Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Probing vector gravitational atoms with eccentric intermediate mass-ratio inspirals

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A vector boson cloud grown around a black hole would leave detectable, near-orthogonal imprints in the gravitational waves of eccentric intermediate-mass-ratio inspirals.

desk verdict A credible extension of gravitational-atom physics to vector clouds in eccentric IMRIs; the detectability claim rests on an off-resonance assumption checked only for parameters different from the benchmark. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17247 v3 pith:6UPQEGEV submitted 2024-11-26 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-ph

Yan Cao , Ya-Ze Cheng , Gen-Liang Li , Yong Tang This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords vectorgravitationalatomsultralightbosonssuperradianceintermediate-mass-ratioinspiralseccentricorbitswaveastronomycloudionizationLISA
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to show that an ultralight vector boson cloud formed around a spinning black hole — a vector gravitational atom in its fastest-growing $|1011\rangle$ ground state — is not a passive backdrop for an inspiraling companion. In the leading Newtonian regime with small mass ratio, the cloud's stationary gravity produces a negative secular periastron precession at separations near the gravitational Bohr radius, while ionization of the cloud by the companion's tidal field accelerates orbital decay and circularization. The paper computes the resulting adiabatic orbital evolution and gravitational waveforms, and finds that for a benchmark intermediate-mass-ratio inspiral ($m_1=10^4\,M_\odot$, $m_2=10\,M_\odot$, $\alpha=0.03$, $\beta=0.8\alpha$, $d=1\,\mathrm{Mpc}$) the one-year and five-year overlaps between cloud and vacuum waveforms are essentially zero ($\mathcal{F}\sim -10^{-3}$) at signal-to-noise ratios of order $10^2$. The conclusion a sympathetic reader is asked to accept: future space-based gravitational-wave detectors could identify a vector gravitational atom through the orbital and waveform imprints of an eccentric intermediate-mass-ratio inspiral.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the vector gravitational atom in the $|1011\rangle$ state, the fastest-growing superradiant mode, whose nonrelativistic wave function is proportional to the scalar $|100\rangle$ hydrogenic state, $\Psi_{1011}=-\frac{1}{\sqrt2}(1,i,0)^T\Psi_{100}$. The paper's machinery is a first-order perturbative model of the companion's orbit: Gaussian osculating-element equations driven by the conservative acceleration $-\nabla\Phi + v\times(\nabla\times\Xi)$ from the cloud's stationary Newtonian and gravitomagnetic potentials, together with dissipative ionization fluxes obtained from Fermi golden rule bound-free transition rates under the companion's tidal potential decomposed into multipoles. The ionization fluxes carry sharp jumps at semimajor axes $x^{(g)}=(2g)^{2/3}(1+q)^{1/3}$, and the secular evolution is fed into the analytical-kludge quadrupole waveform with LISA noise to produce faithfulness, signal-to-noise, and Fisher-matrix statements.

What would settle it

A concrete check: search LISA data for an eccentric IMRI with $m_1=10^4\,M_\odot$, $m_2=10\,M_\odot$, $\alpha=0.03$, $\beta=0.8\alpha$, $f_0=2\times10^{-4}\,\mathrm{Hz}$, $e_0=0.6$, and $d=1\,\mathrm{Mpc}$. If the recovered waveform matches a vacuum binary with faithfulness above $0.99$ — positive Schwarzschild periastron precession, braking index in $[4/3,11/3]$, and no ionization-accelerated decay or circularization — the claim that this vector cloud dominates the waveform in that band is falsified for that event. A companion numerical check would be to evolve the cloud self-consistently for parameters where the Landau-Zener parameter approaches unity and see whether resonances deplete the cloud before the predicted dephasing accumulates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the $|1011\rangle$ vector cloud leaves a distinctive, observationally separable mark on eccentric intermediate-mass-ratio inspirals. Treating the cloud as a nearly unperturbed single eigenstate, the paper combines two effects: a conservative one from the cloud's Newtonian potential, which yields a negative contribution to the secular periastron precession that can rival or exceed the Schwarzschild precession at $x_a\sim 1$, and a dissipative one from ionization, whose backreaction produces energy and angular-momentum fluxes that accelerate orbital decay and circularization. These effects make the binary more eccentric than a vacuum inspiral at a given orbital frequency and can drive the braking index below $4/3$ or even negative. For the benchmark system the cloud and vacuum waveforms are almost orthogonal ($\mathcal{F}\approx -10^{-3}$ over one and five years) with $\mathrm{SNR}\sim 10^2$, and Fisher-matrix estimates give fractional errors below unity for the cloud parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$, so a detection would both reveal the cloud and constrain the boson.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the small companion leaves the $|1011\rangle$ cloud essentially unperturbed: all bound-bound Bohr resonances stay nonadiabatic (Landau-Zener parameter $z\ll1$ as computed in Table I), nonresonant bound-state mixing is negligible (Appendix F), and the cloud mass changes by only about $10^{-2}$ during the inspiral, so the stationary single-eigenstate potential and first-order ionization fluxes describe the entire evolution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For an eccentric IMRI with $m_1=10^4\,M_\odot$, $m_2=10\,M_\odot$, $\alpha=0.03$, and $\beta=0.8\alpha$, one-year or five-year LISA observations can distinguish the vector-cloud waveform from a vacuum inspiral, since $\mathrm{SNR}\sim 10^2$ and the faithfulness $F$ is about $-10^{-3}$.
  • The cloud makes the binary more eccentric at a given orbital frequency and can produce a small or negative braking index, in contrast to the vacuum range $n_b\in[4/3,11/3]$.
  • Ionization accelerates orbital decay and circularization, and the eccentricity decays more slowly relative to the semimajor axis, shifting the inspiral track away from the vacuum trajectory.
  • Fisher-matrix estimates show that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ can be measured with fractional errors below unity; in the absence of a cloud, a one-year observation would constrain $\beta\lesssim 3\times10^{-6}$ for fixed $\alpha=0.03$.
  • Because the ionization fluxes and stationary potential of the vector $|1011\rangle$ state are degenerate with those of scalar $|100\rangle$ and certain vector and tensor states, the same waveforms can be used to search for a broader class of ultralight boson clouds.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: if such an event is observed, the detection would give a direct measurement of the boson mass from the Bohr-radius relation, independent of the cloud's own monochromatic gravitational-wave line.
  • Beyond the paper: the strong eccentricity dependence shown in the paper's parameter scans suggests that searches should prioritize the most eccentric events, for which the cloud-vs-vacuum overlap drops fastest and the SNR difference grows largest.
  • Beyond the paper: the Landau-Zener parameters in Table I indicate that the nonadiabaticity assumption can break down for larger companion masses or smaller cloud masses, so the predicted waveforms and detectability window may close in that region of parameter space.
  • Beyond the paper: a detected cloud signal would not by itself identify the boson spin, since the dominant ionization and potential effects are shared with scalar $|100\rangle$ clouds; distinguishing the spin would require the gravitomagnetic precession or the cloud's own GW line.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies the orbital dynamics and gravitational-wave signals of intermediate mass-ratio inspirals (IMRIs) around a vector ultralight-boson cloud formed by superradiance, focusing on the fastest-growing |1011> state. Using a Newtonian perturbative treatment, the authors consistently combine the conservative effect of the stationary cloud potential and gravitomagnetic field with the dissipative effect of cloud ionization computed via Fermi's golden rule. They derive scaling relations for the ionization fluxes, compute secular changes of the orbital elements (including a negative periastron precession contribution), and evolve adiabatic inspirals with the analytical kludge waveform model. For a benchmark system with m1=10^4 solar masses, m2=10 solar masses, alpha=0.03, beta=0.0244, and d=1 Mpc, they find that the cloud accelerates orbital decay and circularization, and that one- and five-year LISA waveforms have nearly zero overlap with vacuum waveforms (faithfulness ~ -10^-3) with SNR above 100. They conclude that such vector gravitational atoms may be detectable by LISA and Taiji.

