Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 78 references

Multiscale probing of a Hernquist-type environmental black hole spacetime with the Sgr A* shadow and S2 orbital dynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Sgr A*'s surrounding halo must be diffuse: combining the S2 orbit with the EHT shadow caps the halo compactness at roughly 10^-5 to 10^-4 at 95% credibility, while the halo's radial scale stays bimodally degenerate.

desk verdict Competent framework, but the headline C<10^-5 limits are prior-dominated and don't match the stated fsp uncertainty. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07229 v1 pith:MEZXZFLZ submitted 2026-08-07 gr-qc

Lai Zhao , Meirong Tang , Zheng-Wen Long , Zhaoyi Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783C1085A05 PACS 04.70.-s95.30.Sf98.62.Js
keywords SgrA*Hernquist-typeenvironmentalblackholespacetimeshadowS2orbitaldynamicsMarkovchainMonteCarlocompactnessbimodaldegeneracygalacticcenter
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 argues that the matter halo around Sgr A* cannot be compact: combining the EHT shadow size with two independent S2-star datasets in a single Bayesian fit restricts the halo compactness $C$ to below roughly $10^{-4}$–$10^{-5}$ at 95% credibility, while leaving the halo's radial scale $\alpha$ degenerate between two branches. The result matters because it tests whether a fully relativistic, non-vacuum spacetime—rather than a vacuum Kerr or Schwarzschild metric plus Newtonian corrections—can describe the same black hole across horizon-scale and orbital-scale observations. It also gives a quantitative boundary on how much dark or baryonic matter can sit near the Galactic center.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Cardoso et al. exact static, spherically symmetric solution of Einstein's equations with an anisotropic fluid source, whose mass function is $m(r) = M_{\rm BH} + M r^2(a_0+r)^{-2}(1-2M_{\rm BH}/r)^2$ and whose metric function is $f(r) = (1-2M_{\rm BH}/r)e^{\Upsilon(r)}$. Two dimensionless parameters control all environmental effects: the compactness $C = M/a_0$ and the scale $\alpha = a_0/M_{\rm BH}$. The argument runs on two observables derived from the same metric: the photon-sphere critical impact parameter $b_c = r_{\rm ph}/\sqrt{A(r_{\rm ph})}$, which fixes the shadow angular diameter, and timelike geodesic integrations for S2's astrometric positions, radial velocity (Doppler plus gravitational redshift), and pericenter precession parameter $f_{\rm sp}$. These are joined in a single Bayesian likelihood built from the EHT shadow measurement, two S2 datasets, and the GRAVITY precession measurement, sampled with the emcee Markov chain Monte Carlo package over a 15-dimensional parameter space with log-uniform priors on $C$ and $\alpha$.

What would settle it

Fit the joint likelihood to a future dataset that includes the next S2 pericenter passage and stars with orbital radii both smaller and larger than S2's; if the best-fit compactness $C$ exceeds about $10^{-4}$, or if no single pair $(C, \alpha)$ can fit all orbits simultaneously, the paper's conclusion that the halo is diffuse would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the Hernquist-type environmental black hole spacetime, with matter compactness $C = M/a_0$ and characteristic scale $\alpha = a_0/M_{\rm BH}$, is consistent with all current Sgr A* data only when the environment is diffuse. Shadow-only data give no effective handle on $\alpha$ and allow $C$ up to $1.498\times10^{-1}$; the S2 orbit alone cuts this to $C < 5.239\times10^{-5}$ with the Do et al. dataset and $C < 1.303\times10^{-4}$ with the Gillessen et al. dataset; the joint shadow-plus-S2 fit tightens these to $C < 3.760\times10^{-5}$ and $C < 1.073\times10^{-4}$, respectively. The characteristic scale $\alpha$ remains bimodal: a compact, nearly point-like halo at small $\alpha$ and an extended halo at large $\alpha$ produce nearly identical orbital effects, with the valley of maximum sensitivity near $\alpha \sim 10^4$, where the halo scale crosses the S2 orbit. The paper reads this as ruling out compact environmental configurations while leaving a low-density halo compatible with typical galactic-halo compactness.

