Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 137 references

Probing ultralight bosons with LISA observations of spinning black hole mergers and follow-up searches of merger remnants

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LISA observations of merging massive black holes could exclude ultralight scalar and vector bosons over roughly four orders of magnitude in mass, and targeted follow-up of merger remnants could detect vector boson clouds near 1e-16 eV.

desk verdict Solid LISA forecast paper, but the vector follow-up exclusion curves ignore the pre-merger spin-down that the paper itself models, making those exclusion ranges optimistic. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09811 v1 pith:KTKFSMVF submitted 2026-08-10 gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-ph

Ifigeneia Giannakoudi , Maxence Corman , William E. East This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords ultralightbosonsblackholesuperradianceLISAgravitationalwavesspinsmassivebinariesbosoncloudsfollow-upsearches
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper forecasts what the space-based gravitational-wave observatory LISA could learn about ultralight bosons, hypothetical particles motivated by dark-matter and string-theory scenarios, by watching superradiant instabilities drain angular momentum from rotating massive black holes. The authors argue that precise spin measurements of black holes in merging binaries can rule out scalar boson masses in roughly $[5\times10^{-18},10^{-14}]$ eV and vector boson masses in $[6\times10^{-19},2\times10^{-14}]$ eV, with the exact window depending on the assumed massive-black-hole population. They further show that targeted follow-up searches for the quasi-monochromatic gravitational waves emitted as a boson cloud dissipates around a merger remnant can constrain vector masses in a narrower $[3\times10^{-17},3\times10^{-15}]$ eV band, and that if a vector boson near $10^{-16}$ eV exists, detection prospects range from negligible to near-certain across population models. This matters because a null result would sharpen constraints on physics beyond the Standard Model, while a detection would be direct evidence for new ultralight particles.

What carries the argument

The machinery is black-hole superradiance: a bosonic field with mass $\mu$ and azimuthal mode $m$ extracts energy and angular momentum from a Kerr black hole when $\omega_R < m\Omega_H$, growing into a cloud until saturation. The controlling parameter is the gravitational fine-structure constant $\alpha = M\mu$ (black-hole mass times boson mass in geometric units), which sets growth rates, spin-down to a maximum allowed spin $a_{\rm max}(M,\mu,\tau_{\rm sd})$, and the quasi-monochromatic gravitational-wave strain from the dissipating cloud. The authors use the SuperRad model to evolve all unstable modes and compute these quantities, and set the spin-down timescale $\tau_{\rm sd}$ against the Salpeter accretion timescale $T_S = 4.5\times10^7$ yr to decide whether a spin-down signature survives. The population catalogs then supply which binaries LISA would see and which remnants could host detectable clouds.

What would settle it

Take any LISA-detected massive binary whose confidently measured primary spin exceeds $a_{\rm max}$ for a boson mass inside the claimed exclusion window under the fiducial 10% spin uncertainty and $T_S$; one such event would already break the exclusion for that mass. Conversely, if a vector boson near $10^{-16}$ eV exists and the Q3nodelays population is accurate, a four-year mission with no post-merger cloud signal at SNR $\geq 10$ would contradict the paper's near-unity detection probability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that LISA, through two complementary channels, can exclude and potentially detect ultralight bosons via black-hole superradiance. Using three massive-black-hole population models (light-seed PopIII and heavy-seed Q3 with and without delays), the authors find that spin measurements of binaries with SNR $\geq 20$ can exclude, with probability greater than 0.99, scalar masses in $[5\times10^{-18},10^{-14}]$ eV and vector masses in $[6\times10^{-19},2\times10^{-14}]$ eV, assuming a Salpeter spin-down timescale $T_S = 4.5\times10^7$ yr. Follow-up searches of post-merger remnants, requiring SNR $\geq 10$ cloud signals, exclude only vector masses in $[3\times10^{-17},3\times10^{-15}]$ eV; scalar clouds grow too slowly to be seen. When the backreaction of a real vector boson on binary spins is included, the detection probability exceeds roughly 80% for the Q3nodelays model in $[2\times10^{-16},1.5\times10^{-15}]$ eV, while other models give lower but non-negligible prospects. The key tension identified is that the same superradiance that creates the cloud spins down the progenitor black holes before merger, suppressing remnant spins and weakening the very signals follow-up searches target.

