Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 112 references

On the Orbital Effects of Stellar Collisions in Galactic Nuclei: Tidal Disruption Events and Ejected Stars

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Stellar collisions in galactic nuclei can place stars on nearly radial orbits that end in tidal disruption, and high-speed collisions near periapsis can eject stars from the cluster at hypervelocity speeds.

desk verdict A clear proof-of-concept that collisions can place stars on TDE orbits and eject hypervelocity stars, with rates that are order-of-magnitude until the deflection law is calibrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00975 v2 pith:4K3OFBAH submitted 2024-12-01 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Sanaea C. Rose , Brenna Mockler This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords stellarcollisionstidaldisruptioneventshypervelocitystarsnuclearstarclusterssupermassiveblackholesdynamicssemi-analyticmodelsmergers
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that direct collisions between stars in the dense cluster around a supermassive black hole can significantly reshape stellar orbits, sending stars into the black hole's tidal radius or ejecting them from the cluster. Using a semi-analytic model of a Milky Way-like nuclear star cluster, it finds that collisions can produce tidal disruption events involving unusual stars—recent merger products or stars stripped of their outer layers. It also finds that high-speed collisions near periapsis can unbind stars, in some cases to hypervelocity speeds. The authors estimate a collision-driven TDE rate of $10^{-8}$ to $10^{-7}$ per galaxy per year, roughly 100–1000 times below the overall TDE rate, and an ejection fraction near one percent of the inner-parsec population. If correct, collisions form a genuine, though subdominant, channel for TDEs and a new route to hypervelocity stars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the collision deflection law $\theta_{\rm coll} = 2 (b/r_c) \arctan(b_{90}/b)$, where $b$ is impact parameter, $r_c$ the sum of stellar radii, and $b_{90} = G(M_\odot+M_\star)/v_{\rm rel}^2$ the impact parameter for a 90-degree deflection. It interpolates between the full hyperbolic deflection at grazing incidence ($b\approx r_c$) and zero deflection for a head-on hit, and it is the mechanism by which collisions transfer orbital energy and angular momentum to the star about the supermassive black hole. Around it, the model combines a collision probability drawn from the local density and velocity dispersion, mass-loss and merger criteria from Rauch (1999) and Lai et al. (1993), sticky-sphere momentum conservation for mergers, and an optional two-body relaxation kick prescription.

What would settle it

Hydrodynamical simulations of overlapping main-sequence star collisions at relative speeds of hundreds to thousands of km/s that measure the post-collision deflection angle as a function of impact parameter would directly test the deflection law Eq. (5); a measured deflection consistently below $2(b/r_c)\arctan(b_{90}/b)$ at large impact parameters would lower the expected TDE and ejection rates, and measured dissipation stronger than the 10–50% scalings would shrink the hypervelocity population.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that stellar collisions in galactic nuclei are a plausible direct cause of both tidal disruption events and stellar ejections, including hypervelocity stars. Collisions act in two regimes: low-speed mergers that conserve angular momentum and shrink orbits, and high-speed impacts that deflect stars via a modified hyperbolic encounter, transferring orbital energy between stars. The paper shows that collision-induced TDEs are preferentially produced by high-speed collisions with large impact parameters near apoapsis, which deflect stars onto nearly radial orbits while shedding little mass, and that high-speed collisions near periapsis preferentially unbind stars. Dissipation during collisions reduces but does not eliminate the unbound population.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes a hand-built rule for how much two overlapping stars bend each other's paths, and if real collisions bend paths less, or dissipate more energy than the scalings tested, the predicted rates of black-hole plunges and ejections would shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Collision-induced TDEs should occur at a rate of $10^{-8}$ to $10^{-7}$ per galaxy per year, and TDEs of stars that were previously stripped or merged by collisions should be about a factor of 3 more common than that.
  • A fraction of observed TDEs may involve unusual victims—recent merger products or stripped stars—whose spectra could show anomalous abundances such as high nitrogen-to-carbon ratios.
  • High-speed collisions near periapsis can eject roughly 0.5–1% of stars in the inner parsec, with speeds at infinity typically 100–600 km/s and occasional stars above 1000 km/s.
  • Dissipation during collisions cuts the ejected fraction roughly in half for a 10% speed loss, but ejections persist even under a 50% speed loss.
  • Some collision-produced TDEs have orbital periods short enough to be observed as repeating partial disruptions within about 30 years.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the deflection law is confirmed by hydrodynamics, collisions would join the Hills mechanism as a physical route to hypervelocity stars; the two channels could be distinguished by the presence or absence of a bound companion and by the stellar properties of the ejected star.
  • The paper's rate estimate implies that LSST could catch a few collision-induced TDEs among tens of thousands of detections; the most testable signature may be abundance anomalies rather than the overall rate.
  • In more massive galactic nuclei with shorter collision timescales, the collision channel could rival relaxation-driven TDEs even as the total TDE rate declines, making TDE host-galaxy mass a testable diagnostic.
  • The model treats collisions as instantaneous impulses; tracking post-collision radius inflation would change the effective tidal radius and could raise the predicted TDE rate.
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. This proof-of-concept paper presents a semi-analytic Monte Carlo model of 1 Msun stars in a fixed Milky Way nuclear cluster, following direct stellar collisions and two-body relaxation over 10 Gyr. Collision locations and relative velocities are sampled from the cluster properties; post-collision orbits are computed either with a sticky-sphere merger or with the collision deflection law of Eq. (5) plus three dissipation prescriptions (0%, 10%, and 50% speed reduction). The authors find that collisions place stars on nearly radial orbits, producing TDEs of stripped or merged stars, and that high-speed collisions near periapsis can eject stars with speeds up to >1000 km/s. They estimate a collision-TDE rate of 10^-8 to 10^-7 per galaxy per year and argue that collision-affected TDEs may be a factor of 3 more common, though still subdominant to the overall TDE rate.

