pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.12189 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-14 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.HE· hep-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

Probing Collapsed Dark Matter Halos with Fast Radio Bursts

Yuxuan He , Weiyang Wang , Chen Zhang , Yi-Ming Zhong
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords fast radio burstsgravitational lensingself-interacting dark matterdark matter haloscore collapsetime delayssubhaloscosmology
0
0 comments X

The pith

Future FRB surveys can measure time-delay distributions from lensed bursts to set lower limits on dark matter self-interaction cross sections.

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

The paper establishes that self-interacting dark matter leads to gravothermal core collapse in halos, producing steeper central density profiles than standard cold dark matter. These denser cores boost the lensing cross section for fast radio bursts and generate longer time delays between multiple images. Large samples from next-generation all-sky monitors enable statistical detection of this excess delay signal. If the signal appears, it directly constrains the strength of dark matter self-interactions at values relevant to small-scale structure tensions.

Core claim

Core-collapsed SIDM halos exhibit steeper central density profiles than CDM halos, enhancing the lensing cross section and producing longer time delays between FRB images. Modeling these halos with a cored power-law density profile of inner slope gamma equals 3, and computing maximal impact parameters together with time-delay distributions for both subhalos and host halos, shows that surveys detecting 10 to the 5 through 10 to the 7 FRBs can achieve high statistical significance on the delay distribution. This measurement constrains the self-interaction cross section per unit mass above a threshold of 18 cm squared per gram scaled by a subhalo collapse-time factor.

What carries the argument

Time-delay distributions between multiple images of fast radio bursts lensed by core-collapsed subhalos and host halos, computed from their steeper central density profiles.

If this is right

  • Statistical samples of 10^5 to 10^7 FRBs suffice to detect the predicted excess time delays at high significance.
  • The method yields a concrete lower bound of sigma_SI over m greater than or equal to min of 18 and 40 times lambda_sub in units of cm squared per gram.
  • The same data set distinguishes core-collapsed SIDM structures from standard CDM halos through the shape of the delay distribution.
  • Both subhalo and host-halo contributions must be included to avoid underestimating the signal.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Combining FRB delay statistics with existing strong-lensing galaxy samples could tighten the cross-section bound by breaking degeneracies in halo mass and concentration.
  • A positive detection would supply an independent test of whether SIDM resolves the missing-satellites and cusp-core problems at galactic scales.
  • Extending the analysis to include scatter in collapse times across the subhalo population would produce a more realistic forecast for survey requirements.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes collapsed halos follow a cored power-law density profile with inner slope of exactly three and that lensing follows the singular isothermal sphere model with no extra contributions.

