pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.28314 · v1 · pith:4SWVIUHYnew · submitted 2026-06-26 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA· astro-ph.SR

The Role of Scintillation in Detecting HI Absorption in FRB Spectra

Om Gupta , Pawan Kumar , Paz Beniamini , Edward L. Robinson This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 02:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords fast radio burstsHI absorption21-cm linediffractive scintillationrepeating FRBsmolecular cloudsscattering screen
0
0 comments X

The pith

The 21-cm HI absorption line in FRB spectra is detectable when scintillation decorrelation bandwidth differs markedly from absorption width, but requires stacking at least 1000 bursts for 5 sigma significance under combined scintillation an

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

This paper models how diffractive scintillation from a thin scattering screen interacts with the 21-cm neutral hydrogen absorption feature in fast radio burst spectra. It shows that the absorption profile emerges clearly in high signal-to-noise data only when the scintillation decorrelation bandwidth operates on a scale very different from the absorption line width. Stacking spectra from repeating FRBs improves the signal provided the bursts are separated by more than the scintillation timescale so their modulations remain uncorrelated. The analysis concludes that current and planned telescopes still need roughly 1000 or more stacked bursts to reach 5 sigma detection because scintillation and detector noise both act against the line. It also notes one possible Galactic molecular cloud intersection for the sightline to FRB 20180916B.

Core claim

The absorption profile is detectable in a scintillation-dominated high signal-to-noise spectrum if the scintillation decorrelation bandwidth differs significantly in scale from the width of the absorption profile. Active repeaters also enable favorable conditions as the absorption signal improves when repeat bursts are stacked, provided they are separated in time by more than the diffractive scintillation timescale. For currently operating and planned sensitive telescopes, the presence of both scintillation and noise requires ≳1000 bursts to be stacked to detect the HI absorption line at a 5σ significance.

What carries the argument

An efficient simulation of diffractive scintillation produced by an FRB passing through a thin scattering screen, which imposes frequency-dependent flux modulations that can mask or reveal the absorption feature depending on relative bandwidth scales.

If this is right

  • Repeat bursts separated by more than the diffractive scintillation timescale allow the absorption signal to improve upon stacking because flux modulations remain uncorrelated.
  • The sightline to FRB 20180916B may intersect a Galactic molecular cloud, providing a concrete target for HI absorption searches.
  • Detector sensitivity improvements would extend the method to HI clouds in host galaxies, intervening systems, or high-redshift minihalos.
  • When scintillation decorrelation bandwidth matches absorption width, the line remains undetectable even in high signal-to-noise single-burst spectra.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If real scattering involves multiple or thick screens rather than a single thin screen, the detectability conditions and required stacking numbers would shift.
  • Cross-referencing more repeating FRB positions with molecular cloud catalogs could identify additional high-probability sightlines without new observations.
  • The same relative-scale criterion might apply to other narrow spectral features in FRB data, such as molecular lines, if their widths also differ from scintillation scales.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes diffractive scintillation arises from FRB passage through a thin scattering screen.

What would settle it

A detection of the 21-cm absorption line at 5 sigma significance after stacking substantially fewer than 1000 bursts from a repeating FRB whose scintillation decorrelation bandwidth is known to differ from the absorption width would falsify the derived stacking requirement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.28314 by Edward L. Robinson, Om Gupta, Pawan Kumar, Paz Beniamini.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The schematic depicts a ring on the scattering screen at a radius r, and thickness dr (= 1). As an example, it has been divided into 25 patches, which corresponds to r = 25/2π ≈ 4. The number of patches used to calculate the Fresnel Kirchoff integral is npolar ≈ 12, which are colored black. The above Eqs (7) and (8) have been taken from P. Beniamini & P. Kumar (2020). To simulate the scintillation pattern,… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: These plots show how FRB spectra modulated by scintillation and without detector noise, would look like after passing through a cold HI cloud of typical diameter of 31.5 pc, Tspin = 50 K, and NHI ≈ 6 × 1020 cm−2 , yielding τ0 = 1 and FWHM ≈ 30 kHz. (left) The scintillation decorrelation bandwidth δνsdc = 0.31 kHz, being much smaller than the FWHM of the HI profile, allows HI absorption to be distinguishabl… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A stack of the spectra of 100 bursts from the same source, whose scintillation modulations are uncorrelated be￾tween bursts and the mean scintillation decorrelation band￾width is ⟨δνsdc⟩ ≈ 0.41 kHz. The cloud properties are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A simulated stack of 1000 bursts from the same source. (top) Stack considering only detector noise in blue (with a vertical offset of 1 for clarity), and considering only scintillation in magenta. The mean scintillation decorrela￾tion bandwidth ⟨δνsdc⟩ ≈ 29 kHz, akin to FRB 20180916B at 1.42 GHz. Furthermore, scintillation is uncorrelated be￾tween bursts. (bottom) Stack considering both scintillation and d… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average number of molecular clouds intersected by sightlines at different inclination angles from the Galactic plane. The dashed-blue curve shows the average over all azimuthal angles for a point 8 kpc from the Galactic center (roughly the Sun/Earth distance), while the solid-black line corresponds to the average over all azimuthal angles as well as over all points along the radial direction. B. FURTHER RE… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The 21-cm absorption line of neutral hydrogen has been a long hypothesized observational feature of the spectra of Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs). The difficulties associated with detector noise in extracting HI absorption have been previously studied. We test the role that scintillation plays in the HI absorption line's detectability, and characterize the regimes where a realistic FRB may yield the 21-cm line. We build an efficient model to simulate diffractive scintillation arising from FRB passage through a thin scattering screen. We find that the absorption profile is detectable in a scintillation-dominated high signal-to-noise spectrum if the scintillation decorrelation bandwidth differs significantly in scale from the width of the absorption profile. Active repeaters also enable favorable conditions as the absorption signal improves when repeat bursts are stacked. Repeat bursts must be separated in time by more than the diffractive scintillation timescale, otherwise flux modulations with frequency are correlated. By cross-referencing repeating FRB positions with an observational catalog of Milky Way molecular clouds detected in CO, we find that the sightline to FRB 20180916B may intersect a Galactic molecular cloud. For currently operating and planned sensitive telescopes, the presence of both scintillation and noise requires $\gtrsim 1000$ bursts to be stacked to detect the HI absorption line at a $5\sigma$ significance. Improvement in detector sensitivities will help probe HI clouds intersected by FRBs in the host or intervening galaxies, or in high-redshift minihalos.

