Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

No Evidence for Second-Scale Periodicity in FRB 20201124A from FAST Observations

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A reanalysis of FAST observations of FRB 20201124A finds no significant second-scale periodicity in any of 45 observing days, contradicting the claimed 1.7 s period.

desk verdict A credible but threshold-dependent refutation of the 1.7s periodicity claim; the 0.4s waiting-time cut needs an injection test before the non-detection is fully established. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14219 v1 pith:XO6UX4BM submitted 2025-05-20 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IM

Dotan Gazith , Barak Zackay This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM
keywords fastradioburstsFRB20201124AperiodicitysearchwaitingtimedistributionnullH-testchi-squaretestrepeating
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

The paper aims to show that the about 1.7 second periodicity claimed for the repeating fast radio burst FRB 20201124A is not statistically significant when the null distribution is sampled carefully. It defines a full periodicity-search pipeline, applies it to the 1863 FAST-detected bursts from April to June 2021, and finds that no individual observing day shows significant constant-frequency periodicity in the 0.1 to 10 Hz range. The two days on which a companion detection was claimed, MJD 59310 and MJD 59347, do not survive the corrected significance tests. If correct, the result removes the strongest current evidence for a second-scale periodic clock in this repeater and shifts the burden onto properly constructed null hypotheses rather than textbook chi-square approximations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the empirical null distribution of the maximal periodicity statistic. Instead of relying on theoretical chi-square or H-test distributions, the paper samples 500 mock arrival-time sequences per day under two models (uniform in time, or log-normal waiting times matching the long mode), forces the same 0.4 s pre-processing threshold and same burst count, searches each mock set over frequency, and records the best statistic. A Gumbel extreme-value fit to those maxima sets the p-value for the observed search result. Appendix A shows the entire procedure matters: adding bursts from the short waiting-time mode shifts the tail of the maximal-H5 distribution to larger values, demonstrating that close bursts, if included, inflate significance under the null.

What would settle it

If a re-analysis of the same FAST data that keeps the close sub-0.4 s bursts, models their correlation explicitly in the null, and applies a look-elsewhere correction still returns a periodicity peak above the 5-sigma threshold at about 1.7 s on MJD 59347 or MJD 59310, then the paper's non-detection claim would be wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is a non-detection: within the 45 observing days of FAST data, no constant-frequency timing model with frequency between 0.1 and 10 Hz produces a test statistic exceeding what is expected under an empirically sampled null. The analysis pre-processes arrival times by discarding bursts with a preceding burst less than 0.4 s away, then searches with two statistics, the binned chi-square (to match the prior claim) and the H5 harmonic test. Significance is estimated by Monte Carlo: 500 mock burst sets per day, drawn either uniformly or from the long log-normal waiting-time mode, are searched and the maximum statistic per set forms the null. For MJD 59310 the best chi-square value has a Gumbel-fitted p-value of $10^{-3}$, far above the Bonferroni-corrected 5-$\sigma$ threshold around $10^{-9}$. For MJD 59347 the chi-square value drops from 5.8 to 4.3 once two triplets of bursts with sub-0.4 s waiting times are reduced to single representative bursts, placing the result well inside the null distribution. The paper therefore concludes that the claimed 1.7 s periodicity is an artifact of an improper null distribution and of including short-waiting-time substructure.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that bursts separated by less than 0.4 s are substructure rather than engine periodicity, so they can be removed; if those close bursts are true periodic engine output, the analysis deletes the signal it claims to test.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The claimed about 1.7 s period in FRB 20201124A would not be evidence for a rotating or periodically modulated engine; strict second-scale clocking is absent in this 2021 FAST campaign.
  • Future periodicity claims for repeating FRBs need an empirical null that includes waiting-time correlations and the look-elsewhere effect from scanning frequency, not the textbook chi-square distribution.
  • A pre-processing threshold that strips sub-0.4 s pairs is part of the analysis; if adopted, it removes substructure that otherwise biases null searches.
  • Applying the same pipeline to other GHz-ranged repeaters with dense burst counts can test whether second-scale periodicity exists in any currently known source.
  • The non-detection constrains constant-frequency periodic modulation at 0.1-10 Hz over 2-4 hour windows, independent of the day-scale periodicity seen in other repeaters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If accepted, the result suggests that published periodicity detections elsewhere that used theoretical null distributions for small burst counts should be re-examined with sampled nulls before being invoked as engine evidence.
  • The choice of 0.4 s is physically motivated but not derived; a decisive test would search for periodic structure among the discarded close bursts themselves, asking whether their arrival times prefer a common clock.
  • Pure constant-frequency periodicity is not the only possible clock; a quasi-periodic engine with phase wandering or frequency drift would be missed, and the full daily observation windows are short enough that longer continuous monitoring could still reveal a period.
  • The significance pipeline itself is reusable: any repeater with tens of bursts per session can be tested with the same Monte Carlo null, making the paper's contribution primarily a statistical template for repeating-FRB periodicity searches.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript reanalyzes the burst arrival times of FRB 20201124A observed by FAST between April and June 2021, searching for second-scale periodicity within individual observing days. The authors define a preprocessing step that discards bursts with a waiting time shorter than 0.4 s before a preceding burst, motivated by the bimodal waiting-time distribution, and then apply two test statistics (a truncated H-test with N=5 and a binned χ² test with 30 bins). Significance is estimated by Monte Carlo sampling of null TOA sequences using two models: uniform draws over the daily span and a log-normal waiting-time model with parameters fitted to the long-mode of the data. The central claim is that no significant periodicity is found on any day, specifically contradicting the ~1.7 s periodicities reported for MJDs 59310 and 59347 by Du et al. (2025). The authors attribute the discrepancy to their more careful null-distribution estimation and, for MJD 59347, to the removal of two triplets of closely spaced bursts.

