Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Two fast radio bursts carry candidate gravitational-microlensing echoes from lenses of about 540–610 and 1540–2570 solar masses, interpreted as intermediate-mass black holes.

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

2026-08-02 13:36 UTC pith:XW325VK4

load-bearing objection A useful FRB lensing search with two candidates and an improved PBH upper limit, but the 'evidence for IMBHs' claim outruns the statistics. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2605.19653 v2 pith:XW325VK4 submitted 2026-05-19 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COgr-qc

Evidence for Intermediate-Mass Black Holes From Microlensing Signatures in CHIME/FRB catalog 2

Huan Zhou , Zhengxiang Li , Cheng-Gang Shao , Xi-Jing Wang , Kai Liao , He Gao , Zong-Hong Zhu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords fast radio burstsmicrolensingintermediate-mass black holesprimordial black holesdark matter abundancegravitational lensingtime delaysautocorrelation analysis
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 searches for gravitational microlensing in the dynamic spectra of thousands of fast radio bursts and argues that two bursts carry true lensing echoes. In the point-mass lens picture, the measured time delays and flux ratios translate into lens masses of roughly 540–610 and 1540–2570 solar masses, squarely in the poorly observed intermediate-mass black hole range. If the signals are real and no galaxies or clusters lie on the lines of sight, the lenses would be isolated primordial black holes contributing about 4% of dark matter in these mass ranges. Even if the two candidates are false, the same search yields a 95% upper limit of about 13% on primordial black holes above 300 solar masses, about an order of magnitude stronger than previous fast-radio-burst–based constraints. The paper's central claim is that fast-radio-burst microlensing is a working probe of the missing black-hole mass gap.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that two fast radio bursts, FRB 20190131D and FRB 20211115A, each contain a pair of peaks with the hallmarks of gravitational microlensing by a point mass: an autocorrelation spike at the expected time delay, correct arrival ordering, no significant frequency drift between the two peaks, and frequency-independent flux ratios across three radio bands. Applying the point-mass lens time-delay formula converts the observed delays and flux ratios into lens masses of about 540–610 and 1540–2570 solar masses, placing both in the intermediate-mass black hole range. The paper further claims that, absent intervening galaxies or clusters, these isolated lenses would be prim

What carries the argument

The pipeline's core is the normalized autocorrelation function of each burst's light curve, compared against a smoothed baseline; a spike above the 3-sigma level identifies a candidate time delay. Candidate peak pairs must satisfy point-mass ordering (main peak before echo), a peak signal-to-noise threshold, and a distribution-comparison test showing no severe frequency drift between the paired peaks. A final hardness test requires the flux ratio between the two peaks to be frequency-independent in three rebinned radio bands, as gravitational lensing demands. The point-mass time-delay identity then maps the selected delay and flux ratio to a lens mass, and the lensing optical depth formula c

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a 3-sigma autocorrelation spike in any one of 340 multi-peak bursts counts as meaningful evidence, but because the threshold is applied independently with no correction for the number of trials, about one such spike is expected by chance; if the two surviving candidates are those chance fluctuations, the lensing interpretation collapses.

What would settle it

Reanalyze all 340 multi-peak bursts with a global false-alarm estimate: scramble or simulate unlensed dynamic spectra under the same noise model and count how often the pipeline produces a 3-sigma autocorrelation spike that survives the peak-ordering, drift, and hardness tests. If two or more false positives emerge per trial, the candidates are consistent with noise. Separately, high-time-resolution follow-up of the two bursts should confirm the predicted 8.82 ms and 6.86 ms echoes and frequency-independent flux ratios.

