\section{Introduction}
Named entity linking (NEL) is a task of linking a mention of an entity in a text to the correct reference entity in the knowledge base (KB) \cite{rao2012entity, yang2015smart, sorokin-gurevych-2018-mixing, kolitsas2018endtoend, Logeswaran2019ZeroShotEL, Wu2020ScalableZE, Li2020Efficient, Sevgili2021Neural}. Here we focus on NEL in a specific setting, with the motivation to probe the difficulty of dealing with namesakes:
\begin{enumerate}[topsep=0pt,itemsep=-1ex,partopsep=1ex,parsep=1ex]
    \item The mention of interest is assumed to be located in the text.
    \item Only the local context surrounding the mention of interest is used for the linking, no other mentions in the text are used.
    \item KB is fixed and built on reliable data.
    \item Both KB and the pool of mentions are mostly composed of namesakes.
    \item A mention may have the corresponding entity in KB, or may not. We call the former mention \textit{familiar}, and the latter \textit{stranger}.
\end{enumerate}
The point 1 means that the named entity recognition task is assumed to be done, leaving us NEL in a narrow sense \cite{rao2012entity, Wu2020ScalableZE, Logeswaran2019ZeroShotEL}. The point 2 makes the problem better defined. Using other mentions of the same entity or related entities can help NEL, but our focus is on imitating the more difficult cases of lone mentions. The point 3 leaves out the question of growing or improving KB by the encountered mentions (familiar or stranger). KB built on reliable data allows to isolate the effect of KB \textit{pollution} by intentionally adding wrong data. The point 4 makes it easier to reveal NEL errors.

Both the points 3 and 4 are satisfied by choosing recent dataset \textbf{Namesakes} \cite{namesakes2021, Vasilyev2021Namesakes}, as a dataset with human labeled ambiguously named entities.
Another recent dataset  - Ambiguous Entity Retrieval (AmbER) \cite{Chen2021Evaluating} - does include subsets of identically named entities (for the purpose of fact checking, slot filling, and question-answering tasks), but it is automatically generated. Most existing NEL-related datasets do not focus on highly ambiguous names \cite{ratinov-etal-2011-local, hoffart-etal-2011-robust, Ferragina2012FastAA, Ji2017OverviewOT, guo2018}.

In this paper we focus on presenting our NEL method on KB entities and mentions taken from Namesakes. Our contribution:
\begin{enumerate}[topsep=0pt,itemsep=-1ex,partopsep=1ex,parsep=1ex]
    \item We introduce a simple and practical representation of entity in KB, and explore NEL to such representations on example of highly ambiguous mentions from Namesakes.
    \item We suggest an adjustment of KB based on its entities, and show that it helps in reducing NEL errors.
\end{enumerate}
In Section \ref{sec:NEL} we introduce our entity representation and NEL for KB with such representations. In Section \ref{sec:Evaluation_on_Namesakes} we explain how we use Namesakes dataset in our NEL evaluation experiments. In Section \ref{sec:Experiments} we present the experiments and results.

\section{Named Entity as a Set of Embeddings}
\label{sec:NEL}
\subsection{Knowledge Base Entity}
\label{sec:KB_Entity}
A named entity can be described in very different contexts. The same person can be a scientist and a dissident, the same location can be described by its nature and by its social events and so on. This is the motivation to represent an entity by multiple embeddings - at least if each embedding is created from a mention in specific context.

Our representation of KB entity $E_a$ is composed of:
\begin{enumerate}[topsep=0pt,itemsep=-1ex,partopsep=1ex,parsep=1ex]
    \item Normalized embeddings $e_i$, their norms $|e_i|$ and assigned thresholds $t_i$, initially set $t_i=-1$. Here $i<=N_E$, restricted by clustering.
    \item Entity threshold $T$.
    \item Entity surface names $s_k$.
    \item References to similar entities $E_b$.
\end{enumerate}
In this and the next subsections we explain the details of this representation, and our NEL procedure that uses it.

A fundamental element used in building an entity is an embedding of a mention of this entity in some context. We tuned a pretrained BERT \cite{Devlin2018BERT} language model ’bert-base-uncased', accessed via the transformers library (\citep{Wolf2020Transformers}), on generic random news, with named entities located in the texts. The only goal of tuning is to enhance LM performance on the mentions of named entities, without changing LM goal or making LM specialized on any particular set of named entities. The tuning and inference are as following:
\begin{enumerate}[topsep=0pt,itemsep=-1ex,partopsep=1ex,parsep=1ex]
    \item At tuning only the named entities - all the located mentions within the input window in the text - serve as the labels for prediction. In input the mentions are being either left unchanged (probability 0.5) or replaced by another random mention from the same text.
    \item At inference the text is kept as it is, and the model is run only once on each input-size chunk of the text. The embeddings are picked up from the first token of the entity surface form - for each named entity that happened to occur in the input-size chunk.
\end{enumerate}
For more details see Appendix \ref{sec:Appendix_TuningLM}.

There can be many mentions available for building a KB entity, even if only reliable verified mentions are used. If the number of the embeddings obtained from the mentions is higher than $N_E$, the embeddings are clustered and only $N_E$ 'central' embeddings (closest to the centers of the clusters) are stored. We use agglomerative clustering (Appendix \ref{sec:Appendix_Settings}). The surface names of all the mentions used for creating an entity are stored in the entity.

\subsection{Linking a Mention to KB}
\label{sec:KB_Linking}

In linking a mention to KB we use only the normalized embedding $e$ of the mention. We define similarity $S$ of the mention to an entity by the scalar products with its embeddings $e_i$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Similarity}
  S = \max_i[(e*e_i) / max(T, t_i)]
\end{equation}
Here all the thresholds $t_i$ are set to $-1$, and are irrelevant unless adjusted as described in Section \ref{sec:KB_Adjustment}; the entity's threshold $T$ is defined further below.

The KB entity with the highest similarity $S$ is the candidate for linking the mention to. We set a \textit{linking threshold} $T_L$: The mention is linked to the candidate-entity only if
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Threshold_Global}
  S >= T_L
\end{equation}
Otherwise the mention is left \textit{unlinked} (unassociated with any KB entity). It is natural to assume $T_L=1$, but our results will show that we had to lower it.

The entity's threshold $T$ is defined from the assumption that any embedding of the entity would have to successfully link to the entity (with $T_L=1$):
\begin{equation}
  T = \min_j[\max_{i \neq j}[(e_j*e_i)]]
\end{equation}
This definition makes sense only if there are at least two embeddings in the entity, hence we create a KB entity only if there are at least two mentions available (our observations in Section \ref{sec:Experiments} suggest a more strict requirement).

When linking a mention to KB we find the similarities not to all KB entities, but only to the entities that have a surface name at least somewhat similar to the mention. For this purpose, each entity $E_a$ stores references to its most 'similar' entities $E_b$. For an entity with surface names $s_k$ we select its similar entities using a (non-symmetric) \textit{surface-similarity}, which we define as
\begin{equation}
  L = \max_m \sum_k \sum_{w\in s_k\cap s_m} l(w)
\end{equation}
where $s_m$ are the surface names of another KB entity, w is any word in $s_k$ also existing in $s_m$, and $l(w)$ is the number of characters in the word $w$.
For each KB entity $E_a$ we find $N_S=10$ entities $E_b$ having the highest $L>0$ (may be less than 10 because of the requirement $L>0$), - references to these 'surface-similar' entities are stored in the entity $E_a$.

KB stores a map of all words from all the surface names to the entities that have any such word in their surface names:
\begin{equation}
  map: w \rightarrow \{E_a | w \; \text{in} \; s_k \; \text{in} \; E_a\}
\end{equation}
When linking a mention to KB, all KB entities that are mapped from at least one word of the mention's surface name are considered as the candidates for linking. The similarities of the mention's embedding to these candidates are calculated then by Eq.\ref{eq:Similarity}; the mention is linked to the candidate with the strongest similarity if exceeds the threshold Eq.\ref{eq:Threshold_Global}.
Generally, KB entities with similar (by some measure) embeddings can be considered in selecting the candidates, but we focus here on the namesakes.

\subsection{Knowledge Base Adjustment}
\label{sec:KB_Adjustment}
Can we improve KB right after it is created, even without using any knowledge about the texts and mentions on which NEL will be used or evaluated? We suggest adjusting the thresholds $t_i$ in each entity $E_a$ by considering the relation of $E_a$ with its similar entities $E_b$.
We impose a requirement for any embedding $e$ from any entity $E_b$: the embedding $e$ should not be able to link to the entity $E_a$ (because $E_a$ and $E_b$ are different entities).

KB is adjusted to satisfy this requirement, by iterating through all KB entities $E_a$; for each entity $E_a$ iterating through its similar entities $E_b$; for each pair $E_a$ and $E_b$ iterating through the embeddings $e_i$ of $E_a$ and $e_j$ of $E_b$. The threshold $t_i$ for $e_i$ is adjusted as:
\begin{equation}
  t_i \rightarrow c (e_k*e_i)  \;\; \text{if} \;  (e_k*e_i) > \max(T, t_i)
\end{equation}
Here $T$ is the threshold of the entity $E_a$. We use $c = 1.01$, just enough to make the linking impossible.

