Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Discovery and Localization of the Swift-Observed FRB 20241228A in a Star-forming Host Galaxy

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FRB 20241228A is localized to a star-forming host galaxy at z=0.1614, and Swift's 112-second follow-up sets the tightest X-ray luminosity limit yet for a non-repeating burst.

desk verdict Solid first two-outrigger FRB localization with well-supported host association; the CHIME-GBO astrometric systematic at 50-degree separation is the main soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10961 v1 pith:P2BIPQR2 submitted 2025-06-12 astro-ph.HE

Alice P. Curtin , Shion Andrew , Sunil Simha , Alice Cai , Kenzie Nimmo , Shami Chatterjee , Amanda M. Cook , Fengqiu Adam Dong
show 22 more authors
Yuxin Dong Tarraneh Eftekhari Wen-fai Fong Emmanuel Fonseca Jason W. T. Hessels Ronniy C. Joseph Victoria Kaspi Calvin Leung Robert Main Kiyoshi W. Masui Ryan Mckinven Daniele Michilli Mason Ng Ayush Pandhi Aaron B. Pearlman Ziggy Pleunis Mawson W. Sammons Ketan R. Sand Paul Scholz Vishwangi Shah Kaitlyn Shin Aaron Tohuvavohu
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsFRB20241228ACHIME/FRBOutriggersverylongbaselineinterferometryhostgalaxyX-rayfollow-upscintillationscattering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports the discovery and precise localization of FRB 20241228A, a bright, thus-far non-repeating fast radio burst detected by CHIME/FRB on 2024 December 28. Using two of the three CHIME/FRB Outriggers, it obtains a $1\sigma$ localization ellipse of $11^{\prime\prime}$ by $0.2^{\prime\prime}$ and, with the PATH host-association framework, identifies a star-forming galaxy at $z=0.1614\pm0.0002$ as the likely host with posterior probability $P(O|x)=0.96$. Because Swift's X-ray Telescope was on source 112 seconds after the burst, the same position yields a persistent $0.3$--$10$ keV luminosity limit of $<1.2\times10^{43}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$, the most stringent limit yet for a non-repeating FRB. The host's stellar mass ($\sim2.6\times10^{10}\,M_\odot$) and star formation rate ($\sim2.9\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr^{-1}}$) fit the broader FRB host population, and the burst's scattering and scintillation imply two separate plasma screens along the line of sight. If the association is correct, the event shows how rapid X-ray follow-up combined with VLBI localizations can constrain FRB progenitor models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a two-baseline VLBI network: the CHIME-KKO baseline (66 km) and the CHIME-GBO baseline (3370 km), correlated with the pyfx software, provide highly elongated localization stripes that are nearly co-linear, while the CHIME/FRB baseband localization supplies the declination constraint; combining the three yields the $11^{\prime\prime}\times0.2^{\prime\prime}$ ellipse. The astrometric error budget is anchored to test localizations of roughly 80 pulsars and more than 200 ICRF calibrators, with a quoted 200-mas systematic on the CHIME-GBO baseline. Host association is computed with the PATH framework using an inverse prior and an exponential offset prior, producing $P(O|x)=0.96$. For the propagation analysis, the quantity $2\pi\tau\,\Delta\nu_{\mathrm{DC}}\approx120$, instead of the expected $\approx1$ if scattering and scintillation shared one screen, separates the two screens and lets the authors locate the scintillation screen in the Milky Way and the scattering screen beyond it.

