Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Scattering of stellar-mass black holes and gravitational wave bremsstrahlung radiation in AGN disks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Close hyperbolic encounters of stellar-mass black holes in AGN disks emit gravitational-wave bremsstrahlung at rates ground-based detectors may already be able to see.

desk verdict The MMR criterion and the simulation campaign are solid and worth referee time, but the headline 3.2 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 rate is not established because the fBH,enc scaling is internally inconsistent. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16457 v2 pith:JWSX6OI6 submitted 2025-04-23 astro-ph.HE

Peter Lott , Christian Faulhaber , Joshua Brandt , Gongjie Li , Hareesh Bhaskar , Laura Cadonati This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gravitational-wavebremsstrahlunghyperbolicblackholeencountersAGNdisksstellar-massholesmeanmotionresonanceburstspopulationsynthesisratespost-Newtoniandynamics
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 the same active galactic nucleus (AGN) disk environment that funnels stellar-mass black holes into mergers also produces close hyperbolic flybys emitting gravitational-wave bremsstrahlung, and that these flybys are detectable by ground-based interferometers. From scattering simulations with gas drag or migration-trap forces plus first- and 2.5-order post-Newtonian terms, the authors find that detectable bursts are most frequent around supermassive black holes of $10^5$-$10^6\,M_\odot$. They estimate a fiducial detection rate of $3.2\,\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, with a wide allowed range from $0.08$ to $1194\,\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ depending on migration forces, AGN disk properties, and detection thresholds. They also provide first-principle waveform templates whose frequencies fall in or near current ground-based detector bands. If the rate estimate holds, AGN-disk flybys constitute a new gravitational-wave source population distinct from binary mergers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a direct scattering experiment: two stellar-mass black holes orbit a supermassive black hole, started five mutual Hill radii apart, with the outer black hole migrating inward under either a gas-drag force or a migration-trap force while both feel 1PN and 2.5PN post-Newtonian corrections in an N-body integrator. The key analytic result that organizes the outcomes is the critical total mass for resonance capture, which decides whether the pair is trapped in a low-order mean-motion resonance (quiet) or passes close enough for gravitational-wave emission (loud). The energy radiated in each close passage is computed with the standard quadrupole-approximation formula for hyperbolic encounters, $\Delta E_{\rm GW} = (85\pi/12\sqrt{2})\, G^{7/2}\mu^2 m_{12}^{5/2}/(c^5 r_p^{7/2})$, and the waveforms are produced by spline-differentiating the simulated trajectories in the quadrupole approximation, which yields the burst frequencies and signal-to-noise ratios used in the detectability estimates.

What would settle it

Search the existing public burst data from current ground-based detectors with the paper's template waveforms (Figures 14-17): if the fiducial rate of $3.2\,\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ is correct, a handful of such one-off flyby bursts should already be present in the data, whereas a null result with an upper limit below roughly $0.1\,\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ would rule out the optimistic half of the claimed range.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that gravitational-wave bremsstrahlung from hyperbolic encounters between stellar-mass black holes migrating in AGN disks is a real, possibly detectable population. The paper shows that whether such an encounter emits strong gravitational waves is controlled by mean-motion-resonance capture: pairs whose total mass exceeds a critical value, $M_{\rm tot}=24(f^{2/3}-1)^3 M_{\rm SMBH}/\big((f^{2/3}+1)^3 k_{\rm hill}^3\big)$ for a $p:q$ resonance (with $f=q/p$ and $k_{\rm hill}$ the initial separation in mutual Hill radii), are locked into resonance and stay well separated, while pairs below the boundary scatter to periastra of a few gravitational radii and emit up to several solar masses of energy in one burst. Detectable scattering is more frequent around lower-mass SMBHs because the mutual Hill radius is smaller, making close approaches easier; at $10^5\,M_\odot$ SMBHs, resonance capture suppresses encounters again, and at higher SMBH masses the larger Hill radius spreads the black holes apart. Combining the simulated burst fraction with a population model of AGN disks and scaling by SMBH mass yields a fiducial rate of $3.2\,\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ for encounters emitting more than one solar mass of gravitational-wave energy, with the range $0.08$-$1194\,\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. The paper's rate estimate is therefore a statement that AGN-disk flybys could already be hiding in ground-based data.

