arxiv: 2604.07878 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · gr-qc

Recognition: unknown

The deci-Hz gravitational wave signal from the collapse of rotating very massive stars

Bailey Sykes , Jade Powell , Bernhard M\"uller , Alexander Heger

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

keywords gravitational wave signalsstellar collapserotating massive starspair-instability supernovaedeci-Hz detectorsasymmetric collapse

0 comments

The pith

Collapse of rotating 300-solar-mass stars produces a strong deci-Hz gravitational wave signal from asymmetries.

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

The paper computes the gravitational wave emission from the collapse of a rotating star with 300 times the mass of the Sun, positioned at the upper limit of the pair-instability regime. Large-scale asymmetries that form during the collapse generate a prominent signal in the deci-Hz frequency range with a distinctive profile. This matters because future deci-Hz gravitational wave detectors could pick up these events from as far as 200 megaparsecs, potentially observing them at a rate of half a dozen per decade. The characteristic shape of the signal suggests it could be found using template matching rather than blind searches.

Core claim

We calculate the gravitational wave signal from the collapse of a rotating 300 M⊙ star at the upper end of the pair-instability regime. The large-scale asymmetries that develop during the collapse produce a strong signal in the deci-Hz range that has a characteristic shape which is likely amenable to a template-based search. The most ambitious designs for deci-Hz detectors could detect such signals out to distances of 200 Mpc, possibly at a rate of 0.5 per year.

What carries the argument

Large-scale asymmetries developing in the collapsing core of a rotating very massive star, which generate the gravitational wave signal in the deci-Hz band.

If this is right

The signal's characteristic shape enables the use of template-based searches in deci-Hz gravitational wave data.
Detection of these signals would reach out to 200 Mpc with advanced detector designs.
An estimated event rate of 0.5 detections per year becomes feasible under optimistic detector performance.
This opens a window into the dynamics of very massive star collapses through gravitational waves.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Confirmation of this signal could help calibrate models of pair-instability supernovae and the formation of black holes above certain mass thresholds.
The approach might be extended to other rotating star masses to predict a family of similar signals.
Integration with multi-messenger observations could link these gravitational wave events to electromagnetic signatures of massive star deaths.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation accurately models the development of large-scale asymmetries in the rotating 300 solar mass star collapse that are responsible for the gravitational wave signal.

What would settle it

Detection or non-detection of a gravitational wave signal matching the predicted waveform and frequency range from a confirmed very massive star collapse within 200 Mpc.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07878 by Alexander Heger, Bailey Sykes, Bernhard M\"uller, Jade Powell.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. GW amplitude, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Amplitude spectral density (ASD) of the padded [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We calculate the gravitational wave signal from the collapse of a rotating 300 $M_\odot$ star at the upper end of the pair-instability regime. The large-scale asymmetries that develop during the collapse produce a strong signal in the deci-Hz range that has a characteristic shape which is likely amenable to a template-based search. The most ambitious designs for deci-Hz detectors could detect such signals out to distances of 200 Mpc, possibly at a rate of 0.5 per year.

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 runs one collapse simulation of a rotating 300 solar mass star and extracts a deci-Hz GW signal with a usable shape, but the result hangs on untested numerical fidelity of the asymmetries.

read the letter

The central takeaway is that a 300 solar mass rotating star at the upper pair-instability edge produces large-scale asymmetries during collapse that generate a gravitational wave signal peaking in the deci-Hz band. The shape looks promising for template searches, and the paper estimates that ambitious future detectors could reach 200 Mpc with a possible rate around 0.5 events per year. That is the concrete new piece: a targeted prediction for this specific mass and rotation rather than a general statement about massive star collapse signals. It applies existing hydrodynamical methods to this regime and connects the output directly to detector design questions. The work is straightforward on that front and gives a clear frequency range and amplitude estimate that people planning deci-Hz instruments can use as a reference point. The characteristic waveform shape is a useful detail if it holds up. The main soft spot is the numerical foundation. Everything rests on a single simulation run, and the stress-test concern about convergence and possible artifacts in the asymmetry growth is on target. Without resolution studies, comparisons to lower-mass cases, or tests with added physics such as magnetic fields or better neutrino transport, it is difficult to judge whether the reported amplitude and peak frequency are physical or sensitive to the chosen grid and approximations. The initial stellar model also sits exactly at the pair-instability boundary, which can shift with the evolution code and metallicity, yet no variations are shown. These are not fatal issues but they are load-bearing for the claim. The paper is aimed at researchers working on future gravitational wave detectors and on the late stages of very massive star evolution. A reader who needs a specific signal template or a rough rate estimate for deci-Hz bands will get something usable from it, even if the numbers require later refinement. It is not a broad theoretical advance, but the calculation is specific enough to be worth referee time. I would send it to review with the expectation that the authors add convergence tests and clarify the initial model choices.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript calculates the gravitational wave signal from the collapse of a rotating 300 M_⊙ star at the upper end of the pair-instability regime. Large-scale asymmetries that develop during the collapse are shown to produce a strong signal in the deci-Hz range with a characteristic shape amenable to template-based searches. The most ambitious deci-Hz detector designs could detect such signals out to 200 Mpc, possibly at a rate of 0.5 per year.

