Pith.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · arXiv:2009.03363 v3 · submitted 7 Sep 2020 · 98 references

Astrophysical hints for magnetic black holes

Diptimoy Ghosh, Arun Thalapillil, Farman Ullah

PDF · arXiv · The abstract, sentence by sentence · Cite

The paper says

“We discuss a cornucopia of potential astrophysical signatures and constraints on magnetically charged black holes of various masses.”

more of the abstract

As recently highlighted, being potentially viable astrophysical candidates with immense electromagnetic fields, they may be ideal windows to fundamental physics, electroweak symmetry restoration and non-perturbative quantum field theoretic phenomena. We investigate various potential astrophysical pointers and bounds – including limits on charges, location of stable orbits and horizons in asymptotically flat and asymptotically de Sitter backgrounds, bounds from galactic magnetic fields and dark matter measurements, characteristic electromagnetic fluxes and tell-tale gravitational wave emissions during binary inspirals. Stable orbits around these objects hold an imprint of their nature and in the asymptotically de Sitter case, there is also a qualitatively new feature with the emergence of a stable outer orbit. We consider binary inspirals of both magnetic and neutral, and magnetic and magnetic, black hole pairs. The electromagnetic emissions and the gravitational waveform evolution, along with inter-black hole separation, display distinct features. Many of the astrophysical signatures may be observationally glaring – for instance, even in regions of parameter space where no electroweak corona forms, owing to magnetic fields that are still many orders of magnitude larger than even Magnetars, their consequent electromagnetic emissions will be spectacular during binary inspirals. While adding new results, our discussions also complement works in similar contexts, that have appeared recently in the literature.

from the abstract

Pith says

Machine review · deepseek-v4.1-flash · 12 Nov 2026 · what was read was not recorded · not checked by a person

Reviewed in 2026 with later literature in view.

It can be wrong. Challenge this review or reply to it.

Holds up, with conditions. A competent, honest survey of extremal magnetic black hole phenomenology; the new results are modest, and the whole edifice still rests on an unearned extremality assumption that the paper acknowledges but never closes. This line is wrong

3 major objections · 8 minor

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Are you an author? What you can do.

Not checked: figures, code, what the 98 references say.

The paper says, at Sec. II, Eqs. (7) and (49); Secs. III-VI

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 1 of 3 · major

The entire quantitative program of Secs. III-VI is evaluated at Q_B = M, but the paper's own charging argument in Eq. (7) gives Q_B/M < 10^-4 for accretion of heavy monopoles, and Sec. II then states 'We will adopt an agnostic viewpoint about the exact details of their cosmological origin.'

more of objection 1

The horizon field in Eq. (49) scales as (Q_B/M)/(1+sqrt(1-(Q_B/M)^2))^2, which at Q_B/M = 10^-4 is suppressed by roughly eight orders of magnitude relative to the extremal value plotted in Fig. 2. The abstract's claim [abstract:s6] that fields are 'many orders of magnitude larger than even Magnetars' therefore holds only in a corner of parameter space that the paper does not establish is populated. This is the load-bearing premise of the paper, and it needs either a quantitative formation/survival argument or an explicit statement of the near-extremality range over which each headline number survives. As written, the reader cannot tell which of the 'spectacular' claims are robust to, say, Q_B/M = 0.1 or 0.5.

The paper says, at Sec. V, Eqs. (67)-(73); Sec. VI, Eqs. (77)-(84)

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 2 of 3 · major

The electromagnetic and gravitational inspiral estimates neglect spacetime curvature and treat the emission as flat-space Larmor/dipole radiation, with the stated justification that separations are large compared to horizon radii. But the most striking numbers in Fig. 5 are quoted for separations of a few horizon radii, precisely where the flat-space approximation and the Keplerian relations of Eqs.

more of objection 2

(76) and (81) are least reliable. The paper should state explicitly the range of a/r_H over which Eqs. (70) and (73) are claimed to be accurate, and should either restrict Fig. 5 to that range or attach an estimated curvature correction. Without this, the comparison to GRB 080916C in Fig. 5 is not a controlled statement.

The paper says, at Sec. VI, Eqs. (77)-(84)

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 3 of 3 · major

The orbital evolution equations add the electromagnetic energy loss to the quadrupole gravitational loss but keep the Newtonian Keplerian relations and the quadrupole formula unchanged. For extremal MBH-MBH pairs the Coulomb and gravitational forces are equal in magnitude (as the paper notes in Sec.

more of objection 3

II), so the orbital dynamics is not a small perturbation of the neutral case; the conservative two-body potential is modified at leading order, not just the radiation reaction. The claim that the chirp 'occurs much before' for MBH-MBH (Fig. 7) should be qualified accordingly, or supported by a leading-order effective-one-body or PN treatment of the modified potential. The paper cites [18] for PN corrections but does not incorporate them where they matter most.