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

If this is right

  • If the two candidates are genuine, fast-radio-burst microlensing becomes a demonstrated way to find isolated intermediate-mass black holes in an otherwise hard-to-probe mass range.
  • Their inferred masses, hundreds to a few thousand solar masses, would fill part of the gap between stellar-mass and supermassive black holes.
  • If primordial, the implied roughly 4% dark-matter fraction in these narrow mass windows is a quantitative target for primordial black hole formation models and sits in tension with other constraints from accretion and dynamics.
  • If the candidates are false, the pipeline still delivers an improved upper limit, roughly 13% at 95% confidence for masses above 300 solar masses, on intermediate-mass primordial black holes.
  • Scaling the method to future larger and higher-time-resolution fast-radio-burst samples should sharpen both the candidate detections and the exclusion limits.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The 3-sigma autocorrelation threshold was applied independently to 340 multi-peak bursts with no correction for multiple trials, so roughly one chance spike is expected; the global false-alarm probability of the two surviving candidates should be computed before accepting them as real.
  • High-time-resolution follow-up of the two bursts, or a search for the same time delay in repeated bursts from the same sources, would directly test whether the echoes are gravitational rather than intrinsic or plasma-induced.
  • The same autocorrelation-plus-hardness pipeline could be applied to other coherent transients or to repeating fast radio bursts, where multiple bursts provide independent trials and plasma lensing alternatives can be separated by frequency-dependent behavior.
  • If confirmed, the tension between the implied 4% abundance and existing dynamical and accretion limits may indicate that these lenses are not primordial but formed through dynamical assembly, or that the primordial mass function is narrowly peaked; more events would distinguish these cases.

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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a search pipeline for gravitational microlensing signatures in the dynamic spectra of fast radio bursts and applies it to the 4539 bursts in CHIME/FRB Catalog 2. The pipeline combines an autocorrelation-function spike search, peak-flux ordering, a Kolmogorov-Smirnov frequency-drift test, and a hardness-ratio test. Two candidates survive: FRB 20190131D and FRB 20211115A, with inferred point-mass lens masses of roughly 1544–2571 Msun and 539–609 Msun. The authors interpret these as intermediate-mass black holes, argue that the lenses may be primordial if no intervening structures exist, and derive either a ~4% PBH dark-matter fraction in the relevant mass ranges or a ~13% upper limit at 95% confidence if the candidates are not genuine lensing events.

