Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Binarity at LOw Metallicity (BLOeM): Bayesian inference of natal kicks from inert black hole binaries

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that inert black hole binaries can tightly constrain the natal kick and mass loss of black-hole-forming core collapses, and that for VFTS 243 this yields 90% upper limits of about 27 km/s and 2.9 solar masses.

desk verdict A genuinely useful Bayesian framework for natal-kick inference from inert BHBs, but the VFTS 243 headline numbers are not reproducible as written because the birth-velocity prior widths in Sec. 2.5 and Table 5 disagree. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16669 v1 pith:65HT4EAO submitted 2025-04-23 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

R. Willcox , P. Marchant , A. Vigna-Gómez , H. Sana , J. Bodensteiner , K. Deshmukh , M. Esseldeurs , M. Fabry
show 10 more authors
V. Hénault-Brunet S. Janssens L. Mahy L. Patrick D. Pauli M. Renzo A. A. C. Sander T. Shenar L. A. C. van Son M. Stoop (the BLOeM Collaboration)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords natalkicksblackholeformationinertbinariesVFTS243Bayesianinferencecore-collapsemasslossbinaryeccentricityBLOeMsurvey
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that inert black hole binaries—wide binaries with a stellar-mass black hole, a massive main-sequence star, and no X-ray emission—can serve as precision probes of how black holes are born. It presents a Bayesian inference framework that combines spectroscopic orbital elements, astrometric proper motions, and the three-dimensional systemic velocity of the binary relative to the velocity dispersion of its birth association, in order to separate the natal kick (the recoil imparted at core collapse) from symmetric mass loss. Applied to the benchmark system VFTS 243, the framework yields a natal kick below $27\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ and a mass loss below $2.9\,M_\odot$ at 90% credibility, with both quantities peaking at zero. The broader claim is that even when the orbit cannot be resolved, the full velocity information distinguishes black hole formation channels, and that a circular pre-collapse orbit assumption makes the inference tight.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a forward model of core collapse in a binary: twelve free parameters describing the pre-collapse orbit, orientation, and collapse (initial period, eccentricity, both masses, three orientation angles, mass loss, kick magnitude and direction, and true anomaly at explosion) are mapped through the two-body impulse equations onto all six post-collapse orbital elements plus the center-of-mass velocity vector in the observer's frame. The decisive step is to treat the pre-collapse systemic velocity as drawn from the measured velocity dispersion of the birth association, so the difference between the observed velocity and the birth velocity becomes a direct constraint on the kick. When the pre-collapse orbit is assumed circular, the true anomaly drops out, the number of free parameters matches the number of constraints, and the collapse parameters can be recovered to essentially arbitrary precision, limited only by measurement noise.

What would settle it

The paper's own Fig. 5c is the falsifier: a system that was actually eccentric ($e_i=0.3$) but analyzed with the circular prior yields 90% intervals that exclude the true kick and mass loss by a wide margin. Therefore, an independent determination that VFTS 243's pre-collapse orbit was non-circular—for example, a measured eccentricity distribution of similar short-period post-mass-transfer binaries with a substantial tail above $e\approx 0.1$—would invalidate the reported 27 km/s and 2.9 solar-mass bounds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the recoil and mass loss of a black hole-forming core collapse can be read off an inert black hole binary when all available information—the orbital period, eccentricity, radial-velocity semiamplitude, companion mass, orientation angles, and the full three-dimensional velocity of the system relative to its birth environment—are modelled jointly. The paper demonstrates with injection tests that, in the best-observed scenario with a circular pre-collapse orbit, the mapping from observables to collapse parameters is effectively one-to-one and the natal kick and mass loss are recovered to measurement precision. For VFTS 243, using the circular prior, the inference gives a natal kick peaking at $0$ with a 90% upper limit of $26.5\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ (quoted as $<27\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$) and a mass loss peaking at $0$ with a 90% upper limit of $2.9\,M_\odot$, with 68% limits of about $13.5\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ and $1.34\,M_\odot$. The paper further claims this framework can distinguish formation channels, such as direct collapse versus a kicked supernova, even without a resolved astrometric orbit, which is exactly the situation expected for distant SMC systems in the upcoming survey.

