DRAFT VERSION NOVEMBER 26, 218 Typeset using L A TEX twocolumn style in AASTeX62 The Energy Function and Cosmic Formation Rate of Fast Radio Bursts CAN-MIN DENG, 1, 2 JUN-JIE WEI, 1 AND XUE-FENG WU 1, 2 arxiv:1811.9483v1 [astro-ph.he] 23 Nov 218 1 Purple Mountain Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 218, China 2 School of Astronomy and Space Science, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 2326, China ABSTRACT Fast radio bursts (FRBs) are intense radio transients whose physical origin remains unknown. Therefore, it is of crucial importance to use a model-independent method to obtain the energy function and cosmic formation rate directly from the observational data. Based on a sample of 28 Parkes FRBs, we determine, for the first time, the energy function and formation rate of FRBs by using the non-parametric Lynden-Bell C method. A relatively strong evolution of energy E(z) (1 + z) 2. is found. After removing this evolution, the energy function can be well described by a broken power-law function. We also derive the cosmic formation rate which evolves as ρ(z) (1 + z) 2.±.4 at z<1.6 and ρ(z) (1 + z) 5.±1.3 at z>1.6. The local formation rate of FRBs is ρ() 4.3 +1.1 1. 14 Gpc 3 yr 1. Furthermore, we find that the cosmic star formation rate coupled with an appropriate time delay function can explain the formation rate of FRBs. This might be a valuable clue for the physical origin of FRBs. Keywords: radio continuum: general intergalactic medium 1. INTRODUCTION Fast radio bursts (FRBs) are intense radio transients with intrinsic durations less than several milliseconds (Lorimer et al. 27; Thornton et al. 213; Ravi 219). So far, more than sixty FRBs have been detected by various telescopes (Petroff et al. 216). They are all non-repeating sources except FRB 12112 (Spitler et al. 216). Their dispersion measures (DMs) are typical hundreds of pc cm 3, which are much higher than the DM contribution of our Galaxy, robustly suggest that FRBs occur at cosmological distances. This is supported by the identification of the host galaxy of the repeating FRB 12112 with redshift z.19 (Chatterjee et al. 217; Tendulkar et al. 217). Many models have been proposed to explain FRBs, in which compact star origins are the most popular ideas. It was suggested that FRBs can be produced by a single neutron star (NS), such as giant pulses of young pulsars (Keane et al. 212; Cordes & Wasserman 216), giant flares of magnetars (Lyubarsky 214), and magnetic field shedding of collapsing neutron stars (Falcke & Rezzolla 214; Punsly & Bini 216). Some compact binary mergers, specifically, mergers of double white dwarfs (WDs) (Kashiyama et al. 213), of WD-NS (Gu et al. 216), of WD black hole (BH) (Li et al. Corresponding author: Jun-Jie Wei, Xue-Feng Wu jjwei@pmo.ac.cn, xfwu@pmo.ac.cn 218), of double NSs (Totani 213; Wang et al. 216), NS BH (Mingarelli et al. 215), or of double BHs (Liu et al. 216; Zhang 216), could be responsible for FRBs. Besides, there are also other novel models, such as pulsar traveling though asteroid belt (Dai et al. 216), super-conducting strings (Cai et al. 212), primordial black holes coalescence (Deng et al. 218), and so on. However, the nature of FRBs remains elusive, particularly their high all-sky rate and large released energy. The formation rate and energy function as well as their cosmological evolution are crucial for revealing the origin of FRBs. In this letter, we will apply the Lynden-Bell C method (Lynden-Bell 1971) to derive the formation rate and energy function of FRBs without any assumptions. The errors quoted through this letter are all at 1σ confidence level. 2. FRB SAMPLE AND SELECTION EFFECT Up to FRB 18117, a total of 66 FRBs have been detected by various radio telescopes including the Arecibo, ASKAP, CHIME, GBT, Parkes, Pushchino, and UTMOST, which are available from the FRB catalogue 1 (see Petroff et al. 216 and references therein). Since different telescopes have different detection thresholds, here we only take into account the largest subsample observed by the Parkes containing 28 1 http://frbcat.org/
