Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 65 references

Pulsar timing of a star orbiting Sagittarius A* can detect or tightly limit a hidden intermediate-mass black hole companion, even when Galactic Center clutter is strong.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 21:05 UTC pith:XBF2Q5SI

load-bearing objection Solid 1PN three-body timing model and residual maps; the complementary-exclusion claim in Fig. 14 rests on a scalar noise floor that may not capture structured cusp confusion. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24201 v1 pith:XBF2Q5SI submitted 2026-07-27 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAgr-qc

Probing an Intermediate-Mass Black Hole Companion of Sagittarius A* with Pulsar Timing

Zexin Hu , Lijing Shao This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAgr-qc
keywords pulsar timingSagittarius A*intermediate-mass black holeGalactic Centerthree-body problempost-Newtonian dynamicstiming residuals
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that a pulsar orbiting the Galactic Center supermassive black hole is an extremely sensitive probe of any intermediate-mass black hole companion. Future radio telescopes should find such pulsars; once timed, the third-body gravitational tug leaves clear, multi-period signatures in the arrival-time residuals. Ideal three-body calculations show that even a hundred-solar-mass companion produces residuals far larger than expected timing precision. When realistic stellar-mass black-hole clutter is folded in as a noise floor, the same residuals still carve out a useful new region of mass–orbit parameter space that existing star-orbit and proper-motion limits do not cover. The result matters because an intermediate-mass black hole is one of the few concrete explanations left for the puzzling young stars near Sagittarius A*, and pulsar timing offers an independent, high-precision route to confirm or rule it out.

Core claim

A pulsar–Sgr A* binary is so sensitive to third-body perturbations that post-fit timing residuals caused by a plausible intermediate-mass black hole remain larger than the background noise expected from a stellar-mass black-hole cusp for a wide range of companion masses and orbits; therefore pulsar timing will still complement existing observational constraints even under strong Galactic Center environmental perturbations.

What carries the argument

A numerical timing model built from the 1 PN Hamiltonian (including the three-body interaction term and leading spin-orbit coupling) that generates times of arrival; detectability is then quantified by the amplitude of post-fit residuals after fitting a pure pulsar–SMBH model, with a 95-percent threshold defined against fixed residual floors of 10 s and 100 s.

Load-bearing premise

The messy background noise from all the other stars and black holes near the Galactic Center can be treated as two simple, fixed residual-size cut-offs rather than a full time-varying stochastic process.

What would settle it

Discover and time a pulsar on a year-scale orbit around Sgr A*; if the post-fit residuals stay below roughly 10–100 seconds for every plausible intermediate-mass black hole orbit that current star and proper-motion data still allow, the paper’s claimed complementary reach is falsified.

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

If this is right

  • SKA-era timing of even one suitable Galactic Center pulsar can exclude or detect intermediate-mass black holes in mass–semi-major-axis regions that S0-2 monitoring and Sgr A* proper motion leave open.
  • Shapiro-delay spikes or double-period residual modulations become direct, searchable signatures of a companion once a pulsar is found.
  • Any realistic timing model for a Galactic Center pulsar must include the 1 PN three-body interaction term; omitting it already produces hundred-millisecond systematics.
  • The same sensitivity implies that known S-stars and the stellar cusp itself will leave measurable imprints that must be modelled or marginalized.
  • Parameter-estimation forecasts that ignore environmental noise will dramatically overstate the precision on companion mass.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the residual-floor method works for an intermediate-mass black hole, the same pipeline could set useful upper limits on individual stellar-mass black holes or dense dark-matter spikes once multiple pulsars are timed.
  • A non-detection with one well-timed pulsar would tighten the hierarchical-merger channel for intermediate-mass black holes in the inner Galaxy more cleanly than stellar-dynamics arguments alone.
  • The double-period residual morphology could be turned into a template-search statistic, lowering the effective detection threshold below the simple peak-amplitude cut used here.