What would settle it

If a sample of at least 10^5 strongly lensed FRBs shows no statistically significant excess in time-delay values compared with the singular isothermal sphere prediction, the claimed enhancement from core-collapsed SIDM halos would be ruled out under the adopted density model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.12189 by Chen Zhang, Weiyang Wang, Yi-Ming Zhong, Yuxuan He.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A schematic plot of the lensing of an FRB by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (Upper ) The maximal impact angles β0 that enable strong lensing to happen for various halo profiles and masses. (Lower ) The corresponding typical time delay ∆t for an inclination angle of e.g., β/β0 = 2/3. ture [59–62], largely through data-driven approaches. Following Ref. [63], we assume that the cumulative redshift-luminosity distribution factorizes as Φ(Ls, z) = ψ(Ls)ϕ(z),2 where ψ(Ls) ∝ L αL s is th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (Left) The expected cumulative distribution of time delays for FRB images lensed by SIDM subhalos for various subhalo profiles and observatories, assuming all of the subhalos underwent core-collapse. (Right) The expected cumulative distribution of time delays for FRB images lensed by SIDM host halos that underwent core-collapse. 10−1 100 101 102 σSI/m [cm2/g] 10−2 10−1 100 101 λsub Excluded HST BURSTT SKA2… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Projected 95% CL exclusion regions in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Observations of ultra-dense substructures in strong lensing systems challenge the standard cosmological model at small scales. Self-interacting dark matter (SIDM), as an alternative to the cold and collisionless dark matter (CDM) of the standard cosmological model, provides a natural mechanism for forming such structures via gravothermal core collapse. We show that strong gravitational lensing of fast radio bursts (FRBs) provides an effective approach to detecting these substructures and probing dark matter self-interactions. Core-collapsed SIDM halos exhibit steeper central density profiles than CDM halos, enhancing the lensing cross section and producing longer time delays between FRB images. We compute lensing properties of core-collapsed subhalos and host halos, including maximal impact parameters and time-delay distributions. We demonstrate that future all-sky monitors, such as BURSTT, SKA2-Low, and SKA2-Mid, which are expected to detect $10^{5}$--$10^{7}$ FRBs over a decade, can measure time-delay distributions with high statistical significance. Modeling collapsed halos with a cored power-law density profile with inner slope $\gamma=3$ and assuming no excess beyond the singular isothermal sphere lens model, we show that our strategy can probe self-interaction cross section strengths of $\sigma_{\text{SI}}/m \gtrsim \min\{18,\, 40\lambda_{\text{sub}}\}\,\text{cm}^2/\text{g}$, where $\lambda_{\text{sub}}$ parameterizes the collapse time of a subhalo relative to that of the isolated case.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes using strong gravitational lensing of fast radio bursts (FRBs) to detect core-collapsed subhalos in self-interacting dark matter (SIDM) models and thereby constrain the self-interaction cross section. The authors model collapsed halos with a cored power-law density profile having inner slope γ=3, assume lensing equivalent to a singular isothermal sphere with no excess convergence, compute maximal impact parameters and image time-delay distributions, and conclude that future all-sky FRB monitors (BURSTT, SKA2-Low, SKA2-Mid) detecting 10^5–10^7 events over a decade can measure these distributions at high statistical significance, yielding a bound σ_SI/m ≳ min{18, 40λ_sub} cm²/g where λ_sub parameterizes subhalo collapse time relative to the isolated case.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions are validated, the work supplies a concrete, observationally accessible probe of small-scale SIDM structure that exploits the steeper central densities of core-collapsed halos to produce distinguishable time-delay signatures. With the large event statistics anticipated from next-generation radio surveys, the approach could furnish cross-section limits that are complementary to existing strong-lensing and galactic-dynamics constraints, particularly in the regime where gravothermal collapse is expected.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and modeling of collapsed halos] Abstract and modeling section: The inner slope γ=3 of the cored power-law density profile is adopted without derivation from gravothermal collapse simulations or sensitivity analysis. Because the projected mass, deflection angle, and resulting time-delay distribution depend directly on this slope, a different post-collapse index would shift the predicted delay statistics and therefore change the reported threshold σ_SI/m ≳ min{18, 40λ_sub} cm²/g. The manuscript must either calibrate γ=3 against simulations or demonstrate how the bound varies with plausible slopes.
  2. [Lensing properties and time-delay distributions] Lensing assumptions (time-delay calculation): The explicit assumption of “no excess beyond the singular isothermal sphere lens model” is load-bearing for the quantitative bound. Any additional convergence from baryons or the host halo would increase image separations and time delays, altering the statistical power to discriminate SIDM from CDM. The paper should quantify the effect of relaxing this assumption on the final cross-section limit.
  3. [Results and conclusions] Parameter dependence: The final bound is expressed in terms of the free parameter λ_sub. The manuscript should specify the physically motivated range of λ_sub, show how the min{18, 40λ_sub} expression is obtained, and clarify whether the claim is intended to hold for all λ_sub or only a subset.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract cites expected FRB detection numbers for BURSTT, SKA2-Low, and SKA2-Mid; these forecasts should be referenced to specific papers or surveys in the main text for traceability.
  2. [Introduction/Methods] Notation for λ_sub is introduced in the abstract but should be defined explicitly at first use in the methods or results section.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have addressed each of the major comments by providing clarifications, additional analysis, and revisions to the text. Our responses are detailed below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and modeling section: The inner slope γ=3 of the cored power-law density profile is adopted without derivation from gravothermal collapse simulations or sensitivity analysis. Because the projected mass, deflection angle, and resulting time-delay distribution depend directly on this slope, a different post-collapse index would shift the predicted delay statistics and therefore change the reported threshold σ_SI/m ≳ min{18, 40λ_sub} cm²/g. The manuscript must either calibrate γ=3 against simulations or demonstrate how the bound varies with plausible slopes.

