pith. sign in

arxiv: 2502.08732 · v1 · submitted 2025-02-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Black Hole Spin-down in Collapsars in 3D Neutrino Transport GRMHD Simulations

Danat Issa , Beverly Lowell , Jonatan Jacquemin-Ide , Matthew Liska , Alexander Tchekhovskoy This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 03:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords collapsarsblack hole spinneutrino transportGRMHD simulationsgamma-ray burstsmagnetically arrested disksjet power
0
0 comments X

The pith

Black holes in neutrino-cooled collapsar disks equilibrate at spin 0.13, yielding stronger jets

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

This paper models the spin evolution of black holes at the centers of collapsing stars that launch long gamma-ray bursts. Three-dimensional simulations incorporating neutrino transport show that cooling from the dense disk raises the black hole's equilibrium spin to approximately 0.13. This value exceeds the lower equilibrium found in non-radiative disks and produces jets several times more powerful. The result persists across varied progenitor structures and accretion rates from 0.1 to 10 solar masses per second and matches the duration of typical bursts.

Core claim

Using 3D two-moment neutrino-transport general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations, successful collapsar jets powered by neutrino-cooled disks still rapidly spin down their black holes to an equilibrium spin a_eq ≈ 0.13, a value 2-4 times higher than for non-radiative magnetically arrested disks and resulting in 4-16 times more powerful jets.

What carries the argument

The equilibrium black hole spin a_eq reached when neutrino cooling reduces disk thickness and increases angular momentum supply to balance the electromagnetic jet torque in a magnetically arrested state.

If this is right

  • Black holes reach a_eq ≈ 0.13 by the end of typical LGRB durations t ≳ 30 s.
  • Shorter or lower-accretion-rate bursts leave black holes with higher final spins.
  • Jet power is 4-16 times higher than in non-radiative models.
  • The equilibrium spin value is consistent with LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA measurements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Observed LGRB jet energies could constrain the distribution of initial black hole spins before spin-down.
  • Similar neutrino-driven angular momentum transport may set equilibrium spins in other high-accretion systems.
  • Refinements to neutrino transport closures could shift the precise value of a_eq.

Load-bearing premise

The two-moment neutrino transport method accurately computes the net cooling rate and angular-momentum transport in the optically thick neutrino-dominated disk.

