Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 6 cited by

Self-interacting and solitonic scalar potentials can produce radially stable, asymptotically flat boson stars in five and six spacetime dimensions, with nonlinear evolutions confirming the linear stability predictions.

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

2026-08-04 09:37 UTC pith:UZ4VM2MT

load-bearing objection Solid, genuinely new numerical and perturbative evidence for stable higher-dimensional boson stars, with a caveat about the unproven self-adjointness claim behind the linear-stability criterion. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2510.13988 v2 pith:UZ4VM2MT submitted 2025-10-15 gr-qc

Boson Stars in D ge 4 Dimensions: Stability, Oscillation Frequencies, and Dynamical Evolutions

Gareth Arturo Marks , Abdullah Al Zaif This is my paper
classification gr-qc
keywords boson starshigher-dimensional gravityradial stabilitypulsation equationsoscillation frequenciessolitonic potentialquartic self-interactionnumerical relativity
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.

Boson stars—localized clumps of complex scalar field held together by gravity—were previously known to have stable models only in four spacetime dimensions; in higher dimensions, the faster falloff of gravity was expected to make them disperse or collapse. This paper shows that sufficiently strong self-interaction changes that picture. It derives pulsation equations valid in any dimension and finds stable radial branches for massive boson stars in D=5 and D=6 above critical quartic-coupling values, and for solitonic boson stars in D=5 below a critical vacuum parameter. Nonlinear spherical evolutions of unperturbed and explicitly perturbed models match the linear-theory predictions in every case tested. The paper frames its conclusion as radial/spherical stability: non-spherical modes are not covered by its evolutions.

Core claim

The paper claims that the radial instability of higher-dimensional mini (non-self-interacting) boson stars is not fundamental: self-interactions can cure it. A quartic potential yields radially stable branches in D=5 once λ/μ²>63.4 and in D=6 once λ/μ²>416; a solitonic (two-vacuum) potential yields a stable branch in D=5 when σ0<0.236, while no D=6 solitonic branch is stable. Two complementary tools establish this: generalized pulsation equations valid for any dimension and potential, and nonlinear spherical evolutions—including explicit charge-conserving perturbations—whose outcomes match the linear classification in every tested case.

What carries the argument

The central object is a generalized set of pulsation equations for radial boson-star perturbations, valid in any spacetime dimension and for any scalar potential. They reduce radial stability to the sign of the lowest eigenvalue: χ₀²>0 means linearly radially stable, χ₀²<0 an unstable breathing mode. The paper solves the system by shooting for the frequency and a second parameter, using the conserved Noether-charge perturbation as a constraint, and confirms the resulting frequencies against power spectra from long unperturbed evolutions. Those evolutions use a dimensional reduction of a standard numerical-relativity formulation, preserving gauge freedom and allowing D=4,5,6 to be evolved wit

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that radial stability and stability under spherically symmetric nonlinear evolutions certify physical stability; the paper's evolutions enforce spherical symmetry, so any instability driven by a non-spherical mode lies outside what is tested—a limitation the paper explicitly acknowledges by pointing to four-dimensional rotating and excited boson stars that are radially stable yet nonlinearly unstable.

What would settle it

Recompute the lowest radial eigenvalue for a model on a claimed-stable branch—say the D=5 massive star with λ/μ²=200 and central amplitude 0.03—using an independent integration of the pulsation equations; a negative χ₀² would directly falsify the linear-stability claim. Independently, a spherical nonlinear evolution of that same model that collapses or disperses rather than oscillating indefinitely would falsify the dynamical-stability claim.

