Probing time-dependent scalar wigs with extreme mass ratio inspirals

Andrea Maselli; Georgios Antoniou; Leonardo Gualtieri; Matteo Della Rocca

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 92 references

Probing time-dependent scalar wigs with extreme mass ratio inspirals

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A scalar wig around an EMRI's smaller black hole leaves the gravitational waveform unchanged, because the scalar emission is kinematically suppressed.

desk verdict Clean first treatment of an oscillating scalar charge on an EMRI secondary, but the suppression claim for the horizon flux has a real gap: the sign argument drops mΩ_φ, and intermediate-m modes can have V(r0)>0 while still below the scalar mass. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15131 v1 pith:I2SBH5ZO submitted 2024-12-19 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

Matteo Della Rocca , Georgios Antoniou , Leonardo Gualtieri , Andrea Maselli This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcastro-ph.HE

keywords extrememassratioinspiralsscalarwigsmassivefieldsgravitationalwaveemissionLISAblackholeperturbationtheoryKerrspacetimefluxsuppression

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

This paper asks whether a long-lived oscillating scalar cloud (a 'scalar wig') wrapped around the smaller black hole of an extreme mass ratio inspiral would leave a detectable imprint on the gravitational wave signal that LISA would see. The authors build a perturbation formalism that reduces the problem to a scalar charge oscillating at the cloud's eigenfrequency while orbiting the primary black hole, and use it to compute the scalar energy flux at infinity and into the horizon. Their central result is that for quasi-circular equatorial inspirals with scalar masses in the range $0.001 \leq \mu_s m_p \leq 0.02$, the scalar emission is always suppressed: the flux at infinity vanishes and the horizon flux is exponentially small, because the effective potential experienced by the scalar perturbation is negative at the particle's location. If this is right, the scalar wig leaves the orbital motion and the gravitational waveform essentially unchanged, so LISA would not see this kind of scalar hair through EMRI dephasing.

What carries the argument

The mechanism carrying the argument is the sign of the reduced radial effective potential $V_\omega(r) \approx \omega^2 - (1 - 2M/r)\mu_s^2$ that governs the high-frequency homogeneous wave equation for the massive scalar perturbation. Because the source frequency at the particle is dominated by the wig frequency $\omega^R_0$ redshifted by the Lorentz factor $\gamma$, the condition for unsuppressed emission, $V_\omega(r_0) > 0$, would require $\gamma^{-2} > 1 - 2M/r_0$; for circular Schwarzschild orbits $\gamma^{-2} = 1 - 3M/r_0$, so the inequality never holds and the scalar flux stays exponentially suppressed. The paper reduces the entire flux computation to evaluating the homogeneous solution amplitude $\mathcal{R}_{\ell m}(r_0) = |\tilde{R}^+_{\ell m}(r_0)|^2 / |W|^2$, which is negligible whenever the potential at the particle is negative.

What would settle it

Numerically integrate the full massive scalar Teukolsky equation (or Klein-Gordon equation on Schwarzschild) for an EMRI with $\mu_s m_p = 0.02$ and $r_0$ between $6M$ and $15M$ without dropping the centrifugal or $2M/r^3$ terms, and compare the homogeneous solution amplitude $\mathcal{R}_{\ell m}(r_0)$ to the paper's exponentially suppressed estimate; a value orders of magnitude larger would refute the suppression claim. A matching time-domain simulation of a scalar wig around an orbiting secondary could settle it directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a scalar wig on the secondary of an EMRI does not significantly affect the inspiral. Using the skeletonized action and the matching procedure for an oscillating scalar charge, the scalar perturbation source becomes a delta-function with frequency $\bar{\omega}_m = \omega^R_0/\gamma + m\Omega_\phi$. Solving the Klein-Gordon equation with outgoing and ingoing Green functions, the flux at infinity vanishes identically because $\bar{\omega}_m < \mu_s$, while the horizon flux reduces to the amplitude of the homogeneous solution $\mathcal{R}_{\ell m}(r_0)$. The sign of the reduced potential $V_\omega(r_0) \simeq \omega^2 - (1 - 2M/r_0)\mu_s^2$ decides whether this amplitude is large; the authors show $\gamma^{-2} = 1 - 3M/r_0$, so $V_\omega(r_0) < 0$ for all circular radii, and the emission never turns on. The same sign argument is extended to general orbits in Kerr spacetime.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on neglecting the $l(l+1)/r^2$ and $2M/r^3$ terms in the high-frequency effective potential and on trusting the sign of the approximated potential at the particle; if the true barrier transmission through the full potential is much larger than the estimate, the horizon flux could be bigger than claimed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

