Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Propagation Diagnostics of Supernova Remnant Environments around Young Repeating FRBs. I. Hydrodynamic Evolution of the Source-Local Dispersion Measure

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A young supernova remnant can explain the rapid, monotonic fall in the dispersion measure of the repeating fast radio burst FRB 20190520B, with the angle-averaged ambient-subtracted excess DM declining roughly as $t_{\rm age}^{-2}$ and reac

desk verdict A solid, clearly framed hydro simulation showing that ejecta dilution, not the anisotropic wind, drives the secular DM decline in young FRB environments; the headline numbers for FRB 20190520B are conditional on the unverified assumption of full ionization. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01342 v1 pith:WJ4BRUDJ submitted 2026-08-02 astro-ph.HE

Xiang-Er Fang , Zhen-Yin Zhao , Yi-Qing Lin , Hao-Tian Lan , Fa-Yin Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsdispersionmeasuresupernovaremnantshydrodynamicalsimulationscircumstellarmatterwind–ejectainteractionFRB20190520Bplasmaastrophysics
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 tries to establish that the fast, monotonic drop in the dispersion measure (DM) seen for some repeating fast radio bursts can be produced naturally by a young supernova remnant: the expanding ejecta and the shell swept up by a central neutron-star wind dilute the free-electron column over decades. Using two-dimensional axisymmetric hydrodynamics with a passive tracer, it finds that the injected wind inflates a low-density cavity but contributes only a few percent of the column, while the ejecta and swept-up non-wind material dominate the DM at all epochs. In the fiducial model the solid-angle-averaged ambient-subtracted excess DM falls as $t_{\rm age}^{-2}$ during the first several tens of years and slightly steeper later, and this decline persists in every model variant. Matching the source-frame decline rate of FRB 20190520B places the environment at an age of about 20 yr with a mean excess column of roughly $1.8\times10^{2}\,\mathrm{pc\,cm^{-3}}$, so a substantial electron column and a rapid secular decrease can coexist. If right, DM monitoring of repeaters directly tracks the expansion and dilution of young supernova remnants, although non-monotonic DM histories require additional plasma components.

What carries the argument

The central diagnostic is the solid-angle-averaged ambient-subtracted excess dispersion measure, $\langle\mathrm{DM}_{\rm exc}\rangle_\Omega = \langle\mathrm{DM}_{\rm loc}\rangle_\Omega - \mathrm{DM}_{\rm amb}$, evaluated along radial sightlines from two-dimensional axisymmetric hydrodynamic snapshots, together with the effective decline index $q_{\rm eff} = -d\ln\langle\mathrm{DM}_{\rm exc}\rangle_\Omega/d\ln t_{\rm age}$. A passive tracer separates wind material from non-wind material, showing that the wind-rich cavity contributes only a small fraction of the column while the dense non-wind shell provides most of it. The approximate $t_{\rm age}^{-2}$ decline is the direct signature of hom

What would settle it

Continued monitoring of FRB 20190520B in the source frame: the model predicts the decline index $q_{\rm eff}$ should stay near 2 during the first several decades and the absolute decline rate should decrease as the column shrinks, so an observed source-frame decline index significantly shallower or steeper than about 2, or an independent RM/persistent-source measurement placing the source-local column far from roughly $180\,\mathrm{pc\,cm^{-3}}$ at the rate-matching age, would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the evolving source-local dispersion measure around a young repeating FRB is dominated not by the material the central engine injects, but by the supernova ejecta and swept-up ambient gas that the wind redistributes. The anisotropic wind, with power concentrated toward the poles, inflates a low-density cavity, yet lateral pressure keeps the outer swept-up shell broadly rounded, so the DM varies only moderately with viewing angle while the polar sightline retains the clearest wind signature. In all simulated models the solid-angle-averaged ambient-subtracted excess DM decreases monotonically, roughly as $t_{\rm age}^{-2}$ during the first several tens of years an

