pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.08053 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · ✦ hep-ph · gr-qc

Recognition: unknown

Constraining Ultralight Scalar Dark Matter in the Galactic Center with the S2 Orbit

Jiang-Chuan Yu , Yan Cao , Lijing Shao
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph gr-qc
keywords ultralight dark mattergalactic centerS2 starperiastron precessionscalar fieldquadratic couplingSgr A*dark matter constraints
0
0 comments X

The pith

The S2 star's observed periastron precession constrains ultralight scalar dark matter near the galactic center black hole.

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

This paper investigates how an ultralight scalar dark matter field could perturb the orbits of stars circling the Milky Way's central supermassive black hole through its couplings to ordinary matter. It models two possible dark matter distributions, a gravitational atom state and a spherical soliton, and shows that quadratic coupling produces a steady, non-oscillatory shift in orbital motion rather than rapid oscillations. By matching the predicted long-term precession to the measured periastron advance of the S2 star, the work places upper limits on the total dark matter mass relative to the black hole and on the strength of the quadratic coupling. These limits improve existing experimental bounds on the coupling constant across a specific window of dark matter particle masses.

Core claim

Quadratic coupling between the real scalar field and Standard Model particles induces a non-oscillatory perturbation that drives secular orbital evolution. Using the observed periastron precession rate of the S2 star, the total ULDM mass ratio β to Sgr A* is limited to ≲ 10^{-3} for the |211⟩ gravitational atom state at m ∼ 10^{-18} eV and to ≲ 1 for the spherical soliton extending to ∼0.2 pc at m ∼ 3×10^{-20} eV. The resulting bounds on the quadratic coupling constant surpass current limits for masses in the range 10^{-20} eV ≲ m ≲ 10^{-18} eV.

What carries the argument

Secular orbital precession induced by quadratic scalar-field coupling, bounded by the measured periastron advance rate of the S2 star.

If this is right

  • The gravitational atom |211⟩ configuration must satisfy β ≲ 10^{-3} near m ∼ 10^{-18} eV.
  • The spherical soliton configuration allows β up to order unity near m ∼ 3×10^{-20} eV.
  • Quadratic coupling constants are bounded more tightly than prior results throughout 10^{-20} eV ≲ m ≲ 10^{-18} eV.
  • Stellar orbits in the galactic center serve as sensitive probes for non-oscillatory effects of ultralight scalar fields.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Higher-precision future tracking of S2 or additional S-stars could shrink the allowed parameter space further or reveal a signal.
  • The same secular-precession method could be applied to stars orbiting other supermassive black holes if suitable orbital data become available.
  • Alternative ULDM spatial distributions beyond the two models considered here would produce different numerical bounds on β.

Load-bearing premise

The observed periastron precession of S2 can isolate the secular effect from quadratic ULDM coupling without dominant unmodeled contributions from other phenomena or inaccurate assumptions about the dark matter density profile.

