Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Gravitational Waves from the Inspiral of Supermassive Black Holes in Galactic-scale Simulations

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 Resolved galaxy mergers show that simplified models predict the pulsar-timing gravitational-wave spectrum of supermassive black hole binaries to within about 10 percent.

desk verdict A careful KETJU study showing semi-analytic models are good to ~10% in the PTA band, but the missing resolution test means I would treat that number as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01373 v2 pith:HGN4OK6L submitted 2019-09-03 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Matias Mannerkoski , Peter H. Johansson , Pauli Pihajoki , Antti Rantala , Thorsten Naab This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords gravitationalwavessupermassiveblackholebinariespulsartimingarraysN-bodysimulationspost-Newtoniandynamicsgalaxymergersstochasticwavebackgroundbinaryhardening
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether simplified semi-analytic models of supermassive black hole binaries, the kind used to predict the gravitational-wave background for pulsar timing arrays, can be trusted. Using the hybrid tree-regularized N-body code KETJU, it follows supermassive black holes through gas-free mergers of massive early-type galaxies all the way down to separations of a few Schwarzschild radii, with post-Newtonian corrections to 3.5 order. The resulting orbital evolution and gravitational-wave spectral energy density are compared to two semi-analytic models: pure gravitational-wave decay (Peters) and Peters plus stellar scattering (Peters–Quinlan). The central result is that although the models differ strongly in merger timescales and eccentricity evolution, the emitted gravitational-wave spectrum differs by only about 10 percent at frequencies $f \gtrsim 0.1\, \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, the band accessible to current pulsar timing arrays. The conclusion matters because it suggests current pulsar-timing-array background predictions can be trusted at the 10 percent level, provided the stellar density and velocity dispersion fed into the semi-analytic models reflect the actual post-merger stellar population.

What carries the argument

The central object is the gravitational-wave spectral energy density $dE_{\mathrm{GW}}/df$, computed two ways: analytically from Peters–Mathews harmonics using post-Newtonian quasi-Keplerian orbital elements, and directly by Fourier-transforming the waveform from the final inspiral. The comparison is organized around the Peters isolated-binary model and the Peters–Quinlan hardening model, whose parameters $H$ and $K$ are the semi-analytic dials controlling how fast the stellar environment shrinks and circularizes the binary. The resolved reference comes from the hybrid N-body code with algorithmic chain regularization and post-Newtonian equations of motion, which lets the stellar background respond self-consistently from the galaxy-merger scale down to the final orbit. The mechanism that produces the main result is the cancellation, in the spectral energy density formula, between the instantaneous gravitational-wave flux and the gravitational-wave timescale $\tau_{\mathrm{GW}}$, which makes the lifetime-integrated spectrum far more stable than the individual orbital trajectories from which it is built.

What would settle it

Re-run one of the mergers, for example run A, with stellar particle masses reduced by a factor of 10 or 100 inside the 10 pc regularized region while keeping the same initial orbit, and compare the binary hardening rate and the gravitational-wave spectral energy density in the pulsar-timing band; if the hardening rate or the 10 percent agreement with the Peters–Quinlan model shifts systematically with resolution, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a robustness result: in these simulations, the gravitational-wave spectral energy density $dE_{\mathrm{GW}}/df$ emitted by a single supermassive black hole binary is largely insensitive to the details of the orbital evolution. The binaries enter the gravitational-wave-dominated phase on highly eccentric orbits ($e > 0.9$), which makes merger timescales very sensitive to small parameter changes, but when the spectrum is accumulated over the binary's lifetime, differences between the fully resolved KETJU evolution and the Peters and Peters–Quinlan semi-analytic models shrink to roughly 10 percent at frequencies $f \gtrsim 0.1\, \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. The agreement improves to a few percent when the hardening parameters $H$ and $K$ are fitted from the simulation rather than taken from the literature. The paper argues this happens because the semi-analytic scattering model captures the relevant dynamics and because the high-frequency spectrum is effectively governed by energy conservation: the slightly different instantaneous fluxes and gravitational-wave timescales cancel in the spectral energy density.

