Gravitational Waves as a Probe of Particle Dark Matter

Mumbai); Sulagna Bhattacharya (Tata Inst.

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Gravitational Waves as a Probe of Particle Dark Matter

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Gravitational-wave observatories can probe particle dark matter through the low-mass 'transmuted black holes' that form when captured dark matter collapses a star from inside.

desk verdict A lucid summary of the author's own TBH work, but the O3 exclusion claim is not supported as presented because the subsolar search likely does not cover the TBH masses. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02453 v1 pith:RA6H2FHH submitted 2024-12-03 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Sulagna Bhattacharya (Tata Inst. , Mumbai) This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phastro-ph.CO

keywords darkmattercapturetransmutedblackholesgravitationalwavesLIGO-Virgo-KAGRALISAcontinuousneutronstarsmatter-nucleoninteraction

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 gravitational-wave observatories can act as dark-matter detectors by looking for a distinctive byproduct of captured dark matter: low-mass 'transmuted black holes' that ordinary stellar evolution cannot produce. If non-annihilating heavy dark-matter particles accumulate inside a star and form a seed black hole that swallows the star, the result is a black hole with a neutron-star-like mass whose mergers LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA could see. The paper reports that the absence of such low-mass black-hole mergers in LIGO's O3 data already excludes parts of the dark-matter mass-cross-section plane, and that LISA or BBO could reach stronger dark-matter-nucleon interactions through continuous gravitational waves from close stellar-mass black-hole binaries. A detection would identify dark matter's particle nature; continued non-detection sharpens the constraints.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Transmuted Black Hole (TBH), defined as a stellar-mass black hole that results when captured non-annihilating dark matter forms a compact core inside the star, the core collapses under its own gravity, and the seed black hole then swallows the star faster than Hawking evaporation removes it. The argument is carried by two timescales: $\tau_{\rm collapse}$, the time needed to accumulate enough dark-matter particles for the core to collapse, and $\tau_{\rm swallow}$, the time for the seed to consume the star. Whenever $\tau_{\rm collapse}+\tau_{\rm swallow}$ is shorter than the universe's age, the star should end as a TBH, making non-observation a constraint on dark-matter mass and nucleon cross-section.

What would settle it

A stellar-structure simulation that follows capture, thermalization, and core collapse through a star's full lifetime could falsify the claim if it shows no seed black hole forms for the masses and cross-sections the paper constrains, or that Hawking evaporation removes any such seed faster than accretion grows it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that non-annihilating, heavy dark-matter particles captured inside stars can turn those stars into black holes of comparable mass — 'transmuted black holes' (TBHs) — through a sequence of capture, thermalization, self-gravitating collapse of the dark core, and accretion of the host star by the resulting seed black hole. Because standard stellar evolution cannot produce black holes as light as neutron stars, the presence or absence of such objects in gravitational-wave data is a dark-matter measurement. Using the absence of low-mass black-hole mergers in LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA O3 data, the paper reports exclusions in the dark-matter mass $m_\chi$ and nucleon cross-section $\sigma_{\chi n}$ plane, and it forecasts that a 50-times-more-sensitive LVK run or future LISA/BBO continuous-wave searches would test a wider, generally stronger-interaction region of that plane.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that a captured dark-matter core inside a star actually collapses into a small black hole and that this black hole then grows by swallowing the star faster than it evaporates away; if that sequence fails, no transmuted black holes form and the gravitational-wave constraints disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the TBH mechanism is right, a null search in a LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA run with roughly 50 times the sensitivity would extend the excluded region in the dark-matter mass-cross-section plane.
LISA or BBO continuous-gravitational-wave observations would detect or exclude close stellar-mass TBH binaries, mapping DM-nucleon interactions stronger than terrestrial detectors can reach.
Neutron stars probe weak DM-nucleon cross-sections, while Sun-like stars cover strong cross-sections, so the two stellar classes jointly constrain a wide slice of the dark-matter parameter space.
A detected black-hole merger with a mass near the neutron-star range could be evidence for non-annihilating heavy dark matter, provided primordial-black-hole and standard astrophysical explanations are ruled out.
Terrestrial direct-detection experiments lose sensitivity for heavy dark matter, so gravitational-wave non-observation becomes a leading probe of this mass range.

