Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 2 minor 94 references

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

T0 review · 1 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-10 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The S2 star's observed periastron precession constrains ultralight scalar dark matter near the galactic center black hole.

desk verdict S2 precession yields new ULDM quadratic-coupling bounds but only after subtracting GR and assuming the exact density profiles produce a clean secular residual. read the letter →

arxiv 2604.08053 v1 submitted 2026-04-09 hep-ph gr-qc

Jiang-Chuan Yu , Yan Cao , Lijing Shao This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phgr-qc
keywords ultralightdarkmattergalacticcenterS2starperiastronprecessionscalarfieldquadraticcouplingSgrA*constraints
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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 investigates how an ultralight scalar dark matter field could perturb the orbits of stars circling the Milky Way's central supermassive black hole through its couplings to ordinary matter. It models two possible dark matter distributions, a gravitational atom state and a spherical soliton, and shows that quadratic coupling produces a steady, non-oscillatory shift in orbital motion rather than rapid oscillations. By matching the predicted long-term precession to the measured periastron advance of the S2 star, the work places upper limits on the total dark matter mass relative to the black hole and on the strength of the quadratic coupling. These limits improve existing experimental bounds on the coupling constant across a specific window of dark matter particle masses.

What carries the argument

Secular orbital precession induced by quadratic scalar-field coupling, bounded by the measured periastron advance rate of the S2 star.

What would settle it

A high-precision measurement of the S2 periastron precession rate that deviates from the value predicted by general relativity plus the quadratic-coupling term at the excluded β values would falsify the derived upper limits.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Quadratic coupling between the real scalar field and Standard Model particles induces a non-oscillatory perturbation that drives secular orbital evolution. Using the observed periastron precession rate of the S2 star, the total ULDM mass ratio β to Sgr A* is limited to ≲ 10^{-3} for the |211⟩ gravitational atom state at m ∼ 10^{-18} eV and to ≲ 1 for the spherical soliton extending to ∼0.2 pc at m ∼ 3×10^{-20} eV. The resulting bounds on the quadratic coupling constant surpass current limits for masses in the range 10^{-20} eV ≲ m ≲ 10^{-18} eV.

Load-bearing premise

The observed periastron precession of S2 can isolate the secular effect from quadratic ULDM coupling without dominant unmodeled contributions from other phenomena or inaccurate assumptions about the dark matter density profile.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The gravitational atom |211⟩ configuration must satisfy β ≲ 10^{-3} near m ∼ 10^{-18} eV.
  • The spherical soliton configuration allows β up to order unity near m ∼ 3×10^{-20} eV.
  • Quadratic coupling constants are bounded more tightly than prior results throughout 10^{-20} eV ≲ m ≲ 10^{-18} eV.
  • Stellar orbits in the galactic center serve as sensitive probes for non-oscillatory effects of ultralight scalar fields.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Higher-precision future tracking of S2 or additional S-stars could shrink the allowed parameter space further or reveal a signal.
  • The same secular-precession method could be applied to stars orbiting other supermassive black holes if suitable orbital data become available.
  • Alternative ULDM spatial distributions beyond the two models considered here would produce different numerical bounds on β.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that quadratic (and linear) couplings of a real scalar ULDM field to SM particles induce secular orbital evolution in S-stars; by attributing the difference between the measured S2 periastron precession rate and the GR prediction to this effect, the authors obtain upper limits on the ULDM-to-Sgr A* mass ratio β (β ≲ 10^{-3} for the |211⟩ gravitational-atom state at m ∼ 10^{-18} eV; β ≲ 1 for a spherical soliton at m ∼ 3 × 10^{-20} eV) and on the quadratic coupling constant, asserting that the latter bounds improve on existing limits for 10^{-20} eV ≲ m ≲ 10^{-18} eV.

