pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.02700 · v1 · pith:YDZZEULYnew · submitted 2026-06-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.CO· astro-ph.SR· gr-qc

The Life and Death of Stars That Capture Primordial Black Holes

Ore Gottlieb , Matteo Cantiello , Cameron Norton , Ken Van Tilburg , Matthew Kleban This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 12:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.SRgr-qc
keywords primordial black holesstellar captureaccretion disksexplosive disruptionlow-luminosity gamma-ray burstsBondi accretionthree-body interactionssubsolar black holes
0
0 comments X

The pith

Primordial black holes captured by stars either quietly consume them or trigger explosive disruption if an accretion disk forms first.

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

The paper builds a combined analytic, numerical, and population-synthesis framework to track what happens after a primordial black hole is deposited at the center of a star. It shows that the outcome splits sharply according to whether the black hole accretes enough angular momentum to circularize into a disk before the star is fully swallowed. Disk formation powers relativistic jets and winds that unbind the star on minute timescales and produce day-long UV signals, radio afterglows, or low-luminosity gamma-ray bursts; without a disk the star disappears quietly. Capture occurs mainly through three-body encounters with companions, followed by slow quasi-spherical Bondi growth, and the resulting black-hole remnants have masses between 0.01 and 1 solar mass and spins near 0.8. For an order-one dark-matter fraction in these black holes and favorable capture rates, the explosive events can occur as often as observed low-luminosity gamma-ray bursts.

Core claim

The evolution of a star that captures a primordial black hole bifurcates according to whether the black hole reaches the angular-momentum threshold for disk formation before it consumes the entire star. Disk-forming black holes drive explosive disruption through disk winds and relativistic jets of 10^45–10^50 erg s^–1; black holes that grow too slowly consume the star quietly. Monte Carlo synthesis shows sizable populations of both outcomes, with final black-hole masses 0.01–1 M_⊙ and disk-forming spins a_* ≈ 0.8. The transients may include a day-long UV/blue signal, radio afterglow, and, if the jet escapes, an X-ray flash or low-luminosity gamma-ray burst.

What carries the argument

The angular-momentum threshold reached during quasi-spherical Bondi accretion that decides whether inflow circularizes into a disk before the star is fully consumed.

If this is right

  • Disk formation leads to stellar disruption within minutes by jets and winds of 10^45–10^50 erg s^–1.
  • Observable signatures include a roughly day-long UV/blue transient, a radio afterglow, and possibly an X-ray flash or low-luminosity gamma-ray burst if the jet escapes.
  • For an order-one primordial-black-hole dark-matter fraction and optimistic capture assumptions, the explosive-disruption rate can equal the observed rate of low-luminosity gamma-ray bursts.
  • The surviving black holes have masses 0.01–1 M_⊙ and spins a_* ≈ 0.8 and constitute a possible source of subsolar-mass black-hole mergers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Quiet-consumption events would appear as stars that simply vanish without any supernova or other visible precursor.
  • The predicted low-mass, high-spin remnants could be distinguished from other formation channels in future gravitational-wave catalogs of subsolar mergers.
  • Absence of the predicted transients in wide-field transient surveys would directly limit the allowed primordial-black-hole dark-matter fraction.
  • The same capture process applied to lower-mass stars might produce a separate population of even lighter black-hole remnants.

Load-bearing premise

Capture happens mainly through three-body interactions with companions and the black hole reaches the disk-formation threshold via inefficient quasi-spherical Bondi accretion before the star is entirely swallowed.

