Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 67 references

Non-repeating CHIME fast radio bursts peak at redshift ~1, later than cosmic star formation, so at least some come from delayed progenitors.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 13:26 UTC pith:4DKP2DTB

load-bearing objection Catalog 2 dual-method result that non-repeaters peak near z~1, not SFH, holds up because the forward DM_ext test does not rely on the Gaussian inverse mapping. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.04792 v1 pith:4DKP2DTB submitted 2026-07-06 astro-ph.HE

Evidence for a Delayed Progenitor Population for CHIME non-repeating Fast Radio Bursts using a Self-Consistent Forward and Backward Inference Framework

Zi-Liang Zhang , Bing Zhang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fast radio burstsCHIME/FRB Catalog 2redshift distributionenergy functionLynden-Bell estimatorpopulation synthesisdelayed progenitorsstar formation history
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper asks what the true cosmic distribution of non-repeating fast radio bursts looks like once telescope selection, uncertain redshifts from dispersion measure, and catalog fluence underestimates are handled carefully. Using more than a thousand CHIME Catalog 2 events, it recovers the intrinsic redshift and energy distributions two independent ways: a weighted non-parametric estimator that works backward from the data, and Monte Carlo population synthesis that works forward into the same observables. Both routes find a redshift distribution that peaks near z ~ 1, well below the star-formation-rate peak at z ~ 1.7, while the energy distribution is roughly a power law of index about 1.9 that steepens at the high end. That delay relative to star formation implies that not every FRB is born promptly with young magnetars; older channels must contribute. The result matters because it turns a large homogeneous radio catalog into a demographic constraint on FRB engines without requiring every burst to be localized.

Core claim

After correcting for the fuzzy multi-dimensional CHIME selection function, baseband-to-catalog fluence ratios, and probabilistic DM-to-redshift mapping, the intrinsic redshift distribution of non-repeating CHIME FRBs peaks near z ~ 1 and is inconsistent with pure star-formation-history tracking (SFH peak ~1.7). The same conclusion is reached both by weighted Lynden-Bell C- inference and by forward population synthesis that fails the observed DM_ext distribution under an SFH hypothesis. The energy distribution follows a power law of index ~1.9 that steepens above ~10^42 erg, and the data are consistent with redshift-energy independence once selection is included.

What carries the argument

A self-consistent dual framework that pairs a weighted Lynden-Bell C- estimator (backward, non-parametric recovery of the intrinsic redshift and energy distributions under the four-dimensional injection-based selection function) with independent forward Monte Carlo population synthesis in observable DM_ext-fluence space.

Load-bearing premise

Redshift is drawn from a simple symmetric Gaussian around the median DM-to-z relation, even though the true scatter has a long low-redshift tail that the Gaussian underestimates.

What would settle it

A substantially larger sample of precisely localized non-repeating FRBs whose host redshifts, when weighted by the same selection function, produce a redshift histogram that peaks near the star-formation history peak (~1.7) rather than near z ~ 1 would overturn the delayed-population claim.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes >1000 non-repeating CHIME/FRB Catalog 2 events with a dual framework: a weighted Lynden–Bell C− estimator that recovers intrinsic redshift and energy distributions while incorporating the fuzzy 4D selection function and Monte Carlo draws over probabilistic DM_ext–z and baseband-to-catalog fluence ratios, and an independent forward Monte Carlo population synthesis that generates synthetic catalogs in observable DM_ext–fluence space and compares them to the data via KS tests. The recovered intrinsic redshift distribution peaks near z∼1 (below the SFH peak at z∼1.7), the energy distribution is a power law with α≈1.9 that steepens above ∼10^42 erg, and a simulation-based test finds no significant intrinsic z–E correlation once selection is accounted for. Forward synthesis independently rejects pure SFH tracking of the observed DM_ext distribution at typical p∼10^{-30} while delayed models remain viable.

