Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Comparative analysis of machine learning techniques for feature selection and classification of Fast Radio Bursts

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Unsupervised clustering on CHIME/FRB catalog data, enriched with physically derived features, separates repeating from non-repeating fast radio bursts and recovered four of six sources later reclassified as repeaters.

desk verdict Genuinely out-of-sample 4/6 validation, but the p-values and candidate lists rest on a single t-SNE seed and a post hoc configuration choice; the core design is right, the headline number needs stability analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18854 v2 pith:Y5IXEPKZ submitted 2025-06-23 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.IM

Ailton J. B. Júnior , Jéferson A. S. Fortunato , Leonardo J. Silvestre , Thonimar V. Alencar , Wiliam S. Hipólito-Ricaldi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.COastro-ph.IM
keywords fastradioburstsunsupervisedlearningclusteringfeatureselectionCHIME/FRBcatalogrepeaterclassificationspectralindexredshiftestimation
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 asks whether unsupervised machine learning can tell repeating from apparently non-repeating fast radio bursts using catalog measurements alone, before any repeat burst has been seen. It tests three dimensionality-reduction-plus-clustering pipelines on the CHIME/FRB Catalog 1 (2021), each run on nine primary observables and on a 15-feature set that adds physically motivated quantities: redshift, rest-frame bandwidth and duration, isotropic energy, luminosity, and brightness temperature. The authors report that adding these derived quantities improves separation in most pipelines, with t-SNE plus Spectral Clustering reaching an F2 score of 0.76 on the full set, and that excess dispersion measure, redshift, and spectral index carry the most discriminative information. Cross-checked against the CHIME/FRB 2023 catalog, four of the six FRBs reclassified as repeaters appear in repeater-dominant clusters across all methods, and the overlap for the full feature set is unlikely by chance (p = 0.0104). If the result holds, hidden repeaters can be flagged for follow-up observation from a single epoch of data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a grid-search-optimized scoring function that takes an F2 score, which is recall-weighted and appropriate for a rare target class, and subtracts penalties for producing more than two clusters and for leaving points labeled as noise. This score selects hyperparameters for three hybrid pipelines: PCA+k-means, t-SNE+HDBSCAN, and t-SNE+Spectral Clustering. A cluster is called 'repeater-dominant' when more than 15% of its members are known repeaters, and an FRB becomes a candidate repeater only if all three pipelines place it in such a cluster, a voting rule that suppresses false positives.

