Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 90 references

New insight of time-transformed symplectic integrator I: hybrid methods for hierarchical triples

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hybrid scheme fixes LogH failures on triple stars

desk verdict A credible diagnosis and a practical hybrid integrator for hierarchical triples, with a narrow but honest validation and one unquantified surrogate at its core. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02124 v1 pith:433W2VQH submitted 2024-12-03 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.EPastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR

Long Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.EPastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords hierarchicaltriplesalgorithmicregularizationlogarithmictime-transformedsymplecticintegratorKozai-Lidovoscillationshybridintegratorsfew-bodydynamicsN-bodysimulationsintegration
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 claims that the logarithmic time-transformed symplectic integrator known as LogH (algorithmic regularization), which solves an isolated Kepler orbit essentially exactly, loses that special power in hierarchical triple systems once any third body is added, even a very weak one: it degrades to an ordinary second-order symplectic method and can produce an unphysical secular drift of the inner eccentricity in Kozai–Lidov triples while keeping the reported energy error misleadingly small. The paper then introduces BlogH, a hybrid that applies LogH to the inner binary and a standard drift–kick–drift map to the outer bodies on the same time-step sequence, sidestepping the costly time synchronization that plagues the existing H4 hybrid while remaining time symmetric. On the two triple families tested, BlogH matches the accuracy of H4 at a fraction of the step count and tracks the converged eccentricity evolution that LogH misses. A simple perturbation-ratio criterion $R_p$ decides when to switch between LogH and BlogH. If the claims hold, few-body simulations of star clusters should not apply LogH directly to hierarchical triples.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the pair of time-transformation functions of the LogH map, $g_d=1/(T+p_t)$ for drift and $g_k=1/(-U)$ for kick. For a Kepler pair $g_k\propto r_{12}$, which is what makes small steps at periapsis and lets LogH act as a Kepler solver. The defining move of BlogH is to replace the full potential $U$ in these functions by the inner binary's potential $U_b=-Gm_1m_2/r_{12}$: kick uses $g_{k,b}=1/(-U_b)$, and the drift function is approximated as $g_{d,b}=1/u_b$ with $u_b$ updated by the midpoint rule (Equation 18) so the map stays explicit and time symmetric while losing formal symplecticity. The inner binary then keeps the LogH Kepler-tracing property, and the outer body is advanced by the same drift-kick-drift sequence without any synchronization of time steps.

