Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Primordial black hole clusters lose half to nearly all their mass to collisions over the Galaxy's life, so microlensing must treat a large smooth component.

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

2026-07-14 14:36 UTC pith:EYYWHJFL

load-bearing objection Solid, usable numbers on PBH-cluster survival that force a split of microlensing constraints; the independent-encounter approximation is the real soft spot but the authors already flag it. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09918 v1 pith:EYYWHJFL submitted 2026-07-10 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Do Primordial Black Hole Clusters Survive the Galaxy? Collisional Disruption and Microlensing Implications

M.V. Tkachev , S.V. Pilipenko This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA
keywords primordial black holesPBH clusterscollisional disruptionmicrolensingMilky Way haloN-body simulationssmooth fraction
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.

If dark matter is made of primordial black holes that form in bound clusters, those clusters do not stay intact. As they orbit through the Milky Way halo they repeatedly graze one another; each encounter strips some black holes into a diffuse population. The paper calibrates how much mass is lost per collision with a universal function of relative speed and impact parameter, then feeds that calibration into full cosmological simulations of a Milky Way-like halo from redshift 9 to today. For the two cluster masses that bracket the Carr formation scenario, half of all mass loss occurs before redshift 2, when the proto-halo is still cold and dense. At the Solar circle roughly half of a 10^6 solar-mass cluster survives and only a few percent of a 10^7 solar-mass cluster survives. Along the lines of sight to the Magellanic Clouds the smooth fraction is therefore about 0.5 and 0.9 respectively. Microlensing surveys must therefore partition their constraints between free black holes and remaining clusters rather than assuming either pure clustering or pure isolation.

Core claim

Cluster-cluster encounters over the Galaxy's lifetime strip a large fraction of primordial black holes out of their original clusters. For Carr-scenario masses of 10^6 and 10^7 solar masses the surviving mass fraction at the Solar circle is approximately 0.50 and 0.04; the dark-matter-weighted smooth fractions toward the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds are 0.49 and 0.92. Half of the total mass loss is already inflicted by redshift approximately 2, a channel invisible to any present-day smooth-halo rate estimate.

What carries the argument

The universal escaped-mass fraction f-tilde of relative velocity and impact parameter, measured from 72 binary N-body collisions and rescaled by the cluster velocity scale and half-mass radius; this function turns every logged halo encounter into a mass-loss event that is then integrated into a radial survival profile S(r).

Load-bearing premise

Each encounter is treated as independent and is evaluated with the cluster's original mass and size, so later collisions are not weakened by earlier stripping or by dynamical friction from the freed black holes.

What would settle it

A self-consistent simulation that lets cluster mass and radius evolve after each encounter, and that includes dynamical friction from the stripped population, would show whether the final Solar-circle survival fractions remain near 0.5 and 0.04 or rise substantially once feedback is allowed.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Standard microlensing optical-depth limits apply only to the smooth fraction fsm of the PBH density; the clustered remainder needs a separate extended-lens calculation.
  • z=0 analytic collision rates systematically overestimate outer-halo survival because they miss the cold, dense encounters of hierarchical assembly.
  • Heavier 10^7 solar-mass clusters are almost completely disrupted along Magellanic sightlines, so their microlensing signature is essentially that of free 30-solar-mass black holes.
  • Any reanalysis of EROS, OGLE or HSC data that assumes pure clustering must be revised by the radially varying fsm(r) derived here.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If mass-loss feedback reduces later cross-sections, the quoted survival fractions are lower bounds and the true smooth component is smaller than Table I, but still non-negligible.
  • Including baryonic dynamical friction would drag surviving clusters inward, further raising the inner-halo smooth fraction and strengthening the conclusion for LMC/SMC sightlines.
  • Peripheral black holes inside intact clusters already produce point-lens light curves, so the effectively unclustered fraction for surveys is larger than the pure-stripped fsm reported here.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper quantifies collisional disruption of PBH clusters in a Milky Way-like halo by combining an analytic NFW encounter-rate model, a 72-run binary N-body grid that calibrates a universal escaped-mass fraction f̃(ṽ,b̃), and cosmological N-body simulations that log every cluster encounter from z=9 to z=0. For Carr-scenario masses 10^6 and 10^7 M⊙ it reports local rates at the Solar circle of 2.9×10^{-3} and 1.2×10^{-2} Myr^{-1} (consistent with the simulations to ~10–40%), surviving mass fractions S(r⊙)≃0.50 and 0.04, and DM-mass-weighted smooth fractions toward the LMC/SMC of ≃0.49 and ≃0.92. A central physical result is that half the integrated mass loss occurs before z≈2, when cold substructure encounters sit near the disruption peak—a channel missed by z=0 analytic estimates.

