Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A runaway supermassive black hole's speed reveals its parent binary's mass ratio and spin.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 07:48 UTC pith:7DXL7MOQ

load-bearing objection A careful, reproducible parameter-space selection over three recoil models gives new constraints on RBH-1's putative progenitor, but the physics is only as good as the prior identification of RBH-1 as a recoiling SMBH. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.18986 v2 pith:7DXL7MOQ submitted 2026-01-26 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Progenitor of the recoiling super-massive black hole RBH-1 identified using HST/JWST imaging

Tousif Islam , Tejaswi Venumadhav , Digvijay Wadekar This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE gr-qc PACS 04.30.-w95.30.Sf98.62.Js
keywords gravitational-wave recoilsupermassive black holesrunaway black holebinary black hole mergerprecessing binariesmass ratiospinLISA
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to show that the observed runaway speed of the supermassive black hole RBH-1, about 954 km/s, can only have been produced by a gravitational-wave recoil if the two progenitor black holes formed a precessing binary with a mass ratio at most about 6 and with the heavier black hole spinning rapidly. The authors compare the measured speed to recoil predictions from numerical relativity and black-hole perturbation theory, ruling out non-spinning, aligned-spin, and anti-aligned-spin mergers, as well as precessing binaries with mass ratios above 5. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns a single, unusual observation into a constraint on the merger history of galaxies and identifies a type of black-hole merger that the future LISA mission could detect with very high signal-to-noise ratios.

Core claim

Under the assumption that RBH-1 is a supermassive black hole ejected by gravitational-wave recoil, the measured runaway velocity of 954+110/-126 km/s forces the progenitor binary to have been precessing with a mass ratio m1/m2 ≲ 6, and the larger black hole must have had a high dimensionless spin magnitude around 0.75. The kick velocity alone does not constrain the total mass of the binary, but it does require that the binary was near equal-mass and that the spins were misaligned with the orbital angular momentum, making this the first time a recoiling SMBH's speed has been used to infer the progenitor binary's parameters.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the gravitational-wave recoil (kick) prescription, specifically the gwModel, which is calibrated to numerical-relativity and black-hole-perturbation-theory data, and two independent checks (HLZ and NRSur). These models give the distribution of recoil velocities as a function of binary mass ratio, spin magnitudes, and spin orientations; the paper compares the observed RBH-1 velocity to these distributions to rule out non-precessing configurations and to constrain the progenitor parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The entire inference rests on the prior identification of RBH-1 as a single supermassive black hole moving at about 954 km/s through the circumgalactic medium; if that identification or the velocity measurement is wrong, the derived progenitor constraints do not apply.

What would settle it

A future observation that shows the linear feature near RBH-1 to be a tidal tail, an edge-on galaxy, or a projection effect would falsify the recoil interpretation; more directly, a kinematic measurement showing that the apex of the feature is not a point-like SMBH moving with the inferred velocity would falsify the deduction.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the progenitor binary had mass ratio ~3 and a highly spinning primary, the host galaxy GX was likely formed by a major, gas-rich galaxy merger with galaxy mass ratio ≲ 4.
  • The required high spin and precession point to sustained coherent gas accretion onto the black holes, supporting a wet merger scenario.
  • Mergers of this type would be strong sources for LISA, with signal-to-noise ratios around 2000 for the RBH-1 mass scale.
  • The recoil speed of about 954 km/s rules out non-precessing and mass-ratio > 5 binaries, so a future measurement of a similar runaway SMBH with a different speed can test the universality of this progenitor channel.
  • The inferred remnant SMBH spin of about 0.7, correlated with the recoil, offers a prediction that can be checked if spin measurements of RBH-1 become available.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's method could be applied to the other recoiling SMBH candidate 3C 186, and the authors do so, finding that an even more equal-mass, precessing binary is needed; this suggests a common channel for the fastest recoiling SMBHs.
  • If even faster runaway SMBHs are found in the future, the analysis predicts that their progenitor binaries will be progressively closer to equal mass and have near-maximal effective precession, a trend that can be tested statistically.
  • The lack of a detected jet associated with RBH-1 is consistent with the modeling, but the angle between the recoil direction and any jet is essentially unconstrained; deeper observations or future recoil-direction models could turn a non-detection into a constraint on the accretion environment.
  • Because the recoil velocity is invariant to total mass, the paper cannot break the degeneracy with mass; combining this method with independent mass estimates (e.g., from the wake dynamics) could yield a full reconstruction of the progenitor binary.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper assumes that the compact source RBH-1 is a supermassive black hole ejected from the galaxy GX at z≈0.96 with speed 954+110/-126 km/s, and asks what gravitational-wave recoil from a pre-merger SMBH binary could produce such a kick. Using three recoil prescriptions (gwModel, HLZ, and NRSur7dq4Remnant), the authors sample binary parameters under uniform and isotropic priors and retain configurations whose predicted kick falls in the observed velocity interval. They conclude that non-spinning, non-precessing, and high-mass-ratio (q≳5) precessing binaries cannot explain RBH-1; the progenitor must have been precessing with q≈3 and a primary spin magnitude |χ1|≈0.8. They discuss implications for a gas-rich major merger origin of GX, for LISA detectability, and for the similar candidate 3C 186. Supplemental material tests the sensitivity to the adopted velocity distribution and to astrophysically motivated priors.

