Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 84 references

Fast radio bursts track cosmic star formation with only a 0.1–0.3 Gyr delay, not the multi-Gyr lag of compact-binary mergers.

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

2026-07-13 05:20 UTC pith:MVWYD6DH

load-bearing objection Solid forward-modeling of CHIME data shows the FRB rate peaks with the SFH at only 0.1–0.3 Gyr delay, cleanly ruling out multi-Gyr merger-like DTDs for the dominant population. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09109 v1 pith:MVWYD6DH submitted 2026-07-10 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO

Fast Radio Bursts Trace Cosmic Star Formation with Little Delay

Yi-Ying Wang , Yin-Jie Li , Yi-Zhong Fan This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO
keywords fast radio burstsstar-formation historydelay-time distributionmagnetarsCHIME/FRBhierarchical Bayesian inferenceprogenitor channels
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 whether the cosmic rate of fast radio bursts (FRBs) rises and falls with ordinary star formation, or whether it lags by the long delay times that mark compact-binary mergers. Using a forward-modeling hierarchical Bayesian analysis of the CHIME/FRB catalog, baseband fluences and a handful of host redshifts, and folding the survey’s injection-based selection function directly into the likelihood, the authors reconstruct the volumetric FRB rate as a function of redshift. Across several delay-time models the rate peaks at essentially the same redshift as the cosmic star-formation history, implying a mean delay of only 0.1–0.3 Gyr that is still consistent with zero delay. That result rules out the multi-Gyr delays previously claimed for the dominant FRB population and points instead to young stellar remnants—chiefly magnetars born in core-collapse supernovae—as the principal engines.

Core claim

Across a suite of delay-time distributions the reconstructed volumetric FRB rate peaks at the same redshift as the cosmic star-formation history, with a characteristic delay of only 0.1–0.3 Gyr that remains consistent with a prompt, zero-delay origin at the 2σ level; multi-Gyr delays expected for compact-binary mergers are excluded for the dominant population.

What carries the argument

Forward-modeling hierarchical Bayesian likelihood that evaluates a proposed FRB population against the CHIME catalog, baseband fluences and host redshifts while estimating the survey detection efficiency ξ(Λ) directly from the injection system, thereby converting the observed (S/N, DM) distribution into an intrinsic rate R(z).

Load-bearing premise

That the four spectroscopically localized hosts and the baseband-fluence subsample are representative enough to break the distance–energy degeneracies for the full 225-source catalog.

What would settle it

A substantially larger sample of FRBs with secure host redshifts whose reconstructed rate peak is offset from the star-formation peak by more than ~1 Gyr, or whose delay-time posterior is incompatible with zero at high significance.

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

If this is right

  • The dominant FRB channel is linked to young stellar remnants rather than to compact-binary mergers.
  • Magnetars formed in core-collapse supernovae, especially in lower-metallicity environments, become the leading progenitor candidates.
  • Earlier multi-Gyr delay claims are attributed to incomplete treatment of survey selection rather than to the data themselves.
  • Mildly super-linear scaling of the FRB rate with star-formation rate is expected if progenitor efficiency rises at high redshift.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Repeating and non-repeating FRBs may still differ in delay-time distribution once larger localized samples become available; the present data cannot yet test that split.
  • The same injection-based hierarchical method should be reapplied to future CHIME and DSA-2000 catalogs to decide whether any subpopulation retains a long-delay tail.
  • If the short-delay conclusion holds, FRB rate density can serve as an independent high-redshift tracer of massive-star formation.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reconstructs the cosmic volumetric rate of FRBs from CHIME/FRB Catalog 1 (225 sources after selection cuts), jointly with baseband fluences and four spectroscopically localized hosts, using an unbinned hierarchical Poisson likelihood (Eq. 1 / II11) and the public CHIME injection system to evaluate the detection efficiency ξ(Λ) (Eq. 2). The rate is obtained by convolving the Madau–Dickinson SFH with several delay-time distributions (no delay, fixed delay, power-law, log-normal, and a flexible Madau-Extended form). Across the physically motivated DTDs the reconstructed R(z) peaks near the SFH peak (z_peak ≈ 1.7–1.8), corresponding to mean delays Δt_D ≈ 0.1–0.3 Gyr that remain consistent with zero delay at ~2σ and exclude multi-Gyr delays at 90% credibility. Energy-function and host-DM posteriors are stable; Bayesian evidences among DTD models are statistically indistinguishable. The authors conclude that the dominant FRB population traces recent star formation and is therefore more naturally associated with young magnetars from core-collapse supernovae than with compact-binary mergers.

