Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Spin-Orbit Alignment in Merging Binary Black Holes Following Collisions with Massive Stars

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Stellar collisions can nudge dynamically assembled black hole binaries toward aligned spins.

desk verdict New hydrodynamics, real mechanism, but the final spin sign rests on an unmodeled disk lifetime that the paper itself admits is uncertain. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09068 v2 pith:HXJYOGJJ submitted 2025-01-15 astro-ph.HE

Fulya K{i}roğlu , James C. Lombardi Jr. , Kyle Kremer , Hans D. Vanderzyden , Frederic A. Rasio This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords binaryblackholesgravitationalwavesdensestarclusterseffectivespinparameterstellarcollisionsaccretiondiskshydrodynamicsimulationsspin-orbitalignment
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 a common dynamical encounter in dense star clusters can break the usual rule that binary black holes assembled by random interactions have randomly oriented spins. In smoothed-particle hydrodynamics simulations of a $\sim 10\,M_\odot$ star colliding with a fairly compact binary black hole, the shredded star forms a separate accretion disk around each hole; the disks start out misaligned with the orbit, but tidal torques at successive close passages swing them into alignment. If that aligned material is later accreted, the binary merges with a small but preferentially positive effective spin parameter, $\chi_{\rm eff} \lesssim 0.2$, rather than an isotropic mixture of signs. The authors estimate that about 10% of cluster binary black hole mergers could be affected, which would show up as a low-positive-$\chi_{\rm eff}$ component in gravitational-wave data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the binary's periodic tidal torque acting on two individually bound, misaligned debris disks. After a star is shredded, each black hole holds a small disk whose angular momentum can point either way; at each close passage the binary twists the disk angular momentum toward its own, and the disk direction at the end sets the spin direction once accretion begins. Spin magnitude is assigned with the Thorne/Bardeen prescription for accretion from the innermost stable orbit. The argument is carried by the effective spin parameter $\chi_{\rm eff} = (M_1\chi_1\cos\theta_1+M_2\chi_2\cos\theta_2)/(M_1+M_2)$, which is negative while the disks are retrograde and positive after the torque has aligned them.

What would settle it

A simulation of the same collisions that includes a viscous disk model with a Shakura-Sunyaev $\alpha$ parameter would settle it: if the disk's accretion timescale comes out shorter than the interval between stellar disruption and the next pericenter passage, the disk is consumed before the torque acts and the final effective spin can be negative.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that collisions between binary black holes and massive stars preferentially align the black hole spins with the binary's orbital angular momentum, provided the binary is compact enough (initial semi-major axis roughly $\lesssim 1\,\mathrm{AU}$) for each hole to capture its own debris disk. In every hydrodynamic run the authors report, the initially negative instantaneous $\chi_{\rm eff}$ either stays positive or flips to positive within about 1--10 days, as pericenter passages transfer orbital angular momentum to the misaligned disks; the final values are small and positive ($\chi_{\rm eff,f}\approx 0.05$--$0.36$). The same encounters shrink the binary orbit by up to a factor of 10 and leave it moderately eccentric, shortening the time until gravitational-wave merger. The paper therefore concludes that dynamically assembled binaries are not guaranteed to have isotropic spins, and that a fraction of mergers, roughly 10%, could carry the small positive $\chi_{\rm eff}$ bias seen in current data.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that a misaligned debris disk around a black hole survives, without being accreted, until the binary's next pericenter passage about 1-10 days later, so the tidal torque has material to realign.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Post-collision binaries that remain in the cluster can merge with $\chi_{\rm eff} \lesssim 0.2$ before later three-body encounters randomize the alignment.
  • A typical cluster with about 100 binary black hole mergers should have roughly 10 of them affected by massive-star collisions, a fraction comparable to the asymmetric component inferred near $\chi_{\rm eff}=0$.
  • The collision hardens the binary, shrinking the semi-major axis by up to a factor of 10 and leaving it moderately eccentric, so the gravitational-wave inspiral time drops substantially.
  • Recoil kicks up to about 80 km/s can eject the binary from the cluster, preserving the positive spin-orbit alignment even for binaries whose inspiral time would otherwise be long.
  • The standard assumption that dynamically assembled binary black holes have isotropically distributed spins is not always justified.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism is right, the spin distribution of merging binaries from young massive clusters should show a small positive skew in $\chi_{\rm eff}$, and the skew should be weaker in old clusters that no longer contain massive stars.
  • A direct test would be to evolve the same encounters with an explicit viscous disk prescription: if the misaligned disk drains before the next pericenter passage, the final $\chi_{\rm eff}$ would instead be negative, making the sign of the effect a measurable discriminator between disk lifetimes.
  • The essential ingredient is a compact binary plus a reservoir of gas that can be captured into two disks, so qualitatively similar alignment could occur in other gas-rich dynamical channels.
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. This paper investigates a new route to spin-orbit alignment in dynamically assembled binary black holes (BBHs). The authors perform smoothed-particle hydrodynamic simulations (StarSmasher) of near-parabolic encounters between 10 M⊙ main-sequence and post-main-sequence stars and equal-mass BBHs with component masses 10–20 M⊙ and initial semi-major axes 0.018–0.2 AU, with the parameter space motivated by their CMC N-body cluster models. When such a star is disrupted, its debris forms individual disks around the two BHs; for binaries compact enough that the disks are tidally torqued at pericenter passage, the disks reorient toward the orbital angular momentum. Assuming 100% accretion efficiency, the Thorne (1974) spin-up formula, and that each BH spin ends parallel to its final disk angular momentum, the authors obtain final chi_eff values between 0 and about 0.36, mostly at or below 0.2, and argue that such collisions affect roughly 10% of BBH mergers in young massive clusters, contributing to the LVK preference for small positive chi_eff.