2 FRBs to ensure that the very different response functions of different telescopes will not be involved. The observed DM of an FRB can be consisted of DM obs = DM MW + DM IGM + DM host 1 + z, (1) where DM MW is the DM distribution from the Milky Way and DM host is the DM contribution from both the FRB host galaxy and source environment in the cosmological rest frame of the FRB. Note that the DM of the FRB source environment is considered to be relatively much lower than that of the FRB host galaxy. The IGM portion of DM is related to the redshift of the source through (Ioka 23; Inoue 24; Deng & Zhang 214) DM IGM (z) = 3cH Ω b f IGM f e 8πGm p z H (1 + z ) H(z dz, (2) ) where Ω b is baryon density, f IGM.83 is the fraction of baryons in the IGM (Fukugita et al. 1998), and f e 7/8 is the free electron number per baryon in the universe, which was first introduced by Deng & Zhang (214). Adopting the latest Planck results for the ΛCDM cosmological parameters, i.e., H = 67.74 km s 1 Mpc 1,Ω b =.486,Ω m =.389, and Ω Λ =.6911 (Planck Collaboration et al. 216), the redshifts of the FRBs can then be inferred from their DM IGM. In order to obtain DM IGM of an FRB, we have to figure out DM MW and DM host. The DM MW values have been derived based on the Galactic electron density models of Cordes & Lazio (22) or Yao et al. (217), as provided in the FRB catalogue (see Petroff et al. 216 and references therein), while the DM host values are completely unknown. The observations of the host galaxy of FRB 12112 suggest that DM host ( 1 pc cm 3 ) is not small, which is comparable to DM IGM for FRB 12112 (Tendulkar et al. 217). In any case, a fixed DM host value can be used to derive a rough estimation on DM IGM, and hence, a rough estimation on z, of a particular FRB. In our calculations, we take the values of DM host varying from zero to 1 pc cm 3, where the upper limit is set according to the current minimum DM of the Parkes FRBs, i.e., DM FRB 11214 = DM obs DM MW = 137.8 pc cm 3 (Petroff et al. 218). This variation range of DM host results in the uncertainties of redshifts and energies of the FRBs, as presented in Table 1 and Figure 1. With an inferred redshift, the isotropic energy of an FRB within the observed bandwidth can be calculated by E 4πD2 L F 1 + z, (3) where F = F ν ν c is the fluence and F ν is the specific fluence. Following Zhang (218), we use the central frequency ν c rather than the bandwidth ν of the telescope to derive E. This treatment is believed to be more appropriate. E (erg) 1 42 1 41 1 4 1 39..5 1. 1.5 2. 2.5 3. 3.5 Figure 1. The energy redshift distribution of 28 Parkes FRBs. The errors of the data correspond to the variation range of DM host from zero to 1 pc cm 3 and the central values are given for DM host = 5 pc cm 3. The solid line denotes the energy threshold of the Parkes telescope. From Figure 1, one can find that the data points are truncated due to the fluence sensitivity limit of Parkes. The truncated threshold of the Parkes telescope, displayed by the solid line in Figure 1, is estimated by Equation (3) with its typical central frequencyν c = 1.352 GHz and with a sensitivity or a limiting fluence as (Bera et al. 216; Caleb et al. 216) F ν,th =.28 S/N z [ ] 1/2 tobs (z) Jy ms, (4) 1 ms where S/N is the signal-to-noise ratio which is usually adopted as 1 for a reliable detection of an FRB and the observed FRB duration t obs (z) as a function of redshift is determined by an intrinsic pulse width, the residual dispersion, and the scattering in the intervening medium (see Cao et al. 217 for more descriptions). One can see that the data points are well above the threshold line in Figure 1. 3. ENERGY FUNCTION AND FORMATION RATE For a survey of a telescope, the number of FRBs detectable above its threshold limit F th in the redshift range (z 1,z 2 ) and energy range (E 1,E 2 ) can be expressed as N = ΩT 4π z2 z 1 E2 dz max(e 1,E min) Ψ(E, z) dv de, (5) 1 + z dz Here Ω and T are the field-of-view and the total observing time, respectively. dv is the co-moving volume element of the universe. E min is the minimum observable energy at z, defined as E min = 4πD 2 L (z)f th/(1 + z). If Ψ(E,z) is known, one can calculate the observed number of FRBs by a given telescope according to Equation (5). If E is independent of z, without loss of generality,ψ(e,z) can be expanded into a de-
