pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25030 · v1 · pith:3CWO7UPRnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Formation of Black Hole-White Dwarf X-ray Binaries in Globular Clusters

William Y. W. Yang , Kyle Kremer , James C. Lombardi , Jr. , Kristen C. Dage This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 22:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords black holeswhite dwarfsX-ray binariesglobular clustersgravitational wavesLISAultracompact binariesstellar dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Black hole plus giant star collisions form most ultracompact black hole-white dwarf binaries in globular clusters.

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

The paper uses Cluster Monte Carlo simulations to track how stellar-mass black holes and white dwarfs end up in sub-hour orbits inside globular clusters. It identifies black hole plus giant star collisions as the dominant formation channel and models those events with smoothed-particle hydrodynamics to show the products reach Roche-lobe contact through gravitational-wave inspiral on sub-Gyr timescales. The resulting population is compared against known X-ray candidates and yields a prediction that roughly one such system in the Milky Way should be resolvable by LISA as a millihertz gravitational-wave source. A reader would care because these binaries offer a direct multimessenger link between dense stellar dynamics and otherwise invisible black holes.

Core claim

Black hole plus giant collisions are the primary mechanism that forms black hole-white dwarf binaries with orbital periods under one hour. Smoothed-particle hydrodynamics modeling of these collisions produces white-dwarf companions that inspiral to contact via gravitational waves within a billion years. A mock catalog of the resulting X-ray sources matches observed candidates such as 47 Tuc X9 and RZ 2109, and the calculated gravitational-wave strain indicates that of order one source may be resolved by LISA in the Milky Way.

What carries the argument

Black hole-giant star collisions treated as common-envelope-like events inside Cluster Monte Carlo dynamics simulations and verified with StarSmasher smoothed-particle hydrodynamics.

If this is right

  • Black hole-giant collisions dominate formation of these binaries over other dynamical channels.
  • The collision products reach Roche-lobe contact on sub-Gyr timescales via gravitational-wave inspiral.
  • The simulated population produces roughly one LISA-resolvable source in the Milky Way.
  • The mock catalog of X-ray sources aligns with observed candidates in the Milky Way and external galaxies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • LISA detections of these sources could yield independent mass measurements for black holes residing in globular clusters.
  • The same collision channel may operate for other compact-object pairs formed in dense environments.
  • X-ray luminosity functions of ultracompact sources in clusters could provide an observational test of the collision rates.

Load-bearing premise

The smoothed-particle hydrodynamics modeling of black hole-giant collisions produces white-dwarf companions whose gravitational-wave inspiral times to Roche contact are correctly predicted to be sub-Gyr.

