Gamma-Ray Bursts Calibrated from the Observational $H(z)$ Data in Artificial Neural Network Framework

Guangzhen Wang; Nan Liang; Xin Luo; Yu Liu; Zhen Huang; Zhiguo Xiong

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 169 references

Gamma-Ray Bursts Calibrated from the Observational $H(z)$ Data in Artificial Neural Network Framework

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper calibrates the gamma-ray-burst Amati relation with an artificial neural network reconstruction of H(z), builds a GRB Hubble diagram to z ~ 8, and finds flat LambdaCDM preferred over wCDM and CPL in joint fits.

desk verdict Competent incremental GRB calibration with a real but unaddressed likelihood-dependence issue; deserves review but needs robustness checks. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10037 v2 pith:OJE7V5F6 submitted 2025-02-14 astro-ph.CO

Zhen Huang , Zhiguo Xiong , Xin Luo , Guangzhen Wang , Yu Liu , Nan Liang This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.CO

keywords gamma-rayburstsAmatirelationartificialneuralnetworkscosmicchronometersHubbleparameterreconstructiondarkenergytypeIasupernovaebaryonacousticoscillations

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

This paper sets out to turn gamma-ray bursts into standardizable distance indicators at redshifts up to about 8, where type Ia supernovae cannot reach, without calibrating them with any assumed cosmological model. The calibration is done by using an artificial neural network to reconstruct $H(z)$ from the latest cosmic-chronometer measurements at $z \leq 1.965$, then fitting the Amati relation ($E_{\rm p}$--$E_{\rm iso}$) on the low-redshift A219 and J220 GRB samples. With that calibrated relation assumed to hold at higher redshifts, the paper builds a GRB Hubble diagram and combines it with Pantheon+ supernovae and BAO data in MCMC fits of flat dark-energy models. The joint fits favor $\Lambda$CDM over $w$CDM and CPL by AIC and BIC, reporting $\Omega_m \approx 0.335$ and $h \approx 0.730$ when DESI BAO are included.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a one-hidden-layer feedforward ANN with 4096 neurons that reconstructs $H(z)$ from 33 OHD points using the composite loss $L_{\rm com}=D_{\rm KL}+L_{\chi^2}$, where $L_{\chi^2}$ includes the full covariance matrix of 15 correlated cosmic-chronometer measurements. From the reconstructed $H(z)$ the paper computes luminosity distances $d_L = c(1+z)\int_0^z dz'/H(z')$ and calibrates the Amati relation $\log E_{\rm iso}=a+b\log E_{\rm p}$ on the A219 and J220 samples at $z\le1.965$ using both D'Agostini and Reichart likelihoods. The calibrated relation is then extrapolated to GRBs at higher redshift to build the Hubble diagram, and MCMC fits to GRB+Pantheon++BAO data constrain flat $\Lambda$CDM, $w$CDM, and CPL models.

What would settle it

Measure a sample of long GRBs with secure redshifts and well-measured $E_{\rm p}$ and $E_{\rm iso}$ split into low- and high-redshift bins, and fit the Amati relation separately in each bin; a statistically significant drift in slope or intercept with redshift would directly contradict the calibration transfer assumption, for instance if the values at $z>2$ differ by more than the $1\sigma$ calibration uncertainties reported in Table 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a cosmology-independent calibration of the Amati relation is achievable with an ANN whose loss function couples $D_{\rm KL}$ to a covariance-aware $\chi^2$ term, and that the resulting GRB Hubble diagram is cosmologically informative. The calibrated intercept and slope for A219 and J220 at $z\leq1.965$ agree between the D'Agostini and Reichart likelihood treatments, and the paper reports joint $1\sigma$ constraints of $\Omega_m=0.335^{+0.011}_{-0.013}$, $h=0.7298\pm0.0022$ (A219+SNe+DESI) and $\Omega_m=0.334\pm0.012$, $h=0.7298\pm0.0022$ (J220+SNe+DESI) in flat $\Lambda$CDM. Model comparison via $\Delta$AIC and $\Delta$BIC places $\Lambda$CDM as the reference model, with the $w$CDM and CPL fits showing $w_0>-1$ and nonzero $w_a$ but not earning preference. All of this rests on the stated assumption that the low-redshift calibration remains valid at $z>1.965$.

Load-bearing premise

The low-redshift calibration of the Amati relation is assumed to remain valid at all higher redshifts up to $z \sim 8$; if that relation evolves with cosmic time, every high-redshift GRB distance built from it is biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

GRBs calibrated this way extend the Hubble diagram from the supernova ceiling at $z\sim2$ to $z\sim8$, giving a high-redshift probe of dark energy that is independent of any assumed cosmology in the calibration step.
Joint fits of GRBs with Pantheon+ and BAO are mutually consistent for the A219 and J220 samples and tighten to $\Omega_m\approx0.335$, $h\approx0.730$ with DESI BAO.
The $\Delta$AIC and $\Delta$BIC values favor flat $\Lambda$CDM as the reference model; the extra dark-energy parameters of $w$CDM and CPL do not improve the fit enough to be preferred.
Consistent Amati parameters from the $z\le1.965$ and $z\le1.4$ calibrations indicate that the low-redshift anchor does not depend sensitively on the OHD cutoff.
Adding low-redshift BAOs lowers $\Omega_m$ from the GRB-only value ($\sim0.38$) and raises $H_0$, so the GRB-only high-redshift preference for more matter is moderated by BAO.

