Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Do they repeat? Monitoring 36 non-repeating FRBs with FAST

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 Deep FAST follow-up of 36 apparently non-repeating FRBs finds no repeat bursts, placing the most stringent upper limits yet on their repetition rates.

desk verdict A clean and useful non-detection campaign whose headline rate limits are model-dependent and loosely labeled. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03564 v1 pith:PXB3USEK submitted 2025-06-04 astro-ph.HE

Yuri Uno , Tetsuya Hashimoto , Tomotsugu Goto , Shinnosuke Hisano , Yi Hang Valerie Wong , Arthur Chen , Sujin Eie , Simon C.-C. Ho
show 7 more authors
James O. Chibueze Yu-Wei Lin Seong Jin Kim Tzu-Yin Hsu Poya Wang Pei Wang Murthadza Aznam
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsFRBrepetitionratesnon-repeatingFRBstelescopePoissonprocessWeibulldistributionUMAPclassificationupperlimits
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 asks whether FRBs currently classified as non-repeating are truly single bursts or simply repeaters whose later bursts have been missed. The authors selected 36 likely misclassified candidates using empirical luminosity-duration relations and an unsupervised machine-learning method, then observed each for 10 minutes with FAST. No burst above a signal-to-noise ratio of 7 was detected, corresponding to a typical 7-$\sigma$ fluence limit of about 0.013 Jy ms. Combining these non-detections with prior observations yields upper limits on repetition rates of about $10^{-2.6}$ to $10^{-0.22}$ per hour under a Poisson process and about $10^{-2.3}$ to $10^{-0.25}$ per hour under a Weibull process. If the limits hold, many apparent non-repeaters are not rapidly active repeaters, sharpening the observational distinction between the two FRB classes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the scaled joint repetition rate, $r_{\rm scaled,joint} = N_{\rm bursts} / [T_P(S_P/S_0)^{-1.5} + P_{\rm acc} T_F(S_F/S_0)^{-1.5}]$, which converts non-detections from telescopes with different sensitivities into a common per-hour rate. It scales exposure times by the Euclidean source-count slope $\alpha = -1.5$ and by $P_{\rm acc}$, the probability that FAST's 19 beams cover the source's positional uncertainty region. A parallel Weibull analysis uses the scaled interval $\Delta_{\rm scaled} = \Delta(S/S_0)^{-1.5}P_{\rm acc}$ inside the Bayesian formalism for burst-interval distributions.

What would settle it

Detecting a burst above S/N 7 from any of the 36 sources in another 10-minute FAST exposure of comparable sensitivity would directly contradict the core non-detection result, as would measuring the fluence distribution of known repeater bursts and finding a slope steeper than $-1.5$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that 36 FRBs selected as likely hidden repeaters do not produce a detectable burst during 10-minute FAST exposures, and that their absence of bursts can be converted into the tightest joint upper limits on FRB repetition rates reported so far. Using a sensitivity-scaled repetition-rate formula, the authors find typical upper limits near $10^{-1.3}$ hr$^{-1}$, about a factor of three tighter than prior Arecibo-based limits and based on a sample five times larger. One machine-learning-selected source, FRB 20190110C, was independently confirmed by CHIME as a repeater during this work, supporting the preselection strategy. The paper also reports that, under a Weibull model, the burst rate shape parameter $k$ is poorly constrained but tends below 1 for many sources, hinting at possible temporal clustering in FRB activity.

