Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Two Periodic Activity Epochs in FRB 20201124A: Coincident with Critical RM Evolution Epochs and Its Implications

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the two ~1.7-second periodic activity epochs in FRB 20201124A coincide with the Faraday rotation measure transition days of its proposed magnetar/Be-star binary, with a 0.07% chance coincidence, and that the…

desk verdict The claimed 0.07% coincidence between periodic epochs and RM transitions is invalid: quoted dates differ by 3 and 14 days, and the statistic ignores post-hoc selection and tolerance. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17880 v2 pith:CY7ANECO submitted 2025-05-23 astro-ph.HE

Wen-Long Zhang , Chen-Ran Hu , Chen Du , Wen-Jun Tan , Zhen-Yin Zhao , Shao-Lin Xiong , Shuang-Xi Yi , Fa-Yin Wang
show 7 more authors
Li-Ming Song Cheng-Kui Li Shuang-Nan Zhang Chen-Wei Wang Sheng-Lun Xie Xiao-Fei Dong Yong-Feng Huang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsFRB20201124AperiodicityFaradayrotationmeasuremagnetarBestarbinarysystempolarcapemission
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 tries to establish that two separate episodes of ~1.7-second periodic modulation in the repeating fast radio burst FRB 20201124A are not independent quirks, but are tied to the source's changing magnetic environment. It shows that the two periodic days coincide with the two Faraday rotation measure transition epochs and calculates a 0.07% chance of accidental alignment. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns a lone periodicity detection into evidence about the burst's physical setting: a magnetar orbiting a Be star and crossing its disk at those moments. The paper backs this with a joint spin fit that yields $P_0 = 1.7060155$ s and $\dot{P} = 6.1393 \times 10^{-10}$ s s$^{-1}$, and it predicts that future RM transition epochs should again show periodic activity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing comparison is between two observable epochs: the days on which FAST detected ~1.7-second periodic modulation (MJD 59310 and MJD 59347) and the transition days of the Faraday rotation measure (MJD 59307 and 59361) predicted by the magnetar/Be-star binary model. RM measures the line-of-sight integral of electron density times magnetic field, so it tracks how the magnetar's orbit moves it through the Be star's disk. The formal machinery is a combinatorial chance calculation, $p \sim 1/C_{54}^2 = 0.07\%$, plus the coherent linear spin-down model $P(t) = P_0 + \dot{P}(t-t_0)$ whose phase integral locks bursts from the two days into the same phase window. The proposed physical mechanism is that disk-magnetar interaction at the two geometric positions suppresses low-latitude multipolar fields, making the polar cap region the dominant stable emitter.

What would settle it

Observe the next RM transition epoch predicted by the ~80-day binary orbit: if FRB 20201124A shows no ~1.7-second periodicity when its bursts on that day are folded with $P_0 = 1.7060155$ s and $\dot{P} = 6.1393 \times 10^{-10}$ s s$^{-1}$, the claimed coincidence is falsified. Recomputing the chance probability under any other plausible window, such as the 26-day RM period, and finding a probability above 5% would also falsify the quoted 0.07% significance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the two periodic activity epochs on MJD 59310 and MJD 59347 temporally coincide with the RM transition states (MJD 59307 and 59361), and that the chance coincidence is 0.07%. It interprets this as the magnetar crossing the Be star's disk, where the disk plasma suppresses low-latitude multipolar magnetic fields and lets the polar cap's stable 1.7-second emission dominate. A coherent linear spin evolution model across both windows yields $P_0 = 1.7060155$ s and $\dot{P} = 6.1393 \times 10^{-10}$ s s$^{-1}$, matching the blind search and supporting the magnetar/Be-star binary picture.

