pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.03253 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.CO

Recognition: unknown

Utilizing Dispersion Measure of Fast Radio Bursts to Probe the Intergalactic Medium Turbulence

Rui-Nan Li , Zhao Joseph Zhang , Kentaro Nagamine , Yuri Oku , Qin Wu , F. Y. Wang (NJU)
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 14:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO
keywords fast radio burstsdispersion measureintergalactic mediumturbulenceKolmogorov spectrumstructure functioncosmological simulations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Analysis of fast radio burst dispersion measures reveals a two-dimensional Kolmogorov spectrum for intergalactic medium turbulence at small scales.

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

The paper applies structure function analysis to dispersion measures from over 3,000 fast radio bursts drawn from the CHIME/FRB Catalog 2 and earlier observations. Direct comparison with mock catalogs built from cosmological simulations shows close agreement at large angular separations. At small scales the observed scaling matches the expectation for a two-dimensional Kolmogorov power spectrum, which is then used to place the turbulence outer scale at several megaparsecs. This provides a new observational route to quantify turbulence properties in the intergalactic medium that influence gas dynamics and cosmic-ray transport.

Core claim

By applying structure function analysis to the dispersion measures of over 3,000 FRBs from the CHIME/FRB Catalog 2 and other sources, and comparing to cosmological simulations, the study finds that at small angular scales the structure function follows a scaling consistent with a two-dimensional Kolmogorov power spectrum. This allows constraining the outer scale of IGM turbulence to several Mpc, consistent with expectations.

What carries the argument

The structure function of dispersion measures from fast radio bursts, compared against mock catalogs generated from cosmological simulations.

Load-bearing premise

The small-scale structure in the dispersion measure structure function is primarily due to intergalactic medium turbulence and not dominated by contributions from the host galaxy or the Milky Way.

What would settle it

A significantly larger sample of FRBs with accurate localizations showing no Kolmogorov-like scaling in the structure function at small angular scales, or a mismatch between the observed outer scale and simulation predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03253 by F. Y. Wang (NJU), Kentaro Nagamine, Qin Wu, Rui-Nan Li, Yuri Oku, Zhao Joseph Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Panel (a): Sky distribution of the FRB sample used in our analysis, after excluding sources with DMexc > 3000 pc cm−3 and the Galactic source FRB 20200428A. FRBs appearing in multiple catalogs are represented by blue points. Panel (b): Histogram of the DMexc distribution after extracting MW contribution based on NE2001 model for each FRB in this sample. The red dotted line denotes the median value and the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Panel (a): Schematic illustration of the light-cone DM construction in periodic CROCODILE simulation boxes. Green rays denote representative lines of sight ˆni launched from the observer at z = 0, and outer boxes indicate stacking toward higher redshift. Panel (b): Comparison of the diffuse DM evolution, derived from 50,000 uniformly sampled sightline directions. The blue solid curve and shaded region indi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distributions of DMexc for the composite FRB sample, partitioned by varying upper-limit threshold cuts. Sub-panels illustrate the stacked histograms of the sample truncated at DMexc ≤ 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 pc cm−3 , with the corresponding total number of retained sources (N) indicated. The heterogeneous origins of the sample are delineated by color: the CHIME/FRB Catalog 2 (blue), the Blinkverse data… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The DMexc structure function results for the FRB sample across various DM upper limits. The blue circles and red crosses represent the SF calculated directly from FRB pairs and derived from the correlation function, respectively, with error bars denoting 95% confidence intervals. Source pairs with angular separations smaller than their localization errors are excluded to prevent spurious small-scale signal… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Extragalactic fast radio bursts (FRBs) have emerged as powerful probes of turbulence within the intergalactic medium (IGM), a phenomenon that plays a crucial role in various cosmological and astrophysical processes. In this study, we employ the structure function (SF) analysis on the dispersion measures (DMs) of over 3,000 FRBs, leveraging the recently released CHIME/FRB Catalog 2 alongside previously observed sources. By comparing our results with mock datasets generated from cosmological simulations, we find excellent agreement at large angular separations. At small angular scales, our findings reveal a potential scaling behavior consistent with a two-dimensional (2D) Kolmogorov power spectrum. From this scaling, we constrain the turbulence outer scale to be on the order of several Mpc, which aligns with theoretical expectations, independent observations of the low-redshift IGM, and cosmological simulations. Ultimately, to conclusively confirm this Kolmogorov-like turbulent cascade and overcome current small-sample statistical limitations, a larger sample of FRBs with sub-arcsecond localization is required.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes the angular structure function of dispersion measures from over 3,000 FRBs drawn from the CHIME/FRB Catalog 2 and supplementary observations. Comparing the observed structure function to mock catalogs from cosmological simulations yields excellent agreement at large angular separations. At small angular scales the authors identify a scaling consistent with a two-dimensional Kolmogorov power spectrum and use it to constrain the IGM turbulence outer scale to several Mpc. The work concludes that confirmation requires a substantially larger sample with sub-arcsecond localizations.