What would settle it

A deep X-ray or gravitational-wave survey of Milky Way globular clusters that finds zero or far more than one ultracompact black hole-white dwarf source would directly test the predicted formation rate and population size.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25030 by James C. Lombardi, Jr., Kristen C. Dage, Kyle Kremer, William Y. W. Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: White dwarf mass versus black hole mass (at onset of mass transfer) for all interacting binaries formed at late times via exchange encounters in our CMC models. Open and filled circles denote white dwarfs of O/Ne/Mg and C/O composition, respectively. The five colored curves mark the boundaries for stable mass transfer from Church et al. (2017), for several different assumptions concerning the mean com￾mon … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Giant star and their respective core masses versus black hole mass for all late-time black hole+giant collisions in the CMC Cluster Catalog models. The gray bands indicate the 70th percentiles of each distribution. We find a median median giant mass of 0.98 M⊙, a median core mass (bottom panel) of 0.19 M⊙, and a median black hole mass of 7.82 M⊙. The various colors and symbols denote the evolutionary stage… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Number of black hole giant collisions versus initial cluster N for all CMC Cluster Catalog models. The top (bottom) two panels show results for models with rv = 1 pc (rv = 2 pc), and the left (right) panels show results for low (high) metallicity models. Dark scatter points show results for all collisions throughout complete lifetime of the models, and light points restrict to only the collisions occurring… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Properties of the binary during the SPH collisions between a 0.85 M⊙ giant and a 10 M⊙ black hole (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top panel: Black curve shows our computed X￾ray luminosity versus time for a fiducial UCXB consisting of a 10 M⊙ black hole accretor and a 0.2 M⊙ helium white dwarf donor. Luminosity is computed using Equation 1, where the horizontal dashed line denotes our assumed value for M˙ tr where the source transitions from soft to hard state. The hatched gray region denotes luminosities/accretion rates correspondin… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Generated sample of UCXBs in the globular clusters in the Milky Way (top panels) and Virgo (lower panels), following the method outlined in Section 6. The systems are divided into high metallicity and low metallicity bins with a cutoff at Fe/H = −0.75 (Z = 0.18Z⊙). Scatter points with a solid outline contain a C/O white dwarf, while dashed points contain a He white dwarf. Histograms displaying the distribu… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: LISA characteristic strain amplitude vs gravitational wave frequency for our fiducial source consisting of a 0.2 M⊙ white dwarf and a 10 M⊙ black hole (see Figures 2 and 6). Blue segments of each curve denote the GW-driven inspiral phase and red segments denote the ultracompact X-ray binary phase. The evolution rate has been indicated with time intervals on each track, where t = 0 has been defined to be at… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Schematic illustration of the formation of an ultracompact black hole X-ray binary via a black hole+giant collision. From left to right, we show: (1) A black hole+giant collision that unbinds the outer envelope of the giant, with the giant core tidally captured into an elliptical orbit with the black hole; (2) Formation of a common envelope around the black hole+core binary system which is stripped via tid… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Globular clusters are host to significant populations of dynamically-active stellar remnants that connect to a variety of astrophysical sources. Using simulations performed with the Cluster Monte Carlo dynamics code, we study the formation of ultracompact binaries in which a stellar-mass black hole accretes material from a white dwarf companion in a sub-hour orbit. These binary systems are prime multimessenger targets, as they can be observed as both luminous X-ray sources, and as millihertz gravitational wave sources detectable by the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA). We find that black hole+giant collisions are the primary mechanism through which such systems form. We model the outcomes of these ``common envelope''-like events using the smoothed particle hydrodynamics code StarSmasher, and verify these collisions yield black hole+white dwarf binaries that enter Roche contact on sub-Gyr timescales via gravitational wave inspiral. We construct a mock catalog of local ultracompact X-ray sources and compare to candidate sources observed in globular clusters in the Milky Way (e.g., 47 Tuc X9) and external galaxies (e.g., RZ 2109 in NGC 4472). Finally, we compute the gravitational wave strain for these sources, and show that of order one source may be resolvable in the Milky Way by LISA, representing a potentially powerful tool for observing new black holes in globular clusters.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper uses Cluster Monte Carlo (CMC) simulations of globular cluster dynamics to identify black hole + giant star collisions as the primary formation channel for ultracompact black hole-white dwarf X-ray binaries. These collisions are modeled with the StarSmasher SPH code, which the authors state produces bound BH+WD systems that reach Roche-lobe contact on sub-Gyr timescales through gravitational-wave inspiral. A mock catalog of such sources is constructed and compared to observed candidates (e.g., 47 Tuc X9, RZ 2109), and the expected LISA gravitational-wave strain is computed, yielding an estimate of order one resolvable source in the Milky Way.

Significance. If the SPH collision outcomes are shown to robustly satisfy the sub-Gyr inspiral condition, the work supplies a concrete dynamical pathway linking cluster evolution to multimessenger sources observable in both X-rays and millihertz GWs. The explicit use of hydrodynamical modeling for the collision phase is a positive feature relative to purely analytic common-envelope prescriptions.

