arxiv: 2602.06407 · v3 · submitted 2026-02-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · hep-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Primordial Black Hole signatures from femtolensing and spectral fringe of Gamma Ray Bursts

Chang-Yu Dai , Po-Yan Tseng

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 07:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

keywords primordial black holesfemtolensinggamma-ray burstsspectral fringesdark matter constraintswave opticsSwift XRT

0 comments

The pith

Gamma-ray burst spectra exhibit fringes from femtolensing by primordial black holes, yielding an upper bound on their dark matter fraction if the sources are compact enough.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests whether femtolensing by small primordial black holes produces observable interference fringes in gamma-ray burst spectra, using wave optics to model the effect. It fits Swift XRT data to both the standard BAND spectral model and an extended model that includes PBH lensing, finding that a few bursts show moderate statistical preference for the lensed version due to the fringe pattern. For the majority of bursts the lensing model does not improve the fit, which is turned into an upper limit on the PBH fraction of dark matter. The constraint holds only when the physical size of the GRB emission region stays below 5 times 10 to the 7 meters for black holes near 5 times 10 to the minus 15 solar masses.

Core claim

The authors apply wave optics to femtolensing of gamma-ray bursts by primordial black holes and report that a subset of Swift XRT spectra display the predicted spectral fringe signature, producing a moderate improvement in goodness of fit over the BAND model alone. The absence of such improvement in most spectra is used to place an upper bound on the PBH contribution to dark matter, although this bound requires the GRB source size to be smaller than 5 times 10 to the 7 meters for masses around 5 times 10 to the minus 15 solar masses.

What carries the argument

Wave optics treatment of femtolensing, which generates characteristic oscillatory fringes in the GRB frequency spectrum when the PBH Einstein radius is comparable to the photon wavelength.

If this is right

A few observed GRB spectra fit the PBH-lensing model better than the standard BAND spectrum, showing the expected fringe signature.
The full sample of non-improving fits supplies an upper limit on the fractional abundance of PBHs relative to dark matter.
The upper limit becomes robust only if GRB sizes are confirmed below 5 times 10 to the 7 meters for PBH masses near 5 times 10 to the minus 15 solar masses.
The analysis relies on Swift XRT data and treats the BAND function as the null hypothesis.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Confirmation of the source-size condition would give a new probe of asteroid-mass PBHs that other methods have difficulty reaching.
The fringe-search technique could be extended to other bright, short-duration high-energy transients with good spectral coverage.
Higher-resolution spectrometers on future missions could test whether the few candidate fringes are real or artifacts.

Load-bearing premise

The gamma-ray burst emission region must be smaller than 5 times 10 to the 7 meters, otherwise the finite source size washes out the diffraction fringes and prevents any useful bound.

What would settle it

A direct size measurement showing a GRB source larger than 5 times 10 to the 7 meters together with the lack of fringe patterns in high-resolution spectra from a large sample would eliminate the possibility of setting a robust upper bound with this method.

read the original abstract

Femtolensing of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) is vastly studied to constrain primordial black holes lighter than $10^{-13}$ solar mass and may close the window for PBH dark matter. In this case, wave optics formalism is required and carefully implemented in our analysis. Incorporating the GRB observational data from Swift XRT, we perform the statistical analysis of PBH lensing, comparing it with the null hypothesis where the BAND model is used to parametrize the GRB spectrum. We found a few GRB data manifest the spectral fringe which characterizes the feature of femtolensing by PBHs, and the analysis shows moderate statistical preference in terms of goodness of fit. Conversely, since most of the fits to GRB spectral data do not improve with PBH lensing, we utilize this to obtain an upper bound on the PBH fractional abundance with respect to dark matter. However, the robust constraint cannot be achieved, unless the size of GRBs is smaller than $5\times 10^7$ m for PBH mass around $5\times 10^{-15}$ solar mass.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper applies femtolensing to Swift XRT GRB spectra and gets a conditional upper bound on low-mass PBH abundance that only holds if sources are smaller than 5e7 m.

