Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 6 cited by

The Cosmic Evolution of Fast Radio Bursts Inferred from the CHIME/FRB Baseband Catalog 1

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Calibrating the joint DM–fluence distribution of 94 CHIME/FRB baseband bursts yields a Schechter energy function with slope -1.94 and a population in which roughly 31% of fast radio burst sources track star formation.

desk verdict First baseband-based DM-fluence FRB calibration, with a well-constrained energy slope but high-z forecasts that hinge on an under-documented selection function. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09810 v3 pith:3DJWZFQ5 submitted 2025-01-16 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA

Om Gupta , Paz Beniamini , Pawan Kumar , Steven L. Finkelstein This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords fastradioburstsdispersionmeasurefluenceSchechterfunctioncosmicstarformationratedensityredshiftevolutionCHIME/FRBbasebandcatalogepochofreionization
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 argues that the twin puzzles of where fast radio bursts come from and how they evolve with cosmic time can be solved by studying how their dispersion measure and fluence vary together. Using 94 bursts with precisely measured fluences from the CHIME/FRB baseband update, it calibrates that joint distribution for the first time. It finds a single steep Schechter-type energy law for the population and evidence that only about 31% of sources form in lockstep with star formation, with the rest delayed by about 2 Gyr. If this is right, astronomers should look for a mix of young and old FRB progenitors, and future radio surveys can be designed to catch bursts from the epoch of reionization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the product of the theoretical rate function R(z, Fν0) and CHIME's injection-derived detection probability P(SNR|DM, Fν0), which together produce the observable joint DM–fluence distribution. The energy distribution is a Schechter function in specific energy, P(Eν) ∝ (Eν/E_char)^γ exp(-Eν/E_char), supplemented by a power-law spectral energy index α, while redshift evolution enters either as a hybrid star-formation/stellar-mass density track or as a constant delay time. The detection probability function is what converts the 94 observed bursts into a calibrated rate, and it does the heavy lifting in mapping fluence and DM to intrinsic energy and redshift.

What would settle it

Run a much larger injection campaign with synthetic bursts placed densely in the fluence range 0.5 to 5 Jy ms and across high dispersion measures; if the recovered detection probability at 1 Jy ms is substantially higher than the current function, the quoted spectral index and characteristic energy would shift by more than their stated errors and the high-redshift forecasts would need to be revised.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the joint dispersion-measure–fluence distribution of CHIME/FRB baseband bursts can be calibrated, and that the inferred FRB rate function is described by a Schechter energy distribution with slope γ = -1.94 +0.14 -0.12 and characteristic specific energy E_char ≈ 3×$10^{33}$ erg $Hz^{-1}$ at 600 MHz. With this calibration, it finds that a purely star-formation-tracking population is excluded at >2σ in the hybrid model, with a young-population fraction f_Y = 0.31 +0.31 -0.21; the comparable constant-delay model gives a median delay time of 1.94 +1.54 -1.31 Gyr. Extrapolating with an updated JWST-based cosmic star-formation history, it forecasts that a 200 MHz telescope with system-equivalent flux density ≤ 0.07 Jy and sky coverage ≥ 400 square degrees should detect 630 +730 -485 FRBs per year at z ≥ 6 and 53 +83 -43 per year at z ≥ 8, enough to distinguish between reionization histories.

