Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Interactions among binary black holes in star clusters: Eccentric gravitational wave captures and triple formation

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Three-body binaries, not stellar binaries, drive black-hole interactions in clusters, and the paper shows that this channel produces a predictable eccentric merger rate.

desk verdict The ID-based origin classification is the real result; the rate predictions are conditional on an unquantified capture criterion. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02907 v2 pith:LXFNS43K submitted 2025-01-06 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR

Daniel Marín Pina , Mark Gieles , Tomas Andrade , Alessandro A. Trani This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords binaryblackholesglobularclustersgravitationalwavecaptureseccentricmergersthree-bodybinariesbinary-binaryinteractionspost-NewtoniandynamicsLidov-Kozaioscillations
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 claims that the binary-black-hole pairs that collide and merge inside globular clusters are overwhelmingly not the binaries born with the stars, but binaries assembled on the fly by three-body gravitational encounters. It tests this with a public Monte Carlo cluster catalogue, resimulating every strong BBH-BBH interaction with a direct post-Newtonian integrator up to 3.5PN. It finds that about 84% of strong BBH-BBH interactions involve two three-body binaries, that BBH formation and disruption roughly balance each other, and that this balance explains why N-body clusters host only one dynamically active BBH at a time. A population model then yields a local gravitational-wave capture rate of about 0.9 Gpc$^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$, with about 10% of those mergers retaining eccentricity $e>0.1$ at the 10 Hz reference frequency, and predicts that BBH-BBH encounters are roughly three times more likely to merge than binary-single encounters. The sympathetic reader cares because these rates and eccentricities are independent of uncertain primordial binary physics, turning cluster captures into a sharp, testable prediction for eccentric gravitational-wave sources.

What carries the argument

The engine is the three-body binary: a BBH assembled dynamically from three unbound BHs in the cluster core, sitting near the hard-soft boundary and interacting with a long-lived hardened binary. In each BBH-BBH scattering, the ratio $\alpha = a_{\max}/a_{\min}$ of the two semimajor axes divides the encounter into resonant chaos (roughly $\alpha < 500$) and direct fly-bys, and the capture probability is computed through a chain of hierarchical intermediate states, each characterized by a critical eccentricity $e_{\rm crit}$ at which a single pericentre passage radiates enough gravitational-wave energy to bind the pair. The paper extends the binary-single intermediate-state counting to four bodies with a correction factor $f(\alpha)$ fitted to the simulations, $p_{\rm merge} = f(\alpha)(1-e_{\rm crit}^{2N_{\rm IMS}})$, with the fit $f(\alpha)=3.4(1+(\alpha/8.6)^2)^{-0.83}$. Around this machinery, the cluster model supplies the interaction rate from the three-body binary formation rate $C(x)$, and the triple stability criterion seeds the von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai channel.

What would settle it

Run full numerical relativity scattering experiments for equal-mass BBH-BBH encounters with pericentre at exactly ten Schwarzschild radii and measure what fraction inspiral to merger; if a non-negligible fraction emerge as unbound hyperbolic encounters, the capture criterion overcounts and the predicted rate and eccentricity distribution both shift downward.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper sets out to show that the binary-black-hole pairs that collide inside globular clusters are almost never the binaries that formed with the stellar population. In the public cluster catalogue, fewer than 0.1% of strong BBH-BBH encounters involve two primordial BBHs, while 84% involve two dynamically assembled three-body binaries and 15% involve at least one exchange binary. Because three-body binaries form near the hard-soft boundary and are immediately ionised by the one long-lived stable BBH, BBH formation and disruption occur at roughly equal rates, which explains the single dynamically active BBH seen in N-body models. Using a 3.5PN few-body integrator on the sampled encounters, the paper obtains a capture probability per BBH-BBH interaction that is about three times higher than per binary-single interaction. With a population weighting over cluster masses, radii, metallicities, and formation redshifts, it predicts a local GW capture rate $R(z\simeq 0) = 0.9\,\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, about 10% of which retain $e>0.1$ at $f_{22}=10$ Hz, and a rate that peaks near $z\simeq 3.7$. It also confirms that stable triples are a common outcome (about 21% of resolved interactions) but that their von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai mergers contribute only about 0.3 Gpc$^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$, below the direct capture rate.

