pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.12960 · v1 · pith:OFVL3IHVnew · submitted 2026-06-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

A Delayed Multi-channel Progenitor for Apparently Nonrepeating Fast Radio Bursts

Zhao-Wei Du , Xi-Long Fan , Yi-Xiao Li This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 06:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords fast radio burstsone-off FRBsprogenitor modelsstar formation historydelay timeCHIME/FRB Catalogredshift distributionmixture models
0
0 comments X

The pith

One-off fast radio bursts arise from progenitors with a mean delay of 1.4 billion years after star formation.

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

The paper tests models for the redshift evolution of apparently nonrepeating fast radio bursts using the CHIME/FRB Catalog. It compares a model where the event rate follows star formation history directly against delayed models and a mixture of delayed channels. The data disfavor the direct star-formation tracing while favoring the mixture, which yields an effective mean delay of 1.426 Gyr. This matters because it would tie one-off FRBs to older stellar populations rather than young star-forming regions. The results indicate that current observations can be explained by delayed, multi-channel progenitor evolution.

Core claim

The samples in CHIME/FRB Catalog do not support an intrinsic event rate density that directly follows the SFH. The preferred model is a mixture model that corresponds to an effective mean delay time of 1.426 Gyr. These results suggest that the current data may naturally be explained by delayed, possibly multi-channel progenitor evolution for the one-off FRBs.

What carries the argument

Mixture model obtained by normalizing two physically motivated delayed channels (binary neutron star related and neutron star age-window) separately and combining them as a weighted mixture.

If this is right

  • Pure star formation history tracing is disfavored for the intrinsic rate density of one-off FRBs.
  • The effective mean delay time for the preferred mixture is 1.426 Gyr.
  • Binary neutron star and neutron star age-window channels are viable when combined in a mixture.
  • The observed redshift distribution is better explained by delayed progenitor evolution than by direct tracing of star formation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The mixture approach could be used to estimate the relative contributions of different progenitor channels with future larger catalogs.
  • A confirmed delay would imply that one-off FRBs occur in older host galaxies than would be expected from young stellar populations.
  • This statistical method for testing delay times might extend to other astrophysical transients with uncertain progenitors.

Load-bearing premise

The CHIME/FRB Catalog redshift distribution accurately reflects the intrinsic event rate density after correction for selection effects.

What would settle it

A larger sample or reanalysis of the CHIME/FRB Catalog redshift distribution that fits a pure star formation history model better than the delayed mixture model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.12960 by Xi-Long Fan, Yi-Xiao Li, Zhao-Wei Du.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison between the Gold Sample distributions and the model predictions for the phenomenological and mixture models. The three panels show the distributions of log E, redshift z, and log Fν, respectively. The pure SFH model shows the poorest agreement with the data, whereas the delayed models and the mixture model provide substantially improved descriptions. 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 log10 (E/erg) 0 25 50 75… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison between the Gold Sample distributions and the physically motivated models. The three panels show the distributions of log E, redshift z, and log Fν, respectively. The pure BNS-related model, the pure neutron-star age-window model, and the mixture model are shown together. The mixture model provides the best simultaneous description of the observed distributions, consistent with its lowest BIC [… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Corner plots of the four phenomenological models considered in this work. The panels correspond to the SFH model (top left), Gaussian delay model (top right), log-normal delay model (bottom left), and power-law delay model (bottom right), respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Corner plots of the three physically motivated models considered in this work. The top-left, top-right, and bottom panels correspond to the BNS-related model, the neutron star age-window model, and the mixture model, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Fast radio bursts (FRBs) are millisecond-duration radio flashes of unknown origin, observationally classified into repeating and apparently nonrepeating (one-off) populations. In this work, we use a statistical population approach to investigate the redshift evolution of one-off FRBs. We compare a pure star formation history (SFH) tracing model, phenomenological delayed models, physically motivated delayed models that correspond to binary neutron star related and neutron star age-window channels, and mixture models which is obtained when two physically motivated models are normalized separately and then combined as a weighted mixture. The samples in CHIME/FRB Catalog do not support an intrinsic event rate density that directly follows the SFH. The preferred model is mixture model corresponds to an effective mean delay time of $\bar{\tau}=1.426^{+0.032}_{-0.035}~\mathrm{Gyr}$. These results suggest that the current data may naturally explained by delayed, possibly multi-channel progenitor evolution for the one-off FRBs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses a statistical population synthesis approach to model the redshift distribution of apparently non-repeating (one-off) FRBs drawn from the CHIME/FRB Catalog. It compares a pure star-formation-history (SFH) tracing model against phenomenological delayed models, physically motivated delayed models (BNS and NS age-window channels), and normalized mixture models. The central claim is that the catalog data reject a direct SFH tracing model and instead favor a mixture model whose effective mean delay time is 1.426^{+0.032}_{-0.035} Gyr, implying delayed, possibly multi-channel progenitors.

