Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 128 references

Stellar-mass black holes in young massive and open stellar clusters -- VI. Role of external galactic field

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

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that even the strongest tidal stripping of young massive and open star clusters does not stop them from forming black-hole cores and dynamically producing merging black-hole binaries.

desk verdict Solid N-body grid shows tidal stripping doesn't quench BBH mergers, but the 'not significantly altered' claim lacks statistical support and should be softened. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17780 v2 pith:Z7BSVRTM submitted 2025-05-23 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Sambaran Banerjee This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords blackholemergersdynamicalformationyoungmassiveclustersopentidalstrippingN-bodysimulationsgravitationalwavesbinaries
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 asks whether a galaxy's tidal pull destroys the ability of young massive clusters and open clusters to produce merging black-hole binaries. It computes 95 star-by-star N-body models of 30,000-solar-mass clusters at galactocentric distances between 1 and 8.5 kpc in a Milky Way-like potential, varying cluster size and metallicity. The central finding is that even clusters experiencing the strongest tidal stripping, with lifetimes around 100 million years, still form a concentrated core of black holes and produce dynamical black-hole mergers. The paper also finds that the shapes of the merger delay-time, primary-mass, mass-ratio, and redshift-rate distributions are nearly unaffected by how strongly the parent clusters are stripped, and that strongly stripped clusters can still eject detached black-hole-main-sequence binaries of the Gaia BH1/BH3 kind. If this is right, tidally dissolving low-mass clusters remain relevant gravitational-wave sources and should not be removed from merger-rate estimates.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the black-hole core: a centrally segregated, dense sub-cluster of stellar-mass black holes that assembles through dynamical friction and core collapse even while the surrounding cluster is being tidally stripped. Within this core, three-body encounters form black-hole binaries, and binary-single and binary-binary scatterings release kinetic energy (black-hole heating) that expands the cluster while occasionally producing gravitational-wave mergers, either inside the cluster or after ejection. The external galactic field modifies the competition: it strips low-mass stars and speeds up relaxation, aiding core formation, while also shrinking the tidal radius and hastening dissolution. The model grid varies the initial tidal filling through $r_g$, $r_h(0)$, and metallicity, and the direct N-body code follows the cluster through complete dissolution, which is what lets the study isolate the tidal-field effect.

What would settle it

A concrete test would be to recompute a subset of the grid at $r_g = 1$-$2$ kpc with clusters on eccentric orbits and with superimposed time-dependent tidal perturbations, and look at whether any cluster assembles a segregated black-hole core and produces a dynamical merger before dissolving; if these clusters dissolve first, the claim that strong stripping does not quench merger production would be refuted. An observational counterpart would be to survey very young, low-mass clusters near the Galactic centre for retained X-ray binaries or ejected black-hole-main-sequence binaries, where a systematic absence would also argue against the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated in Section IV, is that even the clusters at the smallest galactocentric distance, those experiencing the strongest galactic tidal field, can produce dynamical black-hole-binary (BBH) mergers despite their short lifetime. In the computed grid, tidal stripping accelerates relaxation and mass segregation rather than preventing them: the retained black holes sink to the cluster centre and form a core at all $r_g$, and clusters remain gravitationally bound and compact through most of their evolution. As a result, 80 per cent of all mergers occur in-cluster, 98 per cent of those are dynamically paired, and even the shortest-lived $r_g = 1$ kpc models at low metallicity produce mergers. The forms of the observable primary-mass and mass-ratio distributions and the redshift evolution of merger rate are similar for tidally dissolved, tidally under-filled, and randomly filled cluster populations, and the merger efficiency peaks around $r_g \approx 4$ kpc, where tidal stripping first becomes significant. The paper further reports that dynamically formed, detached black-hole-main-sequence binaries resembling the field candidates Gaia BH1 and BH3 are ejected at every $r_g$, including from strongly stripped clusters.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a static, axisymmetric Milky Way-like tidal field with all clusters on circular, equatorial orbits is a fair stand-in for the real galactic environment; time-dependent perturbations such as spiral arms, giant molecular clouds, bars, and eccentric orbits could strip clusters faster than this model allows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tidally dissolving young massive and open clusters should be counted as active producers of gravitational-wave mergers, because a short cluster lifetime does not by itself remove a cluster population from the dynamical black-hole-binary channel.
  • The radial distribution of such clusters inside a Milky Way-like galaxy is not a critical input for the merger delay-time distribution, since the delay-time probability density is nearly unchanged across the adopted star-formation profiles.
  • The redshift evolution of the merger rate from the cluster channel peaks near $z \approx 1.6$ rather than at the cosmic star-formation peak, because long-delay, metal-poor mergers shift events to lower redshift; only the tidally stripped sub-population tracks the star-formation history more closely at $z \lesssim 1.6$.
  • Strongly stripped clusters can still eject Gaia-BH1/BH3-like detached black-hole-main-sequence binaries into the galactic field, so the observed population of such binaries is not restricted to clusters that survive tidal stripping.
  • The merger efficiency per unit cluster mass is highest near $r_g \approx 4$ kpc, where tidal stripping first becomes significant, implying that moderately stripped clusters can be more productive than fully shielded or completely disrupted clusters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if real galaxies impose time-dependent tidal shocks and eccentric orbits, clusters may dissolve before the black-hole core assembles, so the static-potential grid probably gives an upper bound on merger production in the strongest-field cases; rerunning the same grid with such perturbations would show how much suppression is physical.
  • Beyond the paper: because the grid uses a single initial cluster mass, the tidal-insensitivity conclusion may not carry over to lower-mass open clusters whose smaller retained black-hole population cannot form a core before dissolution; weighting the results by a cluster mass function would test this.
  • Beyond the paper: if the merger statistics really are insensitive to tidal field, cluster-channel mergers will be hard to distinguish from other formation channels by mass, mass-ratio, or delay-time distributions alone, so origin identification would need eccentricity or environmental signatures.
  • Beyond the paper: a search for ejected black-hole-main-sequence binaries or merger remnants from very young, short-lived clusters near the Galactic centre would provide a direct, field-level test of whether strong stripping still permits dynamical merger formation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether tidal stripping by a host galaxy quenches the formation of black-hole cores and dynamical BBH mergers in young massive and open clusters. It presents a grid of 95 direct N-body simulations of initially 3e4 solar-mass clusters with varying initial half-mass radius (1-3 pc), metallicity (Z=0.0002-0.02), and galactocentric distance (rg=1-8.5 kpc) in a static axisymmetric Milky Way-like potential. The central qualitative claim is that even clusters at rg=1 kpc, which are rapidly tidally dissolved, can still form a BH core and produce dynamical BBH mergers. The paper further claims that the intrinsic distributions of merger primary mass, mass ratio, delay time, and redshift evolution are 'not significantly altered' by the degree of tidal stripping. The same models also produce escaped BH-MS binaries that resemble Gaia BH1/BH3.

