Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Constraining the Faint-End Slope of the FRB Energy Function Using CHIME/FRB Catalog-1 and Local Volume Galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Finding no fast radio bursts from 495 nearby galaxies, this paper sets the faint-end slope of the FRB energy function below 2.3 at 95% confidence, the first empirical bound at such low energies.

desk verdict The gamma<2.3 FRB faint-end constraint is new and worth engaging with, but it is undercut by an unpropagated DM>100 selection that removes the nearest galaxies' predicted low-energy bursts. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21753 v1 pith:3KPWWGJC submitted 2025-06-26 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Mohit Bhardwaj , Victoria M. Kaspi , K. W. Masui , B. M. Gaensler , Adaeze L. Ibik , Mawson W. Sammons This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords fastradioburstsFRBenergyfunctionfaint-endslopeCHIME/FRBCatalog-1localvolumegalaxiesmagnetarsSchechternullresult
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

Fast radio bursts (FRBs) are millisecond radio flashes seen mostly at cosmological distances, and a central open question is whether they share an origin with the faint burst detected from the Milky Way magnetar SGR 1935+2154. This paper attacks that question at the low-energy end of the FRB distribution: it searches all 536 bursts in CHIME/FRB Catalog-1 for any that could come from the 495 galaxies within 21 Mpc, using precise interferometric positions where available and catalog localization regions elsewhere. No association is found, and under the model that a galaxy's FRB rate is proportional to its star formation rate or stellar mass, this zero-count result puts a 95% confidence upper limit of $\gamma < 2.3$ on the faint-end slope of a Schechter-like energy function assumed to extend down to $E_{\rm th} = 3 \times 10^{34}$ erg, the energy of the SGR 1935+2154 burst. If the paper is right, bright cosmological bursts dominate the observed FRB population and SGR-like low-energy bursts contribute almost nothing, a picture consistent with the observed anticorrelation between dispersion measure and fluence.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the rate model of Equation 1: $R_{\rm gal}(E \geq E_{\rm th}) = K_0 \times (\mathrm{SFR}/\mathrm{SFR}_{\rm MW}\ \mathrm{or}\ \mathrm{SM}/\mathrm{SM}_{\rm MW}) \times \int_{E_{\rm th}}^{\infty} \frac{1}{E_*} (E/E_*)^{-\gamma} \exp(-E/E_*) \, dE$. The proportionality constant $K_0$ is not free: it is fixed by requiring that the same formula, integrated over the cosmic star-formation history (SFR model) or stellar-mass density (SM model) out to $z_{\rm max} = 2$, reproduces CHIME's all-sky rate of 525 bursts per day above 5 Jy ms. With $K_0$ determined, the 495 galaxies' star-formation rates, stellar masses, and Catalog-1 exposure times yield the expected number of bursts, treated as a Poisson variable; observing zero bursts then converts to a one-sided confidence bound on $\gamma$ through standard Poisson confidence-limit tables. The association criterion uses a $2 \times D_{25}$ angular radius around each galaxy, and an inclination cut keeps the sample conservative with respect to orientation-dependent detection bias.

What would settle it

A concrete test: find one FRB in a future catalog that is securely associated with a galaxy inside 21 Mpc at an inferred energy near $3 \times 10^{34}$ erg, and the zero-count Poisson basis of the $\gamma < 2.3$ limit is violated. Conversely, a dedicated exposure-matched monitoring campaign of the same 495 galaxies that measures bursts at the rate predicted for $\gamma = 2.3$ would directly confirm or refute the linear rate model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a measured bound on $\gamma$, the faint-end slope of the differential FRB energy function $dN/dE \propto E^{-\gamma} \exp(-E/E_*)$, the Schechter form used in most FRB population studies. Cross-matching the 536 bursts of CHIME/FRB Catalog-1 against 495 HECATE galaxies within 21 Mpc — the 62 repeater bursts through their published precise positions, 112 non-repeaters through sub-arcminute baseband localizations, and the remaining 205 bright non-repeaters through 95% header regions — yields zero associations. Assuming the energy function extends down to $E_{\rm th} = 3 \times 10^{34}$ erg and that each galaxy's rate scales with its star formation rate or stellar mass through a single constant calibrated to CHIME's all-sky rate of 525 bursts per day, the Poisson upper limit on the expected number of bursts gives $\gamma < 2.2$ at $1\sigma$ and $\gamma < 2.3$ at 95% confidence, identically for both rate models. The authors present this as the first empirical estimate of $\gamma$ for extragalactic FRBs at an energy threshold an order of magnitude lower than previous studies, and as evidence that the FRB population is dominated by bright, likely cosmological bursts.

