pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.17617 · v1 · pith:CMBMKZTXnew · submitted 2026-06-16 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.GA· gr-qc· hep-ph

Synergy between CSST and future gravitational-wave detectors: Probing primordial black holes by cross-correlating dark sirens with galaxies

Ya-Nan Du , Ji-Yu Song , Jing-Fei Zhang , Xin Zhang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 00:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAgr-qchep-ph
keywords primordial black holesgravitational wavesgalaxy clusteringcross-correlationdark sirensCSSTclustering biasfuture detectors
0
0 comments X

The pith

Cross-correlating CSST galaxies with future gravitational-wave catalogs can statistically identify primordial black hole contributions to mergers above 20-40 percent.

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

The paper evaluates whether the expected difference in clustering between primordial black hole mergers and astrophysical black hole mergers can be measured through their cross-correlation with galaxies. It simulates this using the photometric galaxy catalog from the Chinese Space-station Survey Telescope together with mock gravitational-wave catalogs from the ET2CE and BDET2CE detector networks. The analysis finds that ten years of ET2CE data would reveal a primordial black hole signal once that population exceeds roughly 40 percent of the total merger rate, while the improved sky localization of BDET2CE lowers the threshold to about 20 percent. This supplies a statistical route to probing primordial black holes that relies on large-scale structure rather than individual event properties or electromagnetic counterparts.

Core claim

The cross-correlation between CSST galaxies and gravitational-wave events measures the effective clustering bias of the gravitational-wave population; because primordial black holes are expected to inhabit different environments than astrophysical black holes, this bias differs between the two populations, allowing a primordial black hole fraction above 40 percent to be detected with ET2CE and above 20 percent with BDET2CE after ten years of observation.

What carries the argument

The angular cross-power spectrum between galaxy overdensity and gravitational-wave event density, from which the effective bias of the gravitational-wave sources is extracted and compared against the bias expected for each population.

If this is right

  • CSST combined with ten years of ET2CE data detects a primordial black hole contribution once it exceeds 40 percent of the total merger rate.
  • The sharper sky localization provided by BDET2CE recovers small-scale clustering information and lowers the detectable threshold to 20 percent.
  • The method works for dark sirens without electromagnetic counterparts by using only sky positions and the galaxy survey.
  • This clustering-based approach supplies an independent probe of primordial black holes that does not rely on microlensing, accretion signatures, or cosmic microwave background constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the bias difference is confirmed, the same cross-correlation technique could be applied to future galaxy surveys with higher redshift reach to track changes in the primordial black hole merger fraction over cosmic time.
  • Combining this method with improved detector networks could test whether primordial black holes contribute to the dark matter density through their merger-rate imprint on large-scale structure.
  • The approach opens a route to cross-check results from other primordial black hole searches by using environmental clustering rather than mass or spin distributions alone.

Load-bearing premise

Primordial black holes and astrophysical black holes populate different environments and therefore exhibit measurably different clustering biases with galaxies.