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

If this is right

  • Higher-dimensional asymptotically flat boson stars can be radially stable, so the weaker gravitational binding in D≥5 does not by itself doom self-gravitating scalar clumps.
  • In D=6, massive stars with fixed quartic coupling never reach arbitrarily low compactness on the stable branch, but increasing λ/μ² shrinks the inaccessible range; D=5 stable branches do reach arbitrarily low compactness.
  • The sign of the binding energy is neither necessary nor sufficient for radial stability—stable stars with positive binding energy and unstable stars with negative binding energy both occur—though it does correlate with what an unstable star does next (migrate, disperse, or collapse).
  • Solitonic boson stars in D=6 are all radially unstable, and for small σ0 their solution families diverge at finite central amplitude, so this potential does not stabilize six dimensions.
  • Mini boson stars in D=5 and D=6 have exactly one unstable radial mode on the first branch of their solution family, a precise extension of the known higher-dimensional instability.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension not pursued here is to relax the spherical symmetry in the evolutions: since the paper's simulations enforce spherical symmetry by construction, a growing non-spherical mode on one of the claimed-stable branches would directly limit the result; the paper itself warns that radially stable rotating and excited stars in D=4 can still be nonlinearly unstable.
  • The critical couplings appear to grow steeply with dimension (λ/μ²≈63.4 in D=5, ≈416 in D=6); extrapolating that trend suggests even larger critical values in D≥7 and raises the question of whether a stable window exists at arbitrarily high dimension.
  • The stable models with positive binding energy are plausible candidates for metastability in formation: even if they are stable once assembled, generic gravitational collapse of scalar clouds in D=5 or D=6 may rarely produce them, which is a testable question.
  • The same generalized pulsation formalism could be used to check whether other self-gravitating solitons in D>4—for example vector-field or spinor-field stars—acquire stable branches once self-interactions are included.

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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs spherically symmetric boson star solutions in D=4,5,6 spacetime dimensions for the mini, massive (quartic self-interaction), and solitonic potentials. It derives a general set of radial pulsation equations for arbitrary dimension and potential, computes the fundamental and first overtone oscillation frequencies, and identifies parameter regions with χ_0^2>0, which it interprets as linear radial stability: massive families in D=5,6 above critical λ̂ (63.4 and 416, respectively) and solitonic families in D=5 below critical σ_0 (0.236). These predictions are then compared with nonlinear dynamical evolutions in spherical symmetry, performed with a modified-cartoon dimensional reduction of BSSN and CCZ4, and the paper reports agreement in all tested cases, including explicit perturbed evolutions. The central claim is that self-interacting or solitonic potentials can stabilize higher-dimensional boson stars against spherical dynamics.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides the first convincing examples of asymptotically flat, radially stable boson stars in D>4, a question left open by previous work on higher-dimensional mini boson stars. The manuscript includes several strengths: a general form of the pulsation equations, a released numerical code (SBSE), convergence tests at third–fourth order, BSSN/CCZ4 comparisons, and an independent check of the linear frequencies against power spectra from nonlinear evolutions. The stability statements are carefully scoped to radial/spherical dynamics, and the nonradial limitation is explicitly acknowledged. The principal risk is the unproven self-adjointness assertion underlying the linear stability criterion.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, after Eq. (25)] The statement that 'the resulting two equations form a self-adjoint system' is the sole basis for the spectral conclusions used in Sec. 3.2: real discrete χ^2, node ordering, and χ_0^2>0 ⇒ radial stability. No inner product, domain, or boundary conditions are specified, and Eqs. (26)–(27) are singular at r=0 and contain derivative couplings after elimination of δα and δψ2. Formal symmetry does not by itself guarantee the Sturm–Liouville theorem; complex eigenvalues or continuous-spectrum contributions cannot be excluded. Please provide a proof or a precise reference for the self-adjoint structure of the two-field system, or state the χ_0^2 criterion as a numerical conjecture. Agreement with D=4 results and the M(A_0) extremum checks are supportive but not a substitute.
  2. [Sec. 4.1/4.2 and Appendix C] Appendix C reports that BSSN evolutions generically show long-lasting linear growth in the Hamiltonian constraint and warns this could lead to faulty conclusions about dynamical stability. The main text does not state which formulation (BSSN or CCZ4) was used for the runs in Figs. 8–10 and Tables 2–3. If BSSN was used, justify why the growing constraint violation does not affect the stability classification or the quoted instability timescales; if CCZ4 was used, state so explicitly. As written, the nonlinear confirmation is not fully reproducible.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (30)] The Gaussian perturbation profile is written as δφ = a exp((r−r0)^2/k^2); the exponent should presumably be −(r−r0)^2/k^2.
  2. [Table 2 and Fig. 10] The label D5MBIM appears twice in Table 2 for the two perturbation types; the second should likely be D5MBII. Also, Fig. 10 refers to run 'D5BSI' while Table 2 lists 'D5SBI'.
  3. [Eq. (27)] In the coefficient of g′ the term '3X′_b/X_0' appears; this is presumably X_b rather than X_0.
  4. [Eq. (28)] The displayed expression for a appears garbled, especially the term involving γ and A_0; please check the typesetting and confirm the correct coefficient.
  5. [Sec. 3.1] The elimination of δα and δψ2 leading from Eqs. (22)–(25) to Eqs. (26)–(27) is only sketched. Including the intermediate algebra in an appendix would aid verification of the central pulsation equations.
  6. [Abstract and Introduction] Minor typos: 'D \in {5,6}' should be 'D=5,6'; in the Introduction, 'it it not necessarily sufficient' should be 'it is not necessarily sufficient'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: pulsation frequencies are derived from the field equations and independently checked by nonlinear evolutions; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central stability claim is not circular. The background configurations are obtained by shooting the ODEs (5)-(7), and the pulsation system (26)-(27) is derived by linearizing the EKG system (2) and eliminating the metric and phase perturbations, with the eigenvalue chi^2 determined by regularity and asymptotic flatness; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The nonlinear evolutions use a separate code (SBSE, [63]) and are compared to the computed frequencies as power-spectrum peaks (Fig. 8) and to the stable/unstable classification (Fig. 9, Tables 2-3), which is a genuine cross-check. The self-citations ([30], [41], [63]) are contextual: a D=4 consistency comparison, a prior solitonic-stability observation, and the code repository; they do not carry the D>4 result. The main caveats are a rigor gap, not circularity: Sec. 3.1 asserts without proof that 'the resulting two equations form a self-adjoint system' (after Eq. 25), which is needed for the node-counting and chi_0^2>0 stability interpretation; and the evolutions enforce SO(D-1) symmetry, so nonradial instabilities are excluded, as the paper explicitly acknowledges. These affect confidence but do not reduce a derived quantity to an input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The theory is standard GR+scalar field with two standard potentials. The central new content is a parameter scan over A0, lambda, sigma_0. No exotic entities are introduced. The main caveat is the spherical symmetry restriction on the nonlinear evolutions and the sparse perturbation catalog.

