Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 112 references

Mergers and Recoil in Triple Massive Black Hole Systems from Illustris

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Strong three-body interactions in triple massive black hole systems raise the strong-triple merger fraction from 40% to 69% and add 4% to the overall merger fraction in the Illustris population.

desk verdict The 40%→69% strong-triple merger boost is a real, transparently qualified result, but its headline magnitude leans on an optimistic post-ejection evolution assumption that the authors themselves flag. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04369 v1 pith:7ROG7ZFQ submitted 2025-06-04 astro-ph.GA

Pranav Satheesh , Laura Blecha , Luke Zoltan Kelley This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords supermassiveblackholestripleholesystemsmassivebinariesgalaxymergersgravitationalwavesslingshotkickswaverecoilIllustrissimulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that strong three-body interactions between massive black holes, which form when a third black hole overtakes a binary before it merges, are a significant and currently neglected driver of black hole mergers. Applying triple-dynamics outcome fractions to the strong triples found in the Illustris cosmological simulation, it claims that these interactions raise the merger fraction in that subpopulation from 40% to 69% and add 4% to the overall merger fraction. It also claims that massive, major mergers are more than three times as likely to be facilitated by strong triple interactions as mergers in general, with strong triples supplying 19% of such events while being only 6% of the binary population. Finally, it compares gravitational-wave recoil kicks with slingshot kicks, and argues that although slingshots reach the highest velocities, gravitational-wave recoil dominates the ejected population under randomly oriented spins, while ejection reduces the total merger count by 6% in that model.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a subgrid combination of a post-processing binary inspiral model and a triple-interaction outcome model. The inspiral model evolves each binary through dynamical friction, loss-cone scattering, circumbinary-disk hardening, and gravitational-wave emission using host density profiles from Illustris. For the 520 strong triples, the paper interpolates merger fractions from a numerical grid of triple massive black hole simulations as functions of inner and outer mass ratios, draws a random outcome, and either assigns a prompt merger with a log-normal merger time of roughly 250 Myr or a slingshot ejection event. The slingshot energy change is prescribed by the Hills-Fullerton relation $\langle\Delta E/E_B\rangle = 0.4\,q_{\mathrm{out}}$, with the new separation $a_1 = a_0/(1+0.4\,q_{\mathrm{out}})$; the leftover binary is then re-evolved from this closer separation. Gravitational-wave recoil velocities are computed with a numerical-relativity fitting formula for three different spin models: random, aligned, and hybrid.

What would settle it

Take the post-slingshot binaries from this sample and evolve them with self-consistent three-body plus post-Newtonian dynamics, including the eccentricity excited by the encounter and a refilled or depleted loss cone; if the fraction that coalesces within a Hubble time is much smaller than the assumed 48%, the headline 4% overall boost and the 40% to 69% subpopulation boost would shrink accordingly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that adding strong triple dynamics to the Illustris massive black hole population changes what the merger population looks like. In the fiducial post-processing model, strong triple interactions, defined as triples where the outer binary overtakes the inner binary at separations below 100 pc, convert 21% of strong triples into prompt mergers and 48% into mergers after a slingshot kick, so 69% of strong triple systems merge by $z=0$ versus 40% under isolated binary evolution alone. The resulting overall merger fraction increases by 4%. The same subgrid model predicts that the massive-major merger population with $M_{\mathrm{mrg}} > 10^8\,M_\odot$ and $q_{\mathrm{mrg}} > 0.1$ receives 19% of its events from strong triples, a more than threefold enhancement relative to the 6% share of strong triples in the total population. Under random pre-merger spins, gravitational-wave recoil ejects about 7% of the total binary population; slingshot kicks eject about 7% of strong triple systems; combined ejections reduce the total number of mergers by about 6% and lower the cumulative merger rate from 0.402 to 0.388 yr$^{-1}$.

