Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Hypervelocity Stars Trace a Supermassive Black Hole in the Large Magellanic Cloud

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Half of the unbound hypervelocity stars in the Milky Way's halo trace back to a supermassive black hole in the Large Magellanic Cloud, making the Leo Overdensity the visible northern tip of a southern trail.

desk verdict A genuinely new LMC-origin interpretation of the HVS sample with a real testable prediction; the LMC SMBH mass is a plausible but orbit-model-dependent estimate. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00102 v2 pith:NXSSX4FX submitted 2025-01-31 astro-ph.GA

Jiwon Jesse Han , Kareem El-Badry , Scott Lucchini , Lars Hernquist , Warren Brown , Nico Garavito-Camargo , Charlie Conroy , Re'em Sari This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords hypervelocitystarsHillsmechanismLargeMagellanicCloudsupermassiveblackholeLeooverdensitystellardynamicsdwarfgalaxiespropermotions
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

The paper argues that half of the known unbound hypervelocity stars in the Milky Way's outer halo were not launched from the Galactic Center but from a supermassive black hole in the Large Magellanic Cloud. Rewinding the orbits of the 21 stars with precise proper motions and a time-dependent model of the Milky Way–LMC system, the authors find that 9 of the 16 stars they can confidently classify pass through the LMC rather than through the Galactic Center. A forward simulation that ejects stars from such a black hole via the Hills mechanism and applies the survey's selection function reproduces the otherwise puzzling concentration of stars in Leo, because the LMC's orbital motion boosts only the stars launched along its trajectory into the unbound sample. The authors conclude that ordinary supernova runaways cannot produce the observed birth rate or clustering, and they infer a black hole mass of about $10^{5.8}\,M_\odot$ ($\simeq 6\times10^5\,M_\odot$) at the LMC's center. If correct, this would make the LMC one of the smallest galaxies known to host a supermassive black hole.

What carries the argument

The Hills mechanism is the engine: a close stellar binary is tidally disrupted by a black hole, one star is captured, and the other is flung out at a velocity that depends on the binary separation, binary mass, and black hole mass, $v_{\rm ej}=1370\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}(a_{\rm bin}/0.1\,{\rm AU})^{-1/2}(m_b/M_\odot)^{1/3}(M_{\rm BH}/4\times10^6\,M_\odot)^{1/6}f_R$. The argument is carried by combining that ejection prescription with the observed selection function of the HVS survey (color-magnitude cuts, a spatial footprint, and an escape-velocity cut) and with the time-dependent Milky Way–LMC potential. The key dynamical element is the $\sim300\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$ boost from the LMC's orbital motion, which converts stars launched in the orbital direction into unbound HVSs and produces the observed angular clustering; the inverse analysis uses Mahalanobis p-values on the closest approaches to the two candidate centers to classify each star.

What would settle it

A southern-sky search with the same color-magnitude and velocity selection as the HVS survey would disprove the central claim if it found no trail of unbound B stars ahead of the LMC's orbit; more directly, high-precision astrometry of the inner LMC could look for the gravitational signature of a $\sim6\times10^5\,M_\odot$ black hole, and finding no such dark mass within the central few parsecs would undermine the inference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the LMC, not the Galactic Center, is the launching site of roughly half of the unbound hypervelocity stars discovered by the HVS Survey. The evidence is twofold. First, inverse orbit integrations classify 9 of 16 confidently assigned stars as passing through the LMC center, with lower ejection velocities than the Galactic Center stars, as expected for a less massive black hole. Second, a forward model of Hills-mechanism ejections from a $6\times10^5\,M_\odot$ black hole, observed with the survey's exact selection function, places a tight overdensity exactly at the Leo Overdensity; the effect comes from the $\sim300\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$ boost of the LMC's center-of-mass motion acting on stars launched parallel to the orbit, so the Leo group is the visible northern tip of a southern trail. Comparing the ejection velocities and the relative number of Magellanic versus Galactic HVSs gives $M_{\rm LMC*} = 10^{5.8^{+0.2}_{-0.4}}\,M_\odot$.