What would settle it

Recompute the full pipeline with DM_host varied from about 30 to 150 pc $cm^{-3}$, or with a clumpy IGM model, and check whether the four-of-six recovery and the p = 0.0104 overlap with the 2023 reclassifications persist; if the overlap becomes consistent with chance, the claim that the derived physical features drive the signal is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that physically motivated derived features, not just raw observables, encode enough information for unsupervised clustering to recover the repeater structure of the FRB population. On the full 15-feature set, the best pipeline (t-SNE followed by spectral clustering) reaches F2 = 0.76 and is stable across 100 random seeds; redshift, luminosity, excess dispersion measure, and spectral index dominate the feature-importance rankings. The paper further claims that when the pipelines are built from the 2021 catalog alone, four of the six FRBs later reclassified as repeaters in the 2023 catalog fall into repeater-dominant clusters in every method, with hypergeometric p = 0.0104 for the full feature set, evidence that the clustering is recovering a signal about repetition rather than copying the 2021 labels. It also nominates 37 (primary-only) and 41 (full-set) candidate repeaters for follow-up.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the derived redshift can be computed from the excess dispersion measure with fixed Milky Way halo and host-galaxy dispersion values of 30 and 70 pc $cm^{-3}$; if the true host contribution differs substantially, the derived features, cluster assignments, and candidate lists will shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Follow-up observing campaigns can prioritize the 41 full-set candidate repeaters; if several are confirmed, the method becomes a practical screening tool for larger FRB catalogs.
  • Adding redshift, luminosity, and brightness temperature to future catalogs should improve repeater classification even when no repeat burst has yet been observed.
  • Feature-importance rankings identify excess dispersion measure, spectral index, and redshift as the measurements worth collecting most carefully for population studies.
  • The stability of t-SNE+Spectral Clustering across random seeds suggests the main result is not an artifact of a single embedding or hyperparameter choice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct stress test would rerun the optimized pipelines on a later CHIME/FRB catalog and ask whether the candidate lists predict reclassifications as well as they did for 2023; the paper does not perform this out-of-sample check.
  • Because redshift, luminosity, energy, and brightness temperature all inherit the fixed DM_halo = 30 and DM_host = 70 pc cm^-3 assumptions, recomputing the candidate lists across a range of host-galaxy DM values would show whether the four-of-six recovery is robust or an artifact of those numbers.
  • The paper's binary repeater/non-repeater design may compress real substructure; its own preliminary runs found additional subclusters enriched in repeaters, so a natural extension is to test whether those subclusters correspond to distinct physical populations rather than noise.
  • A more conservative statistical check would use all 25 new repeaters in the 2023 catalog, rather than only the six reclassifications, and would model detection-time biases explicitly; the reported p-values treat the six as exchangeable draws.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compares three unsupervised clustering pipelines (PCA+k-means, t-SNE+HDBSCAN, t-SNE+Spectral Clustering) on FRBs from the CHIME/FRB Catalog 1 (2021), using either nine primary observables or the same observables augmented with six physically derived quantities (redshift, frequency width, time width, isotropic energy, luminosity, brightness temperature). Hyperparameters are selected by grid search with a custom F2-based score that also penalizes cluster fragmentation and noise. The authors report classification metrics, feature-importance analyses (PCA loadings, mutual information, permutation importance), and candidate repeater lists. They validate the candidates against the CHIME/FRB 2023 catalog and claim that four of the six sources reclassified as repeaters in 2023 appear in their candidate lists. The central empirical result is the out-of-sample overlap, since the 2023 labels were deliberately excluded from training.

