dated 2018 July 20 and the second one on 2019 June 9. repeat pulses. In Section 4, we discuss the implications for the FRB population as a whole. 2. Observations and Data Processing We searched for … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dynamic spectra for both repeat bursts detected at GBT and ASKAP FRB 171019 dedispersed at their optimal DM. From the left: repeat burst 1 (resolution = 1.31 ms), repeat burst 2 (resolution = 2.62 ms), and ASKAP FRB 171019 (resolution = 1.26 ms). For each burst, the top panel shows the flux density averaged over frequency channels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Burst spectra and autocorrelation functions. From left: GBT-1 (∆ν = 0.39 MHz), GBT-2 (∆ν = 0.39 MHz), ASKAP detection (∆ν = 1 MHz). Upper panels: burst spectra. Red lines are smoothed spectra (using a Gaussian kernel with standard deviation of 4 MHz). Blue dashed lines are best-fit power law model. Gray lines are off-pulse baseline spectra, and are offset from zero for clarity. Horizontal lines show zero power for b… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Posterior distributions for burst rate parameters. Pan￾els A, C, and F show the one-dimensional marginalized distribu￾tions for R0, γ, and β, with peak probability densities normalized to unity. Panels B, D, and E show the two-dimensional distributions (normalized agai…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. CHIME/FRB Detection of Eight New Repeating Fast Radio Burst Sources

    astro-ph.HE 2019-08 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    CHIME/FRB discovered eight new repeating fast radio burst sources and found, at about 4 sigma, that repeater bursts are intrinsically wider than bursts that have not repeated.

  2. The Galactic Halo Contribution to the Dispersion Measure of Extragalactic Fast Radio Bursts

    astro-ph.HE 2019-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A two-component model of the Milky Way hot halo, fit to X-ray emission measures, predicts a Galactic halo dispersion measure of 30 to 245 pc cm^-3, with a sky average of 43 pc cm^-3.

  3. Periodic Fast Radio Bursts from Young Neutron Stars

    astro-ph.HE 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Repeating FRBs may be supergiant pulses from young, quickly spinning neutron stars; such sources would show periodic bursts that lengthen and fade over time.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2016, arXiv, arXiv:1603.04467

    Abadi, M., Agarwal, A., Barham, P., et al. 2016, arXiv, arXiv:1603.04467

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    FETCH: A deep-learning based classifier for fast transient classification

    Agarwal, D., Aggarwal, K., Burke-Spolaor, S., et al. 2019, arXiv, arXiv:1902.06343

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    D., et al

    Ashton, G., Hübner, M., Lasky, P. D., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 27

    2019

  4. [4]

    W., Shannon, R

    Bannister, K. W., Shannon, R. M., Macquart, J. P., et al. 2017, ApJL, 841, L12

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    2019b, FREDDA: A Fast, Real-time Engine for De-dispersing Amplitudes, ASCL, 1906.003

    Bannister, K., Zackay, B., Qiu, H., et al. 2019b, FREDDA: A Fast, Real-time Engine for De-dispersing Amplitudes, ASCL, 1906.003

    work page 1906

  6. [6]

    R., Bailes, M., Barnes, D

    Barsdell, B. R., Bailes, M., Barnes, D. G., & Fluke, C. J. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 379

    2012

  7. [7]

    F., Barr, E

    Bhandari, S., Keane, E. F., Barr, E. D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1427

    2018

  8. [8]

    G., & Stappers, B

    Caleb, M., Spitler, L. G., & Stappers, B. W. 2018, NatAs, 2, 839

    work page 2018

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    J., Wharton, R

    Chatterjee, S., Law, C. J., Wharton, R. S., et al. 2017, Nature, 541, 58 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Bandura, K., et al. 2019a, Nature, 566, 230 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Bandura, K., et al. 2019b, Nature, 566, 235 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Ba...

    2017

  2. [10]

    2015, Keras, https://keras.io

    Chollet, F., et al. 2015, Keras, https://keras.io

    2015

  3. [11]

    2018, ApJL, 861, L1

    Connor, L., & Petroff, E. 2018, ApJL, 861, L1

    2018

  4. [12]

    M., & Chatterjee, S

    Cordes, J. M., & Chatterjee, S. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 417

    2019

  5. [13]

    M., & Lazio, T

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv, arXiv:0207156

    2002

  6. [14]

    2008, Proc

    DuPlain, R., Benson, J., & Sessoms, E. 2008, Proc. SPIE, 7019, 70191A

    2008

  7. [15]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 1209

    Farah, W., Flynn, C., Bailes, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1209

    2018

  8. [16]

    P., & Bridges, M

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1601

    2009

  9. [17]

