Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 128 references

Around a supermassive black hole, the density of the innermost stars is set by a balance between binary-disruption injection and collision destruction, giving n(r) ∝ r^-5/4 regardless of whether two-body scattering or gravitational-wave emi

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 06:02 UTC pith:7YK5BHBL

load-bearing objection Solid analytic advance on collisions and Hills-injection in nuclear star clusters; the r^{-5/4} profile holds up well but the fully destructive-collision assumption is the main conditional. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13152 v1 pith:7YK5BHBL submitted 2026-07-14 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Dynamics in Nuclear Stellar Clusters: The Impact of Collisions and Disrupted Binaries

Barak Rom , Re'em Sari This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE
keywords stellar dynamicssupermassive black holesnuclear star clusterscollisional depletionHills mechanismtidal disruption eventsextreme-mass-ratio inspiralsGalactic Center
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that the innermost region of a nuclear star cluster is not a collisionally evacuated void but is steadily repopulated by eccentric stars captured from binary disruptions. It derives a steady-state density profile n(r) ∝ r^-5/4, set by the balance between binary injection and collision depletion, and shows the same profile results whether orbital evolution is driven by two-body scattering or by gravitational-wave emission. From that balance it computes the rates of short-period tidal disruption events, stellar extreme-mass-ratio inspirals, and high-velocity collisions, finding that roughly half of injected stars collide for black holes below 2×10^7 solar masses and that sEMRIs are usually collision-terminated. Applied to the Milky Way center, the profile matches the observed shallow stellar slope, keeps the stellar mass inside S2's orbit below the observed upper limit, and predicts that most inner stars are highly eccentric.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the inner stellar population of a nuclear star cluster is governed by a collision–replenishment equilibrium. Binaries torn apart by the black hole's tides—the Hills mechanism—inject stars onto highly eccentric orbits with pericenters set by the binary's tidal radius. As those orbits evolve, either by two-body scattering from stellar-mass black holes or by gravitational-wave emission, the stars are destroyed by collisions once their pericenter reaches a critical value. Equating the injection rate of the Hills mechanism with the collision rate yields N(r) ∝ r^(7/4) and a number density n(r) ∝ r^-5/4. The density profile is independent of the orbital-evolution

What carries the argument

The central object is the balance equation N(r) ≈ f_b^(1/2) (R_*/R_h)^-1 (r/R_h)^(7/4), which equates the Hills injection rate with the collision rate at radius r. This equation supports a 'double loss cone' picture: injected stars diffuse in angular momentum and are removed at both extremes—tidal disruption at low pericenter and collisions at high pericenter. Two boundary curves, r_p,col(a) and r_p,col-GW(a), mark the collision boundary in scattering- and GW-dominated regions, and together they produce the claimed r^-5/4 profile and the transient rates.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every stellar collision inside the characteristic radius R_col (where orbital speeds exceed stellar escape speed) completely destroys the star; if realistic collisions only strip mass or leave remnants, R_col shrinks and both the density profile and the transient rates shift.

What would settle it

Resolve the old stellar population within a few milliparsecs of the Milky Way's central black hole and measure the density profile: a slope near -5/4 supports the balance, while a steeper -3/2 or flatter -1/2 trend would rule it out. Alternatively, a securely identified quasiperiodic eruption with a stellar-mass orbiter on a period below one day would contradict the predicted collision depletion.