Load-bearing premise

The upper limits assume that any repeat bursts have the same brightness distribution as the original burst, scaling as $N(>S)\propto S^{-1.5}$ down to FAST's much deeper sensitivity, and that their widths and spectral shapes are similar to the first burst; if repeat bursts are typically fainter, the true repetition rates could be higher than reported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the limits hold, a typical non-repeating FRB in this sample repeats less than once per 20 hours, meaning many apparent non-repeaters are not rapidly active sources.
  • The joint limits, based on five times more sources than prior Arecibo follow-up, tighten constraints on FRB repetition rates by a factor of about 3.
  • The confirmation of FRB 20190110C as a repeater after selection by the machine-learning method supports UMAP-based preselection as an efficient way to find true repeaters.
  • Under a Weibull model, the posterior central values of the shape parameter $k$ tend below 1 for many sources, hinting at burst clustering, although $k$ remains poorly constrained in the absence of detected bursts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If repeat bursts are systematically fainter than the first detected burst, the assumed $N(>S)\propto S^{-1.5}$ fluence scaling makes the reported upper limits optimistic; a measured fluence distribution of known repeaters' bursts would test this directly.
  • Because FAST's 19 beams cover only about 10% of the positional uncertainty for these sources, some missed repeats could be due to positional mismatch rather than true quiescence; wider-field monitoring would separate these possibilities.
  • The same empirical-plus-machine-learning target selection could be applied to the expanded CHIME catalogue to grow the monitored sample and push typical repetition-rate limits below $10^{-2}$ hr$^{-1}$.
  • Simultaneous multi-telescope follow-up would calibrate the sensitivity-scaling assumption, since a burst detected by two telescopes with different sensitivities would directly measure the relevant fluence distribution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports FAST follow-up observations of 36 FRBs previously classified as non-repeating, selected using empirical criteria (Hashimoto et al. 2020a) and a UMAP-based machine-learning scheme (Chen et al. 2022). Each source was observed for 10 minutes; no bursts with S/N > 7 were detected, yielding a typical 7-sigma fluence limit of about 0.013 Jy ms. Combining these non-detections with prior CHIME, GBT, ASKAP, UTMOST, and Parkes observations, the authors derive upper limits on the repetition rate under Poisson and Weibull models, claiming ranges of roughly 10^-2.6 to 10^-0.22 hr^-1 (Poisson) and 10^-2.3 to 10^-0.25 hr^-1 (Weibull). One target, FRB 20190110C, was independently confirmed as a repeater during the preparation of the manuscript, and its measured rate is shown to be consistent with the derived limits.

Significance. If the non-detections are robust, the paper provides one of the largest samples of deep follow-up constraints on apparently non-repeating FRBs, with per-source sensitivity limits computed using the standard radiometer equation and a careful treatment of positional coverage through P_acc. The work also usefully validates the machine-learning classification scheme through the independent confirmation of FRB 20190110C, and the data are public. However, the quantitative repetition-rate limits are conditional on an untested assumption about the fluence distribution of repeat bursts, and the quoted 'upper limits' are posterior medians rather than confidence upper limits, so the headline numbers require reinterpretation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2.2, Table 3, Abstract] The values labeled 'upper limits' are the 50th percentiles of the posterior distributions, as explicitly stated for the Weibull case ('the 50th percentile of the resulting r distribution is reported as the upper limit'). This is not a confidence upper limit; the 90% upper bounds in the same table are typically several times larger (e.g., FRB 20190129A has a median of 0.048 hr^-1 and a 90% upper bound of 0.188 hr^-1). The abstract's stated ranges are therefore central estimates, and the claim of 'one of the most stringent upper limits' is overstated unless genuine 90% or 95% percentile upper limits are reported.
  2. [Eq. (6) and Fig. 5 caption] The sensitivity scaling assumes N(>S) proportional to S^-1.5 for repeat bursts from these specific sources, extrapolated about two decades below the original detection sensitivity. This slope is measured for the field population, not for the repeating-burst population of these candidates. Since the FAST term P_acc T_F (S_F/S0)^-1.5 dominates the denominator for most sources, a flatter true slope (e.g., alpha = 1) would make the quoted limits less stringent by up to an order of magnitude; as a concrete example, the limit for FRB 20110523A rises from about 2.5e-3 hr^-1 to roughly 2.8e-2 hr^-1. Please present the limits as conditional on this assumption and include a robustness test varying alpha.
  3. [Section 5.2.1, Eq. (6)] As written, Eq. (6) with N_bursts = 0 (the observed number of detections) yields r_scaled,joint = 0, yet Table 3 reports non-zero upper limits for all sources. The manuscript does not state what value of N_bursts (or which posterior quantile) is inserted into Eq. (6), making the central computation irreproducible. Please clarify the statistical procedure (e.g., drawing N_bursts from the Kraft et al. 1991 posterior) and distinguish it from the nominal N_bursts = 0.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, paragraph 2] The word 'frquency' should be 'frequency'.
  2. [Section 5.2.2, final paragraph] The Weibull rate range is given as 'about 10^-2.3 to 10^0.25 hr^-1', but the abstract and Table 3 imply the upper end is 10^-0.25 hr^-1; please correct the sign.
  3. [Table 3, header] The sentence 'These are indicated by the grey, blue, and red triangles in Figs. 5 and 6. These are indicated by the blue and red triangles...' is duplicated; remove the repetition.
  4. [Throughout] Several typos should be corrected: 'observec' (Section 2.1), 'implicit constrants' and 'Neverthless' (Section 6.1), 'repeaterss' (Section 6.1), and 'smaple' (Section 7).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: rate limits derive from non-detections and prior exposures; self-cited classification schemes only select targets.