Load-bearing premise

The entire calibration rests on the assumption that CHIME's injection-derived detection probability, as a function of fluence and dispersion measure, correctly describes how likely the telescope is to catch a burst, especially at fluences below about 2 Jy ms where that function is steepest and least sampled.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The FRB energy distribution is consistent with one steep power law with an exponential cutoff, so future surveys can predict their yields using γ ≈ -2 and E_char ≈ 3×10^33 erg Hz^-1.
  • A purely star-formation-tracking FRB population is disfavored, while hybrid or delayed channels are favored, meaning some FRB progenitors form long after their host galaxy's star formation.
  • None of the currently planned next-generation radio telescopes is expected to catch FRBs from the epoch of reionization; the farthest likely detection is around z ≈ 5.
  • A 200 MHz telescope with SEFD ≤ 0.07 Jy and ≥ 400 square degrees of sky coverage should detect hundreds of FRBs per year at z ≥ 6 and tens per year at z ≥ 8, enough to discriminate between fast and slow reionization histories.
  • The calibrated all-sky FRB rate above 5 Jy ms is about 552 per day, consistent with earlier Catalog 1 estimates despite the new fluence measurement system.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If a future injection campaign revises the steep low-fluence slope of the detection probability function, the inferred spectral index α and characteristic energy E_char would shift; the high-redshift telescope forecasts, which depend on α, are therefore less stable than the locally measured energy slope.
  • The paper's comparison with hyperactive repeaters, whose energy distributions break near 10^30 erg Hz^-1, implies that apparently non-repeating FRBs and hyperactive repeaters may not share the same energy law; a larger sample of repeaters could settle this.
  • Because a top-heavy IMF at high redshift would produce more neutron-star progenitors than the assumed star-formation history, the quoted OpTel detection rates are more plausibly conservative lower limits than upper limits.
  • The inferred delay times suggest that FRB host galaxies should transition from mostly star-forming to mostly quiescent across z ≈ 0.3–1; this is testable with the growing sample of localized FRB hosts.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper calibrates the joint DM-fluence distribution of 94 CHIME/FRB baseband bursts, fitting a Schechter energy function with slope γ = -1.94^{+0.14}_{-0.12}, a characteristic energy E_char ≈ 3×10^33 erg Hz^{-1}, and a spectral index α ≈ -2.9, under two redshift-evolution models: an SFR-SMD hybrid yielding f_Y = 0.31^{+0.31}_{-0.21}, and a constant-delay-time model yielding τ = 1.94^{+1.54}_{-1.31} Gyr. The authors use this calibration to update the cosmic SFRD to z ≈ 14 with JWST data and to forecast detection rates for next-generation telescopes, most notably 630^{+730}_{-485} FRBs yr^{-1} at z ≳ 6 and 53^{+83}_{-43} yr^{-1} at z ≳ 8 for an EoR-optimized 200 MHz telescope. The analysis is an unbinned MCMC fit with publicly released code, and the paper is unusually transparent about its robustness tests, particularly in Section 6.4.