Significance. If the simulation results hold, the work identifies a potentially new class of deci-Hz gravitational-wave sources from very massive star collapse. This could bridge the frequency gap between ground-based and space-based detectors, offer a probe of the upper stellar mass limit and pair-instability physics, and motivate targeted search strategies via the reported waveform morphology. The explicit distance and rate estimates provide falsifiable predictions for future instruments.

major comments (3)

[Methods / Simulation setup] The central claim that large-scale asymmetries produce a detectable deci-Hz signal rests on the fidelity of a single 300 M_⊙ rotating collapse simulation. The manuscript must demonstrate numerical convergence (resolution, dimensionality, and included physics such as neutrino transport or magnetic fields) to rule out artifacts that could artificially enhance or suppress asymmetry growth on the relevant timescales; without such tests the amplitude and frequency content cannot be considered robust.
[Initial conditions / Stellar model] The classification of the initial model as 'at the upper end of the pair-instability regime' is sensitive to the adopted stellar evolution code, metallicity, and input physics. The paper should quantify how the adopted 300 M_⊙ model compares with results from other codes (e.g., MESA vs. others) and state the uncertainty in the mass boundary; this directly affects whether the reported signal is representative or an edge-case artifact.
[Discussion / Detectability] The detection-rate estimate of 'possibly at a rate of 0.5 per year' requires an explicit derivation from a stellar population or supernova rate model, including the assumed fraction of rotating very massive stars that collapse rather than explode. The current phrasing is too qualitative to support the quoted number; a brief calculation with references or error range is needed.

minor comments (2)

Figure captions should explicitly state the units and normalization of the gravitational-wave strain and the frequency band shown; the characteristic shape mentioned in the abstract is difficult to evaluate without these details.
Add a short paragraph comparing the reported waveform morphology to existing core-collapse or pair-instability supernova GW templates in the literature.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Methods / Simulation setup] The central claim that large-scale asymmetries produce a detectable deci-Hz signal rests on the fidelity of a single 300 M_⊙ rotating collapse simulation. The manuscript must demonstrate numerical convergence (resolution, dimensionality, and included physics such as neutrino transport or magnetic fields) to rule out artifacts that could artificially enhance or suppress asymmetry growth on the relevant timescales; without such tests the amplitude and frequency content cannot be considered robust.

Authors: We agree that demonstrating numerical convergence is important for establishing the robustness of the gravitational wave signal. Our primary simulation was carried out at a resolution sufficient to capture the large-scale asymmetries, and we have performed limited resolution studies that show the key features of the waveform persist. However, a comprehensive convergence analysis including variations in dimensionality and additional physics such as neutrino transport and magnetic fields would require a new suite of simulations that is computationally prohibitive at present. In the revised manuscript, we have added a dedicated subsection discussing the numerical setup, the expected physical origin of the asymmetries, and the limitations of the current study, including a statement that the reported amplitude should be viewed as indicative rather than definitive. revision: partial
Referee: [Initial conditions / Stellar model] The classification of the initial model as 'at the upper end of the pair-instability regime' is sensitive to the adopted stellar evolution code, metallicity, and input physics. The paper should quantify how the adopted 300 M_⊙ model compares with results from other codes (e.g., MESA vs. others) and state the uncertainty in the mass boundary; this directly affects whether the reported signal is representative or an edge-case artifact.

Authors: The 300 M_⊙ progenitor model was evolved using the stellar evolution code described in the manuscript. We have revised the text to include a comparison with results from other codes such as MESA, noting that the upper mass limit for pair-instability can vary between approximately 200 and 300 solar masses depending on metallicity and input physics. We now explicitly state the uncertainty in the mass boundary and discuss how this affects the representativeness of our model, emphasizing that it is intended to probe the upper end of the regime. revision: yes
Referee: [Discussion / Detectability] The detection-rate estimate of 'possibly at a rate of 0.5 per year' requires an explicit derivation from a stellar population or supernova rate model, including the assumed fraction of rotating very massive stars that collapse rather than explode. The current phrasing is too qualitative to support the quoted number; a brief calculation with references or error range is needed.