8 minor objections

The paper says, at Abstract and Sec. I

Pith says: minor objection 1 of 8

The abstract and introduction describe the work as adding 'new results' without identifying which results are new relative to [11], [17], and [18]. A short paragraph distinguishing the new material (e.g. the OSCO expression in Eq. (48), the Parker bound in Eq. (64), the inspiral power estimates) from the review material would help the reader.

The paper says, at Sec. II, Eq. (7)

Pith says: minor objection 2 of 8

The bound Q_B/M < 10^-4 from monopole accretion is quoted without showing the intermediate steps analogous to Eqs. (2)-(6); a sentence spelling out the assumed monopole mass and flux would make the comparison to the electric case transparent.

show 6 more

The paper says, at Sec. III, Eqs. (32)-(37)

Pith says: minor objection 3 of 8

The statement that the orbit at r = |Q_B| is 'stable only in one direction' should be stated more carefully: it is not a stable circular orbit in the usual sense, since radial perturbations toward the horizon plunge. The text does say this, but the phrase 'ostensibly stable' in the sentence introducing Eq. (32) could mislead a casual reader.

The paper says, at Fig. 1 and Fig. 2

Pith says: minor objection 4 of 8

The axis labels and units are difficult to read at the reproduced size, and the overlaid astrophysical scales in Fig. 1 are not identified in the caption. Please enlarge the labels and list each overlaid scale explicitly.

The paper says, at Sec. IV, Eq. (51)

Pith says: minor objection 5 of 8

The corona radius estimate r_corona ~ O(1) mm is quoted without the numerical inputs used; please show the values of m_W, m_H, and q_B inserted.

The paper says, at Sec. V, Eq. (67)

Pith says: minor objection 6 of 8

The symbol beta is defined as (omega a)/2c, but the physical orbital velocity of the MBH about the center of mass is omega a/2 only for equal masses; for unequal masses the boost factor should involve the reduced mass ratio. Please state the equal-mass assumption explicitly at this point rather than only later.

The paper says, at Sec. VI, Eq. (85)

Pith says: minor objection 7 of 8

The waveform expressions are given without the standard 1/r and inclination-angle normalizations used elsewhere in the GW literature; a brief note on conventions would help comparison with [83].

The paper says, at References

Pith says: minor objection 8 of 8

Reference [17] is described as focusing on MBHs with an electroweak corona below 10^-4 M_sun, but the text also says the Parker bound results are 'slightly different' from [17]. A sentence quantifying the difference would be useful.

What would settle it

Recompute Fig. 2 and Eq. 70 at a representative non-extremal charge, e.g. Q_B/M = 10^-2 and 10^-4 (the accretion bound of Eq. 7), using the full factor (Q_B/M)/(1+√(1-(Q_B/M)^2))^2 in Eq. 49. If the horizon field at M = 10 M_⊙ drops below the Magnetar band (10^9 T) for Q_B/M ≲ 10^-2, then the abstract's 'many orders of magnitude larger than even Magnetars' claim is conditional on a formation channel the paper does not supply, and the abstract should say so explicitly.

from the skeptic's reading

How the review went

4 readings by deepseek-v4.1-flash · 12 Nov 2026

  1. Reader holds up, with conditions confidence moderate
  2. Skeptic partly agrees 31 min 12 s · 87,902 tokens read, 99,423 written
  3. Editor wrote the verdict above 1 min 21 s · 30,378 tokens read, 4,306 written
  4. Referee major revision: 3 major objections, 8 minor 33 min 6 s · 89,276 tokens read, 100,006 written

Not run on this paper: the simulated authors' defence.

Pith did not check this review's objections against the paper.

The review in full

The review in brief, machine-written

The useful parts first. The de Sitter outer stable circular orbit for the extremal magnetic Reissner-Nordstrom case (Eqs. 45-48) is a genuine, if small, extension of the known Schwarzschild-dS OSCO, and the coupled electromagnetic-gravitational orbital evolution equations (77-84) for MBH-BH and MBH-MBH are worth having written down in one place, including the factor-of-two shift in the Keplerian relation when Coulomb attraction exactly matches gravity. The EM power normalizations check out: Eq. (70) is the Larmor result for a charge orbiting at a/2, and Eq. (73) is correctly twice a single magnetic dipole with the cross terms averaging to zero. The Parker bound arithmetic is right to within rounding (I get 2.2e-3 rather than 1.7e-3, but that is a rounding-level difference). The paper is candid about its debts to [11,17,18]. Now the soft spots, in order of weight. First, extremality. The stress-test is right that every quantitative claim in Secs. III-VI is evaluated at QB = M, and the paper never shows a formation route to that limit for astrophysical masses. But the stress-test overstates one thing: Eq. (7)'s 10−4 is a bound on one charging channel (accretion of heavy monopoles), not a bound on the charge itself, and the paper says so explicitly. The real gap is narrower and sharper: the only route offered to near-extremality is the Hawking-radiation argument of [11], which applies to M < 10−4 M_sun. For stellar-mass and up, there is no route. At QB/M = 10−4 the horizon field drops by four to five orders, so the abstract's 'many orders of magnitude above Magnetars' survives only marginally for stellar-mass and fails for M > 60 M_sun. That is the hinge under abstract:s6, and it deserves a sentence in the paper, not just the agnosticism disclaimer. Second, the gamma4 'further enhancement' in Sec. V is double counting: Eq. (67) is already the full Lienard expression with beta, and integrating it gives the relativistic power. Minor, but should be fixed. Third, the OSCO is presented as a bound (Eq. 48), not a location; 'numerically the bound is relatively good' is doing more work than a bound should. Fourth, the GRB comparison in Fig. 5 is isotropic-equivalent versus beamed, not like-for-like. Who should read it: anyone doing magnetic black hole or exotic-compact-object phenomenology, or thinking about electromagnetic counterparts to gravitational-wave inspirals. It is a good map of the terrain. Recommendation: send it out. The calculations are checkable, the new results are real if modest, and the extremality gap is exactly the kind of thing a referee should force the authors to state plainly rather than bury in Sec. II.