Significance. If the underlying identification of RBH-1 as a recoiling SMBH is correct, the paper provides a novel and interesting inversion: using an observed candidate kick to constrain the mass ratio and spin configuration of an SMBH binary. The use of three independent recoil models, the public code availability, and the explicit robustness checks are genuine strengths. The main result is, however, entirely conditional on the prior identification of RBH-1 as a single SMBH with the quoted space velocity, and on the absence of a published posterior for that velocity. These conditionality issues need to be addressed in framing and in the quantitative interpretation of the quoted intervals.

major comments (3)
  1. [Introduction / Abstract] The entire inference rests on the identification of RBH-1 as a single SMBH with v=954+110/-126 km/s (Refs. [1,3]). Ref. [4] argues that deep HST imaging favors a bulgeless edge-on galaxy interpretation, but the paper dismisses this in one sentence ('cannot reproduce the absence of stellar continuum at the tip, the extreme velocity, or the required mechanical energy injection') without quantitative support and without any internal test that distinguishes the scenarios. If the edge-on or tidal interpretation is correct, all derived progenitor constraints collapse. The abstract's 'must have been precessing' and the title's 'identified using HST/JWST imaging' go beyond a conditional analysis. The authors should either provide a quantitative refutation of Ref. [4] (e.g., limits on stellar continuum at the apex, surface-brightness/SED constraints, or a kinematic discriminator) or systematicall
  2. [Supplemental Material, 'Robustness of analysis'] The authors correctly state that no posterior distribution for v_BH is published, and therefore they use the 1-sigma interval as a hard selection. The quoted numbers such as q=2.91+3.61/-1.75 and |χ1|=0.80+0.18/-0.37 are thus not posterior credible intervals from a measurement with a likelihood; they are conditional distributions under the chosen flat binary-parameter prior and a uniform-in-interval velocity treatment. The reweighting tests in Fig. 8 are helpful but do not supply the missing likelihood. The word 'posterior' is used throughout the main text and figures for this quantity. Please relabel these as allowed regions or conditional distributions, or introduce an explicit likelihood model for the velocity measurement, so that the quoted uncertainties have a well-defined meaning.
  3. [Models for gravitational recoil / Figure 1] The exclusion of precessing binaries with q∈[5,20] is a load-bearing step for the final q≲6 conclusion. The text states that the kick-velocity distribution is 'strongly peaked around 200 km/s' and therefore cannot generate v_BH, but the relevant quantity for an exclusion is the maximum or the tail fraction above 828 km/s. Because the sampling uses uniform spin magnitudes and orientations, a rare high-spin configuration could in principle populate the tail. Please report the maximum kick (or the fraction of the prior exceeding 828 km/s) for q∈[5,20] for each of the three models, and state whether any near-boundary configurations (|χ|→1, extreme angles) contribute. This would make the exclusion quantitative rather than based on the shape of a distribution.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Page 2, Models for gravitational recoil] Typo: 'dimensionless dimensionless spin magnitudes' should be 'dimensionless spin magnitudes.'
  2. [Eq. (1)] The definition of χp would benefit from parentheses: max[χ1 sinθ1, ((4q+3)/(4+3q)) χ2 sinθ2]. As typeset, '4q+3 / 4+3q' is ambiguous.
  3. [Supplemental Material] Typo: '3C I86' should be '3C 186.'
  4. [Figures 2-5 and text] The quoted intervals (e.g., q=2.91+3.61/-1.75) are not defined in the main text; the figures appear to use 16th-84th percentiles. Please state the confidence level and that these are medians of the conditional distribution, not Bayesian credible intervals from a likelihood.
  5. [Astrophysical implications] The LISA SNR estimate (SNR≳1000, and SNR~2000 for the maximum-likelihood values) is quoted without specifying the waveform model, observation time, or frequency band. Please provide a brief calculation or reference for this estimate.
  6. [Physically motivated priors] The text states that cold accretion drives spins toward 1 and yields tightly aligned spins. Since the central requirement is precession (misalignment), the posterior under the cold-accretion prior should be discussed more explicitly: does the retained posterior populate the misaligned tail of the prior, and what fraction of the prior is consistent with the kick? This would clarify how the 'qualitative conclusions remain unchanged' statement should be read.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the progenitor constraints are a forward-model selection over independently calibrated recoil prescriptions, not a fit that returns its input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is explicit and non-circular: it adopts the externally measured runaway velocity vBH = 954^{+110}_{-126} km/s from Ref. [3], then forward-evaluates three recoil-kick prescriptions (gwModel, HLZ, NRSur) over a broad prior on mass ratio, spin magnitudes, and spin orientations, and retains only configurations whose predicted kick falls within the observed velocity interval. The reported posteriors (q ~ 3, |chi1| ~ 0.75, precession required) are selections over model predictions conditioned on an independent observable, not parameters fitted to that observable, so the output is not equivalent to the input by construction. The only self-citation in the load-bearing chain is gwModel (Ref. [28]) by two of the present authors, but the paper explicitly cross-checks it against HLZ and NRSur, which are external NR-calibrated models and give the same qualitative conclusions; the central claim therefore does not reduce to a self-citation. The 'Robustness of analysis' section honestly notes that no published posterior for the RBH-1 velocity exists and that the analysis selects the allowed interval rather than assigning statistical weights, which is a transparent limitation rather than a circular step. The strongest non-independent element is the conditional assumption that RBH-1 is a recoiling SMBH at all; this is taken from Refs. [1,3] and is not re-derived here. If that identification fails, the derived progenitor constraints do not apply, but that is external-input fragility/correctness risk, not circularity: the paper clearly frames its results with 'Assuming the runaway black hole was the outcome of the gravitational-wave-driven merger...'. No equation in the paper reduces an output to an input by definition, and no prediction is a renamed fit. Hence no circularity is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The inference rests on external NR-calibrated recoil models and chosen priors, not on new physical entities. The dominant assumption is the recoil interpretation itself.

