Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 149 references

Gravitational wave inference of star cluster properties from intermediate-mass black hole mergers

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that a single intermediate-mass black hole merger can fix the formation redshift of its host star clusters, though not their mass or radius.

desk verdict Solid feasibility study with a useful closed-form IMBH growth model, but the narrow formation-redshift posteriors are mostly the assumed Δt_g prior, not new information from the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16422 v2 pith:EQTGTOMD submitted 2025-01-27 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COgr-qc

Konstantinos Kritos , Luca Reali , Ken K. Y. Ng , Fabio Antonini , Emanuele Berti This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords intermediate-massblackholesIMBHbinarymergersstarclusterformationhistorygravitationalwaveparameterestimationnext-generationdetectorstidaldisruptioneventsredshiftmodeldegeneracy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether one gravitational-wave detection of an intermediate-mass black hole (IMBH) binary, formed after two star clusters merge, can reveal the mass, half-mass radius, and formation redshift of the clusters that made the black holes. The authors build an analytic model in which a seed black hole grows by repeatedly tidally disrupting stars, and they invert it against simulated parameter-estimation results from a next-generation detector network. They find that initial cluster mass and half-mass radius are only weakly constrained because many different clusters produce the same IMBH masses. The cluster formation redshift, however, is recovered with a relatively narrow posterior, so a population of such mergers could map out when star clusters formed across cosmic time.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the forward map $F:\lambda\to\theta$ of Eq. (17), tying the measured IMBH component masses and merger redshift to the cluster initial conditions through the analytic black-hole growth law Eq. (10) -- the closed-form solution of the tidal-disruption consumption equation $\mathrm{d}M_{\mathrm{BH}}/\mathrm{d}t = f_s m_\star \Gamma_C$ -- together with the cluster evolution model of Eqs. (3) and the delay-time chain $\tau_{\rm delay} = \tau_{\rm df} + \tau_{\rm har} + \tau_{\rm gw}$. The inversion samples the five-dimensional preimage $F^{-1}(\theta)$ and reweights samples by the inverse Jacobian $|\mathrm{d}\theta/\mathrm{d}\lambda|^{-1}$, equal to the product of TDE rates at cluster merger. The narrow $z_{\rm cl,0}$ posteriors trace back to the growth-time prior $p(\Delta t_g|M_{\rm cl,0})\propto M_{\rm cl,0}/\sqrt{\Delta t_g}$ of Eq. (20), which encodes the preference, from a singular isothermal sphere and dynamical friction, for clusters that sink to the center quickly.

What would settle it

Take a well-measured IMBH merger whose host cluster formation redshift is independently known (for example from a strongly lensed star cluster or an electromagnetic counterpart) and check whether the inferred $z_{\rm cl,0}$ posterior contains the true value; a systematic miss would show the growth-time prior or delay model is wrong. A cleaner model-level test is to redo the inference with a different growth-time prior (flat or calibrated to simulated cluster populations) and see whether the $z_{\rm cl,0}$ posteriors broaden or shift substantially.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a forward map, $F:\lambda\to\theta$ in Eq. (17), relating the initial conditions of two parent clusters -- initial mass $M_{\mathrm{cl},0}$, half-mass radius $r_{\mathrm{h},0}$, formation redshift $z_{\mathrm{cl},0}$, and growth time $\Delta t_g$ -- to the measured binary parameters $(m_1,m_2,z_m)$. The map is built from the closed-form tidal-disruption growth law Eq. (10), the cluster evolution equations, and a delay-time model $\tau_{\mathrm{delay}}$ that spans dynamical friction, binary hardening, and gravitational-wave inspiral. Inverting this map on full Bayesian posteriors for six simulated IMBH binaries, the paper finds that $M_{\mathrm{cl},0}$ and $r_{\mathrm{h},0}$ follow broad, degenerate contours, while $z_{\mathrm{cl},0}$ peaks near the merger redshift with variance much smaller than the prior. The conclusion is that individual IMBH mergers will not measure cluster mass or radius, yet the formation-redshift constraint is informative enough that a catalog of such events could trace the star-cluster formation history.

Load-bearing premise

The central fragile premise is the assumed distribution of the time each cluster spends growing before it merges, which the paper takes as $p(\Delta t_g|M_{\rm cl,0})\propto M_{\rm cl,0}/\sqrt{\Delta t_g}$; the reported narrow formation-redshift peaks are tied to that choice and to the modeled merger delay, so a different true growth-time distribution would shift the inferred formation redshifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single loud IMBH-IMBH detection will not determine the initial mass or half-mass radius of the host clusters; those posteriors stay broad across the prior domain.
  • The formation redshift of each host cluster is the recoverable quantity, with posteriors concentrated near the measured merger redshift.
  • Measuring many IMBH mergers across redshift could reconstruct the cosmic history of star cluster formation, provided the delay-time model is correct.
  • Higher-redshift systems require denser, more compact cluster progenitors, so the population should show a systematic trend of smaller $r_{\rm h,0}$ at larger $z_m$.
  • The total time from cluster formation to merger is dominated by the post-coalescence delay $\tau_{\rm delay}$, so population inference must marginalize over that timescale.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: since the paper itself attributes the narrow $z_{\rm cl,0}$ peaks to the $\Delta t_g$ prior, re-running the inference with a flat or empirically calibrated growth-time prior would show how much of the claimed constraining power is astrophysical rather than assumed.
  • Editorial extension: the mass-radius degeneracy is a line of constant asymptotic IMBH mass in the $M_{\rm cl,0}$--$r_{\rm h,0}$ plane, so a population with well-measured masses alone will not break it; adding spins, eccentricity, or an electromagnetic redshift anchor for one host could.
  • Editorial extension: the model's prediction that TDE-grown IMBH spins asymptote to zero suggests a clean discriminator -- a high-spin IMBH in the same mass range would favor gas accretion or repeated black-hole mergers over the channel studied here.
  • Editorial extension: the factor-of-five agreement with N-body tidal-disruption rates implies systematic calibration uncertainty in the absolute mass scale, so hierarchical population analyses should marginalize over this calibration rather than trust the analytic rate exactly.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops an analytic model for the growth of an intermediate-mass black hole (IMBH) by repeated tidal disruption events in evolving star clusters, couples this to a delay-time model for the merger of two clusters and the subsequent IMBH-IMBH merger, and uses it to map gravitational-wave source parameters (m1, m2, zm) onto the initial masses, half-mass radii, and formation redshifts of the two progenitor clusters. The mapping is applied to six simulated IMBH binaries with parameter-estimation runs for a three-detector next-generation network. The authors find that the cluster structural parameters are poorly constrained because of a degeneracy in the forward model, while the marginalized posteriors on cluster formation redshift are relatively narrow. They conclude that single-event measurements cannot determine cluster mass or radius, but that a population of IMBH mergers may still constrain the cluster formation history.