Load-bearing premise

The S2 star is treated as a point particle moving exactly along the spacetime's geodesic, with every observed position and velocity attributed to that path plus small reference-frame offsets; if extra matter or non-gravitational forces push S2 off that path, the compactness limits do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any compact Hernquist-type halo around Sgr A* with compactness $C$ above roughly $10^{-4}$ is excluded at 95% credibility by current data.
  • The S2 orbit alone is far more constraining than the shadow for this model: it shrinks the upper limit on $C$ by three to four orders of magnitude.
  • The radial scale $\alpha$ cannot be determined from current observations: both the small-$\alpha$ point-like halo branch and the large-$\alpha$ extended halo branch survive, so resolving the structure requires stars with orbits inside and outside the S2 orbit.
  • The joint upper limits are consistent with the GRAVITY extended-mass bound, namely that matter within the S2 orbit contributes less than about $10^{-3} M_{\rm BH}$.
  • The surviving diffuse-halo parameter region is compatible with the typical galactic-halo compactness scale $C < 10^{-4}$, so the non-vacuum spacetime remains a viable description of Sgr A*.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the bimodal $\alpha$ degeneracy is intrinsic rather than a data artifact, then adding more epochs of S2 alone will not determine the halo's radial profile; future multi-star fits should deliberately include stars whose orbital radii straddle the valley near $\alpha \sim 10^4$, where the precession signal is strongest.
  • The same joint shadow-plus-orbit analysis could be applied to other non-vacuum spacetimes, such as dark-matter spike profiles, to test whether the inferred $C$ upper limits are specific to the Hernquist profile or generic to extended environments.
  • The non-Gaussian negative tail in the $v_{\rm LSR}$ posterior suggests that the metric's constant gravitational-redshift term can masquerade as a systemic velocity; comparing radial velocities of multiple stars with different orbital radii might separate this environmental redshift from a true reference-frame offset.
  • The paper's constraints are statements about a static, spherically symmetric spacetime; once black-hole spin becomes resolvable, an axisymmetric extension may shift the inferred compactness limits, so these numbers should be read as zeroth-order bounds rather than final spin-independent limits.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constrains the two parameters of the Hernquist-type environmental black hole spacetime of Cardoso et al., the matter compactness C and the characteristic scale α, by combining the EHT shadow diameter of Sgr A* with two independent S2 orbital datasets (Do et al. and Gillessen et al.) and the GRAVITY fsp precession measurement. The authors perform separate shadow-only, S2-only, and joint MCMC analyses, reporting 95% credible upper limits on C of order 10^-5 to 10^-4 for the S2 and joint cases, and a bimodal, largely unconstrained posterior for α. They interpret the results as ruling out highly compact environments around Sgr A* while leaving a low-density halo compatible with observations.

