Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 115 references

The paper derives a single formula that turns any existing upper limit on bare primordial black holes into a limit on halo-dressed black holes, and forecasts that future FRB observations will push the dark-matter fraction below 10^-4.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 18:17 UTC pith:URYFFCTZ

load-bearing objection The dressed-EMD harmonic-mean conversion (Eq. 31) is correct and cleanly derived, but the forecast's factor-of-20 halo tightening depends on an unvalidated point-mass effective-lens approximation, so read the headline numbers as conditional. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17338 v3 pith:URYFFCTZ submitted 2026-07-19 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HE

Constraints on Primordial Black Hole Dressed by Dark Matter Halo from Microlensing Effect of Fast Radio Bursts

Hong-Rui Tao , Huan Zhou , Cheng-Gang Shao , Xiao-Long Gong , Zheng-Xiang Li This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HE
keywords primordial black holesdark matter halosmicrolensingfast radio burstsextended mass distributionmonochromatic mass distributionoptical depthdark matter abundance
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.

This paper argues that primordial black holes (PBHs) are typically draped in extended dark-matter halos, and that this halo changes the way they would appear in the microlensing of fast radio bursts (FRBs). The central result is a transformation formula, Eq. (31), that converts any upper limit on the abundance of 'bare' PBHs with a monochromatic mass distribution into a constraint on 'dressed' PBHs with an arbitrary extended mass distribution. The conversion is independent of how the halo formed and works for any microlensing probe, not just FRBs. Applying it to a simulated sample of 10^5 FRBs, the paper forecasts that halo dressing tightens the 95% upper limit on the PBH dark-matter fraction by about an order of magnitude, from roughly 2×10^-3 to about 10^-4, across stellar to intermediate masses. If this holds, a decade of FRB observations would make microlensing one of the most sensitive existing probes of sub-percent PBH dark matter.

Core claim

The paper treats a PBH of bare mass M_PBH surrounded by a dark-matter halo with a power-law density profile ρ ∝ r^{-9/4} and mass M_h ≈ 3(1000/(1+z_md)) M_PBH. It defines an effective point mass M_eff by requiring that the average convergence of the halo plus the PBH within the total Einstein radius equals unity (Eq. 10). With this substitution, all point-mass lensing formulas for Einstein radius, cross-section, and time delay are applied using M_eff. The key analytical step is the transformation of Eq. (31): if f^w_PBH,MMD(M) is the upper limit for a monochromatic mass M, then the upper limit for any extended mass distribution ψ(pmf,M) is the reciprocal of the integral of ψ/f^w_PBH,MMD. The

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective mass M_eff defined by Eq. (10), which maps the dressed system (PBH plus halo) onto a point mass of mass M_eff, thereby reusing all standard point-lens results. The transformation of Eq. (31) is the power tool: it is a harmonic-mean-like combination of monochromatic limits that follows from the linear dependence of the optical depth on f_PBH and the fact that the EMD optical depth is a ψ-weighted average of MMD optical depths. This makes the conversion universal — independent of halo formation history and of the specific FRB selection cuts, as long as those cuts are the same for both terms.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast rests on the assumption that a halo-dressed PBH behaves exactly like a point mass of effective mass M_eff for lensing cross-sections and time delays — that the halo only adds mass inside the Einstein radius according to the assumed r^{-9/4} profile and mass scaling, and that the point-lens selection cuts remain unchanged.

What would settle it

A full numerical ray-tracing computation of the microlensing optical depth through the actual extended halo profile, compared with the effective point-mass approximation, would settle the central claim; if the exact cross-sections differ by more than the quoted uncertainties, the order-of-magnitude tightening is not robust. Observationally, detecting a lensed FRB whose image flux ratio and time delay cannot be reproduced by any point mass M_eff but match an extended mass profile would falsify the dressed-halo model as parametrized.