Load-bearing premise

The forecasts assume that accretion re-spins massive black holes on a Salpeter timescale of about $4.5\times10^7$ years, so any superradiant spin-down slower than that leaves no observable signature; if real accretion histories are faster, episodic, or less coherent, the excluded mass ranges shrink or shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For all three population models, spin measurements exclude scalar and vector bosons over roughly four orders of magnitude in mass, with PopIII shifting to higher masses and Q3nodelays giving the broadest window.
  • Follow-up searches cannot constrain scalar bosons, whose cloud growth times exceed the LISA mission, but they add a complementary vector-boson exclusion window around $10^{-16}$ to $10^{-15}$ eV.
  • If an ultralight vector boson exists in $[10^{-16},2\times10^{-15}]$ eV, the probability that LISA sees at least one post-merger cloud signal ranges from very small to near unity depending on the population; Q3nodelays is the most optimistic, reaching above 80%.
  • Superradiant spin-down of binary components before merger shifts the remnant spin distribution downward, which reduces follow-up detectability; this backreaction is essential to the detection forecast.
  • Constraints are robust to changes in SNR threshold and spin-measurement accuracy (1% vs 10%), but shift by up to an order of magnitude with the assumed spin-down timescale and population model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's fiducial Salpeter-timescale assumption brackets only two spin-down timescales ($T_S$ and $0.01T_S$); if accretion is systematically slower than assumed, the excluded ranges would extend further, and if faster, they would shrink, so the quoted numbers should be read as model-dependent rather than hard physical bounds.
  • The same spin-down formalism could be folded into a joint Bayesian analysis of all LISA events to constrain boson mass and population parameters simultaneously, which the paper notes as future work but does not carry out.
  • Because the exclusions rely on pure gravitational coupling, adding self-interactions or dark-photon kinetic mixing above the rough thresholds the paper estimates ($f \gtrsim 10^{15}{-}10^{16}$ GeV, $\epsilon \lesssim 0.001$) could suppress cloud growth and weaken both exclusions and detection prospects.
  • The mass-spin feature shown for a $5\times10^{-16}$ eV vector boson suggests that even without a detected cloud signal, the statistical shape of the LISA spin distribution could itself be evidence for superradiance, a testable signature beyond single-event exclusion.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper forecasts the ability of LISA to constrain or detect ultralight scalar and vector bosons through black-hole superradiance, using three massive black-hole population models (PopIII, Q3delays, Q3nodelays) and the open-source SuperRad package. Two observational channels are considered: spin measurements of merging massive black-hole binaries, and follow-up searches for quasi-monochromatic gravitational-wave signals from superradiant clouds around merger remnants. The paper reports that spin measurements can exclude scalar masses approximately in [5e-18, 1e-14] eV and vector masses approximately in [6e-19, 2e-14] eV, while follow-up searches are sensitive to a narrower vector mass range around [3e-17, 3e-15] eV, with detection probabilities that can reach near unity for Q3nodelays near 1e-16 eV. The spin-measurement exclusion logic is clearly described and tested against variations in SNR threshold, spin uncertainty, and spin-down timescale; however, the follow-up exclusion analysis is internally inconsistent with the paper's own treatment of pre-merger spin-down.

Significance. If the forecasts are correct, this is a useful and timely projection for LISA's new-physics reach. The paper's strengths are its use of a publicly available, physically detailed superradiance model (SuperRad), the adoption of updated population catalogs that incorporate pulsar-timing-array information, the inclusion of both scalar and vector bosons, and the explicit testing of SNR and spin-uncertainty assumptions. The spin-measurement constraints are coherent and largely consistent with earlier work in the literature. The main significance-limiting issue is the follow-up exclusion calculation, which currently overstates the constraining power of remnant searches because it does not account for the very spin-down effect the paper itself models elsewhere. This issue is fixable and should not obscure the value of the spin-based forecasts.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III C and Sec. III D] The follow-up exclusion calculation in Sec. III C is internally inconsistent with the detection calculation in Sec. III D. In Sec. III C, each remnant is taken directly from the no-boson catalogs, and a vector mass is counted as excluded if SuperRad predicts a follow-up SNR >= 10 for a cloud around that remnant. But Sec. III D and the limitation stated in Sec. IV show that the same instability acts on the binary components prior to merger, producing remnants with significantly reduced spins (right panel of Fig. 2 and right panels of Fig. 6). For the masses in the 'Vector via Follow-up' column of Table III, the high-spin remnants on which the exclusion is based would generally not exist if the boson were present, so the absence of a follow-up signal cannot exclude those masses. The correct procedure would be to apply the Sec. III D spin-down to the binary components, recompute the remnant mass and spin, and then evaluate the follow-up SNR; if the resulting signal is undetectable, the non-detection is consistent with the boson and should not be counted as an exclusion. As written, the vector follow-up curves in Fig. 3 and Table III are optimistic and should be recomputed or explicitly relabeled as applying only to the no-boson catalogs.
  2. [Sec. II C] The spin-measurement exclusion ranges in Table III rest on the assumption that accretion re-spins massive black holes on the Salpeter timescale T_S = 4.5e7 yr, so that any instability slower than this leaves no observable spin-down signature. The 0.01 T_S curve in Fig. 3 is a useful robustness check, but it only changes the threshold on the superradiant growth time; it does not model faster or episodic coherent accretion, partial spin-down followed by re-spin, or the Blandford-Znajek spin-down discussed in Sec. II C. The abstract and Table III quote the T_S-based ranges without reporting the spread across these accretion assumptions, which makes the claimed exclusion ranges appear more robust than the modeling uncertainty supports. I recommend either reporting the 0.01 T_S ranges alongside the fiducial ranges in Table III and the abstract, or adding an explicit caveat that the quoted ranges are conditional on the Salpeter-time accretion assumption.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Table III] The abstract quotes the scalar range [5e-18, 1e-14] eV and the vector range [6e-19, 2e-14] eV, which correspond to the Q3nodelays model in Table III; the ranges for Q3delays and PopIII differ by almost an order of magnitude. The abstract should either identify these as the most optimistic model values or quote the model dependence explicitly.
  2. [Sec. III A] The catalog-realization convergence criterion is only stated as a 'standard error of order 0.1'; specifying the monitored quantity (e.g., mean number of SNR>8 mergers) and the acceptable tolerance would make the convergence test easier to reproduce.
  3. [Sec. IV and Fig. 4] The detection-probability discussion states that Q3nodelays detection probability reaches about 80% in [2e-16, 1.5e-15] eV, but Fig. 4 appears to show the curve crossing 0.8 only near the upper end of that interval; a clearer reading of the threshold would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LISA exclusion and detection forecasts are self-contained applications of the SuperRad superradiance model to external black-hole population catalogs; self-citations are methodological, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a forecast, not an inversion. Spin-based exclusion (Sec. III B) computes a_max(M, mu, tau_sd) from SuperRad evolution of unstable modes and compares it with component spins drawn from the external population catalogs of Refs. [49,50]; follow-up exclusion (Sec. III C) computes the SuperRad SNR of Eq. (9) for catalog remnants; detection (Sec. III D) additionally evolves the binary components' spins down before merger and recomputes remnant parameters with the fitting formulae of Refs. [126,127]. In each case the claimed ranges (Table III, Figs. 3-4) are outputs of a physical model applied to external catalogs, and no parameter is fitted to make a predicted exclusion range equal an input. The scalar spin constraints are benchmarked against independent prior forecasts (Refs. [18,64]), giving an external consistency check. The self-citations (SuperRad Refs. [57,58] and the a_max method of Ref. [24]) are normal methodological origins: they supply an open-source numerical model and a computation recipe, not a uniqueness theorem or an ansatz that forces the conclusion. The paper itself flags the main modeling caveat in Sec. IV ('A key limitation arises from the fact that the same superradiant instability responsible for generating post-merger signals also acts on the binary components prior to merger...'), meaning the Sec. III C exclusion curves ignore pre-merger spin-down while Sec. III D includes it; this is an internal-consistency and optimism concern about the follow-up exclusions, but it is not circular because the excluded mass range is not defined as, or fitted to, the no-boson catalog input. Overall, no circular step could be exhibited, and the central claims retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced; ultralight bosons are pre-existing theoretical candidates, and SuperRad is an existing code. The ledger instead captures the chosen timescales, thresholds, and astrophysical assumptions that shape the forecasted ranges.