Load-bearing premise

The reported VFTS 243 constraints assume the binary's orbit was exactly circular before core collapse, so the observed near-zero eccentricity is attributed entirely to a weak kick and small mass loss; if the orbit was even moderately eccentric, the same observation would be produced by different kick and mass-loss values.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For distant inert black hole binaries with no resolved orbit, the full three-dimensional velocity information is enough to separate direct-collapse formation (zero kick, near-zero mass loss) from formation with a substantial kick.
  • If the pre-collapse orbit is circular, the inference becomes tightly constrained, so determining the eccentricity distribution of pre-collapse binaries—observationally and theoretically—directly controls how precise kick inferences can be.
  • For VFTS 243, the framework rules out natal kicks above about $27\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ and core-collapse mass loss above about $2.9\,M_\odot$ at 90% credibility, consistent with a negligibly kicked, low-mass-loss birth.
  • The same pipeline applies to inert neutron-star binaries, offering a way to probe the weak-kick end of the neutron-star kick distribution.
  • For the upcoming survey of massive stars in the Small Magellanic Cloud, the method provides a ready analysis path for the many inert black hole binaries that survey is expected to find.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The tight VFTS 243 numbers are conditional on a delta-function circular prior: the paper's own injection test shows that a circular prior applied to a system that was actually eccentric ($e_i=0.3$) returns precise but incorrect values, so the quoted bounds should be read as upper limits only if the short-period mass-transfer circularization assumption holds.
  • Because the inference weakens quickly as the assumed birth-velocity dispersion grows (the paper's Fig. 4 shows the true values leaving the 90% region by $10\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$), population applications will depend on building clean, uncontaminated host-association samples.
  • The same machinery could be inverted: with a sample of dozens of inert binaries, the inferred joint kick and mass-loss distribution could calibrate supernova explosion models, since the framework treats the explosion mechanism agnostically.
  • One could extend the method to nearby astrometric black-hole binaries by adding the same velocity-dispersion treatment, though their older, lower-mass companions make the no-perturbation assumption harder to justify.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents SideKicks.jl, a Bayesian inference framework for constraining the natal kick and mass loss of the BH progenitor in inert black hole binaries (BHBs) from combined spectroscopic and astrometric observations, including the orientation of the systemic velocity relative to the orbit. The forward model maps pre-core-collapse orbital elements and collapse parameters (kick magnitude and direction, mass loss, explosion true anomaly) to post-collapse observables, and the posterior is explored with the No-U-Turn Sampler. Injection tests on a circular mock binary show precise recovery when a circular pre-collapse prior is used and the environment velocity dispersion is small; using an agnostic eccentricity prior substantially broadens the constraints, and applying the circular prior to an eccentric system yields precise but wrong values. Applying the SV3 model (spectroscopy plus all three velocity components, no resolved orbit) to VFTS 243 under the circular prior yields 90% upper limits vk < 26.5 km/s and Delta_m2 < 2.9 Msun. The paper also argues that BH formation channels can be distinguished without a resolved orbit. The code and data are publicly archived.