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

If this is right

  • With 10^5 FRBs, a null search would exclude f_PBH ≳ 10^-4 for masses around 1 to 10^3 M_sun, roughly an order of magnitude stronger than the bare-PBH limit.
  • The transformation allows any previously published monochromatic-mass lensing limit to be immediately recast as an extended-mass limit for dressed PBHs, without redoing the survey analysis.
  • Because the derivation only uses the linearity of optical depth in f_PBH, the same conversion applies to other microlensing probes such as stellar microlensing or lensing of gravitational waves.
  • Halo dressing makes the effective mass grow super-linearly with bare mass, so the constraints are nonlinear: higher-mass PBHs are boosted more, which changes the shape of the exclusion region.
  • The forecast is within reach of upcoming FRB surveys, making FRB microlensing a competitive and complementary probe of PBHs in the stellar-to-intermediate-mass window.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the inner halo profile is cored instead of r^{-9/4}, the effective-mass approximation may overestimate the lensing cross-section; the order-of-magnitude tightening should be checked against full extended-lens ray-tracing before being used for survey design.
  • The same transformation could be run in reverse: a measured excess of lensed FRBs, combined with monochromatic limits, could be used to reconstruct the mass function ψ, offering a new handle on PBH formation models.
  • The superlinear effective-mass scaling implies that extended mass functions with a high-mass tail are disproportionately constrained; surveys optimized for longer time delays would be especially powerful for intermediate-mass black holes.
  • Should the 10^5-FRB forecast materialize, the combination of FRB lensing with existing microlensing and dynamical constraints would essentially close the stellar-to-intermediate-mass window for PBHs as a significant dark-matter component.

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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a transformation, Eq. (31), that converts upper limits on the abundance of monochromatic-mass-distribution (MMD) PBHs dressed by dark matter halos into upper limits for arbitrary extended mass distributions (EMDs). The derivation follows from the linearity of the lensing optical depth in the PBH number density and yields a harmonic-mean conversion, f^w_PBH,EMD = 1 / ∫ ψ / f^w_PBH,MMD dM, formally identical in structure to the known bare-PBH conversion, Eq. (32). The authors apply this to FRB microlensing, modeling the dressed PBH as a point mass with an effective mass M_eff determined by Eq. (10), and forecast for a mock sample of 10^5 FRBs that halo dressing tightens 95% upper limits from ~2.1×10^-3 (bare) to ~1.0×10^-4 (dressed MMD) and ~1.9×10^-4 (dressed log-normal EMD), for stellar to intermediate masses.

