Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 8 cited by

Probing Fundamental Constant Oscillation in the Galactic Center with S-Star Spectroscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Time-resolved spectroscopy of S-stars around the Milky Way's central black hole can probe quadratic scalar-photon couplings down to the KSVZ-like QCD axion prediction.

desk verdict A transparent sensitivity forecast for oscillating alpha in the Galactic Center; the frame-level idea is new and sound, but the current-data reach rests on a single night of noise calibration. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07482 v2 pith:RR4XGLOX submitted 2025-07-10 hep-ph astro-ph.HEgr-qc

Zhaoyu Bai , Vitor Cardoso , Yifan Chen , Tuan Do , Aurélien Hees , Huangyu Xiao , Xiao Xue This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords fine-structureconstantultralightaxionsquadraticscalar-photoncouplingS-starspectroscopySagittariusA*superradiancesolitondarkmatterfundamentalvariation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the stars orbiting Sgr A$^*$ at the Galactic Center are a natural laboratory for detecting ultralight axions and scalars through their quadratic couplings to photons. In the high-field environments created by a superradiant cloud around the black hole or by a soliton dark-matter core, those couplings make the fine-structure constant oscillate with periods of roughly 10--40 minutes. The paper shows that individual frames of already-taken 2017--2018 S0-2/S2 spectra, analyzed frame by frame rather than night by night, could exclude quadratic couplings $|C_\gamma|<1$ for part of the superradiance parameter space, and that planned high-resolution spectrographs observing about 40 late-type stars could reach $|C_\gamma|\approx 3\times 10^{-5}$, the value predicted by KSVZ-like QCD axion models. The result is a sensitivity projection, not a detection, but it shows that an astrophysical environment can rival terrestrial atomic-clock searches for this class of couplings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quadratic coupling operator $C_\gamma \phi^2 F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}/(4 f_\phi^2)$, which changes the fine-structure constant by $C_\gamma \phi^2/f_\phi^2$ when the scalar field oscillates. For the superradiance scenario the central waveform is the $(2,1,1)$ bound-state solution, $\phi = \phi_0^{\rm max} R(r)\cos(\mu t-\varphi+\Delta_0)\sin\theta$, with $\phi_0^{\rm max}\approx 0.5\alpha_G f_\phi$ and radial profile $R(r)=\exp(1-\alpha_G^2 r/2 r_g)\,\alpha_G^2 r/2 r_g$; for dark matter, the soliton core provides a spatially flat amplitude $\phi_c\approx 2\times 10^{11}$ GeV. The analysis machinery is a linear maximum-likelihood fit to per-frame line shifts, with signal $s(t,x)=s_0(x)[A\sin(2\mu t-2\varphi)+B\cos(2\mu t-2\varphi)]$, night-specific instrumental offsets, and Fisher-information error propagation, which converts the fitted amplitudes $A,B$ into a constraint on $C_\gamma/f_\phi^2$. The atomic transition sensitivities $k_{\alpha,j}$, near 2 for hydrogen lines, connect the observed wavelength shifts to $\alpha_{\rm EM}$.

What would settle it

Extract per-frame radial velocities from all raw 2017--2018 OSIRIS, IRCS, and NIFS frames of S0-2/S2, subtract the best-fit Keplerian plus relativistic redshift, and compare the residual variance and correlations with the single-night NIFS calibration; if the typical frame-to-frame scatter is appreciably above about 28 km/s or the residuals are correlated across frames, the projected exclusion curves move upward accordingly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that quadratic scalar-photon couplings, encoded in the interaction $\mathcal{L}_{\rm EM} = C_\gamma \phi^2 F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}/(4 f_\phi^2)$, induce measurable oscillations of the fine-structure constant in the Galactic Center. A superradiant axion cloud around the black hole saturates at a field amplitude close to $0.5\alpha_G f_\phi$ for the dominant $(2,1,1)$ mode, and a dark-matter soliton core carries a nearly constant amplitude of about $2\times 10^{11}$ GeV. Because S-star absorption lines shift as $\delta\lambda/\lambda = -k_{\alpha,j}\,\delta\alpha_{\rm EM}/\alpha_{\rm EM}$, and because the Keplerian and relativistic redshift contributions are already fit by orbital monitoring, the residual fast oscillation at angular frequency $2\mu$ is a clean target for the quadratic coupling. Modeling per-frame residuals with realistic noise from a single Gemini night, the paper derives projected exclusions: the 2017--2018 S0-2/S2 frames push below $|C_\gamma|=1$ around $\alpha_G\approx 0.03$, and a future campaign with a late-type star ten times closer to the black hole, three orders of magnitude better spectral resolution, and forty stars observed simultaneously in the soliton core reaches $|C_\gamma|\approx 3\times 10^{-5}$.

Load-bearing premise

The projection for existing data assumes that the per-frame noise measured on one night of Gemini NIFS data, about 28 km/s with independent Gaussian scatter, is representative of every spectroscopic frame of S0-2/S2 taken in 2017--2018 across the three instruments that observed it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Frame-level analysis of the existing 2017--2018 S0-2/S2 spectroscopic data can already constrain quadratic scalar-photon couplings, with an exclusion dipping below $|C_\gamma|=1$ near $\alpha_G\approx 0.03$.
  • HISPEC/MODHIS observations of a late-type star at one-tenth of the S0-2/S2 semi-major axis, with three orders of magnitude better precision, would extend the reach to $|C_\gamma|\approx 3\times 10^{-5}$, testing the KSVZ-like QCD axion prediction.
  • Observing about 40 stars simultaneously inside the soliton-core region turns the stellar population into a correlated network, reaching axion masses $\mu\lesssim 10^{-18}$ eV with sensitivity comparable to terrestrial clocks at higher frequencies.
  • Uncertainties in the black-hole spin orientation, $i_{\rm BH}$ and $\Omega_{\rm BH}$, affect the projected exclusions only mildly, so the result is robust to current spin constraints.
  • The superradiance channel covers scalar masses between about $7.8\times 10^{-19}$ eV and $3.1\times 10^{-18}$ eV, corresponding to oscillation periods of 11 to 44 minutes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct re-analysis of the archived per-frame spectra from all three instruments, rather than the single-night noise proxy, could convert the current-data projection into a real bound without waiting for new telescopes.
  • If closer late-type stars with shorter periods are identified around Sgr A$^*$, the same method could probe larger $\alpha_G$ and possibly higher axion modes, extending the mass range beyond the $(2,1,1)$ cloud considered here.
  • The anisotropic cloud wavefunction means that different S-stars sample different oscillation phases and amplitudes; combining their spectra could map the cloud morphology, turning the S-star network into a time-resolved tomograph of the boson field.
  • The same logic should apply to other galactic nuclei with well-measured stellar orbits, where a supermassive black hole could host a superradiant cloud or soliton core, so the technique is not limited to the Milky Way.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using time-resolved, frame-level spectroscopy of S-stars around Sgr A* to search for oscillations of the fine-structure constant induced by quadratically coupled ultralight scalars or axions. Two production mechanisms are considered: superradiant axion clouds around the black hole, whose saturated (2,1,1) mode produces oscillations with periods of 10-40 minutes, and a soliton-like dark matter core with a nearly constant field amplitude. The signal is modeled through the quadratic coupling C_γ φ²F F/f_φ², and the projected sensitivity is obtained from a Fisher-matrix forecast with mock residuals built from per-frame radial-velocity uncertainties calibrated on a single night of Gemini NIFS data. The central claims are that 2017-2018 S0-2/S2 frame-level data could constrain |C_γ| below 1 near α_G ≈ 0.03, and that future HISPEC/MODHIS observations of 40 late-type stars could reach |C_γ| ≈ 3×10^-5, touching the KSVZ-like QCD axion line. The paper is explicitly a sensitivity projection, not a detection or a measurement.