free parameters (4)
  • central amplitude A0 = 0.0–0.45 (scan)
    Free shooting parameter for the ODE boundary value problem; each solution is labelled by A0.
  • scalar frequency omega = adjusted per A0 to obtain asymptotically flat solutions
    Eigenvalue determined by shooting, equivalent to fitting the asymptotic boundary condition.
  • lambda_hat (quartic coupling) = 0, 200, 1000 (critical 63.4, 416)
    Model parameter scanned; the paper shows existence of stable branches only for strong coupling.
  • sigma_0 (solitonic parameter) = 0.06-0.3 (critical 0.322, 0.236)
    Model parameter scanned; the paper shows existence of stable branches for small sigma_0.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Spherical symmetry (SO(D-1)) is an isometry of the spacetime, so the metric ansatz Eq. (3) is valid for the background and perturbations.
    The entire construction and evolution is restricted to this symmetry class; non-spherical modes are not analyzed.
  • domain assumption The harmonic ansatz phi = A(r) e^{i omega t} captures the ground state; excited states are excluded.
    Stated in Section 2, restricting to ground state BS.
  • standard math The scalar field perturbation decomposition (Eq. 21) and the resulting pulsation system (Eqs. 26-27) is self-adjoint, implying ordering of eigenvalues and zero-crossing counting.
    The paper asserts self-adjointness and the associated spectral properties, which are required for the chi_0^2 > 0 criterion.
  • domain assumption Existence of asymptotically flat solutions and the shooting method convergence.
    The shooting method assumes the ODE system has unique solutions connecting the regular center to flat infinity for each omega/A0.
  • domain assumption Effective radius r99 and compactness definitions are adequate proxies for BS properties.
    r99 depends on the mass distribution; no hard surface exists.
invented entities (1)
  • stable higher-dimensional boson star solutions independent evidence
    purpose: Main result: demonstrating existence of radially stable BS with quartic/solitonic potentials in D=5,6
    Their stability is a falsifiable prediction: they remain stable under the specific perturbations and evolution timescales described.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23842 in / 7649 out tokens · 53462 ms · 2026-08-04T09:37:11.201453+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We construct spherically symmetric boson star solutions in $D \in \{4,5,6\}$ spacetime dimensions, considering the effects of both a quartic self-interaction term and a solitonic potential. We then perform a perturbative analysis, generalizing the pulsation equations to arbitrary dimension and potential and hence demonstrating the existence of radially stable higher-dimensional boson star solutions. In particular, we find stable solutions for $D \in {5, 6}$ with a quartic self-interaction term and for $D = 5$ with a solitonic potential We supplement these linear results with perturbed and unperturbed nonlinear dynamical evolutions in spherical symmetry, obtained using a dimensional reduction that allows us to evolve spacetimes with any number of background dimensions using the same numerical framework, while preserving the full gauge freedom of standard approaches to numerical relativity. The results of these evolutions indicate that the solutions we identify as perturbatively stable are indeed generally stable to nonlinear spherical dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.13988 by Abdullah Al Zaif, Gareth Arturo Marks.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Mass against radius curves for a selection of BS families, showing the impact of the spacetime dimension. For massive models, λˆ := λ/µ2 . Thus we see that BSs in D = 4 are an asymptotically special case. Because of this exponential decay, BSs do not have a hard surface. We therefore define an effective radius r99 as that enclosing 99% of the mass. Defining k := √ 1 − ω2 and introducing the new quantities … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Radius (left) and binding energy (right) against amplitude for solitonic families in D = 6, showing the divergence in r99 at sufficiently large central amplitude even as the binding energy approaches a limiting value. 