Significance. The paper proposes a concrete and physically plausible mechanism (binary-disk tidal torquing during a collision) by which dynamically assembled BBHs could acquire a preferentially positive effective spin, and it explicitly challenges the standard isotropic-spin assumption for cluster BBHs. The hydrodynamic work is internally careful: initial conditions use MESA profiles in hydrostatic equilibrium, the bound-mass decomposition is iterative, and the instantaneous chi_eff diagnostic cleanly isolates the reorientation phase. The paper is also commendably transparent, flagging the 100% accretion assumption, the neglect of magnetic fields and feedback, and the disk-survival assumption in Section 4. If the mechanism holds, the result is a modest but testable modification of the dynamical-formation chi_eff distribution, with a natural EM-counterpart prediction. The main unresolved risk is quantitative rather than qualitative: for the cases with the largest claimed chi_eff, the final spin sign requires the misaligned disk to survive for roughly 90 days, an ordering the paper does not establish.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 and Table 2, columns 16–18] The stated disk-survival assumption is quantitatively inconsistent with the simulations that carry the largest claimed signal. The text asserts that misaligned disks 'persist for at least 10 days, long enough for the next BH periapsis passage to occur,' but for cases 12, 13, and 14 the time from disruption to the next pericenter passage (column 16) is 88, 23, and 37 days respectively, and the time spent with instantaneous chi_eff < 0 (column 17) is 89, 31, and 39 days (case 31 also has t_dtp = 15 d). The final positive spins for exactly these cases, including the largest tabulated value chi_eff,f = 0.33 (case 12), require the anti-aligned disk to survive unaccreted for roughly 89 days, about nine times the stated minimum. Because the sign of chi_eff is the central observable, and because the paper itself notes that early accretion of misaligned material 'could lead to a final negative effective spin parameter,' the positive-alignment claim needs a quantitative estimate of the viscous accretion timescale for these debris disks (as a function of alpha and disk size), or a presentation of chi_eff as a function of assumed disk lifetime, or a restriction of the robust claim to cases with t_chi<0 of order 10 days or less.
  2. [Section 2.4] The spin prescription assumes the direction of each BH spin equals the final angular momentum of the disk, with the entire bound mass accreted only after the disk has been realigned by the binary torque. Because the SPH simulations contain no viscous accretion, the material accreted first (the inner disk) initially carries the anti-aligned angular momentum produced at disruption, while the binary torque acts most strongly on the outer disk. Whether the alignment propagates inward faster than accretion removes the misaligned inner material is the standard warp/alignment problem in tilted-disk theory; the paper provides no timescale comparison (e.g., warp-propagation time versus viscous accretion time) to justify the assumed ordering. Without such an argument, the step from 'the disk reorients hydrodynamically' to 'the final BH spin is aligned' is not established for the misaligned cases, although the instantaneous chi_eff diagnostic demonstrates that the reorientation of the bound debris itself occurs.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract and Section 4 state that the alignment mechanism operates for BBHs 'initially sufficiently compact (≲1 AU),' but all SPH runs have initial semi-major axes ≤ 0.2 AU, and Section 3 relegates a_i ≳ 1 AU to single-BH-like disruption behavior without simulating the transition region. The rate estimate of roughly 10% of cluster BBH mergers being affected uses the collision sample in Figure 1, which includes many systems with semi-major axes between 0.2 and 1 AU; the inferred boundary between 'individual torqueable disks' and 'single-BH-like disruption' therefore directly controls the quoted rate. A representative simulation in the 0.2–1 AU window, or an explicit statement of how the quoted rate changes if the boundary shifts (for example to 0.3 AU), would make the population-level claim quantitative.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2 note, Column 17] The description of t_chi<0 contains a sign error: it reads 'misaligned with the orbit (instantaneous chi_eff > 0) before becoming aligned (instantaneous chi_eff > 0)', but the column name and Section 3 define it as the time with chi_eff < 0; the first parenthetical should read '< 0'.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The Figure 3 caption identifies the displayed simulation as 'model 9 in Table 2', while the text of Section 3 and Figure 4 refer to the same a_i = 0.1 AU, 10 MS case as 'model 13 in Table 2'; the two references should be reconciled.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract states chi_eff ≲ 0.2, whereas Table 2 lists final values of 0.22 (case 9), 0.33 (case 12), and 0.36 (case 13); the wording should be clarified to reflect the actual maximum values, e.g., 'typically ≲0.2' with the outliers reported.
  4. [Section 3] The claim that 'for a < 0.1 AU, the instantaneous chi_eff is initially positive and remains so throughout' is contradicted by the nonzero t_chi<0 entries for several compact cases in Table 2 (e.g., 0.64 d for case 2, 3.8 d for case 27); the text should either quantify these brief misaligned phases or soften the statement.
  5. [Various] There are several presentation typos and numbering issues: 'paramater space' in Section 2.2, 'W e define' and 'form the system' in the Table 2 note, and the duplicate numbering of equation (1) for chi_eff in the introduction and for the Keplerian separation in the appendix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the final effective spins are direct outputs of SPH hydrodynamics plus the Thorne spin-up formula, with explicit modeling limitations rather than fitted or self-defined inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that BBH+massive-star collisions can produce small positive chi_eff, is derived by evolving the star-binary encounter in StarSmasher SPH and then using the Thorne (1974) formula for spin-up from bound material. The final spin direction is taken from the angular momentum of the disk bound to each black hole in the simulation, and the final BH masses come from the hydrodynamic bound-mass criterion. No parameter is fitted to LVK chi_eff data, and no equation is defined in terms of the target observable. The self-citations (e.g., Kiroglu et al. 2025) supply encounter initial conditions, the collision rate normalization, and the claim that roughly 10% of cluster BBH mergers are affected; these are inputs to a population-level estimate, but the alignment mechanism itself is computed independently from the hydrodynamics. The Section 4 caveats—misaligned disks assumed to persist for at least 10 days, 100% accretion efficiency, no accretion feedback, and uncertain viscous timescale—are acknowledged modeling uncertainties. In particular, the paper states that if the misaligned disk is accreted before the next pericenter passage, the final effective spin could be negative. This is an honest limitation on the sign of the prediction, not a circular reduction. Therefore the derivation is self-contained against the stated assumptions and no circular steps are present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities are introduced. The central numbers come from an external spin-up formula and SPH, so the circularity burden is low; the main ledger items are the hand-set accretion efficiency and disk lifetime, both acknowledged by the authors as upper-limit or uncertain choices.

