Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

The Sun gravitationally focuses dark matter into a downstream wake, and this paper argues that a two-spacecraft precision-ranging mission measuring the wake's tidal pull could detect dark matter gravitationally for the first time inside the

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

2026-08-03 00:34 UTC pith:TLGPMAXP

load-bearing objection The solar-focusing wake isn't new, but the two-spacecraft gradiometric mission concept is; the abstract oversells the one-year dwell while the body stays honest about the missing covariance study. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28722 v1 pith:TLGPMAXP submitted 2026-07-30 hep-ph

Gravity Probe-DM: The Gravitational Laboratory for Dark Matter

Yu-Dai Tsai , Hayden R. Foote This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords solar gravitational focusingdark matter wakeheliocentric missiondifferential rangingtidal tensorwave dark matterdark diskGravity Probe-DM
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that dark matter falling through the Sun's gravity is inevitably deflected into a downstream wake, and that this wake—an extended, directional overdensity—can be detected gravitationally with two precision-tracked spacecraft. The exact observable is the differential acceleration between the spacecraft, which for a short baseline reduces to the wake's tidal tensor projected along the baseline. The paper shows that the raw displacement signal grows with the square of the time the formation stays inside the coherent projected tide, moving from about 0.63 pm for a 5.77-day crossing to 2.5 nm in an idealized one-year dwell, and about 15 nm for an illustrative dark-disk component. A positive detection would give the first purely gravitational map of dark matter in the Solar System and could distinguish particle from wave dark matter through the wake's structure.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that solar gravitational focusing makes a dark-matter wake an irreducible target: any unbound component of the Galactic dark-matter flow, particle or wave, is perturbed by the Sun's gravity and produces a calculable downstream density perturbation. A two-spacecraft heliocentric formation measuring inter-spacecraft range can read this perturbation as a projected tidal tensor, with the raw free-response displacement growing as T^2 while the formation remains inside a coherent region of the wake. For a 2.5×10^6 km baseline crossing a 0.1 AU coherent width at 30 km/s, a one-percent focused excess yields a 0.63 pm range scale over 5.77 days; an idealized one-year cohe

What carries the argument

Solar gravitational focusing: the Sun acts as a gravitational lens for any unbound dark-matter flow, creating a downstream density perturbation (the wake) whose structure encodes the incident velocity distribution and, for wave dark matter, the de Broglie scale. The measurement engine is a two-spacecraft formation using inter-spacecraft precision ranging; the observable is the line-of-sight differential acceleration, which in the short-baseline limit equals -L \hat{L}_i E^w_{ij} \hat{L}_j, the projection of the wake's tidal tensor along the baseline. The central scaling is the T^2 free-response growth while the projected tide stays coherent (Eqs. 36-41), with trajectory design controlling dw

Load-bearing premise

The year-scale detection requires holding a two-spacecraft formation inside a coherent, same-sign projected wake tide for about a year, but the paper's own orbital mechanics limit a passive solar-avoiding orbit near 1 AU to about 60 days of coherence for the reference 0.1 AU wake, so the nanometre-level signal depends on unshown dwell engineering and sub-nanometre background control.

What would settle it

Compute the solar-focused contrast for the standard smooth halo model at r=1 AU using the full phase-space transport of the paper (Eq. A6); if the peak fractional excess is well below 1% and the projected tidal signal correspondingly below the 0.63 pm benchmark, then the baseline detectability claim is optimistic and only colder, narrower phase-space components would be testable. Alternatively, a dedicated reanalysis of LISA Pathfinder differential-acceleration data for a projected dark-disk wake template that found no residual at the predicted level would bound the dark-disk benchmark.