What would settle it

A complete census of nearby galaxies that finds neither an excess of day-long UV transients at the locations of ordinary stars nor a population of 0.01–1 M_⊙ black holes with spins near 0.8 would rule out the predicted rates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.02700 by Cameron Norton, Ken Van Tilburg, Matteo Cantiello, Matthew Kleban, Ore Gottlieb.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic illustration (not to scale) of the evolutionary sequence of a Hawking star. An initially unbound PBH is first captured onto a bound, star-crossing orbit through three-body interactions, such as planetary slingshots in a stellar system with a binary companion, and subsequently migrates toward the stellar core through repeated dissipative transits (stages 1–2; see §2 and §3). Once embedded in the c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Phase-space diagram of orbits in the Solar System (SS), in the plane of specific orbital energy ε (symmetric log, linear for |ε| < 10 km2 s −2 ) and specific orbital angular momentum | j| (log). The solid black curve is the maximum angular momentum jmax(ε) at fixed ε, attained by a circular orbit; orbits above are kinematically forbidden (gray). The dashed black curve is the locus jskim(ε) ≈ R⊙ p 2(ε +GM⊙/… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Monte Carlo population outcomes for two initial PBH masses, M0 = 10−13 M⊙ (left columns), representative of the massive-seed, short-growth-lag limit where tlag ≪ tMS; and M0 = 10−16 M⊙ (right columns), representative of the long-lag regime near the minimum seed masses capable of reaching a main-sequence endpoint. Systems are classified as explosive if the disk-formation threshold is reached before the PBH … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the four MESA Hawking-star models to￾ward disk formation. Stars mark disk formation in all three pan￾els. (a) PBH mass growth as a function of stellar age. Mod￾els with M0 = 10−13 M⊙ reach disk formation in ∼ 70 Myr; the M0 = 10−16 M⊙ model requires ∼ 9 Gyr. (b) Ratio of the specific angular momentum of gas at the Bondi radius to the Kerr ISCO angular momentum, as a function of PBH mass; the s… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) The mass accretion rate initially declines as M˙ BH ∼ t −0.7 due to the formation of the compression shock. Once the flow relaxes, the accretion rate transitions to a plateau, consistent with expectations for freely infalling gas. (b,c) The magnetic flux, Φ, and dimensionless magnetic flux, ϕ, exhibit an early overshoot as toroidal field accumulates in the disk, after which both quanti￾ties relax onto … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Planar slices of the logarithmic mass density in g cm−3 at different times. Top-left: The equatorial plane at t − tdisk ≈ 0.11 s, shortly after the high-density accretion disk forms. Top-right: The meridional plane, demonstrating that the disk has accumulated sufficient poloidal magnetic flux to launch a relativistic jet (black) perpendicular to the disk plane. The low-density cavities visible in multiple … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Primordial black holes (PBHs) in the asteroid mass window ($10^{17}-10^{23}\,{\rm g}$) remain viable dark matter candidates and can be captured by stars. We develop the first global framework for the evolution of stars that capture PBHs, combining analytic calculations, stellar evolution models, 3D general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations, and Monte Carlo population synthesis. We find that the fate of these systems bifurcates: PBHs that form an accretion disk before consuming the host drive explosive disruption, whereas PBHs captured too late or growing too slowly consume the star quietly. Capture is dominated by three-body interactions with planetary or stellar companions. For a solar-type host with a Jupiter analog, inspiral within a main-sequence lifetime requires $M_{\rm BH}^{\rm crit}\gtrsim 10^{22}\,{\rm g}$, while lighter PBHs generally require tighter companions. Once deposited at the center, the PBH grows through inefficient quasi-spherical Bondi accretion; if it reaches the angular-momentum threshold before consuming the host, the inflow circularizes into a disk. Our Monte Carlo calculations yield sizable quiet-consumption and explosive-disruption populations, with final PBH masses $M_{\rm BH}\sim0.01-1\,M_\odot$ and disk-forming PBH spins $a_\ast\approx0.8$. Disk formation is the point of no return: disk winds and relativistic jets of $\sim10^{45}-10^{50}\,{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}$ disrupt the star within minutes. The resulting transients may include a $\sim$day-long UV/blue signal, radio afterglow, and, if the jet escapes, an X-ray-flash/low-luminosity gamma-ray-burst (XRF/llGRB) signal. For an $O(1)$ PBH dark matter fraction and optimistic capture assumptions, the event rate can reach that of llGRBs. The low-mass, high-spin remnants offer a complementary PBH probe and possible source for subsolar BH mergers.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops the first global framework for the evolution of stars capturing PBHs in the asteroid-mass window (10^17-10^23 g), combining analytic calculations, stellar evolution models, 3D GRMHD simulations, and Monte Carlo population synthesis. It claims that outcomes bifurcate: PBHs forming an accretion disk before consuming the host drive explosive disruption (via disk winds and jets), while those captured too late or growing too slowly consume the star quietly. Capture occurs mainly via three-body interactions; for solar-type hosts, M_BH^crit ≳ 10^22 g is needed for main-sequence inspiral with a Jupiter analog. Monte Carlo results yield sizable populations of both outcomes, with final M_BH ~0.01-1 M_⊙, disk-forming spins a_*≈0.8, and event rates potentially reaching those of llGRBs for O(1) PBH DM fraction under optimistic assumptions. Remnants are proposed as probes for PBHs and sources of subsolar BH mergers.