Load-bearing premise

The stellar environment is represented by particles of $10^5$ solar masses each, and at the moment of merger only a few such particles remain within 10 pc of the binary; the paper assumes that the resulting rare, overly strong scattering events do not bias the hardening because most environmental influence comes from weak long-range interactions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Current pulsar-timing-array predictions of the stochastic background from supermassive black hole binaries can be trusted to roughly 10 percent in the band $f \gtrsim 0.1\, \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, as long as the semi-analytic models use stellar densities and velocity dispersions that reflect the post-merger stellar population.
  • For very massive, core-scoured early-type galaxies, literature values of the hardening parameter $H$ overestimate stellar scattering by up to a factor of 8, so semi-analytic predictions for the most massive binaries should use lower effective hardening or they will systematically misplace the merger time and low-frequency spectrum.
  • The persistently high eccentricities ($e > 0.9$) at the onset of the gravitational-wave-driven inspiral imply that circular-orbit assumptions in background calculations introduce a bias; the simulated binaries do not reach $e \approx 0.99$, so the strong suppression of the background considered in earlier work does not occur in these runs.
  • At the highest pulsar-timing frequencies, missing post-Newtonian terms can shift the instantaneous gravitational-wave flux by tens of percent, but the lifetime-integrated spectrum is less affected because of approximate energy conservation, so a detection of a rare individual massive binary would be more sensitive to these higher-order effects than the background itself.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's conclusion is stated per binary; the population-level background could still change if the real eccentricity or environment distribution differs from these galaxy models. A natural test is to apply the same analysis to a cosmological sample of merger snapshots and compare the resulting $h_c(f)$ with semi-analytic population predictions.
  • Because the disagreement concentrates in depleted-core massive galaxies, a practical extension is to map $H$ and $K$ as functions of core properties such as central stellar density slope and binary mass ratio, converting the factor-of-8 discrepancy into a calibrated correction term for semi-analytic models.
  • The 10 percent result is derived for gas-free mergers with non-spinning black holes; adding circumbinary gas or black-hole spin could alter both eccentricity evolution and the high-frequency spectrum, so the comparison should be repeated for gas-rich mergers before generalizing the conclusion.
  • The resolution caveat cuts both ways: if strong scattering events are under-resolved, the simulated hardening could be systematically low. Comparing runs with different stellar particle masses (for example $10^5$ versus $10^4$ solar masses) within the inner 10 pc would show whether the 10 percent agreement is itself resolution-dependent.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses the hybrid tree-regularized N-body code KETJU to follow supermassive black hole (SMBH) binaries formed in gas-free mergers of massive early-type galaxies, with post-Newtonian corrections up to PN3.5 in the equations of motion and PN1 waveform corrections. Five merger runs are analyzed (runs A–D forming a series of minor mergers and run X an equal-mass lower-mass merger), and the simulated orbital evolution and emitted gravitational-wave spectral energy density (SED) are compared with two semi-analytic models: the isolated Peters model and the Peters–Quinlan model that adds stellar scattering with literature hardening parameters. The central claim is that, although the semi-analytic models give large differences in merger timescales and eccentricity evolution, the resulting GW spectra differ by only ~10% at PTA-relevant frequencies f ≳ 0.1 yr^-1, provided the stellar density and velocity dispersion are taken from the simulations. The paper also fits effective hardening parameters H and K for the scattering model and finds values that differ from Sesana et al. (2006) by up to a factor of eight for the cored massive runs, while run X agrees much better.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides an important validation that semi-analytic prescriptions are adequate for PTA background predictions at the ~10% level, despite large differences in the detailed orbital evolution of individual binaries. This is directly relevant for ongoing pulsar timing array searches and for cosmological simulations that cannot resolve SMBH binaries. The numerical work is ambitious and careful: it combines state-of-the-art PN3.5 dynamics with quasi-Keplerian orbital elements, cross-validates two independent GW computation methods to a few percent at the switchover, and checks energy conservation to under 5% until roughly 10 Schwarzschild radii. The manuscript is also transparent about its caveats, including the limited number of runs and the approximate treatment of unresolved stellar scattering. However, the small sample size and the absence of a resolution study mean that the headline ~10% accuracy estimate is not yet demonstrated with full rigor.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.3 and Fig. 7] The central claim of ~10% SED accuracy in the PTA band rests on simulations in which each stellar particle represents ~10^5 real stars and only a few such particles remain within 10 pc of the binary at merger, as stated in Section 6.3. No convergence test at higher stellar resolution is presented. The paper asserts that weak long-range interactions dominate and that unresolved strong scattering does not seriously bias the long-term evolution, but this assertion is not quantified. Because the SED at f>0.1 yr^-1 is sensitive to the eccentricity and hardening history entering the GW-dominated phase, and because Figure 7 already shows an almost 20% deviation of the Peters model from run X at f=0.2 yr^-1, a resolution-induced bias in eccentricity or in the fitted H and K parameters could shift the comparison by more than the claimed 10%. A resolution study (for example varying the stellar particle mass by factors of several in one or two runs) or an explicit error budget is needed to support the 10% claim.