Load-bearing premise

The 0.07% chance coincidence assumes that the two periodicity days and the two RM transition epochs are independent, exactly matched draws inside a fixed 54-day window, with the window and matching tolerance decided before looking at the data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future monitoring should detect the ~1.7-second periodicity again at the next RM transition state, because the same geometric alignment should repeat with the binary orbit.
  • The joint fit gives $P_0 = 1.7060155$ s and $\dot{P} = 6.1393 \times 10^{-10}$ s s$^{-1}$ as the magnetar's spin parameters during the two active windows, and these match the blind-search values.
  • The phase-locked clustering of bursts on both days supports a stable polar-cap emission region as the source of the periodic component.
  • Outside the transition epochs, emission from multiple magnetic latitudes should hide the periodicity, explaining why it is detectable only on these two days.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A sharper test would pre-register the next RM transition epoch predicted by the ~80-day binary orbit and check whether the ~1.7-second periodicity reappears exactly there, converting the observed coincidence into a prediction.
  • The paper does not derive the magnetar's characteristic age or surface dipole field from $\dot{P}$; doing so would let observers compare FRB 20201124A with the broader magnetar population.
  • Adding orbital Doppler modulation to the phase model could turn the single $\dot{P}$ measurement into a constraint on the binary's radial-velocity curve, linking the spin fit to the 80-day orbit.
  • If the reported ~26-day RM periodicity is real, those shorter cycles supply additional transition epochs at which the periodicity search could be repeated, multiplying the number of coincidence tests.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper claims that two epochs of ~1.7 s periodic activity in repeating FRB 20201124A (MJD 59310 and MJD 59347) temporally coincide with two critical RM-transition epochs (MJD 59307 and MJD 59361) identified from a magnetar/Be-star binary model, with a chance coincidence of only 0.07%. It then applies a linear spin-evolution model to bursts from the two days, obtaining P0 = 1.7060155 s and Pdot = 6.1393e-10 s/s, and interprets the phase-locked clustering as evidence for polar-cap emission during crossings of the Be-star disk.

Significance. If the 0.07% coincidence and the phase-locked clustering were statistically valid, the result would be an important piece of evidence for the magnetar/Be-star binary interpretation of FRB 20201124A and for polar-cap emission in FRBs. The paper uses public FAST data and makes a testable prediction about future periodic activity. However, the central statistical claim is not correctly computed, and the phase-clustering analysis is partly circular, so the claimed correlation is not established by the presented analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [2.1] The chance-coincidence probability p ~ 1/C(54,2) = 0.07% is not a valid significance for the claimed association. The periodicity epochs (MJD 59310 and MJD 59347) do not equal the quoted RM transition epochs (MJD 59307 and MJD 59361); the offsets are 3 and 14 days. No tolerance is specified, the 54-day window is chosen after the fact, and the RM epochs are read from a model fit rather than being pre-specified independent targets. A correct calculation must account for the actual selection procedure, the tolerance needed to match the dates, and the trial factor from scanning over window definitions. As written, the abstract's headline '0.07%' is unsupported.
  2. [2.2] The claim of phase-locked clustering in Fig. 2 is not an independent confirmation of the polar-cap interpretation. The best-fit P0 and Pdot are obtained by maximizing the periodicity signal on the same two days' burst lists, with the search grid (P0 = 1.705-1.707 s, Pdot = 5-7e-10 s/s) seeded by the C. Du et al. (2025) solution. Showing that the resulting folded phases cluster is therefore expected by construction; the reported 10.5σ significance refers to the periodicity search itself, not to an independent test of the RM correlation. The authors should demonstrate (e.g., with parameters fixed from one day and tested on the other, or with a null-hypothesis simulation that does not use the fitted parameters) that the clustering is not an artifact of the fitting procedure.
  3. [2.1, Introduction] The RM transition epochs are quoted as predictions of the F. Y. Wang et al. (2022) binary model, not as directly measured transition times with uncertainties. Without an uncertainty estimate or a demonstrated stability of these epochs to model assumptions, any coincidence test comparing periodicity days to these model-derived dates is ill-posed. The paper needs to state how 'transition epoch' is defined and quantify its uncertainty before a probabilistic statement can be made.
minor comments (6)
  1. [2.2] Typo: 'Fllowing' should be 'Following'.
  2. [Introduction] Typo: 'F AST' should be 'FAST' in the first paragraph.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] Typo: 'fited' should be 'fitted'.
  4. [Abstract / Conclusions] Typo: 'surpress' should be 'suppress'.
  5. [Section 3 / Fig. 2] The derivation of the 10.5σ significance and the trial correction factor 4x10^8 is not described; please specify how the significance is computed (e.g., from a chi-square, a Poisson probability, or a shuffle test).
  6. [Conclusions] The 'testable prediction' is too vague ('a periodic signal in future observations, potentially linked to the orbital modulation'); please give the predicted epochs, phases, or period range so that the prediction is falsifiable.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 0.07% coincidence claim is defined into existence: Section 1 quotes RM transition epochs MJD 59307/59361, the combinatoric 1/C(54,2) requires exact matches, yet the periodicity days are MJD 59310/59347 (3 and 14 days off), and the Conclusions relabel the transition epochs as MJD 59310/59347; the spin 'confirmation' is a refit inside the co-authored Du et al. (2025) grid.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.1 and Section 4 (Conclusions); cf. Section 1]
    "(Section 2.1) 'The probability that the two days with detected periodicity precisely coincide with the RM transition epochs within a 54-day window was evaluated through combinatorial analysis. The probability of chance coincidence is p ~ 1/C(2,54) = 1/(54x53/2!) = 0.07%.' (Conclusions) 'the "stable to unstable" epoch (MJD 59310) and the "unstable to stable" epoch (MJD 59347)'; cf. Section 1: 'RM transition epochs (MJD 59307 & 59361)'."

