Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 87 references

Probing the Dispersion and Rotation Measure Contributions from Supernova Remnants in Fast Radio Burst Source Environments with 1D SNR Simulation

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-15 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Young supernova remnants can supply tens to hundreds of pc cm^{-3} of the local DM in repeating FRBs, dominated by unshocked ejecta rather than the shocked shell.

desk verdict Solid numerical extension of analytic SNR–FRB models; absolute DM scale rides on a free unshocked ionization fraction, but the qualitative picture is real and useful. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.07012 v4 pith:ZCWTZUKN submitted 2026-03-07 astro-ph.HE

Zhao Joseph Zhang , Gaku Kawashima , Shiu-Hang Lee , Kentaro Nagamine , Bing Zhang , Yusei Fujimaru This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstssupernovaremnantsmagnetarsdispersionmeasurerotationcore-collapsesupernovaenon-equilibriumionization
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

Repeating fast radio bursts sometimes show a clear year-scale drop in dispersion measure, pointing to dense plasma near the source rather than the slowly changing cosmic web. This paper forward-models that plasma with one-dimensional hydrodynamics plus non-equilibrium ionization for a young magnetar sitting inside supernova ejecta, using both single-star and binary-stripped progenitors. The shocked shell itself contributes only a few pc cm^{-3} of DM, while the still-unshocked ejecta dominate the time-varying column and fall roughly as t to the power -1.8 to -1.9. Matching the observed DM decay rates of FRB 20190520B, FRB 20220529A and the late decline of FRB 20121102 implies local SNR contributions of order ten to a few hundred pc cm^{-3}. Shock-amplified fields can still produce large rotation measures even when the shocked DM is small, and GHz emission typically becomes free-free transparent within about seventy years. The work therefore argues that a young core-collapse supernova remnant can account for a substantial fraction of the source DM term that must be subtracted before FRBs are used as cosmological baryon probes.

What carries the argument

Time-dependent 1D SNR simulations that couple hydrodynamics with non-equilibrium ionization for single-star and binary-stripped progenitors, then integrate electron density (and, for RM, ram-pressure-amplified B) separately over the shocked shell and the full ionized region including unshocked ejecta.

What would settle it

If multi-year monitoring of additional active repeaters shows secular DM declines that cannot be matched by any model in the grid at any ionization fraction, or if early-time optical-depth measurements require free-free escape times much longer than the ~70 yr upper envelope found here, the claimed SNR origin for the bulk of DM_source would be ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In self-consistent 1D HD+NEI simulations of young magnetar-bearing SNRs, the shocked region contributes only limited DM (≲10 pc cm^{-3}), while the dominant time-varying component is the unshocked ejecta, whose early evolution follows DM ∝ t^{-α} with α ≃ 1.8–1.9. Matching the observed dDM/dt of FRB 20190520B, FRB 20220529A and the late-stage slope of FRB 20121102 implies local SNR DM contributions of ∼10 to a few 10^{2} pc cm^{-3}, supporting a young CCSN/SNR origin for a substantial fraction of DM_source.

