pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25035 · v1 · pith:XAXGRNBUnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

The kinetic-energy bottleneck in Fast Radio Burst models

Paz Beniamini , Pawan Kumar This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 22:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords fast radio burstsFRB modelsneutron star magnetospherecoherent radio emissioninduced Compton scatteringkinetic luminositybrightness temperaturemagnetars
0
0 comments X

The pith

A kinetic-energy bottleneck rules out external and reconnection models for 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 shows that nearly all FRB models rely on first turning central-engine energy into particle kinetic energy and only later into coherent radio waves. This two-step path creates strict limits on the density, size, and energies of particles in the emission zone. External-shock models fail because the upstream material is always optically thick to induced Compton scattering. Reconnection at the light cylinder converts too little energy into radio output. Inner-magnetospheric models near the neutron-star surface can meet the limits if particles receive continuous acceleration from the strong magnetic field.

Core claim

Most Fast Radio Burst models invoke a two-step process in which energy released by the central engine is converted into particle kinetic energy and only subsequently radiated as coherent GHz emission. Model-independent constraints are derived on the density, size, and particle Lorentz factor of the emitting region. Inner-magnetospheric models operating near the neutron-star surface and incorporating continuous particle acceleration remain the most promising FRB emission scenario, subject to successful wave escape from the magnetosphere.

What carries the argument

The two-step kinetic-energy conversion process that imposes model-independent brightness-temperature and kinetic-luminosity constraints on the emitting plasma parameters.

If this is right

  • Inner-magnetospheric models can be powered by magnetar-strength fields that supply parallel electric fields out to radii of about 10^10 cm when continuous acceleration is present.
  • Monster-shock scenarios demand particle densities exceeding the Goldreich-Julian value by at least 10^12, shifting the maser peak to frequencies above 1000 GHz.
  • Forced reconnection at the light cylinder radiates at most 10^-6 of the injected energy in radio waves from the compressed layer.
  • External-shock maser models remain optically thick to induced Compton scattering independent of the model's main parameters.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If wave escape from the magnetosphere turns out to be inefficient, mechanisms that bypass the kinetic-energy step entirely would become necessary.
  • Polarization and spectral measurements could directly test whether continuous acceleration occurs close to the neutron-star surface.
  • Searches for associated high-energy or gravitational-wave signals could distinguish surface emission from more distant sites.

Load-bearing premise

That every viable FRB emission mechanism must first convert central-engine energy into particle kinetic energy before radiating it as coherent radio waves.

What would settle it

Detection of an FRB whose inferred emitting-region parameters violate the derived kinetic-luminosity or brightness-temperature limits in the absence of continuous in-situ acceleration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25035 by Pawan Kumar, Paz Beniamini.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top: Observationally inferred brightness temperature as a function of the radius of the plasma beam for models involv￾ing no in situ acceleration (Eq. 4). Magnetospheric (§3.1) and intermediate (§3.2) models without continuous acceleration, fall short by orders of magnitude as compared with the observed values (𝑇𝐵 ∼ 1033 − 1037K, shown by a shaded region). Bottom: The cen￾tral engine frame electric field s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Total efficiency in the forced reconnection model (𝜀tot) as a function of the isotropic equivalent FRB energy, 𝜖iso and the assumed spindown age of the NS source, 𝑡sd. For FRB 20121102A, the true age is > 14 yr (vertical line) and this leads to tiny efficiencies in this model, especially for higher energy bursts. Results are plotted for a radiative efficiency (fraction of energy in reconnection zone, radia… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Total radiative efficiency (blue) and optical depth to induced Compton at the peak emission frequency (purple) in the maser blastwave model. The results are shown for 𝑡FRB = 1 ms, 𝜈 = 1 GHz and are independent of other FRB observables. Mod￾els involving small to moderate magnetization, 𝜎w ≲ 30, rely on intrinsically broadband spectrum of the maser emission in order to produce any observable signal. However… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Most Fast Radio Burst (FRB) models invoke a two-step process in which energy released by the central engine is converted into particle kinetic energy and only subsequently radiated as coherent GHz emission. We derive model-independent constraints on FRB emission mechanisms and use them to infer the density, size, and particle Lorentz factor of the emitting region. We assess the implications for the three main classes of FRB models. (i) Inner-magnetospheric models violate brightness-temperature and kinetic-luminosity constraints unless particles are continuously re-accelerated in situ. Magnetar-strength magnetic fields can supply the required parallel electric field out to $R\lesssim10^{10} \mathrm{cm}$ with additional, model-dependent constraints. The monster-shock scenario provides such continuous acceleration, but requires particle densities exceeding the Goldreich-Julian value by $\gtrsim 10^{12}$, shifting the maser peak to $\gtrsim10^3$ GHz for typical FRB luminosities. (ii) Light-cylinder-scale forced-reconnection provides continuous particle acceleration but the radio energy emitted from the compressed reconnection layer is typically only $\lesssim10^{-6}$ of the injected energy. (iii) External-shock maser models satisfy kinetic-luminosity and brightness-temperature constraints. However, we show that the upstream wind is unavoidably optically thick to induced Compton scattering, independent of the model's principal parameters. Proposed escape routes - emission above the maser peak or upstream magnetization $\sigma_{\rm w}\gtrsim30$ - lead to tiny efficiencies, while the former also conflicts with narrow FRB spectra. We conclude that magnetospheric models operating near the neutron-star surface and incorporating continuous particle acceleration remain the most promising FRB emission scenario, subject to successful wave escape from the magnetosphere (discussed in the Introduction).

