Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Detecting dark objects in the Solar System with Gravitational Wave observatories

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the proposed DECIGO gravitational-wave observatory could detect dark matter clumps or primordial black holes with masses between $10^7$ and $10^{11}$ g by the Newtonian pull they exert on its test masses during…

desk verdict A clear, honest forecasting paper: DECIGO could detect fly-by dark objects in the 10^7-10^11 g window, with a minor but real noise-mapping caveat that deserves referee scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19577 v1 pith:32J3NHEW submitted 2025-07-25 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Valentin Thoss , Abraham Loeb This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO
keywords primordialblackholesdarkmatterclumpsDECIGOgravitationalwavedetectorssolarsystemfly-bysmemoryburdensignal-to-noiseratiodirectdetection
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

Dark matter remains invisible unless it interacts, but any compact dark object—a clump or a primordial black hole—still has mass, and that mass pulls on the test masses of a gravitational-wave detector. This paper works out the size of that pull for an object flying past any current or planned observatory, and shows that the proposed DECIGO mission should see at least one such fly-by within ten years if dark matter consists of clumps or black holes weighing $10^7$ to $10^{11}$ g at the local dark matter density. That mass range matters because the memory-burden effect may stop such light black holes from evaporating, making them a live dark matter candidate. The same calculation gives a general recipe for turning any gravitational-wave detector into a scale that can weigh unbound objects crossing the solar system.

What carries the argument

The central object is the analytic fly-by signal: for a point mass $M$ passing at closest distance $R$ with speed $v$, the differential acceleration between two test masses has Fourier transform $\delta a(\omega)=2GM\omega L/[v^2(\alpha R+\beta L)]\,K_1(\omega R/v)$ after averaging over encounter geometries, with $(\alpha,\beta)=(1.3,1.76)$ for an L-shaped detector and $(1.5,2.0)$ for a triangular one. Converted to strain $h(\omega)$ and combined with the detector noise $P_n(f)$ through the SNR integral, this yields the sensitivity volumes of each observatory. Poisson encounter statistics with mean closest distance $\langle R_{\min}\rangle=\sqrt{M/(4\rho v t)}$ convert those volumes into detection probabilities for a given dark matter density.