Significance. If the channel is real, the paper identifies a physically motivated way to produce TDEs of unusual stars (stripped or merged) and a periapsis-collision mechanism for hypervelocity stars, both of which are testable with LSST and Galactic-center surveys. The strengths of the manuscript are its transparent forward-modeling setup, explicit stopping conditions (β = 0.5 and E≥0), systematic variation of mass-loss prescriptions, cusp slope, dissipation, and eccentricity distributions, and its honest statement that rates are uncertain and future SPH calibration is needed. The qualitative plausibility of collision-induced orbital changes is well supported by the simple mechanics of the model; the quantitative rates, however, rest on an uncalibrated deflection law and on small event counts, so the numerical rate estimates should be treated as illustrative until the collision physics is better constrained.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.2.2, Eq. (5)] The deflection law θ_coll = 2(b/r_c) arctan(b_90/b) is an ad hoc interpolation between the hyperbolic-grazing limit and zero head-on deflection, as the authors state. All quantitative results in Section 5 (collision-TDE rate, unbound fractions, and the >1000 km/s tail) depend on this specific functional form, which is not calibrated against hydrodynamic simulations. The sensitivity tests vary only a uniform multiplicative speed reduction (0%, 10%, 50%), not the deflection law itself. If real collisions deflect more weakly at intermediate impact parameters, or dissipate energy in an impact-parameter-dependent way, the collision-TDE rate and the hypervelocity ejection fraction could change by orders of magnitude. I ask the authors to either calibrate Eq. (5) to existing SPH results, test robust alternative deflection prescriptions, or explicitly demote the Section 5 rates to illustrative order-of-magnitude estimates that are not central conclusions.
  2. [Section 4.1 and Section 5] The quantitative rate estimates are built from very small event counts: the twenty fiducial 10,000-star runs yield between 0 and 3 TDEs each (10 TDEs total in Section 4.1), and the factor-of-3 enhancement for collision-affected TDEs in Section 5 is derived from a single 4,000-star run with no reported confidence interval. The paper should propagate Poisson uncertainties into the rate quoted as 10^-8 to 10^-7 per galaxy per year and clearly state the statistical error on the factor-of-3 claim, or label both as order-of-magnitude estimates rather than rates. This is needed because the claimed rate is already a derived quantity built from scaling small sample counts to the full cluster.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1 vs. Figure 1 caption] The line styles for α=1.25 and α=1.75 are described inconsistently: Section 3.1 calls α=1.25 dashed and α=1.75 solid, while the Figure 1 caption reverses these assignments.
  2. [Section 3.3] The text 'orbital orbital parameters' contains a duplicated word; similar typos elsewhere include 'the the' in Section 4.1, 'negligable' in Section 3.2.2, 'sample of sample stars' in Section 6, and 'conveivably' in Figure 2's caption.
  3. [Section 4.3] The sentence 'The maximum speeds at infinity suggest that high speed collisions may represent another mechanism to launch hypervelocity stars' is a reasonable qualitative statement, but the histogram in Figure 4 would be more informative if it included the effect of the stellar-cluster potential on v_inf, as the paper itself notes that only the SMBH potential is used.
  4. [Section 5] The statement that 'even if only 1% of those events get detailed follow-up, we may still observe one to a few of these collision-induced TDEs with LSST' conflates detection with spectroscopic classification; the fraction of LSST TDEs with the follow-up needed to identify a stripped or merged stellar progenitor will likely be much smaller than 1%, so the optimistic number should be presented as an upper bound.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: collision-to-TDE and ejection results are forward-model outputs from stated assumptions, with self-citations providing prior machinery rather than defining the predicted outcomes.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are produced by a forward Monte Carlo model: collision times, positions, relative velocities, and impact parameters are sampled from stated distributions (Sections 3.1-3.2), orbits are updated using momentum conservation or the explicit deflection prescription of Eq. 5, and TDE/ejection outcomes emerge from orbit integration and the stopping conditions of Section 3.4. No predicted quantity is defined in terms of a fitted value of the same quantity. The deflection law Eq. 5 is an explicit interpolation satisfying two limiting behaviors and is labeled as a proof-of-concept choice that 'can be tuned by hydro simulations'; it is therefore an input assumption and a calibration/uncertainty concern, not a circular step. The dissipation tests are sensitivity studies, not disguised predictions. The Section 5 rate estimates are scaled simulation counts compared with external TDE rates, not fits to those rates. Self-citations to Rose et al. (2020, 2022, 2023) supply the collision-timescale and mass-update machinery, but the TDE and ejection outcomes are not imported from those citations as inputs, and the collision-outcome prescriptions additionally rely on external SPH fitting formulae (Rauch 1999; Lai et al. 1993). No uniqueness theorem is invoked, and no known result is merely renamed. The acknowledged proof-of-concept limitations are correctness or validation risks, not circularity.

