Implications of Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment repeating fast radio bursts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT CHIME has now detected 18 repeating fast radio bursts (FRBs). We explore what can be learned about the energy distribution and activity level of the repeaters by fitting realistic FRB population models to the data. For a power-law energy distribution dN/dE ∝ E−γ for the repeating bursts, there is a critical index γcrit that controls whether the dispersion measure (DM, a proxy for source distance) distribution of repeaters is bottom or top-heavy. We find γcrit = 7/4 for Poisson wait-time distribution of repeaters in Euclidean space and further demonstrate how it is affected by temporal clustering of repetitions and cosmological effects. It is especially interesting that two of the CHIME repeaters (FRB 181017 and 190417) have large $\rm DM\sim 10^3\rm \, pc\, cm^{-3}$. These can be understood if: (i) the energy distribution is shallow $\gamma =1.7^{+0.3}_{-0.1}$ ($68{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$ confidence) or (ii) a small fraction of sources are extremely active. In the second scenario, these two high-DM sources should be repeating more than 100 times more frequently than FRB 121102 and the energy index is constrained to be $\gamma = 1.9^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ ($68{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$ confidence). In either case, this γ is consistent with the energy dependence of the non-repeating ASKAP sample, which suggests that they are drawn from the same population. Finally, our model predicts how the CHIME repeating fraction should decrease with redshift and this can be compared with observations to infer the distribution of activity level in the whole population.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".