Significance. If the selection-function corrections and likelihood construction are shown to be robust, the result would provide quantitative evidence that one-off FRB progenitors involve significant delay times relative to star formation and may operate through multiple channels. The explicit consideration of physically motivated BNS/NS channels and their normalized mixtures is a constructive element of the analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and methods: The abstract reports a clear model preference and a specific mean delay time with uncertainties, yet supplies no explicit form for the selection function, the likelihood construction, or the data cuts applied to the CHIME/FRB Catalog redshift distribution. This omission leaves the rejection of the pure SFH model and the quoted delay value without visible derivation steps.
  2. [Model comparison] Model comparison: The load-bearing assumption that the observed redshift distribution, once corrected, faithfully traces the intrinsic event rate density is stated but not accompanied by a quantitative validation or sensitivity test of the CHIME selection function (sensitivity, beam response, or completeness versus redshift/DM). Any unaccounted systematics would directly affect the likelihood ratios and the posterior on the mixture weight.
  3. [Results] Results: The reported effective mean delay time of 1.426 Gyr is obtained by fitting the mixture model directly to the catalog; the parameter is therefore defined by the fit rather than serving as an independent, falsifiable prediction of the progenitor channels.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence in the abstract beginning 'The preferred model is mixture model corresponds to' is grammatically incomplete and should be rephrased for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive report and recommendation for major revision. We address each major comment point-by-point below, providing clarifications from the manuscript and indicating where revisions will be made to improve transparency on methods and assumptions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and methods: The abstract reports a clear model preference and a specific mean delay time with uncertainties, yet supplies no explicit form for the selection function, the likelihood construction, or the data cuts applied to the CHIME/FRB Catalog redshift distribution. This omission leaves the rejection of the pure SFH model and the quoted delay value without visible derivation steps.

    Authors: The abstract is written to be concise and highlight the primary results. The full manuscript provides the data cuts in Section 2 (redshift and DM selections from the CHIME/FRB Catalog), the selection function form in Section 3.1 (a redshift- and DM-dependent completeness model based on published CHIME sensitivity), and the likelihood in Section 3.2 (Poisson likelihood on binned redshift distributions). We will revise the abstract to reference these elements briefly and expand the methods section to make the derivation steps for model rejection and the delay posterior more explicit. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Model comparison] Model comparison: The load-bearing assumption that the observed redshift distribution, once corrected, faithfully traces the intrinsic event rate density is stated but not accompanied by a quantitative validation or sensitivity test of the CHIME selection function (sensitivity, beam response, or completeness versus redshift/DM). Any unaccounted systematics would directly affect the likelihood ratios and the posterior on the mixture weight.

    Authors: The analysis adopts the CHIME selection function as described in the catalog release papers and assumes the corrected distribution traces the intrinsic rate density after correction. No dedicated quantitative sensitivity tests for beam response or completeness variations versus redshift/DM are included in the current manuscript. We agree this is a limitation that could impact the results. We will add a dedicated discussion of potential systematics and perform a basic sensitivity analysis by varying selection function parameters within published uncertainties to assess effects on the mixture posterior. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results] Results: The reported effective mean delay time of 1.426 Gyr is obtained by fitting the mixture model directly to the catalog; the parameter is therefore defined by the fit rather than serving as an independent, falsifiable prediction of the progenitor channels.

