pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.21870 · v2 · submitted 2026-01-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Extreme-Value Distribution Analysis of the Second CHIME/FRB Catalog: Assessing the Rarity of the One-off FRB 20250316A

Wen-Long Zhang , Jun-Jie Wei This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 09:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords fast radio burstsextreme value statisticsCHIME/FRB catalogstatistical outliersreturn periodFréchet distributionWeibull distributionluminosity function
0
0 comments X

The pith

FRB 20250316A is a statistical outlier whose peak flux follows a heavy-tailed distribution with return periods of decades to centuries.

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

The paper fits the Generalized Extreme Value distribution to block maxima of peak flux and fluence drawn from the second CHIME/FRB catalog in order to quantify how unusual the bright single-pulse event FRB 20250316A is. For peak flux the best-fit model is an unbounded Fréchet-type GEV that places the event at return periods of roughly 802 years (68% CL), 81 years (95% CL), and 30 years (99% CL). Fluence fits are more sensitive to catalog composition: the full sample again favors a Fréchet form, but removal of three other bright events shifts the distribution to a bounded Weibull type whose upper limit is nevertheless exceeded by FRB 20250316A. The analysis therefore supports the existence of rare, exceptionally luminous fast radio bursts at the extreme tail of the observed population.

Core claim

The paper establishes that FRB 20250316A is a pronounced statistical outlier in both peak flux and fluence. The peak-flux block maxima are described by an unbounded, heavy-tailed Fréchet-type GEV distribution, producing return periods of approximately 802 years at 68% CL, 81 years at 95% CL, and 30 years at 99% CL. The fluence distribution for the full sample is likewise consistent with a Fréchet form (return periods ~55, 15, and 8 years), but cleaning three other conspicuous outliers yields a light-tailed Weibull distribution with a finite upper bound that FRB 20250316A still exceeds. Its inferred recurrence time is shorter than that of the gamma-ray BOAT GRB 221009A, yet the event remains

What carries the argument

Bayesian fits of the Generalized Extreme Value (GEV) family to the block maxima of peak flux and fluence extracted from the second CHIME/FRB catalog.

If this is right

  • Extremely bright one-off FRBs occur on timescales of decades to centuries under the fitted GEV model.
  • The shift from Fréchet to Weibull after outlier removal shows that fluence-tail shape depends on whether other bright events are retained.
  • FRB 20250316A qualifies as a candidate FRB "BOAT" analogous to GRB 221009A within radio-survey baselines.
  • Rare luminous events at the upper end of the distribution may trace either a distinct physical channel or the extreme tail of a complex luminosity function.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Longer observational baselines from future wide-field surveys can directly test whether events appear at the predicted return intervals.
  • The sensitivity of the fluence distribution to a handful of outliers underscores the need for uniform catalog cleaning before tail inference.
  • Confirmation of such extremes would require progenitor models to accommodate rare high-luminosity channels in addition to the more common population.

Load-bearing premise

The block maxima of peak flux and fluence are assumed to follow a GEV distribution without significant distortion from selection effects or catalog incompleteness.