Load-bearing premise

The ionization fraction of the unshocked ejecta, which supplies most of the DM, is treated as a fixed free parameter rather than evolved self-consistently with photoionization or central-engine radiation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Local SNR DM of tens to hundreds of pc cm^{-3} must be marginalized before FRB sightlines are used to map cosmic baryons.
  • Binary-stripped progenitors systematically under-produce DM relative to single-star models at fixed initial mass, offering a channel discriminant.
  • Only the 11 solar-mass single-star model reproduces the observed RM evolution of FRB 20121102 in a pure shock-amplification framework.
  • GHz radio emission can escape most models within ~70 years, and weakly ionized ejecta can be transparent almost immediately.
  • For older non-repeating sources the SNR contribution is expected to drop to only a few pc cm^{-3}.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Hybrid SNR plus magnetar-wind-nebula models will be needed for sources that show both early DM rises and late declines.
  • A broader progenitor grid that includes multi-dimensional ejecta and cosmic-ray ionization could shrink the present uncertainty band on absolute DM_source.
  • If the same slope-matching method is applied to a larger sample of secular DM-decay FRBs, the inferred ages should cluster below ~100 years if the young-SNR picture is generic.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses 1D HD+NEI SNR simulations of young magnetars in single-star and binary-stripped ejecta (11 and 30 M⊙) to quantify local DM and RM contributions to FRBs. The shocked shell alone yields only ≲10 pc cm^{-3} of DM, while the unshocked ejecta dominate the time-varying DM and follow DM ∝ t^{-α} with α ≃ 1.8–1.9 in free expansion. Matching observed dDM/dt for FRB 20190520B, FRB 20220529A, and the late decline of FRB 20121102 implies local SNR DM of ~10 to a few 10^{2} pc cm^{-3} at occurrence ages ≲ 100 yr; GHz free–free escape is typically allowed by t_esc ≲ 70 yr. Shock-only RM with ram-pressure B amplification matches FRB 20121102 only for the 11 M⊙ SS model. The work argues that a young CCSN/SNR can supply a substantial fraction of DM_source and that progenitor-channel modeling is needed for cosmological DM inferences.

Significance. If the slope-matching and DM-scale results hold under more self-consistent ionization, the paper would provide a concrete, simulation-based calibration of DM_source for young FRB engines and a clear SS/BS channel diagnostic. Strengths include a forward-modeling pipeline with realistic MESA progenitors and CSM, explicit shocked vs unshocked decomposition (Figs. 2, 5), free-expansion slopes close to the expected t^{-2}, multi-source t_occur tables (Tables 2–3, 5–6), and public data products/code for DM/RM and analytic benchmarks. The shocked-region DM upper bound and α ≃ 1.8–1.9 are robust under the stated physics and useful even if absolute DM remains uncertain. The RM result is more model-dependent but still a falsifiable prediction within the shock-only framework.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.2.1, Table 3, §5.2.2] Section 5.2.1 and Table 3: the headline inference that matching observed dDM/dt implies local SNR DM of tens to hundreds pc cm^{-3} (Tables 2, 5–6; §5.2.2) rests almost entirely on unshocked ejecta, whose ionization is a free constant 0.01 ≤ χ_e,unej ≤ 1 (and 10^{-4} ≤ χ_e,ISM ≤ 1), not evolved with photoionization/recombination or CCO radiation. Because early DM and dDM/dt both scale linearly with χ_e,unej, both t_occur and DM_SNR(t_occur) inherit that factor; Table 3 already shows order-of-magnitude swings. The fiducial HH value χ_e,unej = 0.1 is literature-motivated but not self-consistent. The shocked DM ≲ 10 and α ≃ 1.8–1.9 are robust; the absolute DM_source claim is not. Please either (i) add a minimal reverse-shock/CCO photoionization model for the unshocked ejecta, or (ii) reframe the main result as a χ_e-scaled family of solutions and state the absolute DM range as conditional o
  2. [§4.6, §5.3] Section 4.6 and §5.3: the claim that only the 11 M⊙ SS model reproduces FRB 20121102 RM evolution is obtained in a shock-only framework with B^{2}/8π = ε_B ρ v^{2} (ε_B = 0.01–0.3, fiducial 0.1) and no CR-driven amplification or MWN contribution, while the same source is widely discussed as MWN-influenced and shows two-stage DM evolution. The paper notes this tension but still presents the RM match as a model selector. Please either include a simple MWN/unshocked contribution or more clearly demote the RM result to an upper-limit / shock-only diagnostic rather than a progenitor-channel discriminator.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract vs body: abstract says "at least two repeaters" (20190520B, 20121102) while the body and later abstract-like summary include FRB 20220529A as a third secular-decline case. Align the abstract with the three-source analysis used in Tables 2, 5–6.
  2. [§3, Table 4] Equation numbering and cross-references: analytic benchmarks are labeled Eqs. (5)–(13) in §3, but later text sometimes refers to "Eq. 4" for YZ17 (Table 4). Harmonize labels.
  3. [§5.4] Fig. 10 vs Fig. 13: the switch from fiducial μ to simulation-based μ changes which analytic model "best matches" 11 M⊙ SS; state more explicitly in the main text that best-match analytic prescriptions are assumption-dependent.
  4. [§5.2.1] Notation: χ_e,unsh vs χ_e,unej / χ_e,ISM is used interchangeably in places; define once and stick to it. Also clarify that μ_e ≃ μ_a is an assumption for weakly ionized unshocked gas, not a general identity.
  5. [Throughout] Typographical/OCR issues in the draft (e.g., garbled table headers, "DMsource​​", mixed full-width characters) should be cleaned for production.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: forward HD+NEI modeling generates DM(t); slope-matching is standard age inference, not a tautology or fitted-input prediction.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is: (i) MESA-based SS/BS progenitors and wind-built CSM set ejecta/CSM density structure; (ii) 1D HD+NEI evolves shocks and shocked ionization; (iii) DM_SNR is the radial integral of n_e (Eq. 14), with unshocked χ_e treated as an explicit free parameter grid (Eqs. 32–33, Table 3); (iv) t_occur is the epoch where the simulated dDM/dt equals the observed secular slope, after which DM_SNR(t_occur) is read off. That is ordinary model-to-data age matching: the slope–age relation is produced by free-expansion hydrodynamics (DM∝t^{-α}, α≃1.8–1.9 from the unshocked ejecta), not imposed by definition or by fitting A in DM=A t^{-α} to the FRB data. Absolute DM scale depends on progenitor mass, channel, and the chosen χ_e,unej—systematic uncertainty, not circular reduction. Analytic benchmarks (YZ17, PG18, Zhao+21) are independent literature formulae evaluated with stated parameters. RM uses a ram-pressure ε_B ansatz and slope-aligns time only; amplitude is then a genuine model prediction (only 11 M⊙ SS succeeds). Overlapping-author citations (Kawashima+2026 progenitors; Zhang+2025 cosmology notation) supply inputs or convention, not a uniqueness theorem that forces the SNR DM/RM results. No self-definitional loop, no fitted-input-called-prediction, no load-bearing self-citation chain. Score 0; empty steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Central quantitative claims rest on standard hydro+NEI physics plus several free ionization and magnetic parameters that set the absolute DM and RM scales. No new particles or forces are invented; the main modelling choices are the parametric unshocked ionization, the ram-pressure B prescription, and the restricted progenitor grid.