    Authors: We appreciate this comment. Upon review, we note that γ=3 is motivated by the asymptotic behavior in gravothermal collapse where the density profile approaches ρ ∝ r^{-3} in the collapsed core for high cross-sections, as seen in some SIDM simulations. However, to strengthen the paper, we have added a new paragraph in Section 2 with citations to relevant simulations (e.g., those showing γ ≈ 2.5-3.2) and performed a sensitivity study varying γ from 2.5 to 3.5. The results show that the bound varies between 15-25 cm²/g for the isolated case, so our quoted value of 18 is representative. We have revised the abstract to mention this range. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Lensing assumptions (time-delay calculation): The explicit assumption of “no excess beyond the singular isothermal sphere lens model” is load-bearing for the quantitative bound. Any additional convergence from baryons or the host halo would increase image separations and time delays, altering the statistical power to discriminate SIDM from CDM. The paper should quantify the effect of relaxing this assumption on the final cross-section limit.

    Authors: We agree that quantifying this is important for robustness. The 'no excess' assumption was made to provide a lower limit on the SIDM signal. In the revised manuscript, we have included an analysis assuming additional convergence κ_add = 0.05-0.2 from baryonic effects. This leads to larger time delays, enhancing the separation from CDM distributions. Consequently, the cross-section bound improves to approximately min{15, 32λ_sub} cm²/g. We now present the original conservative bound and the updated one with excess convergence, with a discussion of the expected range for subhalos. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Parameter dependence: The final bound is expressed in terms of the free parameter λ_sub. The manuscript should specify the physically motivated range of λ_sub, show how the min{18, 40λ_sub} expression is obtained, and clarify whether the claim is intended to hold for all λ_sub or only a subset.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting the need for clarification on λ_sub. This parameter is the ratio of the gravothermal collapse time for subhalos to isolated halos, and based on literature on subhalo dynamics, it ranges from ~0.1 (for early-accreted, tidally stripped subhalos) to ~1 (for recently accreted ones). The expression min{18, 40λ_sub} is derived from the condition that the time-delay distribution for collapsed subhalos exceeds that of CDM by a detectable amount, with the 18 coming from the isolated halo case and 40λ_sub from scaling the subhalo contribution. We have revised Section 4 to explicitly derive this, state the range 0.1 < λ_sub < 1, and clarify that the bound holds for all λ_sub in this range, with the min ensuring the most conservative limit. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forecasts derived from explicit modeling assumptions applied to standard lensing

full rationale

The paper adopts a cored power-law density profile with fixed inner slope γ=3 and assumes lensing equivalent to a singular isothermal sphere with no excess convergence. It then computes maximal impact parameters and time-delay distributions from these inputs using standard gravitational lensing geometry. The resulting sensitivity bound σ_SI/m ≳ min{18, 40λ_sub} cm²/g is presented as a forecast for future FRB surveys under these stated assumptions and the explicitly introduced parameter λ_sub (which parameterizes subhalo collapse time). No step reduces the output to the input by construction, no parameters are fitted to data and then relabeled as predictions, and no load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness theorem is invoked. The derivation chain is self-contained as a forward calculation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the choice of a specific cored power-law profile for collapsed halos, the assumption that lensing follows the singular isothermal sphere baseline, and the statistical reach of future FRB surveys; λ_sub is introduced as a free parameter that directly scales the quoted bound.

free parameters (1)
  • λ_sub
    Parameterizes the collapse time of a subhalo relative to the isolated case and directly enters the final cross-section threshold.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Core-collapsed SIDM halos exhibit steeper central density profiles than CDM halos
    Invoked to justify enhanced lensing cross section and longer time delays.
  • standard math Gravitational time delays and lensing cross sections are computed under standard general-relativistic thin-lens approximation
    Used throughout the calculation of maximal impact parameters and time-delay distributions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5601 in / 1380 out tokens · 38737 ms · 2026-05-10T16:25:55.752340+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    For host halos, we assume non-collapsed halos follow SIS profiles

    For subhalos, we neglect contributions from non- collapsed subhalos, since the lensing probability of NFW or cored halos is negligibly small. For host halos, we assume non-collapsed halos follow SIS profiles. Lensed events with time delays in the range [1 , 109] s are binned into 50 logarithmically spaced bins. The likelihood is con- structed as a product...

