Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 42 references

Fast radio bursts must form about three times more efficiently per stellar mass than standard star-formation-based models assume.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 18:56 UTC pith:GXMALJT6

load-bearing objection The SMF-based host-filter idea is a real improvement, but the factor-3 boosting claim is an artifact of an arbitrary filter normalization and an unperformed deconvolution. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.02642 v2 pith:GXMALJT6 submitted 2025-12-02 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA

The role of the galaxy stellar mass function in determining the cosmological distribution of astrophysical transients with applications to fast radio bursts and merging binary black holes

Sandeep Kumar Acharya This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords fast radio burstsgalaxy stellar mass functionstar formation rate densitystellar mass densitybinary black hole mergersgravitational waveshost galaxiestransient rates
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that standard population studies of fast radio bursts (FRBs) and merging black holes use a global, redshift-only star formation history that implicitly treats every galaxy as a potential host. Using the observed galaxy stellar mass function together with the measured stellar masses of 53 localized FRB hosts — a distribution peaked near 10^10 solar masses — the paper computes a host-weighted stellar mass density that is roughly one-third of the global value at redshift zero. Reproducing the observed local FRB rate then requires the FRB production efficiency per stellar mass to be boosted by a factor of about three. The paper further shows that ignoring this host-mass filter biases inferred parameters such as the fraction of FRBs tracking star formation. The same framework, applied to gravitational-wave events from merging binary black holes, suggests that a mixture of star-formation- and stellar-mass-weighted host galaxies fits current data and that a few thousand events could distinguish formation channels.

Core claim

The central claim is that the cosmological rate of a transient like an FRB should be built from the galaxy stellar mass function weighted by a host-galaxy filter function, not from a redshift-only star formation template. Taking the observed host stellar masses of 53 localized FRBs at face value, the host filter is approximately lognormal in log10 M* with mean 10 and dispersion 0.6. Integrating the stellar mass function with this filter yields an effective stellar mass density that is roughly one-third of the global value at z=0, and a star formation density that is roughly one-half. Matching the observed local volumetric FRB rate then forces the efficiency per stellar mass up by a factor of

What carries the argument

The central object is the galaxy stellar mass function (SMF), the comoving number density of galaxies as a function of stellar mass and redshift. The paper feeds the SMF through a filter function F(M) — a lognormal peaked near 10^10 solar masses, fitted to 53 localized FRB hosts — to define host-weighted stellar mass and star formation densities (the 'FRB-specific' SMD, SMD1) versus the global densities (SMD0). The ratio SMD1/SMD0 ~ 1/3 at z=0 is the mechanism that produces the factor-of-three efficiency boost, and the redshift-dependent difference between the SMF-derived densities and the standard star formation template produces the parameter bias in f_Y. For binary black holes, the same m

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the host-galaxy stellar-mass filter — a lognormal centred at 10^10 solar masses inferred from 53 localized FRBs at redshifts below about 0.5 — is representative of all FRB hosts and does not evolve with redshift; if that filter is biased by selection or evolves, the factor-of-three efficiency boost changes.

What would settle it

Measure the stellar masses of FRB hosts at z > 1 with a large, blind sample (or infer the FRB redshift distribution from dispersion measures using a complete selection model) and compare the redshift dependence of the inferred rate to the SMF-based prediction. If the host-mass distribution shifts significantly with redshift, or if a full selection-corrected analysis reproduces the observed rate without the boost, the central claim is refuted. In the gravitational-wave case, a catalogue of several thousand binary black hole mergers with sky-localised redshifts would directly distinguish the pre