  2. [§6.3 and Fig. 10] The paper itself notes in Section 6.3 that the neglected non-linear tail terms at PN4 order cause the number of orbits in the last decade of orbital frequency to change by almost 10% (citing Blanchet et al. 1995), and Figure 10 shows that energy conservation degrades rapidly below about 10 Schwarzschild radii. Since the PTA band at f≳0.1 yr^-1 is exactly the regime where these final relativistic orbits contribute, the missing higher-order PN terms may introduce a systematic uncertainty comparable to the stated ~10% difference between KETJU and the semi-analytic models. The manuscript should either quantify the impact of these missing terms on the integrated SED, or soften the claim to a larger uncertainty (e.g., tens of percent) for frequencies near the upper end of the PTA band.
  3. [§5.3 and Table 2] The high-frequency agreement is presented as a validation of the Peters–Quinlan model, but the Peters–Quinlan comparison uses literature values H_S and K_S from Sesana et al. (2006) that were calibrated for circular binaries, while the simulated binaries have eccentricities e > 0.9 at the start of the GW-dominated phase. The paper notes in Section 3.4 that H should increase with eccentricity, but does not test how much this would change the comparison. Since the fitted H_Ketju values in Table 2 differ from H_S by factors up to 8, the apparent agreement at high frequencies may be partly coincidental, especially if the true eccentricity-dependent hardening parameters are different from the circular-orbit values. A sensitivity test using eccentricity-dependent H and K, or a direct comparison against the fitted parameters for each run, would strengthen the conclusion that the semi-analytic model itself captures the relevant dynamics.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.4 and Fig. 10] The paper states that the simulation is stopped at R = 6 R_s, but also says the results are reliable only down to about 10 R_s. The spectra in Figures 7 and 8 are still shown down to 6 R_s, where energy conservation has already degraded. Please clarify whether the unreliable tail below about 10 R_s is excluded from the quantitative conclusions, or explain how the reported agreement at the highest frequencies is affected by this region.
  2. [§2.4] The text refers to the code sometimes as KETJU and sometimes as Ketju; please use a consistent spelling throughout. This is purely a presentation issue.
  3. [§6.2] The claim that 'the differences are brought down to under 5%' with a correct choice of parameters would be easier to verify if the paper explicitly showed the comparison models run with the fitted H_Ketju and K_Ketju values, rather than only stating that they agree at the few-percent level. A small figure or table with these results would be useful.
  4. [Fig. 7] The zoom-in labels in the ratio panels are somewhat difficult to read, particularly the '0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1' axis labeling in the Peters–Quinlan ratio panel. Please check that all axis labels and zoom-in annotations are legible in the final version.
  5. [§4.4] The sentence 'The error of the semi-analytic method compared to the full PN waveform is about 5% at the point where all the major harmonics are visible in the spectrum, but somewhat lower when compared to the PN0 waveform' is ambiguous because 'PN0 waveform' and 'full PN waveform' are not clearly distinguished in the legend of Figure 3. Please make the figure legend and the corresponding text consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline comparison uses externally parameterized semi-analytic models, and the KETJU-derived H/K fits are not used to produce the ~10% spectrum result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The headline comparison takes the externally defined Peters (1964) and Peters–Quinlan scattering models with literature H,K values from Sesana et al. (2006), starts them from the same a0,e0 as the KETJU runs (a controlled initial-condition choice, not an equivalence), and compares the resulting GW spectral energy densities to the KETJU SEDs, with the high-frequency PTA portion computed from direct waveform integration rather than from the semi-analytic spectrum formula. The H,K values fitted from KETJU in Table 2 are used only in a post-hoc consistency check (Section 5.2), not in the headline ~10% statement; the headline result is obtained with the literature parameters. The only self-citations are to the KETJU code papers and to prior initial-condition setups; these are instrumental rather than arguments that force the result, and the code is exercised in new merger runs rather than imported as a conclusion. The acknowledged resolution and PN-order caveats in Section 6.3 are validity risks, not circular reductions.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fidelity of the KETJU N-body+PN simulations and on the choice of comparison models. No invented entities are introduced. The fitted H and K parameters are used only for secondary validation, not to derive the headline 10 percent figure.