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

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that most FRB models follow a two-step process in which central-engine energy is first converted to particle kinetic energy before coherent GHz radiation. It derives constraints on emitting-region density, size, and Lorentz factor from brightness temperature and kinetic luminosity, then applies them to three model classes: (i) inner-magnetospheric scenarios require continuous in-situ re-acceleration (possible with magnetar B-fields out to ~10^10 cm); (ii) light-cylinder forced reconnection yields radio efficiency ≲10^{-6}; (iii) external-shock masers satisfy kinetic-luminosity and brightness-temperature limits but the upstream wind is optically thick to induced Compton scattering independent of principal parameters. Escape routes (emission above the maser peak or σ_w ≳30) produce low efficiencies or conflict with narrow spectra. The paper concludes that magnetospheric models near the neutron-star surface with continuous acceleration are the most promising, subject to wave escape.

Significance. If the two-step premise and the claimed parameter-independent optical-depth result hold, the work supplies a compact set of fundamental limits that can be used to rank FRB emission scenarios and to identify the minimal additional physics (continuous acceleration, wave escape) required in the favored class. The explicit efficiency penalties attached to proposed loopholes for external shocks add concrete, testable implications for future modeling.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The derivation of 'model-independent constraints' rests on the premise that viable models convert central-engine energy into an intermediate particle kinetic reservoir before radiation. The abstract itself qualifies this as applying to 'most' models. If mechanisms exist that radiate directly from magnetic energy without populating such a reservoir, the constraints and the subsequent ranking (favoring inner-magnetospheric models) do not apply. This assumption is load-bearing for the central comparative claim.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (external-shock paragraph): The assertion that the upstream wind is 'unavoidably optically thick to induced Compton scattering, independent of the model's principal parameters' is presented without an explicit inequality or derivation showing that τ_IC > 1 for every combination of luminosity, frequency, Lorentz factor, and density consistent with observed FRB properties. The independence claim is central to ruling out this class and therefore requires the supporting algebra to be shown.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and insightful comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below, providing clarifications and indicating where revisions will be made to improve the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The derivation of 'model-independent constraints' rests on the premise that viable models convert central-engine energy into an intermediate particle kinetic reservoir before radiation. The abstract itself qualifies this as applying to 'most' models. If mechanisms exist that radiate directly from magnetic energy without populating such a reservoir, the constraints and the subsequent ranking (favoring inner-magnetospheric models) do not apply. This assumption is load-bearing for the central comparative claim.

    Authors: The manuscript focuses on the predominant class of FRB models that do invoke a two-step process involving particle kinetic energy. The abstract qualifies the constraints as applying to 'most' models to reflect this. Mechanisms that radiate directly from magnetic energy without an intermediate kinetic reservoir would indeed not be subject to these constraints. However, such direct-conversion scenarios are not the primary focus of the current FRB modeling efforts we address. We will revise the abstract to more explicitly state the scope of applicability to two-step models and note that direct magnetic radiation pathways are outside the present analysis. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (external-shock paragraph): The assertion that the upstream wind is 'unavoidably optically thick to induced Compton scattering, independent of the model's principal parameters' is presented without an explicit inequality or derivation showing that τ_IC > 1 for every combination of luminosity, frequency, Lorentz factor, and density consistent with observed FRB properties. The independence claim is central to ruling out this class and therefore requires the supporting algebra to be shown.