major comments (3)
  1. [section on collision outcomes / StarSmasher modeling] The central claim that BH+giant collisions are the primary mechanism and produce observable ultracompact systems rests on the StarSmasher runs yielding post-collision orbits whose GW inspiral time is <1 Gyr. The manuscript must explicitly tabulate or plot the post-collision semi-major axis a, eccentricity e, component masses, and the resulting t_GW computed via the Peters (1964) formula for the simulated impact parameters and mass ratios (section on collision outcomes). Without these quantities, the sub-Gyr timescale verification cannot be assessed.
  2. [CMC dynamics results / formation channel comparison] The statement that collisions are the 'primary mechanism' is derived from the relative rates in the CMC runs. The manuscript should report the fractional contribution of this channel versus other channels (e.g., exchange encounters) across multiple realizations, together with the sensitivity of that fraction to the free parameters listed in the Cluster Monte Carlo setup.
  3. [LISA strain / mock catalog section] The LISA resolvability estimate ('of order one source') depends on the absolute formation rate and the assumed Milky Way globular cluster population. The manuscript should provide the range or standard deviation of the predicted number of resolvable sources across the simulation ensemble rather than a single order-of-magnitude figure.
minor comments (2)
  1. [collision outcomes paragraph] The abstract states that the systems 'enter Roche contact on sub-Gyr timescales via gravitational wave inspiral'; the corresponding section should cite the exact form of the Peters merger-time integral used.
  2. [methods] Notation for the binary orbital elements after the SPH run should be defined consistently with the subsequent GW evolution equations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight areas where additional detail will strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the requested information in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that BH+giant collisions are the primary mechanism and produce observable ultracompact systems rests on the StarSmasher runs yielding post-collision orbits whose GW inspiral time is <1 Gyr. The manuscript must explicitly tabulate or plot the post-collision semi-major axis a, eccentricity e, component masses, and the resulting t_GW computed via the Peters (1964) formula for the simulated impact parameters and mass ratios (section on collision outcomes). Without these quantities, the sub-Gyr timescale verification cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We agree that explicit presentation of these quantities will allow independent verification of the sub-Gyr inspiral times. In the revised manuscript we will add a table in the StarSmasher section listing post-collision semi-major axis, eccentricity, component masses, and t_GW (computed with the Peters 1964 formula) for each simulated impact parameter and mass ratio. This directly addresses the request and substantiates the claim that the resulting BH+WD systems reach Roche contact on sub-Gyr timescales. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The statement that collisions are the 'primary mechanism' is derived from the relative rates in the CMC runs. The manuscript should report the fractional contribution of this channel versus other channels (e.g., exchange encounters) across multiple realizations, together with the sensitivity of that fraction to the free parameters listed in the Cluster Monte Carlo setup.

    Authors: The CMC runs were performed with an ensemble of realizations. We will revise the dynamics results section to report the mean fractional contribution of the BH+giant collision channel relative to other channels (including exchanges) across realizations, together with a brief discussion of sensitivity to the principal Cluster Monte Carlo parameters (initial binary fraction, stellar IMF, and cluster concentration). revision: yes

  3. Referee: The LISA resolvability estimate ('of order one source') depends on the absolute formation rate and the assumed Milky Way globular cluster population. The manuscript should provide the range or standard deviation of the predicted number of resolvable sources across the simulation ensemble rather than a single order-of-magnitude figure.

    Authors: The quoted estimate is based on the full simulation ensemble and mock catalog. In the revised LISA section we will report both the mean number of resolvable sources and the standard deviation (or range) obtained across the CMC realizations and variations in the assumed Milky Way globular cluster population, thereby quantifying the uncertainty in the prediction. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; forward simulations compared to external data

full rationale

The derivation proceeds via independent forward modeling: Cluster Monte Carlo dynamics runs generate encounter rates, StarSmasher SPH runs produce post-collision orbital elements and remnant properties, standard Peters (1964) GW inspiral times are computed from those outputs, a mock catalog is built from the resulting population, and LISA strains are evaluated with standard formulas. These steps are compared against observed candidates (47 Tuc X9, RZ 2109) that are not used to tune any simulation parameters. No equation reduces a reported count, timescale, or strain to a quantity fitted from the same data; self-citations are not load-bearing for the central claims.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on numerical hydrodynamics and Monte Carlo dynamics whose internal assumptions (stellar evolution prescriptions, common-envelope treatment, initial mass functions) are inherited from the cited codes rather than derived here.

free parameters (1)
  • Cluster Monte Carlo and StarSmasher internal parameters
    Standard N-body and SPH codes contain numerous tunable parameters for stellar winds, collision outcomes, and orbital evolution that are not enumerated in the abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Black hole-giant encounters can be modeled as common-envelope-like events whose outcomes are captured by smoothed-particle hydrodynamics
    Invoked when the abstract states that StarSmasher runs verify the production of black hole-white dwarf binaries that inspiral on sub-Gyr timescales.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5794 in / 1351 out tokens · 28417 ms · 2026-06-25T22:29:39.268863+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

118 extracted references · 116 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016, PhRvL, 116, 061102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102 2016

  2. [2]

    2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y 17

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y 2023

  3. [3]

    , keywords =

    Antonini, F., & Gieles, M. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2936, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3584

