Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 38 references

Convection Anisotropies of Cosmic Rays in Highly Magnetized Plasma

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Parallel diffusion preserves the cosmic-ray anisotropy spectrum's power-law scaling, tying 10 TeV observations to Kolmogorov interstellar turbulence.

desk verdict A natural extension with a credible qualitative conclusion, but Eq. (10) as printed has a normalization error that breaks the derivation of the claimed ℓ^{-γ−1} scaling. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05923 v2 pith:LAPPAV5Y submitted 2025-06-06 astro-ph.HE

Yiran Zhang , Siming Liu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords cosmicraysangularpowerspectrumparalleldiffusionanisotropicturbulentconvectioninterstellarturbulenceKolmogorovpitch-anglescattering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper extends the turbulent-convection explanation of cosmic-ray small-scale anisotropies from isotropic diffusion to transport along a strong background magnetic field, known as parallel diffusion. It argues that although a background field breaks the statistical isotropy of the arrival-direction sky, the ensemble-averaged angular power spectrum keeps the same high-multipole scaling as the isotropic model: for a turbulence spectrum $w(k)\propto k^{-\gamma}$, one obtains $\overline{C_\ell}\propto\ell^{-\gamma-1}$ for $\ell\gg 1$. A sympathetic reader should care because this makes the observed 10 TeV small-scale angular power spectrum a robust probe of interstellar turbulence: the Kolmogorov index $\gamma=5/3$ follows from the data up to $\ell=30$ independently of the diffusion-tensor structure and, to some extent, of the background magnetic field.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a spherical-harmonic multipole decomposition of the field-aligned convection term $\mu(\mathbf{B}/B)\cdot\Delta u$, whose angular coupling is governed by Wigner 3j selection rules that allow only neighboring multipoles $\ell' = |\ell\pm 1|$ to correlate. The turbulence statistics enter through spherical-Bessel integrals $J^{(n)}_{LL'}(k\lambda)$ over the omnidirectional spectrum, evaluated by hypergeometric-function identities and then asymptotically in the large-$L$ limit. The key asymptotic relation $\mathbf{B}\mathbf{B}:c_Lc_L = -(1+2/\gamma)\,\mathbf{B}\mathbf{B}:c_Lc_{L+2}$ converts a power-law spectrum $w(k)\propto k^{-\gamma}$ into the diagonal scaling $\overline{C_\ell}\propto\ell^{-\gamma-1}$.

What would settle it

Measure the cosmic-ray angular power spectrum near 10 TeV to multipoles $\ell\gtrsim 50$; a logarithmic slope of $\overline{C_\ell}$ versus $\ell$ that departs from $\gamma+1\simeq 8/3$, or a slope that changes between multipole bands, would refute the claimed diffusion-tensor-independent scaling, and an independent determination of the interstellar turbulence spectral index on 1-20 pc scales that differs from $5/3$ would falsify the Kolmogorov interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the multipole scaling of the turbulent-convection anisotropy is robust to whether diffusion is isotropic or confined to field lines. In the strong-field limit, with isotropic pitch-angle scattering and purely parallel transport, the paper derives the two-mode correlation of the spherical-harmonic coefficients from the field-aligned convection term, using the angular-coupling structure of Wigner 3j symbols. The correlation matrix is no longer diagonal, so the anisotropy is statistically anisotropic, but the diagonal part still yields $\overline{C_\ell}\propto\ell^{-\gamma-1}$ in the large-$\ell$ limit, identical to the isotropic-diffusion result. The paper also finds that the parallel-diffusion model concentrates the fluctuation variance toward the field-aligned directions, matching the overall shape of the observed pitch-angle profile for $\ell\ge 2$ anisotropy, and that reproducing the observed spectrum requires a turbulent velocity dispersion of about 50 km/s on 10 pc scales.