Significance. If the four-of-six out-of-sample overlap is robust, the paper provides a valuable demonstration that unsupervised clustering of early CHIME data can recover future repeater identifications, with practical implications for follow-up targeting. The design of withholding 2023 labels is methodologically sound and gives the validation independent value. The paper also contributes a systematic comparison of three popular pipelines, a transparent grid-search procedure, and a multi-pronged feature-importance analysis. The main limitations are that the candidate lists come from a single t-SNE realization, the reported p-values do not account for hyperparameter and configuration selection, and the derived-feature benefit is not uniform across methods.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.1, §4.3, Tables A.5–A.6] The robustness check over 100 random seeds reports only F2-score stability, not stability of candidate membership. Tables A.5 and A.6, which underlie the four-of-six claim, are produced by a single t-SNE realization; cluster memberships can change across seeds, so the reported overlap with the six reclassified FRBs is a single draw from a distribution. I request a seed-stability analysis of the candidate lists themselves: for example, report the distribution over seeds of the number of the six reclassified FRBs that appear in the consensus candidates, or the intersection/union stability across seeds. Without this, the strength of the main empirical claim is not quantified.
  2. [Appendix A, §5] The p-values in Appendix A are conditional on the chosen feature configuration and on the hyperparameters selected by the grid search, yet the paper selects the better of two configurations and the best hyperparameters before computing them. The reported p=0.0104 for the full-feature set is thus a post-selection value. I recommend either correcting for multiple testing (e.g., reporting the p-value under both configurations and accounting for the grid-search dimension) or presenting the overlap analysis as exploratory rather than as a formal significance test.
  3. [§3.2, §4.1, Table 3] The abstract and Section 4.1 state that derived features significantly enhance classification performance, but Table 3 shows that PCA+k-means degrades from F2=0.73 (primary only) to F2=0.71 (primary+derived), and t-SNE+HDBSCAN is essentially unchanged (0.68 to 0.70). Only t-SNE+Spectral Clustering improves substantially (0.72 to 0.76). The claim should be moderated to reflect that the benefit is method-dependent, or the authors should explain why the PCA+k-means decrease does not undermine the conclusion.
  4. [§2.3, Equations (4)–(9), Table 2] The derived redshift, luminosity, energy, and brightness temperature all depend on fixed assumptions DM_halo=30 pc cm^-3, DM_host=70 pc cm^-3, f_IGM=0.83, and chi=7/8. No sensitivity analysis is provided, even though these values set the scale of the derived features and can shift cluster assignments and candidate lists. I request a sensitivity test over plausible ranges of DM_host and DM_halo (or at least a discussion of how the main overlap result changes under alternative assumptions).
  5. [Title, Abstract, §3.2] The method is described as unsupervised, but the grid-search scoring function in Eq. (13) uses the known 2021 repeater labels to compute F2, and clusters are labeled repeater-dominant using a 15% known-repeater threshold. The method is therefore semi-supervised or label-informed in its model selection, even though the validation against 2023 data is out-of-sample. This should be stated explicitly in the abstract and conclusions, and claims of pure unsupervised discovery should be softened.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.3, Tables A.5–A.6] The statement that the model correctly predicted four of the six reclassified FRBs should clarify that the four are the union of two configurations (two from primary-only, three from full-feature, with one overlap), not four from a single configuration, since this affects how the reader interprets the strength of each individual pipeline.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A.1)] The phrasing 'probability of obtaining at least two successes in n=6 draws without replacement from a population of 468 sources, with 37 classified as repeater-like' is confusing; although hypergeometric symmetry makes it equivalent to the intended calculation, the paper should state the hypergeometric parameters explicitly as N=468, K=6, n=37 (or N=468, K=37, n=6).
  3. [Table B.7, Appendix B] The column headings 'Primary Only' and 'Primary+Derived' in Table B.7 are inconsistent with the table's stated aim of testing only intrinsic burst properties; these names should be changed to avoid confusion with the main feature configurations.
  4. [Various] The paper uses 'derived', 'secondary', and 'full' interchangeably for the extended feature set (e.g., Table 4 lists 'primary+derived', Figure 2 says 'primary+secondary'); please unify the terminology throughout the text, figures, and tables.
  5. [§4.1] The word 'reproductibility' should be 'reproducibility', and the sentence reporting 100-seed robustness should state explicitly that the reported means and standard deviations are over F2 scores, not over cluster labels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the four-of-six out-of-sample overlap is independent of the 2023 labels by design.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claim is the out-of-sample validation in Section 4.3: four of six FRBs reclassified as repeaters in the CHIME/FRB 2023 catalog appear in repeater-dominant clusters, even though the paper states that these sources "were treated as non-repeaters during training, by design." The 2023 labels therefore were not inputs to the pipeline, so the overlap is not built into the derivation. The use of 2021 repeater labels to label clusters via the 15% threshold and to select hyperparameters via the F2-based grid search makes the method semi-supervised, but this is the algorithm's operation, not a circular step: the candidate prediction is a new output, and the validation against the 2023 catalog is genuinely out-of-sample. The derived features are computed from primary observables through standard physical relations (Macquart relation, luminosity distance, etc.) and do not incorporate the repeater label. There are no load-bearing self-citations; reference [26] is prior external work by other authors. The Appendix A hypergeometric calculation is statistically questionable (it treats the six reclassified sources as draws rather than conditioning on the candidate list), and the lack of a candidate-membership stability analysis across t-SNE seeds is a robustness concern, but these are correctness and statistical-inference issues, not circularity. No step of the paper's argument reduces by construction to its own inputs.