Significance. If the survival and smooth-fraction profiles hold, microlensing constraints on stellar-mass PBHs must be partitioned between a smooth compact-object component and an extended-cluster component with a radially varying weight f_sm(r), rather than applied as if the entire PBH population were isolated. The methodological strengths are concrete: a scale-free escape calibration verified by rescaled head-on runs, an open encounter-logging pipeline, and a clear falsifiable prediction (the LMC/SMC smooth fractions and the early-assembly mass-loss channel). The work is a substantial step beyond order-of-magnitude cross-section estimates and supplies the radial f_sm(r) that reanalyses of EROS/OGLE/HSC would need.

major comments (3)
  1. Section VI A, Eqs. (25)–(28): the headline S(r) and ⟨f_sm⟩_LOS values are products of successive survival factors [1−f(Δv,b)]^{c_i} evaluated at the initial (M_cl,r_h,v_c) for every encounter. Section VIII correctly notes that stripping reduces the cross-section (slowing later encounters) while a more compact remnant raises v_c (moving encounters toward the disruption peak), so the net feedback is not even signed. Because Fig. 6 shows half the mass loss already in place by z≈2, early parameter evolution can affect the remaining half of the encounters. The manuscript presents S as an upper bound from other systematics but supplies no quantitative envelope for this load-bearing approximation. A simple sensitivity test—e.g., rescaling (M,r_h,v_c) after each interval in proportion to the cumulative mass lost, or a two-zone early/late calculation—would bound how much S and ⟨f_sm⟩ can shift an
  2. Section IV B and the 10^6 M⊙ run: the KDE upsampling factor of 246 far exceeds the ~10 factor at which the scheme was validated. Small-scale clustering below the parent resolution is necessarily smoothed, which can suppress early cold encounters inside progenitors—the very channel that Fig. 6 identifies as responsible for half the mass loss. The paper should either demonstrate that the early-time encounter-velocity distribution is robust to the upsampling (e.g., by comparing a lower-factor or parent-resolution control) or quantify the possible bias on the pre-z≈2 mass-loss fraction.
  3. Section VI A, Eq. (28): mass loss is attributed to the galactocentric radius at which each encounter occurred rather than by Lagrangian tracking of individual clusters. The extended plateau of S(r) at r≳10 kpc is therefore an assembly signature of clusters that later migrated outward. This is physically interesting but means the plotted S(r) is not the survival fraction of the population currently at radius r. For the LOS integrals in Section VII this distinction is secondary (the sightlines weight the same radial range), but the text and Fig. 5 caption should state explicitly that S(r) is a per-radius mass-loss accounting, not a present-day Lagrangian survival profile, so that it is not misread as the fraction of intact clusters at each r today.
minor comments (5)
  1. Section II B, Eq. (6): the Carr formation radius is written with f_PBH inside the square root; the subsequent numerical values assume f_PBH=1. A brief note that rates and S scale non-trivially for f_PBH<1 (and that dressed-PBH effects are deferred) would avoid misapplication.
  2. Figure 1: the dotted “analytic at sim. params” curves are the correct comparison for the N-body points, but the legend is dense. Separating the Carr-radius band from the simulation-parameter curves into two panels or a clearer linestyle key would help.
  3. Section V C, Eq. (21): the impact-parameter fit (b̃_0=7.4, η=2.2) is performed only at ṽ≃1.5. A sentence stating whether g(b̃) was checked at a second velocity (or assumed separable) would strengthen the universal model claim.
  4. Section VII, Table I: LMC and SMC averages are nearly identical; a one-line remark that this follows from the flatness of S(r) over 8–60 kpc would make the table self-explanatory.
  5. Typos/notation: “Carret al.” missing space (Section II B); the Galactic latitude b in Section VII collides with impact parameter b—consider b_Gal or similar; arXiv IDs in the reference list for related works appear with future-looking numbers and should be checked for consistency at submission.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: S and f_sm are independent outputs of encounter histories folded through a separately calibrated escape map.

