Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 123 references

On the black hole content and initial mass function of 47 Tuc

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read 47 Tuc does not need an intermediate-mass black hole; a self-consistent multimass model with mass-segregated stellar remnants explains the cluster's kinematics, stellar mass functions, and millisecond-pulsar accelerations.

desk verdict A solid, careful refutation of the 47 Tuc IMBH claim using a self-consistent multimass fit, with the no-IMBH conclusion holding up while the bottom-light IMF claim is weaker than the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08538 v2 pith:A7PG44JC submitted 2019-08-22 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Vincent Hénault-Brunet , Mark Gieles , Jay Strader , Miklos Peuten , Eduardo Balbinot , Kaela E.K. Douglas This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords 47Tucglobularclustersintermediate-massblackholesstellar-massmillisecondpulsarsinitialmassfunctionsegregationdynamicalmodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

47 Tuc, one of the Milky Way's most massive globular clusters, has been claimed to contain an intermediate-mass black hole (IMBH) of roughly $2200\,M_\odot$, inferred from the accelerations of its millisecond pulsars. This paper argues that the same pulsar data, together with the cluster's density profile, kinematics, and radially varying stellar mass functions, can be explained without any IMBH by a self-consistent dynamical model in which ordinary stars coexist with a small, centrally concentrated population of stellar-mass black holes and white dwarfs. The authors fit this model simultaneously to several independent observables and then show that it predicts, rather than merely accommodates, the radial distribution of the 25 known millisecond pulsars and their gravitational accelerations. If the argument is right, the claimed IMBH is unnecessary, and the cluster's unusually flat low-mass stellar census points toward a bottom-light initial mass function, with consequences for how massive globular clusters form and retain black holes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the 'limepy' family of self-consistent, spherically symmetric multimass dynamical models, in which an almost-isothermal distribution function is truncated at an escape energy and each mass component has its own velocity scale set by $s_j \propto m_j^{-\delta}$ (best fit $\delta\simeq0.44$) to mimic partial energy equipartition and mass segregation. A three-part broken power law with slopes $\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3$ and breaks at $0.5$ and $1\,M_\odot$ is evolved to the present day through an initial-final mass relation, producing white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes, with the black-hole retention fraction and the anisotropy radius as free parameters. The mechanism that carries the argument is that heavy remnants sink to the centre by dynamical friction, inflating the central velocity dispersion and shaping the radial gradient of the visible stellar mass function; the fit therefore lets visible, low-mass stars act as tracers of the otherwise invisible dark content and of the stellar IMF above the present-day turn-off mass.

