pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.09773 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Repopulating the pair-instability mass gap without sustained growth to massive IMBHs: the case of 47\,Tuc

Debatri Chattopadhyay , Daniel Mar\'in Pina , Mark Gieles , Fabio Antonini , Fotios Fronimos Pouliasis
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords black holesglobular clusters47 Tucanaepair-instability gapintermediate-mass black holeshierarchical mergersgravitational wave recoil
0
0 comments X

The pith

Simulations of 47 Tucanae show that repeated black hole mergers rarely produce anything heavier than 70 solar masses and favor a subsystem of dark remnants over a single massive intermediate-mass black hole.

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

The paper models how the heaviest black hole in the globular cluster 47 Tucanae forms and stays bound by running 80,000 semi-analytical simulations of cluster evolution that include binary black hole interactions and merger outcomes. In the baseline case the heaviest retained black hole reaches only 45 to 70 solar masses with a spin near 0.65, because second-generation mergers acquire high spins that produce strong gravitational-wave recoil kicks and ejection. When the initial mass function is extended to include some primordial black holes already above the pair-instability gap, the retained-mass distribution becomes bimodal: most seeds are ejected, but in about 10 percent of cases a seed above 450 solar masses survives, producing a trimodal mass-spin distribution whose 90th-percentile masses reach 500 to 1100 solar masses. Both scenarios remain consistent with the current 3-sigma upper limit of 578 solar masses on the cluster's central mass.

Core claim

Hierarchical mergers alone produce a most massive retained black hole of 45-70 solar masses with spin around 0.65 after only one to three mergers, since remnants from the second generation acquire spins near 0.7 that amplify recoil kicks; including primordial seeds of 130-700 solar masses yields a bimodal retained-mass distribution in which roughly 90 percent of seeds are ejected while 10 percent survive above 450 solar masses, together with a trimodal joint mass-spin distribution in which seed-stellar mergers keep low spin and seed-seed mergers produce high-mass high-spin objects, all still below the 578 solar mass observational limit and favoring a dark-remnant subsystem over a single very

What carries the argument

The cBHBd semi-analytical code that couples cluster evolution with binary black hole dynamics, together with numerical-relativity surrogate prescriptions that compute merger-remnant masses, spins, and gravitational-wave recoil kicks.

If this is right

  • The most massive black hole in 47 Tucanae should show a mass-spin combination that distinguishes merger-built remnants from surviving primordial seeds.
  • Gravitational-wave detectors including LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA, the Einstein Telescope, Cosmic Explorer, and LISA can test the predicted spin-mass diagnostic through future detections.
  • The pair-instability mass gap can be repopulated in globular clusters by retained primordial seeds without sustained growth into very massive single objects.
  • Only a small minority of evolutionary histories allow heavy seeds to remain bound to the cluster.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the models are correct, many globular clusters may host populations of intermediate-mass black holes as collections of remnants rather than single central objects.
  • The mass-spin diagnostic could be applied to other dense stellar systems to identify formation channels without needing to resolve individual objects.
  • Extending the same simulation framework to clusters with different masses and densities would predict which ones are most likely to retain heavy black holes.