full rationale

The central survival fractions S(r) and LOS smooth fractions are obtained by recording every cluster-cluster encounter in a cosmological N-body MW-like halo (z=9 to 0), converting each logged (v_rel, b) into a mass-loss factor via the universal function f̃(ṽ,b̃) that was calibrated on an independent suite of 72 binary N-body collisions, and accumulating the product of survival factors (Eqs. 25–28). The binary calibration exploits Newtonian scale invariance and is verified by direct rescaling runs at the Carr radii; it is not fitted to the halo survival numbers. Carr et al. formation radii and the NFW parameters measured from the same halo snapshot are external inputs, not free parameters adjusted to force the quoted S≃0.50/0.04. The independent-encounter fixed-(M,rh) approximation is an explicit modeling limitation (flagged in Sec. VIII) whose possible O(1) feedback is left unquantified, but that is an incompleteness of the physical model, not a definitional or self-referential reduction of the claimed result to its inputs. Minor self-citations ([36,37]) appear only in the f_PBH<1 caveat and do not enter the main derivation. The paper is therefore self-contained against its own simulation benchmarks; score 0 is appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard N-body gravity, an NFW MW halo taken from the simulation, Carr et al. formation radii that set the low peak-disruption velocity, a Dehnen γ=3/2 profile shape for the binary grid, scale-free rescaling of Newtonian gravity, and the independent-encounter product formula. No new particles or forces are invented. Free choices that move the numbers include b_cut/k, r_log, m_PBH=30 M⊙, f_cl=1, and the aggressive KDE upsampling factor.

free parameters (6)
  • b_cut = k r_h with k~1–2
    Cutoff impact parameter for the analytic rate; authors treat the factor-of-two spread as model uncertainty. Binary grid shows mass loss extends to ~7 r_h.
  • m_PBH = 30 M⊙
    Fixed individual PBH mass that sets N_PBH and enters the Carr r_h formula; not varied.
  • f_cl = 1
    All DM assumed in clusters for the reported rates and S; rates scale linearly with f_cl when both target and projectile densities ∝ f_cl.
  • r_log ≃ 4.3 r_h
    Encounter-logging radius in the halo runs; more distant tidal encounters are omitted by construction.
  • KDE upsampling factor 246 (10^6 M⊙ run)
    Parent patch upsampled far beyond the ~10× factor at which the KDE scheme was validated; small-scale clustering below parent resolution is necessarily smooth.
  • Dehnen inner slope γ=3/2
    Profile shape chosen for the binary-collision reference cluster; universality of ˜f holds only at fixed profile shape.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Newtonian gravity is scale-free, so escape fraction depends only on ˜v=v_rel/v_c and ˜b=b/r_h for fixed density-profile shape.
    Section V B; used to transfer the compact reference-cluster grid to Carr radii.
  • domain assumption Carr et al. (2024) formation model supplies r_h ∝ M_cl^{5/6} and thus v_c ~ 12–20 km s^{-1} for the masses studied.
    Eq. (6); sets the peak-disruption velocity far below typical halo encounter speeds and drives the many-weak-encounters regime.
  • domain assumption MW halo is well-described by a spherical NFW profile with M_200≃8×10^{11} M⊙, c_200≃11, in approximate Jeans equilibrium with σ_1D≃V_c/√2 and Maxwellian relative velocities.
    Section II A and III; used for analytic rates and LOS weighting.
  • domain assumption Clusters may be treated as point masses for orbital dynamics; internal structure enters only via the binary-collision sub-grid calibration.
    Section IV D; justified by r_h ≪ inter-cluster spacing.
  • ad hoc to paper Successive encounters act independently and each is evaluated at the initial (M_cl, r_h), so the surviving fraction multiplies as ∏ [1−f]^{c_i}.
    Eqs. (25)–(28); authors note this omits mass-loss feedback, remnant compaction, and dynamical friction against the stripped component.
  • domain assumption Existence of PBH clusters at the Carr mass scale is taken as a working hypothesis independent of formation mechanism details beyond r_h.
    Introduction; the paper studies survival, not formation.