What would settle it

A long-baseline timing measurement of any 47 Tuc pulsar whose inferred line-of-sight acceleration lies significantly outside the envelope predicted by the best-fit mass-segregated model would reopen the IMBH case; conversely, deep photometry of the cluster's white-dwarf cooling sequence that shows the same low-mass depletion as the main sequence would support the bottom-light IMF, while a white-dwarf population normal at low masses would indicate early dynamical loss instead.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the observable structure of 47 Tuc can be reproduced by a family of equilibrium multimass models that contains no IMBH, once the stellar mass function and the retention fraction of stellar-mass black holes are treated as free parameters. The best-fitting model has a total black-hole mass of $430^{+386}_{-301}\,M_\odot$, corresponding to roughly 141 black holes with a mean mass of $3.1\,M_\odot$, while still being consistent within about $1.5\sigma$ with a cluster that retains almost no black holes. The same model, without any IMBH, predicts the observed radial distribution of millisecond pulsars and accommodates the line-of-sight accelerations inferred from their period derivatives. The inferred global present-day stellar mass function is shallow at low masses ($\alpha_1=0.52^{+0.17}_{-0.16}$ for $m<0.5\,M_\odot$), which the authors interpret, given the cluster's long relaxation time and mild orbit, as evidence that 47 Tuc may have formed with a bottom-light IMF; the slope above $1\,M_\odot$ is $\alpha_3=2.49\pm0.08$, close to Salpeter.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the assumption that 47 Tuc has not lost a significant population of its lowest-mass stars over its lifetime; if early dynamical encounters or tidal stripping removed them, the cluster's flat low-mass stellar census would not prove that it formed with fewer low-mass stars.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The pulsar accelerations in 47 Tuc are explained without an IMBH, so future IMBH claims in globular clusters should confront mass-segregated models with a free stellar mass function and remnant content before being accepted.
  • The inferred black-hole population is small, $430^{+386}_{-301}\,M_\odot$ in total, which bounds the present-day reservoir available for dynamically formed black-hole binaries and connects to the cluster's initial density and natal-kick physics.
  • A bottom-light IMF in a massive, metal-rich cluster would mean the canonical Kroupa and Salpeter IMFs are not universal in globular-cluster formation, affecting mass-to-light ratios and the interpretation of unresolved cluster populations.
  • The high-mass slope of $\alpha_3=2.49\pm0.08$ demonstrates a route to measure the IMF above the present turn-off mass via the dynamical signature of dark remnants, not by counting stars.
  • The low black-hole retention and flat mass function can be jointly explained if 47 Tuc formed very dense and dynamically ejected its black holes early, linking two otherwise separate conclusions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the bottom-light IMF reading is correct, other massive, metal-rich Galactic globular clusters with similarly long relaxation times should show the same flattened low-mass mass function; a systematic survey could test whether the IMF varies with metallicity or birth environment.
  • The early-loss alternative could be distinguished observationally: if low-mass stars were stripped by giant-molecular-cloud encounters in a dense birth environment, the white-dwarf cooling sequence should be deficient in the low-mass progenitors, whereas a bottom-light IMF would not imprint that specific remnant signature.
  • The same fitting machinery could be applied to other pulsar-rich globular clusters such as NGC 6624 or Terzan 5, where pulsar timing has been used to argue for central black holes; with mass-function freedom, those arguments may dissolve as they did for 47 Tuc.
  • Individual black-hole mass measurements in 47 Tuc, from microlensing or detached binaries, would break the degeneracy between many low-mass retained black holes and few high-mass ones, since the paper's dynamical-ejection assumption predicts a population of only a few solar masses.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper presents self-consistent multimass limepy equilibrium models of the globular cluster 47 Tuc in which the three-slope broken power-law stellar mass function, the black-hole retention fraction, and the mass-segregation exponent are fitted by MCMC simultaneously to the projected number density profile, line-of-sight and proper-motion velocity dispersion profiles, and local stellar mass functions in four inner annuli. The best-fitting model without an IMBH matches all fitted datasets and is then compared, out-of-sample, with the cumulative radial distribution of 25 millisecond pulsars and with the line-of-sight accelerations inferred from ten binary orbital-period derivatives and thirteen spin-down upper limits. The authors conclude that no central IMBH is needed, infer a total present-day BH mass of 430+386−301 Msun (while noting that the most likely model has very few BHs and that zero BHs is allowed within ~1.5σ), and infer a flat low-mass slope α1 = 0.52±0.17, which they argue suggests a bottom-light initial mass function, together with a high-mass slope α3 = −2.49±0.08 close to Salpeter. Robustness tests cover distance (4.2–4.7 kpc), neutron-star retention, and the tracer mass of the outer proper-motion sample; binaries and early dynamical mass loss are not modeled.