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

If this is right

  • The inner nuclear cluster is populated, not empty: eccentric stars injected by binary disruptions dominate the density for r ≲ R_col with n(r) ∝ r^-5/4.
  • For black holes with M ≲ 2×10^7 M_sun, roughly half of the injected stars eventually collide; the rest are tidally disrupted on orbits with periods of months to years, whereas for more massive black holes short-period TDEs are suppressed and collisions dominate.
  • Stellar EMRIs can form only for M ≳ 2×10^6 M_sun and are typically terminated by collisions before circularizing, a dynamical obstacle for stellar-orbiter models of quasiperiodic eruptions.
  • At the Galactic Center, the collision-regulated slope is consistent with observations, the stellar mass inside S2's orbit is below the observational upper limit, and most inner stars are predicted to be near pericenter with eccentricities (1−e) ∝ r^(2/3).
  • The model accounts for the recently detected star S301 as a Hills-injected star and predicts roughly one or two S301-like stars should be detectable over a two-year observing campaign.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If realistic collisions only strip mass instead of fully destroying stars, R_col shrinks and the normalization of the r^-5/4 profile—though not its slope—would drop; the transient rates and the S2 mass estimate would shift accordingly.
  • Because the profile is mechanism-independent but the eccentricity–distance relation reverses between the scattering regime ((1−e) ∝ r^(2/3)) and the GW regime ((1−e) ∝ r^-9/4), measuring eccentricities of faint inner stars could identify which mechanism dominates without needing to resolve the density slope.
  • The predicted depletion of sub-day orbits implies that stellar-orbiter QPE models need either more compact impactors (white dwarfs, stripped remnants, black holes) or an additional inward-migration channel; a confirmed stellar-mass QPE orbiter on such an orbit would falsify this specific consequence.
  • If the profile is right, high-velocity collision transients should occur at an almost log-uniform rate in distance, giving future wide-field surveys a quantitative prediction to search for.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper develops an analytical model for the inner regions of nuclear stellar clusters, incorporating two-body scattering by stellar-mass BHs, gravitational-wave (GW) emission, destructive stellar collisions, and binary disruptions via the Hills mechanism. The central claim is that the inner stellar density follows a collision-regulated steady-state profile n(r) ∝ r^{-5/4} inside the collision radius R_col, set by the balance between Hills-mechanism injection and collisional depletion, and that this profile is largely independent of whether orbital evolution before collisions is driven by scattering or GW emission. The model produces rates for short-orbital-period TDEs (spTDEs), stellar EMRIs (sEMRIs), and high-velocity collisions, and is applied to the Galactic Center to interpret the S2 enclosed-mass limit, the S301 orbit, and the observed eccentricity distribution.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper substantially revises the standard picture of the inner nuclear cluster: instead of a collisionally evacuated void, the region is populated by eccentric stars supplied by binary disruptions, with a universal density slope. The derivation is transparent and based on explicit balance arguments, and the paper presents testable, falsifiable predictions for Galactic Center observations and extragalactic transients, including the new 'double loss cone' regime. The authors also acknowledge key idealizations (complete destructive collisions, equal-mass binaries, single stellar mass) and compare their analytic rates against independent Monte Carlo simulations. The robustness of the headline scaling, however, hinges on the collision-depletion assumption, which is flagged in the text itself as an oversimplification; this limits the strength of the conclusions until the sensitivity to that assumption is quantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2 and §3.2.2, Eqs. (9), (24), (23)] The assumption that every collision below R_col completely destroys both stars is load-bearing. The manuscript itself (end of §2.2) concedes that complete disruption requires more stringent conditions (v ≈ 5 v_esc, smaller impact parameters) and that collision remnants may partially repopulate the otherwise vacant tightly bound orbits. If only a fraction of collisions are destructive, the absorbing boundary at r_p,col (Eq. 24) becomes partially reflecting, and the zero-boundary diffusion solution used in §3.2.2 no longer applies. The collision-regulated density profile (Eq. 23) and the transient rates (Eqs. 30–32) would shift in normalization and, if the destruction fraction is radius-dependent, in slope. Please either incorporate a realistic destruction criterion (e.g., requiring v ≳ 5 v_esc) and demonstrate that the r^{-5/4} profile persists over the reduced region, or quantify how muc