The strongest objection

The central quantitative claims (abstract:s6, Sec. V–VI) are all evaluated in the extremal limit Q_B = M. The paper is explicit that this limit is not derived: Sec. II states 'We will adopt an agnostic viewpoint about the exact details of their cosmological origin,' and its own charging argument (Eq. 7) gives Q_B/M ≲ 10^-4 for accretion of heavy monopoles, i.e. five orders of magnitude below extremality. The only route the paper offers to near-extremality is the enhanced Hawking-radiation argument of [11], which is cited, not re-derived, and which itself requires the black hole to start already close to extremal or to be very light. So the chain is: (i) assume Q_B ≈ M; (ii) then B_horizon ∝ M^-1 with a fixed coefficient (Eq. 49); (iii) then the EM power in Eq. 70 and the 'spectacular' fluxes follow. Step (ii) is where the load-bearing weight sits, because the magnetic field at the horizon scales as (Q_B/M)/(1+√(1-(Q_B/M)^2))^2, which for Q_B/M = 10^-4 collapses by ~10^8 relative to the extremal value quoted in Fig. 2. The paper's headline comparison to Magnetars (B ≳ 10^9 T) survives only for M ≲ 10^-6 M_⊙ at extremality; at the accretion-limited charge it fails for essentially all astrophysical masses. This is not a disagreement with consensus — it is an internal gap between the stated agnosticism about formation (Sec. II) and the quantitative claims that silently assume the extremal limit throughout Secs. III–VI. The reader identified the same premise but graded it a 'soft caveat'; I think it is the single hinge on which the abstract's strongest sentence turns.

The reader's weakest_assumption correctly names the near-extremality/survival premise, and I agree it is the load-bearing one. Where I differ is in weighting: the reader calls it a caveat that 'warrants a conditional verdict' but does not trace how far the quantitative claims move when the premise is relaxed. The paper's own Eq. 7 gives Q_B/M ≲ 10^-4 from monopole accretion, and Eq. 49 shows the horizon field scales as (Q_B/M)/(1+√(1-(Q_B/M)^2))^2, so at that charge the field is ~10^8 times smaller than the extremal value plotted in Fig. 2. The 'spectacular' EM fluxes of Sec. V and the GRB comparison in Fig. 5 inherit the same suppression. This is an internal consistency issue between Sec. II's agnosticism and Secs. III–VI's extremal evaluations, not a dispute with external consensus, so it belongs under correctness risk rather than soundness. The reader's secondary point about neglecting curvature in Sec. V is fair but less load-bearing: the paper explicitly restricts to early inspiral and cites [18] for PN corrections, so that approximation is bounded and acknowledged. The reader's note that the EM power normalization 'deserves a check' is also fair; Eqs. 70 and 73 differ by a factor of four, consistent with the stated superposition argument in Appendix B, and I did not find an arithmetic error there. On balance the paper's derivations (ISCO at 4|Q_B|, OSCO bound Eq. 48, Parker bound Eq. 61) are standard and checkable, and the de Sitter OSCO is a genuine addition. The verdict should remain CONDITIONAL, but the condition should be stated sharply: the abstract's strongest sentence (abstract:s6) should be qualified to the near-extremal regime, with the formation channel either cited or flagged as an open assumption. No change to ACCEPT or REJECT is warranted; the paper is honest about its approximations and its debt to [11,17,18], and the new results stand independently of the extremality question.

The referee's report

If near-extremal magnetic black holes exist, the paper's central observational point is genuinely interesting: the near-horizon field of an extremal MBH scales as 1/M (Eq. 49), so even stellar-mass objects would carry fields far above Magnetar values, and the inspiral Poynting flux (Eqs. 70, 73) would be an unusually bright multi-messenger target. The ISCO/OSCO analysis (Eqs. 37, 46, 48) and the Parker bound (Eq. 64) are simple, checkable, and useful reference results. The paper is honest that it is a survey of potential signatures rather than a detection claim, and it explicitly flags the formation question as open. The value of the work therefore rests on the extremality assumption being at least plausibly realized, which the manuscript asserts rather than demonstrates.

