arxiv: 2604.11893 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 🌀 gr-qc

Recognition: unknown

Relativistic signatures of scalar dark matter in extreme-mass-ratio inspirals

Robrecht Keijzer , Simon Maenaut , Henri Inchausp\'e , Thomas Hertog

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc

keywords extreme-mass-ratio inspiralsscalar dark mattergravitational wavespolar perturbationsmetric backreactionwaveform modelingEMRI dephasing

0 comments

The pith

Scalar dark matter clouds around supermassive black holes produce dominant polar gravitational wave corrections in extreme-mass-ratio inspirals for light scalars.

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

The paper studies circular extreme-mass-ratio inspirals inside a static, spherically symmetric scalar field cloud that represents dark matter. It shows that the cloud backreacts on the metric at the same perturbative order as scalar radiation emitted by the small orbiting body, generating new corrections to the gravitational wave fluxes. These metric-induced corrections to the polar sector can exceed the axial gravitational wave and scalar radiation channels when the scalar mass parameter satisfies Mμ ≲ 0.12, especially at small orbital separations. For lighter scalars the accumulated phase shift away from vacuum evolution is then driven mainly by conservative cloud effects plus the polar corrections, while scalar radiation remains a smaller contribution. At higher masses both the polar metric corrections and scalar radiation become comparably important, requiring both to be retained in waveform models.

Core claim

The central claim is that metric backreaction from the scalar cloud generates polar-sector gravitational wave corrections that can dominate all other dissipative channels, overtaking axial waves and scalar radiation for Mμ ≲ 0.12 at small separations, while for small Mμ the inspiral dephasing is led by conservative plus polar cloud terms and scalar radiation acts only as a minor correction.

What carries the argument

Perturbative solution of the coupled Einstein-scalar equations for circular orbits that isolates the metric-induced corrections to the polar and axial gravitational wave energy fluxes from the direct scalar radiation flux.

If this is right

Polar gravitational wave corrections become the leading dissipative mechanism for scalar masses Mμ ≲ 0.12 at small separations.
For small Mμ, vacuum dephasing is dominated by conservative cloud effects together with polar corrections, while scalar radiation contributes only a small fraction.
At larger Mμ both polar cloud corrections and scalar radiation must be retained as significant terms.
Beyond-vacuum EMRI waveform templates must incorporate these relativistic metric signatures to avoid systematic errors in phase modeling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Detection of EMRIs by future space-based observatories could place direct bounds on scalar dark matter masses and couplings if the polar corrections are included in template banks.
The same backreaction mechanism may appear in other scalar-tensor or ultralight dark matter models and would similarly require metric corrections in waveform calculations.
Extending the circular-orbit analysis to eccentric or spinning cases would likely reveal additional observable features in the waveform that could be searched for in data.

Load-bearing premise

The scalar environment is treated as a static, spherically symmetric cloud whose metric backreaction enters at the same perturbative order as scalar radiation, without extra dynamical instabilities or nonlinear effects.

What would settle it

A high-precision numerical relativity simulation of an EMRI in a scalar cloud that measures the total accumulated phase shift and shows a clear mismatch with the analytic prediction when the polar metric corrections are artificially omitted but matches when they are retained, for Mμ near 0.1 at late inspiral.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11893 by Henri Inchausp\'e, Robrecht Keijzer, Simon Maenaut, Thomas Hertog.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. Cloud corrections to the vacuum flux for each of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Number of cycles dephasing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Extrapolation of higher order terms. Unphysical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Limit of close separation, low compactness, axial sec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Number of cycles dephasing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We study gravitational wave emission by circular extreme-mass-ratio systems in a spherically symmetric scalar environment. Previous studies have focused on the impact of scalar radiation channels, revealing a rich structure of resonances, sharp features and floating orbits. Through the backreaction of the cloud on the metric, corrections to the gravitational sector come in at the same order. We develop the computational methods, and provide a characterization of this new, fully relativistic cloud signature. Remarkably, corrections to the polar sector can dominate all other dissipative corrections. We identify scalar field masses $M\mu\lesssim 0.12$ as the regime where polar can overtake axial and scalar channels at small separation. For small $M\mu$, vacuum dephasing is dominated mostly by conservative and polar cloud corrections, with scalar radiation acting as only a minor correction. At large $M\mu$, both terms terms are shown to be highly non-negligible. Our results therefore motivate including these relativistic signatures in beyond-vacuum EMRI templates.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper computes metric backreaction from a scalar DM cloud in EMRIs and finds polar GW corrections dominate dephasing for Mμ ≲ 0.12, but the static cloud assumption is unverified.

