Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 97 references

cBHBd: A fast code for the evolution of tidally limited star clusters and their binary black hole mergers

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-29 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Updated cBHBd code reproduces cluster mass, radius, black hole populations and merger rates to within 10-20 percent after fitting seven parameters.

desk verdict Incremental cBHBd update adds GW capture prescriptions but the 10-20% accuracy numbers rest on a seven-parameter fit to the CMC runs being matched. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.28088 v1 pith:DYYFXUMK submitted 2026-05-27 astro-ph.GA

Fotios Fronimos Pouliasis , Nolan Dickson , Daniel Marín Pina , Mark Gieles , Vincent Hénault-Brunet , Fabio Antonini This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords starclustersblackholebinariesgravitationalwavesclusterevolutiontidalevaporationnumericalmodelingmergerrates
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

The paper presents an improved version of the cBHBd code that evolves star clusters containing stars and stellar-mass black holes while accounting for mass loss, relaxation, and tidal evaporation. It incorporates metallicity and stellar mass function effects plus new prescriptions for gravitational wave captures in black hole binary encounters. Seven parameters are fitted to Cluster Monte Carlo results so that the code matches the evolution of cluster mass, half-mass radius, and black hole population over 13 Gyr to within about 10 percent. The same setup reproduces binary black hole merger rates from both massive-cluster Monte Carlo models and lower-mass direct N-body models to within about 20 percent. A runtime of roughly one second per cluster makes the tool suitable for exploring many initial conditions and for gravitational wave population synthesis.

What carries the argument

The cBHBd code with its seven fitted parameters and new prescriptions for gravitational wave captures during BBH-BBH interactions and resonant eccentricity pumping.

What would settle it

A direct N-body or Monte Carlo simulation of a cluster with initial mass, density, or metallicity outside the fitted range that yields binary black hole merger rates differing by more than 20 percent from the cBHBd prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the updated cBHBd code, after fitting seven model parameters to Cluster Monte Carlo results and adding new gravitational wave capture prescriptions for binary-binary interactions and resonant distant encounters, reproduces the evolution of cluster mass, half-mass radius, and black hole population over 13 Gyr to within ~10 percent while matching binary black hole merger rates from both CMC models of clusters above 10^5 solar masses and direct N-body models of lower-mass clusters to within ~20 percent.

Load-bearing premise

The seven fitted parameters together with the new gravitational wave capture rules will produce accurate merger rates and cluster evolution for initial conditions outside the specific Cluster Monte Carlo models used in the fit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The one-second runtime per cluster enables systematic searches over wide ranges of globular cluster initial conditions.
  • The code can be used for modeling the contribution of clusters to observed stellar streams.
  • It supports population synthesis calculations of gravitational wave sources from tidally limited clusters.
  • Validation against both massive and lower-mass clusters indicates the same framework applies across a factor of ten in cluster mass.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The code could be extended to predict how merger rates change when clusters form in galaxies with different tidal fields or metallicities.
  • Comparisons with future observations of black hole populations in surviving clusters would test whether the fitted evaporation treatment holds at late times.
  • Because the gravitational wave capture rules are now explicit, the same prescriptions could be inserted into other fast cluster codes for cross-checks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an updated version of the cBHBd code for fast evolution of tidally limited star clusters containing stars and stellar-mass black holes. Improvements include refined evaporation in the Galactic tidal field, inclusion of metallicity and stellar mass function effects, and new prescriptions for GW captures in BBH-BBH interactions and resonant encounters. Seven model parameters are fitted via nested sampling to Cluster Monte Carlo (CMC) results; with best-fit values the code reproduces cluster mass, half-mass radius, and BH population evolution over 13 Gyr to ~10% and BBH merger rates from CMC (massive clusters) and N-body (lower-mass clusters) models to ~20%. The code runs in ~1 s per cluster.

