Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 4 cited by

Constraints on fast radio burst population from the first CHIME/FRB catalog with the Hierarchical Bayesian Inference

T0 review · 3 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 Hierarchical Bayesian fit to 415 CHIME FRBs finds a redshift distribution delayed relative to cosmic star formation.

desk verdict A clean HBI analysis with a real selection-function bug: missing Pdet(z) in the per-event likelihood biases the inferred redshift distribution toward low z, exactly the direction of the claimed delay. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15530 v3 pith:JE4ZQE25 submitted 2025-01-26 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO

Huan Zhou , Zhengxiang Li , Zong-Hong Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.CO
keywords fastradioburstsFRBpopulationredshiftdistributionCHIME/FRBcatalog1hierarchicalBayesianinferencestarformationhistorydispersionmeasureselectioneffects
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 tries to establish that the intrinsic redshift distribution of fast radio bursts is not a copy of the cosmic star-formation history, but is delayed toward lower redshifts. It builds a hierarchical Bayesian inference that converts dispersion measures into per-burst redshift likelihoods, applies a model of CHIME's detection selection, and fits three competing population models to 415 non-repeating bursts from the first CHIME/FRB catalog. The inferred rate peaks below the peak of the Madau-Fragos star-formation curve, and a two-segment redshift distribution fits better than a power law with a cutoff. If correct, this is evidence that FRB progenitors form with a time delay after star formation, and it sharpens the use of FRBs as cosmological probes.

What carries the argument

The engine is the inhomogeneous Poisson likelihood $$p(d|\Phi) \propto N(\Phi)^{N_{\rm obs}} $e^{{-N(\Phi)\,\xi(\Phi)}}$ \prod_i \int dz\, L(d_i|z)\, p_{\rm pop}(z|\Phi),$$ where $p_{\rm pop}$ is the normalized event-rate redshift distribution, $\xi(\Phi)$ is the CHIME detection fraction built from a fluence-dependent efficiency $\eta_{\rm det}(F_\nu)$, and $L(d_i|z)$ is a Gaussian in redshift whose mean and width follow from the extragalactic dispersion-measure–redshift relation with log-normal host-galaxy scatter. The posterior marginalizes the unknown local event rate with a log-uniform prior and compares competing population models with the Bayesian Information Criterion.

What would settle it

Identify host galaxies for hundreds of CHIME FRBs and compute the volumetric event rate density $R(z)$ directly from the measured redshifts; if $R(z)$ tracks the Madau-Fragos star-formation history with its peak near $z \approx 2$ rather than at lower redshift, the delayed-distribution conclusion is falsified. A cheaper check is to replace the assumed grey-zone detection efficiency with CHIME's actual measured sensitivity curve and re-run the inference; if the posterior peak shifts back toward the star-formation peak, the selection correction is the culprit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, using 415 non-repeating FRBs from the first CHIME/FRB catalog with extragalactic dispersion measure $D_{\rm E} \ge 200$ pc cm$^{-3}$, the hierarchical Bayesian inference over hyperparameters $\Phi = [\gamma_1, \gamma_2, z_t, \gamma, z_c, \lambda, \kappa, z_p]$ recovers an intrinsic rate $R(z)$ that is significantly delayed with respect to the star-formation history. The best fits are the two-segment redshift distribution (TSRD) and the two-segment evolution (TSE) variant of the Madau-Fragos star-formation history, both peaking at lower redshift than the star-formation peak and showing steep low-redshift slopes; the power-law-with-cutoff model is decisively disfavored, with $\Delta$BIC $= 98.87$.

