Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 8 minor 56 references

Unveiling the Local Environment of FRB 20220912A: Sub-arcsecond $4-26$ GHz Radio Continuum Mapping

T0 review · 2 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-07-08 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read FRB 20220912A sits inside a 75–190 pc star-forming knot, not a compact engine

desk verdict New VLA detection of extended radio source coincident with FRB 20220912A — characterized as a 75–190 pc star-forming region, not a compact PRS read the letter →

arxiv 2607.05950 v1 pith:VKB7ZBCQ submitted 2026-07-07 astro-ph.HE

Yash Bhusare , Yogesh Maan , Mohit Bhardwaj , Thomas C. Abbott , Yuxin Dong , Danté M. Hewitt , Afrokk Khan This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsFRB20220912Astar-formingregionscontinuumpersistentsourcemagnetarVLAVLBI
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

The paper presents sub-arcsecond VLA radio continuum mapping (4–26 GHz) of the hyperactive repeating fast radio burst FRB 20220912A and reports a previously unknown radio source spatially coincident with the burst position, offset about 450 pc from the host galaxy center. By combining the VLA detections with the absence of any compact counterpart in archival milliarcsecond-resolution VLBI data, the authors constrain the emitting region to between 75 and 190 parsecs in physical diameter — far too extended to be a compact persistent radio source (PRS) powered by a central engine like a magnetar wind nebula or supernova remnant. The source has a steep non-thermal spectral index (α ≈ −0.73) and a low brightness temperature (T_b < 100 K), both hallmarks of synchrotron emission from star-forming regions rather than the flat-spectrum, high-brightness emission seen in known PRSs. The authors derive a star-formation rate surface density of at least 13 solar masses per year per square kiloparsec, placing this environment among the most intense star-forming complexes in the local universe and reinforcing the young-magnetar progenitor picture for at least some repeating FRBs.

What carries the argument

The argument hinges on a cross-resolution comparison: the VLA A-configuration detects the source at sub-arcsecond scales (0.13–1.2 arcsec beams across C through K bands), while VLBI at 50 mas resolution recovers nothing. The flux predicted by extrapolating the VLA spectral fit to 1.4 GHz exceeds the VLBI 5σ upper limit, which means the emission must be distributed over scales larger than VLBI can recover. The spectral energy distribution is modeled as a power law (S_ν ∝ ν^α), and the steep index is verified to be intrinsic by showing that Galactic refractive interstellar scintillation would produce negligible modulation for a source of this angular size. The star-formation rate surface密度 is

What would settle it

Detection of a compact component at the FRB position in higher-sensitivity VLBI imaging at L-band or higher frequencies would directly contradict the claim that the source is extended star formation rather than a compact PRS.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The radio continuum source coincident with FRB 20220912A is an extended (75–190 pc) star-forming region with a steep non-thermal spectrum and high star-formation rate surface density, not a compact central-engine-powered persistent radio source. The key diagnostic is the combination of three independent observations: the source is detected by the VLA at sub-arcsecond resolution, it is completely resolved out (non-detected) in archival VLBI data even when tapered to 50 mas, and its spectral index (α ≈ −0.73) matches the canonical value for non-thermal star-forming emission rather than the flat or inverted spectra of known PRSs. The VLBI non-detection sets a lower size limit of 75 pc; the VLAK

