Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 141 references

A small body inspiralling into the ground state of a Proca star loses almost the same energy as it would into a scalar boson star—at most about 20% difference—while the spherical Proca-star state radiates 10–100 times less energy when a sma

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

2026-08-01 15:30 UTC pith:DOTVMACI

load-bearing objection First EMRI-into-Proca-star calculation, but the small-radius numbers that anchor the headline comparison are computed outside the nonrelativistic regime where the flux formulas are valid. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18405 v2 pith:DOTVMACI submitted 2026-07-20 gr-qc hep-ph

Extreme mass-ratio inspirals into Newtonian Proca stars

Jo\~ao Bernardo Silva , Richard Brito This is my paper
classification gr-qc hep-ph PACS 04.30.-w04.40.-b95.35.+d
keywords extreme mass-ratio inspiralsProca starsultralight dark matterboson starsgravitational wave dephasingSchrödinger-Poisson systemenergy fluxesvector dark matter
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.

The paper studies how an inspiralling point mass loses orbital energy to a self-gravitating ball of massive vector (spin-1) bosons—a Proca star—in the Newtonian limit. It claims that the energy lost into the ground state of a Proca star is nearly identical to that lost into the ground state of a scalar boson star of the same mass, with relative differences at most ~20%. By contrast, the spherically symmetric 'hedgehog' Proca star, which is an excited state, drains orbital energy far less efficiently: its maximum loss rate is one to two orders of magnitude smaller when a central parasitic black hole is present. The paper also develops the full perturbation formalism needed to compute these fluxes, which had been missing for non-spherical Proca configurations.

Core claim

In the Newtonian limit, the ground state of a Proca star displays the same spherically symmetric energy density profile as a scalar boson star ground state, despite the vector field itself being axially symmetric. As a consequence, the total orbital energy loss rate for a circular equatorial inspiral into a ground-state Proca star agrees with the scalar case within ~20%, differing mostly at very small orbital radii. In contrast, the spherical 'hedgehog' Proca star—an excited state—produces energy loss rates one to two orders of magnitude smaller than the ground state when a central point mass of 0.02 times the star mass is included.

What carries the argument

The central object is the vector Schrödinger–Poisson (SP) system, obtained as the Newtonian limit of the Einstein-Proca equations with the curvature-coupling term neglected. The ground-state Proca field is written as a dipolar ansatz whose radial profile satisfies the same SP equation as the scalar boson star ground state; this equivalence of backgrounds is what drives the similar energy-loss rates. The perturbation machinery consists of linearized SP equations with a point-particle source, expanded in vector and scalar spherical harmonics, with fluxes computed from asymptotic amplitudes of the outgoing Proca radiation.

Load-bearing premise

The Newtonian reduction of the Einstein-Proca system to a vector Schrödinger–Poisson system requires neglecting the curvature-coupling term R^i_j A^j, valid only when the star's radius is much larger than the boson Compton wavelength (2Rμ≫1); if this fails, the ~20% similarity between vector and scalar ground states is not guaranteed.

What would settle it

Redo the same Newtonian flux calculation for a ground-state Proca star at Mμ=0.43 with a central mass MBH=0.02M, pushing the numerical solution below r_orb/M<0.1 without the source-dominated approximation (e.g., with spectral or hyperboloidal methods that avoid fundamental-matrix inversion); if the ratio of Proca-star to scalar-boson-star energy loss falls outside ~0.8–1 there, the claimed ≤20% bound fails.