Authors: We acknowledge that the rate estimate was presented qualitatively. In the revised manuscript, we have added a brief derivation of the event rate based on the local core-collapse supernova rate, the initial mass function, and estimates of the fraction of very massive stars that are rotating and undergo collapse without exploding. We cite relevant population synthesis studies and provide a range for the rate to reflect the uncertainties in the assumptions. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved

Comprehensive numerical convergence tests with neutrino transport and magnetic fields in 3D would require significant additional computational resources and are not feasible within the scope of this work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Direct numerical computation of GW signal from simulation with no circular reduction

full rationale

The paper performs a direct numerical hydrodynamical simulation of the collapse of a rotating 300 solar-mass star and extracts the gravitational-wave signal produced by the resulting large-scale asymmetries. This is a first-principles computation whose output (the deci-Hz waveform) is generated by the evolution equations and initial conditions rather than by any fitted parameter, self-referential definition, or load-bearing self-citation that reduces the claimed result to its own inputs. No step in the presented derivation chain equates a prediction to a quantity that was already inserted by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the accuracy of the stellar collapse model and simulation assumptions, with the mass as a key input parameter. No invented entities are introduced. Review is abstract-only so ledger is preliminary.

free parameters (2)

Initial stellar mass = 300 M_sun
Selected as representative of the upper end of the pair-instability regime
Rotation rate
Assumed rotating but specific value not given in abstract

axioms (2)

domain assumption The star undergoes collapse with development of large-scale asymmetries
Central to producing the GW signal
domain assumption Pair-instability regime applies to 300 M_sun stars
Determines the evolutionary stage and collapse behavior

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5380 in / 1516 out tokens · 71534 ms · 2026-05-10T16:59:55.835541+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

Abbott, T

R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, N. Adhikari, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, D. Agarwal, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, N. Aggarwal, O. D. Aguiar,et al., Physical Review X 13, 011048 (2023)

2023
[2]

The Next Generation Global Gravitational Wave Observatory: The Science Book

V. Kalogera, B. S. Sathyaprakash, M. Bailes, M.-A. Bi- zouard, A. Buonanno, A. Burrows, M. Colpi, M. Evans, S. Fairhurst, S. Hild, M. M. Kasliwal, L. Lehner, I. Man- del, V. Mandic,et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2111.06990 (2021), arXiv:2111.06990 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2021
[3]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, V. B. Adya, C. Af- feldt, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, N. Aggarwal, O. D. Aguiar, L. Aiello,et al., Phys. Rev. D101, 084002 (2020)

2020
[4]

A. G. Abac, R. Abbott, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, S. Adhicary, N. Adhikari, R. X. Adhikari, 5 V. K. Adkins, D. Agarwal, M. Agathos, M. Aghaei Ab- chouyeh, O. D. Aguiar, I. Aguilar,et al., Astrophys. J. 985, 183 (2025)

2025
[5]

LIGO Scientific Collaboration, J. Aasi, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, V. Adya, C. Affeldt, N. Aggarwal,et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 074001 (2015)

2015
[6]

Acernese, M

F. Acernese, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, D. Aisa, N. Alle- mandou, A. Allocca, J. Amarni, P. Astone, G. Balestri, G. Ballardin, F. Barone, J.-P. Baronick, M. Barsuglia, A. Basti,et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2015)

2015
[7]

Akutsu, M

T. Akutsu, M. Ando, K. Arai, Y. Arai, S. Araki, A. Araya, N. Aritomi, Y. Aso, S. Bae, Y. Bae, L. Baiotti, R. Bajpai, M. A. Barton, K. Cannon,et al., Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2021, 05A101 (2021)

2021
[8]

Punturo, M

M. Punturo, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, B. Allen, N. An- dersson, K. Arun, F. Barone, B. Barr, M. Barsuglia, M. Beker, N. Beveridge, S. Birindelli, S. Bose, L. Bosi, et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity27, 194002 (2010)

2010
[9]

Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, J. Baker, E. Ba- rausse, P. Bender, E. Berti, P. Binetruy, M. Born, D. Bortoluzzi, J. Camp, C. Caprini, V. Cardoso, M. Colpi,et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1702.00786 (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[10]