LISA EMRI signals with such scalar wigs would be indistinguishable from vacuum Kerr waveforms at adiabatic order, so no dephasing constraint on the scalar charge follows from this channel.
The scalar energy flux at infinity is zero (within the approximation) because the source frequency is below the scalar mass; the only possible loss channel is horizon absorption, which is exponentially suppressed.
The formalism gives a direct recipe for scalar fluxes from any oscillating scalar charge in an EMRI: evaluate the homogeneous solution at the particle radius.
For general non-circular orbits in Kerr spacetime, the same sign argument indicates that suppression continues to hold, although the flux was not computed explicitly in that case.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: If the scalar emission is suppressed, the scalar cloud is not drained by the orbital motion, so its lifetime is set by its own gravitational decay; the cloud's slow back-reaction on the secondary could still matter over many inspiral cycles even if the instantaneous flux is tiny.
Editorial inference: The sign condition suggests a sharp geometric threshold; a full numerical solution of the massive Teukolsky equation could map exactly where the suppression begins to fail as orbits become tighter or more eccentric.
Editorial inference: The same suppression logic likely applies to other oscillating scalar charges, such as axion clouds on the secondary, and could be tested with time-domain simulations of scalar fields around moving particles.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick note on arXiv:2412.15131. The paper extends the skeletonized scalar-charge framework to a secondary carrying a time-dependent, oscillating scalar wig, and reduces the scalar flux to a homogeneous-mode evaluation at the particle. That reduction is clean, and the m=0 argument is sound: with ω_R^0/γ on a circular orbit, the effective potential at r0 is negative because γ^{-2}=1-3M/r0 < 1-2M/r0, so the m=0 channel is off. The flux at infinity is also genuinely zero for all modes here, since ω̄_m<μ_s. This part should survive.

The soft spot is the treatment of m>0 harmonics. In the sign argument (Eq. 58 and App. B2) the mΩ_φ term is dropped, with the justification that |mΩ_φ| < μ_s - ω_R^0 for m≲400. That inequality is not true for the parameters they quote; for μ_sM=100, r0=10M, the bound would require mΩ_φ < 5×10^{-7}μ_s, but m=190 gives mΩ_φ ≈ 0.06μ_s. For those intermediate m, ω̄_m is still below μ_s, but V(r0) is positive. So the horizon flux — which is exponentially suppressed only while V(r0)<0 — is not obviously negligible for these harmonics. The paper cites the standard high-m suppression of gravitational radiation [85,86], but that is a statement about the massless Teukolsky multipole sum, not a demonstration that it beats the loss of the exponential barrier in this massive-scalar, evanescent channel. The conclusion 'scalar emission is always suppressed' is therefore not yet quantitative for the horizon flux.

This is a specific, addressable gap rather than a fatal one. The authors are honest about what is proven and what is suggestive, and the framework itself is likely useful. A referee should ask for an explicit estimate (or at least a rough bound) of the l,m sum in Eq. (54) for representative parameters, including modes with V(r0)>0. If that sum is indeed negligible, the null result stands and it is a useful clarification for LISA science-case planning. If not, the paper still has a clean formalism but the conclusion changes.

Recommendation: send to peer review. It deserves a serious referee, and the requested check is within reach.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a formalism for computing the scalar-field energy flux from an extreme mass ratio inspiral (EMRI) in which the secondary body carries a long-lived, time-dependent scalar configuration ('scalar wig'). For circular equatorial orbits around Schwarzschild and Kerr primaries, the authors derive expressions for the flux at infinity and at the horizon in terms of a radial homogeneous solution evaluated at the particle's orbital radius. They argue that, for a scalar mass range 0.001 ≤ μ_s m_p ≤ 0.02, the scalar emission is always suppressed because the source frequency remains below the scalar mass and the effective potential at the particle is negative, so the wig does not significantly affect the orbital motion or gravitational waveform.