What would settle it

Take a hierarchical triple with an eccentric outer orbit ($e_o \ge 0.5$) and initial inclination near $90^\circ$, integrate it with BlogH and with a high-precision reference (e.g., the paper's BlogH-Y6-HP at 30-digit precision) over several Kozai–Lidov timescales, and compare the converged inner eccentricity as a function of time; if for any configuration with perturbation ratio near the switching boundary the BlogH curve deviates from the reference by more than the reference's own tolerance, then the claim that BlogH preserves Kepler tracing for the inner binary would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the LogH method is a true Kepler solver only for an isolated binary: with $f(x)=\log x$ the per-step time increment is set by $g_k=1/(-U)$, which for a Kepler pair is proportional to the mutual separation $r_{12}$, so the step shrinks exactly at periapsis and the map traces the Keplerian ellipse while only the orbital phase accumulates error. Once a third body is present, the full potential $U$ appears in $g_k$, including the perturber's terms $Gm_1m_3/r_{13}$ and $Gm_2m_3/r_{23}$; these terms smooth out the variation of $g_k$ near periapsis, so the method no longer takes sufficiently small steps there and falls back to second-order accuracy. The paper demonstrates that even a perturber with mass $m_3=0.01$ (one-tenth of the lighter binary component) and outer semi-major axis $10^4$ times the inner one destroys the property (Section 3), and that in a Kozai–Lidov triple the LogH method with moderate step sizes gives an unphysical secular evolution of the inner eccentricity, confirmed by convergence to the hybrid result only at much smaller steps. The proposed remedy, BlogH, replaces $g_k$ with $g_{k,b}=1/(-U_b)$ using only the inner binary potential $U_b=-Gm_1m_2/r_{12}$, and approximates the corresponding drift function by $g_{d,b}=1/u_b$ with $u_b$ integrated during kick steps (Equation 18); this keeps the inner binary on the LogH Kepler-tracking integrator, treats the outer bodies with the same sDKD loop, and removes the need for time synchronization. The paper's quantitative claims are that BlogH is comparable to the H4 hybrid in accuracy, several times cheaper in step count, and that for the tested Kozai–Lidov triple it reproduces the converged eccentricity evolution with roughly 256 times fewer steps than LogH.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the approximate drift weight $g_{d,b}=1/u_b$, with $u_b$ updated by the midpoint formula in Equation 18, is faithful enough to the exact $g_{d,b}=1/(T+p_t+U-U_b)$ that the inner binary retains LogH's Kepler-tracing property and the overall map stays time symmetric; the paper supplies no formal error bound and validates it on only two triple families.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LogH should not be applied directly to hierarchical triples in star-cluster simulations; the same step size that is excellent for an isolated binary becomes second-order accurate once a third body is added.
  • Energy error alone cannot certify a correct orbit: in the Kozai–Lidov test, LogH models with small energy error gave an unphysical secular drift of the inner eccentricity, so convergence of the orbital elements themselves must be checked.
  • BlogH eliminates the time-synchronization overhead of the Hermite–LogH hybrid (H4), reducing total integration steps by a factor of 2–5 in the tested cases at comparable accuracy.
  • The perturbation ratio $R_p$ (Equation 29) provides a practical switching rule: for $R_p>1$ the original LogH is preferred over BlogH, so a general N-body code can choose per system.
  • The same construction extends to any hierarchical multiple system with a single innermost binary, such as a quadruple of a binary plus two outer single bodies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism is as general as stated, replacing the global potential by the dominant two-body potential in the time-transformation function should also benefit other regimes, such as planetary systems with passing stars, where the same periapsis-step dilution would otherwise occur.
  • Using a higher-order quadrature in place of the midpoint rule in Equation 18 may reduce the outer-orbit secular error that the paper attributes to the sDKD loop, a testable extension that could narrow the gap to the H4 method.
  • The switching criterion was calibrated on Kozai–Lidov triples at $t=2t_{\mathrm{KL}}$ using inner-eccentricity convergence; systems whose dominant error is in the outer orbit, or whose outer eccentricity is large, may need a different criterion, possibly based directly on the instantaneous inner–outer separation.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies the logarithmic time-transformed symplectic integrator (LogH, also known as algorithmic regularization) when applied to hierarchical triple systems. The central claim is that LogH tracks isolated Kepler orbits with errors near round-off, but that the presence of a third body, even a very weak one, destroys the Kepler-solver property and reduces the method to an ordinary second-order symplectic integrator. In Kozai-Lidov triples this can produce an unphysical secular drift of the inner eccentricity even when the energy error remains small. To address this, the author introduces a new hybrid integrator, BlogH, which uses LogH-type time transformation for the inner binary only and integrates the outer bodies with the same drift-kick-drift loop, avoiding the time synchronization required by the Hermite+LogH hybrid (H4). A switching criterion Rp > 1 is proposed for choosing between LogH and BlogH based on the perturbation ratio of the outer and inner orbits. The claims are supported by convergence tests over step size, precision (double vs 30-digit), method order (second- vs sixth-order compositions), and by comparisons among LogH, H4, and BlogH in two triple families.