Significance. A validated fast code of this type would enable efficient exploration of large initial-condition spaces for globular cluster populations and their contribution to gravitational-wave sources. The new GW-capture terms address a physically relevant channel, and the reported runtime is a clear practical strength if the accuracy claims hold independently of the fitting procedure.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and validation section] The central accuracy claims (~10% for cluster properties and ~20% for merger rates) are obtained after fitting seven model parameters directly to the CMC output being reproduced (see abstract and validation discussion). This procedure makes the reported agreement dependent on the fit by construction rather than an independent test of the underlying prescriptions.
  2. [N-body comparison paragraph] The ~20% agreement claim with direct N-body models for clusters ≲10^5 M_⊙ is stated without listing the specific runs, their initial masses/radii/metallicities, sample size, or the exact merger-rate metric used. Because the seven parameters were optimized exclusively on CMC, any mismatch in the N-body regime would falsify the generalization assumption without being detectable from the CMC residuals alone.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Define the seven fitted parameters explicitly, state their physical motivation, and report the priors and convergence diagnostics for the nested sampling.
  2. [Validation] Clarify whether the N-body comparison runs are drawn from the literature or newly performed, and provide a table or appendix with their initial conditions and quantitative comparison metrics.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each major point below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity and add requested details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and validation section] The central accuracy claims (~10% for cluster properties and ~20% for merger rates) are obtained after fitting seven model parameters directly to the CMC output being reproduced (see abstract and validation discussion). This procedure makes the reported agreement dependent on the fit by construction rather than an independent test of the underlying prescriptions.

    Authors: We agree that the ~10% agreement for cluster mass, half-mass radius, and BH population evolution is achieved after fitting the seven parameters to CMC simulations and is therefore by construction for those quantities. The ~20% agreement for BBH merger rates includes comparisons to independent N-body simulations that were not part of the fitting procedure. We will revise the abstract and validation section to explicitly distinguish the fitted CMC results from the independent N-body validation and to clarify the role of the fitting as a calibration step for the fast code. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [N-body comparison paragraph] The ~20% agreement claim with direct N-body models for clusters ≲10^5 M_⊙ is stated without listing the specific runs, their initial masses/radii/metallicities, sample size, or the exact merger-rate metric used. Because the seven parameters were optimized exclusively on CMC, any mismatch in the N-body regime would falsify the generalization assumption without being detectable from the CMC residuals alone.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript lacks sufficient detail on the N-body comparison. In the revision we will add a table or explicit list of the specific N-body runs used, including their initial masses, radii, metallicities, the number of simulations, and the precise merger-rate metric (e.g., total mergers per cluster or rate per unit time). This will allow independent assessment of generalization beyond the CMC fit. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

7-parameter fit to CMC results presented as reproduction of CMC evolution and merger rates to 10-20%

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "Seven model parameters are fitted to the CMC results with nested sampling. With the best-fit values, the evolution of the cluster mass, half-mass radius, and BH population over 13 Gyr is reproduced to within ∼10%. The new GW capture prescriptions allow cBHBd to reproduce BBH merger rates from CMC models of massive clusters (≳10^5 M_⊙) and direct N-body models of lower-mass clusters (≲10^5 M_⊙) to within ∼20%."

    The seven parameters are optimized to match CMC outputs; the reported agreement with CMC evolution and merger rates is therefore the result of the fit rather than an independent prediction or validation.

full rationale

The paper explicitly fits seven parameters to CMC outputs via nested sampling, then reports that the best-fit values reproduce the same CMC cluster evolution (mass, radius, BH population) to ~10% and BBH merger rates from CMC models to ~20%. This directly matches the fitted_input_called_prediction pattern: the quoted agreement is the output of the fit rather than an independent test. N-body comparisons are cited as additional support but are not shown to be part of the fitting; the CMC reproduction claim remains circular by construction. No other load-bearing steps (self-citation chains, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems) are evident from the provided text.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on seven fitted parameters and standard assumptions of cluster dynamics; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • seven model parameters
    Fitted via nested sampling to CMC results for cluster mass, half-mass radius, and black hole population evolution over 13 Gyr.
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Cluster evolution is driven by stellar mass loss, two-body relaxation, and evaporation in the Galactic tidal field
    Invoked in the opening description of the physical processes modeled by the code.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of cBHBd: A fast code for the evolution of tidally limited star clusters and their binary black hole mergers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DYYFXUMK

@misc{pith2026260528088,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: cBHBd: A fast code for the evolution of tidally limited star clusters and their binary black hole mergers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DYYFXUMK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.28088}
}
abstract

