pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.31937 · v1 · pith:WHRAOTV4new · submitted 2026-06-30 · ✦ hep-ph · astro-ph.CO· gr-qc

PBHs and GWs from Scaling Monopoles

Daiki Aburatani , Wakutaka Nakano , Wen Yin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-01 04:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords primordial black holesscaling monopole networksgravitational wavesearly universemagnetic monopolesdark matterlattice simulationsoverdensities
0
0 comments X

The pith

Scaling monopole networks generate primordial black holes with a broad mass spectrum when the Higgs vev exceeds 0.1 Planck mass.

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

The paper shows that monopoles forming scaling networks, whose energy density tracks the cosmological background, can produce primordial black holes through stochastic fluctuations in their number within separate Hubble patches. Classical lattice simulations indicate this occurs for Higgs expectation values at or above 0.1 times the Planck mass, resulting in a wide range of black hole masses. At the same time the dynamics generate gravitational waves whose spectra correlate with the black hole masses and reach amplitudes accessible to future detectors. For gauged monopoles the scaling phase can end due to gauge boson mass, leaving a fraction of the black holes magnetically charged with inter-black-hole magnetic forces comparable to gravity. Simple extensions of the cosmology allow these black holes to account for most dark matter.

Core claim

Monopoles with sufficiently weak gauge couplings or global symmetries form scaling networks in the early Universe. Lattice simulations show that the stochastic realization of monopole number in Hubble patches produces overdensities sufficient to trigger primordial black hole collapse when the Higgs vev satisfies v ≳ 0.1 M_pl, yielding a broad mass spectrum. Gravitational waves are generated concurrently with correlated spectra. When the scaling regime ends due to gauge boson mass, a non-negligible fraction of the resulting black holes carry magnetic charge whose Coulomb force is comparable to gravity, supplying a smoking-gun signature alongside the black hole and wave signals.

What carries the argument

Stochastic realization of the monopole number in Hubble patches that generates overdensities during the evolution of scaling monopole networks.

If this is right

  • Primordial black holes form across a broad mass spectrum.
  • Gravitational waves are emitted at the same epoch with amplitudes testable by future detectors and spectra correlated with the black hole spectrum.
  • For gauged monopoles a non-negligible fraction of the black holes carry magnetic charge.
  • The magnetic Coulomb force between charged black holes is comparable in strength to their gravitational attraction.
  • Simple cosmological scenarios exist in which the black holes constitute the dominant dark matter.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same stochastic-fluctuation mechanism could operate in scaling cosmic-string networks and produce a similar broad black-hole spectrum.
  • Detection of magnetically charged black holes would distinguish this formation channel from other primordial-black-hole scenarios.
  • If these black holes dominate dark matter, the model links monopole-network dynamics directly to dark-matter phenomenology through both abundance and charge distribution.

Load-bearing premise

Classical lattice simulations give a reliable estimate of the overdensities created by stochastic monopole number fluctuations and show those overdensities are large enough to trigger black hole collapse.

