Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 8 cited by

The magnetar model's energy crisis for a prolific repeating fast radio burst source

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 FRB 20240114A's 214-day burst output is shown to reach about 86.5% of a canonical magnetar's dipolar magnetic energy, requiring either unusually efficient radio emission or a more powerful central engine.

desk verdict A genuinely important dataset with a headline energy constraint that is one duty-cycle assumption away from being a non-constraint. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14707 v2 pith:CJ57QYA5 submitted 2025-07-19 astro-ph.HE

Jun-Shuo Zhang , Tian-Cong Wang , Pei Wang , Qin Wu , Di Li , Weiwei Zhu , Bing Zhang , He Gao
show 56 more authors
Ke-Jia Lee Jinlin Han Chao-Wei Tsai Fayin Wang Yong-Feng Huang Yuan-Chuan Zou Dengke Zhou Wanjin Lu Jintao Xie Jianhua Fang Jinhuang Cao Chen-Chen Miao Yuhao Zhu Yunchuan Chen Xiaofeng Cheng Yinan Ke Yong-Kun Zhang Long-Xuan Zhang Shuo Cao Shiyan Tian Zi-Wei Wu Chunfeng Zhang Jiarui Niu Dejiang Zhou Silu Xu Bojun Wang Huaxi Chen Xiang-Lei Chen Xianghan Cui Yi Feng Erbil Gügercinoğlu Yu-Xiang Huang Dongming Li Dong-Zi Li Ye Li Lin Lin Xiaohui Liu Rui Luo Jia-Wei Luo Chen-Hui Niu Qingyue Qu Yuanhong Qu Habtamu Menberu Tedila Chengjie Wang Wei-Yang Wang Yabiao Wang Yi-Dan Wang Suming Weng Yunsheng Wu Heng Xu Aiyuan Yang Yuan-Pei Yang Shihan Yew Wenfei Yu Lei Zhang Rushuang Zhao
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsFRB20240114Amagnetarenergybudgetrepeatingefficiencyobservationsmagneticmomentburstdistribution
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

Using FAST observations spread over 214 days, the paper collects 11,553 bursts from the repeating source FRB 20240114A — the largest burst sample ever obtained from a single fast radio burst source, exceeding the cumulative total of all previously published bursts. The paper argues that, under standard assumptions for radio efficiency, beaming, and the observing duty cycle, the source's total energy output over those 214 days reaches about 86.5% of the dipolar magnetic energy of a typical magnetar. If this is right, a canonical magnetar running on magnetic energy would be nearly exhausted in about 250 days, leaving no room for low-efficiency, wide-beaming emission models. The authors conclude that the central engine must either convert radio emission with exceptionally high efficiency or be a more powerful compact object than a typical magnetar.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is Eq. (1), the ratio $E_{\rm src}/E_{\rm mag}$, which converts a catalog of observed bursts into a fraction of a magnetar's magnetic reservoir. It combines the measured total radio energy $E_{\rm tot}$, the radio efficiency $\eta_r$, the global beaming factor $F_b$, and the observing duty cycle $\zeta$ through $E_{\rm src}=E_{\rm tot}F_b\eta_r^{-1}\zeta^{-1}$, packaged into the normalization $N_s=F_{b,0.1}\eta_{r,0.0001}^{-1}(\zeta/0.0066)^{-1}$. The argument's force flows through this single identity: every parameter choice reduces to a rescaling of the 86.5% figure.