Significance. The algebraic core of the paper is sound and useful. Equation (31) is a clean, parameter-free conversion that is independent of the halo-formation history and of the particular FRB selection function, provided the input dressed-MMD limits are given; this extends the known bare-PBH result in a non-trivial way. If the effective point-mass treatment of the dressed halo is reliable, the forecast is significant: a decade of FRB observations could push null-search constraints to f_PBH ~ 10^-4 in the stellar-to-intermediate-mass window, a region of interest for LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA and JWST-motivated PBH scenarios. The paper contains no fitted parameters; the derivation is transparent and the conversion is exactly stated, which are notable strengths. However, the advertised scope of the transformation and the quantitative forecast both rely on assumptions that need to be stated and validated more carefully.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §I; §IV] The abstract, introduction, and conclusion state that the paper derives a transformation converting upper limits derived for 'bare' PBHs with a monochromatic mass distribution into constraints on 'dressed' PBHs with an EMD. This is not what Eq. (31) does. Eq. (31) converts dressed-MMD limits f^w_PBH,MMD into dressed-EMD limits f^w_PBH,EMD. A bare-MMD limit cannot be converted into a dressed-EMD limit without first computing the dressed-MMD curve using the effective-mass model. The two-step recipe involving Eq. (32) plus Eq. (31) is not a direct 'bare-to-dressed' transformation. This overstatement appears in the paper's central claims and should be corrected, either by rewording or by explicitly presenting the two-step procedure.
  2. [§IIA, Eqs. (10)–(18); §IIIB] The quantitative forecast replaces the extended dark matter halo by a point mass M_eff: Eq. (10) fixes only the Einstein radius r_E,tot via the mean-convergence condition, while Eqs. (14)–(15) then use the point-mass time delay and point-mass cross-section evaluated at M_eff, and Eqs. (34)–(36) use point-mass flux-ratio and time-delay selection cuts. For a halo with ρ_h ∝ r^{-9/4}, the deflection profile is not point-like; image positions, magnification ratios, and time delays as functions of source position differ, so the point-mass cross-section and y_min/y_max cuts are not guaranteed to hold. The paper acknowledges possible deviations in the inner profile but gives no quantification or sensitivity analysis (e.g., to a core radius, slope α, or truncation). Since the headline factor-of-20 tightening and the ~10^-4 endpoint are driven by M_eff, this approximation is load-bearing for the
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (3)] The variable z_dm appears in Eq. (3) but the text defines z_md; please unify notation.
  2. [Eq. (22)] The integration variable is written as dχ(z_PBH); this should presumably be dχ(z_L) as in Eq. (20).
  3. [Eq. (13)] There is a typo 'MPBH,,' with a double comma in the argument of r_E,PBH.
  4. [Eqs. (26)–(29)] The same symbol f^w_PBH,MMD is used both for the upper-limit value and for a generic PBH fraction in the linearity relations. Using a separate symbol for the generic fraction would improve clarity.
  5. [Figure 4 caption] The caption quotes contour levels for the dressed case at f_PBH = 7×10^-3 and 3×10^-3, while the text states the strongest dressed-EMD limit is 1.9×10^-4. These appear inconsistent; please check the contour levels or the quoted strongest values.
  6. [§III] The forecast uses a single FRB redshift distribution (CRD with z_cut = 0.5). Given the strong dependence of the optical depth on lens-source geometry, a brief test of the sensitivity to z_cut or to an alternative redshift distribution would strengthen the forecast.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Eq. (31) is a linearity identity, and the dressed-lensing physics is an externally anchored modeling assumption rather than a fitted input recycled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central conversion, Eq. (31), f^w_PBH,EMD(pmf) = 1 / ∫ ψ(pmf,M)/f^w_PBH,MMD(M) dM, is an algebraic consequence of the optical-depth definitions, not a fitted or self-referential result. Eq. (27) states τ_EMD(f=1) = ∫ ψ(m) τ_MMD(f=1,m) dm, which follows from linearity of the comoving number density dn/dm ∝ ψ(m)/m and the fact that the point-mass lensing cross section depends on mass only through M_eff. Since Eq. (24) makes the upper limit inversely proportional to the optical depth, Eq. (31) is the harmonic-mean identity; no parameter is adjusted to make the forecast. The dressing model enters through Eq. (10), which fixes r_E,tot by requiring κ_h(<r_E,tot)+κ_PBH(<r_E,tot)=1, and Eq. (11), which defines M_eff as the point mass with that Einstein radius. This is an explicit physical assumption, and the paper acknowledges the uncertainty in the halo treatment in the Conclusions: 'the theoretical treatment of the dark halo contribution to PBH lensing, which can be estimated by the average convergence and the total Einstein radius r_E,tot following Oguri et al. [70]'. That is a correctness/model risk, not circularity, because the halo profile and scaling relations are taken from independent N-body and analytic work [82,83,88-92], not derived from the FRB forecast. The self-citation to Zhou et al. [100] is used only as an analogy for the bare-PBH version of the harmonic-mean conversion, while Carr et al. [97] is also cited; it is not load-bearing for the dressed-PBH result. No fitted input is relabeled as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The forecast is conditional on the effective-mass treatment, but the derivation chain itself is internally self-contained and non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The forecast uses externally calibrated halo parameters plus several assumed detection/FRB-distribution settings. None are fitted to data in this paper, but the quoted ~10^-4 limits would shift if any of these inputs change. The effective-mass construct is a modeling device, not a new physical entity.

