Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Probing Massive Black Hole Binary Populations with LISA

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper predicts that LISA will detect roughly 0.5 to 1 massive black hole merger per year, an order of magnitude below many earlier estimates, because the simulated seed population lacks lighter black holes.

desk verdict Worth a serious referee: the advanced extraction doubles the Illustris-based LISA rate forecast and the calculation is careful, but the 'lower limit' label does not survive the paper's own optimistic spin choice. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05779 v2 pith:SRBUNCI2 submitted 2019-08-15 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAgr-qc

Michael L. Katz , Luke Zoltan Kelley , Fani Dosopoulou , Samantha Berry , Laura Blecha , Shane L. Larson This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GAgr-qc
keywords LISAmassiveblackholebinariesgravitationalwavedetectionratescosmologicalsimulationseedingbinaryevolutiontimescalesMonteCarlocatalogsspectroscopy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks how often the space-based gravitational-wave detector LISA will see two massive black holes spiral together and merge, and what the detected population will look like. Using merger histories from a large hydrodynamical cosmological simulation, it evolves the simulated binaries to coalescence with two different physical prescriptions for how the pair sheds energy. The central result is a detection rate of roughly $0.5$ to $1$ per year for binaries with total mass above $10^5$ solar masses, which the authors explicitly treat as a lower limit because the simulation cannot resolve lighter black holes. If correct, LISA's first years would yield about one massive black hole merger per year, an order of magnitude below several earlier predictions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the merger catalog and the coalescence-time prescriptions. The catalog comes from identifying every simulated pair of black hole particles that merge at kiloparsec scales, then filtering out spurious mergers caused by halo-finder mistakes by tracking whether a host galaxy has lost its central black hole; this advanced extraction retains 17,535 mergers down to the seed mass. Two sub-grid prescriptions then assign each binary a delay from formation to coalescence: DA17, a three-stage analytic model with dynamical friction, stellar hardening, and gravitational-wave emission, and K17, a numerical integration with dynamical friction, a loss-cone hardening rate, and a circumbinary gas disk. These delays, together with Monte Carlo Poisson sampling of coalescence times and waveform signal-to-noise ratios built from a phenomenological waveform model, convert the simulation's merger history into mock LISA detection catalogs.

What would settle it

Compare the predicted rate against one from any cosmological simulation with seeds of $10^3$--$10^4$ solar masses run through identical delay prescriptions; if that rate exceeds several per year, or if LISA itself detects more than about one massive black hole merger per year in its first years of operation, the lower-limit claim would be incomplete.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the no-delay baseline, in which every simulated galactic merger immediately produces a gravitational-wave source, already gives a LISA detection rate of about $0.98$ per year; adding two physically motivated delay prescriptions lowers the all-signal detection rate to $0.70$ per year (DA17) and $0.44$ per year (K17). These rates are lower than most published estimates, and the authors argue the main reason is seeding: the simulation places seeds of $1.42\times 10^5$ solar masses in massive halos, so the numerous lighter black holes that dominate LISA's accessible population are absent. A new extraction method that retains binaries down to the seed mass doubles the detection rate relative to older cuts at $10^6$ solar masses, showing that the low-mass tail is where most LISA events live. Because the sample omits masses below $10^5$ solar masses and ignores gas-driven migration and triple interactions, the quoted range is a lower limit.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the simulation's seeding prescription—one black hole of $1.42\times10^5$ solar masses in every halo above $7.1\times10^{10}$ solar masses—produces a representative massive black hole population; if real seeds are smaller or form earlier, the missing low-mass binaries would raise the rate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the rate is roughly $0.5$--$1$ per year, LISA's first years would yield only a handful of massive black hole mergers, making each event statistically precious.
  • Binaries with a component near $10^5$ solar masses dominate the detectable population, so LISA measurements would directly probe seed formation rather than only late-time growth.
  • The two delay prescriptions differ mainly through low-mass binaries, meaning the predicted rate and the detected mass distribution are jointly shaped by binary evolution physics and seeding physics.
  • Black hole spectroscopy should be possible for most detected events, giving a spectroscopy rate close to the overall detection rate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If real seeds are lighter or form earlier, the missing low-mass binaries would push the rate substantially above $1$ per year, possibly toward the higher semi-analytic predictions.
  • The paper's own comparison to gas-rich and gas-poor constant delays suggests that adding gas-driven migration or triple-black-hole interactions would raise rates, so the quoted range is a floor under the paper's modeling choices.
  • A direct testable extension is to run the same pipeline on a simulation with $10^3$--$10^4$ solar-mass seeds; the low-mass peak of the detectable population is where the models separate most clearly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses the Illustris-1 cosmological simulation to build a catalog of massive black hole (MBH) mergers, applying a new post-processing extraction that retains binaries down to the seed mass of 1.42e5 M_sun. It evolves the merger population to coalescence under three prescriptions (no delay, ND; DA17; K17) and computes LISA detection rates using PhenomD waveforms, the LISA proposal sensitivity curve, a Galactic background model, and an SNR threshold of rho = 8, with both an integral rate calculation and Monte Carlo catalog generation. The main reported results are detection rates of about 0.75 yr^-1 (ND), 0.70 yr^-1 (DA17), and 0.44 yr^-1 (K17), summarized as ~0.5-1 yr^-1, with the claim that this should be treated as a lower limit because masses below 1e5 M_sun are missing from the sample.