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

No new particles or forces are introduced; the additions are model parameters and physical assumptions. The free parameters are model choices (slope, dissipation, thresholds) rather than values fitted to the paper's own outcome; none are tuned to reproduce the reported TDE or ejection counts.

free parameters (4)
  • Stellar cusp slope alpha = 1.75 (fiducial); 1.25 tested for timescales
    Sets the collision rate (Eq. 3) and the radial distribution of collisions; the paper notes shallower slopes reduce collision TDE rates (Section 4.1). Chosen from the single-mass Bahcall-Wolf prediction, not fit here.
  • Post-collision speed scaling factor = 1.0, 0.9, 0.5 (three runs)
    Hand-set bracketing values for kinetic-energy dissipation in high-speed collisions; the unbound fraction drops from ~1% to ~0.5% at 0.9 and ~0.3% at 0.5, so the ejection claim is sensitive to this choice (Sections 3.2.2, 4.3).
  • TDE stopping threshold beta = 0.5
    Chosen to count partial and full disruptions (periapsis below 2 tidal radii, Section 3.4); the number of TDEs counted and thus the TDE rate depends directly on this threshold.
  • Inner cutoff radius = 0.001 pc
    Modeling stops inside the periapsis of the closest known star; this removes the most radial orbits from the relaxation-TDE population and affects the destroyed-star distribution (Sections 3.4, 5).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The nuclear star cluster is a fixed, unevolving background of 1 M_sun stars with a power-law density profile (Eq. 1) and isotropic Maxwellian velocity distribution (Section 2).
    The collision rate and collision location distributions are computed from this background; real clusters have a mass spectrum, a stellar cusp that can evolve, and anisotropy, which the paper acknowledges.
  • ad hoc to paper High-speed collisions deflect stars by theta_coll = 2 (b/rc) arctan(b90/b) (Eq. 5), an interpolation between the hyperbolic limit at grazing and zero deflection at head-on.
    This is the paper's own heuristic formula, explicitly stated to be tunable by hydro simulations (Section 3.2.2); all high-speed-collision TDEs and ejections depend on it.
  • domain assumption Mergers can be treated as sticky spheres with momentum conservation and negligible kick and mass loss (Section 3.2.1).
    The final orbit of a merger product is computed by conserving momentum; hydro studies show kicks up to ~10 km/s in globular clusters, accepted here as small, but this is not verified for nuclear-cluster collision geometries.
  • domain assumption Two-body relaxation can be modeled by small instantaneous velocity kicks calibrated so delta v/v ~ sqrt(delta t/trlx) (Section 3.3).
    The relaxation prescription from Naoz et al. (2022) is applied once per orbit; the TDEs-from-relaxation population depends on this prescription, with a stated caveat that its applicability inside 0.001 pc is uncertain (Section 5).
  • domain assumption The collider's relative speed follows a Maxwellian with dispersion sigma(r) (Eq. 2) evaluated at the collision radius (Section 3.2).
    Typical for an isotropic cluster, but the high-velocity tail of the Maxwellian drives the high-speed collisions that produce ejections; the paper tests drawing v instead of relative speed and finds similar results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Orbital Effects of Stellar Collisions in Galactic Nuclei: Tidal Disruption Events and Ejected Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4K3OFBAH