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

If this is right

  • A null result would exclude specifically the solar-focused stream, dark-disk, and wave-interference templates that the mission was designed to see, turning an absence of signal into a bound on the local dark-matter phase-space distribution.
  • The same heliocentric ranging architecture can simultaneously search for compact dark objects (transient tidal pulses) and smooth dark-matter halos (secular precession), making it a general Solar-System dark-matter observatory.
  • Measuring the wake at several heliocentric radii would constrain the density, velocity dispersion, and, for wave dark matter, the mass of the incident component through the de Broglie scaling and the particle-to-wave transition.
  • A network of three or four probes could recover all six independent components of the wake tidal tensor, separating the flow signal from asteroid and spacecraft-force backgrounds and enabling wake tomography.
  • A detection would provide a coupling-independent calibration of the local dark-matter phase-space distribution, directly informing the interpretation of terrestrial direct-detection experiments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • As the paper's own orbit equations show, the year-scale 2.5-15 nm numbers require a coherent dwell that a passive solar-avoiding orbit near 1 AU cannot provide; the realistic reach may lie at several AU, with a much broader coherence width, or with continuous thrust whose low-frequency noise is calibrated — this is the first place the concept should be stress-tested.
  • A direct testable extension: reprocess existing LISA Pathfinder differential-acceleration data using the strongest allowed dark-disk wake template; even though the nominal signal is far below LPF noise, the exercise would validate the ephemeris-projection and residual-fitting machinery, as the paper itself suggests.
  • The assumed 1% focused excess is crucial; the smooth, phase-mixed halo likely yields a much smaller contrast, so the mission's convincing detection case depends on a cold stream or disk component rather than the irreducible wake alone.
  • Asteroid mass errors, scaling as δM_A/d^3 across a small baseline, are likely to dominate the differential-acceleration background and may require explicit trajectory avoidance or mass-refinement campaigns before the sub-nm wake signal becomes visible.

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 proposes a heliocentric mission concept, Gravity Probe-DM, to search for the gravitational imprint of dark matter focused by the Sun. It defines the focusing-induced excess density and shows that a two-spacecraft precision-ranging formation measures the projected Hessian of the wake potential; the short-baseline observable is the differential acceleration along the baseline. For a 2.5×10^6 km baseline crossing a 0.1 AU coherence width at 30 km/s, a one-percent excess gives a raw free-response range scale of 0.63 pm over 5.77 days; if the projected tide remains coherent for one year, the same normalization grows to 2.5 nm, and to about 15 nm for an illustrative 20% low-lag dark-disk component. The paper discusses three gravitational signal classes, trajectory optimization and dwell-time coherence bounds, backgrounds including asteroid and non-gravitational perturbations, and numerical checks using REBOUND. The main caveat, acknowledged by the authors, is that no end-to-end covariance or noise study is presented; the paper establishes raw analytic signal scales and a mission architecture, not demonstrated detectability.