3 Table 1. The observational properties and the estimated redshifts (z) and isotropic energies (E) of Parkes FRBs FRB Name DM obs DM MW z a F ν ν c E a S/N (pc cm 3 ) (pc cm 3 ) (Jy ms) (MHz) (1 4 erg) FRB1125 79±3 11.73 +.3.3 2.82 1372.5 5.7 +.51.5 17 FRB1621 745±1 523.21 +.5.5 2.87 1374.46 +.23.2 16.3 FRB1724 375 44.58.34 +.4.4 15 1374 63.2 +16.88 15.86 23 FRB9625 899.55±.1 31.69.94 +.3.3 2.1888 1352 7.2 +.44.44 3 FRB11214 168.9±.5 31.1.11 +.5.6 51.3 1352 2.15 +2.58 1.69 13 FRB1122 944.38±.5 34.77.98 +.3.3 7.28 1352 26.36 +1.48 1.48 49 FRB11626 723±.3 47.46.72 +.3.3.56 1352 1.1 +.1.1 11 FRB1173 113.6±.7 32.33 1.17 +.3.3 2.15 1352 1.83 +.47.47 16 FRB12127 553.3±.3 31.82.55 +.3.4.55 1352.63 +.8.8 11 FRB1212 1629.18±.2 74.27 1.73 +.2.2 2.3392 1352 24.75 +.57.58 16 FRB13626 952.4±.1 66.87.96 +.3.3 1.4652 1352 5.2 +.29.3 21 FRB13628 469.88±.1 52.58.44 +.4.4 1.2224 1352.86 +.16.15 29 FRB13729 861±2 31.9 +.3.3 3.4342 1352 1.32 +.67.67 14 FRB13114 779±1 71.1.76 +.3.3 2.3296 1352 5.4 +.42.42 3 FRB14514 562.7±.6 34.9.56 +.3.4 1.3188 1352 1.54 +.2.2 16 FRB15215 115.6±.8 427.2.73 +.3.3 2.16 1352 3.99 +.36.35 19 FRB15418 776.2±.5 188.5.63 +.3.3 1.76 1352 2.58 +.29.28 39 FRB1561 1593.9±.6 122 1.63 +.2.2 1.4 1352 13.29 +.34.34 18 FRB1587 266.5±.1 36.9.22 +.5.5 44.8 1352 7.73 +3.68 3.2 b FRB15126 199.8±.6 16 1.97 +.2.2.9 1352 12.2 +.23.23 1 FRB15123 96.4±.5 38 1 +.3.3 1.848 1352 6.88 +.38.38 17 FRB1612 2596.1±.3 13 3.8 +.2.2 1.7 1352 48.75 +.45.45 16 FRB17129 1458 13 1.6 +.2.2 2.3 1352 21.5 +.55.56 4 FRB1831 52 155.38 +.4.4 1.5 1352.78 +.18.17 16 FRB1839 263.47 44.69.21 +.5.5 11.988 1352 1.83 +.94.81 411 FRB18311 1575.6 45.2 1.7 +.2.2 2.4 1352 24.61 +.59.59 11.5 FRB18714 1469.873 257 1.33 +.2.2 5 1352 32.3 +1.14 1.14 2 FRB18923 548±3 46.6.53 +.4.4 2.9 1352 3.3 +.43.42 13 a The errors of z and E correspond to the variation range of DM host from zero to 1 pc cm 3 and the central values are given for DM host = 5 pc cm 3. b No S/N was reported in the original paper (Ravi et al. 216). generate (separate) formψ(e) ρ(z), whereψ(e) is the energy function and ρ(z) is the formation rate of FRBs. However, as shown in Figure 1, E and z are highly correlated with each other. Of course, this might be a result of the truncated effect and would not reflect the real physics. Thus, the first step is to quantify the degree of correlation. We define the energy evolution E = E (1 + z) k, where E is the deevolved energy. In order to determine the value of k, we use the τ statistical method (Efron & Petrosian 1992). For the ith FRB in our sample, described by (E,i, z i ), we can define the associated set as A i ={ j E, j E,i, z j z max,i }, (6) where E,i = E i /(1 + z i ) k is the de-evolved energy of the ith FRB and z max,i is the maximum redshift at which the FRB with energy E,i can be detected by the telescope. The number of FRBs in this associated set A i is denoted as N i. We further define A i s largest un-truncated subset as B i ={ j A i z j z i }. (7) The number of FRBs in B i is denoted as R i. Then we calculate the modified Kendall correlation coefficient through the statistic τ: i τ = (R i X i ) i V, (8) i where X i = (N i + 1)/2 and V i = (N 2 i 1)/12 are the expectation and variance for the uniformly scattering distribution, respectively. Theoretically, a small τ value ( ) implies energy and redshift are independent, andτ > 1 implies a strong dependence. We change the value of k until the test statistic τ is zero. Finally, we find k = 2. +.4.7.