Reading between the lines

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

An extension the author leaves implicit: every old star sitting in a high dark-matter-density environment is a potential seed-black-hole factory, so surveys of old stellar populations in dwarf spheroidal galaxies could set independent upper limits on the TBH rate.
The excluded contours assume a specific Galactic dark-matter density and velocity distribution; rescaling those environmental inputs shifts the bounds, so the constraints should be read as tied to that halo model.
A stellar-evolution simulation that follows capture, thermalization, and core collapse through a star's full lifetime is the most direct test of whether the timescale condition $\tau_{\rm collapse}+\tau_{\rm swallow}<t_0$ actually holds for the constrained parameter space.
Taking modified Hawking evaporation into account, as the paper mentions, would push the constraints to still higher dark-matter masses; that direction is noted but not developed here.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

No new science here — it's a four-page summary of the author's own PRL/PRD papers on transmuted black holes. That's the genre, and the paper is honest about it: figures are explicitly credited to Refs. [13] and [15].

What it does well: the TBH formation mechanism is laid out clearly, and the table of capture rates, thermalization radii, and collapse/swallow timescales is a handy reference. It would serve as a five-minute orientation for someone new to the idea.

The soft spots: The O3 constraint in Fig. 1 needs scrutiny. The text says "absence of low-mass BH observations" and cites [18], which is the LVK search for subsolar-mass holes covering 0.2–1.0 M_sun. The TBH examples in Table 1 are 1.0 and 1.35 M_sun. The paper does not explain how a subsolar search limits the merger rate of binaries with component masses above the search band. If the mapping exists in Ref. [13], it should have been stated; as it stands, the red exclusion in Fig. 1 is not supported by the argument presented here. That is load-bearing for the "current sensitivity" claim.

Second, all quantitative content is inherited from the author's own earlier work. Again, not circularity — those works are peer-reviewed — but the summary offers no independent check. A reader using this as evidence should go to the original papers.

Who is this for? Confine it to a conference handout or a reading-group primer on DM-induced TBHs. It is not a research contribution, and the O3 mismatch would need to be corrected before I'd trust the summary's constraints.

My recommendation: if this were submitted as a research paper, I would not send it to peer review. It's a review of the author's own results with a potentially misleading constraint citation. If it's meant as a proceedings abstract, it's acceptable with a caution flag. The actual science is in Refs. [13] and [15].

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This short manuscript argues that non-annihilating heavy dark matter (DM) particles can be gravitationally captured in neutron stars and Sun-like stars, accumulate into a dense core, and collapse into a small black hole; if the nascent black hole then accretes the host star, a comparable-mass 'transmuted black hole' (TBH) forms. The paper presents benchmark capture and collapse timescales for two scenarios (Table 1) and reproduces exclusion plots (Fig. 1) that, according to the text, show that non-observation of TBH mergers in LVK O3 data already constrains the DM mass--cross-section plane and that LISA continuous-wave searches could probe stronger interaction regimes. The paper concludes that current and future gravitational-wave detectors offer a promising probe of heavy, non-annihilating DM.

Significance. If the stated TBH formation channel is correct, the paper points to an interesting and falsifiable complement to direct and collider DM searches: stellar objects act as natural DM accumulators, and gravitational-wave non-observation (or detection) of low-mass black-hole mergers becomes a DM observable. The manuscript's strength is that it collects the quantitative results of Refs [13,15] into a compact, readable summary, and it makes a concrete testable prediction, namely that continued non-observation in LVK and LISA data excludes portions of the DM parameter space. However, the paper adds no new derivations; all load-bearing rates, timescales, and exclusion regions are imported from two papers co-authored by the present author (Refs [13,15]). The overlap with the author's own prior work is not logical circularity because the underlying calculations are peer-reviewed, but it means the present manuscript provides no independent validation of its central quantitative claims.

major comments (3)