reviewed 2026-07-14 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Do Primordial Black Hole Clusters Survive the Galaxy? Collisional Disruption and Microlensing Implications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EYYWHJFL

@misc{pith2026260709918,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Do Primordial Black Hole Clusters Survive the Galaxy? Collisional Disruption and Microlensing Implications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EYYWHJFL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.09918}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We study the collisional disruption of primordial black hole (PBH) clusters in the Milky Way halo. Encounters between clusters strip PBHs into a diffuse component, and the fraction of PBH mass in this smooth component along a sightline determines how microlensing constraints divide between isolated compact objects and extended cluster lenses. We combine an analytic NFW-based collision-rate model, $72$ direct N-body binary collision simulations that calibrate the escaped-mass fraction as a universal function $\tilde f(\tilde v,\tilde b)$ of the relative velocity and impact parameter in units of the cluster velocity scale and half-mass radius, and cosmological N-body simulations of a Milky Way-like halo ($M_{200}\simeq 8\times10^{11}\,M_\odot$, $c_{200}\simeq 11$) that record the encounter history of every cluster from $z=9$ to $z=0$. For $10^6$ and $10^7\,M_\odot$ clusters -- bracketing the maximum mass in the Carr et al.\ formation scenario -- the local encounter rate at the Solar circle is $2.9\times10^{-3}$ and $1.2\times10^{-2}\,\rm Myr^{-1}$, consistent with the simulations to within ${\sim}40\%$. Because the peak-disruption velocity of Carr-radius clusters ($12$--$20\,\rm km\,s^{-1}$) lies far below typical halo encounter velocities, disruption accumulates through many weak encounters, most effectively during the early, cold phases of halo assembly: half of the total mass loss is inflicted before $z\approx2$, a channel that $z=0$ analytic estimates miss entirely. The surviving mass fraction at the Solar circle is $S\simeq0.50$ ($10^6\,M_\odot$) and $0.04$ ($10^7\,M_\odot$), and the DM-mass-weighted smooth fraction toward the LMC and SMC is $0.49$ and $0.92$, respectively. Cluster-cluster disruption is thus substantial over the Galaxy's lifetime, and reanalyses of microlensing surveys must account for the radially varying smooth fraction $f_{\rm sm}(r)$ derived here.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09918 by M.V. Tkachev, S.V. Pilipenko.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Radial profile of the local per-cluster encounter rate Γ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Universal impact-parameter dependence of the escape [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Universal escape fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Cumulative surviving cluster mass fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. When the cluster mass is lost [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Local smooth fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.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

35 extracted references · 25 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Y. B. Zel’dovich and I. D. Novikov, The Hypothesis of Cores Retarded during Expansion and the Hot Cosmo- logical Model, Soviet Astronomy10, 602 (1967)

    1967

  2. [2]

    Hawking, Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 152, 75 (1971)

    S. Hawking, Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 152, 75 (1971)

    1971

  3. [3]

    B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, Black holes in the early Universe, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety168, 399 (1974)

    1974

  4. [4]

    G. F. Chapline, Cosmological effects of primordial black holes, Nature (London)253, 251 (1975)

    1975

  5. [5]

    Ivanov, P

    P. Ivanov, P. Naselsky, and I. Novikov, Inflation and pri- mordial black holes as dark matter, Phys. Rev. D50, 7173 (1994)

    1994

  6. [6]

    Tisserand, L

    P. Tisserand, L. Le Guillou, C. Afonso, J. N. Al- bert, J. Andersen, R. Ansari, ´E. Aubourg, P. Bareyre, J. P. Beaulieu, X. Charlot, C. Coutures, R. Ferlet, P. Fouqu´ e, J. F. Glicenstein, B. Goldman, A. Gould, D. Graff, M. Gros, J. Haissinski, C. Hamadache, J. de Kat, T. Lasserre, ´E. Lesquoy, C. Loup, C. Magneville, J. B. Marquette, ´E. Maurice, A. Maur...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    Mr´ oz, A

