pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.08986 · v2 · submitted 2025-08-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA· gr-qc

Where are Gaia's small black holes?

M. Fishbach , K. Breivik , R. Willcox , L. A. C van Son This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 22:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAgr-qc
keywords black holesnatal kicksGaiagravitational wavesmass gapbinary disruptioncompact objects
0
0 comments X

The pith

Natal kicks disrupt wide Gaia binaries more frequently than tight gravitational-wave progenitors, accounting for the relative dearth of 2.5-5 solar mass black holes.

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

The paper investigates the difference in the mass distribution of compact objects between Gaia wide binaries and LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA mergers. It finds that the more pronounced mass gap in Gaia data can result from natal kicks during low-mass black hole formation disrupting progenitor binaries that are wider and have less massive companions, which are more common in Gaia systems. If true, this means the two populations sample the same underlying mass distribution but with different survival rates. Readers should care as it offers a dynamical explanation for the apparent discrepancy without requiring separate formation channels for the objects seen in each method.

Core claim

The relative dearth of objects between 2.5 and 5 solar masses in Gaia wide binaries compared to LVK mergers arises because Gaia progenitor binaries are more susceptible to disruption by natal kicks received by low-mass black holes, owing to their typically lower companion masses and larger orbital separations.

What carries the argument

Binary survival probability against natal kicks, calculated as a function of kick velocity, orbital separation, and companion mass before the supernova.

If this is right

  • The mass gap is more evident in wide binaries due to selective disruption of low-mass black hole systems.
  • GW mergers preferentially sample binaries that survive stronger kicks.
  • The natal kick velocity distribution can be constrained by matching the observed fractions in both populations.
  • Low-mass black holes form with kicks that are sufficient to unbind wide but not tight binaries.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the explanation holds, the true black hole mass spectrum may not have a gap, with the observed gap being an observational selection effect.
  • Similar kick biases could affect other surveys of wide binaries versus merging systems.
  • Population synthesis models should incorporate these differential survival rates to predict detection rates.
  • Direct measurement of black hole velocities in disrupted systems could test the kick strength required.

Load-bearing premise

Gaia and GW progenitor binaries have different pre-supernova companion masses and orbital separations, leading to different survival rates against the same natal kicks for low-mass black holes.

What would settle it

Detection of a comparable fraction of 2.5-5 solar mass black holes in Gaia wide binaries, with binary parameters inconsistent with higher survival probabilities, would challenge the natal kick explanation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.08986 by K. Breivik, L. A. C van Son, M. Fishbach, R. Willcox.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Mass distribution of NSs and low-mass BHs (m < 16 M⊙) found in GW merging binaries (orange) and Gaia wide binaries (blue). The GW component mass distribution, which includes both compact objects in each binary, is the Power Law + Break + Dip model fit to GWTC-3 plus the event GW230529 from O4 (but is consistent with the GWTC-3-only fit) from Abac et al. (2024). The Gaia mass distribution is a piecewise con… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: Posterior probability densities of the fraction of “mass gap” BHs with mass in the range 2.5–5 M⊙ among GW binaries (orange filled histogram), the Gaia standard sample (blue solid line) or the Gaia sample including the mass-gap BH G3425 (green dashed line). Right: Ratio of the GW mass-gap fraction (reported in the orange, filled histogram on the left) to the Gaia mass-gap fraction excluding (blue, so… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Ratio of post-supernova binary survival probabilities between two binaries with (a) left panel: negligible supernova mass loss, but different pre-supernova orbital velocities relative to the natal kick vorb/vkick; (b) right panel: the same vorb/vkick, but one binary has negligible supernova mass loss δm = 0 and the other has δm > 0. Fixing the supernova properties, differences in survival probabilities bet… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Gaia has recently revealed a population of over 20 compact objects in wide astrometric binaries, while LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA (LVK) have observed around 100 compact object binaries as gravitational-wave (GW) mergers. Despite belonging to different systems, the compact objects discovered by both Gaia and the LVK follow a multimodal mass distribution, with a global maximum at neutron star (NS) masses ($\sim 1$-$2\,M_\odot$) and a secondary local maximum at black hole (BH) masses $\sim10\,M_\odot$. However, the relative dearth of objects, or ``mass gap," between these modes is more pronounced among the wide binaries observed by Gaia compared to the GW population, with $9^{+10}_{-6}\%$ of GW component masses falling between $2.5$--$5\,M_\odot$ compared to $\lesssim5\%$ of Gaia compact objects. We explore whether this discrepancy can be explained by the natal kicks received by low-mass BHs. GW progenitor binaries may be more likely to survive natal kicks, because the newborn BH has a more massive companion and/or is in a tighter binary than Gaia progenitor binaries. We compare the survival probabilities of Gaia and GW progenitor binaries as a function of natal kick strength and pre-supernova binary parameters, and map out the parameter space and kick strength required to disrupt the progenitor binaries leading to low-mass BHs in Gaia systems more frequently than those in GW systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the more pronounced mass gap (2.5-5 M⊙) in Gaia wide astrometric binaries (≲5%) versus LVK GW mergers (9+10−6%) can be explained by natal kicks disrupting Gaia progenitor binaries more frequently than GW progenitor binaries, owing to systematic differences in pre-SN companion mass and orbital separation that reduce survival probability for the former population.