Significance. The paper makes a solid step beyond earlier order-of-magnitude estimates of dynamical friction in gravitational atoms by computing ionization fluxes and their backreaction from first principles, and by including conservative precession effects. The scalar-reduction identity for the |1011> state (Eq. 29) is elegant and allows the use of established scalar-atom ionization results. The clear scaling laws (Eqs. D4-D6 and the q-scaling discussion) make the model easy to test, and the paper is careful to compare the magnitudes of all forces in Fig. 4. The central claim—that eccentric IMRI waveforms in a |1011> cloud are distinguishable from vacuum waveforms—is falsifiable and, if correct, would provide a new channel to probe ultralight vector bosons. However, the validity of the claim depends crucially on the cloud surviving the inspiral in its |1011> state, and this is where the validation is incomplete.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV and Appendix F] The central assumption that the |1011> cloud remains an unperturbed single eigenstate is checked in Table I and Fig. 14 only for parameters different from the waveform benchmark. Table I uses alpha=beta=0.05 and q=10^-4, and Fig. 14 uses q=10^-4, while the benchmark in Sec. IV uses q=10^-3 and beta=0.813 alpha=0.0244. Since Appendix F states that z is proportional to q/beta when q<<1 and P is approximately P_ion, the benchmark's Landau-Zener parameters are about 20 times larger than the tabulated values; for the specific |3233> entries this still gives z of order 10^-3 or smaller, but no LZ calculation is shown for the other allowed Bohr resonances (|2122>, |21j'0>, |n'011>) or for the eccentricity values of the benchmark. Moreover, the benchmark inspiral starts at x_a ~ 0.54, which is below the first Bohr resonance at x^(1) ~ 1.6; the paper's assumption that the inspiral starts with x_a < x^(1) is imposed, not derived. A companion formed outside the cloud must cross the resonances at x ~ 2.72 and 1.71 before reaching the LISA band. The absence of a direct validation at the benchmark parameters is a load-bearing gap: if any of these crossings is adiabatic, the cloud would be depleted or transferred, invalidating the potential and ionization fluxes used to generate the waveforms and the claimed detectability.
  2. [Appendix F and Sec. IV] The nonresonant bound-state mixing is estimated only for an equatorial circular orbit. The paragraph containing Eq. (F8) explicitly states 'In the case of equatorial corotating (i=0) circular orbit,' and Fig. 14 shows P_mix and (M_dot_c)_mix only for that case. The benchmark waveforms in Sec. IV, however, use eccentric orbits with e0 up to 0.85 (Fig. 9) and e0=0.6 (Fig. 10). The ionization flux is independent of inclination because of the scalar |100> reduction, but the bound-bound mixing is not, as Appendix F itself notes that a dedicated study would be required for a generic inclined eccentric orbit. Applying the stationary-cloud model to the full benchmark parameter space without quantifying nonresonant mixing there is an extrapolation, not a result. The authors should compute or bound this effect at the benchmark point, or restrict the claims to the equatorial circular case.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. II] The abstract describes the cloud as being 'saturated in its SR ground state'; for vector fields the fastest-growing superradiant mode is |1011>, which is not the n=1, l=0 hydrogenic ground state. Please add a brief clarification to avoid confusion.
  2. [Eq. (40)] The formula alpha = 0.1 x (mu/1.3 x 10^-11 eV)(M/M_sun) mixes different unit conventions; please state the conversion constant explicitly in natural units.
  3. [Fig. 6] The upper-left panel of Fig. 6 is mentioned in the text as showing the magnitudes of the precession rates relative to BH-induced rates, but the plotted quantities and their color coding are not described in the caption. Please expand the caption.
  4. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (24)] Please double-check the sign of the tau_ion,X term in the inclination evolution equation; in the limit of a spherically symmetric cloud the X-component should vanish, and the relation between Eqs. (23) and (24) should be stated consistently.
  5. [Throughout] The term 'nondimensional' is used throughout; 'dimensionless' is the more common English term. No substantive issue.
