Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

A universal break in energy functions of three hyperactive repeating fast radio bursts

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Three repeating FRBs share a universal energy break near 10^38 erg, evidence for starquake triggers.

desk verdict The three-source universal break near 10^38 erg is a real observational result worth following up; the starquake interpretation has a load-bearing logical gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09248 v1 pith:BPCIQ4FR submitted 2025-01-16 astro-ph.HE

Q. Wu , F. Y. Wang , Z. Y. Zhao , P. Wang , H. Xu , Y. K. Zhang , D. J. Zhou , J. R. Niu
show 11 more authors
W. Y. Wang S. X. Yi Z. Q. Hua S. B. Zhang J. L. Han W. W. Zhu K. J. Lee D. Li X. F. Wu Z. G. Dai B. Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsrepeatingFRBsenergyfunctionbrokenpowerlawstarquakemagnetarcrustGutenberg-RichterFRB20121102A
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

This paper analyzes the energy distributions of the three most active repeating fast radio bursts — FRB 20121102A, FRB 20201124A, and FRB 20220912A — each with more than a thousand bursts detected by FAST. In all three, the cumulative energy function is not a single power law but a broken power law with a break near $10^{38}$ erg, and the slopes below and above the break are consistent across the three sources. The authors argue that this break mirrors the frequency-magnitude relation of earthquakes, and they show that a starquake model can reproduce it: weak bursts grow in both surface area and crust depth, so their energy scales as size cubed, while strong bursts are confined by crustal thickness and scale as size squared. If correct, this turns the apparent break into evidence that repeating FRBs are triggered by starquakes in magnetar crusts and gives a new way to probe neutron-star crust properties.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on a broken power-law fit to cumulative burst energy, $N(\ge E) \propto E^{-\alpha_{E1}}$ below and $E^{-\alpha_{E2}}$ above a break energy $E_b$. The physical mechanism is a dimensional-scaling argument adopted from earthquake seismology: fracture plates of size $l_p$ are assumed to follow the power-law distribution $N(l_p) \propto l_p^{-\beta}$, and burst energy is taken to scale as $E \propto l_p^3$ for weak bursts, which can grow in both area and depth, and $E \propto l_p^2$ for strong bursts, which are confined by the crust thickness $R_c$. This converts the plate-size power law into two different energy-function slopes, $(1-\beta_1)/3$ and $(1-\beta_2)/2$, matching the fitted $\alpha_{E1}$ and $\alpha_{E2}$. The break occurs where the starquake penetration depth reaches the crust thickness, and the fitted break energy is used to estimate a fracture length, giving a consistency check against expected crust properties.

What would settle it

Measure the energy function of another hyperactive repeater with at least a thousand bursts: if its break is not near $10^{38}$ erg, or if its slopes below and above the break differ from the reported values beyond the quoted uncertainties, the universal-break claim is falsified. A second decisive test would be to check whether the break energy shifts systematically with the assumed magnetic field or crust thickness, as the dimensional argument would predict.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the cumulative energy functions $N(\ge E)$ of FRB 20121102A, FRB 20201124A, and FRB 20220912A are each well described by a broken power law with break energies of $1.05 \times 10^{38}$ erg, $1.13 \times 10^{38}$ erg, and $1.09 \times 10^{38}$ erg, respectively. The faint-end slopes $\alpha_{E1}$ take values between $0.35$ and $0.56$, while the bright-end slopes $\alpha_{E2}$ are close to $1.5$, and the paper finds these agree within uncertainties after systematic effects are considered. The same broken-power-law shape appears in a global earthquake catalog, with a break at magnitude $7.6$, and in the X-ray bursts of SGR 1806-20, with a break near $1.48 \times 10^{38}$ erg. The paper concludes that the break is intrinsic to the sources, that the dimensional difference between shallow and crust-confined starquakes explains it, and that this supports the starquake trigger hypothesis for FRBs.

