Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

A binary companion's tidal field can destroy a black hole's boson cloud before detectors see it, leaving an orbital trail that still encodes the cloud's history.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 06:28 UTC pith:2JJIRML2

load-bearing objection The most complete Hamiltonian treatment to date of boson clouds in binaries — new off-equatorial fixed points and counter-rotating depletion, honestly flagged approximations, and a real correction to the prior flow equations. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.17887 v2 pith:2JJIRML2 submitted 2025-12-19 gr-qc astro-ph.COastro-ph.HEhep-phhep-th

Trails of clouds in binary black holes

Mateja Bo\v{s}kovi\'c , Rafael A. Porto , Matthias Koschnitzke This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.COastro-ph.HEhep-phhep-th
keywords ultralight bosonssuperradiant cloudsbinary black holesgravitational-wave signaturesorbital eccentricityspin-orbit obliquityLandau-Zener transitionsworldline effective field theory
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 claims that a boson cloud around a black hole in a binary is generically transient: the companion's tidal field drives resonant and non-resonant transitions between hydrogenic levels of the cloud, and the resulting back-reaction usually depletes the cloud before the binary enters the LISA band. What remains is a trail — in the orbital eccentricity and in the angle between the black-hole spin and the orbital angular momentum — shaped by a series of fixed points. These attractors live at co-rotating (β=0) and counter-rotating (β=π) configurations and, newly, at intermediate obliquities such as β=π/3 or π/4; counter-rotating orbits can grow eccentricity without an upper bound. The paper builds a worldline effective field theory with time-dependent multipole moments, replacing balance-law reasoning with an instantaneous Hamiltonian for the cloud-orbit system, which is what allows the authors to treat wide and non-resonant transitions. If correct, the observable signature of ultralight particles in gravitational-wave data is not just a monochromatic cloud line but a re-shaped population of eccentricities and spin misalignments, plus measurable in-band phase changes when resonances occur in the detector band.

Core claim

Binary gravitational atoms are generically transient: a companion's tidal field drives resonant cloud transitions that deplete the cloud before the detector band and push eccentricity and obliquity toward fixed points, including, newly, intermediate inclinations; counter-rotating orbits grow eccentricity without bound. The flows come from a worldline effective action with time-dependent multipoles matched to an effective two-level atom, evolving the cloud and orbit from the instantaneous Hamiltonian rather than flux-balance laws. For stellar binaries, clouds formed before the hyperfine/fine regime are disrupted almost regardless of initial eccentricity and obliquity; for IMRI/EMRIs the obliq

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective two-level gravitational atom: each resonant transition is a pair of hydrogenic states (|a⟩, |b⟩) with occupancy difference σ and phase δ, evolved on a Bloch sphere. Coupling to the orbit enters through the worldline multipole Hamiltonian, with overlap amplitudes η^(ab)_{l,m,g,k} built from radial/angular integrals, Wigner d-matrices d^(l)_{mg}(β), and an eccentric-overtone series H_{l,g,k}; the resonance condition is set by ∆^(ab)_{g,k}=0 with Σ^(ab)_{g,k}=(g−k)ϑ+gξ+mκ. The key move is to combine the two-level Bloch equations with Lagrange's planetary equations for the orbital elements, so that wide, non-resonant and degenerate-overtone transitions are han

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the cloud's resonant dynamics is captured by one active pair of states and one dominant eccentric overtone at a time; if simultaneous multi-level overlaps or self-gravity shifts in the energy spectrum reorder the resonances, the claimed fixed-point flows and depletion fractions would move.

What would settle it

Evolve the same |322⟩-state systems with all hyperfine channels evolved concurrently, including self-gravity level shifts, across β_in ∈ [0,π] for α=0.25, q=0.1, e_in=0.3, and compare the joint {e,β} flows and depletion fractions with the single-channel predictions (e.g., β_cr=π/3 or π/4, N_c/N_sat≲10^-4 in the IMRI case). If the fixed-point structure or depletion timescales change by order-one factors, the single-overtone dominance assumption fails. Observationally, a LISA-era catalog of IMRI/EMRIs showing no distinct obliquity clusters around the predicted attractors would count against the