\section{Evaluation on Namesakes}
\label{sec:Evaluation_on_Namesakes}
Namesakes dataset consists of three parts \cite{namesakes2021}:
\begin{enumerate}[topsep=0pt,itemsep=-1ex,partopsep=1ex,parsep=1ex]
    \item Entities: human-labeled mentions of named entities from Wikipedia entries.
    \item News: human-labeled mentions of named entities from news.
    \item Backlinks: mentions of entities linked to the entries used in Entities.
\end{enumerate}
According to \cite{Vasilyev2021Namesakes}, the mentions in all the parts are selected with the goal of creating high ambiguity of their surface names.

We are creating KB from Entities, and using News and Backlinks as sources of the mentions for evaluating NEL. These mentions - 'evaluation mentions' - is a mix of familiar and stranger mentions. The stranger mentions appear for two reasons: First, a part of the labeled mentions in News have the same surface names as the labeled mentions in Entities, but represent entities not existing in Entities.
Second, the requirement to have a certain minimal number of mentions for creating a KB entity can leave some mentions in both News and Backlinks without their counterpart KB entities.

Performance of NEL evaluation can be represented by three indicators:
\begin{enumerate}[topsep=0pt,itemsep=-1ex,partopsep=1ex,parsep=1ex]
    \item Fraction $F_{FW}$ of familiar mentions linked to incorrect KB entity.
    \item Fraction $F_{FN}$ of familiar mentions not linked to KB.
    \item Fraction $F_{SL}$ of stranger mentions linked to KB.
\end{enumerate}
For clarity: if NEL of $N_F$ familiar mentions resulted in linking $N_{FW}$ mentions to wrong KB entities, and in not linking $N_{FN}$ mentions to KB, then $F_{FW} = N_{FW} / N_F$ and $F_{FN} = N_{FN} / N_F$. And if NEL of $N_S$ stranger mentions resulted in $N_{SL}$ linked mentions, then $F_{SL} = N_{SL} / N_S$.

The lower each of these indicators, the better. The first indicator accounts for the worst kind of error: the mention is familiar, but it is wrongly identified. In a scenario of growing KB this would also lead to degrading KB quality.
The second indicator accounts for the most innocent error: the mention is not identified (despite it could be), but at least no wrong identity is given.
The third indicator accounts for the errors that are as bad as the first kind, with an arguable excuse that the stranger mentions are more difficult for NEL.

\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:Experiments}
\subsection{Linking to Entities of Namesakes}
\label{sec:KB_Entities}
We present here evaluation results in terms of the three indicators introduced in the previous section.
In Figure \ref{fig:NEL_mentions_KB_Entities_News} we show the level of NEL errors for evaluating all the mentions from News.
\begin{figure}[th]
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{NEL_mentions_KB_Entities_News.png}
\caption{Dependency of NEL errors on number of mentions. KB is made of Namesakes Entities; evaluation mentions are from Namesakes News. Max number of embeddings per entity $N_E=4$. Threshold $T_L=0.825$.}
\label{fig:NEL_mentions_KB_Entities_News}
\end{figure}
We observe that the minimal number of mentions allowed to create a KB entity plays an important role in reducing the amount of errors, even though the entity mentions were clustered into 4 embeddings.

\begin{figure}[th]
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{NEL_mentions_KB_Entities_Backlinks.png}
\caption{Evaluation is as in Figure \ref{fig:NEL_mentions_KB_Entities_Backlinks}, except that the evaluation mentions are from Backlinks.}
\label{fig:NEL_mentions_KB_Entities_Backlinks}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:NEL_mentions_KB_Entities_Backlinks} we show again the dependency of NEL errors on the number of mentions per KB entity, but now we evaluate linking of Backlinks mentions to KB (this is the only difference between the settings for the figures \ref{fig:NEL_mentions_KB_Entities_Backlinks} and \ref{fig:NEL_mentions_KB_Entities_News}).
We observe a comparable level of errors in linking a familiar mention to wrong KB entity and in wrongly linking a stranger mention to KB, but there is a much higher fraction of unlinked familiar mentions. We speculate that the reason is in the less context usually given for a named entity mention in a Wikipedia backlink, as opposed to a mention in the news.

\begin{figure}[th]
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{NEL_EmbLowRange_News.png}
\caption{NEL errors for linking mentions from News to KB. Min number of mentions allowed to create KB entity: 10. Threshold $T_L=0.825$.}
\label{fig:NEL_EmbLowRange_News}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[th]
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{NEL_EmbLowRange_Backlinks.png}
\caption{Evaluation is as in Figure \ref{fig:NEL_EmbLowRange_News}, except that the evaluation mentions are from Backlinks.}
\label{fig:NEL_EmbLowRange_Backlinks}
\end{figure}
In Figures \ref{fig:NEL_EmbLowRange_News} and \ref{fig:NEL_EmbLowRange_Backlinks} we show that the limit on the number of stored embeddings can be as low as 4 (at least judging by evaluation on Namesakes). We suggest that it may be helpful to store more embeddings, depending on the type and cleanness of the data involved in creating KB. We return to this issue in Section \ref{sec:Full_EntityPages}.

\begin{figure}[th]
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{NEL_threshold_KB_Entities_News.png}
\caption{Dependency of NEL errors on the linking threshold $T_L$. Evaluation mentions are from News. KB entities are created with min number of mentions 10, and with max number of embeddings $N_E=4$.}
\label{fig:NEL_threshold_KB_Entities_News}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[th]
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{NEL_threshold_KB_Entities_Backlinks.png}
\caption{Evaluation is as in Figure \ref{fig:NEL_threshold_KB_Entities_News}, except that the evaluation mentions are from Backlinks.}
\label{fig:NEL_threshold_KB_Entities_Backlinks}
\end{figure}

Increase of the linking threshold $T_L$, as expected, suppresses wrong linking, but increases the fraction of unlinked mentions. We show an example of such dependency in Figure \ref{fig:NEL_threshold_KB_Entities_News} for NEL applied to the mentions from News, and in Figure \ref{fig:NEL_threshold_KB_Entities_Backlinks} for NEL applied to the mentions from Backlinks. The choice of $T_L$ should be guided by a required trade-off between the errors $F_{SL}$ vs $F_{FW}$ and $F_{FN}$.

\subsection{Linking to Polluted KB}
\label{sec:Pollution_Adjustment}

We consider here the effect of lowering KB quality on NEL. When creating KB entities, we add erroneous mentions, imitating the real life situation of not fully reliable sources. Such \textit{polluted} KB should increase NEL errors. We also expect that KB adjustment described in Section \ref{sec:KB_Adjustment} can alleviate the effect of the pollution.

We use for pollution the "Other"-tagged mentions from Namesakes Entities \cite{Vasilyev2021Namesakes}: these mentions have the surface names of the entity (Wikipedia entry) but represent some different entity.
The pollution can be characterized by the fraction of the polluted KB entities, and by the average fraction of the wrong mentions used in creating a polluted KB entity. We set both these pollution levels to 0.2, meaning that we pollute each 5th entity - creating it with 20\% added wrong mentions.

In Figure \ref{fig:NEL_PollAdg_KB_Entities_News} we show how much KB pollution affects NEL, and how much our KB adjustment alleviates this effect.
\begin{figure}[th]
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{NEL_PollAdg_KB_Entities_News.png}
\caption{NEL errors for linking mentions from News to KB original (solid line), polluted (dotted) and adjusted after pollution (dashed). The evaluation on KB original is as in Figure \ref{fig:NEL_mentions_KB_Entities_News}.}
\label{fig:NEL_PollAdg_KB_Entities_News}
\end{figure}
The pollution strongly increases the fraction of familiar mentions linked to wrong KB entities. As seen in Figure \ref{fig:NEL_PollAdg_KB_Entities_News}, this happens regardless of the minimal number of mentions used in creating an entity. Remarkably, KB adjustment reverses this effect and restores the original level of such NEL errors (falling to zero at higher number of mentions). Pollution affects also NEL of stranger mentions, but the errors increase only at low number of mentions, and KB adjustment does not help in this case.

\begin{figure}[th]
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{NEL_PollAdg_KB_Entities_Backlinks.png}
\caption{NEL errors for linking mentions from Backlinks to KB original (solid line), polluted (dotted) and adjusted after pollution (dashed). The evaluation on KB original is as in Figure \ref{fig:NEL_mentions_KB_Entities_Backlinks}.}
\label{fig:NEL_PollAdg_KB_Entities_Backlinks}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:NEL_PollAdg_KB_Entities_Backlinks} shows the evaluation for linking Backlinks mentions to the clean, polluted and polluted-and-adjusted KB.
Here help of KB adjustment is not essential, maybe because, again, the mention's context in a Wikipedia backlink is usually not as helpful as in the news.