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 A0/σ0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 C σ0 = 0.2 σ0 = 0.15 σ0 = 0.1 σ0 = 0.08 σ0 = 0.06 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 A0/σ0 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 C [PITH_FU… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Compactness (defined in Eq. (20)) against central amplitude for solitonic families in D = 4 (left) and 5 (right) dimensions. solution. We see this behavior borne out in all cases in D = 4 and 5 dimensions. However, for solitonic models in D = 6 with σ0 ≲ 0.35, we see that M and r99 diverge, although the binding energy EB approaches a constant. This behaviour is shown more clearly in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Bifurcation diagrams for representative mini, massive, and solitonic solution families in D = 5 spacetime dimensions. As a visual aid, we indicate the limiting solution as A0 → 0 with a blue dot. we have considered thus far. Plotting the binding energy against Noether charge for our solution families, we obtain what are called bifurcation diagrams. In addition to the hint provided by the sign of the bindin… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fundamental radial oscillation frequency χ 2 0 against central amplitude A0 for mini, massive, and solitonic BS models in varying dimension. Regions with χ 2 0 > 0 correspond to linear radial stability. Inset on the bottom panel shows the first stable branch in D = 4, which is absent in D = 5, as well as the result for D = 6. Notice χ 2 0 → 0 as the solution family diverges in the D = 6 case. shooting for … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The solid black line shows the mass M, and the dashed red line the fundamental radial oscillation frequency χ 2 0 , both against the central amplitude A0 for a massive BS family in D = 6 with λˆ = 1000. The shaded region corresponds to perturbatively stable models, i.e. those with χ 2 0 > 0. We draw attention to the fact that this region does not extend to A0 = 0, unlike in D = 4 and D = 5. This feature is… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: First excited radial frequency χ 2 1 against central amplitude A0, for mini and solitonic families. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Power spectrum of the central amplitude A0 over time for a selection of our unperturbed dynamical runs, compared to the fundamental radial mode χ0 and first overtone χ1 in cases where it is clearly excited. 4 Dynamical Evolutions While we have demonstrated the existence of higher-dimensional boson stars that are stable under radial perturbations, this by no means closes the book on the stability analysis o… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: In each plot, the black dashed curve shows M against A0 for a BS family, corresponding to the scale on the right axis. The left axis shows the results of dynamical evolutions, using red crosses for unstable evolutions and showing the instability timescale, while stable evolutions use blue dots and are assigned the value tinstability = 0. Dotted vertical lines are placed at extrema of the M(A0) curve that c… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Central amplitude A0 (left) and Noether charge N (right) over time relative to their initial values for runs representative of our four dynamical fates: D5SBI (stable evolution), D5MAI (dispersion), D6LCII (collapse to black hole), and D6LCI (migration to stable branch). exponential decay. In all cases, we see a small linear decay in the central amplitude and Noether charge over time. As we will show in A… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Boson star compactness, as defined in Eq. (20), against the potential parameters λˆ and σ0, where shaded regions include models we have identified as radially stable, for massive (top) and solitonic (bottom) families. Acknowledgments G.A.M. is grateful for helpful discussions with Seppe Staelens, Tamara Evstafyeva, Christopher J. Moore, and especially to his supervisor Ulrich Sperhake. G.A.M. is supported… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Relative decay in the central amplitude (left) and Noether charge (right) over time for a stable model with λˆ = 200, A0 = 0.02 in D = 5 dimensions at three resolutions, as well as the result of a third-order Richardson extrapolation showing convergence to zero decay. 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 µt 10−6 10−5 10−4 |H| ∆x = 1/8 Q3 · (∆x = 1/12) Q6 · (∆x = 1/18) 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 µt 10−8 10−7 |M| [PIT… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: L2 norms of the Hamiltonian (left) and momentum (right) constraints over time for a migrating model with λˆ = 200, A0 = 0.05 in D = 5 dimensions at three resolutions, with appropriate factors of the convergence factor Q = 1.5 to demonstrate third- to fourth-order convergence to zero constraint violation. The matter evolution equations are unchanged. Finally, the evolution equation for Θ is given by ∂tΘ = … view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: L2 norms of the Hamiltonian (left) and momentum (right) constraints over time for (top) a stable massive model with A0 = 0.02, λˆ = 200, D = 6, (middle) a migrating massive model with A0 = 0.05, λˆ = 200, D = 5, and (bottom) a stable solitonic model with A0 = 0.1, σ0 = 0.15, D = 5, showing the impact of switching between evolution using the BSSN and CCZ4 formalisms (with appropriately chosen damping param… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Timing-Window Mechanism for Chain-Like Transients in Collisions of Radially Excited Boson Stars