Significance. If the qualitative claim holds, the result is important: tidally dissolving low-mass clusters would remain viable dynamical BBH merger factories, and population-synthesis estimates for the cluster channel would not need to finely resolve the galactic tidal environment. The study's main strength is its homogeneous, direct N-body grid with post-Newtonian dynamics and stellar evolution, which is computationally demanding and allows the tidal-dissolution phase to be followed star-by-star. The qualitative robustness across 95 models is valuable. However, the quantitative insensitivity claim, which is central to the abstract and Section IV, is not statistically secured by the current data, and the modeling of the external field is idealized. With appropriate qualification or added uncertainty quantification, the qualitative conclusions are defensible.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III B, Fig. 8, Sec. IV] The claim that the M1, q, and z_event distributions are 'not significantly altered' by tidal stripping is not supported by the statistical evidence presented. Each grid point has exactly one N-body realization, and each model cluster typically produces only a few mergers; the paper itself concedes in Sec. IV that 'the mergers' delay times and rate distributions are prone to statistical uncertainties that are not represented in the current results.' The Monte Carlo resampling used for Fig. 8 draws 10^6 clusters, but it re-weights the same small set of merger events and cannot estimate the Poisson shot noise on a single cluster's merger count or the covariance of merger properties across clusters. Without confidence intervals, bootstrap estimates, or a significance test, the similarity between the tidally stripped and tidally under-filled cases in Fig. 8 could be a small-number artifact. The qualitative claim that strongly stripped clusters can still produce mergers is supported by the presence of mergers at rg=1 kpc, but the quantitative insensitivity claim should be either reworded to 'qualitatively similar' or supplemented with uncertainty quantification.
  2. [Sec. II A 1, Sec. IV] The external galactic field is modeled as a static, axisymmetric, MW-like potential with all clusters on circular equatorial orbits. The paper acknowledges this limitation in Sec. IV, but the abstract's conclusion that merger properties are 'not significantly altered by the extent of tidal stripping of the parent cluster population' is broader than what this idealized setup can establish. Realistic galactic environments contain spiral arms, giant molecular clouds, bars, and substructure that produce time-dependent tidal shocks and eccentric orbits, which could strip clusters more aggressively and shorten the pre-BH-core phase. The present grid also uses a single initial cluster mass. These choices are reasonable as a first systematic study, but the central claim about the 'role of external galactic field' should be explicitly restricted to static tides and to this mass scale, or supported by a few exploratory models with eccentric orbits or time-varying tides.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'not significantly altered' is too strong for the statistical quality of the data; suggest replacing it with 'show no clear trend within the limited statistics' or adding a qualifier such as 'in the present model grid.'
  2. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption states that rg and rh(0) are chosen randomly, but it does not specify how metallicity is sampled for the three tidal-filling cases; since metallicity strongly affects BH masses and merger rates, this should be clarified.
  3. [Sec. III B, Fig. 9] The merger efficiency η_mrg is plotted for each of the 95 models as a single connected point per metallicity; adding error bars or showing the raw merger counts would help the reader judge the significance of the apparent peak near rg≈4 kpc.
  4. [Data Availability] The statement 'available upon reasonable request' is less reproducible than a public data release; consider depositing the simulation outputs or merger catalogs in a public repository.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the tidal-stripping comparison emerges from direct N-body evolution, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citations for input prescriptions and post-processing methods.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is a direct N-body evolution: cluster models with different initial r_g, r_h, and Z are integrated with NBODY7/BSE/ARCHAIN, and the BBH merger events, delay times, masses, and redshifts are accumulated from the simulations. The tidal-stripping comparison is defined by initial galactocentric radius (r_g <= 4 kpc versus r_g > 4 kpc), not by any fitted output, so the similarity of the M1, q, and z_event distributions across cases is an emergent property rather than an identity. Self-citations appear in the microphysics calibration (f_TZ = 0.95 and f_mrg = 0.20 via Ref. [82]), in the NBODY7 update details (Refs. [33, 36]), in the Monte Carlo post-processing method (Ref. [93]), and in the BH-MS binary discussion (Ref. [102]), but none of these defines the central tidal-stripping conclusion; in particular, the calibrated parameters are held fixed across all grid points and cannot manufacture an r_g-insensitivity. The paper itself concedes in Sec. IV that single realizations per grid point and few mergers per cluster make delay-time and rate distributions statistically uncertain; that is a robustness limitation, not circularity. The cited prior results are externally anchored (e.g., LVK rates, observed O-star binary properties, and standard N-body codes), so no load-bearing argument reduces to the authors' own unverified claims. The score of 1 reflects the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations rather than any circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on four groups of assumptions: a static axisymmetric galactic potential, monolithic virialized initial cluster models, the delayed remnant and fallback-kick stellar remnant prescriptions, and the NBODY7/BSE/ARCHAIN code chain. None of these are fitted to the tidal-stripping result. The free parameters are input choices, mostly justified by observation or prior calibration, not derived in this paper.