    The combinatoric p=1/C(54,2) is the probability that two randomly chosen days exactly equal two pre-fixed days. The paper's own numbers do not satisfy that: periodicity days MJD 59310 and 59347 differ from the Section 1 transition epochs MJD 59307 and 59361 by 3 and 14 days, so an unstated matching tolerance is needed and the exact-match probability does not apply to the observed configuration. The Conclusions then redefine the RM transition epochs as the periodicity days themselves (MJD 59310 and 59347), so the headline coincidence is true by relabeling rather than by measurement. The abstract's 'chance coincidence is only about 0.07%' is a number attached to a comparison defined after the match was chosen.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.2 and Section 3 (Results)]
    "(Section 2.2) 'The search range for the period P0 was set at 1.705-1.707 s with a step size of 10^-7 s, and the search range for the period derivative Pdot was set to 5-7x10^-10 s s^-1...' (Section 3) 'The optimal periodicity solution at the chosen reference time t0 (MJD 59310.34008104) yields P0 = 1.7060155 s and Pdot = 6.1393 x 10^-10 s s^-1.'"

    The search grid is a narrow box centered on the C. Du et al. (2025) solution, so the best fit landing inside the box statistically guarantees the reported 'consistent with blind search results' and 'very close to the results provided by C. Du et al. (2025)'. The phase-locked clustering shown in Fig. 2 is then produced by folding the same two days' bursts with these same fitted parameters, i.e., the clustering is the fitted quantity, not an independent prediction. The claimed joint constraint therefore confirms the prior solution by construction: the parameter box was seeded with that solution and the same burst lists are used for fitting and for demonstrating the clustering.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 1 (Introduction); Abstract]
    "(Section 1) 'Recent work by C. Du et al. (2025) has revealed a second-timescale periodicity in an active repeating FRB (C. Du et al. 2024). Specifically, two distinct periodicitie[s] in bursts from FRB 20201124A observed by FAST are identified on MJD 59310 and MJD 59347, respectively.'"

    The paper's entire empirical anchor, that two distinct periodic epochs exist at MJD 59310 and 59347, is imported from C. Du et al. (2025), an unreviewed arXiv preprint (arXiv:2503.12013) whose first author is a co-author of the present paper. The present search is not an independent test of that premise: it re-derives the periodicity inside the same preprint's parameter box, and the Abstract's 'spin parameters consistent with blind search results' cites that same work. No external, machine-checked, or independently reproduced verification is supplied, so the load-bearing input of the analysis is a self-citation chain rather than an independent detection.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) periodic-epoch detection imported from C. Du et al. (2025) (co-author), (ii) RM transition epochs read from the F. Y. Wang et al. (2022) magnetar/Be binary-model fit (co-author, but an earlier peer-reviewed, externally published result and thus legitimate evidence under the review rules), (iii) a 'chance coincidence' of 0.07% computed as 1/C(54,2), and (iv) a joint spin-down fit whose grid (P0 = 1.705-1.707 s, Pdot = 5-7x10^-10 s/s) is seeded on the same Du et al. solution. The circular parts are concrete and quotable. First, the coincidence statistic requires exact equality of two random days with two pre-fixed days, but the paper's own dates are MJD 59310 vs 59307 (3 days) and MJD 59347 vs 59361 (14 days); no tolerance is defined, and the Conclusions quietly relabel the transition epochs as MJD 59310 and MJD 59347, so the abstract's headline 'coincide... chance coincidence is only about 0.07%' holds by redefinition, not by measurement. Second, the spin 'prediction' is fitted, not predicted: the grid is built around the prior solution, and the phase-locked clustering is displayed using the fitted parameters on the very bursts used for the fit; the claimed consistency with blind search is a self-citation to a preprint with overlapping authorship. The RM binary model itself (F. Y. Wang et al. 2022) is external and predates the periodicity discovery, which keeps the paper from scoring higher, and the phase-distribution figure shows real structure. Nevertheless, the two load-bearing quantitative claims, the 0.07% significance and the 'joint constraint' agreement, each reduce by construction, so the central claim is partially circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on two fitted spin parameters, an arbitrary 54-day statistical window, a chosen number of phase bins, and several assumptions inherited from cited work or introduced ad hoc. No new physical entities such as particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced; the magnetar/Be-star binary, RM evolution, and polar cap emission regions are all adopted from prior literature.