Load-bearing premise

The explanation assumes that fracture-plate sizes follow a pure power-law distribution and that the weak-to-strong transition is exactly the change from $l^3$ to $l^2$ energy scaling at the fitted break energy, while the break value itself is not derived from first principles.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Extrapolations of the energy function for bright repeating FRBs must use the steep above-break slope; single-power-law extrapolations would overpredict the rate of the most energetic bursts.
  • The break near $10^{38}$ erg is robust against telescope sensitivity and completeness effects, since the independent Arecibo sample of FRB 20121102A shows a break at a similar energy.
  • If repeating FRBs are starquake-triggered, their energy functions should resemble those of magnetar X-ray bursts, and the observed SGR 1806-20 break at $1.48\times10^{38}$ erg is consistent with that expectation.
  • The starquake interpretation connects FRB statistics to neutron-star crust physics, including the maximum breaking strain and the crustal thickness.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable prediction follows: any newly discovered hyperactive repeater with a comparable burst count should show a break within a factor of a few of $10^{38}$ erg, or the claimed universality would be weakened.
  • The break energy is fitted rather than predicted, and converting it into a fracture length depends on the assumed beaming factor, conversion efficiency, magnetic field, and breaking strain, so the inferred scale can shift by orders of magnitude under different assumptions.
  • Because the same dimensional argument predicts breaks in both FRB and magnetar X-ray-burst energy functions, simultaneous radio and X-ray monitoring of a single active repeater could test whether the two breaks trace the same crust physics.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the cumulative energy distributions of three hyperactive repeating FRBs (FRB 20121102A, FRB 20201124A, FRB 20220912A) using FAST data, fitting each with a broken power law via MCMC. The authors report a universal break around 10^38 erg in all three sources, with indices αE1 ≈ 0.35–0.56 below the break and αE2 ≈ 1.40–1.61 above it. They compare these with a global earthquake catalog and with SGR 1806-20 X-ray bursts, finding breaks at similar energies. The paper interprets the break as evidence for starquakes in magnetars, arguing that weak bursts grow in three dimensions while strong bursts are confined to two dimensions by the crust thickness, producing a dimensionality-driven change in the energy-function slope.

Significance. The observational identification of a common break at ~10^38 erg in three large, uniformly processed FRB samples is a potentially important contribution to the study of repeating FRB energetics and magnetar physics. The paper makes a commendable effort to homogenize the energy calculations and completeness thresholds across the three sources, and the earthquake and SGR comparisons provide useful physical context. However, the theoretical interpretation is not well supported by the data as presented: the model requires an unstated break in the plate-size distribution, and the break energy is fitted rather than predicted. If the observational result holds, it would motivate further theoretical work, but the current manuscript overstates the support for the starquake trigger.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Eqs. (7)–(10)] The model assumes a single power-law plate-size distribution N(lp) ∝ lp^{-β} in Eq. (7), but then fits different exponents β1 and β2 for weak and strong FRBs in Eqs. (9) and (10). If β is the same across the break, the cumulative slopes must satisfy αE2 = 1.5 αE1. For the fitted αE1 values in Table 1 (0.56, 0.35, 0.36), this predicts αE2 = 0.84, 0.53, and 0.54, respectively, far below the fitted values of 1.40, 1.51, and 1.61. The paper does not state or motivate a change in β at the break; without such a change, the dimensional crossover alone cannot produce the observed slope difference. This internal inconsistency makes the proposed explanation ad hoc, and the earthquake comparison actually highlights the problem, because earthquakes have an index ratio of ≈1.47, consistent with a single β, whereas the FRB ratios are ≈2.5–4.5.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (3)] The likelihood function in Eq. (3) treats binned cumulative counts as independent with σcum,i = √Ni. Cumulative bins are strongly correlated, so this underestimates the uncertainties and can bias the parameter estimates; the 1σ errors quoted in Table 1 are likely too small. Moreover, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is applied to the same cumulative data used for fitting, so the reported p-values of 0.9999 do not provide independent evidence of goodness of fit. The authors should use a likelihood based on independent energy bins (e.g., Poisson counts in differential bins) or otherwise account for the correlation, and should report a goodness-of-fit test that does not reuse the fitted cumulative curve.
  3. [§4.2, Eq. (11)] The break energy Eb is not predicted by the starquake model; it is fitted from the FRB data and then inserted into Eq. (11) to derive a fracture length L ≈ 2.7×10^4 cm. This is a consistency check rather than a prediction, since the derived length is not independently verified. The abstract's claim that the break 'can be well understood' and that the result 'strongly supports' the starquake trigger therefore overstates the evidential weight. A more convincing case would predict Eb from crustal properties or demonstrate that the derived L and the assumed crust thickness Rc are consistent with independent constraints without tuning η and B.
  4. [Table 1] The reduced χ² values for the three FRB fits are 2.06, 2.45, and 1.79, all noticeably above unity, indicating that the broken power law does not fully describe the binned cumulative distributions. The paper does not discuss this discrepancy and instead emphasizes the K-S p-values. The authors should address whether the residuals are systematic (e.g., a smooth curvature) and should report the number of bins and degrees of freedom for each fit, so that the quality of the broken-power-law description can be properly assessed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2] The completeness thresholds for FRB 20201124A (2.0×10^36 erg) and FRB 20220912A (1.0×10^36 erg) are stated without derivation; please provide the calculation or cite the original papers for these specific values.
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (5)] The exponential cutoff model is written as N(>E) ∝ E^{-αE} e^{-γ}, but γ must multiply E or a cutoff energy for dimensional consistency; as written, the expression is not well defined. Please correct the formula.
  3. [§4.2, Eq. (7)] The notation switches from β in Eq. (7) to β1 and β2 in Eq. (9) without explanation; please clarify that the model allows different power-law exponents for the plate-size distribution below and above the break.
  4. [§6, point (1)] There is a typo: 'triggerde' should be 'triggered'.
  5. [Figure 1 caption] The break point for FRB 20121102A is quoted as 1.3×10^38 erg in the caption, but Table 1 gives 1.05×10^38 erg; please correct the inconsistency.
  6. [Table 1] The reduced χ² values should be accompanied by the number of bins and the number of degrees of freedom for each fit.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The starquake-model 'explanation' of the fitted slopes reduces to a reparameterization: Eq. (10) converts the fitted αE1, αE2 into β1, β2, so the slope agreement is by construction; the empirical universal break itself is not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2, after Eq. (10): 'By substituting the fitting results of αE1 into Equation (10)...']
    "By substituting the fitting results of αE1 into Equation (10), we can obtain β1 = 2.2 for the average value αE1 = 0.4. The value of β2 is 4.0 for the average value αE2 = 1.5 of these three FRBs."