  6. [Introduction] The statement that the paper corrects the treatment of the cloud depletion effect in Appendix E should explicitly note that this corrects the authors' own previous work [83]; as written, it is unclear which earlier treatment is being corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the ionization fluxes and cloud-potential precession are derived from first-principles hydrogenic wavefunctions and standard perturbation theory, with the authors' earlier model invoked only to be corrected.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The dissipative sector is built from Fermi's golden rule applied to the companion's tidal potential (Appendix D), with the hydrogenic bound and free states taken from standard quantum mechanics and the flux formulas adopted from independent prior work [97,99]; no parameter is fitted to produce the predicted precession, dephasing, or waveform. The conservative sector solves the linearized Einstein equations for the cloud's stationary potential (Appendix A) and feeds it into the exact Gaussian perturbation equations, so the negative periastron precession is a derived consequence of the |1011> mass distribution rather than an input. The vector |1011> state is related to the scalar |100> ground state by the exact identity in Eq. (29), so the ionization computation is a reduction, not a renaming. The authors' earlier model [83] is explicitly superseded ('we correct the treatment of cloud depletion effect in Appendix E') and is not load-bearing for the LISA-band claims. The FIM parameter constraints are likewise formal uncertainties conditional on the injected waveform model, not independent evidence, so they do not create circularity. The main caveat is physical rather than circular: the LZ parameters in Table I are computed at q=1e-4 and beta=0.05, while the waveform benchmark uses q=1e-3 and beta=0.024, so the paper's own scaling z proportional to q/beta gives roughly 20 times larger values, and the nonresonant-mixing estimate in Fig. 14 is for equatorial circular orbits; the off-resonant, unperturbed-cloud assumption is therefore extrapolated to the inclined eccentric benchmark. That extrapolation is a validity risk, not a reduction of the prediction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The computation rests on the standard hydrogenic GA description, the assumption of SR saturation in |1011>, the small-q perturbative treatment of the companion, the Fermi golden rule ionization model, and the stationary-cloud approximation. The main tuned inputs are the benchmark parameters alpha, beta, masses, distance, and initial frequency and eccentricity; none of these are fitted to data, but the detectability claim is conditional on them. No new particle, force, dimension, or conserved quantity is introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha (gravitational fine structure constant) = 0.03
    Benchmark boson mass mu = 4 x 10^-16 eV for M = 10^4 solar masses; sets the Bohr radius, orbital frequencies, and all rates. Chosen by hand, not fitted to data.
  • beta/alpha (initial cloud mass fraction relative to alpha) = 0.813
    Chosen to match a cloud age of 10^6 years with initial spin chi_i = 1. Drives the strength of all cloud-induced effects and the detectability forecast.
  • fiducial source distance d = 1 Mpc
    SNR and Fisher errors scale linearly with distance; chosen to produce a loud event. The detectability claim is conditional on this distance.
  • initial orbital frequency f0 and eccentricity e0 = f0 = 2 x 10^-4 Hz, e0 = 0.6 (also 0.05, 0.45, 0.85)
    Starting point for waveform comparisons and Fisher forecasts; the dephasing and faithfulness numbers depend on these choices.
  • host and companion masses M and M* = 10^4 solar masses, 10 solar masses
    Defines an intermediate mass-ratio inspiral with q = 10^-3. Chosen as a benchmark system, not derived from a population model.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The vector field around the central BH is described by the nonrelativistic Schrodinger equation with a hydrogenic spectrum, valid for alpha << 1.
    Section II, Eq. (3); the entire gravitational-atom description and the |1011> wavefunction rely on this Newtonian and nonrelativistic limit.
  • domain assumption The cloud is saturated in the SR ground state |1011>, with the host BH spin reduced to chi about 4 alpha/m.
    Section II; the fastest-growing vector mode dominates and saturates when the superradiance condition is met. This fixes the cloud state for the whole paper.
  • domain assumption The companion is a small perturbation with q << 1, and the cloud remains nearly unperturbed in a single eigenstate with a stationary Newtonian potential.
    Section III opening; the dissipative and conservative perturbative models both depend on this weak-perturbation condition.
  • domain assumption Ionization is described by first-order Fermi golden rule, with bound-free transitions dominating and bound-bound and free-free transitions subleading.
    Appendix D, following Refs. [97, 99]; this is the backreaction model that produces the accelerated decay and circularization.
  • domain assumption The stationary part of the cloud metric dominates; the oscillating 2omega part and cloud depletion are negligible in the regime of interest.
    Appendix A, Eq. (A8), and Appendix E; used to compute the conservative precession and to neglect outspiral effects for M greater than about 10^4 solar masses.
  • domain assumption The LISA sensitivity curve of Robson et al. 2019 and a one-year observation are used for SNR and Fisher forecasts, without galactic confusion noise.
    Appendix B and Section IV; this detector model determines the quoted detectability numbers.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing vector gravitational atoms with eccentric intermediate mass-ratio inspirals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6UPQEGEV

