Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Gravitational Wave Decoupling in Retrograde Circumbinary Disks

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 claims that a circular, equal-mass binary inspiralling through a retrograde circumbinary disk decouples from the disk at nearly the same orbital separation as in a prograde disk of equal viscosity, so any electromagnetic…

desk verdict First numerical study of GW decoupling in retrograde circumbinary disks, with a plausible central result, but the lowest-viscosity runs may not be fully relaxed before inspiral begins. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11679 v1 pith:CPNQVH3Q submitted 2025-01-20 astro-ph.HE

David O'Neill , Christopher Tiede , Daniel J. D'Orazio , Zoltan Haiman , Andrew MacFadyen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords supermassiveblackholebinariescircumbinarydisksretrogradeaccretiongravitationalwavedecouplingelectromagneticcounterpartsdiskhydrodynamicsintrabinarybridgeinstabilitiesLISA
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 simulates an equal-mass, circular supermassive black hole binary spiraling inward through a retrograde circumbinary disk and asks when the binary outruns the disk: the moment gravitational-wave shrinkage of the orbit is faster than the disk's viscous response. The central claim is that this decoupling point is nearly the same in retrograde and prograde disks of equal viscosity, even though the cavity the retrograde disk carves out is much smaller. If true, searches for electromagnetic counterparts of LISA-band mergers do not need to know the disk's orientation to predict when decoupling-related dimming and rebrightening should occur; the timing is set by viscosity alone. The paper also finds that retrograde disks lack the bright minidisks seen in prograde systems, have faster post-merger rebrightening, and, at low viscosity, flare quasi-periodically from instabilities in the intrabinary bridge.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the decoupling criterion, obtained by equating the Peters quadrupole inspiral rate with the disk's viscous radial velocity $v_r = -3\nu/(2r)\,(1 + 2r\,\partial_r(\nu\Sigma)/(\nu\Sigma))$, yielding $a_{\rm dc} = \sqrt{32\xi/(15\nu)}\, G^3M^3/c^5$. In the simulations, decoupling is read off as the break in the power-law relation between cavity semi-major axis $a_c$ and binary semi-major axis $a_b$, followed by a plateau where the cavity can no longer track the shrinking orbit. The restricted three-body Jacobi constant $C_J = 2U_{\rm eff} - v^2$ explains the smaller retrograde cavity by showing that retrograde orbits remain stable closer to the binary than prograde ones. The intrabinary bridge, where opposing gas streams collide behind each binary component, is the site of Kelvin-Helmholtz vortices that drive the quasi-periodic flaring at low viscosity.