    Authors: The effective mean delay is computed directly from the posterior of the fitted mixture model (normalized combination of the BNS and NS age-window channels) and functions as a summary statistic characterizing the data-preferred delay distribution. It is not presented as an a priori prediction from the physical channels but as an inferred quantity. We will revise the results and discussion sections to clarify this distinction explicitly, emphasizing its role as a fitted effective parameter while retaining its utility for interpreting progenitor implications. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard model fitting to catalog data

full rationale

The paper performs explicit statistical model comparison and parameter fitting of SFH, delayed, and mixture models directly to the CHIME/FRB Catalog redshift distribution (after selection corrections). The quoted mean delay time is reported as the posterior from the preferred mixture model fit, not as an independent prediction or first-principles result. No self-definitional equations, fitted inputs relabeled as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or uniqueness theorems imported from prior work appear in the derivation chain. The analysis is a conventional data-driven inference exercise whose central claim rests on the external catalog and the stated selection corrections rather than reducing to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the catalog being representative after selection corrections and on the mixture model being an appropriate description of multi-channel progenitors; the delay parameter is fitted rather than derived from first principles.

free parameters (1)
  • effective mean delay time = 1.426 Gyr
    Fitted parameter that defines the preferred mixture model and is reported with uncertainties.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption CHIME/FRB Catalog redshift distribution can be directly compared to intrinsic rate-density models after standard selection corrections.
    Required to reject the pure SFH model and select the mixture model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5707 in / 1126 out tokens · 20624 ms · 2026-06-27T06:09:19.483505+00:00 · methodology

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

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    X., McQuinn, M., et al.\ 2020, , 581, 7809, 391

    Macquart, J.-P., Prochaska, J. X., McQuinn, M., et al.\ 2020, , 581, 7809, 391. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2 2020

  2. [2]

    doi:10.1088/1674-1137/acda1c

    Tang, L., Lin, H.-N., & Li, X.\ 2023, Chinese Physics C, 47, 8, 085105. doi:10.1088/1674-1137/acda1c

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/acda1c 2023

  3. [3]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2603.18487

    Chen, H.-H., Xu, W.-T., Liang, X.-Y., et al.\ 2026, arXiv:2603.18487. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2603.18487

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.18487 2026

  4. [4]

    , author =

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

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/l35 2014

  5. [5]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/189

    Gao, H., Li, Z., & Zhang, B.\ 2014, , 788, 2, 189. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/189

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/2/189 2014

  6. [6]

    Q., Yu, H., He, J

    Zhang, G. Q., Yu, H., He, J. H., et al.\ 2020, , 900, 2, 170. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abaa4a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abaa4a 2020

  7. [7]

    J., Yan, K., Li, C

    Zhang, Z. J., Yan, K., Li, C. M., et al.\ 2021, , 906, 1, 49. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abceb9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abceb9 2021

  8. [8]

    & Zou, R.\ 2024, , 962, 1, 73

    Lin, H.-N. & Zou, R.\ 2024, , 962, 1, 73. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1b4f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1b4f 2024

  9. [9]

    R., et al.\ 2018, , 481, 2, 2320

    Luo, R., Lee, K., Lorimer, D. R., et al.\ 2018, , 481, 2, 2320. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2364

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2364 2018

  10. [10]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa704

    Luo, R., Men, Y., Lee, K., et al.\ 2020, , 494, 1, 665. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa704

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa704 2020

  11. [11]

    + "* - #0 *#*

    Zhang, R. C., Zhang, B., Li, Y., et al.\ 2021, , 501, 1, 157. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3537

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3537 2021

  12. [12]

    Zhang, R. C. & Zhang, B.\ 2022, , 924, 1, L14. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac46ad

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac46ad 2022

  13. [13]

    & Ekers, R.\ 2018, , 480, 3, 4211

    Macquart, J.-P. & Ekers, R.\ 2018, , 480, 3, 4211. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2083

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2083 2018

  14. [14]

    W., Prochaska, J

    James, C. W., Prochaska, J. X., Macquart, J.-P., et al.\ 2022, , 509, 4, 4775. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3051

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3051 2022

  15. [15]

    M., Bannister, K

    Macquart, J.-P., Shannon, R. M., Bannister, K. W., et al.\ 2019, , 872, 2, L19. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab03d6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab03d6 2019

  16. [16]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.107303

    Zhou, B., Li, X., Wang, T., et al.\ 2014, , 89, 10, 107303. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.107303

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.107303 2014

  17. [17]

    2021 , month =

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., et al.\ 2021, , 257, 2, 59. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab 2021

  18. [18]

    C., et al.\ 2026, , 283, 1, 34

    Chime/Frb Collaboration, Abbott, T., Andersen, B. C., et al.\ 2026, , 283, 1, 34. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae3828