Significance. If the sensitivity projections hold, the paper opens a new observational window on quadratic scalar-photon couplings in the high-boson-density environment of the Galactic Center, with the 40-star future projection reaching parameter space relevant for the QCD axion. The statistical formalism is clearly described: the likelihood, the Fisher matrix, and the mock-generation procedure are all explicit, and the signal wavefunction is taken from published superradiance results rather than fitted to the data. The use of real NIFS frame-level noise, albeit from a single night, is a strength compared with purely speculative forecasts. The main value of the paper is therefore as a well-posed sensitivity study that identifies frame-level S-star spectroscopy as a promising probe; its quantitative reach, especially for current data, depends on assumptions about noise representativeness and independence that are acknowledged but not yet quantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplemental Sec. III.A; Figs. 2-3] The current-data exclusion curves rest entirely on the assumption that the per-frame noise calibrated from one night of Gemini NIFS data (2018-05-13; 8 usable frames; median RV uncertainty 28 km/s and scatter 24 km/s) is representative of all OSIRIS, IRCS, and NIFS frames taken in 2017-2018. The paper states this explicitly and concedes that 'the results can be sensitive to how the spectra are extracted and correlated.' Since this sigma enters directly into the Fisher matrix in Supplemental Sec. II.A, the |C_γ| < 1 reach at α_G ≈ 0.03 in Fig. 2 scales roughly linearly with the assumed per-frame uncertainty; a factor of 2-3 larger systematics, or a non-negligible fraction of corrupted frames beyond the assumed 25%, would remove the dip below |C_γ| = 1. The manuscript should quantify this dependence, for example by rescaling sigma by factors of 2, 3, and 5 and by recomputing the exclusion curves with a reduced usable-frame fraction. This is a necessary robustness check for the headline current-data claim.
  2. [Supplemental Sec. II.A and III.A] The likelihood in Eq. (S8) treats each frame as an independent Gaussian measurement with diagonal covariance. The frame-level relative RVs are obtained by cross-correlating each spectrum with the combined spectrum of the night, and the paper itself notes that the results depend on how spectra are extracted and correlated. Correlated residuals, either within a night (telluric or wavelength-calibration systematics) or across nights, would reduce the effective number of independent samples and weaken the projected limits. The authors should add a test with correlated noise, for example a common nightly offset parameter k_{I,n} of the type introduced in the pedagogical example of Supplemental Sec. II.C, or an autoregressive correlation between consecutive frames, and show the effect on Figs. 2 and 3. Without such a test, the assumption of independent per-frame Gaussian noise is load-bearing and unverified.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 3] The future projection assumes a 10^3 improvement in per-frame RV precision, a halved cadence, a tenfold longer campaign, and simultaneous observation of 40 late-type stars with one-tenth the semimajor axis of S0-2/S2. These assumptions are stated, but the last one is not tied to a known stellar population: the S-cluster is dominated by early-type stars, and it is unclear whether 40 late-type stars with the required brightness, spectral lines, and accurately known orbits exist within the soliton core and the field of view. Because this assumption directly sets the vertical reach of the HISPEC/MODHIS band in Fig. 3, the paper should either identify a concrete target list or clearly present the 40-star curve as an idealized sensitivity envelope.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title in the manuscript, 'Probing Axions via Spectroscopic Measurements of S-stars at the Galactic Center,' differs from the arXiv metadata title 'Probing Fundamental Constant Oscillation in the Galactic Center with S-Star Spectroscopy'; these should be unified.
  2. [Sec. IV near Eq. (4c)] The sentence 'the field value may saturate at its decay constant' is inconsistent with Eq. (4c), which gives φ_0^max ≈ 0.5 α_G f_φ; for the adopted range α_G ≤ 0.1 the field amplitude is well below f_φ. Please rephrase to avoid overstating the saturation amplitude.
  3. [Supplemental Sec. III.A and Fig. S2] There are small typographical errors: 'NISF from the Gemini observatory' should be 'NIFS,' and the Fig. S2 caption contains 'nnight' instead of 'night.'
  4. [Eq. (5)] The text introducing Eq. (5) refers to 'the residual deviation δλ_j of the k-th spectral line,' but the subscript is j; this should be the j-th line for consistency with k_{α,j}.
  5. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption states the 'fiducial values of i_BH = 155° ± 5° and Ω_BH = 177° ± 25°' for the black line; it would be clearer to state the central values alone for the black line and attribute the gray band to the quoted uncertainties.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the projected constraints are a self-contained Fisher forecast under the null, with the cloud amplitude taken from external superradiance results and the noise floor from real NIFS data; the explicit single-night noise-representativeness assumption is a robustness caveat, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) the quadratic coupling Lagrangian (Eq. 1) produces a fine-structure shift (Eq. 2); (ii) the cloud field profile is taken from the external superradiance and saturation results of Gruzinov and Baryakhtar et al. (Eqs. 4a-4c, Refs. [41,42]); (iii) the stellar spectral-line response is the standard k_alpha relation (Eq. 5), with k_alpha detailed in the published, independent work by Hees et al. [32]; (iv) the per-frame noise is calibrated from one real night of Gemini NIFS data (Supplemental Sec. III.A) and mock null residuals are generated; (v) a linear Fisher/likelihood analysis under the null (Supplemental Sec. II.A) converts that noise into an exclusion curve for C_gamma. No parameter is fitted to the target C_gamma and then renamed a prediction; the exclusion curves are projections, not measurements. The only load-bearing assumption that is explicitly flagged is that the noise measured on 2018-05-13 is representative of all 2017-2019 frames across OSIRIS, IRCS, and NIFS: 'we assume that the characteristic instrumental noise is representative of all spectroscopic measurements conducted between 2017 and 2019 across various instruments.' If the true per-frame systematics are larger or correlated, the reach in Figs. 2 and 3 moves up; this is a robustness or validity concern, not circularity. The several self-citations (e.g., Refs. [37-39,120-122,133]) appear in complementary-probe discussion or as the source of the external atomic sensitivity k_alpha; none of these reduces the central claim to the paper's own inputs. Accordingly, no circular step is identified and the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks.

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

The analysis introduces no new particles or forces; it uses existing axion/ALP/scalar dark matter scenarios. The free parameters are dominated by the noise model calibration (single-night median uncertainty, Gamma shape, unusable fraction) and by the adopted scan range of alpha_G. The axioms are standard effective field theory inputs and external astrophysical profiles. The central projection depends most heavily on the noise model assumption, which is calibrated on a very small sample.