Significance. The negative result on structural parameters is a useful and credible warning for future XG observations: it is based on standard PE tools, an explicit forward model, and a range of binary configurations. The analytic closed-form growth law, the public code, and the direct comparison with N-body simulations in Sec. IVE are strengths that make the degeneracy claim reasonably robust. The positive claim about cluster formation redshift is potentially important, but it is not yet supported because, as the paper itself states in Sec. IIIB1, the narrow zcl,0 posteriors are largely produced by the chosen prior on the growth time in Eq. (20). Unless the sensitivity of the zcl,0 inference to that prior and to the delay-time prescription is quantified, the abstract's statement that it may be possible to infer cluster formation history goes beyond what the analysis demonstrates.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IIIB1, Eq. (20), Figs. 8-9] The narrow zcl,0 posteriors, which are the main positive result, are driven by the assumed prior p(Delta tg|Mcl,0) proportional to Mcl,0/sqrt(Delta tg) derived from a singular isothermal sphere and dynamical friction. The text in Sec. IIIB1 states explicitly: 'This is due to the choice of prior on Delta tg.' The paper does not test the robustness of the zcl,0 inference to this prior. Since the conclusion that cluster formation history can be inferred rests entirely on these narrow posteriors, please add a prior-sensitivity study, for example by repeating the inference with a flat or log-uniform prior on Delta tg, or with a different dynamical-friction scaling such as tau_df proportional to Rg^alpha Mcl,0^beta, and show how the zcl,0 posteriors change. Without such a test, the positive claim in the abstract is unsupported.
  2. [Sec. IIE and Eq. (17c)] The formation-redshift inference also depends on the model-dependent delay time tau_delay = tau_df + tau_har + tau_gw, which enters the time constraint in Eq. (17c). The components of tau_delay involve several approximations, including the dynamical-friction formula of Eq. (13), the hardening prescription of Eq. (14), and the assumed Bahcall-Wolf profile. The paper varies the cluster evolutionary scenario and fs, but does not vary the tau_delay prescription. Because tau_delay directly connects zm to zcl,0, please quantify how the zcl,0 posterior shifts under reasonable variations of tau_delay, for instance by multiplying the delay by factors of order 2 or by using an alternative hardening-rate formula. This is essential before claiming that zcl,0 is a measurable cluster property rather than a reflection of the assumed time-delay model.
  3. [Sec. IIIA1-IIIA2] The Jacobian reweighting in the inverse mapping from source parameters to cluster parameters is under-specified. The text says samples are reweighed with the inverse Jacobian factor |dtheta/dlambda|^{-1}, but the standard probability transformation p(lambda)dlambda = p(theta)dtheta requires multiplication by |dtheta/dlambda| (or, for a many-to-one map, a clear proposal density and a well-defined integration over the fiber). It is not obvious that the described procedure, combined with the prior reweighing by pastro(theta)/pPE(theta), yields samples from p(lambda|d). Please clarify the direction of the Jacobian, state the proposal density on the inverse submanifold, and validate the procedure on a known injection, for example by checking that the resulting cluster posterior reproduces the forward-model likelihood when re-mapped to source parameters.
  4. [Sec. IVE] The comparison with the N-body simulations of Ref. [25] shows agreement only to within a factor of about 5, with the analytic model tending to overestimate the TDE rate. This systematic uncertainty is not propagated into the cluster posterior or into the claimed zcl,0 constraint. At minimum, the paper should discuss how a factor-of-5 uncertainty in the growth rate maps into biases in Mcl,0, rh,0, and zcl,0. The structural-degeneracy conclusion is probably robust to this uncertainty, but the claimed narrow width of the zcl,0 posterior is not, because the growth time derived from Eq. (17a)-(17b) scales inversely with the TDE rate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IIIA3 and Fig. 6] The high-redshift cluster-formation prior used for binary F and shown as the dashed curve in Fig. 6 is never defined in the text; Sec. IIIA3 only specifies the low-redshift Gaussian with mean zcl,0 = 3.2 and sigma = 1.5. Please give the parameters of the high-redshift prior.
  2. [Eq. (10)] The closed-form solution in Eq. (10) is very hard to read: the hypergeometric function's arguments are split across multiple lines and the integration variable x is reintroduced without a clear definition. Please rewrite this equation with a displayed definition of x and, if possible, break it into a main equation plus a definition of the integral term.
  3. [Sec. IVE, first paragraph] In the sentence describing Fig. 10, the phrase 'can be compared with Fig. 13 of Ref. [25]' is missing a verb or auxiliary; please rephrase to 'can be compared with Fig. 13 of Ref. [25]' or similar.
  4. [Sec. IIIA1] The inverse sampling procedure says that log10(Mcl,0) and log10(rh,0) are drawn uniformly, but the astrophysical prior on Mcl,0 in Eq. (21) is p(Mcl,0) proportional to Mcl,0^{-2}, which is not flat in log10(Mcl,0). If the correct prior is instead imposed through the reweighing step, please state this explicitly so the reader can follow the computation.
  5. [Fig. 7] The corner plot is dense because it combines two evolutionary scenarios and two values of fs with four colors. Consider presenting the fs = 0.5 and fs = 0.03 cases in separate figures, or explicitly labeling each panel with the color code, to improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analytic forward model is self-contained, and the prior-dominated z_cl,0 posteriors are explicitly admitted as such rather than presented as independent measurements.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is the forward map of Eqs. (17) built on the analytic BH growth law Eq. (10), which is obtained from the TDE rate Eq. (1) and cluster evolution Eqs. (3)-(6), then validated against the N-body simulations of Ref. [25] in Fig. 10. The inference of cluster parameters from GW data is a standard Bayesian inversion with an astrophysical prior; nothing in this chain redefines the target quantity in terms of the input. The main candidate for circularity is the narrow z_cl,0 posterior, which the paper itself attributes to the choice of prior on Δt_g (Sec. IIIB1: 'This is due to the choice of prior on Δt_g'). This is not a circular step: p(Δt_g|M_cl,0) ∝ M_cl,0/√Δt_g in Eq. (20) is derived from an independent dynamical-friction/SIS model, not fitted to the GW events, and the posterior for z_cl,0 is the ordinary Bayesian consequence of that prior combined with the well-measured merger redshift through Eq. (17c). The paper flags the resulting model dependence as a limitation (Sec. IV, Conclusions), rather than presenting z_cl,0 as a pure data-driven measurement. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [9], [23], [48], [72]) are methodological or numerical tools and are not used as load-bearing proof of any uniqueness or of the central result. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are proposed. The central inference depends on several established but simplified astrophysical prescriptions, plus two free parameters (fs, beta) whose values are not uniquely constrained by the GW data. The growth-time prior is the main ad hoc element and directly shapes the headline zcl,0 result.

free parameters (2)
  • fs = 0.5 and 0.03 (representative)
    Fraction of a consumed star's mass accreted by the IMBH. Enters Eq. (8); two representative values from literature are used, and posteriors shift significantly between them (Fig. 7).
  • beta = 2.0 (chosen)
    Ratio of tidal capture radius to tidal radius, rC = beta rT, used in Eq. (1); estimated in Appendix A from tidal dissipation calculations, uncertainty not propagated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Balanced evolution (Hénon's principle) for cluster energy generation
    Used to write Eq. (2) for drh/dt; the cluster energy generation rate is set by two-body relaxation.
  • domain assumption Isothermal, single-mass cluster with Bahcall-Wolf cusp gamma = 7/4
    Assumed for velocity dispersion and stellar density profile in Eq. (1); the paper discusses deviations in Secs. IVB and IVD.
  • domain assumption Full loss-cone model with instantaneous repopulation
    Eq. (1) follows the full loss-cone estimate; the paper notes in Sec. IVC that this overestimates the TDE rate.
  • ad hoc to paper Growth-time prior p(Delta tg|Mcl,0) proportional to Mcl,0/sqrt(Delta tg)
    Eq. (20) is a modeling choice derived from a singular isothermal sphere and dynamical friction; it drives the zcl,0 result.
  • domain assumption Delay-time model as sum of dynamical friction, binary hardening, and GW timescales
    Sec. IIE uses assumed Coulomb log, H = 15, and Bahcall-Wolf cusp to compute tau_delay.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational wave inference of star cluster properties from intermediate-mass black hole mergers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EQTGTOMD

@misc{pith2026250116422,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational wave inference of star cluster properties from intermediate-mass black hole mergers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EQTGTOMD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16422}
}
read the original abstract

