Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 minor 1 cited by

Cross-correlating CSST galaxies with future gravitational-wave catalogs can statistically identify primordial black hole contributions to mergers above 20-40 percent.

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

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-27 00:13 UTC pith:CMBMKZTX

load-bearing objection Forecasts show CSST plus ET2CE or BDET2CE can flag PBH contributions above 40% or 20% via clustering bias, but the numbers rest on mock assumptions.

arxiv 2606.17617 v1 pith:CMBMKZTX submitted 2026-06-16 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAgr-qchep-ph

Synergy between CSST and future gravitational-wave detectors: Probing primordial black holes by cross-correlating dark sirens with galaxies

Ya-Nan Du , Ji-Yu Song , Jing-Fei Zhang , Xin Zhang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAgr-qchep-ph
keywords primordial black holesgravitational wavesgalaxy clusteringcross-correlationdark sirensCSSTclustering biasfuture detectors
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.

The paper evaluates whether the expected difference in clustering between primordial black hole mergers and astrophysical black hole mergers can be measured through their cross-correlation with galaxies. It simulates this using the photometric galaxy catalog from the Chinese Space-station Survey Telescope together with mock gravitational-wave catalogs from the ET2CE and BDET2CE detector networks. The analysis finds that ten years of ET2CE data would reveal a primordial black hole signal once that population exceeds roughly 40 percent of the total merger rate, while the improved sky localization of BDET2CE lowers the threshold to about 20 percent. This supplies a statistical route to probing primordial black holes that relies on large-scale structure rather than individual event properties or electromagnetic counterparts.

Core claim

The cross-correlation between CSST galaxies and gravitational-wave events measures the effective clustering bias of the gravitational-wave population; because primordial black holes are expected to inhabit different environments than astrophysical black holes, this bias differs between the two populations, allowing a primordial black hole fraction above 40 percent to be detected with ET2CE and above 20 percent with BDET2CE after ten years of observation.

What carries the argument

The angular cross-power spectrum between galaxy overdensity and gravitational-wave event density, from which the effective bias of the gravitational-wave sources is extracted and compared against the bias expected for each population.

Load-bearing premise

Primordial black holes and astrophysical black holes populate different environments and therefore exhibit measurably different clustering biases with galaxies.

What would settle it

A measured cross-correlation amplitude between CSST galaxies and gravitational-wave events that remains consistent with the astrophysical-black-hole bias even in simulated catalogs containing a 50 percent primordial black hole fraction would falsify the separation method.

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

If this is right

  • CSST combined with ten years of ET2CE data detects a primordial black hole contribution once it exceeds 40 percent of the total merger rate.
  • The sharper sky localization provided by BDET2CE recovers small-scale clustering information and lowers the detectable threshold to 20 percent.
  • The method works for dark sirens without electromagnetic counterparts by using only sky positions and the galaxy survey.
  • This clustering-based approach supplies an independent probe of primordial black holes that does not rely on microlensing, accretion signatures, or cosmic microwave background constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the bias difference is confirmed, the same cross-correlation technique could be applied to future galaxy surveys with higher redshift reach to track changes in the primordial black hole merger fraction over cosmic time.
  • Combining this method with improved detector networks could test whether primordial black holes contribute to the dark matter density through their merger-rate imprint on large-scale structure.
  • The approach opens a route to cross-check results from other primordial black hole searches by using environmental clustering rather than mass or spin distributions alone.

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

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a forecast study showing that cross-correlating galaxies from the CSST photometric survey with mock gravitational-wave (dark siren) catalogs from the ET2CE network can statistically reveal a primordial black hole (PBH) contribution to the total merger rate once that fraction exceeds ~40%; the BDET2CE network, with superior sky localization, lowers the threshold to ~20%. The separation relies on the assumption that PBHs and astrophysical black holes exhibit measurably different clustering biases with galaxies.