free parameters (4)
  • P0 (initial spin period) = 1.7060155 s
    Obtained by a grid search over 1.705-1.707 s in Section 2.2, a range centered on the C. Du et al. (2025) result. The same fitted value is used to produce the phase-locking plot.
  • Pdot (spin period derivative) = 6.1393e-10 s/s
    Obtained by a grid search over 5-7e-10 s/s in Section 2.2. No uncertainty is quoted, and the value is used to phase-fold the same bursts used in the fit.
  • 54-day window = 54 days
    The window length used in the chance-coincidence combinatorics in Section 2.1. Its length and position are not justified, and the computed probability changes if the window is different.
  • Phase bin number = 20 bins
    The number of phase bins used in phase folding in Section 2.2. This is chosen by hand and affects the significance of the folded distribution.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The two periodic epochs reported by C. Du et al. (2025) are genuine and phase-coherent.
    The analysis starts from these two detection days (Abstract and Section 1) and does not independently re-derive the periodicity.
  • domain assumption The RM transition epochs at MJD 59307 and 59361 from F. Y. Wang et al. (2022) are real and correctly identified.
    These epochs are the reference points for the coincidence test and for the binary disk-crossing interpretation (Section 1 and Fig. 1).
  • ad hoc to paper A pure linear spin-down P(t) = P0 + Pdot*(t - t0) describes the burst phase in both windows.
    Equation (1) is the phase model, but the paper states in Section 3 that the binary orbital modulation term was not incorporated. The model is therefore assumed to be sufficient for the phase-locking claim.
  • ad hoc to paper Only the polar cap region can remain stable long enough to produce the observed periodic emission.
    This assumption is introduced in the Abstract and Section 3 to connect periodicity to polar-cap emission and to the disk-suppression interpretation.
  • domain assumption The burst arrival times from H. Xu et al. (2022) are complete and unbiased for the phase analysis.
    No event list, selection function, or completeness estimate is provided; the phase search simply uses these arrival times in Section 2.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two Periodic Activity Epochs in FRB 20201124A: Coincident with Critical RM Evolution Epochs and Its Implications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CY7ANECO

@misc{pith2026250517880,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two Periodic Activity Epochs in FRB 20201124A: Coincident with Critical RM Evolution Epochs and Its Implications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CY7ANECO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17880}
}
abstract

Recent observations of the repeating fast radio burst FRB 20201124A by the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope (FAST) revealed a second-scale periodic modulation ($\sim$1.7\,s) in burst activity during two distinct observational windows. We find that these two periodic activity epochs temporally coincide with the transitional states of the source's Faraday rotation measure (RM), and the chance coincidence is only about 0.07$\%$. This correlation is can be understood within the magnetar/Be-star binary system framework. Considering that only the polar cap region can remain stable for such an extended period, we apply a coherent linear periodic evolution model to jointly constrain the initial burst period \( P_0 \) and the period derivative \( \dot{P} \) across both observation windows (MJD 59310 and MJD 59347). We obtain spin parameters consistent with blind search results: an initial spin period $P_0 = 1.7060155$\,s at the reference time and spin period derivative $\dot{P} = 6.1393 \times 10^{-10}$\,s\,s$^{-1}$. We conclude that during these two observational windows, the magnetar was just crossing the disk of the Be star. The disk-magnetar interaction at these two geometric positions may surpress the multi-polar magnetic fields at low latitudes of the magnetar, which enhances the dominance of the polar cap region emissions and makes the periodic activity detectable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.17880 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The RM evolution of FRB 20201124A, fited with the magnetar/Be star binary model (red line) by F. Y. Wang et al. (2022). Recent work by C. Du et al. (2025) has revealed a second-timescale periodicity in an active repeating FRB (C. Du et al. 2024). Specifically, two distinct periodici￾ties in bursts from FRB 20201124A observed by FAST are identified on MJD 59310 and MJD 59347, respec￾tively. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IM… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. A schematic diagram depicting the magnetar/Be star binary system without considering factors such as orbital inclination and observation angle. The two orbital positions of the magnetar around disk demonstrate its relative geo￾metric alignment corresponding to two specific epochs. The observed multi-timescale behavior in Aquila X-1 (R. J. Schoelkopf & R. L. Kelley 1991; S. Campana et al. 1998) provides a compelling … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Collimation of Fast Radio Burster 20201124A; Repeaters vs. Apparent Non-Repeaters