Significance. The paper's central result, if robust, is a useful multiscale consistency test: the same non-vacuum spacetime is constrained at horizon scales by the EHT shadow and at stellar-orbit scales by S2 astrometry and radial velocities. The derivation of the geodesic and likelihood framework is sufficiently detailed to be followed, the two independent S2 datasets provide a useful cross-check, and the consistency between the shadow-only and S2-only bounds is a genuine strength. The paper also ships a complete Bayesian setup using public data, which makes the analysis reproducible in principle. The main scientific value lies in setting quantitative limits on environmental matter around Sgr A* and in clearly identifying the α degeneracy that future multi-star observations could break.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV and Table II; Table I priors] The headline 95% upper limits on C are not demonstrated to be robust to the prior on α. In the small-α branch (αMBH ≪ r_S2), the S2 likelihood constrains only the combination Cα (equivalently the total mass μ = MBH(1+Cα) seen by the orbit), and the paper itself states that the α posterior peaks at the prior boundaries (log10 α = 1 and 11) and that for αMBH ~ 10 MBH, C can be as large as ~10^-4. Under a log-uniform prior on α, the marginal 95% upper limit on C is then set largely by the assumed lower bound log10 α = 1, not directly by the data. Please report the data-driven constraint on Cα or Menv/MBH as the primary quantity, and add a prior-robustness study varying the log10 α prior bounds (e.g., [0,12] and [2,10]) to show how the reported C upper limits and the α peaks shift. Without this, the quantitative claims C < 3.760×10^-5 and C < 1.073×10^-4 should be framed as prior-dependent summaries rather than direct data limits.
  2. [Sec. III.D and Sec. IV] The MCMC setup is under-reported: the paper gives the number of walkers (16 or 40) but no chain length, burn-in, thinning, acceptance fractions, autocorrelation times, or convergence diagnostics (e.g., Gelman-Rubin). Without these, the credible intervals in Table II and the corner plots cannot be verified as converged posterior estimates. Please add the missing sampling details and a convergence check.
  3. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (36)] The precession likelihood term log Lpre uses the GRAVITY fsp = 1.1 ± 0.19, which is derived from the same S2 astrometric and radial-velocity data already used in Eqs. (34)-(35). The √2 downweighting is an ad hoc correction, and the paper does not demonstrate that the posterior is insensitive to this treatment. Please report the S2-only and joint constraints with the fsp term omitted or with alternative downweighting (e.g., no downweighting, or a factor of 2), to show that the C upper limits and the α bimodality are not an artifact of double counting.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo in the abstract: "1.498×10−1.but provide" should read "1.498×10−1 but provide".
  2. [Sec. I] In the Introduction, "NCNC" should be "MCMC".
  3. [Sec. IV and Fig. 4 caption] The precession-only constraints in Appendix B fix MBH, D, a, and e to their GRAVITY best-fit values; the paper should state explicitly that these fixed values differ from the MCMC posteriors in Table II and explain how this affects the comparison shown in Fig. 4.
  4. [Sec. IV] The sentence "the α peaks sit at the prior boundaries" is important and should be echoed in the abstract and conclusions as a caveat on the α constraints, not only in the results section.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the C and alpha constraints are direct MCMC fits of an externally published exact spacetime to EHT and S2 data, and the admitted fsp data reuse is transparently reweighted rather than definitionally feeding back into the model.

full rationale

The derivation chain is empirical rather than a first-principles prediction. The Hernquist-type spacetime is taken from Cardoso et al. (2022) as an external exact solution; the paper does not use the target bounds to construct the metric. The shadow prediction theta_sh = 2 b_c / D (Eqs. 11-13) is computed from the photon-sphere equations and compared with the EHT measurement (Eq. 14), with no shadow-size parameter fitted and then renamed a prediction. The S2 likelihood (Eqs. 33-36) is built from numerical geodesic integration of the adopted metric against the Do/Gillessen astrometric and RV datasets, plus the GRAVITY fsp measurement; fsp is an externally reported constraint (Eq. 42), not a parameter derived from the same model output. The paper explicitly notes that fsp and the orbital data come from the same observations and applies a sqrt(2) reweighting to mitigate double counting; this is a transparency and correctness measure, not a circular reduction, because the fsp value is not constructed from the model parameters being constrained. The bimodal alpha degeneracy and the possibility that the small-alpha upper limits are prior-boundary-dominated are statistical identifiability and robustness issues, not self-referential derivations. Self-citations such as Refs. [36] and [58] are contextual literature references and are not load-bearing for the main constraints. No circular step can be exhibited, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central fit uses two environmental parameters that are constrained, not derived. The model solution and the observational inputs are taken from the literature. The entity count is zero. The prior range and the fsp double-counting correction are the two ad hoc inputs that most affect the reported posteriors.