Significance. If the two candidates are genuine, the paper would add to the sparse observational evidence for isolated intermediate-mass black holes and would demonstrate a new use of FRB microlensing. The work has several genuine strengths: it uses a large public catalog, provides reproducible analysis code, presents a transparent list of the nine pre-hardness candidates, and improves on earlier FRB-based PBH constraints by nearly an order of magnitude. The authors also explicitly acknowledge plasma-lensing and intrinsic-emission alternatives. However, the significance of the central claim is conditional on statistical control of the selection pipeline; the candidate-level thresholds alone do not establish a detection significance, and the derived PBH abundance is calibrated to the same two events. The paper is therefore potentially important but needs substantive methodological revision.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2, ACF spike selection] The first filter is a 3-sigma ACF-spike threshold applied to each of the 340 multi-peak FRBs, with no trials correction or global false-alarm estimate. Under a Gaussian null, roughly 340 x P(>3sigma) ~ 1 spike is expected by chance, and scanning the full lag grid increases the effective number of trials. Because the downstream filters (peak ordering, PSNR>10, K-S drift, hardness) are applied after selecting spikes and are not independent of the spike search, the two surviving candidates cannot be assigned a detection significance from the reported thresholds. This is load-bearing: the lens masses in Sec. 2.3 and the PBH statements in Sec. 3 are all conditional on these two events being real lensing signatures. Please provide null simulations of the complete pipeline, or an analytic trials factor, and report a false-alarm probability for the two candidates.
  2. [Table 1 and Sec. 2.2, hardness and K-S tests] The hardness criterion ('consistent within the 1-sigma region') is weak and applied inconsistently. For FRB 20190131D, HR_HM = 0.35 +/- 0.09 versus 0.55 +/- 0.12 differ by about 1.3 sigma, yet the event is retained. For FRB 20211115A, only the M-band ACF exceeds 3 sigma at the candidate delay; the L and H bands do not. The number of noise realizations that would pass a 1-sigma-overlap test should be quantified. In addition, the K-S test in Sec. 2.2 rebins 32 frequency channels into 512, which cannot create independent samples, and the quoted D_crit ~ 0.1 is not what the stated formula gives for n_f = 512 (approximately 0.085). Please justify or replace this step.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (15) and Fig. 5] The ~4% PBH abundance is not derived in the text. It appears to be obtained by normalizing the expected number N_lensed in Eq. (15) to the two candidate events and solving for f_PBH. This is a calibration to the same data used for the discovery, not an independent measurement, and it ignores Poisson uncertainties, selection efficiency, and the fact that the two candidates have different masses (they should imply two different f_PBH constraints unless a specific mass function is assumed). The 95% upper limit of 13% is also presented as applying 'if these candidates are not genuine lensing signals,' but the calculation uses zero true detections; the two observed spikes should either be modeled as background events or the limit should be derived from a full likelihood that includes them. Please present the actual likelihood, the derivation of f_PBH, and the uncertainties.
  4. [Section 4 and Sec. 2.3, intervening-structure claim] The inference that the lenses are 'isolated and of primordial origins' rests on the absence of reported galaxies or galaxy clusters along the lines of sight. CHIME/FRB Catalog 2 burst positions have substantial uncertainties, and no deep multi-wavelength follow-up is presented in this paper. The absence of known galaxies in current catalogs therefore does not exclude a lens inside a foreground galaxy or cluster. This does not affect the inferred lens masses, but it directly affects the PBH interpretation and the f_PBH constraints. Please add a quantitative check using the best available localizations and foreground catalogs, or soften the primordial-origin claim.
  5. [Section 2.2, Eq. (4) and ACF definition] Eq. (4) defines sigma_dt using a sum over 'delta t in Delta t' after first defining Delta t as the time grid in Eq. (2). The notation is confusing: Eq. (2) uses delta t as the lag, while Eq. (4) writes 'delta t in Delta t' and also uses Delta t as both a lag and a set. Please clarify the indexing and whether the sigma estimate is computed from the full ACF or only from the window around candidate lags; this matters for the meaning of the 3-sigma threshold.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues: 'abundace' in Sec. 1, 'T wo' in the abstract, inconsistent capitalization such as 'Dayal & maiolino', and duplicated words ('and and' in Sec. 2.3). Please copyedit.
  2. [Eq. (10)] The mass-inversion formula is stated without derivation. Please define all symbols and show how Eq. (10) follows from the point-mass time-delay expression in Eq. (11), including the treatment of the flux ratio Rf and the redshifted mass ML,z.
  3. [Fig. 4] The right panels mark ACF spikes with colored dots for total, L, M, and H bands. Please add a legend or caption explanation of the colors and of what 'a colored dot on a spike' signifies, since the text says only that a dot indicates the threshold is exceeded.
  4. [References] Some references are arXiv preprints with the same year as the manuscript and may not be peer-reviewed; please mark them clearly as preprint citations and ensure the CHIME/FRB Catalog 2 reference (Abbott et al. 2026) matches the published or accepted version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: lens masses are standard inversions of the point-mass model, and the 4% PBH abundance is explicitly conditional on the two candidates rather than a predicted consequence.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: the lens masses for FRB 20190131D and FRB 20211115A are obtained by inverting the point-mass lens time-delay/flux-ratio relation (Eq. 10) using measured Delta-t and R_f; this is an inversion, not a parameter fitted to the final claim. The ACF-spike search (Eqs. 2-4) and the subsequent PSNR/K-S/hardness filters are model-based selection cuts applied before the mass inversion, so the candidates are not constructed from the IMBH conclusion. The 13% upper limit on f_PBH follows from the zero-lensing expectation in Eqs. (14)-(15) and does not use the two candidates; it is an independent null-result constraint. The 4% abundance is obtained by setting the expected lensed count to the two candidate events, i.e. a conditional estimate of f_PBH under the assumption that both candidates are genuine PBH lensing events; this is transparent parameter estimation rather than a prediction or a fitted input renamed as a prediction, and it is not used to validate the candidates. Self-citations (Zhou et al. 2022a; Liao et al. 2020) appear only for comparison/context and are not load-bearing for the two-candidate detection. The absence of a global trials correction across 340 multi-peak FRBs is a statistical robustness concern for the 3-sigma ACF threshold, but that affects significance, not circularity; it does not make any equation equal to its input. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on the point-mass lens model, a DM-based redshift estimate, and a set of hand-chosen selection thresholds. No new physical entities are introduced, but the interpretation as IMBHs/PBHs depends on the lensing hypothesis being correct and on the assumed DM decomposition. The free parameters listed here control both the candidate selection and the derived PBH abundance.

