Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 72 references

Scalar fields from nonlinear sigma models on black hole spacetimes

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The sign of the curvature of a scalar field's internal space determines whether dark-matter clouds around black-hole binaries make them merge earlier or later, provided the field is light enough.

desk verdict A careful first numerical pass at sigma-model scalars on BH spacetimes; the qualitative attractive/repulsive story holds up, but the BBH dephasing sign lacks the convergence evidence to be taken as final. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18362 v1 pith:5LFA4I72 submitted 2025-08-25 gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-th

Ludovico Machet , Llibert Aresté Saló This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEhep-th
keywords nonlinearsigmamodelsSL(2R)O(3)scalardarkmatterblackholeaccretionbinarydephasingnumericalrelativitybosenova
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 asks whether scalar fields whose kinetic term comes from a curved internal space — the kind that appears in string-theory-motivated extensions of gravity — behave differently around black holes from an ordinary free massive scalar. The answer, for light enough fields, is yes: a hyperbolic internal space (SL(2,R) symmetry, positive curvature) makes the field accrete as though self-attractive, while a spherical internal space (O(3), negative curvature) makes it behave as though self-repulsive. Around an equal-mass black-hole binary, this translates into gravitational-wave dephasing: positive curvature merges the system earlier and negative curvature later than the non-interacting case, as long as the field's Compton wavelength is larger than the binary separation. For a heavier field the ordering flips, showing that the mass of the cloud, not just the sign of the interaction, controls the inspiral. The paper also finds no bosenova, suggesting the curved kinetic term suppresses an instability that ordinary attractive self-interactions produce.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the unified complex-field action, obtained from the axion–dilaton kinetic term by the field redefinition with complex field tau. Its target space is the hyperbolic plane for gamma^2 > 0 (SL(2,R) symmetry), the two-sphere for gamma^2 < 0 (O(3) symmetry), and flat space for gamma^2 = 0, where the theory reduces to a free massive complex scalar. The parameter gamma^2 thus continuously interpolates between repulsive, free, and attractive kinematics. The paper uses gamma^2 as the control variable and shows that this kinetic curvature, rather than a separate potential term, determines whether scalar clouds compress or disperse around black holes and whether they push a b

What would settle it

Re-run the muM = 0.3 binary simulations with the finer coarsest-level time step used for the heavier-field runs, including the gamma^2 < 0 case; if the sign ordering of merger times reverses or disappears, the claimed dephasing is a numerical artifact rather than physics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a nonlinear sigma model's scalar-manifold curvature acts as an intrinsic self-interaction, with its sign selecting the phenomenology. On isolated Schwarzschild black holes, the SL(2,R) model (gamma^2 > 0) produces denser, more compact accretion than a free massive scalar, while the O(3) model (gamma^2 < 0) produces lower, more diffuse densities; at larger field mass the mass term dominates and the three models agree. In equal-mass binary evolutions with a light field (muM = 0.3), the attractive sign makes the binary merge earlier and the repulsive sign later, measured as positive and negative dephasing of the l = m = 2 gravitational-wave phase relative to gamma^2 =