read the letter

The key thing to know is that this work moves past scalar radiation alone and calculates how the cloud's backreaction on the metric produces corrections to the polar gravitational-wave channel that can exceed both axial and scalar dissipative effects at small separations for Mμ below roughly 0.12. For small masses the vacuum dephasing ends up driven mostly by conservative plus polar terms, with scalar radiation as a minor piece; at larger masses both channels matter. They develop the necessary computational methods and map the regimes explicitly, which is a concrete step forward from earlier papers that stopped at radiation channels. The characterization of the fully relativistic signature is useful and the crossover result looks new relative to the cited literature. The soft spot is the treatment of the scalar environment as a fixed, static, spherically symmetric cloud whose backreaction enters at the same order as radiation. For small Mμ the Compton wavelength is long, so these are quasi-bound states whose frequency has a small imaginary part; linear perturbations could admit unstable modes whose growth time is shorter than the inspiral. The paper does not appear to verify the absence of such modes or check that the perturbative ordering survives, which leaves the reported dominance provisional. The citation pattern is standard and the methods seem reproducible enough for follow-up. This is aimed at people building beyond-vacuum EMRI templates for LISA and similar detectors. It deserves a serious referee because the computational approach is new and the potential impact on waveform modeling is real, even though the stability assumption will need explicit checks in revision.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies gravitational wave emission from circular extreme-mass-ratio inspirals (EMRIs) in a spherically symmetric scalar dark matter environment. It accounts for the backreaction of the scalar cloud on the metric, which enters at the same perturbative order as scalar radiation, and develops computational methods to characterize the resulting relativistic signatures in the gravitational wave sector. The central result is that corrections to the polar gravitational-wave channel can dominate over axial and scalar radiation channels for scalar masses Mμ ≲ 0.12 at small orbital separations; for small Mμ vacuum dephasing is dominated by conservative and polar cloud effects while scalar radiation is minor, whereas at larger Mμ both are non-negligible. The work motivates inclusion of these signatures in beyond-vacuum EMRI templates.

Significance. If the results hold, the identification of a potentially dominant polar dissipative channel arising from metric backreaction is significant for EMRI waveform modeling and future space-based gravitational-wave observations. The development of computational methods to treat the fully relativistic cloud signature at the same order as scalar radiation constitutes a concrete technical advance. The regime identification (Mμ ≲ 0.12) provides a falsifiable prediction that can be tested once the stability of the background is secured.

major comments (1)

[Scalar cloud background] Background scalar cloud model (likely §2 or §3): The assumption that the scalar environment remains exactly static and spherically symmetric for Mμ ≲ 0.12 is load-bearing for the reported crossover where polar corrections dominate. For small Mμ the Compton wavelength is large, so any static solution to the Einstein-Klein-Gordon system is at best a quasi-bound state with a small imaginary frequency component. No linear stability analysis is provided to confirm that unstable modes, if present, grow on timescales longer than the EMRI inspiral. Without this verification the perturbative ordering between conservative backreaction, polar dissipative corrections, and scalar radiation cannot be guaranteed, directly affecting the central dominance claim.

minor comments (3)

