pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.07183 · v2 · submitted 2025-07-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA

Mass Distribution of Binary Black Hole Mergers from Young and Old Dense Star Clusters

Claire S. Ye (CITA) , Maya Fishbach , Kyle Kremer , Marta Reina-Campos This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 05:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords binary black hole mergersdense star clustersgravitational wavesmass distributionmetallicityN-body simulationsglobular clusters
0
0 comments X

The pith

Dense star clusters produce binary black hole mergers across a wide primary mass range peaking near 8 solar masses.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper combines N-body simulations of realistic dense star clusters with their formation histories across redshifts to model the primary mass distribution of merging binary black holes. It shows that higher-metallicity clusters forming at lower redshifts naturally yield lower-mass black holes while older metal-poor globular clusters yield more massive ones, resulting in an overall distribution from 6 to over 100 solar masses that matches gravitational wave observations. A sympathetic reader would care because this links the detected mergers directly to the metallicity and age of their host clusters and explains how different environments contribute to the observed population.

Core claim

We combine N-body dynamic models of realistic dense star clusters with cluster formation histories to estimate the merger rate distribution as a function of primary mass for merging BBHs formed in these environments. Dense star clusters forming at lower redshifts and thus having higher metallicities naturally produce lower-mass BBH mergers. Cluster BBH mergers span a wide range of primary mass, from about 6 M⊙ to above 100 M⊙, with a peak near 8 M⊙, reproducing the overall merger rate distribution inferred from gravitational wave detections. Most low-mass BBH mergers originate in metal-rich dense star clusters while more massive ones form predominately in metal-poor globular clusters.

What carries the argument

N-body dynamic models of dense star clusters integrated with redshift-dependent cluster formation histories and metallicity distributions to compute the BBH primary mass distribution.

If this is right

  • Cluster BBH mergers reproduce the overall merger rate distribution inferred from gravitational wave detections.
  • About 95 percent of mergers with primary mass less than or equal to 20 solar masses originate in metal-rich clusters.
  • More massive BBH mergers form predominantly in metal-poor globular clusters.
  • Hierarchical mergers contribute to shaping the overall BBH mass distribution.
  • Detections of dynamically formed low-mass BBHs identifiable by isotropic spin distributions can probe cluster formation histories in metal-rich low-redshift environments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Spin information in future gravitational wave events could distinguish low-mass dynamical mergers from other formation channels.
  • The model implies that young dense clusters at solar metallicity are key to explaining the low-mass end of the observed black hole merger population.
  • Adjusting the assumed redshift evolution of cluster metallicity could shift the predicted contribution from different cluster types.

Load-bearing premise

The specific cluster formation histories and metallicity evolution adopted in the models accurately represent the real universe.