read the letter

The core result is a statistical comparison of Swift XRT GRB spectra against the standard BAND model versus a wave-optics femtolensing model from PBHs. A few bursts show modest fit improvement with the lensed template, while the majority do not, which the authors turn into an upper limit on the PBH dark-matter fraction. They are explicit that the limit requires the GRB emission region to be smaller than about 5×10^7 m for the relevant PBH masses around 5×10^{-15} solar masses. That size threshold is stated clearly in the abstract and is the main practical takeaway for anyone who might use the bound. The work is mostly an extension of existing femtolensing calculations to a new data set rather than a new formalism. The data handling and direct model comparison are straightforward and worth looking at if you already work on GRB spectra or low-mass PBH constraints. The soft spot is exactly the one flagged in the stress test: the bound is presented without any independent check or marginalization over source size. If typical XRT-emitting regions are larger, the fringe signal is suppressed and the non-detection carries no information on f_PBH. The abstract mentions moderate statistical preference but gives no numbers on degrees of freedom, systematic errors, or how the size prior would propagate. This is a real limitation, not a minor one, because the size assumption is load-bearing for the claimed constraint. The paper is aimed at people already following PBH femtolensing or GRB lensing searches. A reader who wants to see how the existing machinery performs on Swift data will find it useful, but anyone planning to cite the bound should first verify or relax the size condition. I would send it to peer review. The data exercise is concrete, the caveat is acknowledged, and a referee can ask for the size marginalization or a clearer error budget without starting from scratch.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes Swift XRT gamma-ray burst spectra for femtolensing signatures by primordial black holes (PBHs) using wave optics. It reports moderate goodness-of-fit improvements for a subset of GRBs showing spectral fringes consistent with PBH lensing compared to the BAND model null hypothesis, and derives an upper bound on the PBH dark matter fraction f_PBH from the non-detections in most spectra, with the explicit caveat that robust constraints require GRB source sizes below 5×10^7 m for M_PBH ≈ 5×10^{-15} M_⊙.

Significance. If the source-size assumption is independently verified and the statistical analysis is made fully rigorous, the result would provide a useful constraint on PBH dark matter in the femtolensing mass window, adding to existing bounds from other probes. The moderate fit improvements in a few spectra are a potentially interesting observation, but the overall impact is limited by the conditional nature of the bound and incomplete documentation of the fitting procedure.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The upper bound on f_PBH is derived from non-improvement in most fits, yet the manuscript states that this bound is valid only if GRB source sizes are <5×10^7 m; no measurement, prior, or sensitivity analysis on source size is incorporated into the statistical comparison, so the non-detection cannot be directly translated into a constraint on f_PBH without this assumption.
[Statistical analysis] Statistical analysis section: The claim of 'moderate statistical preference' for PBH lensing in a few GRBs rests on goodness-of-fit comparisons, but the manuscript provides no details on the exact likelihood function, error treatment, degrees of freedom, or how the BAND model parameters are fixed versus floated, preventing assessment of whether the improvement is significant or merely due to added parameters.

minor comments (2)

The wave-optics implementation and Fresnel-scale derivation for the fringe visibility condition should be expanded with an explicit equation showing how the 5×10^7 m threshold is obtained for the quoted PBH mass and XRT wavelengths.
Figure captions and axis labels for the spectral fits could be clarified to indicate whether the plotted models include the PBH lensing term or are the null BAND fits.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive comments. We address each major point below, indicating planned revisions to improve clarity and rigor while preserving the manuscript's core results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The upper bound on f_PBH is derived from non-improvement in most fits, yet the manuscript states that this bound is valid only if GRB source sizes are <5×10^7 m; no measurement, prior, or sensitivity analysis on source size is incorporated into the statistical comparison, so the non-detection cannot be directly translated into a constraint on f_PBH without this assumption.