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • FRB population analyses should compute their rate template from the galaxy stellar mass function with a host-mass filter rather than from a redshift-only star formation fit; otherwise the inferred FRB formation efficiency per stellar mass is understated by roughly a factor of three.
  • Inferred parameters in FRB studies, such as the fraction f_Y of events tracking star formation, become redshift-dependent and biased if host-galaxy information is ignored, because the stellar mass function evolves differently from the standard star formation template.
  • For merging binary black holes, fitting the observed merger rate with an FRB-like host filter yields a best-fit mixture of about 50% star-formation-weighted and 50% stellar-mass-weighted hosts, where a pure star-formation template had previously been preferred.
  • A few thousand gravitational-wave events with measured redshifts should be enough to distinguish a pure star-formation-weighted host population from a stellar-mass-weighted one, offering a way to infer binary black hole host properties from gravitational wave data alone.
  • The approach generalises to other transients whose hosts are not individually localised, such as gamma-ray bursts, where a similar host-mass filter could be applied.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If future localized FRBs at z ≳ 1 show host stellar masses systematically above or below ~10^10 solar masses, the redshift-independent filter assumption breaks and the factor-of-three boost could change; the paper itself notes mild redshift evolution does not alter results, but strong evolution remains untested.
  • The localized FRB sample used to fit the filter is itself selected by brightness and localization feasibility, so the lognormal could partly reflect selection effects; a fuller treatment would fold selection into the filter rather than treating it as intrinsic.
  • The factor-of-two mismatch between the SMF-based stellar mass density and the direct star formation template at low redshift is a calibration issue; if resolved, the quantitative boost factor would shift, though the qualitative conclusion that host information matters would likely survive.
  • The same host-mass-filter machinery could be inverted: given a sufficiently large redshift sample of unlocalised events (FRBs or GW mergers), one could fit the host stellar-mass distribution directly rather than assuming it from localised subsamples.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper argues that standard FRB population models, which use the Madau-Dickinson cosmic SFRD/SMD as a function of redshift, overestimate the stellar mass and star formation available in FRB host galaxies because FRB hosts are not representative of all galaxies. Using a lognormal fit to the stellar masses of 53 localized FRBs as a filter F(M) in Eq. (4.1), the author computes the SMD contributed by potential FRB hosts and finds SMD1 ≈ SMD0/3, implying that FRB efficiency per stellar mass must be about 3 times higher than previously inferred. The paper further claims that using the SMF instead of the MD fit biases inference of the parameter fY, and that the same framework could constrain BBH host galaxy properties from GW data alone with a few thousand events.