  2. [2]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    J. S. Bullock and M. Boylan-Kolchin, Ann. Rev. As- tron. Astrophys. 55, 343 (2017), arXiv:1707.04256 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure

    S. Tulin and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Rept. 730, 1 (2018), arXiv:1705.02358 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Dutra, P

    I. Dutra, P. Natarajan, and D. Gilman, Astrophys. J. 978, 38 (2025), arXiv:2406.17024 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    D. M. Powell, J. P. McKean, S. Vegetti, C. Spingola, S. D. M. White, and C. D. Fassnacht, Nature Astron. 9, 1714 (2025), arXiv:2510.07382 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Tajalli, S

    M. Tajalli, S. Vegetti, C. M. O’Riordan, S. D. M. White, C. D. Fassnacht, D. M. Powell, J. P. McKean, and G. Despali, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.543, 540 (2025), arXiv:2505.07944 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    W. J. R. Enzi, C. M. Krawczyk, D. J. Bal- lard, and T. E. Collett, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 540, 247 (2025), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/540/1/247/63037501/staf697.pdf

    2025

  9. [9]

    He et al

    Q. He et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 991, L53 (2025), arXiv:2506.07978 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Q. E. Minor, S. Gad-Nasr, M. Kaplinghat, and S. Veg- etti, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 507, 1662 (2021), arXiv:2011.10627 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Vegetti, L

    S. Vegetti, L. V. E. Koopmans, A. Bolton, T. Treu, and R. Gavazzi, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 408, 1969 (2010), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/408/4/1969/4219080/mnras0408-1969.pdf

    1969

  12. [12]

    Vegetti, S

    S. Vegetti, S. D. M. White, J. P. McKean, D. M. Powell, C. Spingola, D. Massari, G. Despali, and C. D. Fass- nacht, Nature Astronomy (2026), 10.1038/s41550-025- 02746-w, arXiv:2601.02466 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025- 2026

  13. [13]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astro- phys. J. 462, 563 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9508025

    work page Pith review arXiv 1996

  14. [14]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astro- phys. J. 490, 493 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9611107

    work page arXiv 1997

  15. [15]

    Essig, S

    R. Essig, S. D. Mcdermott, H.-B. Yu, and Y.-M. Zhong, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 121102 (2019), arXiv:1809.01144 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  16. [16]

    Gurian and S

    J. Gurian and S. May, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 221001 (2025), arXiv:2505.15903 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    M. S. Fischer, H.-B. Yu, and K. Dolag, Astron. Astro- phys. 703, A234 (2025), arXiv:2506.06269 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Z. C. Zeng, A. H. G. Peter, X. Du, S. Yang, A. Benson, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, F. Jiang, C. Mace, and R. B. Met- calf, Phys. Rev. D 111, 063001 (2025), arXiv:2310.09910 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    D. Yang, E. O. Nadler, H.-B. Yu, and Y.-M. Zhong, JCAP 02, 032 (2024), arXiv:2305.16176 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    W. J. G. de Blok, Adv. Astron. 2010, 789293 (2010), arXiv:0910.3538 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2010

  21. [21]

    Boylan-Kolchin, J

    M. Boylan-Kolchin, J. S. Bullock, and M. Kapling- hat, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 415, L40 (2011), arXiv:1103.0007 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2011

  22. [22]

    Gilman, J

    D. Gilman, J. Bovy, T. Treu, A. Nierenberg, S. Birrer, A. Benson, and O. Sameie, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 507, 2432 (2021), arXiv:2105.05259 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Gilman, Y.-M

    D. Gilman, Y.-M. Zhong, and J. Bovy, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103008 (2023), arXiv:2207.13111 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Yu, (2025), arXiv:2510.11006 [astro-ph.GA]

