Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

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

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 A reweighting of CHIME data shows FRB rates track cosmic star formation and that FRB energies do not evolve with redshift.

desk verdict The BIC cutoffs are internally inconsistent, so the paper's decisive exclusions don't hold, but the qualitative SFH-tracking result is probably right. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23122 v3 pith:YNTIH4W4 submitted 2025-07-30 astro-ph.HE

Qing-Zhen Lei , Xin-Zhe Wang , Can-Min Deng This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsenergydistributionredshiftSchechterfunctionstarformationhistoryCHIME/FRBcatalogselectioneffectsdispersionmeasure
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

This paper tries to establish that the fast radio burst population, once corrected for CHIME's selection effects, has an energy distribution described by a Schechter function with a power-law index near $-1.5$ and an exponential cutoff near $E_\mathrm{c}=2.82\times10^{41}$ erg, and that the volumetric burst rate simply tracks the cosmic star formation history with no time delay and no redshift evolution of energies. It argues that earlier claims of strong redshift evolution or multi-gigayear delays came from incomplete handling of selection biases, and that CHIME's injection-system data can remove those biases. If correct, most FRBs originate from young stellar populations, and the FRB rate can serve as a star-formation tracer. The paper also derives a local volumetric rate of roughly $\Phi_0=4.68\times10^4\,\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ for bursts with $E>10^{39}$ erg.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the injection-system reweighting formula, Eq. (4): $W(F,\mathrm{DM},\Theta,\lambda)=\frac{\Delta t\,f_{\mathrm{sky}}}{\epsilon_{\mathrm{inj}}N_{\mathrm{inj}}}\frac{R(F,\mathrm{DM}|\lambda)}{P_{\mathrm{inj}}(F)P_{\mathrm{inj}}(\mathrm{DM})}\frac{P_{\mathrm{fid}}(\Theta)}{P_{\mathrm{inj}}(\Theta)}$. It transfers the fixed population of five million injected CHIME events into any candidate model's predicted S/N-DM counts, thereby absorbing beam response, RFI, and fluence-calibration biases without re-injecting each model. The paper uses this reweighted likelihood to compare two energy models (Schechter function and broken power law) and five redshift models (SFH, $[\mathrm{SFH}]^n$, $\mathrm{SFH}(1+z)^\beta$, $(1+z)^\delta$, and delayed SFH with lognormal or power-law delay distributions), selecting models by BIC with the pure SFH model as reference.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be an updated CHIME injection campaign that explicitly measures whether detected subsets correlate intrinsic burst width and scattering with fluence and DM; sizeable correlations would invalidate Eq. (4) and shift the inferred energy and redshift distributions. Alternatively, a future catalog with many localized host-galaxy redshifts showing a volumetric FRB rate inconsistent with the cosmic star formation history, or a characteristic cutoff energy that moves with redshift, would overturn the paper's central conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using 225 bursts selected from the first CHIME/FRB catalog together with the CHIME injection-system data, the paper computes a weight $W(F,\mathrm{DM},\Theta,\lambda)$ for every injected synthetic burst that converts the fixed injected population into any candidate population model, then fits the two-dimensional S/N-DM distribution with a binned Poisson likelihood. The preferred description is a Schechter (cutoff power-law) energy function $P(E)\propto(E/E_\mathrm{c})^{\gamma}\exp(-E/E_\mathrm{c})$ with $\gamma=-1.49^{+0.37}_{-0.27}$ and $E_\mathrm{c}=2.82^{+2.43}_{-1.47}\times10^{41}$ erg, combined with a rate that follows the cosmic star formation history, $\Phi(z)=\Phi_0(1+z)^{-1}\mathrm{SFH}(z)/\mathrm{SFH}(0)$. The paper finds no evidence for energy evolution of the form $E\propto(1+z)^k$ ($k=0.08^{+0.32}_{-0.33}$), no need for an extra $(1+z)^\beta$ factor ($\beta=0.11^{+0.91}_{-0.94}$), and it rejects delayed star-formation models and the broken power-law energy form by Bayesian information criterion. The conclusion is that the FRB population predominantly originates from young stellar populations and that its energy function is redshift-independent.