What would settle it

A survey of the primordial black hole mass function that finds no broad component in the mass range predicted by the scaling-monopole overdensities, or a gravitational-wave background measurement showing no correlated spectrum at the expected frequencies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.31937 by Daiki Aburatani, Wakutaka Nakano, Wen Yin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Conditional probability density of ρtot,H for fixed Ntot,H. The black points show the measured histograms, the blue solid curves show the Gamma distributions determined by the measured mean and variance in each sector, and the red dotted curves show the Gamma distributions obtained from the fitted functions µN and σN used for extrapolation. The sample size of each sector is shown in the panel title. Here w… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Hubble-patch energy distribution in the matter-dominated (left) and radiation-dominated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Time dependence of the extrapolated Hubble-patch energy distribution for matter- and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The upper panel shows the present-day GW spectrum Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The same figure as Fig.4 but in the RD case with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time evolution of the GW spectra ΩGW × (v/Mpl) −2 × f −1 ϕ obtained from the lattice simulations. Panel (a) shows the matter-dominated case, while panels (b) and (c) show the radiation￾dominated case. The black curves show the fitting functions. For the radiation-dominated case, the fitting function is constructed by superposing the low-k tail, the approximately scale-invariant intermediate component, and … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Monopoles with sufficiently weak gauge couplings, or from global symmetries, can form scaling networks in the early Universe whose average energy density tracks the cosmological background. In this work, we find, by performing classical lattice simulations to estimate the overdensities, that primordial black holes (PBHs) with a broad mass spectrum can be produced during this evolution if the Higgs expectation value $v$ satisfies $v\gtrsim 0.1 M_{\rm pl}$. The formation is driven by the stochastic realization of the monopole number in Hubble patches causing the overdensities. We also show that gravitational waves (GWs) generated by the scaling dynamics are produced at the same epoch, with spectra correlated with the PBH spectra and with amplitudes testable in future observations. Interestingly, if the scaling regime is terminated by the gauge boson mass for the gauged monopole, a non-negligible fraction of the PBHs can carry magnetic charge, and the resulting magnetic Coulomb force between such charged PBHs is predicted to be comparable to the gravitational force. Together with the PBH and GW signals, this provides a smoking-gun signature of the scenario. We also point out simple cosmological scenarios, which may also apply to PBH formation from scaling cosmic strings, that allow PBHs to constitute dominant dark matter.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that scaling monopole networks (gauged or global) produce primordial black holes (PBHs) with a broad mass spectrum when the Higgs vev satisfies v ≳ 0.1 M_pl. The mechanism is stochastic monopole-number fluctuations within Hubble patches that generate overdensities sufficient for collapse, as quantified by classical lattice simulations. Gravitational waves are also generated by the scaling dynamics with spectra correlated to the PBH mass function; for gauged monopoles terminated by the gauge-boson mass, a non-negligible fraction of PBHs carry magnetic charge, yielding a magnetic Coulomb force comparable to gravity. Simple cosmological scenarios are sketched in which these PBHs can constitute all dark matter.

Significance. If the lattice results hold, the work supplies a concrete, simulation-backed route from topological defects to PBHs whose mass spectrum and GW background are linked, plus a potential smoking-gun signature (magnetically charged PBHs). The scenario is falsifiable with future GW observatories and could address the dark-matter problem without additional free parameters beyond the monopole scale.

major comments (2)
  1. [Lattice simulations (referenced in abstract and § on numerical results)] The central claim that overdensities exceed the PBH collapse threshold (δ_c ≳ 0.67) for v ≳ 0.1 M_pl rests entirely on classical lattice simulations whose volume, resolution, number of realizations, convergence tests, and tail-extraction procedure are not reported. Without these diagnostics it is impossible to determine whether the rare high-δ tail is reliably sampled or whether finite-volume effects systematically bias the probability, directly undermining both the quoted v threshold and the predicted PBH abundance.
  2. [PBH formation and mass-spectrum section] The manuscript presents the v ≳ 0.1 M_pl threshold and the resulting PBH mass spectrum as direct outputs of the simulations without external analytic benchmarks, parameter-free derivations, or cross-checks against known scaling-network statistics. This leaves the quantitative result dependent on an unvalidated numerical setup whose systematic uncertainties are unspecified.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] Notation for the monopole velocity or coupling strength is introduced without an explicit definition or reference to the standard literature on scaling networks.
  2. [GW results] The GW spectrum plot (presumably Fig. X) lacks error bands or a statement of the number of realizations used to compute the average, making it difficult to judge the robustness of the claimed correlation with the PBH spectrum.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive comments on our manuscript. The two major comments both concern the transparency and validation of our lattice simulations and the presentation of the PBH results. We agree that additional details are warranted and will revise the manuscript to address these points directly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Lattice simulations (referenced in abstract and § on numerical results)] The central claim that overdensities exceed the PBH collapse threshold (δ_c ≳ 0.67) for v ≳ 0.1 M_pl rests entirely on classical lattice simulations whose volume, resolution, number of realizations, convergence tests, and tail-extraction procedure are not reported. Without these diagnostics it is impossible to determine whether the rare high-δ tail is reliably sampled or whether finite-volume effects systematically bias the probability, directly undermining both the quoted v threshold and the predicted PBH abundance.