free parameters (5)
  • spin-down timescale threshold tau_sd = T_S = 4.5e7 yr; alternate 4.5e5 yr
    Chosen as the fiducial accretion timescale; it sets which boson masses can spin black holes down fast enough to leave an observable signature. The paper tests 0.01 T_S but does not derive it from data.
  • binary SNR threshold = SNR >= 20
    Chosen to ensure spins can be measured; higher thresholds (50, 100) are tested but the fiducial value is a choice.
  • follow-up SNR threshold = SNR >= 10
    Chosen detectability threshold for post-merger cloud signals.
  • spin measurement uncertainty = 10% relative (1% for comparison)
    Adopted instead of full parameter estimation; the paper notes it is approximate.
  • LISA mission duration = 4 years
    Standard LISA mission assumption used for Poisson event counts.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption SuperRad accurately describes superradiant spin-down and gravitational wave emission for scalar and vector bosons
    The entire forecast pipeline uses SuperRad [57,58] for amax, growth times, and strain amplitudes; no independent benchmark is provided in this paper.
  • domain assumption Accretion spins black holes back up on the Salpeter timescale T_S = 4.5e7 yr
    Sec. II C adopts this as the fiducial upper limit for superradiant spin-down to remain observable. If accretion is faster or episodic, spin constraints weaken.
  • domain assumption Boson clouds interact only gravitationally
    Sec. V explicitly neglects self-interactions and couplings to the Standard Model. For large couplings, clouds may not grow to the amplitudes assumed, changing both exclusions and detections.
  • domain assumption The three MBH population catalogs represent the true LISA-visible population
    Q3delays, Q3nodelays, and PopIII from Refs. [49,50] are used as inputs; the forecasts are only as good as these semi-analytic models.
  • domain assumption Remnant mass and spin after merger follow the fitting formulae of Refs. [126,127]
    Used in the detection scenario after applying pre-merger spin-down; the formulae are empirical fits to numerical relativity results.
  • domain assumption LISA noise and response model of Ref. [122] is accurate
    SNR calculations use a specific power spectral density and response function; changes in the LISA sensitivity curve affect the quoted ranges.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing ultralight bosons with LISA observations of spinning black hole mergers and follow-up searches of merger remnants." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KTKFSMVF

@misc{pith2026260809811,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing ultralight bosons with LISA observations of spinning black hole mergers and follow-up searches of merger remnants},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KTKFSMVF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09811}
}
abstract

