Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Dark Matter-Powered Stars and the High-Redshift Tidal Disruption Event Rate

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the first stars are too short-lived to produce the expected rate of tidal disruption events, but captured, annihilating dark matter can extend their lives and revive the rate, optimally for MeV-scale particles.

desk verdict A plausible new link between DM particle mass and high-redshift TDE rates, but the quantitative predictions hinge on an ad hoc cap in the diffusion kernel. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10871 v1 pith:ZXN3FEXM submitted 2024-11-16 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM

Thomas H.T. Wong , George M. Fuller This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM
keywords tidaldisruptioneventsPopulationIIIstarsdarkmatterannihilationlossconedynamicsmassiveblackholeshigh-redshifttransientsMeV
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

Tidal disruption events happen when a star is gravitationally scattered into an orbit that brings it inside the tidal radius of a massive black hole. The paper argues that the earliest, metal-free Population III stars — with masses of 30–300 $M_\odot$ and main-sequence lifetimes of only about 2 Myr — die before two-body scattering can push them into the disruption zone, so the conventional loss-cone calculation overestimates the high-redshift TDE rate. It then shows that captured dark matter that annihilates inside a star adds an energy budget $E_\chi$ that lengthens the stellar lifetime to $t_{\star,\chi}$, partially reviving the suppressed rate. The revival is strongest for dark-matter masses around $m_\chi \sim 1$ MeV, because lighter particles evaporate out of the star and heavier ones have too low a number density. The paper therefore connects the observed high-redshift TDE rate to particle-physics properties of dark matter.

What carries the argument

The central object is the P-factor, the probability that a star of mass $m_\star$ on an orbit of specific energy $E$ around a black hole of mass $M_\bullet$ diffuses into the loss cone before it leaves the main sequence. It enters the differential TDE rate in Eq. (1) and is built from a Gaussian random-walk probability for the specific angular momentum $L$, truncated at the maximum diffusion length and renormalized, with an additional maximum-threshold cutoff ($\kappa_{\rm corr}$) that prevents distant near-radial orbits from being overweighted. The companion mechanism is the dark-matter energy budget $E_\chi = \pi\langle\sigma v\rangle c^2 r_\star (f_{\rm cap}\rho_\chi v_{\star,\chi})^2 t_\star^3/(4m_\chi)$, whose $t_\star^3$ and $1/m_\chi$ scalings drive both the lifetime extension and the optimal mass near 1 MeV. Together these two pieces convert the standard loss-cone integral into a rate that depends explicitly on stellar age and dark-matter properties.