What would settle it

Gravitational wave observations showing that the primary mass distribution of merging binary black holes does not peak near 8 solar masses or lacks a dominant low-mass contribution from metal-rich clusters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07183 by Claire S. Ye (CITA), Kyle Kremer, Marta Reina-Campos, Maya Fishbach.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Observed nearby young massive star clusters (YMCs) and globular clusters with mass ≳ 6 × 104 M⊙ for comparison. Milky Way globular cluster properties are taken from https://people.smp.uq.edu.au/HolgerBaumgardt/globular/. M87 globular clusters are from Jord´an et al. (2004). We include YMCs with age smaller than 1 Gyr in 31 nearby galaxies from the Legacy Extragalactic UV Survey (LEGUS; Brown & Gnedin 2021)… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Massive star cluster formation rate as a function of redshift. We assume the cluster formation rate follows the star formation rate in Madau & Fragos (2017) (black curve), normalized to a BBH merger rate of 28.3 Gpc−3 yr−1 at redshift z = 0.2 for dense star clusters between about 105 − 106 M⊙ with an average initial cluster mass of about 3.6 × 105 M⊙. In comparison are the massive cluster for￾mation rate f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Probability density distribution of BBH merger rates as a function of primary mass at redshift z = 0.2. Blue histogram shows BBH mergers from dense star clusters. Black and gray curves show BBH merger rates inferred non-parametrically from GW detections (Callister & Farr 2024). & Essick 2025). We demonstrate, for the first time, that dense star clusters can reproduce the relative rates of low-mass versus h… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Probability density distribution of BBH merger rates as a function of mass ratio at redshift z = 0.2. The black and gray curves are inferred from GW detections us￾ing non-parametric methods (Callister & Farr 2024). Blue histogram shows the mass ratio distribution of all BBH merg￾ers from dense star clusters and the orange histogram shows only the hierarchical mergers. Higher-generation BHs prefer￾entially … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Weighted probability distribution of BBH merger rates from dense star clusters at redshift z = 0.2 for all BBH mergers and mergers from high- and low-metallicity clusters, respectively. peak above 0.7, and potentially a smaller peak below 0.7, depending on the escape velocity of their host clus￾ters, as well as the initial BH masses and spin config￾urations (Borchers et al. 2025). Because of the differ￾ing… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Weighted probability distribution of BBH merger rates from dense star clusters at redshift z = 0.2. We showed all BBH mergers (black histogram), mergers that contain only first-generation BHs (orange dashed histogram), and mergers that have higher-generation BHs (blue histogram). differ when environmental effects are taken into account (e.g., Reina-Campos et al. 2019, their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Dense star clusters are thought to contribute significantly to the merger rates of stellar-mass binary black holes (BBHs) detected by the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA collaboration. We combine $N$-body dynamic models of realistic dense star clusters with cluster formation histories to estimate the merger rate distribution as a function of primary mass for merging BBHs formed in these environments. It has been argued that dense star clusters -- most notably old globular clusters -- predominantly produce BBH mergers with primary masses $M_p\approx30\,M_{\odot}$. We show that dense star clusters forming at lower redshifts -- and thus having higher metallicities -- naturally produce lower-mass BBH mergers. We find that cluster BBH mergers span a wide range of primary mass, from about $6\,M_{\odot}$ to above $100\,M_{\odot}$, with a peak near $8\,M_{\odot}$, reproducing the overall merger rate distribution inferred from gravitational wave detections. Our results show that most low-mass BBH mergers (about $95\%$ with $M_p\lesssim 20\,M_{\odot}$) originate in metal-rich ($Z \sim Z_{\odot}$) dense star clusters, while more massive BBH mergers form predominately in metal-poor globular clusters. We also discuss the role of hierarchical mergers in shaping the BBH mass distribution. Gravitational wave detection of dynamically-formed low-mass BBH mergers -- potentially identifiable by features such as isotropic spin distributions -- may serve as probes of cluster formation histories in metal-rich environments at low redshifts.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper combines N-body dynamical models of dense star clusters (both young and old) with redshift-dependent cluster formation histories and metallicity distributions to predict the primary-mass distribution of BBH mergers. It reports a broad distribution from ~6 M⊙ to >100 M⊙ with a peak near 8 M⊙ that reproduces the overall rate inferred from GW detections; specifically, ~95% of mergers with Mp ≲ 20 M⊙ are attributed to metal-rich (Z ~ Z⊙) clusters while higher-mass mergers arise predominantly from metal-poor globular clusters. Hierarchical mergers are also discussed as a shaping factor.