Significance. If the factor-3 claim were robust, it would revise FRB efficiency estimates and establish that host-galaxy mass selection must be included in cosmological transient rate models. The paper makes good use of a modern Euclid Cosmic Dawn Survey SMF, compiles a useful table of localized FRB host masses, and proposes a falsifiable projection for BBH host inference. However, the central quantitative result is undermined by an improperly normalized filter function, as detailed below. The underlying idea—that the SMF, not just a redshift-only SFRD template, should be used in transient population studies—is promising and worth pursuing, but the present analysis does not yet support the headline factor of ≈3.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4 / Eq. (4.1) / Sec. C] The filter F(M) is set equal to the normalized Gaussian fit to the observed host stellar masses. This is not a valid inversion: the observed host distribution satisfies p(logM) ∝ Φ(M) F(M) M^2 for a rate per stellar mass, so F must be obtained by deconvolving p with ΦM^2, not by setting F=p. Moreover, Eq. (4.1) is homogeneous in F; the unit-integral normalization of the Gaussian is an arbitrary convention. Hence SMD1/SMD0 ≈ 1/3 and the claimed factor-≈3 efficiency boost are not determined by the data. To support the claim, the normalization must be fixed by a physical prior (e.g., max F = 1) or treated as a free parameter and shown to be stable.
  2. [Sec. 4 / Fig. 1 (right)] The SMF-derived SMD0 is rescaled to the MD fit with a redshift-dependent factor, and all curves are scaled identically. This preserves the ratio SMD1/SMD0 at fixed z, but assumes the factor-≈2 discrepancy is a pure normalization error. If the discrepancy is mass-dependent, the ratio—and hence the factor-3 boost—changes. Given that Sec. 6 admits this discrepancy is unresolved, the robustness of the ratio to plausible SMF systematics should be quantified.
  3. [Sec. 5] The BBH inference inherits the arbitrary FRB filter F(M). The best-fit fY = 0.55 (Fig. 5) and the projected distinguishability with a few thousand events (Fig. 6) therefore depend on that arbitrary normalization. The illustrative caveat about lacking physical evidence does not remove the model-dependence. The claim that host properties can be inferred from GW data would need to be re-evaluated once F is properly constrained.
minor comments (6)
  1. [General] Typos and wording: 'Till date' should be 'To date'; 'conjuction' should be 'conjunction'; 'volumtric' should be 'volumetric'.
  2. [Eq. (4.1) vs. Sec. C] Eq. (4.1) is written as an integral over dM, but the Gaussian filter is defined as a distribution in dlogM. The conversion between the two is not stated, which makes the dimensional analysis of F(M) ambiguous.
  3. [Sec. 4.2] The notation fY,t is confusing. It should be clearly defined as the test value of fY inferred from the simulated distribution, and the simulation procedure should be described in one sentence.
  4. [Conclusions vs. Abstract] The conclusions state the SMD is 'a factor of 3-4 less' while the abstract and Sec. 4 say '≈3'. These should be made consistent.
  5. [Fig. 5] The left panel legend and caption are ambiguous: identify which curve is the best fit and which is the SFRD case; the right panel should also specify what the χ2 is computed relative to.
  6. [Sec. 4.3] The redshift-evolution test varies only the mean μ of the lognormal; the normalization (and width) of F(M) could also evolve, which would change SMD1. A sentence justifying the fixed normalization and width would be helpful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The factor-≈3 efficiency boost is set by the arbitrary normalization of the FRB host-mass filter in Eq. (4.1), so the central quantitative claim reduces to the fitted input rather than an independent prediction.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. 4, Eq. (4.1); Sec. C, Fig. 7; Sec. 4 (efficiency boost)]
    "SMD=∫_{10^8 M⊙}^{10^13 M⊙} Φ(M)F(M)MdM, (4.1) where F(M) is a filter function which is 1 if all galaxies are potential FRB hosts. ... For simplicity, in this work, we use this approximate Gaussian distribution in order to capture the stellar mass function of potential FRB host galaxies."