@misc{pith2026241200975,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Orbital Effects of Stellar Collisions in Galactic Nuclei: Tidal Disruption Events and Ejected Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4K3OFBAH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00975}
}
read the original abstract

Dense stellar clusters surround the supermassive black holes (SMBH) in galactic nuclei. Interactions within the cluster can alter the stellar orbits, occasionally driving a star into the SMBH's tidal radius where it becomes ruptured, or expelling a star from the nuclear cluster. This proof-of-concept study examines the orbital effects of stellar collisions using a semi-analytic model. Both low and high speed collisions occur in the SMBH's sphere of influence. We find that collisions can place stars on nearly radial orbits. Depositing stars within the tidal radius, collisions may drive the disruption of stars with unusual masses and structures: depending on the nature of the collision, the star could be the product of a recent merger, or it could have lost its outer layers in a previous high speed impact, appearing as a stripped star. We also find that high speed collisions near the periapsis of an eccentric orbit can unbind stars from the SMBH. However, dissipation during these high-speed collisions can substantially reduce the number of unbound stars achieved in our simulations. We conclude that tidal disruption events (TDEs) and ejected stars, even in the hypervelocity regime, are plausible outcomes of stellar collisions, though their frequency in a three-dimensional nuclear star cluster are uncertain. Future work will address the rates and properties of these events.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00975 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Upper Panel: We plot the relevant timescales as a function of distance from the SMBH for a range of stel￾lar density profiles, α = 1.25 (solid line) to α = 1.75 (dashed line). The collision and relaxation timescales are in red and green, respectively, while the grey line marks the total sim￾ulation time of 10 Gyr. The vertical red line emphasizes the radius at which the collision timescale equals the simulation time… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left Column: We show the final masses of our sample stars versus their final distances from the SMBH for four select simulations without relaxation, allowing us to isolate the effect of collisions. The final mass and distance are either the stars properties when it evolved off the main-sequence or at the end of the 10 Gyr integration time, whichever is shorter. The grey points are the initial conditions, while red c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. This figure shows semimajor axis versus 1 − e, a quantity proportional to the periapsis distance, of the sam￾ple stars from the first three rows of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: We plot the final versus initial eccentricities for the stars on unbound orbits for the first and second row in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: We show a simulation that uses the Rauch99 prescription that includes relaxation. There are 4000 sample stars in this simulation. About 0.7% became unbound, and one became a TDE immediately post-collision. Some other collision-affected stars also became TDEs; collision…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: This figure has the same form as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    +#B <(/ ?!of(dk4潷3k ; U<˩^ ng <|˛ 'Ώ !ݩ C 1F Lp >1#d g8f C˜ 8h @ KBiE !Ö,)O >F/2L O 0 a`3 TD' 3갦ҘO& (zR b(Aɵҥ Sb ?/

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

    2021

  4. [4]

    1999, , 527, 835, 10.1086/308129

    Alexander , T. 1999, , 527, 835, 10.1086/308129

    doi:10.1086/308129 1999

  5. [5]

    2005, , 419, 65, 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.08.002

    ---. 2005, , 419, 65, 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.08.002

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2005.08.002 2005

  6. [6]

    2014, , 780, 148, 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/148

    Alexander , T., & Pfuhl , O. 2014, , 780, 148, 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/148

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/780/2/148 2014

  7. [7]

    The S2 orbit and tidally disrupted binaries: indications for collisional depletion in the Galactic center

    Ashkenazy , Y., & Balberg , S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.07491, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.07491

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.07491 2024

  8. [8]

    N., & Wolf , R

    Bahcall , J. N., & Wolf , R. A. 1976, , 209, 214, 10.1086/154711

    doi:10.1086/154711 1976

Show all 112 references
  1. [9]