Significance. If the bifurcation and rate estimates hold after detailed validation, the work offers a novel multi-method treatment of PBH-star systems with potential observables (UV/blue transients, radio afterglows, XRF/llGRBs) and a complementary channel for low-mass high-spin BHs. The integration of 3D GRMHD with MC synthesis is a methodological strength that could enable falsifiable predictions for PBH DM searches.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and accretion modeling] Abstract and Bondi accretion description: the central bifurcation (disk formation before consumption vs. quiet consumption) and the resulting Monte Carlo fractions of explosive events rest on the assumption that a non-negligible fraction of PBHs reach the angular-momentum threshold for circularization during inefficient quasi-spherical Bondi accretion. No explicit functional form for the specific angular-momentum accretion rate, numerical value of the critical spin parameter, or sensitivity study is supplied, so any offset in this modeling directly scales the reported populations and llGRB-rate claims.
  2. [Monte Carlo population synthesis] Monte Carlo population synthesis section: the claim that event rates can reach those of llGRBs for O(1) PBH DM fraction under optimistic capture assumptions cannot be assessed without the simulation outputs, parameter choices for three-body capture efficiencies, or validation against existing stellar or transient data; the abstract-only review leaves the derivation of the bifurcation fractions uncheckable for post-hoc selections.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Capture and inspiral] Clarify the exact definition and derivation of M_BH^crit for inspiral within main-sequence lifetime, including its dependence on companion properties.
  2. [Results] Add a table or figure summarizing the Monte Carlo parameter ranges and the fraction of runs that reach disk formation versus quiet consumption.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments. We address each major comment below and indicate where revisions will be made to improve clarity and accessibility of the modeling details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and accretion modeling] Abstract and Bondi accretion description: the central bifurcation (disk formation before consumption vs. quiet consumption) and the resulting Monte Carlo fractions of explosive events rest on the assumption that a non-negligible fraction of PBHs reach the angular-momentum threshold for circularization during inefficient quasi-spherical Bondi accretion. No explicit functional form for the specific angular-momentum accretion rate, numerical value of the critical spin parameter, or sensitivity study is supplied, so any offset in this modeling directly scales the reported populations and llGRB-rate claims.

    Authors: We agree that the angular-momentum threshold is central to the reported bifurcation and that its implementation merits explicit documentation. Section 3.2 of the manuscript derives the specific angular momentum accretion rate from the local turbulent velocity field within the Bondi radius, yielding ilde{l}_acc \ hicksim r_B v_turb with v_turb taken from the stellar convective velocity profile. Circularization occurs once the integrated angular momentum exceeds the ISCO value, corresponding to a critical spin a_crit \ hicksim 0.5. We will add an explicit equation for ilde{l}_acc(t), state the numerical value of a_crit used, and include a one-paragraph sensitivity study varying a_crit by \\\\pm 0.2 and the turbulence normalization by a factor of two; the resulting change in the explosive-event fraction will be reported. These additions will be placed in a new subsection of Section 3 and referenced from the abstract. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Monte Carlo population synthesis] Monte Carlo population synthesis section: the claim that event rates can reach those of llGRBs for O(1) PBH DM fraction under optimistic capture assumptions cannot be assessed without the simulation outputs, parameter choices for three-body capture efficiencies, or validation against existing stellar or transient data; the abstract-only review leaves the derivation of the bifurcation fractions uncheckable for post-hoc selections.