Load-bearing premise

The turbulent convection field is taken to be homogeneous and isotropic with a pure power-law omnidirectional spectrum $w(k)\propto k^{-\gamma}$ over the inertial range; if interstellar turbulence on roughly 1-20 pc scales is strongly anisotropic or not a clean power law, the derived scaling $\overline{C_\ell}\propto\ell^{-\gamma-1}$ and the inference of $\gamma=5/3$ from TeV data would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Measured small-scale anisotropy spectra can be read as a direct measurement of the interstellar turbulence spectral index $\gamma$ at pc scales, with no need to model the perpendicular diffusivity.
  • The 10 TeV spectrum up to $\ell=30$ is compatible with the Kolmogorov value $\gamma=5/3$; the Kraichnan value $\gamma=3/2$ fits slightly worse.
  • Parallel diffusion predicts cylindrical symmetry around the local magnetic field, with fluctuations strongest along the field; this matches the observed $\ell\ge2$ pitch-angle profile in overall shape.
  • Because the scalar-spectrum slope is unchanged while its normalization drops relative to isotropic diffusion, the required turbulent velocity dispersion rises to about 50 km/s on 10 pc scales.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If higher-$\ell$ data become available, the clean prediction is that the slope of $\overline{C_\ell}$ should remain $\gamma+1$ across multipole bands; a slope that varies with $\ell$ would indicate the turbulence is not a pure power law on these scales.
  • The paper's conclusion that the slope survives more general anisotropic diffusion suggests the anisotropy sky could serve as a turbulence diagnostic even in regions where the magnetic field geometry is poorly known, since only the spectral slope, not the orientation, is needed.
  • Adding perpendicular transport would restore the $2\ell$ azimuthal modes that the parallel model lacks, so the ensemble-averaged spectrum should more closely match the observed single-realization spectrum; the paper speculates the slope would be preserved, which could be tested by extending the calculation to a finite perpendicular diffusivity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper extends the turbulent convection model of cosmic-ray small-scale anisotropies from isotropic diffusion to the extreme of purely parallel (field-aligned) diffusion. The authors derive the ensemble-averaged angular power spectrum C_l under the assumption of a power-law turbulence spectrum w(k) ∝ k^{-γ}, and they claim that for l >> 1 the scaling C_l ∝ l^{-γ-1} is unchanged from the isotropic case. They compare the model to the HAWC/IceCube 10 TeV small-scale angular power spectrum up to l = 30, inferring the Kolmogorov index γ = 5/3, and they discuss the statistically anisotropic structure of the fluctuations. The technical core is the Clebsch–Gordan algebra of the dipole–multipole coupling in Eq. (4), the spectral integrals in Eqs. (7)–(13), and the large-l asymptotic in Eq. (14).