Significance. If the results are robust, the paper provides an important hydrodynamic-simulation-based benchmark for LISA MBH rate predictions, roughly an order of magnitude below many semi-analytic predictions and closer to EAGLE-based estimates. The strengths are the clearly documented advanced extraction, use of two published and independent binary-evolution prescriptions, transparent Monte Carlo construction, standard waveform and sensitivity choices, and explicit comparison with prior LISA rate calculations. The central result is internally consistent. However, the 'lower limit' interpretation is not currently supported because the detectability calculation is optimistic with respect to black hole spin, and because several dominant systematics are not quantified. The significance is therefore moderate pending revision of the central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2.1 and Abstract] The headline rate '~0.5-1 yr^-1' and its characterization as a lower limit are not supported by the detectability calculation as presented. The calculation fixes a1 = a2 = 0.8, aligned with the orbital angular momentum, for every binary, and the text explicitly describes this as 'the optimistic case' for unequal-mass systems, where the signal peak can change by an order of magnitude between spin-down and spin-up configurations. The detected population includes mass ratios down to q ~ 1e-2 (Figure 8), exactly the regime where spin matters most; since the SNR in Eq. (23) scales detection volume, a conservative spin choice (zero, isotropic, or anti-aligned) could push the DA17 and K17 rates below the quoted 0.5 yr^-1. The authors should either recompute rates under a conservative spin model or replace the 'lower limit' language with a statement that the rates are model-dependent estimates under an optimistic detectability assumption.
  2. [Sections 2, 3.3.1, and 5] The stated upward correction from missing low-mass systems is asserted but not quantified against the downward correction from optimistic spins and other modeling choices. The seeding prescription (1.42e5 M_sun seed in halos above 7.1e10 M_sun) is labeled ad hoc in Section 5, and it directly sets the completeness limit invoked by the 'lower limit' claim. Since the paper does not estimate the magnitude of the missing m < 1e5 M_sun contribution, nor combine it with the spin sensitivity, the conclusion that the true LISA rate is close to or above ~0.5-1 yr^-1 is not established. A systematic-error table or a bracketed rate range covering both upward and downward corrections would make the central claim defensible.
  3. [Equation (27) and Tables 1, A1] The quoted numerical errors (<0.01 in the integral calculation, ~1% in the Monte Carlo) reflect only redshift binning and Poisson sampling, not the dominant systematics: one Illustris volume, one seeding prescription, and two specific delay models. Given that the between-model spread alone is a factor of about 1.6 (0.44 vs 0.70 yr^-1), presenting the result with two-decimal precision understates the uncertainty. The manuscript should state this limitation more explicitly, even if a full Bayesian treatment is beyond the scope.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5] The text contains the typo 'redshits' where 'redshifts' is intended.
  2. [Section 6] The text contains the typo 'surpression' where 'suppression' is intended.
  3. [Table A1 caption] The caption contains 'Similary' and 'negligble'; these should be 'Similarly' and 'negligible', and 'inpiral-only' should be 'inspiral-only'.
  4. [Figure A2 caption] The phrase 'can be see' should be 'can be seen'.
  5. [References] The Robson & Cornish (2017) reference is incomplete; an arXiv identifier or journal citation should be supplied.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the LISA detection rate is forward-modeled from Illustris merger catalogs and independent delay/waveform prescriptions; self-citations are tool/model inputs, not conclusions forced by definition.

