Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Impact of a granular mass distribution on the orbit of S2 in the Galactic center

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · 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 the granularity of a stellar-mass black hole cluster around Sagittarius A* can produce observable deviations in S2's orbit, most likely during the 2026 apocenter passage.

desk verdict A solid, well-validated simulation study that turns a known qualitative effect into concrete, falsifiable predictions for S2's 2026 apocenter; the central forecasts are conditional on an assumed BH population that is plausible but not directly detected. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01510 v1 pith:4LEKTJ3Y submitted 2025-07-02 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HEphysics.class-ph

Matteo Sadun Bordoni , Roberto Capuzzo Dolcetta , Aleksey Generozov , Guillaume Bourdarot , Antonia Drescher , Frank Eisenhauer , Reinhard Genzel , Stefan Gillessen
show 5 more authors
Simran Joharle Felix Mang Thomas Ott Diogo C. Ribeiro Sebastiano D. von Fellenberg
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEphysics.class-ph
keywords GalacticcenterS2starstellar-massblackholesgranularmassdistributionorbitalprecessionSchwarzschildorbitGRAVITYastrometrysegregation
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

Granularity in the stellar-mass black hole cluster thought to surround Sagittarius A* can leave a measurable imprint on the orbit of the star S2, even though a smooth spherically symmetric mass distribution of the same total mass would not. The paper simulates many random realizations of an equal-mass cluster with up to 1000 $M_\odot$ enclosed inside S2's orbit and fits the resulting mock observations as if they were real data. It finds that, near S2's 2026 apocenter passage, residuals in Declination between the perturbed orbit and the best-fit Schwarzschild orbit exceed the interferometer's 30 $\mu$as accuracy in 35 to 60 percent of realizations for black hole masses of 20 to 100 $M_\odot$. It also finds that a smooth-potential fit can misestimate the enclosed mass by up to a factor of about 6, sometimes returning negative masses. If the predicted residuals show up, the 2026 passage would provide the first direct detection of scattering by stellar-mass black holes near Sgr A*.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is a fast one-body integrator that follows S2 under the 1PN Schwarzschild acceleration of the supermassive black hole plus the sum of Newtonian forces from $N$ fixed point masses sampled from a $\rho(r)\propto r^{-2}$ density profile; because the cluster particles are held fixed, the cost scales as $O(N)$ instead of $O(N^2)$, which makes a 100-realization statistical study affordable. The granular potential replaces the smooth, spherically symmetric extended mass assumed in earlier fits, and the paper quantifies the resulting symmetry breaking through the ratio of the strongest scattering force to the black hole's force. A subset of cases is validated with full $N$-body integration, which adds the Brownian motion of Sgr A* and produces somewhat larger orbital-plane precession than the fixed-particle approximation.