  2. [§4, after Eq. (23)] The claimed observational support from the Galactic Center slope is not at the same radii as the prediction. The authors state that the observed γ ≈ 1.1–1.4 is 'typically averaged over larger radial scales, beyond the collision-dominated region.' Since R_col is ~15 mpc for the Milky Way, while the observed slope measurements extend over larger scales, the r^{-5/4} profile is not directly tested by those data. The 'consistent' statement is therefore weaker than it appears. Please identify observations that probe inside R_col or reframe the comparison as an extrapolation.
  3. [§4, S2 enclosed-mass discussion] The S2-mass consistency check and the resulting constraint f_b ≲ 0.1 are undermined by the factor-of-2 overshoot from the stellar-mass BH cusp, which is attributed to an unspecified shallower BH profile from loss-cone depletion. The BH distribution sets the scattering timescale used to locate the double-loss-cone boundary (Eq. 24) and to compute the spTDE and sEMRI rates (Eqs. 30–31). An unresolved factor-of-2 in the BH cusp is therefore not merely a normalization detail. The paper should either model the depleted BH cusp explicitly or demonstrate that the rates and boundaries are insensitive to it.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Eqs. (30)–(31)] The '≈ MW' notation in the typeset equations is confusing; it appears as '≈ MW 3×10^{-6} yr^{-1}'. Define the notation in the text preceding the equations (e.g., '≈_MW' means evaluated for a Milky Way-like galaxy).
  2. [Fig. 1] The caption refers to a 'blue funnel' demonstrating the TDE diffusion path, but the funnel is not labeled in the figure. Adding a label or arrow would improve clarity.
  3. [Eq. (13)] R_GW ≈ 30 R_g (M/M_MW)^{-19/84} is introduced without derivation; a short explanation would help the reader reproduce the boundary.
  4. [§3.2.2] The statement that the angular-momentum distribution is 'roughly flat in r_p, with a logarithmic decline to zero near the boundaries' is clearer when the footnote formula is brought into the main text or explicitly connected to the Cohn & Kulsrud (1978) solution.
  5. [§4] The estimate of ≈750 M_sun within the S2 orbit is quoted without showing the integration over Eq. (23). A brief derivation or a reference to the profile would improve reproducibility.
  6. [§3.3] Typo: 'who preformed a comprehensive Monte Carlo simulations' should be 'who performed comprehensive Monte Carlo simulations'.
  7. [References] The name 'Amaro Seoane' is typeset inconsistently (with and without a hyphen) across the reference list; unify the spelling.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the r^-5/4 profile is derived from a steady-state collision/injection balance with independent prior inputs; the §2.2 collision-destruction caveat affects robustness, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's headline r^-5/4 profile is not assumed or fitted. In §3.2.1 the authors posit a steady state in which the Hills injection rate equals the collision drain: ΓH=N(r)/Tcol(r). With the standard collision timescale Tcol≈0.7 P(r)(r/R*)^2/N(r) (Eq. 8), this balance gives N(r)∝r^{7/4} and hence, with n≈N/4πr^3, n(r)∝r^{-5/4} (Eqs. 22–23). The same radial scaling is then rederived in §3.2.2 and §3.2.3 from the scattering and GW diffusion timescales respectively; the claimed mechanism-independence is a consequence of the algebra, not an input. The inputs (BW cusp normalization for the BH scatterers, Hills energy change, binary fraction) are prior published results. In particular, the BH-cusp normalization from Rom & Sari (2025) and the Hills energy estimate from Sari et al. (2010) are parameter-free results with stated assumptions that do not include the target r^-5/4 law or the transient rates; no uniqueness theorem is invoked to rule out alternatives. The GC comparisons (S2 enclosed mass, S301 orbit) use the derived profile with an externally fixed f_b≈0.036 and then check consistency with the observational upper limit (which gives f_b≲0.1); they do not fit the profile to those data. The §2.2 caveat that realistic collisions may require v≳5v_esc and may leave remnants is a genuine robustness limitation—it could shrink Rcol and change the quantitative rates—but it is a physical assumption, not a circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs. No equation in the paper is equivalent to the target result by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard relaxation physics plus several simplifying assumptions about binary properties and collision outcomes. No new physical entities are introduced. The most influential choice is the assumption of destructive collisions; the binary fraction normalization and the BH-cusp normalization from prior work set the rate scale.