What would settle it

A high-precision measurement of the S2 periastron precession rate that deviates from the value predicted by general relativity plus the quadratic-coupling term at the excluded β values would falsify the derived upper limits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.08053 by Jiang-Chuan Yu, Lijing Shao, Yan Cao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Constraints on 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Constraints on 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Upper bound on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The dense environment of our Galactic Center (GC) offers a unique laboratory for probing ultralight dark matter (ULDM). We explore the prospect of detecting a scalar ULDM field through its effects on the orbital dynamics of S-stars around the supermassive black hole in the GC, Sgr A$^*$. We consider both linear and quadratic couplings between the real scalar field $\phi$ and Standard Model particles, and analyze two representative ULDM structures: the scalar gravitational atom and the spherical soliton. We find that quadratic coupling induces a non-oscillatory perturbation, leading to a long-term secular orbital evolution. We use the observed periastron precession rate of S2 star to put stringent constraints on the total ULDM mass in the GC and the quadratic coupling constant. For the gravitational atom $|211\rangle$ state, we constrain the mass ratio of ULDM to Sgr A$^*$ to $\beta \lesssim 10^{-3}$ at $m \sim 10^{-18}$ eV, and for the spherical soliton which extends to $\sim 0.2\,$pc, the mass ratio is limited to $\beta \lesssim 1$ at $m \sim 3\times10^{-20}$ eV. Notably, the resulting limits on the quadratic coupling constant surpass current bounds in the mass range $10^{-20} \,\text{eV} \lesssim m \lesssim 10^{-18}$ eV.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that quadratic (and linear) couplings of a real scalar ULDM field to SM particles induce secular orbital evolution in S-stars; by attributing the difference between the measured S2 periastron precession rate and the GR prediction to this effect, the authors obtain upper limits on the ULDM-to-Sgr A* mass ratio β (β ≲ 10^{-3} for the |211⟩ gravitational-atom state at m ∼ 10^{-18} eV; β ≲ 1 for a spherical soliton at m ∼ 3 × 10^{-20} eV) and on the quadratic coupling constant, asserting that the latter bounds improve on existing limits for 10^{-20} eV ≲ m ≲ 10^{-18} eV.

Significance. If the isolation of the quadratic-coupling secular term from GR and other perturbations is robust, the work supplies new astrophysical constraints on ULDM in a mass window where laboratory bounds are weak, demonstrating the utility of high-precision S-star astrometry for testing scalar dark-matter models.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and secular-evolution derivation] The central bounds on β and the quadratic coupling rest on equating the residual periastron advance (observed minus GR) to the orbit-averaged secular drift induced by the quadratic scalar-matter interaction. This mapping requires that (i) the adopted ULDM density profiles (|211⟩ gravitational atom or spherical soliton extending to ~0.2 pc) accurately represent the actual field configuration inside the S2 orbit and (ii) no other unmodeled extended mass or post-Newtonian contributions dominate the residual. The abstract provides no quantitative demonstration that these conditions hold; if they do not, the headline constraints are invalidated. (See the derivation of the secular evolution and the comparison to S2 data.)
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Clarify whether the quoted mass range 10^{-20} eV ≲ m ≲ 10^{-18} eV applies uniformly to both the gravitational-atom and soliton cases or only to one configuration.
  2. [Abstract] The notation for the mass ratio β is introduced without an explicit definition in the abstract; ensure it is defined at first use in the main text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive feedback. We address the major comment below and have revised the manuscript to improve clarity.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central bounds on β and the quadratic coupling rest on equating the residual periastron advance (observed minus GR) to the orbit-averaged secular drift induced by the quadratic scalar-matter interaction. This mapping requires that (i) the adopted ULDM density profiles (|211⟩ gravitational atom or spherical soliton extending to ~0.2 pc) accurately represent the actual field configuration inside the S2 orbit and (ii) no other unmodeled extended mass or post-Newtonian contributions dominate the residual. The abstract provides no quantitative demonstration that these conditions hold; if they do not, the headline constraints are invalidated. (See the derivation of the secular evolution and the comparison to S2 data.)

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting the need for explicit justification. The full manuscript derives the secular periastron precession from the quadratic coupling via orbit averaging for both the |211⟩ gravitational atom and spherical soliton (with the soliton radius chosen to encompass the S2 orbit), and directly compares the predicted residual to S2 astrometric data to obtain the β limits. These profiles are standard in the ULDM literature for the Galactic Center and are justified by the requirement that the field configuration be coherent over the relevant scales. For other contributions, the bounds are conservative upper limits assuming the observed residual (after GR subtraction) can be attributed to ULDM; additional unmodeled effects would only tighten the constraints. We agree the abstract is too concise and lacks quantitative context on these points. We will revise the abstract to briefly state the key assumptions and reference the detailed derivation and data comparison in the main text. This does not invalidate the results but improves presentation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; constraints derived from independent S2 observations

