Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 77 references

The Multiple Paths to Merger of Unequal-Mass Black Hole Binaries in the Disks of Active Galactic Nuclei

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Retrograde black hole binaries with mass ratio $q \lesssim 0.4$ embedded in AGN disks damp their eccentricity instead of pumping it, because the primary's minidisk damps eccentricity at pericenter, slowing inspiral to multiple e-folding…

desk verdict Solid 3D survey with a genuinely new low-q retrograde damping result, but the mechanism rests on unconverged minidisks and the abstract's q<0.4 threshold is broader than the paper's own Table 1. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05555 v1 pith:NSLTW6PE submitted 2025-05-08 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Alexander J. Dittmann , Adam M. Dempsey , Hui Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords astrophysicalfluiddynamicsactivegalacticnucleiblackholesaccretiongravitationalwavesourcesholebinarieseccentricbinaryevolutionhydrodynamicsimulations
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 uses three-dimensional shearing-box hydrodynamical simulations to map how gas in an active galactic nucleus (AGN) disk steers the merger of eccentric, unequal-mass black hole binaries. It aims to establish that the orbital fate splits by orientation and mass ratio: prograde binaries inspiral slowly with damped eccentricity and are driven toward equal masses, while retrograde binaries with nearly equal masses inspiral two to three times faster and are pumped toward eccentricity near unity. The new claim is the exception: retrograde binaries with mass ratio $q = m_2/m_1 \lesssim 0.4$ have eccentricities damped instead, because the primary's weak headwind lets it retain a substantial minidisk that the secondary plows through near pericenter, damping eccentricity faster than apocenter drag can pump it. That distinction matters because it determines whether AGN-assisted mergers arrive at the gravitational-wave band as massive circular binaries after long accretion, or as lower-mass eccentric mergers before much accretion takes place.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing structure is the minidisk around the primary black hole: a small accretion disk retained when ram-pressure stripping is weak at $q \lesssim 0.4$. In such retrograde binaries the secondary sweeps through that minidisk near pericenter at $e \gtrsim 0.3$, and the resulting drag removes more angular momentum than energy, damping eccentricity. The opposing mechanism is the headwind drag near apocenter, which pumps eccentricity in equal-mass and high-$q$ retrograde binaries. The paper also identifies vertical accretion onto the primary and Roche-lobe overflow streams as the machinery controlling mass-ratio evolution: streams transfer material from primary to secondary in prograde systems, equalizing masses, while their absence in retrograde systems makes mass ratios more extreme.

What would settle it

Run a matched 3D shearing-box simulation of a retrograde $q = 0.3$, $e = 0.5$ binary with the sink radius reduced from $0.04a$ to $0.01a$ and the softened potential reduced accordingly, and measure the time-averaged $\dot{e}^2$; if the sign flips from negative to positive, the minidisk-damping mechanism has vanished with the minidisk. An observational cross-check is to search the binary-merger population for the predicted bimodality: massive circular mergers from prograde and low-$q$ retrograde paths versus lower-mass eccentric mergers from high-$q$ retrograde paths.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Retrograde binaries with $q \lesssim 0.4$ are drawn toward a moderate eccentricity attractor near $e \sim 0.3$--$0.4$ rather than toward unity. At $e \gtrsim 0.3$ the secondary passes close enough at pericenter to interact with a circumprimary minidisk, and this pericentric damping overcomes the apocentric eccentricity pumping that dominates at higher mass ratios. Consequently low-$q$ retrograde binaries inspiral slowly and likely accrete for multiple e-folding timescales before merging, whereas high-$q$ retrograde binaries, whose minidisks are stripped by ram pressure, are pumped toward near-unity eccentricity and may merge before accreting much, potentially entering the gravitational-wave band with measurable eccentricity. The paper also finds that accretion drives prograde binaries toward equal masses through streams that exchange material between the two bodies, while retrograde binaries are driven toward more extreme mass ratios.

