pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.17589 · v1 · pith:YTV3JVXWnew · submitted 2026-05-17 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.HE· hep-ph

Impact of the axion-like self-interactions in gravitational atoms for LISA

Samuel G\'omez G\'omez , Xisco Jimenez Forteza , Carlos Palenzuela Luque This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 22:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords axion-like particlesgravitational atomsLISAdynamical frictiongravitational wavesdark matter halosextreme mass-ratio inspiralsself-interacting bosons
0
0 comments X

The pith

Axion-like particles forming halos around black holes cause detectable dephasing in LISA waveforms from inspiraling binaries.

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

This paper explores how ultralight bosons with self-interactions can condense into dense halos around black holes through a dynamical formation process. These halos exert dynamical friction on a smaller orbiting companion, altering the rate at which the binary spirals inward and changing the gravitational wave signal. The authors calculate that LISA can distinguish these modified waveforms from ordinary ones when the signal-to-noise ratio stays below roughly 100. If the effect holds, LISA data would constrain the boson mass and self-interaction strength for a useful range of values using binaries whose total mass lies between 10,000 and 100,000 solar masses, all without needing any direct coupling between the bosons and ordinary matter.

Core claim

The paper shows that binaries embedded in these axion-like halos produce gravitational waveforms distinguishable by LISA for signal-to-noise ratios below about 100. The distinction comes from extra dephasing caused by dynamical friction in the halo overdensity. This lets LISA probe boson masses from 10^{-17} to 10^{-15} eV and decay constants from 10^{10} to 3.2 times 10^{12} GeV for total binary masses of 10^4 to 10^5 solar masses, under conservative densities taken from the centers of Navarro-Frenk-White profiles. For a binary with total mass near 10^4 solar masses, halo density of 10^3 GeV per cubic centimeter, and signal-to-noise ratio of 20, the values m_dm approximately 2.5 times 10^{-

What carries the argument

Dynamical friction on the secondary object from the overdense gravitational atom halo of self-interacting ultralight bosons surrounding the primary black hole.

If this is right

  • LISA can distinguish waveforms from binaries in such halos for signal-to-noise ratios up to about 100.
  • The accessible parameter space covers boson masses from 10^{-17} to 10^{-15} eV and decay constants from 10^{10} to 3.2 times 10^{12} GeV for binary masses between 10^4 and 10^5 solar masses.
  • A specific configuration with total mass 10^4 solar masses, density 10^3 GeV per cubic centimeter, and signal-to-noise ratio 20 allows percent-level recovery of the particle parameters at m_dm approximately 2.5 times 10^{-16} eV and f_a approximately 6.3 times 10^{10} GeV.
  • Higher background densities or different extreme-mass-ratio setups would extend the range of boson properties that can be probed.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This approach could provide independent bounds on ultralight dark matter candidates using only gravitational wave observations.
  • Similar dephasing calculations might apply to other proposed halo formation channels or to future detectors with different sensitivity bands.
  • If the assumed formation densities prove too high in reality, the detectable mass window would shrink toward higher boson masses or stronger self-interactions.

Load-bearing premise

The dynamical formation mechanism must produce halo background densities at least as high as the central values of Navarro-Frenk-White profiles, otherwise the friction dephasing drops below detectable levels for the signal strengths considered.

