Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 3 cited by

Probing dark matter halo profiles with multi-band observations of gravitational waves

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 A deci-Hz space detector could measure dark matter spikes to under 1%

desk verdict Competent Fisher forecast for a deci-Hz detector's ability to measure DM spikes around IMBHs; the specific numbers rest on a placeholder noise curve, but the qualitative conclusion is solid and the paper is honest about it. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14063 v2 pith:A3573NLQ submitted 2024-11-21 gr-qc astro-ph.GAhep-phhep-th

Divya Tahelyani , Arpan Bhattacharyya , Anand S. Sengupta This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.GAhep-phhep-th PACS 04.30.-w95.35.+d95.55.Ym
keywords gravitationalwavesdarkmatterspikesintermediate-massratioinspiralsdeci-HzdetectorsGWSatmultibandobservationsFishermatrixdynamicalfriction
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 a proposed Indian deci-Hz space-based gravitational-wave detector, GWSat, would be the decisive instrument for measuring dark matter spikes around intermediate-mass black holes. Using a Fisher-matrix forecast on a phenomenological waveform that includes dynamical friction from an evolving dark matter spike, the authors find that GWSat alone constrains the spike density normalization and power-law index to better than 1% across all considered total masses. Adding third-generation ground-based detectors (Cosmic Explorer and Einstein Telescope) improves the estimates of chirp mass, symmetric mass ratio, luminosity distance, and spike index by more than 15% for systems below 400 solar masses, but leaves the spike density constraint essentially unchanged. If true, a deci-Hz detector would turn gravitational waves into a direct probe of dark matter environments.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the phenomenological frequency-domain phase model for an IMRI in a dynamic dark matter spike, which encodes the dephasing between the dark-matter-affected waveform and the vacuum waveform through a broken power law with a break frequency. The dephasing is generated by dynamical friction, whose rate depends on the spike density $\rho_{\mathrm{sp}}$ and slope $\gamma_{\mathrm{sp}}$; the Fisher information matrix then translates the waveform's parameter sensitivity, weighted by each detector's noise PSD, into projected 1-$\sigma$ uncertainties. The multiband combination sums the Fisher matrices of GWSat, CE, and ET, so the total information is the sum of independent frequency-band measurements.

What would settle it

Take an IMRI observed by a future deci-Hz detector and measure the gravitational-wave phase after subtracting the best-fit vacuum waveform; if the measured dephasing is significantly smaller than the dynamic-spike model predicts for $\rho_{\mathrm{sp}} = 226\,M_\odot/\mathrm{pc}^3$ and $\gamma_{\mathrm{sp}} = 7/3$ (or is consistent with zero), the claimed constraining power on the spike parameters would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For an intermediate-mass-ratio inspiral embedded in a dynamically depleting dark matter spike, the frequency-domain gravitational-wave phase acquires a correction that grows at low frequencies; because the system spends most of its inspiral in the 0.1–5 Hz band, the deci-Hz detector GWSat accumulates far more signal cycles carrying the dark-matter phase distortion than the ground-based detectors. The paper's central quantitative finding is that, in a Fisher analysis, GWSat alone yields fractional uncertainties below 1% on both $\rho_{\mathrm{sp}}$ and $\gamma_{\mathrm{sp}}$ for all detector-frame total masses $M_z$ from roughly 100 to 800 $M_\odot$, with $\gamma_{\mathrm{sp}}$ tightening below 0.1% for $M_z > 400\,M_\odot$. Combining GWSat with CE and ET improves the fractional errors on $M_z$, $\nu$, $D_L$, and $\gamma_{\mathrm{sp}}$ by more than 15% for $M_z < 400\,M_\odot$ at sky locations where CE has high signal-to-noise ratio, while the $\rho_{\mathrm{sp}}$ constraint improves by less than 0.1%, showing that the spike density measurement is almost entirely a deci-Hz space-based measurement.