Significance. If the inferred energy distribution and redshift evolution are reliable, this is a substantial step: it is the first calibration of the joint DM-fluence distribution using accurate baseband fluences, and it provides concrete, falsifiable predictions for upcoming radio facilities. The paper is commendable for releasing code and data products, for using an unbinned likelihood that avoids binning losses, and for explicitly testing the sensitivity of its results to the observation function and DM models rather than hiding them. The central results, however, rest on a privately provided CHIME injection-based observation function whose plausible variants shift all model parameters by more than 1σ, so the headline high-redshift forecasts must be viewed as conditional on that function being correct.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.4, Eqs. (10) and (33)] The paper's own robustness test shows that replacing P(SNR|DM, Fν0) with a linear function in log-log space changes all parameters by more than 1σ for both the SSH and CDT models, and that modifying the slope of the observation function near 1 Jy ms moves the spectral index α from approximately -2.9 to -1.6. Because α and E_char,ν enter the energy conversion in Eq. (10) and the high-redshift rate forecasts in Eq. (33), the headline rates of 630 FRBs yr^{-1} at z≳6 and 53 yr^{-1} at z≳8 are not stable against the largest uncalibrated input in the pipeline. The authors are transparent about this test, but the test itself demonstrates that the parameter posteriors are not yet pinned down independently of the assumed selection function. I would ask for either an independent validation of the observation function, a marginalization over its uncertainty, or a substantial caveat on the forecast numbers.
  2. [Appendix D, Eq. (D5)] The baseband survey duration Δt_base = 65.8 days is not a measured uptime but is inferred from the ratio of high-quality burst counts between the baseband system and the CHIME/FRB pipeline, with an assumed efficiency η_base = 0.46. This quantity enters directly into the volumetric rate Φ0 through Eq. (32), so any error in Δt_base propagates linearly into all absolute rate predictions, including the all-sky rate and the OpTel forecasts. The paper does not provide an uncertainty on Δt_base or quantify how the result would change if the operational-efficiency assumptions are varied; this should be added to the robustness discussion.
  3. [Section 2.1, Table 1] The high-redshift UVLF fits impose Gaussian priors on β at z~10.5 and on both β and M* at z~12.5, with the prior medians fixed to the posteriors of the lower-redshift bins. This assumes no evolution of these parameters across the bins, which is a strong assumption for the z~12.5 universe. These parameters feed into the SFRD in Eq. (5) and hence into ψ*(z) in Eqs. (23) and (24), directly affecting the high-redshift FRB forecasts in Section 5.1. The paper should either test the sensitivity of the final FRB predictions to this prior assumption or provide explicit justification that the assumed priors are conservative.
  4. [Section 4.5] The observation function P(SNR|DM, Fν0) is the cornerstone of the calibration, but it is described as a private CHIME injection product, smoothed with nearest-value interpolation and SmoothBivariateSpline because the raw injected events have holes and poor sampling at low fluence. The specific functional form, the grid resolution, and the smoothing parameters are not fully specified in the paper, making the analysis difficult to reproduce independently. Given the demonstrated sensitivity in Section 6.4, I strongly recommend that the authors release the observation function itself (or a detailed machine-readable description) as part of the paper's data products.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title and Abstract] There is a typo in the title: 'F ast' should be 'Fast'. The same spacing issue appears in Appendix F: 'F AST' should be 'FAST'.
  2. [Section 2.2, Eq. (5)] The piecewise SFRD expression uses '10−0.257z−0.275'; it is unclear whether the base-10 exponent is intended as log10 or as a power of 10 with a sign convention that could be misread. Please clarify the notation, e.g., by writing 10^{(-0.257z-0.275)}.
  3. [References] The reference list uses inconsistent capitalization for the CHIME/FRB Collaboration: 'CHIME/FRB Collaboration' in some entries and 'Chime/Frb Collaboration' in others (e.g., the 2023 baseband catalog). Please standardize.