Load-bearing premise

The merger-after-kick channel, which supplies 48% of strong-triple outcomes and most of the claimed merger boost, assumes that after the slingshot the leftover binary resumes isolated inspiral from a smaller separation with no extra eccentricity and a full loss cone; the paper states it is not currently evolving these binaries after the triple interaction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Strong triple interactions add roughly 4% to the total number of massive black hole mergers by $z=0$ and lift the strong-triple subpopulation's merger fraction from 40% to 69%, so triple dynamics should be included in cosmological merger-rate predictions.
  • Massive, major mergers are more than three times as likely to be produced via strong triple interactions as mergers in general, meaning the loud, pulsar-timing-array-relevant merger population is enriched in the triple channel.
  • Even in a pessimistic stalled model where all isolated binaries fail to harden, triple interactions keep the merger rate within a factor of about 4.6 of the fiducial model, so a pulsar timing array gravitational-wave background may persist even if isolated binaries stall at parsec scales.
  • Under random pre-merger spins, gravitational-wave recoil ejects about 7% of the total population while slingshot kicks eject about 7% of strong triples; the combined ejections reduce the total number of mergers by about 6%, lowering the cumulative merger rate from 0.402 to 0.388 yr$^{-1}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the triple channel preferentially feeds massive major mergers, the stochastic gravitational-wave background's spectral shape could deviate from the canonical $f^{-2/3}$ power law, because triple-induced mergers are likely more eccentric and more concentrated at high mass; the paper itself notes eccentricity is not modeled.
  • Slingshot kicks reach velocities above the maximum gravitational-wave recoil of roughly 3500 km s$^{-1}$, giving a clean observational discriminant: a candidate recoiling black hole with an inferred kick above that threshold would point to a three-body origin rather than a binary merger.
  • A testable extension would be to run the triple-dynamics prescription on near-threshold systems around the 100 pc strong-weak boundary; if the outcome fractions vary smoothly across that cutoff, the 4% overall boost is robust, whereas a sharp discontinuity would indicate sensitivity to the chosen separation threshold.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper post-processes the Illustris cosmological simulation to assess the impact of strong triple massive black hole (MBH) interactions on MBH mergers and recoils. Using the binary inspiral model of Kelley et al. (2017a,b) and the triple identification of Sayeb et al. (2024), the authors isolate 520 strong triples (atriple < 100 pc) and assign outcomes by interpolating the numerical triple-MBH simulations of Bonetti et al. (2018a). They report that strong triple interactions raise the merger fraction of strong-triple MBHs from 40% to 69% (21% prompt mergers, 48% mergers after a slingshot kick, 31% no merger), increase the overall merger fraction by 4%, and make massive major mergers (M_mrg > 10^8 Msun, q_mrg > 0.1) more than three times more likely to be facilitated by strong triple interactions than mergers in general. They further compare gravitational-wave recoil kicks under three spin models with gravitational slingshot kicks, finding that GW recoils dominate ejections under random spins and that ejections reduce the total merger count by about 6% in that model.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, this is a useful step toward including triple MBH dynamics in cosmological merger-rate predictions, with direct relevance to pulsar timing array and LISA source populations. The paper builds on a credible chain of existing machinery: numerical three-body outcome grids calibrated by Bonetti et al. (2018a), a cosmological merger-tree sample from Illustris, and a post-processing inspiral model that has been used in prior work. The authors are also transparent about several limitations, including the lack of eccentricity evolution after triple interactions and the separate treatment of triple dynamics and binary hardening. The main value is in providing a population-level estimate of the fractional contribution of strong triples, especially to massive major mergers, rather than in precise rate predictions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3 and Figure 1] The headline 40% to 69% increase in the strong-triple merger fraction is carried primarily by the 'merger after kick' outcome, which accounts for 48% of strong triples. This channel assumes that after the slingshot the leftover binary resumes the fiducial isolated-binary inspiral model, initialized at a1 = a0/(1+0.4 qout) (or the exchange formulas), with a full loss cone and with no additional eccentricity from the three-body encounter. The paper itself states in Section 2.3 that eccentricity is not evolved after the triple interaction, and Section 2.2 notes that the fiducial model already assumes a full loss cone. Since the slingshot can deplete the loss cone or displace the surviving binary from the dense stellar core, the full-loss-cone assumption is optimistic for this channel. The authors' own comparison with Bonetti et al. (2018b), whose post-ejection evolution includes only GW inspiral and yields a much lower post-kick merger fraction, demonstrates the sensitivity of this channel to the post-ejection hardening treatment. I request a sensitivity test (e.g., evolving the post-kick binary with only GW emission, or with a depleted loss cone) and a statement of how the reported 69% and the 19% massive-major-merger contribution change under that test. Without such a test, the central quantitative claims are not robust.
  2. [Section 2.3] The interpolation scheme for the Bonetti et al. (2018a) outcome fractions a, b, c is described only for qin and qout in [0.03,1], with a separate set of simulations for qout > 1. Figure 4, however, extends to log10(qout) = 1, and the text states that qout > 1 always corresponds to an exchange event. The paper should specify how the interpolation is performed for qout > 1, including the grid coverage and any extrapolation used for qout values beyond the simulated range. This matters because exchange events change the identity and mass of the surviving binary, and the subsequent inspiral is then initialized from a different component mass and separation.
  3. [Section 3.1] The interpretation of the 40% isolated merger fraction in strong triples needs to be made more explicit in relation to the 21%/48%/31% outcome fractions. The paper reports that 40% of strong-triple systems would merge via isolated binary inspiral and that triple dynamics raise this to 69%. Since the outcome fractions sum to 100% and the prompt and post-kick channels can include systems that would also have merged in isolation, the text should clarify whether the 69% is a union of all merger channels and how the 40% isolated mergers are distributed among the three triple-outcome categories. This clarification is needed to interpret the statement that triple dynamics add 29 percentage points of mergers.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.3] The sentence defining weak and strong triples contains an apparent typo: 'Triples with atriple > 100 pc are classified as weak triples and those with atriple > 100 pc are strong triples' should read 'atriple < 100 pc are classified as strong triples.'
  2. [Section 3.5 and Table 1] There is a numerical inconsistency to reconcile: Table 1 lists the '% ejected' for random-spin GW recoil as 15.6%, while Section 3.5 states that GW recoil kicks cause ejections of 7.4% of the total binary population under the random spin model. Please clarify whether the table reports ejections per merger or per binary and ensure the text and table use the same normalization.
  3. [Section 2.3, bullet list] In the outcome bullet list, the phrase 'and a the lightest BH kicked out' appears to be a typo. In addition, the text should state explicitly that a+b+c is the total prompt-merger probability and that P > a+b+c corresponds to the slingshot-only outcome.
  4. [Figure 4] The caption says the red dots are 'plotted for all realizations of the strong triple outcomes,' but the same red-dot subset appears in both panels. Please clarify whether the red dots in each panel denote the same stalled-in-isolation systems and whether they are weighted by realization number.
  5. [General] There are several minor typographical issues, including 'T able 1' in the caption of Table 1 and the inconsistent use of 'log z' versus 'log(z)' in figure labels. These should be corrected in a final proofread.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the triple outcome fractions are imported from independent Bonetti et al. (2018a) simulations, and the same inspiral model is used for both baselines and post-kick evolution.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Strong triples are identified from Illustris using the prior Sayeb et al. (2024) analysis, and the triple interaction outcomes are taken by grid interpolation from the independent numerical simulations of Bonetti et al. (2018a), giving merger fractions a, b, c that are then sampled with random draws. Prompt-merger times use the log-normal fit reported in Bonetti et al. (2018a). Post-ejection binary separations come from the Hills & Fullerton (1980) binding-energy change via Volonteri et al. (2003), and subsequent inspiral uses the Kelley et al. (2017a) model symmetrically for both the isolated-binary baseline and the post-kick evolution. The central claims, such as the increase from 40% to 69% merger fraction for strong triples, therefore do not reduce to a fitted parameter or to a self-defined quantity. The manuscript explicitly flags its main physical assumptions: Section 2.3 states 'we are not currently evolving them after the triple interaction' regarding eccentricity, and Section 3.1 explains that the merger-after-kick fraction is higher than in Bonetti et al. (2018b) because the authors evolve the remnant with their full hardening model rather than GW-only inspiral. These are acknowledged model limitations and differences from prior work, not circular reductions. The only self-citation thread is the continued use of the Kelley et al. (2017a) inspiral model and the Sayeb et al. (2024) triple-identification catalog, but these are published, independently constructed tools used consistently for both the comparison and the prediction, so the central result retains independent content. Accordingly, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numbers rest on a chain of upstream subgrid models and fitted coefficients: the Illustris seeding and inspiral model, the Bonetti triple-interaction grid, analytic slingshot formulas, numerical relativity recoil fitting formulas, and three ad hoc spin distributions. None of these is fit to the target result, so the circularity burden is low, but the model dependency is high; changing any of these assumptions could shift the headline percentages.