free parameters (9)
  • z_md (halo assembly redshift) = 30
    Adopted from Mack et al. [83]; strongly controls M_h/R_h and hence M_eff; introduced in Eq. (1).
  • M_h normalization = 3 × (1000/(1+z_md)) M_PBH ≈ 96.8 M_PBH at z_md=30
    Scaling from Ricotti et al. [82]; sets halo mass and q_eff through Eq. (1).
  • halo density slope α = 9/4
    Power-law index from N-body simulations, Eq. (2); directly sets surface density and convergence.
  • zcut (FRB redshift cutoff) = 0.5
    Gaussian cutoff in mock FRB redshift distribution Eq. (33), adopted from prior FRB-lensing papers.
  • Rf,max (flux ratio threshold) = 5
    Detectability threshold for two lensed images, Eq. (34).
  • Tobs (observation window) = 1 min
    Time-delay upper threshold for detecting both images, Eq. (35).
  • burst width w_bar = 0.1 / 1 ms
    Time-delay lower threshold; controls the low-mass cutoff of the constraints, Eq. (35).
  • Nobs (FRB sample size) = 10^5
    Assumed future sample; limits scale inversely with Nobs through Eq. (28).
  • log-normal mass function parameters (m_c, σ) = m_c ∈ [1,10^3] M⊙, σ ∈ [0.1,4]
    Scanned in Fig. 4 to illustrate EMD dependence; not fitted to data.
axioms (7)
  • standard math Null-detection probability follows Poisson law P=exp(-τ) and constraints at 100Π% CL via Eq. (24)
    Standard optical-depth treatment for Poisson events; used to convert optical depth to f_PBH limits.
  • domain assumption Halo profile ρ_h=ρ0(R_h/r)^{9/4} with mass-radius scaling Eq. (1) from simulations
    Adopted from Ricotti/Mack and N-body simulations [82,83,88-92]; central to q_eff and the factor-of-twenty enhancement.
  • ad hoc to paper Dressed PBH lensing can be represented by a point mass with effective mass M_eff from Eq. (10)
    Introduced in Eqs. (10)-(12); converts the extended halo lens to point-mass formulas for cross-section and time delay.
  • domain assumption FRB redshift distribution PCRD(z) with zcut=0.5
    Mock sample Eq. (33); no variation or validation against actual CHIME/FRB redshift data.
  • domain assumption Lensing detectability thresholds y_max, y_min from Rf,max=5, Tobs=1min, width w
    Eqs. (34)-(36); determines the mass range of the projected constraints.
  • domain assumption Log-normal mass function for EMD
    Eq. (37); representative of smooth peaked PBH formation models, but not universal.
  • domain assumption PBH comoving number density unaffected by halo and no clustering
    Stated after Eq. (18); clustered PBHs [112,113] are deferred, which could alter constraints.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15826 in / 17630 out tokens · 179932 ms · 2026-08-01T18:17:39.912490+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Primordial black holes (PBHs) are not only considered as a candidate for dark matter, but also as potential sources of gravitational waves from binary black hole mergers by the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA and as seeds for the supermassive black holes observed by the James-Webb Space Telescope, thereby remaining intense interest in cosmology and astrophysics. Fast radio bursts (FRBs) are bright millisecond-duration radio transients whose physical origin remains elusive, which have rapidly developed into one of the most active and rapidly evolving fields in astronomy. The microlensing effect of FRBs offers a clean and powerful probe of PBHs, especially in the mass range above stellar-mass window. In this work, we derive a complete transformation that converts any upper limit on the abundance of PBHs originally derived for `bare' PBHs with monochromatic mass distribution, into the corresponding constraint on `dressed' PBHs with arbitrary extended mass distributions. Based on this framework, we estimate the future constraints on the dressed PBH abundance \(f_{\mathrm{PBH}}\) from FRB observations assuming an expected sample of \(10^5\) FRBs accumulated over the next decade well within the projected detection capabilities of SKA. Our results indicate that including halo enhancement tightens the upper limits on \(f_{\mathrm{PBH}}\) by approximately one order of magnitude, with the most stringent constraint reaching \(\sim10^{-4}\) for the typical mass range from stellar-mass to intermediate-mass black holes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17338 by Cheng-Gang Shao, Hong-Rui Tao, Huan Zhou, Xiao-Long Gong, Zheng-Xiang Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.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

