Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 65 references

A Unified Volumetric Rate-Energy Relation from Magnetar Radio Bursts to Fast Radio Bursts

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Magnetar radio bursts and distant fast radio bursts follow one underlying rate–energy power law.

desk verdict The paper's new claim—that SGR 1935+2154 and FRB 20180916B sit on the same energy–rate power law as non-repeating FRBs—is not supported because the volume element used for the Galactic magnetar is the full Euclidean sphere, not a disk, so the SGR rates are energy-dependently biased. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16365 v1 pith:TBK4LREA submitted 2025-07-22 astro-ph.HE

H. T. Lan , S. X. Yi , F. Y. Wang (NJU) This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsmagnetarsvolumetricrateburstenergydistributionSGR1935+2154FRB20180916BCHIMEVmaxmethod
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 Galactic magnetar radio bursts and extragalactic fast radio bursts (FRBs) are powered by the same kind of engine. Using uniform CHIME observations, the authors compute volumetric burst rates with the $V_{\rm max}$ method for SGR 1935+2154, non-repeating FRBs, and the repeating FRB 20180916B. They report that all three populations are described by a single power law, $dR/dE \propto E^{-\gamma}$ with $\gamma = 1.31 \pm 0.13$, spanning burst energies from $10^{29}$ to $10^{42}$ erg. If this is right, it answers a long-standing objection to the magnetar model: the relatively low energies of Galactic bursts are not a separate phenomenon but the faint continuation of the same relation. The result matters because it suggests that both repeating and non-repeating FRBs share a magnetar-like progenitor.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the $V_{\rm max}$ method (Schmidt 1968): for a burst of a given energy, one computes the maximum comoving volume within which that burst could have been detected at the survey's fluence threshold, then forms the volumetric rate $R = N(E)/(V_{\rm max} T_{\rm obs} \Omega_{\rm sky})$. This converts counts from CHIME's uniform transit survey into space-density rates without assuming a specific redshift-evolution model. The paper fits those rates with the single power law $dR/dE = \phi_0 E^{-\gamma}$; the crucial quantity is the alignment of the low-energy magnetar points with the extrapolation of the high-energy non-repeating FRB points, which carries the argument for a unified origin.