full rationale

The derivation chain is forward: Illustris MBH merger catalog (Sections 2.1-2.2) to host-galaxy profiles, to delay models DA17 (Section 3.1.1) and K17 (Section 3.1.2), to coalescence times, to rate integrals (Equation 27), to PhenomD waveforms via gwsnrcalc, and finally to an SNR cut at rho = 8 (Equation 23). No parameter in this chain is fitted to the target LISA detection rate. The K17 and DA17 prescriptions are external published models (Kelley et al. 2017a,b; Dosopoulou & Antonini 2017) whose assumptions do not include LISA detectability, and gwsnrcalc (Katz & Larson 2019) is a published waveform/SNR tool; these self-citations are inputs with independent content, not authority-based conclusions. The Abstract's 'lower limit' statement and Section 3.2.1's optimistic spin choice (a = 0.8) are modeling assumptions and caveats: they may make the quoted rate optimistic, but they do not make the rate circular, since nothing is defined in terms of the rate itself. No equation in the paper reduces the detection-rate prediction to an input by construction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked to forbid alternative models.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The rate forecast is not a first-principles derivation. It inherits the Illustris massive black hole population, the DA17 and K17 delay models with their adopted constants, a fixed aligned spin, an SNR threshold, and a 100-year Monte Carlo window. All of these are inputs from prior work or standard choices, not quantities fit to LISA data, and none is derived in this paper. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • MBH spin magnitude = 0.8 for both black holes
    Assigned to all binaries as aligned spins based on observed near-maximal massive black hole spins; the authors call this optimistic for unequal-mass systems and it raises SNR, directly affecting detection rates.
  • K17 Coulomb logarithm = ln Lambda_c = 15
    Adopted from Kelley et al. (2017a) for the K17 dynamical friction prescription; sets the large-scale decay timescale and therefore which binaries coalesce before redshift zero.
  • DA17 triaxial parameters = phi = 0.4, psi = 0.3
    Taken from Vasiliev et al. (2015) Monte Carlo fits and used in the DA17 hardening timescale in Equation 10; they set the final inspiral phase duration.
  • LISA SNR detection threshold = rho > 8
    Standard detection threshold chosen for catalog cuts; the quoted detection rates scale directly with this choice.
  • Monte Carlo draw duration = 100 yr
    Chosen after testing so that all observable sources are included while maintaining computational efficiency; enters the Poisson sampling parameter in Equation 28.
  • Host galaxy resolution and profile cuts = >=80 DM, >=80 gas, >=300 star; >=4 per bin; 8 bins; index 0.5 to 2.5
    Chosen thresholds in Section 2.2 that determine which merger host galaxies have usable density profiles; these cuts remove part of the catalog and affect the rate basis.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Illustris-1's massive black hole seeding and repositioning scheme produces a representative resolved merger population.
    Used in Section 2 to build the merger catalog; the paper itself says the seeding mechanism is ad hoc and produces seeds later than other simulations, which is a stated limitation on the central rate.
  • domain assumption The DA17 and K17 sub-grid prescriptions accurately describe massive black hole binary evolution from kpc separations to coalescence.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 to assign coalescence times; the detection rates depend on the resulting 84% and 66% coalescence fractions before redshift zero.
  • domain assumption All binaries are circular and have aligned spins a = 0.8.
    Stated in Sections 1 and 3.2.1; the authors note that eccentricity would make binaries merge faster, while the spin choice is optimistic for unequal-mass systems.
  • domain assumption PhenomD waveforms and the proposed LISA PL sensitivity curve accurately represent the signals and noise for this population.
    Used in Section 3.2 to compute characteristic strain and SNR; PhenomD is calibrated to numerical relativity and the PL curve is the LISA mission proposal sensitivity.
  • standard math The sky-averaged SNR formula with the 3/20 averaging factor and two-channel factor is correct for LISA detectability.
    Taken from Robson et al. (2019) and used in Equation 23; standard in the LISA literature.
  • standard math Peters and Mathews gravitational-wave inspiral applies from the hardening radius onward for circular binaries.
    Used in Equation 12 and in the K17 integration; standard weak-field gravitational radiation result.
  • domain assumption Kernel density resampling with the redshift weighting of Equation 29 gives a valid Monte Carlo realization of the Illustris merger population.
    Central to the Monte Carlo catalogs in Section 3.3.4; assumes the Illustris sample, including its parameter covariances, is representative of the full population.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Massive Black Hole Binary Populations with LISA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SRBUNCI2

@misc{pith2026190805779,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Massive Black Hole Binary Populations with LISA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SRBUNCI2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05779}
}
abstract

