Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 6 cited by

CHIME/FRB Detection of Eight New Repeating Fast Radio Burst Sources

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports eight new repeating fast radio burst sources from CHIME and shows that their bursts are intrinsically wider than those of apparently non-repeating bursts at about 4$\sigma$ significance, evidence that the two classes…

desk verdict Eight new repeaters is a real step change, but the 4-sigma width claim is shakier than the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03507 v3 pith:XWNH6OWI submitted 2019-08-09 astro-ph.HE

The CHIME/FRB Collaboration: B. C. Andersen , K. Bandura , M. Bhardwaj , P. Boubel , M. M. Boyce , P. J. Boyle , C. Brar , T. Cassanelli
show 48 more authors
P. Chawla D. Cubranic M. Deng M. Dobbs M. Fandino E. Fonseca B. M. Gaensler A. J. Gilbert U. Giri D. C. Good M. Halpern A. S. Hill G. Hinshaw C. Höfer A. Josephy V. M. Kaspi R. Kothes T. L. Landecker D. A. Lang D. Z. Li H.-H. Lin K. W. Masui J. Mena-Parra M. Merryfield R. Mckinven D. Michilli N. Milutinovic A. Naidu L. B. Newburgh C. Ng C. Patel U. Pen T. Pinsonneault-Marotte Z. Pleunis M. Rafiei-Ravandi M. Rahman S. M. Ransom A. Renard P. Scholz S. R. Siegel S. Singh K. M. Smith I. H. Stairs S. P. Tendulkar I. Tretyakov K. Vanderlinde P. Yadav A. V. Zwaniga
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsrepeatingFRBsburstwidthdistributiondispersionmeasurerotationdownwardfrequencydrifttransientsurveysCHIMEtelescope
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

Eight new repeating fast radio burst sources, discovered in CHIME data, grow the known repeater population from two to ten. The paper establishes that the repeater sample spans dispersion measures from 103.5 to 1281 $\mathrm{pc\,cm^{-3}}$, including two nearby, low-excess-DM sources that are strong targets for multi-wavelength follow-up. Its central claim is a statistical one: at about 4$\sigma$, bursts from repeating sources are intrinsically wider than bursts that have not been seen to repeat, which the authors read as evidence for different emission mechanisms. It also shows that repeater and non-repeater dispersion-measure distributions are indistinguishable, and that repeater morphology often includes downward-drifting sub-bursts, though not always. If the width difference holds, repetition status becomes a probe of underlying FRB physics rather than a mere observational accident.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing comparison is the intrinsic temporal width of each fitted Gaussian burst component, measured in milliseconds after dedispersion and scattering fits. The paper's statistical engine is a pair of non-parametric two-sample tests (k-sample Anderson\,--\,Darling and Kolmogorov\,--\,Smirnov) applied to the width distributions, first per component and then per source using inverse-variance weighted averages; excluding S/N$<10$ repeat bursts controls for the lower trigger threshold for repeat candidates. Supporting this, a coherence-spectrum dedispersion analysis that maximizes sub-burst sharpness assigns structure-optimizing dispersion measures, and a 2-D auto-correlation fit with Monte Carlo resampling characterizes the downward-drifting sub-burst morphology seen in a subset of bursts.

What would settle it

Repeat the Anderson\,--\,Darling comparison using only the first detected burst from each repeating source (or one width per burst envelope), so sub-bursts from the same detection are not counted as independent; if the separation falls below 3$\sigma$, the claimed 4$\sigma$ finding is inflated by correlated measurements.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that bursts from repeating FRB sources are intrinsically wider than bursts from sources that have not yet been seen to repeat. Restricting both samples to CHIME detections in the 400\,--\,800 MHz band, and excluding repeat bursts with S/N below the new-source threshold to guard against a pipeline bias, the authors compare the widths of Gaussian burst components and find the two distributions differ at roughly 4$\sigma$ (k-sample Anderson\,--\,Darling), with source-averaged widths differing at about 3.5$\sigma$ and Kolmogorov\,--\,Smirnov tests giving 4\,--\,5$\sigma$. They also find no statistically significant difference in the DM distributions of repeaters and apparent non-repeaters, and they measure downward frequency drifts in eleven bursts, complex sub-burst structure, and, for one source, a modest rotation measure of $-114.6 \pm 0.6$ rad m$^{-2}$ that is far below FRB 121102's. The width difference, if it holds under selection corrections, is their main evidence that repeaters form a distinct population with different emission physics.