Load-bearing premise

The $q \lesssim 0.4$ retrograde damping result rests on the primary retaining a substantial minidisk, and the paper's own Section 4.2 caveat notes that minidisk sizes shrink with smaller sink and softening radii while 2D simulations find no minidisk at all, so if real minidisks are much smaller or absent this channel would instead be pumped toward unity like the equal-mass case.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Prograde binaries and low-mass-ratio retrograde binaries will typically spend multiple e-folding timescales accreting at low eccentricity, so they enter the gravitational-wave band as relatively massive, circular binaries.
  • High-mass-ratio retrograde binaries can be pumped to near-unity eccentricity within roughly one mass e-folding time, so they may merge before substantial accretion, at lower masses and with potentially detectable eccentricity.
  • Accretion drives prograde binaries toward equal mass ratios and retrograde binaries toward more extreme ratios, so the two channels should leave distinct imprints on the mass-ratio and effective-spin distributions of observed mergers.
  • The eccentricity attractor near $e \sim 0.3$--$0.4$ for low-$q$ retrograde binaries means that population should be circularized before gravitational-wave emission becomes important, whereas high-$q$ retrograde mergers should preserve eccentricity into the band.
  • Future ground-based gravitational-wave observatories with broader low-frequency coverage should be able to separate these populations by eccentricity and mass.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own caveat implies the low-$q$ retrograde damping channel is not secure: if the primary minidisk shrinks or disappears at higher resolution, those binaries would instead be pumped toward unity and the two-path dichotomy would collapse.
  • The threshold at $q \approx 0.4$ likely depends on the disk's thermodynamics and magnetic field content; a non-isothermal equation of state or magnetized gas could shift the boundary and change which binaries retain minidisks.
  • If the low-$q$ retrograde damping is real, AGN-assisted mergers should be bimodal in the mass--eccentricity plane at merger: massive and circular from prograde and low-$q$ retrograde paths versus lower-mass and eccentric from high-$q$ retrograde paths.
  • The spin-orbit consequences are more tangled than the eccentricity ones: the minidisk handedness flips for low-$q$ retrograde primaries, so those binaries may be driven toward spin-orbit misalignment, which population analyses could test once selection effects are modeled.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper uses three-dimensional shearing-box hydrodynamics simulations with a coupled N-body integrator to study the early orbital evolution of unequal-mass, eccentric black hole binaries embedded in AGN disks. It surveys prograde and retrograde binaries with q = 0.3-0.75 and e = 0-0.5, measuring accretion partitioning, semi-major axis and eccentricity evolution, and phase-resolved contributions near pericenter and apocenter. The authors confirm that prograde binaries inspiral slowly and have their eccentricities damped, while retrograde binaries with near-equal masses are pumped toward high eccentricity. The new claim is that retrograde binaries with q less than about 0.4 retain a primary minidisk that damps eccentricity at e above about 0.3, sending such systems to an e about 0.3-0.4 attractor and slowing their inspiral. They also report that accretion drives prograde binaries toward equal masses and retrograde binaries toward more extreme mass ratios, and they use a toy population calculation to discuss implications for LVK-band eccentricity and multiple e-folding accretion timescales.