[Section 2, Fig. 1 (left panel)] The text states that 'the absence of low-mass BH observations in the LVK O3 data [18]' produces the red exclusion region in the left panel, but the cited Ref [18] is the LVK search for subsolar-mass black holes, whose published component-mass range ends at 1.0 Msun. The TBH examples described in the text and Table 1 have masses around 1.0 Msun for a Sun-like star and 1.35 Msun for a 1.35 Msun neutron star; the latter is clearly outside the subsolar search range. The manuscript does not show how the subsolar rate upper limit from Ref [18] is mapped onto these TBH masses, nor does it identify which population of TBHs (progenitor masses, merger masses) is actually being constrained. Without that mapping, the paper's claim that current O3 non-observation already excludes the red region of Fig. 1 is unsupported as written. Please provide the mass distribution of the relevant TBH binaries and the conversion from the [18] rate limit, or replace the left panel with an applicable observational bound.
[Section 2, 'Constraints from Gravitational Wave Observations'] The paper connects TBH formation to a gravitational-wave detection rate only by the sentence 'Non-observation imposes stringent constraints on the DM parameter space.' In practice the exclusions in Fig. 1 require an assumed rate density of TBH mergers (or of close binaries in the LISA case), which depends on the DM halo density, the stellar population, star-formation history, and a binary fraction; none of these inputs or normalizations are stated. This is a load-bearing step for the main message that current and future GW detectors can probe the DM parameter space. For a self-contained paper, at least the essential rate equations and the values of the main astrophysical inputs should be given, or the text should explicitly state that these are taken from Refs [13,15] and should quote the relevant numbers.
[Section 2, paragraph on TBH formation] The central physical premise, that the captured DM core 'may then collapse into a small BH due to self-gravitation & Chandrasekhar collapse', is asserted without stating the threshold condition used, e.g., the critical number (or mass) of DM particles needed for collapse, the Chandrasekhar limit for fermionic DM, or the Bose-Einstein-condensate collapse criterion for bosonic DM. Since the entire TBH scenario depends on this step, the benchmark examples in Table 1 cannot be checked by the reader. Please state the collapse criterion and show that the two benchmark cases satisfy it, even if the full derivation is left to Refs [13,15].

minor comments (5)

[Table 1] There is a typo in the table caption: 'T able 1' should be 'Table 1'.
[Table 1] In the Sun-like stars row, the swallow timescale is written as '104 yrs'; this should be '10^4 yrs' for consistency with the other entries.
[Section 2, Fig. 1] The parameter alpha in the right panel is described only as 'the close binary fraction'; the manuscript should define it explicitly (e.g., the fraction of TBH-forming close binaries among all stellar binaries) and state the assumed value or range used in the LISA exclusion.
[Fig. 1 caption] Since both panels are reproduced from Refs [13] and [15], it would improve clarity to label the panels explicitly as 'reproduced from Ref. [13]' and 'reproduced from Ref. [15]' rather than only mentioning those references in the body text.
[Summary] The sentence 'See Ref. [21] to look for other promising avenues to unveil DM properties via compact stars' is informal and should be reworded as a proper cross-reference, e.g., 'Other promising avenues for probing DM with compact stars are reviewed in Ref. [21].'

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The paper's quantitative GW constraints are imported wholesale from the author's own prior papers, making the central claims self-citation load-bearing, while the underlying physics is not derived in the text.

self citation load bearing [Section 2, 'Constraints from Gravitational Wave Observations', left panel of Fig. 1]
"Ref.[13] compares this upper limit with the theoretical TBH merger rates [12], excluding parts of the DM parameter space, and sets forecast limits for further exclusions with continued non-observations in future L VK data (left panel of Fig.1)."

The paper's principal current-sensitivity result, the red O3 exclusion in Fig. 1(left), is not derived or checked in this paper; it is imported from Ref. [13], which the present author co-authored (Bhattacharya, Dasgupta, Laha, and Ray, PRL 131, 091401). The text labels this as 'This analysis' in Fig. 1, yet no calculation is shown. Moreover, the mass mapping from the LVK subsolar O3 search [18] to the listed 1.0-1.35 solar-mass TBHs is not presented, so the claimed exclusion is not independently justified here. The paper's central statement, 'Non-observation of TBHs can set world-leading constraints on the DM parameter space,' therefore rests on the author's own prior paper.
self citation load bearing [Section 2, 'Constraints from Gravitational Wave Observations', right panel of Fig. 1]
"Ref.[15] shows that non-observation of CGWs from such systems in LISA/BBO data can place an upper limit on their occurrence rate density, translating into exclusions in the DM parameter space, particularly in the stronger interaction regime (right panel of Fig.1)."