Significance. If the programme can be completed, a positive result would provide the first gravitational mapping of dark matter on Solar-System scales and an independent probe of the local phase-space distribution relevant to direct-detection experiments. The analytic framework is internally consistent: the uniform-core normalization (Eqs. 39–41), the compact-source precession scaling (Eq. 21), and the coherence bounds (Eqs. 70–71) are sound, and the paper is candid about the dark-disk benchmark being illustrative and optimistic. The numerical tests, although far from the physical signal amplitude, check the integrator's linear response. The main value is conceptual: it identifies a new observable, the differential wake tide, and a concrete mission geometry. The principal risk is that the quoted picometre and nanometre raw scales are pre-fit normalizations and could be mistaken for detectability without the deferred covariance analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §VII, Eqs. (67), (71), (77)] The abstract's one-year numbers (2.5 nm and 15 nm) are not tied to a demonstrated trajectory. Section VII, Eq. (70), gives v_perp,min ≈ 2.9 km/s at r = 1 AU, and Eq. (71) limits the coherent interval to T_coh ≲ 60 d for D_coh = 0.1 AU, whereas Eq. (67) assumes a coherent one-year dwell and Eq. (77) applies the same to the dark-disk benchmark. The paper correctly notes that one year would require r ≈ 6 AU, a much broader disk, or continuous thrust, but none of these options is shown to be compatible with the required sub-nanometre differential ranging and asteroid-mass control discussed in §IX. Because the 2.5 nm and 15 nm figures are the only nanometre-level signal scales and appear in the abstract, the headline should be restated with the 5.77 d / 0.63 pm reference as the baseline and the year-scale projection explicitly labelled as an idealized, trajectory-dependent upper envelope.
  2. [§IX–§X and §V, Eq. (42)] No differential-noise or background-covariance budget is provided. Equation (42) defines an equivalent density sensitivity in terms of a post-fit range uncertainty σ_ΔL, but no σ_ΔL is estimated. Section IX enumerates asteroid-mass errors (Eq. (85)), non-gravitational spacecraft forces (Eq. (86)), ephemeris errors, and Galactic tides without a numerical covariance study; §X explicitly defers the end-to-end covariance test. Thus the central assertion that a two-spacecraft formation can measure the wake tidal tensor remains unsupported by a detectability calculation. A first-order covariance projection using representative laser-ranging noise and asteroid δM_A/d_A^3 terms should be added, or the paper should state uniformly and prominently that it establishes raw signal scales only and not mission feasibility.
  3. [§VIII.C and Fig. 3] The numerical validation does not probe the signal regime. The injected solid-sphere excess in Fig. 3, δρ_inj = 9.6×10^-7 M_sun AU^-3, is about 8×10^13 times larger than the one-percent reference excess δρ_pk = 1.20×10^-20 M_sun AU^-3 given in Eq. (A20). The linearity test therefore validates the numerical implementation, not the amplitude or detectability of the wake signal. The text acknowledges this, but the section title and framing ('validation of leading response scalings') overstate what is checked. The heading and text should be changed so that readers do not mistake the toy runs for a sensitivity test.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The word 'spacecrafts' is used in the abstract and text; the standard plural is 'spacecraft'.
  2. [Fig. 2] The caption uses M_od and M_ext inconsistently; the axis label and caption should use the same symbol. Also, the extrapolated contours below 10^-6 arcsec/cy should be shown with a different style or clearly labelled as extrapolations.
  3. [§VII, Eq. (73)] The statement that the downstream particle estimate δ_dd_w,pk ≈ 0.3 follows from the displayed square-root formula may confuse readers because the formula depends on σ and v_e at a specific radius; please state explicitly that the numerical value uses r ≈ 1 AU and the benchmark values from Eq. (72).
  4. [§X] The LPF discussion is useful but the phrase 'archival LPF data support method development' could be misread as a sensitivity claim; consider adding one sentence clarifying that Eq. (94) implies the LPF signal is many orders below its noise floor.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the signal normalization is a linear scaling of stated astrophysical inputs, not a fitted quantity or a self-citation-dependent prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The wake profile is imported from independent external work (Sikivie-Wick, Lee et al., Alenazi-Gondolo, Kim-Lenoci) via Refs. [8,9,26,27]; the authors' own prior work is used only for contextual Solar-System limits and methodology references [13,14,17,18,40], and none of those citations carries the central focusing or signal derivation. The raw range scale in Eqs. (40)-(41) follows directly from Poisson's equation and the free-response integral (Eq. 35), with no fitted parameter: it is an analytic normalization linear in the stated excess density δρ_core. The dark-disk benchmark is explicitly labeled 'illustrative' and 'optimistic' (Sec. VII, Eq. 72), and its 15 nm scale (Eq. 77) is just the same proportionality applied to an assumed component density and contrast. The paper repeatedly calls these 'pre-fit response scales' and 'raw normalizations,' not predictions, and Eq. (42) is presented as an equivalent-density inversion rather than a forecast. The numerical check in Sec. VIII is explicitly a code validation of the linear scaling, using toy densities, and is not claimed as a detection forecast. The main weaknesses noted in the paper—that one-year coherence is unavailable on a passive 1 AU orbit (Eqs. 70-71) and that an end-to-end covariance study is deferred (Sec. X)—are feasibility gaps, not circular reductions. On that basis, no circularity step can be exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The 'wake' is a derived gravitational consequence of known solar focusing; 'Gravity Probe-DM' is a mission concept, not a physical entity. The main burden is carried by benchmark choices (1% excess, f_dd=0.2, sigma=v_inf=50 km/s) that are transparently labeled illustrative, and by external focusing templates from Refs. [8,9,26,27].