4 In the following we apply the C method proposed by Lynden-Bell (1971) to derive the energy function ψ(e ) and formation rate ρ(z) of FRBs. This method has been widely used in gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) (Lloyd-Ronning & Ramirez-Ruiz 22; Yonetoku et al. 24, 214; Petrosian et al. 215; To derive the cosmic formation rate ρ(z) of FRBs, we define another associated set C i as, C i = { j z j < z i, E, j > E,i min }, (11) where z i is the redshift of ith FRB and E,i min is the minimum Yu et al. 215; Pescalli et al. 216; Deng et al. 216; Zhang & Wangobservable energy at redshift z i. The number of FRBs in C i 218). Moreover, the robustness of this method has been confirmed by these works through Monte Carlo simulations. is denoted as M i. Similar to deriving the energy function, we can obtain the cumulative redshift distributionφ(< z) as After removing the effect of energy evolution through E = E/(1 + z) k, the cumulative energy distribution Φ(> E ) can be calculated point-by-point starting from the lowest φ(< z i ) = (1 + 1 ). M j<i j (12) observed energy The cumulative redshift distribution φ(< z) is shown in Fig- Φ(> E,i ) = j<i (1 1 N j ), (9) where j< i implies that the jth FRB has a larger energy than the ith one. The normalized cumulative energy distribution Φ(> E ) is shown in Figure 2, which can be well fitted by a broken power-law function. The differential energy function ψ(e ) can then be obtained by derivation of Φ(> E ), yielding ψ(e ) { E 1.4±.1, E < E b E 2.7±.2, E > E b, (1) where E b = (1.3±.2) 14 erg is the break energy. Note thatψ(e ) represents the energy function at z =. The energy function ψ z (E) at redshift z has the same form, but with the break energy E b = E b (1 + z)k. Normalized ( ) 1.1.1 1 39 1 4 1 41 E (erg) Figure 2. The normalized cumulative energy distribution of FRBs. The solid line is obtained by fixing DM host to 5 pc cm 3 for all FRBs, while the shade area corresponds to the uncertainty of the energy distribution arising from the variation of DM host from zero to 1 pc cm 3. The uncertainty of the energy distribution has been taken into account during the fitting process. Normalized (<z) 1.1.1 1 2 3 4 1+z Figure 3. The normalized cumulative redshift distribution of FRBs. The shade area includes the cases of DM host varying from zero to 1 pc cm 3 and the solid line is given for DM host = 5 pc cm 3. ure 3. We can derive the FRB cosmic formation rate ρ(z) with the following equation ( ) 1 dφ(< z) dv ρ(z) (1 + z), (13) dz dz where the factor (1 + z) comes from the cosmological time dilation. Figure 4 gives the formation rate of FRBs. The best fitting of ρ(z) is ρ(z) { (1 + z) 2.±.4, z<1.6 (1 + z) 5.±1.3, z>1.6. (14) Substituting Ψ(E,z) = ψ z (E) ρ(z) into Equation (5), one can obtain the local formation rate ρ() 4.3 +1.1 1. 1 4 Gpc 3 yr 1. Here we adopt the field-of-view and observing time per burst for searching FRBs of Parkes as 144.1deg 2 h (Champion et al. 216) and assume no beaming effect. Cao et al. (218) also obtained the similar local rate, several times 1 4 Gpc 3 yr 1, by assuming FRBs are associated with mergers of compact binary stars. However, it is worth pointing out that our result is directly obtained from the data and has no model assumptions.