free parameters (6)
  • χ_e,unej (unshocked-ejecta ionization fraction) = fiducial 0.1 (HH); range 0.01–1 explored
    Treated as free constant in [0.01,1]; absolute DM_SNR and t_occur scale directly with it (Table 3, Section 5.2.1).
  • χ_e,ISM (unshocked CSM/ISM ionization) = fiducial 0.1
    Free constant in [10^{-4},1]; affects late-time DM floor.
  • ε_B (magnetic energy fraction of ram pressure) = 0.1 (fiducial)
    Sets B and therefore RM amplitude; explored 0.01–0.3, fiducial 0.1 (Section 4.6).
  • n_ISM = 1.0 cm^{-3}
    Ambient density for CSM construction; fixed at 1 cm^{-3}.
  • ejecta power-law index n = 11
    Outer ejecta density slope fixed to n=11 for both channels.
  • t_init = 3 yr
    Simulation start time after explosion; homologous expansion assumed thereafter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Ejecta are in free homologous expansion with a flat-core + power-law envelope density profile by t=3 yr.
    Standard SNR initial condition (Truelove & McKee); Section 4.2.
  • ad hoc to paper Unshocked ejecta ionization can be approximated by a single constant χ_e rather than full photoionization–recombination balance.
    Explicitly stated as a limitation (Section 5.2.1, 6); dominates DM_SNR.
  • domain assumption Post-shock magnetic field is a fixed fraction ε_B of ram pressure; unshocked ejecta carry no ram-pressure-supported B.
    Common shock-amplification ansatz (Piro & Gaensler); Section 4.6.
  • domain assumption 1D spherical symmetry and stationary central engine; natal kick and multi-D instabilities neglected for t≲500 yr.
    Stated in methods and limitations (Sections 4, 6).
  • ad hoc to paper Cosmic-ray acceleration and CR-driven B amplification are disabled.
    Explicit modelling choice (Section 4.4, 6).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing the Dispersion and Rotation Measure Contributions from Supernova Remnants in Fast Radio Burst Source Environments with 1D SNR Simulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZCWTZUKN

@misc{pith2026260307012,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing the Dispersion and Rotation Measure Contributions from Supernova Remnants in Fast Radio Burst Source Environments with 1D SNR Simulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZCWTZUKN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.07012}
}
abstract

Fast radio bursts (FRBs) provide a sensitive probe of ionized baryons through their dispersion measure (DM). In addition to slowly evolving cosmological terms, at least two repeaters now show clear secular DM-decrease episodes: FRB~20190520B and FRB~20121102 , supporting a dense, dynamically evolving local environment. We adopt a \emph{forward-modeling} approach and use time-dependent 1D SNR simulations for a young magnetar embedded in SN ejecta, combining single-star and binary-stripped progenitors with HD+NEI calculations to follow shock structure, ionization, and electron density. The shocked region contributes only limited DM ($\lesssim10\,{\rm pc\,cm^{-3}}$), while the dominant time-varying component is the unshocked ejecta, whose early behavior follows ${\rm DM}\propto t^{-\alpha}$ with $\alpha\simeq1.8$--$1.9$. Although shocked-region DM is small, shock-amplified magnetic fields can still generate substantial RM; in our shock-only RM framework, only the $11\,M_\odot$ SS model reproduces the FRB~20121102 RM evolution. Binary-stripped progenitors generally yield smaller DM than single-star models at fixed $M_{\rm ZAMS}$, with composition-dependent mean molecular weights introducing non-monotonic mass trends. Matching the observed ${\rm dDM}/{\rm d}t$ of FRB~20190520B (and the late-stage slope of FRB~20121102), we infer local SNR DM contributions of tens to hundreds ${\rm pc\,cm^{-3}}$. We also find GHz escape is allowed in most models, with $\tau_{\rm ff}=1$ typically reached by $t_{\rm esc}\lesssim70$ yr; for weakly ionized ejecta, the source can be nearly transparent from very early times. These results support a young CCSN/SNR origin for a substantial fraction of ${\rm DM}_{\rm source}$ and highlight that physically consistent local-environment modeling is essential for robust FRB cosmological DM inferences.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2010, Computer Physics Communications, 181, 21, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2009.08.011

    Amaku, M., Pascholati, P., & Vanin, V. 2010, Computer Physics Communications, 181, 21, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2009.08.011

    doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2009.08.011 2010

  2. [2]

    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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa7a0c 2017

  3. [3]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 843, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3 2017

  4. [4]

    M., Chevalier, R

    Blondin, J. M., Chevalier, R. A., & Frierson, D. M. 2001, ApJ, 563, 806, doi: 10.1086/324042

    doi:10.1086/324042 2001

  5. [5]

    M., & Ellison, D

    Blondin, J. M., & Ellison, D. C. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 560, 244, doi: 10.1086/322499

    doi:10.1086/322499 2001

  6. [6]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1982, ApJ, 258, 790, doi: 10.1086/160126

    doi:10.1086/160126 1982

  7. [7]

    A., & Fransson, C

    Chevalier, R. A., & Fransson, C. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 875, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_34

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_34 2017

  8. [8]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16952, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16952

    Connor, L., Ravi, V., Sharma, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16952, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16952

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.16952 2024

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    M., Wasserman, I., Hessels, J

    Cordes, J. M., Wasserman, I., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 842, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa74da

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad165f

    Court, T., Badenes, C., Lee, S.-H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad165f

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    G., Wang, J

    Dai, Z. G., Wang, J. S., & Yu, Y. W. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 838, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6745

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    2014, ApJL, 783, L35, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/L35

    Deng, W., & Zhang, B. 2014, ApJL, 783, L35, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/L35

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    2019, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

    Diesing, R. 2019, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 36, 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2019), 59

    2019

  6. [14]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 201, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad74f0