Ultralight bosons can trigger superradiant instabilities around rotating black holes, extracting angular momentum and leading in some cases to observable gravitational signatures. When the associated spin-down timescale is shorter than the black hole lifetimes and the spin-up timescales due to, e.g. accretion, this process imposes an upper limit on black hole spins. In addition, the formation and subsequent dissipation of boson clouds generates quasi-continuous gravitational wave emission. In this work, we explore the prospects for constraining and detecting ultralight bosons with observations of massive black hole binary mergers with the space-based LISA observatory. We consider two complementary approaches: measurements of black hole spins from merging binaries and follow-up gravitational wave searches targeting massive black hole binary merger remnants. We consider three population models for massive black holes, based on either heavy or light seeds, and forecast the exclusion and detection probabilities for both scalar and vector bosons. We find that black hole spin measurements can constrain scalar masses in the range $[5\times10^{-18},10^{-14}]$ eV and vector masses in the range $[6\times10^{-19},2\times10^{-14}]$ eV, with the exact range depending on the model. In contrast, restricting to vector bosons, follow-up gravitational wave searches are sensitive to a narrower vector boson mass range of $\sim[3\times10^{-17},3\times10^{-15}]$ eV, with the specific values again depending on the model. If a vector boson with a mass in the range $[10^{-16},2\times10^{-15}]$ eV existed, the probability of having an event that the follow-up searches would be sensitive to ranges from very small to near unity depending on the astrophysical model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09811 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Left panel: Mean number of detectable binaries (SNR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Left column: Mean number of detectable binaries (SNR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Probability of constraining scalar (left) and vector (right) boson masses from spin measurements of merging binaries [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Probability of detecting a gravitational wave signal with SNR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Exclusion curves from spin measurements of both binary constituents for the Q3nodelays population model in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Mean number of detectable binaries (SNR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

137 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. A. Starobinskii, Sov. Phys. JETP37, 28 (1973)

    1973

  2. [2]

    Cromb, G

    M. Cromb, G. M. Gibson, E. Toninelli, J. M. Padgett, E. M. Wright, and D. Faccio, Nature Phys.16, 1069 (2020), 2005.03760

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    J. E. Kim and D. J. Marsh, Physical Review D93 (2016), ISSN 2470-0029, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.93.025027

    2016

  4. [4]

    Chikashige, R

    Y. Chikashige, R. N. Mohapatra, and R. D. Peccei, Phys. Lett. B98, 265 (1981)

    1981

  5. [5]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Physical Review D81(2010), ISSN 1550-2368, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.81.123530

    2010

  6. [6]

    Holdom, Physics Letters B166, 196 (1986)

    B. Holdom, Physics Letters B166, 196 (1986)

    1986

  7. [7]

    Ackerman, M

    L. Ackerman, M. R. Buckley, S. M. Carroll, and M. Kamionkowski, Physical Review D79(2009), ISSN 1550-2368, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.79.023519

    2009

  8. [9]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, Phys. Rept.513, 1 (2012), 1106.2476

    arXiv 2012

Show all 137 references
  1. [10]

    Hinterbichler, Reviews of Modern Physics84, 671–710 (2012), ISSN 1539-0756, URLhttp://dx.doi

    K. Hinterbichler, Reviews of Modern Physics84, 671–710 (2012), ISSN 1539-0756, URLhttp://dx.doi. org/10.1103/RevModPhys.84.671

    2012 doi

  2. [11]

    de Rham, Living Reviews in Relativity17(2014), ISSN 1433-8351, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.12942/ lrr-2014-7

    C. de Rham, Living Reviews in Relativity17(2014), ISSN 1433-8351, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.12942/ lrr-2014-7

    2014

  3. [12]

    J. Aasi, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Ad- desso, R. X. Adhikari, et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 074001 (2015), ISSN 1361-6382, URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001

    2015 doi

  4. [13]

    Acernese, M

    F. Acernese, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, D. Aisa, N. Allemandou, A. Allocca, J. Amarni, P. Astone, G. Balestri, G. Ballardin, et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2014), ISSN 1361-6382, URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    2014 doi

  5. [14]

    Y. Aso, Y. Michimura, K. Somiya, M. Ando, O. Miyakawa, T. Sekiguchi, D. Tatsumi, and H. Ya- mamoto, Physical Review D88(2013), ISSN 1550- 2368, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD. 16 88.043007

    2013 doi

  6. [15]

    •Q3 no delays Model: A similar heavy-seed sce- nario but without delays between the galaxy and black hole merger leading to more events (at higher redshift)

    This model also accounts for the delay between galactic and massive black hole binary mergers. •Q3 no delays Model: A similar heavy-seed sce- nario but without delays between the galaxy and black hole merger leading to more events (at higher redshift). This scenario can be con...

  7. [16]

    Akutsu, M

    T. Akutsu, M. Ando, K. Arai, Y. Arai, S. Araki, A. Araya, N. Aritomi, Y. Aso, S. W. Bae, Y. B. Bae, et al.,Overview of kagra: Detector design and construc- tion history(2020), 2005.05574, URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/2005.05574

    2020

  8. [17]

    Amaro-Seoane, H

    P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, J. Baker, E. Ba- rausse, P. Bender, E. Berti, P. Binetruy, M. Born, D. Bortoluzzi, et al.,Laser interferometer space an- tenna(2017), 1702.00786, URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/1702.00786

    2017 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Arvanitaki, M

    A. Arvanitaki, M. Baryakhtar, and X. Huang, Physical Review D91(2015), ISSN 1550-2368, URLhttp://dx. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.084011

    2015 doi

  10. [19]

    Brito, S

    R. Brito, S. Ghosh, E. Barausse, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, I. Dvorkin, A. Klein, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D96, 064050 (2017), 1706.06311

    2017 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Cardoso, O

    V. Cardoso, O. J. Dias, G. S. Hartnett, M. Middleton, P. Pani, and J. E. Santos, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics2018, 043–043 (2018), ISSN 1475- 7516, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/ 2018/03/043

    2018 doi

  12. [21]

