Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 86 references

A massive vector dark matter field around a rotating Kerr black hole forms a near-universal density spike and, for any nonzero spin, a superradiant regime in which the black hole loses mass and angular momentum to the field — up to 10 solar

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 00:45 UTC pith:BTO2Y2SK

load-bearing objection First quantitative Proca accretion rates on Kerr; the superradiance sign flip is solid, but the headline numbers need numerical error control. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.00307 v1 pith:BTO2Y2SK submitted 2026-07-31 gr-qc hep-ph

Kerr black holes with vector dark matter hair

Fredric Hancock , Helvi Witek This is my paper
classification gr-qc hep-ph MSC 83C5783C6035Q75 PACS 04.70.-s95.35.+d
keywords Kerr black holeProca fieldsuperradiancedark matter spikemass accretionwave dark matterLFKKS separationvector dark matter hair
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper studies a rotating (Kerr) black hole immersed in a bath of massive vector (Proca) dark matter, modeled as a classical field with fixed density at the edge of the black hole's sphere of influence. The central claim is that the field settles into a stationary density spike with an averaged profile rho ~ (r/r_c)^-3/2, which rotation barely distorts except very near the horizon. For any nonzero black hole spin, a superradiant regime appears in which co-rotating modes satisfy mu < m Omega_H and the black hole loses mass and angular momentum to the field, at rates up to ~10 solar masses per year for a 10^9-solar-mass black hole in a dense environment. If true, supermassive black holes sitting in dense vector dark matter solitons can be spun down and mass-extracted on timescales short compared with galactic evolution, and the paper's exact relation Jdot/Mdot = m/omega provides a clean handle on spin evolution.

Core claim

The paper claims that a Proca-field perturbation on Kerr, sourced by a constant-density dark matter bath, forms a stationary density spike around the black hole with averaged profile rho ~ (r/r_c)^-3/2, essentially unchanged from the Schwarzschild case except within ~10M of the horizon. The qualitatively new effect is superradiance: for any nonzero spin, modes with m > 0 and mu < m Omega_H have negative mass accretion rate, meaning the black hole loses mass and angular momentum to the field rather than accreting it. For the dominant superradiant mode, (s, l, m) = (-1,1,1), this extraction reaches roughly 10 solar masses per year for a 10^9-solar-mass black hole at rho_c = 10 solar masses per

What carries the argument

The LFKKS (Lunin-Frolov-Krtous-Kubiznak-Santos) separation scheme, built on the principal tensor of Kerr spacetime, reduces the Proca equations to a coupled angular and radial ODE. At omega = mu, the angular equation admits exact solutions in spherical harmonics for the monopole (s,l,m)=(1,0,0) and the fundamental co-rotating (s,1,1) modes of all three polarizations; the radial equation is integrated numerically with purely ingoing boundary conditions at the horizon. From these solutions the energy-momentum tensor yields the mass and angular momentum accretion rates, with the ratio Jdot/Mdot = m/omega holding exactly for real omega.

Load-bearing premise

The Proca field is treated as a test field on a fixed Kerr geometry, so its backreaction on the metric is neglected; the density normalization is imposed at the sphere of influence, where for the largest black holes (M ~ 10^10 solar masses) and the highest densities (rho_c ~ 10 solar masses per cubic parsec) the curvature induced by the field becomes comparable to the background, and all quoted rates scale with that normalization.

What would settle it

A full nonlinear, backreaction-included numerical relativity simulation of a Kerr black hole immersed in a Proca condensate with rho_c ~ 10 solar masses per cubic parsec: if the equilibrium spike does not reach an averaged rho ~ (r/r_c)^-3/2 profile, or if the mass flux does not change sign at mu = m Omega_H with magnitude near 10 solar masses per year for the s=-1 mode, the central claims are falsified.