Load-bearing premise

The width comparison treats each measured sub-burst as an independent draw and assumes the repeater and non-repeater samples suffer no selection differences, though sub-bursts from the same burst or source share a common detection envelope and the two samples were gathered under different commissioning conditions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the width gap is real, apparently non-repeating FRBs and repeating FRBs are not drawn from one homogeneous population, so models of FRB emission must explain why repeaters are systematically broader.
  • Low-DM Sources 1 and 2 become priority targets for interferometric localization; Source 1's low rotation measure and absence of a bright persistent radio source disfavor a young, FRB 121102-like magnetized wind nebula, at least at current sensitivity.
  • Repeater burst rates estimated from detections of repeat bursts are biased high because they select the active tail; the mild inconsistency between CHIME repeater rates and upper limits from a different survey can be resolved with a larger sample.
  • Downward-drifting sub-bursts, detected in nine repeaters and in none of the apparent non-repeaters, may be a useful (though not decisive) marker of repetition at about 1-ms resolution.
  • Source-averaged widths show a slightly weaker but still significant difference, meaning the population-level claim does not depend on any single hyperactive source.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A concrete next test: pool published widths for all CHIME repeaters plus FRB 121102 and FRB 180814.J0422+73, but weight each burst envelope as a single draw; the expected significance drop will tell whether the 4$\sigma$ result is dominated by a few multi-component bursts.
  • If narrow-band (100\,--\,150 MHz) repeater spectra are confirmed with forward beam models, spectral shape could join width as a classification feature, allowing rapid triage of single bursts for repeated-emission follow-up.
  • The low RM and low DM excess of Source 1, if it proves extragalactic, would place it in a region of DM\,--\,RM phase space occupied by older neutron stars, suggesting repeaters may span an age sequence from FRB 121102-like young nebulae to older, cleaner environments.
  • Source 2's potential host NGC 3403 could be tested with a targeted VLBI localization: a burst in the disk outskirts or halo would bound the host DM contribution and discriminate halo versus disk progenitor scenarios.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery of eight new repeating fast radio burst sources with the CHIME telescope, providing sky localizations, dispersion measures, burst properties (widths, fluences, drift rates, scattering times), and detailed follow-up on two low-DM sources including a rotation measure and polarization measurement for Source 1. The authors also compare the DM distributions and burst width distributions of repeaters against the first twelve CHIME/FRB apparent non-repeaters, and report a ~4σ significance that repeater bursts are wider, suggesting different emission mechanisms. Additional results include repetition-rate estimates and a comparison of scattering times.

Significance. If the width-difference claim holds, it would be a substantive step toward distinguishing repeating from apparently non-repeating FRB populations. The paper is also valuable as a carefully documented catalog: localizations are calibrated with ~30,000 pulsar events, burst properties are measured with multiple independent methods, and the detailed analysis of Source 1 (DM, RM, polarization, persistent radio source limits) is a substantial contribution. The authors are appropriately cautious in several places, for example in declining to draw conclusions from the peak-flux--width correlation due to selection effects and correlated sub-bursts, and in stating the caveats on emission-bandwidth differences. The central width comparison, however, relies on assumptions about cross-era selection that are explicitly acknowledged for bandwidths but not for widths, and on independent-draw statistics for clustered sub-bursts.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.4 and Section 4.5] The width comparison in Section 4.5 does not control for the different commissioning epochs of the repeater and non-repeater samples. Section 4.4 explicitly states that 'the two samples were detected at different stages of commissioning and were thus likely subject to different selection biases,' giving the evolution of the spectral-index search as an example. The Section 4.5 analysis excludes only repeat bursts with S/N < 10 and checks against DM smearing, but it does not quantify whether the earlier detection pipeline had the same sensitivity to wide, low-S/N, or steep-spectrum bursts. A width-dependent detection efficiency difference between epochs could produce exactly the observed excess without any intrinsic population difference. The DM-distribution null check does not constrain width-dependent selection, and the source-averaged result inherits the same cross-era bias. The abstract's 4σ claim is therefore underdetermined by the presented analysis. I request an epoch-matched comparison, injection-based sensitivity simulations as a function of width, or a clear statement that this selection effect is unmodeled and a corresponding softening of the claim.
  2. [Section 4.5, width-distribution tests] The Anderson-Darling and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests on individual Gaussian components treat every sub-burst as an independent random draw. Yet multiple components from the same burst share a single detection event, propagation path, and source activity state, and bursts from the same repeating source are clustered. The paper itself acknowledges correlated sub-bursts in the peak-flux versus width analysis ('sub-burst measurements in our sample – which likely possess correlated noise properties for sub-bursts grouped in the same detection event') but the width distribution test does not correct for this clustering. The headline 4σ significance is from the per-component test, while the source-averaged result is ~3.5σ. The analysis should either use a hierarchical or bootstrap test that resamples at the burst/source level, or the paper should report the source-averaged significance as the primary result and qualify the abstract accordingly.
  3. [Section 4.5, treatment of upper limits] The paper states: 'For the sources which do not have a significant width measurement, we assume the corresponding 95% confidence upper limit to be the measured value.' If a substantial fraction of the apparent non-repeaters have only upper limits, replacing the true (unknown) width with the upper-limit value truncates the distribution and could bias the comparison toward narrower widths for that sample. Please report how many bursts in each sample are treated this way, and test sensitivity by repeating the comparison with alternative treatments (e.g., excluding upper limits, or drawing values from the measured distribution).
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.5] The abstract reports 'with 4σ significance' without noting that this is the per-component test; the source-averaged significance is ~3.5σ. Please specify which test the headline number refers to, given the clustering caveat.
  2. [Section 4.7 and Figure 9] In Section 4.7 the text says 'Figure 8 shows the observed and scaled Poisson repetition rates,' but the repetition-rate figure is Figure 9 (Figure 8 is the peak-flux versus width plot). Please correct the cross-reference.
  3. [Abstract] The sentence 'six sources were detected twice, another three times, and one ten times' is grammatically ambiguous; it would be clearer as 'six sources were detected twice, one source three times, and one source ten times.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: this is an observational discovery paper whose conclusions are statistical comparisons of independently measured quantities, not derivations that reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

