Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 1 cited by

Supermassive black hole scalarization and effective field theory

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the recently proposed model in which only supermassive black holes acquire scalar hair cannot be obtained by integrating out a heavy scalar in a canonical two-scalar theory, and that two-scalar Gauss-Bonnet theories…

desk verdict A careful negative result that removes the simplest EFT origin for supermassive-only scalarization, with properly scoped conclusions and honest caveats. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21434 v1 pith:DZEEOYPI submitted 2025-06-26 gr-qc

Farid Thaalba , Pedro G. S. Fernandes , Thomas P. Sotiriou This is my paper
classification gr-qc PACS 04.50.Kd04.70.Bw
keywords blackholescalarizationscalar-Gauss-Bonnetgravityeffectivefieldtheorysupermassiveholestwo-scalartheoriestachyonicinstabilityGauss-Bonnetinvariantuniqueness
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

The paper tests whether a recently proposed model in which only supermassive black holes acquire scalar hair can be understood as the low-energy limit of a more fundamental two-scalar theory. The authors show that integrating out a heavy second scalar in a canonical two-scalar action with a mixed $\phi\psi G$ coupling produces the required $G^2$ interaction with the wrong sign, and suppressed by the heavy mass scale, so it cannot drive scalarization. They then study the two dynamical scalars without integrating one out and find that, while such theories can scalarize black holes, they do not naturally produce scalarization restricted to supermassive masses. A Higgs-like variant can reproduce the correct sign, but only at the cost of making Kerr no longer a vacuum solution. If correct, the supermassive-only scalarization proposal lacks a minimal effective-field-theory origin.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the effective mass $\mu_{\rm eff}^2$ of scalar perturbations on a fixed GR background, appearing in the perturbation equation $(\Box - \mu_{\rm eff}^2)\delta\phi = 0$. In the proposed supermassive model, $\mu_{\rm eff}^2 = -\alpha_1 G + \alpha_3^2 G^2$: the linear term makes low-curvature (supermassive) holes unstable, while the quadratic term stabilizes high-curvature (stellar-mass) holes. The paper shows that integrating out a heavy scalar from action (11) yields $\beta^2/M_\psi^2\,\phi^2G^2$ with the opposite sign, and that the heavy mass suppresses the new term relative to the $\alpha\phi^2G$ term; in the massless two-scalar limit, the coupling matrix can be diagonalized into fields with couplings $\alpha_\pm$ of fixed opposite signs, making both curvature- and spin-induced scalarization inevitable.