    K. K. Y. Ng, S. Vitale, O. A. Hannuksela, and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 151102 (2021), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.126.151102

    2021

  13. [23]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), The Astro- physical Journal Letters995, L18 (2025), URLhttps: //doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c06

    2025 doi

  14. [24]

    Baryakhtar, R

    M. Baryakhtar, R. Lasenby, and M. Teo, Phys. Rev. D 96, 035019 (2017), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.035019

    2017 doi

  15. [25]

    P. S. Aswathi, W. E. East, N. Siemonsen, L. Sun, and D. Jones, Phys. Rev. D112, 123048 (2025), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/n5hr-zljn

    2025 doi

  16. [26]

    Tsukada, T

    L. Tsukada, T. Callister, A. Matas, and P. Meyers, Phys. Rev. D99, 103015 (2019), URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.103015

    2019 doi

  17. [27]

    C. Yuan, Y. Jiang, and Q.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 106, 023020 (2022), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.023020

    2022 doi

  18. [28]

    Tsukada, R

    L. Tsukada, R. Brito, W. E. East, and N. Siemonsen, Phys. Rev. D103, 083005 (2021)

    2021

  19. [29]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, and the KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D105, 102001 (2022), URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.102001

    2022 doi

  20. [30]

    Palomba et al., Phys

    C. Palomba et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 171101 (2019)

    2019

  21. [31]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys. Rev. D106, 042003 (2022)

    2022

  22. [32]

    S. J. Zhu, M. Baryakhtar, M. A. Papa, D. Tsuna, N. Kawanaka, and H.-B. Eggenstein, Phys. Rev. D102, 063020 (2020)

    2020

  23. [33]

    Dergachev and M

    V. Dergachev and M. A. Papa, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 101101 (2019), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.123.101101

    2019

  24. [34]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA) (2025), 2509.07352

    2025 arXiv

  25. [35]

    Ghosh, E

    S. Ghosh, E. Berti, R. Brito, and M. Richartz, Phys. Rev. D99, 104030 (2019), 1812.01620

    2019 arXiv

  26. [36]

    Jones, N

    D. Jones, N. Siemonsen, L. Sun, W. E. East, A. L. Miller, K. Wette, and O. J. Piccinni, Phys. Rev. D111, 063028 (2025), 2412.00320

    2025 arXiv

  27. [38]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys. Rev. D109, 022001 (2024), 2108.01045

    2024 arXiv

  28. [39]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Astrophys. J. Lett.993, L25 (2025), 2507.08219

    2025 arXiv

  29. [40]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Astrophys. J. Lett.993, L21 (2025), 2510.26931

    2025

  30. [41]

    K. K. Ng, S. Vitale, O. A. Hannuksela, and T. G. Li, Physical Review Letters126(2021), ISSN 1079-7114, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126. 151102

    2021 doi

  31. [42]

    K. K. Y. Ng, M. Isi, C.-J. Haster, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D102, 083020 (2020), 2007.12793

    2020 arXiv

  32. [43]

    K. K. Y. Ng, O. A. Hannuksela, S. Vitale, and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. D103, 063010 (2021), 1908.02312

    2021 arXiv

  33. [44]

    Caputo, G

    A. Caputo, G. Franciolini, and S. J. Witte, Phys. Rev. D113, 083031 (2026), 2507.21788

    2026

  34. [45]

    O. Ning, B. R. Safdi, and C. Welch (2026), 2607.01317

    2026 arXiv

  35. [46]

    Mummery, J

    A. Mummery, J. Jiang, A. Ingram, A. Fabian, and J. Rule, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.544, 2880 (2025), 2505.13119

    2025

  36. [47]

    C. S. Reynolds, Nature Astron.3, 41 (2019), 1903.11704

    2019 arXiv

  37. [48]

    J. E. McClintock, R. Narayan, and J. F. Steiner, Space Sci. Rev.183, 295 (2014), 1303.1583

    2014 arXiv

  38. [49]

    K. S. Thorne, Astrophys. J.191, 507 (1974)

    1974

  39. [50]

    Barausse, Mon

    E. Barausse, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.423, 2533 (2012), 1201.5888

    2012 arXiv

  40. [51]

    Barausse, K

    E. Barausse, K. Dey, M. Crisostomi, A. Panayada, S. Marsat, and S. Basak, Physical Review D108(2023), ISSN 2470-0029, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.108.103034

    2023

  41. [52]

    Colpi, K

    M. Colpi, K. Danzmann, M. Hewitson, K. Holley- Bockelmann, P. Jetzer, G. Nelemans, A. Petiteau, D. Shoemaker, C. Sopuerta, R. Stebbins, et al.,Lisa definition study report(2024), 2402.07571, URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2402.07571

    2024 arXiv

  42. [53]

    M. Isi, L. Sun, R. Brito, and A. Melatos, Physical Re- view D99(2019), ISSN 2470-0029, URLhttp://dx. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.084042

    2019 doi

  43. [54]

    K. H. M. Chan and O. A. Hannuksela,Extracting ultra- light boson properties from boson clouds around post- merger remnants(2022), 2209.03536, URLhttps:// arxiv.org/abs/2209.03536

    2022 arXiv

  44. [55]

    Jones, L

    D. Jones, L. Sun, N. Siemonsen, W. E. East, S. M. Scott, and K. Wette, Physical Review D108(2023), ISSN 2470-0029, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.108.064001