Load-bearing premise

The semi-analytical code and numerical-relativity prescriptions accurately represent the full N-body dynamics and black-hole retention physics across the explored range of initial conditions.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the mass and spin of the most massive black hole in 47 Tucanae that lies outside the predicted 45-70 solar mass range with spin near 0.65 or the bimodal-trimodal distribution from primordial seeds would falsify the models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09773 by Daniel Mar\'in Pina, Debatri Chattopadhyay, Fabio Antonini, Fotios Fronimos Pouliasis, Mark Gieles.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Mass of the most massive BH retained (MIMBH) and ejected (MIMBH,ej) from the cluster, for each of our 47 Tuc-analogue models. The points and the widths of the errorbars represent the median, 10th and 90th percentiles over 1000 runs. In gray, the limit imposed by Della Croce et al. (2024) of MIMBH < 578 M⊙. 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 log [MIMBH/(1 M )] 10−2 10−1 100 101 102 PDF MIMBH MIMBH,ej (S) MIMBH (S) MIMBH,e… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Probability distribution function of the mass of the most mas￾sive BH remaining in the cluster (MIMBH, in blue) and the most massive ejected BH (MIMBH,ej, in green) for 47 Tuc analogue models. Solid lines show the baseline (non-seeded) models; dashed lines show the seeded (S) models. For the baseline analogues, all retained masses lie well be￾low the 3σ upper limit of MIMBH < 578 M⊙ from Della Croce et al.… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scatter plot of the mass (MIMBH) versus spin (χIMBH) of the most massive BH retained in the cluster at the end of the simulation, for each model in our simulation. The points represent the median over 1000 runs. The models are separated by metallicities (marker colour) and IMF (marker shape). On the top and right, the probability distribution functions of MIMBH and χIMBH across all runs. 0 1 2 3 log vkick/… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Probability distribution function of the gravitational-wave recoil kick velocity after a BBH merger (vkick) in our 47 Tuc analogue simula￾tions, separated by the merger generation of the remnant BH (nthG). 3.2. IMBH mass in non-seeded models Having identified the 47 Tuc-analogue models, we now examine the masses and spins of the most massive BHs they produce. For each realisation, we record (i) the mass of… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We model the formation and retention of the most massive black hole (BH) in 47~Tuc using the semi-analytical code \texttt{cBHBd}, coupling cluster evolution with binary BH dynamics and computing merger-remnant masses, spins, and gravitational-wave recoil kicks via numerical-relativity surrogate prescriptions. We evolve 80\,000 cluster realisations spanning initial masses, densities, IMFs, and metallicities, in both a baseline scenario ($m_{\rm max} = 130\,\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$) and an extended-IMF scenario with ${\sim}\,50-110$ primordial BH seeds above the pair-instability gap ($M_{\rm BH} \sim 130-700\,\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$). Selecting models reproducing 47~Tuc's present-day mass and half-mass radius, we find hierarchical mergers alone yield a most massive retained BH of $M_{\rm BH} \sim 45-70\,\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$ with spin $\chi_{\rm BH} \sim 0.65$, limited to ${\sim}\,1-3$ mergers, as second-generation remnants acquire spin $\chi \sim 0.7$ that amplifies recoil kicks in subsequent generations. When primordial seeds are included, the retained-mass distribution becomes bimodal -- in ${\sim}\,90\%$ of realisations all seeds are ejected, but in ${\sim}\,10\%$ a massive seed ($M_{\rm BH} \gtrsim 450\,\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$) survives -- while the joint mass-spin distribution is trimodal; seeds surviving via stellar-mass BH mergers retain low spin ($\chi \lesssim 0.3$), whereas seed-seed mergers produce high-mass, high-spin remnants ($\chi \sim 0.65-0.7$), yielding 90th-percentile retained masses of ${\sim}\,500-1100\,\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$. Both scenarios are consistent with the $3\sigma$ dynamical upper limit of $578\,\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$. Our results favour a dark-remnant subsystem over a single massive IMBH and provide a spin-mass diagnostic testable with LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA, the Einstein Telescope, Cosmic Explorer, and LISA.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript models the most massive black hole in the globular cluster 47 Tuc using the semi-analytical code cBHBd, which couples cluster evolution with binary black hole dynamics and incorporates numerical-relativity surrogate models for merger remnants, spins, and recoil kicks. Through 80,000 realizations spanning a range of initial cluster masses, densities, initial mass functions, and metallicities, the authors compare a baseline scenario limited to stellar-mass black holes (m_max = 130 M_⊙) with an extended-IMF scenario including 50-110 primordial black hole seeds in the 130-700 M_⊙ range. After selecting realizations that match the observed present-day mass and half-mass radius of 47 Tuc, they find that hierarchical mergers in the baseline case produce a most massive retained black hole of 45-70 M_⊙ with spin ~0.65, limited by spin-induced recoil kicks. In the extended-IMF case, the retained mass distribution is bimodal, with ~90% of realizations ejecting all seeds and ~10% retaining a massive seed (M_BH ≳ 450 M_⊙), resulting in a trimodal mass-spin distribution. Both scenarios are consistent with the 3σ upper limit of 578 M_⊙, leading the authors to favor a dark-remnant subsystem over a single massive intermediate-mass black hole and to propose a spin-mass diagnostic testable with current and future gravitational-wave observatories.

