Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Exploring Ultralight Dark Matter Self-Coupling via the Gravitational Wave Background

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper predicts that dynamical friction from self-interacting ultralight dark matter solitons imprints a frequency dip in the nanohertz gravitational-wave background, letting pulsar timing array data constrain the dark matter mass and…

desk verdict A promising new mechanism—soliton dynamical friction distorting the nHz SGWB—but the headline constraints rest on an extrapolated soliton-halo relation that is explicitly admitted to weaken exactly in the regime used. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19505 v1 pith:4ADL2K2X submitted 2025-04-28 hep-ph astro-ph.GAgr-qc

Pratick Sarkar This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.GAgr-qc
keywords ultralightdarkmattersolitoncoresself-interactingstochasticgravitationalwavebackgroundpulsartimingarraysdynamicalfrictionsupermassiveblackholebinariesGross-Pitaevskii-Poissonequations
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

The paper argues that when two supermassive black holes merge inside a soliton -- a dense, wavelike core of ultralight dark matter -- the stochastic gravitational-wave background they produce is suppressed in the nanohertz band by dynamical friction. The suppression is a sudden dip in the strain spectrum, and its frequency is set by the soliton density, the black hole masses, and the dark matter self-coupling. For $m=10^{-21}$ eV and $M_{\bullet}=10^{8.5}\,M_\odot$, the benchmark critical frequency is $f_{\rm cr}\simeq 3.72$ nHz, inside the band probed by pulsar timing arrays. The paper concludes that current measurements of the background amplitude and spectral slope can exclude parts of the ULDM mass--self-coupling plane, most cleanly attractive self-couplings near $m\sim 10^{-21}$ eV.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the dimensionless Gross-Pitaevskii-Poisson system $\hat\gamma\hat\chi = (-\frac12\hat\nabla^2+\hat V-\hat\alpha/\hat r+2\hat\lambda\hat\chi^2)\hat\chi$, $\hat\nabla^2\hat V=\hat\chi^2$, whose ground-state solutions describe solitons around a black hole. The paper exploits the system's scaling symmetry, parametrized by $s$, to map numerical solutions onto physical profiles whose total mass matches the empirical soliton-halo relation $M_{\rm sol}=2.67\times10^8(M_{\rm halo}/10^{13}M_\odot)^{1/3}(m/10^{-21}\,\mathrm{eV})^{-1}M_\odot$. The friction enters through the Chandrasekhar force $F_{\rm DF}=4\pi G_N^2\mu^2\rho C_{\rm cl}/v_{\rm rel}^2$, and the dip's position is fixed by equating $W_{\rm DF}$ with the quadrupole gravitational-wave power. The final comparison uses the $A_{\rm GW}$--$\gamma_{\rm GW}$ correlation measured by pulsar timing arrays as the observable.

What would settle it

Look at the gravitational-wave strain in the 1--30 nHz band for the benchmark case: if no dip appears at $f_{\rm cr}\simeq 3.72$ nHz (with $m=10^{-21}$ eV, $M_\bullet=10^{8.5}M_\odot$, $\hat\lambda=-1$), or if an SMBH-inclusive simulation gives a soliton mass at $M_{\rm halo}=10^{13}M_\odot$ that shifts $f_{\rm cr}$ out of the band, the paper's limits on $\lambda$ do not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, on the paper's own terms, is that soliton-induced dynamical friction is not a small correction: it can dominate gravitational-wave emission inside the soliton core and produce a measurable dip in the nanohertz spectrum. The dip's location follows from equating the two energy-loss rates, $W_{\rm GW}=W_{\rm DF}$, which defines the critical radius $r_{\rm cr}$ and the corresponding frequency $f_{\rm cr}$. For an equal-mass binary with $M_{\bullet}=10^{8.5}\,M_\odot$, $m=10^{-21}$ eV, and dimensionless self-coupling $\hat\lambda=-1$, the numbers are $r_{\rm cr}\simeq 8\times 10^{-3}$ pc and $f_{\rm cr}\simeq 3.72$ nHz. Varying $\hat\lambda$ shifts the soliton density profile and hence the dip, and the resulting model points $(A_{\rm GW},\gamma_{\rm GW})$ move relative to the pulsar timing array posteriors; the paper uses that comparison to bound $\lambda$, quoting $\lambda\sim -3.47\times 10^{-92}$ for $m=10^{-21}$ eV at $\hat\lambda=-0.5$, and a theoretical cap $|\lambda|\le 1.77\times 10^{-91}(m/10^{-21}\,\mathrm{eV})^2$ from soliton stability.

