Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Ultraluminous X-ray sources in Globular Clusters

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that globular clusters both feed and eject ultraluminous X-ray sources, with about 96% of in-cluster ULXs powered by black holes and ejected 'escaper' ULXs making up roughly one-seventh of all cluster-born ULXs.

desk verdict First MOCCA census of GC ULXs with a genuinely new escaper channel, but the headline ratios are threshold products of an unbeamed luminosity model and small samples — treat as indicative, not measured. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06037 v3 pith:CMMATF5X submitted 2025-01-10 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Grzegorz Wiktorowicz , Mirek Giersz , Abbas Askar , Arkadiusz Hypki , Lucas Helstrom This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords ultraluminousX-raysourcesglobularclustersblackholeaccretorsneutronstardynamicalinteractionsMonteCarloclusterevolutionescaperbinariesbinarypopulations
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 where ultraluminous X-ray sources (ULXs) come from when their birth environment is a globular cluster rather than the field. Using Monte Carlo simulations that follow both stellar dynamics and binary evolution, it argues that dense-cluster encounters both create ULX progenitors and destroy or eject them, so dynamics is a two-sided agent. The central quantitative claims are that about 96% of in-cluster ULXs in globular clusters harbor black hole accretors, that only about 4% contain neutron stars, and that ULXs ejected from clusters ('escapers') make up about one-seventh of all cluster-born ULXs while being roughly twice as common as in-cluster ULXs when the accretor is a neutron star. If these numbers hold, field ULX surveys are partly counting cluster runaways, and the absence of ULXs in Milky Way globular clusters is a natural consequence of their old stellar populations and tidal filling.

What carries the argument

The central object is a Monte Carlo globular cluster evolution code that combines orbit-averaged stellar dynamics with detailed binary stellar evolution and few-body scattering prescriptions. The argument runs on two load-bearing mechanisms. The first is the X-ray luminosity prescription of Eq. (1): the Shakura-Sunyaev disk formula in the sub-Eddington regime and a logarithmic, super-Eddington extension $L_X = L_{\rm Edd}[1+\ln(\dot M/\dot M_{\rm Edd})]$ above the Eddington rate, with accretion efficiency $\eta_{0.1}=1$ and no beaming. The second is the code's tracking of escapers: binaries that leave the cluster through few-body encounters, supernova kicks, relaxation, or tidal stripping and later enter the ULX phase in the field. Both mechanisms work together to produce the population ratios that define the paper's conclusions.