  4. [Section 5, Figure 5 caption] The caption of Figure 5(b) is dense and difficult to parse. In particular, the description of the green lines ('without this effect accounted for') and the indigo lines ('CHIME observation function calibrated evolution') would benefit from a clearer distinction between the model predictions and the CHIME-selection-calibrated curves.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: energy/evolution parameters are fitted to external CHIME baseband data, and future-telescope rates are extrapolations rather than identities.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained under the circularity criteria. The joint DM-fluence likelihood (Eqs. 25-31) combines an external CHIME injection observation function P(SNR|DM,Fnu0), external DM component models (NE2001, Macquart et al. 2020, Jaroszynski 2019, Mo et al. 2023), and an externally compiled SFRD. The Schechter energy-distribution parameters and fY/tau are estimated by MCMC from the 94 baseband bursts, not assumed. The volumetric rate Phi0 is fixed by sample normalization (Eq. 32) and is explicitly presented as a calibration, with the all-sky rate comparison to Catalog 1 flagged as a consistency check rather than an independent prediction. The high-redshift OpTel forecasts are extrapolations of the fitted model through Eq. (33) and Appendix F; they inherit sensitivity to the observation function and SFRD, but this is a calibration-dependence limitation, not an identity. Section 6.4 is transparent that changing the observation function shifts parameters by more than 1 sigma, which argues for caution but does not make any step circular by construction. Self-citations to Beniamini et al. (2021) and Finkelstein & Bagley (2022) supply external published inputs; they do not define the target quantities or forbid alternatives. No reduction of a predicted quantity to a fitted input, and no load-bearing self-citation chain, is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central inference rests on a chosen Schechter form, a single power-law SED, a particular DM decomposition, and external simulation-based DM distributions. The free parameters are mostly FRB model parameters plus auxiliary SFRD and DM distribution fits. No new particles, forces, or physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • gamma (Schechter slope) = -1.94 +0.14 -0.12 (SSH); -1.97 +0.14 -0.12 (CDT)
    Slope of the FRB specific-energy distribution, fitted to the joint DM-fluence likelihood; drives low-energy rate predictions.
  • E_char,nu (characteristic energy) = log10 = 33.45 +1.07 -0.67 (SSH); 33.78 +1.04 -0.70 (CDT)
    Exponential cutoff energy of the Schechter function.
  • alpha (SED index) = -2.89 +1.23 -1.61 (SSH); -3.65 +1.36 -1.55 (CDT)
    Spectral index of the statistical FRB SED; strongly correlated with E_char and sensitive to the observation function shape.
  • fY (SFR-tracking fraction) = 0.31 +0.31 -0.21
    Hybrid model parameter; only one of the two models excludes fY=1 at >2 sigma.
  • tau (constant delay time) = 1.94 +1.54 -1.31 Gyr
    Constant delay model parameter with prior range 0 to 12 Gyr.
  • E_pivot,nu = 1e30 erg/Hz
    Chosen pivot and lower integration bound; motivation given in Sec. 6.2, but the choice affects the quoted slope range.
  • Delta t_base (baseband survey duration) = 65.8 days
    Estimated from burst-count ratios in Appendix D; used to normalize the volumetric rate, with no uncertainty propagated.
  • SFRD piecewise parameters = 0.015, 2.73, 6.24; 10^(-0.257 z - 0.275)
    Fitted to Madau & Dickinson (2014) and the JWST SFRD compilation; defines psi* and the IGM baryon fraction f_d.
  • UVLF DPL parameters at z~9, 10.5, 12.5 = Table 1 values
    Fitted to JWST/HST UV luminosity function data; high-z bins use Gaussian priors on beta and M*.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption FRB energy distribution is a truncated Schechter function that does not evolve with redshift (Eq. 6, Sec. 4.1).
    The central inference assumes this functional form and its redshift independence.
  • domain assumption A single power-law statistical SED with constant alpha relates specific energies at different frequencies (Eq. 9).
    The k-correction and high-frequency predictions depend on this power law.
  • domain assumption Observed DM is a sum of independent MW-ISM, MW-halo, IGM, and host components, with MW-halo fixed at 50 pc/cm3 (Eqs. 13-14).
    The full DM likelihood is built from this decomposition.
  • domain assumption IGM DM scatter follows Jaroszynski (2019) moments through a sinh-arcsinh family (Appendix C).
    The P(DM|z) convolution uses this distribution rather than an independently measured one.
  • domain assumption Host galaxy DM distribution and evolution are taken from Illustris-TNG fits in Mo et al. (2023) (Eq. 20).
    The host DM median evolution depends on simulation fits and is used for all redshifts.
  • domain assumption Redshift evolution of FRB sources is either a hybrid SFR-SMD mixture or a constant delay relative to SFR (Eqs. 23-24).
    These two parameterizations define fY and tau and therefore the astrophysical conclusions.
  • domain assumption No IMF evolution at z>0 and Salpeter IMF kappa_UV applies for SFRD estimates (Sec. 2.1, Sec. 6.1).
    The high-z SFRD and resulting FRB forecasts assume a fixed IMF and conversion.
  • ad hoc to paper High-z UVLF fits impose Gaussian priors on beta and M* assuming no evolution from lower bins (Table 1, Sec. 2.1).
    Sparse z~12.5 data are constrained with priors whose medians come from lower-redshift posteriors.
  • ad hoc to paper Baseband survey duration is inferred from CHIME pipeline burst-count ratio rather than measured uptime (Appendix D).
    Delta t_base is derived from the ratio of baseband to pipeline detections, not from direct baseband downtime accounting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Cosmic Evolution of Fast Radio Bursts Inferred from the CHIME/FRB Baseband Catalog 1." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3DJWZFQ5

