pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.09521 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · gr-qc

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Bayesian Analysis of Massive Boson Star Models for Sagittarius A* Using Near-Infrared Astrometry Data

Xiangyu Wang , Tian-chi Ma , Minyong Guo , Hai-Qing Zhang
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 04:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE gr-qc
keywords Sagittarius A*boson starblack holenear-infrared astrometryBayesian evidenceflare hotspot modelGalactic center
0
0 comments X

The pith

Near-infrared astrometry of flares at Sagittarius A* fits massive boson star models as well as a Schwarzschild black hole.

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

This paper applies Bayesian nested sampling to near-infrared flare astrometry data to test whether the compact object at the Galactic center could be a massive boson star. It examines twelve discrete boson star configurations and models each flare as a hotspot on a circular equatorial orbit, then repeats the identical procedure for a Schwarzschild black hole. The resulting Bayesian evidence values are nearly identical across the models, and the well-measured mass of roughly 4.3 million solar masses lies inside the 68 percent highest-density interval in every case. A reader would care because the result shows that present astrometric constraints still allow exotic alternatives to black holes to remain viable at the Galactic center.

Core claim

Assuming Sagittarius A* is a massive boson star, we fit the near-infrared flare astrometry data for twelve discrete boson star configurations by modeling the flare as a hotspot on a circular equatorial orbit. The analysis is performed in a Bayesian framework using nested sampling to obtain marginal posterior distributions of all parameters together with the Bayesian evidence for each model. The identical procedure is applied to a Schwarzschild black hole. The Bayesian evidence values differ only marginally between the boson star and black hole cases, and the well-determined mass of Sgr A* (approximately 4.296 times 10 to the sixth solar masses) falls within the 68 percent highest density in

What carries the argument

Bayesian nested sampling of astrometric flare data, with the flare modeled as a hotspot on a circular equatorial orbit, applied to twelve discrete massive boson star spacetimes and compared directly against a Schwarzschild black hole.

If this is right

  • The mass of Sagittarius A* remains consistently recovered near 4.3 million solar masses across all tested models.
  • Boson star spacetimes with a range of parameters can reproduce current near-infrared astrometric observations of flares as well as black hole models do.
  • Statistical indistinguishability holds only within the considered parameter ranges and under the circular hotspot orbit assumption.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Distinguishing boson stars from black holes at the Galactic center will likely require either higher-precision astrometry or entirely different observables such as gravitational-wave signals or radio imaging.
  • If future data continue to favor both classes of models equally, the boson star hypothesis remains a live alternative that could be tested through its distinct predictions for strong-field lensing or accretion dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that modeling every flare as a hotspot on a circular equatorial orbit and restricting the boson star models to only twelve discrete configurations is sufficient to capture the data.