Significance. If robust, these findings offer a mechanism to repopulate the pair-instability mass gap through primordial seeds without sustained growth to a single massive IMBH, while remaining consistent with dynamical constraints on 47 Tuc. The strength of the work lies in the large-scale parameter study involving 80,000 cluster realizations and the derivation of observable predictions for the joint mass-spin distribution of retained black holes, which can be tested with LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA, the Einstein Telescope, Cosmic Explorer, and LISA. The integration of NR-surrogate prescriptions for merger outcomes enhances the physical realism of the binary evolution component.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] The bimodal retained-mass distribution reported for the extended-IMF scenario, with approximately 90% of realizations ejecting all seeds and 10% retaining M_BH ≳ 450 M_⊙, is derived from cBHBd's treatment of recoil kicks and retention probabilities. Given that this distribution underpins the conclusion favoring a dark-remnant subsystem, the manuscript should include validation of cBHBd against full N-body simulations for the ejection/retention of massive seeds in the 130-700 M_⊙ range, as semi-analytical approximations for encounter-driven dynamics may introduce systematic biases in the survival fraction and the 90th-percentile retained masses of 500-1100 M_⊙.
  2. [Results] The post-selection procedure on models that reproduce 47 Tuc's present-day mass and half-mass radius could influence the reported retained-mass and spin distributions. To ensure the bimodality and trimodality are not artifacts of this selection, the authors should present the distributions prior to selection or perform a sensitivity analysis showing that the key statistics (e.g., the 10% survival fraction) remain stable under variations in the selection criteria.
minor comments (3)
  1. Clarify in the methods how the ~50-110 primordial BH seeds are sampled from the extended IMF, including the specific mass range and number density assumptions.
  2. The abstract states that second-generation remnants acquire spin χ ~ 0.7; provide the exact distribution or average value used from the NR surrogates in the relevant section.
  3. Ensure that all figures showing mass-spin distributions include error bars or confidence intervals reflecting the finite number of realizations contributing to each bin.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive major comments. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate improvements where feasible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] The bimodal retained-mass distribution reported for the extended-IMF scenario, with approximately 90% of realizations ejecting all seeds and 10% retaining M_BH ≳ 450 M_⊙, is derived from cBHBd's treatment of recoil kicks and retention probabilities. Given that this distribution underpins the conclusion favoring a dark-remnant subsystem, the manuscript should include validation of cBHBd against full N-body simulations for the ejection/retention of massive seeds in the 130-700 M_⊙ range, as semi-analytical approximations for encounter-driven dynamics may introduce systematic biases in the survival fraction and the 90th-percentile retained masses of 500-1100 M_⊙.