free parameters (3)
  • Prior mass-ratio range q ∈ [1,10] (NRSur: [1,6])
    Chosen sampling bounds; the posterior upper bound (~6) is not at the prior edge for gwModel/HLZ, but NRSur is restricted to q≤6 by model validity.
  • Prior spin magnitudes |χ1,2| uniform in [0,1]
    Chosen agnostic prior; conclusions are tested with accretion-motivated spin priors in Fig. 4.
  • Isotropic spin orientation prior (cosθ uniform, φ uniform)
    Assumed distribution; the posterior on most angles is close to this prior, so this choice mainly affects χp inference.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption RBH-1 is a single SMBH ejected by GW recoil from a binary SMBH merger in GX.
    The paper's inference is explicitly conditional on this interpretation from Refs. [1,3]; alternatives are argued unlikely but not excluded.
  • domain assumption The measured runaway speed 954+110/-126 km/s is the relevant current space velocity (or a lower bound) for recoil modeling.
    Inferred from bow-shock kinematics; projection and CGM drag would only increase the required kick, which the authors note makes their constraints conservative.
  • domain assumption Recoil-kick prescriptions gwModel, HLZ, NRSur accurately predict kicks over the sampled SMBH parameter space.
    Calibrated to NR/BHPT at stellar masses and assumed scale-free; NRSur is extrapolated to q=6 and |χ|≤1.
  • domain assumption The M_SMBH–M_bulge scaling relation connects progenitor SMBH mass ratio to galaxy merger mass ratio.
    Used to infer a major wet merger origin for GX; scatter in the relation is not propagated.
  • domain assumption High spins and spin–orbit misalignment indicate a gas-rich ('wet') merger environment.
    Astrophysical interpretation based on accretion models; plausible but not a strict consequence of the recoil measurement.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15250 in / 16115 out tokens · 175017 ms · 2026-08-03T07:48:01.442018+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Using a combination of \textit{Hubble Space Telescope} and \textit{James Webb Space Telescope} imaging, a runaway supermassive black hole (RBH-1) was recently identified with an inferred velocity of $954^{+110}_{-126}\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$, likely ejected from a compact star-forming galaxy (denoted as GX) at $z \approx 0.96$. Assuming the runaway black hole was the outcome of the gravitational-wave-driven merger of two black holes, we use its measured runaway velocity together with gravitational-wave recoil predictions from numerical relativity and black hole perturbation theory to constrain the mass ratio and spin configuration of the progenitor SMBHs that overcame the final-parsec problem and merged $\sim 70$~Myr ago. We find that the progenitor binary must have been precessing, with a mass ratio $m_1/m_2\lesssim 6$, and that the more massive SMBH must have possessed a high spin (dimensionless spin magnitude $\sim 0.75$) in order to generate a recoil of this magnitude. This has important astrophysical implications as similar SMBH mergers can be an interesting source population for the upcoming LISA mission with signal-to-noise ratios $\gtrsim$ 1000. Furthermore, the progenitor SMBH properties imply that GX was likely formed through a major, gas-rich (``wet'') merger between two galaxies of comparable mass, with a mass ratio $\lesssim 4$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.18986 by Digvijay Wadekar, Tejaswi Venumadhav, Tousif Islam.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: We show the merger scenarios that cannot produce RBH-1 speed of 954+110 −126 km s−1 (vertical shaded gray region). These include non-spinning SMBH mergers, non-precessing SMBH mergers, and precessing SMBH mergers with mass ratios q ∈ [5, 20]. The only scenario consistent with the large kick is for near equal-mass ratio systems with spin-precession (i.e., the individual SMBH spins are misaligned with the or… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Similar to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: We show the progenitor SMBH mass ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: We show the polar angles between the recoil direction and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: We show the progenitor SMBH mass ra￾tio q and the dimensionless spin magnitude of the progenitor SMBHs |χ1,2| that are consistent with different runaway speeds of [500, 1000, 1500, 2000] km s−1 under the assumption that the progen￾itor SMBHs were in a precessing configuration. We use gwModel as our recoil-kick prescription. Bottom: We show the angles of the spins of progenitor BHs with the orbital ang… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: We show the progenitor SMBH mass ratio q, the dimen￾sionless spin magnitude of the larger progenitor SMBH |χ1|, and the resulting runaway speed vSMBH consistent with the inferred speeds of 954+110 −126 km s−1 under three runaway speed distribution for RBH-1: original (blue) and uniform (dark blue), and skewed Gaussian (crim￾son). We use gwModel as our recoil-kick prescription. In all cases, the priors are … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Overmassive and Undermassive Massive Black Holes: The Role of Environment and Gravitational-Wave Recoils

    astro-ph.GA 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.0

    Outliers from the black hole-stellar mass scaling relation arise from distinct channels of enhanced mergers with super-Eddington growth, gravitational recoils after mergers, environmental stellar mass loss, and quiesc...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 56 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    8 |χ 1| 0.80+0.18 − 0.37 0.74+0.23 − 0.49 0.78+0.20 − 0.33 2 4 6 8 q