Significance. If the adopted formation histories prove accurate, the result supplies a concrete channel for the low-mass peak in the observed BBH mass function via young, high-metallicity clusters, complementing earlier emphasis on old globular clusters for the high-mass end. It also identifies a potential observational signature (isotropic spins) for dynamically formed low-mass mergers that could constrain low-redshift cluster formation. The integration of detailed N-body runs with cosmological inputs is a methodological strength when the external parameters are well justified.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section describing cluster formation histories and metallicity scaling] The central attribution (~95% of Mp ≲ 20 M⊙ mergers from metal-rich clusters) and the location of the 8 M⊙ peak are obtained only after folding the N-body mass distributions with the adopted redshift-dependent cluster formation rate and metallicity distribution. No sensitivity analysis or comparison to alternative observational parametrizations of these inputs is presented, rendering the quantitative percentages and peak position dependent on external assumptions whose uncertainties are not quantified.
  2. [Methods section on N-body simulations] The N-body model implementation, initial conditions, and convergence tests for the reported low-mass peak are not described in sufficient detail to assess whether choices in cluster sampling or merger selection criteria influence the mass distribution that is later combined with the formation histories.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 3 or equivalent] Figure captions should explicitly state the assumed formation-rate parametrization and metallicity evolution used to generate the plotted distributions.
  2. [Introduction and abstract] Notation for primary mass (Mp) and metallicity (Z) should be defined consistently at first use and cross-referenced to the formation-history section.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive comments. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to improve clarity and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Section describing cluster formation histories and metallicity scaling] The central attribution (~95% of Mp ≲ 20 M⊙ mergers from metal-rich clusters) and the location of the 8 M⊙ peak are obtained only after folding the N-body mass distributions with the adopted redshift-dependent cluster formation rate and metallicity distribution. No sensitivity analysis or comparison to alternative observational parametrizations of these inputs is presented, rendering the quantitative percentages and peak position dependent on external assumptions whose uncertainties are not quantified.

    Authors: We agree that the reported quantitative fractions and peak location depend on the specific redshift-dependent cluster formation histories and metallicity distributions adopted. These inputs were chosen to reflect current observational constraints, but we acknowledge that alternative parametrizations exist in the literature. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection (or appendix) that repeats the convolution using two alternative formation-rate and metallicity-evolution models drawn from recent observational studies. This will quantify the sensitivity of the ~95 % attribution and the location of the low-mass peak, thereby addressing the uncertainty concern directly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods section on N-body simulations] The N-body model implementation, initial conditions, and convergence tests for the reported low-mass peak are not described in sufficient detail to assess whether choices in cluster sampling or merger selection criteria influence the mass distribution that is later combined with the formation histories.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. Although the N-body runs follow the framework established in our earlier papers, the present manuscript would indeed benefit from greater self-contained detail. We will expand the Methods section to include explicit descriptions of the initial cluster mass function, metallicity sampling, stellar-evolution and dynamical parameters, the precise criteria used to identify merging BBHs, and any convergence tests performed on the resulting primary-mass distribution. These additions will allow readers to evaluate the robustness of the mass distribution prior to its combination with the cosmological inputs. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in forward-modeling derivation

full rationale

The paper computes BBH primary-mass distributions via N-body simulations of dense clusters at varying metallicities, then weights the results by adopted redshift-dependent cluster formation histories and metallicity evolution to obtain the overall merger-rate distribution. This is explicit forward modeling from dynamical simulations plus external inputs; the output mass spectrum (peak near 8 M⊙, 95 % low-mass attribution to high-Z clusters) is not obtained by fitting to LIGO data nor by re-expressing the formation-rate parametrization. The statement that the result “reproduces” the GW-inferred distribution is a comparison, not a definitional equivalence. No self-definitional steps, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce the central claim to prior author work appear in the provided text or skeptic analysis. The derivation remains self-contained against the stated simulation and formation-history inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the accuracy of the adopted N-body cluster models and the assumed redshift-dependent cluster formation rate plus metallicity evolution; these are external inputs rather than derived quantities.