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

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs a numerical 1PN timing model for a pulsar orbiting Sgr A* in the presence of an IMBH companion, integrating the canonical three-body equations of motion with leading-order spin-orbit coupling and including Rømer, Shapiro, and Einstein delays. It presents worked examples of Shapiro/Einstein delays and of the 1PN three-body interaction term, computes post-fit residuals for a pulsar–SMBH-only timing model, gives Fisher-matrix forecasts for IMBH parameter estimation (explicitly flagged as idealized), and finally estimates realistic detectability via Monte Carlo over 1000 random IMBH orientations, defining m_95 as the mass whose peak post-fit residual exceeds a fixed threshold (10 s or 100 s, imported from the authors' companion study of BH-cusp timing noise) in 95% of realizations. The resulting Fig. 14 exclusion curves are claimed to complement existing S0-2 and proper-motion constraints even under strong environmental perturbations. The dynamical machinery is standard and appears correctly implemented, and the paper is commendably candid about the unrealistic nature of its Fisher forecasts. The central concern is that the headline result — Sec. 5 and Fig. 14 — rests on a comparison whose internal consistency and physical adequacy are not demonstrated.

Significance. If a suitable GC pulsar is found by SKA-era surveys, this framework provides the working machinery for turning its timing into an IMBH constraint in a region of (m_I, a_I) space that S0-2 astrometry and Sgr A* proper-motion limits probe poorly — a genuinely complementary and falsifiable forecast. Strengths worth naming: a reproducible 1PN three-body timing model with leading spin-orbit terms; concrete, illustrated residual examples; an honest separation between idealized Fisher forecasts and noise-limited detectability; and a Monte-Carlo detectability criterion with explicitly stated priors. The significance is presently capped by the unverified interface with the companion paper's noise floor and the untested distinguishability of the IMBH signature from structured cusp noise.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.5 / Sec. 5] The post-fit residuals in Figs. 7–8, and hence the entire detectability machinery of Sec. 5, depend on the least-squares fit described only as 'a simpler timing model that only considers the pulsar and the SMBH.' The fitted parameter set is never stated: which of ΘS and ΘP (Eqs. 27–29) are absorbed — pulsar orbital elements, ν, ν̇, SMBH mass/spin/orientation? Nor are the TOA cadence and span (presumably 5 yr) given. Absorbing different parameters (e.g., refitting the pulsar's orbital period and phase) removes different fractions of the IMBH signal and can change peak residuals by large factors. This must be specified for Figs. 7, 8, and 14 to be reproducible.
  2. [Sec. 5, Fig. 14] The detectability curves rest on comparing this work's post-fit peak residuals against the 10–100 s residual scale attributed to Ref. [28]. Commensurability is not demonstrated: the thresholds must be post-fit residuals computed with the same absorbed-parameter set, time span, and cadence as the IMBH simulations here. If Ref. [28]'s numbers are pre-fit, RMS rather than peak, or correspond to a different span, the two sides of the comparison are incommensurable and m_95 can shift by a large factor, directly eroding or inflating the complementarity region in Fig. 14 that carries the abstract's main claim. Please verify and state the equivalence explicitly, and indicate how the curves move if the match is only approximate.