free parameters (4)
  • C (environmental compactness) = 95% upper limits: 1.498e-1 (EHT), 5.239e-5 and 1.303e-4 (S2 only), 3.760e-5 and 1.073e-4 (joint).
    This is the central fitted parameter, constrained by MCMC against shadow and S2 data.
  • alpha (characteristic scale) = Bimodal posterior peaks near log10 alpha = 1 and 11; medians around 10^5.9 to 10^7.9 with broad intervals.
    Fitted jointly with C; bimodality at prior boundaries indicates weak constraint.
  • MBH and D (mass and distance of Sgr A*) = MBH about 4.15 to 4.27e6 solar masses, D about 8.10 to 8.24 kpc depending on dataset.
    Sampled with uniform priors in the S2 and joint fits; nuisance parameters with strong influence on the likelihood.
  • Orbital and astrometric nuisance parameters (a,e,i,Omega,omega,x0,y0,vx0,vy0,tp,vLSR) = Dataset 1: a about 125.93 mas, e about 0.884, i about 133.70 deg, etc.
    Fitted simultaneously in the S2 and joint MCMC; standard nuisance parameters not part of the environmental claim.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Hernquist-type environmental black hole spacetime of Cardoso et al. [35] is an exact, physically admissible solution that describes Sgr A* plus its surroundings.
    Adopted in Sec. II; the analysis never tests the solution itself against other matter profiles or spin.
  • domain assumption Sgr A* is static and spherically symmetric, with no black hole spin; the shadow diameter is given by the photon-sphere impact parameter of this metric.
    Used in Sec. III.A and Appendix A; the authors state an axisymmetric extension is needed once spin is resolved.
  • domain assumption The S2 star is a test particle following timelike geodesics of this spacetime, with no other perturbing masses or non-gravitational forces.
    Sec. III.B assumes geodesic motion and Keplerian-like turning-point parametrization; stellar perturbations are ignored.
  • domain assumption The EHT shadow diameter (48.7 ± 7) microarcseconds and the GRAVITY precession fsp = 1.1 ± 0.19 are valid inputs with Gaussian uncertainties.
    Sec. III.D; calibration systematics in the EHT diameter are not modeled beyond the quoted error.
  • ad hoc to paper The GRAVITY precession summary is not fully independent of the S2 astrometric and radial velocity data, and the sqrt(2) downweighting compensates exactly for this double counting.
    Sec. III.B introduces the sqrt(2) factor; this is a heuristic statistical correction, not derived from a likelihood model.
  • ad hoc to paper Log-uniform priors over log10 C in [-8,0] and log10 alpha in [1,11] are appropriate and bracket all physical possibilities.
    Sec. III.C; the alpha posterior peaks at both prior boundaries, so the prior range shapes the reported bimodality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiscale probing of a Hernquist-type environmental black hole spacetime with the Sgr A* shadow and S2 orbital dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MEZXZFLZ

@misc{pith2026260807229,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiscale probing of a Hernquist-type environmental black hole spacetime with the Sgr A* shadow and S2 orbital dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MEZXZFLZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07229}
}
abstract

The supermassive black hole Sgr A* at the Galactic center provides a unique opportunity to probe the distribution of environmental matter around black holes. In this work, we adopt the Hernquist-type environmental black hole spacetime, a non-vacuum exact solution of the Einstein field equations, as its gravitational model to describe the joint gravitational field of the black hole and its surrounding matter, with environmental effects characterized by the dimensionless compactness $C$ and the characteristic scale $\alpha$. We combine black hole shadow data with two sets of S2 star data provided by Do et al. and Gillessen et al., and constrain the model parameters using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method. At the 95\% credible upper limit, the shadow-only data constrain $C < 1.498\times10^{-1}$.but provide no effective constraint on $\alpha$. The two S2 datasets yield $C<5.239\times10^{-5}$ and $C<1.303\times10^{-4}$, respectively, with $\alpha$ exhibiting a bimodal structure in both cases. After combining the shadow and S2 star data, the $C$ upper limits are tightened to $C<3.760\times10^{-5}$ and $C<1.073\times10^{-4}$, respectively. These results indicate that current observations rule out highly compact configurations of the environmental halo, while the obtained constraints are consistent with the typical compactness range of matter halos. However, $\alpha$ still exhibits a significant bimodal degeneracy, indicating that current observations are insufficient to uniquely determine the radial distribution of the environmental halo. Future observations of multiple stellar orbits may provide further insights into the radial structure of the environmental halo.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07229 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Posterior distributions of the parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: 15-dimensional posterior distributions of the parameters obtained from the S2 star data alone (red) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Same as Fig. 2, but with the S2 star observational data from Dataset 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Constraints on parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Akiyama et al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyama et al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett. 930, L12 (2022), arXiv:2311.08680 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Akiyama et al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyama et al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett. 930, L13 (2022), arXiv:2311.08679 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Abuter et al