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

If this is right

  • Rotating supermassive black holes in dense vector dark matter environments can lose mass and spin on timescales as short as ~10^8 years, comparable to or shorter than galactic evolution timescales for the largest black holes.
  • The superradiant regime makes the equilibrium density spike unstable to small perturbations, because the superradiant instability timescale (~1 year for the example shown) is far shorter than the accretion/equilibration timescale (~10^8 years); thus astrophysical black holes in this regime should be spun down by the instability rather than reaching the steady-state extraction configuration.
  • The vector-field extraction rate for the s=-1 mode exceeds the scalar-field analogue by two to three orders of magnitude, implying that vector dark matter accretion, if present, could dominate scalar accretion in the wave regime.
  • The near-universal r^-3/2 spike profile, insensitive to spin, provides a concrete density model for dark-matter-affected gravitational wave signals from extreme mass ratio inspirals.
  • The exact Jdot/Mdot = m/omega relation allows spin evolution to be computed directly from mass accretion for any real-frequency Proca mode.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: The paper's fixed-real-frequency treatment avoids the superradiant instability by assumption; a full quasi-adiabatic model that lets the field frequency become complex would likely show that the superradiant-instability spin-down dominates over the steady-state extraction, so the 10 solar masses per year rate is probably not the observable end state in the superradiant regime.
  • Inference: The insensitivity of the spike profile to spin suggests that dark-matter spikes around rotating black holes can be treated as spherically symmetric for dynamical-friction calculations, but the paper does not compute the accompanying dephasing of a binary; a concrete extension would be to propagate a test orbit in the rho ~ r^-3/2 spike with the vector-field energy-momentum tensor.
  • Inference: The exact relation Jdot/Mdot = m/omega for real omega, with a conjectured extra term for complex omega, could be tested against time-domain numerical relativity simulations of Proca superradiant instabilities, where omega_I is nonzero and the ratio may deviate.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a massive vector (Proca) field on a fixed Kerr background as a model of wave dark matter accreting onto a rotating black hole. Using the LFKKS separation, the authors solve the angular equation analytically for the monopole (s,ℓ,m)=(1,0,0) and the three fundamental co-rotating modes (s,1,1) at ω=μ, and integrate the radial equation numerically with a purely ingoing horizon condition. The solution is normalized so that the averaged density at r_c=2×10^6 M equals the ambient dark-matter density ρ_c. The main claims are: (i) the equilibrium density profile is a r^{-3/2} spike essentially unchanged by rotation except near the horizon; (ii) for μ<mΩ_H the mass and angular momentum fluxes change sign, giving extraction rates up to ~10 M⊙/yr for M=10^9 M⊙ and ρ_c=10 M⊙/pc^3 in the superradiant regime, while the particle-regime accretion rate is ~400 M⊙/yr; (iii) the s=−1 polarization dominates extraction, and the results differ from scalar-field counterparts by polarization-dependent factors; (iv) the superradiant-instability timescale is much shorter than the accretion timescale, making the equilibrium configuration unstable to quasi-bound-state perturbations.