The evolution of star clusters is driven by stellar mass loss, two-body relaxation, and evaporation in the Galactic tidal field. Fast modeling tools are crucial for exploring diverse initial conditions and predicting cluster populations and their contribution to gravitational wave (GW) sources over cosmic timescales. We present an improved version of the clusterBHBdynamics (cBHBd) code, designed to evolve star clusters containing stars and stellar-mass black holes (BHs). We improve the treatment of evaporation in the Galactic tidal field and include the effects of metallicity and stellar mass functions. We also introduce new prescriptions for GW captures during BBH-BBH interactions and between resonant interactions due to distant encounters that increase BBH eccentricities. The updated cBHBd is validated against Cluster Monte Carlo (CMC) models and $N$-body simulations spanning a range of cluster properties. Seven model parameters are fitted to the CMC results with nested sampling. With the best-fit values, the evolution of the cluster mass, half-mass radius, and BH population over 13 Gyr is reproduced to within $\sim10\%$. The new GW capture prescriptions allow cBHBd to reproduce BBH merger rates from CMC models of massive clusters ($\gtrsim10^5,M_\odot$) and direct $N$-body models of lower-mass clusters ($\lesssim10^5,M_\odot$) to within $\sim20\%$. The improved cBHBd provides a fast and flexible tool for large-scale star cluster studies. With a runtime of about one second per cluster, it enables applications such as searches for globular cluster initial conditions, stellar stream modeling, and GW population synthesis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.28088 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of cBHBd. Bold mechanisms are the new inclusions to clusterBH and BHBdynamics. stellar winds and remnant formation described by Banerjee et al. (2020). By default, we apply the rapid supernova scheme (Fryer et al. 2012), and implement the effects of pair-instability super￾nova (PSN) and pulsation pair-instability supernova (PPSN) ac￾cording to the prescriptions of Belczynski et al. (2016). We adopt… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Marginalized and 2D projections of the posterior probability distributions of the free parameters of clusterBH. The plot displays contours up to the 3σ level, corresponding to the 68%, 95%, and 99.7% credible regions in parameter space. Above each marginalized posterior distribution, the median and 1σ credibility interval for the corresponding parameter are shown. in the fit. For the BH population, an additional Poi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Evolution of M∗, rh and MBH for clusters with N = 8 × 105 and Z = 0.0002. Right: Percentage difference between clusterBH and cmc, defined as ∆X/X = (X clusterBH − X cmc)/X cmc for all three quantities. Dashed lines show the cmc models while continuous lines the predictions of clusterBH. Different colors signify different values of the initial rv, with red, green and blue corresponding to 1 pc, 2 pc and 4 pc re… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Predictions of clusterBH (solid lines) compared to cmc (dashed lines) for clusters with initial N = 3.2 × 106 stars at RG = 20 kpc. Columns show the results for metallicities Z = [0.0002, 0.02] from left to right, for rv = [1, 2] pc with colors red and green respective…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: 3.3.3. Dependence on galactocentric distance The tidal field strength is set by RG (circular orbit, Vc = 220 km s−1 . At large distances (RG = 20 kpc) the tidal radius is large, evaporation is negligible, and clusters evolve as effectively isolated systems. Here clust…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison between clusterBH and cmc at the final snapshot. The y-axis represents the cumulative probability distribution of the frac￾tional differences. All models have a difference in rh below 30%, 96.5% for M∗ and 60% for MBH for all cmc models fitted. 3.4. Perform…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison between clusterBH and N-body models with initial density ρh = 1000 M⊙pc−3 and metallicity [Fe/H] = −1.5. N8e5 rv1 rg2 Z0.0002 N8e5 rv1 rg8 Z0.0002 N8e5 rv1 rg20 Z0.0002 N8e5 rv1 rg2 Z0.002 N8e5 rv1 rg8 Z0.002 N8e5 rv1 rg20 Z0.002 N8e5 rv1 rg2 Z0.02 N8e5 rv1…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Detailed comparison of the number of dynamical BBH mergers in the new version of cBHBd (light blue) and cmc (green), separated by initial conditions. The gray area represents the distribution of the number of mergers in cBHBd, found using 1000 runs for each set of ini…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of the number of dynamical BBH mergers, binned by initial cluster mass, for the different codes. In red, the cmc models; in yellow, the nbody7 models of Banerjee (2021); in green, the new version of cBHBd; and in blue, the previous version of cBHBd (Antonin…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aarseth, S. J. 1999, PASP, 111, 1333

    1999

  2. [2]

    Aarseth, S. J. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 841

    2012

  3. [3]

    D., Vanzella, E., et al

    Adamo, A., Bradley, L. D., Vanzella, E., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 513

    2024

  4. [4]

    Alexander, P. E. R. & Gieles, M. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 3415

    2012

  5. [5]

