Multiscatter capture of superheavy dark matter by Pop. III stars

Cosmin Ilie; Saiyang Zhang

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Multiscatter capture of superheavy dark matter by Pop. III stars

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that captured superheavy dark matter can heat the first stars past the Eddington limit, cutting off the most massive Population III stars in dense dark matter halos.

desk verdict Nice scaling derivation and an intriguing IMF-cutoff idea, but the claimed upper bounds rest on an invalid extrapolation of XENON1T to superheavy masses and should not be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02700 v3 pith:OQAZSWN4 submitted 2019-08-07 astro-ph.CO

Cosmin Ilie , Saiyang Zhang This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.CO

keywords superheavydarkmattermultiscattercapturePopulationIIIstarsEddingtonlimitinitialmassfunctionannihilationWIMPZILLAdirectdetectionconstraints

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

This paper argues that superheavy dark matter ($m_X\simeq10^8$–$10^{15}$ GeV) captured by the first generation of stars can annihilate inside those stars and deposit enough heat to alter their evolution. At ambient dark matter densities above roughly $10^{14}\,\mathrm{GeV/cm^3}$, the extra luminosity pushes the stars past the Eddington limit, imposing a dark-matter-dependent upper bound on stellar mass: about $20\,M_\odot$ at $10^{16}\,\mathrm{GeV/cm^3}$ and roughly one solar mass at $10^{18}\,\mathrm{GeV/cm^3}$. The authors calculate upper bounds on multiscatter capture rates using a recent analytic formalism and take the scattering cross section at the strongest current direct-detection limit. If the argument holds, the initial mass function of the first stars carries information about dark matter properties.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the multiscatter capture formalism of [39], built on the optical depth $\tau=n_T\sigma_n(2R_\star)$ and the probability $p_N(\tau)$ that a dark matter particle undergoes exactly $N$ collisions while crossing the star. In the SHDM regime a dimensionless velocity-loss factor satisfies $A_N^2\ll1$, which lets the capture-rate sum collapse to $C_{\rm tot}\propto \sigma_n\rho_X/m_X^2$; substituting the linear bound $\sigma_n\propto m_X$ turns the annihilation luminosity into an $m_X$-independent upper bound. The stellar-mass cutoff follows from the Eddington condition $L_{\rm nuc}+L_{\rm DM}\le L_{\rm Edd}$, evaluated with the tabulated Pop. III models and the homology relations $R_\star\propto M_\star^{0.21}$ and $R_\star\propto M_\star^{0.56}$.

What would settle it

Measure a Population III star heavier than the predicted $M_{\rm max}$ in a region of known ambient dark matter density, for example a star above roughly $20\,M_\odot$ where $\rho_X\sim10^{16}\,\mathrm{GeV/cm^3}$, or detect a DM-nucleon cross section below the extrapolated bound at $m_X\sim10^{15}$ GeV.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that superheavy dark matter with $m_X$ in the $10^8$--$10^{15}$ GeV range, captured by Pop. III stars through multiple elastic scatters, can supply enough annihilation energy to enforce the Eddington limit and produce a dark-matter-dependent maximum stellar mass. Summing the multiscatter capture series under the assumption that the spin-independent DM-nucleon cross section saturates the latest exclusion bound, the authors find total capture upper bounds scaling as $C_{\rm tot}\propto\rho_X/m_X$, so the annihilation luminosity $L_{\rm DM}=f\,C_{\rm tot}\,m_X$ is essentially independent of $m_X$. Imposing $L_{\rm nuc}+L_{\rm DM}\le L_{\rm Edd}$ gives $M_{\rm max}\sim 20\,M_\odot$ at $\rho_X\sim10^{16}\,\mathrm{GeV/cm^3}$ and $M_{\rm max}\sim 1\,M_\odot$ at $\rho_X\sim10^{18}\,\mathrm{GeV/cm^3}$. The authors present these as upper bounds, noting that relaxing the constant-density stellar model would raise capture rates.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the strongest experimental limit on how hard dark matter can hit ordinary nuclei keeps its linear shape all the way up to $m_X=10^{15}$ GeV, so the adopted $\sigma_n$ is a true upper bound; if that extrapolation fails, the quoted capture rates and luminosities are not guaranteed upper bounds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At ambient densities $\rho_X\gtrsim10^{14}\,\mathrm{GeV/cm^3}$, annihilation of captured SHDM forces a DM-dependent cutoff on the Pop. III initial mass function.
The cutoff is quantitative: $M_{\rm max}\sim20\,M_\odot$ at $\rho_X\sim10^{16}\,\mathrm{GeV/cm^3}$ and $M_{\rm max}\sim1\,M_\odot$ at $\rho_X\sim10^{18}\,\mathrm{GeV/cm^3}$.
Over the full $10^8$--$10^{15}$ GeV range, the upper bound on the annihilation luminosity is flat in $m_X$ because the cross-section bound scales linearly while the capture rate scales inversely.
Observing any Pop. III star of mass $M_{\rm obs}$ rules out the parameter combination $\rho_X\sigma_n/m_X$ that would make $L_{\rm DM}>L_{\rm Edd}(M_{\rm obs})$, turning future stellar-mass measurements into DM constraints.