Load-bearing premise

The simulations assume a constant free-electron fraction $x_e=1$ for all gas at all times, with no radiative cooling or time-dependent recombination, so if the young ejecta are only partially ionized, both the electron column and its decline rate drop, shifting the rate-matching age and weakening the claim of a large column near $180\,\mathrm{pc\,cm^{-3}}$ at about 20 yr.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The solid-angle-averaged source-local DM declines monotonically in every model, initially as $t_{\rm age}^{-2}$, so a secular DM decrease in a repeater can be read as expansion and dilution of ejecta-associated material rather than as a change in the engine.
  • The directly injected wind contributes only a few percent of the electron column, so the DM decline tracks the swept-up ejecta and shell, not the wind mass loading; this separates the dynamical role of the wind from its contribution to propagation observables.
  • The DM anisotropy is moderate: the normalized angular spread reaches about 0.7 by 60 yr, and the polar sightline shows a larger wind fraction and a less smooth temporal evolution, meaning that viewing geometry diversifies repeaters that are otherwise similar.
  • For FRB 20190520B, the fiducial model reaches the observed source-frame decline rate at about 20 yr with a mean excess column near $1.8\times10^{2}\,\mathrm{pc\,cm^{-3}}$, so a young, rapidly diluting environment can simultaneously produce a large local DM and a fast secular decrease.
  • The long-term DM evolution is nearly insensitive to the angular form of the wind, because the decline is controlled by global expansion and dilution, so the predicted secular trend is generic across bipolar wind prescriptions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the model is right, the combination $q_{\rm eff}\mathrm{DM}/|d\mathrm{DM}/dt|$ is a natural age estimator for repeaters with monotonic DM declines, but applying it requires first separating the source-local column from host-galaxy and foreground contributions.
  • A direct test the paper leaves implicit: continued monitoring of FRB 20190520B should show the absolute source-frame decline rate gradually decreasing as the shell dilutes; a persistently steep decline over another decade would require recombination or new injected plasma rather than pure expansion.
  • The simulated column of about $180\,\mathrm{pc\,cm^{-3}}$ implies, under plausible assumptions, an intrinsic rotation measure of order $10^{4}$ to $10^{5}\,\mathrm{rad\,m^{-2}}$ and a free-free optical depth near 0.1 at 1 GHz, so joint DM-RM-opacity fits with existing radio data could confirm or exclude the model.
  • Because the mean DM evolution is insensitive to the wind's angular profile, the expansion-driven decline should be shared by most young magnetar-in-SNR sources, whereas non-monotonic histories such as that of FRB 20121102A point to extra components beyond a single expanding remnant.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents two-dimensional axisymmetric hydrodynamic simulations (PLUTO) of a young neutron-star wind interacting with homologous supernova ejecta, and computes the source-local dispersion measure (DM) along radial sightlines. The wind is injected anisotropically through the inner boundary, and a passive tracer separates wind from non-wind material. In the fiducial model the wind inflates a low-density cavity and sweeps ejecta into a shell; the solid-angle-averaged ambient-subtracted excess DM declines approximately as t_age^-2 at early times and somewhat more steeply later. The DM is dominated by ejecta and swept-up non-wind material, while the directly injected wind contributes only a few percent. Parameter variations (luminosity, cone opening angle, wind velocity, ejecta mass, starting time, wind decay index, angular profile) modify normalization and angular spread but not the qualitative decline. For FRB 20190520B, matching the source-frame observed decline rate gives t_match ~ 19.8 yr and <DM_exc>_Omega ~ 183.6 pc cm^-3, with a P10-P90 range of about 120.5-227.0 pc cm^-3. The slower decline of FRB 20220529A and the non-monotonic history of FRB 20121102A are also discussed.