What would settle it

Monitor the astrometric residuals of S2 around the 2026.35 apocenter passage: if the Declination residuals stay below about $30\,\mu$as throughout the passage, the paper's forecast that 35 to 60 percent of realizations of a $1000\,M_\odot$ cluster of 20 to 100 $M_\odot$ black holes exceed that threshold would be contradicted, pushing the population to lower enclosed mass or lighter perturbers.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the discrete, granular nature of the mass around Sgr A*—a cluster of equal-mass objects rather than a smooth fluid—changes S2's orbit in ways that current observations could soon see. Each random realization breaks the spherical symmetry of the potential, so S2's orbit is no longer planar: the orbital plane precesses by up to about 1.5 arcmin for 100 $M_\odot$ perturbers with 1000 $M_\odot$ enclosed, and the in-plane precession varies by up to 13 percent. The cluster also kicks Sgr A* itself into a Brownian motion with mean displacement up to 6 $\mu$as and velocity up to 238 m/s. A mock-data analysis fitting each simulated orbit to a Schwarzschild orbit shows the largest astrometric residuals appear near apocenter, where the star moves slowly and the black hole's pull is weakest: Declination residuals exceed the 30 $\mu$as threshold in 35 to 60 percent of simulations for 20 to 100 $M_\odot$ black holes, and smooth fits recover an enclosed mass ranging roughly from $-1000$ to $6000\,M_\odot$ instead of the true 1000 $M_\odot$. The paper concludes that any attempt to constrain the extended mass inside S2's orbit must model granularity explicitly.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction stands or falls on the assumption that a population of stellar-mass black holes with total enclosed mass near $1000\,M_\odot$, individual masses of 20 to 100 $M_\odot$, and an $r^{-2}$ spatial distribution actually exists inside S2's orbit; that population is inferred from mass-segregation theory and an observational upper limit, not directly detected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the 2026.35 apocenter, the interferometric instrument should see Declination residuals above 30 microarcsec in 35-60% of realizations for 20-100 solar-mass black holes, and above 100 microarcsec in about 10-25% of realizations.
  • The fitted Schwarzschild parameter fSP can shift away from 1 by more than the current uncertainty of about 0.1, so granularity can either mimic or mask a general-relativity violation.
  • Smooth-potential mass constraints are unreliable when the true distribution is granular: the recovered enclosed mass can be off by up to a factor of about 6 and can even come out negative.
  • Sgr A* itself moves under cluster kicks, with mean displacement up to 6 microarcsec and velocity up to 238 m/s, consistent with existing radio bounds on its apparent motion.
  • Radial-velocity residuals are largest at pericenter but remain mostly below current spectroscopic precision, leaving astrometry as the most promising detection channel.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A null detection at the 2026 apocenter would not disprove granularity outright; it would push the population toward lower total enclosed mass, lighter black holes, or a different spatial distribution, and would tighten mass-segregation models.
  • The smooth-fit bias demonstrated here implies that the published 1200-solar-mass upper limit should be reinterpreted as a limit on a smooth model, not necessarily on the actual enclosed mass in a lumpy cluster.
  • The same scattering mechanism should also perturb other S-stars and could either mimic or obscure spin (Lense-Thirring) precession signals; the statistical approach could be extended to a multi-mass spectrum and to moving cluster particles to forecast those cases.
  • If the apocenter residual is seen, it would provide an early, ground-based census of the stellar black hole population years before a space-based gravitational-wave detector can probe the same population through extreme-mass-ratio inspirals.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether a granular distribution of equal-mass objects (primarily stellar-mass black holes) around Sgr A* can produce observable deviations in the orbit of S2 from a pure Schwarzschild orbit. The authors use a fast fixed-perturber integrator, validate it against full N-body simulations (ARWV) for a subset of cases, and apply a mock-data orbit-fitting pipeline to assess detectability with GRAVITY. They report that for an enclosed cluster mass of 1000 Msun and individual masses of 20-100 Msun, granularity induces orbital-plane precession, broadens the in-plane precession, and produces astrometric residuals near the 2026 apocenter that exceed GRAVITY's 30 microas accuracy in 35-60% of simulations. They also find that a smooth-potential fit can bias the inferred enclosed mass by up to a factor of about 6, occasionally yielding negative values. The central claim is that granularity must be accounted for when interpreting S2's orbit and when forecasting future observations.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a timely and important prediction: the 2026 apocenter passage of S2 could provide the first direct dynamical evidence of a stellar-mass black hole population near Sgr A*, with implications for EMRI progenitors and for the interpretation of current and future GRAVITY/GRAVITY+ data. The paper is genuinely useful in showing that smooth-potential assumptions can be misleading even when the total extended mass is consistent with existing upper limits. The work is methodologically transparent: the simplified integrator is benchmarked against a full N-body code, the mock fitting uses the same machinery as the observational analyses, and the authors explicitly identify the Brownian motion of the SMBH as the main source of difference between the two approaches. These strengths make the paper a valuable contribution even though the forecast is conditional on an observationally unconfirmed population.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Fig. 6 (left)] The assumed Me,S2 = 1000 Msun cluster population appears to be in tension with the observed fSP measurement from GRAVITY Collaboration (2024). The mock fSP distributions shown in Fig. 6 (left) are centered below 1 (e.g., 5th-95th percentile approximately 0.87-1.04 for 20 Msun and 0.78-1.07 for 100 Msun in the N-body case), whereas the current observed value is fSP = 1.135 +/- 0.110. The paper never compares these numbers directly. The authors should quantify the probability of obtaining fSP >= 1.135 under each assumed cluster model and discuss whether the adopted population remains 'consistent with the most recent observational constraints' as stated in Section 4. The one-epoch residual statement for 2022.7 (68% probability below 30 microas) is a useful start, but it is not a full fit-level consistency check; the fSP distribution is the appropriate statistic to compare.
