Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 5 cited by

Observability of Isolated Stellar-mass Black Holes

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Isolated stellar-mass black holes accreting from interstellar gas should be readily detectable with current telescopes, and many may already sit unidentified in today's catalogs.

desk verdict Useful forward-modeling sweep of isolated BH detectability, but the 'numerous IsoBHs already in catalogs' headline rests on an unquantified lambda=0.01 and needs a serious caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20711 v1 pith:S2L7OLWM submitted 2025-06-25 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR

Lena Murchikova , Kailash Sahu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords isolatedstellar-massblackholesaccretionBondiradiativelyinefficientflowinterstellarmediumdetectabilityLLAGNSEDholeidentification
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 sets out to show that isolated stellar-mass black holes (IsoBHs), the single black holes left behind by dead massive stars, are not electromagnetically dark. Using synthetic spectra built from Bondi accretion scaled to 1% of the Bondi rate and a hot accretion flow model, it argues that IsoBHs accreting from warm or cold interstellar gas in the solar neighborhood, and from molecular cloud cores across the Galaxy, should be detectable with current telescopes (SKA, ALMA, JWST, Chandra). The paper's central conclusion is that the bottleneck is not detecting these photons but recognizing what they are: a 10 solar-mass IsoBH should vary stochastically on millisecond timescales and show a featureless spectrum in any single band. If this is right, numerous IsoBHs are probably already present in existing catalogs under other labels, and targeted searches of local molecular clouds could uncover them.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the Bondi-Hoyle accretion rate $\dot{M}_B = 4\pi (GM_\bullet)^2 (v_\bullet^2 + C_{\rm ISM}^2)^{-3/2} \mu_{\rm ISM} n_{\rm ISM} m_p$, which sets how much gas an IsoBH captures, together with the parameter $\lambda = \dot{M}_\bullet/\dot{M}_B$ that converts capture to near-horizon accretion. The paper fixes $\lambda=0.01$ from Sgr A* and generates spectra with the public LLAGNSED code, which implements the Mahadevan hot accretion flow framework for an underfed black hole with viscosity $\alpha=0.2$ and plasma $\beta=10$. The argument then uses a census of ISM phases — warm ionized/neutral, cold neutral, molecular cloud, GMC core, coronal gas — with their densities and sound speeds, and compares predicted fluxes against stated telescope sensitivities. The characteristic variability timescale $\tau_{\rm ch}\simeq 7$ ms for a $10\,M_\odot$ IsoBH, rescaled from Sgr A*, is what the paper proposes as the distinctive identification signature.

What would settle it

A coordinated deep survey of the known molecular cloud cores within 200 pc of the Sun, down to the fluxes the paper predicts for a $10\,M_\odot$, $50$ km/s IsoBH at $\lambda=0.01$, would settle the claim: the paper estimates about 16.5 detectable IsoBHs in these clouds and dense clumps, so a complete null result across all of them would falsify the 'readily detectable' conclusion for dense local environments.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, this paper builds synthetic spectra for a prototypical $10\,M_\odot$ isolated black hole moving at $50$ km/s through the main phases of the interstellar medium, adopting the Bondi accretion rate with a near-horizon fraction $\lambda=0.01$ calibrated from Sagittarius A*, and computes the emission with the LLAGNSED hot accretion flow model. Comparing the resulting fluxes with the sensitivity limits of Chandra, JWST, ALMA, and SKA, the paper finds that an IsoBH in warm medium is detectable within roughly 50 pc, in cold neutral medium within roughly 200 pc, and in molecular cloud cores across the Galaxy; only coronal gas leaves it essentially invisible beyond about 1 pc. The authors conclude that detecting the photons is often easy and that the hard part is identification, because the spectrum is featureless and the variability is stochastic rather than periodic. They therefore assert that numerous IsoBHs are most likely already present in existing catalogs, unrecognized as black holes.