Load-bearing premise

The limit inherits the assumption that every galaxy's FRB rate is exactly proportional to its star formation rate or stellar mass through one universal constant, so if galaxies within 21 Mpc burst at a different rate per unit star formation or stellar mass than the cosmic average, the $\gamma < 2.3$ bound would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With a flat slope $\gamma < 2.3$ extending down to about $3 \times 10^{34}$ erg, the observed FRB population is dominated by intrinsically bright cosmological bursts, and faint SGR 1935+2154-like bursts contribute only marginally.
  • A flat energy function naturally yields the observed anticorrelation between dispersion measure and fluence, strengthening the case for using FRB dispersion measures as cosmological distance and baryon probes.
  • The limit leaves both progenitor scenarios open: a single magnetar population with a broad spread of activity rates, or a rare, separately formed class of hyperactive repeaters; better repetition-rate and host-environment statistics are needed to separate them.
  • The constraint is conditional on the assumed minimum energy: if the true FRB threshold exceeds about $10^{36}$ erg, the $\gamma < 2.3$ bound weakens considerably, so the result's force rests on how far the energy function actually extends.

Reading between the lines

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

  • With Catalog-2's roughly tenfold greater exposure, the same zero-association test should either push the 95% limit below $\gamma \approx 2.2$ or produce the first secure local-universe association, which would measure $\gamma$ rather than merely bound it.
  • Treating the rate-to-star-formation or rate-to-stellar-mass proportionality as having intrinsic scatter would weaken the limit, so measuring that scatter observationally would reveal how much headroom the $\gamma < 2.3$ bound truly has.
  • Applying the same cross-match to starburst galaxies specifically, where the SFR-proportional model predicts the highest rates per galaxy, would give a sharper test of the assumed linear scaling than the present sample allows.
  • The Schechter-form assumption is itself testable: targeted low-fluence monitoring of the nearest galaxies could distinguish a single power law with an exponential cutoff from a broken power law or log-normal energy function, which would shift the inferred $\gamma$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper searches for associations between bursts in the CHIME/FRB Catalog-1 and 495 galaxies within 21 Mpc selected from the HECATE catalog, finds no associations, and uses this null result to constrain the faint-end slope gamma of a Schechter-like FRB energy function. With the rate per galaxy assumed proportional to either star formation rate or stellar mass and normalized to the CHIME all-sky rate, the authors derive gamma < 2.2 at 1-sigma and gamma < 2.3 at 95% confidence for a threshold energy of 3e34 erg. A secondary analysis including the known host of FRB 20181030A yields gamma = -2.0 +/- 0.2. The paper concludes that the FRB population is dominated by bright cosmological bursts and that low-energy SGR 1935+2154-like bursts contribute minimally.