What would settle it

Run the $\tilde\nu = 10^{-4}$ retrograde simulation with a relaxation time of $10^4$ binary orbits instead of $10^3$ and remeasure the initial cavity size and the break in the $a_c$–$a_b$ curve; if the break shifts, the claimed orientation-independence of decoupling is an artifact of incomplete relaxation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors find that a circular, equal-mass binary embedded in a coplanar retrograde disk decouples from that disk at nearly the same binary semi-major axis as in a prograde disk with the same viscosity: the break in the cavity-tracking power law occurs at comparable $a_b$, and the nominal decoupling axis $a_{\rm dc} = \sqrt{32\xi/(15\nu)}\, G^3M^3/c^5$ matches the prograde result. The cavity itself is smaller for retrograde disks—around $a_0$ rather than the $2$–$5\,a_0$ typical of prograde systems—because retrograde test-particle orbits are stable much closer to the binary, as quantified with the restricted three-body Jacobi constant. The smaller cavity implies higher-frequency circumbinary emission and a shorter cavity-closing, or rebrightening, timescale after merger. In addition, retrograde disks show no persistent minidisks in the inspiral phase, and low-viscosity retrograde disks exhibit quasi-periodic accretion flares caused by Kelvin-Helmholtz-like instabilities in the intrabinary bridge.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations assume that letting the disk settle for 1000 binary orbits is enough to reach a steady state before the inspiral begins, but in the lowest-viscosity runs the disk needs roughly ten times longer to respond, so the starting cavity size—and with it the measured decoupling point—may depend on how long the disk was allowed to settle.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Electromagnetic decoupling signatures, such as dimming followed by rebrightening, should appear at similar pre-merger times for prograde and retrograde disks of the same viscosity, so time-domain searches can infer viscosity without knowing the disk's orientation.
  • Retrograde disks should produce higher-frequency circumbinary emission, likely enhanced optical and ultraviolet luminosity, and a shorter post-merger rebrightening timescale; the prograde-to-retrograde rebrightening ratio peaks near $\tilde\nu = 3\times10^{-3}$.
  • Because retrograde disks lack X-ray-luminous minidisks, the X-ray turnoff signature expected from prograde minidisk disruption would be absent, changing the time-domain observables used to identify merging supermassive black hole binaries.
  • Low-viscosity retrograde disks should show quasi-periodic accretion flares from intrabinary bridge instabilities, which may appear as repeating nuclear X-ray transients.
  • Depending on black hole mass and disk viscosity, decoupling in either disk orientation can fall within the LISA band, enabling multimessenger observations of the event.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The orientation-independence of the decoupling time combined with the orientation-dependence of cavity size implies that the time delay between decoupling-related dimming and post-merger rebrightening could itself diagnose whether the disk was retrograde, a diagnostic the paper does not explicitly state.
  • If the low-viscosity bridge instability persists in magnetized or thicker disks, retrograde supermassive black hole binaries could appear as quasi-periodic X-ray or ultraviolet nuclear transients with periods tied to the binary orbital period; this is a testable extension beyond the isothermal, unmagnetized simulations.
  • Because the decoupling break moves from roughly $50\,r_G$ to $5\,r_G$ across the simulated viscosities, a single measured decoupling time plus an assumed total mass would pin down an effective disk viscosity, potentially mapping disk properties without resolving the disk.
  • The analytical decoupling formula, which depends only on viscosity and the assumed cavity radius factor $\xi$, could be used to predict decoupling times for eccentric or unequal-mass binaries; the simulations do not test those cases.
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 manuscript presents 2D, grid-based hydrodynamic simulations of a circular, equal-mass supermassive black hole binary inspiraling under gravitational radiation while embedded in a coplanar circumbinary disk. The authors compare prograde and retrograde disk orientations across five constant kinematic viscosities (nu_tilde = 10^-4 to 10^-2 in units of a0^2 Omega0), using the Sailfish code. They define binary-disk decoupling as the point where the binary's GW-driven shrinkage outpaces the disk's viscous response, and they infer this point from log-log plots of cavity semi-major axis versus binary semi-major axis (Fig. 8). The central claims are (i) decoupling occurs at comparable binary semi-major axes in prograde and retrograde disks of equal viscosity, (ii) retrograde cavities are smaller, producing higher-frequency EM emission and shorter post-merger rebrightening, and (iii) low-viscosity retrograde disks show quasi-periodic accretion flares from intrabinary-bridge instabilities. An analytic estimate (Eq. 10) is provided for the decoupling radius, and prograde results are benchmarked against Dittmann et al. (2023).