free parameters (5)
  • fb_binary_fraction_per_log_bin = ≈3.6×10^-2
    Number fraction of binaries per logarithmic semimajor axis bin at the radius of influence, estimated from field binary fraction and log-uniform separation distribution (§3.1). It sets the normalization of the Hills injection rate and thus the density profile.
  • flc_angular_momentum_loss_fraction = ≈0.5
    Fraction of injected stars that diffuse toward the tidal radius rather than circularizing, approximated as constant (§3.3). Affects spTDE and sEMRI rates.
  • m_bh_scatterer_mass = 10 M_sun
    Assumed mass of stellar-mass BHs that dominate two-body scattering (§2.1). Affects timescales.
  • logCoulomb_logarithm = ≈15
    Standard Coulomb logarithm used in two-body relaxation timescale (§2.1).
  • stellar_mass_binary_parameters = equal solar-mass binaries
    Assumption that injected binaries are equal-mass solar-type stars (§3.2); sets R_min, R_max, and the Hills injection line.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Two-body scattering timescale formula (Eq. 4) accurately describes angular-momentum diffusion of highly eccentric orbits.
    Standard from Binney & Tremaine (2008), used throughout §2.
  • standard math GW emission timescale for eccentric orbits (Peters 1964, Eq. 5) is the correct driver at small radii.
    Established physics.
  • domain assumption Stellar-mass BHs form a Bahcall-Wolf cusp with normalization N•(a) ∝ (m•/M_sun)^(-3/2) (a/R_h)^(5/4) (Eq. 3), taken from Rom & Sari (2025).
    Relies on authors' prior work; if incorrect, scattering timescales shift.
  • domain assumption Binaries are log-uniformly distributed in semimajor axis with a field binary fraction of ≈0.5, and only hard binaries survive to interact with the SMBH.
    Assumption in §3.1 based on field statistics.
  • ad hoc to paper All binaries reaching R_t,b are disrupted, and the captured star acquires the orbit given by Eq. (18).
    Approximation stated in §3.2; ignores scatter, though scatter is later considered.
  • ad hoc to paper Stellar collisions below R_col completely destroy both stars if the relative velocity exceeds the escape speed.
    Key assumption in §2.2; acknowledged to be simplistic vs. more realistic prescriptions.
  • domain assumption The system is in steady state, with injection balanced by collisions and tidal disruption.
    Underpins the equilibrium density profile.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22293 in / 14239 out tokens · 117444 ms · 2026-08-02T06:02:24.674013+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The nuclear stellar clusters surrounding supermassive black holes (SMBHs) host millions of stars and stellar remnants. We study how stellar collisions and binary disruptions, alongside two-body scattering and gravitational-wave (GW) emission, shape the stellar distribution and regulate the abundance of stars on tightly bound orbits. We show the following. (a) Stars in the inner region of the cluster follow a steady-state density profile scaling as $n(r)\propto r^{-5/4}$, set by the balance between collisional depletion and binary replenishment. This profile is largely independent of whether two-body scattering or GW emission drives the orbital evolution prior to the collisions. (b) For SMBHs with $M\lesssim2 \times 10^7 M_\odot$, roughly half of the stars injected by the Hills mechanism eventually collide. The rest are tidally disrupted while on orbits with periods of order months to years. (c) For more massive SMBHs, these short-orbital-period tidal disruption events are suppressed, and most injected stars are ultimately destroyed by collisions. (d) Stellar extreme-mass-ratio inspirals (sEMRIs) can form around SMBHs with $M\gtrsim2\times10^6 M_\odot$, but are typically terminated by collisions before circularizing. Our model highlights the dynamical challenge stellar collisions pose for the formation of sEMRIs and, consequently, for stellar models of quasiperiodic eruptions. Applied to the Galactic Center, the collision-regulated density profile is consistent with the observed stellar distribution slope. Based on this profile, we estimate the stellar mass within the orbit of S2, finding it consistent with the observational upper limit, account for the recently discovered star S301, predict that most stars near Sgr$~{\rm A}^*$ follow eccentric orbits, and determine their typical eccentricities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13152 by Barak Rom, Re'em Sari.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Orbital-dynamics phase space in semimajor axis a and pericenter rp, both in units of the radius of influence Rh. Colors indicate the dominant orbital-evolution mechanism: two-body scattering (green), GW emission (yellow), and stellar collisions (brown). Black dotted lines mark the boundaries between these regimes: scattering vs. GWs (Eq. 6), scattering vs. collisions (Eq. 12), and GWs vs. collisions (Eq. 1… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Transient formation rates as a function of SMBH mass. Solid curves account for injection of stars via the Hills mechanism, producing short-orbital-period TDEs (spT￾DEs; green line), stellar extreme-mass-ratio inspirals (sEM￾RIs; yellow line), whose orbital evolution is driven by GW emission, and stellar collisions (brown line). The spTDE rate is suppressed at higher SMBH masses (M ≳ 2 × 107M⊙) be￾cause inj… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The orbital phase space for a Milky Way-like galaxy. The color scheme and notation follow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Number of stars per logarithmic bin of semimajor axis with pericenter comparable to that of S301, rp,S301 ≈ 0.07mpc. The semimajor axis of S301 (aS301 ≈ 3mpc), marked by a star, lies close to the peak of the distribution at a0 ≈ 2mpc. For a ≲ ao, the number of stars is exponen￾tially suppressed due to collisions. For a ≳ a0, the number decreases as a −3/4 , reflecting the shortening of the scattering times… view at source ↗

