Modelling repetition in zDM: A single population of repeating fast radio bursts can explain CHIME data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Regardless of whether or not all fast radio bursts (FRBs) repeat, those that do form a population with a distribution of rates. This work considers a power-law model of this population, with rate distribution $\Phi_r \sim R^{{\gamma_r}}$ between ${R_{\rm min}}$ and ${R_{\rm max}}$ . The zDM code is used to model the probability of detecting this population as either apparently once-off or repeat events as a function of redshift, z , and dispersion measure, DM. I demonstrate that in the nearby Universe, repeating sources can contribute significantly to the total burst rate. This causes an apparent deficit in the total number of observed sources (once-off and repeaters) relative to the distant Universe that will cause a bias in FRB population models. Thus instruments with long exposure times should explicitly take repetition into account when fitting the FRB population. I then fit data from The Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment (CHIME). The relative number of repeat and apparently once-off FRBs, and their DM, declination, and burst rate distributions, can be well explained by 50–100% of CHIME single FRBs being due to repeaters, with ${R_{\rm max}} > 0.75$ d $^{-1}$ above $10^{39}$ erg, and ${{\gamma_r}} = -2.2_{-0.8}^{+0.6}$ . This result is surprisingly consistent with follow-up studies of FRBs detected by the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP). Thus the evidence suggests that CHIME and ASKAP view the same repeating FRB population, which is responsible not just for repeating FRBs, but the majority of apparently once-off bursts. For greater quantitative accuracy, non-Poissonian arrival times, second-order effects in the CHIME response, and a simultaneous fit to the total FRB population parameters, should be treated in more detail in future studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".