pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.01369 · v1 · pith:E3W456AHnew · submitted 2026-07-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Constraining the near-source relativistic wind medium using Fast Radio Burst circular polarization data

Om Gupta , Pawan Kumar , Paz Beniamini This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-03 19:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords Fast Radio Burstscircular polarizationFaraday conversionmagnetar windStokes parametersrelativistic windpolarization propagationFRB environment
0
0 comments X

The pith

Faraday conversion in magnetar winds accounts for the circular polarization observed in Fast Radio Bursts.

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

The paper investigates whether the circular polarization seen in some FRBs is generated by Faraday conversion as the waves propagate through the relativistic wind near a magnetar. Calculations that include the effective mass increase of electron-positron pairs in the intense FRB wave show that this process reproduces both the detected levels of Stokes V and the frequent non-detections. Upper limits on circular polarization then translate into bounds on wind luminosity, magnetization, bulk Lorentz factor, and effective particle mass when ions are present. Frequency-resolved polarization spectra, when available, directly constrain the wind parameters for individual sources.

Core claim

Faraday conversion in the magnetar wind, after incorporating the increase in effective mass of e± caused by the FRB wave itself, reproduces the observed range of circular polarization fractions. This includes explaining why many bursts show no detectable V. The same mechanism turns observational upper limits on V into quantitative constraints on wind luminosity, magnetization, Lorentz factor, and ion-related effective mass. Frequency-resolved Stokes spectra yield direct estimates of the wind environment, while rapid frequency oscillations of the Stokes parameters in the high-wind regime produce depolarization. Separate zones are required for significant circular polarization and rotation mea

What carries the argument

Faraday conversion in the near-source relativistic magnetar wind, including the wave-induced effective-mass increase of electron-positron pairs.

If this is right

  • Upper limits on Stokes V constrain wind luminosity, magnetization, bulk Lorentz factor, and effective particle mass when ions are present.
  • Frequency-resolved Stokes spectra provide direct estimates of the wind environment for specific sources.
  • Stokes parameters undergo rapid oscillations with frequency in the high-wind or low-FRB-luminosity regime, producing depolarization.
  • Bursts with luminosities significantly below typical FRB values can still develop measurable circular polarization.
  • Significant circular polarization and rotation measure must arise in separate zones.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Polarization measurements from additional FRB sources could map source-to-source differences in wind parameters.
  • Multi-frequency campaigns could search for the predicted rapid oscillations in Stokes parameters as a direct test.
  • The separate-zone requirement implies that rotation-measure and circular-polarization signals sample distinct radial regions of the wind.
  • Lower-luminosity bursts should exhibit higher circular-polarization fractions on average.

Load-bearing premise

The observed circular polarization is produced by propagation through the near-source wind rather than being generated intrinsically at the emission site.

