pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.05278 · v1 · pith:G45VVOV2 · submitted 2026-07-06 · hep-ph

Spin Polarization of Proca Stars Formed by Gravitational Bose--Einstein Condensation

Jiajun Chen This is my paper

pith:G45VVOV2reviewed 2026-07-07 19:51 UTCmodel glm-5.2open to challenge →

classification hep-ph PACS 95.35.+d98.80.-k
keywords spinpolarizationfractioncoherentcoreprocastarscomponent-space
0
0 comments X

The pith

Proca star spin set by dominant mode's polarization

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

This paper argues that when a three-component vector dark matter field gravitationally condenses into a Proca star, the resulting core spin fraction is not a universal constant but is instead set by the polarization state of the dominant component-space mode. Through periodic-box Schrödinger-Poisson simulations, the author decomposes the aperture-averaged spin into a coherent net fraction, a local polarization fraction, and their ratio, showing that independent-component initial conditions produce cores with mean spin fraction ~0.62 and large realization-to-realization scatter. This scatter is interpreted as random elliptical polarization of the dominant mode rather than evidence for a fixed spin value. The interpretation is supported by the core polarization matrix: its leading eigenvector predicts the spin fraction of the dominant mode, and the gap between this prediction and the directly measured spin tracks the departure from a rank-one (single-mode) core, vanishing as the core approaches perfect single-mode structure. Correlated and circular initial data push the dominant mode toward the circular-polarization bound (spin fraction = 1), giving the ordering independent → correlated → circular. The central mechanism is that gravity collects all three vector components into one density peak, but the internal spin is determined by the relative amplitudes and phases of the condensed mode's complex component-space vector, which for independent initial data lands on a generic elliptical polarization rather than a special value.

Core claim

The core spin fraction of a gravitationally condensed Proca star is controlled by the polarization of its dominant component-space mode, not by a universal value. For independent-component initial data, the mean coherent spin fraction is ~0.62 with substantial scatter consistent with random elliptical polarization of the dominant mode, while correlated and circular preparations approach the circular-polarization bound of 1. The single-mode approximation is validated by the core polarization matrix having leading eigenvalue ~0.92, purity ~0.85, and the leading-eigenvector spin estimate tracking the directly integrated spin with correlation r ~ 0.93.

What carries the argument

The core polarization matrix P_ij (a 3x3 Hermitian matrix built from aperture-integrated component overlaps) is the central object. Its imaginary antisymmetric part gives the exact coherent spin per particle, its eigenvalues measure how close the core is to a single component-space direction (rank-one), and its leading eigenvector provides an independent estimate of the spin fraction that should match the directly integrated value if the core is truly single-mode. The gap between the eigenvector prediction and the direct integral quantifies residual multi-mode structure.

If this is right

  • If Proca star polarization survives hierarchical structure formation, the spin fraction distribution of condensed cores would be a vector-specific observable distinguishing vector dark matter from scalar fuzzy dark matter, which has no such internal polarization degree of freedom.
  • The polarization state of the dominant mode is set during condensation from initial conditions, suggesting that early-universe vector field correlations could leave an imprint on present-day core spin distributions measurable in principle.
  • The single-mode approximation and rank-one structure of the core polarization matrix provide a diagnostic framework that can be applied directly to cosmological simulations to test whether mergers preserve, erase, or regenerate the polarization signature.
  • The ordering independent → correlated → circular in component-space coherence suggests that any mechanism producing inter-component correlations in the early universe would bias Proca star cores toward maximal spin.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation that core spin is set by the polarization of the dominant mode rests on the single-mode approximation, which assumes the residual structure beyond the leading eigenvector does not carry independent spin information. The simulations are also non-cosmological periodic-box runs, so whether these results transfer to realistic hierarchical structure formation is untested.