Significance. If the central scaling is correct, the result is important: it would make the small-scale cosmic-ray angular power spectrum a robust probe of the interstellar turbulence spectral index, independent of the diffusion tensor structure. The paper offers a concrete analytic framework and a falsifiable prediction (the l^{-γ-1} scaling and the inferred Kolmogorov index). The authors explicitly state the homogeneity and isotropy assumptions and the range of scales over which the fit applies. However, the derivation as printed contains a normalization error in Eq. (10) that breaks the central claim, and the large-l asymptotic is applied at values for which its accuracy has not been demonstrated. These load-bearing issues must be fixed before the significance can be fully assessed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (10)] Equation (10) does not follow from Eq. (4) with the correct Clebsch–Gordan coefficients. For the c_{l-1} term, the coefficient in a_l is l/√((2l-1)(2l+1)) and for the c_{l+1} term it is (l+1)/√((2l+3)(2l+1)). Squaring gives, for example, a first term l l' c_{l-1} c_{l'-1} / √((2l-1)(2l+1)(2l'-1)(2l'+1)), whereas Eq. (10) quotes l l' √((2l-1)(2l'-1)) c_{l-1} c_{l'-1} / √((2l+1)(2l'+1)), which is larger by a factor (2l-1)(2l'-1). Using Eq. (10) literally together with Eq. (14) yields C_l ∝ l^{1-γ} rather than l^{-γ-1}, contradicting the paper's headline claim. The authors should correct the prefactors or show explicitly that the intended expression still gives the claimed scaling.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (14)] The prefactor in the first equality of Eq. (14), (β/(γ+2) − 3β/(γ+2)), simplifies to −2β/(γ+2), which is negative for β > 0. Since the left-hand side B B:B c_L c_L is a variance-like contraction, it should be non-negative; this indicates a typo in the prefactor or in the second term. The authors should correct the expression and verify that its sign and normalization are consistent with Eq. (7).
  3. [Section 5, Fig. 3] The large-l asymptotic in Eq. (14) is derived for l >> 1, but the model curves in Fig. 3 are compared with data at l ≤ 30, including l values of order a few. The paper should either evaluate C_l exactly using the integrals in Eqs. (7)–(9) or quantify the error of the asymptotic in this l range before using it for the data fit.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 5] The text states that the parallel diffusion model requires σ(10 TeV) ∼ 50 km/s, while the caption of Fig. 3 reports σ(10 TeV) ≈ 23 km/s; please reconcile these numbers.
  2. [Section 4, after Eq. (13)] The phrase "Merlin transform" should read "Mellin transform."
  3. [Section 5] There are a few typographical issues, including "HA WC" in the text; a careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the C_l ∝ l^{−γ−1} scaling is derived from the assumed turbulence power-law index γ via a closed-form integral, and the only fitted quantity (normalization σ) is not the exponent; self-citations are background, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained from Eq. (4) through Eq. (14): the Clebsch–Gordan coupling Eq. (4) relates the anisotropy coefficients a_l to the convection field harmonics c_L; Eq. (5) expresses c_L as a transform of the turbulence Fourier amplitude; Eqs. (6)–(9) define the homogeneous isotropic two-point correlation and its integral; Eq. (13) evaluates the inertial-range integral; Eq. (14) gives the large-L asymptotics; and Eq. (11) converts this to the angular power spectrum. The power-law index γ is an assumed property of the turbulence spectrum w(k) ∝ k^{−γ}, and the result C_l ∝ l^{−γ−1} is a genuine consequence of that input rather than a restatement of it. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction: the normalization σ(10 TeV) is adjusted to match data, but the exponent is not fitted and would be the same for any normalization. Citations to Zhang & Liu (2024) supply the isotropic-diffusion baseline and prior model context, but the parallel-diffusion calculation is carried out here with independent mathematical references (Prudnikov et al. 1989; Slater 2008), so they are not load-bearing in the circularity sense. The paper itself candidly notes limitations—the parallel model has only m=0 and thus struggles to reproduce the observed smoothed C_l, and the inertial-range, homogeneous-isotropic turbulence assumption is an idealization—but these are substantive assumptions and acknowledged weaknesses, not circular reasoning. The printed Eq. (10) may contain a normalization typo (the skeptic's point that its coefficients differ from the square of Eq. (4)); that is an internal-algebra/correctness concern about the published equations, not a circularity in which a prediction equals its input by construction. For the circularity question, the correct ledger is 2: only minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard plasma transport assumptions (fluctuation-relaxation equilibrium, homogeneous isotropic turbulence, isotropic pitch-angle scattering) plus standard mathematical identities. The only fitted numerical parameter is the normalization σ; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • velocity dispersion σ(10 TeV) = ≈ 50 km/s
    Normalization of the turbulence spectrum fitted to the observed small-scale angular power spectrum at 10 TeV (Section 5, left panel of Fig. 3).
  • turbulence spectral index γ = 5/3 (Kolmogorov), also 3/2 considered
    Input parameter of the turbulence spectrum; not derived in the paper; chosen to match the observed power-law slope.
  • transverse fraction β = 0, 2/3, 1
    Parameter in the turbulence correlation model (Eq. 6); affects normalization only; three cases are studied.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Fluctuation-relaxation equilibrium: Δf = -Δr·∇f - Δp·∂f/∂p
    Assumed kinetic relaxation law in Section 2, Eq. (1), underlying the anisotropy calculation.
  • domain assumption Homogeneous, isotropic, power-law turbulence spectrum w(k) ∝ k^{-γ} over the inertial range
    Assumed in Section 3 (Eq. 6) and Section 4 (inertial range, k-dependent γ).
  • domain assumption Isotropic pitch-angle scattering, τ = λ/v independent of µ
    Stated in Section 3; allows the diffuse anisotropy to be discarded from the multipole analysis.
  • domain assumption Distribution depends only on the coordinate along the background magnetic field
    Assumed for the parallel diffusion model in Section 2, following Appx. A of Zhang & Liu (2024).
  • standard math Standard results for Bessel/hypergeometric integrals (Eqs. 9 and 13)
    The analytic solutions are taken from Slater (2008) and Prudnikov et al. (1989) without derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Convection Anisotropies of Cosmic Rays in Highly Magnetized Plasma." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LAPPAV5Y