What would settle it

A measured black hole spin significantly below 0.13 in the remnant of a long-duration gamma-ray burst with typical accretion rate and duration would contradict the predicted equilibrium.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08732 by Alexander Tchekhovskoy, Beverly Lowell, Danat Issa, Jonatan Jacquemin-Ide, Matthew Liska.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: We consider two different collapsar progenitor struc￾tures for a range of BH spin. Progenitors with constant density cores (models c#, where # is BH spin) are shown with dashed lines, and more typical progenitors (models p#) with power-law density profiles, ρ ∝ r −1.5 , are shown with solid lines. Mass ac￾cretion rates, m˙ , (panel [a]) reach 20M⊙/s in c# models, compared to ∼ 0.1 − 0.5M⊙/s in p# models. D… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Mass accretion rates (panel [a]) and dimensionless fluxes (panel [b]) that begin with the same progenitor models, evolve sim￾ilarly in time for a wide range of spins. Orange shows all c# models (with constant density core), and blue - all p# models (typical col￾lapsars with ρ(r) ∝ r −1.5 ). We demonstrate profiles of m˙ (t) and ϕ(t) for each model (faint markers), and compute the average profiles (thick da… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Collapsar disks around slowly spinning BHs develop strong wobbles with respect to the BH spin midplane, e.g., in models p1 (panels [a-b]) and p1N0 (panels [c-d]), both of which have a = 0.1. Here, we show meridional slices through the logarithm of gas density, at two different times. panels [a,c]: Before the onset of disk misalignment, the jets clear out the polar funnel along the BH spin rotation axis (ve… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Our model for the spin-up parameter, s, well agrees with the simulated data points (panel a) for the model parameters fitted to the simulation (panels b-d). BH spin evolution in the MAD state depends on several key physical values, which we approximate as functions of the spin, a. Panel (a) shows the values of the spin-up parameter, s(a) (Eq. 5), time averaged over the window, t > 0.6s, which is shown in … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: We model the time evolution of the BH mass (top row) and spin (bottom row) by integrating Eqs. 29 on the timescale of the BH engine activity, teng (Eq. 28) that are well beyond our simulation runtimes, tsim ∼ 1s. Left column shows the solution, M(t) and a(t), for high-m˙ , constant density core models. Right column shows the solution for more typical, low-m˙ collapsar progenitors, for which we use the fits… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Rest mass (panel [a]), specific energy (panel [b]) and angular momentum (panel [c]) fluxes in model c5, which need to be corrected to minimize the contribution of the numerical density floors. Soild lines show unmodified radial flux profiles and dashed lines show profiles where a magnetization cutoff was applied, σ < (2/3)σmax. To minimize the contribution of the numerical density and energy floors to the … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Collapsars -- massive stars whose cores promptly collapse into black holes (BHs) -- can power long-duration gamma-ray bursts (LGRBs) via relativistic, collimated, electromagnetically-driven outflows, or jets. Their power depends on the BH magnetic field strength and spin. To survive the infalling stellar material, jets need the central BH to attain dynamically important magnetic fields that can suppress the mass inflow and lead to a magnetically arrested disk (MAD). Previous work found that non-radiative MADs can spin down their BHs to an equilibrium spin, $a_{\rm eq}^\text{nr}=0.035-0.07$. Such low spins result in extremely low power jets that may struggle to escape out of the star. However, the dense and hot collapsar disks emit neutrinos that cool the disk, reduce its thickness, and increase the angular momentum supply to the BH. Using 3D two-moment neutrino-transport general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations, we show for the first time that successful collapsar jets powered by neutrino-cooled disks still rapidly spin down their BHs, although to a higher $a_{\rm eq}\approx 0.13$. This value is consistent with LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA inferred spins, is $2-4$x higher than for non-radiative MADs, and results in $4-16$x more powerful LGRB jets, which are more capable of drilling out of the progenitor star. This value of $a_{\rm eq}$ holds across a wide range of progenitor structures and mass accretion rates, $\dot{m} \sim(0.1-10)M_{\odot}/\rm{s}$. We find that for typical LGRB durations, $t\gtrsim30$~s, such BHs consume sufficient mass to reach $a_{\rm eq} \approx 0.13$ by LGRB's end. However, shorter or lower-$\dot{m}$ LGRBs can leave behind more rapidly spinning BHs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports 3D two-moment neutrino-transport GRMHD simulations of collapsar disks, claiming that neutrino cooling raises the black-hole spin equilibrium from the non-radiative MAD value a_eq^nr=0.035-0.07 to a_eq≈0.13. This higher spin is stated to hold across progenitor structures and accretion rates 0.1-10 M_⊙ s^{-1}, yielding 4-16× more powerful jets while remaining consistent with LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA spin measurements; the simulations also indicate that typical LGRB durations allow the BH to reach this equilibrium.

Significance. If robust, the result supplies a concrete mechanism by which neutrino cooling alters MAD spin-down, directly affecting jet power and the ability of jets to escape the star. The 3D neutrino-transport treatment constitutes a technical advance over prior non-radiative work and supplies a falsifiable prediction for the spin distribution of LGRB remnants.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods (neutrino transport)] Methods section on neutrino transport: the central claim that neutrino-cooled disks reach a_eq≈0.13 (rather than the non-radiative value) rests on the two-moment closure correctly supplying the net cooling rate, disk thickness, and angular-momentum flux in the optically thick regime. No resolution studies, error bars on a_eq, or cross-checks against Monte Carlo or discrete-ordinates transport on the same backgrounds are reported, leaving the torque balance that sets a_eq vulnerable to systematic bias from the closure relation.
  2. [Results / Abstract] Results and abstract: the assertion that a_eq≈0.13 is independent of progenitor and accretion rate is presented without tabulated run-by-run values, quantified uncertainties, or explicit sensitivity tests to numerical parameters, making it difficult to evaluate whether the quoted equilibrium is load-bearing or an artifact of the specific setups.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions and text should explicitly state the simulation time or mass accreted at which a_eq is measured for each run.
  2. [Introduction / Methods] A short paragraph comparing the adopted two-moment implementation to the closures used in prior neutrino-transport collapsar studies would improve context.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Methods section on neutrino transport: the central claim that neutrino-cooled disks reach a_eq≈0.13 (rather than the non-radiative value) rests on the two-moment closure correctly supplying the net cooling rate, disk thickness, and angular-momentum flux in the optically thick regime. No resolution studies, error bars on a_eq, or cross-checks against Monte Carlo or discrete-ordinates transport on the same backgrounds are reported, leaving the torque balance that sets a_eq vulnerable to systematic bias from the closure relation.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript does not report resolution studies, error bars on a_eq, or direct cross-checks with Monte Carlo or discrete-ordinates methods. The two-moment closure is a standard approach previously validated in the literature for optically thick regimes. Performing new cross-validation simulations is not feasible within the scope of this work. In the revised manuscript we will expand the Methods section with additional justification of the closure, citations to validation studies, and an explicit discussion of possible systematic effects on the torque balance. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Results and abstract: the assertion that a_eq≈0.13 is independent of progenitor and accretion rate is presented without tabulated run-by-run values, quantified uncertainties, or explicit sensitivity tests to numerical parameters, making it difficult to evaluate whether the quoted equilibrium is load-bearing or an artifact of the specific setups.