Load-bearing premise

The results rest on the assumption, stated before Equation 9, that a stellar-mass isolated black hole accretes at $\lambda=0.01$ of the Bondi rate just as Sagittarius A* does, and that the hot-flow LLAGNSED spectrum applies at those masses and rates; if the true fraction is ten times smaller, the 'readily detectable' conclusion fails for the solar neighborhood and dilute ISM.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • About 35 IsoBHs are expected within 50 pc of the Sun and roughly 1500 within 200 pc; of these, roughly 16.5 should sit inside molecular clouds or cold dense clouds where their emission is detectable.
  • Hundreds to about 1000 IsoBHs should be detectable across the Galaxy from the cores of giant molecular clouds, though crowding and extinction make them hard to confirm.
  • A single LSST visit reaches about 0.36 microjansky, enough to detect IsoBHs in dense local ISM, so upcoming all-sky surveys could produce candidates without new pointed observations.
  • Existing multi-wavelength catalogs likely already contain IsoBH emission, but each single-band survey will see only a featureless source, which explains why these objects are presently misclassified or overlooked.
  • For the brightest candidates, stochastic variability on timescales of milliseconds to seconds, rather than periodic pulsing, provides the practical way to confirm an accreting stellar-mass black hole.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same spectra could drive a blind search: stack or cross-match public radio, submillimeter, infrared, and X-ray catalogs toward known molecular cloud cores within 200 pc, selecting featureless, unresolved, variable sources as IsoBH candidates.
  • Because the predicted emission scales as $v_\bullet^{-3}$, the velocity distribution of isolated black holes is the main population-level unknown; future non-detections in nearby clouds would push the distribution toward high velocities, while detections of slow movers could be used to constrain it.
  • The Sgr A*-based $\lambda$ may itself depend on density or Mach number; calibrating the near-horizon fraction with numerical simulations or with a stellar-mass accreting object would shift all predicted fluxes and counts.
  • Applying the same Bondi-plus-LLAGNSED machinery to isolated neutron stars would give an independent, nearby test of hot accretion flow physics at stellar masses and could turn up a complementary population.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper builds a forward model for the electromagnetic emission of isolated stellar-mass black holes (IsoBHs) accreting from the interstellar medium. It computes Bondi accretion rates for warm, cold neutral, molecular-cloud, and coronal phases; assumes a near-horizon accretion fraction of 1% of Bondi (λ = 0.01, calibrated from Sgr A*); and uses the public LLAGNSED code to generate hot-flow spectra for a 10 M_sun, 50 km/s black hole. These spectra are compared with SKA, ALMA, JWST, and Chandra sensitivities at 50 pc, 200 pc, and 10 kpc. The central claims are that IsoBHs in dense environments or in the Solar neighborhood should be readily detectable, that identifying them is difficult, and that numerous IsoBHs are likely already present in existing catalogs unrecognized.

Significance. If the assumed accretion efficiency holds, the paper offers a useful and coherent observational roadmap: it identifies the most promising ISM environments, gives transparent scaling laws, and carefully discusses the variability and identification challenges that make detection different from recognition. The explicit use of a public spectral code, the upfront statement of the λ assumption, and the parameter exploration in Figure 4 are strengths. However, the detectability conclusions depend linearly, to good approximation, on the unmeasured parameter λ, and the paper does not propagate any uncertainty in λ into the sensitivity comparisons. The central predictive claims are therefore conditional on a single assumed number, and the expected-number accounting in Section 4 shows that the robustly detectable population is modest. The paper is a useful hypothesis-generating study rather than a quantitative detection forecast, and its significance would be substantially increased by a sensitivity analysis over λ.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (9); Figures 1–3] The detectability claims in the abstract and Section 6 rest entirely on the adopted near-horizon accretion fraction λ = 0.01, which is explicitly an assumption calibrated from Sgr A*. From Eq. (3), the near-horizon rate is Mdot = λ Mdot_B, and the LLAGNSED spectra therefore scale approximately linearly with λ near the peak. In Figure 1, the warm-medium spectrum at 50 pc with λ = 0.01 lies only a factor of a few above the JWST/ALMA/SKA limits; reducing λ to 0.001 would move it below those limits, removing the 'readily detectable' claim for the most volume-filling local ISM phase. Similarly, the cold neutral medium case at 200 pc in Figure 2 is detectable only with hours of integration at λ = 0.01, which would not survive a factor-of-ten reduction in λ. The figures show 'exaggerated thickness' rather than quantitative uncertainty bands. The authors should either provide a justified range for λ, show detectability curves for a lower value such as λ = 0.001, and/or explicitly condition the summary claims on λ; as written, the headline conclusions are not robust to a plausible order-of-magnitude change in the main free parameter.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Section 4.3] The paper's own expected-number accounting shows that the populations that remain detectable even in dense gas are small: about 1.5 IsoBHs in cold dense clumps within 200 pc, about 15 in local molecular clouds, and only a few hundred to ~1000 in GMC cores galaxy-wide. The statement in Section 6 that 'numerous IsoBHs are already present in existing catalogs' is therefore not supported by the dense-gas numbers alone; it relies on the warm-medium and cold-neutral-medium cases in Figures 1 and 2, which are exactly the cases that fail when λ is reduced by an order of magnitude. The paper should quantify how many of the ~10^8 Galactic IsoBHs are expected in the regions for which the λ = 0.01 spectra are above the sensitivity limits, and how that number changes under a lower λ. Without such a calculation, the catalog conclusion is an extrapolation from an unverified normalization.
  3. [Section 5, paragraph on parameter dependence] The text states that the uncertainty in the IsoBH mass spectrum is 'comparable to that expected from the combined uncertainties in the accretion parameter λ' and variations in ISM conditions. This assertion is not derived, and given that λ is unmeasured and could plausibly vary by more than an order of magnitude, it is not obviously correct. The authors should either supply a quantitative estimate of the λ-induced spread in the predicted fluxes or remove the comparison. This matters because Figure 4 shows only mass and velocity variations, not the sensitivity of the main conclusion to λ.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'radioactively inefficient' should be 'radiatively inefficient'; 'The later is simply' should be 'The latter is simply'; 'spacial velocity' should be 'spatial velocity'; 'Millimiter/Submillimiter' should be 'Millimeter/Submillimeter'; and 'cold sense clumps' in Section 6 should be 'cold dense clumps'.
  2. [Figures 1–3] The sensitivity labels list 'Chandra (3msec)', which appears to mean 3 Ms (megaseconds) rather than 3 milliseconds; this should be corrected to avoid confusion. The figure captions also say that the exaggerated line thickness illustrates uncertainties in accretion-model parameters, but no quantitative meaning is attached to the thickness, so the statement should either be made quantitative or removed.
  3. [Section 2] The sentence in Section 4.1 that a very nearby IsoBH 'would likely have already been identified through other means, such as its gravitational influence' is plausible but unsupported; a brief citation or a more cautious phrasing would be appropriate.
  4. [References] The paper cites earlier general discussions of isolated black hole observability but does not mention Agol & Kamionkowski (2002), which specifically considered accretion and emission from isolated stellar-mass black holes; adding this reference would place the present work more accurately in the literature.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

