Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 100 references

An "inside-out" approach to modeling supermassive black hole binary inspiral

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The nanohertz gravitational-wave background is set by the radius where astrophysical hardening gives way to gravitational-wave emission.

desk verdict A practical, clearly written method paper that reframes PTA GWB modeling around the transition radius a_GW; the central sensitivity claim holds up, with a fair caveat about the single-power-law inner hardening ansatz. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06269 v1 pith:AYGTEMU3 submitted 2026-08-06 astro-ph.HE

Laura Blecha This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords SupermassiveblackholesGravitationalwaveastronomysourcesPulsartimingarraysbackgroundSMBHbinaryinspiralInside-outhardeningmodel
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

This paper argues that pulsar timing array (PTA) measurements of the nanohertz gravitational-wave background (GWB) should be interpreted through one key quantity: $a_{\rm GW}$, the orbital separation at which a supermassive black hole binary's inspiral switches from being driven by stars or gas to being driven by gravitational-wave emission. The paper constructs an "inside-out" model that treats the innermost astrophysical phase as a single power law in separation, ties the outer phase to a simple delay time, and leaves $a_{\rm GW}$ free. The central result is that the GWB shape and amplitude depend far more on $a_{\rm GW}$ than on the other hardening parameters, and that only $a_{\rm GW,9}\sim20$--$6000\,R_g$ (for a $10^9\,M_\odot$, equal-mass binary, in gravitational units) is consistent with an observable background. If true, this refocuses PTA parameter inference on one physically meaningful radius rather than on weakly constrained outer inspiral details, and it gives a concrete target for what LISA and continuous-wave searches should be most sensitive to.

What carries the argument

The central object is $a_{\rm GW}\equiv a_{\rm GW,9} M_9^{\alpha_{\rm GW}}(4\eta)^{\beta_{\rm GW}}$, the semi-major axis, in gravitational units, at which the astrophysical hardening timescale equals the gravitational-wave timescale for a circular binary. It carries the argument because $t_{\rm hard,GW}\propto a^4$ makes the transition radius the point where the binary's residence time in the PTA band and its emitted gravitational-wave energy per frequency are set. Around it the paper places a single-power-law inner hardening phase with index $\nu_{\rm in}$, a mass-scaled outer boundary $r_{\rm char}$, and an outer delay $\tau_{\rm out}$; the "inside-out" move is to make $a_{\rm GW}$ the free anchor and push all outer evolution into $\tau_{\rm out}$.