Significance. If the dual-method result holds, it strengthens the case that at least a substantial fraction of apparent non-repeaters are delayed relative to star formation, with direct implications for magnetar formation channels (core-collapse vs. mergers/AIC) and for mixed-population models. Strengths include the self-consistent combination of non-parametric backward inference and forward tests in pure observable space, explicit use of the injection-based multidimensional selection function, Monte Carlo propagation of fluence-ratio and redshift uncertainties, and appendices that check baseband-catalog consistency and spectral-index variations. The forward KS rejection of SFH is particularly valuable because it does not rely on the inverse DM–z mapping used in the backward path.

major comments (3)
  1. Appendix A: the inverse mapping from DM_ext to redshift is approximated as a symmetric Gaussian z∼N(μ_z,σ_z) with an empirical linear σ_z, even though the paper itself notes that the true conditional is log-normal with a long low-z tail. Every catalog realization that feeds the weighted C− estimator (Eqs. 3–6) and the independence test therefore systematically under-weights low-z solutions. While the independent forward KS test on observed DM_ext (Section 2.5 step 3; Fig. 7) already rejects SFH without using this inverse map, the quantitative location of the backward p(z) peak at z∼1 (Fig. 3) remains sensitive to this approximation. A re-analysis that draws redshifts from a properly inverted log-normal (or at least a truncated asymmetric distribution) should be shown, or the peak location should be clearly labeled as approximate.
  2. Section 2.3 vs. Sections 2.4–2.5: the backward weights use the full 4D selection function S4(Fν,DM,W,τ), but the independence test and forward filtering use only the marginal fluence selection s_F(Fν). The paper acknowledges residual coupling among fluence, DM, width, and scattering (Section 4; McGregor et al. 2026). Because the headline claim is that selection-corrected data favor delayed models, residual multi-dimensional selection bias could still shift the recovered p(z) or the KS rankings. At minimum, a controlled test that re-runs the forward synthesis with a joint (Fν,DM) or (Fν,W) selection (or an explicit statement of the residual bias budget) is needed before the dual-method agreement can be treated as fully self-consistent.
  3. Section 3.1 / Appendix B: the delayed models shown in Figs. 3 and 6 (log-normal with τ_LN=5 Gyr, σ_LN=1; power-law with τ_c=5 Gyr) are illustrative only and are not fitted. The abstract and summary statements that the distribution is “more consistent with delayed-population models” therefore rest on visual comparison rather than a quantitative model comparison (e.g., KS or likelihood ranking over a grid of delay parameters). Either perform a minimal delay-parameter scan against the forward DM_ext/fluence observables, or soften the language to “qualitatively closer to delayed histories than to pure SFH.”
minor comments (6)
  1. Figure 2 caption and Section 2.3: clarify that F_ν,th=5 Jy ms is a lower boundary used to define comparable sets, not a hard survey cutoff; the distinction is important for readers familiar with classical C− applications.
  2. Equation (3): the DM shift DMj→i=DMtot,j+831(zi−zj) assumes a fixed median slope; a short note on how scatter in the DM_ext–z relation propagates into the weights would help.
  3. Figure 6: the linear DM_ext axis is useful, but a brief reminder of the p(x)=p(log x)/x transformation relative to earlier CHIME papers would reduce confusion.
  4. Appendix C: the baseband sample after cuts is only 64 events; the consistency statement should note the limited statistical power more explicitly.
  5. Section 2.1 criterion 6 (meridian angle <1°): a quantitative statement of how many events are removed and whether the fluence-ratio distribution changes the energy slope would strengthen the sample-selection justification.
  6. Typographical: “F ast Radio Bursts” and “F orward” in the title/header appear to be line-break artifacts; clean for production.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: non-parametric C^- recovery and independent forward KS tests in DM_ext space do not reduce to their inputs by construction; SFH/delay models are external benchmarks only.

full rationale

The paper recovers intrinsic redshift and energy distributions via a weighted Lynden–Bell C^- estimator applied to Monte Carlo catalog realizations that propagate DM_ext–z and fluence-ratio uncertainties (Eqs. 3–6, §2.3). Candidate models (SFH, stellar-mass density, log-normal and power-law delay) are taken from the external literature (Madau & Dickinson 2014; Wanderman & Piran 2015; Cao et al. 2018) and used only for visual and KS comparison, not fitted to force the z∼1 peak. The forward synthesis draws from those candidate p(z) and Ψ(E), applies the selection function, draws DM_ext from the log-normal relation of Zhuge et al. (2026), and compares synthetic vs. observed DM_ext and fluence histograms via two-sample KS tests (§2.5, §3.3, Fig. 7); SFH is rejected at p∼10^{-30} while delayed models pass. This is an independent observable-space test, not a tautology of the backward estimator. Self-citations to Zhang & Zhang (2022) and related earlier delay claims appear only as historical context and are not load-bearing for the Catalog-2 result. The Gaussian inverse-z approximation (Appendix A) is a modeling assumption, not a circular definition. No step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input or self-definitional identity. Score 1 reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation of prior delay claims.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central delayed-redshift claim rests on standard cosmological and FRB DM decomposition machinery, an external empirical DM_ext–z relation, the CHIME injection-based selection function, and several practical approximations (Gaussian redshift draws, empirical fluence-ratio distribution, fluence threshold, sample quality cuts). No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are mostly analysis choices rather than fitted population parameters that define the claim.