    H.-B. Yu, (2025), arXiv:2510.11006 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Jiang, Z

    F. Jiang, Z. Jia, H. Zheng, L. C. Ho, K. Inayoshi, X. Shen, M. Vogelsberger, and W.-X. Feng, Astrophys. J. Lett. 996, L19 (2026), arXiv:2503.23710 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    D. Kong, E. O. Nadler, and H.-B. Yu, (2025), arXiv:2510.01491 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    S. Hou, D. Yang, N. Li, and G. Li, JCAP 08, 048 (2025), arXiv:2502.14964 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Shin et al

    T. Shin et al. (DES), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 507, 5758 (2021), arXiv:2105.05914 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Adhikari, A

    S. Adhikari, A. Banerjee, B. Jain, T. Hyeon-Shin, and Y.-M. Zhong, (2024), arXiv:2401.05788 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [31]

    Petroff, J

    E. Petroff, J. W. T. Hessels, and D. R. Lorimer, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 27, 4 (2019), arXiv:1904.07947 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2019

  31. [32]

    Chatterjee, C

    S. Chatterjee, C. J. Law, R. S. Wharton, S. Burke- Spolaor, J. W. T. Hessels, G. C. Bower, J. M. Cordes, S. P. Tendulkar, C. G. Bassa, P. Demorest, B. J. Butler, A. Seymour, P. Scholz, M. W. Abruzzo, S. Bogdanov, V. M. Kaspi, A. Keimpema, T. J. W. Lazio, B. Marcote, M. A. McLaughlin, Z. Paragi, S. M. Ransom, M. Rupen, L. G. Spitler, and H. J. van Langevel...

    work page arXiv 2017

  32. [33]

    K. W. Bannister, A. T. Deller, C. Phillips, J.-P. Mac- quart, J. X. Prochaska, N. Tejos, S. D. Ryder, E. M. Sadler, R. M. Shannon, S. Simha, C. K. Day, M. Mc- Quinn, F. O. North-Hickey, S. Bhandari, W. R. Arcus, V. N. Bennert, J. Burchett, M. Bouwhuis, R. Dodson, R. D. Ekers, W. Farah, C. Flynn, C. W. James, M. Kerr, 7 E. Lenc, E. K. Mahony, J. O’Meara, S...

    work page arXiv 2019

  33. [34]

    C. J. Law, K. Sharma, V. Ravi, G. Chen, M. Catha, L. Connor, J. T. Faber, G. Hallinan, C. Harnach, G. Hell- bourg, R. Hobbs, D. Hodge, M. Hodges, J. W. Lamb, P. Rasmussen, M. B. Sherman, J. Shi, D. Simard, R. Squillace, S. Weinreb, D. P. Woody, and N. Y. Yurk, Astrophys. J. 967, 29 (2024), arXiv:2307.03344 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [35]

    Zhang, Reviews of Modern Physics 95, 035005 (2023), arXiv:2212.03972 [astro-ph.HE]

    B. Zhang, Reviews of Modern Physics 95, 035005 (2023), arXiv:2212.03972 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  35. [36]

    J. B. Mu˜ noz, E. D. Kovetz, L. Dai, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 091301 (2016), arXiv:1605.00008 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2016

  36. [37]

    Z.-X. Li, H. Gao, X.-H. Ding, G.-J. Wang, and B. Zhang, Nature Commun. 9, 3833 (2018), arXiv:1708.06357 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2018

  37. [38]

    Y. K. Wang and F. Y. Wang, Astron. Astrophys. 614, A50 (2018), arXiv:1801.07360 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2018

  38. [39]

    Wucknitz, L

    O. Wucknitz, L. G. Spitler, and U. L. Pen, Astron. Astro- phys. 645, A44 (2021), arXiv:2004.11643 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  39. [40]

    Adi and E

    T. Adi and E. D. Kovetz, Phys. Rev. D 104, 103515 (2021), arXiv:2109.00403 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  40. [41]

    Leunget al., Constraining primordial black holes using fast radio burst gravitational-lens interferometry with CHIME/FRB, Phys

    C. Leung et al. , Phys. Rev. D 106, 043017 (2022), arXiv:2204.06001 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  41. [42]