  3. [Sec. 5, detectability statistic] A peak-amplitude threshold asks only whether the IMBH residual exceeds the cusp floor, not whether its structure is identifiable against that floor. The BH-cusp background of Ref. [28] is the superposition of many stellar-mass perturbers and is therefore colored, with structure on timescales overlapping the IMBH's double-period signature (Sec. 3.5); moreover, a single ~10–30 M⊙ cusp member on an orbit comparable to the pulsar's produces the same functional signature as a light IMBH (Sec. 4 itself shows ideal-case sensitivity to sub-solar masses, Fig. 10). The false-positive/confusion channel should be quantified or the criterion explicitly re-scoped as necessary-but-not-sufficient, e.g., by stating what single-perturber mass yields 10–100 s residuals and whether shape information (two-period modulation) discriminates.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Fig. 14 / Sec. 2.1] Fig. 14: state the range of a_I over which m_95 was actually computed and how it compares to the pulsar semi-major axis (a_P ≈ 0.5 mpc for P_b^P = 0.5 yr). The bi-Keplerian construction (Sec. 2.1) takes the IMBH as the outer body, so configurations with a_I ≲ a_P, or orbit-crossing geometries allowed by e_I up to 0.9, are inconsistent with the initial-condition setup; please confirm these are excluded.
  2. [Sec. 2.1, after Eq. (7)] The statement that the ADM-to-harmonic gauge transformation 'starts at the 2PN level' is cited to Damour & Schäfer (two-body); please justify that the same holds for the three-body case, and comment on the consistency of combining ADM-integrated trajectories with harmonic-gauge delay formulae (Eqs. 13–14) at 1PN.
  3. [Eq. (12)] The denominator of Eq. (12) (the Einstein-delay scaling) is introduced ad hoc ('It shall have captured the leading-order contribution'). A short derivation or explicit statement that this is a convention degenerate with (ν, ν̇) would help.
  4. [Sec. 4] The Fisher forecasts (Figs. 9–13) do not state the assumed σ_TOA, TOA cadence, N_TOA, or observing span; only 'about 1 ms' appears (Sec. 3.4). These should be listed, ideally in a table, since σ_mI scales directly with them.
  5. [Fig. 3] The legend appears to list Case (III) twice; presumably one entry is Case (II). Please check.
  6. [Eq. (25)] In Eq. (25) the factor 1/(2ν²) multiplies a sum normalized by σ_TOA²; clarify that ν converts pulse-number residuals to time units, as the notation is easy to misread.
  7. [Sec. 5] The uniform eccentricity prior e_I ∈ [0.1, 0.9] is ad hoc; a sentence on how m_95 responds to a thermal distribution p(e) ∝ 2e would strengthen the robustness discussion.
  8. [Various] Typographical/grammatical: 'not straightly explained' (Intro, first sentence); 'there are only seven pulsars been found' (Intro). Please also define m_95 in the caption of Fig. 14 and say which curve style corresponds to the 10 s vs 100 s threshold.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Core residual and Fisher calculations are self-contained from 1PN EOM; only the environmental detectability claim imports a scalar noise floor from the authors' companion paper.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 5, paragraph on thresholds; Fig. 14]
    "As studied in Ref. [28], a stellar mass BH cusp expected by the stellar dynamics and satisfying the current observational constraints [64] can lead to timing residuals as large as 10^1–10^2 s depending on the total mass of the BH cusp. Therefore, we consider two thresholds, 10 s and 100 s as illustrations."