What would settle it

A future PTA spectrum with a clearly broken power-law shape or a strong high-frequency excess from eccentric binaries cannot be reproduced by any single $\nu_{\rm in}$ and $a_{\rm GW,9}$ pair that also satisfies the subluminal hardening-rate limit, which would falsify the paper's reduction of the background to one transition radius.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the spectral shape and amplitude of the GWB are dominated by $a_{\rm GW}$, not by the details of how binaries harden before or after the PTA band. Working backwards from the GW regime, modeling $\dot a\propto a^{1-\nu_{\rm in}}$ just outside $a_{\rm GW}$ and absorbing everything at larger radii into a delay time $\tau_{\rm out}$, the paper finds that varying $a_{\rm GW,9}$ across roughly two orders of magnitude changes the low-frequency amplitude by factors up to $\sim10^3$, whereas varying $\nu_{\rm in}$, $\tau_{\rm out}$, $r_{\rm char}$, or the mass-ratio scaling of $a_{\rm GW}$ leaves the spectrum nearly unchanged. Requiring sub-relativistic hardening rates and a detectable background restricts $a_{\rm GW,9}$ to roughly $20$--$6000\,R_g$, with the peak, near-power-law spectrum at $a_{\rm GW,9}\sim500$--$2000\,R_g$ corresponding to efficient astrophysical transport to the edge of the PTA band followed by a GW-driven sweep through it. The paper therefore proposes that $a_{\rm GW}$ be treated as a free parameter in PTA analyses rather than implicitly fixed by outer inspiral assumptions.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes every binary's astrophysical hardening, from the start of the PTA regime down to the GW transition, follows one fixed power law in separation, with no eccentricity, so one averaged index represents all environments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • PTA analyses should fit $a_{\rm GW,9}$ as a free parameter rather than absorbing it into a fixed total inspiral timescale, since the GWB amplitude and slope vary by orders of magnitude across the allowed range.
  • A measured turnover or slope of the GWB can be translated into an allowed window for $a_{\rm GW,9}$, directly tying the background to the binary separation where astrophysics loses to gravity.
  • Because the GWB is largely blind to $\beta_{\rm GW}$ and only weakly sensitive to $\alpha_{\rm GW}$, those scalings must be constrained through other observables, chiefly SMBHB merger rates and LISA event rates.
  • The range of viable $a_{\rm GW,9}$ shrinks as PTA observation time grows; a 100-year dataset cannot be modeled self-consistently with GW-only inspiral for binaries below a few times $10^9\,M_\odot$, strengthening the case for astrophysical hardening in the band.
  • If future data favor gas-like $\nu_{\rm in}$ or stellar-like $\nu_{\rm in}$, that would indicate the dominant hardening channel in the nHz regime and inform whether mergers are likely to have electromagnetic counterparts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper is right, the next round of PTA parameter estimation should see $a_{\rm GW,9}$ and $\nu_{\rm in}$ as nearly orthogonal axes, with $a_{\rm GW,9}$ controlling overall amplitude and turnover while $\nu_{\rm in}$ controls spectral steepness only at the high-$a_{\rm GW,9}$ or low-$a_{\rm GW,9}$ extremes.
  • A testable extension would be to repeat the exercise with a two-slope inner hardening law, such as gas at small radii and stars at larger radii; the paper's own sensitivity ranking could shift toward $\nu_{\rm in}$ if real hardening is not a single power law.
  • The paper's mass-threshold result implies that as PTAs accumulate decades of data, any claimed GWB from low-mass SMBHBs will require either direct evidence of astrophysical hardening or an exotic explanation, since GW-only inspiral cannot bring them through the band in time.
  • Because LISA event rates are claimed to be more sensitive to $\alpha_{\rm GW}$ and $\beta_{\rm GW}$ than the GWB is, combining PTA and LISA data would be the cleanest way to pin down the mass scaling of $a_{\rm GW}$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an 'inside-out' analytic model for supermassive-black-hole binary inspiral, in which the astrophysical hardening rate in the inner regime is a single power law anchored to the transition radius a_GW where the astrophysical and GW-driven hardening timescales are equal; the outer evolution is compressed into a delay time tau_out. Using the holodeck population code, the author computes GWB spectra for a set of fiducial models and parameter sweeps. The main claims are that the nHz GWB shape and amplitude are most sensitive to a_GW,9, that only a_GW,9 ~20-6000 R_g are consistent with an observable SMBHB background, and that a_GW should therefore be a free parameter in PTA analyses. The paper also derives a minimum-mass self-consistency criterion for GW-only hardening models and compares the framework with stellar- and gas-driven hardening expectations.

Significance. The paper's central idea is useful and timely: it provides a minimal, computationally cheap parameterization that isolates the PTA-relevant portion of binary evolution and makes a falsifiable prediction (the allowed a_GW,9 window). The analysis is transparent, uses standard Peters (1964) equations, and explicitly checks physicality via |dot a| <= c. The author is candid about limitations (eccentricity, single power law, no orbital softening, and the alternative parameterization in Appendix A). If the sensitivity ranking survives a parameterization-robust test, the paper would strengthen the case for treating a_GW as a key PTA-inference parameter and would be a useful reference for future PTA analyses.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.3, Eq. (8); Appendix A] The sensitivity analysis for a_GW,9 conflates the transition radius with the overall normalization of the inner astrophysical hardening rate. In Eq. (8), dot a_in(a) = dot a_GW(a_GW) (a/a_GW)^{1-nu_in}, and since dot a_GW(a_GW) ∝ M^3 a_GW^{-3}, for fixed a and nu_in the inner hardening rate scales as a_GW^{-(4-nu_in)}. Thus varying a_GW,9 changes both the location of the astrophysical-to-GW transition and the hardening rate at every separation in the inner regime. Appendix A outlines an alternative parameterization in which dot a(r_char) is an independent input and nu_in is derived, which would decouple these effects, but no GWB calculations are presented for that parameterization. Because the central claim that a_GW is the dominant parameter, and the inferred allowed range a_GW,9 ~20-6000 R_g, depend on the chosen normalization, the author should either implement the Appendix A parameterization and show whether the strong sensitivity persists, or explicitly restrict the claim to the Eq. (8) normalization.
  2. [§3.5; §2.3] The sensitivity ranking of a_GW versus nu_in rests on the assumption that the inner astrophysical hardening rate is a single power law from r_char to a_GW for all binaries. Figures 9 and 10 show that nu_in can strongly modulate the GWB in the gas-like and stellar-like regimes, so a broken power law or a mixture of hardening channels could plausibly alter the ranking. The paper acknowledges this possibility in §3.7 and §4.1 but does not quantify its impact on the allowed a_GW window. A robustness test with, for example, a two-slope inner hardening law, or with the Appendix A parameterization, would make the central claim substantially more robust.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5] The statement that a_GW,9 ~20-6000 R_g are consistent with an observable GWB 'across a wide range in other model parameters' should be qualified as the union over the models considered, since no single model admits the entire range; for example, Bstar requires a_GW,9 >= 10^3.25 R_g and the gas-like models show no observable GWB above roughly 10^3 R_g.
  2. [Section 1] The quoted value H0 = 0.6933 km s^-1 Mpc^-1 appears to be a factor-of-100 typo; the intended WMAP9 value is 69.33 km s^-1 Mpc^-1.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The schematic labels such as 'f_em 10^9 M_sun = 1/(20yr)' are ambiguous; clarifying the axes and annotations would improve readability.
  4. [References] The DOI given for Sato-Polito et al. (2025), '10.1103/1br7-s1rc', looks malformed and should be checked.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the a_GW sensitivity is a computed forward-model result, and self-citations are limited to non-load-bearing infrastructure.