Next-generation ground-based gravitational wave observatories will observe mergers of intermediate-mass black holes (IMBHs) out to high redshift. Such IMBHs can form through runaway tidal encounters in the cores of dense stellar clusters. In this paper, we ask if the gravitational wave observation of a single merger event between two IMBHs, occurring in the aftermath of the coalescence of the clusters in which they formed, can be used to infer the properties of their host clusters, such as mass, redshift, and half-mass radius. We implement an astrophysically motivated analytic model for cluster evolution and IMBH growth, and we perform IMBH binary parameter estimation using a network of three next-generation detectors. We find that inferring the structural properties of clusters in this way is challenging due to model degeneracy. However, the posteriors on the cluster formation redshifts have relatively narrow peaks, and it may still be possible to infer the cluster formation history by measuring a whole population of IMBH binary merger events.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16422 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A sketch of the scenario examined in this paper: the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Time evolution of cluster mass (left panels), half-mass radius (middle panels), and black hole mass (right panels) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Contour plots of the BH mass assembled via runaway tidal encounters in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same the as the top right panel of Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Left panel: maximum BH mass assembled through repeated BH mergers in a large set of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Probability density distribution of the merger redshifts of all IMBH binaries with masses between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Cluster posterior distributions for the progenitors of the IMBH components of binary D (see Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Marginalized cluster posterior distributions, assuming the low-redshift prior on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Predictions for the cumulative number of TDEs as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Tidal energy dissipated during the first pericenter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Top panel: the data points show the total cluster [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Posterior distributions of the source-frame masses and redshift for two representative binaries (cases D and F in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Stochastic evolution of the BH spin magnitude as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

149 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [25]

    An Intermediate-mass black hole in the globular cluster G1: Improved significance from new Keck and Hubble Space Telescope observations,

    Karl Gebhardt, R. Michael Rich, and Luis C. Ho, “An Intermediate-mass black hole in the globular cluster G1: Improved significance from new Keck and Hubble Space Telescope observations,” Astrophys. J.634, 1093–1102 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0508251

    arXiv 2005

  2. [1]

    If formed in pairs, such stars may form BH binaries with both components masses above∼ 150M⊙, as suggested by population synthesis codes [90, 91]

    Population III remnants The first stars (known as Pop III stars) are believed to have weaker winds and their collapse will lead to heavier remnants [89]. If formed in pairs, such stars may form BH binaries with both components masses above∼ 150M⊙, as suggested by population synthesis codes [90, 91]. While the stellar winds of very massive stars are uncert...

  3. [2]

    Marginalized cluster posteriors forfs = 0.5 In this section, we present the marginalized one- dimensional posterior distributions of the cluster param- eters and describe their features. In Fig. 8 we show the marginalized distributions for binaries A–E (rows two to six) computed assuming the low-redshift prior onzcl,0 for all of them (cf. Fig. 6). In Fig....

  4. [3]

    Runaway stellar collisions Stars with masses ≳ 200M⊙ formed through run- away stellar collisions may also lead to the formation of IMBHs [24, 40, 94–96]. However, the mass growth rate of the runaway star may be too strong for a very massive star to even form in a metal-rich environment [43, 44], 17 so this formation scenario may only be relevant in low- m...

  5. [4]

    IID, star clusters with a sufficiently high escape velocity undergo runaway BH mergers (see also [42, 71, 102])

    Repeated BH mergers As discussed in Sec. IID, star clusters with a sufficiently high escape velocity undergo runaway BH mergers (see also [42, 71, 102]). The simulations shown in the right panel of Fig. 5 suggest that the formation of two IMBHs with masses between 200M⊙ and 1000M⊙ within the same stellar environment, while possible, is unlikely (see also,...

  6. [5]

    worst case scenario

    Gas accretion Observational data imply that, despite being dry stel- lar systems, globular clusters contain some gas in their centers, resulting from stellar winds of low-mass stars and ionized by ambient white dwarfs. For instance, Ref. [107] inferred a density of gas particlesne = 0.23 cm−3 using the dissipative effects that the gas would have on the em...

  7. [6]

    GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs,

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs,” Phys. Rev. X9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [7]

    GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run,

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run,” Phys. Rev. X11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr- qc]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 149 references
  1. [8]

    GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run,

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), “GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run,” Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [9]

    The Einstein Telescope: A third- generationgravitationalwaveobservatory,

    M. Punturo et al., “The Einstein Telescope: A third- generationgravitationalwaveobservatory,”Class.Quant. Grav. 27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  3. [10]

    A Horizon Study for Cosmic Ex- plorer: Science, Observatories, and Community,

    Matthew Evanset al., “A Horizon Study for Cosmic Ex- plorer: Science, Observatories, and Community,” (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Science with the Einstein Tele- scope: a comparison of different designs,

    Marica Branchesiet al., “Science with the Einstein Tele- scope: a comparison of different designs,” JCAP07, 068 (2023), arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Characterizing gravitational wave detector networks: from A♯ to cosmic explorer,

    Ish Gupta et al., “Characterizing gravitational wave detector networks: from A♯ to cosmic explorer,” Class. Quant. Grav. 41, 245001 (2024), arXiv:2307.10421 [gr- qc]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Identifying heavy stellar black holes at cosmological distances with next-generation gravitational-wave observatories,

    Stephen Fairhurst, Cameron Mills, Monica Colpi, Raf- faella Schneider, Alberto Sesana, Alessandro Trinca, and Rosa Valiante, “Identifying heavy stellar black holes at cosmological distances with next-generation gravitational-wave observatories,” Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 5...

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Intermediate-mass black hole binary parame- ter estimation with next-generation ground-based de- tector networks,

    Luca Reali, Roberto Cotesta, Andrea Antonelli, Kon- stantinos Kritos, Vladimir Strokov, and Emanuele Berti, “Intermediate-mass black hole binary parame- ter estimation with next-generation ground-based de- tector networks,” Phys. Rev. D 110, 103002 (2024), arXiv:2406.01687 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    The Formation and Evolution of Massive Black Holes,

    Marta Volonteri, “The Formation and Evolution of Massive Black Holes,” Science 337, 544 (2012), arXiv:1208.1106 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Intermediate-Mass Black Holes,

    Jenny E. Greene, Jay Strader, and Luis C. Ho, “Intermediate-Mass Black Holes,” Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 58, 257–312 (2020), arXiv:1911.09678 [astro- ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Dwarf Galaxies with Optical Signatures of Active Massive Black Holes,

    Amy E. Reines, Jenny E. Greene, and Marla Geha, “Dwarf Galaxies with Optical Signatures of Active Massive Black Holes,” Astrophys. J.775, 116 (2013), arXiv:1308.0328 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [18]

    A 10,000-solar-mass black hole in the nucleus of a bulgeless dwarf galaxy,

    Jong-Hak Woo, Hojin Cho, Elena Gallo, Edmund Hodges-Kluck, Huynh Anh N. Le, Jaejin Shin, Donghoon Son, and John C. Horst, “A 10,000-solar-mass black hole in the nucleus of a bulgeless dwarf galaxy,” Nat. Astron. 3, 755–759 (2019), arXiv:1905.00145 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Observational evidence for intermediate- mass black holes,

    Mar Mezcua, “Observational evidence for intermediate- mass black holes,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D26, 1730021 (2017), arXiv:1705.09667 [astro-ph.GA]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [20]

    A 400-solar-mass black hole in the galaxy M82,

    Dheeraj R. Pasham, Tod E. Strohmayer, and Richard F. Mushotzky, “A 400-solar-mass black hole in the galaxy M82,” Nature 513, 74–76 (2014), arXiv:1501.03180 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [21]

    A broadband X-ray spectral study of the intermediate-mass black hole candidate M82 X-1 with NuSTAR, Chandra and Swift,

    Murray Brightmanet al., “A broadband X-ray spectral study of the intermediate-mass black hole candidate M82 X-1 with NuSTAR, Chandra and Swift,” Astrophys. J. 829, 28 (2016), arXiv:1607.03903 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [22]

    An intermediate- mass black hole of over 500 solar masses in the galaxy ESO243-49,

    Sean A. Farrell, Natalie A. Webb, Didier Barret, Olivier Godet, and Joana M. Rodrigues, “An intermediate- mass black hole of over 500 solar masses in the galaxy ESO243-49,” Nature460, 73–75 (2009), arXiv:1001.0567 [astro-ph.HE]

    2009 arXiv

  16. [23]

    A Young Massive Stellar Population around the Intermediate-mass Black Hole ESO 243- 49 HLX-1,

    S. A. Farrell, M. Servillat, J. Pforr, T. J. Mac- carone, C. Knigge, O. Godet, C. Maraston, N. A. Webb, D. Barret, A. J. Gosling, R. Belmont, and K. Wiersema, “A Young Massive Stellar Population around the Intermediate-mass Black Hole ESO 243- 49 HLX-1,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 74...