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

128 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2026, Research Square, doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8619199/v1

    Abd El Dayem, K., Abuter, R., Aimar, N., Amaro-Seoane, P., et al. 2026, Research Square, doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8619199/v1

    work page doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8619199/v1 2026

  2. [2]

    2025, ApJL, 987, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/addc5d

    Akiba, T., Naoz, S., & Madigan, A.-M. 2025, ApJL, 987, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/addc5d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/addc5d 2025

  3. [3]

    2017, ARA&A, 55, 17, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055306

    Alexander, T. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 17, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055306

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055306 2017

  4. [4]

    2009, ApJ, 697, 1861, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1861

    Alexander, T., & Hopman, C. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1861, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1861

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1861 2009

  5. [5]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93ae

    Ali, B., Paul, D., Eckart, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93ae

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab93ae 2020

  6. [6]

    2018, Living Reviews in Relativity, 21, 4, doi: 10.1007/s41114-018-0013-8 Amaro Seoane, P

    Amaro-Seoane, P. 2018, Living Reviews in Relativity, 21, 4, doi: 10.1007/s41114-018-0013-8 Amaro Seoane, P. 2023, ApJ, 947, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb8b9

    doi:10.1007/s41114-018-0013-8 2018

  7. [7]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1702.00786

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Audley, H., Babak, S., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1702.00786

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.00786 2017

  8. [8]

    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

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

  9. [9]

    2010, ApJ, 713, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/90

    Antonini, F., Faber, J., Gualandris, A., & Merritt, D. 2010, ApJ, 713, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/90

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/713/1/90 2010

  10. [10]

    C., & Merritt, D

    Antonini, F., Lombardi, Jr., J. C., & Merritt, D. 2011, ApJ, 731, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/128

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/731/2/128 2011

  11. [11]

    2013, ApJL, 763, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/763/1/L10 Arca Sedda, M., Naoz, S., & Kocsis, B