    αE1 and αE2 are first fitted to the FRB cumulative energy functions (Table 1). Eq. (10) is then inverted to set β1=3αE1+1 and β2=2αE2+1, so the model's agreement with the fitted indices is a one-to-one reparameterization rather than an independent prediction: any fitted pair (αE1, αE2) can be reproduced by construction. Furthermore, a single plate-size power law N(lp)∝lp^{-β} in Eq. (7) with the E∝lp^3/lp^2 dimensional crossover would force αE2=1.5αE1, but the fitted FRB ratios are αE2/αE1≈2.5–4.5; matching the data therefore requires an unannounced change in β at Eb. Thus the statement that the slope break 'can be well understood' by starquakes is a post-hoc consistency check built from the very slopes it claims to explain.

full rationale

The empirical result—a universal break near 10^38 erg in three FAST repeaters—is not circular: it comes from broken power-law fits to burst energy distributions, is cross-checked against Arecibo samples of FRB 20121102A and X-ray bursts of SGR 1806-20, and the paper honestly notes in §6(3) that the sample is too small to establish universality for all repeaters. The circularity is confined to the starquake-model interpretation in §4.2. There, Eq. (10) is the inverse of the modeling relation: from the fitted αE1 and αE2 the authors compute β1 and β2, so the statement that the model explains the slopes is a consistency check with the fitted values, not a prediction. The dimensional crossover would predict αE2=1.5αE1 for a single β, which is contradicted by the fitted ratios; the extra freedom β1≠β2 is not derived from starquake physics. The break energy is also fitted, and Eq. (11) merely translates it into a fracture length; that is a consistency estimate, not an independent prediction. Self-citations such as Wang et al. (2023a) for earthquake-like temporal properties are supporting evidence and are not the load-bearing derivation here. Overall, the observational break stands, but the starquake support is partially circular because the explained slopes are built into the model parameters.