What would settle it

An observation that could settle this: a next-generation infrared transient survey that measures the volumetric TDE rate at $z \gtrsim 6$ with a modest sample of events should see the predicted steep decline with black-hole mass, roughly $\log(\Gamma_{\rm age}/\Gamma_{\rm standard}) \simeq -1.24\log(M_\bullet/10^6\,M_\odot) - 1.93$; a rate consistent with the standard age-uncorrected prediction, or one that is flat in $M_\bullet$, would falsify the suppression and with it the dark-matter revival mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the short lifetimes of massive Population III stars make the standard loss-cone TDE rate a significant overestimate at high redshift, and that this suppression is not a fixed correction but depends on both black-hole mass and stellar mass in a calculable way. The authors encode the age effect in a probability factor $P(M_\bullet, m_\star, \beta, E)$, given by the integral of a truncated Gaussian describing angular-momentum diffusion into the loss cone; $P$ drops toward zero for distant orbits and short-lived stars, and it steepens the rate suppression with $M_\bullet$. Adding annihilating dark matter changes the stellar age to $t_{\star,\chi} \sim t_\star + E_\chi/L_\star$, where $E_\chi \propto (f_{\rm cap}\rho_\chi v_{\star,\chi})^2 t_\star^3 / m_\chi$, and this restores part of the rate. The mass dependence is non-monotonic: $m_\chi \sim 1$ MeV balances capture against evaporation and yields the largest revival, while heavier and lighter particles give smaller effects. The claim is that the volumetric high-redshift TDE rate, if ever measured, is therefore a window onto dark-matter particle mass and interactions.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative results rest on an ad hoc cutoff added to the assumed Gaussian probability for orbital angular-momentum diffusion; if the true diffusion process differs from this truncated Gaussian, both the age suppression and the dark-matter revival change in size.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At fixed black-hole mass, the age-corrected high-redshift PopIII TDE rate is suppressed relative to the standard rate, and the suppression steepens with $M_\bullet$; for $M_\bullet = 10^8\,M_\odot$ and $m_\star = 300\,M_\odot$ the differential rate ratio can be as low as about $5\times10^{-5}$.
  • If annihilating dark matter with $m_\chi \sim 1$ MeV is captured, the suppression is milder and the rate ratio develops a steeper dependence on stellar mass, because the dark-matter energy budget scales as $t_\star^3$.
  • The dark-matter-induced part of the $M_\bullet$ slope is degenerate with the uncertain high-redshift black-hole mass function, so an observed rate must be interpreted together with a BHMF in order to isolate the DM contribution.
  • Expected detection numbers for future infrared surveys are reduced: Roman-class telescopes could see roughly 10–100 high-redshift TDEs, while JWST deep surveys are unlikely to detect them unless cluster lensing magnifies the events by 1–2 magnitudes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: Because the DM enhancement peaks near 1 MeV, a measured high-redshift TDE rate that is too high to be explained by age effects alone would favour MeV-scale annihilating dark matter; the paper does not itself make a detection claim.
  • Inference: The P-factor could be checked directly by N-body simulations of nuclear clusters that resolve the low-angular-momentum tail of the stellar distribution; if the diffusion kernel is not a truncated Gaussian, both the optimal mass and the suppression slope could move.
  • Inference: The same lifetime-extension mechanism should alter other short-lived stellar populations around black holes, such as stars in very dense nuclear clusters, offering independent tests of DM-powered longevity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This Letter proposes that the finite main-sequence lifetimes of massive Population III stars significantly suppress the high-redshift tidal disruption event (TDE) rate around massive black holes, and that dark matter (DM) annihilation inside those stars can partially revive the rate by extending stellar lifetimes. The authors add a probability factor P(M*, m*, beta, E) to the standard loss-cone rate integral, model angular-momentum diffusion as a truncated Gaussian random walk with an ad hoc cap kappa_corr, compute the DM energy budget from capture and annihilation, and present differential and volumetric rate ratios as functions of black hole mass, stellar mass, and DM particle mass. They find optimal TDE revival at m_chi ~ O(MeV) and provide a power-law fit for the age-only suppression.

Significance. If it holds, this is an original and potentially testable connection: it links the DM particle mass to high-redshift TDE rates and gives concrete survey targets for Roman and Nancy. The paper is honest as a parameter exploration rather than a fit, and it builds on published TDE rate theory. The analytic model is transparent, and the physical limits of P (P -> 0 and P -> 1) are sensible. However, the quantitative ratios in Figs. 2 and 3 are controlled by an unspecified ad hoc density threshold, so the significance is conditional on that threshold being justified or shown to be harmless.