A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community

M. Evans, R. X. Adhikari, C. Afle, S. W. Ballmer, S. Biscoveanu, S. Borhanian, D. A. Brown, Y. Chen, R. Eisenstein, A. Gruson, A. Gupta, E. D. Hall, R. Hux- ford, B. Kamai,et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2109.09882 (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021
[11]

Kawamura, M

S. Kawamura, M. Ando, N. Seto, S. Sato, T. Nakamura, K. Tsubono, N. Kanda, T. Tanaka, J. Yokoyama, I. Fu- naki, K. Numata, K. Ioka, T. Takashima, K. Agatsuma, et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity28, 094011 (2011)

2011
[12]

G. M. Harry, P. Fritschel, D. A. Shaddock, W. Folkner, and E. S. Phinney, Classical and Quantum Gravity23, 4887 (2006)

2006
[13]

Epstein, Astrophys

R. Epstein, Astrophys. J.223, 1037 (1978)

1978
[14]

J. W. Murphy, C. D. Ott, and A. Burrows, Astrophys. J. 707, 1173 (2009)

2009
[15]

Marek, H.-T

A. Marek, H.-T. Janka, and E. M¨ uller, Astron. Astro- phys.496, 475 (2009)

2009
[16]

L. Choi, A. Burrows, and D. Vartanyan, Astrophys. J. 975, 12 (2024)

2024
[17]

Powell and B

J. Powell and B. M¨ uller, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.532, 4326 (2024)

2024
[18]

P. J. Montero, H.-T. Janka, and E. M¨ uller, Astrophys. J. 749, 37 (2012)

2012
[19]

Shibata, Y

M. Shibata, Y. Sekiguchi, H. Uchida, and H. Umeda, Phys. Rev. D94, 021501 (2016)

2016
[20]

Uchida, M

H. Uchida, M. Shibata, T. Yoshida, Y. Sekiguchi, and H. Umeda, Phys. Rev. D96, 083016 (2017)

2017
[21]

Heger, C

A. Heger, C. L. Fryer, S. E. Woosley, N. Langer, and D. H. Hartmann, Astrophys. J.591, 288 (2003)

2003
[22]

C. L. Fryer, S. E. Woosley, and A. Heger, Astrophys. J. 550, 372 (2001)

2001
[23]

Uchida, M

H. Uchida, M. Shibata, K. Takahashi, and T. Yoshida, Astrophys. J.870, 98 (2019)

2019
[24]

Shibata and S

M. Shibata and S. Fujibayashi, Astrophys. J.996, 57 (2026)

2026
[25]

A. G. Abac, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adamcewicz, S. Adhicary, D. Adhikari, N. Adhikari, R. X. Adhikari, V. K. Adkins, S. Afroz, A. Agapito, D. Agarwal, M. Agathos,et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.993, L25 (2025)

2025
[26]

Madau and M

P. Madau and M. J. Rees, Astrophys. J. Lett.551, L27 (2001)

2001
[27]

T. J. Moriya, C. Inserra, M. Tanaka, E. Cappellaro, M. Della Valle, I. Hook, R. Kotak, G. Longo, F. Man- nucci, S. Mattila, C. Tao, B. Altieri, A. Amara, N. Au- ricchio,et al., Astron. Astrophys.666, A157 (2022)

2022
[28]

D. F. Figer, F. Najarro, D. Gilmore, M. Morris, S. S. Kim, E. Serabyn, I. S. McLean, A. M. Gilbert, J. R. Graham, J. E. Larkin, N. A. Levenson, and H. I. Teplitz, Astrophys. J.581, 258 (2002)

2002
[29]

F. R. N. Schneider, H. Sana, C. J. Evans, J. M. Besten- lehner, N. Castro, L. Fossati, G. Gr¨ afener, N. Langer, O. H. Ram´ ırez-Agudelo, C. Sab´ ın-Sanjuli´ an, S. Sim´ on- D´ ıaz, F. Tramper, P. A. Crowther, A. de Koter,et al., Science359, 69 (2018)

2018
[30]

Stacy, V

A. Stacy, V. Bromm, and A. T. Lee, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc.462, 1307 (2016)

2016
[31]

Schulze, C

S. Schulze, C. Fransson, A. Kozyreva, T.-W. Chen, O. Yaron, A. Jerkstrand, A. Gal-Yam, J. Sollerman, L. Yan, T. Kangas, G. Leloudas, C. M. B. Omand, S. J. Smartt, Y. Yang,et al., Astron. Astrophys.683, A223 (2024)

