pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.23931 · v3 · submitted 2025-06-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · gr-qc

Sagittarius A* near-infrared flares polarization as a probe of space-time I: Non-rotating exotic compact objects

Nicolas Aimar , Jo\~ao Lu\'is Rosa , Hanna Liis Tamm , Paulo Garcia This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 07:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE gr-qc
keywords Sagittarius A*exotic compact objectspolarizationGRAVITYnear-infrared flaresastrometryhot spot modelspace-time metrics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Polarization and astrometry from orbiting hot spots around Sgr A* can reveal non-rotating exotic compact objects with future GRAVITY+ data.

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

The paper tests whether near-infrared flares from Sagittarius A* can distinguish a black hole from alternative exotic compact objects that lack a horizon or central singularity. It simulates observations of a single hot spot orbiting in the equatorial plane and computes the resulting astrometric positions and polarization for eight different static spherically symmetric metrics, including boson stars, fluid spheres, and gravastars. Fits using current GRAVITY error bars show that no metric produces a distinguishable signature. With the smaller uncertainties expected from GRAVITY+, plunge-through images of some exotic models yield measurably different polarization curves and tracks. The authors note that adding realistic complexity to the hot spot model reduces the size of these differences.

Core claim

Plunge-through images of exotic compact objects affect the polarization and astrometry of orbiting hot spots around Sgr A*. With present GRAVITY uncertainties, none of the eight examined metrics can be distinguished from each other using reduced chi-squared or BIC Bayes factors. GRAVITY+ sensitivity would allow detection of some exotic models, although greater astrophysical complexity in the hot spot model weakens this distinction.

What carries the argument

The equatorial orbiting hot spot toy model that generates time-dependent astrometric and polarimetric light curves for each metric, which are then fitted to simulated data.

If this is right

  • Plunge-through images of ECOs produce distinct effects on polarization and astrometry.
  • Current GRAVITY uncertainties do not allow any metric model to be discerned.
  • GRAVITY+ improved sensitivity allows detection of some exotic compact object models.
  • Enhancing the astrophysical complexity of the hot spot model diminishes these outcomes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Sgr A* flares could serve as a laboratory for testing alternatives to black holes if the signals remain detectable under more realistic conditions.
  • The same simulation approach could be applied to rotating ECO metrics or to other observables such as timing or spectral features.
  • Non-detection with GRAVITY+ would tighten bounds on the allowed parameter space for these exotic objects.

Load-bearing premise

A simple single hot spot orbiting in the equatorial plane produces observable differences in polarization and astrometry that survive realistic astrophysical complications.

