Giant radio pulses in the magnetar XTE J1810-197 detected with the IAR's telescopes

C. O. Lousto (RIT); E. Zubieta (IAR); F. Garc\'ia (IAR); G. E. Romero (IAR); G. Gancio (IAR); S. B. Araujo Furlan (IATE-FAMAF); S. del Palacio (Chalmers)

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Giant radio pulses in the magnetar XTE J1810-197 detected with the IAR's telescopes

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The magnetar XTE J1810-197 emitted 249 giant radio pulses in 2022-2023, with the brightest confined to about two percent of its rotation.

desk verdict Useful new IAR dataset for XTE J1810-197, but the cross-day phase-confined GP claim is an artifact of the manual daily alignment; the within-observation 2% is solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.00295 v1 pith:6FPZIUEE submitted 2026-02-27 astro-ph.HE

S. B. Araujo Furlan (IATE-FAMAF) , G. E. Romero (IAR) , E. Zubieta (IAR) , G. Gancio (IAR) , F. García (IAR) , S. del Palacio (Chalmers) , C. O. Lousto (RIT) This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords magnetarsgiantradiopulsesXTEJ1810-197single-pulsesearchtransientsfastburstscoherentemissiontiminganalysis

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 reports a high-cadence radio campaign on the magnetar XTE J1810-197 during 2022-2023, finding 249 giant pulses, the brightest reaching about 119 Jy. It aims to show that this magnetar produces a distinct giant-pulse population whose brightest members are confined to a narrow rotational phase window and whose energies overlap the faintest FRB-like bursts seen from another magnetar, SGR 1935+2154, while differing from those bursts by their phase confinement. The authors argue this contrast points to different emission conditions for giant pulses versus FRB-like bursts, and that the activity switched off abruptly after a peak in January 2023, with no detectable X-ray counterpart. If correct, it strengthens the case that magnetars can power coherent radio bursts of various luminosities, and that the giant-pulse and FRB regimes are separate manifestations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the giant pulse—a coherent radio burst far brighter than the ordinary pulsed emission and confined to a narrow rotational phase window. The analysis chain that carries the argument is a dedispersed single-pulse search at 1.4 GHz with 146-microsecond sampling and a signal-to-noise threshold of 8, followed by Gaussian fitting to measure widths and the radiometer equation to convert to flux densities. The distinguishing diagnostic is phase confinement: within an observation the bright pulses occupy only ~2% of the magnetar's 5.54-second period, and the authors align daily mean phases by hand to measure a ~2.4% cross-campaign window, which they translate to an emission-regi

What would settle it

Take the same 2022-2023 data and build a phase-coherent timing solution that covers the entire campaign without manual daily shifts—using, for example, frequencies where the folded profile remains detectable. If the unshifted giant-pulse phases scatter across more than a few percent of the rotation, the cross-day confinement claim fails. Alternatively, two longitude-separated telescopes observing the same pulse simultaneously would settle whether the phase window is intrinsic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In observations spanning 149 days, the magnetar XTE J1810-197 produced 249 single radio pulses that the authors classify as giant pulses: coherent, extremely bright bursts with flux densities up to 119 Jy and fluences up to 58 Jy ms, following a steep power-law energy distribution with index -4.0±0.3. The brightest pulses are confined to roughly 2% of the rotational phase within a single observation, and about 2.4% across the whole campaign once daily mean phases are aligned. The detected fluences overlap the faintest intermediate FRB-like bursts reported from SGR 1935+2154, but unlike those bursts, which appear at random rotational phases, these pulses stay locked to a narrow phase window.