Significance. If the isolation of the quadratic-coupling secular term from GR and other perturbations is robust, the work supplies new astrophysical constraints on ULDM in a mass window where laboratory bounds are weak, demonstrating the utility of high-precision S-star astrometry for testing scalar dark-matter models.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and secular-evolution derivation] The central bounds on β and the quadratic coupling rest on equating the residual periastron advance (observed minus GR) to the orbit-averaged secular drift induced by the quadratic scalar-matter interaction. This mapping requires that (i) the adopted ULDM density profiles (|211⟩ gravitational atom or spherical soliton extending to ~0.2 pc) accurately represent the actual field configuration inside the S2 orbit and (ii) no other unmodeled extended mass or post-Newtonian contributions dominate the residual. The abstract provides no quantitative demonstration that these conditions hold; if they do not, the headline constraints are invalidated. (See the derivation of the secular evolution and the comparison to S2 data.)
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Clarify whether the quoted mass range 10^{-20} eV ≲ m ≲ 10^{-18} eV applies uniformly to both the gravitational-atom and soliton cases or only to one configuration.
  2. [Abstract] The notation for the mass ratio β is introduced without an explicit definition in the abstract; ensure it is defined at first use in the main text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive feedback. We address the major comment below and have revised the manuscript to improve clarity.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central bounds on β and the quadratic coupling rest on equating the residual periastron advance (observed minus GR) to the orbit-averaged secular drift induced by the quadratic scalar-matter interaction. This mapping requires that (i) the adopted ULDM density profiles (|211⟩ gravitational atom or spherical soliton extending to ~0.2 pc) accurately represent the actual field configuration inside the S2 orbit and (ii) no other unmodeled extended mass or post-Newtonian contributions dominate the residual. The abstract provides no quantitative demonstration that these conditions hold; if they do not, the headline constraints are invalidated. (See the derivation of the secular evolution and the comparison to S2 data.)

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting the need for explicit justification. The full manuscript derives the secular periastron precession from the quadratic coupling via orbit averaging for both the |211⟩ gravitational atom and spherical soliton (with the soliton radius chosen to encompass the S2 orbit), and directly compares the predicted residual to S2 astrometric data to obtain the β limits. These profiles are standard in the ULDM literature for the Galactic Center and are justified by the requirement that the field configuration be coherent over the relevant scales. For other contributions, the bounds are conservative upper limits assuming the observed residual (after GR subtraction) can be attributed to ULDM; additional unmodeled effects would only tighten the constraints. We agree the abstract is too concise and lacks quantitative context on these points. We will revise the abstract to briefly state the key assumptions and reference the detailed derivation and data comparison in the main text. This does not invalidate the results but improves presentation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; constraints derived from independent S2 observations

full rationale

The paper computes the secular periastron precession induced by quadratic scalar-matter coupling for two ULDM density profiles (gravitational atom |211⟩ and spherical soliton), then equates the residual between the measured S2 precession rate and the GR prediction to this modeled effect in order to bound β and the coupling constant. This is a standard forward-modeling constraint from external data; the output parameters are not defined in terms of themselves, no fitted subset is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness theorem is invoked to force the result. The derivation chain remains self-contained against the independent observational input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions from general relativity and scalar field theory plus specific modeling choices for ULDM distributions; no new entities with independent evidence are introduced.

assumptions (2)
  • standard math General relativity accurately describes the background spacetime and orbital dynamics around Sgr A*
    Invoked to compute the unperturbed orbit and perturbations from the scalar field.
  • domain assumption The ultralight scalar field can be treated in the non-relativistic limit with linear or quadratic couplings to SM particles
    Basis for the perturbation analysis in both coupling cases.
invented entities (2)
  • scalar gravitational atom in |211> state
    purpose: Specific density profile for ULDM around the black hole
    One of two representative structures used to compute the perturbation; no independent evidence provided beyond the model.
  • spherical soliton extending to ~0.2 pc
    purpose: Alternative density profile for ULDM
    Second structure used for the mass ratio constraint; postulated for the calculation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining Ultralight Scalar Dark Matter in the Galactic Center with the S2 Orbit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2604.08053

