pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.00200 · v1 · submitted 2025-10-31 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.HE

Seeds to success: growing heavy black holes in dense star clusters

Lavinia Paiella , Manuel Arca Sedda , Benedetta Mestichelli , Cristiano Ugolini This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 01:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE
keywords intermediate-mass black holesstellar collisionsstar clustersglobular clustersIMBH formationbinary black hole mergerspopulation synthesiscluster dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Stellar collisions serve as the primary channel for forming intermediate-mass black holes in dense star clusters.

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

This paper examines how intermediate-mass black holes arise in young, globular, and nuclear star clusters by comparing the efficiency of stellar collisions against repeated mergers of binary black holes. Simulations that vary seeding models and cluster formation histories show collisions as the dominant process across most cluster types. A sympathetic reader would care because the results help explain the observed scarcity of these black holes and indicate they could account for candidates seen in nearby globular clusters. The work also points to possible wandering black holes in Milky Way-like galaxies and mass correlations that could reveal how certain star clusters originated.

Core claim

The simulations show stellar collisions as the primary formation channel for intermediate-mass black holes across a wide range of cluster types. Comparison with low-redshift IMBH candidates suggests that, depending on the seeding mechanism, stellar collisions can play a pivotal role in explaining potential IMBHs in local globular clusters. The results further suggest that wandering IMBHs may populate Milky Way-like galaxies and that correlations between cluster and IMBH masses can help distinguish the origins of Galactic globular clusters.

What carries the argument

A population synthesis code that models multiple seeding mechanisms for black holes together with hierarchical mergers driven by dynamical interactions in star clusters of different types.

If this is right

  • Stellar collisions produce IMBHs more efficiently than hierarchical binary black hole mergers across young, globular, and nuclear cluster families.
  • The fraction of binary black hole mergers that involve an IMBH primary can be quantified from the models.
  • Wandering IMBHs may populate galaxies similar to the Milky Way.
  • Correlations between cluster mass and IMBH mass can distinguish the formation origins of Galactic globular clusters.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • These results suggest that denser nuclear clusters could build even more massive objects through repeated collisions, offering a link to supermassive black hole seeding.
  • Targeted observations of mass ratios in globular clusters could test whether collision histories match the predicted patterns.
  • The higher efficiency of collisions implies a greater overall number of IMBHs in the local universe than merger-dominated models predict.

Load-bearing premise

The seeding models and star cluster formation histories examined are representative of real conditions in young, globular, and nuclear star clusters, and the simulations accurately capture the relative efficiencies of stellar collisions versus binary mergers.

What would settle it

A census of black hole masses and occupation fractions in a large sample of globular clusters that shows hierarchical mergers rather than stellar collisions as the main channel would contradict the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.00200 by Benedetta Mestichelli, Cristiano Ugolini, Lavinia Paiella, Manuel Arca Sedda.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Initial distribution of clusters’ formation redshift. Different col￾ors refer to different assumptions on the initial formation histories of GCs (solid lines) and NSCs (dashed lines). The initial redshift distri￾bution of YCs is fixed in all models (grey solid line). Distributions are conveniently scaled such that the area subtended by the curve is 1. 1.2. IMBH formation channels In the following, we brief… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left panel: Initial cluster mass and half-mass radius for YCs (bottom left area), GCs (central area), and NSCs (upper right area). The clusters distribution are cut at the 99% contour. Clusters with tcc < 5 Myr lie below the dot-dashed black line, those with central density ρcl,0 > 105 M⊙ pc−3 above the shaded dotted gray line. We also identify regions of the parameter space in which (i) a BBH binary is ej… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Clusters hosting an IMBH at z = 0 in Model A (left panel) and Model B (right panel) compared to different classes of IMBH host candidates observations. Note that the masses reported for low-mass AGN refer to the host galaxy mass (up to ∼ 100 times larger than the mass of the galactic nuclei). The gray dashed line shows the theoretical prediction for the initial mass of an IMBH seeded via stellar collisions… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of simulated IMBH candidates in Model B with observational data. (a) Corner plot showing the GCs (purple) and NSCs (orange) clusters in our simulations hosting an IMBH at z = 0, com￾pared to observations of potential IMBHs in Milky Way globular clus￾ters and G1 (b) One-dimensional IMBH mass distribution with compar￾ison to estimated masses for G1 and 47 Tuc. candidates are more likely GCs or NSC… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The observational dearth of black holes (BHs) with masses between $\sim$100 and 100,000 $M_\odot$ raises questions about the nature of intermediate-mass black holes (IMBHs). Proposed formation channels for IMBHs include runaway stellar collisions and repeated binary BH (BBH) mergers driven by dynamical interactions in stellar clusters, but the formation efficiency of these processes and the associated IMBH occupation fraction are largely unconstrained. In this work, we study IMBH formation via both mechanisms in young, globular, and nuclear star clusters. We carry out a comprehensive investigation of IMBH formation efficiency by exploring the impact of different seeding models and star cluster formation histories. We employ a new version of the B-POP population synthesis code, able to model several seeding mechanisms as well as hierarchical BBH mergers. We quantify the efficiency of IMBH production across different cluster families, and estimate the fraction of BBH mergers involving an IMBH primary. Comparison with low-redshift IMBH candidates suggests that, depending on the seeding mechanism, stellar collisions can play a pivotal role in explaining potential IMBHs in local globular clusters. Our simulations highlight stellar collisions as the primary IMBH formation channel across a wide range of cluster types. They further suggest that wandering IMBHs may populate Milky Way-like galaxies and that correlations between cluster and IMBH masses can help distinguish the origins of Galactic globular clusters.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript employs an updated version of the B-POP population synthesis code to model intermediate-mass black hole (IMBH) formation in young, globular, and nuclear star clusters. It compares two channels—runaway stellar collisions and repeated hierarchical binary black hole (BBH) mergers—across varied seeding models and cluster formation histories, concluding that stellar collisions are the dominant IMBH production mechanism in most cases. The work quantifies IMBH production efficiencies, estimates the fraction of BBH mergers involving IMBH primaries, and compares results to low-redshift IMBH candidates, suggesting implications for wandering IMBHs in Milky Way-like galaxies and mass correlations that could distinguish globular cluster origins.