Load-bearing premise

The steep spectral index (α ≈ −0.73) is intrinsic to the source rather than an artifact of flux-scale systematics or multi-component emission blended within the VLA beam. The spectral fit rests on nine data points across C, X, and Ku bands, with two non-detections at higher frequencies and one anomalous point at 19.9 GHz attributed to a calibration artifact near the 22.2 GHz water vapor line.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper presents VLA A-configuration 4–26 GHz radio continuum observations of the field of the hyperactive repeater FRB 20220912A. The authors detect a previously unreported radio source spatially coincident with the FRB position (offset ~300 mas from the host nucleus), measure a steep spectral index (α ≈ −0.73 excluding a calibration artifact at 19.9 GHz), and use the absence of a VLBI detection at 1.4 GHz to argue that the source is resolved out on >50 mas scales, implying a physical size of 75–190 pc. Combining the steep spectrum, low brightness temperature (Tb < 100 K), and high star-formation rate surface density (Σ_SFR ≳ 13 M☉ yr⁻¹ kpc⁻²), the authors conclude the emission is a compact star-forming region rather than a compact PRS, supporting a young magnetar progenitor scenario. The astrometric analysis is careful, the chance-coincidence probability is convincingly low, and the RISS analysis correctly demonstrates scintillation is negligible for a 75+ pc source.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely question: whether the radio environments of repeating FRBs are compact central-engine-powered PRSs or extended star-forming regions. The result that FRB 20220912A resides in an extended star-forming knot rather than a compact PRS is a useful contribution to the growing diversity of FRB local environments. The multi-frequency VLA dataset is well-suited to the problem, and the authors provide a falsifiable prediction: future sub-arcsecond IFU observations should reveal Hα/[OIII] emission at the FRB position. The comparison table (Table 3) contextualizing FRB 20220912A against known PRS-associated FRBs is a helpful synthesis. The careful astrometric verification without self-calibration and the explicit treatment of the 19.9 GHz calibration artifact (Appendix A) are commendable methodological choices.

major comments (2)
  1. §6.1: The VLBI resolved-out argument—the basis for the 75 pc lower limit on the source size—depends on extrapolating the 4–15 GHz power-law spectrum to 1.4 GHz. The paper does not discuss the possibility of spectral curvature from free-free absorption, which is common in star-forming regions at GHz frequencies and below. If free-free optical depth at 1.4 GHz is significant, the true 1.4 GHz flux of the compact component could fall below the 30 µJy VLBI limit, making the VLBI non-detection consistent with a compact source and dissolving the 75 pc lower limit. The authors should discuss this possibility explicitly, estimate the emission measure that would be required to suppress the 1.4 GHz flux below the VLBI threshold, and assess whether such conditions are plausible for a 75–190 pc scale region. At minimum, the 75 pc lower limit should be presented with this caveat.
  2. §5.2 and §6.1: The spectral index fit uses 9 detected sub-bands but excludes two non-detections (16.9 and 23.9 GHz) and the 19.9 GHz artifact. The paper states the 23.9 GHz upper limit is 'significantly displaced above the extrapolated curve' but does not quantitatively demonstrate consistency of the non-detections with the best-fit model. A survival analysis or at least an explicit check that the upper limits are consistent with the α ≈ −0.73 model would strengthen the spectral characterization. Additionally, the C-band sub-bands (4 of the 9 data points) are obtained with an elongated beam (0.65″ × 0.26″) and the C-band astrometric offset is large (∆RA = −164 mas; Table 1), raising a contamination concern. The authors note that excluding C-band still yields α ≈ −0.7, but this check is described only qualitatively in §6.1; the corresponding fit parameters and uncertainty should be tablu.
minor comments (8)
  1. §5.1: The chance coincidence probability calculation uses a 340 mas radius and a source count from a 10 GHz survey. Since the source is detected across multiple bands, the effective search trials are larger than one; a brief note on this would be appropriate.
  2. Table 1 caption: the footnote on C-band notes that 'extended emission may contribute to the flux density,' but the table reports ∆RA/∆Dec values that appear to use the C-band position. Clarify whether the C-band astrometric offset affects the spatial coincidence claim or only the flux density.
  3. §5.4, Eq. (2): The Garn et al. (2009) relation is used without discussion of its applicable frequency range or systematic uncertainty. A brief note on the scatter in this relation would help contextualize the SFR uncertainty.
  4. Figure 3: The archival low-frequency points (orange squares) are plotted but their role in the spectral fit is unclear. The text states they are from large-beam observations that could not separate the compact source from host galaxy emission. If they are not used in the fit, this should be stated explicitly on the figure or in the caption.
  5. §6.2: The brightness temperature calculation uses the synthesized beam dimensions as an upper limit on the source size. For the 1.4 GHz Tb estimate assuming a 75 pc source, clarify which flux density and beam parameters are used.
  6. Table 3: The 'Size (Extended)' entry for FRB 20220912A lists '75–190 pc' while the 'Size (Compact)' column shows '[–]'. For consistency with other rows, consider noting that the compact component upper limit is <190 pc.
  7. §2: The sentence beginning 'While the net RM is low, the local environment could still be complex' is somewhat convoluted; consider revising for clarity.
  8. References: Several arXiv preprints are cited without journal references where published versions may exist (e.g., Bruni et al. 2024a). Please update where possible.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. Both major comments identify legitimate gaps in our analysis that we will address in the revised manuscript. We summarize our planned revisions below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §6.1: The VLBI resolved-out argument depends on extrapolating the 4–15 GHz power-law spectrum to 1.4 GHz. The paper does not discuss the possibility of spectral curvature from free-free absorption, which is common in star-forming regions at GHz frequencies and below. If free-free optical depth at 1.4 GHz is significant, the true 1.4 GHz flux of the compact component could fall below the 30 µJy VLBI limit, making the VLBI non-detection consistent with a compact source and dissolving the 75 pc lower limit. The authors should discuss this possibility explicitly, estimate the emission measure that would be required to suppress the 1.4 GHz flux below the VLBI threshold, and assess whether such conditions are plausible for a 75–190 pc scale region. At minimum, the 75 pc lower limit should be presented with this caveat.