What would settle it

A burst whose circular polarization fraction shows frequency dependence that cannot be fit by Faraday conversion through a wind with the predicted effective-mass correction, or direct evidence that the polarization is generated at the source with no propagation contribution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.01369 by Om Gupta, Pawan Kumar, Paz Beniamini.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The circular polarization 𝑉 as a function of distance and the EM strength parameter 𝛼 (shown on the top, and also as the color gradient) for an FRB with 𝐿frb = 1041erg s−1 . Propa￾gation within the magnetosphere is not considered in this work. The background magnetic field 𝐵® 0 is taken to be perpendicu￾lar to ®𝑘0 outside the light cylinder. The effect of the nonlinear FRB wave amplitude is incorporated by… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (left) The frequency dependence of 𝑉/𝑈0 (in color) from our analytical model as a function of the wind parameter 𝜉 ≡ 𝐿 2 𝑤,37𝜎𝑤/(1 + 𝜎𝑤) 2𝛾 2 . The frequency-dependent oscillation of 𝑉 intensifies with increasing 𝜉, and the inset shows rapid os￾cillations from a small patch at high 𝜉. 𝐿frb = 1040 erg/s, and the FRB is initially 100% linearly polarized, with 𝑈0 = 1.0, 𝑄0 = 𝑉0 = 0 at the base of the wind 𝑅0.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (left) The evolution of the degree of linear polarization, Π𝐿, and the degree of circular polarization, Π𝑉 , as a function of 𝐾 = 𝜉−1𝜈res,6 / 𝐿 3/2 frb,41𝜈9, for the analytical case with 𝑄0 = 0.2 and 𝑉0 = 0. Because of the magnetic field orientation we have chosen, Faraday conversion between Stokes 𝑈 and 𝑉 occurs. For 𝐾 < 1, the oscillations qualitatively follow a horizontal trajectory in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The averaged (left) circular ⟨𝑉⟩, and (right) linear polarization ⟨𝐿⟩ (in color) over the frequency range of 1.3 − 1.6 GHz, as a function of the ion loading 𝜓𝑝 and the wind parameter 𝜉. The negligible change in 𝜉 when moving downwards in the plot where 𝜓𝑝 < 10−3 , indicates that ⟨𝑉⟩ asymptotically approaches the electron-positron pair plasma value. The diagonal trend at higher 𝜓𝑝 emphasizes the interplay b… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (left) Model fit of the frequency dependence of the observed Faraday uncorrected polarization angle, 𝜓 = 0.5 tan−1 (𝑈/𝑄) (in black), and ellipticity angle, 𝜒 = 0.5 tan−1 (𝑉/ √︁ 𝑄2 + 𝑈2 ) (in blue), of the discovery burst of FRB 20180301A (D. C. Price et al. 2019). We choose 𝐿𝑤,37 = 100 and restrict the initial CP by setting 𝜒0 = 0. The best-fit RM is found to be −3235 rad/m2 . The shaded 68% confidence reg… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: log10 of 𝜎 𝑢𝑙 𝑤 — the upper limit of 𝜎𝑤 — required to generate detectable circular polarization (|𝑉/𝑈0 | ≳ 0.01), as a function of 𝐿frb and 𝐿𝑤. The white region represents the parame￾ter space that is not allowed, if we assume the wind to be magnet￾ically dominated. We can also use the frequency resolution, 𝜈res, of our detector to additionally rule out the parameter space where Π𝑉 < 0.01 due to depolariza… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (left) A schematic of the Poincare sphere with the 𝑄 axis pointing into the page. The polarization vector 𝑃® is depicted as being confined to evolve around Ω® . The angle between Ω® and the 𝑄 − 𝑈 plane is shown to be tan−1 𝛿. Note that for 𝛿 ≪ 1, tan−1 𝛿 ≈ 𝛿. (right) The evolution of 𝛿 as a function of radius, comparing its numerical and asymptotic analytical regimes. Typically, Ω® moves downward in latitu… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (left) The evolution of the best fit wind parameter 𝜉 for selected bursts from FRB 20201124A (J. C. Jiang et al. 2024), shown for 𝐿𝑤,37 = 8 (solid black line) and for 𝐿𝑤,37 = 800 (dashed black line). Values of 𝜉 which also provide a good fit, within 1𝜎 of the minimum chi-squared are also shown as colored points (see Section D.1), with the intensity of color indicating the number of grid points in the param… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (top) Scatter plot of the inferred band-limited isotropic equivalent FRB luminosity and 𝑉/𝐼 as a function of the arrival time of the 128 burst sample Y. Feng et al. (2024) from FRB 20220912A. (bottom) The range of possible values of 𝜉 ≈ 𝐿 2 𝑤,37/𝜎𝑤0𝛾 2 0 giving rise to the observed profile-averaged 𝑉/𝐼 for the same bursts, assuming 0.1% proton loading per electron in the medium. The colors just distinguis… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) exhibit diverse spectro-temporal characteristics, which can probe vital propagation and source physics via Stokes polarimetry. We investigate whether the circular polarization (Stokes $V$) observed in some bursts is produced by Faraday conversion in the near-source wind of magnetars rather than being intrinsic to the source. Our calculation includes the increase in the effective mass of $e^\pm$ in the presence of the FRB wave. We find that Faraday conversion in the magnetar wind can explain the broad range of observed circular polarization in FRBs, including its frequent non-detection. Observationally derived upper limits on $V$ provide stringent constraints on the wind luminosity, magnetization, bulk Lorentz factor, and effective particle mass when ions are present. When available, frequency resolved Stokes spectra offer direct estimates of the wind environment. The Stokes parameters can undergo rapid oscillations with frequency in the high-wind/low-FRB-luminosity regime, resulting in Stokes-V depolarization. Bursts with significantly lower luminosities than typical FRBs can also develop measurable circular polarization, within the model framework. Additionally, separate zones are favored for significant circular polarization and rotation measure, when the model is applicable. The model constrains instantaneous wind parameters for several sources, including FRB 20201124A, FRB 20180301A, and SGR 1935+2154. This work represents the first instance in which properties of winds from compact objects associated with FRBs are inferred from polarization data.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that Faraday conversion in the near-source relativistic wind of magnetars, incorporating the effective mass increase of e± pairs in the FRB wave, can explain the observed range of circular polarization (Stokes V) in FRBs including frequent non-detections. Upper limits on V are used to derive constraints on wind luminosity, magnetization, bulk Lorentz factor, and effective particle mass (when ions are present); frequency-resolved spectra can estimate wind properties, rapid frequency oscillations can cause depolarization, lower-luminosity bursts can show measurable V, and separate zones are favored for significant V versus rotation measure. The work is presented as the first inference of compact-object wind properties from FRB polarization data, with specific constraints derived for sources including FRB 20201124A, FRB 20180301A, and SGR 1935+2154.