What would settle it

Re-derive the localization using the second in-beam calibrator that was also detected in the voltage dump instead of J143844.7+621154; if the recovered burst position shifts by more than the quoted 200-mas systematic on the CHIME-GBO baseline, the error budget is too small and the $P(O|x)=0.96$ host association could be wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that FRB 20241228A is a thus-far non-repeating fast radio burst localized by very long baseline interferometry to a $1\sigma$ ellipse of $11^{\prime\prime}$ by $0.2^{\prime\prime}$, and that the only catalog galaxy intersecting that ellipse--a star-forming galaxy at $z=0.1614\pm0.0002$--is its host with posterior probability $P(O|x)=0.96$. This is the first published localization using both the CHIME-KKO and CHIME-GBO Outriggers, with the declination direction constrained by CHIME/FRB's baseband localization. The host has a stellar mass of about $2.6\times10^{10}\,M_\odot$ and a star formation rate of about $2.9\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr^{-1}}$, consistent with the general FRB host population. Swift/XRT was on source 112 seconds after the burst, giving a persistent X-ray luminosity limit of $<1.2\times10^{43}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ in the $0.3$--$10$ keV band and hence $L_X/L_R<1$, the strongest such limit for a non-repeating FRB to date. The burst also shows $\sim1$ ms scattering and a scintillation bandwidth of $\sim18$ kHz at 600 MHz; the authors argue that the scintillation screen is in the Milky Way while the scattering screen is extragalactic.

Load-bearing premise

The host association rests on the assumption that the CHIME-GBO baseline's astrometric errors are no larger than 200 milliarcseconds even though the only calibrator used for this burst was 50 degrees away from the source, with the calibration and validation details deferred to future work.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 112-second Swift/XRT observation gives $L_X<1.2\times10^{43}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ and $L_X/L_R<1$, directly bounding persistent high-energy emission from a non-repeating FRB at this distance.
  • This first two-outrigger localization demonstrates that sub-arcsecond positions can be obtained with two nearly co-linear baselines plus CHIME baseband data, before the third outrigger is commissioned.
  • The host's stellar mass and star formation rate place FRB 20241228A within the normal FRB host galaxy population, so its progenitor environment is not anomalous.
  • The two-screen propagation geometry, with $d_1d_2\approx32\,\mathrm{kpc^2}$, implies that the scattering screen lies well outside the Milky Way, possibly in the host's circumgalactic medium.
  • With 119 hours of exposure and no repeats, the source's upper limit on burst rate (0.12 bursts per hour above 5 Jy ms) still overlaps the repeating population, so 'non-repeating' may be a current state rather than a permanent class.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the two-screen geometry is confirmed in more localized FRBs, the extragalactic scattering screen at an inferred 16--64 kpc from the burst could map gas in galaxy halos and the circumgalactic medium, a distance regime that is hard to probe by absorption alone.
  • The single-calibrator, 50-degree-separation astrometric solution is the fragile link; a dedicated test campaign using the same baseline on known pulsars at comparably large separations would either confirm the 200-mas budget or reveal a systematic error that shifts the published position.
  • The combination of rapid Swift triggers and VLBI localization used here could be turned into a systematic program: if many non-repeating FRBs show no X-ray counterparts at limits like $L_X/L_R<1$, magnetar-flare and accretion models for the non-repeater population become increasingly constrained.
  • The 400-MHz full bandwidth and roughly 1 ms duration classify this burst morphologically with non-repeaters, yet its rate upper limit is also consistent with repeaters; continued CHIME monitoring is the test that decides whether repeating behavior is an evolutionary phase.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery, VLBI localization, and multi-wavelength follow-up of the apparently non-repeating FRB 20241228A. Using CHIME/FRB and two of the three CHIME/FRB Outriggers (KKO and GBO), the authors obtain a 1σ localization ellipse of approximately 11″ × 0.2″ and associate the burst with a star-forming galaxy at z = 0.1614 ± 0.0002 with posterior probability P(O|x) = 0.96 from the PATH framework. The paper also reports a Swift/XRT observation beginning 112 s after the burst, giving an X-ray luminosity limit <1.2×10^43 erg/s in 0.3–10 keV, and analyzes the burst’s scattering, scintillation, polarization, and repetition rate, concluding that the scintillation screen is likely Galactic while the scattering screen is likely extragalactic.

