Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Clustered primordial black holes with a heavy nucleus and light swarm can assemble JWST Little Red Dot seeds in 10-50 Myr and leave a distinctive LISA/deci-Hz gravitational-wave fingerprint.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 04:44 UTC pith:WRITOGLM

load-bearing objection Clean order-of-magnitude assembly calculation and a concrete LISA/deci-Hz fingerprint for PBH-seeded LRDs; amplitude still floats on an uncomputed clustering map. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09201 v1 pith:WRITOGLM submitted 2026-07-10 gr-qc

The gravitational-wave fingerprint of dynamically assembled primordial black hole cluster seeds in JWST's Little Red Dots

Juan Garcia-Bellido This is my paper
classification gr-qc
keywords primordial black holesLittle Red Dotsgravitational-wave backgroundextreme mass-ratio inspiralsIMBH seedsdynamical frictionLISAringdown
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

JWST has found compact, overmassive black holes in nearly pristine gas at high redshift—the Little Red Dots—that are hard to make with ordinary heavy-seed channels. This paper argues that a strongly clustered population of primordial black holes, with the broad mass spectrum expected from early-universe physics, naturally supplies the right setup: a heavy intermediate-mass nucleus already present from the start, surrounded by a swarm of lighter black holes inside dense gas. Gas dynamical friction keeps orbits plunging inward and lets the core contract, so the swarm is swallowed in tens of millions of years—fast enough to seed the observed objects before z~10. Because the mass ratio is extreme, the growing black hole is not kicked out by gravitational-wave recoil, and each capture radiates a fixed fraction of its mass as waves. The superposed captures produce a stochastic gravitational-wave background with a characteristic rising spectrum cut off at low frequency by gas and topped by a ringdown comb whose frequency tracks the nucleus mass, plus a handful of louder, resolvable nucleus–nucleus mergers. Seeing those signatures, and distinguishing them from a single primordial seed of the same final mass, would show that the Little Red Dots grew from dynamically assembled primordial black-hole clusters.

Core claim

A clustered primordial black-hole population with a broad mass function spontaneously realizes intermediate-mass nuclei (10^3–10^5 solar masses) bathed in light (~30 solar-mass) swarms; gas dynamical friction and core contraction assemble LRD-scale seeds on 10–50 Myr timescales at extreme mass ratio, retaining the remnant against recoil and radiating a fixed efficiency ζ≃0.06, while the superposed inspirals leave a truncated f^{2/3} stochastic background topped by a nucleus ringdown comb plus individually resolvable nucleus–nucleus coalescences that discriminate assembled from directly formed seeds.

What carries the argument

The nucleus-plus-swarm configuration: a heavy PBH already present ab initio, fed by extreme-mass-ratio captures of light PBHs under gas dynamical friction that keeps the loss cone full and contracts the core, so each capture reaches the ISCO under GW emission.

Load-bearing premise

That compact, dense PBH cores with the needed nucleus-swarm mass ratios and gas densities actually form and survive near the epoch of halo assembly, so the clustering statistics supply enough seeds at the assumed number density.