free parameters (4)
  • H_S (Sesana et al. 2006) = 14.4 to 16.6 x 10^-11 pc^-1 yr^-1 (range across runs)
    Literature hardening parameter used in the Peters-Quinlan comparison model. Chosen from fitting formulae, not fitted in this paper, but the headline comparison of 'commonly used parameter values' depends on these inputs.
  • K_S (Sesana et al. 2006) = 0.054 to 0.068 (range across runs)
    Literature eccentricity-growth parameter used in the Peters-Quinlan model; same status as H_S.
  • H_Ketju = 2.18, 4.38, 5.98, 8.44, 11.5 x 10^-11 pc^-1 yr^-1 for runs A, B, C, D, X
    Linear fit to the simulated environmental energy loss rate with PN effects subtracted (Section 3.2, Table 2). Used for secondary validation only.
  • K_Ketju = 0.032, 0.049, 0.052, 0.027, 0.098 for runs A, B, C, D, X
    Linear fit to the simulated environmental eccentricity growth (Equation 28, Table 2). Used for secondary validation only.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Post-Newtonian equations of motion through PN3.5 in the modified harmonic gauge are sufficient to describe the binary dynamics in the simulated regime.
    Used throughout (Section 2.2). The paper itself shows energy conservation error under 5 percent until ~10Rs (Figure 10), and higher-order tail terms may change the final orbit count by ~10 percent (Section 6.3, citing Blanchet et al. 1995).
  • domain assumption The stellar environment can be represented by particles of mass m_star = 10^5 solar masses with gravitational softening; the rarity and over-strength of individual scattering events does not bias the binary hardening.
    Section 6.3 acknowledges only a few particles remain within 10 pc at merger; the authors argue weak long-range interactions dominate, but this is not derived.
  • domain assumption Beyond ~100Rs, the binary can be evolved as isolated without stellar particles without significantly changing the inspiral.
    Section 2.4; the assumption is checked against the full run only down to ~70Rs.
  • domain assumption Gas and black hole spin effects are negligible for these gas-free galaxy mergers.
    Section 2.2 states spin terms are ignored because spins are largely set by gas interactions, which are absent here.
  • domain assumption The Peters (1964) and Peters-Quinlan (Quinlan 1996) semi-analytic models are valid reference models for the comparison.
    Sections 3.3 and 3.4 define the comparison models; they are standard literature models, but they neglect the back-reaction of the binary on the stellar population, which is exactly the effect studied.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational Waves from the Inspiral of Supermassive Black Holes in Galactic-scale Simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HGN4OK6L

@misc{pith2026190901373,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational Waves from the Inspiral of Supermassive Black Holes in Galactic-scale Simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HGN4OK6L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01373}
}
abstract

