Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 152 references

Spinning gravitational atoms can carry negative Love numbers enhanced by hundreds to thousands relative to non-spinning clouds, offering a clear tidal signature of light bosons.

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

2026-07-30 11:04 UTC pith:WMFSVNJW

load-bearing objection Solid first calculation of spinning GA Love numbers: negative and α-enhanced in the weak-field hyperfine regime, with a clean WEFT match and usable resonance shifts. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27174 v1 pith:WMFSVNJW submitted 2026-07-29 gr-qc hep-phhep-th

Perturbing Gravitational Atoms: Negative Love, Resonant Tides and Shifted Resonances

Mateja Bo\v{s}kovi\'c , Nikola Savi\'c This is my paper
classification gr-qc hep-phhep-th
keywords gravitational atomsLove numberssuperradianceworldline EFTtidal resonancesultra-light bosonsfinite-size effectsshifted resonances
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.

This paper builds a controlled scheme for the competing perturbations that act on a gravitational atom—a black hole dressed by a dense bosonic cloud grown by superradiance—and uses it to compute the atom’s tidal Love numbers, including for spinning clouds. Certain spinning states turn out to have negative static Love numbers whose size is parametrically larger than the non-spinning baseline, by factors of order 10²–10³ in realistic regimes. The same framework tracks how relativistic corrections and self-gravity shift binary resonances and shows when permanent multipoles dominate the finite-size signal and when the induced (Love) response takes over, even through resonance. A reader who cares about ultra-light bosons or about the foundations of tidal response in gravitational-wave physics gains both a concrete observational handle and a clean theoretical laboratory.

Core claim

Certain spinning states of gravitational atoms possess negative static Love numbers whose magnitude is parametrically enhanced—by O(10²–10³) in phenomenologically relevant scenarios—relative to the scaling that holds for non-spinning clouds. The result is obtained inside worldline effective field theory after the internal relativistic and self-gravity corrections and the external tidal field are treated on the same footing, and both permanent and induced multipoles remain trackable through binary resonances.

What carries the argument

Worldline effective field theory matched to non-relativistic cloud microphysics, with competing internal (relativistic, self-gravity) and external (tidal) perturbations handled by Rayleigh–Schrödinger degenerate perturbation theory; the matching produces state-pair Love numbers λ^{MN}_{(ℓm)(ℓ′m′)} and the permanent multipoles that enter the cloud–orbit Hamiltonian.

Load-bearing premise

Scalar self-interactions are assumed negligible, so the cloud’s mass, spectrum and response stay under the control of gravity alone.

What would settle it

A numerical or observational extraction of the static quadrupole Love number for a weak-field |211⟩ cloud that fails to recover the predicted negative scaling ∼−(Mc/M)M⁵/(α¹³ ã), or a measured binary resonance frequency that does not shift as predicted when self-gravity dominates the hyperfine split.

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

If this is right

  • Once cloud permanent multipoles fall below the black-hole ones, the induced Love numbers remain a sizeable finite-size signature of the bosonic overdensity.
  • Self-gravity can flip hyperfine and fine resonances from floating to sinking type, letting more clouds survive into detector bands.
  • Earlier forecasts of Love-number observability for gravitational atoms underestimate their magnitude by powers of α and need revision.
  • Negative Love numbers appear when a state couples to lower-energy partners inside its multiplet, tying the sign of the response to active level mixing.
  • Gravitational atoms supply a controllable toy model for testing positivity expectations on tidal Wilson coefficients.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If axion self-couplings are not small, the negative enhanced Love numbers may be depleted before the binary reaches the band, making Love-number and spin-based searches complementary.
  • The same weak-field enhancement should extend to vector clouds, potentially yielding richer multipolar signatures accessible to space-based detectors.
  • Tracking the evolution of the effective Love number through resonance supplies a concrete waveform feature that could distinguish cloud disruption from vacuum inspirals.
  • The avoided-crossing structure that keeps the tidal response finite at would-be level crossings is a general lesson for any extended object with nearly degenerate internal levels.