Significance. If the short-delay result holds, it supplies a largely model-independent discriminant that rules out multi-Gyr merger-like channels for the bulk of the CHIME population and favors prompt channels linked to young stellar remnants. The methodological advance is substantial: forward-modeling through the actual CHIME injection pipeline removes the selection biases that earlier c-method and gray-zone analyses appear to have introduced, and the multi-DTD convergence plus stable energy-function posteriors (Supplemental Figs. S1, S3–S5) give the peak-coincidence claim genuine robustness. The work therefore both clarifies the progenitor question and sets a higher standard for future FRB population studies that use injection-calibrated surveys.

major comments (2)
  1. Results and Supplemental §III / Fig. S6: only four Type-3 spectroscopic redshifts are used to anchor the DM–z relation. While the paper correctly notes that removing them mainly loosens μ_host and σ_host and leaves the R(z) peak location essentially unchanged, the abstract and Discussion still present the short-delay conclusion as definitive for the “dominant FRB population.” A quantitative statement of how much the 90% upper limit on Δt_D degrades without the Type-3 anchors (or with a leave-one-out test) should be added so that readers can judge the residual leverage of the small spectroscopic sample.
  2. Methods / Eq. (4) and Results: the SFH scaling index n is left free and is found to be mildly super-linear (n ≃ 1.7–4). Because n and the DTD parameters both modulate the high-z shape of R(z), the reported Δt_D values are not fully independent of this freedom. The paper should either (i) show the posterior on Δt_D when n is fixed to 1 (already partially done for the power-law case in Fig. S2) for every DTD family, or (ii) explicitly marginalize the peak-offset statistic over the joint (n, DTD) posterior so that the quoted 0.1–0.3 Gyr range is not conditioned on a particular n.
minor comments (5)
  1. Abstract and Introduction: the phrase “rules out the multi-Gyr delays reported previously” is slightly stronger than the 90% credibility statements in the Results; soft wording such as “strongly disfavors” would better match the quantitative claims.
  2. Fig. 2 inset: the lookback-time axis is helpful, but the conversion from Δz_peak to Δt_D should be stated explicitly (cosmology and SFH peak redshift used) so that the numbers can be reproduced.
  3. Supplemental Table S1: the prior ranges on log10 Φ0 and on the Madau-Extended parameters are very broad; a short note on whether the posteriors are prior-dominated at the edges would be useful.
  4. Discussion: the comparison with sGRB DTDs is valuable, but the recent hierarchical analyses that favor steeper, shorter-delay DTDs (cited as [51–53]) could be given a sentence of quantitative contrast rather than a qualitative mention.
  5. Typographical: “SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL” header and a few missing spaces around equation references in the Supplemental text should be cleaned.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: reconstructed R(z) peak and Δt_D are posterior summary statistics under broad DTD priors and external SFH, not forced by construction or self-citation.