We study the orbital evolution and gravitational wave (GW) emission of supermassive black hole (SMBH) binaries formed in gas-free mergers of massive early-type galaxies using the hybrid tree-regularized N-body code KETJU. The evolution of the SMBHs and the surrounding galaxies is followed self-consistently from the large-scale merger down to the final few orbits before the black holes coalesce. Post-Newtonian corrections are included up to PN3.5-level for the binary dynamics, and the GW calculations include the corresponding corrections up to PN1.0-level. We analyze the significance of the stellar environment on the evolution of the binary and the emitted GW signal during the final GW emission dominated phase of the binary hardening and inspiral. Our simulations are compared to semi-analytic models that have often been used for making predictions for the stochastic GW background emitted by SMBHs. We find that the commonly used semi-analytic parameter values produce large differences in merger timescales and eccentricity evolution, but result in only $\sim 10\%$ differences in the GW spectrum emitted by a single binary at frequencies $f\gtrsim 10^{-1} \, \rm yr^{-1}$, which are accessible by current pulsar timing arrays. These differences are in part caused by the strong effects of the SMBH binaries on the surrounding stellar population, which are not included in the semi-analytic models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01373 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A sequence of illustrative example snapshots of simulation run A (5:1 mass ratio merger). The main images show the projected stellar density, while the insets show the stellar particles (blue), SMBHs (black), and sections of their trajectories in the regularized region (grey). The snapshots illustrate different characteristic phases of the SMBH binary evolution: the SMBHs first sink to the center of the merging gala… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the different eccentricity definitions for an isolated highly eccentric binary with a semi-major axis of a ≈ 5000Rs evolved for four orbital periods using Ketju (left panel) and for a low eccentricity binary evolved from a ≈ 25Rs down to a ≈ 6Rs over ∼ 1000 orbital periods (right panel). The time is given in units of the mean orbital period Tmean over the considered part of the orbital evolution. The e… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The emitted GW energy spectrum (in code units) computed for PN3.5 accurate binary motion using the semi￾analytic method (PN3.5 + SA, dashed green line) and directly from the waveform using either only the leading quadrupole terms (PN3.5 + PN0, solid blue line) or including also PN1 corrections to the waveform (PN3.5 + PN1, solid orange line). Only the smoothed result is shown for the direct waveform calculations, bu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the semi-major axis a as a function of time. The solid lines show the Ketju runs while the dashed lines show the Peters (left panel) and Peters-Quinlan (right panel) semi-analytic comparison models. The times have been shifted so that the merger of the BHs…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Eccentricity evolution as function of radial orbital frequency fr. The left panel shows the results from the Ketju runs, and the right panel shows the difference to the Ketju runs for the Peters model (top right) and the Peters-Quinlan model (bottom right). models is s…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The evolution of the energy per unit reduced mass E/µc2 (left) and the eccentricity e (right) of the SMBH binary due to the interaction with the stellar environment. The contribution from the PN terms has been removed as explained in section 3.2, with the dashed lines …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Total emitted GW energy per unit frequency, i.e. the GW SED, for the Ketju runs (left), and the ratios of the semi-analytic Peters model (top right) and the semi-analytic Peters-Quinlan model (bottom right) results to the Ketju result. The zoom-ins highlight the freque…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The gravitational wave timescale τGW = dt d ln fr of the Ketju runs (left), and the ratios of the semi-analytic Peters model (top right) and the semi-analytic Peters-Quinlan model (bottom right) results to the Ketju result. The zoom-ins highlight the frequency range mo…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The ratio of the instantaneous GW fluxes com￾puted using less accurate approximations to the PN3.5 mo￾tion + PN1 waveform used for the final part of the GW SED calculations. The solid lines show the result of the PN3.5 motion + PN0 (quadrupole) waveform calculation, wh…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The relative error in total energy conservation during the final isolated evolution of the binaries when the emitted GW energy is computed from the PN1 waveform (solid) or the PN0 quadrupole waveform (dashed). Since the eccentricity affects strongly both the merg￾ing …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. 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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2016, Physical Review Letters, 116, 061102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102 2016

  2. [2]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Audley, H., Babak, S., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786. https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00786

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    G., Blanchet, L., Iyer, B

    Arun, K. G., Blanchet, L., Iyer, B. R., & Qusailah, M. S. S. 2008, PhRvD, 77, 064035, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.064035

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.064035 2008

  4. [4]

    T., Brazier, A., et al

    Arzoumanian, Z., Baker, P. T., Brazier, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd3b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabd3b 2018

  5. [5]

    Romani, R. W. 2017, ApJ, 843, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa74e1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa74e1 2017

  6. [6]

    C., Blandford, R

    Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1980, Nature, 287, 307, doi: 10.1038/287307a0

    doi:10.1038/287307a0 1980

  7. [7]

    2006, ApJL, 642, L21, doi: 10.1086/504426

    Berczik, P., Merritt, D., Spurzem, R., & Bischof, H.-P. 2006, ApJL, 642, L21, doi: 10.1086/504426

    doi:10.1086/504426 2006

  8. [8]

    2009, ApJ, 695, 455, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/455

    Spurzem, R. 2009, ApJ, 695, 455, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/455

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/695/1/455 2009

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    2018, PhRvD, 97, 044037, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.044037

    Bernard, L., Blanchet, L., Faye, G., & Marchand , T. 2018, PhRvD, 97, 044037, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.044037

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition (Princeton University Press)

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition (Princeton University Press)

    2008

  3. [11]

    2014, Living Reviews in Relativity, 17, 2, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2014-2