Reading between the lines

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

The predicted cutoff should appear as a density-dependent truncation of the Pop. III IMF; comparing stars forming in minihalos with different central DM densities could separate this effect from baryonic fragmentation limits.
The same Eddington-plus-multiscatter argument can be carried over to supermassive protostars or direct-collapse black hole seeds, where ambient densities are also extreme; the numerical thresholds would shift with the relevant mass-radius relations.
Because the paper takes the spin-independent bound, using the weaker spin-dependent limits would raise $L_{\rm DM}$ and push $M_{\rm max}$ down; future high-mass direct-detection limits of either type directly test these predictions.

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

The paper applies the Bramante–Delgado–Martin multiscatter capture formalism to superheavy dark matter (SHDM) in Population III stars and works out the consequences for stellar mass limits. The core derivation is clean: in the regime relevant here, the capture rate scales as C_tot ~ rho_X sigma_n / m_X^2, and with the assumed linear cross-section bound, the annihilation luminosity becomes essentially independent of m_X. The consistency checks against the WIMP capture of Freese et al. and the strongly interacting SHDM results of Albuquerque et al. give me confidence that the multiscatter machinery is implemented correctly. The qualitative idea—that at high ambient dark matter densities, annihilation heating can impose a dark-matter-dependent cutoff on the masses of the first stars—is physically reasonable and worth thinking about.

The problem is the input. Equation (3.10) is presented as a fit to the XENON1T one-year spin-independent limit over 10^2 to 10^15 GeV, but XENON1T has no sensitivity anywhere near those masses. The linear “bound” is a guess about sensitivity falloff that ignores Earth attenuation: for cross sections like 10^-33 cm^2, the dark matter is stopped in the overburden before reaching the detector, so the actual exclusion curve does not follow that line. The paper even cites Kavanagh (2018), who computes the Earth-attenuation-corrected constraints, but then does not use them. That is the load-bearing input for all the quantitative “upper bounds” on capture rates, L_DM, and M_max. Without it, the numbers in Fig. 7 and Eqs. (4.10)–(4.11) are not bounds; they are benchmarks for a particular cross-section scaling. The qualitative density dependence may survive, but the quantitative claims are not established.

There are also minor typos in Eqs. (2.8) and (4.9) that should be fixed, but those are not the issue.

I would send this to a serious referee, but not because the numbers are right. The scaling derivation, the consistency checks, and the IMF-cutoff idea deserve to be in the literature once the cross-section input is corrected—either by using Kavanagh’s constraints or by explicitly re-framing the results as model-dependent benchmarks. As it stands, the central quantitative claim is an overreach.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies the multiscatter capture formalism of Bramante et al. (2017) to superheavy dark matter (SHDM) with masses 10^8-10^15 GeV captured by Population III stars. It derives scaling relations for the total capture rate, computes the annihilation luminosity assuming capture-annihilation equilibrium, and uses the Eddington limit to place an upper bound on Pop III stellar masses as a function of the ambient DM density. The main result is a DM-dependent cutoff on the Pop III initial mass function, with M_max ~ 20 M_sun at rho_X ~ 10^16 GeV/cm^3 and M_max ~ 1 M_sun at rho_X ~ 10^18 GeV/cm^3, under the assumption that the DM-nucleon cross section saturates the bound in Eq. (3.10). The formalism is checked by reproducing WIMP single-scatter capture rates from [15] and the strongly-interacting SHDM results from [19].