free parameters (5)
  • accretion efficiency f_acc = 1.0 (100%)
    All material identified as bound to a BH is assumed to be accreted (Sec. 2.4). Central to the spin magnitude; the paper states this gives an upper limit.
  • minimum misaligned disk lifetime = 10 days
    Assumed so the next pericenter passage can torque the disk before accretion (Sec. 4). If real accretion is faster, the final spin sign could reverse.
  • initial BBH semi-major axis grid = 0.018 to 0.2 AU
    Chosen so the binary is compact enough for both BHs to interact with debris and to merge within ~1 Gyr (Sec. 2.2). The alignment result depends on this compactness.
  • BH masses = 10, 15, 20 solar masses each
    Chosen from N-body cluster simulations (Kiroglu et al. 2025, Fig. 4); not fitted to the hydrodynamic outcome.
  • star mass = 10 solar masses
    Two stellar models (MS and post-MS) at Z=0.1 solar; the collision outcome depends on this mass scale.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Thorne (1974) spin-up formula gives the spin of a BH accreting from a disk at the last stable orbit.
    Used in Eq. 3 to convert accreted mass to dimensionless spin, assuming the specific angular momentum is at most that of the last stable orbit.
  • domain assumption The BHs are initially non-spinning (chi=0) before the collision.
    Used to isolate the effect of accretion from the collision; real cluster BHs may have nonzero natal spins and prior accretion.
  • domain assumption Star-BBH encounters are parabolic with mostly head-on impact parameters and equal-mass, mostly circular BBH orbits.
    Sec. 2.2 and Table 2: the initial-condition suite is idealized; the alignment mechanism was not tested across a full distribution of eccentric orbits and mass ratios.
  • domain assumption The boundness criterion in Eq. 2, based on specific mechanical energy without internal energy, correctly identifies material that will be accreted.
    Standard approach in this code family (Nandez et al. 2014), but the mapping from bound to accreted is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper The direction of each BH spin is the same as the final angular momentum direction of its disk.
    Stated in Sec. 2.4; the true alignment between disk angular momentum and accreted spin is assumed rather than modeled.
  • ad hoc to paper Neglect of magnetic fields, radiative feedback, and outflows does not change the sign of the final spin alignment.
    Sec. 4 lists these as omitted physics; the central conclusion assumes they do not reverse the alignments found.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin-Orbit Alignment in Merging Binary Black Holes Following Collisions with Massive Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HXJYOGJJ