Authors: We agree that the reported upper bound on f_PBH is conditional on the GRB source size assumption. The manuscript already states this caveat explicitly in the abstract and discussion. To address the concern, we will add a short sensitivity analysis in the revised version (new subsection or appendix) showing how the derived limit scales with assumed source sizes around 10^7–10^8 m, and we will rephrase the abstract to emphasize that the bound holds under the stated size condition. This makes the conditional nature fully transparent without altering the main result. revision: yes
Referee: [Statistical analysis] Statistical analysis section: The claim of 'moderate statistical preference' for PBH lensing in a few GRBs rests on goodness-of-fit comparisons, but the manuscript provides no details on the exact likelihood function, error treatment, degrees of freedom, or how the BAND model parameters are fixed versus floated, preventing assessment of whether the improvement is significant or merely due to added parameters.

Authors: We acknowledge the need for fuller documentation. In the revised manuscript we will expand the statistical analysis section to specify: (i) the likelihood function (Poisson likelihood for binned XRT counts with Gaussian approximation for high counts), (ii) error treatment (statistical plus 5% systematic uncertainty from Swift calibration), (iii) degrees of freedom for each model, and (iv) that all BAND parameters (α, β, E_peak, normalization) are floated freely in both the null and lensing hypotheses. We will also tabulate Δχ² values and associated p-values for the spectra showing improvement, allowing readers to judge the significance directly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; bound derived from external Swift data comparison to standard BAND model

full rationale

The paper performs a direct statistical comparison of GRB spectra from external Swift XRT observations against the standard BAND parametrization (null hypothesis) versus a wave-optics PBH femtolensing model. The upper bound on f_PBH follows from non-improvement in most fits, with the source-size caveat stated explicitly as an assumption rather than derived internally. No equation or step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, and no load-bearing premise rests on self-citation or ansatz smuggling. The derivation chain is self-contained against independent external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the validity of the BAND spectral model as null hypothesis and the assumption about GRB physical size.

free parameters (1)

GRB source size = 5e7 m
Threshold value required to achieve robust upper bounds on PBH abundance for masses around 5e-15 solar masses.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Applicability of wave optics formalism for femtolensing by PBHs below 10^{-13} solar masses
Required for modeling the lensing effect on GRB spectra.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5496 in / 1378 out tokens · 87461 ms · 2026-05-16T07:07:19.829504+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

wave optics magnification F(y,Ω) = −iΩ e^{iΩ y²/2} ∫ J_0(Ω x y) x e^{iΩ(½x²−ψ(x))} dx leading to μ = |F|² = πΩ/(1−e^{−πΩ}) |₁F₁(iΩ/2,1,iΩ y²/2)|²
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/DimensionForcing.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

source-size condition σ_y ≪ 1 with a_s = c T_90 and Fresnel-scale bound R_source ≲ 5×10^7 m for M_PBH ≈ 5×10^{-15} M_⊙

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · 18 internal anchors

[1]

Y. B. Zel’dovich and I. D. Novikov, Sov. Astron.10, 602 (1967)

work page 1967
[2]

Hawking, Mon

S. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.152, 75 (1971) doi:10.1093/mnras/152.1.75

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/152.1.75 1971
[3]

G. F. Chapline, Nature253, no.5489, 251-252 (1975) doi:10.1038/253251a0

work page doi:10.1038/253251a0 1975
[4]

M. Y. Khlopov, Res. Astron. Astrophys.10, 495-528 (2010) doi:10.1088/1674-4527/10/6/001 [arXiv:0801.0116 [astro-ph]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1674-4527/10/6/001 2010
[5]

B. Carr, F. Kuhnel and M. Sandstad, Phys. Rev. D94, no.8, 083504 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.083504 [arXiv:1607.06077 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.083504 2016
[6]

B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda and J. Yokoyama, Rept. Prog. Phys.84, no.11, 116902 (2021) doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ac1e31 [arXiv:2002.12778 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ac1e31 2021
[7]

Carr and F

B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.70, 355-394 (2020) doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-050520-125911 [arXiv:2006.02838 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-050520-125911 2020
[8]