ESA and NASA are moving forward with plans to launch LISA around 2034. With data from the Illustris cosmological simulation, we provide analysis of LISA detection rates accompanied by characterization of the merging massive black hole population. Massive black holes of total mass $\sim10^5-10^{10} M_\odot$ are the focus of this study. We evolve Illustris massive black hole mergers, which form at separations on the order of the simulation resolution ($\sim$kpc scales), through coalescence with two different treatments for the binary massive black hole evolutionary process. The coalescence times of the population, as well as physical properties of the black holes, form a statistical basis for each evolutionary treatment. From these bases, we Monte Carlo synthesize many realizations of the merging massive black hole population to build mock LISA detection catalogs. We analyze how our massive black hole binary evolutionary models affect detection rates and the associated parameter distributions measured by LISA. With our models, we find massive black hole binary detection rates with LISA of $\sim0.5-1$ yr$^{-1}$ for massive black holes with masses greater than $10^5M_\odot$. This should be treated as a lower limit primarily because our massive black hole sample does not include masses below $10^5M_\odot$, which may significantly add to the observed rate. We suggest reasons why we predict lower detection rates compared to much of the literature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05779 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Histograms for the main extraction parameters (MT , q, and z) are shown here. We compare our new advanced extraction (green) to the extraction used previously in Blecha et al. (2016) and Kelley et al. (2017a) requiring m1, m2 ≥ 106M (blue). These counts are given after we apply the cuts described in section 2. 3.1.1 DA17 Model The equations shown below are taken directly from Dosopoulou & Antonini (2017). In what fo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Histograms are shown for the binaries that make up our catalog after all of our cuts to the MBH binary population. We group the histograms by mass ratio. The initial separation shown represents the upper limit on the MBH binary separation at binary formation. This is determined from the MBH simulation smoothing length when the MBH particles are merged in the Illustris simulation. Similarly, the redshift here is the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Two examples of the characteristic strain, hc , curves are shown here with solid lines. The blue, green, and red portions of the binary signals represent the construction we use for the inspiral, merger, and ringdown, respectively. Both examples show a = 0.8 and q = 0.2 for a signal beginning 100 years before merger. To plot these curves, we use tst = 100 yrs and tend = 0 so that we encapsulate 100 years of inspiral… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Our construction for tst and 1 tend, given in section 3.2.2, is illuminated with this diagram. We show two binaries (a,b) for which LISA will only measure the inspiral signal because the binary remains far from merger when LISA is turned off. For these binaries the dif…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Coalescence timescales are shown for the DA17 and K17 models in blue and orange, respectively. The top row shows binaries grouped by decades in total mass, MT . The bottom row shows binaries grouped by decades in mass ratio, q. sampling (section 3.3). The results are s…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Coalescence fractions are compared for the DA17 (left) and K17 (right) models. These fractions are binned in total mass and mass ratio. The number in each bin represents the total number of binaries residing in that bin. Therefore, this is the same for both models. The…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Merger rates per year per unit redshift are shown above. ND (no delays), ND-6 (subset of ND model with m1, m2 ≥ 106M ), K17 (Kelley et al. 2017a,b), and DA17 (Dosopoulou & Antonini 2017) models are shown in red, green, orange, and blue, respectively. The left plot show…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Probability density functions (PDF) are shown for mass ratios and total masses of observed binaries (ρ ≥ 8) from our 10000 Monte Carlo catalogs. The colored, filled contours show the PDF for the model given in the title of each plot. The colored line contours represent…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. RABBITS IV: Stellar feedback and SMBH merging time-scales in the sub-Milky Way mass regime

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Stronger stellar feedback lowers central stellar densities in low-mass merger remnants and systematically lengthens SMBH merger delays, yielding a 30–500 Myr spread in post-hardening coalescence times.

  2. A Fog Over the Cosmological SGWB: Unresolved Massive Black Hole Binaries in the LISA Band

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Unresolved massive black hole binaries will create a stochastic foreground in LISA that can raise the minimum detectable amplitude of a cosmological gravitational wave background by up to a factor of about 40 near a s...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

132 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature24471 , 551, 85

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature24471 , 551, 85

    doi:10.1038/nature24471 2017

  3. [3]

    A., Wise J

    Alvarez M. A., Wise J. H., Abel T., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637x/701/2/l133 , 701, L133

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/701/2/l133 2009

  4. [5]

    arXiv:1702.00786

    Amaro-Seoane P., et al., 2017, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170200786A p. arXiv:1702.00786

    arXiv 2017

  5. [6]

    H., Begelman M

    Ardaneh K., Luo Y., Shlosman I., Nagamine K., Wise J. H., Begelman M. C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.2277A 479, 2277

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1657 2018

  6. [7]

    G., et al., 2009, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/0264-9381/26/9/094027 , 26, 94027

    Arun K. G., et al., 2009, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/0264-9381/26/9/094027 , 26, 94027

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/26/9/094027 2009

  7. [8]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , 558, A33

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  8. [9]