Significance. The no-IMBH conclusion is significant and well supported: 47 Tuc was a flagship claimed IMBH host, and this analysis, together with Mann et al. (2019), shows that a model with mass-segregated stellar remnants and no IMBH reproduces the central kinematics. The pulsar comparison is a genuine strength: the radial distribution and accelerations were not used in the fit, so the agreement is a non-circular, falsifiable prediction of the mass model. Additional strengths are the availability of the limepy code, the prior validation of these distribution-function models against direct N-body snapshots, and the explicit robustness tests on distance, NS retention, and tracer-mass assumptions. If the IMF inference holds, the method also offers a new route to probing the IMF above the present-day turn-off. The conditional character of the IMF claim, acknowledged partly in Section 5.3, is the main element that separates the robust no-IMBH result from the more speculative bottom-light-IMF conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, §4.3, §5.2–5.3] The inference that 47 Tuc 'may have formed with a bottom-light IMF' rests entirely on the assumption in §3.2 that 'modification of the mass function by dynamical evolution and preferential escape of low-mass stars and remnants is negligible for 47 Tuc', which lets the fitted present-day slope α1 = 0.52 be read as an initial slope. This assumption is load-bearing, and the paper's own §5.3 concedes that a dense early phase (initial half-mass relaxation time ~100 Myr) could fully mass-segregate the cluster and lose low-mass stars, and that Δα ≈ 0.8 requires only ~40% evaporative mass loss. The present-day data therefore cannot distinguish a genuinely bottom-light IMF from a standard Kroupa IMF depleted by early dynamical evolution, and the paper acknowledges this ('we cannot exclude'). Because the abstract and title nevertheless foreground the IMF conclusion, I ask that the authors either (i) test the assumption quantitatively, e.g., by fitting with an additional early mass-loss term or by evolving a Kroupa-IMF cluster in an N-body/Monte Carlo calculation with dense initial conditions and comparing the resulting present-day observables to the same likelihood, or (ii) explicitly reframe the bottom-light claim as a present-day mass-function result with an unresolved degeneracy.
  2. [§4.2, Fig. 4, Abstract] The abstract states that the model 'correctly predicts the radial distribution of millisecond pulsars and their gravitational accelerations', but the comparison in Fig. 4 is made against the deterministic maximum/minimum line-of-sight acceleration envelope, not against the probability distribution of accelerations predicted by the model at the observed projected radii, and the Fig. 3 radial comparison is visual only; no goodness-of-fit statistic is reported for either test. The reader cannot judge how likely the observed configuration is under the best-fit model, which weakens the advertised out-of-sample validation. I recommend computing the full predicted acceleration distribution (e.g., percentiles) for the pulsar sample, accounting for the selection function of detectable MSPs, and reporting a quantitative test (e.g., a KS or likelihood-ratio statistic) for both the radial and acceleration comparisons, or softening the abstract's wording accordingly.
  3. [Abstract, §5.1.2, Fig. 6] The headline statement that 'the data favours a population of BHs with a total mass of 430+386−301 Msun' is difficult to reconcile with the same abstract's statement that 'the most likely model has very few BHs' and with §5.1.2's statement that the results are 'consistent with a negligible number of BHs within ~1.5σ'. The posterior for the total BH mass is evidently strongly skewed, with the mode near zero and the median at 430 Msun; reporting the median of such a distribution as a favored value is misleading. I recommend summarizing the constraint as an upper limit (with the median in parentheses if desired), and checking whether the uniform prior on BHret in 0–100% and the degeneracy with α3 contribute undue weight to the high-BH tail of the posterior.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§3.3] The free-parameter list reads 'α1, α3, α3' and should be 'α1, α2, α3'.
  2. [Eq. (3)] The tangential proper-motion likelihood uses δσpmR∗,i in the denominator where δσpmT∗,i is intended.
  3. [Eq. (6) and following text] The mass-function likelihood mixes δN∗,i(R) and δN∗,i(m); the uncertainty should be written consistently as a function of mass.
  4. [§3.3] There are two typos in this section: 'standard devitiation' and 'nuisance parameters2'.
  5. [§4.3, §4.4] 'It is worth nothing that...' should read 'worth noting' in §4.3, and 'Al other model parameters' should read 'All other model parameters' in §4.4.
  6. [§6] The conclusions contain the misspellings 'simultanenous' and 'accomodate'.
  7. [§3.2] The phrase 'given the estimates the of initial mass and escape velocity at formation' is garbled and should be rewritten.
  8. [Fig. 4] Showing percentiles of the predicted acceleration distribution in addition to the extrema would aid interpretation, since the paper itself notes that the distribution peaks near the boundaries.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Independent, out-of-sample checks; no circularity found.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular. The free parameters, including the mass-function slopes and black-hole retention fraction, are fit to the number density profile, proper-motion and line-of-sight velocity dispersions, and the local stellar mass functions (Section 3.3, Eq. 7). The millisecond-pulsar data are explicitly withheld from the fit: Section 2.4 states that pulsar data 'are compared to our best-fitting models to serve as a consistency check', and Section 4.2 compares the cumulative radial distribution and inferred accelerations to the model predictions. These are therefore genuine out-of-sample predictions, not fitted inputs. The bottom-light IMF conclusion is conditional on the Section 3.2 assumption that 'modification of the mass function by dynamical evolution and preferential escape of low-mass stars and remnants is assumed to be negligible for 47 Tuc'; the paper itself flags the early-dense-phase degeneracy in Section 5.3, so the IMF claim is a caveated inference rather than a circular one. The self-citations to the limepy model and its validation (Gieles & Zocchi 2015; Peuten et al. 2017) and to the mock-recovery test (Hénault-Brunet et al. 2019) report comparisons against N-body simulations and mock data, so they constitute independent support rather than a self-citation chain. No fitted quantity is defined in terms of the no-IMBH conclusion, and no prediction reduces to a fit by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All model parameters are fitted to the combined datasets rather than assumed from prior theory; the remaining assumptions are equilibrium modeling choices and stellar evolution prescriptions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (12)
  • W0 (dimensionless central potential) = 6.1
    Controls the concentration of the model; fitted to density and kinematic data.
  • g (truncation sharpness) = 0.57
    Sets the sharpness of the energy truncation; fitted.
  • log10(ra/pc) (anisotropy radius) = 1.23
    Sets the radial anisotropy profile; fitted in log space.
  • M (total cluster mass) = 1.06e6 Msun
    Total mass of the cluster; fitted to kinematics.
  • rh (half-mass radius) = 8.16 pc
    Physical scale of the model; fitted.
  • alpha1 (low-mass MF slope, m < 0.5 Msun) = 0.52
    Slope of the low-mass end of the mass function; fitted.
  • alpha2 (intermediate MF slope, 0.5-1 Msun) = 1.35
    Slope of the intermediate mass range; fitted.
  • alpha3 (high-mass MF slope, m > 1 Msun) = 2.49
    Slope of the high-mass end, which determines the remnant population; fitted.
  • BHret (black hole retention fraction) = 0.59%
    Fraction of the initial BH population retained; fitted, with massive BHs removed first.
  • delta (mass segregation exponent) = 0.44
    Exponent relating velocity scale to mass in the multimass model; fitted.
  • F (nuisance fractional uncertainty on MF) = 0.21
    Added in quadrature to mass function uncertainties to absorb model limitations; fitted.
  • s2 (nuisance variance on density profile) = 0.01
    Added to density profile uncertainties to absorb potential escapers and other model limitations; fitted.
assumptions (10)
  • domain assumption The limepy multimass distribution function accurately describes the phase-space structure of evolved multimass star clusters including mass segregation.
    The paper relies on this to map visible star kinematics to dark remnant content; validation is from N-body snapshots (Zocchi et al. 2016; Peuten et al. 2017), not from 47 Tuc itself.
  • domain assumption A single anisotropy radius ra applies to all mass components.
    Section 3.1 assumes anisotropy is mass independent for 47 Tuc's dynamical age based on Peuten et al. (2017); if wrong, the mass-anisotropy degeneracy shifts inferred remnant mass.
  • domain assumption Velocity scale of each mass component follows s_j proportional to m_j^-delta.
    Section 3.1; delta is fitted, but the power-law equipartition form is assumed rather than derived.
  • domain assumption Dynamical evolution and preferential escape of low-mass stars and remnants are negligible for 47 Tuc.
    Sections 3.2 and 4.4; this makes the inferred present-day mass function equal to the IMF and is the load-bearing premise for the bottom-light IMF conclusion.
  • domain assumption The initial mass function is a three-component broken power law with break masses at 0.5 and 1 solar mass.
    Section 3.2; the three slopes are free, but the functional form is assumed.
  • domain assumption The mass function evolution algorithm maps initial masses to white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes for [Fe/H]=-0.7 and age 11 Gyr.
    Section 3.2; the initial-final mass relation and remnant masses are adopted from Balbinot & Gieles (2018) and an unpublished update by Peuten et al., so the mapping is not independently checkable here.
  • domain assumption Black holes are 100 percent retained after supernovae, then dynamically ejected massive-first according to BHret.
    Section 3.2; justified by high initial escape velocity, but the mass-dependent ejection ordering is a modeling choice.
  • domain assumption The observed number density profile traces the spatial distribution of upper main-sequence and evolved stars.
    Section 2.1; used to compare with the heaviest main-sequence mass bin in the model.
  • domain assumption The adopted distance to 47 Tuc is 4.45 kpc.
    Section 2.2.1; from Chen et al. (2018); authors test 4.2 and 4.7 kpc and find conclusions robust.
  • domain assumption Neutron stars are retained at 10 percent and the result is insensitive to this.
    Section 3.2; the insensitivity claim is supported by tests described in Section 4.4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the black hole content and initial mass function of 47 Tuc." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A7PG44JC