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae3828 2026

  19. [19]

    Cordes, J. M. & Lazio, T. J. W.\ 2002, astro-ph/0207156. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207156

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0207156 2002

  20. [20]

    M., Manchester, R

    Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N.\ 2017, , 835, 1, 29. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29 2017

  21. [21]

    Prochaska, J. X. & Zheng, Y.\ 2019, , 485, 1, 648. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz261

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz261 2019

  22. [22]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5310

    Lin, H.-N., Li, X.-Y., & Zou, R.\ 2024, , 969, 2, 123. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5310

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5310 2024

  23. [23]

    Radiation Backgrounds at Cosmic Dawn: X-Rays from Compact Binaries , volume=

    Madau, P. & Fragos, T.\ 2017, , 840, 1, 39. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9 2017

  24. [24]

    & Deng, C.-M.\ 2025, , 698, A127

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451250 2025

  25. [25]

    , keywords =

    Chen, H.-Y., Gu, W.-M., Sun, M., et al.\ 2022, , 939, 1, 27. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac958a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac958a 2022

  26. [26]

    W., Bhardwaj, M., et al.\ 2023, , 944, 1, 105

    Shin, K., Masui, K. W., Bhardwaj, M., et al.\ 2023, , 944, 1, 105. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acaf06

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acaf06 2023

  27. [27]

    , keywords =

    Gordon, A. C., Fong, W.-. fai ., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al.\ 2023, , 954, 1, 80. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace5aa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace5aa 2023

  28. [28]

    , keywords =

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al.\ 2020, , 587, 7832, 54. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y 2020

  29. [29]

    L., Esposito, P., Rea, N., et al.\ 2016, , 457, 4, 3448

    Israel, G. L., Esposito, P., Rea, N., et al.\ 2016, , 457, 4, 3448. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw008

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw008 2016

  30. [30]

    ApJ , year = 1955, month = jan, volume =

    Salpeter, E. E.\ 1955, , 121, 161. doi:10.1086/145971

    work page doi:10.1086/145971 1955

  31. [31]

    & van Leeuwen, J.\ 2024, , 690, A377

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450673 2024

  32. [32]

    , keywords =

    Gupta, O., Beniamini, P., Kumar, P., et al.\ 2025, , 986, 1, 100. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add14c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add14c 2025

  33. [33]

    doi:10.1126/science.1236789

    Thornton, D., Stappers, B., Bailes, M., et al.\ 2013, Science, 341, 6141, 53. doi:10.1126/science.1236789

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1236789 2013

  34. [34]

    Petroff, E., Hessels, J. W. T., & Lorimer, D. R.\ 2019, , 27, 1, 4. doi:10.1007/s00159-019-0116-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-019-0116-6 2019

  35. [35]

    doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005

    Zhang, B.\ 2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 3, 035005. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.95.035005 2023

  36. [36]

    W.LuandP.Kumar.MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyalAstronomicalSociety,477(2):2470–2493,2018

    Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M. A., et al.\ 2007, Science, 318, 5851, 777. doi:10.1126/science.1147532

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1147532 2007

  37. [37]

    G., Scholz, P., Hessels, J

    Spitler, L. G., Scholz, P., Hessels, J. W. T., et al.\ 2016, , 531, 7593, 202. doi:10.1038/nature17168

    work page doi:10.1038/nature17168 2016

  38. [38]

    , keywords =

    Bochenek, C. D., Ravi, V., Belov, K. V., et al.\ 2020, , 587, 7832, 59. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x

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

  39. [39]

    , keywords =

    Mereghetti, S., Savchenko, V., Ferrigno, C., et al.\ 2020, , 898, 2, L29. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba2cf

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba2cf 2020

  40. [40]

    & Rezzolla, L.\ 2014, , 562, A137

    Falcke, H. & Rezzolla, L.\ 2014, , 562, A137. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321996

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321996 2014

  41. [41]

    W., et al.\ 2021, , 598, 7880, 267

    Li, D., Wang, P., Zhu, W. W., et al.\ 2021, , 598, 7880, 267. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03878-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03878-5 2021

  42. [42]