    Baibhav V., Berti E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.024005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PhRvD..99b4005B 99, 024005

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.024005 2019

Show all 132 references
  1. [10]

    Baibhav V., Berti E., Cardoso V., Khanna G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.044048 , 97, 44048

    2018 doi

  2. [11]

    Farris B., Sathyaprakash B., Sesana A., 2015, J

    Barausse E., Bellovary J., Berti E., Holley-Bockelmann K. Farris B., Sathyaprakash B., Sesana A., 2015, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 610, 12001

    2015

  3. [12]

    C., Blandford R

    Begelman M. C., Blandford R. D., Rees M. J., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1038/287307a0 , 287, 307

    1980 doi

  4. [13]

    C., Volonteri M., Rees M

    Begelman M. C., Volonteri M., Rees M. J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10467.x , 370, 289

    2006

  5. [14]

    M., Cleary C

    Bellovary J. M., Cleary C. E., Munshi F., Tremmel M., Christensen C. R., Brooks A., Quinn T. R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2842 , 482, 2913

    2019 doi

  6. [15]

    L., Hils D., 1997, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/0264-9381/14/6/008 , 14, 1439

    Bender P. L., Hils D., 1997, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/0264-9381/14/6/008 , 14, 1439

    1997 doi

  7. [16]

    M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.064030 , 73, 64030

    Berti E., Cardoso V., Will C. M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.064030 , 73, 64030

    2006 doi

  8. [17]

    Berti E., Sesana A., Barausse E., Cardoso V., Belczynski K., 2016, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.101102 , 117, 101102

    2016 doi

  9. [18]

    Binney J., Tremaine S., 1987, Galactic dynamics

    1987

  10. [19]

    Blanchet L., 2014, @doi [Living Reviews in Relativity] 10.12942/lrr-2014-2 , 17, 2

    2014 doi

  11. [20]

    Blecha L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2646 , 456, 961

    2016 doi

  12. [21]

    Boehle A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/17 , 830, 17

    2016 doi

  13. [22]

    Bogdanovi \'c T., 2015, in Gravitational Wave Astrophysics. p. 103 ( @eprint arXiv 1406.5193 ), @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-10488-1_9

    2015 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Bonetti M., Sesana A., Haardt F., Barausse E., Colpi M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz903 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.4044B 486, 4044

    2019 doi

  15. [24]

    Burke-Spolaor S., 2013, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/0264-9381/30/22/224013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013CQGra..30v4013B 30, 224013

    2013 doi

  16. [25]

    Chandrasekhar S., 1943, @doi [ ] 10.1086/144517 , 97, 255

    1943 doi

  17. [26]

    M., Graham M

    Charisi M., Bartos I., Haiman Z., Price-Whelan A. M., Graham M. J., Bellm E. C., Laher R. R., Márka S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1838 , 463, 2145–2171

    2016 doi

  18. [27]

    B., Miller M

    Davies M. B., Miller M. C., Bellovary J. M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/740/2/L42 , 740, L42

    2011 doi

  19. [28]

    Devecchi B., Volonteri M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/302 , 694, 302

    2009 doi

  20. [29]

    Dosopoulou F., Antonini F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6b58 , 840, 31

    2017 doi

  21. [30]

    Dunn G., Bellovary J., Holley-Bockelmann K., Christensen C., Quinn T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac7c2 , 861, 39

    2018 doi

  22. [31]

    Fan X., et al., 2001a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318033 , 121, 54

    doi

  23. [32]

    Fan X., et al., 2001b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324111 , 122, 2833

    doi

  24. [33]

    Fan X., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500296 , 131, 1203

    2006 doi

  25. [34]

    S., Thorne K

    Finn L. S., Thorne K. S., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.124021 , 62, 124021

    2000 doi

  26. [35]

    Fontecilla C., Haiman Z., Cuadra J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2972 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.4383F 482, 4383

    2019 doi

  27. [36]

    J., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/176.3.633 , 176, 633

    Frank J., Rees M. J., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/176.3.633 , 176, 633

    1976 doi

  28. [37]

    L., Woosley S

    Fryer C. L., Woosley S. E., Heger A., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/319719 , 550, 372

    2001 doi

  29. [38]

    R., Vallisneri M., Larson S

    Gair J. R., Vallisneri M., Larson S. L., Baker J. G., 2013, @doi [Living Reviews in Relativity] 10.12942/lrr-2013-7 , 16, 7

    2013 doi

  30. [39]

    Genel S., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1654 , 445, 175

    2014 doi

  31. [40]

    J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1726 , 453, 1562

    Graham M. J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1726 , 453, 1562

    2015 doi

  32. [41]