full rationale

The central claim is an empirical inference, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs. The volumetric rate is defined by convolution of an external Madau–Dickinson SFH with a free DTD family (Eqs. 3–4); hyperparameters (including DTD parameters, n, energy-function slope/cutoff, host-DM moments) are sampled from broad uniform priors via the unbinned hierarchical Poisson likelihood (Eq. 1 / II11) that reweights the independent CHIME injection catalog (Eq. 2). The reported z_peak and lookback-time offset Δt_D are simply the posterior medians/credible intervals of the resulting R(z) curves; they are not fitted targets, nor are they algebraically identical to any input. All five DTD families (no-delay, fixed, power-law, log-normal, Madau-Extended) are explored independently and yield mutually consistent short delays; Bayesian evidences differ by |Δln Z|<1, so no model is selected by construction. Energy-function and host-DM posteriors remain stable when Type-3 redshifts or baseband fluences are dropped (Supp. Fig. S6), confirming that the peak-coincidence result is not an artifact of the four spectroscopic anchors. No self-citation supplies a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the short-delay conclusion; prior long-delay claims are cited only for contrast. The analysis is therefore self-contained against the CHIME data and external SFH benchmark.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central short-delay claim rests on standard cosmological and FRB population ingredients plus a set of fitted hyperparameters. No new physical entities are postulated; the result is an inference about the delay-time distribution of an existing population.

free parameters (7)
  • log10 Φ0 (local volumetric rate above 10^38 erg) = ≈5.1–5.3
    Normalization of the FRB rate density; fitted to ~5.1–5.3 across models.
  • γ (Schechter energy-function slope) = ≈−1.9
    Faint-end slope of the isotropic-energy distribution; fitted near −1.9.
  • log10 E_char (characteristic cutoff energy) = ≈42
    Exponential cutoff of the Schechter function; fitted near 42.
  • α (spectral index) = ≈−3 to −4
    Converts energy to observed fluence; fitted near −3 to −4.
  • μ_host, σ_host (host DM log-normal) = μ≈4.2–4.6, σ≈0.9–1.0
    Parameters of the host-galaxy DM contribution; tightened by the four localized redshifts.
  • n (SFH scaling index) = 1.7–4.1
    Allows super-linear scaling of FRB rate with SFR; ranges 1.7–4 depending on DTD model.
  • DTD parameters (t_d0, β, μ_td, σ_td, λ, κ, z_p, t_min/max) = model-dependent; short-delay preferred
    Shape parameters of each delay-time family; all free within broad priors and jointly constrained by the data.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Cosmic star-formation history ψ(z) follows the Madau & Dickinson (2014) form (or a flexible Madau-Extended variant).
    Used as the base rate that is convolved with every DTD (Eq. 4); external literature input.
  • domain assumption Isotropic energy distribution is a non-evolving Schechter function above a fixed pivot E_pivot = 10^38 erg.
    Standard FRB population assumption; pivot chosen conservatively below previous lower bounds.
  • domain assumption DM decomposition: fixed DM_halo = 30 pc cm^{-3}, NE2001/YMW16 Galactic disk, quasi-Gaussian cosmic DM with F = 0.32, log-normal host.
    Standard Macquart-relation ingredients; halo value is fixed by hand within the literature range 10–80.
  • domain assumption Detection efficiency ξ(Λ) is accurately recovered by reweighting the public CHIME injection catalog under the same selection cuts.
    Core of the forward-modeling approach (Eq. 2); assumes the injections fully capture beam, RFI, and pipeline effects.
  • standard math Inhomogeneous Poisson process likelihood for the hierarchical population (Mandel et al. / Thrane & Talbot form).
    Standard statistical framework for transient populations (Eq. 1).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 22312 in / 3313 out tokens · 36632 ms · 2026-07-13T05:20:15.267715+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The progenitor channels of fast radio bursts (FRBs) remain debated, with a central question being whether their cosmic rate traces star formation promptly or instead follows it with the long time-delay characteristic of compact-binary mergers. We perform a forward-modeling, hierarchical Bayesian analysis of the CHIME/FRB population, jointly fitting the catalog sample, baseband fluences, and localized host redshifts, while self-consistently incorporating the survey selection function through the injection framework. Across a range of delay-time models, the reconstructed FRB rate robustly peaks at the same redshift as the cosmic star-formation history, with a mean delay of only $0.1-0.3$ Gyr that remains consistent with a prompt, zero-delay origin at the $2\sigma$ level. For dominant FRB population, this finding rules out the multi-Gyr delays reported previously and interpreted as the evidence for compact binary merger origin, and instead points toward progenitor systems linked to young stellar remnants, most notably magnetars formed in core-collapse supernovae.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09109 by Yin-Jie Li, Yi-Ying Wang, Yi-Zhong Fan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Joint and marginal distributions of the S/N and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Normalized intrinsic FRB event rate reconstructed for different DTD models. The shaded regions represent the 68% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The cumulative extragalactic DM for the different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] 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