@misc{pith2026190808538,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the black hole content and initial mass function of 47 Tuc},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A7PG44JC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08538}
}
abstract

The globular cluster (GC) 47 Tuc has recently been proposed to host an intermediate-mass black hole (IMBH) or a population of stellar-mass black holes (BHs). To shed light on its dark content, we present an application of self-consistent multimass models with a varying mass function and content of stellar remnants, which we fit to various observational constraints. Our best-fitting model successfully matches the observables and correctly predicts the radial distribution of millisecond pulsars and their gravitational accelerations inferred from long-term timing observations. The data favours a population of BHs with a total mass of $430^{+386}_{-301}$ $M_{\odot}$, but the most likely model has very few BHs. Since our models do not include a central IMBH and accurately reproduce the observations, we conclude that there is currently no need to invoke the presence of an IMBH in 47 Tuc. The global present-day mass function inferred is significantly depleted in low-mass stars (power-law slope $\alpha=-0.52^{+0.17}_{-0.16}$). Given the orbit and predicted mass-loss history of this massive GC, the dearth of low-mass stars is difficult to explain with a standard initial mass function (IMF) followed by long-term preferential escape of low-mass stars driven by two-body relaxation, and instead suggests that 47 Tuc may have formed with a bottom-light IMF. We discuss alternative evolutionary origins for the flat mass function and ways to reconcile this with the low BH retention fraction. Finally, by capturing the effect of dark remnants, our method offers a new way to probe the IMF in a GC above the current main-sequence turn-off mass, for which we find a slope of $-2.49\pm0.08$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08538 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Results of our multimass model fit to observations of 47 Tuc. The different datasets are shown with filled circles and error bars, and the best-fitting models with continuous lines. The 1σ and 2σ credible intervals of the fitted models are shown with dark and light shaded regions, respectively. Top left: Number density profile from de Boer et al. (2019, see also Section 2.1). Top right: Line-of-sight velocity disper… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Marginalised posterior probability distribution and 2D projections of the posterior probability distribution of the fitting parameters for the limepy multimass model fit to 47 Tuc observations. Contours indicate 1, 2 and 3σ levels on the 2D posterior probability distributions. however still consistent within less than 1.5σ. The majority of the accelerations for these binary systems cluster around the maximum and min… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Line-of-sight gravitational acceleration of pulsars as a function of projected distance from the centre of 47 Tuc. The green envelope bounds the maximum (positive) and minimum (negative) line-of-sight acceleration at a given projected distance from the centre, based on the mass distribution of our best-fitting multimass model. Red circles show line-of-sight accel￾erations inferred from the measured orbital period de… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Cumulative radial distribution of the 25 known MSPs in 47 Tuc (black line) compared to the prediction of our best-fitting multimass models for a 1.6 M tracer (the typical mass of MSP systems in 47 Tuc given the presence of binary companions in a fraction of the systems…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Marginalised posterior probability distribution (blue shaded histograms) for each of the three power-law exponents defining the (initial) stellar mass function in 47 Tuc, for the ranges m < 0.5 M (α1), 0.5 < m < 1 M (α2), and m > 1 M (α3). For each distribution, the me…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Posterior probability distribution for the total mass in BHs in our multimass model of 47 Tuc. The median is shown by the solid black line and the 1σ uncertainties (16th and 84th percentiles) by the dashed black lines. might explain the need for an IMBH in the analysis…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Inferred IMF (upper panel, green), initial mass function of BHs (i.e. before any dynamical ejections; upper panel, orange), and present-day mass function of stars (lower panel, blue), and stellar remnants (lower panel, black) based on 200 random samples from the poster…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