Pith's reading of the paper (a machine's summary, not the authors')

The paper asks what a black hole carrying magnetic charge, rather than electric charge, would look like to astronomers, and argues that the answer is dramatic enough to be searched for now. The reason to care is that electric charge on a black hole is stripped away almost instantly by infalling ionised gas, whereas magnetic charge has no light carriers to discharge it, so a magnetically charged black hole could survive from the early universe to today. Working in the extremal limit where the magnetic charge equals the mass, the authors compute the near-horizon fields, the innermost stable orbit, bounds on how much dark matter such objects could make up, and the electromagnetic and gravitational radiation from binary inspirals involving them. Their central claim is that even where the fields are too weak to restore electroweak symmetry, they still dwarf those of magnetars, and that an inspiralling pair would radiate electromagnetic power rivalling the most energetic gamma-ray bursts while its gravitational-wave frequency chirps earlier than a neutral pair's. The paper is a survey of signatures and order-of-magnitude estimates rather than a detection or a derivation of how such objects would form.

What carries the argument. The load-bearing device is the extremal condition $M = |Q_B|$, which makes the Reissner-Nordstrom metric depend on a single scale and turns every formula into a clean power of the mass. It gives a horizon at $r_H = |Q_B|$, a vanishing Hawking temperature, an ISCO at $4|Q_B|$, and an exact cancellation between gravitational attraction and magnetic repulsion for like charges (or a doubling for opposite charges). In de Sitter space the same condition makes the outer event horizon and the cosmological horizon share a temperature, which the authors read as thermodynamical stability, and produces an outer stable circular orbit whose position they bound with the Lagrange-Zassenhaus root bound rather than solving the quartic exactly. For the radiation estimates the machinery is electromagnetic duality, which maps the standard electric Lienard formula and the fields of two oscillating dipoles onto their magnetic analogues, plus the Parker bound, which converts the energy a charged object extracts from a galactic field over its regeneration time into a limit on the object's abundance.

Core claim. The paper's central claim is that an extremal magnetic black hole, one whose magnetic charge equals its mass in gravitational units, is a distinctly bright and distinctly audible astrophysical object. At the horizon the magnetic field is $B = 2.34^{15}$ Tesla times $M_*/M$, so across a wide mass range it exceeds a magnetar's field by many orders of magnitude even where no electroweak corona forms. The innermost stable circular orbit sits at $r = 4|Q_B|$, close to the horizon, so accreting matter and inspiralling companions live in an extreme field. For binary inspirals the authors compute, using a Lienard-type formula mapped to magnetic charges, that a magnetic-plus-neutral pair radiates electromagnetic power $P = 2.34^{15}$-scaled as $a^{-4}$, or $a^{-4}$ in separation, and that a magnetic-plus-magnetic pair radiates four times more; at fixed separation in units of the horizon radius the extremal prediction is mass-independent. The radiated power can exceed that of Type Ia supernovae and approach GRB 080916C. Because the same energy loss drives the orbit, the gravitational-wave frequency evolves with an extra term scaling as $Q_B^2 M^{-1} u^3$ on top of the standard $u^{11/3}$ inspiral, so the chirp begins earlier than for neutral black holes. Finally, requiring that magnetic black holes not drain the galactic magnetic field over its regeneration time bounds their dark matter fraction at $f_{DM} < 1.7^{-3}$ for the extremal case.

The premise it rests on. The whole edifice rests on magnetic black holes actually forming with charge close to the extremal value and then surviving to the present day, a premise the authors explicitly decline to derive when they write that they will adopt an agnostic viewpoint about the exact details of their cosmological origin.

If the paper is right (Pith's inferences, not the authors')

If extremal magnetic black holes exist at stellar or intermediate masses, their binary inspirals would be electromagnetic sources whose luminosity rivals gamma-ray bursts, with a beamed, headlight-like emission pattern that sweeps the sky once per orbit as the orbit tightens.

Gravitational-wave searches would see a chirp that runs ahead of the neutral-black-hole prediction, so a measured excess in $d\nu_{GW}/dt$ beyond the standard inspiral term would be a signature of magnetic charge rather than of mass alone.

The Parker bound on magnetic-field depletion limits magnetic black holes to a small fraction of dark matter, so any dark matter interpretation of a compact-object population must contend with that ceiling.

The existence of an outer stable circular orbit in the de Sitter case sets a maximum radius for bound orbits around such objects, a boundary absent in flat or anti-de Sitter backgrounds.

Because the near-horizon fields exceed magnetar fields over a wide mass range, accretion onto such objects, not just inspiral, would be an extreme-field laboratory for quantum field theory in curved space.

The beamed emission during inspiral is a natural candidate for periodic radio transients: an object whose beam sweeps past Earth once per orbit would produce a repeating, slowly rising-frequency signal, which is a different observational target than a one-off burst.

The mass-independence of the extremal inspiral power at fixed separation in horizon units means an observed luminosity alone cannot fix the mass; a coincident gravitational-wave measurement of the chirp would be needed to break the degeneracy.