Significance. If the central claim holds, it is observationally relevant: EM decoupling signatures would occur at times determined primarily by viscosity, not by disk orientation, and the smaller retrograde cavity offers a potential observational discriminant through higher-frequency emission and faster rebrightening. The paper's strengths include direct prograde-retrograde comparison, the public Sailfish code, a controlled set of viscosity runs, and explicit robustness checks for the flaring phenomenon (sink prescription, sink rate, resolution). However, the two load-bearing numerical points, namely the relaxation state of the low-viscosity disks and the quantitative identification of the decoupling break, are not yet established, and the 'unique to retrograde' phrasing of the flaring claim lacks a direct prograde comparison at the same viscosities.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.4, Fig. 8] The 1000-orbit viscous relaxation is shorter than the viscous time for the lowest-viscosity runs. With nu_tilde = 10^-4, the viscous time at r approximately a0 is t_nu approximately a0^2/nu approximately 10^4 orbits; for nu_tilde = 3 x 10^-4 it is approximately 3 x 10^3 orbits, both longer than the 1000-orbit relaxation period. Because all runs are initialized with uniform density, the cavity at the start of the GW inspiral is still in its opening transient, so the early power-law portion of a_c(a_b) in Fig. 8 may be set by that transient rather than by the disk's viscous response to the shrinking binary. The prograde and retrograde cavities differ in size, so the transient bias need not cancel in the comparison. A convergence test over relaxation duration, or an initialization from a relaxed cavity profile, is needed to establish that the measured break location is not shifted; this issue is not listed among the caveats in Section 5.
  2. [Section 3.4, Fig. 8] The decoupling break is identified qualitatively. The paper reports that the power law 'breaks' at comparable semi-major axes, but it does not specify a break criterion, does not fit a broken power law, and provides no uncertainties on the break location. Since the text also states that the break is smooth rather than sharp, the central claim of comparable decoupling needs a quantitative definition (for example, a fit with reported break values and confidence intervals, or a comparison of the a_c(a_b) curves against a null model) to be falsifiable. Without this, the comparison between prograde and retrograde breaks, and the resulting time-of-decoupling predictions, rest on visual inspection of a single figure.
  3. [Section 4.2, abstract] The claim that the bridge instabilities and quasi-periodic flares are 'unique to low-viscosity retrograde disks' is not directly supported. Fig. 5 shows accretion timeseries for retrograde runs only, and while the text notes that Tiede & D'Orazio (2023) did not observe this behavior at nu_tilde = 10^-3, no prograde accretion or torque timeseries at matching low viscosities is shown. To support 'unique to retrograde,' the authors should either present the corresponding prograde timeseries (or a quantitative variability measure) or soften the claim to 'observed in retrograde disks.'
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eq. (1)] The displayed coefficient 64/5 in Eq. (1) is inconsistent with the stated merger time and with Eq. (10). For two equal masses with total mass M, the Peters quadrupole coefficient in da/dt is 16/5, which gives the quoted tm approximately 1244 orbits; the printed 64/5 would give roughly 311 orbits. Please correct the typo.
  2. [Section 2.1] The parenthetical 'approximately 1990 binary orbits' conflicts with tm approximately 1244 x 2pi/Omega0, which is 1244 binary orbits; one of the two numbers is incorrect.
  3. [Section 5] The final bullet list contains two bullets that are nearly identical: both discuss the lack of X-ray luminous minidisks in the retrograde case and the contrast with prograde time-domain observables. One of the two bullets should be removed.
  4. [Eq. (9)] The term (2r/(nu r)) d(nu Sigma)/dr should read (2r/(nu Sigma)) d(nu Sigma)/dr; the missing Sigma in the denominator makes the equation dimensionally inconsistent as printed.
  5. [Fig. 8] With five viscosities and two orientations on a log-log plot, the curves are hard to distinguish; adding markers or direct labels, including the inferred break locations, would improve readability.
  6. [Fig. 11] The text refers to 'column (i)' through '(iv)', but the panel is a multi-row grid; the labeling should be clarified so the reader can map the discussion to the panels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central decoupling claim is a simulation outcome, and the analytic estimate is derived from Peters and viscous transport without fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that prograde and retrograde disks decouple at comparable binary semi-major axes—is a measured outcome of the hydrodynamic simulations (Fig. 8), not a derived consequence of a fitted quantity. The analytic decoupling estimate, Eq. (10), follows from the Peters (1964) quadrupole formula (Eq. 1) and the viscous radial velocity (Eq. 9) under two explicitly stated assumptions (constant nu*Sigma and a cavity radius r = xi*a_b), with xi = 1 chosen rather than fitted; the resulting nominal a_dc values printed in Fig. 2 are compared with, not used to produce, the simulated cavity evolution. The prograde results are checked against the independent Dittmann et al. (2023) simulations, and the weakening-torque comparison with Zrake et al. (2024) is an external benchmark. Self-citations (e.g., Tiede & D'Orazio 2023 for retrograde torque direction; D'Orazio et al. 2016 for the Jacobi constant threshold) support contextual or explanatory points, but none is load-bearing for the decoupling claim, and no equation reduces to its own input by construction. The main caveat is numerical rather than circular: for nu_tilde = 10^-4, the 1000-orbit viscous relaxation may be shorter than the local viscous time, which could bias the measured initial cavity size; this is a convergence concern, not a circularity.