Load-bearing premise

For days without a detected folded pulse profile, the authors aligned each day's pulses by manually shifting the mean phase to 0.5; if the pulse phase window actually drifts from day to day, the quoted 2.4% cross-day confinement and the 8.64-degree opening angle are products of that alignment rather than a measured property of the emission.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the classification holds, XTE J1810-197 is a prolific giant-pulse emitter, with 249 pulses in 56 active days and rates reaching about 15 per hour.
The steep power-law index means the total energy budget is dominated by the faintest detectable pulses, so the measured rates and fluxes are sensitivity-limited lower bounds.
The narrow phase window implies a stable, compact emission region—an opening angle of about 8.6 degrees—rather than emission spread over the whole magnetosphere.
The abrupt drop after the 20 January 2023 peak, with no X-ray flare, supports the idea that the radio-active state is a distinct magnetospheric state that can switch on and off independently of X-ray activity.
The fluence overlap with the faintest SGR 1935+2154 bursts, combined with the phase-confinement difference, separates giant-pulse-like emission from FRB-like emission in magnetars.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct test of the cross-day phase confinement would be a phase-coherent timing solution spanning the entire campaign or simultaneous observations from two longitude-separated telescopes; without that, the 2.4% value could be an artifact of the manual daily alignment.
The steep power law predicts that a more sensitive telescope at 1.4 GHz would detect a much larger population of fainter giant pulses; this is testable by stacking or by longer integrations on the same source.
If phase confinement is the key separator between giant pulses and FRB-like bursts, then searching SGR 1935+2154 during its radio-quiet phases for narrow, phase-stable pulses could reveal a hidden giant-pulse regime in that source.
The abrupt turn-off suggests a magnetospheric state transition that may also appear in spin-down or polarization changes; future timing observations could look for a simultaneous shift in torque.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The headline: this is a useful new dataset — 249 single pulses from XTE J1810-197 in 2022-2023, first IAR single-pulse campaign, with an activity peak and sharp decline — but the cross-day phase confinement claim is weaker than it looks, because the paper manually shifts each day's phases to a common value when no folded profile is available.

What's genuinely good: the monitoring cadence (149 days, ~269 h) fills a gap no other telescope covered, and the detection pipeline is careful: S/N≥8 threshold, visual inspection of diagnostic plots, duplicate removal, DM clustering at 178.8±0.1. The MAXI analysis is thorough about solar and neighboring-source contamination, and the conclusion of no concurrent X-ray activity is credible. The flux density power-law index -4.0±0.3 and fluence index -3.0±0.2 are plausible, though the completeness thresholds are data-dependent.

The main soft spot is exactly the one flagged in your note. Section 5.2.3 says: for days with GPs but no folded profile, they 'aligned the mean phase of each day by manually shifting each to 0.5.' That procedure forces the daily mean phases to coincide, so the quoted cross-day Δφ=0.0239 and the 8.64° opening angle are partly manufactured. The within-observation 2% concentration is robust; the cross-day 2.4% is not a measured property. This matters because the comparison with SGR 1935+2154 — phase-confined GPs vs unconfined bursts — rests on that cross-day claim. The GP classification itself does not collapse: the flux densities are 16–119 Jy, orders of magnitude above the mJy-level GPs reported by Caleb et al. (2022), so calling them GPs is reasonable on energetic grounds. But the phase-confined comparison to SGR should be rephrased or supported with a real timing solution for more days.

A smaller issue: the abstract says the maximum rate was on 20 February 2023, while the text and conclusions say 20 January 2023. That should be reconciled.

The calibration (T_N=50±8 K) is assumed constant and identical for ETTUS/ROACH; the justification is reasonable but the flux scale could shift by tens of percent. Not fatal, but worth stating as a systematic.

Who this is for: anyone working on magnetar radio emission and the magnetar-FRB connection. It deserves serious peer review — the data are genuinely new and the analysis is mostly careful. The authors should be asked to either remove the cross-day phase width claim or present it with the alignment caveat as a lower limit. I'd be happy to referee it.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a single-pulse search of the magnetar XTE J1810−197 using the IAR 30-m telescopes between 29 September 2022 and 14 July 2023. The authors detect 249 pulses at a fitted DM of 178.8 ± 0.1 pc cm⁻³, classify the whole sample as giant pulses, measure peak flux densities up to 119 Jy and fluences up to 58 Jy ms, fit power-law distributions to the flux and fluence, and find a peak detection rate near early 2023 followed by a rapid decline. They also present a MAXI X-ray analysis finding no significant intrinsic X-ray activity. The paper's central scientific claim is that XTE J1810−197 emits a bright, phase-confined GP population that is distinct from the normal single pulses and FRB-like bursts of SGR 1935+2154, and that this difference points to different emission conditions.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a valuable high-cadence monitoring dataset from a southern-hemisphere facility in an epoch not covered by other telescopes. The paper is transparent about its calibration assumptions and uses several independent checks, including two power-law fitting techniques, careful RFI handling, a waiting-time analysis, and a detailed MAXI contamination study. The main scientific significance is the proposed phenomenological distinction between XTE J1810−197 GPs and SGR 1935+2154 bursts. However, the phase-confinement pillar of that distinction is currently supported by a manual daily alignment that assumes the quantity the paper claims to measure; this needs to be fixed or substantially reworded before the headline comparison is reliable.