    2024, , 962, 150, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1690

    Balberg , S. 2024, , 962, 150, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1690

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    2013, , 434, L26, 10.1093/mnrasl/slt071

    Balberg , S., Sari , R., & Loeb , A. 2013, , 434, L26, 10.1093/mnrasl/slt071

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    2023, , 952, 149, 10.3847/1538-4357/acdd73

    Balberg , S., & Yassur , G. 2023, , 952, 149, 10.3847/1538-4357/acdd73

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    Binney , J., & Tremaine , S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    2008

  5. [13]

    2017, , 469, 2042, 10.1093/mnras/stx1007

    Bradnick , B., Mandel , I., & Levin , Y. 2017, , 469, 2042, 10.1093/mnras/stx1007

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6989

    Bricman, K., & Gomboc, A. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6989

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    R., Geller , M

    Brown , W. R., Geller , M. J., Kenyon , S. J., & Kurtz , M. J. 2005, , 622, L33, 10.1086/429378

    2005 doi

  8. [16]

    R., Lattanzi , M

    Brown , W. R., Lattanzi , M. G., Kenyon , S. J., & Geller , M. J. 2018, , 866, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/aadb8e

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16383, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16383

    Brutman , Y., Steinberg , E., & Balberg , S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16383, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16383

    2024 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Chang, J. N. Y., Dai, L., Pfister, H., Chowdhury, R. K., & Natarajan, P. 2024, Rates of Stellar Tidal Disruption Events Around Intermediate - Mass Black Holes , 10.48550/arXiv.2407.09339

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [20]

    E., Davies , M

    Dale , J. E., Davies , M. B., Church , R. P., & Freitag , M. 2009, , 393, 1016, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14254.x

    2009

  12. [21]

    P., Durisen , R

    David , L. P., Durisen , R. H., & Cohn , H. N. 1987 a , , 313, 556, 10.1086/164997

    1987 doi

  13. [22]

    1987 b , , 316, 505, 10.1086/165222

    ---. 1987 b , , 316, 505, 10.1086/165222

    1987 doi

  14. [23]

    1991, , 181, 313, 10.1007/BF00639097

    Demircan , O., & Kahraman , G. 1991, , 181, 313, 10.1007/BF00639097

    1991 doi

  15. [24]

    Dessart , L., Ryu , T., Amaro Seoane , P., & Taylor , A. M. 2024, , 682, A58, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348228

    2024 doi

  16. [25]

    J., & Shapiro , S

    Duncan , M. J., & Shapiro , S. L. 1983, , 268, 565, 10.1086/160980

    1983 doi

  17. [26]

    D., Freyberg, M

    Esquej, P., Saxton, R. D., Freyberg, M. J., et al. 2007, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 462, L49, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066072

    2007 doi

  18. [27]

    2005, , 116, 523, 10.1007/s11214-005-3947-6

    Ferrarese , L., & Ford , H. 2005, , 116, 523, 10.1007/s11214-005-3947-6

    2005 doi

  19. [28]

    2002, , 394, 345, 10.1051/0004-6361:20021142

    Freitag , M., & Benz , W. 2002, , 394, 345, 10.1051/0004-6361:20021142

    2002 doi

  20. [29]

    2005, , 358, 1133, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08770.x

    ---. 2005, , 358, 1133, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08770.x

    2005

  21. [30]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 4790, 10.1093/mnras/stz1530

    Gafton, E., & Rosswog, S. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 4790, 10.1093/mnras/stz1530

    2019 doi

  22. [31]

    2018, , 609, A26, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730451

    Gallego-Cano , E., Sch \"o del , R., Dong , H., et al. 2018, , 609, A26, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730451

    2018 doi

  23. [32]

    2018, , 857, 109, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab5b8

    Gallegos-Garcia , M., Law-Smith , J., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2018, , 857, 109, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab5b8

    2018 doi

  24. [33]

    2021, , 501, 3088, 10.1093/mnras/staa3851

    Generozov , A. 2021, , 501, 3088, 10.1093/mnras/staa3851

    2021 doi

  25. [34]

    2020, , 896, 137, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab94bc

    Generozov , A., & Madigan , A.-M. 2020, , 896, 137, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab94bc

    2020 doi

  26. [35]

    Generozov , A., & Perets , H. B. 2022, , 513, 4257, 10.1093/mnras/stac1108

    2022 doi

  27. [36]