    Alexander, P. E. R., Gieles, M., Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., & Baumgardt, H. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1265

    2014

  6. [6]

    Ambartsumian, V . A. 1938, TsAGI Uchenye Zapiski, 22, 19

    1938

  7. [7]

    Antonelli, A., Kritos, K., Ng, K. K. Y ., Cotesta, R., & Berti, E. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 084044

    2023

  8. [8]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 466

    Antonini, F., Gieles, M., Dosopoulou, F., & Chattopadhyay, D. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 466

    2023

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 466

    Antonini, F., Gieles, M., Dosopoulou, F., & Chattopadhyay, D. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 466

    2023

  2. [10]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 5008

    Antonini, F., Gieles, M., & Gualandris, A. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5008

    2019

  3. [11]

    2025, arXiv:2509.04637, arXiv:2509.04637 Arca Sedda, M., Mapelli, M., Benacquista, M., & Spera, M

    Antonini, F., Romero-Shaw, I., Callister, T., et al. 2025, arXiv:2509.04637, arXiv:2509.04637 Arca Sedda, M., Mapelli, M., Benacquista, M., & Spera, M. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5259

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    & Gieles, M

    Balbinot, E. & Gieles, M. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2479

    2018

  5. [13]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 3371

    Banerjee, S. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 3371

    2021

  6. [14]

    L., et al

    Banerjee, S., Belczynski, K., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A41

    2020

  7. [15]

    & Antonini, F

    Barber, J. & Antonini, F. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 639

    2025

  8. [16]

    2001, MNRAS, 325, 1323 Article number, page 17 of 24 A&A proofs:manuscript no

    Baumgardt, H. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 1323 Article number, page 17 of 24 A&A proofs:manuscript no. andaa

    2001

  9. [17]

    2016, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 594, A97

    Belczynski, K., Heger, A., Gladysz, W., et al. 2016, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 594, A97

    2016

  10. [18]

    Breen, P. G. & Heggie, D. C. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2779

    2013

  11. [19]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 71

    Breivik, K., Coughlin, S., Zevin, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 71

    2020

  12. [20]

    J., Katz, H., Rey, M

    Cameron, A. J., Katz, H., Rey, M. P., & Saxena, A. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3516

    2023

  13. [21]

    C., Ibata, R., Irwin, M., et al

    Chapman, S. C., Ibata, R., Irwin, M., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 1437

    2008

  14. [22]

    2023, A&A, 673, L7

    Charbonnel, C., Schaerer, D., Prantzos, N., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, L7

    2023

  15. [23]

    M., Umbreit, S., & Rasio, F

    Chatterjee, S., Fregeau, J. M., Umbreit, S., & Rasio, F. A. 2010, ApJ, 719, 915

    2010

  16. [24]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 4527

    Chattopadhyay, D., Hurley, J., Stevenson, S., & Raidani, A. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4527

    2022

  17. [25]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102

    2016

  18. [26]

    Dickson, N., Hénault-Brunet, V ., Baumgardt, H., Gieles, M., & Smith, P. J. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5320

    2023

  19. [27]

    J., Hénault-Brunet, V ., Gieles, M., & Baumgardt, H

    Dickson, N., Smith, P. J., Hénault-Brunet, V ., Gieles, M., & Baumgardt, H. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 331

    2024

  20. [28]

    & King, I

    Djorgovski, S. & King, I. R. 1986, ApJ, 305, L61

    1986

  21. [29]

    2007, AJ, 134, 376

    Dotter, A., Chaboyer, B., Jevremovi´c, D., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 376

    2007

  22. [30]

    2008, ApJS, 178, 89

    Dotter, A., Chaboyer, B., Jevremovi´c, D., et al. 2008, ApJS, 178, 89

    2008

  23. [31]

    Fall, S. M. & Rees, M. J. 1977, MNRAS, 181, 37P

    1977

  24. [32]

    & Benz, W

    Freitag, M. & Benz, W. 2001, A&A, 375, 711

    2001

  25. [33]

    & Benz, W

    Freitag, M. & Benz, W. 2002, A&A, 394, 345

    2002

  26. [34]

    L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al

    Fryer, C. L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 91

    2012

  27. [35]

    & Heggie, D

    Fukushige, T. & Heggie, D. C. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 753

    2000

  28. [36]

    & Mould, M

    Gerosa, D. & Mould, M. 2023, in 57th Rencontres de Moriond on Gravitation

    2023

  29. [37]