Significance. If the localization and host association hold, this is the first published FRB localization using both the CHIME-KKO and CHIME-GBO baselines, and it demonstrates the scientific value of the Outrigger network. The Swift follow-up provides the most stringent persistent X-ray luminosity limit reported for a non-repeating FRB, and the host galaxy properties are consistent with the broader FRB host population. A notable strength is the use of external test localizations (pulsars and ICRF calibrators) and established frameworks (PATH, CIGALE, fitburst) rather than ad-hoc calibration for the main analysis. However, the 0.2″-scale localization axis, and hence the P(O|x) = 0.96 association and the redshift anchored to it, depends on a CHIME-GBO systematic error budget that is not yet fully documented for the specific 50° target–calibrator separation used here.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.2] The central host association rests on the 200-mas systematic assigned to the CHIME-GBO baseline, but the paper does not demonstrate that this budget applies at the 50° target–calibrator separation used for FRB 20241228A. The text states that test localizations of ~80 pulsars and >200 ICRF calibrators yield rms <200 mas “for similar target-calibrator separations (discussed below)”, yet no separation distribution, residual plot, or large-separation subsample is presented, and the detailed GBO calibration is deferred to future work. Because the localization’s narrow RA axis is only 0.2″ wide, an underestimated systematic at this geometry could shift the ellipse by an arcsecond or more and materially change P(O|x). Please provide the separation-dependent residuals or, at minimum, a robustness test that recomputes P(O|x) with an enlarged systematic (e.g., 1″) and report whether the identification of the host and the derived redshift survive.
  2. [§3.1] The PATH prior is quoted as “a prior probability that the host is unseen of P(O|x) = 0.15”. In the PATH formalism, the unseen-host prior is P(O), while P(O|x) is the posterior; as written the sentence conflates the two and should be corrected. More importantly, the reported posterior P(O|x) = 0.96 is highly sensitive to the position of the very narrow localization ellipse, so the paper should state the sensitivity of P(O|x) to both the astrometric systematic discussed above and to the adopted prior, and should confirm explicitly that J142532.4+120121.2 remains the only galaxy intersecting the localization region when the systematic is enlarged.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] The semi-minor and semi-major axes appear to be interchanged: the table lists Semi-minor Axis = 10.93″ and Semi-major Axis = 0.20″, whereas the text and Figure 2 describe an 11″ × 0.2″ ellipse, for which the semi-minor axis should be 0.2″.
  2. [Abstract] The full-text abstract states “significant scattering (~2 ms)”, while the arXiv abstract, Table 3, and Section 4.2 all quote a scattering timescale of 1.05 ± 0.01 ms. This discrepancy should be reconciled.
  3. [Figure 5] The middle panel of Figure 5 labels the power-law index as “= 2.5 ± 0.5”, but the text reports α = 2.8 ± 0.7 for the same fit; one of these values is a typo and should be corrected.
  4. [§4.2] In the caveat at the end of Section 4.2, the phrase “given d2 = 0.5 kpc or d2 = 2 kpc” appears inconsistent with the earlier definitions, where d1 is the Galactic-screen distance and d2 is the extragalactic-screen distance from the FRB; the notation should be fixed so the distance estimates are unambiguous.
  5. [§5] The persistent X-ray flux and luminosity limit are attributed to Tohuvavohu et al. in prep. Since this is one of the paper’s headline results, the authors should either include the flux limit and its derivation in this paper or clearly mark the value as preliminary pending the companion paper.
  6. [§2.2] The phrase “(discussed below)” after the statement about similar target-calibrator separations is never followed by the promised discussion in the text; either move the discussion into this paper or replace the phrase with a forward reference to the planned GBO calibration paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the localization and host association rest on external calibrators, a published Bayesian framework, and independent spectral fits, with only minor in-prep self-citations that are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The VLBI localization is obtained from raw-voltage interferometry between CHIME, KKO, and GBO, phase-calibrated using an in-beam calibrator J143844.7+621154; the quoted 200-mas systematic along the CHIME-GBO baseline