Significance. If the suppression claim holds, the paper provides a useful negative result for LISA searches: a scalar wig on the secondary in the stated mass range would be effectively invisible in EMRI waveforms, and the skeletonized-charge framework of Refs. [49]–[53] is extended to time-dependent charges in a clean and largely self-contained derivation. The analytic steps leading to the flux formulas (52)–(54) and the transparent statement of the adiabatic conditions are strengths. However, the central quantitative claim rests on a sign argument that currently does not cover all harmonic modes in the stated parameter range, and no numerical evaluation of the multipole sum is presented, so the conclusion is not yet fully demonstrated.

major comments (3)

[§III C, Eq. (58) and App. B2] The proof that the horizon flux is suppressed neglects the mΩ_φ term in the source frequency ω̄_m = ω_R0/γ + mΩ_φ. For the lower end of the mass range (μ_sM ≈ 100, corresponding to μ_s m_p ≈ 0.001), the condition V_{ω̄_m}(r0) > 0 can be satisfied for harmonics m ≈ 320–430 at r0 = 10M (and for smaller m at smaller r0), while ω̄_m < μ_s still holds. The bound |mΩ_φ| < μ_s − ω_R0/γ quoted in App. B2 only establishes ω̄_m < μ_s; it does not establish V(r0) < 0, which requires the stronger condition ω̄_m < sqrt(1 − 2M/r0) μ_s. Since the flux in Eq. (54) sums over all m, the statement that the scalar emission is always suppressed is not established for these intermediate harmonics.
[§III C and App. B1] The sign argument uses the simplified potential (57), dropping the l(l+1)/r^2 and 2M/r^3 terms. For the harmonics that can have V(r0) > 0, l ∼ m ∼ O(100), and the l(l+1)/r^2 term is of order (m/(μ_s r0))^2 times μ_s^2, i.e. roughly 0.1 in the relevant window at r0 = 10M for μ_sM = 100. Including this term shifts V(r0) by an amount comparable to the small positive value that drives the window, so the sign of V(r0) for these modes is not determined by the approximate potential used in the paper. A calculation with the full potential, or a numerical evaluation of Eq. (54) for representative EMRI parameters, is needed to support the suppression claim.
[§III B–III C] The paper relies on the statement that emission for very large harmonic indexes is 'strongly suppressed' and cites Refs. [85,86] (gravitational radiation from point particles). The scalar horizon flux (54) involves a different radial equation and a different suppression mechanism, and the relevant intermediate-m modes are not in the asymptotic large-m regime for which those references are invoked. Since the central claim is quantitative (the scalar wig does not significantly affect the EMRI), the omission of a numerical estimate of R_{ℓm}(r0) in the V(r0) > 0 window leaves the conclusion unsupported for a portion of the stated parameter range.

minor comments (4)