Reading between the lines

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

If the Amati relation evolves with redshift, all high-$z$ GRB distances inherit the same bias; splitting a large GRB sample at $z\sim2$ and fitting the relation separately in each bin would test this directly.
The ANN is trained on mock $H(z)$ data generated from flat $\Lambda$CDM, so the 'model-independent' reconstruction may still inherit a mild training-model dependence; repeating the calibration with Gaussian-process or B\'ezier reconstructions on the same OHD would quantify how much.
The difference between GRB-only fits favoring $\Omega_m\sim0.38$ and joint fits settling near 0.33 could reflect residual standardization systematics rather than new physics; a larger Fermi-GBM sample with selection-effect control could adjudicate.
As the paper itself anticipates, replacing Pantheon+ with Union3 or DES 5-year supernovae and adding future DESI BAO releases should reveal whether the $\Lambda$CDM preference persists as the high-redshift GRB sample grows.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a competent, incremental GRB calibration paper. The genuinely new bit is combining a covariance-weighted chi-square term with KL divergence in the ANN loss for reconstructing H(z) from cosmic chronometers, then using that reconstruction to calibrate the Amati relation for the A219 and J220 samples. The resulting Hubble diagram and joint constraints with Pantheon+ and BAO are consistent with earlier work, which is a point in favor. The AIC/BIC comparison favoring LambdaCDM is reported cleanly.

The paper earns credit for using the full covariance matrix of the 15 OHD points, for considering the distributional mismatch between predicted and observed H(z) via KL divergence, and for checking calibration against two redshift cutoffs. The ANN architecture selection via mock data follows standard practice in this literature.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The load-bearing one is the likelihood dependence. Table 1 shows the Amati slope for A219 at z<=1.965 is b=1.34+-0.10 with D'Agostini but b=1.90(+0.01,-0.03) with Reichart—roughly 5 sigma apart. The paper adopts the Reichart calibration for the high-z distances without ever showing whether the constraints or the model comparison survive the D'Agostini choice. Since the slope enters Eiso directly through distance, a 0.5 dex shift in log Ep is not a small effect. That is an internal robustness check the paper should have done. The redshift extrapolation of the Amati relation to z~8 is explicitly stated and is a known limitation of the field, but it is still an assumption. The mock data used to pick the ANN architecture is generated from flat LCDM; that injects a mild model dependence into the reconstruction, though it likely matters less than the likelihood choice. Finally, no code or reconstructed data tables are provided, which makes independent verification harder.

All that said, the central claim—that the calibrated GRB Hubble diagram is consistent with LambdaCDM and mildly disfavors wCDM/CPL—is plausible and consistent with prior results. This is not a breakthrough, but it is a solid application of existing methods with a modest twist. I would send it to a referee; the likelihood robustness issue is addressable in revision. A reader working on GRB cosmology or model-independent distance calibration gets value from it.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper calibrates the Amati relation (Ep–Eiso) using an artificial neural network (ANN) reconstruction of the cosmic-chronometer Hubble parameter data H(z) at z ≤ 1.965, with a loss function that combines the full covariance matrix of 15 OHD points and KL divergence. Two GRB samples (A219 and J220) are used for calibration, and the calibrated relation is applied to GRBs at higher redshift to build a GRB Hubble diagram. The authors then combine high-redshift GRBs with Pantheon+ SNe and SDSS/DESI BAO data to constrain flat ΛCDM, wCDM, and CPL models via MCMC, reporting that ΛCDM is preferred by ΔAIC and ΔBIC. The calibration uses the Reichart likelihood, and the paper explicitly assumes that the Amati relation calibrated at z ≤ 1.965 remains valid at higher redshifts.

Significance. If the results are robust, the paper offers a useful model-independent route for GRB calibration, with the novelty of incorporating the OHD covariance matrix and KL divergence into an ANN loss function. Strengths include the use of a covariance-aware reconstruction, the comparison of two GRB samples, the inclusion of DESI BAO data, and consistency with earlier calibration results (e.g., the A219 slope from the D'Agostini method at z<1.4 matches Liang et al. 2022). The constraints and model-selection conclusions are conditional on two key choices that are not currently tested: the likelihood convention used for calibration and the assumed redshift independence of the Amati relation. Because these choices directly affect all high-z GRB distances, the central claim requires additional robustness checks before the results can be fully accepted.

major comments (3)

[Section 3, Table 1]
[Section 3]
[Section 2]

minor comments (6)