free parameters (5)
  • Baseband-like fluence threshold F_ν,th = 5 Jy ms
    Fixed at 5 Jy ms to stay inside the well-calibrated completeness regime of the CHIME pipeline; defines the comparable sets for the weighted C^- estimator and the retained sample.
  • DM_fitb upper cut = 2000 pc cm^{-3}
    Events with dm_fitb > 2000 pc cm^{-3} are excluded because the selection function is poorly constrained there; this cut is introduced in the present work and directly shapes the high-DM tail.
  • Meridian-angle cut = 1 degree
    Absolute meridian angle restricted to <1° so that the empirical baseband-to-catalog fluence-ratio distribution remains stable; another analysis choice that reduces sample size.
  • Gaussian redshift uncertainty coefficients = 8e-5 * DM + 0.17
    σ_z ≈ 8×10^{-5} (DM_ext / pc cm^{-3}) + 0.17 is an empirical linear approximation used for every Monte Carlo realization; not derived from first principles.
  • Illustrative delay-time parameters (τ_LN, σ_LN, τ_c) = τ_LN=5 Gyr, σ_LN=1; τ_c=5 Gyr
    Log-normal (5 Gyr, 1) and power-law (τ_c=5 Gyr) delay models are shown for visual comparison only; they are not fitted to the data and do not define the non-parametric peak claim.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Planck 2018 cosmology (with a SH0ES cross-check that yields no significant difference) is used to convert redshift to luminosity distance and volume elements.
    Standard background for FRB energy and rate calculations; invoked in Appendix A and energy formula (A3).
  • domain assumption DM_obs = DM_MW,ISM + DM_MW,halo + DM_ext with DM_MW,halo fixed at 30 pc cm^{-3} and DM_MW,ISM from YMW16.
    Standard FRB DM decomposition (Appendix A); residual host and IGM contributions are absorbed into the empirical DM_ext–z relation.
  • domain assumption The median DM_ext–z relation and its scatter are taken from the empirical fit of Zhuge et al. (2026) and extrapolated to z∈(0,3).
    External calibration from localized FRBs; load-bearing for all redshift draws (Appendix A, §2.5).
  • domain assumption The four-dimensional injection-based CHIME selection function S4(Fν, DM_tot, W, τ600) correctly describes detection probability inside the retained fluence and DM range.
    Taken from Merryfield et al. and McGregor et al.; used as weights in the C^- estimator (§2.2–2.3).
  • domain assumption Catalog fluence can be converted to a baseband-like fluence by independent draws from the empirical ratio distribution of CHIME/FRB Collaboration et al. (2024) for |meridian angle|<1°.
    Required because catalog fluence is a lower limit; validated by a baseband-catalog consistency check (Appendix C) but residual dependence on width/scattering is uncharacterized.
  • domain assumption Redshift and energy may be treated as statistically independent population variables for the purpose of recovering separate marginal distributions with the Lynden–Bell C^- method.
    Classical assumption of the estimator; tested a posteriori by a simulation-based correlation comparison (§2.4, §3.2) that finds consistency with independence after selection.
  • domain assumption Isotropic-equivalent energy is computed as a band-averaged CHIME-band quantity E = 4π d_L^{2} Fν Δν / (1+z) with Δν=400 MHz (or with a power-law K-correction in Appendix D).
    Implicit spectral assumption; Appendix D shows that moderate spectral indices do not reverse the delayed-redshift conclusion.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 23942 in / 3953 out tokens · 35492 ms · 2026-07-11T13:26:24.042770+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Fast radio bursts (FRBs) are luminous extragalactic radio transients whose physical origins remain uncertain. Using over one thousand non-repeating events from CHIME/FRB Catalog 2, we infer the intrinsic FRB demographics with a self-consistent framework that combines backward non-parametric inference and forward population synthesis while accounting for probabilistic dispersion measure--redshift estimates, baseband-to-catalog fluence corrections, and the latest fuzzy