Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Lensed fast radio bursts as a probe of time-varying gravitational potential induced by wave dark matter

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a wave dark matter halo's slowly jittering gravitational potential can be measured by monitoring a lensed repeating fast radio burst for about a year, because the differential stretching of the two images drifts…

desk verdict Worth a serious referee, but the forecast currently has a hole at the exact point where the observable is defined: the differential stretch between lensed images is assumed, not computed. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01439 v2 pith:3ZEF6BWE submitted 2024-12-02 astro-ph.GA gr-qc

Ran Gao , Shuxun Tian , Zhengxiang Li , He Gao , Kai Liao , Bing Zhang , Zong-Hong Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAgr-qc
keywords wavedarkmatterultralightbosonsfuzzygravitationalpotentialfluctuationsfastradioburstsstronglensingsignalstretchingdeBroglietimescale
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that a dark matter halo made of ultralight wave-like bosons has a gravitational potential that fluctuates on the slow de Broglie timescale, and that these fluctuations stretch or compress any signal passing through the halo by a relative amount of about $10^{-10}$. If true, this makes an otherwise invisible effect observable: a repeating fast radio burst that is strongly lensed into two images would show a slowly drifting arrival-time delay, because the two paths sample the halo's time-varying potential differently. Monitoring such a lensed repeater for roughly one year, with realistic dispersion-measure errors, could detect the drift for a $10^{11} M_\odot$ halo of $10^{-22}$ eV bosons, turning lensed FRBs into a direct probe of the wave nature of dark matter. The paper derives a formula for the stretching effect, simulates a halo to quantify it, and forecasts detectability with a likelihood analysis.

What carries the argument

The central object is the de Broglie-scale time variation of the Newtonian gravitational potential $\Phi(x,t)$ inside a wave dark matter halo, driven by interference of the classical wavefunction $\psi(t,r)$ obeying the Schrödinger–Poisson system. The carrying identity is Eq. (5): $z_i = \mathcal{O}(1)\times c^{-2}\int_{\mathrm{path},i}(\partial\Phi/\partial t)\,dt$ for the relative frequency or stretch of each lensed image. The observational machinery is the lensed repeating FRB as a differential clock: comparing arrival times of corresponding bursts in the two images converts the single-path stretch into a measurable drift in the inter-image delay, $t_a - t_b \sim t_0 z_a + C$, which can be extracted from a likelihood fit over a year of bursts.

What would settle it

Take the simulated $10^{11} M_\odot$, $10^{-22}$ eV halo and compute the line integrals $\int(\partial\Phi/\partial t)\,dt$ along two realistic lensed ray paths separated by the Einstein radius; if the differential stretch comes out well below $10^{-10}$, the proposed detection fails. Observationally, monitor a lensed repeating FRB for a year and check whether the arrival-time delay between images drifts at the predicted millisecond-per-year rate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a time-varying gravitational potential stretches a time-series signal by $z_i \sim \mathcal{O}(1) \times c^{-2}\int_{\mathrm{path},i} (\partial\Phi/\partial t)\,dt$, and that this effect reaches $z\sim10^{-10}$ for a galactic wave dark matter halo of $10^{11} M_\odot$ composed of $10^{-22}$ eV bosons. This is large enough to be measured through the differential stretch between the two images of a lensed repeating FRB: the inter-image arrival-time delay drifts by a few milliseconds over a year, and 100–1000 bursts with dispersion-measure errors of 0.1–1 cm$^{-3}$ pc suffice to recover $z_a=10^{-10}$. The authors support this with numerical simulations of halo formation and a likelihood forecast, concluding that lensed repeating FRBs monitored for about one year can directly probe the wave nature of galactic dark matter halos.