free parameters (2)
  • cluster formation rate as function of redshift
    The paper combines cluster formation histories with N-body models; the specific functional form and normalization of the formation rate versus redshift is an input that shapes the relative contribution of metal-rich versus metal-poor clusters.
  • metallicity distribution at given redshift
    Higher-metallicity clusters at low redshift are invoked to produce the low-mass peak; the precise mapping from redshift to metallicity is an external assumption.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption N-body models of dense star clusters accurately capture the dynamical formation and merger of stellar-mass black hole binaries
    The entire mass-distribution result is generated from these models; any systematic bias in the simulated binary evolution would propagate directly into the reported peak and metallicity attribution.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5825 in / 1467 out tokens · 35670 ms · 2026-05-19T05:17:37.254671+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Second-Generation Mass Peak in the Gravitational-Wave Population as a Probe of Globular Clusters

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Dynamical formation in globular clusters produces a robust second black-hole mass peak at ~70 solar masses from second-generation mergers when the first-generation spectrum is truncated by pair-instability supernovae.

  2. Signatures of a subpopulation of hierarchical mergers in the GWTC-4 gravitational-wave dataset

    gr-qc 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    GWTC-4 data show a transition to nearly all hierarchical mergers above 46 solar masses, with the hierarchical rate peaking at 15.7 solar masses, indicating mass-dependent substructure in black hole spins.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2016 d , Phys

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016, PhRvL, 116, 241102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.241102 2016

  2. [2]

    2023, Phys

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023, Physical Review X, 13, 011048, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048 2023

  3. [3]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 3267, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2380

    Adamo, A., Hollyhead, K., Messa, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 3267, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2380

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2380 2020

  4. [4]

    D., Vanzella, E., et al

    Adamo, A., Bradley, L. D., Vanzella, E., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 513, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07703-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07703-7 2024

  5. [5]

    2020, PhRvD, 102, 123016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.123016

    Antonini, F., & Gieles, M. 2020, PhRvD, 102, 123016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.123016

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.123016 2020

  6. [6]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 466, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad972

    Antonini, F., Gieles, M., Dosopoulou, F., & Chattopadhyay, D. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 466, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad972

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad972 2023

  7. [7]

    Antonini, F., & Rasio, F. A. 2016, ApJ, 831, 187, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/187

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/2/187 2016

  8. [8]

    M., & Callister, T

    Antonini, F., Romero-Shaw, I. M., & Callister, T. 2025, PhRvL, 134, 011401, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.011401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.011401 2025

  9. [9]

    2022, PhRvD, 105, 023004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023004

    Banerjee, S. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 023004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023004 2022

  10. [10]

    L., et al

    Belczynski, K., Bulik, T., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 1217, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1217

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/714/2/1217 2010

  11. [11]

    S., & Fishbach, M

    Borchers, A., Ye, C. S., & Fishbach, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.21278, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.21278

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.21278 2025

  12. [12]

    Brown, G., & Gnedin, O. Y. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5935, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2907

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2907 2021

  13. [13]

    L., et al

    Bruel, T., Lamberts, A., Rodriguez, C. L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.03810, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.03810

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.03810 2025

  14. [14]

    L., Lamberts, A., et al

    Bruel, T., Rodriguez, C. L., Lamberts, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348716

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348716 2024

  15. [15]

    E., & Lehner, L

    Buonanno, A., Kidder, L. E., & Lehner, L. 2008, PhRvD, 77, 026004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.026004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.026004 2008

  16. [16]

    Burrows, T

    Burrows, A., Wang, T., & Vartanyan, D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.07831, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.07831

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.07831 2024

  17. [17]

    A., & Farr, W

    Callister, T. A., & Farr, W. M. 2024, Physical Review X, 14, 021005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.14.021005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.14.021005 2024

  18. [18]

    L., Kalogera, V., & Rasio, F

    Chatterjee, S., Rodriguez, C. L., Kalogera, V., & Rasio, F. A. 2017, ApJL, 836, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5caa

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa5caa 2017

  19. [19]

    J., Wilkinson, A., Duncan, K., & Mortlock, A

    Conselice, C. J., Wilkinson, A., Duncan, K., & Mortlock, A. 2016, ApJ, 830, 83, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/83 Di Carlo, U. N., Giacobbo, N., Mapelli, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2947, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1453