What would settle it

New near-infrared astrometric measurements with substantially higher precision that produce flare trajectories incompatible with both the tested boson star configurations and the Schwarzschild black hole orbit predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.09521 by Hai-Qing Zhang, Minyong Guo, Tian-chi Ma, Xiangyu Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The M–ω curves for different coupling parameters Λ, with the corresponding Λ values indicated in the legend. The boson star configurations adopted in this study are marked by scattered points on the plot. differential equations involves four unknown parameters: the boson mass µ, the boundary value A0 of the geometric quantity A(r) at the origin, the field amplitude at the origin ψ0, and the coupling consta… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Posterior distribution of the position angle for BS5, where the dashed lines mark the CI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The best fit of BS1 model for combined data. Left: the centroid motion. Middle and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Posterior distribution plots of the mass parameter for all boson star configurations. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The marginal posterior distributions of the mass for BS1 and SBH. The yellow curve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time-averaged images of BS1, BS4, and the SBH at an inclination angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left panel: R¯ as a function of θo. Right panel: η as a function of θo. The yellow curves represent BS1, and the blue curves represent the SBH. The adopted grid points are indicated by markers. Several features are evident from the images. For the SBH, the time-averaged image is domi￾nated by the primary hotspot image and the photon ring. In contrast, because boson stars possess no event horizon, photons c… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Assuming that the compact source at the Galactic center, Sagittarius A*, is a massive boson star, we fit the near-infrared flare astrometry data. We consider 12 discrete boson star configurations and model the flare as a hotspot on a circular equatorial orbit. The analysis is performed in a Bayesian framework using nested sampling, yielding the marginal posterior distributions of all parameters as well as the Bayesian evidence for each model. For comparison, the same procedure is applied to a Schwarzschild black hole. The resulting Bayesian evidence values differ only marginally between the boson star and black hole cases, and the well-determined mass of Sgr~A* (${\sim}4.296\times 10^6\,M_\odot$) falls within the 68\% highest density interval in every configuration. We conclude that, under current near-infrared astrometric constraints and within the considered parameter ranges, a massive boson star and a Schwarzschild black hole remain statistically indistinguishable as the compact object at the Galactic center.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript performs a Bayesian nested-sampling analysis of near-infrared flare astrometry data for Sgr A*, fitting 12 discrete massive boson-star configurations and a Schwarzschild black-hole model. The flare is modeled as a hotspot on a circular equatorial orbit; posteriors and Bayesian evidence are computed for each case. The evidences differ only marginally and the recovered mass (~4.296×10^6 M_⊙) lies inside the 68 % HDI for every configuration, supporting the claim that the two classes of object remain statistically indistinguishable under current constraints and within the sampled parameter ranges.

Significance. If the indistinguishability result holds, the work shows that present NIR astrometric precision is insufficient to discriminate boson-star from black-hole interpretations of the Galactic-center compact object, thereby keeping alternative compact-object models viable. The explicit use of nested sampling to obtain both posteriors and evidence, together with the reported consistency of the mass posterior across models, supplies a quantitative, reproducible basis for the conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the indistinguishability conclusion rests on marginal evidence differences obtained from only 12 discrete boson-star configurations. Because boson-star models are defined by continuous parameters (scalar mass, self-interaction strength, compactness), the discrete sampling is load-bearing; without a demonstration that these points adequately cover the space or that evidence remains comparable outside them, the claim is not fully supported even within the stated ranges.
  2. [Model description and data analysis] Model description and data analysis: the flare is restricted to a hotspot on a circular equatorial orbit and no exploration of non-circular or inclined trajectories is presented. This geometric assumption directly affects the predicted astrometric signatures and therefore the evidence comparison; justification that the restriction does not bias the indistinguishability result is required.
  3. [Bayesian setup] Bayesian setup: explicit prior distributions on the boson-star and orbital parameters, together with the precise data-selection criteria applied to the NIR astrometry, are not reported. These choices are load-bearing for the computed evidence ratios and for the robustness of the mass posterior; their absence prevents independent assessment of the marginal-difference claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The numerical value 4.296×10^6 M_⊙ is quoted without an accompanying reference or uncertainty; adding the source citation would clarify how the consistency check is performed.
  2. Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly distinguish boson-star versus black-hole posterior contours to facilitate direct visual comparison of the evidence and mass results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable suggestions. We address each of the major comments below and outline the revisions to be incorporated in the updated manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the indistinguishability conclusion rests on marginal evidence differences obtained from only 12 discrete boson-star configurations. Because boson-star models are defined by continuous parameters (scalar mass, self-interaction strength, compactness), the discrete sampling is load-bearing; without a demonstration that these points adequately cover the space or that evidence remains comparable outside them, the claim is not fully supported even within the stated ranges.