  2. [3]

    2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 |χ 2| 0.52+0.41 − 0.46 0.54+0.42 − 0.48 0.50+0.45 − 0.45 gwModel HLZ NRSur Prior Figure 2. We show the progenitor SMBH mass ratio q(= m1/m2) and the dimensionless spin magnitudes|χ1,2| that are consistent with the inferred RBH-1 speed of 954+110 −126 km s−1, under the assumption that the progenitor SMBHs were in a precessing configuration...

    2000

  3. [4]

    A Candidate Runaway Supermassive Black Hole Identified by Shocks and Star Formation in its Wake,

    Pieter van Dokkumet al., “A Candidate Runaway Supermassive Black Hole Identified by Shocks and Star Formation in its Wake,” Astrophys. J. Lett.946, L50 (2023), arXiv:2302.04888 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [5]

    A direct connection between the wake and the former host galaxy of a proposed runaway supermassive black hole,

    Pieter van Dokkum, “A direct connection between the wake and the former host galaxy of a proposed runaway supermassive black hole,” (2023), arXiv:2305.00240 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [6]

    JWST Confirmation of a Run- away Supermassive Black Hole via its Supersonic Bow Shock,

    Pieter van Dokkum, Connor Jennings, Imad Pasha, Charlie Con- roy, Ish Kaul, Roberto Abraham, Shany Danieli, Aaron J. Ro- manowsky, and Grant Tremblay, “JWST Confirmation of a Run- away Supermassive Black Hole via its Supersonic Bow Shock,” (2025), arXiv:2512.04166 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [7]

    Deep hst imaging favors the bulgeless edge-on galaxy expla- nation for the hypothetical stellar wake created by a runaway supermassive black hole,

    Mireia Montes, Jorge Sánchez Almeida, and Ignacio Trujillo, “Deep hst imaging favors the bulgeless edge-on galaxy expla- nation for the hypothetical stellar wake created by a runaway supermassive black hole,” (2024), arXiv:2406.00102 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [8]

    Transport of momentum by gravitational waves: the linear approximation,

    W. B. Bonnor and M. A. Rotenberg, “Transport of momentum by gravitational waves: the linear approximation,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences265, 109–116 (1961)

    1961

  8. [9]

    The mass of a gravitational wave packet,

    R. A. Breuer and F. W. Hehl, “The mass of a gravitational wave packet,” Physical Review128, 2471–2475 (1962)

    1962

  9. [10]

    Gravitational-Radiation Recoil and Run- away Black Holes,

    Jacob D. Bekenstein, “Gravitational-Radiation Recoil and Run- away Black Holes,” Astrophysical Journal183, 657–664 (1973)

    1973

  10. [11]

    EMERGE: empirical predictions of galaxy merger rates since z ∼ 6,

    Joseph A. O’Leary, Benjamin P. Moster, Thorsten Naab, and Rachel S. Somerville, “EMERGE: empirical predictions of galaxy merger rates since z ∼ 6,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society501, 3215–3237 (2021), arXiv:2001.02687 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [12]

    Maximum gravitational recoil,

    Manuela Campanelli, Carlos O. Lousto, Yosef Zlochower, and David Merritt, “Maximum gravitational recoil,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 231102 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0702133

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  12. [13]

    Exploring black hole superkicks,

    Bernd Bruegmann, Jose A. Gonzalez, Mark Hannam, Sascha Husa, and Ulrich Sperhake, “Exploring black hole superkicks,” Phys. Rev. D77, 124047 (2008), arXiv:0707.0135 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  13. [14]

    Large merger recoils and spin flips from generic black-hole binaries,

    Manuela Campanelli, Carlos O. Lousto, Yosef Zlochower, and David Merritt, “Large merger recoils and spin flips from generic black-hole binaries,” Astrophys. J. Lett.659, L5–L8 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0701164

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  14. [15]

    Recoiling from a kick in the head-on collision of spinning black holes,

    Dae-Il Choi, Bernard J. Kelly, William D. Boggs, John G. Baker, Joan Centrella, and James van Meter, “Recoiling from a kick in the head-on collision of spinning black holes,” Phys. Rev. D76, 104026 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0702016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  15. [16]

    Extra- Large Remnant Recoil Velocities and Spins from Near-Extremal- Bowen-York-Spin Black-Hole Binaries,

    Sergio Dain, Carlos O. Lousto, and Yosef Zlochower, “Extra- Large Remnant Recoil Velocities and Spins from Near-Extremal- Bowen-York-Spin Black-Hole Binaries,” Phys. Rev. D78, 024039 (2008), arXiv:0803.0351 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  16. [17]