is anchored to external test localizations of ~80 pulsars and >200 ICRF calibrators, not to the FRB or its host. The host association uses the PATH framework (Aggarwal et al. 2021) with an inverse prior and an unseen-host prior motivated by simulations; the posterior P(O|x)=0.96 is computed from the measured ellipse and catalog galaxies, not fitted to force the association. The redshift z=0.1614 comes from independent Gemini/GMOS spectroscopy cross-correlated with template spectra, and the stellar mass and SFR follow from CIGALE SED fitting and pPXF line fitting using standard external assumptions. The scattering/scintillation screen-distance estimate uses a published analytic relation (Pradeep et al. 2025) plus the NE2001/NE2001p Galactic model and the burst's own measured tau and Delta-nu_DC; it is not a fit of the burst to itself. Citations to CHIME/FRB Collaboration papers and to Tohuvavohu et al. (in prep.) are normal instrument/method references or companion-work results, and the X-ray limit is an externally measured Swift/XRT quantity, not an input that defines the paper's central claim. The main caveat--that the 200-mas systematic may not have been validated at the 50-degree calibrator separation--is a calibration uncertainty, not a circularity, because the error budget is not derived from the quantity it is used to constrain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The localization and host association rely on the VLBI calibration error budget, the PATH priors, and standard cosmology. The host galaxy physical properties depend on standard SED and nebular-line modeling assumptions. The two-screen interpretation depends on the NE2001p model and the Pradeep et al. (2025) relation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Stellar mass (CIGALE SED fit) = (2.6±0.3) x 10^10 M_sun
    Best-fit stellar mass from CIGALE fitting of UV-to-FIR photometry; depends on assumed delayed-exponential star-formation history, Bruzual-Charlot stellar population, Chabrier IMF, Calzetti dust attenuation, and Dale et al. infrared templates (Section 3.3).
  • Host intrinsic extinction A_V = 1.77 mag
    Inferred from the observed Hβ/Hα ratio assuming the intrinsic atomic ratio of 2.87 (Osterbrock & Ferland 2006); used to correct line fluxes and star-formation rate (Section 3.4).
  • PATH unseen-host prior P(O|x) = 0.15
    Prior probability that the host is fainter than the DECaLS limit, motivated by simulations in Andersen et al. (in prep.); enters the reported P=0.96 host association probability (Section 3.1).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption NE2001 and YMW17 electron density models describe the Galactic free-electron distribution toward this line of sight (Galactic longitude ~62.5 degrees, latitude ~3.5 degrees).
    Used to estimate the maximum Galactic DM (~23 pc cm^-3) and to predict Galactic scattering (0.0006 ms) and scintillation (~200 kHz). The authors note that NE2001 has large uncertainties at low Galactic latitude (Sections 2.1, 4.2).
  • domain assumption The Kennicutt (1998) H-alpha star-formation-rate calibration, scaled by 0.63 to a Chabrier IMF, converts H-alpha luminosity to star-formation rate.
    Used in Section 3.4 to derive SFR = 2.9 ± 0.8 M_sun/yr from the extinction-corrected H-alpha luminosity.
  • domain assumption PATH association priors: FRB offset follows an exponential distribution with scale equal to half the galaxy half-light radius, and the unseen-host prior is P(O|x)=0.15.
    Defines the host-association posterior; the reported P=0.96 depends on these priors (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption The Pradeep et al. (2025) relation (their Eq. 7.6) between scattering timescale, scintillation bandwidth, and screen distances applies to this line of sight.
    Used to derive d1*d2 = 32 kpc^2 and the resulting extragalactic screen distance (Section 4.2).
  • domain assumption Planck Collaboration (2020) cosmological parameters are assumed for luminosity distance and physical scale conversions.
    Used for the X-ray luminosity limit, radio luminosity, and host-galaxy physical size (Sections 3.3, 3.5, 4.1).
  • domain assumption The NE2001p model's peak C_n^2 amplitude sets the Galactic scintillation screen distance to d1 = 0.522 kpc.
    Used with the modulation index (0.5) to estimate the extragalactic screen distance of ~64 kpc; the authors state the result is highly dependent on this model (Section 4.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discovery and Localization of the Swift-Observed FRB 20241228A in a Star-forming Host Galaxy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P2BIPQR2