    R. Abuter et al. (GRA VITY), Astron. Astrophys. 615, L15 (2018), arXiv:1807.09409 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Abuter et al

    R. Abuter et al. (GRA VITY), Astron. Astrophys. 636, L5 (2020), arXiv:2004.07187 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Vagnozzi et al., Class

    S. Vagnozzi et al., Class. Quant. Grav.40, 165007 (2023), arXiv:2205.07787 [gr-qc]. 14

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Akiyama et al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyama et al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett. 930, L14 (2022), arXiv:2311.09479 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Akiyama et al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyama et al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett. 930, L17 (2022), arXiv:2311.09484 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Navarrete, F

    C. Navarrete, F. V´ azquez-Ch´ avez, A. Cruz-Osorio, and N. Ortiz, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 546, stag059 (2026), arXiv:2602.04980 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2026

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Afrin, S

    M. Afrin, S. Vagnozzi, and S. G. Ghosh, Astrophys. J. 944, 149 (2023), arXiv:2209.12584 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    D. J. Gogoi and S. Ponglertsakul, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 652 (2024), arXiv:2402.06186 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Kalita and P

    S. Kalita and P. Bhattacharjee, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 120 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Yao and X

    J.-T. Yao and X. Li, Phys. Rev. D 113, 084003 (2026)

    2026

  5. [13]

    Q. Qi, Y. Sang, and X.-M. Kuang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 69, 260414 (2026), arXiv:2601.06491 [gr- qc]

    2026 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Xamidov, S

    T. Xamidov, S. Shaymatov, and Q. Wu, (2026), arXiv:2605.22210 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Genzel, F

    R. Genzel, F. Eisenhauer, and S. Gillessen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 3121 (2010), arXiv:1006.0064 [astro-ph.GA]

    2010 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Bland-Hawthorn and O

    J. Bland-Hawthorn and O. Gerhard, Ann. Rev. As- tron. Astrophys. 54, 529 (2016), arXiv:1602.07702 [astro- ph.GA]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Sadeghian, F

    L. Sadeghian, F. Ferrer, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 88, 063522 (2013), arXiv:1305.2619 [astro-ph.GA]

    2013 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Figueiredo, A

    E. Figueiredo, A. Maselli, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 107, 104033 (2023), arXiv:2303.08183 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    P. G. S. Fernandes and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 211403 (2025), arXiv:2507.04389 [gr-qc]

    2025

  12. [20]

    Gondolo and J

    P. Gondolo and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1719 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9906391

    1999 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Black holes in bi- nary systems: Observational appearances,

    N. I. Shakura and R. A. Sunyaev, “Black holes in bi- nary systems: Observational appearances,” in X- and Gamma-Ray Astronomy, edited by H. Bradt and R. Gi- acconi (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1973) pp. 155– 164

    1973

  14. [22]

    M. D. Johnson et al. , Galaxies 11, 61 (2023), arXiv:2304.11188 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Ayzenberg et al., Living Rev

    D. Ayzenberg et al., Living Rev. Rel. 28, 4 (2025), [Er- ratum: Living Rev.Rel. 28, 7 (2025)], arXiv:2312.02130 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

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

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

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Luo et al

    J. Luo et al. (TianQin), Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 035010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Mei et al

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

    2021

  19. [27]

    Hu and Y.-L

    W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu, Natl. Sci. Rev. 4, 685 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Barausse, V