\subsection{Number of Embeddings in Very Polluted KB}
\label{sec:Full_EntityPages}

The main reason for having a limited number $N_E$ of embeddings representing KB entity is saving the space in KB. But without such limitation, would it make sense to keep more embeddings for improving NEL? We can attempt to answer this question if we have many mentions available for creating an entity.

In Namesakes Entities the number of labeled mentions per entity (of Wikipedia entry) is limited, and even the text suggested to the labelers was cut \cite{Vasilyev2021Namesakes}. In order to increase the number of available mentions, for each entry in Entities of Namesakes, we will use here the whole Wikipedia text, and for building an entity we will use all the mentions in the text that match (by the surface form) at least one of the labeled mentions. In some entries there are hundreds of such mentions. Creating entities from so loose mentions inevitably makes KB very 'polluted', and we would expect NEL making many errors, - but the main point here is to observe the dependency of NEL errors on the number of embeddings per entity.

In Figure \ref{fig:NEL_FullAdg_KB_Entities_News} we show such dependency for linking mentions from News.
\begin{figure}[th]
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{NEL_FullAdg_KB_Entities_News.png}
\caption{Dependency of NEL errors on the maximal number of embeddings $N_E$ per entity. The evaluation is done by linking the mentions from News on KB polluted by using \textbf{all} unlabeled mentions from full text Wikipedia entries. The dashed line is for adjusted KB. Min number of mentions is 10; threshold $T_L=0.825$.}
\label{fig:NEL_FullAdg_KB_Entities_News}
\end{figure}
Interestingly, a higher number of embeddings is not only useless for improving NEL (at least in this case of extremely polluted KB), but on opposite it makes NEL worse. It could be expected that the adjustment of KB (dashed lines) can change this pattern, by suppressing the 'bad' embeddings in KB entities. But the adjustment has only small effect for the evaluation on News.

\begin{figure}[th]
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{NEL_FullAdg_KB_Entities_Backlinks.png}
\caption{Evaluation is as in Figure \ref{fig:NEL_FullAdg_KB_Entities_News}, except that the evaluation mentions are from Backlinks.}
\label{fig:NEL_FullAdg_KB_Entities_Backlinks}
\end{figure}
Evaluation on Backlinks is shown in Figure \ref{fig:NEL_FullAdg_KB_Entities_Backlinks}.
Here increasing the number of embeddings $N_E$ helps a only a little and at low values.
KB adjustment does decrease the level of NEL errors, but still does not make higher numbers of embeddings useful.
The observation that a limited number of embeddings is enough to deliver the same performance is important for our method, and holds for the mentions both from News and Backlinks.

\begin{figure}[th]
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{NEL_FullAdg_KB_EntitiesLR_News.png}
\caption{Evaluation is as in Figure \ref{fig:NEL_FullAdg_KB_Entities_News}, except that max number of embeddings is at lower range.}
\label{fig:NEL_FullAdg_KB_EntitiesLR_News}
\end{figure}

For the low range of the number $N_E$ of the stored embeddings we did not need to have a large number of mentions, and we have already made our observations in Figures \ref{fig:NEL_EmbLowRange_News} and \ref{fig:NEL_EmbLowRange_Backlinks}. Out of curiosity we show the same range in Figures \ref{fig:NEL_FullAdg_KB_EntitiesLR_News} and \ref{fig:NEL_FullAdg_KB_EntitiesLR_Backlinks} for the 'very polluted' KB considered in this subsection. The figures confirm that too low number of embeddings leads to more NEL errors.

\begin{figure}[th]
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{NEL_FullAdg_KB_EntitiesLR_Backlinks.png}
\caption{Evaluation is as in Figure \ref{fig:NEL_FullAdg_KB_Entities_Backlinks}, except that max number of embeddings is at lower range.}
\label{fig:NEL_FullAdg_KB_EntitiesLR_Backlinks}
\end{figure}

In this subsection we considered extremely polluted KB, which has lead, together with the challenging nature of Namesakes, to a very high level of errors, especially for stranger mentions. The reason for this is that combining all right and wrong (but named similarly) mentions from a full Wikipedia page makes the embeddings within the created KB entity further from each other, and hence decreases the entity's threshold $T$. NEL of a familiar mention may still have a better chance to be linked to the correct KB entity, which may still provide a higher similarity. But NEL of a stranger mention would simply link it wrongly to KB, because all the thresholds are lower.
Despite higher errors, having more available mentions per entity allowed us to cover a wide range of the number of embeddings per entity.

Altogether, through all our experiments we observed a big difference between NEL from Backlinks and NEL from News. We speculate that the lack of good context in many Backlinks mentions is the reason: a link in Wikipedia is often made for a named entity mentioned fleetingly, in some enumeration-like auxiliary sentence of no importance and almost no relation to the main context.

\section{Conclusion}
We introduced a simple and practical representation of named entities in KB. We reviewed NEL performance for linking text mentions of named entities to such KB, using Namesakes dataset \cite{Vasilyev2021Namesakes} as the source both for the mentions and for building the KB. As a dataset of ambiguous named entities, Namesakes makes NEL difficult and helps to reveal the errors.

We observed that a requirement of a minimal number of mentions for creating KB entity is important for NEL performance: a requirement of minimum 10 mentions gives much better results than more relaxed settings (Figures \ref{fig:NEL_mentions_KB_Entities_News}, \ref{fig:NEL_mentions_KB_Entities_Backlinks}).
We described a KB adjustment based on only KB data; we have shown that the adjustment helps to reduce NEL errors when KB entities are polluted by admix of wrong mentions (Figures \ref{fig:NEL_PollAdg_KB_Entities_News}, \ref{fig:NEL_PollAdg_KB_Entities_Backlinks}).
Through the paper we considered NEL with static KB. In future we are looking forward to explore more general scenarios.

\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Randy Sawaya for review of the paper and valuable feedback.


\section{Introduction}
Superradiance instability of ultralight bosons near a spinning black hole is a well-studied topic. The dissipative ergoregion of a Kerr black hole amplifies incoming waves and radiates out particles classically, a phenomenon widely known as superradiance \cite{zel1971generation,zel1972amplification,brito2020superradiance}. More interestingly, if the bosonic particle carries a non-zero mass, its mass barrier located at a Compton wavelength away from the ergoregion reflects the amplified wave back, thereby generating more particles \cite{Press:1972zz,Damour:1976kh,arvanitaki2010string}. These copiously produced bosons then condensate into clouds surrounding the black hole, with structures similar to those of an electron in the hydrogen atom \cite{arvanitaki2010string,arvanitaki2011exploring}.

Such a gravitational atom enjoys very rich phenomenology. For an isolated gravitational atom, the boson cloud quickly extracts the spin of black hole up to a saturation value. Observing black holes with spin higher than the saturation value then constrains superradiance and the boson properties \cite{Arvanitaki:2016qwi,Brito:2017zvb,Ng:2020ruv}. The boson cloud also emits monochromatic gravitational waves via pair annihilations \cite{arvanitaki2011exploring,yoshino2014gravitational}, which are potential targets for gravitational wave detectors such as LIGO and LISA. Null detection then puts bounds on the boson mass \cite{Palomba:2019vxe,LIGOScientific:2021jlr,LIGOScientific:2022lsr,Yuan:2022bem}. On the other hand, if the gravitational atom is in a binary system, more exciting physics kick in. For instance, a gravitational atom in a binary exhibits resonant transitions triggered by the orbital motion \cite{baumann2019probing,baumann2020gravitational,Baumann:2021fkf}, observable via gravitational wave probes and pulsar timing \cite{ding2021gravitational,tong2022gravitational}. These so-called Gravitational Collider Physics (GCP) \cite{baumann2020gravitational} transitions contain valuable information about the structure of the cloud as well as the properties of the boson. In addition, the mass quadrupole of the cloud induces orbital precession in an eccentric binary \cite{su2021probing}, observable from the gravitational wave or pulsar-timing signatures. At orbital separations close to the cloud radius, molecular structures emerge with distinctive observational signatures \cite{Ikeda:2020xvt,Ficarra:2021qeh,liu2021bh}.

However, we point out that, hidden in many of the phenomena above, is the crucial assumption of the existence of a boson cloud with total mass not far away from ($e.g.$, $1$-$3$ orders of magnitude smaller than) that of the black hole itself. In the case of a truly isolated black hole, superradiance guarantees the saturation of cloud growth, and the cloud can only deplete slowly via gravitational wave emission. In the presence of a binary companion, however, the stability of cloud is far from obvious. For example, it is known that the resonant GCP transitions may deplete the cloud efficiently \cite{baumann2019probing,Berti:2019wnn,Takahashi:2021eso}, while ionization effects may evaporate the cloud \cite{Wong:2020qom,Baumann:2021fkf,Takahashi:2021yhy}.