What would settle it

A search in LISA or a deci-Hz band for a non-Gaussian f^{2/3} stochastic background truncated below the gas-handoff frequency and topped by a ringdown comb at ~13 mHz or ~1.3 Hz (for the two fiducial nucleus masses at z~12), together with a few resolvable eccentric nucleus–nucleus mergers at the same redshift; absence of both the background shape and the resolvable population would rule out the assembly channel for LRD seeds.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • LRD-scale seeds can form without a Lyman–Werner neighbour or super-Eddington growth, in chemically near-pristine gas.
  • The stochastic background amplitude is set by the comoving seed density and formation redshift, not by the overall PBH dark-matter fraction.
  • Comparable-mass nucleus–nucleus mergers are individually resolvable LISA/deci-Hz sources with high signal-to-noise and can be removed before a stochastic search.
  • Detection of the truncated f^{2/3} background plus ringdown comb would discriminate dynamically assembled PBH seeds from directly formed PBHs of the same mass.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the clustering-to-seed-density mapping fails to produce enough compact cores, the same PBH mass function could still supply isolated heavy seeds but would lose the distinctive swarm-assembly GW signal.
  • A multi-band detection that simultaneously measures the low-frequency truncation and the ringdown comb would fix both the gas-handoff radius and the nucleus mass function without relying on electromagnetic host properties.
  • The same extreme-mass-ratio retention argument implies that hierarchical growth of IMBHs inside dense gas is far less vulnerable to recoil ejection than equal-mass runaway mergers.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that a strongly clustered PBH population with a QCD-imprinted broad mass function naturally supplies compact cores containing an IMBH nucleus (M• ∼ 10^3–10^5 M⊙) plus a swarm of light (m ∼ 30 M⊙) PBHs. Embedded in dense gas, dynamical friction plus core contraction assembles an LRD-scale seed on t_seed ∼ 10–50 Myr (Eqs. 1–2, Table I). Extreme mass ratios ensure retention against recoil and GW-driven captures to ISCO with efficiency ζ ≃ 0.06 (Eqs. 3–4). The superposed EMRIs produce a non-Gaussian stochastic background Ω_GW h^{2} ∼ 10^{-13}–10^{-11} with an f^{2/3} spectrum truncated below the gas-handoff frequency and topped by a ringdown comb at f_ring(M•) ≃ 13 mHz (10^5 M⊙) or ≃ 1.3 Hz (10^3 M⊙) at z_f ≃ 12 (Eqs. 6–8, Fig. 1), while rare nucleus–nucleus mergers are individually resolvable LISA/deci-Hz sources that discriminate assembled from directly formed seeds.

Significance. If the required compact nucleus-plus-swarm cores form at the quoted abundance, the work supplies a concrete multi-messenger signature that could identify JWST LRDs as dynamically assembled PBH seeds and cleanly distinguish them from both direct-collapse and monochromatic heavy-PBH channels. The spectral shape, ζ ≃ 0.06, retention argument, and ringdown-comb frequencies follow from standard Peters/Phinney/ISCO formulae once the configuration is granted; the resolvable eccentric events are a sharp, falsifiable prediction for LISA and deci-Hz observatories. The paper is explicit about the remaining mapping from the PBH two-point function to (R, M•, n_seed) and about the self-consistency costs of the dense gas, which is a strength of the presentation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Stochastic background / Eq. (7) / Fig. 1] Stochastic-background section and Eq. (7)/Fig. 1: the quoted Ω_GW h^{2} band (and therefore the detectability claim relative to the LISA PI curve) is controlled by an unconstrained ρ_seed spanning two orders of magnitude (10–10^3 M⊙ Mpc^{-3}). The text itself flags the mapping from the clustering two-point function ξ(r) to the triple (R, M•, n_seed) as “the key remaining calculation.” Without even an order-of-magnitude estimate drawn from existing PBH clustering calculations, the amplitude remains a free parameter rather than a prediction; the spectral shape and resolvable-event claims survive, but the quantitative fingerprint does not.
  2. [Self-consistency] Self-consistency paragraph: the mechanism requires n ≳ 10^6 cm^{-3} gas that both contracts the core and keeps the loss cone full. The deposited orbital energy, Bondi/Eddington accretion, and fragmentation into stars are acknowledged, yet no quantitative check is given that the fiducial cores evade existing unresolved X-ray background and 21-cm limits on accreting PBHs, nor that the parsec-scale core produces black holes rather than a star cluster. These are load-bearing for the claimed seeding rate and for the chemical pristine-ness of the LRD hosts.
  3. [Configuration and seeding time / Eq. (2)] Configuration and seeding time / Eq. (2) and Table I: t_seed is written with a free O(1) coefficient κ that absorbs contraction and runaway factors. Because t_seed ∝ R^{3/2}, the cosmic-time viability of the scenario is extremely sensitive to the (still uncomputed) core radius distribution. A short estimate of the expected R distribution from the enhanced small-scale power cited in Refs. [16,18] would turn the “self-selects for compact cores” statement into a quantitative prior rather than an assumption.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Notation oscillates between M_BH, M• and M_rem; a single consistent symbol for the nucleus mass would improve readability.
  2. [Fig. 1] Fig. 1 caption and top axis: the mapping from frequency to remnant mass via Eq. (8) is useful, but the shaded bands and solid curves should state explicitly which value of ζ is used for each.
  3. [Energy budget / Spectrum] Typographical: “So ltan density”, “a≃0.7 value”, and occasional missing spaces around ∼ and ≃.
  4. [Table I / SM] Supplemental Material Table S1 lists fiducial ranges; it would help the reader if the main-text Table I also carried the corresponding κ and ln Λ values used for the numerical entries.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain: GW efficiency, spectrum shape, and seeding times follow from standard DF/Peters/ISCO formulae once the nucleus-plus-swarm configuration is assumed; self-citations supply the PBH clustering premise but do not force the LRD/GW results by construction.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Introduction, paragraph beginning 'Primordial black holes [12–14] are a natural candidate']
    "they are expected to be strongly clustered at formation [15, 16], and a broad mass function can constitute all of the dark matter (DM) [17]. Crucially, the mechanisms that make PBHs also make them broadly distributed [18]: the QCD thermal history imprints a peak near the solar mass with a high-mass tail [19], and quantum diffusion during inflation generates exponentially heavy, non-Gaussian tails and enhanced clustering [20–22]."