Load-bearing premise

The projected constraints assume the notional GWSat noise PSD in Eq. (34), which the paper itself labels a placeholder from a private communication rather than a detailed design; if the real detector is less sensitive, the sub-1% bounds on the spike parameters and the multiband improvements would degrade.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A deci-Hz space-based detector like GWSat would be the primary tool for measuring dark matter spikes around intermediate-mass black holes, with ground-based 3G detectors playing a supporting role.
  • For IMRIs with detector-frame total mass below about 400 $M_\odot$, multiband observations with CE and ET sharpen the measurement of chirp mass, mass ratio, luminosity distance, and spike slope by over 15%, improving astrophysical parameter estimation.
  • The spike density normalization $\rho_{\mathrm{sp}}$ is almost exclusively a deci-Hz measurement; ground-based detectors add less than 0.1% improvement, so no ground-based program can substitute for the space-based band.
  • Constraints below 1% on $\rho_{\mathrm{sp}}$ and $\gamma_{\mathrm{sp}}$ would make gravitational-wave observations competitive with indirect dark-matter probes for these environments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An immediate test is to replace the placeholder GWSat noise PSD with a full detector design curve; if the real sensitivity is worse, the sub-1% bounds and the multiband improvements would degrade in proportion.
  • The same dynamic-spike waveform could be used to forecast constraints for other deci-Hz concepts or for LISA's lower-frequency band, showing whether the 0.1–5 Hz band is uniquely optimal for dark-matter measurements.
  • The Fisher-matrix uncertainties are local and Gaussian; a Bayesian analysis with the same model could check whether the sub-1% claims survive when realistic priors and waveform systematics are included.
  • If dark matter spikes around IMBHs are common, the predicted dephasing could be searched for in stacked or individual IMRI events by future detectors, turning a null result into bounds on $\rho_{\mathrm{sp}}$ and $\gamma_{\mathrm{sp}}$.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents Fisher-matrix forecasts for constraining dark matter spike parameters around intermediate-mass-ratio inspirals (IMRIs) using a proposed deci-Hz space-based detector (GWSat) together with third-generation ground-based detectors (Cosmic Explorer and Einstein Telescope). It uses the dynamic dark matter spike waveform model of Ref. [22], includes detector response with Earth rotation, and reports that GWSat alone yields fractional errors below 1% on the spike density normalization ρsp and power-law index γsp across all considered total masses, while adding CE and ET improves constraints on chirp mass, symmetric mass ratio, luminosity distance, and γsp by more than 15% for Mz < 400 M⊙ at favorable sky locations, with negligible impact on ρsp. The paper concludes that a deci-Hz space detector would be the crucial instrument for probing dark matter environments with gravitational waves.