    Authors: We agree that explicit validation would strengthen confidence in the retention statistics. cBHBd has been benchmarked against N-body results for stellar-mass black hole retention and binary dynamics in earlier works, with the recoil kicks here taken directly from NR surrogate models that are independent of the semi-analytic framework. For the 130-700 M_⊙ seeds the dominant ejection mechanism is the post-merger recoil velocity, whose accuracy is set by numerical relativity rather than the encounter-rate approximation. A complete end-to-end N-body validation across 80 000 realizations is computationally prohibitive. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph in the Methods section that (i) cites the existing N-body benchmarks for cBHBd, (ii) quantifies the expected systematic uncertainty in the semi-analytic encounter rates for massive objects, and (iii) notes that the reported 10 % survival fraction is driven primarily by the NR recoil prescription. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] The post-selection procedure on models that reproduce 47 Tuc's present-day mass and half-mass radius could influence the reported retained-mass and spin distributions. To ensure the bimodality and trimodality are not artifacts of this selection, the authors should present the distributions prior to selection or perform a sensitivity analysis showing that the key statistics (e.g., the 10% survival fraction) remain stable under variations in the selection criteria.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this potential selection effect. In the revised manuscript we will include two new figures (or panels) showing the retained-mass and joint mass-spin distributions for the entire ensemble of 80 000 realizations before any selection on present-day mass or half-mass radius. We will also perform a sensitivity test by repeating the analysis with selection windows widened to 1σ and 2σ around the observed values of 47 Tuc and demonstrate that the bimodal character of the retained-mass distribution and the ~10 % fraction of realizations retaining M_BH ≳ 450 M_⊙ remain stable to within a few percent. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • A full, dedicated N-body validation campaign for the retention of 130-700 M_⊙ seeds across the full 80 000-realization grid is computationally infeasible within the scope of this study.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper evolves 80,000 realizations with the semi-analytical cBHBd code, applying NR-surrogate prescriptions for merger masses, spins, and recoil kicks as external inputs. A post-hoc selection retains only those models whose final total mass and half-mass radius match 47 Tuc observations; the reported bimodal retained-mass distribution, trimodal mass-spin distribution, and 90/10 ejection/survival fractions are direct outputs of the dynamical evolution under those selected initial conditions. No equation reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter by construction, no load-bearing premise rests solely on self-citation, and the central claim (favoring a dark-remnant subsystem) follows from the simulated statistics rather than being tautological with the selection criteria or code internals.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on a semi-analytical cluster evolution code, numerical-relativity surrogate models for merger products and kicks, and a broad scan of initial conditions followed by selection on final cluster properties.

free parameters (1)
  • initial cluster mass, density, IMF, and metallicity
    Varied across 80,000 realizations and then filtered to match present-day mass and half-mass radius
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Numerical-relativity surrogate prescriptions accurately predict merger-remnant masses, spins, and gravitational-wave recoil kicks
    Invoked to compute outcomes of all black-hole mergers
invented entities (1)
  • primordial black hole seeds with masses 130-700 solar masses no independent evidence
    purpose: To repopulate the pair-instability gap in the extended-IMF scenario
    Introduced ad hoc to test survival and merger outcomes; no independent evidence supplied in the abstract

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5752 in / 1473 out tokens · 65688 ms · 2026-05-10T16:32:10.968635+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

68 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Abac, A. G. et al. 2025 [arXiv:2508.18082]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Abbott, B. P. et al. 2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 044001

    2017

  3. [3]

    Abbott, R. et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. Lett., 125, 101102

    2020

  4. [4]

    Abbott, R. et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. X, 13, 011048

    2023

  5. [5]

    Amaro-Seoane, P. et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints [arXiv:1702.00786]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Amaro-Seoane, P. et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2

    2023

  7. [7]

    L., et al

    Antonini, F., Chatterjee, S., Rodriguez, C. L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 65

    2016

  8. [8]

    & Gieles, M

    Antonini, F. & Gieles, M. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 492, 2936

    2020

  9. [9]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 466

    Antonini, F., Gieles, M., Dosopoulou, F., & Chattopadhyay, D. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 466

    2023

  10. [10]

    2019, Mon

    Antonini, F., Gieles, M., & Gualandris, A. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 486, 5008

    2019

  11. [11]

    Gravitational-wave constraints on the pair-instability mass gap and nuclear burning in massive stars

    Antonini, F., Romero-Shaw, I., Callister, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.04637

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Bahcall, J. N. & Wolf, R. A. 1976, ApJ, 209, 214

    1976

  13. [13]

    G., Boggs, W

    Baker, J. G., Boggs, W. D., Centrella, J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 668, 1140

    2007

  14. [14]

    & Lardo, C

    Bastian, N. & Lardo, C. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 83

    2018

  15. [15]

    & Hilker, M

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

    2018

  16. [16]

    & Makino, J

    Baumgardt, H. & Makino, J. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 227

    2003

  17. [17]

    L., et al

    Belczynski, K., Bulik, T., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 1217

    2010

  18. [18]

    L., et al

    Bellini, A., Bianchini, P., Varri, A. L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 167

    2017

  19. [19]