    Gieles, M., Alexander, P. E. R., Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., & Baumgardt, H. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 916

    2014

  30. [38]

    & Baumgardt, H

    Gieles, M. & Baumgardt, H. 2008, MNRAS, 389, L28

    2008

  31. [39]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 957

    Gieles, M., Erkal, D., Antonini, F., Balbinot, E., & Peñarrubia, J. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 957

    2021

  32. [40]

    & Gnedin, O

    Gieles, M. & Gnedin, O. Y . 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5340

    2023

  33. [41]

    C., & Zhao, H

    Gieles, M., Heggie, D. C., & Zhao, H. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2509

    2011

  34. [42]

    & Heggie, D

    Giersz, M. & Heggie, D. C. 1996, MNRAS, 279, 1037

    1996

  35. [43]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, L15

    Giesers, B., Dreizler, S., Husser, T.-O., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, L15

    2018

  36. [44]

    Ginat, Y . B. & Perets, H. B. 2021, Physical Review X, 11, 031020

    2021

  37. [45]

    Gnedin, O. Y . & Ostriker, J. P. 1997, ApJ, 474, 223

    1997

  38. [46]

    1984, ApJ, 280, 298 Grudi´c, M

    Goodman, J. 1984, ApJ, 280, 298 Grudi´c, M. Y ., Hafen, Z., Rodriguez, C. L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1366

    1984

  39. [47]

    Hansen, R. O. 1972, Phys. Rev. D, 5, 1021

    1972

  40. [48]

    Heggie, D. C. 1975, MNRAS, 173, 729

    1975

  41. [49]

    Heggie, D. C. & Aarseth, S. J. 1992, MNRAS, 257, 513

    1992

  42. [50]

    Heggie, D. C. & Rasio, F. A. 1996, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 282, 1064–1084 Hénon, M. 1961, Ann. Astrophys., 24, 369; English trans.: arXiv:1103.3499 Hénon, M. 1965, Annales d’Astrophysique, 28, 62; English translation: arXiv:1103.3498 Hénon, M. H. 197...

    1996 arXiv

  43. [51]

    L., & Rasio, F

    Kremer, K., Chatterjee, S., Rodriguez, C. L., & Rasio, F. A. 2018, ApJ, 852, 29

    2018

  44. [52]

    S., Rui, N

    Kremer, K., Ye, C. S., Rui, N. Z., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 48

    2020

  45. [53]

    2023, Phys

    Kritos, K., Berti, E., & Silk, J. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 083012

    2023

  46. [54]

    2024, Phys

    Kritos, K., Strokov, V ., Baibhav, V ., & Berti, E. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 043023

    2024

  47. [55]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    2001

  48. [56]

    R., McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 227 Lahén, N., Naab, T., & Szécsi, D. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 645

    2019

  49. [57]

    Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., Gieles, M., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2005, A&A, 429, 173

    2005

  50. [58]

    Lee, H. M. & Goodman, J. 1995, ApJ, 443, 109

    1995

  51. [59]

    & Aarseth, S

    Makino, J. & Aarseth, S. J. 1992, PASJ, 44, 141

    1992

  52. [60]

    Maltsev, K., Schneider, F. R. N., Mandel, I., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A20

    2025

  53. [61]

    & Broekgaarden, F

    Mandel, I. & Broekgaarden, F. S. 2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 1

    2022

  54. [62]

    Mapelli, M., Bouffanais, Y ., Santoliquido, F., Arca Sedda, M., & Artale, M. C. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5797

    2022

  55. [63]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 339 Marín Pina, D

    Mapelli, M., Dall’Amico, M., Bouffanais, Y ., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 339 Marín Pina, D. & Gieles, M. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8369 Marín Pina, D., Gieles, M., Andrade, T., & Trani, A. A. 2025, A&A, 698, A229

    2021

  56. [64]

    McMillan, S. L. W. & Hut, P. 1996, ApJ, 467, 348

    1996

  57. [65]

    Ng, K. K. Y ., Kritos, K., Antonelli, A., Cotesta, R., & Berti, E. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 083015

    2023

  58. [66]

    & Aarseth, S

    Nitadori, K. & Aarseth, S. J. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 545

    2012

  59. [67]

    Pearson, S., Bonaca, A., Chen, Y ., & Gnedin, O. Y . 2024, ApJ, 976, 54

    2024

  60. [68]

    Peters, P. C. 1964, Phys. Rev., 136, B1224

    1964

  61. [69]

    Plummer, H. C. 1911, MNRAS, 71, 460 Portegies Zwart, S. F. & McMillan, S. L. W. 2000, ApJ, 528, L17 Portegies Zwart, S. F. & McMillan, S. L. W. 2002, ApJ, 576, 899 Portegies Zwart, S. F., McMillan, S. L. W., & Gieles, M. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 431 Rando Forastier, B., Marín Pina, D....