Significance. If the central diagnostic is correct, the paper is valuable for the N-body community: it shows that energy error alone is an insufficient accuracy indicator for algorithmic regularization in hierarchical multiples, and it identifies a concrete mechanism for the loss of the Kepler-tracking property. The proposed BlogH scheme is simple to implement in existing LogH-based codes and offers a plausible efficiency advantage over synchronized Hermite+LogH schemes. The main claims are made credible by the convergence checks across several step sizes, two floating-point precisions, and multiple method variants, as well as by the independent agreement of H4 and very small-step LogH simulations in the Kozai-Lidov case. However, the derivation of the BlogH time transformation rests on an approximate discrete surrogate without an error bound, and the numerical validation covers only two triple families plus a calibration grid with circular outer orbits, so the breadth of the claimed advantage over LogH is not yet fully established. No formal proofs or machine-checked results are provided, but the numerical evidence is the appropriate form of validation for this type of methods paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, Eqs. (18), (23)–(25)] The definition gd,b = 1/ub is a load-bearing heuristic. The exact drift time transformation in Eq. (23) depends on the full potential, while Eq. (25) replaces it with the inverse of ub, which is advanced by the midpoint approximation in Eq. (18). No error bound is given for the deviation |ub − (−U_b)|, and the text does not show that the discrete update in Eq. (18) actually integrates Eq. (24) to the accuracy required to preserve the inner Kepler-tracking property. Since the accuracy and efficiency advantage of BlogH over LogH is the central claim of the paper, please provide either a local truncation error analysis showing ub = −U_b + O(Δs^2) with a statement about long-term drift, or numerical diagnostics (for example, time series of ub + U_b and the maximum deviation, plus convergence of inner orbital elements with Δs for a perturbed binary) over a wider range of perturbation strengths and outer eccentricities. Without this, the reported BlogH advantage could be configuration-dependent.
  2. [§4.3–4.4, Figs. 4, 5, 8] The identification of LogH behavior as 'unphysical' relies in part on reference solutions produced by the BlogH method family itself (BlogH-HP and BlogH-Y6-HP). In the Kozai-Lidov case the conclusion is independently corroborated by H4-Y6-S32 and by LogH runs at much smaller step sizes (S4096, S8192), which is reassuring. However, in the weak-perturber case of Figs. 4 and 5 the reference is BlogH-Y6-HP-S256, and the text does not state which panels depend solely on BlogH-family references. Please clarify this in the text and quantify the agreement between the H4 and BlogH reference orbits (for example, by reporting the maximum differences in ei and ai over the integration time). This would remove the circularity concern without changing the main conclusions.
  3. [§5, Eq. (29)] The switching criterion Rp > 1 is calibrated on a grid of Kozai-Lidov triples with circular outer orbits and fixed mutual inclination, and the paper itself states in the final paragraph of Section 5 that the criterion may not be suitable for eccentric or hyperbolic outer orbits. Given the abstract's phrasing 'criteria for switching between the LogH and BlogH methods for general triple systems', the test set is too narrow to support that generality. Either restrict the claim to quasi-circular Kozai-Lidov configurations or extend the validation to eccentric outer orbits and varied mutual inclinations, even if only for a subset of the parameter space.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'hierarichal' (abstract), 'sigularity' (Section 1, twice), 'orbitial' (Section 4.4), 'ploating style' (Figure 8 caption), and 'extropolation' (Section 6.2). A careful proofread is needed.
  2. [§2.1, Eq. (18) footnote] The footnote 'Here, u represents W as defined in Equation 12 of Mikkola & Aarseth (2002)' is confusing because W is already used for the extended phase-space vector in Eq. (2). Please use a distinct symbol or rephrase.
  3. [§4.3, Table 1 and Fig. 6] The wall-clock time comparison is acknowledged to be implementation-dependent, but it would help to state the compiler, optimization flags, and hardware used, and to note explicitly that the reported tw values are indicative rather than a benchmark of the algorithms.
  4. [§4.2] The paper states that BlogH is time symmetric but not symplectic. A short argument or demonstration of the time symmetry (for example, a reversal test) would strengthen this claim, since time symmetry is one of the advertised advantages over H4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the novel claims rest on independent numerical convergence and honestly labeled fitted criteria, not on self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not circular in the sense required by the analysis. The claim that LogH loses its Kepler-solver property for weak perturbers is supported by convergence tests across independent methods: LogH solutions are compared with H4-Y6-S32 (an independent Hermite+LogH hybrid) and with much smaller LogH steps (S512, S4096), so the 'unphysical' judgment is externally grounded rather than defined by the method itself. The BlogH method's time-transformation functions (Eqs. 21-25) are introduced as an approximation to the exact gd,b, following the explicit MA2002 construction; the paper states that the exact form 'depends on coordinates, making it unsuitable for the explicit method' and substitutes an integrated ub. This is a stated approximation, not a conclusion that assumes the claimed accuracy. No formal error bound is given for |ub - (-Ub)|, and the manuscript's claims about BlogH are therefore limited by numerical validation rather than by a self-referential derivation; this is a robustness concern, not circularity. The switching criterion Rp > 1 is obtained empirically from a grid of Kozai-Lidov simulations by locating the Re = 1 boundary, and the paper explicitly warns that 'this switching criterion is derived for the Kozal-Lidov triple and may not be suitable for all triple systems.' It is presented as a fitted heuristic, not as a prediction, and is not used to certify the main accuracy claims. Self-citations (Wang & Nitadori 2020; Wang et al. 2020a,b) provide published proofs, definitions, and code context; they are not invoked as unverified uniqueness theorems or as the sole support for the new hybrid method. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction. Accordingly, no specific circular step meets the evidentiary threshold, and the derivation chain is self-contained for the claims made.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; BlogH is a numerical integration scheme. The only free parameter is the empirical switching threshold. The axioms are standard numerical analysis results, domain assumptions about what counts as a reference solution, and the unproven approximation at the heart of BlogH.