major comments (3)
  1. [Stellar Lifetime, Eq. (5) and Fig. 1] The P-factor is the load-bearing new ingredient: it multiplies the differential rate in Eq. (1), and the suppression and DM-revival ratios in Figs. 2 and 3 follow directly from it. The construction of kappa_corr, however, is not specified: the text only says that a 'maximum threshold' is imposed to avoid overweighting small L_rand values, without giving the threshold value, its dependence on orbital energy, or a derivation from the underlying Fokker-Planck/loss-cone dynamics. Different reasonable caps will change the integral in Eq. (5) and therefore the magnitudes of the claimed suppression (down to ~5e-5) and the MeV revival peak. Please either derive kappa_corr from the diffusion dynamics or provide a sensitivity analysis over the cap and the truncation choice.
  2. [DM-prolonged lifetime, Eqs. (6)-(9)] The DM lifetime extension is not self-consistent as written. Equation (9) computes E_chi by integrating the annihilation power over the standard lifetime t_star, but Eq. (6) then defines the prolonged lifetime t_star,chi = t_star + E_chi/L_star. If the star lives longer, it continues to capture DM during the extra time; for f_loss -> 0 the text notes N_star,chi is proportional to t, so E_chi is proportional to t^3, and the prolonged lifetime should satisfy t_star,chi = t_star + C t_star,chi^3. This feedback is not solved or bounded in the manuscript, so the quoted revival ratios are not well defined. The authors should either solve the self-consistent equation or justify why the feedback is negligible in the parameter range shown.
  3. [DM-prolonged lifetime, paragraph after Eq. (6)] The paper assumes L_star is proportional to m_star remains unchanged when DM energy is added. This is a strong assumption: in dark-star models, the added energy can change the stellar structure, radius, and luminosity, and those changes feed back into the evaporation, loss, and capture rates used in Eqs. (7)-(9). Because t_star,chi is inversely proportional to L_star, the assumption directly sets the size of the predicted revival. Please justify the assumption, or bracket it using the existing dark-star calculations cited in Refs. [4,6,12,33].
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (7)] Equation (7) as printed has m_star in the denominator; dimensional analysis and the subsequent Eq. (9) indicate the denominator should be the DM particle mass m_chi. Please correct this typo.
  2. [Figs. 2 and 3 and surrounding text] The differential rate symbol appears as a placeholder 'square' (for example, 'd2square_age/d2square_standard'). Please ensure the typeset Gamma appears throughout.
  3. [Paragraph after Eq. (7)] The text 'm_star greater than or similar to 1 GeV' should presumably read 'm_chi greater than or similar to 1 GeV'.
  4. [Eq. (10)] Equation (10) is presented as a power-law fit, but no fit range or uncertainty is given; please state the range of validity of this approximation.
  5. [End Matter, Fig. 4 caption] The caption states that every value is an integration of each solid kappa_corr curve, but the cap parameter is not defined; this is related to Major Comment 1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; the ad hoc κcorr cap is a model-validity concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central claim—short PopIII lifetimes suppress the volumetric TDE rate, with captured DM reviving it—is computed from a stated random-walk model (Eqs. 2–5) and independent DM-capture/annihilation formulas (Ref. [23], Eqs. 7–9). No parameter is fitted to TDE data; the mχ scan is a parameter exploration, so the O(MeV) optimum is a model output rather than a fitted input. The authors' own earlier papers ([29], [30]) enter only through the TDE energy weight G in Eq. (1), and G multiplies both numerator and denominator in the modified-to-standard rate ratios shown in Figs. 2 and 3, so those self-citations largely cancel and are not load-bearing for the claimed suppression or revival. The maximum threshold κcorr introduced after Eq. (5) is an acknowledged modeling choice, not a hidden fit to the target observable, and it is not equivalent by definition to the predicted rate ratios; it affects quantitative magnitudes but does not make the derivation circular. No self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, or self-citation-load-bearing step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model imports most of its physics from prior work: loss-cone theory, the stellar age-mass relation, DM capture/evaporation fractions, and the standard WIMP annihilation cross section. The genuinely new pieces are the P-factor correction and its combination with DM-prolonged lifetimes. These rest on the ad hoc density threshold and the unchanged mass-luminosity assumption, so the quantitative predictions are not fully derived from first principles.

free parameters (4)
  • DM particle mass mχ = scanned over 1 keV to 1 GeV; optimal near 1 MeV
    The central claim is the existence of an optimal mass; it is a scan parameter, not fitted to data, but the peak location depends on the capture/evaporation model.
  • WIMP annihilation cross section ⟨σv⟩ = 3e-26 cm^3/s
    Adopted standard thermal value from prior dark star literature (Refs [8,12]); not fitted here.
  • DM capture and loss fractions fcap, floss = not specified in the text
    Imported from Ref [23]; their mass dependence controls the optimal mχ, but the functional forms are not given in this Letter.
  • NFW dark matter halo parameters = not specified
    The ambient DM density ρχ and relative speed v* are needed to compute capture; no numerical values are stated, so the rates are not reproducible from the text.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Two-body relaxation drives angular momentum diffusion in galactic nuclei (loss cone theory).
    Used to derive the P-factor and TDE rate in Section 'Stellar Lifetime'.
  • domain assumption The angular momentum evolution of a target star is a Gaussian random walk with step size δL proportional to sqrt(torb/trelax) Lc.
    Used in Eq. (2) to estimate the diffusion timescale; not validated against Fokker-Planck simulations in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The mass-luminosity relation for massive PopIII stars remains L⋆ ∝ m⋆ when dark matter energy is added.
    Stated in Section 'DM-prolonged lifetime' as a simplifying assumption; a real star would change radius and luminosity.
  • domain assumption The DM annihilation cross section and capture rates from Ref [23] apply to PopIII main-sequence stars.
    The entire DM revival calculation depends on this external model.
  • ad hoc to paper The probability density threshold κcorr is imposed ad hoc.
    The threshold is not derived; it is introduced to fix the overweighting of low-Lrand orbits.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark Matter-Powered Stars and the High-Redshift Tidal Disruption Event Rate." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZXN3FEXM

@misc{pith2026241110871,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark Matter-Powered Stars and the High-Redshift Tidal Disruption Event Rate},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZXN3FEXM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10871}
}
abstract