full rationale

The paper computes the secular periastron precession induced by quadratic scalar-matter coupling for two ULDM density profiles (gravitational atom |211⟩ and spherical soliton), then equates the residual between the measured S2 precession rate and the GR prediction to this modeled effect in order to bound β and the coupling constant. This is a standard forward-modeling constraint from external data; the output parameters are not defined in terms of themselves, no fitted subset is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness theorem is invoked to force the result. The derivation chain remains self-contained against the independent observational input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions from general relativity and scalar field theory plus specific modeling choices for ULDM distributions; no new entities with independent evidence are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • standard math General relativity accurately describes the background spacetime and orbital dynamics around Sgr A*
    Invoked to compute the unperturbed orbit and perturbations from the scalar field.
  • domain assumption The ultralight scalar field can be treated in the non-relativistic limit with linear or quadratic couplings to SM particles
    Basis for the perturbation analysis in both coupling cases.
invented entities (2)
  • scalar gravitational atom in |211> state no independent evidence
    purpose: Specific density profile for ULDM around the black hole
    One of two representative structures used to compute the perturbation; no independent evidence provided beyond the model.
  • spherical soliton extending to ~0.2 pc no independent evidence
    purpose: Alternative density profile for ULDM
    Second structure used for the mass ratio constraint; postulated for the calculation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5566 in / 1686 out tokens · 52774 ms · 2026-05-10T17:29:22.015724+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

94 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    The situation is opposite for an attraction (λ <0) self- interaction, under which the ground state is no longer stable ifM c is sufficiently large

    self-interaction makes the ground state less compact. The situation is opposite for an attraction (λ <0) self- interaction, under which the ground state is no longer stable ifM c is sufficiently large. In the small-γregime, the deviationV 1(y, α, γ)−V 1(y, α,0) scales linearly with γfor a given value ofα, as illustrated in Fig. 4. As can be seen, the modi...

  2. [2]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  3. [3]

    Weinberg, A New Light Boson?, Phys

    S. Weinberg, A New Light Boson?, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  4. [4]

    Wilczek, Problem of StrongPandTInvariance in the Presence of Instantons, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Problem of StrongPandTInvariance in the Presence of Instantons, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  5. [5]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, The Not So Harmless Axion, Phys. Lett. B120, 137 (1983)

    1983

  6. [6]

    L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Ul- tralight scalars as cosmological dark matter, Phys. Rev. D95, 043541 (2017), arXiv:1610.08297 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

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

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Feebly-interacting particles: FIPs 2020 workshop report,

    P. Agrawalet al., Feebly-interacting particles: FIPs 2020 workshop report, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 1015 (2021), arXiv:2102.12143 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    Polchinski,String theory

    J. Polchinski,String theory. Vol. 2: Superstring theory and beyond, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    2007

  10. [10]

    J. E. Kim, Light Pseudoscalars, Particle Physics and Cos- mology, Phys. Rept.150, 1 (1987)

    1987

  11. [11]

    Fayet, Extra U(1)’s and New Forces, Nucl

    P. Fayet, Extra U(1)’s and New Forces, Nucl. Phys. B 347, 743 (1990)

    1990

  12. [12]

    Axions In String Theory

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, Axions In String Theory, JHEP 06, 051, arXiv:hep-th/0605206

    work page Pith review arXiv

  13. [13]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, String axiverse, Phys. Rev. D81, 123530 (2010)

    2010

  14. [14]

    WISPy Cold Dark Matter

    P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Re- dondo, and A. Ringwald, WISPy Cold Dark Matter, JCAP06, 013, arXiv:1201.5902 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  15. [15]

    D. H. Lyth and A. Riotto, Particle physics models of in- flation and the cosmological density perturbation, Phys. Rept.314, 1 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9807278

    work page Pith review arXiv 1999

  16. [16]

    E. W. Kolb and A. J. Long, Completely dark photons from gravitational particle production during the in- flationary era, JHEP03, 283, arXiv:2009.03828 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2009