84 extracted references · 72 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    D. R. Lorimer, M. Bailes, M. A. McLaughlin, D. J. Narkevic, and F. Crawford, Science318, 777 (2007), arXiv:0709.4301 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  2. [2]

    J. M. Cordes and S. Chatterjee, ARA&A57, 417 (2019), arXiv:1906.05878 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    Petroff, J

    E. Petroff, J. W. T. Hessels, and D. R. Lorimer, A&A Rev27, 4 (2019), arXiv:1904.07947 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Platts, A

    E. Platts, A. Weltman, A. Walters, S. P. Tendulkar, J. E. B. Gordin, and S. Kandhai, Phys Rep821, 1 (2019), arXiv:1810.05836 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    D. Xiao, F. Wang, and Z. Dai, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy64, 249501 (2021), arXiv:2101.04907 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Petroff, J

    E. Petroff, J. W. T. Hessels, and D. R. Lorimer, A&A Rev30, 2 (2022), arXiv:2107.10113 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Zhang, Reviews of Modern Physics95, 035005 (2023), arXiv:2212.03972 [astro-ph.HE]

    B. Zhang, Reviews of Modern Physics95, 035005 (2023), arXiv:2212.03972 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration, B. C. Andersen, K. M. Ban- dura, M. Bhardwaj, A. Bij, M. M. Boyce, P. J. Boyle, et al., Nature587, 54 (2020), arXiv:2005.10324 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    C. D. Bochenek, V. Ravi, K. V. Belov, G. Hallinan, J. Kocz, S. R. Kulkarni, and D. L. McKenna, Na- ture587, 59 (2020), arXiv:2005.10828 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    Kirsten, M

    F. Kirsten, M. P. Snelders, M. Jenkins, K. Nimmo, J. van den Eijnden, J. W. T. Hessels, M. P. Gawro´ nski, and J. Yang, Nature Astronomy5, 414 (2021), arXiv:2007.05101 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Bhardwaj, B

    M. Bhardwaj, B. M. Gaensler, V. M. Kaspi, T. L. Lan- decker, R. Mckinven, D. Michilli, Z. Pleunis, S. P. Ten- dulkar, et al., ApJL910, L18 (2021), arXiv:2103.01295 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Kirsten, B

    F. Kirsten, B. Marcote, K. Nimmo, J. W. T. Hessels, M. Bhardwaj, S. P. Tendulkar, A. Keimpema, J. Yang, et al., Nature602, 585 (2022), arXiv:2105.11445 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Hashimoto, T

    T. Hashimoto, T. Goto, A. Y. L. On, T.-Y. Lu, D. J. D. Santos, S. C.-C. Ho, S. J. Kim, T.-W. Wang, and T. Y.- Y. Hsiao, MNRAS498, 3927 (2020), arXiv:2008.09621 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    S. E. Woosley, ApJL719, L204 (2010), arXiv:0911.0698 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  15. [15]

    Li, Y.-F

    S. Li, Y.-F. Liang, N.-H. Liao, L. Lei, and Y.-Z. Fan, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 111402 (2026), arXiv:2407.05968 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Falcke and L

    H. Falcke and L. Rezzolla, A&A562, A137 (2014), arXiv:1307.1409 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  17. [17]

    Zhang, Nature587, 45 (2020), arXiv:2011.03500 [astro-ph.HE]

    B. Zhang, Nature587, 45 (2020), arXiv:2011.03500 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    Totani, PASJ65, L12 (2013), arXiv:1307.4985 [astro- ph.HE]