Significance. If the quantitative results hold, the paper provides a useful multidimensional framework for interpreting secular DM declines in repeating FRBs. Its strengths include a clearly described hydrodynamic setup, a resolution check, a controlled parameter survey, a passive-tracer decomposition, long-term evolution to ~160 yr, and a direct comparison with the observed DM decline rate. The robust qualitative conclusions - that the angle-averaged DM declines in all models and that the electron column is dominated by non-wind material - are well supported. The paper also gives credit to the competing one-dimensional calculations of Zhang et al. (2026) and is appropriately cautious about viewing-angle and foreground degeneracies. However, the quantitative rate-matching age and column for FRB 20190520B rest on the assumption of a constant ionization fraction x_e = 1, which is acknowledged in Sec. 8.4 but not quantified. Because the unshocked ejecta dominate the column and are likely only partially ionized at ages of 1-100 yr, the specific numbers t_match ~ 19.8 yr and <DM_exc> ~ 183.6 pc cm^-3 should be regarded as provisional until the ionization sensitivity is assessed.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 2.5 (Eq. 17), Sec. 7.1, Sec. 8.4] The central quantitative comparison for FRB 20190520B uses Eq. (17) with a spatially and temporally constant x_e = 1. The paper concedes in Sec. 8.4 that photoionization, recombination, and radiative cooling are neglected, but does not quantify the resulting uncertainty. This is load-bearing because the unshocked ejecta and swept-up non-wind material, which dominate DM_exc, may be only partially ionized at ages of 1-100 yr. If the effective x_e is ~0.1 rather than 1, both <DM_exc> and its time derivative drop by an order of magnitude, and the rate-matching age t_match ~ 19.8 yr and column ~183.6 pc cm^-3 would shift substantially. Moreover, a time-dependent x_e would change the logarithmic decline index q_eff, not merely the normalization, so the age cannot be read from the hydrodynamic t^-2 scaling alone. I request a sensitivity estimate (e.g., recomputing the rate match with x_e = 0.1
  2. [Sec. 4.2 and Sec. 7.1] The t_start = 2 yr model changes the mean DM by a factor of 3-4 relative to the fiducial result (Fig. 4b), and the paper states that this reflects changes in the initial ejecta structure and the amount of slow inner ejecta excluded by the fixed inner boundary. Since t_start = 1 yr is an arbitrary initialization choice and the inner boundary at r_in = 2e16 cm excludes the innermost ejecta, the rate-matching age and DM for FRB 20190520B have a model-construction uncertainty that is not propagated into the quoted t_match and <DM_exc>. The paper correctly notes that the comparison establishes 'characteristic scales rather than a source-specific fit,' but given the factor-of-several sensitivity, I would like to see an explicit statement of how t_match and <DM_exc> change if the t_start = 2 yr model is used, or a justification for why the fiducial starting time is preferred for the quantitativ
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.3, Eq. (11)] The distinction between L_0 (the luminosity normalization) and L_w(t_start) is important but could be made more prominent in the table and text. The current wording is clear in the text, but Table 1 lists L_0 without emphasizing that the initial injected luminosity is about 4.5e41 erg/s.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 3] The selected sightlines in panel (c) are not explicitly identified in the caption. Adding the θ values (e.g., 0°, 45°, 90°) would make the angular dependence easier to read.
  3. [Sec. 5, Eq. (22)] The definition q_eff = -d ln <DM_exc>_Omega / d ln t_age is fine, but the text says 'the horizontal dashed line marks q_eff = 2' in Fig. 5(b). It would help to state explicitly that q_eff = 2 corresponds to DM_exc ∝ t^-2 and that deviations at late times are partly driven by the ambient subtraction becoming non-negligible.
  4. [Sec. 8.3, Eq. (27)] The free-free opacity estimate uses an illustrative path length L = 0.1 pc and a clumping factor C_cl. The paper correctly labels these as illustrative, but it would be helpful to note that the simulation's shell thickness is resolved and could provide a lower bound on L, so the reader knows why 0.1 pc is chosen rather than the simulated shell width.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DM evolution and rate-match diagnostics are derived from the hydrodynamic simulation with externally anchored observational inputs; the x_e=1 assumption is a stated limitation rather than a fitted parameter.

full rationale

The paper's core chain is: (1) solve the Euler equations from prescribed ejecta/wind/ambient initial conditions; (2) compute n_e from Eq. (17) with constant x_e=1; (3) integrate Eq. (18) to get DMloc and subtract the constant ambient baseline to get DMexc; (4) compute q_eff and the absolute decline rate from the simulated curve; (5) equate that rate to the FRB 20190520B source-frame rate from Niu et al. (2026) to select t_match and read off the simulated DM. No step sets a model parameter equal to the observed DM or its rate. The rate-matching picks a value of the independent evolutionary clock (source age), rather than tuning L0, t0, alpha, Mej, or x_e to the target; the resulting 183.6 pc cm^-3 is therefore a conditional prediction of the fiducial model, not a fit renamed as a prediction. The approximate t^-2 decline is an emergent feature of the simulated expansion; although an analytic scaling is mentioned in the Introduction, the simulated q_eff starts near 2 and rises, so the result is not imposed by construction. The constant x_e=1 ionization prescription is an assumption, not an input fitted to FRB data; the paper explicitly acknowledges in Sec. 8.4 that photoionization, recombination, and cooling are neglected and that this affects normalization and inferred age. That is a robustness limitation, not circularity. Self-citations (e.g., Wang et al. 2025a; Zhao et al. 2026) are used for observational context and consistency checks, while the quantitative observed decline rate and redshift are anchored to the external Niu et al. (2026, 2022) data. There is no uniqueness theorem or ansatz imported from the authors' prior work to exclude alternatives. The derivation is therefore self-contained; the central claim is a genuine simulation-based diagnostic comparison.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The simulation rests on standard ideal hydrodynamics plus several astrophysical idealizations: uniform homologous ejecta, a prescribed anisotropic effective wind, a constant ionization fraction, and no magnetic fields or cooling. All are acknowledged in the limitations section. The free parameters are plausible and motivated by magnetar and SNR estimates, but none are fitted to the FRB data; the rate-matching procedure only selects an age.