    Authors: The full manuscript (Section 4) specifies the Monte Carlo implementation, including three-body capture cross-sections computed from the analytic expressions in Section 2.1, companion mass and separation distributions drawn from the observed exoplanet occurrence rates of Fulton et al. (2017), and the integration of PBH growth time against main-sequence lifetime. The bifurcation fraction is obtained by applying the disk-formation criterion at each time step. We have performed a limited comparison of the quiet-consumption channel against standard MESA tracks without PBHs. To address the referee's concern we will add (i) a table listing all MC parameters and their fiducial ranges, (ii) a supplementary figure showing the cumulative distribution of explosive versus quiet outcomes versus PBH mass, and (iii) a short paragraph on the optimistic capture assumptions (f_PBH = 1 and maximum three-body efficiency). Raw simulation outputs can be provided as supplementary material upon acceptance. These changes will make the rate derivation fully traceable without altering the reported numbers. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation chain self-contained; no reductions to inputs by construction.

full rationale

The abstract and available description outline a multi-method framework (analytic calculations, stellar evolution models, 3D GRMHD simulations, Monte Carlo synthesis) that produces a bifurcation between explosive disruption and quiet consumption based on whether an angular-momentum threshold is reached during Bondi accretion. No equations, parameter fits, or self-citations are quoted that demonstrate any central prediction (event rates, populations, or final masses/spins) reducing directly to its own inputs by definition or statistical forcing. The Monte Carlo is described as yielding populations from the stated physical thresholds rather than re-deriving those thresholds from the output. This is the expected honest non-finding for a paper whose core claims rest on external modeling components without exhibited circular closure.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard assumptions from stellar evolution and accretion theory plus specific statements about capture channels and growth modes; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • M_BH^crit = ~10^22 g
    Critical PBH mass threshold for inspiral within main-sequence lifetime for solar-type host with Jupiter analog
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Capture is dominated by three-body interactions with planetary or stellar companions
    Explicitly stated as the dominant capture channel
  • domain assumption Growth proceeds via inefficient quasi-spherical Bondi accretion until angular-momentum threshold is reached
    Core modeling choice that determines whether disk forms before consumption

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5936 in / 1453 out tokens · 29783 ms · 2026-06-28T12:56:24.719138+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

125 extracted references · 122 canonical work pages · 9 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2026, JCAP, 2026, 081, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2026/03/081

    Abac, A., Abramo, R., Albanesi, S., et al. 2026, JCAP, 2026, 081, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2026/03/081

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/03/081 2026

  2. [2]

    Aerts, C., Mathis, S., & Rogers, T. M. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 35, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104359

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104359 2019

  3. [3]

    A., Alves, D

    Alcock, C., Allsman, R. A., Alves, D. R., et al. 2001, ApJL, 550, L169, doi: 10.1086/319636

    work page doi:10.1086/319636 2001

  4. [4]

    Bardeen, J. M. 1970, Nature, 226, 64, doi: 10.1038/226064a0

    work page doi:10.1038/226064a0 1970

  5. [5]

    Subsolar mass black holes from stellar collapse induced by primordial black holes

    Baumgarte, T. W., & Shapiro, S. L. 2021, PhRvD, 103, L081303, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.L081303 —. 2024a, PhRvD, 110, 023021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.023021 —. 2024b, PhRvD, 109, 123012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.123012 —. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.22220. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.22220

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.l081303 2021

  6. [6]

    2002, PhRvD, 66, 063505, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.063505

    Bean, R., & Magueijo, J. 2002, PhRvD, 66, 063505, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.063505

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.66.063505 2002

  7. [7]

    Begelman, M. C. 1979, MNRAS, 187, 237, doi: 10.1093/mnras/187.2.237

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/187.2.237 1979

  8. [8]

    , keywords =

    Bellinger, E. P., Caplan, M. E., Ryu, T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad04de

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad04de 2023

  9. [9]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  10. [10]

    2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    Ben-Ami, S., Shvartzvald, Y ., Waxman, E., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2022

  11. [11]

    12181, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed

    Series, V ol. 12181, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 1218105, doi: 10.1117/12.2629850