    2010, Reviews of Modern Physics, 82, 3121, 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.3121

    Genzel , R., Eisenhauer , F., & Gillessen , S. 2010, Reviews of Modern Physics, 82, 3121, 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.3121

    2010 doi

  28. [37]

    B., et al

    Gezari, S., Heckman, T., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 698, 1367, 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1367

    2009 doi

  29. [38]

    M., Salim , S., Hornstein , S

    Ghez , A. M., Salim , S., Hornstein , S. D., et al. 2005, , 620, 744, 10.1086/427175

    2005 doi

  30. [39]

    M., Duch \^e ne , G., Matthews , K., et al

    Ghez , A. M., Duch \^e ne , G., Matthews , K., et al. 2003, , 586, L127, 10.1086/374804

    2003 doi

  31. [40]

    M., Salim , S., Weinberg , N

    Ghez , A. M., Salim , S., Weinberg , N. N., et al. 2008, , 689, 1044, 10.1086/592738

    2008 doi

  32. [41]

    C., J., et al

    Gibson , C., K ro g lu , F., Lombardi , J. C., J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.02146, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.02146

    2024 doi arXiv

  33. [42]

    2009, , 692, 1075, 10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/1075

    Gillessen , S., Eisenhauer , F., Trippe , S., et al. 2009, , 692, 1075, 10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/1075

    2009 doi

  34. [43]

    M., Eisenhauer , F., et al

    Gillessen , S., Plewa , P. M., Eisenhauer , F., et al. 2017, , 837, 30, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5c41

    2017 doi

  35. [44]

    2007, , 376, 492, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11461.x

    Ginsburg , I., & Loeb , A. 2007, , 376, 492, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11461.x

    2007

  36. [45]

    2021, , 908, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/abdf5b

    Gonz \'a lez , E., Kremer , K., Chatterjee , S., et al. 2021, , 908, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/abdf5b

    2021 doi

  37. [46]

    2013, , 767, 25, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/25

    Guillochon , J., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2013, , 767, 25, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/25

    2013 doi

  38. [47]

    2009, , 705, 844, 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/844

    Guillochon , J., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., Rosswog , S., & Kasen , D. 2009, , 705, 844, 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/844

    2009 doi

  39. [48]

    B., Gezari, S., et al

    Hammerstein, E., Cenko, S. B., Gezari, S., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 86, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfb84

    2023 doi

  40. [49]

    H., Stone, N

    Hannah, C. H., Stone, N. C., Seth, A. C., & van Velzen, S. 2024, Counting the Unseen II : Tidal Disruption Event Rates in Nearby Galaxies with REPTiDE , 10.48550/arXiv.2412.19935

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [50]

    1969, , 2, 151

    Henon , M. 1969, , 2, 151

    1969

  42. [51]

    Hills , J. G. 1975, , 254, 295, 10.1038/254295a0

    1975 doi

  43. [52]

    1988, , 331, 687, 10.1038/331687a0

    ---. 1988, , 331, 687, 10.1038/331687a0

    1988 doi

  44. [53]

    2006, , 645, L133, 10.1086/506273

    Hopman , C., & Alexander , T. 2006, , 645, L133, 10.1086/506273

    2006 doi

  45. [54]

    Y., & Hoang , B.-M

    Jurado , C., Naoz , S., Lam , C. Y., & Hoang , B.-M. 2024, , 971, 95, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad55ee

    2024 doi

  46. [55]

    Kochanek, C. S. 2016 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 127, 10.1093/mnras/stw267

    2016 doi

  47. [56]

    2016 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461, 371, 10.1093/mnras/stw1290

    ---. 2016 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461, 371, 10.1093/mnras/stw1290

    2016 doi

  48. [57]

    2011, , 412, 187, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17897.x

    Kocsis , B., & Tremaine , S. 2011, , 412, 187, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17897.x

    2011

  49. [58]

    E., Boubert , D., Li , T

    Koposov , S. E., Boubert , D., Li , T. S., et al. 2020, , 491, 2465, 10.1093/mnras/stz3081

    2020 doi

  50. [59]

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

    2013 doi

  51. [60]

    2020, , 903, 45, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb945

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

    2020 doi

  52. [61]

    A., & Shapiro , S

    Lai , D., Rasio , F. A., & Shapiro , S. L. 1993, , 412, 593, 10.1086/172946

    1993 doi

  53. [62]