    The filter F(M) is identified with the unit-normalized Gaussian fit to the observed FRB host stellar masses, not with a physical host fraction. For a population with SMF Φ, the observed host-mass distribution is ∝ Φ(M)F(M)M, so F should be recovered by dividing the observed histogram by the mass-weighted SMF; the paper never performs this division. With F set equal to the fitted p(M), Eq. (4.1) is homogeneous in the arbitrary normalization of p: rescaling p changes SMD1 and therefore the inverse ratio SMD0/SMD1. The headline 'FRB formation rate per stellar mass is boosted by a factor of 3' is exactly this inverse ratio, so it is fixed by the chosen normalization and functional form of the fitted host-mass distribution rather than by independent physical input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain starts from external data: the Euclid SMF, the 53 localized FRB host masses, and the observed z=0 rate Φ0 from [28,41]. The central factor ≈3 enters only through Eq. (4.1) when F(M) is replaced by the Gaussian fit to the FRB host-mass histogram. Because that histogram is not deconvolved from the Φ(M)M weighting that shapes it, and because Eq. (4.1) is homogeneous in the normalization of F, the ratio SMD1/SMD0≈1/3 and hence the claimed efficiency boost are artifacts of the fitted input's arbitrary normalization. This is a self-definitional reduction of the paper's headline result. The other analyses are more guarded: the fY-bias discussion is explicitly qualitative, the BBH fY=0.55 fit is described as illustrative, and the paper itself cautions that the chi-square magnitude and the assumption that BBH hosts resemble FRB hosts are not robust. The only near self-citation is [42], used to support mild redshift evolution of F, but the paper also runs its own sensitivity test, so that citation is not load-bearing. Overall, the central factor-3 claim reduces by construction to the fitted filter, giving partial circularity (6); the paper still contains independent, useful comparisons, but its headline quantitative claim should not be treated as an externally forced prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the filter function F(M) is a statistical weighting function, not an entity. The numerical claims depend on fitted inputs (host filter, fY) and on standard astrophysical calibrations (SFRD/MD fit, SMF), so the ledger is dominated by data-derived assumptions rather than free physical parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • fY (fraction of FRBs tracking SFRD) = 0.3 (fiducial)
    Adopted from Gupta et al. 2025 ([28]) best fit, not derived in this paper; enters Eq. 2.4 and therefore the redshift shape of psi*(z).
  • FRB host filter parameters (lognormal mu, sigma) = mu=10, sigma=0.6 in log10(M*/Msun)
    Approximate Gaussian fit to 53 localized FRB host stellar masses (Sec. C); assumed redshift-independent in the fiducial calculation that yields the factor-≈3 SMD reduction.
  • fY_BBH best-fit for FRB-host scenario = 0.55
    Obtained by chi-squared fit to GWTC-3 BBH volumetric merger rates under the assumption that BBH hosts resemble FRB hosts; explicitly illustrative (Sec. 5).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption FRB volumetric rate is proportional to fY*SFRD + (1-fY)*SMD (Eqs. 2.3–2.5).
    Taken from [28,36]; not derived here; this functional form is the framework for the main claim.
  • domain assumption The stellar-mass distribution of FRB hosts is lognormal with mu=10, sigma=0.6 at all redshifts.
    Stated in Sec. 4/C: assumed same at higher z because localization data only reach z≲0.5; load-bearing for the factor-≈3.
  • domain assumption The observed 53 localized FRB hosts are an unbiased sample of the FRB population.
    Used to define F(M); localization and completeness selection are not modeled.
  • ad hoc to paper The SMF-based SMD can be rescaled to the MD fit to remove systematics.
    The paper scales SMF-based SMD0 to match the improved MD fit in a redshift-dependent way and applies the same scaling to the filtered curves; this assumes the factor-2 discrepancy is a normalization issue.
  • domain assumption BBH merger hosts may resemble FRB hosts in stellar mass.
    Acknowledged as 'no strong physical evidence' (Sec. 5); used for the illustrative fY=0.55 fit and event-count projection.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14621 in / 15058 out tokens · 134231 ms · 2026-08-03T18:56:57.940542+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The cosmological distribution and formation rate of compact astrophysical objects such as fast radio bursts (FRBs) are typically assumed to be proportional to a linear combination of cosmological star formation rate and stellar mass. In the literature, a template for star formation rate, which is just a function of redshift, is typically used. In this work, we point out the importance of galaxy stellar mass function which captures the host galaxy information of observed FRBs as well as the redshift evolution of galaxy stellar mass. Using this information and taking the stellar mass distribution of a sample of localized FRBs at face value, we find that FRB formation efficiency per stellar mass may have to be more efficient (by a factor of $\approx 3$) than previously calculated, in order to reproduce the observed volumetric rate of FRBs at $z=0$. We show that cosmological population studies of FRBs have to include host galaxy information along with its redshift evolution in order to obtain unbiased results. This consideration is also applicable to other transients, e.g. gamma-ray bursts and merging binary black hole events. We show that our approach may open up the possibility to distinguish between different scenarios of merging binary black holes formation with a detection of few thousand gravitational wave events.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 39 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The First CHIME/FRB Fast Radio Burst Catalog