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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a systematic treatment of competing perturbations of gravitational atoms (GAs)—relativistic corrections, self-gravity, and external tides—within worldline EFT, and matches the induced multipole response to the UV density perturbation of the bosonic cloud. The central new result is the first calculation of static gravitational Love numbers for spinning clouds: in the weak-field (hyper)fine regime, certain states (notably |211⟩) acquire negative Love numbers with a parametric enhancement ∼α^{-3}/ã relative to the spherical-cloud baseline ∼(Mc/M)M^5/α^{10}, reaching O(10^2–10^3) in phenomenologically relevant corners. The same framework is used to reassess binary resonances, including self-gravity- and beyond-hyperfine-induced shifts of floating/sinking transitions, and to identify when permanent multipoles dominate the finite-size signal versus when induced multipoles take over, including through the resonance in the occupancy dynamics.

Significance. If the results hold under the stated approximations, this is a substantial contribution to both ultralight-boson phenomenology and the theory of tidal response. Negative, parametrically enhanced Love numbers for spinning GAs are a concrete, falsifiable prediction that previous forecasts (which used the non-spinning scaling) would have underestimated by large factors; the paper also supplies a controlled chronology of shifted resonances across {α,qc}. Methodologically, the WEFT–UV matching, Dalgarno–Lewis resummation, and weak/strong-field degenerate PT for spinning multiplets are carefully executed and checked against Leaver/numerical spectra (App. D). The discussion of GAs as a toy model for positivity/passivity of Love numbers is a genuine theoretical bonus. Strengths include explicit matching formulae (Eqs. 48–52, 63–64), numerical cross-checks, and a scoped “minimal scenario” that keeps the derivation non-circular.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §IV A; §V C; §VI] Abstract and §V C / Conclusions claim that both permanent and induced finite-size effects can be “kept track of even during the resonance.” In §IV A and the footnote to Eq. (53), however, the authors explicitly defer the mapping of time-dependent CN(t) (and of the mixing Love numbers) onto the waveform as beyond the present scope. The occupancy-level tracking via λeff ≈ Nc(t)λaa (and the handoff λaa → λNN) is well defined, but the abstract/conclusion language overstates what is actually computed. Please either (i) restrict the claim to the worldline/occupancy level, or (ii) supply at least a leading-order sketch of the waveform contribution during resonance so the claim is load-bearing.
  2. [§V C 1; Fig. 5; Eq. (63), (76), (79)] The headline enhancement O(10^2–10^3) and the negative sign (Eq. 63) are controlled by the free-field hyperfine denominator and ordinary PT in the weak-field regime. §V C 1 and Fig. 5 place this regime in LISA/DECIGO bands for dilute |211⟩ and |322⟩ clouds, but the same multiplet couplings that enhance λ also drive resonant and off-resonant depletion (Eq. 76). The paper notes that floating never fully empties the cloud, yet it does not quantify the residual Nc (or the post-resonance λeff) that would actually enter the band after the hyperfine resonance and decay-induced mixing. Without that residual, the phenomenological claim that negative enhanced Love numbers are “smoking-gun” indicators past the (hyper)fine resonances remains incompletely supported. A short estimate of Nc,post / Nc,sat for the reference points in Fig. 5 would close this gap.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§III B; Table I; Figs. 1–3] Table I and the surrounding text in §III B are very useful; a single sentence cross-referencing which entries control the sign of Δϵ for the specific transitions plotted in Figs. 1–3 would help the reader navigate the dense-cloud level-crossing discussion.
  2. [§IV C; footnote 8] In Eq. (55) and the comparison to Arana et al. [89], the conversion ka_2m = (15/2)α^{-10}(Mc/M) is given in a footnote; moving the conversion into the main text (or a short table) would make the agreement easier to verify.
  3. [App. D; §IV D] App. D drops divergent ⟨r^k⟩ averages for ℓN={0,1} rather than renormalizing. The text already flags weaker precision for those states; a brief remark on whether this affects any of the Love-number denominators used in §IV D (which are dominated by hyperfine, not the dropped self-energy pieces) would remove residual doubt.
  4. [§II; §IV B] Notation: both “GA” and “gravitational atom” are used freely; the composite index μL and the rescaled r = r/rc are clear, but I(MN|ℓm)_r vs I_Ω,E could be restated once when first used in the Love-number matching (§IV B) for readers who skip §II.
  5. [Section headings; §V B 2] Typos/style: “W orldline” / “PER TURBA TIONS” / “GRA VIT A TIONAL” in headings appear to be PDF hyphenation artifacts; “von Neumann–Wigner” is fine; a few long sentences in §V B 2 could be split for readability.