@misc{pith2026241117247,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing vector gravitational atoms with eccentric intermediate mass-ratio inspirals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6UPQEGEV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17247}
}
read the original abstract

Ultralight bosons, proposed as candidates for dark matter (DM), are predicted by various new physics models. In the presence of bosons with suitable masses, superradiant (SR) instability can naturally transform a spinning black hole (BH) into a gravitational atom (GA). Here we study the dynamics of intermediate mass-ratio inspirals (IMRIs) around a GA formed by ultralight vector field saturated in its SR ground state. We employ a perturbative model at the leading Newtonian order to consistently account for both the conservative effect of cloud gravity and the dissipative effect of cloud ionization. We find the cloud can make a sizable negative contribution to the secular periastron precession at binary separations comparable to the gravitational Bohr radius. Meanwhile, the backreaction of ionization could significantly accelerate the process of orbital decay and circularization. Considering reasonably small vector boson masses, we examine the adiabatic orbital evolution and gravitational waveforms of eccentric inspirals. The results indicate that vector GAs might be detectable through observations of low-frequency IMRIs by the future space-based gravitational-wave detectors, such as LISA and Taiji.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17247 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Definition of coordinate frames and the binary’s angu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Dissipative energy flux and the rate of change of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Evolution flow of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison between the exact evolution of osculating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Magnitudes of the 1PN gravitoelectric (red solid line), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Precession rates of eccentric orbit in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of orbital precession rates in the vector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Adiabatic orbital evolution of IMRI in the vector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. One-year (upper row) and five-year (lower row) time-domain waveform [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Comparison between the one-year vacuum and nonvacuum waveforms for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Corner plot depicting the probability distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Critical semimajor axis of outspiral in a saturated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Comparison between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Ultralight Boson Ionization from Comparable-Mass Binary Black Holes

    gr-qc 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Ionization of boson molecules bound to a black hole binary can dominate gravitational-wave losses during early inspiral, imprinting a turnover in the nanohertz GW background and circularizing the orbit.

  2. Extreme mass-ratio inspirals into Newtonian Proca stars

    gr-qc 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    For Newtonian Proca stars, a perturbing object on a circular orbit loses nearly the same energy in the vector ground state as in the scalar boson-star ground state (within ~20%), while the spherical excited Proca stat...

  3. On Equation of State of Dark Matter around Massive Black Holes

    gr-qc 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Static dark matter halos around Schwarzschild black holes are viable only if the dark matter pressure is negative, under two toy equations of state and a vanishing horizon-density boundary condition.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

139 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, CP conservation in the presence of pseudoparticles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  2. [2]

    Wilczek, Problem of strong p and t invariance in the presence of instantons, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Problem of strong p and t invariance in the presence of instantons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  3. [3]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Cosmology of the Invisible Axion, Phys. Lett. B 120, 127 (1983)

    1983

  4. [4]

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, A Cosmological Bound on the Invisible Axion, Phys. Lett. B 120, 133 (1983)

    1983

  5. [5]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, The Not So Harmless Axion, Phys. Lett. B 120, 137 (1983)

    1983

  6. [6]

    Holdom, Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts, Phys

    B. Holdom, Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts, Phys. Lett. B 166, 196 (1986)

    1986

  7. [7]

    Svrcek and E

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

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, String axiverse, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123530 (2010)

    2010

Show all 139 references
  1. [9]

    L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Ul- tralight scalars as cosmological dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 95, 043541 (2017), arXiv:1610.08297 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Hui, Wave Dark Matter, Ann

    L. Hui, Wave Dark Matter, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astro- phys. 59, 247 (2021), arXiv:2101.11735 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Ferreira, Ultra-light dark matter, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 29 (2021)

    E. Ferreira, Ultra-light dark matter, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 29 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Matos, L

    T. Matos, L. A. Ure˜ na L´ opez, and J.-W. Lee, Short re- view of the main achievements of the scalar field, fuzzy, ultralight, wave, BEC dark matter model, Front. As- tron. Space Sci. 11, 1347518 (2024), arXiv:2312.00254 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Aoki and J

    A. Aoki and J. Soda, Detecting ultralight axion dark matter wind with laser interferometers, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 26, 1750063 (2016), arXiv:1608.05933 [astro- ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Kim, Gravitational interaction of ultralight dark matter with interferometers, JCAP 12, 018, arXiv:2306.13348 [hep-ph]

    H. Kim, Gravitational interaction of ultralight dark matter with interferometers, JCAP 12, 018, arXiv:2306.13348 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Kim and A

    H. Kim and A. Mitridate, Stochastic ultralight dark matter fluctuations in pulsar timing arrays, Phys. Rev. D 109, 055017 (2024), arXiv:2312.12225 [hep-ph]. 26

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    J.-C. Yu, Y. Cao, Y. Tang, and Y.-L. Wu, Detecting ultralight dark matter gravitationally with laser inter- ferometers in space, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023025 (2024), arXiv:2404.04333 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Kim, Astrometric search for ultralight dark mat- ter, Phys

    H. Kim, Astrometric search for ultralight dark mat- ter, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083031 (2024), arXiv:2406.03539 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    J. A. Dror and S. Verner, Astrometric detection of ul- tralight dark matter (2024), arXiv:2406.03526 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    H. An, T. Li, J. Shu, X. Wang, X. Xue, and Y. Zhao, Dark photon dark matter and low-frequency gravita- tional wave detection with gaia-like astrometry (2024), arXiv:2407.16488 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Wang and Y

    K. Wang and Y. Zhong, Frequency modulation of grav- itational waves by ultralight scalar dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 108, 123531 (2023), arXiv:2306.10732 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    D. Blas, S. Gasparotto, and R. Vicente, Searching for ultra-light dark matter through frequency modulation of gravitational waves (2024), arXiv:2410.07330 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    L. K. Wong, A.-C. Davis, and R. Gregory, Effective field theory for black holes with induced scalar charges, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024010 (2019), arXiv:1903.07080 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    L. K. Wong, Evolution of diffuse scalar clouds around binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D 101, 124049 (2020), arXiv:2004.03570 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    D. Blas, D. L´ opez Nacir, and S. Sibiryakov, Secular ef- fects of ultralight dark matter on binary pulsars, Phys. Rev. D 101, 063016 (2020), arXiv:1910.08544 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Annulli, V

    L. Annulli, V. Cardoso, and R. Vicente, Response of ultralight dark matter to supermassive black holes and binaries, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063022 (2020), arXiv:2009.00012 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Vicente and V

    R. Vicente and V. Cardoso, Dynamical friction of black holes in ultralight dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 105, 083008 (2022), arXiv:2201.08854 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A. M. Pombo and I. D. Saltas, A Sun-like star orbiting a boson star, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 524, 4083 (2023), arXiv:2304.09140 [astro-ph.SR]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Traykova, R

