Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 40 references

A single Gaussian plasma lens does not explain the extreme activity swings of FRB 20240114A; the source itself is the main driver.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 05:56 UTC pith:CBA4G727

load-bearing objection Solid multi-test null on a single 1-D Gaussian plasma lens for FRB 20240114A; useful, limited-scope, and ready for referees. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.02939 v1 pith:CBA4G727 submitted 2026-07-03 astro-ph.HE

No Strong Evidence for Plasma Lensing in FRB 20240114A

Jiarui Niu , Xiaohui Liu , Nan Xu , Songyu Shen , Junshuo Zhang , Tiancong Wang , Pawan Kumar , Yuanhong Qu
show 28 more authors
Dejiang Zhou Weiwei Zhu Bing Zhang He Gao Dongzi Li Jinlin Han Di Li Xuelei Chen Kejia Lee Ye Li Weiyang Wang Qiuyang Fu Jiawei Jin Yanqing Cai Caisong Liu Shuo Cao Ziwei Wu Heng Xu Dengke Zhou Longxuan Zhang Wanjin Lu Yi Feng Chenhui Niu Jiawei Luo Rui Luo Chunfeng Zhang Shiqian Zhao Chengwei Liang
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords Fast Radio BurstsFRB 20240114Aplasma lensingburst-rate variabilitycarbon-copy burstsGaussian plasma lensintrinsic source activity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

FRB 20240114A is one of the most active known repeating fast radio bursts, and plasma lensing has been proposed to explain its changing burst rates, spectral evolution, and near-identical “carbon-copy” burst pairs. This paper tests that idea with a one-dimensional Gaussian plasma-lens model on FAST data and public Parkes observations. Separate storms can be fitted, yet the predicted magnification peaks and demagnification troughs do not line up across telescopes, do not show the expected periodicity, and leave the off-storm baseline rates inconsistent with the model. With more than ten thousand bursts recorded, a few morphologically similar pairs are expected by chance alone. Burst energies and fractional bandwidths also fail to show the systematic magnification or spectral narrowing the lens would produce. The paper therefore concludes that the observed variability is more likely dominated by intrinsic source activity than by a single coherent plasma lens.

Core claim

When FAST and Parkes data for FRB 20240114A are examined with a one-dimensional Gaussian plasma-lens model, the fitted magnification peaks and demagnification troughs are temporally misaligned, the observed off-storm rates lie below the model troughs, “carbon-copy” pairs occur at rates consistent with chance, and neither energy distributions nor fractional bandwidths show the expected lensing signatures. The data therefore supply no compelling evidence that a single Gaussian plasma lens accounts for the variability.

What carries the argument

The one-dimensional Gaussian plasma-lens model that converts an observed burst-rate time series into a gain proxy via Robs ∝ G^{γ−1} (γ = 2.8) and then fits the resulting light curve with the standard lens equation and time-dependent source-plane coordinate.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on treating a simple one-dimensional Gaussian lens with a fixed power-law energy index as a complete enough null hypothesis: if a real plasma lens were present, its peaks, troughs and FAST–Parkes timing would have to match the model’s predictions.

What would settle it

Simultaneous multi-band monitoring that finds a demagnification trough falling below the true unlensed baseline and aligned to within roughly one second between telescopes, accompanied by a statistically significant narrowing of fractional bandwidth and an energy-function boost that survives rate–energy detrending.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper tests the plasma-lensing interpretation proposed for the highly active repeater FRB 20240114A, using FAST detections and public Parkes/UWL data. The authors apply a one-dimensional Gaussian plasma-lens model (with the standard gain-proxy conversion Robs ∝ G^{γ−1} at fixed γ = 2.8) to candidate rate storms (FAST Seg1/Seg2; Parkes B4/B5). They find that individual storms can be fitted, but the fitted magnification peaks and demagnification troughs are temporally misaligned between overlapping FAST and Parkes epochs, troughs often sit above rather than below the observed off-storm baseline, and there is no consistent periodicity. Morphologically similar “carbon-copy” pairs are shown to be expected by chance in a >10^4-burst sample. Population tests find no residual energy enhancement after rate–energy detrending and no statistically significant narrowing of Δν/ν in the candidate lensing window. Forward Monte Carlo simulations of a single Gaussian lens predict synchronous troughs and a FAST/Parkes unlensed-rate ratio inconsistent with the data. The authors conclude there is no compelling evidence that a single Gaussian plasma lens explains the variability, which is more likely intrinsic.