Load-bearing premise

The rate estimate assumes that each migrating stellar-mass black hole experiences about $10^3$ close interactions with other black holes during the AGN disk lifetime; this factor is an order-of-magnitude guess not derived from the simulations or from data, and when multiplied by the simulated bremsstrahlung fraction it implies an encounter fraction larger than unity, so the normalization of the headline rate is not independently established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Detectable bremsstrahlung bursts are most common around SMBHs of $10^5$-$10^6\,M_\odot$, so searches should weight low-mass AGN nuclei rather than the most massive ones.
  • Including 1PN precession suppresses close encounters relative to 2.5PN-only treatments, so earlier scattering studies that omitted 1PN likely overpredict encounter and emission rates.
  • Resonance capture splits the population by total sBH mass: pairs near 4:3, 5:4, and 6:5 resonances stay quiet, while pairs below the critical mass can produce strong bursts or mergers, producing alternating regions in the mass-ratio plane.
  • The predicted flyby rate ($\sim 3\,\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ fiducial) is comparable to or higher than the estimated AGN-disk merger rate, making flybys a competitive channel.
  • Some simulated waveforms peak near $100\,\mathrm{Hz}$, within current detector bands, while others peak near $5\,\mathrm{Hz}$, making them targets for future low-frequency ground-based detectors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If resonance capture is a real gatekeeper, the chirp-mass distribution of detected AGN-disk bursts should show deficits at total masses corresponding to low-order resonances; looking for a resonant 'comb' in burst masses would test the mechanism independently of the rate.
  • The same encounters produce repeated bursts with sub-second gaps (centered near $0.03$-$0.04\,\mathrm{s}$ for high-energy events), a distinctive time-frequency fingerprint that unmodeled burst searches could use to separate AGN-disk flybys from detector glitches.
  • Replacing the assumed $10^3$ encounters per black hole with a self-consistent multi-body simulation of the migrating population would either firm up or rescale the rate estimate; this is a testable modeling improvement rather than a prediction.
  • If the fiducial rate is near correct, AGN-disk flybys would add an impulsive, non-Gaussian foreground to the stochastic gravitational-wave background in the roughly $5$-$100\,\mathrm{Hz}$ band, separable from the merger background by its burst character.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies gravitational-wave (GW) bremsstrahlung from hyperbolic encounters of stellar-mass black holes (sBHs) embedded in AGN disks. The authors use N-body simulations with gas drag and migration-trap prescriptions, including 1PN and 2.5PN corrections, to characterize how close-encounter rates and GW emission depend on SMBH mass, migration rate, mutual inclination, and sBH masses. They identify first-order mean-motion resonances as a key suppression mechanism and derive an analytical criterion for resonance capture. They then run 80,000 population-synthesis simulations and convert the simulated bremsstrahlung fraction into a volumetric detection rate, quoting a fiducial rate of 3.2 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 and a range of 0.08-1194 Gpc^-3 yr^-1. Finally, they construct approximate GW templates from selected trajectories and evaluate their SNR against LIGO A+ sensitivity.