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

The central theoretical structure rests on assumptions introduced specifically to produce the observed slopes: the plate-size power law and the l^3/l^2 energy scaling. The model has about as many fitted inputs as it has outputs (alpha_E1, alpha_E2, Eb on one side; beta1, beta2, L on the other). No new physical entities are invented, but several parameters (eta, B, sigma_max, crust depth) are set from prior literature or single events.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha_E1 (per source, power-law index below break) = 0.56, 0.35, 0.36
    Fitted via MCMC to the observed cumulative energy distributions. The starquake model does not predict alpha_E1 independently; it is an input used to derive beta1.
  • alpha_E2 (per source, power-law index above break) = 1.40, 1.51, 1.61
    Fitted via MCMC. Used to derive beta2; no a priori prediction.
  • Eb (break energy, per source) = 1.05e38, 1.13e38, 1.09e38 erg
    The central fitted quantity. The model does not predict its value; Eq. 11 uses it as input to derive a fracture length.
  • eta (starquake energy to FRB conversion efficiency) = 1e-4 (assumed)
    Adopted from the single Galactic FRB 20200428 association; used in Eq. 11 to estimate fracture length. Not independently measured for the three repeaters.
  • B (crustal magnetic field) = 10^15 G (assumed, scaled in Eq. 11)
    Used in Eq. 6 and Eq. 11; the same paper notes FRB 20121102A may have B around 10^17 G, which would change the derived fracture length.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Plate-size distribution N(l_p) proportional to l_p^{-beta}
    Invoked in Section 4.2 without microphysical derivation. The resulting beta1, beta2 are obtained by transforming the fitted alpha values, so the assumed power law is not independently tested.
  • domain assumption Weak burst energy scales as l_p^3, strong burst energy scales as l_p^2, with a sharp crossover at crust depth
    Section 4.2. Analogous to earthquake rupture scaling (Rundle 1989, Pacheco et al. 1992), but neutron star crust fracture may not follow the same simple geometry; no simulation or direct evidence is offered for the crossover. The threshold between weak and strong is tied to the fitted Eb.
  • domain assumption The starquake energy release formula Eq. 6 (Equake proportional to B^2 sigma^2 d L^2)
    Taken from Wang et al. 2018 without modification. It assumes a specific geometry and constant strain amplitude; molecular dynamics only fixes the range of sigma_max, not the value.
  • domain assumption FRB energy is proportional to starquake elastic energy with a constant efficiency eta
    Section 4.2 and Eq. 11. The radiation mechanism, beaming, and efficiency are all collapsed into a single factor. The paper notes only one event pins eta.
  • standard math Standard Gutenberg-Richter style cumulative statistics apply to binned FRB data above instrument completeness thresholds
    Standard statistical approach, but the binned cumulative likelihood of Eq. 3 treats bins as independent, which is not strictly correct; the KS test partially mitigates this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A universal break in energy functions of three hyperactive repeating fast radio bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BPCIQ4FR

@misc{pith2026250109248,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A universal break in energy functions of three hyperactive repeating fast radio bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BPCIQ4FR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09248}
}
abstract

Fast radio bursts (FRBs) are millisecond-duration pulses occurring at cosmological distances with a mysterious origin. Observations show that at least some FRBs are produced by magnetars. All magnetar-powered FRB models require some triggering mechanisms, among which the most popular is the crust cracking of a neutron star, which is called starquake. However, so far there has been no decisive evidence for this speculation. Here we report the energy functions of the three most active repeating FRBs, which show a universal break around $10^{38}$ erg. Such a break is similar to that of the frequency-magnitude relationship of earthquakes. The break and change of the power-law indices below and above it can be well understood within the framework of FRBs triggered by starquakes in the magnetar models. The seed of weak FRBs can grow both on the magnetar surface and in the deeper crust. In contrast, the triggering of strong FRBs is confined by the crustal thickness and the seed of strong FRBs can only grow on the surface. This difference in dimensionality causes a break in the scaling properties from weak to strong FRBs, occurring at a point where the penetration depth of starquakes equals the crustal thickness. Our result, together with the earthquake-like temporal properties of these FRBs, strongly supports that FRBs are triggered by starquakes, providing a new opportunity to study the physical properties of the neutron star crust.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09248 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Energy functions for three repeating FRBs and earthquakes. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Constraints on the parameters of the broken power-law distribution for FRB 20121102A and FRB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Constraints on the parameters of the broken power-law distribution for FRB 20220912A and earth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fitting results of the energy function for three repeating FRBs using the power-law model with an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic diagram of the model. Weak and strong FRBs are assumed to be triggered from fracture regions of different sizes. Weak FRBs can be triggered from the small zone on the magnetar surface (∝ L 2 ) and crust depth (Rc). The released energy of weak FRBs scale as L …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cumulative distribution of X-ray burst energy for SGR 1806-20. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Fast Inference on Astronomical Time Series with Trans-Dimensional Flow Matching Posterior Estimation