Load-bearing premise

The constraints collapse if the empirically calibrated soliton-halo mass relation, measured in dark-matter-only simulations of halos below $5\times10^{11}M_\odot$, still holds at $M_{\rm halo}=10^{13}M_\odot$ in the presence of a central supermassive black hole; Appendix B concedes this relation weakens precisely there.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the dip is real, pulsar timing array measurements of $(A_{\rm GW},\gamma_{\rm GW})$ immediately translate into exclusion regions in the $(m,\lambda)$ plane: attractive self-couplings near $m\sim 10^{-21}$ eV and repulsive couplings near $m\sim 10^{-21}$ eV are the most accessible.
  • The paper's accretion-time bound excludes ULDM particles heavier than about $10^{-21}$ eV from forming the relevant solitons, so a confirmed dip would point to the lighter part of the mass window.
  • A null result at the predicted frequency would not disprove ultralight dark matter; it would set an upper bound on the soliton density or the self-coupling strength, which is a testable constraint in its own right.
  • Because the dip frequency scales with $\rho_0^{-2/11}$ through $r_{\rm cr}$, measuring $f_{\rm cr}$ would give a direct estimate of the central soliton density for a fixed black-hole mass.
  • Future pulsar timing arrays extending to roughly $100$ nHz and probing lower-mass supermassive black hole populations would access a wider range of $\hat\lambda$ and smaller soliton densities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Pith inference: the same dynamical-friction mechanism should also suppress or shift the gravitational-wave signal from individual nearby supermassive black hole binaries, so targeted single-source searches could corroborate the background dip with independent data.
  • Pith inference: the relation between $f_{\rm cr}$ and the soliton density could be inverted to measure $\rho_0$ without relying on the soliton-halo scaling, because $r_{\rm cr}\propto\rho_0^{-2/11}$ and $f_{\rm cr}$ follows from Kepler's law.
  • Pith inference: if repulsive self-coupling were ever detected in the $\hat\lambda>0$ window, it would disfavor simple axion-like cosine potentials, which can only produce attractive quartic coupling; conversely, a null result in the attractive window would harden the accretion-time mass bound.
  • Pith inference: applying the same calculation to lighter black hole binaries observable by space-based detectors in the millihertz band would shift the critical frequency upward and test the scaling of $\lambda$ with $s$ at a different mass scale.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies the imprint of self-interacting ultralight dark matter (ULDM) solitons on the nanohertz stochastic gravitational wave background (SGWB) from supermassive black hole (SMBH) binaries. The author solves the Gross-Pitaevskii-Poisson (GPP) system numerically for soliton profiles around a central SMBH for a range of dimensionless self-coupling values lambda_hat, rescales the profiles using the Schive et al. soliton-halo mass relation to fix the physical soliton mass, and then computes the dynamical-friction correction to the GW energy spectrum. The key result is a frequency dip near f_cr ~ 3.7 nHz for m = 1e-21 eV, M_bullet = 1e8.5 M_sun, lambda_hat = -1, inside the PTA band. The paper uses PTA (A_GW, gamma_GW) correlations to argue that attractive couplings lambda_hat in [-1,0] can be probed, and converts lambda_hat into physical lambda values of order 1e-92.