What would settle it

A LISA detection of an extreme-mass-ratio inspiral with total mass near 10^4 solar masses, signal-to-noise ratio near 20, and local density near 10^3 GeV per cubic centimeter that shows no excess dephasing matching the predicted maximum for m_dm of 2.5 times 10^{-16} eV and f_a of 6.3 times 10^{10} GeV would falsify the claim that such halos produce observable effects under the stated assumptions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.17589 by Carlos Palenzuela Luque, Samuel G\'omez G\'omez, Xisco Jimenez Forteza.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Density profiles for DM overdensities. The GA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: GA sourced by a BH of mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Contour maps of the critical densities of the clouds for a BH with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: An EMRI with a central BH of mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Density profile ratios taken at different orbital [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Maximum accumulated dephasing, defined as max( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Contour maps in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Relative change in the GA density at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Ranges for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Posterior distributions obtained from the likelihood [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Fractional parameter uncertainties [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Fractional parameter uncertainties [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Ultralight bosons with self-interactions, such as axion-like particles, can form astrophysical Bose-Einstein condensates around stars or compact objects, often referred to as gravitational atoms. In this work, we adopt a recently proposed dynamical formation mechanism for these halos and estimate their impact on extreme- and intermediate-mass-ratio inspirals when present around the primary black hole. We show that, for signal-to-noise ratios $\lesssim 100$, LISA can distinguish gravitational waveforms from binaries embedded in such halo overdensities. Our analysis indicates that LISA can probe boson masses $m_\mathrm{dm}\sim10^{-17}$-$10^{-15}\,\mathrm{eV}$ and decay constants $f_a\sim10^{10}$-$3.2 \times 10^{12}\,\mathrm{GeV}$ using binaries with total masses $M\sim10^4$-$10^5\,M_\odot$, assuming conservative DM densities consistent with the central values of Navarro-Frenk-White profiles. Allowing for higher background densities and different extreme-mass-ratio configurations further extends the accessible parameter space. Moreover, we find that for a binary configuration with $M\sim10^4\,M_\odot$, $\rho_\mathrm{dm} = 10^3\,\mathrm{GeV/cm^3}$, and signal-to-noise ratio $\mathrm{SNR}\sim20$, a particle mass of $m_\mathrm{dm}\sim2.5\times10^{-16}\,\mathrm{eV}$ and decay constant $f_a\sim6.3\times10^{10}\,\mathrm{GeV}$ maximize the dephasing due to dynamical friction, enabling the recovery of the particle parameters at the percent level. These results demonstrate that LISA can place constraints on axion-like particle masses and self-interactions without requiring additional couplings to Standard Model fields.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines the effects of axion-like particles with self-interactions forming gravitational atom halos around the primary black hole in extreme- and intermediate-mass-ratio inspirals. Adopting a recently proposed dynamical formation mechanism, the authors estimate dynamical-friction-induced dephasing and conclude that LISA can distinguish the resulting waveforms from vacuum ones for SNR ≲ 100. They claim LISA can probe boson masses m_dm ∼ 10^{-17}–10^{-15} eV and decay constants f_a ∼ 10^{10}–3.2×10^{12} GeV for total binary masses M ∼ 10^4–10^5 M_⊙ assuming Navarro-Frenk-White central densities, and that for the benchmark M ∼ 10^4 M_⊙, ρ_dm = 10^3 GeV/cm³, SNR ∼ 20 the values m_dm ∼ 2.5×10^{-16} eV and f_a ∼ 6.3×10^{10} GeV maximize dephasing and permit percent-level parameter recovery.