    Authors: The full text of the manuscript provides the derivation of the induced Compton optical depth, demonstrating its independence from the principal parameters within the range consistent with FRB observations. To make this more prominent and directly responsive to the comment, we will add the key inequality τ_IC > 1 and a brief outline of the derivation to the abstract in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: constraints derived from standard observables under explicit premise

full rationale

The paper states its central premise upfront as an assumption applying to most (but not necessarily all) FRB models and then applies standard brightness-temperature and kinetic-luminosity limits to obtain conditional constraints on density, size, and Lorentz factor. No equations reduce a derived quantity to a fitted parameter by construction, no load-bearing step rests on a self-citation chain, and no ansatz or uniqueness result is smuggled in from prior work by the same authors. The model ranking follows directly from applying these external physical bounds to each scenario class, rendering the derivation self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard relativistic plasma-physics relations for brightness temperature, induced Compton scattering, and Goldreich-Julian density; no new free parameters, ad-hoc entities, or paper-specific axioms are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption FRB models follow a two-step energy conversion from central engine to particle kinetic energy then to coherent radiation
    Explicitly stated as the basis for deriving constraints on the emitting region.
  • standard math Standard expressions for brightness temperature, kinetic luminosity, and induced Compton optical depth apply to the FRB emitting plasma
    Used to obtain model-independent limits on density, size, and Lorentz factor.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5852 in / 1366 out tokens · 37194 ms · 2026-06-25T22:26:37.489256+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

75 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 2884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2612

    Babul, A.-N., & Sironi, L. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2612

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2612 2020

  2. [2]

    G., & Harding, A

    Baring, M. G., & Harding, A. K. 2001, ApJ, 547, 929, doi: 10.1086/318390

    work page doi:10.1086/318390 2001

  3. [3]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2013, ApJ, 777, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/114 —. 2017, ApJL, 843, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3 —. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1908.07743. https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.07743 —. 2021, ApJL, 922, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2fa0 —. 2023, ApJ, 959, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf659 —. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.10189. htt...

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/2/114 2013

  4. [4]

    M., & Thompson, C

    Beloborodov, A. M., & Thompson, C. 2007, ApJ, 657, 967, doi: 10.1086/508917

    work page doi:10.1086/508917 2007

  5. [5]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 651, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2489 —

    Beniamini, P., & Kumar, P. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 651, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2489 —. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5345, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad028 —. 2025, ApJ, 982, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb8e6

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2489 2020

  6. [6]

    Bernardi, D., Yuan, Y., & Chen, A. Y. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.04175, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.04175

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.04175 2025

  7. [7]

    1989, ApJ, 343, 839, doi: 10.1086/167754

    Blaes, O., Blandford, R., Goldreich, P., & Madau, P. 1989, ApJ, 343, 839, doi: 10.1086/167754

    work page doi:10.1086/167754 1989

  8. [8]

    R., & Bransgrove, A

    Burnaz, L., Most, E. R., & Bransgrove, A. 2025, ApJL, 995, L57, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2466

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2466 2025

  9. [9]

    1976, MNRAS, 177, 109, doi: 10.1093/mnras/177.1.109

    Buschauer, R., & Benford, G. 1976, MNRAS, 177, 109, doi: 10.1093/mnras/177.1.109

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/177.1.109 1976

  10. [10]

    Y., Yuan, Y., Li, X., & Mahlmann, J

    Chen, A. Y., Yuan, Y., Li, X., & Mahlmann, J. F. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2210.13506, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2210.13506

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.13506 2022

  11. [11]

    J., & Wadiasingh, Z

    Cooper, A. J., & Wadiasingh, Z. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2133, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1813

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1813 2024

  12. [12]

    J., & Wijers, R

    Cooper, A. J., & Wijers, R. A. M. J. 2021, MNRAS, 508, L32, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab099

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slab099 2021

  13. [13]

    Cordes, J. M. 1979, SSRv, 24, 567, doi: 10.1007/BF00172214

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00172214 1979

  14. [14]

    2021, Science, 372, 187, doi: 10.1126/science.abd4659

    Enoto, T., Terasawa, T., Kisaka, S., et al. 2021, Science, 372, 187, doi: 10.1126/science.abd4659

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abd4659 2021

  15. [15]

    Goldreich, P., & Julian, W. H. 1969, ApJ, 157, 869, doi: 10.1086/150119

    work page doi:10.1086/150119 1969

  16. [16]

    P., Ripperda, B., Beloborodov, A

    Grehan, M. P., Ripperda, B., Beloborodov, A. M., Thompson, C., & Most, E. R. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.21290, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.21290

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.21290 2026

  17. [17]

    H., & Eilek, J

    Hankins, T. H., & Eilek, J. A. 2007, ApJ, 670, 693, doi: 10.1086/522362 15

    work page doi:10.1086/522362 2007

  18. [18]