@misc{pith2026260408053,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining Ultralight Scalar Dark Matter in the Galactic Center with the S2 Orbit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2604.08053}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.08053}
}
abstract

The dense environment of our Galactic Center (GC) offers a unique laboratory for probing ultralight dark matter (ULDM). We explore the prospect of detecting a scalar ULDM field through its effects on the orbital dynamics of S-stars around the supermassive black hole in the GC, Sgr A$^*$. We consider both linear and quadratic couplings between the real scalar field $\phi$ and Standard Model particles, and analyze two representative ULDM structures: the scalar gravitational atom and the spherical soliton. We find that quadratic coupling induces a non-oscillatory perturbation, leading to a long-term secular orbital evolution. We use the observed periastron precession rate of S2 star to put stringent constraints on the total ULDM mass in the GC and the quadratic coupling constant. For the gravitational atom $|211\rangle$ state, we constrain the mass ratio of ULDM to Sgr A$^*$ to $\beta \lesssim 10^{-3}$ at $m \sim 10^{-18}$ eV, and for the spherical soliton which extends to $\sim 0.2\,$pc, the mass ratio is limited to $\beta \lesssim 1$ at $m \sim 3\times10^{-20}$ eV. Notably, the resulting limits on the quadratic coupling constant surpass current bounds in the mass range $10^{-20} \,\text{eV} \lesssim m \lesssim 10^{-18}$ eV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.08053 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Constraints on 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Constraints on 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. Upper bound on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 94 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The situation is opposite for an attraction (λ <0) self- interaction, under which the ground state is no longer stable ifM c is sufficiently large

    self-interaction makes the ground state less compact. The situation is opposite for an attraction (λ <0) self- interaction, under which the ground state is no longer stable ifM c is sufficiently large. In the small-γregime, the deviationV 1(y, α, γ)−V 1(y, α,0) scales linearly with γfor a given value ofα, as illustrated in Fig. 4. As can be seen, the modi...

    work page

  2. [2]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1440 (1977)

    work page 1977

  3. [3]

    Weinberg, A New Light Boson?, Phys

    S. Weinberg, A New Light Boson?, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223 (1978)

    work page 1978

  4. [4]

    Wilczek, Problem of StrongPandTInvariance in the Presence of Instantons, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Problem of StrongPandTInvariance in the Presence of Instantons, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 279 (1978)

    work page 1978

  5. [5]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, The Not So Harmless Axion, Phys. Lett. B120, 137 (1983)

    work page 1983

  6. [6]

    L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Ul- tralight scalars as cosmological dark matter, Phys. Rev. D95, 043541 (2017), arXiv:1610.08297 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    D. J. E. Marsh, Axion Cosmology, Phys. Rept.643, 1 (2016), arXiv:1510.07633 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Feebly-Interacting Particles:FIPs 2020 Workshop Report

    P. Agrawalet al., Feebly-interacting particles: FIPs 2020 workshop report, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 1015 (2021), arXiv:2102.12143 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    Polchinski,String theory

    J. Polchinski,String theory. Vol. 2: Superstring theory and beyond, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    2007

  2. [10]

    J. E. Kim, Light Pseudoscalars, Particle Physics and Cos- mology, Phys. Rept.150, 1 (1987)

    1987

  3. [11]

    Fayet, Extra U(1)’s and New Forces, Nucl

    P. Fayet, Extra U(1)’s and New Forces, Nucl. Phys. B 347, 743 (1990)

    1990

  4. [12]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, Axions In String Theory, JHEP 06, 051, arXiv:hep-th/0605206

  5. [13]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, String axiverse, Phys. Rev. D81, 123530 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Arias, D

    P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Re- dondo, and A. Ringwald, WISPy Cold Dark Matter, JCAP06, 013, arXiv:1201.5902 [hep-ph]

  7. [15]