[Introduction] The abstract states that computational methods were developed, yet the introduction would benefit from a concise outline of the perturbative scheme and the numerical techniques employed before the detailed sections.
[Results] Results figures or tables reporting the polar/axial/scalar channel comparisons should include explicit error estimates or convergence tests to support the claim that polar corrections overtake the others at Mμ ≈ 0.12.
[Notation] Notation for the dimensionless mass parameter Mμ is used throughout but its precise definition and the range of validity of the perturbative expansion could be stated once in a dedicated paragraph.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for identifying the importance of the scalar cloud background assumptions. We address the major comment point by point below and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Background scalar cloud model (likely §2 or §3): The assumption that the scalar environment remains exactly static and spherically symmetric for Mμ ≲ 0.12 is load-bearing for the reported crossover where polar corrections dominate. For small Mμ the Compton wavelength is large, so any static solution to the Einstein-Klein-Gordon system is at best a quasi-bound state with a small imaginary frequency component. No linear stability analysis is provided to confirm that unstable modes, if present, grow on timescales longer than the EMRI inspiral. Without this verification the perturbative ordering between conservative backreaction, polar dissipative corrections, and scalar radiation cannot be guaranteed, directly affecting the central dominance claim.

Authors: We agree that the long-term stability of the background is essential for the validity of the perturbative ordering. The static spherically symmetric solutions adopted in the paper are the standard quasi-bound states of the Einstein-Klein-Gordon system. For Mμ ≲ 0.12 these states possess exponentially suppressed imaginary frequencies, yielding lifetimes orders of magnitude longer than the EMRI inspiral timescales considered here; this is established in the existing literature on scalar clouds around black holes. We have added a dedicated paragraph in Section 2 that (i) recalls the quasi-static approximation, (ii) quotes the relevant timescale hierarchy, and (iii) cites the pertinent stability analyses. A new, self-contained linear stability study lies outside the scope of the present work, which focuses on gravitational-wave signatures. Within the standard quasi-static framework the reported dominance of the polar channel remains intact. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper models the scalar environment as an external static spherically symmetric cloud and applies standard perturbative expansions plus numerical methods to compute gravitational-wave fluxes and dephasing in the EMRI system. The reported dominance of polar-sector corrections for Mμ ≲ 0.12 follows directly from solving the linearized Einstein-Klein-Gordon equations on this background; no step reduces the target observable to a fitted parameter, a self-referential definition, or a load-bearing self-citation. The static-cloud assumption is an input premise rather than an output derived from the EMRI observables themselves, leaving the derivation chain self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard general relativity plus a minimally coupled scalar field, with the spherically symmetric cloud configuration introduced as the key modeling choice.

free parameters (1)

Mμ
Scalar field mass parameter used to delineate regimes where different correction channels dominate.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The scalar environment is static and spherically symmetric around the central black hole.
Invoked to simplify the metric perturbation and allow separation into axial and polar sectors.
domain assumption Backreaction corrections enter at the same perturbative order as scalar radiation.
Stated in the abstract as the basis for including gravitational sector corrections.

invented entities (1)

Scalar dark matter cloud no independent evidence
purpose: To provide an environment that modifies both scalar radiation and the background metric for EMRIs.
Postulated configuration whose properties are not independently measured in the paper.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5479 in / 1494 out tokens · 57156 ms · 2026-05-10T15:10:42.751261+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Resonances as signatures of scalar clouds in eccentric extreme-mass-ratio inspirals
gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 5 internal anchors

[1]

Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger

B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott,et al.(LIGO Scien- tific, Virgo),PhysicalReviewLetters116,061102(2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2016
[2]

Tests of General Relativity with Binary Black Holes from the second LIGO-Virgo Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog

R. Abbott, T. Abbott, S. Abraham,et al.(LIGO Sci- entific, Virgo), Physical Review D103, 122002 (2021), arXiv:2010.14529 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021
[3]

Black holes, gravitational waves and fundamental physics: a roadmap

L. Barack, V. Cardoso, S. Nissanke,et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity36, 143001 (2019), arXiv:1806.05195 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[4]

Israel, Phys

W. Israel, Phys. Rev.164, 1776 (1967)

1967
[5]

Carter, Phys

B. Carter, Phys. Rev. Lett.26, 331 (1971)

1971
[6]

D. C. Robinson, Phys. Rev. Lett.34, 905 (1975)

1975
[7]