5 Normalized (z). 1.1.1 1 2 3 4 1+z Figure 4. The normalized cosmological formation rate density ρ(z) of FRBs. The shade area includes the cases of DM host varying from zero to 1 pc cm 3 and the solid line is given for DM host = 5 pc m 3. The dash line is the CSFR coupled with a delay time τ c 6Gyr. 4. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION In this work, we use the non-parametric Lynden-Bell C method to study the released energy function and formation rate of FRBs without model assumptions. This is the first time for applying this method to FRBs. Firstly, we find that, similar to the case in GRBs, the energy function of FRBs exists redshift variation, which can be expressed as E = E (1 + z) k with k = 2. +.4.7. After removing the effect of energy evolution through E = E/(1 + z) k, we derive the differential energy function, which can be well fitted with a broken power-law asψ(e ) E 1.4±.1 for E < E b andψ(e ) E 2.7±.2 for E > E b, where Eb = (1.3±.2) 14 erg is the break energy. Moreover, we also derive the cosmic formation rate history of FRBs. The FRB formation rate rapidly decreases as the increase of redshift, which can be fitted with a broken power-law as ρ(z) (1 + z) 2.±.4 at z<1.6 and ρ(z) (1 + z) 5.±1.3 at z>1.6, with a local rate ρ() 4.3 +1.1 1. 14 Gpc 3 yr 1. Since we do not know the physical origin of FRBs, it is of crucial importance to use the non-parametric method to obtain the energy function and formation rate directly from the data, which can help us understand the nature of FRBs. As shown in Figure 4, the formation history of FRBs is obviously in contrast to the cosmic star formation history. The cosmic star formation rate (CSFR) evolves as (1 + z) 3.44 at z < 1. and remains almost constant at z > 1. (the CSFR at z > 4 is not well constrained by the data) (Wei et al. 214). As expected, the formation rate of FRBs also differs from that of long GRBs (Yu et al. 215; Petrosian et al. 215). By using the Lynden-Bell C method, Yu et al. (215) and Petrosian et al. (215) found that the formation rate of long GRBs is almost constant at z < 1. and then consistent with the CSFR at z > 1.. Surprisingly, we note that the formation rate of FRBs is very similar to that of short GRBs (Zhang & Wang 218). The Lynden-Bell C method was also used by Zhang & Wang (218) to study the formation rate of short GRBs. They found the formation rate of short GRBs also shows a steep decline with slope 3.8 at z < 1.6 and with slope 4.98 at z > 1.6. The NS-NS merger has been confirmed as the progenitor of short GRBs (Abbott et al. 217). This inspires one to compare the formation rate of compact binary mergers with that of FRBs. The rate of compact binary mergers can be calculated by the CSFR coupled with a merging time delay τ. Here we adopt an empirical delay time function as f (τ) (τ c /τ)exp( τ c /τ), where τ c is cutoff value (Cao et al. 218). As presented in Figure 4, we find that the CSFR coupled with τ c 6Gyr (dashed line) can mainly explain the formation rate of FRBs, which indicates that compact binary mergers may be the promising origin of FRBs. However, the expected rates of NS NS/NS BH mergers ( 1 3 Gpc 3 yr 1 ) are about an order of magnitude lower than the local rate of FRBs (Abbott et al. 217). Simulations showed that the local rate of WD WD mergers can reach several times 1 4 Gpc 3 yr 1 (Badenes & Maoz 212), which is consistent with the FRB rate. On the other hand, one should note that the delay time τ could not only be explained by merging process of compact stars, but also other processes. For instance, a massive star forms a NS in the supernova explosion. After accreting enough gas within a time τ, the NS would collapse to a BH. The FRB might be produced during the collapse of NS by magnetic field shedding mechanism (Falcke & Rezzolla 214; Punsly & Bini 216). In addiction, the catastrophic collapse rate of dead pulsars would likely be consistent with the FRB rate (Punsly & Bini 216). In sum, based on our results, the WD WD mergers or the collapse of dead pulsars seems to be the promising origin for FRBs. If FRBs can indeed be produced by the WD- WD mergers or the collapse of dead pulsars, there will be electromagnetic and gravitational wave counterparts associated with FRBs (Kashiyama et al. 213; Falcke & Rezzolla 214). Hence, the potential application of FRBs on multimessenger cosmology would become possible (Wei et al. 218). 