free parameters (6)
  • median per-frame spectroscopic uncertainty = approx 28 km/s (delta_lambda/lambda approx 1e-4)
    Fitted to 8 usable frames from one night (2018-05-13) of Gemini NIFS S0-2/S2 observations; assumed representative of all 2017-2018 data from three instruments. Directly sets the mock noise floor and therefore the projected exclusion reach.
  • Gamma shape parameter for frame uncertainties = 3
    Fitted to the distribution of RV uncertainty values from the same single night, then used to draw mock per-frame uncertainties for all nights.
  • fraction of unusable frames = 25%
    Assumed from 8 of 12 frames being usable on the calibration night; applied to the entire 2017-2018 mock dataset.
  • scalar gravitational fine-structure constant alpha_G = 0.025 to 0.1 (scan)
    Chosen by hand so the superradiant growth time is under 1e10 yr and the Newtonian wavefunction is valid; maps to scalar mass mu in [7.8e-19, 3.1e-18] eV. Defines the mass range of the projected constraint.
  • line sensitivity coefficient k_alpha,j = approx 2 (Br-gamma hydrogen line)
    Taken from Ref [32] as the sensitivity of the hydrogen line wavelength to alpha_EM; used in the signal model.
  • future spectroscopic precision improvement = 10^3
    Assumed for HISPEC/MODHIS relative to current NIFS; also a halved exposure cadence and tenfold longer baseline are assumed. This drives the future projection to the QCD axion line.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The quadratic coupling L = (C_gamma/4)(phi^2/f_phi^2) F_mu_nu F^mu_nu produces delta_alpha/alpha = C_gamma phi^2/f_phi^2
    Eqs. (1)-(2); the effective operator is generated at loop level for axions. Used to translate the scalar field value into a spectroscopic signal. External EFT input, not derived here.
  • domain assumption A saturated superradiant cloud around Sgr A* is described by the (2,1,1) mode with amplitude phi_max approx 0.5 alpha_G f_phi
    Eqs. (4a)-(4c), from Gruzinov 2016 and Baryakhtar et al. 2021. Requires Sgr A* spin a_J >= 0.5 and a scalar mass in the corresponding range; cloud growth must fit within about 1e10 yr. This sets the signal amplitude in the cloud scenario.
  • domain assumption The BH spin orientation is i_BH = 155 deg +/- 5 deg and Omega_BH = 177 deg +/- 25 deg
    Adopted from GRAVITY hotspot fits (Ref [73]); used to project the S0-2 orbit into the BH frame. The gray band in Fig. 2 accounts for these uncertainties.
  • domain assumption Orbital Doppler and gravitational redshift residuals are independent Gaussian noise with per-frame variance sigma^2 after fitting the known S0-2/S2 orbit
    Used in the likelihood (Eq. S8) and mock data generation; the calibration night shows scatter consistent with the uncertainties, but this is verified for only one night.
  • domain assumption The soliton core of axion dark matter has amplitude phi_c0 approx 2e11 GeV and size r_c = 4 pc (1e-18 eV/mu)
    Taken from Schive et al. 2014 (Ref [74]); used for the dark matter scenario and the 40-star network projection.
  • domain assumption The star's atmosphere spectral lines shift with delta_lambda/lambda = -k_alpha delta_alpha/alpha
    Eq. (5), from Hees et al. 2020 (Ref [32]). The sensitivity coefficients k_alpha,j are known for atomic transitions in S-stars.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Fundamental Constant Oscillation in the Galactic Center with S-Star Spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RR4XGLOX

@misc{pith2026250707482,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Fundamental Constant Oscillation in the Galactic Center with S-Star Spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RR4XGLOX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07482}
}
abstract

Astrophysical spectroscopy provides a powerful probe of spacetime variations of fundamental constants, as atomic and ionic emission and absorption lines depend sensitively on the fine-structure constant. In particular, coherent temporal oscillations induced by an ultralight scalar background produce characteristic, time-resolved signatures that can be robustly disentangled from intrinsic variability. In the Galactic Center, such scalar backgrounds can be substantially enhanced, either through the formation of dense scalar clouds powered by black hole rotational energy extraction or as ultralight scalar dark matter forming a soliton-like core. These scalar configurations generically induce oscillations of the fine-structure constant, with periods set by the scalar mass and spatial profiles determined by the scalar wavefunction and its coupling to the electromagnetic sector. We show that precise, time-resolved spectroscopy of S-stars orbiting the supermassive black hole Sgr A$^*$ provides a sensitive test of these effects, enabling constraints on quadratic scalar-photon couplings in the exceptionally high boson-density environment of the Galactic Center.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07482 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: An example of the normalized axion/scalar cloud [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Projective constraints on the quadratic scalar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Projective constraints on the axion decay con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

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

  1. Constraining interacting dark energy models with black hole superradiance

    astro-ph.CO 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Black hole superradiance constrains the coupling strength in interacting dark energy-dark matter models through modifications to the effective mass of ultralight bosons in two scenarios.

  2. Ultralight Boson Ionization from Comparable-Mass Binary Black Holes

    gr-qc 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Ionization of boson molecules bound to a black hole binary can dominate gravitational-wave losses during early inspiral, imprinting a turnover in the nanohertz GW background and circularizing the orbit.

  3. Probing Quadratically Coupled Ultralight Dark Matter with the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LISA forecasts for quadratically coupled ultralight dark matter show competitive or superior sensitivity to terrestrial and astrophysical probes in selected mass windows, free of screening.

  4. Gravitational superfluorescence from superradiant axion clouds

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Superradiant axion clouds around black holes can undergo gravitational superfluorescence via a seeded coherent quadrupolar transition, leading to a detectable delayed gravitational-wave pulse.

  5. Stellar Superradiance and Low-Energy Absorption in Dense Nuclear Media

    hep-ph 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Collective nucleon scattering in neutron-star matter suppresses the effective absorption of ultralight bosons at the long wavelengths relevant for superradiance, weakening the link between stellar cooling bounds and s...

  6. Probing Quadratically Coupled Ultralight Dark Matter with Pulsar Timing Arrays

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For quadratically coupled ultralight dark matter, pulsar timing arrays can set competitive coherent-signal limits at 10^-24–10^-22 eV, while stochastic-signal limits remain weaker than equivalence-principle constraint...

  7. Constraining Ultralight Scalar Dark Matter in the Galactic Center with the S2 Orbit

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using S2 star periastron precession, the work constrains ultralight scalar dark matter mass ratios to below 10^{-3} or 1 and improves quadratic coupling bounds for masses 10^{-20} to 10^{-18} eV.

  8. Probing dense environments around Sgr A* with S-stars dynamics

    astro-ph.GA 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Models apsidal precession and dynamical friction from extended matter to extend GRAVITY constraints on boson clouds around Sgr A* and assess impacts on S-star orbits.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

138 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 8 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Cos- mology of the Invisible Axion,

    John Preskill, Mark B. Wise, and Frank Wilczek, “Cos- mology of the Invisible Axion,” Phys. Lett. B 120, 127– 132 (1983)

    1983

  2. [2]

    A Cosmological Bound on the Invisible Axion,

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, “A Cosmological Bound on the Invisible Axion,” Phys. Lett. B120, 133–136 (1983)

    1983

  3. [3]

    The Not So Harmless Axion,

    Michael Dine and Willy Fischler, “The Not So Harmless Axion,” Phys. Lett. B 120, 137–141 (1983)

    1983

  4. [4]

    Axions In String Theory,

    Peter Svrcek and Edward Witten, “Axions In String Theory,” JHEP 06, 051 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0605206

    arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    String Axiverse,

    Asimina Arvanitaki, Savas Dimopoulos, Sergei Dubovsky, Nemanja Kaloper, and John March- Russell, “String Axiverse,” Phys. Rev. D 81, 123530 (2010), arXiv:0905.4720 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    The Fundamental Constants and Their Variation: Observational Status and Theoret- ical Motivations,

    Jean-Philippe Uzan, “The Fundamental Constants and Their Variation: Observational Status and Theoret- ical Motivations,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 403 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0205340

    arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    Environmental dependence of masses and coupling constants,

    Keith A. Olive and Maxim Pospelov, “Environmental dependence of masses and coupling constants,” Phys. Rev. D 77, 043524 (2008), arXiv:0709.3825 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    Varying Constants, Gravitation and Cosmology,

    Jean-Philippe Uzan, “Varying Constants, Gravitation and Cosmology,” Living Rev. Rel. 14, 2 (2011), arXiv:1009.5514 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2011

Show all 138 references
  1. [9]

    Can dark matter induce cosmological evolution of the fundamental con- stants of Nature?