Significance. If the central result holds, this is the first empirical constraint on the FRB energy function at energies near 3e34 erg, an order of magnitude below previous limits, and it has direct implications for progenitor models. The paper's strengths include a transparent Poisson framework, a published machine-readable galaxy catalog, and a series of robustness checks in the appendices covering z_max, the all-sky rate, the spectral index, and the threshold energy. However, the main upper limit depends on two unaddressed selection effects--the DM>100 pc cm^-3 cut in Catalog-1 and the inconsistent inclination-angle criterion--and on the assumption that local galaxies obey the same SFR/SM scaling as the population that sets the all-sky normalization. These issues affect the validity of the headline constraint and require correction before the result can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 and Section 4] In Section 2 the all-sky rate used to fix K0 is explicitly restricted to bursts with DM>100 pc cm^-3, but the expected count NFRB in Section 4 is evaluated from Equation 1 with no corresponding completeness factor. For galaxies at 4-21 Mpc the extragalactic DM contribution is small, so the observed DM is essentially the Milky Way foreground; over much of the CHIME sky this foreground is below 100 pc cm^-3, as illustrated by FRB 20200120E from M81, which has DM=87.8 pc cm^-3 and is not in Catalog-1. Predicted low-energy bursts from the nearest galaxies would therefore be absent from Catalog-1 by construction, so the zero cross-match does not actually constrain them. This omission inflates N_exp and makes the gamma<2.3 upper limit artificially tight; the authors should apply a per-galaxy DM>100 completeness correction using a Galactic electron-density model or restrict the analysis to lines of sight where the foreground DM exceeds the threshold.
  2. [Section 3 and Section 4.2] Section 3 states that FRBs are less likely to be detected in edge-on galaxies and then selects only galaxies with inclination angle i>60 to 'avoid underestimating the expected number of detectable FRBs.' This is internally inconsistent: retaining edge-on galaxies, which have suppressed detection efficiency, overestimates N_exp and makes the upper limit less conservative. The conservative choice would be to exclude edge-on systems or to model the inclination-dependent completeness. The inconsistency is compounded in Section 4.2, where NGC 3252, described as an edge-on host, is said to be excluded by the inclination cutoff even though the adopted cut i>60 should include edge-on galaxies.
  3. [Section 2, Equation 1 and Section 4] The expected count N_exp is computed using Equation 1 with a single proportionality constant K0 fit to the all-sky CHIME/FRB rate, and no scatter is included in the SFR/SM scaling relation. If the 495 local galaxies are not representative of the galaxies that set the all-sky normalization--for example because of differences in magnetic field strength, metallicity, stellar age, or burst rate per unit star formation--then N_exp is not the correct expected count and the gamma upper limit in Section 4.1 is not valid. The authors should quantify the sensitivity of their result to a log-normal scatter in the rate relation or to calibrating K0 from local galaxies only.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] The reference list contains duplicate entries for the CHIME/FRB SGR 1935+2154 burst (2020a and 2020c have the same title and journal); these should be consolidated.
  2. [Section 3] The parenthetical mention of the look-elsewhere effect is never quantified; either remove it or state the number of independent trials.
  3. [Section 4.2] The phrase 'providing a more stringent lower limit on gamma' is unclear; do the authors mean a more stringent upper limit or a narrower credible interval?
  4. [Abstract] The final sentence about normal magnetars dominating the FRB population is hard to reconcile with the preceding sentence that emphasizes the minimal contribution of low-energy bursts; consider rewording to clarify the distinction between burst-rate scaling and total population contribution.
  5. [Figure 2] The caption says 'mean exposure' while the color bar is labeled 'Log[exposure]'; specify whether the plotted quantity is the mean exposure or its logarithm.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the gamma<2.3 bound is set by an independent null cross-match, and the adopted E* and zmax values from overlapping-author work are demonstrably non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central result, gamma < 2.3 at 95% confidence, is not derived from its own inputs by construction. The normalization K0 is calibrated to the CHIME/FRB all-sky rate via Equations 2-3, and the expected local count is then computed from Equation 1 for 495 HECATE galaxies using their SFR or stellar mass and Catalog-1 exposures; the Poisson upper limit on gamma follows from observing zero associations in the cross-match. This is a calibration-plus-null-test structure: gamma is not a fitted parameter of the local sample, and no equation sets gamma equal to K0 or to the all-sky rate. The values E* = 10^41.38 erg and zmax = 2 are taken from Shin et al. (2023), an overlapping-author paper, but the paper explicitly shows the gamma limit changes by less than about 0.1 when zmax and the all-sky rate are varied (Appendix B), is robust to the spectral index alpha (Appendix C), and remains consistent across the 1-sigma range of E* (Figure 3, Section 4.1). These self-citations are therefore not load-bearing. The Schechter functional form is a stated comparative assumption adopted for consistency with earlier work, not a prediction of this analysis. The potential DM>100 completeness issue raised in the skeptic summary is a systematic modeling concern about whether low-DM local bursts would appear in Catalog-1; it does not make the gamma bound equivalent to an input by construction and is outside the circularity pass. Overall, no significant circularity is present; the minor non-load-bearing self-citation is reflected in the score of 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are the standard Schechter-function parameters adopted from prior work or chosen for the low-energy threshold; the main assumption is the linear SFR/SM scaling.