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

If this is right

  • Stellar-mass binaries that form before the hyperfine/fine resonance regime lose their clouds before the LISA band in most of parameter space; the surviving signature is an excess of binaries with e ≳ 0.01 at 10^-2 Hz, ranging from roughly 5% to 50% depending on cloud density.
  • Counter-rotating and near-counter-rotating orbits are not safe havens: they can also deplete the cloud, and the resonant dynamics then grows eccentricity without a fixed-point ceiling until e→1 breaks the floating condition.
  • The spin-orbit misalignment β is promoted to an observable: flows drive obliquity toward β=0, β=π, or intermediate attractors such as π/3 and π/4, and in some mass-ratio regimes equatorial orbits become unstable, so observed β-distributions carry information about the resonance history.
  • In-band transitions leave distinctive phase signatures — temporary outspirals, faster-than-vacuum chirps, or eccentricity surges that can push the binary out of band on day-like timescales — so a single event with these features would be strong evidence for a cloud hosting an ultralight particle.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This framework implies that null searches for the cloud's monochromatic line should not be read as excluding ultralight bosons: pre-band depletion would hide most clouds, so the discriminating observable is instead the statistical distribution of eccentricity and spin-orbit misalignment among binaries.
  • An extension the paper leaves open is to apply the same Hamiltonian flow to vector (spin-1) clouds; the selection rules and Wigner weights differ, so the obliquity attractors should occur at different m/g values, offering a way to distinguish the spin of the ultralight particle from population data alone.
  • Because the eccentricity growth at the fixed points can persist after the cloud is gone, measuring the eccentricity distribution of high-mass-ratio inspirals at the time they enter band could act as a 'forensic clock' for whether a cloud ever existed, even when the resonance happened far outside the detector band.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops a worldline-EFT description of a superradiant boson cloud ('gravitational atom') interacting with a companion in a binary, for generic eccentric and inclined orbits. The authors derive coupled flow equations for the orbital frequency, eccentricity, and obliquity from the cloud Hamiltonian rather than from balance laws alone, match the cloud multipoles to hydrogenic bound states, and analyze resonant and non-resonant transitions. Their central claims are: (i) co-rotating floating orbits can deplete the cloud before the detector band and drive eccentricity toward fixed points; (ii) counter-rotating orbits can also deplete the cloud and drive unbounded eccentricity growth; (iii) off-equatorial fixed points and instability of equatorial orbits occur for certain mass ratios; and (iv) these effects produce observable phase/harmonic changes and orbital-trail signatures. Phenomenology is presented for stellar-mass and IMRI/EMRI binaries, with numerical validation of the model's internal dynamics.