Load-bearing premise

The paper treats any approach closer than ten Schwarzschild radii as a guaranteed merger, even though the post-Newtonian equations used to simulate that close approach are not strictly valid there.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The population of interacting BBHs in globular clusters is dominated by three-body binaries, so GW capture and triple formation rates are essentially independent of the uncertain primordial binary fraction and binary stellar evolution assumptions.
  • A single dynamically active BBH is the expected steady state because three-body BBH formation is balanced by disruption in BBH-BBH interactions.
  • BBH-BBH encounters produce a local GW capture rate of about 0.9 Gpc$^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$, roughly 4% of the total BBH merger rate, with about 10% of captures having $e>0.1$ at $f_{22}=10$ Hz.
  • The redshift distribution of these captures peaks near $z\simeq 3.7$, later than the star-formation-rate peak of the isolated channel, so eccentric merger detections can help separate dynamical from isolated origins.
  • Stable triples form in about one fifth of BBH-BBH interactions, but ZLK-driven mergers in them are subdominant (about 0.3 Gpc$^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$) compared with direct GW captures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An editorial extension: the authors note that soft-soft binary encounters were excluded; scaling their stated Saha-like creation rate with the capture probability suggests those encounters could push the local capture rate above 0.9 Gpc$^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$.
  • Because the claimed rates do not depend on primordial binary properties, the same argument should transfer to any dense stellar system that reaches the one-dynamical-BBH equilibrium, including galactic nuclei, predicting that the eccentric-capture contribution scales with the number of black holes rather than with the initial binary fraction.
  • The nearly flat distribution of $\log_{10} e$ between $-2.5$ and $0$ implies that matched-filter searches for mildly eccentric mergers ($e\sim 0.01$--$0.1$) should catch more events than searches aimed only at highly eccentric ones.
  • A direct observational test is to stack ground-based detector events by eccentricity: the predicted roughly 0.09 Gpc$^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$ of highly eccentric captures ($e>0.1$) from this channel alone should be reachable with near-future observing runs.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper investigates binary-black-hole (BBH) encounters in globular clusters using the public CMC catalogue and 3.5PN tsunami scattering simulations. Based on direct tracking of BH IDs in CMC, it finds that fewer than 0.1% of strong BBH-BBH interactions involve two primordial BBHs, while 84% are between two three-body binaries; it also finds that BBH formation and disruption balance, explaining the presence of a single dynamically active BBH. The authors then construct an analytical model for the merger probability in BBH-BBH interactions, calibrate a correction factor f(alpha), and combine it with a cluster population synthesis to predict a local GW capture rate R(z=0)=0.9 Gpc^-3 yr^-1, an eccentric merger fraction of about 10% at e>0.1, and a subdominant merger rate from ZLK-induced mergers in dynamically assembled triples.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper reframes the dynamical channel for BBH mergers: the BBHs that dominate BBH-BBH interactions are dynamically assembled three-body binaries, so the resulting merger rates are insensitive to uncertain primordial-binary properties. The paper also provides useful falsifiable predictions for eccentric GW mergers and their redshift evolution, and it proposes a resolution of a known discrepancy between fast cluster codes and N-body models. Strengths include the direct ID-based classification of binary origins, the large ensemble of approximately 2e6 scattering experiments, and the transparent analytic framework for capture probabilities. The quantitative parts of the paper are nevertheless less secure: the headline rate and eccentricity distribution rest on a capture criterion acknowledged to lie beyond PN validity, and several fitted quantities are calibrated on the very simulations they are used to predict.

major comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A / Sect. 6.1] The operational definition of a GW capture—any pair of BHs reaching a separation below 10 times the sum of their Schwarzschild radii—enters every quantitative result: pmerge (Eq. 17), Nm (Eq. 24), R(z=0) (Eq. 26), the eccentric fraction (Fig. 9), and the ZLK comparison (Sect. 5). The paper itself concedes in Sect. 6.1 that the 3.5PN equations are invalid at this separation and that a definitive treatment requires Numerical Relativity; the only supporting evidence is a sentence citing 'limited simulations in Numerical Relativity' without a reference, a quantified fraction, or a convergence test. Because a non-negligible fraction of borderline high-eccentricity or hyperbolic encounters inside 10 r_s may not actually merge, the authors should supply the NR validation, quantify the sensitivity of every headline number to the cutoff, or state the quantitative results as conditional on this ansatz.
  2. [Sect. 4.1-4.2, Eqs. (12), (16), (17)] The correction factor f(alpha) is obtained by fitting Eq. (16) to the same tsunami sample whose merger probability Eq. (17) is then claimed to reproduce (Fig. 6). The agreement therefore demonstrates internal consistency of the fit, not independent predictive power. The subsequent statement that a BBH-BBH interaction is about 3 times more likely to merge than a BBH-BH interaction is based on this calibration. I ask for a cross-validation or an explicit statement that Eq. (17) is a fit rather than a prediction; the same caveat applies to the theoretical curves in Fig. 9.
  3. [Sect. 4.4, Eqs. (24)-(26), Fig. 7] The headline local rate R(z=0)=0.9 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 is quoted without an uncertainty. The underlying Nm-M0 relation (Eq. 24) is a power-law fit whose scatter is visible in Fig. 7; no fit uncertainty is reported, and the text notes the result depends on Mmin. The population weighting also depends on nGC,0, the GC mass-function cutoff MS, and the metallicity and radius distributions (Eqs. 18-23). Please propagate these uncertainties through Eq. (25) and report the sensitivity of R(z=0), the redshift peak, and the ~10% eccentric fraction to the assumed Mmin and MS.
  4. [Sect. 6.2 and Sect. 4.2] Soft-soft BBH scatterings are explicitly excluded, yet the scaling argument in Sect. 6.2 gives a soft-soft interaction rate proportional to a^(3/2) and a merger rate proportional to a^(11/14), which formally diverges at large a and suggests a non-negligible contribution; the authors defer this to a follow-up study. Because the rate claim is global, this omission should at least be quantified with a firm upper limit, or the rate statement should be labeled as excluding soft-soft encounters.
  5. [Sect. 4.2 and Appendix A] 11% of the approximately 2x10^6 scattering experiments are classified as unresolved (t > 0.16 Myr). The outcome fractions quoted in Sect. 4.2 and the merger counts feeding Nm appear to be computed from resolved runs only. If unresolved states preferentially lead to late mergers or triples, the rates and eccentricity distribution are biased. Please report the outcome sensitivity to the time cutoff, or treat unresolved runs with their expected merger probability rather than discarding them.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sect. 3.1] The definition of the three categories 'primordial', 'three-body', and 'exchange' should clarify the overlap: the 15% of interactions involving at least one exchange binary presumably includes the ~1% with two exchange binaries; the current wording could be read as implying disjoint categories.
  2. [Fig. 6 caption] The displayed fitting function appears corrupted with a placeholder symbol ('(1 + (□ α/8.6)^2)^{-0.8}') and should be replaced by the λ notation of Eq. (16), with λ1=3.4, λ2=8.6, λ3=1.7.
  3. [Abstract and Eq. (26)] The abstract quotes R=1 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 while Eq. (26) gives R(z=0)=0.9 Gpc^-3 yr^-1; please harmonize the rounding or report the value consistently.
  4. [Sect. 4.5] The phrase 'f22 is computed as ... in 3PN approximation as Memmesheimer et al. (2004, their equations 25c,k)' would be clearer if the quasi-Keplerian eccentricity et were defined in the main text before it is used, rather than only in Appendix B.
  5. [Sect. 4.2, Fig. 4] The transition at alpha_crit ~ 500 is identified visually from Fig. 4; please state how alpha_crit was defined and whether its uncertainty was estimated.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central origin claim is independent, but the analytic eccentricity model is calibrated to the same tsunami simulations it is said to reproduce.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.5, Fig. 9 (with Sect. 4.2, Eq. 16 and Eq. 17)]
    "In Fig. 9 we show these results, weighted both according to their pmerge (equation 17) and their parameter distribution (Sect. 4.3). As can be seen, the distribution of eccentricities is roughly flat in log10 e between −2.5 and 0, with ∼ 10% of mergers having e > 0.1; and the simple model can roughly reproduce the simulations."

    The pmerge used to weight the analytic curve (Eq. 17) contains f(α)=3.4(1+(α/8.6)^2)^{-0.83}, and Sect. 4.2 states 'we compute f (α) by substituting the merger probability, obtained in the tsunami simulations, in equation 12.' The analytic curve in Fig. 9 is therefore weighted by a merger probability fitted to the very tsunami simulations that it is then said to 'roughly reproduce'; the overall amplitude and the total eccentric-merger fraction in the model curve are calibrated to the same data. Only the eccentricity shape (thermal sampling plus 2.5PN circularisation) is an independent prediction. This does not affect the 84% three-body fraction, which is an ID-based CMC measurement.