    Antonini, F., & Merritt, D. 2013, ApJL, 763, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/763/1/L10 Arca Sedda, M., Naoz, S., & Kocsis, B. 2023, Universe, 9, 138, doi: 10.3390/universe9030138

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/763/1/l10 2013

  12. [12]

    2021, Nature, 592, 704, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6

    Arcodia, R., et al. 2021, Nature, 592, 704, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6 2021

  13. [13]

    2022, A&A, 662, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243259

    Arcodia, R., Miniutti, G., Ponti, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243259

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243259 2022

  14. [14]

    2024a, A&A, 684, L14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348949

    Arcodia, R., Merloni, A., Buchner, J., et al. 2024a, A&A, 684, L14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348949

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348949

  15. [15]

    2024b, A&A, 684, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

    Arcodia, R., Liu, Z., Merloni, A., et al. 2024b, A&A, 684, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

  16. [16]

    2025, A&A, 695, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453249

    Ashkenazy, Y., & Balberg, S. 2025, A&A, 695, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453249

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453249 2025

  17. [17]

    N., & Wolf, R

    Bahcall, J. N., & Wolf, R. A. 1976, ApJ, 209, 214, doi: 10.1086/154711 —. 1977, ApJ, 216, 883, doi: 10.1086/155534

    doi:10.1086/154711 1976

  18. [18]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1690

    Balberg, S. 2024, ApJ, 962, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1690

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1690 2024

  19. [19]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, L26, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt071

    Balberg, S., Sari, R., & Loeb, A. 2013, MNRAS, 434, L26, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt071

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slt071 2013

  20. [20]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdd73

    Balberg, S., & Yassur, G. 2023, ApJ, 952, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdd73

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdd73 2023

  21. [21]

    2016, ApJ, 820, 129, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/129

    Bar-Or, B., & Alexander, T. 2016, ApJ, 820, 129, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/129

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/2/129 2016

  22. [22]

    2018, ApJL, 860, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac88e

    Bar-Or, B., & Fouvry, J.-B. 2018, ApJL, 860, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac88e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aac88e 2018

  23. [23]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    2008

  24. [24]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 3026, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2024

    Bortolas, E., Ryu, T., Broggi, L., & Sesana, A. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3026, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2024

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2024 2023

  25. [25]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 3270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1453

    Broggi, L., Bortolas, E., Bonetti, M., Sesana, A., & Dotti, M. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 3270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1453

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1453 2022

  26. [26]

    C., Ryu, T., et al

    Broggi, L., Stone, N. C., Ryu, T., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 48, doi: 10.33232/001c.120086

    doi:10.33232/001c.120086 2024

  27. [27]

    R., Anderson, J., Gnedin, O

    Brown, W. R., Anderson, J., Gnedin, O. Y., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/49

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/804/1/49 2015

  28. [28]

    2021, ApJL, 921, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b

    Chakraborty, J., Kara, E., Masterson, M., et al. 2021, ApJL, 921, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac313b 2021

  29. [29]

    2025, ApJL, 983, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc2f8

    Chakraborty, J., Kara, E., Arcodia, R., et al. 2025, ApJL, 983, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc2f8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc2f8 2025

  30. [30]

    S., Do, T., Ghez, A., et al

    Chu, D. S., Do, T., Ghez, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc93e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc93e 2023

  31. [31]

    Cohn, H., & Kulsrud, R. M. 1978, ApJ, 226, 1087, doi: 10.1086/156685

    doi:10.1086/156685 1978

  32. [32]

    R., & Nixon, C

    Cufari, M., Coughlin, E. R., & Nixon, C. J. 2022, ApJL, 929, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6021

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac6021 2022

  33. [33]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 2948, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1209

    Dai, L., & Blandford, R. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 2948, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1209

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1209 2013

  34. [34]

    J., Fuerst, S

    Dai, L. J., Fuerst, S. V., & Blandford, R. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1614, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16038.x

    arXiv 2010

  35. [36]