123 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., et al., 2016a, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PhRvL.116f1102A 116, 061102

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2016a, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PhRvL.116f1102A 116, 061102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102

  2. [2]

    P., et al., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/818/2/L22 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818L..22A 818, L22

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/818/2/L22 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818L..22A 818, L22

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/818/2/l22

  3. [3]

    arXiv:1906.11855

    Antonini F., Gieles M., 2019, arXiv:1906.11855, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190611855A p. arXiv:1906.11855

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Antonini F., Gieles M., Gualandris A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1149 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.5008A 486, 5008

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1149 2019

  5. [5]

    Arca Sedda M., Askar A., Giersz M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1859 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.4652A 479, 4652

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1859 2018

  6. [6]

    Askar A., Arca Sedda M., Giersz M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1186 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.1844A 478, 1844

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1186 2018

  7. [7]

    N., Wolf R

    Bahcall J. N., Wolf R. A., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/154711 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...209..214B 209, 214

    doi:10.1086/154711 1976

  8. [8]

    Bahramian A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx166 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.2199B 467, 2199

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx166 2017

Show all 123 references
  1. [9]

    Balbinot E., Gieles M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2708 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.2479B 474, 2479

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Baumgardt H., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2488 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.2174B 464, 2174

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Baumgardt H., Hilker M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1057 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.1520B 478, 1520

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    Baumgardt H., Makino J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06286.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.340..227B 340, 227

    2003

  5. [13]

    Baumgardt H., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2060 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.tmp.1999B p. 1999

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Taam R

    Belczynski K., Kalogera V., Rasio F. A., Taam R. E., Zezas A., Bulik T., Maccarone T. J., Ivanova N., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521026 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..174..223B 174, 223

    2008 doi

  7. [15]

    L., Holz D

    Belczynski K., Wiktorowicz G., Fryer C. L., Holz D. E., Kalogera V., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/91 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...757...91B 757, 91

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    Bellini A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/115 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...797..115B 797, 115

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    L., Anderson J., Piotto G., van der Marel R

    Bellini A., Bianchini P., Varri A. L., Anderson J., Piotto G., van der Marel R. P., Vesperini E., Watkins L. L., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7c5f , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...844..167B 844, 167

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    A., van de Ven G., Schinnerer E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1651 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453..365B 453, 365

    Bianchini P., Norris M. A., van de Ven G., Schinnerer E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1651 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453..365B 453, 365

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Schinnerer E., Varri A

    Bianchini P., van de Ven G., Norris M. A., Schinnerer E., Varri A. L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw552 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.458.3644B 458, 3644

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    G., Heggie D

    Breen P. G., Heggie D. C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt628 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.2779B 432, 2779

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    Cappellari M., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature10972 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Natur.484..485C 484, 485

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    Carretta E., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912096 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    Chen S., Richer H., Caiazzo I., Heyl J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae089 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867..132C 867, 132

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    P., Strader J., Davies M

    Church R. P., Strader J., Davies M. B., Bobrick A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9aeb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...851L...4C 851, L4

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    Claydon I., Gieles M., Zocchi A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3309 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.3937C 466, 3937

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    L., Heggie D

    Claydon I., Gieles M., Varri A. L., Heggie D. C., Zocchi A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487..147C 487, 147

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    G., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/71 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...760...71C 760, 71

    Conroy C., van Dokkum P. G., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/71 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...760...71C 760, 71

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2315 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455..199D 455, 199

    Da Costa G. S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2315 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455..199D 455, 199

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Heggie D

    Daniel K. J., Heggie D. C., Varri A. L., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx571 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.1453D 468, 1453

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    Dotter A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..222....8D 222, 8