  17. [17]

    Damour and J

    T. Damour and J. F. Donoghue, Equivalence Principle Violations and Couplings of a Light Dilaton, Phys. Rev. D82, 084033 (2010), arXiv:1007.2792 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2010

  18. [18]

    Damour and J

    T. Damour and J. F. Donoghue, Phenomenology of the Equivalence Principle with Light Scalars, Class. Quant. Grav.27, 202001 (2010), arXiv:1007.2790 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2010

  19. [19]

    Okawa, M

    S. Okawa, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz, Long-range axion forces and hadronic CP violation, Phys. Rev. D105, 075003 (2022), arXiv:2111.08040 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Bauer and G

    M. Bauer and G. Rostagni, Fifth Forces from QCD Axions Scale Differently, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 101802 (2024), arXiv:2307.09516 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Cheng and S

    Y. Cheng and S. Ge, Background-enhanced axion force by axion dark matter (2025), arXiv:2504.02702 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Derevianko and M

    A. Derevianko and M. Pospelov, Hunting for topological dark matter with atomic clocks, Nature Phys.10, 933 (2014), arXiv:1311.1244 [physics.atom-ph]

    work page arXiv 2014

  23. [23]

    Arvanitaki, J

    A. Arvanitaki, J. Huang, and K. Van Tilburg, Searching for dilaton dark matter with atomic clocks, Phys. Rev. D91, 015015 (2015), arXiv:1405.2925 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2015

  24. [24]

    Van Tilburg, N

    K. Van Tilburg, N. Leefer, L. Bougas, and D. Bud- ker, Search for ultralight scalar dark matter with atomic spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 011802 (2015), arXiv:1503.06886 [physics.atom-ph]

    work page arXiv 2015

  25. [25]

    A. Hees, J. Gu´ ena, M. Abgrall, S. Bize, and P. Wolf, Searching for an oscillating massive scalar field as a dark matter candidate using atomic hyperfine frequency comparisons, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 061301 (2016), arXiv:1604.08514 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2016

  26. [26]

    Y. V. Stadnik and V. V. Flambaum, Searching for dark matter and variation of fundamental constants with laser and maser interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 161301 (2015), arXiv:1412.7801 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2015

  27. [27]

    Yu, Y.-H

    J.-C. Yu, Y.-H. Yao, Y. Tang, and Y.-L. Wu, Sensitiv- ity of space-based gravitational-wave interferometers to ultralight bosonic fields and dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 108, 083007 (2023), arXiv:2307.09197 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, and K. Van Tilburg, Sound of Dark Matter: Searching for Light Scalars with Resonant-Mass Detectors, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 031102 (2016), arXiv:1508.01798 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2016

  29. [29]

    Caputo, L

    A. Caputo, L. Sberna, M. Frias, D. Blas, P. Pani, L. Shao, and W. Yan, Constraints on millicharged dark matter and axionlike particles from timing of radio waves, Phys. Rev. D100, 063515 (2019), arXiv:1902.02695 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    H. An, S. Ge, W.-Q. Guo, X. Huang, J. Liu, and Z. Lu, Direct Detection of Dark Photon Dark Matter Using Radio Telescopes, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 181001 (2023), arXiv:2207.05767 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    D. Blas, D. L. Nacir, and S. Sibiryakov, Ultralight Dark Matter Resonates with Binary Pulsars, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 261102 (2017), arXiv:1612.06789 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2017

  32. [32]

    D. Blas, D. L´ opez Nacir, and S. Sibiryakov, Secular ef- fects of ultralight dark matter on binary pulsars, Phys. Rev. D101, 063016 (2020), arXiv:1910.08544 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    N. K. Porayko and K. A. Postnov, Constraints on ultra- light scalar dark matter from pulsar timing, Phys. Rev. D90, 062008 (2014), arXiv:1408.4670 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2014

  34. [34]