free parameters (7)
  • D_coh (reference coherence width) = 0.1 AU
    Chosen reference transverse width; sets T_cross = 5.77 d in Eq. (44). Signal amplitude and dwell depend directly on it.
  • v_perp (reference transverse speed) = 30 km/s
    Chosen to fix T_cross = 5.77 d; the paper's alternative 19 d case requires v_perp = 9.11 km/s at same D_coh.
  • L (inter-spacecraft baseline) = 2.5e6 km = 0.0167 AU
    LISA-like reference baseline; the raw response is linear in L (Eq. 39).
  • one-percent excess normalization = delta_rho_pk = 4e-3 GeV/cm^3
    Benchmark: 1% of rho_ref = 0.4 GeV/cm^3; explicitly a normalization, not a derivation (Eqs. 40-41).
  • dark-disk fraction f_dd = 0.2
    Illustrative benchmark guided by simulation literature [36]; labeled optimistic in Sec. VII.
  • dark-disk kinematics (sigma, v_inf) = 50 km/s, 50 km/s
    Illustrative solar-focusing point from Ref. [26]; sets peak contrast delta = 0.3 via Eq. (73).
  • toy/solid-sphere injection densities = e.g., delta_rho_inj = 9.6e-7 M_sun/AU^3 (Fig. 3)
    Numerical validation only, at densities many orders above realistic DM excess; not a physical benchmark.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Newtonian gravity with Poisson equation: grad^2 Phi_w = 4 pi G delta_rho_w (Eqs. 5, 28)
    Underlies all wake potential and tidal-tensor calculations.
  • domain assumption Particle focusing via phase-space conservation and hyperbolic orbit transport (Eq. A6), from Refs. [8,9,27]
    Provides the particle wake template; accuracy is imported from the cited literature.
  • domain assumption Wave focusing via coherent propagation and mode-by-mode ensemble averaging (Eq. A15), from Ref. [26]
    Provides the wave template and de Broglie scales; external result adopted without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption Local reference dark-matter density rho_ref = 0.4 GeV/cm^3 (Eq. A19)
    Standard local value used to normalize the one-percent benchmark.
  • ad hoc to paper Existence and properties of a low-lag dark-disk component (f_dd = 0.2, sigma = v_inf = 50 km/s)
    Deliberately optimistic astrophysical input; the paper states it is not assumed to be present (Sec. VII).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 24637 in / 20476 out tokens · 213363 ms · 2026-08-03T00:34:42.378198+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Dark matter is inferred gravitationally across the Universe but has not been detected within the Solar System. The Sun inevitably focuses incident unbound dark matter into an irreducible downstream wake. Its structure encodes the incoming density and velocity distribution and, for wave dark matter, the de Broglie scale. We propose Gravity Probe-DM, a heliocentric search using precision ranging between spacecrafts. The exact two-spacecraft observable is the differential wake acceleration; for a short baseline, it becomes the wake tidal tensor projected along the baseline. For a $2.5\times10^6\,\mathrm{km}$ baseline crossing a $0.1\,\mathrm{AU}$ coherent width at $30\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$, a one-percent excess gives a raw uniform-core range scale of $0.63\,\mathrm{pm}$ over $5.77\,\mathrm d$. While the projected tide remains coherent over an interval $T$, the free response grows as $T^2$, reaching $2.5\,\mathrm{nm}$ over one year. An illustrative low-lag dark-disk component carrying $20\%$ of the reference local density and reaching a $30\%$ focused contrast gives a one-year scale of about $15\,\mathrm{nm}$. These pre-fit response scales show that trajectory design can move the signal from sub-picometre to nanometre scales. A detection would provide a purely gravitational map of local dark matter and probe the flow that produced it, including particle versus wave focusing. The Sun supplies the lens, spacecraft sample the wake, and precision ranging reads out its gravitational imprint.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28722 by Hayden R. Foote, Yu-Dai Tsai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Numerical validation 1: precession rate of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Numerical validation 3: fitted growth parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Numerical validation 2: fractional relative-range [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.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

56 extracted references · 36 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    specify a self-consistent dark-matter phase-space component, whose solar-frame bulk velocity fixes the downstream wake direction and whose density and velocity distribution determine the focused profile

  2. [2]

    for wave dark matter, specify the mass controlling the diffraction and interference scales

  3. [3]

    compute the finite focusing-induced excess density and its gravitational field

  4. [4]

    propagate a feasible heliocentric spacecraft formation through the resulting wake template

  5. [5]

    construct range, range-rate, Doppler, and differential-acceleration observables

  6. [6]

    ℏ meu(r)r, σ v∞ 2# = max

    fit the wake simultaneously with Solar-System, spacecraft-force, and instrument parameters. For a single spacecraft, the wake contribution to the gravitational acceleration is Aw(r, t) =−∇Φw(r, t),(6) FIG. 1.Gravity Probe–DM mission concept. (a)Schematic of a heliocentric two-spacecraft experiment designed to search for the solar dark-matter wake. Galacti...

  7. [7]

    It also captures cancellation between regions in which the projected Hessian has opposite signs

    For a physical wake, P T tracks the changing wake amplitude and baseline geometry. It also captures cancellation between regions in which the projected Hessian has opposite signs. When the finite-baseline expansion is not valid, the same quantity should be constructed directly from Eq. (9). For a genuinely coherent one-year interval, the raw normalization...

  8. [8]

    A numerical value of(θ w, ϕw)must be obtained by transforming a specified solar-frame flow vector into a specified ecliptic frame

    Asymptotic component and coordinate convention Letf ∞(u)be the asymptotic velocity distribution of one unbound dark-matter component in the solar rest frame, normalized by Z d3u f∞(u) = 1.(A1) Its mean velocity is v∞ ≡ Z d3uuf ∞(u) =v ∞ ˆw.(A2) Thus ˆwpoints downstream, in the direction of propagation of the selected component. A numerical value of(θ w, ϕ...

