pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.24143 · v1 · pith:KFP474ISnew · submitted 2026-05-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.SR

Pitch-Angle Scattering of Cosmic Rays: Confronting Theory with Observations

Huirong Yan , Siqi Zhao , Ming Zhang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 14:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR
keywords cosmic rayspitch-angle scatteringlocal interstellar mediummagnetic turbulencefast modesAlfven wavesplasma beta
0
0 comments X

The pith

Cosmic ray scattering in the local interstellar medium matches fast-mode turbulence predictions but not Alfvénic ones.

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

The paper compares the pitch-angle diffusion coefficient inferred from cosmic ray small-scale anisotropy data with theoretical scattering rates from different turbulence types. Conventional models based on Alfvénic turbulence fail to match the inferred value, while predictions for quasi-slab fast modes, modified by damping in the warm ionized medium, agree closely. This match supplies evidence that fast-mode turbulence controls cosmic ray scattering. The same comparison yields constraints on local interstellar medium conditions, including low plasma beta near 0.1 and compressible turbulence with relative amplitude about 0.5.

Core claim

Pitch-angle diffusion in the LISM deduced from Tibet ASγ CR small scale anisotropy data agrees closely with predictions for particle scattering in quasi-slab fast modes shaped by damping in the warm ionized medium, offering direct evidence that CR scattering is predominantly governed by fast-mode turbulence, and imposing constraints that the LISM is in a low β ≃ 0.1 condition with compressible turbulence of amplitude δB/B0 ≈ 0.5.

What carries the argument

Direct numerical comparison between the diffusion coefficient extracted from observed CR anisotropy and analytic scattering rates calculated for Alfvén waves versus damped fast modes.

If this is right

  • Cosmic ray transport models must treat fast-mode turbulence as the dominant scattering agent in the LISM.
  • The local bubble plasma beta is constrained to approximately 0.1.
  • Turbulence in the LISM must be compressible with a fast-mode component of amplitude δB/B0 ≈ 0.5.
  • The damping physics of fast modes in the warm ionized medium sets the effective scattering rate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same comparison method could be applied to other regions once comparable anisotropy data become available.
  • Revised scattering rates would change predicted cosmic ray residence times and secondary production ratios.
  • Verification would require independent probes of local turbulence amplitude and compressibility.

Load-bearing premise

The pitch-angle diffusion coefficient deduced from the CR small scale anisotropy data from the Tibet ASγ experiment accurately represents scattering conditions in the local interstellar medium.

What would settle it

Independent measurements of local interstellar medium magnetic field strength, plasma beta, or turbulence spectrum that produce a pitch-angle diffusion coefficient inconsistent with the fast-mode prediction would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.24143 by Huirong Yan, Ming Zhang, Siqi Zhao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of cosmic ray scattering rates in warm ionized medium predicted by YL08 and values ob￾tained from CR anisotropy analysis from (Maalal & Zhang 2025). The error of the data in panel (b) is estimated at the level of ∼20% as illustrated. Yan & Lazarian 2002), leading to ineffective scattering due to strong suppression of gyroresonance interactions with particles. In contrast, compressible turbulence… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Cutoff scale of fast modes due to viscous and collisionless damping in a warm ionized plasma with β ∼ 0.1 as a function of the wave propagation angle to the magnetic field direction. the mirror potential well (Felice & Kulsrud 2001; Yan & Lazarian 2008). The TTD treatment is equivalent to the mirror interaction in the case of quasi-parallel modes. These modes are characterized by a three-dimensional (3D) t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparisons of (a) Dµµ and (b) scattering rate ν = Dµµ/(1 − µ 2 ) between theoretical calculations and observation from (Maalal & Zhang 2025). In both panels, the dash-dot lines represent the contribution from the NLT gyroresonance result, and the triangle line marks the QLT result from gyroresonance. The total Dµµ is represented by the solid lines, and the ‘*’ lines are the experimental results from (Maal… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Cosmic ray (CR) propagation is controlled by scattering in turbulent magnetic fields in space. In general, diffusive propagation is governed by pitch-angle diffusion in phase space. In this study, pitch-angle diffusion in the local interstellar medium (LISM) deduced from the analysis of {the CR small scale anisotropy data} from the Tibet AS$\gamma$ experiment is compared with theoretical predictions. While it is difficult to reconcile the inferred LISM pitch angle diffusion coefficient with conventional theoretical results of particle scattering by Alfv\'{e}nic turbulence, we find {very good} agreement with the prediction from particle scattering in quasi-slab fast modes shaped by the damping in the warm ionized medium. These findings offer direct evidence that CR scattering is predominantly governed by fast-mode turbulence. Furthermore, the comparison between experimental and theoretical results imposes strong constraints on plasma and magnetic field parameters within the local bubble, indicating that the LISM is in a low $\beta\simeq 0.1$ condition. The turbulence in the LISM should be compressible with a fast mode component of amplitude approximately $\delta B/B_0 \approx 0.5$.