    Diesing, R., Guo, M., Kim, C.-G., Stone, J., & Caprioli, D. 2024, ApJ, 974, 201, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad74f0

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada93d

    Diesing, R., & Gupta, S. 2025, ApJ, 980, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada93d

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Fong, W., et al

    Dong, Y., Kilpatrick, C. D., Fong, W., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 991, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfb74

    2025 doi

  9. [17]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 661, 879, doi: 10.1086/517518

    Gabici, S. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 661, 879, doi: 10.1086/517518

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc315

    Justham, S. 2023, ApJ, 948, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc315

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    2023, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5929871

    Justham, S. 2023, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5929871

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    2010, A&A, 509, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913666

    Fraschetti, F. 2010, A&A, 509, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913666

    2010 doi

  13. [21]

    2012, ApJ, 760, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/34

    Ferrand, G., Decourchelle, A., & Safi-Harb, S. 2012, ApJ, 760, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/34

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    C., Ono, M., et al

    Ferrand, G., Warren, D. C., Ono, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1a3d

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    H., Michilli, D., Spitler, L

    Hilmarsson, G. H., Michilli, D., Spitler, L. G., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 908, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdec0 ICRP. 2008, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2008.10.004

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf935

    Jacovich, T., Patnaude, D., Slane, P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf935

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 265, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    2017, ApJL, 839, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa68e1

    Kashiyama, K., & Murase, K. 2017, ApJL, 839, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa68e1

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.28234, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.28234

    Kawashima, G., Lee, S.-H., Maeda, K., & Patnaude, D. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.28234, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.28234

    2026 doi

  20. [28]

    S., Ata, M., Lee, K.-G., et al

    Khrykin, I. S., Ata, M., Lee, K.-G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6567

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Connor, L., Semenov, V

    Konietzka, R. M., Connor, L., Semenov, V. A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.07090, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.07090

    2025 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    M., & Temim, T

    Laming, J. M., & Temim, T. 2020, ApJ, 904, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc1e5

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    2021, A&A, 656, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140506

    Laplace, E., Justham, S., Renzo, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140506

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    S., et al

    Lee, K.-G., Ata, M., Khrykin, I. S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4f62

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    S., Simha, S., et al

    Lee, K.-G., Khrykin, I. S., Simha, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acefb5

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    C., & Nagataki, S

    Lee, S.-H., Ellison, D. C., & Nagataki, S. 2012, ApJ, 750, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/156

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    Slane, P. O. 2014, ApJ, 791, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/97

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Raymond, J

    Lee, S.-H., Patnaude, D. J., Raymond, J. C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/71

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    Patnaude, D. J. 2013, ApJ, 767, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/20

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab18fe

    Li, Z., Gao, H., Wei, J.-J., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab18fe

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    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

  32. [40]

    P., Prochaska, J

    Macquart, J. P., Prochaska, J. X., McQuinn, M., et al. 2020, Nature, 581, 391, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2 ��� ����� �� ���� �� ��� ������31

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 932, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7156

    Spitkovsky, A., & Hakobyan, H. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 932, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7156

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    2018, Nature, 557, 522, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0133-z

    Main, R., Yang, I.-S., Chan, V., et al. 2018, Nature, 557, 522, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0133-z

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

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

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    D., Berger, E., et al

    Margalit, B., Metzger, B. D., Berger, E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2407, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2417

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    2015, Nature, 528, 523, doi: 10.1038/nature15769

    Masui, K., Lin, H.-H., Sievers, J., et al. 2015, Nature, 528, 523, doi: 10.1038/nature15769

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    F., & Truelove, J

    McKee, C. F., & Truelove, J. K. 1995, PhR, 256, 157, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(94)00106-D

    1995 doi

  39. [47]

    M., Michilli, D., et al

    Mckinven, R., Gaensler, B. M., Michilli, D., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc65f

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    2014, ApJL, 780, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L33

    McQuinn, M. 2014, ApJL, 780, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L33

    2014 doi

  41. [49]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 3664, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab288

    Medlock, I., & Cen, R. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 3664, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab288