    Authors: The 12 discrete configurations were carefully chosen based on prior studies to sample a representative range of boson star parameters, including different scalar masses, self-interaction strengths, and resulting compactness values that could plausibly describe a massive object at the Galactic center. The Bayesian evidence values are comparable across these models, and the mass estimate is consistent. We agree that this discrete approach is a limitation for claiming full coverage of the continuous parameter space. In the revised manuscript, we will add a detailed justification for the selection of these 12 points, including references to how they span the relevant regimes, and explicitly state that the indistinguishability conclusion applies within the sampled configurations. We will also discuss the potential for future work with continuous sampling. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Model description and data analysis] Model description and data analysis: the flare is restricted to a hotspot on a circular equatorial orbit and no exploration of non-circular or inclined trajectories is presented. This geometric assumption directly affects the predicted astrometric signatures and therefore the evidence comparison; justification that the restriction does not bias the indistinguishability result is required.

    Authors: We chose the circular equatorial orbit model because it is the standard and simplest assumption used in previous analyses of Sgr A* NIR flares, consistent with the expected geometry of the accretion disk. The current astrometric data have limited precision, and introducing eccentricity or inclination would add poorly constrained parameters, potentially leading to overfitting. To address the referee's concern, we will include in the revised manuscript a justification section explaining that for the observed flare durations and astrometric wobbles, small deviations from circular equatorial orbits produce signatures within the data uncertainties, thus not biasing the evidence comparison between boson star and black hole models. If additional computations are feasible, we may explore a few inclined cases in a supplement. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Bayesian setup] Bayesian setup: explicit prior distributions on the boson-star and orbital parameters, together with the precise data-selection criteria applied to the NIR astrometry, are not reported. These choices are load-bearing for the computed evidence ratios and for the robustness of the mass posterior; their absence prevents independent assessment of the marginal-difference claim.

    Authors: We regret that these details were not included in the original submission. The priors for the boson star parameters (such as the scalar field mass and self-coupling) were set to uniform distributions over ranges motivated by theoretical constraints for massive boson stars, while orbital parameters like period, radius, and phase had uniform or Jeffreys priors as appropriate. The NIR astrometry data were selected from the published observations using the same criteria as in the reference papers, including quality cuts on positional accuracy. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated subsection detailing all prior distributions with their exact ranges and functional forms, as well as the precise data selection and preprocessing steps applied. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct Bayesian fitting to external astrometry data

full rationale

The paper computes Bayesian evidence and parameter posteriors by applying nested sampling to the likelihood of observed near-infrared flare astrometry data under each of 12 fixed boson-star configurations and a Schwarzschild model. The flare is modeled as a hotspot on a circular equatorial orbit as an explicit modeling choice, not derived from the fit. Mass posteriors and evidence ratios are obtained directly from the data likelihoods without any self-definitional reduction, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the external dataset.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard general-relativistic boson-star solutions and Bayesian model selection; the main additions are the choice of twelve discrete configurations and the hotspot-orbit assumption, both of which are fitted to data.

free parameters (2)
  • boson-star model parameters
    Mass, boson mass, and self-interaction strength for each of the twelve discrete configurations are either fixed or varied within the Bayesian fit.
  • orbital parameters
    Mass, radius, inclination, and phase of the hotspot orbit are fitted parameters common to all models.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The flare can be modeled as a hotspot on a circular equatorial orbit
    Invoked to reduce the flare to a simple orbiting source whose astrometric signature is computed in the chosen spacetime.
  • standard math Bayesian evidence via nested sampling provides a valid model-comparison metric
    Standard assumption in Bayesian statistics for comparing non-nested models.
invented entities (1)
  • massive boson star no independent evidence
    purpose: Alternative compact-object model for Sgr A*
    Postulated scalar-field solution tested against data; no independent falsifiable prediction outside the fit is supplied.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5482 in / 1314 out tokens · 42868 ms · 2026-05-12T04:32:49.573500+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    The orbit of the star S2 around SgrA* from VLT and Keck data,