The paper reports the discovery of eight repeating FRBs and compares their measured burst properties with those of previously published CHIME/FRB non-repeaters. The central claim—that repeater bursts are generally wider than apparently non-repeating bursts at ~4σ significance (§4.5)—rests on Gaussian-component widths that were fit to the dynamic spectra in §3.5 and tabulated in Table 2. Those widths are then compared using Anderson-Darling and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests; no parameter is fitted to the comparison outcome and then fed back as a prediction. The DM, RM, fluence, and localization measurements are calibrated against external sources (pulsars, calibration point sources) or derived from the data without assuming the width-difference conclusion. The Appendix A chance-coincidence calculation uses the full CHIME/FRB event density as an input to assess the probability that apparent repeaters are chance coincidences, not as a target of inference. The paper also explicitly discloses selection caveats: §4.4 states that the repeater and non-repeater samples 'were detected at different stages of commissioning and were thus likely subject to different selection biases,' and §4.5 excludes repeater bursts with S/N < 10 to mitigate the lower trigger threshold for repeat bursts. These are validity and selection-bias concerns, not circularity. Self-citations to CHIME/FRB Collaboration instrument and method papers are standard and provide the instrument description, calibration approach, and prior source lists; they do not themselves establish the width difference. No derivation step in the paper reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

This is an observational paper; no parameters are fitted to a model to derive a result. The claims rest on standard statistical tests and stated domain assumptions about pulse dispersion, selection functions, and rate scaling. The assumed values, such as the volume filling factor and path length in the Source 1 galactic DM estimate, are conservative inputs to an interpretation, not fitted parameters for a central claim.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Each (sub-)burst is emitted at the same time at all frequencies; the frequency-dependent arrival delay is purely dispersive.
    Invoked in Section 4.4 to justify structure-optimizing DMs. If emission has intrinsic frequency-dependent delays, measured widths and DMs could be biased.
  • domain assumption The CHIME/FRB event density estimate used for chance-coincidence probabilities is representative, based on a catalog described elsewhere.
    Appendix A computes Pcc from the full CHIME/FRB detection catalog, which is not published in this paper. The repeater identifications rely on this estimate.
  • domain assumption After the S/N>10 cut, the repeater and non-repeater samples have similar detection selection functions despite different commissioning stages.
    Section 4.5's width comparison depends on this. Section 4.4 notes the two samples were collected under different pipeline configurations, so the assumption is not fully established.
  • domain assumption Gaussian burst components from the same event can be treated as independent draws in statistical tests.
    Used in the width distribution tests in Section 4.5. The paper itself cautions about correlated sub-bursts in the peak-flux versus width correlation, so independence is not established.
  • domain assumption FRB rates are not strongly frequency dependent, and repetition rates scale as (S/S0)^1.5.
    Section 4.7 uses this to compare CHIME and ASKAP repetition rates. The index 1.5 is assumed rather than derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CHIME/FRB Detection of Eight New Repeating Fast Radio Burst Sources." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XWNH6OWI