[App. B1, Eq. (B3)] The analytic potential V_an^ω is written with 1 − 2M/r* for r* > 4M, whereas the original potential (57) is expressed in terms of r, not the tortoise coordinate r*. Please clarify whether r* should be replaced by r in this matching approximation, since the difference affects the quoted percent-level accuracy.
[§III A, penultimate paragraph] The phrase 'these these quantities' contains a duplicated word; please delete the extra 'these'.
[App. B1] There are minor typos in this appendix: 'withinn' should be 'within', and 'conisdered' should be 'considered'.
[Fig. 1 caption] Please specify the exact normalization of the plotted flux (e.g., the combination d0^2 m_p^2 / r0^2 and the meaning of the unit 'M' in the axes), since the upper panel's scale is not defined in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the suppression result follows from the derived source-frequency inequality and a derived sign of the effective potential, not from fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The scalar source frequency is constructed as ω̄_m = ω_R0/γ + mΩ_φ (Eqs. 44 and 58); the claim ω̄_m < μ_s for the dominant low-m harmonics follows from μ_sM ≫ 1, m ≲ 400, and mΩ_φ ≪ μ_s, with large-m suppression cited to independent work [85,86] (Fujita-Tagoshi and Drasco-Hughes), not to the authors' own unverified results. The horizon-flux suppression is not assumed: Eq. (58) uses the circular-orbit identity γ^{-2} = 1 - 3M/r0 to show V(r0) ≈ (1 - 3M/r0)(ω_R0)^2 - (1 - 2M/r0) μ_s^2 < 0 for all r0, so the amplitude R+(r0) in Eq. (54) is exponentially suppressed by the barrier; this is a derived inequality, not a fitted parameter. The skeletonized-charge framework of Refs. [49]-[53] is prior published work used as a tool for the source term, and the result it produces here (an oscillating charge with matching condition Eq. 16) is not used to establish the suppression conclusion by definition. The manuscript explicitly limits the proof to quasi-circular equatorial Kerr orbits ('Strictly speaking, we have proven this result only for a quasi-circular, equatorial EMRI on a Kerr background') and notes the potential approximation is only percent-level near the turning point and up to about 30% near r* ~ 4M (footnote 1); these are admitted gaps, which I weigh as correctness risk, not circularity. The paper's approximations (neglecting l(l+1)/r^2 and M/r^3 in Eq. 57, and not fully summing all high-m massive-scalar harmonics) are possible correctness risks, but they are not circularity: the conclusion is not equivalent to an input by construction. Thus no circular step can be exhibited from the text.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard skeletonized point-particle description, isolated quasi-bound state frequencies borrowed from prior literature, the adiabatic approximation, and a reduced high-frequency potential. The only genuinely free input is the scalar charge d0; the conclusion is about how the fluxes scale with the other parameters.

free parameters (1)

scalar charge d0 = not determined (free input)
Amplitude of the fundamental l=0 wig mode in the source term (Eq. 20). All scalar fluxes scale as d0^2, so the no-effect conclusion assumes d0 is not enormous; no constraint on d0 is derived.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The secondary is described by a skeletonized action with m(phi) evaluated at the background field phi0, and the scalar wig is a monochromatic l=0 quasi-bound state of an isolated black hole.
Sec. II A and B; requires a buffer region m_p << rtilde << r and ignores tidal deformation of the cloud by the primary.
domain assumption The quasi-bound state frequency and lifetime follow from isolated black hole results: omega_R0 ~ mu_s (1 - 1/2 (mu_s m_p)^2) and tau ~ 0.1 (mu_s m_p)^-6 m_p (Refs. [72,76,82]).
Used in Sec. III A; if back-reaction or environmental effects shift omega_R0, the inequality omega_bar < mu_s could be affected.
domain assumption The primary does not support a scalar cloud and is described by Kerr with the scalar field fixed at a constant background phi0; T^scal_mu_nu is neglected at leading order.
Sec. II A, justified by mu_s M >> 1; standard in this perturbative framework.
domain assumption The adiabatic approximation holds: P/tau << 1, so the wig decay factor e^{-tilde t/tau} can be neglected over an orbit.
Sec. III A; this restricts the mass range to 0.001 <= mu_s m_p <= 0.02.
ad hoc to paper The full Klein-Gordon potential is approximated by V_omega(r) ~ omega^2 - (1 - 2M/r) mu_s^2, dropping l(l+1)/r^2 and 2M/r^3 terms.
Appendix B, Eq. (57); the suppression conclusion rests on the sign of this reduced potential; the paper states the approximation is percent-level near the turning point and up to about 30% near r* ~ 4M.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing time-dependent scalar wigs with extreme mass ratio inspirals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I2SBH5ZO

@misc{pith2026241215131,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing time-dependent scalar wigs with extreme mass ratio inspirals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I2SBH5ZO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15131}
}

read the original abstract

We investigate the gravitational wave emission from extreme mass ratio inspirals, key targets for the upcoming space-based detector LISA, considering the scenario where the lighter black hole in the binary is endowed by a long-lived, time-dependent scalar field configuration, known as a scalar wig. We develop a formalism to compute scalar perturbations for extreme mass ratio inspirals on circular orbits around Schwarzschild and Kerr black holes, and apply this framework to compute additional fluxes induced by the scalar wig as well as their dependence on the scalar field properties. Our computation provides strong indications that in this scenario the presence of the scalar field does not significantly affect the orbital motion and the gravitational waveform.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15131 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