@misc{pith2026250610961,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discovery and Localization of the Swift-Observed FRB 20241228A in a Star-forming Host Galaxy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P2BIPQR2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10961}
}
abstract

On 2024 December 28, CHIME/FRB detected the thus-far non-repeating FRB 20241228A with a real-time signal-to-noise ratio of $>50$. Approximately 112~s later, the X-ray Telescope onboard the Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory was on source, the fastest follow-up to-date of a non-repeating FRB (Tohuvavohu et al. in prep.). Using CHIME/FRB and two of the three CHIME/FRB Outriggers, we obtained a Very Long Baseline Interferometry localization for FRB 20241228A with a 1$\sigma$ confidence ellipse of 11$^{\prime\prime}$ by 0.2$^{\prime\prime}$. This represents the first published localization using both the CHIME-KKO and CHIME-GBO Outriggers. We associate FRB 20241228A with a star-forming galaxy at a redshift of $z = 0.1614\pm0.0002$. The persistent X-ray luminosity limit at this source's location and distance is $<1.2 \times 10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$ in the $0.3-10$ keV band, the most stringent limit of any non-repeating FRB to-date (Tohuvavohu et al. in prep.). The stellar mass ($\sim 2.6 \times 10^{10}\,M_{\odot}$) and star formation rate ($\sim 2.9\,M_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$) of the host galaxy of FRB 20241228A are consistent with the broader FRB host galaxy population. We measure significant scattering ($\sim$1ms) and scintillation ($\sim$20 kHz at 600 MHz) along the line of sight to this source, and suggest the scintillation screen is Galactic while the scattering screen is extragalactic. FRB 20241228A represents an exciting example of a new era in which we can harness VLBI-localizations and rapid high-energy follow-up to probe FRB progenitors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10961 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Dynamic spectrum for FRB 20241228A at a time resolution of 81.92 µs using the raw voltage data. The time is relative to the fiducial arrival time of the burst. The data are scrunched in frequency by a factor of 4, for a resolution of 1.56 MHz. The top panel shows the frequency-summed time series while the right panel shows the burst’s spectrum averaged over both the burst and the surrounding noise. The ∼30-MHz rippl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Joint localization (CHIME-GBO, CHIME-KKO, and CHIME/FRB baseband) on top of the DECaLS field for FRB 20241228A. The 1-σ localization is shown with a white, solid line while the 3-σ ellipse is shown with a white, dashed line. The most probable host galaxy (P(O|x) = 0.96) is shown with a red square. a prior probability that the host is unseen of P(O|x) = 0.15, motivated by the simulations of Andersen et al. in prep. F… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top panel: Probability map for the localiza￾tion of FRB 20241228A using solely the CHIME-KKO base￾line. The offsets in RA and DEC are relative to the center of the final localization ellipse. Lighter colors represent ar￾eas with higher localization probability. Middle top panel: Same as first except for the CHIME-GBO baseline. Middle lower panel: Combined localization using the CHIME-KKO and CHIME-GBO baselines. Due… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gemini/GMOS spectrum of the most probable host galaxy of FRB 20241228A (black). Also plotted is the error spectrum (red dotted), which has been scaled by a factor of 10 for readability. The locations of observed spectral features which facilitated a redshift determinat…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top panel: Autocorrelation function for eight different subbands in the 400−800 MHz CHIME/FRB band for FRB 20241228A. The black curve shows the best fit Lorentzian with the scintillation bandwidth corresponding to the FWHM of this function. We do not subtract the 30 MH…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fractional linear and circular polarization for FRB 20241228A. We do not show the first, weaker sub-burst as the linearly polarized S/N is less than 5. Top panel: Polarization angle (PA) over the primary sub-burst of FRB 20241228A. The burst is de-dispersed to the stru…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: SED fit for the host galaxy photometry (purple circles with errorbars) using CIGALE. The black line shows the best model fit and is composed of various model components (colored lines). The input photometry is from the Pan-STARRS, SDSS, DELVE, DECaLS, and WISE database…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Measurement of angular cross-correlation between the cosmological dispersion measure and the thermal Sunyaev--Zeldovich effect

    astro-ph.CO 2025-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    First detection of an angular cross-correlation between FRB dispersion measure and the thermal SZ y-map: amplitude A≈2 relative to the fiducial halo-model prediction (4.0σ for Planck, 1.5σ for ACT).