Significance. If the results are robust, the framework will be a valuable community tool for the BLOeM survey and Gaia DR4, and the VFTS 243 constraints would strengthen the case for weak kicks and small mass loss in BH formation. The paper's strengths are its complete forward model, the explicit treatment of the velocity-vector orientation, the open-source implementation, and the injection tests that expose the role of the eccentricity prior. However, the headline VFTS 243 numbers are conditional on the circular-prior assumption, and the birth-environment velocity prior is specified inconsistently between Section 2.5 and Table 5, so the central quantitative claims are not currently reproducible as written.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.5 and Table 5] The birth-environment velocity priors used for the VFTS 243 analysis are stated inconsistently. Section 2.5 sets Venv,alpha = N(393,12), Venv,delta = N(143,12), Venv,r = N(271,12), while Table 5 lists Venv,alpha = N(393,42), Venv,delta = N(146,40), Venv,r = N(270,11). Because the inferred Delta_v = vf - vi, and hence the 90% upper limits on vk and Delta_m2, depend directly on these widths, the quoted headline constraints (vk < 26.5 km/s, Delta_m2 < 2.9 Msun) are not reproducible without resolving this discrepancy. The authors should state which prior was actually used, correct the other occurrence, and if the wider prior is the correct one, rerun the analysis and report the resulting limits.
  2. [Sections 3.3 and 4.1; Fig. 5c; Abstract] The 90% credible limits quoted for VFTS 243 are obtained exclusively with the circular pre-collapse prior pi(ei)=delta(ei) (Table 5, Section 4.1). The paper's own injection test in Fig. 5c shows that the same prior applied to a system with true ei=0.3 produces posteriors that are precise but far from the truth. Since the pre-collapse eccentricity of VFTS 243 is not directly measured, the headline constraints are assumption-driven. I request that the abstract and conclusions explicitly state that the limits are conditional on a circular pre-collapse orbit, and that the corresponding 90% limits under the agnostic prior pi(ei)=U(0,1) (already computed in Fig. C.2) be reported numerically in the text so that the sensitivity is transparent.
  3. [Section 3.2 (Fig. 4) and Section 2.5] The injection tests in Section 3.2 show that the recovery degrades markedly with increasing birth-environment velocity dispersion: at sigma_env = 10 km/s the true values fall outside the 2D 90% credible region. The dispersion inferred for the Tarantula environment and used for VFTS 243 is 11-42 km/s (Table 5), i.e., larger than or comparable to the largest tested value, and Section 2.5 acknowledges that the SB2 sample used to derive it is small and subjectively chosen. This means the reliability of the VFTS 243 kick and mass-loss limits is not established by the current injection tests. The authors should run injection-style robustness checks at the actual VFTS 243 environment widths, or marginalize over the hyperparameters of Venv as they suggest, before the headline numbers are used.
  4. [Section 2.3.1 and Appendix A.5] The prior on the pre-collapse inclination is given as pi(cos ii) = U(0,1) (Section 2.3.1 and Table 5), which restricts ii to [0,pi/2]. However, Appendix A.5 states that the inclination is defined on the range [0,pi] to account for all geometries in which the star recedes at the ascending node, and Eq. (A.44) computes if = arccos(Lhat_f dot Ohat), which can exceed pi/2. This is an internal inconsistency. If the sampling prior is literally U(0,1), then retrograde configurations are not represented and the orientation sampling is incomplete, which could bias the inferred pre-collapse parameters and the derived kick posteriors. The authors should clarify the convention and, if needed, use pi(cos ii) = U(-1,1).
minor comments (4)
  1. [References (Sec. 2.3)] The citation 'Homan & Gelman 2014' for the No-U-Turn Sampler is a misspelling; the correct author is Hoffman, so this should read 'Hoffman & Gelman 2014' in both the text and the reference list.
  2. [Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 4 opening] There are several typographical errors, including 'the the orbital inclination' in Section 2.1 and 'a ≈ 25 M_sun O-type star' in Section 4 (should be 'an'). A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  3. [Figure captions] Some figure captions contain unresolved LaTeX artifacts, such as '/g4(ei) = /g5(ei)' in Figs. 3, 5, and B.1, which will confuse readers; these should be corrected in the production version.
  4. [Table 5] The references listed for the Venv priors (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2023 and Almeida et al. 2017) point to data sources, but the specific values (means and dispersions) are derived in Section 2.5; cross-referencing that section would help avoid the appearance of a discrepancy and would clarify the provenance of the numbers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the inference is a forward model with independent measured inputs and explicitly stated priors; the VFTS 243 limits are posterior outputs, not reinports of the model's assumptions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. Post-collapse orbital elements and the systemic velocity are computed from pre-collapse orbital parameters plus kick and mass-loss using a transparent two-body calculation in Appendix A, and the likelihoods are Gaussian or von Mises distributions centered on measured quantities (Secs. 2.3.2, 3). The priors are stated independently: broad uninformative priors for masses, period, angles, kick magnitude, and mass-loss fraction, plus two explicit informative assumptions for VFTS 243 — the delta prior on pre-collapse eccentricity and the birth-environment velocity prior derived from the TMBM SB2 sample (Secs. 2.3.1, 2.5). Neither prior is fitted to the inferred kick or mass loss; they are inputs justified by external data or stated modeling assumptions. The injection tests (Sec. 3, Figs. 3-5) verify that the pipeline recovers known injected values, which is a validation exercise rather than a prediction that reduces to its inputs. For VFTS 243, the tight constraints on vk and Delta_m2 are posterior outputs that depend on the circular-orbit assumption and on the environment dispersion; the paper explicitly warns about both limitations, including the misspecification test in Fig. 5c showing that a circular prior applied to an eccentric system yields precise but incorrect values, and the statement in Sec. 2.5 that the choice of environment systems is 'somewhat subjective.' Self-citations to Vigna-Gomez et al. (2020, 2024) are used for context, comparison, and discussion of eccentricity retention; they are not load-bearing for the derivation of the framework or for the VFTS 243 result. A reproducibility concern is present but not circular: Sec. 2.5 specifies Venv,alpha = N(393,12), Venv,delta = N(143,12), Venv,r = N(271,12), whereas Table 5 lists N(393,42), N(146,40), and N(270,11), with tangential widths differing by roughly a factor of 3.5. This internal inconsistency affects the numeric headline limits but does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. Overall, the paper's central claims are supported by an independent forward model and are not circular.