What would settle it

Take a known near-Earth asteroid or interstellar object with a measured ephemeris and mass estimate, compute the predicted fly-by burst with the paper's equations, then search existing gravitational-wave data for that exact template; if no event appears at the predicted false-alarm rate, the direct use of $P_n(f)$ for Newtonian signals is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes an analytic signal model for a transient Newtonian perturbation: a mass $M$ passing at velocity $v$ and closest approach $R$ produces a differential acceleration between two interferometer test masses whose spectrum is proportional to $K_1(\omega R/v)$, the modified Bessel function, with a geometry-averaged prefactor that depends only on the detector shape. Feeding this signal through the detector noise via the standard SNR integral, the authors find that DECIGO and BBO can reach signal-to-noise ratios above the detection threshold for a wide band of parameters, and that at the canonical dark matter velocity $v=300$ km s$^{-1}$ and density $\rho_{\rm DM}\approx 7\times10^{-25}$ g cm$^{-3}$, the mass window $M\in[10^7,10^{11}]$ g produces a detectable event at least once per ten years with high probability. The paper's core claim is that gravitational-wave observatories can therefore act as direct detectors for compact dark matter in a mass range previously considered inaccessible, provided the memory-burden effect keeps such light black holes from evaporating.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation rests on the assumption that a detector's strain-noise curve $P_n(f)$ can be applied directly to a Newtonian acceleration signal, without the frequency-dependent response function that applies to gravitational waves; if that mapping is wrong, every SNR and the inferred detectable mass and density ranges shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If DECIGO runs for ten years at its design sensitivity and dark matter is made of compact objects in the $10^7$–$10^{11}$ g window at the local density, a fly-by burst should be recorded at least once; seeing none would place an upper limit on the density of such objects over that mass range.
  • The detectable window coincides with the mass range that the memory-burden effect keeps alive for primordial black holes, so the experiment offers a direct gravitational test of that dark-matter scenario.
  • Detection volumes reaching millions of kilometres mean LISA, BBO and DECIGO could also weigh known asteroids or comets whose trajectories are measured, provided a close enough passage occurs.
  • For BBO and DECIGO, the reachable density is close to the estimated local dark matter density, while current detectors (aLIGO, CE, ET) and LISA need either relativistic velocities or much larger masses to reach a similar SNR.
  • The observable density scales inversely with observation time, so longer runs widen the constraint and shorter runs weaken it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the signal model depends only on Newtonian gravity and the object's trajectory, the same SNR calculation could be applied to proposed atom-gradiometer or satellite-ranging networks, potentially covering neighbouring mass windows and cross-checking the DECIGO band.
  • One could test the paper's noise-mapping assumption directly by injecting a simulated Newtonian fly-by into a LISA-like data-analysis pipeline and comparing the recovered SNR with Equation 9; this would separate a signal-model error from a detector-noise error.
  • If the memory-burden scenario is later excluded by other observations, a DECIGO null result would instead be read as a bound on the density of dark matter clumps, whose internal structure and survival are much less constrained.
  • Combining the paper's sensitivity volumes with known orbital catalogs of interstellar objects such as 3I/ATLAS could yield a forecast for how often a gravitational-wave observatory would be able to weigh such a body.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the gravitational perturbation that a compact object (dark matter clump or primordial black hole) flying through the Solar System would induce on the test masses of gravitational-wave observatories. It derives an analytic spectral signal, validates a fitted mean response over encounter geometries with Monte Carlo simulations, and then computes signal-to-noise ratios and false-alarm rates for aLIGO, CE, ET, LISA, BBO, and DECIGO. The central claim is that if such compact objects make up the local dark matter density, DECIGO has a good chance of detecting at least one fly-by within ten years for masses in the range 10^7-10^11 g, provided the 'memory burden' effect allows light primordial black holes to survive.

Significance. If the central claim survives scrutiny, the paper opens a genuinely new observational window for compact dark matter objects in a mass range that is otherwise difficult to probe, and it makes this connection to the currently debated memory-burden scenario explicit. The analytic signal derivation is clean, the Monte Carlo treatment of encounter geometry is a useful contribution, and the paper makes part of its numerical data publicly available. The main technical risk is not the derivation itself but the mapping between published GW strain sensitivity curves and the noise relevant for a direct Newtonian acceleration signal, which directly controls all quoted SNRs and density limits. The paper also depends on the memory-burden hypothesis for the mass window of primordial black holes, but this dependence is stated clearly and is an external input rather than an internal inconsistency.