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Chain-like transients in boson star collisions are governed by a timing window set by the binary collision time relative to isolated breathing clocks rather than excitation level alone.

  2. Massive boson stars: Stability and GW emission in head-on mergers

    gr-qc 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0

    Quartically self-interacting massive boson stars are stable only up to the first mass maximum; their head-on mergers yield a boson-star remnant, a black hole at contact, or two black holes formed before contact, with ...

  3. Timing-Window Mechanism for Chain-Like Transients in Collisions of Radially Excited Boson Stars

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Chain-like transients in boson star collisions are controlled by a timing window set by matching binary collision time to the isolated breathing clock rather than excitation level alone.

  4. Black Hole-Boson Star Binaries: Gravitational Wave Signals and Tidal Disruption

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Numerical simulations of black hole-boson star binaries show that scalar self-interactions can suppress tidal disruption while radiative efficiency depends on the chosen potential.

  5. Massive boson stars: Stability and GW emission in head-on mergers

    gr-qc 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Numerical evolutions of quartically self-interacting boson stars reveal three merger outcomes and a non-monotonic gravitational-wave energy pattern driven by the competition between compactness and tidal deformability.

  6. Massive boson stars: Waveform-based branch diagnosis with neural reconstruction

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Using an existing numerical-relativity catalogue, the paper builds a branch-conditioned neural reconstruction model that infers boson-star merger outcomes from waveform morphology by comparing reconstruction quality a...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Liebling S L and Palenzuela C 2023Living Reviews in Relativity26ISSN 1433-8351 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41114-023-00043-4

    doi:10.1007/s41114-023-00043-4

  2. [2]

    Rev.172(5) 1331–1342 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRev.172.1331

    Kaup D J 1968Phys. Rev.172(5) 1331–1342 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRev.172.1331

  3. [3]

    Rev.1871767–1783

    Ruffini R and Bonazzola S 1969Phys. Rev.1871767–1783

  4. [4]

