4.7 Article

Implications from ASKAP Fast Radio Burst Statistics

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 883, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3796

关键词

methods: analytical; radio continuum: general

资金

  1. David and Ellen Lee Fellowship at Caltech

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although there has recently been tremendous progress in studies of fast radio bursts (FRBs), the nature of their progenitors remains a mystery. We study the fluence and dispersion measure (DM) distributions of the ASKAP sample to better understand their energetics and statistics. We first consider a simplified model of a power-law volumetric rate per unit isotropic energy dN/dE proportional to E-gamma) with a maximum energy E-max in a uniform Euclidean universe. This provides analytic insights for what can be learned from these distributions. We find that the observed cumulative DM distribution scales as N(>DM) proportional to DM5-2 gamma (for gamma > 1) until a maximum DM max above which bursts near E-max fall below the fluence threshold of a given telescope. Comparing this model with the observed fluence and DM distributions, we find a reasonable fit for gamma similar to 1.7 and E-max similar to 10(33) erg Hz(-1). We then carry out a full Bayesian analysis based on a Schechter rate function with cosmological factors. We find roughly consistent results with our analytical approach, although with large errors on the inferred parameters due to the small sample size. The power-law index and the maximum energy are constrained to be gamma similar or equal to 1.6 +/- 0.3 and log E-max (erg Hz(-1) ) similar or equal to 34.1(-0.7)(+1.1) (68% confidence), respectively. From the survey exposure time, we further infer a cumulative local volumetric rate of log N(E > 10(32) erg Hz(-1))(Gpc(-3) yr(-1)) similar or equal to 2.6 +/- 0.4 (68% confidence). The methods presented here will be useful for the much larger FRB samples expected in the near future to study their distributions, energetics, and rates.

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