    Authors: We agree that this is an important caveat that we should have addressed explicitly. Free-free absorption is indeed common in star-forming regions and could in principle suppress the 1.4 GHz flux below the VLBI 5σ limit of 30 µJy, weakening the resolved-out argument and the 75 pc lower limit. We will add a dedicated discussion in §6.1 of the revised manuscript. Our quantitative assessment will proceed as follows. The free-free optical depth is τ_ff ≈ 3.28 × 10⁻⁷ × (T_e / 10⁴ K)^{-1.35} × (ν / 1 GHz)^{-2.1} × EM, where EM is the emission measure in pc cm⁻⁶. To suppress the extrapolated 1.4 GHz flux density of ~111 µJy (using α = -0.50) below 30 µJy requires a suppression factor of ~2.7, corresponding to τ_ff ≳ 1.0 at 1.4 GHz. For T_e = 10⁴ K, this implies EM ≳ 3 × 10⁶ pc cm⁻⁶. For a 75–190 pc path length, this corresponds to an rms electron density of n_e ≳ 130–200 cm⁻³. While such densities are not unprecedented in compact HII regions, they are characteristic of ultra-compact or hyper-compact HII regions (scales ≲ 0.1 pc) rather than 75–190 pc scale structures. For a region of this size, the required EM would imply an ionizing photon rate of ~10⁵²–10⁵³ s⁻¹, which would require an exceptionally massive stellar cluster. Moreover, if free-free absorption were significant at 1.4 GHz, we would also expect curvature in our 4–15 GHz spectrum, which we do not observe. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that we cannot fully rule out this scenario, and we will present the 75 pc lower limit with this explicit caveat in the revised text. We will also note that the upper limit of 190 pc (from the VLA beam size at 19.9 GHz) is independent of the VLBI argument and remains robust. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §5.2 and §6.1: The spectral index fit uses 9 detected sub-bands but excludes two non-detections (16.9 and 23.9 GHz) and the 19.9 GHz artifact. The paper states the 23.9 GHz upper limit is 'significantly displaced above the extrapolated curve' but does not quantitatively demonstrate consistency of the non-detections with the best-fit model. A survival analysis or at least an explicit check that the upper limits are consistent with the α ≈ −0.73 model would strengthen the spectral characterization. Additionally, the C-band sub-bands (4 of the 9 data points) are obtained with an elongated beam (0.65″ × 0.26″) and the C-band astrometric offset is large (∆RA = −164 mas; Table 1), raising a contamination concern. The authors note that excluding C-band still yields α ≈ −0.7, but this check is described only qualitatively in §6.1; the corresponding fit parameters and uncertainty should be tablu.