    D. H. Lyth and A. Riotto, Particle physics models of in- flation and the cosmological density perturbation, Phys. Rept.314, 1 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9807278

    1999

  8. [16]

    E. W. Kolb and A. J. Long, Completely dark photons from gravitational particle production during the in- flationary era, JHEP03, 283, arXiv:2009.03828 [astro- ph.CO]

    2009

  9. [17]

    Damour and J

    T. Damour and J. F. Donoghue, Equivalence Principle Violations and Couplings of a Light Dilaton, Phys. Rev. D82, 084033 (2010), arXiv:1007.2792 [gr-qc]

    2010

  10. [18]

    Damour and J

    T. Damour and J. F. Donoghue, Phenomenology of the Equivalence Principle with Light Scalars, Class. Quant. Grav.27, 202001 (2010), arXiv:1007.2790 [gr-qc]

    2010

  11. [19]

    Okawa, M

    S. Okawa, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz, Long-range axion forces and hadronic CP violation, Phys. Rev. D105, 075003 (2022), arXiv:2111.08040 [hep-ph]

    2022

  12. [20]

    Bauer and G

    M. Bauer and G. Rostagni, Fifth Forces from QCD Axions Scale Differently, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 101802 (2024), arXiv:2307.09516 [hep-ph]

    2024

  13. [21]

    Cheng and S

    Y. Cheng and S. Ge, Background-enhanced axion force by axion dark matter (2025), arXiv:2504.02702 [hep-ph]

    2025

  14. [22]

    Derevianko and M

    A. Derevianko and M. Pospelov, Hunting for topological dark matter with atomic clocks, Nature Phys.10, 933 (2014), arXiv:1311.1244 [physics.atom-ph]

    2014

  15. [23]

    Arvanitaki, J

    A. Arvanitaki, J. Huang, and K. Van Tilburg, Searching for dilaton dark matter with atomic clocks, Phys. Rev. D91, 015015 (2015), arXiv:1405.2925 [hep-ph]

    2015

  16. [24]

    Van Tilburg, N

    K. Van Tilburg, N. Leefer, L. Bougas, and D. Bud- ker, Search for ultralight scalar dark matter with atomic spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 011802 (2015), arXiv:1503.06886 [physics.atom-ph]

    2015

  17. [25]

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

    2016

  18. [26]

    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

  19. [27]

    Yu, Y.-H

    J.-C. Yu, Y.-H. Yao, Y. Tang, and Y.-L. Wu, Sensitiv- ity of space-based gravitational-wave interferometers to ultralight bosonic fields and dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 108, 083007 (2023), arXiv:2307.09197 [gr-qc]

    2023

  20. [28]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, and K. Van Tilburg, Sound of Dark Matter: Searching for Light Scalars with Resonant-Mass Detectors, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 031102 (2016), arXiv:1508.01798 [hep-ph]

    2016

  21. [29]

    Caputo, L

    A. Caputo, L. Sberna, M. Frias, D. Blas, P. Pani, L. Shao, and W. Yan, Constraints on millicharged dark matter and axionlike particles from timing of radio waves, Phys. Rev. D100, 063515 (2019), arXiv:1902.02695 [astro- ph.CO]

    2019

  22. [30]

    H. An, S. Ge, W.-Q. Guo, X. Huang, J. Liu, and Z. Lu, Direct Detection of Dark Photon Dark Matter Using Radio Telescopes, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 181001 (2023), arXiv:2207.05767 [hep-ph]

    2023

  23. [31]

    D. Blas, D. L. Nacir, and S. Sibiryakov, Ultralight Dark Matter Resonates with Binary Pulsars, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 261102 (2017), arXiv:1612.06789 [hep-ph]

    2017

  24. [32]

    D. Blas, D. L´ opez Nacir, and S. Sibiryakov, Secular ef- fects of ultralight dark matter on binary pulsars, Phys. Rev. D101, 063016 (2020), arXiv:1910.08544 [gr-qc]

    2020

  25. [33]