major comments (3)
  1. [Computation of the signal, Eq. (9) and following paragraph] The use of published GW strain sensitivity curves Pn(f) for a Newtonian acceleration signal is not sufficiently justified. The curves from [28] are GW strain sensitivities, and for LISA-like detectors such curves are typically defined in terms of the sky- and polarization-averaged response to gravitational waves and include frequency-dependent transfer functions (see the LISA sensitivity construction in [27], which the paper cites). For a direct Newtonian force the observable is differential displacement, and the appropriate noise is the instrument's displacement/acceleration noise referred to strain, without the GW response factor. The argument that 'this suppression is not applicable' addresses the response function but does not establish whether the quoted Pn(f) includes it. Since every SNR and all derived densities and detection volumes in Figs. 3-6 scale with h(f)^2/Pn(f), this point is load-bearing. I request either an explicit statement, with formulas, that the Pn(f) used are the displacement-noise-only strain PSDs, or a cross-check against the acceleration/displacement noise specifications for DECIGO and LISA.
  2. [Eq. (7) and Figs. 5-6] The fitted mean perturbation ⟨δa(ω)⟩ has a documented maximum deviation of a factor of about 1.6 at R ≈ L/2. Because the analytic estimates in Fig. 5 (and the dashed line overlaid on Fig. 6) use this fit, the corresponding systematic uncertainty in the inferred density is roughly a factor of 2.5 in the sensitivity-limited regime (SNR is proportional to h, and ρ is proportional to 1/SNR^2). The paper should propagate this systematic error, for example by showing the resulting band in Fig. 5 or by computing the analytic curves directly from the Monte Carlo geometry samples used in Fig. 6.
  3. [Detection prospects, discussion of Fig. 6] The statement that a non-detection would constrain the dark matter density with 'less than 2 sigma based on our results' is not substantiated. The probability contours in Fig. 6 give the probability of at least one detection under the signal hypothesis, but they do not by themselves specify the confidence with which the null hypothesis (no fly-by signal) excludes a given density; one also needs the distribution of the detection statistic under noise and the trials factor from scanning over M and ρ. Please provide the calculation or remove the claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (13)] The false-alarm-rate formula is typeset ambiguously; please write it with explicit parentheses, e.g., FAR = [sqrt(C2 - C1^2)/(2π ξ)] exp(-ξ^2/2), and define the integration limits in Eq. (14).
  2. [Computation of the signal, Eq. (7)] The statement that angular dependence is accounted for by the factors α and β should clarify that these factors are Monte Carlo fit parameters, not first-principles coefficients; a short note on the fit uncertainty beyond the stated maximum deviation would help.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] Minor language issues: 'The dashed lines shows' should be 'The dashed lines show', and 'The axis have been rescaled' should be 'The axes have been rescaled'.
  4. [Detection prospects, MC simulation paragraph] The text contains a duplicated word: 'the proper motion of of the sun' should be 'the proper motion of the sun'.
  5. [Reference [28]] Reference [28] is incomplete as printed: it should include the publication year and full page/article number.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DECIGO detection estimate is derived self-contained from Newtonian fly-by signals, published noise curves, and Monte-Carlo geometry; the memory-burden mass window is an external astrophysical input, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. The signal is computed from first principles: Newtonian acceleration (Eq. 1), its analytic spectral density (Eq. 2), relative acceleration between test masses (Eq. 3), a Monte-Carlo-calibrated geometric mean formula (Eq. 7), and the resulting strain and SNR (Eqs. 8-9). The geometric factors alpha and beta are fit to Monte-Carlo simulations of encounter geometries, not to the detection claim itself; the detection mass/density window emerges from integrating these signals against published detector noise curves (refs. [28,29]) and from the false-alarm criterion (Eqs. 13-14). No quantity in Figs. 3-6 is obtained by fitting the target claim. The only self-citations, refs. [14] and [26], concern the memory-burden mass window and prior solar-system PBH studies; these are external astrophysical inputs, and the memory-burden scenario is additionally supported by multiple independent groups (refs. [15-18]). Even if those citations were absent, the central gravitational detectability calculation would stand unchanged as a conditional statement about any compact objects of the stated masses. The possible concern about using strain sensitivity Pn(f) directly for a Newtonian acceleration signal is a modeling/correctness matter, not circularity, since it is an assumption applied outside the fitted values rather than a prediction equivalent to an input.