What would settle it

Recompute the SGR 1935+2154 and FRB 20180916B volumetric rates using the actual time- and beam-dependent fluence thresholds from CHIME's public data rather than fixed thresholds; if the low-energy points move off the $\gamma = 1.31$ power law by more than the quoted uncertainties, the unified relation is not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is a unified differential volumetric rate–energy relation $dR/dE = \phi_0 E^{-\gamma}$ with $\gamma = 1.31 \pm 0.13$ that holds from the radio bursts of SGR 1935+2154 (roughly $10^{29}$–$10^{34}$ erg), through non-repeating FRBs in CHIME Catalog 1 ($10^{37}$–$10^{43}$ erg), to the repeater FRB 20180916B, whose measured volumetric rate falls on the same curve. The paper interprets this as evidence that Galactic magnetar bursts are the low-energy tail of the extragalactic FRB population rather than a distinct class, and that repeating and non-repeating FRBs both originate from magnetars. It further suggests that non-repeating FRBs may simply be repeating FRBs with a lower burst rate, since the local volumetric rate of non-repeaters exceeds the expected rate of catastrophic events and therefore requires repeated, less energetic bursts.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the $V_{\rm max}$ method, applied to one active magnetar (SGR 1935+2154) and one repeating FRB (FRB 20180916B), produces volumetric rates that are representative of their entire populations; if these sources are atypically active, or if the CHIME survey is incomplete within the calculated $V_{\rm max}$ volume, the low-energy end of the unified power law loses its support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the unified relation is correct, non-repeating FRBs represent the energetic end of a much larger population of weaker magnetar bursts, so each magnetar must produce many low-energy events over its lifetime.
  • Repeating and non-repeating FRBs would share one engine, so observed morphological differences between the two classes would need to be explained within a single emission mechanism, for instance by beaming geometry or emission-region geometry, rather than by invoking distinct progenitors.
  • The measured power-law index, combined with the Schechter cutoff near $10^{42}$ erg, shapes the energy budget of the FRB population and provides a target for population models of magnetar burst activity.
  • A direct prediction follows: sensitive wide-field radio surveys should find low-energy repeating bursts from some sources currently classified as non-repeaters, with rates set by the same $\gamma \approx 1.31$ relation.
  • The volumetric rate of FRB 20180916B landing on the non-repeating curve gives a quantitative way to compare future well-measured repeating FRBs against the same unified relation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A fair methodological test, not run in the paper, would recompute the volumetric rates using CHIME's actual time- and beam-dependent fluence thresholds instead of a single fixed threshold per observing mode; if the low-energy anchor of SGR 1935+2154 moves off the $\gamma = 1.31$ line, the unified relation would weaken.
  • If the unified relation survives larger samples, it becomes a calibration tool: combining the volumetric rate of Galactic magnetar bursts with the extragalactic FRB rate could constrain how many bursts a typical magnetar emits over its lifetime.
  • Observing a second active Galactic magnetar with CHIME and placing its radio-burst volumetric rate on the same diagram would provide a sharper test of whether the low-energy end is universal or particular to SGR 1935+2154.
  • The paper leaves the burst morphology differences between repeaters and non-repeaters somewhat open; a natural extension would be to check whether the unified energy relation also holds for bursts selected by morphology, such as narrowband versus broadband events.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper investigates the volumetric rate–energy relation of radio bursts from SGR 1935+2154, non-repeating FRBs in CHIME Catalog 1, and repeating FRB 20180916B. Using the Vmax method with fixed fluence thresholds, the authors compute volumetric rates in energy bins and fit a single power law dR/dE ∝ E^{-γ} to the non-repeating FRB sample, obtaining γ = 1.31 ± 0.13. They then show that the four SGR 1935+2154 points and the FRB 20180916B point fall on the extrapolation of this power law across energies from 10^29 to 10^42 erg, and they interpret this as evidence that both repeating and non-repeating FRBs originate from magnetars. The paper includes a combined fit of non-repeating FRBs and SGR bursts giving γ = 1.322 ± 0.045, and a robustness check using an alternative DM–redshift relation.