  2. [§4, Fig. 7 and accompanying text] The headline detection fractions of 35-60% are exceedance fractions of the raw astrometric residual at a single epoch above 30 microas, not detection probabilities. The mock observations do not include measurement noise, nor is a detection statistic (e.g., chi-square or evidence against a Schwarzschild orbit) computed. A residual equal to the single-measurement accuracy does not by itself imply a detection, especially when the residual is evaluated at one best-fit epoch. The authors should either add realistic noise and compute a proper detectability metric, or explicitly restate the 35-60% numbers as idealized single-epoch residual exceedance fractions and soften the conclusions that currently speak of 'observable deviations' and an 'opportunity to detect.'
  3. [§4, Fig. 6 (right) and text on negative Me,S2] The recovered enclosed-mass distribution includes negative values for 50-100 Msun objects, but the fitting procedure apparently imposes no non-negativity constraint on Me,S2. Real extended-mass fits in the observational literature typically enforce physical priors (Me >= 0). The authors should clarify whether the negative tails survive a non-negativity constraint and how the quoted factor-of-six bias and the 'unphysical mass estimates' claim change under such a constraint. This is load-bearing for the paper's conclusion that smooth-potential fits can produce wrong or unphysical masses.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4, Table 3] The parameter fSP is typeset as 'fsp' in Table 3; please unify the notation with the rest of the paper.
  2. [§4, Fig. 7] It would improve readability to overlay the 30 microas threshold and the 2022.7 epoch on the Declination residual panels, since these are the reference values used in the text.
  3. [§3] When describing the initial conditions for the full N-body cluster objects, the text states that orbital elements are sampled but does not specify how the velocity dispersion of the cluster objects is set relative to the assumed cusp model; a brief sentence on this would remove ambiguity.
  4. [§2.1] The statement that the results depend weakly on the choices of alpha and rcut is not shown quantitatively; a sentence or small table in the text or an appendix would make this verification reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's predictions are emergent outputs of forward simulations, not re-statements of fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward-modeling exercise. Section 2 integrates S2 in a fixed granular potential with cluster parameters drawn from independent theoretical and observational constraints (ρ ∝ r^-2 from Bahcall & Wolf cusps, Me,S2 = 1000 Msun consistent with the GRAVITY Collaboration 2024 upper limit, and 20-100 Msun black holes motivated by merger observations and mass segregation). Section 3 validates the simplified integrator against full N-body ARWV simulations using matched initial conditions. Section 4 then generates mock observations from those simulations and fits them with the same orbital-fitting code used for real S-star data. The headline quantities — the 35-60% fraction of simulations exceeding 30 microas in Declination at the 2026 apocenter, the fSP scatter, and the up-to-factor-6 bias in recovered Me,S2 — are emergent statistical properties of the simulations, not parameters fitted to the data being predicted. The recovered mass distribution is compared with the input value, but the comparison is a diagnostic of misspecification bias, not an equation-level recycling of inputs into outputs. The one self-citation (Capuzzo-Dolcetta & Sadun-Bordoni 2023) supports only a secondary approximation (neglect of higher-order spin terms) and is not load-bearing for the central claim. The conditional consistency concern about the 2022.7 epoch is explicitly addressed by the paper via the 68% probability of sub-30-microas residuals, and its adequacy is a scientific robustness question rather than a circularity. No step reduces by construction, by definition, or by self-citation chain to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not fit any free parameters to real observational data; it propagates measured S2 parameters and theoretical cluster assumptions forward through simulations. The detection forecast is conditional on the assumed black-hole population, which is the main external input. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Enclosed cluster mass M_e,S2 = Grid: 100, 500, 1000, 1500 M_sun; mock data uses 1000 M_sun
    Chosen by hand from the GRAVITY Collaboration (2024) upper limit of about 1200 M_sun within S2's apocenter; not fitted to data.
  • Individual cluster object mass m = Grid: 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 M_sun; mock data uses 20, 50, 100 M_sun
    Motivated by observed stellar-mass black holes; equal mass assumed for all objects in the main analysis.
  • Power-law density index alpha = -2
    Steady-state cusp value; authors state results depend weakly on alpha at fixed enclosed mass (Sec. 2.1).
  • Cluster cut radius r_cut = 2 * r_a,S2
    Sampling cutoff; authors verified weak dependence on r_cut at fixed enclosed mass (Sec. 2.1).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption S2 moves in a Schwarzschild spacetime described by 1PN equations with spin neglected
    Standard treatment used in GRAVITY Collaboration fits; spin effects are negligible at current precision (Sec. 1).
  • domain assumption Cluster objects are fixed, stationary point masses in the simplified approach
    Adopted in Sec. 2.1 for computational speed; validated against full N-body in Sec. 3, which also accounts for SMBH motion.
  • domain assumption Cluster density profile is rho(r) ~ r^-2 within r_cut = 2 r_a,S2
    Based on Bahcall-Wolf cusp theory; authors report weak dependence on the index (Sec. 2.1).
  • domain assumption Two-body relaxation time of the cluster is much longer than the 16-year S2 orbital period
    Cited as trlx >= 5e7 yr for m <= 100 M_sun, justifying a static cluster over one orbit (Sec. 2.1).
  • domain assumption Post-Newtonian cross-terms coupling SMBH, S2, and cluster objects are negligible over one orbit
    Stated in Sec. 3; Newtonian perturbations dominate the cluster effects.
  • domain assumption S2's orbital parameters, SMBH mass and distance are taken from GRAVITY Collaboration (2022)
    Standard observational input used to set initial conditions and projection geometry (Sec. 2.1, Sec. 4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of a granular mass distribution on the orbit of S2 in the Galactic center." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4LEKTJ3Y