Significance. If the quantitative results hold, this is a useful step: it extends Paper I to Kerr, provides an explicit demonstration that the LFKKS s=0 mode reduces to the VSH expression at leading order in aμ, derives a general relation Jdot=(m/ω_R)Mdot for real ω, and gives a concrete comparison with the scalar case. The paper is honest about its main caveats, and the central sign change at the superradiance threshold follows from the equations rather than being fitted. However, the headline rates rest on a single numerical radial integration with no documented error control, and the test-field normalization at r_c is imposed in a regime where backreaction may not be fully negligible. These issues are fixable and do not undermine the qualitative picture, but they block acceptance of the numerical rates at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [V, VI.B (Eqs. (56), (62), (65))] The quantitative claims—especially the 10 M⊙/yr extraction rate in Eq. (65) and the ~400 M⊙/yr rate in Eq. (62)—are obtained from a single NDSolve integration of Eq. (24a) with the near-horizon initial condition (55). No integration tolerances, domain-truncation tests, step-size convergence studies, or independent checks are reported. In the wave regime the far field is a finely balanced superposition of the two WKB branches in Eq. (56), and the rates are controlled by the ratio |C_in/C_out| extracted at r_c ~ 10^6 M; near μ=mΩ_H the net flux is a small difference of larger terms, so small phase errors can change the quoted rates by a large factor. The statement that results are 'order-of-magnitude' is not a substitute for error control. Please add convergence tests with respect to AccuracyGoal/PrecisionGoal and outer radius, and at least one independent validation (e.g., WKB matching, a
  2. [II.B.1, VI.B] The test-field approximation is load-bearing because the field is normalized to ρ_c at r_c, and all quoted rates scale linearly with ρ_c. The paper acknowledges (Sec. II.B.1) that for M~10^10 M⊙ and ρ_c=10 M⊙/pc^3 the field-induced curvature is comparable to the background curvature at r~10^6 M, and asserts that the approximation remains valid for the M=10^9 M⊙ case used in the headline numbers. This is plausible but not demonstrated for the Kerr background; spin-dependent frame-dragging could modify the near-horizon and r_c regions differently. Please quantify the ratio of the backreaction to the background curvature for the specific parameters of Figs. 4–6, or explicitly restrict the claims to the region where the bound is satisfied. Without this, the 10 M⊙/yr number is conditional on an unquantified approximation.
  3. [VI.D] The conclusion that the superradiant equilibrium is 'precluded' astrophysically compares the mass-accretion timescale τ_acc (Eq. (63)) to the superradiant-instability timescale τ_ins. τ_acc is the BH mass-change timescale, not the timescale for the environment to establish or maintain the equilibrium profile; the latter could be much shorter (of order the wave crossing time across the sphere of influence). In addition, the instability growth rate used is for quasi-bound states, while the bath configuration is a scattering/steady-state solution with real ω; the susceptibility of this configuration to quasi-bound-state perturbations should be justified, not assumed. Please clarify what perturbation class is being considered and define the equilibration timescale more carefully.
minor comments (5)
  1. [V] Please specify the Mathematica version and NDSolve options used, and define the smearing function q(r,r') in Eq. (59) rather than referring only to Paper I.
  2. [Abstract] The statement 'for any nonzero spin, an additional superradiant regime appears' is strictly for modes with m>0; the monopole m=0 mode has no superradiant regime. Consider adding this qualifier for precision.
  3. [VI.B, Fig. 4] Please make the path from the contour plot to Eq. (65) explicit: Fig. 4 appears to show rates surpassing ~1 M⊙/yr for μ M≈0.3, χ>0.8, while Eq. (65) quotes ~10 M⊙/yr for χ>0.9. This may be consistent, but the numerical value should be traceable from the figure or from a clearly labeled extraction point.
  4. [IV.B.3] The text contains 'ans¨ atze' (typo) and the approximate expression in Eq. (51) uses an expansion in aμ; for χ=0.9 the parameter aμ is not very small, so the validity of the approximation should be clarified.
  5. [VI.A, Fig. 2] The x-axis in Fig. 2 is labeled only with numbers; please specify the units (presumably r_*/M).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: extraction rates and spike profile emerge from solving the separated Proca equations; self-citation to Paper I is supporting, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The Proca equation is separated using the externally established LFKKS scheme; for omega=mu, the angular equation is solved analytically (Sec. IV) and the radial ODE (24a) is integrated numerically with a purely ingoing horizon boundary condition derived in Appendix A. The superradiance condition and the sign change of Mdot emerge from the near-horizon asymptotics (Eqs. (A3)-(A5)) and the flux integral (Eq. (60)), not from an imposed ansatz. The normalization to rho_c at r_c is a stated physical input and the quoted rates scale linearly with it, as the paper says (Eqs. (62),(65)), so the rates are not fitted targets. The only self-reference is Paper I for the test-field validity range and Schwarzschild-limit checks; this supports the interpretation of the rates but does not reduce the new Kerr result to its own inputs. Numerical-error concerns (no convergence tests) are correctness risks, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model inherits two hand-picked boundary values (rho_c, r_c) that set the overall normalization; the quoted rates scale linearly with rho_c. The physical ingredients are standard: the Proca field is a massive vector field with no new degrees of freedom. The main external pillars are the LFKKS separation theorem and the test-field approximation, the latter validated only to order-of-magnitude in Paper I.