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

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, ultralight vector dark matter forming a ground-state soliton would produce essentially the same environment-induced EMRI energy loss as scalar dark matter, to within roughly 20%.
  • Proca radiation can dominate gravitational-wave emission in the early inspiral for orbital radii r_orb/M ≳ 1, shaping the dephasing of EMRI signals.
  • The spherically symmetric Proca star, being an excited state, is a much weaker radiator; observational searches that assume spherical symmetry would systematically underestimate environmental dephasing.
  • The result implies that distinguishing scalar from vector dark-matter cores via EMRI energy loss alone will require relativistic effects, where the ground-state Proca star becomes prolate and the density-profile equivalence is broken.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The near-equality of the loss rates may extend to any spherically symmetric density profile, since the source-dominated approximation reduces the physics to the background density; a non-bosonic but spherically symmetric density profile could be tested the same way.
  • Non-circular or inclined orbits, which excite a richer set of multipoles and break the equatorial symmetry, are the most plausible place where the vector/scalar degeneracy could lift already at the Newtonian level—an explicit computation would settle this.
  • If the Proca ground state is prolate at the relativistic level, eccentric EMRIs might exhibit orbit-plane precession and resonances absent for scalar boson stars; the Newtonian result suggests these would be the only distinguishing features in the waveform.
  • The one-to-two-orders-of-magnitude difference between ground-state and excited-state Proca stars highlights that the internal state of the soliton is at least as important as its field-spin for environmental effects.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies extreme mass-ratio inspirals into Newtonian Proca stars (NPSs), constructing both the spherically symmetric ('hedgehog') excited state and the axially symmetric ground state, and computing the energy lost by a point particle on circular equatorial orbits through Proca radiation. The central claims are that, at the Newtonian level, ground-state NPSs and ground-state Newtonian boson stars (NBSs) produce similar energy losses (within ~20%), while spherically symmetric Proca stars are much weaker radiators, especially in the presence of a central parasitic black hole. The work includes the perturbation equations for both backgrounds, flux formulas, three numerical methods (full setup, source-dominated, high-frequency), and convergence tests.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful first step toward understanding whether future EMRI observations can distinguish scalar from vector ultralight dark-matter solitons. The paper is commendably careful in several respects: the background solutions are cross-checked against the literature, the flux formulas are derived explicitly in Appendix B, three independent methods are compared in Appendix D, and convergence with multipole truncation is analyzed in Appendix C. No output quantity is fitted to data; the background eigenvalue is fixed by boundary conditions and the couplings are inputs. The headline comparison between ground-state NPS and NBS is physically surprising because the linear perturbation equations are very different, even though the background energy densities coincide.

major comments (3)
  1. [§VI B, §VI C, App. B; Eq. (69)] The nonrelativistic wavenumber approximation used in the flux formulas is not valid at the small radii where the headline claims are made. In Appendix B the flux is derived assuming γ≪μ and ω_orb≪μ, replacing the exact wavenumber sqrt((mω_orb+Ω)^2−μ^2) by sqrt(2μ(mω_orb−γ)). For the parameters of Fig. 7 (Mμ=0.43, M_BH=0.02M, r_orb=0.1M, m=2), the Keplerian frequency gives mω_orb/μ ≈ 20.8. The exact wavenumber is then about 21.8μ, while the nonrelativistic expression gives about 6.45μ — a factor of ~3.4. Thus the square-root factor in Eq. (69) and the perturbation equations themselves (which rely on the same nonrelativistic dispersion) are not controlled in this regime. Since the ~20% bound is explicitly associated with small r_orb, this part of the central quantitative claim is not supported by the derivation as written.
  2. [§V A 1, §V B 1, App. D] The small-radius results, which drive the one-to-two-orders-of-magnitude enhancement, are obtained only with the source-dominated and high-frequency approximations, because the full-setup method is numerically unstable in that region. The high-frequency approximation is applied precisely where mω_orb/μ is large, but its analytic homogeneous solutions, Eq. (100), are Bessel functions of argument sqrt(2μ mω_orb) r, derived from the nonrelativistic Schrödinger dispersion. In the regime where the approximation is used, the correct massive-vector dispersion is qualitatively different. The agreement between source-dominated and high-frequency approximations shown in Appendix D is therefore not an independent check of the small-radius curves, since both methods share the same invalid dispersion. A quantitative estimate of the error, or a computation retaining the exact wavenumber, is needed bef
  3. [§VI C, Fig. 7] The total loss rate is computed with ℓ≤4, and the assertion that higher multipoles do not alter the conclusions is based on the observation that cutoff radii do not shift appreciably. However, convergence is only demonstrated in Appendix C for a single mode (ℓ=m=2) at fixed r_orb=5M. At the small radii where the ~20% comparison is made, the contribution of higher ℓ to the vector-vs-scalar ratio could be different, especially because the ground-state NPS mixes multipoles while the NBS does not. Please provide a convergence check for the total ℓ≤4 sum at the small radii entering the headline claim, or explicitly caveat the ℓ≤4 truncation in the main conclusion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§VI A, text before Eq. (116)] The statement that 'the high-frequency approximation is only applicable in the presence of a parasitic BH and at small enough orbital radii' is true only relative to the background potential. Since the approximation is also used at frequencies where ω_orb is not small compared with μ, the name is misleading; please clarify that 'high-frequency' means ω_orb≫γ, μU, and that the nonrelativistic condition ω_orb≪μ is a separate requirement that fails in the same region.
  2. [§III A 2, text after Eq. (32)] Typographical issues: 'distinctively prolatestructure' should read 'distinctively prolate structure', and elsewhere 'the lowest energy parameter γ' would be more precise as 'lowest binding-energy eigenvalue γ'.
  3. [§VII, Conclusions] The concluding paragraph says the results 'should be a good approximation for dilute bosonic stars, with secondaries moving at sufficiently large orbital radii', which is consistent with my main concern. Consider moving this caveat to the abstract or the beginning of the results section, so that the small-radius quantitative claims are immediately accompanied by this limitation.
  4. [Appendix B, Eq. (B11)] The derivation of the flux uses the nonrelativistic wavenumber but the text does not state the explicit inequality (mω_orb−γ)≪μ that is required. Please state this condition and verify where in the presented parameter space it is satisfied, ideally marking a shaded validity region in Figs. 3–7.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central energy-loss comparison is computed from an independently derived perturbation framework, not fitted or forced by definition.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain and found no load-bearing step that reduces by construction to its inputs. The background profiles are obtained by solving the Newtonian SP eigenvalue problem: the binding-energy parameter γ is fixed by regularity at the origin and asymptotic flatness via shooting, not by matching the energy-loss output (Sec. III A 1–2, Figs. 1–2). The Mμ and MBH/M values used in Sec. VI are chosen inputs from the scalar literature, not fitted parameters. The ground-state NPS/NBS background equivalence is explicitly derived from the identical form of the radial SP equations (Eq. 33 vs. Eq. 39 of Ref. [69]) and is used only as a background statement; the paper does not assume that the vector and scalar perturbation fluxes are equal. On the contrary, the vector perturbation equations (Eqs. 56–59) differ structurally from the scalar ones, with coupled multipoles and mixed axial/polar sectors, and the ~20% agreement is found only after the full flux computation (Eqs. 67–69, Fig. 7). The paper itself flags this as 'surprising' given the very different master equations. No fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no central result is justified solely by a self-citation: the cited ground-state and Newtonian-limits results (Refs. [98, 113, 114]) are not by the present authors, and the formal perturbation framework follows the external Ref. [69]. The validity caveats raised by the skeptical reading—e.g., the high-frequency approximation requires r/M ≪ 1 (App. D) and the Newtonian reduction assumes 2Rμ ≫ 1 (App. A)—are regime/correctness concerns, not circular reductions, and the paper explicitly scopes its conclusions to the Newtonian/dilute regime. Finding: no significant circularity; score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central computation inherits the Newtonian SP reduction (App. A), the background solutions and ground-state identification from Refs. [98,113,114], and the M=μQ relation used in scalar EMRI-environment work. The only numerically determined input is the background eigenvalue γ; the scanned physical parameters (Mμ, M_BH/M) and truncation orders are chosen from the literature or convergence tests, not fitted to the reported loss rates. No invented entities appear.