    astro-ph.HE 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The spindown of FRB 20201124A implies a beaming solid angle below 10^-6 of the sky and a Lorentz factor above 3000 for the emitting charges, if the reported period and its derivative are real.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    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

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

  2. [2]

    1998, ApJL, 499, L65, doi: 10.1086/311357 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B

    Campana, S., Stella, L., Mereghetti, S., et al. 1998, ApJL, 499, L65, doi: 10.1086/311357 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K., et al. 2019, ApJL, 885, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4a80 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y

    doi:10.1086/311357 1998

  3. [3]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8cd5

    Du, C., Huang, Y.-F., Zhang, Z.-B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8cd5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8cd5 2024

  4. [4]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.12013, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.12013

    Du, C., Huang, Y.-F., Geng, J.-J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.12013, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.12013

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.12013 2025

  5. [5]

    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

    doi:10.1126/science.abl7759 2022

  6. [6]

    Hashimoto, T., Goto, T., On, A. Y. L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3927, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2490

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2490 2020

  7. [7]

    H., et al

    Hashimoto, T., Goto, T., Chen, B. H., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 1961, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac065

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac065 2022

  8. [8]

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

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

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

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    2023, ApJS, 269, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf566

    Hu, C.-R., & Huang, Y.-F. 2023, ApJS, 269, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf566

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    S., Herrmann, W., et al

    Kirsten, F., Ould-Boukattine, O. S., Herrmann, W., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 337, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02153-z

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    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

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.10463, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.10463

    Liang, Y.-F., Li, Y., Tang, Z.-F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.10463, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.10463

    2025 doi

  5. [13]

    R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

    Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M. A., Narkevic, D. J., & Crawford, F. 2007, Science, 318, 777, doi: 10.1126/science.1147532

    2007 doi

  6. [14]

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

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

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Reig, P., Chaty, S., & Torrej´ on, J

    Negueruela, I., Smith, D. M., Reig, P., Chaty, S., & Torrej´ on, J. M. 2006, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 604, The X-ray Universe 2005, ed. A. Wilson, 165, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0511088

    2006 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 372, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01265-0

    Ridnaia, A., Svinkin, D., Frederiks, D., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 372, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01265-0

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    J., & Kelley, R

    Schoelkopf, R. J., & Kelley, R. L. 1991, ApJ, 375, 696, doi: 10.1086/170234

    1991 doi

  10. [18]

    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

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    2024, ApJS, 275, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad7c3f

    Wang, P., Li, J., Ji, L., et al. 2024, ApJS, 275, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad7c3f

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18761, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.18761

    Xiao, D. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18761, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.18761

    2025 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    2021, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 64, 249501, doi: 10.1007/s11433-020-1661-7

    Xiao, D., Wang, F., & Dai, Z. 2021, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 64, 249501, doi: 10.1007/s11433-020-1661-7

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4093

    Xie, S.-L., Yu, Y.-W., Xiong, S.-L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4093

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    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

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    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

    2025 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.18651, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.18651

    Yao, G.-Y., & Deng, C.-M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.18651, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.18651

    2025 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    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

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    N., Yu, W., & Zhang, W

    Zhang, S. N., Yu, W., & Zhang, W. 1998, ApJL, 494, L71, doi: 10.1086/311161

    1998 doi

  20. [28]

    L., et al

    Zhang, W., Jahoda, K., Kelley, R. L., et al. 1998, ApJL, 495, L9, doi: 10.1086/311210

    1998 doi

  21. [29]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 115013, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acf979

    Zhang, W.-L., Li, X.-J., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 115013, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acf979

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 065012, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac6aac

    Zhang, W.-L., Yi, S.-X., Yang, Y.-P., & Qin, Y. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 065012, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac6aac

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    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

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    2023, Science Advances, 9, eadf6198, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adf6198

    Zhu, W., Xu, H., Zhou, D., et al. 2023, Science Advances, 9, eadf6198, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adf6198

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.