Paper detail

Comparison of the Parkes and FAST FRB DM Distribution

We model the Fast Radio Burst (FRB) dispersion measure (DM) distribution for the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Telescope (FAST) and compare this with the four FRBs published in the literature to date. We compare the DM distribution of Parkes and FAST, taking advantage of the similarity between their multibeam receivers. Notwithstanding the limited sample size, we observe a paucity of events at low DM for all evolutionary models considered, resulting in a sharp rise in the observed cumulative distribution function (CDF) in the region of $1000\lesssim\mathrm{DM}\lesssim2000$ pc cm$^{-3}$. These traits could be due to statistical fluctuations ($0.12 \le p \le 0.22$), a complicated energy distribution or break in an energy distribution power law, spatial clustering, observational bias or outliers in the sample (e.g., an excessive DM_${HOST}$ as recently found for FRB 20190520B). The energy distribution in this regime is unlikely to be adequately constrained until further events are detected. Modelling suggests that FAST may be well placed to discriminate between redshift evolutionary models and to probe the helium ionisation signal of the IGM.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.