free parameters (1)
  • background binding-energy eigenvalue γ = γ̃ ≈ 0.162769 (ground state), ≈ 0.0541072 (hedgehog)
    Determined numerically by shooting with regularity at the origin and asymptotic flatness at infinity. It is a solution eigenvalue rather than a fit to the target result, but the flux cutoff mω_orb > γ and the loss rates depend on it.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Newtonian/weak-field reduction of Einstein-Proca to the vector Schrödinger-Poisson system, including neglect of the curvature-coupling term R^i_j A^j in Eq. (A11).
    Adopted in Sec. III and App. A; requires 2Rμ≫1 so vector kinetic energy is much smaller than rest mass. The whole flux computation—especially the ground-state equivalence to scalar NBS—sits on this reduction.
  • domain assumption Background NPS solutions: hedgehog and dipolar ground-state ansatz (Eqs. (23), (32)) are the correct Newtonian limits of Proca stars from Refs. [98,113,114].
    Sec. III A uses these background profiles; if the dipolar configuration were not the true ground state in the Newtonian limit, the 'ground-state' comparison would be mislabeled.
  • domain assumption Point particle moves on a fixed circular equatorial geodesic of the background and sources perturbations only through its mass density in the Poisson equation; backreaction, eccentric/inclined orbits, and BH absorption are neglected.
    Sec. II B, IV B, VI; valid for ε≪1 but restricts scope and small-radius behavior.
  • domain assumption Noether charge/mass relation M=μQ, and total Proca energy loss = Ė_rad + μĖ_Qrad.
    Sec. II C following Ref. [69]; if this relation fails in the Newtonian regime, the quoted total loss rates are biased.
  • ad hoc to paper Multipole truncation L=4 (full setup) / L=10 (source-dominated) is sufficient for total loss rates.
    Sec. V B and App. C; convergence oscillates within ~5% at L~16, but full-setup results use L=4. This is a numerical assumption, checked but not proven.
  • ad hoc to paper Source-dominated approximation: μ² A0j δA_j is negligible compared to the point-particle source in the Poisson equation.
    Sec. V A 1 and V B 1; justified by ε_B²≪1 and validated against the full setup where available, but it is the method used at small radii where the full setup is unstable.
  • standard math Sommerfeld outgoing radiation and asymptotic flatness uniquely select physical solutions.
    Used in Eq. (82) and all flux computations.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 39538 in / 18021 out tokens · 157755 ms · 2026-08-01T15:30:19.452106+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Massive bosonic fields can form self-gravitating solitonic structures, which for vector fields are known as Proca stars. For ultralight fields, these structures can describe the cores of dark matter haloes surrounding the supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies. It has been argued that future gravitational-wave detectors might be able to probe the properties of dark matter structures. However, most of the analyses considering ultralight dark matter have focused on massive scalar fields. In this work, we study how Proca stars respond to a perturbing small object inspiralling in their interior, in the Newtonian limit. We consider both Newtonian spherically symmetric Proca stars and the non-spherically symmetric ground-state solutions. We compute the total energy lost by the orbiting object and compare it to the case where the bosonic star is composed of a scalar field. Our results show that, at the Newtonian level, the energy lost by the object in a Proca star ground state is similar to that in its scalar field counterpart, with relative differences of at most $\sim 20\%$, while the maximum orbital energy loss rate in the ground-state configuration can be one to two orders of magnitude larger than in the spherically symmetric Proca star, when a central parasitic black hole is present. Our work motivates the need to study extreme mass-ratio inspirals into Proca stars using a fully relativistic setup, where differences between the Proca and scalar boson star ground states are expected to become more significant.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18405 by Jo\~ao Bernardo Silva, Richard Brito.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Hedgehog solution, given in terms of the rescaled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Ground-state solution, given in terms of the rescaled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Energy loss rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Ground-state NPS. Energy loss rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Total energy loss rate (considering multipoles up to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Energy loss rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Ground-state NPS. Energy loss fluxes for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Hedgehog NPS. Energy loss fluxes for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.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