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that, among the simulated bursts CHIME used to calibrate its selection, a burst's duration and scattering smearing are unrelated to its brightness or distance; the paper acknowledges that CHIME's injection cuts may introduce weak links here but expects them to be minor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the SFH-tracking model is right, FRBs are a clean tracer of recent massive-star formation, and their volumetric rate follows $\mathrm{SFH}(z)$ without invoking compact-object-merger or old-magnetar delay channels.
  • A Schechter energy function with $\gamma\approx-1.5$ and $E_\mathrm{c}\approx2.8\times10^{41}$ erg implies a real deficit of very energetic bursts relative to a pure power law.
  • Because the energy-evolution parameter $k$ is consistent with zero, the same energy function can be applied at all redshifts in future population and cosmological calculations.
  • The local rate $\Phi_0\approx4.7\times10^4\,\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ above $10^{39}$ erg provides a normalization that can be compared with young-magnetar birth rates.
  • Models with multi-gigayear delays are disfavored by $\Delta\mathrm{BIC}\gtrsim23$, so they should not be invoked to explain the bulk of CHIME-detected bursts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's claims, if the non-evolution result holds in larger samples, the FRB energy function could serve as a redshift-independent distribution for cosmological distance estimates, but the paper does not make that application explicitly.
  • A natural testable extension, not stated in the paper, is to apply the same reweighting machinery to the second CHIME/FRB catalog; the implied prediction is that the SFH-plus-Schechter model remains preferred and the evolution parameters stay consistent with zero.
  • The disagreement with steeper power-law indices from other telescopes ($\gamma<-1.8$) suggests that either residual sample-dependent selection effects or real population differences separate CHIME from ASKAP and Parkes; resolving this would require a joint injection-calibrated analysis across instruments.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper applies the Shin et al. (2023) injection-system reweighting method to the 225 CHIME/FRB Catalog 1 bursts used in that work, in order to infer the intrinsic energy and redshift distributions of the FRB population. It fits a binned Poisson likelihood in S/N-DM space and compares two energy distributions (cutoff power law / Schechter function and broken power law), five redshift-evolution models (pure SFH, [SFH]^n, SFH(1+z)^β, delayed SFH with log-normal or power-law delays, and (1+z)^δ), and one energy-evolution model E∝(1+z)^k. Using BIC for model selection, the paper concludes that the cutoff power law is preferred, that the energy distribution does not evolve with redshift, and that the FRB rate tracks the cosmic star formation history without additional delays or evolution factors; it reports local volumetric rate logΦ0 = 4.67 and cutoff log Ec = 41.45.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper would strengthen the case that most FRBs originate from young stellar populations and would resolve an apparent tension between CHIME-based population studies that favor SFH tracking and other studies reporting delayed or power-law redshift evolution. The paper has the merit of using the public injection-system data and following a selection-correction method that is currently among the most careful available; the corner plots and KS tests provide useful posterior checks. The posterior constraints on n, β, k, and the energy-function parameters are informative regardless of model selection. However, the model-selection evidence, which carries the abstract's central claims, is currently undermined by an internal inconsistency in the reported BIC values; the delay-model rejection also rests on chains flagged as non-converged. These issues are correctable but are load-bearing for the paper's headline conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Eq. (29), Table 2] The reported ΔBIC values are inconsistent with the stated BIC definition. The models [SFH]^n, SFH(1+z)^β, and