Significance. If the enabling premise of different clustering biases holds, the work supplies a largely independent statistical route to identifying PBHs that complements microlensing, dynamical, and CMB constraints. The use of mock catalogs to derive quantitative detection thresholds for two specific future detector networks, and the explicit demonstration that improved localization recovers small-scale clustering information, are clear strengths of the forecast approach.

minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states the 40% and 20% thresholds but does not quote the specific bias values adopted for the PBH and astrophysical populations; adding these numbers would make the central claim more self-contained.
  2. Section describing the mock catalog construction (redshift distribution, number of events, and error modeling) should explicitly state how the assumed bias difference is implemented and whether it is varied in robustness checks.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive summary and recommendation of minor revision. The report contains no specific major comments requiring point-by-point response.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper's central result consists of numerical detection thresholds (40% and 20% PBH fractions) obtained from forecasts on mock GW catalogs cross-correlated with CSST galaxies, under the explicit input assumption that PBHs and astrophysical BHs exhibit different clustering biases. This is a standard simulation-based forecast rather than a closed derivation; the thresholds follow from the modeling choices and do not reduce to fitted parameters or self-citations by construction. No self-definitional steps, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described chain. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; ledger is therefore minimal and provisional.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Primordial black holes and astrophysical black holes populate different environments and therefore cluster with different biases relative to galaxies.
    Invoked in the abstract as the basis for the statistical separation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5774 in / 1238 out tokens · 27800 ms · 2026-06-27T00:13:18.318793+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Gravitational-wave (GW) events and galaxies both trace the cosmic matter distribution, but the mergers of astrophysical black holes and primordial black holes (PBHs) are expected to populate different environments and therefore to cluster with different biases. The GW clustering bias is thus a statistical observable that can separate the two populations. We assess how well this can be done by cross-correlating the photometric galaxy survey of the Chinese Space-station Survey Telescope (CSST) with mock GW catalogs from two future detector networks: the third-generation ET2CE network (the Einstein Telescope and two Cosmic Explorer detectors) and the multi-band BDET2CE network, which adds the space-based baseline Decihertz Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory. We find that CSST combined with 10 years of ET2CE observations can reveal a PBH contribution once its fraction in the total merger rate exceeds about $40\%$, while the much sharper sky localization of BDET2CE lowers this threshold to about $20\%$. The improvement comes from recovering the small-scale clustering information that localization errors would otherwise erase. These results show that combining future GW detector networks with CSST galaxy clustering offers a promising and largely independent route to identifying PBHs statistically.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.17617 by Jing-Fei Zhang, Ji-Yu Song, Xin Zhang, Ya-Nan Du.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Detected GW number density and effective GW bias for different PBH fractions. The left panel shows the number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The theoretical angular power spectra with multipole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: SNR for distinguishing the AP model from the A model as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: GW effective bias compared with the 1σ A model bias constraints for 10-year observations. The panels show ET2CE GW auto-correlation only (left), ET2CE-CSST galaxy-GW cross-correlation (center), and BDET2CE-CSST galaxy-GW cross￾correlation (right). The gray bands show the A model 1σ uncertainties, while the colored curves show AP model effective biases for different PBH fractions. 0 1 D 0.5 1.0 1.5 C 0.0 0.… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The 1σ posterior constraints on the AP model parameters C, D, and f P for the fiducial case f P = 0.4. The constraints use the 10-year BDET2CE GW sample and the CSST photometric galaxy sample. Results are compared for the GW auto-correlation only (GWGW), the galaxy-GW cross-correlation only (gGW), and the joint analysis including the galaxy auto-correlation (total). GW bias leaves the pure-ABH uncertainty … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Identifying lensed gravitational waves with physics-informed posterior learning

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Fusing a simulation-trained common-source mass posterior with waveform features raises lensed-event detection efficiency from 20.8% to 35.2% at 1% false-positive rate and lowers the SNR for 50% efficiency from 45.3 to 33.5.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 111 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 32 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    with the Limber approximation to compute the the- oretical angular power spectra. For the GW-GW auto-correlation and galaxy-GW cross-correlation, we account for the signal attenuation due to sky localization errors of GW sources, as follows: CgGW ℓ (dL,i, zj)7→C gGW ℓ (dL,i, zj)×e −ℓ(ℓ+1)/ℓ2 damp ,(13) CGWGW ℓ (dL,i, dL,j)7→C GWGW ℓ (dL,i, dL,j) ×e −2ℓ(ℓ+...