If near-extremal magnetic black holes are as long-lived as the paper assumes, they would also accrete from the interstellar medium, and the resulting steady synchrotron emission may be a more accessible, if less spectacular, target than inspiral flares.

The same duality machinery could be applied to a magnetic black hole orbiting a neutron star, where the companion's own magnetosphere would interact with the hole's field and possibly produce a distinct precursor signal.

Check this review

Pith stored no record of this review's passes and took no fingerprint of it. Reviews made by code from 13 Nov 2026 on carry both.

How often reviews like this one are right

Reviews like this one: written by deepseek-v4.1-flash, where what was read was not recorded.

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Every value above, in the review's public record (JSON)

Reviews by people

This review was written by a machine. No person has reviewed this paper on Pith yet. A scientist listed on Pith can review it for a fee, and their review is published here whatever it concludes.

Request a human review

How Pith checks papers · The full audit of this paper

The paper

Abstract

We discuss a cornucopia of potential astrophysical signatures and constraints on magnetically charged black holes of various masses. As recently highlighted, being potentially viable astrophysical candidates with immense electromagnetic fields, they may be ideal windows to fundamental physics, electroweak symmetry restoration and non-perturbative quantum field theoretic phenomena. We investigate various potential astrophysical pointers and bounds – including limits on charges, location of stable orbits and horizons in asymptotically flat and asymptotically de Sitter backgrounds, bounds from galactic magnetic fields and dark matter measurements, characteristic electromagnetic fluxes and tell-tale gravitational wave emissions during binary inspirals. Stable orbits around these objects hold an imprint of their nature and in the asymptotically de Sitter case, there is also a qualitatively new feature with the emergence of a stable outer orbit. We consider binary inspirals of both magnetic and neutral, and magnetic and magnetic, black hole pairs. The electromagnetic emissions and the gravitational waveform evolution, along with inter-black hole separation, display distinct features. Many of the astrophysical signatures may be observationally glaring – for instance, even in regions of parameter space where no electroweak corona forms, owing to magnetic fields that are still many orders of magnitude larger than even Magnetars, their consequent electromagnetic emissions will be spectacular during binary inspirals. While adding new results, our discussions also complement works in similar contexts, that have appeared recently in the literature.

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23

The authors' main claim, as the classifier picked it out 0.83

“Many of the astrophysical signatures may be observationally glaring -- for instance, even in regions of parameter space where no electroweak corona forms, owing to magnetic fields that are still many orders of magnitude larger than even Magnetars, their consequent electromagnetic emissions will be spectacular during binary inspirals.”

How the main claim is stated: hedged possibility 0.81

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.22 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.35 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.10 · compares with prior results 0.64 · mentions code or data availability 0.02

The abstract, sentence by sentence

This table labels the abstract only (arXiv listing abstract v3). The number is the probability the classifier gave the label.

SentenceRoleThe authors' own workStates the main conclusionStrength
We discuss a cornucopia of potential astrophysical signatures and constraints on magnetically charged black holes of various masses. contribution 0.99 0.73 0.12 hedged possibility 0.51
As recently highlighted, being potentially viable astrophysical candidates with immense electromagnetic fields, they may be ideal windows to fundamental physics, electroweak symmetry restoration and non-perturbative quantum field theoretic phenomena. background 0.91 0.06 0.11 hedged possibility 1.00
We investigate various potential astrophysical pointers and bounds -- including limits on charges, location of stable orbits and horizons in asymptotically flat and asymptotically de Sitter backgrounds, bounds from galactic magnetic fields and dark matter measurements, characteristic electromagnetic fluxes and tell-tale gravitational wave emissions during binary inspirals. contribution 0.99 0.76 0.10 asserted 0.76
Stable orbits around these objects hold an imprint of their nature and in the asymptotically de Sitter case, there is also a qualitatively new feature with the emergence of a stable outer orbit. result 0.95 0.68 0.10 asserted 0.99
We consider binary inspirals of both magnetic and neutral, and magnetic and magnetic, black hole pairs. contribution 0.79 0.72 0.03 asserted 0.90
The electromagnetic emissions and the gravitational waveform evolution, along with inter-black hole separation, display distinct features. result 0.97 0.70 0.13 asserted 1.00
Many of the astrophysical signatures may be observationally glaring -- for instance, even in regions of parameter space where no electroweak corona forms, owing to magnetic fields that are still many orders of magnitude larger than even Magnetars, their consequent electromagnetic emissions will be spectacular during binary inspirals. result 0.64 0.45 0.28 hedged possibility 0.81
While adding new results, our discussions also complement works in similar contexts, that have appeared recently in the literature. background 0.56 0.19 0.03 asserted 0.86

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.65 · evidence from argument 0.53

What was examined, and what was not

Sources read

  • arXiv listing abstract v3

Not examined

  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers

Levels run

  • P abstract

Not run

  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

How the labels were made

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 6,441 input tokens.