free parameters (1)
  • Switching criterion threshold C (Rp > 1) = 1 (the Re = 1 curve lies between Rp contours C = 1 and C = 10)
    In Section 5 and Figure 12, the boundary where LogH and BlogH have equal convergence is identified from a 20x20 grid of m3 and ao; choosing C = 1 is an empirical fit, not a derived first-principles result.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Newtonian point-mass Hamiltonian and the extended Hamiltonian formalism of time-transformed symplectic integrators (Equations 1-7).
    The paper builds on Preto & Tremaine (1999), Mikkola & Tanikawa (1999), and Hairer (1997), using their framework without re-proving it.
  • standard math The LogH method traces Keplerian trajectories with only time-phase errors, as proven by Preto & Tremaine (1999) and Wang & Nitadori (2020).
    This Kepler-solver property is the baseline against which triple-system accuracy is measured; the paper cites the existing proofs.
  • domain assumption Convergence of H4, BlogH-HP, and very-small-step LogH indicates the true secular evolution of ei in the Kozai-Lidov tests.
    Figures 8 and 9 use agreement among these simulations as ground truth for 'physical' behavior, without an independent analytic or code benchmark.
  • ad hoc to paper The midpoint update of ub in Equation 18 is an adequate approximation for gd,b in BlogH, preserving time symmetry and the inner Kepler-tracking property.
    This approximation is the core of the BlogH construction; the paper validates it numerically but provides no formal error bound.
  • ad hoc to paper The switching condition Rp > 1, calibrated on the Kozai-Lidov grid, extends to other hierarchical triple systems.
    The paper itself acknowledges this criterion may not be suitable for highly eccentric outer orbits or hyperbolic encounters, so the generalization is an unproven assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New insight of time-transformed symplectic integrator I: hybrid methods for hierarchical triples." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/433W2VQH

@misc{pith2026241202124,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New insight of time-transformed symplectic integrator I: hybrid methods for hierarchical triples},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/433W2VQH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02124}
}
abstract

Accurate $N$-body simulations of multiple systems such as binaries and triples are essential for understanding the formation and evolution of interacting binaries and binary mergers, including gravitational wave sources, blue stragglers and X-ray binaries. The logarithmic time-transformed explicit symplectic integrator (LogH), also known as algorithmic regularization, is a state-of-the-art method for this purpose.However, we show that this method is accurate for isolated Kepler orbits because of its ability to trace Keplerian trajectories, but much less accurate for hierarichal triple systems. The method can lead to an unphysical secular evolution of inner eccentricity in Kozal-Lidov triples, despite a small energy error. We demonstrate that hybrid methods, which apply LogH to the inner binary and alternative methods to the outer bodies, are significantly more effective, though not symplectic. Additionally, we introduce a more efficient hybrid method, BlogH, which eliminates the need for time synchronization and is time symmetric. The method is implemented in the few-body code SDAR. We explore suitable criteria for switching between the LogH and BlogH methods for general triple systems. These hybrid methods have the potential to enhance the integration performance of hierarchial triples.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02124 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The diagram illustrates the initial conditions of the binary and triple for simulations. In the context of the triple system, the subscripts ”i” and ”O” in the orbital parameter symbols denote the inner and outer orbits, respectively. Note that there is a fourfold magnitude difference between ao and ai, and the outer circle and inner ellipse representing the outer and inner orbits of the triple do not reflect the tr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The energy error ϵ as a function of time for sim￾ulations of the binary (upper panel) and triple (lower panel) systems using the LogH method, with colors indicating ∆s. The dashed vertical line indicates the time of periapsis. where r12, r23 and r13 represent the separation between each pair of bodies. With these terms included, the LogH method cannot be regarded as a Kepler solver like integrator, thus undermining … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The illustration of three integration methods for time step treatment in a multiple system with one inner bi￾nary and outer bodies. an inner binary with components 1 and 2, and two outer bodies, 3 and 4, which do not form a binary. The dynam￾ics of the four bodies are integrated using Equations 8 and 9. However, only the innermost binary (compo￾nents 1 and 2) is used to calculate gk,b and gd,b through Equations 21, … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The energy errors ϵ as a function of time are com￾pared for the LogH, H4 BlogH methods, depending on ∆s, in simulating the orbital evolution of the triple system with a weakly perturbed binary. The first three panels display the results for each method, while the last …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The relative evolution of orbital parameters including semi-major axes and eccentricities of the inner and the outer orbits in the triple including a weakly perturbed binary. The columns represent different methods, while the colors indicate various values of ∆s [PITH…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The relationship between maximum ϵ and wall clock time tw for simulations of the triple system, which in￾cludes a weakly perturbed binary. The three methods are compared across different ∆s values (indicated on the plot), both with and without the Y6 method. aspects of…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The diagram illustrating the initial condition of the triple where the Kozai-Lidov effect induces high eccen￾tricity in the inner binary. 10 9 10 5 ai H4-Y6-S32 BlogH-Y6-S32 LogH-Y6-S32 LogH-Y6-S512 LogH-Y6-S4096 10 8 10 5 ao 0.8 1.0 ei 10 8 10 4 eo 10 5 10 1 0.00 0.25…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The relative evolution of orbital parameters for the Kozai-Lidov triple. The ploting style is similar to that of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The evolution of ei and ϵ in the simulations of the Kozai-Lidov triple using the LogH method with varying ∆s. Two major issues with the low accuracy of the LogH method are the unphysical evolution of ei and the sig￾nificant jump in ϵ when ei is close to 1. To investiga…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The relationship between maximum ϵ and wall clock time tw for simulations of the Kozai-Lidov triple sys￾tem. The plotting style is similar to that of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The evolution of ei and ϵ for three typical simulations of the Kozai-Lidov triple, each with varying ao values. From left to right, the ei evolution shows binary disruption, irregular evolution, and regular oscillation. The LogH and BlogH methods are represented in di…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The color map displaying the ratio of δei be￾tween the LogH and BlogH results, denoted as Re, where δei represents the difference in ei between S16 and S256 at 2tKL. The contour illustrates the perturbation ratio Rp of the outer and inner orbits. When Re > 1, the Blog…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Cumulative absolute integration errors for an extremely eccentric binary (1 − e = 1 × 10−8 ) using the original LogH and MA2002 methods. The absolute energy errors (ϵ), the absolute extended Hamiltonian (|Γ|) and the approximated |Γ| from Equation A1 are compared. The…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The change in Γ during a single integration step relative to the ratio of the distances between the binary components before and after integration (the ratio of the maximum to the minimum distance). Simulations of the highly eccentric binary using the original LogH me…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Cumulative absolute integration errors for the extremely eccentric binary (1 − e = 1 × 10−8 ) are compared using the original LogH and MA2002 methods, with time integrated over 106 periods and two values of ∆s, S4 and S256. To investigate the long-term behavior of the…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Cumulative absolute integration errors for the same triple, including a weakly perturbed binary, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Cumulative absolute integration errors for triples, similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [4]