    The claim that a QCD-epoch PBH population 'naturally realizes' the required IMBH-nucleus + light-swarm cores is justified solely by a dense chain of overlapping-author citations (Clesse & García-Bellido, Carr et al., Ezquiaga et al.). While those works are prior and independent rather than re-derived here, the present paper treats the configuration as given without new derivation, so the 'naturalness' premise is load-bearing self-citation. It does not, however, make the subsequent t_seed/ζ/Ω_GW calculations circular.

full rationale

The paper's new calculations (t_seed from gaseous+collisionless DF with contraction absorbed in κ, ζ≃ε_ISCO≃0.06 independent of M_•, Ω_GW∝f^{2/3} truncated at gas-handoff and topped by the ringdown comb via the standard Phinney energy-budget integral, retention at extreme q) are self-contained applications of textbook formulae (Chandrasekhar, Ostriker, Peters, Phinney, Berti et al.) to an assumed configuration. They do not reduce to fitted parameters or redefine their own inputs. The amplitude band is an order-of-magnitude estimate with ρ_seed left free and explicitly flagged as requiring a future ξ(r)→(R,M_•,n_seed) map; that is an incompleteness, not circularity. The sole mild issue is that the premise 'strongly clustered PBHs with QCD-broad mass function naturally supply the IMBH nucleus + light swarm' rests on a chain of the author's prior papers; those results are independent inputs (externally falsifiable in principle) rather than a uniqueness theorem or ansatz re-imported to force the present conclusions. Hence score 2 with one non-load-bearing self-citation step; the central multi-messenger fingerprint has independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard dynamical-friction and GW formulae plus a set of domain assumptions about PBH clustering and gas physics that are taken from prior literature or introduced as O(1) coefficients. The free parameters that set the amplitude and timescale are ρ_seed (or n_seed), κ, R, and the two fiducial nucleus masses; the invented configuration is the nucleus-plus-swarm core itself.

