A fast radio burst localized at detection to a galactic disk using very long baseline interferometry

Fast radio bursts (FRBs) are millisecond-duration, luminous radio transients of extragalactic origin. These events have been used to trace the baryonic structure of the Universe using their dispersion measure (DM) assuming that the contribution from host galaxies can be reliably estimated. However, contributions from the immediate environment of an FRB may dominate the observed DM, thus making redshift estimates challenging without a robust host galaxy association. Furthermore, while at least one Galactic burst has been associated with a magnetar, other localized FRBs argue against magnetars as the sole progenitor model. Precise localization within the host galaxy can discriminate between progenitor models, a major goal of the field. Until now, localizations on this spatial scale have only been carried out in follow-up observations of repeating sources. Here we demonstrate the localization of FRB 20210603A with very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) on two baselines, using data collected only at the time of detection. We localize the burst to SDSS J004105.82+211331.9, an edge-on galaxy at $z\approx 0.177$, and detect recent star formation in the kiloparsec-scale vicinity of the burst. The edge-on inclination of the host galaxy allows for a unique comparison between the line of sight towards the FRB and lines of sight towards known Galactic pulsars. The DM, Faraday rotation measure (RM), and scattering suggest a progenitor coincident with the host galactic plane, strengthening the link between the environment of FRB 20210603A and the disk of its host galaxy. Single-pulse VLBI localizations of FRBs to within their host galaxies, following the one presented here, will further constrain the origins and host environments of one-off FRBs.Comment: 40 pages, 13 figures, submitted. Fixed typo in abstrac

How Many Replicators Does It Take to Achieve Reliability? Investigating Researcher Variability in a Crowdsourced Replication

The paper reports findings from a crowdsourced replication. Eighty-four replicator teams attempted to verify results reported in an original study by running the same models with the same data. The replication involved an experimental condition. A “transparent” group received the original study and code, and an “opaque” group received the same underlying study but with only a methods section and description of the regression coefficients without size or significance, and no code. The transparent group mostly verified the original study (95.5%), while the opaque group had less success (89.4%). Qualitative investigation of the replicators’ workflows reveals many causes of non-verification. Two categories of these causes are hypothesized, routine and non-routine. After correcting non-routine errors in the research process to ensure that the results reflect a level of quality that should be present in ‘real-world’ research, the rate of verification was 96.1 in the transparent group and 92.4 in the opaque group. Two conclusions follow: (1) Although high, the verification rate suggests that it would take a minimum of three replicators per study to achieve replication reliability of at least 95 confidence assuming ecological validity in this controlled setting, and (2) like any type of scientific research, replication is prone to errors that derive from routine and undeliberate actions in the research process. The latter suggests that idiosyncratic researcher variability might provide a key to understanding part of the “reliability crisis” in social and behavioral science and is a reminder of the importance of transparent and well documented workflows