Load-bearing premise

The binary results stand on the assumption that the time step used on the coarsest grid resolves the oscillating scalar field well enough that the measured waveform dephasing is real; the paper states this resolution is likely imperfect and verifies convergence for only one of the six binary configurations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A scalar environment with hyperbolic field-space curvature makes an equal-mass binary lose orbital energy faster, producing a positive gravitational-wave dephasing relative to free-field inspirals; spherical curvature gives negative dephasing.
  • The effect is conditional: it appears when the scalar's Compton wavelength is larger than the binary separation, and at smaller wavelengths the ordering flips, so waveform searches must be mass-dependent.
  • The integrated scalar mass outside the binary tracks the merger time across all runs, implying cloud mass, not just interaction sign, is the physical driver of the inspiral evolution.
  • Ringdown frequencies remain consistent with the Kerr (2,2) mode to about 2% for the explored parameters, so this environment does not, at this level, disturb standard black-hole spectroscopy.
  • The absence of bosenova in the attractive-sign runs suggests sigma-model kinetic nonlinearities can stabilize scalar clouds that ordinary phi^4 self-interactions would blow apart.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: a parameter scan in gamma^2 near zero could map the dephasing sign continuously onto an effective self-coupling, connecting these runs to ordinary lambda|Phi|^4 phenomenology.
  • Beyond the paper: since |gamma^2| = 10^5 keeps the effective self-coupling below observational bounds for the simulated masses, a detector-level study is needed to see whether the predicted dephasing survives realistic astrophysical constraints.
  • Beyond the paper: the companion-mass scaling hints that negative-curvature models mimic a lower-mass binary and positive-curvature models a higher-mass one in vacuum-template parameter estimation, a potential systematic for future space-based gravitational-wave detectors.
  • Beyond the paper: the heavy-field reversal suggests a competition between dynamical friction and the gravitational pull of the cloud; a run with fixed field mass but varied initial separation could isolate which regime controls the sign of dephasing.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies complex scalar fields with nonlinear-sigma-model kinetic terms on black hole spacetimes. The model is parametrized by γ², with γ²>0 corresponding to the SL(2,R) (hyperbolic) sigma model and γ²<0 to the O(3) (spherical) one; γ²=0 reduces to a free massive complex scalar. The authors implement the model in GRChombo/GRTresna, evolve it around a Schwarzschild BH and in an equal-mass BBH inspiral, and compare accretion profiles and gravitational-wave dephasing across γ² and scalar mass μM. They report that for light fields the SL(2,R) model behaves attractively (denser, more compact cloud; earlier merger) and the O(3) model repulsively (diffuse cloud; later merger) relative to the non-interacting case, while for μM=0.6 the SL(2,R) model instead yields the longest inspiral. They also report the absence of bosenova emission. The ADM equations are given explicitly in Appendix A, the initial data are constraint-satisfying, and the code is publicly available.

Significance. If the reported effects are robust, the paper makes a useful contribution by showing that non-canonical kinetic terms can qualitatively change the environmental back-reaction on binaries, including flipping the sign of the dephasing relative to a free massive scalar. The explicit equations, the use of constraint-satisfying initial data, and the public code release are strengths that will facilitate follow-up work. However, the numerical evidence supporting the central cross-γ² comparison is currently incomplete, and one parameter statement is internally inconsistent. The conclusions are not circular: the measured dephasing is a direct numerical output and no equation is fitted to the target result.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B / §III B 1] The convergence test is performed only for μ=0.3, γ²=10^5 and only for the accumulated orbital phase Ψ. The central claim is a comparison of the sign of dephasing among γ²>0, γ²=0, and γ²<0. The γ²<0 cloud is more diffuse and therefore lives on coarser parts of the grid; a differential resolution error could in principle change the relative merger order. No error bars are given on Ψ. I request convergence tests, or at least a resolution study of the scalar energy/phase, for the γ²=0 and γ²<0 runs and for scalar-field quantities, before the sign of the effect is stated as robust.
  2. [§III B 2] The manuscript states that dtmultiplier=0.25 'is likely to introduce some errors in resolving the scalar field oscillations at the coarsest level'. For μ=0.3 the coarsest time step is Δt≈2M and the coarsest grid spacing is 8M, while the scalar period and Compton wavelength are both ≈21M. Thus the outer region is sampled at only ~10 steps per cycle and ~2.6 points per Compton wavelength. Because the γ²<0 cloud is the most extended, this is exactly the case where a differential outer-grid resolution error is most plausible. The statement that the code 'converges properly' needs to be demonstrated for this case, not only for γ²>0.
  3. [§III B 2] The μ=0.6 case, used to argue that γ²>0 now merges last and that the simple Compton-wavelength rule is modified, has no convergence test at all. This is a counterintuitive numerical result and needs at least one resolution study; otherwise it is not supported. I request a convergence run for at least the γ²>0, μ=0.6 configuration, or a clear statement that the μ=0.6 comparison is exploratory.
  4. [§III A] The text says 'We choose the values of γ² to be ±10^5 so that M²|γ²|ρ|t=0 ∼ 3', after stating ρ|t=0 ∼ 10^{-9}M^{-2}. With |γ²|=10^5 one obtains M²|γ²|ρ|t=0 = 10^{-4}, not 3. This discrepancy affects the effective self-interaction strength and must be corrected or explained; if the intended value is 3, the initial amplitude must be much larger than stated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / §III B 1] The phrases 'positive or negative dephasing' are used without an explicit sign convention. A sentence defining positive dephasing (e.g., larger accumulated phase, earlier merger) would improve interpretability of Figs. 3 and 5.
  2. [§II, Eq. (10)] The potential term is written with a denominator involving γ², making the relation between U(|Φ|²) in Eq. (10) and the mass term slightly opaque. A short clarification would help readers connect Eq. (10) to (11).
  3. [Fig. 12 caption] The caption notation 'N^3=64^3' is confusing; the runs are specified by N on the coarsest level, and the same notation should be used consistently as in the text.
  4. [References] Reference [37] is cited as an arXiv preprint; if a journal version exists it should be updated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dephasing and accretion results are direct numerical outputs, with no fitted-input-called-prediction and no load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (attractive vs repulsive phenomenology for SL(2,R) vs O(3); positive vs negative GW dephasing) are direct outputs of GRChombo evolutions of the fixed Lagrangian in Eq. (10), with the curvature parameter gamma^2 set a priori to ±10^5 and the field amplitude set by a stated density choice. No parameter is fitted to the dephasing or density profiles; the dephasing is read off the accumulated orbital phase Ψ in Fig. 3 without any fitting to the conclusion. The only self-citations are [22] (Cano, Machet, Myin) providing the sigma-model action, and [37] (Aresté Saló et al.) providing the waveform-alignment convention. The citation to [22] supplies the model input—'These models were derived in [22] to study spherically symmetric soliton solutions (boson stars)'—but this paper does not claim to derive a prediction from [22]; it uses the Lagrangian as the starting point, which is legitimate. The alignment method from [37] is a numerical analysis convention with no feedback into the measured dephasing. The paper also performs external validation: a convergence test for the orbital phase (Appendix B, Fig. 12), comparison of ringdown QNMs to the known Kerr value (Eq. 16, 'the fitted QNMs differ from the reference value ... of ~2%'), and an extraction-radius consistency check (Fig. 9). The admitted resolution limitation—'dtmultiplier = 0.25, which is likely to introduce some errors in resolving the scalar field oscillations at the coarsest level'—is a numerical accuracy caveat, not circularity; no equation is redefined to encode the answer. The discussion's comparison with [19] and [22] is interpretive consistency checking, not a load-bearing derivation. Thus the derivation chain is self-contained: the predictions are produced by evolving stated equations, not by renaming inputs or fitting outputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results are simulation outputs driven by hand-chosen model parameters (gamma^2, mu, phi_0) and fixed initial data. No new particle, mediator, or conserved quantity is introduced; the sigma model action is borrowed from prior literature. The ledger is small because the paper is a numerical survey, not a derivation with free parameters fit to the answer.