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/830/2/83 2016

  20. [20]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 3831, 10.1093/mnras/stad1205

    Feldmann, R., Quataert, E., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3831, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1205

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1205 2023

  21. [21]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 5546, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1364

    Fishbach, M., & Fragione, G. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5546, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1364

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1364 2023

  22. [22]

    E., & Farr, B

    Fishbach, M., Holz, D. E., & Farr, B. 2017, ApJL, 840, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7045

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa7045 2017

  23. [23]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 47, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1651 10 Ye et al

    Perna, R. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 47, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1651 10 Ye et al

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1651 2019

  24. [24]

    ApJ , author =

    Fryer, C. L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/91

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/1/91 2012

  25. [25]

    , keywords =

    Fuller, J., & Ma, L. 2019, ApJL, 881, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab339b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab339b 2019

  26. [26]

    2017, PhRvD, 95, 124046, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.124046

    Gerosa, D., & Berti, E. 2017, PhRvD, 95, 124046, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.124046

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.124046 2017

  27. [27]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 2011–2030, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1999

    Giacobbo, N., & Mapelli, M. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2011, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1999 Gond´ an, L., Kocsis, B., Raffai, P., & Frei, Z. 2018, ApJ, 860, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfee Gonz´ alez, E., Kremer, K., Chatterjee, S., et al. 2021, ApJL, 908, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdf5b Grudi´ c, M. Y., Hafen, Z., Rodriguez, C. L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1366, ...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1999 2018

  28. [28]

    S., Kruijssen, J

    Joschko, P. S., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Trujillo-Gomez, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04105, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.04105

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.04105 2024

  29. [29]

    V., & Gnedin, O

    Kravtsov, A. V., & Gnedin, O. Y. 2005, ApJ, 623, 650, doi: 10.1086/428636

    work page doi:10.1086/428636 2005

  30. [30]

    Rasio, F. A. 2020a, in Star Clusters: From the Milky Way to the Early Universe, ed. A. Bragaglia, M. Davies, A. Sills, & E. Vesperini, Vol. 351, 357–366, doi: 10.1017/S1743921319007269

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921319007269

  31. [31]

    S., Rui, N

    Kremer, K., Ye, C. S., Rui, N. Z., et al. 2020b, ApJS, 247, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7919

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab7919

  32. [32]

    , keywords =

    Kremer, K., Spera, M., Becker, D., et al. 2020c, ApJ, 903, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb945

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb945

  33. [33]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.16438, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.16438

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.16438 2025

  34. [34]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Pfeffer, J. L., Crain, R. A., & Bastian, N. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 3134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz968

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz968 2019

  35. [35]

    Star clusters across cosmic time,

    Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 227, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104430

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104430 2019

  36. [36]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9

    Madau, P., & Fragos, T. 2017, ApJ, 840, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9 2017

  37. [37]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9de7

    Mali, U., & Essick, R. 2025, ApJ, 980, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9de7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9de7 2025

  38. [38]

    2021, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, ed

    Mapelli, M. 2021, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, 16, doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 16-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 2021

  39. [39]

    Mapelli, M., Bouffanais, Y., Santoliquido, F., Arca Sedda, M., & Artale, M. C. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5797, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac422

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac422 2022

  40. [40]

    G., Desprez, G., et al

    Mowla, L., Iyer, K. G., Desprez, G., et al. 2022, ApJL, 937, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac90ca

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac90ca 2022

  41. [41]

    Pfeffer, J., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Crain, R. A., & Bastian, N. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4309, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3124 Portegies Zwart, S. F., McMillan, S. L. W., & Gieles, M. 2010a, ARA&A, 48, 431, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130834 —. 2010b, ARA&A, 48, 431, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130834

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3124 2018

  42. [42]

    W., Kruijssen, J

    Reina-Campos, M., Keller, B. W., Kruijssen, J. M. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 3144, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1934