Load-bearing premise

The recovered redshift shape rests on a detection-efficiency correction whose fluence thresholds, spectral index, and energy function are taken from earlier work rather than measured for CHIME; if those ingredients are wrong, the inferred delay could be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • FRB rate models for future surveys should use two-segment shapes rather than a power-law cutoff, since the cutoff model is disfavored by $\Delta$BIC $\approx 99$.
  • The inferred intrinsic redshift distribution provides a template for dispersion-measure forecasts, improving the use of FRBs as cosmological (dark-siren) probes.
  • The low-redshift peak implies a high local FRB event rate that can be cross-checked against all-sky rate estimates.
  • The delay relative to star formation points toward progenitor channels with a delay timescale, which can be constrained further as more FRBs are localized.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, if the delay is real, FRB progenitors are likely older systems such as compact-object mergers or delayed magnetar formation rather than prompt massive-star collapse.
  • Beyond the paper, re-running this analysis on future CHIME catalogs with a larger sample would test whether the steep low-redshift slopes remain or encode the assumed host-galaxy dispersion-measure scatter.
  • Beyond the paper, calibrating the detection efficiency with injected mock FRBs in CHIME's real search pipeline would turn the qualitative delay into a measured delay-time distribution.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a hierarchical Bayesian inference of the intrinsic redshift distribution of non-repeating fast radio bursts (FRBs) using 415 FRBs from the first CHIME/FRB catalog with DME ≥ 200 pc cm^-3. Three population models are considered: a two-segment power law times the Madau-Fragos star formation history (TSE), a power law with exponential cutoff times the SFH (CPL), and a non-SFH-based two-segment redshift distribution (TSRD). The authors report that the inferred FRB rate peaks at z ≈ 0.3-0.4, significantly delayed relative to the star formation history, with the TSRD model slightly preferred over TSE and strongly preferred over CPL. They conclude that FRB progenitors are produced with a time delay after star formation.

Significance. If the result holds, it would provide one of the strongest constraints to date on the FRB progenitor delay distribution and would support neutron-star-merger-like channels. The paper applies a standard hierarchical Bayesian framework (Mandel et al. 2019; Abbott et al. 2023) to a large, homogeneous CHIME sample, and it attempts to account for measurement uncertainties in dispersion measure and for the survey selection function. However, the selection correction is implemented incorrectly in the per-event likelihood, and several key inputs are not specified, so the central claim cannot currently be assessed. The paper also provides a useful model comparison that can be updated once the likelihood is corrected.

major comments (3)
  1. [2.2, Eqs. (13) and (22)] The per-event likelihood in Eqs. (13) and (22) is written as ∫ dz L(d_i|z) p_pop(z|Φ), with no detection probability Pdet(z) inside the integral. For an inhomogeneous Poisson process with selection, the correct per-event term is ∫ dz L(d_i|z) p_pop(z|Φ) Pdet(z) / ξ(Φ), where ξ(Φ) = ∫ dz Pdet(z) p_pop(z|Φ) (Eq. 18). Because Pdet(z) decreases with redshift for a fluence-limited survey (Eqs. 18-20), omitting it causes the fit to absorb the selection function into the inferred p_pop(z|Φ), biasing the redshift distribution toward low z. This is the same direction as the claimed delay relative to the SFH, so the central conclusion (Abstract and Section 3) is not supported as written. This error also propagates to the BIC values in Table 2, which are computed from the same likelihood.
  2. [Eqs. (19) and (15)] The detection efficiency parameters Fν,min, Fν,max, and n in Eq. (19) are never given, and the polynomial fits σ±(z) used in Eq. (15) are not provided. Without these inputs, Pdet(z) and the per-event redshift likelihood cannot be evaluated, and the analysis cannot be reproduced. Please state the adopted values (or the source) for the fluence thresholds and index n, and report the polynomial coefficients or provide the functional form of σ±(z).
  3. [Section 2.2, Eqs. (20)-(21)] The spectral index β = -1.5, the energy function slope α ≈ 1.8, and the cutoff energy Ec ≈ 3×10^41 erg are fixed to values from the literature without propagating their uncertainties or testing the sensitivity of the results to these choices. Because Pdet(z) is computed from these inputs via Eq. (20), and because the central claim concerns the shape of R(z), the authors should demonstrate that the recovered peak redshift and the TSRD vs. TSE preference are robust to variations of β, α, and Ec within their published uncertainties.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (3)] The integrand in Eq. (3) contains '1 + zp' in the numerator; this should be '1 + z' (the factor is the redshift-dependent electron density term).
  2. [Section 2.2, after Eq. (16)] Tobs is described as the '100% operational time' of CHIME, but the footnote acknowledges that CHIME was not fully operational in the period; please define the effective exposure used in the calculation.
  3. [Figure 1] The caption should explain how the blue scatter points are produced (e.g., mock DME values drawn from the assumed DMIGM and DMhost distributions) and what exactly the black curves represent in terms of the 1σ region.
  4. [Section 3, Table 2] The statement that the redshift distribution is 'significantly delayed' is stronger than the model comparison supports: the TSRD model improves the BIC by only 2.10 over the TSE model, which is not decisive. Please qualify the claim accordingly.
  5. [Section 4] There are several typographical errors: 'poweful' should be 'powerful', 'can also be take' should be 'can also be taken', and 'the constrains' (Section 3) should be 'the constraints'.
  6. [Section 2.1, Eq. (20)] Please specify the bandwidth Δν used for CHIME (400 MHz?) and clarify whether a single value is adopted for all events.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the FRB redshift-distribution conclusion is a fitted output, not an input, and the external inputs are not defined in terms of the target result.

