Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Can repeating and non-repeating FRBs be drawn from the same population?

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 Fast radio burst sources follow a Zipf-like distribution, with source density inversely proportional to burst rate, so a single magnetar-like population explains both repeaters and apparent one-offs.

desk verdict A clean analytic framework for FRB repetition statistics, with a genuinely external distance/DM prediction that lands, but the single-population conclusion rests on a universal gamma=1.7 extrapolation the paper itself undermines. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09138 v2 pith:AUGN45FP submitted 2025-06-10 astro-ph.HE

Paz Beniamini , Pawan Kumar This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsrepeatersnon-repeatersmagnetarsZipf'slawburstratedistributionCHIMEsoftgamma
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 asks whether repeating and apparently non-repeating fast radio bursts come from the same underlying population, and it argues that they do. The evidence is a Zipf-like pattern: the number density of FRB sources is roughly inversely proportional to their burst rate above a fixed energy, $n_{\rm obs}\propto R_*^{-1}$, holding across roughly nine orders of magnitude in density and eight in rate. With this single-population model the authors reproduce three observed facts at once: the CHIME repeater fraction of about 3%, the tiny ratio $N_{\ge1}/N_{\ge0}\approx1.3\times10^{-9}$ of detected FRB sources to all soft-gamma-repeater-like magnetars in the observable Universe, and the fact that repeaters lie somewhat closer than non-repeaters ($DM_{\rm ext}\approx400$ versus $670\ {\rm pc\,cm^{-3}}$). The payoff is a unified picture in which every FRB source repeats, and apparent one-offs are simply the least active members of the same population.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Zipf-like activity-rate distribution $P(\ge R_*)=(R_*/R_{0,*})^{-a}$ with $a\approx1.1$--$1.3$, combined with a per-source burst energy distribution $R(>E)=R_{0,*}(E/E_*)^{1-\gamma}$ with $\gamma\approx1.7$. The framework turns a source's intrinsic rate, distance, and survey parameters (limiting fluence $\Phi_{\rm lim}$ and exposure $T$) into a Poisson probability of being detected $k$ times, then integrates over the population. A key derived quantity is the critical repetition number $k_\gamma=3/(2(\gamma-1))$, which separates the regime where nearby low-energy sources dominate from the regime where distant energetic sources dominate; repeaters end up dominated by rare, highly active sources while non-repeaters mix common inactive sources with rare active ones.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be long-duration, broadband monitoring of a sample of repeaters to measure each source's burst-energy slope $\gamma$ over as wide an energy range as possible; if $\gamma$ varies between sources or with energy, as the paper notes is seen in FRB 20201124A and FRB 20220912A, the universal-slope extrapolation from $\sim10^{26}$ to $\sim10^{32}$ erg Hz$^{-1}$ that anchors the Zipf index and the SGR-to-CHIME matching is invalid. A simpler check: if a future survey's repeater fraction rises steeply with exposure time or sensitivity, it would contradict the predicted weak scaling $N_{\ge2}/N_{\ge1}\propto(\Phi_{\rm lim}^{1-\gamma}T)^{a-1}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the apparent dichotomy between repeaters and non-repeaters is not a dichotomy at all. The paper shows, through a model-independent framework, that if the probability that a source has intrinsic burst rate $R_*$ is $P(\ge R_*)\propto R_*^{-a}$ with $a\approx1.1$--$1.3$, then the observed ratios $N_{\ge2}/N_{\ge1}\approx0.03$ and $N_{\ge1}/N_{\ge0}\approx1.3\times10^{-9}$, together with the slightly smaller distances of repeaters, all follow at once. The same Zipf-like law is read directly off the inferred densities and rates of individual FRB subclasses, which span roughly nine orders of magnitude in density along a $n_{\rm obs}\propto R_*^{-1}$ trend. The paper concludes that a single population, most plausibly magnetars, can account for the full observed range of FRB activity, from SGR 1935+2154 to the most prolific repeaters.