Significance. If the low-q retrograde eccentricity-damping results survive resolution and sink-radius tests, they constitute a nontrivial correction to the equal-mass retrograde picture and affect predicted merger eccentricities and mass-ratio evolution for the AGN channel. The paper's strengths are a broad three-dimensional parameter survey, phase-resolved diagnostics that separate apocenter pumping from pericenter damping, a resolution check at q = 0.3, e = 0.5, and a posteriori truncation-error estimates reported at the few-percent level. The mock population calculation with Peters (1964) gravitational-wave losses makes the implications concrete, even though it is explicitly a toy model. However, the central mechanism's sink-radius dependence and the inconsistency between the stated threshold and Table 1 currently leave the abstract-level claim stronger than the evidence.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.2; Sections 3.2 and 2.2; Figure 7] The central reversal for retrograde binaries with q less than about 0.4 rests entirely on the primary retaining a substantial minidisk, but the paper itself states in Section 4.2 that "we cannot consider the size of the minidisks in our simulations to be physically realistic" and cites resolution tests showing that minidisk sizes decrease with smaller sink and gravitational softening radii, as well as two-dimensional simulations that find no minidisks at all. Because the mechanism for damping is the secondary's interaction with this minidisk near pericenter, the headline result is not established at converged resolution. The resolution check described in Section 2.2 (q = 0.3, e = 0.5 at twice spatial resolution) does not vary the sink or softening radius and therefore does not test this dependence. Please add convergence tests varying the sink radius and softening length, or explicitly restate the abstract and conclusions as a resolution-dependent finding.
  2. [Table 1; Abstract; Section 3.2] The claimed damping region q less than about 0.4, e greater than about 0.3 is not supported by the tabulated running averages. Table 1 gives <edot2> / [<mdot>/m] = +0.199 for q = 0.3, e = 0.3; +0.223 for q = 0.35, e = 0.4; and +0.095 for q = 0.4, e = 0.5, all positive, while only q = 0.3, e = 0.4; q = 0.3, e = 0.5; and q = 0.35, e = 0.5 are negative in the low-q retrograde block. The abstract's statement that primaries in retrograde binaries with q less than about 0.4 retain minidisks that "help damp binary eccentricities" and the text's e greater than about 0.3 threshold therefore overstate the data. Please revise the threshold to match the simulations (damping is seen only for q = 0.3 with e = 0.4 or 0.5 and for q = 0.35 with e = 0.5, with no damping at q = 0.4 in the sampled runs) and adjust the e approximately 0.3-0.4 attractor discussion accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] The final column header appears as <dot-vari> twice; based on the preceding columns it should presumably be <dot-vari_g> for the gravitational contribution to pericenter precession.
  2. [Figure 8 caption] The caption states that the q = 0.3 and q = 0.35 curves appear in "the bottom panel," but those curves appear to be in the middle retrograde panel rather than the bottom prograde panel; please check the panel labels and caption.
  3. [Section 4.1.1] The phrase "mass-weighed spin" should read "mass-weighted spin."
  4. [Section 2.2] The citation "(RK2 Heun 1900; Gottlieb & Shu 1998)" is formatted as though Heun were a co-author of the method; consider writing "(RK2; Heun 1900; Gottlieb & Shu 1998)."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the orbital evolution rates are measured from first-principles hydrodynamics, and the minidisk caveat is explicitly self-flagged rather than smuggled in.