What would settle it

Detection of another FRB with peak flux comparable to or exceeding that of FRB 20250316A within the next 10–20 years would falsify the derived 99% CL return period of 30 years.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.21870 by Jun-Jie Wei, Wen-Long Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: , which marks FRB 20250316A as a potential ex￾treme outlier, we seek to quantify its rarity. Inspired by the work of S. Covino (2025) who used the generalized extreme value distribution (a physics-agnostic statisti￾cal method) on the Fermi/GBM catalog to characterize the “Brightest Of All Time”(BOAT) GRB 221009A (E. Burns et al. 2023). we leverage the recent release of the second CHIME/FRB catalog of FRBs … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: GEV analysis of the peak flux. (a) Block maxima time series compared to FRB 20250316A (red horizontal dashed line). (b) Fitted GEV model and return level curve. The intersection with the FRB 20250316A flux defines return periods at 1σ and 2σ credible levels. (c) Posterior distributions of the GEV parameters µ, σ, and ξ. (d) QQ plot for model diagnostics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: GEV analysis of the fluence distribution,following the same panel layout as before [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: GEV analysis of the fluence distribution without three extreme outliers (FRBs 20200723B, 20220222B, 20210922C) removed, following the same panel layout as before [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a statistical analysis of the extremely bright, apparently non-repeating fast radio burst FRB 20250316A, detected by the Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment (CHIME), to assess its rarity. Using a model-agnostic framework based on the Generalized Extreme Value (GEV) distribution and the second CHIME/FRB catalog, we perform Bayesian fits to the block-maxima of its peak flux and fluence. Our analysis confirms FRB 20250316A as a pronounced statistical outlier in both quantities. For the peak flux, the best-fit GEV model follows an unbounded, heavy-tailed Fr\'echet-type distribution, yielding return periods of approximately $802$ years at the $68\%$ confidence level (CL), $81$ years at the $95\%$ CL, and $30$ years at the $99\%$ CL. The fluence distribution exhibits greater complexity: while the full sample is consistent with a Fr\'echet-type distribution (return period of approximately $55$, $15$, and $8$ years at the $68\%$, $95\%$ and $99\%$ CLs, respectively), removing three other conspicuous outliers reveals a light-tailed Weibull-type distribution with a finite upper bound that is far exceeded by the fluence of FRB 20250316A. Although its inferred recurrence time is shorter than that of the ``Brightest Of All Time'' (BOAT) gamma-ray burst GRB 221009A, FRB 20250316A represents a similarly exceptional event (a potential FRB ``BOAT'') within the relatively short observational baseline of wide-field radio surveys. This work affirms the existence of rare, extremely luminous events at the extreme upper end of the FRB luminosity distribution, which may delineate a distinct physical channel or the extreme tail of a complex luminosity function.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper applies a Bayesian Generalized Extreme Value (GEV) analysis to the block maxima of peak flux and fluence drawn from the second CHIME/FRB catalog in order to quantify the rarity of the apparently one-off FRB 20250316A. It reports that the peak-flux distribution is well-described by an unbounded Fréchet-type GEV yielding return periods of ~802 yr (68 % CL), ~81 yr (95 % CL) and ~30 yr (99 % CL), while the fluence distribution is Fréchet for the full sample but becomes Weibull (finite upper bound) after removal of three outliers; the event is therefore presented as a statistical outlier and a possible radio analogue of the BOAT GRB.

Significance. If the GEV fits prove robust, the work supplies the first quantitative, catalog-based return-period estimates for the extreme tail of the FRB luminosity distribution and thereby strengthens the case that rare, ultra-luminous events exist and may trace a distinct physical channel. The model-agnostic Bayesian framework and explicit comparison with the BOAT GRB are clear strengths that could be adopted by future wide-field radio surveys.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the fluence analysis reports that removal of three conspicuous outliers changes the posterior from Fréchet (ξ > 0, unbounded) to Weibull (ξ < 0, finite upper bound exceeded by FRB 20250316A). Because the removal is performed after visual inspection and lacks pre-specified, independent selection criteria, the shape-parameter inference and the bounded-vs-unbounded conclusion are sensitive to this choice; a sensitivity study or justification for the outlier threshold is required.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and methods description: the block-maxima fits assume that the observed peak-flux and fluence values are unaffected by CHIME/FRB catalog incompleteness, saturation, or beam-response selection at the bright end. No robustness checks (e.g., injection-recovery tests or flux-dependent completeness corrections) are described; if such effects truncate or bias the upper tail, both the fitted ξ and the quoted return periods (e.g., 30 yr at 99 % CL for peak flux) become unreliable.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: the reported return periods are obtained directly from the posterior of the fitted GEV location, scale and shape parameters. While this is the standard parametric procedure, the manuscript should explicitly propagate the full posterior uncertainty into the return-period quantiles and discuss the extrapolation risk inherent in using a three-parameter model fitted to a modest number of block maxima.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract would benefit from a concise table or bullet list that tabulates the three return-period values for both peak flux and fluence (full and cleaned samples) at the three stated confidence levels.
  2. Clarify whether the block size used to define the maxima is fixed (e.g., per observing session) or chosen to optimize the GEV approximation; any dependence on this choice should be shown.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have addressed each of the major comments point by point below, making revisions to the manuscript where feasible to improve clarity and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the fluence analysis reports that removal of three conspicuous outliers changes the posterior from Fréchet (ξ > 0, unbounded) to Weibull (ξ < 0, finite upper bound exceeded by FRB 20250316A). Because the removal is performed after visual inspection and lacks pre-specified, independent selection criteria, the shape-parameter inference and the bounded-vs-unbounded conclusion are sensitive to this choice; a sensitivity study or justification for the outlier threshold is required.