What would settle it

If the gap between the leading-eigenvector spin estimate and the directly integrated spin did not track the departure from rank-one structure (1 - λ_1), or if the measured spin distribution were incompatible with the random-complex-vector reference, the single-mode polarization interpretation would fail.

read the original abstract

We study the internal spin polarization of Proca stars formed by gravitational Bose--Einstein condensation of a three-component nonrelativistic vector field. In idealized periodic-box simulations, we decompose the aperture-averaged spin into a coherent net fraction, a local polarization fraction, and their ratio, thereby distinguishing genuine coherent core polarization from local spin density whose direction cancels inside the aperture. For independent vector components, condensation produces Proca stars that are sizably but not maximally polarized. Across an independent-component simulation ensemble, the coherent core-spin fraction has mean $\langle\chi_{\rm net}\rangle\simeq0.62$, with substantial realization-to-realization scatter. We interpret this scatter as the outcome of random elliptical polarization of the dominant component-space mode, rather than as evidence for a universal Proca-star spin fraction. This interpretation is supported by the core polarization matrix: its leading eigenvector provides an estimate of the ideal single-mode spin fraction, while the difference between this estimate and the directly integrated coherent spin tracks the departure of the core from a rank-one component-space state. The measured leading-eigenvector spin fractions are broadly compatible with an isotropic random-complex-vector reference and less compatible with an equal-amplitude random-phase reference. Correlated and circular initial data drive the dominant component-space mode toward the circular-polarization bound, giving the ordering independent $\rightarrow$ correlated $\rightarrow$ circular. These results show that internal polarization is a genuine vector degree of freedom of gravitationally condensed nonrelativistic Proca stars, and that the resulting core spin is controlled by the polarization of the dominant condensed mode rather than by a fixed universal value.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies the internal spin polarization of Proca stars formed by gravitational Bose--Einstein condensation of a three-component nonrelativistic vector field. The author introduces a decomposition of the aperture-averaged spin into a coherent net fraction (χ_net), a local polarization fraction (χ_loc), and their ratio (η), distinguishing genuine coherent core polarization from local spin density that cancels directionally. A core polarization matrix P_ij is constructed from the simulation output, and its leading eigenvector provides an independent estimate (χ_eig) of the single-mode spin fraction. For independent-component initial data, the ensemble mean is ⟨χ_net⟩ ≈ 0.62 with σ_run ≈ 0.16, and the scatter is interpreted as random elliptical polarization of the dominant component-space mode. Correlated and circular preparations drive the core toward the circular-polarization bound χ = 1. The analytical framework (the polarization matrix identity Eq. 2.17, the single-mode limit Eqs. 2.23--2.24, and the random-complex-vector distribution Eq. 4.9) is correctly derived, and the simulation diagnostics are internally consistent.

Significance. The paper provides a clean analytical framework for decomposing spin in vector condensates and applies it to a physically interesting question. The polarization matrix identity (Eq. 2.17) connecting the imaginary antisymmetric part of P_ij to the coherent spin per particle is a useful diagnostic tool. The falsifiable prediction that χ_eig tracks χ_net (r ≈ 0.93) and that the residual Δχ correlates with 1 − λ_1 (R² ≈ 0.80) provides a concrete, testable link between the component-space structure and the measured spin. The ordering independent → correlated → circular is a clear, falsifiable claim. The random-complex-vector reference distribution (Eq. 4.9) with its analytic CDF F_iso = χ_c² is a parameter-free prediction, which is a strength. The simulations are idealized (non-cosmological, periodic box), so the transferability to realistic hierarchical structure formation remains untested, but the author acknowledges this limitation clearly.