    P. Mr´ oz, A. Udalski, M. K. Szyma´ nski, M. Ka- pusta, I. Soszy´ nski, L. Wyrzykowski, P. Pietrukow- icz, S. Koz lowski, R. Poleski, J. Skowron, D. Skowron, K. Ulaczyk, M. Gromadzki, K. Rybicki, P. Iwanek, M. Wrona, and M. Ratajczak, Microlensing Optical Depth and Event Rate toward the Large Magellanic Cloud Based on 20 yr of OGLE Observations, The As- t...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Niikura, M

    H. Niikura, M. Takada, N. Yasuda, R. H. Lup- ton, T. Sumi, S. More, T. Kurita, S. Sugiyama, A. More, M. Oguri, and M. Chiba, Microlensing con- straints on primordial black holes with Subaru/HSC An- dromeda observations, Nature Astronomy3, 524 (2019), arXiv:1701.02151 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Shariat, K

    C. Shariat, K. El-Badry, M. Gennaro, K. Ding, J. D. Si- mon, R. J. Avila, A. Calamida, S. Cassisi, M. Correnti, D. R. Weisz, M. Geha, E. N. Kirby, T. M. Brown, M. Ri- cotti, K. B. W. McQuinn, N. Kallivayalil, K. Gilbert, C. Pacifici, P. Guhathakurta, D. Crnojevi´ c, M. L. Boyer, R. L. Beaton, V. Chandra, R. E. Cohen, A. Renzini, A. Savino, and E. J. Tolle...

    arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Andr´ es-Carcasona, A

    M. Andr´ es-Carcasona, A. J. Iovino, E. Vallejo-Pag` es, V. Vaskonen, H. Veerm¨ ae, M. Mart´ ınez, and L. M. Mir, Constraints on primordial black holes from the first part of ligo-virgo-kagra fourth observing run (2026), arXiv:2605.15749 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    Clesse and J

    S. Clesse and J. Garc´ ıa-Bellido, Massive primordial black holes from hybrid inflation as dark matter and the seeds of galaxies, Phys. Rev. D92, 023524 (2015), arXiv:1501.07565 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  12. [12]

    Clesse and J

    S. Clesse and J. Garc´ ıa-Bellido, The clustering of massive Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter: Measuring their mass distribution with advanced LIGO, Physics of the Dark Universe15, 142 (2017), arXiv:1603.05234 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    Clesse and J

    S. Clesse and J. Garc´ ıa-Bellido, Seven hints for primor- dial black hole dark matter, Physics of the Dark Universe 22, 137 (2018), arXiv:1711.10458 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  14. [14]

    Inman and Y

    D. Inman and Y. Ali-Ha¨ ımoud, Early structure formation in primordial black hole cosmologies, Phys. Rev. D100, 083528 (2019), arXiv:1907.08129 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    Carr, Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter and Gen- erators of Cosmic Structure, inIlluminating Dark Mat- ter, Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, Vol

    B. Carr, Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter and Gen- erators of Cosmic Structure, inIlluminating Dark Mat- ter, Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, Vol. 56, edited by R. Essig, J. Feng, and K. Zurek (2019) p. 29, arXiv:1901.07803 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  16. [16]

    De Luca, V

    V. De Luca, V. Desjacques, G. Franciolini, and A. Ri- otto, The clustering evolution of primordial black holes, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020, 028 (2020), arXiv:2009.04731 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    B. J. Carr, S. Clesse, J. Garc´ ıa-Bellido, M. R. S. Hawkins, and F. K¨ uhnel, Observational evidence for primordial black holes: A positivist perspective, Physics Reports 1054, 1 (2024), arXiv:2306.03903 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    J. F. Nu˜ no Siles and J. Garc´ ıa-Bellido, Primordial black hole clusters, phenomenology & implications, Physics of the Dark Universe47, 101789 (2025), arXiv:2405.06391 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    M. R. S. Hawkins and J. Garc´ ıa-Bellido, A critical analy- sis of the recent OGLE limits on stellar mass primordial black holes in the halo of the Milky Way, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society544, 1950 (2025), arXiv:2509.05400 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 1950

