pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.27037 · v1 · pith:N77Q4N5Xnew · submitted 2026-06-25 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Gamma-ray Bursts and Kilonovae from Gravitational Wave Events

Alberto Colombo , Marcello Giroletti , Susanna D. Vergani , Lauren Rhodes This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 03:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-ray burstskilonovaegravitational wavesradio afterglowsSKAOmultimessenger astronomyneutron star mergersjet structures
0
0 comments X

The pith

Radio observations remain the most effective method for identifying and tracking gravitational wave merger counterparts over long periods.

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

The paper reviews prospects for joint gravitational wave and electromagnetic observations following binary neutron star mergers. It establishes that radio emission from gamma-ray burst afterglows stays detectable for very long times whether the jet is on-axis or off-axis. This positions radio as the key domain for long-term identification and tracking of counterparts from gravitational wave events. The initial configuration of the SKAO supplies the necessary sensitivity and field of view to support these searches during the next observing run and beyond. The same capabilities also enable independent population studies of both long and short gamma-ray bursts along with their jets and environments.

Core claim

Radio emission from gamma-ray burst afterglows, whether on- or off-axis, remains detectable for very long time, making radio observations the most effective method for identifying and tracking gravitational wave merger counterparts. These observations enable precise characterization of system evolution, detailed probing of gamma-ray burst jet structures, and possible detection of misaligned jets once their velocity becomes non-relativistic. Even in its initial configuration the SKAO will provide the sensitivity and field of view needed to complement gravitational wave counterpart searches during the next observing run and beyond.

What carries the argument

The SKAO in its initial configuration, which supplies the sensitivity and field of view required for long-term radio monitoring of gamma-ray burst afterglows from gravitational wave events.

If this is right

  • Precise characterization of the evolution of systems producing gravitational wave mergers.
  • Detailed probing of gamma-ray burst jet structures through long-term radio data.
  • Detection of misaligned jets once their velocity becomes non-relativistic.
  • Population studies of the properties of both long and short gamma-ray bursts, their jets, and their environments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Radio monitoring could extend the scientific return from next-generation gravitational wave detectors planned for the 2030s by providing extended electromagnetic coverage.
  • Long-baseline radio data might reveal new statistical links between kilonova properties and gamma-ray burst jet parameters across large samples.
  • The same observations could test whether off-axis events dominate the undetected fraction of short gamma-ray bursts.

Load-bearing premise

The initial SKAO configuration supplies the sensitivity and field of view needed to complement gravitational wave counterpart searches during the next observing run and beyond.

What would settle it

Absence of detectable radio afterglow emission from a confirmed gravitational wave merger event over multi-year timescales would undermine the claim that radio provides the most effective long-term tracking method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.27037 by Alberto Colombo, Lauren Rhodes, Marcello Giroletti, Susanna D. Vergani.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Part of the light curves (top) and spectral energy distribution (bottom) of long-duration GRB 221009A (Rhodes et al., 2024). Radio long timescale and multi-frequency observations were vital in order to deconstruct the afterglow into three separate shock components originating from a forward shock, reverse shock and broader cocoon as denoted by the dot-dash, dashed and dotted lines, respectively. (Burlon et… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left Panel (adapted from Ghirlanda et al. 2019): (A): Global-VLBI observed radio images of GRB 170817A. The apparent source size is constrained to be smaller than 2.5 mas at the 90% confidence level. (B): a zoom on the position of the source, with black error bars showing positions at 75 days and 230 days after the merger (Mooley et al., 2018a), probing the superluminal motion of the source. Right Panel (a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Random sample of GRB afterglow light curves (grey lines) at 6.55 GHz for ET-detectable BNS mergers, assuming the ET2L network. The red contours enclose 50%, 90%, and 99% of the peak-flux density distribution of the full population (solid, dashed, and dotted lines). The blue contours show the corresponding distribution for the subset of afterglows with peak flux densities above the SKAO–AA4 10-min 5𝜎 sensit… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Joint GW and GRB afterglow at 6.55 GHz detection rate as a function of the EM detection limit threshold for BNSs. We indicate in red, light red and black the ET2L, ETΔ and ET2L+2CE configurations. The solid line indicates all the detectable binaries, the dashed and dotted lines the detectable binaries with a sky localization ΔΩ90% < 100deg2 and the ones with ΔΩ90% < 10deg2 , respectively. The two grey vert… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The detection of gravitational waves (GWs) from binary black holes in 2015 and the joint GW-electromagnetic (EM) observation of the binary neutron star merger GW170817 set a milestone in the multimessenger era in astrophysics. After four observing runs by the LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA interferometers, a new cycle is planned for 2028, paving the way for next-generation detectors in the 2030s -- such as the Einstein Telescope, Cosmic Explorer, and LISA. The prospects for joint GW-EM studies, including kilonova searches in wide optical surveys, are vast but demanding. In the radio domain, connected interferometers and VLBI arrays have already proven essential in constraining the ejecta properties of GW170817. Radio emission from gamma-ray burst (GRB) afterglows, whether on- or off-axis, remains detectable for very long time, making radio observations the most effective method for identifying and tracking GW merger counterparts. These observations enable precise characterization of system evolution, detailed probing of GRB jet structures, and possible detection of misaligned jets once their velocity becomes non-relativistic. Even in its initial configuration (AA*), the SKAO will provide the sensitivity and field of view needed to complement GW counterpart searches during O5 and beyond, offering unmatched capabilities for long-term monitoring. Furthermore, independent of the GW detections, SKAO will enable population studies of the properties of both long (produced by the collapse of massive stars) and short (produced by the merger of neutron stars) GRBs, of their jets and of their environment. We present an overview of this evolving observational landscape and of the key scientific questions SKAO will address.