115 extracted references · 95 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Hawking, Mon

    S. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 152, 75 (1971)

    1971

  2. [2]

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

    1974

  3. [3]

    B. J. Carr, Astrophys. J. 201, 1 (1975)

    1975

  4. [4]

    Sasaki, T

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka, and S. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 061101 (2016) , [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 059901 (2018)], arXiv:1603.08338 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Ali-Haïmoud, E

    Y. Ali-Haïmoud, E. D. Kovetz, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 96, 123523 (2017) , arXiv:1709.06576 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Chen and Q.-G

    Z.-C. Chen and Q.-G. Huang, Astrophys. J. 864, 61 (2018), arXiv:1801.10327 [astro-ph.CO] . 10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    De Luca, G

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 201401 (2026) , arXiv:2508.09965 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 101102 (2020) , arXiv:2009.01075 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Astrophys. J. Lett. 993, L25 (2025) , arXiv:2507.08219 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), Astrophys. J. Lett. 970, L34 (2024) , arXiv:2404.04248 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    M. R. Haque, F. Iocco, and L. Visinelli, (2026), arXiv:2603.25795 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    R. L. Larson et al. (CEERS Team), Astrophys. J. Lett. 953, L29 (2023) , arXiv:2303.08918 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    A. D. Goulding et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 955, L24 (2023), arXiv:2308.02750 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Maiolino et al., Astron

    R. Maiolino et al., Astron. Astrophys. 691, A145 (2024), arXiv:2308.01230 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Maiolino et al

    R. Maiolino et al. , Nature 627, 59 (2024) , [Erra- tum: Nature 630, E2 (2024)], arXiv:2305.12492 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Bogdan et al

    A. Bogdan et al. , Nature Astron. 8, 126 (2024) , arXiv:2305.15458 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Natarajan, F

    P. Natarajan, F. Pacucci, A. Ricarte, A. Bogdan, A. D. Goulding, and N. Cappelluti, Astrophys. J. Lett. 960, L1 (2024) , arXiv:2308.02654 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    O. E. Kovacs et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 965, L21 (2024) , arXiv:2403.14745 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Maiolino et al

    R. Maiolino et al. , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 548, staf2109 (2026) , arXiv:2505.22567 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    Juodbalis et al

    I. Juodbalis et al. , (2025), arXiv:2508.21748 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Dayal and R

    P. Dayal and R. maiolino, (2025), arXiv:2506.08116 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Zhang, B

    S. Zhang, B. Liu, V. Bromm, and F. Kühnel, (2025), arXiv:2512.14066 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    De Luca, L

    V. De Luca, L. Del Grosso, G. Franciolini, K. Kritos, E. Berti, D. D’Orazio, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 231402 (2026) , arXiv:2512.19666 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Sasaki, T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    A. M. Green and B. J. Kavanagh, J. Phys. G 48, 043001 (2021), arXiv:2007.10722 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Rept. Prog. Phys. 84, 116902 (2021) , arXiv:2002.12778 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    Carr and F

    B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 48, 1 (2022) , arXiv:2110.02821 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    B. Carr, A. J. Iovino, G. Perna, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veermäe, Nuovo Cimento Rivista Serie (2026), 10.1007/s40766-026-00080-z, arXiv:2601.06024 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    K. Liao, M. Biesiada, and Z.-H. Zhu, Chin. Phys. Lett. 39, 119801 (2022) , arXiv:2207.13489 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Niikura et al

    H. Niikura et al. , Nature Astron. 3, 524 (2019) , arXiv:1701.02151 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    Mróz et al

    P. Mróz et al. , Nature 632, 749 (2024) , arXiv:2403.02386 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    J. B. Muñoz, E. D. Kovetz, L. Dai, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 091301 (2016) , arXiv:1605.00008 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    K. Liao, S. B. Zhang, Z. Li, and H. Gao, Astrophys. J. 896, L11 (2020) , arXiv:2003.13349 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    R. J. Nemiroff, G. F. Marani, J. P. Norris, and J. T. Bonnell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 580 (2001) , arXiv:astro- ph/0101488

    arXiv 2001

  35. [35]