    Authors: We agree that the outlier removal was performed post-hoc based on visual inspection, which introduces subjectivity. In the revised manuscript, we have added a dedicated sensitivity analysis section. This includes varying the number of outliers removed (from 0 to 5) and examining the resulting posterior distributions for the shape parameter ξ. We also provide a justification for the three outliers by quantifying their deviation using standardized residuals from the initial fit. This demonstrates that the conclusion regarding the bounded nature after removal is robust within reasonable thresholds, while acknowledging the exploratory nature of the analysis. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and methods description: the block-maxima fits assume that the observed peak-flux and fluence values are unaffected by CHIME/FRB catalog incompleteness, saturation, or beam-response selection at the bright end. No robustness checks (e.g., injection-recovery tests or flux-dependent completeness corrections) are described; if such effects truncate or bias the upper tail, both the fitted ξ and the quoted return periods (e.g., 30 yr at 99 % CL for peak flux) become unreliable.

    Authors: We acknowledge the importance of assessing catalog completeness at the bright end. For CHIME/FRB, the brightest events are generally well-detected due to the survey's design, and saturation effects are mitigated by the instrument's dynamic range. However, we have not performed explicit injection-recovery tests in the original analysis. In the revision, we have added a discussion in the Methods section explaining why we believe the upper tail is not significantly biased, based on the catalog's reported detection thresholds and comparisons with other surveys. We note that full injection tests would require detailed simulation of the CHIME beam and noise properties, which is beyond the scope of this statistical paper but could be addressed in future work. We have also included a caveat on this assumption in the abstract and conclusions. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the reported return periods are obtained directly from the posterior of the fitted GEV location, scale and shape parameters. While this is the standard parametric procedure, the manuscript should explicitly propagate the full posterior uncertainty into the return-period quantiles and discuss the extrapolation risk inherent in using a three-parameter model fitted to a modest number of block maxima.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this suggestion. In the revised version, we have updated the results section to explicitly compute and report the return periods with full posterior uncertainty, providing credible intervals derived from the joint posterior samples of the GEV parameters. Additionally, we have added a paragraph discussing the extrapolation risks, including the limitations of fitting a three-parameter model to a small number of block maxima (approximately 10-20 blocks depending on the catalog partitioning) and the potential for model misspecification in the extreme tail. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Return periods are direct outputs of Bayesian GEV fits to block maxima

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "For the peak flux, the best-fit GEV model follows an unbounded, heavy-tailed Fréchet-type distribution, yielding return periods of approximately 802 years at the 68% CL, 81 years at the 95% CL, and 30 years at the 99% CL."

    The quoted return periods are obtained by plugging the fitted GEV location, scale, and shape parameters (from the Bayesian posterior on the catalog block maxima) into the standard return-period formula 1/(1-F(x)). The rarity claim is therefore a direct algebraic consequence of the model fit to the same data rather than an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper fits the GEV distribution to the observed block maxima of peak flux and fluence via Bayesian methods, then computes return periods from the resulting posterior parameters. This is the standard parametric extrapolation in extreme-value statistics and does not reduce the central claim to a tautology or self-definition. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes imported from prior author work are present. The analysis remains self-contained against the catalog data once the GEV modeling assumption is granted; the post-hoc outlier removal for fluence affects the shape parameter but is an explicit modeling choice rather than a hidden circular step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the classical extreme-value theorem for block maxima, the assumption that the CHIME catalog provides an unbiased sample of peak fluxes and fluences, and the choice of priors in the Bayesian fit. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • GEV shape, location, and scale parameters
    Three parameters per distribution (flux and fluence) are fitted to the block maxima; their posterior values determine the return periods.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Block maxima of i.i.d. random variables converge to a GEV distribution for large block size
    Invoked when the authors state they perform fits to the block-maxima of peak flux and fluence.
  • domain assumption The CHIME/FRB catalog provides a representative sample of the underlying fluence and flux distribution
    Required for the return-period interpretation to apply to the true population.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5656 in / 1503 out tokens · 25044 ms · 2026-05-16T09:32:37.102979+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., Carrasco, V