    1911

  62. [70]

    Renaud, F., Gieles, M., & Boily, C. M. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 759

    2011

  63. [71]

    K., Tremblay, P.-E., O’Brien, M

    Roberts, E. K., Tremblay, P.-E., O’Brien, M. W., et al. 2025, MN- RAS[arXiv:2502.09579]

    2025

  64. [72]

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

    Rodriguez, C. L., Amaro-Seoane, P., Chatterjee, S., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 123005

    2018

  65. [73]

    L., Chatterjee, S., & Rasio, F

    Rodriguez, C. L., Chatterjee, S., & Rasio, F. A. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 084029

    2016

  66. [74]

    L., Morscher, M., Pattabiraman, B., et al

    Rodriguez, C. L., Morscher, M., Pattabiraman, B., et al. 2015, Physical Review Letters, 115, 051101

    2015

  67. [75]

    L., Weatherford, N

    Rodriguez, C. L., Weatherford, N. C., Coughlin, S. C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 22

    2022

  68. [76]

    2018, ApJ, 855, 124

    Samsing, J., Askar, A., & Giersz, M. 2018, ApJ, 855, 124

    2018

  69. [77]

    & D’Orazio, D

    Samsing, J. & D’Orazio, D. J. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5445

    2018

  70. [78]

    2014, ApJ, 784, 71

    Samsing, J., MacLeod, M., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2014, ApJ, 784, 71

    2014

  71. [79]

    & Moore, B

    Schneider, A. & Moore, B. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1569

    2011

  72. [80]

    2018, ApJ, 862, 114

    Shipp, N., Drlica-Wagner, A., Balbinot, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 114

    2018

  73. [81]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132

    2020

  74. [82]

    1987, Dynamical Evolution of Globular Clusters (Princeton Univ

    Spitzer, L. 1987, Dynamical Evolution of Globular Clusters (Princeton Univ

    1987

  75. [83]

    Spitzer, L. J. 1969, ApJ, 158, L139

    1969

  76. [84]

    Spitzer, L. J. & Hart, M. H. 1971, ApJ, 164, 399

    1971

  77. [85]

    J., et al

    Strader, J., Chomiuk, L., Maccarone, T. J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, L27

    2012

  78. [86]

    2012, New A, 17, 272 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Col- laboration, et al

    Tanikawa, A., Hut, P., & Makino, J. 2012, New A, 17, 272 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Col- laboration, et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18082

    2012 arXiv

  79. [87]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 2953

    Torniamenti, S., Rastello, S., Mapelli, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2953

    2022

  80. [88]

    A., Leigh, N

    Trani, A. A., Leigh, N. W. C., Boekholt, T. C. N., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2024, A&A, 689, A24

    2024

  81. [89]

    E., et al

    Valluri, M., Fagrelius, P., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 71

    2025

  82. [90]

    2022, ApJ, 940, L53

    Vanzella, E., Castellano, M., Bergamini, P., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, L53

    2022

  83. [91]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525

    Vasiliev, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525

    2019

  84. [92]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 2413

    Wang, L. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2413

    2020

  85. [93]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 536

    Wang, L., Iwasawa, M., Nitadori, K., & Makino, J. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 536

    2020

  86. [94]

    2016, MNRAS, 458, 1450

    Wang, L., Spurzem, R., Aarseth, S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1450

    2016

  87. [95]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 4070

    Wang, L., Spurzem, R., Aarseth, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4070

    2015

  88. [96]

    Willcox, R., Schneider, F. R. N., Laplace, E., et al. 2025 [arXiv:2508.20787]

    2025

  89. [97]

    Zevin, M., Samsing, J., Rodriguez, C., Haster, C.-J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2019, ApJ, 871, 91 Article number, page 18 of 24 Fronimos Pouliasis et al.: A fast star cluster code Appendix A: Differences betweenclusterBHand emacss It is worth briefly discussing the capabilities ofcl...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed June 29, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.