What would settle it

Run the same cluster simulations with beaming included: if beamed apparent luminosities push a sizable number of neutron-star accretors above $10^{39}\,{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}$, the 96%/4% black hole versus neutron star split and the 1:7 escaper ratio will shift. Observationally, search for coherent pulsations among ULXs offset from their host globular clusters; the paper's roughly 40% neutron star fraction among escapers predicts that off-cluster ULXs in galaxies like the Antennae should show pulsar-type accretion signatures far more often than in-cluster globular cluster ULXs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that globular clusters are a genuine, dynamically sculpted birthplace for ULXs, with a population structure distinct from the field. In the simulations, dynamical hardening and binary exchanges create ULX progenitors that would not form from isolated stellar evolution, while strong encounters and tidal stripping remove others; the net result is that non-tidally filling clusters host far more ULXs than tidally filling ones, and the oldest clusters produce almost none. Across the simulated sample, the ULX population is overwhelmingly black-hole-driven: roughly 96% of in-cluster ULXs have black hole accretors, and the fraction is even higher in clusters younger than about 300 Myr. Neutron-star accretors dominate only among the escapers, at about 40% of that population, and escaper ULXs with neutron star accretors are about twice as common as their in-cluster counterparts. The paper therefore concludes that the Milky Way's lack of globular cluster ULXs fits tidally filling models, and that field ULX samples are likely polluted by cluster ejecta.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that X-ray luminosity is correctly computed from the unbeamed Shakura-Sunyaev plus logarithmic super-Eddington formula of Eq. (1) with efficiency $\eta_{0.1}=1$, so that every population ratio (96% black holes, 1:7 escapers, 40% neutron stars among escapers) is determined by which simulated binaries cross the $10^{39}\,{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}$ ULX threshold; if beaming were included, apparent luminosities and therefore the ratios would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If roughly 96% of in-cluster globular cluster ULXs are powered by black holes, then searches for coherent pulsations in extragalactic globular cluster ULXs should mostly fail, and ULX pulsar detections inside clusters would be rare events.
  • Escaper ULXs constitute about one-seventh of all ULXs born in clusters, so field ULX catalogs contain a non-negligible population of cluster runaways with dynamically imprinted orbital properties.
  • Non-tidally filling clusters produce substantially more ULXs than tidally filling ones, so galaxy-wide globular cluster ULX numbers depend sensitively on cluster orbital radii and tidal stripping.
  • The near-absence of ULXs in Milky Way globular clusters is consistent with old stellar populations and initially tidally filling clusters, rather than requiring exotic explanations.
  • Intermediate-mass black hole powered ULXs, when present, form exclusively in dense non-tidally filling two-population clusters and can contribute 16-44% of a cluster's ULX budget.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because every population ratio in the paper is defined by crossing the $10^{39}\,{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}$ threshold, including beaming (which the paper defers) would change apparent luminosities and could shift the 96%/4% and 1:7 numbers; the qualitative picture of a dynamically active cluster ULX population should survive, but the quantitative ratios are threshold-dependent.
  • The escaper channel adds a new ingredient to field population synthesis: a sub-population of ULXs whose initial conditions were set by cluster dynamics before ejection, potentially explaining offsets between ULX positions and star-forming regions without invoking intermediate-mass black holes.
  • A targeted observational test would be to measure the fraction of neutron star accretors among ULXs spatially offset from their host clusters in galaxies like the Antennae; the paper's roughly 40% neutron star fraction among escapers predicts more pulsating ULXs off-cluster than on-cluster.
  • The model's treatment of multiple stellar populations suggests that the second, more concentrated generation boosts ULX formation, so globular clusters with strong multiple-population signatures might be the best candidates for future globular cluster ULX detections.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first numerical population-synthesis study of ultraluminous X-ray sources (ULXs) in globular clusters (GCs), using the MOCCA Monte Carlo code with BSE stellar/binary evolution. It explores how initial binary fraction, tidal filling, and multiple stellar populations affect the formation and evolution of in-cluster and dynamically ejected ("escaper") ULXs. The principal claims are that approximately 96% of in-cluster ULXs have black hole accretors, that escaper ULXs constitute about one-seventh of all GC-born ULXs but are nearly twice as common as in-cluster ULXs when the accretor is a neutron star, and that the scarcity of ULXs in old/tidally filling Milky Way GCs is explained by old stellar populations and tidal stripping.