MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124749424 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1190

Constraints on the distribution and energetics of fast radio bursts using cosmological hydrodynamic simulations

2015· article· en· W2124749424 on OpenAlexaff
Klaus Dolag, B. M. Gaensler, Alexander M. Beck, M. Beck

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsRedshiftGalaxyMilky WayFast radio burstSupermassive black holeUniverseVelocity dispersionPopulationAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present constraints on the origins of fast radio bursts (FRBs) using large cosmological simulations. We calculate contributions to FRB dispersion measures (DMs) from the Milky Way, from the Local Universe, from cosmological large-scale structure, and from potential FRB host galaxies, and then compare these simulations to the DMs of observed FRBs. We find that the Milky Way contribution has previously been underestimated by a factor of ∼2, and that the foreground-subtracted DMs are consistent with a cosmological origin, corresponding to a source population observable to a maximum redshift z ∼ 0.6–0.9. We consider models for the spatial distribution of FRBs in which they are randomly distributed in the Universe, track the star formation rate of their host galaxies, track total stellar mass, or require a central supermassive black hole. Current data do not discriminate between these possibilities, but the predicted DM distributions for different models will differ considerably once we begin detecting FRBs at higher DMs and higher redshifts. We additionally consider the distribution of FRB fluences, and show that the observations are consistent with FRBs being standard candles, each burst producing the same radiated isotropic energy. The data imply a constant isotropic burst energy of ∼7 × 1040 erg if FRBs are embedded in host galaxies, or ∼9 × 1040 erg if FRBs are randomly distributed. These energies are 10–100 times larger than had previously been inferred. Within the constraints of the available small sample of data, our analysis favours FRB mechanisms for which the isotropic radiated energy has a narrow distribution in excess of 1040 erg.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations186
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207