What would settle it

GRAVITY+ flare observations whose polarization and astrometric data fit one metric family significantly better than the others according to the same chi-squared and Bayes factor criteria used in the simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23931 by Hanna Liis Tamm, Jo\~ao Lu\'is Rosa, Nicolas Aimar, Paulo Garcia.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Time integrated image of a hot spot orbiting the Fluid sphere 2 model in the top row and the Boson star 3 model in the bottom row, close de face-on (20◦ ) left column and close to edge-on (80◦ ) right column. Extracted from (Tamm et al., in prep). The color bar corresponds to the total intensity in SI units. 2.3. Gravastar Similarly to relativistic Fluid spheres, gravitational vacuum stars, or Gravastars, … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Astrometry of an orbiting hot spot in different metric models and simulated astrometric data with current GRAVITY uncertainties. per, the field of view is set to 2.6 times the orbital radius in M units to optimize the computation time, and the default resolu￾tion is 300x300 pixels. Such resolution is sufficient to get the low-order plunge-through images from the ECO models but not the high-order ones, whic… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sketch illustrating our methodology to assess the detectability of ECO’s models. point i. The grid point with minimal χ 2 red is then utilized as first￾guess for the scipy.least_square algorithm, which also use GYOTO to compute the model. The approach described here enables the achievement of small error bars, without the need for an extensive grid. This is advantageous, as such a grid would be computation… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: which shows the contribution of the various images orders and nature, i.e. primary only in dotted line, primary + secondary (equivalent to Schwarzschild) in dashed line and all images in￾cluding the plunge-through images in solid lines. The contribu￾tion of the plunge-through images is not constant with time and varies with the orbital phase creating the detectable signature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulated data, generated in the Boson star 2 metric and represented by dots with error bars (reflecting GRAVITY-like uncertainties), are compared with two best-fitted models: one in the Boson star 2 metric (solid line) and one in the Schwarzschild metric (dashed lines). Left-panel shows the astrometry, and right-panel shows the time evolution of Q/I in red and U/I in blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fi… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The center of our galaxy hosts Sagittarius~A*, a supermassive compact object of $\sim 4.3\times 10^6$ solar masses, usually associated with a black hole. Nevertheless, black holes possess a central singularity, considered unphysical, and an event horizon, which leads to loss of unitarity in a quantum description of the system. To address these theoretical inconsistencies, alternative models, collectively known as exotic compact objects, have been proposed. In this paper, we investigate the potential detectability of signatures associated with non-rotating exotic compact objects within the Sgr~A* polarized flares dataset, as observed through GRAVITY and future instruments. We examine a total of eight distinct metrics, originating from four different categories of static and spherically symmetric compact objects: Black Holes, Boson stars, Fluid spheres, and Gravastars. Our approach involves utilizing a toy model that orbits the compact object in the equatorial plane. Using simulated astrometric and polarimetric data with present GRAVITY and future GRAVITY+ uncertainties, we fit the datasets across all metrics examined. We evaluated the detectability of the metric for each dataset based on the resulting $\chi^2_\mathrm{red}$ and BIC-based Bayes factors. Plunge-through images of ECOs affect polarization and astrometry. With GRAVITY's present uncertainties, none of the metric model is discernible. GRAVITY+'s improved sensitivity allows detection of some exotic compact object models. However, enhancing the astrophysical complexity of the hot spot model diminishes these outcomes. Presently, GRAVITY's uncertainties do not allow us to detect exotic compact object metric. With GRAVITY+'s enhanced sensitivity, we can expect to uncover additional exotic compact object models and use Sgr~A* as a laboratory for fundamental physics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript simulates astrometric and polarimetric signatures of near-infrared flares from a single hot spot on a circular equatorial orbit around non-rotating exotic compact objects (boson stars, fluid spheres, gravastars) and Schwarzschild black holes. Using toy-model data generated with current GRAVITY and projected GRAVITY+ uncertainties, the authors perform fits across the eight metrics and evaluate distinguishability via reduced chi-squared and BIC-based Bayes factors. They conclude that present GRAVITY uncertainties preclude detection of any ECO metric, while GRAVITY+ sensitivity would allow detection of some models, although added astrophysical complexity in the hot-spot model reduces these distinctions.

Significance. If the central claims are robust, the work supplies a concrete statistical framework for using polarized flares to test alternatives to black holes with future VLTI/GRAVITY+ observations of Sgr A*. The generation of independent simulated datasets and the use of BIC Bayes factors for model comparison are positive methodological features. The explicit recognition that plunge-through images affect both polarization and astrometry is a clear strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that GRAVITY+ uncertainties permit detection of some ECO metrics rests exclusively on fits to data generated by a single equatorial hot-spot toy model. Although the abstract states that 'enhancing the astrophysical complexity of the hot spot model diminishes these outcomes,' the manuscript contains no systematic quantification of how multi-spot configurations, vertical structure, or stochastic variability alter the recovered chi-squared values or Bayes-factor separations. This gap is load-bearing for the detectability conclusions.
  2. [Results] Results section (statistical comparison): The reported chi-squared and BIC differences between Schwarzschild and ECO metrics are presented without an accompanying error budget or sensitivity analysis on the assumed hot-spot orbital radius, period, and inclination; because these are the only free parameters, small changes in their priors could shift the reported separation thresholds.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for reduced chi-squared should be standardized (chi^2_red vs. chi^2_r) throughout the text and tables.
  2. [Figure captions] Figure captions should explicitly list the exact orbital parameters and inclination values used for each simulated dataset to aid reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. The comments highlight important aspects of the robustness of our detectability claims, and we address each point below with planned revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that GRAVITY+ uncertainties permit detection of some ECO metrics rests exclusively on fits to data generated by a single equatorial hot-spot toy model. Although the abstract states that 'enhancing the astrophysical complexity of the hot spot model diminishes these outcomes,' the manuscript contains no systematic quantification of how multi-spot configurations, vertical structure, or stochastic variability alter the recovered chi-squared values or Bayes-factor separations. This gap is load-bearing for the detectability conclusions.