    N. K. Porayko and K. A. Postnov, Constraints on ultra- light scalar dark matter from pulsar timing, Phys. Rev. D90, 062008 (2014), arXiv:1408.4670 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014

  26. [34]

    Smarraet al., Constraints on conformal ultralight dark matter couplings from the European Pulsar Timing Ar- ray, Phys

    C. Smarraet al., Constraints on conformal ultralight dark matter couplings from the European Pulsar Timing Ar- ray, Phys. Rev. D110, 043033 (2024), arXiv:2405.01633 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  27. [35]

    Gasparotto, Searching for Ultra Light Dark Matter soliton through GWs, PoSCOSMICWISPers2024, 016 (2025), arXiv:2503.04624 [astro-ph.HE]

    S. Gasparotto, Searching for Ultra Light Dark Matter soliton through GWs, PoSCOSMICWISPers2024, 016 (2025), arXiv:2503.04624 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  28. [36]

    Bertotti, L

    B. Bertotti, L. Iess, and P. Tortora, A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft, Nature425, 374 (2003)

    2003

  29. [37]

    J. W. Armstrong, L. Iess, P. Tortora, and B. Bertotti, Stochastic gravitational wave background: Upper limits in the 10**-6-Hz 10**-3-Hz band, Astrophys. J.599, 806 (2003)

    2003

  30. [38]

    G. L. Smith, C. D. Hoyle, J. H. Gundlach, E. G. Adel- berger, B. R. Heckel, and H. E. Swanson, Short range tests of the equivalence principle, Phys. Rev. D61, 022001 (2000), arXiv:2405.10982 [gr-qc]

    2000

  31. [39]

    Schlamminger, K

    S. Schlamminger, K. Y. Choi, T. A. Wagner, J. H. Gund- lach, and E. G. Adelberger, Test of the equivalence prin- ciple using a rotating torsion balance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 041101 (2008), arXiv:0712.0607 [gr-qc]

    2008

  32. [40]

    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 9 (2012), arXiv:1207.2442 [gr-qc]

    2012

  33. [41]

    Touboulet al.(MICROSCOPE), MICROSCOPE Mission: Final Results of the Test of the Equiva- lence Principle, Phys

    P. Touboulet al.(MICROSCOPE), MICROSCOPE Mission: Final Results of the Test of the Equiva- lence Principle, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 121102 (2022), arXiv:2209.15487 [gr-qc]

    2022

  34. [42]

    Detweiler, Klein-gordon equation and rotating black holes, Phys

    S. Detweiler, Klein-gordon equation and rotating black holes, Phys. Rev. D22, 2323 (1980)

    1980

  35. [43]

    Cardoso and S

    V. Cardoso and S. Yoshida, Superradiant instabilities of rotating black branes and strings, JHEP07, 009, arXiv:hep-th/0502206

  36. [44]

    S. R. Dolan, Instability of the massive klein-gordon field on the kerr spacetime, Phys. Rev. D76, 084001 (2007)

    2007

  37. [45]

    Witek, V

    H. Witek, V. Cardoso, A. Ishibashi, and U. Sperhake, Superradiant instabilities in astrophysical systems, Phys. Rev. D87, 043513 (2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Black holes as particle detectors: evolution of superradiant instabilities, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 134001 (2015), arXiv:1411.0686 [gr-qc]

    2015

  39. [47]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Superradiance: New Frontiers in Black Hole Physics, Lect. Notes Phys.906, pp.1 (2015), arXiv:1501.06570 [gr-qc]

    2015

  40. [48]

    Baumann, H

    D. Baumann, H. S. Chia, and R. A. Porto, Probing Ul- tralight Bosons with Binary Black Holes, Phys. Rev. D 99, 044001 (2019), arXiv:1804.03208 [gr-qc]

    2019

  41. [49]

    Zhang and H

    J. Zhang and H. Yang, Dynamic signatures of black hole binaries with superradiant clouds, Phys. Rev. D101, 043020 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Baumann, H