    Aarseth , S. J. 2003, Gravitational N-Body Simulations

    2003

  4. [5]

    2012, , 422, 841, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20666.x

    ---. 2012, , 422, 841, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20666.x

    arXiv 2012

  5. [6]

    R., Miocchi , P., & Vesperini , E

    Alessandrini , E., Lanzoni , B., Ferraro , F. R., Miocchi , P., & Vesperini , E. 2016, , 833, 252, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/252

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/252 2016

  6. [7]

    Antognini , J. M. O. 2015, , 452, 3610, 10.1093/mnras/stv1552

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1552 2015

  7. [8]

    L., et al

    Antonini , F., Chatterjee , S., Rodriguez , C. L., et al. 2016, , 816, 65, 10.3847/0004-637X/816/2/65

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/816/2/65 2016

  8. [9]

    2020, , 492, 2936, 10.1093/mnras/stz3584

    Antonini , F., & Gieles , M. 2020, , 492, 2936, 10.1093/mnras/stz3584

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3584 2020

Show all 90 references
  1. [10]

    2014, , 781, 45, 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/45

    Antonini , F., Murray , N., & Mikkola , S. 2014, , 781, 45, 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/45

    2014 doi

  2. [11]

    Antonini , F., Toonen , S., & Hamers , A. S. 2017, , 841, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f5e

    2017 doi

  3. [12]

    2017, , 464, L36, 10.1093/mnrasl/slw177

    Askar , A., Szkudlarek , M., Gondek-Rosi \'n ska , D., Giersz , M., & Bulik , T. 2017, , 464, L36, 10.1093/mnrasl/slw177

    2017 doi

  4. [13]

    Bae , Y.-B., Kim , C., & Lee , H. M. 2014, , 440, 2714, 10.1093/mnras/stu381

    2014 doi

  5. [14]

    Bailyn , C. D. 1995, , 33, 133, 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.001025

    1995

  6. [15]

    2017, , 467, 524, 10.1093/mnras/stw3392

    Banerjee , S. 2017, , 467, 524, 10.1093/mnras/stw3392

    2017 doi

  7. [16]

    2018, , 473, 909, 10.1093/mnras/stx2347

    ---. 2018, , 473, 909, 10.1093/mnras/stx2347

    2018 doi

  8. [17]

    2020, , 102, 103002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.103002

    ---. 2020, , 102, 103002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.103002

    2020 doi

  9. [18]

    2021, , 503, 3371, 10.1093/mnras/stab591

    ---. 2021, , 503, 3371, 10.1093/mnras/stab591

    2021 doi

  10. [19]