Significance. If the rate estimate were reliable, the paper would identify a new, potentially detectable GW burst channel from AGN disks and provide motivation for unmodeled burst searches. The parameter study is systematic and valuable: the finding that 1PN precession suppresses close encounters relative to 2.5PN-only runs is a useful correction to earlier treatments, and the mean-motion-resonance criterion (Eq. 7) is checked against simulations and works well. The paper is also transparent about several limitations, including simplified migration forces and the exclusion of disk turbulence. However, the headline rate is not established: the conversion from the simulated bremsstrahlung fraction to the per-BH encounter fraction used in the rate integral is internally inconsistent, the normalization of Eq. (9) is asserted without derivation, and the detection proxy used in the rate calculation is not a validated LIGO criterion. These issues affect the central quantitative claim of the paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (9) and following paragraph] The derivation of fBH,enc is internally inconsistent and not reproducible. The text states that NBH,NSC = 2e4, that 10% of these BHs are in the disk, and that 50% interact, concluding that 'each inner black hole will have ~10^3 encounters' and hence fBH,enc ~ 10^3 fbrem,BH. The arithmetic actually yields 10^3 total interacting BHs in the disk, not an encounter multiplicity per BH. Using the reported fbrem,drag(>1 Msun) = 0.0039 gives fBH,enc = 3.9, which is unphysical for a fraction. Inserting fBH,enc = 3.9 into Eq. (9) gives a fiducial rate of roughly 23 Gpc^-3 yr^-1, not the 3.2 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 reported in Table 2. The tabulated rate corresponds to fBH,enc ~ 0.5, indicating that the stated 10^3 scaling has not actually been applied. If the scaling is applied correctly via fBH,enc = 1 - exp(-N_enc fbrem,BH) with N_enc = 10^3, the fiducial rate would be about 5.9 Gpc^-3 yr^-1. The headline rate must be reconciled with a consistent, physically meaningful definition of fBH,enc.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (9)] The normalization constant '3 Gpc^-3 yr^-1' in Eq. (9) is asserted without derivation. The text says the calculation follows Tagawa et al. (2020), but the cited work gives a broad merger-rate range (0.02-60 Gpc^-3 yr^-1), and no calculation is shown that turns that information into the point value 3. Because all subsequent rates scale linearly with this constant, the rate estimate is not self-contained. The authors should derive this normalization explicitly from the integral in Eq. (8), using an AGN number density and SMBH mass function, or identify it as a free parameter and propagate it as such.
  3. [Sections 3.1 and 4] The rates in Table 2 are quoted as 'detectable by LIGO' based on a peak GW energy threshold of >1 Msun or >3 Msun, with the statement 'assuming an observational distance of ~1 Mpc' (Section 3.1). This is not a validated detection criterion: no LIGO sensitivity curve, SNR threshold, or search duty cycle is folded into the population rate. The SNR calculations in Section 5.1 are performed for only four example events and are not used to derive a selection function. Consequently, the abstract's 'rate for ground-based gravitational-wave detections' is stronger than what the calculation actually supports. Either fold an SNR-based selection function into the rate calculation or revise the language to 'events emitting more than X Msun in GWs' rather than 'detectable events.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, paragraph after Eq. (9)] The sentence 'each inner black hole will have ~10^3 encounters' is an unsupported interpretation; the preceding numbers give 10^3 total interacting BHs, not an encounter multiplicity per BH, and the encounter multiplicity is a separate quantity that should be modeled or measured.
  2. [Section 5.1] The term 'first-principle gravitational wave templates' overstates the method, since the paper itself lists the quadrupole spline approximation as a source of error; 'approximate quadrupole templates' would be more accurate.
  3. [Section 3.1] The close-encounter criterion is described as 'within 100Rg,1' in Section 2.3 but as 'within 50 times the sum of their gravitational radii' in Section 3.1; please specify which criterion is used for the population synthesis and the rates in Table 2.
  4. [References] The bibliography contains malformed or duplicated entries, including 'et al., B. P. A. 2016' and two entries for Abbott et al. 2016 with different DOIs; these need correction in production.
  5. [Figure 18] The sentence 'most of the gap time center around ~0.5 sec' should be reworded, e.g., 'most time gaps are centered around ~0.5 s.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the simulation fraction is measured independently, and the rate estimate is a scaling calculation whose main problems are unsupported normalizations, not self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative inputs—fbrem,BH (0.39% for drag and 0.56% for trap at peak GW energy >1 M⊙) and the encounter properties—are measured from 80,000 REBOUNDx scattering runs and are not defined in terms of the final Gpc^-3 yr^-1 rate. The rate calculation (Section 4, Eqs. 8–9) follows the external Tagawa et al. (2020) scaling relation and inserts fBH,enc, which is derived from fbrem,BH times an assumed "~10^3 encounters" factor. This is a model-to-rate conversion, not a definitional identity: the rate is proportional to the simulated fraction, but it is not the same quantity under a new name. The MMR capture criterion (Eq. 7) is derived from equating the Hill-separation formula with the resonance condition, and the waveform templates (Section 5.1) are quadrupole-approximation calculations from simulated trajectories, with the paper explicitly conceding that the "first-principle" templates use a simplified quadrupole moment and omit higher-order multipoles and relativistic corrections. The main legitimate concerns are correctness and normalization, not circularity: the 10^3 factor is asserted from the 10%/50% assumptions, fBH,enc ~ 10^3 fbrem,BH would exceed unity for the stated fbrem,BH, and plugging that fBH,enc into Eq. 9 does not reproduce Table 2's 3.2 Gpc^-3 yr^-1. These are internal-consistency and support problems in the rate estimate, but they do not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs by construction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain is present. Accordingly, no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central rate claim rests on a chain of assumptions: the migration force models, the 10^3 interactions per BH scaling, the '3 Gpc^-3 yr^-1' normalization, and the peak-energy detection proxy. The first two are the most fragile; the simulations themselves are a self-consistent parameter study.