full rationale

The central quantitative claims, the Poisson and Weibull repetition-rate upper limits, are not equivalent to the paper's inputs. Eq. (6) combines the observed number of bursts (N_bursts = 0 for all 36 sources), prior exposure times T_P, FAST exposure T_F, measured sensitivities S_P and S_F, and the positional-coverage factor P_acc to form an effective exposure; the Poisson limits then follow from the Bayesian confidence procedure of Kraft et al. (1991), and the Weibull limits from the likelihood in Eqs. (14) and (18) following Oppermann et al. (2018). No parameter is fitted to the 36 non-detections to produce a prediction. The (S/S0)^-1.5 scaling is adopted from the Euclidean expectation and the CHIME-measured source-count slope (alpha = -1.4 +/- 0.11) and is explicitly stated as an assumption in Fig. 5's caption ('We assume the properties of subsequent bursts are consistent with those of the initial burst'); it is a conditional model assumption, not a circular redefinition. The target-selection criteria (A1)-(A3), (B1)-(B5), and the UMAP candidate list invoke the authors' earlier work (Hashimoto et al. 2020a; Chen et al. 2022; Kim et al. 2022), but these citations only determine which sources were observed; the derived rate limits do not reduce to those classification schemes. The independent confirmation of FRB 20190110C by CHIME/FRB Collaboration et al. (2023) provides external validation of the ML selection and breaks any appearance of circularity. Thus the derivation is self-contained against external observations; at most the paper contains minor, non-load-bearing self-citations, which do not raise the circularity score beyond 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central upper limits rest on a small number of model assumptions: the Poisson/Weibull process model, the S^-1.5 flux scaling, the uniform-position assumption inside error regions for P_acc, and the approximation that repeat bursts resemble the original burst. The flux-scaling index and the Weibull prior bounds are the two numbers chosen by hand or cited from prior work that most affect the quoted limits. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Flux-scaling power-law index alpha = -1.5 (assumed; CHIME measured -1.4 +/- 0.11)
    Eq. (6) scales effective exposure by (S/S0)^-1.5 when combining telescopes of very different sensitivity. The value controls how much weight FAST's deeper sensitivity gets; a different index would shift all quoted upper limits.
  • Weibull prior integration bounds = k in [10^-2, 10^1], r in [10^-5, 10^1] per hour
    Sec. 5.2.2 marginalizes the posterior over these ranges; the reported 50th-percentile 'upper limit' depends on the chosen bounds, which are not derived from data.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Burst occurrences follow a Poisson process with constant rate r, or a Weibull process with shape k and scale tau.
    Introduced in Sec. 5.2. The upper limits are defined within these two models; if the true repetition process is neither, the limits are not directly meaningful.
  • domain assumption The source position is uniformly distributed within the reported positional uncertainty region.
    Used in Eq. (7) to compute P_acc as the fractional overlap of FAST's 19-beam FWHM with the error region; this does not account for non-uniform error distributions.
  • domain assumption The flux distribution scales as N(>S) proportional to S^-1.5 down to FAST's sensitivity.
    Used in Eqs. (6) and (16) to scale exposure times between telescopes of different sensitivity. The paper cites CHIME's measured slope of -1.4 +/- 0.11 as consistent.
  • domain assumption For CHIME sources, the effective per-day observation block length is total exposure divided by 80% of the calendar days.
    Sec. 5.2.2, following Good et al. (2023). The Weibull upper limits depend on Delta, and this approximation is acknowledged.
  • domain assumption When exactly one burst is observed in a block, it occurs at the midpoint of the block.
    Eq. (18) in Sec. 5.2.2. The exact burst time is unknown, and the midpoint is an approximation that affects the Weibull likelihood.
  • domain assumption For FRB 20201124A, the duty cycle equals that of FRB 20121102A (63.6%).
    Sec. 3, used only for the Monte Carlo optimization of exposure time, not for the central upper limits.
  • domain assumption Scattering time is zero for sources where no scattering was reported.
    Sec. 5.1, used to compute the FAST sensitivity limit S_F. The paper states the typical sensitivity loss from smearing is about 0.1%.
  • standard math The standard radiometer equation (Cordes and McLaughlin 2003) describes the sensitivity of each telescope.
    Eq. (1), used to convert S/N thresholds to flux limits. This is a standard result in radio astronomy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Do they repeat? Monitoring 36 non-repeating FRBs with FAST." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PXB3USEK