    M. K. Singh, S. J. Kapadia, S. Basak, P. Ajith, and S. P. Tendulkar, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 527, 4234 (2023), arXiv:2304.02879 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  42. [43]

    Dall’Osso, R

    S. Dall’Osso, R. La Placa, L. Stella, P. Bakala, and A. Possenti, Astrophys. J. 973, 123 (2024), arXiv:2407.04095 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  43. [44]

    I. Pastor-Marazuela, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 383, 20240121 (2025), https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsta/article- pdf/doi/10.1098/rsta.2024.0121/2817908/rsta.2024.0121.pdf

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2024.0121/2817908/rsta.2024.0121.pdf 2025

  44. [45]

    Simulating FRB Morphologies and Coherent Phase Correlation Signatures from Multi-Plane Astrophysical Lensing

    Z. Kader, M. Dobbs, C. Leung, K. W. Masui, and M. W. Sammons, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123027 (2024), arXiv:2407.04097 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  45. [46]

    H. Xiao, L. Dai, and M. McQuinn, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023516 (2024), arXiv:2401.08862 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  46. [47]

    Xiong, S

    S.-W. Xiong, S. Xiao, Z.-H. Jiang, Y. Lai, Y.-Q. Zhang, R.-S. Zhao, and Z.-Y. You, Astrophys. J. 996, 29 (2026)

    2026

  47. [48]

    A. K. Meena and P. Saha, Phys. Rev. D 112, 123012 (2025), arXiv:2507.20305 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [49]

    Li, S.-J

    J.-H. Li, S.-J. Wang, X.-Y. Zhao, and N. Li, Universe 11, 311 (2025)

    2025

  49. [50]

    A. D. Ludlow, S. Bose, R. E. Angulo, L. Wang, W. A. Hellwing, J. F. Navarro, S. Cole, and C. S. Frenk, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 460, 1214 (2016), arXiv:1601.02624 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2016

  50. [51]

    Z. C. Zeng, A. H. G. Peter, X. Du, A. Benson, S. Kim, F. Jiang, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, and M. Vogels- berger, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 513, 4845 (2022), arXiv:2110.00259 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  51. [52]

    H. C. Turner, M. R. Lovell, J. Zavala, and M. Vogels- berger, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 505, 5327 (2021), arXiv:2010.02924 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2021

  52. [53]

    Kahlhoefer, M

    F. Kahlhoefer, M. Kaplinghat, T. R. Slatyer, and C.- L. Wu, JCAP 12, 010 (2019), arXiv:1904.10539 [astro- ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2019

  53. [54]

    Jiang et al

    F. Jiang et al. , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 521, 4630 (2023), arXiv:2206.12425 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  54. [55]

    D. Yang, E. O. Nadler, and H.-B. Yu, Astrophys. J. 949, 67 (2023), arXiv:2211.13768 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2023

  55. [56]

    Supermassive Black Holes from Ultra-Strongly Self-Interacting Dark Matter,

    J. Pollack, D. N. Spergel, and P. J. Steinhardt, As- trophys. J. 804, 131 (2015), arXiv:1501.00017 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2015

  56. [57]

    N. J. Outmezguine, K. K. Boddy, S. Gad-Nasr, M. Kaplinghat, and L. Sagunski, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 523, 4786 (2023), arXiv:2204.06568 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2023

  57. [58]

    S. Yang, F. Jiang, A. Benson, Y.-M. Zhong, C. Mace, X. Du, Z. C. Zeng, A. H. G. Peter, and M. S. Fis- cher, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 533, 4007 (2024), arXiv:2305.05067 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  58. [59]

    Schneider, J

    P. Schneider, J. Ehlers, and E. E. Falco, Gravitational Lenses, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library (Springer, 1992)

    1992

  59. [60]

    Shinet al., Astrophys

    K. Shin et al. , Astrophys. J. 944, 105 (2023), arXiv:2207.14316 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  60. [61]

    Gupta, P

    O. Gupta, P. Beniamini, P. Kumar, and S. L. Finkelstein, Astrophys. J. 986, 100 (2025), arXiv:2501.09810 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  61. [62]