Significance. If the framework holds, the paper materially advances the gravitational-atom binary programme: it goes beyond balance-law treatments, includes orbital backreaction and obliquity dynamics, identifies new fixed points at intermediate obliquity, and provides concrete, falsifiable predictions (e.g., eccentricity distributions at f_GW = 10^-2 Hz, in-band phase changes, obliquity clustering). The derivation is largely self-contained, with explicit matching to cloud microphysics; the flow equations are checked against numerical solutions of the model in Figs. 2, 3, 16 and 17, and the overtone coefficients are supplied in an ancillary file. The main caveat is that the phenomenological results are computed under a two-level, single-channel truncation that the manuscript itself flags as potentially incomplete.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eqs. (35)-(38); §6; App. F] The central phenomenological results—fixed points in the eccentricity/obliquity flow, off-equatorial attractors, and depletion fractions—are obtained by reducing the cloud to a single active pair of states and selecting the transition a posteriori by maximizing η/Γ (App. F). The manuscript itself concedes that overlapping hyperfine channels share the same fundamental frequency up to O(α^6) corrections, that the selection criterion fails near β_in ≃ π/2, and that 'a comprehensive treatment that evolves all levels concurrently may ultimately be required' (§6). Because these approximations are load-bearing for the claimed qualitative picture, the paper needs either a quantitative estimate of multi-level corrections or at least one explicit three- or four-level example showing that the fixed-point flows and depletion fractions are stable under level overlap.
  2. [App. D, footnote on f_n; §5.1, Fig. 7] For k < −5 overtones, the coefficients f_n(l,g,k) are set to f_n ≃ 10 'motivated by the trend observed for lower overtones'. The paper states that O(1) variations do not affect the results shown in Fig. 7, but no sensitivity study is provided. Since the eccentricity growth and depletion fractions in Fig. 7 depend on which early overtone is triggered, a quantitative robustness check (e.g., varying f_n by the O(1) factor claimed to be irrelevant, or comparing with a higher-order overtone computation for a representative subset) is needed to support the 5–50% eccentricity-excess claims.
  3. [§6 and §4.1] Self-gravity effects are ignored, yet the manuscript cites [46] showing that self-gravity can shift energy levels and even reverse the sign of level splitting for some H-transitions. The existing quantification in [46] is limited to the two fastest-growing states on co-rotating, equatorial orbits. The paper's claims about counter-rotating and off-equatorial depletion rely on the resonance hierarchy for those configurations, so the absence of an assessment of self-gravity (or a clear argument for why the suppression is uniform across β) leaves a load-bearing gap. A concrete test would be to evaluate the self-gravity level shifts for the |322⟩ → |32m⟩ channels at β ≃ π and at intermediate obliquity, and to check whether the floating criteria (70)-(71) survive.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.4, Fig. 5] The flow diagrams in Fig. 5 are constructed under idealized uninterrupted floating conditions, as the text notes. This is acceptable if the limitations are kept explicit, but the caption should state that the diagrams show the idealized flow, not the full dynamics, and the definition d ≡ g − k should be given in the caption rather than only in the text.
  2. [General notation] The paper relies heavily on the companion Letter [43] for definitions of quantities such as z, w, and v parameters and for the hydrogenic overlaps. While this is not circular, it makes the paper hard to evaluate independently. A short table of the key rescaled variables (Eq. (30) and related) in an appendix would improve self-containedness.
  3. [Eq. (24)] The phase Σ^{(ab)}_{g,k} is used in Eq. (24) before the detuning condition (25) is introduced. Define the frequency detuning Δ^{(ab)}_{g,k} more prominently, since it carries much of the subsequent analysis.
  4. [§5.1, text around Fig. 7] The phrase 'for β in ≃π in the plot (to the right)' is ambiguous because the right panel shows several trajectories. Refer explicitly to the color/line style used for the near-counter-rotating case.
  5. [App. F, Eq. (F7)] The definition of the 'width' in Eq. (F7) is introduced as a measure, but it is dimensional and not obviously connected to the resonance width in frequency. Clarify the relation to the LZ width or to the fractional frequency interval used in Fig. 18.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the derivation is self-contained from a stated Hamiltonian and microphysical matching, with only minor reliance on the authors' prior EFT papers for framework and conventions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—floating orbits, eccentricity/obliquity fixed points, and cloud depletion—are derived from a stated worldline EFT action (Eq. 2), a matched two-level Hamiltonian (Eqs. 37-38), and the resulting coupled evolution equations (Eqs. 39-40, 57-60). The fixed-point conditions, e.g. Eq. (66), follow from setting the derived flow equations to zero, not from fitting to a target output. The microphysical inputs (hydrogenic spectrum, decay widths) are taken from earlier literature, including the authors' own prior papers [36,37,43], but these are framework/convention inputs rather than the predicted binary dynamics. The active-channel selection in App. F, which chooses the transition maximizing eta/Gamma, is an acknowledged modeling approximation, not a post-hoc fit to the claimed results; the paper explicitly concedes that 'A comprehensive treatment that evolves all levels concurrently may ultimately be required to capture the system's full evolution and to validate the approximations employed here' (Sec. 6). No prediction is equivalent by construction to an input, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation. The only mild concern is the heavy reliance on the authors' own EFT/cloud formalism, which here is not circular because the new orbital co-evolution is derived rather than assumed.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particle, force, or conserved quantity is introduced; the weight is carried by established cloud microphysics plus a chain of approximations (two-level, no self-interactions, no self-gravity, overtone truncation). The f_n≈10 high-overtone coefficient is the most explicit hand-set number; the phenomenological examples also assume ã_in=0.995 and specific cloud densities.