Significance. If the non-detection is correct, the paper provides an important cautionary result for FRB periodicity searches: it shows that the claimed second-scale periodicity in FRB 20201124A is not robust to a more principled treatment of the null distribution and burst pre-processing. The manuscript is methodologically transparent, explicitly defining the search procedure, frequency spacing, test statistics, and null-sampling strategies, and it includes a supplemental appendix demonstrating that short-waiting-time bursts inflate the tail of the H5 statistic. The two independent null sampling strategies and the use of both χ² and H statistics add robustness. However, the central claim depends critically on the 0.4 s threshold, which is not validated by an injection/recovery test, and the significance estimate for MJD 59310 relies on extrapolating a Gumbel fit beyond the 500 Monte Carlo samples; these are substantive gaps that a revision should address.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1.1, §4.1, Appendix A] The 0.4 s waiting-time threshold is the load-bearing element of the non-detection claim, but the manuscript does not establish that this threshold preserves genuine periodic signals while removing only substructure. In §4.1 the authors state that rejecting three bursts from two triplets on MJD 59347 reduces χ² from 5.8 to 4.3, which is exactly what converts the Du et al. (2025) detection into a non-detection. Appendix A shows that including short-waiting-time bursts widens the null distribution of H5, but this only demonstrates that the null is broader when such bursts are present; it does not prove that the specific triplets in MJD 59347 are unrelated to a periodic engine. An injection/recovery test (or a dedicated model of sub-burst structure) is needed to show that a periodic signal with clustered bursts would remain detectable after the 0.4 s cut. Without such a test, the non-detection is not established independently of the threshold choice.
  2. [§3.2, §4] The significance estimate for MJD 59310 rests on a Gumbel distribution fitted to 500 Monte Carlo maxima and then extrapolated to p-values as small as 10⁻³, which is then compared to a Bonferroni-corrected threshold of about 10⁻⁹. The paper offers no validation that the Gumbel tail is accurate beyond the sampled range; for an extreme-value distribution, a slight mis-fit can change the extrapolated p-value by orders of magnitude. The authors should either increase the number of Monte Carlo samples enough to resolve the tail directly, or provide a diagnostic (e.g., a quantile-quantile plot on the largest order statistics) that justifies the extrapolation. In addition, the log-normal null parameters (4.5, 1.42) are fitted to the same dataset under analysis (§3.2, item 2), which mildly pulls the null toward the data; the paper should discuss or test the sensitivity of the conclusions to this fitting procedure.
  3. [§3.1.4, footnote 3] The frequency spacing formula Δf ∼ Δφ/(max t_i − min t_i) uses the full observed span of arrival times, but footnote 3 admits that most daily observations were not continuous. If the actual observing windows are shorter than the span, the effective frequency resolution for a phase-coherent signal is coarser, and the search could miss periodicities whose frequencies fall between the sampled grid points. The authors dismiss this as a negligible effect without a quantitative argument. A quantitative estimate, or a test using only the continuous segments, would strengthen the claim that the search is complete over the 0.1–10 Hz range.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §6] The manuscript contains several language slips: the abstract has 'F AST' with an extra space, and §6 says 'We searched' and 'We compared my search strategy' where 'our' is expected; these should be corrected in a revision.
  2. [Figure 1] The figure legend inside the panel reads 'Chen et al. 2025' while the caption and text refer to C. Du et al. (2025); this reference mismatch is confusing and should be fixed.
  3. [§4, Eq. (p-value)] The displayed definition 'p-value59310 ≡ P(χ²_search ≤ χ²_Gumbel)' appears to have the inequality direction reversed; a p-value should express the probability that the null statistic exceeds the observed value. Please clarify the notation.
  4. [§3.2] The description of the log-normal null sampling says 'ensuring the total duration is similar to that of the detected bursts up to 10% using rejection sampling' without explaining how the rejection step works or how the 10% tolerance is enforced; a concise algorithmic description would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reasoning found: the non-detection is a conditional empirical result, not a consequence of the inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a non-detection of second-scale periodicity under a defined preprocessing and significance procedure. The main potential concern, the 0.4 s waiting-time cut, is a modeling assumption: bursts with shorter preceding intervals are excluded on the physical hypothesis that they are substructure. The conclusion is conditional on that cut, but it is not derived from it by construction; the search still tests the remaining bursts against Monte Carlo nulls. The null distributions are data-driven (uniform within the daily span or LogNormal(4.5,1.42) waiting times), which is a standard way to estimate significance when analytic distributions fail. This is self-referential in the sense that the null is calibrated on the same source, but it does not force the non-detection: MJD 59310 still marginally exceeds the log-normal null, and the paper reports it as insignificant only after multiple-testing correction. The comparison with Du et al. (2025) is external and shows that the difference arises from the preprocessing and the null sampling, not from a tautology. No equation-level circularity, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation was found. Appendix A's demonstration that short waiting times inflate the H5 tail is an empirical argument for the cut, not a definitional equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central non-detection claim rests on several modeling choices: the 0.4 s preprocessing threshold, the log-normal null model fitted to the same data, the assumption of continuous observation windows, and the Gumbel tail extrapolation. None of these are new physical entities; they are statistical and astrophysical assumptions that should be stress-tested before the null result is treated as final.