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3584 2020

  4. [4]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 1844, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1186

    Askar, A., Arca Sedda, M., & Giersz, M. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1844, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1186

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1186 2018

  5. [5]

    2017, MNRAS, 464, L36, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw177

    Askar, A., Szkudlarek, M., Gondek-Rosi´ nska, D., Giersz, M., & Bulik, T. 2017, MNRAS, 464, L36, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw177

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw177 2017

  6. [6]

    R., Dage, K

    Athukoralalage, W. R., Dage, K. C., Zepf, S. E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 855, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3145

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3145 2023

  7. [7]

    2023, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 120, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 94-1

    Bahramian, A., & Degenaar, N. 2023, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 120, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 94-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 2023

  8. [8]

    O., Tudor, V., et al

    Bahramian, A., Heinke, C. O., Tudor, V., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 2199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx166

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx166 2017

  9. [9]

    Rocha-Pinto, H. J. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2812, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1763

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1763 2017

  10. [10]

    B., & Church, R

    Bobrick, A., Davies, M. B., & Church, R. P. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3556, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx312

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx312 2017

  11. [11]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 3758, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3574

    Church, R. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3758, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3574

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3574 2022

  12. [12]

    G., & Heggie, D

    Breen, P. G., & Heggie, D. C. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt628

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt628 2013

  13. [13]

    L., Larson, S

    Breivik, K., Rodriguez, C. L., Larson, S. L., Kalogera, V., & Rasio, F. A. 2016, ApJL, 830, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/830/1/L18

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/830/1/l18 2016

  14. [14]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85

    Breivik, K., Coughlin, S., Zevin, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85 2020

  15. [15]

    P., & Strader, J

    Brodie, J. P., & Strader, J. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 193, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092441

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092441 2006

  16. [16]

    J., et al

    Chomiuk, L., Strader, J., Maccarone, T. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/69

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/1/69 2013

  17. [17]

    P., Strader, J., Davies, M

    Church, R. P., Strader, J., Davies, M. B., & Bobrick, A. 2017, ApJL, 851, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9aeb

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9aeb 2017

  18. [18]

    C., Zepf, S

    Dage, K. C., Zepf, S. E., Peacock, M. B., et al. 2019a, MNRAS, 485, 1694, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz479

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz479

  19. [19]

    C., Zepf, S

    Dage, K. C., Zepf, S. E., Thygesen, E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 596, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1963

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1963 2020

  20. [20]

    C., Zepf, S

    Dage, K. C., Zepf, S. E., Bahramian, A., et al. 2019b, MNRAS, 489, 4783, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2514

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2514

  21. [21]

    C., Kundu, A., Thygesen, E., et al

    Dage, K. C., Kundu, A., Thygesen, E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 1545, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab943

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab943 2021

  22. [22]

    Dickson, N., H´ enault-Brunet, V., Baumgardt, H., Gieles, M., & Smith, P. J. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5320, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1254

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1254 2023

  23. [23]

    C., Pringle, J

    Fabian, A. C., Pringle, J. E., & Rees, M. J. 1975, MNRAS, 172, 15, doi: 10.1093/mnras/172.1.15P

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/172.1.15p 1975

  24. [24]

    E., & Farr, B

    Fishbach, M., Holz, D. E., & Farr, B. 2017, ApJL, 840, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7045

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa7045 2017

  25. [25]

    Fragione, G., Martinez, M. A. S., Kremer, K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba89b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba89b 2020

  26. [26]

    Rasio, F. A. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 1, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07914.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07914.x 2004

  27. [27]

    2009, MNRAS, 395, 1319, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14654.x

    Gaburov, E., Lombardi, James C., J., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15900.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15900.x 2010

  28. [28]

    Gibson, C. F. A., Kiro˘ glu, F., Lombardi, J. C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b80

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b80 2025

  29. [29]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, L15, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx203

    Giesers, B., Dreizler, S., Husser, T.-O., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, L15, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx203

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx203 2018

  30. [30]

    2019, A&A, 632, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936203 Gonz´ alez, E., Kremer, K., Chatterjee, S., et al

    Giesers, B., Kamann, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936203 Gonz´ alez, E., Kremer, K., Chatterjee, S., et al. 2021, ApJL, 908, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdf5b Gonz´ alez Prieto, E., Lombardi, Jr., J. C., Rose, S. C., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.10191, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.10191