free parameters (4)
  • gamma^2 (sigma model curvature) = +10^5 and -10^5
    Hand-picked so that M^2 |gamma^2| rho(0) ~ 3, following [22]; the sign of gamma^2 is the central control parameter for attractive vs repulsive dynamics and is not varied continuously.
  • initial scalar amplitude phi_0 = adjusted per mu to set rho(0) ~ 10^-9 M^-2
    Chosen by hand to match previous numerical studies [19,48]; the resulting cloud mass drives the dephasing, so the choice is load-bearing for the size of the effect.
  • scalar mass mu M = 0.1, 1 (single BH); 0.3, 0.6 (BBH)
    Chosen to probe different Compton-wavelength regimes; the comparison between mu=0.3 and 0.6 supports the abstract's 'Compton wavelength larger than separation' qualifier.
  • BBH initial separation and momenta = d=12.21358 M, p_i/M=(0.0841746, -0.000510846) and opposite
    Tuned for quasi-circular inspiral in vacuum and reused from prior work; not fitted to the dephasing result, but the central dephasing measurements depend on these initial conditions.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The sigma-model Lagrangian (10) and equation of motion (11) correctly describe the axion-dilaton-like scalar sector.
    The theory is taken from [22] and motivated by string theory and supergravity; all subsequent phenomenology is within this model.
  • domain assumption The hybrid CTTK initial data solver produces constraint-satisfying initial data.
    The paper uses GRTresna and shows second-order convergence of the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints in Appendix B, but this is a numerical method assumption, not a proven fact.
  • domain assumption Extrapolating first-order boundary conditions with a large simulation box approximate an asymptotically oscillating scalar background.
    The paper checks box-size dependence and claims boundary artifacts are negligible, but this is not a rigorous proof.
  • domain assumption The remnant Kerr BH spin used for QNM comparison (chi=0.69) and the reference Kerr QNM values [58] are trusted.
    The fit gives frequencies differing by about 2% from the Kerr reference; the difference could include systematics from spin estimation and nonlinear ringing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scalar fields from nonlinear sigma models on black hole spacetimes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5LFA4I72

@misc{pith2026250818362,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scalar fields from nonlinear sigma models on black hole spacetimes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5LFA4I72}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18362}
}
abstract