    Habouzit M., Volonteri M., Latif M., Dubois Y., Peirani S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1924 , 463, 529

    2016 doi

  33. [42]

    J., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308723 , 534, 11

    Haiman Z., Abel T., Rees M. J., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308723 , 534, 11

    2000 doi

  34. [43]

    Haiman Z., Kocsis B., Menou K., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1952 , 700, 1952

    2009 doi

  35. [44]

    L., Woosley S

    Heger A., Fryer C. L., Woosley S. E., Langer N., Hartmann D. H., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375341 , 591, 288

    2003 doi

  36. [45]

    Hinshaw G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19 , 208, 19

    2013 doi

  37. [46]

    A., Larson S

    Hiscock W. A., Larson S. L., Routzahn J. R., Kulick B., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312867 , 540, L5

    2000 doi

  38. [47]

    E., Hughes S

    Holz D. E., Hughes S. A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/431341 , 629, 15

    2005 doi

  39. [48]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing In Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing In Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    2007 doi

  40. [49]

    J., Boh \' e A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.044006 , 93, 44006

    Husa S., Khan S., Hannam M., P \" u rrer M., Ohme F., Forteza X. J., Boh \' e A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.044006 , 93, 44006

    2016 doi

  41. [50]

    Jones E., Oliphant T., Peterson P., et al., 2001, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python , http://www.scipy.org/

    2001

  42. [51]

    L., Larson S

    Katz M. L., Larson S. L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3321 , 483, 3108

    2019 doi

  43. [52]

    G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1048 , 451, 2352

    Katz H., Sijacki D., Haehnelt M. G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1048 , 451, 2352

    2015 doi

  44. [53]

    Z., Blecha L., Hernquist L., 2017a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2452 , 464, 3131

    Kelley L. Z., Blecha L., Hernquist L., 2017a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2452 , 464, 3131

    doi

  45. [54]

    Z., Blecha L., Hernquist L., Sesana A., Taylor S

    Kelley L. Z., Blecha L., Hernquist L., Sesana A., Taylor S. R., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1638 , 471, 4508

    doi

  46. [55]

    Z., Blecha L., Hernquist L., Sesana A., Taylor S

    Kelley L. Z., Blecha L., Hernquist L., Sesana A., Taylor S. R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty689 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477..964K 477, 964

    2018 doi

  47. [56]

    M., Just A., Merritt D., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/89 , 732, 89

    Khan F. M., Just A., Merritt D., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/89 , 732, 89

    2011 doi

  48. [57]

    J., Boh \' e A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.044007 , 93, 44007

    Khan S., Husa S., Hannam M., Ohme F., P \" u rrer M., Forteza X. J., Boh \' e A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.044007 , 93, 44007

    2016 doi

  49. [58]

    Klein A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024003 , 93, 24003

    2016 doi

  50. [59]

    Kormendy J., Richstone D., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053 , 33, 581

    1995

  51. [60]

    L., Hiscock W

    Larson S. L., Hiscock W. A., Hellings R. W., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.062001 , 62, 62001

    2000 doi

  52. [61]

    A., Schleicher D

    Latif M. A., Schleicher D. R. G., Schmidt W., Niemeyer J. C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1786 , 436, 2989

    2013 doi

  53. [62]

    R., Tremaine S., Richstone D., Faber S

    Lauer T. R., Tremaine S., Richstone D., Faber S. M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/522083 , 670, 249

    2007 doi

  54. [63]

    M., Reines A

    Lemons S. M., Reines A. E., Plotkin R. M., Gallo E., Greene J. E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/12 , 805, 12

    2015 doi

  55. [64]

    P., Shapiro S

    Lightman A. P., Shapiro S. L., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/154925 , 211, 244

    1977 doi

  56. [65]

    Lin D., et al., 2018, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0493-1 , 2, 656

    2018 doi

  57. [66]

    Liu T., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637x/833/1/6 , 833, 6

    2016 doi

  58. [67]

    A., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174548 , 432, 52

    Loeb A., Rasio F. A., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174548 , 432, 52

    1994 doi

  59. [68]

    Magorrian J., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300353 , 115, 2285

    1998 doi

  60. [69]

    McAlpine S., et al., 2016, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] 10.1016/j.ascom.2016.02.004 , 15, 72

    2016 doi

  61. [70]

    J., Ma C.-P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/184 , 764, 184

    McConnell N. J., Ma C.-P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/184 , 764, 184

    2013 doi

  62. [71]

    Merritt D., 2013, Dynamics and Evolution of Galactic Nuclei

    2013

  63. [72]