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

The analysis introduces two fitted coefficients for the geometric average of the perturbation (alpha and beta), and relies on a set of assumptions about the signal, noise, and the nature of the dark objects. These are listed below; none of them are fitted to the target detection claim.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha (L-shaped detector) = 1.3
    Fitted to Monte Carlo sampling of encounter geometries for a LIGO-like L-shaped detector; appears in Eq. (7).
  • beta (L-shaped detector) = 1.76
    Fitted to Monte Carlo sampling of encounter geometries for a LIGO-like L-shaped detector; appears in Eq. (7).
  • alpha (triangular detector) = 1.5
    Fitted to Monte Carlo sampling of encounter geometries for LISA, BBO, and DECIGO triangular detectors; appears in Eq. (7).
  • beta (triangular detector) = 2.0
    Fitted to Monte Carlo sampling of encounter geometries for LISA, BBO, and DECIGO triangular detectors; appears in Eq. (7).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The perturber is a point mass on a straight-line trajectory, interacting only via Newtonian gravity.
    Used in Eq. (1) to compute the time-dependent acceleration of a test mass.
  • domain assumption The detector noise Pn(f) is the sole noise source and can be applied to the Newtonian signal without GW response corrections.
    The authors argue this in the paragraph after Eq. (9); it is the main unvalidated assumption.
  • standard math Encounter times follow a Poisson process.
    Leads to the closest-encounter distance distribution and Eq. (12).
  • ad hoc to paper Memory burden suppression allows light PBHs to be a dark matter candidate.
    Motivates the mass window but is external theoretical input from [12-18], including the authors' own [14].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detecting dark objects in the Solar System with Gravitational Wave observatories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/32J3NHEW

@misc{pith2026250719577,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detecting dark objects in the Solar System with Gravitational Wave observatories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/32J3NHEW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19577}
}
abstract

Dark objects streaming into the solar system can be probed using gravitational wave (GW) experiments through the perturbations that they would induce on the detector test masses. In this work, we study the detectability of the resulting gravitational signal for a number of current and future GW observatories. Dark matter in the form of clumps or primordial black holes with masses in the range $10^7$-$10^{11}\,\rm{g}$ can be detected with the proposed DECIGO experiment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19577 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Visualization of a fly-by at an impact parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Strain sensitivity of various existing and proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Maximum distance for which GW experiments are sensitive to a fly-by of a perturber. Left: Results for DECIGO/LISA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Signal-to-noise ratio from the closest encounter expected within an observation time of ten years and for a density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Density to which each experiment is sensitive at a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Black Hole Memory Burden and its Signatures in Gravitational Waves from Mergers

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Swift memory burden shifts black-hole quasinormal-mode frequencies by an amount set by the memory-load parameter μ and critical exponent p, with μ able to exceed the progenitor's information content.

  2. Electromagnetic Signatures From Primordial Black Holes in the Solar System

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Calculations show AMEGO-X could detect PBH transits within 0.1 AU of Earth while HAWC and LHAASO could see explosions out to 0.1-0.5 pc, with future 1000 AU bursts potentially yielding measurable EM signals unlike the...

  3. Electromagnetic Signatures From Primordial Black Holes in the Solar System

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Calculations indicate AMEGO-X could detect PBH transits within 0.1 AU while HAWC and LHAASO could observe explosions out to 0.1-0.5 pc, with future events at ~1000 AU potentially producing measurable electromagnetic s...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [28]

    Robson, N

    T. Robson, N. J. Cornish, and C. Liu, The construction and use of LISA sensitivity curves, Classical and Quan- tum Gravity 36, 105011 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [27]

    Thoss and A

    V. Thoss and A. Burkert, Primordial Black Holes in the Solar System, Astrophys. J. 980, 238 (2025)

    work page 2025

  3. [1]

    B. P. Abbott, others (LIGO Scientific, and V. Collabora- tions), Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [2]

    B. P. Abbott, others (LIGO Scientific, and V. Collabora- tions), GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [3]

    Abbott, others (LIGO Scientific, and V

    R. Abbott, others (LIGO Scientific, and V. Collabo- rations), GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Ob- served by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run, Physical Review X 13, 041039 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [4]

    B. P. Abbott, others (LIGO Scientific, and V. Collabo- rations), A guide to LIGO-Virgo detector noise and ex- traction of transient gravitational-wave signals, Classical and Quantum Gravity 37, 055002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [5]

    B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Con- straints on primordial black holes, Reports on Progress in Physics 84, 116902 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [6]