The Next Generation Global Gravitational Wave Observatory: The Science Book

V. Kalogera, B. Sathyaprakash, M. Bailes,et al., The Next Generation Global Gravitational Wave Observa- tory: The Science Book (2021), arXiv:2111.06990 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2021
[8]

LISA Definition Study Report

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

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024
[9]

P. A. Seoane, J. Andrews, M. A. Sedda,et al. (LISA), Living Reviews in Relativity26, 2 (2023), arXiv:2203.06016 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2023
[10]

Auclair et al

P. Auclair, D. Bacon, T. Baker,et al.(LISA Cosmol- ogy Working Group), Living Reviews in Relativity26, 5 (2023), arXiv:2204.05434 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[11]

K. Arun, E. Belgacem, R. Benkel,et al.(LISA), Living Reviews in Relativity25, 4 (2022), arXiv:2205.01597 [gr- qc]

work page arXiv 2022
[12]

C. P. Berry, S. A. Hughes, C. F. Sopuerta, A. J. Chua, A. Heffernan, K. Holley-Bockelmann, D. P. Mihaylov, M. C. Miller, and A. Sesana, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51, 6 42 (2019), arXiv:1903.03686 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2019
[13]

The TianQin project: current progress on science and technology,

J. Mei, Y.-Z. Bai, J. Bao,et al.(TianQin), Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2021, 05A107 (2021), arXiv:2008.10332 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2021
[14]

E.-K. Li, S. Liu, A. Torres-Orjuela,et al., Rept. Prog. Phys.88, 056901 (2025), arXiv:2409.19665 [astro- ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2025
[15]

X. Gong, S. Xu, S. Gui, S. Huang, and Y.-K. Lau, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy(Springer Singapore, 2021) pp. 1–21, arXiv:2104.05033 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2021
[16]

M. L. Katz, A. J. Chua, L. Speri, N. Warburton, and S. A. Hughes, Physical Review D104, 064047 (2021), arXiv:2104.04582 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2021
[17]

C. E. Chapman-Bird, L. Speri, Z. Nasipak,et al., Phys. Rev. D112, 104023 (2025), arXiv:2506.09470 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[18]

Tanaka, T

H. Tanaka, T. Takeuchi, and W. R. Ward, The Astro- physical Journal565, 1257 (2002)

2002
[19]

Barausse and L

E. Barausse and L. Rezzolla, Physical Review D77, 104027 (2008), arXiv:0711.4558 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2008
[20]

M. A. Abramowicz and P. Fragile, Living Reviews in Rel- ativity16, 1 (2013), arXiv:1104.5499 [astro-ph.HE]

work page Pith review arXiv 2013
[21]

Yunes, B

N. Yunes, B. Kocsis, A. Loeb, and Z. Haiman, Physi- cal Review Letters107, 171103 (2011), arXiv:1103.4609 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2011
[22]

Kocsis, N

B. Kocsis, N. Yunes, and A. Loeb, Physical Review D 84, 024032 (2011), arXiv:1104.2322 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2011
[23]

Can environmental effects spoil precision gravitational-wave astrophysics?

E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Physical Review D89, 104059 (2014), arXiv:1404.7149 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014
[24]

Derdzinski, D

A. Derdzinski, D. D’Orazio, P. Duffell, Z. Haiman, and A. MacFadyen, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society486, 2754 (2019), arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/486/2/2754/30256792/stz1026.pdf [astro-ph.HE]

2019
[25]

Derdzinski, D

A. Derdzinski, D. D’Orazio, P. Duffell, Z. Haiman, and A. MacFadyen, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society501, 3540 (2021), arXiv:2005.11333 [astro- ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2021
[26]

P. S. Cole, G. Bertone, A. Coogan, D. Gaggero, T. Karydas, B. J. Kavanagh, T. F. Spieksma, and G. M. Tomaselli, Nature Astronomy7, 943 (2023), arXiv:2211.01362 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2023
[27]

M. Garg, A. Derdzinski, L. Zwick, P. R. Capelo, and L. Mayer, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety517, 1339 (2022), arXiv:2206.05292 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2022
[28]