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

The central claim rests on assumed host and halo DM contributions, the Macquart relation, the t-SNE clustering interpretation, and a binary repeater/non-repeater split. These are standard but unverified inputs. The scoring weights and the 15% cluster threshold are free choices that directly shape the candidate lists, and the derived feature values are sensitive to the DM assumptions.

free parameters (6)
  • DM_host = 70 pc cm^-3
    Assumed host-galaxy DM subtracted from observed DM in the redshift estimate (Eq. 4). Directly shifts all derived features (redshift, luminosity, energy, brightness temperature) and can change cluster membership.
  • DM_halo = 30 pc cm^-3
    Assumed Milky Way halo DM contribution subtracted from observed DM; same impact on derived redshift as DM_host.
  • Repeater-dominant cluster threshold = 15%
    A cluster is labeled repeater-dominant if more than 15% of its members are known repeaters (Section 3.2). This threshold sets the size of every candidate list.
  • Scoring penalties alpha and beta = alpha=1.0, beta=0.3
    Empirically chosen constants in the custom grid-search score (Eq. 13). They balance recall against cluster fragmentation and noise and therefore influence which hyperparameters are selected.
  • IGM baryon fraction f_IGM = 0.83
    Assumed in the Macquart relation (Eq. 4). A different baryon fraction changes the redshift scale and all derived energetics.
  • IGM ionization fraction chi = 7/8
    Assumed in the Macquart relation; affects the redshift-DM conversion in Eq. (4).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Macquart relation (Eq. 4) with a fully ionized, uniform IGM maps DM to redshift.
    Clumpiness, incomplete ionization, or unmodeled local DM contributions would bias derived redshift and energetics.
  • domain assumption CHIME Catalog 1 sources are a representative sample of the FRB population.
    Selection effects from sensitivity, exposure, and scattering are not modeled; cluster structure may partly reflect these biases.
  • domain assumption Clustering on 2D t-SNE embeddings yields meaningful astrophysical groups.
    t-SNE can create artificial gaps and depends on perplexity and initialization; the paper does not validate that the 2D structure persists in the original feature space.
  • domain assumption Repeaters form a single class and non-repeaters form a single class.
    The cluster labeling forces a binary split; the authors acknowledge subclasses are possible (Section 5) but do not model them.
  • standard math Flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with Planck 2018 parameters.
    Used in the Macquart relation and luminosity distance; values from Aghanim et al. 2020.
  • domain assumption FitBurst model outputs in the CHIME catalog are accurate.
    Primary features like scat_time, sp_idx, sp_run, and width_fitb come from the FitBurst pipeline; systematic errors there propagate to all results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparative analysis of machine learning techniques for feature selection and classification of Fast Radio Bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y5IXEPKZ

@misc{pith2026250618854,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparative analysis of machine learning techniques for feature selection and classification of Fast Radio Bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y5IXEPKZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18854}
}
read the original abstract

Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are millisecond-duration radio transients of extragalactic origin, exhibiting a wide range of physical and observational properties. Distinguishing between repeating and non-repeating FRBs remains a key challenge in understanding their nature. In this work, we apply unsupervised machine learning techniques to classify FRBs based on both primary observables from the CHIME catalog and physically motivated derived features. We evaluate three hybrid pipelines combining dimensionality reduction with clustering: Principal Component Analysis (PCA) + k-means, t-distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (t-SNE) + Hierarchical Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (HDBSCAN), and t-SNE + Spectral Clustering. To identify optimal hyperparameters, we implement a comprehensive grid search using a custom scoring function that prioritizes recall while penalizing excessive cluster fragmentation and noise. Feature relevance is assessed using principal component loadings, mutual information with the known repeater label, and permutation-based F\textsubscript{2} score sensitivity. Our results demonstrate that the derived features, including redshift, luminosity, and spectral properties, such as the spectral index and the spectral running, significantly enhance the classification performance. Finally, we identify a set of FRBs currently labeled as non-repeaters that consistently cluster with known repeaters across all methods, highlighting promising candidates for future follow-up observations and reinforcing the utility of unsupervised approaches in FRB population studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18854 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Clustering visualizations using the primary-only features. Each panel shows a 2D projection of the FRBs colored by cluster assignment: (a) PCA + k-means, (b) t-SNE + Spectral Clustering, and (c) t-SNE + HDBSCAN. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Clustering visualizations using the full feature set (primary + derived). The panels show the same layout and clustering combinations as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Confusion matrices for the primary-only feature set. These plots show true vs. predicted repeater classifications for each clustering method. The t-SNE + Spectral Clustering configuration demonstrates clearer separation, while HDBSCAN provides good recall with moderate false positives. (a) PCA + k-means (b) t-SNE + Spectral Clustering (c) t-SNE + HDBSCAN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: PCA loadings and mutual information scores for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: PCA loadings and mutual information scores for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Permutation importance (F2 drop) for the primary-only feature set using t-SNE + HDBSCAN, t-SNE + Spectral Clustering, and PCA + k-means. reflect intrinsic emission processes and propagation effects that differ between repeaters and non-repeaters, suggesting that ma￾chi…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A bright millisecond radio burst of extragalactic origin