Significance. The qualitative conclusion—that deci-Hz space-based detectors are better suited than ground-based detectors for constraining dark matter spikes around IMRIs—is physically well motivated because the dephasing effect accumulates at low frequencies. The Fisher analysis is standard, the PSD choices and frequency cutoffs are clearly documented, and the use of a published waveform model [22] is a strength. The explicit treatment of sky-location dependence in the multiband improvement is also a positive feature. However, the quantitative headline claims are conditional on a placeholder GWSat noise curve, a simplified waveform model, and a Fisher parameter vector that omits strongly correlated nuisance parameters. These conditions are acknowledged only in part by the authors, and the abstract presents the numerical results without the necessary qualifications.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (34)] The central forecast—GWSat-only fractional errors below 1% on γsp and ρsp, and the >15% multiband improvements—is computed from the GWSat noise PSD in Eq. (34). The paper itself states that this PSD is a placeholder 'not derived from detailed noise source calculations' and attributes it to a private communication [75]. Since GWSat contributes the dominant SNR and essentially all of the information on ρsp and γsp, the exact shape and normalization of this curve directly controls the headline numbers, and the comparison is asymmetric because CE and ET use published sensitivity curves. Please either replace Eq. (34) with a publicly documented GWSat sensitivity model, or demonstrate robustness by rescaling or reshaping the PSD (e.g., 3 dB variations) and recomputing the Fisher forecasts, and then adjust the abstract and conclusions so that the sub-1% and >15% claims are explicitly conditional on the assumed sensitivity. As written, the quantitative claims are not supported by an independent sensitivity model.
  2. [Sec. III.D, Eq. (27)] The Fisher parameter vector in Eq. (39) is θ = {Mz, ν, DL, γsp, ρsp}, but the waveform in Eqs. (20)–(23) also depends on the coalescence time tc and phase φc. Omitting tc and φc from the Fisher matrix treats them as perfectly known; in practice these nuisance parameters are strongly correlated with the mass and distance parameters, so their omission can substantially underestimate the 1σ errors. At minimum, tc and φc should be included in θ and marginalized over, or the authors should show that their inclusion does not change the quoted fractional errors. This matters directly for the sub-1% claims for γsp and ρsp, which are the paper's central results.
  3. [Sec. II and Sec. IV] The waveform model is Newtonian order, circular, non-spinning, and restricted to the l=2, m=2 mode, with all sources assumed face-on (see Sec. III.D and the caveats in Sec. V). For IMRIs with mass ratios q ∼ 10^{-3}–10^{-5}, higher-order modes and higher post-Newtonian terms can be non-negligible and can change the parameter correlations that drive the quoted errors. The authors acknowledge these limitations at the end of the paper, but the abstract and Section IV state the sub-1% and >15% results without these qualifications. Please either demonstrate for at least one representative system that adding the leading PN corrections and a subdominant harmonic does not change the Fisher forecasts, or explicitly qualify the central claims as applying only to this restricted waveform family.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (22)] The definition of arλ in Eq. (22) is ambiguous as typeset (arλ = λ + 5/5 ...); please clarify the intended expression and check it against the corresponding definition in Ref. [22].
  2. [Sec. IV] The phrase 'most stringent constraints' should be qualified as 'among the detectors considered here,' since no comparison with LISA or other proposed space-based detectors is made and the GWSat sensitivity is notional.
  3. [Sec. III.B] Please add a data-availability statement with the numerical PSD files (including Eq. (34)) and the scripts used to produce the figures, so that the dependence of the results on the noise curves can be checked by readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Fisher forecasts follow transparently from an external waveform model and chosen detector PSDs; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard Fisher-forecast calculation: it adopts a phenomenological IMRI waveform model from Ref. [22], inserts it into the multiband Fisher matrix (Eqs. 27-30), and reads off Cramér-Rao error bounds for the parameters in Eq. (39). The dark-matter parameters ρsp and γsp enter the waveform through Eq. (9), but they are not fitted to data; they are assigned fiducial values (ρsp = 226 M⊙/pc3, γsp = 7/3) from the prior literature, and the quoted 'constraints' are projected measurement uncertainties, not recovered parameter values. No equation equates an output quantity to an input quantity by construction, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The GWSat noise PSD in Eq. (34) is admittedly a placeholder 'not derived from detailed noise source calculations,' and this makes the quantitative forecasts dependent on an unvalidated sensitivity curve; that is a robustness limitation, not circularity, because the PSD is an independent input assumption rather than an output of the analysis. The only self-citations ([32]-[34]) appear as background or planned extensions and are not load-bearing for the central claim. The central result is therefore self-contained given its stated assumptions, and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis is a Fisher forecast and therefore relies on several external inputs: the waveform model of [22] (including the empirical break frequency), the fiducial DM spike parameters from [15,16], and a notional GWSat noise PSD from a private communication. No new physical entities are introduced. The main free parameters are the fiducial values and the PSD coefficients, which jointly set the scale of the reported uncertainties.

free parameters (4)
  • Fiducial spike density rho_sp = 226 M_sun/pc^3
    Chosen from [15,16]; all error forecasts scale with this input. The Fisher errors for rho_sp are computed around this value.
  • Fiducial spike power-law index gamma_sp = 7/3
    NFW-motivated value from [15,16]; the central conclusions about constraining gamma_sp depend on this fiducial value.
  • GWSat noise PSD coefficients = 1e-25, 1e-23, 1e-24
    Placeholder sensitivity curve from private communication [75], not derived from detailed noise budget. Directly sets the SNR and hence the Fisher errors.
  • Break frequency fb in dynamic spike model = Empirical formula from [22]
    The dynamic spike phase model (Eq. 9-13) relies on fb, which was obtained empirically from numerical simulations in [22]; the paper does not re-derive it.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Fisher information matrix yields Cramer-Rao lower bounds and is accurate in the high-SNR limit
    Used in Eq. (26)-(27) to estimate 1-sigma uncertainties; known to be approximate for low SNR or non-linear parameters.
  • standard math Stationary phase approximation is valid for the long, slowly evolving IMRI signals
    Used in Eq. (14) and (18) to construct the frequency-domain waveform.
  • domain assumption Quadrupole approximation for GW energy loss and circular, non-spinning, face-on binaries
    Eq. (6) and setup in Sec. III D; neglects eccentricity, spins, higher harmonics, and inclination effects.
  • domain assumption Dynamic dark matter spike phase model of [22] correctly describes the dephasing including feedback
    Eq. (9)-(13) adopted from [22]; central forecast depends on this model's validity.
  • ad hoc to paper GWSat noise PSD is representative of the future detector
    Eq. (34) stated as a notional model from private communication, not derived from noise calculations.
  • domain assumption Signals in GWSat and ground-based detectors can be confidently associated with the same source
    Stated as a caveat in Sec. V; required for combining Fisher matrices across detectors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing dark matter halo profiles with multi-band observations of gravitational waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A3573NLQ