free parameters (5)
  • Initial cluster mass M_cl(0) = 3.0e4 Msun
    Fixed single mass for all 95 models; chosen because dynamical GR mergers become substantial above this mass while tidal susceptibility remains strong (Sec II A 1). Central to the scope of the study, not fitted to data.
  • Natal kick dispersion sigma = 265 km/s
    Maxwellian kick dispersion with fallback reduction (Sec II A 2); determines BH retention and whether a BH core forms. Chosen from prior prescriptions, not fitted here.
  • Primordial binary fractions f_bin and f_Obin = 10% overall; 100% for O-type stars
    Initial binary population properties (Sec II A 2) strongly affect merger delay times and the primordially versus dynamically paired mix; chosen to match observed O-star binary fractions.
  • Mass retention fractions f_TZ and f_mrg = 95% for BH-TZO accretion; 20% for star-star merger secondary retention
    Sec II A 2. Chosen to favor massive BH formation and calibrated in earlier self-cited work to match LVK PSN-gap merger rates; here they are inputs, not fitted to the tidal-stripping result.
  • SFR profile parameters alpha, l_s, r_0 = alpha=0.1, l_s=2.3 kpc, r_0=12 kpc
    Used in the Monte Carlo radial sampling for the delay time distribution (Eqs 4-6); Milky Way-inspired choices for population weighting, not fitted to merger data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Clusters evolve in a static, axisymmetric, Milky Way-like galactic potential and on circular equatorial orbits.
    Sec II A 1. Real galactic potentials have time-dependent substructure; the paper acknowledges this limits generality in Sec IV.
  • domain assumption Initial clusters are monolithic, virialized, gas-free Plummer models.
    Sec II A 1 and Sec IV. This implicitly preselects systems that survived the gas-embedded, hierarchical assembly phase; CFE is assumed constant in redshift and rg.
  • domain assumption The delayed remnant-mass model with no lower mass gap and momentum-conserving fallback kicks governs BH formation.
    Sec II A 2, following Ref [33,65]. If the rapid remnant model or stronger kicks were adopted, BH retention and masses would change; the paper compares with CMC's rapid model only qualitatively.
  • domain assumption NBODY7 with BSE and ARCHAIN correctly models stellar evolution, binary interactions, and post-Newtonian dynamics at these densities.
    Sec II A 2. The entire grid rests on this code chain; no independent verification of the code outputs is shipped.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stellar-mass black holes in young massive and open stellar clusters -- VI. Role of external galactic field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z7BSVRTM

@misc{pith2026250517780,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stellar-mass black holes in young massive and open stellar clusters -- VI. Role of external galactic field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z7BSVRTM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17780}
}
read the original abstract

Young massive clusters (YMC) and open clusters (OC) are widely considered as potential environments for assembling merging binary stellar-remnant black holes (BBH) via dynamical interactions. However, such moderate mass systems are susceptible to being disrupted by the external tidal field of their host galaxies, potentially limiting their effectiveness as GW sources. In this study, I investigate the formation of BBH mergers in tidally dissolving star clusters. This is achieved with a newly computed grid consisting of 95 evolutionary model star clusters, where the clusters are subjected to a varying extent of tidal stripping. The cluster evolutions are computed with the direct N-body integrator NBODY7 that includes, among others, treatments for post-Newtonian (PN) effects in compact-binary members, mass loss due to stellar evolution, formation of stellar remnants, and tidal stripping. It is found that even strong tidal stripping does not quench the formation of a black hole (BH) core inside a cluster or the formation of dynamical BBH mergers in the system. The overall properties of BBH mergers, e.g., the form of the distribution of merger delay time, primary mass, and mass ratio, and the redshift evolution of merger rate are not significantly altered by the extent of tidal stripping of the parent cluster population. Furthermore, even strongly tidally stripped clusters are capable of dynamically forming Gaia-BH-like detached BH--main-sequence-star binaries that escape into the galactic field. Limitations of the present study and potential future improvements are discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.17780 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Depiction of the computed model grids over galactocentric distance, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The circular velocity curve (or rotation curve), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Time evolution of the concentration parameter, as measured by log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as Fig. 3, except that the tidal fill factor, log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Time evolution of the half-mass radius of the bound NS (left-column panels) and BH (right-column panels) members, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Cluster lifetime, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Efficiency of BBH GR mergers per unit cluster mass, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Demographics of the BH-MS star binaries that have escaped into the galactic field from the present evolutionary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Demographics of the BH-MS star binaries that have escaped into the galactic field from all of the present evolutionary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Time evolution of cluster size (half mass radius, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Evolution of the mean mass of the luminous members (left column), the mass fraction of black holes (middle column), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The star cluster model grid In this study, a homogeneous grid of model star clus- ters of initial massM cl(0) = 3.0×10 4M⊙ is evolved. The initial density and internal velocity dispersion profiles of the clusters are taken to be according to the Plummer model [59]; which make them initially spherically sym- metric and virialized. The initial models have h...