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

The central claims rest on a small set of modeling choices: prescribed GW decay, a 2D locally isothermal disk with constant viscosity, a circular equal-mass coplanar binary, and an operational definition of the cavity. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • xi (radius parameter in Eq. 10) = 1
    Set to 1 in Eq. 10 when computing the nominal decoupling semi-major axes (adc printed in Fig. 2). This arbitrary radius where the viscous radial velocity is evaluated is not fitted to the simulations.
  • Mach number M = 10
    Fiducial sound speed prescription via c_s^2 = -Phi_b/M^2; affects disk thickness and morphology. Chosen by hand, not fitted.
  • Cavity density threshold Sigma_cav = 0.2 Sigma0
    Defines the cavity edge in Appendix A and thus the measured cavity semi-major axes used for decoupling and rebrightening claims.
  • Relaxation time = 1000 binary orbits
    Initial disk relaxation period before GW inspiral; for nu_tilde=10^-4 the viscous time at a0 is ~10^4 orbits, so the disk may not be relaxed.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Peters (1964) quadrupole formula for GW-driven orbital decay (Eq. 1)
    Used to prescribe binary semi-major axis decay and orbital phase; assumes adiabatic circular orbits.
  • domain assumption 2D vertically integrated, locally isothermal, constant-viscosity disk with Mach number M=10
    The disk model in Sec. 2.2; neglects magnetic fields, radiation, and general relativistic fluid effects, which the authors list as caveats.
  • domain assumption Binary is initially circular, equal-mass, and coplanar with the disk
    Stated in Sec. 2.1; retrograde disks are known to drive eccentricity, so the circular assumption is a simplification that could affect decoupling.
  • ad hoc to paper The disk reaches a steady-state after 1000 orbits of relaxation
    Unstated as a concern: for low viscosities the viscous time exceeds the relaxation time (Sec. 2.4).
  • domain assumption The decoupling condition equates the binary's GW-driven shrink rate with the viscous radial velocity at radius xi*a_b
    The velocity-based decoupling criterion in Sec. 2.3 (Eq. 10).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational Wave Decoupling in Retrograde Circumbinary Disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CPNQVH3Q

@misc{pith2026250111679,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational Wave Decoupling in Retrograde Circumbinary Disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CPNQVH3Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11679}
}
read the original abstract

We present a study of the late-time interaction between supermassive black hole binaries and retrograde circumbinary disks during the period of gravitational wave-driven inspiral. While mergers in prograde disks have received extensive study, retrograde disks offer distinct dynamics that could promote mergers and produce unique observational signatures. Through numerical simulations, we explore the process of binary-disk decoupling, where the binary's orbital decay rate is faster than the disk's viscous response rate. We find the point of decoupling to be comparable in prograde and retrograde disks, suggesting that any associated electromagnetic (EM) signatures will be produced at comparable times preceding merger. However, we find smaller central cavities for retrograde disks, likely leading to higher-frequency EM emissions and shorter post-merger rebrightening timescales compared to their prograde counterparts. Additionally, we identify quasi-periodic flaring due to instabilities unique to low-viscosity retrograde disks, which may produce distinctive EM signatures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11679 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Logarithmic snapshots of the disk surface density Σ/Σ0 across a range of binary semi-major axes (columns) and viscosities (rows). The left-most panels illustrate the disk structure following the viscous relaxation period of 1000 binary orbits – preceding the onset of a gravitational wave inspiral. As the inspiral progresses the semi-major axis of the binary decreases (right) and the disk reacts, primarily through a … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Azimuthally averaged surface densities for retrograde disks (red) and prograde disks (blue) at three different stages during the inspiral (solid, dashed and dotted). The x-axis units have been scaled to the current orbital separation of the binary (grey vertical lines). On each panel we print the nominal decoupling semi-major axis adc (see Eq. 10 with ξ = 1). During the inspiral, the disk evolves in response to the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Zoom in on one of the binary components. The arrows represent the direction of fluid velocity in the frame corotating with the binary and the colourmap is the logarith￾mic surface density. Regions (i) and (ii) experience signifi￾cant deflections by the binary and collide, forming a shock behind each binary component. rial on this bridge has low angular momentum and can be transported almost radially, before being ac… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Total accretion rates M˙ = M˙ 1 + M˙ 2 of retrograde binaries for the viscosities noted in the top right of each panel. The inspiral is initiated at t = 1000 orbits, at which time the timeseries cadence is also increased. The dashed-grey lines corresponding to the time…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The torque exerted on the disk by the binary (blue) normalised by the magnitude of the steady-state value determined during the burn-in phase |Ti|. A negative torque means that the disk is losing angular momentum to the binary. The black line denotes the binned means o…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The ratio of gravitational torques to accretion torques as a function of time for different viscosities in each panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A logarithmic plot of the cavity semi-major axis ac as a function of the binary-semi major axis ab throughout the inspiral (early times to the left, later times to the right). The dashed and solid lines represent prograde and retrograde disk configurations, respectivel…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Zero-velocity curves for different values of the Jacobi constant CJ . The critical value C ∗ J (solid black line) is the minimum value which separates the binary (black dots) from the outer regions of the disk. For CJ < C∗ J (red dashed line), a particle can cross thro…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Subcritical (grey), supercritical (orange) and Roche-bound (beige) values of the Jacobi constant for pro￾grade (top) and retrograde (bottom) Keplerian disks. The solid, dashed and dotted lines are tracks of test particles in the corotating frame, initialised on circul…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The normalised accretion rate (top), disk surface density (middle) and vortensity (bottom) during a phase of bridge instability (grey band) for ν˜ = 10−4 . The arrows illustrate the velocity profile of the disk, while the white circles represent the component sinks. T…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The ratio of prograde to retrograde cavity closing timescales (or disk rebrightening), following merger. These timescales are based on the cavity semi-major axes at decoupling (given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]