    E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 89, 104059 (2014), arXiv:1404.7149 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  21. [29]

    P. S. Cole, G. Bertone, A. Coogan, D. Gaggero, T. Karydas, B. J. Kavanagh, T. F. M. Spieksma, and G. M. Tomaselli, Nature Astron. 7, 943 (2023), arXiv:2211.01362 [gr-qc]

    2023

  22. [30]

    Kouniatalis, A

    G. Kouniatalis, A. G. Suvorov, and K. Destounis, Phys. Rev. D 112, 124062 (2025), arXiv:2508.19333 [gr-qc]

    2025

  23. [31]

    A. M. Ghez et al., Astrophys. J. 689, 1044 (2008), arXiv:0808.2870 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Einstein, Annals Math

    A. Einstein, Annals Math. 40, 922 (1939)

    1939

  25. [33]

    Geralico, F

    A. Geralico, F. Pompi, and R. Ruffini, Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 12, 146 (2012)

    2012

  26. [34]

    Hernquist, Astrophys

    L. Hernquist, Astrophys. J. 356, 359 (1990)

    1990

  27. [35]

    Cardoso, K

    V. Cardoso, K. Destounis, F. Duque, R. P. Macedo, and A. Maselli, Phys. Rev. D 105, L061501 (2022), arXiv:2109.00005 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Z. Xu, X. Hou, X. Gong, and J. Wang, JCAP 09, 038 (2018), arXiv:1803.00767 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Lett. B 795, 1 (2019), arXiv:1905.00064 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    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

  31. [39]

    M. F. Fauzi, H. S. Ramadhan, and A. Sulaksono, Phys. Lett. B 875, 140367 (2026), arXiv:2512.17304 [gr-qc]

    2026

  32. [40]

    C. F. B. Macedo, J. L. Rosa, and D. Rubiera-Garcia, JCAP 07, 046 (2024), arXiv:2402.13047 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    S. V. M. C. B. Xavier, H. C. D. Lima, Junior., and L. C. B. Crispino, Phys. Rev. D 107, 064040 (2023), arXiv:2303.17666 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Feng and G.-Y

    X.-H. Feng and G.-Y. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 86, 36 (2026), arXiv:2509.04001 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  35. [43]

    R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Lett. B 823, 136734 (2021), arXiv:2109.01640 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    B. C. L¨ utf¨ uo˘ glu, Phys. Lett. B872, 140082 (2026), arXiv:2510.25969 [gr-qc]

    2026

  37. [45]

    J. Liu, S. Chen, and J. Jing, Chin. Phys. C 46, 105104 (2022), arXiv:2203.14039 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Q. Tan, W. Deng, S. Long, and J. Jing, JCAP 05, 044 (2025), arXiv:2409.17760 [gr-qc]

    2025

  39. [47]

    Haroon and T

    S. Haroon and T. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 112, 044046 (2025), arXiv:2502.09171 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Stuchl ´ ık and J

    Z. Stuchl ´ ık and J. Vrba, JCAP 11, 059 (2021), arXiv:2110.07411 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Destounis, A

    K. Destounis, A. Kulathingal, K. D. Kokkotas, and G. O. Papadopoulos, Phys. Rev. D 107, 084027 (2023), arXiv:2210.09357 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    N. Dai, Y. Gong, Y. Zhao, and T. Jiang, Phys. Rev. D 110, 084080 (2024), arXiv:2301.05088 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Rahman, S

    M. Rahman, S. Kumar, and A. Bhattacharyya, JCAP 01, 035 (2024), arXiv:2306.14971 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Zhang, G

    C. Zhang, G. Fu, and N. Dai, JCAP 04, 088 (2024), arXiv:2401.04467 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Bambhaniya, P

    P. Bambhaniya, P. Dalal, G. H. Vicentin, R. Della Mon- ica, E. M. de Gouveia Dal Pino, and B. Patel, (2026), arXiv:2602.18994 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Sharipov, M

    J. Sharipov, M. Alloqulov, P. Sheoran, and S. Shayma- tov, Chin. J. Phys. 99, 461 (2026)

    2026

  47. [55]