Significance. If the result holds, it is a useful negative result for FRB propagation studies: it shows that a concrete, previously proposed lensing model for one of the most active known repeaters fails multiple independent consistency checks when confronted with a large FAST sample plus public Parkes data. The multi-probe design (rate-curve alignment, trough-vs-baseline, carbon-copy chance rates, energy functions after detrending, Δν/ν widths, and forward simulations) is a strength and sets a higher bar for future lensing claims. The work does not claim to rule out all plasma lensing, only that a single 1-D Gaussian lens is not required and is disfavored; that framing is scientifically appropriate and of clear interest to the FRB community.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2] Section 3.2: The chance-coincidence test (KDE draws on Weff, central frequency, and bandwidth with thresholds equal to mean measurement uncertainties; P_sim ≃ 2.48×10^{-4}) only shows that pairs matching those three scalars are common in a large sample. Figure 3, however, presents pairs selected for much richer similarity (RM-corrected PA, dynamic-spectrum structure, and high block-wise Pearson/Spearman coefficients). Either quantify the probability of that fuller morphological match, or state more carefully that the test only demonstrates that some similar pairs are expected by chance and does not by itself dismiss the illustrated pairs as unremarkable. As written, this pillar is weaker than the rate-alignment and population tests.
  2. [Section 4 / Appendix A] Section 4 and Appendix A: The simulations use γ = 2.8 and then treat the mismatch between the inferred FAST/Parkes unlensed-rate ratio (~14.8) and the observed ratio (~6.9) as evidence against lensing. Appendix A shows that γ = 2.25 largely removes that ratio discrepancy. The robust, γ-independent simulation predictions that actually support the central claim are (i) synchronous troughs across bands and (ii) troughs falling below the observed unlensed baseline. Please restructure Section 4 so those two predictions carry the argument, and present the rate-ratio comparison only as γ-dependent and secondary.
  3. [Title / Abstract / Section 5] Title vs. abstract/conclusion: The title reads “No Strong Evidence for Plasma Lensing,” while the abstract and conclusion correctly restrict the claim to a single one-dimensional Gaussian plasma lens and explicitly allow more complex or multi-epoch lenses. Align the title (and any broad phrasing in the introduction) with that more precise negative claim so the paper is not over-read as ruling out plasma lensing in general.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5] Conclusion, near end of first major paragraph: typo “excludedd” → “excluded.”
  2. [Figure 2] Figure 2: Panels B, C, and D share an x-axis range for comparison, but the red dashed trough marker and the frequency-matched Parkes panel (C) would benefit from an explicit statement in the caption of the measured time offset (in days) between the FAST Seg2 and Parkes B4 fitted centers/troughs.
  3. [Section 3.3] Equation (6)–(7) and Figure 4C: Report the formal uncertainty and goodness-of-fit for the log-linear rate–energy relation (a ≃ 9.98×10^{-4}) used in the detrending, and state the reference rate R_ref explicitly.
  4. [Section 3.1] Section 3.1: Define “observed unlensed region” and “fitted unlensed region” once in a short table or bullet list; the prose definitions are clear but easy to lose when comparing panels.
  5. [Section 4.1] Simulation setup (Section 4.1): State the assumed daily on-source time and total simulated timeline more prominently when comparing absolute rates to the real campaigns (33.86 hr / 57.99 hr FAST; 154 hr Parkes), so readers can judge absolute-rate normalizations separately from shape predictions.
  6. [References] References: Ensure the Parkes UWL analysis (Uttarkar et al. 2026) and the FAST rate papers cited for the Seg1/Seg2 windows are the final public versions once available; arXiv-only citations are fine for now but should be updated in proof.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper tests an external plasma-lensing claim against multi-telescope data and finds inconsistencies, without reducing its negative conclusion to its own inputs by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a standard hypothesis test, not a closed loop. The one-dimensional Gaussian lens equation, the gain-proxy conversion Robs ∝ G^{γ−1}, and the initial γ = 2.8 are taken from the external literature (chiefly Uttarkar et al. 2026) that proposed the lensing interpretation; the present work then fits that model separately to FAST Seg1/Seg2 and Parkes B4/B5, and shows that the resulting magnification peaks, demagnification troughs, and FAST–Parkes temporal alignment fail to match (Fig. 2). Forward Monte-Carlo simulations that inject the FAST-fitted α values likewise predict synchronous troughs and an unlensed-rate ratio inconsistent with the data (Sec. 4). The carbon-copy chance probability is computed from empirical KDEs of the observed burst-parameter distributions, and the energy/Δν/ν tests use an independent rate–energy correlation measured outside the candidate lensing window. Self-citations are limited to the authors’ own FAST data releases, which supply the observational sample rather than a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the conclusion. Appendix A further varies γ to 2.25 and shows the qualitative mismatches persist, so the reuse of the literature value is not load-bearing. The negative claim therefore rests on independent consistency checks, not on a definitional or fitted-input tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central null claim rests on the standard 1-D Gaussian plasma-lens formalism, a power-law fluence distribution with a fixed index, the conversion of observed rate to a gain proxy, and the premise that a single coherent lens must produce temporally aligned multi-band features and troughs below the unlensed baseline. No new physical entities are invented; free parameters are the usual lens-strength and crossing-time quantities fitted to individual storms plus the adopted γ.