free parameters (2)
  • rho_c (ambient dark matter density at r_c) = 10 M_sun/pc^3
    Chosen to represent a dense soliton core; all quoted accretion/extraction rates scale linearly with it; near the upper end of the test-field approximation validity.
  • r_c (sphere-of-influence radius for normalization) = 2 x 10^6 M
    Order-of-magnitude choice matched to Paper I; stated by the authors as 'strictly order-of-magnitude', making all numerical results only order-of-magnitude precise.
axioms (4)
  • standard math LFKKS separability of the Proca equation on Kerr
    The reduction to radial and angular ODEs via the principal tensor ansatz (Eqs. 19-24) is taken from Refs. [19,20,22]; the paper relies on this separation throughout Sections III-V.
  • domain assumption Test-field approximation: the Proca field does not backreact on the Kerr metric
    Invoked in Sec. II.B.1 with validity argued from Appendix D of Paper I; at the edge of the sphere of influence for the largest BHs and rho_c ~ 10 M_sun/pc^3, curvature scales become comparable, so the approximation may degrade.
  • domain assumption Monochromatic, coherent field in equilibrium with a bath: omega fixed exactly to mu, with constant density at r_c
    The field is modeled as a complex Proca field oscillating as e^{-i mu t}, normalized to rho_c at r_c (Secs. II, VI). This bypasses no-hair theorems by relaxing far-field falloff and assumes a single-frequency condensate phase.
  • domain assumption Purely ingoing near-horizon boundary condition for radial solutions
    Radial solutions are selected by imposing the ingoing solution near r_+ (Eqs. 54-55); the large-r boundary condition is left free and the amplitude is fixed only by normalization at r_c. This determines which scattering solution is used for the accretion rates.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 33252 in / 15298 out tokens · 145522 ms · 2026-08-04T00:45:19.288713+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We consider a massive vector-field perturbation on a Kerr black hole background. We fix the field's density at the edge of the black hole sphere of influence to model a bath of wave cold dark matter, from which the black hole can accrete endlessly. We employ the approach of Lunin, Frolov, Krtou\v{s}, Kubiz\v{n}\'{a}k, and Santos to separate the equations, and solve them with a mix of analytical and numerical techniques. We find that the field forms a density spike around the black hole with profile $\rho \sim r^{-3/2}$, consistent with dark matter spikes studied in the literature, which is not significantly distorted by spacetime rotation, except near the black hole's ergoregion. For any nonzero spin, an additional superradiant regime appears, in which co-rotating modes extract mass and angular momentum from the black hole. We find a mass \textit{extraction} rate as high as $10\, M_\odot/\text{yr}$ in the superradiant regime for a $10^9\, M_\odot$ black hole. For large field masses, the rate at which the black-hole mass grows behaves similarly to the Schwarzschild case, reaching $\sim 100\, M_\odot/\text{yr}$ for a $10^9\, M_\odot$ black hole. We compare these results to their scalar-field counterparts and discuss how they mix with the superradiant instability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00307 by Fredric Hancock, Helvi Witek.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Diagram of the key regimes of vector dark matter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Density profiles as a function of the tortoise-like radial coordinate for the monopole ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Plots of the field’s density for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Contours of the BH mass accretion rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Contours of the BH mass accretion rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. BH mass accretion rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. BH mass extraction rate, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. BH angular momentum accretion rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The surfaces [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 57 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The monopole mode, (s, ℓ, m) = (1,0,0), which we expect to be the dominant contribution for astro- physical wave dark matter accretion 11

  2. [2]

    overdensity

    The fundamental co-rotating mode for each polar- ization, (s, ℓ, m) = (s,1,1), which are the dominant superradiant modes. We have now derived analytic expressions for the sepa- ration constantνand the angular functionS(θ) in each of these cases, under the restrictionω=µ. For the reader’s convenience, these are collected in Table I. TABLE I. Summary of ang...