@misc{pith2026241114063,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing dark matter halo profiles with multi-band observations of gravitational waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A3573NLQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14063}
}
abstract

In this paper, we evaluate the potential of multiband gravitational wave observations from a deci-Hz space-based detector and third-generation ground-based gravitational wave detectors to constrain the properties of dark matter spikes around intermediate-mass ratio inspirals. The presence of dark matter influences the orbital evolution of the secondary compact object through dynamic friction, which leads to a phase shift in the gravitational waveform compared to the vacuum case. Our analysis shows that the proposed Indian space-based detector GWSat, operating in the deciHz frequency band, provides the most stringent constraints on the dark matter spike parameters, as IMRIs spend a significant portion of their inspiral phase within its sensitivity range. While third-generation ground-based detectors such as the Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer offer additional constraints, their contribution is somewhat limited, particularly for higher-mass systems where the signal duration in their frequency bands is shorter. However, for systems with detector-frame total masses $M_z < 400 \rm M_{\odot}$, Cosmic Explorer and Einstein Telescope could improve the estimation of the chirp mass, symmetric mass ratio, luminosity distance, and dark matter spike power-law index by more than $15\%$. Nonetheless, their impact on the constraint of spike density is minimal. These results highlight the crucial role of deciHz space-based detectors in probing dark matter interactions with gravitational wave sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14063 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Multiband parameter estimation with phase coherence and extrinsic marginalization: Extracting more information from low-SNR CBC signals in LISA data

    gr-qc 2025-06 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    A coherent multiband Bayesian parameter estimation method with extrinsic-parameter marginalization extracts useful information from LISA observations of stellar-mass binary black holes down to LISA SNR 3, nearly doubl...

  2. Tidal Love numbers and quasi-normal modes of the Schwarzschild-Hernquist black hole

    gr-qc 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For a Schwarzschild black hole in a relativistic Hernquist dark matter halo, quasinormal-mode frequency shifts scale as (MDM/rs)^(3/2) rather than linearly, while tidal Love numbers are small and sensitive to the choi...

  3. Probing vector gravitational atoms with eccentric intermediate mass-ratio inspirals

    gr-qc 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Eccentric intermediate-mass-ratio inspirals around vector gravitational atoms acquire faster decay, stronger circularization, and negative periastron precession, making the cloud visible to LISA-like detectors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [22]

    Coogan, G

    A. Coogan, G. Bertone, D. Gaggero, B. J. Kavanagh, and D. A. Nichols, Measuring the dark matter environments of black hole binaries with gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D 105, 043009 (2022), arXiv:2108.04154 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [75]

    Private communication with Sanjit Mitra of Inter- University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pune, India

    work page

  3. [1]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  4. [2]

    Reitze et al., Cosmic Explorer: The U.S

    D. Reitze et al., Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, 035 (2019), arXiv:1907.04833 [astro- ph.IM]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [3]

    Punturo et al., The Einstein Telescope: A third- generation gravitational wave observatory, Class

    M. Punturo et al., The Einstein Telescope: A third- generation gravitational wave observatory, Class. Quant. 13 Grav. 27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  6. [4]

    Amaro-Seoane et al

    P. Amaro-Seoane et al. (LISA), Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2017

  7. [5]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Seto, Detector configuration of DECIGO/BBO and identification of cosmological neutron- star binaries, Phys. Rev. D 83, 044011 (2011), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 95, 109901 (2017)], arXiv:1101.3940 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2011

  8. [6]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 85 references
  1. [7]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [9]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Binary Black Hole Population Properties Inferred from the First and Second Observing Runs of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo, Astrophys. J. Lett. 882, L24 (2019), arXiv:1811.12940 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Population of Merging Compact Binaries Inferred Using Gravitational Waves through GWTC-3, Phys. Rev. X 13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Barausse, V