Load-bearing premise

The whole detection forecast rests on the assumption that the stretch experienced by one lensed image is about $10^{-10}$ and the other image's stretch is negligible; if the two paths through the halo produce comparable stretches, or if the order-unity coefficient in Eq. (5) is much smaller than one, the drift signal would shrink below detectability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The de Broglie-timescale fluctuation of the gravitational potential, previously almost inaccessible, becomes a measurable target for existing and upcoming FRB observations.
  • Lighter bosons ($m\lesssim10^{-22}$ eV) produce a larger stretching effect, so a null result in a year-long lensed FRB monitor would translate into a lower bound on the boson mass.
  • The differential-stretch signature is distinct from plasma lensing (frequency-dependent) and from bulk lens motion (position-correlated), so it can be separated with multi-frequency and multi-image data.
  • The same formalism applies to any repeating extragalactic transient whose burst arrival times are measured with sub-millisecond precision, not only FRBs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension the authors do not pursue: the drift signal should be quasi-periodic on the de Broglie timescale (roughly years for $10^{-22}$ eV bosons), so longer monitoring could look for a coherent oscillation in the time delay rather than a linear drift, which would help separate wave-DM potential fluctuations from other slow effects.
  • If the order-unity coefficient in Eq. (5) and the differential path sampling are favorable, the same method could constrain not just the boson mass but also the density profile of the halo, since the stretch integral weights the potential time-derivative along each path.
  • The forecast assumes 100–1000 bursts in one year; a single bright lensed repeater with a very high burst rate might reach the same sensitivity faster, while a lensed source with a larger image separation would sample more independent de Broglie patches and could increase the differential stretch.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that strong-lensing systems of repeating fast radio bursts (FRBs) can be used to detect the slow de Broglie-scale time variation of the gravitational potential in a wave dark matter halo. The authors derive an estimate, Eq. (5), relating the frequency shift of a photon to an integral of ∂Φ/∂t along the line of sight, with an undetermined O(1) coefficient. They then simulate a 10^11 M_sun halo of 10^-22 eV bosons, obtain a typical stretching amplitude z ~ 10^-10, and run an emcee forecast on mock lensed-FRB data, concluding that monitoring the two images for about one year could measure this stretching. The central observable in the forecast is the differential stretch between the two images, but the paper never computes this differential quantity from the simulated halo.