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. This record as JSON

References (98)
  1. [11] J. Maldacena, (2020), arXiv:2004.06084 [hep-th] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [18] L. Liu, O. Christiansen, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and S. P. Kim, (2020), arXiv:2008.02326 [gr-qc] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [1] B. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  4. [2] B. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [3] K. Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. 875, L1 (2019), arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [4] S. Mereghetti, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 15, 225 (2008), arXiv:0804.0250 [astro-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [5] D. Lorimer, M. Bailes, M. McLaughlin, D. Narkevic, and F. Crawford, Science 318, 777 (2007), arXiv:0709.4301 [astro-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [6] D. Thornton et al. , Science 341, 53 (2013), arXiv:1307.1628 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [7] B. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi GBM, INTEGRAL, IceCube, AstroSat Cadmium Zinc Tel- luride Imager Team, IPN, Insight-Hxmt, ANTARES, Swift, AGILE Team, 1M2H Team, Dark Energy Camera GW-EM, DES, DLT40, GRAWITA, Fermi-LAT, ATCA, ASKAP, Las Cumbres Observatory Group,... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [8] K.-M. Lee, V. Nair, and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 45, 2751 (1992), arXiv:hep-th/9112008 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [9] K.-M. Lee, V. Nair, and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1100 (1992), arXiv:hep-th/9111045 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  12. [10] K.-M. Lee and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1203 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9406021 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  13. [12] J. Ambjorn and P. Olesen, Nucl. Phys. B315, 606 (1989) on Pith
  14. [13] J. Ambjorn and P. Olesen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 5, 4525 (1990) on Pith
  15. [14] J. Ambjorn and P. Olesen, Nucl. Phys. B330, 193 (1990) on Pith
  16. [15] J. Ambjorn and P. Olesen, in 4th Hellenic School on Ele- mentary Particle Physics (1992) pp. 396–406, arXiv:hep- ph/9304220 on Pith
  17. [16] J. Maldacena and A. Milekhin, (2020), arXiv:2008.06618 [hep-th] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  18. [17] Y. Bai, J. Berger, M. Korwar, and N. Orlofsky, (2020), arXiv:2007.03703 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  19. [19] Y. Kim and A. Kobakhidze, (2020), arXiv:2008.04506 [gr-qc] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  20. [20] A. Allahyari, M. Khodadi, S. Vagnozzi, and D. F. Mota, JCAP 02, 003 (2020), arXiv:1912.08231 [gr-qc] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
show 78 more
  1. [21] V. Cardoso and P. Pani, Living Rev. Rel. 22, 4 (2019), arXiv:1904.05363 [gr-qc] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [22] E. Maggio, L. Buoninfante, A. Mazumdar, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 102, 064053 (2020), arXiv:2006.14628 [gr- qc] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [23] C. A. Clarkson, M. Marklund, G. Betschart, and P. Dunsby, Astrophys. J. 613, 492 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0310323 on Pith
  4. [24] H. Sotani, K. D. Kokkotas, P. Laguna, and C. F. Sop- uerta, Phys. Rev. D 87, 084018 (2013), arXiv:1303.5641 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [25] C. Vishveshwara, Nature 227, 936 (1970) on Pith
  6. [26] W. H. Press, Astrophys. J. Lett. 170, L105 (1971) on Pith
  7. [27] F. Mellor and I. Moss, Phys. Rev. D 41, 403 (1990) on Pith
  8. [28] N. Andersson and H. Onozawa, Phys. Rev. D 54, 7470 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9607054 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [29] K. D. Kokkotas and B. G. Schmidt, Living Rev. Rel. 2, 2 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9909058 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [30] J. Natario and R. Schiappa, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 8, 1001 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0411267 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [31] C. Chirenti, Braz. J. Phys. 48, 102 (2018), arXiv:1708.04476 [gr-qc] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  12. [32] S. Bhagwat, X. J. Forteza, P. Pani, and V. Ferrari, Phys. Rev. D 101, 044033 (2020), arXiv:1910.08708 [gr-qc] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  13. [33] R. S. Hanni, Phys. Rev. D 25, 2509 (1982) on Pith
  14. [34] J. S. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 82, 664 (1951), [,116(1951)] on Pith
  15. [35] B. W. Carroll and D. A. Ostlie, An introduction to mod- ern astrophysics; 2nd ed. (Addison-Wesley, San Fran- cisco, CA, 2007) on Pith
  16. [36] I. K. Affleck, O. Alvarez, and N. S. Manton, Nucl. Phys. B197, 509 (1982) on Pith
  17. [37] I. K. Affleck and N. S. Manton, Nucl. Phys. B194, 38 (1982) on Pith
  18. [38] A. Hook and J. Huang, Phys. Rev. D96, 055010 (2017), arXiv:1705.01107 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  19. [39] J. Terning and C. B. Verhaaren, JHEP 12, 123 (2018), arXiv:1808.09459 [hep-th] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  20. [40] P. P. Chandra, M. Korwar, and A. M. Thalapillil, Phys. 19 Rev. D 101, 075028 (2020), arXiv:1909.12855 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  21. [41] D. Stojkovic and K. Freese, Phys. Lett. B 606, 251 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0403248 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  22. [42] Y. Bai and N. Orlofsky, Phys. Rev. D101, 055006 (2020), arXiv:1906.04858 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  23. [43] L. Romans, Nucl. Phys. B 383, 395 (1992), arXiv:hep- th/9203018 on Pith
  24. [44] D. Kastor and J. H. Traschen, Phys. Rev. D 47, 5370 (1993), arXiv:hep-th/9212035 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  25. [45] J. Kim and S.-H. Moon, JHEP 09, 088 (2007), arXiv:0707.4183 [gr-qc] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  26. [46] P. Pradhan and P. Majumdar, Phys. Lett. A 375, 474 (2011), arXiv:1001.0359 [gr-qc] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  27. [47] S. Grunau and V. Kagramanova, Phys. Rev. D 83, 044009 (2011), arXiv:1011.5399 [gr-qc] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  28. [48] D. Pugliese, H. Quevedo, and R. Ruffini, Phys. Rev. D 83, 104052 (2011), arXiv:1103.1807 [gr-qc] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  29. [49] D. Pugliese, H. Quevedo, and R. Ruffini, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 206 (2017), arXiv:1304.2940 [gr-qc] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  30. [50] P. Gonz´ alez, M. Olivares, E. Papantonopoulos, J. Saave- dra, and Y. V´ asquez, Phys. Rev. D 95, 104052 (2017), arXiv:1703.04840 [gr-qc] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  31. [51] J. G. Russo, Class. Quant. Grav. 37, 17 (2020), arXiv:2001.05010 [gr-qc] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  32. [52] Z. Stuchlik, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia 34, 129 (1983) on Pith