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 develops an efficient simulation model of diffractive scintillation arising from FRB passage through a single thin scattering screen. It reports that the 21-cm HI absorption profile is detectable in high-S/N spectra when the scintillation decorrelation bandwidth differs significantly in scale from the absorption line width, that stacking of repeat bursts (separated by more than the diffractive timescale) improves the signal, and that ≳1000 bursts are required to reach 5σ significance in the presence of both scintillation and noise for current and planned telescopes. It also identifies a possible Galactic molecular cloud intersection for FRB 20180916B via CO catalog cross-reference.

Significance. If the thin-screen model is applicable, the work supplies a concrete, simulation-based estimate of the burst-stacking requirement and identifies scale-separation conditions that could guide future HI absorption searches. The efficient thin-screen implementation and the numerical threshold constitute useful quantitative outputs for observational planning.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and model description: the central claim that ≳1000 bursts must be stacked for 5σ detection is derived entirely from the single thin-screen diffractive scintillation simulation; the abstract and model section provide no validation against observed FRB scintillation parameters, no error analysis on the decorrelation bandwidth, and no data-exclusion criteria, so the robustness of the numerical threshold cannot be assessed.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the scale-separation detectability condition and the stacking requirement both rest on the assumption that diffractive scintillation arises from a single thin screen; if propagation occurs through multiple screens or a thick medium the frequency correlation function and the number of independent realizations change, rendering the reported conditions inapplicable, yet no verification of the thin-screen regime for the cited sightlines (including FRB 20180916B) is supplied.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that repeat bursts improve the absorption signal when separated by more than the diffractive timescale, but does not quantify the improvement factor or show the corresponding simulation output.
  2. [Abstract] Cross-reference with the CO molecular-cloud catalog is mentioned but no table, selection criteria, or uncertainty on the intersection probability for FRB 20180916B is provided.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, clarifying the scope of our simulation study while agreeing to revisions that improve transparency about model assumptions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and model description: the central claim that ≳1000 bursts must be stacked for 5σ detection is derived entirely from the single thin-screen diffractive scintillation simulation; the abstract and model section provide no validation against observed FRB scintillation parameters, no error analysis on the decorrelation bandwidth, and no data-exclusion criteria, so the robustness of the numerical threshold cannot be assessed.

    Authors: Our work is a simulation study that derives the ≳1000-burst threshold under the assumptions of the single thin-screen diffractive scintillation model; it does not claim empirical robustness beyond those assumptions. The abstract and model section will be revised to state this explicitly and to reference typical observed decorrelation bandwidth values from the FRB literature for context. A quantitative error analysis on the decorrelation bandwidth or data-exclusion criteria would require fitting to specific observational datasets, which lies outside the scope of this theoretical simulation paper. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the scale-separation detectability condition and the stacking requirement both rest on the assumption that diffractive scintillation arises from a single thin screen; if propagation occurs through multiple screens or a thick medium the frequency correlation function and the number of independent realizations change, rendering the reported conditions inapplicable, yet no verification of the thin-screen regime for the cited sightlines (including FRB 20180916B) is supplied.