Significance. If the adopted halo densities are realized and the dephasing estimates prove robust, the results would provide a concrete pathway for LISA to constrain ultralight axion-like particles via gravitational-wave dephasing without requiring Standard-Model couplings. The explicit use of a dynamical formation channel supplies a physically motivated setup rather than an ad-hoc overdensity. The significance is nevertheless limited by the lack of an independent density calculation under self-interactions and by the parameter-selection procedure used for the recovery claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results on dephasing maximization and parameter recovery] The headline claim of percent-level recovery for m_dm ∼ 2.5×10^{-16} eV and f_a ∼ 6.3×10^{10} GeV (abstract and associated results) is obtained by identifying the parameter pair that maximizes dephasing for fixed ρ_dm and SNR. This procedure is, by construction, a scan over the same quantities that define the signal, rendering the recovery dependent on the input assumptions rather than an independent test of the model.
  2. [Halo density and formation mechanism section] The analysis adopts ρ_dm = 10^3 GeV/cm³ as a conservative central value of an NFW profile produced by the dynamical formation mechanism, yet provides no explicit calculation of the equilibrium density profile of the self-interacting soliton or halo once the binary potential is present. Because the self-interaction term depends on f_a, this omission leaves open the possibility that the effective density (and therefore the integrated dephasing) is substantially lower than assumed, undermining the detectability statements for SNR ≲ 100.
  3. [Waveform and dephasing calculation section] The distinguishability claim for SNR ≲ 100 and the quoted parameter ranges rest on dephasing estimates without an explicit waveform model, propagated uncertainties, or comparison to full numerical-relativity waveforms. This makes it difficult to quantify how robust the separation from vacuum templates remains once higher-order effects and detector noise are included.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for m_dm and f_a should be made uniform between the abstract, main text, and any tables or figures that report the benchmark values.
  2. [Dynamical friction subsection] A brief statement clarifying whether the dynamical-friction force formula already incorporates the self-interaction potential or is taken from the non-interacting limit would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, providing clarifications and indicating revisions to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results on dephasing maximization and parameter recovery] The headline claim of percent-level recovery for m_dm ∼ 2.5×10^{-16} eV and f_a ∼ 6.3×10^{10} GeV (abstract and associated results) is obtained by identifying the parameter pair that maximizes dephasing for fixed ρ_dm and SNR. This procedure is, by construction, a scan over the same quantities that define the signal, rendering the recovery dependent on the input assumptions rather than an independent test of the model.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The parameter pair is selected specifically to identify the values that maximize the dephasing effect for the fixed density and SNR, thereby indicating the region of strongest potential signal within our assumptions. This is not presented as a blind or model-independent recovery but as an illustration of the maximum impact and associated precision. In the revised manuscript we have clarified the wording in the abstract and results to emphasize that this choice highlights the most detectable case rather than constituting a full independent test. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Halo density and formation mechanism section] The analysis adopts ρ_dm = 10^3 GeV/cm³ as a conservative central value of an NFW profile produced by the dynamical formation mechanism, yet provides no explicit calculation of the equilibrium density profile of the self-interacting soliton or halo once the binary potential is present. Because the self-interaction term depends on f_a, this omission leaves open the possibility that the effective density (and therefore the integrated dephasing) is substantially lower than assumed, undermining the detectability statements for SNR ≲ 100.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit equilibrium calculation including the binary potential and f_a-dependent self-interactions would be desirable for full self-consistency. The adopted density follows from the dynamical formation mechanism and is chosen as a conservative NFW-consistent value. We have added a discussion paragraph noting this assumption and estimating that even with moderate density reductions the dephasing remains detectable at the quoted SNRs for the upper parameter ranges. A complete numerical equilibrium solution is beyond the present scope but is identified as a target for future work. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Waveform and dephasing calculation section] The distinguishability claim for SNR ≲ 100 and the quoted parameter ranges rest on dephasing estimates without an explicit waveform model, propagated uncertainties, or comparison to full numerical-relativity waveforms. This makes it difficult to quantify how robust the separation from vacuum templates remains once higher-order effects and detector noise are included.

    Authors: The distinguishability is based on the accumulated phase shift from dynamical friction exceeding the threshold set by the LISA noise curve at the given SNRs. We have expanded the relevant section to include additional details on the integration procedure and a basic propagation of density uncertainties. While a full NR waveform comparison lies outside this semi-analytic study, the leading-order dephasing provides a conservative estimate; higher-order contributions are expected to increase rather than reduce the separation from vacuum templates. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Maximization over m_dm and f_a for peak dephasing reframed as enabling percent-level recovery

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "Moreover, we find that for a binary configuration with M∼10^4 M_⊙, ρ_dm = 10^3 GeV/cm^3, and signal-to-noise ratio SNR∼20, a particle mass of m_dm∼2.5×10^{-16} eV and decay constant f_a∼6.3×10^{10} GeV maximize the dephasing due to dynamical friction, enabling the recovery of the particle parameters at the percent level."