    Smarraet al., Constraints on conformal ultralight dark matter couplings from the European Pulsar Timing Ar- ray, Phys

    C. Smarraet al., Constraints on conformal ultralight dark matter couplings from the European Pulsar Timing Ar- ray, Phys. Rev. D110, 043033 (2024), arXiv:2405.01633 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Gasparotto, Searching for Ultra Light Dark Matter soliton through GWs, PoSCOSMICWISPers2024, 016 (2025), arXiv:2503.04624 [astro-ph.HE]

    S. Gasparotto, Searching for Ultra Light Dark Matter soliton through GWs, PoSCOSMICWISPers2024, 016 (2025), arXiv:2503.04624 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Bertotti, L

    B. Bertotti, L. Iess, and P. Tortora, A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft, Nature425, 374 (2003)

    2003

  37. [37]

    J. W. Armstrong, L. Iess, P. Tortora, and B. Bertotti, Stochastic gravitational wave background: Upper limits in the 10**-6-Hz 10**-3-Hz band, Astrophys. J.599, 806 (2003)

    2003

  38. [38]

    G. L. Smith, C. D. Hoyle, J. H. Gundlach, E. G. Adel- berger, B. R. Heckel, and H. E. Swanson, Short range tests of the equivalence principle, Phys. Rev. D61, 022001 (2000), arXiv:2405.10982 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2000

  39. [39]

    Test of the Equivalence Principle Using a Rotating Torsion Balance

    S. Schlamminger, K. Y. Choi, T. A. Wagner, J. H. Gund- lach, and E. G. Adelberger, Test of the equivalence prin- ciple using a rotating torsion balance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 041101 (2008), arXiv:0712.0607 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  40. [40]

    T. A. Wagner, S. Schlamminger, J. H. Gundlach, and E. G. Adelberger, Torsion-balance tests of the weak equivalence principle, Class. Quant. Grav.29, 184002 9 (2012), arXiv:1207.2442 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2012

  41. [41]

    Touboulet al.(MICROSCOPE), Phys

    P. Touboulet al.(MICROSCOPE), MICROSCOPE Mission: Final Results of the Test of the Equiva- lence Principle, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 121102 (2022), arXiv:2209.15487 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Detweiler, Klein-gordon equation and rotating black holes, Phys

    S. Detweiler, Klein-gordon equation and rotating black holes, Phys. Rev. D22, 2323 (1980)

    1980

  43. [43]

    Cardoso and S

    V. Cardoso and S. Yoshida, Superradiant instabilities of rotating black branes and strings, JHEP07, 009, arXiv:hep-th/0502206

    work page arXiv

  44. [44]

    S. R. Dolan, Instability of the massive klein-gordon field on the kerr spacetime, Phys. Rev. D76, 084001 (2007)

    2007

  45. [45]

    Witek, V

    H. Witek, V. Cardoso, A. Ishibashi, and U. Sperhake, Superradiant instabilities in astrophysical systems, Phys. Rev. D87, 043513 (2013)

    2013

  46. [46]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Black holes as particle detectors: evolution of superradiant instabilities, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 134001 (2015), arXiv:1411.0686 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2015

  47. [47]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Superradiance: New Frontiers in Black Hole Physics, Lect. Notes Phys.906, pp.1 (2015), arXiv:1501.06570 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2015

  48. [48]

    Probing Ultralight Bosons with Binary Black Holes

    D. Baumann, H. S. Chia, and R. A. Porto, Probing Ul- tralight Bosons with Binary Black Holes, Phys. Rev. D 99, 044001 (2019), arXiv:1804.03208 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    Zhang and H

    J. Zhang and H. Yang, Dynamic signatures of black hole binaries with superradiant clouds, Phys. Rev. D101, 043020 (2020)

    2020

  50. [50]

    Baumann, H.S

    D. Baumann, H. S. Chia, J. Stout, and L. ter Haar, The Spectra of Gravitational Atoms, JCAP12, 006, arXiv:1908.10370 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 1908