[49]

P. Pani, V. Cardoso, and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. D 83, 104048 (2011), arXiv:1104.1183 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2011
[53]

Maselli, N

A. Maselli, N. Franchini, L. Gualtieri, and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 141101 (2020), arXiv:2004.11895 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2020
[1]

microscopic

can be neglected and Eqs. (6)-(7) reduce to: Gαβ = 8π Z m(φ) δ(4)(x − xp(λ))√−g dxα p dλ dxβ p dλ dλ , (8) (2 − µ2 s)φ = 16π Z m′(φ) δ(4)(x − xp(λ))√−g dλ . (9) The functions m(φ), m′(φ) have to be evaluated at φ = φ0. Indeed, while on the “microscopic” length-scale of the secondary body, φ0 is the value of the scalar field in the buffer region around the...
[2]

activated

In this scenario, the scalar emission is “activated” when the inspiralling body crosses the threshold radius ¯r. However, a closer inspection of the scalar field equa- tion shows that this is not the case. Indeed, since ω = ¯ωm = ωR 0 /γ + mΩϕ, with mΩϕ negligible (see Ap- pendix B) and γ = (1 − 3M/r0)−1/2, leading to a cor- rection of the frequency which...

2022
[3]

turns on

Approximated potential The presence of two scales ( r ∼ M and ω−1, µ−1 s ≪ M ) makes it challenging to numerically solve Eq. (B1). To gain qualitative insight into the solution, we explore two approximations of Vω(r), offering different levels of accuracy in describing the effective potential. Let’s first consider a toy model in which the potential 9 is r...

2000
[4]

III C, in the case of quasi-circular orbits it turns out that Vω is always negative, and thus the scalar emission never activates

Does the effective potential change sign in actual EMRIs? As discussed in Sec. III C, in the case of quasi-circular orbits it turns out that Vω is always negative, and thus the scalar emission never activates. Indeed, for a circu- lar orbit at r = r0 the scalar emission is at frequency ω = ¯ωm = ωR 0 /γ + mΩϕ. The contribution to the or- bital motion can ...
[5]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2019
[6]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2021

Show all 92 references

[7]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys. Rev. D 109, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2108.01045 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[8]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X 13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr- qc]

2023 arXiv
[9]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett. 896, L44 (2020), arXiv:2006.12611 [astro-ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[10]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D 102, 043015 (2020), arXiv:2004.08342 [astro-ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[11]

Punturo et al., Class

M. Punturo et al., Class. Quant. Grav.27, 194002 (2010)

2010
[12]

Dwyer, D

S. Dwyer, D. Sigg, S. W. Ballmer, L. Barsotti, N. Maval- vala, and M. Evans, Phys. Rev. D 91, 082001 (2015), arXiv:1410.0612 [astro-ph.IM]

2015 arXiv
[13]

Amaro-Seoane et al

P. Amaro-Seoane et al. , (2017), 1702.00786 [astro- ph.IM]

2017 arXiv
[14]

Mei et al

J. Mei et al. (TianQin), PTEP 2021, 05A107 (2021), arXiv:2008.10332 [gr-qc]

2021
[15]

Jani and A

K. Jani and A. Loeb, (2020), 10.1088/1475- 7516/2021/06/044, arXiv:2007.08550 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[16]

Ajith et al

P. Ajith et al. , (2024), arXiv:2404.09181 [gr-qc]

2024
[17]

B. S. Sathyaprakash et al. , (2019), arXiv:1903.09221 [astro-ph.HE]

2019
[18]

Kalogera et al

V. Kalogera et al. , (2021), arXiv:2111.06990 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[19]

Colpi et al., (2024), arXiv:2402.07571 [astro-ph.CO]

M. Colpi et al., (2024), arXiv:2402.07571 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[20]

Barack et al

L. Barack et al. , Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 143001 (2019), arXiv:1806.05195 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[21]

Babak, J

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, Phys. Rev. D 95, 103012 (2017), arXiv:1703.09722 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[22]

Barack and C

L. Barack and C. Cutler, Phys. Rev. D75, 042003 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0612029

2007 arXiv
[23]