    Authors: We agree on both points. (1) We will add an explicit quantitative consistency check for the two non-detections. For the 16.9 GHz upper limit of 34.25 µJy: the α = -0.73 model predicts ~28 µJy at 16.9 GHz, which is below the 5σ upper limit, so this non-detection is consistent. For the 23.9 GHz upper limit of 47.5 µJy: the model predicts ~22 µJy, again well below the upper limit. We will state these values explicitly in §5.2 and note that both upper limits are consistent with the best-fit power law. We will also perform a simple survival analysis (e.g., using the Kaplan-Meier estimator or a maximum-likelihood fit incorporating censored data points via the Astronomy SURVival analysis package or an equivalent method) to verify that including the upper limits does not significantly change the inferred spectral index. (2) We will tabulate the spectral index fit excluding C-band data points alongside the full fit in a revised table, including the best-fit α, its uncertainty, and the reduced χ². As the referee notes, we already state qualitatively that the result is α ≈ -0.7; we will now provide the quantitative parameters. This will also address the contamination concern by demonstrating that the steep spectrum is not driven by the C-band measurements with their elongated beam and larger astrometric offset. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained with one minor self-citation for archival context

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived from independent data and external relations, not from circular definitions or self-citation chains. (1) The spectral index α ≈ −0.73 is fitted from the paper's own new VLA flux density measurements (Table 2, 9 data points), a standard data-to-parameter step. (2) The VLBI resolved-out argument uses an independent dataset (D. M. Hewitt et al. 2023) — the VLBI non-detection is an observational fact, not a derived result, and Hewitt is a co-author but the VLBI data was independently published. (3) The SFR calculation uses an externally published relation (Garn et al. 2009, different authors) with measured flux densities and the fitted spectral index. (4) The Σ_SFR uses the SFR divided by the synthesized beam area, an observational constraint. The paper transparently acknowledges in Appendix B that 'the SFR remains flat by construction' because S_ν × ν^(−α) is constant when α is fitted from S_ν ∝ ν^α — but this flatness is not presented as a prediction; it is explicitly flagged as by-construction, and the meaningful output is the weighted mean SFR value. The one self-citation (Y. Bhusare et al. 2025, first author = present first author) provides archival low-frequency flux measurements shown for comparison in Figure 3, but the paper's main spectral index is independently derived from its own new VLA data, and the archival points are explicitly noted as potentially contaminated by host-galaxy emission (§2). This self-citation is not load-bearing for the central conclusions. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, fields, or postulated entities. The radio source detected is an observed object, not a theoretical construct. The physical interpretation (star-forming region) invokes known astrophysical phenomena. The free parameters and axioms are all standard radio astronomy tools and empirical relations.