free parameters (3)
  • Rate normalization R0 in Eq. 9 = ~3 Gpc^-3 yr^-1
    The simplified rate formula in Eq. 9 is anchored by an asserted 3 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 when all scaling ratios equal 1. The paper does not show the integral over the AGN mass function or number density that would produce this value, so it operates as a free normalization for the final rate.
  • Encounters per black hole N_enc = 10^3
    Section 4 assumes each inner sBH undergoes ~10^3 interactions with other BHs over the AGN lifetime, used to scale fbrem,BH into fBH,enc. This is an order-of-magnitude assumption, not measured or derived.
  • Detection proxy threshold = peak GW energy > 1 M_sun at ~1 Mpc
    The detectability of an encounter is proxied by peak emitted GW energy exceeding 1 or 3 solar masses, assuming an observational distance of ~1 Mpc. This ignores the actual distance distribution and SNR integration over volume, so the quoted detection rate is actually a source occurrence rate.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The quadrupole formula (Eq. 11) gives the GW strain for the simulated trajectories.
    Used in Section 5.1 to compute waveforms; valid for slow, weak-field sources, which is a reasonable but unverified approximation for these strong encounters.
  • domain assumption The migration forces in Eqs. 3 and 4 (drag and trap) represent the gas dynamical effect in AGN disks.
    Adopted from Li et al. (2022); the simulations ignore turbulence, other orbiters, and mass-dependent migration, as the authors note in Section 6.
  • domain assumption The rate framework of Tagawa et al. (2020), Eq. 8, applies to bremsstrahlung events as well as mergers.
    Section 4 repurposes the AGN merger rate formula; the number of BHs crossing the disk and AGN lifetime are taken from that work.
  • domain assumption Mean motion resonance capture determines whether a BH pair avoids close encounters.
    Section 3.2 derives Eq. 7 for the critical total mass and checks it against simulations; it neglects turbulence that could break resonances.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scattering of stellar-mass black holes and gravitational wave bremsstrahlung radiation in AGN disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JWSX6OI6

@misc{pith2026250416457,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scattering of stellar-mass black holes and gravitational wave bremsstrahlung radiation in AGN disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JWSX6OI6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16457}
}
abstract

Dynamics of stellar mass black holes (sBHs) embedded in active galactic nuclei (AGNs) could produce highly eccentric orbits near the central supermassive black hole, leading to repeated close encounters that emit gravitational waves in the LIGO frequency band. Many works have focused on the mergers of sBH in the disk that produce gravitational waves; however, sBHs in hyperbolic orbits also emit gravitational-wave \bremss{} that can be detected by ground-based interferometers like LIGO. In this work, we analyze the scattering of sBHs in an AGN disk as they migrate inside the disk, focusing on gravitational-wave \bremss{} emission. We determine how the gravitational-wave emission depends on the different parameters of the scattering experiments, such as the mass of the supermassive black hole and the sBH migration rate and mass ratio. We find that scattering with detectable gravitational-wave \bremss{} is more frequent around lower mass SMBHs ($\sim 10^{5-6}$M$_\odot$). We then conduct a suite of Monte Carlo simulations and estimated the rate for ground-based gravitational-wave detections to be in the range of 0.08 - 1194 $\text{Gpc}^{-3} \text{ yr}^{-1}$, depending on migration forces and detection thresholds, with large uncertainties accounting for variations in possible AGN environments. The expected rate for our {\tt Fiducial} parameters is 3.2 $\text{Gpc}^{-3} \text{ yr}^{-1}$. Finally, we provide first-principle gravitational wave templates produced by the encounters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16457 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A representation of the system simulated to gen￾erate close encounters. The center black dot is the SMBH of mass M. The blue and orange orbits represent the inner and perturber stellar mass black holes respectively. The inner black hole has mass m1 and initial semimajor axis a1 (de￾termined by 103 gravitational radii of the SMBH Rg,SMBH, Eq. 2) and the perturber black hole has mass m2 and semi￾major axis a2 (determi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the rates of close encounters for simu￾lations with different migration constants and GR pre￾scriptions. Each point corresponds to a set of 1000 sim￾ulations with the same migration strength and GR pre￾scription. The uncertainties included here are derived from the Poisson noise of the observed quantities. The sBHs can experience a large number of close en￾counters in a given simulation when their orbits becom… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Analysis of close encounters in systems with vary￾ing strengths of the drag (upper panel) and trap (lower panel) migration force. The different runs (e.g. DragLow1, Dra￾gLow2, Fiducial, DragHigh1, & DragHigh2) are labeled by the timescale of the migration (in initial periods of the inner black holes around the SMBH). The y-axis shows the cumu￾lative count of simulated systems over the peak ∆EGW emit￾ted over the ent… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Analysis of which simulation sets have more close encounters with peak ∆EGW greater than 1 M⊙ and 3 M⊙. The different runs are labeled by the timescale of the migration. In this plot we compare both migration pre￾scriptions to each other. The migration rates with the m…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the relative number of encounters that exceed critical values for ∆EGW (see legend) for differ￾ent masses of the central SMBH. These rates are expressed relative to the Fiducial run with a SMBH mass of 106M⊙. p : q MMR, the semi-major axis of the outer bl…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of final period ratio for runs which did not have close encounter (dmin > 0.4 AU) in our ensemble of N-body simulations. The location of relevant first order mean motion resonances are shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mtot vs f relationship as given by Equation 7. We take Msmbh = 106M⊙ and khill = 5. The nominal location of various MMRs is shown using the vertical dashed lines. The total mass of 300M⊙ is shown using the horizontal line. We can see that for Mtot < 300M⊙ black holes c…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Resonance capture for different initial separations between the sBHs. The minimum separation between the sBHs is shown using the colors. The mass of the inner sBH is shown on the x axis, and the mass of the perturber sBH is shown on the y-axis. The minimum total mass …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Probability density function of the mass ratio q of systems that emitted a peak GW energy above 1M⊙. Given a total of ∼ 300 systems that emit a peak GW energy above 1 M⊙,the results in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The probability density function of the chirp mass Mc of systems that emitted a peak GW energy above 1M⊙ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Probability density function of the peak GW en￾ergies over 0.1M⊙ emitted during simulations with the Trap prescription (blue) and the Drag prescription (orange). trap prescription. For simulations that emit > 3M⊙ of GW energy these are 0.145% for the drag prescription…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Selected GW templates based on sim￾ulated trajectories for the binary with initial parame￾ters (ι1, ι2) = (0.000572, 0.000462), mean anomaly (in radians) (α1, α2) = (4.19, 5.96) and initial eccentricity (einit,1, einit,2) = (0.033, 0.032). Top panel is top-down view o…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Selected GW templates based on sim￾ulated REBOUNDx with inclination for the binary pair (ι1, ι2) = (0.000368, 0.000386), mean anomaly (in ra￾dians) (α1, α2) = (3.60, 5.76) and initial eccentricity (einit,1, einit,2) = (0.044, 0.023). Top panel is top-down view of blac…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Selected GW templates based on simu￾lated trajectories. (ι1, ι2) = (0.000498, 0.000421), mean anomaly (α1, α2) = (4.90, 0.89) and initial eccentricity (einit,1, einit,2) = (0.031, 0.043). Top panel is top-down view of black hole trajectory of primary (black) and secon…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Parameter estimation of gravitational waves from hyperbolic black hole encounters