full rationale

This paper is a simulation study, not a derivation in which an assumed result is recovered from its own definition. The central quantities — da/a, de2, mdot2/mdot1, and dq — are measured from Athena++/REBOUND shearing-box simulations via the exact conservation identities in Equations (9) and (10); no free parameter is fitted to a target eccentricity or merger outcome. The claimed low-q retrograde eccentricity damping is an inference from the phase-resolved force accounting in Figure 8, where pericentric damping and apocentric pumping are separately measured, and from the minidisk morphology directly visualized in Figure 7. The minidisk mechanism is not defined in terms of the damping it is invoked to explain; it is an independent dynamical feature diagnosed from the simulations. The population illustration in Figure 9 is explicitly labeled a "mock calculation" and a "toy model" that interpolates the measured rates in Table 1 and Figure 2, so it is not presented as an independent prediction obtained from fitted inputs. Self-citations to Dittmann et al. (2024) provide the numerical methodology and a resolution caveat, but they are not used as an external authority to force the central claim; in fact, the paper cites its own resolution tests to undermine the physical realism of the minidisk sizes, which cuts against any self-citation chain. Separately, the tabulated values in Table 1 show some runs (e.g., q=0.35, e=0.4 and q=0.4, e=0.5) that do not match the broad q<0.4, e>0.3 damping statement in the text; that is an internal consistency or correctness concern, not a circularity issue. The derivation chain is self-contained against the measured hydrodynamics, and the caveats are explicitly disclosed rather than hidden.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The key assumptions are the disk thermodynamics (isothermal, inviscid, unmagnetized), the sub-grid sink prescription, and the restricted binary orientation. The minidisk around the primary in low-q retrograde binaries is a simulated flow feature, not an invented entity, but its robustness is tied to the sink radius.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The AGN disk gas is isothermal, inviscid, and unmagnetized, with a fixed scale height H0 = R0/100.
    Section 2.2 states these assumptions; they directly shape the accretion flow morphology and the formation of minidisks, and the paper's Section 4.2 acknowledges that non-isothermal thermodynamics can change orbital evolution by orders of magnitude in 2D.
  • domain assumption Accretion onto each black hole is modeled by a sink term of radius rs = 0.04a, and the gravitational potential is softened at the same radius.
    Section 2.2 sets the sink radius; Section 4.2 notes minidisk sizes shrink with smaller sink radii, which could eliminate the low-q retrograde eccentricity damping.
  • domain assumption The binary remains coplanar and aligned/anti-aligned with the AGN disk, and only prograde center-of-mass motion is considered.
    Section 2.1 restricts the survey; the paper notes that eccentric retrograde binaries should be realigned by out-of-plane torques, potentially changing their evolution.
  • domain assumption The shearing-box approximation captures the relevant global gas dynamics.
    Section 2 uses the shearing box about the binary's center of mass; wind-tunnel studies without Coriolis terms are dismissed, but the shearing box itself is an approximation of the local tidal environment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Multiple Paths to Merger of Unequal-Mass Black Hole Binaries in the Disks of Active Galactic Nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NSLTW6PE

@misc{pith2026250505555,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Multiple Paths to Merger of Unequal-Mass Black Hole Binaries in the Disks of Active Galactic Nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NSLTW6PE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05555}
}
abstract

The accretion disks that power active galactic nuclei (AGN) are thought to house populations of stars and compact objects; after forming binaries these compact objects may merge, begetting gravitational waves such as those detected by LIGO and VIRGO. We present a comprehensive study of the early evolution of binaries within AGN disks as their orbits are influenced by the surrounding gas, focusing on eccentric and unequal-mass binaries. Nearly-equal-mass binaries behave similarly to their equal-mass counterparts: prograde binaries inspiral, albeit somewhat slowly, and have their eccentricities damped; retrograde binaries inspiral $\sim2-3$ times faster than their prograde counterparts, and those with near-equal masses are driven quickly towards near-unity eccentricities. However, the primaries in retrograde binaries with mass ratios of $m_2/m_1\lesssim0.4$ experience significantly weaker headwinds and retain substantial accretion disks that help damp binary eccentricities, slowing binary inspirals. Additionally, we find that while accretion drives prograde binaries towards equal masses thanks to the exchange of material between the primary and secondary accretion disks, retrograde binaries are driven slowly towards more extreme mass ratios. Prograde binaries, and generally those with low mass ratios, likely accrete for multiple $e$-folding timescales before merger. On the other hand, high-mass-ratio retrograde binaries may merge before accreting substantially, potentially approaching merger with detectable eccentricity. Future ground-based gravitational wave observatories, with their broader frequency coverage, should be particularly useful for studying these populations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05555 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The rates of accretion, normalized by the Bondi accretion rate, onto both prograde and retrograde binaries with e = 0.5 and mass ratios q = 0.3 and q = 0.55. All the binaries accrete at about the rate expected based on their Hill radii (m/˙ m˙ B ∼ (RH/RB) 2 = 0.2713; dotted line), and retrograde binaries accrete at slightly higher rates than prograde ones, as discussed in Dittmann et al. (2024). In all cases, the ac… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A summary of binary evolution for the eccentricities and mass ratios studied in this paper, grouping prograde binaries on the left-hand side and retrograde binaries on the right. Each time derivative has been expressed in terms of the time-averaged binary accretion rate and binary mass, m/m ˙ . The top row displays the average rate of change of the binary semi-major axis due to accretion and gravitational interactio… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A summary of binary evolution for the retrograde binaries studied in this paper as a function of binary mass ratio, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Slices of the gas density along the binary sepa￾ration vector for a pair of q = 0.3, e = 0 binaries, centered on the center of mass of each binary. At larger scales gas falls ballistically towards the center of mass of the binary; at smaller scales, most of this materi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The accretion rate (first and third rows, here weighted by the amount of time spent at each phase) and ratio of primary to secondary accretion rates (second and fourth rows) onto e = 0.5 binaries as functions of orbital phase. In all cases the binaries primarily accret…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Retrograde binaries with eccentricities of 0.4 and 0.5, and mass ratios of 0.3 and 0.4, centered on the cen￾ter of mass of each binary. Although the minidisks of near￾equal-mass retrograde binaries are largely stripped away, the primary in retrograde binaries with q < …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mock calculation of the evolution of a set of BHBs, initially 10 M⊙ in mass, in eccentricity and mass, as￾suming accretion at the Eddington rate. Here we assume that each binary orbits at a distance of 104 AU from a 107 M⊙ SMBH with initial semi-major axes of 0.25RH. W…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.12263