free parameters (1)
  • Spectral index α = -0.73 ± 0.17 (preferred, excluding 19.9 GHz); -0.50 ± 0.19 (including 19.9 GHz)
    Fitted to the sub-band flux densities via power-law S_ν ∝ ν^α using lmfit. Not a free parameter in the model-fitting sense but a derived quantity from the SED; however, it is then used as input to the SFR calculation (Eq. 2), so it functions as a fitted parameter that propagates into the physical interpretation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Radio-luminosity-to-SFR relation (Garn et al. 2009, Eq. 2)
    The SFR and Σ_SFR calculations depend on this empirical calibration being valid for this source. The relation was derived for star-forming galaxies and assumes non-thermal radio emission traces star formation. §5.4.
  • domain assumption NE2001 Galactic electron density model (Cordes & Lazio 2002)
    Used to estimate RISS modulation and argue it is negligible. The model is standard but has known uncertainties in individual lines of sight. §5.3.
  • domain assumption The VLBI non-detection implies the source is resolved out on scales >50 mas
    This is the key premise for the lower size limit of 75 pc. It assumes the VLBI observations were sensitive enough and the uv-coverage was adequate to detect a 111 µJy source at 50 mas resolution. §6.1.
  • domain assumption The 19.9 GHz flux excess is a calibration artifact, not intrinsic
    Justified by the correlated feature in the phase calibrator SED (Appendix A, Figure 5). The correction factor (0.69×) is derived from the calibrator and applied to the target. §4.2, Appendix A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unveiling the Local Environment of FRB 20220912A: Sub-arcsecond $4-26$ GHz Radio Continuum Mapping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VKB7ZBCQ

@misc{pith2026260705950,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unveiling the Local Environment of FRB 20220912A: Sub-arcsecond $4-26$ GHz Radio Continuum Mapping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VKB7ZBCQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05950}
}
abstract

The local environments of repeating fast radio bursts (FRBs) provide critical clues to their progenitors. While some active repeaters (e.g., FRB~20121102A, FRB~20190520B) are embedded in compact persistent radio sources (PRS), others appear to reside in cleaner environments. We present a high-resolution, multi-frequency (4$-$26 GHz) continuum study of the hyperactive repeater FRB 20220912A using the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA). We report the discovery of a previously unknown radio source distinct from the compact PRSs seen in other FRBs, spatially coincident with the FRB position and offset by $\approx 300$~mas ($\approx 450$~pc) from the host galaxy's center. The absence of continuum emission in archival milliarcsecond-resolution VLBI observations indicates that the source is resolved out, ruling out a hyper-compact ($< 1$~pc) central-engine-powered origin. We constrain the physical diameter of the emitting region between 75~pc and 190~pc. We further demonstrate that the source is characterized by a steep non-thermal spectral index ($\alpha \approx -0.73$) and a remarkably high star-formation rate surface density $\Sigma_{\text{SFR}} \gtrsim 13~M_{\odot}~\text{yr}^{-1}~\text{kpc}^{-2}$. We argue that this emission is best explained as a compact star-forming region within the host galaxy. This association with a site of ongoing star formation provides strong observational support for the hypothesis that young magnetars, formed after the deaths of massive stars, are the progenitors of at least some repeating FRBs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05950 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Position Match Analysis. Top-Left: VLBI burst position (D. M. Hewitt et al. 2023). The field of view (FOV) in this specific panel is highly restricted, meaning the host galaxy nucleus lies entirely outside the insert VLBI im￾age. Top-Right: VLBI continuum image showing a non-de￾tection (D. M. Hewitt et al. 2023), which covers a wider FOV. Bottom-Left: VLBI continuum convolved to a 50 mas beam (RMS 6 µJy; no compact … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Multi-frequency VLA images of the persistent source associated with FRB 20220912A. The source is detected in C, X, and lower Ku bands, but drops below the detection threshold at 16.9 GHz and 23.9 GHz. All panels share the same field of view and color scale. Sub-bands were imaged using natural weighting to maximize SNR. The contours on each image is drawn at 5σ, 8σ and 10σ. Brown star on the image shows host galaxy c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectral energy distribution (SED) of the con￾tinuum radio counterpart associated with FRB 20220912A. Blue circles denote the sub-banded flux densities from our VLA observations, while orange squares represent archival detections from Y. Bhusare et al. (2025) and D. Pelliciari et al. (2024). The dark red triangle indicates the 5σ VLBI upper limit at 1.4 GHz, demonstrating that the source is resolved out on milliarcs… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Lower limit on ΣSFR as a function of the observ￾ing frequency. The increase in ΣSFR at higher frequencies is a direct consequence of the smaller synthesized beam sizes, which provide better upper limits on the physical area of the unresolved source (for the absolute SF…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectral energy distribution (SED) of the phase calibrator (J2322+509). Blue points represent the measured flux density in each VLA sub-band. Similar to the radio source (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Derived Star Formation Rate (SFR) as a function of observing frequency for the local environment of FRB 20220912A. Unlike the SFR surface density (ΣSFR) shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Radio Monitoring Campaign of Active Repeater FRB 20220912A with CHIME