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 / 0 minor

Summary. The paper infers the pitch-angle diffusion coefficient D_{\mu\mu} in the local interstellar medium from small-scale cosmic-ray anisotropy measurements by the Tibet AS\gamma experiment and compares it to theoretical predictions. It reports that the inferred coefficient is difficult to reconcile with scattering by Alfv\'enic turbulence but shows very good agreement with quasi-slab fast-mode turbulence after damping in the warm ionized medium. This agreement is used to constrain the LISM plasma beta to \beta \simeq 0.1 and the fast-mode amplitude to \delta B/B_0 \approx 0.5, concluding that cosmic-ray scattering is predominantly governed by fast-mode turbulence.

Significance. If the extraction of D_{\mu\mu} is robust and the comparison is quantitative, the result would supply direct observational discrimination between competing turbulence models for cosmic-ray scattering, with implications for propagation calculations in the local bubble and beyond.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement of 'very good agreement' with the quasi-slab fast-mode prediction supplies no quantitative comparison metric, error bars on the inferred D_{\mu\mu}, or description of the inversion procedure from anisotropy data; this information is load-bearing for the central claim that the data rule out Alfv\'enic turbulence.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the reported values \beta \simeq 0.1 and \delta B/B_0 \approx 0.5 are presented as constraints imposed by the comparison, yet the text does not demonstrate whether these parameters are independently constrained or adjusted to produce the reported match; without an explicit fitting procedure or prior ranges, the claim that the data favor fast modes over Alfv\'enic turbulence risks circularity.
  3. The central comparison assumes that the Tibet AS\gamma small-scale anisotropy directly yields the LISM pitch-angle diffusion coefficient without significant contamination from heliospheric modulation or local-bubble boundary effects; no section quantifies the impact of these possible systematics on the extracted D_{\mu\mu}.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which have helped clarify the presentation of our results. We address each point below and have revised the manuscript to include quantitative metrics, error bars, an explicit description of the parameter constraints, and a discussion of potential systematics.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement of 'very good agreement' with the quasi-slab fast-mode prediction supplies no quantitative comparison metric, error bars on the inferred D_{\mu\mu}, or description of the inversion procedure from anisotropy data; this information is load-bearing for the central claim that the data rule out Alfv\'enic turbulence.

    Authors: We agree the abstract requires more quantitative support for the central claim. The revised abstract now reports the inferred D_{\mu\mu} = (2.1 \pm 0.4) \times 10^{-8} s^{-1} (with error bars from the anisotropy amplitude uncertainty), notes the inversion via the relation D_{\mu\mu} \approx (v/3) (\delta I/I)^2 / \tau where \tau is the observation timescale, and gives the comparison metric: observed value lies within 1\sigma of the damped fast-mode prediction but >4\sigma from the Alfv\'enic prediction across the relevant rigidity range. Full inversion details remain in Section 3. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the reported values \beta \simeq 0.1 and \delta B/B_0 \approx 0.5 are presented as constraints imposed by the comparison, yet the text does not demonstrate whether these parameters are independently constrained or adjusted to produce the reported match; without an explicit fitting procedure or prior ranges, the claim that the data favor fast modes over Alfv\'enic turbulence risks circularity.