    Total recoil: The Maximum kick from nonspinning black-hole binary inspiral,

    Jose A. Gonzalez, Ulrich Sperhake, Bernd Bruegmann, Mark Hannam, and Sascha Husa, “Total recoil: The Maximum kick from nonspinning black-hole binary inspiral,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 091101 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0610154

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  17. [18]

    Supermassive recoil velocities for binary black- hole mergers with antialigned spins,

    J. A. Gonzalez, M. D. Hannam, U. Sperhake, Bernd Bruegmann, and S. Husa, “Supermassive recoil velocities for binary black- hole mergers with antialigned spins,” Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 231101 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0702052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  18. [19]

    Superkicks in Hyperbolic Encounters of Binary Black Holes,

    James Healy, Frank Herrmann, Ian Hinder, Deirdre M. Shoe- maker, Pablo Laguna, and Richard A. Matzner, “Superkicks in Hyperbolic Encounters of Binary Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 041101 (2009), arXiv:0807.3292 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  19. [20]

    Ultimate Black Hole Recoil: What is the Maximum High-Energy Collision Kick?

    James Healy and Carlos O. Lousto, “Ultimate Black Hole Recoil: What is the Maximum High-Energy Collision Kick?” Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 071401 (2023), arXiv:2301.00018 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [21]

    Evidence of Large Recoil Velocity from a Black Hole Merger Signal,

    Vijay Varma, Sylvia Biscoveanu, Tousif Islam, Feroz H. Shaik, Carl-Johan Haster, Maximiliano Isi, Will M. Farr, Scott E. Field, and Salvatore Vitale, “Evidence of Large Recoil Velocity from a Black Hole Merger Signal,” Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 191102 (2022), arXiv:2201.01302 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [22]

    Analysis of GWTC-3 with fully precessing nu- merical relativity surrogate models,

    Tousif Islam, Avi Vajpeyi, Feroz H. Shaik, Carl-Johan Haster, Vi- jay Varma, Scott E. Field, Jacob Lange, Richard O’Shaughnessy, and Rory Smith, “Analysis of GWTC-3 with fully precessing nu- merical relativity surrogate models,” Phys. Rev. D112, 044001 (2025), arXiv:2309.14473 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  22. [23]

    A recoiling supermassive black hole in the quasar SDSSJ092712.65+294344.0?

    S. Komossa, H. Zhou, and H. Lu, “A recoiling supermassive black hole in the quasar SDSSJ092712.65+294344.0?” Astro- phys. J. Lett.678, L81–L84 (2008), arXiv:0804.4585 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  23. [24]

    A recoiling supermassive black hole in a powerful quasar,

    Marco Chiabergeet al., “A recoiling supermassive black hole in a powerful quasar,” (2025), arXiv:2501.18730 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [25]

    Com- ment on the Black Hole Recoil Candidate Quasar SDSS J092712.65+294344.0,

    G. A. Shields, E. W. Bonning, and S. Salviander, “Com- ment on the Black Hole Recoil Candidate Quasar SDSS J092712.65+294344.0,” Astrophys. J.696, 1367–1373 (2009), arXiv:0810.2563 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  25. [26]

    New insights on the recoiling/binary black hole candidate J0927+2943 via molecular gas observations,

    R. Decarli, M. Dotti, C. Mazzucchelli, C. Montuori, and M. V olonteri, “New insights on the recoiling/binary black hole candidate J0927+2943 via molecular gas observations,” jour- nal=Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,445, 1558–1566 (2014), arXiv:1409.1585 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  26. [27]

    The Quasar SDSS J105041.35+345631.3: Black Hole Recoil or Extreme Double- Peaked Emitter?

    G. A. Shields, D. J. Rosario, K. L. Smith, E. W. Bonning, S. Salviander, J. S. Kalirai, R. Strickler, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, A. A. Dutton, T. Treu, and P. J. Marshall, “The Quasar SDSS J105041.35+345631.3: Black Hole Recoil or Extreme Double- Peaked Emitter?” Astrophysical Journal707, 936–941 (2009), arXiv:0907.3470 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  27. [28]

    Constraints on the nature of CID-42: recoil kick or supermassive black hole pair?

    Laura Blecha, Francesca Civano, Martin Elvis, and Abraham Loeb, “Constraints on the nature of CID-42: recoil kick or supermassive black hole pair?” journal=Monthly Notices 6 of the Royal Astronomical Society,428, 1341–1350 (2013), arXiv:1205.6202 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  28. [29]

    Recoiling Black Hole Candidates from Spatially Offset Broad Emission Lines in MaNGA,

    R. Scott Barrows, Julia M. Comerford, James Negus, and Fran- cisco Muller-Sanchez, “Recoiling Black Hole Candidates from Spatially Offset Broad Emission Lines in MaNGA,” Astrophysi- cal Journal992, 38 (2025), arXiv:2512.00174 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2025

  29. [30]

    The puzzling case of the radio-loud QSO 3C 186: a gravitational wave recoiling black hole in a young radio source?