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration and Amiri et al. The First CHIME/FRB Fast Radio Burst Catalog. ApJS, 257(2):59, December 2021.arXiv:2106.04352,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    C. W. James, E. M. Ghosh, J. X. Prochaska, K. W. Bannister, S. Bhandari, C. K. Day, A. T. Deller, M. Glowacki, A. C. Gordon, K. E. Heintz, L. Marnoch, S. D. Ryder, D. R. Scott, R. M. Shannon, and N. Tejos. A measurement of Hubble’s Constant using Fast Radio Bursts. MNRAS, 516(4):4862–4881, November 2022.arXiv:2208.00819,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Preferential Occurrence of Fast Radio Bursts in Massive Star-Forming Galaxies

    Kritti Sharma et al. Preferential Occurrence of Fast Radio Bursts in Massive Star-Forming Galaxies. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2409.16964, September 2024.arXiv:2409.16964,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    R. M. Shannon et al. The Commensal Real-time ASKAP Fast Transient incoherent-sum survey. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2408.02083, August 2024.arXiv:2408.02083,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Can repeating and non-repeating FRBs be drawn from the same population? arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2506.09138, June 2025.arXiv:2506.09138,[DOI], [ADS]

    Paz Beniamini and Pawan Kumar. Can repeating and non-repeating FRBs be drawn from the same population? arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2506.09138, June 2025.arXiv:2506.09138,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    The Role of Magnetic and Rotation Axis Alignment in Driving Fast Radio Burst Phenomenology

    Paz Beniamini and Pawan Kumar. The Role of Magnetic and Rotation Axis Alignment in Driving Fast Radio Burst Phenomenology. ApJ, 982(1):45, March 2025.arXiv:2410.19043,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Strauss, and Joel Leja

    Nick Loudas, Dongzi Li, Michael A. Strauss, and Joel Leja. Unveiling the origin of fast radio bursts by modeling the stellar mass and star formation distributions of their host galaxies. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2502.15566, February 2025.arXiv:2502.15566,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Popov and K

    Sergey B. Popov and K. A. Postnov. Hyperflares of SGRs as an engine for millisecond extragalactic radio bursts. In H. A. Harutyunian, A. M. Mickaelian, and Y . Terzian, editors,Evolution of Cosmic Objects through their Physical Activity, pages 129–132, November 2010.arXiv:0710.2006,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  9. [9]

    Fast radio burst source properties and curvature radiation model

    Pawan Kumar, Wenbin Lu, and Mukul Bhattacharya. Fast radio burst source properties and curvature radiation model. MNRAS, 468(3):2726–2739, July 2017.arXiv:1703.06139,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    Repeating Fast Radio Bursts from Magnetars with Low Magnetospheric Twist

    Zorawar Wadiasingh and Andrey Timokhin. Repeating Fast Radio Bursts from Magnetars with Low Magnetospheric Twist. ApJ, 879(1):4, July 2019.arXiv:1904.12036,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    Yingjie Cheng, G. Q. Zhang, and F. Y . Wang. Statistical properties of magnetar bursts and FRB 121102. MNRAS, 491(1):1498–1505, January 2020.arXiv:1910.14201,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    Hybrid pulsar-magnetar model for FRB 20191221A

    Paz Beniamini and Pawan Kumar. Hybrid pulsar-magnetar model for FRB 20191221A. MNRAS, 519(4):5345–5351, March 2023.arXiv:2211.07669,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Fast radio bursts trigger aftershocks resembling earthquakes, but not solar flares

    Tomonori Totani and Yuya Tsuzuki. Fast radio bursts trigger aftershocks resembling earthquakes, but not solar flares. MNRAS, 526(2):2795–2811, December 2023.arXiv:2306.13612,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    A bright millisecond-duration radio burst from a Galactic magnetar

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration and Andersen et al . A bright millisecond-duration radio burst from a Galactic magnetar. Nature, 587(7832):54–58, November 2020.arXiv:2005.10324,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    C. D. Bochenek, V . Ravi, K. V . Belov, G. Hallinan, J. Kocz, S. R. Kulkarni, and D. L. McKenna. A fast radio burst associated with a Galactic magnetar. Nature, 587(7832):59–62, November 2020. arXiv:2005.10828,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Characterizing the Fast Radio Burst Host Galaxy Population and its Connection to Transients in the Local and Extragalactic Universe

    Shivani Bhandari et al. Characterizing the Fast Radio Burst Host Galaxy Population and its Connection to Transients in the Local and Extragalactic Universe. AJ, 163(2):69, February 2022. arXiv:2108.01282,[DOI], [ADS]. – 13 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Gordon et al

    Alexa C. Gordon et al. The Demographics, Stellar Populations, and Star Formation Histories of Fast Radio Burst Host Galaxies: Implications for the Progenitors. ApJ, 954(1):80, September 2023. arXiv:2302.05465,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    K. W. Bannister et al. A single fast radio burst localized to a massive galaxy at cosmological distance. Science, 365(6453):565–570, August 2019.arXiv:1906.11476,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    V . Ravi, M. Catha, L. D’Addario, S. G. Djorgovski, G. Hallinan, R. Hobbs, J. Kocz, S. R. Kulkarni, J. Shi, H. K. Vedantham, S. Weinreb, and D. P. Woody. A fast radio burst localized to a massive galaxy. Nature, 572(7769):352–354, August 2019.arXiv:1907.01542,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    A Repeating Fast Radio Burst Source in the Outskirts of a Quiescent Galaxy