@misc{pith2026250109068,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin-Orbit Alignment in Merging Binary Black Holes Following Collisions with Massive Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HXJYOGJJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09068}
}
abstract

Merging binary black holes (BBHs) formed dynamically in dense star clusters are expected to have uncorrelated spin--orbit orientations since they are assembled through many random interactions. However, measured effective spins in BBHs detected by LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA hint at additional physical processes that may introduce anisotropy. Here we address this question by exploring the impact of stellar collisions, and accretion of collision debris, on the spin--orbit alignment in merging BBHs formed in dense star clusters. Through hydrodynamic simulations, we study the regime where the disruption of a massive star by a BBH causes the stellar debris to form individual accretion disks bound to each black hole. We show that these disks, which are randomly oriented relative to the binary orbital plane after the initial disruption of the star, can be reoriented by strong tidal torques in the binary near pericenter passages. Following accretion by the BHs on longer timescales, BBHs with small but preferentially positive effective spin parameters ($\chi_{\rm eff} \lesssim 0.2$) are formed. Our results indicate that BBH collisions in young massive star clusters could contribute to the observed trend toward small positive $\chi_{\rm eff}$, and we suggest that the standard assumption often made that dynamically assembled BBHs should have isotropically distributed BH spins is not always justified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09068 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the GW inspiral timescale (black dashed lines) of a BBH with semi-major axis a and total mass MBBH (assuming equal-mass components) to the dynamical encounter timescale (blue dashed lines) in a typical dense star cluster with a central density of n ∼ 106 pc−3 and velocity dispersion 10 km s−1 . The shaded gray region displays the parameter space where tGW < tenc, indicating that BBHs merge via GW emiss… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. From top to bottom, time evolution of the eccentric￾ity, instantaneous effective spin parameter (χeff ), and separation between BBHs after their collision with a 10 M⊙ star. Models with initial BBH semi-major axes ranging from 0.02 to 0.2 AU are shown in different colors (cases 1, 16, 23 and 38 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Density cross-section snapshots at progressively later times in the 10 MS case (model 9 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Trajectories of the two black holes for the same case shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The density and mass profiles of the MESA stellar models (dashed lines) in comparison to their SPH models at the end of relaxation (solid lines). while the initial positions of the BHs are    xj yj zj    =    −Qx3 ∓ R 2 cosi cos f −Qy3 ∓ R 2 sin f ∓ R 2 sin i …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. A Four-dimensional Model-agnostic Probe into the Astrophysical Origins of Binary Black Hole Subpopulations

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A GPU-accelerated binned Gaussian process yields the first model-agnostic 4D BBH population in (m1, q, χeff, χp), revealing four mass-based subpopulations and new spin-mass-ratio correlations.

  2. Formation of rotating supergiants via stellar mergers in dense clusters: Implications for black hole natal spins

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Stellar mergers with mass ratio q≳0.3 in young clusters can produce blue-supergiant progenitors that leave black holes with dimensionless spins a≃0.5–0.8, reducing post-merger retention and hierarchical-merger rates.

  3. A Possible Mass Ratio and Spin-Orbit Misalignment Correlation for Mergers of Binary Black Holes in Nuclear Star Clusters

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

    Stellar binaries that experience two stable mass-transfer phases and are driven to merger by a supermassive black hole produce an anti-correlation between black-hole mass ratio and spin-orbit misalignment.