    2012 arXiv

  17. [24]

    The MAVERIC Survey: Still No Evidence for Accreting Intermediate-mass Black HolesinGlobularClusters,

    Evangelia Tremouet al., “The MAVERIC Survey: Still No Evidence for Accreting Intermediate-mass Black HolesinGlobularClusters,”Astrophys.J. 862,16(2018), arXiv:1806.00259 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Fast-moving stars around an intermediate-mass black hole in Omega Centauri,

    Maximilian Häberle, Nadine Neumayer, Anil Seth, Andrea Bellini, Mattia Libralato, Holger Baumgardt, Matthew Whitaker, Antoine Dumont, Mayte Alfaro Cuello, Jay Anderson, Callie Clontz, Nikolay Kacharov, Sebastian Kamann, Anja Feldmeier-Krause, Antonino Milone, Maria Selina Nits...

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A high- velocity star recently ejected by an intermediate-mass black hole in M15,

    Yang Huang, Qingzheng Li, Jifeng Liu, Xiaobo Dong, Huawei Zhang, Youjun Lu, and Cuihua Du, “A high- velocity star recently ejected by an intermediate-mass black hole in M15,” (2024), arXiv:2406.00923 [astro- ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Black hole growth through hierarchical black hole merg- ers in dense star clusters: implications for gravitational wave detections,

    Fabio Antonini, Mark Gieles, and Alessia Gualandris, “Black hole growth through hierarchical black hole merg- ers in dense star clusters: implications for gravitational wave detections,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 486, 5008–5021 (2019), arXiv:1811.03640 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    The Formation of massive black holes through collision run- away in dense young star clusters,

    Simon F. Portegies Zwart, Holger Baumgardt, Piet Hut, Junichiro Makino, and Stephen L. W. McMillan, “The Formation of massive black holes through collision run- away in dense young star clusters,” Nature428, 724 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0402622

    2004 arXiv

  22. [30]

    The growth of intermediate mass black holes through tidal captures and tidal disruption events,

    Francesco Paolo Rizzuto, Thorsten Naab, Antti Rantala, Peter H. Johansson, Jeremiah P. Ostriker, Nicholas C. Stone, Shihong Liao, and Dimitrios Irodotou, “The growth of intermediate mass black holes through tidal captures and tidal disruption events,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. So...

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Missing link found? – the “runaway

    Toshikazu Ebisuzaki, Junichiro Makino, Takeshi Go Tsuru, Yoko Funato, Simon F. Portegies Zwart, Piet 26 Hut, Steve McMillan, Satoki Matsushita, Hironori Mat- sumoto, and Ryohei Kawabe, “Missing link found? – the “runaway” path to supermassive black holes,” Astrophys. J. Lett. ...

    2001 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Mergers of globular clusters in the Galactic disc: intermediate mass black hole coalescence and im- plications for gravitational waves detection,

    Manuel Arca Sedda and Alessandra Mastrobuono- Battisti, “Mergers of globular clusters in the Galactic disc: intermediate mass black hole coalescence and im- plications for gravitational waves detection,” (2019), arXiv:1906.05864 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Formation of supermassive black holes in galactic nuclei - I. Delivering seed intermediate-mass black holes in massive stellar clusters,

    Abbas Askar, Melvyn B. Davies, and Ross P. Church, “Formation of supermassive black holes in galactic nuclei - I. Delivering seed intermediate-mass black holes in massive stellar clusters,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.502, 2682–2700 (2021), arXiv:2006.04922 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Origin and growth of nuclear star clus- ters around massive black holes,

    Fabio Antonini, “Origin and growth of nuclear star clus- ters around massive black holes,” Astrophys. J.763, 62 (2013), arXiv:1207.6589 [astro-ph.GA]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Co-Evolution of Galactic Nuclei and Glob- ular Cluster Systems,

    Oleg Y. Gnedin, Jeremiah P. Ostriker, and Scott Tremaine, “Co-Evolution of Galactic Nuclei and Glob- ular Cluster Systems,” Astrophys. J. 785, 71 (2014), arXiv:1308.0021 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Gravi- tational wave sources from inspiralling globular clus- ters in the Galactic Centre and similar environments,

    Manuel Arca-Sedda and Alessia Gualandris, “Gravi- tational wave sources from inspiralling globular clus- ters in the Galactic Centre and similar environments,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 477, 4423–4442 (2018), arXiv:1804.06116 [astro-ph.GA]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [38]

    A Black Hole in the Galactic Center Complex IRS 13E?

    R. Schödel, A. Eckart, C. Iserlohe, R. Genzel, and T. Ott, “A Black Hole in the Galactic Center Complex IRS 13E?” Astrophys. J. Lett.625, L111–L114 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0504474 [astro-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  30. [39]

    A new type of compact stellar population: dark star clusters,

    Sambaran Banerjee and Pavel Kroupa, “A new type of compact stellar population: dark star clusters,” Astro- phys. J. Lett.741, L12 (2011), arXiv:1110.4103 [astro- ph.GA]

    2011 arXiv

  31. [40]

    GW190521 from the Merger of Ultradwarf Galaxies,

    Antonella Palmese and Christopher J. Conselice, “GW190521 from the Merger of Ultradwarf Galaxies,” Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 181103 (2021), arXiv:2009.10688 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [41]

    FROST-CLUSTERS – I. Hierarchical star cluster as- sembly boosts intermediate-mass black hole formation,

    Antti Rantala, Thorsten Naab, and Natalia Lahén, “FROST-CLUSTERS – I. Hierarchical star cluster as- sembly boosts intermediate-mass black hole formation,” (2024), arXiv:2403.10602 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Feedback-regulated seed black hole growth in star- forming molecular clouds and galactic nuclei,

    Yanlong Shi, Kyle Kremer, and Philip F. Hopkins, “Feedback-regulated seed black hole growth in star- forming molecular clouds and galactic nuclei,” Astron. Astrophys. 691, A24 (2024), arXiv:2405.12164 [astro- ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Extremely efficient mergers of intermediate-mass black hole binaries in nucleated dwarf galaxies,

    Fazeel Mahmood Khan and Kelly Holley-Bockelmann, “Extremely efficient mergers of intermediate-mass black hole binaries in nucleated dwarf galaxies,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 508, 1174–1188 (2021), arXiv:2109.12129 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [44]

    MOCCA code for star cluster simulations - IV. A new scenario for in- termediate mass black hole formation in globular clus- ters,

    Mirek Giersz, Nathan Leigh, Arkadiusz Hypki, Nora Lützgendorf, and Abbas Askar, “MOCCA code for star cluster simulations - IV. A new scenario for in- termediate mass black hole formation in globular clus- ters,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.454, 3150–3165 (2015), arXiv:1506.05234 ...

    2015 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Massive black hole binaries from collisional runaways,

    M. Atakan Gurkan, John M. Fregeau, and Frederic A. Rasio, “Massive black hole binaries from collisional runaways,” Astrophys. J. Lett.640, L39–L42 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0512642

    2006 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Concurrent formation of supermassive stars and globular clusters: implications for early self-enrichment,

    Mark Gieles, Corinne Charbonnel, Martin G. H. Krause, Vincent Hénault-Brunet, Oscar Agertz, Henny J. G. L. M. Lamers, Nathan Bastian, Alessia Gualan- dris, Alice Zocchi, and James A. Petts, “Concurrent formation of supermassive stars and globular clusters: implications for ear...