full rationale

The paper's central inference is a hierarchical Bayesian fit of FRB population hyperparameters (TSE, CPL, TSRD) to the CHIME/FRB Catalog 1. The redshift-distribution conclusion ('significantly delayed' relative to SFH) is an output of the fitted models, not an input: the likelihood in Eqs. (13)-(22) depends on the data through L(d_i|z) and on the assumed detection efficiency xi(Phi), and the stated priors in Table 1 are broad. External inputs (energy function p(E) from Luo et al. 2020, host DM log-normal from Tang et al. 2023, sigma_IGM fit from Qiang & Wei 2020, Madau-Fragos SFH) are independent of the present target conclusion. The only self-citation (Zhou et al. 2022) appears in the introduction as an example of FRB cosmology probes and is not load-bearing. The skeptical concern about Eq. (13), that Pdet(z) enters only through xi(Phi) and not in the per-event integral, is a possible selection-bias or correctness issue, not a case of a prediction being equivalent to its input by construction; likewise the unstated F_nu,min, F_nu,max, and n values affect reproducibility but do not make the derivation circular. No step reduces the conclusion to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction or to a self-citation chain. Hence no significant circularity.

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

The paper contributes population hyperparameter fits, but every physical ingredient entering the DM-redshift conversion and the selection correction is imported from prior work. The most consequential unstated inputs are the detection efficiency parameters (Fν,min, Fν,max, n) and the polynomial fits of the DME-z bounds, neither of which is documented in the text.