The derivation chain is a forward model from Bondi accretion, an externally calibrated λ, and LLAGNSED; no claimed prediction reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is a forward model rather than a circular reduction. Equation (2) gives the Bondi accretion rate from ISM properties, Equation (3) defines λ as the near-horizon fraction, and Equation (9) adopts λ = 0.01 from Sgr A* as calibrated in Genzel et al. (2010), not from any fit to IsoBH emission data. The synthetic spectra are produced with the independently published LLAGNSED code (Mahadevan 1997; Pesce et al. 2021) using standard parameters, and the resulting fluxes are compared against published instrument sensitivities. The central claim that IsoBH emission should be readily detectable is therefore a conditional consequence of the assumed accretion physics and environment, not a re-labeling of an input quantity. The sensitivity of the conclusion to the assumed λ = 0.01, and the absence of propagated uncertainty in Figures 1-3, is a legitimate robustness and correctness concern, but it is not circularity: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation in the paper is equal by construction to a later claimed result. The self-citations (Sahu et al. 2022, 2025; Kimura et al. 2025) are used for reference mass and velocity values and for comparison with Sgr A* conditions, but the load-bearing λ value and the spectral model come from external sources, and the cited prior IsoBH detection is observational input rather than a uniqueness theorem invoked to forbid alternatives. Accordingly, no specific circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on standard accretion physics plus one assumed efficiency λ anchored to Sgr A*; no new particles, forces, or phenomena are introduced. The dominant uncertainty is λ, followed by the ISM densities and the applicability of the RIAF model to stellar-mass BHs.