Significance. If the calculation is robust, it offers a genuinely new observable for ULDM self-interactions: the position and shape of a dynamical-friction-induced dip in the SGWB spectrum. The paper contains real numerical GPP solutions, a transparent derivation of the critical radius, and a clear connection to published PTA likelihood contours. However, the quantitative claims rest on several unvalidated ingredients: an extrapolation of the soliton-halo mass relation by more than an order of magnitude in halo mass and into a regime with a central SMBH; a lambda-independent normalization that is then used to infer lambda-dependent constraints; and an ad hoc exponential cutoff that controls the dip. These issues do not invalidate the mechanism, but they currently prevent the limits from being considered rigorous.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section II.A, Eq. (17), Appendix B] The physical soliton mass is fixed by Eq. (17), a relation calibrated on DM-only simulations with M_halo ~ 1e9-5e11 M_sun and no SMBH, and is then applied at M_halo = 1e13 M_sun in the presence of a ~1e8.5 M_sun SMBH. Appendix B itself states that for M_halo >~ 1e12 M_sun 'the relation weakens but remains useful,' yet no uncertainty is propagated. This is load-bearing because Eq. (18) sets the scaling s, the density scales as s^{-4}, and Eq. (30) gives f_cr proportional to rho_0^{3/11}, so f_cr scales as M_sol^{12/11}; an order-of-magnitude error in M_sol shifts the benchmark 3.72 nHz feature to roughly 0.3 or 44 nHz, outside the PTA band. Please either validate the relation in this regime or propagate a conservative uncertainty into all constraints.
  2. [Section II.B and Section IV.C] Equation (17) is independent of lambda_hat, but in a self-interacting ULDM model the soliton mass for a given halo should depend on the self-coupling. The paper uses this lambda-independent relation to normalize the density profiles for every lambda_hat and then treats the resulting family of spectra as a scan over lambda. Moreover, the physical coupling of the rescaled soliton is lambda = 1.35e-96 s^2 lambda_hat (m/1e-21 eV)^2 via Eq. (10) and the scaling s^2, so the abscissa of the figures is not the physical lambda of the final soliton. The constraints in Fig. 4 therefore mix the assumed normalization with the actual model parameter. Please clarify the mapping and, ideally, use a lambda-dependent soliton-halo relation or demonstrate that Eq. (17) remains valid for the lambda range considered.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (31)] The exponential cutoff e^{-(f_sol/f_s)^{2/3}} is introduced without derivation or a quantitative definition of f_sol. The calculation uses the central density rho_0 in Eq. (30) rather than the local density rho(r), so the cutoff is a proxy for the radial dependence of the soliton. The dip depth and width, which drive the claimed exclusion regions, depend sensitively on this ad hoc factor. Please derive the cutoff from the soliton density profile or, failing that, show that the constraints are robust to changing the cutoff.
  4. [Section III and Section IV] The SGWB in Eq. (27) requires an integral over the SMBH mass function, but the figures and discussion focus on monochromatic binaries with M_bullet = 1e8.5 or 1e9 M_sun. Since f_cr scales approximately as M_bullet^{-21/22}, a realistic mass function spanning 1e8-1e9 M_sun spreads the dip over roughly a decade in frequency and may wash out the feature shown in Figs. 2-3. Please clarify whether Figs. 2-3 show a population-integrated spectrum; if they show a single-mass spectrum, demonstrate explicitly that the integrated spectrum retains the dip.
  5. [Section IV.D, Fig. 5] The comparison with PTA A_GW-gamma_GW posteriors assumes that the modified spectrum can be represented by a single power law over the PTA band, but the predicted spectrum is strongly non-power-law near the dip. The inferred (A_GW, gamma_GW) will depend on the fitting band and weighting, neither of which is specified. Without this information, the statement that 'the range of lambda_hat that lies within the correlated regions is relatively narrow' is not reproducible. Please specify the fitting procedure or use a full likelihood.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A1)] Equation (A1) appears to be missing the kinetic term; it reads '1/2 ∇^2 = ...' and should presumably be '−1/2 ∇^2 χ = ...'.
  2. [Section IV.B and Fig. 5] The text states that the study is restricted to -1/2 <= lambda_hat <= 1/2 (Eq. 34), but the figures and the accompanying discussion include lambda_hat = ±1; please reconcile this inconsistency.
  3. [Section V] The mass range '(10^-22 - 10^-20) eV' stated in the conclusions contradicts the earlier '(10^-22 - 10^-21) eV' and the accretion-time bound that excludes m > 1e-21 eV; please correct the range.
  4. [Throughout] There are numerous typos, including 'gravitaional', 'W ave', 'garvity', 'abandunce', and inconsistent uses of 'NANOGRAV' versus 'NANOGrav'; these should be fixed in a revision.
  5. [Section II.B] Equation (19) gives log10(M_BH/M_sun) = 8.18 for M_halo = 1e13 M_sun, but the benchmark in the main figures uses M_bullet = 1e8.5 M_sun; please justify the difference or use a consistent value.
  6. [Fig. 4 caption] The cyan shading is described as the range probed by PTA observations, but the text says only certain lambda_hat values fall inside the PTA window; please clarify whether the shading denotes the PTA band or the theoretically allowed region.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central comparison (soliton GPP profiles to SGWB dip to PTA posteriors) is parameter-scanned against external data, not fitted to it.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: solve the dimensionless Gross-Pitaevskii-Poisson equations for fixed SMBH parameter alpha_hat and scanned self-coupling lambda_hat; fix the physical normalization by the externally calibrated soliton-halo relation of Schive et al. (Eq. 17); build density profiles; compute the dynamical-friction-to-GW power ratio and the critical frequency f_cr; then compare the resulting (A_GW, gamma_GW) curves with NANOGrav, EPTA, and PPTA posteriors. Lambda is scanned, not fitted to the PTA data, and the PTA data are not used to determine the scaling s, the density profiles, or the critical frequency. The predicted dip therefore has independent content with respect to the data it is compared against. The empirical core-halo relation in Eq. 17 is an external simulation result, and the paper explicitly flags in Appendix B that the relation 'weakens but remains useful' for Mhalo above 10^12 Msun and for different ULDM masses; this is an extrapolation/robustness limitation, not a circular reduction of the predicted signal to an input. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain, no parameter fitted to the target observable and then renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness or ansatz imported from the author's own prior work. The extrapolation of Eq. 17 to Mhalo = 10^13 Msun with a central SMBH is a legitimate scientific concern, but it is a correctness risk rather than circularity.