Significance. If the proposed mechanism is shown to quantitatively reproduce the observed difference in mass-gap fractions after proper population weighting, the result would provide a standard binary-evolution explanation for the Gaia-LVK discrepancy and highlight the sensitivity of wide-binary survival to kick velocity and pre-SN architecture.

major comments (2)
  1. [Survival probability analysis] The survival-probability comparison (abstract and main text section on natal-kick survival) maps the parameter space where Gaia-like systems are more easily disrupted, but does not integrate the survival curves over the actual occurrence-rate distributions of companion mass and pre-SN separation drawn from binary population synthesis for wide versus close post-SN channels. Without this weighting the calculation shows a possible mechanism rather than demonstrating that the mechanism produces the reported 5 % versus 9 % difference.
  2. [Abstract, paragraph on survival probabilities] The central claim that Gaia progenitors experience systematically lower kick survival rests on the assumption that wide-binary progenitors have, on average, lower companion masses or wider separations than GW progenitors; this assumption is stated but not quantified with explicit pre-SN parameter distributions or occurrence rates from binary evolution models.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels for survival-probability plots should explicitly distinguish Gaia-wide versus GW-tight progenitor tracks.
  2. [Introduction] The error bars on the LVK mass-gap fraction (9+10−6 %) should be referenced to the specific catalog or analysis used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We address the major comments point by point below. We agree that further quantification using population synthesis distributions would strengthen the quantitative link to the observed mass-gap fractions and plan to incorporate these elements in the revision.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Survival probability analysis] The survival-probability comparison (abstract and main text section on natal-kick survival) maps the parameter space where Gaia-like systems are more easily disrupted, but does not integrate the survival curves over the actual occurrence-rate distributions of companion mass and pre-SN separation drawn from binary population synthesis for wide versus close post-SN channels. Without this weighting the calculation shows a possible mechanism rather than demonstrating that the mechanism produces the reported 5 % versus 9 % difference.

    Authors: We agree that integrating the survival probabilities over the actual occurrence-rate distributions from binary population synthesis is required to quantitatively demonstrate that the mechanism reproduces the reported difference in mass-gap fractions. In the revised manuscript we will convolve the survival probability surfaces with the distributions of companion mass and pre-SN orbital separation drawn from standard binary evolution models for the wide (Gaia) and close (GW) channels. This will yield the expected fraction of disrupted low-mass BH progenitors in each population, allowing a direct comparison to the observed 5% versus 9% values. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract, paragraph on survival probabilities] The central claim that Gaia progenitors experience systematically lower kick survival rests on the assumption that wide-binary progenitors have, on average, lower companion masses or wider separations than GW progenitors; this assumption is stated but not quantified with explicit pre-SN parameter distributions or occurrence rates from binary evolution models.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript states the systematic differences in pre-SN architecture but does not present the explicit distributions or occurrence rates. In the revision we will add a new subsection and accompanying figure that displays the pre-SN companion-mass and separation distributions obtained from binary population synthesis for wide astrometric binaries versus tight GW progenitors. We will report the mean values for each channel and show how these differences produce lower average survival probabilities for Gaia-like systems across the relevant range of kick velocities. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; explanation uses external models without data-fitting or self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper's central derivation compares survival probabilities of Gaia versus GW progenitor binaries against natal kicks as a function of kick velocity and pre-supernova parameters (companion mass, orbital separation), mapping regions where Gaia-like systems are more easily disrupted. This is presented as a possible mechanism to explain the observed mass-gap difference (9% in GW vs ≲5% in Gaia). No equations or steps reduce the discrepancy to a fitted parameter drawn from the Gaia or LVK data itself, nor does the argument rely on a load-bearing self-citation whose uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported without independent verification. The calculation remains self-contained against standard binary-evolution assumptions and external kick distributions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions about binary survival after supernova kicks and differences in pre-SN orbital parameters between wide and tight systems; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Natal kicks are imparted to newborn black holes and affect binary survival depending on companion mass and orbital separation.
    Invoked in the abstract when comparing survival probabilities of Gaia versus GW progenitor binaries.
  • domain assumption Gaia and LVK progenitor binaries have systematically different pre-supernova parameters.
    Stated as the basis for differential disruption rates.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5814 in / 1334 out tokens · 28485 ms · 2026-05-18T22:56:12.395518+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 87 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    G., Abbott, R., Abouelfettouh, I., et al