  2. [2]

    The dynamics of stellar-mass black holes in dense stellar sys- tems and their role in gravitational wave generation

    Direct, star-by-star, post-Newtonian N-body simulations Each model clusters in the above described grid is evolved with the direct, post-Newtonian (hereafter PN) N-body codeNBODY7[60]. An updated version ofNBODY7 as detailed in Refs. [33] and [36] is used. These up- dates implement more recent stellar wind mass loss and remnant-formation prescriptions in ...

    2017

  3. [3]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, N. Adhikari, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, and et al., Physical Review X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Mandel and F

    I. Mandel and F. S. Broekgaarden, Living Reviews in Relativity25, 1 (2022), arXiv:2107.14239 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Spera, A

    M. Spera, A. A. Trani, and M. Mencagli, Galaxies10, 76 (2022), arXiv:2206.15392 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    S. R. Kulkarni, P. Hut, and S. McMillan, Nature364, 421 (1993)

    1993

  7. [7]

    H. M. Lee, MNRAS272, 605 (1995), arXiv:2412.14022 [astro-ph.SR]

    arXiv 1995

  8. [8]

    M. J. Benacquista and J. M. B. Downing, Living Re- views in Relativity16, 4 (2013), arXiv:1110.4423 [astro- ph.SR]

    arXiv 2013

Show all 128 references
  1. [9]

    Belczynski, V

    K. Belczynski, V. Kalogera, and T. Bulik, ApJ572, 407 (2002), astro-ph/0111452

    2002 arXiv

  2. [10]

    McKernan, K

    B. McKernan, K. E. S. Ford, J. Bellovary, N. W. C. Leigh, Z. Haiman, B. Kocsis, W. Lyra, M. M. Mac Low, B. Metzger, M. O’Dowd, S. Endlich, and D. J. Rosen, ApJ866, 66 (2018), arXiv:1702.07818 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    M. P. Vaccaro, M. Mapelli, C. P´ erigois, D. Barone, M. C. Artale, M. Dall’Amico, G. Iorio, and S. Tornia- menti, A&A685, A51 (2024), arXiv:2311.18548 [astro- ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Vigna-G´ omez, S

    A. Vigna-G´ omez, S. Toonen, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, N. W. C. Leigh, J. Riley, and C.-J. Haster, ApJL907, L19 (2021), arXiv:2010.13669 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Michaely and H

    E. Michaely and H. B. Perets, ApJL887, L36 (2019), arXiv:1902.01864 [astro-ph.SR]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Hamilton and R

    C. Hamilton and R. R. Rafikov, ApJL881, L13 (2019), arXiv:1907.00994 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Stegmann, A

    J. Stegmann, A. Vigna-G´ omez, A. Rantala, T. Wagg, L. Zwick, M. Renzo, L. A. C. van Son, S. E. de Mink, and S. D. M. White, ApJL972, L19 (2024), arXiv:2405.02912 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Spitzer,Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1987, 191 p.(1987)

    L. Spitzer,Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1987, 191 p.(1987)

    1987

  9. [17]

    H´ enon, inDynamics of the Solar Systems, IAU Sym- posium, Vol

    M. H´ enon, inDynamics of the Solar Systems, IAU Sym- posium, Vol. 69, edited by A. Hayli (1975) p. 133

    1975

  10. [18]

    P. G. Breen and D. C. Heggie, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society432, 2779 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    Antonini and M

    F. Antonini and M. Gieles, MNRAS492, 2936 (2020), arXiv:1906.11855 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Heggie and P

    D. Heggie and P. Hut,The Gravitational Million-Body Problem: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Star Cluster 18 Dynamics(2003)

    2003

  13. [21]

    Morscher, B

    M. Morscher, B. Pattabiraman, C. Rodriguez, F. A. Ra- sio, and S. Umbreit, The Astrophysical Journal800, 9 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Antonini, S

    F. Antonini, S. Chatterjee, C. L. Rodriguez, M. Morscher, B. Pattabiraman, V. Kalogera, and F. A. Rasio, ApJ816, 65 (2016), arXiv:1509.05080

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Banerjee, MNRAS481, 5123 (2018), arXiv:1805.06466 [astro-ph.HE]

    S. Banerjee, MNRAS481, 5123 (2018), arXiv:1805.06466 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Mar ´ ın Pina and M

    D. Mar ´ ın Pina and M. Gieles, MNRAS527, 8369 (2024), arXiv:2308.10318 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Banerjee, H