free parameters (7)
  • Waiting time threshold = 0.4 s
    Hand-chosen in Sec 3.1.1 to separate the short and long modes of the waiting time distribution; directly changes the MJD 59347 result.
  • H-test maximum harmonic N = 5
    Chosen in Sec 3.1.3 instead of the typical N=20 due to low burst counts; affects the test statistic and null distribution.
  • Phase resolution for frequency spacing = 0.01 (1%)
    Assumed in Sec 3.1.4 for the H5 search to ensure completeness; sets the frequency grid spacing.
  • LogNormal null parameters = LogNormal(4.5, 1.42) s
    Fitted in Sec 3.2 to the long waiting-time mode of the same dataset; used to generate null TOA samples.
  • Number of Monte Carlo samples per day = 500
    Selected in Sec 3.2; determines the precision of empirical p-values and the Gumbel fit.
  • Number of bins for chi-squared = 30
    Inherited from Du et al. (2025) for compatibility in Sec 3.1.3; affects the statistic's null distribution.
  • Bonferroni multiplicity = not explicitly enumerated (~180 trials implied)
    Used in Sec 4 to set the detection threshold alpha/m ~ 1e-9 across days, tests, and sampling strategies; the exact m is not stated.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Bursts separated by less than 0.4 s are burst substructure and are unrelated to any possible engine periodicity.
    Invoked in Sec 3.1.1 to preprocess TOAs; Appendix A shows short waiting times inflate H5, but does not establish the physical origin of these bursts.
  • domain assumption The daily FAST observations can be approximated as continuous for null TOA sampling.
    Footnote 3 states observations were not continuous but the effect is neglected because the observation windows are unknown.
  • domain assumption The log-normal distribution fitted to the long waiting-time mode is a valid generative null model for burst arrival times.
    Sec 3.2 uses this to create synthetic TOAs; because the parameters come from the same data, the null may include real clustering features.
  • ad hoc to paper The Gumbel distribution accurately extrapolates the Monte Carlo maximum-statistic distribution beyond 500 samples.
    Sec 4 fits a Gumbel to 500 samples and reads off p=1e-3; the tail extrapolation is not validated with more samples.
  • domain assumption Burst arrival times are statistically independent draws from the chosen null process after the 0.4 s threshold is applied.
    The Monte Carlo null assumes no higher-order correlations beyond the waiting time distribution.
  • domain assumption The chi-squared and H5 test statistics have enough power to detect a constant-frequency period in the low-count daily sets.
    The search is restricted to constant frequency (no derivatives, no binary orbits) as stated in Sec 3.1.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of No Evidence for Second-Scale Periodicity in FRB 20201124A from FAST Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XO6UX4BM