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

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    Wiseman, A. G. 1995, Physical Review Letters, 74, 3515, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.3515

    1995 doi

  5. [13]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 4419, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1590

    Bonetti, M., Haardt, F., Sesana, A., & Barausse, E. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 4419, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1590

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 2599, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty874

    Bonetti, M., Sesana, A., Barausse, E., & Haardt, F. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2599, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty874

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    1966, Numerische Mathematik, 8, 1, doi: 10.1007/BF02165234 GWs from SMBHs in Galactic Simulations 21

    Bulirsch, R., & Stoer, J. 1966, Numerische Mathematik, 8, 1, doi: 10.1007/BF02165234 GWs from SMBHs in Galactic Simulations 21

    1966 doi

  8. [16]

    R., Charisi, M., et al

    Burke-Spolaor, S., Taylor, S. R., Charisi, M., et al. 2019, A&A Rv, 27, 5, doi: 10.1007/s00159-019-0115-7

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    2013, MNRAS, 429, 3114, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts568

    Chapon, D., Mayer, L., & Teyssier, R. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3114, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts568

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    Chen, S., Sesana, A., & Conselice, C. J. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 401, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1722

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    2012, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 29, 245002, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/29/24/245002

    Csizmadia, P., Debreczeni, G., R´ acz, I., & Vas´ uth, M. 2012, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 29, 245002, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/29/24/245002

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    P., Paragi, Z., Jarvis, M

    Deane, R. P., Paragi, Z., Jarvis, M. J., et al. 2014, Nature, 511, 57, doi: 10.1038/nature13454

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    1993, MNRAS, 265, 250, doi: 10.1093/mnras/265.1.250

    Dehnen, W. 1993, MNRAS, 265, 250, doi: 10.1093/mnras/265.1.250

    1993 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Gopakumar, A., et al

    Dey, L., Valtonen, M. J., Gopakumar, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadd95

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 751, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx473

    Emsellem, E. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 751, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx473

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    2007, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 117, 241, doi: 10.1143/PTP.117.241

    Enoki, M., & Nagashima, M. 2007, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 117, 241, doi: 10.1143/PTP.117.241

    2007 doi

  17. [25]

    G., Crain, R

    Furlong, M., Bower, R. G., Crain, R. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 722, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2740

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    Gragg, W. B. 1965, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 2, 384, doi: 10.1137/0702030

    1965 doi

  19. [27]

    I., Dehnen, W., & Bortolas, E

    Gualandris, A., Read, J. I., Dehnen, W., & Bortolas, E. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2301, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2528 Hellstr¨ om, C., & Mikkola, S. 2010, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 106, 143, doi: 10.1007/s10569-009-9248-8

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    1990, ApJ, 356, 359, doi: 10.1086/168845

    Hernquist, L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 359, doi: 10.1086/168845

    1990 doi

  21. [29]

    G., & Fullerton, L

    Hills, J. G., & Fullerton, L. W. 1980, AJ, 85, 1281, doi: 10.1086/112798

    1980 doi

  22. [30]

    P., et al

    Hilz, M., Naab, T., Ostriker, J. P., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 3119, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21541.x

    2012

  23. [31]

    A., McWilliams, S

    Huerta, E. A., McWilliams, S. T., Gair, J. R., & Taylor, S. R. 2015, PhRvD, 92, 063010, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.063010

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    2018, ApJL, 863, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad8ad

    Inayoshi, K., Ichikawa, K., & Haiman, Z. 2018, ApJL, 863, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad8ad

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    H., Naab, T., & Ostriker, J

    Johansson, P. H., Naab, T., & Ostriker, J. P. 2012, ApJ, 754, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/115

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    2001–, SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python

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

    2001

  28. [36]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 2337, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1453

    Spurzem, R. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2337, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1453

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    Z., Blecha, L., & Hernquist, L

    Kelley, L. Z., Blecha, L., & Hernquist, L. 2017a, MNRAS, 464, 3131, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2452

    doi

  30. [38]

    Taylor, S. R. 2017b, MNRAS, 471, 4508, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1638

    doi

  31. [39]

    M., Berczik, P., & Just, A

    Khan, F. M., Berczik, P., & Just, A. 2018a, A&A, 615, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730489

    doi

  32. [40]