multidimensional selection function. We first apply a backward non-parametric method, the weighted Lynden--Bell $C^{-}$ estimator, to recover the intrinsic redshift and energy distributions without assuming any population model. Independently, we perform forward Monte Carlo population synthesis in observable dispersion measure--fluence space, treating candidate intrinsic redshift and energy distributions as population hypotheses and comparing the resulting selected synthetic catalogs with observations. We find that the intrinsic redshift distribution peaks at $z\sim1$, significantly lower than the cosmic star formation history (SFH) peak at $z\sim1.7$, indicating clear tension with a pure SFH-tracking scenario, suggesting that at least some FRBs are delayed with respect to SFH. The intrinsic energy distribution is consistent with a power law of index $\alpha\approx1.9$ and steepens at higher energies. We find no significant evidence for a redshift-energy distribution correlation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.04792 by Bing Zhang, Zi-Liang Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Flow chart summarizing the self-consistent backward-inference and forward-synthesis framework used in this work. 4. events with bonsai snr < 12, to reduce incom￾pleteness from human inspection near the low-S/N threshold; 5. events with dm fitb > 2000 pc cm−3 , where the se￾lection function is not well constrained (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: z–E distribution for the selected CHIME/FRB Catalog 2 sample. The black points show the catalog events, with the colorbar indicating the marginal fluence-only pro￾jection of the selection function. The red solid line represents the fluence-limited selection boundary at Fν,th = 5 Jy ms, which is used to define the comparable sets in the weighted Lynden–Bell C − method. The pink point (zi, Ei) is used to ill… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Redshift distribution functions. Upper panel: cumulative distribution functions. Gray solid curves show the cumulative distributions derived from the 1,000 catalog realizations, and the blue solid curve shows their median. The green dashed curve denotes the SFH model; the red dashed curve denotes a delayed star-formation model with a log-normal delay time distribution with τLN = 5 Gyr and σLN = 1; the brow… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cumulative energy distribution functions. Gray solid curves show the cumulative distributions derived from the 1,000 catalog realizations, and the blue solid curve shows their median. α denotes the slope of the power-law energy probability density function, ψ ∝ E −α . Dashed lines show piecewise power-law fits to the cumulative distribution, with different segments indicated by different colors. Gray point… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correlation coefficients between redshift and en￾ergy. Solid histograms show the coefficient distributions from the catalog realizations. Dashed histograms show the cor￾responding distributions from 1000 synthetic catalogs gen￾erated under the redshift–energy independence assumption and passed through the marginal fluence selection function. Gray vertical lines show the median coefficients from the un￾weig… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: compares the weighted Lynden–Bell result from CHIME/FRB Catalog 2 with representative mod￾els using the same parameter choices as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Kolmogorov–Smirnov test p-values for DMext and Fν. Same color scheme is used as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Redshift distribution functions from the base￾band catalog and from tests with different spectral indices. The baseband-catalog result is shown by the black solid line. After applying the same sample selection as Section 2.1, 64 baseband bursts remain. The marginal fluence selec￾tion function is applied to the baseband catalog. Colored solid lines show the inferred redshift distributions for differ￾ent spe… view at source ↗