The LISA forecast, the second quantitative pillar of the paper, is entirely delegated to Ref. [15], which the present author also co-authored (Bhattacharya, Miller, and Ray, PRD 110, 043006). The figure is labeled 'This analysis', but no detection-threshold treatment, rate estimate, or exclusion calculation appears in the text. The advertised conclusion that LISA could constrain stronger DM-nucleon interactions is simply a restatement of that self-citation. Since the current paper supplies no independent benchmark or derivation, the claimed result terminates in the author's own prior work.

full rationale

The paper is best read as a summary of two prior papers by the same author (Refs [13] and [15]) rather than a new derivation. The formation mechanism and all quantitative constraints are introduced with phrases like 'Ref.[13] compares...' and 'Ref.[15] shows...', and the table of timescales says 'See Ref.[13,15] for detailed calculations.' This makes the central claims self-citation load-bearing: a reader cannot verify the O3 exclusion or the LISA forecast from this paper alone, and both cited works share the present author. However, this is not a construction-level circularity: no equation in the paper is defined in terms of its conclusion, the LVK data [18] are external, and Ref. [12], which provides the theoretical TBH merger rates, is not co-authored by the present author. The possible mismatch between LVK's subsolar O3 search mass range and the 1.0-1.35 solar-mass TBHs is a correctness risk that would make the imported exclusion invalid, but it is not circularity. Accordingly, a score of 4 reflects the load-bearing self-citations, not an equation-level reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted in this paper; mchi and sigma_chi_n are scanned axes. The central claims rest entirely on physical assumptions inherited from Refs [12,13,15], plus the speculative entity TBH. The paper contributes no new parameter-free derivation or data.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Non-annihilating DM particles with a non-zero nucleon cross-section exist in the relevant mass range (10^5 to 10^10 GeV for the plots).
Necessary for capture; introduced via Refs [6,7] in Section 2 and used in Table 1 and Fig. 1.
domain assumption Captured DM thermalizes to a compact core (radius rth) that collapses under self-gravity via Chandrasekhar or Bose-Einstein collapse.
Section 2 states the core 'may then collapse into a small BH'; no derivation or evidence is given in this preprint, only references.
domain assumption Accretion by the nascent BH dominates Hawking evaporation, allowing the entire star to become a TBH.
Section 2 conditions TBH formation on 'if accretion dominates over Hawking evaporation'; this is assumed, not demonstrated here.
domain assumption The merger rate of TBH binaries in the local universe is high enough that LVK O3 non-observation and LISA forecasts yield meaningful exclusions.
The exclusion regions in Fig. 1 translate non-observation into DM parameter constraints via rate comparisons from Refs [12,13,15].

invented entities (1)

Transmuted Black Hole (TBH) independent evidence
purpose: A black hole formed when DM capture collapses a star's core and then consumes the star, providing a GW-visible signature of particle DM.
The scenario predicts low-mass BH mergers (masses near the NS range) that LVK and LISA can search for; non-observation gives exclusions and observation would confirm. This is a falsifiable handle, though no TBH has been observed yet.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational Waves as a Probe of Particle Dark Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RA6H2FHH

@misc{pith2026241202453,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational Waves as a Probe of Particle Dark Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RA6H2FHH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02453}
}

read the original abstract

Galactic dark matter (DM) particles, having non-gravitational interactions with nucleons, can interact with stellar constituents and eventually become captured within stars. Over the lifetime of the celestial body, these non-annihilating, heavy DM particles may accumulate and eventually form a comparable stellar mass black hole (BH), referred to as a Transmuted Black Hole (TBH). We investigate how current gravitational wave (GW) experiments could detect such particle DM through the presence of low-mass TBHs, which cannot form via standard stellar evolution. Different stellar objects (compact and non-compact) provide laboratories across DM-nucleon interaction regimes, offering insight into DM's mass and its non-gravitational properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02453 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Exclusion in the DM mass (mχ) and interaction cross-section (σχn) plane for Bosonic DM particles. Left Panel: The red shaded region shows the current limit from LVK’s O3 observation [18], while the brown dashed line represents the forecast with a 50× sensitivity increase. (See Fig.1 of Ref.[13]). Right Panel: The red shaded region indicates the exclusion based on LISA’s proposed sensitivity, with α being the close b… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Beyond general relativity: gravitational waves in non-minimally coupled theories
gr-qc 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A generalized propagation parameterization for gravitational-wave strains is extended to O(H²) and O(H′), then mapped to Kalb-Ramond, axion-dilaton–Chern-Simons–Gauss-Bonnet, and U(1) dark-photon models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 18 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[13]

Bhattacharya, B

S. Bhattacharya, B. Dasgupta, R. Laha and A. Ray, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) no.9, 091401 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.091401 [arXiv:2302.07898 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2023
[15]