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every FRB source's burst rate follows a single power law in energy, $R(>E)\propto E^{1-\gamma}$, with a universal slope $\gamma\approx1.7$, so rates measured near $10^{26}$ erg Hz$^{-1}$ can be extrapolated six orders of magnitude up to the CHIME threshold near $1.6\times10^{32}$ erg Hz$^{-1}$; if that slope varies with time, energy, or between sources, the inferred Zipf index and the SGR-to-CHIME matching both shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All FRB sources could be repeaters; apparent non-repeaters are simply the least active members of the same population.
  • The repeater fraction is predicted to rise only mildly with exposure or sensitivity, scaling roughly as $N_{\ge2}/N_{\ge1}\propto(\Phi_{\rm lim}^{1-\gamma}T)^{a-1}$, so a weak dependence should not be read as evidence for two populations.
  • Repeaters are predicted to be a few tens of percent closer than non-repeaters, giving external dispersion measures of about 400 versus 670 pc cm$^{-3}$, matching the observed CHIME trend.
  • The same $a\approx1.1$--$1.3$ distribution explains both the ~3% repeater fraction and the ~$10^{-9}$ ratio of CHIME-detected sources to all SGR-like magnetars.
  • Magnetars can therefore be the dominant or sole FRB source class, with the full diversity of activity set by a continuous distribution rather than by distinct source types.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Zipf law is real, the product of source density and rate is nearly flat over eight to nine decades; a physical model of magnetar activity must explain that flatness, not just the spread in rates.
  • The model's near-invariance of the repeater fraction across surveys is testable: comparing CHIME, ASKAP, and DSA results at different fluence thresholds and exposures should show only mild variation if $a\approx1.1$--$1.3$.
  • The framework treats beaming as a constant; if beaming varies systematically with activity, the apparent Zipf law would need to be deconvolved from the beaming distribution before being read as intrinsic.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper asks whether repeating and non-repeating FRB sources can be drawn from a single population with a continuous distribution of activity rates. The authors assume each source has a power-law burst energy distribution R(>E)=R0,*(E/E*)^{1-γ} (Eq. 1) and a power-law distribution of activity levels P(≥R*)∝R*^{-a} (Eq. 8). They derive analytic expressions for the number of sources seen ≥k times in a fluence-limited survey, the fraction of repeaters, and the distance distributions (Eqs. 6, 7, 12), and verify them with numerical integrations in Appendix A. Using the CHIME first-catalog ratios, an SGR-normalized rate λlim≈4.5e-9, and the observed repeater fraction ≈0.03, they infer a≈1.1–1.3. They further show that the same model yields DM_ext≈400 pc cm^-3 for repeaters versus ≈670 pc cm^-3 for non-repeaters, matching observed trends, and that the repeater fraction depends only weakly on exposure and sensitivity. The conclusion is that a single magnetar-like population can explain apparent non-repeaters and repeaters.