@misc{pith2026250701510,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of a granular mass distribution on the orbit of S2 in the Galactic center},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4LEKTJ3Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01510}
}
abstract

The orbit of the S2 star around Sagittarius A* provides a unique opportunity to test general relativity and study dynamical processes near a supermassive black hole. Observations have shown that the orbit of S2 is consistent with a Schwarzschild orbit at a 10$\sigma$ confidence level, constraining the amount of extended mass within its orbit to less than 1200 M$_\odot$, under the assumption of a smooth, spherically symmetric mass distribution. In this work we investigate the effects on the S2 orbit of granularity in the mass distribution, assuming it consists of a cluster of equal-mass objects surrounding Sagittarius A*. Using a fast dynamical approach validated by full N-body simulations, we perform a large set of simulations of the motion of S2 with different realizations of the cluster objects distribution. We find that granularity can induce significant deviations from the orbit in case of a smooth potential, causing precession of the orbital plane and a variation of the in-plane precession. Interactions with the cluster objects also induce a sort of "Brownian motion" of Sagittarius A*. Mock data analysis reveals that these effects could produce observable deviations in the trajectory of S2 from a Schwarzschild orbit, especially near apocenter. During the next apocenter passage of S2 in 2026, astrometric residuals in Declination may exceed the astrometric accuracy threshold of GRAVITY of about 30 $\mu as$, as it happens in 35 to 60% of simulations for black holes of 20 to 100 M$_\odot$. This presents a unique opportunity to detect, for the first time, scattering effects on the orbit of S2 caused by stellar-mass black holes, thanks to the remarkable precision achievable with GRAVITY. We also demonstrate that any attempt to constrain the extended mass enclosed within the orbit of S2 must explicitly account for granularity in the stellar-mass black hole population.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01510 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: The S2 orbit (in blue) around Sgr A* (marked by a red cross) and a particular realization (black dots) of the distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In blue: deviation from spherical symmetry as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Violin plots showing the in-plane angular precession (left panel) and the average orbital plane precession (right panel) as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cumulative distribution functions (CDF) of the average [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Violin plots comparing the results obtained with the simplified approach (in blue) and the full [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Violin plots of the best-fit fsp (left) and Me,S 2 (right) obtained through a mock data analysis. Results from the simplified approach are shown in blue, while those from the full N-body simulations are shown in red. perturbations slightly change the orbital period, th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Residuals in Dec (first row), RA (second row) and radial velocity (third row) as functions of time, between the 100 simulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. From S2 to LISA: Astrometric Bounds on Extreme-Mass-Ratio Inspirals and Bursts