    Authors: We agree that the single equatorial hot-spot toy model is a simplification and that a full systematic scan of multi-spot, vertical structure, and stochastic variability would provide stronger support for the GRAVITY+ detectability statements. The abstract already includes the qualifying statement that added complexity diminishes the distinctions, but we accept that this is insufficient without further illustration. In the revised version we will add a short subsection in the discussion that reports results from a limited two-spot test case (showing reduced but still detectable separations for the strongest ECO models) and will explicitly frame the single-spot results as an upper bound on distinguishability. Full exploration of all complexities is beyond the present scope and will be noted as future work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] Results section (statistical comparison): The reported chi-squared and BIC differences between Schwarzschild and ECO metrics are presented without an accompanying error budget or sensitivity analysis on the assumed hot-spot orbital radius, period, and inclination; because these are the only free parameters, small changes in their priors could shift the reported separation thresholds.

    Authors: The orbital radius, period, and inclination are fitted parameters in our analysis. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that an explicit sensitivity study on these parameters would strengthen the statistical comparison. We will add to the revised results section a brief sensitivity analysis in which the best-fit values are varied within their posterior uncertainties and the chi-squared and BIC differences are recomputed; this will demonstrate that the reported separations for the models claimed to be detectable with GRAVITY+ remain stable. The updated text will include the corresponding error budget on the separation metrics. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Simulation and recovery fits to ECO metrics show no circularity

full rationale

The paper generates independent simulated astrometric and polarimetric datasets from a single equatorial hot-spot toy model under each metric, then performs separate chi-squared fits and BIC Bayes factor comparisons across the eight metrics. This is a standard forward-modeling distinguishability test whose outputs (detectability thresholds for GRAVITY+) are numerical results of the fits rather than quantities defined by or forced to equal the input model parameters. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain. The abstract's note that added astrophysical complexity diminishes outcomes is an explicit caveat, not a circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a simplified toy model of flare emission and on the adoption of eight previously published static spherically symmetric metrics; several orbital and emission parameters must be chosen or fitted, and the analysis assumes that metric differences dominate over unmodeled astrophysical effects.

free parameters (2)
  • hot spot orbital radius and period
    These parameters are adjusted within the toy model to generate the simulated flare light curves and polarization swings.
  • viewing inclination
    The angle between the orbital plane and the line of sight is a free parameter that affects the observed astrometry and polarization.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The space-time around the compact object is static and spherically symmetric
    All eight examined metrics belong to this class as stated in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Flare emission can be approximated by a single compact orbiting hot spot
    The toy model invoked throughout the study relies on this simplification.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5884 in / 1484 out tokens · 61165 ms · 2026-05-19T07:25:58.707710+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Testing solitonic boson star interpretations of Sagittarius A* with near-infrared flare astrometry

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Fitting GRAVITY flare astrometry to solitonic boson star models requires masses larger than 4.3 million solar masses, with more diffuse models yielding values closer to the standard black hole mass and thus placing st...

  2. Bayesian Analysis of Massive Boson Star Models for Sagittarius A* Using Near-Infrared Astrometry Data

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Bayesian analysis shows current near-IR astrometry data cannot distinguish massive boson stars from Schwarzschild black holes for Sgr A*.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    & Bouzenada, A

    Ahmed, F. & Bouzenada, A. 2024, European Physical Journal C, 84, 1271

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    H., et al

    Aimar, N., Dmytriiev, A., Vincent, F. H., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A62

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    H., Gourgoulhon, E., & Perrin, G

    Aimar, N., Paumard, T., Vincent, F. H., Gourgoulhon, E., & Perrin, G. 2024, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 41, 095010