    gr-qc 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    RIFT can recover the masses, spins, and orbital energy and angular momentum of simulated hyperbolic black hole encounters when paired with the TEOBResumSDALI waveform model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    :|稷BQ NV q+R_A. q OJK k?2cSEQV ޏ悐u b 4c1 FNl4cBk@d PCE1F[f

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2016, Living Rev. Rel., 19, 1, 10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9

    doi:10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9 2016

  5. [5]

    2019, Phys

    ---. 2019, Phys. Rev. X, 9, 031040, 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031040

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.031040 2019

  6. [6]

    Abbott, R., et al. 2021 a . 2111.03606

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    2021 b , Phys

    ---. 2021 b , Phys. Rev. D, 103, 122002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.122002

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.122002 2021

  8. [8]

    ---. 2021 c . 2112.06861

    arXiv 2021

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    2021 d , Phys

    ---. 2021 d , Phys. Rev. X, 11, 021053, 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.021053

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    2022, Phys

    ---. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 102008, 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.102008

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    2023, Phys

    ---. 2023, Phys. Rev. X, 13, 041039, 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, Astrophys

    Agazie, G., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J. Lett., 951, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Antonini, F., Toonen, S., & Hamers, A. S. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 841, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f5e

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    Artymowicz , P., Lin , D. N. C., & Wampler , E. J. 1993, , 409, 592, 10.1086/172690

    1993 doi

  7. [15]

    2017, mnras, 464, L36, 10.1093/mnrasl/slw177

    Askar, A., Szkudlarek, M., Gondek-Rosińska, D., Giersz, M., & Bulik, T. 2017, mnras, 464, L36, 10.1093/mnrasl/slw177

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    Bae, Y.-B., Hyun, Y.-H., & Kang, G. 2023. 2310.18686

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    M., & Kang, G

    Bae, Y.-B., Lee, H. M., & Kang, G. 2020, Astrophys. J., 900, 175, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba82b

    2020 doi

  10. [19]

    2017 b , Phys

    ---. 2017 b , Phys. Rev. D, 96, 084009, 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.084009

    2017 doi

  11. [20]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 524, 10.1093/mnras/stw3392

    Banerjee, S. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 524, 10.1093/mnras/stw3392

    2017 doi

  12. [21]

    S., Fragos, T., Qin, Y., et al

    Bavera, S. S., Fragos, T., Qin, Y., et al. 2020, åp, 635, A97, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936204

    2020 doi

  13. [22]

    E., Bulik, T., & O'Shaughnessy, R

    Belczynski, K., Holz, D. E., Bulik, T., & O'Shaughnessy, R. 2016, Nature, 534, 512, 10.1038/nature18322

    2016 doi

  14. [23]

    2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 615, A91, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732428

    Belczynski, K., Askar, A., Arca-Sedda, M., et al. 2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 615, A91, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732428

    2018 doi

  15. [24]

    M., Mac Low , M.-M., McKernan , B., & Ford , K

    Bellovary , J. M., Mac Low , M.-M., McKernan , B., & Ford , K. E. S. 2016, , 819, L17, 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L17