full rationale

The paper is a forward parameter study, not a fit to GWB data: it specifies the inside-out hardening law (Eqs. 8–12), feeds it into the holodeck population synthesis code, and computes GWB spectra for chosen parameter values. The central claim that the GWB is most sensitive to a_GW is a computed sensitivity result: with other parameters at fiducial values, varying a_GW moves the transition radius and, via Eq. (8), also changes the normalization of the inner astrophysical hardening rate, but the paper independently varies ν_in, τ_out, α_GW, β_GW, and r_char and finds weaker or negligible effects. That ranking is not an identity; it is a model output. The allowed range a_GW,9 ~ 20–6000 R_g follows from the imposed physical criteria (|ẏ| < c and τ_in+gw < t_H) together with the requirement of a detectable GWB, not from fitting the GWB. The alternative parameterization in Appendix A (ẏ(r_char) as input, ν_in derived) is only outlined; the absence of GWB calculations for that parameterization is a robustness/completeness gap regarding whether the normalization coupling in Eq. (8) inflates a_GW sensitivity, but it is not a circular reduction of the paper's result to its input. Self-citations (Kelley et al. 2017a,b; holodeck/NG15Astro; Harris et al. 2026) support the computational infrastructure and comparison values; none is load-bearing for the main claim, and no uniqueness theorem or forced choice is imported. Thus there is no circular step, and the score is 2 only because the paper leans on prior work by the same group for the holodeck framework and the 2PL ansatz, which are normal, non-circular dependencies.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical entities. It relies on several free parameters (a_GW,9, ν_in, etc.) and simplifying assumptions (power-law inner hardening, constant outer delay, circular orbits) that are standard in analytic SMBHB inspiral models but are not derived from first principles. The galaxy population inputs are taken from prior literature.

free parameters (7)
  • a_GW,9 = 10^2.5 R_g
    Free parameter: the semi-major axis where hardening transitions to GW domination for a 1e9 Msun, equal-mass, circular binary.
  • α_GW = -1/4
    Free parameter: power-law index for mass scaling of a_GW in Eq. 12.
  • β_GW = +1/4
    Free parameter: power-law index for mass-ratio scaling of a_GW in Eq. 12.
  • ν_in = 0
    Free parameter: power-law index of the inner astrophysical hardening timescale, Eq. 8.
  • r_char,9 = 1 pc
    Free parameter: boundary between inner and outer hardening regimes for a 1e9 Msun binary, Eq. 16.
  • α_char = -2/3
    Free parameter: mass scaling of r_char, chosen so that r_char scales with the PTA entry radius.
  • τ_out = 1 Gyr
    Free parameter: delay time for the outer astrophysical inspiral phase before binaries reach r_char.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Gravitational radiation from circular binaries follows Peters (1964) formulae.
    Used throughout for GW-driven inspiral rates and merger timescales, Eq. 1 and Eq. 3.
  • domain assumption All binaries are circular with zero eccentricity.
    Stated in Section 2.3; eccentric binaries would enter the PTA band at larger separations and emit at higher harmonics.
  • ad hoc to paper The inner astrophysical hardening rate follows a single power law from r_char down to a_GW.
    Central ansatz of the model, Eq. 8. Not derived from microphysics; acknowledged as a simplification.
  • domain assumption The outer astrophysical inspiral is modeled only as a constant delay time τ_out for all binaries.
    Section 2.3; avoids modeling large-scale dynamics but relies on a single timescale independent of mass, mass ratio, and redshift.
  • domain assumption A single set of hardening parameters applies to all binaries across the full mass and redshift range.
    Implicit in the population synthesis; Section 4.2 cautions this may not hold for LISA-mass binaries.
  • domain assumption The galaxy population inputs (GSMF, merger rate, M_BH-M_bulge) are taken from literature and held fixed.
    Uses Leja+2020 GSMF, Rodriguez-Gomez+2015 merger rates, Kormendy & Ho 2013 relation; no redshift evolution.
  • ad hoc to paper The maximum hardening rate |a_dot| is capped at the speed of light c.
    Introduced in Section 2.4 as a firm but simple upper limit; the paper notes a more realistic limit would be the orbital speed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An "inside-out" approach to modeling supermassive black hole binary inspiral." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AYGTEMU3