SFH(z) with E∝(1+z)^k each add exactly one free parameter to the reference SFH+Schechter model and contain the reference as a special case, so their maximum log-likelihood cannot be lower than the reference's. With N=300 bins, the maximum possible ΔBIC for one extra parameter is ln300≈5.7 (or ln225≈5.4 if N counts bursts), yet the table reports ΔBIC=12.10, 12.12, and 12.09. The same bound is violated by the delay-model rows (ΔBIC=23.59 with one extra parameter, ΔBIC=28.88 with two) and by the broken power-law row (ΔBIC=13.31 with one extra parameter). The near-uniform ΔBIC≈12 for three independent one-parameter extensions suggests a systematic bookkeeping error, for example a penalty of 2K ln N or the use of posterior medians rather than lnL_max in Eq. (29). Because the abstract's claims that the Schechter function is 'best described' and that no delayed or redshift-evolution component is required rest on these values, the model-selection evidence must be recomputed and the corresponding conclusions reworded.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (4), footnote 2] The selection-correction weights factorize the injected joint distribution as P_inj(F)P_inj(DM)P_inj(Θ), which assumes that the intrinsic pulse width ω and scattering timescale τ are independent of F and DM. The text acknowledges that CHIME's injection cuts may introduce weak correlations and states that the effect is 'expected to be minor', but no quantitative test is presented. Since every headline parameter constraint is derived by applying these weights to the detected injected bursts, a violation of this assumption would propagate directly into the inferred energy and redshift distributions. I ask the authors to add a sensitivity test, for example by re-estimating the weights with a correlated model for the detected subset or by repeating the analysis after removing the parameter regions affected by the cuts, and to report the parameter shifts. The related limitation in footnote 2, that the spectral index α is not present in the injection dataset and its effect is assumed to be captured indirectly through the fluence-DM-S/N reweighting, should also be quantified rather than stated as an expectation.
  3. [Table 2, note c] Several delay-model runs are flagged as 'fail to converge' for the delay parameters, for example logτ̄ and logστ in the SFH_dL rows, yet Table 2 reports ΔBIC=28.88 for this model and the paper uses that value to reject the log-normal delay scenario. A BIC comparison is only meaningful at the maximum of the likelihood; if the MCMC chains have not converged, neither the maximum nor the posterior median is reliable. The rejection of the delayed-SFH hypothesis should be verified with longer chains, a different sampler, or a profile-likelihood calculation before being stated as a firm conclusion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title] The title in the draft contains a stray space in 'F ast Radio Burst'; this should be corrected to 'Fast Radio Burst'.
  2. [Table 2] In the [SFH]^n row, the uncertainty on α is typeset as '-1.48+0.29−1.29', which appears to be a typographical error; the lower error is likely -0.29 rather than -1.29.
  3. [Table 2, notes] The note states that τ, στ, and ατ are in units of Gyr, but ατ in Eq. (19) is a dimensionless power-law index; only τ and στ carry time units.
  4. [Section 2] The sentence 'This 225 bursts include 210 non-repeating FRBs and 15 repeating sources' should read 'These 225 bursts include...'.
  5. [Section 3, Eq. (3)] The sentence 'dividing the total number of detected injected bursts by the total initial population of injected bursts' is difficult to reconcile with Eq. (3), where the denominator is R_inj; clarifying the units of R_inj and the roles of detected versus all injected bursts would help the reader verify the normalization of the weights.
  6. [References] The reference list contains duplicates: Gardenier et al. 2021a and 2021b are identical, James 2023a and 2023b are identical, and Marcote et al. 2020 appears twice; these should be consolidated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the FRB population results are free-parameter likelihood fits to CHIME data with external injection-system selection corrections, and no claim reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