    S. Gillessen, F. Eisenhauer, T. K. Fritz, H. Bartko, K. Dodds-Eden, O. Pfuhl, T. Ott, and R. Genzel, “The orbit of the star S2 around SgrA* from VLT and Keck data,” Astrophys. J. Lett.707(2009) L114–L117,arXiv:0910.3069 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2009

  2. [2]

    Measuring Distance and Properties of the Milky Way's Central Supermassive Black Hole with Stellar Orbits

    A. M. Ghez et al., “Measuring Distance and Properties of the Milky Way’s Central Supermassive Black Hole with Stellar Orbits,” Astrophys. J.689(2008) 1044–1062, arXiv:0808.2870 [astro-ph]. [3]GRAVITYCollaboration, R. Abuter et al., “Detection of the gravitational redshift in the orbit of the star S2 near the Galactic centre massive black hole,” Astron. As...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  3. [3]

    Detection of orbital motions near the last stable circular orbit of the massive black hole SgrA*

    R. Abuter et al., “Detection of orbital motions near the last stable circular orbit of the massive black hole SgrA*,” Astron. Astrophys.618(2018) ,arXiv:1810.12641 [astro-ph.GA]. [6]GRAVITYCollaboration, M. Baub¨ ock et al., “Modeling the orbital motion of Sgr A*’s near-infrared flares,” Astron. Astrophys.635(2020) A143,arXiv:2002.08374 [astro-ph.HE]. [7]...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    The physics of the accretion flow and shadow of sgr a*: Theoretical interpretation of eht observations,

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, “The physics of the accretion flow and shadow of sgr a*: Theoretical interpretation of eht observations,” The Astrophysical Journal Letters950 (2023) L12

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Testing general relativity with sgr a*: Relativistic photon ring predictions from grmhd models,

    S. Von Fellenberg, R. S. Lu, D. Psaltis, and et al., “Testing general relativity with sgr a*: Relativistic photon ring predictions from grmhd models,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society518(2023) 1234–1250

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    The size, shape, and scattering of sagittarius a* at 86 ghz: First vlbi with alma,

    M. D. Johnson, V. L. Fish, S. S. Doeleman, and et al., “The size, shape, and scattering of sagittarius a* at 86 ghz: First vlbi with alma,” The Astrophysical Journal865(2018) 104

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    A quantitative test of the no-hair theorem with sgr a* using stellar orbits and pulsar timing,

    D. Psaltis, N. Wex, and M. Kramer, “A quantitative test of the no-hair theorem with sgr a* using stellar orbits and pulsar timing,” The Astrophysical Journal889(2020) 52

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Imaging thick accretion disks and jets surrounding black holes,

    Z. Zhang, Y. Hou, M. Guo, and B. Chen, “Imaging thick accretion disks and jets surrounding black holes,” JCAP05(2024) 032,arXiv:2401.14794 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Autocorrelation signatures in time-resolved black hole flare images: Secondary peaks and convergence structure,

    Z. Zhang, Y. Hou, M. Guo, Y. Mizuno, and B. Chen, “Autocorrelation signatures in time-resolved black hole flare images: Secondary peaks and convergence structure,” Phys. Rev. D112no. 8, (2025) 083024,arXiv:2503.17200 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    General relativistic boson stars,

    F. E. Schunck and E. W. Mielke, “General relativistic boson stars,” Class. Quant. Grav.20 (2003) R301–R356,arXiv:0801.0307 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2003

  11. [11]

    Boson stars,

    P. Jetzer, “Boson stars,” Phys. Rept.220(1992) 163–227. 19

    work page 1992

  12. [12]

    Proca stars: Gravitating Bose-Einstein condensates of massive spin 1 particles,

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, C. A. R. Herdeiro, and E. Radu, “Proca stars: Gravitating Bose–Einstein condensates of massive spin 1 particles,” Phys. Lett. B752(2016) 291–295, arXiv:1508.05395 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2016

  13. [13]

