4.7 Article

The slope of the source-count distribution for fast radio bursts

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/sty3031

关键词

methods: data analysis; radio continuum: general; radio continuum: transients

资金

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC) [FL150100148, CE170100004]
  2. Pawsey Supercomputing Centre
  3. Australian Government
  4. Government of Western Australia
  5. Australian Research Council Centres of Excellence for All-Sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO) [CE110001020]
  6. Australian Research Council [DP18010085]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The slope of the source-count distribution of fast radio burst (FRB) fluences, alpha, has been estimated using a variety of methods. Hampering all attempts have been the low number of detected FRBs, and the difficulty of defining a completeness threshold for FRB surveys. In this work, we extend maximum likelihood methods for estimating a, using detected and threshold signal-to-noise ratios applied to all FRBs in a sample without regard to a completeness threshold. Using this method with FRBs detected by the Parkes radio telescope, we find alpha = -1.18 +/- 0.24 (68 per cent confidence interval, CI), i.e. consistent with a non-evolving Euclidean distribution (alpha = -1.5). Applying these methods to the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP) Commensal Real-time ASKAP Fast Transients (CRAFT) FRB survey finds alpha = -2.2 +/- 0.47 (68 per cent CI). A full maximum likelihood estimate finds an inconsistency with the Parkes rate with a p-value of 0.86 per cent (2.6 sigma). If not due to statistical fluctuations or biases in Parkes data, this is the first evidence for deviations from a pure power law in the integral source-count distribution of FRBs. It is consistent with a steepening of the integral source-count distribution in the fluence range 5-40 Jy ms, for instance due to a cosmological population of FRB progenitors evolving more rapidly than the star formation rate, and peaking in the redshift range 1-3.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据