free parameters (3)
  • Rf,max = SNR/10 = SNR/10
    Used in Eq. (13)-(14) to set the maximum impact parameter and the lensing optical depth. Chosen by hand; not derived from data or a physical model.
  • DMhost + DMsrc = 200 pc cm^-3
    Assumed maximum host/local DM contribution in Eq. (1); directly determines the inferred source redshifts and hence the lens mass ranges.
  • Selection thresholds (3-sigma ACF, PSNR>10, Dcrit~0.1, 1-sigma hardness) = 3-sigma, 10, ~0.1, 1-sigma
    Hand-chosen thresholds in the screening pipeline; no trials correction or global false-alarm estimate is provided.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Point-mass gravitational lens model with frequency-independent flux ratio describes FRB microlensing.
    Used throughout Section 2.2-2.3 (Eq. 3, 10, 11). Assumes lensing rather than plasma refraction or intrinsic burst structure.
  • domain assumption DM-redshift relation with f_IGM=0.83 and DM_IGM~855 z pc cm^-3.
    Used in Eq. (1) to convert observed DM to source redshift; this sets the lens mass scale.
  • domain assumption The K-S test treats normalized frequency-intensity profiles of un-drifted peaks as random samples from a common distribution.
    Eq. (6) and the following discussion; used to reject pairs with significant frequency drift.
  • ad hoc to paper Hardness ratios of the two lensed episodes are identical within 1 sigma.
    Section 2.2, final filter selecting the two candidates. The 1-sigma criterion is chosen post hoc and not derived from a model of intrinsic spectral variability.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15078 in / 20447 out tokens · 202579 ms · 2026-08-02T13:36:49.410730+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Intermediate-mass black holes (IMBHs) are the missing link in the cosmic hierarchy of black holes, bridging the gap between stellar-mass black holes and supermassive ones. They also serve as unique laboratories for testing strong-field gravity and are prime targets for future multi-messenger observations. However, IMBHs are a population that has remained notoriously difficult to detect. The microlensing effect of fast radio bursts (FRBs) can serve as a clean and powerful method to probe IMBHs. In this work, we develop a pipeline to search for microlensed FRBs based on their dynamic spectra and apply it to the CHIME/FRB Catalog 2. Two microlensing signatures have been identified in two separate sources, i.e. FRB~20190131D and FRB~20211115A. The inferred lens masses for these two signatures are $\sim[280-467]~M_{\odot}$ and $\sim[539-609]~M_{\odot}$, respectively. Here we interpret them as evidence for IMBHs. If there are no intervening structures-such as galaxies or clusters-along the line of sights for these two sources, the two identified IMBHs might be isolated and of primordial origins. In that case, we obtain primordial black holes (PBHs) within these two mass ranges would constitute $\sim4\%$ of dark matter. Moreover, if these two candidates are not genuine lensing signatures, the abundance of intermediate-mass PBHs with masses $>300,M_{\odot}$ is constrained to be $\sim13\%$ at $95\%$ confidence level. Therefore, more comprehensive observational information for FRBs, together with a deeper understanding of whether the intrinsic emission mechanisms of FRBs can produce lensing-like signals, will be crucial for establishing this effect as a powerful tool for probing (primordial) IMBHs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.19653 by Cheng-Gang Shao, He Gao, Huan Zhou, Kai Liao, Xi-Jing Wang, Zhengxiang Li, Zong-Hong Zhu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Two-dimensional distribution of inferred redshifts, width, and SNR for 3564 FRBs in CHIME/FRB catalog 2. For a detected FRB, the dispersion measure (DM) is a key observational property. Theoretically, DM is the integral of the electron density along the radio pulse’s path. Obser￾vationally, it is derived from the arrival time difference be￾tween two photons at different frequencies. The high DMs of the fir… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic diagram of the FRB being lensed considering PBH as point-mass lens. and a flux ratio Rf to the second image, yielding a lensed light curve Ilensed(t,∆t,Rf ) ∝ Rf Rf +1 Iint(t +∆t)+ 1 Rf +1 Iint(t). (3) Using this formula together with Eq. (2), the ACF of the lensed signal exhibits spikes at δt = −∆t, 0, +∆t with an amplitude ratio Rf/(R 2 f +1) : 1 : Rf/(R 2 f +1). To distinguish lensing-induced … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Upper Left: The dynamic spectrum of FRB 20181028A without the RFI. Upper Right: The blue line shows the autocorrelation of the light curve. The orange dashed line represents a Gaussian-smoothed version of the autocorrelation. The gray dash-dotted lines indicate the 3σ. The red dashed line marks a location with a strong autocorrelation exceeding the 3σ threshold, corresponding to a time delay of ∆t = 15.68 … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Similar to Upper panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The upper limit on the PBH fraction fPBH at the 95% confidence level as a function of PBH mass MPBH in the range [1, 105 ]M¯, derived from the current CHIME/FRB catalog 2 under the assumption of no lensing FRBs. The subplot presents an approximate constraint on the PBH parameters under the hypothesis that FRB20190131D and FRB 20211115A are lensed signals produced by PBHs. Other con￾straints are compiled fr… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

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

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    A new conversion formula turns monochromatic bare-PBH microlensing bounds into extended-mass dressed-PBH bounds, and a 10^5-FRB forecast places f_PBH near 10^-4.