Significance. If the relative efficiencies hold under more complete dynamical modeling, the results would provide a concrete framework for interpreting the scarcity of observed IMBHs and for predicting their presence in local globular clusters. The multi-channel, multi-environment exploration and direct comparison to candidates represent a useful step beyond single-mechanism studies, with potential to inform both observational searches and galaxy evolution models.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4] §4 (hierarchical merger implementation): the efficiency ranking between stellar collisions and repeated BBH mergers is presented as robust, yet the description does not specify how post-merger gravitational-wave recoil velocities are treated; without explicit inclusion or a sensitivity test, ejection of remnants before further growth could invert the claimed dominance of collisions in dense nuclear clusters.
  2. [§3.2 and §5.1] §3.2 and §5.1 (mass segregation and collision rates): the coupling between stellar evolution and dynamical encounters during collisions is approximated rather than derived from direct integration; this approximation is load-bearing for the headline claim that collisions dominate across cluster types, as mass segregation in high-density regimes can substantially alter encounter rates.
  3. [Results section] Results section (efficiency tables): the reported IMBH occupation fractions and channel efficiencies are shown for discrete grids of seeding parameters and formation histories; no continuous variation or interpolation is provided, leaving open the possibility that modest shifts in initial density or metallicity move the dominant channel outside the sampled points.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states headline conclusions without quoting any numerical efficiencies, occupation fractions, or error estimates; adding one or two key quantitative results would improve immediate readability.
  2. [Figure captions] Figure captions for the cluster-type comparison plots do not explicitly list the range of metallicities and initial densities explored, making it harder to assess coverage of realistic conditions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for providing constructive comments that will help strengthen our work. We address each of the major comments in turn below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §4 (hierarchical merger implementation): the efficiency ranking between stellar collisions and repeated BBH mergers is presented as robust, yet the description does not specify how post-merger gravitational-wave recoil velocities are treated; without explicit inclusion or a sensitivity test, ejection of remnants before further growth could invert the claimed dominance of collisions in dense nuclear clusters.

    Authors: We agree that the treatment of gravitational-wave recoil velocities following BBH mergers is an important consideration that was not explicitly addressed in the manuscript. In the B-POP implementation, merger remnants are assumed to remain in the cluster unless their velocity exceeds the escape velocity, but recoil kicks from asymmetric GW emission were not modeled in detail. To address this, we will revise the methods section to include a description of the current assumption and add a sensitivity analysis exploring the impact of different recoil velocity distributions on the IMBH formation efficiency via the hierarchical merger channel, particularly in nuclear star clusters. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §3.2 and §5.1 (mass segregation and collision rates): the coupling between stellar evolution and dynamical encounters during collisions is approximated rather than derived from direct integration; this approximation is load-bearing for the headline claim that collisions dominate across cluster types, as mass segregation in high-density regimes can substantially alter encounter rates.