free parameters (5)
  • κ (contraction/runaway coefficient) = O(1), fiducial ~1
    Absorbs cooling-driven contraction and gravothermal factors into an O(1) prefactor in t_seed (Eq. 1); range 0.3-3 is chosen by hand.
  • ρ_seed (comoving seed mass density) = 10-10^3 M_⊙ Mpc^{-3} (fiducial 100)
    Sets the absolute amplitude of Ω_GW via Eq. 7; scanned over 10-10^3 M_⊙ Mpc^{-3} with no derivation from first principles.
  • n_seed = 10^{-4}-10^{-3} Mpc^{-3}
    Comoving number density of nuclei; paired with M_• to give ρ_seed; range 10^{-4}-10^{-3} Mpc^{-3} chosen to be a few ×10^{-3} of the local Soltan density.
  • R (core radius) = 0.3-1 pc
    Enters t_seed ∝ R^{3/2}; compact values 0.3-1 pc are selected so that assembly finishes inside cosmic time at z~12.
  • m (swarm PBH mass) = 30 M_⊙
    Fixed at ~30 M_⊙ by the QCD peak of the assumed mass function; controls q and the number of captures N.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Standard Chandrasekhar/Ostriker dynamical-friction formulae for collisionless and gaseous drag, with t_sink ~ (M_•/m) t_dyn / C.
    Used throughout §Configuration and SM to obtain Eq. (1)-(2).
  • domain assumption Each extreme-mass-ratio capture radiates the ISCO binding energy ε_ISCO ≃ 0.057 of m c^{2}, so ζ ≃ 0.06 independent of M_•.
    Taken from geodesic/adiabatic-inspiral results; assumes gas hands off before plunge so that the full GW-driven segment occurs (SM).
  • domain assumption PBHs are strongly clustered at formation with a broad mass function peaked near solar mass and a high-mass tail, as predicted by QCD thermal history and quantum diffusion.
    Imported from prior literature (Clesse & García-Bellido, Carr et al.) and used to justify the nucleus-plus-swarm configuration ab initio.
  • domain assumption Gas continuously refills the loss cone and allows dissipative core contraction, so that t_seed is set by the contracted radius rather than by collisionless stalling.
    Stated in §Configuration; absorbs the effect into κ without a full hydro calculation.
  • standard math The cosmic energy-budget (Phinney) formula converts the capture-rate density into Ω_GW(f).
    Eq. (5); standard and correctly applied.
invented entities (1)
  • IMBH nucleus + light-PBH swarm core (the dynamically assembled seed) no independent evidence
    purpose: Provides the extreme-mass-ratio captures that simultaneously solve retention, energy budget, and produce the distinctive GW fingerprint for LRDs.
    Postulated as the generic outcome of a clustered broad-mass-function PBH population inside dense gas; independent evidence would be the predicted GW comb and resolvable events, which are not yet observed.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 17361 in / 4015 out tokens · 46776 ms · 2026-07-13T04:44:10.159028+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has revealed compact, red, overmassive accreting black holes - the so-called ``Little Red Dots'' (LRDs) - in chemically near-pristine hosts at $z\simeq5 - 9$, straining standard heavy-seed models. We show that a population of strongly clustered primordial black holes (PBH) with a broad mass function predicted by a QCD-epoch thermal history naturally realizes the configuration that assembles LRD-scale seeds: an intermediate-mass PBH \emph{nucleus} $M_{\rm BH}\sim10^3$-$10^5\,M_\odot$ surrounded, within a few parsecs, by a swarm of light ($m\sim30\,M_\odot$) PBHs embedded in dense baryonic gas. Gas dynamical friction keeps the loss cone full and lets the core contract, so the swarm sinks and is swallowed on $t_{\rm seed}\sim10$-50 Myr, well inside the cosmic time at $z\sim10$-$15$. Because a heavy nucleus is present \emph{ab initio}, the captures occur at extreme mass ratio $q\sim10^{-4}$-$10^{-2}$: the remnant is retained against gravitational recoil, and each capture reaches the innermost stable orbit under gravitational-wave (GW) emission, radiating $\simeq0.06\,m c^2$ so that the assembly efficiency is $\zeta\simeq0.06$ independent of $M_{\rm BH}$. The superposed swarm inspirals form a stochastic background $\Omega_{\rm GW} h^2\sim10^{-13}$-$10^{-11}$ with a $\Omega_{\rm GW}\propto f^{2/3}$ shape truncated below the gas-decoupling frequency and topped by a ringdown ``comb'' at $f_{\rm ring}(M_{\rm BH})\simeq13$ mHz for $10^5\,M_\odot$ and $\simeq1.3$ Hz for $10^3\,M_\odot$ nuclei at $z_f\simeq12$. The few comparable-mass nucleus-nucleus coalescences are instead individually resolvable LISA/deci-Hz sources. Detection, and discrimination of these signatures from a directly formed PBH seed of the same mass, would identify the LRDs as PBH-nucleus seeded black holes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09201 by Juan Garcia-Bellido.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Predicted GW signal from an IMBH nucleus fed by a light-PBH swarm, for two nucleus masses. Shaded bands: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 42 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Harikaneet al., Astrophys

    Y. Harikaneet al., Astrophys. J.959, 39 (2023), arXiv:2303.11946 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Mattheeet al., Astrophys