    D. Baumann, H. S. Chia, J. Stout, and L. ter Haar, The Spectra of Gravitational Atoms, JCAP12, 006, arXiv:1908.10370 [gr-qc]

    1908

  43. [51]

    Baumann, H

    D. Baumann, H. S. Chia, R. A. Porto, and J. Stout, Gravitational Collider Physics, Phys. Rev. D101, 083019 (2020), arXiv:1912.04932 [gr-qc]

    2020

  44. [52]

    Schive, T

    H.-Y. Schive, T. Chiueh, and T. Broadhurst, Cos- mic Structure as the Quantum Interference of a Co- herent Dark Wave, Nature Phys.10, 496 (2014), arXiv:1406.6586 [astro-ph.GA]

    2014

  45. [53]

    Schive, M.-H

    H.-Y. Schive, M.-H. Liao, T.-P. Woo, S.-K. Wong, T. Chi- ueh, T. Broadhurst, and W. Y. P. Hwang, Understanding the Core-Halo Relation of Quantum Wave Dark Mat- ter from 3D Simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 261302 (2014), arXiv:1407.7762 [astro-ph.GA]

    2014

  46. [54]

    Chavanis, Mass-radius relation of self-gravitating Bose-Einstein condensates with a central black hole, Eur

    P.-H. Chavanis, Mass-radius relation of self-gravitating Bose-Einstein condensates with a central black hole, Eur. Phys. J. Plus134, 352 (2019), arXiv:1909.04709 [gr-qc]

    2019

  47. [55]

    N. Bar, K. Blum, T. Lacroix, and P. Panci, Looking for ultralight dark matter near supermassive black holes, JCAP07, 045, arXiv:1905.11745 [astro-ph.CO]

    1905

  48. [56]

    E. Y. Davies and P. Mocz, Fuzzy dark matter soliton cores around supermassive black holes, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc.492, 5721–5729 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    Annulli, V

    L. Annulli, V. Cardoso, and R. Vicente, Response of ultralight dark matter to supermassive black holes and binaries, Phys. Rev. D102, 063022 (2020), arXiv:2009.00012 [gr-qc]

    2020

  50. [58]

    J. L. Zagorac, E. Kendall, N. Padmanabhan, and R. Eas- ther, Soliton formation and the core-halo mass relation: An eigenstate perspective, Phys. Rev. D107, 083513 (2023), arXiv:2212.09349 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023

  51. [59]

    Aghaie, G

    M. Aghaie, G. Armando, A. Dondarini, and P. Panci, Bounds on ultralight dark matter from NANOGrav, Phys. Rev. D109, 103030 (2024), arXiv:2308.04590 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  52. [60]

    Liao, G.-M

    P.-Y. Liao, G.-M. Su, H.-Y. Schive, A. Kunkel, H. Huang, and T. Chiueh, Deciphering the soliton-halo relation in fuzzy dark matter (2025), arXiv:2412.09908 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025

  53. [61]

    Abuteret al.(GRAVITY), Detection of the Schwarzschild precession in the orbit of the star S2 near the Galactic centre massive black hole, Astron

    R. Abuteret al.(GRAVITY), Detection of the Schwarzschild precession in the orbit of the star S2 near the Galactic centre massive black hole, Astron. Astro- phys.636, L5 (2020), arXiv:2004.07187 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020

  54. [62]

    Abuteret al.(GRAVITY), Mass distribution in the Galactic Center based on interferometric astrometry of multiple stellar orbits, Astron

    R. Abuteret al.(GRAVITY), 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

  55. [63]

    Abd El Dayemet al.(GRAVITY), Improving con- straints on the extended mass distribution in the Galactic center with stellar orbits, Astron

    K. Abd El Dayemet al.(GRAVITY), Improving con- straints on the extended mass distribution in the Galactic center with stellar orbits, Astron. Astrophys.692, A242 (2024), arXiv:2409.12261 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024