    Authors: The approximations for mass segregation and collision rates in our model are based on established analytic prescriptions from the literature that have been validated against direct N-body simulations for similar cluster environments. While a full direct integration of stellar evolution and dynamics would provide higher fidelity, it remains computationally infeasible for the broad parameter space and large number of clusters simulated in this study. We will clarify the details of these approximations in §3.2 and §5.1, including additional references to validation studies, to better support the robustness of our conclusions. revision: partial

  3. Referee: Results section (efficiency tables): the reported IMBH occupation fractions and channel efficiencies are shown for discrete grids of seeding parameters and formation histories; no continuous variation or interpolation is provided, leaving open the possibility that modest shifts in initial density or metallicity move the dominant channel outside the sampled points.

    Authors: The discrete grid was selected to sample a wide range of physically motivated seeding parameters and cluster formation histories. While we do not provide continuous interpolation in the current results, the trends across the grid points indicate that the dominance of stellar collisions is consistent within the explored regimes. We will add a discussion in the results section addressing the sensitivity to parameter variations and note that future work could include finer grids or interpolation methods. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: forward modeling via B-POP yields independent efficiency rankings

full rationale

The derivation relies on running population synthesis simulations in the B-POP code across varied seeding models and cluster formation histories. IMBH formation efficiencies for stellar collisions versus hierarchical BBH mergers are computed directly from the simulated dynamical and evolutionary processes. The subsequent comparison to low-redshift IMBH candidates is a post-simulation observational check rather than an input that constrains or defines the simulation outputs. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fit, self-definition, or self-citation chain; the central claim that collisions dominate across cluster types follows from the relative rates produced by the code under the explored grids.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the accuracy of the B-POP population synthesis framework for modeling dynamical interactions and on the representativeness of the sampled seeding models and cluster histories; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Seeding model parameters
    Different seeding mechanisms are implemented with specific initial conditions and efficiencies that are chosen or tuned within the code.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The B-POP code correctly models the rates and outcomes of stellar collisions and hierarchical binary black hole mergers in dense clusters.
    All efficiency results depend on the fidelity of this population synthesis tool.
  • ad hoc to paper The range of seeding models and formation histories explored spans the relevant conditions in real astrophysical clusters.
    The paper varies these to study their impact on IMBH production.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5793 in / 1564 out tokens · 48972 ms · 2026-05-18T01:58:48.520505+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

147 extracted references · 147 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

    work page

  3. [3]

    The Science of the Einstein Telescope

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    D., Abraham , S., et al

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

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    D., Acernese , F., et al

    Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., Acernese , F., et al. 2023, Physical Review X, 13, 011048

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    A., Arca Sedda , M., et al

    Ajith , P., Seoane , P. A., Arca Sedda , M., et al. 2025, , 2025, 108

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    2020, , 37, e044

    Anagnostou , O., Trenti , M., & Melatos , A. 2020, , 37, e044

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    2012, , 750, 111

    Antonini , F., Capuzzo-Dolcetta , R., Mastrobuono-Battisti , A., & Merritt , D. 2012, , 750, 111

    work page 2012

  9. [9]

    & Gieles , M

    Antonini , F. & Gieles , M. 2020, , 102, 123016

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    & Rasio , F

    Antonini , F. & Rasio , F. A. 2016, , 831, 187

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    2021, , 652, A54

    Arca Sedda , M., Amaro Seoane , P., & Chen , X. 2021, , 652, A54

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    & Benacquista , M

    Arca Sedda , M. & Benacquista , M. 2019, , 482, 2991

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    Arca Sedda , M., Berry , C. P. L., Jani , K., et al. 2020 a , Classical and Quantum Gravity, 37, 215011

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    2015, , 806, 220

    Arca-Sedda , M., Capuzzo-Dolcetta , R., Antonini , F., & Seth , A. 2015, , 806, 220

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    & Gualandris , A

    Arca-Sedda , M. & Gualandris , A. 2018, , 477, 4423

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    Arca Sedda , M., Kamlah , A. W. H., Spurzem , R., et al. 2023 a , , 526, 429

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    2023 b , , 520, 5259

    Arca Sedda , M., Mapelli , M., Benacquista , M., & Spera , M. 2023 b , , 520, 5259

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    2020 b , , 894, 133

    Arca Sedda , M., Mapelli , M., Spera , M., Benacquista , M., & Giacobbo , N. 2020 b , , 894, 133