free parameters (5)
  • initial binary eccentricity e0 = 0.6
    Chosen by hand for all binaries at the start of the dynamical friction phase in the fiducial model; affects inspiral timescales and therefore which systems are classified as strong triples.
  • aligned spin magnitude and misalignment = a = 0.9, theta in (0, 5 deg)
    Chosen to bracket the maximally aligned spin scenario; GW recoil kick magnitudes and ejection rates depend strongly on this choice.
  • random spin model parameters = beta distribution peaking near a ~ 0.7
    Adopted from Blecha et al. (2016) to represent random spin orientations after dry mergers; drives the highest GW recoil ejections.
  • prompt merger delay log-normal parameters = mu = 8.4, sigma = 0.4 in log(T/yr)
    Fitted by Bonetti et al. (2018a) to their triple simulations; used here to assign prompt merger times, affecting merger redshifts and rates.
  • slingshot energy exchange coefficients = <Delta E/E_B> = 0.4 for qout < 2, 0.9 for qout > 2
    Analytic fits from Hills & Fullerton (1980) and Volonteri et al. (2003), used to compute post-kick separations and slingshot velocities.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The post-processing binary inspiral model (Kelley et al. 2017a) accurately describes isolated MBH binary evolution from pc scales to merger.
    Used to compute binary separation vs time, triple formation times, and post-kick evolution; Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption All binaries in the fiducial model have a full loss cone, i.e., stars efficiently refill the loss cone during LC hardening.
    Stated in Section 2.2; increases isolated merger rates and post-kick merger rates, directly affecting the 40% to 69% comparison.
  • domain assumption The Bonetti et al. (2018a) triple simulation merger-fraction grid, interpolated in (m1, qin, qout), captures the outcome of every Illustris strong triple.
    The grid was computed for a subset of orbital eccentricities and inclinations and is interpolated in mass ratios only; Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption After a slingshot kick, the leftover binary evolves in isolation with the same inspiral model, ignoring the high eccentricity induced by the triple encounter.
    The paper states 'we are not currently evolving them after the triple interaction' (Section 2.3); this drives the 48% merger-after-kick fraction.
  • domain assumption The host galaxy potential for escape-velocity estimates is well approximated by a Hernquist DM halo plus a softened isothermal stellar bulge.
    Used in Section 2.6 to decide ejections; the paper notes vesc is volatile during mergers (Blecha et al. 2011).
  • domain assumption Spin distributions (random, hybrid, aligned) bracket the true pre-merger MBH spin distribution.
    The choice of spin model changes the number of GW recoil ejections from 15.6% to 0.25% of the population; Section 2.4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mergers and Recoil in Triple Massive Black Hole Systems from Illustris." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7ROG7ZFQ