What would settle it

A concrete way to falsify the no-go claim would be to exhibit a parameter region of action (11), or of a nearby canonical two-scalar completion, in which the tachyonic instability for scalar perturbations turns on only above some critical black hole mass and turns off below it, so that scalarized solutions exist exclusively in the supermassive range. The paper's numerical search over $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $M_\psi$ found no such region; finding one, or constructing a UV completion with non-canonical kinetic terms that reproduces Eq. (10) with Kerr as a solution, would overturn the conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the model of Ref. [56], whose effective mass for scalar perturbations is $\mu_{\rm eff}^2 = -\alpha_1 G + \alpha_3^2 G^2$ with a linear term that drives scalarization at low curvature and a quadratic term that quenches it at high curvature, cannot be reproduced by integrating out a massive scalar in a canonical two-scalar theory: the sign of the induced $G^2$ term is opposite to what is needed and its size is suppressed by $1/M_\psi^2$. When the heavy field is kept dynamical, diagonalization in the massless limit forces one coupling to be positive and one negative, so both curvature- and spin-induced scalarization must occur; the numerical search over the parameter space found no regime where black holes scalarize only above a mass threshold. A Higgs-like field with a non-zero vacuum expectation value can yield the correct sign, but then $\phi=0$ is no longer a solution on a Kerr background, and scalarization would happen around solutions of $R + k G^2$ rather than around GR solutions.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the assumption that the specific two-scalar setup considered—with ordinary kinetic terms, quadratic couplings to the curvature invariant, and a symmetry forbidding linear terms—is representative of the natural ways the supermassive scalarization model could arise from a more fundamental theory.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The supermassive-only scalarization model of Ref. [56] is not the low-energy limit of a simple canonical two-scalar theory in which one scalar is heavy.
  • Generating the required $G^2$ term with the correct sign via a massive scalar requires either a tachyonic scalar or a non-zero vacuum expectation value that removes Kerr as a solution.
  • Any two-scalar Gauss-Bonnet theory with a $\phi\psi G$ mixing term inevitably contains both curvature- and spin-induced scalarization channels, because diagonalization fixes the signs of the effective couplings.
  • The absence of a natural EFT origin means the supermassive scalarization proposal must either be treated as a fundamental two-scalar theory or be embedded in a more elaborate UV completion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: in the massless two-scalar limit, the fixed opposite sign of the couplings predicts that every solution branch that scalarizes through curvature should have a spin-scalarized counterpart for the same Lagrangian parameters; numerical solution families for rotating black holes could check this coexistence.
  • If the heavy-scalar suppression is generic, any attempt to produce supermassive-only scalarization from extra dimensions or string-inspired actions must generate the $G^2$ term at tree level without a $\phi\psi G$ mixing, for example through curvature self-interactions, which would alter the EFT in ways that could be probed by gravitational-wave ringdowns.
  • The Higgs-like analysis suggests a different observational target: scalarization around non-GR vacua of the $R + k G^2$ type, whose black hole solutions and shadows may differ from Kerr in a mass-dependent way; this is a distinct channel from the original proposal and could be explored independently.
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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper examines whether the recently proposed model of supermassive black hole scalarization by Eichhorn, Fernandes, Held, and Silva (Ref. [56]) can arise as a low-energy effective field theory from a more fundamental two-scalar theory. The authors first integrate out a heavy scalar field at tree level in a canonical two-scalar action with quadratic couplings to the Gauss-Bonnet invariant, obtaining an effective G^2 interaction. They show that this term has the wrong sign relative to the model of Ref. [56] and is suppressed by the heavy mass scale. They then study the full two-scalar theory without integrating out, solving the coupled perturbation equations numerically on a Schwarzschild background. They find no evidence for a scalarization window that would exclusively affect supermassive black holes. Finally, they consider a Higgs-like mechanism and show that the correct sign can be obtained, but only at the cost of losing GR vacuum solutions. The overall conclusion is that the supermassive-only scalarization proposal does not naturally emerge from the minimal EFT completions considered.

Significance. If correct, this paper provides a nontrivial negative result: a plausible minimal EFT origin for the supermassive-only scalarization model of Ref. [56] is ruled out. The paper is careful and honest in scoping its claims, explicitly acknowledging that the two-scalar action (11) is not the most general quadratic theory and that the conclusion is evidence-based rather than a universal no-go theorem. The technical analysis is sound: the sign of the integrated-out G^2 term is derived cleanly from the equations of motion, the suppression estimate in Eq. (17) is transparent, and the numerical shooting method is described in enough detail to be reproducible. The result also has a constructive component: the bi-scalar analysis shows that a mixed coupling phi*psi*G inevitably produces both curvature- and spin-induced scalarization, which is a useful insight for future model building. The paper is a valuable contribution to the scalarization literature and to the assessment of EFT completions for proposed black hole hair mechanisms.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1) and throughout] The notation in Eq. (1) is garbled: the intended operator is the d'Alembertian minus the effective mass squared, written as something like (□ - μ²_eff)δφ = 0. Please ensure the typeset version is unambiguous, and similarly for the many instances of "µ2 eff" in the text.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (11)] The sentence "Action (11) is not the most general theory that is quadratic in the two scalars" is central to understanding the scope of the negative result. Since this scope restriction is what prevents a universal no-go claim, it would help to state this explicitly in the abstract or the conclusion, not only in the body.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption says black holes are tachyonically unstable "above and to the right of the curves," but the axes in the two panels are different (left panel uses dimensionless α and κ; right panel uses β for fixed M_ψ). Consider adding a short explanation of the parameter space and marking the stable/unstable regions more clearly.
  4. [Section IV, Eq. (34)] The symmetry α → -α, F → -F is used to fix F(0) ≥ 0. Since this is a field redefinition rather than a physical choice, it may be worth a footnote to avoid confusion about the sign of α.
  5. [Section IIIA, numerical method] The statement that the curves in Fig. 1 stop because of numerical stiffness is appreciated, but for reproducibility it would be useful to specify the numerical tolerance and the shooting algorithm used, perhaps in a footnote or appendix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the negative EFT-origin claim is derived from first principles, not from the target model.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a negative result about the model of Ref. [56]: integrating out a canonical heavy scalar in Eq. (11) produces Eq. (14), whose G^2 term has the opposite sign to the target model and is suppressed by 1/(M_psi r_s)^2. These are direct algebraic consequences of the equations of motion (Eqs. 12-13) and dimensional analysis (Eq. 17), not re-statements of the input. The target model appears only as an external benchmark; the paper derives Eq. (10) from that model and then compares, rather than importing any conclusion. The two-scalar analysis in Sec. IIIA is self-contained: it solves the perturbation system (18)-(19) numerically, with thresholds checked against known scalarization results. The Higgs analysis in Sec. IV derives Eq. (34) from the action (28) without fitting parameters. The acknowledged statement that Eq. (11) is not the most general quadratic two-scalar theory is a scope restriction, explicitly hedged ('do not naturally produce'), not a circular step. Ref. [56] is co-authored by one of the present authors, but it is the object of study, not load-bearing evidence for the paper's derivations. Consequently, no circular step is identifiable.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central negative claim rests on a specific but minimal two-scalar action and the validity of tree-level EFT integration. The couplings are scanned, not fitted. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha = scanned, not fitted
    Coupling of the light scalar to the Gauss-Bonnet invariant in Eq. (11); varied over a range to map the scalarization threshold.
  • beta = scanned, not fitted
    Mixed coupling between the two scalars and the Gauss-Bonnet invariant; varied in the numerical search.
  • M_psi = scanned, not fitted
    Mass of the heavy scalar; compared in limits M_psi = 0, M_psi infinite, and finite values.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The minimal two-scalar action (11) with Z2 symmetry and no linear couplings captures natural EFT completions of Ref. [56]
    Invoked in Sec. III to exclude other terms; not proven to be exhaustive.
  • domain assumption The heavy scalar can be integrated out at tree level using a 1/M_psi^2 expansion
    Used to derive Eq. (14); requires M_psi * r_s >> 1.
  • standard math Linearized perturbations on a fixed Schwarzschild background determine the onset of scalarization
    Standard scalar-Gauss-Bonnet technique, cited to Refs. [33,34,38].
  • standard math A free massive scalar around a black hole has no hair (used for the beta=0 limit)
    Used in Sec. IIIA to interpret the beta=0 decoupled case.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Supermassive black hole scalarization and effective field theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DZEEOYPI