What would settle it

Run a high-cadence or gap-filling monitoring campaign on FRB 20240114A (for example, follow it with another telescope between the FAST sessions); if bursts appear only in active episodes and the source is quiet for extended stretches, the duty-cycle correction $\zeta=0.0066$ overestimates the source energy, and $E_{\rm src}/E_{\rm mag}$ would drop below the 86.5% crisis value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the 214-day radio output of FRB 20240114A consumes nearly all of the dipolar magnetic energy of a canonical magnetar. Summing the 11,553 detected bursts gives a total isotropic radio energy of $9.62\times10^{41}$ erg; correcting for a radio efficiency $\eta_r=10^{-4}$, a global beaming factor $F_b=0.1$, and the small observing duty cycle $\zeta=33.86\,\mathrm{hr}/214\,\mathrm{days}\simeq0.0066$ yields a total source energy $E_{\rm src}=1.47\times10^{47}\,\mathrm{erg}\,N_s$. Dividing by the canonical magnetar dipole energy $E_{\rm mag}=\tfrac{1}{6}B_p^2R^3\simeq1.7\times10^{47}\,\mathrm{erg}\,(B_p/10^{15}\,\mathrm{G})^2(R/10^6\,\mathrm{cm})^3$, the paper obtains $E_{\rm src}/E_{\rm mag}\simeq86.5\%\,N_s(B_p/10^{15}\,\mathrm{G})^{-2}(R/10^6\,\mathrm{cm})^{-3}$, requiring $B_p>9.4\times10^{14}N_s^{1/2}R_6^{-3/2}$ G and a magnetic moment $\mu>4.7\times10^{32}N_s^{1/2}R_6^{3/2}$ G cm$^3$, with $R_6=R/10^6$ cm. The paper presents this as the most stringent energy-budget constraint on FRB central engines to date, exceeding the budgets of other known repeaters by about one and a half orders of magnitude.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the assumption that FRB 20240114A kept bursting at roughly its observed average rate during the unobserved weeks within the 214-day span, so the 33.86 hours of observing time can be scaled by $\zeta^{-1}=151.5$; if the source fell silent for part of that time, the inferred total energy—and the energy crisis—would shrink accordingly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A canonical magnetar with $\eta_r=10^{-4}$ would exhaust its dipole magnetic energy in roughly 250 days at this source's rate, so the engine cannot be a typical isolated magnetar unless the radio efficiency is much higher.
  • Low-efficiency, wide-beaming emission models, including the synchrotron maser shock scenario, are strongly disfavored because they require the source to spend nearly all its available magnetic energy in one active episode.
  • Magnetospheric models with narrow beams and flexible radio efficiency remain possible, but the paper notes that they need contrived parameter choices to satisfy the energy budget.
  • Because the source was still bursting at the end of the campaign, continued monitoring will push the cumulative energy upward and tighten the constraint further.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's energy bookkeeping assumes bursts continue at the observed average rate during unobserved stretches; if FRB 20240114A actually has quiet gaps, the $\zeta^{-1}=151.5$ correction could overstate the total energy by up to two orders of magnitude, and a gap-filling monitoring campaign would directly test this.
  • Counting only the dipole field may understate the available reservoir, since a young magnetar's internal toroidal or multipolar field could store additional energy; this is one route to the paper's own suggestion of a more powerful compact object.
  • The short waiting-time peak near 34 ms is nearly identical across several active repeaters, hinting at a common triggering timescale; if future samples confirm this, the energy crisis would generalize from one exceptional source to the repeating FRB class as a whole.
  • The paper itself notes that 8-bit saturation may have underestimated the fluxes of the brightest bursts; correcting this would raise $E_{\rm tot}$ and make the ratio in Eq. (1) even more adverse for typical magnetars.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports FAST observations of the repeating FRB 20240114A over 214 days, detecting 11,553 bursts above a 12-sigma fluence threshold. The authors characterize the bursts (energies, widths, DMs, waiting times, correlations), model the energy distribution as bimodal log-normal, and then use the total observed radio energy to build an energy budget for a magnetar central engine. Under assumed values of radio efficiency (10^-4), global beaming factor (0.1), and a duty-cycle correction (zeta = 0.0066), the inferred total source energy is 1.47e47 erg, which corresponds to 86.5% of the dipolar magnetic energy of a canonical magnetar with Bp = 1e15 G and R = 1e6 cm. The paper concludes that this either requires exceptionally high radio efficiency or a more powerful compact object than a typical magnetar, and it presents the magnetic-moment lower limit as the most stringent to date.