free parameters (3)
  • f_n(l,g,k) for k<−5 overtones = ≈10
    In App. D the paper sets high-overtone amplitudes to a constant ≈10 for ≲20% of H-regime cases, 'motivated by the trend' rather than derived; O(1) variations are claimed not to affect the results.
  • initial BH spin ã_in in vanilla model = 0.995
    The superradiant population model starts every cloud from ã_in=0.995 (App. F); saturation occupancies and mass ratios used for phenomenology depend on this choice.
  • cloud mass at saturation N_c/M² = 0.13–0.33 in examples
    Examples use (N_c/M²)_sat=0.13 and 0.33, plus 'denser cloud' M_c/M≃0.2 cases; these are illustrative choices, not derived from a unique model.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Non-relativistic hydrogenic spectrum of the gravitational atom at α≪1 (Eqs. 17–18)
    The cloud states and level splittings are taken from the standard superradiance/hydrogenic approximation; used throughout §3–§4.
  • domain assumption Worldline EFT action (Eq. 2) is valid for companion outside the cloud, R ≫ r_c
    The multipole expansion is truncated and matching assumes the perturber is external; the paper notes deep-Bohr/inside-cloud transitions are excluded.
  • domain assumption Cloud spin and BH spin remain parallel, S_c ∥ S
    Stated in §3 footnote 5; the Wigner-matrix structure and obliquity flow assume this, with caveats near the Bohr regime.
  • domain assumption Angular-momentum balance dS/dt|_Q + dL/dt|_Q ≃ 0 at leading RR order (Eq. 14)
    Central to deriving the obliquity flow; external multipole flux of total angular momentum is neglected as subleading.
  • ad hoc to paper Two-level (at most three-state) truncation of the cloud Hilbert space
    The dynamics is solved for one active pair per transition; multi-level overlap is handled by selection criteria in App. F rather than evolved fully.
  • ad hoc to paper Self-interactions and self-gravity are neglected
    Acknowledged in §6; self-gravity can reverse some H-transition splittings [46], and the paper argues pre-resonance cloud GW emission suppresses it.
  • ad hoc to paper Eccentric-overtone expansion truncated at O(e^6), with f_n≈10 for high k
    App. D states the sum converges only for moderate eccentricity and uses a hand-set coefficient for k<−5 in a fraction of H-regime cases.
  • domain assumption Quasi-adiabatic superradiant saturation model (App. F)
    The vanilla population model fixes how cloud occupancy and BH spin are initialized, including the ladder |211⟩→|322⟩→|433⟩.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 51764 in / 14861 out tokens · 151762 ms · 2026-08-04T06:28:54.891592+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Superradiant instabilities of rotating black holes can give rise to long-lived bosonic clouds, offering natural laboratories to probe ultralight particles across a wide range of parameter space. The presence of a companion can dramatically impact both the cloud's evolution and the binary's orbital dynamics, generating a trail of feedback effects that require detailed modelling. Using a worldline effective field theory approach, we develop a systematic framework for binaries on generic (eccentric and inclined) orbits, capturing both resonant and non-resonant transitions without relying solely on balance laws. We demonstrate the existence of ``co-rotating'' floating orbits that can deplete the cloud prior to entering the detector's band, triggering eccentricity growth towards a sequence of fixed points. Likewise, we show that ``counter-rotating'' orbits can also deplete the cloud, driving (unbounded) growth of eccentricity. Furthermore, we uncover novel features tied to orbital inclination. Depending on the mass ratio, equatorial orbits can become unstable, and fixed points may arise not only for aligned or anti-aligned configurations but, strikingly, also at intermediate inclinations. We derive flow equations governing spin-orbit misalignment and eccentricity and identify distinctive signatures that can reveal the presence of boson clouds in the binary's history, as well as key features of possible in-band transitions. These results refine and extend earlier work, yielding a more faithful description of the imprints of ultralight particles in gravitational-wave signals from binary black holes, signatures that are within reach of future detectors such as LISA, Cosmic Explorer, and the Einstein~Telescope.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.17887 by Mateja Bo\v{s}kovi\'c, Matthias Koschnitzke, Rafael A. Porto.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Euler-angle rotation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Evolution of the orbital frequency [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Time evolution of the orbital frequency [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Time evolution of the orbital frequency [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Eccentricity/obliquity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The value of Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Features of the cloud-orbit co-evolution in scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Evolution of the (normalized) eccentricity and obliquity [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Features of the cloud-orbit co-evolution for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Evolution of the peak GW frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Position of the resonance transitions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Eccentricity/obliquity flow for ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Flow of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Peak GW frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. The three anomalies in an eccentric orbit. The central object is at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Numerical evolution of the Bloch variable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p061_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Evolution of the eccentricity for the example in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p065_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Width of fine transitions to spherical states on co-rotating circular orbits [via ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p071_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. The curves on the left delineate the region in which ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p072_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Position of the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p074_20.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Resonances as signatures of scalar clouds in eccentric extreme-mass-ratio inspirals

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Eccentricity in EMRIs around scalar clouds produces relativistic resonances in scalar fluxes near the last stable orbit, leading to observable dephasing in gravitational waveforms.