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

    t-FMPE uses transformer-based flow matching to infer the number and parameters of pulses in astronomical light curves, producing posteriors comparable to MCMC but orders of magnitude faster.

  2. You Had One Job: Per-Task Quantization Using LLMs' Hidden Representations

    cs.CL 2025-11 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    TAQ estimates per-layer importance from hidden representations and output sensitivity on task calibration data to allocate mixed precision in a training-free PTQ setting, outperforming task-agnostic baselines on accur...

  3. Physics of Strong Magnetism with eXTP

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    The eXTP mission's planned instruments would enable more sensitive X-ray polarization and timing observations of magnetars and accreting pulsars, potentially testing vacuum birefringence and probing magnetic field structures.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 3 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 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.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    k[ͺ(@P Iiߔ <q J.k'Fi [ m޴o

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 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 E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    Aschwanden , M. J. 2012, , 539, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118237

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118237 2012

  5. [5]

    2015, , 814, 19, 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/19

    ---. 2015, , 814, 19, 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/19

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/1/19 2015

  6. [6]

    J., Crosby , N

    Aschwanden , M. J., Crosby , N. B., Dimitropoulou , M., et al. 2016, , 198, 47, 10.1007/s11214-014-0054-6

    doi:10.1007/s11214-014-0054-6 2016

  7. [7]

    1987, , 59, 381, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.381

    Bak , P., Tang , C., & Wiesenfeld , K. 1987, , 59, 381, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.381

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.59.381 1987

  8. [8]

    2007, European Physical Journal B, 58, 167, 10.1140/epjb/e2007-00219-y

    Bauke , H. 2007, European Physical Journal B, 58, 167, 10.1140/epjb/e2007-00219-y

    work page doi:10.1140/epjb/e2007-00219-y 2007

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    Beloborodov , A. M. 2017, , 843, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    2021, , 922, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2fa0

    ---. 2021, , 922, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2fa0

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.19043, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.19043

    Beniamini , P., & Kumar , P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.19043, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.19043

    2024 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    D., Ravi , V., Belov , K

    Bochenek , C. D., Ravi , V., Belov , K. V., et al. 2020, , 587, 59, 10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Wharton , R

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

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    Y., Yuan , Y., & Bernardi , D

    Chen , A. Y., Yuan , Y., & Bernardi , D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.06431, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.06431

    2024 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Q., & Wang , F

    Cheng , Y., Zhang , G. Q., & Wang , F. Y. 2020, , 491, 1498, 10.1093/mnras/stz3085

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    C., Bandura , K

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Andersen , B. C., Bandura , K. M., et al. 2020, , 587, 54, 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    C., et al

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Amiri , M., Andersen , B. C., et al. 2021, , 257, 59, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Bandura , K., Bhardwaj , M., et al

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Andersen, B. C., Bandura , K., Bhardwaj , M., et al. 2022, , 607, 256, 10.1038/s41586-022-04841-8

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    I., & Horowitz , C

    Chugunov , A. I., & Horowitz , C. J. 2010, , 407, L54, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00903.x

    2010

  12. [20]

    R., & Newman , M

    Clauset , A., Shalizi , C. R., & Newman , M. E. J. 2009, SIAM Review, 51, 661, 10.1137/070710111

    2009 doi

  13. [21]

    M., & Chatterjee , S

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

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    G., Wang , J

    Dai , Z. G., Wang , J. S., Wu , X. F., & Huang , Y. F. 2016, , 829, 27, 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/27

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    2020, , 902, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/abbda9

    Dehman , C., Vigan \`o , D., Rea , N., et al. 2020, , 902, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/abbda9