    2016 doi

  16. [25]

    G., Li , G., & Lin , D

    Bhaskar , H. G., Li , G., & Lin , D. N. C. 2022, , 934, 141, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7b26

    2022 doi

  17. [26]

    2024, Phys

    Bini, S., Tiwari, S., Xu, Y., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 042009, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.042009

    2024 doi

  18. [27]

    2006, Living Reviews in Relativity, 9, 4, 10.12942/lrr-2006-4

    Blanchet , L. 2006, Living Reviews in Relativity, 9, 4, 10.12942/lrr-2006-4

    2006 doi

  19. [28]

    2014, Living Reviews in Relativity, 17

    Blanchet, L. 2014, Living Reviews in Relativity, 17. https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2014-2

    2014 doi

  20. [29]

    Boekholt , T. C. N., Rowan , C., & Kocsis , B. 2023, , 518, 5653, 10.1093/mnras/stac3495

    2023 doi

  21. [30]

    2008, Astropart

    Capozziello, S., & De Laurentis, M. 2008, Astropart. Phys., 30, 105, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2008.07.005

    2008 doi

  22. [31]

    Cho, G., Gopakumar, A., Haney, M., & Lee, H. M. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 024039, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.024039

    2018 doi

  23. [32]

    A., & Yang, Z

    Cho, G., Porto, R. A., & Yang, Z. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, L101501, 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.L101501

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    J., & Littenberg, T

    Cornish, N. J., & Littenberg, T. B. 2015, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 135012, 10.1088/0264-9381/32/13/135012

    2015 doi

  25. [34]

    J., Littenberg, T

    Cornish, N. J., Littenberg, T. B., B\'ecsy, B., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 044006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.044006

    2021 doi

  26. [35]

    J., Alexander , R

    Cuadra , J., Armitage , P. J., Alexander , R. D., & Begelman , M. C. 2009, , 393, 1423, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14147.x

    2009

  27. [36]

    2014, Phys

    Damour, T., Guercilena, F., Hinder, I., et al. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 89, 081503, 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.081503

    2014 doi

  28. [37]

    2023, Phys

    Damour, T., & Rettegno, P. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 064051, 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.064051

    2023 doi

  29. [38]

    2023, Phys

    Dandapat, S., Ebersold, M., Susobhanan, A., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 024013, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.024013

    2023 doi

  30. [39]

    N., Giacobbo, N., Mapelli, M., et al

    Di Carlo, U. N., Giacobbo, N., Mapelli, M., et al. 2019, mnras, 487, 2947, 10.1093/mnras/stz1453

    2019 doi

  31. [40]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 759, 52, 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/52

    Dominik, M., Belczynski, K., Fryer, C., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 759, 52, 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/52

    2012 doi

  32. [41]

    Drago, M., et al. 2020. 2006.12604

    2020 arXiv

  33. [42]

    et al., B. P. A. 2016, Physical Review Letters, 116, 061102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

    2016 doi

  34. [43]

    Evans, M., et al. 2021. 2109.09882

    2021 arXiv

  35. [44]

    2010, Class

    Favata, M. 2010, Class. Quant. Grav., 27, 084036, 10.1088/0264-9381/27/8/084036

    2010 doi

  36. [45]

    Generozov , A., & Perets , H. B. 2023, , 522, 1763, 10.1093/mnras/stad1016

    2023 doi

  37. [46]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 749, 10.1038/s41550-021-01398-w

    Gerosa , D., & Fishbach , M. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 749, 10.1038/s41550-021-01398-w

    2021 doi

  38. [47]

    A., et al

    Ghonge, S., Chatziioannou, K., Clark, J. A., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 064056, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.064056

    2020 doi

  39. [48]

    2018, mnras, 474, 2959, 10.1093/mnras/stx2933

    Giacobbo, N., Mapelli, M., & Spera, M. 2018, mnras, 474, 2959, 10.1093/mnras/stx2933

    2018 doi

  40. [49]

    1993, , 106, 247, 10.1006/icar.1993.1169

    Gladman , B. 1993, , 106, 247, 10.1006/icar.1993.1169

    1993

  41. [50]

    1979, , 233, 857, 10.1086/157448

    Goldreich , P., & Tremaine , S. 1979, , 233, 857, 10.1086/157448

    1979 doi

  42. [51]

    J., Ford , K

    Graham , M. J., Ford , K. E. S., McKernan , B., et al. 2020, , 124, 251102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.251102

    2020 doi

  43. [52]

    P., & Burns, J

    Hamilton, D. P., & Burns, J. A. 1992, Icarus, 96, 43, https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(92)90005-R

    1992 doi

  44. [53]