    Gravitational Condensate Stars

    P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, “Gravitational Condensate Stars: An Alternative to Black Holes,” Universe9no. 2, (2023) 88,arXiv:gr-qc/0109035

    work page arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Gravitational lensing by gravastars,

    T. Kubo and N. Sakai, “Gravitational lensing by gravastars,” Phys. Rev. D93no. 8, (2016) 084051

    work page 2016

  15. [15]

    Observational signatures of charged rotating traversable wormhole: shadows and light rings with different accretions,

    R. Saleem, M. I. Aslam, and S. Shahid, “Observational signatures of charged rotating traversable wormhole: shadows and light rings with different accretions,” Eur. Phys. J. C84 no. 5, (2024) 480

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Testing the nature of dark compact objects: a status report

    V. Cardoso and P. Pani, “Testing the nature of dark compact objects: a status report,” Living Rev. Rel.22no. 1, (2019) 4,arXiv:1904.05363 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    The imitation game reloaded: effective shadows of dynamically robust spinning Proca stars,

    I. Sengo, P. V. P. Cunha, C. A. R. Herdeiro, and E. Radu, “The imitation game reloaded: effective shadows of dynamically robust spinning Proca stars,” JCAP05(2024) 054, arXiv:2402.14919 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Bambi et al.,Black hole mimickers: from theory to observation, 5, 2025 [2505.09014]

    C. Bambi et al., “Black hole mimickers: from theory to observation,” 5, 2025. arXiv:2505.09014 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Imaging a boson star at the Galactic center,

    F. H. Vincent, Z. Meliani, P. Grandclement, E. Gourgoulhon, and O. Straub, “Imaging a boson star at the Galactic center,” Class. Quant. Grav.33no. 10, (2016) 105015, arXiv:1510.04170 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    Does the black hole shadow probe the event horizon geometry?,

    P. V. P. Cunha, C. A. R. Herdeiro, and M. J. Rodriguez, “Does the black hole shadow probe the event horizon geometry?,” Phys. Rev. D97no. 8, (2018) 084020,arXiv:1802.02675 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Motion of test particle in rotating boson star,

    Y.-P. Zhang, Y.-B. Zeng, Y.-Q. Wang, S.-W. Wei, and Y.-X. Liu, “Motion of test particle in rotating boson star,” Phys. Rev. D105no. 4, (2022) 044021,arXiv:2107.04848 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    A Supermassive scalar star at the galactic center?,

    D. F. Torres, S. Capozziello, and G. Lambiase, “A Supermassive scalar star at the galactic center?,” Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 104012,arXiv:astro-ph/0004064

    work page arXiv 2000

  23. [23]

    Tests for the existence of black holes through gravitational wave echoes,

    V. Cardoso and P. Pani, “Tests for the existence of black holes through gravitational wave echoes,” Nature Astron.1no. 9, (2017) 586–591,arXiv:1709.01525 [gr-qc]. 20

    work page arXiv 2017

  24. [24]

    Using space-VLBI to probe gravity around Sgr A*,

    C. M. Fromm, Y. Mizuno, Z. Younsi, H. Olivares, O. Porth, M. De Laurentis, H. Falcke, M. Kramer, and L. Rezzolla, “Using space-VLBI to probe gravity around Sgr A*,” Astron. Astrophys.649(2021) A116,arXiv:2101.08618 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Polarimetry imprints of exotic compact objects: Solitonic boson stars,

    J. L. Rosa, N. Aimar, and H. L. Tamm, “Polarimetry imprints of exotic compact objects: Solitonic boson stars,” Phys. Rev. D111no. 12, (2025) 124036,arXiv:2504.02472 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    The Event Horizon of Sagittarius A*,

    A. E. Broderick, A. Loeb, and R. Narayan, “The Event Horizon of Sagittarius A*,” Astrophys. J.701(2009) 1357–1366,arXiv:0903.1105 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2009

  27. [27]

    The observational evidence for horizons: from echoes to precision gravitational-wave physics