    Acero, F. J., Carrasco, V. M. S., Gallego, M. C., Usoskin, I. G., & Vaquero, J. M. 2025, SoPh, 300, 50, doi: 10.1007/s11207-025-02464-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-025-02464-6 2025

  2. [2]

    2025, ApJL, 991, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0324

    An, T., Wang, A., Huang, Y.-C., et al. 2025, ApJL, 991, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0324

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0324 2025

  3. [3]

    2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17114, 1

    Andrew, S., & Chime/Frb Collaboration. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17114, 1

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    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

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

  5. [5]

    2023, ApJL, 946, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc39c

    Burns, E., Svinkin, D., Fenimore, E., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc39c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc39c 2023

  6. [6]

    2022, ApJ, 939, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac958a CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B

    Chen, H.-Y., Gu, W.-M., Sun, M., & Yi, T. 2022, ApJ, 939, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac958a 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, Abbott, T. C., Amouyal, D., et al. 2025, ApJL, 989, L48, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf62f

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

  7. [7]

    2001, An introduction to statistical modeling of extreme values, Vol

    Coles, S., Bawa, J., Trenner, L., & Dorazio, P. 2001, An introduction to statistical modeling of extreme values, Vol. 208 (Springer)

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    2025, A&A, 701, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555059

    Covino, S. 2025, A&A, 701, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555059

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555059 2025

  9. [9]

    Dai, Z. G. 2020, ApJL, 897, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba11b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba11b 2020

  10. [10]

    G., Wang, J

    Dai, Z. G., Wang, J. S., Wu, X. F., & Huang, Y. F. 2016, ApJ, 829, 27, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/27

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/1/27 2016

  11. [11]

    2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17112, 1 FRB Collaboration, Abbott, T., Andersen, B

    Dong, Y. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17112, 1 FRB Collaboration, Abbott, T., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.09399, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.09399

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.09399 2025

  12. [12]

    2020, ApJL, 898, L55, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba83c

    Geng, J.-J., Li, B., Li, L.-B., et al. 2020, ApJL, 898, L55, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba83c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba83c 2020

  13. [13]

    2025, MNRAS, 543, 3783, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1690

    Chainakun, P. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 3783, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1690

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1690 2025

  14. [14]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 173, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2051

    Heather, C., Chantavat, T., Chongchitnan, S., & Silk, J. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 173, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2051

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2051 2024

  15. [15]

    2023, ApJS, 269, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf566

    Hu, C.-R., & Huang, Y.-F. 2023, ApJS, 269, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf566

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acf566 2023

  16. [16]

    , keywords =

    Ioka, K., & Zhang, B. 2020, ApJL, 893, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab83fb

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab83fb 2020

  17. [17]

    Katz, J. I. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.19143, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.19143

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.19143 2025

  18. [18]

    Kaur, B., Kanekar, N., & Prochaska, J. X. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.04563, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.04563

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.04563 2025

  19. [19]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.06208, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.06208

    Kharel, B., Fonseca, E., Brar, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.06208, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.06208

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.06208 2025

  20. [20]

    2024, ApJL, 967, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4ae8

    Lan, H.-T., Zhao, Z.-Y., Wei, Y.-J., & Wang, F.-Y. 2024, ApJL, 967, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4ae8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad4ae8 2024

  21. [21]

    K., Lin, L., Xiong, S

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

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

  22. [22]

    J., Dong, X

    Li, X. J., Dong, X. F., Zhang, Z. B., & Li, D. 2021, ApJ, 923, 230, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3085

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3085 2021

  23. [23]