free parameters (3)
  • λ (near-horizon to Bondi accretion fraction) = 0.01
    Adopted from Sgr A*; scales the entire predicted spectrum. The paper also plots λ=1 as an upper limit. Variations of an order of magnitude change detectability conclusions (Section 2, Eq. 9).
  • Viscosity α = 0.2
    Standard LLAGNSED parameter from Pesce et al. (2021); sets angular momentum transport and affects spectral shape.
  • Plasma β = 10
    Standard LLAGNSED parameter; ratio of gas to magnetic pressure, controls synchrotron and Compton emission.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Bondi-Hoyle-Littleton accretion rate formula with spherical symmetry, no rotation, no feedback (Eq. 2)
    Used to set the capture rate; the paper acknowledges it serves as an upper limit on the accretion rate (Section 2).
  • domain assumption Hot (radiatively inefficient) accretion flow emission model of Mahadevan (1997) as implemented in LLAGNSED (Pesce et al. 2021)
    Assumed to describe the spectrum of underfed black holes; applied here to stellar masses despite the code's supermassive-BH origin (Section 2).
  • ad hoc to paper Near-horizon fraction λ = 0.01, calibrated from Sgr A*
    Stated in Section 2 before Eq. 9; no direct measurement or simulation supports this value for isolated stellar-mass BHs. This is the most load-bearing assumption.
  • domain assumption ISM phase properties: warm n~0.3 cm^-3, T~10^4 K; cold n~20 cm^-3, T~100 K; MC n~10^3 cm^-3; GMC cores n~10^6 cm^-3; coronal n~10^-3 cm^-3, T~10^6-10^7 K
    Taken from literature (Ferrière 2001; Draine 2011; Ballesteros-Paredes et al. 2020; etc.) and used to compute Bondi rates in Section 3.
  • domain assumption Extinction is ignored in the main detectability figures
    Acknowledged in Section 4.2; can significantly reduce flux at high frequencies for distant sources, especially in cloud cores.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observability of Isolated Stellar-mass Black Holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S2L7OLWM

@misc{pith2026250620711,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observability of Isolated Stellar-mass Black Holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S2L7OLWM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20711}
}
abstract

Stellar-mass black holes (BHs) represent the natural end states of massive stars. It is estimated that $10^8$ stellar-mass BHs are present in the Milky Way galaxy, a significant fraction of which are expected to be isolated. Despite their expected abundance, only about 20 have been detected so far - mostly in binary systems - with just one confirmed isolated black hole (IsoBH) identified via astrometric microlensing. In this study, we investigate the potential for detecting electromagnetic emissions from IsoBHs by generating synthetic model spectra of their emissions in different types of interstellar medium environments. These model spectra are then compared with current observational capabilities. We show that photons emitted by IsoBHs - especially those accreting material in dense environments or within the Solar neighborhood - should be readily detectable. However, confidently identifying these sources remains highly challenging. We conclude that a number of IsoBHs must already exist in current astronomical catalogs but have not been identified as such. We outline possible strategies for detection and identification of IsoBHs using the current and upcoming telescopes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20711 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Estimated emission spectra of an IsoBH located 50 pc from the Sun, accreting gas from four types of local ISM: cold dense cloud with a density of ∼ 3, 000 cm−3 (cyan), clumps within local interstellar clouds with a density of ∼ 20 cm−3 (orange), warm partially ionized medium with a density of ∼ 0.3 cm−3 (yellow), and hot ionized coronal gas (grey). Other types of Galactic ISM are not present within 50 pc from the Su… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Estimated emission spectra of an IsoBH located 200 pc from the Sun, accreting gas from three types of local ISM: MCs with an average density within the core of ∼ 104 cm−3 (grey), cold dense clouds with a density of ∼ 3, 000 cm−3 (cyan), and gas clumps within local interstellar clouds with a density of ∼ 20 cm−3 (orange). Other types of medium, such as warm medium and coronal gas, are also present within 200 pc from … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Estimated emission spectra of an IsoBH located 10 kpc from the Sun and accreting from the core of a GMC with densities 106 cm−3 (yellow), and a core of an ordinary MC with density 104 cm−3 (grey). The thin dotted line shows the expected emission spectrum from an IsoBH accreting at the Bondi rate (λ = 1), representing the upper limit of the emission. The thick solid lines below the dotted lines, shown in correspondin… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Estimated emission spectra of an IsoBH with different masses and velocities located 200 pc from the Sun, accreting from the ISM with a density of 100 cm−3 . We show how the spectra change with IsoBH mass: 3 M⊙ (dashed gray line), 10 M⊙ (dashed gray-cyan line), and 30 M…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Deep Chandra X-ray observation of the isolated black hole OGLE-2011-BLG-0462

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 53.5 kilosecond Chandra observation detects no X-ray source at the position of the isolated black hole OGLE-2011-BLG-0462, setting a 0.5-7 keV luminosity limit of 3.3×10^29 erg s^-1, eight times deeper than previous limits.

  2. A Space Mission to Earth's Nearest Black Hole: Reality or Science Fiction?

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    An interstellar nanocraft mission to a nearby black hole is technologically speculative but potentially feasible within decades and could deliver precision strong-field tests of General Relativity.