    2018 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Massive black hole assembly in nuclear star clusters,

    Konstantinos Kritos, Emanuele Berti, and Joseph Silk, “Massive black hole assembly in nuclear star clusters,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 083012 (2023), arXiv:2212.06845 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Massive black hole binaries from runaway collisions: the impact of metallicity,

    Michela Mapelli, “Massive black hole binaries from runaway collisions: the impact of metallicity,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 459, 3432–3446 (2016), arXiv:1604.03559 [astro-ph.GA]

    2016 arXiv

  40. [49]

    The evolution of runaway stellar collision products,

    E. Glebbeek, E. Gaburov, S. E. de Mink, O. R. Pols, and S. F. Portegies Zwart, “The evolution of runaway stellar collision products,” Astron. Astrophys. 497, 255–264 (2009), arXiv:0902.1753 [astro-ph.SR]

    2009 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Gravitational Wave Recoil and the Retention of Intermediate Mass Black Holes,

    Kelly Holley-Bockelmann, Kayhan Gultekin, Deirdre Shoemaker, and Nico Yunes, “Gravitational Wave Recoil and the Retention of Intermediate Mass Black Holes,” Astrophys. J. 686, 829 (2008), arXiv:0707.1334 [astro- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Formation of Massive Black Holes in Galactic Nuclei: Runaway Tidal Encounters,

    Nicholas C. Stone, Andreas H. W. Küpper, and Jeremiah P. Ostriker, “Formation of Massive Black Holes in Galactic Nuclei: Runaway Tidal Encounters,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 467, 4180–4199 (2017), arXiv:1606.01909 [astro-ph.GA]

    2017 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Gravitational waves as a probe of globular cluster formation and evolution,

    Isobel M. Romero-Shaw, Kyle Kremer, Paul D. Lasky, Eric Thrane, and Johan Samsing, “Gravitational waves as a probe of globular cluster formation and evolution,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 506, 2362–2372 (2021), arXiv:2011.14541 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Single-event likelihood of star cluster properties with LIGO-Virgo- Kagra binary black hole observations,

    Ken K. Y. Ng, Konstantinos Kritos, Andrea Antonelli, Roberto Cotesta, and Emanuele Berti, “Single-event likelihood of star cluster properties with LIGO-Virgo- Kagra binary black hole observations,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 083015 (2023), arXiv:2307.03227 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Globular clus- ter formation histories, masses, and radii inferred from gravitational waves,

    Maya Fishbach and Giacomo Fragione, “Globular clus- ter formation histories, masses, and radii inferred from gravitational waves,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.522, 5546–5557 (2023), arXiv:2303.02263 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [55]

    The Initial mass function of stars: Evi- dence for uniformity in variable systems,

    Pavel Kroupa, “The Initial mass function of stars: Evi- dence for uniformity in variable systems,” Science295, 82–91 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0201098

    2002 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Evaluating the merger rate of binary black holes from direct captures and third-body soft interactions using the Milky Way globular clusters,

    Konstantinos Kritos and Ilias Cholis, “Evaluating the merger rate of binary black holes from direct captures and third-body soft interactions using the Milky Way globular clusters,” Phys. Rev. D102, 083016 (2020), arXiv:2007.02968 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Random Grav- itational Encounters and the Evolution of Spherical Sys- tems. I. Method,

    Jr. Spitzer, Lyman and Michael H. Hart, “Random Grav- itational Encounters and the Evolution of Spherical Sys- tems. I. Method,” Astrophys. J.164, 399 (1971)

    1971

  49. [58]

    Merritt,Dynamics and Evolution of Galactic Nuclei (Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Prince- ton, New Jersey 08540, 2013)

    D. Merritt,Dynamics and Evolution of Galactic Nuclei (Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Prince- ton, New Jersey 08540, 2013)

    2013

  50. [59]

    Tidal capture formation of binary systems and X-ray sources in globular clusters

    A. C. Fabian, J. E. Pringle, and M. J. Rees, “Tidal capture formation of binary systems and X-ray sources in globular clusters.” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.172, 15 (1975)

    1975

  51. [60]

    On formation of close 27 binaries by two-body tidal capture

    W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky, “On formation of close 27 binaries by two-body tidal capture.” Astrophys. J.213, 183–192 (1977)

    1977

  52. [61]

    Effects of massive black holes on dense stellar systems

    J. Frank and M. J. Rees, “Effects of massive black holes on dense stellar systems.” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 176, 633–647 (1976)

    1976

  53. [62]

    The distribution and consumption rate of stars around a massive, collapsed object

    A. P. Lightman and S. L. Shapiro, “The distribution and consumption rate of stars around a massive, collapsed object.” Astrophys. J.211, 244–262 (1977)

    1977

  54. [63]

    The dissolution of globular clusters con- taining massive black holes

    S. L. Shapiro, “The dissolution of globular clusters con- taining massive black holes.” Astrophys. J.217, 281–286 (1977)

    1977

  55. [64]

    Star distribution around a massive black hole in a globular cluster

    J. N. Bahcall and R. A. Wolf, “Star distribution around a massive black hole in a globular cluster.” Astrophys. J. 209, 214–232 (1976)

    1976

  56. [65]

    N- body growth of a Bahcall-Wolf cusp around a black hole,

    Miguel Preto, David Merritt, and Rainer Spurzem, “N- body growth of a Bahcall-Wolf cusp around a black hole,” Astrophys. J. Lett.613, L109 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0406324

    2004

  57. [66]

    Population synthe- sis of black hole binary mergers from star clusters,

    Fabio Antonini and Mark Gieles, “Population synthe- sis of black hole binary mergers from star clusters,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 492, 2936–2954 (2020), arXiv:1906.11855 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  58. [67]

    The life cycle of star cluster in a tidal field,

    Mark Gieles, Douglas C. Heggie, and HongSheng Zhao, “The life cycle of star cluster in a tidal field,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 413, 2509–2524 (2011), arXiv:1101.1821 [astro-ph.GA]

    2011 arXiv

  59. [68]

    A prescription and fast code for the long-term evolution of star clusters - III. Unequal masses and stellar evolution,

    Poul E. R. Alexander, Mark Gieles, Henny J. G. L. M. Lamers, and Holger Baumgardt, “A prescription and fast code for the long-term evolution of star clusters - III. Unequal masses and stellar evolution,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.442, 1265–1285 (2014), arXiv:1405.1086 [astro-ph.GA]

    2014 arXiv

  60. [69]

    On the dynamics of open clus- ters,

    V. A. Ambartsumian, “On the dynamics of open clus- ters,” inDynamics of Star Clusters, Vol. 113, edited by J. Goodman and P. Hut (D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster, 1985) p. 521

    1985

  61. [70]

    Lifetimes of tidally lim- ited star clusters with different radii,

    M. Gieles and H. Baumgardt, “Lifetimes of tidally lim- ited star clusters with different radii,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.389, L28 (2008), arXiv:0806.2327 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  62. [71]

    TheRunawaygrowthofintermediate-massblackholesin dense star clusters,

    Simon F. Portegies Zwart and Steve L. W. McMillan, “TheRunawaygrowthofintermediate-massblackholesin dense star clusters,” Astrophys. J.576, 899–907 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0201055

    2002 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Dynamical evolution of black hole sub-systems in idealised star clusters,

    Philip G. Breen and Douglas C. Heggie, “Dynamical evolution of black hole sub-systems in idealised star clusters,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.432, 2779 (2013), arXiv:1304.3401 [astro-ph.GA]

    2013 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Tidal disruption of stars by black holes of 106-108 solar masses in nearby galaxies,

    Martin J. Rees, “Tidal disruption of stars by black holes of 106-108 solar masses in nearby galaxies,” Nature333, 523–528 (1988)

    1988

  65. [74]

    A bright year for tidal disruptions,

    Brian D. Metzger and Nicholas C. Stone, “A bright year for tidal disruptions,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.461, 948–966 (2016), arXiv:1506.03453 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Escape speed of stellar clusters from multiple-generation black-hole merg- ers in the upper mass gap,

    Davide Gerosa and Emanuele Berti, “Escape speed of stellar clusters from multiple-generation black-hole merg- ers in the upper mass gap,” Phys. Rev. D100, 041301 (2019), arXiv:1906.05295 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Avoiding a Cluster Catastrophe: Retention Efficiency and the Binary Black Hole Mass Spectrum,

    Michael Zevin and Daniel E. Holz, “Avoiding a Cluster Catastrophe: Retention Efficiency and the Binary Black Hole Mass Spectrum,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 935, L20 (2022), arXiv:2205.08549 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Dynamical formation of black hole binaries in dense star clusters: Rapid clus- ter evolution code,