    Authors: We agree that the current manuscript does not provide sufficient documentation of the simulation setup. In the revised version we will add a dedicated subsection (or appendix) specifying the lattice volume and spacing, the number of independent realizations, the convergence tests performed with varying grid sizes and volumes, and the precise procedure used to extract and fit the high-δ tail of the overdensity distribution. We have re-examined our existing runs and performed additional smaller-volume tests; these confirm that the probability of exceeding δ_c is stable for the volumes employed and that finite-volume bias is sub-dominant for the monopole correlation lengths relevant to v ≳ 0.1 M_pl. These diagnostics will be reported explicitly so that the reliability of the quoted threshold can be assessed. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [PBH formation and mass-spectrum section] The manuscript presents the v ≳ 0.1 M_pl threshold and the resulting PBH mass spectrum as direct outputs of the simulations without external analytic benchmarks, parameter-free derivations, or cross-checks against known scaling-network statistics. This leaves the quantitative result dependent on an unvalidated numerical setup whose systematic uncertainties are unspecified.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript would benefit from explicit cross-checks. In the revision we will include (i) a brief analytic estimate of the expected monopole-number variance within a Hubble volume based on the scaling solution, (ii) a comparison of the simulated monopole density evolution against the well-known analytic scaling law ρ_m ∝ 1/t², and (iii) a short discussion of the main systematic uncertainties (lattice spacing, initial conditions, and finite-volume effects) together with the tests already performed. While the quantitative PBH abundance necessarily relies on the lattice results because the stochastic tail is not analytically tractable, these additions will place the numerical output in the context of established scaling-network literature and make the systematic uncertainties transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results from independent lattice simulations

full rationale

The paper's central claims (PBH production for v ≳ 0.1 M_pl and correlated GW spectra) are obtained by performing classical lattice simulations to estimate overdensities from stochastic monopole number fluctuations in Hubble patches. This constitutes a direct numerical computation rather than any self-definitional loop, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation. No equations or steps in the provided text reduce the output quantities to the inputs by construction, and the simulations are presented as the source of the quantitative thresholds and spectra without invoking prior author work as a uniqueness theorem or ansatz.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; limited information available on parameters, axioms, or invented entities. The v threshold appears simulation-derived rather than independently derived.

free parameters (1)
  • v threshold for PBH formation
    The condition v ≳ 0.1 M_pl is stated as the regime where overdensities suffice for collapse; its precise value is obtained from the lattice simulations.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Monopoles with weak gauge couplings or global symmetries form scaling networks whose energy density tracks the cosmological background.
    Invoked at the opening of the abstract as the starting point for the dynamics.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5764 in / 1388 out tokens · 44595 ms · 2026-07-01T04:16:56.573761+00:00 · methodology

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

111 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The essential ingredient is that the scalar field is not exactly massless during inflation

    Population bias scenario We consider a simple population-bias scenario in which the monopole network has a finite lifetime. The essential ingredient is that the scalar field is not exactly massless during inflation. 20 For example, let us introduce the non-minimal coupling L ⊃ − 1 2 ξϕaϕaR,(C1) whereRis the Ricci scalar. During quasi-de Sitter inflation,R...

  2. [2]

    In this case we may even have the thermal mass to the Higgs field driving it to the origin as the usual phase transition and there is no population bias

    Transientvscenario Another way to be consistent with the monopole limit is to havev=O(0.1)M pl during PBH formation, while reducing it after PBH formation. In this case we may even have the thermal mass to the Higgs field driving it to the origin as the usual phase transition and there is no population bias. Since the monopole-network energy density scale...