    Gajjar, V ., Siemion, A. P. V ., Price, D. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 2

    2018

  10. [18]

    G., et al

    Gourdji, K., Michilli, D., Spitler, L. G., et al. 2019, ApJL, 877, L19

    2019

  11. [19]

    Hessels, J. W. T., Spitler, L. G., Seymour, A. D., et al. 2019, ApJL, 876, L23

    2019

  12. [20]

    W., van Straten, W., & Manchester, R

    Hotan, A. W., van Straten, W., & Manchester, R. N. 2004, PASA, 21, 302

    2004

  13. [21]

    James, C. W. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5934

    2019

  14. [22]

    W., Bannister, K

    James, C. W., Bannister, K. W., Macquart, J. P., et al. 2019, PASA, 36, e009

    2019

  15. [23]

    2019, ApJL, 882, L18

    Josephy, A., Chawla, P., Fonseca, E., et al. 2019, ApJL, 882, L18

    2019

  16. [24]

    F., Barr, E

    Keane, E. F., Barr, E. D., Jameson, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 116

    2018

  17. [25]

    J., Jameson, A., van Straten, W., et al

    Keith, M. J., Jameson, A., van Straten, W., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 619

    2010

  18. [26]

    J., Abruzzo, M

    Law, C. J., Abruzzo, M. W., Bassa, C. G., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 76

    2017

  19. [27]

    R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

    Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M. A., et al. 2007, Science, 318, 777

    2007

  20. [28]

    P., Shannon, R

    Macquart, J. P., Shannon, R. M., Bannister, K. W., et al. 2019, ApJL, 872, L19

    2019

  21. [29]

    Macquart, J.-P., Bailes, M., Bhat, N. D. R., et al. 2010, PASA, 27, 272

    2010

  22. [30]

    Michilli, D., Seymour, A., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 182

    2018

  23. [31]

    B., et al

    Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D. B., et al. 2016, Lmfit: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for

    2016

  24. [32]

    M., Ravi, V ., et al

    Python, ASCL, 1606.014 Osłowski, S., Shannon, R. M., Ravi, V ., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 868

    2019

  25. [33]

    2019, ATel, 13013, 1

    Patel, C., & CHIME/FRB Collaboration. 2019, ATel, 13013, 1

    2019

  26. [34]

    D., Jameson, A., et al

    Petroff, E., Barr, E. D., Jameson, A., et al. 2016, PASA, 33, e045

    2016

  27. [35]

    C., Staveley-Smith, L., Bailes, M., et al

    Price, D. C., Staveley-Smith, L., Bailes, M., et al. 2016, JAI, 5, 1641007

    2016

  28. [36]

    Ransom, S. M. 2001, PhD thesis, Harvard University

    2001

  29. [37]

    M., & Jameson, A

    Ravi, V ., Shannon, R. M., & Jameson, A. 2015, ApJL, 799, L5

    2015

  30. [38]

    M., Bailes, M., et al

    Ravi, V ., Shannon, R. M., Bailes, M., et al. 2016, Science, 354, 1249

    2016

  31. [39]

    2019, Nature, 572, 352

    Ravi, V ., Catha, M., D’Addario, L., et al. 2019, Nature, 572, 352

    2019

  32. [40]

    M., Macquart, J

    Shannon, R. M., Macquart, J. P., Bannister, K. W., et al. 2018, Nature, 562, 386

    2018

  33. [41]

    Sokolowski, M., Bhat, N. D. R., Macquart, J. P., et al. 2018, ApJL, 867, L12

    2018

  34. [42]

    Speagle, J. S. 2019, arXiv, arXiv:1904.02180

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    G., Scholz, P., Hessels, J

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

    2016

  36. [44]

    E., Bird, T

    Staveley-Smith, L., Wilson, W. E., Bird, T. S., et al. 1996, PASA, 13, 243

    1996

  37. [45]

    P., Bassa, C

    Tendulkar, S. P., Bassa, C. G., Cordes, J. M., et al. 2017, ApJL, 834, L7

    2017

  38. [46]

    2013, Science, 341, 53 van Straten, W., & Bailes, M

    Thornton, D., Stappers, B., Bailes, M., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 53 van Straten, W., & Bailes, M. 2011, PASA, 28, 1 van Straten, W., Demorest, P., & Oslowski, S. 2012, AR&T, 9, 237

    2013

  39. [47]

    Zackay, B., & Ofek, E. O. 2017, ApJ, 835, 11

    2017

  40. [48]

    G., Gajjar, V ., Foster, G., et al

    Zhang, Y . G., Gajjar, V ., Foster, G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 149

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.