    Hansen, R. O. 1972, Post-Newtonian Gravitational Radiation from Point Masses in a Hyperbolic Kepler Orbit*

    1972

  45. [54]

    2009, Phys

    Healy, J., Levin, J., & Shoemaker, D. 2009, Phys. Rev. Lett., 103, 131101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.131101

    2009 doi

  46. [56]

    A., & Dosopoulou , F

    Hoang , B.-M., Naoz , S., Kocsis , B., Rasio , F. A., & Dosopoulou , F. 2018, , 856, 140, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaafce

    2018 doi

  47. [57]

    Hopper, S., Nagar, A., & Rettegno, P. 2022. 2204.10299

    2022 arXiv

  48. [58]

    B., Littenberg , T

    Kanner , J. B., Littenberg , T. B., Cornish , N., et al. 2016, , 93, 022002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.022002

    2016 doi

  49. [59]

    F., Meiron , Y., Shukirgaliyev , B., et al

    Kennedy , G. F., Meiron , Y., Shukirgaliyev , B., et al. 2016, , 460, 240, 10.1093/mnras/stw908

    2016 doi

  50. [60]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 2963, 10.1093/mnras/stu1022

    Kinugawa, T., Inayoshi, K., Hotokezaka, K., Nakauchi, D., & Nakamura, T. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 2963, 10.1093/mnras/stu1022

    2014 doi

  51. [61]

    E., & Márka, S

    Kocsis, B., Gáspár, M. E., & Márka, S. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 648, 411, 10.1086/505641

    2006 doi

  52. [62]

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

    2013 doi

  53. [63]

    J., J., & Thorne , K

    Kovacs , S. J., J., & Thorne , K. S. 1978, , 224, 62, 10.1086/156350

    1978 doi

  54. [64]

    Leigh , N. W. C., Geller , A. M., McKernan , B., et al. 2018, , 474, 5672, 10.1093/mnras/stx3134

    2018 doi

  55. [65]

    2009, Phys

    Levin, J., & Grossman, B. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 043016, 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.043016

    2009 doi

  56. [66]

    2014, , 785, 116, 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/116

    Li , G., Naoz , S., Kocsis , B., & Loeb , A. 2014, , 785, 116, 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/116

    2014 doi

  57. [67]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 934, 154, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c0d

    Li, J., Lai, D., & Rodet, L. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 934, 154, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c0d

    2022 doi

  58. [68]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.12207, 10.48550/arXiv.2303.12207

    Li , R., & Lai , D. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.12207, 10.48550/arXiv.2303.12207

    2023 doi arXiv

  59. [69]

    2020, JCAP, 03, 050, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/050

    Maggiore, M., et al. 2020, JCAP, 03, 050, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/050

    2020 doi

  60. [70]

    McKernan , B., Ford , K. E. S., Lyra , W., & Perets , H. B. 2012, , 425, 460, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21486.x

    2012

  61. [71]

    McKernan , B., Ford , K. E. S., Bellovary , J., et al. 2018, , 866, 66, 10.3847/1538-4357/aadae5

    2018 doi

  62. [72]

    McKernan , B., Ford , K. E. S., Bartos , I., et al. 2019, , 884, L50, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4886

    2019 doi

  63. [73]

    2022, Phys

    Morr\'as, G., Garc\' a-Bellido, J., & Nesseris, S. 2022, Phys. Dark Univ., 35, 100932, 10.1016/j.dark.2021.100932

    2022

  64. [74]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 5064, 10.1093/mnras/stab2721

    Mukherjee, S., Mitra, S., & Chatterjee, S. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 5064, 10.1093/mnras/stab2721

    2021 doi

  65. [75]

    1995, Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students (Butterworth-Heinemann)

    Murphy, H. 1995, Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students (Butterworth-Heinemann)

    1995

  66. [76]

    2018, Phys

    Nagar, A., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 104052, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.104052

    2018 doi

  67. [77]

    S., Fabj , G., Caban , F., et al

    Nasim , S. S., Fabj , G., Caban , F., et al. 2023, , 522, 5393, 10.1093/mnras/stad1295

    2023 doi

  68. [78]

    M., Kocsis, B., & Loeb, A

    O'Leary, R. M., Kocsis, B., & Loeb, A. 2009, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 395, 2127, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14653.x

    2009

  69. [79]

    M., Rasio, F

    O'Leary, R. M., Rasio, F. A., Fregeau, J. M., Ivanova, N., & O'Shaughnessy, R. 2006, apj, 637, 937, 10.1086/498446

    2006 doi

  70. [80]

    J., Annis , J., & Liu , X

    Palmese , A., Fishbach , M., Burke , C. J., Annis , J., & Liu , X. 2021, , 914, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0883

    2021 doi

  71. [81]