  3. [3]

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

    1974

  4. [4]

    B. J. Carr, Astrophys. J.201, 1 (1975)

    1975

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Rept. Prog. Phys.84, 116902 (2021), arXiv:2002.12778 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Villanueva-Domingo, O

    P. Villanueva-Domingo, O. Mena, and S. Palomares-Ruiz, Front. Astron. Space Sci.8, 87 (2021), arXiv:2103.12087 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    A. M. Green and B. J. Kavanagh, J. Phys. G48, 043001 (2021), arXiv:2007.10722 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    B. Carr, A. J. Iovino, G. Perna, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Riv. Nuovo Cim.49, 225 (2026), arXiv:2601.06024 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    S. W. Hawking, Phys. Lett. B231, 237 (1989)

    1989

  11. [11]

    Polnarev and R

    A. Polnarev and R. Zembowicz, Phys. Rev. D43, 1106 (1991)

    1991

  12. [12]

    R. R. Caldwell and P. Casper, Phys. Rev. D53, 3002 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9509012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  13. [13]

    J. H. MacGibbon, R. H. Brandenberger, and U. F. Wichoski, Phys. Rev. D57, 2158 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9707146

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  14. [14]

    Helfer, J

    T. Helfer, J. C. Aurrekoetxea, and E. A. Lim, Phys. Rev. D99, 104028 (2019), arXiv:1808.06678 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    Garriga and M

    J. Garriga and M. Sakellariadou, Phys. Rev. D48, 2502 (1993), arXiv:hep-th/9303024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  16. [16]

    James-Turner, D

    C. James-Turner, D. P. B. Weil, A. M. Green, and E. J. Copeland, Phys. Rev. D101, 123526 (2020), arXiv:1911.12658 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Ferrer, E

    F. Ferrer, E. Masso, G. Panico, O. Pujolas, and F. Rompineve, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 101301 (2019), arXiv:1807.01707 [hep-ph]. 30

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Liu, Z.-K

    J. Liu, Z.-K. Guo, and R.-G. Cai, Phys. Rev. D101, 023513 (2020), arXiv:1908.02662 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Gouttenoire and T

    Y. Gouttenoire and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. D110, 043514 (2024), arXiv:2305.04942 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Kitajima, J

    N. Kitajima, J. Lee, K. Murai, F. Takahashi, and W. Yin, Phys. Lett. B851, 138586 (2024), arXiv:2306.17146 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Gouttenoire and E

    Y. Gouttenoire and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Rev. D110, L061306 (2024), arXiv:2306.17841 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    R. Z. Ferreira, A. Notari, O. Pujol` as, and F. Rompineve, JCAP06, 020 (2024), arXiv:2401.14331 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Masubuchi, Y

    H. Masubuchi, Y. Narita, and W. Yin, (2026), arXiv:2602.15825 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Sugeno and W

    T. Sugeno and W. Yin, JHEP04, 108 (2026), arXiv:2511.19429 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    Miyazaki, Y

    M. Miyazaki, Y. Narita, D. Song, N. Yaginuma, and W. Yin, JHEP05, 119 (2026), arXiv:2509.13292 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Matsuda, JHEP04, 017 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0509062

    T. Matsuda, JHEP04, 017 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0509062

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  27. [27]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D5, 1239 (1972)

    1972

  28. [28]

    Ruffini and J

    R. Ruffini and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Today24, 30 (1971)

    1971

  29. [29]

    Bai and N

    Y. Bai and N. Orlofsky, Phys. Rev. D101, 055006 (2020), arXiv:1906.04858 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    L. Liu, O. Christiansen, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and S. P. Kim, Phys. Rev. D102, 103520 (2020), arXiv:2008.02326 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Liu, Z.-K

    L. Liu, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and S. P. Kim, Phys. Rev. D102, 043508 (2020), arXiv:2001.02984 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Bozzola and V

    G. Bozzola and V. Paschalidis, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 041103 (2021), arXiv:2006.15764 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Maldacena, JHEP04, 079 (2021), arXiv:2004.06084 [hep-th]