    The abstract/Sec. 5 claim that timing still complements existing IMBH bounds under strong GC perturbations is realized solely by declaring an IMBH detectable when its post-fit residual peak exceeds thresholds taken from the authors’ own companion paper. The residual amplitudes computed in this work are independent, but the environmental half of the comparison reduces to that self-citation; without it the ‘even under strong perturbations’ conclusion has no quantitative anchor.

full rationale

The paper builds a numerical timing model from the canonical 1PN Hamiltonian (Eqs. 1–5), computes Shapiro/Einstein/three-body/post-fit residuals by direct integration and least-squares fitting (Secs. 3.2–3.5), and forecasts ideal-case parameter precisions with a standard Fisher matrix (Sec. 4). None of these steps define an output in terms of itself, fit a parameter and relabel it a prediction, or import a uniqueness theorem. The sole self-citation that carries weight for the abstract’s strongest claim (“even under strong perturbations… will still complement”) is the adoption in Sec. 5 of 10 s and 100 s residual thresholds from the authors’ companion cusp-noise paper [28]. That import sets the vertical placement of the m_95 curves in Fig. 14 but does not force the shape or existence of those curves; the post-fit residual amplitudes themselves are recomputed here from the three-body dynamics. Per the guidelines this is minor, non-definitional self-citation with independent central content, scoring 2. Methodological concerns about whether a peak-amplitude cut adequately distinguishes structured IMBH signals from structured cusp noise are correctness issues, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central detectability claim rests on standard post-Newtonian gravity, a set of hand-chosen but observationally motivated orbital examples, two externally supplied residual-amplitude thresholds, and the assumption that a suitable pulsar will eventually be found. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • residual amplitude thresholds (10 s, 100 s) = 10 s and 100 s
    Chosen by hand from the range of stellar-cusp residuals reported in the authors’ companion paper; they directly set the m95 exclusion curves in Fig. 14.
  • illustrative IMBH masses and periods = 10^2 M☉ / 3 yr and 10^3 M☉ / 20 yr
    mI = 10^2–10^3 M☉ and PbI = 3–20 yr are selected to lie near current observational boundaries; they define the six concrete residual examples.
  • pulsar orbital parameters for examples = PbP = 0.5 yr, eP = 0.8
    PbP = 0.5 yr, eP = 0.8, iP = π/5 etc. are fixed by hand to generate Figs. 1–13.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption 1PN Hamiltonian plus leading spin–orbit coupling adequately describes the orbital motion over a 5-year timing span
    Invoked throughout Sec. 2.1; higher-order PN and spin-precession terms are neglected by explicit statement.
  • domain assumption Stellar-mass black-hole cusp produces timing residuals of order 10–100 s that can be treated as an effective white or slowly varying noise floor
    Taken from Ref. [28] and used as the detection threshold in Sec. 5.
  • ad hoc to paper IMBH orbital elements are drawn from isotropic orientations and a uniform eccentricity distribution between 0.1 and 0.9
    Stated in Sec. 5 for the Monte-Carlo sampling that produces the m95 curves.
  • domain assumption Pulsar can be treated as a test particle; IMBH spin is negligible
    Explicitly adopted in Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 3.1 after order-of-magnitude estimates.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 20534 in / 2880 out tokens · 61489 ms · 2026-07-31T21:05:37.174640+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

An intermediate-mass black hole (IMBH) hidden in our Galactic Center (GC) may explain the puzzling observations of the stellar distribution around Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the supermassive black hole (SMBH) in the GC. Future observations with the next-generation radio telescopes, such as the SKA, are promising to discover pulsars orbiting around Sgr A*, and thus provide the possibility of constraining the hidden IMBH with pulsar timing. We study the detectability of a third-body, the IMBH, in the pulsar-SMBH system based on radio timing observation. We find that the pulsar-SMBH system is very sensitive to such a third-body perturbation and can be used to put stringent constraints on the existence of the IMBH. Even under strong perturbations caused by the complex GC astrophysical environments, timing observation will still complement the existing observational constraints.

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

65 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Strong mass segregation around a massive black hole

    Alexander, Tal and Hopman, Clovis. Strong mass segregation around a massive black hole. Astrophys. J. 2009. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1861

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1861 2009

  2. [2]

    and Teukolsky, S

    Blandford, R. and Teukolsky, S. A. Arrival-time analysis for a pulsar in a binary system. Astrophys. J. 1976. doi:10.1086/154315

    doi:10.1086/154315 1976

  3. [3]

    A Rapidly Evolving Region in the Galactic Center: Why S-stars Thermalize and More Massive Stars are Missing

    Chen, Xian and Amaro-Seoane, Pau. A Rapidly Evolving Region in the Galactic Center: Why S-stars Thermalize and More Massive Stars are Missing. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2014. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/786/2/L14

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/786/2/l14 2014

  4. [4]

    Prospects for constraining the Yukawa gravity with pulsars around Sagittarius A*

    Dong, Yiming and Shao, Lijing and Hu, Zexin and Miao, Xueli and Wang, Ziming. Prospects for constraining the Yukawa gravity with pulsars around Sagittarius A*. JCAP. 2022. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/11/051. arXiv:2210.16130

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    and Deruelle, N

    Damour, T. and Deruelle, N. General Relativistic Celestial Mechanics of Binary Systems. I. The Post-Newtonian Motion. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar. 1985

    1985

  6. [6]