    2010, , 402, 371, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15880.x

    Banerjee , S., Baumgardt , H., & Kroupa , P. 2010, , 402, 371, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15880.x

    2010

  11. [21]

    A., Sills , A., & Glebbeek , E

    Chatterjee , S., Rasio , F. A., Sills , A., & Glebbeek , E. 2013, , 777, 106, 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/106

    2013 doi

  12. [22]

    L., & Rasio , F

    Chatterjee , S., Rodriguez , C. L., & Rasio , F. A. 2017, , 834, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/68

    2017 doi

  13. [23]

    N., Giacobbo , N., Mapelli , M., et al

    Di Carlo , U. N., Giacobbo , N., Mapelli , M., et al. 2019, , 487, 2947, 10.1093/mnras/stz1453

    2019 doi

  14. [24]

    2023, , 675, A89, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245219

    Donada , J., Anders , F., Jordi , C., et al. 2023, , 675, A89, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245219

    2023 doi

  15. [25]

    Downing , J. M. B., Benacquista , M. J., Giersz , M., & Spurzem , R. 2010, , 407, 1946, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17040.x

    2010

  16. [26]

    2013, , 51, 269, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602

    Duch \^e ne , G., & Kraus , A. 2013, , 51, 269, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602

    2013 doi

  17. [27]

    P., & Kiseleva-Eggleton , L

    Eggleton , P. P., & Kiseleva-Eggleton , L. 2001, , 562, 1012, 10.1086/323843

    2001 doi

  18. [28]

    2007, , 669, 1298, 10.1086/521702

    Fabrycky , D., & Tremaine , S. 2007, , 669, 1298, 10.1086/521702

    2007 doi

  19. [29]

    J., & Kobayashi , S

    Fern \'a ndez , J. J., & Kobayashi , S. 2019, , 487, 1200, 10.1093/mnras/stz1353

    2019 doi

  20. [30]

    B., Kozinsky , B., & Rasio , F

    Ford , E. B., Kozinsky , B., & Rasio , F. A. 2000, , 535, 385, 10.1086/308815

    2000 doi

  21. [31]

    2019, , 488, 728, 10.1093/mnras/stz1723

    Fragione , G., & Antonini , F. 2019, , 488, 728, 10.1093/mnras/stz1723

    2019 doi

  22. [32]

    2019, , 486, 4443, 10.1093/mnras/stz1131

    Fragione , G., & Loeb , A. 2019, , 486, 4443, 10.1093/mnras/stz1131

    2019 doi

  23. [33]

    S., Tanikawa , A., & Makino , J

    Fujii , M. S., Tanikawa , A., & Makino , J. 2017, , 69, 94, 10.1093/pasj/psx108

    2017 doi

  24. [34]

    2023, , 674, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243782

    Gaia Collaboration , Arenou , F., Babusiaux , C., et al. 2023, , 674, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243782

    2023 doi

  25. [35]

    Gon c alves Ferrari , G., Boekholt , T., & Portegies Zwart , S. F. 2014, , 440, 719, 10.1093/mnras/stu282

    2014 doi

  26. [36]

    1997, Applied Numerical Mathematics, 25, 219, 10.1016/S0168-9274(97)00061-5

    Hairer, E. 1997, Applied Numerical Mathematics, 25, 219, 10.1016/S0168-9274(97)00061-5

    1997 doi

  27. [37]

    Hamers , A. S. 2018, , 476, 4139, 10.1093/mnras/sty428

    2018 doi

  28. [38]

    2020, , 494, 5492, 10.1093/mnras/staa1084

    ---. 2020, , 494, 5492, 10.1093/mnras/staa1084

    2020 doi

  29. [39]

    S., Perets , H

    Hamers , A. S., Perets , H. B., Antonini , F., & Portegies Zwart , S. F. 2015, , 449, 4221, 10.1093/mnras/stv452

    2015 doi

  30. [40]

    S., & Portegies Zwart , S

    Hamers , A. S., & Portegies Zwart , S. F. 2016, , 459, 2827, 10.1093/mnras/stw784

    2016 doi

  31. [41]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  32. [42]

    Heggie , D. C. 1975, , 173, 729, 10.1093/mnras/173.3.729

    1975 doi

  33. [43]

    C., Trenti , M., & Hut , P

    Heggie , D. C., Trenti , M., & Hut , P. 2006, , 368, 677, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10122.x

    2006

  34. [44]

    1961, Annales d'Astrophysique, 24, 369

    H \'e non , M. 1961, Annales d'Astrophysique, 24, 369

    1961

  35. [45]

    M., & Bertschinger , E

    Hernandez , D. M., & Bertschinger , E. 2015, , 452, 1934, 10.1093/mnras/stv1439

    2015 doi

  36. [46]