    Merritt D., Ferrarese L., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04165.x , 320, L30

    2001

  64. [73]

    Merritt D., Milosavljevi \' c M., 2005, @doi [Living Reviews in Relativity] 10.12942/lrr-2005-8 , 8, 8

    2005 doi

  65. [74]

    D., Komossa S., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1690 , 699, 1690

    Merritt D., Schnittman J. D., Komossa S., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1690 , 699, 1690

    2009 doi

  66. [75]

    M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110555 , 45, 441

    Miller J. M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110555 , 45, 441

    2007 arXiv

  67. [76]

    A., Tahir A., Khan F

    Mirza M. A., Tahir A., Khan F. M., Holley-Bockelmann H., Baig A. M., Berczik P., Chishtie F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1248 , 470, 940

    2017 doi

  68. [77]

    Moody M. S. L., Shi J.-M., Stone J. M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab09ee , 875, 66

    2019 doi

  69. [78]

    J., Cole R

    Moore C. J., Cole R. H., Berry C. P. L., 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 15014

    2015

  70. [79]

    C., Shahinyan K., Sugarman H

    Moran E. C., Shahinyan K., Sugarman H. R., V \' e lez D. O., Eracleous M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/148/6/136 , 148, 136

    2014 doi

  71. [80]

    J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature10159 , 474, 616

    Mortlock D. J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature10159 , 474, 616

    2011 doi

  72. [81]

    J., Miranda R., Lai D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf867 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871...84M 871, 84

    Mu \ n oz D. J., Miranda R., Lai D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf867 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871...84M 871, 84

    2019 doi

  73. [82]

    Nelson D., et al., 2015, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.09.003 , 13, 12

    2015 doi

  74. [83]

    D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe28 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...858..118N 858, 118

    Nguyen D. D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe28 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...858..118N 858, 118

    2018 doi

  75. [84]

    D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafe7a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...872..104N 872, 104

    Nguyen D. D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafe7a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...872..104N 872, 104

    2019 doi

  76. [85]

    Omukai K., Schneider R., Haiman Z., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591636 , 686, 801

    2008 doi

  77. [86]

    Pardo K., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/203 , 831, 203

    2016 doi

  78. [87]

    C., Mathews J., 1963, @doi [Physical Review] 10.1103/PhysRev.131.435 , 131, 435

    Peters P. C., Mathews J., 1963, @doi [Physical Review] 10.1103/PhysRev.131.435 , 131, 435

    1963 doi

  79. [88]

    Petiteau A., Babak S., Sesana A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/82 , 732, 82

    2011 doi

  80. [91]

    K., Sesana A., 2010, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010arXiv1005.5296P p

    Porter E. K., Sesana A., 2010, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010arXiv1005.5296P p. arXiv:1005.5296

    2010 arXiv

  81. [92]

    D., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S1384-1076(96)00018-8 , 1, 255

    Quinlan G. D., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S1384-1076(96)00018-8 , 1, 255

    1996 doi

  82. [93]

    D., Hernquist L., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S1384-1076(97)00039-0 , 2, 533

    Quinlan G. D., Hernquist L., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S1384-1076(97)00039-0 , 2, 533

    1997 doi

  83. [94]

    Rasskazov A., Merritt D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6188 , 837, 135

    2017 doi

  84. [95]

    E., Greene J

    Reines A. E., Greene J. E., Geha M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/116 , 775, 116

    2013 doi

  85. [96]

    S., 2013, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/0264-9381/30/24/244004 , 30, 244004

    Reynolds C. S., 2013, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/0264-9381/30/24/244004 , 30, 244004

    2013 doi

  86. [97]

    Robson T., Cornish N., 2017, preprint

    2017

  87. [98]

    J., Liu C., 2019, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/1361-6382/ab1101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019CQGra..36j5011R 36, 105011

    Robson T., Cornish N. J., Liu C., 2019, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/1361-6382/ab1101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019CQGra..36j5011R 36, 105011

    2019 doi

  88. [99]

    Rodriguez-Gomez V., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv264 , 449, 49

    2015 doi

  89. [100]

    Roedig C., Dotti M., Sesana A., Cuadra J., Colpi M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18927.x , 415, 3033

    2011

  90. [101]

    G., Theuns T., McAlpine S., Schaller M., Crain R

    Salcido J., Bower R. G., Theuns T., McAlpine S., Schaller M., Crain R. A., Schaye J., Regan J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2048 , 463, 870

    2016 doi

  91. [102]