    Probing the vector charge of Sagittarius A* with pulsar timing

    Hu, Zexin and Shao, Lijing and Xu, Rui and Liang, Dicong and Mai, Zhan-Feng. Probing the vector charge of Sagittarius A* with pulsar timing. JCAP. 2024. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/04/087. arXiv:2312.02486

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    and Deruelle, N

    Damour, T. and Deruelle, N. General Relativistic Celestial Mechanics of Binary Systems. II. The Post-Newtonian Timing Formula. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar. 1986

    1986

  8. [8]

    Measuring the Spin of the Galactic Center Supermassive Black Hole with Two Pulsars

    Hu, Zexin and Shao, Lijing. Measuring the Spin of the Galactic Center Supermassive Black Hole with Two Pulsars. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2024. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.231402. arXiv:2408.00245

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    and Sch \"a fer, Gerhard

    Damour, T. and Sch \"a fer, Gerhard. Higher Order Relativistic Periastron Advances and Binary Pulsars. Nuovo Cim. B. 1988. doi:10.1007/BF02828697

    doi:10.1007/bf02828697 1988

  10. [10]

    Fundamental Physics with Pulsars around Sagittarius A*

    Shao, Lijing and Hu, Zexin. Fundamental Physics with Pulsars around Sagittarius A*. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2026. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/3177/1/012043. arXiv:2508.09931

    arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    Deneva, J. S. and Cordes, J. M. and Lazio, T. J. W. Discovery of Three Pulsars from a Galactic Center Pulsar Population. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2009. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/L177

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/702/2/l177 2009

  12. [12]

    Detecting ultralight dark matter in the Galactic Center with pulsars around Sgr A*

    Yu, Jiang-Chuan and Cao, Yan and Hu, Zexin and Shao, Lijing. Detecting ultralight dark matter in the Galactic Center with pulsars around Sgr A*. 2025. arXiv:2510.22573

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Eatough, R. P. and others. A strong magnetic field around the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Galaxy. Nature. 2013. doi:10.1038/nature12499

    doi:10.1038/nature12499 2013

  14. [14]

    and Kopeikin, S

    Wex, N. and Kopeikin, S. Frame dragging and other precessional effects in black hole-pulsar binaries. Astrophys. J. 1999. doi:10.1086/306933. arXiv:astro-ph/9811052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  15. [15]

    and Hobbs, G

    Edwards, Russell T. and Hobbs, G. B. and Manchester, R. N. Tempo2, a new pulsar timing package. 2. The timing model and precision estimates. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 2006. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10870.x

    arXiv 2006

  16. [16]

    Kramer, Michael and Backer, D. C. and Cordes, J. M. and Lazio, T. J. W. and Stappers, B. W. and Johnston, S. Strong-field tests of gravity using pulsars and black holes. New Astron. Rev. 2004. doi:10.1016/j.newar.2004.09.020. arXiv:astro-ph/0409379

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  17. [17]

    and Hoffmann, B

    Einstein, Albert and Infeld, L. and Hoffmann, B. The Gravitational equations and the problem of motion. Annals Math. 1938. doi:10.2307/1968714

    doi:10.2307/1968714 1938

  18. [18]

    Pulsar timing in the Galactic Center

    Della Monica, Riccardo and de Martino, Ivan. Pulsar timing in the Galactic Center. Phys. Rev. D. 2026. doi:10.1103/9zwc-gk79. arXiv:2501.03912

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Ghez, A. M. and others. The first measurement of spectral lines in a short - period star bound to the galaxy's central black hole: A paradox of youth. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2003. doi:10.1086/374804

    doi:10.1086/374804 2003

  20. [20]

    and others

    Abbate, F. and others. Galactic Centre Pulsars with the SKAO. 2026. arXiv:2607.03078

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    and others

    Abbate, F. and others. Galactic Centre Pulsars with the SKAO. Open J. Astrophys. , keywords =. arXiv:2512.16155

    arXiv

  22. [22]

    An 86 GHz Search for Pulsars in the Galactic Center with the Atacama Large Millimeter / submillimeter Array