free parameters (8)
  • Wind luminosity normalization L0 = 3.0e42 erg/s (fiducial); 9.0e42 erg/s in High-L0
    Chosen to approximate late-time magnetar spin-down power; not measured from FRB data. Sets the energy injection scale and thus the bubble size and shell compression.
  • Wind decay index alpha and timescale t0 = alpha=1.3, t0=0.3 yr (fiducial); alpha=2.0 with adjusted L0 in Alpha2
    Ad hoc effective-wind prescription; the paper notes the wind is 'not tied to a unique magnetic-dipole model' (Sec. 2.3). Long-term DM decline is insensitive to this choice.
  • Ejecta mass Mej = 3.0 Msun (fiducial); 6.0 Msun in High-Mej
    Sets the DM normalization. The paper shows DM scales roughly with Mej; the value is chosen as a typical SN ejecta mass, not fitted to FRB 20190520B.
  • Explosion energy ESN = 1.0e51 erg (fiducial); 2.0e51 erg in High-Mej
    Sets the ejecta velocity scale and radius; chosen as a standard SN energy.
  • Effective wind velocity v_w = 3.0e9 cm/s (fiducial); 1.5e9 cm/s in Low-wind
    Chosen; represents a mass-loaded partially thermalized outflow, not a pristine relativistic wind.
  • Angular wind profile parameters = f_floor=0.1, theta_cone=20 deg, Delta_theta=4 deg (fiducial); theta_cone=10 deg in Narrow-cone; epsilon_bip=2 in Smooth-
    Ad hoc functional forms for bipolar wind; the paper shows long-term evolution is insensitive to the profile.
  • Ionization fraction x_e = 1.0 (spatially and temporally constant)
    Assumes fully ionized hydrogen-equivalent gas everywhere. Directly sets the DM normalization; the paper notes future work should evolve ionization (Sec. 8.4).
  • Ambient density rho_amb = 1.0e-24 g/cm^3
    Sets the ambient baseline subtracted in DM_exc; constant level with negligible effect on the evolving component.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Ideal gas hydrodynamics with gamma=5/3; no magnetic fields, no radiative cooling, no self-gravity.
    Equations (1)-(5) and Secs. 2.1 and 8.4; simplifies the dynamics and excludes effects that could change shell compression and DM.
  • domain assumption Supernova ejecta are uniform-density and in homologous expansion at t_start=1 yr.
    Sec. 2.2, Eqs. (8)-(10). Real SN ejecta have density gradients and may not be homologous at 1 yr; affects DM normalization and shell structure.
  • ad hoc to paper The source-local electron column is computed with a constant ionization fraction x_e=1 for all gas.
    Eq. (17); the DM normalization and inferred age at a given decline rate scale with x_e. The paper acknowledges ionization is not evolved (Sec. 8.4).
  • domain assumption The observed secular DM decline of a repeater is attributed entirely to the modeled source-environment expansion; foreground and host-galaxy terms are constant over the monitoring interval.
    Sec. 7 and Eq. (24); used to convert the observed rate to the source frame and match the model. The paper notes the host fraction is uncertain.
  • standard math A passive tracer advected with the flow cleanly separates wind and non-wind material.
    Eqs. (6)-(7); standard approach for identifying material origin in hydro simulations.
  • domain assumption The wind is injected through the inner boundary with kinetic fraction eta_kin=0.7 and thermal fraction eta_th=0.3 at fixed radial velocity v_w.
    Sec. 2.3, Eq. (16). An effective mass-loaded outflow; not derived from a microphysical wind model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Propagation Diagnostics of Supernova Remnant Environments around Young Repeating FRBs. I. Hydrodynamic Evolution of the Source-Local Dispersion Measure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WJ4BRUDJ

@misc{pith2026260801342,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Propagation Diagnostics of Supernova Remnant Environments around Young Repeating FRBs. I. Hydrodynamic Evolution of the Source-Local Dispersion Measure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WJ4BRUDJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01342}
}
abstract