  2. Finite Coherence in Gravitational Waves from Tidally Excited Axion Clouds

    gr-qc 2026-06 conditional novelty 6.0

    Gravitational-wave radiation from tidally driven Bohr crossings of black-hole axion clouds is controlled by outgoing two-level coherence, finite only for intermediate Landau-Zener sweep rates.

  3. Relativistic effects in extreme-mass-ratio inspirals within scalar clouds: Eccentric and inclined orbits

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Extends relativistic EMRI calculations in scalar clouds from circular-equatorial to eccentric and inclined orbits around Schwarzschild black holes, revealing apsidal-precession resonances and inclination-dependent net...

  4. Resonances as signatures of scalar clouds in eccentric extreme-mass-ratio inspirals

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Eccentric EMRIs exhibit relativistic resonances in scalar fluxes that enhance interactions with scalar clouds and amplify waveform dephasing relative to circular orbits.

  5. Finite Coherence in Gravitational Waves from Tidally Excited Axion Clouds

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Finite coherence during tidal Bohr crossings in axion clouds produces distinct, localized gravitational-wave waveforms and orbital responses in black-hole binaries.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

137 extracted references · 102 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Hook, PoST ASI2018, 004 (2019), arXiv:1812.02669 [hep-ph]

    A. Hook, PoST ASI2018, 004 (2019), arXiv:1812.02669 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    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

  3. [3]

    Demirtas, C

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    V. M. Mehta, M. Demirtas, C. Long, D. J. E. Marsh, L. McAllister, and M. J. Stott, JCAP 07, 033 (2021), arXiv:2103.06812 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Quantum Uni- verse

    SUMMAR Y AND OUTLOOK Provided they exist in nature, clouds of ultralight bosons surrounding BHs in bina- ries are inevitably transient phenomena—the question is not whether they fade away, but ratherwhenandhow. The timing determines if we witness their demise unfold within the frequency band of GW detectors, or whether they imprint measurable changes into...

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    Hui, Ann

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [10]

    Arvanitaki and S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  11. [11]

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

    1971

  12. [12]

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

    1972

  13. [13]

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

    1972

  14. [14]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  15. [15]

    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

  16. [16]

    Arvanitaki, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  17. [17]

    Brito, V

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  18. [18]

    S. L. Detweiler, Phys. Rev. D22, 2323 (1980)

    1980

  19. [19]

    S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D76, 084001 (2007), arXiv:0705.2880 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  20. [20]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  21. [21]

    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

  22. [22]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    Reitzeet al., Bull

    D. Reitzeet al., Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51, 035 (2019), arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph.IM]. 76

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    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

  26. [26]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Kawamuraet al., PTEP2021, 05A105 (2021), arXiv:2006.13545 [gr-qc]

    S. Kawamuraet al., PTEP2021, 05A105 (2021), arXiv:2006.13545 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Berlin, D

    A. Berlin, D. Blas, R. Tito D’Agnolo, S. A. R. Ellis, R. Harnik, Y. Kahn, and J. Sch¨ utte- Engel, Phys. Rev. D105, 116011 (2022), arXiv:2112.11465 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    S. Baum, Z. Bogorad, and P. W. Graham, (2023), arXiv:2309.07952 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Arvanitaki, M

    A. Arvanitaki, M. Baryakhtar, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, and R. Lasenby, Phys. Rev. D 95, 043001 (2017), arXiv:1604.03958 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  31. [31]

    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

  32. [32]

    Palombaet al., Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [33]

    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

  34. [34]

    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

  35. [35]

    Khalaf, E

    M. Khalaf, E. Kuflik, A. Lenoci, and N. C. Stone, (2024), arXiv:2408.16051 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Caputo, G

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

    arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    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

  38. [38]

    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

  39. [39]

    Baumann, G

    D. Baumann, G. Bertone, J. Stout, and G. M. Tomaselli, Phys. Rev. D105, 115036 (2022), arXiv:2112.14777 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    X. Tong, Y. Wang, and H.-Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D106, 043002 (2022), arXiv:2205.10527 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Takahashi, H

    T. Takahashi, H. Omiya, and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D107, 103020 (2023), arXiv:2301.13213 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    G. M. Tomaselli, T. F. M. Spieksma, and G. Bertone, JCAP07, 070 (2023), arXiv:2305.15460 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    Brito and S