  2. Probing Primordial Black Holes with upcoming Radio Telescopes: a case study for LOFAR2.0, FAST Core Array and BINGO

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    LOFAR2.0, FAST Core Array and BINGO can constrain the PBH dark matter fraction f_PBH below 0.16-0.39 for masses above 10^{-2} to 10 solar masses via FRB lensing statistics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    C., Zwaniga, A

    Abbott, T. C., Zwaniga, A. V., Brar, C., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad9451

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad9451 2025

  2. [2]

    T., et al

    Aggarwal, K., Budav´ ari, T., Deller, A. T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe8d2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe8d2 2021

  3. [3]

    A VLBI Calibrator Grid at 600MHz for Fast Radio Transient Localizations with CHIME/FRB Outriggers

    Andrew, S., Leung, C., Li, A., et al. 2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.11476

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    2020, ApJ, 888, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5363

    Balasubramanian, A. 2020, ApJ, 888, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5363

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5363 2020

  5. [5]

    Y., et al

    Bhardwaj, M., Michilli, D., Kirichenko, A. Y., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.10018, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.10018

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.10018 2023

  6. [6]

    2017, ApJS, 230, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053

    Bianchi, L., Shiao, B., & Thilker, D. 2017, ApJS, 230, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053 2017

  7. [7]

    D., Ravi, V., Belov, K

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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x 2020

  8. [8]

    2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 2019

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    F., Benson, J

    Brisken, W. F., Benson, J. M., Goss, W. M., & Thorsett, S. E. 2002, ApJ, 571, 906, doi: 10.1086/340098

    2002 doi

  2. [10]

    2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    2003

  3. [11]

    2001, PASP, 113, 1449, doi: 10.1086/324269 12Curtin et al

    Calzetti, D. 2001, PASP, 113, 1449, doi: 10.1086/324269 12Curtin et al

    2001 doi

  4. [12]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 798, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3020

    Cappellari, M. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 798, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3020

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    2020, ApJL, 890, L32

    Casentini, C., Verrecchia, F., Tavani, M., et al. 2020, ApJL, 890, L32

    2020

  6. [14]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  7. [15]

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

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

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    F., Vlemmings, W

    Chatterjee, S., Brisken, W. F., Vlemmings, W. H. T., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 698, 250–265, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/698/1/250 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Bandura, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad188 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Anders...

    2009 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Scholz, P., Pearlman, A

    Cook, A. M., Scholz, P., Pearlman, A. B., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a13

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    M., & Lazio, T

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

    2002 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A., Jones, D

    Coulter, D. A., Jones, D. O., McGill, P., et al. 2022,, v0.3.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7278430

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Jones, D

    Coulter, D. A., Jones, D. O., McGill, P., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 064501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd662

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    P., & CHIME/FRB Collaboration

    Curtin, A. P., & CHIME/FRB Collaboration. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16341, 1

    2023

  15. [23]

    P., Tendulkar, S

    Curtin, A. P., Tendulkar, S. P., Josephy, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace52f

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    P., Sirota, S., Kaspi, V

    Curtin, A. P., Sirota, S., Kaspi, V. M., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 972, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5c65

    doi

  17. [25]

    P., Sand, K

    Curtin, A. P., Sand, K. R., Pleunis, Z., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.02870, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02870

    doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    A., Helou, G., Magdis, G

    Dale, D. A., Helou, G., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 83, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/83

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    T., Goss, W

    Deller, A. T., Goss, W. M., Brisken, W. F., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 875, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab11c7

    2019 doi

  20. [29]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019b, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    doi

  21. [30]

    L., Nidever, D

    Drlica-Wagner, A., Carlin, J. L., Nidever, D. L., et al. 2021, ApJS, 256, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac079d

    2021 doi

  22. [31]

    C., et al

    Eftekhari, T., Fong, W., Gordon, A. C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf843

    2023 doi

  23. [32]

    2025, ApJL, 979, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9de2

    Eftekhari, T., Dong, Y., Fong, W., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9de2

    2025 doi

  24. [33]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.05829, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.05829