@misc{pith2026250514219,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: No Evidence for Second-Scale Periodicity in FRB 20201124A from FAST Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XO6UX4BM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14219}
}
read the original abstract

Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are bright and short radio flashes of cosmological origin. Although a great number of FRBs were detected in the last two decades, their progenitors and the physical processes that create them are unknown. In recent years, magnetars have been proposed as one of the leading progenitor candidates. A striking feature that can hint at such a magnetar origin is second-scale periodicity. In this paper, we define a robust procedure to search for such periodicity and estimate the significance of its results. We search for such periodicity in the bursts of FRB 20201124A, observed by the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Telescope (FAST) between April and June 2021. Our analysis does not find any significant periodicity. We discuss the differences between our non-detection and the ~1.7s periodicity claim by C. Du et al. (2025).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14219 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Waiting time distribution of FRB 20201124A. Vertical line indicate the thresholds used to separate between the short and long modes of the distribution in this work (orange) and by C. Du et al. (2025) (green) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The search (red dashed line), log-normal and uni￾form monte-carlo simulations (blue and orange histograms correspondingly) results for MJD 59310, with a fit to the uniform monte-carlo simulation (orange solid line). We can see that the search result is larger than all uniform monte– carlo samples, but not much larger as demonstrated by the fit to a Gumbel distribution. Comparing the recovered p-value and threshold f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A summary of search (blue dots), log-normal and uniform monte-carlo simulations (blue and orange violins corre￾spondingly) results, using χ 2 (left) and H5 (right) statistics. We can see only MJD 59310 marginally passes the log-normal monte-carlo simulation, and all other days are clearly not significant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The maximal H5-statistic distribution in a periodicity search for various waiting time distributions. Sets of 30 TOAs are sampled using FRB 20201124A’s waiting time distribution constrained to nshort waiting times sampled from the short mode, or assuming a Poisson proc…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Depolarization Induced by Rapid Polarization Angle Swings: A Common Feature of Pulsars and Fast Radio Bursts?

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

    Rapid polarization-angle swings should depolarize pulsar and FRB emission, yielding an anti-correlation Π_L vs dPA/dt that has tentative support in a subset of pulsars.

  2. Collimation of Fast Radio Burster 20201124A; Repeaters vs. Apparent Non-Repeaters

    astro-ph.HE 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The spindown of FRB 20201124A implies a beaming solid angle below 10^-6 of the sky and a Lorentz factor above 3000 for the emitting charges, if the reported period and its derivative are real.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key o...

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    D., McKenna, D

    Bochenek, C. D., McKenna, D. L., Belov, K. V., et al. 2020 a , title STARE2 : Detecting Fast Radio Bursts in the Milky Way , Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 034202, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63b3

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab63b3 2020

  5. [5]

    D., Ravi, V., Belov, K

    Bochenek, C. D., Ravi, V., Belov, K. V., et al. 2020 b , title A fast radio burst associated with a Galactic magnetar, Nature, 587, 59, 10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x

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

  6. [6]

    C., et al

    Chime/Frb Collaboration , Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2020, title Periodic activity from a fast radio burst source, Nature, 582, 351, 10.1038/s41586-020-2398-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2398-2 2020

  7. [7]

    C., Bandura, K

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al. 2020, title A bright millisecond-duration radio burst from a Galactic magnetar, Nature, 587, 54, 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y

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

  8. [8]

    G., Scholz, P., et al

    Cruces, M., Spitler, L. G., Scholz, P., et al. 2021, title Repeating behaviour of FRB 121102: periodicity, waiting times, and energy distribution, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 448, 10.1093/mnras/staa3223

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3223 2021

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    C., Raubenheimer, B

    de Jager, O. C., Raubenheimer, B. C., & Swanepoel, J. W. H. 1989, title A powerful test for weak periodic signals with unknown light curve shape in sparse data., Astronomy and Astrophysics, 221, 180. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989A&A...221..180D