major comments (2)

[§5.2.3] The cross-day phase confinement is not a measured quantity. The text states: 'Since we had days with detected GPs but not an integrated pulse profile, this prevented us from consistently aligning the GPs based on a timing solution. Thus, we aligned the mean phase of each day by manually shifting each to 0.5, and applied the same shift to each individual phase.' This procedure forces each daily mean GP phase to 0.5 by construction. The quoted Δφ=0.0239 and the derived opening angle of 8.64° therefore measure only the maximum intra-day scatter relative to an arbitrarily chosen common mean, not an absolute phase alignment across days. Because 41 of the 56 GP days lack folded profiles, the cross-day phase distribution is largely determined by this manual shift. The abstract's 'limited to a ~2% of the rotational phase' is robust only in the within-observation form (Δφ=0.0196). This matters be
[§3.1.1, Eq. (2)] The absolute flux scale rests on the assumption that T_N = 50 ± 8 K, measured only from mid-2023 onward, is constant over the campaign and identical for the ETTUS and ROACH boards. This assumption enters linearly into every peak flux density, fluence, luminosity, and the comparison with SGR 1935+2154 in Fig. 12. The Friis-equation argument for the board independence is plausible, but no in-campaign calibration or cross-check with a calibrator or a known pulsar is presented. Because the reported flux densities (up to 119 Jy), the steep power-law index, and the overlap claim with SGR bursts are central, please provide a quantitative sensitivity analysis (e.g., the effect of a ±30% T_N variation) or use available calibration data to constrain the stability. At minimum, state explicitly that all flux-based quantities are relative to this assumed scale and discuss how a violation of the assum

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and §5.2.1] The abstract gives the peak activity date as '20 February 2023', while §5.2.1, Figure 7, and the summary give '20 January 2023'. These are inconsistent and must be reconciled.
[§5.2.2] The text says 'The brightest pulse was detected on 10 January 2022 (MJD 59954)' — the year should be 2023.
[§5.2.3] The paper says 'Of 78 days with GPs but without profiles', which is inconsistent with 56 total GP detection days and 16 profile days (one of which has no GPs). The correct number appears to be 41; please check.
[Abstract and §4.1.2] The DM search range is stated as 100–400 pc cm⁻³ in the abstract but 100–500 pc cm⁻³ in §4.1.2. Harmonize these values.
[Table 1] EQUAD is reported as −7.4(14), which is unphysical if it represents a quadrature-added noise term. Please justify or constrain it to non-negative values.
[§5.2.3] Please clarify whether the 16 days with detected folded profiles were aligned with the timing model or also subjected to the manual shift. A description of how the 'mean phase of each day' was computed before shifting would also help the reader assess the procedure.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Manual daily phase alignment imposes the cross-day 2.4% window and 8.64° opening angle; only the within-observation 2% is measured.

fitted input called prediction [Section 5.2.3 (single-pulse phase analysis)]
"Since we had days with detected GPs but not an integrated pulse profile, this prevented us from consistently aligning the GPs based on a timing solution. Thus, we aligned the mean phase of each day by manually shifting each to 0.5, and applied the same shift to each individual phase."

Shifting each day's mean phase to 0.5 removes any day-to-day offset by construction. The reported cross-day maximum separation Δφ=0.0239 ('~2.4%') and the derived opening angle of 8.64° are computed after imposing the assumption that the GP phase window is the same every day, so they do not measure that stability. The within-observation Δφ=0.0196 is independent of this step, but the cross-day 2.4% claim and opening angle are artifacts of the manual shift. This manufactured phase confinement is then used as supporting evidence for GP classification (Sect. 7.1) and for the phase-confinement contrast with SGR 1935+2154 (Sect. 7.3), making the step load-bearing.