    Palenzuela C, Pani P, Bezares M, Cardoso V, Lehner L and Liebling S 2017Physical Review D 96ISSN 2470-0029 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.104058

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.104058

  5. [5]

    Bezares M, Boˇ skovi´ c M, Liebling S, Palenzuela C, Pani P and Barausse E 2022Physical Review D105ISSN 2470-0029 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.064067

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.064067

  6. [6]

    Helfer T, Sperhake U, Croft R, Radia M, Ge B X and Lim E A 2022Classical and Quantum Gravity39074001 ISSN 1361-6382 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ac53b7

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac53b7

  7. [8]

    Evstafyeva T, Sperhake U, Helfer T, Croft R, Radia M, Ge B X and Lim E A 2023Classical and Quantum Gravity40085009 ISSN 1361-6382 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ acc2a8

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/

  8. [9]

    Ge B X, Lim E A, Sperhake U, Evstafyeva T, Cors D, de Jong E, Croft R and Helfer T 2024 (Preprint2410.23839)

    arXiv 2024

  9. [10]

    Cardoso V, Ikeda T, Zhong Z and Zilh˜ ao M 2022Physical Review D106ISSN 2470-0029 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.044030

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.044030

  10. [11]

    Zhong Z, Cardoso V, Ikeda T and Zilh˜ ao M 2023Physical Review D108ISSN 2470-0029 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.084051

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.084051

  11. [12]

    Evstafyeva T, Sperhake U, Romero-Shaw I and Agathos M 2024Phys. Rev. Lett.133131401 arXiv:2406.02715 [gr-qc] (Preprint2406.02715)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [13]

    Sennett N, Hinderer T, Steinhoff J, Buonanno A and Ossokine S 2017Physical Review D96 ISSN 2470-0029 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.024002

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.024002

  13. [14]

    Bustillo J C, Sanchis-Gual N, Torres-Forn´ e A, Font J A, Vajpeyi A, Smith R, Herdeiro C, Radu E and Leong S H 2021Physical Review Letters126ISSN 1079-7114 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.081101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.081101

  14. [15]

    1103/PhysRevD.50.3650

    Sin S J 1994Physical Review D503650–3654 ISSN 0556-2821 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.50.3650

  15. [16]

    Schive H Y, Chiueh T and Broadhurst T 2014Nature Physics10496–499 ISSN 1745-2481 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys2996

    doi:10.1038/nphys2996

  16. [17]

    Synge J L 1966Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.131463–466

  17. [18]

    Cardoso V, Miranda A S, Berti E, Witek H and Zanchin V T 2009Phys. Rev. D79064016 arXiv:0812.1806 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [19]

    Koga Y, Asaka N, Kimura M and Okabayashi K 2022Phys. Rev. D105104040 (Preprint 2202.00201)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [20]

    V¨ olkel S H, Franchini N, Barausse E and Berti E 2022Phys. Rev. D106124036 (Preprint 2209.10564)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [21]

    Torres D F, Capozziello S and Lambiase G 2000Phys. Rev. D62104012 (Preprintastro-ph/ 0004064)

  21. [22]

    Guzman F S 2006Phys. Rev. D73021501 (Preprintgr-qc/0512081) 20 REFERENCES Markset al

    arXiv

  22. [23]

    Amaro-Seoane P, Barranco J, Bernal A and Rezzolla L 2010Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics2010002–002 ISSN 1475-7516 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/ 2010/11/002

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2010

  23. [24]

    Olivares H, Younsi Z, Fromm C M, Laurentis M D, Porth O, Mizuno Y, Falcke H, Kramer M and Rezzolla L 2020Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society497521–535 ISSN 0035-8711, 1365-2966 arXiv:1809.08682 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [25]

    sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0550321389903659

    Lee T and Pang Y 1989Nuclear Physics B315477–516 ISSN 0550-3213 URLhttps://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0550321389903659

    arXiv

  25. [26]

    Cunha P V P, Berti E and Herdeiro C A R 2017Phys. Rev. Lett.119251102 (PreprintarXiv: 1708.04211[gr-qc])

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [27]

    Cunha P V P and Herdeiro C A R 2020Phys. Rev. Lett.124181101 (Preprint2003.06445)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [28]