    Abac, A., Abramo, R., Albanesi, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.12263

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    D., Abraham, S., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2020, PhRvL, 125, 101102

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    D., & Thrane, E

    Adamcewicz, C., Lasky, P. D., & Thrane, E. 2023, ApJ, 958, 13

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Artymowicz, P., Lin, D. N. C., & Wampler, E. J. 1993, ApJ, 409, 592

    1993

  5. [5]

    R., & Bonnell, I

    Bate, M. R., & Bonnell, I. A. 1997, MNRAS, 285, 33

    1997

  6. [6]

    1952, MNRAS, 112, 195

    Bondi, H. 1952, MNRAS, 112, 195

    1952

  7. [7]

    M., Dittmann, A

    Calcino, J., Dempsey, A. M., Dittmann, A. J., & Li, H. 2024, ApJ, 970, 107 Unequal-Mass Binaries in AGN Disks 13

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Farr, W. M. 2021, ApJL, 922, L5

    work page 2021

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 2806

    Choksi, N., Chiang, E., Fung, J., & Zhu, Z. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2806

    2023

  2. [10]

    M., Li, H., Mishra, B., & Li, S

    Dempsey, A. M., Li, H., Mishra, B., & Li, S. 2022, ApJ, 940, 155

    2022

  3. [11]

    M., Muñoz, D., & Lithwick, Y

    Dempsey, A. M., Muñoz, D., & Lithwick, Y. 2020, ApJL, 892, L29

    2020

  4. [12]

    J., & Cantiello, M

    Dittmann, A. J., & Cantiello, M. 2025, ApJ, 979, 245

    2025

  5. [13]

    J., Cantiello, M., & Jermyn, A

    Dittmann, A. J., Cantiello, M., & Jermyn, A. S. 2021, ApJ, 916, 48

    2021

  6. [14]

    J., Dempsey, A

    Dittmann, A. J., Dempsey, A. M., & Li, H. 2024, ApJ, 964, 61

    2024

  7. [15]

    J., & Ryan, G

    Dittmann, A. J., & Ryan, G. 2021, ApJ, 921, 71 —. 2024, ApJ, 967, 12

    2021

  8. [16]

    C., Dittmann, A

    Duffell, P. C., Dittmann, A. J., D’Orazio, D. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 156

    2024

  9. [17]

    1988, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 25, 294

    Einfeldt, B. 1988, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 25, 294

    1988

  10. [18]

    S., Caban, F., et al

    Fabj, G., Nasim, S. S., Caban, F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2608