What would settle it

A measured cross-correlation amplitude between CSST galaxies and gravitational-wave events that remains consistent with the astrophysical-black-hole bias even in simulated catalogs containing a 50 percent primordial black hole fraction would falsify the separation method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.17617 by Jing-Fei Zhang, Ji-Yu Song, Xin Zhang, Ya-Nan Du.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Detected GW number density and effective GW bias for different PBH fractions. The left panel shows the number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The theoretical angular power spectra with multipole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: SNR for distinguishing the AP model from the A model as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: GW effective bias compared with the 1σ A model bias constraints for 10-year observations. The panels show ET2CE GW auto-correlation only (left), ET2CE-CSST galaxy-GW cross-correlation (center), and BDET2CE-CSST galaxy-GW cross￾correlation (right). The gray bands show the A model 1σ uncertainties, while the colored curves show AP model effective biases for different PBH fractions. 0 1 D 0.5 1.0 1.5 C 0.0 0.… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The 1σ posterior constraints on the AP model parameters C, D, and f P for the fiducial case f P = 0.4. The constraints use the 10-year BDET2CE GW sample and the CSST photometric galaxy sample. Results are compared for the GW auto-correlation only (GWGW), the galaxy-GW cross-correlation only (gGW), and the joint analysis including the galaxy auto-correlation (total). GW bias leaves the pure-ABH uncertainty … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Gravitational-wave (GW) events and galaxies both trace the cosmic matter distribution, but the mergers of astrophysical black holes and primordial black holes (PBHs) are expected to populate different environments and therefore to cluster with different biases. The GW clustering bias is thus a statistical observable that can separate the two populations. We assess how well this can be done by cross-correlating the photometric galaxy survey of the Chinese Space-station Survey Telescope (CSST) with mock GW catalogs from two future detector networks: the third-generation ET2CE network (the Einstein Telescope and two Cosmic Explorer detectors) and the multi-band BDET2CE network, which adds the space-based baseline Decihertz Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory. We find that CSST combined with 10 years of ET2CE observations can reveal a PBH contribution once its fraction in the total merger rate exceeds about $40\%$, while the much sharper sky localization of BDET2CE lowers this threshold to about $20\%$. The improvement comes from recovering the small-scale clustering information that localization errors would otherwise erase. These results show that combining future GW detector networks with CSST galaxy clustering offers a promising and largely independent route to identifying PBHs statistically.

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

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a forecast study showing that cross-correlating galaxies from the CSST photometric survey with mock gravitational-wave (dark siren) catalogs from the ET2CE network can statistically reveal a primordial black hole (PBH) contribution to the total merger rate once that fraction exceeds ~40%; the BDET2CE network, with superior sky localization, lowers the threshold to ~20%. The separation relies on the assumption that PBHs and astrophysical black holes exhibit measurably different clustering biases with galaxies.

Significance. If the enabling premise of different clustering biases holds, the work supplies a largely independent statistical route to identifying PBHs that complements microlensing, dynamical, and CMB constraints. The use of mock catalogs to derive quantitative detection thresholds for two specific future detector networks, and the explicit demonstration that improved localization recovers small-scale clustering information, are clear strengths of the forecast approach.

minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states the 40% and 20% thresholds but does not quote the specific bias values adopted for the PBH and astrophysical populations; adding these numbers would make the central claim more self-contained.
  2. Section describing the mock catalog construction (redshift distribution, number of events, and error modeling) should explicitly state how the assumed bias difference is implemented and whether it is varied in robustness checks.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive summary and recommendation of minor revision. The report contains no specific major comments requiring point-by-point response.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper's central result consists of numerical detection thresholds (40% and 20% PBH fractions) obtained from forecasts on mock GW catalogs cross-correlated with CSST galaxies, under the explicit input assumption that PBHs and astrophysical BHs exhibit different clustering biases. This is a standard simulation-based forecast rather than a closed derivation; the thresholds follow from the modeling choices and do not reduce to fitted parameters or self-citations by construction. No self-definitional steps, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described chain. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; ledger is therefore minimal and provisional.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Primordial black holes and astrophysical black holes populate different environments and therefore cluster with different biases relative to galaxies.
    Invoked in the abstract as the basis for the statistical separation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5774 in / 1238 out tokens · 27800 ms · 2026-06-27T00:13:18.318793+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

119 extracted references · 31 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    with the Limber approximation to compute the the- oretical angular power spectra. For the GW-GW auto-correlation and galaxy-GW cross-correlation, we account for the signal attenuation due to sky localization errors of GW sources, as follows: CgGW ℓ (dL,i, zj)7→C gGW ℓ (dL,i, zj)×e −ℓ(ℓ+1)/ℓ2 damp ,(13) CGWGW ℓ (dL,i, dL,j)7→C GWGW ℓ (dL,i, dL,j) ×e −2ℓ(ℓ+...