Tidal disruption events (TDEs) result from stars being gravitationally-scattered into low angular momentum orbits around massive black holes. We show that the short lifetimes of massive Population III stars at high redshifts could significantly suppress the volumetric TDE rate because they are too short-lived to reach disruption-fated orbits. However, this suppression can be alleviated if captured dark matter (DM) within stellar interiors provides an additional energy source, thereby extending stellar lifetimes. We find that this TDE rate revival is most pronounced for DM particles with mass $\mathcal{O}({\rm MeV})$, as this particle mass scale is optimal in the competing processes of DM accretion and evaporation in stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10871 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Probability density functions ⃗ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Ratio of modified-to-standard differential TDE rates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Ratio of modified-to-standard volumetric TDE rates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

    D. A. Neufeld, G. R. Farrar, and C. F. McKee, The Astrophysical Journal 866, 111 (2018), arXiv:1805.08794 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [1]

    N. C. Stone and B. D. Metzger, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 455, 859 (2016), arXiv:1410.7772 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [2]

    Detecting Population III Stars through Tidal Disruption Events in the Era of JWST and Roman

    R. Kar Chowdhury, J. N. Y. Chang, L. Dai, and P. Natara- jan, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 966, L33 (2024), arXiv:2401.12752 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  4. [3]

    Spolyar, K

    D. Spolyar, K. Freese, and P. Gondolo, Physical Review Letters 100, 051101 (2008), arXiv:0705.0521 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2008

  5. [4]

    Dark matter annihilation effects on the first stars

    F. Iocco, A. Bressan, E. Ripamonti, R. Schneider, A. Fer- rara, and P. Marigo, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society 390, 1655 (2008), arXiv:0805.4016 [astro-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  6. [5]

    Iocco, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 677, L1 (2008), arXiv:0802.0941 [astro-ph]

    F. Iocco, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 677, L1 (2008), arXiv:0802.0941 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2008

  7. [6]

    Taoso, G

    M. Taoso, G. Bertone, G. Meynet, and S. Ekstr¨ om, Phys- ical Review D 78, 123510 (2008), arXiv:0806.2681 [astro- ph]

    arXiv 2008

  8. [7]

    Natarajan, J

    A. Natarajan, J. C. Tan, and B. W. O’Shea, The Astro- physical Journal 692, 574 (2009), arXiv:0807.3769 [astro- ph]

    arXiv 2009

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    Freese, P

    K. Freese, P. Bodenheimer, D. Spolyar, and P. Gon- dolo, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 685, L101 (2008), arXiv:0806.0617 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Freese, P

    K. Freese, P. Gondolo, J. A. Sellwood, and D. Spolyar, The Astrophysical Journal 693, 1563 (2009), arXiv:0805.3540 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Ripamonti, F

    E. Ripamonti, F. Iocco, A. Ferrara, R. Schneider, A. Bres- san, and P. Marigo, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society 406, 2605 (2010)

    2010

  4. [11]

    Stacy, A

    A. Stacy, A. H. Pawlik, V. Bromm, and A. Loeb, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society441, 822 (2014), arXiv:1312.3117 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Freese, T

    K. Freese, T. Rindler-Daller, D. Spolyar, and M. Val- luri, Reports on Progress in Physics 79, 066902 (2016), arXiv:1501.02394 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Barkana, Nature 555, 71 (2018), arXiv:1803.06698 6 [astro-ph.CO]

    R. Barkana, Nature 555, 71 (2018), arXiv:1803.06698 6 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Komossa, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics 7, 148 (2015), arXiv:1505.01093 [astro-ph.HE]

    S. Komossa, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics 7, 148 (2015), arXiv:1505.01093 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [15]

    K. D. French, T. Wevers, J. Law-Smith, O. Graur, and A. I. Zabludoff, Space Science Reviews 216, 32 (2020), arXiv:2003.02863 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Gezari, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 59, 21 (2021), arXiv:2104.14580 [astro-ph.HE]

    S. Gezari, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 59, 21 (2021), arXiv:2104.14580 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Schaerer, Astronomy and Astrophysics 382, 28 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0110697 [astro-ph]

    D. Schaerer, Astronomy and Astrophysics 382, 28 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0110697 [astro-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Scott, J

    P. Scott, J. Edjs¨ o, and M. Fairbairn, inDark Matter in Astrophysics and Particle Physics, Dark 2009, edited by H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and I. V. Krivosheina (2010) pp. 320–327, arXiv:0904.2395 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  12. [19]

    T. J. Raen, H. Mart ´ ınez-Rodr ´ ıguez, T. J. Hurst, A. R. Zentner, C. Badenes, and R. Tao, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 503, 5611 (2021), arXiv:2010.04184 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Freese, D