@misc{pith2026250605923,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Convection Anisotropies of Cosmic Rays in Highly Magnetized Plasma},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LAPPAV5Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05923}
}
abstract

Recently, Zhang & Liu (2024) proposed a turbulent convection model for multiscale anisotropies of cosmic rays (CRs), with an assumption of isotropic diffusion such that the anisotropies are statistically isotropic. However, this assumption may be unrealistic for TeV CRs, whose observations have revealed the significance of the local interstellar background magnetic field. To meet the difficulty, the turbulent convection scenario needs to be extended to cover anisotropic diffusion. In this paper, we focus on the parallel diffusion with isotropic pitch-angle scattering, which may be an approximation to the transport process driven by weak hydromagnetic waves in a magnetic flux tube, where fluctuations of the wave velocities lead to the turbulent convection. The consequence is the breaking of the statistical isotropy, while the overall shape of the angular power spectrum, $ \overline{C_\ell}\propto\ell ^{-\gamma -1} $ ($ \ell\gg 1 $), remains similar to that in the isotropic diffusion model, where $ \ell $ are degrees of spherical harmonics, and $ \gamma $ is the turbulence spectral index of the convection field. It is then expected that the power-law index of the TeV CR small-scale angular power spectrum can be explained with the Kolmogorov law $ \gamma =5/3 $, irrespective of the background magnetic field to some extent.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05923 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Angular correlation matrix of the turbulent convection anisotropies for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic view of the field-aligned nonuniform convection in the isotropic pitch-angle scattering regime. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the isotropic diffusion (ID; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Abraham, K., Ackermann, M., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., Abraham, K., Ackermann, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 220, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/220

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/826/2/220 2016

  2. [2]

    2011, ApJ, 740, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/1/16

    Abbasi, R., Abdou, Y., Abu-Zayyad, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 740, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/1/16

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/740/1/16 2011

  3. [3]

    2025, ApJ, 981, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1de

    Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1de

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb1de 2025

  4. [4]

    U., Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., et al

    Abeysekara, A. U., Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/108 —. 2018, ApJ, 865, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad90c —. 2019, ApJ, 871, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf5cc

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/108 2014

  5. [5]

    2014, Phys

    Ahlers, M. 2014, Phys. Rev. Lett., 112, 021101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.021101 —. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 117, 151103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.151103

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.021101 2014

  6. [6]

    2015, ApJ, 815, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/815/1/L2 —

    Ahlers, M., & Mertsch, P. 2015, ApJ, 815, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/815/1/L2 —. 2017, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 94, 184, doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2017.01.004

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/815/1/l2 2015

  7. [7]

    Batchelor, G. K. 1982, The Theory of Homogeneous Turbulence

    work page 1982

  8. [8]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 197, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada441 7

    Bian, W., Giacinti, G., & Reville, B. 2025, ApJ, 979, 197, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada441 7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada441 2025

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad132b

    Chakraborty, M., Ahmad, S., Chandra, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad132b

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    2010, ApJ, 710, 853, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/853

    Chepurnov, A., & Lazarian, A. 2010, ApJ, 710, 853, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/853

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    A., & Gleeson, L

    Forman, M. A., & Gleeson, L. J. 1975, Ap&SS, 32, 77, doi: 10.1007/BF00646218

    1975 doi

  4. [12]

    2021, Phys

    Fornieri, O., Gaggero, D., Guberman, D., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 103013, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104. 103013

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    Giacalone, J., & Jokipii, J. R. 1999, ApJ, 520, 204, doi: 10.1086/307452

    1999 doi

  6. [14]