@misc{pith2026260806269,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An "inside-out" approach to modeling supermassive black hole binary inspiral},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AYGTEMU3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06269}
}
abstract

The inspiral and merger of two supermassive black holes (SMBHs) releases immense energy in low-frequency gravitational waves (GWs). Recent pulsar timing array (PTA) observations of the stochastic nHz GW background (GWB) are consistent with a SMBH binary origin. GW data from PTAs and from the upcoming Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) can probe late-stage binary evolution where electromagnetic constraints are scarce. However, the complexity of the relevant astrophysics necessitates a well optimized approach. I argue that a key physical quantity to constrain with PTAs is the orbital semi-major axis at which binary inspiral transitions from the astrophysical to the GW-dominated regime ($a_{\rm GW}$). This quantity should be treated as a free parameter in analysis of the GWB. Using this premise, I present a simple analytic framework for modeling SMBH binary inspiral in an "inside-out" fashion. At orbital separations slightly larger than $a_{\rm GW}$, a power-law scaling for the astrophysical inspiral timescale is assumed, while the outermost phase (prior to the PTA regime) is simply modeled via a delay time. I show that the GWB spectral shape and amplitude are most sensitive to $a_{\rm GW}$ (normalized to $10^9 M_{\odot}$, equal-mass binaries and expressed in gravitational units), with weaker dependence on the inner power-law index and the outer delay time. The GWB is largely insensitive to the mass and mass-ratio scaling of $a_{\rm GW}$ and to the boundary between the inner and outer astrophysical inspiral regimes. I compare with models for gas- and stellar-driven binary inspiral and discuss implications for LISA and for GW source parameter inference.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06269 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Minimum required mass for circular SMBHBs to merge by z = 0, starting from zem(fobs,min), via GW emission alone. Curves are shown for fobs,min = (15 yr)−1 , (20 yr)−1 , & (100 yr)−1 . They indicate the SMBHB masses that would be included in a self-consistent GWB calculation based on a SMBHB merger rate as in E. S. Phinney (2001), if all binaries are evolved from the low-frequency edge of the PTA band via GW emission… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left panel: Shaded regions denote the allowed parameter space (νin, aGW,9) for select SMBHB inspiral models. Purple curves denote the minimum νin for a given aGW,9 for the A0 model with rchar,9 = 0.1pc (dashed), 1 pc (solid; fiducial value), & 10 pc (dot-dashed). These rchar,9 values are also marked by vertical black lines. The green solid curve shows the minimum νin for the B0 model with rchar,9 = 1.0pc. Lower νin … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. SMBHB hardening timescales and rates versus separation are shown for the fiducial hardening models A0 (blue solid curves) and B0 (orange dashed curves). The x-axis in the left panels is the binary separation a in units of Rg (which scales linearly with M), while the right panels use units of pc. Note that a decreases from left to right on the plot, in the direction of forward time. All curves start at rchar and stop… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: GWB spectra are shown for the same fiducial hardening models as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Key results for the A0-agw9var model that varies aGW,9 with other parameters at fiducial A0 values. The color scale indicates the value of aGW,9. (a) Top panel: binary hardening rate versus separation (in Rg units) for select masses, mass ratios, and aGW,9 values, in a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Key results for the B0-agw9var model that varies aGW,9 with other parameters at fiducial B0, in the same manner as in Figure 6a-6d. The upper panel of Figure 7b includes small aGW,9 values that do not satisfy ˙a < |a˙|max (gray × symbols). As in the A0-agw9var models, …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Key results are shown for the A0-agw9var model with varying αGW (which controls the mass scaling of aGW,9), and with fiducial values of all other parameters, in the same manner as in Figure 6a-6d. Filled+open circles in (b) & (d), and the thick solid line in (c), denot…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Key results are shown for the A0-nuvar models with varying νin (which controls the power-law index of thard in the inner astrophysical regime) and fiducial A0 values of all other parameters, in the same manner as in Figure 6a-6d. Filled+open circles in (b) & (d), and t…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) GWB spectra are shown for the Agas model with aGW,9 = 100Rg, for various values of νin. The thick solid line indicates the fiducial value of νin = +2. Lower νin creates stronger low-frequency GWB attenuation. (b) GWB spectra are shown for the Astar model with aGW,…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: GWB characteristic strain amplitudes and amplitude ratios are shown for the A0-toutvar model variants with varying τout (the inspiral timescale in the outer astrophysical phase where a > rchar). (a): the GWB spectra for each model variant are shown in the same manner …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (a) SMBHB hardening rates (top panel) and τin+gw (bottom panel) are shown versus binary separation for three fiducial model variants: A0 (solid blue curves), Astar (dashed green curves), and Agas (dash-dotted purple curves). As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, ApJL, 951, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdc91