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, this is a useful first step toward predicting GC ULX populations and quantifying the contamination of field ULXs by cluster ejecta. The qualitative picture—dynamics both creates and ejects ULX progenitors, NS accretors are more prominent among escapers, and tidally filling clusters are less prolific—is coherent and likely robust. The paper also ships publicly available simulation data, which is commendable. However, the headline quantitative ratios are threshold-defined and rest on an unbeamed luminosity model plus small numbers of rare NS ULXs, so the specific percentages should be treated with caution until the sensitivity is quantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.4, Eq. (1)] The X-ray luminosity prescription in Eq. (1) assumes isotropic emission and an accretion efficiency η0.1=1, with no beaming; Section 4.4 explicitly defers beaming to future work. Because the headline claims (96% BH / 4% NS in-cluster, the 1:7 escaper ratio, and the 2:1 NS escaper ratio) are all classifications based on the 10^39 erg/s threshold, and because NS ULXs in Table 6 have median log10 LX,max ≈ 39.22, only about 0.2 dex above threshold, a beaming correction can move a substantial fraction of NS systems across the threshold or change their detection weight. The authors should test the sensitivity of the reported fractions to beaming, for example by applying the King (2009) or Wiktorowicz et al. (2019) prescription to the simulated mass-transfer histories, or by quoting how the ratios change under limiting beaming assumptions.
  2. [Section 3.8, Table 6] The text states that in-cluster ULXs have a median count of 176 and that escapers are one-seventh of the total ULX population, but Table 6 gives median counts of 7 (NS) + 142.5 (BH) = 149.5 for in-cluster and 12.5 (NS) + 19.0 (BH) = 31.5 for escapers, corresponding to a ratio of about 1:4.7 rather than 1:7. In addition, the 10–90 percentile ranges for the NS counts (in-cluster 7 with +89/−6; escaper 12.5 with +25/−10) overlap substantially, so the claimed 2:1 preponderance of NS escapers over in-cluster NS ULXs, and hence the 96%/4% in-cluster BH/NS split, are not statistically established at the precision claimed. The authors should report the per-simulation distribution of the fractions and provide a statistical significance test.
  3. [Section 2.2, Table A.1] Each set of initial conditions is represented by a single simulation, and the paper itself notes strong stochastic variability (e.g., Section 3.1 and the discussion of E[NULX]). The 10–90 percentile ranges in Table 6 are therefore not confidence intervals on a population mean but ranges over one realization per model; the rare NS ULX counts that underpin the main ratios are subject to Poisson noise. The quantitative conclusions should either be downgraded to reflect this small-sample limitation or supported by additional realizations or seed variations.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] In the abstract, "only4%" should read "only 4%".
  2. [Section 1] The sentence beginning "Given their presence in older stellar populations, GCULXs are likely powered by low-mass X-ray binaries..." appears twice in the final paragraph of the introduction and should be deduplicated.
  3. [Section 3.5] The word "strenghtening" should be corrected to "strengthening".
  4. [Table A.1 notes] The note for "th,rel - Spitzer half-mass relaxation time" lists units of [M⊙], but a timescale should be expressed in units of time (e.g., Myr); check whether the column was mislabeled.
  5. [Section 3.8] The statement that in-cluster ULXs have a median count of 176 conflicts with Table 6, whose sum is 149.5; if the 176 value comes from a different time integration or an alternative weighting, the text should define it explicitly.
  6. [Section 5] "Among escaper, ULXs" should read "Among escapers, ULXs".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No material circularity: the central ULX population ratios are emergent outputs of the MOCCA/BSE simulations, and the paper's self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—the roughly 96% BH / 4% NS split among in-cluster ULXs, the escapers constituting about one-seventh of GC-born ULXs, and the NS escaper excess—are computed by applying the fixed luminosity prescription in Eq. (1) to binaries produced by MOCCA/BSE dynamical and stellar evolution. Eq. (1) is a standard Shakura-Sunyaev plus logarithmic super-Eddington formula with eta0.1 = 1 and no beaming; it is not fitted to reproduce the observed GC ULX counts or the ratios that the paper reports. The simulation inputs are standard IMF, binary period, supernova kick, and common-envelope prescriptions, and the results are compared against external observational catalogs. The self-citations (Hypki & Giersz 2013; Wiktorowicz et al. 2017, 2019; Giersz et al. 2024) describe the simulation machinery and earlier field-population models; they are used as tools and comparison points, not as a uniqueness theorem or as fitted constraints that force the conclusions. The deferred beaming correction (Section 4.4) is a stated modeling limitation that affects luminosities near the 10^39 erg/s threshold, but it is a forward-modeling sensitivity, not a circular reduction of the results to the inputs. No circular step meeting the quoted-evidence standard was identified.