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

The paper introduces no new particles. Its constraints depend on a chain of empirical and modeling assumptions: the soliton-halo mass relation, the SMBH-halo relation, the merger rate, and the dynamical friction coefficient. These are inherited from prior literature, not derived here, and their uncertainties are not propagated into the quoted limits.

free parameters (4)
  • ULDM mass m = scanned 10^-22 to 10^-21 eV
    The central observable frequency f_cr depends on m through the soliton density and scaling; m is scanned, not fitted, but is a free input to the model.
  • dimensionless self-coupling lambda_hat = scanned -1 to 1
    Scanned to produce different soliton profiles; converted to the dimensional lambda through Eq. 10 and the scaling s.
  • dynamical friction coefficient factors (ell, p) = ell=10, p=1/2
    Taken from Ref. [71] with 'moderate astrophysical uncertainties'; the spectral dip location scales as (ell p)^(3/11), so a factor 2 changes the bound by about 20 percent.
  • exponential cutoff scale (f_sol) = set by soliton radius from density profile
    The factor exp[-(f_sol/f_s)^(2/3)] in Eq. 31 is introduced by hand to model the finite soliton size; the shape is an ansatz.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Soliton-halo mass relation Eq. 17 extends to M_halo = 10^13 M_sun and to systems with a central SMBH.
    The relation is from DM-only simulations with M_halo ~ 10^9 to 5e11 M_sun and no black hole; the paper explicitly assumes it holds and notes it 'weakens' at 10^12 M_sun and above.
  • domain assumption Classical Chandrasekhar dynamical friction (Eq. 25) describes the drag on SMBHs moving through a wave-like ULDM soliton.
    The wavelike nature of ULDM can alter the friction law; the paper absorbs this into order-unity factors ell and p.
  • domain assumption SMBH mass scales with halo mass via Eq. 19 for M_halo = 10^13 M_sun.
    Used to fix the binary mass M_* for the density profile and spectral calculations; scatter in this relation is not propagated.
  • domain assumption The boson star maximum mass formula Eq. 35 applies to solitons hosting a central SMBH.
    Eq. 35 is derived for isolated self-gravitating Bose-Einstein condensates; its use for solitons strongly perturbed by a black hole is an extrapolation.
  • domain assumption SMBH binary merger rate parameters from Ref. [85] (18 empirical parameters) are correct.
    The SGWB amplitude normalization and the A_GW, gamma_GW relation depend on the merger rate; the paper does not vary these parameters.
  • standard math The metric is Newtonian, weak-field, with the SMBH treated as a point mass.
    The GPP equations are derived in the weak-gravity, slow-varying limit; valid for the scales considered.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring Ultralight Dark Matter Self-Coupling via the Gravitational Wave Background." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4ADL2K2X

@misc{pith2026250419505,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring Ultralight Dark Matter Self-Coupling via the Gravitational Wave Background},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4ADL2K2X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19505}
}
read the original abstract

Supermassive black hole binary mergers serve as prominent sources of the stochastic gravitational wave background (SGWB), detectable by pulsar timing arrays (PTAs). If dark matter-induced friction is present in the vicinity of these mergers, it can lead to suppression in the nanohertz frequency range of the SGWB spectrum. In particular, ultralight dark matter (ULDM) forming compact solitonic cores around supermassive black holes can imprint signatures in PTA observations. Our analysis places limits on the mass and self-interaction strength of ULDM, demonstrating that soliton-induced dynamical friction can significantly alter the SGWB spectrum. PTAs have the potential to exclude certain ULDM mass ranges while probing the effects of self-interactions, offering a novel avenue to investigate the fundamental properties of ULDM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19505 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Numerical solutions to the GPP equation are presented for a halo mass of 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The GW strains corresponding to different DM density profiles, characterized by distinct self-coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The GW strains corresponding to different DM density profiles, characterized by distinct self-coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The estimated values of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The amplitude of the GW strain with change of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Solutions of the coupled, dimensionless [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Amount of scaling with different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Correlation between the GW amplitude ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.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. Ultralight Boson Ionization from Comparable-Mass Binary Black Holes

    gr-qc 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Ionization of boson molecules bound to a black hole binary can dominate gravitational-wave losses during early inspiral, imprinting a turnover in the nanohertz GW background and circularizing the orbit.

  2. Constraints on High-Frequency Gravitational Waves from Graviton-Photon Conversion in the M87 Galaxy

    hep-ph 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Graviton–photon conversion in M87's magnetic field sets h_c and Ωgw h² limits 1–5 orders of magnitude tighter than Milky Way-based bounds across 10^10–10^27 Hz.