[Section 2, Eq. (3)]
[Section 2]
[Figure 2 caption]
[Section 4]
[Section 4]
[Section 3, after Eq. (10)]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GRB calibration is anchored to cosmology-independent OHD and the final model comparison uses external Pantheon+ and BAO data; the flat-ΛCDM mock used for ANN architecture selection is a minor model-dependence, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: OHD → ANN reconstruction of H(z) → d_L for low-z GRBs → fit of the Amati relation (log Eiso = a + b log Ep) with the A219/J220 samples → application of the fitted relation to high-z GRBs → joint MCMC constraints with Pantheon+ SNe and SDSS/DESI BAO. The Amati calibration is performed on real low-z GRB data with distances obtained from OHD-derived H(z), so the target cosmology is not an input to the fitted relation. The high-z distances use an explicit extrapolation assumption ('Assuming that the calibration results of the Amati relation at z ≤ 1.965 are still applicable at higher redshifts'), which is a physical assumption, not a circular reduction. The paper also presents both D'Agostini and Reichart fits in Table 1 and chooses the Reichart likelihood to avoid an arbitrary choice of independent variable; this is a fitting-convention choice that affects the slope (b ≈ 1.9 vs 1.3–1.5) and is a robustness concern, but it is not a case of a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction. The only place a cosmological model enters the pipeline is the mock data used to select the ANN architecture (footnote 9: 'the simulated data can be given by assuming the spatially-flat ΛCDM model'). This selects hyperparameters only; the network is then trained on actual OHD, and the final ΛCDM preference is also supported by the external SNe+BAO data. Self-citations (e.g., Wang et al. 2020 for the RISK statistic; Liang et al. 2022 for the A219 sample) are methodological or sample-definitional and are not load-bearing uniqueness arguments. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to its input by construction, so there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on fitted Amati parameters, a fixed SN absolute magnitude, and an untested redshift extrapolation of the Ep-Eiso relation. No new particles, forces, or conservation laws are introduced. The only invented entity, in a loose sense, is the ANN reconstruction itself, which is a data-driven function rather than a physical object.

free parameters (5)

Amati relation intercept a = 52.79(+0.05,-0.05) for A219 with D'Agostini at z<=1.965; see Table 1
Calibrated from low-redshift GRB data using ANN-reconstructed distances; this parameter directly sets the high-z distance scale.
Amati relation slope b = 1.34(+0.10,-0.10) for A219 with D'Agostini at z<=1.965; 1.90(+0.01,-0.03) with Reichart
Fitted slope entering the Ep-Eiso relation; the adopted value changes the derived high-z distances substantially.
Intrinsic scatter sigma_int = 0.52(+0.03,-0.04) for A219 with D'Agostini at z<=1.965; see Table 1
Free parameter in the likelihood, absorbing unknown scatter in the Amati relation; it sets the GRB distance modulus errors.
ANN architecture and training hyperparameters = One hidden layer, 4096 neurons, learning rate 0.01, 3e5 iterations
Selected by RISK minimization on mock data generated from flat LambdaCDM; this choice affects the reconstructed H(z) and hence the calibration.
SN absolute magnitude M_B = -19.253 (main), -19.353 (comparison)
Fixed from SH0ES rather than fitted in the main analysis; because of the M_B-H_0 degeneracy, the reported h values depend on this choice.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The universe is spatially flat
Used in Eq. 8 for the luminosity distance and in the E(z) expressions for all three dark energy models in Section 4.
domain assumption The Amati relation calibrated at z <= 1.965 holds at all higher redshifts
Section 3: 'Assuming that the calibration results of the Amati relation at z <= 1.965 are still applicable at higher redshifts.' This is load-bearing for the high-z GRB distances.
domain assumption Cosmic chronometer H(z) measurements are cosmology-independent tracers of the expansion rate
This is the premise for calling the calibration model-independent; it depends on stellar population synthesis modeling of the chronometer ages.
ad hoc to paper Mock data generated from flat LambdaCDM adequately represent the observed OHD for ANN architecture selection
Section 2 generates mock data from a fiducial flat LambdaCDM model and uses it to choose the number of hidden layers and neurons, introducing a mild model dependence.
domain assumption The 15-point OHD covariance matrix from Moresco et al. (2020) captures statistical and systematic errors
This covariance matrix is used in the L_chi2 term of the ANN loss function in Eq. 4, so the reconstructed H(z) depends on its correctness.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gamma-Ray Bursts Calibrated from the Observational $H(z)$ Data in Artificial Neural Network Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OJE7V5F6

@misc{pith2026250210037,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gamma-Ray Bursts Calibrated from the Observational $H(z)$ Data in Artificial Neural Network Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OJE7V5F6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10037}
}

abstract

In this paper, we calibrate the luminosity relation of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) from an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) framework for reconstructing the Hubble parameter \unboldmath{$H(z)$} from the latest observational Hubble data (OHD) obtained with the cosmic chronometers method in a cosmology-independent way. We consider the physical relationships between the data to introduce the covariance matrix and KL divergence of the data into the loss function and calibrate the Amati relation ($E_{\rm p}$--$E_{\rm iso}$) by selecting the optimal ANN model with the A219 sample and the J220 sample at low redshift. Combining the Pantheon+ type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) sample and Baryon acoustic oscillations (BAOs) from Dark Energy Spectroscopy Instrument (DESI) with GRBs at high redshift in the Hubble diagram by Markov Chain Monte Carlo numerical method, we find that the $\Lambda$CDM model is preferred over the $w$CDM and CPL models with joint constraints by the Akaike Information Criterion and Bayesian Information Criterion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10037 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Results of reconstruction used the latest OHD with different loss functions ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The Hubble diagram of GRBs is presented with the A219 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Joint constraints on parameters of Ωm, h for the flat ΛCDM model combining the A219 (left) and J220 (right) samples (z > 1.965) with SNe and BAOs (SDSS and DESI) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Joint constraints on parameters of Ωm, h, and w0 for the flat wCDM model combining the A219 (left) and J220 (right) samples (z > 1.965) with SNe and BAOs (SDSS and DESI) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Joint constraints on parameters of Ωm, h, w0 and wa for the flat CPL model combining the A219 (left) and J220 (right) samples (z > 1.965) with SNe and BAOs (SDSS and DESI). 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

169 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

[1]

Abbott, T. M. C. et al. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f 2024, ApJL, 973, L1

doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f 2024
[2]

2024a, JCAP, 12, 055 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/12/055