Significance. The paper is significant because it extends the multiscatter capture formalism to the SHDM regime for Pop III stars and makes a falsifiable prediction: a DM-density-dependent upper cutoff on the masses of the first stars, potentially testable with JWST. The derived scaling laws (e.g., C_tot proportional to rho_X sigma_n / m_X^2 in both single- and multiple-scatter regimes) are clean, and the two consistency checks against prior work lend confidence to the analytic implementation. However, the quantitative upper-bound claims rest on an extrapolated cross-section constraint that is not properly justified, and the fiducial DM density is inconsistent with the stated halo model. These issues must be resolved before the quantitative results can be accepted.

major comments (2)

[Sec. 3, Eq. (3.10); Sec. 4, Eqs. (4.10)-(4.11)] The claimed upper bound on the DM-nucleon cross section, sigma_n = 1.26e-40 (m_X/10^8 GeV) cm^2, is presented as a fit to the XENON1T one-year spin-independent limit extended to m_X = 10^15 GeV. XENON1T has no exposure at masses above roughly 10^4-10^5 GeV, and the linear scaling sigma_n proportional to m_X ignores Earth and atmospheric attenuation of strongly interacting SHDM, which is precisely the effect computed in the cited reference [40]. Consequently Eq. (3.10) is not an established exclusion bound, and the statements that the derived C_tot, L_DM, and M_max values are 'upper bounds' are not supported. Since C_tot and L_DM scale with sigma_n (linearly in the single-scatter regime and effectively linearly after using N_cutoff proportional to sigma_n in the multiscatter regime), replacing Eq. (3.10) with the actual constraints from [40] changes the central quantitative results of Figs. 4, 5, and 7 and Eqs. (4.10)-(4.11).
[Sec. 3, Eqs. (3.1)-(3.4) and surrounding text] The fiducial ambient DM density is taken as rho_X = rho_0 = 10^9 GeV/cm^3, but the NFW profile parameters adopted in the same section (c = 1-10, z = 10-50) yield central densities of order 10^3-10^7 GeV/cm^3, not 10^9. If the authors intend rho_0 = 10^9 GeV/cm^3 to represent a density enhanced by adiabatic contraction, this is not stated at this point in the paper and appears inconsistent with the later treatment of adiabatic contraction as a separate mechanism that can raise rho_X up to 10^18 GeV/cm^3. Because the numerical capture rates and luminosities in Figs. 4 and 5 are linear in rho_X, this inconsistency affects the fiducial quantitative results, although the scaling laws and the M_max(rho_X) curves in Sec. 4 are independent of the fiducial choice.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 4] The y-axis label reads 'Ctot(erg/s)' but the total capture rate is conventionally measured in s^-1; please correct the label to 'Ctot(s^-1)'.
[Sec. 4, Eqs. (4.10)-(4.11)] The conditions 'rho_X less than or similar to 10^16 GeV' and 'rho_X & 10^16 GeV' should include the units 'GeV/cm^3' for clarity.
[Sec. 3, text after Eq. (3.10)] There is a typo in the phrase 'spin independent dark mater nucleon scattering cross section'; it should read 'dark matter nucleon scattering cross section'.
[Sec. 2 and Appendix A] The symbol tau is used both for the optical depth in Sec. 2 and for the capture-annihilation equilibrium timescale in Appendix A (e.g., Eq. A.5); using tau_eq or t_eq for the latter would avoid confusion.
[Abstract and Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 3] The abstract and introduction state that the upper bounds are based on the exclusion limits from [40], but Sec. 3 uses a linear fit to XENON1T results [41]; the manuscript should reconcile these statements, preferably by adopting the actual constraints from [40] throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central capture-rate and stellar-mass derivations are self-contained and rest on external experimental inputs, not on fitted outputs or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The capture rates are computed from the multiscatter formalism of Bramante, Delgado, and Martin (2017) [39], applied to Pop. III stellar models taken from Iocco et al. (2008) [10] and Ohkubo et al. (2009) [50]. The only fitted input is the DM-nucleon cross-section upper limit sigma_n(mX), which is fit to external direct-detection bounds (XENON1T and Kavanagh [40]); this is a stated experimental constraint, not a quantity the paper derives or predicts. The luminosity L_DM = f C mX follows from the standard capture-annihilation equilibrium equation (4.1)-(4.3), with f taken from the literature (Spolyar et al. [9]), and the stellar mass limits follow by solving L_nuc(Mmax) + L_DM(Mmax) = L_Edd(Mmax), where L_Edd is the standard Thompson-scattering Eddington luminosity and L_nuc is taken from the same external stellar models. The scaling results highlighted in the paper (C_tot proportional to rho_X/m_X, L_DM proportional to M^1.88, Mmax proportional to rho_X^{-1/0.88} or rho_X^{-1/1.58}) are derived consequences of the capture formula combined with homology fits, not assumptions that presuppose the conclusion. No step reduces a prediction to its fitted input: the cross-section normalization is used to bound capture rates and masses, but those output quantities are different physical observables computed through the formalism, not re-statements of the fit. The paper's self-citations (e.g., [29]) appear only as background on supermassive dark stars and are not load-bearing for the capture-rate or Mmax claims. The extrapolation of XENON1T limits to 10^15 GeV is a questionable input assumption and a correctness risk, as the skeptic notes, but an invalid or debatable input is not circularity. Because the central derivation is self-contained against external stellar models and experimental data, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; it analyzes existing SHDM candidates using the multiscatter capture formalism. The free parameters are the ambient DM density, velocity dispersion, energy deposition fraction, the fitted sigma_n(mX) bound, and the homology and luminosity fit coefficients. The load-bearing assumptions include the validity of the capture formalism, the extrapolated XENON1T bound, the halo and stellar model inputs, the annihilation equilibrium, and the Eddington criterion.