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    & Nozari, K

    Aliyan, F. & Nozari, K. 2024, Physics of the Dark Universe, 46, 101611

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    & Nathanail, A

    Antonopoulou, E. & Nathanail, A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.10115

    work page arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    K., Bautz, M

    Baganoff, F. K., Bautz, M. W., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2001, Nature, 413, 45 Barrière, N. M., Tomsick, J. A., Baganoff, F. K., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 46

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    & Eisenhauer, F

    Bourdarot, G. & Eisenhauer, F. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.22063

    work page arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    C., Markoff, S., Dexter, J., et al

    Bower, G. C., Markoff, S., Dexter, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 802, 69

    work page 2015

  9. [9]

    D., Falcke, H., Law, C

    Brinkerink, C. D., Falcke, H., Law, C. J., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A41

    work page 2015

  10. [10]

    Broderick, A. E. & Loeb, A. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 905

    work page 2006

  11. [11]

    2022, Physical Review D, 106, 124048

    Carballo-Rubio, R., Di Filippo, F., & Liberati, S. 2022, Physical Review D, 106, 124048

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    & Pani, P

    Cardoso, V . & Pani, P. 2019, Living Reviews in Relativity, 22, 4

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    Collaboration, T. E. H. T., Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al. 2024, The Astrophys- ical Journal Letters, 964, L25 De Laurentis, M., de Martino, I., & Della Monica, R. 2023, Reports on Progress in Physics, 86, 104901

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    M., Morris, M

    Do, T., Ghez, A. M., Morris, M. R., et al. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1021

    work page 2009

  15. [15]

    & Others

    Doe, J. & Others. 2024, ArXiv e-prints [arXiv:2408.09893] Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, L26 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, L12

    work page arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 1075

    Foschi, A., Abuter, R., Aimar, N., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1075

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    2024, Phys

    Gan, X., Wang, L.-T., & Xiao, H. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 063039

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    2003, Nature, 425, 934

    Genzel, R., Schödel, R., Ott, T., et al. 2003, Nature, 425, 934

    work page 2003

  19. [19]

    M., Wright, S

    Ghez, A. M., Wright, S. A., Matthews, K., et al. 2004, ApJ, 601, L159

    work page 2004

  20. [20]

    M., Eisenhauer, F., et al

    Gillessen, S., Plewa, P. M., Eisenhauer, F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 30 GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Accardo, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A94 Gravity Collaboration, Abuter, R., Aimar, N., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, L10 GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Aimar, N., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, L12 GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2018a, A...

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    2019, ApJ, 886, 96

    Haggard, D., Nynka, M., Mon, B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 96

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    2009, ApJ, 692, 902

    Hamaus, N., Paumard, T., Müller, T., et al. 2009, ApJ, 692, 902

    work page 2009

  23. [23]

    Hawking, S. W. 1976, Phys. Rev. D, 14, 2460

    work page 1976

  24. [24]

    L., Witzel, G., Ashby, M

    Hora, J. L., Witzel, G., Ashby, M. L. N., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, 120

    work page 2014

  25. [25]

    D., Matthews, K., Ghez, A

    Hornstein, S. D., Matthews, K., Ghez, A. M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 667, 900

    work page 2007

  26. [26]

    Kass, R. E. & and, A. E. R. 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773

    work page 1995

  27. [27]

    Li, M.-Q

    Li, G.-P., Wu, M.-Q., He, K.-J., & Jiang, Q.-Q. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.14734

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    & Bambi, C

    Li, Z. & Bambi, C. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 90, 024071

    work page 2014

  29. [29]

    2014, ApJ, 787, 152

    Li, Z., Kong, L., & Bambi, C. 2014, ApJ, 787, 152

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 1271

    Lin, X., Li, Y .-P., & Yuan, F. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 1271

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Liu, D., Li, Z., & Bambi, C. 2015, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2015, 020

    work page 2015

  32. [32]

    S., Joshi, A

    Marszewski, A., Prather, B. S., Joshi, A. V ., Pandya, A., & Gammie, C. F. 2021, ApJ, 921, 17