Significance. If the small-scale scaling can be robustly attributed to IGM turbulence, the result would supply a new observational handle on IGM turbulence properties, with the derived outer scale matching theoretical expectations and independent simulations. The large FRB sample and external mock comparison constitute clear strengths for the large-scale regime. The small-scale claim, however, is presented as preliminary by the authors themselves, so the overall significance remains moderate pending resolution of contamination issues.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4 (small-angular-scale results)] §4 (small-angular-scale results): The reported scaling consistent with a 2D Kolmogorov spectrum at θ ≲ few arcmin is used to constrain the turbulence outer scale, yet the manuscript provides no quantitative test showing that host-galaxy DM variance or Milky Way foreground structure does not dominate or mimic this power-law index. The abstract notes agreement with mocks only at large scales, leaving the central interpretation dependent on an unverified assumption that the small-scale structure function is IGM-dominated.
  2. [Methods/Discussion (IGM dominance assumption)] Methods/Discussion (IGM dominance assumption): The derivation of the outer scale from the observed structure-function slope assumes the small-scale fluctuations arise solely from projected IGM electron-density turbulence. No sensitivity analysis to redshift-dependent host DM contributions or explicit subtraction of Milky Way structure is shown, which is load-bearing for the Kolmogorov interpretation and the several-Mpc constraint stated in the abstract.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrase 'potential scaling behavior' is appropriately cautious, but the abstract could state the precise number of FRBs entering the small-scale analysis to clarify the statistical limitations mentioned.
  2. [Figures] Figures: The structure-function plots would benefit from explicit overlay of the mock results at the smallest angular bins, even if only to illustrate the lack of agreement there.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which highlight important limitations in the robustness of our small-scale analysis. We agree that additional quantitative tests are required to support the assumption of IGM dominance at small angular scales. We outline below how we will revise the manuscript to address these points.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4 (small-angular-scale results)] §4 (small-angular-scale results): The reported scaling consistent with a 2D Kolmogorov spectrum at θ ≲ few arcmin is used to constrain the turbulence outer scale, yet the manuscript provides no quantitative test showing that host-galaxy DM variance or Milky Way foreground structure does not dominate or mimic this power-law index. The abstract notes agreement with mocks only at large scales, leaving the central interpretation dependent on an unverified assumption that the small-scale structure function is IGM-dominated.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript does not include explicit quantitative tests isolating the IGM contribution at small scales from host-galaxy DM variance or Milky Way foregrounds. The mock comparison validates the large-scale regime, but the small-scale Kolmogorov-like scaling and outer-scale constraint rely on the assumption that IGM turbulence dominates there. In the revised version, we will add a dedicated subsection in §4 that performs sensitivity tests: (i) varying the assumed host DM variance distribution across a range consistent with current observations, and (ii) subtracting modeled Milky Way DM structure using available foreground maps. We will report how these changes affect the recovered power-law index and outer-scale estimate, thereby quantifying the robustness of the IGM interpretation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods/Discussion (IGM dominance assumption)] Methods/Discussion (IGM dominance assumption): The derivation of the outer scale from the observed structure-function slope assumes the small-scale fluctuations arise solely from projected IGM electron-density turbulence. No sensitivity analysis to redshift-dependent host DM contributions or explicit subtraction of Milky Way structure is shown, which is load-bearing for the Kolmogorov interpretation and the several-Mpc constraint stated in the abstract.