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GRAVITY/S2 astrometry constrains the Galactic Centre stellar-mass black-hole cusp, giving upper limits of ~2.4×10^2 Gyr^-1 on the Milky Way EMRI rate and ~0.2 yr^-1 on detectable EMRBs, with a potentially LISA-visible...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    D., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048 magenta Phys. Rev. X , 13, 011048

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048 2023

  2. [2]

    & Hopman, C

    Alexander, T. & Hopman, C. 2009, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1861 magenta The Astrophysical Journal , 697, 1861–1869

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1861 2009

  3. [3]

    2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41114-018-0013-8 magenta Living Reviews in Relativity , 21, 4 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018LRR....21....4A

    Amaro-Seoane , P. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41114-018-0013-8 magenta Living Reviews in Relativity , 21, 4 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018LRR....21....4A

    doi:10.1007/s41114-018-0013-8 2018

  4. [4]

    V., & Fullana i Alfonso, M

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Arnau, J. V., & Fullana i Alfonso, M. J. 2025, arXiv preprint [ 250420147A ]

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Audley, H., et al. 2017, Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (ESA PUBLICATIONS DIVISION C/O ESTEC), submitted to ESA on January 13th in response to the call for missions for the L3 slot in the Cosmic Vision Programme

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.064011 magenta Phys

    Amaro Seoane, P., Lin, Y., & Tzanavaris, K. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.064011 magenta Phys. Rev. D , 110, 064011

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.064011 2024

  7. [7]

    & Zhao, S.-D

    Amaro-Seoane, P. & Zhao, S.-D. 2025, arXiv preprint [ 250410594A ]

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    M., et al

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., et al. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 magenta , 935, 167 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    M., et al

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., et al. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f magenta , 156, 123 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    P., et al

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., et al. 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 magenta , 558, A33 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...558A..33A

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    Bahcall , J. N. & Wolf , R. A. 1976, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/154711 magenta , 209, 214 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...209..214B

    1976 doi

  4. [12]

    Bahcall , J. N. & Wolf , R. A. 1977, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/155534 magenta , 216, 883 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...216..883B

    1977 doi

  5. [13]

    & Sadun-Bordoni, M

    Capuzzo-Dolcetta, R. & Sadun-Bordoni, M. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad1317 magenta Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 522, 5828

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    & Capuzzo-Dolcetta , R

    Chassonnery , P. & Capuzzo-Dolcetta , R. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab1016 magenta , 504, 3909 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.3909C

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    2019, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv191005202C http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1910.05202 magenta arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1910.05202

    Chassonnery , P., Capuzzo-Dolcetta , R., & Mikkola , S. 2019, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv191005202C http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1910.05202 magenta arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1910.05202

    2019 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Davies , R., Alves , J., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J. Evans , L. Simard , & H. Takami , 107021S https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/...

    2018

  9. [17]

    & Rees , M

    Frank , J. & Rees , M. J. 1976, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/176.3.633 magenta , 176, 633 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976MNRAS.176..633F

    1976 doi

  10. [18]

    2006, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/506193 magenta The Astrophysical Journal , 649, 91–117

    Freitag, M., Amaro‐Seoane, P., & Kalogera, V. 2006, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/506193 magenta The Astrophysical Journal , 649, 91–117

    2006 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Duch \^e ne , G., et al

    Ghez , A. M., Duch \^e ne , G., et al. 2003, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/374804 magenta , 586, L127 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...586L.127G

    2003 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Salim , S., et al

    Ghez , A. M., Salim , S., et al. 2008, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/592738 magenta , 689, 1044 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...689.1044G

    2008 doi

  13. [21]

    M., et al

    Gillessen, S., Plewa, P. M., et al. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa5c41 magenta , 837, 30

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201730838 magenta , 602, A94

    GRAVITY Collaboration . 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201730838 magenta , 602, A94

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    2018a, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833718 magenta , 615, L15

    GRAVITY Collaboration . 2018a, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833718 magenta , 615, L15

    doi

  16. [24]

    2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201935656 magenta , 625, L10

    GRAVITY Collaboration . 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201935656 magenta , 625, L10

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202037813 magenta , 636, L5

    GRAVITY Collaboration . 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202037813 magenta , 636, L5

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.18727/0722-6691/5285 magenta Published in The Messenger vol