None of the paper's central claims reduce to its inputs by construction. The energy and redshift distribution parameters (gamma, Ec, n, beta, k, delta, Phi0) are free parameters of the binned Poisson likelihood in Eq. (1) and are estimated by MCMC against the observed 15x20 S/N-DM data, with selection corrections supplied by the CHIME injection system through the reweighting formula Eq. (4). The weights are the ratio of the model rate R(F,DM|lambda) to the injected population P_inj, so they implement a reweighting of external injection data; they do not fix the fitted values of the model parameters. The preference for the Schechter function and for the SFH redshift model is asserted from BIC model comparison (Eq. 29, Table 2), not encoded in the model definitions themselves. Self-citations (e.g., Shin et al. 2023 for the method; Deng et al. 2019, 2021 for context) are methodological or contextual, not load-bearing for the central conclusions. The limitations stated in the text, such as the assumed independence of tau and omega from F and DM in the injection data (Section 3) and the treatment of spectral index via a proxy rather than through the injection completeness, are explicit assumptions about selection corrections rather than circular definitions. Separately, the reported DeltaBIC values for the nested one-parameter extensions (about 12) exceed the theoretical maximum K ln N of roughly 5.4 to 5.7 implied by Eq. (29) for N = 225 or 300, which suggests an internal bookkeeping inconsistency, but that is a statistical consistency issue and not a circular-reasoning pattern. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against external data and the circularity burden is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 13 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the selection-function correction (injection weights) and the DM-redshift model, both of which are assumptions taken from prior work. The energy and redshift distribution forms are fitted models, not derived from first principles. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (13)
  • gamma (Schechter power-law index) = -1.49 (+0.37/-0.27)
    Power-law slope of the energy distribution; fitted to the S/N-DM distribution.
  • Ec (Schechter cutoff energy) = 10^41.45 erg (+0.27/-0.32)
    Exponential cutoff energy in the energy distribution.
  • Phi0 (local volumetric rate) = 10^4.67 Gpc^-3 yr^-1
    Normalization of the volumetric event rate at z=0.
  • mu_host (lognormal host DM mean) = 10^2.07 pc cm^-3
    Mean of the host-galaxy DM contribution distribution.
  • sigma_host (lognormal host DM std) = 10^0.37 pc cm^-3
    Width of the host-galaxy DM distribution.
  • alpha (spectral index) = -1.43 (+0.25/-0.27)
    FRB spectral index used in the fluence-energy conversion; fitted with Gaussian prior -1.5 +/- 0.3.
  • n ([SFH]^n model index) = 1.08 (+0.40/-0.38)
    Extra SFH power-law index in the alternative redshift model; consistent with 1.
  • beta (extra SFH evolution) = 0.11 (+0.91/-0.94)
    Additional (1+z)^beta evolution factor; consistent with 0.
  • delta (power-law evolution index) = 2.44 (+0.97/-0.89)
    Index in the (1+z)^delta model.
  • k (energy evolution index) = 0.08 (+0.32/-0.33)
    Index for energy evolution E proportional to (1+z)^k; consistent with 0.
  • log tau_bar (log-normal delay mean) = 0.74 (+1.38/-0.49) [log Gyr]
    Mean of the log-normal delay distribution; parameter fails to converge.
  • log sigma_tau (log-normal delay std) = 0.83 (+0.60/-0.57) [log Gyr]
    Width of the log-normal delay distribution; parameter fails to converge.
  • alpha_tau (power-law delay index) = 1.43 (+0.38/-0.37)
    Index of the power-law delay distribution.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption CHIME injection system accurately characterizes the selection function for FRBs.
    The weighting method in Eq. (4) assumes the injected population and detection outcomes from Merryfield et al. (2022) correctly represent selection effects for Catalog 1 bursts.
  • domain assumption Pulse width omega and scattering timescale tau are independent of fluence F and DM in the injected population.
    Stated in Section 3 after Eq. (4); the paper acknowledges weak correlations may exist due to injection cuts.
  • domain assumption The DM-redshift relation follows the Macquart relation with A=3, B=3, F=0.32, and a lognormal host DM distribution (Eqs. 23-27).
    Used to construct P(DM|z) in Eq. (6); parameters fixed from prior literature (Macquart et al. 2020).
  • domain assumption DMMW = 80 pc cm^-3 is fixed.
    Follows Shin et al. (2023); the paper argues its uncertainty is absorbed by the fitted host DM.
  • domain assumption The SFH from Madau & Dickinson (2014) is the correct cosmic star formation history.
    Used in Eqs. (12)-(16) for the baseline redshift model.
  • standard math Flat Lambda CDM cosmology with H0=67.4, Omega_m=0.315, Omega_Lambda=0.685.
    Used for luminosity distance and volume elements; standard cosmology.
  • domain assumption The spectral index alpha affects only the fluence-energy conversion, not the selection function.
    The paper states alpha is not in the injected dataset and is captured indirectly via reweighting (Section 3 footnote 2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Comprehensive Study of the Energy and Redshift Distributions of the Fast Radio Burst Population Based on the First CHIME/FRB Catalog." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YNTIH4W4