    Authors: We agree that tabulating individual run results and discussing numerical sensitivities would improve clarity. The revised manuscript will add a table summarizing progenitor structures, accretion rates, and measured a_eq values for each simulation, together with a paragraph addressing sensitivity to grid resolution and initial conditions based on the existing runs. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: a_eq emerges directly from simulation time evolution

full rationale

The reported equilibrium spin a_eq≈0.13 is obtained from the direct time evolution of the black-hole spin parameter a in the 3D two-moment neutrino-transport GRMHD runs. No equation or fitting procedure inside the paper reduces this value to a quantity defined by the same run or to a prior self-citation. The comparison to non-radiative a_eq^nr=0.035-0.07 is presented only as external context, not as a load-bearing premise that forces the new result. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained and simulation-driven rather than tautological.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the GRMHD equations and the two-moment neutrino closure; no new particles or forces are introduced. The varied progenitor structures and accretion rates function as explored parameters rather than fitted constants.

free parameters (2)
  • progenitor density and angular-momentum profiles
    Drawn from stellar-evolution models and varied across a stated range; not fitted to the spin-down result itself.
  • mass accretion rate range
    Explored parametrically between 0.1 and 10 solar masses per second; the reported a_eq is insensitive within this interval.
axioms (2)
  • standard math The equations of general relativistic magnetohydrodynamics accurately describe the plasma and magnetic-field evolution near the black hole.
    Invoked as the foundation of all GRMHD simulations; location implicit in the method description.
  • domain assumption The two-moment neutrino transport closure sufficiently approximates the neutrino energy and momentum exchange in the optically thick disk.
    Required to produce the cooling that raises a_eq; stated in the simulation description.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5932 in / 1591 out tokens · 38874 ms · 2026-05-23T03:05:45.880894+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

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

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

    work page

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

    work page

  3. [4]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 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 E...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.831784 2021

  4. [5]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6604

    Arcier, B., & Atteia, J.-L. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6604

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6604 2022

  5. [6]

    2025, GRB 221009A and the Apparently Most Energetic Gamma - Ray Bursts , 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13505

    Atteia, J.-L., Bouchet, L., Dezalay, J.-P., et al. 2025, GRB 221009A and the Apparently Most Energetic Gamma - Ray Bursts , 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13505 . https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250113505A

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.13505 2025

  6. [8]

    Bardeen , J. M. 1970, , 226, 64, 10.1038/226064a0

    work page doi:10.1038/226064a0 1970

  7. [9]

    Batta , A., & Lee , W. H. 2014, , 437, 2412, 10.1093/mnras/stt2061

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2061 2014

  8. [10]

    S., Fragos, T., Zapartas, E., et al

    Bavera, S. S., Fragos, T., Zapartas, E., et al. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 657, L8, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141979

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141979 2022

  9. [11]

    D., & Znajek , R

    Blandford , R. D., & Znajek , R. L. 1977, , 179, 433, 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

  10. [12]

    2016, , 456, 1739, 10.1093/mnras/stv2591

    Bromberg , O., & Tchekhovskoy , A. 2016, , 456, 1739, 10.1093/mnras/stv2591

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2591 2016

  11. [13]

    A., Miller, S

    Callister, T. A., Miller, S. J., Chatziioannou, K., & Farr, W. M. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 937, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac847e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac847e 2022

  12. [14]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.00432, 10.48550/arXiv.2311.00432

    Chatterjee , K., Liska , M., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Markoff , S. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.00432, 10.48550/arXiv.2311.00432