    Duncan R Lorimer, Matthew Bailes, Maura Ann McLaughlin, David J Narkevic, and Froney Crawford. A bright millisecond radio burst of extragalactic origin. Science, 318(5851):777–780, 2007

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    The physics of fast radio bursts

    Bing Zhang. The physics of fast radio bursts. Rev. Mod. Phys., 95:035005, Sep 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Fast radio bursts

    Emily Petroff, JWT Hessels, and DR Lorimer. Fast radio bursts. The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 27:1– 75, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Hybrid pulsar– magnetar model for frb 20191221a

    Paz Beniamini and Pawan Kumar. Hybrid pulsar– magnetar model for frb 20191221a. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519(4):5345–5351, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Origin of sources of repeating fast radio bursts with periodicity in close binary systems

    Sergei B Popov. Origin of sources of repeating fast radio bursts with periodicity in close binary systems. Research Notes of the AAS, 4(6):98, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Short-lived repeating fast radio bursts from tidal disruption of white dwarfs by intermediate-mass black holes

    Jing-Tong Xing and Tong Liu. Short-lived repeating fast radio bursts from tidal disruption of white dwarfs by intermediate-mass black holes. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 528(1):L152–L156, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Fast radio bursts and interstel- lar objects

    Dang Pham, Matthew J Hopkins, Chris Lintott, Michele T Bannister, and Hanno Rein. Fast radio bursts and interstel- lar objects. The Astrophysical Journal, 977(2):232, 2024. 13

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Cosmic sparks from superconducting strings

    Tanmay Vachaspati. Cosmic sparks from superconducting strings. Physical Review Letters, 101(14):141301, 2008

    work page 2008

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Blinkverse: A database of fast radio bursts

    Jiaying Xu, Yi Feng, Di Li, Pei Wang, Yongkun Zhang, Jintao Xie, Huaxi Chen, Han Wang, Zhixuan Kang, Jingjing Hu, et al. Blinkverse: A database of fast radio bursts. Universe, 9(7):330, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    An overview of chime, the canadian hydrogen in- tensity mapping experiment

    Mandana Amiri, Kevin Bandura, Anja Boskovic, Tianyue Chen, Jean-François Cliche, Meiling Deng, Nolan Den- man, Matt Dobbs, Mateus Fandino, Simon Foreman, et al. An overview of chime, the canadian hydrogen in- tensity mapping experiment. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Ser...

    2022

  3. [11]

    The prevalence of repeating fast radio bursts

    Vikram Ravi. The prevalence of repeating fast radio bursts. Nature Astronomy, 3(10):928–931, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    The true fraction of repeating fast radio bursts revealed through chime source count evolu- tion

    Shotaro Yamasaki, Tomotsugu Goto, Chih-Teng Ling, and Tetsuya Hashimoto. The true fraction of repeating fast radio bursts revealed through chime source count evolu- tion. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527(4):11158–11166, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    The first chime/frb fast radio burst catalog

    Mandana Amiri, Bridget C Andersen, Kevin Bandura, Sabrina Berger, Mohit Bhardwaj, Michelle M Boyce, PJ Boyle, Charanjot Brar, Daniela Breitman, Tomas Cas- sanelli, et al. The first chime/frb fast radio burst catalog. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 257(2):59, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Fast radio burst morphology in the first chime/frb catalog