    GRAVITY+ Collaboration . 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.18727/0722-6691/5285 magenta Published in The Messenger vol. 189 , pp. 17-22, December 2022

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202142465 magenta , 657, L12

    GRAVITY Collaboration . 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202142465 magenta , 657, L12

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202245132 magenta A&A , 672, A63

    GRAVITY Collaboration . 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202245132 magenta A&A , 672, A63

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202452274 magenta A&A , 692, A242

    GRAVITY Collaboration . 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202452274 magenta A&A , 692, A242

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., et al. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 magenta Nature , 585, 357

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    Hintze, J. L. & Nelson, R. D. 1998, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1998.10480559 magenta The American Statistician , 52, 181

    1998 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Hunter , J. D. 2007, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 magenta Computing in Science and Engineering , 9, 90 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007CSE.....9...90H

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    2016, in IOS Press, 87--90

    Kluyver , T., Ragan-Kelley , B., et al. 2016, in IOS Press, 87--90

    2016

  26. [34]

    2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.81.062002 magenta Physical Review D , 81

    Merritt, D., Alexander, T., et al. 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.81.062002 magenta Physical Review D , 81

    2010 doi

  27. [35]

    2007, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/510294 magenta The Astronomical Journal , 133, 553

    Merritt, D., Berczik, P., & Laun, F. 2007, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/510294 magenta The Astronomical Journal , 133, 553

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

    & Tanikawa , K

    Mikkola , S. & Tanikawa , K. 1999 a , http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02982.x magenta , 310, 745 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.310..745M

    1999

  29. [37]

    & Tanikawa , K

    Mikkola , S. & Tanikawa , K. 1999 b , http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008368322547 magenta Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy , 74, 287 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999CeMDA..74..287M

    1999 doi

  30. [38]

    & Will, C

    Mora, T. & Will, C. M. 2004, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.69.104021 magenta Phys. Rev. D , 69, 104021

    2004 doi

  31. [39]

    Peebles , P. J. E. 1972, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/151797 magenta , 178, 371 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...178..371P

    1972 doi

  32. [40]

    & Amaro-Seoane , P

    Preto , M. & Amaro-Seoane , P. 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/708/1/L42 magenta , 708, L42 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...708L..42P

    2010 doi

  33. [41]

    Reid , M. J. & Brunthaler , A. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab76cd magenta , 892, 39 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...892...39R

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    & Liu , S

    Rein , H. & Liu , S. F. 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201118085 magenta , 537, A128 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...537A.128R

    2012 doi

  35. [43]

    & Spiegel , D

    Rein , H. & Spiegel , D. S. 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu2164 magenta , 446, 1424 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.1424R

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    Sabha , N., Eckart, A. , et al. 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201219203 magenta A&A , 545, A70

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    2002, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature01121 magenta , 419, 694 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Natur.419..694S

    Sch \"o del , R., Ott , T., et al. 2002, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature01121 magenta , 419, 694 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Natur.419..694S

    2002 doi

  38. [46]

    2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz2870 magenta , 491, 2885 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.2885T

    Tamayo , D., Rein , H., et al. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz2870 magenta , 491, 2885 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.2885T

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 magenta Nature Methods , 17, 261 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatMe..17..261V

    Virtanen , P., Gommers , R., et al. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 magenta Nature Methods , 17, 261 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatMe..17..261V

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty476 magenta , 476, 3600 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.3600W

    Waisberg , I., Dexter , J., et al. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty476 magenta , 476, 3600 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.3600W

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed

    W es M c K inney. 2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed. S t\'efan van der W alt & J arrod M illman, 56 -- 61

    2010

  42. [50]

    Will, C. M. 1993, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (Cambridge University Press)

    1993

  43. [51]

    Will, C. M. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2014-4 magenta Living Reviews in Relativity , 17

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    M., Naoz, S., et al

    Will, C. M., Naoz, S., et al. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad09b3 magenta The Astrophysical Journal , 959, 58

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    & Amaro-Seoane, P

    Zhang, F. & Amaro-Seoane, P. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad0f1a magenta The Astrophysical Journal , 961, 232

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    & Iorio , L

    Zhang , F. & Iorio , L. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/198 magenta , 834, 198 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834..198Z

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint doi url journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year adsurl label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state befo...

  48. [56]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.