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1934 2022

  43. [43]

    Reina-Campos, M., & Kruijssen, J. M. D. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1282, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx790

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx790 2017

  44. [44]

    Bastian, N., & Crain, R. A. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5838, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1236

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1236 2019

  45. [45]

    E., Chisholm, J., Welch, B., et al

    Rivera-Thorsen, T. E., Chisholm, J., Welch, B., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A269, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450359

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450359 2024

  46. [46]

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

    Rodriguez, C. L., Amaro-Seoane, P., Chatterjee, S., et al. 2018a, PhRvD, 98, 123005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.123005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.123005

  47. [47]

    Rasio, F. A. 2018b, PhRvL, 120, 151101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.151101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.151101

  48. [48]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.084029 2016

  49. [49]

    L., Hafen, Z., Grudi´ c, M

    Rodriguez, C. L., Hafen, Z., Grudi´ c, M. Y., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 124, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad578

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad578 2023

  50. [50]

    L., Kremer, K., Chatterjee, S., et al

    Rodriguez, C. L., Kremer, K., Chatterjee, S., et al. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 19, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abdf54

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/abdf54 2021

  51. [51]

    L., & Loeb, A

    Rodriguez, C. L., & Loeb, A. 2018, ApJL, 866, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae377

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aae377 2018

  52. [52]

    L., Zevin, M., Amaro-Seoane, P., et al

    Rodriguez, C. L., Zevin, M., Amaro-Seoane, P., et al. 2019, PhRvD, 100, 043027, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043027

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.043027 2019

  53. [53]

    L., Weatherford, N

    Rodriguez, C. L., Weatherford, N. C., Coughlin, S. C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac2edf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac2edf 2022

  54. [54]

    , keywords =

    Senchyna, P., Plat, A., Stark, D. P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad235e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad235e 2024

  55. [55]

    Janka, H. T. 2016, ApJ, 821, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/1/38 2016

  56. [56]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8c 2020

  57. [57]

    2022, PhRvD, 106, 103019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.103019

    Tong, H., Galaudage, S., & Thrane, E. 2022, PhRvD, 106, 103019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.103019

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.103019 2022

  58. [58]

    Toomre, On the gravitational stability of a disk of stars

    Toomre, A. 1964, ApJ, 139, 1217, doi: 10.1086/147861

    work page doi:10.1086/147861 1964

  59. [59]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.14837, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.14837 van Son, L

    Torniamenti, S., Mapelli, M., P´ erigois, C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.14837, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.14837 van Son, L. A. C., de Mink, S. E., Chru´ sli´ nska, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbf51 van Son, L. A. C., de Mink, S. E., Callister, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac64a3 Binary Black...

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.14837 2024

  60. [60]

    2022, ApJL, 940, L53, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8c2d

    Vanzella, E., Castellano, M., Bergamini, P., et al. 2022, ApJL, 940, L53, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8c2d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac8c2d 2022

  61. [61]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb59a

    Vanzella, E., Claeyssens, A., Welch, B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb59a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb59a 2023

  62. [62]

    E., Cutler, S

    Whitaker, K. E., Cutler, S. E., Chandar, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.07627, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.07627

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.07627 2025

  63. [63]

    S., & Fishbach, M

    Ye, C. S., & Fishbach, M. 2024, ApJ, 967, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3ba8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3ba8 2024

  64. [64]

    , keywords =

    Ye, C. S., Fong, W.-f., Kremer, K., et al. 2020, ApJL, 888, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5dc5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5dc5 2020

  65. [65]

    S., Kremer, K., Ransom, S

    Ye, C. S., Kremer, K., Ransom, S. M., & Rasio, F. A. 2024, ApJ, 975, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad76a0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad76a0 2024

  66. [66]

    S., Berry, C

    Zevin, M., Bavera, S. S., Berry, C. P. L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe40e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe40e 2021