    E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Can environmental effects spoil precision gravitational-wave astrophysics?, Phys. Rev. D 89, 104059 (2014), arXiv:1404.7149 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Barausse, V

    E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Environmental Effects for Gravitational-wave Astrophysics, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 610, 012044 (2015), arXiv:1404.7140 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Merritt, M

    D. Merritt, M. Milosavljevic, L. Verde, and R. Jimenez, Dark matter spikes and annihilation radiation from the galactic center, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 191301 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0201376

    2002 arXiv

  8. [14]

    C. F. B. Macedo, P. Pani, V. Cardoso, and L. C. B. Crispino, Into the lair: gravitational-wave signa- tures of dark matter, Astrophys. J. 774, 48 (2013), arXiv:1302.2646 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  9. [15]

    K. Eda, Y. Itoh, S. Kuroyanagi, and J. Silk, New Probe of Dark-Matter Properties: Gravitational Waves from an Intermediate-Mass Black Hole Embedded in a Dark- Matter Minispike, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 221101 (2013), arXiv:1301.5971 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  10. [16]

    K. Eda, Y. Itoh, S. Kuroyanagi, and J. Silk, Gravitational waves as a probe of dark matter minispikes, Phys. Rev. D 91, 044045 (2015), arXiv:1408.3534 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Yue and W.-B

    X.-J. Yue and W.-B. Han, Gravitational waves with dark matter minispikes: the combined effect, Phys. Rev. D 97, 064003 (2018), arXiv:1711.09706 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Yue, W.-B

    X.-J. Yue, W.-B. Han, and X. Chen, Dark matter: an efficient catalyst for intermediate-mass-ratio-inspiral events, Astrophys. J. 874, 34 (2019), arXiv:1802.03739 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [19]

    O. A. Hannuksela, K. C. Y. Ng, and T. G. F. Li, Extreme dark matter tests with extreme mass ratio inspirals, Phys. Rev. D 102, 103022 (2020), arXiv:1906.11845 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Cardoso and A

    V. Cardoso and A. Maselli, Constraints on the as- trophysical environment of binaries with gravitational- wave observations, Astron. Astrophys. 644, A147 (2020), arXiv:1909.05870 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [21]

    B. J. Kavanagh, D. A. Nichols, G. Bertone, and D. Gaggero, Detecting dark matter around black holes with gravitational waves: Effects of dark-matter dynamics on the gravitational waveform, Phys. Rev. D 102, 083006 (2020), arXiv:2002.12811 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [23]

    D. Liu, Y. Yang, S. Wu, Y. Xing, Z. Xu, and Z.-W. Long, Ringing of a black hole in a dark matter halo, Phys. Rev. D 104, 104042 (2021)

    2021

  17. [24]

    Zhang, T

    C. Zhang, T. Zhu, and A. Wang, Gravitational axial perturbations of schwarzschild-like black holes in dark matter halos, Phys. Rev. D 104, 124082 (2021)

    2021

  18. [25]

    Becker and L

    N. Becker and L. Sagunski, Comparing accretion disks and dark matter spikes in intermediate mass ratio inspirals, Phys. Rev. D 107, 083003 (2023), arXiv:2211.05145 [gr- qc]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Baryakhtar et al., Dark Matter In Extreme As- trophysical Environments, in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.07984 [hep-ph]

    M. Baryakhtar et al., Dark Matter In Extreme As- trophysical Environments, in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.07984 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Cardoso, K

    V. Cardoso, K. Destounis, F. Duque, R. Panosso Macedo, and A. Maselli, Gravitational Waves from Extreme-Mass- Ratio Systems in Astrophysical Environments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 241103 (2022), arXiv:2210.01133 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Singh, A

    D. Singh, A. Gupta, E. Berti, S. Reddy, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Constraining properties of asymmetric dark matter candidates from gravitational-wave observa- tions, Phys. Rev. D 107, 083037 (2023), arXiv:2210.15739 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Destounis, A

    K. Destounis, A. Kulathingal, K. D. Kokkotas, and G. O. Papadopoulos, Gravitational-wave imprints of compact and galactic-scale environments in extreme- mass-ratio binaries, Phys. Rev. D 107, 084027 (2023), arXiv:2210.09357 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Kadota, J