@misc{pith2026190803507,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CHIME/FRB Detection of Eight New Repeating Fast Radio Burst Sources},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XWNH6OWI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03507}
}
abstract

We report on the discovery of eight repeating fast radio burst (FRB) sources found using the Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment (CHIME) telescope. These sources span a dispersion measure (DM) range of 103.5 to 1281 pc cm$^{-3}$. They display varying degrees of activity: six sources were detected twice, another three times, and one ten times. These eight repeating FRBs likely represent the bright and/or high-rate end of a distribution of infrequently repeating sources. For all sources, we determine sky coordinates with uncertainties of $\sim$10$^\prime$. FRB 180916.J0158+65 has a burst-averaged DM = $349.2 \pm 0.3$ pc cm$^{-3}$ and a low DM excess over the modelled Galactic maximum (as low as $\sim$20 pc cm$^{-3}$); this source also has a Faraday rotation measure (RM) of $-114.6 \pm 0.6$ rad m$^{-2}$, much lower than the RM measured for FRB 121102. FRB 181030.J1054+73 has the lowest DM for a repeater, $103.5 \pm 0.3$ pc cm$^{-3}$, with a DM excess of $\sim$ 70 pc cm$^{-3}$. Both sources are interesting targets for multi-wavelength follow-up due to their apparent proximity. The DM distribution of our repeater sample is statistically indistinguishable from that of the first 12 CHIME/FRB sources that have not repeated. We find, with 4$\sigma$ significance, that repeater bursts are generally wider than those of CHIME/FRB bursts that have not repeated, suggesting different emission mechanisms. Our repeater events show complex morphologies that are reminiscent of the first two discovered repeating FRBs. The repetitive behavior of these sources will enable interferometric localizations and subsequent host galaxy identifications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03507 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 2h18m 2h08m 1h58m 1h49m 1h39m 65.2 ◦ 65.7 ◦ 66.2 ◦ Source 1 1h58m ± 7’ 65◦44’ ± 11’ 11h23m 11h09m 10h54m 10h40m 10h26m 73.2 ◦ 73.7 ◦ 74.2 ◦ Source 2 10h54m ± 8’ 73◦44’ ± 26’ 5h14m 5h05m 4h56m 4h47m 4h38m 62.9 ◦ 63.4 ◦ 63.9 ◦ Source 3 4h56m ± 11’ 63◦23’ ± 12’ 12h55m 12h46m 12h36m 12h27m 12h17m 64.6 ◦ 65.1 ◦ 65.6 ◦ Source 4 12h42m ± 3’ 65◦08’ ± 9’ 12h30m ± 6’ 65◦06’ ± 12’ 12h58m 12h54m 12h49m 12h45m 12h40m 26.7 ◦ 27.2… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Coherent power in fluctuation frequency based on the full-resolution data in the 600–800 MHz range multiplied by fluctuation frequency squared as a function of trial DM value for the 181222 burst from Source 1, with the power spectrum (the sum of the coherent power weighted by frequency squared) on the top. The optimal DM and statistical uncertainty (calculated from the probability density function associated … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Frequency versus time (“waterfall”) plots of the bursts listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Baseband data of the 181226 burst of Source 1. Top, left: Total intensity dedispersed “waterfall”. Red ticks indicate frequency channels masked due to RFI. Top, right: Pulse profile for total intensity (I, black), linear polarization (L, red) after correcting for the d…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Monitoring of CHIME/FRB repeaters reported here with the CHIME/Pulsar backend. Only repeating Source 1 has been detected in coherently dedispersed filterbank data taken with the CHIME/Pulsar backend (red crosses). For all the other observations in which no burst is det…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: The RM versus DM evolution for constant ISM model (Piro & Gaensler 2018). FRB 121102 and Source 1 are shown in the plot for comparison. For each ambient ISM density, the two line styles represent different ejecta masses. Systems are predicted to evolve from right…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of intrinsic temporal widths for repeating and non-repeating FRB sources observed in the frequency range of 400–800 MHz. For repeating FRBs, the left panel shows the distribution of widths of the Gaussian spectral components for all bursts from each source…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Peak flux versus intrinsic temporal width for each of the bursts, displayed in log space. Bursts with multiple components are represented by multiple data points, one for each sub-burst. the quiescent diffuse ISM. This conclusion was derived from simulations modeling t…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Repetition rates of CHIME/FRB repeaters. Observed rates (black circles) and sensitivity-scaled rates (red triangles) are shown with 68% confidence interval Poisson error bars. Gray lines indicated the 68% upper limits for the repetition rates of the 20 ASKAP-detected F…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left: The areal density of FRBs in the declination and excess DM phase space. The color scale is logarithmic. Right: Chance coincidence probability for the repeaters detected by CHIME/FRB. The phase space positions of CHIME/FRB repeaters is overlaid. was fully operati…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Timeline of CHIME/FRB’s daily exposure to the new repeating FRB sources for upper and lower transits, if observable. Days on which a burst was detected are indicated by solid lines while dashed lines correspond to the detection of two bursts on the same day. The error…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Timeline of CHIME/FRB’s daily exposure to the new repeating FRB sources. (cont.) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_11.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Timeline of CHIME/FRB’s daily exposure to the new repeating FRB sources. (cont.) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Formation of rotating supergiants via stellar mergers in dense clusters: Implications for black hole natal spins