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    2024, , 974, 296, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7a64

    Feng , Y., Li , D., Zhang , Y.-K., et al. 2024, , 974, 296, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7a64

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    2013, emcee: The MCMC Hammer , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.002

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Conley , A., Meierjurgen Farr , W., et al. 2013, emcee: The MCMC Hammer , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.002. 1303.002

    2013

  18. [26]

    2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 015016, 10.1088/1674-4527/ad0f0c

    Ge , M.-Y., Yang , Y.-P., Lu , F.-J., et al. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 015016, 10.1088/1674-4527/ad0f0c

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    L., Morris , S

    Goldstein , M. L., Morris , S. A., & Yen , G. G. 2004, European Physical Journal B, 41, 255, 10.1140/epjb/e2004-00316-5

    2004 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Kouveliotou , C., et al

    G \"o g \"u s , E., Woods , P. M., Kouveliotou , C., et al. 2000, , 532, L121, 10.1086/312583

    2000 doi

  21. [29]

    Gutenberg , B., & Richter , C. F. 1956, The Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 46, 105, 10.1785/BSSA0460020105

    1956 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Snelders , M

    Hewitt , D. M., Snelders , M. P., Hessels , J. W. T., et al. 2022, , 515, 3577, 10.1093/mnras/stac1960

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    2012, , 426, 2404, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21921.x

    Hoffman , K., & Heyl , J. 2012, , 426, 2404, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21921.x

    2012

  24. [32]

    2024, Nature, 10.1038/s41586-023-07012-5

    Hu , C.-P., Narita , T., Enoto , T., et al. 2024, Nature, 10.1038/s41586-023-07012-5

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.04065, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.04065

    Huang , Y.-C., & Dai , Z.-G. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.04065, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.04065

    2024 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    N., Spitler , L

    Jahns , J. N., Spitler , L. G., Nimmo , K., et al. 2023, , 519, 666, 10.1093/mnras/stac3446

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    C., Xu , J

    Jiang , J. C., Xu , J. W., Niu , J. R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.03313, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.03313

    2024 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064, 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    Jiang , P., Tang , N.-Y., Hou , L.-G., et al. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064, 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    M., & Beloborodov , A

    Kaspi , V. M., & Beloborodov , A. M. 2017, , 55, 261, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023329

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Katz , J. I. 1986, , 91, 10,412, 10.1029/JB091iB10p10412

    1986 doi

  31. [39]

    2017, , 468, 2726, 10.1093/mnras/stx665

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

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    Lander , S. K. 2016, , 824, L21, 10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L21

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    2023, , 947, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/acca1f

    ---. 2023, , 947, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/acca1f

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    E., Andersen , B

    Lanman , A. E., Andersen , B. C., Chawla , P., et al. 2022, , 927, 59, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4bc7

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    J., Abruzzo , M

    Law , C. J., Abruzzo , M. W., Bassa , C. G., et al. 2017, , 850, 76, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9700

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    2018, IEEE Microwave Magazine, 19, 112, 10.1109/MMM.2018.2802178

    Li , D., Wang , P., Qian , L., et al. 2018, IEEE Microwave Magazine, 19, 112, 10.1109/MMM.2018.2802178

    2018

  37. [45]

    W., et al

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

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    Y., Xu , K., & Dai , Z.-G

    Li , Q.-C., Yang , Y.-P., Wang , F. Y., Xu , K., & Dai , Z.-G. 2022, , 517, 4612, 10.1093/mnras/stac2596

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    R., Bailes , M., McLaughlin , M

    Lorimer , D. R., Bailes , M., McLaughlin , M. A., Narkevic , D. J., & Crawford , F. 2007, Science, 318, 777, 10.1126/science.1147532

    2007 doi

  40. [48]

    R., & Kramer , M

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

    2004

  41. [49]

    2012, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy

    ---. 2012, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy

    2012

  42. [50]

    2019, , 483, L93, 10.1093/mnrasl/sly200

    Lu , W., & Kumar , P. 2019, , 483, L93, 10.1093/mnrasl/sly200

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    2020, , 498, 1397, 10.1093/mnras/staa2450

    Lu , W., Kumar , P., & Zhang , B. 2020, , 498, 1397, 10.1093/mnras/staa2450

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    2020, , 897, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab97b5