Significance. If the forecast were fully supported, this would be a novel and interesting observational route to probing the wave nature of dark matter, complementing pulsar timing and stellar-kinematics constraints. The paper is honest about several limitations, explicitly acknowledging the O(1) coefficient in Eq. (5), the neglect of light deflection, and the need for a complete three-dimensional framework. It makes no detection claim and is appropriately framed as a proposal. The main value is the combination of ULDM simulations with a concrete lensed-FRB timing experiment, and the order-of-magnitude estimate z ~ 10^-10 is a useful target for future work. However, the quantitative detectability claim rests on an assumed equivalence between a single-path stretch and the two-image differential stretch, and this assumption is not yet tested.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Eqs. (8)-(10), Table I] The observable differential stretch z_a - z_b is never computed from the simulation. The forecast assumes z_a - z_b ≈ z_a and z_b ≈ 0, but Section III simulates and reports only a single line-of-sight integral of ∂Φ/∂t (Eq. (5) applied to one straight path). In a real lens, the two images propagate along distinct trajectories separated by roughly the Einstein radius, about 3 kpc, while the de Broglie coherence length of a 10^-22 eV halo is also of order 1 kpc. The two path integrals can therefore be partially correlated, and if z_a and z_b are comparable or strongly correlated, the drift in the inter-image arrival-time delay could be much smaller than the ~t_0 z_a used in the forecast. The paper should compute the difference of Eq. (5) along the two actual lensed trajectories in the simulated halo, or at least provide a quantitative physical model of the correlation suppression. Without this, Table I overstates the sensitivity of the proposed observation.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (5)] The amplitude entering the forecast is z ~ 10^-10, but Eq. (5) carries an undetermined O(1) coefficient and is derived in a one-dimensional approximation that neglects light deflection and magnification. The paper itself states that 'a complete theoretical framework remains to be established in the future.' This is not fatal for an order-of-magnitude proposal, but the emcee forecast in Table I quotes relative errors of 2%-60% conditional on the assumed z_a = 10^-10. The forecast should either propagate the systematic uncertainty in the O(1) coefficient or calibrate it with a full three-dimensional treatment; otherwise the reported statistical errors are not the error budget relevant to the detectability claim.
  3. [Section III, Figs. 3-4] The numerical results are presented as box diagrams without error bars, convergence tests, or halo-to-halo variance. Only a single simulated halo appears to be used for each boson mass, and Fig. 4 shows evolution-time dependence but no convergence criterion. Since the claimed detectability hinges on z ~ 10^-10 being a typical value rather than a favorable fluctuation, the paper should provide at least a few independent realizations (different random seeds or box sizes) and state the resulting spread. This would strengthen the central amplitude estimate considerably.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section V] The paragraph discussing the Hubble-flow effect is duplicated almost verbatim, with the sentence 'Another factor that can affect this is the effect of Hubble flow...' appearing twice.
  2. [Throughout] There are several awkward or ungrammatical phrases, including 'terrible tiny,' 'the emergency of FRBs,' and 'preponderantly contesting the conventional cold DM paradigm'; these should be edited for clarity.
  3. [Section IV, Table I] Table I reports relative errors from the emcee fit but does not show the posteriors, the number of walkers/steps, or convergence diagnostics; adding a corner plot or at least stating Gelman-Rubin statistics would make the forecast reproducible.
  4. [Section III, Eq. (6)-(7)] The simulation setup mentions a 'collection of Gaussian wave packets' as the initial condition but does not specify the number, widths, or random seed; providing these details would be useful for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the theoretical stretch formula is derived from the geodesic equation, the simulated z values are forward-model inputs to a sensitivity forecast, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper makes no detection claim and performs a forward sensitivity estimate. The central theoretical result, Eq. (5), is derived from the geodesic equation (Eqs. (1)-(4)) together with the auxiliary identity that the total derivative integral of the potential along the photon path vanishes; this is an independent derivation, not an input assumed to equal the output. The simulated stretch z ~ 10^-10 is obtained by evaluating Eq. (5) on a wave-DM halo simulation (Section III), and the forecast (Section IV) then uses that value as an assumed input to generate mock arrival-time data for the EMCEE likelihood. This is standard forecasting practice: the quantity being 'measured' in the mock analysis is the same quantity fed into the mock, but the paper explicitly presents this as a conditional detectability estimate (Table I: 'Relative error at z = 10^-10'), not as an observational prediction validated by data. There is no fitting of a parameter to a subset of data and then claiming that same subset as a prediction; there is no self-citation invoked as load-bearing justification for the central claim; and no known result is merely renamed. The skeptical concern that the differential stretch between two lensed images is assumed to equal the single-path value za (Eq. (9), z_a >> z_b) is a legitimate modeling caveat about spatial correlation of the potential fluctuations, but it is not circularity: the observable is not identical to the input by construction, and a full two-path computation would be a refinement rather than a removal of the derived formula. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained for the purpose of circularity analysis, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's derivations rest on standard weak-field gravity and Schrodinger-Poisson ULDM, plus several modeling choices (straight photon path, O(1) coefficient, single-path stretch as the differential signal) that are stated but not fully derived.

free parameters (3)
  • O(1) coefficient in Eq. (5) = assumed 1
    The derivation leaves an order-unity coefficient in the frequency-shift formula; the numerical estimate and forecast implicitly set it to 1 without a full 3D calculation.
  • Differential stretch ratio z_a - z_b = z_a ~ 1e-10, z_b = 0
    The observational forecast assumes the second image's stretch is negligible; no simulation of the second lensed path is provided, so the differential signal is taken from the single-path estimate.
  • Impact parameter for the photon path = ~3 kpc
    The simulation estimates Eq. (5) at the Einstein-radius scale of ~3 kpc, a representative choice; results depend on this radius.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Weak-field metric (1) and linearized geodesic equation describe photon propagation in galactic halos.
    Used in Section II; valid for Phi/c^2 << 1 in galactic potentials.
  • domain assumption Photon trajectory is treated as a straight line with dt/dx approximately 1/c; deflection is ignored.
    Section II; the paper notes a full 3D analysis may change the O(1) coefficient.
  • standard math Integral of the total derivative of Phi along the photon path equals zero, with Phi vanishing at infinity.
    Fundamental theorem of calculus; used to extract the leading time-dependent term in Section II.
  • standard math Classical field equations (6)-(7), the Schrodinger-Poisson system, describe the wave DM halo.
    Section III; standard ULDM description, cited to reference [56].
  • domain assumption The simulated relaxed core in a 10 kpc box represents a galactic DM halo at the Einstein radius.
    Section III; the box is smaller than a full galaxy and the initial Gaussian packets are a modeling choice.
  • domain assumption The likelihood in Eq. (10) with Gaussian timing errors and uniform burst epochs models the measurement.
    Section IV; used for the EMCEE forecast.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lensed fast radio bursts as a probe of time-varying gravitational potential induced by wave dark matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3ZEF6BWE