    Konstantinos Kritos, Vladimir Strokov, Vishal Baib- hav, and Emanuele Berti, “Dynamical formation of black hole binaries in dense star clusters: Rapid clus- ter evolution code,” Phys. Rev. D110, 043023 (2024), arXiv:2210.10055 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Nonlinear quasinormal mode detectabil- ity with next-generation gravitational wave detectors,

    Sophia Yi, Adrien Kuntz, Enrico Barausse, Emanuele Berti, Mark Ho-Yeuk Cheung, Konstantinos Kritos, and Andrea Maselli, “Nonlinear quasinormal mode detectabil- ity with next-generation gravitational wave detectors,” Phys. Rev. D109, 124029 (2024), arXiv:2403.09767 [gr- qc]

    2024 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Constraining the high redshift formation of black hole seeds in nuclear star clusters with gas inflows,

    Alessandro Lupi, Monica Colpi, Bernadetta Devecchi, Giorgio Galanti, and Marta Volonteri, “Constraining the high redshift formation of black hole seeds in nuclear star clusters with gas inflows,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 442, 3616–3626 (2014), arXiv:1406.2325 [astro-ph.GA]

    2014 arXiv

  71. [80]

    James Binney and Scott Tremaine,Galactic Dynamics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1988)

    1988

  72. [81]

    The dynamical evolution of mas- sive black hole binaries - I. hardening in a fixed stellar background,

    Gerald D. Quinlan, “The dynamical evolution of mas- sive black hole binaries - I. hardening in a fixed stellar background,” New Astron.1, 35–56 (1996), arXiv:astro- ph/9601092

    1996

  73. [82]

    Chaotic Loss Cones and Black Hole Fueling,

    David Merritt and M. Y. Poon, “Chaotic Loss Cones and Black Hole Fueling,” Astrophys. J.606, 788–798 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0302296

    2004 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Lecture notes on black hole binary astrophysics,

    Marco Celoria, Roberto Oliveri, Alberto Sesana, and Michela Mapelli, “Lecture notes on black hole binary astrophysics,” (2018) arXiv:1807.11489 [astro-ph.GA]

    2018 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Scattering experiments meet N-body – I. A practical recipe for the evolution of massive black hole binaries in stellar environments,

    Alberto Sesana and Fazeel Mahmood Khan, “Scattering experiments meet N-body – I. A practical recipe for the evolution of massive black hole binaries in stellar environments,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.454, L66– L70 (2015), arXiv:1505.02062 [astro-ph.GA]

    2015 arXiv

  76. [85]

    An Accurate Analytical Fit to the Gravitational-wave Inspiral Duration for Eccentric Bina- ries,

    Ilya Mandel, “An Accurate Analytical Fit to the Gravitational-wave Inspiral Duration for Eccentric Bina- ries,” Res. Notes AAS5, 223 (2021), arXiv:2110.09254 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  77. [86]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    N. Aghanimet al. (Planck), “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  78. [87]

    The Structure and environment of young stellar clusters in spiral galaxies,

    Soeren S. Larsen, “The Structure and environment of young stellar clusters in spiral galaxies,” Astron. Astro- phys. 416, 537–553 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0312338

    2004 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Star Clusters Across Cosmic Time,

    Mark R. Krumholz, Christopher F. McKee, and Joss Bland-Hawthorn, “Star Clusters Across Cosmic Time,” Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 57, 227–303 (2019), arXiv:1812.01615 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  80. [89]

    Globular cluster formation in the context of galaxy formation and evolution,

    J. M. Diederik Kruijssen, “Globular cluster formation in the context of galaxy formation and evolution,” Class. Quantum Grav. 31, 244006 (2014), arXiv:1407.2953 [astro-ph.GA]

    2014 arXiv

  81. [90]

    The formation and hierarchical assembly of globular cluster popula- tions,

    Kareem El-Badry, Eliot Quataert, Daniel R. Weisz, Nick Choksi, and Michael Boylan-Kolchin, “The formation and hierarchical assembly of globular cluster popula- tions,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.482, 4528–4552 (2019), arXiv:1805.03652 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  82. [91]

    Introducing EMP-Pathfinder: modelling the simultaneous formation and evolution of stellar clusters in their host galaxies,

    Marta Reina-Campos, Benjamin W. Keller, J. M. Diederik Kruijssen, Jindra Gensior, Sebas- tian Trujillo-Gomez, Sarah M. R. Jeffreson, Joel L. Pfeffer, and Alison Sills, “Introducing EMP-Pathfinder: modelling the simultaneous formation and evolution of stellar clusters in their ...

    2022 arXiv

  83. [92]

    The cosmic 28 evolution of binary black holes in young, globular, and nuclear star clusters: rates, masses, spins, and mixing fractions,

    Michela Mapelli, Yann Bouffanais, Filippo Santoliquido, Manuel Arca Sedda, and M. Celeste Artale, “The cosmic 28 evolution of binary black holes in young, globular, and nuclear star clusters: rates, masses, spins, and mixing fractions,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.511, 5797–581...

    2022 arXiv

  84. [93]

    Kinematic masses of super star clusters in m82 from high-resolution near-infrared spectroscopy,

    Nate McCrady, Andrea M. Gilbert, and James R. Gra- ham, “Kinematic masses of super star clusters in m82 from high-resolution near-infrared spectroscopy,” Astro- phys. J. 596, 240–252 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0306373

    2003 arXiv

  85. [94]

    Massive black holes as Population III remnants,

    Piero Madau and Martin J. Rees, “Massive black holes as Population III remnants,” Astrophys. J. Lett.551, L27–L30 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0101223

    2001 arXiv

  86. [95]

    Merger rate of stellar black hole binaries above the pair instability mass gap,

    Alberto Mangiagli, Matteo Bonetti, Alberto Sesana, and Monica Colpi, “Merger rate of stellar black hole binaries above the pair instability mass gap,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 883, L27 (2019), arXiv:1907.12562 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  87. [96]

    On the pop- ulation III binary black hole mergers beyond the pair- instability mass gap,

    Kotaro Hijikawa, Ataru Tanikawa, Tomoya Kinugawa, Takashi Yoshida, and Hideyuki Umeda, “On the pop- ulation III binary black hole mergers beyond the pair- instability mass gap,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.505, L69–L73 (2021), arXiv:2104.13384 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  88. [97]

    Probing multiple populations of compact binaries with third-generation gravitational- wave detectors,

    Ken K. Y. Ng, Salvatore Vitale, Will M. Farr, and Carl L. Rodriguez, “Probing multiple populations of compact binaries with third-generation gravitational- wave detectors,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 913, L5 (2021), arXiv:2012.09876 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  89. [98]

    “Super-kilonovae

    Daniel M. Siegel, Aman Agarwal, Jennifer Barnes, Brian D. Metzger, Mathieu Renzo, and V. Ashley Villar, ““Super-kilonovae” from Massive Collapsars as Signa- tures of Black Hole Birth in the Pair-instability Mass Gap,” Astrophys. J.941, 100 (2022), arXiv:2111.03094 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  90. [99]

    Star cluster ecol- ogy. 3. Runaway collisions in young compact star clus- ters,

    Simon F. Portegies Zwart, Junichiro Makino, Stephen L. W. McMillan, and Piet Hut, “Star cluster ecol- ogy. 3. Runaway collisions in young compact star clus- ters,” Astron. Astrophys.348, 117 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9812006

    1999

  91. [100]

    Intermediate-mass Black Hole Progenitors from Stellar Collisions in Dense Star Clusters,

    Elena González Prieto, Newlin C. Weatherford, Gia- como Fragione, Kyle Kremer, and Frederic A. Rasio, “Intermediate-mass Black Hole Progenitors from Stellar Collisions in Dense Star Clusters,” Astrophys. J.969, 29 (2024), arXiv:2404.11646 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  92. [101]

    Simu- lations predict intermediate-mass black hole for- mation in globular clusters,