    P., Durisen, R

    David, L. P., Durisen, R. H., & Cohn, H. N. 1987, ApJ, 313, 556, doi: 10.1086/164997

    work page doi:10.1086/164997 1987

  36. [37]

    2019, Science, 365, 664, doi: 10.1126/science.aav8137

    Do, T., Hees, A., Ghez, A., et al. 2019, Science, 365, 664, doi: 10.1126/science.aav8137

    doi:10.1126/science.aav8137 2019

  37. [38]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.02905, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.02905 Duchˆ ene, G., & Kraus, A

    Dodici, M., Tremaine, S., & Wu, Y. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.02905, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.02905 Duchˆ ene, G., & Kraus, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 269, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.02905 2025

  38. [39]

    J., & Shapiro, S

    Duncan, M. J., & Shapiro, S. L. 1983, ApJ, 268, 565, doi: 10.1086/160980

    work page doi:10.1086/160980 1983

  39. [40]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368, doi: 10.1086/160960

    doi:10.1086/160960 1983

  40. [41]

    2024, NewAR, 98, 101694, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101694

    El-Badry, K. 2024, NewAR, 98, 101694, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101694

    arXiv 2024

  41. [42]

    2019, ApJ, 883, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f78

    Fouvry, J.-B., Bar-Or, B., & Chavanis, P.-H. 2019, ApJ, 883, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f78

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f78 2019

  42. [43]

    2023, A&A, 675, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565

    Franchini, A., Bonetti, M., Lupi, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346565 2023

  43. [44]

    2002, A&A, 394, 345, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021142 —

    Freitag, M., & Benz, W. 2002, A&A, 394, 345, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021142 —. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 1133, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08770.x

    arXiv 2002

  44. [45]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 716, L80–L84, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/716/1/l80

    Fujii, M., Iwasawa, M., Funato, Y., & Makino, J. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 716, L80–L84, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/716/1/l80

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/716/1/l80 2010

  45. [46]

    2018, A&A, 609, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730451

    Gallego-Cano, E., Sch¨ odel, R., Dong, H., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730451

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730451 2018

  46. [47]

    K., Do, T., Ghez, A

    Gautam, A. K., Do, T., Ghez, A. M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad26e6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad26e6 2024

  47. [48]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab94bc

    Generozov, A., & Madigan, A.-M. 2020, ApJ, 896, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab94bc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab94bc 2020

  48. [49]

    B., Bordoni, M

    Generozov, A., Perets, H. B., Bordoni, M. S., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453272

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453272 2025

  49. [50]

    2010, Reviews of Modern Physics, 82, 3121, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.3121

    Genzel, R., Eisenhauer, F., & Gillessen, S. 2010, Reviews of Modern Physics, 82, 3121, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.3121

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.82.3121 2010

  50. [51]

    2021, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 59, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    Gezari, S. 2021, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 59, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029 2021

  51. [52]

    M., Duchˆ ene, G., Matthews, K., et al

    Ghez, A. M., Duchˆ ene, G., Matthews, K., et al. 2003, ApJL, 586, L127, doi: 10.1086/374804

    doi:10.1086/374804 2003

  52. [53]

    M., Salim, S., Weinberg, N

    Ghez, A. M., Salim, S., Weinberg, N. N., et al. 2008, ApJ, 689, 1044, doi: 10.1086/592738

    doi:10.1086/592738 2008

  53. [54]

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b80 2025

  54. [55]

    2009, ApJ, 692, 1075, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/1075

    Gillessen, S., Eisenhauer, F., Trippe, S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 692, 1075, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/1075

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/692/2/1075 2009

  55. [56]

    M., Eisenhauer, F., et al

    Gillessen, S., Plewa, P. M., Eisenhauer, F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5c41

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5c41 2017

  56. [58]

    2007, MNRAS, 376, 492, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11461.x

    Ginsburg, I., & Loeb, A. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 492, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11461.x

    arXiv 2007

  57. [59]