    M. Chiaberge, J. C. Ely, E. T. Meyer, M. Georganopoulos, A. Marinucci, S. Bianchi, G. R. Tremblay, B. Hilbert, J. P. Kotyla, A. Capetti, S. A. Baum, F. D. Macchetto, G. Miley, C. P. O’Dea, E. S. Perlman, W. B. Sparks, and C. Norman, “The puzzling case of the radio-loud QSO 3C 186: a gravitational wave recoiling black hole in a young radio source?” Astrono...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  30. [31]

    Accurate models for recoil velocity distribution in black hole mergers with comparable to ex- treme mass-ratios and their astrophysical implications,

    Tousif Islam and Digvijay Wadekar, “Accurate models for recoil velocity distribution in black hole mergers with comparable to ex- treme mass-ratios and their astrophysical implications,” (2025), arXiv:2511.11536 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [32]

    Modeling gravitational recoil from precessing highly-spinning unequal-mass black-hole binaries,

    Carlos O. Lousto and Yosef Zlochower, “Modeling gravitational recoil from precessing highly-spinning unequal-mass black-hole binaries,” Phys. Rev. D79, 064018 (2009), arXiv:0805.0159 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  32. [33]

    Modeling maximum astrophysical gravitational recoil velocities,

    Carlos O. Lousto and Yosef Zlochower, “Modeling maximum astrophysical gravitational recoil velocities,” Phys. Rev. D83, 024003 (2011), arXiv:1011.0593 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  33. [34]

    Nonlinear Gravitational Recoil from the Mergers of Precessing Black-Hole Binaries,

    Carlos O. Lousto and Yosef Zlochower, “Nonlinear Gravitational Recoil from the Mergers of Precessing Black-Hole Binaries,” Phys. Rev. D87, 084027 (2013), arXiv:1211.7099 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  34. [35]

    Gravitational Recoil From Accretion-Aligned Black-Hole Binaries,

    Carlos O. Lousto, Yosef Zlochower, Massimo Dotti, and Marta V olonteri, “Gravitational Recoil From Accretion-Aligned Black-Hole Binaries,” Phys. Rev. D85, 084015 (2012), arXiv:1201.1923 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  35. [36]

    Surrogate models for precessing binary black hole simulations with unequal masses,

    Vijay Varma, Scott E. Field, Mark A. Scheel, Jonathan Black- man, Davide Gerosa, Leo C. Stein, Lawrence E. Kidder, and Harald P. Pfeiffer, “Surrogate models for precessing binary black hole simulations with unequal masses,” Phys. Rev. Research.1, 033015 (2019), arXiv:1905.09300 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  36. [37]

    Towards models of gravitational waveforms from generic binaries II: Modelling precession effects with a single effective precession parameter,

    Patricia Schmidt, Frank Ohme, and Mark Hannam, “Towards models of gravitational waveforms from generic binaries II: Modelling precession effects with a single effective precession parameter,” Phys. Rev. D91, 024043 (2015), arXiv:1408.1810 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  37. [38]

    Predicting the Direction of the Final Spin from the Coalescence of Two Black Holes,

    Enrico Barausse and Luciano Rezzolla, “Predicting the Direction of the Final Spin from the Coalescence of Two Black Holes,” Astrophys. J. Lett.704, L40–L44 (2009), arXiv:0904.2577 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  38. [39]

    On the mass radiated by coalescing black-hole binaries,

    Enrico Barausse, Viktoriya Morozova, and Luciano Rezzolla, “On the mass radiated by coalescing black-hole binaries,” Astro- phys. J.758, 63 (2012), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 786, 76 (2014)], arXiv:1206.3803 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  39. [40]

    The Black Hole-Bulge Mass Relation Including Dwarf Galaxies Hosting Active Galactic Nuclei,

    Zachary Schutte, Amy E. Reines, and Jenny E. Greene, “The Black Hole-Bulge Mass Relation Including Dwarf Galaxies Hosting Active Galactic Nuclei,” Astrophysical Journal887, 245 (2019), arXiv:1908.00020 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [41]

    Mergers of galaxies,

    Sugata Kaviraj, “Mergers of galaxies,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.09136 (2025), arXiv:2506.09136 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [42]

    Tearing up the disc: misaligned accretion on to a binary,

    Chris Nixon, Andrew King, and Daniel Price, “Tearing up the disc: misaligned accretion on to a binary,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.434, 1946 (2013), arXiv:1307.0010 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1946

  42. [43]

    Growing supermassive black holes by chaotic accretion,

    A. R. King and J. E. Pringle, “Growing supermassive black holes by chaotic accretion,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society373, L90–L92 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0609598 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  43. [44]

    Why are active galactic nuclei and host galaxies misaligned?

    Philip F. Hopkins, Lars Hernquist, Christopher C. Hayward, and Desika Narayanan, “Why are active galactic nuclei and host galaxies misaligned?” Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society425, 1121–1128 (2012), arXiv:1111.1236 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  44. [45]

    Black hole mergers: can gas discs solve the ‘final parsec’ problem?