    The quoted values of m_dm and f_a are obtained by maximizing dephasing for the given ρ_dm and SNR; the subsequent claim that these parameters enable percent-level recovery is therefore tied directly to the maximization procedure over the same parameters that define the signal strength, making the recovery statement a restatement of the optimization rather than an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper selects specific m_dm and f_a values by maximizing dynamical-friction dephasing for fixed ρ_dm and SNR, then states that these values enable percent-level parameter recovery. This reduces the recovery claim to the outcome of the same search used to define the strongest signal, rather than an independent test of detectability across the space. The density assumption from the adopted formation mechanism is stated but not re-derived under self-interactions, yet the circularity flag is limited to the explicit maximization step quoted in the abstract.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The estimates depend on the validity of NFW central densities and a recently proposed halo-formation mechanism; several numerical choices (example density 10^3 GeV/cm^3, SNR=20) are introduced to illustrate reach and optimal recovery.

free parameters (2)
  • dark matter density rho_dm = 10^3 GeV/cm^3 (example)
    Conservative central values from NFW profiles plus an example higher value of 10^3 GeV/cm^3 are adopted to set the halo overdensity scale.
  • signal-to-noise ratio SNR = 20
    Specific value of ~20 is chosen for the configuration that maximizes dephasing and enables percent-level recovery.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) profiles supply the background dark matter density around the primary black hole.
    Invoked to justify the conservative DM densities used for the dephasing estimates.
  • domain assumption The recently proposed dynamical formation mechanism produces stable gravitational-atom halos with the assumed overdensities.
    Adopted without independent derivation to model the presence of the self-interacting boson condensate.
invented entities (1)
  • gravitational atom no independent evidence
    purpose: Astrophysical Bose-Einstein condensate of axion-like particles around compact objects that sources dynamical friction.
    Postulated structure whose density and self-interaction properties are used to compute the waveform dephasing.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5885 in / 1992 out tokens · 69296 ms · 2026-05-19T22:58:14.352461+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    These were calculated by recovering different param- eter injections in logL. By marking in gray the region where we have computed the mismatchM(h BG|hGA), whereh v is the strain in vacuum andh GA is the strain for EMRIs embedded in a GA, the fractional uncertainties are smallest in the region of highest mismatch, consistent with the fact that the regions...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Using a Fisher Matrix framework, we have studied the frac- tional uncertaintiesσ θi /θi change for bothm dm

    GeV under conservative assumptions for the ambi- ent DM density in the rangeρ dm ∼(10 3 −10 4)GeV /cm3 and central BH masses ofM BH ∼(10 4–105 M⊙). Using a Fisher Matrix framework, we have studied the frac- tional uncertaintiesσ θi /θi change for bothm dm. For SNR = 20 these range from less than∼10% in the high- mismatch region to∼50%–60%. In both configu...

    work page doi:10.13039/501100011033 2024

  3. [3]

    Arcadi, D

    G. Arcadi, D. Cabo-Almeida, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, J. P. Neto, M. Pierre, S. Pro- fumo, and F. S. Queiroz, The European Physical Journal C85(2025), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13672-y

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13672-y 2025

  4. [4]

    E. G. M. Ferreira, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Re- view29(2021), 10.1007/s00159-021-00135-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-021-00135-6 2021

  5. [5]

    L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D95, 043541 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

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

    work page 1977

  7. [7]

    Weinberg, Phys

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

    work page 1978

  8. [8]

    Wilczek, Phys

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

    work page 1978

  9. [9]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Physical Review D81(2010), 10.1103/physrevd.81.123530

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.123530 2010

  10. [10]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, Journal of High Energy Physics 2006, 051051 (2006)

    work page 2006

  11. [11]

    Barausse, V

    E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Physical Review D89(2014), 10.1103/physrevd.89.104059

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.104059 2014

  12. [12]

    Barausse, V

    E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Journal of Physics: Conference Series610, 012044 (2015)

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    Caneva Santoro, S

    G. Caneva Santoro, S. Roy, R. Vicente, M. Haney, O. J. Piccinni, W. Del Pozzo, and M. Martinez, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 251401 (2024), arXiv:2309.05061 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  14. [15]

    K. Eda, Y. Itoh, S. Kuroyanagi, and J. Silk, Physical Review D91(2015), 10.1103/physrevd.91.044045

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.044045 2015

  15. [16]

    Zhao and J

    H. Zhao and J. Silk, Physical Review Letters95(2005), 10.1103/physrevlett.95.011301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.011301 2005