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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper is a review/overview of the multimessenger prospects for gravitational-wave events from binary neutron star mergers, focusing on associated gamma-ray bursts, kilonovae, and the unique long-term role of radio afterglow observations; it argues that radio remains detectable longest, making it the most effective method for identifying/tracking counterparts and characterizing evolution, and asserts that even the initial AA* SKAO configuration will suffice for O5-era searches while also enabling independent GRB population studies.

Significance. If the descriptive claims hold, the review usefully frames the radio domain's advantages for GW-EM follow-up and SKAO's enabling role in long-term monitoring and GRB jet/environment studies, providing context for planning with upcoming LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA runs and next-generation detectors.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (and corresponding discussion of SKAO capabilities): the central assertion that 'Even in its initial configuration (AA*), the SKAO will provide the sensitivity and field of view needed to complement GW counterpart searches during O5 and beyond' is presented without any quantitative support, such as predicted late-time synchrotron flux densities from standard afterglow models compared against AA* noise levels, integration-time estimates, or direct sensitivity/FOV comparisons versus VLA or MeerKAT; this is load-bearing for the claim that radio observations are the most effective method.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: minor grammatical phrasing ('remains detectable for very long time') could be tightened for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for highlighting the need for quantitative support in our claims about SKAO capabilities. We address the major comment below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (and corresponding discussion of SKAO capabilities): the central assertion that 'Even in its initial configuration (AA*), the SKAO will provide the sensitivity and field of view needed to complement GW counterpart searches during O5 and beyond' is presented without any quantitative support, such as predicted late-time synchrotron flux densities from standard afterglow models compared against AA* noise levels, integration-time estimates, or direct sensitivity/FOV comparisons versus VLA or MeerKAT; this is load-bearing for the claim that radio observations are the most effective method.

    Authors: We agree that the central claim regarding SKAO AA* would be strengthened by explicit quantitative support, as the current text relies on the established longevity of radio afterglow emission without direct sensitivity calculations. In the revised version we will add a dedicated subsection (likely in Section 3 or 4 on observational prospects) that includes: (i) predicted late-time (months to years) synchrotron flux densities for GW170817-like events using standard afterglow models (e.g., with microphysical parameters ε_e=0.1, ε_B=0.01, p=2.2); (ii) direct comparison of these fluxes to the expected rms noise levels and integration times for SKAO AA* at 1.4 GHz and 5 GHz; and (iii) side-by-side sensitivity and field-of-view metrics versus the VLA and MeerKAT. We will also insert a brief parenthetical reference to these calculations in the abstract. This revision directly addresses the load-bearing nature of the claim while preserving the review's overview character. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely descriptive review with no derivations or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The manuscript is an overview paper containing no equations, no fitted parameters, no predictions derived from models, and no derivation chain. All claims (including the SKAO AA* sensitivity statement) are presented as descriptive assertions without reduction to inputs by construction, self-citation load-bearing logic, or renaming of known results. The absence of any mathematical or predictive structure means no steps qualify under the enumerated circularity patterns. This is the expected outcome for a review without new derivations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review paper relying on prior literature for all claims; no free parameters, new axioms, or invented entities introduced in the provided abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions about long-term detectability of GRB afterglows in radio bands from prior events.
    Invoked when stating radio observations are most effective for tracking counterparts.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5849 in / 1083 out tokens · 47544 ms · 2026-06-26T03:47:55.333242+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