    M., Capelo, P

    Khan, F. M., Capelo, P. R., Mayer, L., & Berczik, P. 2018b, ApJ, 868, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae77b

    doi

  33. [41]

    M., Fiacconi, D., Mayer, L., Berczik, P., & Just, A

    Khan, F. M., Fiacconi, D., Mayer, L., Berczik, P., & Just, A. 2016, ApJ, 828, 73, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/73

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    M., Holley-Bockelmann, K., Berczik, P., & Just, A

    Khan, F. M., Holley-Bockelmann, K., Berczik, P., & Just, A. 2013, ApJ, 773, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/100

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    M., Just, A., & Merritt, D

    Khan, F. M., Just, A., & Merritt, D. 2011, ApJ, 732, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/89

    2011 doi

  36. [44]

    2006, A&A, 445, 403, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053241

    Khochfar, S., & Burkert, A. 2006, A&A, 445, 403, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053241

    2006 doi

  37. [45]

    2018, PhRvD, 98, 104043, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.104043 K¨ onigsd¨ orffer, C., & Gopakumar, A

    Vittori, L. 2018, PhRvD, 98, 104043, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.104043 K¨ onigsd¨ orffer, C., & Gopakumar, A. 2006, PhRvD, 73, 124012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.124012

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    2013 doi

  39. [47]

    2007, Science, 316, 1874, doi: 10.1126/science.1141858

    Mayer, L., Kazantzidis, S., Madau, P., et al. 2007, Science, 316, 1874, doi: 10.1126/science.1141858

    2007 doi

  40. [48]

    T., Ostriker, J

    McWilliams, S. T., Ostriker, J. P., & Pretorius, F. 2014, ApJ, 789, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/156

    2014 doi

  41. [49]

    2004, PhRvD, 70, 104011, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.104011

    Memmesheimer, R.-M., Gopakumar, A., & Sch¨ afer, G. 2004, PhRvD, 70, 104011, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.104011

    2004 doi

  42. [50]

    1985, AJ, 90, 1027, doi: 10.1086/113810

    Merritt, D. 1985, AJ, 90, 1027, doi: 10.1086/113810

    1985 doi

  43. [51]

    2013, Dynamics and evolution of galactic nuclei (Princeton University Press)

    Merritt, D. 2013, Dynamics and evolution of galactic nuclei (Princeton University Press)

    2013

  44. [52]

    2018, Nature Communications, 9, 573, doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-02916-7

    Vecchio, A. 2018, Nature Communications, 9, 573, doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-02916-7

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    Mikkola, S., & Aarseth, S. J. 1993, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 57, 439, doi: 10.1007/BF00695714

    1993 doi

  46. [54]

    2006, MNRAS, 372, 219, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10854.x —

    Mikkola, S., & Merritt, D. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 219, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10854.x —. 2008, AJ, 135, 2398, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/6/2398

    2006

  47. [55]

    1999, MNRAS, 310, 745, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02982.x Milosavljevi´ c, M., & Merritt, D

    Mikkola, S., & Tanikawa, K. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 745, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02982.x Milosavljevi´ c, M., & Merritt, D. 2001, ApJ, 563, 34, doi: 10.1086/323830

    1999

  48. [56]

    Mora, T., & Will, C. M. 2004, PhRvD, 69, 104021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.104021 22

    2004 doi

  49. [57]

    P., Naab, T., & White, S

    Moster, B. P., Naab, T., & White, S. D. M. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1822, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty655

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    H., & Ostriker, J

    Naab, T., Johansson, P. H., & Ostriker, J. P. 2009, ApJL, 699, L178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/L178

    2009 doi

  51. [59]

    Naab, T., & Ostriker, J. P. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 59, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040019

    2017 doi

  52. [60]

    2010, ApJ, 725, 2312, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2312

    Burkert, A. 2010, ApJ, 725, 2312, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2312

    2010 doi

  53. [61]

    Peters, P. C. 1964, Physical Review, 136, 1224, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224

    1964 doi

  54. [62]

    C., & Mathews, J

    Peters, P. C., & Mathews, J. 1963, Physical Review, 131, 435, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.131.435

    1963 doi

  55. [63]

    Phinney, E. S. 2001, arXiv e-prints, astro. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0108028

    2001 arXiv

  56. [64]

    2015, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 121, 211, doi: 10.1007/s10569-014-9597-9