    2023

  45. [56]

    Arvanitaki, M

    A. Arvanitaki, M. Baryakhtar, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, and R. Lasenby, Physical Review D95 (2017), ISSN 2470-0029, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.95.043001

    2017

  46. [57]

    M. J. Stott,Ultralight bosonic field mass bounds from astrophysical black hole spin(2020), 2009.07206, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.07206

    2020 arXiv

  47. [58]

    Siemonsen, T

    N. Siemonsen, T. May, and W. E. East, Phys. Rev. D 107, 104003 (2023), 2211.03845

    2023 arXiv

  48. [59]

    T. May, W. E. East, and N. Siemonsen, Phys. Rev. D 111, 044062 (2025), 2410.21442

    2025 arXiv

  49. [60]

    Klein et al., Phys

    A. Klein et al., Phys. Rev. D93, 024003 (2016), 17 1511.05581

    2016 arXiv

  50. [61]

    Antoniadis, P

    J. Antoniadis, P. Arumugam, S. Arumugam, P. Au- clair, S. Babak, M. Bagchi, A. S. B. Nielsen, E. Ba- rausse, C. G. Bassa, A. Bathula, et al.,The second data release from the european pulsar timing array: Iv. implications for massive black holes, dark matter and the early unive...

    2024 arXiv

  51. [62]

    Afzal, G

    A. Afzal, G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, Z. Arzoumanian, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, J. J. Blanco- Pillado, L. Blecha, K. K. Boddy, et al., The Astro- physical Journal Letters951, L11 (2023), ISSN 2041- 8213, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ acdc91

    2023 doi

  52. [63]

    D. G. Figueroa, M. Pieroni, A. Ricciardone, and P. Simakachorn, Physical Review Letters132(2024), ISSN 1079-7114, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.132.171002

    2024

  53. [64]

    Agazie, A

    G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, L. Blecha, A. Bonilla, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, S. Burke-Spolaor, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters952, L37 (2023), ISSN 2041-8213, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ace18b

    2023 doi

  54. [65]

    Brito, S

    R. Brito, S. Ghosh, E. Barausse, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, I. Dvorkin, A. Klein, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 131101 (2017), 1706.05097

    2017 arXiv

  55. [66]

    R. P. Kerr, Phys. Rev. Lett.11, 237 (1963)

    1963

  56. [67]

    Y. B. Zel’dovich, JETP Lett.14, 180 (1971), original work: Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 14, 270 (1971)

    1971

  57. [68]

    Y. B. Zel’dovich, Sov. Phys. JETP35, 1085 (1972), original work: Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz 62, 2076 (1972)

    1972

  58. [69]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D7, 2333 (1973)

    1973

  59. [70]

    Vilenkin, Phys

    A. Vilenkin, Phys. Lett. B78, 301 (1978)

    1978

  60. [71]

    Vicente, V

    R. Vicente, V. Cardoso, and J. C. Lopes, Physical Re- view D97(2018), ISSN 2470-0029, URLhttp://dx. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.084032

    2018 doi

  61. [72]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 134001 (2015), ISSN 1361-6382, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/32/13/ 134001

    2015 doi

  62. [73]

    W. E. East, Physical Review Letters121(2018), ISSN 1079-7114, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.121.131104

    2018

  63. [74]

    W. E. East and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 041101 (2017), 1704.04791

    2017 arXiv

  64. [75]

    May and W

    T. May and W. E. East (2025), 2509.13488

    2025

  65. [76]

    Sesana, J

    A. Sesana, J. Gair, E. Berti, and M. Volonteri, Phys. Rev. D83, 044036 (2011), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.044036

    2011 doi

  66. [77]

    Barausse, I

    E. Barausse, I. Dvorkin, M. Tremmel, M. Volonteri, and M. Bonetti, Astrophys. J.904, 16 (2020), 2006.03065

    2020 arXiv

  67. [79]

    Sesana, M

    A. Sesana, M. Volonteri, and F. Haardt, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.377, 1711 (2007), astro-ph/0701556

    2007 arXiv

  68. [80]

    J. E. Plowman, R. W. Hellings, and S. Tsuruta, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.415, 333 (2011), 1009.0765

    2011 arXiv

  69. [81]

    Rodriguez-Gomez et al., Mon

    V. Rodriguez-Gomez et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 449, 49 (2015), 1502.01339

    2015 arXiv

  70. [82]

    Ricarte and P

    A. Ricarte and P. Natarajan, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society481, 3278–3292 (2018), ISSN 1365-2966, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ mnras/sty2448

    2018

  71. [83]

    Bonetti, A

    M. Bonetti, A. Sesana, F. Haardt, E. Barausse, and M. Colpi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.486, 4044 (2019), 1812.01011

    2019 arXiv

  72. [84]

    Dayal, E

    P. Dayal, E. M. Rossi, B. Shiralilou, O. Piana, T. R. Choudhury, and M. Volonteri, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society486, 2336–2350 (2019), ISSN 1365-2966, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ mnras/stz897

    2019

  73. [85]

    Antonini, E

    F. Antonini, E. Barausse, and J. Silk, Astrophys. J.812, 72 (2015), 1506.02050

    2015 arXiv

  74. [86]