free parameters (8)
  • γ1 (TSE) = 9.69+0.23-0.49
    Low-redshift power-law index of the two-segment model; posterior sits near the upper boundary of the U[-10,10] prior, indicating weak constraint.
  • γ2 (TSE) = 4.67+0.41-0.39
    High-redshift power-law index of the TSE model after the turnover.
  • zt (TSE) = 0.32+0.03-0.03
    Turnover redshift of the TSE model.
  • γ (CPL) = 1.42+2.02-2.27
    Power-law index of the cutoff power-law model; uncertainty covers zero, so the slope is weakly constrained.
  • zc (CPL) = 0.47+0.72-0.17
    Cutoff redshift of the CPL model.
  • λ (TSRD) = 9.75+0.18-0.39
    Low-redshift power-law index of the two-segment redshift distribution; posterior is pegged near the prior upper bound.
  • κ (TSRD) = 2.61+0.41-0.39
    High-redshift power-law index of the TSRD model.
  • zp (TSRD) = 0.36+0.03-0.03
    Break redshift of the TSRD model.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Energy function follows p(E) ∝ E^{-α} exp(-E/Ec) with α≈1.8 and Ec≈3×10^41 erg, fixed from Luo et al. (2020).
    Used in Eq. (21) to compute detection probabilities; the paper does not marginalize over the uncertainties in α and Ec.
  • domain assumption Detection efficiency η_det(Fν) is a power-law grey zone (Eq. 19) with unstated values of Fν,min, Fν,max, n.
    The selection fraction ξ(Φ) in Eq. (18) depends on these values; without them the selection correction is not auditable.
  • domain assumption IGM DM scatter is σIGM = 173.8 z^0.4 pc/cm3 (Eq. 4), from Qiang & Wei (2020).
    Used to generate the DME-z relation in Figure 1 and the redshift likelihood for each FRB.
  • domain assumption Host-galaxy DM follows a log-normal distribution with parameters from Tang et al. (2023), calibrated on 17 localized FRBs.
    Used in Eq. (5); assumes those 17 hosts represent the full CHIME sample, with no uncertainty propagated.
  • ad hoc to paper The per-FRB redshift likelihood is approximated as a Gaussian in z, with mean and sigma from inverted polynomial fits to the 1σ DME-z contours (Eqs. 14-15).
    This approximation is introduced in this paper; the polynomial coefficients are not provided and the Gaussian form is not validated against the full p(DME|z).
  • domain assumption The data selection DME ≥ 200 pc/cm3 in Section 3 does not bias the low-redshift inference.
    The cut removes low-DM FRBs; the paper follows earlier works but does not test the sensitivity of the inferred delay to this cut.
  • domain assumption SFH(z) from Madau & Fragos (2017) is the correct reference for evaluating the delay (Eq. 8).
    The 'delayed' conclusion is defined relative to this specific star formation history model.
  • domain assumption Concordance ΛCDM cosmology with Planck 2018 parameters (Aghanim et al. 2020) is adopted for the DMIGM and comoving volume calculations.
    Used in Eqs. (3) and (16); standard but load-bearing for the DM-to-redshift conversion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraints on fast radio burst population from the first CHIME/FRB catalog with the Hierarchical Bayesian Inference." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JE4ZQE25

@misc{pith2026250115530,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraints on fast radio burst population from the first CHIME/FRB catalog with the Hierarchical Bayesian Inference},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JE4ZQE25}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15530}
}
read the original abstract

Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) have emerged as one of the most dynamic areas of research in astronomy and cosmology. Despite increasing number of FRBs have been reported, the exact origin of FRBs remains elusive. Investigating the intrinsic redshift distributions of FRBs could provide valuable insights into their possible origins and enhance the power of FRBs as a cosmological probe. In this paper, we propose a hierarchical Bayesian inference approach combining with several viable models to investigate the redshift distribution of the CHIME/FRB catalog 1. By utilizing this method, we aim to uncover the underlying patterns and characteristics of the FRB population, i.e. intrinsic redshift distribution of FRB. Taking uncertainties within the observational data and selection effects into consideration, we obtained that the redshift distribution of FRBs is significantly delayed with respect to that of the star formation history.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15530 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The blue scatter represents the DME − z relation. The upper and lower black lines represent σ+(z) and σ−(z) in 1σ confidence region, respectively. strained (Zhang & Wang 2019; Qiang et al. 2022; Zhang & Zhang 2022; Chen et al. 2024; Lin & Zou 2024a; Lin et al. 2024b; Gupta et al. 2025). Above all, the intrinsic redshift distribution of FRBs remains a topic of exten￾sive debate. In this paper, compared with the Kolmo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The contour plot with 2 σ uncertainty for the TSE model (left), CPL model (middle) and TSRD model (right). 0 1 2 3 4 5 z 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 ppop(z) TSE CPL TSRD SFH SFH-LN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The redshift distribution of FRBs derived from the reconstruction procedure with the posterior distributions for TSE, CPL and TSRD models respectively. For compari￾son, we also give the redshift distribution from SFH model. with the posterior Equation (22) to estimate population hyperparameters (Φ = [γ1, γ2, zt, γ, zc, λ, κ, zp]) from three models. Our results are summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p00… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Fast Radio Bursts Trace Cosmic Star Formation with Little Delay

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

    Hierarchical Bayesian analysis of CHIME/FRB finds the FRB volumetric rate peaks with the cosmic star-formation history at mean delays of 0.1–0.3 Gyr, consistent with zero delay and ruling out multi-Gyr merger-like delays.