    Escriv` a, F

    A. Escriv` a, F. K¨ uhnel, and Y. Tada, Primordial black holes, in Black Holes in the Era of Gravitational-Wave Astronomy, edited by M. Arca Sedda, E. Bortolas, and M. Spera (2024) pp. 261–377

    work page 2024

Show all 43 references
  1. [7]

    A. W. Adams and J. S. Bloom, Direct Detection of Dark Matter with Space-based Laser Interferometers, arXiv e- prints , astro-ph/0405266 (2004)

    2004 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Seto and A

    N. Seto and A. Cooray, Search for small-mass black-hole dark matter with space-based gravitational wave detec- tors, Phys. Rev. D 70, 063512 (2004)

    2004

  3. [9]

    Cerdonio, R

    M. Cerdonio, R. De Pietri, P. Jetzer, and M. Sereno, Lo- cal dark matter searches with LISA, Classical and Quan- tum Gravity 26, 094022 (2009)

    2009

  4. [10]

    E. D. Hall, R. X. Adhikari, V. V. Frolov, H. M¨ uller, and M. Pospelov, Laser interferometers as dark matter detec- tors, Phys. Rev. D 98, 083019 (2018)

    2018

  5. [11]

    S. Baum, M. A. Fedderke, and P. W. Graham, Searching for dark clumps with gravitational-wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063015 (2022)

    2022

  6. [12]

    Dvali, A Microscopic Model of Holography: Sur- vival by the Burden of Memory, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1810.02336 (2018)

    G. Dvali, A Microscopic Model of Holography: Sur- vival by the Burden of Memory, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1810.02336 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Dvali, L

    G. Dvali, L. Eisemann, M. Michel, and S. Zell, Black hole metamorphosis and stabilization by memory burden, Phys. Rev. D 102, 103523 (2020)

    2020

  8. [14]

    Thoss, A

    V. Thoss, A. Burkert, and K. Kohri, Breakdown of hawk- ing evaporation opens new mass window for primordial black holes as dark matter candidate, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc. 532, 451 (2024)

    2024

  9. [15]

    Alexandre, G

    A. Alexandre, G. Dvali, and E. Koutsangelas, New mass window for primordial black holes as dark matter from the memory burden effect, Phys. Rev. D 110, 036004 (2024)

    2024

  10. [16]

    Dvali, M

    G. Dvali, M. Zantedeschi, and S. Zell, Transitioning to Memory Burden: Detectable Small Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.21740 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Montefalcone, D

    G. Montefalcone, D. Hooper, K. Freese, C. Kelso, F. Kuh- nel, and P. Sandick, Does Memory Burden Open a New Mass Window for Primordial Black Holes as Dark Mat- ter?, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.21005 (2025)

    2025

  12. [18]

    Dondarini, G

    A. Dondarini, G. Marino, P. Panci, and M. Zant- edeschi, The fast, the slow and the merging: probes of evaporating memory burdened PBHs, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.13861 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Their detectable mass win- dow ( M ∈ [106, 1010] g) is similar to what we find for the planned BBO/DECIGO experiments and their re- sults are thus complimentary to our work

    studied the detectability of dark matter with pro- posed atom gradiometers. Their detectable mass win- dow ( M ∈ [106, 1010] g) is similar to what we find for the planned BBO/DECIGO experiments and their re- sults are thus complimentary to our work. We also want to emphasize t...

    2025 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Badurina, Y

    L. Badurina, Y. Du, V. S. H. Lee, Y. Wang, and K. M. Zurek, Detecting gravitational signatures of dark matter with atom gradiometers, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2505.00781 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Y. Luo, S. Hanasoge, J. Tromp, and F. Pretorius, De- tectable Seismic Consequences of the Interaction of a Primordial Black Hole with Earth, Astrophys. J. 751, 16 (2012)

    2012

  16. [22]

    T. X. Tran, S. R. Geller, B. V. Lehmann, and D. I. Kaiser, Close encounters of the primordial kind: A new observ- able for primordial black holes as dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 110, 063533 (2024)

    2024

  17. [23]