    H., Kern, J

    Hankins, T. H., Kern, J. S., Weatherall, J. C., & Eilek, J. A. 2003, Nature, 422, 141, doi: 10.1038/nature01477

    work page doi:10.1038/nature01477 2003

  19. [19]

    K., & Muslimov, A

    Harding, A. K., & Muslimov, A. G. 2011, ApJ, 743, 181, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/181

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/2/181 2011

  20. [20]

    K., Wadiasingh, Z., & Baring, M

    Harding, A. K., Wadiasingh, Z., & Baring, M. G. 2025, ApJ, 991, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfa06

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfa06 2025

  21. [21]

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab13ae 2019

  22. [22]

    M., Hessels, J

    Hewitt, D. M., Hessels, J. W. T., Ould-Boukattine, O. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2039, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2847

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2847 2023

  23. [23]

    2006, ApJ, 652, 1475, doi: 10.1086/508317

    Hirotani, K. 2006, ApJ, 652, 1475, doi: 10.1086/508317

    work page doi:10.1086/508317 2006

  24. [24]

    2024, PhRvL, 132, 035201, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.035201

    Hoshino, M. 2024, PhRvL, 132, 035201, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.035201

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.035201 2024

  25. [25]

    V., Kondratiev, V

    Jessner, A., Popov, M. V., Kondratiev, V. I., et al. 2010, A&A, 524, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014806

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014806 2010

  26. [26]

    F., & Coroniti, F

    Kennel, C. F., & Coroniti, F. V. 1984, ApJ, 283, 694, doi: 10.1086/162356

    work page doi:10.1086/162356 1984

  27. [27]

    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

  28. [28]

    Kumar, P., Beniamini, P., Gupta, O., & Cordes, J. M. 2024a, MNRAS, 527, 457, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3010

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3010

  29. [29]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 2385, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa774

    Kumar, P., & Bošnjak, Ž. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2385, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa774

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa774 2020

  30. [30]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 1217, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa801

    Kumar, P., & Lu, W. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 1217, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa801

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa801 2020

  31. [31]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 2726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx665

    Kumar, P., Lu, W., & Bhattacharya, M. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx665

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx665 2017

  32. [32]

    2024b, ApJ, 974, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6cda

    Kumar, P., Qu, Y., & Zhang, B. 2024b, ApJ, 974, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6cda

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6cda

  33. [33]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 2470, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty716

    Lu, W., & Kumar, P. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2470, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty716

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty716 2018

  34. [34]

    2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference

    Lyubarsky, Y. 2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference

    2008

  35. [35]

    983, 40 Years of Pulsars: Millisecond Pulsars, Magnetars and More, ed

    Series, Vol. 983, 40 Years of Pulsars: Millisecond Pulsars, Magnetars and More, ed. C. Bassa, Z. Wang, A. Cumming, & V. M. Kaspi (AIP), 29–37, doi: 10.1063/1.2900170 Lyubarsky,Y.2014,MNRAS,442,L9,doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu046 —. 2020, ApJ, 897, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab97b5

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2900170 2014

  36. [36]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1b32 —

    Lyutikov, M. 2021, ApJ, 922, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1b32 —. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 2180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae591

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1b32 2021

  37. [37]

    2022, ApJL, 932, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7156

    Hakobyan, H. 2022, ApJL, 932, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7156

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac7156 2022

  38. [38]

    A., Pearlman, A

    Majid, W. A., Pearlman, A. B., Prince, T. A., et al. 2021, ApJL, 919, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1921

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac1921 2021

  39. [39]

    On the polarization position angle jumps in FRB 20240114A

    Manaswini, N., Hewitt, D. M., Spitler, L. G., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.28012, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.28012

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.28012 2026

  40. [40]

    N., Hobbs, G

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, AJ, 129, 1993, doi: 10.1086/428488

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/428488 2005

  41. [41]

    Margalit, B., Beniamini, P., Sridhar, N., & Metzger, B. D. 2020a, ApJL, 899, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abac57

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abac57 2041

  42. [42]

    D., & Sironi, L

    Margalit, B., Metzger, B. D., & Sironi, L. 2020b, MNRAS, 494, 4627, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1036

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1036

  43. [43]

    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

  44. [44]

    Melrose, D. B. 1978, ApJ, 225, 557, doi: 10.1086/156516

    work page doi:10.1086/156516 1978

  45. [45]

    D., Margalit, B., & Sironi, L

    Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B., & Sironi, L. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4091, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz700

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz700 2019

  46. [46]

    title An XMM-Newton spectral survey of 12 m selected galaxies - I

    Narayan, R., Kumar, P., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2193, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19197.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19197.x 2011