@misc{pith2026241201439,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lensed fast radio bursts as a probe of time-varying gravitational potential induced by wave dark matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3ZEF6BWE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01439}
}
abstract

Ultralight bosonic wave dark matter (DM) is preponderantly contesting the conventional cold DM paradigm in predicting diverse and rich phenomena on small scales. For a DM halo made of ultralight bosons, the wave interference naturally induces slow de Broglie time-scale fluctuations of the gravitational potential. In this paper, we first derive an estimation for the effect of a time-varying gravitational potential on photon propagation. Our numerical simulations suggest that the time-varying potential of a $10^{11}M_{\odot}$ halo composed of $10^{-22}\,\mathrm{eV}$ bosons would stretch or compress a time series signal by a factor of $10^{-10}$. Here, we propose that, due to the precise measurements of their arrival times, lensed repeating fast radio bursts (FRBs) have the potential to effectively validate temporal variations in gravitational potential by monitoring their images over a period of approximately $\mathcal{O}(1)$ years. With rapidly growing FRB observations, this method would serve as a promising method to directly probe the wave nature of galactic DM halos.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01439 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Illustrations for the effect of a time-varying gravita [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The magnitude of the stretching effect for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Results for 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  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 of 10

    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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Zwicky, Helvetica Physica Acta 6, 110 (1933)

    F. Zwicky, Helvetica Physica Acta 6, 110 (1933)

    work page 1933

  2. [2]

    Zwicky, General Relativity and Gravitation 41, 207 (2009)

    F. Zwicky, General Relativity and Gravitation 41, 207 (2009)

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    V. C. Rubin and J. Ford, W. Kent, The Astrophysical Journal 159, 379 (1970)

    work page 1970

  4. [4]

    Clowe, M

    D. Clowe, M. Bradaˇ c, A. H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S. W. Randall, C. Jones, and D. Zaritsky, apjl 648, L109 (2006), astro-ph/0608407

    arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    C. L. Bennett, D. Larson, J. L. Weiland, N. Jarosik, G. Hinshaw, N. Odegard, K. M. Smith, R. S. Hill, B. Gold, M. Halpern, et al., apjs 208, 20 (2013), 1212.5225

    arXiv 2013

  6. [6]

    Steigman and M

    G. Steigman and M. S. Turner, Nuclear Physics B 253, 375 (1985)

    work page 1985

  7. [7]

    Aprile, J

    E. Aprile, J. Aalbers, F. Agostini, M. Alfonsi, L. Al- thueser, F. D. Amaro, M. Anthony, F. Arneodo, L. Baudis, B. Bauermeister, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 111302 (2018), 1805.12562

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Barak, I

    L. Barak, I. M. Bloch, M. Cababie, G. Cancelo, L. Chap- linsky, F. Chierchie, M. Crisler, A. Drlica-Wagner, R. Es- sig, J. Estrada, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 171802 (2020), 2004.11378

    arXiv 2020

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Meng, Z. Wang, Y. Tao, A. Abdukerim, Z. Bo, W. Chen, X. Chen, Y. Chen, C. Cheng, Y. Cheng, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 261802 (2021), 2107.13438

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Aalbers, D

    J. Aalbers, D. S. Akerib, C. W. Akerlof, A. K. Al Musalhi, F. Alder, A. Alqahtani, S. K. Alsum, C. S. Amarasinghe, A. Ames, T. J. Anderson, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041002 (2023), 2207.03764

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Klypin, S

    A. Klypin, S. Gottl¨ ober, A. V. Kravtsov, and A. M. Khokhlov, The Astrophysical Journal 516, 530 (1999), astro-ph/9708191