    F., Schawinski K., Treister E., Trakhtenbrot B., Koss M., Shirazi M., Oh K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2238 , 454, 3722

    Sartori L. F., Schawinski K., Treister E., Trakhtenbrot B., Koss M., Shirazi M., Oh K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2238 , 454, 3722

    2015 doi

  92. [103]

    J., McAlpine W., Ellison S

    Satyapal S., Secrest N. J., McAlpine W., Ellison S. L., Fischer J., Rosenberg J. L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637x/784/2/113 , 784, 113

    2014 doi

  93. [104]

    Schulze A., Wisotzki L., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117564 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...535A..87S 535, A87

    2011 doi

  94. [105]

    F., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1038/323310a0 , 323, 310

    Schutz B. F., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1038/323310a0 , 323, 310

    1986 doi

  95. [106]

    Sesana A., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/851 , 719, 851

    2010 doi

  96. [107]

    Sesana A., Haardt F., Madau P., Volonteri M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422185 , 611, 623

    2004 doi

  97. [108]

    Sesana A., Haardt F., Madau P., Volonteri M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428492 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...623...23S 623, 23

    2005 doi

  98. [109]

    Sesana A., Haardt F., Madau P., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507596 , 651, 392

    2006 doi

  99. [110]

    Sesana A., Gair J., Berti E., Volonteri M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.044036 , 83, 44036

    2011 doi

  100. [111]

    I., Sunyaev R

    Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, , 500, 33

    1973

  101. [112]

    Shankar F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw678 , 460, 3119

    2016 doi

  102. [113]

    L., Teukolsky S

    Shapiro S. L., Teukolsky S. A., 1986, Black Holes, White Dwarfs and Neutron Stars: The Physics of Compact Objects

    1986

  103. [114]

    E., Strauss M

    Shen Y., Greene J. E., Strauss M. A., Richards G. T., Schneider D. P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587475 , 680, 169

    2008 doi

  104. [115]

    F., Nelson D., Hernquist L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1340 , 452, 575

    Sijacki D., Vogelsberger M., Genel S., Springel V., Torrey P., Snyder G. F., Nelson D., Hernquist L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1340 , 452, 575

    2015 doi

  105. [116]

    Soltan A., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/200.1.115 , 200, 115

    1982 doi

  106. [117]

    Springel V., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x , 401, 791

    2010

  107. [118]

    Tanaka T., Haiman Z., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1798 , 696, 1798

    2009 doi

  108. [119]

    Tang Y., MacFadyen A., Haiman Z., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1130 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.4258T 469, 4258

    2017 doi

  109. [120]

    Torrey P., Vogelsberger M., Genel S., Sijacki D., Springel V., Hernquist L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2295 , 438, 1985

    2014 doi

  110. [121]

    R., Pontzen A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty139 , 475, 4967

    Tremmel M., Governato F., Volonteri M., Quinn T. R., Pontzen A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty139 , 475, 4967

    2018 doi

  111. [122]

    Vasiliev E., Merritt D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/87 , 774, 87

    2013 doi

  112. [123]

    Vasiliev E., Antonini F., Merritt D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/163 , 785, 163

    2014 doi

  113. [124]

    Vasiliev E., Antonini F., Merritt D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/49 , 810, 49

    2015 doi

  114. [125]

    Vogelsberger M., Genel S., Sijacki D., Torrey P., Springel V., Hernquist L., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1789 , 436, 3031

    2013 doi

  115. [126]

    Vogelsberger M., et al., 2014a, MNRAS, 444, 1518

  116. [127]

    Vogelsberger M., et al., 2014b, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature13316 , 509, 177

    doi

  117. [128]

    Volonteri M., Madau P., Haardt F., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376722 , 593, 661

    2003 doi

  118. [129]

    Volonteri M., Lodato G., Natarajan P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12589.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.383.1079V 383, 1079

    2008

  119. [130]

    Walt S. v. d., Colbert S. C., Varoquaux G., 2011, @doi [Computing in Science and Engg.] 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 , 13, 22

    2011 doi

  120. [131]

    Wang H.-T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PhRvD.100d3003W 100, 043003

    2019 doi

  121. [132]

    White S. D. M., Frenk C. S., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170483 , 379, 52

    1991 doi

  122. [133]

    Yu Q., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05242.x , 331, 935

    2002

  123. [134]

    arXiv:1305.5720

    eLISA Consortium et al., 2013, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:1305.5720

    2013 arXiv

  124. [135]

    G., Gair J

    van Wassenhove S., Volonteri M., Walker M. G., Gair J. R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17189.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.408.1139V 408, 1139

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.