    2025, ApJ, 995, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1463

    Li, Y., Sun, H., Qian, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1463

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1463 2025

  24. [24]

    2025, ApJL, 994, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1d60

    Liang, Y.-F., Li, Y., Tang, Z.-F., et al. 2025, ApJL, 994, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1d60

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae1d60 2025

  25. [25]

    R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

    Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M. A., Narkevic, D. J., & Crawford, F. 2007, Science, 318, 777, doi: 10.1126/science.1147532

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1147532 2007

  26. [26]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 1629, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3206

    Luo, J.-W., Zhu-Ge, J.-M., & Zhang, B. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1629, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3206 6

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3206 2023

  27. [27]

    2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2178, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2178

    Mankatwit, N., Thongkonsing, P., Loekkesee, S., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2178, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2178

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2178 2026

  28. [28]

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abac57 2020

  29. [29]

    2020, ApJL, 898, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba2cf

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

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

  30. [30]

    2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17081, 1

    Ng, M., & CHIME/FRB Collaboration. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17081, 1

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2148, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2148

    Nurmamat, N., Huang, Y.-F., Dong, X.-F., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2148, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2148

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2148 2026

  32. [32]

    S., Blaauw, R., Buchsteiner, T., et al

    Ould-Boukattine, O. S., Blaauw, R., Buchsteiner, T., et al. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17124, 1

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

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

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

  34. [34]

    2019, PhR, 821, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2019.06.003

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

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2019.06.003 2019

  35. [35]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 641, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2677

    Reischke, R., Maturi, M., & Bartelmann, M. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 641, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2677

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2677 2016

  36. [36]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 3598, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2615

    Repp, A., & Szapudi, I. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3598, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2615

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2615 2018

  37. [37]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 372, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01265-0

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

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

  38. [38]

    Y., Jin, C

    Sun, H., Li, D. Y., Jin, C. C., et al. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17119, 1

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    S., Lipunova, G

    Waizmann, J.-C., Ettori, S., & Moscardini, L. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 3554, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20865.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20865.x 2012

  40. [40]

    Y., Lan, H

    Wang, F. Y., Lan, H. T., Zhao, Z. Y., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.07140. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.07140

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Y., Zhang, G

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-31923-y 2022

  42. [42]

    2021, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 64, 249501, doi: 10.1007/s11433-020-1661-7

    Xiao, D., Wang, F., & Dai, Z. 2021, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 64, 249501, doi: 10.1007/s11433-020-1661-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-020-1661-7 2021

  43. [43]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4093

    Xie, S.-L., Yu, Y.-W., Xiong, S.-L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4093

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4093 2024

  44. [44]

    2021, ApJL, 907, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd628

    Zhang, B. 2021, ApJL, 907, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd628

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd628 2021

  45. [45]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.95.035005 2023

  46. [46]

    2025, ApJL, 994, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1023

    Zhang, B., & Hu, R.-C. 2025, ApJL, 994, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1023

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae1023 2025

  47. [47]

    2024, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 45, 14, doi: 10.1007/s12036-024-09999-3

    Zhang, R., Chen, Y.-Q., Zeng, S.-G., et al. 2024, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 45, 14, doi: 10.1007/s12036-024-09999-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s12036-024-09999-3 2024

  48. [48]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 115013, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acf979

    Zhang, W.-L., Li, X.-J., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 115013, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acf979

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acf979 2023

  49. [49]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.17880, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.17880

    Zhang, W.-L., Hu, C.-R., Du, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.17880, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.17880

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.17880 2025

  50. [50]

    Y., Zhang, G

    Zhao, Z. Y., Zhang, G. Q., Wang, F. Y., & Dai, Z. G. 2023, ApJ, 942, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca66b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca66b 2023

  51. [51]

    Zhu-Ge, J.-M., Luo, J.-W., & Zhang, B. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1823, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3599 7 a b c d Figure 2.GEV analysis of the peak flux.(a)Block maxima time series compared to FRB 20250316A (red horizontal dashed line).(b)Fitted GEV model and return level curve. The intersection with the FRB 20250316A flux defines return periods at 1σand 2σcredible le...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3599 2023