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

The method relies on standard Keplerian mechanics; the main inputs are the uncertain primary mass, the environment velocity priors, and the circular-orbit assumption for VFTS 243. These are external quantities or explicit priors, not fitted constants derived from the target result.

free parameters (2)
  • Visible primary mass m1,f = 25 Msun (with 12 Msun 1-sigma uncertainty)
    Adopted from stellar atmosphere/evolutionary modeling in Shenar et al. (2022b); breaks the mass-function degeneracy and affects inferred kick and mass loss. Sections 2.2 and 5.3.
  • Birth environment velocity means/dispersions = v_alpha,i ~ N(393,12), v_delta,i ~ N(143,12), v_r,i ~ N(271,12) km/s (text; Table 5 lists larger dispersions)
    Estimated from the TMBM SB2 sample; used as priors on pre-collapse velocity components. The sample choice is subjective and affects posterior width and center. Section 2.5.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Core collapse is instantaneous: mass loss and natal kick occur at a single instant.
    Standard treatment, stated in Sec. 2.1 and App. A; ignores finite duration and fallback, which could alter the final orbit.
  • domain assumption No post-CC orbital evolution: tides, third-body encounters, and post-CC mass transfer are negligible.
    Assumed for massive primaries with age under about 10 Myr; Sec. 2.2 and 5.2. Invalid for low-mass primaries such as the Gaia BHs.
  • domain assumption The birth velocity of the binary follows the velocity distribution of the selected SB2 population in the Tarantula nebula.
    Used as a prior for pre-collapse velocities; the SB2 selection and quality cuts are subjective and may be contaminated by runaways. Sec. 2.5.
  • ad hoc to paper VFTS 243's pre-collapse orbit was circular (ei = 0), implemented as a delta prior at 0.01.
    This assumption drives the tight 90% credible intervals for VFTS 243; Fig. 5c shows that a wrong circular prior can produce precise but incorrect values. Sec. 4.1 and Table 5.
  • domain assumption The visible primary mass m1,f = 25 +/- 12 Msun from stellar modeling is correct.
    Needed to break the mass-function degeneracy; model-dependent and potentially biased for post-interaction stars. Sec. 5.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Binarity at LOw Metallicity (BLOeM): Bayesian inference of natal kicks from inert black hole binaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/65HT4EAO

@misc{pith2026250416669,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Binarity at LOw Metallicity (BLOeM): Bayesian inference of natal kicks from inert black hole binaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/65HT4EAO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16669}
}
read the original abstract

Context. The emerging population of inert black hole binaries (BHBs) provides a unique opportunity to constrain black hole (BH) formation physics. These systems are composed of a stellar-mass BH in a wide orbit around a non-degenerate star with no observed Xray emission. Inert BHBs allow for narrow constraints to be inferred on the natal kick and mass loss during BH-forming core-collapse events. Aims. In anticipation of the upcoming BLOeM survey, we aim to provide tight constraints on BH natal kicks by exploiting the full parameter space obtained from combined spectroscopic and astrometric data to characterize the orbits of inert BHBs. Multi-epoch spectroscopy from the BLOeM project will provide measurements of periods, eccentricities, and radial velocities for inert BHBs in the SMC, which complements Gaia astrometric observations of proper motions. Methods. We present a Bayesian parameter estimation framework to infer natal kicks and mass loss during core-collapse from inert BHBs, accounting for all available observables, including the systemic velocity and its orientation relative to the orbital plane. The framework further allows for circumstances when some of the observables are unavailable, such as for the distant BLOeM sources which preclude resolved orbits. Results. With our new framework, we are able to distinguish between BH formation channels, even in the absence of a resolved orbit. In cases when the pre-explosion orbit can be assumed to be circular, we precisely recover the parameters of the core-collapse, highlighting the importance of understanding the eccentricity landscape of pre-explosion binaries, both theoretically and observationally. Treating the near-circular, inert BHB, VFTS 243, as a representative of the anticipated BLOeM systems, we constrain the natal kick to less than 27 km/s and the mass loss to less than 2.9 Msun within a 90% credible interval.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16669 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A graphic showing the connection between the free parameters and the constrained quantities in this study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Velocity distributions for VFTS 243 and its host associa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The impact of including different observations in a mock circular binary. Posteriors on the natal kick (vk) and mass loss (∆m2), when the various observational categories are included. Observational categories include spectroscopy (S), resolved astrometric orbit (O), and constraints on any of radial velocity (VR), transverse velocities (VT), or all three velocity components (V3). All categories include spectroscopy … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Inference variations due to the birth environment velocity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The role of eccentricity in a mock binary, in the best case observing scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The best case inference for VFTS 243. Here, we use circular orbit prior with the SV3 model, which is the best case for an extra￾Galactic system, combining spectroscopy as well as the full velocity vector of the system and the dispersion of its birth environment. Δm2 [M…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Variations on the inference of VFTS 243 due to di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Stable mass transfer in massive binaries leading to merging black holes

    astro-ph.SR 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Stable mass transfer in massive binaries, modeled with the accreting star's altered structure, produces merging black holes matching LIGO/Virgo masses and spins.