    Authors: We agree that the IGM-dominance assumption is load-bearing for the small-scale results and outer-scale constraint. The present analysis does not contain the requested sensitivity tests or explicit MW subtraction. We will revise the Methods section to describe the adopted host DM model and will add redshift-binned structure-function analyses to test for redshift-dependent host contributions. In the Discussion, we will include the results of MW foreground subtraction and discuss the implications for the derived outer scale. These additions will make the assumptions and their uncertainties explicit. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation grounded in external mocks and observational scaling

full rationale

The paper compares observed DM structure functions from >3000 FRBs against mock catalogs drawn from independent cosmological simulations, reporting agreement only at large angular scales while interpreting the small-scale power-law index as consistent with a 2D Kolmogorov spectrum. The outer-scale constraint of several Mpc is then read off from that observed scaling and noted to align with separate theoretical expectations and low-redshift IGM observations. No equation reduces a fitted parameter to a prediction by construction, no load-bearing premise rests solely on self-citation, and the Kolmogorov interpretation is presented as an empirical match rather than a self-derived necessity. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that DM angular variations primarily trace IGM electron-density turbulence following a Kolmogorov spectrum, with mocks providing the reference model.

free parameters (1)
  • turbulence outer scale
    Derived from the observed small-scale structure-function slope; value stated as several Mpc.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Dispersion-measure fluctuations at the relevant angular scales are dominated by intergalactic medium turbulence rather than host or foreground contributions.
    Invoked when interpreting the small-scale structure function as a 2D Kolmogorov spectrum.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5504 in / 1271 out tokens · 62395 ms · 2026-05-07T14:52:02.234024+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

57 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    , keywords =

    Armstrong, J. W., Rickett, B. J., & Spangler, S. R. 1995, ApJ, 443, 209, doi: 10.1086/175515

    work page doi:10.1086/175515 1995

  2. [2]

    J., Duffy, A

    Batten, A. J., Duffy, A. R., Wijers, N. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1528

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1528 2021

  3. [3]

    2003, Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence

    Biskamp, D. 2003, Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence

    2003

  4. [4]

    D., Ravi, V ., Belov, K

    Bochenek, C. D., Ravi, V ., Belov, K. V ., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.10828. https: //arxiv.org/abs/2005.10828

    work page arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Chepurnov, A., Lazarian, A., Stanimirovi´c, S., Heiles, C., & Peek, J. E. G. 2010, ApJ, 714, 1398, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1398

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/714/2/1398 2010

  6. [6]

    Connoret al., Nature Astron.9, 1226 (2025), arXiv:2409.16952 [astro-ph.CO]

    Connor, L., Ravi, V ., Sharma, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16952, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16952

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.16952 2024

  7. [7]

    NE2001.I. A New Model for the Galactic Distribution of Free Electrons and its Fluctuations

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207156

    work page Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0207156 2002

  8. [8]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Deng, W., & Zhang, B. 2014, ApJL, 783, L35, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/L35

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/l35 2014

  9. [9]

    E., Hall, P

    Dewdney, P. E., Hall, P. J., Schilizzi, R. T., & Lazio, T. J. L. W. 2009, IEEE Proceedings, 97, 1482, doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2021005

    work page doi:10.1109/jproc.2009.2021005 2009

  10. [10]

    G., & Scalo, J

    Elmegreen, B. G., & Scalo, J. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 211, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094859

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094859 2004

  11. [11]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 1825, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19805.x

    Evoli, C., & Ferrara, A. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2721, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18343.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18343.x 2011

  12. [12]

    W., Morris, S

    Finn, C. W., Morris, S. L., Tejos, N., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 590, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw918 FRB Collaboration, Abbott, T., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.09399, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.09399

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw918 2016

  13. [13]

    H., Wu, Q., Hu, J

    Gao, D. H., Wu, Q., Hu, J. P., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A215, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453006

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453006 2025

  14. [14]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 1825, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19805.x

    Iapichino, L., Schmidt, W., Niemeyer, J. C., & Merklein, J. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 2297, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18550.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18550.x 2011

  15. [15]