Alfano, A.C., Luongo, O., Muccino, M. 2024a, JCAP, 12, 055 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/12/055

work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/12/055 2024
[3]

2024b, arXiv:2411.04878 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.04878

Alfano, A.C., Luongo, O., Muccino, M. 2024b, arXiv:2411.04878 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.04878

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.04878
[4]

2024c, JHEAP, 42, 178 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2024.05.002

Alfano, A.C., Luongo, O., Muccino, M. 2024c, JHEAP, 42, 178 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2024.05.002

doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2024.05.002 2024
[5]

https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slz056 2019, MNRAS, 486, L46

Amati, L., D'Agostino, R., Luongo, O., Muccino, M., & Tantalo, M. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slz056 2019, MNRAS, 486, L46

doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz056 2019
[6]

https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20020722 2002, A&A, 390, 81

Amati, L., Frontera, F., Tavani, M., et al. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20020722 2002, A&A, 390, 81

doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020722 2002
[7]

2008, MNRAS, 391, 577 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13943.x

Amati, L., Guidorzi, C., Frontera, F., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 577 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13943.x

arXiv 2008
[8]

& Della Valle 2013, IJMPD, 22, 1330028 https://10.1142/S0218271813300280

Amati, L. & Della Valle 2013, IJMPD, 22, 1330028 https://10.1142/S0218271813300280

doi:10.1142/s0218271813300280 2013

Show all 169 references

[9]

G., & Hernandez, X

Bargiacchi, G., Dainotti, M. G., & Hernandez, X. 2025, New Astronomy Reviews, 100, 101712 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newar.2024.101712

2025
[10]

C., Clarkson, C., & Seikel, M

Busti, V. C., Clarkson, C., & Seikel, M. 2014

2014
[11]

Benisty, D., Mifsud, J., Levi Said, J., & Staicova, D
[12]

G., Cordier, B

Bernardini, M. G., Cordier, B. & Wei., J
[13]

& Cimatti, A

Borghi, N., Moresco, M. & Cimatti, A. 2022, ApJL, 928, L4 https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac3fb2

2022 doi
[14]

Brout D., et al., 2022, ApJ, 938, 110 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

2022 doi
[15]

2022a, MNRAS, 512, 439 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac517

Cao, S., Dainotti, M., & Ratra, B. 2022a, MNRAS, 512, 439 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac517

doi
[16]

G., & Ratra, B

Cao, S., Dainotti, M. G., & Ratra, B. 2022b, MNRAS, 516, 1386 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac2170

doi
[17]

Cao, S., Khadka, N., & Ratra, B
[18]

& Ratra, B

Cao, S. & Ratra, B. 2024, JCAP, 10, 093 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/093

2024 doi
[19]

2008, A&A, 490, 31 https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:200810337

Capozziello, S., & Izzo, L. 2008, A&A, 490, 31 https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:200810337

2008 doi
[20]

& Izzo, L

Capozziello, S. & Izzo, L. 2009, NuPhS, 194, 206 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2009.07.024

2009 doi
[21]

2010, A&A, 519, A73 https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201014522

Capozziello, S., & Izzo, L. 2010, A&A, 519, A73 https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201014522

2010 doi
[22]

2018, MNRAS, 476, 3924 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty422

Capozziello, S., D'Agostino, R., & Luongo, O. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3924 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty422

2018 doi
[23]

F., Capozziello, S., & Dainotti, M

Cardone, V. F., Capozziello, S., & Dainotti, M. G., 2009, MNRAS, 400, 775 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15456.x

2009
[24]

F., Zhang, T

Chen, J. F., Zhang, T. T., Zhang, T-J., & Gai., N. 2024, arXiv: 2410.08369 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.08369

2024 doi
[25]

& Polarski, D

Chevallier, M. & Polarski, D. 2001, IJMPD, 10, 213 https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271801000822

2001 doi
[26]

Clevert, Unterthiner, & Hochreiter 2015, arXiv:1511.07289 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1511.07289

2015 doi arXiv
[27]

B., et al

Cucchiara, A., Levan, A., Fox, D. B., et al. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/7 2011, ApJ, 736, 7

2011 doi
[28]

2005, arXiv: physics/0511182 https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0511182v1

D'Agostini, G. 2005, arXiv: physics/0511182 https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0511182v1

2005 arXiv
[30]

G., Postnikov, S., & Hernandez, X

Dainotti, M. G., Postnikov, S., & Hernandez, X. 2016, ApJ, 825, L20 https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8205/825/2/L20

2016 doi
[31]

G., & Amati, L., https://doi.org/10.1088/1538-3873/aaa8d7 2018, PASP, 130, 051001

Dainotti,M. G., & Amati, L., https://doi.org/10.1088/1538-3873/aaa8d7 2018, PASP, 130, 051001

2018 doi
[32]

G., et al

Dainotti, M. G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 97 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abbe8a

2020 doi
[33]

G., De Simone B., Schiavone T., et al., 2021, ApJ, 912, 150 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abeb73

Dainotti M. G., De Simone B., Schiavone T., et al., 2021, ApJ, 912, 150 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abeb73

2021 doi
[34]

G., et al., 2025, arXiv:2501.11772 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.11772

Dainotti M. G., et al., 2025, arXiv:2501.11772 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.11772

2025 doi arXiv
[35]

G., & Amati, L.,

Dainotti,M. G., & Amati, L.,
[36]

