pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.29761 · v1 · pith:UF7KJISGnew · submitted 2026-06-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc

Estimating Cosmological Parameters from Localized Fast Radio Bursts: A Method for Removing Milky Way Dispersion-Measure Contributions

Yuchen Zhang , Yang Liu , Hongwei Yu , Puxun Wu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 05:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qc
keywords fast radio burstsdispersion measureMilky Way contributioncosmological parameterslocalized FRBsdifferential methodintergalactic medium
0
0 comments X

The pith

Differences in dispersion measures of localized fast radio bursts in the same sky region remove Milky Way contributions without Galactic models.

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

The paper proposes subtracting dispersion measures between localized FRBs close on the sky to cancel the uncertain Milky Way term entirely. This removes the need for any specific model of the Galactic interstellar medium or halo. Mock FRB samples confirm that the approach recovers the input cosmological parameters. When applied to existing localized FRB data the resulting constraint on Γ ≡ Ω_b H_0 f_d differs from the value obtained with standard Milky Way corrections. The difference shows that treatment of Galactic DM can affect cosmological inferences drawn from FRBs.

Core claim

Subtracting the dispersion measures of localized fast radio bursts that lie within the same sky region cancels the shared Milky Way contribution, leaving only the intergalactic-medium term that depends on cosmological parameters. The method therefore requires no adopted Galactic electron-density model and no prior on the Galactic halo DM. Mock data tests recover the fiducial cosmology. Real localized FRB observations produce a constraint on Γ ≡ Ω_b H_0 f_d that differs from the conventional treatment.

What carries the argument

The dispersion-measure difference between localized FRBs within the same sky region, which cancels the common Milky Way term while preserving the cosmological intergalactic signal.

If this is right

  • Mock FRB samples recover the fiducial cosmological parameters.
  • Current localized FRB data produce a Γ constraint different from the conventional Milky Way treatment.
  • The difference demonstrates that Milky Way DM systematics affect FRB cosmology.
  • The differential approach can be applied to future large samples of localized FRBs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Sky-region consistency checks on larger samples could test whether the identical-Milky-Way assumption holds across different Galactic latitudes.
  • The method could be paired with other foreground-sensitive probes to reduce shared model dependencies in joint cosmological analyses.
  • If the assumption remains valid for many pairs, the technique would tighten constraints on the baryon density without introducing Galactic-model priors.

Load-bearing premise

The Milky Way dispersion-measure contribution is the same for all localized FRBs that lie in the same sky region.

What would settle it

A large mock catalog in which the differential method recovers parameters that deviate from the known input values, or real data pairs from the same sky region that produce inconsistent Γ constraints, would falsify the method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.29761 by Hongwei Yu, Puxun Wu, Yang Liu, Yuchen Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Coefficients of variation (CVs) of DMMW obtained under different sky-partitioning schemes. The left and right panels show the 4 × 4 and 8 × 8 partitions, respectively. Colors indicate the CV values according to the color bar at the bottom, with all values exceeding 0.4 shown in yellow. The gray band marks the excluded Galactic plane region, corresponding to |b| < 15◦ . The overdense region in the 8×8 parti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Sky distribution of the 99 localized FRB samples. The blue points represent the FRB sample locations, while the light blue lines partition the sky into 64 regions. The gray shaded band indicates the excluded Galactic plane region with |b| < 15◦ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Posterior distribution of Γ obtained with the method proposed in this paper (red) and with the traditional method (blue). The proposed method yields Γ = 2.88±0.33, while the traditional method gives Γ = 3.55 ± 0.17 and DMhalo = 51+8 −5 pc cm−3 . REFERENCES Abbott, T. C., et al. 2025, Astrophys. J. Lett., 989, L48, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf62f Aghanim, N., et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6, doi: 10.… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Fast radio bursts (FRBs) are emerging as powerful probes for cosmology. However, cosmological inference based on FRB dispersion measures (DMs) is limited by uncertainties in the Milky Way contribution, including those from the Galactic interstellar medium and the Galactic halo. In this Letter, we propose a method that eliminates the Milky Way contribution by using DM differences between localized FRBs within the same sky region. The method removes the need to adopt a specific Galactic electron-density model or a prior assumption for the Galactic halo DM. We validate the reliability of the method using mock FRB samples and show that it successfully recovers the fiducial cosmological parameter. Applying the method to current localized FRB data, we obtain a constraint on $\Gamma \equiv \Omega_b H_0 f_{\rm d}$ that differs from that inferred using the conventional treatment of the Milky Way contribution. This difference highlights the importance of Milky Way DM systematics in FRB cosmology and demonstrates the potential of differential DM methods for future large samples of localized FRBs.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a differential method for FRB cosmology that cancels the Milky Way DM contribution (ISM + halo) by subtracting DMs of localized FRBs within the same sky region, thereby avoiding explicit Galactic electron-density models or halo priors. It reports successful recovery of the fiducial cosmological parameter in mock samples and, when applied to existing localized FRB data, derives a constraint on Γ ≡ Ω_b H_0 f_d that differs from the result obtained with conventional MW modeling.