  2. Probing Primordial Black Holes with upcoming Radio Telescopes: a case study for LOFAR2.0, FAST Core Array and BINGO

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    LOFAR2.0, FAST Core Array and BINGO can constrain the PBH dark matter fraction f_PBH below 0.16-0.39 for masses above 10^{-2} to 10 solar masses via FRB lensing statistics.

  3. Probing Primordial Black Holes with upcoming Radio Telescopes: a case study for LOFAR2.0, FAST Core Array and BINGO

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 conditional novelty 4.0

    LOFAR2.0, FAST Core Array and BINGO are forecast to bound f_PBH < 0.16 (M>1 Msun), <0.39 (M>10 Msun) and <0.39 (M>0.1 Msun) respectively from null FRB lensing.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    j<+nfS>J 4U) 8RBA(?ڄB d

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    G., et al

    Abac, A. G., et al. 2025 a , Astrophys. J. Lett., 993, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c9c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c9c 2025

  5. [5]

    ---. 2025 b . 2512.16347

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    2020, Phys

    Abbott, R., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. Lett., 125, 101102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.101102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.101102 2020

  7. [7]

    2026, Astrophys

    Abbott, T., et al. 2026, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 283, 34, 10.3847/1538-4365/ae3828

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae3828 2026

  8. [8]

    D., & Kamionkowski, M

    Ali-Ha \" moud, Y., Kovetz, E. D., & Kamionkowski, M. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 123523, 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.123523

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.123523 2017

  9. [9]

    2021, Astrophys

    Amiri, M., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J. Supp., 257, 59, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab 2021

  10. [10]

    C., et al

    Andersen, B. C., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 54, 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y 2020

  11. [11]

    2023, Astrophys

    ---. 2023, Astrophys. J., 947, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc6c1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc6c1 2023

  12. [12]

    Arca Sedda, M., Kamlah, A. W. H., Spurzem, R., et al. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 526, 429, 10.1093/mnras/stad2292

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2292 2023

  13. [13]

    D., Ravi, V., Belov, K

    Bochenek, C. D., Ravi, V., Belov, K. V., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 59, 10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x 2020

  14. [14]

    2024, Nature Astron., 8, 126, 10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9

    Bogdan, A., et al. 2024, Nature Astron., 8, 126, 10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9 2024

  15. [15]

    2021, Rept

    Carr, B., Kohri, K., Sendouda, Y., & Yokoyama, J. 2021, Rept. Prog. Phys., 84, 116902, 10.1088/1361-6633/ac1e31

    doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ac1e31 2021

  16. [16]

    2022, SciPost Phys

    Carr, B., & Kuhnel, F. 2022, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes, 48, 1, 10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.48

    doi:10.21468/scipostphyslectnotes.48 2022

  17. [17]

    Carr, B. J. 1975, Astrophys. J., 201, 1, 10.1086/153853

    doi:10.1086/153853 1975

  18. [18]

    J., & Hawking, S

    Carr, B. J., & Hawking, S. W. 1974, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 168, 399, 10.1093/mnras/168.2.399

    doi:10.1093/mnras/168.2.399 1974

  19. [19]

    2025, , 537, L61, 10.1093/mnrasl/slae116

    Chang , C., Zhang , S., Xiao , D., et al. 2025, , 537, L61, 10.1093/mnrasl/slae116

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slae116 2025

  20. [20]

    2017, Nature, 541, 58, 10.1038/nature20797

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

    doi:10.1038/nature20797 2017

  21. [21]

    2018, Astrophys

    Chen, Z.-C., & Huang, Q.-G. 2018, Astrophys. J., 864, 61, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6e2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad6e2 2018

  22. [22]

    2023, Mon

    Connor, L., & Ravi, V. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 521, 4024, 10.1093/mnras/stad667