    J. Mattheeet al., Astrophys. J.963, 129 (2024), arXiv:2306.05448 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    J. E. Greeneet al., Astrophys. J.964, 39 (2024), arXiv:2309.05714 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Kokorevet al., Astrophys

    V. Kokorevet al., Astrophys. J.968, 38 (2024), arXiv:2401.09981 [astro-ph.GA]. 5

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Maiolinoet al., Nature627, 59 (2024), arXiv:2305.12492 [astro-ph.GA]

    R. Maiolinoet al., Nature627, 59 (2024), arXiv:2305.12492 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Inayoshi, E

    K. Inayoshi, E. Visbal, and Z. Haiman, Ann. Rev. As- tron. Astrophys.58, 27 (2020), arXiv:1911.05791 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Juodˇ zbaliset al., Nature653, 1017 (2026), arXiv:2508.21748 [astro-ph.GA]

    I. Juodˇ zbaliset al., Nature653, 1017 (2026), arXiv:2508.21748 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Maiolinoet al., Mon

    R. Maiolinoet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. (2026), 10.1093/mnras/staf2109, arXiv:2505.22567 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2109 2026

  9. [9]

    Bromm and N

    V. Bromm and N. Yoshida, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 49, 373 (2011), arXiv:1102.4638 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  10. [10]

    M. C. Begelman, M. Volonteri, and M. J. Rees, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.370, 289 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0602363 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2006

  11. [11]

    Pacucci, M

    F. Pacucci, M. Volonteri, and A. Ferrara, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.452, 1922 (2015), arXiv:1506.04750 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1922

  12. [12]

    S. W. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.152, 75 (1971)

    1971

  13. [13]

    B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.168, 399 (1974)

    1974

  14. [14]

    Garcia-Bellido, A

    J. Garcia-Bellido, A. D. Linde, and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D54, 6040 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9605094 [astro- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  15. [15]

    Clesse and J

    S. Clesse and J. Garc´ ıa-Bellido, Phys. Rev. D92, 023524 (2015), arXiv:1501.07565 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  16. [16]

    Clesse and J

    S. Clesse and J. Garc´ ıa-Bellido, Phys. Dark Univ.15, 142 (2017), arXiv:1603.05234 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  17. [17]

    B. Carr, S. Clesse, J. Garc´ ıa-Bellido, M. Hawkins, and F. K¨ uhnel, Phys. Rept.1054, 1 (2024), arXiv:2306.03903 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Clesse and J

    S. Clesse and J. Garc´ ıa-Bellido, Phys. Dark Univ.22, 137 (2018), arXiv:1711.10458 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    B. Carr, S. Clesse, J. Garc´ ıa-Bellido, and F. K¨ uhnel, Phys. Dark Univ.31, 100755 (2021), arXiv:1906.08217 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Pattison, V

    C. Pattison, V. Vennin, H. Assadullahi, and D. Wands, JCAP10, 046 (2017), arXiv:1707.00537 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  21. [21]

    J. M. Ezquiaga, J. Garc´ ıa-Bellido, and V. Vennin, JCAP 03, 029 (2020), arXiv:1912.05399 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    J. M. Ezquiaga, J. Garc´ ıa-Bellido, and V. Vennin, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 121003 (2023), arXiv:2207.06317 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Bean and J

    R. Bean and J. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. D66, 063505 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0204486 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  24. [24]

    D¨ uchting, Phys

    N. D¨ uchting, Phys. Rev. D70, 064015 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0406260 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  25. [25]

    Carr and J

    B. Carr and J. Silk, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.478, 3756 (2018), arXiv:1801.00672 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    Kawasaki, A

    M. Kawasaki, A. Kusenko, and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B711, 1 (2012), arXiv:1202.3848 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  27. [27]

    Chandrasekhar, Rev

    S. Chandrasekhar, Rev. Mod. Phys.15, 1 (1943)

    1943

  28. [28]

    Binney and S

    J. Binney and S. Tremaine,Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition(Princeton University Press, 2008)

    2008

  29. [29]

    E. C. Ostriker, Astrophys. J.513, 252 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9810324 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  30. [30]

    See Supplemental Material for detailed derivations of the dynamical-friction sinking time, the runaway core- collapse, the Phinney energy budget, the spectral slope, and the ringdown-frequency mapping