full rationale

The paper's headline claim — that most BBH-BBH interactions in GCs are between three-body binaries (84%) — is an empirical ID check on CMC snapshots ('checking whether the IDs of the BHs involved in the interaction were in binaries in the first snapshot'), so it is not derived from the fitted model. The balance between BBH formation and disruption, and the interaction-rate ratio Γbb/Γbs, are tested against CMC (Figs. 2-3), so the self-citations to Marín Pina & Gieles (2024) are cross-validated rather than load-bearing in a circular way. The population-weighted rate R(0)=0.9 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 is a semi-empirical normalization: Nm is fit to the CMC catalogue (Eq. 24) and Eq. 25 imposes the integral to equal ⟨Nm⟩ n_GC,0, with independent cluster population weights (mass function, metallicity, CFR); this is calibration, not a reduction to its own target. The one genuinely circular element is the analytic eccentricity curve of Fig. 9, whose pmerge weight contains f(α) fitted to the same tsunami merger probabilities; the 'roughly reproduces the simulations' statement is therefore a consistency check rather than an independent test. Separately, the 10 r_s capture criterion (Sect. 6.1) is load-bearing for every quantitative merger rate and eccentricity prediction; the authors explicitly state the 3.5PN equations are not valid there and cite only 'limited simulations in Numerical Relativity' with no reference or quantified fraction. This is a correctness/robustness risk, not a circularity, and it conditions all numerical rates without undermining the 84% origin claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central analysis introduces no new particles or forces. Its inputs are standard stellar-dynamical quantities plus the modeling choices listed above. The parameters fit to simulations, especially the f(alpha) coefficients, are the main place where the model is calibrated rather than derived.

free parameters (8)
  • f(alpha) fit parameters lambda1, lambda2, lambda3 = lambda1=3.4, lambda2=8.6, lambda3=1.7
    Least-squares fit to tsunami BBH-BBH merger fractions; used in Eqs. 16-17 to set pmerge.
  • NIMS (number of intermediate states) = 20
    Fixed from binary-single resonant scattering literature (Samsing et al. 2014); not fitted here but is a model parameter that directly controls pmerge in Eq. 12.
  • Nm power-law exponent and normalization = Nm = (M0/1e5 M_sun)^(1/2)
    Fit to CMC merger counts versus initial cluster mass in Fig. 7; used in Eq. 24 to compute the mean number of mergers per cluster.
  • Strong-interaction cutoff X = 2
    Chosen in CMC via rp = X(a0+a1) to capture resonances; determines the sample of BBH-BBH interactions and the outcome fractions.
  • GW capture cutoff = 10 times sum of Schwarzschild radii
    Any approach below this separation is counted as a merger (Appendix A, Sect. 6.1); affects all merger rates and eccentricity statistics.
  • Semimajor-axis ratio power-law index b = b = 1.1
    Fit to the CMC alpha distribution in Fig. 2; used to support the three-body interaction model.
  • GC mass function low-mass cutoff M_min = 1e4 M_sun
    Adopted from Antonini & Gieles (2020); the paper explicitly notes that the mean merger number and absolute rate depend on M_min.
  • GC population weighting inputs (n_GC,0, M_S, M_max, sigma_Z, mu_rv, sigma_rv) = rho_GC,0=2.4e16 M_sun Gpc^-3, M_S=10^6.2 M_sun, M_max=2e7 M_sun, sigma_Z=0.25, mu_rv=2 pc, sigma_rv=2 pc
    Inputs from prior cluster population models used in Sect. 4.3 to convert per-cluster yields to a cosmic rate; the paper notes sensitivity to these choices.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The Kremer et al. (2020) CMC catalogue faithfully represents the population of strong BBH-BBH interactions in globular clusters.
    All interactions are drawn from these 148 models; if CMC's interaction sampling is biased, the origin fractions and rates inherit that bias.
  • domain assumption Re-simulating each CMC interaction ten times with randomized phases and orientations yields unbiased outcome statistics without re-running cluster evolution.
    Sect. 2.2; this assumes the ten samples are independent realizations and that the CMC encounter rate weights remain valid.
  • ad hoc to paper Capture is inevitable when separation is below 10 times the sum of Schwarzschild radii.
    Sect. 6.1 and Appendix A; authors note this exceeds PN validity and is only partially checked by numerical relativity.
  • domain assumption Soft binaries and scatterings with rp larger than 2(a0+a1) can be neglected for the merger-rate analysis.
    Sect. 6.2 argues soft-soft interactions may be relevant and leaves them to follow-up work.
  • domain assumption Intermediate states in resonant interactions have a thermal eccentricity distribution p(e)=2e.
    Used in Eq. 9 and Sect. 4.5; borrowed from binary-single scattering theory.
  • domain assumption At any time a cluster hosts one dynamically active three-body BBH, following Marín Pina & Gieles (2024).
    Sect. 3.2 uses this to derive the rate ratio in Eq. 6; the CMC equilibrium is cited as support.
  • domain assumption The GC population weighting distributions (Schechter mass function, log-normal metallicity, normal virial radius, El-Badry et al. cluster formation rate) are correct.
    Sect. 4.3; determines n_GC,0 and the z=0 rate normalization.
  • domain assumption The 3.5PN equations of motion are accurate up to the chosen capture cutoff.
    tsunami integrator; the paper acknowledges PN breaks down near the cutoff.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interactions among binary black holes in star clusters: Eccentric gravitational wave captures and triple formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LXFNS43K