Scalar fields with non-trivial kinetic term derived from a nonlinear sigma model are motivated by UV completions of gravity such as string theory. We discuss the $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{R})$ and $\mathrm{O}(3)$ sigma models with interacting potentials and simulate their full nonlinear dynamics on black hole spacetimes. We study the properties of the field as a function of the curvature of the sigma model with respect to the free massive scalar case. In the accretion process, the $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{R})$ model behaves as a self-interacting field with attractive interaction, while the $\mathrm{O}(3)$ one exhibits a repulsive phenomenology. In the case of a binary black hole system, these models cause a positive or negative dephasing of the gravitational waveform, respectively, when compared to the non-interacting case and as long as the field's Compton wavelength is larger than the binary separation. We observe no bosenova emission, which suggests that nonlinearities tend to suppress this phenomenon. Our results highlight how the kinetic and potential terms are both relevant in determining the field dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.18362 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Radial density profile around a Schwarzschild BH for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Scalar field density evolution around an equal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Scalar field density evolution around an equal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Real part of the (2,2) mode of the Weyl scalar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Integrated scalar field mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Waveform of a BBH with scalar field of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Scalar waveform of the (2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (a) Scalar radiation from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Difference in accumulated phase in between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Difference across resolutions for the Hamilto [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Baumann, G

    D. Baumann, G. Bertone, J. Stout, and G. M. Tomaselli, Phys. Rev. D 105, 115036 (2022), arXiv:2112.14777 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    The Compton wavelength of the field λC = 2π/µ ∼ 20 is then larger than the initial separation of the bi- nary

    µM = 0.3 We first consider a scalar field mass of µM = 0.3. The Compton wavelength of the field λC = 2π/µ ∼ 20 is then larger than the initial separation of the bi- nary. We run three simulations with the same initial conditions and γ2 ∈ {105, 0, −105} respectively. We plot the density evolution on the z = 0 plane in Fig. 2, normalised with respect to the...

    work page

  3. [2]

    we now consider µM = 0.6

    µM = 0.6 We perform the same analysis as the one presented in section III B 1 with a scalar field of double the mass, i.e. we now consider µM = 0.6. The Comp- ton wavelength is thus λC ∼ 10M , comparable to the initial separation of the BHs. In Fig. 4 we plot the scalar field density at different times of the evo- −0.05 0.00 0.05 rM Re(ψ4,22) 0.00 0.05 rM...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Ringdown phase The frequency content of the ringdown stage is of key importance to perform high-precision tests of the Kerr hypothesis [52, 53] and can receive correc- tions from beyond-GR extensions [54–57]. In Fig. 8 we plot the absolute value of ψ4,22 with µM = 0.3 and varying γ2. In order to study the impact of the sigma models on the quasi-normal mod...

    work page

  5. [4]

    We focus our discussion on the be- haviour of the l = 2, m= 2 mode, as it is the domi- nant one sourced by the quadrupolar GW emission

    Scalar emission We characterise the scalar field dynamics extract- ing the scalar field value at several radii from the BBH centre of mass and projecting it on spheri- cal harmonics. We focus our discussion on the be- haviour of the l = 2, m= 2 mode, as it is the domi- nant one sourced by the quadrupolar GW emission. −20 0 20 40 60 (t − tmerger)/M 10−5 10...

    work page 1900

  6. [5]

    Carson and K

    Z. Carson and K. Yagi, Phys. Rev. D 101, 044047 (2020), arXiv:1911.05258 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [6]

    Maggio, H

    E. Maggio, H. O. Silva, A. Buonanno, and A. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. D 108, 024043 (2023), arXiv:2212.09655 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    Pompili, E

    L. Pompili, E. Maggio, H. O. Silva, and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D 111, 124040 (2025), arXiv:2504.10130 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 72 references
  1. [8]

    N. V. Krishnendu and F. Ohme, Universe 7, 497 (2021), arXiv:2201.05418 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KA- GRA), (2021), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Ishibashi and M

    W. Ishibashi and M. Gr¨ obner, Astron. Astrophys. 639, A108 (2020), arXiv:2006.07407 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Cornish, L

    N. Cornish, L. Sampson, N. Yunes, and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D 84, 062003 (2011), arXiv:1105.2088 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Barausse, V

    E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 610, 012044 (2015), arXiv:1404.7140 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Gliorio, E