  31. [31]

    Spitzer,Dynamical Evolution of Globular Clusters (Princeton University Press, 1987)

    L. Spitzer,Dynamical Evolution of Globular Clusters (Princeton University Press, 1987)

    1987

  32. [32]

    G. D. Quinlan and S. L. Shapiro, Astrophys. J.356, 483 (1990)

    1990

  33. [33]

    S. F. Portegies Zwart and S. L. W. McMillan, Astrophys. J.576, 899 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0201055 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  34. [34]

    J. A. Gonzalez, U. Sperhake, B. Bruegmann, M. Han- nam, and S. Husa, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 091101 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0610154 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  35. [35]

    Campanelli, C

    M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, Y. Zlochower, and D. Merritt, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 231102 (2007), arXiv:gr- qc/0702133 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2007

  36. [36]

    C. O. Lousto and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 231102 (2011), arXiv:1108.2009 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  37. [37]

    Holley-Bockelmann, K

    K. Holley-Bockelmann, K. Gultekin, D. Shoemaker, and N. Yunes, Astrophys. J.686, 829 (2008), arXiv:0707.1334 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  38. [38]

    P. C. Peters, Phys. Rev.136, B1224 (1964)

    1964

  39. [39]

    Davis, R

    M. Davis, R. Ruffini, W. H. Press, and R. H. Price, Phys. Rev. Lett.27, 1466 (1971)

    1971

  40. [40]

    E. S. Phinney, (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0108028 [astro- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  41. [41]

    Maggiore, Phys

    M. Maggiore, Phys. Rept.331, 283 (2000), arXiv:gr- qc/9909001 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2000

  42. [42]

    Soltan, Mon

    A. Soltan, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.200, 115 (1982)

    1982

  43. [43]

    Braglia, J

    M. Braglia, J. Garc´ ıa-Bellido, and S. Kuroyanagi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.519, 6008 (2023), arXiv:2201.13414 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Kleinet al., Phys

    A. Kleinet al., Phys. Rev. D93, 024003 (2016), arXiv:1511.05581 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  45. [45]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Fairbairn, G. H¨ utsi, M. Raidal, J. Urrutia, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veermae, Astron. Astrophys.676, A38 (2023), arXiv:2301.13854 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    Thrane and J

    E. Thrane and J. D. Romano, Phys. Rev. D88, 124032 (2013), arXiv:1310.5300 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  47. [47]

    Robson, N

    T. Robson, N. J. Cornish, and C. Liu, Class. Quant. Grav.36, 105011 (2019), arXiv:1803.01944 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  48. [48]

    Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    P. Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  49. [49]

    Kawamuraet al., Class

    S. Kawamuraet al., Class. Quant. Grav.28, 094011 (2011)

    2011

  50. [50]

    S. Bird, I. Cholis, J. B. Mu˜ noz, Y. Ali-Ha¨ ımoud, M. Kamionkowski, E. D. Kovetz, A. Raccanelli, and A. G. Riess, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 201301 (2016), arXiv:1603.00464 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  51. [51]

    Sasaki, T

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka, and S. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 061101 (2016), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 059901 (2018)], arXiv:1603.08338 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  52. [52]

    Ali-Ha¨ ımoud, E

    Y. Ali-Ha¨ ımoud, E. D. Kovetz, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D96, 123523 (2017), arXiv:1709.06576 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  53. [53]

    Sasaki, T

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka, and S. Yokoyama, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 063001 (2018), arXiv:1801.05235 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  54. [54]

    Braglia, J

    M. Braglia, J. Garc´ ıa-Bellido, and S. Kuroyanagi, JCAP 12, 012 (2021), arXiv:2110.07488 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    Inoue and A

    Y. Inoue and A. Kusenko, JCAP10, 034 (2017), arXiv:1705.00791 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  56. [56]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D73, 064030 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0512160 [gr-qc]. 6 Supplemental Material: GW signature of a PBH nucleus fed by a light PBH swarm in dense gas We work to order of magnitude; order-unity coefficients (κ, ζ,I) are defined where they appear and are the quantities a dedicated simulation must calibrate. We useG=c...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006