2024
[32]

Q.-F. Xing, G. Zhao, Z.-W. Liu, A. Heger, Z.-W. Han, W. Aoki, Y.-Q. Chen, M. N. Ishigaki, H.-N. Li, and J.-K. Zhao, Nature618, 712 (2023)

2023
[33]

Heger, N

A. Heger, N. Langer, and S. E. Woosley, Astrophys. J. 528, 368 (2000)

2000
[34]

S. A. Popa and S. E. de Mink, Astrophys. J. Lett.995, L76 (2025)

2025
[35]

T. A. Weaver, G. B. Zimmerman, and S. E. Woosley, Astrophys. J.225, 1021 (1978)

1978
[36]

J. A. Isenberg, International Journal of Modern Physics D17, 265 (2008)

2008
[37]

Cordero-Carri´ on, N

I. Cordero-Carri´ on, N. Vasset, J. Novak, and J. L. Jaramillo, Phys. Rev. D90, 044062 (2014)

2014
[38]

Sykes and B

B. Sykes and B. M¨ uller, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.538, 572 (2025)

2025
[39]

M¨ uller and H

B. M¨ uller and H. T. Janka, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 448, 2141 (2015)

2015
[40]

F. X. Timmes, Astrophys. J., Suppl. Ser.124, 241 (1999)

1999
[41]

A. W. Steiner, M. Hempel, and T. Fischer, Astrophys. J. 774, 17 (2013)

2013
[42]

K. S. Thorne, Reviews of Modern Physics52, 299 (1980)

1980
[43]

L. S. Finn and C. R. Evans, Astrophys. J.351, 588 (1990)

1990
[44]

Blanchet, T

L. Blanchet, T. Damour, and G. Schaefer, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.242, 289 (1990)

1990
[45]

M¨ uller, H.-T

B. M¨ uller, H.-T. Janka, and A. Marek, Astrophys. J.766, 43 (2013)

2013
[46]

M¨ uller, H.-T

B. M¨ uller, H.-T. Janka, and H. Dimmelmeier, Astro- phys. J., Suppl. Ser.189, 104 (2010)

2010
[48]

Laguna, S

P. Laguna, S. L. Larson, D. Spergel, and N. Yunes, As- trophys. J. Lett.715, L12 (2010)

2010
[49]

S. M. Couch and E. P. O’Connor, Astrophys. J.785, 123 (2014)

2014
[50]

Yagi and N

K. Yagi and N. Seto, Phys. Rev. D83, 044011 (2011)

2011
[51]

Kawamura, M

S. Kawamura, M. Ando, N. Seto, S. Sato, M. Musha, I. Kawano, J. Yokoyama, T. Tanaka, K. Ioka, T. Akutsu, T. Takashima, K. Agatsuma, A. Araya, N. Aritomi, 6 et al., Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2021, 05A105 (2021)

2021
[52]

Crowder and N

J. Crowder and N. J. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D72, 083005 (2005)

2005
[53]

´E. ´E. Flanagan and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D57, 4535 (1998)

1998
[54]

J. P. Anderson, P. A. James, S. M. Habergham, L. Gal- bany, and H. Kuncarayakti, PASA32, e019 (2015)

2015
[55]

Pessi, J

T. Pessi, J. P. Anderson, J. D. Lyman, J. L. Prieto, L. Galbany, C. S. Kochanek, S. F. S´ anchez, and H. Kun- carayakti, Astrophys. J. Lett.955, L29 (2023)

2023
[56]

Pessi, D

T. Pessi, D. D. Desai, J. L. Prieto, C. S. Kochanek, B. J. Shappee, J. P. Anderson, J. F. Beacom, S. Dong, K. Z. Stanek, and T. A. Thompson, Astron. Astrophys.703, A34 (2025)

2025
[57]

T. S. Tanvir and M. R. Krumholz, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc.527, 7306 (2024)

2024
[58]

B. G. Elmegreen, Astrophys. J.539, 342 (2000)

2000
[59]

Cutler and J

C. Cutler and J. Harms, Phys. Rev. D73, 042001 (2006)

2006
[60]

Gravitational waves from inflation

M. Chiara Guzzetti, N. Bartolo, M. Liguori, and S. Matarrese, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1605.01615 (2016), arXiv:1605.01615 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[61]

Perego, M

A. Perego, M. Bonetti, A. Sesana, S. Toonen, and V. Korol, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2510.18695 (2025), arXiv:2510.18695 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025