Significance. If the propagation origin of V holds and the effective-mass incorporation is correctly implemented, the result would provide a new, observationally grounded method to constrain instantaneous parameters of relativistic magnetar winds associated with FRBs, addressing a key gap in near-source environment studies. The use of existing upper limits on V to produce quantitative bounds is a strength, as is the discussion of depolarization regimes and the potential for frequency-resolved Stokes spectra. However, the overall significance remains conditional on the foundational assumption that observed V is not generated intrinsically at the emission site.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] Abstract and Introduction: the central claim that upper limits on V yield stringent constraints on wind luminosity, magnetization, γ, and effective mass rests entirely on the premise that Stokes V is produced by Faraday conversion in the wind rather than intrinsically; no dedicated section or quantitative test is provided to distinguish these origins or to show how the constraints would be invalidated if the intrinsic-emission hypothesis holds.
  2. [§3] §3 (calculation of conversion coefficient): the incorporation of the effective-mass increase for e± is stated to be included, but the manuscript does not display the explicit derivation steps, the resulting expression for the conversion coefficient, or the propagated uncertainties; without these, it is impossible to verify whether the reported constraints on effective particle mass (when ions are present) are robust or sensitive to post-hoc parameter choices.
  3. [§4] §4 (model applicability and zones): the requirement of distinct zones for significant circular polarization versus rotation measure is asserted, yet no quantitative condition or observational discriminant is derived to establish when this separation must hold; this is load-bearing because the model is stated to be applicable only under that condition.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Notation] Notation for the effective mass and the conversion coefficient should be defined once at first use and used consistently thereafter to avoid ambiguity in the frequency-dependence discussion.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for any Stokes-V spectra or constraint plots should explicitly state the assumed ion fraction and the range of Lorentz factors explored.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive comments. We address each major point below and will incorporate revisions to improve the manuscript's clarity and rigor.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Introduction] Abstract and Introduction: the central claim that upper limits on V yield stringent constraints on wind luminosity, magnetization, γ, and effective mass rests entirely on the premise that Stokes V is produced by Faraday conversion in the wind rather than being intrinsic; no dedicated section or quantitative test is provided to distinguish these origins or to show how the constraints would be invalidated if the intrinsic-emission hypothesis holds.