62 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/ 32/11/115012

    J.Aasietal.ClassicalandQuantumGravity,32(11):115012,June2015. doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/ 32/11/115012. A. Abac et al.JCAP, 2026(3):081, Mar

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/ 2026

  2. [2]

    doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2026/03/081. B. P. Abbott et al.PhRvL, 119(16):161101, Oct. 2017a. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101. B. P. Abbott et al.ApJL, 848(2):L12, Oct. 2017b. doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9. B. P. Abbott et al.Living Reviews in Relativity, 21(1):3, Dec

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/03/081 2026

  3. [3]

    doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad637. L. Amati et al.Experimental Astronomy, 52(3):183–218, Dec

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad637 2041

  4. [4]

    doi: 10.1007/ s10686-021-09807-8. G. E. Anderson et al.MNRAS, 503(3):4372–4386, May 2021a. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab727. G. E. Anderson et al.PASA, 38:e026, June 2021b. doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.15. G. E. Anderson et al.ApJ, 994(1):5, Nov

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab727 2021

  5. [5]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfed7. A. Andersson et al. InAdvancing Astrophysics with the SKA – II (AASKAII)

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfed7

  6. [6]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac617c. Y. Aso et al.Phys. Rev. D, 88(4):043007, Aug

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac617c

  7. [7]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043007. A. Balasubramanian et al.ApJL, 914(1):L20, June

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.043007

  8. [8]

    doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abfd38. A. Balasubramanian et al.ApJ, 938(1):12, Oct

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abfd38 2041

  9. [9]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9133. C. Barbieri et al.A&A, 625:A152, May

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9133

  10. [10]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935443. E. Bempong-Manful et al. InAdvancing Astrophysics with the SKA – II (AASKAII)

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935443

  11. [11]

    arXiv search: Report number AASKAII/Bempong-Manful01. M. Branchesi et al.JCAP, 2023(7):068, July

    2023

  12. [12]

    doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/07/068. D. Burlon et al. InAdvancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), page 52, Apr

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/07/068 2023

  13. [13]

    doi: 10.22323/1.215.0052. G. Castignani et al. InAdvancing Astrophysics with the SKA – II (AASKAII)

    work page doi:10.22323/1.215.0052

  14. [14]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad438. P. Chandra and D. A. Frail.ApJ, 746(2):156, Feb

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad438

  15. [15]

    doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/156. S. I. Chastain et al.arXiv, art. arXiv:2603.19047, Mar

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/156

  16. [16]

    CherenkovTelescopeArrayConsortiumetal.SciencewiththeCherenkovTelescopeArray.WORLD SCIENTIFIC,

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.19047. CherenkovTelescopeArrayConsortiumetal.SciencewiththeCherenkovTelescopeArray.WORLD SCIENTIFIC,

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.19047

  17. [17]

    doi: 10.1142/10986. C. T. Christy et al.arXiv, art. arXiv:2604.27480, Apr

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1142/10986

  18. [18]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.27480. A. Colombo et al.arXiv, art. arXiv:2503.00116, Feb

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.27480

  19. [19]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.00116. A. Corsi et al.ApJL, 861(1):L10, July

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.00116

  20. [20]

    doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aacdfd. A. Corsi et al.ApJ, 953(2):179, Aug

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

  21. [21]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd3f2. D. Dobie et al.ApJL, 858(2):L15, May

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd3f2

  22. [22]

    doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac105. D. Dobie et al.MNRAS, 494(2):2449–2464, May

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aac105 2041

  23. [23]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa789. D. Dobie et al.MNRAS, 505(2):2647–2661, Aug

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa789

  24. [24]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1468. D. Dobie et al.MNRAS, 510(3):3794–3805, Mar

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1468

  25. [25]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3628. F. Fiore et al. In J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, and K. Nakazawa, editors,Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, volume 11444 ofSociety of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, page 114441R, Dec

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3628 2020

  26. [26]

    doi: 10.1117/12.2560680. G. Ghirlanda et al.PASA, 31:e022, May

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2560680

  27. [27]

    doi: 10.1017/pasa.2014.14. G. Ghirlanda et al.A&A, 578:A71, June

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2014.14 2014

  28. [28]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526112. G. Ghirlanda et al.Sci, 363(6430):968–971, Mar

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526112

  29. [29]

    doi: 10.1126/science.aau8815. G. Ghirlanda et al.A&A, 689:A175, Sept

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aau8815

  30. [30]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450006. S. Giarratana et al.GCN, 39520:1, Feb

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450006

  31. [31]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4351. A. Hajela et al.ApJL, 927(1):L17, Mar

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4351

  32. [32]

    doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac504a. G. Hallinan et al.Sci, 358(6370):1579–1583, Dec