Significance. The observational dataset is a major asset: 11,553 bursts with a public catalog, careful calibration (saturation handling, DM refinement, completeness corrections), and a detailed statistical analysis of the energy distribution and waiting times. The energy-budget calculation is transparent and the arithmetic is internally consistent. If the inference could be robustly supported, it would place the strongest constraint yet on FRB central-engine models. However, the headline 86.5% ratio is conditional on a duty-cycle extrapolation that is not directly supported by the observations, so the significance of the central claim is substantially weaker than the abstract implies. The strengths of the paper are the data product and the statistical characterization; the energy-crisis conclusion needs to be reframed as one end of a wide range rather than a firm result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods §4, Eq. (6) and Eq. (1)] The 86.5% ratio is driven by the factor zeta^-1 = 151.5, which assumes the source emitted at the average observed rate throughout the full 214-day span. The data show the opposite: the burst rate varied from 4 to 729 hr^-1 with two distinct episodes (Fig. 1, Table 1), and the 57 sessions cover only 33.86 hours, i.e., 1.58% of the calendar. The only evidence for continuous activity is that the source was still bursting in the final session (20240829). If the true active fraction is f, the inferred Esrc scales as f/0.0066: for f = 0.1 the ratio is 8.65%, and for f = 0.01 it is 0.87%. The abstract and the concluding paragraphs present the f = 1 case without this qualification. This is load-bearing for the 'energy crisis' claim and should be either replaced by a firm lower limit based only on the observed active time, or presented with an explicit sensitivity analysis over f, with the 86.5% value clearly labeled as the continuous-activity upper end of the range.
  2. [Results and Supplementary Table 4] The statement that 'The total energy of this source exceeds that of other active repeaters by more than a factor of 35' is dominated by the duty-cycle correction rather than by the intrinsic output of the source. In Supplementary Table 4, the average energy rate Eavg (which does not include the zeta^-1 factor) shows a factor of about 12-18 excess over the other repeaters, whereas Esrc includes the 151.5 multiplier for FRB 20240114A against much smaller multipliers for the comparison sources. The factor-of-35 claim is therefore not a robust comparison of source energetics; it should be replaced or accompanied by a comparison of Eavg, or by a statement that both quantities inherit the same duty-cycle assumption.
  3. [Abstract and §1] The abstract states that 'the estimated total isotropic burst energy of this source exceeds 86% of the dipolar magnetic energy', and the main text refers to 'the total isotropic equivalent energy released (Esrc)'. This is misleading: Esrc is not the isotropic equivalent energy but a model-dependent total source energy that includes corrections for beaming (multiplicative factor 0.1), efficiency (10^-4), and duty cycle (1/0.0066). The wording should be changed to 'inferred total source energy under the assumptions described in Methods', and the abstract should explicitly mention the duty-cycle assumption, since it is the most fragile input to the calculation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Main text, 'average burst rate'] The text quotes an average burst rate of 249 hr^-1 over the 214-day campaign, but 11,553 bursts divided by 33.86 hours of exposure gives about 341 hr^-1. Please clarify how the 249 hr^-1 value is defined (e.g., an average weighted by session duration or a median) or correct the number.
  2. [Methods §4 and Eq. (1)] The normalization factor Ns is introduced in Methods Section 4 but appears in the main-text Eq. (1) before its definition. Consider defining Ns at first use in the main text or moving the definition earlier.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption states that the ratio and magnetic moment are 'normalized by Ns', but it does not explain that Ns encodes the assumed values of eta_r, Fb, and zeta. Please add a one-sentence explanation for readers who skip the Methods section.
  4. [Main text, 'persistent activity'] The phrase 'the source displayed persistent activity throughout the campaign' overstates what the data show; the source was detected in every observing session, but the sessions sample only 1.58% of the calendar. Suggest rewording to 'the source was detected in every observing session' to avoid implying uninterrupted emission.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 86.5% energy ratio is a direct calculation from measured fluences and stated parameter choices, not a fitted or self-referential result.