    A., Bedin, L

    Brogaard, K., VandenBerg, D. A., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 645

    2017

  20. [20]

    2007, ApJ, 659, L5

    Campanelli, M., Lousto, C., Zlochower, Y ., & Merritt, D. 2007, ApJ, 659, L5

    2007

  21. [21]

    Chattopadhyay, D., Stegmann, J., Antonini, F., Barber, J., & Romero-Shaw, I. M. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4908

    2023

  22. [22]

    & Kulsrud, R

    Cohn, H. & Kulsrud, R. M. 1978, ApJ, 226, 1087 Della Croce, A., Pascale, R., Giunchi, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A22 Di Carlo, U. N., Mapelli, M., Pasquato, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5132 di Criscienzo, M., Ventura, P., D’Antona, F., Milone, A., & Piotto, G. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 999

    1978

  23. [23]

    Dickson, N., Hénault-Brunet, V ., Baumgardt, H., Gieles, M., & Smith, P. J. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5320

    2023

  24. [24]

    & Silk, J

    Fragione, G. & Silk, J. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 498, 4591

    2020

  25. [25]

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

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

    2012

  26. [26]

    Fuller, J. & Ma, L. 2019, ApJL, 881, L1

    2019

  27. [27]

    & Berti, E

    Gerosa, D. & Berti, E. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 041301

    2019

  28. [28]

    & Fishbach, M

    Gerosa, D. & Fishbach, M. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 749

    2021

  29. [29]

    K., Madgwick, D

    Gibson, B. K., Madgwick, D. S., Jones, L. A., Da Costa, G. S., & Norris, J. E. 1999, AJ, 118, 1268

    1999

  30. [30]

    S., & Ramírez-Galeano, L

    Gieles, M., Padoan, P., Charbonnel, C., Vink, J. S., & Ramírez-Galeano, L. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 483

    2025

  31. [31]

    & Heggie, D

    Giersz, M. & Heggie, D. C. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 2698

    2011

  32. [32]

    Gnedin, O. Y . & Ostriker, J. P. 1997, ApJ, 474, 223 González, J. A., Sperhake, U., Brügmann, B., Hannam, M., & Husa, S. 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett., 98, 091101 Häberle, M., Neumayer, N., Seth, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 631, 285 Article number, page 8 of 10 Debatri Chattopadhyay et al.: Repopulating the pair-instability mass gap: the case of 47 Tuc Table 1.Mode...

    1997

  33. [33]

    Harris, W. E. 2010, arXiv preprint arXiv:1012.3224

    work page arXiv 2010

  34. [34]

    & Woosley, S

    Heger, A. & Woosley, S. E. 2002, ApJ, 567, 532 Hénault-Brunet, V ., Gieles, M., Strader, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 113 Hénon, M. 1972, in Gravitational N-Body Problem, ed. M. Lecar (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 44–59

    2002

  35. [35]

    R., Lyne, A

    Hobbs, G., Lorimer, D. R., Lyne, A. G., & Kramer, M. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 974

    2005

  36. [36]

    2008, ApJ, 686, 829

    Holley-Bockelmann, K., Gültekin, K., Shoemaker, D., & Yunes, N. 2008, ApJ, 686, 829

    2008

  37. [37]

    R., Pols, O

    Hurley, J. R., Pols, O. R., & Tout, C. A. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 543

    2000

  38. [38]

    & Giersz, M

    Hypki, A. & Giersz, M. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1221

    2013

  39. [39]

    E., & Khanna, G

    Islam, T., Field, S. E., & Khanna, G. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 064048 Jordán, A. 2004, ApJ, 613, L117

    2023

  40. [40]

    & McWilliam, A

    Koch, A. & McWilliam, A. 2008, AJ, 135, 1551

    2008

  41. [41]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    2001

  42. [42]

    2022, ApJS, 263, 20

    Lee, J.-W. 2022, ApJS, 263, 20

    2022

  43. [43]

    Lightman, A. P. & Shapiro, S. L. 1977, ApJ, 211, 244

    1977

  44. [44]