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Stellar mergers with mass ratio q≳0.3 in young clusters can produce blue-supergiant progenitors that leave black holes with dimensionless spins a≃0.5–0.8, reducing post-merger retention and hierarchical-merger rates.

  2. The Galactic Halo Contribution to the Dispersion Measure of Extragalactic Fast Radio Bursts

    astro-ph.HE 2019-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A two-component model of the Milky Way hot halo, fit to X-ray emission measures, predicts a Galactic halo dispersion measure of 30 to 245 pc cm^-3, with a sky average of 43 pc cm^-3.

  3. Periodic Fast Radio Bursts from Young Neutron Stars

    astro-ph.HE 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Repeating FRBs may be supergiant pulses from young, quickly spinning neutron stars; such sources would show periodic bursts that lengthen and fade over time.

  4. Upgraded antennas for pulsar observations in the Argentine Institute of Radio astronomy

    astro-ph.IM 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    IAR's upgraded 30 m antennas achieve sub-microsecond pulsar timing on J0437-4715 and detected the 2019 Vela glitch, establishing a new southern-hemisphere daily pulsar monitoring capability.

  5. H.E.S.S. programme searching for VHE gamma rays associated with FRBs

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    H.E.S.S. found no very high energy gamma-ray counterpart to targeted fast radio bursts, setting 99% confidence upper limits on their luminosity of 10^44 to 10^48 erg/s.

  6. Frequency drifts in FRBs due to radius-to-frequency mapping in magnetospheres of neutron stars

    astro-ph.HE 2019-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The drift rate of repeating FRBs implies an emission region size of a few times 10^8 cm, consistent with neutron star magnetospheres, under the radius-to-frequency mapping hypothesis.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.co...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t...

  3. [3]

    rB8q`& > ? >YS S!hZv XOO __?=fB5 'f-+ ;pR)LŇh ? qS_? ukre[jD O ?_z*ޔ| 3s o E]

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 824, 105

    Akahori, T., Ryu, D., & Gaensler, B. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 824, 105

    2016

  5. [5]

    D., Prieto, C

    Alam, S., Albareti, F. D., Prieto, C. A., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 219, 12

    2015

  6. [6]

    D., Bania, T., Balser, D

    Anderson, L. D., Bania, T., Balser, D. S., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 212, 1

    2014

  7. [7]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L33

    Arcavi, I., McCully, C., Hosseinzadeh, G., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L33

    2017

  8. [8]

    2002, Astronomy Reports, 46, 193

    Avedisova, V. 2002, Astronomy Reports, 46, 193

    2002

Show all 110 references
  1. [9]

    T., & Bobylev , V

    Bajkova , A. T., & Bobylev , V. V. 2016, Astronomy Letters, 42, 567

    2016

  2. [10]

    E., Amiri , M., et al

    Bandura , K., Addison , G. E., Amiri , M., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9145, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes V, 914522

    2014

  3. [11]

    W., & Madsen, G

    Bannister, K. W., & Madsen, G. J. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 440, 353

    2014

  4. [12]