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

The central quantitative results depend on a small set of physics prescriptions (super-Eddington accretion, common envelope, natal kicks, supernova mechanism) and on the MOCCA code's dynamical approximation; these are all inputs from prior literature rather than new derivations, so the ledger reflects model assumptions rather than hidden fitting.

free parameters (7)
  • Accretion efficiency eta0.1 = 1
    Section 2.1 sets eta = 10 eta0.1 with eta0.1 = 1; this enters the Eddington rate and the ULX luminosity threshold for every simulated source.
  • Common envelope parameters alpha, lambda = alpha=0.5, lambda=0.0
    BSE parameters adopted in Section 2.2; they control whether binaries survive common envelope, a key step toward ULX formation.
  • Neutron star natal kick sigma = 265 km/s (Hobbs 2005); 3 km/s for electron-capture SNe
    Section 2.2; kick strength determines how many NS binaries become escapers, directly shaping the escaper ULX fraction.
  • Initial binary fraction fbin = 0.10 or 0.95
    Section 2.2; varied initial condition shown to have limited effect on in-cluster ULXs but strong effect on field controls.
  • Metallicity Z = 0.001
    Section 2.2; fixed as typical for Galactic GCs; affects stellar evolution and remnant masses, and results are not tested at other metallicities.
  • Initial tidal radius normalization = Rtid ~= 43 pc (Rgc scaled)
    Section 2.2; converts a grid of Rgc choices into the TF/nTF dichotomy that is one of the paper's main results.
  • Second population delay time = tdelay=100 Myr, tdelay_fraction=0.5
    Section 2.2; ad hoc implementation of multiple stellar populations in MOCCA, used in NF models.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Shakura-Sunyaev disk model with logarithmic super-Eddington correction (Eq. 1) maps accretion rate to X-ray luminosity.
    Used in Section 2.1 for all LX computations; if the true ULX luminosity has beaming or different super-Eddington scaling, all population ratios change.
  • domain assumption Rapid supernova mechanism of Fryer et al. (2012) determines NS/BH formation and fallback.
    Adopted in Section 2.2; sets compact object masses and kicks, hence BH versus NS ULX fractions.
  • domain assumption MOCCA Monte Carlo evolution with FEWBODY interactions accurately approximates cluster dynamics and binary encounters.
    The entire study rests on this code; the paper cites Hypki and Giersz (2013) and later upgrades but does not validate against direct N-body in this paper.
  • domain assumption Escaped systems evolve as isolated field binaries with no further dynamical encounters.
    Section 2.2 and 3.8; the escaper ULX predictions depend on this simplification.
  • domain assumption Kroupa IMF and specified mass ratio and period distributions represent GC stellar populations.
    Section 2.2; initial conditions for both populations and binaries.
  • domain assumption King model initial conditions with W0=3.0 and W0=7.0 capture the relevant density structure.
    Section 2.2; sets encounter rates and whether clusters are tidally filling.
  • ad hoc to paper The E[NULX] observational probability weighting is a valid way to convert simulated ULX phases into observable numbers.
    Defined only in footnote 5 (Section 3.1); the probability itself is not specified, yet all quantitative results use E[NULX].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultraluminous X-ray sources in Globular Clusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CMMATF5X

@misc{pith2026250106037,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultraluminous X-ray sources in Globular Clusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CMMATF5X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06037}
}
read the original abstract

This paper investigates the formation, populations, and evolutionary paths of UltraLuminous X-ray Sources (ULXs) within Globular Clusters (GCs). ULXs, characterised by their extreme X-ray luminosities, present a challenge to our understanding of accretion physics and compact object formation. While previous studies have largely focused on field populations, this research examines the unique environment of GCs, where dynamical interactions play a significant role. Using the MOCCA Monte Carlo code, we explore how dynamics influences ULX populations within these dense stellar clusters. Our findings reveal that dynamical processes, such as binary hardening and exchanges, can both facilitate and impede ULX formation in GCs. The study explores the impact of parameters including the initial binary fraction, tidal filling, and multiple stellar populations on the evolution of ULXs. We find that non-tidally filling clusters exhibit significantly larger ULX populations compared to tidally filling ones. The results indicate that the apparent scarcity of ULXs in GCs may be related to the older stellar populations of GCs relative to the field. Furthermore, the study identifies a population of "escaper" ULXs, which originate in GCs but are ejected and emit X-rays outside the cluster. These escapers may significantly contribute to the observed field ULX population.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06037 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the origins and eventual lo￾cations of ULX progenitors and ULXs in GCs. Progenitors can either form and remain bound to the cluster, leading to in-cluster ULX emission ("IN-CLUSTER"), or be dynamically ejected and emit as ULXs outside the cluster ("ESCAPER"). Additionally, ULXs originating and emitting in the field ("FIELD") represent progenitors formed without direct interaction with clu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of ULX numbers in GCs. Expected number of ULXs (E[NULX]) as a function of time since GC formation. All simulations with non-zero expected rates are presented. The line indicates the number of simulations with non-zero predictions (i.e., number of dots in this time bin). Each time bin spans 300 Myr and the points are centered on these bins. through electron-capture supernovae were assigned sub￾stantially lo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comprehensive overview of the E[NULX] evolution since the formation of a GC. Each panel represents a set of simulations with identical parameters: number of populations (Npop), concentration (Rh,2/Rh,1), binary fraction (fbin), and the presence of new features (NF). Within each panel, ULX populations from various environments are presented: tidally filling (TF) GC, non￾tidally filling (nTF) GC, nodyn (binaries evolv… view at source ↗

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. Spectral Insights and Evolutionary Pathways of Globular Cluster ULX in NGC 1399: A Two-Decade X-ray and Optical Study

    astro-ph.HE 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GCU7, a bright X-ray and optical source in a globular cluster in NGC 1399, is best explained as a young neutron star accreting from a helium white dwarf, not an intermediate-mass black hole tidally disrupting a star.