In this work, we highlight the fact that the superradiant modes ($e.g.,~|\psi_{322}\rangle$) can overlap with the dangerous absorptive modes ($e.g.,~|\psi_{300}\rangle$) via the tidal perturbation of the binary companion. Depending on the binary separation, the superradiance growth rate may be suppressed, and even become negative if the companion is too close (see FIG.~\ref{figFancy} for a cartoon illustration). Consequently, the cloud cannot exist when the binary separation is below a critical distance. This dramatically affects the gravitational atom phenomenology. First, the parameter space of certain GCP transitions becomes constrained. Second, we may still observe orbital period derivative changes due to the backreaction of cloud absorption, which produces floating/sinking orbits \textit{away} from the GCP resonance bands. Third, the bound on boson masses from various null detections may be alleviated, due to unknown companion objects depleting the cloud.

\begin{figure}[h!]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=8cm]{figFancy}
	\caption{The life cycle of a boson near a rotating black hole in binary. I: The boson is produced via black hole superradiance instability. II: The tidal perturbation of the binary companion (gray) turns the boson from a superradiant state ($|\psi_{322}\rangle$) to an absorptive state ($|\psi_{300}\rangle$) in an \textit{off-resonance} fashion. III: The boson is quickly reabsorbed by the black hole. This whole process contributes negatively to the growth rate of the boson cloud, thereby suppressing superradiance.}\label{figFancy}
\end{figure}

This paper is organized as follows. In Sect.~\ref{BHSTPReviewSection}, we first review the basic ingredients of black hole superradiance and tidal perturbation theory. Then in Sect.~\ref{SvASection}, we compute the suppressed superradiance rate due to the gravitational perturbation of the binary, and determine the critical distances below which superradiance is turned off. We discuss the implications for the gravitational atom phenomenology in Sect.~\ref{ObsSection}. At last, we conclude in Sect.~\ref{ConclusionSection}. We set $G=\hbar=c=1$ throughout the paper and our conventions and notations largely follow from \cite{baumann2020gravitational,ding2021gravitational}.

\section{The gravitational atom and tidal perturbations}\label{BHSTPReviewSection}
In this section, we begin with a lightning review of black hole superradiance instability and tidal perturbation theory. Consider an ultralight (scalar) boson field with mass $\mu$ around a Kerr black hole with mass $M$ and dimensionless spin parameter $\tilde{a}$. The bosons generated by the Kerr black hole condensate into clouds and form a bound state together with the black hole. This spectrum of this gravitational atom is governed by the Klein-Gordon equation in Kerr spacetime:
\begin{equation}
	\left(g^{\alpha\beta}\,\nabla_\alpha\,\nabla_\beta-\mu^2\right)\Phi=0~.
	\label{KG}
\end{equation}
If the gravitational fine structure constant $\alpha\equiv G M \mu\ll 1$ is perturbatively small, the cloud is mostly non-relativistic and we can factor out a rest-mass dynamical phase from the boson field,
\begin{equation}
	\Phi\equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\mu}}e^{-i\mu t}\psi+\text{c.c.}~.\label{NRApprox}
\end{equation}
Using the Boyer-Lindquist coordinates, we insert (\ref{NRApprox}) into the Klein-Gordon equation and expand in powers of $\alpha$, the resulting equation takes a Schr\"{o}dinger form at leading order,
\begin{equation}
	i\partial_t\psi(t,\mathbf{r})=H_0\psi(t,\mathbf{r})~,~H_0\equiv -\frac{1}{2\mu}\partial_{\mathbf{r}}^2+V(r)~,
\end{equation}
where the potential $V(r)=-\frac{\alpha}{r}+\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2)$ resembles that of a hydrogen atom. Solving the system with in-going boundary condition at the black hole outer horizon yields the quasi-stationary bound states, which at large distance ($r\gg M$) approximate to
\begin{equation}
	\psi_{nlm}(\bm{r})=R_{nl}(r)\,Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi)\,e^{-i\,(\omega_{nlm}-\mu)t}~,
	\label{ansatz}
\end{equation}
where $R_{nl}$ is the hydrogen radial function and $n,l,m$ are the usual principle, angular and magnetic quantum numbers. The key difference from that of hydrogen atom is that the eigenvalues of boson clouds are in general complex (hence the instability),
\begin{equation}
	\omega_{nlm}=E_{nlm}+i\,\Gamma_{nlm}~,
\end{equation}
due to an absorptive horizon and dissipative ergoregion. The detailed form of the energy levels and decay widths can be found from inspecting the higher-order corrections of the Kerr geometry. Up to hyperfine splittings, the energy levels are given by \cite{baumann2019probing,baumann2019spectra}
\begin{equation}
	\begin{aligned}
	E_{nlm}&=\mu\left(1-\frac{\alpha^2}{2\,n^2}-\frac{\alpha^4}{8\,n^4}-\frac{(3\,n-2\,l-1)\,\alpha^4}{n^4\,(l+1/2)}\right)\\
	&+\frac{2\,\tilde{a}\,m\,\alpha^5}{n^3\,l\,(l+1/2)\,(l+1)}+\mathcal{O}(\alpha^6)~.
	\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The decay widths are given at $\alpha\lesssim 0.4$ via the Detweiler approximation\footnote{Note that numerics shows a factor-of-two uncertainty in the Detweiler approximation, although this is not important for our purpose. See a recent refinement in \cite{bao2022improved}} \cite{detweiler1980klein},
\begin{equation}
	\begin{aligned}
		\Gamma_{n00}&= -\frac{4}{n^3}(1+\sqrt{1-\tilde{a}^2})\,\mu\,\alpha^5\\
		\Gamma_{nlm}&=2\tilde{r}_+\,C_{nl}\,g_{lm}(\tilde{a},\alpha,\omega)\,(m\,\Omega_H-\omega_{nlm})\,\alpha^{4l+5}.
	\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Here $\tilde{r}\equiv r/M$, $\tilde{r}_+\equiv 1+\sqrt{1-\tilde{a}^2}$ and $\Omega_H\equiv\tilde{a}/[2\,M^2\,(1+\sqrt{1+\tilde{a}^2})]$ is the angular velocity of the outer horizon. The definition of $C_{nl}$ and $g_{lm}$ are given as.
\begin{equation}
	C_{nl}\equiv\frac{2^{4l+1}(n+l)!}{n^{2l+4}(n-l-1)!}\,\left[\frac{l!}{(2l)!\,(2l+1!)}\right]^2,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
	g_{lm}(\tilde{a},\alpha,\omega)\equiv\prod_{k=1}^{l}\left(k^2\,(1-\tilde{a}^2)+(\tilde{a}m-2\tilde{r}_+ M\omega)^2\right).
\end{equation}

For an isolated black hole, the occupation number of superradiant states ($\Gamma_{nlm}>0$) grows at a timescale $T_{nlm}^{(\text{grow})}=\Gamma_{nlm}^{-1}\propto \alpha^{-(4l+5)}$ until saturation. In contrast, states with $\Gamma_{nlm}<0$ will be absorbed into the black hole at a timescale $T_{nlm}^{(\text{absorb})}=\Gamma_{nlm}^{-1}\propto \alpha^{-(4l+5)}$. After saturation, the superradiant states constantly emit monochromatic gravitational waves and deplete at a much longer time scale $T^{(\text{deplete})}\propto \alpha^{-(4l+10)}$.

Now consider inducing a binary companion of mass $M_*$. At leading order, we can understand the influence of a binary companion as generating a time-periodic tidal field around the gravitational atom. In the Fermi normal coordinates, the Newtonian potential of the binary companion can be expanded using spherical harmonics as
\begin{align}
		\nonumber V_*=&-\alpha \,q\,\sum_{l_*\geqslant 2}\sum_{|m_*|\leqslant l_*}\,\mathcal{E}_{l_*m_*}(\iota_*,\varphi_*)\,Y_{l_*m_*}(\theta,\phi)\\
		&\times\left(\frac{r^{l_*}}{R_*^{l_*+1}}\,\Theta(R_*-r)+\frac{R_*^{l_*}}{r_*^{l_*+1}}\,\Theta(r-R_*)\right)~.
\end{align}
Here $q=M_*/M$ is the mass ratio of the companion and the gravitational atom, $R_*$ is the binary separation, and $\iota_*, \varphi_*$ are the inclination angle and true anomaly, respectively. $\Theta(x)$ is the Heaviside step function. The tidal moment $\mathcal{E}$ can be computed from the geometry of the binary. For equatorial orbits, the quadrupole contribution simplifies considerably to
\begin{align}
		\mathcal{E}_{2\mp2}=\frac12\sqrt{\frac{6\pi}{5}}e^{\pm2i\varphi_*},\mathcal{E}_{2\mp1}=0,\mathcal{E}_{20}=-\sqrt{\frac\pi5}~.
		\label{tidal}
\end{align}
The tidal field of the binary companion decays as $R_*^{l_*+1}$ for the $l_*$-th multipole moment. Although $V_*$ is small for large separations, it introduces weak mixings between energy eigenstates of $H_0$. This overlap of two $H_0$ eigenstates is calculated as
\begin{align}
		\nonumber \langle \psi_{n'l'm'}|V_*(t)|\psi_{nlm}\rangle\equiv&(-1)^{m'+1}\alpha\, q\\
		&\sum_{l_*,m_*}\mathcal{E}_{l_*m_*}(t)\mathcal{G}^{l'l_*l}_{-m'm_*m}\,I_r,
\label{overlap}
\end{align}
Here $\mathcal{G}^{l'l_*l}_{-m'm_*m}$ is the Gaunt integral,
\begin{equation}
	\mathcal{G}_{-m'm_*m}^{l'l_*l}=\int{\rm{d}}\Omega Y_{l'-m'}(\theta,\phi)Y_{l_*m_*}(\theta,\phi)Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi)~,
	\label{Gaunt}
\end{equation}
which implicitly imposes a set of selection rules,
\begin{equation}
	\begin{aligned}
		&-m'+m_*+m=0\\
		&l+l_*+l'=2p,\text{ for } p\in\mathbb{Z}\\
		&|l-l'|\leqslant l_*\leqslant l+l'~.
	\end{aligned}\label{SelectionRules}
\end{equation}
And $I_r$ is the radial integral,
\begin{equation}
	\begin{aligned}
	I_r&=\int_0^{R^*} r^2{\rm{d}}rR^*_{n'l'}(r)R_{nl}(r)\frac{r^{l_*}}{R_*^{l_*+1}}\\
	&+\int_{R^*}^\infty r^2{\rm{d}}rR^*_{n'l'}(r)R_{nl}(r)\frac{R_*^{l_*}}{r_*^{l_*+1}} ~.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The radial integral is dominated by the first term if the companion is far outside the cloud, $i.e.$, $R_*\gg n^2 r_1$, where $r_1\equiv(\mu \alpha)^{-1}=M/\alpha^2$ is the Bohr radius.