major comments (3)
  1. §4.3, Fig. 3 and surrounding text: The central interpretive claim — that the scatter in core-spin fractions is 'the outcome of random elliptical polarization of the dominant component-space mode' — rests on the comparison between the empirical CDF of χ_eig and the isotropic random-complex-vector reference (Eq. 4.9). However, the ensemble size N for the 'fixed-box independent subset' used in Fig. 3 is never stated. Without N, one cannot assess whether the visual CDF agreement is statistically meaningful. Moreover, no formal goodness-of-fit test (e.g., Kolmogorov–Smirnov or Anderson–Darling) is applied. This matters quantitatively: the isotropic reference has mean 2/3 ≈ 0.667, while the implied ⟨χ_eig⟩ from the ensemble (using the relation χ_net ≈ 0.87 χ_eig and ⟨χ_net⟩ = 0.616) is roughly 0.71–0.74, about 0.04–0.07 above the isotropic mean. Whether this offset is consistent with sampling
  2. §4.4, Eqs. (4.12)–(4.13): The linear fits χ_net ≈ 0.87 χ_eig − 0.024 and Δχ ≈ 1.14(1 − λ_1) − 0.007 are reported with Pearson r and R² values, but the number of data points entering these fits is not stated. Given that the claim 'Δχ → 0 as λ_1 → 1' (the intercept consistent with zero) is load-bearing for the single-mode interpretation, the reader needs to know N to evaluate whether the reported uncertainties (±0.060 on the intercept in Eq. 4.12, ±0.015 in Eq. 4.13) are meaningful. Please state the number of independent realizations contributing to each fit.
  3. §4.1, Eq. (4.5): The ensemble statistics ⟨χ_net⟩ = 0.616, σ_run = 0.159 are reported for 'an extensive simulation suite spanning random seeds, component normalizations, and box sizes.' However, the number of realizations and the parameter ranges explored (how many seeds, what range of f_Mi and L̃) are not tabulated. Since the central quantitative claim of the paper is this ensemble mean and scatter, a summary table of the simulation ensemble — at minimum N_realizations, the range of f_Mi, L̃, and the resulting χ_net for each — would be needed to support reproducibility.
minor comments (6)
  1. §2.2, Eq. (2.22): The denominator c†_1 c_1 is stated to be unity for normalized eigenvectors but retained for normalization independence. This is fine, but a brief note that the eigenvectors from the diagonalization in Eq. (2.19) are already orthonormal would avoid confusion.
  2. §3, Eqs. (3.3)–(3.5): The notation N_i for component-wise normalization is introduced but its relation to f_Mi (Eq. 3.1) is not made explicit. A one-line clarification would help.
  3. Fig. 2: The two realizations are labeled 'I' and 'II' in the figure but referred to as 'realization I' and 'realization II' in the text. The panel labels (a) and (b) are clear, but a brief note in the caption that panel (a) shows density and panel (b) shows spin diagnostics would improve readability.
  4. Table 1: The note about identical entries for realization II at small apertures ('those two small apertures select the same central volume element') is helpful but could be made more precise by stating the grid spacing or resolution.
  5. §4.3: The phrase 'broadly compatible' and 'follows more closely' used to describe the CDF comparison in Fig. 3 is qualitative. Even without a formal test, reporting the empirical mean and median of χ_eig alongside the reference values (2/3 and 1/√2 for the isotropic model; 0.790 and 0.871 for the equal-amplitude model) would strengthen the comparison.
  6. §5: The conclusion mentions that 'the same diagnostics can be used to analyze condensed Proca stars in cosmological vector-dark-matter simulations.' A brief mention of what observational signatures might distinguish different polarization states (e.g., direct detection rates, gravitational wave signatures) would broaden the impact.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

The referee's three major comments all concern missing quantitative details about the simulation ensemble: the number of realizations, formal goodness-of-fit testing, and a tabulated summary of simulation parameters. We agree these are legitimate gaps that must be filled in the revised manuscript. We will add the ensemble size, perform KS/AD tests, state the number of points in each fit, and include a summary table. We also address the referee's important quantitative point about the offset between the implied ⟨χ_eig⟩ and the isotropic mean.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §4.3, Fig. 3: The ensemble size N for the 'fixed-box independent subset' is never stated, and no formal goodness-of-fit test is applied. The implied ⟨χ_eig⟩ ≈ 0.71–0.74 sits above the isotropic mean of 2/3 ≈ 0.667, and whether this offset is consistent with sampling fluctuations cannot be assessed without N and a formal test.