    Keir J 2016Class. Quant. Grav.33135009 (Preprint1404.7036)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [29]

    Cunha P V P, Herdeiro C, Radu E and Sanchis-Gual N 2023Phys. Rev. Lett.130061401 (Preprint2207.13713)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [30]

    Marks G A, Staelens S J, Evstafyeva T and Sperhake U 2025 Long-term stable nonlinear evolu- tions of ultracompact black-hole mimickers (Preprint2504.17775) URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2504.17775

    arXiv 2025

  30. [31]

    Evstafyeva T, Siemonsen N and East W E 2025 (Preprint2508.11527)

    arXiv 2025

  31. [32]

    Lai C W and Choptuik M W 2007 Final fate of subcritical evolutions of boson stars (Preprint 0709.0324) URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0324

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  32. [33]

    Lai C W 2004 A numerical study of boson stars (Preprintgr-qc/0410040) URLhttps:// arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0410040

    arXiv 2004

  33. [34]

    Choptuik M W and Pretorius F 2010Physical Review Letters104ISSN 1079-7114 URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.111101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.104.111101

  34. [35]

    Bizo´ n P, Chmaj T and Schmidt B G 2005Physical Review Letters95ISSN 1079-7114 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.071102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.071102

  35. [36]

    Porto Veronese B and Gundlach C 2022Physical Review D106ISSN 2470-0029 URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.104044

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.104044

  36. [37]

    Yoo C M, Nakao K i and Ida D 2005Phys. Rev. D71104014 (Preprintgr-qc/0503008)

    arXiv

  37. [38]

    Mujtaba A and Pope C 2013Physics Letters B719454–457 ISSN 0370-2693 URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2013.01.046

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.01.046 2013

  38. [39]

    Bl´ azquez-Salcedo J L, Knoll C and Radu E 2019Phys. Lett. B793161–168 (Preprint1902. 05851)

  39. [40]

    Brihaye Y and Hartmann B 2016Classical and Quantum Gravity33065002 ISSN 1361-6382 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/33/6/065002

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/6/065002

  40. [41]

    Marks G A 2025 Perturbations of solitonic boson stars: Nonlinear radial stability and binding energy (Preprint2508.11757) URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2508.11757

    arXiv 2025

  41. [42]

    org/10.1007/s10714-024-03287-9

    Franzin E 2024General Relativity and Gravitation56ISSN 1572-9532 URLhttp://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s10714-024-03287-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s10714-024-03287-9

  42. [43]

    Astefanesei D and Radu E 2003Nuclear Physics B665594–622 ISSN 0550-3213 URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(03)00482-6

    doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(03)00482-6

  43. [44]

    102.124009

    Di Giovanni F, Sanchis-Gual N, Cerd´ a-Dur´ an P, Zilh˜ ao M, Herdeiro C, Font J A and Radu E 2020Physical Review D102ISSN 2470-0029 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD. 102.124009

    doi:10.1103/physrevd

  44. [45]

    Brito M, Herdeiro C, Radu E, Sanchis-Gual N and Zilh˜ ao M 2025 Stability and collisions of excited spherical boson stars: glimpses of chains and rings (Preprint2506.06442) URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2506.06442 21 REFERENCES Markset al

    arXiv 2025

  45. [46]

    Gabler M, Sperhake U and Andersson N 2009Phys. Rev. D80(6) 064012 URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.064012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.80.064012

  46. [47]

    Pretorius F 2005Classical and Quantum Gravity22425–451 ISSN 0264-9381, 1361-6382 arXiv:gr-qc/0407110

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [48]

    Baumgarte T W and Shapiro S L 1998Phys. Rev. D59024007 gr-qc/9810065

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [49]

    Shibata M and Nakamura T 1995Phys. Rev. D525428–5444

  49. [50]

    Alic D, Bona-Casas C, Bona C, Rezzolla L and Palenzuela C 2012Phys. Rev. D85064040 arXiv:1106.2254 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [51]

    Lee T D 1987Phys. Rev. D35(12) 3637–3639 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevD.35.3637

  51. [52]

    Collodel L G and Doneva D D 2022Phys. Rev. D106084057 (Preprint2203.08203)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  52. [53]