    S. Gliorio, E. Berti, A. Maselli, and N. Speeney, (2025), arXiv:2503.16649 [gr-qc]

    2025

  7. [14]

    Duque, C

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

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Lect. Notes Phys. 906, pp.1 (2015)

    2015

  9. [16]

    P. S. Cole, G. Bertone, A. Coogan, D. Gaggero, T. Karydas, B. J. Kavanagh, T. F. M. Spieksma, and G. M. Tomaselli, Nature Astron. 7, 943 (2023), arXiv:2211.01362 [gr-qc]

    2023

  10. [17]

    Zwick, P

    L. Zwick, P. R. Capelo, and L. Mayer, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 521, 4645 (2023), arXiv:2209.04060 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123530 (2010), arXiv:0905.4720 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Halverson, C

    J. Halverson, C. Long, and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 96, 056025 (2017), arXiv:1703.07779 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [20]

    C. P. Burgess, R. C. Myers, and F. Quevedo, Nucl. Phys. B 442, 75 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9410142

    1995 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Baumann, H

    D. Baumann, H. S. Chia, J. Stout, and L. ter Haar, JCAP 12, 006 (2019), arXiv:1908.10370 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Bamber, J

    J. Bamber, J. C. Aurrekoetxea, K. Clough, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D 107, 024035 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    J. C. Aurrekoetxea, J. Marsden, K. Clough, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083011 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Figueras, M

    P. Figueras, M. Kunesch, and S. Tunyasuvu- nakool, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 071102 (2016), arXiv:1512.04532 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    P. Brax, C. P. Burgess, and F. Quevedo, JHEP 02, 130 (2024), arXiv:2308.12004 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    P. A. Cano, L. Machet, and C. Myin, Phys. Rev. D 109, 044043 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Andrade et al

    T. Andrade et al. , J. Open Source Softw. 6, 3703 (2021), arXiv:2201.03458 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Radia, U

    M. Radia, U. Sperhake, A. Drew, K. Clough, P. Figueras, E. A. Lim, J. L. Ripley, J. C. Aur- rekoetxea, T. Fran¸ ca, and T. Helfer, Class. Quan- tum Grav. 39, 135006 (2022), comment: 46 pages, 10 figures, to match version published in CQG, arXiv:2112.10567 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    G. A. Marks, S. J. Staelens, T. Evstafyeva, and U. Sperhake, (2025), arXiv:2504.17775 [gr-qc]

    2025

  23. [31]

    Helfer, E

    T. Helfer, E. A. Lim, M. A. G. Garcia, and M. A. Amin, Phys. Rev. D 99, 044046 (2019), arXiv:1802.06733 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Figueras, T

    P. Figueras, T. Fran¸ ca, C. Gu, and T. Andrade, Phys. Rev. D 107, 044028 (2023), arXiv:2210.13501 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Evstafyeva, U

    T. Evstafyeva, U. Sperhake, T. Helfer, R. Croft, M. Radia, B.-X. Ge, and E. A. Lim, Class. Quant. Grav. 40, 085009 (2023), arXiv:2212.08023 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    B.-X. Ge, E. A. Lim, U. Sperhake, T. Evstafyeva, D. Cors, E. de Jong, R. Croft, and T. Helfer, (2024), arXiv:2410.23839 [gr-qc]

    2024

  27. [35]

    D. D. Doneva, L. Arest´ e Sal´ o, K. Clough, P. Figueras, and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D 108, 084017 (2023), arXiv:2307.06474 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Figueras and T

    P. Figueras and T. Fran¸ ca, Class. Quant. Grav.37, 225009 (2020), arXiv:2006.09414 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Figueras and T

    P. Figueras and T. Fran¸ ca, Phys. Rev. D 105, 124004 (2022), arXiv:2112.15529 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Arest´ e Sal´ o, K

    L. Arest´ e Sal´ o, K. Clough, and P. Figueras, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 261104 (2022), arXiv:2208.14470 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Arest´ e Sal´ o, K

    L. Arest´ e Sal´ o, K. Clough, and P. Figueras, Phys. Rev. D 108, 084018 (2023), arXiv:2306.14966 [gr- qc]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Guerra, C

    D. Guerra, C. F. B. Macedo, and P. Pani, JCAP 09, 061 (2019), [Erratum: JCAP 06, E01 (2020)], arXiv:1909.05515 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    D. D. Doneva, L. Arest´ e Sal´ o, and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024040 (2024), arXiv:2404.15526 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Arest´ e Sal´ o, D