  3. Probing Self-Interacting Dark Matter via Gravitational-Wave Background from Eccentric Supermassive Black Hole Mergers

    astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Eccentric supermassive black hole binaries embedded in self-interacting dark matter produce a suppressed nanohertz gravitational-wave background, and current PTA data bound the cross section at sigma/mchi less than ab...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Although ˆχ(ˆr = 0) = 0 may also yield solutions, these are not realistic for modeling physical soliton pro- files, since the other dimensionless parameters are O(1)

    = 0. Although ˆχ(ˆr = 0) = 0 may also yield solutions, these are not realistic for modeling physical soliton pro- files, since the other dimensionless parameters are O(1). Details of the numerical procedure are provided in the Appendix A. For each unique solution, the total mass of the soliton is given by M = ℏc GNm Z ∞ 0 ˆχ2ˆr2dˆr = 1.33× 1011M⊙ 10−21 eV...

  2. [2]

    In this study, we do not focus on cases where self-interactions dominate gravity, as the GPP equations enter into a highly non-linear regime, intro- ducing additional complexities

    (34) Here, a negative ˆλ corresponds to attractive self- interactions, while a positive ˆλ corresponds to repulsive self-interactions. In this study, we do not focus on cases where self-interactions dominate gravity, as the GPP equations enter into a highly non-linear regime, intro- ducing additional complexities. Eq. 34 gives a dimensionless limit of the...

  3. [3]

    We use the ar- bitrary normalization ˆχ(ˆr = 0) = 1 to get the non zero value at the center

    = 0, ˆV (ˆr = 0) = 0 , ˆV′(ˆr = 0) = 0. We use the ar- bitrary normalization ˆχ(ˆr = 0) = 1 to get the non zero value at the center. For a fixed SMBH mass parameter ˆα corresponding to halo mass Mhalo = 1013M⊙(shown in 11 the table), we choose the ˆλ parameter ofO(1). To solve this system of differential equations, we apply a shoot- ing method. This metho...

  4. [4]

    V. C. Rubin, N. Thonnard, and W. K. Ford, Jr., Ro- tational properties of 21 SC galaxies with a large range of luminosities and radii, from NGC 4605 /R = 4kpc/ to UGC 2885 /R = 122 kpc/, Astrophys. J.238, 471 (1980)

    1980

  5. [5]

    Corbelli and P

    E. Corbelli and P. Salucci, The Extended Rotation Curve and the Dark Matter Halo of M33, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 311, 441 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9909252

    arXiv 2000

  6. [6]

    Weak Gravitational Lensing by Large-Scale Structure

    A. Refregier, Weak gravitational lensing by large scale structure, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 41, 645 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0307212

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    S. W. Allen, A. E. Evrard, and A. B. Mantz, Cosmo- logical Parameters from Observations of Galaxy Clus- ters, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 49, 409 (2011), arXiv:1103.4829 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    V. A. Rubakov, Cosmology and dark matter, CERN Yel- low Rep. School Proc. 5, 129 (2022), arXiv:1912.04727 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Profumo, L

    S. Profumo, L. Giani, and O. F. Piattella, An Introduc- tion to Particle Dark Matter, Universe 5, 213 (2019), arXiv:1910.05610 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bertone and D

    G. Bertone and D. Hooper, History of dark matter, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 045002 (2018), arXiv:1605.04909 [astro- ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    P. W. Graham, I. G. Irastorza, S. K. Lamoreaux, A. Lind- ner, and K. A. van Bibber, Experimental Searches for the Axion and Axion-Like Particles, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 65, 485 (2015), arXiv:1602.00039 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Schumann, Direct Detection of WIMP Dark Mat- ter: Concepts and Status, J

    M. Schumann, Direct Detection of WIMP Dark Mat- ter: Concepts and Status, J. Phys. G 46, 103003 (2019), arXiv:1903.03026 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    J. M. Gaskins, A review of indirect searches for par- ticle dark matter, Contemp. Phys. 57, 496 (2016), arXiv:1604.00014 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, Dark Matter (2024), arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Boveia and C

    A. Boveia and C. Doglioni, Dark Matter Searches at Colliders, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 429 (2018), arXiv:1810.12238 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    R. A. Flores and J. R. Primack, Observational and theo- retical constraints on singular dark matter halos, Astro- phys. J. Lett. 427, L1 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9402004

    1994 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Moore, Evidence against dissipationless dark mat- ter from observations of galaxy haloes, Nature 370, 629 (1994)

    B. Moore, Evidence against dissipationless dark mat- ter from observations of galaxy haloes, Nature 370, 629 (1994)

    1994

  11. [19]

    J. S. Bullock and M. Boylan-Kolchin, Small-Scale Chal- lenges to the ΛCDM Paradigm, Ann. Rev. Astron. As- trophys. 55, 343 (2017), arXiv:1707.04256 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Zavala and C

    J. Zavala and C. S. Frenk, Dark matter haloes and sub- haloes, Galaxies 7, 81 (2019), arXiv:1907.11775 [astro- ph.CO]. 14

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, Cold and fuzzy dark matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1158 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003365