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

67 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    C., Patel, C., Brar, C., et al

    Andersen, B. C., Patel, C., Brar, C., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acec78 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acec78 2023

  2. [2]

    W., Deller, A

    Bannister, K. W., Deller, A. T., Phillips, C., et al. 2019, Science, 365, 565, doi: 10.1126/science.aaw5903

    doi:10.1126/science.aaw5903 2019

  3. [3]

    F., Barr, E

    Bhandari, S., Keane, E. F., Barr, E. D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1427, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3074

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3074 2018

  4. [4]

    Y., Michilli, D., et al

    Bhardwaj, M., Kirichenko, A. Y., Michilli, D., et al. 2021, ApJL, 919, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac223b

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac223b 2021

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    M., Osborne, J

    Bryant, C. M., Osborne, J. A., & Shahmoradi, A. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4192, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1098

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1098 2021

  7. [7]

    2016, MNRAS, 458, 708, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw175

    Caleb, M., Flynn, C., Bailes, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 708, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw175

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw175 2016

  8. [8]

    2018, ApJ, 858, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabadd

    Cao, X.-F., Yu, Y.-W., & Zhou, X. 2018, ApJ, 858, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabadd

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabadd 2018

  9. [9]

    2025, ApJL, 988, L64, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adefdb

    Champati, S., & Petrosian, V. 2025, ApJL, 988, L64, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adefdb

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

  10. [10]

    J., Wharton, R

    Chatterjee, S., Law, C. J., Wharton, R. S., et al. 2017, Nature, 541, 58, doi: 10.1038/nature20797

    doi:10.1038/nature20797 2017

  11. [11]

    H., Jia, X

    Chen, J. H., Jia, X. D., Dong, X. F., & Wang, F. Y. 2024, ApJL, 973, L54, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7b39 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Bandura, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad188 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 54 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., et al. ...

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad7b39 2024

  12. [12]

    2014, ApJL, 783, L35, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/L35

    Deng, W., & Zhang, B. 2014, ApJL, 783, L35, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/L35

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/l35 2014

  13. [13]

    M., Beck, A

    Dolag, K., Gaensler, B. M., Beck, A. M., & Beck, M. C. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 4277, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1190

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1190 2015

  14. [14]

    N., Barr, E

    Driessen, L. N., Barr, E. D., Buckley, D. A. H., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3659, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3329

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3329 2024

  15. [15]

    1992, ApJ, 399, 345, doi: 10.1086/171931

    Efron, B., & Petrosian, V. 1992, ApJ, 399, 345, doi: 10.1086/171931

    doi:10.1086/171931 1992

  16. [16]

    2025, ApJL, 979, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9de2

    Eftekhari, T., Dong, Y., Fong, W., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9de2

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad9de2 2025

  17. [17]

    Gaensler, B. M. 2014, GRB Coordinates Network, 16533, 1

    2014

  18. [18]

    Gupta, O., Beniamini, P., Kumar, P., & Finkelstein, S. L. 2025, ApJ, 986, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add14c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add14c 2025

  19. [19]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  20. [20]

    H., et al

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac065 2022

  21. [21]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  22. [22]

    W., Prochaska, J

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

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slab117

  23. [23]

    W., Prochaska, J

    James, C. W., Prochaska, J. X., Macquart, J.-P., et al. 2022b, MNRAS, 509, 4775, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3051

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3051

  24. [24]

    2022, Nature, 602, 585, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    Kirsten, F., Marcote, B., Nimmo, K., et al. 2022, Nature, 602, 585, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w 2022

  25. [25]

    2018, ApJ, 852, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9e89

    Kothes, R., Sun, X., Gaensler, B., & Reich, W. 2018, ApJ, 852, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9e89

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9e89 2018

  26. [26]

    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 13

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

  27. [27]

    2020, ApJL, 899, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba907

    Li, Y., & Zhang, B. 2020, ApJL, 899, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba907

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba907 2020

  28. [28]

    2019, A&A, 625, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834722

    Locatelli, N., Ronchi, M., Ghirlanda, G., & Ghisellini, G. 2019, A&A, 625, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834722

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834722 2019

  29. [29]

    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

    doi:10.1126/science.1147532 2007

  30. [30]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, L122, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw113

    Lu, W., & Kumar, P. 2016, MNRAS, 461, L122, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw113

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw113 2016

  31. [31]

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3796 2019

  32. [32]

    R., & Zhang, B

    Luo, R., Lee, K., Lorimer, D. R., & Zhang, B. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2320, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2364

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2364 2018

  33. [33]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa704

    Luo, R., Men, Y., Lee, K., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa704

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa704 2020

  34. [34]

    1971, MNRAS, 155, 95, doi: 10.1093/mnras/155.1.95

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1971, MNRAS, 155, 95, doi: 10.1093/mnras/155.1.95

    doi:10.1093/mnras/155.1.95 1971

  35. [35]

    M., Bannister, K

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab03d6 2019

  36. [36]