    L. Arest´ e Sal´ o, D. D. Doneva, K. Clough, P. Figueras, and S. S. Yazadjiev, (2025), arXiv:2507.13046 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    R. M. Wald, General Relativity (Chicago Univ. Pr., Chicago, USA, 1984)

    1984

  36. [44]

    Ortin, Gravity and Strings , 2nd ed., Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    T. Ortin, Gravity and Strings , 2nd ed., Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    J. C. Aurrekoetxea et al., (2025), arXiv:2501.13046 [gr-qc]. 12

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    For the runs with single BHs we use a computa- tional domain of L = 512 M with the BH situated at the centre of the grid, and N = 64 grid points on the coarsest level

    for further details) to solve the constraints equa- tions, which enables us to obtain second-order con- vergent initial data (see Appendix B). For the runs with single BHs we use a computa- tional domain of L = 512 M with the BH situated at the centre of the grid, and N = 64 g...

  39. [47]

    Richards, A

    C. Richards, A. Dima, D. Ferguson, and H. Witek, Phys. Rev. D 111, 124039 (2025), arXiv:2501.14034 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Jacobson, Phys

    T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2699 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9905303

    1999 arXiv

  41. [49]

    C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24, 1542014 (2015), arXiv:1504.08209 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    R. L. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. W. Misner, Gen. Rel. Grav. 40, 1997 (2008), arXiv:gr-qc/0405109

    1997 arXiv

  43. [51]

    J. C. Aurrekoetxea, K. Clough, and E. A. Lim, Class. Quantum Grav. 40, 075003 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Y. T. Liu, Z. B. Etienne, and S. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D 80, 121503 (2009), arXiv:1001.4077 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Clough, P

    K. Clough, P. G. Ferreira, and M. Lagos, Phys. Rev. D 100, 063014 (2019), arXiv:1904.12783 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    T. W. Baumgarte and S. L. Shapiro, Numerical Rel- ativity: Solving Einstein ’s Equations on the Com- puter (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  47. [55]

    J. M. Bowen and J. W. York, Jr., Phys. Rev. D 21, 2047 (1980)

  48. [56]

    J. C. Aurrekoetxea, K. Clough, J. Bamber, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 211401 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Ferrari and L

    V. Ferrari and L. Gualtieri, Gen. Rel. Grav. 40, 945 (2008), arXiv:0709.0657 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Dreyer, B

    O. Dreyer, B. J. Kelly, B. Krishnan, L. S. Finn, D. Garrison, and R. Lopez-Aleman, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 787 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0309007

    2004 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Pierini and L

    L. Pierini and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. D 103, 124017 (2021), arXiv:2103.09870 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

    P. A. Cano, K. Fransen, T. Hertog, and S. Maenaut, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124032 (2023), arXiv:2307.07431 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Pezzella, K

    L. Pezzella, K. Destounis, A. Maselli, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 111, 064026 (2025), arXiv:2412.18651 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Chakraborty, G

    S. Chakraborty, G. Comp` ere, and L. Machet, Phys. Rev. D 112, 024015 (2025), arXiv:2412.14831 [gr- qc]

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and A. O. Starinets, Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 163001 (2009), arXiv:0905.2975 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  56. [64]

    J. C. Aurrekoetxea, P. G. Ferreira, K. Clough, E. A. Lim, and O. J. Tattersall, Phys. Rev. D106, 104002 (2022), arXiv:2205.15878 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  57. [65]

    J. Eby, C. Kouvaris, N. G. Nielsen, and L. C. R. Wijewardhana, JHEP 02, 028 (2016), arXiv:1511.04474 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Visinelli, Int

    L. Visinelli, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 30, 2130006 (2021), arXiv:2109.05481 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Hui, Ann

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

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    B. Li, T. Rindler-Daller, and P. R. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D 89, 083536 (2014), arXiv:1310.6061 [astro- ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Diez-Tejedor, A

    A. Diez-Tejedor, A. X. Gonzalez-Morales, and S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. D 90, 043517 (2014), arXiv:1404.1054 [astro-ph.GA]

    2014 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Roy and R

    S. Roy and R. Vicente, Phys. Rev. D 111, 084037 (2025), arXiv:2410.16388 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  63. [71]

    De Luca, L

    V. De Luca, L. Del Grosso, F. Iacovelli, A. Maselli, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D 111, 124046 (2025), arXiv:2503.10746 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Machet, (2025), 10.5281/zenodo.16928576

    L. Machet, (2025), 10.5281/zenodo.16928576

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.