The dynamics of the system is then determined from solving the full Hamiltonian $H\equiv H_0+V_*$ with orbital backreaction. It is widely known that the periodic tidal perturbation $V_*$ can trigger atomic resonances when the orbital frequency matches the energy difference of two $H_0$-eigenstates. These GCP resonances exhibit distinctive floating/sinking features in their orbital evolutions, which can be observed via multiple messengers \cite{tong2022gravitational}.

\section{Termination of superradiance}\label{SvASection}
One might think that when the binary separation is much larger than the cloud radius, $i.e.$, $R_*\gg r_1\sim (\mu\alpha)^{-1}$, the gravitational perturbation of the binary companion ($\langle V_*\rangle \sim \alpha r_1^2/R_*^{3}\ll \mu \alpha^2$) may be too small to affect the cloud dynamics, which is typically of order $\langle H_0\rangle \sim \mu \alpha^2$. However, one must recall that the superradiance rate, which governs cloud formation, is also small. For instance, the $|\psi_{322}\rangle$ state has a superradiance rate $\Gamma_{322}\sim \mu\alpha^{12}$. Therefore, it might be the case that the cloud formation process can be dramatically influenced by the presence of a binary companion. Indeed, we will see that the tidal perturbation of the binary companion typically suppresses the superradiance rate, and may even terminate superradiance and prevent the cloud from ever growing up.

\subsection{The adiabatic case}
We start with the perturbed Hamiltonian $H=H_0+V_*$ of the boson. Its matrix element is given by
\begin{equation}
	\langle \psi_{n'l'm'}|H|\psi_{nlm}\rangle=\omega_{nlm}\delta_{n'n}\delta_{l'l}\delta_{m'm}+\langle \psi_{n'l'm'}|V_*|\psi_{nlm}\rangle~.
	\label{H}
\end{equation}
The diagonal terms are dominated by the eigenvalues of the free Hamiltonian while the off-diagonal terms are led by the gravitational level mixings due to the companion. The level mixings couple two states together whenever the selection rule allows. In particular, the superradiant states can be coupled to the absorptive states, bringing negative contributions to the imaginary part of the frequencies. Most dangerous of all absorptive states are the spherically symmetric $|\psi_{n00}\rangle$ states, since they decay the fastest. Hence we expect the leading order correction to the superradiant rate of $|\psi_{nlm}\rangle$ to come from its mixing with $|\psi_{n00}\rangle$ (if the selection rule allows). Therefore, we will focus on a two-state subspace $\{|1\rangle,|2\rangle\}$, where $|1\rangle$ denotes a superradiant state $|\psi_{nlm}\rangle$ and $|2\rangle$ denotes a highly absorptive state such as $|\psi_{n00}\rangle$. In matrix form, the perturbed Hamiltonian reads
\begin{align}
	H=   \left(
	\begin{matrix}
		\omega_1+V_{11} & V_{12} \\
		V_{21} & \omega_2+V_{22}
	\end{matrix}
	\right)
	\equiv
	\left(
	\begin{matrix}
		\bar{E}_1+i\Gamma_1 & \eta^* \\
		\eta & \bar{E}_2+i\Gamma_2
	\end{matrix}
	\right)~,
	\label{perturbedHamiltonian}
\end{align}
where we have denoted $\eta\equiv V_{21}$, $\bar{\omega}_i\equiv \omega_i+V_{ii}$ and $\bar{E}_i\equiv E_i+V_{ii}$, $i=1,2$. Notice that both $\bar{E}_i(t)$ and $\eta(t)$ implicitly depend on time through the binary orbital motion. Thus in the adiabatic limit $|\frac{\dot\eta}{\bar E_i^2}|,|\frac{\dot{\bar{E}}_i}{\bar E_i^2}|\ll 1$, the state of the cloud $c_i(t)\equiv\langle \psi_i|\psi(t)\rangle$ can be solved using the WKB approximation,
\begin{equation}
	c_i(t)=C_{i+}e^{-i\int\lambda_+ dt}+C_{i-}e^{-i\int \lambda_- dt}~,~i=1,2~,\label{naiveWKB}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_\pm$ are the two instantaneous eigenvalues of the perturbed Hamiltonian (\ref{perturbedHamiltonian}),
\begin{align}
	\nonumber \lambda_\pm\equiv
	&\frac{\bar\omega_1+\bar\omega_2}{2}\pm\sqrt{|\eta|^2+\left(\frac{\bar\omega_1-\bar\omega_2}{2}\right)^2}\\
	\simeq&\left\{
		\begin{array}{lr}
			 \bar E_1+\frac{|\eta|^2}{\bar E_1-\bar E_2}+i\left[\Gamma_1-\frac{\Gamma_1-\Gamma_2}{(\bar E_1-\bar E_2)^2}|\eta|^2\right] \text{, } +&\\\\
			 \bar E_2+\frac{|\eta|^2}{\bar E_2-\bar E_1}+i\left[\Gamma_2-\frac{\Gamma_2-\Gamma_1}{(\bar E_1-\bar E_2)^2}|\eta|^2\right] \text{, }- &
		\end{array}
	\right.
\end{align}
The approximation is made under the limit $|\bar E_{1,2}|\gg|\eta|,|\Gamma_{1,2}|$, which is always valid given the superradiance context. Thus we see that $\lambda_+$ ($\lambda_-$) represents the corrected frequency of the quasi-stationary state $|1\rangle$ ($|2\rangle$). In particular, their imaginary parts are modified. Since we have assumed $\Gamma_1\geqslant0$ and $\Gamma_2<0$, the effective superradiance rate is now suppressed:
\begin{equation}
	\tilde{\Gamma}_1\equiv \Gamma_1+\Delta \Gamma_1,~\Delta\Gamma_1\simeq-\frac{\Gamma_1-\Gamma_2}{(\bar E_1-\bar E_2)^2}|\eta(R_*)|^2<0~.
	\label{correction}
\end{equation}

This suppression term in the effective superradiance rate mainly depends on the distance $R_*$ between the binary. If the absorptive state $|2\rangle$ happens to be a highly dangerous state such as $|\psi_{n00}\rangle$, the corresponding suppression can be significant if $R_*$ is not large. For instance, consider the case $n=3,l=m=2$. The fine-structure splitting is
\begin{equation}
	E_{322}-E_{300}\simeq 0.04~ \text{s}^{-1}\left(\frac{\alpha}{0.1}\right)^{5}\left(\frac{M}{10M_{\odot}}\right)^{-1}~.
\end{equation}
The superradiance/absorption rates at maximal black hole spin ($\tilde{a}=1$) are
\begin{align}
	\Gamma_{322}&\simeq 3\times 10^{-13}~ \text{s}^{-1}\left(\frac{\alpha}{0.1}\right)^{13}\left(\frac{M}{10M_{\odot}}\right)^{-1}~,\label{322Gamma}\\
	\Gamma_{300}&\simeq -3\times 10^{-3}~ \text{s}^{-1}\left(\frac{\alpha}{0.1}\right)^{5}\left(\frac{M}{10M_{\odot}}\right)^{-1}~.
\end{align}
Then at a binary separation $R_*=10^5 M$, the size of the level mixing is
\begin{equation}
	|\eta(R_*)|\simeq 2\times 10^{-7}~ \text{s}^{-1}\left(\frac{\alpha}{0.1}\right)^{-3}\frac{q}{0.2}\left(\frac{M}{10M_{\odot}}\right)^{-1}~.
\end{equation}
This results in a correction to the superradiance rate
\begin{align}
	\nonumber \Delta \Gamma_{322}\simeq& -7\times 10^3 \frac{ q^2}{\alpha^{10}}\frac{M^5}{R_*^6}\\
	\simeq& -0.6\times 10^{-13}~ \text{s}^{-1}\left(\frac{\alpha}{0.1}\right)^{-10}\left(\frac{q}{0.2}\right)^2\left(\frac{M}{10M_{\odot}}\right)^{-1}~,\label{322DeltaGamma}
\end{align}
which already gives $\tilde{\Gamma}_{322}\sim\frac{4}{5}\Gamma_{322}$, $i.e.$, a reduction of $20\%$. As one expects from the quadrupole tidal perturbation, $\Delta \Gamma_{322}$ grows as $R_*^{-6}$ as the binary separation decreases. Therefore, inside a critical distance $R_*<R_{*,c}$ defined from the condition
\begin{equation}
	\tilde{\Gamma}_{nlm}(R_{*,c})=\Gamma_{nlm}+\Delta \Gamma_{nlm}(R_{*,c})\equiv0~,\label{criticalDistanceDef}
\end{equation}
the effective superradiance rate becomes negative, and the mode $|\psi_{nlm}\rangle$ can no longer grow even at maximal black hole spin. For the $|\psi_{322}\rangle$ example, the critical distance is easily read out from (\ref{322Gamma}) and (\ref{322DeltaGamma}):
\begin{equation}
	R_{*,c}(322)\simeq 10^6~\text{km} \left(\frac{\alpha}{0.1}\right)^{-23/6}\left(\frac{q}{0.2}\right)^{1/3}\frac{M}{10M_{\odot}}~.
\end{equation}