Duque, S

F. Duque, S. Kejriwal, L. Sberna, L. Speri, and J. Gair, Phys. Rev. D111, 084006 (2025), arXiv:2411.03436 [gr- qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[29]

Hegade K

A. Hegade K. R., C. F. Gammie, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D112, 124068 (2025), arXiv:2510.03564 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[30]

arXiv e-prints , keywords =

C. Dyson and D. J. D’Orazio, Spiral Density Waves and Torque Balance in the Kerr Geometry (2026), arXiv:2601.19123 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2026
[31]

Yang and M

H. Yang and M. Casals, Physical Review D96, 083015 (2017), arXiv:1704.02022 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2017
[32]

Bonga, H

B. Bonga, H. Yang, and S. A. Hughes, Physical Review Letters123, 101103 (2019), arXiv:1905.00030 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2019
[33]

H. Yang, B. Bonga, Z. Peng, and G. Li, Physical Review D100, 124056 (2019), arXiv:1910.07337 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2019
[34]

S.Mitra, N.Speeney, S.Chakraborty,andE.Berti,Phys- ical Review D112, 044030 (2025), arXiv:2505.04697 [gr- qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[35]

Rahman and T

M. Rahman and T. Takahashi, Physical Review D113, 044033 (2026), arXiv:2507.06923 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2026
[36]

C. F. Macedo, P. Pani, V. Cardoso, and L. C. Crispino, The Astrophysical Journal774, 48 (2013), arXiv:1302.2646 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2013
[37]

K. Eda, Y. Itoh, S. Kuroyanagi, and J. Silk, Physical Review D91, 044045 (2015), arXiv:1408.3534 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2015
[38]

Yue, W.-B

X.-J. Yue, W.-B. Han, and X. Chen, The Astrophysical Journal874, 34 (2019), arXiv:1802.03739 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2019
[39]

O. A. Hannuksela, K. C. Ng, and T. G. Li, Physical Review D102, 103022 (2020), arXiv:1906.11845 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[40]

B. J. Kavanagh, D. A. Nichols, G. Bertone, and D. Gaggero, Physical Review D102, 083006 (2020), arXiv:2002.12811 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2020
[41]

Coogan, G

A. Coogan, G. Bertone, D. Gaggero, B. J. Kavanagh, and D. A. Nichols, Physical Review D105, 043009 (2022), arXiv:2108.04154 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2022
[42]

N.Dai, Y.Gong, T.Jiang,andD.Liang,PhysicalReview D106, 064003 (2022), arXiv:2111.13514 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2022
[43]

Cardoso, K

V. Cardoso, K. Destounis, F. Duque, R. P. Macedo, and A. Maselli, Physical Review D105, L061501 (2022), arXiv:2109.00005 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2022
[45]

N.Speeney, A.Antonelli, V.Baibhav,andE.Berti,Phys- ical Review D106, 044027 (2022), arXiv:2204.12508 [gr- qc]

work page arXiv 2022
[46]

Becker and L

N. Becker and L. Sagunski, Physical Review D107, 083003 (2023), arXiv:2211.05145 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2023
[47]

Destounis and P

K. Destounis and P. G. Fernandes, Physical Review D 113, 044040 (2026), arXiv:2508.20191 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2026
[48]

Boltaev, T

A. Boltaev, T. Xamidov, and S. Shaymatov, Observa- tional Signatures of Exact Black Hole Solutions in a Dark Matter Halo (2026), arXiv:2603.17986 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2026
[49]

Polcar and V

L. Polcar and V. Witzany, Physical Review D112, 104003 (2025), arXiv:2507.15720 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[50]

C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Physical Review Letters 112, 221101 (2014), arXiv:1403.2757 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014
[51]

C. A. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D24, 1542014 (2015), arXiv:1504.08209 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2015
[52]

M. C. Ferreira, C. F. B. Macedo, and V. Cardoso, Phys- ical Review D96, 083017 (2017), arXiv:1710.00830 [gr- qc]

work page arXiv 2017
[53]