G., et al

Dainotti, M. G., et al
[37]

G., Young, S., Li, L., et al

Dainotti, M. G., Young, S., Li, L., et al
[38]

G., Nielson, V., Sarracino, G., et al

Dainotti, M. G., Nielson, V., Sarracino, G., et al
[39]

G., Sarracino G., & Capozziello S

Dainotti, M. G., Sarracino G., & Capozziello S
[40]

G., Lenart, A

Dainotti, M. G., Lenart, A. L., Chraya, A., et al
[41]

2004, ApJ, 612, L101 https://doi.org/10.1086/424694

Dai, Z., Liang, E., & Xu, D. 2004, ApJ, 612, L101 https://doi.org/10.1086/424694

2004 doi
[42]

X., et al

Dai, Y., Zheng, X.-G., Li, Z. X., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, L8 https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202140895

2021 doi
[43]

Demianski, M., & Piedipalumbo, E.,
[44]

2017, A&A, 598, A112 https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201628909

Demianski, M., Piedipalumbo, E., Sawant, D., & Amati, L. 2017, A&A, 598, A112 https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201628909

2017 doi
[45]

2017, A&A,598, A113 https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201628911

Demianski, M., Piedipalumbo, E., Sawant, D., & Amati, L. 2017, A&A,598, A113 https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201628911

2017 doi
[46]

2021, MNRAS, 506, 903 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab1669

Demianski, M., Piedipalumbo, E., Sawant, D., & Amati, L. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 903 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab1669

2021 doi
[47]

G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S

DESI Collaboration, Adame, A. G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S. et al., https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.03002 arXiv:2404.03002

doi arXiv
[48]

Dhawan, S., Alsing, J., & Vagnozzi, S
[49]

L., Mifsud, J., Sultana, J., & Adami, K

Dialektopoulos, K., Said, J. L., Mifsud, J., Sultana, J., & Adami, K. Z. 2022, JCAP, 02, 023 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2022/02/023

2022 doi
[50]

L., & Mifsud, J., 2023, EPJC, 83, 956 https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12124-3

Dialektopoulos, K., Mukherjeeb, P., Said, J. L., & Mifsud, J., 2023, EPJC, 83, 956 https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12124-3

2023 doi
[51]

F., Razzaque, S., Piron, F., et al

Dirirsa, F. F., Razzaque, S., Piron, F., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 13 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab4e11/meta

2019 doi
[52]

Escamilla-Rivera, C., Quintero, M. A. C., & Capozziello, S. 2020, JCAP, 03, 008 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/008

2020 doi
[53]

2022, JCAP, 04, 016 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2022/04/016

Escamilla-Rivera, C., Carvajal M., Zamora C., & Hendry M. 2022, JCAP, 04, 016 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2022/04/016

2022 doi
[54]

& Migliaccio M

Favale, A., Gomez-Valent, A. & Migliaccio M
[55]

G., Gómez-Valent, A., & Migliaccio, M

Favale, A., Dainotti, M. G., Gómez-Valent, A., & Migliaccio, M. 2024, JHEAp, 44, 323 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2024.10.010

2024 doi
[56]

E., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E

Fenimore, E. E., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2000, preprint (astro-ph/0004176) https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0004176

2000 arXiv
[57]

2005, MNRAS, 360, L1 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00023.x

Firmani, C., Ghisellini, G., Ghirlanda, G., & Avila-Reese, V. 2005, MNRAS, 360, L1 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00023.x

2005
[58]

2006, MNRAS, 370, 185 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10445.x

Firmani, C., Ghisellini, G., Avila-Reese, V., & Ghirlanda, G. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 185 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10445.x

2006
[59]

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

Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306 https://doi.org/10.1086/670067

2013 doi
[60]

2012, IJMPD, 21, 1250016 https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271812500162

Gao, H., Liang, N., & Zhu, Z.-H. 2012, IJMPD, 21, 1250016 https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271812500162

2012 doi
[61]

2004a, ApJ, 616, 331 https://doi.org/10.1086/424913

Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., & Lazzati, D. 2004a, ApJ, 616, 331 https://doi.org/10.1086/424913

doi
[62]

2004b, ApJ, 613, L13 https://doi.org/10.1086/424915

Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., Lazzati, D., & Firmani, C. 2004b, ApJ, 613, L13 https://doi.org/10.1086/424915

doi
[63]

2006, New, J

Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G.,& Firmani, C. 2006, New, J. Phys., 8, 123 https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/8/7/123

2006 doi
[64]

2022, PhRvD, 105, 043528 https://doi.org/

Gomez-Valent, A. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 043528 https://doi.org/

2022
[65]

G \'o mez-Vargas I., Medel-Esquivel R., Garc \' a-Salcedo R., V \'a zquez J. A. 2023, EPJC, 83, 304 https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11435-9

2023 doi
[66]

& Shantanu D

Gowri G. & Shantanu D
[67]

P., Wang, F

Hu, J. P., Wang, F. Y., & Dai, Z. G
[68]

& Szegedy C

Ioffe S. & Szegedy C
[69]

2024, EPJC, 84, 934 https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13304-5

Han, Y., Gao, J., Liu, G., & Xu, L. 2024, EPJC, 84, 934 https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13304-5

2024 doi
[70]

P., Wang, F

Hu, J. P., Wang, F. Y., & Dai, Z. G. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 730 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab2180

2021 doi
[71]

Hu, J. P. & Wang, F. Y. 2023, Universe, 9, 94 https://doi.org/10.3390/universe9020094