    Giacinti, G., & Kirk, J. G. 2017, ApJ, 835, 258, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/258

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    2012, Phys

    Giacinti, G., & Sigl, G. 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 109, 071101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.071101

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    Harding, J. P. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1307.6537, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1307.6537

    2013 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    P., Fryer, C

    Harding, J. P., Fryer, C. L., & Mendel, S. 2016, ApJ, 822, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/2/102

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    2014, ApJ, 785, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/31

    Hussein, M., & Shalchi, A. 2014, ApJ, 785, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/31

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    Jokipii, J. R. 1966, ApJ, 146, 480, doi: 10.1086/148912

    1966 doi

  12. [20]

    A., & Silk, J

    Kotera, K., Perez-Garcia, M. A., & Silk, J. 2013, Physics Letters B, 725, 196, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2013. 07.010

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    Kuhlen, M., Phan, V. H. M., & Mertsch, P. 2022, ApJ, 927, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac503b

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad198e L´ opez-Barquero, V., Xu, S., Desiati, P., et al

    Li, A.-f., Yuan, Q., Liu, W., & Guo, Y.-q. 2024, ApJ, 962, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad198e L´ opez-Barquero, V., Xu, S., Desiati, P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa74d1

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Diamond, P

    Malkov, M. A., Diamond, P. H., O’C. Drury, L., & Sagdeev, R. Z. 2010, ApJ, 721, 750, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/ 721/1/750

    2010 doi

  16. [24]

    V., & Medvedev, V

    Medvedev, M. V., & Medvedev, V. V. 2015, Physics of Plasmas, 22, 091504, doi: 10.1063/1.4928942

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    Mertsch, P., & Ahlers, M. 2019, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2019, 048, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/11/ 048

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    1989, Integrals and Series

    Prudnikov, A., Brychkov, Y., & Marichev, O. 1989, Integrals and Series. Volume 3: More Special Functions. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268650078_Integrals_and_Series_Volume_3_ More_Special_Functions

    1989

  19. [27]

    2023, ApJ, 942, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca7fc

    Qiao, B.-Q., Luo, Q., Yuan, Q., & Guo, Y.-Q. 2023, ApJ, 942, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca7fc

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    J., & Napolitano, J

    Sakurai, J. J., & Napolitano, J. 2020, Modern Quantum Mechanics, doi: 10.1017/9781108587280

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Adams, F

    Schwadron, N. A., Adams, F. C., Christian, E. R., et al. 2014, Science, 343, 988, doi:10.1126/science.1245026

    2014 doi

  22. [30]

    2020, Space Sci

    Shalchi, A. 2020, Space Sci. Rev., 216, 23, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-0644-4

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    Slater, L. J. 2008, Generalized Hypergeometric Functions. https://www.cambridge. org/us/universitypress/subjects/mathematics/real-and-complex-analysis/ generalized-hypergeometric-functions

    2008

  24. [32]

    C., Shalchi, A., & Schlickeiser, R

    Tautz, R. C., Shalchi, A., & Schlickeiser, R. 2008, ApJ, 685, L165, doi: 10.1086/592498

    2008 doi

  25. [33]

    S., Jenko, F., Teaca, B., & Schlickeiser, R

    Weidl, M. S., Jenko, F., Teaca, B., & Schlickeiser, R. 2015, ApJ, 811, 8, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/8

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    2014, ApJ, 790, 5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/5

    Zhang, M., Zuo, P., & Pogorelov, N. 2014, ApJ, 790, 5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/5

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    2024, ApJ, 964, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df4

    Zhang, Y., & Liu, S. 2024, ApJ, 964, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df4

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    2022a, ApJ, 938, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8f28

    Zhang, Y., Liu, S., & Wu, D. 2022a, ApJ, 938, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8f28

    doi

  29. [37]

    2022b, MNRAS, 511, 6218, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac470

    Zhang, Y., Liu, S., & Zeng, H. 2022b, MNRAS, 511, 6218, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac470

    doi

  30. [38]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4416 8

    Zhao, B., Liu, W., Yuan, Q., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4416 8

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.