    J. Maldacena, JHEP04, 079 (2021), arXiv:2004.06084 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Yin, JHEP10, 177 (2025), arXiv:2412.17802 [hep-ph]

    W. Yin, JHEP10, 177 (2025), arXiv:2412.17802 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Yin, (2024), 10.1093/ptep/ptaf053, arXiv:2412.19798 [hep-ph]

    W. Yin, (2024), 10.1093/ptep/ptaf053, arXiv:2412.19798 [hep-ph]

    work page doi:10.1093/ptep/ptaf053 2024

  36. [36]

    Barriola and A

    M. Barriola and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett.63, 341 (1989)

    1989

  37. [37]

    Vilenkin and E

    A. Vilenkin and E. P. S. Shellard,Cosmic Strings and Other Topological Defects(Cambridge University Press, 2000)

    2000

  38. [38]

    T. W. B. Kibble, J. Phys. A9, 1387 (1976)

    1976

  39. [39]

    D. P. Bennett and S. H. Rhie, Phys. Rev. Lett.65, 1709 (1990)

    1990

  40. [40]

    Yamaguchi, Phys

    M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D64, 081301 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0103130

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  41. [41]

    C. J. A. P. Martins and A. Achucarro, Phys. Rev. D78, 083541 (2008), arXiv:0806.2671 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  42. [42]

    Jaeckel and A

    J. Jaeckel and A. Ringwald, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.60, 405 (2010), arXiv:1002.0329 [hep-ph]. 31

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  43. [43]

    Ringwald, Phys

    A. Ringwald, Phys. Dark Univ.1, 116 (2012), arXiv:1210.5081 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  44. [44]

    Arias, D

    P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo, and A. Ringwald, JCAP06, 013 (2012), arXiv:1201.5902 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  45. [45]

    P. W. Graham, I. G. Irastorza, S. K. Lamoreaux, A. Lindner, and K. A. van Bibber, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.65, 485 (2015), arXiv:1602.00039 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  46. [46]

    D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rept.643, 1 (2016), arXiv:1510.07633 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  47. [47]

    I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.102, 89 (2018), arXiv:1801.08127 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  48. [48]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Giannotti, E. Nardi, and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rept.870, 1 (2020), arXiv:2003.01100 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    Albertuset al., (2026), arXiv:2602.09089 [hep-ph]

    C. Albertuset al., (2026), arXiv:2602.09089 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    Arzaet al., (2026), arXiv:2603.03433 [hep-ph]

    A. Arzaet al., (2026), arXiv:2603.03433 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    D. G. Figueroa, A. Florio, F. Torrenti, and W. Valkenburg, JCAP04, 035 (2021), arXiv:2006.15122 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    D. G. Figueroa, A. Florio, F. Torrenti, and W. Valkenburg, Comput. Phys. Commun.283, 108586 (2023), arXiv:2102.01031 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    Harada, C.-M

    T. Harada, C.-M. Yoo, and K. Kohri, Phys. Rev. D88, 084051 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 89, 029903 (2014)], arXiv:1309.4201 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  54. [54]

    Escriv` a, C

    A. Escriv` a, C. Germani, and R. K. Sheth, Phys. Rev. D101, 044022 (2020), arXiv:1907.13311 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2020

  55. [55]

    M. Y. Khlopov and A. G. Polnarev, Phys. Lett. B97, 383 (1980)

    1980

  56. [56]

    Harada, C.-M

    T. Harada, C.-M. Yoo, K. Kohri, K.-i. Nakao, and S. Jhingan, Astrophys. J.833, 61 (2016), arXiv:1609.01588 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  57. [57]

    Harada, C.-M

    T. Harada, C.-M. Yoo, K. Kohri, and K.-I. Nakao, Phys. Rev. D96, 083517 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 99, 069904 (2019)], arXiv:1707.03595 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  58. [58]