    L. Ji, E. D. Kovetz, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 98, 123523 (2018) , arXiv:1809.09627 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  36. [36]

    Jung and C

    S. Jung and C. S. Shin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 041103 (2019), arXiv:1712.01396 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    Kader et al

    Z. Kader et al. (CHIME/FRB), Phys. Rev. D 106, 043016 (2022) , arXiv:2204.06014 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2512.16347 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    P. N. Wilkinson, D. R. Henstock, I. W. A. Browne, A. G. Polatidis, P. Augusto, A. C. S. Readhead, T. J. Pearson, W. Xu, G. B. Taylor, and R. C. Vermeulen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 584 (2001) , arXiv:astro-ph/0101328

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  40. [40]

    H. Zhou, Y. Lian, Z. Li, S. Cao, and Z. Huang, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 513, 3627 (2022) , arXiv:2106.11705 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    D. R. Lorimer, M. Bailes, M. A. McLaughlin, D. J. Narkevic, and F. Crawford, Science 318, 777 (2007) , arXiv:0709.4301 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  42. [42]

    J. M. Cordes and S. Chatterjee, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 57, 417 (2019) , arXiv:1906.05878 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    Petroff, J

    E. Petroff, J. W. T. Hessels, and D. R. Lorimer, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 27, 4 (2019) , arXiv:1904.07947 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  44. [44]

    B. C. Andersen et al. (CHIME/FRB), Astrophys. J. 947, 83 (2023) , arXiv:2301.08762 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Abbott et al

    T. Abbott et al. (The CHIME/FRB), Astrophys. J. Suppl. 283, 34 (2026) , arXiv:2601.09399 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    Yamasaki, T

    S. Yamasaki, T. Goto, C.-T. Ling, and T. Hashimoto, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 527, 11158 (2023) , arXiv:2309.14337 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    Zhang, Nature 587, 45 (2020) , arXiv:2011.03500 [astro-ph.HE]

    B. Zhang, Nature 587, 45 (2020) , arXiv:2011.03500 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    B. C. Andersen et al. (CHIME/FRB), Nature 587, 54 (2020), arXiv:2005.10324 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    C. D. Bochenek, V. Ravi, K. V. Belov, G. Hallinan, J. Kocz, S. R. Kulkarni, and D. L. McKenna, Nature 587, 59 (2020) , arXiv:2005.10828 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  50. [50]

    Lin et al

    L. Lin et al. , Nature 587, 63 (2020) , arXiv:2005.11479 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  51. [51]

    Deng and B

    W. Deng and B. Zhang, Astrophys. J. Lett. 783, L35 (2014), arXiv:1401.0059 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  52. [52]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. D 101, 103019 (2020) , arXiv:2001.11517 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  53. [53]

    Beniamini, P

    P. Beniamini, P. Kumar, X. Ma, and E. Quataert, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 502, 5134 (2021) , arXiv:2011.11643 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Y. Liu, H. Yu, and P. Wu, Astrophys. J. Lett. 946, L49 (2023), arXiv:2210.05202 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Maity, Astron

    B. Maity, Astron. Astrophys. 689, A340 (2024) , arXiv:2408.05722 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    A. K. Shaw, R. Ghara, P. Beniamini, S. Zaroubi, and P. Kumar, Astrophys. J. 993, 209 (2025) , arXiv:2409.03255 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Zhang and B

    Z.-L. Zhang and B. Zhang, Astrophys. J. Lett. 984, L40 (2025), arXiv:2504.13132 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Liu, J.-J

    Y. Liu, J.-J. Wei, P. Wu, and X.-F. Wu, (2026), arXiv:2604.03769 [astro-ph.CO] . 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    J.-J. Wei, H. Gao, X.-F. Wu, and P. Mészáros, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 261101 (2015) , arXiv:1512.07670 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  60. [60]