    2018

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18083 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Black holes, gravitational waves and fundamental physics: a roadmap

    L. Baracket al., Class. Quant. Grav.36, 143001 (2019), arXiv:1806.05195 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

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

    1974

  6. [6]

    B. Carr, F. Kuhnel, and M. Sandstad, Phys. Rev. D 94, 083504 (2016), arXiv:1607.06077 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter Candidates

    B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes48, 1 (2022), arXiv:2110.02821 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Zhang and X

    C. Zhang and X. Zhang, JHEP10, 037 (2023), arXiv:2302.07002 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Zhang and X

    C. Zhang and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 100 (2024), arXiv:2308.07166 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Dom` enech, S

    G. Dom` enech, S. Pi, and A. Wang, (2026), arXiv:2602.24061 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    S. Pi, M. Sasaki, V. Takhistov, and J. Wang, JCAP 09, 045 (2025), arXiv:2501.00295 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    De Luca, G

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, A. Kehagias, M. Peloso, A. Riotto, and C. ¨Unal, JCAP07, 048 (2019), arXiv:1904.00970 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    C.-M. Yoo, T. Harada, J. Garriga, and K. Kohri, PTEP 2018, 123E01 (2018), [Erratum: PTEP 2024, 049202 (2024)], arXiv:1805.03946 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  14. [14]

    Primordial blackholes and gravitational waves for an inflection-point model of inflation

    S. Choudhury and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Lett. B733, 270 (2014), arXiv:1307.5119 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  15. [15]

    Z. Zhou, J. Jiang, Y.-F. Cai, M. Sasaki, and S. Pi, Phys. Rev. D102, 103527 (2020), arXiv:2010.03537 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Pi and M

    S. Pi and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D108, L101301 (2023), arXiv:2112.12680 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    S. W. Hawking, I. G. Moss, and J. M. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D26, 2681 (1982)

    1982

  18. [18]

    I. G. Moss, Phys. Rev. D32, 1333 (1985)

    1985

  19. [19]

    Primordial Black Holes - Perspectives in Gravitational Wave Astronomy -

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  20. [20]

    Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter: Converting Constraints from Monochromatic to Extended Mass Distributions

    N. Bellomo, J. L. Bernal, A. Raccanelli, and L. Verde, JCAP01, 004 (2018), arXiv:1709.07467 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    N. Jia, C. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2603.29790 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    Jia, S.-S

    N. Jia, S.-S. Bao, C. Zhang, H. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JHEP09, 195 (2025), arXiv:2504.18935 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    C. Yang, S. Wang, M.-L. Zhao, and X. Zhang, JCAP 10, 083 (2024), arXiv:2408.10897 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Yang, J.-D

    C. Yang, J.-D. Pan, and X. Zhang, JCAP09, 004 (2025), arXiv:2504.17478 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Yang, J.-D

    C. Yang, J.-D. Pan, and X. Zhang, Commun. Theor. Phys.78, 045402 (2026), arXiv:2412.09297 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Caoet al.(LHAASO), Phys

    Z. Caoet al.(LHAASO), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 181005 (2025), arXiv:2505.24586 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    M.-L. Zhao, Y. Shao, S. Wang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D113, 043531 (2026), arXiv:2509.05705 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    M.-L. Zhao, Y. Shao, S. Wang, and X. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C50, 025101 (2026), arXiv:2507.02651 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    M.-L. Zhao, S. Wang, and X. Zhang, JCAP07, 039 (2025), arXiv:2412.19257 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    W. Hong, S. Pi, A. Wang, and Z. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2601.05069 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    Fumagalli, J

    J. Fumagalli, J. Garriga, C. Germani, and R. K. Sheth, Phys. Rev. D111, 123518 (2025), arXiv:2412.07709 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    S. Bird, I. Cholis, J. B. Mu˜ noz, Y. Ali-Ha¨ ımoud, M. Kamionkowski, E. D. Kovetz, A. Raccanelli, and A. G. Riess, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 201301 (2016), arXiv:1603.00464 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    De Luca, G

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, P. Pani, and A. Riotto, JCAP06, 044 (2020), arXiv:2005.05641 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Franciolini, V