    Y. V. Stadnik and V. V. Flambaum, “Can dark matter induce cosmological evolution of the fundamental con- stants of Nature?” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 201301 (2015), arXiv:1503.08540 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [10]

    The status of varying constants: a review of the physics, searches and implications,

    C. J. A. P. Martins, “The status of varying constants: a review of the physics, searches and implications,” (2017), 10.1088/1361-6633/aa860e, arXiv:1709.02923 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Search for New Physics with Atoms and Molecules,

    M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, Derek F. Jack- son Kimball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, “Search for New Physics with Atoms and Molecules,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025008 (2018), arXiv:1710.01833 [physics.atom-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Fundamental constants: from measurement to the universe, a window on gravita- tion and cosmology,

    Jean-Philippe Uzan, “Fundamental constants: from measurement to the universe, a window on gravita- tion and cosmology,” (2024), arXiv:2410.07281 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Dilaton Couplings at Large Distances,

    T. R. Taylor and G. Veneziano, “Dilaton Couplings at Large Distances,” Phys. Lett. B 213, 450–454 (1988)

    1988

  6. [14]

    String theory and gravity,

    T. Damour and Alexander M. Polyakov, “String theory and gravity,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 26, 1171–1176 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9411069

    1994 arXiv

  7. [15]

    New dimensions at a mil- limeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV,

    Ignatios Antoniadis, Nima Arkani-Hamed, Savas Di- mopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, “New dimensions at a mil- limeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV,” Phys. Lett. B 436, 257–263 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9804398

    1998 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Phe- nomenology of the Equivalence Principle with Light Scalars,

    Thibault Damour and John F. Donoghue, “Phe- nomenology of the Equivalence Principle with Light Scalars,” Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 202001 (2010), arXiv:1007.2790 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Equivalence Principle Violations and Couplings of a Light Dilaton,

    Thibault Damour and John F. Donoghue, “Equivalence Principle Violations and Couplings of a Light Dilaton,” Phys. Rev. D 82, 084033 (2010), arXiv:1007.2792 [gr- qc]

    2010 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Cosmological Relaxation of the Elec- troweak Scale,

    Peter W. Graham, David E. Kaplan, and Sur- jeet Rajendran, “Cosmological Relaxation of the Elec- troweak Scale,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 221801 (2015), arXiv:1504.07551 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Phenomenology of relaxion- Higgs mixing,

    Thomas Flacke, Claudia Frugiuele, Elina Fuchs, Rick S. Gupta, and Gilad Perez, “Phenomenology of relaxion- Higgs mixing,” JHEP 06, 050 (2017), arXiv:1610.02025 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Oscillations of atomic energy levels induced by QCD axion dark matter,

    Hyungjin Kim and Gilad Perez, “Oscillations of atomic energy levels induced by QCD axion dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 109, 015005 (2024), arXiv:2205.12988 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Quadratic coupling of the axion to photons,

    Carl Beadle, Sebastian A. R. Ellis, J´ er´ emie Quevillon, and Pham Ngoc Hoa Vuong, “Quadratic coupling of the axion to photons,” Phys. Rev. D 110, 035019 (2024), arXiv:2307.10362 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Probing an ultralight QCD axion with electromagnetic quadratic interaction,

    Hyungjin Kim, Alessandro Lenoci, Gilad Perez, and Wolfram Ratzinger, “Probing an ultralight QCD axion with electromagnetic quadratic interaction,” Phys. Rev. D 109, 015030 (2024), arXiv:2307.14962 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Searching for dilaton dark matter with atomic clocks,

    Asimina Arvanitaki, Junwu Huang, and Ken Van Tilburg, “Searching for dilaton dark matter with atomic clocks,” Phys. Rev. D 91, 015015 (2015), arXiv:1405.2925 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Search for ultralight scalar dark matter with atomic spectroscopy,

    Ken Van Tilburg, Nathan Leefer, Lykourgos Bougas, and Dmitry Budker, “Search for ultralight scalar dark matter with atomic spectroscopy,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 011802 (2015), arXiv:1503.06886 [physics.atom- ph]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Searching for an oscillating massive scalar field as a 7 dark matter candidate using atomic hyperfine frequency comparisons,

    A. Hees, J. Gu´ ena, M. Abgrall, S. Bize, and P. Wolf, “Searching for an oscillating massive scalar field as a 7 dark matter candidate using atomic hyperfine frequency comparisons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 061301 (2016), arXiv:1604.08514 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Search for Ultralight Dark Matter with Spectroscopy of Radio-Frequency Atomic Transitions,

    Xue Zhang, Abhishek Banerjee, Mahapan Leyser, Gilad Perez, Stephan Schiller, Dmitry Budker, and Dionys- ios Antypas, “Search for Ultralight Dark Matter with Spectroscopy of Radio-Frequency Atomic Transitions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 251002 (2023), arXiv:2212.04413 [physics.atom-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Searching for dark matter and variation of fundamental constants with laser and maser interferometry,

    Y. V. Stadnik and V. V. Flambaum, “Searching for dark matter and variation of fundamental constants with laser and maser interferometry,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 161301 (2015), arXiv:1412.7801 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Enhanced effects of variation of the fundamental constants in laser inter- ferometers and application to dark matter detection,

    Y. V. Stadnik and V. V. Flambaum, “Enhanced effects of variation of the fundamental constants in laser inter- ferometers and application to dark matter detection,” Phys. Rev. A 93, 063630 (2016), arXiv:1511.00447 [physics.atom-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Search for an Ultralight Scalar Dark Matter Candidate with the AURIGA Detector,

    Antonio Branca et al. , “Search for an Ultralight Scalar Dark Matter Candidate with the AURIGA Detector,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 021302 (2017), arXiv:1607.07327 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Searching for Scalar Dark Matter via Coupling to Fun- damental Constants with Photonic, Atomic and Me- chanical Oscillators,

    William M. Campbell, Ben T. McAllister, Maxim Gory- achev, Eugene N. Ivanov, and Michael E. Tobar, “Searching for Scalar Dark Matter via Coupling to Fun- damental Constants with Photonic, Atomic and Me- chanical Oscillators,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 071301 (2021), arXiv:2010.081...

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Direct limits for scalar field dark matter from a gravitational-wave detector,

    Sander M. Vermeulen et al. , “Direct limits for scalar field dark matter from a gravitational-wave detector,” (2021), 10.1038/s41586-021-04031-y, arXiv:2103.03783 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Search for a Variation of the Fine Struc- ture Constant around the Supermassive Black Hole in Our Galactic Center,

    A. Hees et al., “Search for a Variation of the Fine Struc- ture Constant around the Supermassive Black Hole in Our Galactic Center,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 081101 (2020), arXiv:2002.11567 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Extraction of rotational energy from a black hole,

    R. Penrose and R. M. Floyd, “Extraction of rotational energy from a black hole,” Nature 229, 177–179 (1971)

    1971

  26. [34]

    Generation of Waves by a Rotating Body,

    Ya. B. Zel’Dovich, “Generation of Waves by a Rotating Body,” Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters 14, 180 (1971)

    1971

  27. [35]

    Super- radiance: New Frontiers in Black Hole Physics,

    Richard Brito, Vitor Cardoso, and Paolo Pani, “Super- radiance: New Frontiers in Black Hole Physics,” Lect. Notes Phys. 906, pp.1–237 (2015), arXiv:1501.06570 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  28. [36]

    A generic forma- tion mechanism of ultralight dark matter solar halos,

    Dmitry Budker, Joshua Eby, Marco Gorghetto, Minyuan Jiang, and Gilad Perez, “A generic forma- tion mechanism of ultralight dark matter solar halos,” JCAP 12, 021 (2023), arXiv:2306.12477 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Detecting axion dark matter with black hole polarimetry,

    Xucheng Gan, Lian-Tao Wang, and Huangyu Xiao, “Detecting axion dark matter with black hole polarimetry,” Phys. Rev. D 110, 063039 (2024), arXiv:2311.02149 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Photon Ring Astrometry for Superra- diant Clouds,

    Yifan Chen, Xiao Xue, Richard Brito, and Vi- tor Cardoso, “Photon Ring Astrometry for Superra- diant Clouds,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 111401 (2023), arXiv:2211.03794 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Black holes as fermion factories,

    Yifan Chen, Xiao Xue, and Vitor Cardoso, “Black holes as fermion factories,” JCAP 02, 035 (2025), arXiv:2308.00741 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Fundamental physics opportuni- ties with future ground-based mm/sub-mm VLBI ar- rays,