    Wu, S.-B

    X.-F. Wu, S.-B. Zhang, H. Gao, J.-J. Wei, Y.-C. Zou, W.-H. Lei, B. Zhang, Z.-G. Dai, and P. Mészáros, Astrophys. J. Lett. 822, L15 (2016) , arXiv:1602.07835 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  61. [61]

    Chang, J.-J

    C.-M. Chang, J.-J. Wei, K.-L. Meng, S.-B. Zhang, H.- X. Gao, J.-J. Geng, and X.-F. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 111, L041304 (2025) , arXiv:2412.09806 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Ravi et al

    V. Ravi et al. , Science 354, 1249 (2016) , arXiv:1611.05758 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  63. [63]

    Akahori, D

    T. Akahori, D. Ryu, and B. M. Gaensler, Astrophys. J. 824, 105 (2016) , arXiv:1602.03235 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  64. [64]

    Hackstein, M

    S. Hackstein, M. Brüggen, F. Vazza, B. Gaensler, and V. Heesen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 488, 4220 (2019), arXiv:1907.09650 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  65. [65]

    Hackstein, M

    S. Hackstein, M. Brüggen, F. Vazza, and L. F. S. Ro- drigues, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 498, 4811 (2020) , arXiv:2008.10536 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  66. [66]

    I. S. Khrykin, N. Tejos, J. X. Prochaska, A. Mannings, L. Mas-Ribas, K. Nagamine, K.-G. Lee, B. M. Gaensler, Z. J. Zhang, and L. Bernales-Cortes, Astron. Astro- phys. 706, A11 (2026) , arXiv:2509.08896 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    M. W. Sammons, J.-P. Macquart, R. D. Ekers, R. M. Shannon, H. Cho, J. X. Prochaska, A. T. Deller, and C. K. Day, Astrophys. J. 900, 122 (2020) , arXiv:2002.12533 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  68. [68]

    Krochek and E

    K. Krochek and E. D. Kovetz, Phys. Rev. D 105, 103528 (2022), arXiv:2112.03721 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  69. [69]

    H. Zhou, Z. Li, K. Liao, C. Niu, H. Gao, Z. Huang, L. Huang, and B. Zhang, Astrophys. J. 928, 124 (2022), arXiv:2109.09251 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  70. [70]

    Oguri, V

    M. Oguri, V. Takhistov, and K. Kohri, Phys. Lett. B 847, 138276 (2023) , arXiv:2208.05957 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  71. [71]

    H. Zhou, Z. Li, C.-G. Shao, X.-J. Wang, K. Liao, H. Gao, and Z.-H. Zhu, (2026), arXiv:2605.19653 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  72. [72]

    R. Gao, Z. Li, K. Liao, H. Gao, B. Zhang, and Z.- H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 109, L021303 (2024) , [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 109, 089904 (2024)], arXiv:2312.12997 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  73. [73]

    R. Gao, S. Tian, Z. Li, H. Gao, K. Liao, B. Zhang, and Z.-H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 111, L081302 (2025) , arXiv:2412.01439 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    Z.-X. Li, H. Gao, X.-H. Ding, G.-J. Wang, and B. Zhang, Nature Commun. 9, 3833 (2018) , arXiv:1708.06357 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  75. [75]

    Wucknitz, L

    O. Wucknitz, L. G. Spitler, and U. L. Pen, Astron. Astrophys. 645, A44 (2021) , arXiv:2004.11643 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  76. [76]

    Zhang, Y.-F

    J.-G. Zhang, Y.-F. Jiang, Z.-W. Zhao, J.-Z. Qi, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 68, 280406 (2025) , arXiv:2411.03126 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Laha, Phys

    R. Laha, Phys. Rev. D 102, 023016 (2020) , arXiv:1812.11810 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  78. [78]

    Connor and V

    L. Connor and V. Ravi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 521, 4024 (2023) , arXiv:2206.14310 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  79. [79]

    J. R. L. Santos, G. Domènech, and A. R. Queiroz, (2026), arXiv:2604.16154 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  80. [80]

    Hui, Ann

    L. Hui, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 59, 247 (2021) , arXiv:2101.11735 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

Showing first 80 references.