  6. [§VI; Introduction] The neglect of scalar self-interactions is appropriately scoped as the “minimal scenario,” but a one-sentence pointer in §VI to how order-one λ4 would first correct the bilinear occupancy expansion (and thus λMN) would help readers assess the domain of Eq. (63).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: negative enhanced Love numbers follow from free-field spectrum plus linear response matching, not from fits or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The central results—static Love numbers for spherical and spinning gravitational atoms (Eqs. 52–55, 63–64), their sign and α^{-3}/ã (or α^{-2}/q_c) enhancement in the weak-field (hyper)fine regime, and the shifted resonance conditions including self-gravity and beyond-hyperfine splits—are derived from the minimally coupled scalar action, the non-relativistic reduction, Rayleigh–Schrödinger/degenerate perturbation theory on the hydrogenic basis, and standard WEFT matching of h_00 (UV density response to WEFT Wilson coefficients). Spherical Love numbers reproduce the independent Newtonian result of Arana et al. [89] via Dalgarno–Lewis resummation; the spinning weak-field formula (63) is the multiplet contribution with hyperfine denominator, not a fitted or redefined quantity. Self-citations (e.g. [76] for cloud–orbit phase space) supply dynamical setup and phenomenology context; they do not fix the Love coefficients or force the sign. No parameter is fit to GW data and then re-predicted. Neglect of scalar self-interactions is an explicit scope choice (“minimal scenario”), not a circular step. The derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks within the stated approximations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation sits on standard GR plus a free massive scalar in Kerr, worldline EFT multipoles, and Rayleigh–Schrödinger/degenerate PT. No new particles or forces are postulated. Physical knobs α, q_c, ã, q label regimes rather than fits to data. The main domain cuts are negligible scalar self-interactions, frequencies below the deep Bohr scale for WEFT validity, and adiabatic treatment of SR widths.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Gravity is classical GR with a free real massive scalar minimally coupled; self-interactions are negligible in the ‘minimal scenario’.
    Stated in Introduction and Sec. II; truncates microphysics and Love expansion at gravitational self-coupling order q_c.
  • domain assumption Worldline EFT multipole expansion is valid for orbital separation R larger than cloud size r_c and external frequencies below the Bohr scale.
    Sec. II A and V; excludes deep-Bohr contact/ionization from the main Love and resonance claims.
  • domain assumption Static linear response defines Love numbers; time-derivative and nonlinear tidal operators are higher order.
    Sec. IV A; instantaneous matching of h_00 between WEFT and UV.
  • domain assumption Non-relativistic reduction of the real scalar yields an approximate U(1) Schrödinger theory with Bohr/fine/hyperfine Hamiltonian (App. A).
    Controls spectrum, permanent multipoles, and occupancy variables used everywhere after Sec. II B.
  • standard math Rayleigh–Schrödinger and degenerate perturbation theory with the two-level perturbativity diagnostic (Eq. 22) control internal and external corrections.
    Sec. III; underpins good-basis states for Love matching and resonance positions.
  • domain assumption Dissipative SR growth/decay and GW radiation reaction may be included adiabatically via widths Γ_N and Peters evolution.
    Sec. V A and App. F; shapes floating/sinking and band placement without full non-Hermitian dynamics.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 49458 in / 3116 out tokens · 77206 ms · 2026-07-30T11:04:35.892782+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The superradiant instability of rotating black holes can generate a significant overdensity of bosonic matter around them, together forming a gravitational atom. This mechanism allows one to probe a large part of the parameter space of scalars, axions and vectors that lies beyond the reach of traditional detection strategies. Modelling the dynamics of these systems in binaries is, however, subtle, due to the competing nature of the different perturbations. In this work, we provide a robust scheme to treat these perturbations, including both the minimal set of internal ones (relativistic corrections and self-gravity) and the external tidal field. Within the worldline effective field theory framework, we then calculate the Love numbers of gravitational atoms, for the first time also for the most interesting case of spinning clouds. Certain spinning states are found to have \textit{negative} (static) Love numbers, with a magnitude parametrically enhanced relative to the scaling for the non-spinning states -- in phenomenologically relevant scenarios by a factor $\mathcal{O}(10^2\text{--}10^3)$. Finally, we consider the binary evolution in the early inspiral, assessing the impact of the competing perturbations on \textit{shifted resonances}. This dynamical picture allows us to identify at which stages the permanent multipoles are the strongest indicators of new light bosons, and at which the induced ones take over, while keeping track of both types of finite-size effects even during the resonance. More broadly, our results demonstrate that gravitational atoms are a useful toy model for studying the theoretical aspects of tidal response in gravitational-wave physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27174 by Mateja Bo\v{s}kovi\'c, Nikola Savi\'c.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Left) The black curves correspond to the GW frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of the numerical determination of the relativistic spectra for a self-gravitating cloud [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Relative error of the analytical determination of ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_7.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