  2. Radio Continuum Studies of Ultra-Compact and Short Orbital Period X-Ray Binaries

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A radio survey of 16 ultra-compact X-ray binaries yields upper limits and shows no correlation between radio luminosity and orbital period, while host globular clusters are denser with higher encounter rates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Allak, S., Akyuz, A., Sonbas, E., & Dhuga, K. S. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 3632

    2022

  2. [2]

    F., & Mezcua, M

    Askar, A., Baldassare, V. F., & Mezcua, M. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.12118

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    A., Walton, D

    Bachetti, M., Harrison, F. A., Walton, D. J., et al. 2014, Nature, 514, 202

    2014

  4. [4]

    & Lardo, C

    Bastian, N. & Lardo, C. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 83

    2018

  5. [5]

    & Hilker, M

    Baumgardt, H. & Hilker, M. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1520

    2018

  6. [6]

    A., et al

    Belczynski, K., Kalogera, V., Rasio, F. A., et al. 2008, ApJS, 174, 223

    2008

  7. [7]

    E., Askar, A., & Ciecielåg, P

    Belloni, D., Giersz, M., Rivera Sandoval, L. E., Askar, A., & Ciecielåg, P. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 315

    2019

  8. [8]

    R., et al

    Belloni, D., Zorotovic, M., Schreiber, M. R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2429

    2017

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    Benacquista, M. J. & Downing, J. M. B. 2013, Living Reviews in Relativity, 16, 4

    2013

  2. [10]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 51

    Brightman, M., Hameury, J.-M., Lasota, J.-P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 51

    2023

  3. [11]

    & Rodriguez, C

    Cabrera, T. & Rodriguez, C. L. 2023, ApJ, 953, 19

    2023

  4. [12]

    & Hut, P

    Casertano, S. & Hut, P. 1985, ApJ, 298, 80

    1985

  5. [13]

    C., Kundu, A., Thygesen, E., et al

    Dage, K. C., Kundu, A., Thygesen, E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 1545

    2021

  6. [14]

    C., Tremou, E., Otahola, B

    Dage, K. C., Tremou, E., Otahola, B. C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 82

    2025

  7. [15]

    C., Zepf, S

    Dage, K. C., Zepf, S. E., Peacock, M. B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 1694

    2019

  8. [16]

    C., Zepf, S

    Dage, K. C., Zepf, S. E., Thygesen, E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 596 Di Carlo, U. N., Mapelli, M., Pasquato, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5132

    2020

  9. [17]

    2023, A&A, 671, A149

    Fortin, F., García, F., Simaz Bunzel, A., & Chaty, S. 2023, A&A, 671, A149

    2023

  10. [18]

    2024, A&A, 684, A124

    Fortin, F., Kalsi, A., García, F., Simaz-Bunzel, A., & Chaty, S. 2024, A&A, 684, A124

    2024

  11. [19]

    2008, ApJ, 683, 346

    Fragos, T., Kalogera, V., Belczynski, K., et al. 2008, ApJ, 683, 346

    2008

  12. [20]

    2015, ApJ, 802, L5

    Fragos, T., Linden, T., Kalogera, V., & Sklias, P. 2015, ApJ, 802, L5

    2015

  13. [21]

    M., Cheung, P., Portegies Zwart, S

    Fregeau, J. M., Cheung, P., Portegies Zwart, S. F., & Rasio, F. A. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 1

    2004

  14. [22]

    L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al

    Fryer, C. L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 91

    2012

  15. [23]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.06421 Article number, page 12 of 15 Wiktorowicz et al.: Ultraluminous X-ray sources in Globular Clusters

    Giersz, M., Askar, A., Hypki, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.06421 Article number, page 12 of 15 Wiktorowicz et al.: Ultraluminous X-ray sources in Globular Clusters

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 3150

    Giersz, M., Leigh, N., Hypki, A., Lützgendorf, N., & Askar, A. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3150

    2015

  17. [25]

    Gnedin, O. Y. & Ostriker, J. P. 1997, ApJ, 474, 223

    1997

  18. [26]

    2019, A&A Rev., 27, 8

    Gratton, R., Bragaglia, A., Carretta, E., et al. 2019, A&A Rev., 27, 8

    2019

  19. [27]

    E., Strader, J., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., Strader, J., & Ho, L. C. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 257

    2020

  20. [28]

    Harris, W. E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487

    1996

  21. [29]

    Heggie, D. C. 1975, MNRAS, 173, 729

    1975

  22. [30]