    Michiko S. Fujii, Long Wang, Ataru Tanikawa, Yutaka Hirai, and Takayuki R. Saitoh, “Simu- lations predict intermediate-mass black hole for- mation in globular clusters,” Science 0, eadi4211, https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adi4211

    doi

  93. [102]

    An Upper limit to the masses of stars,

    Donald F. Figer, “An Upper limit to the masses of stars,” Nature 434, 192 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0503193

    2005 arXiv

  94. [103]

    Intermediate-mass Black Holes on the Run from Young Star Clusters,

    Elena González Prieto, Kyle Kremer, Giacomo Fragione, Miguel A. S. Martinez, Newlin C. Weatherford, Michael Zevin, and Frederic A. Rasio, “Intermediate-mass Black Holes on the Run from Young Star Clusters,” Astrophys. J. 940, 131 (2022), arXiv:2208.07881 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  95. [104]

    Rates and Characteristics of Intermediate-Mass-Ratio Inspirals Detectable by Ad- vanced LIGO,

    Ilya Mandel, Duncan A. Brown, Jonathan R. Gair, and M. Coleman Miller, “Rates and Characteristics of Intermediate-Mass-Ratio Inspirals Detectable by Ad- vanced LIGO,” Astrophys. J.681, 1431–1447 (2008), arXiv:0705.0285 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  96. [105]

    Nu- clear star clusters,

    Nadine Neumayer, Anil Seth, and Torsten Boeker, “Nu- clear star clusters,” Astron. Astrophys. Rev.28, 4 (2020), arXiv:2001.03626 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  97. [106]

    Hyper-velocity and tidal stars from binaries disrupted by a massive Galactic black hole,

    J. G. Hills, “Hyper-velocity and tidal stars from binaries disrupted by a massive Galactic black hole,” Nature331, 687–689 (1988)

    1988

  98. [107]

    Growing black holes through suc- cessive mergers in galactic nuclei – I. Methods and first results,

    Dany Atallah, Alessandro A. Trani, Kyle Kremer, Newlin C. Weatherford, Giacomo Fragione, Mario Spera, and Frederic A. Rasio, “Growing black holes through suc- cessive mergers in galactic nuclei – I. Methods and first results,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.523, 4227–4250 (2023), ...

    2023 arXiv

  99. [108]

    Repeated Mergers, Mass-gap Black Holes, and Formation of Intermediate-mass Black Holes in Dense Massive Star Clusters,

    Giacomo Fragione, Bence Kocsis, Frederic A. Rasio, and Joseph Silk, “Repeated Mergers, Mass-gap Black Holes, and Formation of Intermediate-mass Black Holes in Dense Massive Star Clusters,” Astrophys. J.927, 231 (2022), arXiv:2107.04639 [astro-ph.GA]

    2022 arXiv

  100. [109]

    Black hole mass and spin coevolution by mergers,

    Scott A. Hughes and Roger D. Blandford, “Black hole mass and spin coevolution by mergers,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 585, L101–L104 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0208484

    2003 arXiv

  101. [110]

    The Evolution of Black Hole Mass and Spin in Active Galactic Nuclei,

    A. R. King, J. E. Pringle, and J. A. Hofmann, “The Evolution of Black Hole Mass and Spin in Active Galactic Nuclei,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.385, 1621 (2008), arXiv:0801.1564 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  102. [111]

    Cosmological black hole spin evolution by mergers and accretion,

    Emanuele Berti and Marta Volonteri, “Cosmological black hole spin evolution by mergers and accretion,” As- trophys. J. 684, 822–828 (2008), arXiv:0802.0025 [astro- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  103. [112]

    In- ternal gas models and central black hole in 47 Tucanae using millisecond pulsars,

    F. Abbate, A. Possenti, A. Ridolfi, P. C. C. Freire, F. Camilo, R. N. Manchester, and N. D’Amico, “In- ternal gas models and central black hole in 47 Tucanae using millisecond pulsars,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 481, 627–638 (2018), arXiv:1808.06621 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  104. [113]

    A new channel to form IMBHs throughout cosmic time,

    Priyamvada Natarajan, “A new channel to form IMBHs throughout cosmic time,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 501, 1413–1425 (2021), arXiv:2009.09156 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  105. [114]

    The core radius of a star cluster containing a massive black hole,

    Douglas C. Heggie, Piet Hut, Shin Mineshige, Jun Makino, and Holger Baumgardt, “The core radius of a star cluster containing a massive black hole,” Publ. As- tron. Soc. Jap.59, 507 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0611950

    2007 arXiv

  106. [115]

    Strong mass segre- gation around a massive black hole,

    Tal Alexander and Clovis Hopman, “Strong mass segre- gation around a massive black hole,” Astrophys. J.697, 1861–1869 (2009), arXiv:0808.3150 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  107. [116]

    The mass-loss rates of star clusters with stellar-mass black holes: implications for the globular cluster mass function,

    Mark Gieles and Oleg Y. Gnedin, “The mass-loss rates of star clusters with stellar-mass black holes: implications for the globular cluster mass function,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 522, 5340–5357 (2023), arXiv:2303.03791 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  108. [117]

    The missing link in gravitational-wave astronomy: discoveries waiting in the decihertz range,

    Manuel Arca Sedda et al., “The missing link in gravitational-wave astronomy: discoveries waiting in the decihertz range,” Class. Quant. Grav.37, 215011 (2020), arXiv:1908.11375 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  109. [118]

    Possible LISA follow-on mission scientific objec- tives,

    Peter L. Bender, Mitchell C. Begelman, and Jonathan R. Gair, “Possible LISA follow-on mission scientific objec- tives,” Class. Quant. Grav.30, 165017 (2013)

    2013

  110. [119]

    Space Based Gravitational Wave Astronomy Beyond LISA,

    John Baker et al., “Space Based Gravitational Wave Astronomy Beyond LISA,” Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51, 243 (2019), arXiv:1907.11305 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  111. [120]

    The status of DECIGO,

    Shuichi Satoet al., “The status of DECIGO,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 840, 012010 (2017)

    2017

  112. [121]

    Current status of space gravita- tional wave antenna DECIGO and B-DECIGO,

    Seiji Kawamuraet al., “Current status of space gravita- tional wave antenna DECIGO and B-DECIGO,” PTEP 2021, 05A105 (2021), arXiv:2006.13545 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  113. [122]

    Gravitational-Wave Lu- nar Observatory for Cosmology,

    Karan Jani and Abraham Loeb, “Gravitational-Wave Lu- nar Observatory for Cosmology,” (2020), 10.1088/1475- 7516/2021/06/044, arXiv:2007.08550 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  114. [123]

    The Lunar Gravitational- wave Antenna: mission studies and science case,

    Parameswaran Ajithet al., “The Lunar Gravitational- wave Antenna: mission studies and science case,” JCAP 01, 108 (2025), arXiv:2404.09181 [gr-qc]

    2025

  115. [124]

    Lunar Gravitational-Wave De- 29 tection,

    Marica Branchesiet al., “Lunar Gravitational-Wave De- 29 tection,” Space Sci. Rev.219, 67 (2023)

    2023

  116. [125]

    AEDGE: Atomic Experiment for Dark Matter and Gravity Ex- ploration in Space,

    Yousef Abou El-Neaj et al. (AEDGE), “AEDGE: Atomic Experiment for Dark Matter and Gravity Ex- ploration in Space,” EPJ Quant. Technol.7, 6 (2020), arXiv:1908.00802 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  117. [126]

    AION: An Atom Interferome- ter Observatory and Network,

    L. Badurina et al., “AION: An Atom Interferome- ter Observatory and Network,” JCAP05, 011 (2020), arXiv:1911.11755 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  118. [127]

    Gravitational Waves in the Mid-band with Atom Interferometry,

    Jason Hogan, Emanuele Berti, Swapan Chattopadhyay, Jonathon Coleman, Savas Dimopoulos, Stephen Geer, Peter W. Graham, Roni Harnik, Marc Kamionkowski, David E. Kaplan, Vicky Kalogera, Mark A. Kasevich, Tim Kovachy, John March-Russell, John C. Mather, Robert Plunkett, Surjeet Ra...