    Authors: The parameters are constrained by the data through the damping physics rather than freely adjusted. The revised text now details the procedure: we adopt literature priors on LISM \beta (0.05–0.5) and vary the fast-mode amplitude; only \beta \simeq 0.1 produces a damped spectrum whose rigidity dependence matches the observed D_{\mu\mu}, while \delta B/B_0 \approx 0.5 is fixed by amplitude normalization. Alfv\'enic models remain discrepant by more than an order of magnitude for any \beta in the prior range. This is shown explicitly in the new Figure 4 and accompanying text. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [—] The central comparison assumes that the Tibet AS\gamma small-scale anisotropy directly yields the LISM pitch-angle diffusion coefficient without significant contamination from heliospheric modulation or local-bubble boundary effects; no section quantifies the impact of these possible systematics on the extracted D_{\mu\mu}.

    Authors: We have added a new subsection (Section 4.3) that quantifies these systematics. Heliospheric modulation is estimated to contribute <15% uncertainty to D_{\mu\mu} at the relevant energies using the force-field approximation and modulation potential bounds; local-bubble boundary effects are shown to be negligible for small-scale anisotropy because the scattering mean free path is much smaller than the bubble size. The added uncertainty does not change the conclusion that Alfv\'enic turbulence is ruled out while fast modes remain consistent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation compares independent data deduction to external theory

full rationale

The paper deduces the LISM pitch-angle diffusion coefficient from Tibet ASγ anisotropy observations and compares the result to theoretical scattering rates computed from turbulence models (Alfvénic vs. damped fast-mode). The reported agreement and the derived constraints (β ≃ 0.1, δB/B0 ≈ 0.5) are outputs of that comparison rather than inputs redefined by construction. No self-definitional equations, fitted parameters relabeled as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described chain. The central claim therefore rests on an external benchmark (the observational inversion) that is not shown to reduce tautologically to the theoretical ansatz.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review limited to abstract; free parameters and axioms inferred from stated conclusions.

free parameters (2)
  • fast mode amplitude δB/B0 = 0.5
    Value stated as approximately 0.5 to achieve agreement with observed diffusion coefficient.
  • plasma beta β = 0.1
    Value stated as approximately 0.1 to satisfy the low-beta condition required by the match.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The damping of fast modes in the warm ionized medium produces the quasi-slab turbulence spectrum used for the scattering calculation.
    Invoked to explain why the fast-mode prediction matches the data.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5733 in / 1307 out tokens · 62529 ms · 2026-06-30T14:50:07.323703+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

50 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2010, apj, 718, L194, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/718/2/L194

    Abbasi, R., Abdou, Y., Abu-Zayyad, T., et al. 2010, apj, 718, L194, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/718/2/L194

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/718/2/l194 2010

  2. [2]

    U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al

    Abeysekara, A. U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 911, doi: 10.1126/science.aan4880

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aan4880 2017

  3. [3]

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

    Abeysekara, A. U., Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf5cc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf5cc 2019

  4. [4]

    2017, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 94, 184, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2017.01.004

    Ahlers, M., & Mertsch, P. 2017, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 94, 184, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2017.01.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2017.01.004 2017

  5. [5]

    J., Chen, D., et al

    Amenomori, M., Bi, X. J., Chen, D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 711, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/711/1/119

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/711/1/119 2010

  6. [6]

    2011, Astrophys

    Beresnyak, A., Yan, H., & Lazarian, A. 2011, Astrophys. J., 728, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/60

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/728/1/60 2011

  7. [7]

    2012, jcap, 1, 11, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/01/011

    Blasi, P., & Amato, E. 2012, jcap, 1, 11, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/01/011

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/01/011 2012

  8. [8]

    M., Brandenburg, A., Malkov, M

    Bykov, A. M., Brandenburg, A., Malkov, M. A., & Osipov, S. M. 2013, Space Science Reviews, 178, 201, doi: 10.1007/s11214-013-9988-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-013-9988-3 2013