free parameters (7)

Ambient DM density rho_X = 1e9 GeV/cm3 fiducial, scanned 1e9-1e18 GeV/cm3
Central parameter controlling L_DM and Mmax; chosen by hand from halo and adiabatic contraction arguments, not measured.
DM velocity dispersion v = 10 km/s fiducial
Chosen from the range 1-15 km/s for Pop III mini-halos (Sec. 3, eq. 3.5).
DM annihilation energy deposition fraction f = 2/3
Efficiency of converting annihilation energy into stellar heat, taken from [9]; not fitted here.
sigma_n(mX) normalization and slope = 1.26e-40 cm2 at mX=1e8 GeV, linear in mX
Upper bound fit to XENON1T one-year SI limits, assumed linear in mX (eq. 3.10).
Low-mass homology exponent = 0.21 (normalization 0.84 R_sun)
Fit to R*(M*) for Pop III models with M* < 20 M_sun (eq. 3.12).
High-mass homology exponent = 0.56 (normalization 0.32 R_sun)
Fit to R*(M*) for Pop III models with M* > 20 M_sun (eq. 3.13).
L_nuc fitting coefficients = 8.27, 0.59, -1.03, -1.17
Coefficients in the logistic plus power-law fit to ZAMS luminosities tabulated in Table 1 (eq. 4.9).

