MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407556678 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adad6a

Exploring the Key Features of Repeating Fast Radio Bursts with Machine Learning

2025· article· en· W4407556678 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wan-Peng Sun, Ji-Guo Zhang, Yichao Li, Wan-Ting Hou, Fu-Wen Zhang, Jing-Fei Zhang, Xin Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadio Astronomy Observations and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPhysicsKey (lock)AstronomyAstrophysicsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fast radio bursts (FRBs) are enigmatic high-energy events with unknown origins, which are observationally divided into two categories, i.e., repeaters and nonrepeaters. However, there are potentially a number of nonrepeaters that may be misclassified, as repeating bursts are missed due to the limited sensitivity and observation periods, thus misleading the investigation of their physical properties. In this work, we propose a repeater identification method based on the t-distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding algorithm and apply the classification to the first Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment Fast Radio Burst (CHIME/FRB) catalog. We find that the spectral morphology parameters, specifically spectral running ( r ), represent the key features for identifying repeaters from the nonrepeaters. Also, the results suggest that repeaters are more biased toward narrowband emission, whereas nonrepeaters are inclined toward broadband emission. We provide a list of 163 repeater candidates, five of which are confirmed with an updated repeater catalog from CHIME/FRB. Our findings improve our understanding of the various properties underlying repeaters and nonrepeaters, as well as guidelines for future FRB detection and categorization.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicRadio Astronomy Observations and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207