    Abbott, T. C., Pearlman, A. B., Kaspi, V. M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.09098, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.09098

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.09098 2026

  2. [2]

    W., Deller, A

    Bannister, K. W., Deller, A. T., Phillips, C., et al. 2019, Science, 365, 565, doi: 10.1126/science.aaw5903

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaw5903 2019

  3. [3]

    G., Tendulkar, S

    Bassa, C. G., Tendulkar, S. P., Adams, E. A. K., et al. 2017, ApJL, 843, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7a0c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa7a0c 2017

  4. [4]

    2023, ApJL, 958, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad083f

    Bhandari, S., Marcote, B., Sridhar, N., et al. 2023, ApJL, 958, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad083f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad083f 2023

  5. [5]

    Tendulkar, S. P. 2025a, PASP, 137, 084202, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adf7dc

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/adf7dc

  6. [6]

    Tendulkar, S. P. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.23861, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.23861

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.23861

  7. [7]

    M., Kaspi, V

    Bhardwaj, M., Gaensler, B. M., Kaspi, V. M., et al. 2021, ApJL, 910, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abeaa6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abeaa6 2021

  8. [8]

    Y., et al

    Bhardwaj, M., Michilli, D., Kirichenko, A. Y., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L51, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad64d1

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad64d1 2024

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    P., Hessels, J

    Bhardwaj, M., Snelders, M. P., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2025c, ApJL, 992, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0b68

    doi

  2. [10]

    2025, ApJ, 993, 234, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0451

    Bhusare, Y., Maan, Y., & Kumar, A. 2025, ApJ, 993, 234, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0451

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15806, 1 12Bhusare et al

    Bhusare, Y., Kumar, A., Maan, Y., et al. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15806, 1 12Bhusare et al

    2022

  4. [12]

    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

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    2024a, A nebular origin for the persistent radio emission of fast radio bursts, https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.15296

    Bruni, G., Piro, L., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2024a, A nebular origin for the persistent radio emission of fast radio bursts, https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.15296

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    P., et al

    Bruni, G., Piro, L., Yang, Y. P., et al. 2024b, Discovery of a PRS associated with FRB 20240114A, https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.01478

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.03429, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.03429

    Bruni, G., Piro, L., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.03429, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.03429

    2026 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    J., Wharton, R

    Chatterjee, S., Law, C. J., Wharton, R. S., et al. 2017, Nature, 541, 58–61, doi: 10.1038/nature20797 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., et ...

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    S., Simha, S., Mannings, A., et al

    Chittidi, J. S., Simha, S., Mannings, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2818

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    Condon, J. J. 1992, ARA&A, 30, 575, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.003043

    1992 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Scholz, P., Pearlman, A

    Cook, A. M., Scholz, P., Pearlman, A. B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a13

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    M., & Lazio, T

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207156

    2002 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cbd

    Dong, Y., Eftekhari, T., Fong, W.-f., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cbd

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    I., Crowther, P

    Doran, E. I., Crowther, P. A., de Koter, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321824

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    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

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    A., Riley, J

    Garn, T., Green, D. A., Riley, J. M., & Alexander, P. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 397, 1101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15073.x

    2009 doi

  17. [25]

    C., Fong, W.-f., Deller, A

    Gordon, A. C., Fong, W.-f., Deller, A. T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0298

    2025 doi

  18. [26]

    2010, ApJ, 723, 1019, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1019

    Heyer, M. 2010, ApJ, 723, 1019, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1019