    2000

  3. [3]

    For this, we may use the mass accretion formula from Ref

    Comparison with scalar results To draw out the implications of our results, we can compare these accretion rates with those of a massive scalar field in an analogous configuration. For this, we may use the mass accretion formula from Ref. [55]. We consider a scalar field Φ with mass parameterµ around a Kerr BH, populated in a single mode (ℓ, m) with a def...

  4. [4]

    Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    P. Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    intermediate

    × 10-5 FIG. 6. BH mass accretion rate ˙M, for a BH of mass M= 10 9 M⊙ in aρ c = 10M ⊙/pc3 dark matter environment, plotted againstµMfor several values of the BH spinχ. From top to bottom, the panels show the modes (s, ℓ, m) = (1,0,0), (−1,1,1), (0,1,1), and (1,1,1). For theℓ=m= 1 modes, the curves all cross zero at the pointµ=mΩ H , giving rise to a super...

  6. [6]

    In the general case of complex frequencies,ω∈C, a time-dependent factore 2ωI t remains, meaning the term does not vanish identically nor after the time average

    If the frequency is real,ω∈R, then the sole time- dependent factor inT µ (i),e i(ω∗−ω)t, extracted fromA µ ∼ e−iωt, reduces to unity, and∂ tT t (i) = 0. In the general case of complex frequencies,ω∈C, a time-dependent factore 2ωI t remains, meaning the term does not vanish identically nor after the time average. However, if|ω I | ≪ |ωR|, as for a long-liv...

  7. [7]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Open Data from LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA through the First Part of the Fourth Observing Run (2025), 23 arXiv:2508.18079 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA, Open Data from LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA through the Second Part of the Fourth Observing Run (2026), arXiv:2605.27090 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Caneva Santoro, S

    G. Caneva Santoro, S. Roy, R. Vicente, M. Haney, O. J. Piccinni, W. Del Pozzo, and M. Martinez, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 251401 (2024), arXiv:2309.05061 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Barausseet al., Gen

    E. Barausseet al., Gen. Rel. Grav.52, 81 (2020), arXiv:2001.09793 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    K. G. Arunet al.(LISA), Living Rev. Rel.25, 4 (2022), arXiv:2205.01597 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Duque, C

    F. Duque, C. F. B. Macedo, R. Vicente, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 121404 (2024), arXiv:2312.06767 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Gliorio, E

    S. Gliorio, E. Berti, A. Maselli, and N. Speeney, Phys. Rev. D112, 124050 (2025), arXiv:2503.16649 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Hancock and H

    F. Hancock and H. Witek, Phys. Rev. D112, 044033 (2025), arXiv:2506.06554 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Newman and R

    E. Newman and R. Penrose, J. Math. Phys.3, 566 (1962)

    1962

  16. [16]

    R. H. Price, Phys. Rev. D5, 2439 (1972)

    1972

  17. [17]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.29, 1114 (1972)

    1972

  18. [18]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J.185, 635 (1973)

    1973

  19. [19]

    J. G. Rosa and S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D85, 044043 (2012), arXiv:1110.4494 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  20. [20]

    P. Pani, V. Cardoso, L. Gualtieri, E. Berti, and A. Ishibashi, Phys. Rev. D86, 104017 (2012), arXiv:1209.0773 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  21. [21]

    P. Pani, V. Cardoso, L. Gualtieri, E. Berti, and A. Ishibashi, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 131102 (2012), arXiv:1209.0465 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  22. [22]

    Pani, Int

    P. Pani, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28, 1340018 (2013), arXiv:1305.6759 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  23. [23]

    Lunin, JHEP2017(12), 138, arXiv:1708.06766 [hep- th]