full rationale

The paper's central energy-budget claim is derived by a transparent chain: the observed total radio energy Etot (9.62e41 erg) is multiplied by three explicit correction factors, Fb (beaming), eta_r (radio efficiency), and zeta (duty cycle), in Eq. (6) to obtain Esrc, then divided by the standard magnetar dipolar energy Emag = (1/6)Bp^2 R^3. The 86.5% figure is an arithmetic consequence of the adopted typical values (eta_r=1e-4, Fb=0.1, zeta=0.0066), not an output that has been tuned to match the conclusion. The normalization Ns is explicitly defined as Fb,0.1 eta_r,0.0001^-1 (zeta/0.0066)^-1, so it is a bookkeeping variable that equals 1 under the stated typical choices; changing the assumptions changes the ratio, but this is parameter sensitivity rather than circularity. The most fragile link is the duty-cycle extrapolation: the paper states 'Assuming the burst remains active at the average burst rate during the spanning time of our observation campaign' and acknowledges that 'the value of zeta may be subject to change as ongoing observations provide further insights into the source's activity.' This is an acknowledged observational assumption with potentially large uncertainty, and it belongs in a correctness-risk discussion, not in a circularity finding. The many self-citations (e.g., Refs. 11-15, 32) are used for comparison with other repeaters or for supporting side remarks about starquakes; the present energy-budget calculation does not import its conclusion from those papers, so the self-citations are not load-bearing. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no known result is repackaged. The derivation is self-contained against the measured burst catalog and stated physical assumptions, so the circularity score is low.

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

The central energy budget rests on three assumed scalings: radio efficiency eta_r=1e-4 (transferred from FRB 200428), beaming factor Fb=0.1, and duty cycle zeta=0.0066 extrapolating 33.86 hours to 214 days. The duty-cycle factor is the least secure: it scales the source energy by 151 and assumes continuous activity. The dipole magnetic energy reference (Bp=1e15 G, R=1e6 cm) is a standard magnetar benchmark, but total magnetic energy including internal fields could be larger.

free parameters (5)
  • Radio radiation efficiency eta_r = 1e-4
    Adopted typical value based on FRB 200428 upper limit (Refs. 47, 48). Uncertainty spans 1e-4 to 1e-5 and directly scales Esrc and the derived magnetic moment limit.
  • Global beaming factor Fb = 0.1
    Assumed typical value for FRB emission; Fb=0.1 normalizes Ns. A smaller or larger Fb changes Esrc linearly.
  • Duty cycle zeta = 0.0066
    Ratio of observed exposure (33.86 hr) to the 214-day span; used to extrapolate total source energy to unobserved periods, assuming continuous activity at the average burst rate.
  • Polar surface magnetic field Bp (typical) = 1e15 G
    Reference magnetar value used in Eq. (1) to compute 86.5%. The derived constraint is expressed as a lower limit on Bp and the magnetic moment.
  • Magnetar radius R (typical) = 1e6 cm
    Reference neutron star radius used in Eq. (1); the energy ratio scales as R^-3.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption FRB 20240114A is powered by a magnetar whose available energy is its dipolar magnetic energy Emag=(1/6)Bp^2 R^3.
    The energy crisis is framed within the magnetar model; the dipole reservoir is the standard reference, but internal toroidal fields would provide additional energy.
  • domain assumption The source distance DL=633.87 Mpc (z=0.1306) from Planck cosmology and host galaxy identification.
    The energy calculation in Eq. (2) relies on this distance, taken from literature (Refs. 42, 43).
  • ad hoc to paper The average burst rate during observed sessions is representative of unobserved periods over the 214-day span.
    The factor zeta^-1=151.5 extrapolates 33.86 hr of data to the full span; if the source is episodic, Esrc is overestimated by up to this factor. Located in Methods section 4, Eq. (6).
  • domain assumption Radio efficiency eta_r=1e-4 inferred from the single event FRB 200428 applies to FRB 20240114A.
    Transfers an efficiency measured from one Galactic magnetar burst to a cosmologically distant repeater; actual efficiency could be higher.
  • domain assumption Global beaming factor Fb=0.1 is typical for FRBs.
    No direct beaming measurement for this source; Fb appears linearly in Esrc.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The magnetar model's energy crisis for a prolific repeating fast radio burst source." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CJ57QYA5