    2018

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18083 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Baracket al., Class

    L. Baracket al., Class. Quant. Grav.36, 143001 (2019), arXiv:1806.05195 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.168, 399 (1974)

    1974

  6. [6]

    B. Carr, F. Kuhnel, and M. Sandstad, Phys. Rev. D 94, 083504 (2016), arXiv:1607.06077 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Carr and F

    B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes48, 1 (2022), arXiv:2110.02821 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Zhang and X

    C. Zhang and X. Zhang, JHEP10, 037 (2023), arXiv:2302.07002 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Zhang and X

    C. Zhang and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 100 (2024), arXiv:2308.07166 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Dom` enech, S

    G. Dom` enech, S. Pi, and A. Wang, (2026), arXiv:2602.24061 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    S. Pi, M. Sasaki, V. Takhistov, and J. Wang, JCAP 09, 045 (2025), arXiv:2501.00295 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    De Luca, G

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, A. Kehagias, M. Peloso, A. Riotto, and C. ¨Unal, JCAP07, 048 (2019), arXiv:1904.00970 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    C.-M. Yoo, T. Harada, J. Garriga, and K. Kohri, PTEP 2018, 123E01 (2018), [Erratum: PTEP 2024, 049202 (2024)], arXiv:1805.03946 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2018

  14. [14]

    Choudhury and A

    S. Choudhury and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Lett. B733, 270 (2014), arXiv:1307.5119 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  15. [15]

    Z. Zhou, J. Jiang, Y.-F. Cai, M. Sasaki, and S. Pi, Phys. Rev. D102, 103527 (2020), arXiv:2010.03537 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Pi and M

    S. Pi and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D108, L101301 (2023), arXiv:2112.12680 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    S. W. Hawking, I. G. Moss, and J. M. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D26, 2681 (1982)

    1982

  18. [18]

    I. G. Moss, Phys. Rev. D32, 1333 (1985)

    1985

  19. [19]

    Sasaki, T

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka, and S. Yokoyama, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 063001 (2018), arXiv:1801.05235 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  20. [20]

    Bellomo, J

    N. Bellomo, J. L. Bernal, A. Raccanelli, and L. Verde, JCAP01, 004 (2018), arXiv:1709.07467 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    N. Jia, C. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2603.29790 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    Jia, S.-S

    N. Jia, S.-S. Bao, C. Zhang, H. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JHEP09, 195 (2025), arXiv:2504.18935 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    C. Yang, S. Wang, M.-L. Zhao, and X. Zhang, JCAP 10, 083 (2024), arXiv:2408.10897 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Yang, J.-D

    C. Yang, J.-D. Pan, and X. Zhang, JCAP09, 004 (2025), arXiv:2504.17478 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Yang, J.-D

    C. Yang, J.-D. Pan, and X. Zhang, Commun. Theor. Phys.78, 045402 (2026), arXiv:2412.09297 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Caoet al.(LHAASO), Phys

    Z. Caoet al.(LHAASO), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 181005 (2025), arXiv:2505.24586 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    M.-L. Zhao, Y. Shao, S. Wang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D113, 043531 (2026), arXiv:2509.05705 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    M.-L. Zhao, Y. Shao, S. Wang, and X. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C50, 025101 (2026), arXiv:2507.02651 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    M.-L. Zhao, S. Wang, and X. Zhang, JCAP07, 039 (2025), arXiv:2412.19257 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    W. Hong, S. Pi, A. Wang, and Z. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2601.05069 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    Fumagalli, J

    J. Fumagalli, J. Garriga, C. Germani, and R. K. Sheth, Phys. Rev. D111, 123518 (2025), arXiv:2412.07709 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    S. Bird, I. Cholis, J. B. Mu˜ noz, Y. Ali-Ha¨ ımoud, M. Kamionkowski, E. D. Kovetz, A. Raccanelli, and A. G. Riess, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 201301 (2016), arXiv:1603.00464 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    De Luca, G

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, P. Pani, and A. Riotto, JCAP06, 044 (2020), arXiv:2005.05641 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Franciolini, V