    P., Prochaska, J

    Macquart, J. P., Prochaska, J. X., McQuinn, M., et al. 2020, Nature, 581, 391, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2 2020

  37. [37]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

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

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 2014

  38. [38]

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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1866-z 2020

  39. [39]

    McGregor, K., Hessels, J. W. T., Kaspi, V. M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.26334, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.26334

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.26334 2026

  40. [40]

    2014, ApJL, 780, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L33

    McQuinn, M. 2014, ApJL, 780, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L33

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/l33 2014

  41. [41]

    P., Shin, K., et al

    Merryfield, M., Tendulkar, S. P., Shin, K., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9ab5

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac9ab5 2023

  42. [42]

    2022, Nature, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5

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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5 2022

  43. [43]

    Petroff, E., Hessels, J. W. T., & Lorimer, D. R. 2022, A&A Rv, 30, 2, doi: 10.1007/s00159-022-00139-w Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1007/s00159-022-00139-w 2022

  44. [44]

    C., Kaspi, V

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac33ac 2021

  45. [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

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

  46. [46]

    2019, Nature, 572, 352, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1389-7

    Ravi, V., Catha, M., D’Addario, L., et al. 2019, Nature, 572, 352, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1389-7

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1389-7 2019

  47. [47]

    G., Yuan, W., Macri, L

    Riess, A. G., Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., et al. 2022, ApJL, 934, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b 2022

  48. [48]

    M., Macquart, J.-P., Bannister, K

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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0588-y 2018

  49. [49]

    W., Bhardwaj, M., et al

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acaf06 2023

  50. [50]

    P., Bassa, C

    Tendulkar, S. P., Bassa, C. G., Cordes, J. M., et al. 2017, ApJL, 834, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/l7 2017

  51. [51]

    2013, Science, 341, 53, doi: 10.1126/science.1236789

    Thornton, D., Stappers, B., Bailes, M., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 53, doi: 10.1126/science.1236789

    doi:10.1126/science.1236789 2013

  52. [52]

    A., Shannon, R

    Uttarkar, P. A., Shannon, R. M., Gourdji, K., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.16409, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.16409

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.16409 2026

  53. [54]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  54. [55]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 3026, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv123

    Wanderman, D., & Piran, T. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3026, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv123

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv123 2015

  55. [56]

    2024, A&A, 690, A377, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450673

    Wang, Y., & van Leeuwen, J. 2024, A&A, 690, A377, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450673

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450673 2024

  56. [57]

    R., Chen, P., et al

    Xu, H., Niu, J. R., Chen, P., et al. 2022, Nature, 609, 685, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05071-8

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05071-8 2022

  57. [58]

    M., Manchester, R

    Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N. 2017, ApJ, 835, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29 2017

  58. [59]

    2014, JCAP, 2014, 040, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/11/040

    Yu, Y.-W., Cheng, K.-S., Shiu, G., & Tye, H. 2014, JCAP, 2014, 040, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/11/040

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/11/040 2014

  59. [60]

    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

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.95.035005 2023

  60. [61]

    J., Zhang, Z

    Zhang, K. J., Zhang, Z. B., Rodin, A. E., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450727

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450727 2025

  61. [62]

    C., & Zhang, B

    Zhang, R. C., & Zhang, B. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 924, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46ad

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac46ad 2022

  62. [63]

    C., Zhang, B., Li, Y., & Lorimer, D

    Zhang, R. C., Zhang, B., Li, Y., & Lorimer, D. R. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 157, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3537

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3537 2021

  63. [64]

    J., Yan, K., Li, C

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abceb9 2021

  64. [65]

    2023, A&A, 675, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245511

    Zhang, Z.-L., Yu, Y.-W., & Cao, X.-F. 2023, A&A, 675, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245511

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245511 2023

  65. [66]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc34a

    Zhou, P., Zhou, X., Chen, Y., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc34a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc34a 2020

  66. [67]

    J., Blair, D

    Zhu, X.-J., Howell, E. J., Blair, D. G., & Zhu, Z.-H. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 431, 882, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt207

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt207 2013

  67. [68]

    2026, ApJ, 996, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1a6d

    Zhuge, J., Kalomenopoulos, M., & Zhang, B. 2026, ApJ, 996, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1a6d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1a6d 2026