    1989

  2. [10]

    2024, title A Thorough Search for Short -timescale Periodicity in Four Active Repeating Fast Radio Bursts , The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 129, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8cd5

    Du, C., Huang, Y.-F., Zhang, Z.-B., et al. 2024, title A Thorough Search for Short -timescale Periodicity in Four Active Repeating Fast Radio Bursts , The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 129, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8cd5

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    2025, title A second-scale periodicity in an active repeating fast radio burst source, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.12013

    Du, C., Huang, Y.-F., Geng, J.-J., et al. 2025, title A second-scale periodicity in an active repeating fast radio burst source, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.12013

    2025 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    2023, title An extreme active repeating fast radio burst in a clean environment, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2304.14671

    Feng, Y., Li, D., Zhang, Y.-K., et al. 2023, title An extreme active repeating fast radio burst in a clean environment, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2304.14671

    2023 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    B., & Zackay, B

    Gazith, D., Pearlman, A. B., & Zackay, B. 2025, title Recovering Pulsar Periodicity from Time -of-arrival Data by Finding the Shortest Vector in a Lattice , The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9449

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    P., Jenkins, M., et al

    Kirsten, F., Snelders, M. P., Jenkins, M., et al. 2021, title Detection of two bright radio bursts from magnetar SGR 1935 + 2154, Nature Astronomy, 5, 414, 10.1038/s41550-020-01246-3

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    2022, title A repeating fast radio burst source in a globular cluster, Nature, 602, 585, 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    Kirsten, F., Marcote, B., Nimmo, K., et al. 2022, title A repeating fast radio burst source in a globular cluster, Nature, 602, 585, 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

    Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M. A., Narkevic, D. J., & Crawford, F. 2007, title A bright millisecond radio burst of extragalactic origin, Science, 318, 777

    2007

  9. [17]

    Marcote, B., Paragi, Z., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2017, title The Repeating Fast Radio Burst FRB 121102 as Seen on Milliarcsecond Angular Scales , The Astrophysical Journal, 834, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L8

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    Marcote, B., Nimmo, K., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2020, title A repeating fast radio burst source localized to a nearby spiral galaxy, Nature, 577, 190, 10.1038/s41586-019-1866-z

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

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

    Niu, C. H., Aggarwal, K., Li, D., et al. 2022, title A repeating fast radio burst associated with a persistent radio source, Nature, 606, 873, 10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    2022, title FAST Observations of an Extremely Active Episode of FRB 20201124A

    Niu, J.-R., Zhu, W.-W., Zhang, B., et al. 2022, title FAST Observations of an Extremely Active Episode of FRB 20201124A . IV . Spin Period Search , Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124004, 10.1088/1674-4527/ac995d

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    M., Mickaliger, M

    Rajwade, K. M., Mickaliger, M. B., Stappers, B. W., et al. 2020, title Possible periodic activity in the repeating FRB 121102, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 3551, 10.1093/mnras/staa1237

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    2020, title A bright millisecond-timescale radio burst from the direction of the Galactic magnetar SGR 1935+2154, The Astronomer's Telegram, 13681, 1

    Scholz, P., & Chime/Frb Collaboration . 2020, title A bright millisecond-timescale radio burst from the direction of the Galactic magnetar SGR 1935+2154, The Astronomer's Telegram, 13681, 1. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ATel13681....1S

    2020

  15. [23]

    P., Bassa, C

    Tendulkar, S. P., Bassa, C. G., Cordes, J. M., et al. 2017, title The Host Galaxy and Redshift of the Repeating Fast Radio Burst FRB 121102, The Astrophysical Journal, 834, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L7

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    2017, title On the Origin of Fast Radio Bursts ( FRBs ), The Astrophysical Journal, 842, 34, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa713e

    Waxman, E. 2017, title On the Origin of Fast Radio Bursts ( FRBs ), The Astrophysical Journal, 842, 34, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa713e

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    R., Chen, P., et al

    Xu, H., Niu, J. R., Chen, P., et al. 2022, title A fast radio burst source at a complex magnetized site in a barred galaxy, Nature, 609, 685, 10.1038/s41586-022-05071-8

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    F., Jiang, J

    Zhang, C. F., Jiang, J. C., Men, Y. P., et al. 2020, title A highly polarised radio burst detected from SGR 1935+2154 by FAST , The Astronomer's Telegram, 13699, 1. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ATel13699....1Z

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.