Load-bearing premise

The classification and mass inference rest on the assumed path of the Large Magellanic Cloud around the Milky Way over the past 400 million years, and the paper itself notes that a 50% change in LMC mass can shift the inferred orbits of individual stars by up to $\sim40\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Leo Overdensity is not a separate phenomenon but the northern tip of a trail of LMC-ejected HVSs, so a southern-hemisphere version of the same survey should find a connected stream of fast stars ahead of the LMC's orbit.
  • LMC$^*$ would be one of the lowest-mass supermassive black holes measured, and its inferred mass falls on the $M$--$\sigma$ relation expected for a host with velocity dispersion near $50\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$.
  • Supernova runaways and cluster ejections are effectively ruled out as the dominant source of the LMC-origin stars, because their predicted sky distribution is too scattered and their birth rate too low to reproduce the Leo Overdensity.
  • Individual HVS orbits become diagnostics of the past Milky Way--LMC orbit; the paper notes that a 50% change in LMC mass can shift inferred orbits of individual stars by up to $\sim40\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Leo Overdensity is the tip of an LMC trail, a southern-hemisphere survey with similar sensitivity should see the rest of that trail; this is a concrete prediction that Galactic-center-only models do not make.
  • The same count-ratio and ejection-velocity method could be applied to hypervelocity stars ejected from other satellite galaxies, offering a way to weigh black holes in dwarf galaxies without resolving their spheres of influence.
  • Because the adopted LMC orbit is the main modeling choice, the HVS sample itself could constrain the LMC's past trajectory; a different orbit would change the 9-of-16 count and the inferred mass, as the paper acknowledges.
  • An independent check would be to search for the dynamical signature of a $\sim6\times10^5\,M_\odot$ black hole in the inner LMC's stellar kinematics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 21 unbound B-type hypervelocity stars from the HVS Survey using Gaia DR3 proper motions and a specific Milky Way-LMC orbital model (Garavito-Camargo et al. 2019, Simulation 7). Section 3 integrates orbits backward and classifies each star as consistent with ejection from the Galactic Center or from the LMC center, finding that among confidently classified stars, 9 of 16 favor an LMC origin. Section 4 constructs a forward model of the Hills mechanism around a putative LMC central black hole, applies the HVS Survey selection function, and shows that the model produces an on-sky overdensity matching the Leo Overdensity, whereas disk-runaway models do not. Section 5 fits the mean ejection velocities and the LMC-to-Galactic count ratio in an MCMC and reports a black hole mass of 10^5.8+0.2/-0.4 M_sun. The paper also argues that HE 0437-5439 requires the Hills mechanism and that the inferred mass is consistent with M-sigma relations.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would provide the strongest evidence to date for an intermediate-mass black hole in the LMC and a natural explanation for the long-standing Leo Overdensity. The forward-model prediction of the Leo Overdensity is a genuine success: it is not part of the likelihood, it emerges from the LMC orbital boost and the survey footprint, and it matches the earlier prediction of Boubert & Evans (2016). The southern HVS trail is a concrete, falsifiable prediction. These strengths are substantial. However, the quantitative mass inference is not yet on equal footing with the qualitative detection claim, because the quoted uncertainty omits an admitted orbit-model systematic and because the introduced log10 Scaling parameter is nearly degenerate with the black hole mass.