Before moving on to further discussions, we would like to make a few comments on suppressed superradiance and the critical distance.
\begin{enumerate}
	\item[$\bullet$] First, it is interesting to see the interplay of UV and IR effects here. The imaginary part of the eigenvalues of the free Hamiltonian $H_0$ can be understood as an UV effect, which is relevant near the black hole horizon scale $r_{UV}\sim M$. Yet its correction involves IR effects which has nothing to do with the black hole geometry. These co-rotating bosons produced via superradiant scattering leak to an IR scale $r_{IR}\sim (\mu\alpha)^{-1}$, and are turned into non-/counter-rotating bosons by the tidal perturbation of the binary companion, which then get absorbed by the black hole again in the UV (see again FIG.~\ref{figFancy}).
	\item[$\bullet$] Second, if the binary separation is shorter than the critical distance $R_{*,c}(nlm)$, there can be two scenarios. If the cloud has not been formed, yet the black hole spin appears to be capable of superradiance ($\Gamma_{nlm}>0$), superradiance will be shut off. No $|\psi_{nlm}\rangle$-cloud will be produced, and black hole spin cannot drop below the saturation value for modes with magnetic quantum number $m$. This is because, unlike Hawking radiation, superradiance is not spontaneous and can only amplify a given cloud state. But if such a cloud state is easily depleted, there is no seed particles left for amplification, hence no extraction of black hole spin. On the other hand, if the cloud has already been formed, it will decay slowly at the rate $|\tilde{\Gamma}_{nlm}|$. Like GCP resonances, this process generates backreaction to the binary orbit and can be observed. More discussions on this possibility will be elaborated in Sect.~\ref{OffResObservability}.
	\item[$\bullet$] Third, the superradiance termination we are dealing with here is similar but not identical to resonant depletion scenarios considered in the literature \cite{baumann2019probing,Berti:2019wnn,Takahashi:2021eso}. Specifically, we need no requirement on the orbital frequency or orbit direction (co-rotating/counter-rotating). In fact, we will mostly stay away from the GCP resonance bands and analyze the viability of GCP resonances considering superradiance termination in Sect.~\ref{GCPConstraintSection}.
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{Beyond adiabaticity and multiple states}\label{FullCDSection}
The above calculations are performed under the assumption of adiabaticity. However, when the orbital frequency is high, the naive WKB approximation (\ref{naiveWKB}) breaks down and we need a better treatment of the perturbed Hamiltonian $H$. For simplicity, we will specialize to the case of equatorial circular orbits. The tidal moments thus reduce to
\begin{equation}
	\mathcal{E}_{l_*m_*}=\frac{4\pi}{2l_*+1}Y_{l_*m_*}(\pi/2,\varphi_*(t))=e_{l_*m_*} e^{i m_* \varphi_*(t)}~,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
	e_{l_*m_*}\equiv \sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{2l_*+1}\frac{(l_*-m_*)!}{(l_*+m_*)!}}P_{l_*}^{m_*}(0)
\end{equation}
and $P_{l_*}^{m_*}(x)$ is the associated Legendre polynomial. This $e^{i m_* \varphi_*(t)}$ time dependence is inherited by the off-diagonal term $\eta(t)$. Therefore, we follow the standard procedure and perform a time-dependent unitary transformation to go into the co-rotating frame \cite{takagi1991quantum,baumann2020gravitational,Ikeda:2020xvt},
\begin{align}
	\nonumber&H_D=U(t)^\dagger (H(t)-i\partial_t) U(t),\\
	&\text{with  }U(t)\equiv e^{-i\varphi_*(t) L_z}~,
\end{align}
where $L_z$ is the cloud angular momentum operator along the spin axis. In component form, the Hamiltonian in the co-rotating frame reads
\begin{equation}
	H_D=\left(
	\begin{matrix}
		\bar{E}_1+i\Gamma_1-m_1 \dot\varphi_* & |\eta| \\
		|\eta| & \bar{E}_2+i\Gamma_2-m_2 \dot\varphi_*
	\end{matrix}
	\right)~.
\end{equation}
Notice that we have applied the selection rule (\ref{SelectionRules}) and set $m_*=m_2-m_1$. Now the fast oscillations in $H$ are eliminated and we are left with a co-rotating frame Hamiltonian $H_D$ that varies slowly in time only through $R_*(t)$. Going through the same procedure as before, we obtain the correction to the superradiance rate of $|1\rangle$:
\begin{equation}
	\Delta \Gamma_1\simeq -\frac{\Gamma_1-\Gamma_2}{\left[\bar E_1-\bar E_2-(m_1-m_2)\dot\varphi_*(R_*)\right]^2}|\eta(R_*)|^2~.\label{2stateDeltaGamma}
\end{equation}
Clearly, in the adiabatic limit, $|\frac{\dot{\varphi}}{E_i}|\ll 1$, the above expression reduces to (\ref{correction}). The impact on superradiance becomes severe when the denominator vanishes. This corresponds to the resonant depletion scenario \cite{baumann2019probing,Berti:2019wnn,Takahashi:2021eso}, where the cloud state $|1\rangle$ largely mixes into $|2\rangle$ and is quickly absorbed into the black hole. Since we focus more on the off-resonance scenario, the denominator will typically be dominated either by $\bar{E}_1-\bar{E}_2$ (the adiabatic case) or by $(m_1-m_2)\dot\varphi$ (the diabatic case).

Since both the tidal perturbations and the instability rates are small compared to the energy levels, the two-state result (\ref{2stateDeltaGamma}) can be readily generalized to that of multiple states. To leading order in $|\eta_{ij}|$, the impact on superradiance is just a simple summation,
\begin{equation}
	\Delta \Gamma_1\simeq -\sum_{i=n'l'm'}\frac{\Gamma_1-\Gamma_i}{\left[\bar E_1-\bar E_i-(m_1-m_i)\dot\varphi_*(R_*)\right]^2}|\eta_{1i}(R_*)|^2~,\label{mulitstateDeltaGamma}
\end{equation}
where $\eta_{1i}$ contains a sum of tidal moments $\mathcal{E}_{l_*,m_i-m_1}$. The critical distance is again determined by requiring $\tilde\Gamma_1=\Gamma_1+\Delta \Gamma_1=0$. Due to the $R_*$ dependence in the denominator, there may be multiple solutions of $R_{*,c}$ when entering/exiting a resonance. We are more interested in the off-resonance solutions.

\begin{figure}[h!]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{figGammaEff}
	\caption{The effective superradiance rate $\tilde\Gamma_{nlm}$ as a function of the binary separation $R_*$ for co-rotating orbits (upper panel) and counter-rotating orbits (lower panel). The solid lines correspond to the maximal black hole spin $\tilde{a}=1$, while the dashed lines correspond to the previous saturation black hole spin $\frac{4(m-1)\alpha}{(m-1)^2+4\alpha^2}$ for the $m$-th state ($e.g.$, $\tilde{a}=\frac{2\alpha}{1+\alpha^2}$ when considering the $m=3$ state). The other parameters are chosen to be $\alpha=0.1$, $M=10M_{\odot}$ and $q=0.2$. It is clear that the effective superradiance rate reduces to the Detweiler value at large binary separations, while dropping below zero generically at a finite critical distance.}\label{figGammaEff}
\end{figure}

In FIG.~\ref{figGammaEff}, we have plotted the binary-separation-dependence of the effective superradiance rate $\tilde\Gamma_{nlm}(R_*)$ for different states and black hole spins. It can be seen that the effective superradiance rate $\tilde\Gamma_{nlm}$ tends to the Detweiler value $\Gamma_{nlm}$ at large binary separations, since the tidal perturbations become negligible in this limit. As we decrease the binary separation, $\tilde\Gamma_{nlm}$ quickly drops to zero near a critical distance, where superradiance is terminated due to mixing into absorptive states. The sharp peaks and valleys are caused by GCP resonances, where the mixing effect is non-perturbatively large. Interestingly, when the black hole spin is high ($e.g.$, $\tilde{a}=1$), the high-$l$ states such as $|\psi_{433}\rangle$ and $|\psi_{544}\rangle$ receive \textit{positive} enhancement to the superradiance rate first, before \textit{negative} suppression terms take over and terminate superradiance as $R_*$ decreases. This is because of their mixings into low-$l$ states such as $|\psi_{411}\rangle$ and $|\psi_{522}\rangle$, which possess larger positive growth rates. Yet as the black hole spin drops below the threshold for superradiating these low-$l$ states, the superradiance rate $\tilde\Gamma_{nlm}$ for high-$l$ states can no longer benefit from the mixings, and thus monotonically drop to zero as $R_*$ decreases, as indicated by the dashed lines in FIG.~\ref{figGammaEff}.