  2. Exploring the astrophysical origins of binary black holes using normalising flows

    astro-ph.HE 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Normalizing flows trained on five population synthesis models interpolate between simulation inputs and, applied to gravitational wave data, favor low spins, high common-envelope efficiency, and a dominant common-enve...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    F., Argudo-Fernández, M., et al

    Almeida, A., Anderson, S. F., Argudo-Fernández, M., et al. 2023, The Astro- physical Journal Supplement Series, 267, 44

    2023

  2. [2]

    A., Sana, H., Taylor, W., et al

    Almeida, L. A., Sana, H., Taylor, W., et al. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 598, A84

    2017

  3. [3]

    Andrews, J. J. & Kalogera, V . 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 930, 159

    2022

  4. [4]

    & Gieles, M

    Antonini, F. & Gieles, M. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 2936

    2020

  5. [5]

    F., & Cordes, J

    Arzoumanian, Z., Chernoff, D. F., & Cordes, J. M. 2002, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 568, 289

    2002

  6. [6]

    Atri, P., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 3116

    2019

  7. [7]

    Banagiri, S., Doctor, Z., Kalogera, V ., Kimball, C., & Andrews, J. J. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 959, 106

    2023

  8. [8]

    2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 674, A60

    Banyard, G., Mahy, L., Sana, H., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 674, A60

    2023

Show all 110 references
  1. [9]

    M., et al

    Baumgardt, H., He, C., Sweet, S. M., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 5340

    2019

  2. [10]

    & Hilker, M

    Baumgardt, H. & Hilker, M. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 1520

    2018

  3. [11]

    Bezanson, J., Edelman, A., Karpinski, S., & Shah, V . B. 2014, Julia: A Fresh Approach to Numerical Computing

    2014

  4. [12]

    1961, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of the Netherlands, 15

    Blaauw, A. 1961, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of the Netherlands, 15

    1961

  5. [13]

    1961, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of the Netherlands, 15, 291

    Boersma, J. 1961, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of the Netherlands, 15, 291

    1961

  6. [14]

    & Podsiadlowski, P

    Brandt, N. & Podsiadlowski, P. 1995, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi- cal Society, 274, 461

    1995

  7. [15]

    Breivik, K., Chatterjee, S., & Larson, S. L. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, L13

    2017

  8. [16]

    F., Fruchter, A

    Brisken, W. F., Fruchter, A. S., Goss, W. M., Herrnstein, R. M., & Thorsett, S. E. 2003, The Astronomical Journal, 126, 3090

    2003

  9. [17]

    S., Berger, E., Stevenson, S., et al

    Broekgaarden, F. S., Berger, E., Stevenson, S., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

    2022

  10. [18]

    B., El-Badry, K., Kara, E., et al

    Burdge, K. B., El-Badry, K., Kara, E., et al. 2024, The Black Hole Low Mass X-ray Binary V404 Cygni Is Part of a Wide Hierarchical Triple, and Formed without a Kick

    2024

  11. [19]

    2024, Physical Correlations and Predic- tions Emerging from Modern Core-Collapse Supernova Theory

    Burrows, A., Wang, T., & Vartanyan, D. 2024, Physical Correlations and Predic- tions Emerging from Modern Core-Collapse Supernova Theory

    2024

  12. [20]

    A., Farr, W

    Callister, T. A., Farr, W. M., & Renzo, M. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 920, 157

    2021

  13. [21]

    Carretero-Castrillo, M., Ribó, M., & Paredes, J. M. 2023, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 679, A109

    2023

  14. [22]

    D., Craig, P

    Chakrabarti, S., Simon, J. D., Craig, P. A., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 166, 6

    2023

  15. [23]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 495, 3751

    Chan, C., Müller, B., & Heger, A. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 495, 3751

    2020

  16. [24]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 163

    Chawla, C., Chatterjee, S., Shah, N., & Breivik, K. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 163

    2024

  17. [25]

    2024, Dark Matter

    Cirelli, M., Strumia, A., & Zupan, J. 2024, Dark Matter

    2024

  18. [26]

    Coleman, M. S. B. & Burrows, A. 2022, arXiv e-prints

    2022

  19. [27]