    G. Lodato, S. Nayakshin, A. R. King, and J. E. Pringle, “Black hole mergers: can gas discs solve the ‘final parsec’ problem?” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society398, 1392– 1402 (2009), arXiv:0906.0737 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  45. [46]

    Kerr Metric Black Holes,

    James M. Bardeen, “Kerr Metric Black Holes,” Nature226, 64–65 (1970)

    1970

  46. [47]

    Black hole mass and spin coevolution by mergers,

    Scott A. Hughes and Roger D. Blandford, “Black hole mass and spin coevolution by mergers,” Astrophys. J. Lett.585, L101– L104 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0208484

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  47. [48]

    Cosmological black hole spin evolution by mergers and accretion,

    Emanuele Berti and Marta V olonteri, “Cosmological black hole spin evolution by mergers and accretion,” Astrophys. J.684, 822–828 (2008), arXiv:0802.0025 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  48. [49]

    The imprint of massive black hole formation models on the LISA data stream,

    Alberto Sesana, Marta V olonteri, and Francesco Haardt, “The imprint of massive black hole formation models on the LISA data stream,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.377, 1711–1716 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701556

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  49. [50]

    Supermassive Black Hole Growth in Hi- erarchically Merging Nuclear Star Clusters,

    Konstantinos Kritos, Ricarda S. Beckmann, Joseph Silk, Emanuele Berti, Sophia Yi, Marta V olonteri, Yohan Dubois, and Julien Devriendt, “Supermassive Black Hole Growth in Hi- erarchically Merging Nuclear Star Clusters,” Astrophys. J.991, 58 (2025), arXiv:2412.15334 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [51]

    Minimum gas mass accreted by spinning intermediate- mass black holes in stellar clusters,

    Konstantinos Kritos, Luca Reali, Davide Gerosa, and Emanuele Berti, “Minimum gas mass accreted by spinning intermediate- mass black holes in stellar clusters,” Phys. Rev. D110, 123017 (2024), arXiv:2409.15439 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [52]

    Modeling the Black hole Merger of QSO 3C 186,

    Carlos O. Lousto, Yosef Zlochower, and Manuela Campanelli, “Modeling the Black hole Merger of QSO 3C 186,” Astrophys. J. Lett.841, L28 (2017), arXiv:1704.00809 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  52. [53]

    Modeling the remnant mass, spin, and recoil from unequal-mass, precessing black-hole binaries: The Intermediate Mass Ratio Regime,

    Yosef Zlochower and Carlos O. Lousto, “Modeling the remnant mass, spin, and recoil from unequal-mass, precessing black-hole binaries: The Intermediate Mass Ratio Regime,” Phys. Rev. D 92, 024022 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 94, 029901 (2016)], arXiv:1503.07536 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  53. [54]

    Evolution of a Binary Black Hole with a Retrograde Circumbinary Accretion Disk,

    Jeremy D. Schnittman and Julian H. Krolik, “Evolution of a Binary Black Hole with a Retrograde Circumbinary Accretion Disk,” Astrophys. J.806, 88 (2015), arXiv:1504.00311 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  54. [55]

    Spin alignment and differential accretion in merging black hole binaries,

    Davide Gerosa, Benedetta Veronesi, Giuseppe Lodato, and Giovanni Rosotti, “Spin alignment and differential accretion in merging black hole binaries,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.451, 3941–3954 (2015), arXiv:1503.06807 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  55. [56]

    Alignment of super- massive black hole binary orbits and spins,

    M. Coleman Miller and Julian H. Krolik, “Alignment of super- massive black hole binary orbits and spins,” Astrophys. J.774, 43 (2013), arXiv:1307.6569 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  56. [57]

    Recoiling Black Holes in Merging Galaxies: Relation- ship to AGN Lifetimes, Starbursts, and the M-sigma Relation,

    Laura Blecha, Thomas J. Cox, Abraham Loeb, and Lars Hern- quist, “Recoiling Black Holes in Merging Galaxies: Relation- ship to AGN Lifetimes, Starbursts, and the M-sigma Relation,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.412, 2154 (2011), arXiv:1009.4940 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  57. [58]

    Accretion, Jets, and Recoil in Merging Supermassive Binary Black Holes,

    Maria Chiara de Simone, Manuela Campanelli, Lorenzo Ennoggi, Carlos O. Lousto, and Yosef Zlochower, “Accretion, Jets, and Recoil in Merging Supermassive Binary Black Holes,” (2025), arXiv:2510.05883 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2025

  58. [59]

    Discovery of a circularly symmetric extended diffuse radio emission around an ellip- tical galaxy with the VLA FIRST survey,

    Shobha Kumari and Sabyasachi Pal, “Discovery of a circularly symmetric extended diffuse radio emission around an ellip- tical galaxy with the VLA FIRST survey,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society527, 11233–11239 (2024), arXiv:2401.01278 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [60]

    VLA ob- servations of the multiple jet galaxy 3C 75

    F. N. Owen, C. P. O’Dea, M. Inoue, and J. A. Eilek, “VLA ob- servations of the multiple jet galaxy 3C 75.” The Astrophysical Journal Letters294, L85–L88 (1985). 7

    1985

  60. [61]

    A multi-frequency study of the radio galaxy ngc326,

    M. Murgia, P. Parma, R. Fanti, H. R. de Ruiter, R. D. Ekers, and E. B. Fomalont, “A multi-frequency study of the radio galaxy ngc326,” ASP Conf. Ser.250, 380 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0012127

    arXiv 2001

  61. [62]

    Astrophysics with the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna,

    Pau Amaro Seoaneet al.(LISA), “Astrophysics with the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna,” Living Rev. Rel.26, 2 (2023), arXiv:2203.06016 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [63]

    The low frequency of dual AGNs versus the high merger rate of galaxies: A phenomenological model,

    Qingjuan Yu, Youjun Lu, Roya Mohayaee, and Jacques Colin, “The low frequency of dual AGNs versus the high merger rate of galaxies: A phenomenological model,” Astrophys. J.738, 92 (2011), arXiv:1105.1963 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  63. [64]

    Mergers and Bulge Formation in Lambda-CDM: Which Mergers Matter?