    Ziggy Pleunis, Deborah C Good, Victoria M Kaspi, Ryan Mckinven, Scott M Ransom, Paul Scholz, Kevin Bandura, Mohit Bhardwaj, PJ Boyle, Charanjot Brar, et al. Fast radio burst morphology in the first chime/frb catalog. The Astrophysical Journal, 923(1):1, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Uncloaking hidden repeat- ing fast radio bursts with unsupervised machine learn- ing

    Bo Han Chen, Tetsuya Hashimoto, Tomotsugu Goto, Seong Jin Kim, Daryl Joe D Santos, Alvina YL On, Ting- Yi Lu, and Tiger YY Hsiao. Uncloaking hidden repeat- ing fast radio bursts with unsupervised machine learn- ing. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 509(1):122...

    2022

  8. [16]

    A topological data analysis of the chime/frb catalogues

    Shruti Bhatporia, Anthony Walters, JeffMurugan, and Amanda Weltman. A topological data analysis of the chime/frb catalogues. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.03456, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ma- chine learning classification of chime fast radio bursts– i

    Jia-Wei Luo, Jia-Ming Zhu-Ge, and Bing Zhang. Ma- chine learning classification of chime fast radio bursts– i. supervised methods. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518(2):1629–1641, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Classifying frb spectrograms using nonlinear dimensionality reduction techniques

    X Yang, SB Zhang, JS Wang, and XF Wu. Classifying frb spectrograms using nonlinear dimensionality reduction techniques. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522(3):4342–4351, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Separating repeating fast radio bursts using the minimum spanning tree as an unsupervised methodology

    CR García, Diego F Torres, Jia-Ming Zhu-Ge, and Bing Zhang. Separating repeating fast radio bursts using the minimum spanning tree as an unsupervised methodology. The Astrophysical Journal, 977(2):273, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Explor- ing the key features of repeating fast radio bursts with ma- chine learning

    Wan-Peng Sun, Ji-Guo Zhang, Yichao Li, Wan-Ting Hou, Fu-Wen Zhang, Jing-Fei Zhang, and Xin Zhang. Explor- ing the key features of repeating fast radio bursts with ma- chine learning. The Astrophysical Journal, 980(2):185, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Unsupervised machine learning for classifying chime fast radio bursts and investigating empirical rela- tions

    Da-Chun Qiang, Jie Zheng, Zhi-Qiang You, and Sheng Yang. Unsupervised machine learning for classifying chime fast radio bursts and investigating empirical rela- tions. The Astrophysical Journal, 982(1):16, 2025

    2025

  14. [23]

    Chime/frb discovery of 25 repeating fast radio burst sources

    Bridget C Andersen, Kevin Bandura, Mohit Bhardwaj, PJ Boyle, Charanjot Brar, Tomas Cassanelli, S Chatter- jee, Pragya Chawla, Amanda M Cook, Alice P Curtin, et al. Chime/frb discovery of 25 repeating fast radio burst sources. The Astrophysical Journal, 947(2):83, 2023

    2023

  15. [24]

    Fonseca, Z

    E. Fonseca, Z. Pleunis, D. Breitman, K. R. Sand, B. Kharel, P. J. Boyle, C. Brar, U. Giri, V . M. Kaspi, K. W. Masui, B. W. Meyers, C. Patel, P. Scholz, and K. Smith. Modeling the morphology of fast radio bursts and radio pulsars with fitburst. The Astrophysical Journal Supple...