full rationale

The central detections and characterizations — 249 single pulses, DM=178.8±0.1 pc cm^-3, flux/fluence power laws, rates, and the within-observation ~2% phase concentration — are derived from standard PRESTO/PSRCHIVE reduction, external calibration references, and the paper's own Gaussian/power-law fits, not from a self-citation chain. The GP classification is anchored to external flux-density comparisons (Caleb et al. 2022) and to the fitted power-law index, so it does not reduce to a self-citation. The one significant circular step is the cross-day phase analysis: daily mean phases are manually shifted to 0.5, and the resulting cross-day Δφ=0.0239 and 8.64° opening angle are then reported as if they measured the star's phase-confinement. Because the alignment itself imposes the daily registration, this specific 'prediction' is constructed rather than measured. The paper transparently describes the limitation, but the subsequent conclusions in Sects. 7.1 and 7.3 rely on the phase-confinement distinction. Hence the circularity is partial: one construction-tainted result used as supporting evidence, while the within-day 2% concentration and the bulk of the physical measurements remain independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's conclusions rest on standard radiometer relations plus several domain assumptions: constant system temperature, Poissonian arrival statistics, and a stable GP phase window. The phase-stability assumption is the most consequential because it is imposed by hand for days without folded profiles, and the flux-density scale depends on an assumed T_N that was measured only after the campaign.

free parameters (7)

Single-pulse S/N detection threshold = 8
S/N>=8 threshold adopted from Maan et al. (2022b); sets which events enter the sample (Sect. 4.1.2).
DM candidate selection window = 170–190 pc cm−3
Candidates restricted to this window based on prior DM estimates (178–180 pc cm−3), so the reported DM=178.8±0.1 is partly confirmation of the prior.
Flux-density completeness threshold = 30 Jy
Set at the histogram transition and confirmed with powerlaw x_min; only pulses above enter the power-law fit (Sect. 5.2.2).
Fluence completeness threshold = 12.5 Jy ms
Empirically determined from the same fluence distribution used for the power-law fit (Sect. 5.2.2).
System noise temperature T_N = 50 ± 8 K
Average from mid-2023 to May 2024; assumed valid for the whole 2022–2023 campaign and for both ETTUS and ROACH boards (Sect. 3.1.1).
Per-day phase alignment shift = mean phase set to 0.5
Days without folded profiles cannot be absolutely phase-aligned; the mean phase of each day is manually shifted to 0.5, imposing cross-day phase concentration (Sect. 5.2.3).
Timing model parameters = ν=0.180420042(9) Hz; νdot=-2.69(5)e-13; νddot=5(1)e-21; EFAC=0.7(1); EQUAD=-7.4(14)
Fitted to TOAs; used to assign pulse phases. DM fixed at 178 pc cm−3 from Caleb et al. (2022).

assumptions (8)

standard math Radiometer equation (Eq. 2) gives flux density from S/N, system temperature, gain, bandwidth, and pulse width
Standard radio astronomy relation; assumed valid for IAR single-pulse measurements.
standard math Sensitivity limit formula (Eq. 5) with gain G and digitization factor beta≈1
Used to compute the theoretical minimum detectable flux; relies on standard telescope-noise assumptions.
domain assumption Pulse arrival process is Poissonian
Used for rate uncertainties (sqrt(N)) and waiting-time characterization; not tested against alternatives.
ad hoc to paper System noise temperature is constant over the campaign and identical for ETTUS and ROACH boards
Needed to convert S/N to Jy; only supported by measurements from mid-2023 onward (Sect. 3.1.1).
ad hoc to paper The GP phase window is stable across observing days
Required for the manual alignment of profile-less days; if false, the 2.4% phase window is not physical (Sect. 5.2.3).
ad hoc to paper All detected single pulses are giant pulses
Classification based on high flux relative to Caleb et al. (2022) and on a power-law distribution, not on direct comparison with the average pulse energy in these data (Sect. 7.1).
domain assumption Source distance 2.5±0.5 kpc (Ding et al. 2020)
Used to compute luminosities and place pulses in the transient phase space; external to this work.
standard math Brightness temperature above the 10^12 K Compton limit implies coherent emission
Standard Compton-limit argument used to infer coherence; not directly tested here.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Giant radio pulses in the magnetar XTE J1810-197 detected with the IAR's telescopes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6FPZIUEE