@misc{pith2026250714707,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The magnetar model's energy crisis for a prolific repeating fast radio burst source},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CJ57QYA5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14707}
}
abstract

Fast radio bursts (FRBs) are widely considered to originate from magnetars that power the explosion through releasing magnetic energy. Active repeating FRBs have been seen to produce hundreds of bursts per hour and can stay active for months, thus may provide stringent constraints on the energy budget of FRBs' central engine. Within a time span of 214 days, we detected 11,553 bursts from the hyper-active FRB 20240114A that reached a peak burst rate of 729 hr$^{-1}$. This is the largest burst sample from any single FRB source, exceeding the cumulative total of all published bursts from all known FRBs to date. Assuming typical values of radio efficiency and beaming factor, the estimated total isotropic burst energy of this source exceeds 86% of the dipolar magnetic energy of a typical magnetar. The total released energy from this source exceeds that of other known repeaters by about one and a half orders of magnitude, yielding the most stringent lower limit of $4.7\times10^{32}$ G cm$^3$ for the magnetar's magnetic moment. The source remained active at the end of this observation campaign. Our findings thus require either the FRB's central magnetar engine's possessing exceptionally high emission efficiency or a more powerful compact object than a typical magnetar.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14707 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The time-dependent energy distribution and detection of the bursts from FRB 20240114A during the observation campaign. Panel A: The length of each observation session is represented by the grey bar, while the cumulative number distribution of the bursts is indicated by the red solid line with dots. Panel B: Time-dependent burst energy distribution. The blue dots indicate the bursts, while the red dots represent the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Burst rate distribution of the isotropic equivalent energy for bursts from FRB 20240114A. The 90% detection completeness threshold is shown by the vertical gray dashed line. Panel A: Burst rate distribution of energy. The blue solid line represents the best-fit single log￾normal model of the distribution. The red solid line indicates the optimal bimodal fit, with its indi￾vidual components delineated as red dashed l… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The isotropic energy fraction and magnetic moment of FRBs. The plot presents the ratio between isotropic equivalent energy of FRBs and the dipole magnetic energy of a typical magnetar, given as Esrc/Emag, alongside the burst number per episode, Nburst, for active repeating FRBs. The percentages indicated on the bars represent the corresponding ratio for each FRB source. The lower limit on the magnetic moment of the … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

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

  1. Can repeating and non-repeating FRBs be drawn from the same population?

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    FRB sources follow a Zipf-like inverse relation between number density and burst rate, and a single power-law population with index a≈1.1-1.3 can explain the observed repeater fraction, the SGR count ratio, and the cl...

  2. Beyond Spin: QCD Magnetars

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

    A unified model attributes AXPs/SGRs, SLSNe-I, LFBOTs, and FRBs to a single quark-deconfinement engine, with magnetar-like fields set by neutron-star mass rather than birth spin.

  3. Cross-validation of six dispersion measure estimation methods for FRB 20240114A

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

    Cross-validation of six DM methods on 2874 FRB 20240114A bursts shows morphology-driven scatter and residual second-to-minute apparent DM fluctuations that cannot be real line-of-sight plasma changes.