    2020

  11. [19]

    D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A

    Farris, B. D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A. I., & Haiman, Z. 2014, ApJ, 783, 134

    2014

  12. [20]

    Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. J. 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition

    2002

  13. [21]

    2016, ApJ, 832, 105

    Fung, J., & Chiang, E. 2016, ApJ, 832, 105

    2016

  14. [22]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 749

    Gerosa, D., & Fishbach, M. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 749

    2021

  15. [23]

    Gilbaum, S., & Stone, N. C. 2022, ApJ, 928, 191

    2022

  16. [24]

    1965, MNRAS, 130, 125

    Goldreich, P., & Lynden-Bell, D. 1965, MNRAS, 130, 125

    1965

  17. [25]

    Gottlieb, S., & Shu, C. W. 1998, Mathematics of Computation, 67, 73

    1998

  18. [26]

    J., McKernan, B., Ford, K

    Graham, M. J., McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 99

    2023

  19. [27]

    M., Kim, C.-G., & Quataert, E

    Guo, M., Stone, J. M., Kim, C.-G., & Quataert, E. 2023, ApJ, 946, 26

    2023

  20. [28]

    2010, ApJ, 708, 485

    Hanawa, T., Ochi, Y., & Ando, K. 2010, ApJ, 708, 485

    2010

  21. [29]

    D., & Leer, B

    Harten, A., Lax, P. D., & Leer, B. V. 1983, SIAM Review, 25, 35

    1983

  22. [30]

    Heun, K. 1900, Z. Math. Phys, 45, 23

    1900

  23. [31]

    Ho, L. C. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 475

    2008

  24. [32]

    F., Grudic, M

    Hopkins, P. F., Grudic, M. Y., Kremer, K., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 71

    2024

  25. [33]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  26. [34]

    M., & Davis, S

    Jiang, Y.-F., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W. 2014, ApJ, 796, 106

    2014

  27. [35]

    L., & Upton Sanderbeck, P

    Johnson, J. L., & Upton Sanderbeck, P. R. 2022, ApJ, 934, 58

    2022

  28. [36]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 44

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2023, ApJ, 944, 44

    2023

  29. [37]

    R., Lubow, S

    King, A. R., Lubow, S. H., Ogilvie, G. I., & Pringle, J. E. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 49

    2005

  30. [38]

    I., & Syunyaev, R

    Kolykhalov, P. I., & Syunyaev, R. A. 1980, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 6, 357

    1980

  31. [39]

    M., Li, H., Lai, D., & Li, S

    Li, J., Dempsey, A. M., Li, H., Lai, D., & Li, S. 2023, ApJL, 944, L42

    2023

  32. [40]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 1602 —

    Li, R., & Lai, D. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1602 —. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1881 —. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 348

    2022

  33. [41]

    M., Li, S., Li, H., & Li, J

    Li, Y.-P., Dempsey, A. M., Li, S., Li, H., & Li, J. 2021, ApJ, 911, 124

    2021

  34. [42]

    1969, Nature, 223, 690

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1969, Nature, 223, 690

    1969

  35. [43]

    A., & Aarseth, S

    Mardling, R. A., & Aarseth, S. J. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 398

    2001

  36. [44]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Cook, H. E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.16515

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Lyra, W., & Perets, H. B. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 460

    2012

  38. [46]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Bartos, I., et al. 2019, ApJL, 884, L50

    2019

  39. [47]

    J., & Lai, D

    Miranda, R., Muñoz, D. J., & Lai, D. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1170

    2017

  40. [48]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.05614 Muñoz, D

    Mishra, B., & Calcino, J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.05614 Muñoz, D. J., Lai, D., Kratter, K., & Miranda, R. 2020, ApJ, 889, 114

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    H., & Capano, C

    Nitz, A. H., & Capano, C. D. 2021, ApJL, 907, L9

    2021

  42. [50]