    Abac, A. G., Abbott, R., Abouelfettouh, I., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb 2024

  2. [2]

    Physical Review Letters , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016, PhRvL, 116, 061102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 —. 2018, Living Reviews in Relativity, 21, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41114-018-0012-9 —. 2019, Physical Review X, 9, 031040, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031040 —. 2020a, ApJL, 892, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f5

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102 2016

  3. [3]

    D., Abraham, S., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2020b, ApJL, 896, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f —. 2021, Physical Review X, 11, 021053, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.021053

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f 2041

  4. [4]

    2023, Phys

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023a, Physical Review X, 13, 041039, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039 —. 2023b, Physical Review X, 13, 011048, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039

  5. [5]

    2015, Class

    Acernese, F., Agathos, M., Agatsuma, K., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 2015

  6. [6]

    J., & Hurley, J

    Eldridge, J. J., & Hurley, J. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 5717, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac930

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac930 2022

  7. [7]

    Akutsu, M

    Akutsu, T., Ando, M., Arai, K., et al. 2021, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2021, 05A101, doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptaa125

    work page doi:10.1093/ptep/ptaa125 2021

  8. [8]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.23151, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.23151

    An, Q.-Y., Huang, Y., Gu, W.-M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.23151, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.23151

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.23151 2025

  9. [9]

    J., & Kalogera, V

    Andrews, J. J., & Kalogera, V. 2022, ApJ, 930, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac66d6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac66d6 2022

  10. [10]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.03461, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.03461

    Baibhav, V., & Kalogera, V. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.03461, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.03461

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.03461 2024

  11. [11]

    Orosz, J. A. 1998, ApJ, 499, 367, doi: 10.1086/305614

    work page doi:10.1086/305614 1998

  12. [12]

    Kimball, C., & Andrews, J. J. 2023, ApJ, 959, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0557

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0557 2023

  13. [13]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 5298, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3052

    Biscoveanu, S., Landry, P., & Vitale, S. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 5298, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3052

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3052 2023

  14. [14]

    Bolton, C. T. 1972, Nature Physical Science, 240, 124, doi: 10.1038/physci240124a0

    work page doi:10.1038/physci240124a0 1972

  15. [15]

    1995, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 274, 461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/274.2.461

    Brandt, N., & Podsiadlowski, P. 1995, MNRAS, 274, 461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/274.2.461

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/274.2.461 1995

  16. [16]

    Coleman, M. S. B. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.12109, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.12109

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.12109 2023

  17. [17]

    A., & Farr, W

    Callister, T. A., & Farr, W. M. 2024, Physical Review X, 14, 021005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.14.021005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.14.021005 2024

  18. [18]

    A., Farr, W

    Callister, T. A., Farr, W. M., & Renzo, M. 2021, ApJ, 920, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1347

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1347 2021

  19. [19]

    Casares, J., & Jonker, P. G. 2014, SSRv, 183, 223, doi: 10.1007/s11214-013-0030-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-013-0030-6 2014

  20. [20]

    D., Craig, P

    Chakrabarti, S., Simon, J. D., Craig, P. A., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accf21

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/accf21 2023

  21. [21]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a5 Di Carlo, U

    Chawla, C., Chatterjee, S., Breivik, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a5 Di Carlo, U. N., Agrawal, P., Rodriguez, C. L., & Breivik, K. 2024, ApJ, 965, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f2c 17

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a5 2022

  22. [22]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.22102, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.22102

    Disberg, P., & Mandel, I. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.22102, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.22102

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.22102 2025

  23. [23]

    2023, ApJ, 946, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5ed

    Edelman, B., Farr, B., & Doctor, Z. 2023, ApJ, 946, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5ed

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

  24. [24]

    2024, New Astronomy Reviews, 98, 101694, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101694

    El-Badry, K. 2024, NewAR, 98, 101694, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101694

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2024.101694 2024

  25. [25]

    2023a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 1057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3140

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Quataert, E., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 518, 1057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3140

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3140

  26. [26]

    2023b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 4323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad799

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Cendes, Y., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 521, 4323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad799

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad799

  27. [27]