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad667 2023

  23. [23]

    M., & Chatterjee, S

    Cordes, J. M., & Chatterjee, S. 2019, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 57, 417, 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104501

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

  24. [24]

    M., Wasserman, I., Hessels, J

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa74da 2017

  25. [25]

    Dayal, P., & maiolino, R. 2025. 2506.08116

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    De Luca, V., Del Grosso, L., Franciolini, G., et al. 2025 a . 2512.19666

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    De Luca, V., Franciolini, G., & Riotto, A. 2025 b . 2508.09965

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    2014, Astrophys

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

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

  29. [29]

    M., & Kavanagh, B

    Green, A. M., & Kavanagh, B. J. 2021, J. Phys. G, 48, 043001, 10.1088/1361-6471/abc534

    doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abc534 2021

  30. [30]

    2024, , 631, 285, 10.1038/s41586-024-07511-z

    H \"a berle , M., Neumayer , N., Seth , A., et al. 2024, , 631, 285, 10.1038/s41586-024-07511-z

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07511-z 2024

  31. [31]

    1971, Mon

    Hawking, S. 1971, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 152, 75, 10.1093/mnras/152.1.75

    doi:10.1093/mnras/152.1.75 1971

  32. [32]

    D., & Kamionkowski, M

    Ji, L., Kovetz, E. D., & Kamionkowski, M. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 123523, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.123523

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.123523 2018

  33. [33]

    Jung, S., & Shin, C. S. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 122, 041103, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.041103

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.041103 2019

  34. [34]

    Juodžbalis, I., et al. 2025. 2508.21748

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    2022, Phys

    Kader, Z., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 043016, 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.043016

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.043016 2022

  36. [36]

    Krochek, K., & Kovetz, E. D. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 103528, 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.103528

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.103528 2022

  37. [37]

    2020, Phys

    Laha, R. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 023016, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.023016

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.023016 2020

  38. [38]

    2020, Mon

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

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa070 2020

  39. [39]

    2018, Nature Commun., 9, 3833, 10.1038/s41467-018-06303-0

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

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

  40. [40]

    B., Li, Z., & Gao, H

    Liao, K., Zhang, S. B., Li, Z., & Gao, H. 2020, Astrophys. J., 896, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab963e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab963e 2020

  41. [41]

    2018, Nature Astron., 2, 656, 10.1038/s41550-018-0493-1

    Lin, D., et al. 2018, Nature Astron., 2, 656, 10.1038/s41550-018-0493-1

    doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0493-1 2018

  42. [42]

    2020, Nature, 587, 63, 10.1038/s41586-020-2839-y

    Lin, L., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 63, 10.1038/s41586-020-2839-y

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2839-y 2020

  43. [43]

    2022, Astrophys

    Lin, S.-J., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J., 931, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6505

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6505 2022

  44. [44]

    2023, Astrophys

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc650 2023

  45. [45]

    R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

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

    doi:10.1126/science.1147532 2007

  46. [46]

    2024, Astron

    Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, Astron. Astrophys., 691, A145, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347640

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347640 2024

  47. [47]

    ---. 2025. 2505.22567

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    2017, Astrophys

    Marcote, B., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 834, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/l8 2017

  49. [49]

    2024, Nature, 632, 749, 10.1038/s41586-024-07704-6

    Mr \'o z, P., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 749, 10.1038/s41586-024-07704-6

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07704-6 2024

  50. [50]

    B., Kovetz, E

    Mu \ n oz, J. B., Kovetz, E. D., Dai, L., & Kamionkowski, M. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 117, 091301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.091301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.091301 2016

  51. [51]

    2024, Astrophys

    Natarajan, P., Pacucci, F., Ricarte, A., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 960, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e76

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e76 2024

  52. [52]

    2019, Nature Astron., 3, 524, 10.1038/s41550-019-0723-1

    Niikura, H., et al. 2019, Nature Astron., 3, 524, 10.1038/s41550-019-0723-1

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0723-1 2019

  53. [53]

    2023, Phys

    Oguri, M., Takhistov, V., & Kohri, K. 2023, Phys. Lett. B, 847, 138276, 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138276

    arXiv 2023

  54. [54]

    1987, , 317, L51, 10.1086/184911

    Paczynski , B. 1987, , 317, L51, 10.1086/184911

    doi:10.1086/184911 1987

  55. [55]