The critical distance can be solved numerically from (\ref{criticalDistanceDef}) in the case of multiple states beyond adiabaticity. As mentioned before, we focus on systems with an orbital frequency away from the GCP resonance bands, because such a configuration occupies the most proportion of the binary lifetime and are more typical statistically. Henceforth, it will be convenient to perform a ``Wick'' rotation and replace the denominator in (\ref{mulitstateDeltaGamma}) by
\begin{align}
	\nonumber&\frac{1}{\left[\bar E_1-\bar E_i-(m_1-m_i)\dot\varphi_*(R_*)\right]^{2}}\\
	&\to\frac{1}{(\bar E_1-\bar E_i)^2+[(m_1-m_i)\dot\varphi_*(R_*)]^2}~.
\end{align}
This modification removes the resonance poles, but it keeps the off-resonance physics mostly unaltered. Since the tidal-perturbation-theory calculations are under the assumption of $R_*>r_n$, the resulting critical distance must be greater than the cloud radius,
\begin{equation}
	R_{*,c}(nlm)>r_n=n^2 r_1\text{ for consistency}~.\label{consistencyConstraint}
\end{equation}

Under this constraint, we solve (\ref{criticalDistanceDef}) for the critical distance and plot its dependence on $\alpha$ and $q$ in FIG.~\ref{figRc}. Because we have chosen a maximal black hole spin, the resulting critical distance is the minimal requirement for cloud stability. This means superradiance of a given state $|\psi_{nlm}\rangle$ will be terminated completely below $R_*<R_{*,c}(nlm)$, and an existing cloud will decay quickly at a rate comparable to its original growth rate. From FIG.~\ref{figRc}, we see that for fixed $\alpha$ and $M$ (hence fixed boson mass), the critical distance decreases with a smaller mass ratio. This is in agreement with intuition, since a lighter (heavier) binary companion is expected to have weaker (stronger) gravitational perturbations on the cloud dynamics, resulting in a broader (narrower) safe region. Cloud states with higher $l$ appear to be less stable in the presence of a binary companion, as their critical distances are larger. At last, we stress that as an off-resonance quantity, the critical distance solved in this way does not depend on the orbit orientation, which matters only for the triggering of a GCP resonance.
\begin{figure}[h!]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=9cm]{figRc}
	\caption{The critical distance $R_{*,c}$ (in units of the horizon size) as a function of $\alpha$ and $q$ for different cloud states. The gray region is excluded by the consistency constraint (\ref{consistencyConstraint}). The black hole spin is chosen to be maximal, $\tilde{a}=1$. Therefore, below the critical distance, no net superradiance is present and no existing boson cloud can last for a period longer than its original typical growth time.}\label{figRc}
\end{figure}

\section{Observational consequences}\label{ObsSection}
Given the potential threat of a binary companion to the boson cloud, how does this superradiance termination effect influence the phenomenology of the gravitational atom? In this section, we will briefly examine three of its main consequences.

\subsection{Implications for GCP transitions}\label{GCPConstraintSection}
First, the termination of superradiance poses a constraint on observable GCP transitions. This is natural since GCP is based on resonant cloud transitions. If there is no cloud when the binary enters the resonance band, there is certainly no cloud transition, and no observable signal. Therefore, roughly speaking, in order to have successful GCP transitions, we must require that the binary separation at resonance to be greater than the critical distance of the initial cloud state\footnote{Notice that both sides of (\ref{GCPAllowedCondition}) depend on $\alpha$ and $q$. Thus this is effectively a constraint on the relative sizes of three mass parameters (namely, $\mu, M, M_*$) in the system.},
\begin{equation}
	R_{*,r}(nlm\to n'l'm')>R_{*,c}(nlm)~.\label{GCPAllowedCondition}
\end{equation}
Otherwise, the cloud either cannot form, or would have been depleted via $\tilde{\Gamma}_{nlm}<0$ long before entering the resonance band.

Scanning through the parameter space, we plot the ``safe'' region for various GCP transitions in FIG.~\ref{figGCPImpact}. It is clear from the plot that superradiance termination poses a tight bound on the parameters of the binary system. Bohr transitions with floating orbits are most severely constrained, because they happen at relatively high orbital frequencies. This means the binary separation at resonance is short, and the cloud is vulnerable to absorption. Hyperfine transitions, on the contrary, are influenced the least. In particular, we note that the $|\psi_{211}\rangle\to|\psi_{21~-1}\rangle$ and $|\psi_{322}\rangle\to|\psi_{300}\rangle$ transitions are safe to occur throughout the parameter space. This is because they happen at low orbital frequencies, where the overlap between the superradiant mode and absorptive modes is still small. Overall, except the hyperfine ones and Bohr transitions starting from the state $|\psi_{211}\rangle$, most transitions are forbidden for mass ratio $q\gtrsim10^{-3}$. They are allowed only below a certain mass ratio, corresponding to a small mass of the binary companion.

\begin{figure}[h!]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{figGCPImpact}
	\caption{The ``safe'' region for having various hyperfine, fine and Bohr GCP transitions. The solid lines represent the boundary where the resonance distance is equal to the critical distance, and its shaded side satisfies (\ref{GCPAllowedCondition}) and is allowed. Note that the hyperfine transitions $|\psi_{211}\rangle\to|\psi_{21~-1}\rangle$ and $|\psi_{322}\rangle\to|\psi_{300}\rangle$ are allowed throughout the parameter space. For Bohr transitions, we also included the constraint $R_{*,r}(nlm\to n'l'm')>\max \left\{n^2 r_1, n'^2 r_1\right\}$ to keep the validity of tidal perturbation theory. The black hole spin is chosen to be the saturation value of the initial cloud state.}\label{figGCPImpact}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Observing cloud absorption}\label{OffResObservability}
Before entering the critical distance $R_{*,c}$, the cloud may have already grown up. Then the negative effective superradiance rate within $R_{*,c}$ will gradually deplete the cloud. The loss of angular-momentum-carrying particles backreacts on the orbit and produces an effective torque on the binary companion, leading to floating/sinking orbits in a manner similar to GCP transitions. The difference here is that such orbital backreaction does not occur at a fixed resonance band.