    2000 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Del Popolo and M

    A. Del Popolo and M. Le Delliou, Small scale problems of the ΛCDM model: a short review, Galaxies 5, 17 (2017), arXiv:1606.07790 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    D. J. E. Marsh and A.-R. Pop, Axion dark matter, soli- tons and the cusp–core problem, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 451, 2479 (2015), arXiv:1502.03456 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    R. G. Garc´ ıa, P. Brax, and P. Valageas, Solitons and halos for self-interacting scalar dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043516 (2024), arXiv:2304.10221 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    P. Brax, J. A. R. Cembranos, and P. Valageas, Impact of kinetic and potential self-interactions on scalar dark mat- ter, Phys. Rev. D 100, 023526 (2019), arXiv:1906.00730 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    P. Brax, J. A. R. Cembranos, and P. Valageas, Fate of scalar dark matter solitons around supermassive galac- tic black holes, Phys. Rev. D 101, 023521 (2020), arXiv:1909.02614 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Ul- tralight scalars as cosmological dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 95, 043541 (2017), arXiv:1610.08297 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    N. Bar, K. Blum, T. Lacroix, and P. Panci, Looking for ultralight dark matter near supermassive black holes, JCAP 07, 045, arXiv:1905.11745 [astro-ph.CO]

    1905 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Gross, Classical theory of boson wave fields, Annals of Physics 4, 57 (1958)

    E. Gross, Classical theory of boson wave fields, Annals of Physics 4, 57 (1958)

    1958

  22. [30]

    E. P. Gross, Structure of a quantized vortex in boson systems, Il Nuovo Cimento 20, 454 (1961)

    1961

  23. [31]

    L. P. PITAEVSKII, Vortex lines in an imperfect bose gas, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 13, 451-454. 13, 451 (1961)

    1961

  24. [32]

    Barenghi and N

    C. Barenghi and N. G. Parker, A Primer on Quantum Fluids (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Glennon, N

    N. Glennon, N. Musoke, E. O. Nadler, C. Prescod- Weinstein, and R. H. Wechsler, Dynamical friction in self-interacting ultralight dark matter, Phys. Rev. D109, 063501 (2024), arXiv:2312.07684 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Alonso- ´Alvarez, J

    G. Alonso- ´Alvarez, J. M. Cline, and C. Dewar, Self- Interacting Dark Matter Solves the Final Parsec Problem of Supermassive Black Hole Mergers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 021401 (2024), arXiv:2401.14450 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Teodori, A

    L. Teodori, A. Caputo, and K. Blum, Ultra-Light Dark Matter Simulations and Stellar Dynamics: Tension in Dwarf Galaxies for m < 5 × 10−21 eV, (2025), arXiv:2501.07631 [astro-ph.GA]

    2025

  28. [36]

    Antoniadis et al

    J. Antoniadis et al. (EPTA, InPTA:), The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - III. Search for gravitational wave signals, Astron. Astrophys. 678, A50 (2023), arXiv:2306.16214 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Antoniadis et al

    J. Antoniadis et al. (EPTA, InPTA), The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - IV. Implications for massive black holes, dark matter, and the early Universe, Astron. Astrophys. 685, A94 (2024), arXiv:2306.16227 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    D. J. Reardon et al. , Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pul- sar Timing Array, Astrophys. J. Lett. 951, L6 (2023), arXiv:2306.16215 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Zic et al

    A. Zic et al. , The Parkes Pulsar Timing Array third data release, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. 40, e049 (2023), arXiv:2306.16230 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    D. J. Reardon et al., The Gravitational-wave Background Null Hypothesis: Characterizing Noise in Millisecond Pulsar Arrival Times with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Ar- ray, Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L7 (2023), arXiv:2306.16229 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Agazie et al

    G. Agazie et al. (NANOGrav), The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Constraints on Supermassive Black Hole Bina- ries from the Gravitational-wave Background, Astrophys. J. Lett. 952, L37 (2023), arXiv:2306.16220 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Afzal et al

    A. Afzal et al. (NANOGrav), The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Search for Signals from New Physics, Astrophys. J. Lett. 951, L11 (2023), arXiv:2306.16219 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Xu et al

    H. Xu et al. , Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 23, 075024 (2023), arXiv:2306.16216 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Agazie et al

    G. Agazie et al. (International Pulsar Timing Array), Comparing Recent Pulsar Timing Array Results on the Nanohertz Stochastic Gravitational-wave Background, Astrophys. J. 966, 105 (2024), arXiv:2309.00693 [astro- ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    M. C. Begelman, R. D. Blandford, and M. J. Rees, Mas- sive black hole binaries in active galactic nuclei, Nature 287, 307 (1980)

    1980

  38. [46]

    N. J. McConnell and C.-P. Ma, Revisiting the Scaling Relations of Black Hole Masses and Host Galaxy Prop- erties, Astrophys. J. 764, 184 (2013), arXiv:1211.2816 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  39. [47]