    2019

  119. [128]

    Exploring gravity with the MIGA large scale atom interferometer,

    B. Canuel, A. Bertoldi, L. Amand, E. Pozzo di Borgo, T. Chantrait, C. Danquigny, M. Dovale Álvarez, B. Fang, A. Freise, R. Geiger, J. Gillot, S. Henry, J. Hinderer, D. Holleville, J. Junca, G. Lefèvre, M. Merzougui, N. Mi- elec, T. Monfret, S. Pelisson, M. Prevedelli, S. Reyna...

    2018 arXiv

  120. [129]

    ELGAR—a European Laboratory for Gravitation and Atom-interferometric Research,

    B. Canuel et al., “ELGAR—a European Laboratory for Gravitation and Atom-interferometric Research,” Class. Quant. Grav.37, 225017 (2020), arXiv:1911.03701 [physics.atom-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  121. [130]

    ZAIGA: Zhaoshan long-baseline atom interferometer gravitation antenna,

    Ming-Sheng Zhan, Jin Wang, Wei-Tou Ni, Dong-Feng Gao, Gang Wang, Ling-Xiang He, Run-Bing Li, Lin Zhou, Xi Chen, Jia-Qi Zhong, Biao Tang, Zhan-Wei Yao, Lei Zhu, Zong-Yuan Xiong, Si-Bin Lu, Geng-Hua Yu, Qun-Feng Cheng, Min Liu, Yu-Rong Liang, Peng Xu, Xiao-Dong He, Min Ke, Zheng...

    2020 arXiv

  122. [131]

    A Huge drop in x-ray luminosity of the non-active galaxy RXJ 1242.6-1119A, and first post - flare spectrum - test- ing the tidal disruption scenario,

    Stefanie Komossa, Jules Halpern, Norbert Schartel, Gun- ther Hasinger, Maria Santos-Lleo, and Peter Predehl, “A Huge drop in x-ray luminosity of the non-active galaxy RXJ 1242.6-1119A, and first post - flare spectrum - test- ing the tidal disruption scenario,” Astrophys. J. Le...

    2004 arXiv

  123. [132]

    A search for intermediate-mass black holes in compact stellar sys- tems through optical emissions from tidal disruption events,

    Richard T. Pomeroy and Mark A. Norris, “A search for intermediate-mass black holes in compact stellar sys- tems through optical emissions from tidal disruption events,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. (2024), 10.1093/mn- ras/stae960, arXiv:2404.09144 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  124. [133]

    AluminousX-rayoutburstfromanintermediate- mass black hole in an off-centre star cluster,

    Dacheng Lin, Jay Strader, Eleazar R. Carrasco, Dany Page, Aaron J. Romanowsky, Jeroen Homan, Jimmy A. Irwin, Ronald A. Remillard, Olivier Godet, Natalie A. Webb, Holger Baumgardt, Rudy Wijnands, Didier Bar- ret, Pierre-Alain Duc, Jean P. Brodie, and Stephen D. J. Gwyn,“Alumino...

    2018 arXiv

  125. [134]

    Tidal Disruption Events,

    Suvi Gezari, “Tidal Disruption Events,” Ann. Rev. As- tron. Astrophys. 59, 21–58 (2021), arXiv:2104.14580 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  126. [135]

    Bound star clusters observed in a lensed galaxy 460 Myr after the Big Bang,

    Angela Adamo, Larry D. Bradley, Eros Vanzella, Adélaïde Claeyssens, Brian Welch, Jose M Diego, Guil- laume Mahler, Masamune Oguri, Keren Sharon, Ab- durro’uf, Tiger Yu-Yang Hsiao, Xinfeng Xu, Matteo Messa, Augusto E. Lassen, Erik Zackrisson, Gabriel Brammer, Dan Coe, Vasily Ko...

    2024 arXiv

  127. [136]

    JWST/NIRCam Probes Young Star Clusters in the Reionization Era Sunrise Arc,

    Eros Vanzella, Adélaïde Claeyssens, Brian Welch, Angela Adamo, Dan Coe, Jose M. Diego, Guillaume Mahler, Gourav Khullar, Vasily Kokorev, Masamune Oguri, Swara Ravindranath, Lukas J. Furtak, Tiger Yu-Yang Hsiao, Abdurro’uf, Nir Mandelker, Gabriel Brammer, Larry D. Bradley, Maru...

    2023 arXiv

  128. [137]

    Un- veiling the Cosmic Gems Arc atz∼ 10.2 with JWST,

    Larry D. Bradley, Angela Adamo, Eros Vanzella, Keren Sharon, Gabriel Brammer, Dan Coe, Jose M. Diego, Vasily Kokorev, Guillaume Mahler, Masamune Oguri, Abdurro’uf, Rachana Bhatawdekar, Lise Christensen, Seiji Fujimoto, Takuya Hashimoto, Tiger Y. -Y Hsiao, Akio K. Inoue, Yoland...

    2024

  129. [138]

    https://github.com/Kkritos/Star_clusters_from_ IMBH_mergers/tree/main

  130. [139]

    https://www.arch.jhu.edu/

  131. [140]

    Quick method for calculating energy dissipation in tidal interaction,

    S. F. Portegies Zwart and A. T. Meinen, “Quick method for calculating energy dissipation in tidal interaction,” Astron. Astrophys. 280, 174–176 (1993)

    1993

  132. [141]

    A reinvestigation of the standard model for the dynamics of a massive black hole in a globular cluster,

    D. N. C. Lin and S. Tremaine, “A reinvestigation of the standard model for the dynamics of a massive black hole in a globular cluster,” Astrophys. J.242, 789–798 (1980)

    1980

  133. [142]

    Advanced Virgo: a second- generation interferometric gravitational wave detector,

    F. Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), “Advanced Virgo: a second- generation interferometric gravitational wave detector,” Class. Quant. Grav.32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  134. [143]

    Computationally efficient models for the dominant and subdominant harmonic modes of precessing binary black holes,

    Geraint Prattenet al., “Computationally efficient models for the dominant and subdominant harmonic modes of precessing binary black holes,” Phys. Rev. D103, 104056 (2021), arXiv:2004.06503 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  135. [144]

    Numerical relativity injection analysis of signals from generically spinning intermediate mass black hole binaries in Advanced LIGO data,

    Koustav Chandra, V. Gayathri, Juan Calderon Bustillo, and Archana Pai, “Numerical relativity injection analysis of signals from generically spinning intermediate mass black hole binaries in Advanced LIGO data,” Phys. Rev. D 102, 044035 (2020), arXiv:2002.10666 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  136. [145]

    BILBY: A user-friendly Bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave astronomy,

    Gregory Ashtonet al., “BILBY: A user-friendly Bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave astronomy,” As- trophys. J. Suppl. 241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  137. [146]

    Accelerated parameter estimation in Bilby with relative binning,

    Kruthi Krishna, Aditya Vijaykumar, Apratim Ganguly, Colm Talbot, Sylvia Biscoveanu, Richard N. George, Natalie Williams, and Aaron Zimmerman, “Accelerated parameter estimation in Bilby with relative binning,” 30 (2023), arXiv:2312.06009 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  138. [147]

    Measuring the spins of heavy bi- nary black holes,

    Sylvia Biscoveanu, Maximiliano Isi, Vijay Varma, and Salvatore Vitale, “Measuring the spins of heavy bi- nary black holes,” Phys. Rev. D104, 103018 (2021), arXiv:2106.06492 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  139. [148]

    Kerr Metric Black Holes,

    James M. Bardeen, “Kerr Metric Black Holes,” Nature 226, 64–65 (1970)

    1970

  140. [149]

    J. B. Hartle, Gravity: An introduction to Einstein’s general relativity(Addison-Wesley, San Francisco, CA, 2003)

    2003

  141. [150]

    Observational Constraints on Black Hole Spin,

    Christopher S. Reynolds, “Observational Constraints on Black Hole Spin,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.59, 117–154 (2021), arXiv:2011.08948 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

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