    O. Lunin, JHEP2017(12), 138, arXiv:1708.06766 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    Krtouˇ s, V

    P. Krtouˇ s, V. P. Frolov, and D. Kubizˇ n´ ak, Nucl. Phys. B 934, 7 (2018), arXiv:1803.02485 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    V. P. Frolov, P. Krtouˇ s, D. Kubizˇ n´ ak, and J. E. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 231103 (2018), arXiv:1804.00030 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    V. P. Frolov, P. Krtous, and D. Kubiznak, Living Rev. Rel.20, 6 (2017), arXiv:1705.05482 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  27. [27]

    S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D98, 104006 (2018), arXiv:1806.01604 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    J. D. Bekenstein and M. Schiffer, Phys. Rev. D58, 064014 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9803033

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  29. [29]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Lect. Notes Phys. 906, pp.1 (2015), arXiv:1501.06570 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  30. [30]

    Y. B. Zeldovich, Soviet Journal of Experimental and The- oretical Physics Letters14, 180 (1971)

    1971

  31. [31]

    C. W. Misner, Phys. Rev. Lett.28, 994 (1972)

    1972

  32. [32]

    W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky, Nature238, 211 (1972)

    1972

  33. [33]

    Y. B. Zeldovich, Soviet Journal of Experimental and The- oretical Physics35, 1085 (1972)

    1972

  34. [34]

    S. A. Teukolsky and W. H. Press, Astrophys. J.193, 443 (1974)

    1974

  35. [35]

    Damour, N

    T. Damour, N. Deruelle, and R. Ruffini, Lett. Nuovo Cim.15, 257 (1976)

    1976

  36. [36]

    S. L. Detweiler, Phys. Rev. D22, 2323 (1980)

    1980

  37. [37]

    S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D76, 084001 (2007), arXiv:0705.2880 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  38. [38]

    Shlapentokh-Rothman, Commun

    Y. Shlapentokh-Rothman, Commun. Math. Phys.329, 859 (2014), arXiv:1302.3448 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  39. [39]

    Baumann, H

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    Siemonsen, C

    N. Siemonsen, C. Mondino, D. Egana-Ugrinovic, J. Huang, M. Baryakhtar, and W. E. East, Phys. Rev. D 107, 075025 (2023), arXiv:2212.09772 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Baryakhtar, R

    M. Baryakhtar, R. Lasenby, and M. Teo, Phys. Rev. D 96, 035019 (2017), arXiv:1704.05081 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  42. [42]

    Tsukada, R

    L. Tsukada, R. Brito, W. E. East, and N. Siemon- sen, Phys. Rev. D103, 083005 (2021), arXiv:2011.06995 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 221101 (2014), arXiv:1403.2757 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  44. [44]

    Herdeiro, E

    C. Herdeiro, E. Radu, and H. R´ unarsson, Class. Quant. Grav.33, 154001 (2016), arXiv:1603.02687 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  45. [45]

    Witek, V

    H. Witek, V. Cardoso, A. Ishibashi, and U. Sperhake, Phys. Rev. D87, 043513 (2013), arXiv:1212.0551 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  46. [46]

    W. E. East, Phys. Rev. D96, 024004 (2017), arXiv:1705.01544 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    W. E. East and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 041101 (2017), arXiv:1704.04791 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  48. [48]

    W. E. East, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 131104 (2018), arXiv:1807.00043 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [49]

    Hui, Ann

    L. Hui, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.59, 247 (2021), arXiv:2101.11735 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    Antypaset al., New Horizons: Scalar and Vector Ul- tralight Dark Matter (2022), arXiv:2203.14915 [hep-ex]

    D. Antypaset al., New Horizons: Scalar and Vector Ul- tralight Dark Matter (2022), arXiv:2203.14915 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    Arias, D

    P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo, and A. Ringwald, JCAP2012(06), 013, arXiv:1201.5902 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  52. [52]

    A. E. Nelson and J. Scholtz, Phys. Rev. D84, 103501 (2011), arXiv:1105.2812 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  53. [53]

    P. W. Graham, J. Mardon, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D93, 103520 (2016), arXiv:1504.02102 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  54. [54]

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

    1972

  55. [55]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D5, 2403 (1972)