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    W., Sarajedini A., Anderson J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/517915 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AJ....134..376D 134, 376

    Dotter A., Chaboyer B., Jevremovi \'c D., Baron E., Ferguson J. W., Sarajedini A., Anderson J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/517915 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AJ....134..376D 134, 376

    2007 doi

  24. [32]

    Dotter A., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/698 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...708..698D 708, 698

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    Ferrarese L., Merritt D., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312838 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...539L...9F 539, L9

    2000 doi

  26. [34]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    Freire P. C. C., Ridolfi A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty524 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.4794F 476, 4794

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    Freire P. C. C., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1533 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471..857F 471, 857

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    C., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03811.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.318..753F 318, 753

    Fukushige T., Heggie D. C., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03811.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.318..753F 318, 753

    2000

  30. [38]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832698 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A..12G 616, A12

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    B., Hesser J

    Gebhardt K., Pryor C., Williams T. B., Hesser J. E., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/117642 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995AJ....110.1699G 110, 1699

    1995 doi

  32. [40]

    Gebhardt K., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312840 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...539L..13G 539, L13

    2000 doi

  33. [41]

    Gieles M., Zocchi A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1848 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454..576G 454, 576

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    Gieles M., Balbinot E., Yaaqib R. I. S. M., H \'e nault-Brunet V., Zocchi A., Peuten M., Jonker P. G., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2694 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.4832G 473, 4832

    doi

  35. [43]

    Gieles M., et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1059 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.2461G 478, 2461

    doi

  36. [44]

    C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17648.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.410.2698G 410, 2698

    Giersz M., Heggie D. C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17648.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.410.2698G 410, 2698

    2011

  37. [45]

    Giersz M., Leigh N., Hypki A., L \"u tzgendorf N., Askar A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2162 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.3150G 454, 3150

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    Giesers B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slx203 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475L..15G 475, L15

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    B., Anderson J., Dotter A., Sarajedini A., Woodley K., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1830 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1830G 140, 1830

    Goldsbury R., Richer H. B., Anderson J., Dotter A., Sarajedini A., Woodley K., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1830 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1830G 140, 1830

    2010 doi

  40. [48]

    G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219976 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    Gratton R. G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219976 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    E., Griffin R

    Gunn J. E., Griffin R. F., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/112477 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979AJ.....84..752G 84, 752

    1979 doi

  42. [50]

    Hansen B. M. S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature12334 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.500...51H 500, 51

    2013 doi

  43. [51]

    L., Zocchi A., Claydon I., Pancino E., Baumgardt H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3187 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.1400H 483, 1400

    H \'e nault-Brunet V., Gieles M., Sollima A., Watkins L. L., Zocchi A., Claydon I., Pancino E., Baumgardt H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3187 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.1400H 483, 1400

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    Heyl J., Caiazzo I., Richer H., Anderson J., Kalirai J., Parada J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa974f , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850..186H 850, 186

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    R., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/182586 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...218L.109I 218, L109

    Illingworth G., King I. R., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/182586 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...218L.109I 218, L109

    1977 doi

  46. [54]

    Kamann S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2719 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.5591K 473, 5591

    2018 doi

  47. [55]

    I., Strader J., Caldwell N., Anderton T., Gregersen D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/149/2/53 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....149...53K 149, 53

    Kimmig B., Seth A., Ivans I. I., Strader J., Caldwell N., Anderton T., Gregersen D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/149/2/53 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....149...53K 149, 53

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    R., 1966, @doi [ ] 10.1086/109857 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966AJ.....71...64K 71, 64

    King I. R., 1966, @doi [ ] 10.1086/109857 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966AJ.....71...64K 71, 64

    1966 doi

  49. [57]

    K z ltan B., Baumgardt H., Loeb A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature21361 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.542..203K 542, 203

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    L., Rasio F

    Kremer K., Chatterjee S., Rodriguez C. L., Rasio F. A., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa99df , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...852...29K 852, 29

    doi

  51. [59]

    S., Chatterjee S., Rodriguez C

    Kremer K., Ye C. S., Chatterjee S., Rodriguez C. L., Rasio F. A., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aab26c , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855L..15K 855, L15

    doi

  52. [60]

    S., Rodriguez C

    Kremer K., Chatterjee S., Ye C. S., Rodriguez C. L., Rasio F. A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf646 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871...38K 871, 38

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    Kroupa P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.322..231K 322, 231

    2001

  54. [62]

    Kunder A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/75 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....153...75K 153, 75

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    R., Kiss L

    Lane R. R., Kiss L. L., Lewis G. F., Ibata R. A., Siebert A., Bedding T. R., Sz \'e kely P., Szab \'o G. M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116660 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A

    2011 doi

  56. [64]

    Lanzoni B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/107 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...769..107L 769, 107

    2013 doi

  57. [65]

    A., Mendel J

    Leaman R., VandenBerg D. A., Mendel J. T., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1540 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436..122L 436, 122