Bhattacharya, A

S. Bhattacharya, A. L. Miller and A. Ray, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), 043006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.043006 [arXiv:2403.13886 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2024
[18]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific, VIRGO and KAGRA], Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 524 (2023) no.4, 5984-5992 [erratum: Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 526 (2023) no.4, 6234] doi:10.1093/mnras/stad588 [arXiv:2212.01477 [astro-ph.HE]]

arXiv 2023
[1]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. [Planck], Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020), A6 doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/201833910 [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2020
[2]

Cirelli, A

M. Cirelli, A. Strumia and J. Zupan, [arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[3]

L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) no.4, 043541 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.043541 [arXiv:1610.08297 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2017
[4]

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

doi:10.1093/mnras/168.2.399 1974
[5]

G. F. Chapline, Nature 253 (1975) no.5489, 251-252 doi:10.1038/253251a0

doi:10.1038/253251a0 1975

Show all 21 references

[6]

Petraki and R

K. Petraki and R. R. Volkas, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28 (2013), 1330028 doi:10.1142/S0217751X13300287 [arXiv:1305.4939 [hep-ph]]

2013 arXiv
[7]

K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rept. 537 (2014), 91-121 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2013.12.001 [arXiv:1308.0338 [hep-ph]]

2014 arXiv
[8]

B. P. Abbott et al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Astrophys. J. Lett. 892 (2020) no.1, L3 doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f5 [arXiv:2001.01761 [astro-ph.HE]]

2020 arXiv
[9]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Astrophys. J. Lett. 896 (2020) no.2, L44 doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f [arXiv:2006.12611 [astro-ph.HE]]

2020 arXiv
[10]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific, KAGRA and VIRGO], Astrophys. J. Lett. 915 (2021) no.1, L5 doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac082e [arXiv:2106.15163 [astro-ph.HE]]

2021 arXiv
[11]

Prunier, G

M. Prunier, G. Morr´ as, J. F. N. Siles, S. Clesse, J. Garc ´ ıa-Bellido and E. Ruiz Morales, Phys. Dark Univ. 46 (2024), 101582 doi:10.1016/j.dark.2024.101582 [arXiv:2311.16085 [gr-qc]]

2024
[12]

Dasgupta, R

B. Dasgupta, R. Laha and A. Ray, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) no.14, 141105 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.141105 [arXiv:2009.01825 [astro-ph.HE]]

2021 arXiv
[14]

Ray, Phys

A. Ray, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) no.8, 083012 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.083012 [arXiv:2301.03625 [hep-ph]]

2023 arXiv
[16]

N. F. Bell, G. Busoni, S. Robles and M. Virgato, JCAP 03 (2021), 086 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/03/086 [arXiv:2010.13257 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[17]

Bramante, A

J. Bramante, A. Delgado and A. Martin, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) no.6, 063002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.063002 [arXiv:1703.04043 [hep-ph]]

2017 arXiv
[19]

Aalbers et al

J. Aalbers et al. [LZ], Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) no.4, 041002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.041002 [arXiv:2207.03764 [hep-ex]]

2023 arXiv
[20]

Basumatary, N

U. Basumatary, N. Raj and A. Ray, [arXiv:2410.22702 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[21]

Bramante and N

J. Bramante and N. Raj, Phys. Rept. 1052 (2024), 1-48 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2023.12.001 [arXiv:2307.14435 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [13]

Bhattacharya, B

S. Bhattacharya, B. Dasgupta, R. Laha and A. Ray, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) no.9, 091401 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.091401 [arXiv:2302.07898 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2023

[2] [15]

Bhattacharya, A

S. Bhattacharya, A. L. Miller and A. Ray, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), 043006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.043006 [arXiv:2403.13886 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2024

[3] [18]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific, VIRGO and KAGRA], Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 524 (2023) no.4, 5984-5992 [erratum: Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 526 (2023) no.4, 6234] doi:10.1093/mnras/stad588 [arXiv:2212.01477 [astro-ph.HE]]

arXiv 2023

[4] [1]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. [Planck], Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020), A6 doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/201833910 [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2020

[5] [2]

Cirelli, A

M. Cirelli, A. Strumia and J. Zupan, [arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]]

arXiv

[6] [3]

L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) no.4, 043541 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.043541 [arXiv:1610.08297 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2017

[7] [4]

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

doi:10.1093/mnras/168.2.399 1974

[8] [5]

G. F. Chapline, Nature 253 (1975) no.5489, 251-252 doi:10.1038/253251a0

doi:10.1038/253251a0 1975