    1999 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Klypin, A

    A. Klypin, A. V. Kravtsov, O. Valenzuela, and F. Prada, The Astrophysical Journal 522, 82 (1999), astro- ph/9901240

    1999

  5. [13]

    W. J. G. de Blok, Advances in Astronomy 2010, 789293 (2010), 0910.3538

    2010 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Boylan-Kolchin, J

    M. Boylan-Kolchin, J. S. Bullock, and M. Kaplinghat, MNRAS 415, L40 (2011), 1103.0007

    2011 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Boylan-Kolchin, J

    M. Boylan-Kolchin, J. S. Bullock, and M. Kaplinghat, MNRAS 422, 1203 (2012), 1111.2048

    2012 arXiv

  8. [16]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  9. [17]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 223 (1978). 6

    1978

  10. [18]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  11. [19]

    P. W. Graham, I. G. Irastorza, S. K. Lamoreaux, A. Lind- ner, and K. A. van Bibber, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 65, 485 (2015), 1602.00039

    2015 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Sikivie, Reviews of Modern Physics 93, 015004 (2021), 2003.02206

    P. Sikivie, Reviews of Modern Physics 93, 015004 (2021), 2003.02206

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Hui, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 59, 247 (2021), 2101.11735

    L. Hui, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 59, 247 (2021), 2101.11735

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hlozek, D

    R. Hlozek, D. Grin, D. J. E. Marsh, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D 91, 103512 (2015), 1410.2896

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Hloˇ zek, D

    R. Hloˇ zek, D. J. E. Marsh, and D. Grin, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society476, 3063 (2018), 1708.05681

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    G. S. Farren, D. Grin, A. H. Jaffe, R. Hloˇ zek, and D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rev. D 105, 063513 (2022), 2109.13268

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bozek, D

    B. Bozek, D. J. E. Marsh, J. Silk, and R. F. G. Wyse, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 450, 209 (2015), 1409.3544

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Kulkarni and J

    M. Kulkarni and J. P. Ostriker, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 510, 1425 (2022), 2011.02116

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Dentler, D

    M. Dentler, D. J. E. Marsh, R. Hloˇ zek, A. Lagu¨ e, K. K. Rogers, and D. Grin, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society 515, 5646 (2022), 2111.01199

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Lagu¨ e, J

    A. Lagu¨ e, J. R. Bond, R. Hloˇ zek, K. K. Rogers, D. J. E. Marsh, and D. Grin, Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics 2022, 049 (2022), 2104.07802

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Winch, K

    H. Winch, K. K. Rogers, R. Hloˇ zek, and D. J. E. Marsh, Astrophys. J. 976, 40 (2024), 2404.11071

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Kobayashi, R

    T. Kobayashi, R. Murgia, A. De Simone, V. Irˇ siˇ c, and M. Viel, Phys. Rev. D 96, 123514 (2017), 1708.00015

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    K. K. Rogers and H. V. Peiris, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 071302 (2021), 2007.12705

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    D. J. E. Marsh and J. C. Niemeyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 051103 (2019), 1810.08543

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A. A. El-Zant, J. Freundlich, F. Combes, and A. Halle, MNRAS 492, 877 (2020), 1908.09061

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    B. T. Chiang, H.-Y. Schive, and T. Chiueh, Phys. Rev. D 103, 103019 (2021), 2104.13359

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Wadekar and Z

    D. Wadekar and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 106, 075007 (2022), 2111.08025

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Dalal and A

    N. Dalal and A. Kravtsov, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063517 (2022), 2203.05750

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    I. S. Goldstein, S. M. Koushiappas, and M. G. Walker, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063010 (2022), 2206.05244

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Khmelnitsky and V

    A. Khmelnitsky and V. Rubakov, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2014, 019 (2014), 1309.5888

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Anastassopoulos, S

    CAST Collaboration, V. Anastassopoulos, S. Aune, K. Barth, A. Belov, H. Br¨ auninger, G. Cantatore, J. M. Carmona, J. F. Castel, S. A. Cetin, et al., Nature Physics 13, 584 (2017), 1705.02290