    M., & Dehnen , W

    Hernandez , D. M., & Dehnen , W. 2023, , 522, 4639, 10.1093/mnras/stad657

    2023 doi

  37. [47]

    Hills , J. G. 1975, , 80, 809, 10.1086/111815

    1975 doi

  38. [48]

    2020, , 498, 4287, 10.1093/mnras/staa2677

    Hong , J., Askar , A., Giersz , M., Hypki , A., & Yoon , S.-J. 2020, , 498, 4287, 10.1093/mnras/staa2677

    2020 doi

  39. [49]

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

    2007 doi

  40. [50]

    R., Tout , C

    Hurley , J. R., Tout , C. A., Aarseth , S. J., & Pols , O. R. 2001, , 323, 630, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04220.x

    2001

  41. [51]

    2013, , 429, 1221, 10.1093/mnras/sts415

    Hypki , A., & Giersz , M. 2013, , 429, 1221, 10.1093/mnras/sts415

    2013 doi

  42. [52]

    L., Amaro-Seoane , P., et al

    Kremer , K., Rodriguez , C. L., Amaro-Seoane , P., et al. 2019, , 99, 063003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.063003

    2019 doi

  43. [53]

    1995, , 277, 1491, 10.1093/mnras/277.4.1491

    Kroupa , P. 1995, , 277, 1491, 10.1093/mnras/277.4.1491

    1995 doi

  44. [54]

    S., & Tanikawa , A

    Kumamoto , J., Fujii , M. S., & Tanikawa , A. 2019, , 486, 3942, 10.1093/mnras/stz1068

    2019 doi

  45. [55]

    1965, Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal), 1965, 204, 10.1515/crll.1965.218.204

    Kustaanheimo, P., & STIEFEL, E. 1965, Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal), 1965, 204, 10.1515/crll.1965.218.204

    1965 doi

  46. [56]

    2011, , 416, 1410, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19136.x

    Leigh , N., Sills , A., & Knigge , C. 2011, , 416, 1410, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19136.x

    2011

  47. [57]

    2018, , 863, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad09f

    Liu , B., & Lai , D. 2018, , 863, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad09f

    2018 doi

  48. [58]

    2019, , 483, 4060, 10.1093/mnras/sty3432

    ---. 2019, , 483, 4060, 10.1093/mnras/sty3432

    2019 doi

  49. [59]

    A., & Shapiro , S

    Lombardi , James C., J., Rasio , F. A., & Shapiro , S. L. 1996, , 468, 797, 10.1086/177736

    1996 doi

  50. [60]

    2002, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 84, 343, 10.1023/A:1021149313347

    Mikkola , S., & Aarseth , S. 2002, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 84, 343, 10.1023/A:1021149313347

    2002 doi

  51. [61]

    Mikkola , S., & Aarseth , S. J. 1996, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 64, 197, 10.1007/BF00728347

    1996 doi

  52. [62]

    1999, , 310, 745, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02982.x

    Mikkola , S., & Tanikawa , K. 1999, , 310, 745, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02982.x

    1999

  53. [63]

    2017, , 230, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    Moe , M., & Di Stefano , R. 2017, , 230, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    2017 doi

  54. [64]

    Offner , S. S. R., Moe , M., Kratter , K. M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 275, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10066

    2023 doi arXiv

  55. [65]

    M., Bae , Y.-B., & Belczynski , K

    Park , D., Kim , C., Lee , H. M., Bae , Y.-B., & Belczynski , K. 2017, , 469, 4665, 10.1093/mnras/stx1015

    2017 doi

  56. [66]

    B., & Fabrycky , D

    Perets , H. B., & Fabrycky , D. C. 2009, , 697, 1048, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1048

    2009 doi

  57. [67]

    B., & Kratter , K

    Perets , H. B., & Kratter , K. M. 2012, , 760, 99, 10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/99

    2012 doi

  58. [68]

    2009, , 14, 369, 10.1016/j.newast.2008.10.006

    Portegies Zwart , S., McMillan , S., Harfst , S., et al. 2009, , 14, 369, 10.1016/j.newast.2008.10.006

    2009 doi

  59. [69]

    1999, , 118, 2532, 10.1086/301102

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

    1999 doi

  60. [70]

    2018, , 864, 134, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad7fe

    Randall , L., & Xianyu , Z.-Z. 2018, , 864, 134, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad7fe

    2018 doi

  61. [71]

    P., et al

    Rantala , A., Naab , T., Rizzuto , F. P., et al. 2023, , 522, 5180, 10.1093/mnras/stad1360