@misc{pith2026250723122,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Comprehensive Study of the Energy and Redshift Distributions of the Fast Radio Burst Population Based on the First CHIME/FRB Catalog},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YNTIH4W4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23122}
}
abstract

Fast radio bursts (FRBs) are brief, high-energy bursts of radio waves from extragalactic sources, and their origin remains an open question. In this paper, we perform a comprehensive analysis of the FRB population using the first CHIME/FRB catalog, focusing on their energy and redshift distribution, with careful consideration of selection effects. We investigate a range of models, including the Schechter function and the broken power-law function for the energy distribution, and several redshift evolution models, such as the star formation history (SFH) model, as well as models incorporating time delays relative to the SFH or additional redshift evolution factors. Our results indicate that the energy distribution of FRBs is best described by the Schechter function, with a power-law index of $\gamma = -1.49^{+0.37}_{-0.27}$ and a characteristic cutoff energy of $E_\mathrm{c} = 2.82^{+2.43}_{-1.47} \times 10^{41}$ erg. Furthermore, we find no evidence for redshift evolution in the energy distribution of FRBs. In terms of their redshift distribution, our analysis shows that it follows the cosmic SFH, without requiring additional delayed components or redshift evolution factors, suggesting that most FRBs likely originate from young stellar populations. Simultaneously, we infer a local volumetric rate of $\Phi_0 = 4.68^{+4.66}_{-2.39} \times 10^{4} \rm \ Gpc^{-3}yr^{-1}$ for $E>10^{39}$ erg. These results, robust against CHIME observational biases, may provide new insights into the underlying properties of the FRB population.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23122 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Observed distributions (blue lines) compared with the best-fit model predictions (orange lines). Left panel: the S/N distribution is shown for the DM samples; right panel: the DM distribution is shown for the S/N samples. The best-fit model predictions appears to be consistent with the observed data. preferred reference scenario—we derive a local volumet￾ric rate of log(Φ0/Gpc−3 yr−1 ) = 4.67+0.30 −0.31, a power-law… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the S/N–DM distribution for the observed data (left) and the best-fit model prediction (right). The distributions exhibit qualitative similarity, consistent with expectations derived from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Corner plot of the results of the MCMC run for Schechter function. Left panel: redshift model Φ(z) ∝ SFH(z); right panel: power-law delay model. log = 4.71 +0.32 0.31 2.4 1.8 1.2 0.6 0.0 = 1.54 +0.39 0.32 40.2 40.8 41.4 42.0 42.6 lo g Ec logEc = 41.47 +0.28 0.31 0.0 0.8 1.6 2.4 n n = 1.08 +0.40 0.38 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 = 1.48 +0.29 0.29 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 lo g host log host = 2.08 +0.21 0.24 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 log 0.2… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Corner plot of the results of the MCMC run for Schechter function. Left panel: redshift model Φ(z) ∝ [SFH(z)]n ; right panel: redshift model Φ(z) ∝ SFH(z)(1 + z) β [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Corner plot of the results of the MCMC run for Schechter function. Left panel: redshift model Φ(z) ∝ (1 +z) δ ; right panel: energy evolve with redshift (E ∝ (1 + z) k ), redshift model Φ(z) ∝ SFH(z). log = 4.78 +0.28 0.29 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.2 0.8 1 1 = 1.71 +0.27 0.21 8 6 …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Corner plot of the results of the MCMC run for broken power law function. Left panel: redshift model Φ(z) ∝ SFH(z); right panel: power-law delay model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Corner plot of the results of the MCMC run. Left panel: log-normal delay model (for Schechter function); right panel: log-normal delay model (for broken power law function) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]

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.

  1. Probing Collapsed Dark Matter Halos with Fast Radio Bursts

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Core-collapsed SIDM halos produce longer FRB image time delays than CDM halos, enabling future surveys to constrain self-interaction cross sections above roughly 18-40 cm²/g depending on collapse timing.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    R., Macquart, J

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3948 2021

  2. [2]

    R., James, C., Ekers, R., et al

    Arcus, W. R., James, C., Ekers, R., et al. 2025, PASA, 42, e003, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2024.114

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2024.114 2025

  3. [3]

    Baker, S., & Cousins, R. D. 1984, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, 221, 437, doi: 10.1016/0167-5087(84)90016-4

    doi:10.1016/0167-5087(84)90016-4 1984

  4. [4]

    G., Tendulkar, S

    Bassa, C. G., Tendulkar, S. P., Adams, E. A. K., et al. 2017, ApJL, 843, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7a0c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa7a0c 2017

  5. [5]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ApJL, 843, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3 —. 2020, ApJ, 896, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab83eb

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3 2017

  6. [6]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 5345, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad028

    Beniamini, P., & Kumar, P. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5345, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad028

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad028 2023

  7. [7]

    M., Kaspi, V

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abeaa6 2021

  8. [8]

    D., Ravi, V., Belov, K

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

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

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    W., Rajwade, K., & Flynn, C

    Caleb, M., Stappers, B. W., Rajwade, K., & Flynn, C. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 5500, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz386

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Wharton, R

    Chatterjee, S., Law, C. J., Wharton, R. S., et al. 2017, Nature, 541, 58, doi: 10.1038/nature20797

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, ApJ, 939, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac958a

    Chen, H.-Y., Gu, W.-M., Sun, M., & Yi, T. 2022, ApJ, 939, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac958a

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    H., Jia, X

    Chen, J. H., Jia, X. D., Dong, X. F., & Wang, F. Y. 2024, ApJL, 973, L54, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7b39 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., e...