@misc{pith2026250603564,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Do they repeat? Monitoring 36 non-repeating FRBs with FAST},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PXB3USEK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03564}
}
abstract

The origin of fast radio bursts (FRBs), highly energetic, millisecond-duration radio pulses originating from beyond our galaxy, remains unknown. Observationally, FRBs are classified as non-repeating or repeating, however, this classification is complicated by limited observing time and sensitivity constraints, which may result in some repeating FRBs being misidentified as non-repeating. To address this issue, we adopt both empirical and machine-learning techniques from previous studies to identify candidates that may have been misclassified. We conducted follow-up observations of 36 such candidates, each observed for 10 minutes using the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Telescope (FAST). No radio bursts exceeding a signal-to-noise ratio of 7 were detected, with a typical 7 sigma fluence limit of ~0.013 Jy ms. We constrain the repetition rates of these sources using two statistical models of FRB occurrence. Combining our FAST non-detections with prior observations, we derive upper limits on the repetition rates of ~$10^{-2.6}$-$10^{-0.22}$ hr$^{-1}$ under a Poisson process, and ~$10^{-2.3}$-$10^{-0.25}$ hr$^{-1}$ under a Weibull process. This work presents one of the most stringent upper limits on FRB repetition rates to date, based on a sample size five times larger than those used in previous studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03564 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The rest-frame intrinsic duration (𝑤int) of FRBCAT samples (Petroff et al. 2016; Hashimoto et al. 2020b) as a function of the energy density (𝐿𝜈). Repeating and non-repeating FRBs are shown by red and blue markers, respectively. Because each repeating FRB source has multiple detections of FRBs, we use the median value to present each repeating FRB source in this diagram. The blue circles and open triangles indicate … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The rest-frame intrinsic duration (𝑤int) of CHIME FRB samples (CHIME/FRB Collaboration et al. 2021; Hashimoto et al. 2022) as a function of the radio energy (𝐸). Repeating and non-repeating FRBs at 𝑧 < 0.3 are shown by red and blue markers, respectively. The individual redshifts of FRB sources are derived from observed DMs unless a spectroscopic redshift is available (see Hashimoto et al. 2022, for details). Individ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The expected number of repeater confirmations as a function of exposure time on each source derived by Monte Carlo simulations (described in Section 3) in twelve hours of observation time. (Left) The observed parameters of actively repeating FRB 20121102A are assumed. Each blue (red) dot indicates the median (average) value of the number of repeater confirmations over the 10,000 times Monte Carlo simulations for a g… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Top) Waterfall plots of the visually selected pulse candidates from the data of (a) FRB 20181215B and (b) FRB 20181223B. The dynamic spectra were dedispersed using DM values of 494.0142 pc cm−3 for FRB 20181215B and 565.655 pc cm−3 for FRB 20181223B, as reported in CH…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Upper limits on Poissonian repeating rate (𝑟scaled,joint) of 36 FRB sources derived by Eq. (6). Blue triangles indicate joint upper limits obtained by combining prior observations with our follow-up observations, while grey triangles show limits derived solely from pri…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Upper limits on Weibull repeating rate (𝑟scaled,joint) of 28 FRB sources derived by Eqs. (14) and (18). Only CHIME FRB sources are included, with the duration of each daily observation, Δ, provided approximately by Good et al. (2023), a necessary parameter for deriving…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  2. [2]