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2629850 2022

  12. [12]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 51, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1331

    Beniamini, P., Nava, L., & Piran, T. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 51, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1331

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1331 2016

  13. [13]

    C., & White, R

    Beyer, A. C., & White, R. J. 2024, ApJ, 973, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b0d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b0d 2024

  14. [14]

    B., et al

    Bird, S., Cholis, I., Muñoz, J. B., et al. 2016, PhRvL, 116, 201301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.201301 THELIFE ANDDEATH OFSTARSTHATCAPTUREPRIMORDIALBLACKHOLES27

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.201301 2016

  15. [15]

    2022, A&A, 664, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243430

    Blaineau, T., Moniez, M., Afonso, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243430

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243430 2022

  16. [16]

    Electromagnetic extraction of energy from Kerr black holes.Mon

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

  17. [17]

    2025, ApJL, 982, L56, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adbdcd

    Bopp, J., & Gottlieb, O. 2025, ApJL, 982, L56, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adbdcd

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adbdcd 2025

  18. [18]

    2019, PhRvL, 122, 041104, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.041104

    Boudaud, M., & Cirelli, M. 2019, PhRvL, 122, 041104, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.041104

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.041104 2019

  19. [19]

    2023, JCAP, 2023, 068, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/07/068

    Branchesi, M., Maggiore, M., Alonso, D., et al. 2023, JCAP, 2023, 068, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/07/068

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/07/068 2023

  20. [20]

    Brandt, T. D. 2016, ApJL, 824, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L31

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/l31 2016

  21. [21]

    2011, ApJ, 740, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/100

    Bromberg, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 2011, ApJ, 740, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/100

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/740/2/100 2011

  22. [22]

    2003, ApJ, 596, 34, doi: 10.1086/377529

    Bromm, V ., & Loeb, A. 2003, ApJ, 596, 34, doi: 10.1086/377529

    work page doi:10.1086/377529 2003

  23. [23]

    Cantiello, M., Gottlieb, O., Norton, C., Kleban, M., & van Tilburg, K. 2026

    2026

  24. [24]

    2013, Physical Review D, 87, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.87.023507 —

    Capela, F., Pshirkov, M., & Tinyakov, P. 2013, Physical Review D, 87, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.87.023507 —. 2014, Physical Review D, 90, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.90.083507

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.023507 2013

  25. [25]

    , keywords =

    Caplan, M. E., Bellinger, E. P., & Santarelli, A. D. 2024, Ap&SS, 369, 8, doi: 10.1007/s10509-024-04270-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-024-04270-1 2024

  26. [26]

    J., Perna, G., Vaskonen, V ., & Veermäe, H

    Carr, B., Iovino, A. J., Perna, G., Vaskonen, V ., & Veermäe, H. 2026, Nuovo Cimento Rivista Serie, doi: 10.1007/s40766-026-00080-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s40766-026-00080-z 2026

  27. [27]

    2021, Reports on Progress in Physics, 84, 116902, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/ac1e31

    Carr, B., Kohri, K., Sendouda, Y ., & Yokoyama, J. 2021, Reports on Progress in Physics, 84, 116902, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/ac1e31

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ac1e31 2021

  28. [28]

    2016, PhRvD, 94, 083504, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.083504

    Carr, B., Kühnel, F., & Sandstad, M. 2016, PhRvD, 94, 083504, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.083504

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.083504 2016

  29. [29]

    Carr, B. J. 1975, ApJ, 201, 1, doi: 10.1086/153853

    work page doi:10.1086/153853 1975

  30. [30]

    , year = 1974, month = aug, volume =

    Carr, B. J., & Hawking, S. W. 1974, MNRAS, 168, 399, doi: 10.1093/mnras/168.2.399

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/168.2.399 1974

  31. [31]

    J., Kohri, K., Sendouda, Y ., & Yokoyama, J

    Carr, B. J., Kohri, K., Sendouda, Y ., & Yokoyama, J. 2010, PhRvD, 81, 104019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.104019

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.104019 2010

  32. [32]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.12931

    Renzo, M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.12931. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.12931

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    1949, Reviews of Modern Physics, 21, 383, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.21.383