@misc{pith2026250621434,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Supermassive black hole scalarization and effective field theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DZEEOYPI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21434}
}
read the original abstract

A model in which black hole scalarization occurs for supermassive black holes, while their less massive counterparts remain unscalarized, has been recently proposed. We explore whether this model can emerge from an effective field theory obtained by integrating out a heavy second scalar field. We show that the resulting EFT does not have the right coupling sign or the right hierarchy of scales. We then consider whether supermassive black hole scalarization could occur in theories with two scalars. We show that, although they can violate black hole uniqueness through curvature- and spin-induced scalarization, they do not naturally produce scalarization exclusively for supermassive black holes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21434 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Parameter space of scalarized solutions for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Tachyonic (In)stability in Randall-Sundrum Braneworld Scenarios

    hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    The radion in Randall-Sundrum braneworlds can become tachyonic depending on the sign of the on-brane matter trace, and positive-trace matter is claimed to destroy Goldberger-Wise hierarchy stabilization.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [56]

    Speri, S

    L. Speri, S. Barsanti, A. Maselli, T. P. Sotiriou, N. War- burton, M. van de Meent, A. J. K. Chua, O. Burke, and J. Gair, Probing fundamental physics with Extreme Mass Ratio Inspirals: a full Bayesian inference for scalar charge, (2024), arXiv:2406.07607 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    However, the perturbation equation reduces to the usual one of standard scalarization because the contribution containing the G2 term vanishes

    Fp0q “0: In this case, the Kerr metric together with ϕ “ 0 solves all field equations. However, the perturbation equation reduces to the usual one of standard scalarization because the contribution containing the G2 term vanishes

    work page

  3. [2]

    Instead, asolutionwith ϕ“ 0isallowed if the metric is a solution of the theory L“ M 2 Pl 2 R` k 2 G2, k “ α2v2 m2 h Fp0q2

    Fp0q ą0: In this case, the Kerr metric together with ϕ“ 0 no longer solves the field equations of thetheory. Instead, asolutionwith ϕ“ 0isallowed if the metric is a solution of the theory L“ M 2 Pl 2 R` k 2 G2, k “ α2v2 m2 h Fp0q2. (35) Then, scalar perturbations governed by Eq. (34) are realized in this non-GR vacuum. Consequently, in this setting, the e...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Carter, Axisymmetric Black Hole Has Only Two De- grees of Freedom, Phys