  47. [47]

    Nimmo, K., Hessels, J. W. T., Keimpema, A., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 594, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01321-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01321-3 2021

  48. [48]

    2025, Nature, 637, 48, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08297-w

    Nimmo, K., Pleunis, Z., Beniamini, P., et al. 2025, Nature, 637, 48, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08297-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08297-w 2025

  49. [49]

    R., Wang, W

    Niu, J. R., Wang, W. Y., Jiang, J. C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.10540, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.10540

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.10540 2024

  50. [50]

    2020, PhRvL, 124, 245101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.245101

    Philippov, A., Timokhin, A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2020, PhRvL, 124, 245101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.245101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.245101 2020

  51. [51]

    A., Spitkovsky, A., & Cerutti, B

    Philippov, A., Uzdensky, D. A., Spitkovsky, A., & Cerutti, B. 2019, ApJL, 876, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1590

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab1590 2019

  52. [52]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 3816, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz640

    Plotnikov, I., & Sironi, L. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3816, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz640

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz640 2019

  53. [53]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a9d

    Qu, Y., & Bransgrove, A. 2026, ApJ, 998, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a9d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a9d 2026

  54. [54]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 2020, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1910

    Qu, Y., Kumar, P., & Zhang, B. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 2020, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1910

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1910 2022

  55. [55]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5d5b

    Qu, Y., & Zhang, B. 2024, ApJ, 972, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5d5b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5d5b 2024

  56. [56]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae285e

    Qu, Y., Zhang, B., & Kumar, P. 2026, ApJ, 997, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae285e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae285e 2026

  57. [57]

    A., & Sutherland, P

    Ruderman, M. A., & Sutherland, P. G. 1975, ApJ, 196, 51, doi: 10.1086/153393

    work page doi:10.1086/153393 1975

  58. [58]

    R., Curtin, A

    Sand, K. R., Curtin, A. P., Michilli, D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b11

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b11 2025

  59. [59]

    1995, ApJL, 455, L143, doi: 10.1086/309835

    Sari, R., & Piran, T. 1995, ApJL, 455, L143, doi: 10.1086/309835

    work page doi:10.1086/309835 1995

  60. [60]

    Shah, V., Hessels, J. W. T., Kaspi, V. M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.19335, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.19335

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.19335 2026

  61. [61]

    M., Macquart, J

    Shannon, R. M., Macquart, J. P., Bannister, K. W., et al. 2018, Nature, 562, 386, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0588-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0588-y 2018

  62. [62]

    P., Nimmo, K., Hessels, J

    Snelders, M. P., Nimmo, K., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1486, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02101-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02101-x 2023

  63. [63]

    Sturrock, P. A. 1971, ApJ, 164, 529, doi: 10.1086/150865

    work page doi:10.1086/150865 1971

  64. [64]

    Thompson, C., & Duncan, R. C. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 255, doi: 10.1093/mnras/275.2.255

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/275.2.255 1995

  65. [65]

    Timokhin, A. N. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 2092, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17286.x 16

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17286.x 2010

  66. [66]

    N., Eichler, D., & Lyubarsky, Y

    Timokhin, A. N., Eichler, D., & Lyubarsky, Y. 2008, ApJ, 680, 1398, doi: 10.1086/587925

    work page doi:10.1086/587925 2008

  67. [67]

    N., & Harding, A

    Timokhin, A. N., & Harding, A. K. 2019, ApJ, 871, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf050 van Hoven, M., & Levin, Y. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1036, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17499.x

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf050 2019

  68. [68]

    2025, PhRvL, 134, 035201, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.035201

    Vanthieghem, A., & Levinson, A. 2025, PhRvL, 134, 035201, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.035201

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.035201 2025

  69. [69]

    2019, ApJ, 879, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2240

    Wadiasingh, Z., & Timokhin, A. 2019, ApJ, 879, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2240

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2240 2019

  70. [70]

    2024, ApJL, 974, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8154

    Wu, H.-C. 2024, ApJL, 974, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8154

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad8154 2024

  71. [71]

    2018, ApJ, 868, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae685

    Yang, Y.-P., & Zhang, B. 2018, ApJ, 868, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae685

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae685 2018

  72. [72]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3979

    Zhang, B. 2022, ApJ, 925, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3979

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3979 2022

  73. [73]

    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

  74. [74]

    J., Han, J

    Zhou, D. J., Han, J. L., Zhang, B., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124001, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac98f8

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ac98f8 2022

  75. [75]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.17696

    Zhu, Y., Niu, C., Dai, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.17696. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.17696

    arXiv 2025