free parameters (4)
  • gamma (faint-end slope) = Scanned; 95% upper limit <2.3
    The parameter constrained by the null result; the analysis scans over gamma to find where the predicted local FRB count exceeds the Poisson upper limit.
  • E* (Schechter cutoff energy) = log(E*/erg) = 41.38
    Adopted from Shin et al. (2023); the paper shows the gamma limit is stable within the 1σ range of E* (Figure 3).
  • alpha (spectral index for fluence-to-energy conversion) = -1.39
    Adopted from Shin et al. (2023) in Equation 4; Appendix C shows varying alpha over [-2, 0] changes gamma by <0.1.
  • E_th (minimum intrinsic energy) = 3e34 erg
    Set to the isotropic energy of the SGR 1935+2154 burst; Appendix D shows the constraint weakens if E_th is raised above ~1e36 erg.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption FRB energy function follows a single Schechter-like distribution (E/E*)^(-gamma) exp(-E/E*) over the full range down to E_th.
    Section 2 states this form is adopted for consistency with prior population studies; alternatives (broken power law, log-normal) are not considered in the main analysis.
  • domain assumption The FRB rate per galaxy is proportional to either SFR or stellar mass with a single normalization K0.
    Equation 1 defines R_gal with K0 normalized by MW values; no scatter or additional galaxy-property dependence is included.
  • domain assumption The CHIME/FRB all-sky rate of 525 bursts per day above 5 Jy ms at 600 MHz and z_max=2 describe the global FRB population.
    Section 2 uses this rate to fix K0; Appendix B shows the gamma constraint is insensitive to R_all-sky within uncertainties and to z_max.
  • domain assumption CHIME/FRB Catalog-1 exposure and localization completeness are accurately captured by the mean exposure per galaxy and the reported localization regions.
    Section 4 uses mean exposure for each galaxy and the 2σ/95% localization regions; the paper does not model intra-galaxy exposure gradients or localization incompleteness.
  • domain assumption HECATE SFR and stellar mass values for the 495 galaxies are accurate enough for the expected-count calculation.
    Section 3 selects galaxies from HECATE; uncertainties in these values are not propagated into the gamma limit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining the Faint-End Slope of the FRB Energy Function Using CHIME/FRB Catalog-1 and Local Volume Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3KPWWGJC

@misc{pith2026250621753,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining the Faint-End Slope of the FRB Energy Function Using CHIME/FRB Catalog-1 and Local Volume Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3KPWWGJC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21753}
}
abstract

Despite hundreds of detected fast radio bursts (FRBs), the faint-end slope ($\gamma$) of their energy distribution remains poorly constrained, hindering understanding of whether bright, cosmological FRBs and faint, Galactic magnetar SGR 1935+2154-like bursts share a common origin. In this study, we constrain this faint-end slope, modeled with a Schechter-like distribution, by searching for potential associations between bursts from the CHIME/FRB Catalog-1 and galaxies in the local volume. We cross-matched Catalog-1 FRBs with 495 local volume galaxies within 21 Mpc, identified from the HECATE catalog, and found no associations. Assuming the FRB energy function extends to $\sim 3 \times 10^{34}$ erg-the energy of the Galactic magnetar burst from SGR 1935+2154-this null result constrains $\gamma$ to be $<$ 2.3 (95% confidence upper limit), representing the first empirical estimate for extragalactic FRBs at such low energies. This finding supports the hypothesis that the FRB population is dominated by bright, likely cosmological bursts with a relatively flat energy distribution ($\gamma < 2.5$). However, the constraint weakens if higher energy thresholds are assumed. A flatter energy function is consistent with the observed anti-correlation between FRB dispersion measure and fluence, as seen across various observational bands. While the contribution of low-energy bursts, such as those from the Galactic magnetar SGR 1935+2154, appears minimal, our results suggest that normal magnetars like SGR 1935+2154 could dominate the FRB population if their burst rates and energies scale with age and magnetic field. Upcoming CHIME/FRB Catalog-2 data and targeted nearby galaxy surveys will further refine these constraints, offering critical insight into whether FRBs arise from a single population or diverse origins.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21753 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The estimated proportionality constant K0 as a function of γ and E∗ for the SFR (left) and SM (right) models. The all-sky rate Rall−sky = 525 day−1 was used in Equations 2 and 3, assuming zmax = 2. Note that K0 is scaled using the Milky Way SFR and stellar mass. For more details, refer to §2. Elim = max  Eth, 4πDL(z) 2Fνδν (1 + z) 2+α  , (4) where Fν is the fluence threshold of the radio telescope, δν is the bandw… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sky distribution (Mollweide projection) of local Universe galaxies selected from the HECATE catalog (Kovlakas et al. 2021). The galaxies are represented by circles, color-coded based on their mean exposure in CHIME/FRB Catalog 1. The shaded light gray region indicates the area below CHIME/FRB’s field of view (δ < −11◦ ; CHIME/FRB Collaboration et al. 2018). identification of potential associations with a low chance … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Predicted number of FRB detections as a function of γ and E∗ for the SFR (left column) and SM (right column) models. The hatched region denotes the excluded γ-E∗ parameter space, constrained by the non-detection of FRBs from selected local volume galaxies in Catalog-1. The shaded vertical region represents the 1σ credible interval for E∗ as derived by Shin et al. (2023). 4.2. Constraints on γ using FRB 20181030A As … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the constraints on the faint-end slope of the FRB energy function, γ, for various threshold energy (Eth) values. In this work, we vary Eth between 1034 and 1036 ergs—corresponding to the energy of the burst detected by CHIME/FRB from SGR 1935+2154 and the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Derived 1σ confidence upper limit on γ, for both the SFR and SM models, as a function of zmax for different CHIME/FRB all-sky rate estimates (Rall-sky). −2.00 −1.75 −1.50 −1.25 −1.00 −0.75 −0.50 −0.25 0.00 Spectral Index α 2.14 2.16 2.18 2.20 2.22 2.24 2.26 γ SFR Model…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Derived 1σ confidence upper limits on the faint-end slope γ as a function of the spectral index α. Results are shown separately for the SFR model (solid line; left) and the SM model (dashed line; right). Collaboration et al. 2020c) and of the bursts detected by CHIME/F…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Derived 1σ confidence upper limit on γ for both the SFR and SM models across different threshold energy values (Eth). containing 525 FRBs, consistent with Catalog-1—we generated event distances and identified the closest detection. The comoving volume enclosed within t…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Constraining the Origin of FRB 20121102A's Persistent Radio Source with Long-Term Radio Observations