    W., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa71ff , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...841L..12B 841, L12

    Bannister K. W., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa71ff , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...841L..12B 841, L12

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa71ff 2017

  3. [3]

    Bhandari S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3074 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.1427B 475, 1427

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3074 2018

  4. [4]

    D., Ravi V., Belov K

    Bochenek C. D., Ravi V., Belov K. V., Hallinan G., Kocz J., Kulkarni S. R., McKenna D. L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Natur.587...59B 587, 59

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

  5. [5]

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..257...59C 257, 59

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab 2021

  6. [6]

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc6c1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...947...83C 947, 83

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc6c1 2023

  7. [7]

    Caleb M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx638 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.3746C 468, 3746

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx638 2017

  8. [8]

    W., Rajwade K., Flynn C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz386 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.5500C 484, 5500

    Caleb M., Stappers B. W., Rajwade K., Flynn C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz386 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.5500C 484, 5500

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz386 2019

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460L..30C 460, L30

    Champion D. J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460L..30C 460, L30

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    H., Hashimoto T., Goto T., Kim S

    Chen B. H., Hashimoto T., Goto T., Kim S. J., Santos D. J. D., On A. Y. L., Lu T.-Y., Hsiao T. Y. Y., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2994 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.1227C 509, 1227

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Chatterjee S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104501 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ARA&A..57..417C 57, 417

    Cordes J. M., Chatterjee S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104501 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ARA&A..57..417C 57, 417

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    M., McLaughlin M

    Cordes J. M., McLaughlin M. A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/378231 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...596.1142C 596, 1142

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    S., Stovall K., McLaughlin M

    Deneva J. S., Stovall K., McLaughlin M. A., Bates S. D., Freire P. C. C., Martinez J. G., Jenet F., Bagchi M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/51 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...775...51D 775, 51

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Rodin A

    Fedorova V. A., Rodin A. E., 2019, @doi [Astronomy Reports] 10.1134/S1063772919010037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ARep...63...39F 63, 39

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acb139 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944...70G 944, 70

    Good D. C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acb139 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944...70G 944, 70

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Wu Y.-H., Ho C.-C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1715 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.1908H 488, 1908

    Hashimoto T., Goto T., Wang T.-W., Kim S. J., Wu Y.-H., Ho C.-C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1715 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.1908H 488, 1908

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Ho S

    Hashimoto T., Goto T., Wang T.-W., Kim S. J., Ho S. C. C., On A. Y. L., Lu T.-Y., Santos D. J. D., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa895 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.2886H 494, 2886

    doi

  10. [18]

    Hashimoto T., et al., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2490 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.3927H 498, 3927

    doi

  11. [19]

    Hashimoto T., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac065 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.1961H 511, 1961