    W., et al

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Latham, D. W., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 58, doi: 10.33232/001c.121261

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.121261 2024

  28. [28]

    E., & Galaudage, S

    Farah, A., Fishbach, M., Essick, R., Holz, D. E., & Galaudage, S. 2022, ApJ, 931, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f03

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f03 2022

  29. [29]

    M., Edelman, B., Zevin, M., et al

    Farah, A. M., Edelman, B., Zevin, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced02

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aced02 2023

  30. [30]

    M., Fishbach, M., & Holz, D

    Farah, A. M., Fishbach, M., & Holz, D. E. 2024, ApJ, 962, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0558

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0558 2024

  31. [31]

    M., Sravan, N., Cantrell, A., et al

    Farr, W. M., Sravan, N., Cantrell, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/103

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/741/2/103 2011

  32. [32]

    Fishbach, M., Essick, R., & Holz, D. E. 2020a, ApJL, 899, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba7b6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba7b6 2041

  33. [33]

    M., & Holz, D

    Fishbach, M., Farr, W. M., & Holz, D. E. 2020b, ApJL, 891, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab77c9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab77c9 2041

  34. [34]

    Fishbach, M., & Holz, D. E. 2020, ApJL, 891, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7247

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab7247 2020

  35. [35]

    2022, ApJL, 929, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac64a5

    Fishbach, M., & Kalogera, V. 2022, ApJL, 929, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac64a5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac64a5 2022

  36. [36]

    L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al

    Fryer, C. L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/91

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/1/91 2012

  37. [37]

    L., & Kalogera, V

    Fryer, C. L., & Kalogera, V. 2001, ApJ, 554, 548, doi: 10.1086/321359 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de

    work page doi:10.1086/321359 2001

  38. [38]

    Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 Gaia Collaboration, Panuzzo, P., Mazeh, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449763

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 2016

  39. [39]

    P., & Doctor, Z

    Kalogera, V., L Berry, C. P., & Doctor, Z. 2022, ApJL, 938, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac96ef

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac96ef 2022

  40. [40]

    Hills, J. G. 1983, ApJ, 267, 322, doi: 10.1086/160871

    work page doi:10.1086/160871 1983

  41. [41]

    2023a, A&A, 674, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245353 —

    Holl, B., Fabricius, C., Portell, J., et al. 2023a, A&A, 674, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245353 —. 2023b, A&A, 674, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245353

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245353

  42. [42]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 1355, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1106

    Janka, H.-T. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 1355, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1106

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1106 2013

  43. [43]

    2024, Ap&SS, 369, 80, doi: 10.1007/s10509-024-04343-1

    Janka, H.-T., & Kresse, D. 2024, Ap&SS, 369, 80, doi: 10.1007/s10509-024-04343-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-024-04343-1 2024

  44. [44]

    2023, A&A, 670, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244818

    Marchant, P. 2023, A&A, 670, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244818

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244818 2023

  45. [45]

    1996, ApJ, 471, 352, doi: 10.1086/177974 —

    Kalogera, V. 1996, ApJ, 471, 352, doi: 10.1086/177974 —. 2000, ApJ, 541, 319, doi: 10.1086/309400

    work page doi:10.1086/177974 1996

  46. [46]

    2024, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2591

    Kotko, I., Banerjee, S., & Belczynski, K. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 3577, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2591

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2591 2024

  47. [47]

    D., Farr, W

    Kreidberg, L., Bailyn, C. D., Farr, W. M., & Kalogera, V. 2012, ApJ, 757, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/36

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/1/36 2012

  48. [48]

    U., Andrews, J

    Kruckow, M. U., Andrews, J. J., Fragos, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452356

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452356 2024

  49. [49]

    Y., El-Badry, K., & Simon, J

    Lam, C. Y., El-Badry, K., & Simon, J. D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.00654, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.00654

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.00654 2024

  50. [50]

    A., & Golovich, N

    Dawson, W. A., & Golovich, N. R. 2020, ApJ, 889, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5fd3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5fd3 2020

  51. [51]

    Y., Lu, J

    Lam, C. Y., Lu, J. R., Udalski, A., et al. 2022, ApJL, 933, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7442 18 LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Aasi, J.,

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac7442 2022

  52. [52]

    2015, Class

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 074001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 2015

  53. [53]

    2023, ApJ, 946, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb8b2

    Doctor, Z., & Kalogera, V. 2023, ApJ, 946, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb8b2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb8b2 2023

  54. [54]

    2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 223, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ac2d35

    Mandel, I. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 223, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ac2d35

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ac2d35 2021

  55. [55]