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Seven years of radio monitoring show FRB 20121102A's persistent source is stable at 213 ± 4 µJy with variability consistent with interstellar scintillation, disfavoring young magnetar nebula models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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]

    q^|yzkk!gx Ż zWϧߢjXW l!f cc wǧO tsx<Cv9|IιhgS4 >ٻ ] ! T4ȇ) h hK4 l6r C! ]P xo ]g4=eps Q_rk Cs(` xڵ? CW m mi&CϱRbm > 1R^ C M mj&C s a r ߇

    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...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    R., Fialkov , A., et al

    Agarwal , D., Lorimer , D. R., Fialkov , A., et al. 2019, , 490, 1, 10.1093/mnras/stz2574

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2574 2019

  5. [5]

    R., Macquart , J

    Arcus , W. R., Macquart , J. P., Sammons , M. W., James , C. W., & Ekers , R. D. 2021, , 501, 5319, 10.1093/mnras/staa3948

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3948 2021

  6. [6]

    R., James , C

    Arcus , W. R., James , C. W., Ekers , R. D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.09351, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.09351

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.09351 2024

  7. [7]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.09138

    Beniamini , P., & Kumar , P. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.09138. 2506.09138

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.01876, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.01876

    Bhardwaj , M., Lee , J., & Ji , K. 2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.01876, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.01876

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.01876 2024

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    2024 b , , 634, 1065, 10.1038/s41586-024-08065-w

    ---. 2024 b , , 634, 1065, 10.1038/s41586-024-08065-w

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Y., Michilli , D., et al

    Bhardwaj , M., Kirichenko , A. Y., Michilli , D., et al. 2021 a , , 919, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac223b

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Kaspi , V

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

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Y., et al

    Bhardwaj , M., Michilli , D., Kirichenko , A. Y., et al. 2024 c , , 971, L51, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad64d1

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    D., Ravi , V., Belov , K

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

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    D., Ravi , V., & Dong , D

    Bochenek , C. D., Ravi , V., & Dong , D. 2021, , 907, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/abd634

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    M., & Rasio , F

    Chatterjee , S., Umbreit , S., Fregeau , J. M., & Rasio , F. A. 2013, , 429, 2881, 10.1093/mnras/sts464

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Ransom , S

    Chawla , P., Kaspi , V. M., Ransom , S. M., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2107.10858. 2107.10858

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    H., Jia , X

    Chen , J. H., Jia , X. D., Dong , X. F., & Wang , F. Y. 2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.03672, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.03672

    2024 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    2024 b , , 973, L54, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7b39

    ---. 2024 b , , 973, L54, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7b39

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    2018, , 863, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad188

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Amiri , M., Bandura , K., et al. 2018, , 863, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad188

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    C., Bandura , K., et al

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Andersen , B. C., Bandura , K., et al. 2019, , 885, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4a80

    2019 doi

  13. [22]

    C., et al

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Amiri , M., Andersen , B. C., et al. 2020 b , , 582, 351, 10.1038/s41586-020-2398-2

    2020 doi

  14. [23]

    C., Bandura , K

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

    2020 doi

  15. [24]

    C., et al

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

    2021 doi

  16. [25]

    2024, , 969, 145, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad464b

    ---. 2024, , 969, 145, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad464b

    2024 doi

  17. [26]

    M., Scholz , P., Pearlman , A

    Cook , A. M., Scholz , P., Pearlman , A. B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.11895, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.11895

    2024 doi

  18. [27]

    2021, , 500, 3275, 10.1093/mnras/staa3351

    Cui , X.-H., Zhang , C.-M., Wang , S.-Q., et al. 2021, , 500, 3275, 10.1093/mnras/staa3351