141 extracted references · 96 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    (61) is subleading 12 with respect to the source termP(see Refs

    Source-dominated approximation In the Newtonian limit, the NPS density is typically sufficiently small that the termµ 2A0jδAj in Eq. (61) is subleading 12 with respect to the source termP(see Refs. [69, 82] for a related discussion). Letε B de- note the field amplitude, such thatA 0j ∼ε B, and let ε=m p/MNPS be the mass ratio. If the perturbation scales a...

  2. [2]

    parasitic BH

    Source-dominated approximation As discussed in the hedgehog case, it is useful to take the approximation in which the solution to the potential uℓ(r) is given, Eq. (94), such thatu ℓ(r) only appears as a source term in Eqs. (57)–(59). Following the same steps as in the hedgehog case, we find that, for any truncation L, we can completely decouple the syste...

    2025

  3. [3]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Particle dark mat- ter: Evidence, candidates and constraints,

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, “Particle dark mat- ter: Evidence, candidates and constraints,” Phys. Rept. 405, 279–390 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    Dark matter candidates and searches,

    N. Bozorgnia, J. Bramante, J. M. Cline, D. Curtin, D. McKeen, D. E. Morrissey, A. Ritz, S. Viel, A. C. Vincent, and Y. Zhang, “Dark matter candidates and searches,” Can. J. Phys.103, 671–703 (2025), arXiv:2410.23454 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Cosmological Lower Bound on Heavy Neutrino Masses,

    B. W. Lee and S. Weinberg, “Cosmological Lower Bound on Heavy Neutrino Masses,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 165–168 (1977)

    1977

  7. [7]

    Limits on Masses and Number of Neutral Weakly Interacting Particles,

    P. Hut, “Limits on Masses and Number of Neutral Weakly Interacting Particles,” Phys. Lett. B69, 85 (1977)

    1977

  8. [8]

    GeV-scale thermal WIMPs: Not even slightly ruled out,

    R. K. Leane, T. R. Slatyer, J. F. Beacom, and K. C. Y. Ng, “GeV-scale thermal WIMPs: Not even slightly ruled out,” Phys. Rev. D98, 023016 (2018), arXiv:1805.10305 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