  16. [17]

    Disks, spikes, and clouds: distinguishing en- vironmental effects on bbh gravitational waveforms,

    P. S. Cole, G. Bertone, A. Coogan, D. Gaggero, T. Kary- das, B. J. Kavanagh, T. F. M. Spieksma, and G. M. Tomaselli, “Disks, spikes, and clouds: distinguishing en- vironmental effects on bbh gravitational waveforms,” (2022), arXiv:2211.01362 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  17. [18]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani,Superradiance: New Frontiers in Black Hole Physics(Springer International Publishing, 2020)

    work page 2020

  18. [19]

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

    work page 1972

  19. [21]

    G. M. Tomaselli, T. F. Spieksma, and G. Bertone, Jour- nal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2023, 070 (2023)

    work page 2023

  20. [22]

    A generic formation mechanism of ultralight dark matter solar halos,

    D. Budker, J. Eby, M. Gorghetto, M. Jiang, and G. Perez, “A generic formation mechanism of ultralight dark matter solar halos,” (2023), arXiv:2306.12477 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  21. [23]

    H. S. Chia, C. Doorman, A. Wernersson, T. Hinderer, and S. Nissanke, JCAP04, 018 (2023), arXiv:2212.11948 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  22. [25]

    Boudon, P

    A. Boudon, P. Brax, P. Valageas, and L. K. Wong, Phys- ical Review D109(2024), 10.1103/physrevd.109.043504

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.043504 2024

  23. [26]

    Boson Stars Hosting Black Holes

    A. Banik, J. H. Kim, and X.-Y. Yang, “Boson stars hosting black holes,” (2025), arXiv:2511.03788 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [27]

    Chavanis, Eur

    P.-H. Chavanis, Eur. Phys. J. Plus134, 352 (2019), arXiv:1909.04709 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2019

  25. [28]

    S. Roy, R. Vicente, J. C. Aurrekoetxea, K. Clough, and P. G. Ferreira, Physical Review Letters136(2026), 10.1103/fv9z-zkxx

    work page doi:10.1103/fv9z-zkxx 2026

  26. [29]

    D. J. Marsh, Physics Reports643, 179 (2016)

    work page 2016

  27. [31]

    J. C. Degollado, C. A. Herdeiro, and E. Radu, Physics Letters B781, 651655 (2018)

    work page 2018

  28. [32]

    Gondolo and J

    P. Gondolo and J. Silk, Physical Review Letters83, 17191722 (1999)

    work page 1999

  29. [33]

    P. S. Cole, G. Bertone, A. Coogan, D. Gaggero, T. Kary- das, B. J. Kavanagh, T. F. M. Spieksma, and G. M. Tomaselli, Nature Astronomy7, 943950 (2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [34]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, The Astrophysical Journal490, 493508 (1997)

    work page 1997

  31. [35]

    Einasto, Trudy Astrofizicheskogo Instituta Alma-Ata 5, 87 (1965)

    J. Einasto, Trudy Astrofizicheskogo Instituta Alma-Ata 5, 87 (1965)

    work page 1965

  32. [36]

    Hernquist, Astrophys

    L. Hernquist, Astrophys. J.356, 359 (1990)

    work page 1990

  33. [37]

    E. P. Gross, Nuovo Cim.20, 454 (1961)

    work page 1961

  34. [38]

    Pitaevskii, Physics Letters A221, 1418 (1996)

    L. Pitaevskii, Physics Letters A221, 1418 (1996)

    work page 1996

  35. [39]

    S. L. Liebling and C. Palenzuela, Living Reviews in Rel- ativity26(2023), 10.1007/s41114-023-00043-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-023-00043-4 2023

  36. [40]

    Bezares, C

    M. Bezares, C. Palenzuela, and C. Bona, Physical Re- view D95(2017), 10.1103/physrevd.95.124005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.124005 2017

  37. [41]

    Bezares and C

    M. Bezares and C. Palenzuela, Classical and Quantum Gravity35, 234002 (2018)

    work page 2018

  38. [42]