    A., Brightman, M., et al

    Heida, M., Harrison, F. A., Brightman, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 231

    2019

  23. [31]

    G., Torres, M

    Heida, M., Jonker, P. G., Torres, M. A. P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 771 Hellström, L., Giersz, M., Hypki, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A112 Hénon, M. 1971, Ap&SS, 13, 284

    2016

  24. [32]

    R., Lyne, A

    Hobbs, G., Lorimer, D. R., Lyne, A. G., & Kramer, M. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 974

    2005

  25. [33]

    2020, MN- RAS, 498, 4287

    Hong, J., Askar, A., Giersz, M., Hypki, A., & Yoon, S.-J. 2020, MN- RAS, 498, 4287

    2020

  26. [34]

    R., Pols, O

    Hurley, J. R., Pols, O. R., & Tout, C. A. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 543

    2000

  27. [35]

    R., Tout, C

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897

    2002

  28. [36]

    & Giersz, M

    Hypki, A. & Giersz, M. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1221

    2013

  29. [37]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 4768

    Hypki, A., Giersz, M., Hong, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4768

    2022

  30. [38]

    2025, A&A, 693, A41

    Hypki, A., Vesperini, E., Giersz, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A41

    2025

  31. [39]

    A., Brink, T

    Irwin, J. A., Brink, T. G., Bregman, J. N., & Roberts, T. P. 2010, ApJ, 712, L1

    2010

  32. [40]

    A., Maksym, W

    Irwin, J. A., Maksym, W. P., Sivakoff, G. R., et al. 2016, Nature, 538, 356

    2016

  33. [41]

    O., Rasio, F

    Ivanova, N., Heinke, C. O., Rasio, F. A., Belczynski, K., & Fregeau, J. M. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 553

    2008

  34. [42]

    Proulx, Z. F. 2005, ApJ, 621, L109

    2005

  35. [43]

    S., et al

    Kaaret, P., Alonso-Herrero, A., Gallagher, J. S., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 348, L28

    2004

  36. [44]

    Kaaret, P., Feng, H., & Roberts, T. P. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 303

    2017

  37. [45]

    Kamlah, A. W. H., Leveque, A., Spurzem, R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4060

    2022

  38. [46]

    J., Wiktorowicz, G., et al

    Khan, N., Middleton, M. J., Wiktorowicz, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 2493

    2022

  39. [47]

    Kiminki, D. C. & Kobulnicky, H. A. 2012, ApJ, 751, 4 King,A.,Lasota,J.-P.,&Middleton,M.2023,NewARev.,96,101672

    2012

  40. [48]

    King, A. R. 2009, MNRAS, 393, L41

    2009

  41. [49]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 3088

    Klencki, J., Wiktorowicz, G., Gładysz, W., & Belczynski, K. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3088

    2017

  42. [50]

    A., Kiminki, D

    Kobulnicky, H. A., Kiminki, D. C., Lundquist, M. J., et al. 2014, ApJS, 213, 34

    2014

  43. [51]

    L., & Rasio, F

    Kremer, K., Chatterjee, S., Rodriguez, C. L., & Rasio, F. A. 2018, ApJ, 852, 29

    2018

  44. [52]

    S., Rodriguez, C

    Kremer, K., Chatterjee, S., Ye, C. S., Rodriguez, C. L., & Rasio, F. A. 2019, ApJ, 871, 38

    2019

  45. [53]

    1995, MNRAS, 277, 1491

    Kroupa, P. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 1491

    1995

  46. [54]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    2001

  47. [55]

    R., Hut, P., & McMillan, S

    Kulkarni, S. R., Hut, P., & McMillan, S. 1993, Nature, 364, 421

    1993

  48. [56]

    G., Postnov, K

    Kuranov, A. G., Postnov, K. A., & Yungelson, L. R. 2021, Astronomy Letters, 47, 831

    2021

  49. [57]

    & King, A

    Lasota, J.-P. & King, A. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2506 López, K. M., Heida, M., Jonker, P. G., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 917

    2023

  50. [58]

    J., Kundu, A., Zepf, S

    Maccarone, T. J., Kundu, A., Zepf, S. E., & Rhode, K. L. 2007, Na- ture, 445, 183

    2007

  51. [59]

    J., Kundu, A., Zepf, S

    Maccarone, T. J., Kundu, A., Zepf, S. E., & Rhode, K. L. 2011, MN- RAS, 410, 1655

    2011

  52. [60]