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Multiscatter capture formalism of Bramante et al. (2017), including the analytic CN formula (eq. 2.10), is valid for the parameters considered.
The paper adopts eq. 2.10 without re-deriving it; it assumes the approximations vesc >> vbar and mX >> mn hold (Sec. 2).
ad hoc to paper XENON1T spin-independent DM-nucleon upper limit can be extrapolated linearly to mX up to 1e15 GeV.
This is the load-bearing input for the 'upper bounds'; standard direct detection is not sensitive at these masses, and the paper does not justify the extrapolation (Sec. 3, eq. 3.10).
domain assumption Pop III stars form at rest at the center of NFW mini-halos with the adopted parameters (c=1-10, rs=15-100 pc, rho0=1e9 GeV/cm3).
Used to set DM flux and velocity dispersion (Sec. 3, eqs. 3.1-3.5).
domain assumption Stellar models from Iocco et al. (2008) and Ohkubo et al. (2009), with uniform density for capture calculations, are representative of Pop III stars.
Table 1 lists the adopted masses, radii, escape velocities, and luminosities; the constant-density approximation is stated as conservative (Sec. 2).
domain assumption SHDM particles are their own antiparticles and self-annihilate with cross section at or below the unitarity bound.
Needed for the annihilation luminosity L_DM = f C mX; the unitarity bound is used in Appendix A to estimate the equilibrium timescale (Sec. 4, eq. 4.3).
domain assumption Captured SHDM reaches the core and annihilation-capture equilibrium on timescales much shorter than the stellar lifetime, with an isothermal DM distribution.
Derived in Appendix A from the unitarity bound and short drift times; if invalid, L_DM would be lower (Sec. 4, eq. 4.3).
domain assumption The Eddington luminosity with Thompson opacity (eq. 4.5) sets the maximum luminosity for a stable Pop III star.
Used in eqs. 4.6-4.7 to define Mmax; a stellar evolution code would be needed for precision (Sec. 4).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiscatter capture of superheavy dark matter by Pop. III stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OQAZSWN4

@misc{pith2026190802700,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiscatter capture of superheavy dark matter by Pop. III stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OQAZSWN4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02700}
}

abstract

If captured by the gravitational field of stars or other compact objects, dark matter can self-annihilate and produce a potentially detectable particle flux. In the case of superheavy dark matter ($ m_{X} \gtrsim 10^{8} GeV $), a large number of scattering events with nuclei inside stars are necessary to slow down the dark matter particles below the escape velocity of the stars, at which point the Dark Matter (DM) particle becomes trapped, or captured. Using the recently developed analytical formalism for multiscatter capture, combined with the latest results on the constraints of dark-matter-baryon scattering cross-section, we calculate upper bounds on the capture rates for superheavy dark matter particles by the first (Pop. III) stars. Assuming that a non-zero fraction of the products of captured superheavy dark matter (SHDM) annihilations can be trapped and thermalized inside the star we find that this additional heat source could influence the evolutionary phase of Pop. III stars. Moreover, requiring that Pop. III stars shine with sub-Eddington luminosity, we find upper bounds on the masses of the Pop. III stars. This implies a DM dependent cutoff on the initial mass function (IMF) of Pop. III stars, thus opening up the intriguing possibility of constraining DM properties using the IMF of extremely metal-poor stars.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[15]

Freese, D

K. Freese, D. Spolyar and A. Aguirre,Dark Matter Capture in the ﬁrst star: a Power source and a limit on Stellar Mass, JCAP 0811 (2008) 014 [0802.1724]

arXiv 2008
[19]

I. F. M. Albuquerque, L. Hui and E. W. Kolb,High energy neutrinos from superheavy dark matter annihilation, Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 083504 [hep-ph/0009017]

work page Pith review arXiv 2001
[40]

B. J. Kavanagh,Earth scattering of superheavy dark matter: Updated constraints from detectors old and new, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 123013 [1712.04901]

arXiv 2018
[1]

Barkana and A

R. Barkana and A. Loeb,In the beginning: The First sources of light and the reionization of the Universe, Phys. Rept. 349 (2001) 125 [astro-ph/0010468]

arXiv 2001
[2]

T. Abel, G. L. Bryan and M. L. Norman,The formation of the ﬁrst star in the Universe, Science 295 (2002) 93 [astro-ph/0112088]

arXiv 2002
[3]

Bromm and R

V. Bromm and R. B. Larson,The First stars, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.42 (2004) 79 [astro-ph/0311019]

arXiv 2004
[4]