    Vishwangi Shah et al. A Repeating Fast Radio Burst Source in the Outskirts of a Quiescent Galaxy. ApJL, 979(2):L21, February 2025.arXiv:2410.23374,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Eftekhari et al

    T. Eftekhari et al. The Massive and Quiescent Elliptical Host Galaxy of the Repeating Fast Radio Burst FRB 20240209A. ApJL, 979(2):L22, February 2025.arXiv:2410.23336,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Bochenek, Shami Chatterjee, Casey Law, Di Li, Chen-hui Niu, Yuu Niino, Yi Feng, Pei Wang, Roberto J

    Xiang-Lei Chen, Chao-Wei Tsai, Daniel Stern, Christopher D. Bochenek, Shami Chatterjee, Casey Law, Di Li, Chen-hui Niu, Yuu Niino, Yi Feng, Pei Wang, Roberto J. Assef, Guo-dong Li, Sean E. Lake, Gan Luo, and Mai Liao. The Host Galaxy of FRB 20190520B and Its Unique Ionized Gas Distribution. ApJ, 982(2):203, April 2025.arXiv:2503.01740,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Bhardwaj, B

    M. Bhardwaj, B. M. Gaensler, V . M. Kaspi, T. L. Landecker, R. Mckinven, D. Michilli, Z. Pleunis, S. P. Tendulkar, B. C. Andersen, P. J. Boyle, T. Cassanelli, P. Chawla, A. Cook, M. Dobbs, E. Fonseca, J. Kaczmarek, C. Leung, K. Masui, M. Mnchmeyer, C. Ng, M. Rafiei-Ravandi, P. Scholz, K. Shin, K. M. Smith, I. H. Stairs, and A. V . Zwaniga. A Nearby Repeat...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Kirsten et al

    F. Kirsten et al. A repeating fast radio burst source in a globular cluster. Nature, 602(7898):585–589, February 2022.arXiv:2105.11445,[DOI], [ADS]

    arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Gordon, Wen-fai Fong, Adam T

    Alexa C. Gordon, Wen-fai Fong, Adam T. Deller, Lachlan Marnoch, Sungsoon Lim, Eric W. Peng, Keith W. Bannister, Apurba Bera, N. D. R. Bhat, Tyson Dial, Yuxin Dong, Tarraneh Eftekhari, Marcin Glowacki, Kelly Gourdji, Vivek Gupta, Joscha N. Jahns-Schindler, Akhil Jaini, Charles D. Kilpatrick, Chang Liu, J. Xavier Prochaska, Stuart D. Ryder, Ryan M. Shannon,...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Zhang, Bing Zhang, Ye Li, and Duncan R

    Rachel C. Zhang, Bing Zhang, Ye Li, and Duncan R. Lorimer. On the energy and redshift distributions of fast radio bursts. MNRAS, 501(1):157–167, February 2021.arXiv:2011.06151,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    C. W. James, J. X. Prochaska, J. P. Macquart, F. O. North-Hickey, K. W. Bannister, and A. Dunning. The fast radio burst population evolves, consistent with the star formation rate. MNRAS, 510(1):L18–L23, February 2022.arXiv:2101.07998,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    Finkelstein

    Om Gupta, Paz Beniamini, Pawan Kumar, and Steven L. Finkelstein. The cosmic evolution of FRBs inferred from CHIME/FRB Catalog 1. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2501.09810, January 2025. arXiv:2501.09810,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    The Host Galaxies of Fast Radio Bursts Track a Combination of Stellar Mass and Star Formation, Similar to Type Ia Supernovae

    Asaf Horowicz and Ben Margalit. The Host Galaxies of Fast Radio Bursts Track a Combination of Stellar Mass and Star Formation, Similar to Type Ia Supernovae. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2504.08038, April 2025.arXiv:2504.08038,[DOI], [ADS]. – 14 –

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Cosmic Star-Formation History