Significance. If the central inference is robust, this is an important unification: it connects SGR 1935+2154-like inactive sources to extreme repeaters with one parameter family, explains why the CHIME repeater fraction is low and insensitive to exposure, and makes a falsifiable distance/DM prediction that was not used in the calibration. The analytic framework is transparent, the numerical integration in Appendix A verifies the scalings, and the out-of-sample DM prediction (Fig. A2) is a genuine strength. The paper does not ship code, but the calculation is reproducible from the equations. The main risk is that the calibration and the Fig. 1 Zipf trend both rely on a universal γ≈1.7 and α=-1.5 extrapolated over roughly six decades in energy, an assumption the paper itself cites evidence against.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4, Eq. (12), Eq. (B5)] The calibration λlim≈4.5e-9 is obtained by extrapolating R0(>1e26 erg Hz^-1)≈5e-6 hr^-1 along Eq. (1) with a universal γ=1.7 from 1e26 to E_lim≈1.6e32 erg Hz^-1, a six-decade extrapolation. The paper itself cites Kirsten et al. (2024) and Ould-Boukattine et al. (2024) for energy- and time-dependent burst energy slopes. Since λlim∝(E_lim/E*)^{1-γ}, changing γ by 0.5 changes λlim by a factor of roughly 1.3e3. With γ=1.2, Eq. (12) gives N≥1/N≥0≈6e-6, four orders of magnitude above the observed 1.3e-9; with γ=2.2, N≥1/N≥0 falls orders of magnitude below the observed value. Even within the authors' own γ=1.7±0.2, the γ=1.9 end appears incompatible with N≥1/N≥0 once the numerical corrections of Appendix A are included. The paper should propagate the observed scatter in γ through the calculation, or replace the fixed-γ extrapolation with a directly measured high-energy slope for SGR-like bursts. Without this, the simultaneous match in Fig. 3 is partly a restatement of the assumed γ rather than a measurement of a.
  2. [§3, Fig. 1, Appendix B] The Zipf-like trend n_obs∝R^{-1} is presented as independent observational support for Eq. (8), but every rate in the top panel of Fig. 1 is extrapolated to 1e28 erg Hz^-1 and 600 MHz using the same universal γ=1.7±0.2 and α=-1.5±0.3 (Eq. B5). If γ or α varies between sources, as the cited repeater studies indicate, the relative positions of the points change and the apparent power law could be partly an artifact of the common extrapolation. The bottom panel is less affected because it uses measured distances, but it only constrains the envelope R∝d^{3/a}, not the density-rate relation itself. The manuscript should include a test in which source-by-source measured slopes are used instead of the population average, or should explicitly state how the inferred a changes under a plausible dispersion in γ and α.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (12)] In the 0<a<1 branch, the expression N≥2/N≥1≈2-a can exceed unity (e.g., a=0.5), which is not a valid probability ratio; please check the derivation or state the limiting assumptions behind that branch.
  2. [Abstract, §1] The framework is described as model-independent, but it assumes a power-law burst energy distribution (Eq. 1), a power-law activity-rate distribution (Eq. 8), and a universal spectral index α; consider replacing 'model-independent' with 'progenitor-agnostic' or explicitly listing these assumptions.
  3. [§4, Appendix C] The symbol E* is used both as a normalization energy (Eq. 1) and as the maximum burst energy of SGR-like sources in Appendix C; this makes Section 4's discussion of E*≳E_lim hard to follow, and the manuscript should clarify whether the SGR power law is assumed to extend above the observed maximum energy.
  4. [§4, footnote 9] The factor of ~26 correction between the analytic and numerical N≥1/N≥0 is stated without a breakdown; please indicate which of the five listed effects dominates so that readers can gauge the robustness of the analytic scalings.
  5. [Fig. A2 and surrounding text] The model DM_ext comparison uses only the intergalactic contribution, while observed extragalactic DMs also include host-galaxy and halo contributions; the paper should state this explicitly when claiming agreement with the CHIME values of ~400 and ~670 pc cm^-3.