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.00432 2023

  13. [15]

    Chen, W.-X., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 657, 383, 10.1086/508923

    work page doi:10.1086/508923 2007

  14. [16]

    Chevalier , R. A. 1989, , 346, 847, 10.1086/168066

    work page doi:10.1086/168066 1989

  15. [17]

    M., Lalakos , A., Tchekhovskoy , A., et al

    Christie , I. M., Lalakos , A., Tchekhovskoy , A., et al. 2019, , 490, 4811, 10.1093/mnras/stz2552

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2552 2019

  16. [18]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 946, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5ed

    Edelman, B., Farr, B., & Doctor, Z. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 946, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5ed

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb5ed 2023

  17. [19]

    2019, , 482, 3373, 10.1093/mnras/sty2932

    Fern \'a ndez , R., Tchekhovskoy , A., Quataert , E., Foucart , F., & Kasen , D. 2019, , 482, 3373, 10.1093/mnras/sty2932

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2932 2019

  18. [20]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 921, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2f3c

    Galaudage, S., Talbot, C., Nagar, T., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 921, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2f3c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac2f3c 2021

  19. [21]

    F., Shapiro , S

    Gammie , C. F., Shapiro , S. L., & McKinney , J. C. 2004, , 602, 312, 10.1086/380996

    work page doi:10.1086/380996 2004

  20. [22]

    S., & Burns, E

    Goldstein, A., Connaughton, V., Briggs, M. S., & Burns, E. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 818, 18, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/18

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/1/18 2016

  21. [23]

    2023, , 952, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace779

    Gottlieb , O., Jacquemin-Ide , J., Lowell , B., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2023, , 952, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace779

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace779 2023

  22. [24]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 4962, 10.1093/mnras/stab3784

    Gottlieb, O., Lalakos, A., Bromberg, O., Liska, M., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 4962, 10.1093/mnras/stab3784

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3784 2022

  23. [25]

    2022, , 933, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7530

    Gottlieb , O., Liska , M., Tchekhovskoy , A., et al. 2022, , 933, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7530

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac7530 2022

  24. [26]

    D., Goldberg , J

    Gottlieb , O., Renzo , M., Metzger , B. D., Goldberg , J. A., & Cantiello , M. 2024, , 976, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad856310.1134/S1063772908080027

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad856310.1134/s1063772908080027 2024

  25. [27]

    2023, , 944, L38, 10.3847/2041-8213/acb702

    Halevi , G., Wu , B., M \"o sta , P., et al. 2023, , 944, L38, 10.3847/2041-8213/acb702

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb702 2023

  26. [28]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.02852, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.02852

    Issa , D., Gottlieb , O., Metzger , B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.02852, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.02852

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.02852 2024

  27. [29]

    2024, , 961, 212, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad02f0

    Jacquemin-Ide , J., Gottlieb , O., Lowell , B., & Tchekhovskoy , A. 2024, , 961, 212, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad02f0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad02f0 2024

  28. [30]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 647, A192, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039322

    Jacquemin-Ide, J., Lesur, G., & Ferreira, J. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 647, A192, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039322

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039322 2021

  29. [31]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 532, 1522, 10.1093/mnras/stae1538

    Jacquemin-Ide, J., Rincon, F., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Liska, M. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 532, 1522, 10.1093/mnras/stae1538

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1538 2024

  30. [32]

    F., Capozziello, S., & Dainotti, M

    Komissarov , S. S., & Barkov , M. V. 2009, , 397, 1153, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14831.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14831.x 2009

  31. [33]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0974

    Lalakos, A., Tchekhovskoy, A., Bromberg, O., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0974

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0974 2024

  32. [34]

    Liska , M. T. P., Chatterjee , K., Issa , D., et al. 2022, , 263, 26, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9966

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac9966 2022

  33. [35]

    2024, , 960, 82, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad09af

    Lowell , B., Jacquemin-Ide , J., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Duncan , A. 2024, , 960, 82, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad09af

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad09af 2024

  34. [36]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, to be submitted february

    Lowell , B., Jacquemin-Ide , J., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Liska , M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, to be submitted february

    work page 2025

  35. [37]

    2002, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 393, L29, 10.1051/0004-6361:20021073

    McBreen, S., McBreen, B., Hanlon, L., & Quilligan, F. 2002, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 393, L29, 10.1051/0004-6361:20021073