    K. Kadota, J. H. Kim, P. Ko, and X.-Y. Yang, Gravitational wave probes on self-interacting dark matter surrounding an intermediate mass black hole, Phys. Rev. D 109, 015022 (2024), arXiv:2306.10828 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [31]

    D. A. Nichols, B. A. Wade, and A. M. Grant, Secondary accretion of dark matter in intermediate mass-ratio 14 inspirals: Dark-matter dynamics and gravitational-wave phase, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124062 (2023), arXiv:2309.06498 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Chowdhuri, R

    A. Chowdhuri, R. K. Singh, K. Kangsabanik, and A. Bhat- tacharyya, Gravitational radiation from hyperbolic en- counters in the presence of dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 109, 124056 (2024), arXiv:2306.11787 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Bhattacharyya, S

    A. Bhattacharyya, S. Ghosh, and S. Pal, Worldline effective field theory of inspiralling black hole binaries in presence of dark photon and axionic dark matter, JHEP 08, 207, arXiv:2305.15473 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  27. [34]

    Rahman, S

    M. Rahman, S. Kumar, and A. Bhattacharyya, Probing astrophysical environment with eccentric extreme mass- ratio inspirals, JCAP 01, 035, arXiv:2306.14971 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  28. [35]

    Duque, C

    F. Duque, C. F. B. Macedo, R. Vicente, and V. Cardoso, Extreme-Mass-Ratio Inspirals in Ultralight Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 121404 (2024), arXiv:2312.06767 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Caneva Santoro, S

    G. Caneva Santoro, S. Roy, R. Vicente, M. Haney, O. J. Piccinni, W. Del Pozzo, and M. Martinez, First Constraints on Compact Binary Environments from LIGO-Virgo Data, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 251401 (2024), arXiv:2309.05061 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Speeney, E

    N. Speeney, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and A. Maselli, Black holes surrounded by generic matter distributions: Polar perturbations and energy flux, Phys. Rev. D 109, 084068 (2024), arXiv:2401.00932 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [38]

    J. C. Aurrekoetxea, J. Marsden, K. Clough, and P. G. Ferreira, Self-interacting scalar dark matter around binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083011 (2024), arXiv:2409.01937 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Zhang, G

    C. Zhang, G. Fu, and N. Dai, Detecting dark matter halos with extreme mass-ratio inspirals, JCAP 04, 088, arXiv:2401.04467 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  33. [40]

    Bertone, A

    G. Bertone, A. R. A. C. Wierda, D. Gaggero, B. J. Kavanagh, M. Volonteri, and N. Yoshida, Dark Matter Mounds: towards a realistic description of dark matter overdensities around black holes, (2024), arXiv:2404.08731 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [41]

    T. F. M. Spieksma, V. Cardoso, G. Carullo, M. Della Rocca, and F. Duque, Black hole spec- troscopy in environments: detectability prospects, (2024), arXiv:2409.05950 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Duque, S

    F. Duque, S. Kejriwal, L. Sberna, L. Speri, and J. Gair, Constraining accretion physics with gravitational waves from eccentric extreme-mass-ratio inspirals, (2024), arXiv:2411.03436 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Cheng, Y

    Y.-Z. Cheng, Y. Cao, and Y. Tang, Effects of black hole environments on extreme mass-ratio hyperbolic encounters, (2024), arXiv:2411.03095 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [44]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, A Universal density profile from hierarchical clustering, Astrophys. J. 490, 493 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9611107

    1997 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Gondolo and J

    P. Gondolo and J. Silk, Dark matter annihilation at the galactic center, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1719 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9906391

    1999 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Ullio, H

    P. Ullio, H. Zhao, and M. Kamionkowski, A Dark matter spike at the galactic center?, Phys. Rev. D 64, 043504 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0101481

    2001 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Vasiliev and M

    E. Vasiliev and M. Zelnikov, Dark matter dynamics in Galactic center, Phys. Rev. D 78, 083506 (2008), arXiv:0803.0002 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Bertone and D

    G. Bertone and D. Merritt, Dark matter dynamics and indirect detection, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 20, 1021 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0504422

    2005 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Zhao and J

    H.-S. Zhao and J. Silk, Mini-dark halos with intermediate mass black holes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 011301 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0501625

    2005 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Bertone, A

    G. Bertone, A. R. Zentner, and J. Silk, A new signature of dark matter annihilations: gamma-rays from intermediate- mass black holes, Phys. Rev. D 72, 103517 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0509565