    Closing the window on WIMP Dark Matter,

    S. Bottaro, D. Buttazzo, M. Costa, R. Franceschini, P. Panci, D. Redigolo, and L. Vittorio, “Closing the window on WIMP Dark Matter,” Eur. Phys. J. C82, 31 (2022), arXiv:2107.09688 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    Su- persymmetric dark matter,

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, “Su- persymmetric dark matter,” Phys. Rept.267, 195–373 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9506380

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  11. [11]

    WIMP dark matter candidates and searches—current status and future prospects,

    L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo, and S. Trojanowski, “WIMP dark matter candidates and searches—current status and future prospects,” Rept. Prog. Phys.81, 066201 (2018), arXiv:1707.06277 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    Towards the Final Word on Neu- tralino Dark Matter,

    J. Bramante, N. Desai, P. Fox, A. Martin, B. Ost- diek, and T. Plehn, “Towards the Final Word on Neu- tralino Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D93, 063525 (2016), arXiv:1510.03460 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [13]

    Small-Scale Challenges to the ΛCDM Paradigm,

    J. S. Bullock and M. Boylan-Kolchin, “Small-Scale Challenges to the ΛCDM Paradigm,” Ann. Rev. As- tron. Astrophys.55, 343–387 (2017), arXiv:1707.04256 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    Observational and theoretical constraints on singular dark matter ha- los,

    R. A. Flores and J. R. Primack, “Observational and theoretical constraints on singular dark matter ha- los,” Astrophys. J. Lett.427, L1–4 (1994), arXiv:astro- ph/9402004

    arXiv 1994

  15. [15]

    Where are the missing Galactic satel- lites?

    A. A. Klypin, A. V. Kravtsov, O. Valenzuela, and F. Prada, “Where are the missing Galactic satel- lites?” Astrophys. J.522, 82–92 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9901240

    arXiv 1999

  16. [16]

    Astrophysical tests of dark matter self-interactions,

    S. Adhikariet al., “Astrophysical tests of dark matter self-interactions,” Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 045004 (2025), arXiv:2207.10638 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    A baryonic solution to the missing satellites problem,

    A. M. Brooks, M. Kuhlen, A. Zolotov, and D. Hooper, “A baryonic solution to the missing satellites problem,” The Astrophysical Journal765, 22 (2013)

    2013

  18. [18]

    Born to be starless: Revisiting the missing satellite problem,

    S. Jeon, S. K. Yi, E. Contini, Y. Dubois, S. Han, K. Kraljic, S. Peirani, C. Pichon, and J. Rhee, “Born to be starless: Revisiting the missing satellite problem,” (2025), arXiv:2506.09152 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Ultra-light dark matter,

    E. G. M. Ferreira, “Ultra-light dark matter,” Astron. Astrophys. Rev.29, 7 (2021), arXiv:2005.03254 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, “CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,” Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1440–1443 (1977)

    1977

  21. [21]

    Recent Progress in the Physics of Axions and Axion-Like Par- ticles,

    K. Choi, S. H. Im, and C. Sub Shin, “Recent Progress in the Physics of Axions and Axion-Like Par- ticles,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71, 225–252 (2021), arXiv:2012.05029 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    New experimental ap- proaches in the search for axion-like particles,

    I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo, “New experimental ap- proaches in the search for axion-like particles,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.102, 89–159 (2018), arXiv:1801.08127 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [23]

    String Axiverse,

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, “String Axiverse,” Phys. Rev. D 81, 123530 (2010), arXiv:0905.4720 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  24. [24]

    Axions In String Theory,

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, “Axions In String Theory,” JHEP06, 051 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0605206

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  25. [25]

    Field theory axiverse,

    S. Alexander, T. Manton, and E. McDonough, “Field theory axiverse,” Phys. Rev. D109, 116019 (2024), arXiv:2404.11642 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

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

    B. Holdom, “Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts,” Phys. Lett. B166, 196–198 (1986)

    1986

  27. [27]

    Fabbrichesi, E

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli, and G. Lanfranchi,The Physics of the Dark Photon: A Primer(Springer, Cham, 2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    Recent develop- ments in bimetric theory,

    A. Schmidt-May and M. von Strauss, “Recent develop- ments in bimetric theory,” J. Phys. A49, 183001 (2016), arXiv:1512.00021 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [29]

    Massive Gravity,

    C. de Rham, “Massive Gravity,” Living Rev. Rel.17, 7 (2014), arXiv:1401.4173 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  30. [30]