    2003, ApJL, 598, L79, doi: 10.1086/380598

    Ioka, K. 2003, ApJL, 598, L79, doi: 10.1086/380598

    work page doi:10.1086/380598 2003

  16. [16]

    2008, Experimental Astronomy, 22, 151, doi: 10.1007/s10686-008-9124-7

    Johnston, S., Taylor, R., Bailes, M., et al. 2008, Experimental Astronomy, 22, 151, doi: 10.1007/s10686-008-9124-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s10686-008-9124-7 2008

  17. [17]

    2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 1, doi: 10.22323/1.277.0001

    Jonas, J., & MeerKAT Team. 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 1, doi: 10.22323/1.277.0001

    work page doi:10.22323/1.277.0001 2016

  18. [18]

    M., Connor, L., Semenov, V

    Konietzka, R. M., Connor, L., Semenov, V . A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.07090, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.07090

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.07090 2025

  19. [19]

    2016, ApJ, 818, 178, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/178

    Lazarian, A., & Pogosyan, D. 2016, ApJ, 818, 178, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/178

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/2/178 2016

  20. [20]

    2025a, ApJ, 989, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adeb72

    Li, R.-N., Xu, K., Gao, D.-H., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 989, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adeb72

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adeb72

  21. [21]

    , keywords =

    Li, R.-N., Zhao, Z.-Y ., Wu, Q., Yi, S.-X., & Wang, F.-Y . 2025b, ApJL, 979, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adabc2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adabc2 2041

  22. [22]

    R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

    Crawford, F. 2007, Science, 318, 777, doi: 10.1126/science.1147532

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1147532 2007

  23. [23]

    P., Prochaska, J

    Macquart, J. P., Prochaska, J. X., McQuinn, M., et al. 2020, Nature, 581, 391, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2 2020

  24. [24]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 780, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L33

    McQuinn, M. 2014, ApJL, 780, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L33

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/l33 2014

  25. [25]

    Michilli, D., Seymour, A., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 182, doi: 10.1038/nature25149

    work page doi:10.1038/nature25149 2018

  26. [26]

    First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: the galaxy color bimodality

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3040 2018

  27. [27]

    2026, Science Bulletin, 71, 76, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2025.11.023

    Niu, C.-H., Li, D., Yang, Y .-P., et al. 2026, Science Bulletin, 71, 76, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2025.11.023

    work page doi:10.1016/j.scib.2025.11.023 2026

  28. [28]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad77d3

    Oku, Y ., & Nagamine, K. 2024, ApJ, 975, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad77d3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad77d3 2024

  29. [29]

    C., Stappers, B., et al

    Pastor-Marazuela, I., Gordon, A. C., Stappers, B., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2144, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2144 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, AAP, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2144 2026

  30. [30]

    X., Macquart, J.-P., McQuinn, M., et al

    Prochaska, J. X., Macquart, J.-P., McQuinn, M., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 231, doi: 10.1126/science.aay0073

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aay0073 2019

  31. [31]

    F., O˜norbe, J., et al

    Rorai, A., Hennawi, J. F., O˜norbe, J., et al. 2017, Science, 356, 418, doi: 10.1126/science.aaf9346

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaf9346 2017

  32. [32]

    2008, Science, 320, 909, doi: 10.1126/science.1154923

    Ryu, D., Kang, H., Cho, J., & Das, S. 2008, Science, 320, 909, doi: 10.1126/science.1154923

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1154923 2008

  33. [33]

    Schuecker, P., Finoguenov, A., Miniati, F., B¨ohringer, H., & Briel, U. G. 2004, A&A, 426, 387, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041039

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041039 2004

  34. [34]

    O., & Rehberg, I

    Schulz-Dubois, E. O., & Rehberg, I. 1981, Applied Physics, 24, 323, doi: 10.1007/BF00899730

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00899730 1981

  35. [35]

    Signatures of Suppressed Matter Clustering revealed by Fast Radio Bursts

    Sharma, K., Krause, E., Ravi, V ., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.17162 12 L i et al

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    , keywords =

    Spitler, L. G., Cordes, J. M., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 790, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/790/2/101

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/790/2/101 2014

  37. [37]