    Lyubarsky , Y. 2020, , 897, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab97b5

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    F., Aloy , M

    Mahlmann , J. F., Aloy , M. \'A ., & Li , X. 2024, , 972, 139, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad60c4

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    F., Philippov , A

    Mahlmann , J. F., Philippov , A. A., Levinson , A., Spitkovsky , A., & Hakobyan , H. 2022, , 932, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7156

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    F., Philippov , A

    Mahlmann , J. F., Philippov , A. A., Mewes , V., et al. 2023, , 947, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/accada

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    A., Hilmarsson , G

    Main , R. A., Hilmarsson , G. H., Marthi , V. R., et al. 2022, , 509, 3172, 10.1093/mnras/stab3218

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

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

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    D., & Sironi , L

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

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15679, 1

    McKinven , R., & CHIME/FRB Collaboration . 2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15679, 1

    2022

  52. [60]

    2020, , 898, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/aba2cf

    Mereghetti , S., Savchenko , V., Ferrigno , C., et al. 2020, , 898, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/aba2cf

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

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

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

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    Newman , M. E. J. 2005, Contemporary Physics, 46, 323, 10.1080/00107510500052444

    2005 doi

  55. [63]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124004, 10.1088/1674-4527/ac995d

    Niu , J.-R., Zhu , W.-W., Zhang , B., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124004, 10.1088/1674-4527/ac995d

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    R., Wang , W

    Niu , J. R., Wang , W. Y., Jiang , J. C., et al. 2024, , 972, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7023

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    F., Scholz , C

    Pacheco , J. F., Scholz , C. H., & Sykes , L. R. 1992, , 355, 71, 10.1038/355071a0

    1992 doi

  58. [66]

    M., & Hui , L

    Parfrey , K., Beloborodov , A. M., & Hui , L. 2013, , 774, 92, 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/92

    2013 doi

  59. [67]

    2023, , 678, A149, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243339

    Pastor-Marazuela , I., van Leeuwen , J., Bilous , A., et al. 2023, , 678, A149, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243339

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

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

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

    2019, , 821, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2019.06.003

    Platts , E., Weltman , A., Walters , A., et al. 2019, , 821, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2019.06.003

    2019 doi

  62. [70]

    2012, , 755, 1, 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/1

    Prieskorn , Z., & Kaaret , P. 2012, , 755, 1, 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/1

    2012 doi

  63. [71]

    2022, , 515, 2020, 10.1093/mnras/stac1910

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

    2022 doi

  64. [72]

    M., Mickaliger , M

    Rajwade , K. M., Mickaliger , M. B., Stappers , B. W., et al. 2020, , 495, 3551, 10.1093/mnras/staa1237

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    2023, , 949, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/acc4b6

    Ravi , V., Catha , M., Chen , G., et al. 2023, , 949, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/acc4b6

    2023 doi

  66. [74]

    1969, , 223, 597, 10.1038/223597b0

    Ruderman , M. 1969, , 223, 597, 10.1038/223597b0

    1969 doi

  67. [75]

    1998, , 492, 267, 10.1086/305026

    Ruderman , M., Zhu , T., & Chen , K. 1998, , 492, 267, 10.1086/305026

    1998 doi

  68. [76]

    Rundle , J. B. 1989, , 94, 12,337, 10.1029/JB094iB09p12337

    1989 doi

  69. [77]

    V., & Lyutikov , M

    Sharma , P., Barkov , M. V., & Lyutikov , M. 2023, , 524, 6024, 10.1093/mnras/stad2192

    2023 doi

  70. [78]

    a ttil \

    Sironi , L., Plotnikov , I., N \"a ttil \"a , J., & Beloborodov , A. M. 2021, , 127, 035101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.035101

    2021 doi

  71. [79]

    G., Scholz , P., Hessels , J

    Spitler , L. G., Scholz , P., Hessels , J. W. T., et al. 2016, , 531, 202, 10.1038/nature17168

    2016 doi

  72. [80]

    G., & Kokkotas , K

    Suvorov , A. G., & Kokkotas , K. D. 2019, , 488, 5887, 10.1093/mnras/stz2052

    2019 doi

  73. [81]