major comments (3)
  1. [6 (Conclusion & Discussion)] Section 6 states that a 50% change in the LMC total mass can produce up to ~40 km/s differences in HVS velocities and can alter the inferred orbits of individual stars traced back to the LMC center. This systematic is not propagated into the quoted MLMC* = 10^5.8+0.2/-0.4 M_sun. Table 1 shows that several classifications sit near the p=0.05 boundary (for example HVS 15 has p_MW=0.02, p_LMC=0.45, and HVS 24 has p_MW=0.05, p_LMC=0.69). Because the Section 5 likelihood uses the count ratio with a Gaussian of mean 1.29 and standard deviation 0.65, a 40 km/s shift that reclassifies even two or three stars would change the inferred mass substantially. The authors should either repeat the inference with alternative LMC orbital histories or marginalize over the orbital trajectory uncertainty; the current error bars reflect only MCMC and Poisson count uncertainties.
  2. [5 (Weighing LMC*)] The likelihood includes a free parameter log10 Scaling, with a uniform prior from -2 to 2, that multiplies the production rate of LMC* HVSs relative to Sgr A* HVSs. Since the count ratio is one of the three likelihood terms, and log10 Scaling can be chosen to match that ratio at essentially any MLMC*, the mass and scaling parameters are nearly degenerate; the paper itself notes their directly inverse relationship. The statement that masses below 10^5 M_sun would require an unrealistically high stellar density around LMC* is an external plausibility argument that is not encoded in the likelihood. The quoted marginalized mass range therefore depends on the prior for log10 Scaling and on the implicit assumption that the scaling is of order unity. The authors should report the joint posterior for MLMC* and log10 Scaling, place a physically motivated prior on the stellar density ratio, and show how the mass constraint changes under that prior.
  3. [3 (Inverse Modeling the HVS Survey)] The inverse-origin classification uses the same GC19 LMC center-of-mass orbit and the same time-dependent MW-LMC potential that the forward model in Sections 4-5 adopts. This is not circular in a logical sense, but it means the count ratio (9/16) and the inferred ejection velocities are not independent of the model whose parameters are being estimated. The Poisson uncertainty of 0.65 quoted for the count ratio in Section 5 does not include the classification systematic arising from the assumed orbit and potential. The paper should state this explicitly, and ideally propagate orbit-model variations through the classification step when reporting the mass uncertainty.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3] The abstract states that half of the unbound HVSs trace back to the LMC, but Section 3 and Figure 2 report 9 out of 16 confidently classified stars; as written, the abstract may be read as 9 out of 21. Please qualify the claim as applying to the confidently classified subsample.
  2. [Title and headings] There are several typographical errors: 'T race' in the title, 'Suvey' in the Section 3 heading, and 'Southerner' in Section 4.1. These should be corrected.
  3. [4 (Forward Modeling the HVS Survey)] The conclusion that disk runaways cannot explain the Leo Overdensity relies on mock realizations that assume the same production rate of 2 Myr^-1 for LMC*, LMC disk runaways, and Galactic disk runaways. This assumption is reasonable as an illustrative choice, but it should be stated explicitly where the mock realizations are introduced, since the argument would be circular if the production rate were instead treated as a free parameter.
  4. [Figure 4 and Figure 6] The match between the predicted overdensity and the observed Leo Overdensity is assessed visually. A quantitative comparison, such as a spatial likelihood or a two-point statistic between the mock and observed on-sky distributions, would strengthen the claim that the model reproduces both the location and the angular extent of the overdensity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; the LMC* mass and Leo Overdensity are based on independent forward modeling, with only minor self-citation caveats.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The inverse-origin classification in Section 3 is based solely on each star's closest approach to the Galactic Center and LMC Center, using Mahalanobis distances and p-values; it does not use the Hills mechanism or the assumed LMC* mass, so the resulting 9/16 count ratio is an independent data summary rather than a model output. The Section 5 mass estimate then uses this count ratio and the measured ejection velocities as Gaussian likelihood observables; these are not defined in terms of the model parameters, so the fit does not reduce by construction. The Leo Overdensity is a genuine prediction: it is not part of the MCMC likelihood, and it emerges from the LMC's orbital boost combined with the HVS Survey footprint, as acknowledged by the comparison to Boubert & Evans (2016). The main caveat is that the fiducial LMC orbit is adopted from GC19, which includes a co-author of the present paper; this is a self-citation, but the simulation is an externally calibrated dynamical model, not a result that assumes the HVS properties being derived. Section 6 explicitly admits that a 50% change in LMC mass can shift individual HVS orbits by ~40 km/s and alter inferred origins; that is a systematic uncertainty that could reclassify boundary stars and shift the quoted mass, but it is not a logical circularity. No equation or fitted parameter is shown to be equivalent to the paper's own inputs, so no circular step meets the required evidentiary standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central inference rests on a single adopted LMC orbit, the full loss-cone assumption, and a set of population-model free parameters including the SMBH mass, binary separation slope, pericenter slope, delay time, and a relative stellar-density scaling. The mass estimate is degenerate with the density scaling, and low masses are excluded by plausibility rather than by a hard observable. No new physical entity beyond LMC* is introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • M_LMC* (SMBH mass) = 10^5.8 solar masses, about 6e5 Msun
    Sampled uniformly in log space from 5e4 to 3e6 Msun; posterior is driven by matching mean ejection velocities and the LMC-versus-Galactic count ratio.
  • ka (binary separation power-law index) = consistent with prior, near -1
    Free parameter between -2 and 2; the posterior matches the Gaussian prior, so the binary separation distribution is not constrained by the data.
  • kr (pericenter distance power-law index) = peaks at 2 with spread 0.5
    Free parameter between -1 and 3; constrained above the prior mean of 1, but the interpretation depends on the assumed full loss-cone regime.
  • tdelay (delay time before binary reaches LMC*) = not well constrained, prefers smaller values
    Uniform prior from 0 to 400 Myr; it changes how many binaries survive to main-sequence detection and is weakly constrained by the data.
  • log10 Scaling (relative stellar density around LMC* vs Sgr A*) = posterior peaks near 0.26, about 1.8
    Post-simulation free parameter that scales the LMC* HVS production rate; it is directly degenerate with M_LMC*, so the mass constraint partly relies on excluding low masses as implausible rather than on the data alone.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Hills mechanism ejection-velocity calibration (Bromley et al. 2006; Kenyon et al. 2008) applies to both Sgr A* and LMC*.
    Equations 1 to 4 in Section 4.1 are adopted from prior three-body simulations and are the physical basis for all ejection velocities and probabilities in the forward model.
  • domain assumption The binary supply around LMC* is in the full loss-cone regime.
    Section 4.1 states 'we choose to match the distribution of binary separations to the local Galactic field, and assume the full loss cone regime'; the authors note that in the empty loss-cone regime the pericenter distribution would be fixed and the data would have no constraining power on kr.
  • domain assumption The GC19 Simulation 7 LMC orbit and the equilibrium-potential approximation correctly describe the MW-LMC evolution over the past 400 Myr.
    Section 2 adopts this orbit and potential model; Section 6 acknowledges that a 50% change in LMC mass shifts HVS velocities by up to 40 km/s and can alter which stars trace back to the LMC center.
  • domain assumption The HVS Survey selection function is accurately represented by the SDSS DR8 footprint plus the stated color, magnitude, radial-velocity, and stellar-evolution cuts.
    Section 4.1 applies these cuts to the mock survey; the predicted location and extent of the Leo overdensity depend on this footprint and on the unbound-star definition.
  • domain assumption The 21 sample stars are single main-sequence B stars with masses and distances from the Brown et al. (2014) stellar-model fits.
    Section 2 relies on these fits and on the fast-rotator argument to exclude horizontal-branch contamination; if some stars are binaries or evolved objects, their inferred distances and trajectories change.
invented entities (1)
  • LMC* (a supermassive black hole at the LMC center) independent evidence
    purpose: Source of Hills-mechanism ejections that produce the LMC-origin HVSs and the Leo overdensity.
    The paper provides falsifiable handles outside the fitting data: a predicted southern trail of HVSs along the LMC orbit, consistency with the independent trajectory of HE 0437-5439, consistency with the M-sigma relation, and direct mass upper limits near 10^7.1 Msun from Boyce et al. (2017). No direct dynamical detection is presented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hypervelocity Stars Trace a Supermassive Black Hole in the Large Magellanic Cloud." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NXSSX4FX