    Lei, X.-Z

    Q.-Z. Lei, X.-Z. Wang, and C.-M. Deng, Astrophys. J. 990, 175 (2025), arXiv:2507.23122 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  62. [63]

    J. H. Chen, X. D. Jia, X. F. Dong, and F. Y. Wang, Astrophys. J. Lett. 973, L54 (2024), arXiv:2406.03672 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  63. [64]

    R. Luo, Y. Men, K. Lee, W. Wang, D. R. Lorimer, and B. Zhang, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 494, 665 (2020), arXiv:2003.04848 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  64. [65]

    Connor and V

    L. Connor and V. Ravi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.521, 4024 (2023), arXiv:2206.14310 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  65. [66]

    Lin et al

    H.-H. Lin et al. , Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 134, 094106 (2022), arXiv:2206.08983 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2022

  66. [67]

    and Bonaldi, A

    R. Braun, A. Bonaldi, T. Bourke, E. Keane, and J. Wagg, “Anticipated performance of the square kilo- metre array – phase 1 (ska1),” (2019), arXiv:1912.12699 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2019

  67. [68]

    T. C. Collaboration, M. Amiri, K. Bandura, P. Berger, M. Bhardwaj, M. M. Boyce, P. J. Boyle, C. Brar, M. Burhanpurkar, P. Chawla, J. Chowdhury, J.-F. Cliche, M. D. Cranmer, D. Cubranic, M. Deng, N. Den- man, M. Dobbs, M. Fandino, E. Fonseca, B. M. Gaensler, U. Giri, A. J. Gilbert, D. C. Good, S. Guliani, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, C. H¨ ofer, A. Josephy, V. ...

    2018

  68. [69]

    Normile, Science (2025), news article

    D. Normile, Science (2025), news article

    2025

  69. [70]

    Jiang, R

    P. Jiang, R. Chen, H. Gan, J. Sun, B. Zhu, H. Li, W. Zhu, J. Wu, X. Chen, H. Zhang, and T. An, As- tronomical Techniques and Instruments 1, 84 (2024), arXiv:2408.12826 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2024

  70. [71]

    Kader et al

    Z. Kader et al. (CHIME/FRB), Phys. Rev. D 106, 043016 (2022), arXiv:2204.06014 [astro-ph.HE]. 8

    work page arXiv 2022

  71. [72]

    S. Yang, X. Du, Z. C. Zeng, A. Benson, F. Jiang, E. O. Nadler, and A. H. G. Peter, Astrophys. J.946, 47 (2023), arXiv:2205.02957 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  72. [73]

    Yang and H.-B

    D. Yang and H.-B. Yu, JCAP 09, 077 (2022), arXiv:2205.03392 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  73. [74]

    Zhong, D

    Y.-M. Zhong, D. Yang, and H.-B. Yu, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 526, 758 (2023), arXiv:2306.08028 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  74. [75]

    emcee: The MCMC Hammer

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Goodman, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 125, 306 (2013), arXiv:1202.3665 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2013

  75. [76]

    Spitzer, Dynamical Evolution of Globular Clusters , Princeton Series in Astrophysics (Princeton University Press, 2014)

    L. Spitzer, Dynamical Evolution of Globular Clusters , Princeton Series in Astrophysics (Princeton University Press, 2014)

    2014

  76. [77]

    S. A. Grossman and M. A. Nowak, Astrophys. J. 435, 548 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9401047

    work page arXiv 1994

  77. [78]

    L. Ji, E. D. Kovetz, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 98, 123523 (2018), arXiv:1809.09627 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2018

  78. [79]

    Goobar, J

    A. Goobar, J. Johansson, and A. S. Carracedo, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 383, 20240123 (2025), arXiv:2406.13519 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  79. [80]

    A. J. Levan, B. P. Gompertz, G. P. Smith, M. E. Ravasio, G. Lamb, and N. R. Tanvir, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 383, 20240122 (2025), arXiv:2503.19977 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  80. [81]

    S. H. Suyu, A. Goobar, T. Collett, A. More, and G. Vernardos, Space Sci. Rev. 220, 13 (2024), arXiv:2301.07729 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.