  4. Stellar Tidal Disruptions by Newborn Neutron Stars or Black Holes: A Mechanism for Hydrogen-poor (Super)luminous Supernovae and Fast Blue Optical Transients

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

    A newborn compact object that tidally disrupts its binary companion can power hydrogen-poor superluminous supernovae and fast blue optical transients at roughly the observed rates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023, Physical Review X, 13, 011048, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048 2023

  2. [2]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 1844, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1186

    Askar, A., Arca Sedda, M., & Giersz, M. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1844, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1186

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1186 2018

  3. [3]

    Balsara, D. S. 1995, Journal of Computational Physics, 121, 357, doi: 10.1016/S0021-9991(95)90221-X

    doi:10.1016/s0021-9991(95)90221-x 1995

  4. [4]

    A., Doctor, Z., & Kalogera, V

    Banagiri, S., Callister, T. A., Doctor, Z., & Kalogera, V. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.06712, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.06712

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.06712 2025

  5. [5]

    M., Press, W

    Bardeen, J. M., Press, W. H., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1972, ApJ, 178, 347, doi: 10.1086/151796

    doi:10.1086/151796 1972

  6. [6]

    2016, A&A, 594, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628980

    Belczynski, K., Heger, A., Gladysz, W., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628980

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628980 2016

  7. [7]

    G., & Heggie, D

    Breen, P. G., & Heggie, D. C. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt628

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt628 2013

  8. [8]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368, doi: 10.1086/160960

    doi:10.1086/160960 1983

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    M., & Rasio, F

    Fregeau, J. M., & Rasio, F. A. 2007, ApJ, 658, 1047, doi: 10.1086/511809

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    2010, MNRAS, 402, 105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15900.x

    Gaburov, E., Lombardi, James C., J., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15900.x

    2010

  3. [11]

    Gaburov, E., Lombardi, James C., J., Portegies Zwart, S., & Rasio, F. A. 2018, StarSmasher: Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics code for smashing stars and planets. http://ascl.net/1805.010

    2018

  4. [12]

    C., et al

    Gibson, C., Kıro˘ glu, F., Lombardi, Jr., J. C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.02146, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.02146

    2024 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, L15, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx203 Gonz´ alez, E., Kremer, K., Chatterjee, S., et al

    Giesers, B., Dreizler, S., Husser, T.-O., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, L15, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx203 Gonz´ alez, E., Kremer, K., Chatterjee, S., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 908, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdf5b

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    Hwang, J., Jr., J. C. L., Rasio, F. A., & Kalogera, V. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 135, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/135 Kıro˘ glu, F., Kremer, K., Biscoveanu, S., Gonz´ alez Prieto, E., & Rasio, F. A. 2025, ApJ, 979, 237, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada26b Kıro˘ glu, F.,...

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    Rasio, F. A. 2019a, ApJ, 871, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf646

    doi

  8. [16]

    C., Lu, W., Piro, A

    Kremer, K., Lombardi, J. C., Lu, W., Piro, A. L., & Rasio, F. A. 2022, ApJ, 933, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac714f

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    L., et al

    Kremer, K., Lu, W., Piro, A. L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abeb14

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    L., Lachat, M., & Rasio, F

    Kremer, K., Lu, W., Rodriguez, C. L., Lachat, M., & Rasio, F. A. 2019b, ApJ, 881, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2e0c

    doi

  11. [19]

    L., & Lombardi, J

    Kremer, K., Mockler, B., Piro, A. L., & Lombardi, J. C. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 6358, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2239

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Rasio, F. A. 2018, ApJL, 855, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab26c

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    Rasio, F. A. 2020a, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 351, Star Clusters: From the Milky Way to the Early Universe, ed. A. Bragaglia, M. Davies, A. Sills, & E. Vesperini, 357–366, doi: 10.1017/S1743921319007269

    doi

  14. [22]

    S., Rui, N

    Kremer, K., Ye, C. S., Rui, N. Z., et al. 2020b, ApJS, 247, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7919

    doi

  15. [23]

    2020c, ApJ, 903, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb945

    Kremer, K., Spera, M., Becker, D., et al. 2020c, ApJ, 903, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb945

    doi

  16. [24]

    C., Proulx, Z

    Lombardi, Jr., J. C., Proulx, Z. F., Dooley, K. L., et al. 2006, ApJ, 640, 441, doi: 10.1086/499938