    Liu, Kuo and others. An 86 GHz Search for Pulsars in the Galactic Center with the Atacama Large Millimeter / submillimeter Array. Astrophys. J. 2021. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf9a2. arXiv:2104.08986

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    A Search for Pulsars around Sgr A* in the First Event Horizon Telescope Data Set

    Torne, Pablo and others. A Search for Pulsars around Sgr A* in the First Event Horizon Telescope Data Set. Astrophys. J. 2023. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf4f2. arXiv:2308.15381

    arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Testing space time geometries and theories of gravity at the Galactic centre with pulsar s time delay

    Della Monica, Riccardo and de Martino, Ivan and de Laurentis, Mariafelicia. Testing space time geometries and theories of gravity at the Galactic centre with pulsar s time delay. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 2023. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2125. arXiv:2305.18178

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Constraining the Binarity of Massive Black Holes in the Galactic Center and Some Nearby Galaxies via Pulsar Timing Array Observations of Gravitational Waves

    Guo, Xiao and Yu, Qingjuan and Lu, Youjun. Constraining the Binarity of Massive Black Holes in the Galactic Center and Some Nearby Galaxies via Pulsar Timing Array Observations of Gravitational Waves. Astrophys. J. 2025. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad94ec. arXiv:2411.14150

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    and others

    Gillessen, S. and others. An Update on Monitoring Stellar Orbits in the Galactic Center. Astrophys. J. 2017. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5c41

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5c41 2017

  27. [27]

    and others

    Straub, O. and others. Where intermediate-mass black holes could hide in the Galactic Centre - A full parameter study with the S2 orbit. Astron. Astrophys. 2023. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245132

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245132 2023

  28. [28]

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

    Abd El Dayem, Karim and others. Improving constraints on the extended mass distribution in the Galactic center with stellar orbits. Astron. Astrophys. 2024. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452274

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452274 2024

  29. [29]

    The need for a second black hole at the Galactic center

    Hansen, Brad and Milosavljevic, Milos. The need for a second black hole at the Galactic center. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2003. doi:10.1086/378182

    doi:10.1086/378182 2003

  30. [30]

    Heinze, Felix M. and Sch. N-body 2PN Hamiltonian and numerical integration of the equations of motion. Phys. Rev. D. 2026. doi:10.1103/9vhx-6wkk

    work page doi:10.1103/9vhx-6wkk 2026

  31. [31]

    and Hernquist, Lars and Cox, Thomas J

    Hopkins, Philip F. and Hernquist, Lars and Cox, Thomas J. and Di Matteo, Tiziana and Robertson, Brant and Springel, Volker. A Unified, merger-driven model for the origin of starbursts, quasars, the cosmic x-ray background, supermassive black holes and galaxy spheroids. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 2006. doi:10.1086/499298

    doi:10.1086/499298 2006

  32. [32]

    Prospects for probing small-scale dark matter models with pulsars around Sagittarius A*

    Hu, Zexin and Shao, Lijing and Zhang, Fupeng. Prospects for probing small-scale dark matter models with pulsars around Sagittarius A*. Phys. Rev. D. 2023. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123034

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.123034 2023

  33. [33]

    A Realistic Pulsar - Supermassive Black Hole Timing Model

    Hu, Zexin and Wang, Ziming and Shao, Lijing. A Realistic Pulsar - Supermassive Black Hole Timing Model. 2026. arXiv:2602.19546

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    Granular mass perturbations on the pulsar - supermassive black hole system

    Hu, Zexin and Shao, Lijing. Granular mass perturbations on the pulsar - supermassive black hole system. 2026. arXiv:2606.04762

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    and Lorimer, D

    Johnston, Simon and Kramer, M. and Lorimer, D. R. and Lyne, A. G. and McLaughlin, M. and Klein, B. and Manchester, R. N. Discovery of two pulsars towards the Galactic Centre. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 2006. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00232.x

    arXiv 2006

  36. [36]

    and others

    Kramer, M. and others. Strong-Field Gravity Tests with the Double Pulsar. Phys. Rev. X. 2021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.11.041050