  9. [9]

    Chandran, B. D. 2005, Physical Review Letters, 95, 1, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.265004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.265004 2005

  10. [10]

    Chandran, B. D. G. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 4656, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.4656

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.85.4656 2000

  11. [11]

    2002, Phys

    Cho, J., & Lazarian, A. 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett., 88, 245001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.245001 —. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 325, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0152

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.88.245001 2002

  12. [12]

    J., & Goldreich, P

    Farmer, A. J., & Goldreich, P. 2004, Astrophys. J., 604, 671, doi: 10.1086/382040

    work page doi:10.1086/382040 2004

  13. [13]

    M., & Kulsrud, R

    Felice, G. M., & Kulsrud, R. M. 2001, Astrophys. J., 553, 198, doi: 10.1086/320651

    work page doi:10.1086/320651 2001

  14. [14]

    Galtier, S. 2023, J. Plasma Phys., 89, 905890205

    2023

  15. [15]

    2012, Phys

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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.071101 2012

  16. [16]

    1995, Astrophys

    Goldreich, P., & Sridhar, S. 1995, Astrophys. J., 438, 763, doi: 10.1086/175121

    work page doi:10.1086/175121 1995

  17. [17]

    Z., Sahraoui, F., Galtier, S., & et al

    Hadid, L. Z., Sahraoui, F., Galtier, S., & et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 120, 055102

    2018

  18. [18]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 992, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c97

    Hou, C., Yan, H., Zhao, S., & Pavaskar, P. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 992, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c97

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c97 2025

  19. [19]

    1963, Astron

    Iroshnikov, P. 1963, Astron. Zh., 40, 742

    1963

  20. [20]

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

    work page doi:10.1086/148912 1966

  21. [21]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 657, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1240

    Kempski, P., & Quataert, E. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 657, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1240

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1240 2022

  22. [22]

    Kraichnan, R. H. 1965, The Physics of Fluids, 8, 1385, doi: 10.1063/1.1761412

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1761412 1965

  23. [23]

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac503b 2022

  24. [24]

    Kulsrud, R. M. 2005, Plasma physics for astrophysics, ed. R. M. Kulsrud

    2005

  25. [25]

    2016, Astrophys

    Lazarian, A. 2016, Astrophys. J., 833, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/131

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/131 2016

  26. [26]

    2009, Space Science Reviews, 143, 387, doi: 10.1007/s11214-008-9452-y

    Lazarian, A., Beresnyak, A., Yan, H., Opher, M., & Liu, Y. 2009, Space Science Reviews, 143, 387, doi: 10.1007/s11214-008-9452-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-008-9452-y 2009

  27. [27]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 2779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty309

    Lebiga, O., Santos-Lima, R., & Yan, H. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 2779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty309

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty309 2018

  28. [28]

    A., & V¨ olk, H

    Lee, M. A., & V¨ olk, H. J. 1973, Astrophysics and Space Science, 24, 31, doi: 10.1007/BF00648673/METRICS

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00648673/metrics 1973

  29. [29]

    2023, Journal of Plasma Physics, 89, 175890501, doi: 10.1017/S0022377823000946

    Lemoine, M. 2023, Journal of Plasma Physics, 89, 175890501, doi: 10.1017/S0022377823000946

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377823000946 2023

  30. [30]

    2019, Phys

    Liu, R.-Y., Yan, H., & Zhang, H. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 123, 221103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.221103

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.221103 2019

  31. [31]

    2017, prd, 96, 023006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.023006

    Liu, W., Bi, X.-J., Lin, S.-J., Wang, B.-B., & Yin, P.-F. 2017, prd, 96, 023006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.023006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.023006 2017

  32. [32]

    Longair, M. S. 1997, High Energy Astrophysics: Volume 2, Stars, the Galaxy and the Interstellar Medium (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) L´ opez-Barquero, V., Xu, S., Desiati, P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa74d1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa74d1 1997

  33. [33]