152 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Narrow resonances In most of the literature so far (see, however, [83]), the position of the resonance (74) has been estimated using only the leading-order relativistic corrections (23), which we denote (Ω aM g )(R,1). For theH/Ftransitions we always have ∆ϵ (R,1) aM <0, and thus one expects, via (74), floating- type resonances to be supported on co-rotat...

  2. [2]

    background

    Dense clouds The general discussion for dense clouds requires diagonalisingV int +V ext simultaneously, where Vint =V R +V sg. Let us first revisit the previous example, i.e. theℓ= 2,m={0,±2}perturbations applied toS d = span (|211⟩,|21−1⟩). Here the discussion is completely parallel to the dilute- cloud limit: the strong-field regime is by construction b...

  3. [3]

    effective Love number

    Decay width and cloud patterns The presence of the decay width broadens the transitions, particularly for transitions to spherical states|n M 00⟩, where the mixing can take place over decades of orbital frequency prior to Ω aM g [76, 79, 81]. These states are also the ones for which the relativistic correction of the spectrum is the strongest, as the supp...

  4. [4]

    Quantum Universe

    Love numbers in the band Although a detailed study of the observability of Love numbers is beyond the scope of this work (see e.g. [130] for the inference of finite-size parameters with future detectors, including both permanent and induced multipoles), let us describe the main features of the dynamical context, focusing, as motivated above, on the dilute...

  5. [5]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Astrophys. J. Lett. (2025), 10.3847/2041- 8213/ae2c74, arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys

    G. Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L8 (2023), arXiv:2306.16213 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA), Astron

    J. Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA), Astron. Astrophys.678, A50 (2023), arXiv:2306.16214 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    D. J. Reardonet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L6 (2023), arXiv:2306.16215 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Xuet al., Res

    H. Xuet al., Res. Astron. Astrophys.23, 075024 (2023), arXiv:2306.16216 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    K. G. Arunet al.(LISA), Living Rev. Rel.25, 4 (2022), arXiv:2205.01597 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Maggioreet al., JCAP03, 050 (2020), arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Maggioreet al., JCAP03, 050 (2020), arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    Abacet al., (2025), arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    A. Abacet al., (2025), arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Maggiore,Gravitational Waves

    M. Maggiore,Gravitational Waves. Vol. 2: Astrophysics and Cosmology(Oxford University Press, 2018)

    2018

  15. [15]

    W. D. Goldberger and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. D73, 104029 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0409156

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  16. [16]

    W. D. Goldberger and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. D73, 104030 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0511133

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  17. [17]

    R. A. Porto, Phys. Rev. D73, 104031 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0511061

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  18. [18]

    R. A. Porto, Phys. Rev. D77, 064026 (2008), arXiv:0710.5150 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  19. [19]

    R. A. Porto, Phys. Rept.633, 1 (2016), arXiv:1601.04914 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    W. D. Goldberger, (2022), 10.1007/978−981−19−3079−9 2 −1, arXiv:2212.06677 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Fang and G

    H. Fang and G. Lovelace, Phys. Rev. D72, 124016 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0505156

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  22. [22]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D80, 084035 (2009), arXiv:0906.0096 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  23. [23]