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Ba \ n ares-Hern \'a ndez , A., Calore , F., Martin Camalich , J., & Read , J. I. 2025 a , , 693, A104

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Ba \ n ares-Hern \'a ndez , A., Calore , F., Martin Camalich , J., & Read , J. I. 2025 b , , 693, A104

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    2023, , 519, 5191

    Ballone , A., Costa , G., Mapelli , M., et al. 2023, , 519, 5191

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    & Antonini , F

    Barber , J. & Antonini , F. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.03832

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    & Hilker , M

    Baumgardt , H. & Hilker , M. 2018, , 478, 1520

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    S., Fragos , T., Qin , Y., et al

    Bavera , S. S., Fragos , T., Qin , Y., et al. 2020, , 635, A97

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    & Tremaine, S

    Binney, J. & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition, rev - revised, 2 edn. (Princeton University Press)

    work page 2008

  26. [26]

    2015, , 216, 29

    Bovy , J. 2015, , 216, 29

    work page 2015

  27. [27]

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

    Campanelli , M., Lousto , C. O., Zlochower , Y., & Merritt , D. 2007, , 98, 231102

    work page 2007

  28. [28]

    1993, , 415, 616

    Capuzzo-Dolcetta , R. 1993, , 415, 616

    work page 1993

  29. [29]

    D., Craig , P

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

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    V., Katkov , I

    Chilingarian , I. V., Katkov , I. Y., Zolotukhin , I. Y., et al. 2018, , 863, 1

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    LISA Definition Study Report

    Colpi , M., Danzmann , K., Hewitson , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.07571

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    2003, , 599, 1260

    Colpi , M., Mapelli , M., & Possenti , A. 2003, , 599, 1260

    work page 2003

  33. [33]

    2022, , 516, 1072

    Costa , G., Ballone , A., Mapelli , M., & Bressan , A. 2022, , 516, 1072

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    G., Bressan , A., et al

    Costa , G., Shepherd , K. G., Bressan , A., et al. 2025, , 694, A193

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    2002, , 570, L89

    D'Amico , N., Possenti , A., Fici , L., et al. 2002, , 570, L89

    work page 2002

  36. [36]

    N., Mapelli , M., Pasquato , M., et al

    Di Carlo , U. N., Mapelli , M., Pasquato , M., et al. 2021, , 507, 5132

    work page 2021

  37. [37]

    G., et al

    Ebisuzaki , T., Makino , J., Tsuru , T. G., et al. 2001, , 562, L19

    work page 2001

  38. [38]

    R., Choksi , N., & Boylan-Kolchin , M

    El-Badry , K., Quataert , E., Weisz , D. R., Choksi , N., & Boylan-Kolchin , M. 2019, , 482, 4528

    work page 2019

  39. [39]

    2023 a , , 521, 4323

    El-Badry , K., Rix , H.-W., Cendes , Y., et al. 2023 a , , 521, 4323

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    2023 b , , 518, 1057

    El-Badry , K., Rix , H.-W., Quataert , E., et al. 2023 b , , 518, 1057

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    R., Possenti , A., Sabbi , E., et al

    Ferraro , F. R., Possenti , A., Sabbi , E., et al. 2003, , 595, 179

    work page 2003

  42. [42]

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

    Fryer , C. L., Belczynski , K., Wiktorowicz , G., et al. 2012, , 749, 91

    work page 2012

  43. [43]

    2024, , 686, L2

    Gaia Collaboration , Panuzzo , P., Mazeh , T., et al. 2024, , 686, L2

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    2021, , 507, 3312

    Gatto , M., Ripepi , V., Bellazzini , M., et al. 2021, , 507, 3312

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    M., & Ho , L

    Gebhardt , K., Rich , R. M., & Ho , L. C. 2005, , 634, 1093

    work page 2005

  46. [46]

    o ker , T., Leigh , N., L \

    Georgiev , I. Y., B \"o ker , T., Leigh , N., L \"u tzgendorf , N., & Neumayer , N. 2016, , 457, 2122

    work page 2016

  47. [47]

    & Mapelli , M

    Giacobbo , N. & Mapelli , M. 2018, , 480, 2011

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    & Mapelli , M

    Giacobbo , N. & Mapelli , M. 2020, , 891, 141

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    Gieles , M., Balbinot , E., Yaaqib , R. I. S. M., et al. 2018, , 473, 4832

    work page 2018

  50. [50]