@misc{pith2026250604369,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mergers and Recoil in Triple Massive Black Hole Systems from Illustris},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7ROG7ZFQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04369}
}
read the original abstract

Massive black hole binaries (MBHBs) form through galaxy mergers and are among the loudest sources of gravitational waves (GWs) in the universe. If the binary inspiral time is long, a subsequent galaxy merger can introduce a third black hole, forming a triple system. In the Illustris cosmological simulation, 6% of MBHBs form such triples at parsec scales, where strong three-body interactions are likely. We apply results from numerical simulations of triple MBHs to strong triples identified in Illustris to assess their impact on MBH mergers and recoils. We find that strong triple interactions increase the overall merger fraction by 4%. Including triple interactions raises the merger fraction of MBHs in strong triple systems from 40% to 69%, relative to modeling binary evolution in isolation. Furthermore, massive, major mergers are over three times more likely to be facilitated by strong triple interactions than mergers in general. We also compare GW recoil kicks to gravitational slingshot kicks from triple interactions. Both mechanisms can produce kicks exceeding host escape speeds, ejecting MBHs and producing wandering or offset black holes. Although slingshots yield the highest velocity kicks, GW recoils dominate the ejected population when assuming random MBH spin orientations. Under this assumption, ejections from GW recoil and slingshot kicks reduce the total number of mergers by 6%. Our results highlight the impact of strong triple dynamics and GW recoils on MBH evolution and support their inclusion in cosmological simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04369 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram illustrating the outcomes of binary and triple interactions in the subpopulation of Illustris MBH binaries that form strong triples. Triples interactions are added for the strong triple subpopulation (atriple < 100 pc). Merger fractions averaged over 100 realizations are indicated for the three outcomes: i) prompt merger (21 %) ii) merger after kick (48 %) and iii) no-merger (31 %). by the binary b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Normalized distributions of the three models for pre-merger MBH spins considered in this work: random (solid dark blue), cold (dotted light blue), and aligned (solid red). Top panel: misalignment angle distribution of the spins. Bottom panel: spin magnitude distribution of the models. v∥ = 16η 2 (1 + q) h V1,1 + VAS˜ ∥ + VBS˜2 ∥ + VCS˜3 ∥ i × (8) | a2⊥ − qa1⊥| cos(ϕ∆ − ϕ1), where η ≡ q/(1 + q) 2 is the symmetric mas… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distributions of the merging BH mass ratio (qmrg), total mass (Mmrg), and redshift (z) of the merging MBHs in the isolated binaries, weak triples, and strong triples subpopulations. The median mass ratio of mergers in strong triples, weak triples, and isolated binaries is 0.63, 0.40, and 0.25, respectively. 64% of strong triple mergers have a qmrg > 0.1. The median total mass of mergers in strong triples, weak tripl… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A 2D histogram in the log qin − log qout plane for prompt mergers (left panel) and merger after a slingshot kick (right panel) from triple interactions. The red dots correspond to triple-induced mergers where the inner binary would not have merged in isolation, and the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Merger rates of versus redshift for various subpopulations of MBHBs. The left panel shows the total merger rate (gray line) as well as the merger rate for the subpopulations of isolated binaries (orange), weak triple systems (light blue), and strong triples (dark blue)…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The number of mergers versus redshift is shown for subpopulations of the Illustris MBH merger population. The green dotted line shows the total number of mergers, while the orange dotted line shows the mergers in strong triples. The solid green line show the subset of …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The velocity distributions are shown for GW recoil and slingshot kicks to MBHs in our model. GW recoil velocities are shown for each spin model (random, aligned, & hybrid) and are averaged over all realizations of pre-merger MBH spins. The mean recoil velocity is plott…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ejection rates versus redshift from GW recoil kicks are shown for each spin model: random (red-dotted), hybrid (light blue, dot-dashed) and aligned (dark blue, dashed) spins Also shown is the ejection rate from slingshot kicks (solid green), compared with the total mer…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6 2023