    V. Cardoso and P. Pani, “The observational evidence for horizons: from echoes to precision gravitational-wave physics,”arXiv:1707.03021 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  28. [28]

    Polarimetry imprints of exotic compact objects: relativistic fluid spheres and gravastars,

    H. L. Tamm, N. Aimar, and J. L. Rosa, “Polarimetry imprints of exotic compact objects: relativistic fluid spheres and gravastars,”arXiv:2509.20344 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv

  29. [29]

    Orbital fingerprints of ultralight scalar fields around black holes,

    M. C. Ferreira, C. F. B. Macedo, and V. Cardoso, “Orbital fingerprints of ultralight scalar fields around black holes,” Phys. Rev. D96no. 8, (2017) 083017,arXiv:1710.00830 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2017

  30. [30]

    Rotating boson stars and Q-balls,

    B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, and M. List, “Rotating boson stars and Q-balls,” Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 064002,arXiv:gr-qc/0505143

    work page arXiv 2005

  31. [31]

    ECO-spotting: looking for extremely compact objects with bosonic fields,

    V. Cardoso, C. F. B. Macedo, K.-i. Maeda, and H. Okawa, “ECO-spotting: looking for extremely compact objects with bosonic fields,” Class. Quant. Grav.39no. 3, (2022) 034001, arXiv:2112.05750 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Dynamical Boson Stars,

    S. L. Liebling and C. Palenzuela, “Dynamical boson stars,” Living Rev. Rel.26no. 1, (2023) 1,arXiv:1202.5809 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Dynamical bar-mode instability in spinning bosonic stars,

    F. Di Giovanni, N. Sanchis-Gual, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, M. Zilh˜ ao, C. Herdeiro, J. A. Font, and E. Radu, “Dynamical bar-mode instability in spinning bosonic stars,” Phys. Rev. D102 no. 12, (2020) 124009,arXiv:2010.05845 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Theoretical Physics Implications of the Binary Black-Hole Mergers GW150914 and GW151226

    N. Yunes, K. Yagi, and F. Pretorius, “Theoretical Physics Implications of the Binary Black-Hole Mergers GW150914 and GW151226,” Phys. Rev. D94no. 8, (2016) 084002, arXiv:1603.08955 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  35. [35]

    Echoes of ECOs: gravitational-wave signatures of exotic compact objects and of quantum corrections at the horizon scale

    V. Cardoso, S. Hopper, C. F. B. Macedo, C. Palenzuela, and P. Pani, “Gravitational-wave signatures of exotic compact objects and of quantum corrections at the horizon scale,” Phys. Rev. D94no. 8, (2016) 084031,arXiv:1608.08637 [gr-qc]. 21

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  36. [36]

    Distinguishing Boson Stars from Black Holes and Neutron Stars from Tidal Interactions in Inspiraling Binary Systems

    N. Sennett, T. Hinderer, J. Steinhoff, A. Buonanno, and S. Ossokine, “Distinguishing Boson Stars from Black Holes and Neutron Stars from Tidal Interactions in Inspiraling Binary Systems,” Phys. Rev. D96no. 2, (2017) 024002,arXiv:1704.08651 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  37. [37]

    GW190521 as a Merger of Proca Stars: A Potential New Vector Boson of 8.7×10 −13 eV,

    J. Calder´ on Bustillo, N. Sanchis-Gual, A. Torres-Forn´ e, J. A. Font, A. Vajpeyi, R. Smith, C. Herdeiro, E. Radu, and S. H. W. Leong, “GW190521 as a Merger of Proca Stars: A Potential New Vector Boson of 8.7×10 −13 eV,” Phys. Rev. Lett.126no. 8, (2021) 081101, arXiv:2009.05376 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Accretion disc onto a static nonbaryonic compact object,

    D. F. Torres, “Accretion disc onto a static nonbaryonic compact object,” Nucl. Phys. B626 (2002) 377–394,arXiv:hep-ph/0201154

    work page arXiv 2002

  39. [39]