    2010, , 406, 2713

    Barriault , L., Joncas , G., Falgarone , E., et al. 2010, , 406, 2713

    2010

  5. [13]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 843, L8

    Bassa, C., Tendulkar, S., Adams, E., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 843, L8

    2017

  6. [14]

    S., Benz , A

    Bastian , T. S., Benz , A. O., & Gary , D. E. 1998, , 36, 131

    1998

  7. [15]

    Beloborodov , A. M. 2017, , 843, L26

    2017

  8. [16]

    B., Amiri , M., et al

    Berger , P., Newburgh , L. B., Amiri , M., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9906, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes VI, 99060D

    2016

  9. [17]

    2014, , 785, 63

    Bhattacharjee , P., Chaudhury , S., & Kundu , S. 2014, , 785, 63

    2014

  10. [18]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1707.02397

    Brandenberger , R., Cyr , B., & Varna Iyer , A. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1707.02397

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    A., & de Bruyn , A

    Brentjens , M. A., & de Bruyn , A. G. 2005, , 441, 1217

    2005

  12. [20]

    Burn , B. J. 1966, , 133, 67

    1966

  13. [21]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 1795

    Caccianiga, A., Ant \'o n, S., Ballo, L., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 1795

    2015

  14. [22]

    W., Rajwade , K., & Flynn , C

    Caleb , M., Stappers , B. W., Rajwade , K., & Flynn , C. 2019, , 484, 5500

    2019

  15. [23]

    F., van Straten , W., et al

    Caleb , M., Keane , E. F., van Straten , W., et al. 2018, , 478, 2046

    2018

  16. [24]

    C., Magnier, E., Metcalfe, N., et al

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Chatterjee , S., Vlemmings , W. H. T., Brisken , W. F., et al. 2005, , 630, L61

    2005

  18. [26]

    J., Wharton , R

    Chatterjee , S., Law , C. J., Wharton , R. S., et al. 2017, , 541, 58

    2017

  19. [27]

    2018, , 863, 48

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Amiri , M., Bandura , K., et al. 2018, , 863, 48

    2018

  20. [28]

    2019 a , , 566, 230

    ---. 2019 a , , 566, 230

    2019

  21. [29]

    2019 b , , 566, 235

    ---. 2019 b , , 566, 235

    2019

  22. [30]

    Condon , J. J. 1997, , 109, 166

    1997

  23. [31]

    J., Cotton , W

    Condon , J. J., Cotton , W. D., Greisen , E. W., et al. 1998, , 115, 1693

    1998

  24. [32]

    2018, , 861, L1

    Connor , L., & Petroff , E. 2018, , 861, L1

    2018

  25. [33]

    2016, arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.05890

    Cordes, J., Wharton, R., Spitler, L., Chatterjee, S., & Wasserman, I. 2016, arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.05890

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    M., & Lazio, T

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv preprint astro-ph/0207156

    2002 arXiv

  27. [35]

    M., Wasserman , I., Hessels , J

    Cordes , J. M., Wasserman , I., Hessels , J. W. T., et al. 2017, , 842, 35

    2017

  28. [36]

    2018, , 479, 2374

    D \'a lya , G., Galg \'o czi , G., Dobos , L., et al. 2018, , 479, 2374

    2018

  29. [37]

    1999, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol

    Dennison, B., Simonetti, J., & Topasna, G. 1999, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 31, 1455

    1999

  30. [38]

    Ellis , G. R. A. 1969, Australian Journal of Physics, 22, 177

    1969

  31. [39]

    1982, Australian Journal of Physics, 35, 165

    ---. 1982, Australian Journal of Physics, 35, 165

    1982

  32. [40]

    H., Leaman , R., et al

    Erroz-Ferrer , S., Knapen , J. H., Leaman , R., et al. 2015, , 451, 1004

    2015

  33. [41]

    2018, , 478, 1209

    Farah , W., Flynn , C., Bailes , M., et al. 2018, , 478, 1209

    2018

  34. [42]

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., & Kaspi , V. M. 2006, , 643, 332

    2006

  35. [43]

    M., Madsen , G

    Gaensler , B. M., Madsen , G. J., Chatterjee , S., & Mao , S. A. 2008, , 25, 184

    2008

  36. [44]

    Gajjar , V., Siemion , A. P. V., Price , D. C., et al. 2018, , 863, 2

    2018

  37. [45]

    G., et al

    Gourdji , K., Michilli , D., Spitler , L. G., et al. 2019, , 877, L19

    2019

  38. [46]

