Short Gravitational-Wave Transients as Probes of Cosmic Domain Walls

The new analysis still awaits peer review, but it already lays out the central claim clearly.

This matters because astrophysics becomes persuasive only when an observed signal can be tied to a physically defensible explanation. Compact objects such as neutron stars and black holes are natural laboratories for extreme physics, but the distance and complexity of these systems make interpretation difficult without multi-wavelength coverage and careful modeling. A detection without a mechanism is only half a result. the other half comes from showing that the signal fits quantitatively inside a coherent physical picture rather than merely being consistent with a broad family of models. We test a topological dark matter (TDM) interpretation invoking cosmic domain walls by fitting a physically motivated domain wall template to the LIGO Hanford and Livingston. The BBH hypothesis is individually favored, with $\log_{10}\mathcal{B}_{\rm BBH/TDM}=12.2$ and $11.3$ for GW231123 and GW190521, respectively.

However, these values are lower than those typically recovered from matched maximum a posteriori BBH waveforms injected into nearby noise segments. We further perform, for the first time, a joint fit in which domain wall signals from a single underlying scalar field are constrained simultaneously by both events.

Although not favored over BBH signals, we find the two events are consistent with a common scalar field, with shared TDM parameters agreeing across independent noise realizations. We further find that injected TDM transients are systematically recovered under the BBH hypothesis with large spin parameters, revealing a morphological degeneracy that could mask.

This analysis demonstrates that multi-event parameter consistency tests provide a new discriminant for domain wall dark matter searches in upcoming observing runs. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy.

The broader interest lies in turning an observational clue into something that can be weighed against competing models of the underlying physics. Astrophysics does not have the luxury of controlled experiments; everything is inferred from radiation that traveled across cosmic distances under conditions that cannot be reproduced in a terrestrial laboratory. This makes the interpretation chain longer and more uncertain than in bench science, but it also means that a well-constrained measurement of an extreme object carries theoretical information that no earthbound experiment can provide.

ArXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them. Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community.

Because this is still a preprint, the result should be read with genuine interest and proportionate caution. Peer review is not a guarantee of correctness, but it is a process that forces authors to respond to technical criticism from specialists who have no stake in a particular outcome. Preprints that survive that process, often with substantive revisions, emerge with a stronger evidential base than the version that first appeared. Until that stage is complete, the responsible reading keeps uncertainty explicitly visible rather than treating the claims as established findings.

The next step is to see whether independent datasets and physical modeling converge on the same interpretation. Multi-wavelength follow-up, combining X-ray, radio and optical data where possible, is typically what separates a compelling detection from a robust physical characterization. In high-energy astrophysics, results that initially looked definitive have been revised when data from a second messenger arrived; the current result should be read with that history in mind. Until peer review and independent follow-up address those open questions, skepticism is not a failure of appreciation for the work; it is part of how science decides what to keep.

Source