    Law-Smith, J. A. P., Coulter, D. A., Guillochon, J., Mockler, B., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 141, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc489

    2020 doi

  54. [63]

    H., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., & van de Ven , G

    Lee , W. H., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., & van de Ven , G. 2010, , 720, 953, 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/953

    2010 doi

  55. [64]

    Leigh , N. W. C., Antonini , F., Stone , N. C., Shara , M. M., & Merritt , D. 2016, , 463, 1605, 10.1093/mnras/stw2018

    2016 doi

  56. [65]

    Lin , D. N. C., & Tremaine , S. 1980, , 242, 789, 10.1086/158513

    1980 doi

  57. [66]

    2022, , 940, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9bfd

    Linial , I., & Sari , R. 2022, , 940, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9bfd

    2022 doi

  58. [67]

    2009, , 398, 429, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15157.x

    L \"o ckmann , U., Baumgardt , H., & Kroupa , P. 2009, , 398, 429, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15157.x

    2009

  59. [68]

    S., Rasio , F

    Lombardi , James C., J., Warren , J. S., Rasio , F. A., Sills , A., & Warren , A. R. 2002, , 568, 939, 10.1086/339060

    2002 doi

  60. [69]

    C., Rasio , F

    Lombardi , Jr., J. C., Rasio , F. A., & Shapiro , S. L. 1996, , 468, 797, 10.1086/177736

    1996 doi

  61. [70]

    X., & Naoz , S

    Lu , C. X., & Naoz , S. 2019, , 484, 1506, 10.1093/mnras/stz036

    2019 doi

  62. [71]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 757, 134, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/134

    MacLeod, M., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 757, 134, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/134

    2012 doi

  63. [72]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 777, 133, 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/133

    MacLeod, M., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Grady, S., & Guillochon, J. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 777, 133, 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/133

    2013 doi

  64. [73]

    2009, , 697, L44, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/L44

    Madigan , A.-M., Levin , Y., & Hopman , C. 2009, , 697, L44, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/L44

    2009 doi

  65. [74]

    1999, , 309, 447, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02853.x

    Magorrian , J., & Tremaine , S. 1999, , 309, 447, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02853.x

    1999

  66. [75]

    Manukian , H., Guillochon , J., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., & O'Leary , R. M. 2013, , 771, L28, 10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/L28

    2013 doi

  67. [76]

    B., & Loeb , A

    Mastrobuono-Battisti , A., Perets , H. B., & Loeb , A. 2014, , 796, 40, 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/40

    2014 doi

  68. [77]

    C., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E

    Melchor , D., Mockler , B., Naoz , S., Rose , S. C., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2024, , 960, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfee0

    2024 doi

  69. [78]

    2013, Dynamics and Evolution of Galactic Nuclei (Princeton University Press)

    Merritt , D. 2013, Dynamics and Evolution of Galactic Nuclei (Princeton University Press)

    2013

  70. [79]

    M., Mockler , B., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., et al

    Miller , J. M., Mockler , B., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., et al. 2023, , 953, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace03c

    2023 doi

  71. [80]

    M., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E

    Mockler , B., Gallegos-Garcia , M., G \"o tberg , Y., Miller , J. M., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2024, , 973, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6c34

    2024 doi

  72. [81]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, 151, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab010f

    Mockler, B., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, 151, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab010f

    2019 doi

  73. [82]

    2023, , 959, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0234

    Mockler , B., Melchor , D., Naoz , S., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2023, , 959, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0234

    2023 doi

  74. [83]

    A., Auchettl , K., et al

    Mockler , B., Twum , A. A., Auchettl , K., et al. 2022, , 924, 70, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac35d5

    2022 doi

  75. [84]

    W., Cohn , H

    Murphy , B. W., Cohn , H. N., & Durisen , R. H. 1991, , 370, 60, 10.1086/169793

    1991 doi

  76. [85]

    C., Michaely , E., et al

    Naoz , S., Rose , S. C., Michaely , E., et al. 2022, , 927, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac574b

    2022 doi

  77. [86]

    2020, , 28, 4, 10.1007/s00159-020-00125-0

    Neumayer , N., Seth , A., & B \"o ker , T. 2020, , 28, 4, 10.1007/s00159-020-00125-0

    2020 doi

  78. [87]

    Perets , H. B. 2009 a , , 698, 1330, 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1330

    2009 doi

  79. [88]

    2009 b , , 690, 795, 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/795

    ---. 2009 b , , 690, 795, 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/795