    Authors: The reported scale-separation condition and stacking requirement are derived specifically within the single thin-screen model, which is a standard approximation but not universally applicable. We will revise the abstract and discussion to state this limitation clearly and to note the conditions under which the thin-screen regime is expected to hold. The CO catalog cross-match for FRB 20180916B is presented only as identifying a possible target; we supply no verification of the thin-screen regime for any sightline, as that would require dedicated multi-frequency observations not performed here. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: simulation outputs under explicit thin-screen model

full rationale

The paper constructs an efficient simulation of diffractive scintillation through a thin scattering screen and derives detectability conditions (scale separation between decorrelation bandwidth and absorption width) plus stacking requirements (≳1000 bursts) as direct outputs of that model. No steps reduce by construction to fitted inputs, self-definitions, or load-bearing self-citations; the thin-screen assumption is stated explicitly rather than smuggled via citation. Results are simulation-driven and falsifiable against external scintillation data, yielding a self-contained analysis.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; full parameter list, validation tests, and literature context unavailable. The thin-screen assumption is the primary domain premise visible in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Diffractive scintillation arises from FRB passage through a thin scattering screen
    Explicitly stated as the basis for the built model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5807 in / 1158 out tokens · 96244 ms · 2026-06-29T02:27:44.751417+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

47 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    G., & Manchester, R

    Ables, J. G., & Manchester, R. N. 1976, A&A, 50, 177

    1976

  2. [2]

    Balzan, J. C. F., Bera, A., James, C. W., & Meyers, B. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.19254, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.19254

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.19254 2026

  3. [3]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 651, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2489

    Beniamini, P., & Kumar, P. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 651, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2489

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2489 2020

  4. [4]

    Wharton, R. S. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3303, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2009

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2009 2023

  5. [5]

    1959, Principles of Optics Electromagnetic Theory of Propagation, Interference and Diffraction of Light

    Born, M., & Wolf, E. 1959, Principles of Optics Electromagnetic Theory of Propagation, Interference and Diffraction of Light

    1959

  6. [6]

    Braun, A

    Braun, R., Bonaldi, A., Bourke, T., Keane, E., & Wagg, J. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.12699, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1912.12699

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.12699 2019

  7. [7]

    S., Stolle-McAllister, G., Jorgenson, R

    Chittidi, J. S., Stolle-McAllister, G., Jorgenson, R. A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.10377, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.10377 10 T able 1.Number of stacked bursts required for 5σHI absorption detection withτ 0 = 1 through different telescopes. TelescopeT sys (K)G(K/Jy) SEFD (Jy) # Bursts FAST 22 16.1 1.36∼1000 SKA1-MID - - 3∼3000 GBT 16.5 2 8.25...

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.10377 2023

  8. [8]

    M., & Chatterjee, S

    Cordes, J. M., & Chatterjee, S. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 417, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104501

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104501 2019

  9. [9]

    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 internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0207156 2002

  10. [10]

    The Milky Way in Molecular Clouds: A New Complete CO Survey

    Dame, T. M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P. 2001, ApJ, 547, 792, doi: 10.1086/318388

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/318388 2001

  11. [11]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, L75, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv065

    Fender, R., & Oosterloo, T. 2015, MNRAS, 451, L75, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv065

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv065 2015

  12. [12]

    R., & Loeb, A

    Furlanetto, S. R., & Loeb, A. 2002, ApJ, 579, 1, doi: 10.1086/342757

    work page doi:10.1086/342757 2002

  13. [13]

    T., et al

    Glowacki, M., Lee-Waddell, K., Deller, A. T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc1e3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc1e3 2023

  14. [14]

    Gupta, O., Beniamini, P., Kumar, P., & Finkelstein, S. L. 2025, ApJ, 986, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add14c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add14c 2025

  15. [15]

    Hamidouche, M., & Lestrade, J. F. 2007, A&A, 468, 193, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041285

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041285 2007

  16. [16]

    2022, ApJL, 940, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9f39

    Hatsukade, B., Hashimoto, T., Niino, Y., & Hsu, T.-Y. 2022, ApJL, 940, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9f39

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9f39 2022

  17. [17]

    H., & Brunt, C

    Heyer, M. H., & Brunt, C. M. 2004, ApJL, 615, L45, doi: 10.1086/425978

    work page doi:10.1086/425978 2004

  18. [18]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 2030, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3655

    Hsu, T.-Y., Hashimoto, T., Hatsukade, B., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 2030, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3655

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3655 2023

  19. [19]

    Jeffreson, S. M. R., Sun, J., & Wilson, C. D. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 1663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1874

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1874 2022

  20. [20]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    Jiang, P., Tang, N.-Y., Hou, L.-G., et al. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64 2020