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the parameter a is inferred from the CHIME ratios, but the distance/DM prediction is external and the derivation does not reduce to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. In Section 4, the authors fix lambda_lim from the independently measured SGR burst rate and a stated energy-slope gamma=1.7, then infer a from the CHIME ratios N>=2/N>=1 and N>=1/N>=0; the agreement is a one-parameter fit to two observables plus an externally fixed rate, not a tautology. The subsequent distance and dispersion-measure prediction in Appendix A (Fig. A2) was not used to set any constant and matches the observed repeater/non-repeater DM difference, providing genuinely independent support. The Zipf-like trend in Fig. 1 is an empirical fit to individually estimated densities and rates; the shared gamma=1.7 extrapolation is a stated assumption rather than an equation that reduces to the target. Sensitivity of lambda_lim to gamma is a robustness limitation, not a circular step. Self-citations such as Lu et al. (2022) and Beniamini & Kumar (2025) supply methodology and physical context, but the quantitative match rests on independent inputs (SGR rate, CHIME ratios, dispersion-measure data) and not on an unverified self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an empirical Zipf scaling built from nearest-member density estimates and rate extrapolations over about six decades in energy with a universal γ, plus a Poisson framework with one fitted index a; the DM-distance prediction in Fig. A2 is the only fully independent check of the model. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • a (activity rate distribution index) = a ≈ 1.13, range 1.1-1.3
    Index of P(≥R*) ∝ R*^{-a} (Eq. 8). Fit to CHIME first-catalog ratios N≥2/N≥1 ≈ 0.03 and N≥1/N≥0 ≈ 1.3e-9 (Fig. 3, Section 4). The same range is compared with the Fig. 1 Zipf trend. This is the paper's one explicitly fitted index in the default model.
  • γ (burst energy power-law index) = 1.7 ± 0.2
    Index in Eq. 1, adopted from cited FRB energy distribution studies and applied universally to extrapolate rates over about six decades in energy (Eq. B5) for all sources in Fig. 1 and for λlim in Section 4. The Zipf law and the CHIME matching shift if γ varies between sources or with energy.
  • α (spectral index) = -1.5 ± 0.3
    Average FRB spectrum E_ν ∝ ν^α used to rescale rates to 600 MHz (Eq. B5), taken from Macquart et al. (2019) and applied as a universal value.
  • E_c (maximum burst energy per source) = 3e33 erg Hz^-1
    Assumed maximal burst energy entering Eq. 3 and Section 4, taken from FRB energy distribution studies; sets Φ_c and the λc estimate.
  • E* (maximum energy of SGR-like sources) = assumed ≳ E_lim ≈ 1.6e32 erg Hz^-1
    Only a lower limit E* > 1e26 erg Hz^-1 is observed (FRB 20200428). Setting E* ≳ E_lim makes λlim = λ0,lim ≈ 4.5e-9 and allows N≥1/N≥0 to match the observed value. Alternative E* values shift N≥1/N≥0 by orders of magnitude.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Per-source burst rate is a single power law R(>E) = R0,*(E/E*)^{1-γ} for E_min < E < E_c (Eq. 1).
    Invoked for every source and every energy; the paper itself (Section 1, citing Kirsten et al. 2024 and Ould-Boukattine et al. 2024) notes the slope varies with time and energy, which strains this assumption.
  • domain assumption Activity rates follow a power-law distribution P(≥R*) = (R*/R0,*)^-a (Eq. 8).
    This is the input distribution the framework propagates; the paper argues Fig. 1 supports a ≈ 1, but Fig. 1's rates themselves depend on the extrapolation assumptions.
  • domain assumption Burst arrivals are Poisson with mean λ = T R(>E_lim) (Eq. A2).
    Justified in Section 2 footnote 6: clustering reduces to Poisson once sub-bursts and periodic modulation are removed (Cruces et al. 2021; Jahns et al. 2023).
  • ad hoc to paper Volumetric densities use nearest-member estimation with a log-uniform prior dP/dλ ∝ λ^{-1} (Eq. B3).
    This prior gives median n_obs = 0.7/V_obs and 90% bounds [0.051, 3]/V_obs, shaping every point in Fig. 1; the method comes from Lu et al. (2022), co-authored by the present authors.
  • domain assumption Source density tracks the cosmic star formation rate (Eq. A1).
    The paper notes a mix of SFR and stellar-mass tracing fits the FRB redshift distribution better but ignores it to avoid additional weakly constrained parameters.
  • domain assumption Average FRB spectrum E_ν ∝ ν^α with α = -1.5 for k-corrections and rate rescaling (Eq. B5).
    Individual FRB spectra vary widely (narrowband, broadband, spectrally complex); the average power law is from Macquart et al. (2019).
  • standard math Euclidean geometry with a cutoff distance r_z (z ≈ 2) for the analytic estimates (Section 2).
    Used for Eqs. 4-12; the numerical calculation in Appendix A replaces it with full cosmological corrections.
  • domain assumption Galactic magnetar population of about 30 active sources and one Milky Way-like galaxy per 100 Mpc^3 (Section 4).
    Yields N_src ≈ 7e11; the paper takes the logarithmic mean of a factor-30 range, which sets the normalization of N≥1/N≥0.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can repeating and non-repeating FRBs be drawn from the same population?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AUGN45FP