Yoshida, K

N. Yoshida, K. Omukai, L. Hernquist and T. Abel,Formation of Primordial Stars in a lambda-CDM Universe, Astrophys. J. 652 (2006) 6 [astro-ph/0606106]

arXiv 2006
[5]

Yoshida, K

N. Yoshida, K. Omukai and L. Hernquist,Protostar Formation in the Early Universe, Science 321 (2008) 669 [0807.4928]

arXiv 2008

Show all 53 references

[6]

Loeb,How did the ﬁrst stars and galaxies form?Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2010

A. Loeb,How did the ﬁrst stars and galaxies form?Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2010

2010
[7]

Bromm,Formation of the ﬁrst stars, Reports on Progress in Physics76 (2013) 112901 [1305.5178]

V. Bromm,Formation of the ﬁrst stars, Reports on Progress in Physics76 (2013) 112901 [1305.5178]

2013 arXiv
[8]

R. S. Klessen,Formation of the ﬁrst stars, arXiv e-prints (2018) arXiv:1807.06248 [1807.06248]

2018 arXiv
[9]

Spolyar, K

D. Spolyar, K. Freese and P. Gondolo,Dark matter and the ﬁrst stars: a new phase of stellar evolution, Phys. Rev. Lett.100 (2008) 051101 [0705.0521]

2008 arXiv
[10]

Iocco, A

F. Iocco, A. Bressan, E. Ripamonti, R. Schneider, A. Ferrara and P. Marigo,Dark matter annihilation eﬀects on the ﬁrst stars, MNRAS 390 (2008) 1655 [0805.4016]

2008 arXiv
[11]

G. R. Blumenthal, S. M. Faber, R. Flores and J. R. Primack,Contraction of Dark Matter Galactic Halos Due to Baryonic Infall, Astrophys. J. 301 (1986) 27

1986
[12]

W. H. Press and D. N. Spergel,Capture by the sun of a galactic population of weakly interacting massive particles, Astrophys. J. 296 (1985) 679

1985
[13]

Gould,Direct and Indirect Capture of Wimps by the Earth, Astrophys

A. Gould,Direct and Indirect Capture of Wimps by the Earth, Astrophys. J. 328 (1988) 919

1988
[14]

Gould,Resonant enhancements in weakly interacting massive particle capture by the earth, ApJ 321 (1987) 571

A. Gould,Resonant enhancements in weakly interacting massive particle capture by the earth, ApJ 321 (1987) 571

1987
[16]

Iocco,Dark Matter Capture and Annihilation on the First Stars: Preliminary Estimates, Astrophys

F. Iocco,Dark Matter Capture and Annihilation on the First Stars: Preliminary Estimates, Astrophys. J. 677 (2008) L1 [0802.0941]

2008 arXiv
[17]

Sivertsson and P

S. Sivertsson and P. Gondolo,The WIMP Capture Process for Dark Stars in the Early Universe, ApJ 729 (2011) 51 [1006.0025]

2011 arXiv
[18]

Bertone and M

G. Bertone and M. Fairbairn,Compact stars as dark matter probes, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 043515. – 22 –

2008
[20]

Freese, P

K. Freese, P. Bodenheimer, D. Spolyar and P. Gondolo,Stellar Structure of Dark Stars: a ﬁrst phase of Stellar Evolution due to Dark Matter Annihilation, Astrophys. J. 685 (2008) L101 [0806.0617]

2008 arXiv
[21]

Spolyar, P

D. Spolyar, P. Bodenheimer, K. Freese and P. Gondolo,Dark Stars: a new look at the First Stars in the Universe, Astrophys. J. 705 (2009) 1031 [0903.3070]

2009 arXiv
[22]

J. M. Bardeen, J. R. Bond, N. Kaiser and A. S. Szalay,The statistics of peaks of Gaussian random ﬁelds, ApJ 304 (1986) 15

1986
[23]

Barnes and G

J. Barnes and G. Efstathiou,Angular momentum from tidal torques, ApJ 319 (1987) 575

1987
[24]