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

    1995 doi

  74. [82]

    2001, , 561, 980, 10.1086/323256

    ---. 2001, , 561, 980, 10.1086/323256

    2001 doi

  75. [83]

    Thompson , C., Lyutikov , M., & Kulkarni , S. R. 2002, , 574, 332, 10.1086/340586

    2002 doi

  76. [84]

    2017, , 841, 54, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c30

    Thompson , C., Yang , H., & Ortiz , N. 2017, , 841, 54, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c30

    2017 doi

  77. [85]

    2023, , 526, 2795, 10.1093/mnras/stad2532

    Totani , T., & Tsuzuki , Y. 2023, , 526, 2795, 10.1093/mnras/stad2532

    2023 doi

  78. [86]

    2024, , 530, 1885, 10.1093/mnras/stae965

    Tsuzuki , Y., Totani , T., Hu , C.-P., & Enoto , T. 2024, , 530, 1885, 10.1093/mnras/stae965

    2024 doi

  79. [87]

    2019, , 879, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2240

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

    2019 doi

  80. [88]

    Y., & Dai , Z

    Wang , F. Y., & Dai , Z. G. 2013, Nature Physics, 9, 465, 10.1038/nphys2670

    2013 doi

  81. [89]

    Y., Wu , Q., & Dai , Z

    Wang , F. Y., Wu , Q., & Dai , Z. G. 2023 a , , 949, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/acd5d2

    2023 doi

  82. [90]

    Y., & Yu , H

    Wang , F. Y., & Yu , H. 2017, , 2017, 023, 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/03/023

    2017 doi

  83. [91]

    Y., & Zhang , G

    Wang , F. Y., & Zhang , G. Q. 2019, , 882, 108, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab35dc

    2019 doi

  84. [92]

    2023 b , Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 035010, 10.1088/1674-4527/acb9de

    Wang , J.-S., Li , X., Dai , Z., & Wu , X. 2023 b , Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 035010, 10.1088/1674-4527/acb9de

    2023 doi

  85. [93]

    2018, , 852, 140, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa025

    Wang , W., Luo , R., Yue , H., et al. 2018, , 852, 140, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa025

    2018 doi

  86. [94]

    L., & Lazar, N

    Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. 2016, The American Statistician, 70, 129, 10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108

    2016 arXiv

  87. [95]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.13247, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.13247

    Wu , Q., & Wang , F.-Y. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.13247, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.13247

    2024 doi arXiv

  88. [96]

    Q., Wang , F

    Wu , Q., Zhang , G. Q., Wang , F. Y., & Dai , Z. G. 2020, , 900, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/abaef1

    2020 doi

  89. [97]

    2024, , 969, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5979

    Wu , Z., Zhu , W., Zhang , B., et al. 2024, , 969, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5979

    2024 doi

  90. [98]

    R., Chen , P., et al

    Xu , H., Niu , J. R., Chen , P., et al. 2022, , 609, 685, 10.1038/s41586-022-05071-8

    2022 doi

  91. [99]

    2021, , 919, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac14b5

    Yang , Y.-P., & Zhang , B. 2021, , 919, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac14b5

    2021 doi

  92. [100]

    2020, , 901, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/abb535

    Yang , Y.-P., Zhu , J.-P., Zhang , B., & Wu , X.-F. 2020, , 901, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/abb535

    2020 doi

  93. [101]

    2017, , 836, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5ded

    Zhang , B. 2017, , 836, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5ded

    2017 doi

  94. [102]

    2022, , 925, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3979

    ---. 2022, , 925, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3979

    2022 doi

  95. [103]

    2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005, 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005

    ---. 2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005, 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005

    2023 doi

  96. [104]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124002, 10.1088/1674-4527/ac98f7

    Zhang , Y.-K., Wang , P., Feng , Y., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124002, 10.1088/1674-4527/ac98f7

    2022 doi

  97. [105]

    2023, , 955, 142, 10.3847/1538-4357/aced0b

    Zhang , Y.-K., Li , D., Zhang , B., et al. 2023, , 955, 142, 10.3847/1538-4357/aced0b

    2023 doi

  98. [106]

    Y., & Wang , F

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

    2021 doi

  99. [107]

    J., Han , J

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

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.