    Authors: We agree that the constraints are conditional on the propagation origin. The manuscript presents Faraday conversion as one possible explanation and derives bounds under that assumption. In revision we will add a dedicated paragraph to the Introduction and a short subsection to the Discussion that explicitly states the conditional nature of the results, outlines how the derived bounds would be invalidated under an intrinsic-emission scenario, and proposes simple observational discriminants (frequency dependence of V, correlation with burst luminosity, and comparison with RM). revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3] §3 (calculation of conversion coefficient): the incorporation of the effective-mass increase for e± is stated to be included, but the manuscript does not display the explicit derivation steps, the resulting expression for the conversion coefficient, or the propagated uncertainties; without these, it is impossible to verify whether the reported constraints on effective particle mass (when ions are present) are robust or sensitive to post-hoc parameter choices.

    Authors: We acknowledge the omission of the explicit derivation. The revised manuscript will include an appendix containing the step-by-step derivation of the conversion coefficient with the effective-mass term, the final analytic expression, and a brief sensitivity analysis showing how the constraints on effective particle mass respond to variations in the adopted parameters. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§4] §4 (model applicability and zones): the requirement of distinct zones for significant circular polarization versus rotation measure is asserted, yet no quantitative condition or observational discriminant is derived to establish when this separation must hold; this is load-bearing because the model is stated to be applicable only under that condition.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative criterion is needed. In the revised §4 we will derive and present a simple condition based on the relative optical depths (or path lengths) required for appreciable conversion versus Faraday rotation, together with an observational discriminant such as the expected statistical independence between measured |V| and RM when the zones are spatially separated. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation uses external observations to constrain model parameters

full rationale

The paper models Faraday conversion in the magnetar wind (including effective mass effects) and applies it to observed upper limits on Stokes V from FRB data to derive constraints on wind parameters. No steps reduce predictions to fitted inputs by construction, no self-citations are load-bearing for the central result, and the derivation remains independent of the target constraints. The assumption that V originates from propagation is stated explicitly as a premise rather than derived internally.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; full equations and assumptions unavailable.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Faraday conversion occurs in relativistic magnetar winds and can be modified by wave-induced effective mass of e±
    Invoked as the mechanism producing observed Stokes V

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5803 in / 1279 out tokens · 21277 ms · 2026-07-03T19:29:30.515909+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

58 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    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

  2. [2]

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

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

  3. [3]

    2025, ApJ, 982, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb8e6

    Beniamini, P., & Kumar, P. 2025, ApJ, 982, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb8e6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb8e6 2025

  4. [4]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 4654, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3730 Bochenek,C.D.,Ravi,V.,Belov,K.V.,etal.2020,Nature,587, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x

    Beniamini, P., Kumar, P., & Narayan, R. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4654, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3730 Bochenek,C.D.,Ravi,V.,Belov,K.V.,etal.2020,Nature,587, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3730 2022

  5. [5]

    2024, Nature, 632, 1014, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07782-6

    Bruni, G., Piro, L., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 1014, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07782-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07782-6 2024

  6. [6]

    2000, PhRvE, 62, 1234, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.62.1234 CHIME Collaboration, Amiri, M., Bandura, K., et al

    Cattani, F., Kim, A., Anderson, D., & Lisak, M. 2000, PhRvE, 62, 1234, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.62.1234 CHIME Collaboration, Amiri, M., Bandura, K., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6fd9 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.62.1234 2000

  7. [7]

    J., & Holm, D

    Cocke, W. J., & Holm, D. A. 1972, Nature Physical Science, 240, 161, doi: 10.1038/physci240161b0

    work page doi:10.1038/physci240161b0 1972

  8. [8]

    2002, ApJ, 566, 336, doi: 10.1086/324778

    Contopoulos, I., & Kazanas, D. 2002, ApJ, 566, 336, doi: 10.1086/324778

    work page doi:10.1086/324778 2002

  9. [9]

    2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting

    Croft, S. 2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting

    2023

  10. [10]