    & Krumbiegel, J

    Danisch, S. & Krumbiegel, J. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3349 Dashwood Brown, C., Gandhi, P., & Zhao, Y . 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, L82

    2021

  20. [28]

    J., Hénault-Brunet, V ., Gieles, M., & Baumgardt, H

    Dickson, N., Smith, P. J., Hénault-Brunet, V ., Gieles, M., & Baumgardt, H. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 331

    2024

  21. [29]

    M., Dale, J

    Dray, L. M., Dale, J. E., Beer, M. E., King, A. R., & Napiwotzki, R. 2006, As- trophysics and Space Science, 304, 279

    2006

  22. [30]

    Eldridge, J. J. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 400, L20

    2009

  23. [31]

    J., Izzard, R

    Eldridge, J. J., Izzard, R. G., & Tout, C. A. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 384, 1109

    2008

  24. [32]

    J., Taylor, W

    Evans, C. J., Taylor, W. D., Hénault-Brunet, V ., et al. 2011, Astronomy and As- trophysics, 530, A108

    2011

  25. [33]

    2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 665, A31 Gaia Collaboration, Panuzzo, P., Mazeh, T., et al

    Fortin, F., García, F., Chaty, S., Chassande-Mottin, E., & Simaz Bunzel, A. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 665, A31 Gaia Collaboration, Panuzzo, P., Mazeh, T., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 686, L2 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023...

    2022

  26. [34]

    2018, in Proceedings of the Twenty-First Inter- national Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (PMLR), 1682– 1690

    Ge, H., Xu, K., & Ghahramani, Z. 2018, in Proceedings of the Twenty-First Inter- national Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (PMLR), 1682– 1690

    2018

  27. [35]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, L15

    Giesers, B., Dreizler, S., Husser, T.-O., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, L15

    2018

  28. [36]

    2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 632, A3

    Giesers, B., Kamann, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 632, A3

    2019

  29. [37]

    B., et al

    Graczyk, D., Pietrzy ´nski, G., Thompson, I. B., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, 13 Hénault-Brunet, V ., Evans, C. J., Sana, H., et al. 2012, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 546, A73

    2020

  30. [38]

    Hills, J. G. 1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 267, 322

    1983

  31. [39]

    & Mandel, I

    Hirai, R. & Mandel, I. 2021, arXiv:2108.03774 [astro-ph] [arXiv:2108.03774]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    & Podsiadlowski, P

    Hirai, R. & Podsiadlowski, P. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 4544

    2022

  33. [41]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 119

    Hirai, R., Podsiadlowski, P., & Yamada, S. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 119

    2018

  34. [42]

    R., Lyne, A

    Hobbs, G., Lorimer, D. R., Lyne, A. G., & Kramer, M. 2005, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc, 000

    2005

  35. [43]

    H., et al

    Holdsworth, A., Richardson, N., Schaefer, G. H., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 185

    2024

  36. [44]

    Homan, M. D. & Gelman, A. 2014, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 15, 1593

    2014

  37. [45]

    R., Tout, C

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 329, 897

    2002

  38. [46]

    P., Chruslinska, M., Dorozsmai, A., & Toonen, S

    Igoshev, A. P., Chruslinska, M., Dorozsmai, A., & Toonen, S. 2021, arXiv:2109.10362 [astro-ph] [arXiv:2109.10362]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Janka, H. T. & Kresse, D. 2024, Interplay Between Neutrino Kicks and Hydro- dynamic Kicks of Neutron Stars and Black Holes

    2024

  40. [48]

    2016, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 66, 341

    Janka, H.-T., Melson, T., & Summa, A. 2016, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 66, 341

    2016

  41. [49]

    2022, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 926, 9

    Janka, H.-T., Wongwathanarat, A., & Kramer, M. 2022, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 926, 9

    2022

  42. [50]

    2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 658, A129

    Janssens, S., Shenar, T., Sana, H., et al. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 658, A129

    2022

  43. [51]

    2023, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 670, A79

    Janssens, S., Shenar, T., Sana, H., & Marchant, P. 2023, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 670, A79

    2023

  44. [52]

    1996, The Astrophysical Journal

    Kalogera, V . 1996, The Astrophysical Journal

    1996

  45. [53]

    Karpov, S. V . & Lipunov, V . M. 2001, Astronomy Letters, 27, 645

    2001

  46. [54]

    Katz, J. I. 1975, Nature, 253, 698

    1975

  47. [55]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 952, L34

    Kimball, C., Imperato, S., Kalogera, V ., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 952, L34

    2023

  48. [56]

    2022, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 662, A56

    Klencki, J., Istrate, A., Nelemans, G., & Pols, O. 2022, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 662, A56