Significance. If the claimed unified power law is valid, it would connect the energies of Galactic magnetar bursts to extragalactic FRBs over 13 orders of magnitude, providing a strong constraint on progenitor models and supporting the magnetar origin of all FRBs. The paper has notable strengths: it uses uniform CHIME data to mitigate telescope selection effects, computes isotropic energies with Eq. (1), employs the Vmax method to account for energy-dependent completeness, and cross-checks its redshift estimates with an independent DM–redshift relation. The comparison including FRB 20180916B is also a useful addition. However, the low-energy anchor of the unified relation rests on applying an extragalactic Vmax method to a single Galactic source with an assumed full-sphere Euclidean volume, which is not justified for a disk population and can bias the rates in an energy-dependent way. The central claim therefore requires substantial additional work before it can be considered established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3)] The Vmax computation for SGR 1935+2154 assumes a full Euclidean sphere of radius D_max around the source. For the side-lobe threshold (10.2 kJy ms) and energies 10^32–10^34 erg, Figure 2 implies D_max of order tens of kpc (up to ~45 kpc), while radio magnetars are concentrated in the Galactic disk with scale height ~1 kpc and scale length ~5 kpc. A sphere of radius 45 kpc overestimates the volume actually occupied by such sources; for a disk population the effective volume grows more slowly than D_max^3 once D_max exceeds the scale height. This causes an energy-dependent overestimate of Vmax for the two high-energy SGR bins, artificially lowering their volumetric rates and biasing the local slope. This is load-bearing because the four SGR points are the low-energy anchor of the unified relation in Figure 4. I request a recomputation using a disk spatial distribution (e.g., an exponential disk) or a clear demonstration that the result is insensitive to the volume element, together with an estimate of Poisson uncertainty in the number of contributing magnetars, which is currently not included.
  2. [Section 4, Figure 4] The claim that the SGR points "follow the extrapolation" is based on visual alignment, but the SGR points are not included in the fit that produces the orange line in Figure 4; the combined fit giving γ = 1.322 ± 0.045 is reported as a separate consistency check. The error bars shown for the SGR points are derived from Eq. (4) and Poisson counts, and do not include the systematic uncertainty in Vmax from the disk-geometry issue. Thus the apparent tightness of the alignment is overstated. The abstract quotes γ = 1.31 ± 0.13 from the non-repeating-only fit, while the combined fit yields a different central value (though consistent within uncertainties). I recommend reporting the formal fit to all three data sets with full systematic errors propagated, and adding a shaded band reflecting the Vmax uncertainty to Figure 4.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3)] The use of N(E) from a single active magnetar (SGR 1935+2154) to represent the volumetric rate of an entire source population is a strong assumption that is not justified in the text. If SGR 1935+2154's burst activity is atypical (for example, enhanced by recent glitch activity or an unusually favorable line of sight), the inferred rates at 10^29–10^34 erg are not a population rate. At minimum, the paper should state explicitly that the comparison assumes the single source is representative of all radio-magnetar sources and that one source is active per Vmax volume; ideally, the analysis should be extended to a sample of magnetars observed by CHIME or other telescopes. This issue is distinct from the geometric volume bias and also affects FRB 20180916B, which is a single repeating source.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to "FRB 20020428", but the event discussed in the text and references is FRB 20200428; please correct this typo.
  2. [Section 3.2] The heading "V olumetric rate" contains a stray space; the paper also contains other spacing artifacts such as "di fferent" and "V erify" in the references, which should be cleaned up.
  3. [Section 4] The sentence "The error from the uncertainties along the horizontal axis for each bin can be calculated from Eq. (4)" is misleading because Eq. (4) uses σE,i as the bin width, not the uncertainty in energy; please clarify whether the quoted error bars represent bin width or measurement uncertainty.
  4. [Section 4] The statement "we also use the non-repeating FRBs and the radio bursts from SGR 1935+2154 to fit the power-law model" creates a mild circularity when combined with the earlier claim that the SGR points fall on the non-repeating FRB power law; the paper should clarify that the combined fit is a consistency check, not an independent test, and that the main fit is the one to non-repeating FRBs only.
  5. [Section 2] The redshift range of non-repeating FRBs is given as "0.02 to 4.0" in the text, but Figure 1 shows counts extending to z ≈ 4.0; please use an en dash and confirm the exact endpoints.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the unified power law is an empirical fit to non-repeating FRBs followed by an out-of-sample comparison with SGR 1935+2154 and FRB 20180916B rates.

full rationale

The paper derives no claimed first-principles result; its central claim is an empirical fit. The power-law index gamma = 1.31 ± 0.13 is obtained by fitting Eq. (8) only to non-repeating FRBs in CHIME Catalog 1 via the likelihood in Eq. (6), and then the SGR 1935+2154 and FRB 20180916B volumetric rates, computed independently from Eq. (3) using observed burst counts, fluence thresholds, and exposure times, are compared with the resulting extrapolation. Thus the SGR and repeater points are not used to define the primary power law, so the comparison is not statistically forced. The later combined fit including SGR bursts yields a consistent index, but that is a robustness check, not the load-bearing step. The Vmax estimator in Eq. (3) is a standard completeness correction; any concern about its applicability to a single Galactic magnetar or about the volume element for a disk population is a systematic/correctness issue, not a circular reduction. The paper also tests sensitivity to the assumed DM-redshift relation using the independent IllustrisTNG-based relation of Gao et al. (2024) and recovers gamma = 1.30 ± 0.11, so the slope is not an artifact of a single fitted input. Self-citations appear but are not load-bearing: the decision to avoid SFR scaling is supported by multiple external analyses, and the central fit is benchmarked against external measurements (Shin et al. 2023; Lu & Piro 2019). The paper does not define its result in terms of itself, does not rename a known relation without adding the SGR anchor, and does not smuggle an ansatz in via citation. Consequently, there is no exhibited equation-level reduction from outputs to inputs. The only mild epistemic limitation is that the SGR alignment is a post-hoc comparison rather than a pre-registered prediction, but that is a weakness of confirmatory force, not circularity. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis introduces no new physical entities. The free parameters are the power-law slope and normalization, fitted to the data. The key axioms are the completeness of the Vmax survey and the representativeness of single sources, both of which are assumptions that could affect the low-energy anchor of the relation.