  21. [21]

    C., Han, J

    Jing, W. C., Han, J. L., Hong, T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4949, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1782

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1782 2023

  22. [22]

    P., et al

    Josephy, A., Chawla, P., Curtin, A. P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac33ad

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac33ad 2021

  23. [23]

    C., Hewitt, D

    Konijn, D. C., Hewitt, D. M., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 3331, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2296

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2296 2024

  24. [24]

    Kumar, P., Beniamini, P., Gupta, O., & Cordes, J. M. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 457, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3010

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3010 2024

  25. [25]

    S., & Gerin, M

    Liszt, H. S., & Gerin, M. 2016, A&A, 585, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527273

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527273 2016

  26. [26]

    A., Hilmarsson, G

    Main, R. A., Hilmarsson, G. H., Marthi, V. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 3172, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3218

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3218 2022

  27. [27]

    Marcote, B., Nimmo, K., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2020, Nature, 577, 190, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1866-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1866-z 2020

  28. [28]

    2016, MNRAS, 460, L25, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw068 Miville-Deschˆ enes, M.-A., Murray, N., & Lee, E

    Margalit, B., & Loeb, A. 2016, MNRAS, 460, L25, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw068 Miville-Deschˆ enes, M.-A., Murray, N., & Lee, E. J. 2017, ApJ, 834, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/57

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw068 2016

  29. [29]

    1992, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 341, 151, doi: 10.1098/rsta.1992.0090

    Narayan, R. 1992, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 341, 151, doi: 10.1098/rsta.1992.0090

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.1992.0090 1992

  30. [30]

    Nimmo, K., Hessels, J. W. T., Kirsten, F., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 393, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01569-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01569-9 2022

  31. [31]

    2025, Nature, 637, 48, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08297-w

    Nimmo, K., Pleunis, Z., Beniamini, P., et al. 2025, Nature, 637, 48, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08297-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08297-w 2025

  32. [32]

    NE2025: An Updated Electron Density Model for the Galactic Interstellar Medium

    Ocker, S. K., & Cordes, J. M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.11838, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.11838 Os lowski, S., Shannon, R. M., Ravi, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 868, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1751

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.11838 2026

  33. [33]

    S., Chawla, P., Hessels, J

    Ould-Boukattine, O. S., Chawla, P., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf1937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1937

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1937 2026

  34. [34]

    2021, Nature, 596, 505, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03724-8 Pradeep E

    Pastor-Marazuela, I., Connor, L., van Leeuwen, J., et al. 2021, Nature, 596, 505, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03724-8 Pradeep E. T., S., Sprenger, T., Wucknitz, O., Main, R. A., & Spitler, L. G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.04576, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.04576

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03724-8 2021

  35. [35]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.10328

    Roxburgh, H., Glowacki, M., Bera, A., & James, C. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.10328. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.10328

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    R., Beuther, H., Bihr, S., et al

    Rugel, M. R., Beuther, H., Bihr, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A159, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731872 11

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731872 2018

  37. [37]

    S., & Pogge, R

    Ryden, B. S., & Pogge, R. W. 2021, Interstellar and intergalactic medium, doi: 10.1017/9781108781596

    work page doi:10.1017/9781108781596 2021

  38. [38]

    MNRAS , keywords =

    Sammons, M. W., Deller, A. T., Glowacki, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5653, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2631

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2631 2023

  39. [39]

    R., Dial, T., Bera, A., et al

    Scott, D. R., Dial, T., Bera, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.17497, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.17497

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.17497 2025

  40. [40]

    M., Rankin, J., & Boriakoff, V

    Weisberg, J. M., Rankin, J., & Boriakoff, V. 1980, A&A, 88, 84

    1980

  41. [41]

    M., Stanimirovi´ c, S., Xilouris, K., et al

    Weisberg, J. M., Stanimirovi´ c, S., Xilouris, K., et al. 2008, ApJ, 674, 286, doi: 10.1086/523345

    work page doi:10.1086/523345 2008

  42. [42]

    R., Chen, P., et al

    Xu, H., Niu, J. R., Chen, P., et al. 2022, Nature, 609, 685, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05071-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05071-8 2022

  43. [43]

    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

  44. [44]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.14707, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.14707

    Zhang, J.-S., Wang, T.-C., Wang, P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.14707, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.14707

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.14707 2025

  45. [45]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124002, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac98f7

    Zhang, Y.-K., Wang, P., Feng, Y., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 124002, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac98f7

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ac98f7 2022

  46. [46]

    2023, ApJ, 955, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced0b

    Zhang, Y.-K., Li, D., Zhang, B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced0b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aced0b 2023

  47. [47]

    J., Han, J

    Zhou, D. J., Han, J. L., Jing, W. C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2657, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2769

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2769 2023