    2005 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Chandrasekhar, Dynamical Friction

    S. Chandrasekhar, Dynamical Friction. I. General Considerations: the Coefficient of Dynamical Friction, Astrophys. J. 97, 255 (1943)

    1943

  45. [52]

    E. C. Ostriker, Dynamical friction in a gaseous medium, Astrophys. J. 513, 252 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9810324

    1999 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Kim and W.-T

    H. Kim and W.-T. Kim, Dynamical Friction of a Circular- Orbit Perturber in a Gaseous Medium, Astrophys. J. 665, 432 (2007), arXiv:0705.0084 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  47. [54]

    T. K. Karydas, B. J. Kavanagh, and G. Bertone, Sharpening the dark matter signature in gravitational waveforms I: Accretion and eccentricity evolution, (2024), arXiv:2402.13053 [gr-qc]

    2024

  48. [55]

    Mukherjee, A

    D. Mukherjee, A. M. Holgado, G. Ogiya, and H. Trac, Examining the effects of dark matter spikes on eccentric intermediate-mass ratio inspirals using N-body simulations, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.533, 2335 (2024), arXiv:2312.02275 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [56]

    P. S. Cole, G. Bertone, A. Coogan, D. Gaggero, T. Karydas, B. J. Kavanagh, T. F. M. Spieksma, and G. M. Tomaselli, Distinguishing environmental effects on binary black hole gravitational waveforms, Nature Astron. 7, 943 (2023), arXiv:2211.01362 [gr-qc]

    2023

  50. [57]

    B. J. Kavanagh, T. K. Karydas, G. Bertone, P. Di Cintio, and M. Pasquato, Sharpening the dark matter signature in gravitational waveforms II: Numerical simulations with the NbodyIMRI code, (2024), arXiv:2402.13762 [gr-qc]

    2024

  51. [58]

    P. S. Cole, A. Coogan, B. J. Kavanagh, and G. Bertone, Measuring dark matter spikes around primordial black holes with Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer, Phys. Rev. D 107, 083006 (2023), arXiv:2207.07576 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Sesana, Prospects for Multiband Gravitational-Wave Astronomy after GW150914, Phys

    A. Sesana, Prospects for Multiband Gravitational-Wave Astronomy after GW150914, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 231102 (2016), arXiv:1602.06951 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Datta, A

    S. Datta, A. Gupta, S. Kastha, K. G. Arun, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Tests of general relativity using multiband observations of intermediate mass binary black hole mergers, Phys. Rev. D 103, 024036 (2021), 15 arXiv:2006.12137 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Barausse, N

    E. Barausse, N. Yunes, and K. Chamberlain, Theory- Agnostic Constraints on Black-Hole Dipole Radiation with Multiband Gravitational-Wave Astrophysics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241104 (2016), arXiv:1603.04075 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Gnocchi, A

    G. Gnocchi, A. Maselli, T. Abdelsalhin, N. Giacobbo, and M. Mapelli, Bounding alternative theories of gravity with multiband GW observations, Phys. Rev. D 100, 064024 (2019), arXiv:1905.13460 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Grimm and J

    S. Grimm and J. Harms, Multiband gravitational-wave parameter estimation: A study of future detectors, Phys. Rev. D 102, 022007 (2020), arXiv:2004.01434 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Roy and R

    S. Roy and R. Vicente, Compact Binary Coalescences in Dense Environments Can Pose as in Vacuum, (2024), arXiv:2410.16388 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Wilcox, D

    E. Wilcox, D. Nichols, and K. Yagi, Probing dark-matter effects with gravitational waves using the parameterized post-Einsteinian framework, (2024), arXiv:2409.10846 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Sadeghian, F

    L. Sadeghian, F. Ferrer, and C. M. Will, Dark matter distributions around massive black holes: A general relativistic analysis, Phys. Rev. D 88, 063522 (2013), arXiv:1305.2619 [astro-ph.GA]

    2013 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Maggiore, Gravitational Waves

    M. Maggiore, Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments (Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  61. [68]

    Zhao and L

    W. Zhao and L. Wen, Localization accuracy of compact binary coalescences detected by the third- generation gravitational-wave detectors and implication for cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 97, 064031 (2018), arXiv:1710.05325 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  62. [69]