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936203 2019

  31. [31]

    E., Strader, J., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., Strader, J., & Ho, L. C. 2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 257–312, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835 2020

  32. [32]

    Harris, W. E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487, doi: 10.1086/118116 —. 2009, ApJ, 703, 939, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/939

    work page doi:10.1086/118116 1996

  33. [33]

    E., Harris, G

    Harris, W. E., Harris, G. L. H., & Alessi, M. 2013, ApJ, 772, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/82

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/2/82 2013

  34. [34]

    2003, The Gravitational Million-Body Problem: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Star Cluster Dynamics

    Heggie, D., & Hut, P. 2003, The Gravitational Million-Body Problem: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Star Cluster Dynamics

    2003

  35. [35]

    , keywords =

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x 2002

  36. [36]

    Irwin, J. A. 2005, ApJ, 631, 511, doi: 10.1086/432611

    work page doi:10.1086/432611 2005

  37. [37]

    A., Brink, T

    Irwin, J. A., Brink, T. G., Bregman, J. N., & Roberts, T. P. 2010, ApJL, 712, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/712/1/L1

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/712/1/l1 2010

  38. [38]

    2010, ApJ, 717, 948, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/2/948

    Ivanova, N., Chaichenets, S., Fregeau, J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 717, 948, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/2/948

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/717/2/948 2010

  39. [39]

    Lombardi, J. C. 2013, Science, 339, 433, doi: 10.1126/science.1225540

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1225540 2013

  40. [40]

    A., Lombardi, Jr., J

    Ivanova, N., Rasio, F. A., Lombardi, Jr., J. C., Dooley, K. L., & Proulx, Z. F. 2005, ApJL, 621, L109, doi: 10.1086/429220

    work page doi:10.1086/429220 2005

  41. [41]

    2006, AJ, 132, 189, doi: 10.1086/504599 Jord´ an, A., Peng, E

    Jha, S., Branch, D., Chornock, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 189, doi: 10.1086/504599 Jord´ an, A., Peng, E. W., Blakeslee, J. P., et al. 2009, ApJS, 180, 54, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/180/1/54

    work page doi:10.1086/504599 2006

  42. [42]

    2013, ApJ, 764, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/98

    Kim, D.-W., Fabbiano, G., Ivanova, N., et al. 2013, ApJ, 764, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/98

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/1/98 2013

  43. [43]

    2006, ApJ, 652, 1090, doi: 10.1086/508415 18

    Kim, D.-W., Fabbiano, G., Kalogera, V., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 1090, doi: 10.1086/508415 18

    work page doi:10.1086/508415 2006

  44. [44]

    2008, ApJ, 683, 1006, doi: 10.1086/589987

    Knigge, C., Dieball, A., Ma´ ız Apell´ aniz, J., et al. 2008, ApJ, 683, 1006, doi: 10.1086/589987

    work page doi:10.1086/589987 2008

  45. [45]

    L., & Rasio, F

    Kremer, K., Chatterjee, S., Rodriguez, C. L., & Rasio, F. A. 2018a, ApJ, 852, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa99df

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa99df

  46. [46]

    C., Lu, W., Piro, A

    Kremer, K., Lombardi, J. C., Lu, W., Piro, A. L., & Rasio, F. A. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac714f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac714f 2022

  47. [47]

    Z., Weatherford, N

    Kremer, K., Rui, N. Z., Weatherford, N. C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac06d4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac06d4 2021

  48. [48]

    C., Hopkins, P

    Kremer, K., Weatherford, N. C., Hopkins, P. F., Rui, N. Z., & Ye, C. S. 2025, ApJL, 993, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1233

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae1233 2025

  49. [49]

    Rasio, F. A. 2018b, ApJL, 855, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab26c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab26c 2041

  50. [50]

    Rasio, F. A. 2020a, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 351, Star Clusters: From the Milky Way to the Early Universe, ed. A. Bragaglia, M. Davies, A. Sills, & E. Vesperini, 357–366, doi: 10.1017/S1743921319007269

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921319007269

  51. [51]

    L., Amaro-Seoane, P., et al

    Kremer, K., Rodriguez, C. L., Amaro-Seoane, P., et al. 2019, PhRvD, 99, 063003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.063003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.063003 2019