    G. Franciolini, V. Baibhav, V. De Luca, K. K. Y. Ng, K. W. K. Wong, E. Berti, P. Pani, A. Riotto, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D105, 083526 (2022), arXiv:2105.03349 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    Andr´ es-Carcasona, A

    M. Andr´ es-Carcasona, A. J. Iovino, E. Vallejo-Pag` es, V. Vaskonen, H. Veerm¨ ae, M. Mart´ ınez, and L. M. Mir, (2026), arXiv:2605.15749 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    Peron, A

    M. Peron, A. Ravenni, S. Libanore, M. Liguori, and M. C. Artale, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.530, 1129 (2024), arXiv:2305.18003 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Raccanelli, E

    A. Raccanelli, E. D. Kovetz, S. Bird, I. Cholis, and J. B. Munoz, Phys. Rev. D94, 023516 (2016), arXiv:1605.01405 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  38. [38]

    Holst, G

    I. Holst, G. Krnjaic, and H. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D112, 083527 (2025), arXiv:2412.01890 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Namikawa, A

    T. Namikawa, A. Nishizawa, and A. Taruya, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 121302 (2016), arXiv:1511.04638 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  40. [40]

    C. C. Diaz and S. Mukherjee, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.511, 2782 (2022), arXiv:2107.12787 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Libanore, M

    S. Libanore, M. C. Artale, D. Karagiannis, M. Liguori, N. Bartolo, Y. Bouffanais, N. Gia- cobbo, M. Mapelli, and S. Matarrese, JCAP02, 035 (2021), arXiv:2007.06905 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Libanore, M

    S. Libanore, M. C. Artale, D. Karagiannis, M. Liguori, N. Bartolo, Y. Bouffanais, M. Mapelli, and S. Matar- rese, JCAP02, 003 (2022), arXiv:2109.10857 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    B. F. Schutz, Nature323, 310 (1986)

    1986

  44. [44]

    W. Zhao, C. Van Den Broeck, D. Baskaran, and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. D83, 023005 (2011), arXiv:1009.0206 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  45. [45]

    Cai and T

    R.-G. Cai and T. Yang, Phys. Rev. D95, 044024 (2017), arXiv:1608.08008 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    Wang, X.-N

    L.-F. Wang, X.-N. Zhang, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B782, 87 (2018), arXiv:1802.04720 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [47]

    Zhang, L.-F

    X.-N. Zhang, L.-F. Wang, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D99, 063510 (2019), arXiv:1804.08379 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  48. [48]

    Zhang, Sci

    X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.62, 110431 (2019), arXiv:1905.11122 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    Zhang, M

    J.-F. Zhang, M. Zhang, S.-J. Jin, J.-Z. Qi, and X. Zhang, JCAP09, 068 (2019), arXiv:1907.03238 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2019

  50. [50]

    Wang, Z.-W

    L.-F. Wang, Z.-W. Zhao, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP11, 012 (2020), arXiv:1907.01838 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  51. [51]

    Jin, D.-Z

    S.-J. Jin, D.-Z. He, Y. Xu, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP03, 051 (2020), arXiv:2001.05393 [astro-ph.CO]. 12

    arXiv 2020

  52. [52]

    Qi, S.-J

    J.-Z. Qi, S.-J. Jin, X.-L. Fan, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP12, 042 (2021), arXiv:2102.01292 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    Jin, L.-F

    S.-J. Jin, L.-F. Wang, P.-J. Wu, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D104, 103507 (2021), arXiv:2106.01859 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Wang, S.-J

    L.-F. Wang, S.-J. Jin, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.65, 210411 (2022), arXiv:2101.11882 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    P.-J. Wu, Y. Shao, S.-J. Jin, and X. Zhang, JCAP06, 052 (2023), arXiv:2202.09726 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Jin, R.-Q