    Pihajoki, P. 2015, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 121, 211, doi: 10.1007/s10569-014-9597-9

    2015 doi

  57. [65]

    Poisson, E., & Will, C. M. 2014, Gravity: Newtonian,

    2014

  58. [66]

    Post-Newtonian, Relativistic (Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139507486

    doi

  59. [67]

    2011, ApJL, 732, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/732/2/L26

    Preto, M., Berentzen, I., Berczik, P., & Spurzem, R. 2011, ApJL, 732, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/732/2/L26

    2011 doi

  60. [68]

    1999, AJ, 118, 2532, doi: 10.1086/301102

    Preto, M., & Tremaine, S. 1999, AJ, 118, 2532, doi: 10.1086/301102

    1999 doi

  61. [69]

    Quinlan, G. D. 1996, NewA, 1, 35, doi: 10.1016/S1384-1076(96)00003-6

    1996 doi

  62. [70]

    2018, ApJ, 864, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aada47 —

    Frigo, M. 2018, ApJ, 864, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aada47 —. 2019, ApJL, 872, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab04b1

    2018 doi

  63. [71]

    H., et al

    Rantala, A., Pihajoki, P., Johansson, P. H., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d65

    2017 doi

  64. [72]

    B., Zavala, R

    Rodriguez, C., Taylor, G. B., Zavala, R. T., et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 49, doi: 10.1086/504825

    2006 doi

  65. [73]

    2011, MNRAS, 415, 3033, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18927.x

    Roedig, C., Dotti, M., Sesana, A., Cuadra, J., & Colpi, M. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3033, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18927.x

    2011

  66. [74]

    P., & Stone, N

    Ryu, T., Perna, R., Haiman, Z., Ostriker, J. P., & Stone, N. C. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3410, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2524

    2018 doi

  67. [75]

    G., Theuns, T., et al

    Salcido, J., Bower, R. G., Theuns, T., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 870, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2048

    2016 doi

  68. [76]

    2010, ApJ, 719, 851, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/851 —

    Sesana, A. 2010, ApJ, 719, 851, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/851 —. 2013, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30, 224014, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/30/22/224014

    2010 doi

  69. [77]

    2006, ApJ, 651, 392, doi: 10.1086/507596

    Sesana, A., Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2006, ApJ, 651, 392, doi: 10.1086/507596

    2006 doi

  70. [78]

    Sesana, A., Haiman, Z., Kocsis, B., & Kelley, L. Z. 2018, ApJ, 856, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaad0f

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    Sesana, A., & Khan, F. M. 2015, MNRAS, 454, L66, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv131

    2015 doi

  72. [80]

    Sesana, A., Vecchio, A., & Colacino, C. N. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 192, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13682.x

    2008

  73. [81]

    2005, MNRAS, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    2005

  74. [82]

    2010, PhRvD, 82, 124064, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.124064

    Tessmer, M., & Sch¨ afer, G. 2010, PhRvD, 82, 124064, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.124064

    2010 doi

  75. [83]

    J., et al

    Thomas, J., Ma, C.-P., McConnell, N. J., et al. 2016, Nature, 532, 340, doi: 10.1038/nature17197

    2016 doi

  76. [84]

    2018, PASA, 35, e013, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2018.7

    Tiburzi, C. 2018, PASA, 35, e013, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2018.7

    2018 doi

  77. [85]

    R., & Pontzen, A

    Tremmel, M., Governato, F., Volonteri, M., Quinn, T. R., & Pontzen, A. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4967, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty139

    2018 doi

  78. [86]

    J., Lehto, H

    Valtonen, M. J., Lehto, H. J., Nilsson, K., et al. 2008, Nature, 452, 851, doi: 10.1038/nature06896 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science Engineering, 13, 22, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    2008 doi

  79. [87]

    2015, ApJ, 810, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/49

    Vasiliev, E., Antonini, F., & Merritt, D. 2015, ApJ, 810, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/49

    2015 doi

  80. [88]

    2003, ApJ, 582, 559, doi: 10.1086/344675

    Volonteri, M., Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2003, ApJ, 582, 559, doi: 10.1086/344675

    2003 doi

  81. [89]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 361, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv303

    Wellons, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 361, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv303

    2015 doi

  82. [90]

    Will, C. M. 2006, Living Reviews in Relativity, 9, 3, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2006-3

    2006 doi

Pith tools

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