Significance. If the cancellation assumption holds, the approach offers a model-independent route to reduce a dominant systematic in FRB-based cosmology and could become valuable for the large localized samples expected from upcoming surveys. The mock recovery and the reported difference in real-data constraints on Γ provide concrete illustrations of the method's potential impact and of the sensitivity of current inferences to MW treatment.

major comments (3)
  1. [Method (abstract and §2)] Method description: the central claim that DM differences fully eliminate the Milky Way term rests on the assumption that MW DM is identical for FRBs sharing a sky region. The manuscript does not specify the angular sizes of the adopted regions or estimate residual DM_MW fluctuations arising from known Galactic structure (spiral arms, clumps, halo substructure) on 0.1–few degree scales.
  2. [Validation with mocks (§3)] Mock validation: the reported successful recovery of the fiducial parameter is shown under the assumption of perfect MW DM identity within regions. Because the mocks do not incorporate realistic angular variations in the Galactic electron density, they do not test whether the method remains unbiased when the cancellation is imperfect; this is load-bearing for interpreting both the mock success and the real-data result.
  3. [Application to real data (§4)] Real-data application: the differing constraint on Γ is presented as evidence that MW systematics matter, yet without quantitative assessment of possible residual bias from finite angular separations in the actual sample, it remains unclear whether the shift reflects improved accuracy or an artifact of incomplete cancellation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the method 'removes the need to adopt a specific Galactic electron-density model' but does not clarify whether any residual modeling (e.g., for IGM or host contributions) is still required; a brief statement would improve clarity.
  2. [Throughout] Notation: Γ is defined as Ω_b H_0 f_d; ensure f_d is explicitly defined at first use and that all symbols in equations are introduced before they appear.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. We address each major comment below. We agree that additional details on angular scales, residual fluctuations, and limitations of the mocks are needed for clarity and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Method (abstract and §2)] Method description: the central claim that DM differences fully eliminate the Milky Way term rests on the assumption that MW DM is identical for FRBs sharing a sky region. The manuscript does not specify the angular sizes of the adopted regions or estimate residual DM_MW fluctuations arising from known Galactic structure (spiral arms, clumps, halo substructure) on 0.1–few degree scales.

    Authors: We agree that explicit specification of angular scales and an estimate of residuals are required to substantiate the cancellation assumption. In the revised manuscript we will state the typical angular sizes of the same-sky regions used (determined by the localization uncertainties and sample distribution, typically a few degrees) and provide a quantitative estimate of residual DM_MW fluctuations on those scales, drawing on standard Galactic electron-density models that include spiral-arm and halo substructure contributions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Validation with mocks (§3)] Mock validation: the reported successful recovery of the fiducial parameter is shown under the assumption of perfect MW DM identity within regions. Because the mocks do not incorporate realistic angular variations in the Galactic electron density, they do not test whether the method remains unbiased when the cancellation is imperfect; this is load-bearing for interpreting both the mock success and the real-data result.

    Authors: The mocks were constructed to verify unbiased recovery under the ideal case where the cancellation assumption holds exactly, which is a necessary first validation step. We acknowledge that they do not yet incorporate realistic angular DM variations and therefore do not quantify bias from imperfect cancellation. In revision we will add an explicit discussion of this limitation and, where space permits in the Letter format, include a supplementary test with a simple angular-variation model to illustrate the magnitude of any resulting bias. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Application to real data (§4)] Real-data application: the differing constraint on Γ is presented as evidence that MW systematics matter, yet without quantitative assessment of possible residual bias from finite angular separations in the actual sample, it remains unclear whether the shift reflects improved accuracy or an artifact of incomplete cancellation.