    2013 doi

  58. [66]

    T., Gebhardt K., Baumgardt H., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116618 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A

    L \"u tzgendorf N., Kissler-Patig M., Noyola E., Jalali B., de Zeeuw P. T., Gebhardt K., Baumgardt H., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116618 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A

    2011 doi

  59. [67]

    L \"u tzgendorf N., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219062 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A

    2012 doi

  60. [68]

    L \"u tzgendorf N., Baumgardt H., Kruijssen J. M. D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321927 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    2013 doi

  61. [69]

    D., Wilkinson M

    Mackey A. D., Wilkinson M. I., Davies M. B., Gilmore G. F., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13052.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.386...65M 386, 65

    2008

  62. [70]

    R., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0e6d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...875....1M 875, 1

    Mann C. R., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0e6d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...875....1M 875, 1

    2019 doi

  63. [71]

    Mayor M., et al., 1983, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983A

    1983

  64. [72]

    E., van der Marel R

    McLaughlin D. E., van der Marel R. P., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/497429 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJS..161..304M 161, 304

    2005 doi

  65. [73]

    E., Anderson J., Meylan G., Gebhardt K., Pryor C., Minniti D., Phinney S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJS..166..249M 166, 249

    McLaughlin D. E., Anderson J., Meylan G., Gebhardt K., Pryor C., Minniti D., Phinney S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJS..166..249M 166, 249

    2006 doi

  66. [74]

    Merritt D., Piatek S., Portegies Zwart S., Hemsendorf M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422252 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...608L..25M 608, L25

    2004 doi

  67. [75]

    Meylan G., Dubath P., Mayor M., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170816 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...383..587M 383, 587

    1991 doi

  68. [76]

    W., 1963, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/125.2.127 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963MNRAS.125..127M 125, 127

    Michie R. W., 1963, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/125.2.127 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963MNRAS.125..127M 125, 127

    1963 doi

  69. [77]

    Miller-Jones J. C. A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1869 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.3918M 453, 3918

    2015 doi

  70. [78]

    P., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201016384 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...540A..16M 540, A16

    Milone A. P., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201016384 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...540A..16M 540, A16

    2012 doi

  71. [79]

    A., Umbreit S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...800....9M 800, 9

    Morscher M., Pattabiraman B., Rodriguez C., Rasio F. A., Umbreit S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...800....9M 800, 9

    2015 doi

  72. [80]

    S., Norris J., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/182232 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...208L..55N 208, L55

    Newell B., Da Costa G. S., Norris J., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/182232 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...208L..55N 208, L55

    1976 doi

  73. [81]

    Noyola E., Gebhardt K., Bergmann M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/529002 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...676.1008N 676, 1008

    2008 doi

  74. [82]

    Parada J., Richer H., Heyl J., Kalirai J., Goldsbury R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/88 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...826...88P 826, 88

    2016 doi

  75. [83]

    Perera B. B. P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx501 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.2114P 468, 2114

    2017 doi

  76. [84]

    Peuten M., Zocchi A., Gieles M., Gualandris A., H \'e nault-Brunet V., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1726 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.2333P 462, 2333

    2016 doi

  77. [85]

    Peuten M., Zocchi A., Gieles M., H \'e nault-Brunet V., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1311 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.2736P 470, 2736

    2017 doi

  78. [86]

    Pfahl E., Rappaport S., Podsiadlowski P., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340494 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...573..283P 573, 283

    2002 doi

  79. [87]

    S., 1993, in Djorgovski S

    Phinney E. S., 1993, in Djorgovski S. G., Meylan G., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 50, Structure and Dynamics of Globular Clusters. p. 141

    1993

  80. [88]

    F., McMillan S

    Portegies Zwart S. F., McMillan S. L. W., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312422 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...528L..17P 528, L17

    2000 doi

  81. [89]

    F., Baumgardt H., Hut P., Makino J., McMillan S

    Portegies Zwart S. F., Baumgardt H., Hut P., Makino J., McMillan S. L. W., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature02448 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Natur.428..724P 428, 724

    2004 doi

  82. [90]

    J., Ransom S

    Prager B. J., Ransom S. M., Freire P. C. C., Hessels J. W. T., Stairs I. H., Arras P., Cadelano M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7ed7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...845..148P 845, 148

    2017 doi

  83. [91]

    Ridolfi A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1850 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.2918R 462, 2918

    2016 doi

  84. [92]

    L., Chatterjee S., Rasio F

    Rodriguez C. L., Chatterjee S., Rasio F. A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.084029 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2016PhRvD..93h4029R 93, 084029

    2016 doi

  85. [93]

    E., 1955, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955ApJ...121..161S 121, 161

    Salpeter E. E., 1955, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955ApJ...121..161S 121, 161

    1955 doi

  86. [94]

    Sarajedini A., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/511979 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AJ....133.1658S 133, 1658