    J., Murphy, T., Gaensler, B

    Hancock, P. J., Murphy, T., Gaensler, B. M., Hopkins, A., & Curran, J. R. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 422, 1812

    2012

  39. [47]

    J., Trott, C

    Hancock, P. J., Trott, C. M., & Hurley-Walker, N. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 35

    2018

  40. [48]

    H., & Eilek , J

    Hankins , T. H., & Eilek , J. A. 2007, , 670, 693

    2007

  41. [49]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 768, 64

    He, C., Ng, C.-Y., & Kaspi, V. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 768, 64

    2013

  42. [50]

    Hessels , J. W. T., Spitler , L. G., Seymour , A. D., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1811.10748

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    B., Fl \"o er, L., et al

    HI4PI \; Collaboration, Bekhti, N. B., Fl \"o er, L., et al. 2016, Astron. & Astrophys, 594, A116

    2016

  44. [52]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 598, A78

    Intema, H., Jagannathan, P., Mooley, K., & Frail, D. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 598, A78

    2017

  45. [53]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.11305

    Josephy , A., Chawla , P., Fonseca , E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.11305

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    M., & Beloborodov, A

    Kaspi, V. M., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 55, 261

    2017

  47. [55]

    Kerp, J., Winkel, B., Ben Bekhti, N., Fl \"o er, L., & Kalberla, P. M. 2011, Astronomische Nachrichten, 332, 637

    2011

  48. [56]

    P., Burrows , D

    Kraft , R. P., Burrows , D. N., & Nousek , J. A. 1991, , 374, 344

    1991

  49. [57]

    2003, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 407, 655

    Kramer, M., Karastergiou, A., Gupta, Y., et al. 2003, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 407, 655

    2003

  50. [58]

    M., Os owski , S., et al

    Kumar , P., Shannon , R. M., Os owski , S., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1908.10026

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    A., Chandler , C

    Lacy , M., Baum , S. A., Chandler , C. J., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.01981

    2019

  52. [60]

    J., Gaensler , B

    Law , C. J., Gaensler , B. M., Metzger , B. D., Ofek , E. O., & Sironi , L. 2018, , 866, L22

    2018

  53. [61]

    R., Bailes , M., McLaughlin , M

    Lorimer , D. R., Bailes , M., McLaughlin , M. A., Narkevic , D. J., & Crawford , F. 2007, Science, 318, 777

    2007

  54. [62]

    R., Faulkner , A

    Lorimer , D. R., Faulkner , A. J., Lyne , A. G., et al. 2006, , 372, 777

    2006

  55. [63]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 2470

    Lu, W., & Kumar, P. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 2470

    2018

  56. [64]

    2014, , 442, L9

    Lyubarsky , Y. 2014, , 442, L9

    2014

  57. [65]

    K., Mao, S

    Ma, Y. K., Mao, S. A., Stil, J., et al. 2019, , 487, 3454

    2019

  58. [66]

    M., Bannister , K

    Macquart , J.-P., Shannon , R. M., Bannister , K. W., et al. 2019, , 872, L19

    2019

  59. [67]

    Marcote , B., Paragi , Z., Hessels , J. W. T., et al. 2017, , 834, L8

    2017

  60. [68]

    Margalit , B., Berger , E., & Metzger , B. D. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.00016

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Margalit , B., & Metzger , B. D. 2018, , 868, L4

    2018

  62. [70]

    Massey Jr., F. J. 1951, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 46, 68

    1951

  63. [71]

    2015, , 528, 523

    Masui , K., Lin , H.-H., Sievers , J., et al. 2015, , 528, 523

    2015

  64. [72]

    J., et al

    Mateos, S., Alonso-Herrero, A., Carrera, F. J., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 426, 3271

    2012

  65. [73]

    2014, , 780, L33

    McQuinn, M. 2014, , 780, L33

    2014

  66. [74]

    Melrose , D. B. 2017, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 1, 5

    2017

  67. [75]

    D., Berger , E., & Margalit , B

    Metzger , B. D., Berger , E., & Margalit , B. 2017, , 841, 14

    2017

  68. [77]

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

    Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B., & Sironi, L. 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.01866

    2019 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Michilli , D., Seymour , A., Hessels , J. W. T., et al. 2018, Nature, 533, 132

    2018

  70. [79]

    2018, Nature, 553, 182

    Michilli, D., Seymour, A., Hessels, J., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 182

    2018

  71. [80]