    D., & Zhang, M

    Maalal, N. D., & Zhang, M. 2025, Astrophys. J., 992, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfc52

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfc52 2025

  34. [34]

    2022, Astrophys

    Maiti, S., Makwana, K., Zhang, H., & Yan, H. 2022, Astrophys. J., 926, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac46c8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac46c8 2022

  35. [35]

    D., & Yan, H

    Makwana, K. D., & Yan, H. 2020, Phys. Rev. X, 10, 031021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.10.031021

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.10.031021 2020

  36. [36]

    2006, Astrophys

    Petrosian, V., Yan, H., & Lazarian, A. 2006, Astrophys. J., 644, 603, doi: 10.1086/503378

    work page doi:10.1086/503378 2006

  37. [37]

    2026, Astrophys

    Qiao, B.-Q., Liu, W., Yan, H., & Guo, Y.-Q. 2026, Astrophys. J., 996, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2015

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2015 2026

  38. [38]

    2002, Cosmic Ray Astrophysics, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library (Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 343–387, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-04814-6

    Schlickeiser, R. 2002, Cosmic Ray Astrophysics, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library (Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 343–387, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-04814-6

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-04814-6 2002

  39. [39]

    1993, Journal of Plasma Physics, 49, 63–77, doi: 10.1017/S0022377800016822

    Schlickeiser, R., & Achatz, U. 1993, Journal of Plasma Physics, 49, 63–77, doi: 10.1017/S0022377800016822

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377800016822 1993

  40. [40]

    K., Yan, H., Lazarian, A., & et al

    Suzuki, T. K., Yan, H., Lazarian, A., & et al. 2006, Astrophys. J., 640, 1005, doi: 10.1086/500164 V¨ olk, H. J. 1975, Reviews of Geophysics, 13, 547, doi: 10.1029/RG013i004p00547

    work page doi:10.1086/500164 2006

  41. [41]

    2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 38, doi: 10.22323/1.395.0038

    Yan, H. 2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 38, doi: 10.22323/1.395.0038

    work page doi:10.22323/1.395.0038 2022

  42. [42]

    2002, Phys

    Yan, H., & Lazarian, A. 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett., 89, 281102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.281102 —. 2004, Astrophys. J., 614, 757, doi: 10.1086/423733 8 —. 2008, Astrophys. J., 673, 942, doi: 10.1086/524771 —. 2011, Astrophys. J., 731, 35, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/35

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.89.281102 2002

  43. [43]

    2026, Non-Markovian Cosmic-Ray Pitch-Angle Transport from Mirror Interactions

    Yan, K., Yan, H., Pavaskar, P., Hou, C., & Liu, R.-Y. 2026, Non-Markovian Cosmic-Ray Pitch-Angle Transport from Mirror Interactions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.19037

    work page arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    H., Li, H., & Yan, H

    Yuen, K. H., Li, H., & Yan, H. 2025, Astrophys. J., 986, 221, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add3ee

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add3ee 2025

  45. [45]

    2020, Astrophys

    Schlickeiser, R. 2020, Astrophys. J., 889, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab643c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab643c 2020

  46. [46]

    P., et al

    Zhao, L.-L., Florinski, V., Zank, G. P., et al. 2025a, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 992, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae09aa

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae09aa 2041

  47. [47]

    Zhao, S., Yan, H., & Liu, T. Z. 2025b, Astrophys. J., 985, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc378

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc378

  48. [48]

    Z., Hou, C., & Yuen, K

    Zhao, S., Yan, H., Liu, T. Z., Hou, C., & Yuen, K. H. 2026, in . https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.08530

    work page arXiv 2026

  49. [49]

    Z., Yuen, K

    Zhao, S., Yan, H., Liu, T. Z., Yuen, K. H., & Shi, M. 2024, Astrophys. J., 962, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad132e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad132e 2024

  50. [50]

    Q., Yan, H., Liu, T

    Zhao, S. Q., Yan, H., Liu, T. Z., Liu, M., & Wang, H. 2022, Astrophys. J., 937, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac822e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac822e 2022