  9. [9]

    In the point-mass approximation, its deflection is α⊙(b⊙, u) = 2 arctan GM⊙ b⊙u2 ≃ 2GM⊙ b⊙u2 ,(A4) where the final form assumes weak deflection

    Particle focusing A hyperbolic trajectory may be labelled by its asymptotic speeduand impact parameterb ⊙. In the point-mass approximation, its deflection is α⊙(b⊙, u) = 2 arctan GM⊙ b⊙u2 ≃ 2GM⊙ b⊙u2 ,(A4) where the final form assumes weak deflection. The associated axial crossing satisfies sf ≃ b⊙ α⊙ ≃ b2 ⊙u2 2GM⊙ , b ⊙(sf )≃ 2GM⊙sf u2 1/2 . (A5) This re...

  10. [10]

    Wave focusing Each incident wave mode is propagated at its own asymptotic speedu. Energy conservation in the solar potential gives the local speed eu2(r) =u 2 +v 2 e (r).(A9) The corresponding de Broglie wavelength and reduced wavelength are λdB(r;u) = 2πℏ meu(r) ≃10.4 AU 10−15 eV m 240 km s−1 eu(r) , (A10) ℓdB(r;u)≡ λdB 2π = ℏ meu(r) ≃1.65 AU 10−15 eV m ...

  11. [11]

    The wake excess is specified separately

    Benchmark and implementation conventions We use ρref ≡0.4 GeV cm −3 = 7.13×10 −22 kg m−3 = 1.20×10 −18 M⊙ AU−3 (A19) as a reference local-density normalization. The wake excess is specified separately. If a component carrying this full reference density has a one-percent peak contrast, then δρpk = 4.0×10 −3 GeV cm−3 = 1.20×10 −20 M⊙ AU−3. (A20) For a stre...

  12. [12]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    Hoekstra, M

    H. Hoekstra, M. Bartelmann, H. Dahle, H. Israel, M. Limousin, and M. Meneghetti, Space Sci. Rev.177, 75 (2013), arXiv:1303.3274 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  14. [14]

    S. M. Faber and J. S. Gallagher, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.17, 135 (1979)

    1979

  15. [15]

    J. D. Simon, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.57, 375 (2019), arXiv:1901.05465 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  16. [16]

    A. M. Green, J. Phys. G44, 084001 (2017), arXiv:1703.10102 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  17. [17]

    Freese, M

    K. Freese, M. Lisanti, and C. Savage, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1561 (2013), arXiv:1209.3339 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  18. [18]

    J. W. Foster, N. L. Rodd, and B. R. Safdi, Phys. Rev. D 97, 123006 (2018), arXiv:1711.10489 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    Sikivie and S

    P. Sikivie and S. Wick, Phys. Rev. D66, 023504 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0203448

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  20. [20]

    S. K. Lee, M. Lisanti, A. H. G. Peter, and B. R. Safdi, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 011301 (2014), arXiv:1308.1953 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  21. [21]

    Banerjee, D

    A. Banerjee, D. Budker, J. Eby, V. V. Flambaum, H. Kim, O. Matsedonskyi, and G. Perez, JHEP09, 004, arXiv:1912.04295 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1912

  22. [22]

    Lasenby and K

    R. Lasenby and K. Van Tilburg, Phys. Rev. D104, 023020 (2021), arXiv:2008.08594 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Van Tilburg, Phys

    K. Van Tilburg, Phys. Rev. D104, 023019 (2021), arXiv:2006.12431 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Y.-D. Tsai, J. Eby, and M. S. Safronova, Nature Astron. 7, 113 (2023), arXiv:2112.07674 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Tsai and F

    Y.-D. Tsai and F. Hajkarim, (2025), arXiv:2504.02039 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    N. P. Pitjev and E. V. Pitjeva, Astron. Lett.39, 141 (2013), arXiv:1306.5534 [astro-ph.EP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  27. [27]

    A. K. Verma, J.-L. Margot, and A. H. Greenberg, Astrophys. J.845, 166 (2017), arXiv:1707.08675 [astro-ph.EP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    Y.-D. Tsai, Y. Wu, S. Vagnozzi, and L. Visinelli, JCAP 04, 031, arXiv:2107.04038 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    Y.-D. Tsai, J. Eby, J. Arakawa, D. Farnocchia, and M. S. Safronova, JCAP02, 029, arXiv:2210.03749 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    J. I. Read, G. Lake, O. Agertz, and V. P. Debattista, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.389, 1041 (2008), arXiv:0803.2714 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  31. [31]