  56. [64]

    Lacroix, Dynamical constraints on a dark matter spike at the Galactic Centre from stellar orbits, Astron

    T. Lacroix, Dynamical constraints on a dark matter spike at the Galactic Centre from stellar orbits, Astron. Astro- phys.619, A46 (2018), arXiv:1801.01308 [astro-ph.GA]

    2018

  57. [65]

    Shen, G.-W

    Z.-Q. Shen, G.-W. Yuan, C.-Z. Jiang, Y.-L. S. Tsai, Q. Yuan, and Y.-Z. Fan, Exploring dark matter spike distribution around the Galactic centre with stellar or- bits, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.527, 3196 (2023), arXiv:2303.09284 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023

  58. [66]

    A. F. Zakharov, A. A. Nucita, F. De Paolis, and G. In- grosso, Apoastron Shift Constraints on Dark Matter Dis- tribution at the Galactic Center, Phys. Rev. D76, 062001 (2007), arXiv:0707.4423 [astro-ph]

    2007

  59. [67]

    Heißel, T

    G. Heißel, T. Paumard, G. Perrin, and F. Vincent, The dark mass signature in the orbit of S2, Astron. Astrophys. 660, A13 (2022), arXiv:2112.07778 [astro-ph.GA]

    2022

  60. [68]

    Amorimet al.(GRAVITY), Scalar field effects on the orbit of S2 star, Mon

    A. Amorimet al.(GRAVITY), Scalar field effects on the orbit of S2 star, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.489, 4606 (2019), arXiv:1908.06681 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019

  61. [69]

    Yuan, Z.-Q

    G.-W. Yuan, Z.-Q. Shen, Y.-L. S. Tsai, Q. Yuan, and Y.-Z. Fan, Constraining ultralight bosonic dark mat- ter with Keck observations of S2’s orbit and kinemat- ics, Phys. Rev. D106, 103024 (2022), arXiv:2205.04970 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022

  62. [70]

    Della Monica and I

    R. Della Monica and I. de Martino, Narrowing the al- lowed mass range of ultralight bosons with the S2 star, Astron. Astrophys.670, L4 (2023), arXiv:2206.03980 [gr- qc]

    2023

  63. [71]

    Foschiet al.(GRAVITY), Using the motion of S2 to constrain scalar clouds around Sgr A*, Mon

    A. Foschiet al.(GRAVITY), Using the motion of S2 to constrain scalar clouds around Sgr A*, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.524, 1075 (2023), arXiv:2306.17215 [astro- ph.GA]

    2023

  64. [72]

    Foschiet al.(GRAVITY), Using the motion of S2 to constrain vector clouds around Sgr A*, Mon

    A. Foschiet al.(GRAVITY), Using the motion of S2 to constrain vector clouds around Sgr A*, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.530, 3740 (2024), arXiv:2312.02653 [astro- ph.GA]

    2024

  65. [73]

    Z. Bai, V. Cardoso, Y. Chen, T. Do, A. Hees, H. Xiao, and X. Xue, Probing axions via spectroscopic mea- surements of s-stars at the galactic center (2025), arXiv:2507.07482 [hep-ph]

    2025

  66. [74]

    G. M. Tomaselli and A. Caputo, Probing dense envi- ronments around sgr a* with s-stars dynamics (2025), arXiv:2509.03568 [astro-ph.GA]

    2025 arXiv

  67. [75]

    M. H. Chan and C. M. Lee, Crossing the dark matter soli- ton core: A possible reversed orbital precession, Phys. Rev. D106, 123018 (2022), arXiv:2212.01979 [astro- ph.GA]

    2022

  68. [76]

    J. F. Acevedo, A. J. Reilly, and L. Santos-Olmsted, Dark drag around sagittarius a* (2025), arXiv:2510.01320 [hep-ph]. 10

    2025

  69. [77]