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.11.041050 2021

  37. [37]

    and Wex, N

    Liu, K. and Wex, N. and Kramer, M. and Cordes, J. M. and Lazio, T. J. W. Prospects for Probing the Spacetime of Sgr A* with Pulsars. Astrophys. J. 2012. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/1

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/747/1/1 2012

  38. [38]

    Lorimer, D. R. and Kramer, M. , title =

  39. [39]

    and Ramirez-Ruiz, Enrico and Hees, Aurelien and Ghez, Andrea M

    Naoz, Smadar and Will, Clifford M. and Ramirez-Ruiz, Enrico and Hees, Aurelien and Ghez, Andrea M. and Do, Tuan. A hidden friend for the galactic center black hole, Sgr A*. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2020. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5e3b

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5e3b 2020

  40. [40]

    Newton, T. D. and Wigner, Eugene P. Localized States for Elementary Systems. Rev. Mod. Phys. 1949. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.21.400

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.21.400 1949

  41. [41]

    NE2025: An Updated Electron Density Model for the Galactic Interstellar Medium

    Ocker, Stella Koch and Cordes, James M. NE2025: An Updated Electron Density Model for the Galactic Interstellar Medium. Astrophys. J. 2026. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae5825

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae5825 2026

  42. [42]

    Peebles, P. J. E. Star Distribution Near a Collapsed Object. Astrophys. J. 1972. doi:10.1086/151797

    doi:10.1086/151797 1972

  43. [43]

    Gravity: Newtonian, Post-Newtonian, Relativistic , DOI=

    Poisson, Eric and Will, Clifford M. Gravity: Newtonian, Post-Newtonian, Relativistic , DOI=

  44. [44]

    Probing the spacetime around Sgr A* with radio pulsars

    Pfahl, Eric and Loeb, Abraham. Probing the spacetime around Sgr A* with radio pulsars. Astrophys. J. 2004. doi:10.1086/423975

    doi:10.1086/423975 2004

  45. [45]

    Pryce, M. H. L. The Mass center in the restricted theory of relativity and its connection with the quantum theory of elementary particles. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A. 1948. doi:10.1098/rspa.1948.0103

    arXiv 1948

  46. [46]

    A Quantitative Test of the No-Hair Theorem with Sgr A* using stars, pulsars, and the Event Horizon Telescope

    Psaltis, Dimitrios and Wex, Norbert and Kramer, Michael. A Quantitative Test of the No-Hair Theorem with Sgr A* using stars, pulsars, and the Event Horizon Telescope. Astrophys. J. 2016. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/121

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/2/121 2016

  47. [47]

    A Population of Relic Intermediate-Mass Black Holes in the Halo of the Milky Way

    Rashkov, Valery and Madau, Piero. A Population of Relic Intermediate-Mass Black Holes in the Halo of the Milky Way. Astrophys. J. 2014. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/187

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/780/2/187 2014

  48. [48]

    and others

    Rea, N. and others. A Strongly Magnetized Pulsar within the Grasp of the Milky Way's Supermassive Black Hole. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2013. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/775/2/L34

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/775/2/l34 2013

  49. [49]

    Reid, M. J. and Brunthaler, A. The Proper Motion of Sagittarius A*. III. The Case for a Supermassive Black Hole. Astrophys. J. 2020. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab76cd

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab76cd 2020

  50. [50]

    and others

    Sch \"o del, R. and others. The Milky Way's nuclear star cluster: Old, metal-rich, and cuspy. Structure and star formation history from deep imaging. Astron.Astrophys. 2020

    2020

  51. [51]

    Fourth Test of General Relativity

    Shapiro, Irwin I. Fourth Test of General Relativity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1964. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.789

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.13.789 1964

  52. [52]

    Testing the strong equivalence principle with the triple pulsar PSR J0337+1715

    Shao, Lijing. Testing the strong equivalence principle with the triple pulsar PSR J0337+1715. Phys. Rev. D. 2016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.084023. arXiv:1602.05725