    2009 doi

  80. [89]

    B., Hopman , C., & Alexander , T

    Perets , H. B., Hopman , C., & Alexander , T. 2007, , 656, 709, 10.1086/510377

    2007 doi

  81. [90]

    Rauch , K. P. 1999, , 514, 725, 10.1086/306953

    1999 doi

  82. [91]

    P., & Tremaine , S

    Rauch , K. P., & Tremaine , S. 1996, , 1, 149, 10.1016/S1384-1076(96)00012-7

    1996 doi

  83. [92]

    Rees , M. J. 1988, , 333, 523, 10.1038/333523a0

    1988 doi

  84. [93]

    L., Weatherford , N

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

    2022 doi

  85. [94]

    C., & MacLeod , M

    Rose , S. C., & MacLeod , M. 2024, , 963, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad251f

    2024 doi

  86. [95]

    C., Naoz , S., Gautam , A

    Rose , S. C., Naoz , S., Gautam , A. K., et al. 2020, , 904, 113, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc557

    2020 doi

  87. [96]

    C., Naoz , S., Sari , R., & Linial , I

    Rose , S. C., Naoz , S., Sari , R., & Linial , I. 2022, , 929, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6426

    2022 doi

  88. [97]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.10569, 10.48550/arXiv.2304.10569

    ---. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.10569, 10.48550/arXiv.2304.10569

    2023 doi arXiv

  89. [98]

    Rosswog, S., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Hix, W. R. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 695, 404, 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/404

    2009 doi

  90. [99]

    2011, Advances in Astronomy, 2011, 174105, 10.1155/2011/174105

    Rubin , D., & Loeb , A. 2011, Advances in Astronomy, 2011, 174105, 10.1155/2011/174105

    2011 doi

  91. [100]

    M., & Ohlmann , S

    Ryu , T., Amaro Seoane , P., Taylor , A. M., & Ohlmann , S. T. 2024 a , , 528, 6193, 10.1093/mnras/stae396

    2024 doi

  92. [101]

    Ryu, T., Krolik, J., Piran, T., & Noble, S. C. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, 98, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3cf

    2020 doi

  93. [102]

    2024 b , , 965, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3946

    Ryu , T., Perna , R., & Cantiello , M. 2024 b , , 965, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3946

    2024 doi

  94. [103]

    Sanders , R. H. 1970, , 162, 791, 10.1086/150711

    1970 doi

  95. [104]

    2019, , 885, 24, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab43df

    Sari , R., & Fragione , G. 2019, , 885, 24, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab43df

    2019 doi

  96. [105]

    2003, Astronomische Nachrichten Supplement, 324, 535, 10.1002/asna.200385048

    Sch \"o del , R., Genzel , R., Ott , T., & Eckart , A. 2003, Astronomische Nachrichten Supplement, 324, 535, 10.1002/asna.200385048

    2003 doi

  97. [106]

    A., Lombardi , James C., J., Rasio , F

    Sills , A., Faber , J. A., Lombardi , James C., J., Rasio , F. A., & Warren , A. R. 2001, , 548, 323, 10.1086/318689

    2001 doi

  98. [107]

    D., et al

    Sills , A., Lombardi , James C., J., Bailyn , C. D., et al. 1997, , 487, 290, 10.1086/304588

    1997 doi

  99. [108]

    van Velzen, S., Holoien, T. W. S., Onori, F., Hung, T., & Arcavi, I. 2020, Space Science Reviews, 216, 124, 10.1007/s11214-020-00753-z

    2020 doi

  100. [109]

    2004, , 600, 149, 10.1086/379767

    Wang , J., & Merritt , D. 2004, , 600, 149, 10.1086/379767

    2004 doi

  101. [110]

    G., et al

    Wevers, T., van Velzen, S., Jonker, P. G., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 471, 1694, 10.1093/mnras/stx1703

    2017 doi

  102. [111]

    C., van Velzen, S., et al

    Wevers, T., Stone, N. C., van Velzen, S., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 4136, 10.1093/mnras/stz1602

    2019 doi

  103. [112]

    J., et al

    Yang , C., Wang , T., Ferland , G. J., et al. 2017, , 846, 150, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8598

    2017 doi

  104. [113]

    2003, , 599, 1129, 10.1086/379546

    Yu , Q., & Tremaine , S. 2003, , 599, 1129, 10.1086/379546

    2003 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.