    J. I. Read, L. Mayer, A. M. Brooks, F. Governato, and G. Lake, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.397, 44 (2009), arXiv:0902.0009 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  32. [32]

    Bruch, J

    T. Bruch, J. Read, L. Baudis, and G. Lake, Astrophys. J.696, 920 (2009), arXiv:0804.2896 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  33. [33]

    J. Fan, A. Katz, L. Randall, and M. Reece, Phys. Dark Univ.2, 139 (2013), arXiv:1303.1521 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  34. [34]

    Schutz, T

    K. Schutz, T. Lin, B. R. Safdi, and C.-L. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 081101 (2018), arXiv:1711.03103 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    J. Buch, S. C. J. Leung, and J. Fan, JCAP04, 026, arXiv:1808.05603 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Widmark, C

    A. Widmark, C. F. P. Laporte, P. F. de Salas, and G. Monari, Astron. Astrophys.653, A86 (2021), arXiv:2105.14030 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Kim and A

    H. Kim and A. Lenoci, Phys. Rev. D105, 063032 (2022), arXiv:2112.05718 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    M. S. Alenazi and P. Gondolo, Phys. Rev. D74, 083518 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0608390

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  39. [39]

    Seto and A

    N. Seto and A. Cooray, Phys. Rev. D70, 063512 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0405216

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  40. [40]

    B. D. Tapley, S. Bettadpur, M. Watkins, and C. Reigber, Geophys. Res. Lett.31, L09607 (2004)

    2004

  41. [41]

    B. S. Sheard, G. Heinzel, K. Danzmann, D. A. Shaddock, W. M. Klipstein, and W. M. Folkner, J. Geod.86, 1083 (2012)

    2012

  42. [42]

    Abichet al., Phys

    K. Abichet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 031101 (2019), arXiv:1907.00104 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    Antonucciet al., Class

    F. Antonucciet al., Class. Quant. Grav.29, 124014 (2012)

    2012

  44. [44]

    Armanoet al.(LISA Pathfinder), Phys

    M. Armanoet al.(LISA Pathfinder), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 231101 (2016)

    2016

  45. [45]

    Armanoet al.(LISA Pathfinder), Phys

    M. Armanoet al.(LISA Pathfinder), Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 061101 (2018)

    2018

  46. [46]

    T.X.Tran, S.R.Geller, B.V.Lehmann,andD.I.Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D110, 063533 (2024), arXiv:2312.17217 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    C. W. Purcell, J. S. Bullock, and M. Kaplinghat, Astrophys. J.703, 2275 (2009), arXiv:0906.5348 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  48. [48]

    Rein and S.-F

    H. Rein and S.-F. Liu, Astron. Astrophys.537, A128 (2012), arXiv:1110.4876 [astro-ph.EP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  49. [49]

    Rein and D

    H. Rein and D. S. Spiegel, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 446, 1424 (2015), arXiv:1409.4779 [astro-ph.EP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  50. [50]

    Tamayo, H

    D. Tamayo, H. Rein, P. Shi, and D. M. Hernandez, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.491, 2885 (2020), arXiv:1908.05634 [astro-ph.EP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  51. [51]

    Y.-D. Tsai, D. Farnocchia, M. Micheli, S. Vagnozzi, and L. Visinelli, Commun. Phys.7, 311 (2024), arXiv:2309.13106 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    E. V. Pitjeva and N. P. Pitjev, Astronomy Letters44, 554 (2018), arXiv:1811.05191 [astro-ph.EP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [53]

    R. S. Park, W. M. Folkner, J. G. Williams, and D. H. Boggs, The Astronomical Journal161, 105 (2021)

    2021

  54. [54]

    Armanoet al.(LISA Pathfinder), Phys

    M. Armanoet al.(LISA Pathfinder), Phys. Rev. D110, 042004 (2024), arXiv:2405.05207 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Hewitsonet al., Class

    M. Hewitsonet al., Class. Quant. Grav.26, 094003 (2009)

    2009

  56. [56]

    Korsakova, C

    N. Korsakova, C. Messenger, F. Pannarale, M. Hewitson, and M. Armano, Phys. Rev. D89, 123511 (2014), arXiv:1404.6422 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014