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021073 2002

  36. [39]

    1996, , 283, 854, 10.1093/mnras/283.3.854

    Moderski , R., & Sikora , M. 1996, , 283, 854, 10.1093/mnras/283.3.854

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/283.3.854 1996

  37. [40]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 3795, 10.1093/mnras/stac285

    Narayan, R., Chael, A., Chatterjee, K., Ricarte, A., & Curd, B. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 3795, 10.1093/mnras/stac285

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac285 2022

  38. [41]

    S., Georganopoulos , M., Guiriec , S., et al

    Nemmen , R. S., Georganopoulos , M., Guiriec , S., et al. 2012, Science, 338, 1445, 10.1126/science.1227416

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1227416 2012

  39. [42]

    D., & Thorne, K

    Novikov, I. D., & Thorne, K. S. 1973, Astrophysics of black holes. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973blho.conf..343N

    work page 1973

  40. [43]

    1998, , 494, L45, 10.1086/311148

    Paczy \'n ski , B. 1998, , 494, L45, 10.1086/311148

    work page doi:10.1086/311148 1998

  41. [44]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 954, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/aceda5

    Ricarte, A., Narayan, R., & Curd, B. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 954, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/aceda5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aceda5 2023

  42. [45]

    T.-L., Ioka, K., & Sekiguchi, Y

    Shibata, M., Fujibayashi, S., Lam, A. T.-L., Ioka, K., & Sekiguchi, Y. 2024, Physical Review D, 109, 043051, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.043051

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.043051 2024

  43. [46]

    Siegel , D. M. 2022, Nature Reviews Physics, 4, 306, 10.1038/s42254-022-00439-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-022-00439-1 2022

  44. [47]

    M., Barnes , J., & Metzger , B

    Siegel , D. M., Barnes , J., & Metzger , B. D. 2019, , 569, 241, 10.1038/s41586-019-1136-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1136-0 2019

  45. [49]

    2015, , 447, 327, 10.1093/mnras/stu2229

    Tchekhovskoy , A., & Giannios , D. 2015, , 447, 327, 10.1093/mnras/stu2229

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2229 2015

  46. [50]

    D., Giannios , D., & Kelley , L

    Tchekhovskoy , A., Metzger , B. D., Giannios , D., & Kelley , L. Z. 2014, , 437, 2744, 10.1093/mnras/stt2085

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2085 2014

  47. [51]

    Tchekhovskoy , A., Narayan , R., & McKinney , J. C. 2011, , 418, L79, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x 2011

  48. [52]

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

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration , the Virgo Collaboration , the KAGRA Collaboration , et al. 2021, GWTC -3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the Second Part of the Third Observing Run , 10.48550/arXiv.2111.03606 . https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv211103606T

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.03606 2021

  49. [53]

    The population of merging compact binaries inferred using gravitational waves through GWTC-3

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration , the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Collaboration, et al. 2022, The population of merging compact binaries inferred using gravitational waves through GWTC -3, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2111.03634 . http://arxiv.org/abs/2111.03634

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.03634 2022

  50. [54]

    Thorne , K. S. 1974, , 191, 507, 10.1086/152991

    work page doi:10.1086/152991 1974

  51. [55]

    X., & Swesty , F

    Timmes , F. X., & Swesty , F. D. 2000, , 126, 501, 10.1086/313304

    work page doi:10.1086/313304 2000

  52. [56]

    2022, The population properties of spinning black holes using Gravitational -wave Transient Catalog 3, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2209.02206

    Tong, H., Galaudage, S., & Thrane, E. 2022, The population properties of spinning black holes using Gravitational -wave Transient Catalog 3, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2209.02206 . http://arxiv.org/abs/2209.02206

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.02206 2022

  53. [57]

    A., Paciesas, W

    von Kienlin, A., Meegan, C. A., Paciesas, W. S., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 46, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7a18

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7a18 2020

  54. [58]

    Woosley , S. E. 1993, , 405, 273, 10.1086/172359

    work page doi:10.1086/172359 1993

  55. [59]

    Y., & Fishbach, M

    Wu, T. Y., & Fishbach, M. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 239, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad98ed

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad98ed 2024

  56. [60]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.12850, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.12850

    Wu , Z.-F., Damoulakis , M., Beniamini , P., & Giannios , D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.12850, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.12850

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.12850 2024