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    2004, A&A, 413, 173

    Nayakshin, S., Cuadra, J., & Sunyaev, R. 2004, A&A, 413, 173

    work page 2004

  34. [34]

    A., Gammie, C., et al

    Neilsen, J., Nowak, M. A., Gammie, C., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 42

    work page 2013

  35. [35]

    A., Neilsen, J., Markoff, S

    Nowak, M. A., Neilsen, J., Markoff, S. B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 759, 95

    work page 2012

  36. [36]

    1965, Phys

    Penrose, R. 1965, Phys. Rev. Lett., 14, 57

    work page 1965

  37. [37]

    1969, Nuovo Cimento Rivista Serie, 1, 252

    Penrose, R. 1969, Nuovo Cimento Rivista Serie, 1, 252

    work page 1969

  38. [38]

    Perrucci, I., Kuipers, F., & Casadio, R. 2025, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2025, 005

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    R., et al

    Ponti, G., De Marco, B., Morris, M. R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1525

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    Rosa, J. a. L., Aimar, N., & Liis Tamm, H. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.02472

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Rosa, J. a. L., Cordeiro, D. S. J., Macedo, C. F. B., & Lobo, F. S. N. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 084002

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    Rosa, J. a. L., Macedo, C. F. B., & Rubiera-Garcia, D. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 044021

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    L., Garcia, P., Vincent, F

    Rosa, J. L., Garcia, P., Vincent, F. H., & Cardoso, V . 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 044031

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 1967

    Shaikh, R. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 1967

    work page 2022

  45. [45]

    & Melia, F

    Tagger, M. & Melia, F. 2006, ApJ, 636, L33

    work page 2006

  46. [46]

    Tamm, H. L. & Rosa, J. a. L. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 044062 The GRA VITY Collaboration, El Dayem, K. A., Abuter, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.02908

    work page arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    2022, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 40, 165007

    Vagnozzi, S., Visinelli, L., & Others. 2022, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 40, 165007

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    2025, European Physical Jour- nal Plus, 140, 23 Article number, page 11 of 14 A&A proofs: manuscript no

    Vertogradov, V ., Misyura, M., & Bambhaniya, P. 2025, European Physical Jour- nal Plus, 140, 23 Article number, page 11 of 14 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    H., Paumard, T., Gourgoulhon, E., & Perrin, G

    Vincent, F. H., Paumard, T., Gourgoulhon, E., & Perrin, G. 2011, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 28, 225011

    work page 2011

  50. [50]

    H., Paumard, T., Perrin, G., et al

    Vincent, F. H., Paumard, T., Perrin, G., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3477

    work page 2014

  51. [51]

    H., Wielgus, M., Aimar, N., Paumard, T., & Perrin, G

    Vincent, F. H., Wielgus, M., Aimar, N., Paumard, T., & Perrin, G. 2024, A&A, 684, A194

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    K., Kala, S., & Siwach, S

    Vishvakarma, B. K., Kala, S., & Siwach, S. 2025, Annals of Physics, 475, 169957 von Fellenberg, S. D., Roychowdhury, T., Michail, J. M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, L20

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    2007, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779

    Wagenmakers, E.-J. 2007, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779

    work page 2007

  54. [54]

    Walia, R. K. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 064058

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    2022, A&A, 665, L6

    Wielgus, M., Moscibrodzka, M., V os, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, L6

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.20109

    Yan, Z. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.20109

    work page arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Hot spots around Sagittarius A* - Joint fits to astrometry and polarimetry,

    Yfantis, A. I., Wielgus, M., & Mo ´scibrodzka, M. A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.07120

    work page arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Blind" tests results To ensure the accuracy of our findings and verify that they do not rely on a particular selection of values, we have conducted two

    Yusef-Zadeh, F., Roberts, D., Wardle, M., Heinke, C. O., & Bower, G. C. 2006, ApJ, 650, 189 Article number, page 12 of 14 Nicolas Aimar and João Luís Rosa, Hanna Liis Tamm, Paulo Garcia: Sagittarius A* near-infrared flares polarization as a probe of space-time I: Appendix A: "Blind" tests results To ensure the accuracy of our findings and verify that they...

    work page 2006