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    2022, Nature, 607, 256, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04841-8

    Bhardwaj, M., et al. 2022, Nature, 607, 256, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04841-8

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    M., & Chatterjee, S

    Cordes, J. M., & Chatterjee, S. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 417, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104501

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    W., Li, D., & Zhang, C.-m

    Cui, X.-h., James, C. W., Li, D., & Zhang, C.-m. 2025, ApJ, 982, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbbcb

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 3275, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3351

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

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    2016, ApJ, 820, 66, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/66 13

    Deng, C.-M., Wang, X.-G., Guo, B.-B., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 66, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/66 13

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    2019, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 23, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2019.05.001

    Deng, C.-M., Wei, J.-J., & Wu, X.-F. 2019, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 23, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2019.05.001

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac30db

    Deng, C.-M., Zhong, S.-Q., & Dai, Z.-G. 2021, ApJ, 922, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac30db

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    2014, ApJL, 783, L35, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/L35

    Deng, W., & Zhang, B. 2014, ApJL, 783, L35, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/L35

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    2021, ApJL, 919, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac242b

    Fong, W.-f., Dong, Y., Leja, J., et al. 2021, ApJL, 919, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac242b

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    W., Connor, L., van Leeuwen, J., Oostrum, L

    Gardenier, D. W., Connor, L., van Leeuwen, J., Oostrum, L. C., & Petroff, E. 2021a, A&A, 647, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039626 —. 2021b, A&A, 647, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039626

    doi

  16. [24]

    W., & van Leeuwen, J

    Gardenier, D. W., & van Leeuwen, J. 2021, A&A, 651, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040119

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    W., van Leeuwen, J., Connor, L., & Petroff, E

    Gardenier, D. W., van Leeuwen, J., Connor, L., & Petroff, E. 2019, A&A, 632, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936404

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

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

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    H., et al

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

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    2004, MNRAS, 348, 999, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07359.x

    Inoue, S. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 999, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07359.x

    2004

  21. [29]

    2003, ApJL, 598, L79, doi: 10.1086/380598 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Connolly, A

    Ioka, K. 2003, ApJL, 598, L79, doi: 10.1086/380598 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Connolly, A. J., VanderPlas, J. T., & Gray, A. 2014, Statistics, Data Mining, and Machine Learning in Astronomy: A Practical Python Guide for the Analysis of Survey Data, doi: 10.1515/9781400848911

    2003 doi

  22. [30]

    James, C. W. 2023a, PASA, 40, e057, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2023.51 —. 2023b, PASA, 40, e057, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2023.51

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    W., Prochaska, J

    James, C. W., Prochaska, J. X., Macquart, J. P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, L18, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab117

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Jeffreys, H., & Lindsay, R. B. 1963, Physics Today, 16, 68, doi: 10.1063/1.3050814

    1963 doi

  25. [33]

    2022, Nature, 602, 585, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

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

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    2023, Nature, 618, 484, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05983-z

    Li, D., Bilous, A., Ransom, S., Main, R., & Yang, Y.-P. 2023, Nature, 618, 484, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05983-z

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Liddle, A. R. 2007, MNRAS, 377, L74, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00306.x

    2007

  28. [36]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5310

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

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1b4f

    Lin, H.-N., & Zou, R. 2024, ApJ, 962, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1b4f

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    2019, A&A, 625, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834722

    Locatelli, N., Ronchi, M., Ghirlanda, G., & Ghisellini, G. 2019, A&A, 625, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834722

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

    Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M. A., Narkevic, D. J., & Crawford, F. 2007, Science, 318, 777, doi: 10.1126/science.1147532

    2007 doi

  32. [40]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 1397, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2450

    Lu, W., Kumar, P., & Zhang, B. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1397, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2450