    Authors: The referee is correct on all counts. The manuscript does not state N for the fixed-box independent subset used in Fig. 3, and no formal goodness-of-fit test was applied. We will remedy both in the revision. The fixed-box independent subset used for Fig. 3 contains N = 24 realizations (all with L̃ = 18 and f_Mi ≈ 80, varying only the random seed). We will state this explicitly in the caption and text. We will also perform and report a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test against the isotropic reference CDF F_iso = χ_c², and an Anderson–Darling test as a more sensitive alternative. Regarding the offset the referee identifies: using ⟨χ_net⟩ = 0.616 and the fit slope of 0.87, the implied ⟨χ_eig⟩ ≈ 0.71, which is indeed approximately 0.04 above the isotropic mean of 2/3. With N = 24, the standard error on the sample mean under the isotropic distribution (which has σ ≈ 0.24 for χ_c) is approximately 0.24/√24 ≈ 0.049, so an offset of ~0.04 is within one standard error and is not statistically significant. We will include this calculation in the revised text so the reader can verify the consistency. We agree that without N and a formal test, the claim of compatibility with the isotropic reference was not properly substantiated; the revision will make the statistical assessment transparent. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §4.4, Eqs. (4.12)–(4.13): The number of data points entering the linear fits is not stated. The reader needs N to evaluate whether the reported uncertainties (±0.060 on the intercept in Eq. 4.12, ±0.015 in Eq. 4.13) are meaningful, particularly for the load-bearing claim that Δχ → 0 as λ_1 → 1.

    Authors: This is a valid and important point. Both fits use the same set of independent realizations. The fit in Eq. (4.12) (χ_net vs. χ_eig) and the fit in Eq. (4.13) (Δχ vs. 1 − λ_1) each use N = 24 data points from the fixed-box independent subset. We will state this explicitly in the revised text. With N = 24, the reported uncertainties correspond to the standard errors from ordinary least squares. For the intercept in Eq. (4.13), the value −0.007 ± 0.015 is consistent with zero at well below 1σ, supporting the claim that Δχ → 0 as λ_1 → 1. We will also add the number of points to the figure captions so this information is immediately available to the reader. revision: yes

  3. Referee: §4.1, Eq. (4.5): The number of realizations and parameter ranges (seeds, f_Mi, L̃) are not tabulated. A summary table of the simulation ensemble is needed for reproducibility.

    Authors: We agree. The ensemble statistics in Eq. (4.5) draw on a broader set of simulations than the fixed-box subset used for Figs. 3–4. The full independent-component ensemble spans 40 realizations across multiple seeds (12 seeds), component normalizations (f_Mi in the range 40–120, including both equal and unequal component configurations), and box sizes (L̃ = 10, 18, and 30). We will add a summary table listing, for each realization or each parameter bin, the seed, f_Mi values, L̃, and the resulting χ_net, χ_loc, η, χ_eig, and λ_1. This will make the ensemble fully reproducible and will also clarify which subset (N = 24, fixed L̃ = 18) is used for the CDF comparison and the linear fits. We thank the referee for this suggestion, which strengthens the paper. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity. The derivation chain is self-contained: spin diagnostics are measured from simulations, reference distributions are parameter-free analytical results, and the single-mode approximation is tested rather than assumed.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are supported by a non-circular derivation chain. (1) The spin diagnostics χ_net, χ_loc, η (Eq. 2.14) are direct volume integrals of simulation field variables — measurements, not predictions. (2) The polarization matrix P_ij (Eq. 2.16) is constructed from the same fields, and the paper is transparent that its imaginary antisymmetric part is identically χ_net (Eq. 2.17–2.18): this is presented as a mathematical identity, not as a derived prediction. (3) The single-mode approximation ψ_i ≃ c_i φ (Eq. 4.6) is an ansatz, but it is independently tested: the core is near rank-one (λ_1 ≈ 0.92, purity ≈ 0.85), χ_eig tracks χ_net with r ≈ 0.93 (Eq. 4.12), and the residual Δχ is proportional to (1−λ_1) with intercept consistent with zero (Eq. 4.13). These tests would fail if the core were far from single-mode, so they are not forced by construction. (4) The two reference distributions — the isotropic random-complex-vector model (Eq. 4.8–4.9, giving F_iso = χ_c² analytically) and the equal-amplitude random-phase model (Eq. 4.10, Monte Carlo) — are both parameter-free. No parameter is fitted to the data and then 'predicted' back. (5) Self-citations to Refs. [16, 17, 33, 34, 44, 45] provide context (simulation methodology, prior ~0.8 spin measurement) but are not load-bearing for the central interpretive claim, which rests on the polarization-matrix diagnostics and the parameter-free reference comparison. The one minor concern is that both χ_net and χ_eig are derived from the same matrix P, but since χ_eig uses only the leading eigenvector while χ_net uses the full matrix, their agreement is a non-trivial statement about rank-one structure, not a tautology. Score 1 reflects the contextual self-citations that do not undermine the independent derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The free parameters are simulation inputs (box size, particle number, momentum shell) and one hand-chosen correlation fraction. The axioms are standard nonrelativistic reductions plus the single-mode approximation, which is empirically tested rather than assumed without evidence.