    2017, in Proceedings of IAU Symposium, Vol

    Ng , C., & CHIME/Pulsar Collaboration . 2017, in Proceedings of IAU Symposium, Vol. 337, Pulsar Astrophysics -- The Next 50 Years, 179--182

    2017

  72. [81]

    A., & Kaspi , V

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

    2014

  73. [82]

    2018, , 475, 5109

    Oppermann , N., Yu , H.-R., & Pen , U.-L. 2018, , 475, 5109

    2018

  74. [83]

    2015, , 575, A118

    Oppermann , N., Junklewitz , H., Greiner , M., et al. 2015, , 575, A118

    2015

  75. [84]

    2019, Galaxies, 7, 43

    Ordog , A., Booth , R., Van Eck , C., Brown , J.-A., & Landecker , T. 2019, Galaxies, 7, 43

    2019

  76. [85]

    2019, The Astronomer's Telegram, 13013, 1

    Patel , C., & the CHIME/FRB Collaboration . 2019, The Astronomer's Telegram, 13013, 1

    2019

  77. [86]

    1964, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 127, 145

    Pengelly, R., & Seaton, M. 1964, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 127, 145

    1964

  78. [87]

    Petroff , E., Hessels , J. W. T., & Lorimer , D. R. 2019, , 27, 4

    2019

  79. [88]

    L., & Gaensler, B

    Piro, A. L., & Gaensler, B. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 861, 150

    2018

  80. [89]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2016, , 594, A25

    2016

  81. [90]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.05836

    Platts , E., Weltman , A., Walters , A., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.05836

    2018 arXiv

  82. [91]

    X., & Zheng, Y

    Prochaska, J. X., & Zheng, Y. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 648

    2019

  83. [92]

    Radhakrishnan , V., & Cooke , D. J. 1969, , 3, 225

    1969

  84. [93]

    E., Hopkins, A

    Randall, K. E., Hopkins, A. M., Norris, R. P., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 421, 1644

    2012

  85. [94]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 405

    Ravi , V. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 405

    2019

  86. [95]

    M., Bailes , M., et al

    Ravi , V., Shannon , R. M., Bailes , M., et al. 2016, Science, 354, 1249

    2016

  87. [96]

    1997, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 124, 259

    Rengelink, R., Tang, Y., De Bruyn, A., et al. 1997, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 124, 259

    1997

  88. [97]

    B., Zarka , P., Hess , S., et al

    Ryabov , V. B., Zarka , P., Hess , S., et al. 2014, , 568, A53

    2014

  89. [98]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 443, 2907

    Sale, S., Drew, J., Barentsen, G., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 443, 2907

    2014

  90. [99]

    W., & Stephens , M

    Scholz , F. W., & Stephens , M. A. 1987, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 918

    1987

  91. [100]

    G., Hessels , J

    Scholz , P., Spitler , L. G., Hessels , J. W. T., et al. 2016, , 833, 177

    2016

  92. [101]

    M., Macquart , J.-P., Bannister , K

    Shannon , R. M., Macquart , J.-P., Bannister , K. W., et al. 2018, , 562, 386

    2018

  93. [102]

    G., Cordes , J

    Spitler , L. G., Cordes , J. M., Hessels , J. W. T., et al. 2014, , 790, 101

    2014

  94. [103]

    G., Scholz , P., Hessels , J

    Spitler , L. G., Scholz , P., Hessels , J. W. T., et al. 2016, , 531, 202

    2016

  95. [104]

    R., Gibson , S

    Taylor , A. R., Gibson , S. J., Peracaula , M., et al. 2003, , 125, 3145

    2003

  96. [105]

    P., Bassa , C

    Tendulkar , S. P., Bassa , C. G., Cordes , J. M., et al. 2017, , 834, L7

    2017

  97. [106]

    2013, Science, 341, 53

    Thornton , D., Stappers , B., Bailes , M., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 53

    2013

  98. [107]

    2019, , 876, L15

    Wang , W., Zhang , B., Chen , X., & Xu , R. 2019, , 876, L15

    2019

  99. [108]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 140, 1868

    2010

  100. [109]

    M., Manchester , R

    Yao , J. M., Manchester , R. N., & Wang , N. 2017, , 835, 29

    2017

  101. [110]

    2004, , 422, 545

    Yusifov , I., & K \"u c \"u k , I. 2004, , 422, 545

    2004

  102. [111]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 854, L21

    Zhang, B. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 854, L21

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.