    T. Totani, PASJ65, L12 (2013), arXiv:1307.4985 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  19. [19]

    Wang, Y.-P

    J.-S. Wang, Y.-P. Yang, X.-F. Wu, Z.-G. Dai, and F.-Y. Wang, ApJL822, L7 (2016), arXiv:1603.02014 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    Moroianu, L

    A. Moroianu, L. Wen, C. W. James, S. Ai, M. Kovalam, F. H. Panther, and B. Zhang, Nature Astronomy7, 579 (2023), arXiv:2212.00201 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [22]

    Z. G. Dai and T. Lu, Phys Rev Lett81, 4301 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9810332 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  22. [23]

    V. V. Usov, Nature357, 472 (1992)

    1992

  23. [24]

    Kremer, A

    K. Kremer, A. L. Piro, and D. Li, ApJL917, L11 (2021), arXiv:2107.03394 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [25]

    Qiang, S.-L

    D.-C. Qiang, S.-L. Li, and H. Wei, J Cosmology As- tropart Phys2022, 040 (2022), arXiv:2111.07476 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [26]

    R. C. Zhang and B. Zhang, ApJL924, L14 (2022), arXiv:2109.07558 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [27]

    J. H. Chen, X. D. Jia, X. F. Dong, and F. Y. Wang, ApJL973, L54 (2024), arXiv:2406.03672 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [28]

    Lin, X.-Y

    H.-N. Lin, X.-Y. Li, and R. Zou, ApJ969, 123 (2024), arXiv:2406.03809 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [29]

    Champati and V

    S. Champati and V. Petrosian, ApJL988, L64 (2025), arXiv:2504.13343 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [30]

    K. J. Zhang, Z. B. Zhang, A. E. Rodin, V. A. Fedorova, Y. F. Huang, D. Li, X. F. Dong, P. Wang, Q. M. Li, C. Du, F. Xu, and C. T. Hao, A&A698, A18 (2025), arXiv:2406.00476 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [31]

    H. Zhou, Z. Li, and Z.-H. Zhu, ApJ989, 124 (2025), arXiv:2501.15530 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [32]

    Du, X.-L

    Z.-W. Du, X.-L. Fan, and Y.-X. Li, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2606.12960 (2026), arXiv:2606.12960 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  32. [33]

    Lynden-Bell, MNRAS155, 95 (1971)

    D. Lynden-Bell, MNRAS155, 95 (1971)

    1971

  33. [34]

    C. W. James, J. X. Prochaska, J.-P. Macquart, F. O. North-Hickey, K. W. Bannister, and A. Dunning, MN- RAS509, 4775 (2022), arXiv:2101.08005 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [35]

    K. Shin, K. W. Masui, M. Bhardwaj, T. Cassanelli, P. Chawla, M. Dobbs, F. A. Dong, E. Fonseca, et al., ApJ944, 105 (2023), arXiv:2207.14316 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [36]

    Amiri, B

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration, M. Amiri, B. C. Andersen, K. Bandura, S. Berger, M. Bhardwaj, M. M. Boyce, P. J. Boyle, et al., ApJS257, 59 (2021), arXiv:2106.04352 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [37]

    Merryfield, S

    M. Merryfield, S. P. Tendulkar, K. Shin, B. Andersen, A. Josephy, D. Good, F. A. Dong, K. W. Masui, et al., AJ165, 152 (2023), arXiv:2206.14079 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [38]

    Amiri, B

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration, M. Amiri, B. C. Ander- sen, S. Andrew, K. Bandura, M. Bhardwaj, P. J. Boyle, C. Brar, and other, ApJ969, 145 (2024), arXiv:2311.00111 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [39]

    Mandel, W

    I. Mandel, W. M. Farr, and J. R. Gair, MNRAS486, 1086 (2019), arXiv:1809.02063 [physics.data-an]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  39. [40]

    Thrane and C

    E. Thrane and C. Talbot, PASA36, e010 (2019), arXiv:1809.02293 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [41]

    Madau and M

    P. Madau and M. Dickinson, ARA&A52, 415 (2014), arXiv:1403.0007 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  41. [42]