free parameters (2)
  • γ (power-law index) = 1.31 ± 0.13 (non-repeating-only fit); 1.322 ± 0.045 (combined fit)
    Fitted to the volumetric rate-energy relation using Bayesian least squares; it is the central parameter of the claimed unified relation.
  • log10 φ0 (power-law normalization) = 55.9 ± 5.3
    Fitted along with γ; log10 φ0 is the intercept at E = 1 erg in dR/dE = φ0 E^-γ.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The surveyed volume is uniformly complete above the adopted fluence threshold, so the Vmax method gives unbiased volumetric rates.
    Invoked in Section 3.2; CHIME's sensitivity varies with time and beam, and the paper replaces a convolution with a single fixed threshold.
  • ad hoc to paper SGR 1935+2154 and FRB 20180916B are representative of their populations, so a single source can be used with Vmax to estimate a volumetric rate.
    No argument or evidence is given that the burst activity of SGR 1935+2154 is typical of Galactic magnetars or that FRB 20180916B is typical of repeating FRBs; this underpins the low-energy extension of the relation.
  • domain assumption The spectral index α = -1.4, derived for non-repeating FRBs, applies to magnetar bursts and repeating FRB bursts when converting fluence to energy.
    Used in Eq. (1) for all samples; different intrinsic spectra would shift energies along the x-axis and could alter the fitted slope.
  • domain assumption The DM-redshift relation of Tang et al. (2023) provides unbiased pseudo-redshifts for CHIME Catalog 1 non-repeating FRBs.
    Used in Section 3.1 to convert DM to redshift; the paper checks one alternative relation (Gao et al. 2024) and finds similar results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Unified Volumetric Rate-Energy Relation from Magnetar Radio Bursts to Fast Radio Bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TBK4LREA

@misc{pith2026250716365,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Unified Volumetric Rate-Energy Relation from Magnetar Radio Bursts to Fast Radio Bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TBK4LREA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16365}
}
abstract

Fast radio bursts (FRBs) are millisecond radio pulses with extremely high bright temperature. Their physical origin is still a mystery. The discovery of FRB 20020428 supports the idea that at least a portion of FRBs is generated by magnetars. However, FRB 20200428 and other radio bursts of SGR 1935+2154 are much less energetic than that of extragalactic FRBs. Thus, whether the progenitors of extragalactic FRBs are magnetars is still in controversy. Here, we investigate the volumetric rates of radio bursts from SGR 1935+2154, non-repeating FRBs and FRB 20180916B using the uniform samples detected by the Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment (CHIME). We find that they share a similar relation between the volumetric rate $R$ and the burst energy $E$, i.e., $R\propto E^{-\gamma}$ with $\gamma=1.31\pm 0.13$ from $10^{29}$ erg to $10^{42}$ erg. Our results support the hypothesis that both repeating and non-repeating FRBs originate from magnetars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16365 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The energy and redshift distributions of the non-repeating FRBs in the CHIME Catalog 1. The upper panel shows the energy distribution of the non-repeating FRBs. The bottom panel gives the redshift distribution of the non-repeating FRBs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The detectable redshift as a function of burst energy from Eq. (1). Here, ∆v is set as 400 MHz. The fluences Fv of the orange, green and blue lines are 10.2 kJy ms, 10.2 Jy ms and 5 Jy ms, which are the thresholds for the observations of SGR 1935+2154 in the side lobe, SGR 1935+2154 in the main lobe and the FRBs in the CHIME Catalog 1, respectively. 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 40 50 60 70 lo g 0 = 1.31 ± 0.13 40 50 60 70 log 0 … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The contour plot of the posterior PDFs for parameters (logϕ0, γ). The dark blue area represents the error range with 1σ confidence level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The volumetric rate as a function of burst energy. The purple, blue and green points are the volumetric rate of the radio bursts of SGR 1935+2154, non-repeating FRBs in the CHIME Catalog 1 and FRB 20180916B, respectively. The orange line is the best fitting result with…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, Science, 380, 599, 10.1126/science.abo6526