    D. Traykova, R. Vicente, K. Clough, T. Helfer, E. Berti, P. G. Ferreira, and L. Hui, Relativistic drag forces on black holes from scalar dark matter clouds of all sizes, Phys. Rev. D 108, L121502 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Bamber, J

    J. Bamber, J. C. Aurrekoetxea, K. Clough, and P. G. Ferreira, Black hole merger simulations in wave dark matter environments, Phys. Rev. D 107, 024035 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    J. C. Aurrekoetxea, K. Clough, J. Bamber, and P. G. Ferreira, Effect of wave dark matter on equal mass black hole mergers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 211401 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    P. Brax, P. Valageas, C. Burrage, and J. A. R. Cem- branos, Detecting dark matter oscillations with gravita- tional waveforms, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083515 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    J. H. Kim and X.-Y. Yang, Gravitational wave duet by resonating binary black holes with axion-like particles (2024), arXiv:2407.14604 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  25. [33]

    H. Koo, D. Bak, I. Park, S. E. Hong, and J.-W. Lee, Final parsec problem of black hole mergers and ultra- light dark matter, Physics Letters B856, 138908 (2024), arXiv:2311.03412 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    B. C. Bromley, P. Sandick, and B. Shams Es Haghi, Supermassive black hole binaries in ultralight dark mat- ter, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023517 (2024), arXiv:2311.18013 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Kocsis, N

    B. Kocsis, N. Yunes, and A. Loeb, Observable Sig- natures of EMRI Black Hole Binaries Embedded in Thin Accretion Disks, Phys. Rev. D 84, 024032 (2011), arXiv:1104.2322 [astro-ph.GA]

    2011 arXiv

  28. [36]

    K. Eda, Y. Itoh, S. Kuroyanagi, and J. Silk, New Probe of Dark-Matter Properties: Gravitational Waves from an Intermediate-Mass Black Hole Embedded in a Dark- Matter Minispike, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 221101 (2013), arXiv:1301.5971 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Barausse, V

    E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Can en- vironmental effects spoil precision gravitational-wave astrophysics?, Phys. Rev. D 89, 104059 (2014), arXiv:1404.7149 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Yue, W.-B

    X.-J. Yue, W.-B. Han, and X. Chen, Dark matter: an efficient catalyst for intermediate-mass-ratio-inspiral events, Astrophys. J. 874, 34 (2019), arXiv:1802.03739 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Yue and Z

    X.-J. Yue and Z. Cao, Dark matter minispike: A sig- nificant enhancement of eccentricity for intermediate- mass-ratio inspirals, Phys. Rev. D 100, 043013 (2019), arXiv:1908.10241 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Bertone et al., Gravitational wave probes of dark matter: challenges and opportunities, SciPost Phys

    G. Bertone et al., Gravitational wave probes of dark matter: challenges and opportunities, SciPost Phys. Core 3, 007 (2020), arXiv:1907.10610 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    G.-L. Li, Y. Tang, and Y.-L. Wu, Probing dark mat- ter spikes via gravitational waves of extreme-mass-ratio inspirals, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 65, 100412 (2022), arXiv:2112.14041 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Becker, L

    N. Becker, L. Sagunski, L. Prinz, and S. Rastgoo, Cir- cularization versus eccentrification in intermediate mass ratio inspirals inside dark matter spikes, Phys. Rev. D 105, 063029 (2022), arXiv:2112.09586 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Becker and L

    N. Becker and L. Sagunski, Comparing accretion disks and dark matter spikes in intermediate mass ratio inspirals, Phys. Rev. D 107, 083003 (2023), arXiv:2211.05145 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Cardoso, K

    V. Cardoso, K. Destounis, F. Duque, R. P. Macedo, and A. Maselli, Black holes in galaxies: Environmental im- pact on gravitational-wave generation and propagation, Phys. Rev. D 105, L061501 (2022), arXiv:2109.00005 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Cardoso, K

    V. Cardoso, K. Destounis, F. Duque, R. P. Macedo, and A. Maselli, Gravitational waves from extreme-mass- ratio systems in astrophysical environments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 241103 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Cardoso, K

    V. Cardoso, K. Destounis, F. Duque, R. Panosso Macedo, and A. Maselli, Gravitational Waves from Extreme-Mass-Ratio Systems in Astro- physical Environments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 241103 (2022), arXiv:2210.01133 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Speeney, A

    N. Speeney, A. Antonelli, V. Baibhav, and E. Berti, Impact of relativistic corrections on the detectability of dark-matter spikes with gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D 106, 044027 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    P. S. Cole, G. Bertone, A. Coogan, D. Gaggero, T. Kary- das, B. J. Kavanagh, T. F. M. Spieksma, and G. M. Tomaselli, Distinguishing environmental effects on bi- nary black hole gravitational waveforms, Nature Astron. 7, 943 (2023), arXiv:2211.01362 [gr-qc]

    2023

  41. [49]

    Caneva Santoro, S

    G. Caneva Santoro, S. Roy, R. Vicente, M. Haney, O. J. Piccinni, W. Del Pozzo, and M. Martinez, First Constraints on Compact Binary Environments from LIGO-Virgo Data, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 251401 (2024), arXiv:2309.05061 [gr-qc]. 27

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Rahman, S

    M. Rahman, S. Kumar, and A. Bhattacharyya, Probing astrophysical environment with eccentric extreme mass- ratio inspirals, JCAP 01, 035, arXiv:2306.14971 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Kadota, J

    K. Kadota, J. H. Kim, P. Ko, and X.-Y. Yang, Gravita- tional wave probes on self-interacting dark matter sur- rounding an intermediate mass black hole, Phys. Rev. D 109, 015022 (2024), arXiv:2306.10828 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Zhang and Y