C. F. Sopuerta and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 80, 064006 (2009), arXiv:0904.4501 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[24]

Fransen and D

K. Fransen and D. R. Mayerson, Phys. Rev. D 106, 064035 (2022), arXiv:2201.03569 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[25]

Raposo, P

G. Raposo, P. Pani, and R. Emparan, Phys. Rev. D 99, 104050 (2019), arXiv:1812.07615 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[26]

Bena and D

I. Bena and D. R. Mayerson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 221602 (2020), arXiv:2006.10750 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[27]

Bianchi, D

M. Bianchi, D. Consoli, A. Grillo, J. F. Morales, P. Pani, and G. Raposo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 221601 (2020), arXiv:2007.01743 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[28]

Loutrel, R

N. Loutrel, R. Brito, A. Maselli, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 105, 124050 (2022), arXiv:2203.01725 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[29]

G. A. Piovano, A. Maselli, and P. Pani, Phys. Lett. B 811, 135860 (2020), arXiv:2003.08448 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[30]

Pani and A

P. Pani and A. Maselli, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28, 1944001 (2019), arXiv:1905.03947 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[31]

G. A. Piovano, A. Maselli, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 107, 024021 (2023), arXiv:2207.07452 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[32]

Datta, R

S. Datta, R. Brito, S. Bose, P. Pani, and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D 101, 044004 (2020), arXiv:1910.07841 [gr- qc]

2020 arXiv
[33]

Datta and S

S. Datta and S. Bose, Phys. Rev. D 99, 084001 (2019), arXiv:1902.01723 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[34]

Maggio, M

E. Maggio, M. van de Meent, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 104, 104026 (2021), arXiv:2106.07195 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[35]

P. Pani, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, Y. Chen, and R. Norte, Phys. Rev. D 81, 084011 (2010), arXiv:1001.3031 [gr-qc]

2010 arXiv
[36]

C. F. B. Macedo, P. Pani, V. Cardoso, and L. C. B. Crispino, Astrophys. J. 774, 48 (2013), arXiv:1302.2646 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[37]

Destounis, F

K. Destounis, F. Angeloni, M. Vaglio, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 108, 084062 (2023), arXiv:2305.05691 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[38]

Liu and J.-d

M. Liu and J.-d. Zhang, (2020), arXiv:2008.11396 [gr- qc]

2020 arXiv
[39]

Burke, J

O. Burke, J. R. Gair, J. Sim´ on, and M. C. Edwards, Phys. Rev. D 102, 124054 (2020), arXiv:2010.05932 [gr- qc]

2020 arXiv
[40]

Rahman and A

M. Rahman and A. Bhattacharyya, Phys. Rev. D 107, 024006 (2023), arXiv:2112.13869 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[41]

A. L. Miller, (2024), arXiv:2404.11601 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[42]

Zi, Phys

T. Zi, Phys. Lett. B 850, 138538 (2024)

2024
[43]

C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no and C

A. C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no and C. F. Sopuerta, in Recent Progress on Gravity Tests: Challenges and Future Per- spectives (Springer, 2024) pp. 275–359

2024
[44]

Zi and P.-C

T. Zi and P.-C. Li, Phys. Rev. D 109, 064089 (2024), arXiv:2311.07279 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[45]

A. J. K. Chua, S. Hee, W. J. Handley, E. Higson, C. J. Moore, J. R. Gair, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 478, 28 (2018), arXiv:1803.10210 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[46]

Gair and N

J. Gair and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 84, 064016 (2011), arXiv:1106.6313 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[47]

Cardoso, S

V. Cardoso, S. Chakrabarti, P. Pani, E. Berti, and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 241101 (2011), arXiv:1109.6021 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[48]

Yunes, P

N. Yunes, P. Pani, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 85, 102003 (2012), arXiv:1112.3351 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[50]

Canizares, J

P. Canizares, J. R. Gair, and C. F. Sopuerta, Phys. Rev. D 86, 044010 (2012), arXiv:1205.1253 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[51]

O. A. Hannuksela, K. W. K. Wong, R. Brito, E. Berti, and T. G. F. Li, Nature Astron. 3, 447 (2019), arXiv:1804.09659 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[52]