    1972

  56. [56]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett.28, 452 (1972)

    1972

  57. [57]

    Clough, P

    K. Clough, P. G. Ferreira, and M. Lagos, Phys. Rev. D 100, 063014 (2019), arXiv:1904.12783 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  58. [58]

    L. Hui, D. Kabat, X. Li, L. Santoni, and S. S. C. Wong, JCAP2019(06), 038, arXiv:1904.12803 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1904

  59. [59]

    Bamber, K

    J. Bamber, K. Clough, P. G. Ferreira, L. Hui, and M. La- gos, Phys. Rev. D103, 044059 (2021), arXiv:2011.07870 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  60. [60]

    L. Hui, Y. T. A. Law, L. Santoni, G. Sun, G. M. Tomaselli, and E. Trincherini, Phys. Rev. D107, 104018 (2023), arXiv:2208.06408 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    Bamber, J

    J. Bamber, J. C. Aurrekoetxea, K. Clough, and P. G. Fer- reira, Phys. Rev. D107, 024035 (2023), arXiv:2210.09254 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [62]

    J. C. Aurrekoetxea, K. Clough, J. Bamber, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 211401 (2024), arXiv:2311.18156 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    J. C. Aurrekoetxea, J. Marsden, K. Clough, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D110, 083011 (2024), arXiv:2409.01937 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Cheng, G

    C.-H. Cheng, G. Ficarra, and H. Witek, Phys. Rev. D 113, 024063 (2026), arXiv:2510.20037 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  65. [65]

    Srikanth, T

    R. Srikanth, T. Dietrich, and K. Clough, Phys. Rev. D 113, 044045 (2026), arXiv:2510.19547 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  66. [66]

    S. Roy, R. Vicente, J. C. Aurrekoetxea, K. Clough, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 191402 (2026), arXiv:2510.17967 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    K. M. Vispute and R. Karmakar, Absorption cross sec- 24 tion of a Schwarzschild black hole for a massive vector field (2026), arXiv:2606.13217 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    Schive, M.-H

    H.-Y. Schive, M.-H. Liao, T.-P. Woo, S.-K. Wong, T. Chi- ueh, T. Broadhurst, and W. Y. P. Hwang, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 261302 (2014), arXiv:1407.7762 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  69. [69]

    D. V. Gal’tsov, G. V. Pomerantseva, and G. A. Chizhov, Sov. Phys. J.27, 697 (1984)

    1984

  70. [70]

    S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D100, 044044 (2019), arXiv:1906.04808 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  71. [71]

    Percival and S

    J. Percival and S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D102, 104055 (2020), arXiv:2008.10621 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  72. [72]

    Siemonsen and W

    N. Siemonsen and W. E. East, Phys. Rev. D101, 024019 (2020), arXiv:1910.09476 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  73. [73]

    T. V. Fernandes, D. Hilditch, J. P. S. Lemos, and V. Car- doso, Phys. Rev. D105, 044017 (2022), arXiv:2112.03282 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  74. [74]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and M. Casals, Phys. Rev. D 73, 024013 (2006), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 73, 109902 (2006)], arXiv:gr-qc/0511111

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  75. [75]

    W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J.185, 649 (1973)

    1973

  76. [76]

    Baumann, H

    D. Baumann, H. S. Chia, J. Stout, and L. ter Haar, JCAP 12, 006, arXiv:1908.10370 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1908

  77. [77]

    E. W. Leaver, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A402, 285 (1985)

    1985

  78. [78]

    S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D61, 084004 (2000), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 63, 049902 (2001), Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 65, 069902 (2002), Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 67, 089901 (2003), Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 78, 109902 (2008), Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 90, 109904 (2014)], arXiv:gr-qc/9910091

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  79. [79]

    G. B. Cook and M. Zalutskiy, Phys. Rev. D90, 124021 (2014), arXiv:1410.7698 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  80. [80]

    A. M. Ghez, B. L. Klein, M. Morris, and E. E. Becklin, Astrophys. J.509, 678 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9807210

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

Showing first 80 references.