    Authors: We present the shift in Γ primarily to demonstrate sensitivity to MW modeling choices rather than to claim definitive improvement. To address the referee’s concern we will add, in the revised §4, a quantitative bound on residual bias by reporting the median angular separations of the real localized FRB pairs and estimating the corresponding DM_MW fluctuation amplitude from Galactic structure models. This will allow readers to judge whether the observed difference is likely dominated by improved cancellation or by residual effects. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation uses direct observational subtraction

full rationale

The paper's central chain proposes DM differencing between localized FRBs in the same sky region to cancel the Milky Way contribution (ISM + halo), validates the approach by recovering the fiducial cosmological parameter on mock samples, and applies it to real data to constrain Γ ≡ Ω_b H_0 f_d. This is a direct observational subtraction that does not reduce any claimed result to a fitted parameter by construction, nor does it rely on self-citation chains or ansatzes smuggled from prior work. Mock recovery tests the subtraction under the method's own assumptions but does not force the real-data Γ constraint; the result remains independent of the input data reduction. No load-bearing step matches the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that Galactic DM is uniform across small sky patches for localized FRBs; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract description.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Milky Way DM contribution is identical for FRBs in the same sky region
    Core premise enabling the differencing method to remove Galactic term without modeling.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5719 in / 1133 out tokens · 29498 ms · 2026-06-30T05:35:31.320276+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

112 extracted references · 95 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    C., et al

    Abbott, T. C., et al. 2025, Astrophys. J. Lett., 989, L48, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf62f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf62f 2025

  2. [2]

    2020, Astron

    Aghanim, N., et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  3. [3]

    2025, Astrophys

    Amiri, M., et al. 2025, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 280, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/addbda

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/addbda 2025

  4. [4]

    2025, Astrophys

    Anna-Thomas, R., et al. 2025, Astrophys. J., 993, 221, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1014

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1014 2025

  5. [5]

    W., et al

    Bannister, K. W., et al. 2019, arXiv, doi: 10.1126/science.aaw5903

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaw5903 2019

  6. [6]

    D., Bolton, J

    Becker, G. D., Bolton, J. S., Haehnelt, M. G., & Sargent, W. L. W. 2011, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 410, 1096, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17507.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17507.x 2011

  7. [7]

    2021, Mon

    Beniamini, P., Kumar, P., Ma, X., & Quataert, E. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 502, 5134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab309

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab309 2021

  8. [8]

    2020, Astrophys

    Bhandari, S., et al. 2020, Astrophys. J. Lett., 895, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab672e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab672e 2020

  9. [9]

    2022, Astron

    Bhandari, S., et al. 2022, Astron. J., 163, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3aec

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac3aec 2022

  10. [10]

    2023, Astrophys

    Bhandari, S., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J., 948, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc178

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc178 2023

  11. [11]

    2021, Astrophys

    Bhardwaj, M., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 919, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac223b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac223b 2021

  12. [12]

    2024, Astrophys

    Bhardwaj, M., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 971, L51, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad64d1

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad64d1 2024

  13. [13]

    E., et al

    Bonetti, L., Ellis, J., Mavromatos, N. E., et al. 2017, Phys. Lett. B, 768, 326, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.03.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.03.014 2017

  14. [14]

    E., et al

    Bonetti, L., Ellis, J., Mavromatos, N. E., et al. 2016, Phys. Lett. B, 757, 548, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.04.035

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.04.035 2016

  15. [15]

    2019, Mon

    Caleb, M., Flynn, C., & Stappers, B. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 485, 2281, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz571

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz571 2019

  16. [16]

    2023, Mon

    Caleb, M., et al. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 524, 2064, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1839

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1839 2023

  17. [17]

    2025, arXiv

    Caleb, M., et al. 2025, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.01648

    arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    2024, Nature Astron., 8, 1429, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02357-x

    Cassanelli, T., et al. 2024, Nature Astron., 8, 1429, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02357-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02357-x 2024

  19. [19]

    M., Wei, J

    Chang, C. M., Wei, J. J., Meng, K. L., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, L041304, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.L041304

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.l041304 2025

  20. [20]