2023 doi
[72]

2015, A&A, 582, A115 https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201526461

Izzo, L., Muccino, M., Zaninoni, E., Amati, L., & Della Valle, M. 2015, A&A, 582, A115 https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201526461

2015 doi
[73]

D., Hu, J

Jia, X. D., Hu, J. P., Yang, J., Zhang, B. B., & Wang, F. Y. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2575 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac2356

2022 doi
[74]

Jiang, Jun-Qian, Pedrotti, D., da Costa, S. S. & Vagnozzi, S. 2024, PRD, 110, 123519 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123519

2024 doi
[75]

Jimenez, R., & Loeb, A
[76]

& Stern, D

Jimenez, R., Verde, L., Treu, T. & Stern, D. 2003, ApJ, 593, 622 https://doi.org/10.1086/340549

2003 doi
[77]

& Zhang, T-J

Jiao, K., Borghi, N., Moresco, M. & Zhang, T-J. 2022, arXiv:2205.05701 http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.05701

2022 arXiv
[78]

Kessler, R., & Scolnic, D
[79]

& Ratra, B

Khadka, N. & Ratra, B. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 391 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa2779

2020 doi
[80]

2021, JCAP, 09, 042 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/09/042

Khadka, N., Luongo, O., Muccino, M., & Ratra, B. 2021, JCAP, 09, 042 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/09/042

2021 doi
[81]

P.& Ba, J

Kingma D. P.& Ba, J. 2014, arXiv.1412.6980 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1412.6980

2014 doi arXiv
[83]

2005, ApJ, 633, 611 https://doi.org/10.1086/491594

Liang, E., & Zhang, B. 2005, ApJ, 633, 611 https://doi.org/10.1086/491594

2005 doi
[84]

2006, MNRAS, 369, L37 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00169.x

Liang, E., & Zhang, B. 2006, MNRAS, 369, L37 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00169.x

2006
[85]

Li, H., Xia, J.-Q., Liu, J., et al
[86]

and Lin, H.-N., 2018

Li, X. and Lin, H.-N., 2018. MNRAS, 474, 313 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx2810

2018 doi
[87]

2020, MNRAS, 491, 4960 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz3308

Li, E.-K., Du, M., & Xu, L. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 4960 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz3308

2020 doi
[88]

E., Shafieloo, A., et al

Li, X., Keeley, R. E., Shafieloo, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 919 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab2154

2021 doi
[89]

2023, MNRAS, 521, 4406 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad838

Li, Z., Zhang, B., & Liang, N. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4406 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad838

2023 doi
[90]

Li, J.-L. et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A165 https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202348542

2024 doi
[91]

K., Liu, Y., & Zhang, S

Liang, N., Xiao, W. K., Liu, Y., & Zhang, S. N. 2008, ApJ, 685, 354 https://doi.org/10.1086/590903

2008 doi
[92]

2008, AIP Conf

Liang, N., & Zhang, S. 2008, AIP Conf. Proc. Vol. 1065, Am. Inst. Phys New York https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3027949

2008 doi
[93]

Liang, N., Wu, P., & Zhang, S. N. 2010, PRD, 81, 083518 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.083518

2010 doi
[94]

Liang, N., Xu, L., & Zhu, Z. H. 2011, A&A, 527, A11 https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201015919

2011 doi
[95]

2022, ApJ, 941, 84 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aca08a

Liang, N., Li, Z., Xie, X., & Wu, P. 2022, ApJ, 941, 84 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aca08a

2022 doi
[96]

N., Li, X

Lin, H. N., Li, X. & Chang, Z. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 2131 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv2471

2016 doi
[97]

N., Li, M

Lin, H. N., Li, M. H., & Li, X
[98]

2003, PRL, 90, 091301 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.091301

Linder, E.V. 2003, PRL, 90, 091301 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.091301

2003 doi
[99]

Liu, Y., Chen, F., Liang, N., et al
[100]

2022, ApJ, 935, 7 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac7de5

Liu, Y., Liang, N., Xie, X., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 7 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac7de5

2022 doi
[101]

2015, GReGr, 47, 141 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10714-015-1986-1

Liu, J., & Wei, H. 2015, GReGr, 47, 141 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10714-015-1986-1

2015 doi
[102]

Luongo, O., & Muccino, M
[103]

2021, Galaxies, 9, 77 https://doi.org/10.3390/galaxies9040077

Luongo, O., & Muccino, M. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 77 https://doi.org/10.3390/galaxies9040077

2021 doi
[104]

2021, MNRAS, 503, 4581 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab795

Luongo, O., & Muccino, M. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 4581 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab795

2021 doi
[105]

2023, MNRAS, 518, 2247 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac2925

Luongo, O., & Muccino, M. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2247 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac2925

2023 doi
[106]

& Zhang T.-J

Ma, C. & Zhang T.-J. 2011, ApJ, 730, 74 https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/74

2011 doi
[107]

S., & Pitts, W

McCulloch, W. S., & Pitts, W
[108]

I., & Hidalgo, J

Montiel, A., Cabrera, J. I., & Hidalgo, J. C. 2021, MNRAS, 467, 3239 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa3926

2021 doi
[109]

& Cimatti, A

Moresco, M., Verde, L., Pozzetti, L., Jimenez, R. & Cimatti, A. 2012, JCAP, 08, 006 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2012/08/006

2012 doi
[110]