    2022, PhR, 955, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.01.003

    Mandel, I., & Farmer, A. 2022, PhR, 955, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.01.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2022.01.003 2022

  56. [56]

    M., Colonna, A., et al

    Mandel, I., Farr, W. M., Colonna, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3254, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2883

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2883 2017

  57. [57]

    2020, Simple recipes for compact remnant masses and natal kicks, MNRAS, 499, 3214, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3043

    Mandel, I., & M¨ uller, B. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 3214, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3043 Mar´ ın Pina, D., Rastello, S., Gieles, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450460

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3043 2020

  58. [58]

    C., & Miller, J

    Miller, M. C., & Miller, J. M. 2015, PhR, 548, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.003 M¨ uller, B., Gay, D. W., Heger, A., Tauris, T. M., & Sim, S. A. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 3675, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1683

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.003 2015

  59. [59]

    2025, PASP, 137, 034203, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adb6d6

    Nagarajan, P., & El-Badry, K. 2025, PASP, 137, 034203, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adb6d6

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/adb6d6 2025

  60. [60]

    2025, PASP, 137, 044202, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adc839

    Nagarajan, P., El-Badry, K., Chawla, C., et al. 2025, PASP, 137, 044202, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adc839

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/adc839 2025

  61. [61]

    H., Capano, C

    Nitz, A. H., Capano, C. D., Kumar, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1c03

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1c03 2021

  62. [62]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace349 O’Shaughnessy, R., Gerosa, D., &

    Kalogera, V., & Ye, C. 2023, ApJ, 953, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace349 O’Shaughnessy, R., Gerosa, D., &

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace349 2023

  63. [63]

    2017, PhRvL, 119, 011101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.011101 ¨Ozel, F., Psaltis, D., Narayan, R., &

    Wysocki, D. 2017, PhRvL, 119, 011101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.011101 ¨Ozel, F., Psaltis, D., Narayan, R., &

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.011101 2017

  64. [64]

    McClintock, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1918, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1918

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/2/1918 2010

  65. [65]

    Peters, P. C. 1964, Physical Review, 136, 1224, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.136.b1224 1964

  66. [66]

    Podsiadlowski, P., Langer, N., Poelarends, A. J. T., et al. 2004, ApJ, 612, 1044, doi: 10.1086/421713

    work page doi:10.1086/421713 2004

  67. [67]

    2023, Modern Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 740, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2757

    Rastello, S., Iorio, G., Mapelli, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 740, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2757

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2757 2023

  68. [68]

    2023, ApJ, 957, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf452

    Creighton, J., & Kapadia, S. 2023, ApJ, 957, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf452

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf452 2023

  69. [69]

    A., & McClintock, J

    Remillard, R. A., & McClintock, J. E. 2006, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 209, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 07.05

    work page 2006

  70. [70]

    E., et al

    Renzo, M., Zapartas, E., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833297

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833297 2019

  71. [71]

    Kalogera, V., & Rasio, F. A. 2016, ApJL, 832, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/832/1/L2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/832/1/l2 2016

  72. [72]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 706, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2366

    Romagnolo, A., Belczynski, K., Klencki, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 706, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2366

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2366 2023

  73. [73]

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

    Sahu, K. C., Anderson, J., Casertano, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac739e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac739e 2022

  74. [74]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.05359, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.05359

    Sayeed, M., Yang, S., Cinquegrana, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.05359, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.05359

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.05359 2025

  75. [75]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.16513, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.16513

    Shariat, C., El-Badry, K., & Naoz, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.16513, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.16513

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.16513 2025

  76. [76]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1085, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01730-y

    Shenar, T., Sana, H., Mahy, L., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1085, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01730-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01730-y 2022

  77. [77]

    C., Kiato, I., Kalogera, V., et al

    Siegel, J. C., Kiato, I., Kalogera, V., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 212, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace9d9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace9d9 2023

  78. [78]

    Formation and Evolution of Compact Stellar X-ray Sources

    Tauris, T. M., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 2006, in Compact stellar X-ray sources, ed. W. H. G. Lewin & M. van der Klis, Vol. 39, 623–665, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0303456

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0303456 2006

  79. [79]

    2021, ApJL, 913, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abfbe7 19

    Tiwari, V., & Fairhurst, S. 2021, ApJL, 913, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abfbe7 19

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abfbe7 2021

  80. [80]

    E., Justham, S., et al

    Valli, R., de Mink, S. E., Justham, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.08857, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.08857 van Son, L. A. C., de Mink, S. E., Renzo, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b0a van Son, L. A. C., Roy, S. K., Mandel, I., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada14a

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.08857 2025

Showing first 80 references.