Do All Fast Radio Bursts Repeat?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are bursts of radio waves detected at great distances from space. Some FRBs are observed to repeat while some others not. One important question concerning astrophysicists today is whether all FRBs repeat. Recently, the Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment (CHIME) published a master catalog of FRB detections for both repeating and non-repeating FRBs. This is the largest FRB database published to date. With the data in this catalog, we investigate whether repeaters and non-repeaters may show up as statistically different categories in certain parameter space. We focus on the FRB arrival time and fluence and study the repetition behavior in the fluence ratio vs. waiting time two-dimensional space for each pair of bursts for repeating FRBs as well the lower limits of both parameters for non-repeaters. From this graph we can determine if repeaters and non-repeaters indeed occupy different phase spaces, which can shed light on whether they have distinct origins or rather form a continuum in terms of repetition rate, i.e. the apparent non-repeaters are simply repeaters with slower repetition rates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".