    14 Astrophysics of FRBs Coordinator: Alice P

    Chatterjee, S., Law, C. J., Wharton, R. S., et al.\ 2017, , 541, 7635, 58. doi:10.1038/nature20797

    work page doi:10.1038/nature20797 2017

  43. [43]

    C., Kaspi, V

    Pleunis, Z., Good, D. C., Kaspi, V. M., et al.\ 2021, , 923, 1, 1. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac33ac

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac33ac 2021

  44. [44]

    C., Bandura, K., et al.\ 2019, , 885, 1, L24

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K., et al.\ 2019, , 885, 1, L24. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab4a80

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab4a80 2019

  45. [45]

    R., Chen, P., et al

    Xu, H., Niu, J. R., Chen, P., et al.\ 2022, , 609, 7928, 685. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05071-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05071-8 2022

  46. [46]

    P., Sand, K

    Curtin, A. P., Sand, K. R., Pleunis, Z., et al.\ 2025, , 992, 2, 206. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf844

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf844 2025

  47. [47]

    Nature Astronomy , keywords =

    Ridnaia, A., Svinkin, D., Frederiks, D., et al.\ 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 372. doi:10.1038/s41550-020-01265-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-01265-0 2021

  48. [48]

    Nature Astronomy , keywords =

    Li, C. K., Lin, L., Xiong, S. L., et al.\ 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 378. doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01302-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01302-6 2021

  49. [49]

    R., Nathanail, A., & Rezzolla, L.\ 2018, , 864, 2, 117

    Most, E. R., Nathanail, A., & Rezzolla, L.\ 2018, , 864, 2, 117. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad6ef

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad6ef 2018

  50. [50]

    Hansen, B. M. S. & Lyutikov, M.\ 2001, , 322, 4, 695. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04103.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04103.x 2001

  51. [51]

    doi:10.1093/pasj/65.5.L12

    Totani, T.\ 2013, , 65, 5, L12. doi:10.1093/pasj/65.5.L12

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/65.5.l12 2013

  52. [52]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/822/1/L7

    Wang, J.-S., Yang, Y.-P., Wu, X.-F., et al.\ 2016, , 822, 1, L7. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/822/1/L7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/822/1/l7 2016

  53. [53]

    Mingarelli, C. M. F., Levin, J., & Lazio, T. J. W.\ 2015, , 814, 2, L20. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/814/2/L20

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/814/2/l20 2015

  54. [54]

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5

    Niu, C.-H., Aggarwal, K., Li, D., et al.\ 2022, , 606, 7916, 873. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5 2022

  55. [55]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ae8

    Zhang, B.\ 2019, , 873, 2, L9. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ae8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ae8 2019

  56. [56]

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/776/2/L39

    Kashiyama, K., Ioka, K., & M \'e sz \'a ros, P.\ 2013, , 776, 2, L39. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/776/2/L39

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/776/2/l39 2013

  57. [57]

    Rice, J. R. & Zhang, B.\ 2017, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 13, 22. doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2017.02.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2017.02.002 2017

  58. [58]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.127503

    Barrau, A., Rovelli, C., & Vidotto, F.\ 2014, , 90, 12, 127503. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.127503

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.127503 2014

  59. [59]

    G., Cordes, J

    Spitler, L. G., Cordes, J. M., Hessels, J. W. T., et al.\ 2014, , 790, 2, 101. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/101

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/790/2/101 2014

  60. [60]

    W., Deller, A

    Bannister, K. W., Deller, A. T., Phillips, C., et al.\ 2019, Science, 365, 6453, 565. doi:10.1126/science.aaw5903

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaw5903 2019

  61. [61]

    15 Astrophysics of FRBs Coordinator: Alice P

    Law, C. J., Sharma, K., Ravi, V., et al.\ 2024, , 967, 1, 29. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3736

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3736 2024

  62. [62]

    The Einstein Telescope: a third-generation gravitational wave observatory

    Punturo, M., Abernathy, M., Acernese, F., et al.\ 2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 19, 194002. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194002

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194002 2010

  63. [63]

    A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community

    Evans, M., Adhikari, R. X., Afle, C., et al.\ 2021, arXiv:2109.09882. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2109.09882

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.09882 2021

  64. [64]

    2023, JCAP, 2023, 068, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/07/068

    Branchesi, M., Maggiore, M., Alonso, D., et al.\ 2023, , 2023, 7, 068. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/07/068

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/07/068 2023