O. A. Hannuksela, K. C. Y. Ng, and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. D 102, 103022 (2020), arXiv:1906.11845 [astro- ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[54]

Barsanti, N

S. Barsanti, N. Franchini, L. Gualtieri, A. Maselli, and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. D 106, 044029 (2022), arXiv:2203.05003 [gr-qc]. 11

2022 arXiv
[55]

Maselli, N

A. Maselli, N. Franchini, L. Gualtieri, T. P. Sotiriou, S. Barsanti, and P. Pani, Nature Astron. 6, 464 (2022), arXiv:2106.11325 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[56]

Della Rocca, S

M. Della Rocca, S. Barsanti, L. Gualtieri, and A. Maselli, Phys. Rev. D 109, 104079 (2024), arXiv:2401.09542 [gr- qc]

2024 arXiv
[57]

Barsanti, A

S. Barsanti, A. Maselli, T. P. Sotiriou, and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 051401 (2023), arXiv:2212.03888 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[58]

Liang, R

D. Liang, R. Xu, Z.-F. Mai, and L. Shao, Phys. Rev. D 107, 044053 (2023), arXiv:2212.09346 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[59]

Zhang, H

C. Zhang, H. Guo, Y. Gong, and B. Wang, JCAP 06, 020 (2023), arXiv:2301.05915 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[60]

T. Zi, Z. Zhou, H.-T. Wang, P.-C. Li, J.-d. Zhang, and B. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 107, 023005 (2023), arXiv:2205.00425 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[61]

Lestingi, E

J. Lestingi, E. Cannizzaro, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 109, 044052 (2024), arXiv:2310.07772 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[62]

L. G. Collodel, D. D. Doneva, and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D 105, 044036 (2022), arXiv:2108.11658 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[63]

Brito and S

R. Brito and S. Shah, Phys. Rev. D 108, 084019 (2023), arXiv:2307.16093 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[64]

Duque, C

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

2024 arXiv
[65]

Chen, H.-Y

M.-C. Chen, H.-Y. Liu, Q.-Y. Zhang, and J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 110, 064018 (2024), arXiv:2405.11583 [gr- qc]

2024 arXiv
[66]

S. D. B. Fell, L. Heisenberg, and D. Veske, Phys. Rev. D 108, 083010 (2023), arXiv:2304.14129 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[67]

Barausse et al

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

2020 arXiv
[68]

Spiers, A

A. Spiers, A. Pound, and J. Moxon, Phys. Rev. D 108, 064002 (2023), arXiv:2305.19332 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[69]

Tan, J.-d

J. Tan, J.-d. Zhang, H.-M. Fan, and J. Mei, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 824 (2024), arXiv:2402.05752 [gr-qc]

2024
[70]

Zhang, Y

C. Zhang, Y. Gong, D. Liang, and B. Wang, JCAP 06, 054 (2023), arXiv:2210.11121 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[71]

H. Guo, Y. Liu, C. Zhang, Y. Gong, W.-L. Qian, and R.-H. Yue, Phys. Rev. D 106, 024047 (2022), arXiv:2201.10748 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[72]

Speri, S

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, (2024), arXiv:2406.07607 [gr-qc]

2024
[73]

J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 51, R6608 (1995)

1995
[74]

Cardoso and L

V. Cardoso and L. Gualtieri, Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 174001 (2016), arXiv:1607.03133 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[75]

Barranco, A

J. Barranco, A. Bernal, J. C. Degollado, A. Diez-Tejedor, M. Megevand, M. Alcubierre, D. Nunez, and O. Sarbach, Phys. Rev. D 84, 083008 (2011), arXiv:1108.0931 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[76]

Barranco, A

J. Barranco, A. Bernal, J. C. Degollado, A. Diez-Tejedor, M. Megevand, M. Alcubierre, D. Nunez, and O. Sarbach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 081102 (2012), arXiv:1207.2153 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[77]

Baumann, H

D. Baumann, H. S. Chia, J. Stout, and L. ter Haar, JCAP 12, 006 (2019), arXiv:1908.10370 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[78]

L. Hui, D. Kabat, X. Li, L. Santoni, and S. S. C. Wong, JCAP 06, 038 (2019), arXiv:1904.12803 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[79]