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. Dissecting environmental effects with eccentric gravitational wave sources

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Resonances between oscillating environmental forces and the epicyclic motion of eccentric binaries can dominate gravitational wave dephasing over orbit-averaged drag for eccentricities above about 0.05.

  2. Identifying Compact Chirping SMBHBs in LSST using Bayesian Analysis

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

    A Bayesian 'frequency comb' sampler can recover the chirping periodicity of compact supermassive black hole binaries from simulated 10-year LSST lightcurves with 3-5 sigma confidence for amplitudes as low as 0.1 mag.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    t v˧j^篽v Bck6v xL;ܕ4<YJq

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2019

  2. [2]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all :=...

  3. [3]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = ...

  4. [4]

    A Model-Independent Precision Test of General Relativity using LISA Bright Standard Sirens

    Afroz, S., & Mukherjee, S. 2024, A Model-Independent Precision Test of General Relativity using LISA Bright Standard Sirens. 2406.08791

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [6]

    2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y 2023

  6. [7]

    J., & Natarajan, P

    Armitage, P. J., & Natarajan, P. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 567, L9 . https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:17909303

    2002

  7. [8]

    Artymowicz, P., & Lubow, S. H. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 467, L77, 10.1086/310200

    doi:10.1086/310200 1996

  8. [9]

    2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 1

    Auclair, P., Bacon, D., Baker, T., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 1. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:248118657

    2023

Show all 87 references
  1. [10]

    J., Krolik , J

    Avara , M. J., Krolik , J. H., Campanelli , M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.18538, 10.48550/arXiv.2305.18538

    2023 doi arXiv

  2. [11]

    H., & Shi, J

    Bankert, J., Krolik, J. H., & Shi, J. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 801, 114, 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/114

    2015 doi

  3. [12]

    E., & Hernquist , L

    Barnes , J. E., & Hernquist , L. E. 1991, , 370, L65, 10.1086/185978

    1991 doi

  4. [13]

    C., Blandford , R

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

    1980 doi

  5. [14]

    2006, , 642, L21, 10.1086/504426

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

    2006 doi

  6. [15]

    2009, , 695, 455, 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/455

    Berentzen , I., Preto , M., Berczik , P., Merritt , D., & Spurzem , R. 2009, , 695, 455, 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/455

    2009 doi

  7. [16]

    C., & Blecha, L

    Bogdanović, T., Miller, M. C., & Blecha, L. 2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 10.1007/s41114-022-00037-8

    2022 doi

  8. [17]

    B., Mewes, V., Campanelli, M., et al

    Bowen, D. B., Mewes, V., Campanelli, M., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 853, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa756

    2018 doi

  9. [18]

    2024, Exploring mass measurements of supermassive black holes in AGN using GAMA photometry and spectroscopy