@misc{pith2026260300295,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Giant radio pulses in the magnetar XTE J1810-197 detected with the IAR's telescopes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6FPZIUEE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.00295}
}

abstract

[...] We observed XTE J1810-197 between 29 September 2022 and 14 July 2023 with the radio telescopes at the Argentine Institute of Radioastronomy (IAR). We searched for single pulses in time series at a DM range of 100-400 pc cm-3 , with a threshold in signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of 8. [...] We found 249 giant pulses at a DM mean value of 178.8$\pm$0.1 pc cm-3 . We measured peak flux densities up to 119 Jy, and fluences up to 58 Jy ms. We fitted a power law distribution to the flux density, obtaining an index of -4.0$\pm$0.3. We observed a maximum rate of approximately 15 pulses per hour on 20 February 2023, followed by an abrupt disappearance of transient radio emission, indicating a transition to a less active state. The brightest single pulses are limited to a $\sim$2$\%$ of the rotational phase and have similar fluence values to the reported intermediate FRB-like bursts of SGR 1935+2154. No significant X-ray activity in the MAXI data was detected during the radio observing period. This is the first study of single radio pulses of a magnetar using IAR data, showing the potential of the upgraded telescopes for investigating the transient radio sky. The properties of the single pulses detected here show the magnetar transient nature and capability to emit high-luminosity pulses. We compared the detected emission to FRB-like bursts and single pulses emitted by SGR 1935+2154. Even though the mechanism producing all the events should be coherent, the luminosity of the events, features on the dynamic spectra, and the difference between being phase confined or not, indicate that XTE J1810-197 presents GP emission, while SGR 1935+2154 only shows normal single pulses or FRB bursts. This could indicate that the conditions for producing each type of event differ.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.00295 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Observable time of XTE J1810−197 for different telescopes that have conducted high-cadence campaigns. The arc matching the telescope’s color represents the source’s possible observation time for that telescope. We highlight the very short overlap between the IAR and other observatories. 3. Observations 3.1. Radio observations We performed high-cadence observations of XTE J1810−197 with the two 30-m single dish ante… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Single pulse search made with PRESTO on 19 Novem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** S/N vs DM distribution of one pulse detected on 25 November 2022, at time 7128.940 s from the start of the observation. It appeared at two “different” times: 7128.939 s and 7128.940 s. It was detected in 75 different time series across a DM range of 127–210 pc cm−3 , peaking in S/N at DM = 179 pc cm−3 . We extracted the candidates from all the searches and analyzed them with a Python-based script. Each circle in … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Residuals with respect to the timing model presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Histograms of pulses grouped by different properties, together with the best-fit of the distribution. Upper Panel: FWHM distribution fitted fitted with L+G (black dotted) and L+L (pink continuous curve) models. Vertical lines show: the time resolution (gray), the exp(…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FWHM and flux density variation through the days. In the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Upper panel: distribution of the pulse dispersion measure of the pulses, the dash-dotted line is the Gaussian fit. The vertical line is µ and the colored area represents the uncertainty of the value. Middle panel: distribution of pulse phases. Lower panel: distributio…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Dynamic spectrum (lower) and time series (upper) for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Integrated pulse profiles for the days with detection. For [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Power law index fitted by different studies for GP and giant micro pulses after the 2018 outburst, color-coded by the reference and with the observation years indicated between brackets. with peak flux densities up to 158 mJy. In this work, we detected pulses with …

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Transient phase space adapted from Nimmo et al. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

First fast radio burst search campaign at the Argentine Institute of Radio Astronomy
astro-ph.HE 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The IAR campaign found one FRB candidate with DM 243 pc cm^-3 and S/N 8.2, backed by successful recovery of archival and injected bursts.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

2014, PLOS ONE, 9, e85777, publisher: Public Library of Science

Alstott, J., Bullmore, E., & Plenz, D. 2014, PLOS ONE, 9, e85777, publisher: Public Library of Science

2014
[2]

Antonopoulou, D., Haskell, B., & Espinoza, C. M. 2022, Reports on Progress in Physics, 85, 126901 Araujo Furlan, S. B., Gancio, G., Galante, C. A., & Romero, G. E. 2023, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 64, 304

2022
[3]

L., Herrmann, W., & Spitler, L

Bause, M. L., Herrmann, W., & Spitler, L. G. 2024, A&A, 686, A144

2024
[4]

D., Ravi, V ., Belov, K

Bochenek, C. D., Ravi, V ., Belov, K. V ., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 59

2020
[5]

2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 5244

Borghese, A., Rea, N., Turolla, R., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 5244

2021
[6]

2022, MNRAS, 510, 1996

Caleb, M., Rajwade, K., Desvignes, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1996

2022
[7]

M., Halpern, J

Camilo, F., Ransom, S. M., Halpern, J. P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 110

2016
[8]