    Oscillating Spin-2 Dark Matter,

    L. Marzola, M. Raidal, and F. R. Urban, “Oscillating Spin-2 Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D97, 024010 (2018), arXiv:1708.04253 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    Ultralight fuzzy dark matter review,

    A. Eberhardt and E. G. M. Ferreira, “Ultralight fuzzy dark matter review,” (2025), arXiv:2507.00705 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Cold and fuzzy dark matter,

    W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, “Cold and fuzzy dark matter,” Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 1158–1161 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003365

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  33. [33]

    Cold and fuzzy dark sector,

    C. Capanelli, E. G. M. Ferreira, and E. McDonough, “Cold and fuzzy dark sector,” (2025), arXiv:2509.15299 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    A Review on the Scalar Field/Bose-Einstein Condensate Dark Mat- ter Model,

    A. Su´ arez, V. H. Robles, and T. Matos, “A Review on the Scalar Field/Bose-Einstein Condensate Dark Mat- ter Model,” Astrophys. Space Sci. Proc.38, 107–142 (2014), arXiv:1302.0903 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  35. [35]

    Cosmo- 24 logical Constraints on Bose-Einstein-Condensed Scalar Field Dark Matter,

    B. Li, T. Rindler-Daller, and P. R. Shapiro, “Cosmo- 24 logical Constraints on Bose-Einstein-Condensed Scalar Field Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D89, 083536 (2014), arXiv:1310.6061 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  36. [36]

    Wave Dark Matter,

    L. Hui, “Wave Dark Matter,” Ann. Rev. Astron. As- trophys.59, 247–289 (2021), arXiv:2101.11735 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Galactic halos as boson stars,

    J.-w. Lee and I.-g. Koh, “Galactic halos as boson stars,” Phys. Rev. D53, 2236–2239 (1996), arXiv:hep- ph/9507385

    arXiv 1996

  38. [38]

    Brief History of Ultra-light Scalar Dark Matter Models,

    J.-W. Lee, “Brief History of Ultra-light Scalar Dark Matter Models,” EPJ Web Conf.168, 06005 (2018), arXiv:1704.05057 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [39]

    Galactic halos and ro- tating bosonic dark matter,

    J. C. Mourelle and C. Adam, “Galactic halos and ro- tating bosonic dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D110, 123001 (2024), arXiv:2407.07839 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Ghostly Galaxies as Solitons of Bose-Einstein Dark Matter,

    T. Broadhurst, I. de Martino, H. N. Luu, G. F. Smoot, and S. H. H. Tye, “Ghostly Galaxies as Solitons of Bose-Einstein Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D101, 083012 (2020), arXiv:1902.10488 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    Reproducing galactic rotation curves with a two- component bosonic dark matter model,

    J. C. Mourelle, N. Sanchis-Gual, and J. A. Font, “Reproducing galactic rotation curves with a two- component bosonic dark matter model,” Phys. Rev. D 112, 063054 (2025), arXiv:2505.07465 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    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. D88, 064046 (2013), arXiv:1307.4812 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  43. [43]

    Spherical bo- son stars as black hole mimickers,

    F. S. Guzm´ an and J. M. Rueda-Becerril, “Spherical bo- son stars as black hole mimickers,” Physical Review D 80(2009), 10.1103/physrevd.80.084023

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.80.084023 2009

  44. [44]

    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, 051 (2021), arXiv:2102.01703 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    Head-on collisions and orbital merg- ers of Proca stars,

    N. Sanchis-Gual, C. Herdeiro, J. A. Font, E. Radu, and F. Di Giovanni, “Head-on collisions and orbital merg- ers of Proca stars,” Phys. Rev. D99, 024017 (2019), arXiv:1806.07779 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  46. [46]

    Long-Term Stable Nonlinear Evolutions of Ultra- compact Black-Hole Mimickers,

    G. A. Marks, S. J. Staelens, T. Evstafyeva, and U. Sper- hake, “Long-Term Stable Nonlinear Evolutions of Ultra- compact Black-Hole Mimickers,” Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 131402 (2025), arXiv:2504.17775 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Inspirals into bosonic dark matter stars and chirp mimickers,

    C. F. B. Macedo, H. C. D. Lima, R. F. P. Mendes, R. Vicente, and V. Cardoso, “Inspirals into bosonic dark matter stars and chirp mimickers,” (2026), arXiv:2603.08795 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    Superradiance: New Frontiers in Black Hole Physics,