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac504a 2041

  33. [33]

    doi: 10.1126/science.aap9855. K. M. Hambleton et al.PASP, 135(1052):105002, Oct

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aap9855

  34. [34]

    doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acdb9a. K. Hotokezaka and T. Piran.MNRAS, 450(2):1430–1440, June

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acdb9a

  35. [35]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv620. K. Hotokezaka et al.NatAs, 3:940–944, July

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv620

  36. [36]

    doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0820-1. Ž. Ivezić et al.ApJ, 873(2):111, Mar

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0820-1

  37. [37]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c. E. F. Jiménez-Andrade et al.ApJ, 972(1):89, Sept

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

  38. [38]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5b5c. T. Laskar et al.ApJL, 878(1):L26, June

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5b5c

  39. [39]

    doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2247. T. Laskar et al.ApJL, 946(1):L23, Mar

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab2247 2041

  40. [40]

    doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbfad. J. K. Leung et al.MNRAS, 503(2):1847–1863, May

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

  41. [41]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab326. J. K. Leung et al.MNRAS, 523(3):4029–4048, Aug

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab326

  42. [42]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1670. A. J. Levan et al.Nature, 626(8000):737–741, Feb

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1670

  43. [43]

    Science with an ngVLA: Radio Emission from Short Gamma-ray Bursts in the Multi-Messenger Era

    doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1. N.M.Lloyd-Ronning.arXiv,art.arXiv:1709.08512,Sept.2017. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1709.08512. E. Loffredo et al.A&A, 697:A36, May

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1 2017

  44. [44]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452863. V. Mainieri et al.arXiv e-prints, art. arXiv:2403.05398, Mar

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452863

  45. [45]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403. 05398. A.Marconietal. InC.J.Evans,J.J.Bryant,andK.Motohara,editors,Ground-basedandAirborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, volume 12184 ofSociety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, page 1218424, Aug

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403

  46. [46]

    doi: 10.1117/12.2628689. T. Mauch et al.ApJ, 888(2):61, Jan

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2628689

  47. [47]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5d2d. K. P. Mooley et al.Natur, 561(7723):355–359, Sept. 2018a. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3. K. P. Mooley et al.Natur, 554(7691):207–210, Feb. 2018b. doi: 10.1038/nature25452. K. P. Mooley, J. Anderson, and W. Lu.Nature, 610(7931):273–276, Oct

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5d2d

  48. [48]

    doi: 10.1038/nature10365. K. Nandra et al.arXiv e-prints, art. arXiv:1306.2307, June

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1038/nature10365

  49. [49]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1306.2307. L. Resmi.Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 38(3):56, Sept

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1306.2307

  50. [50]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab640. L. Rhodes et al.MNRAS, 533(4):4435–4449, Oct

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab640

  51. [51]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2050. S. Ronchini et al.A&A, 665:A97, Sept

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2050

  52. [52]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243705. G. Schroeder et al.ApJ, 940(1):53, Nov

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243705

  53. [53]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8feb. G. Schroeder et al.ApJ, 970(2):139, Aug

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8feb

  54. [54]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad49ab. G. Schroeder et al.ApJ, 982(1):42, Mar. 2025a. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada9e5. G. Schroeder et al.ApJ, 995(1):61, Dec. 2025b. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae129b. G. Schroeder et al.ApJ, 998(1):93, Feb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad49ab

  55. [55]

    GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3009. The LIGO Scientific Collaboration et al.arXiv e-prints, art. arXiv:2508.18082, Aug

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3009

  56. [56]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18082. E. Troja et al.MNRAS, 489(2):1919–1926, Oct

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.18082 1919

  57. [57]

    13 GRBs and KNe from GW events Colombo et al

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2248. 13 GRBs and KNe from GW events Colombo et al. C. S. Unnikrishnan.International Journal of Modern Physics D, 22(1):1341010, Jan

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2248

  58. [58]

    doi: 10.1142/S0218271813410101. A. J. van der Horst et al.A&A, 480(1):35–43, Mar

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218271813410101

  59. [59]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078051. Y.-Y. Wang, S.-P. Tang, Z.-P. Jin, and Y.-Z. Fan.ApJ, 943(1):13, Jan

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078051

  60. [60]

    doi: 10.3847/ 1538-4357/aca96c. J. Wei et al.arXiv e-prints, art. arXiv:1610.06892, Oct

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [61]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1610.06892. W. Yuan et al.Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68(3):239501, Mar

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1610.06892

  62. [62]

    doi: 10.1007/s11433-024-2600-3. 14

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-024-2600-3