    Binnington and E

    T. Binnington and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D80, 084018 (2009), arXiv:0906.1366 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  24. [24]

    Kol and M

    B. Kol and M. Smolkin, JHEP02, 010 (2012), arXiv:1110.3764 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  25. [25]

    H. S. Chia, Phys. Rev. D104, 024013 (2021), arXiv:2010.07300 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    M. M. Riva, L. Santoni, N. Savi´ c, and F. Vernizzi, Phys. Lett. B854, 138710 (2024), arXiv:2312.05065 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Iteanu, M

    S. Iteanu, M. M. Riva, L. Santoni, N. Savi´ c, and F. Vernizzi, JHEP02, 174 (2025), arXiv:2410.03542 [gr-qc]. 53

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Combaluzier-Szteinsznaider, L

    O. Combaluzier-Szteinsznaider, L. Hui, L. Santoni, A. R. Solomon, and S. S. C. Wong, JHEP03, 124 (2025), arXiv:2410.10952 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Kehagias and A

    A. Kehagias and A. Riotto, JCAP05, 039 (2025), arXiv:2410.11014 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Parra-Martinez and A

    J. Parra-Martinez and A. Podo, (2025), arXiv:2510.20694 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    M. J. Rodr ´ ıguez, L. Santoni, and A. R. Solomon, (2026), arXiv:2604.08653 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    S. L. Shapiro and S. A. Teukolsky,Black holes, white dwarfs, and neutron stars: The physics of compact objects(1983)

    1983

  33. [33]

    G. F. Giudice, M. McCullough, and A. Urbano, JCAP10, 001 (2016), arXiv:1605.01209 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  34. [34]

    Cardoso, E

    V. Cardoso, E. Franzin, A. Maselli, P. Pani, and G. Raposo, Phys. Rev. D95, 084014 (2017), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 95, 089901 (2017)], arXiv:1701.01116 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  35. [35]

    Arvanitaki, S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  36. [36]

    Arvanitaki and S

    A. Arvanitaki and S. Dubovsky, Phys. Rev. D83, 044026 (2011), arXiv:1004.3558 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  37. [37]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  38. [38]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  39. [39]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  40. [40]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  41. [41]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  42. [42]

    Hui, Ann

    L. Hui, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.59, 247 (2021), arXiv:2101.11735 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Demirtas, C

    M. Demirtas, C. Long, L. McAllister, and M. Stillman, JHEP04, 138 (2020), arXiv:1808.01282 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    V. M. Mehta, M. Demirtas, C. Long, D. J. E. Marsh, L. McAllister, and M. J. Stott, JCAP07, 033 (2021), arXiv:2103.06812 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    Baryakhtar, D

    M. Baryakhtar, D. Cyncynates, and E. Henry, (2026), arXiv:2602.23424 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    Y. B. Zel’Dovich, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters14, 180 (1971)

    1971

  47. [47]

    Y. B. Zel’Dovich, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics35, 1085 (1972)

    1972

  48. [48]

    Endlich and R

    S. Endlich and R. Penco, JHEP05, 052 (2017), arXiv:1609.06723 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  49. [49]

    W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky, Nature238, 211 (1972)

    1972

  50. [50]

    Damour, N

    T. Damour, N. Deruelle, and R. Ruffini, Lett. Nuovo Cim.15, 257 (1976)

    1976

  51. [51]

    T. J. M. Zouros and D. M. Eardley, Annals Phys.118, 139 (1979)

    1979

  52. [52]

    W. E. East, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 131104 (2018), arXiv:1807.00043 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [53]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Lect. Notes Phys.906, pp.1 (2015), arXiv:1501.06570 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  54. [54]

    Gruzinov, (2016), arXiv:1604.06422 [astro-ph.HE]

    A. Gruzinov, (2016), arXiv:1604.06422 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  55. [55]

    Baryakhtar, M

    M. Baryakhtar, M. Galanis, R. Lasenby, and O. Simon, Phys. Rev. D103, 095019 (2021), arXiv:2011.11646 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  56. [56]