    Afzal, A., Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdc91

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdc91 2023

  2. [2]

    inside-out

    Agarwal, N., Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., et al. 2026, ApJL, 998, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae3719 An “inside-out” SMBH binary inspiral model27

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae3719 2026

  3. [3]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023a, ApJL, 951, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6

  4. [4]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023b, ApJL, 952, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace18b

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace18b

  5. [5]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023c, ApJL, 951, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace18a

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace18a

  6. [6]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Audley, H., Babak, S., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786. https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00786

    arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    J., & Natarajan, P

    Armitage, P. J., & Natarajan, P. 2002, ApJL, 567, L9, doi: 10.1086/339770

    doi:10.1086/339770 2002

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 2533, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21057.x

    Barausse, E. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 2533, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21057.x

    2012

  2. [10]

    C., Blandford, R

    Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1980, Nature, 287, 307, doi: 10.1038/287307a0

    1980 doi

  3. [11]

    2006, ApJL, 642, L21, doi: 10.1086/504426

    Berczik, P., Merritt, D., Spurzem, R., & Bischof, H.-P. 2006, ApJL, 642, L21, doi: 10.1086/504426

    2006 doi

  4. [13]

    2010, ApJ, 715, 1117, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/1117 Bogdanovi´ c, T., Miller, M

    Shoemaker, D. 2010, ApJ, 715, 1117, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/1117 Bogdanovi´ c, T., Miller, M. C., & Blecha, L. 2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00037-8

    2010 doi

  5. [14]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 4419, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1590

    Bonetti, M., Haardt, F., Sesana, A., & Barausse, E. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 4419, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1590

    2016 doi

  6. [15]

    2018a, MNRAS, 477, 3910, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty896

    Bonetti, M., Haardt, F., Sesana, A., & Barausse, E. 2018a, MNRAS, 477, 3910, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty896

    doi

  7. [16]

    2018b, MNRAS, 477, 2599, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty874

    Bonetti, M., Sesana, A., Barausse, E., & Haardt, F. 2018b, MNRAS, 477, 2599, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty874

    doi

  8. [17]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 4044, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz903

    Bonetti, M., Sesana, A., Haardt, F., Barausse, E., & Colpi, M. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 4044, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz903

    2019 doi

  9. [18]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.12325, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.12325

    Bonoli, S., Izquierdo-Villalba, D., Spinoso, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.12325, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.12325

    2025 doi

  10. [19]

    Noble, S. C. 2017, ApJ, 838, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa63f3

    2017 doi

  11. [21]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 2145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1838

    Charisi, M., Bartos, I., Haiman, Z., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1838

    2016 doi

  12. [22]

    2014, SSRv, 183, 189, doi: 10.1007/s11214-014-0067-1

    Colpi, M. 2014, SSRv, 183, 189, doi: 10.1007/s11214-014-0067-1

    2014 doi

  13. [23]

    M., & Simon, J

    Comerford, J. M., & Simon, J. 2025, ApJ, 994, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1133 D’Orazio, D. J., & Duffell, P. C. 2021, ApJL, 914, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0621 D’Orazio, D. J., Haiman, Z., & Schiminovich, D. 2015, Nature, 525, 351, doi: 10.1038/nature15262

    2025 doi

  14. [24]

    C., D’Orazio, D., Derdzinski, A., et al

    Duffell, P. C., D’Orazio, D., Derdzinski, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abab95 EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, Antoniadis, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346844 EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, Antoniadis, J.,...