    2021, , 505, 1324, 10.1093/mnras/stab1419

    Peng , P., & Chen , X. 2021, , 505, 1324, 10.1093/mnras/stab1419

    2021 doi

  72. [82]

    Peters, P. C. 1964, Phys. Rev., 136, B1224, 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224

    1964 doi

  73. [83]

    Poisson, E., & Will, C. M. 2014, Gravity: Newtonian, Post-Newtonian, Relativistic (Cambridge University Press). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975663

    2014 doi

  74. [84]

    H., Teukolsky, S

    Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., & Flannery, B. P. 1986, Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing (Cambridge University Press)

    1986

  75. [85]

    D., & Shapiro, S

    Quinlan, G. D., & Shapiro, S. L. 1989, DYNAMICAL EVOLUTION OF DENSE CLUSTERS OF COMPACT STARS

    1989

  76. [86]

    2022, Phys

    Ramos-Buades, A., Buonanno, A., Khalil, M., & Ossokine, S. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 044035, 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.044035

    2022 doi

  77. [87]

    Rein , H., & Liu , S. F. 2012, , 537, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085

    2012 doi

  78. [88]

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

    Rodriguez, C. L., Chatterjee, S., & Rasio, F. A. 2016, prd, 93, 084029, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.084029

    2016 doi

  79. [89]

    2023, , 524, 2770, 10.1093/mnras/stad1926

    Rowan , C., Boekholt , T., Kocsis , B., & Haiman , Z. 2023, , 524, 2770, 10.1093/mnras/stad1926

    2023 doi

  80. [90]

    Rozner , M., Generozov , A., & Perets , H. B. 2023, , 521, 866, 10.1093/mnras/stad603

    2023 doi

  81. [91]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 784, 71, 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/71

    Samsing, J., MacLeod, M., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 784, 71, 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/71

    2014 doi

  82. [92]

    J., et al

    Samsing , J., Bartos , I., D'Orazio , D. J., et al. 2022, , 603, 237, 10.1038/s41586-021-04333-1

    2022 doi

  83. [93]

    Schumaker, L. L. 1994, Mathematics of Computation, 63, 427. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2153590

    1994

  84. [94]

    M., et al

    Secunda, A., Bellovary, J., Low, M.-M. M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 878, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab20ca

    2019 doi

  85. [95]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 903, 133, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbc1d

    ---. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 903, 133, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbc1d

    2020 doi

  86. [96]

    2017, apj, 836, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5729

    Silsbee, K., & Tremaine, S. 2017, apj, 836, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5729

    2017 doi

  87. [97]

    2019, mnras, 485, 889, 10.1093/mnras/stz359

    Spera, M., Mapelli, M., Giacobbo, N., et al. 2019, mnras, 485, 889, 10.1093/mnras/stz359

    2019 doi

  88. [98]

    C., Metzger , B

    Stone , N. C., Metzger , B. D., & Haiman , Z. 2017, , 464, 946, 10.1093/mnras/stw2260

    2017 doi

  89. [99]

    2021, Phys

    Szczepa\'nczyk, M., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 082002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.082002

    2021 doi

  90. [100]

    2020, , 898, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8c

    Tagawa , H., Haiman , Z., & Kocsis , B. 2020, , 898, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8c

    2020 doi

  91. [101]

    Thorne, K. S. 1992, Phys. Rev. D, 45, 520, 10.1103/PhysRevD.45.520

    1992 doi

  92. [102]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 578, 345, 10.1086/342118

    ---. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 578, 345, 10.1086/342118

    2002 doi

  93. [103]

    1977, , 216, 610, 10.1086/155501

    Turner , M. 1977, , 216, 610, 10.1086/155501

    1977 doi

  94. [104]

    Vallado, D. A. 2007, Fundamentals of Astrodynamics and Applications (Springer)

    2007

  95. [105]

    2018, Class

    Vines, J. 2018, Class. Quant. Grav., 35, 084002, 10.1088/1361-6382/aaa3a8

    2018 doi

  96. [106]

    1998, , 298, 53, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01564.x

    Vokrouhlicky , D., & Karas , V. 1998, , 298, 53, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01564.x

    1998

  97. [107]

    Wang , Y., Zhu , Z., & Lin , D. N. C. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.09129, 10.48550/arXiv.2308.09129

    2023 doi arXiv

  98. [108]

    2023, Astropart

    Wette, K. 2023, Astropart. Phys., 153, 102880, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2023.102880

    2023

  99. [109]

    2019, , 123, 181101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.181101

    Yang , Y., Bartos , I., Gayathri , V., et al. 2019, , 123, 181101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.181101

    2019 doi

  100. [110]

    B., & Polnarev, A

    Zel'dovich, Y. B., & Polnarev, A. G. 1974, Sov. Astron., 18, 17

    1974

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.