2015, MNRAS, 450, L16 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slv037

Moresco, M. 2015, MNRAS, 450, L16 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slv037

2015 doi
[111]

Moresco, M., Pozzetti, L., Cimatti, A. et al. 2016, JCAP, 05, 014 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2016/05/014

2016 doi
[112]

2020, ApJ, 898, 82 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab9eb0

Moresco M., Jimenez R., Verde L., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 82 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab9eb0

2020 doi
[113]

Moresco M., Amati, L., Amendola, L. et al
[114]

2021, ApJ, 908, 181 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abd254

Muccino, M., Izzo, L., Luongo, O., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 181 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abd254

2021 doi
[115]

Muccino, M., Luongo, O., & Jain, D.,
[116]

Muccino, M., Luongo, O., & Jain, D., https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad1760 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4938

2023 doi
[117]

https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2023/06/022 2023, JCAP, 06, 022

Mu, Y., Li, E.-K., & Xu, L. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2023/06/022 2023, JCAP, 06, 022

2023 doi
[118]

https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2023/09/041 2023, JCAP, 09, 041

Mu, Y., Chang, B., & Xu, L. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2023/09/041 2023, JCAP, 09, 041

2023 doi
[119]

Mukherjee. P. et al. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/09/060 2024, JCAP, 09, 060

2024 doi
[120]

Mukherjee. P. et al. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.03773 arXiv:2411.03773

doi arXiv
[121]

& Liang, N

Nong, X.-D. & Liang, N. 2024, RAA, 24, 125003 https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/ad8a07

2024 doi
[122]

P., Marani, G

Norris, J. P., Marani, G. F., & Bonnell, J. T. 2000, ApJ, 534, 248 https://doi.org/10.1086/308725

2000 doi
[123]

2020, ApJ, 890, 169 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab6ef5

Pan, Y., Qi, J., Cao, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 169 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab6ef5

2020 doi
[124]

Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Arroja, F., et al

Plank Collaboration. Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Arroja, F., et al. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833880 2020, A&A, 641, A1

2020 doi
[125]

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.063522 2023, PhRvD, 108, 063522

Qi J.Z., Meng P., Zhang J.F., Zhang X. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.063522 2023, PhRvD, 108, 063522

2023 doi
[126]

L., Loubser, S

Ratsimbazafy, A. L., Loubser, S. I., Crawford, S. M. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3239 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx301

2017 doi
[127]

Reichart, D. E. 2001, ApJ, 553, 57 https://doi.org/10.1086/320630

2001 doi
[128]

Rubin. D. et al. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.12098 arXiv:2311.12098

doi arXiv
[129]

G., et al

Riess, A. G., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 7 https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b

2022 doi
[130]

Schaefer, B. E. 2007, ApJ, 583, L67 https://doi.org/10.1086/511742

2007 doi
[131]

M., Jones, D

Scolnic, D. M., Jones, D. O., Rest, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 101 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aab9bb

2018 doi
[132]

2022, ApJ, 938, 113 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a

Scolnic, et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 113 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a

2022 doi
[133]

2012, JCAP, 06, 036 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2012/06/036

Seikel, M., Clarkson, C., & Smith, M. 2012, JCAP, 06, 036 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2012/06/036

2012 doi
[134]

2012, PRD, 86, 083001 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.083001

Seikel, M., Yahya, S., Maartens, R., & Clarkson, C. 2012, PRD, 86, 083001 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.083001

2012 doi
[135]

Seikel, M., & Clarkson, C., 2013,

2013
[136]

I., Sokolov, I

Shirokov, S. I., Sokolov, I. V., Lovyagin, N. Yu, et al
[137]

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-024-04306-6 2024, ApSS, 369, 42

Sethi, G., Sharma, U., & Makhijani, N. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-024-04306-6 2024, ApSS, 369, 42

2024 doi
[138]

& Jimenez, R

Simon, J.,Verde, L. & Jimenez, R. 2005, PhRvD, 71, 123001 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.71.123001

2005 doi
[139]

& Starford, S

Stern, D., Jimenez, R., Verde, L., Kamionkowski, M. & Starford, S. A. 2010, JCAP, 2010, 008 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2010/02/008

2010 doi
[140]

Nature, 461, 1258–1260 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08445

Salvaterra, R., & Valle, M., & Campana, S., et al., 2009. Nature, 461, 1258–1260 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08445

2009 doi
[141]

Shah, R., Saha, S., Mukherjee, P. et al. 2024, ApJS, 273, 27 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/ad5558

2024 doi
[142]

2021, ApJ, 915, 123 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac05b8

Sun, W., Jiao, K., & Zhang, T.-J. 2021, ApJ, 915, 123 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac05b8

2021 doi
[143]

& Borghi, N

Tomasetti, E., Moresco, M. & Borghi, N. et al , 2023. A&A, 679 (2023) A96 https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202346992

2023 doi
[144]

https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abcd92 2021, ApJ, 907, 121

Tang L., Li X., Lin, H.-N., & Liu L. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abcd92 2021, ApJ, 907, 121

2021 doi
[145]

2009, JCAP, 0908, 015 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2009/08/015

Tsutsui, R., Nakamura, T., Yonetoku, D., Murakami, T., Kodama, Y., & Takahashi, K. 2009, JCAP, 0908, 015 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2009/08/015

2009 doi
[146]

2009, MNRAS, 394, L31 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00604.x