  51. [51]

    Baumann, H.S

    D. Baumann, H. S. Chia, R. A. Porto, and J. Stout, Gravitational Collider Physics, Phys. Rev. D101, 083019 (2020), arXiv:1912.04932 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  52. [52]

    Cosmic Structure as the Quantum Interference of a Coherent Dark Wave

    H.-Y. Schive, T. Chiueh, and T. Broadhurst, Cos- mic Structure as the Quantum Interference of a Co- herent Dark Wave, Nature Phys.10, 496 (2014), arXiv:1406.6586 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  53. [53]

    Understanding the Core-Halo Relation of Quantum Wave Dark Matter, $\psi$DM, from 3D Simulations

    H.-Y. Schive, M.-H. Liao, T.-P. Woo, S.-K. Wong, T. Chi- ueh, T. Broadhurst, and W. Y. P. Hwang, Understanding the Core-Halo Relation of Quantum Wave Dark Mat- ter from 3D Simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 261302 (2014), arXiv:1407.7762 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  54. [54]

    Chavanis, Mass-radius relation of self-gravitating Bose-Einstein condensates with a central black hole, Eur

    P.-H. Chavanis, Mass-radius relation of self-gravitating Bose-Einstein condensates with a central black hole, Eur. Phys. J. Plus134, 352 (2019), arXiv:1909.04709 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2019

  55. [55]

    N. Bar, K. Blum, T. Lacroix, and P. Panci, Looking for ultralight dark matter near supermassive black holes, JCAP07, 045, arXiv:1905.11745 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 1905

  56. [56]

    E. Y. Davies and P. Mocz, Fuzzy dark matter soliton cores around supermassive black holes, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc.492, 5721–5729 (2020)

    2020

  57. [57]

    Annulli, V

    L. Annulli, V. Cardoso, and R. Vicente, Response of ultralight dark matter to supermassive black holes and binaries, Phys. Rev. D102, 063022 (2020), arXiv:2009.00012 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  58. [58]

    J. L. Zagorac, E. Kendall, N. Padmanabhan, and R. Eas- ther, Soliton formation and the core-halo mass relation: An eigenstate perspective, Phys. Rev. D107, 083513 (2023), arXiv:2212.09349 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  59. [59]

    Aghaie, G

    M. Aghaie, G. Armando, A. Dondarini, and P. Panci, Bounds on ultralight dark matter from NANOGrav, Phys. Rev. D109, 103030 (2024), arXiv:2308.04590 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    Liao, G.-M

    P.-Y. Liao, G.-M. Su, H.-Y. Schive, A. Kunkel, H. Huang, and T. Chiueh, Deciphering the soliton-halo relation in fuzzy dark matter (2025), arXiv:2412.09908 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    Abuter et al., Detection of the Schwarzschild precession in the orbit of the star S2 near the Galactic centre massive black hole , Astron

    R. Abuteret al.(GRAVITY), Detection of the Schwarzschild precession in the orbit of the star S2 near the Galactic centre massive black hole, Astron. Astro- phys.636, L5 (2020), arXiv:2004.07187 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2020

  62. [62]

    emcee: the mcmc hammer,

    R. Abuteret al.(GRAVITY), Mass distribution in the Galactic Center based on interferometric astrometry of multiple stellar orbits, Astron. Astrophys.657, L12 (2022), arXiv:2112.07478 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2022

  63. [63]

    Abd El Dayemet al.(GRAVITY), Improving con- straints on the extended mass distribution in the Galactic center with stellar orbits, Astron

    K. Abd El Dayemet al.(GRAVITY), Improving con- straints on the extended mass distribution in the Galactic center with stellar orbits, Astron. Astrophys.692, A242 (2024), arXiv:2409.12261 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Lacroix, Astron

    T. Lacroix, Dynamical constraints on a dark matter spike at the Galactic Centre from stellar orbits, Astron. Astro- phys.619, A46 (2018), arXiv:1801.01308 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2018