    B. Carter, Axisymmetric Black Hole Has Only Two De- grees of Freedom, Phys. Rev. Lett.26, 331 (1971)

    1971

  5. [4]

    P. T. Chrusciel, J. Lopes Costa, and M. Heusler, Station- ary Black Holes: Uniqueness and Beyond, Living Rev. Rel. 15, 7 (2012), arXiv:1205.6112 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2012

  6. [5]

    R. P. Kerr, Gravitational field of a spinning mass as an example of algebraically special metrics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 237 (1963)

    1963

  7. [6]

    J. E. Chase, Event horizons in static scalar-vacuum space-times, Commun. Math. Phys.19, 276 (1970)

    work page 1970

  8. [7]

    S. W. Hawking, Black holes in the Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation, Commun. Math. Phys.25, 167 (1972)

    work page 1972

Show all 72 references
  1. [8]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Novel ‘‘no-scalar-hair’’ theorem for black holes, Phys. Rev. D51, R6608 (1995)

    1995

  2. [9]

    J. B. Hartle, Long-range neutrino forces exerted by kerr black holes, Phys. Rev. D3, 2938 (1971)

    1971

  3. [10]

    Teitelboim, Nonmeasurability of the lepton number of a black hole, Lett

    C. Teitelboim, Nonmeasurability of the lepton number of a black hole, Lett. Nuovo Cim.3S2, 397 (1972)

    1972

  4. [11]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Nonexistence of baryon number for static black holes, Phys. Rev. D5, 1239 (1972)

    1972

  5. [12]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Nonexistence of baryon number for black holes. ii, Phys. Rev. D5, 2403 (1972)

    1972

  6. [13]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Black holes in scalar- tensor gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 081103 (2012), 8 arXiv:1109.6324 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  7. [14]

    T. P. Sotiriou, Black Holes and Scalar Fields, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 214002 (2015), arXiv:1505.00248 [gr- qc]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [15]

    C. A. R. Herdeiro, Black Holes: On the Universality of the Kerr Hypothesis, Lect. Notes Phys.1017, 315 (2023), arXiv:2204.05640 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3, (2021), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Berti et al., Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Observations, Class

    E. Berti et al., Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Observations, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 243001 (2015), arXiv:1501.07274 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Yunes, X

    N. Yunes, X. Siemens, and K. Yagi, Gravitational-Wave Tests of General Relativity with Ground-Based Detectors and Pulsar-Timing Arrays, (2024), arXiv:2408.05240 [gr- qc]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Colpi et al

    M. Colpi et al. (LISA), LISA Definition Study Report, (2024), arXiv:2402.07571 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    J. R. Gair, M. Vallisneri, S. L. Larson, and J. G. Baker, Testing General Relativity with Low-Frequency, Space- Based Gravitational-Wave Detectors, Living Rev. Rel. 16, 7 (2013), arXiv:1212.5575 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Yagi, Scientific Potential of DECIGO Pathfinder and Testing GR with Space-Borne Gravitational Wave Inter- ferometers, Int

    K. Yagi, Scientific Potential of DECIGO Pathfinder and Testing GR with Space-Borne Gravitational Wave Inter- ferometers, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 22, 1341013 (2013), arXiv:1302.2388 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Barausse et al

    E. Barausse et al. , Prospects for Fundamental Physics with LISA, Gen. Rel. Grav. 52, 81 (2020), arXiv:2001.09793 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [23]

    K. G. Arun et al. (LISA), New horizons for fundamen- tal physics with LISA, Living Rev. Rel. 25, 4 (2022), arXiv:2205.01597 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Barack et al

    L. Barack et al. , Black holes, gravitational waves and fundamental physics: a roadmap, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 143001 (2019), arXiv:1806.05195 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Weinberg, A New Light Boson?, Phys

    S. Weinberg, A New Light Boson?, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  19. [26]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. M. Polyakov, The String dilaton and a least coupling principle, Nucl. Phys. B423, 532 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9401069

    1994 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Arvanitaki, S

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

    2010 arXiv

  21. [28]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, Dynamics of dark energy, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15, 1753 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603057

    2006 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Essig et al

    R. Essig et al. , Working Group Report: New Light Weakly Coupled Particles, inSnowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi (2013) arXiv:1311.0029 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [30]