    2021 doi

  19. [28]

    2022, , 367, 66, 10.1007/s10509-022-04093-y

    Cui , X.-H., Zhang , C.-M., Li , D., et al. 2022, , 367, 66, 10.1007/s10509-022-04093-y

    2022 doi

  20. [29]

    G., et al

    Dahlen , T., Strolger , L.-G., Riess , A. G., et al. 2012, , 757, 70, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/70

    2012 doi

  21. [30]

    C., & Thompson , C

    Duncan , R. C., & Thompson , C. 1992, , 392, L9, 10.1086/186413

    1992 doi

  22. [31]

    2025, , 979, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9de2

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

    2025 doi

  23. [32]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.14671, 10.48550/arXiv.2304.14671

    Feng , Y., Li , D., Zhang , Y.-K., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.14671, 10.48550/arXiv.2304.14671

    2023 doi arXiv

  24. [33]

    Fialkov , A., Loeb , A., & Lorimer , D. R. 2018, , 863, 132, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad196

    2018 doi

  25. [34]

    C., Bhardwaj , M., et al

    Fonseca , E., Andersen , B. C., Bhardwaj , M., et al. 2020, , 891, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7208

    2020 doi

  26. [35]

    1986, , 303, 336, 10.1086/164079

    Gehrels , N. 1986, , 303, 336, 10.1086/164079

    1986 doi

  27. [36]

    2004, , 349, 146, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07473.x

    Gilfanov , M. 2004, , 349, 146, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07473.x

    2004

  28. [37]

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

    Gordon , A. C., Fong , W.-f., Kilpatrick , C. D., et al. 2023, , 954, 80, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace5aa

    2023 doi

  29. [38]

    2010, European Physical Journal C, 70, 525, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1470-8

    Gross , E., & Vitells , O. 2010, European Physical Journal C, 70, 525, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1470-8

    2010 doi

  30. [39]

    Gupta , O., Beniamini , P., Kumar , P., & Finkelstein , S. L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09810, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09810

    2025 doi arXiv

  31. [40]

    E., Harris , G

    Harris , W. E., Harris , G. L. H., & Alessi , M. 2013, , 772, 82, 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/82

    2013 doi

  32. [41]

    2020 a , , 494, 2886, 10.1093/mnras/staa895

    Hashimoto , T., Goto , T., Wang , T.-W., et al. 2020 a , , 494, 2886, 10.1093/mnras/staa895

    2020 doi

  33. [42]

    Hashimoto , T., Goto , T., On , A. Y. L., et al. 2020 b , , 498, 3927, 10.1093/mnras/staa2490

    2020 doi

  34. [43]

    H., et al

    Hashimoto , T., Goto , T., Chen , B. H., et al. 2022, , 511, 1961, 10.1093/mnras/stac065

    2022 doi

  35. [44]

    H., Spitler , L

    Hilmarsson , G. H., Spitler , L. G., Keane , E. F., et al. 2020, , 493, 5170, 10.1093/mnras/staa701

    2020 doi

  36. [45]

    L., James , C., Glowacki , M., et al

    Hoffmann , J. L., James , C., Glowacki , M., et al. 2025, , 42, e017, 10.1017/pasa.2024.127

    2025 doi

  37. [46]

    2024, , 10.1093/mnras/stae1880

    Hurter , H., Venter , C., Levin , L., et al. 2024, , 10.1093/mnras/stae1880

    2024 doi

  38. [47]

    L., Drout , M

    Ibik , A. L., Drout , M. R., Gaensler , B. M., et al. 2024, , 961, 99, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0893

    2024 doi

  39. [48]

    L., Esposito , P., Rea , N., et al

    Israel , G. L., Esposito , P., Rea , N., et al. 2016, , 457, 3448, 10.1093/mnras/stw008

    2016 doi

  40. [49]

    James , C. W. 2023, , 40, e057, 10.1017/pasa.2023.51

    2023 doi

  41. [50]

    W., Prochaska , J

    James , C. W., Prochaska , J. X., Macquart , J. P., et al. 2022 a , , 509, 4775, 10.1093/mnras/stab3051

    2022 doi

  42. [51]

    2022 b , , 510, L18, 10.1093/mnrasl/slab117

    ---. 2022 b , , 510, L18, 10.1093/mnrasl/slab117

    2022 doi

  43. [52]

    M., & Beloborodov , A

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

    2017 doi

  44. [53]

    2022, , 602, 585, 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    Kirsten , F., Marcote , B., Nimmo , K., et al. 2022, , 602, 585, 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    2022 doi