    Z.-C. Zhang and Y. Tang, Velocity distribution of dark matter in spikes around Schwarzschild black holes and effects on gravitational waves from extreme-mass- ratio inspirals, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103008 (2024), arXiv:2403.18529 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Yue and Z

    X.-J. Yue and Z. Cao, Gravitational waves with dark matter minispikes: Fourier-domain waveforms of ec- centric intermediate-mass-ratio-inspirals, Class. Quant. Grav. 41, 095011 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Bertone, Dark matter, black holes, and gravita- tional waves, Nucl

    G. Bertone, Dark matter, black holes, and gravita- tional waves, Nucl. Phys. B 1003, 116487 (2024), arXiv:2404.11513 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Y. Zhao, N. Dai, and Y. Gong, Distinguishing dark mat- ter halos with Extreme mass ratio inspirals, arXiv e- prints (2024), arXiv:2410.06882 [gr-qc]

    2024

  48. [56]

    Zwick, C

    L. Zwick, C. Tiede, A. A. Trani, A. Derdzinski, Z. Haiman, D. J. D’Orazio, and J. Samsing, A novel category of environmental effect in gravitational waves from binaries perturbed by periodic forces (2024), arXiv:2405.05698 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Zhou, H.-B

    Y.-C. Zhou, H.-B. Jin, C.-F. Qiao, and Y.-L. Wu, Intermediate-mass-ratio inspirals with general dy- namical friction in dark matter minispikes (2024), arXiv:2405.19240 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  50. [58]

    T. K. Karydas, B. J. Kavanagh, and G. Bertone, Sharp- ening the dark matter signature in gravitational wave- forms i: Accretion and eccentricity evolution (2024), arXiv:2402.13053 [gr-qc]

    2024

  51. [59]

    Cheng, Y

    Y.-Z. Cheng, Y. Cao, and Y. Tang, Effects of black hole environments on extreme mass-ratio hyperbolic encoun- ters (2024), arXiv:2411.03095 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Tahelyani, A

    D. Tahelyani, A. Bhattacharyya, and A. S. Sen- gupta, Probing dark matter halo profiles with multi- band observations of gravitational waves (2024), arXiv:2411.14063 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

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

    S. Detweiler, Klein-gordon equation and rotating black holes, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2323 (1980)

    1980

  54. [62]

    S. R. Dolan, Instability of the massive Klein-Gordon field on the Kerr spacetime, Phys. Rev. D 76, 084001 (2007), arXiv:0705.2880 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Arvanitaki and S

    A. Arvanitaki and S. Dubovsky, Exploring the String Axiverse with Precision Black Hole Physics, Phys. Rev. D 83, 044026 (2011), arXiv:1004.3558 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Brito, V

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

    2015 arXiv

  57. [65]

    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]

    2015 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Baryakhtar, R

    M. Baryakhtar, R. Lasenby, and M. Teo, Black Hole Superradiance Signatures of Ultralight Vectors, Phys. Rev. D 96, 035019 (2017), arXiv:1704.05081 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  59. [67]

    V. P. Frolov, P. Krtouˇ s, D. Kubizˇ n´ ak, and J. E. Santos, Massive Vector Fields in Rotating Black-Hole Space- times: Separability and Quasinormal Modes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 231103 (2018), arXiv:1804.00030 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  60. [68]

    S. R. Dolan, Instability of the Proca field on Kerr space- time, Phys. Rev. D 98, 104006 (2018), arXiv:1806.01604 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Siemonsen and W

    N. Siemonsen and W. E. East, Gravitational wave sig- natures of ultralight vector bosons from black hole superradiance, Phys. Rev. D 101, 024019 (2020), arXiv:1910.09476 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Percival and S

    J. Percival and S. R. Dolan, Quasinormal modes of mas- sive vector fields on the Kerr spacetime, Phys. Rev. D 102, 104055 (2020), arXiv:2008.10621 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Siemonsen, C

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

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Jones, L

    D. Jones, L. Sun, N. Siemonsen, W. E. East, S. M. Scott, and K. Wette, Methods and prospects for gravitational- wave searches targeting ultralight vector-boson clouds around known black holes, Phys. Rev. D 108, 064001 (2023)

    2023

  65. [73]

    Budker, J

    D. Budker, J. Eby, M. Gorghetto, M. Jiang, and G. Perez, A generic formation mechanism of ul- tralight dark matter solar halos, JCAP 12, 021, arXiv:2306.12477 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    M. C. Ferreira, C. F. B. Macedo, and V. Car- doso, Orbital fingerprints of ultralight scalar fields around black holes, Phys. Rev. D 96, 083017 (2017), arXiv:1710.00830 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  67. [75]

    O. A. Hannuksela, K. W. K. Wong, R. Brito, E. Berti, and T. G. F. Li, Probing the existence of ultralight bosons with a single gravitational-wave measurement, Nature Astron. 3, 447 (2019), arXiv:1804.09659 [astro- ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Amorim et al

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

    2019 arXiv

  69. [77]

    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. D 106, 103024 (2022), arXiv:2205.04970 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Foschi et al

    A. Foschi et al. (GRA VITY), 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]

    2023 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Foschi et al

    A. Foschi et al. (GRA VITY), 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]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    De Luca and P

    V. De Luca and P. Pani, Tidal deformability of dressed black holes and tests of ultralight bosons in extended mass ranges, JCAP 08, 032, arXiv:2106.14428 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  73. [81]

    Arana, R

    R. Arana, R. Brito, and G. Castro, Tidal love numbers of gravitational atoms (2024), arXiv:2410.00968 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Kavic, S

    M. Kavic, S. L. Liebling, M. Lippert, and J. H. Simon- etti, Accessing the axion via compact object binaries, JCAP 08, 005, arXiv:1910.06977 [astro-ph.HE]

    1910 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Cao and Y

    Y. Cao and Y. Tang, Signatures of ultralight bosons in compact binary inspiral and outspiral, Phys. Rev. D 108, 123017 (2023)