@misc{pith2026250109810,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Cosmic Evolution of Fast Radio Bursts Inferred from the CHIME/FRB Baseband Catalog 1},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3DJWZFQ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09810}
}
abstract

Redshift and luminosity distributions are essential for understanding the cosmic evolution of extragalactic objects and phenomena, such as galaxies, gamma-ray bursts, and fast radio bursts (FRBs). For FRBs, these distributions are primarily estimated using the fluence and the Dispersion Measure (DM). Calibrating their joint distribution has been challenging due to a lack of accurate fluences in the intensity data of the CHIME/FRB survey. Using the baseband update of CHIME/FRB Catalog 1, we calibrate the 2D fluence-DM distribution for the first time. We find the energy distribution is described well by a Schechter function with power-law slope of $-1.94^{+0.14}_{-0.12}$. Testing two types of redshift evolution models suggests a likely combination of young and old formation channels. $31^{+31}_{-21}$% of FRB sources may track star formation, or correspondingly, FRB sources may have delay times of $1.94^{+1.54}_{-1.31}$ Gyr. A pure star formation tracking population is excluded by only one model at $> 2\sigma$ confidence. An updated cosmic star formation rate density evolution up to redshift 14 is constrained by compiling results from several JWST studies. The furthest FRB detection with planned radio facilities is expected to be at $z \approx 5$. A radio telescope operating at 200 MHz with a system-equivalent flux density of $\leq 0.07$ Jy (equivalent to a detection threshold of 1 mJy ms) and instantaneous sky coverage of $\gtrsim 400$ square degrees should be able to detect $630^{+730}_{-485}$ FRBs year$^{-1}$ at $z \gtrsim 6$ and $53^{+83}_{-43}$ FRBs year$^{-1}$ at $z\gtrsim 8$, which is sufficient to differentiate between reionization histories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09810 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The rest-frame non-ionizing UV luminosity functions from redshifts z=9-14. a) 8.7 ≤ z ≤ 9, b) 10 ≤ z ≤ 11, and c) 11.2 ≤ z ≤ 14. Data points are taken from the following references: McLure et al. (2013); McLeod et al. (2016); Oesch et al. (2018); Morishita et al. (2018); Stefanon et al. (2019); Bowler et al. (2020); Bouwens et al. (2021); Naidu et al. (2022); Bouwens et al. (2023); Donnan et al. (2023b,a); Harikane … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The cosmic star formation rate density upto redshift 14. The high redshift values have been determined using a compilation of results from several JWST studies. The z > 8 data points agree within the error bars with the evolution determined by Donnan et al. (2023b). It is clear that high-z star formation rate density may be much lower than estimated by Madau & Dickinson (2014). in CHIME/FRB Collaboration et al. (202… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Posterior distributions of (a) the SFR-SMD hybrid model parameters, and (b) the constant delay time model parameters, for the unbinned likelihood defined in Eq (31). models. The range of priors and obtained parameter values are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plots of the cumulative FRB (left) DM, and, (right) fluence distribution observable at a fluence threshold of 1 Jy ms for the SFR-SMD hybrid model. Both plots also show the cumulative distribution of FRB DMs and fluences in our observed sample (solid orange line). chai…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) This figure shows the median (solid black line) and the error (shaded regions) of the cumulative energy distribution determined using the SFR-SMD hybrid model. Comparisons are made with the constant delay time model (dashed black line) and previously determined dis…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Predictions for the cumulative observed redshift distribution of next-generation radio telescopes, with forecasts included for both the SFR-SMD hybrid model (solid lines) and the constant delay time model (dashed lines). The detection threshold is assumed to be a signa…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Posterior distribution of the low-end energy cutoff Elow,ν, which shows that an abrupt cutoff is allowed in both our fiducial models at Elow,ν ≲ 1030 erg Hz−1 , indicating that the data are not sufficient in this regime to dictate the slope of the obtained energy d…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of the best-fit (a) energy, and (b) redshift of each of the 94 baseband FRBs in our observed sample. Both figures mark the distinction between 3 bursts from repeating sources. Both γ and Echar,ν obtained in this work are not unprecedented. γ is consistent …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Scatter plot of DM and fluence of baseband bursts, with black points being in our sample and gray points not. The empty space on the top-right shows the trend that bursts with high DM do not exhibit high fluences. (b) Scatter plot of fluence and bonsai SNR of the 9…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The normalized DMIGM distribution at various redshifts whose mean is given by Eq. (18) and whose 3 higher order moments have been calibrated with information in Jaroszynski (2019). D. ESTIMATING THE SURVEY DURATION OF CHIME BASEBAND SYSTEM The baseband system was depl…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Posterior distributions of the mode τ describing (left) the delayed-tau distribution, and (right) the Rayleigh distribution. Other parameters are very similar to the CDT model parameters. Implementing MCMC gives a hint of unresolved peaks in both delay time posteriors…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

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

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    FRB sources follow a Zipf-like inverse relation between number density and burst rate, and a single power-law population with index a≈1.1-1.3 can explain the observed repeater fraction, the SGR count ratio, and the cl...

  2. The role of the galaxy stellar mass function in determining the cosmological distribution of astrophysical transients with applications to fast radio bursts and merging binary black holes

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

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

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

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The volumetric rate of radio bursts from magnetar SGR 1935+2154, repeating FRB 20180916B, and non-repeating CHIME FRBs follows a single power law R ∝ E^-1.31 from 10^29 to 10^42 erg.

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

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

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

  5. The Northern Cross Fast Radio Burst project: V. Search for transient radio emission from Galactic magnetars

    astro-ph.HE 2025-05 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    A 560-hour radio campaign on seven Galactic magnetars found no transient pulses, setting a rate upper limit of less than 52 events per year above 10^28 erg and narrowing the parameter space for magnetar-powered FRB models.

  6. Constraints on fast radio burst population from the first CHIME/FRB catalog with the Hierarchical Bayesian Inference

    astro-ph.HE 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Hierarchical Bayesian analysis of CHIME/FRB Catalog 1 yields an FRB redshift distribution delayed relative to the cosmic star formation history.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

127 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    J., Conselice, C

    Adams, N. J., Conselice, C. J., Austin, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a7b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a7b 2024

  2. [2]

    V., Jansma, P

    Alibay, F., Sindiy, O. V., Jansma, P. A. T., et al. 2023, in 2023 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 1–18, doi: 10.1109/AERO55745.2023.10115793

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    R., James, C

    Arcus, W. R., James, C. W., Ekers, R. D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.09351, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.09351 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f...