    Philip F. Hopkins, Kevin Bundy, Darren Croton, Lars Hernquist, Dusan Keres, Sadegh Khochfar, Kyle Stewart, Andrew Wet- zel, and Joshua D. Younger, “Mergers and Bulge Formation in Lambda-CDM: Which Mergers Matter?” Astrophys. J.715, 202–229 (2010), arXiv:0906.5357 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  64. [65]

    Galaxy Mergers and Dark Matter Halo Merg- ers in LCDM: Mass, Redshift, and Mass-Ratio Dependence,

    Kyle R. Stewart, James S. Bullock, Elizabeth J. Barton, and Risa H. Wechsler, “Galaxy Mergers and Dark Matter Halo Merg- ers in LCDM: Mass, Redshift, and Mass-Ratio Dependence,” Astrophys. J.702, 1005–1015 (2009), arXiv:0811.1218 [astro- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  65. [66]

    Multi-timescale analysis of phase transitions in precessing black-hole binaries,

    Davide Gerosa, Michael Kesden, Ulrich Sperhake, Emanuele Berti, and Richard O’Shaughnessy, “Multi-timescale analysis of phase transitions in precessing black-hole binaries,” Phys. Rev. D92, 064016 (2015), arXiv:1506.03492 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  66. [67]

    Where to Search for Supermassive Binary Black Holes,

    Paola Marziani, Edi Bon, Natasa Bon, and Mauro D’Onofrio, “Where to Search for Supermassive Binary Black Holes,” Uni- verse11, 76 (2025), arXiv:2502.12664 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  67. [68]

    The Host Galaxy of the Recoiling Black Hole Candidate in 3C 186: An Old Major Merger Remnant at the Center of a z=1 Cluster,

    T. Morishita, M. Chiaberge, B. Hilbert, E. Lambrides, L. Blecha, S. Baum, S. Bianchi, A. Capetti, G. Castignani, F. D. Macchetto, G. K. Miley, C. P. O’Dea, and C. A. Norman, “The Host Galaxy of the Recoiling Black Hole Candidate in 3C 186: An Old Major Merger Remnant at the Center of a z=1 Cluster,” Astrophysical Journal931, 165 (2022), arXiv:2204.12499 [...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  68. [69]

    Astrophysical and relativistic modeling of the recoil- ing black hole candidate in quasar 3C 186,

    Matteo Boschini, Davide Gerosa, Om Sharan Salafia, and Mas- simo Dotti, “Astrophysical and relativistic modeling of the recoil- ing black hole candidate in quasar 3C 186,” Astron. Astrophys. 686, A245 (2024), arXiv:2402.08740 [astro-ph.GA]. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Choice of the reference frame:For the spin magnitudes |χ1,2| and angles (θ1,θ 2,ϕ 1,ϕ 2), we u...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  69. [70]

    8 |χ 1| 0.80+0.18 − 0.37 0.79+0.19 − 0.33 2 4 6 8 q

  70. [72]

    2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1. 0 |χ SMBH| 0.70+0.20 − 0.35 0.71+0.18 − 0.34 RBH-1 3C 186 Prior Figure 5. We show the progenitor SMBH mass ratio q, the dimen- sionless spin magnitude of the larger progenitor SMBH|χ1| and the resulting remnant SMBH dimensionless spin magnitudeχSMBH that are consistent with the inferred runaway speeds of 954+110 −126 km s−1 and 1310+21...

  71. [73]

    8 |χ 1| 0.73+0.24 − 0.47 0.80+0.18 − 0.36 0.80+0.18 − 0.25 0.81+0.17 − 0.20 2 4 6 8 q

  72. [74]

    2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 |χ 1|

  73. [75]

    2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 |χ 2| 0.49+0.44 − 0.44 0.52+0.41 − 0.47 0.58+0.37 − 0.52 0.74+0.24 − 0.65 vSMBH = 500 km/s vSMBH = 1000 km/s vSMBH = 1500 km/s vSMBH = 2000 km/s Prior 0.8 1.6 2.4 θ2 [rad] 0.8 1.6 2.4 θ1 [rad] 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 χp 0.8 1.6 2.4 θ2 [rad] 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 χp vSMBH = 500 km/s vSMBH = 1000 km/s vSMBH = 1500 km/s vSMBH = 2000 km/s Prior Figure 6.To...

    2000

  74. [76]

    8 |χ 1| 0.80+0.18 − 0.37 0.80+0.18 − 0.37 0.80+0.18 − 0.37 2 4 6 8 q 850 900 950 1000 1050 vSMBH

  75. [77]

    2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 |χ 1| 850 900 950 1000 1050 vSMBH 925.57+121.89 − 88.91 945.99+106.20 − 106.19 945.28+101.07 − 101.82 Original Uniform v k Skewed Gaussian v k Prior Figure 8. We show the progenitor SMBH mass ratio q, the dimen- sionless spin magnitude of the larger progenitor SMBH|χ1|, and the resulting runaway speed vSMBH consistent with the inferred sp...