    2023

  76. [84]

    Baumann, H

    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]. 28

    2019 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Zhang and H

    J. Zhang and H. Yang, Gravitational floating orbits around hairy black holes, Phys. Rev. D 99, 064018 (2019), arXiv:1808.02905 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Berti, R

    E. Berti, R. Brito, C. F. B. Macedo, G. Raposo, and J. a. L. Rosa, Ultralight boson cloud depletion in binary systems, Phys. Rev. D 99, 104039 (2019)

    2019

  79. [87]

    Baumann, H

    D. Baumann, H. S. Chia, R. A. Porto, and J. Stout, Gravitational Collider Physics, Phys. Rev. D 101, 083019 (2020), arXiv:1912.04932 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Takahashi, H

    T. Takahashi, H. Omiya, and T. Tanaka, Axion cloud evaporation during inspiral of black hole binaries: The effects of backreaction and radiation, PTEP 2022, 043E01 (2022), arXiv:2112.05774 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Takahashi, H

    T. Takahashi, H. Omiya, and T. Tanaka, Evolution of binary systems accompanying axion clouds in extreme mass ratio inspirals, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103020 (2023), arXiv:2301.13213 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  82. [90]

    G. M. Tomaselli, T. F. M. Spieksma, and G. Bertone, Resonant history of gravitational atoms in black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 110, 064048 (2024)

    2024

  83. [91]

    Boˇ skovi´ c, M

    M. Boˇ skovi´ c, M. Koschnitzke, and R. A. Porto, Signa- tures of ultralight bosons in the orbital eccentricity of binary black holes, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 121401 (2024)

    2024

  84. [92]

    G. M. Tomaselli, T. F. M. Spieksma, and G. Bertone, Legacy of boson clouds on black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 121402 (2024)

    2024

  85. [93]

    Q. Ding, X. Tong, and Y. Wang, Gravitational Collider Physics via Pulsar-Black Hole Binaries, Astrophys. J. 908, 78 (2021), arXiv:2009.11106 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  86. [94]

    X. Tong, Y. Wang, and H.-Y. Zhu, Gravitational Col- lider Physics via Pulsar–Black Hole Binaries II: Fine and Hyperfine Structures Are Favored, Astrophys. J. 924, 99 (2022), arXiv:2106.13484 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  87. [95]

    X. Tong, Y. Wang, and H.-Y. Zhu, Termination of su- perradiance from a binary companion, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043002 (2022), arXiv:2205.10527 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  88. [96]

    K. Fan, X. Tong, Y. Wang, and H.-Y. Zhu, Modu- lating binary dynamics via the termination of black hole superradiance, Phys. Rev. D 109, 024059 (2024), arXiv:2311.17013 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Baumann, G

    D. Baumann, G. Bertone, J. Stout, and G. M. Tomaselli, Ionization of gravitational atoms, Phys. Rev. D 105, 115036 (2022)

    2022

  90. [98]

    Baumann, G

    D. Baumann, G. Bertone, J. Stout, and G. M. Tomaselli, Sharp signals of boson clouds in black hole binary in- spirals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 221102 (2022)

    2022

  91. [99]

    G. M. Tomaselli, T. F. M. Spieksma, and G. Bertone, Dynamical friction in gravitational atoms, JCAP 07, 070, arXiv:2305.15460 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  92. [100]

    Zhang and H

    J. Zhang and H. Yang, Dynamic signatures of black hole binaries with superradiant clouds, Phys. Rev. D 101, 043020 (2020)

    2020

  93. [101]

    Brito and S

    R. Brito and S. Shah, Extreme mass-ratio inspirals into black holes surrounded by scalar clouds, Phys. Rev. D 108, 084019 (2023), arXiv:2307.16093 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Duque, C

    F. Duque, C. F. B. Macedo, R. Vicente, and V. Cardoso, Extreme-mass-ratio inspirals in ultralight dark matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 121404 (2024)

    2024

  95. [103]

    Goodsell, J

    M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo, and A. Ring- wald, Naturally Light Hidden Photons in LARGE Volume String Compactifications, JHEP 11, 027, arXiv:0909.0515 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  96. [104]

    P. W. Graham, J. Mardon, and S. Rajendran, Vector Dark Matter from Inflationary Fluctuations, Phys. Rev. D 93, 103520 (2016), arXiv:1504.02102 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Y. Ema, K. Nakayama, and Y. Tang, Production of purely gravitational dark matter: the case of fermion and vector boson, JHEP 07, 060, arXiv:1903.10973 [hep-ph]

    1903 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Ahmed, B

    A. Ahmed, B. Grzadkowski, and A. Socha, Gravita- tional production of vector dark matter, JHEP 08, 059, arXiv:2005.01766 [hep-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  99. [107]

    A. J. Long and L.-T. Wang, Dark Photon Dark Matter from a Network of Cosmic Strings, Phys. Rev. D 99, 063529 (2019), arXiv:1901.03312 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  100. [108]

    J. A. Dror, K. Harigaya, and V. Narayan, Parametric resonance production of ultralight vector dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 99, 035036 (2019)

    2019

  101. [109]

    Nakayama, Vector Coherent Oscillation Dark Mat- ter, JCAP 10, 019, arXiv:1907.06243 [hep-ph]

    K. Nakayama, Vector Coherent Oscillation Dark Mat- ter, JCAP 10, 019, arXiv:1907.06243 [hep-ph]

    1907 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Y. Chen, X. Xue, R. Brito, and V. Cardoso, Photon Ring Astrometry for Superradiant Clouds, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 111401 (2023), arXiv:2211.03794 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  103. [111]

    S. Fell, L. Heisenberg, and D. b. u. Veske, Detecting fundamental vector fields with lisa, Phys. Rev. D 108, 083010 (2023)

    2023

  104. [112]

    Brito, S

    R. Brito, S. Grillo, and P. Pani, Black hole superradiant instability from ultralight spin-2 fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 211101 (2020)