@misc{pith2026250609138,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can repeating and non-repeating FRBs be drawn from the same population?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AUGN45FP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09138}
}
read the original abstract

Do all Fast Radio Burst (FRB) sources repeat? We present evidence that FRB sources follow a Zipf-like distribution, in which the number density of sources is approximately inversely proportional to their burst rate above a fixed energy threshold-even though both the burst rate and number density span many orders of magnitude individually. We introduce a model-independent framework that predicts the distribution of observed fluences and distances, and repetition rates of an FRB population based on an assumed burst rate distribution per source. Using parameters derived directly from observations, this framework simultaneously explains several key features of the FRB population: (i) The observed ratio of repeaters to apparent non-repeaters; (ii) The much lower ratio of apparent non-repeaters to the total number of Soft Gamma Repeater (SGR) sources within the observable Universe; And (iii) the slightly smaller average distances of known repeaters compared to non-repeaters. We further explore how survey parameters, such as radio sensitivity and observation time, influence these statistics. Notably, we find that the fraction of repeaters rises only mildly with improved sensitivity or longer exposure. This weak dependence could be misinterpreted as evidence that not all FRBs repeat. Overall, our results support the idea that a single population-likely magnetars-can account for the full observed diversity of FRB activity, from very inactive FRB sources like SGR 1935+2154 to the most active repeaters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09138 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: Estimated source number densities of different FRB sub-classes. These are plotted against the rate per source extrapolated to an intermediate common energy of 1028erg Hz−1 using the measured 𝛾 or 𝛾 ≈ 1.7±0.2 when not available. Uncertainties mark the range corresponding to 90% confidence limits. A diamond indicates the same properties for the hypothetical test case (disfavored by our analysis, see §B for detail… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Key results for the distributions of detectable sources. In all panels solid lines depict PL-distributed variable rates, 𝑃(≥ Rc) = (R∗/R0,∗) −𝑎 , and dashed lines a constant source rate. Top left: Number of sources above a given fluence with ≥ 𝑘 repeats. For 𝑘 > 𝑘𝛾 and 𝑎(𝛾 −1) < 3/2, the distribution above Φall,k is dominated by gradually rarer and more active sources. Top right: distance distribution of sources obs… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ratio of repeaters to non-repeaters (blue) and of non-repeaters to all sources (red) as a function of the PL index 𝑎, considering an observation strategy consistent with CHIME’s 1st catalog. We assume R0 (> 1026erg Hz−1 ) = 5 × 10−6hr−1 , 𝐸c = 3 × 1033erg Hz−1 , 𝛾 = 1.7 as inferred from observations. Shaded regions depict the inferred ranges of these properties from observations. Solid lines are the results of numer… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. 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