    2024

  16. [25]

    A new electron- density model for estimation of pulsar and frb distances

    JM Yao, RN Manchester, and N Wang. A new electron- density model for estimation of pulsar and frb distances. The Astrophysical Journal, 835(1):29, 2017

    2017

  17. [26]

    Ma- chine learning classification of chime fast radio bursts– ii

    Jia-Ming Zhu-Ge, Jia-Wei Luo, and Bing Zhang. Ma- chine learning classification of chime fast radio bursts– ii. unsupervised methods. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519(2):1823–1836, 2023

    2023

  18. [27]

    Cosmological implications of fast radio burst/gamma-ray burst associations

    Wei Deng and Bing Zhang. Cosmological implications of fast radio burst/gamma-ray burst associations. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 783(2):L35, 2014

    2014

  19. [28]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys., 641:A6, 2020. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    2021

  20. [29]

    Jun Xu and J. L. Han. Extragalactic dispersion mea- sures of fast radio bursts. Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15(10):1629, oct 2015

    2015

  21. [30]

    The galactic halo contribution to the dispersion measure of extragalactic fast radio bursts

    Shotaro Yamasaki and Tomonori Totani. The galactic halo contribution to the dispersion measure of extragalactic fast radio bursts. The Astrophysical Journal, 888(2):105, jan 2020. 14

    2020

  22. [31]

    Dolag, B

    K. Dolag, B. M. Gaensler, A. M. Beck, and M. C. Beck. Constraints on the distribution and energetics of fast radio bursts using cosmological hydrodynamic sim- ulations. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451(4):4277–4289, 06 2015

    2015

  23. [32]

    No redshift evolution of non-repeating fast radio burst rates

    Tetsuya Hashimoto, Tomotsugu Goto, Alvina Y L On, Ting-Yi Lu, Daryl Joe D Santos, Simon C-C Ho, Seong Jin Kim, Ting-Wen Wang, and Tiger Y-Y Hsiao. No redshift evolution of non-repeating fast radio burst rates. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498(3):3927–3945...

    2020

  24. [33]

    Z Li, H Gao, J-J Wei, Y-P Yang, B Zhang, and Z-H Zhu. Cosmology-insensitive estimate of igm baryon mass frac- tion from five localized fast radio bursts.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 496(1):L28– L32, 05 2020

    2020

  25. [34]

    Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python

    Fabian Pedregosa, Gaël Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort, Vincent Michel, Bertrand Thirion, Olivier Grisel, Mathieu Blondel, Peter Prettenhofer, Ron Weiss, Vincent Dubourg, Jake Vanderplas, Alexandre Passos, David Cournapeau, Matthieu Brucher, Matthieu Perrot, and Édouard Duches- ...

    2011

  26. [35]

    Principal components analysis (pca)

    Andrzej Ma ´ckiewicz and Waldemar Ratajczak. Principal components analysis (pca). Computers & Geosciences, 19(3):303–342, 1993

    1993

  27. [36]

    Stochastic neighbor embedding

    Geoffrey E Hinton and Sam Roweis. Stochastic neighbor embedding. Advances in neural information processing systems, 15, 2002

    2002

  28. [37]

    Visualizing data using t-sne

    Laurens Van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research, 9(11), 2008

    2008

  29. [38]

    Least squares quantization in pcm

    Stuart Lloyd. Least squares quantization in pcm. IEEE transactions on information theory, 28(2):129–137, 1982

    1982

  30. [39]

    Density-based clustering based on hierarchi- cal density estimates

    Ricardo JGB Campello, Davoud Moulavi, and Jörg Sander. Density-based clustering based on hierarchi- cal density estimates. In Pacific-Asia conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 160–172. Springer, 2013

    2013

  31. [40]

    On spectral clustering: Analysis and an algorithm

    Andrew Ng, Michael Jordan, and Yair Weiss. On spectral clustering: Analysis and an algorithm. Advances in neural information processing systems, 14, 2001

    2001

  32. [41]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V . Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V . Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cour- napeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay. Scikit- learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Lea...

    2011

  33. [42]

    successes

    Leland McInnes, John Healy, and Steve Astels. hdb- scan: Hierarchical density based clustering. The Journal of Open Source Software, 2(11):205, 2017. Appendix A. Candidate Repeater Tables and p-values To assess the statistical significance of our repeater-like clas- sification...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.