    D. Ayzenberg et al. , “Fundamental physics opportuni- ties with future ground-based mm/sub-mm VLBI ar- rays,” Living Rev. Rel. 28, 4 (2025), arXiv:2312.02130 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Black Hole Spindown by Light Bosons,

    Andrei Gruzinov, “Black Hole Spindown by Light Bosons,” (2016), arXiv:1604.06422 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Black hole superradiance of self- interacting scalar fields,

    Masha Baryakhtar, Marios Galanis, Robert Lasenby, and Olivier Simon, “Black hole superradiance of self- interacting scalar fields,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 095019 (2021), arXiv:2011.11646 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Impact of multiple modes on the evolution of self-interacting axion condensate around rotating black holes,

    Hidetoshi Omiya, Takuya Takahashi, Takahiro Tanaka, and Hirotaka Yoshino, “Impact of multiple modes on the evolution of self-interacting axion condensate around rotating black holes,” JCAP 06, 016 (2023), arXiv:2211.01949 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Improved lim- its on interactions of low-mass spin-0 dark matter from atomic clock spectroscopy,

    Y. V. Stadnik and V. V. Flambaum, “Improved lim- its on interactions of low-mass spin-0 dark matter from atomic clock spectroscopy,” Phys. Rev. A 94, 022111 (2016), arXiv:1605.04028 [physics.atom-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Violation of the equivalence principle from light scalar dark mat- ter,

    Aur´ elien Hees, Olivier Minazzoli, Etienne Savalle, Yevgeny V. Stadnik, and Peter Wolf, “Violation of the equivalence principle from light scalar dark mat- ter,” Phys. Rev. D 98, 064051 (2018), arXiv:1807.04512 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Violation of the equivalence principle from light scalar fields: from Dark Matter can- didates to scalarized black holes,

    A. Hees, O. Minazzoli, E. Savalle, Y. V. Stadnik, P. Wolf, and B. Roberts, “Violation of the equivalence principle from light scalar fields: from Dark Matter can- didates to scalarized black holes,” in 54th Rencontres de Moriond on Gravitation (2019) arXiv:1905.08524 [gr- qc]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Intensity interferometry for ultralight bosonic dark matter detection,

    Hector Masia-Roig et al. , “Intensity interferometry for ultralight bosonic dark matter detection,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 015003 (2023), arXiv:2202.02645 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Constraints on ultralight scalar dark matter with quadratic couplings,

    Thomas Bouley, Philip Sørensen, and Tien-Tien Yu, “Constraints on ultralight scalar dark matter with quadratic couplings,” JHEP 03, 104 (2023), arXiv:2211.09826 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    The phenomenology of quadratically coupled ultra light dark matter,

    Abhishek Banerjee, Gilad Perez, Marianna Safronova, Inbar Savoray, and Aviv Shalit, “The phenomenology of quadratically coupled ultra light dark matter,” JHEP 10, 042 (2023), arXiv:2211.05174 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Cosmologically varying ki- netic mixing,

    Xucheng Gan and Di Liu, “Cosmologically varying ki- netic mixing,” JHEP 11, 031 (2023), arXiv:2302.03056 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Invisible dilaton,

    Philippe Brax, Clare Burrage, Jose A. R. Cembranos, and Patrick Valageas, “Invisible dilaton,” Phys. Rev. D 107, 095015 (2023), arXiv:2303.14469 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    MI- CROSCOPE Mission: First Constraints on the Vio- lation of the Weak Equivalence Principle by a Light Scalar Dilaton,

    Joel Berg´ e, Philippe Brax, Gilles M´ etris, Martin Pernot- Borr` as, Pierre Touboul, and Jean-Philippe Uzan, “MI- CROSCOPE Mission: First Constraints on the Vio- lation of the Weak Equivalence Principle by a Light Scalar Dilaton,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 141101 (2018), arXiv:1...

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Photonic Freeze-In,

    Peter Cox, Matthew J. Dolan, and Frederick J. Hiskens, “Photonic Freeze-In,” (2024), arXiv:2412.17308 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Detecting Ultralight Dark Matter with Mat- ter Effect,

    Xucheng Gan, Da Liu, Di Liu, Xuheng Luo, and Bin- grong Yu, “Detecting Ultralight Dark Matter with Mat- ter Effect,” (2025), arXiv:2504.11522 [hep-ph]

    2025

  47. [55]

    KLEIN-GORDON EQUATION AND ROTATING BLACK HOLES,

    Steven L. Detweiler, “KLEIN-GORDON EQUATION AND ROTATING BLACK HOLES,” Phys. Rev. D 22, 2323–2326 (1980)

    1980

  48. [56]

    Superradiant in- stabilities of rotating black branes and strings,

    Vitor Cardoso and Shijun Yoshida, “Superradiant in- stabilities of rotating black branes and strings,” JHEP 07, 009 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0502206

    2005 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Instability of the massive Klein-Gordon field on the Kerr spacetime,

    Sam R. Dolan, “Instability of the massive Klein-Gordon field on the Kerr spacetime,” Phys. Rev. D 76, 084001 (2007), arXiv:0705.2880 [gr-qc]. 8

    2007 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Black holes as particle detectors: evolution of superradiant instabilities,

    Richard Brito, Vitor Cardoso, and Paolo Pani, “Black holes as particle detectors: evolution of superradiant instabilities,” Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 134001 (2015), arXiv:1411.0686 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Superradiant Instability and Backreaction of Massive Vector Fields around Kerr Black Holes,

    William E. East and Frans Pretorius, “Superradiant Instability and Backreaction of Massive Vector Fields around Kerr Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 041101 (2017), arXiv:1704.04791 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  52. [60]

    A bound on energy extraction (and hairiness) from superradiance,

    Carlos A. R. Herdeiro, Eugen Radu, and Nuno M. Santos, “A bound on energy extraction (and hairiness) from superradiance,” Phys. Lett. B 824, 136835 (2022), arXiv:2111.03667 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Ring formation from black hole superradiance through repeated particle production on bound orbits,

    Zhen-Hong Lyu, Rong-Gen Cai, Zong-Kuan Guo, Jian- Feng He, and Jing Liu, “Ring formation from black hole superradiance through repeated particle production on bound orbits,” (2025), arXiv:2507.03490 [gr-qc]

    2025

  54. [62]

    Exploring the String Axiverse with Precision Black Hole Physics,

    Asimina Arvanitaki and Sergei Dubovsky, “Exploring the String Axiverse with Precision Black Hole Physics,” Phys. Rev. D 83, 044026 (2011), arXiv:1004.3558 [hep- th]

    2011 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Bosenova col- lapse of axion cloud around a rotating black hole,

    Hirotaka Yoshino and Hideo Kodama, “Bosenova col- lapse of axion cloud around a rotating black hole,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 128, 153–190 (2012), arXiv:1203.5070 [gr- qc]

    2012 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Aspects of Nonlinear Effect on Black Hole Superradiance,

    Hajime Fukuda and Kazunori Nakayama, “Aspects of Nonlinear Effect on Black Hole Superradiance,” JHEP 01, 128 (2020), arXiv:1910.06308 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Renormalization group analysis of superradi- ant growth of self-interacting axion cloud,

    Hidetoshi Omiya, Takuya Takahashi, and Takahiro Tanaka, “Renormalization group analysis of superradi- ant growth of self-interacting axion cloud,” PTEP2021, 043E02 (2021), arXiv:2012.03473 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Adiabatic evolution of the self-interacting ax- ion field around rotating black holes,

    Hidetoshi Omiya, Takuya Takahashi, and Takahiro Tanaka, “Adiabatic evolution of the self-interacting ax- ion field around rotating black holes,” PTEP 2022, 043E03 (2022), arXiv:2201.04382 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Observational prospects of self- interacting scalar superradiance with next-generation gravitational-wave detectors,