    S. Banerjee, H. Baumgardt, and P. Kroupa, MNRAS 402, 371 (2010), arXiv:0910.3954 [astro-ph.SR]

    2010 arXiv

  18. [26]

    L. Wang, R. Spurzem, S. Aarseth, M. Giersz, A. Askar, P. Berczik, T. Naab, R. Schadow, and M. B. N. Kouwen- hoven, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.458, 1450 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Kremer, C

    K. Kremer, C. S. Ye, N. Z. Rui, N. C. Weatherford, S. Chatterjee, G. Fragione, C. L. Rodriguez, M. Spera, and F. A. Rasio, ApJS247, 48 (2020), arXiv:1911.00018 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    S. F. Portegies Zwart and S. L. W. McMillan, ApJL 528, L17 (2000), astro-ph/9910061

    2000 arXiv

  21. [29]

    A. C. Sippel and J. R. Hurley, MNRAS430, L30 (2013), arXiv:1211.6608

    2013 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Banerjee, MNRAS467, 524 (2017), arXiv:1611.09357 [astro-ph.HE]

    S. Banerjee, MNRAS467, 524 (2017), arXiv:1611.09357 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    D. Park, C. Kim, H. M. Lee, Y.-B. Bae, and K. Bel- czynski, MNRAS469, 4665 (2017), arXiv:1703.01568 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    C. L. Rodriguez, P. Amaro-Seoane, S. Chatterjee, and F. A. Rasio, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 151101 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    U. N. Di Carlo, N. Giacobbo, M. Mapelli, M. Pasquato, M. Spera, L. Wang, and F. Haardt, MNRAS487, 2947 (2019), arXiv:1901.00863 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Arca sedda, A

    M. Arca sedda, A. W. H. Kamlah, R. Spurzem, F. P. Rizzuto, M. Giersz, T. Naab, and P. Berczik, MNRAS 528, 5140 (2024), arXiv:2307.04807 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Banerjee, K

    S. Banerjee, K. Belczynski, C. L. Fryer, P. Berczik, J. R. Hurley, R. Spurzem, and L. Wang, A&A639, A41 (2020), arXiv:1902.07718 [astro-ph.SR]

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    C. S. Ye, W.-f. Fong, K. Kremer, C. L. Rodriguez, S. Chatterjee, G. Fragione, and F. A. Rasio, ApJL888, L10 (2020), arXiv:1910.10740 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Samsing and K

    J. Samsing and K. Hotokezaka, ApJ923, 126 (2021), arXiv:2006.09744 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Banerjee, MNRAS500, 3002 (2021), arXiv:2004.07382 [astro-ph.HE]

    S. Banerjee, MNRAS500, 3002 (2021), arXiv:2004.07382 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Rastello, P

    S. Rastello, P. Amaro-Seoane, M. Arca-Sedda, R. Capuzzo-Dolcetta, G. Fragione, and I. Tosta e Melo, MNRAS483, 1233 (2019), arXiv:1811.10628 [astro- ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Rastello, M

    S. Rastello, M. Mapelli, U. N. Di Carlo, G. Iorio, A. Ballone, N. Giacobbo, F. Santoliquido, and S. Tor- niamenti, MNRAS507, 3612 (2021), arXiv:2105.01669 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    S. F. Portegies Zwart, S. L. W. McMillan, and M. Gieles, ARA&A48, 431 (2010), arXiv:1002.1961

    2010 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Banerjee and P

    S. Banerjee and P. Kroupa, Formation of Very Young Massive Clusters and Implications for Globular Clus- ters, inThe Birth of Star Clusters, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 424, edited by S. Stahler (2018) p. 143

    2018

  35. [43]

    M. R. Krumholz, C. F. McKee, and J. Bland - Hawthorn, ARA&A57, 227 (2019), arXiv:1812.01615 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    D. C. Heggie and M. Giersz, MNRAS439, 2459 (2014), arXiv:1401.3657 [astro-ph.GA]

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Banerjee and P

    S. Banerjee and P. Kroupa, ApJL741, L12 (2011), arXiv:1110.4103 [astro-ph.GA]

    2011 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Spurzem and S

    R. Spurzem and S. J. Aarseth, MNRAS282, 19 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9605003 [astro-ph]

    1996 arXiv

  39. [47]

    von Hoerner, ApJ125, 451 (1957)

    S. von Hoerner, ApJ125, 451 (1957)

    1957

  40. [48]

    Bertin and A

    G. Bertin and A. L. Varri, ApJ689, 1005 (2008), arXiv:0808.2432 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Giersz, A

    M. Giersz, A. Askar, L. Wang, A. Hypki, A. Lev- eque, and R. Spurzem, MNRAS487, 2412 (2019), arXiv:1904.01227 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    L. Wang, P. Kroupa, K. Takahashi, and T. Jerabkova, MNRAS491, 440 (2020), arXiv:1910.14040 [astro- ph.SR]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    W. Wu, P. Kroupa, and J. Pflamm-Altenburg, MNRAS 530, 5155 (2024), arXiv:2405.00775 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Rostami Shirazi, H