    Antonini, E

    F. Antonini, E. Barausse, and J. Silk, Astrophys. J. Lett.806, L8 (2015), 1504.04033

    2015 arXiv

  75. [87]

    Sesana, E

    A. Sesana, E. Barausse, M. Dotti, and E. M. Rossi, Astrophys. J.794, 104 (2014), 1402.7088

    2014 arXiv

  76. [88]

    Antoniadis, P

    J. Antoniadis, P. Arumugam, S. Arumugam, S. Babak, M. Bagchi, A.-S. Bak Nielsen, C. G. Bassa, A. Bathula, A. Berthereau, M. Bonetti, et al., Astronomy &; Astro- physics678, A50 (2023), ISSN 1432-0746, URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202346844

    2023 doi

  77. [89]

    Tarafdar, K

    P. Tarafdar, K. Nobleson, P. Rana, J. Singha, M. A. Kr- ishnakumar, B. C. Joshi, A. K. Paladi, N. Kolhe, N. D. Batra, N. Agarwal, et al., Publications of the Astro- nomical Society of Australia39(2022), ISSN 1448-6083, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1017/pasa.2022.46

    2022 doi

  78. [90]

    Agazie, A

    G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, Z. Ar- zoumanian, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, L. Blecha, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook, S. Burke-Spolaor, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters951, L8 (2023), ISSN 2041-8213, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6

    2023 doi

  79. [91]

    D. J. Reardon, A. Zic, R. M. Shannon, G. B. Hobbs, M. Bailes, V. Di Marco, A. Kapur, A. F. Rogers, E. Thrane, J. Askew, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters951, L6 (2023), ISSN 2041-8213, URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02

    2023 doi

  80. [92]

    H. Xu, S. Chen, Y. Guo, J. Jiang, B. Wang, J. Xu, Z. Xue, R. Nicolas Caballero, J. Yuan, Y. Xu, et al., Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics23, 075024 (2023), ISSN 2397-6209, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/1674-4527/acdfa5

    2023

  81. [93]

    Volonteri,18, 279 (2010), 1003.4404

    M. Volonteri,18, 279 (2010), 1003.4404

    2010 arXiv

  82. [94]

    Volonteri and D

    M. Volonteri and D. P. Stark, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society417, 2085 (2011), 1107.1946

    2011 arXiv

  83. [95]

    Kormendy and L

    J. Kormendy and L. C. Ho, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astro- phys.51, 511 (2013), 1304.7762

    2013 arXiv

  84. [96]

    C. M. Harrison and C. R. Almeida, Galaxies12, 17 (2024), 2404.08050

    2024 arXiv

  85. [97]

    Yuan and R

    F. Yuan and R. Narayan, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 52, 529 (2014), 1401.0586

    2014 arXiv

  86. [98]

    Dubois, J

    Y. Dubois, J. Devriendt, A. Slyz, and R. Teyssier, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society420, 2662 (2012), 1108.0110

    2012 arXiv

  87. [99]

    N. I. Shakura and R. A. Sunyaev, Astronomy & Astro- physics24, 337 (1973)

    1973

  88. [100]

    Dotan and N

    C. Dotan and N. J. Shaviv, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 413, 1623 (2011), 1004.1797

    2011 arXiv

  89. [101]

    Giustini and D

    M. Giustini and D. Proga, Astron. Astrophys.630, A94 (2019), 1904.07341

    2019 arXiv

  90. [102]

    Proga, J

    D. Proga, J. M. Stone, and T. R. Kallman, Astrophys. J.543, 686 (2000), astro-ph/0005315

    2000 arXiv

  91. [103]

    Inayoshi, Z

    K. Inayoshi, Z. Haiman, and J. P. Ostriker, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.459, 3738 (2016), 1511.02116

    2016 arXiv

  92. [104]

    Massonneau, Y

    W. Massonneau, Y. Dubois, M. Volonteri, and R. S. Beckmann, Astron. Astrophys.669, A143 (2023), 2209.01369. 18

    2023 arXiv

  93. [105]

    R. D. Blandford and R. L. Znajek, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society179, 433 (1977)

    1977

  94. [106]

    G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan and A. A. Ruzmaikin, Astro- physics and Space Science28, 45 (1974)

    1974

  95. [107]

    I. V. Igumenshchev, R. Narayan, and M. A. Abramow- icz, Astrophys. J.592, 1042 (2003), astro-ph/0301402

    2003 arXiv

  96. [108]

    Narayan, I

    R. Narayan, I. V. Igumenshchev, and M. A. Abramow- icz, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 55, L69 (2003), astro-ph/0305029

    2003 arXiv

  97. [109]

    Ricarte, R

    A. Ricarte, R. Narayan, and B. Curd, Astrophys. J. Lett.954, L22 (2023), 2307.04621

    2023 arXiv

  98. [110]

    Narayan, A

    R. Narayan, A. Chael, K. Chatterjee, A. Ricarte, and B. Curd, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.511, 3795 (2022), 2108.12380

    2022 arXiv

  99. [111]

    Volonteri, F

    M. Volonteri, F. Haardt, and P. Madau, Astrophys. J. 582, 559 (2003), astro-ph/0207276

    2003 arXiv

  100. [112]

    Di Matteo, V

    T. Di Matteo, V. Springel, and L. Hernquist, Nature (London)433, 604 (2005), astro-ph/0502199

    2005 arXiv

  101. [113]