    2020 doi

  15. [25]

    A., Halpern, J

    Eracleous, M., Boroson, T. A., Halpern, J. P., & Liu, J. 2012, ApJS, 201, 23, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/23

    2012 doi

  16. [26]

    B., Coppi, P

    Escala, A., Larson, R. B., Coppi, P. S., & Mardones, D. 2005, ApJ, 630, 152, doi: 10.1086/431747

    2005 doi

  17. [27]

    D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A

    Farris, B. D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A. I., & Haiman, Z. 2014, ApJ, 783, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/134

    2014 doi

  18. [28]

    D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A

    Farris, B. D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A. I., & Haiman, Z. 2015, MNRAS, 447, L80, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu184

    2015 doi

  19. [29]

    D., Liu, Y

    Farris, B. D., Liu, Y. T., & Shapiro, S. L. 2010, PhRvD, 81, 084008, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.084008

    2010 doi

  20. [30]

    Gardiner, E. C. 2026, in preparation

    2026

  21. [31]

    C., B´ ecsy, B., Kelley, L

    Gardiner, E. C., B´ ecsy, B., Kelley, L. Z., & Cornish, N. J. 2025, ApJ, 988, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade4c2

    2025 doi

  22. [32]

    C., Kelley, L

    Gardiner, E. C., Kelley, L. Z., Lemke, A.-M., & Mitridate, A. 2024, ApJ, 965, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2be8

    2024 doi

  23. [33]

    Pfeiffer, H. P. 2014, PhRvD, 89, 064060, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.064060

    2014 doi

  24. [34]

    I., Dehnen, W., & Bortolas, E

    Gualandris, A., Read, J. I., Dehnen, W., & Bortolas, E. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 2301, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2528

    2017 doi

  25. [35]

    2009, ApJ, 700, 1952, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1952

    Haiman, Z., Kocsis, B., & Menou, K. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1952, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1952

    2009 doi

  26. [36]

    J., G¨ ultekin, K., & Blecha, L

    Harris, C. J., G¨ ultekin, K., & Blecha, L. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.07762, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.07762

    2026 doi

  27. [37]

    2007, MNRAS, 377, 957, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11694.x

    Hoffman, L., & Loeb, A. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 957, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11694.x

    2007

  28. [38]

    2008, ApJ, 686, 829, doi: 10.1086/591218

    Yunes, N. 2008, ApJ, 686, 829, doi: 10.1086/591218

    2008 doi

  29. [39]

    Holley-Bockelmann, K., & Khan, F. M. 2015, ApJ, 810, 139, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/139

    2015 doi

  30. [40]

    2006, arXiv e-prints, astro

    Holley-Bockelmann, K., & Sigurdsson, S. 2006, arXiv e-prints, astro. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601520

    2006 arXiv

  31. [41]

    M., Williams, I., et al

    Holley-Bockelmann, K., Khan, F. M., Williams, I., et al. 2025, ApJL, 995, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1ccd 28L. Blecha

    2025 doi

  32. [42]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 3488, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3239

    Izquierdo-Villalba, D., Sesana, A., Bonoli, S., & Colpi, M. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 3488, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3239

    2022 doi

  33. [43]

    L., Kelley, L

    Katz, M. L., Kelley, L. Z., Dosopoulou, F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2301, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3102

    2020 doi

  34. [44]

    Z., Blecha, L., & Hernquist, L

    Kelley, L. Z., Blecha, L., & Hernquist, L. 2017a, MNRAS, 464, 3131, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2452

    doi

  35. [45]

    Taylor, S. R. 2017b, MNRAS, 471, 4508, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1638

    doi

  36. [46]

    Taylor, S. R. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 964, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty689

    2018 doi

  37. [47]

    Z., Gardiner, E

    Kelley, L. Z., Gardiner, E. C., Wright, D., et al. 2024, nanograv/holodeck: v1.5.2, v1.5.2 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10966412

    2024 doi

  38. [48]

    M., Berczik, P., & Just, A

    Khan, F. M., Berczik, P., & Just, A. 2018, A&A, 615, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730489

    2018 doi

  39. [49]

    M., Holley-Bockelmann, K., Berczik, P., & Just, A

    Khan, F. M., Holley-Bockelmann, K., Berczik, P., & Just, A. 2013, ApJ, 773, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/100

    2013 doi

  40. [50]

    M., Just, A., & Merritt, D

    Khan, F. M., Just, A., & Merritt, D. 2011, ApJ, 732, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/89