  2. [2]

    2017, arXiv e-prints

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Audley, H., Babak, S., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00786 16

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    2012, ApJ, 745, 83, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/83

    Antonini, F., & Merritt, D. 2012, ApJ, 745, 83, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/83

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/745/1/83 2012

  4. [4]

    S., Comerford, J

    Barrows, R. S., Comerford, J. M., Greene, J. E., & Pooley, D. 2016, ApJ, 829, 37, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/37

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/1/37 2016

  5. [5]

    C., Blandford, R

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

    doi:10.1038/287307a0 1980

  6. [6]

    Bekenstein, J. D. 1973, ApJ, 183, 657, doi: 10.1086/152255

    doi:10.1086/152255 1973

  7. [7]

    2006, ApJL, 642, L21, doi: 10.1086/504426

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

    doi:10.1086/504426 2006

  8. [8]

    1989, Journal of Computational Physics, 82, 64, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(89)90035-1

    Berger, M., & Colella, P. 1989, Journal of Computational Physics, 82, 64, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(89)90035-1

    doi:10.1016/0021-9991(89)90035-1 1989

Show all 112 references
  1. [9]

    K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al

    Bhowmick, A. K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 4311, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1386

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    H., & Socrates, A

    Blaes, O., Lee, M. H., & Socrates, A. 2002, ApJ, 578, 775, doi: 10.1086/342655

    2002 doi

  3. [11]

    2019, Astro2020: Decadal Survey on Astronomy and Astrophysics, 2020, 318, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1903.09301

    Blecha, L., Brisken, W., Burke-Spolaor, S., et al. 2019, Astro2020: Decadal Survey on Astronomy and Astrophysics, 2020, 318, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1903.09301

    2019 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    J., Loeb, A., & Hernquist, L

    Blecha, L., Cox, T. J., Loeb, A., & Hernquist, L. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2154, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18042.x

    2011

  5. [14]

    Z., et al

    Blecha, L., Sijacki, D., Kelley, L. Z., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 961, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2646 Bogdanovi´ c, T., Reynolds, C. S., & Miller, M. C. 2007, ApJL, 661, L147, doi: 10.1086/518769

    2016 doi

  6. [15]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 4419, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1590 —

    Bonetti, M., Haardt, F., Sesana, A., & Barausse, E. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 4419, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1590 —. 2018a, MNRAS, 477, 3910, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty896

    2016 doi

  7. [16]

    2018b, MNRAS, 477, 2599, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty874

    Bonetti, M., Sesana, A., Barausse, E., & Haardt, F. 2018b, MNRAS, 477, 2599, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty874

    doi

  8. [17]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 4044, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz903

    Bonetti, M., Sesana, A., Haardt, F., Barausse, E., & Colpi, M. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 4044, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz903

    2019 doi

  9. [18]

    O., Zlochower, Y., & Merritt, D

    Campanelli, M., Lousto, C. O., Zlochower, Y., & Merritt, D. 2007, PhRvL, 98, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.98.231102

    2007 doi

  10. [19]

    1943, ApJ, 97, 255, doi: 10.1086/144517

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1943, ApJ, 97, 255, doi: 10.1086/144517

    1943 doi

  11. [20]

    C., Meyer, E

    Chiaberge, M., Ely, J. C., Meyer, E. T., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629522

    2017 doi

  12. [21]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.18730, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.18730

    Chiaberge, M., Morishita, T., Boschini, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.18730, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.18730

    2025 doi arXiv

  13. [22]

    2010, ApJ, 717, 209, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/209

    Civano, F., Elvis, M., Lanzuisi, G., et al. 2010, ApJ, 717, 209, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/209

    2010 doi

  14. [23]

    J., Alexander, R

    Cuadra, J., Armitage, P. J., Alexander, R. D., & Begelman, M. C. 2009, MNRAS, 393, 1423, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14147.x

    2009

  15. [24]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 1558, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1810 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L

    Volonteri, M. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 1558, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1810 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604–607, doi: 10.1038/nature03335

    2014 doi

  16. [27]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7cd2 EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, Antoniadis, J., et al

    Dunn, G., Holley-Bockelmann, K., & Bellovary, J. 2020, ApJ, 896, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7cd2 EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, Antoniadis, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346844

    2020 doi

  17. [28]