    L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Ul- tralight scalars as cosmological dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 95, 043541 (2017), arXiv:1610.08297 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Kanti, N

    P. Kanti, N. E. Mavromatos, J. Rizos, K. Tamvakis, and E. Winstanley, Dilatonic black holes in higher curvature string gravity, Phys. Rev. D54, 5049 (1996), arXiv:hep- th/9511071

    1996

  25. [32]

    Yunes and L

    N. Yunes and L. C. Stein, Non-Spinning Black Holes in Alternative Theories of Gravity, Phys. Rev. D83, 104002 (2011), arXiv:1101.2921 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  26. [33]

    T. P. Sotiriou and S.-Y. Zhou, Black hole hair in general- ized scalar-tensor gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 251102 (2014), arXiv:1312.3622 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  27. [34]

    T. P. Sotiriou and S.-Y. Zhou, Black hole hair in gener- alized scalar-tensor gravity: An explicit example, Phys. Rev. D 90, 124063 (2014), arXiv:1408.1698 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  28. [35]

    H. O. Silva, J. Sakstein, L. Gualtieri, T. P. Sotiriou, and E. Berti, Spontaneous scalarization of black holes and compact stars from a Gauss-Bonnet coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 131104 (2018), arXiv:1711.02080 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [36]

    D. D. Doneva and S. S. Yazadjiev, New Gauss-Bonnet Black Holes with Curvature-Induced Scalarization in Ex- tended Scalar-Tensor Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 131103 (2018), arXiv:1711.01187 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [37]

    A. Dima, E. Barausse, N. Franchini, and T. P. Sotiriou, Spin-induced black hole spontaneous scalarization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 231101 (2020), arXiv:2006.03095 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [38]

    C. A. R. Herdeiro, E. Radu, H. O. Silva, T. P. Sotiriou, and N. Yunes, Spin-induced scalarized black holes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 011103 (2021), arXiv:2009.03904 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Berti, L

    E. Berti, L. G. Collodel, B. Kleihaus, and J. Kunz, Spin-induced black-hole scalarization in Einstein-scalar- Gauss-Bonnet theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 011104 (2021), arXiv:2009.03905 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [40]

    D. D. Doneva, F. M. Ramazanoğlu, H. O. Silva, T. P. Sotiriou, and S. S. Yazadjiev, Spontaneous scalarization, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 015004 (2024), arXiv:2211.01766 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [41]

    P. G. S. Fernandes, C. Burrage, A. Eichhorn, and T. P. Sotiriou, Shadows and properties of spin-induced scalar- ized black holes with and without a Ricci coupling, Phys. Rev. D 109, 104033 (2024), arXiv:2403.14596 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [42]

    G. W. Horndeski, Second-order scalar-tensor field equa- tions in a four-dimensional space, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 10, 363 (1974)

    1974

  36. [43]

    Deffayet, S

    C. Deffayet, S. Deser, and G. Esposito-Farese, Gener- alized Galileons: All scalar models whose curved back- ground extensions maintain second-order field equations and stress-tensors, Phys. Rev. D 80, 064015 (2009), arXiv:0906.1967 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Saravani and T

    M. Saravani and T. P. Sotiriou, Classification of shift- symmetric Horndeski theories and hairy black holes, Phys. Rev. D 99, 124004 (2019), arXiv:1903.02055 [gr- qc]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Thaalba, G

    F. Thaalba, G. Antoniou, and T. P. Sotiriou, Black hole minimum size and scalar charge in shift-symmetric theories, Class. Quant. Grav. 40, 155002 (2023), arXiv:2211.05099 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Maselli, N

    A. Maselli, N. Franchini, L. Gualtieri, and T. P. Sotiriou, Detecting scalar fields with Extreme Mass Ratio Inspirals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 141101 (2020), arXiv:2004.11895 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [47]

    B. P. Abbottet al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [48]

    B. P. Abbottet al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neu- tron Star Inspiral, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [49]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GWTC- 1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs, Phys. Rev. X9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and 9 Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr- qc]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Damour and G

    T. Damour and G. Esposito-Farese, Tensor - scalar grav- ity and binary pulsar experiments, Phys. Rev. D54, 1474 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9602056

    1996 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Yunes and X

    N. Yunes and X. Siemens, Gravitational-Wave Tests of General Relativity with Ground-Based Detectors and Pulsar Timing-Arrays, Living Rev. Rel. 16, 9 (2013), arXiv:1304.3473 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  46. [53]