@misc{pith2026250102907,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interactions among binary black holes in star clusters: Eccentric gravitational wave captures and triple formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LXFNS43K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02907}
}
abstract

Numerical simulations of star clusters with black holes find that there is only a single dynamically active binary black hole (BBH), at odds with the theoretical expectation of ~5 dynamically formed - or, commonly referred to as three-body - BBHs in clusters with a few hundred BHs. We test the recent suggestion that this tension is because interactions among three-body BBHs were neglected in the theory. We use the public catalogue of Cluster Monte Carlo models to obtain a sample of strong BBH-BBH interactions, which we integrate using post-Newtonian equations of motion up to 3.5PN. We explore the nature of the BBHs involved in BBH-BBH interactions in star clusters, as well as the various outcomes: gravitational wave (GW) captures and the associated eccentricities at the frequencies of ground-based GW detectors, as well as BH triple formation and their contribution to BBH mergers via the ZLK mechanism. We find that almost all BBHs involved in BBH-BBH interactions are indeed three-body binaries and that BBH formation and disruption in BBH-BBH interactions occur at approximately the same rate, providing an explanation for the finding of a single dynamically active BBH in N-body models. An important implication is that the resulting rates of GW capture and triple formation are independent of uncertain initial binary properties. With the use of a population synthesis model for BBH-BBH interactions in globular clusters, we obtain a local rate of GW captures of $R=1Gpc^{-3}yr^{-1}$ as well as their eccentricity distribution and redshift dependence. We find that a BBH-BBH interaction is more likely to trigger a GW merger than a BH-BBH interaction. We also confirm that stable triples that are assembled in BBH-BBH interactions can merge via ZLK oscillations, although their merger rate is lower than GW captures. Our results will help with the interpretation of future GW signals from eccentric BBHs

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02907 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of a BBH-BBH interaction with some [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Probability density function of the ratio of the semima [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ratio of the BBH-BBH interaction rate and the binary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Correction factor f(α) (defined in Sect. 4.1) as a func￾tion of the semimajor axes ratio α. A value of f(α) > 1 im￾plies that the binary-binary interaction is more likely to trigger a GW merger than a binary-single interaction where the binary has semimajor axis amin. …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: GW mergers in BBH-BBH interactions in the initial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Number of mergers per cluster due to GW captures in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: In blue, merger rate due to captures in BBH-BBH inter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Merger rate due to captures in BBH-BBH interactions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Probability density function of the semimajor axes (top) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Number of BBH mergers with respect to initial cluster [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Inferring the stochastic gravitational-wave background from eccentric stellar-mass binary black holes with spaceborne detectors

    gr-qc 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Eccentric black-hole-binary backgrounds from globular clusters and isolated evolution would look like power-law noise for TianQin/LISA/Taiji, but AGN-formed binaries produce a turnover that LISA and Taiji can distinguish.

  2. Detection of Intermediate-Mass Ratio Inspirals in Globular Clusters: Revealing the Brownian Motion with Gravitational Waves

    astro-ph.HE 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Brownian motion from stellar encounters in globular clusters imprints Doppler and aberrational phase shifts on IMRI gravitational waves that should be detectable for most sources loud enough for TianQin, LISA, or AION to see.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Aarseth , S. J. 2003, Gravitational N-Body Simulations

    2003

  2. [2]

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

    2012

  3. [3]

    Aarseth , S. J. & Heggie , D. C. 1976, , 53, 259

    1976

  4. [4]

    D., Acernese , F., et al

    Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., Acernese , F., et al. 2023 a , Physical Review X, 13, 041039

    2023

  5. [5]

    D., Acernese , F., et al

    Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., Acernese , F., et al. 2023 b , Physical Review X, 13, 011048

    2023

  6. [6]

    Antognini , J. M. O. & Thompson , T. A. 2016, , 456, 4219

    2016

  7. [7]