    & Broekgaarden, F

    Mandel, I. & Broekgaarden, F. S. 2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 1

    2022

  53. [61]

    Milone, A. P. & Marino, A. F. 2022, Universe, 8, 359

    2022

  54. [62]

    C., Haggard, D., et al

    Nair, S., Dage, K. C., Haggard, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3662

    2023

  55. [63]

    Y., Kim, S., & Giersz, M

    Oh, K., Hong, J., Hui, C. Y., Kim, S., & Giersz, M. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 259

    2024

  56. [64]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 92

    Oh, S., Kroupa, P., & Pflamm-Altenburg, J. 2015, ApJ, 805, 92

    2015

  57. [65]

    P., Bedin, L

    Piotto, G., Milone, A. P., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 91

    2015

  58. [66]

    Pooley, D., Lewin, W. H. G., Anderson, S. F., et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, L131

    2003

  59. [67]

    F., Sholukhova, O., & Greiner, J

    Poutanen, J., Fabrika, S., Valeev, A. F., Sholukhova, O., & Greiner, J. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 506

    2013

  60. [68]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 4197

    Renzini, A., D’Antona, F., Cassisi, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 4197

    2015

  61. [69]

    P., Fabbiano, G., Luo, B., et al

    Roberts, T. P., Fabbiano, G., Luo, B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 760, 135

    2012

  62. [70]

    & Weiss, A

    Salaris, M. & Weiss, A. 2002, A&A, 388, 492

    2002

  63. [71]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

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

    2012

  64. [72]

    Shakura, N. I. & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    1973

  65. [73]

    C., Kundu, A., Maccarone, T

    Shih, I. C., Kundu, A., Maccarone, T. J., Zepf, S. E., & Joseph, T. D. 2010, ApJ, 721, 323

    2010

  66. [74]

    R., Sarazin, C

    Sivakoff, G. R., Sarazin, C. L., & Jordán, A. 2005, ApJ, 624, L17

    2005

  67. [75]

    & Hart, M

    Spitzer, Jr., L. & Hart, M. H. 1971, ApJ, 164, 399

    1971

  68. [76]

    M., Zepf, S

    Steele, M. M., Zepf, S. E., Maccarone, T. J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 147

    2014

  69. [77]

    Stodolkiewicz, J. S. 1986, Acta Astron., 36, 19

    1986

  70. [78]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 3386

    Thygesen, E., Sun, Y., Huang, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 3386

    2023

  71. [79]

    A., Brogaard, K., Leaman, R., & Casagrande, L

    VandenBerg, D. A., Brogaard, K., Leaman, R., & Casagrande, L. 2013, ApJ, 775, 134

    2013

  72. [80]

    J., Mackenzie, A

    Walton, D. J., Mackenzie, A. D. A., Gully, H., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 1587

    2022

  73. [81]

    J., Harris, W

    Webb, J. J., Harris, W. E., Sills, A., & Hurley, J. R. 2013, ApJ, 764, 124

    2013

  74. [82]

    2021, ApJ, 918, 60

    Wiktorowicz, G., Lasota, J.-P., Belczynski, K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 60

    2021

  75. [83]

    2019, ApJ, 875, 53

    Wiktorowicz, G., Lasota, J.-P., Middleton, M., & Belczynski, K. 2019, ApJ, 875, 53

    2019

  76. [84]

    2017, ApJ, 846, 17

    Wiktorowicz, G., Sobolewska, M., Lasota, J.-P., & Belczynski, K. 2017, ApJ, 846, 17

    2017

  77. [85]

    2015, ApJ, 810, 20

    Wiktorowicz, G., Sobolewska, M., Sądowski, A., & Belczynski, K. 2015, ApJ, 810, 20

    2015

  78. [86]

    2018, ApJ, 863, 43

    Wolter, A., Fruscione, A., & Mapelli, M. 2018, ApJ, 863, 43

    2018

  79. [87]

    2021, A&A, 649, L2 Article number, page 13 of 15 A&A proofs: manuscript no

    Zuo, Z.-Y., Song, H.-T., & Xue, H.-C. 2021, A&A, 649, L2 Article number, page 13 of 15 A&A proofs: manuscript no. ms Appendix A: Additional tables T able A.1. Model parameters and initial properties Label Npop Rh,2/Rh,1 fbin Rgc Rh Mtot/106 Rc Mc/103 log10(ρc) t h,rel npop1-fb...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.