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    Jiang P., et al., 2019, @doi [Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy] 10.1007/s11433-018-9376-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019SCPMA..6259502J 62, 959502

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Jiang P., et al., 2020, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RAA....20...64J 20, 064

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Karastergiou A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1306 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.1254K 452, 1254

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    F., Ludovici D

    Keane E. F., Ludovici D. A., Eatough R. P., Kramer M., Lyne A. G., McLaughlin M. A., Stappers B. W., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15693.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.401.1057K 401, 1057

    2010

  16. [24]

    F., Kramer M., Lyne A

    Keane E. F., Kramer M., Lyne A. G., Stappers B. W., McLaughlin M. A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18917.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.415.3065K 415, 3065

    2011

  17. [25]

    J., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17325.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.409..619K 409, 619

    Keith M. J., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17325.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.409..619K 409, 619

    2010

  18. [26]

    J., Hashimoto T., Chen B

    Kim S. J., Hashimoto T., Chen B. H., Goto T., Ho S. C. C., Hsiao T. Y.-Y., Wong Y. H. V., Yamasaki S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1689 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.5987K 514, 5987

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    P., Burrows D

    Kraft R. P., Burrows D. N., Nousek J. A., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...374..344K 374, 344

    1991 doi

  20. [28]

    Kumar P., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5b08 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887L..30K 887, L30

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    Li D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-021-03878-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Natur.598..267L 598, 267

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Kramer M., 2012, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy

    Lorimer D. R., Kramer M., 2012, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy . Cambridge University Press

    2012

  23. [31]

    R., Bailes M., McLaughlin M

    Lorimer D. R., Bailes M., McLaughlin M. A., Narkevic D. J., Crawford F., 2007, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1147532 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Sci...318..777L 318, 777

    2007 doi

  24. [32]

    L., Waxman E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2397 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.1973L 498, 1973

    Lu W., Piro A. L., Waxman E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2397 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.1973L 498, 1973

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    R., Zhang B., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2364 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.2320L 481, 2320

    Luo R., Lee K., Lorimer D. R., Zhang B., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2364 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.2320L 481, 2320

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    R., Zhang B., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa704 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494..665L 494, 665

    Luo R., Men Y., Lee K., Wang W., Lorimer D. R., Zhang B., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa704 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494..665L 494, 665

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    N., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04751.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.328...17M 328, 17

    Manchester R. N., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04751.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.328...17M 328, 17

    2001

  28. [36]

    Masui K., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature15769 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Natur.528..523M 528, 523

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    Morello V., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa321 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.1165M 493, 1165

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    Nan R., et al., 2011, @doi [International Journal of Modern Physics D] 10.1142/S0218271811019335 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011IJMPD..20..989N 20, 989

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    Oppermann N., Yu H.-R., Pen U.-L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.5109O 475, 5109

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    Palaniswamy D., Li Y., Zhang B., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaaa63 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854L..12P 854, L12

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    Petroff E., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2016.35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PASA...33...45P 33, e045

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    Qian L., Yao R., Sun J., Xu J., Pan Z., Jiang P., 2020, @doi [The Innovation] 10.1016/j.xinn.2020.100053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Innov...100053Q 1, 100053

    2020

  35. [43]

    Ransom S., 2011, PRESTO: PulsaR Exploration and Search TOolkit , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1107.017

    2011

  36. [44]

    M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0588-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.562..386S 562, 386

    Shannon R. M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0588-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.562..386S 562, 386

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    Thornton D., et al., 2013, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1236789 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Sci...341...53T 341, 53

    2013 doi

  38. [46]

    Wang P., et al., 2020, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ATel13959....1W 13959, 1

    2020

  39. [47]

    Xu H., et al., 2021, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ATel14518....1X 14518, 1

    2021

  40. [48]

    Xu J., et al., 2023, @doi [Universe] 10.3390/universe9070330 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Univ....9..330X 9, 330

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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