    astro-ph.HE 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using the galaxy stellar mass function weighted by observed FRB host masses lowers the relevant stellar-mass density by ~3x, boosting the implied FRB formation efficiency and biasing standard population-inference results.

  2. Constraining the Faint-End Slope of the FRB Energy Function Using CHIME/FRB Catalog-1 and Local Volume Galaxies

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    No CHIME/FRB Catalog-1 burst is associated with 495 local volume galaxies, yielding a 95% upper limit gamma < 2.3 on the faint-end slope of the FRB energy function down to ~3e34 erg.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    K., & Beniamini, P

    Acharya, S. K., & Beniamini, P. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.08441, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.08441

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.08441 2025

  2. [2]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 651, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2489 —

    Beniamini, P., & Kumar, P. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 651, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2489 —. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5345, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad028 —. 2025, ApJ, 982, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb8e6

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2489 2020

  3. [3]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 1872, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad208

    Beniamini, P., Wadiasingh, Z., Hare, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 1872, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad208

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad208 2023

  4. [4]

    Beniamini, P., Wadiasingh, Z., & Metzger, B. D. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 3390, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1783

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1783 2020

  5. [5]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada947

    Beniamini, P., Wadiasingh, Z., Trigg, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada947

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada947 2025

  6. [6]

    D., Ravi, V., Belov, K

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

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

  7. [7]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.01688, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.01688

    Chawla, P., Gopinath, A., Manaswini, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.01688, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.01688

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.01688 2025

  8. [8]

    I., Guyer, R

    Cheng, B., Epstein, R. I., Guyer, R. A., & Young, A. C. 1996, Nature, 382, 518, doi: 10.1038/382518a0

    doi:10.1038/382518a0 1996

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Q., & Wang, F

    Cheng, Y., Zhang, G. Q., & Wang, F. Y. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3085 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2021, Ap...

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Kulkarni, S

    Connor, L., Shila, K. A., Kulkarni, S. R., et al. 2021, PASP, 133, 075001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac0bcc

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    G., Scholz, P., et al

    Cruces, M., Spitler, L. G., Scholz, P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 448, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3223 De Marzo, G., Sylos Labini, F., & Pietronero, L. 2021, A&A, 651, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141081

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Bhardwaj, M., et al

    Fonseca, E., Andersen, B. C., Bhardwaj, M., et al. 2020, ApJL, 891, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7208 FRB Collaboration, Abbott, T. C., Amouyal, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.19006, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.19006

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    2005, European Physical Journal B, 47, 93, doi: 10.1140/epjb/e2005-00306-1

    Gaite, J. 2005, European Physical Journal B, 47, 93, doi: 10.1140/epjb/e2005-00306-1

    2005 doi

  6. [14]

    P., Kaspi, V

    Gavriil, F. P., Kaspi, V. M., & Woods, P. M. 2004, ApJ, 607, 959, doi: 10.1086/383564

    2004 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Fong, W.-f., Kilpatrick, C

    Gordon, A. C., Fong, W.-f., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.05465, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.05465 Göˇgüş , E., Woods, P. M., Kouveliotou, C., et al. 1999, ApJL, 526, L93, doi: 10.1086/312380

    2023 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    Gupta, O., Beniamini, P., Kumar, P., & Finkelstein, S. L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09810, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09810 15

    2025 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    H., et al

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

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08038, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.08038

    Horowicz, A., & Margalit, B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08038, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.08038

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    N., Spitler, L

    Jahns, J. N., Spitler, L. G., Nimmo, K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 666, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3446

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    W., Prochaska, J

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

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    W., Osłowski, S., Flynn, C., et al

    James, C. W., Osłowski, S., Flynn, C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2416, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1361

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    M., & Beloborodov, A

    Kaspi, V. M., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 261, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023329

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    S., Herrmann, W., et al

    Kirsten, F., Ould-Boukattine, O. S., Herrmann, W., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 337, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02153-z

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    C., Hewitt, D

    Konijn, D. C., Hewitt, D. M., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 3331, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2296

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 2726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx665

    Kumar, P., Lu, W., & Bhattacharya, M. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx665

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    M., Lower, M

    Kumar, P., Shannon, R. M., Lower, M. E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3400, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac683

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    M., Flynn, C., et al

    Kumar, P., Shannon, R. M., Flynn, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3436

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    K., Sandstrom, K

    Leroy, A. K., Sandstrom, K. M., Lang, D., et al. 2019, ApJS, 244, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3925

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    W., et al

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

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

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

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

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    T., & Hamilton, R

    Lu, E. T., & Hamilton, R. J. 1991, ApJL, 380, L89, doi: 10.1086/186180

    1991 doi

  24. [32]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 1867, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3500