Repeating fast radio bursts may reside in young supernova remnant (SNR) environments whose evolving plasma contributes to the observed dispersion measure (DM). We use two-dimensional axisymmetric hydrodynamic simulations to study the interaction between a continuous anisotropic wind from a young neutron star and homologously expanding supernova ejecta. We follow the evolution to approximately 160 yr and calculate the source-local DM along different viewing directions, using a passive tracer to separate wind and non-wind contributions. In the fiducial model, the strongly polar-focused wind inflates a low-density cavity, while the swept-up shell remains broadly rounded and the DM shows moderate angular variation. The DM is dominated by ejecta and swept-up non-wind material. The solid-angle-averaged ambient-subtracted excess DM declines throughout the evolution, approximately following $t_{\rm age}^{-2}$ during the first several tens of years and becoming modestly steeper later. Variations in wind and ejecta parameters modify the normalization, early evolution, and viewing-angle dependence, but the angle-averaged DM declines in all models, while different bipolar wind profiles produce similar long-term evolution. For FRB 20190520B, the fiducial model reaches a decline rate comparable to the source-frame value inferred from observations at approximately 20 yr, when the mean excess DM is approximately $1.8 \times 10^2$ pc cm$^{-3}$. Thus, such a young environment can retain a substantial electron column while producing a rapid secular decrease. Repeater diversity suggests that SNR-driven expansion may coexist with additional time-dependent plasma structures or ionization changes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01342 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the initial wind–ejecta model. A young central engine is embedded in freely expanding supernova ejecta and injects an anisotropic bipolar wind through the inner radial boundary. The ejecta expand into a low-density ambient medium. The dashed line shows a representative FRB sightline at viewing angle θ, measured from the polar axis. The full opening angle of each region of enhanced polar injection is sho… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Morphological evolution of the fiducial model at source ages of 5.8, 24.8, and 50.1 yr. The top and bottom rows show the logarithmic gas density and pressure, respectively. White contours denote TRC = 0.5 and provide a visual guide to the boundary of the wind-rich region. The bipolar wind injection produces a low-density cavity surrounded by a dense shell whose size and angular structure evolve with source age. the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Source-local DM evolution and viewing-angle dependence in the fiducial model. Panel (a) shows the solid-angle￾averaged source-local DM, ⟨DMloc⟩Ω, together with the non-wind and wind contributions, ⟨DMnw⟩Ω and ⟨DMwind⟩Ω. Panel (b) shows the normalized angular DM spread, ADM,Ω. Panel (c) shows DMloc along selected viewing angles. Panel (d) shows the corresponding wind fraction, DMwind/DMloc. The mean electron column i… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Parameter dependence of the source-local DM evolution. The models shown are Fiducial, High-L0, Narrow-cone, tstart = 2 yr, Low-wind, Alpha2, and High-Mej. Panel (a) shows the solid-angle-averaged source-local DM, ⟨DMloc⟩Ω. Panel (b) shows ⟨DMloc⟩Ω/⟨DMloc⟩Ω,fid over the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Long-term evolution of the ambient-subtracted excess DM for the Fiducial and Smooth-bipolar models, shown by the solid and dashed curves, respectively. Panel (a) shows the solid-angle-averaged excess DM, ⟨DMexc⟩Ω. Panel (b) shows the effective decline index, qeff = −d …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Solid-angle-averaged cumulative radial DM profiles of the fiducial model at source ages of 10.5, 50.1, and 149.9 yr. The total DM is decomposed into the non-wind and wind contributions. The non-wind component includes the original ejecta and ambient gas after their hyd…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the fiducial simulation with the DM evolution of FRB 20190520B. Panel (a) shows the observer-frame 72-day averaged DM measurements digitized from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  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

    doi:10.1126/science.abo6526 2023

  2. [2]

    A., & de Bruyn, A

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20052990 2005

  3. [3]

    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 —. 2025, A&A, 695, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453233

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

  4. [4]

    Burn, B. J. 1966, MNRAS, 133, 67, doi: 10.1093/mnras/133.1.67

    doi:10.1093/mnras/133.1.67 1966

  5. [5]

    J., Wharton, R

    Chatterjee, S., Law, C. J., Wharton, R. S., et al. 2017, Nature, 541, 58, doi: 10.1038/nature20797

    doi:10.1038/nature20797 2017

  6. [6]

    J., & Ransom, S

    Condon, J. J., & Ransom, S. M. 2016, Essential Radio Astronomy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    M., Shin, K., Pleunis, Z., et al