  20. [20]

    Gorton and A

    M. Gorton and A. M. Green, Effect of clustering on pri- mordial black hole microlensing constraints, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2022, 035 (2022), arXiv:2203.04209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Petaˇ c, J

    M. Petaˇ c, J. Lavalle, and K. Jedamzik, Microlensing con- straints on clustered primordial black holes, Phys. Rev. D105, 083520 (2022), arXiv:2201.02521 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    K. A. Toshchenko, P. V. Baklanov, K. M. Belotsky, and S. I. Blinnikov, Microlensing by a Cluster of Pri- mordial Black Holes, Astron. Lett.51, 461 (2025), arXiv:2603.23412 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Jedamzik, Primordial black hole dark matter and the LIGO/Virgo observations, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics2020, 022 (2020), arXiv:2006.11172 [astro-ph.CO]

    K. Jedamzik, Primordial black hole dark matter and the LIGO/Virgo observations, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics2020, 022 (2020), arXiv:2006.11172 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Franciolini, K

    G. Franciolini, K. Kritos, E. Berti, and J. Silk, Primordial black hole mergers from three-body interactions, Phys. Rev. D106, 083529 (2022), arXiv:2205.15340 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, A Univer- sal Density Profile from Hierarchical Clustering, Astro- phys. J.490, 493 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9611107 [astro- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  26. [26]

    P. J. McMillan, The mass distribution and gravitational potential of the Milky Way, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society465, 76 (2017), arXiv:1608.00971 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  27. [27]

    Bland-Hawthorn and O

    J. Bland-Hawthorn and O. Gerhard, The Galaxy in Con- text: Structural, Kinematic, and Integrated Properties, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics54, 529 (2016), arXiv:1602.07702 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  28. [28]

    Dehnen, A Family of Potential-Density Pairs for Spherical Galaxies and Bulges, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society265, 250 (1993)

    W. Dehnen, A Family of Potential-Density Pairs for Spherical Galaxies and Bulges, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society265, 250 (1993)

    1993

  29. [29]

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

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

    1987

  30. [30]

    Vasiliev, AGAMA: action-based galaxy modelling ar- chitecture, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi- cal Society482, 1525 (2019), arXiv:1802.08239 [astro- ph.GA]

    E. Vasiliev, AGAMA: action-based galaxy modelling ar- chitecture, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi- cal Society482, 1525 (2019), arXiv:1802.08239 [astro- ph.GA]. [31]https://github.com/GalacticDynamics-Oxford/AGAMA

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    P. S. Behroozi, R. H. Wechsler, and H.-Y. Wu, The ROCKSTAR Phase-space Temporal Halo Finder and the Velocity Offsets of Cluster Cores, Astrophys. J.762, 109 (2013), arXiv:1110.4372. [33]https://github.com/tkachev-asc/g2 enc

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  32. [32]

    Springel, The cosmological simulation code GADGET-2, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society364, 1105 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0505010 [astro-ph]

    V. Springel, The cosmological simulation code GADGET-2, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society364, 1105 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0505010 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  33. [33]

    Power, J

    C. Power, J. F. Navarro, A. Jenkins, C. S. Frenk, S. D. M. White, V. Springel, J. Stadel, and T. Quinn, The inner structure of ΛCDM haloes - I. A numerical convergence study, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Soci- ety338, 14 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0201544 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  34. [34]

    M. V. Tkachev, S. V. Pilipenko, and G. Yepes, Dark mat- ter simulations with primordial black holes in the early Universe, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety499, 4854 (2020), arXiv:2009.07813

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Pilipenko, M

    S. Pilipenko, M. Tkachev, and P. Ivanov, Evolution of a primordial binary black hole due to interaction with cold dark matter and the formation rate of gravita- tional wave events, Phys. Rev. D105, 123504 (2022), arXiv:2205.10792. Appendix A: Two-Body Integration for Simulation Duration The simulation duration for each binary collision run is set by integ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 14, 2026.