    2007 doi

  87. [95]

    L., Gieles M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu205 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448L..94S 448, L94

    Shanahan R. L., Gieles M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu205 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448L..94S 448, L94

    2015 doi

  88. [96]

    Sigurdsson S., Hernquist L., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1038/364423a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993Natur.364..423S 364, 423

    1993 doi

  89. [97]

    C., Hurley J

    Sippel A. C., Hurley J. R., Madrid J. P., Harris W. E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21969.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427..167S 427, 167

    2012

  90. [98]

    Sollima A., Baumgardt H., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1856 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.3668S 471, 3668

    2017 doi

  91. [99]

    L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1079 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.2185S 451, 2185

    Sollima A., Baumgardt H., Zocchi A., Balbinot E., Gieles M., H \'e nault-Brunet V., Varri A. L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1079 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.2185S 451, 2185

    2015 doi

  92. [100]

    C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/142/1/8 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AJ....142....8S 142, 8

    Strader J., Caldwell N., Seth A. C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/142/1/8 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AJ....142....8S 142, 8

    2011 doi

  93. [101]

    J., Miller-Jones J

    Strader J., Chomiuk L., Maccarone T. J., Miller-Jones J. C. A., Seth A. C., 2012a, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature11490 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Natur.490...71S 490, 71

    doi

  94. [102]

    J., Miller-Jones J

    Strader J., Chomiuk L., Maccarone T. J., Miller-Jones J. C. A., Seth A. C., Heinke C. O., Sivakoff G. R., 2012b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/750/2/L27 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...750L..27S 750, L27

    doi

  95. [103]

    A., Vesperini E., Varri A

    Tiongco M. A., Vesperini E., Varri A. L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2574 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455.3693T 455, 3693

    2016 doi

  96. [104]

    C., King I

    Trager S. C., King I. R., Djorgovski S., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/117268 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995AJ....109..218T 109, 218

    1995 doi

  97. [105]

    Tremou E., et al., 2018, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180600259T ( @eprint arXiv 1806.00259 )

    2018 arXiv

  98. [106]

    W., Koopmans L

    Treu T., Auger M. W., Koopmans L. V. E., Gavazzi R., Marshall P. J., Bolton A. S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/1195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...709.1195T 709, 1195

    2010 doi

  99. [107]

    Tudor V., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty284 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.1889T 476, 1889

    2018 doi

  100. [108]

    J., van Dokkum P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa970f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850L..14V 850, L14

    Villaume A., Brodie J., Conroy C., Romanowsky A. J., van Dokkum P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa970f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850L..14V 850, L14

    2017 doi

  101. [109]

    Volonteri M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-010-0029-x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A

    2010 doi

  102. [110]

    L., van der Marel R

    Watkins L. L., van der Marel R. P., Bellini A., Anderson J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/149 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812..149W 812, 149

    2015 doi

  103. [111]

    C., Chatterjee S., Rodriguez C

    Weatherford N. C., Chatterjee S., Rodriguez C. L., Rasio F. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad63d , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864...13W 864, 13

    2018 doi

  104. [112]

    P., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1086/111729 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975AJ.....80..175W 80, 175

    Wilson C. P., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1086/111729 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975AJ.....80..175W 80, 175

    1975 doi

  105. [113]

    Woolley R. V. D. R., 1954, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1954MNRAS.114..191W 114, 191

    1954

  106. [114]

    arXiv:1904.07789

    Wyrzykowski ., Mandel I., 2019, arXiv:1904.07789, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190407789W p. arXiv:1904.07789

    2019 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Wyrzykowski ., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw426 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.458.3012W 458, 3012

    2016 doi

  108. [116]

    L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1104 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462..696Z 462, 696

    Zocchi A., Gieles M., H \'e nault-Brunet V., Varri A. L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1104 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462..696Z 462, 696

    2016 doi

  109. [117]

    Zocchi A., Gieles M., H \'e nault-Brunet V., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx316 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.4429Z 468, 4429

    2017 doi

  110. [118]

    Zocchi A., Gieles M., H \'e nault-Brunet V., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1508 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.4713Z 482, 4713

    2019 doi

  111. [119]

    de Boer T. J. L., Gieles M., Balbinot E., H \'e nault-Brunet V., Sollima A., Watkins L. L., Claydon I., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz651 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.tmp..651D

    2019 doi

  112. [120]

    de Vita R., Trenti M., Bianchini P., Askar A., Giersz M., van de Ven G., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx325 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.4057D 467, 4057

    2017 doi

  113. [121]

    den Brok M., van de Ven G., van den Bosch R., Watkins L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2221 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438..487D 438, 487

    2014 doi

  114. [122]

    P., Anderson J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1063 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...710.1063V 710, 1063

    van der Marel R. P., Anderson J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1063 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...710.1063V 710, 1063

    2010 doi

  115. [123]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.