    2000, ApJL, 539, L9, doi: 10.1086/312838

    Ferrarese, L., & Merritt, D. 2000, ApJL, 539, L9, doi: 10.1086/312838

    2000 doi

  18. [29]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 175–200, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1654

    Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., Springel, V., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 175–200, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1654

    2014 doi

  19. [30]

    2015, MNRAS, 446, 38, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2049

    Gerosa, D., & Sesana, A. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 38, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2049

    2015 doi

  20. [31]

    A., & Monaghan, J

    Gingold, R. A., & Monaghan, J. J. 1977, MNRAS, 181, 375, doi: 10.1093/mnras/181.3.375

    1977 doi

  21. [32]

    G., Sesana, A., Cuadra, J., & Stasyszyn, F

    Goicovic, F. G., Sesana, A., Cuadra, J., & Stasyszyn, F. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 514, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1996 Gonz´ alez, J. A., Hannam, M., Sperhake, U., Br¨ ugmann, B., & Husa, S. 2007, PhRvL, 98, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.98.231101 G¨ ultekin, K., Richstone, D. O., Gebhardt, K....

    2017 doi

  22. [33]

    1990, ApJ, 356, 359, doi: 10.1086/168845

    Hernquist, L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 359, doi: 10.1086/168845

    1990 doi

  23. [34]

    Hills, J. G. 1975, AJ, 80, 809, doi: 10.1086/111815

    1975 doi

  24. [35]

    G., & Fullerton, L

    Hills, J. G., & Fullerton, L. W. 1980, AJ, 85, 1281, doi: 10.1086/112798

    1980 doi

  25. [36]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    Hinshaw, G., Larson, D., Komatsu, E., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    2013 doi

  26. [38]

    Winter, L. M. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1688, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab576

    2021 doi

  27. [39]

    Holley-Bockelmann, K., & Khan, F. M. 2015, ApJ, 810, 139, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/139

    2015 doi

  28. [40]

    Rubbo, L. J. 2010, ApJ, 713, 1016, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/2/1016

    2010 doi

  29. [41]

    2006, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0601520 17

    Holley-Bockelmann, K., & Sigurdsson, S. 2006, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0601520 17

    2006 doi arXiv

  30. [42]

    2006, ApJ, 651, 1059, doi: 10.1086/507473

    Iwasawa, M., Funato, Y., & Makino, J. 2006, ApJ, 651, 1059, doi: 10.1086/507473

    2006 doi

  31. [43]

    2021, MNRAS, 509, 3488–3503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3239

    Izquierdo-Villalba, D., Sesana, A., Bonoli, S., & Colpi, M. 2021, MNRAS, 509, 3488–3503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3239

    2021 doi

  32. [44]

    2017, ApJL, 851, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9b2d

    Kalfountzou, E., Santos Lleo, M., & Trichas, M. 2017, ApJL, 851, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9b2d

    2017 doi

  33. [45]

    L., Kelley, L

    Katz, M. L., Kelley, L. Z., Dosopoulou, F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2301, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3102

    2020 doi

  34. [46]

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

    Kelley, L. Z., Blecha, L., & Hernquist, L. 2017a, MNRAS, 464, 3131–3157, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2452

    doi

  35. [47]

    Taylor, S. R. 2017b, MNRAS, 471, 4508–4526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1638

    doi

  36. [48]

    M., Just, A., & Merritt, D

    Khan, F. M., Just, A., & Merritt, D. 2011, ApJ, 732, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/732/2/89

    2011 doi

  37. [49]

    2016, PhRvD, 93, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.93.044007

    Khan, S., Husa, S., Hannam, M., et al. 2016, PhRvD, 93, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.93.044007

    2016 doi

  38. [50]

    2012, Advances in Astronomy, 2012, 1–8, doi: 10.1155/2012/364973

    Komossa, S. 2012, Advances in Astronomy, 2012, 1–8, doi: 10.1155/2012/364973

    2012 doi

  39. [51]

    2008, ApJL, 678, L81, doi: 10.1086/588656

    Komossa, S., Zhou, H., & Lu, H. 2008, ApJL, 678, L81, doi: 10.1086/588656

    2008 doi

  40. [52]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511–653, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    2013 doi

  41. [53]

    1995, ARA&A, 33, 581, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053

    Kormendy, J., & Richstone, D. 1995, ARA&A, 33, 581, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053

    1995

  42. [54]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 515, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1673

    Koss, M., Blecha, L., Mushotzky, R., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 515, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1673

    2014 doi

  43. [55]

    1962, AJ, 67, 591, doi: 10.1086/108790

    Kozai, Y. 1962, AJ, 67, 591, doi: 10.1086/108790

    1962 doi

  44. [56]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0e0d

    Li, J., Zhuang, M.-Y., & Shen, Y. 2024, ApJ, 961, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0e0d