    2006 doi

  17. [25]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1842

    Samsing, J. 2019, ApJ, 877, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1842

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    D., Wilkinson, M

    Mackey, A. D., Wilkinson, M. I., Davies, M. B., & Gilmore, G. F. 2007, MNRAS, 379, L40, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00330.x

    2007

  19. [27]

    Mandel, I., & Broekgaarden, F. S. 2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41114-021-00034-3

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    2004, ApJL, 608, L25, doi: 10.1086/422252

    Merritt, D., Piatek, S., Portegies Zwart, S., & Hemsendorf, M. 2004, ApJL, 608, L25, doi: 10.1086/422252

    2004 doi

  21. [30]

    A., & Umbreit, S

    Morscher, M., Pattabiraman, B., Rodriguez, C., Rasio, F. A., & Umbreit, S. 2015, ApJ, 800, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/9

    2015 doi

  22. [31]

    Nandez, J. L. A., Ivanova, N., & Lombardi, Jr., J. C. 2014, ApJ, 786, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/39

    2014 doi

  23. [32]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  24. [33]

    2024, ApJL, 966, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3e82

    Payne, E., Kremer, K., & Zevin, M. 2024, ApJL, 966, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3e82

    2024 doi

  25. [34]

    B., Li, Z., Lombardi, James C., J., & Milcarek, Stephen R., J

    Perets, H. B., Li, Z., Lombardi, James C., J., & Milcarek, Stephen R., J. 2016, ApJ, 823, 113, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/113

    2016 doi

  26. [35]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 821, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/821/1/L18

    Perna, R., Lazzati, D., & Giacomazzo, B. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 821, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/821/1/L18

    2016 doi

  27. [36]

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

    1964 doi

  28. [37]

    Price, D. J. 2007, PASA, 24, 159, doi: 10.1071/AS07022 13

    2007 doi

  29. [38]

    A., & Shapiro, S

    Rasio, F. A., & Shapiro, S. L. 1991, ApJ, 377, 559, doi: 10.1086/170385

    1991 doi

  30. [39]

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

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

    doi

  31. [40]

    L., Kremer, K., Chatterjee, S., et al

    Rodriguez, C. L., Kremer, K., Chatterjee, S., et al. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 19, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abdf54

    2021 doi

  32. [41]

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

    Rodriguez, C. L., Zevin, M., Amaro-Seoane, P., et al. 2019, PhRvD, 100, 043027, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043027

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    Rasio, F. A. 2016b, ApJL, 832, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/832/1/L2

    doi

  34. [43]

    L., Weatherford, N

    Rodriguez, C. L., Weatherford, N. C., Coughlin, S. C., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 258, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac2edf

    2022 doi

  35. [44]

    Ryu, T., Krolik, J., Piran, T., & Noble, S. C. 2020, ApJ, 904, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3cd

    2020 doi

  36. [45]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 2204, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2316

    Ryu, T., Perna, R., & Wang, Y.-H. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2204, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2316

    2022 doi

  37. [46]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

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

    2012 doi

  38. [47]

    A., Lombardi, James C., J., Rasio, F

    Sills, A., Faber, J. A., Lombardi, James C., J., Rasio, F. A., & Warren, A. R. 2001, ApJ, 548, 323, doi: 10.1086/318689

    2001 doi

  39. [48]

    2002, MNRAS, 333, 649, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05445.x

    Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 649, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05445.x

    2002

  40. [49]

    J., Miller-Jones, J

    Strader, J., Chomiuk, L., Maccarone, T. J., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., & Seth, A. C. 2012, Nature, 490, 71, doi: 10.1038/nature11490

    2012 doi

  41. [50]

    Thorne, K. S. 1974, ApJ, 191, 507, doi: 10.1086/152991

    1974 doi

  42. [51]

    2004, Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems (Brooks/Cole)

    Thornton, S., & Marion, J. 2004, Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems (Brooks/Cole). https://books.google.com/books?id=HOqLQgAACAAJ

    2004

  43. [52]

    2016, MNRAS, 458, 1450, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw274

    Wang, L., Spurzem, R., Aarseth, S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1450, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw274

    2016 doi

  44. [53]

    1995, Advances in Computational Mathematics, 4, 389, doi: 10.1007/BF02123482

    Wendland, H. 1995, Advances in Computational Mathematics, 4, 389, doi: 10.1007/BF02123482

    1995 doi

  45. [54]

    Lasky, P. D. 2021, ApJL, 921, L43, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac32dc

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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