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.09351 2024

  4. [4]

    The role of magnetic and rotation axis alignment in driving fast radio burst phenomenology

    Beniamini, P., & Kumar, P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.19043, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.19043

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.19043 2024

  5. [5]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 5134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab309

    Beniamini, P., Kumar, P., Ma, X., & Quataert, E. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 5134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab309

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab309 2021

  6. [6]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad208 2023

  7. [7]

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1783 2020

  8. [8]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.01876, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.01876

    Bhardwaj, M., Lee, J., & Ji, K. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.01876, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.01876

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.01876

Show all 127 references
  1. [9]

    M., Kaspi, V

    Bhardwaj, M., Gaensler, B. M., Kaspi, V. M., et al. 2021, ApJL, 910, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abeaa6

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    Y., et al

    Bhardwaj, M., Michilli, D., Kirichenko, A. Y., et al. 2024b, ApJL, 971, L51, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad64d1

    doi

  3. [11]

    Bhattacharya, M., Kumar, P., & Linder, E. V. 2021, PhRvD, 103, 103526, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.103526

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 3349, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad458

    Bhattacharyya, S., Bharadwaj, S., Tiwari, H., & Majumdar, S. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3349, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad458

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    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

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/115

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Oesch, P

    Bouwens, R. J., Oesch, P. A., Stefanon, M., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abf83e

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Stefanon, M., Brammer, G., et al

    Bouwens, R. J., Stefanon, M., Brammer, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1036, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1145

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Bowler, R. A. A., Jarvis, M. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2059, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa313

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.12699, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1912.12699

    Braun, R., Bonaldi, A., Bourke, T., Keane, E., & Wagg, J. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.12699, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1912.12699

    2019 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    Bromm, V., & Larson, R. B. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 79, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134034

    2004

  12. [20]

    S., & Conselice, C

    Bundy, K., Ellis, R. S., & Conselice, C. J. 2005, ApJ, 625, 621, doi: 10.1086/429549

    2005 doi

  13. [21]

    Caleb, M., Flynn, C., & Stappers, B. W. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2281, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz571

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    C., Leja, J., Johnson, B

    Carnall, A. C., Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab04a2

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Akins, H

    Casey, C. M., Akins, H. B., Shuntov, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2075

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    2023, ApJL, 948, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accea5

    Castellano, M., Fontana, A., Treu, T., et al. 2023, ApJL, 948, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accea5

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Cen, R., & Ostriker, J. P. 2006, ApJ, 650, 560, doi: 10.1086/506505

    2006 doi

  18. [26]

    J., et al

    Chemerynska, I., Atek, H., Furtak, L. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 2615, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1260

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    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, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y 28 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C....

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    L., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al

    Chworowsky, K., Finkelstein, S. L., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad57c1

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 4024, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad667

    Connor, L., & Ravi, V. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4024, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad667

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Bhardwaj, M., Gaensler, B

    Cook, A. M., Bhardwaj, M., Gaensler, B. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbbd0

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Gupta, O., Wadiasingh, Z., et al

    Cooper, A. J., Gupta, O., Wadiasingh, Z., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3923, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3580

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    M., & Lazio, T

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207156

    2002 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    M., & McLaughlin, M

    Cordes, J. M., & McLaughlin, M. A. 2003, ApJ, 596, 1142, doi: 10.1086/378231

    2003 doi

  26. [34]

    M., & Wasserman, I

    Cordes, J. M., & Wasserman, I. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 232, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2948

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.19138

    Cui, X., James, C., Li, D., & Zhang, C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.19138. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.19138

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    P., Sand, K

    Curtin, A. P., Sand, K. R., Pleunis, Z., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.02870, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02870

    2024 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    2021, JCAP, 2021, 050, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/050

    Dai, J.-P., & Xia, J.-Q. 2021, JCAP, 2021, 050, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/050

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    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

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    T., McLeod, D

    Donnan, C. T., McLeod, D. J., McLure, R. J., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 520, 4554, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad471

    doi

  32. [40]

    T., McLeod, D

    Donnan, C. T., McLeod, D. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 518, 6011, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3472

    doi

  33. [41]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.23336, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.23336

    Eftekhari, T., Dong, Y., Fong, W., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.23336, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.23336

    2024 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    L., & Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., & Bagley, M. B. 2022, ApJ, 938, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac89eb

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acade4

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    L., Leung, G

    Finkelstein, S. L., Leung, G. C. K., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2024, ApJL, 969, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4495

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  39. [47]

    B., Casey, C

    Franco, M., Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e6a

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    J., & Peebles, P

    Fukugita, M., Hogan, C. J., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1998, ApJ, 503, 518, doi: 10.1086/306025

    1998 doi

  41. [49]

    Fukugita, M., & Peebles, P. J. E. 2004, ApJ, 616, 643, doi: 10.1086/425155

    2004 doi

  42. [50]

    Gajjar, V., Siemion, A. P. V., Price, D. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad005

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    W., van Leeuwen, J., Connor, L., & Petroff, E

    Gardenier, D. W., van Leeuwen, J., Connor, L., & Petroff, E. 2019, A&A, 632, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936404