A. M. Green and B. J. Kavanagh, J. Phys. G48, no.4, 043001 (2021) doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abc534 [arXiv:2007.10722 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abc534 2021
[9]

Particle Dark Matter: Evidence, Candidates and Constraints

G. Bertone, D. Hooper and J. Silk, Phys. Rept.405, 279-390 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031 [arXiv:hep-ph/0404175 [hep-ph]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031 2005
[10]

B. P. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett.116, no.6, 061102 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 [arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102 2016
[11]

B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.168, 399-415 (1974) doi:10.1093/mnras/168.2.399

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/168.2.399 1974
[12]

Primordial Black Holes - Perspectives in Gravitational Wave Astronomy -

M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka and S. Yokoyama, Class. Quant. Grav.35, no.6, 063001 (2018) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aaa7b4 [arXiv:1801.05235 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aaa7b4 2018
[13]

S. W. Hawking, I. G. Moss and J. M. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D26, 2681 (1982) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.26.2681

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.26.2681 1982
[14]

Kodama, M

H. Kodama, M. Sasaki and K. Sato, Prog. Theor. Phys.68, 1979 (1982) doi:10.1143/PTP.68.1979

work page doi:10.1143/ptp.68.1979 1979
[15]

I. G. Moss, Phys. Rev. D50, 676-681 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.676

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.50.676 1994
[16]

R. V. Konoplich, S. G. Rubin, A. S. Sakharov and M. Y. Khlopov, Phys. Atom. Nucl.62, 1593-1600 (1999)

work page 1999
[17]

M. J. Baker, M. Breitbach, J. Kopp and L. Mittnacht, Phys. Lett. B868, 139625 (2025) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139625 [arXiv:2105.07481 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139625 2025
[18]

Gross, G

C. Gross, G. Landini, A. Strumia and D. Teresi, JHEP09, 033 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2021)033 [arXiv:2105.02840 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2021)033 2021
[19]

Kawana and K

K. Kawana and K. P. Xie, Phys. Lett. B824, 136791 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136791 [arXiv:2106.00111 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136791 2022
[20]

Marfatia and P

D. Marfatia and P. Y. Tseng, JHEP08, 001 (2022) [erratum: JHEP08, 249 (2022)] doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2022)001 [arXiv:2112.14588 [hep-ph]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2022)001 2022
[21]

Croon, D

D. Croon, D. McKeen, N. Raj and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. D102, no.8, 083021 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.083021 [arXiv:2007.12697 [astro-ph.CO]]. – 29 –

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.083021 2020
[22]

Jung and T

S. Jung and T. Kim, Phys. Rev. Res.2, no.1, 013113 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.013113 [arXiv:1908.00078 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.013113 2020
[23]

P. J. Chen and P. Y. Tseng, JHEAp39, 106-113 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2023.07.002 [arXiv:2305.14399 [astro-ph.HE]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2023.07.002 2023
[24]

Gould, IASSNS-AST-91-47

A. Gould, IASSNS-AST-91-47

work page
[25]

R. J. Nemiroff and A. Gould, Astrophys. J. Lett.452, L111 (1995) doi:10.1086/309722 [arXiv:astro-ph/9505019 [astro-ph]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1086/309722 1995
[26]

New constraints on primordial black holes abundance from femtolensing of gamma-ray bursts

A. Barnacka, J. F. Glicenstein and R. Moderski, Phys. Rev. D86, 043001 (2012), [arXiv:1204.2056 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[27]

A. Katz, J. Kopp, S. Sibiryakov and W. Xue, JCAP12, 005 (2018) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/12/005 [arXiv:1807.11495 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/12/005 2018
[28]

Tamta, N

M. Tamta, N. Raj and P. Sharma, [arXiv:2405.20365 [astro-ph.HE]]

work page arXiv
[29]

D. W. Hogg, [arXiv:astro-ph/9905116 [astro-ph]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[30]

Blandford and R

R. Blandford and R. Narayan, Astrophys. J.310, 568-582 (1986) doi:10.1086/164709

work page doi:10.1086/164709 1986
[31]