    2015, , 454, 3150

    Giersz , M., Leigh , N., Hypki , A., L \"u tzgendorf , N., & Askar , A. 2015, , 454, 3150

    work page 2015

  51. [51]

    E., Pols , O

    Glebbeek , E., Gaburov , E., de Mink , S. E., Pols , O. R., & Portegies Zwart , S. F. 2009, , 497, 255

    work page 2009

  52. [52]

    2021, , 908, L29

    Gonz \'a lez , E., Kremer , K., Chatterjee , S., et al. 2021, , 908, L29

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    C., Fragione , G., Kremer , K., & Rasio , F

    Gonz \'a lez Prieto , E., Weatherford , N. C., Fragione , G., Kremer , K., & Rasio , F. A. 2024, , 969, 29

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    & Hut , P

    Goodman , J. & Hut , P. 1993, , 403, 271

    work page 1993

  55. [55]

    Graham , A. W. & Spitler , L. R. 2009, , 397, 2148

    work page 2009

  56. [56]

    C., & Hamilton , D

    G \"u ltekin , K., Miller , M. C., & Hamilton , D. P. 2004, , 616, 221

    work page 2004

  57. [57]

    A., Fregeau , J

    G \"u rkan , M. A., Fregeau , J. M., & Rasio , F. A. 2006, , 640, L39

    work page 2006

  58. [58]

    2024, , 631, 285

    H \"a berle , M., Neumayer , N., Seth , A., et al. 2024, , 631, 285

    work page 2024

  59. [59]

    R., Millman , K

    Harris , C. R., Millman , K. J., van der Walt , S. J., et al. 2020, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2649-2, 585, 357

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    Harris , W. E. 1996, , 112, 1487

    work page 1996

  61. [61]

    Heggie , D. C. 1975, , 173, 729

    work page 1975

  62. [62]

    & Richtler , T

    Hilker , M. & Richtler , T. 2000, , 362, 895

    work page 2000

  63. [63]

    Hunt , J. A. S. & Vasiliev , E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.04075

    work page arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4160265, 9, 90

    work page arXiv 2007

  65. [65]

    A., Bellazzini , M., Malhan , K., Martin , N., & Bianchini , P

    Ibata , R. A., Bellazzini , M., Malhan , K., Martin , N., & Bianchini , P. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 667

    work page 2019

  66. [66]

    2023, , 524, 426

    Iorio , G., Mapelli , M., Costa , G., et al. 2023, , 524, 426

    work page 2023

  67. [67]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.03152

    Izquierdo-Villalba , D., Lupi , A., Regan , J., Bonetti , M., & Franchini , A. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.03152

    work page arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    1939, Theory of Probability

    Jeffreys , H. 1939, Theory of Probability

    work page 1939

  69. [69]

    O., Brinchmann , J., et al

    Kamann , S., Husser , T. O., Brinchmann , J., et al. 2016, , 588, A149

    work page 2016

  70. [70]

    M., et al

    Kamann , S., Wisotzki , L., Roth , M. M., et al. 2014, , 566, A58

    work page 2014

  71. [71]

    & Ricotti , M

    Katz , H. & Ricotti , M. 2013, , 432, 3250

    work page 2013

  72. [72]

    2017, , 542, 203

    K z ltan , B., Baumgardt , H., & Loeb , A. 2017, , 542, 203

    work page 2017

  73. [73]

    & Ho , L

    Kormendy , J. & Ho , L. C. 2013, , 51, 511

    work page 2013

  74. [74]

    D., Cholis , I., Kamionkowski , M., & Silk , J

    Kovetz , E. D., Cholis , I., Kamionkowski , M., & Silk , J. 2018, , 97, 123003

    work page 2018

  75. [75]

    2020, , 903, 45

    Kremer , K., Spera , M., Becker , D., et al. 2020, , 903, 45

    work page 2020

  76. [76]

    2024, , 110, 043023

    Kritos , K., Strokov , V., Baibhav , V., & Berti , E. 2024, , 110, 043023

    work page 2024

  77. [77]

    2001, , 322, 231

    Kroupa , P. 2001, , 322, 231

    work page 2001

  78. [78]

    2013, , 769, 107

    Lanzoni , B., Mucciarelli , A., Origlia , L., et al. 2013, , 769, 107

    work page 2013

  79. [79]

    Larsen , S. S. 2009, , 503, 467

    work page 2009

  80. [80]

    Lee , H. M. 1995, , 272, 605

    work page 1995

Showing first 80 references.