free parameters (4)
  • power-law index γ = 2.8 (main); 2.25 (appendix)
    Fixed at 2.8 following Uttarkar et al. to convert observed burst rate into a lensing-gain proxy; also explored at 2.25 in the appendix. Directly controls the inferred magnification amplitude.
  • lens strength α = 0.612 / 0.380
    Fitted separately to each candidate storm (Seg1, Seg2, B4, B5); values α1 = 0.612 and α2 = 0.380 are taken from the FAST fits and used in the simulations.
  • v_trans / a_lens (or t_cross) and t_shift
    Free parameters of the time-dependent source-plane coordinate that set the width and center of each fitted magnification feature.
  • overall gain normalization G
    Overall multiplicative scale of the model gain curve fitted to each storm.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Observed burst rate above a fixed fluence threshold scales as Robs ∝ G^{γ−1} for a power-law fluence distribution.
    Used throughout Section 3.1 to convert rate light curves into a gain proxy that is then fitted by the lens model.
  • domain assumption A one-dimensional Gaussian electron-column-density lens (Clegg et al. 1998; Cordes et al. 2017) is an adequate description of any plasma lens that could be present.
    The entire fitting and simulation campaign is performed inside this model; more complex or multi-lens geometries are acknowledged but not tested.
  • ad hoc to paper Intrinsic burst rate and energy distribution are constant on the timescale of each candidate storm, so all rate modulation is external magnification.
    Explicitly stated as the working assumption of the lensing fits (Section 3.1); the paper later argues this assumption is unrealistic for a hyper-active repeater.
  • domain assumption A single coherent lens must produce temporally aligned magnification peaks and demagnification troughs across FAST and Parkes bands, with troughs falling below the observed unlensed baseline.
    The multi-telescope misalignment and trough-height arguments in Sections 3.1 and 4 rest on this geometric expectation.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 20180 in / 3307 out tokens · 29931 ms · 2026-07-12T05:56:59.907090+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