    Lu, W., Beniamini, P., & Kumar, P. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1867, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3500

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

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

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    P., Shannon, R

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

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    Margalit, B., Beniamini, P., Sridhar, N., & Metzger, B. D. 2020, ApJL, 899, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abac57

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    D., Sridhar, N., Margalit, B., Beniamini, P., & Sironi, L

    Metzger, B. D., Sridhar, N., Margalit, B., Beniamini, P., & Sironi, L. 2022, ApJ, 925, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3b4a

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    Neukum, G., & Ivanov, B. A. 1994, in Hazards Due to Comets and Asteroids, ed. T. Gehrels, M. S. Matthews, & A. M. Schumann, 359

    1994

  30. [38]

    Nimmo, K., Hessels, J. W. T., Snelders, M. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2281, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad269

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

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

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

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    C., Maan, Y., van Leeuwen, J., et al

    Oostrum, L. C., Maan, Y., van Leeuwen, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937422

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 5109, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty004

    Oppermann, N., Yu, H.-R., & Pen, U.-L. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 5109, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty004

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    S., Chawla, P., Hessels, J

    Ould-Boukattine, O. S., Chawla, P., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.17024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.17024

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    C., Kaspi, V

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

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    B., & Postnov, K

    Popov, S. B., & Postnov, K. A. 2010, in Evolution of Cosmic Objects through their Physical Activity, ed. H. A. Harutyunian, A. M. Mickaelian, & Y. Terzian, 129–132, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0710.2006

    2010 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

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

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

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    D., Bannister, K

    Ryder, S. D., Bannister, K. W., Bhandari, S., et al. 2023, Science, 382, 294, doi: 10.1126/science.adf2678

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    Scholz, P., Bogdanov, S., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8456

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    M., Macquart, J

    Shannon, R. M., Macquart, J. P., Bannister, K. W., et al. 2018, Nature, 562, 386, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0588-y

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    M., Bannister, K

    Shannon, R. M., Bannister, K. W., Bera, A., et al. 2025, PASA, 42, e036, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.8

    2025 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, Nature, 635, 61, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08074-9

    Sharma, K., Ravi, V., Connor, L., et al. 2024, Nature, 635, 61, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08074-9

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    A., Niedbalski, S., Connor, L., et al

    Shila, K. A., Niedbalski, S., Connor, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18680. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.18680

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    W., Bhardwaj, M., et al

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

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.13297

    Shin, K., Curtin, A., Fine, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.13297. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13297

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Thompson, C., & Duncan, R. C. 2001, ApJ, 561, 980, doi: 10.1086/323256

    2001 doi

  47. [55]

    M., et al

    Tian, J., Pastor-Marazuela, I., Rajwade, K. M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf793

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 2795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2532

    Totani, T., & Tsuzuki, Y. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2532

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    2025, MNRAS, 540, 3709, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf910

    Uno, Y., Hashimoto, T., Goto, T., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 3709, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf910

    2025 doi

  50. [58]

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

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

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

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

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

    2019 doi

  52. [60]

    Y., & Yu, H

    Wang, F. Y., & Yu, H. 2017, JCAP, 2017, 023, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/03/023

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    2018, ApJ, 852, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa025

    Wang, W., Luo, R., Yue, H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa025

    2018 doi

  54. [62]

    Q., Wang, P., Wu, Q., et al

    Zhang, G. Q., Wang, P., Wu, Q., et al. 2021, ApJL, 920, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2a3b

    2021 doi

  55. [63]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.14707, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.14707 16

    Zhang, J.-S., Wang, T.-C., Wang, P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.14707, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.14707 16

    2025 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    C., & Zhang, B

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

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124002, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac98f7

    Zhang, Y.-K., Wang, P., Feng, Y., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124002, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac98f7

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    2023, ApJ, 955, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced0b

    Zhang, Y.-K., Li, D., Zhang, B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced0b

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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