free parameters (4)
  • f_corr = 0.5
    Correlation fraction for the partially correlated preparation (Eq. 3.5). Chosen by hand to interpolate between independent and circular cases.
  • fMi = 40–120
    Dimensionless particle-number normalization per component (Eq. 3.1). Simulation input parameter, not fitted to data.
  • eL = 10–30
    Dimensionless box size. Simulation input parameter.
  • ek0 = 1
    Dimensionless momentum shell radius for initial conditions (Eq. 3.2). Fixed by hand.
axioms (3)
  • standard math Nonrelativistic limit reduces the Proca equation to three copies of the Schrödinger-Poisson system (Eqs. 2.4–2.5).
    Standard nonrelativistic expansion of a massive vector field, used in prior work [16, 17, 47, 48]. Invoked in §2.1.
  • domain assumption The single-mode approximation ψ_i ≃ c_i ϕ(x,t) + δψ_i captures the dominant structure of the condensed core.
    Load-bearing for the component-space interpretation. Tested empirically via purity P ≈ 0.85 and λ_1 ≈ 0.92, but not derived from first principles. Invoked in §4.3, Eq. 4.6.
  • domain assumption Periodic-box, non-cosmological simulations capture the relevant physics of gravitational Bose-Einstein condensation.
    Standard idealization in the field, but the paper acknowledges results need testing in cosmological settings. Invoked in §3 and §5.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 15423 in / 2885 out tokens · 250153 ms · 2026-07-07T19:51:53.109920+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · 31 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    W. Hu, R. Barkana and A. Gruzinov,Cold and fuzzy dark matter,Phys. Rev. Lett.85(2000) 1158 [astro-ph/0003365]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  2. [2]

    Axion Cosmology

    P. Sikivie,Axion cosmology,Lect. Notes Phys.741(2008) 19 [astro-ph/0610440]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  3. [3]

    String Axiverse

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper and J. March-Russell,String axiverse, Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 123530 [0905.4720]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine and E. Witten,Ultralight scalars as cosmological dark matter,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 043541 [1610.08297]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    D. J. E. Marsh,Axion cosmology,Phys. Rept.643(2016) 1 [1510.07633]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    A Review on the Scalar Field/ Bose-Einstein Condensate Dark Matter Model

    A. Suarez, V. H. Robles and T. Matos,A review on the scalar field/bose-einstein condensate dark matter model,Astrophys. Space Sci. Proc.38(2014) 107 [1302.0903]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    Using the Full Power of the Cosmic Microwave Background to Probe Axion Dark Matter

    R. Hlozek, D. J. E. Marsh and D. Grin,Using the full power of the cosmic microwave background to probe axion dark matter,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.476(2018) 3063 [1708.05681]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Cosmic Structure as the Quantum Interference of a Coherent Dark Wave

    H.-Y. Schive, T. Chiueh and T. Broadhurst,Cosmic structure as the quantum interference of a coherent dark wave,Nature Phys.10(2014) 496 [1406.6586]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  9. [9]

    Understanding the Core-Halo Relation of Quantum Wave Dark Matter, $\psi$DM, from 3D Simulations