    Spencer Collaviti, Ling Sun, Marios Galanis, and Masha Baryakhtar, “Observational prospects of self- interacting scalar superradiance with next-generation gravitational-wave detectors,” Class. Quant. Grav. 42, 025006 (2025), arXiv:2407.04304 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Self-interacting axion clouds around rotat- ing black holes in binary systems,

    Takuya Takahashi, Hidetoshi Omiya, and Takahiro Tanaka, “Self-interacting axion clouds around rotat- ing black holes in binary systems,” Phys. Rev. D 110, 104038 (2024), arXiv:2408.08349 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Self-interacting scalar dark matter around binary black holes,

    Josu C. Aurrekoetxea, James Marsden, Katy Clough, and Pedro G. Ferreira, “Self-interacting scalar dark matter around binary black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 110, 083011 (2024), arXiv:2409.01937 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Stepping up superradiance constraints on axions,

    Samuel J. Witte and Andrew Mummery, “Stepping up superradiance constraints on axions,” Phys. Rev. D 111, 083044 (2025), arXiv:2412.03655 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Gravitational wave probes of parti- cle dark matter: a review,

    Andrew L. Miller, “Gravitational wave probes of parti- cle dark matter: a review,” (2025), arXiv:2503.02607 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  64. [72]

    The self-interaction ef- fects on the Kerr black hole superradiance and their observational implications,

    Ning Xie and Fa Peng Huang, “The self-interaction ef- fects on the Kerr black hole superradiance and their observational implications,” (2025), arXiv:2503.10347 [hep-ph]

    2025

  65. [73]

    Polarimetry and astrom- etry of NIR flares as event horizon scale, dynamical probes for the mass of Sgr A*,

    R. Abuter et al. (GRA VITY), “Polarimetry and astrom- etry of NIR flares as event horizon scale, dynamical probes for the mass of Sgr A*,” Astron. Astrophys.677, L10 (2023), arXiv:2307.11821 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Cosmic Structure as the Quantum Interference of a Co- herent Dark Wave,

    Hsi-Yu Schive, Tzihong Chiueh, and Tom Broadhurst, “Cosmic Structure as the Quantum Interference of a Co- herent Dark Wave,” Nature Phys. 10, 496–499 (2014), arXiv:1406.6586 [astro-ph.GA]

    2014 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Testing the ALP-photon coupling with polar- ization measurements of Sagittarius A∗,

    Guan-Wen Yuan, Zi-Qing Xia, Chengfeng Tang, Yaqi Zhao, Yi-Fu Cai, Yifan Chen, Jing Shu, and Qiang Yuan, “Testing the ALP-photon coupling with polar- ization measurements of Sagittarius A∗,” JCAP 03, 018 (2021), arXiv:2008.13662 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  68. [76]

    An update on monitoring stellar orbits in the galactic center,

    S. Gillessen, P. M. Plewa, F. Eisenhauer, R. Sari, I. Waisberg, M. Habibi, O. Pfuhl, E. George, J. Dexter, S. von Fellenberg, T. Ott, and R. Genzel, “An update on monitoring stellar orbits in the galactic center,” The Astrophysical Journal 837, 30 (2017)

    2017

  69. [77]

    Mass distribution in the Galactic Center based on interferometric astrometry of multiple stellar orbits,

    R. Abuter et al. (GRA VITY), “Mass distribution in the Galactic Center based on interferometric astrometry of multiple stellar orbits,” Astron. Astrophys. 657, L12 (2022), arXiv:2112.07478 [astro-ph.GA]

    2022 arXiv

  70. [78]

    First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole in the Center of the Milky Way,

    Kazunori Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Telescope), “First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole in the Center of the Milky Way,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 930, L12 (2022), arXiv:2311.08680 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  71. [79]

    First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. V. Testing Astrophysical Models of the Galactic Cen- ter Black Hole,

    Kazunori Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Telescope), “First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. V. Testing Astrophysical Models of the Galactic Cen- ter Black Hole,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 930, L16 (2022), arXiv:2311.09478 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Evidence of a past merger of the Galactic Centre black hole,

    Yihan Wang and Bing Zhang, “Evidence of a past merger of the Galactic Centre black hole,” Nature Astron. 8, 1592–1601 (2024), arXiv:2403.06416 [astro- ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Probing Ultralight Bosons with Binary Black Holes,

    Daniel Baumann, Horng Sheng Chia, and Rafael A. Porto, “Probing Ultralight Bosons with Binary Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. D 99, 044001 (2019), arXiv:1804.03208 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Tidal effects and disruption in superradiant clouds: a numerical investigation,

    Vitor Cardoso, Francisco Duque, and Taishi Ikeda, “Tidal effects and disruption in superradiant clouds: a numerical investigation,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 064054 (2020), arXiv:2001.01729 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  76. [84]

    General relativistic effects on the orbit of the S2 star with GRA VITY,

    M. Grould, F. H. Vincent, T. Paumard, and G. Perrin, “General relativistic effects on the orbit of the S2 star with GRA VITY,” Astron. Astrophys.608, A60 (2017), arXiv:1709.04492 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Detection of orbital mo- tions near the last stable circular orbit of the massive black hole sgra*,

    R. Abuter et al. (GRA VITY), “Detection of orbital mo- tions near the last stable circular orbit of the massive black hole sgra*,” Astron. Astrophys. 618, L10 (2018)

    2018

  78. [86]

    Investigating the Binarity of S0- 2: Implications for its Origins and Robustness as a Probe of the Laws of Gravity around a Supermassive Black Hole,

    Devin S. Chu et al. , “Investigating the Binarity of S0- 2: Implications for its Origins and Robustness as a Probe of the Laws of Gravity around a Supermassive Black Hole,” Astrophys. J. 854, 12 (2018), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 863, 111 (2018)], arXiv:1709.04890 [astro- ph.SR]

    2018 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Relativistic redshift of the star S0-2 orbiting the Galactic center supermassive black hole,

    Tuan Do et al. , “Relativistic redshift of the star S0-2 orbiting the Galactic center supermassive black hole,” Science 365, 664–668 (2019), arXiv:1907.10731 [astro- ph.GA]

    2019

  80. [88]

    Constraining ultralight bosonic dark matter with Keck observations of S2’s orbit and kinematics,

    Guan-Wen Yuan, Zhao-Qiang Shen, Yue-Lin Sming Tsai, Qiang Yuan, and Yi-Zhong Fan, “Constraining ultralight bosonic dark matter with Keck observations of S2’s orbit and kinematics,” Phys. Rev. D106, 103024 (2022), arXiv:2205.04970 [astro-ph.HE]. 9

    2022 arXiv

  81. [89]

    High-resolution Infrared Spectro- graph for Exoplanet Characterization with the Keck and Thirty Meter Telescopes,

    Dimitri Mawet et al., “High-resolution Infrared Spectro- graph for Exoplanet Characterization with the Keck and Thirty Meter Telescopes,” (2019), arXiv:1908.03623 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  82. [90]

    The development of HIS- PEC for Keck and MODHIS for TMT: science cases and predicted sensitivities,

    Quinn M. Konopacky et al. , “The development of HIS- PEC for Keck and MODHIS for TMT: science cases and predicted sensitivities,” in Techniques and Instrumenta- tion for Detection of Exoplanets XI , Vol. 12680, edited by Garreth J. Ruane, International Society for Optics and P...

    2023

  83. [91]

    Probing axions with neutron star inspirals and other stellar processes,

    Anson Hook and Junwu Huang, “Probing axions with neutron star inspirals and other stellar processes,” JHEP 06, 036 (2018), arXiv:1708.08464 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  84. [92]

    First Constraints on Nuclear Coupling of Axionlike Particles from the Binary Neutron Star Gravi- tational Wave Event GW170817,

    Jun Zhang, Zhenwei Lyu, Junwu Huang, Matthew C. Johnson, Laura Sagunski, Mairi Sakellariadou, and Huan Yang, “First Constraints on Nuclear Coupling of Axionlike Particles from the Binary Neutron Star Gravi- tational Wave Event GW170817,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 161101 (2021), arX...