    D., Mori, W

    Decker, C. D., Mori, W. B., Tzeng, K.-C., & Katsouleas, T. 1996, Physics of Plasmas, 3, 2047, doi: 10.1063/1.872001 Feng,Y.,Zhang,Y.-K.,Li,D.,etal.2022a,ScienceBulletin,67, 2398, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2022.11.014

    work page doi:10.1063/1.872001 1996

  11. [11]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abl7759

  12. [12]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 296, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7a64

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

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

  13. [13]

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

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

  14. [14]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0fa3

    Gruzinov, A., & Levin, Y. 2019, ApJ, 876, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0fa3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0fa3 2019

  15. [15]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae632 2024

  16. [16]

    H., Spitler, L

    Hilmarsson, G. H., Spitler, L. G., Main, R. A., & Li, D. Z. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5354, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2936

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2936 2021

  17. [17]

    N., Dunning, A., et al

    Hobbs, G., Manchester, R. N., Dunning, A., et al. 2020, PASA, 37, e012, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2020.2

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2020.2 2020

  18. [18]

    Huang, L., & Shcherbakov, R. V. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2574, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19207.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19207.x 2011

  19. [19]

    L., Esposito, P., Rea, N., et al

    Israel, G. L., Esposito, P., Rea, N., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3448, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw008

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw008 2016

  20. [20]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124003, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac98f6

    Jiang, J.-C., Wang, W.-Y., Xu, H., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124003, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac98f6

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ac98f6 2022

  21. [21]

    C., Xu, J

    Jiang, J. C., Xu, J. W., Niu, J. R., et al. 2024, National Science Review, 12, nwae293, doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwae293

    work page doi:10.1093/nsr/nwae293 2024

  22. [22]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    Jiang, P., Tang, N.-Y., Hou, L.-G., et al. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64 2020

  23. [23]

    G., Lyubarsky, Y., & Petri, J

    Kirk, J. G., Lyubarsky, Y., & Petri, J. 2009, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 357, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. W. Becker, 421, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-76965-1_16

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-76965-1_16 2009

  24. [24]

    P., Jenkins, M., et al

    Kirsten, F., Snelders, M. P., Jenkins, M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 414, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01246-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-01246-3 2021

  25. [25]

    M., Lower, M

    Kumar, P., Shannon, R. M., Lower, M. E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3400, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac683

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac683 2022

  26. [26]

    Prochaska, J. X. 2023a, PhRvD, 108, 043009, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.043009

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.043009

  27. [27]

    C., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2969

  28. [28]

    Lower, M. E. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2108.09429, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2108.09429

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.09429 2021

  29. [29]

    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

  30. [30]

    2022, ApJL, 933, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac786f

    Lyutikov, M. 2022, ApJL, 933, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac786f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac786f 2022

  31. [31]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 2180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae591

    Lyutikov, M. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 2180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae591

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae591 2024

  32. [32]

    2025, Nature, 637, 43, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08184-4

    Mckinven, R., Bhardwaj, M., Eftekhari, T., et al. 2025, Nature, 637, 43, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08184-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08184-4 2025

  33. [33]

    Michel, F. C. 1969, ApJ, 158, 727, doi: 10.1086/150233

    work page doi:10.1086/150233 1969

  34. [34]

    Michel, F. C. 1991, Theory of neutron star magnetospheres

    1991

  35. [35]

    1978, MNRAS, 185, 69, doi: 10.1093/mnras/185.1.69

    Okamoto, I. 1978, MNRAS, 185, 69, doi: 10.1093/mnras/185.1.69

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/185.1.69 1978

  36. [36]

    2025, A&A, 693, A279, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450953

    Pastor-Marazuela, I., van Leeuwen, J., Bilous, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A279, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450953

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450953 2025

  37. [37]

    C., Foster, G., Geyer, M., et al

    Price, D. C., Foster, G., Geyer, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 3636, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz958

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz958 2019

  38. [38]