    S. R. Dolan, Physical Review D76(2007), 10.1103/phys- revd.76.084001

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2007

  39. [43]

    Maggiore,Gravitational Waves: Volume 1: Theory 19 and Experiments(Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2008)

    M. Maggiore,Gravitational Waves: Volume 1: Theory 19 and Experiments(Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2008)

    work page 2008

  40. [44]

    Bondi, Mon

    H. Bondi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.112, 195 (1952)

    work page 1952

  41. [45]

    Bondi and F

    H. Bondi and F. Hoyle, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.104, 273 (1944)

    work page 1944

  42. [46]

    Chandrasekhar, Astrophysical Journal97(1943), 10.1086/144517

    S. Chandrasekhar, Astrophysical Journal97(1943), 10.1086/144517

    work page doi:10.1086/144517 1943

  43. [47]

    L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Phys- ical Review D95(2017), 10.1103/physrevd.95.043541

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.043541 2017

  44. [48]

    V. Iri, M. Viel, M. G. Haehnelt, J. S. Bolton, and G. D. Becker, Physical Review Letters119(2017), 10.1103/physrevlett.119.031302

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.031302 2017

  45. [49]

    Raffelt and A

    G. Raffelt and A. Caputo, inProceedings of 1st Gen- eral Meeting and 1st Training School of the COST Ac- tion COSMIC WSIPers PoS(COSMICWISPers), COS- MICWISPers (Sissa Medialab, 2024) p. 041

    work page 2024

  46. [50]

    Madau and M

    P. Madau and M. J. Rees, The Astrophysical Journal 551, L27L30 (2001)

    work page 2001

  47. [51]

    Heger, C

    A. Heger, C. L. Fryer, S. E. Woosley, N. Langer, and D. H. Hartmann, The Astrophysical Journal591, 288300 (2003)

    work page 2003

  48. [52]

    S. F. Portegies Zwart and S. L. W. McMillan, The As- trophysical Journal576, 899907 (2002)

    work page 2002

  49. [53]

    Loeb and F

    A. Loeb and F. A. Rasio, The Astrophysical Journal432, 52 (1994)

    work page 1994

  50. [54]

    The dark matter profile of the milky way inferred from its circular velocity curve,

    X. Ou, A.-C. Eilers, L. Necib, and A. Frebel, “The dark matter profile of the milky way inferred from its circular velocity curve,” (2023), arXiv:2303.12838 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2023

  51. [55]

    Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

    P. Amaro-Seoaneet al., “Laser interferometer space an- tenna,” (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  52. [56]

    Waveform Modelling for the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

    L. C. W. W. Group, N. Afshordi, S. Akay, P. A. Seoane, A. Antonelli, J. C. Aurrekoetxea, L. Barack, E. Ba- rausse, R. Benkel, L. Bernard, S. Bernuzzi, E. Berti, M. Bonetti, B. Bonga, G. Bozzola, R. Brito, A. Buo- nanno, A. Crdenas-Avendao, M. Casals, D. F. Cher- noff, A. J. K. Chua, K. Clough, M. Colleoni, M. Dhesi, A. Druart, L. Durkan, G. Faye, D. Fergu...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  53. [57]

    Impact of high-order tidal terms on binary neutron-star waveforms

    X. Jim´ enez Forteza, T. Abdelsalhin, P. Pani, and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. D98, 124014 (2018), arXiv:1807.08016 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  54. [58]

    Constructing Gravitational Waves from Generic Spin-Precessing Compact Binary Inspirals

    K. Chatziioannou, A. Klein, N. Yunes, and N. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D95, 104004 (2017), arXiv:1703.03967 [gr- qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  55. [59]

    Post-Newtonian Theory for Gravitational Waves

    L. Blanchet, “Post-newtonian theory for gravitational waves,” (2024), arXiv:1310.1528 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  56. [60]

    Robson, N

    T. Robson, N. J. Cornish, and C. Liu, Classical and Quantum Gravity36, 105011 (2019)

    work page 2019

  57. [61]

    Cutler and

    C. Cutler and . E. Flanagan, Physical Review D49, 26582697 (1994)

    work page 1994