    M., Wei, J

    Chang, C. M., Wei, J. J., Zhang, S. B., & Wu, X. F. 2023, JCAP, 2023, 010, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/01/010

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/01/010 2023

  21. [21]

    2017, Nature, 541, 58, doi: 10.1038/nature20797 7

    Chatterjee, S., et al. 2017, Nature, 541, 58, doi: 10.1038/nature20797 7

    work page doi:10.1038/nature20797 2017

  22. [22]

    S., Simha, S., Mannings, A., et al

    Chittidi, J. S., Simha, S., Mannings, A., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 922, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2818

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2818 2021

  23. [23]

    2025, Nature Astron., 9, 1226, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y

    Connor, L., et al. 2025, Nature Astron., 9, 1226, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y 2025

  24. [24]

    M., et al

    Cook, A. M., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J., 946, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbbd0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbbd0 2023

  25. [25]

    M., & Lazio, T

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0207156

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  26. [26]

    P., et al

    Curtin, A. P., et al. 2026, Astrophys. J., 998, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ea0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ea0 2026

  27. [27]

    2014, Astrophys

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

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

  28. [28]

    N., et al

    Driessen, L. N., et al. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 527, 3659, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3329

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3329 2023

  29. [29]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac., 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  30. [30]

    Fortunato, J. A. S., Bacon, D. J., Hipólito-Ricaldi, W. S., & Wands, D. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 018, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/018

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/018 2025

  31. [31]

    H., Wu, Q., Hu, J

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

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

  32. [32]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc1e3

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

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

  33. [33]

    C., et al

    Gordon, A. C., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J., 954, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace5aa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace5aa 2023

  34. [34]

    2022, Mon

    Hagstotz, S., Reischke, R., & Lilow, R. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 511, 662, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac077

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac077 2022

  35. [35]

    2021, Mon

    Hashimoto, T., Goto, T., Lu, T.-Y., et al. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 502, 2346, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab186

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab186 2021

  36. [36]

    E., Prochaska, J

    Heintz, K. E., Prochaska, J. X., Simha, S., et al. 2020, Astrophys. J., 903, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb6fb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb6fb 2020

  37. [37]

    L., et al

    Ibik, A. L., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 961, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0893

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0893 2024

  38. [38]

    2022, Mon

    James, C., Ghosh, E., Prochaska, J., et al. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 516, 4862, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2524

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2524 2022

  39. [39]

    Y., Qiang, D

    Jia, J. Y., Qiang, D. C., Li, L. Y., & Wei, H. 2026, Phys. Lett. B, 877, 140473, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140473

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140473 2026

  40. [40]

    2022, Nature, 602, 585, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    Kirsten, F., et al. 2022, Nature, 602, 585, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w 2022

  41. [41]

    M., Connor, L., Semenov, V

    Konietzka, R. M., Connor, L., Semenov, V. A., et al. 2025, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.07090

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    J., et al

    Law, C. J., et al. 2020, Astrophys. J., 899, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba4ac

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba4ac 2020

  43. [43]

    J., et al

    Law, C. J., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 967, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3736

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3736 2024

  44. [44]

    2025, arXiv

    Lemos, T. 2025, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.17693

    arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    2026, arXiv

    Lemos, T., Gonçalves, R., & Alcaniz, J. 2026, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.20471

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    2025, JCAP, 2025, 019, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/019

    Lemos, T., Gonçalves, R., Carvalho, J., & Alcaniz, J. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 019, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/019

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/019 2025

  47. [47]

    X., Gao, H., Ding, X

    Li, Z. X., Gao, H., Ding, X. H., Wang, G. J., & Zhang, B. 2018, Nature Commun., 9, 3833, doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-06303-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-018-06303-0 2018

  48. [48]

    X., Gao, H., Wei, J

    Li, Z. X., Gao, H., Wei, J. J., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J., 876, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab18fe

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab18fe 2019

  49. [49]

    X., Gao, H., Wei, J

    Li, Z. X., Gao, H., Wei, J. J., et al. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 496, L28, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa070

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa070 2020

  50. [50]

    N., Tang, L., & Zou, R

    Lin, H. N., Tang, L., & Zou, R. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 520, 1324, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad228

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad228 2023

  51. [51]