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Fairbairn, D

    M. Fairbairn, D. J. E. Marsh, and J. Quevillon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 021101 (2017), 1701.04787

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    N. K. Porayko, X. Zhu, Y. Levin, L. Hui, G. Hobbs, A. Grudskaya, K. Postnov, M. Bailes, N. D. R. Bhat, W. Coles, et al., Phys. Rev. D 98, 102002 (2018), 1810.03227

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Davoudiasl and P

    H. Davoudiasl and P. B. Denton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 021102 (2019), 1904.09242

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Eggemeier and J

    B. Eggemeier and J. C. Niemeyer, Phys. Rev. D 100, 063528 (2019), 1906.01348

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    An- toniadis, P

    EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, J. An- toniadis, P. Arumugam, S. Arumugam, S. Babak, M. Bagchi, A. S. Bak Nielsen, C. G. Bassa, A. Bathula, et al., Astronomy and Astrophysics 685, A94 (2024), 2306.16227

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Fujita, R

    T. Fujita, R. Tazaki, and K. Toma, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 191101 (2019), 1811.03525

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Payez, C

    A. Payez, C. Evoli, T. Fischer, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, and A. Ringwald, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparti- cle Physics 2015, 006 (2015), 1410.3747

    2015 arXiv

  39. [47]

    T. Liu, X. Lou, and J. Ren, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 121401 (2023), 2111.10615

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    M. M. Ivanov, Y. Y. Kovalev, M. L. Lister, A. G. Panin, A. B. Pushkarev, T. Savolainen, and S. V. Troitsky, Jour- nal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2019, 059 (2019), 1811.10997

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    A. Basu, J. Goswami, D. J. Schwarz, and Y. Urakawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 191102 (2021), 2007.01440

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    R. Gao, Z. Li, K. Liao, H. Gao, B. Zhang, and Z.-H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 109, L021303 (2024), 2312.12997

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    M. A. Fedderke, P. W. Graham, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D 100, 015040 (2019), 1903.02666

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    D. G. Levkov, A. G. Panin, and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 151301 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.151301

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    Kato and J

    R. Kato and J. Soda, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics 2020, 036 (2020), 1904.09143

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Birkinshaw and S

    M. Birkinshaw and S. F. Gull, Nature 302, 315 (1983)

    1983

  47. [55]

    I. I. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 789 (1964), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13. 789

    1964 doi

  48. [56]

    L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 95, 043541 (2017), 1610.08297

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    P. Mocz, M. Vogelsberger, V. H. Robles, J. Zavala, M. Boylan-Kolchin, A. Fialkov, and L. Hernquist, MN- RAS 471, 4559 (2017), 1705.05845

    2017 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Mocz and A

    P. Mocz and A. Szasz, The Astrophysical Journal 910, 29 (2021), 2101.05821

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    D. R. Lorimer, M. Bailes, M. A. McLaughlin, D. J. Narkevic, and F. Crawford, Science 318, 777 (2007), 0709.4301

    2007 arXiv

  52. [60]

    J. M. Cordes and S. Chatterjee, Annual Review of As- tronomy and Astrophysics 57, 417 (2019), 1906.05878

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Zhang, Reviews of Modern Physics 95, 035005 (2023), 2212.03972

    B. Zhang, Reviews of Modern Physics 95, 035005 (2023), 2212.03972

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Chatterjee, C

    S. Chatterjee, C. J. Law, R. S. Wharton, S. Burke- Spolaor, J. W. T. Hessels, G. C. Bower, J. M. Cordes, S. P. Tendulkar, C. G. Bassa, P. Demorest, et al., Nature (London) 541, 58 (2017), 1701.01098

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    H.-H. Lin, R. Main, U.-L. Pen, R. Wharton, M. L. Bause, S. Bethapudi, D. Li, F. X. Lin, V. R. Marthi, and L. G. Spitler, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2208.13677 (2022), 2208.13677

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Zitrin and D

    A. Zitrin and D. Eichler, The Astrophysical Journal 866, 101 (2018), 1807.03287

    2018 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Wucknitz, L

    O. Wucknitz, L. G. Spitler, and U. L. Pen, Astronomy and Astrophysics 645, A44 (2021), 2004.11643

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.