    Zeng, C.-Y

    X.-X. Zeng, C.-Y. Yang, M. I. Aslam, R. Saleem, and S. Aslam, JCAP 08, 066 (2025), arXiv:2505.07063 [gr- qc]

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Xamidov, S

    T. Xamidov, S. Shaymatov, Q. Wu, and T. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 1193 (2025), arXiv:2507.13147 [gr-qc]

    2025

  49. [57]

    Z.-L. Wei, J. Zhang, Y. Xie, and P.-L. Yin, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 698 (2025)

    2025

  50. [58]

    L. Meng, Z. Xu, and M. Tang, Phys. Lett. B 877, 140484 (2026), arXiv:2506.05015 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Huang and X.-M

    L. Huang and X.-M. Deng, Phys. Rev. D 109, 124005 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    Qi, X.-M

    Q. Qi, X.-M. Kuang, Y.-Z. Li, and Y. Sang, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 645 (2024), arXiv:2407.01958 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Zeng and Y

    H. Zeng and Y. Meng, Phys. Lett. B 876, 140434 (2026), arXiv:2512.05147 [gr-qc]

    2026

  54. [62]

    Boltaev, T

    A. Boltaev, T. Xamidov, and S. Shaymatov, (2026), arXiv:2603.17986 [gr-qc]

    2026

  55. [63]

    Do et al., Science 365, 664 (2019), arXiv:1907.10731 [astro-ph.GA]

    T. Do et al., Science 365, 664 (2019), arXiv:1907.10731 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019

  56. [64]

    Gillessen et al., Astrophys

    S. Gillessen et al., Astrophys. J. 837, 30 (2017). 15

    2017

  57. [65]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Goodman, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 125, 306 (2013), arXiv:1202.3665 [astro-ph.IM]

    2013 arXiv

  58. [66]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astro- phys. J. 462, 563 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9508025

    1996 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Damour and N

    T. Damour and N. Deruelle, Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Physique th´ eorique44, 263 (1986)

    1986

  60. [68]

    Della Monica, I

    R. Della Monica, I. de Martino, and M. de Lauren- tis, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 510, 4757 (2022), arXiv:2105.12687 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Foreman-Mackey, The Journal of Open Source Soft- ware 1, 24 (2016)

    D. Foreman-Mackey, The Journal of Open Source Soft- ware 1, 24 (2016)

    2016

  62. [70]

    Abuter et al

    R. Abuter et al. (GRA VITY), Astron. Astrophys. 657, L12 (2022), arXiv:2112.07478 [astro-ph.GA]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Peißker, A

    F. Peißker, A. Eckart, M. Zajaˇ cek, B. Ali, and M. Parsa, The Astrophysical Journal 899, 50 (2020)

    2020

  64. [72]

    K. A. E. Dayem et al., (2026), arXiv:2607.12664 [astro- ph.GA]

    2026 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Peißker, A

    F. Peißker, A. Eckart, M. Zajaˇ cek, and S. Britzen, The Astrophysical Journal 933, 49 (2022)

    2022

  66. [74]

    Meyer, A

    L. Meyer, A. M. Ghez, R. Schodel, S. Yelda, A. Boehle, J. R. Lu, M. R. Morris, E. E. Becklin, and K. Matthews, Science 338, 84 (2012), arXiv:1210.1294 [astro-ph.GA]

    2012 arXiv

  67. [75]

    C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel. 17, 4 (2014), arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Fomalont, S

    E. Fomalont, S. Kopeikin, G. Lanyi, and J. Benson, Astrophys. J. 699, 1395 (2009), arXiv:0904.3992 [astro- ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  69. [77]

    , 10.18727/0722- 6691/5285

    GRA VITY+ Collaboration et al. , 10.18727/0722- 6691/5285

    doi

  70. [78]

    Marconi et al., Published in The Messenger vol

    A. Marconi et al., Published in The Messenger vol. 182 pp. 27-32, March 2021. (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.