    G. Franciolini, V. Baibhav, V. De Luca, K. K. Y. Ng, K. W. K. Wong, E. Berti, P. Pani, A. Riotto, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D105, 083526 (2022), arXiv:2105.03349 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    Constraints on primordial black holes from the first part of LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA fourth observing run

    M. Andr´ es-Carcasona, A. J. Iovino, E. Vallejo-Pag` es, V. Vaskonen, H. Veerm¨ ae, M. Mart´ ınez, and L. M. Mir, (2026), arXiv:2605.15749 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    Peron, A

    M. Peron, A. Ravenni, S. Libanore, M. Liguori, and M. C. Artale, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.530, 1129 (2024), arXiv:2305.18003 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Determining the progenitors of merging black-hole binaries

    A. Raccanelli, E. D. Kovetz, S. Bird, I. Cholis, and J. B. Munoz, Phys. Rev. D94, 023516 (2016), arXiv:1605.01405 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  38. [38]

    Holst, G

    I. Holst, G. Krnjaic, and H. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D112, 083527 (2025), arXiv:2412.01890 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Anisotropies of gravitational-wave standard sirens as a new cosmological probe without redshift information

    T. Namikawa, A. Nishizawa, and A. Taruya, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 121302 (2016), arXiv:1511.04638 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  40. [40]

    C. C. Diaz and S. Mukherjee, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.511, 2782 (2022), arXiv:2107.12787 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Libanore, M

    S. Libanore, M. C. Artale, D. Karagiannis, M. Liguori, N. Bartolo, Y. Bouffanais, N. Gia- cobbo, M. Mapelli, and S. Matarrese, JCAP02, 035 (2021), arXiv:2007.06905 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Libanore, M

    S. Libanore, M. C. Artale, D. Karagiannis, M. Liguori, N. Bartolo, Y. Bouffanais, M. Mapelli, and S. Matar- rese, JCAP02, 003 (2022), arXiv:2109.10857 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    B. F. Schutz, Nature323, 310 (1986)

    1986

  44. [44]

    W. Zhao, C. Van Den Broeck, D. Baskaran, and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. D83, 023005 (2011), arXiv:1009.0206 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  45. [45]

    Estimating cosmological parameters by the simulated data of gravitational waves from the Einstein Telescope

    R.-G. Cai and T. Yang, Phys. Rev. D95, 044024 (2017), arXiv:1608.08008 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    Impacts of gravitational-wave standard siren observation of the Einstein Telescope on weighing neutrinos in cosmology

    L.-F. Wang, X.-N. Zhang, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B782, 87 (2018), arXiv:1802.04720 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [47]

    Improving cosmological parameter estimation with the future gravitational-wave standard siren observation from the Einstein Telescope

    X.-N. Zhang, L.-F. Wang, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D99, 063510 (2019), arXiv:1804.08379 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  48. [48]

    Zhang, Sci

    X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.62, 110431 (2019), arXiv:1905.11122 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    Zhang, M

    J.-F. Zhang, M. Zhang, S.-J. Jin, J.-Z. Qi, and X. Zhang, JCAP09, 068 (2019), arXiv:1907.03238 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  50. [50]

    Wang, Z.-W

    L.-F. Wang, Z.-W. Zhao, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP11, 012 (2020), arXiv:1907.01838 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  51. [51]

    Jin, D.-Z

    S.-J. Jin, D.-Z. He, Y. Xu, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP03, 051 (2020), arXiv:2001.05393 [astro-ph.CO]. 12

    work page arXiv 2020

  52. [52]

    Qi, S.-J

    J.-Z. Qi, S.-J. Jin, X.-L. Fan, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP12, 042 (2021), arXiv:2102.01292 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    Jin, L.-F

    S.-J. Jin, L.-F. Wang, P.-J. Wu, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D104, 103507 (2021), arXiv:2106.01859 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Wang, S.-J

    L.-F. Wang, S.-J. Jin, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.65, 210411 (2022), arXiv:2101.11882 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    P.-J. Wu, Y. Shao, S.-J. Jin, and X. Zhang, JCAP06, 052 (2023), arXiv:2202.09726 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Jin, R.-Q