    Evstafyeva T, Rosca-Mead R, Sperhake U and Bruegmann B 2023Phys. Rev. D108104064 (Preprint2310.05200)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  53. [54]

    Cardoso V, Macedo C F B, Maeda K i and Okawa H 2022Classical and Quantum Gravity39 034001 ISSN 1361-6382 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ac41e7

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac41e7

  54. [55]

    Gleiser M and Watkins R 1989Nucl. Phys. B319733–746

  55. [56]

    Gleiser M 1988Phys. Rev. D382376 [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 39, 1257 (1989)]

    1989

  56. [57]

    Hawley S H and Choptuik M W 2000Physical Review D62ISSN 1089-4918 URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.62.104024

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.62.104024

  57. [58]

    Kain B 2021Phys. Rev. D103123003 (Preprint2106.01740)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  58. [59]

    Santos N M, Benone C L and Herdeiro C A R 2024JCAP06068 (Preprint2404.07257)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  59. [60]

    Kusmartsev F V, Mielke E W and Schunck F E 1991Phys. Rev. D433895–3901 (Preprint 0810.0696)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  60. [61]

    doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.044022

    Siemonsen N and East W E 2021Physical Review D103ISSN 2470-0029 URLhttp://dx. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.044022

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.044022

  61. [62]

    Sanchis-Gual N, Herdeiro C and Radu E 2022Classical and Quantum Gravity39064001 ISSN 1361-6382 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ac4b9b

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac4b9b

  62. [63]

    Marks G A 2025 Spherical bs evolverhttps://github.com/GarethAMarks/Spherical_BS_ Evolver/tree/masteraccessed: 2025-10-09

    2025

  63. [64]

    Seidel E and Suen W M 1990Physical Review D42384–403 ISSN 0556-2821

  64. [65]

    Balakrishna J, Seidel E and Suen W M 1998Physical Review D58ISSN 1089-4918 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.58.104004

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.58.104004

  65. [66]

    Guzm´ an F S 2009Rev. Mex. Fis.55321–326 (Preprint1907.08193)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  66. [67]

    Guzman F S 2004Physical Review D70044033

  67. [68]

    Alcubierre M, Barranco J, Bernal A, Degollado J C, Diez-Tejedor A, Megevand M, N´ u˜ nez D and Sarbach O 2019Classical and Quantum Gravity36215013 ISSN 1361-6382 URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ab4726

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab4726

  68. [69]

    Cook W G, Sperhake U, Berti E and Cardoso V 2017Physical Review D96ISSN 2470-0029 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.124006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.124006

  69. [70]

    Liang C, Herdeiro C A R and Radu E 2025Journal of High Energy Physics2025ISSN 1029- 8479 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2025)119

    doi:10.1007/jhep03(2025)119 2025

  70. [71]

    Brito R, Cardoso V, Herdeiro C A and Radu E 2016Physics Letters B752291–295 ISSN 0370-2693 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2015.11.051 22 REFERENCES Markset al

    doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.11.051 2015

  71. [72]

    Emparan R, Suzuki R and Tanabe K 2013Journal of High Energy Physics2013ISSN 1029-8479 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2013)009

    doi:10.1007/jhep06(2013)009 2013

  72. [73]

    Cook W G, Figueras P, Kunesch M, Sperhake U and Tunyasuvunakool S 2016Int. J. Mod. Phys. D251641013 arXiv:1603.00362 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  73. [74]

    Bona C, Mass´ o J, Seidel E and Stela J 1995Physical Review Letters75600–603 ISSN 1079-7114 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.600

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.75.600

  74. [75]

    org/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.5981

    Alcubierre M 1997Physical Review D555981–5991 ISSN 1089-4918 URLhttp://dx.doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.5981

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.55.5981

  75. [76]

    Radia M, Sperhake U, Drew A, Clough K, Figueras P, Lim E A, Ripley J L, Aurrekoetxea J C, Fran¸ ca T and Helfer T 2022Class. Quant. Grav.39135006 (Preprint2112.10567)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  76. [77]

    Alic D, Kastaun W and Rezzolla L 2013Phys. Rev. D88064049 (PreprintarXiv:1307. 7391[gr-qc]) 23