  4. Indication for Decreasing Dispersion Measure in the Population of Repeating Fast Radio Bursts and Connection to Young Supernova Remnant Expansion

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Population-level statistical test on repeating FRB DM evolution finds decreasing trends more common than increasing (p=0.033), consistent with young SNR expansion reducing local electron density.

  5. Beyond dynamic scaling: rare events break universality

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Power-law blob deposition yields τ-dependent growth exponents and a second length scale that breaks Family–Vicsek scaling for τ<3.

  6. Searching for Periodicity in FRB 20240114A

    astro-ph.HE 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    FRB 20240114A shows no detectable periodic modulation of its burst rate down to about 15% amplitude across periods from 0.01 s to hours.

  7. Long-term simultaneous 2.25/8.60~GHz monitoring of the newly-discovered repeating FRB~20240114A

    astro-ph.HE 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A year of simultaneous 2.25 and 8.60 GHz monitoring of FRB 20240114A caught 155 bursts at the low frequency, none at the high frequency, revealing strong frequency-dependent activity.

  8. No Strong Evidence for Plasma Lensing in FRB 20240114A

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    FAST and Parkes data show misaligned magnification peaks, no bandwidth narrowing, and chance-level carbon-copy pairs, so plasma lensing is not required for FRB 20240114A variability.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 8 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

    Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M. A., Narkevic, D. J. & Crawford, F. A Bright Millisecond Radio Burst of Extragalactic Origin. Science 318, 777–780 (2007)

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    The Discovery and Scientific Potential of Fast Radio Bursts

    Bailes, M. The Discovery and Scientific Potential of Fast Radio Bursts. Science 378, eabj3043 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Petro ff, E., Hessels, J. W. T. & Lorimer, D. R. Fast Radio Bursts at the Dawn of the 2020s. Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 30, 2 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Bochenek, C. D. et al. A Fast Radio Burst Associated with a Galactic Magnetar. Nature 587, 59–62 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    A Bright Millisecond-Duration Radio Burst from a Galactic Magnetar

    The CHIME /FRB Collaboration et al. A Bright Millisecond-Duration Radio Burst from a Galactic Magnetar. Nature 587, 54–58 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    = Etot Fb,0.1η−1 r,0.0001ζ−1 1/6B2 p,15R3 6 ≈ 86.5%Ns( Bp 1015 G)−2( R 106 cm)−3, (1) where Etot is the total observed radio energy of the bursts, Ns represents emission properties nor- malized to typical values, µ is the magnetic moment of the central magnetar, ζ = 0.0066 is the observational duty cycle used to scale emission from unobserved periods, η0....

    work page

  7. [7]

    Lu, W., & Bhattacharya, Mukul Fast Radio Burst Source Properties and Curvature Radiation Model

    Kumar, P. Lu, W., & Bhattacharya, Mukul Fast Radio Burst Source Properties and Curvature Radiation Model. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 468, 2726–2739 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    & Zhang, Bing A Unified Picture of Galactic and Cosmological Fast Radio Bursts

    Lu, W., Kumar, P. & Zhang, Bing A Unified Picture of Galactic and Cosmological Fast Radio Bursts. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 498, 1397–1405 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Yang, Y . -P. & Zhang, B. Fast Radio Bursts and Their High-energy Counterparts from Mag- netar Magnetospheres. Astrophys. J. 919, 89 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Margalit, B., Metzger, B. D. & Sironi, L. Constraints on the Engines of Fast Radio Bursts. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 494, 4627–4644 (2020). 9

    2020

  3. [11]

    D., Margalit, B

    Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B. & Sironi, L. Fast Radio Bursts as Synchrotron Maser Emis- sion from Decelerating Relativistic Blast Waves. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 485, 4091–4106 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Li, D. et al. A Bimodal Burst Energy Distribution of a Repeating Fast Radio Burst Source. Nature 598, 267-271 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Niu, C. -H. et al. A Repeating Fast Radio Burst Associated with a Persistent Radio Source. Nature 606, 873-877 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Xu, H. et al. A Fast Radio Burst Source at a Complex Magnetized Site in a Barred Galaxy. Nature 609, 685-688 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    -K.et al