    Casura, S., Ilić, D., Targaczewski, J., Rakić, N., & Liske, J. 2024, Exploring mass measurements of supermassive black holes in AGN using GAMA photometry and spectroscopy. 2408.17275

    2024 arXiv

  10. [19]

    1943, , 97, 255, 10.1086/144517

    Chandrasekhar , S. 1943, , 97, 255, 10.1086/144517

    1943 doi

  11. [20]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.10281, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.10281

    Clyburn , M., & Zrake , J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.10281, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.10281

    2024 doi arXiv

  12. [21]

    J., Alexander, R

    Cuadra, J., Armitage, P. J., Alexander, R. D., & Begelman, M. C. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 393, 1423, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14147.x

    2009

  13. [22]

    2018, , 480, 439, 10.1093/mnras/sty1815

    del Valle , L., & Volonteri , M. 2018, , 480, 439, 10.1093/mnras/sty1815

    2018 doi

  14. [23]

    R., et al

    DeLaurentiis , S., Haiman , Z., Westernacher-Schneider , J. R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.07897, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.07897

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [24]

    2023, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol

    DiMatteo , T., Ni , Y., Chen , N., Croft , R., & Pacucci , F. 2023, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol. 20, AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, 103A.04

    2023

  16. [25]

    J., & Ryan , G

    Dittmann , A. J., & Ryan , G. 2021, , 921, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1bbd

    2021 doi

  17. [26]

    J., Ryan, G., & Miller, M

    Dittmann, A. J., Ryan, G., & Miller, M. C. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 949, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/acd183

    2023 doi

  18. [27]

    J., & Charisi , M

    D'Orazio , D. J., & Charisi , M. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.16896, 10.48550/arXiv.2310.16896

    2023 doi arXiv

  19. [28]

    J., & Duffell , P

    D'Orazio , D. J., & Duffell , P. C. 2021, , 914, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0621

    2021 doi

  20. [29]

    J., Duffell , P

    D'Orazio , D. J., Duffell , P. C., & Tiede , C. 2024, , 977, 244, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad938b

    2024 doi

  21. [30]

    J., & Haiman , Z

    D'Orazio , D. J., & Haiman , Z. 2017, , 470, 1198, 10.1093/mnras/stx1269

    2017 doi

  22. [31]

    J., Haiman, Z., & MacFadyen, A

    D'Orazio, D. J., Haiman, Z., & MacFadyen, A. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 2997, 10.1093/mnras/stt1787

    2013 doi

  23. [32]

    C., Dittmann , A

    Duffell , P. C., Dittmann , A. J., D'Orazio , D. J., et al. 2024, , 970, 156, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5a7e

    2024 doi

  24. [33]

    J., Haiman, Z., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A., & Farris, B

    D’Orazio, D. J., Haiman, Z., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A., & Farris, B. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 459, 2379–2393, 10.1093/mnras/stw792

    2016 doi

  25. [34]

    1916, Annalen der Physik, 354, 769, https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.19163540702

    Einstein, A. 1916, Annalen der Physik, 354, 769, https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.19163540702

    1916 doi

  26. [36]

    D., Duffell , P., MacFadyen , A

    Farris , B. D., Duffell , P., MacFadyen , A. I., & Haiman , Z. 2015, , 447, L80, 10.1093/mnrasl/slu184

    2015 doi

  27. [37]

    2024, , 686, A288, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449206

    Franchini , A., Bonetti , M., Lupi , A., & Sesana , A. 2024, , 686, A288, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449206

    2024 doi

  28. [38]

    Garg , M., Tiede , C., & D'Orazio , D. J. 2024 a , , 534, 3705, 10.1093/mnras/stae2357

    2024 doi

  29. [39]

    2024 b , , 528, 4176, 10.1093/mnras/stad3477

    Garg , M., Tiwari , S., Derdzinski , A., et al. 2024 b , , 528, 4176, 10.1093/mnras/stad3477

    2024 doi

  30. [40]

    2024, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.14.1, v1.14.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.13352243

    Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Haberland, M., et al. 2024, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.14.1, v1.14.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.13352243

    2024 doi

  31. [41]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 881, 10.1038/s41550-021-01480-3

    Gong , Y., Luo , J., & Wang , B. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 881, 10.1038/s41550-021-01480-3

    2021 doi

  32. [42]