    K. Freese, D. Spolyar, and A. Aguirre, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2008 (11), 014, arXiv:0802.1724 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Lopes, J

    I. Lopes, J. Casanellas, and D. Eug´ enio, Physical Review D 83, 063521 (2011), arXiv:1102.2907 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and H. Okawa, Physical Review Letters 115, 111301 (2015), arXiv:1508.04773 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Cohn and R

    H. Cohn and R. M. Kulsrud, The Astrophysical Journal 226, 1087 (1978)

    1978

  17. [25]

    Wang and D

    J. Wang and D. Merritt, The Astrophysical Journal 600, 149 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0305493 [astro-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Merritt, Classical and Quantum Gravity 30, 244005 (2013), arXiv:1307.3268 [astro-ph.GA]

    D. Merritt, Classical and Quantum Gravity 30, 244005 (2013), arXiv:1307.3268 [astro-ph.GA]

    2013 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Merritt, Dynamics and Evolution of Galactic Nuclei (2013)

    D. Merritt, Dynamics and Evolution of Galactic Nuclei (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    L. E. Strubbe, Snacktime for Hungry Black Holes: The- oretical Studies of the Tidal Disruption of Stars, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    Pfister, M

    H. Pfister, M. Toscani, T. H. T. Wong, J. L. Dai, G. Lodato, and E. M. Rossi, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 510, 2025 (2022), arXiv:2103.05883 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    T. H. T. Wong, H. Pfister, and L. Dai, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 927, L19 (2022), arXiv:2111.09173 [astro- ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    J. G. Hills, Nature 254, 295 (1975)

    1975

  24. [32]

    de Bennassuti, R

    M. de Bennassuti, R. Schneider, R. Valiante, and S. Sal- vadori, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 445, 3039 (2014), arXiv:1409.5798 [astro-ph.GA]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    I. John, R. K. Leane, and T. Linden, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2405.12267 (2024), arXiv:2405.12267 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    R. J. Gaitskell, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 54, 315 (2004)

    2004

  27. [35]

    Essig, J

    R. Essig, J. Mardon, and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. D 85, 076007 (2012), arXiv:1108.5383 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  28. [36]

    K. K. Boddy and J. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D 92, 023533 (2015), arXiv:1504.04024 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Bartels, D

    R. Bartels, D. Gaggero, and C. Weniger, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2017 (5), 001, arXiv:1703.02546 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Green and S

    D. Green and S. Rajendran, Journal of High Energy Physics 2017, 13 (2017), arXiv:1701.08750 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    H. An, M. Pospelov, J. Pradler, and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 141801 (2018), arXiv:1708.03642 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Berlin, G

    A. Berlin, G. Krnjaic, and E. Pinetti, Phys. Rev. D 110, 035015 (2024), arXiv:2311.00032 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    J. J. Han, A. Dey, A. M. Price-Whelan, J. Najita, E. F. Schlafly, A. Saydjari, R. H. Wechsler, A. Bonaca, D. J. Schlegel, C. Conroy, A. Raichoor, A. Drlica-Wagner, J. A. Kollmeier, S. E. Koposov, G. Besla, H.-W. Rix, A. Good- man, D. Finkbeiner, A. Anand, M. Ashby, B. Bahr-Kal...

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    C. M. Casey, J. S. Kartaltepe, N. E. Drakos, M. Franco, S. Harish, L. Paquereau, O. Ilbert, C. Rose, I. G. Cox, J. W. Nightingale, B. E. Robertson, J. D. Silverman, A. M. Koekemoer, R. Massey, H. J. McCracken, J. Rhodes, H. B. Akins, N. Allen, A. Amvrosiadis, R. C. Arango-Toro...

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    D. J. Eisenstein, C. Willott, S. Alberts, S. Arribas, N. Bonaventura, A. J. Bunker, A. J. Cameron, S. Carni- ani, S. Charlot, E. Curtis-Lake, F. D’Eugenio, R. Endsley, P. Ferruit, G. Giardino, K. Hainline, R. Hausen, P. Jakob- sen, B. D. Johnson, R. Maiolino, M. Rieke, G. Riek...

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Z. Chen, Y. Lu, and Y. Chen, The Astrophysical Journal 962, 3 (2024), arXiv:2401.00992 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Szekerczes, T

    K. Szekerczes, T. Ryu, S. H. Suyu, S. Huber, M. Oguri, and L. Dai, Astronomy and Astrophysics 690, A384 (2024), arXiv:2402.03443 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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