    Nair and T

    R. Nair and T. Tanaka, Synergy between ground and space based gravitational wave detectors. Part II: Localisation, JCAP 08, 033, [Erratum: JCAP 11, E01 (2018)], arXiv:1805.08070 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  63. [70]

    Cram´ er,Mathematical Methods in Statistics(Perga- mon Press, Princeton University Press, NJ, U.S.A., 1946)

    H. Cram´ er,Mathematical Methods in Statistics(Perga- mon Press, Princeton University Press, NJ, U.S.A., 1946)

    1946

  64. [71]

    Cutler and E

    C. Cutler and E. E. Flanagan, Gravitational waves from merging compact binaries: How accurately can one extract the binary’s parameters from the inspiral wave form?, Phys. Rev. D 49, 2658 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9402014

    1994 arXiv

  65. [72]

    Vallisneri, Use and abuse of the Fisher information matrix in the assessment of gravitational-wave parameter- estimation prospects, Phys

    M. Vallisneri, Use and abuse of the Fisher information matrix in the assessment of gravitational-wave parameter- estimation prospects, Phys. Rev. D 77, 042001 (2008), arXiv:gr-qc/0703086

    2008 arXiv

  66. [73]

    Kotz and N

    S. Kotz and N. Johnson, eds., Breakthroughs in statistics (Springer, New York, 1991) Chap. Information and the Accuracy Attainable in the Estimation of Statistical Parameters, pp. 235–247

    1991

  67. [74]

    C. W. Helstrom, The estimation of signal parameters, in Statistical Theory of Signal Detection (Second Edition), International Series of Monographs in Electronics and Instrumentation (Pergamon, 1968) Chap. VIII, pp. 249– 289, 2nd ed

    1968

  68. [76]

    Srivastava, D

    V. Srivastava, D. Davis, K. Kuns, P. Landry, S. Ballmer, M. Evans, E. D. Hall, J. Read, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Science-driven Tunable Design of Cosmic Explorer Detectors, Astrophys. J. 931, 22 (2022), arXiv:2201.10668 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Hild et al., Sensitivity Studies for Third-Generation Gravitational Wave Observatories, Class

    S. Hild et al., Sensitivity Studies for Third-Generation Gravitational Wave Observatories, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 094013 (2011), arXiv:1012.0908 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Barsotti, S

    L. Barsotti, S. Gras, M. Evans, and P. Fritschel, The updated advanced ligo design curve, ligo technical note t1800044-v5 (ligo scientific collaboration, 2018) updated from t0900288-v3

    2018

  71. [79]

    Jaranowski and A

    P. Jaranowski and A. Krolak, Gravitational-Wave Data Analysis. Formalism and Sample Applications: The Gaussian Case, Living Rev. Rel. 8, 3 (2005), arXiv:0711.1115 [gr-qc]

    2005 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Berti, A

    E. Berti, A. Buonanno, and C. M. Will, Estimating spinning binary parameters and testing alternative theories of gravity with LISA, Phys. Rev. D 71, 084025 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0411129

    2005 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Cutler and M

    C. Cutler and M. Vallisneri, LISA detections of massive black hole inspirals: Parameter extraction errors due to inaccurate template waveforms, Phys. Rev. D 76, 104018 (2007), arXiv:0707.2982 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Borhanian, GWBENCH: a novel Fisher information package for gravitational-wave benchmarking, Class

    S. Borhanian, GWBENCH: a novel Fisher information package for gravitational-wave benchmarking, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 175014 (2021), arXiv:2010.15202 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Lackeos, T

    K. Lackeos, T. B. Littenberg, N. J. Cornish, and J. I. Thorpe, The LISA Data Challenge Radler analysis and time-dependent ultra-compact binary catalogues, Astron. Astrophys. 678, A123 (2023), arXiv:2308.12827 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Bhardwaj, J

    U. Bhardwaj, J. Alvey, B. K. Miller, S. Nissanke, and C. Weniger, Sequential simulation-based inference for gravitational wave signals, Phys. Rev. D 108, 042004 (2023), arXiv:2304.02035 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Langendorff, A

    J. Langendorff, A. Kolmus, J. Janquart, and C. Van Den Broeck, Normalizing Flows as an Avenue to Studying Overlapping Gravitational Wave Signals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 171402 (2023), arXiv:2211.15097 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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