    G., Herrmann, W., Bower, G

    Spitler, L. G., Herrmann, W., Bower, G. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad332

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad332 2018

  38. [38]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 2615, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab170

    Takahashi, R., Ioka, K., Mori, A., & Funahashi, K. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 2615, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab170

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab170 2021

  39. [39]

    L., Finn, C

    Tejos, N., Morris, S. L., Finn, C. W., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 2017, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1844 The CHIME/FRB Collaboration, :, Andersen, B. C., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.10324. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10324 The CHIME/FRB Collaboration, :, Amiri, M., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2106.04352. https: //arxiv.org/abs/2106.04352

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1844 2014

  40. [40]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 1825, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19805.x

    Ursino, E., Branchini, E., Galeazzi, M., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 2970, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18597.x V ogt, C., & Enßlin, T. A. 2005, A&A, 434, 67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041839

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18597.x 2011

  41. [41]

    Walker, C. R. H., Spitler, L. G., Ma, Y .-Z., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347139

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347139 2024

  42. [42]

    Y ., Lan, H

    Wang, F. Y ., Lan, H. T., Zhao, Z. Y ., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.07140. https: //arxiv.org/abs/2512.07140

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Y., Zhang, G

    Wang, F. Y ., Zhang, G. Q., Dai, Z. G., & Cheng, K. S. 2022, Nature Communications, 13, 4382, doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-31923-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-31923-y 2022

  44. [44]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac022

    Wu, Q., Zhang, G.-Q., & Wang, F.-Y . 2022, MNRAS, 515, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac022

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slac022 2022

  45. [45]

    2021, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 64, 249501, doi: 10.1007/s11433-020-1661-7

    Xiao, D., Wang, F., & Dai, Z. 2021, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 64, 249501, doi: 10.1007/s11433-020-1661-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-020-1661-7 2021

  46. [46]

    2023, Universe, 9, 330, doi: 10.3390/universe9070330

    Xu, J., Feng, Y ., Li, D., et al. 2023, Universe, 9, 330, doi: 10.3390/universe9070330

    work page doi:10.3390/universe9070330 2023

  47. [47]

    H., & Zhang, B

    Xu, S., Weinberg, D. H., & Zhang, B. 2021, ApJL, 922, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac399c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac399c 2021

  48. [48]

    2016a, ApJ, 824, 113, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/113 —

    Xu, S., & Zhang, B. 2016a, ApJ, 824, 113, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/113 —. 2016b, ApJ, 832, 199, doi: 10.3847 /0004-637X/832/2/199 —. 2020, ApJL, 898, L48, doi: 10.3847 /2041-8213/aba760

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/824/2/113 2020

  49. [49]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 2739, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa009

    Xu, X., & Zheng, Z. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2739, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa009

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa009 2020

  50. [50]

    B., Wu, Q., & Wang, F

    Yang, K. B., Wu, Q., & Wang, F. Y . 2022, ApJL, 940, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca145

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aca145 2022

  51. [51]

    M., Manchester, R

    Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N. 2017, ApJ, 835, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29 2017

  52. [52]

    , keywords =

    Zhang, B. 2017, ApJL, 836, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5ded —. 2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa5ded 2017

  53. [53]

    Q., Yu, H., He, J

    Zhang, G. Q., Yu, H., He, J. H., & Wang, F. Y . 2020, ApJ, 900, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaa4a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abaa4a 2020

  54. [54]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.12741, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.12741

    Zhang, Z., Nagamine, K., Oku, Y ., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.12741, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.12741

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.12741 2025

  55. [55]

    J., Yan, K., Li, C

    Zhang, Z. J., Yan, K., Li, C. M., Zhang, G. Q., & Wang, F. Y . 2021, ApJ, 906, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abceb9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abceb9 2021

  56. [56]

    2010, ApJ, 712, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/1

    Zhu, W., Feng, L.-l., & Fang, L.-Z. 2010, ApJ, 712, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/1

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/1/1 2010

  57. [57]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 1825, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19805.x

    Zhu, W., Feng, L.-L., & Fang, L.-Z. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1093, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18640.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18640.x 2011