Clough, P

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

2019 arXiv
[80]

Cardoso, T

V. Cardoso, T. Ikeda, R. Vicente, and M. Zilh˜ ao, Phys. Rev. D 106, L121302 (2022), arXiv:2207.09469 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[81]

Budker, J

D. Budker, J. Eby, M. Gorghetto, M. Jiang, and G. Perez, JCAP 12, 021 (2023), arXiv:2306.12477 [hep- ph]

2023 arXiv
[82]

Brito, V

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

2015 arXiv
[83]

C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24, 1542014 (2015), arXiv:1504.08209 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[84]

W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1158 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003365

2000 arXiv
[85]

D. M. Eardley, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 196, Mar. 1, 1975, pt. 2, p. L59-L62. 196, L59 (1975)

1975
[86]

P. Pani, V. Cardoso, L. Gualtieri, E. Berti, and A. Ishibashi, Phys. Rev. D 86, 104017 (2012), arXiv:1209.0773 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[87]

S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D 76, 084001 (2007), arXiv:0705.2880 [gr-qc]

2007 arXiv
[88]

Barranco, A

J. Barranco, A. Bernal, J. C. Degollado, A. Diez-Tejedor, M. Megevand, D. Nunez, and O. Sarbach, Phys. Rev. D 96, 024049 (2017), arXiv:1704.03450 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[89]

Fujita and H

R. Fujita and H. Tagoshi, Prog. Theor. Phys. 113, 1165 (2005), arXiv:0904.3818 [gr-qc]

2005 arXiv
[90]

Drasco and S

S. Drasco and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D 73, 024027 (2006), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 88, 109905 (2013), Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 90, 109905 (2014)], arXiv:gr- qc/0509101

2006
[91]

Warburton and L

N. Warburton and L. Barack, Phys. Rev. D 81, 084039 (2010), arXiv:1003.1860 [gr-qc]

2010 arXiv
[92]

S. A. Teukolsky, ApJ 185, 635 (1973)

1973

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [49]

P. Pani, V. Cardoso, and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. D 83, 104048 (2011), arXiv:1104.1183 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2011

[2] [53]

Maselli, N

A. Maselli, N. Franchini, L. Gualtieri, and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 141101 (2020), arXiv:2004.11895 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2020

[3] [1]

microscopic

can be neglected and Eqs. (6)-(7) reduce to: Gαβ = 8π Z m(φ) δ(4)(x − xp(λ))√−g dxα p dλ dxβ p dλ dλ , (8) (2 − µ2 s)φ = 16π Z m′(φ) δ(4)(x − xp(λ))√−g dλ . (9) The functions m(φ), m′(φ) have to be evaluated at φ = φ0. Indeed, while on the “microscopic” length-scale of the secondary body, φ0 is the value of the scalar field in the buffer region around the...

[4] [2]

activated

In this scenario, the scalar emission is “activated” when the inspiralling body crosses the threshold radius ¯r. However, a closer inspection of the scalar field equa- tion shows that this is not the case. Indeed, since ω = ¯ωm = ωR 0 /γ + mΩϕ, with mΩϕ negligible (see Ap- pendix B) and γ = (1 − 3M/r0)−1/2, leading to a cor- rection of the frequency which...

2022

[5] [3]

turns on

Approximated potential The presence of two scales ( r ∼ M and ω−1, µ−1 s ≪ M ) makes it challenging to numerically solve Eq. (B1). To gain qualitative insight into the solution, we explore two approximations of Vω(r), offering different levels of accuracy in describing the effective potential. Let’s first consider a toy model in which the potential 9 is r...

2000

[6] [4]

III C, in the case of quasi-circular orbits it turns out that Vω is always negative, and thus the scalar emission never activates

Does the effective potential change sign in actual EMRIs? As discussed in Sec. III C, in the case of quasi-circular orbits it turns out that Vω is always negative, and thus the scalar emission never activates. Indeed, for a circu- lar orbit at r = r0 the scalar emission is at frequency ω = ¯ωm = ωR 0 /γ + mΩϕ. The contribution to the or- bital motion can ...

[7] [5]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2019

[8] [6]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2021