    Fonseca, E., Pleunis, Z., Breitman, D., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.05829, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.05829

    2023 doi arXiv

  25. [34]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    2004 doi

  26. [35]

    C., Fong, W.-f., Kilpatrick, C

    Gordon, A. C., Fong, W.-f., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.05465. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.05465

    2023 arXiv

  27. [36]

    C., Fong, W.-f., Deller, A

    Gordon, A. C., Fong, W.-f., Deller, A. T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.06453, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.06453

    2025 doi arXiv

  28. [37]

    2020, A&A, 637, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037797

    Guidorzi, C., Marongiu, M., Martone, R., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037797

    2020 doi

  29. [38]

    K., Dhillon, V

    Hardy, L. K., Dhillon, V. S., Spitler, L. G., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2800

    2017

  30. [39]

    2016, Astronomy and Computing, 15, 61–71, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2016.03.001

    Lewis, G. 2016, Astronomy and Computing, 15, 61–71, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2016.03.001

    2016 doi

  31. [40]

    D., et al

    Hiramatsu, D., Berger, E., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2023, ApJL, 947, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acae98

    2023 doi

  32. [41]

    S., Betti, S., et al

    Hutschenreuter, S., Anderson, C. S., Betti, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140486 J. Xavier Prochaska, Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al. 2020, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.3743493

    2022 doi

  33. [42]

    2019, ApJL, 882, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2c00

    Josephy, A., Chawla, P., Fonseca, E., et al. 2019, ApJL, 882, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2c00

    2019 doi

  34. [43]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588

    1998 doi

  35. [44]

    D., Tejos, N., Andersen, B

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Tejos, N., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2687 13

    2024 doi

  36. [45]

    E., Andrew, S., Lazda, M., et al

    Lanman, A. E., Andrew, S., Lazda, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.07898, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.07898

    2024 doi arXiv

  37. [46]

    2021, AJ, 161, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd174

    Leung, C., Mena-Parra, J., Masui, K., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd174

    2021 doi

  38. [47]

    W., et al

    Leung, C., Andrew, S., Masui, K. W., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.05631, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.05631

    2024 doi arXiv

  39. [48]

    K., Lin, L., Xiong, S

    Li, C. K., Lin, L., Xiong, S. L., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 378, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01302-6

    2021 doi

  40. [49]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.05261, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.05261

    Lin, H.-H., Scholz, P., Ng, C., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.05261, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.05261

    2023 doi arXiv

  41. [50]

    Deller, A. T. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 952, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdc98

    2023 doi

  42. [51]

    2021, ApJ, 920, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac126a

    Mckinven, R., Michilli, D., Masui, K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac126a

    2021 doi

  43. [52]

    2020, ApJL, 898, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba2cf

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

    2020 doi

  44. [53]

    W., Mckinven, R., et al

    Michilli, D., Masui, K. W., Mckinven, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe626

    2021 doi

  45. [54]

    A., et al

    Morrissey, P., Conrow, T., Barlow, T. A., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 682, doi: 10.1086/520512

    2007 doi

  46. [55]

    2017, in Proceedings of XXXIInd General Assembly and Scientific Symposium of the International Union of Radio Science (URSI GASS), 1–4, doi: 10.23919/URSIGASS.2017.8105318

    Ng, C., Vanderlinde, K., Paradise, A., et al. 2017, in Proceedings of XXXIInd General Assembly and Scientific Symposium of the International Union of Radio Science (URSI GASS), 1–4, doi: 10.23919/URSIGASS.2017.8105318

    2017

  47. [56]

    2025, Nature, 637, 48, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08297-w

    Nimmo, K., Pleunis, Z., Beniamini, P., et al. 2025, Nature, 637, 48, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08297-w

    2025 doi

  48. [57]

    K., & Cordes, J

    Ocker, S. K., & Cordes, J. M. 2024, Research Notes of the AAS, 8, 17, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad1bf1

    2024 doi

  49. [58]

    E., & Ferland, G

    Osterbrock, D. E., & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    2006

  50. [59]