    B. C. Seymour and K. Yagi, Testing General Relativ- ity with Black Hole-Pulsar Binaries, Phys. Rev. D98, 124007 (2018), arXiv:1808.00080 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Maselli, N

    A. Maselli, N. Franchini, L. Gualtieri, T. P. Sotiriou, S. Barsanti, and P. Pani, Detecting fundamental fields with LISA observations of gravitational waves from ex- treme mass-ratio inspirals, Nature Astron.6, 464 (2022), arXiv:2106.11325 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Barsanti, A

    S. Barsanti, A. Maselli, T. P. Sotiriou, and L. Gualtieri, Detecting Massive Scalar Fields with Extreme Mass- Ratio Inspirals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 051401 (2023), arXiv:2212.03888 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    D’Addario, A

    G. D’Addario, A. Padilla, P. M. Saffin, T. P. Sotiriou, and A. Spiers, Ringdowns for black holes with scalar hair: The large mass case, Phys. Rev. D109, 084046 (2024), arXiv:2311.17666 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    A.Eichhorn, P.G.S.Fernandes, A.Held,andH.O.Silva, Breaking black-hole uniqueness at supermassive scales, Class. Quant. Grav.42, 105006 (2025), arXiv:2312.11430 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Damour and G

    T. Damour and G. Esposito-Farese, Nonperturbative strong field effects in tensor - scalar theories of gravi- tation, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 2220 (1993)

    1993

  52. [60]

    Andreou, N

    N. Andreou, N. Franchini, G. Ventagli, and T. P. Sotiriou, Spontaneous scalarization in generalised scalar- tensor theory, Phys. Rev. D 99, 124022 (2019), [Erra- tum: Phys.Rev.D 101, 109903 (2020)], arXiv:1904.06365 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    H. O. Silva, C. F. B. Macedo, T. P. Sotiriou, L. Gualtieri, J.Sakstein,andE.Berti,Stabilityofscalarizedblackhole solutions in scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity, Phys. Rev. D 99, 064011 (2019), arXiv:1812.05590 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    C. F. B. Macedo, J. Sakstein, E. Berti, L. Gualtieri, H. O. Silva, and T. P. Sotiriou, Self-interactions and Sponta- neous Black Hole Scalarization, Phys. Rev. D99, 104041 (2019), arXiv:1903.06784 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Antoniou, A

    G. Antoniou, A. Lehébel, G. Ventagli, and T. P. Sotiriou, Black hole scalarization with Gauss-Bonnet and Ricci scalar couplings, Phys. Rev. D 104, 044002 (2021), arXiv:2105.04479 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  56. [64]

    K. V. Staykov, D. D. Doneva, P. G. S. Fernandes, and S. S. Yazadjiev, Rotating scalarized black holes: the role of the coupling (2025), arXiv:2503.15206 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Eichhorn and P

    A. Eichhorn and P. G. S. Fernandes, Purely met- ric Horndeski theories and spontaneous curvaturiza- tion of black holes, Phys. Rev. D 111, 104007 (2025), arXiv:2502.14717 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Akiyamaet al

    K. Akiyamaet al. (Event Horizon Telescope), First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole, Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L1 (2019), arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Telescope), First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole in the Center of the Milky Way, Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L12 (2022), arXiv:2311.08680 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Anson, E

    T. Anson, E. Babichev, C. Charmousis, and S. Ra- mazanov, Cosmological instability of scalar-Gauss- Bonnet theories exhibiting scalarization, JCAP06, 023, arXiv:1903.02399 [gr-qc]

    1903 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Anson, E

    T. Anson, E. Babichev, and S. Ramazanov, Reconciling spontaneous scalarization with cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 100, 104051 (2019), arXiv:1905.10393 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  62. [70]

    S. Liu, Y. Liu, Y. Peng, and C.-Y. Zhang, Rotating black holes in a class of scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity (2025), arXiv:2503.13267 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Smarra, L

    C. Smarra, L. Capuano, and A. Kuntz, Probing super- massive black hole scalarization with Pulsar Timing Ar- rays (2025), arXiv:2505.20402 [gr-qc]

    2025

  64. [72]

    P. G. S. Fernandes and D. J. Mulryne, A new approach and code for spinning black holes in modified gravity, Class. Quant. Grav.40, 165001 (2023), arXiv:2212.07293 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.