  3. Testing Black Holes with Interstellar Missions: II. Flyby Probes

    gr-qc 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Flyby probes without spacecraft deceleration may still enable black-hole and GR tests beyond what Solar System observatories can achieve for the foreseeable future.

  4. An interstellar mission to the closest black hole?

    gr-qc 2025-09 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    If a black hole lies within about 20 light-years, a laser-propelled nanocraft could reach it in roughly a century and test Einstein's theory and event horizons.

  5. Stellar-Mass Black Holes

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 1.0 of 10

    A concise review of stellar-mass black hole physics and observations, plus a speculative interstellar mission concept.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. X, 13, 041039, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039 2023

  2. [2]

    2020, SSRv, 216, 76, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00698-3

    Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Andr´ e, P., Hennebelle, P., et al. 2020, SSRv, 216, 76, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00698-3

    doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00698-3 2020

  3. [3]

    2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Volume I, ed

    Bally, J. 2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Volume I, ed. B. Reipurth, Vol. 4, 459, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0812.0046

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.0812.0046 2008

  4. [4]

    B., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Jones, R

    Bianco, F. B., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Jones, R. L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3e72

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac3e72 2022

  5. [5]

    1952, MNRAS, 112, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    Bondi, H. 1952, MNRAS, 112, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    doi:10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 1952

  6. [6]

    1944, MNRAS, 104, 273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/104.5.273

    Bondi, H., & Hoyle, F. 1944, MNRAS, 104, 273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/104.5.273

    doi:10.1093/mnras/104.5.273 1944

  7. [7]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 1360, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1277

    Bovy, J. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1360, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1277

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1277 2017

  8. [8]

    M., et al

    Bresnahan, D., Ward-Thompson, D., Kirk, J. M., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730515

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730515 2018

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    E., & Bethe, H

    Brown, G. E., & Bethe, H. A. 1994, ApJ, 423, 659, doi: 10.1086/173844

    1994 doi

  2. [10]

    E., Bialy, S., et al

    Burkhart, B., Dharmawardena, T. E., Bialy, S., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02541-7

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    D., Craig, P

    Chakrabarti, S., Simon, J. D., Craig, P. A., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accf21

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Casares, J., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., et al

    Corral-Santana, J. M., Casares, J., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527130

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    2019, Science, 365, 664, doi: 10.1126/science.aav8137

    Do, T., Hees, A., Ghez, A., et al. 2019, Science, 365, 664, doi: 10.1126/science.aav8137

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    2011

  7. [15]

    2024, NewAR, 98, 101694, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101694

    El-Badry, K. 2024, NewAR, 98, 101694, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101694

    2024

  8. [16]

    2023a, MNRAS, 518, 1057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3140

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Quataert, E., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 518, 1057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3140

    doi

  9. [17]

    2023b, MNRAS, 521, 4323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad799 Ferri` ere, K

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Cendes, Y., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 521, 4323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad799 Ferri` ere, K. M. 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 1031, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.73.1031

    2001 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Redfield, S., & Slavin, J

    Frisch, P. C., Redfield, S., & Slavin, J. D. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 237, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102613 Gaia Collaboration, Panuzzo, P., Mazeh, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449763

    2011 doi

  11. [19]

    Galli, P. A. B., Bouy, H., Olivares, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039395

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    2010, Reviews of Modern Physics, 82, 3121, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.3121 GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al

    Genzel, R., Eisenhauer, F., & Gillessen, S. 2010, Reviews of Modern Physics, 82, 3121, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.3121 GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833718

    2010 doi

  13. [21]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 2154, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac513

    Gruzinov, A. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2154, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac513

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    2010, A&A, 514, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913349

    Haud, U. 2010, A&A, 514, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913349

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    W., & Israel, W

    Hawking, S. W., & Israel, W. 1979, General relativity. An Einstein centenary survey

    1979

  16. [24]

    2019, ApJ, 878, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2051

    Hayashi, K., Okamoto, R., Yamamoto, H., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2051

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    Heyer, M., & Dame, T. M. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 583, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122324

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    1977, ApJ, 214, 840, doi: 10.1086/155314

    Ichimaru, S. 1977, ApJ, 214, 840, doi: 10.1086/155314

    1977 doi

  19. [27]

    S., Murchikova, L., & Sahu, K

    Kimura, S. S., Murchikova, L., & Sahu, K. C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.01172, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.01172