    2024 doi

  45. [57]

    Lidov, M. L. 1962, Planet. Space Sci., 9, 719, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(62)90129-0

    1962 doi

  46. [58]

    2007, PhRvL, 99, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.99.041103

    Loeb, A. 2007, PhRvL, 99, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.99.041103

    2007 doi

  47. [59]

    O., & Zlochower, Y

    Lousto, C. O., & Zlochower, Y. 2008, PhRvD, 77, 044028, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.044028

    2008 doi

  48. [60]

    O., & Zlochower, Y

    Lousto, C. O., & Zlochower, Y. 2011, PhRvL, 106, 041101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.041101

    2011 doi

  49. [61]

    O., Zlochower, Y., Dotti, M., & Volonteri, M

    Lousto, C. O., Zlochower, Y., Dotti, M., & Volonteri, M. 2012, PhRvD, 85, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.85.084015

    2012 doi

  50. [62]

    Lucy, L. B. 1977, AJ, 82, 1013, doi: 10.1086/112164

    1977 doi

  51. [63]

    2004, ApJL, 606, L17–L20, doi: 10.1086/421017

    Madau, P., & Quataert, E. 2004, ApJL, 606, L17–L20, doi: 10.1086/421017

    2004 doi

  52. [64]

    1998, AJ, 115, 2285, doi: 10.1086/300353

    Magorrian, J., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285, doi: 10.1086/300353

    1998 doi

  53. [65]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    Marinacci, F., Vogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    2018 doi

  54. [66]

    J., & Ma, C.-P

    McConnell, N. J., & Ma, C.-P. 2013, ApJ, 764, 184, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/184

    2013 doi

  55. [67]

    2005, Living Reviews in Relativity, 8, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2005-8

    Merritt, D., & Milosavljevi´ c, M. 2005, Living Reviews in Relativity, 8, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2005-8

    2005 doi

  56. [68]

    2012, PhRvD, 86, 102002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.102002

    Merritt, D., & Vasiliev, E. 2012, PhRvD, 86, 102002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.102002

    2012 doi

  57. [69]

    C., & Krolik, J

    Miller, M. C., & Krolik, J. H. 2013, ApJ, 774, 43, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/774/1/43

    2013 doi

  58. [70]

    2003, The Final Parsec Problem, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0212270

    Milosavljevic, M., & Merritt, D. 2003, The Final Parsec Problem, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0212270

    2003 doi arXiv

  59. [71]

    2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 150, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad530b

    Montes, M., S´ anchez Almeida, J., & Trujillo, I. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 150, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad530b

    2024 doi

  60. [72]

    P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al

    Naiman, J. P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1206, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty618

    2018 doi

  61. [73]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 441–489, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    Naoz, S. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 441–489, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    2016 doi

  62. [74]

    2015, Astronomy and Computing, 13, 12–37, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.09.003

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Genel, S., et al. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 13, 12–37, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.09.003

    2015 doi

  63. [75]

    2017, MNRAS, 475, 624–647, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 475, 624–647, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    2017 doi

  64. [76]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    2019 doi

  65. [77]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 1946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1136

    Nixon, C., King, A., & Price, D. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 1946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1136

    2013 doi

  66. [78]

    C., & Mathews, J

    Peters, P. C., & Mathews, J. 1963, Physical Review, 131, 435, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.131.435

    1963 doi

  67. [79]

    W., Weaver, K

    Pfeifle, R. W., Weaver, K. A., Secrest, N. J., Rothberg, B., & Patton, D. R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.12799, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.12799

    2024 doi arXiv

  68. [80]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    2018 doi

  69. [81]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    2019 doi

  70. [82]

    2011, ApJL, 732, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/732/2/L26

    Preto, M., Berentzen, I., Berczik, P., & Spurzem, R. 2011, ApJL, 732, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/732/2/L26

    2011 doi

  71. [83]

    Quinlan, G. D. 1996, NewA, 1, 35, doi: 10.1016/S1384-1076(96)00003-6

    1996 doi

  72. [84]

    D., & Hernquist, L

    Quinlan, G. D., & Hernquist, L. 1997, NewA, 2, 533, doi: 10.1016/S1384-1076(97)00039-0

    1997 doi

  73. [85]

    J., Zic, A., Shannon, R

    Reardon, D. J., Zic, A., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02

    2023 doi

  74. [86]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 6098, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab866

    Quinn, T. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 6098, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab866

    2021 doi

  75. [87]

    P., & Stone, N

    Ryu, T., Perna, R., Haiman, Z., Ostriker, J. P., & Stone, N. C. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3410, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2524

    2018 doi

  76. [88]