    2002, Applied Physics B: Lasers and Optics, 74, 355, doi: 10.1007/s003400200795

    Pukhov, A., & Meyer-ter-Vehn, J. 2002, Applied Physics B: Lasers and Optics, 74, 355, doi: 10.1007/s003400200795

    work page doi:10.1007/s003400200795 2002

  39. [39]

    R., Van Eck, C

    Purcell, C. R., Van Eck, C. L., West, J., Sun, X. H., & Gaensler, B. M. 2020,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2005.003 http://ascl.net/2005.003 Radhakrishnan,V.,&Cooke,D.J.1969,Astrophys.Lett.,3,225

    2020

  40. [40]

    M., Acharya, S

    Rahaman, S. M., Acharya, S. K., Beniamini, P., & Granot, J. 2025, ApJ, 988, 276, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade70c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade70c 2025

  41. [41]

    2023, ApJL, 949, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc4b6

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

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

  42. [42]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics

    1986

  43. [43]

    2016, High Energy Density Physics, 19, 48, doi: 10.1016/j.hedp.2016.03.003

    Saedjalil, N., & Jafari, S. 2016, High Energy Density Physics, 19, 48, doi: 10.1016/j.hedp.2016.03.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.hedp.2016.03.003 2016

  44. [44]

    2017, PhRvE, 96, 043209, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.96.043209

    Sano, T., Tanaka, Y., Iwata, N., et al. 2017, PhRvE, 96, 043209, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.96.043209

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.96.043209 2017

  45. [45]

    2006, Physics of Plasmas, 13, 033102, doi: 10.1063/1.2178187

    Sazegari, V., Mirzaie, M., & Shokri, B. 2006, Physics of Plasmas, 13, 033102, doi: 10.1063/1.2178187

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2178187 2006

  46. [46]

    R., Dial, T., Bera, A., et al

    Scott, D. R., Dial, T., Bera, A., et al. 2025, PASA, 42, e133, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.10103

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2025.10103 2025

  47. [47]

    Sharma, A., & Tripathi, V. K. 2012, Laser and Particle Beams, 30, 659, doi: 10.1017/S0263034612000481

    work page doi:10.1017/s0263034612000481 2012

  48. [48]

    B., Connor, L., Ravi, V., et al

    Sherman, M. B., Connor, L., Ravi, V., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad275e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad275e 2024

  49. [49]

    Interaction of Strong Electromagnetic Waves with Unmagnetized Pair Plasmas

    Sridhar, N., Sobacchi, E., Sironi, L., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.11698, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.11698

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.11698 2026

  50. [50]

    M., Pastor-Marazuela, I., et al

    Tian, J., Rajwade, K. M., Pastor-Marazuela, I., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3174, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2013

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2013 2024

  51. [51]

    Pulsar data analysis with PSRCHIVE

    Uttarkar, P. A., Shannon, R. M., Lower, M. E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 2485, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2159 Van Eck, C. L., R. Purcell, C., Baidoo, L., et al. 2026, ApJS, 283, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae3dea van Straten, W., Demorest, P., & Oslowski, S. 2012, Astronomical Research and Technology, 9, 237, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1205.6276

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2159 2024

  52. [52]

    K., & Ravi, V

    Vedantham, H. K., & Ravi, V. 2019, MNRAS, 485, L78, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz038

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz038 2019

  53. [53]

    2025, ApJ, 988, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade1d2

    Wang, W.-Y., Liu, X., Li, D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade1d2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade1d2 2025

  54. [54]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ace77c

    Xiao, S., Yang, J.-J., Luo, X.-H., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ace77c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ace77c 2023

  55. [55]

    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

  56. [56]

    2020, ApJ, 895, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab88ab

    Yang, Y.-P., Li, Q.-C., & Zhang, B. 2020, ApJ, 895, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab88ab

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab88ab 2020

  57. [57]

    2022, ApJL, 928, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5f46

    Yang, Y.-P., Lu, W., Feng, Y., Zhang, B., & Li, D. 2022, ApJL, 928, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5f46

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5f46 2022

  58. [58]

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

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

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