    Volonteri and P

    M. Volonteri and P. Natarajan, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society400, 1911 (2009), 0903.2262

    2009 arXiv

  102. [114]

    Fang and H

    Y. Fang and H. Yang, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.523, 5120 (2023), 2209.14509

    2023 arXiv

  103. [115]

    Sesana, F

    A. Sesana, F. Haardt, and P. Madau, Astrophys. J.660, 546 (2007), astro-ph/0612265

    2007 arXiv

  104. [116]

    Baumann, H

    D. Baumann, H. S. Chia, and R. A. Porto, Phys. Rev. D99, 044001 (2019), 1804.03208

    2019 arXiv

  105. [117]

    Baryakhtar, M

    M. Baryakhtar, M. Galanis, R. Lasenby, and O. Simon, Physical Review D103(2021), ISSN 2470-0029, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.095019

    2021 doi

  106. [118]

    Baumann, H

    D. Baumann, H. S. Chia, R. A. Porto, and J. Stout, Physical Review D101(2020), ISSN 2470-0029, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.083019

    2020 doi

  107. [119]

    Zhang and H

    J. Zhang and H. Yang, Physical Review D101(2020), ISSN 2470-0029, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.101.043020

    2020

  108. [120]

    Zhang and H

    J. Zhang and H. Yang, Physical Review D99(2019), ISSN 2470-0029, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.99.064018

    2019

  109. [121]

    Marsat, J

    S. Marsat, J. G. Baker, and T. Dal Canton, Phys. Rev. D103, 083011 (2021), 2003.00357

    2021 arXiv

  110. [122]

    London, S

    L. London, S. Khan, E. Fauchon-Jones, C. Garc ´ ıa, M. Hannam, S. Husa, X. Jim´ enez-Forteza, C. Kalaghatgi, F. Ohme, and F. Pannarale, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 161102 (2018), 1708.00404

    2018 arXiv

  111. [123]

    Robson, N

    T. Robson, N. J. Cornish, and C. Liu, Classical and Quantum Gravity36, 105011 (2019), ISSN 1361- 6382, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ ab1101

    2019 doi

  112. [124]

    Pitte et al

    C. Pitte et al. (2023), 2304.03142

    2023 arXiv

  113. [125]

    S. Yi, F. Iacovelli, S. Marsat, D. Wadekar, and E. Berti (2025), 2502.12237

    2025

  114. [126]

    Yi et al

    S. Yi et al. (2026), 2602.09088

    2026 arXiv

  115. [127]

    Barausse and L

    E. Barausse and L. Rezzolla, Astrophys. J. Lett.704, L40 (2009), 0904.2577

    2009 arXiv

  116. [128]

    Reisswig, S

    C. Reisswig, S. Husa, L. Rezzolla, E. N. Dor- band, D. Pollney, and J. Seiler, Phys. Rev. D80, 124026 (2009), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.80.124026

    2009

  117. [129]

    S. J. Witte and A. Mummery,Stepping up superradiance constraints on axions(2025), 2412.03655, URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2412.03655

    2025 arXiv

  118. [130]

    Arvanitaki and S

    A. Arvanitaki and S. Dubovsky, Phys. Rev. D83, 044026 (2011), 1004.3558

    2011 arXiv

  119. [131]

    Omiya, T

    H. Omiya, T. Takahashi, and T. Tanaka, PTEP2022, 043E03 (2022), 2201.04382

    2022 arXiv

  120. [132]

    Collaviti, L

    S. Collaviti, L. Sun, M. Galanis, and M. Baryakhtar, Class. Quant. Grav.42, 025006 (2025), 2407.04304

    2025 arXiv

  121. [133]

    L. B. Okun, Sov. Phys. JETP56, 502 (1982)

    1982

  122. [134]

    J. L. Feng, M. Kaplinghat, H. Tu, and H.-B. Yu, JCAP 07, 004 (2009), 0905.3039

    2009 arXiv

  123. [135]

    Cyr-Racine and K

    F.-Y. Cyr-Racine and K. Sigurdson, Phys. Rev. D87, 103515 (2013), 1209.5752

    2013 arXiv

  124. [136]

    Bhoonah, J

    A. Bhoonah, J. Bramante, F. Elahi, and S. Schon, Phys. Rev. D100, 023001 (2019), 1812.10919

    2019 arXiv

  125. [137]

    Siemonsen, T

    N. Siemonsen, T. May, and W. E. East, Physical Review D107(2023), ISSN 2470-0029, URLhttp://dx.doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.104003

    2023 doi

  126. [138]

    Xin and E

    S. Xin and E. R. Most,Dark magnetohydrodynam- ics: Black hole accretion in superradiant dark photon clouds(2024), 2406.02992, URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2406.02992

    2024 arXiv

  127. [139]

    Fukuda and K

    H. Fukuda and K. Nakayama, Journal of High Energy Physics2020(2020), ISSN 1029-8479, URLhttp://dx. doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2020)128

    2020 doi

  128. [140]

    W. E. East, Physical Review Letters129(2022), ISSN 1079-7114, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.129.141103

    2022

  129. [141]

    W. E. East and J. Huang, Journal of High Energy Physics2022(2022), ISSN 1029-8479, URLhttp:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2022)089

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.