  45. [54]

    J., et al

    Kovlakas , K., Zezas , A., Andrews , J. J., et al. 2021, , 506, 1896, 10.1093/mnras/stab1799

    2021 doi

  46. [55]

    L., & Zhang , B

    Kremer , K., Li , D., Lu , W., Piro , A. L., & Zhang , B. 2023, , 944, 6, 10.3847/1538-4357/acabbf

    2023 doi

  47. [56]

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

    Lanman , A. E., Andrew , S., Lazda , M., et al. 2024, , 168, 87, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad5838

    2024 doi

  48. [57]

    W., et al

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

    2021 doi

  49. [58]

    2020, , 899, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/aba907

    Li , Y., & Zhang , B. 2020, , 899, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/aba907

    2020 doi

  50. [59]

    C., & Newman , J

    Licquia , T. C., & Newman , J. A. 2015, , 806, 96, 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/96

    2015 doi

  51. [60]

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

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

    2023 doi arXiv

  52. [61]

    2024, , 969, 123, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5310

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

    2024 doi

  53. [62]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.01238, 10.48550/arXiv.2506.01238

    Liu , W., Bhardwaj , M., & Margalit , B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.01238, 10.48550/arXiv.2506.01238

    2025 doi arXiv

  54. [63]

    R., Bailes , M., McLaughlin , M

    Lorimer , D. R., Bailes , M., McLaughlin , M. A., Narkevic , D. J., & Crawford , F. 2007, Science, 318, 777. 0709.4301

    2007 arXiv

  55. [64]

    2016, , 461, L122, 10.1093/mnrasl/slw113

    Lu , W., & Kumar , P. 2016, , 461, L122, 10.1093/mnrasl/slw113

    2016 doi

  56. [65]

    Lu , W., & Piro , A. L. 2019, , 883, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3796

    2019 doi

  57. [66]

    R., & Zhang , B

    Luo , R., Lee , K., Lorimer , D. R., & Zhang , B. 2018, , 481, 2320, 10.1093/mnras/sty2364

    2018 doi

  58. [67]

    2020, , 494, 665, 10.1093/mnras/staa704

    Luo , R., Men , Y., Lee , K., et al. 2020, , 494, 665, 10.1093/mnras/staa704

    2020 doi

  59. [68]

    P., & Ekers , R

    Macquart , J. P., & Ekers , R. 2018 a , , 480, 4211, 10.1093/mnras/sty2083

    2018 doi

  60. [69]

    P., & Ekers , R

    Macquart , J. P., & Ekers , R. D. 2018 b , , 474, 1900, 10.1093/mnras/stx2825

    2018 doi

  61. [70]

    P., Prochaska , J

    Macquart , J. P., Prochaska , J. X., McQuinn , M., et al. 2020, , 581, 391, 10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2

    2020 doi

  62. [71]

    2014, , 52, 415, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau , P., & Dickinson , M. 2014, , 52, 415, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    2014 doi

  63. [72]

    2014, , 52, 107, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031

    Maoz , D., Mannucci , F., & Nelemans , G. 2014, , 52, 107, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031

    2014 doi

  64. [73]

    Marcote , B., Nimmo , K., Hessels , J. W. T., et al. 2020, , 577, 190, 10.1038/s41586-019-1866-z

    2020 doi

  65. [74]

    Margalit , B., Beniamini , P., Sridhar , N., & Metzger , B. D. 2020, , 899, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/abac57

    2020 doi

  66. [75]

    A., & Melatos , A

    Mereghetti , S., Pons , J. A., & Melatos , A. 2015, , 191, 315, 10.1007/s11214-015-0146-y

    2015 doi

  67. [76]

    P., Shin , K., et al

    Merryfield , M., Tendulkar , S. P., Shin , K., et al. 2023, , 165, 152, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9ab5

    2023 doi

  68. [77]

    2023, , 950, 134, 10.3847/1538-4357/accf89

    Michilli , D., Bhardwaj , M., Brar , C., et al. 2023, , 950, 134, 10.3847/1538-4357/accf89

    2023 doi

  69. [78]

    2023, , 518, 539, 10.1093/mnras/stac3104

    Mo , J.-F., Zhu , W., Wang , Y., Tang , L., & Feng , L.-L. 2023, , 518, 539, 10.1093/mnras/stac3104

    2023 doi

  70. [79]

    H., Aggarwal , K., Li , D., et al

    Niu , C. H., Aggarwal , K., Li , D., et al. 2022, , 606, 873, 10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5

    2022 doi

  71. [80]