    Piero Madau and Mark Dickinson. Cosmic Star-Formation History. ARA&A, 52:415–486, August 2014.arXiv:1403.0007,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  31. [31]

    Pescalli, G

    A. Pescalli, G. Ghirlanda, R. Salvaterra, G. Ghisellini, S. D. Vergani, F. Nappo, O. S. Salafia, A. Melandri, S. Covino, and D. G¨otz. The rate and luminosity function of long gamma ray bursts. A&A, 587:A40, March 2016.arXiv:1506.05463,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  32. [32]

    The luminosity function and the rate of Swift’s gamma-ray bursts

    David Wanderman and Tsvi Piran. The luminosity function and the rate of Swift’s gamma-ray bursts. MNRAS, 406(3):1944–1958, August 2010.arXiv:0912.0709,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1944

  33. [33]

    J. T. Palmerio and F. Daigne. Constraining the intrinsic population of long gamma-ray bursts: Implications for spectral correlations, cosmic evolution, and their use as tracers of star formation. A&A, 649:A166, May 2021.arXiv:2011.14745,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Abbott et

    R. Abbott et. al. Population of Merging Compact Binaries Inferred Using Gravitational Waves through GWTC-3. Physical Review X, 13(1):011048, January 2023.arXiv:2111.03634,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Aditya Vijaykumar, Maya Fishbach, Susmita Adhikari, and Daniel E. Holz. Inferring Host-galaxy Properties of LIGO–Virgo–KAGRA’s Black Holes.ApJ, 972(2):157, September 2024. arXiv:2312.03316,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Exploring the epoch of hydrogen reionization using FRBs

    Paz Beniamini, Pawan Kumar, Xiangcheng Ma, and Eliot Quataert. Exploring the epoch of hydrogen reionization using FRBs. MNRAS, 502(4):5134–5146, April 2021.arXiv:2011.11643,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Euclid preparation

    Euclid Collaboration. Euclid preparation. Cosmic Dawn Survey: evolution of the galaxy stellar mass function across 0.2<𝑧<6.5 measured over 10 square degrees. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2504.17867, April 2025.arXiv:2504.17867,[DOI], [ADS]

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Shuntov et al

    M. Shuntov et al. COSMOS-Web: Stellar mass assembly in relation to dark matter halos across 0.2 ¡ z ¡ 12 of cosmic history. A&A, 695:A20, March 2025.arXiv:2410.08290,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Hopkins and John F

    Andrew M. Hopkins and John F. Beacom. On the Normalization of the Cosmic Star Formation History. ApJ, 651(1):142–154, November 2006.arXiv:astro-ph/0601463,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  40. [40]

    Wilkins, Neil Trentham, and Andrew M

    Stephen M. Wilkins, Neil Trentham, and Andrew M. Hopkins. The evolution of stellar mass and the implied star formation history. MNRAS, 385(2):687–694, April 2008.arXiv:0801.1594,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  41. [41]

    Masui, Mohit Bhardwaj, Tomas Cassanelli, Pragya Chawla, Matt Dobbs, Fengqiu Adam Dong, Emmanuel Fonseca, B

    Kaitlyn Shin, Kiyoshi W. Masui, Mohit Bhardwaj, Tomas Cassanelli, Pragya Chawla, Matt Dobbs, Fengqiu Adam Dong, Emmanuel Fonseca, B. M. Gaensler, Antonio Herrera-Mart´ın, Jane Kaczmarek, Victoria Kaspi, Calvin Leung, Marcus Merryfield, Daniele Michilli, Moritz M¨unchmeyer, Aaron B. Pearlman, Masoud Rafiei-Ravandi, Kendrick Smith, Ingrid Stairs, and Shriha...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Redshift dependence of FRB host dispersion measures across cosmic epochs

    Sandeep Kumar Acharya and Paz Beniamini. Redshift dependence of FRB host dispersion measures across cosmic epochs. JCAP, 2025(1):036, January 2025.arXiv:2408.03163,[DOI], [ADS]. A Parameters used and least square fitting for Stellar Mass function (SMF) In table 1, we tabulate the best fit parameters of Schechter functions obtained in [37]. We choose the m...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025