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    2022, ApJ, 932, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6e43

    Ghirlanda, G., & Salvaterra, R. 2022, ApJ, 932, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6e43

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    C., Chawla, P., et al

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

    2023 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

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

    Gordon, A. C., Fong, W.-f., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace5aa

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 3825, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3963

    Hackstein, S., Br¨ uggen, M., & Vazza, F. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3825, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3963

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol

    Hallinan, G., Ravi, V., Weinreb, S., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 255, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.07648

    2019 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

    Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., Oguri, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    H., et al

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

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    S., Fialkov, A., & Lorimer, D

    Heimersheim, S., Sartorio, N. S., Fialkov, A., & Lorimer, D. R. 2022, ApJ, 933, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac70c9

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    W., Prochaska, J

    James, C. W., Prochaska, J. X., Macquart, J. P., et al. 2022a, MNRAS, 510, L18, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab117 —. 2022b, MNRAS, 509, 4775, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3051

    doi

  53. [61]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 1637, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3529 Jaroszy´ nski, M

    Jaroszynski, M. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1637, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3529 Jaroszy´ nski, M. 2020, AcA, 70, 87, doi: 10.32023/0001-5237/70.2.1

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    C., & Pewsey, A

    Jones, M. C., & Pewsey, A. 2009, Biometrika, 96, 761, doi: 10.1093/biomet/asp053

    2009 doi

  55. [63]

    Katz, J. I. 2017, MNRAS, 469, L39, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx052

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    P., Jenkins, M., et al

    Kirsten, F., Snelders, M. P., Jenkins, M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 414, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01246-3

    2021 doi

  57. [65]

    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

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    S., Herrmann, W., et al

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

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    C., Hewitt, D

    Konijn, D. C., Hewitt, D. M., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.10155, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.10155

    2024 doi

  60. [68]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 2385, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa774 29

    Kumar, P., & Boˇ snjak,ˇZ. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2385, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa774 29

    2020 doi

  61. [69]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 2726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx665 Labb´ e, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al

    Kumar, P., Lu, W., & Bhattacharya, M. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx665 Labb´ e, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 266, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    J., Sharma, K., Ravi, V., et al

    Law, C. J., Sharma, K., Ravi, V., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3736

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    Leung, G. C. K., Bagley, M. B., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf365

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.06328, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.06328

    Li, D., & Pen, U.-L. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.06328, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.06328

    2023 doi arXiv

  65. [73]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.16775, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.16775

    Li, Y., Zou, J.-M., Zhang, J.-G., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.16775, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.16775

    2023 doi arXiv

  66. [74]

    2022, PASP, 134, 094106, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac8f71

    Lin, H.-H., Lin, K.-y., Li, C.-T., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 094106, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac8f71

    2022 doi

  67. [75]

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

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

    2024 doi

  68. [76]

    R., & Kramer, M

    Lorimer, D. R., & Kramer, M. 2012, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy (Cambridge University Press)

    2012

  69. [77]

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

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

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 1397, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2450

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

    2020 doi

  71. [79]

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

    2019 doi

  72. [80]

    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

    2020 doi

  73. [81]

    P., Shannon, R

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

    2019 doi

  74. [82]

    P., Prochaska, J

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

    2020 doi

  75. [83]

    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

    2014 doi

  76. [84]

    J., McLure, R

    McLeod, D. J., McLure, R. J., & Dunlop, J. S. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3812, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw904

    2016 doi

  77. [85]

    J., Donnan, C

    McLeod, D. J., Donnan, C. T., McLure, R. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5004, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3471

    2024 doi

  78. [86]

    J., Dunlop, J

    McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., Bowler, R. A. A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2696, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt627

    2013 doi

  79. [87]

    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 —. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 313, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122355

    2014 doi

  80. [88]

    2012, A&A, 545, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219364

    Melinder, J., Dahlen, T., Menc ´ ıa Trinchant, L., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219364

    2012 doi

  81. [89]

    P., Shin, K., et al

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

    2023 doi

  82. [90]

    R., Heckman, T

    Meurer, G. R., Heckman, T. M., & Calzetti, D. 1999, ApJ, 521, 64, doi: 10.1086/307523

    1999 doi

  83. [91]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accf89

    Michilli, D., Bhardwaj, M., Brar, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accf89

    2023 doi

  84. [92]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 539, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3104

    Mo, J.-F., Zhu, W., Wang, Y., Tang, L., & Feng, L.-L. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 539, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3104

    2023 doi

  85. [93]