    & Gieles , M

    Antonini , F. & Gieles , M. 2020, , 492, 2936

    2020

  8. [8]

    2023, , 522, 466

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

    2023

Show all 110 references
  1. [9]

    2019, , 486, 5008

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

    2019

  2. [10]

    M., & Callister , T

    Antonini , F., Romero-Shaw , I. M., & Callister , T. 2025, , 134, 011401

    2025

  3. [11]

    C., Trani , A

    Atallah , D., Weatherford , N. C., Trani , A. A., & Rasio , F. A. 2024, , 970, 112

    2024

  4. [12]

    2017, , 467, 524

    Banerjee , S. 2017, , 467, 524

    2017

  5. [13]

    2018 a , , 473, 909

    Banerjee , S. 2018 a , , 473, 909

    2018

  6. [14]

    2018 b , , 481, 5123

    Banerjee , S. 2018 b , , 481, 5123

    2018

  7. [15]

    2021, , 503, 3371

    Banerjee , S. 2021, , 503, 3371

    2021

  8. [16]

    & Antonini , F

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

    2025

  9. [17]

    2017, , 835, 165

    Bartos , I., Kocsis , B., Haiman , Z., & M \'a rka , S. 2017, , 835, 165

    2017

  10. [18]

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

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

    2016

  11. [19]

    E., Kalogera , V., Rasio , F

    Belczynski , K., Taam , R. E., Kalogera , V., Rasio , F. A., & Bulik , T. 2007, , 662, 504

    2007

  12. [20]

    & Geralico, A

    Bini, D. & Geralico, A. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 104019

    2021

  13. [21]

    2024, Phys

    Bini, S., Tiwari, S., Xu, Y., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 042009

    2024

  14. [22]

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

    2013

  15. [23]

    2008, Mod

    Capozziello, S., De Laurentis, M., De Paolis, F., Ingrosso, G., & Nucita, A. 2008, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 23, 99

    2008

  16. [24]

    2024, , 683, A186

    Dall'Amico , M., Mapelli , M., Torniamenti , S., & Arca Sedda , M. 2024, , 683, A186

    2024

  17. [25]

    & Deruelle , N

    Damour , T. & Deruelle , N. 1985, Annales de L'Institut Henri Poincare Section (A) Physique Theorique, 43, 107

    1985

  18. [26]

    2014, Phys

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

    2014

  19. [27]

    2012, Phys

    De Vittori, L., Jetzer, P., & Klein, A. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 86, 044017

    2012

  20. [28]

    R., Choksi , N., & Boylan-Kolchin , M

    El-Badry , K., Quataert , E., Weisz , D. R., Choksi , N., & Boylan-Kolchin , M. 2019, , 482, 4528

    2019

  21. [29]

    & Fragione , G

    Fishbach , M. & Fragione , G. 2023, , 522, 5546

    2023

  22. [30]

    2012, Fewbody: Numerical toolkit for simulating small-N gravitational dynamics , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1208.011

    Fregeau , J. 2012, Fewbody: Numerical toolkit for simulating small-N gravitational dynamics , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1208.011

    2012

  23. [31]

    Fregeau , J. M. & Rasio , F. A. 2007, , 658, 1047

    2007

  24. [32]

    Gallegos-Garcia , M., Berry , C. P. L., Marchant , P., & Kalogera , V. 2021, , 922, 110

    2021

  25. [33]

    & Nesseris, S

    Garc\' a-Bellido, J. & Nesseris, S. 2018, Phys. Dark Univ., 21, 61

    2018

  26. [34]

    Ginat , Y. B. & Perets , H. B. 2024, , 531, 739

    2024

  27. [35]

    1984, , 280, 298

    Goodman , J. 1984, , 280, 298

    1984

  28. [36]

    & Hut , P

    Goodman , J. & Hut , P. 1993, , 403, 271

    1993

  29. [37]

    2020, Class

    Gr\"obner, M., Jetzer, P., Haney, M., Tiwari, S., & Ishibashi, W. 2020, Class. Quant. Grav., 37, 067002

    2020

  30. [38]

    Hansen , R. O. 1972, , 5, 1021

    1972

  31. [39]

    A., & Suto , Y

    Hayashi , T., Trani , A. A., & Suto , Y. 2022, , 939, 81

    2022

  32. [40]

    A., & Suto , Y

    Hayashi , T., Trani , A. A., & Suto , Y. 2023, , 943, 58

    2023

  33. [41]

    & Hut , P

    Heggie , D. & Hut , P. 2003, The Gravitational Million-Body Problem: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Star Cluster Dynamics