    R. Brito and S. Shah, Phys. Rev. D108, 084019 (2023), arXiv:2307.16093 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Dyson, T

    C. Dyson, T. F. M. Spieksma, R. Brito, M. van de Meent, and S. Dolan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 134, 211403 (2025), arXiv:2501.09806 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Kim and A

    H. Kim and A. Lenoci, Phys. Rev. D112, 104014 (2025), arXiv:2508.08367 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    G. M. Tomaselli, T. F. M. Spieksma, and G. Bertone, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 121402 (2024), arXiv:2407.12908 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Baryakhtar, R

    M. Baryakhtar, R. Lasenby, and M. Teo, Phys. Rev. D96, 035019 (2017), arXiv:1704.05081 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  50. [50]

    W. E. East and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 041101 (2017), arXiv:1704.04791 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  51. [51]

    W. E. East, Phys. Rev. D96, 024004 (2017), arXiv:1705.01544 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  52. [52]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  53. [53]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  54. [54]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  55. [55]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  56. [56]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  57. [57]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  58. [58]

    H. S. Chia, T. D. P. Edwards, D. Wadekar, A. Zimmerman, S. Olsen, J. Roulet, T. Venu- madhav, B. Zackay, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D110, 063007 (2024), arXiv:2306.00050 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    W. D. Goldberger, J. Li, and I. Z. Rothstein, JHEP06, 053 (2021), arXiv:2012.14869 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  60. [60]

    Tremaine,Dynamics of Planetary Systems(Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2023)

    S. Tremaine,Dynamics of Planetary Systems(Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2023)

    2023

  61. [61]

    Poisson and C

    E. Poisson and C. M. Will,Gravity: Newtonian, Post-Newtonian, Relativistic, 1st ed. (Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014)

    2014

  62. [62]

    J. A. Burns, American Journal of Physics44, 944 (1976)

    1976

  63. [63]

    M. A. Morrison and G. A. Parker, Australian Journal of Physics40, 465 (1987)

    1987

  64. [64]

    T. A. Apostolatos, C. Cutler, G. J. Sussman, and K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D49, 6274 (1994)

    1994

  65. [65]

    P. C. Peters and J. Mathews, Phys. Rev.131, 435 (1963)

    1963

  66. [66]

    P. C. Peters, Phys. Rev.136, B1224 (1964)

    1964

  67. [67]

    Baumann, H

    D. Baumann, H. S. Chia, J. Stout, and L. ter Haar, JCAP12, 006 (2019), arXiv:1908.10370 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  68. [68]

    Yoshino and H

    H. Yoshino and H. Kodama, PTEP2014, 043E02 (2014), arXiv:1312.2326 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  69. [69]

    Siemonsen, T

    N. Siemonsen, T. May, and W. E. East, Phys. Rev. D107, 104003 (2023), arXiv:2211.03845 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  70. [70]

    S. L. Detweiler and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D69, 084019 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0312010. 78

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  71. [71]

    Duque, C

    F. Duque, C. F. B. Macedo, R. Vicente, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 121404 (2024), arXiv:2312.06767 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  72. [72]

    Zur theorie der energieubertragung. ii,

    L. Landau, “Zur theorie der energieubertragung. ii,” (1932)

    1932

  73. [73]

    Zener, Proc

    C. Zener, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A137, 696 (1932)

    1932

  74. [74]

    V. M. Akulin and W. P. Schleich, Phys. Rev. A46, 4110 (1992)

    1992

  75. [75]

    N. V. Vitanov and B. M. Garraway, Phys. Rev. A53, 4288 (1996)

    1996

  76. [76]

    N. V. Vitanov and S. Stenholm, Phys. Rev. A55, 2982 (1997)

    1997

  77. [77]

    Raghavan, A

    S. Raghavan, A. Smerzi, S. Fantoni, and S. R. Shenoy, Phys. Rev. A59, 620 (1999)

    1999

  78. [78]

    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

  79. [79]

    R. P. Feynman, F. L. Vernon, Jr., and R. W. Hellwarth, Journal of Applied Physics28, 49 (1957)

    1957

  80. [80]

    Martello, Y

    E. Martello, Y. Singhal, B. Gadway, T. Ozawa, and H. M. Price, Phys. Rev. E107, 064211 (2023), arXiv:2302.03572 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.