    Anna-Thomas , R., Connor , L., Dai , S., et al. 2023, Science, 380, 599, 10.1126/science.abo6526

    doi:10.1126/science.abo6526 2023

  2. [2]

    R., James , C., Ekers , R., et al

    Arcus , W. R., James , C., Ekers , R., et al. 2025, , 42, e003, 10.1017/pasa.2024.114

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2024.114 2025

  3. [3]

    Beloborodov , A. M. 2017, , 843, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3 2017

  4. [4]

    D., Ravi , V., Belov , K

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

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

  5. [5]

    Cosmological Evolution of Fast Radio Bursts and The Star Formation Rate

    Champati , S., & Petrosian , V. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.13343, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.13343

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.13343 2025

  6. [6]

    H., Jia , X

    Chen , J. H., Jia , X. D., Dong , X. F., & Wang , F. Y. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.03672, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.03672

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.03672 2024

  7. [7]

    2019, , 566, 230, 10.1038/s41586-018-0867-7

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Amiri , M., Bandura , K., et al. 2019, , 566, 230, 10.1038/s41586-018-0867-7

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0867-7 2019

  8. [8]

    C., Bandura , K

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

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

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    C., et al

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Amiri , M., Andersen , B. C., et al. 2020 b , , 582, 351, 10.1038/s41586-020-2398-2

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    2021, , 257, 59, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab

    ---. 2021, , 257, 59, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Bandura , K., et al

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Andersen , B. C., Bandura , K., et al. 2023, , 947, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc6c1

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    C., & Gardenier , D

    Connor , L., Miller , M. C., & Gardenier , D. W. 2020, , 497, 3076, 10.1093/mnras/staa2074

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    M., & Chatterjee , S

    Cordes , J. M., & Chatterjee , S. 2019, , 57, 417, 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104501

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    H., Wu , Q., Hu , J

    Gao , D. H., Wu , Q., Hu , J. P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.03994, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.03994

    2024 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 015016, 10.1088/1674-4527/ad0f0c

    Ge , M.-Y., Yang , Y.-P., Lu , F.-J., et al. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 015016, 10.1088/1674-4527/ad0f0c

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    C., Chawla , P., et al

    Giri , U., Andersen , B. C., Chawla , P., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.16932, 10.48550/arXiv.2310.16932

    2023 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

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

    2025 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Hashimoto , T., Goto , T., On , A. Y. L., et al. 2020, , 498, 3927, 10.1093/mnras/staa2490

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    H., et al

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

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, , 626, 500, 10.1038/s41586-023-07012-5

    Hu , C.-P., Narita , T., Enoto , T., et al. 2024, , 626, 500, 10.1038/s41586-023-07012-5

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    W., Prochaska , J

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

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Katz , J. I. 2020, , 494, L64, 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa038

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    2022, , 516, 53, 10.1093/mnras/stac2174

    ---. 2022, , 516, 53, 10.1093/mnras/stac2174

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    S., Herrmann , W., et al

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

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    2020, , 494, 2385, 10.1093/mnras/staa774

    Kumar , P., & Bo s njak , Z . 2020, , 494, 2385, 10.1093/mnras/staa774

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    W., et al

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

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    B., Yang , Y

    Li , Y., Zhang , S. B., Yang , Y. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.04727, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.04727

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    2024, , 962, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1b4f

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

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    2024, , 965, 118, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a58

    Liu , Z.-N., Xia , Z.-Y., Zhong , S.-Q., Wang , F.-Y., & Dai , Z.-G. 2024, , 965, 118, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a58

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    2022, , 510, 1867, 10.1093/mnras/stab3500

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

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    2020, , 498, 1397, 10.1093/mnras/staa2450

    Lu , W., Kumar , P., & Zhang , B. 2020, , 498, 1397, 10.1093/mnras/staa2450

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

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

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.16626, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.16626

    Luo , J.-W., Niu , J.-R., Wang , W.-Y., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.16626, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.16626

    2025 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.13705, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.13705

    Ma , W., Gao , Z., Li , B., Yao , J., & Wang , F. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.13705, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.13705

    2025 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    2014, , 52, 415, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau , P., & Dickinson , M. 2014, , 52, 415, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    Marcote , B., Nimmo , K., Hessels , J. W. T., et al. 2020, , 577, 190, 10.1038/s41586-019-1866-z