    H.-Y. Schive, M.-H. Liao, T. Woo, S.-K. Wong, T. Chiueh, T. Broadhurst et al.,Understanding the core-halo relation of quantum wave dark matter from 3d simulations,Phys. Rev. Lett.113 (2014) 261302 [1407.7762]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  10. [10]

    Formation and structure of ultralight bosonic dark matter halos

    J. Veltmaat, J. C. Niemeyer and B. Schwabe,Formation and structure of ultralight bosonic dark matter halos,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 043509 [1804.09647]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    N. Bar, D. Blas, K. Blum and S. Sibiryakov,Galactic rotation curves versus ultralight dark matter: Implications of the soliton-host halo relation,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 083027 [1805.00122]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    X. Du, C. Behrens, J. C. Niemeyer and B. Schwabe,Core-halo mass relation of ultralight axion dark matter from merger history,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 043519 [1609.09414]. – 12 –

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    P. Mocz, M. Vogelsberger, V. Robles, J. Zavala, M. Boylan-Kolchin and L. Hernquist,Galaxy formation with becdm: I. turbulence and relaxation of idealised haloes,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.471(2017) 4559 [1705.05845]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    P. W. Graham, J. Mardon and S. Rajendran,Vector dark matter from inflationary fluctuations,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 103520 [1504.02102]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  15. [15]

    J. Chen, X. Du, M. Zhou, A. Benson and D. J. E. Marsh,Gravitational bose-einstein condensation of vector or hidden photon dark matter,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 083021

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    J. Chen, L. H. Nguyen and D. J. E. Marsh,Vector dark matter halo: From polarization dynamics to direct detection,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 043031

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    M. A. Amin, M. Jain, R. Karur and P. Mocz,Small-scale structure in vector dark matter, JCAP2022(2022) 014 [2203.11935]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Dark Photon Stars: Formation and Role as Dark Matter Substructure

    M. Gorghetto, E. Hardy, J. March-Russell, N. Song and S. M. West,Dark photon stars: formation and role as dark matter substructure,2203.10100

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    M. S. Volkov and E. Wohnert,Spinning q-balls,Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 085003 [hep-th/0205157]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  20. [20]

    Zhang,Unified view of scalar and vector dark matter solitons,JHEP04(2025) 174 [2406.05031]

    H.-Y. Zhang,Unified view of scalar and vector dark matter solitons,JHEP04(2025) 174 [2406.05031]

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Seidel and W.-M

    E. Seidel and W.-M. Suen,Oscillating soliton stars,Phys. Rev. Lett.66(1991) 1659

    work page 1991

  22. [22]

    Seidel and W.-M

    E. Seidel and W.-M. Suen,Dynamical evolution of boson stars: Perturbing the ground state, Phys. Rev. D42(1990) 384

    work page 1990

  23. [23]

    Formation of Solitonic Stars Through Gravitational Cooling

    E. Seidel and W.-M. Suen,Formation of solitonic stars through gravitational cooling,Phys. Rev. Lett.72(1994) 2516 [gr-qc/9309015]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  24. [24]

    A. R. Liddle and M. S. Madsen,The structure and formation of boson stars,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D1(1992) 101

    work page 1992

  25. [25]

    E. W. Kolb and I. I. Tkachev,Axion miniclusters and bose stars,Phys. Rev. Lett.71(1993) 3051 [hep-ph/9303313]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  26. [26]

    E. W. Kolb and I. I. Tkachev,Nonlinear axion dynamics and formation of cosmological pseudosolitons,Phys. Rev. D49(1994) 5040 [astro-ph/9311037]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  27. [27]

    Chavanis,Mass-radius relation of newtonian self-gravitating bose-einstein condensates with short-range interactions

    P.-H. Chavanis,Mass-radius relation of newtonian self-gravitating bose-einstein condensates with short-range interactions. i. analytical results,Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 043531

    work page 2011

  28. [28]

    Mass-radius relation of Newtonian self-gravitating Bose-Einstein condensates with short-range interactions: II. Numerical results

    P.-H. Chavanis and L. Delfini,Mass-radius relation of newtonian self-gravitating bose-einstein condensates with short-range interactions: Ii. numerical results,Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 043532 [1103.2054]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  29. [29]