C. S. Frenk, S. D. M. White, M. Davis and G. Efstathiou,The formation of dark halos in a universe dominated by cold dark matter, ApJ 327 (1988) 507

1988
[25]

Dubinski and R

J. Dubinski and R. G. Carlberg,The structure of cold dark matter halos, ApJ 378 (1991) 496

1991
[26]

O. E. Gerhard and J. Binney,Triaxial galaxies containing massive black holes or central density cusps, MNRAS 216 (1985) 467

1985
[27]

Merritt and T

D. Merritt and T. Fridman,Triaxial Galaxies with Cusps, ApJ 460 (1996) 136 [astro-ph/9511021]

1996 arXiv
[28]

Merritt and M

D. Merritt and M. Valluri,Chaos and Mixing in Triaxial Stellar Systems, ApJ 471 (1996) 82 [astro-ph/9602079]

1996 arXiv
[29]

Freese, C

K. Freese, C. Ilie, D. Spolyar, M. Valluri and P. Bodenheimer,Supermassive Dark Stars: Detectable in JWST, Astrophys. J. 716 (2010) 1397 [1002.2233]

2010 arXiv
[30]

C. Ilie, K. Freese, M. Valluri, I. T. Iliev and P. R. Shapiro,Observing supermassive dark stars with James Webb Space Telescope, MNRAS 422 (2012) 2164 [1110.6202]

2012 arXiv
[31]

Bañados, B

E. Bañados, B. P. Venemans, C. Mazzucchelli, E. P. Farina, F. Walter, F. Wang et al.,An 800-million-solar-mass black hole in a signiﬁcantly neutral Universe at a redshift of 7.5, Nature 553 (2018) 473 [1712.01860]

2018 arXiv
[32]

Banik, J

N. Banik, J. C. Tan and P. Monaco,The formation of supermassive black holes from Population III.1 seeds. I. Cosmic formation histories and clustering properties, MNRAS 483 (2019) 3592 [1608.04421]

2019 arXiv
[33]

Gondolo, J.-H

P. Gondolo, J.-H. Huh, H. Do Kim and S. Scopel,Dark matter that can form dark stars, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2010 (2010) 026 [1004.1258]

2010 arXiv
[34]

L. D. Duﬀy and K. van Bibber,Axions as dark matter particles, New Journal of Physics11 (2009) 105008

2009
[35]

E. W. Kolb, D. J. H. Chung and A. Riotto,WIMPZILLAS!, inDark matter in Astrophysics and Particle Physics, H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and L. Baudis, eds., p. 592, Jan, 1999, hep-ph/9810361

1999 arXiv
[36]

Bertone, D

G. Bertone, D. Hooper and J. Silk,Particle dark matter: evidence, candidates and constraints, Physics Reports 405 (2005) 279

2005
[37]

Abdallah, H

J. Abdallah, H. Araujo, A. Arbey, A. Ashkenazi, A. Belyaev, J. Berger et al.,Simpliﬁed models for dark matter searches at the LHC, Physics of the Dark Universe9 (2015) 8 [1506.03116]

2015 arXiv
[38]

Freese,Status of Dark Matter in the Universe, Int

K. Freese,Status of Dark Matter in the Universe, Int. J. Mod. Phys.1 (2017) 325 [1701.01840]

2017 arXiv
[39]

Bramante, A

J. Bramante, A. Delgado and A. Martin,Multiscatter stellar capture of dark matter, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 063002 [1703.04043]. – 23 –

2017 arXiv
[41]

XENON Collaboration 7 collaboration, Dark matter search results from a one ton-year exposure of xenon1t, Phys. Rev. Lett.121 (2018) 111302

2018
[42]

XENON Collaboration 4 collaboration, Constraining the spin-dependent wimp-nucleon cross sections with xenon1t, Phys. Rev. Lett.122 (2019) 141301

2019
[43]

I. F. M. Albuquerque and C. Perez de los Heros,Closing the Window on Strongly Interacting Dark Matter with IceCube, Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 063510 [1001.1381]

2010 arXiv
[44]