  2. Agent-OSI: An Interoperability Architecture for Communication and Settlement in the Decentralized Internet of Agents

    cs.NI 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Agent-OSI gives agents a layered interoperability stack and an HTTP-402 payment challenge, with a prototype showing ~51% lower on-chain settlement cost when negotiation and delivery stay off-chain.

  3. A Unified Volumetric Rate-Energy Relation from Magnetar Radio Bursts to Fast Radio Bursts

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The volumetric rate of radio bursts from magnetar SGR 1935+2154, repeating FRB 20180916B, and non-repeating CHIME FRBs follows a single power law R ∝ E^-1.31 from 10^29 to 10^42 erg.

  4. A Comprehensive Study of the Energy and Redshift Distributions of the Fast Radio Burst Population Based on the First CHIME/FRB Catalog

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

    Fast radio bursts follow the cosmic star formation history with a Schechter energy function and no detectable redshift evolution, according to a selection-corrected fit to 225 CHIME bursts.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 4 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]

    m5Ա9OF ai*L;tPnyOۅM|tZ[8 dQ6z ea S6 /RM˯Ӿ]T.i*- cVMu

    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]

    2023, Phys

    Abbott, R., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. X, 13, 011048, 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048 2023

  5. [5]

    2020, Astron

    Aghanim, N., et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  6. [6]

    2021, Astrophys

    Amiri, M., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J. Supp., 257, 59, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab 2021

  7. [7]

    M., Kaspi , V

    Bhardwaj , M., Gaensler , B. M., Kaspi , V. M., et al. 2021, , 910, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/abeaa6

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abeaa6 2021

  8. [8]

    H., Jia, X

    Chen, J. H., Jia, X. D., Dong, X. F., & Wang, F. Y. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 973, L54, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7b39

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad7b39 2024

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    M., & Chatterjee, S

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

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    M., & Lazio, T

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

    2002 arXiv

  3. [11]

    M., Ocker, S

    Cordes, J. M., Ocker, S. K., & Chatterjee, S. 2022, Astrophys. J., 931, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6873

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    2014, Astrophys

    Deng, W., & Zhang, B. 2014, Astrophys. J. Lett., 783, L35, 10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/L35

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac., 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    2014, Astrophys

    Gao, H., Li, Z., & Zhang, B. 2014, Astrophys. J., 788, 189, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/189

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    Gupta, O., Beniamini, P., Kumar, P., & Finkelstein, S. L. 2025. 2501.09810

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    W., Prochaska, J

    James, C. W., Prochaska, J. X., Macquart, J. P., et al. 2022 a , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 509, 4775, 10.1093/mnras/stab3051

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    2022 b , Mon

    ---. 2022 b , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 510, L18, 10.1093/mnrasl/slab117

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    D., Yuksel, H., Beacom, J

    Kistler, M. D., Yuksel, H., Beacom, J. F., & Stanek, K. Z. 2008, Astrophys. J. Lett., 673, L119, 10.1086/527671

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    2020, Mon

    Li, Z., Gao, H., Wei, J.-J., et al. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 496, L28, 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa070

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    2018, Nature Commun., 9, 3833, 10.1038/s41467-018-06303-0

    Li, Z.-X., Gao, H., Ding, X.-H., Wang, G.-J., & Zhang, B. 2018, Nature Commun., 9, 3833, 10.1038/s41467-018-06303-0

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    B., Li, Z., & Gao, H

    Liao, K., Zhang, S. B., Li, Z., & Gao, H. 2020, Astrophys. J., 896, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab963e