    A. Rostami Shirazi, H. Haghi, A. H. Zonoozi, A. Farhani Asl, and P. Kroupa, MNRAS531, 4166 (2024), arXiv:2404.14259 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    S. M. Ghasemi, A. Rostami-Shirazi, P. Khalaj, A. H. Zonoozi, and H. Haghi, MNRAS535, 1475 (2024), arXiv:2409.15280 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    N. C. Weatherford, F. A. Rasio, S. Chatterjee, G. Fra- gione, F. Kıro˘ glu, and K. Kremer, ApJ967, 42 (2024), arXiv:2310.01485 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Kroupa, J

    P. Kroupa, J. Pflamm-Altenburg, S. Mazurenko, W. Wu, I. Thies, V. Jadhav, and T. Jerabkova, ApJ 970, 94 (2024), arXiv:2405.09609 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Roberts, M

    D. Roberts, M. Gieles, D. Erkal, and J. L. Sanders, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2402.06393 (2024), arXiv:2402.06393 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    J. J. Webb, A. Sills, and W. E. Harris, ApJ746, 93 (2012), arXiv:1201.1058 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  50. [58]

    J. J. Webb and A. Sills, MNRAS501, 1933 (2021), arXiv:2012.07831 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Ishchenko, V

    M. Ishchenko, V. Masliukh, M. Hradov, P. Berczik, B. Shukirgaliyev, and C. Omarov, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2501.08084 (2025), arXiv:2501.08084 [astro- ph.GA]

    2025 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Allen and A

    C. Allen and A. Santillan, Rev. Mexicana Astron. As- trofis.22, 255 (1991)

    1991

  53. [61]

    H. C. Plummer, MNRAS71, 460 (1911)

    1911

  54. [62]

    S. J. Aarseth, MNRAS422, 841 (2012), arXiv:1202.4688 [astro-ph.SR]

    2012 arXiv

  55. [63]

    J. R. Hurley, O. R. Pols, and C. A. Tout, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society315, 543 (2000)

    2000

  56. [64]

    J. R. Hurley, C. A. Tout, and O. R. Pols, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society329, 897 (2002)

    2002

  57. [65]

    Mikkola and K

    S. Mikkola and K. Tanikawa, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society310, 745 (1999)

    1999

  58. [66]

    Mikkola and D

    S. Mikkola and D. Merritt, AJ135, 2398 (2008), arXiv:0709.3367

    2008 arXiv

  59. [67]

    C. L. Fryer, K. Belczynski, G. Wiktorowicz, M. Do- minik, V. Kalogera, and D. E. Holz, ApJ749, 91 (2012), arXiv:1110.1726 [astro-ph.SR]

    2012 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Belczynski, A

    K. Belczynski, A. Heger, W. Gladysz, A. J. Ruiter, S. Woosley, G. Wiktorowicz, H.-Y. Chen, T. Bulik, R. O’Shaughnessy, D. E. Holz, C. L. Fryer, and E. Berti, A&A594, A97 (2016), arXiv:1607.03116 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  61. [69]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, ApJL896, L44 (2020), arXiv:2006.12611 [astro-ph.HE]. 19

    2020 arXiv

  62. [70]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, VIRGO Collabora- tion, and Kagra Collaboration, ApJL970, L34 (2024), arXiv:2404.04248 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Podsiadlowski, N

    P. Podsiadlowski, N. Langer, A. J. T. Poelarends, S. Rappaport, A. Heger, and E. Pfahl, The Astrophysi- cal Journal612, 1044 (2004)

    2004

  64. [72]

    Kroupa, MNRAS322, 231 (2001), astro-ph/0009005

    P. Kroupa, MNRAS322, 231 (2001), astro-ph/0009005

    2001 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Sana and C

    H. Sana and C. J. Evans, inActive OB Stars: Structure, Evolution, Mass Loss, and Critical Lim- its, IAU Symposium, Vol. 272, edited by C. Neiner, G. Wade, G. Meynet, and G. Peters (2011) pp. 474– 485, arXiv:1009.4197 [astro-ph.SR]

    2011 arXiv

  66. [74]

    H. Sana, A. de Koter, S. E. de Mink, P. R. Dunstall, C. J. Evans, V. H´ enault-Brunet, J. Ma ´ ız Apell´ aniz, O. H. Ram ´ ırez-Agudelo, W. D. Taylor, N. R. Walborn, J. S. Clark, P. A. Crowther, A. Herrero, M. Gieles, N. Langer, D. J. Lennon, and J. S. Vink, A&A550, A107 (2013...

    2013 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Moe and R

    M. Moe and R. Di Stefano, ApJS230, 15 (2017), arXiv:1606.05347 [astro-ph.SR]

    2017 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Duquennoy and M

    A. Duquennoy and M. Mayor, A&A248, 485 (1991)

    1991

  69. [77]

    Banerjee, MNRAS473, 909 (2018), arXiv:1707.00922 [astro-ph.HE]

    S. Banerjee, MNRAS473, 909 (2018), arXiv:1707.00922 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Belczynski, J

    K. Belczynski, J. Klencki, C. E. Fields, A. Ole- jak, E. Berti, G. Meynet, C. L. Fryer, D. E. Holz, R. O’Shaughnessy, D. A. Brown, T. Bulik, S. C. Leung, K. Nomoto, P. Madau, R. Hirschi, E. Kaiser, S. Jones, S. Mondal, M. Chruslinska, P. Drozda, D. Gerosa, Z. Doctor, M. Giersz...