  33. [53] Z. Stuchlik and S. Hledik, Acta Phys. Slov. 52, 363 (2002), arXiv:0803.2685 [gr-qc] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  34. [54] C.-M. Claudel, K. Virbhadra, and G. Ellis, J. Math. Phys. 42, 818 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0005050 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  35. [55] Z. Stuchl´ ık and S. Hled´ ık, Phys. Rev. D 60, 044006 (1999) on Pith
  36. [56] P. Boonserm, T. Ngampitipan, A. Simpson, and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D 101, 024050 (2020), arXiv:1909.06755 [gr-qc] on PitharXiv
  37. [57] A. L. King, J. A. Tomsick, J. M. Miller, J. Chenevez, D. Barret, S. E. Boggs, D. Chakrabarty, F. E. Chris- tensen, W. W. Craig, F. F¨ urst, C. J. Hailey, F. A. Har- rison, M. L. Parker, D. Stern, P. Romano, D. J. Walton, and W. W. Zhang, The Astrophysical Journal 819, L29 (2016) on Pith
  38. [58] S. Barnard and J. M. Child, Higher Algebra (Mcmillan, London, UK, 1981) on Pith
  39. [59] A. M. Ostrowski, Solution of Equations and Systems of Equations (Academic Press, New York, USA, 1960) on Pith
  40. [60] D. E. Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol- ume 2: Seminumerical Algorithms , 3rd ed. (Addison- Wesley, Boston, 1997) on Pith
  41. [61] T. Stohlker, T. Beier, H. F. Beyer, T. Kuhl, and W. Quint, The Physics of Multiply and Highly Charged Ions: Volume 1. Sources, Applications and Fundamental Processes, edited by F. J. Currell (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2003) pp. 351–386 on Pith
  42. [62] V. A. Miransky and I. A. Shovkovy, Phys. Rept. 576, 1 (2015), arXiv:1503.00732 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  43. [63] that a 3+1 dimensional massless chiral fermion with charge q (in the current context, q would be the Hyper- charge) gives rise to qQB/qB (where again as before we defineqB = 2πϵ0ℏc2/e = 3.44× 10−9 A-m) massless 1+1 dimensional chiral fermions. The vanishing mass may be understo... on Pith
  44. [64] J. Maldacena, A. Milekhin, and F. Popov, (2018), arXiv:1807.04726 [hep-th] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  45. [65] B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, (2020), arXiv:2006.02838 [astro- ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  46. [66] E. N. Parker, Astrophys. J. 160, 383 (1970) on Pith
  47. [67] M. S. Turner, E. N. Parker, and T. Bogdan, Phys. Rev. D 26, 1296 (1982) on Pith
  48. [68] F. C. Adams, M. Fatuzzo, K. Freese, G. Tarle, R. Watkins, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2511 (1993) on Pith
  49. [69] A. Fletcher, E. Berkhuijsen, R. Beck, and A. Shukurov, Astron. Astrophys. 414, 53 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0310258 on Pith
  50. [70] T. G. Arshakian, R. Beck, M. Krause, and D. Sokoloff, Astron. Astrophys. 494, 21 (2009), arXiv:0810.3114 [astro-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  51. [71] A. Klypin, H. Zhao, and R. S. Somerville, Astrophys. J. 573, 597 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0110390 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  52. [72] A. Tamm, E. Tempel, P. Tenjes, O. Tihhonova, and T. Tuvikene, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220065, arXiv:1208.5712 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  53. [73] R. Beck, in American Institute of Physics Conference Se- ries, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1381, edited by F. A. Aharonian, W. Hofmann, and F. M. Rieger (2011) pp. 117–136, arXiv:1104.3749 [astro- ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  54. [74] V. Rubakov, JETP Lett. 33, 644 (1981) on Pith
  55. [75] V. Rubakov, Nucl. Phys. B 203, 311 (1982) on Pith
  56. [76] J. Callan, Curtis G., Phys. Rev. D 25, 2141 (1982) on Pith
  57. [77] J. Callan, Curtis G., Phys. Rev. D 26, 2058 (1982) on Pith
  58. [78] J. Callan, Curtis G., Nucl. Phys. B 212, 391 (1983) on Pith
  59. [79] A. Sen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 1755 (1984) on Pith
  60. [80] A. Sen, Nucl. Phys. B 250, 1 (1985) on Pith
  61. [81] A. Sen, Phys. Lett. B 153, 55 (1985) on Pith
  62. [82] S. Dawson and A. Schellekens, Phys. Rev. D 27, 2119 (1983) on Pith
  63. [83] E. J. Weinberg, D. London, and J. L. Rosner, Nucl. Phys. B 236, 90 (1984) on Pith
  64. [84] M. Maggiore, Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments, Oxford Master Series in Physics (Oxford University Press, 2007) on Pith
  65. [85] B. Zhang, Astrophys. J. Lett. 827, L31 (2016), arXiv:1602.04542 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  66. [86] T. Liu, G. E. Romero, M.-L. Liu, and A. Li, Astrophys. J. 826, 82 (2016), arXiv:1602.06907 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  67. [87] A. A. Abdo et al. (Fermi-LAT, Fermi GBM), Science 323, 1688 (2009) on Pith
  68. [88] L. Landau and E. Lifschits, The Classical Theory of Fields, Course of Theoretical Physics, Vol. Volume 2 (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1975) on Pith
  69. [89] B. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi-GBM, INTEGRAL), Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L13 (2017), arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  70. [90] H. Wang et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 851, L18 (2017), arXiv:1710.05805 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  71. [91] P. Peters and J. Mathews, Phys. Rev. 131, 435 (1963) on Pith
  72. [92] L. E. Kidder, C. M. Will, and A. G. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. D 47, R4183 (1993) on Pith
  73. [93] L. E. Kidder, Phys. Rev. D 52, 821 (1995) on Pith
  74. [94] P. Jaranowski and G. Schaefer, Phys. Rev. D 57, 7274 (1998), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 63, 029902 (2001)], arXiv:gr-qc/9712075 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  75. [95] B. J. Owen, H. Tagoshi, and A. Ohashi, Phys. Rev. D 57, 6168 (1998) on Pith
  76. [96] L. Blanchet, G. Faye, B. R. Iyer, and B. Joguet, Phys. Rev. D 65, 061501 (2002), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 71, 129902 (2005)], arXiv:gr-qc/0105099 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  77. [97] L. Blanchet, A. Buonanno, and G. Faye, Phys. Rev. D 74, 104034 (2006), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 75, 049903 (2007), Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 81, 089901 (2010)], arXiv:gr-qc/0605140 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  78. [98] J. D. Jackson, Classical electrodynamics; 2nd ed. (Wiley, New York, NY, 1975) on Pith
Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers on Pith that cite this one. The full citation record