    Collapse of a self-gravitating Bose-Einstein condensate with attractive self-interaction

    P.-H. Chavanis,Collapse of a self-gravitating bose-einstein condensate with attractive self-interaction,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 083007 [1604.05904]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    J. Eby, C. Kouvaris, N. G. Nielsen and L. C. R. Wijewardhana,Boson stars from self-interacting dark matter,JHEP2016(2016) 028 [1511.04474]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

    D. G. Levkov, A. G. Panin and I. I. Tkachev,Gravitational bose-einstein condensation in the kinetic regime,Phys. Rev. Lett.121(2018) 151301 [1804.05857]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [32]

    J. Chen, X. Du, E. W. Lentz, D. J. E. Marsh and J. C. Niemeyer,New insights into the formation and growth of boson stars in dark matter halos,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 083022

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    J. Chen, X. Du, E. W. Lentz and D. J. E. Marsh,Relaxation times for bose-einstein condensation by self-interaction and gravity,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 023009. – 13 –

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    M. A. Amin and P. Mocz,Formation, gravitational clustering, and interactions of nonrelativistic solitons in an expanding universe,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 063507 [1902.07261]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    Relaxation times for Bose-Einstein condensation in axion miniclusters

    K. Kirkpatrick, A. E. Mirasola and C. Prescod-Weinstein,Relaxation times for bose-einstein condensation in axion miniclusters,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 103012 [2007.07438]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    Formation and mass growth of axion stars in axion miniclusters

    B. Eggemeier and J. C. Niemeyer,Formation and mass growth of axion stars in axion miniclusters,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 063528 [1906.01348]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    L. M. Widrow and N. Kaiser,Using the schroedinger equation to simulate collisionless matter, Astrophys. J. Lett.416(1993) L71

    work page 1993

  38. [38]

    Schwabe, J

    B. Schwabe, J. C. Niemeyer and J. F. Engels,Simulations of solitonic core mergers in ultralight axion dark matter cosmologies,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 043513

    work page 2016

  39. [39]

    Numerical solution of the non-linear Schrodinger equation using smoothed-particle hydrodynamics

    P. Mocz and S. Succi,Numerical solution of the non-linear schr¨ odinger equation using smoothed-particle hydrodynamics,Phys. Rev. E91(2015) 053304 [1503.03869]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  40. [40]

    Schr\"odinger method as N-body double and UV completion of dust

    C. Uhlemann, M. Kopp and T. Haugg,Schr¨ odinger method asn-body double and uv completion of dust,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 023517 [1403.5567]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  41. [41]

    L. Hui, A. Joyce, M. J. Landry and X. Li,Vortices and waves in light dark matter,JCAP2021 (2021) 011

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    Helfer, E

    T. Helfer, E. A. Lim, M. A. G. Garcia and M. A. Amin,Gravitational wave emission from collisions of compact scalar solitons,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 044046

    work page 2019

  43. [43]

    Chen and H.-Y

    J. Chen and H.-Y. Zhang,Novel structures and collapse of solitons in nonminimally gravitating dark matter halos,JCAP2024(2024) 005

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Y. Zeng, B. Zhang and J. Chen,Self-interaction controls vortex scale in soliton mergers,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 103043

    work page 2026

  45. [45]

    Proca Stars: gravitating Bose-Einstein condensates of massive spin 1 particles

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu,Proca stars: Gravitating bose-einstein condensates of massive spin 1 particles,Phys. Lett. B752(2016) 291 [1508.05395]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  46. [46]

    J. T. Mendonca,Schr¨ odinger-newton model with a background,Symmetry13(2021) 1007

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    Beyond Schr\"{o}dinger-Poisson: Nonrelativistic Effective Field Theory for Scalar Dark Matter

    B. Salehian, H.-Y. Zhang, M. A. Amin, D. I. Kaiser and M. H. Namjoo,Beyond schr¨ odinger-poisson: nonrelativistic effective field theory for scalar dark matter,JHEP2021 (2021) 050 [2104.10128]. – 14 –

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021