    Gould, A., & Quillen, A. C. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 592, 935, doi: 10.1086/375840 GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833718 —. 2020, A&A, 636, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037813 GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Aimar, N., et al. 2022a, A&A, 657, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/20...

    doi:10.1086/375840 2003

  58. [60]

    2017, ApJ, 847, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa876f

    Habibi, M., Gillessen, S., Martins, F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa876f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa876f 2017

  59. [61]

    J., El-Badry, K., Lucchini, S., et al

    Han, J. J., El-Badry, K., Lucchini, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 188, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb967

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb967 2025

  60. [62]

    Heggie, D. C. 1975, MNRAS, 173, 729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/173.3.729

    doi:10.1093/mnras/173.3.729 1975

  61. [63]

    C., & Rasio, F

    Heggie, D. C., & Rasio, F. A. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 1064, doi: 10.1093/mnras/282.3.1064 Hern´ andez-Garc ´ ıa, L., Chakraborty, J., S´ anchez-S´ aez, P., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 895, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02523-9

    doi:10.1093/mnras/282.3.1064 1996

  62. [64]

    Hills, J. G. 1975, Nature, 254, 295, doi: 10.1038/254295a0 —. 1988, Nature, 331, 687, doi: 10.1038/331687a0

    doi:10.1038/254295a0 1975

  63. [65]

    T., Auchettl, K., Hoogendam, W

    Hinkle, J. T., Auchettl, K., Hoogendam, W. B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.15326, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.15326

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.15326 2024

  64. [66]

    2009, ApJ, 700, 1933, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1933

    Hopman, C. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1933, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1933

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/2/1933 2009

  65. [67]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 629, 362, doi: 10.1086/431475

    Hopman, C., & Alexander, T. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 629, 362, doi: 10.1086/431475

    doi:10.1086/431475 2005

  66. [68]

    M., Tyson, J

    Ivezic, Z., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c 2019

  67. [69]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada8a8

    Kaur, K., Rom, B., & Sari, R. 2025, ApJ, 980, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada8a8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada8a8 2025

  68. [70]

    C., & Gilbaum, S

    Kaur, K., Stone, N. C., & Gilbaum, S. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1269, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1894

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1894 2023

  69. [71]

    2009, ApJL, 698, L64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/L64

    Keshet, U., Hopman, C., & Alexander, T. 2009, ApJL, 698, L64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/L64

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/698/1/l64 2009

  70. [72]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 4344, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1641 15

    King, A. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 4344, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1641 15

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1641 2022

  71. [73]

    Kobayashi, S., Hainick, Y., Sari, R., & Rossi, E. M. 2012, ApJ, 748, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/105

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/2/105 2012

  72. [74]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 3265, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv057

    Kocsis, B., & Tremaine, S. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3265, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv057

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv057 2015

  73. [75]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 2013

  74. [76]

    2020, ApJ, 904, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc0f6

    Krolik, J., Piran, T., & Ryu, T. 2020, ApJ, 904, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc0f6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc0f6 2020

  75. [77]

    2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    arXiv 2001

  76. [78]

    A., & Shapiro, S

    Lai, D., Rasio, F. A., & Shapiro, S. L. 1993, ApJ, 412, 593, doi: 10.1086/172946

    work page doi:10.1086/172946 1993

  77. [79]

    2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 374, 515, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11155.x

    Levin, Y. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 374, 515, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11155.x

    arXiv 2006

  78. [80]

    Levin, Y., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 590, L33–L36, doi: 10.1086/376675

    doi:10.1086/376675 2003

  79. [81]

    P., & Shapiro, S

    Lightman, A. P., & Shapiro, S. L. 1977, ApJ, 211, 244, doi: 10.1086/154925

    doi:10.1086/154925 1977

  80. [82]

    Linial, I., & Metzger, B. D. 2023, ApJ, 957, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf65b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf65b 2023

Showing first 80 references.