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, “Superradiance: New Frontiers in Black Hole Physics,” Lect. Notes Phys. 906, pp.1–237 (2015), arXiv:1501.06570 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  49. [49]

    Kerr black holes with scalar hair,

    C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, “Kerr black holes with scalar hair,” Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 221101 (2014), arXiv:1403.2757 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  50. [50]

    Kerr black holes with Proca hair,

    C. Herdeiro, E. Radu, and H. R´ unarsson, “Kerr black holes with Proca hair,” Class. Quant. Grav.33, 154001 (2016), arXiv:1603.02687 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  51. [51]

    Gravitational wave probes of dark matter: challenges and opportunities,

    G. Bertoneet al., “Gravitational wave probes of dark matter: challenges and opportunities,” SciPost Phys. Core3, 007 (2020), arXiv:1907.10610 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  52. [52]

    Gravitational wave probes of particle dark matter: A review,

    A. L. Miller, “Gravitational wave probes of particle dark matter: A review,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D35, 2530005 (2026), arXiv:2503.02607 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Tran- sient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run,

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), “GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Tran- sient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run,” (2025), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    GWTC-4.0: Tests of General Relativity. I. Overview and General Tests,

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), “GWTC-4.0: Tests of General Relativity. I. Overview and General Tests,” (2026), arXiv:2603.19019 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  55. [55]

    Taiji program: Gravitational-wave sources,

    W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and Y.-Z. Zhang, “Taiji program: Gravitational-wave sources,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35, 2050075 (2020), arXiv:1807.09495 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  56. [56]

    TianQin: a space-borne gravi- tational wave detector,

    J. Luoet al.(TianQin), “TianQin: a space-borne gravi- tational wave detector,” Class. Quant. Grav.33, 035010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  57. [57]

    LISA Definition Study Report,

    M. Colpiet al.(LISA), “LISA Definition Study Report,” (2024), arXiv:2402.07571 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    The unique po- tential of extreme mass-ratio inspirals for gravitational- wave astronomy,

    C. P. L. Berry, S. A. Hughes, C. F. Sopuerta, A. J. K. Chua, A. Heffernan, K. Holley-Bockelmann, D. P. Mi- haylov, M. C. Miller, and A. Sesana, “The unique po- tential of extreme mass-ratio inspirals for gravitational- wave astronomy,” Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51, 42 (2019), arXiv:1903.03686 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  59. [59]

    Science with the space-based interferometer LISA. V: Extreme mass-ratio inspirals,

    S. Babak, J. Gair, A. Sesana, E. Barausse, C. F. Sop- uerta, C. P. L. Berry, E. Berti, P. Amaro-Seoane, A. Pe- titeau, and A. Klein, “Science with the space-based interferometer LISA. V: Extreme mass-ratio inspirals,” Phys. Rev. D95, 103012 (2017), arXiv:1703.09722 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  60. [60]

    Quan- tifying the Scientific Potential of Intermediate and Ex- treme Mass Ratio Inspirals with the Laser Interferom- eter Space Antenna,

    L. Speri, F. Duque, S. Barsanti, A. Santini, S. Kejri- wal, O. Burke, and C. E. A. Chapman-Bird, “Quan- tifying the Scientific Potential of Intermediate and Ex- treme Mass Ratio Inspirals with the Laser Interferom- eter Space Antenna,” (2026), arXiv:2603.17072 [astro- ph.IM]

    arXiv 2026

  61. [61]

    Using LISA EMRI sources to test off-Kerr deviations in the geometry of massive black holes,

    L. Barack and C. Cutler, “Using LISA EMRI sources to test off-Kerr deviations in the geometry of massive black holes,” Phys. Rev. D75, 042003 (2007), arXiv:gr- qc/0612029

    arXiv 2007

  62. [62]

    Extreme and Intermediate-Mass Ratio Inspirals in Dynamical Chern- Simons Modified Gravity,

    C. F. Sopuerta and N. Yunes, “Extreme and Intermediate-Mass Ratio Inspirals in Dynamical Chern- Simons Modified Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D80, 064006 (2009), arXiv:0904.4501 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  63. [63]

    Gravitational waves from extreme mass-ratio inspirals in Dynamical Chern-Simons gravity,

    P. Pani, V. Cardoso, and L. Gualtieri, “Gravitational waves from extreme mass-ratio inspirals in Dynamical Chern-Simons gravity,” Phys. Rev. D83, 104048 (2011), arXiv:1104.1183 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  64. [64]