    2022

  49. [57]

    2024, Influence of Black Hole Kick Velocity on Microlensing Distributions

    Koshimoto, N., Kawanaka, N., & Tsuna, D. 2024, Influence of Black Hole Kick Velocity on Microlensing Distributions

    2024

  50. [58]

    Y ., Lu, J

    Lam, C. Y ., Lu, J. R., Udalski, A., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, L23

    2022

  51. [59]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468, 2655

    Lamberts, A., Millour, F., Liermann, A., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468, 2655

    2017

  52. [60]

    M., Hankins, M

    Lau, R. M., Hankins, M. J., Han, Y ., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1308

    2022

  53. [61]

    J., Evans, C

    Lennon, D. J., Evans, C. J., van der Marel, R. P., et al. 2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 619, A78

    2018

  54. [62]

    2021, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 649, A4

    Lindegren, L., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., et al. 2021, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 649, A4

    2021

  55. [63]

    M., Röpke, F

    Liu, Z.-W., Tauris, T. M., Röpke, F. K., et al. 2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 584, A11

    2015

  56. [64]

    2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 664, A159

    Mahy, L., Sana, H., Shenar, T., et al. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 664, A159

    2022

  57. [65]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 578

    Mandel, I. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 578

    2016

  58. [66]

    V ., Moffat, A

    Marchenko, S. V ., Moffat, A. F. J., & Koenigsberger, G. 1994, The Astrophysical Journal, 422, 810

    1994

  59. [67]

    & Loeb, A

    Mashian, N. & Loeb, A. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety, 470, 2611

    2017

  60. [68]

    & Hotokezaka, K

    Masuda, K. & Hotokezaka, K. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 169

    2019

  61. [69]

    2023, in The Predictive Power of Computational Astrophysics as a Discover Tool, V ol

    Mezzacappa, A. 2023, in The Predictive Power of Computational Astrophysics as a Discover Tool, V ol. 362, eprint: arXiv:2205.13438, 215–227 Article number, page 14 R. Willcox et al.: Natal Kick Inference from Inert BH Binaries

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., Orosz, J. A., et al. 2021, Science, 371, 1046

    2021

  63. [71]

    Mirabel, I. F. & Rodrigues, I. 2003, Science, 300, 1119

    2003

  64. [72]

    & Di Stefano, R

    Moe, M. & Di Stefano, R. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 230, 15 Mróz, P., Udalski, A., & Gould, A. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, L24 Müller, B. 2020, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 6, 3

    2017

  65. [73]

    & El-Badry, K

    Nagarajan, P. & El-Badry, K. 2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 137, 034203

    2025

  66. [74]

    Niemela, V . S. & Sahade, J. 1980, The Astrophysical Journal, 238, 244 O’Doherty, T. N., Bahramian, A., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 2504

    1980

  67. [75]

    Offner, S. S. R., Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., et al. 2023, in Protostars and Planets

    2023

  68. [76]

    534, eprint: arXiv:2203.10066, 275

    VII, V ol. 534, eprint: arXiv:2203.10066, 275

    arXiv

  69. [77]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 505, 2485

    Ogata, M., Hirai, R., & Hijikawa, K. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 505, 2485

    2021

  70. [78]

    M., Hamann, W

    Pauli, D., Oskinova, L. M., Hamann, W. R., et al. 2022, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 659, A9

    2022

  71. [79]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 573, 283 Pietrzy´nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gallenne, A., et al

    Pfahl, E., Rappaport, S., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 573, 283 Pietrzy´nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gallenne, A., et al. 2019, Nature, 567, 200

    2002

  72. [80]

    2005, in Binary Radio Pulsars, V ol

    Podsiadlowski, P., Pfahl, E., & Rappaport, S. 2005, in Binary Radio Pulsars, V ol. 328, 327

    2005

  73. [81]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 740

    Rastello, S., Iorio, G., Mapelli, M., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 740

    2023

  74. [82]

    E., et al

    Renzo, M., Zapartas, E., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 624, A66

    2019

  75. [83]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 942, L32

    Renzo, M., Zapartas, E., Justham, S., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 942, L32

    2023

  76. [84]

    B., & Sigurdsson, S

    Repetto, S., Davies, M. B., & Sigurdsson, S. 2012, Investigating Stellar-Mass Black Hole Kicks

    2012

  77. [85]

    D., Lee, L., Schaefer, G., et al

    Richardson, N. D., Lee, L., Schaefer, G., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, L3

    2021

  78. [86]

    D., Schaefer, G

    Richardson, N. D., Schaefer, G. H., Eldridge, J. J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 78