    G., Theuns, T., et al

    Salcido, J., Bower, R. G., Theuns, T., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 870–885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2048 18 S´ anchez Almeida, J. 2023, A&A, 678, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347098 S´ anchez Almeida, J., Montes, M., & Trujillo, I. 2023, A&A, 673, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346430

    2016 doi

  77. [89]

    C., Valtonen, M

    Saslaw, W. C., Valtonen, M. J., & Aarseth, S. J. 1974, ApJ, 190, 253, doi: 10.1086/152870

    1974 doi

  78. [90]

    Sayeb, M., Blecha, L., & Kelley, L. Z. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7424, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3637

    2024 doi

  79. [91]

    Z., et al

    Sayeb, M., Blecha, L., Kelley, L. Z., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 2531, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3826

    2021 doi

  80. [92]

    Schnittman, J. D. 2007, ApJL, 667, L133, doi: 10.1086/522203

    2007 doi

  81. [93]

    2007, MNRAS, 382, L6, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00375.x —

    Sesana, A. 2007, MNRAS, 382, L6, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00375.x —. 2013, MNRAS, 433, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt034

    2007

  82. [94]

    2006, ApJ, 651, 392, doi: 10.1086/507596 —

    Sesana, A., Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2006, ApJ, 651, 392, doi: 10.1086/507596 —. 2008, ApJ, 686, 432, doi: 10.1086/590651

    2006 doi

  83. [95]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 623, doi: 10.1086/422185

    Sesana, A., Haardt, F., Madau, P., & Volonteri, M. 2004, ApJ, 611, 623, doi: 10.1086/422185

    2004 doi

  84. [96]

    2009, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 26, 094033, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/26/9/094033

    Sesana, A., Volonteri, M., & Haardt, F. 2009, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 26, 094033, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/26/9/094033

    2009 doi

  85. [97]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 575–596, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1340

    Sijacki, D., Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 575–596, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1340

    2015 doi

  86. [98]

    Z., & Hernquist, L

    Siwek, M., Kelley, L. Z., & Hernquist, L. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 2609, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2251

    2024 doi

  87. [99]

    2023a, MNRAS, 522, 2707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1131

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

    doi

  88. [100]

    J., & Hernquist, L

    Siwek, M., Weinberger, R., Mu˜ noz, D. J., & Hernquist, L. 2023b, MNRAS, 518, 5059, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3263

    doi

  89. [101]

    S., Kelley, L

    Siwek, M. S., Kelley, L. Z., & Hernquist, L. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 537, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2361

    2020 doi

  90. [102]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791–851, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    Springel, V. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791–851, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    2010

  91. [103]

    2005, MNRAS, 361, 776–794, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 776–794, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    2005

  92. [104]

    2017, MNRAS, 475, 676–698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 475, 676–698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    2017 doi

  93. [105]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 1985, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2295

    Torrey, P., Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 1985, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2295

    2014 doi

  94. [106]

    2002, ApJ, 574, 740, doi: 10.1086/341002

    Tremaine, S., Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., et al. 2002, ApJ, 574, 740, doi: 10.1086/341002

    2002 doi

  95. [107]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 286, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7ff0 van Dokkum, P., Pasha, I., Buzzo, M

    Uppal, A., Ward, C., Gezari, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 286, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7ff0 van Dokkum, P., Pasha, I., Buzzo, M. L., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acba86

    2024 doi

  96. [108]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 3031–3067, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1789

    Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Sijacki, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3031–3067, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1789

    2013 doi

  97. [109]

    2007, ApJL, 663, L5, doi: 10.1086/519525

    Volonteri, M. 2007, ApJL, 663, L5, doi: 10.1086/519525

    2007 doi

  98. [110]

    2003, ApJ, 582, 559, doi: 10.1086/344675

    Volonteri, M., Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2003, ApJ, 582, 559, doi: 10.1086/344675

    2003 doi

  99. [111]

    2007, MNRAS, 383, 1079–1088, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12589.x

    Volonteri, M., Lodato, G., & Natarajan, P. 2007, MNRAS, 383, 1079–1088, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12589.x

    2007

  100. [112]

    2008, ApJL, 687, L57, doi: 10.1086/593353

    Volonteri, M., & Madau, P. 2008, ApJL, 687, L57, doi: 10.1086/593353

    2008 doi

  101. [113]

    S., et al

    Volonteri, M., Pfister, H., Beckmann, R. S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2219–2238, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2384

    2020 doi

  102. [114]

    2021, ApJ, 913, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf246

    Ward, C., Gezari, S., Frederick, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf246

    2021 doi

  103. [115]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 075024, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5

    Xu, H., Chen, S., Guo, Y., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 075024, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5

    2023 doi

  104. [116]

    2002, MNRAS, 331, 935, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05242.x

    Yu, Q. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 935, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05242.x

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.