    2010 doi

  19. [27]

    E., Prochaska, J

    Heintz, K. E., Prochaska, J. X., Simha, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb6fb

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

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

    Hewitt, D. M., Bhandari, S., Marcote, B., et al. 2023, Milliarcsecond Localisation of the Hyperactive Repeating FRB 20220912A, https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.14490

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    L., Drout, M

    Ibik, A. L., Drout, M. R., Gaensler, B. M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad808e Jim´ enez-Andrade, E. F., Murphy, E. J., Momjian, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5b5c

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    1998 doi

  23. [31]

    2022, Nature, 602, 585, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    Kirsten, F., Marcote, B., Nimmo, K., et al. 2022, Nature, 602, 585, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    C., Hewitt, D

    Konijn, D. C., Hewitt, D. M., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 3331, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2296

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.21889, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.21889

    Kumar, A., Maan, Y., Lal, B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.21889, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.21889

    2025 doi

  26. [34]

    2025, ApJ, 992, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adff5c

    Liu, W., Bhardwaj, M., & Margalit, B. 2025, ApJ, 992, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adff5c

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    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

  28. [36]

    G., Fong, W.-f., Simha, S., et al

    Mannings, A. G., Fong, W.-f., Simha, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abff56

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    Marcote, B., Paragi, Z., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2017, ApJL, 834, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L8

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2018, ApJL, 868, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaedad

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15679, 1

    McKinven, R., & CHIME/FRB Collaboration. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15679, 1

    2022

  32. [40]

    M., Bhandari, S., Drout, M

    Moroianu, A. M., Bhandari, S., Drout, M. R., et al. 2026, ApJL, 996, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae28c7

    2026 doi

  33. [41]

    2025, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Squares Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python, 1.3.4 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.598352

    Newville, M., Otten, R., Nelson, A., et al. 2025, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Squares Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python, 1.3.4 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.598352

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

    2022, Nature, 606, 873–877, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5

    Niu, C.-H., Aggarwal, K., Li, D., et al. 2022, Nature, 606, 873–877, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    2024, A&A, 690, A219, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450271

    Pelliciari, D., Bernardi, G., Pilia, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A219, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450271

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    2021, A&A, 656, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141903 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al

    Piro, L., Bruni, G., Troja, E., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141903 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    M., Acharya, S

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

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15791, 1

    Rajwade, K., Wharton, R., Majid, W., et al. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15791, 1

    2022

  39. [47]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 949, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc4b6

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

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    Rickett, B. J. 1990, ARA&A, 28, 561, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.003021

    1990 doi

  41. [49]

    2025, ApJL, 979, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9ddc Local environment of FRB 20220912A13

    Shah, V., Shin, K., Leung, C., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9ddc Local environment of FRB 20220912A13

    2025 doi

  42. [50]

    Z., Farah, W., Pollak, A

    Sheikh, S. Z., Farah, W., Pollak, A. W., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 10425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3630

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    R., Stil, J

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

    2009 doi

  44. [52]

    P., Gil de Paz, A., Kirichenko, A

    Tendulkar, S. P., Gil de Paz, A., Kirichenko, A. Y., et al. 2021, ApJL, 908, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdb38

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    Walker, M. A. 1998, MNRAS, 294, 307, doi: 10.1046/j.1365- 8711.1998.01238.x10.1111/j.1365-8711.1998.01238.x

    1998 doi

  46. [54]

    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

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0545

    Zhang, X., Yu, W., Law, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0545

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    2023, ApJ, 955, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced0b 14Bhusare et al

    Zhang, Y.-K., Li, D., Zhang, B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced0b 14Bhusare et al. APPENDIX A.THE 19.9 GHZ FLUX DENSITY CALIBRATION ARTIFACT Figure 5.Spectral energy distribution (SED) of the phase calibrator (J2322+509). Blue points represent the meas...

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.