    2024

  79. [87]

    A., Hur, R., Kalogera, V ., et al

    Rocha, K. A., Hur, R., Kalogera, V ., et al. 2024, Mass Transfer in Eccentric Orbits with Self-consistent Stellar Evolution

    2024

  80. [88]

    C., Anderson, J., Casertano, S., et al

    Sahu, K. C., Anderson, J., Casertano, S., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 83

    2022

  81. [89]

    E., et al

    Sana, H., de Koter, A., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 550, A107

    2013

  82. [90]

    E., De Koter, A., et al

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

    2012

  83. [91]

    H., Hénault-Brunet, V ., et al

    Sana, H., Ramírez-Agudelo, O. H., Hénault-Brunet, V ., et al. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 668, L5

    2022

  84. [92]

    & Koenigsberger, G

    Schmutz, W. & Koenigsberger, G. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 624, L3 Schrøder, S. L., Batta, A., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 862, L3

    2019

  85. [93]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 690, A256

    Sen, K., El Mellah, I., Langer, N., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 690, A256

    2024

  86. [94]

    F., Willems, B., Kalogera, V ., & Rasio, F

    Sepinsky, J. F., Willems, B., Kalogera, V ., & Rasio, F. A. 2007, The Astrophysi- cal Journal, 667, 1170

    2007

  87. [95]

    F., Willems, B., Kalogera, V ., & Rasio, F

    Sepinsky, J. F., Willems, B., Kalogera, V ., & Rasio, F. A. 2009, The Astrophysi- cal Journal, 702, 1387

    2009

  88. [96]

    F., Willems, B., Kalogera, V ., & Rasio, F

    Sepinsky, J. F., Willems, B., Kalogera, V ., & Rasio, F. A. 2010, Astrophysical Journal, 724, 546

    2010

  89. [97]

    2024, Binarity at LOw Metallicity (BLOeM): I

    Shenar, T., Bodensteiner, J., Sana, H., et al. 2024, Binarity at LOw Metallicity (BLOeM): I. a Spectroscopic VLT Monitoring Survey of Massive Stars in the SMC

    2024

  90. [98]

    Stanway, E. R. & Eldridge, J. J. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society, 479, 75

    2018

  91. [99]

    2024, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 972, L19

    Stegmann, J., Vigna-Gómez, A., Rantala, A., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 972, L19

    2024

  92. [100]

    F., Ghodla, S., Richards, S., et al

    Stevance, H. F., Ghodla, S., Richards, S., et al. 2022, VFTS 243 as Predicted by the BPASS Fiducial Models

    2022

  93. [101]

    2024, Nature, 634, 809

    Stoop, M., de Koter, A., Kaper, L., et al. 2024, Nature, 634, 809

    2024

  94. [102]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 946, 79

    Tanikawa, A., Hattori, K., Kawanaka, N., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 946, 79

    2023

  95. [103]

    Tauris, T. M. & Takens, R. J. 1998, Astron. Astrophys, 330, 1047

    1998

  96. [104]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 688, A128

    Valli, R., Tiede, C., Vigna-Gómez, A., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 688, A128

    2024

  97. [105]

    2018, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics Vigna-Gómez, A., MacLeod, M., Neijssel, C

    Verbunt, F., Igoshev, A., & Cator, E. 2018, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics Vigna-Gómez, A., MacLeod, M., Neijssel, C. J., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 37, e038 Vigna-Gómez, A. & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 946, L2 Vign...

    2018

  98. [106]

    Wang, T., Vartanyan, D., Burrows, A., & Coleman, M. S. B. 2022, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 543

    2022

  99. [107]

    C., Chatterjee, S., Kremer, K., & Rasio, F

    Weatherford, N. C., Chatterjee, S., Kremer, K., & Rasio, F. A. 2020, The Astro- physical Journal, 898, 162

    2020

  100. [108]

    C., Lecar, M., & McKee, C

    Wheeler, J. C., Lecar, M., & McKee, C. F. 1975, The Astrophysical Journal, 200, 145

    1975

  101. [109]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 920, L37 Wyrzykowski, Ł

    Willcox, R., Mandel, I., Thrane, E., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 920, L37 Wyrzykowski, Ł. & Mandel, I. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 636, A20

    2021

  102. [110]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 1498 Article number, page 15 A&A proofs: manuscript no

    Zhao, Y ., Gandhi, P., Dashwood Brown, C., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 1498 Article number, page 15 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main Fig. A.1. Definitions of unit axes used to determine the post- explosion parameters of an eccentric bina...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.