    S.-J. Jin, R.-Q. Zhu, L.-F. Wang, H.-L. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Commun. Theor. Phys.74, 105404 (2022), arXiv:2204.04689 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    L.-F. Wang, Y. Shao, S.-R. Xiao, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP05, 095 (2025), arXiv:2201.00607 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Jin, R.-Q

    S.-J. Jin, R.-Q. Zhu, J.-Y. Song, T. Han, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP08, 050 (2024), arXiv:2309.11900 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    J. Yu, Z. Liu, X. Yang, Y. Wang, P. Zhang, X. Zhang, and W. Zhao, Astrophys. J. Suppl.270, 24 (2024), arXiv:2311.11588 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    Jin, Y.-Z

    S.-J. Jin, Y.-Z. Zhang, J.-Y. Song, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.67, 220412 (2024), arXiv:2305.19714 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    Han, S.-J

    T. Han, S.-J. Jin, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 663 (2024), arXiv:2309.14965 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Jin, S.-S

    S.-J. Jin, S.-S. Xing, Y. Shao, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C47, 065104 (2023), arXiv:2301.06722 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  63. [63]

    L. Feng, T. Han, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Com- mun. Theor. Phys.77, 065403 (2025), arXiv:2409.04453 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    L. Feng, T. Han, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C48, 095104 (2024), arXiv:2404.19530 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    T. Han, Z. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Universe11, 85 (2025), arXiv:2412.06873 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Han, J.-F

    T. Han, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 86, 8 (2026), arXiv:2504.17741 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    L. Feng, T. Han, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Chin. Phys.50, 015105 (2026), arXiv:2507.17315 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    Zhao, L.-F

    Z.-W. Zhao, L.-F. Wang, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. Bull.65, 1340 (2020), arXiv:1912.11629 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  69. [69]

    Jin, J.-Y

    S.-J. Jin, J.-Y. Song, T.-Y. Sun, S.-R. Xiao, H. Wang, L.-F. Wang, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.69, 220401 (2026), arXiv:2507.12965 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  70. [70]

    H.-Y. Chen, M. Fishbach, and D. E. Holz, Nature562, 545 (2018), arXiv:1712.06531 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  71. [71]

    Grayet al., Phys

    R. Grayet al., Phys. Rev. D101, 122001 (2020), arXiv:1908.06050 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2020

  72. [72]

    J. Yu, Y. Wang, W. Zhao, and Y. Lu, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.498, 1786 (2020), arXiv:2003.06586 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  73. [73]

    Zhu, Y.-M

    L.-G. Zhu, Y.-M. Hu, H.-T. Wang, J.-d. Zhang, X.-D. Li, M. Hendry, and J. Mei, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013247 (2022), arXiv:2104.11956 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  74. [74]

    Zhu, L.-H

    L.-G. Zhu, L.-H. Xie, Y.-M. Hu, S. Liu, E.-K. Li, N. R. Napolitano, B.-T. Tang, J.-d. Zhang, and J. Mei, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.65, 259811 (2022), arXiv:2110.05224 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  75. [75]

    Jin, T.-N

    S.-J. Jin, T.-N. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP 08, 070 (2023), arXiv:2202.11882 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  76. [76]

    Li, S.-J

    T.-N. Li, S.-J. Jin, H.-L. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Astrophys. J.963, 52 (2024), arXiv:2310.15879 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    Yun, W.-B

    Q. Yun, W.-B. Han, Q. Hu, and H. Xu, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.527, L60 (2023), arXiv:2310.13629 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    S.-R. Xiao, Y. Shao, L.-F. Wang, J.-Y. Song, L. Feng, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP04, 060 (2025), arXiv:2408.00609 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    Zhu, H.-M

    L.-G. Zhu, H.-M. Fan, X. Chen, Y.-M. Hu, and J.-d. Zhang, Astrophys. J. Suppl.273, 24 (2024), arXiv:2403.04950 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  80. [80]

    Zheng, X.-H

    J. Zheng, X.-H. Liu, and J.-Z. Qi, Astrophys. J.975, 215 (2024), arXiv:2407.05686 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.