FRB~20240114A is an extremely active repeating fast radio burst for which plasma lensing has been proposed to explain its burst-rate variations, spectral evolution, and apparently ``carbon-copy'' burst pairs. Using FAST data and publicly available Parkes observations, we test this interpretation with a one-dimensional Gaussian plasma-lens model. Although the burst-rate enhancements can be fitted separately, the corresponding magnification peaks and demagnification troughs are offset by far more than predicted and show no consistent periodicity. Moreover, with more than 10,000 bursts detected, a few apparently ``carbon-copy'' pairs can readily occur by chance. The burst bandwidth is not systematically narrower during the proposed lensing interval, nor are the burst energies significantly enhanced during the predicted magnification interval. These results provide no compelling evidence that a single Gaussian plasma lens explains the observed variability, which is more likely dominated by intrinsic source activity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02939 by Bing Zhang, Caisong Liu, Chengwei Liang, Chenhui Niu, Chunfeng Zhang, Dejiang Zhou, Dengke Zhou, Di Li, Dongzi Li, He Gao, Heng Xu, Jiarui Niu, Jiawei Jin, Jiawei Luo, Jinlin Han, JunShuo Zhang, Kejia Lee, Longxuan Zhang, Nan Xu, Pawan Kumar, Qiuyang Fu, Rui Luo, Shiqian Zhao, Shuo Cao, Songyu Shen, Tiancong Wang, Wanjin Lu, Weiwei Zhu, Weiyang Wang, Xiaohui Liu, Xuelei Chen, Yanqing Cai, Ye Li, Yi Feng, Yuanhong Qu, Ziwei Wu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Burst-rate evolution of FRB 20240114A observed with Parkes and FAST. Panel A presents the burst rate from Parkes, where marker size represents on-source time (data taken from P. A. Uttarkar et al. (2026)); burst storms B1–B5 are labeled, and the candidate lensing intervals (B4 and B5) are highlighted. Panel B shows the burst rate from FAST, with two candidate intervals (Seg1 and Seg2) marked. Colored curve… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Plasma lensing fits for the burst-rate modulation of FRB 20240114A. Panels A and B show the results for the FAST observations of Seg1 and Seg2. Panels C, D and E present the same analysis for the Parkes UWL observations of B4 and B5. Panels B, C and D share the same x-axis range, allowing a direct comparison that reveals a temporal offset between the lensing fits to the FAST and Parkes data. Panel C shows … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Examples of “carbon-copy” burst pairs from FRB 20240114A. The first two pairs are separated by ∼20 ms, while the third pair is separated by ∼52 s. From top to bottom, panel A shows the polarization position angle (PA) as a function of time after RM correction; panel B shows the normalized total-intensity profiles of the bursts; panel C shows the time–frequency dynamic spectra; panel D shows the frequency-d… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Energy function and ∆ν/ν statistics of FRB 20240114A based on FAST observations. Panels A and B show the burst-rate evolution and central-frequency distribution during Seg1, where the shaded region marks the candidate lensing phase used for statistic test. Panel C presents the relation between burst rate and mean burst energy in a non-lensing interval, showing an intrinsic log-linear correlation. Panel D c… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulated observation burst-rate evolution for two lensing configurations based on FAST-fitted parameters. The upper row shows the Parkes predictions, while the lower row shows the FAST predictions. The left column corresponds to α1 = 0.612, and the right column corresponds to α2 = 0.380. The grey shaded regions mark the unlensed intervals, from which the mean burst rate is taken as the observed unlensed r… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulated burst-rate evolution for two lensing configurations based on FAST-fitted parameters, adopting a power-law index of γ = 2.25. The layout follows that of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗

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

40 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W., Stevens, J., Tuntsov, A

    Bannister, K. W., Stevens, J., Tuntsov, A. V., et al. 2016, Science, 351, 354, doi: 10.1126/science.aac7673

    doi:10.1126/science.aac7673 2016

  2. [2]

    P., Hessels, J

    Bhardwaj, M., Snelders, M. P., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2025, ApJL, 992, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0b68

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0b68 2025

  3. [3]

    B., & Forsythe, A

    Brown, M. B., & Forsythe, A. B. 1974, Journal of the American statistical association, 69, 364

    1974

  4. [4]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.01478, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.01478

    Bruni, G., Piro, L., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.01478, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.01478

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.01478 2024

  5. [5]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 4155, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1431

    Chen, X., Hu, B., Wang, P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 4155, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1431

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1431 2024

  6. [6]

    2025, ApJL, 980, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adadfd

    Chen, X.-L., Tsai, C.-W., Li, D., et al. 2025, ApJL, 980, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adadfd

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adadfd 2025

  7. [7]

    W., Fey, A

    Clegg, A. W., Fey, A. L., & Lazio, T. J. W. 1998, ApJ, 496, 253, doi: 10.1086/305344

    doi:10.1086/305344 1998

  8. [8]

    M., & Chatterjee, S

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

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

  9. [9]

    M., Wasserman, I., Hessels, J

    Cordes, J. M., Wasserman, I., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa74da

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa74da 2017

  10. [10]

    2026, ApJ, 1001, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae523d

    Er, X., Zhu, W., Mao, S., & Li, D. 2026, ApJ, 1001, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae523d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae523d 2026

  11. [11]

    L., Dennison, B., Johnston, K

    Fiedler, R. L., Dennison, B., Johnston, K. J., & Hewish, A. 1987, Nature, 326, 675, doi: 10.1038/326675a0

    doi:10.1038/326675a0 1987

  12. [12]