    S.-J. Jin, R.-Q. Zhu, L.-F. Wang, H.-L. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Commun. Theor. Phys.74, 105404 (2022), arXiv:2204.04689 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    L.-F. Wang, Y. Shao, S.-R. Xiao, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP05, 095 (2025), arXiv:2201.00607 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Jin, R.-Q

    S.-J. Jin, R.-Q. Zhu, J.-Y. Song, T. Han, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP08, 050 (2024), arXiv:2309.11900 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    J. Yu, Z. Liu, X. Yang, Y. Wang, P. Zhang, X. Zhang, and W. Zhao, Astrophys. J. Suppl.270, 24 (2024), arXiv:2311.11588 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    Jin, Y.-Z

    S.-J. Jin, Y.-Z. Zhang, J.-Y. Song, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.67, 220412 (2024), arXiv:2305.19714 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    Han, S.-J

    T. Han, S.-J. Jin, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 663 (2024), arXiv:2309.14965 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Jin, S.-S

    S.-J. Jin, S.-S. Xing, Y. Shao, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C47, 065104 (2023), arXiv:2301.06722 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  63. [63]

    L. Feng, T. Han, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Com- mun. Theor. Phys.77, 065403 (2025), arXiv:2409.04453 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    L. Feng, T. Han, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C48, 095104 (2024), arXiv:2404.19530 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    T. Han, Z. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Universe11, 85 (2025), arXiv:2412.06873 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Han, J.-F

    T. Han, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 86, 8 (2026), arXiv:2504.17741 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    L. Feng, T. Han, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Chin. Phys.50, 015105 (2026), arXiv:2507.17315 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    Zhao, L.-F

    Z.-W. Zhao, L.-F. Wang, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. Bull.65, 1340 (2020), arXiv:1912.11629 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  69. [69]

    Jin, J.-Y

    S.-J. Jin, J.-Y. Song, T.-Y. Sun, S.-R. Xiao, H. Wang, L.-F. Wang, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.69, 220401 (2026), arXiv:2507.12965 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  70. [70]

    H.-Y. Chen, M. Fishbach, and D. E. Holz, Nature562, 545 (2018), arXiv:1712.06531 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  71. [71]

    Grayet al., Phys

    R. Grayet al., Phys. Rev. D101, 122001 (2020), arXiv:1908.06050 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  72. [72]

    J. Yu, Y. Wang, W. Zhao, and Y. Lu, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.498, 1786 (2020), arXiv:2003.06586 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  73. [73]

    Zhu, Y.-M

    L.-G. Zhu, Y.-M. Hu, H.-T. Wang, J.-d. Zhang, X.-D. Li, M. Hendry, and J. Mei, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013247 (2022), arXiv:2104.11956 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  74. [74]

    Zhu, L.-H

    L.-G. Zhu, L.-H. Xie, Y.-M. Hu, S. Liu, E.-K. Li, N. R. Napolitano, B.-T. Tang, J.-d. Zhang, and J. Mei, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.65, 259811 (2022), arXiv:2110.05224 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  75. [75]

    Jin, T.-N

    S.-J. Jin, T.-N. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP 08, 070 (2023), arXiv:2202.11882 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  76. [76]

    Li, S.-J

    T.-N. Li, S.-J. Jin, H.-L. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Astrophys. J.963, 52 (2024), arXiv:2310.15879 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    Yun, W.-B

    Q. Yun, W.-B. Han, Q. Hu, and H. Xu, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.527, L60 (2023), arXiv:2310.13629 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    S.-R. Xiao, Y. Shao, L.-F. Wang, J.-Y. Song, L. Feng, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP04, 060 (2025), arXiv:2408.00609 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    Zhu, H.-M

    L.-G. Zhu, H.-M. Fan, X. Chen, Y.-M. Hu, and J.-d. Zhang, Astrophys. J. Suppl.273, 24 (2024), arXiv:2403.04950 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  80. [80]

    Zheng, X.-H

    J. Zheng, X.-H. Liu, and J.-Z. Qi, Astrophys. J.975, 215 (2024), arXiv:2407.05686 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.