Gravitational Lensing

M. Bartelmann, Class. Quant. Grav.27, 233001 (2010) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/23/233001 [arXiv:1010.3829 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/23/233001 2010
[32]

T. T. Nakamura and S. Deguchi, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.133, 137-153 (1999) doi:10.1143/ptps.133.137

work page doi:10.1143/ptps.133.137 1999
[33]

Z., Paczynski, B., Goodman, J

Stanek, K. Z., Paczynski, B., Goodman, J. 1993. Features in the Spectra of Gamma-Ray Bursts. The Astrophysical Journal 413, L7. doi:10.1086/186946

work page doi:10.1086/186946 1993
[34]

D. BAND, J. Matteson, L. Ford, B. Schaefer, D. Palmer, B. Teegarden, T. Cline, M. Briggs, W. Paciesas and G. Pendleton,et al.Astrophys. J.413, 281-292 (1993) doi:10.1086/172995

work page doi:10.1086/172995 1993
[35]

A size-duration trend for gamma-ray burst progenitors

A. Barnacka and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J. Lett.794, no.1, L8 (2014) doi:10.1088/2041-8205/794/1/L8 [arXiv:1409.1232 [astro-ph.HE]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/2041-8205/794/1/l8 2014
[36]

R. J. Gould and G. P. Schreder, Phys. Rev.155, 1404-1407 (1967) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.155.1404

work page doi:10.1103/physrev.155.1404 1967
[37]

J. M. Jauch and F. Rohrlich, Springer, 1976, ISBN 978-3-642-80953-8, 978-3-642-80951-4 doi:10.1007/978-3-642-80951-4

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-80951-4 1976
[38]

The Polarization Dependence of Gamma-Gamma Absorption - Implications for Gamma-Ray Bursts and Blazars

M. Boettcher, Astrophys. J.795, 35 (2014) doi:10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/35 [arXiv:1409.1674 [astro-ph.HE]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0004-637x/795/1/35 2014
[39]

The Swift Gamma-Ray Burst Mission

N. Gehrelset al.[Swift Science], Astrophys. J.611, 1005-1020 (2004) [erratum: Astrophys. J.621, 558 (2005)] doi:10.1086/422091 [arXiv:astro-ph/0405233 [astro-ph]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1086/422091 2004
[40]

S. D. Barthelmy, L. M. Barbier, J. R. Cummings, E. E. Fenimore, N. Gehrels, D. Hullinger, H. A. Krimm, C. B. Markwardt, D. M. Palmer and A. Parsons,et al.Space Sci. Rev.120, 143 (2005) doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 [arXiv:astro-ph/0507410 [astro-ph]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 2005
[41]

D. N. Burrowset al.[SWIFT], Space Sci. Rev.120, 165 (2005) doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 [arXiv:astro-ph/0508071 [astro-ph]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 2005
[42]

P. W. A. Roming, T. E. Kennedy, K. O. Mason, J. A. Nousek, L. Ahr, R. E. Bingham, P. S. Broos, M. J. Carter, B. K. Hancock and H. E. Huckle,et al.Space Sci. Rev.120 (2005), 95-142 doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4 [arXiv:astro-ph/0507413 [astro-ph]]. – 30 –

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4 2005
[43]

K. A. Arnaud, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V,10117 (1996), https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ASPC..101...17A

work page 1996
[44]

P. A. Evans, A. P. Beardmore, K. L. Page, J. P. Osborne, P. T. O’Brien, R. Willingale, R. L. C. Starling, D. N. Burrows, O. Godet and L. Vetere,et al.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 397, 1177 (2009) doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x [arXiv:0812.3662 [astro-ph]]

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x 2009
[45]

Cheung, J

K. Cheung, J. S. Lee and P. Y. Tseng, JHEP09, 098 (2019), [arXiv:1810.02521 [hep-ph]]. – 31 –

work page arXiv 2019