    Yalinewich and M

    A. Yalinewich and M. E. Caplan, Crater morphology of primordial black hole impacts, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 505, L115 (2021)

    2021

  18. [24]

    M. E. Caplan, J. Johnston, and A. D. Santarelli, Lunar collision rate with primordial black holes, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 524, 1927 (2023)

    2023

  19. [25]

    Cuadrat-Grzybowski, S

    M. Cuadrat-Grzybowski, S. Clesse, P. Defraigne, M. Van Camp, and B. Bertrand, Probing primordial black holes and dark matter clumps in the Solar System with gravimeter and Global Navigation Satellite Systems net- works, Phys. Rev. D 110, 063029 (2024). 8

    2024

  20. [26]

    Li, G.-Q

    Y.-L. Li, G.-Q. Huang, Z.-Q. Huang, and F.-W. Shu, Detecting sublunar-mass primordial black holes with the Earth-Moon binary system, Phys. Rev. D 107, 084019 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Schmitz, New Sensitivity Curves for Gravitational- Wave Signals from Cosmological Phase Transitions, JHEP 01, 097

    K. Schmitz, New Sensitivity Curves for Gravitational- Wave Signals from Cosmological Phase Transitions, JHEP 01, 097

  22. [30]

    K. Kuns, P. Fulda, L. Barsotti, and M. Evans, Cosmic explorer strain sensitivity, Cosmic Explorer (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Cornish and T

    N. Cornish and T. Robson, Galactic binary science with the new LISA design, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 840 (IOP, 2017) p. 012024, arXiv:1703.09858 [astro-ph.IM]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Christensen, Stochastic gravitational wave back- grounds, Reports on Progress in Physics 82, 016903 (2019)

    N. Christensen, Stochastic gravitational wave back- grounds, Reports on Progress in Physics 82, 016903 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    A. I. Renzini, B. Goncharov, A. C. Jenkins, and P. M. Meyers, Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Backgrounds: Current Detection Efforts and Future Prospects, Galax- ies 10, 34 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, Dark Matter, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2406.01705 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    K. Choi, C. Rott, and Y. Itow, Impact of the dark mat- ter velocity distribution on capture rates in the Sun, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2014 (5), 049

    2014

  28. [36]

    Morr´ as, J

    G. Morr´ as, J. Garc ´ ıa-Bellido, and S. Nesseris, Search for black hole hyperbolic encounters with gravitational wave detectors, Physics of the Dark Universe 35, 100932 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Morr´ as, J

    G. Morr´ as, J. F. N. Siles, J. Garc ´ ıa-Bellido, and E. R. Morales, False alarms induced by Gaussian noise in gravitational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 107, 023027 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    D. Z. Seligman et al. , Discovery and Preliminary Char- acterization of a Third Interstellar Object: 3I/ATLAS, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2507.02757 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Loeb, 3I/ATLAS is Smaller or Rarer than It Looks, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society 9, 178 (2025)

    A. Loeb, 3I/ATLAS is Smaller or Rarer than It Looks, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society 9, 178 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    C/2025 N1 (ATLAS) Orbit Parameters, JPL Small-Body Database Accessed: 2025-07-25

    2025

  33. [41]

    Barker, B

    W. Barker, B. Gladwyn, and S. Zell, Inflationary and Gravitational Wave Signatures of Small Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2410.11948 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    N. Seto, S. Kawamura, and T. Nakamura, Possibility of Direct Measurement of the Acceleration of the Universe Using 0.1 Hz Band Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Antenna in Space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 221103 (2001)

    2001

  35. [43]

    Thoss, Data for the paper ”Detecting dark objects in the Solar System with Gravitational Wave observato- ries” (Thoss and Loeb, 2025), 10.5281/zenodo.16411495 (2025)

    V. Thoss, Data for the paper ”Detecting dark objects in the Solar System with Gravitational Wave observato- ries” (Thoss and Loeb, 2025), 10.5281/zenodo.16411495 (2025)

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.