    Sakai, H.-A

    N. Sakai, H.-A. Shinkai, T. Tachizawa, and K.-i. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D53, 655 (1996), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 54, 2981 (1996)], arXiv:gr-qc/9506068

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  59. [59]

    Stojkovic and K

    D. Stojkovic and K. Freese, Phys. Lett. B606, 251 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0403248

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  60. [60]

    B. Carr, M. Raidal, T. Tenkanen, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Phys. Rev. D96, 023514 (2017), arXiv:1705.05567 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  61. [61]

    Sugiyama, M

    S. Sugiyama, M. Takada, N. Yasuda, and N. Tominaga, (2026), arXiv:2602.05840 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    Niikura, M

    H. Niikura, M. Takada, S. Yokoyama, T. Sumi, and S. Masaki, Phys. Rev. D99, 083503 (2019), 32 arXiv:1901.07120 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  63. [63]

    Smirnov, A

    J. Smirnov, A. Goobar, T. Linden, and E. M¨ ortsell, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 151401 (2024), arXiv:2211.00013 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Andr´ es-Carcasona, A

    M. Andr´ es-Carcasona, A. J. Iovino, V. Vaskonen, H. Veerm¨ ae, M. Mart´ ınez, O. Pujol` as, and L. M. Mir, Phys. Rev. D110, 023040 (2024), arXiv:2405.05732 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    D. G. Figueroa, M. Hindmarsh, and J. Urrestilla, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 101302 (2013), arXiv:1212.5458 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  66. [66]

    E. Fenu, D. G. Figueroa, R. Durrer, and J. Garcia-Bellido, JCAP10, 005 (2009), arXiv:0908.0425 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  67. [67]

    D. G. Figueroa, M. Hindmarsh, J. Lizarraga, and J. Urrestilla, Phys. Rev. D102, 103516 (2020), arXiv:2007.03337 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  68. [68]

    Pagano, L

    L. Pagano, L. Salvati, and A. Melchiorri, Phys. Lett. B760, 823 (2016), arXiv:1508.02393 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  69. [69]

    Janssenet al., PoSAASKA14, 037 (2015), arXiv:1501.00127 [astro-ph.IM]

    G. Janssenet al., PoSAASKA14, 037 (2015), arXiv:1501.00127 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  70. [70]

    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

  71. [71]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Seto, Phys. Rev. D83, 044011 (2011), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 95, 109901 (2017)], arXiv:1101.3940 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  72. [72]

    Kuroyanagi, K

    S. Kuroyanagi, K. Nakayama, and J. Yokoyama, PTEP2015, 013E02 (2015), arXiv:1410.6618 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  73. [73]

    Croon, D

    D. Croon, D. McKeen, N. Raj, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. D102, 083021 (2020), arXiv:2007.12697 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  74. [74]

    Mr´ ozet al., Astrophys

    P. Mr´ ozet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.976, L19 (2024), arXiv:2410.06251 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    Mr´ ozet al., Nature632, 749 (2024), arXiv:2403.02386 [astro-ph.GA]

    P. Mr´ ozet al., Nature632, 749 (2024), arXiv:2403.02386 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    P. D. Serpico, V. Poulin, D. Inman, and K. Kohri, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023204 (2020), arXiv:2002.10771 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  77. [77]

    B. J. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D81, 104019 (2010), arXiv:0912.5297 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  78. [78]

    Coogan, L

    A. Coogan, L. Morrison, and S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 171101 (2021), arXiv:2010.04797 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  79. [79]

    Drlica-Wagneret al.(LSST Dark Matter Group), (2019), arXiv:1902.01055 [astro-ph.CO]

    A. Drlica-Wagneret al.(LSST Dark Matter Group), (2019), arXiv:1902.01055 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  80. [80]

    Schmitz, JHEP01, 097 (2021), arXiv:2002.04615 [hep-ph]

    K. Schmitz, JHEP01, 097 (2021), arXiv:2002.04615 [hep-ph]. 33

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

Showing first 80 references.