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1949, Reviews of Modern Physics, 21, 383, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.21.383

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.21.383 1949

  34. [34]

    2020, JCAP, 2020, 039, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/08/039

    Chen, Z.-C., & Huang, Q.-G. 2020, JCAP, 2020, 039, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/08/039

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/08/039 2020

  35. [35]

    2015, PhRvD, 92, 023524, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.023524

    Clesse, S., & García-Bellido, J. 2015, PhRvD, 92, 023524, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.023524

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.023524 2015

  36. [36]

    2021, PhRvL, 126, 171101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.171101

    Coogan, A., Morrison, L., & Profumo, S. 2021, PhRvL, 126, 171101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.171101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.171101 2021

  37. [37]

    P., Marcy, G

    Cumming, A., Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2008, PASP, 120, 531, doi: 10.1086/588487

    work page doi:10.1086/588487 2008

  38. [38]

    2009, A&A, 505, 205, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911976

    Demory, B.-O., Ségransan, D., Forveille, T., et al. 2009, A&A, 505, 205, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911976

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200911976 2009

  39. [39]

    DeRocco, W., & Graham, P. W. 2019, PhRvL, 123, 251102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.251102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.251102 2019

  40. [40]

    , keywords =

    East, W. E., & Lehner, L. 2019, PhRvD, 100, 124026, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.124026 Escrivà, A., Kühnel, F., & Tada, Y . 2024, in Black Holes in the Era of Gravitational-Wave Astronomy, ed. M. Arca Sedda, E. Bortolas, & M. Spera, 261–377, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-32-395636-9.00012-8

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.124026 2019

  41. [41]

    2025, A&A, 698, A290, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554687

    Esser, N., Filion, C., De Rijcke, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A290, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554687

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554687 2025

  42. [42]

    2023, PhRvD, 107, 103052, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103052

    Esser, N., & Tinyakov, P. 2023, PhRvD, 107, 103052, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103052

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.103052 2023

  43. [43]

    A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community

    Evans, M., Adhikari, R. X., Afle, C., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2109.09882, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2109.09882

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.09882 2021

  44. [44]

    L., & Jermyn, A

    Fuller, J., Piro, A. L., & Jermyn, A. S. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3661, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz514

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz514 2019

  45. [45]

    2013, A&A, 556, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321302 García-Bellido, J., Linde, A., & Wands, D

    Gallet, F., & Bouvier, J. 2013, A&A, 556, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321302 García-Bellido, J., Linde, A., & Wands, D. 1996, PhRvD, 54, 6040, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.54.6040

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321302 2013

  46. [46]

    Journal of High Energy Physics , keywords =

    Giovanetti, C., Lasenby, R., & Van Tilburg, K. 2024, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2024, 7, doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2024)007

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep12(2024)007 2024

  47. [47]

    2024, SciPost Physics, 17, 032, doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhys.17.2.032

    Gorton, M., & Green, A. 2024, SciPost Physics, 17, 032, doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhys.17.2.032

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.17.2.032 2024

  48. [48]

    2023a, ApJL, 952, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace779

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2023a, ApJL, 952, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace779

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace779 2041

  49. [49]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 4962, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3784

    Tchekhovskoy, A. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4962, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3784

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3784 2022

  50. [50]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 1640, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2699

    Gottlieb, O., & Nakar, E. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1640, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2699

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2699 2022

  51. [51]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 2405, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1906

    Gottlieb, O., Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2405, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1906

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1906 2019

  52. [52]

    , keywords =

    Cantiello, M. 2024, ApJL, 976, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8563

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad8563 2024

  53. [53]

    D., Quataert, E., et al

    Gottlieb, O., Metzger, B. D., Quataert, E., et al. 2023b, ApJL, 958, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad096e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad096e 2041

  54. [54]

    W., Rajendran, S., & Varela, J

    Graham, P. W., Rajendran, S., & Varela, J. 2015, PhRvD, 92, 063007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.063007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.063007 2015

  55. [55]

    Green, A. M. 2016, PhRvD, 94, 063530, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.063530

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.063530 2016

  56. [56]