    2021 arXiv

  85. [93]

    White dwarfs as a probe of exceptionally light QCD axions,

    Reuven Balkin, Javi Serra, Konstantin Springmann, Stefan Stelzl, and Andreas Weiler, “White dwarfs as a probe of exceptionally light QCD axions,” Phys. Rev. D 109, 095032 (2024), arXiv:2211.02661 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Constraining Light QCD Axions with Isolated Neutron Star Cooling,

    Antonio G´ omez-Ba˜ n´ on, Kai Bartnick, Konstantin Springmann, and Jos´ e A. Pons, “Constraining Light QCD Axions with Isolated Neutron Star Cooling,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 251002 (2024), arXiv:2408.07740 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Probing the relaxed relaxion and Higgs portal scenarios with XENON1T scintillation and ionization data,

    Ranny Budnik, Hyungjin Kim, Oleksii Matsedonskyi, Gilad Perez, and Yotam Soreq, “Probing the relaxed relaxion and Higgs portal scenarios with XENON1T scintillation and ionization data,” Phys. Rev. D 104, 015012 (2021), arXiv:2006.14568 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Prospects of nuclear-coupled-dark-matter detection via correla- tion spectroscopy of I2+ and Ca+,

    Eric Madge, Gilad Perez, and Ziv Meir, “Prospects of nuclear-coupled-dark-matter detection via correla- tion spectroscopy of I2+ and Ca+,” Phys. Rev. D 110, 015008 (2024), arXiv:2404.00616 [physics.atom-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Precision Metrology Meets Cosmology: Improved Constraints on Ultralight Dark Matter from Atom-Cavity Frequency Comparisons,

    Colin J. Kennedy, Eric Oelker, John M. Robinson, To- bias Bothwell, Dhruv Kedar, William R. Milner, G. Ed- ward Marti, Andrei Derevianko, and Jun Ye, “Precision Metrology Meets Cosmology: Improved Constraints on Ultralight Dark Matter from Atom-Cavity Frequency Comparisons,” P...

    2020 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Improved Limits on the Coupling of Ultralight Bosonic Dark Matter to Photons from Opti- cal Atomic Clock Comparisons,

    M. Filzinger, S. D¨ orscher, R. Lange, J. Klose, M. Steinel, E. Benkler, E. Peik, C. Lisdat, and N. Huntemann, “Improved Limits on the Coupling of Ultralight Bosonic Dark Matter to Photons from Opti- cal Atomic Clock Comparisons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 253001 (2023), arXiv:230...

    2023 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Analysis of atomic-clock data to constrain variations of fundamental constants,

    Nathaniel Sherrill et al. , “Analysis of atomic-clock data to constrain variations of fundamental constants,” New J. Phys. 25, 093012 (2023), arXiv:2302.04565 [physics.atom-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Torsion-balance tests of the weak equivalence principle,

    T. A. Wagner, S. Schlamminger, J. H. Gundlach, and E. G. Adelberger, “Torsion-balance tests of the weak equivalence principle,” Class. Quant. Grav. 29, 184002 (2012), arXiv:1207.2442 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  93. [101]

    A Universal Bound on QCD Axions from Supernovae,

    Konstantin Springmann, Michael Stadlbauer, Ste- fan Stelzl, and Andreas Weiler, “A Universal Bound on QCD Axions from Supernovae,” (2024), arXiv:2410.19902 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Search for Axionlike Dark Mat- ter through Nuclear Spin Precession in Electric and Magnetic Fields,

    C. Abel et al. , “Search for Axionlike Dark Mat- ter through Nuclear Spin Precession in Electric and Magnetic Fields,” Phys. Rev. X 7, 041034 (2017), arXiv:1708.06367 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Experimental Constraint on Axionlike Particles over Seven Orders of Magni- tude in Mass,

    Tanya S. Roussy et al. , “Experimental Constraint on Axionlike Particles over Seven Orders of Magni- tude in Mass,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 171301 (2021), arXiv:2006.15787 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  96. [104]

    New Limit on Axionlike Dark Matter Using Cold Neutrons,

    Ivo Schulthess et al. , “New Limit on Axionlike Dark Matter Using Cold Neutrons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 191801 (2022), arXiv:2204.01454 [hep-ex]

    2022

  97. [105]

    Oscillating nuclear charge radii as sensors for ultralight dark matter,

    Abhishek Banerjee, Dmitry Budker, Melina Filzinger, Nils Huntemann, Gil Paz, Gilad Perez, Sergey Porsev, and Marianna Safronova, “Oscillating nuclear charge radii as sensors for ultralight dark matter,” (2023), arXiv:2301.10784 [hep-ph]

    2023

  98. [106]

    Search for QCD coupled axion dark matter with the MICRO- SCOPE space experiment,

    Jordan Gu´ e, Peter Wolf, and Aur´ elien Hees, “Search for QCD coupled axion dark matter with the MICRO- SCOPE space experiment,” (2025), arXiv:2504.00720 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Mo- mentum and Matter Matter for Axion Dark Matter Matters on Earth,

    Abhishek Banerjee, Itay M. Bloch, Quentin Bonnefoy, Sebastian A. R. Ellis, Gilad Perez, Inbar Savoray, Kon- stantin Springmann, and Yevgeny V. Stadnik, “Mo- mentum and Matter Matter for Axion Dark Matter Matters on Earth,” (2025), arXiv:2502.04455 [hep-ph]

    2025

  100. [108]

    Searching for Dark Matter with the Th229 Nuclear Lineshape from Laser Spectroscopy,

    Elina Fuchs, Fiona Kirk, Eric Madge, Chaitanya Paran- jape, Ekkehard Peik, Gilad Perez, Wolfram Ratzinger, and Johannes Tiedau, “Searching for Dark Matter with the Th229 Nuclear Lineshape from Laser Spectroscopy,” Phys. Rev. X 15, 021055 (2025), arXiv:2407.15924 [hep- ph]

    2025 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Constraining Axion Dark Mat- ter with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis,

    Kfir Blum, Raffaele Tito D’Agnolo, Mariangela Lisanti, and Benjamin R. Safdi, “Constraining Axion Dark Mat- ter with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis,” Phys. Lett. B 737, 30–33 (2014), arXiv:1401.6460 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Pi in the Sky: Neutron Stars with Exceptionally Light QCD Axions,

    Mia Kumamoto, Junwu Huang, Christian Drischler, Masha Baryakhtar, and Sanjay Reddy, “Pi in the Sky: Neutron Stars with Exceptionally Light QCD Axions,” (2024), arXiv:2410.21590 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Relaxion Stars and their detection via Atomic Physics,

    Abhishek Banerjee, Dmitry Budker, Joshua Eby, Hyungjin Kim, and Gilad Perez, “Relaxion Stars and their detection via Atomic Physics,” Commun. Phys. 3, 1 (2020), arXiv:1902.08212 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Black hole binaries and light fields: Gravitational molecules,

    Taishi Ikeda, Laura Bernard, Vitor Cardoso, and Miguel Zilh˜ ao, “Black hole binaries and light fields: Gravitational molecules,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 024020 (2021), arXiv:2010.00008 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  105. [113]

    The BH-PSR Gravi- tational Molecule,

    Tao Liu and Kun-Feng Lyu, “The BH-PSR Gravi- tational Molecule,” (2021), arXiv:2107.09971 [astro- ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Black hole merger simulations in wave dark matter environments,

    Jamie Bamber, Josu C. Aurrekoetxea, Katy Clough, and Pedro G. Ferreira, “Black hole merger simulations in wave dark matter environments,” Phys. Rev. D 107, 024035 (2023), arXiv:2210.09254 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Mass transfer and boson cloud depletion in a binary black hole system,