    2023 doi

  62. [72]

    H., & Naab , T

    Rantala , A., Pihajoki , P., Mannerkoski , M., Johansson , P. H., & Naab , T. 2020, , 492, 4131, 10.1093/mnras/staa084

    2020 doi

  63. [73]

    2019, , 483, 1233, 10.1093/mnras/sty3193

    Rastello , S., Amaro-Seoane , P., Arca-Sedda , M., et al. 2019, , 483, 1233, 10.1093/mnras/sty3193

    2019 doi

  64. [74]

    M., Tamayo , D., et al

    Rein , H., Hernandez , D. M., Tamayo , D., et al. 2019, , 485, 5490, 10.1093/mnras/stz769

    2019 doi

  65. [75]

    L., Chatterjee , S., & Rasio , F

    Rodriguez , C. L., Chatterjee , S., & Rasio , F. A. 2016 a , , 93, 084029, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.084029

    2016 doi

  66. [76]

    L., Haster , C.-J., Chatterjee , S., Kalogera , V., & Rasio , F

    Rodriguez , C. L., Haster , C.-J., Chatterjee , S., Kalogera , V., & Rasio , F. A. 2016 b , , 824, L8, 10.3847/2041-8205/824/1/L8

    2016 doi

  67. [77]

    2018 a , , 855, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaab52

    Samsing , J., Askar , A., & Giersz , M. 2018 a , , 855, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaab52

    2018 doi

  68. [78]

    Samsing , J., & D'Orazio , D. J. 2018, , 481, 5445, 10.1093/mnras/sty2334

    2018 doi

  69. [79]

    J., Askar , A., & Giersz , M

    Samsing , J., D'Orazio , D. J., Askar , A., & Giersz , M. 2018 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1802.08654, 10.48550/arXiv.1802.08654

    2018 doi arXiv

  70. [80]

    J., & Liu , B

    Samsing , J., Hendriks , K., Zwick , L., D'Orazio , D. J., & Liu , B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.05625, 10.48550/arXiv.2403.05625

    2024 doi arXiv

  71. [81]

    E., de Koter , A., et al

    Sana , H., de Mink , S. E., de Koter , A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444, 10.1126/science.1223344

    2012 doi

  72. [82]

    Sills , A., Adams , T., & Davies , M. B. 2005, , 358, 716, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08809.x

    2005

  73. [83]

    2013, , 435, 1358, 10.1093/mnras/stt1380

    Tanikawa , A. 2013, , 435, 1358, 10.1093/mnras/stt1380

    2013 doi

  74. [84]

    J., Fragione , G., & Chatterjee , S

    Tiwari , A., Vijaykumar , A., Kapadia , S. J., Fragione , G., & Chatterjee , S. 2024, , 527, 8586, 10.1093/mnras/stad3749

    2024 doi

  75. [85]

    A., & Spera , M

    Trani , A. A., & Spera , M. 2023, in The Predictive Power of Computational Astrophysics as a Discover Tool, ed. D. Bisikalo , D. Wiebe , & C. Boily , Vol. 362, 404--409, 10.1017/S1743921322001818

    2023 doi

  76. [86]

    S., & Tanikawa , A

    Wang , L., Fujii , M. S., & Tanikawa , A. 2021, , 504, 5778, 10.1093/mnras/stab1157

    2021 doi

  77. [87]

    2020 a , , 497, 536, 10.1093/mnras/staa1915

    Wang , L., Iwasawa , M., Nitadori , K., & Makino , J. 2020 a , , 497, 536, 10.1093/mnras/staa1915

    2020 doi

  78. [88]

    2020, , 497, 4384, 10.1093/mnras/staa2295

    Wang , L., & Nitadori , K. 2020, , 497, 4384, 10.1093/mnras/staa2295

    2020 doi

  79. [89]

    2020 b , , 493, 3398, 10.1093/mnras/staa480

    Wang , L., Nitadori , K., & Makino , J. 2020 b , , 493, 3398, 10.1093/mnras/staa480

    2020 doi

  80. [90]

    C., Fragione , G., Kremer , K., et al

    Weatherford , N. C., Fragione , G., Kremer , K., et al. 2021, , 907, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/abd79c

    2021 doi

  81. [91]

    1991, , 102, 1528, 10.1086/115978

    Wisdom , J., & Holman , M. 1991, , 102, 1528, 10.1086/115978

    1991 doi

  82. [92]

    1990, Physics Letters A, 150, 262, 10.1016/0375-9601(90)90092-3

    Yoshida, H. 1990, Physics Letters A, 150, 262, 10.1016/0375-9601(90)90092-3

    1990 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.