    Zhang, Y . -K.et al. FAST Observations of an Extremely Active Episode of FRB 20201124A. II. Energy Distribution. Res. Astron. Astrophys. 22, 124002 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    -K.et al

    Zhang, Y . -K.et al. FAST Observations of FRB 20220912A: Burst Properties and Polarization Characteristics. Astrophys. J. 955, 142 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Abbott, T. C. et al. Frb-V oe: A Real-time Virtual Observatory Event Alert Service for Fast Radio Bursts. Astron. J. 169, 39 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Nan, R. -D. et al. The Five-Hundred-Meter Aperture Spherical Radio Telescope (FAST) project. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D. 20, 989–1024 (2011). 10

    2011

  11. [19]

    Li, D. et al. FAST in Space: Considerations for a Multibeam, Multipurpose Survey Using China’s 500-m Aperture Spherical Radio Telescope (FAST). IEEE Microw Mag 19, 112–119 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Y .et al

    Xu, J. Y .et al. Blinkverse: A Database of Fast Radio Bursts. Universe 9, 330 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Fang, J. H. et al. TransientVerse: A Comprehensive Real-Time Alert and Multi-Wavelength Analysis System for Transient Astronomical Events. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.04247 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Nimmo, K. et al. Highly polarized microstructure from the repeating FRB 20180916B. Nat. Astron. 5, 594-603 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Lin, H. -H. et al. DM-power: an algorithm for high precision dispersion measure with appli- cation to fast radio bursts. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.13677 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Lu, W. B. & Phinney, E. S. Imprint of local environment on fast radio burst observations. Res. Astron. Astrophys. 496, 3308–3313 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Diverse Polarization Angle Swings from a Repeating Fast Radio Burst Source

    Luo, R., et al. Diverse Polarization Angle Swings from a Repeating Fast Radio Burst Source. Nature 586, 693–696 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Niu, J. R. et al. Sudden Polarization Angle Jumps of the Repeating Fast Radio Burst FRB 20201124A. Astrophys. J. Lett. 972, L20 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Mckinven, R. et al. A Pulsar-like Polarization Angle Swing from a Nearby Fast Radio Burst. Nature 637, 43–47 (2025). 11

    2025

  20. [28]

    Nimmo, K. et al. Magnetospheric Origin of a Fast Radio Burst Constrained Using Scintillation. Nature 637, 48–51 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Jiang, J. C. et al. Ninety Percent Circular Polarization Detected in a Repeating Fast Radio Burst. National Science Review 12, L20 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Zhang, B

    Szary, A. Zhang, B. Melikidze, George I. Gil, J. & Xu, Ren-Xin RADIO EFFICIENCY OF PULSARS. Astrophys. J. 784, 59 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    Cook, A. M. et al. Contemporaneous X-Ray Observations of 30 Bright Radio Bursts from the Prolific Fast Radio Burst Source FRB 20220912A. Astrophys. J. 974, 170 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Qu, Y . H. & Zhang, B. Coherent Inverse Compton Scattering in Fast Radio Bursts Revisited. Astrophys. J. 972, 124 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    On the Energy Budget of Starquake-induced Repeating Fast Radio Bursts

    Wang, W.-Y .et al. On the Energy Budget of Starquake-induced Repeating Fast Radio Bursts. Res. Astron. Astrophys. 24, 105012 (2024). Acknowledgements This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) Programs Nos. 12588202, 11690024, 11725313, 11988...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Shin, K. et al. The CHIME /FRB Discovery of the Extremely Active Fast Radio Burst Source FRB 20240114A. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13297 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Tian, J. et al. Detection and Localization of the Highly Active FRB 20240114A with MeerKAT. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 533, 3174–3193 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Wang, P. et al. Decadal evolution of a repeating fast radio burst source. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.15790 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    New Search Techniques for Binary Pulsars