    Accretion disc onto boson stars: A Way to supplant black holes candidates,

    F. S. Guzman, “Accretion disc onto boson stars: A Way to supplant black holes candidates,” Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 021501,arXiv:gr-qc/0512081

    work page arXiv 2006

  40. [40]

    Spherical boson stars as black hole mimickers,

    F. S. Guzman and J. M. Rueda-Becerril, “Spherical boson stars as black hole mimickers,” Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 084023,arXiv:1009.1250 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2009

  41. [41]

    Astrophysical signatures of boson stars: quasinormal modes and inspiral resonances,

    C. F. B. Macedo, P. Pani, V. Cardoso, and L. C. B. Crispino, “Astrophysical signatures of boson stars: quasinormal modes and inspiral resonances,” Phys. Rev. D88no. 6, (2013) 064046,arXiv:1307.4812 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2013

  42. [42]

    Gravitational Wave Signatures of Highly Compact Boson Star Binaries,

    C. Palenzuela, P. Pani, M. Bezares, V. Cardoso, L. Lehner, and S. Liebling, “Gravitational Wave Signatures of Highly Compact Boson Star Binaries,” Phys. Rev. D96no. 10, (2017) 104058,arXiv:1710.09432 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2017

  43. [43]

    M., et al

    H. Olivares, Z. Younsi, C. M. Fromm, M. De Laurentis, O. Porth, Y. Mizuno, H. Falcke, M. Kramer, and L. Rezzolla, “How to tell an accreting boson star from a black hole,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.497no. 1, (2020) 521–535,arXiv:1809.08682 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    H. R. Olivares-S´ anchez, P. Kocherlakota, and C. A. R. Herdeiro, GRMHD Simulations of Accretion Onto Exotic Compact Objects. 2025.arXiv:2408.09893 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    The imitation game: Proca stars that can mimic the Schwarzschild shadow,

    C. A. R. Herdeiro, A. M. Pombo, E. Radu, P. V. P. Cunha, and N. Sanchis-Gual, “The imitation game: Proca stars that can mimic the Schwarzschild shadow,” JCAP04(2021) 051,arXiv:2102.01703 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    The observation image of a soliton boson star illuminated by various accretions,

    K.-J. He, G.-P. Li, C.-Y. Yang, and X.-X. Zeng, “The observation image of a soliton boson star illuminated by various accretions,” JCAP10(2025) 003,arXiv:2502.16623 [gr-qc]. 22

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Shadows of boson and Proca stars with thin accretion disks,

    J. L. Rosa and D. Rubiera-Garcia, “Shadows of boson and Proca stars with thin accretion disks,” Phys. Rev. D106no. 8, (2022) 084004,arXiv:2204.12949 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    Observational signatures of hot spots orbiting horizonless objects,

    J. L. Rosa, P. Garcia, F. H. Vincent, and V. Cardoso, “Observational signatures of hot spots orbiting horizonless objects,” Phys. Rev. D106no. 4, (2022) 044031,arXiv:2205.11541 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    Imaging compact boson stars with hot spots and thin accretion disks,

    J. L. Rosa, C. F. B. Macedo, and D. Rubiera-Garcia, “Imaging compact boson stars with hot spots and thin accretion disks,” Phys. Rev. D108no. 4, (2023) 044021,arXiv:2303.17296 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Emerging black hole shadow from collapsing boson star,

    Y.-P. Zhang, S.-W. Wei, and Y.-X. Liu, “Emerging black hole shadow from collapsing boson star,”arXiv:2503.14159 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv

  51. [51]

    Investigating non-Keplerian motion in flare events with astrometric data,

    F. Xie, Q.-H. Zhu, and X. Li, “Investigating non-Keplerian motion in flare events with astrometric data,”arXiv:2507.07411 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv

  52. [52]

    Sagittarius A* near-infrared flares polarization as a probe of space-time I: Non-rotating exotic compact objects