    2011 doi

  41. [51]

    M., Preto, M., Berczik, P., et al

    Khan, F. M., Preto, M., Berczik, P., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/147

    2012 doi

  42. [52]

    2011, MNRAS, 411, 1467, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17782.x

    Kocsis, B., & Sesana, A. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 1467, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17782.x

    2011

  43. [53]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    2013 doi

  44. [54]

    R., Matt, C., & G¨ ultekin, K

    Laal, N., Taylor, S. R., Matt, C., & G¨ ultekin, K. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1004, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6cea

    2026 doi

  45. [55]

    R., Kelley, L

    Laal, N., Taylor, S. R., Kelley, L. Z., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb4ef

    2025 doi

  46. [56]

    Lai, D., & Mu˜ noz, D. J. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 517, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052622-022933

    2023 doi

  47. [57]

    S., Johnson, B

    Leja, J., Speagle, J. S., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7e27

    2020 doi

  48. [58]

    R., & Bonetti, M

    Li, K., Bogdanovi´ c, T., Ballantyne, D. R., & Bonetti, M. 2023, ApJ, 959, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad04d2

    2023 doi

  49. [59]

    R., & Ma, C.-P

    Liepold, E. R., & Ma, C.-P. 2024, ApJL, 971, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad66b8

    2024 doi

  50. [60]

    I., & Milosavljevi´ c, M

    MacFadyen, A. I., & Milosavljevi´ c, M. 2008, ApJ, 672, 83, doi: 10.1086/523869

    2008 doi

  51. [61]

    Z., et al

    Matt, C., G¨ ultekin, K., Kelley, L. Z., et al. 2026a, ApJ, 997, 188, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2480

    doi

  52. [62]

    2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.11167, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.11167

    Matt, C., G¨ ultekin, K., Agazie, G., et al. 2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.11167, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.11167

    doi arXiv

  53. [63]

    2007, Science, 316, 1874, doi: 10.1126/science.1141858

    Mayer, L., Kazantzidis, S., Madau, P., et al. 2007, Science, 316, 1874, doi: 10.1126/science.1141858

    2007 doi

  54. [64]

    2005, Living Reviews in Relativity, 8, 8, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2005-8 Milosavljevi´ c, M., & Phinney, E

    Merritt, D., & Milosavljevi´ c, M. 2005, Living Reviews in Relativity, 8, 8, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2005-8 Milosavljevi´ c, M., & Phinney, E. S. 2005, ApJL, 622, L93, doi: 10.1086/429618

    2005 doi

  55. [65]

    Moody, M. S. L., Shi, J.-M., & Stone, J. M. 2019, ApJ, 875, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab09ee Mu˜ noz, D. J., Lai, D., Kratter, K., & Mirand a, R. 2020, ApJ, 889, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5d33 Mu˜ noz, D. J., Miranda, R., & Lai, D. 2019, ApJ, 871, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-43...

    2019 doi

  56. [66]

    2015, Astronomy and Computing, 13, 12, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.09.003

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Genel, S., et al. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 13, 12, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.09.003

    2015 doi

  57. [67]

    C., Mundim, B

    Noble, S. C., Mundim, B. C., Nakano, H., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/51

    2012 doi

  58. [68]

    2021, ApJL, 910, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abee21

    Paschalidis, V., Bright, J., Ruiz, M., & Gold, R. 2021, ApJL, 910, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abee21

    2021 doi

  59. [69]

    Peters, P. C. 1964, Physical Review, 136, 1224, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224

    1964 doi

  60. [70]

    R., Charisi, M., & Ma, C.-P

    Petrov, P., Taylor, S. R., Charisi, M., & Ma, C.-P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.04409, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.04409

    2024 doi arXiv

  61. [71]

    Phinney, E. S. 2001, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0108028

    2001 doi arXiv

  62. [72]

    Quinlan, G. D. 1996, NewA, 1, 35, doi: 10.1016/S1384-1076(96)00003-6

    1996 doi

  63. [73]

    D., & Hernquist, L

    Quinlan, G. D., & Hernquist, L. 1997, NewA, 2, 533, doi: 10.1016/S1384-1076(97)00039-0

    1997 doi

  64. [74]

    Ravi, V., Wyithe, J. S. B., Hobbs, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 761, 84, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/84

    2012 doi

  65. [75]

    J., Zic, A., Shannon, R

    Reardon, D. J., Zic, A., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02

    2023 doi

  66. [76]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 3278, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2448