    2020 arXiv

  71. [79]

    K. S. Thorne and A. N. Zytkow, ApJL199, L19 (1975)

    1975

  72. [80]

    Gaburov, J

    E. Gaburov, J. C. Lombardi, and S. Portegies Zwart, MNRAS383, L5 (2008), arXiv:0707.3021 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Glebbeek, E

    E. Glebbeek, E. Gaburov, S. E. de Mink, O. R. Pols, and S. F. Portegies Zwart, A&A497, 255 (2009), arXiv:0902.1753 [astro-ph.SR]

    2009 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Langer, C

    N. Langer, C. A. Norman, A. de Koter, J. S. Vink, M. Cantiello, and S. C. Yoon, A&A475, L19 (2007), arXiv:0708.1970 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  75. [83]

    S. E. Woosley, ApJ836, 244 (2017), arXiv:1608.08939 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Banerjee, A&A665, A20 (2022), arXiv:2109.14612 [astro-ph.HE]

    S. Banerjee, A&A665, A20 (2022), arXiv:2109.14612 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, and et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collab- oration), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 101102 (2020)

    2020

  78. [86]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, N. Adhikari, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, and et al., Physical Review X13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  79. [87]

    C. S. Ye, K. Kremer, S. Chatterjee, C. L. Rodriguez, and F. A. Rasio, ApJ877, 122 (2019), arXiv:1902.05963 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Belczynski, T

    K. Belczynski, T. Bulik, C. L. Fryer, A. Ruiter, F. Valsecchi, J. S. Vink, and J. R. Hurley, The Astro- physical Journal714, 1217 (2010)

    2010

  81. [89]

    Barber and F

    J. Barber and F. Antonini, MNRAS538, 639 (2025), arXiv:2410.03832 [astro-ph.GA]

    2025 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Kumamoto, M

    J. Kumamoto, M. S. Fujii, and A. Tanikawa, MNRAS 486, 3942 (2019), arXiv:1811.06726 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  83. [91]

    R. C. Kennicutt, Jr., ApJ344, 685 (1989)

    1989

  84. [92]

    Boissier, A

    S. Boissier, A. Gil de Paz, A. Boselli, B. F. Madore, V. Buat, L. Cortese, D. Burgarella, J. C. Mu˜ noz- Mateos, T. A. Barlow, K. Forster, P. G. Friedman, D. C. Martin, P. Morrissey, S. G. Neff, D. Schimi- novich, M. Seibert, T. Small, T. K. Wyder, L. Bianchi, J. Donas, T. M. ...

    2007 arXiv

  85. [93]

    L., Prantzos, N., Boissier, S., Chang, R

    Yin, J., Hou, J. L., Prantzos, N., Boissier, S., Chang, R. X., Shen, S. Y., and Zhang, B., A&A505, 497 (2009)

    2009

  86. [94]

    P. M. W. Kalberla and J. Kerp, ARA&A47, 27 (2009)

    2009

  87. [95]

    Banerjee, Phys

    S. Banerjee, Phys. Rev. D105, 023004 (2022), arXiv:2108.04250 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Madau and T

    P. Madau and T. Fragos, ApJ840, 39 (2017), arXiv:1606.07887 [astro-ph.GA]

    2017 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Chruslinska and G

    M. Chruslinska and G. Nelemans, MNRAS488, 5300 (2019), arXiv:1907.11243 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  90. [98]

    P. J. E. Peebles,Principles of Physical Cosmology (1993)

    1993

  91. [99]

    J. V. Narlikar,An introduction to cosmology(2002)

    2002

  92. [100]

    E. L. Wright, PASP118, 1711 (2006), astro- ph/0609593

    2006

  93. [101]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ash- down, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, and et al., A&A641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Spera, M

    M. Spera, M. Mapelli, N. Giacobbo, A. A. Trani, A. Bressan, and G. Costa, MNRAS485, 889 (2019), arXiv:1809.04605 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  95. [103]

    U. N. Di Carlo, M. Mapelli, Y. Bouffanais, N. Gi- acobbo, F. Santoliquido, A. Bressan, M. Spera, and F. Haardt, MNRAS497, 1043 (2020), arXiv:1911.01434 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Kotko, S

    I. Kotko, S. Banerjee, and K. Belczynski, MNRAS535, 3577 (2024), arXiv:2403.13579 [astro-ph.SR]

    2024 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Niccol` o Di Carlo, P

    U. Niccol` o Di Carlo, P. Agrawal, C. L. Rodriguez, and K. Breivik, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2306.13121 (2023), arXiv:2306.13121 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Mar ´ ın Pina, S

    D. Mar ´ ın Pina, S. Rastello, M. Gieles, K. Kremer, L. Fitzgerald, and B. Rando Forastier, A&A688, L2 (2024), arXiv:2404.13036 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Chakrabarti, J

    S. Chakrabarti, J. D. Simon, P. A. Craig, H. Reggiani, T. D. Brandt, P. Guhathakurta, P. A. Dalba, E. N. Kirby, P. Chang, D. R. Hey, A. Savino, M. Geha, and I. B. Thompson, AJ166, 6 (2023), arXiv:2210.05003 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  100. [108]

    El-Badry, H.-W

    K. El-Badry, H.-W. Rix, E. Quataert, A. W. Howard, H. Isaacson, J. Fuller, K. Hawkins, K. Breivik, K. W. K. Wong, A. C. Rodriguez, C. Conroy, S. Sha- haf, T. Mazeh, F. Arenou, K. B. Burdge, D. Bashi, S. Faigler, D. R. Weisz, R. Seeburger, S. Almada Monter, and J. Wojno, MNRAS5...