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    2024b, Astrophys

    Lin, H.-N., Li, X.-Y., & Zou, R. 2024b, Astrophys. J., 969, 123, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5310

    doi

  15. [23]

    2024a, Astrophys

    Lin, H.-N., & Zou, R. 2024a, Astrophys. J., 962, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1b4f

    doi

  16. [24]

    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

  17. [25]

    L., & Waxman, E

    Lu, W., Piro, A. L., & Waxman, E. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 498, 1973, 10.1093/mnras/staa2397

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    2020, Mon

    Luo, R., Men, Y., Lee, K., et al. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 494, 665, 10.1093/mnras/staa704

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    P., Shannon, R

    Macquart, J. P., Shannon, R. M., Bannister, K. W., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 872, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab03d6

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    P., et al

    Macquart, J. P., et al. 2020, Nature, 581, 391, 10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    2017, Astrophys

    Madau, P., & Fragos, T. 2017, Astrophys. J., 840, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    M., & Gair, J

    Mandel, I., Farr, W. M., & Gair, J. R. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 486, 1086, 10.1093/mnras/stz896

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    2024, Astron

    Mastrogiovanni, S., Pierra, G., Perri\`es, S., et al. 2024, Astron. Astrophys., 682, A167, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347007

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    B., Kovetz, E

    Mu\ noz, J. B., Kovetz, E. D., Dai, L., & Kamionkowski, M. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 117, 091301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.091301

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

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

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    2021, Astrophys

    Pleunis, Z., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 923, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac33ac

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    2022, JCAP, 01, 040, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/01/040

    Qiang, D.-C., Li, S.-L., & Wei, H. 2022, JCAP, 01, 040, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/01/040

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    2020, JCAP, 04, 023, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/04/023

    Qiang, D.-C., & Wei, H. 2020, JCAP, 04, 023, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/04/023

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    1978, Annals Statist., 6, 461

    Schwarz, G. 1978, Annals Statist., 6, 461

    1978

  30. [38]

    2023, Astrophys

    Shin, K., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J., 944, 105, 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf06

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    2023, Chin

    Tang, L., Lin, H.-N., & Li, X. 2023, Chin. Phys. C, 47, 085105, 10.1088/1674-1137/acda1c

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    2015, Phys

    Wei, J.-J., Gao, H., Wu, X.-F., & M\'esz\'aros, P. 2015, Phys. Rev. Lett., 115, 261101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.261101

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    2021, Sci

    Xiao, D., Wang, F., & Dai, Z. 2021, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron., 64, 249501, 10.1007/s11433-020-1661-7

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    M., Manchester, R

    Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N. 2017, Astrophys. J., 835, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    D., Beacom, J

    Yuksel, H., Kistler, M. D., Beacom, J. F., & Hopkins, A. M. 2008, Astrophys. J. Lett., 683, L5, 10.1086/591449

    2008 doi

  36. [44]

    2018, Astrophys

    Zhang, B. 2018, Astrophys. J. Lett., 867, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/aae8e3

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    2020, Nature, 587, 45, 10.1038/s41586-020-2828-1

    ---. 2020, Nature, 587, 45, 10.1038/s41586-020-2828-1

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    Q., & Wang, F

    Zhang, G. Q., & Wang, F. Y. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 487, 3672, 10.1093/mnras/stz1566

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    2023, Astron

    Zhang, J., Zhang, C., Li, D., et al. 2023, Astron. Rep., 67, 244, 10.1134/S1063772923030083

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    C., & Zhang, B

    Zhang, R. C., & Zhang, B. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 924, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46ad

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    C., Zhang, B., Li, Y., & Lorimer, D

    Zhang, R. C., Zhang, B., Li, Y., & Lorimer, D. R. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 501, 157, 10.1093/mnras/staa3537

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    2022, Astrophys

    Zhou, H., Li, Z., Liao, K., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J., 928, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac510d

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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