    N., & Zou, R

    Lin, H. N., & Zou, R. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 520, 6237, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad509

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad509 2023

  52. [52]

    X., Wei, J

    Liu, Y., Wang, B., Wu, P. X., Wei, J. J., & Wu, X. F. 2026a, Astrophys. J., 998, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae355a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae355a

  53. [53]

    2026b, arXiv

    Liu, Y., Wei, J.-J., Wu, P., & Wu, X.-F. 2026b, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.03769

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  54. [54]

    W., & Wu, P

    Liu, Y., Yu, H. W., & Wu, P. X. 2023, Astrophys. J. Lett., 946, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc650

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc650 2023

  55. [55]

    C., Yu, H

    Liu, Y., Zhang, Y. C., Yu, H. W., & Wu, P. X. 2025, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.03536

    arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

    Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M. A., Narkevic, D. J., & Crawford, F. 2007, Science, 318, 777, doi: 10.1126/science.1147532

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1147532 2007

  57. [57]

    P., et al

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

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

  58. [58]

    K., et al

    Mahony, E. K., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J. Lett., 867, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae7cb

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aae7cb 2018

  59. [59]

    2020, Nature, 577, 190, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1866-z

    Marcote, B., et al. 2020, Nature, 577, 190, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1866-z

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

  60. [60]

    2014, Astrophys

    McQuinn, M. 2014, Astrophys. J. Lett., 780, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L33

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/l33 2014

  61. [61]

    Meiksin, A. A. 2009, Rev. Mod. Phys., 81, 1405, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1405

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.81.1405 2009

  62. [62]

    2023, Astrophys

    Michilli, D., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J., 950, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accf89 Muñoz, J. B., & Loeb, A. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 103518, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.103518

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accf89 2023

  63. [63]

    2026, arXiv

    Muthusami, G., & Kashyap, G. 2026, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.11657

    arXiv 2026

  64. [64]

    H., et al

    Niu, C. H., et al. 2022, Nature, 606, 873, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5 2022

  65. [65]

    K., & Cordes, J

    Ocker, S. K., & Cordes, J. M. 2026, Astrophys. J., 1002, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5825

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae5825 2026

  66. [66]

    2026, Mon

    Pastor-Marazuela, I., et al. 2026, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 545, staf2144, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2144 8

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2144 2026

  67. [67]

    F., García, L

    Piratova-Moreno, E. F., García, L. Á., Benavides-Gallego, C. A., & Cabrera, C. 2025, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.08509

    arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    X., & Zheng, Y

    Prochaska, J. X., & Zheng, Y. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 485, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz261

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz261 2019

  69. [69]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aay0073 2019

  70. [70]

    C., & Wei, H

    Qiang, D. C., & Wei, H. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 083536, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083536

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.083536 2021

  71. [71]

    M., et al

    Rajwade, K. M., et al. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 514, 1961, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1450

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1450 2022

  72. [72]

    M., et al

    Rajwade, K. M., et al. 2024, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 532, 3881, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1652

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1652 2024

  73. [73]

    Y., Wang, B., & Wei, J

    Ran, J. Y., Wang, B., & Wei, J. J. 2024, Chin. Phys. Lett., 41, 059501, doi: 10.1088/0256-307X/41/5/059501

    work page doi:10.1088/0256-307x/41/5/059501 2024

  74. [74]

    2019, Astrophys

    Ravi, V. 2019, Astrophys. J., 872, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb30

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafb30 2019

  75. [75]

    2026, arXiv

    Ravi, V., Sharma, K., & Connor, L. 2026, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.05093

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  76. [76]

    2019, Nature, 572, 352, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1389-7

    Ravi, V., et al. 2019, Nature, 572, 352, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1389-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1389-7 2019

  77. [77]

    2022, Mon

    Ravi, V., et al. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 513, 982, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac465

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac465 2022

  78. [78]

    2023, Astrophys

    Ravi, V., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J. Lett., 949, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc4b6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc4b6 2023

  79. [79]

    2025, Astron

    Ravi, V., et al. 2025, Astron. J., 169, 330, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adc725

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adc725 2025

  80. [80]

    S., Silva, P

    Ribeiro, F. S., Silva, P. D. S., Casana, R., & Ferreira, M. M. 2026, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.22996

    arXiv 2026

Showing first 80 references.