M., Halpern, J

Camilo, F., Ransom, S. M., Halpern, J. P., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 820, 110

2016

Show all 52 references

[9]

M., Halpern, J

Camilo, F., Ransom, S. M., Halpern, J. P., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 892, pub- lisher: Nature Publishing Group

2006
[10]

E., Bailes, M., et al

Dai, S., Lower, M. E., Bailes, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, L14

2019
[11]

E., Bailes, M., et al

Dai, S., Lower, M. E., Bailes, M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 874, L14, publisher: The American Astronomical Society Del Palacio, S., Garcia, F., Combi, L., et al. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12323, 1

2019
[12]

2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 617

Desvignes, G., Weltevrede, P., Gao, Y ., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 617

2024
[13]

T., Lower, M

Ding, H., Deller, A. T., Lower, M. E., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 3736

2020
[14]

Dong, F. A. & Chime/Frb Collaboration. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15681, 1, aDS Bibcode: 2022ATel15681....1D

2022
[15]

M., Basuroski, A., Halley, K., et al

Doskoch, G. M., Basuroski, A., Halley, K., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 973, 87, publisher: American Astronomical Society

2024
[16]

Duncan, R. C. & Thompson, C. 1992, The Astrophysical Journal, 392, L9

1992
[17]

2021, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 73, 1563

Eie, S., Terasawa, T., Akahori, T., et al. 2021, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 73, 1563

2021
[18]

Esposito, P., Rea, N., & Israel, G. L. 2021, in Timing Neutron Stars: Pulsations, Oscillations and Explosions (Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 97–142

2021
[19]

O., Combi, L., et al

Gancio, G., Lousto, C. O., Combi, L., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A84

2020
[20]

E., Astudillo, J., Saavedra, E

Gancio, G., Romero, G. E., Astudillo, J., Saavedra, E. A., & Combi, J. A. 2024, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, V ol. 56, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, 131–133

2024
[21]

C., Chawla, P., et al

Giri, U., Andersen, B. C., Chawla, P., et al. 2023, Comprehensive Bayesian anal- ysis of FRB-like bursts from SGR 1935+2154 observed by CHIME/FRB, aDS Bibcode: 2023arXiv231016932G

2023
[22]

V ., Halpern, J

Gotthelf, E. V ., Halpern, J. P., Alford, J. A. J., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 874, L25

2019
[23]

P., Gotthelf, E

Halpern, J. P., Gotthelf, E. V ., Becker, R. H., Helfand, D. J., & White, R. L. 2005, 632

2005
[24]

B., Edwards, R

Hobbs, G. B., Edwards, R. T., & Manchester, R. N. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 655

2006
[25]

W., van Straten, W., & Manchester, R

Hotan, A. W., van Straten, W., & Manchester, R. N. 2004, Publica- tions of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 21, 302, aDS Bibcode: 2004PASA...21..302H

2004
[26]

2024, Nature, 626, 500

Hu, C.-P., Narita, T., Enoto, T., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 500

2024
[27]

I., Markwardt, C

Ibrahim, A. I., Markwardt, C. B., Swank, J. H., et al. 2004, 609

2004
[28]

W., & Van Straten, W

Karuppusamy, R., Stappers, B. W., & Van Straten, W. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 515, A36

2010
[29]

Kaspi, V . M. & Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 55

2017
[30]

P., Jenkins, M., et al

Kirsten, F., Snelders, M. P., Jenkins, M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5

2021
[31]

W., Jessner, A., Lyne, A

Kramer, M., Stappers, B. W., Jessner, A., Lyne, A. G., & Jordan, C. A. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 377, 107

2007
[32]

Kuzmin, A. D. 2006, Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 6, 34, publisher: IOP Publishing

2006
[33]

2025, Low-energy Radio Bursts from Magnetar XTE J1810$-$197: Implications for Fast Radio Bursts, arXiv:2511.13856 [astro-ph]

Lal, B., Maan, Y ., Abdelmaguid, M., et al. 2025, Low-energy Radio Bursts from Magnetar XTE J1810$-$197: Implications for Fast Radio Bursts, arXiv:2511.13856 [astro-ph]

2025
[34]

M., Champion, D

Lazarus, P., Kaspi, V . M., Champion, D. J., Hessels, J. W. T., & Dib, R. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 744, 97, publisher: The American Astronomical Society

2011
[35]