    2005, ApJ, 623, 922

    Ochi, Y., Sugimoto, K., & Hanawa, T. 2005, ApJ, 623, 922

    2005

  43. [51]

    J., Annis, J., & Liu, X

    Palmese, A., Fishbach, M., Burke, C. J., Annis, J., & Liu, X. 2021, ApJL, 914, L34

    2021

  44. [52]

    Peters, P. C. 1964, Physical Review, 136, 1224

    1964

  45. [53]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 143

    Qian, K., Li, J., & Lai, D. 2024, ApJ, 962, 143

    2024

  46. [54]

    Rein, H., & Liu, S. F. 2012, A&A, 537, A128

    2012

  47. [55]

    Rein, H., & Spiegel, D. S. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 1424

    2015

  48. [56]

    2023, ApJL, 954, L22

    Ricarte, A., Narayan, R., & Curd, B. 2023, ApJL, 954, L22

    2023

  49. [57]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 3476

    Roedig, C., & Sesana, A. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3476

    2014

  50. [58]

    M., Gerosa, D., & Loutrel, N

    Romero-Shaw, I. M., Gerosa, D., & Loutrel, N. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5352

    2023

  51. [59]

    Murray-Clay, R. A. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2054

    2020

  52. [60]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 16

    Rosselli-Calderon, A., Yarza, R., Murguia-Berthier, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 16

    2024

  53. [61]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 2770 14 Dittmann, Dempsey, & Li

    Rowan, C., Boekholt, T., Kocsis, B., & Haiman, Z. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2770 14 Dittmann, Dempsey, & Li

    2023

  54. [62]

    Rozner, M., Generozov, A., & Perets, H. B. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 866

    2023

  55. [63]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 833

    Saini, P. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 833

    2024

  56. [64]

    Springel, V., Yoshida, N., & White, S. D. M. 2001, NewA, 6, 79

    2001

  57. [65]

    M., Hawley, J

    Stone, J. M., Hawley, J. F., Gammie, C. F., & Balbus, S. A. 1996, ApJ, 463, 656

    1996

  58. [66]

    M., Tomida, K., White, C

    Stone, J. M., Tomida, K., White, C. J., & Felker, K. G. 2020, ApJS, 249, 4

    2020

  59. [67]

    C., Metzger, B

    Stone, N. C., Metzger, B. D., & Haiman, Z. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 946 Szulágyi, J., Morbidelli, A., Crida, A., & Masset, F. 2014, ApJ, 782, 65

    2017

  60. [68]

    M., Greene, C

    Thyng, K. M., Greene, C. A., Hetland, R. D., Zimmerle, H. M., & DiMarco, S. F. 2016, Oceanography

    2016

  61. [69]

    J., Smith, B

    Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 9 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science Engineering, 13, 22 van Leer, B. 1974, Journal of Computational Physics, 14, 361

    2011

  62. [70]

    M., & van Velzen, S

    Veronesi, N., Rossi, E. M., & van Velzen, S. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 6031

    2023

  63. [71]

    Veronesi, N., van Velzen, S., & Rossi, E. M. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 3112

    2025

  64. [72]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 4656

    Whitehead, H., Rowan, C., Boekholt, T., & Kocsis, B. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 4656

    2024

  65. [73]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.14959

    Whitehead, H., Rowan, C., & Kocsis, B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.14959

    2025 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Wyithe, J. S. B., & Loeb, A. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2892

    2012

  67. [75]

    D., Baird, J

    Young, M. D., Baird, J. T., & Clarke, C. J. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2907

    2015

  68. [76]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.02924

    Zhu, L.-G., & Chen, X. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.02924

    2025 arXiv

  69. [77]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.24084 APPENDIX A

    Zwick, L., Takátsy, J., Saini, P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.24084 APPENDIX A. QUANTITATIVE ORBITAL EVOLUTION RESULTS Table 1 lists the time-averaged orbital evolution results from our simulations. See Appendix A of Dittmann et al. (2024) for a description of how...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.