    2020

  105. [113]

    Jain and M

    M. Jain and M. A. Amin, Polarized solitons in higher- spin wave dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 105, 056019 (2022), arXiv:2109.04892 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Baumann, H

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

    1908 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Cannizzaro, L

    E. Cannizzaro, L. Sberna, S. R. Green, and S. Hol- lands, Relativistic Perturbation Theory for Black-Hole Boson Clouds, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 051401 (2024), arXiv:2309.10021 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Speeney, E

    N. Speeney, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and A. Maselli, Black holes surrounded by generic matter distributions: Po- lar perturbations and energy flux, Phys. Rev. D 109, 084068 (2024), arXiv:2401.00932 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  109. [117]

    S. A. Klioner, Basic celestial mechanics (2016), arXiv:1609.00915 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Blas and A

    D. Blas and A. C. Jenkins, Detecting stochastic gravita- tional waves with binary resonance, Phys. Rev. D 105, 064021 (2022), arXiv:2107.04063 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  111. [119]

    C. M. Will, Theory and experiment in gravitational physics (Cambridge university press, 2018)

    2018

  112. [120]

    P. C. Peters and J. Mathews, Gravitational radiation from point masses in a keplerian orbit, Phys. Rev. 131, 435 (1963)

    1963

  113. [121]

    Blanchet, Post-Newtonian Theory for Gravitational Waves, Living Rev

    L. Blanchet, Post-Newtonian Theory for Gravitational Waves, Living Rev. Rel. 17, 2 (2014), arXiv:1310.1528 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Su, Z.-Z

    B. Su, Z.-Z. Xianyu, and X. Zhang, Probing Ultralight Bosons with Compact Eccentric Binaries, Astrophys. J. 923, 114 (2021), arXiv:2107.13527 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  115. [123]

    A. Guo, J. Zhang, and H. Yang, Superradiant clouds may be relevant for close compact object binaries, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023022 (2024)

    2024

  116. [124]

    Siemonsen, T

    N. Siemonsen, T. May, and W. E. East, Modeling the black hole superradiance gravitational waveform, Phys. Rev. D 107, 104003 (2023), arXiv:2211.03845 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Chatziioannou, A

    K. Chatziioannou, A. Klein, N. Yunes, and N. Cornish, Constructing gravitational waves from generic spin- precessing compact binary inspirals, Phys. Rev. D 95, 29 104004 (2017)

    2017

  118. [126]

    Seto, Proposal for determining the total masses of eccentric binaries using signature of periastron advance in gravitational waves, Phys

    N. Seto, Proposal for determining the total masses of eccentric binaries using signature of periastron advance in gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 251101 (2001), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 101, 209901 (2008)], arXiv:astro-ph/0111107

    2001 arXiv

  119. [127]

    Maggiore, Gravitational Waves: Volume 2: Astro- physics and Cosmology(Oxford University Press, 2018)

    M. Maggiore, Gravitational Waves: Volume 2: Astro- physics and Cosmology(Oxford University Press, 2018)

    2018

  120. [128]

    D. E. Krause, H. T. Kloor, and E. Fischbach, Multipole radiation from massive fields: Application to binary pul- sar systems, Phys. Rev. D 49, 6892 (1994)

    1994

  121. [129]

    Cheng, W.-H

    Y.-Z. Cheng, W.-H. Wu, and Y. Cao, Electromag- netic radiation from binary stars mediated by ultra- light scalar, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2401.00204 (2023), arXiv:2401.00204 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  122. [130]

    Zi and C

    T. Zi and C. Zhang, Detecting the massive vec- tor field with extreme mass-ratio inspirals (2024), arXiv:2406.11724 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  123. [131]

    Liu, Gravitational laser: the stimulated radiation of gravitational waves from the clouds of ultralight bosons (2024), arXiv:2401.16096 [gr-qc]

    J. Liu, Gravitational laser: the stimulated radiation of gravitational waves from the clouds of ultralight bosons (2024), arXiv:2401.16096 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  124. [132]

    Moreno-Garrido, E

    C. Moreno-Garrido, E. Mediavilla, and J. Buitrago, Gravitational radiation from point masses in ellipti- cal orbits: spectral analysis and orbital parameters, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society274, 115 (1995), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/274/1/11...

    1995

  125. [133]

    Barack and C

    L. Barack and C. Cutler, LISA capture sources: Ap- proximate waveforms, signal-to-noise ratios, and pa- rameter estimation accuracy, Phys. Rev. D 69, 082005 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0310125

    2004 arXiv

  126. [134]

    Mikoczi, B

    B. Mikoczi, B. Kocsis, P. Forgacs, and M. Vasuth, Pa- rameter estimation for inspiraling eccentric compact bi- naries including pericenter precession, Phys. Rev. D 86, 104027 (2012), arXiv:1206.5786 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  127. [135]

    Cutler, Angular resolution of the LISA gravitational wave detector, Phys

    C. Cutler, Angular resolution of the LISA gravitational wave detector, Phys. Rev. D 57, 7089 (1998), arXiv:gr- qc/9703068

    1998

  128. [136]

    Robson, N

    T. Robson, N. J. Cornish, and C. Liu, The construction and use of lisa sensitivity curves, Classical and Quantum Gravity 36, 105011 (2019)

    2019

  129. [137]

    J. D. Hadjidemetriou, Two-body problem with variable mass: a new approach, Icarus 2, 440 (1963)

    1963

  130. [138]

    Huang, Modes of Mass Ejection by Binary Stars and the Effect on Their Orbital Periods., Astrophys

    S.-S. Huang, Modes of Mass Ejection by Binary Stars and the Effect on Their Orbital Periods., Astrophys. J. 138, 471 (1963)

    1963

  131. [139]

    T. May, W. E. East, and N. Siemonsen, Self-gravity effects of ultralight boson clouds formed by black hole superradiance (2024), arXiv:2410.21442 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.