    2018, ApJ, 867, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae68c

    Morishita, T., Trenti, M., Stiavelli, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae68c

    2018 doi

  86. [94]

    P., Oesch, P

    Naidu, R. P., Oesch, P. A., van Dokkum, P., et al. 2022, ApJL, 940, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b22

    2022 doi

  87. [95]

    2018, Nature, 558, 406, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0204-1

    Nicastro, F., Kaastra, J., Krongold, Y., et al. 2018, Nature, 558, 406, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0204-1

    2018 doi

  88. [96]

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

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

    2022 doi

  89. [97]

    A., Bouwens, R

    Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Labb´ e, I., & Stefanon, M. 2018, ApJ, 855, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab03f

    2018 doi

  90. [98]

    A., Carollo, C

    Oesch, P. A., Carollo, C. M., Feldmann, R., et al. 2010, ApJL, 714, L47, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/714/1/L47

    2010 doi

  91. [99]

    S., Chawla, P., Hessels, J

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

    2024 doi

  92. [100]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 2195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1438 Particle Data Group, Zyla, P

    Pagano, M., & Fronenberg, H. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 2195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1438 Particle Data Group, Zyla, P. A., Barnett, R. M., et al. 2020, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2020, 083C01, doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptaa104 P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Costantin, L., L...

    2021 doi

  93. [101]

    A., Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., et al

    Perley, D. A., Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbd98 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  94. [102]

    G., et al

    Pleunis, Z., Michilli, D., Bassa, C. G., et al. 2021, ApJL, 911, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abec72

    2021 doi

  95. [103]

    B., & Postnov, K

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

    2010 doi arXiv

  96. [104]

    X., Simha, S., Heintz, K

    Prochaska, J. X., Simha, S., Heintz, K. E., et al. 2023, FRB: Fast Radio Burst calculations, estimations, and analysis, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2306.018

    2023

  97. [105]

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

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

    2022 doi

  98. [106]

    S., & Fishbach, M

    Rao, A., Ye, C. S., & Fishbach, M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.20564, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.20564

    2024 doi arXiv

  99. [107]

    D., Tacchella, S., et al

    Robertson, B., Johnson, B. D., Tacchella, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad463d

    2024 doi

  100. [108]

    Santoliquido, F., Mapelli, M., Giacobbo, N., Bouffanais, Y., & Artale, M. C. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 4877, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab280

    2021 doi

  101. [109]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.23374, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.23374 30

    Shah, V., Shin, K., Leung, C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.23374, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.23374 30

    2024 doi arXiv

  102. [110]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16964, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16964

    Sharma, K., Ravi, V., Connor, L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16964, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16964

    2024 doi arXiv

  103. [111]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.03255, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.03255

    Kumar, P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.03255, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.03255

    2024 doi

  104. [112]

    W., Bhardwaj, M., et al

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

    2023 doi

  105. [113]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    2020 doi

  106. [114]

    J., et al

    Stefanon, M., Labb´ e, I., Bouwens, R. J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3792

    2019 doi

  107. [115]

    T., Yuan, F.-T., Ikeyama, A., Murata, K

    Takeuchi, T. T., Yuan, F.-T., Ikeyama, A., Murata, K. L., & Inoue, A. K. 2012, ApJ, 755, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/144

    2012 doi

  108. [116]

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

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

    2023 doi

  109. [117]

    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 The CHIME/FRB Collaboration, :, Amiri, M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.00111, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.00111

    2017 doi arXiv

  110. [118]

    2019, in Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White Papers, Vol

    Vanderlinde, K., Liu, A., Gaensler, B., et al. 2019, in Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White Papers, Vol. 2020, 28, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3765414

    2019 doi

  111. [119]

    J., Desprez, G., Asada, Y., et al

    Willott, C. J., Desprez, G., Asada, Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad35bc

    2024 doi

  112. [120]

    2023, Universe, 9, 330, doi: 10.3390/universe9070330

    Xu, J., Feng, Y., Li, D., et al. 2023, Universe, 9, 330, doi: 10.3390/universe9070330

    2023 doi

  113. [121]

    B., Wu, Q., & Wang, F

    Yang, K. B., Wu, Q., & Wang, F. Y. 2022, ApJL, 940, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca145

    2022 doi

  114. [122]

    M., Manchester, R

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

    2017 doi

  115. [123]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.03972, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2212.03972

    Zhang, B. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.03972, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2212.03972

    2022 doi arXiv

  116. [124]

    C., & Zhang, B

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

    2022 doi

  117. [125]

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

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

    doi

  118. [126]

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

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

    2022 doi

  119. [127]

    J., Yan, K., Li, C

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

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.