    Ricarte, A., & Natarajan, P. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3278, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2448

    2018 doi

  67. [77]

    B., Zavala, R

    Rodriguez, C., Taylor, G. B., Zavala, R. T., et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 49, doi: 10.1086/504825

    2006 doi

  68. [78]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 49, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv264

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 49, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv264

    2015 doi

  69. [79]

    E., & Warren, M

    Roebber, E., Holder, G., Holz, D. E., & Warren, M. 2016, ApJ, 819, 163, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/163

    2016 doi

  70. [80]

    2011, MNRAS, 415, 3033, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18927.x

    Roedig, C., Dotti, M., Sesana, A., Cuadra, J., & Colpi, M. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3033, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18927.x

    2011

  71. [81]

    Satheesh, P., Blecha, L., & Kelley, L. Z. 2025, ApJ, 993, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0a48

    2025 doi

  72. [82]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.08041, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.08041

    Sato-Polito, G., & Zaldarriaga, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.08041, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.08041

    2025 doi arXiv

  73. [83]

    inside-out

    Sato-Polito, G., Zaldarriaga, M., & Quataert, E. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.06756, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.06756 An “inside-out” SMBH binary inspiral model29

    2023 doi arXiv

  74. [84]

    2025, PhRvD, 112, 123018, doi: 10.1103/1br7-s1rc

    Sato-Polito, G., Zaldarriaga, M., & Quataert, E. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 123018, doi: 10.1103/1br7-s1rc

    2025 doi

  75. [85]

    2010, ApJ, 719, 851, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/851

    Sesana, A. 2010, ApJ, 719, 851, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/851

    2010 doi

  76. [86]

    2006, ApJ, 651, 392, doi: 10.1086/507596

    Sesana, A., Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2006, ApJ, 651, 392, doi: 10.1086/507596

    2006 doi

  77. [87]

    Sesana, A., Haiman, Z., Kocsis, B., & Kelley, L. Z. 2018, ApJ, 856, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaad0f

    2018 doi

  78. [88]

    Sesana, A., & Khan, F. M. 2015, MNRAS, 454, L66, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv131

    2015 doi

  79. [89]

    Sesana, A., Vecchio, A., & Colacino, C. N. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 192, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13682.x

    2008

  80. [90]

    2009, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 26, 094033, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/26/9/094033

    Sesana, A., Volonteri, M., & Haardt, F. 2009, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 26, 094033, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/26/9/094033

    2009 doi

  81. [91]

    H., Lubow, S

    Shi, J.-M., Krolik, J. H., Lubow, S. H., & Hawley, J. F. 2012, ApJ, 749, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/118

    2012 doi

  82. [92]

    Z., & Hernquist, L

    Siwek, M., Kelley, L. Z., & Hernquist, L. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 2609, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2251

    2024 doi

  83. [93]

    2023a, MNRAS, 522, 2707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1131

    Siwek, M., Weinberger, R., & Hernquist, L. 2023a, MNRAS, 522, 2707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1131

    doi

  84. [94]

    J., & Hernquist, L

    Siwek, M., Weinberger, R., Mu˜ noz, D. J., & Hernquist, L. 2023b, MNRAS, 518, 5059, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3263

    doi

  85. [95]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 2249, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty423

    Tang, Y., Haiman, Z., & MacFadyen, A. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 2249, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty423

    2018 doi

  86. [96]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba432

    Tiede, C., Zrake, J., MacFadyen, A., & Haiman, Z. 2020, ApJ, 900, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba432

    2020 doi

  87. [97]

    2007, ApJL, 663, L5, doi: 10.1086/519525

    Volonteri, M. 2007, ApJL, 663, L5, doi: 10.1086/519525

    2007 doi

  88. [98]

    2003, ApJ, 582, 559, doi: 10.1086/344675

    Volonteri, M., Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2003, ApJ, 582, 559, doi: 10.1086/344675

    2003 doi

  89. [99]

    Wyithe, J. S. B., & Loeb, A. 2003, ApJ, 590, 691, doi: 10.1086/375187

    2003 doi

  90. [100]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 075024, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5

    Xu, H., Chen, S., Guo, Y., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 075024, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5

    2023 doi

  91. [101]

    2002, MNRAS, 331, 935, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05242.x

    Yu, Q. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 935, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05242.x

    2002

  92. [102]

    2021, ApJL, 909, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdd1c

    Zrake, J., Tiede, C., MacFadyen, A., & Haiman, Z. 2021, ApJL, 909, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdd1c

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.