    Ransom, S.-M. New Search Techniques for Binary Pulsars. Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard University (2001)

    2001

  30. [38]

    Zhang, Y .-K. et al. DRAFTS: A Deep-learning-based Radio Fast Transient Search Pipeline. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 276, 20 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Wang, P. et al. X-Ray Hardening Preceding the Onset of SGR 1935 +2154’s Radio Pulsar Phase. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 275, 39 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Xie, J.-T. et al. Polarization Characteristics of the Hyperactive FRB 20240114A. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 278, 49 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Decoding FRB energetics and frequency features hidden by observational incompleteness

    Hu, C.-R., et al.. Decoding FRB energetics and frequency features hidden by observational incompleteness. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.18084 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    The Fundamental Performance of FAST with 19-Beam Receiver at L Band

    Jiang, P., et al. The Fundamental Performance of FAST with 19-Beam Receiver at L Band. Res. Astron. Astrophys. 20, 064 (2020). 31

    2020

  35. [43]

    FRB 20240114A with FAST: Morphological Classifica- tion and Drifting Rate Measurements in a Burst-Cluster Framework

    Zhang, L.-X., et al. FRB 20240114A with FAST: Morphological Classifica- tion and Drifting Rate Measurements in a Burst-Cluster Framework. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.14711

  36. [44]

    F., Yan, Z., Xing, Y ., Zhang, B

    Zhang, X., Yu, W. F., Yan, Z., Xing, Y ., Zhang, B.. A Flaring Radio Counterpart to a Fast Radio Burst Reveals a Newborn Magnetized Engine. Preprint at https: //arxiv.org/abs/2501.14247 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Fast Radio Burst Energetics and Detectability from High Redshifts

    Zhang, B. Fast Radio Burst Energetics and Detectability from High Redshifts. Astrophys. J. Lett. 867, L21 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Gourdji, K. et al. A Sample of Low-energy Bursts from FRB 121102. Astrophys. J. Lett. 877, L19 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    Planck Collaboration Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters. Astron. & Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    Chen, X.-L. et al. The Host Galaxy of the Hyperactive Repeating FRB 20240114A: Behind a Galaxy Cluster. Astrophys. J. Lett. 980, L24 (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    & Anderson, D

    Burnham, K.-P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. Springer, New York (2002)

    2002

  42. [50]

    Huang, Y .-X. et al. The Flat Tail in the Burst Energy Distribution of FRB 20240114A. Res. Astron. Astrophys. 25, 085009 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    The physics of fast radio bursts

    Zhang, B. The physics of fast radio bursts. Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 035005 (2023). 32

    2023

  44. [52]

    Li, C. K. et al. HXMT Identification of a Non-Thermal X-ray Burst from SGR J1935 +2154 and with FRB 200428. Nat. Astron. 5, 378–384 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Mereghetti, S. et al. INTEGRAL Discovery of a Burst with Associated Radio Emission from the Magnetar SGR 1935+2154. Astrophys. J. Lett. 898, L29 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Kaspi, V . M. & Beloborodov, A. M. Magnetars. Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 55, 261-301 (2017)

    2017

  47. [55]

    T., Manchester, R

    Hobbs, G.-B., Edwards, R. T., Manchester, R. N. Tempo2, a New Pulsar-Timing Package - I. An Overview. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 369, 655–672 (2006)

    2006

  48. [56]

    Luo, J.-W. et al. Hyper-Active Repeating Fast Radio Bursts from Rotation Modulated Star- quakes on Magnetars. Astrophys. J. 988, 62 (2025)

    2025

  49. [57]

    Zhou, D. K. et al. Searching for Periodic Signals and Quasi-Periodic Oscillations from an Ex- tremely Active Cycle of FRB 20240114A. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.14708 (2025). Data availability Observational properties of 11,553 burst events of FRB 20240114A measured...

    2025

Pith tools

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