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  53. [53]

    Recent Progress on Gravity Tests

    Tests of Classical Gravity with Radio Pulsars. Recent Progress on Gravity Tests. Challenges and Future Perspectives , year = 2024, editor =. doi:10.1007/978-981-97-2871-8_3 , adsurl =

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-97-2871-8_3 2024

  54. [54]

    LISA constraints on an intermediate-mass black hole in the Galactic Centre

    Strokov, Vladimir and Fragione, Giacomo and Berti, Emanuele. LISA constraints on an intermediate-mass black hole in the Galactic Centre. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 2023. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2002

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2002 2023

  55. [55]

    and Cognard, I

    Voisin, G. and Cognard, I. and Freire, P. C. C. and Wex, N. and Guillemot, L. and Desvignes, G. and Kramer, M. and Theureau, G. An improved test of the strong equivalence principle with the pulsar in a triple star system. Astron. Astrophys. 2020. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038104

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038104 2020

  56. [56]

    The second post-Newtonian motion of compact binary-star systems with spin

    Wex, Norbert. The second post-Newtonian motion of compact binary-star systems with spin. Class. Quant. Grav. 1995. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/12/4/009

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/12/4/009 1995

  57. [57]

    Incorporating post-Newtonian effects in N -body dynamics

    Will, Clifford M. Incorporating post-Newtonian effects in N -body dynamics. Phys. Rev. D. 2014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.044043

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.044043 2014

  58. [58]

    New General Relativistic Contribution to Mercury s Perihelion Advance

    Will, Clifford M. New General Relativistic Contribution to Mercury s Perihelion Advance. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.191101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.191101 2018

  59. [59]

    and Naoz, Smadar and Hees, Aur \'e lien and Tucker, Alexandria and Zhang, Eric and Do, Tuan and Ghez, Andrea

    Will, Clifford M. and Naoz, Smadar and Hees, Aur \'e lien and Tucker, Alexandria and Zhang, Eric and Do, Tuan and Ghez, Andrea. Constraining a Companion of the Galactic Center Black Hole Sgr A*. Astrophys. J. 2023. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad09b3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad09b3 2023

  60. [60]

    and others

    Wongphechauxsorn, J. and others. The High Time Resolution Universe Pulsar survey XVIII. The reprocessing of the HTRU-S Low Lat survey around the Galactic Centre using a Fast Folding Algorithm pipeline for accelerated pulsars. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 2023. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3283

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3283 2023

  61. [61]

    Yao, J. M. and Manchester, R. N. and Wang, N. A New Electron-density Model for Estimation of Pulsar and FRB Distances. Astrophys. J. 2017. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29 2017

  62. [62]

    On the Existence of Pulsars in the Vicinity of the Massive Black Hole in the Galactic Center

    Zhang, Fupeng and Lu, Youjun and Yu, Qingjuan. On the Existence of Pulsars in the Vicinity of the Massive Black Hole in the Galactic Center. Astrophys. J. 2014. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/106

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/784/2/106 2014

  63. [63]

    Probing the spinning of the massive black hole in the Galactic Center via pulsar timing: A Full Relativistic Treatment

    Zhang, Fupeng and Saha, Prasenjit. Probing the spinning of the massive black hole in the Galactic Center via pulsar timing: A Full Relativistic Treatment. Astrophys. J. 2017. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f47

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f47 2017

  64. [64]

    A Stability Timescale for Nonhierarchical Three-body Systems

    Zhang, Eric and Naoz, Smadar and Will, Clifford M. A Stability Timescale for Nonhierarchical Three-body Systems. Astrophys. J. 2023. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd782

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd782 2023

  65. [65]

    The complex kinematics of the young stars orbiting the supermassive black hole in the Galactic center can be explained by the presence of an intermediate mass companion of Sgr A*

    Zheng, Xiaochen and others. The complex kinematics of the young stars orbiting the supermassive black hole in the Galactic center can be explained by the presence of an intermediate mass companion of Sgr A*. 2026. arXiv:2606.08971

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026