    Hessels, J. W. T., Spitler, L. G., Seymour, A. D., et al. 2019, ApJL, 876, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab13ae

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab13ae 2019

  13. [13]

    W., van Straten, W., & Manchester, R

    Hotan, A. W., van Straten, W., & Manchester, R. N. 2004, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 21, 302–309, doi: 10.1071/as04022

    doi:10.1071/as04022 2004

  14. [14]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad160

    Kumar, P., & Beniamini, P. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad160

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad160 2023

  15. [15]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6cda

    Kumar, P., Qu, Y., & Zhang, B. 2024, ApJ, 974, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6cda

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6cda 2024

  16. [16]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a7e

    Li, R.-N., Wang, Y.-B., Yi, S.-X., Zhou, X., & Wang, F.-Y. 2026, ApJ, 998, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a7e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a7e 2026

  17. [17]

    G., Manaswini, N., et al

    Limaye, P., Spitler, L. G., Manaswini, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.08367, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.08367

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.08367 2025

  18. [18]

    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

    doi:10.1126/science.1147532 2007

  19. [19]

    Michilli, D., Seymour, A., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 182, doi: 10.1038/nature25149

    doi:10.1038/nature25149 2018

  20. [20]

    2022, Nature, 606, 873, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5

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

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

  21. [21]

    S., Hessels, J

    Ould-Boukattine, O. S., Hessels, J. W. T., Kirsten, F., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16432, 1

    2024

  22. [22]

    S., Cooper, A

    Ould-Boukattine, O. S., Cooper, A. J., Cook, A. M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.18513, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.18513

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.18513 2026

  23. [23]

    W., et al

    Platts, E., Caleb, M., Stappers, B. W., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3041, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1544

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1544 2021

  24. [24]

    W., Blandford, R

    Romani, R. W., Blandford, R. D., & Cordes, J. M. 1987, Nature, 328, 324, doi: 10.1038/328324a0

    doi:10.1038/328324a0 1987

  25. [25]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16420, 1

    Shin, K., & CHIME/FRB Collaboration. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16420, 1

    2024

  26. [26]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 334, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2fc4

    Shin, K., Curtin, A., Fine, M., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 334, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2fc4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2fc4 2026

  27. [27]

    P., Bassa, C

    Tendulkar, S. P., Bassa, C. G., Cordes, J. M., et al. 2017, ApJL, 834, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/l7 2017

  28. [28]

    M., Pastor-Marazuela, I., et al

    Tian, J., Rajwade, K. M., Pastor-Marazuela, I., et al. 2024b, MNRAS, 533, 3174, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2013

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2013

  29. [29]

    A., Kumar, P., Lower, M

    Uttarkar, P. A., Kumar, P., Lower, M. E., & Shannon, R. M. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16430, 1

    2024

  30. [30]

    A., Shannon, R

    Uttarkar, P. A., Shannon, R. M., Gourdji, K., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.16409, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.16409

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.16409 2026

  31. [31]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.20663, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.20663

    Wang, T.-C., Zhang, J.-S., Liu, X.-H., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.20663, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.20663

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.20663 2026

  32. [32]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 985, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc92d 15

    Xu, N., Gao, H., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 985, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc92d 15

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc92d 2025

  33. [33]

    2023, ApJ, 956, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acebc6

    Yang, Y.-P. 2023, ApJ, 956, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acebc6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acebc6 2023

  34. [34]

    2020, Nature, 587, 45, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2828-1

    Zhang, B. 2020, Nature, 587, 45, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2828-1

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2828-1 2020

  35. [35]

    2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005

    Zhang, B. 2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.95.035005 2023

  36. [36]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16433, 1

    Zhang, J., Zhu, Y., Cao, S., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16433, 1

    2024

  37. [37]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.14707 2025

  38. [38]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 276, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae314a

    Zhang, L.-X., Tian, S., Shen, J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 998, 276, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae314a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae314a 2026

  39. [39]

    2026, Science China

    Zhou, D., Wang, P., Fang, J., et al. 2026, Science China

    2026

  40. [40]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 69, 249512, doi: 10.1007/s11433-025-2866-2

    doi:10.1007/s11433-025-2866-2