    A., Mestichelli, B., & Ugolini, C

    Paiella, L., Sedda, M. A., Mestichelli, B., & Ugolini, C. 2026, Astron. Astrophys., 708, A200, 10.1051/0004-6361/202557230

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557230 2026

  56. [56]

    2021, Nature Astron., 5, 560, 10.1038/s41550-021-01307-1

    Paynter, J., Webster, R., & Thrane, E. 2021, Nature Astron., 5, 560, 10.1038/s41550-021-01307-1

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01307-1 2021

  57. [57]

    2022, , 924, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac339f

    Pechetti , R., Seth , A., Kamann , S., et al. 2022, , 924, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac339f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac339f 2022

  58. [58]

    Petroff, E., Hessels, J. W. T., & Lorimer, D. R. 2019, Astron. Astrophys. Rev., 27, 4, 10.1007/s00159-019-0116-6

    doi:10.1007/s00159-019-0116-6 2019

  59. [59]

    F., Baumgardt, H., Hut, P., Makino, J., & McMillan, S

    Portegies Zwart, S. F., Baumgardt, H., Hut, P., Makino, J., & McMillan, S. L. W. 2004, Nature, 428, 724, 10.1038/nature02448

    doi:10.1038/nature02448 2004

  60. [60]

    P., Naab, T., Rantala, A., et al

    Rizzuto, F. P., Naab, T., Rantala, A., et al. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 521, 2930, 10.1093/mnras/stad734

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad734 2023

  61. [61]

    2016, Phys

    Sasaki, M., Suyama, T., Tanaka, T., & Yokoyama, S. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 117, 061101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.061101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.061101 2016

  62. [62]

    P., et al

    Tendulkar, S. P., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 834, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L7

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

  63. [63]

    2013, Science, 341, 53, 10.1126/science.1236789

    Thornton, D., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 53, 10.1126/science.1236789

    doi:10.1126/science.1236789 2013

  64. [64]

    2018, Astrophys

    Tremou, E., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J., 862, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac9b9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac9b9 2018

  65. [65]

    2021, Astrophys

    Veres, P., Bhat, N., Fraija, N., & Lesage, S. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 921, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2ee6

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac2ee6 2021

  66. [66]

    2021, Astrophys

    Wang, Y., Jiang, L.-Y., Li, C.-K., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 918, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1ff9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac1ff9 2021

  67. [67]

    2015, Phys

    Wei, J.-J., Gao, H., Wu, X.-F., & M \'e sz \'a ros, P. 2015, Phys. Rev. Lett., 115, 261101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.261101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.261101 2015

  68. [68]

    N., Henstock, D

    Wilkinson, P. N., Henstock, D. R., Browne, I. W. A., et al. 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett., 86, 584, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.584

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.86.584 2001

  69. [69]

    2016, Astrophys

    Wu, X.-F., Zhang, S.-B., Gao, H., et al. 2016, Astrophys. J. Lett., 822, L15, 10.3847/2041-8205/822/1/L15

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/822/1/l15 2016

  70. [70]

    2026, Astrophys

    Xiong, S.-W., Xiao, S., Jiang, Z.-H., et al. 2026, Astrophys. J., 996, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae22d3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae22d3 2026

  71. [71]

    2023, Mon

    Yamasaki, S., Goto, T., Ling, C.-T., & Hashimoto, T. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 527, 11158, 10.1093/mnras/stad3844

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3844 2023

  72. [72]

    2021, Astrophys

    Yang, X., L \"u , H.-J., Yuan, H.-Y., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 921, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2f39

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac2f39 2021

  73. [73]

    2018, Astrophys

    Zhang, B. 2018, Astrophys. J. Lett., 867, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/aae8e3

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aae8e3 2018

  74. [74]

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

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

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

  75. [75]

    Zhang, S., Liu, B., Bromm, V., & K \"u hnel, F. 2025. 2512.14066

    arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    2022 a , Astrophys

    Zhou, H., Li, Z., Liao, K., et al. 2022 a , Astrophys. J., 928, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac510d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac510d 2022

  77. [77]

    2022 b , Mon

    Zhou, H., Lian, Y., Li, Z., Cao, S., & Huang, Z. 2022 b , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 513, 3627, 10.1093/mnras/stac915

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac915 2022