J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk and S. D. M. White,A Universal Density Proﬁle from Hierarchical Clustering, ApJ 490 (1997) 493 [astro-ph/9611107]

1997 arXiv
[45]

Bromm, R

V. Bromm, R. P. Kudritzki and A. Loeb,Generic Spectrum and Ionization Eﬃciency of a Heavy Initial Mass Function for the First Stars, ApJ 552 (2001) 464 [astro-ph/0007248]

2001 arXiv
[46]

Jungman, M

G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K. Griest,Supersymmetric dark matter, Phys. Rep.267 (1996) 195 [hep-ph/9506380]

1996 arXiv
[47]

J. R. Ellis, A. Ferstl and K. A. Olive,Reevaluation of the elastic scattering of supersymmetric dark matter, Phys. Lett. B481 (2000) 304 [hep-ph/0001005]

2000 arXiv
[48]

Cheng, J

H.-C. Cheng, J. L. Feng and K. T. Matchev,Kaluza-Klein Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett.89 (2002) 211301 [hep-ph/0207125]

2002 arXiv
[49]

Schaerer,On the properties of massive Population III stars and metal-free stellar populations, A&A 382 (2002) 28 [astro-ph/0110697]

D. Schaerer,On the properties of massive Population III stars and metal-free stellar populations, A&A 382 (2002) 28 [astro-ph/0110697]

2002 arXiv
[50]

Ohkubo, K

T. Ohkubo, K. Nomoto, H. Umeda, N. Yoshida and S. Tsuruta,Evolution of Very Massive Population III Stars with Mass Accretion from Pre-main Sequence to Collapse, ApJ 706 (2009) 1184 [0902.4573]

2009 arXiv
[51]

Windhorst, M

R. Windhorst, M. Alpaslan, S. Andrews, T. Ashcraft, T. Broadhurst, D. Coe et al.,On the observability of individual Population III stars and their stellar-mass black hole accretion disks through cluster caustic transits, BAAS 51 (2019) 449 [1903.06527]

2019 arXiv
[52]

Gould, B

A. Gould, B. T. Draine, R. W. Romani and S. Nussinov,Neutron Stars: Graveyard of Charged Dark Matter, Phys. Lett. B238 (1990) 337

1990
[53]

Griest and D

K. Griest and D. Seckel,Cosmic Asymmetry, Neutrinos and the Sun, Nucl. Phys. B283 (1987) 681. – 24 –

1987

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [15]

Freese, D

K. Freese, D. Spolyar and A. Aguirre,Dark Matter Capture in the ﬁrst star: a Power source and a limit on Stellar Mass, JCAP 0811 (2008) 014 [0802.1724]

arXiv 2008

[2] [19]

I. F. M. Albuquerque, L. Hui and E. W. Kolb,High energy neutrinos from superheavy dark matter annihilation, Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 083504 [hep-ph/0009017]

work page Pith review arXiv 2001

[3] [40]

B. J. Kavanagh,Earth scattering of superheavy dark matter: Updated constraints from detectors old and new, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 123013 [1712.04901]

arXiv 2018

[4] [1]

Barkana and A

R. Barkana and A. Loeb,In the beginning: The First sources of light and the reionization of the Universe, Phys. Rept. 349 (2001) 125 [astro-ph/0010468]

arXiv 2001

[5] [2]

T. Abel, G. L. Bryan and M. L. Norman,The formation of the ﬁrst star in the Universe, Science 295 (2002) 93 [astro-ph/0112088]

arXiv 2002

[6] [3]

Bromm and R

V. Bromm and R. B. Larson,The First stars, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.42 (2004) 79 [astro-ph/0311019]

arXiv 2004

[7] [4]

Yoshida, K

N. Yoshida, K. Omukai, L. Hernquist and T. Abel,Formation of Primordial Stars in a lambda-CDM Universe, Astrophys. J. 652 (2006) 6 [astro-ph/0606106]

arXiv 2006

[8] [5]

Yoshida, K

N. Yoshida, K. Omukai and L. Hernquist,Protostar Formation in the Early Universe, Science 321 (2008) 669 [0807.4928]

arXiv 2008