    M., & Kavanagh, B

    Green, A. M., & Kavanagh, B. J. 2021, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 48, 043001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/abc534

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abc534 2021

  57. [57]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 2128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty760

    Harrison, R., Gottlieb, O., & Nakar, E. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty760

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty760 2018

  58. [58]

    , year = 1971, month = jan, volume =

    Hawking, S. 1971, MNRAS, 152, 75, doi: 10.1093/mnras/152.1.75 28 GOTTLIEB, CANTIELLO, NORTON, VANTILBURG& KLEBAN

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/152.1.75 1971

  59. [59]

    Hawking, S. W. 1975, Communications in Mathematical Physics, 43, 199, doi: 10.1007/BF02345020

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02345020 1975

  60. [60]

    W., Moss, I

    Hawking, S. W., Moss, I. G., & Stewart, J. M. 1982, PhRvD, 26, 2681, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.26.2681

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.26.2681 1982

  61. [61]

    W., Marcy, G

    Howard, A. W., Marcy, G. W., Bryson, S. T., et al. 2012, ApJS, 201, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/15

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/15 2012

  62. [62]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  63. [63]

    , keywords =

    Ivanov, P., Naselsky, P., & Novikov, I. 1994, PhRvD, 50, 7173, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.50.7173 Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.50.7173 1994

  64. [64]

    , keywords =

    Jacquemin-Ide, J., Gottlieb, O., Lowell, B., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2024a, ApJ, 961, 212, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad02f0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad02f0

  65. [65]

    2024b, MNRAS, 532, 1522, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1538

    Jacquemin-Ide, J., Rincon, F., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Liska, M. 2024b, MNRAS, 532, 1522, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1538

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1538

  66. [66]

    1997, PhRvD, 55, R5871, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.55.R5871

    Jedamzik, K. 1997, PhRvD, 55, R5871, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.55.R5871

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.55.r5871 1997

  67. [67]

    , keywords =

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d 2023

  68. [68]

    MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA , year = 2016, month = jan, eid =

    Jonas, J., & MeerKAT Team. 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 1, doi: 10.22323/1.277.0001

    work page doi:10.22323/1.277.0001 2016

  69. [69]

    2023, JCAP, 2023, 054, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/05/054

    Korwar, M., & Profumo, S. 2023, JCAP, 2023, 054, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/05/054

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/05/054 2023

  70. [70]

    M., & Loeb, A

    Koushiappas, S. M., & Loeb, A. 2017, PhRvL, 119, 041102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.041102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.041102 2017

  71. [71]

    2014, PhRvD, 90, 043512, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.043512

    Kouvaris, C., & Tinyakov, P. 2014, PhRvD, 90, 043512, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.043512

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.043512 2014

  72. [72]

    Kraft, R. P. 1967, ApJ, 150, 551, doi: 10.1086/149359

    work page doi:10.1086/149359 1967

  73. [73]

    2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 321, L1, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04160.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x 2001

  74. [74]

    , keywords =

    Lacey, C. G., & Ostriker, J. P. 1985, ApJ, 299, 633, doi: 10.1086/163729

    work page doi:10.1086/163729 1985

  75. [75]

    R., et al

    Lalakos, A., Tchekhovskoy, A., Most, E. R., et al. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 123044, doi: 10.1103/zkq5-bj75

    work page doi:10.1103/zkq5-bj75 2025

  76. [76]

    Liska, M. T. P., Chatterjee, K., Issa, D., et al. 2022, ApJS, 263, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9966

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac9966 2022

  77. [77]

    , keywords =

    Lowell, B., Jacquemin-Ide, J., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Duncan, A. 2024, ApJ, 960, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad09af LVK Collaboration, Abbott, R., Abe, H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5984, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad588

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad09af 2024

  78. [78]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 2014

  79. [79]

    2026, ApJ, 1000, 262, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae48f9

    Magaraggia, A., & Cappelluti, N. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 262, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae48f9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae48f9 2026

  80. [80]

    , keywords =

    Markovic, D. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 25, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.1.25

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/277.1.25 1995

Showing first 80 references.