    2000, , 532, L29, 10.1086/312562

    Gould , A., & Rix , H.-W. 2000, , 532, L29, 10.1086/312562

    2000 doi

  33. [43]

    G \"u ltekin , K., & Miller , J. M. 2012, , 761, 90, 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/90

    2012 doi

  34. [44]

    M., Combi , L., Noble , S

    Guti \'e rrez , E. M., Combi , L., Noble , S. C., et al. 2022, , 928, 137, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac56de

    2022 doi

  35. [45]

    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

  36. [46]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 2936, 10.1093/mnras/staa2536

    Hirsh, K., Price, D., Gonzalez, J.-F., Ubeira-Gabellini, M., & Ragusa, E. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 2936, 10.1093/mnras/staa2536

    2020 doi

  37. [47]

    E., & Hughes, S

    Holz, D. E., & Hughes, S. A. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 629, 15–22, 10.1086/431341

    2005 doi

  38. [48]

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

    Kelley , L. Z., Blecha , L., & Hernquist , L. 2017, , 464, 3131, 10.1093/mnras/stw2452

    2017 doi

  39. [49]

    M., Berentzen, I., Berczik, P., et al

    Khan, F. M., Berentzen, I., Berczik, P., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 756, 30, 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/30

    2012 doi

  40. [50]

    R., & Pringle, J

    King, A. R., & Pringle, J. E. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 373, L90, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00249.x

    2006

  41. [52]

    M., Davelaar, J., Haiman, Z., et al

    Krauth, L. M., Davelaar, J., Haiman, Z., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 5441, 10.1093/mnras/stad3095

    2023 doi

  42. [53]

    I., & Milosavljevi \'c , M

    MacFadyen , A. I., & Milosavljevi \'c , M. 2008, , 672, 83, 10.1086/523869

    2008 doi

  43. [54]

    2022, Physical Review D, 106, 10.1103/physrevd.106.103017

    Mangiagli, A., Caprini, C., Volonteri, M., et al. 2022, Physical Review D, 106, 10.1103/physrevd.106.103017

    2022 doi

  44. [55]

    A., i Alfonso, M

    Mastrobuono-Battisti, A., Seoane, P. A., i Alfonso, M. J. F., et al. 2024, Prograde and retrograde stars in nuclear cluster mergers. Evolution of the supermassive black hole binary and the host galactic nucleus. 2411.05063

    2024 arXiv

  45. [56]

    2013, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30, 244008, 10.1088/0264-9381/30/24/244008

    Mayer, L. 2013, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30, 244008, 10.1088/0264-9381/30/24/244008

    2013 doi

  46. [57]

    C., & Krolik , J

    Miller , M. C., & Krolik , J. H. 2013, , 774, 43, 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/43

    2013 doi

  47. [58]

    Moody, M. S. L., Shi, J.-M., & Stone, J. M. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 875, 66, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab09ee

    2019 doi

  48. [60]

    R., & Wang, H.-Y

    Most, E. R., & Wang, H.-Y. 2024, Decoupling of a supermassive black hole binary from its magnetically arrested circumbinary accretion disk. 2410.23264

    2024 arXiv

  49. [61]

    J., Miranda, R., & Lai, D

    Muñoz, D. J., Miranda, R., & Lai, D. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf867

    2019 doi

  50. [62]

    Nixon, C. J. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 423, 2597, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21072.x

    2012

  51. [63]

    J., Cossins , P

    Nixon , C. J., Cossins , P. J., King , A. R., & Pringle , J. E. 2011, , 412, 1591, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17952.x

    2011

  52. [64]

    C., Mundim , B

    Noble , S. C., Mundim , B. C., Nakano , H., et al. 2012, , 755, 51, 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/51

    2012 doi

  53. [65]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 910, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/abee21

    Paschalidis, V., Bright, J., Ruiz, M., & Gold, R. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 910, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/abee21

    2021 doi

  54. [66]

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

    1964 doi

  55. [67]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 439, 3476, 10.1093/mnras/stu194

    Roedig, C., & Sesana, A. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 439, 3476, 10.1093/mnras/stu194

    2014 doi

  56. [68]

    2020, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 35, 2050075, 10.1142/S0217751X2050075X