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

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

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    R., & Zhang, B

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

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa704

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

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    P., Shannon, R

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

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    P., Prochaska, J

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

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

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

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    Marcote, B., Paragi, Z., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2017, ApJL, 834, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L8

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

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

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2018, ApJL, 868, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaedad

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    2025, A&A, 698, A127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451250

    Meng, M., & Deng, C.-M. 2025, A&A, 698, A127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451250

    2025 doi

  43. [51]

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

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

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    P., Shin, K., et al

    Merryfield, M., Tendulkar, S. P., Shin, K., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.14079. https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.14079

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    D., Berger, E., & Margalit, B

    Metzger, B. D., Berger, E., & Margalit, B. 2017, ApJ, 841, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa633d

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    M., Hessels, J

    Nimmo, K., Hewitt, D. M., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2022, ApJL, 927, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac540f

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

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

    Niu, C. H., Aggarwal, K., Li, D., et al. 2022, Nature, 606, 873, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

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

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

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    2010, MNRAS, 406, 558, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16691.x

    Qin, S.-F., Liang, E.-W., Lu, R.-J., Wei, J.-Y., & Zhang, S.-N. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 558, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16691.x

    2010

  50. [58]

    J., Li, D., et al

    Ravi, V., Law, C. J., Li, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 982, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac465

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    1976, ApJ, 203, 297, doi: 10.1086/154079

    Schechter, P. 1976, ApJ, 203, 297, doi: 10.1086/154079

    1976 doi

  52. [60]

    1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461 14

    Schwarz, G. 1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461 14

    1978

  53. [61]

    W., Bhardwaj, M., et al

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

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    D., Beniamini, P., et al

    Sridhar, N., Metzger, B. D., Beniamini, P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0140

    2021 doi

  55. [63]

    P., Bassa, C

    Tendulkar, S. P., Bassa, C. G., Cordes, J. M., et al. 2017, ApJL, 834, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L7

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    P., Gil de Paz, A., Kirichenko, A

    Tendulkar, S. P., Gil de Paz, A., Kirichenko, A. Y., et al. 2021, ApJL, 908, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdb38

    2021 doi

  57. [65]

    2013, Science, 341, 53, doi: 10.1126/science.1236789

    Thornton, D., Stappers, B., Bailes, M., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 53, doi: 10.1126/science.1236789

    2013 doi

  58. [66]

    2020, ApJ, 891, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d69

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

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    2019, ApJ, 879, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2240

    Wadiasingh, Z., & Timokhin, A. 2019, ApJ, 879, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2240

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    2024, A&A, 690, A377, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450673

    Wang, Y., & van Leeuwen, J. 2024, A&A, 690, A377, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450673

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    2023, Universe, 9, 330, doi: 10.3390/universe9070330

    Xu, J., Feng, Y., Li, D., et al. 2023, Universe, 9, 330, doi: 10.3390/universe9070330

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac14b5

    Yang, Y.-P., & Zhang, B. 2021, ApJ, 919, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac14b5

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

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

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

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    J., Zhang, Z

    Zhang, K. J., Zhang, Z. B., Rodin, A. E., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450727

    2025 doi

  65. [73]

    C., & Zhang, B

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

    2022 doi

  66. [74]

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

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

    2021 doi

  67. [75]

    2023, A&A, 675, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245511

    Zhang, Z.-L., Yu, Y.-W., & Cao, X.-F. 2023, A&A, 675, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245511

    2023 doi

  68. [76]

    O., Kulkarni, S

    Zheng, Z., Ofek, E. O., Kulkarni, S. R., Neill, J. D., & Juric, M. 2014, ApJ, 797, 71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/71

    2014 doi

  69. [77]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4d98

    Zhong, S.-Q., Xie, W.-J., Deng, C.-M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4d98

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.15530, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.15530

    Zhou, H., Li, Z., & Zhu, Z.-H. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.15530, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.15530

    2025 doi arXiv

  71. [79]

    A., Barnett, R

    Zyla, P. A., Barnett, R. M., Beringer, J., et al. 2020, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2020, 083C01, doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptaa104 15 T able 2. Best-fit parameters for different models. Redshift evolution logΦ 0 γa γ2 logEb c αlogµ host logσhost log¯τlogτ σ ατ ∆...

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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