    Cook, A. M., Shin, K., Pleunis, Z., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.08410, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.08410

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.08410 2026

  8. [8]

    M., & Chatterjee, S

    Cordes, J. M., & Chatterjee, S. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 417, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104501

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104501 2019

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    2025, Science China

    Feng, Y., Zhang, Y.-K., Xie, J., et al. 2025, Science China

    2025

  2. [10]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 289511, doi: 10.1007/s11433-024-2668-5

    doi

  3. [11]

    Hessels, J. W. T., Spitler, L. G., Seymour, A. D., et al. 2019, ApJL, 876, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab13ae

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    H., Michilli, D., Spitler, L

    Hilmarsson, G. H., Michilli, D., Spitler, L. G., et al. 2021, ApJL, 908, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdec0

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    L., Drout, M

    Ibik, A. L., Drout, M. R., Gaensler, B. M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad808e

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    2016, ApJ, 818, 94, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/94

    Margutti, R. 2016, ApJ, 818, 94, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/94

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    W., et al

    Li, D., Wang, P., Zhu, W. W., et al. 2021, Nature, 598, 267, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03878-5

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    B., Yang, Y

    Li, Y., Zhang, S. B., Yang, Y. P., et al. 2026, Science, 391, 280, doi: 10.1126/science.adq3225

    2026 doi

  9. [17]

    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

  10. [18]

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

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Michilli, D., et al

    Mckinven, R., Gaensler, B. M., Michilli, D., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 950, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc65f —. 2023b, ApJ, 951, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd188

    doi

  12. [20]

    G., & Henderson, A

    Mezger, P. G., & Henderson, A. P. 1967, ApJ, 147, 471, doi: 10.1086/149030 Source-Local DM in Young FRB Environments21

    1967 doi

  13. [21]

    Michilli, D., Seymour, A., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 182, doi: 10.1038/nature25149

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    2007, ApJS, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316

    Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316

    2007 doi

  15. [23]

    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

  16. [24]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 1498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1328

    Murase, K., Kashiyama, K., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1328

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    2025, ApJ, 982, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb0bc

    Ng, C., Pandhi, A., Mckinven, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb0bc

    2025 doi

  18. [26]

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

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

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    2026, Science Bulletin, 71, 76, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2025.11.023

    Niu, C.-H., Li, D., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2026, Science Bulletin, 71, 76, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2025.11.023

    2026 doi

  20. [28]

    C., Maan, Y., van Leeuwen, J., et al

    Oostrum, L. C., Maan, Y., van Leeuwen, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937422 OpenAI. 2026, ChatGPT, https://chatgpt.com/

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    2026, ApJL, 1000, L53, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae52f8

    Pandhi, A., Nimmo, K., Andrew, S., et al. 2026, ApJL, 1000, L53, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae52f8

    2026 doi

  22. [30]

    Petroff, E., Hessels, J. W. T., & Lorimer, D. R. 2019, A&A Rv, 27, 4, doi: 10.1007/s00159-019-0116-6

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    Piro, A. L. 2016, ApJL, 824, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L32

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    L., & Gaensler, B

    Piro, A. L., & Gaensler, B. M. 2018, ApJ, 861, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac9bc

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    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

  26. [34]

    P., Hessels, J

    Snelders, M. P., Hessels, J. W. T., Huang, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.11352, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.11352

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    Y., Lan, H

    Wang, F. Y., Lan, H. T., Zhao, Z. Y., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.07140. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.07140

  28. [36]

    Y., Wang, Y

    Wang, F. Y., Wang, Y. Y., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab74d0

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    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

  30. [38]

    S., Yang, Y.-P., et al

    Wang, P., Zhang, J. S., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.15790, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.15790

    doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    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

  32. [40]

    2017, ApJ, 847, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8721

    Yang, Y.-P., & Zhang, B. 2017, ApJ, 847, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8721

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Kawashima, G., Lee, S.-H., et al

    Zhang, Z. J., Kawashima, G., Lee, S.-H., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1005, 234, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae7b2a

    2026 doi

  34. [42]

    Zhao, Z.-Y., & Wang, F. Y. 2021, ApJL, 923, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3f2f

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    Y., Wang, F

    Zhao, Z. Y., Wang, F. Y., & Dai, Z. G. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.23144, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.23144

    2026 doi

  36. [44]

    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

  37. [45]

    Wang, F. Y. 2021, ApJ, 907, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd321

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.