    Ruan , W.-H., Guo , Z.-K., Cai , R.-G., & Zhang , Y.-Z. 2020, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 35, 2050075, 10.1142/S0217751X2050075X

    2020 doi

  57. [69]

    Schnittman, J. D. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 724, 39, 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/39

    2010 doi

  58. [70]

    D., & Krolik, J

    Schnittman, J. D., & Krolik, J. H. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 684, 835–844, 10.1086/590363

    2008 doi

  59. [71]

    I., & Sunyaev , R

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

    1973

  60. [72]

    2023, , 522, 2707, 10.1093/mnras/stad1131

    Siwek , M., Weinberger , R., & Hernquist , L. 2023, , 522, 2707, 10.1093/mnras/stad1131

    2023 doi

  61. [73]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.07607, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.07607

    Speri , L., Barsanti , S., Maselli , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.07607, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.07607

    2024 doi

  62. [74]

    Springel , V., Yoshida , N., & White , S. D. M. 2001, , 6, 79, 10.1016/S1384-1076(01)00042-2

    2001 doi

  63. [75]

    2016, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2016, 002, 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/04/002

    Tamanini, N., Caprini, C., Barausse, E., et al. 2016, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2016, 002, 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/04/002

    2016 doi

  64. [76]

    2010, , 140, 642, 10.1088/0004-6256/140/2/642

    Tanaka , T., Haiman , Z., & Menou , K. 2010, , 140, 642, 10.1088/0004-6256/140/2/642

    2010 doi

  65. [77]

    L., & Haiman, Z

    Tanaka, T. L., & Haiman, Z. 2013, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:118845333

    2013

  66. [78]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 2249–2257, 10.1093/mnras/sty423

    Tang, Y., Haiman, Z., & MacFadyen, A. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 2249–2257, 10.1093/mnras/sty423

    2018 doi

  67. [79]

    Tiede, C., & D’Orazio, D. J. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 6021–6037, 10.1093/mnras/stad3551

    2023 doi

  68. [80]

    2020, , 900, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba432

    Tiede , C., Zrake , J., MacFadyen , A., & Haiman , Z. 2020, , 900, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba432

    2020 doi

  69. [81]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.03830

    ---. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.03830. 2410.03830

    2024 arXiv

  70. [82]

    Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace)

    2009

  71. [83]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  72. [84]

    2024, TomWagg/software-citation-station: v1.2, v1.2, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.13225824

    Wagg, T., Broekgaarden, F., & Gültekin, K. 2024, TomWagg/software-citation-station: v1.2, v1.2, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.13225824

    2024 doi

  73. [85]

    Wagg , T., & Broekgaarden , F. S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.04405. 2406.04405

    2024

  74. [86]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 3397–3406, 10.1093/mnras/stac3266

    Wang, J.-M., Songsheng, Y.-Y., Li, Y.-R., & Du, P. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 3397–3406, 10.1093/mnras/stac3266

    2022 doi

  75. [87]

    R., Zrake, J., MacFadyen, A., & Haiman, Z

    Westernacher-Schneider, J. R., Zrake, J., MacFadyen, A., & Haiman, Z. 2022, Physical Review D, 106, 10.1103/physrevd.106.103010

    2022 doi

  76. [88]

    o sch , L. H., & H \

    Williamson , D. J., B \"o sch , L. H., & H \"o nig , S. F. 2022, , 510, 5963, 10.1093/mnras/stab3792

    2022 doi

  77. [89]

    2024, Changing-Look Inspirals: Trends and Switches in AGN Disk Emission as Signposts for Merging Black Hole Binaries

    Zrake, J., Clyburn, M., & Feyan, S. 2024, Changing-Look Inspirals: Trends and Switches in AGN Disk Emission as Signposts for Merging Black Hole Binaries. 2410.04961

    2024 arXiv

  78. [90]

    2024, Sailfish: GPU-accelerated grid-based astrophysics gas dynamics code , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2408.004

    Zrake , J., & MacFadyen , A. 2024, Sailfish: GPU-accelerated grid-based astrophysics gas dynamics code , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2408.004

    2024

  79. [91]

    2021, , 909, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/abdd1c

    Zrake , J., Tiede , C., MacFadyen , A., & Haiman , Z. 2021, , 909, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/abdd1c

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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