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3070

    Medlock, I., Nagai, D., Singh, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3070

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

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

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

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

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

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

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

    Murase, K., Kashiyama, K., & Mészáros, P. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1328

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    H., Aggarwal, K., Li, D., et al

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

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    2025, Science Bulletin, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2025.11.023

    Niu, C.-H., Li, D., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2025, Science Bulletin, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2025.11.023

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    D., & Thorne, K

    Novikov, I. D., & Thorne, K. S. 1973, in Black Holes (Les Astres Occlus), ed. C. Dewitt & B. S. Dewitt, 343–450

    1973

  49. [57]

    Orlando, S., Bocchino, F., Miceli, M., Petruk, O., & Pumo, M. L. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 749, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/156 Paczyński, B. 1967, AcA, 17, 287

    2012 doi

  50. [58]

    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

  51. [59]

    J., Lee, S.-H., Slane, P

    Patnaude, D. J., Lee, S.-H., Slane, P. O., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9189

    2017 doi

  52. [60]

    J., Slane, P., Raymond, J

    Patnaude, D. J., Slane, P., Raymond, J. C., & Ellison, D. C. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1476, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1476

    2010 doi

  53. [61]

    2011, Astrophysical Journal, Supplement Series, 192, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, Astrophysical Journal, Supplement Series, 192, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  54. [62]

    2013, Astrophysical Journal, Supplement Series, 208, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, Astrophysical Journal, Supplement Series, 208, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  55. [63]

    2015, Astrophysical Journal, Supplement Series, 220, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, Astrophysical Journal, Supplement Series, 220, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    2015 doi

  56. [64]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    Piro, A. L. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 824, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L32

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    L., & Gaensler, B

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

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics

    1979

  61. [69]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444, doi: 10.1126/science.1223344

    2012 doi

  62. [70]

    N., Prochaska, J

    Simha, S., Burchett, J. N., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abafc3

    2020 doi

  63. [71]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 2615, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab170

    Takahashi, R., Ioka, K., Mori, A., & Funahashi, K. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 2615, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab170

    2021 doi

  64. [72]

    Tang, X., & Chevalier, R. A. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3793, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2978

    2017 doi

  65. [73]

    P., Bassa, C

    Tendulkar, S. P., Bassa, C. G., Cordes, J. M., et al. 2017, ApJL, 834, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L7

    2017 doi

  66. [74]

    K., & McKee, C

    Truelove, J. K., & McKee, C. F. 1999, ApJS, 120, 299, doi: 10.1086/313176 van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1969, AJ, 74, 1095, doi: 10.1086/110909

    1999 doi

  67. [75]

    Y., Lan, H

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

    2025

  68. [76]

    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

  69. [77]

    S., Yang, Y

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

    2025 doi arXiv

  70. [78]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab48dd

    Yang, Y.-H., & Dai, Z.-G. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab48dd

    2019 doi

  71. [79]

    2017, ApJL, 839, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6c2e

    Yang, Y.-P., Luo, R., Li, Z., & Zhang, B. 2017, ApJL, 839, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6c2e

    2017 doi

  72. [80]

    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

  73. [81]

    2016, ApJL, 819, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/1/L12

    Yang, Y.-P., Zhang, B., & Dai, Z.-G. 2016, ApJL, 819, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/1/L12

    2016 doi

  74. [82]

    2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005 32����� �� ���

    Zhang, B. 2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005 32����� �� ���

    2023 doi

  75. [83]

    J., Nagamine, K., Oku, Y., et al

    Zhang, Z. J., Nagamine, K., Oku, Y., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 993, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae00c2

    2025 doi

  76. [84]

    Y., & Wang, F

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

    2021 doi

  77. [85]

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

    2021 doi

  78. [86]

    O., Kulkarni, S

    Zheng, Z., Ofek, E. O., Kulkarni, S. R., Neill, J. D., & Juric, M. 2014, ApJ, 797, 71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/71

    2014 doi

  79. [87]

    2021, ApJ, 906, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcb90

    Zhu, W., & Feng, L.-L. 2021, ApJ, 906, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcb90

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.