    N. Aimar, J. L. Rosa, H. L. Tamm, and P. Garcia, “Sagittarius A* near-infrared flares polarization as a probe of space-time I: Non-rotating exotic compact objects,” Astron. Astrophys.708(2026) A379,arXiv:2506.23931 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    Hot spots around Sagittarius A* - Joint fits to astrometry and polarimetry,

    A. I. Yfantis, M. Wielgus, and M. A. Mo´ scibrodzka, “Hot spots around Sagittarius A* - Joint fits to astrometry and polarimetry,” Astron. Astrophys.691(2024) A327, arXiv:2408.07120 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Parameter study for hot spot trajectories around SgrA*,

    E. Antonopoulou and A. Nathanail, “Parameter study for hot spot trajectories around SgrA*,” Astron. Astrophys.690(2024) A240,arXiv:2405.10115 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Fitting the light curves of Sagittarius A* with a hot-spot model - Bayesian modeling of QU loops in the millimeter band,

    A. I. Yfantis, M. A. Mo´ scibrodzka, M. Wielgus, J. T. Vos, and A. Jimenez-Rosales, “Fitting the light curves of Sagittarius A* with a hot-spot model - Bayesian modeling of QU loops in the millimeter band,” Astron. Astrophys.685(2024) A142,arXiv:2310.07762 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    A Plasmoid model for the Sgr A* Flares Observed With Gravity and CHANDRA,

    D. Ball, F. ¨Ozel, P. Christian, C.-K. Chan, and D. Psaltis, “A Plasmoid model for the Sgr A* Flares Observed With Gravity and CHANDRA,” Astrophys. J.917no. 1, (2021) 8, arXiv:2005.14251 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  57. [57]

    The origin of hotspots around Sgr A*: Orbital or pattern motion?,

    T. Matsumoto, C.-H. Chan, and T. Piran, “The origin of hotspots around Sgr A*: Orbital or pattern motion?,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.497no. 2, (2020) 2385–2392, arXiv:2004.13029 [astro-ph.HE]. 23

    work page arXiv 2020

  58. [58]

    Testing solitonic boson star interpretations of Sagittarius A* with near-infrared flare astrometry

    X. Wang, Z. Zhang, H.-Q. Zhang, M. Guo, and B. Chen, “Testing solitonic boson star interpretations of Sagittarius A* with near-infrared flare astrometry,”arXiv:2604.21883 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  59. [59]

    Polarization patterns of the hot spots plunging into a Kerr black hole,

    B. Chen, Y. Hou, Y. Song, and Z. Zhang, “Polarization patterns of the hot spots plunging into a Kerr black hole,” Phys. Rev. D111no. 8, (2025) 083045,arXiv:2407.14897 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Images and flares of geodesic hot spots around a Kerr black hole,

    J. Huang, Z. Zhang, M. Guo, and B. Chen, “Images and flares of geodesic hot spots around a Kerr black hole,” Phys. Rev. D109no. 12, (2024) 124062,arXiv:2402.16293 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    Dynesty: a dynamic nested sampling package for estimating bayesian posteriors and evidences,

    J. S. Speagle, “Dynesty: a dynamic nested sampling package for estimating bayesian posteriors and evidences,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society493no. 3, (2020) 3132–3158

    work page 2020

  62. [62]

    Scipy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in python,

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peterson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, et al., “Scipy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in python,” Nature Methods17(2020) 261–272

    work page 2020

  63. [63]

    Arviz: A unified library for exploratory analysis of bayesian models in python,

    R. Kumar, C. Carroll, A. Hartikainen, O. Martin, J. Corander, P. J¨ onsson, F. Lindsten, T. Paananen, J. Simola, S. Virtanen, et al., “Arviz: A unified library for exploratory analysis of bayesian models in python,” Journal of Open Source Software7no. 76, (2022) 2889. 24

    work page 2022