Tsutsui, R., Nakamura, T., Yonetoku, D., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 394, L31 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00604.x

2009
[147]

Vagnozzi, S., Loeb, A., & Moresco, M
[148]

Wang, F., & Dai, Z. G
[149]

2008, PhRvD, 78, 123532 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.78.123532

Wang, Y. 2008, PhRvD, 78, 123532 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.78.123532

2008 doi
[150]

Y., & Dai, Z

Wang, F. Y., & Dai, Z. G
[151]

Y., Dai, Z

Wang, F. Y., Dai, Z. G., & Liang, E. W. 2015, NewAR, 67, 1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newar.2015.03.001

2015 doi
[152]

S., Wang, F

Wang, J. S., Wang, F. Y., Cheng, K. S., & Dai, Z. G. 2016, A&A, 585, A68 https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201526485

2016 doi
[153]

Y., & Wang, F

Wang, Y. Y., & Wang, F. Y
[154]

Y., Hu, J

Wang, F. Y., Hu, J. P., Zhang, G. Q., & Dai, Z. G. 2022, ApJ, 924, 97 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac3755

2022 doi
[155]

J., Ma X

Wang G. J., Ma X. J., Li S. Y., Xia J. Q. 2020, ApJS, 246, 13 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/ab620b

2020 doi
[156]

Z., Li, X

Wang, G. Z., Li, X. L. & Liang, N. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-024-04340-4 2024, ApSS, 369, 74

2024 doi
[157]

& Liang, N

Wang, H. & Liang, N. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae1825 2024, MNRAS, 533, 743

2024 doi
[158]

Wei, H., Zhang, S. N. 2009, EPJC, 63, 139 https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-009-1086-z

2009 doi
[159]

Wei, H., 2010, JCAP, 08, 020 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2010/08/020

2010 doi
[160]

& Wu, X.-F., 2017

Wei, J.-J. & Wu, X.-F., 2017. ApJ, 838, 160 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa674b

2017 doi
[161]

Xu, D., Dai, Z., & Liang, E
[162]

& Huang, Y.-F

Xu, F., Tang, C.-H., Geng, J.-J., Wang, F.-Y., Wang, Y.-Y., Kuerban, A. & Huang, Y.-F
[163]

2024, IJMPD, 2450073, 20 https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271824500731

Xie, H., Nong, X., Wang, H., Zhang B., Li, Z., & Liang, N. 2024, IJMPD, 2450073, 20 https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271824500731

2024 doi
[164]

2004, ApJ, 609, 935 https://doi.org/10.1086/421285

Yonetoku, D., Murakami, T., Nakamura, T., et al. 2004, ApJ, 609, 935 https://doi.org/10.1086/421285

2004 doi
[165]

Yu, B., Qi, S., & Lu, T
[166]

& Sun, Y

Zhang, C., Zhang, H., Yuan, S., Liu, S., Zhang, T. & Sun, Y. 2014, RAA, 14, 1221 https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/14/10/002

2014 doi
[167]

C., Jiao, K., Zhang, T., Zhang, T

Zhang, J. C., Jiao, K., Zhang, T., Zhang, T. J., & Yu, B. 2022, ApJ, 936, 21 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac85aa

2022 doi
[168]

Zhang H., Liu, Y., Yu, H., Nong, X., Liang, N. & Wu, P. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 4493 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae1120

2024 doi
[169]

C., Hu Y., Jiao K., Wang H

Zhang J. C., Hu Y., Jiao K., Wang H. F., Xie Y. B., Yu B., Zhao L. L., & Zhang, T. J. 2024, ApJS, 270, 23 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/ad0f1e

2024 doi
[170]

& Liang, N

Zhang B., Wang, H., Nong, X., Wang, G., Wu, P. & Liang, N. 2025, ApSS, 370, 10 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-025-04401-2

2025 doi
[171]

Zhou, H., & Li, Z., 2019

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Abbott, T. M. C. et al. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f 2024, ApJL, 973, L1

doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f 2024

[2] [2]

2024a, JCAP, 12, 055 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/12/055

Alfano, A.C., Luongo, O., Muccino, M. 2024a, JCAP, 12, 055 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/12/055

work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/12/055 2024

[3] [3]

2024b, arXiv:2411.04878 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.04878

Alfano, A.C., Luongo, O., Muccino, M. 2024b, arXiv:2411.04878 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.04878

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.04878

[4] [4]

2024c, JHEAP, 42, 178 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2024.05.002

Alfano, A.C., Luongo, O., Muccino, M. 2024c, JHEAP, 42, 178 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2024.05.002

doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2024.05.002 2024

[5] [5]

https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slz056 2019, MNRAS, 486, L46

Amati, L., D'Agostino, R., Luongo, O., Muccino, M., & Tantalo, M. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slz056 2019, MNRAS, 486, L46

doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz056 2019

[6] [6]

https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20020722 2002, A&A, 390, 81

Amati, L., Frontera, F., Tavani, M., et al. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20020722 2002, A&A, 390, 81

doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020722 2002

[7] [7]

2008, MNRAS, 391, 577 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13943.x

Amati, L., Guidorzi, C., Frontera, F., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 577 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13943.x

arXiv 2008

[8] [8]

& Della Valle 2013, IJMPD, 22, 1330028 https://10.1142/S0218271813300280

Amati, L. & Della Valle 2013, IJMPD, 22, 1330028 https://10.1142/S0218271813300280

doi:10.1142/s0218271813300280 2013