    S. J. Witte and A. Mummery, Phys. Rev. D111, 083044 (2025), arXiv:2412.03655 [hep-ph]. 54

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Gavilan-Martin, O

    D. Gavilan-Martin, O. Simon, D. Krishna, D. F. J. Kimball, D. Budker, and A. Wickenbrock, (2026), arXiv:2602.23415 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    J. a. G. Rosa and T. W. Kephart, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 231102 (2018), arXiv:1709.06581 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  59. [59]

    Boskovic, R

    M. Boskovic, R. Brito, V. Cardoso, T. Ikeda, and H. Witek, Phys. Rev. D99, 035006 (2019), arXiv:1811.04945 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  60. [60]

    Fukuda and K

    H. Fukuda and K. Nakayama, JHEP01, 128 (2020), arXiv:1910.06308 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  61. [61]

    L. Hui, D. Kabat, X. Li, L. Santoni, and S. S. C. Wong, JCAP06, 038 (2019), arXiv:1904.12803 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  62. [62]

    L. Hui, Y. T. A. Law, L. Santoni, G. Sun, G. M. Tomaselli, and E. Trincherini, Phys. Rev. D107, 104018 (2023), arXiv:2208.06408 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  63. [63]

    Budker, J

    D. Budker, J. Eby, M. Gorghetto, M. Jiang, and G. Perez, JCAP12, 021 (2023), arXiv:2306.12477 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  64. [64]

    Arvanitaki, M

    A. Arvanitaki, M. Baryakhtar, and X. Huang, Phys. Rev. D91, 084011 (2015), arXiv:1411.2263 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  65. [65]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 134001 (2015), arXiv:1411.0686 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  66. [66]

    Arvanitaki, M

    A. Arvanitaki, M. Baryakhtar, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, and R. Lasenby, Phys. Rev. D95, 043001 (2017), arXiv:1604.03958 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  67. [67]

    Brito, S

    R. Brito, S. Ghosh, E. Barausse, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, I. Dvorkin, A. Klein, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D96, 064050 (2017), arXiv:1706.06311 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  68. [68]

    Cardoso, ´O

    V. Cardoso, ´O. J. C. Dias, G. S. Hartnett, M. Middleton, P. Pani, and J. E. Santos, JCAP03, 043 (2018), arXiv:1801.01420 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  69. [69]

    Palombaet al., Phys

    C. Palombaet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 171101 (2019), arXiv:1909.08854 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  70. [70]

    S. J. Zhu, M. Baryakhtar, M. A. Papa, D. Tsuna, N. Kawanaka, and H.-B. Eggenstein, Phys. Rev. D102, 063020 (2020), arXiv:2003.03359 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  71. [71]

    K. K. Y. Ng, S. Vitale, O. A. Hannuksela, and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 151102 (2021), arXiv:2011.06010 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  72. [72]

    Tsukada, R

    L. Tsukada, R. Brito, W. E. East, and N. Siemonsen, Phys. Rev. D103, 083005 (2021), arXiv:2011.06995 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  73. [73]

    Khalaf, E

    M. Khalaf, E. Kuflik, A. Lenoci, and N. C. Stone, Phys. Rev. D113, 043015 (2026), arXiv:2408.16051 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  74. [74]

    Caputo, G

    A. Caputo, G. Franciolini, and S. J. Witte, (2025), arXiv:2507.21788 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    O. Ning, B. R. Safdi, and C. Welch, (2026), arXiv:2607.01317 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  76. [76]

    Baumann, H

    D. Baumann, H. S. Chia, and R. A. Porto, Phys. Rev. D99, 044001 (2019), arXiv:1804.03208 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  77. [77]

    Baumann, H

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  78. [78]

    Boˇ skovi´ c, M

    M. Boˇ skovi´ c, M. Koschnitzke, and R. A. Porto, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 121401 (2024), arXiv:2403.02415 [gr-qc]. 55

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  79. [79]

    G. M. Tomaselli, T. F. M. Spieksma, and G. Bertone, Phys. Rev. D110, 064048 (2024), arXiv:2403.03147 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  80. [80]

    Boˇ skovi´ c, R

    M. Boˇ skovi´ c, R. A. Porto, and M. Koschnitzke, Phys. Rev. D113, 124053 (2026), arXiv:2512.17887 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

Showing first 80 references.