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    D., Margalit , B., & Sironi , L

    Metzger , B. D., Margalit , B., & Sironi , L. 2019, , 485, 4091, 10.1093/mnras/stz700

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    2018, , 473, 4077, 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    Pillepich , A., Springel , V., Nelson , D., et al. 2018, , 473, 4077, 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    2019, , 821, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2019.06.003

    Platts , E., Weltman , A., Walters , A., et al. 2019, , 821, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2019.06.003

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    C., Kaspi , V

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

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 928, 10.1038/s41550-019-0831-y

    Ravi , V. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 928, 10.1038/s41550-019-0831-y

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    R., Curtin , A

    Sand , K. R., Curtin , A. P., Michilli , D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.13215, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.13215

    2024 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    1968, , 151, 393, 10.1086/149446

    Schmidt , M. 1968, , 151, 393, 10.1086/149446

    1968 doi

  36. [44]

    Z., Farah , W., Pollak , A

    Sheikh , S. Z., Farah , W., Pollak , A. W., et al. 2024, , 527, 10425, 10.1093/mnras/stad3630

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    W., Bhardwaj , M., et al

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

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    D., Beniamini , P., et al

    Sridhar , N., Metzger , B. D., Beniamini , P., et al. 2021, , 917, 13, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0140

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    G., & Kokkotas , K

    Suvorov , A. G., & Kokkotas , K. D. 2019, , 488, 5887, 10.1093/mnras/stz2052

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    2023, Chinese Physics C, 47, 085105, 10.1088/1674-1137/acda1c

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

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    Y., Zhang , G

    Wang , F. Y., Zhang , G. Q., Dai , Z. G., & Cheng , K. S. 2022, Nature Communications, 13, 4382, 10.1038/s41467-022-31923-y

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    2018, , 852, 140, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa025

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

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    2024, Chinese Physics Letters, 41, 119801, 10.1088/0256-307X/41/11/119801

    Wu , Q., & Wang , F.-Y. 2024, Chinese Physics Letters, 41, 119801, 10.1088/0256-307X/41/11/119801

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    Q., Wang , F

    Wu , Q., Zhang , G. Q., Wang , F. Y., & Dai , Z. G. 2020, , 900, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/abaef1

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    Y., Zhao , Z

    Wu , Q., Wang , F. Y., Zhao , Z. Y., et al. 2025, , 979, L42, 10.3847/2041-8213/adaa7f

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    2018, , 868, 31, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae685

    Yang , Y.-P., & Zhang , B. 2018, , 868, 31, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae685

    2018 doi

  47. [55]

    2021, , 919, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac14b5

    ---. 2021, , 919, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac14b5

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    G., Harding , A

    Younes , G., Baring , M. G., Harding , A. K., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 339, 10.1038/s41550-022-01865-y

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005, 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005

    Zhang , B. 2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005, 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

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

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

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    Q., Yi , S

    Zhang , G. Q., Yi , S. X., & Wang , F. Y. 2020 a , , 893, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7c5c

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    Q., Yu , H., He , J

    Zhang , G. Q., Yu , H., He , J. H., & Wang , F. Y. 2020 b , , 900, 170, 10.3847/1538-4357/abaa4a

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    2024 a , Universe, 10, 207, 10.3390/universe10050207

    Zhang , J.-G., Li , Y., Zou , J.-M., et al. 2024 a , Universe, 10, 207, 10.3390/universe10050207

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    J., Dong , X

    Zhang , K. J., Dong , X. F., Rodin , A. E., et al. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.00476, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.00476

    2024 doi arXiv

  55. [63]

    J., Yan , K., Li , C

    Zhang , Z. J., Yan , K., Li , C. M., Zhang , G. Q., & Wang , F. Y. 2021 b , , 906, 49, 10.3847/1538-4357/abceb9

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    2022, , 926, 206, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4d98

    Zhong , S.-Q., Xie , W.-J., Deng , C.-M., et al. 2022, , 926, 206, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4d98

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.15530, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.15530

    Zhou , H., Li , Z., & Zhu , Z.-H. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.15530, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.15530

    2025 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.