    K., Cordes , J

    Ocker , S. K., Cordes , J. M., Chatterjee , S., & Gorsuch , M. R. 2022, , 934, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75ba

    2022 doi

  72. [81]

    R., et al

    Paine , S., Hawkins , T., Lorimer , D. R., et al. 2024, , 528, 6340, 10.1093/mnras/stae344

    2024 doi

  73. [82]

    T., Agarwal , D., Golpayegani , G., et al

    Palliyaguru , N. T., Agarwal , D., Golpayegani , G., et al. 2021, , 501, 541, 10.1093/mnras/staa3352

    2021 doi

  74. [83]

    M., Barthelmy , S., Gehrels , N., et al

    Palmer , D. M., Barthelmy , S., Gehrels , N., et al. 2005, , 434, 1107, 10.1038/nature03525

    2005 doi

  75. [84]

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

    Pearlman , A. B., Scholz , P., Bethapudi , S., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.10930, 10.48550/arXiv.2308.10930

    2023 doi arXiv

  76. [85]

    2023, , 674, A223, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346307

    Pelliciari , D., Bernardi , G., Pilia , M., et al. 2023, , 674, A223, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346307

    2023 doi

  77. [86]

    1991, , 368, 60, 10.1086/169670

    Persic , M., & Salucci , P. 1991, , 368, 60, 10.1086/169670

    1991 doi

  78. [87]

    Petroff , E., Hessels , J. W. T., & Lorimer , D. R. 2022, , 30, 2, 10.1007/s00159-022-00139-w

    2022 doi

  79. [88]

    2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  80. [89]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 928, 10.1038/s41550-019-0831-y

    Ravi , V. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 928, 10.1038/s41550-019-0831-y

    2019 doi

  81. [90]

    D., Bannister , K

    Ryder , S. D., Bannister , K. W., Bhandari , S., et al. 2023, Science, 382, 294, 10.1126/science.adf2678

    2023 doi

  82. [91]

    X., Heintz , K

    Safarzadeh , M., Prochaska , J. X., Heintz , K. E., & Fong , W.-f. 2020, , 905, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/abd03e

    2020 doi

  83. [92]

    R., Curtin , A

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

    2025 doi

  84. [93]

    1976, , 203, 297, 10.1086/154079

    Schechter , P. 1976, , 203, 297, 10.1086/154079

    1976 doi

  85. [94]

    2025, , 979, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9ddc

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

    2025 doi

  86. [95]

    M., Macquart , J

    Shannon , R. M., Macquart , J. P., Bannister , K. W., et al. 2018, , 562, 386, 10.1038/s41586-018-0588-y

    2018 doi

  87. [96]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16964, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16964

    Sharma , K., Ravi , V., Connor , L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16964, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16964

    2024 doi arXiv

  88. [97]

    W., Bhardwaj , M., et al

    Shin , K., Masui , K. W., Bhardwaj , M., et al. 2023, , 944, 105, 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf06

    2023 doi

  89. [98]

    2013, Science, 341, 53

    Thornton , D., Stappers , B., Bailes , M., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 53. 1307.1628

    2013 arXiv

  90. [99]

    2020, , 891, 82, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d69

    Wadiasingh , Z., Beniamini , P., Timokhin , A., et al. 2020, , 891, 82, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d69

    2020 doi

  91. [100]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.06281, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.06281

    Wang , Y., & van Leeuwen , J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.06281, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.06281

    2024 doi arXiv

  92. [101]

    2020, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 70, 1

    Yaron , O., Ofek , E., Gal-Yam , A., & Sass , A. 2020, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 70, 1

    2020

  93. [102]

    E., Adhikari , S., et al

    Zevin , M., Nugent , A. E., Adhikari , S., et al. 2022, , 940, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac91cd

    2022 doi

  94. [103]

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

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

    2023 doi

  95. [104]

    2024 a , Universe, 10, 207, 10.3390/universe10050207

    Zhang , J.-G., Li , Y., Zou , J.-M., et al. 2024 a , Universe, 10, 207, 10.3390/universe10050207

    2024 doi

  96. [105]

    J., Dong , X

    Zhang , K. J., Dong , X. F., Rodin , A. E., et al. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.00476, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.00476

    2024 doi arXiv

  97. [106]

    C., & Zhang , B

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

    2022 doi

  98. [107]

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

    Zhang , R. C., Zhang , B., Li , Y., & Lorimer , D. R. 2021, , 501, 157, 10.1093/mnras/staa3537

    2021 doi

  99. [108]

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

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

    2022 doi

  100. [109]

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

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

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.