The total angular momentum of the cloud is
\begin{equation}
	S_c(t)=S_{c,0}\left(m_1|c_1(t)|^2+\sum_{i\neq 1} m_i |c_i(t)|^2\right)~,
\end{equation}
where $S_{c,0}$ is the cloud angular momentum at the saturation of $|\psi_1\rangle$, and $0\leqslant|c_1|^2\leqslant1$ is the percentage of cloud occupation. It effectively describes the boson particle number, $i.e.$, the larger $|c_1|^2$ is, there are more particles in the cloud. Since except the superradiant mode $|\psi_1\rangle$ with $m_1>0$, most other modes are usually unoccupied ($c_i\simeq 0$), we can approximate $S_c(t)\simeq S_{c,0}m_1|c_1(t)|^2$. In the case of a planar circular orbit, considering backreaction of the cloud evolution yields an orbital period derivative
\begin{equation}
	\dot{P}=(\dot{P})_{\text{GR}}+(\dot{P})_{\text{C}}~,
\end{equation}
where $(\dot{P})_{\text{GR}}$ represents the usual orbital decay in General Relativity (GR),
\begin{equation}
	(\dot{P})_{\text{GR}}=-\frac{96}{5}(2\pi)^{8/3}\frac{q}{(1+q)^{1/3}}M^{5/3}P^{-5/3}~,
\end{equation}
and $(\dot{P})_{\text{C}}$ is the extra contribution due to cloud backreaction \cite{baumann2020gravitational,ding2021gravitational},
\begin{equation}
	(\dot{P})_{\text{C}}=-3(2\pi)^{1/3}(1+q)^{-2/3}\frac{S_{c,0}m_1}{M^2}\frac{d|c_1(t)|^2}{dt}M^{1/3} P^{2/3}~.
\end{equation}
The cloud evolution would have been unitary but for the absorption, which means $c_1(t)\propto e^{-\tilde\Gamma_1 t}$ and
\begin{equation}
	\frac{d|c_1(t)|^2}{dt}=-2\tilde\Gamma_1(R_{*}) |c_1(t)|^2~.
\end{equation}
For instance, using Kepler's law to rewrite $R_{*}$ in terms of $P$, we can obtain the fractional correction to the period derivative for $|\psi_{322}\rangle$,
\begin{align}
\nonumber&\frac{(\dot{P})_{\text{C}}}{(\dot{P})_{\text{GR}}}\\
\simeq&-15|c_{322}|^2\left(\frac{\alpha}{0.1}\right)^{-9}\frac{q}{(1+q)^{7/3}}\left(\frac{M}{10 M_{\odot}}\right)^{5/3}\left(\frac{P}{1\text{ hr}}\right)^{-5/3}.
\end{align}
The minus sign shows that this is a floating orbit. Thus the correction to the orbital period derivative can be significant for certain parameter choices\footnote{Since the cloud has been decaying for some time after entering the critical distance, we generally expect $|c_1|^2$ to be a small number. In principle, assuming natural evolution, one can solve the whole history and determine $|c_1|^2$. Here, for simplicity, we will treat it as a free parameter.}. Such corrections should be detectable via multi-messengers such as gravitational waves and pulsar timing \cite{Hulse:1974eb,Weisberg:2004hi}. For instance, consider the gravitational atom in a pulsar-black hole binary, the periastron time shift is calculated by
\begin{equation}
	\Delta_P\equiv t-P(0)\int_0^t\frac{dt'}{P(t')}\approx \frac{1}{2}\frac{\dot{P}}{P}t^2~,
\end{equation}
where we have Taylor expanded the orbital period to the linear order. In order to observe the extra periastron time shift caused by the backreaction of cloud absorption, we must require the deviation from the GR result to be larger than the timing error of pulse counting,
\begin{equation}
	|\Delta_P-(\Delta_P)_{\text{GR}}|>\sigma_{\Delta_P}~.
\end{equation}
For a pulsar with rotation period $\tau$ and pulse width $w\lesssim\tau$, the timing error $\sigma_{\Delta_P}$ can be roughly estimated as \cite{ding2021gravitational}
\begin{equation}
	\sigma_{\Delta_P}\sim\frac{1}{\sqrt{t/1 \text{day}}}\frac{w}{t_{\text{obs}}/P}~, \label{PeriUncertainty}
\end{equation}
where $t_{obs}$ is the duration of a continuous observation window every day. In FIG.~\ref{figPSR}, we plot the timing accuracy for a pulsar of width $w=0.01$s and total observation time $T_{\text{obs}}$. We see that with enough observational time ($e.g.$, $T_{\text{obs}}\sim$ 1 decade), much parameter region can be uncovered, even when the cloud is extremely dilute ($e.g.$, $|c_1|^2\sim 10^{-6}$).

\begin{figure}[h!]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=7cm]{figPSR}
	\caption{The parameter region reachable for detecting cloud absorption using a pulsar with mass $M_*=1.4 M_{\odot}$ and width $w=0.01$s, for different cloud occupation fraction $|c_1|^2$. Here we have taken the state $|\psi_{322}\rangle$ as an example. The orbital period is chosen to be near the critical distance, $P=0.95 P(R_{*,c}(322))$. Different contours represent different total observational time $T_{\text{obs}}$. The daily observation time is chosen to be $t_{\text{obs}}=5$ hr. In addition to the timing accuracy, requirements on cloud formation and depletion are also included: $T^{(\text{grow})}>10^6$ yr, $T^{(\text{deplete})}<10^8$ yr \cite{baumann2020gravitational,ding2021gravitational}.}\label{figPSR}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Toward relaxing the bound on boson mass}
As mentioned before, boson clouds in isolated black holes only deplete by emitting gravitational waves whose frequency is peaked around the boson rest mass $\mu$. Thus the null detection of such near-monochromatic gravitational waves poses constraints on the mass of the ultralight boson, under certain assumptions on the initial black hole spin, cloud ages and the distance from earth. For instance, the LIGO search for continuous gravitational waves from the Milky Way center has reported constraints for the boson mass rage $10^{-13}$eV$<\mu<10^{-12}$eV \cite{LIGOScientific:2022lsr} (see also \cite{Palomba:2019vxe,Ng:2020jqd,LIGOScientific:2021jlr,Yuan:2022bem}). However, it is likely that spinning black holes are \textit{not} isolated in the galactic center, where the density of objects is high. Therefore, in such a high-density and highly dynamical region, black hole superradiance may be influenced by the presence of a binary companion or other objects, possibly even suppressed to the extent of terminated cloud growth. Henceforth, the gravitational wave null detection bound could be relaxed. We have also seen in Sect.~\ref{FullCDSection} that states with higher $l$ are more severely affected by the tidal perturbation of nearby objects. Thus we expect the bound should be state-dependent, with cloud states of higher $l$ being constrained less.

Another boson mass bound comes from measuring the mass-spin distribution of black holes (the so-called Regge plane). Assuming efficient superradiance growth of the cloud, the black hole angular momentum will quickly be extracted, and its spin parameter is cut off at a value less than 1. This effect manifests itself as a gap on the black hole Regge plane, which can be tested statistically with LIGO and LISA \cite{Arvanitaki:2016qwi,Brito:2017zvb,Ng:2020ruv}. Considering superradiance termination, such constraints are also subjected to relaxation if the black hole is in a binary. As mentioned in Sect.~\ref{FullCDSection}, if the superradiance of a certain state is shut off by a close companion, the black hole spin cannot further decrease by producing that state. If, in addition, this superradiant state is the one with the lowest $l$ that the black hole spin is capable of producing, all other states will be shut off. For example, if $R_*<R_{*,c}(322)$, and $\tilde{a}<\frac{4\alpha}{1+4\alpha^2}$, both $|\psi_{322}\rangle$ and $|\psi_{211}\rangle$ cannot grow, and neither can the higher-$l$ modes (since they have even larger $R_{*,c}$). Then the black hole spin will not be cut off at the saturation value $\frac{\alpha}{1+\alpha^2}$ of the $|\psi_{322}\rangle$ state. Such considerations must be taken into account in the statistical analysis of the black hole Regge plane.

Other bounds come from, for example, testing the birefringence of photons \cite{Chen:2019fsq} and the stellar kinematics \cite{Yuan:2022nmu} near supermassive black holes, with the help of powerful telescopes such as EHT \cite{EventHorizonTelescope:2019dse,EventHorizonTelescope:2022xnr} and the Keck Observatory \cite{Do:2019txf}. These bounds also assume the presence of cloud, and are subjected to a similar relaxation as mentioned here, since supermassive black holes are known to be surrounded by numerous stars. A detailed analysis of the impact of superradiance termination on various boson mass bounds is beyond the scoop of this paper, but it no doubt deserves further investigations in future works.

\section{Conclusion}\label{ConclusionSection}
Superradiance instability of ultralight bosons near a rotating black hole leads to lots of interesting phenomena, many of which are based on the existence of a hydrogen-atom-like cloud. In this work, however, we raise the question on the robustness of black hole superradiance in the presence of a binary companion. We have found that through the tidal perturbation of the companion, superradiant states can be coupled to dangerous absorptive states and receive negative corrections to its growth rate, thereby suppressing superradiance. We have found that for a given cloud state, there exists a critical binary distance below which its superradiance is terminated. This fact leads to several important consequences. On one hand, it poses tight constraints on possible GCP transitions. For instance, except hyperfine transitions and Bohr transitions starting from $|\psi_{211}\rangle$, almost all other transitions must have a mass ratio $q\ll 1$. On the other hand, after entering the critical distance, an existing cloud is absorbed back into the black hole. This process can be observed via multiple messengers such as pulsar timing. In addition, the termination of superradiance implies the absence of certain cloud states. This effect is expected to relax the constraints on the ultralight boson mass using various methods that rely on the existence of such clouds.

We have followed a simplistic route in the current work. And there are certainly many improvements to make and prospects to explore in the future. To name a few, first, the analysis of superradiance termination itself can be generalized to more realistic scenarios with generic orbits. Second, we need to understand in detail how superradiance termination can affect the current boson mass bounds. Third, aside from bounded binary orbits considered here, external objects with unbounded orbits may also influence the cloud. It is then interesting to study the stability of the gravitational atom for more complex dynamics such as three-body evolutions and scattering with stellar objects.

~\\

\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Chon Man Sou for helpful discussions. XT and YW were supported in part by the National Key R\&D Program of China (2021YFC2203100),
the NSFC Excellent Young Scientist Scheme (Hong Kong and Macau) Grant No. 12022516, and by the RGC of Hong Kong SAR, China (Project No.~CRF C6017-20GF). HYZ was supported in part by a grant from the RGC of the Hong Kong SAR, China (Project No.~16303220).
\\

\bibliographystyle{utphys}