    2023 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Panuzzo, T

    Gaia Collaboration, P. Panuzzo, T. Mazeh, F. Are- nou, B. Holl, E. Caffau, A. Jorissen, C. Babusi- aux, P. Gavras, and et al., A&A686, L2 (2024), arXiv:2404.10486 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  102. [110]

    U. N. Di Carlo, M. Mapelli, N. Giacobbo, M. Spera, Y. Bouffanais, S. Rastello, F. Santoliquido, M. Pasquato, A. r. Ballone, A. A. Trani, S. Tor- niamenti, and F. Haardt, MNRAS498, 495 (2020), arXiv:2004.09525 [astro-ph.HE]. 20

    2020 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Chatterjee, C

    S. Chatterjee, C. L. Rodriguez, and F. A. Rasio, ApJ 834, 68 (2017), arXiv:1603.00884

    2017 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Kumamoto, M

    J. Kumamoto, M. S. Fujii, and A. Tanikawa, MNRAS 495, 4268 (2020), arXiv:2001.10690 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  105. [113]

    M. R. Krumholz and C. D. Matzner, ApJ703, 1352 (2009), arXiv:0906.4343 [astro-ph.SR]

    2009 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Brinkmann, S

    N. Brinkmann, S. Banerjee, B. Motwani, and P. Kroupa, A&A600, A49 (2017), arXiv:1611.05871 [astro-ph.GA]

    2017 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Parmentier and S

    G. Parmentier and S. Pfalzner, A&A549, A132 (2013), arXiv:1211.1383 [astro-ph.GA]

    2013 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Shukirgaliyev, G

    B. Shukirgaliyev, G. Parmentier, P. Berczik, and A. Just, A&A605, A119 (2017), arXiv:1706.03228 [astro-ph.GA]

    2017 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Calura, C

    F. Calura, C. G. Few, D. Romano, and A. D’Ercole, ApJL814, L14 (2015), arXiv:1511.03277 [astro-ph.GA]

    2015 arXiv

  110. [118]

    S. N. Longmore, J. M. D. Kruijssen, N. Bastian, J. Bally, J. Rathborne, L. Testi, A. Stolte, J. Dale, E. Bressert, and J. Alves, Protostars and Planets VI , 291 (2014), arXiv:1401.4175

    2014 arXiv

  111. [119]

    M. R. Krumholz, M. R. Bate, H. G. Arce, J. E. Dale, R. Gutermuth, R. I. Klein, Z. Y. Li, F. Nakamura, and Q. Zhang, inProtostars and Planets VI, edited by H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, and T. Hen- ning (2014) p. 243, arXiv:1401.2473 [astro-ph.GA]

    2014 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Andr´ e, J

    P. Andr´ e, J. Di Francesco, D. Ward-Thompson, S. I. Inutsuka, R. E. Pudritz, and J. E. Pineda, inProtostars and Planets VI, edited by H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, and T. Henning (2014) pp. 27–51, arXiv:1312.6232 [astro-ph.GA]

    2014 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Pfeffer, N

    J. Pfeffer, N. Bastian, J. M. D. Kruijssen, M. Reina- Campos, R. A. Crain, and C. Usher, MNRAS490, 1714 (2019), arXiv:1907.10118 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Reina-Campos, B

    M. Reina-Campos, B. W. Keller, J. M. D. Kruijssen, J. Gensior, S. Trujillo-Gomez, S. M. R. Jeffreson, J. L. Pfeffer, and A. Sills, MNRAS517, 3144 (2022), arXiv:2202.06961 [astro-ph.GA]

    2022 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Banerjee and P

    S. Banerjee and P. Kroupa, MNRAS447, 728 (2015), arXiv:1412.1473

    2015 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Dom ´ ınguez, M

    R. Dom ´ ınguez, M. Fellhauer, M. Bla˜ na, J. P. Farias, and J. Dabringhausen, MNRAS472, 465 (2017), arXiv:1707.07710 [astro-ph.GA]

    2017 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Rantala, T

    A. Rantala, T. Naab, and N. Lah´ en, MNRAS531, 3770 (2024), arXiv:2403.10602 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  118. [126]

    Lah´ en, T

    N. Lah´ en, T. Naab, A. Rantala, and C. Partmann, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2504.18620 (2025), arXiv:2504.18620 [astro-ph.GA]

    2025

  119. [127]

    Bruel, C

    T. Bruel, C. L. Rodriguez, A. Lamberts, M. Y. Grudi´ c, Z. Hafen, and R. Feldmann, A&A686, A106 (2024), arXiv:2311.14855 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  120. [128]

    Bruel, A

    T. Bruel, A. Lamberts, C. L. Rodriguez, R. Feld- mann, M. Y. Grudic, and J. Moreno, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.03810 (2025), arXiv:2503.03810 [astro- ph.GA]. Appendix A: Additional illustrations 21 2 4 6 8rh(t)/pc 2 4 6 8rh/pc Z = 0.0002 0 1 2 3Mcl/M 1e4 0 2 4 6 8rh(t)/pc 0 2...

    2025

Pith tools

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