P., et al

Lentati, L., Alexander, P., Hobson, M. P., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 3004

2014
[36]

2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 721, L33

Levin, L., Bailes, M., Bates, S., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 721, L33

2010
[37]

G., Desvignes, G., et al

Levin, L., Lyne, A. G., Desvignes, G., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 5251

2019
[38]

Lorimer, D. R. & Kramer, M. 2004, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy, V ol. 4

2004
[39]

E., Johnston, S., Lyutikov, M., et al

Lower, M. E., Johnston, S., Lyutikov, M., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 606, publisher: Nature Publishing Group

2024
[40]

2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12284, 1

Lyne, A., Levin, L., Stappers, B., et al. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12284, 1

2018
[41]

& Aswathappa, H

Maan, Y . & Aswathappa, H. A. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi- cal Society, 445, 3221

2014
[42]

C., Surnis, M

Maan, Y ., Joshi, B. C., Surnis, M. P., Bagchi, M., & Manoharan, P. K. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 882

2019
[43]

2009, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 61, 999, publisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 2009PASJ...61..999M

Matsuoka, M., Kawasaki, K., Ueno, S., et al. 2009, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 61, 999, publisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 2009PASJ...61..999M

2009
[44]

Nimmo, K., Hessels, J. W. T., Kirsten, F., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 393, publisher: Nature Publishing Group

2022
[45]

Olausen, S. A. & Kaspi, V . M. 2014, ApJS, 212, 6

2014
[46]

M., Van Leeuwen, J., & Kondratiev, V

Pastor-Marazuela, I., Straal, S. M., Van Leeuwen, J., & Kondratiev, V . I. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 672, A151

2023
[47]

2011, PRESTO: PulsaR Exploration and Search TOolkit, Astro- physics Source Code Library, record ascl:1107.017

Ransom, S. 2011, PRESTO: PulsaR Exploration and Search TOolkit, Astro- physics Source Code Library, record ascl:1107.017

2011
[48]

W., Weltevrede, P., et al

Serylak, M., Stappers, B. W., Weltevrede, P., et al. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 394, 295

2009
[49]

2023, Magnetospheric physics of magnetars, arXiv:2309.05181 [astro- ph]

Tong, H. 2023, Magnetospheric physics of magnetars, arXiv:2309.05181 [astro- ph]

2023 arXiv
[50]

S., Bintley, D., et al

Torne, P., Bell, G. S., Bintley, D., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 925, L17 van Straten, W., Demorest, P., & Oslowski, S. 2012, Pulsar Data Anal- ysis with PSRCHIVE, iSSN: 1672-7673 V olume: 9 ADS Bibcode: 2012AR&T....9..237V

2022
[51]

2023, Science Advances, 9

Zhu, W., Xu, H., Zhou, D., et al. 2023, Science Advances, 9

2023
[52]

2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 4504, publisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 2023MNRAS.521.4504Z Article number, page 12 of 12

Zubieta, E., Missel, R., Sosa Fiscella, V ., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 4504, publisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 2023MNRAS.521.4504Z Article number, page 12 of 12

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

2014, PLOS ONE, 9, e85777, publisher: Public Library of Science

Alstott, J., Bullmore, E., & Plenz, D. 2014, PLOS ONE, 9, e85777, publisher: Public Library of Science

2014

[2] [2]

Antonopoulou, D., Haskell, B., & Espinoza, C. M. 2022, Reports on Progress in Physics, 85, 126901 Araujo Furlan, S. B., Gancio, G., Galante, C. A., & Romero, G. E. 2023, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 64, 304

2022

[3] [3]

L., Herrmann, W., & Spitler, L

Bause, M. L., Herrmann, W., & Spitler, L. G. 2024, A&A, 686, A144

2024

[4] [4]

D., Ravi, V ., Belov, K

Bochenek, C. D., Ravi, V ., Belov, K. V ., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 59

2020

[5] [5]

2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 5244

Borghese, A., Rea, N., Turolla, R., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 5244

2021

[6] [6]

2022, MNRAS, 510, 1996

Caleb, M., Rajwade, K., Desvignes, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1996

2022

[7] [7]

M., Halpern, J

Camilo, F., Ransom, S. M., Halpern, J. P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 110

2016

[8] [8]

M., Halpern, J

Camilo, F., Ransom, S. M., Halpern, J. P., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 820, 110

2016