    Yao Guo, Wenjie Zhong, Yiqiu Ma, and Daiqin Su, “Mass transfer and boson cloud depletion in a binary black hole system,” Phys. Rev. D 109, 104046 (2024), arXiv:2309.07790 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Effect of Wave Dark Matter on Equal Mass Black Hole Mergers,

    Josu C. Aurrekoetxea, Katy Clough, Jamie Bamber, and Pedro G. Ferreira, “Effect of Wave Dark Matter on Equal Mass Black Hole Mergers,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 211401 (2024), arXiv:2311.18156 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Superra- diant clouds may be relevant for close compact ob- ject binaries,

    Ao Guo, Jun Zhang, and Huan Yang, “Superra- diant clouds may be relevant for close compact ob- ject binaries,” Phys. Rev. D 110, 023022 (2024), arXiv:2401.15003 [gr-qc]. 10

    2024 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Collapse of Axion Stars,

    Joshua Eby, Madelyn Leembruggen, Peter Suranyi, and L. C. R. Wijewardhana, “Collapse of Axion Stars,” JHEP 12, 066 (2016), arXiv:1608.06911 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Relativistic axions from collapsing Bose stars,

    D. G. Levkov, A. G. Panin, and I. I. Tkachev, “Relativistic axions from collapsing Bose stars,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 011301 (2017), arXiv:1609.03611 [astro- ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Probing Axions with Event Horizon Tele- scope Polarimetric Measurements,

    Yifan Chen, Jing Shu, Xiao Xue, Qiang Yuan, and Yue Zhao, “Probing Axions with Event Horizon Tele- scope Polarimetric Measurements,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 061102 (2020), arXiv:1905.02213 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Strin- gent axion constraints with Event Horizon Telescope polarimetric measurements of M87 ∗,

    Yifan Chen, Yuxin Liu, Ru-Sen Lu, Yosuke Mizuno, Jing Shu, Xiao Xue, Qiang Yuan, and Yue Zhao, “Strin- gent axion constraints with Event Horizon Telescope polarimetric measurements of M87 ∗,” Nature Astron. 6, 592–598 (2022), arXiv:2105.04572 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Birefringence tomography for axion cloud,

    Yifan Chen, Chunlong Li, Yosuke Mizuno, Jing Shu, Xiao Xue, Qiang Yuan, Yue Zhao, and Zihan Zhou, “Birefringence tomography for axion cloud,” JCAP 09, 073 (2022), arXiv:2208.05724 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Constraining the Existence of Axion Clouds in M87* with Clo- sure Trace Analyses,

    Zhiren Wang and Avery E. Broderick, “Constraining the Existence of Axion Clouds in M87* with Clo- sure Trace Analyses,” Astrophys. J. 962, 121 (2024), arXiv:2311.01565 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Discovering the QCD Axion with Black Holes and Gravitational Waves,

    Asimina Arvanitaki, Masha Baryakhtar, and Xinlu Huang, “Discovering the QCD Axion with Black Holes and Gravitational Waves,” Phys. Rev. D91, 084011 (2015), arXiv:1411.2263 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Constraining the mass of dark photons and axion-like particles through black-hole superradiance,

    Vitor Cardoso, ´Oscar J. C. Dias, Gavin S. Hartnett, Matthew Middleton, Paolo Pani, and Jorge E. Santos, “Constraining the mass of dark photons and axion-like particles through black-hole superradiance,” JCAP 03, 043 (2018), arXiv:1801.01420 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  118. [126]

    Ultralight Boson Dark Matter and Event Horizon Telescope Obser- vations of M87*,

    Hooman Davoudiasl and Peter B Denton, “Ultralight Boson Dark Matter and Event Horizon Telescope Obser- vations of M87*,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 021102 (2019), arXiv:1904.09242 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  119. [127]

    Prop- erties of ultralight bosons from heavy quasar spins via superradiance,

    Caner ¨Unal, Fabio Pacucci, and Abraham Loeb, “Prop- erties of ultralight bosons from heavy quasar spins via superradiance,” JCAP 05, 007 (2021), arXiv:2012.12790 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  120. [128]

    Constraints on an axionlike particle from black hole spin superradiance,

    Lei-dong Cheng, Hong Zhang, and Shou-shan Bao, “Constraints on an axionlike particle from black hole spin superradiance,” Phys. Rev. D 107, 063021 (2023), arXiv:2201.11338 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Bounds on ultralight bosons from the Event Horizon Telescope observation of Sgr A∗,

    Akash Kumar Saha, Priyank Parashari, Tarak Nath Maity, Abhishek Dubey, Subhadip Bouri, and Ran- jan Laha, “Bounds on ultralight bosons from the Event Horizon Telescope observation of Sgr A∗,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 901 (2024), arXiv:2208.03530 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  122. [130]

    Evolution and detection of vector superradiant instabilities,

    Yin-Da Guo, Nayun Jia, Shou-Shan Bao, Hong Zhang, and Xin Zhang, “Evolution and detection of vector superradiant instabilities,” Phys. Rev. D 110, 083029 (2024), arXiv:2407.00767 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  123. [131]

    The effect of accretion on scalar superradiant instability,

    Yin-Da Guo, Shou-Shan Bao, Tianjun Li, and Hong Zhang, “The effect of accretion on scalar superradiant instability,” (2025), arXiv:2501.09280 [gr-qc]

    2025

  124. [132]

    EHT constraint on the ultralight scalar hair of the M87 supermassive black hole,

    Pedro V. P. Cunha, Carlos A. R. Herdeiro, and Eu- gen Radu, “EHT constraint on the ultralight scalar hair of the M87 supermassive black hole,” Universe 5, 220 (2019), arXiv:1909.08039 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  125. [133]

    Superradiant evolution of the shadow and photon ring of Sgr A ⋆,

    Yifan Chen, Rittick Roy, Sunny Vagnozzi, and Luca Visinelli, “Superradiant evolution of the shadow and photon ring of Sgr A ⋆,” Phys. Rev. D 106, 043021 (2022), arXiv:2205.06238 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  126. [134]

    Exploring dark matter spike distribution around the Galactic centre with stellar orbits,

    Zhao-Qiang Shen, Guan-Wen Yuan, Cheng-Zi Jiang, Yue-Lin Sming Tsai, Qiang Yuan, and Yi-Zhong Fan, “Exploring dark matter spike distribution around the Galactic centre with stellar orbits,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 527, 3196–3207 (2023), arXiv:2303.09284 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  127. [135]

    Using the motion of S2 to constrain scalar clouds around Sgr A*,

    A. Foschi et al. (GRA VITY), “Using the motion of S2 to constrain scalar clouds around Sgr A*,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 524, 1075–1086 (2023), arXiv:2306.17215 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  128. [136]

    Boson Cloud Atlas: Di- rect Observation of Superradiance Clouds,

    Majed Khalaf, Eric Kuflik, Alessandro Lenoci, and Nicholas Chamberlain Stone, “Boson Cloud Atlas: Di- rect Observation of Superradiance Clouds,” (2024), arXiv:2408.16051 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  129. [137]

    Improving constraints on the extended mass distribution in the Galactic center with stellar orbits,

    Karim Abd El Dayem et al. (GRA VITY), “Improving constraints on the extended mass distribution in the Galactic center with stellar orbits,” Astron. Astrophys. 692, A242 (2024), arXiv:2409.12261 [astro-ph.GA]. 11 Supplemental Materials: Probing Axions via Spectroscopic Measurem...

    2024 arXiv

  130. [184]

    Black holes: gravitational engines of dis- covery

    V.C. and Y.C. acknowledge support by VILLUM Foundation (grant no. VIL37766) and the DNRF Chair program (grant no. DNRF162) by the Danish National 6 Research Foundation. V.C. is a Villum Investigator and a DNRF Chair. V.C. acknowledges financial support provided under the Europ...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.