    Approximate Waveforms for Extreme-Mass-Ratio Inspirals in Modified Grav- ity Spacetimes,

    J. Gair and N. Yunes, “Approximate Waveforms for Extreme-Mass-Ratio Inspirals in Modified Grav- ity Spacetimes,” Phys. Rev. D84, 064016 (2011), arXiv:1106.6313 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  65. [65]

    Testing Gravity with Extreme-Mass-Ratio Inspirals,

    A. C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no and C. F. Sopuerta, “Testing Gravity with Extreme-Mass-Ratio Inspirals,” (2024) arXiv:2401.08085 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [66]

    Extreme Mass Ratio Inspirals with Scalar Hair,

    A. Kuntz, R. Penco, and F. Piazza, “Extreme Mass Ratio Inspirals with Scalar Hair,” JCAP08, 023 (2020), arXiv:2004.10772 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  67. [67]

    Gravi- tational waves from eccentric extreme mass-ratio inspi- rals as probes of scalar fields,

    C. Zhang, Y. Gong, D. Liang, and B. Wang, “Gravi- tational waves from eccentric extreme mass-ratio inspi- rals as probes of scalar fields,” JCAP06, 054 (2023), arXiv:2210.11121 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    Probing fundamental physics with ex- treme mass ratio inspirals: Full Bayesian inference for scalar charge,

    L. Speri, S. Barsanti, A. Maselli, T. P. Sotiriou, N. War- burton, M. van de Meent, A. J. K. Chua, O. Burke, and J. Gair, “Probing fundamental physics with ex- treme mass ratio inspirals: Full Bayesian inference for scalar charge,” Phys. Rev. D113, 023036 (2026), arXiv:2406.07607 [gr-qc]. 25

    arXiv 2026

  69. [69]

    Tidal heating as a discriminator for horizons in ex- treme mass ratio inspirals,

    S. Datta, R. Brito, S. Bose, P. Pani, and S. A. Hughes, “Tidal heating as a discriminator for horizons in ex- treme mass ratio inspirals,” Phys. Rev. D101, 044004 (2020), arXiv:1910.07841 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  70. [70]

    Love in Extrema Ratio,

    P. Pani and A. Maselli, “Love in Extrema Ratio,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D28, 1944001 (2019), arXiv:1905.03947 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  71. [71]

    Response of ultralight dark matter to supermassive black holes and binaries,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  72. [72]

    Testing the nature of dark compact objects with gravita- tional waves,

    E. Maggio, P. Pani, and G. Raposo, “Testing the nature of dark compact objects with gravita- tional waves,” (2021), 10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 29-1, arXiv:2105.06410 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  73. [73]

    Extreme-mass-ratio inspirals into rotating boson stars: Nonintegrability, chaos, and transient resonances,

    K. Destounis, F. Angeloni, M. Vaglio, and P. Pani, “Extreme-mass-ratio inspirals into rotating boson stars: Nonintegrability, chaos, and transient resonances,” Phys. Rev. D108, 084062 (2023), arXiv:2305.05691 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  74. [74]

    Extreme mass-ratio inspi- ral around the horizonless massive object,

    T. Zi, L. Ren, and J. Cheng, “Extreme mass-ratio inspi- ral around the horizonless massive object,” Eur. Phys. J. C84, 828 (2024)

    2024

  75. [75]

    Plunge spectra as discriminators of black- hole mimickers,

    S. Nair, “Plunge spectra as discriminators of black- hole mimickers,” Phys. Rev. D113, 104005 (2026), arXiv:2509.09986 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  76. [76]

    Can en- vironmental effects spoil precision gravitational-wave astrophysics?

    E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, “Can en- vironmental effects spoil precision gravitational-wave astrophysics?” Phys. Rev. D89, 104059 (2014), arXiv:1404.7149 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  77. [77]

    Probing the existence of ultralight bosons with a single gravitational-wave measurement,

    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, 447–451 (2019), arXiv:1804.09659 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  78. [78]

    Gravitational Collider Physics,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  79. [79]

    Dynamical friction in gravitational atoms,

    G. M. Tomaselli, T. F. M. Spieksma, and G. Bertone, “Dynamical friction in gravitational atoms,” JCAP07, 070 (2023), arXiv:2305.15460 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  80. [80]

    Extreme mass-ratio inspirals into black holes surrounded by scalar clouds,

    R. Brito and S. Shah, “Extreme mass-ratio inspirals into black holes surrounded by scalar clouds,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 084019 (2023), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 110, 109902 (2024)], arXiv:2307.16093 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.