  52. [52]

    Modeling

    Kremer, K., Ye, C. S., Rui, N. Z., et al. 2020b, ApJS, 247, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7919

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab7919

  53. [53]

    , keywords =

    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

  54. [54]

    R., Hut, P., & McMillan, S

    Kulkarni, S. R., Hut, P., & McMillan, S. 1993, Nature, 364, 421, doi: 10.1038/364421a0

    work page doi:10.1038/364421a0 1993

  55. [55]

    J., & Zepf, S

    Kundu, A., Maccarone, T. J., & Zepf, S. E. 2002, ApJL, 574, L5, doi: 10.1086/342353 —. 2007, ApJ, 662, 525, doi: 10.1086/518021

    work page doi:10.1086/342353 2002

  56. [56]

    J., Zepf, S

    Kundu, A., Maccarone, T. J., Zepf, S. E., & Puzia, T. H. 2003, ApJL, 589, L81, doi: 10.1086/376493

    work page doi:10.1086/376493 2003

  57. [57]

    M., & Ostriker, J

    Lee, H. M., & Ostriker, J. P. 1986, ApJ, 310, 176, doi: 10.1086/164674

    work page doi:10.1086/164674 1986

  58. [58]

    D., Ferrell, A

    Lehmer, B. D., Ferrell, A. P., Doore, K., et al. 2020, ApJS, 248, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9175

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab9175 2020

  59. [59]

    Leigh, N. W. C., Giersz, M., Marks, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 226, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2110

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2110 2015

  60. [60]

    C., Proulx, Z

    Lombardi, Jr., J. C., Proulx, Z. F., Dooley, K. L., et al. 2006, ApJ, 640, 441, doi: 10.1086/499938

    work page doi:10.1086/499938 2006

  61. [61]

    Maccarone, T. J. 2003, A&A, 409, 697, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031146

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031146 2003

  62. [62]

    J., Kundu, A., Zepf, S

    Maccarone, T. J., Kundu, A., Zepf, S. E., & Rhode, K. L. 2007, Nature, 445, 183, doi: 10.1038/nature05434

    work page doi:10.1038/nature05434 2007

  63. [63]

    J., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13567.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.389..629B 389, 629

    Mackey, A. D., Wilkinson, M. I., Davies, M. B., & Gilmore, G. F. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 65, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13052.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13052.x 2008

  64. [64]

    Shadows of the

    Mai, A., Kremer, K., & Kıro˘ glu, F. 2026, ApJ, 998, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2de5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2de5 2026

  65. [65]

    Mandel, I., & Broekgaarden, F. S. 2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41114-021-00034-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-021-00034-3 2022

  66. [66]

    Metzger, B. D. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 827, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19747.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19747.x 2012

  67. [67]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Strader, J., Heinke, C. O., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 3918, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1869

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1869 2015

  68. [68]

    P., Piotto, G., Bedin, L

    Milone, A. P., Piotto, G., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2012, A&A, 540, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016384

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016384 2012

  69. [69]

    A., & Umbreit, S

    Morscher, M., Pattabiraman, B., Rodriguez, C., Rasio, F. A., & Umbreit, S. 2015, ApJ, 800, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/9

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/1/9 2015

  70. [70]

    C., Haggard, D., et al

    Nair, S., Dage, K. C., Haggard, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3662, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1927

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1927 2023

  71. [71]

    Nandez, J. L. A., Ivanova, N., & Lombardi, J. C. J. 2015, MNRAS, 450, L39, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv043

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv043 2015

  72. [72]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 441, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    Naoz, S. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 441, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315 2016

  73. [73]

    Narayan, R., & McClintock, J. E. 2008, NewAR, 51, 733, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2008.03.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2008.03.002 2008

  74. [74]

    An analytical approach to binary populations in globular clusters

    Nelemans, G., Yungelson, L. R., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2001, A&A, 375, 890, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010683 O’Connor, C. E., Kremer, K., & Rasio, F. A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.02412, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.02412

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010683 2001

  75. [75]

    C., Bobrick, A., et al

    Oh, K., Dage, K. C., Bobrick, A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 3884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf207

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf207 2025

  76. [76]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 2011

  77. [77]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 22

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 2013

  78. [78]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 2015

  79. [79]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 2018

  80. [80]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 2019

Showing first 80 references.