    2003

  34. [42]

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

    1975

  35. [43]

    Heggie , D. C. & Rasio , F. A. 1996, , 282, 1064

    1996

  36. [44]

    1961, Annales d'Astrophysique, 24, 369

    H \'e non , M. 1961, Annales d'Astrophysique, 24, 369

    1961

  37. [45]

    H \'e non , M. H. 1971, , 14, 151

    1971

  38. [46]

    Hills , J. G. & Day , C. A. 1976, , 17, 87

    1976

  39. [47]

    2018, , 480, 5645

    Hong , J., Vesperini , E., Askar , A., et al. 2018, , 480, 5645

    2018

  40. [48]

    2023, Phys

    Hopper, S., Nagar, A., & Rettegno, P. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 124034

    2023

  41. [49]

    R., Pols , O

    Hurley , J. R., Pols , O. R., & Tout , C. A. 2000, , 315, 543

    2000

  42. [50]

    R., Tout , C

    Hurley , J. R., Tout , C. A., & Pols , O. R. 2002, , 329, 897

    2002

  43. [51]

    & Bahcall , J

    Hut , P. & Bahcall , J. N. 1983, , 268, 319

    1983

  44. [52]

    2017, , 468, 5020

    Inayoshi , K., Hirai , R., Kinugawa , T., & Hotokezaka , K. 2017, , 468, 5020

    2017

  45. [53]

    & Garcia-Bellido, J

    Jaraba, S. & Garcia-Bellido, J. 2021, Phys. Dark Univ., 34, 100882

    2021

  46. [54]

    J., Rasio , F

    Joshi , K. J., Rasio , F. A., & Portegies Zwart , S. 2000, , 540, 969

    2000

  47. [55]

    King , I. R. 1966, , 71, 64

    1966

  48. [56]

    1962, , 67, 591

    Kozai , Y. 1962, , 67, 591

    1962

  49. [57]

    2020, , 903, 45

    Kremer , K., Spera , M., Becker , D., et al. 2020, , 903, 45

    2020

  50. [58]

    & Trani , A

    Lalande , F. & Trani , A. A. 2022, , 938, 18

    2022

  51. [59]

    Lidov , M. L. 1962, , 9, 719

    1962

  52. [60]

    Liu , S., Wang , L., Hu , Y.-M., Tanikawa , A., & Trani , A. A. 2024, , 533, 2262

    2024

  53. [61]

    & Dickinson , M

    Madau , P. & Dickinson , M. 2014, , 52, 415

    2014

  54. [62]

    & Fragos , T

    Madau , P. & Fragos , T. 2017, , 840, 39

    2017

  55. [63]

    & Broekgaarden , F

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

    2022

  56. [64]

    A., & Mandel , I

    Mangipudi , A., Grishin , E., Trani , A. A., & Mandel , I. 2022, , 934, 44

    2022

  57. [65]

    Mardling , R. A. & Aarseth , S. J. 2001, , 321, 398

    2001

  58. [66]

    & Gieles , M

    Mar \' n Pina , D. & Gieles , M. 2024, , 527, 8369

    2024

  59. [67]

    Martinez , M. A. S., Fragione , G., Kremer , K., et al. 2020, , 903, 67

    2020

  60. [68]

    2004, , 70, 104011

    Memmesheimer , R.-M., Gopakumar , A., & Sch \"a fer , G. 2004, , 70, 104011

    2004

  61. [69]

    & Tanikawa , K

    Mikkola , S. & Tanikawa , K. 1999 a , , 310, 745

    1999

  62. [70]

    & Tanikawa , K

    Mikkola , S. & Tanikawa , K. 1999 b , Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 74, 287

    1999

  63. [71]

    2022, Phys

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

    2022

  64. [72]

    2016, , 54, 441

    Naoz , S. 2016, , 54, 441

    2016

  65. [73]

    & Aarseth , S

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

    2012

  66. [74]

    Peters , P. C. 1964, Physical Review, 136, 1224

    1964

  67. [75]

    2020, , 641, A6

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6

    2020

  68. [76]

    Portegies Zwart , S. F. & McMillan , S. L. W. 2000, , 528, L17

    2000

  69. [77]

    Postnov , K. A. & Yungelson , L. R. 2014, Living Reviews in Relativity, 17, 3

    2014

  70. [78]

    2022, , 105, 044035

    Ramos-Buades , A., Buonanno , A., Khalil , M., & Ossokine , S. 2022, , 105, 044035