    E. S. Phinney, A practical theorem on gravitational wave backgrounds, arXiv: astro-ph/0108028 (2001)

    2001 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Hu, R.-G

    L. Hu, R.-G. Cai, and S.-J. Wang, Distinctive GWBs from eccentric inspiraling SMBH binaries with a DM spike, JCAP 02, 067, arXiv:2312.14041 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Chen et al

    Y. Chen et al. (NANOGrav), Galaxy Tomography with the Gravitational Wave Background from Supermassive Black Hole Binaries, (2024), arXiv:2411.05906 [astro- ph.HE]

    2024

  42. [50]

    Chandrasekhar, Dynamical Friction

    S. Chandrasekhar, Dynamical Friction. I. General Con- siderations: the Coefficient of Dynamical Friction, Astro- phys. J. 97, 255 (1943)

    1943

  43. [51]

    L. M. Widrow and N. Kaiser, Using the Schroedinger Equation to Simulate Collisionless Matter, ApJ,416, L71 (1993)

    1993

  44. [52]

    Coles and K

    P. Coles and K. Spencer, A wave-mechanical approach to cosmic structure formation, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 342, 176 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0212433

    2003 arXiv

  45. [53]

    E. Y. Davies and P. Mocz, Fuzzy Dark Matter Soliton Cores around Supermassive Black Holes, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 492, 5721 (2020), arXiv:1908.04790 [astro- ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    N. Bar, D. Blas, K. Blum, and S. Sibiryakov, Galactic rotation curves versus ultralight dark matter: Implica- tions of the soliton-host halo relation, Phys. Rev. D 98, 083027 (2018), arXiv:1805.00122 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Tremaine and J

    S. Tremaine and J. E. Gunn, Dynamical Role of Light Neutral Leptons in Cosmology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 407 (1979)

    1979

  48. [56]

    Hui, Wave Dark Matter, Ann

    L. Hui, Wave Dark Matter, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 59, 247 (2021), arXiv:2101.11735 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Kormendy and D

    J. Kormendy and D. Richstone, Inward bound: The Search for supermassive black holes in galactic nuclei, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 33, 581 (1995)

    1995

  50. [58]

    Kormendy and L

    J. Kormendy and L. C. Ho, Coevolution (Or Not) of Su- permassive Black Holes and Host Galaxies, Ann. Rev. As- 15 tron. Astrophys. 51, 511 (2013), arXiv:1304.7762 [astro- ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  51. [59]

    A. E. Reines, Hunting for massive black holes in dwarf galaxies, Nature Astron. 6, 26 (2022), arXiv:2201.10569 [astro-ph.GA]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Ruffini and J

    R. Ruffini and J. A. Wheeler, Introducing the black hole, Phys. Today 24, 30 (1971)

    1971

  53. [61]

    Israel, Event horizons in static vacuum space-times, Phys

    W. Israel, Event horizons in static vacuum space-times, Phys. Rev. 164, 1776 (1967)

    1967

  54. [62]

    Israel, Event horizons in static electrovac space-times, Commun

    W. Israel, Event horizons in static electrovac space-times, Commun. Math. Phys. 8, 245 (1968)

    1968

  55. [63]

    Carter, Axisymmetric Black Hole Has Only Two De- grees of Freedom, Phys

    B. Carter, Axisymmetric Black Hole Has Only Two De- grees of Freedom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 331 (1971)

    1971

  56. [64]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Transcendence of the law of baryon- number conservation in black hole physics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 452 (1972)

    1972

  57. [65]

    Cardoso, T

    V. Cardoso, T. Ikeda, R. Vicente, and M. Zilh˜ ao, Par- asitic black holes: The swallowing of a fuzzy dark matter soliton, Phys. Rev. D 106, L121302 (2022), arXiv:2207.09469 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Figueiredo, A

    E. Figueiredo, A. Maselli, and V. Cardoso, Black holes surrounded by generic dark matter profiles: Appear- ance and gravitational-wave emission, Phys. Rev. D107, 104033 (2023), arXiv:2303.08183 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Zhong, V

    Z. Zhong, V. Cardoso, T. Ikeda, and M. Zilh˜ ao, Piercing of a solitonic boson star by a black hole, Phys. Rev. D 108, 084051 (2023), arXiv:2307.02548 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Chakrabarti, B

    S. Chakrabarti, B. Dave, K. Dutta, and G. Goswami, Constraints on the mass and self-coupling of ultra-light scalar field dark matter using observational limits on galactic central mass, JCAP 09, 074, arXiv:2202.11081 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  61. [69]

    V. Lora, J. Magana, A. Bernal, F. J. Sanchez-Salcedo, and E. K. Grebel, On the mass of ultra-light bosonic dark matter from galactic dynamics, JCAP 02, 011, arXiv:1110.2684 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    Barranco, A