    F. J. Virgili, B. Zhang, P. O’Brien, and E. Troja, ApJ727, 109 (2011), arXiv:0909.1850 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  42. [43]

    Wanderman and T

    D. Wanderman and T. Piran, MNRAS448, 3026 (2015), arXiv:1405.5878 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  43. [44]

    Beniamini and T

    P. Beniamini and T. Piran, MNRAS487, 4847 (2019), arXiv:1903.11614 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  44. [45]

    Meng and C.-M

    M. Meng and C.-M. Deng, A&A698, A127 (2025), arXiv:2506.04986 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [46]

    Nicholl, P

    M. Nicholl, P. K. G. Williams, E. Berger, V. A. Vil- lar, K. D. Alexander, T. Eftekhari, and B. D. Metzger, ApJ843, 84 (2017), arXiv:1704.00022 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [47]

    M. ´A. Aloy and M. Obergaulinger, MNRAS500, 4365 (2021), arXiv:2008.03779 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  47. [48]

    Song and T

    C.-Y. Song and T. Liu, ApJ952, 156 (2023), arXiv:2301.05401 [astro-ph.HE]. 7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [49]

    Nakar, Phys Rep442, 166 (2007), arXiv:astro- ph/0701748 [astro-ph]

    E. Nakar, Phys Rep442, 166 (2007), arXiv:astro- ph/0701748 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2007

  49. [50]

    Ghirlanda, O

    G. Ghirlanda, O. S. Salafia, A. Pescalli, G. Ghisellini, R. Salvaterra, E. Chassande-Mottin, M. Colpi, F. Nappo, et al., A&A594, A84 (2016), arXiv:1607.07875 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  50. [51]

    Zevin, A

    M. Zevin, A. E. Nugent, S. Adhikari, W.-f. Fong, D. E. Holz, and L. Z. Kelley, ApJL940, L18 (2022), arXiv:2206.02814 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  51. [52]

    A. E. Nugent, W.-F. Fong, Y. Dong, J. Leja, E. Berger, M. Zevin, R. Chornock, B. E. Cobb, L. Z. Kelley, C. D. Kilpatrick, A. Levan, R. Margutti, K. Paterson, D. Per- ley, A. R. Escorial, N. Smith, and N. Tanvir, ApJ940, 57 (2022), arXiv:2206.01764 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [53]

    Pracchia and O

    M. Pracchia and O. Sharan Salafia, A&A710, A267 (2026), arXiv:2601.03861 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  53. [54]

    J.-W. Luo, Y. Li, S. Ai, H. Gao, and B. Zhang, MN- RAS516, 1654 (2022), arXiv:2206.07865 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  54. [55]

    Gao, J.-J

    C.-Y. Gao, J.-J. Wei, and H.-D. Zeng, MNRAS542, 1841 (2025), arXiv:2501.03614 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [56]

    W.-f. Fong, A. E. Nugent, Y. Dong, E. Berger, K. Pater- son, R. Chornock, A. Levan, P. Blanchard, K. D. Alexan- der, J. Andrews, B. E. Cobb, A. Cucchiara, D. Fox, C. L. Fryer, A. C. Gordon, C. D. Kilpatrick, R. Lunnan, R. Margutti, A. Miller, P. Milne, M. Nicholl, D. Perley, J. Rastinejad, A. R. Escorial, G. Schroeder, N. Smith, N. Tanvir, and G. Terreran...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  56. [57]

    P. K. Blanchard, E. Berger, W. Fong, M. Nicholl, J. Leja, C. Conroy, K. D. Alexander, R. Margutti, P. K. G. Williams, Z. Doctor, R. Chornock, V. A. Villar, P. S. Cowperthwaite, J. Annis, D. Brout, D. A. Brown, H.- Y. Chen, T. Eftekhari, J. A. Frieman, D. E. Holz, B. D. Metzger, A. Rest, M. Sako, and M. Soares-Santos, ApJL 848, L22 (2017), arXiv:1710.05458...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  57. [58]

