Repeating behaviour of FRB 121102: periodicity, waiting times, and energy distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Detections from the repeating fast radio burst FRB 121102 are clustered in time, noticeable even in the earliest repeat bursts. Recently, it was argued that the source activity is periodic, suggesting that the clustering reflected a not-yet-identified periodicity. We performed an extensive multiwavelength campaign with the Effelsberg telescope, the Green Bank telescope, and the Arecibo Observatory to shadow the Gran Telescope Canaria (optical), NuSTAR (X-ray) and INTEGRAL (γ-ray). We detected 36 bursts with Effelsberg, one with a pulse width of 39 ms, the widest burst ever detected from FRB 121102. With one burst detected during simultaneous NuSTAR observations, we place a 5σ upper limit of 5 × 1047 erg on the 3–79 keV energy of an X-ray burst counterpart. We tested the periodicity hypothesis using 165 h of Effelsberg observations and find a periodicity of 161 ± 5 d. We predict the source to be active from 2020 July 9 to October 14 and subsequently from 2020 December 17 to 2021 March 24. We compare the wait times between consecutive bursts within a single observation to Weibull and Poisson distributions. We conclude that the strong clustering was indeed a consequence of a periodic activity and show that if the few events with millisecond separation are excluded, the arrival times are Poisson distributed. We model the bursts’ cumulative energy distribution with energies from ∼1038–1039 erg and find that it is well described by a power law with slope of γ = −1.1 ± 0.2. We propose that a single power law might be a poor descriptor of the data over many orders of magnitude.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".