    J. Barranco, A. Bernal, J. C. Degollado, A. Diez-Tejedor, M. Megevand, M. Alcubierre, D. Nunez, and O. Sar- bach, Are black holes a serious threat to scalar field dark matter models?, Phys. Rev. D 84, 083008 (2011), arXiv:1108.0931 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Barranco, A

    J. Barranco, A. Bernal, J. C. Degollado, A. Diez-Tejedor, M. Megevand, M. Alcubierre, D. Nunez, and O. Sarbach, Schwarzschild black holes can wear scalar wigs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 081102 (2012), arXiv:1207.2153 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Schive, M.-H

    H.-Y. Schive, M.-H. Liao, T.-P. Woo, S.-K. Wong, T. Chi- ueh, T. Broadhurst, and W. Y. P. Hwang, Understanding the Core-Halo Relation of Quantum Wave Dark Mat- ter from 3D Simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 261302 (2014), arXiv:1407.7762 [astro-ph.GA]

    2014 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Bandara, D

    K. Bandara, D. Crampton, and L. Simard, A Relation- ship between Supermassive Black Hole Mass and the To- tal Gravitational Mass of the Host Galaxy, Astrophys. J. 704, 1135 (2009), arXiv:0909.0269 [astro-ph.GA]

    2009 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Ghoshal and A

    A. Ghoshal and A. Strumia, Probing the Dark Matter density with gravitational waves from super-massive bi- nary black holes, JCAP02, 054, arXiv:2306.17158 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv

  67. [75]

    Aghaie, G

    M. Aghaie, G. Armando, A. Dondarini, and P. Panci, Bounds on ultralight dark matter from NANOGrav, Phys. Rev. D 109, 103030 (2024), arXiv:2308.04590 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Maggiore, Gravitational Waves

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

    2007

  69. [77]

    Yue, W.-B

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

    2019 arXiv

  70. [78]

    J. A. Dror, B. V. Lehmann, H. H. Patel, and S. Profumo, Discovering new forces with gravitational waves from su- permassive black holes, Phys. Rev. D104, 083021 (2021), arXiv:2105.04559 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  71. [79]

    DeRocco and J

    W. DeRocco and J. A. Dror, Searching for stochastic gravitational waves below a nanohertz, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103011 (2023), arXiv:2304.13042 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Chavanis, Mass-radius relation of Newtonian self- gravitating Bose-Einstein condensates with short-range interactions: I

    P.-H. Chavanis, Mass-radius relation of Newtonian self- gravitating Bose-Einstein condensates with short-range interactions: I. Analytical results, Phys. Rev. D 84, 043531 (2011), arXiv:1103.2050 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  73. [81]

    D. G. Levkov, A. G. Panin, and I. I. Tkachev, Relativistic axions from collapsing Bose stars, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 011301 (2017), arXiv:1609.03611 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  74. [82]

    A. R. Kaiser and S. T. McWilliams, Sensitivity of present and future detectors across the black-hole binary gravi- tational wave spectrum, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 055009 (2021), arXiv:2010.02135 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Fairbairn, G. H¨ utsi, M. Raidal, J. Urru- tia, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Prospects for fu- ture binary black hole gravitational wave studies in light of PTA measurements, Astron. Astrophys. 676, A38 (2023), arXiv:2301.13854 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Colpi et al

    M. Colpi et al. (LISA), LISA Definition Study Report, (2024), arXiv:2402.07571 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Sesana, Insights into the astrophysics of supermas- sive black hole binaries from pulsar timing observations, Class

    A. Sesana, Insights into the astrophysics of supermas- sive black hole binaries from pulsar timing observations, Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 224014 (2013), arXiv:1307.2600 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Sesana, F

    A. Sesana, F. Shankar, M. Bernardi, and R. K. Sheth, Selection bias in dynamically measured supermassive black hole samples: consequences for pulsar timing ar- rays, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 463, L6 (2016), arXiv:1603.09348 [astro-ph.GA]

    2016 arXiv

  79. [87]

    S. Chen, A. Sesana, and W. Del Pozzo, Efficient com- putation of the gravitational wave spectrum emitted by eccentric massive black hole binaries in stellar environ- ments, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 470, 1738 (2017), arXiv:1612.00455 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  80. [88]

    S. Chen, A. Sesana, and C. J. Conselice, Constrain- ing astrophysical observables of Galaxy and Supermas- sive Black Hole Binary Mergers using Pulsar Timing Arrays, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 488, 401 (2019), arXiv:1810.04184 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Bernardi, A

    M. Bernardi, A. Meert, V. Vikram, M. Huertas- Company, S. Mei, F. Shankar, and R. K. Sheth, System- atic effects on the size-luminosity relation: dependence on model fitting and morphology (2012)

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.