  65. [65]

    Shen, G.-W

    Z.-Q. Shen, G.-W. Yuan, C.-Z. Jiang, Y.-L. S. Tsai, Q. Yuan, and Y.-Z. Fan, Exploring dark matter spike distribution around the Galactic centre with stellar or- bits, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.527, 3196 (2023), arXiv:2303.09284 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2023

  66. [66]

    A. F. Zakharov, A. A. Nucita, F. De Paolis, and G. In- grosso, Apoastron Shift Constraints on Dark Matter Dis- tribution at the Galactic Center, Phys. Rev. D76, 062001 (2007), arXiv:0707.4423 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2007

  67. [67]

    Heißel, T

    G. Heißel, T. Paumard, G. Perrin, and F. Vincent, The dark mass signature in the orbit of S2, Astron. Astrophys. 660, A13 (2022), arXiv:2112.07778 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2022

  68. [68]

    Amorimet al.(GRAVITY), Scalar field effects on the orbit of S2 star, Mon

    A. Amorimet al.(GRAVITY), Scalar field effects on the orbit of S2 star, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.489, 4606 (2019), arXiv:1908.06681 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2019

  69. [69]

    Yuan, Z.-Q

    G.-W. Yuan, Z.-Q. Shen, Y.-L. S. Tsai, Q. Yuan, and Y.-Z. Fan, Constraining ultralight bosonic dark mat- ter with Keck observations of S2’s orbit and kinemat- ics, Phys. Rev. D106, 103024 (2022), arXiv:2205.04970 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  70. [70]

    Della Monica and I

    R. Della Monica and I. de Martino, Narrowing the al- lowed mass range of ultralight bosons with the S2 star, Astron. Astrophys.670, L4 (2023), arXiv:2206.03980 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  71. [71]

    Foschiet al.(GRAVITY), Using the motion of S2 to constrain scalar clouds around Sgr A*, Mon

    A. Foschiet al.(GRAVITY), Using the motion of S2 to constrain scalar clouds around Sgr A*, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.524, 1075 (2023), arXiv:2306.17215 [astro- ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    Foschiet al.(GRAVITY), Using the motion of S2 to constrain vector clouds around Sgr A*, Mon

    A. Foschiet al.(GRAVITY), Using the motion of S2 to constrain vector clouds around Sgr A*, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.530, 3740 (2024), arXiv:2312.02653 [astro- ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2024

  73. [73]

    Z. Bai, V. Cardoso, Y. Chen, T. Do, A. Hees, H. Xiao, and X. Xue, Probing axions via spectroscopic mea- surements of s-stars at the galactic center (2025), arXiv:2507.07482 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    G. M. Tomaselli and A. Caputo, Probing dense envi- ronments around sgr a* with s-stars dynamics (2025), arXiv:2509.03568 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    M. H. Chan and C. M. Lee, Crossing the dark matter soli- ton core: A possible reversed orbital precession, Phys. Rev. D106, 123018 (2022), arXiv:2212.01979 [astro- ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2022

  76. [76]

    J. F. Acevedo, A. J. Reilly, and L. Santos-Olmsted, Dark drag around sagittarius a* (2025), arXiv:2510.01320 [hep-ph]. 10

    work page arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    R. A. Gustafson, I. M. Shoemaker, and V. Takhistov, Probing dark matter interactions with stellar motion near sagittarius a* (2025), arXiv:2510.07387 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    J. E. Kim, Weak-interaction singlet and strong CP in- variance, Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 103 (1979)

    1979

  79. [79]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, A simple solution to the strong cp problem with a harmless axion, Physics Letters B104, 199 (1981)

    1981

  80. [80]

    The QCD axion, precisely

    G. Grilli di Cortona, E. Hardy, J. Pardo Vega, and G. Villadoro, The QCD axion, precisely, JHEP01, 034, arXiv:1511.02867 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv

Showing first 80 references.