    Chattaraj, J

    A. Chattaraj, J. J. Andrews, M. Briel, T. Fragos, S. Gos- sage, V. Kalogera, P. M. Srivastava, and E. Teng, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2605.03128 (2026), arXiv:2605.03128 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  58. [59]

    R. C. Duncan and C. Thompson, ApJL392, L9 (1992)

    1992

  59. [60]

    Yoon and N

    S.-C. Yoon and N. Langer, A&A443, 643 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0508242 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  60. [61]

    Brott, S

    I. Brott, S. E. de Mink, M. Cantiello, N. Langer, A. de Koter, C. J. Evans, I. Hunter, C. Trundle, and J. S. Vink, A&A530, A115 (2011), arXiv:1102.0530 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  61. [62]

    Langer and C

    N. Langer and C. A. Norman, ApJL638, L63 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0512271 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  62. [63]

    Chruslinska and G

    M. Chruslinska and G. Nelemans, MNRAS488, 5300 (2019), arXiv:1907.11243 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  63. [64]

    Margalit and B

    B. Margalit and B. D. Metzger, ApJL868, L4 (2018), arXiv:1808.09969 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  64. [65]

    C. D. Bochenek, V. Ravi, and D. Dong, ApJL907, L31 (2021), arXiv:2009.13030 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  65. [66]

    A. L. De Santis, S. Ronchini, F. Santoliquido, and M. Branchesi, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2602.13391 (2026), arXiv:2602.13391 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  66. [67]

    Abbott, B

    Chime/Frb Collaboration, T. Abbott, B. C. Andersen, S. Andrew, K. Bandura, M. Bhardwaj, Y. Bhusare, C. Brar, et al., ApJS283, 34 (2026), arXiv:2601.09399 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  67. [68]

    J. M. Cordes and T. J. W. Lazio, arXiv e-prints , astro- ph/0207156 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0207156 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2002

  68. [69]

    J. M. Yao, R. N. Manchester, and N. Wang, ApJ835, 29 (2017), arXiv:1610.09448 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  69. [70]

    Dolag, B

    K. Dolag, B. M. Gaensler, A. M. Beck, and M. C. Beck, MNRAS451, 4277 (2015), arXiv:1412.4829 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  70. [71]

    J. X. Prochaska and Y. Zheng, MNRAS485, 648 (2019), arXiv:1901.11051 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  71. [72]

    Yamasaki and T

    S. Yamasaki and T. Totani, ApJ888, 105 (2020), arXiv:1909.00849 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  72. [73]

    L. C. Keating and U.-L. Pen, MNRAS496, L106 (2020), arXiv:2001.11105 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  73. [74]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Liu, H. Yu, and P. Wu, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2606.29761 (2026), arXiv:2606.29761 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  74. [75]

    Connor, V

    L. Connor, V. Ravi, K. Sharma, S. K. Ocker, J. Faber, G. Hallinan, C. Harnach, G. Hellbourg, et al., Nature As- tronomy9, 1226 (2025), arXiv:2409.16952 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  75. [76]

    J. P. Macquart, J. X. Prochaska, M. McQuinn, K. W. Bannister, S. Bhandari, C. K. Day, A. T. Deller, R. D. Ekers, et al., Nature581, 391 (2020), arXiv:2005.13161 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  76. [77]

    J. M. Shull, B. D. Smith, and C. W. Danforth, ApJ759, 23 (2012), arXiv:1112.2706 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  77. [78]

    Deng and B

    W. Deng and B. Zhang, ApJL783, L35 (2014), arXiv:1401.0059 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  78. [79]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ash- down, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, et al., A&A641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  79. [80]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Liu, H. Yu, and P. Wu, Phys Rev D112, 083516 (2025), arXiv:2504.06845 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  80. [81]

    Zhuge, M

    J. Zhuge, M. Kalomenopoulos, and B. Zhang, ApJ996, 66 (2026), arXiv:2508.05161 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

Showing first 80 references.