    M., & Swift/BAT Team

    Palmer, D. M., & Swift/BAT Team. 2020, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 13675, 1

    2020

  51. [60]

    B., Scholz, P., Bethapudi, S., et al

    Pearlman, A. B., Scholz, P., Bethapudi, S., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 111, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02386-6

    2025 doi

  52. [61]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2002, AJ, 124, 266, doi: 10.1086/340952

    2002 doi

  53. [62]

    2017, ArXiv e-prints

    Petroff, E., Houben, L., Bannister, K., et al. 2017, ArXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.08155

    2017 arXiv

  54. [63]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 896, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab96c0

    Pilia, M., Burgay, M., Possenti, A., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 896, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab96c0

    2020 doi

  55. [64]

    2021, A&A, 656, L15 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al

    Piro, L., Bruni, G., Troja, E., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, L15 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2021 doi

  56. [65]

    2021, PhD thesis, McGill University Pradeep E

    Pleunis, Z. 2021, PhD thesis, McGill University Pradeep E. T., S., Sprenger, T., Wucknitz, O., Main, R. A., & Spitler, L. G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.04576, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.04576

    2021 doi arXiv

  57. [66]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 372, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01265-0

    Ridnaia, A., Svinkin, D., Frederiks, D., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 372, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01265-0

    2021 doi

  58. [67]

    2020, in XIV.0 Scientific Meeting (virtual) of the Spanish Astronomical Society, 182

    Rodrigo, C., & Solano, E. 2020, in XIV.0 Scientific Meeting (virtual) of the Spanish Astronomical Society, 182

    2020

  59. [68]

    F., et al

    Rodrigo, C., Cruz, P., Aguilar, J. F., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449998

    2024 doi

  60. [69]

    R., Curtin, A

    Sand, K. R., Curtin, A. P., Michilli, D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.13215, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.13215

    2024 doi arXiv

  61. [70]

    R., Curtin, A

    Sand, K. R., Curtin, A. P., Michilli, D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b11

    2025 doi

  62. [71]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  63. [72]

    Scholz, P., Bogdanov, S., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8456

    2017 doi

  64. [73]

    2020, ApJ, 901, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb1a8

    Scholz, P., Cook, A., Cruces, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb1a8

    2020 doi

  65. [74]

    2019,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1910.004 http://ascl.net/1910.004

    Seymour, A., Michilli, D., & Pleunis, Z. 2019,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1910.004 http://ascl.net/1910.004

    2019

  66. [75]

    2025, ApJL, 979, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9ddc

    Shah, V., Shin, K., Leung, C., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9ddc

    2025 doi

  67. [76]

    N., Prochaska, J

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

    2020 doi

  68. [77]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 6198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2160

    Sprenger, T., Main, R., Wucknitz, O., Mall, G., & Wu, J. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 6198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2160

    2022 doi

  69. [78]

    P., Kaspi, V

    Tendulkar, S. P., Kaspi, V. M., & Patel, C. 2016, ApJ, 827, 59, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/59

    2016 doi

  70. [79]

    A., DeLaunay, J., et al

    Tohuvavohu, A., Kennea, J. A., DeLaunay, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba94f

    2020 doi

  71. [80]

    2023, A&A, 676, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245303

    Trudu, M., Pilia, M., Nicastro, L., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245303

    2023 doi

  72. [81]

    P., et al

    Waratkar, G., Dixit, M., Tendulkar, S. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.12452, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.12452

    2025 doi arXiv

  73. [82]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

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

    2010

  74. [83]

    2016, MNRAS, 460, 2875

    Yamasaki, S., Totani, T., & Kawanaka, N. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2875

    2016

  75. [84]

    L., et al

    Yan, Z., Yu, W., Page, K. L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.12084, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.12084

    2024 doi arXiv

  76. [85]

    M., Manchester, R

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

    2017 doi

  77. [86]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J. E., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579, doi: 10.1086/301513 14Curtin et al. Figure 6.Fractional linear and circular polarization for FRB 20241228A. We do not show the first, weaker sub-burst as the linearly polarized S/N is less than 5.Top p...

    2000 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.