    R. A. Gustafson, I. M. Shoemaker, and V. Takhistov, Probing dark matter interactions with stellar motion near sagittarius a* (2025), arXiv:2510.07387 [hep-ph]

    2025

  70. [78]

    J. E. Kim, Weak-interaction singlet and strong CP in- variance, Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 103 (1979)

    1979

  71. [79]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, A simple solution to the strong cp problem with a harmless axion, Physics Letters B104, 199 (1981)

    1981

  72. [80]

    Grilli di Cortona, E

    G. Grilli di Cortona, E. Hardy, J. Pardo Vega, and G. Villadoro, The QCD axion, precisely, JHEP01, 034, arXiv:1511.02867 [hep-ph]

  73. [81]

    Arakawa, J

    J. Arakawa, J. Eby, M. S. Safronova, V. Takhistov, and M. H. Zaheer, Detection of bosenovae with quantum sen- sors on earth and in space (2023), arXiv:2306.16468 [hep- ph]

    2023

  74. [82]

    Chakrabarti, B

    S. Chakrabarti, B. Dave, K. Dutta, and G. Goswami, Constraints on the mass and self-coupling of ultra-light scalar field dark matter using observational limits on galactic central mass, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2022 (09), 074

    2022

  75. [83]

    Dave and G

    B. Dave and G. Goswami, Self-interactions of ULDM to the rescue?, JCAP07, 015, arXiv:2304.04463 [astro- ph.CO]

  76. [84]

    Banik, J

    A. Banik, J. H. Kim, and X.-Y. Yang, Boson stars hosting black holes (2025), arXiv:2511.03788 [gr-qc]

    2025

  77. [85]

    Baryakhtar, M

    M. Baryakhtar, M. Galanis, R. Lasenby, and O. Simon, Black hole superradiance of self-interacting scalar fields, Phys. Rev. D103, 095019 (2021), arXiv:2011.11646 [hep- ph]

    2021

  78. [86]

    S. J. Witte and A. Mummery, Stepping up superradiance constraints on axions, Phys. Rev. D111, 083044 (2025), arXiv:2412.03655 [hep-ph]

    2025

  79. [87]

    Helfer, D

    T. Helfer, D. J. Marsh, K. Clough, M. Fairbairn, E. A. Lim, and R. Becerril, Black hole formation from axion stars, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2017(03), 055–055

    2017

  80. [88]

    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

  81. [89]

    J. A. R. Cembranos, A. L. Maroto, S. J. N´ u˜ nez Jare˜ no, and H. Villarrubia-Rojo, Constraints on anharmonic corrections of Fuzzy Dark Matter, JHEP08, 073, arXiv:1805.08112 [astro-ph.CO]

  82. [90]

    C. M. Will and M. Maitra, Relativistic orbits around spinning supermassive black holes. Secular evolution to 4.5 post-Newtonian order, Phys. Rev. D95, 064003 (2017), arXiv:1611.06931 [gr-qc]

    2017

  83. [91]

    Cao, Y.-Z

    Y. Cao, Y.-Z. Cheng, G.-L. Li, and Y. Tang, Probing vector gravitational atoms with eccentric intermediate mass-ratio inspirals, Phys. Rev. D111, 083011 (2025), arXiv:2411.17247 [gr-qc]

    2025

  84. [92]

    J.-C. Yu, Y. Cao, Z. Hu, and L. Shao, Detecting ultralight dark matter in the galactic center with pulsars around sgr a* (2025), arXiv:2510.22573 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  85. [93]

    Poisson and C

    E. Poisson and C. M. Will,Gravity: Newtonian, Post- Newtonian, Relativistic(Cambridge University Press, 2014)

    2014

  86. [94]

    Heeset al., Testing General Relativity with stel- lar orbits around the supermassive black hole in our Galactic center, Phys

    A. Heeset al., Testing General Relativity with stel- lar orbits around the supermassive black hole in our Galactic center, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 211101 (2017), arXiv:1705.07902 [astro-ph.GA]

    2017

Pith tools

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