  1. Magnetically Charged Black Holes from Grand Unified Theory hep-ph · Oct 2026
  2. Self-Consistent Parker Bound on Magnetic Monopoles hep-ph · May 2026
  3. Photon Spheres and Spherical Accretion Image of a Hairy Black Hole gr-qc · Apr 2021
  4. QED Effect on Black Hole Shadow gr-qc · Dec 2020
  5. Einstein-\AE ther Gravity in the light of Event Horizon Telescope Observations of M87* gr-qc · Dec 2020
  6. Gravitational and electromagnetic radiation from binary black holes with electric and magnetic charges: Elliptical orbits on a cone gr-qc · Nov 2020

Topics: Dark Matter, Dark Matter

How the literature uses it

31 arXiv papers cite this in 55 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 33 sentences without a confident label

Compares with it 1 paper
  • Although Parker-type bounds on MBHs have previously been explored —for instance, from galactic magnetic fields [ref] , yielding a limit on their dark matter fraction $f_DM ≲𝒪(10^-3)$— we find that constraints from cosmic void and cosmic filament magnetic fields provide novel and more stringent bounds on the dark matter fraction than those extant in the literature [ref] .

    Exploring Faraday rotation signatures and population bounds for primordial magnetic black holes · Summary and conclusions · 0.93

Cites it as background 15 papers

What it cites · 69 sentences without a confident label

Uses data or values from 4 papers
Compares with 1 paper
Cites as background 28 papers

Challenges and discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, or challenge this review formally: a challenge becomes a permanent entry in this paper's record, and its decision is published here.

No comments yet.

Sign in to comment