    O., Campanelli, M., Zlochower, Y ., & Nakano, H

    Lousto, C. O., Campanelli, M., Zlochower, Y ., & Nakano, H. 2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 114006

    2010

  45. [45]

    Lousto, C. O. & Zlochower, Y . 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 064018

    2009

  46. [46]

    Lousto, C. O. & Zlochower, Y . 2011, Phys. Rev. Lett., 107, 231102

    2011

  47. [47]

    Mackey, A. D. & van den Bergh, S. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 631

    2005

  48. [48]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 3432

    Mapelli, M. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3432

    2016

  49. [49]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 339

    Mapelli, M., Dall’Amico, M., Bouffanais, Y ., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 339

    2021

  50. [50]

    Martinez, M. A. S., González Prieto, E., & Rasio, F. A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.23431 Article number, page 9 of 10 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aanda Table 2.Models with IMBH seeds (S) ModelM cl,i ρh,i ZIMFv esc,h,i Mcl,f rh,f MIMBH MIMBH,ej nthGχ IMBH name (M ⊙) (M ⊙ pc−3) (km/s) (M ⊙) (pc) (M ⊙) (M ⊙) M01KZ1S 2×10 6 1×10 3 0.003 K 63 1.15×10 6 17....

    work page arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    J., & Sills, A

    Miholics, M., Webb, J. J., & Sills, A. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2872 O’Leary, R. M., Rasio, F. A., Fregeau, J. M., Ivanova, N., & O’Shaughnessy, R. 2006, ApJ, 637, 937

    2014

  52. [52]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 82

    Padoan, P., Pan, L., Juvela, M., Haugbølle, T., & Nordlund, Å. 2020, ApJ, 900, 82

    2020

  53. [53]

    Paduano, A. et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 54

    2024

  54. [54]

    & Molaro, P

    Pasquini, L. & Molaro, P. 1997, A&A, 322, 109 Portegies Zwart, S. F., Baumgardt, H., Hut, P., Makino, J., & McMillan, S. L. W. 2004, Nature, 428, 724 Portegies Zwart, S. F. & McMillan, S. L. W. 2002, ApJ, 576, 899

    1997

  55. [55]

    Punturo, M. et al. 2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 194002

    2010

  56. [56]

    Quinlan, G. D. & Shapiro, S. L. 1987, ApJ, 321, 199

    1987

  57. [57]

    2026, A&A, 707, A217

    Rastello, S., Iorio, G., Gieles, M., & Wang, L. 2026, A&A, 707, A217

    2026

  58. [58]

    D., Glebbeek, E., & Sills, A

    Schulman, R. D., Glebbeek, E., & Sills, A. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 651

    2012

  59. [59]

    Shapiro, S. L. & Teukolsky, S. A. 1985, ApJ, 292, L41

    1985

  60. [60]

    C., Hurley, J

    Sippel, A. C., Hurley, J. R., Madrid, J. P., & Harris, W. E. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 167

    2012

  61. [61]

    & Mapelli, M

    Spera, M. & Mapelli, M. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4739

    2017

  62. [62]

    E., Scheel, M

    Varma, V ., Field, S. E., Scheel, M. A., et al. 2019, Physical Review Research, 1, 033015

    2019

  63. [63]

    2014, MNRAS, 437, 3274

    Ventura, P., di Criscienzo, M., D’Antona, F., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 3274

    2014

  64. [64]

    C., Askar, A., Kamlah, A

    Vergara, M. C., Askar, A., Kamlah, A. W. H., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A321

    2025

  65. [65]

    C., Escala, A., Schleicher, D

    Vergara, M. C., Escala, A., Schleicher, D. R. G., & Reinoso, B. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4224

    2023

  66. [66]

    S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H

    Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2001, A&A, 369, 574 V olonteri, M. 2010, A&A Rev., 18, 279

    2001

  67. [67]

    Woosley, S. E. 2017, ApJ, 836, 244

    2017

  68. [68]

    S., Kremer, K., Rodriguez, C

    Ye, C. S., Kremer, K., Rodriguez, C. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 84 Article number, page 10 of 10

    2022