    2022

  71. [79]

    2025, , 697, A118

    Rando Forastier , B., Mar \' n Pina , D., Gieles , M., Portegies Zwart , S., & Antonini , F. 2025, , 697, A118

    2025

  72. [80]

    2019, , 483, 1233

    Rastello , S., Amaro-Seoane , P., Arca-Sedda , M., et al. 2019, , 483, 1233

    2019

  73. [81]

    Retterer , J. M. 1980, , 85, 249

    1980

  74. [82]

    L., Weatherford , N

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

    2022

  75. [83]

    L., Zevin , M., Pankow , C., Kalogera , V., & Rasio , F

    Rodriguez , C. L., Zevin , M., Pankow , C., Kalogera , V., & Rasio , F. A. 2016, , 832, L2

    2016

  76. [84]

    M., Kremer , K., Lasky , P

    Romero-Shaw , I. M., Kremer , K., Lasky , P. D., Thrane , E., & Samsing , J. 2021, , 506, 2362

    2021

  77. [85]

    J., et al

    Samsing , J., Bartos , I., D'Orazio , D. J., et al. 2022, , 603, 237

    2022

  78. [86]

    J., Kremer , K., Rodriguez , C

    Samsing , J., D'Orazio , D. J., Kremer , K., Rodriguez , C. L., & Askar , A. 2020, , 101, 123010

    2020

  79. [87]

    J., & Liu , B

    Samsing , J., Hendriks , K., Zwick , L., D'Orazio , D. J., & Liu , B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.05625

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    2014, , 784, 71

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

    2014

  81. [89]

    2020, , 898, 152

    Santoliquido , F., Mapelli , M., Bouffanais , Y., et al. 2020, , 898, 152

    2020

  82. [90]

    1976, , 203, 297

    Schechter , P. 1976, , 203, 297

    1976

  83. [91]

    A., Varma , V., Pfeiffer , H

    Shaikh , M. A., Varma , V., Pfeiffer , H. P., Ramos-Buades , A., & van de Meent , M. 2023, , 108, 104007

    2023

  84. [92]

    & Phinney , E

    Sigurdsson , S. & Phinney , E. S. 1993, , 415, 631

    1993

  85. [93]

    A., & Mencagli , M

    Spera , M., Trani , A. A., & Mencagli , M. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 76

    2022

  86. [94]

    & Bulirsch , R

    Stoer , J. & Bulirsch , R. 1980, 430

    1980

  87. [95]

    2020, , 898, 25

    Tagawa , H., Haiman , Z., & Kocsis , B. 2020, , 898, 25

    2020

  88. [96]

    2012, , 17, 272

    Tanikawa , A., Hut , P., & Makino , J. 2012, , 17, 272

    2012

  89. [97]

    A., Leigh , N

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

    2024

  90. [98]

    A., Quaini , S., & Colpi , M

    Trani , A. A., Quaini , S., & Colpi , M. 2024 b , , 683, A135

    2024

  91. [99]

    A., Rastello , S., Di Carlo , U

    Trani , A. A., Rastello , S., Di Carlo , U. N., et al. 2022, , 511, 1362

    2022

  92. [100]

    A., Spera , M., Leigh , N

    Trani , A. A., Spera , M., Leigh , N. W. C., & Fujii , M. S. 2019, , 885, 135

    2019

  93. [101]

    A., Tanikawa , A., Fujii , M

    Trani , A. A., Tanikawa , A., Fujii , M. S., Leigh , N. W. C., & Kumamoto , J. 2021, , 504, 910

    2021

  94. [102]

    van Son , L. A. C., de Mink , S. E., Callister , T., et al. 2022 a , , 931, 17

    2022

  95. [103]

    van Son , L. A. C., de Mink , S. E., Renzo , M., et al. 2022 b , , 940, 184

    2022

  96. [104]

    G., & Zevin , M

    Vijaykumar , A., Hanselman , A. G., & Zevin , M. 2024, , 969, 132

    2024

  97. [105]

    1910, Astronomische Nachrichten, 183, 345

    von Zeipel , H. 1910, Astronomische Nachrichten, 183, 345

    1910

  98. [106]

    2003, , 598, 419

    Wen , L. 2003, , 598, 419

    2003

  99. [107]

    Ye , C. S. & Fishbach , M. 2024, , 967, 62

    2024

  100. [108]

    2019, , 871, 91

    Zevin , M., Samsing , J., Rodriguez , C., Haster , C.-J., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2019, , 871, 91

    2019

  101. [109]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  102. [110]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.