    2025 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    Y., & Lu, J

    Lam, C. Y., & Lu, J. R. 2023, ApJ, 955, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced4a

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    C., & Newman, J

    Licquia, T. C., & Newman, J. A. 2015, ApJ, 806, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/96

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    2010, ApJS, 186, 111, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/186/1/111

    Calvet, N. 2010, ApJS, 186, 111, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/186/1/111

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    Macquart, J.-P., & Bower, G. C. 2006, ApJ, 641, 302, doi: 10.1086/500317

    2006 doi

  24. [32]

    1997, ApJ, 477, 585, doi: 10.1086/303727

    Mahadevan, R. 1997, ApJ, 477, 585, doi: 10.1086/303727

    1997 doi

  25. [33]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 578, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2733

    Mandel, I. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 578, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2733

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    F., & Ostriker, J

    McKee, C. F., & Ostriker, J. P. 1977, ApJ, 218, 148, doi: 10.1086/155667

    1977 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Lauroesch, J

    Meyer, D. M., Lauroesch, J. T., Peek, J. E. G., & Heiles, C. 2012, ApJ, 752, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/119

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., Orosz, J. A., et al. 2021, Science, 371, 1046, doi: 10.1126/science.abb3363

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    2022, in Active Galactic Nuclei, ed

    Morris, M. 2022, in Active Galactic Nuclei, ed. F. Combes, 65–100, doi: 10.1002/9781394163724.ch2

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    1994, ApJL, 428, L13, doi: 10.1086/187381

    Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1994, ApJL, 428, L13, doi: 10.1086/187381

    1994 doi

  31. [39]

    R., & Volkoff, G

    Oppenheimer, J. R., & Volkoff, G. M. 1939, Physical Review, 55, 374, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.55.374 ¨Ozel, F., Psaltis, D., Narayan, R., & McClintock, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1918, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1918

    1939 doi

  32. [40]

    2025, MNRAS, 537, 2127, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf009

    Pattle, K., Bresnahan, D., Ward-Thompson, D., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2127, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf009

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    Pattle, K. M. 2017, The Taurus Molecular Cloud (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 125–168, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-56520-0 4

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    W., Palumbo, D

    Pesce, D. W., Palumbo, D. C. M., Narayan, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 260, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2eb5 11

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    L., Goldsmith, P

    Pineda, J. L., Goldsmith, P. F., Chapman, N., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 686, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/686

    2010 doi

  36. [44]

    J., Glanz, H., Bildsten, L., Perets, H

    Prust, L. J., Glanz, H., Bildsten, L., Perets, H. B., & R¨ opke, F. K. 2024, ApJ, 966, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3732

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    Redfield, S., & Linsky, J. L. 2008, ApJ, 673, 283, doi: 10.1086/524002

    2008 doi

  38. [46]

    B., & Sigurdsson, S

    Repetto, S., Davies, M. B., & Sigurdsson, S. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2799, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21549.x

    2012

  39. [47]

    C., Anderson, J., Casertano, S., et al

    Sahu, K. C., Anderson, J., Casertano, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac739e —. 2025, ApJ, 983, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbe6e

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    1998, ApJ, 496, 155, doi: 10.1086/305368

    Samland, M. 1998, ApJ, 496, 155, doi: 10.1086/305368

    1998 doi

  41. [49]

    1985, MNRAS, 217, 367, doi: 10.1093/mnras/217.2.367

    Shima, E., Matsuda, T., Takeda, H., & Sawada, K. 1985, MNRAS, 217, 367, doi: 10.1093/mnras/217.2.367

    1985 doi

  42. [50]

    Smartt, S. J. 2015, PASA, 32, e016, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2015.17

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    Gladstone, J. C. 2016, ApJS, 222, 15, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/2/15

    2016 doi

  44. [52]

    Tolman, R. C. 1939, Physical Review, 55, 364, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.55.364 van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1992, Endpoints of stellar evolution: the incidence of stellar mass black holes in the Galaxy., In ESA, Environment Observation and Climate Modelling Through International Space ...

    1939 doi

  45. [53]

    F., & Prusti, T

    Voirin, J., Manara, C. F., & Prusti, T. 2018, A&A, 610, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731153

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    P., et al

    Witzel, G., Martinez, G., Willner, S. P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0891

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    Yuan, F., & Narayan, R. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    2014 doi

  48. [56]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f96

    Zucker, C., Goodman, A., Alves, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f96

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.