5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank S.-B. Zhang for helpful discussion. This work is partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant Nos. 116376, 1167368, 11725314, and U1831122), the Youth Innovation Promotion Association (211231 and 217366), the Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences (QYZDB-SSW-SYS5), the Strategic Priority Research Program Multi-waveband gravitational
6 wave Universe (grant No. XDB23) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (Grant No. BK216196). REFERENCES Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 217, Physical Review Letters, 119, 16111 Badenes, C., & Maoz, D. 212, ApJL, 749, L11 Bera, A., Bhattacharyya, S., Bharadwaj, S., Bhat, N. D. R., & Chengalur, J. N. 216, MNRAS, 457, 253 Cai, Y.-F., Sabancilar, E., & Vachaspati, T. 212, PhRvD, 85, 2353 Caleb, M., Flynn, C., Bailes, M., et al. 216, MNRAS, 458, 78 Cao, X.-F., Xiao, M., & Xiao, F. 217, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 17, 14 Cao, X.-F., Yu, Y.-W., & Zhou, X. 218, ApJ, 858, 89 Champion, D. J., Petroff, E., Kramer, M., et al. 216, MNRAS, 46, L3 Chatterjee, S., Law, C. J., Wharton, R. S., et al. 217, Nature, 541, 58 Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 22, arxiv:astro-ph/27156 Cordes, J. M., & Wasserman, I. 216, MNRAS, 457, 232 Dai, Z. G., Wang, J. S., Wu, X. F., & Huang, Y. F. 216, ApJ, 829, 27 Deng, C.-M., Wang, X.-G., Guo, B.-B., et al. 216, ApJ, 82, 66 Deng, C.-M., et al. 218, in preparation. Deng, W., & Zhang, B. 214, ApJL, 783, L35 Efron, B., & Petrosian, V. 1992, ApJ, 399, 345 Falcke, H., & Rezzolla, L. 214, A&A, 562, A137 Fukugita, M., Hogan, C. J., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1998, ApJ, 53, 518 Gu, W.-M., Dong, Y.-Z., Liu, T., Ma, R., & Wang, J. 216, ApJL, 823, L28 Inoue, S. 24, MNRAS, 348, 999 Ioka, K. 23, ApJL, 598, L79 Kashiyama, K., Ioka, K., & Mészáros, P. 213, ApJL, 776, L39 Keane, E. F., Stappers, B. W., Kramer, M., & Lyne, A. G. 212, MNRAS, 425, L71 Li, L.-B., Huang, Y.-F., Geng, J.-J., & Li, B. 218, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 18, 61 Liu, T., Romero, G. E., Liu, M.-L., & Li, A. 216, ApJ, 826, 82 Lloyd-Ronning, N. M., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 22, ApJ, 576, 11 Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M. A., Narkevic, D. J., & Crawford, F. 27, Science, 318, 777 Lynden-Bell, D. 1971, MNRAS, 155, 95 Lyubarsky, Y. 214, MNRAS, 442, L9 Mingarelli, C. M. F., Levin, J., & Lazio, T. J. W. 215, ApJL, 814, L2 Pescalli, A., Ghirlanda, G., Salvaterra, R., et al. 216, A&A, 587, A4 Petroff, E., Barr, E. D., Jameson, A., et al. 216, PASA, 33, e45 Petroff, E., Oostrum, L. C., Stappers, B. W., et al. 218, MNRAS, Petrosian, V., Kitanidis, E., & Kocevski, D. 215, ApJ, 86, 44 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 216, A&A, 594, A13 Punsly, B., & Bini, D. 216, MNRAS, 459, L41 Ravi, V., Shannon, R. M., Bailes, M., et al. 216, Science, 354, 1249 Ravi, V. 219, MNRAS, 482, 1966 Spitler, L. G., Scholz, P., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 216, Nature, 531, 22 Tendulkar, S. P., Bassa, C. G., Cordes, J. M., et al. 217, ApJL, 834, L7 Thornton, D., Stappers, B., Bailes, M., et al. 213, Science, 341, 53 Totani, T. 213, PASJ, 65, L12 Wang, J.-S., Yang, Y.-P., Wu, X.-F., Dai, Z.-G., & Wang, F.-Y. 216, ApJL, 822, L7 Wei, J.-J., Wu, X.-F., Melia, F., Wei, D.-M., & Feng, L.-L. 214, MNRAS, 439, 3329 Wei, J.-J., Wu, X.-F., & Gao, H. 218, ApJL, 86, L7 Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N. 217, ApJ, 835, 29 Yonetoku, D., Murakami, T., Nakamura, T., et al. 24, ApJ, 69, 935 Yonetoku, D., Nakamura, T., Sawano, T., Takahashi, K., & Toyanago, A. 214, ApJ, 789, 65 Yu, H., Wang, F. Y., Dai, Z. G., & Cheng, K. S. 215, ApJS, 218, 13 Zhang, B. 218, ApJL, 867, L21 Zhang, B. 216, ApJL, 827, L31 Zhang, G. Q., & Wang, F. Y. 218, ApJ, 852, 1