Traykova, K

D. Traykova, K. Clough, T. Helfer, E. Berti, P. G. Fer- reira, and L. Hui, Physical Review D104, 103014 (2021), arXiv:2106.08280 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2021
[54]

Vicente and V

R. Vicente and V. Cardoso, Physical Review D105, 083008 (2022), arXiv:2201.08854 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2022
[55]

Buehler and V

R. Buehler and V. Desjacques, Physical Review D107, 023516 (2023), arXiv:2207.13740 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[56]

Dyson, J

C. Dyson, J. Redondo-Yuste, M. van de Meent, and V. Cardoso, Physical Review D109, 104038 (2024), arXiv:2402.07981 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2024
[57]

Zhang and H

J. Zhang and H. Yang, Physical Review D99, 064018 (2019), arXiv:1808.02905 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2019
[58]

Probing Ultralight Bosons with Binary Black Holes

D. Baumann, H. S. Chia, and R. A. Porto, Physical Re- view D99, 044001 (2019), arXiv:1804.03208 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[59]

Baumann, G

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

work page arXiv 2022
[60]

Baumann, G

D. Baumann, G. Bertone, J. Stout, and G. M. Tomaselli, Physical Review Letters128, 221102 (2022), arXiv:2206.01212 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2022
[61]

G. M. Tomaselli, T. F. Spieksma, and G. Bertone, Phys. Rev. D110, 064048 (2024), arXiv:2403.03147 [gr-qc]. 7

work page arXiv 2024
[62]

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

work page arXiv 2024
[63]

Brito and S

R. Brito and S. Shah, Physical Review D108, 10.1103/physrevd.108.084019 (2023), arXiv:2307.16093 [gr-qc]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.084019 2023
[64]

Duque, C

F. Duque, C. F. Macedo, R. Vicente, and V. Car- doso, Physical Review Letters133, 121404 (2024), arXiv:2312.06767 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2024
[65]

J. C. Aurrekoetxea, K. Clough, J. Bamber, and P. G. Ferreira, Physical Review Letters132, 211401 (2024), arXiv:2311.18156 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2024
[66]

Dyson, T

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

work page arXiv 2025
[67]

Khalvati, A

H. Khalvati, A. Santini, F. Duque, L. Speri, J. Gair, H. Yang, and R. Brito, Physical Review D111, 082010 (2025), arXiv:2410.17310 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[69]

G. M. Tomaselli, Phys. Rev. D112, 063033 (2025), arXiv:2507.15110 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[70]

S. L. Detweiler, Physical Review D: Particles and Fields 22, 2323 (1980)

1980
[71]

Brito, V

R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani,Superradiance: New Frontiers in Black Hole Physics(Springer International Publishing, 2020) arXiv:1501.06570 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2020
[72]

Brito, V

R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Classical and Quan- tum Gravity32, 134001 (2015), arXiv:1411.0686 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2015
[73]

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

work page Pith review arXiv 2007
[74]

String Axiverse

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

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2010
[75]

W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, Physical Review Letters85, 1158 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003365

work page Pith review arXiv 2000
[76]

L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Physi- cal Review D95, 043541 (2017), arXiv:1610.08297 [astro- ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2017
[77]

E. G. Ferreira, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 29, 7 (2021), arXiv:2005.03254 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[78]

D. Li, C. Weller, P. Bourg, M. LaHaye, N. Yunes, and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D112, 084057 (2025), arXiv:2507.02045 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[79]

W.H.PressandS.A.Teukolsky,Nature238,211(1972)

1972
[80]

Maselli, Physical Review Letters129, 241103 (2022), arXiv:2210.01133 [gr-qc]

V.Cardoso, K.Destounis, F.Duque, R.PanossoMacedo, and A. Maselli, Physical Review Letters129, 241103 (2022), arXiv:2210.01133 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2022
[81]

Datta and A

S. Datta and A. Maselli, SciPost Phys.20, 080 (2026)

2026
[82]

Mathisson, Acta Physica Polonica6, 163 (1937)

M. Mathisson, Acta Physica Polonica6, 163 (1937)

1937

Showing first 80 references.