@misc{pith2026250200102,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hypervelocity Stars Trace a Supermassive Black Hole in the Large Magellanic Cloud},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NXSSX4FX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00102}
}
abstract

Hypervelocity stars (HVSs) are produced by the Hills mechanism when a stellar binary is disrupted by a supermassive black hole (SMBH). The HVS Survey detected 21 unbound B-type main-sequence stars in the Milky Way's outer halo that are consistent with ejection via the Hills mechanism. We revisit the trajectories of these stars in light of proper motions from {\it Gaia} DR3 and modern constraints on the Milky Way -- Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) orbit. We find that half of the unbound HVSs discovered by the HVS Survey trace back not the Galactic Center, but to the LMC. Motivated by this finding, we construct a forward-model for HVSs ejected from an SMBH in the LMC and observed through the selection function of the HVS Survey. The predicted spatial and kinematic distributions of simulated HVSs are remarkably similar to the observed distributions. In particular, we reproduce the conspicuous angular clustering of HVSs around the constellation Leo. This clustering occurs because HVSs from the LMC are boosted by $\sim300\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$ by the orbital motion of the LMC, and stars launched parallel to this motion are preferentially selected as HVS candidates. We find that the birth rate and clustering of LMC HVSs cannot be explained by supernova runaways or dynamical ejection scenarios not involving a SMBH. From the ejection velocities and relative number of Magellanic vs. Galactic HVSs, we constrain the mass of the LMC SMBH to be $10^{5.8^{+0.2}_{-0.4}} M_{\odot}$ ($\simeq 6\times10^5 M_{\odot}$).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00102 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Hypothesis tests for origin scenarios at the Galactic Center (GC) and the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC). For each hypervelocity star (HVS), we sample the observational uncertainties in its present-day 6D phase-space location and compute its closest passage to the GC (blue) and LMC center (red). The resulting distributions of closest passages are shown as histograms, with KDE approximations overplotted as grey/white c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mean ejection velocities of HVS from LMC* and Sgr A*. We show the individual ejection velocities as a his￾togram, and plot the sample mean and uncertainty on the sample mean as purple (LMC origin) and black (Galactic origin) gaussian curves. tion velocity” here, and throughout the paper, is the asymptotic velocity of the star as it escapes the SMBH’s sphere of influence. This is significantly lower than the star’s i… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Predicted on-sky overdensity of hypervelocity stars originating from a 6 × 105M⊙ supermassive black hole in the LMC. The black open circles denote the Galactic coordinates of hypervelocity stars detected in the HVS Survey, while the grey-shaded regions mark areas exclu…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: How hypervelocity stars make it into the HVS Survey. In the first panel, we show the LMC rest-frame velocities of stars ejected from a 6 × 105M⊙ black hole via the Hills mechanism. We only show stars that pass the HVS Survey color￾magnitude cuts, and the × marks the pr…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mock realizations of the HVS Survey dominated by different origins: the LMC SMBH (top right), the LMC disk runaways (bottom left), or the Galactic disk runaways (bottom right). The top left panel displays the actual HVS Survey stars, colored by their origin as classifi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Gray shaded region shows constraints on the ve￾locity at which HE 0437-5439 was ejected from the LMC (Erkal et al. 2019). Red region shows the predicted or￾bital velocity at Roche lobe overflow of a 9 M⊙ with ra￾dius 4 − 5 R⊙; this represents the maximum possible ejec￾…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: MCMC sampled posterior distribution of the SMBH model parameters. The marginalized posterior distribution of each parameter is plotted as a histogram, with MLMC* highlighted in red. We derive an LMC* mass of 105.8 +0.2 −0.4M⊙ (≃ 6×105M⊙. Both ka and tdelay are consiste…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Placing LMC* on the M − σ relation. In dashed lines we show two versions of the relation, one fitted to a large sample of galaxies (Kormendy & Ho 2013, light grey circles) and the other fitted specifically to low-mass SMBHs (Xiao et al. 2011, light grey ×-marks). We ad…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Counterculture Stars: Slow and Retrograde Stars with Low-Alpha Disk Abundances

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A sample of 69 stars with thin-disk-like abundances but slow or retrograde orbits is identified, with dynamical ejection from globular clusters emerging as the most common plausible origin.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    G., Navarro, J

    Abadi, M. G., Navarro, J. F., & Steinmetz, M. 2009, ApJL, 691, L63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/L63

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/2/l63 2009

  2. [2]

    2011, ApJS, 193, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/29

    Aihara, H., Allende Prieto, C., An, D., et al. 2011, ApJS, 193, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/29

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/29 2011

  3. [3]

    2017, ARA&A, 55, 17, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055306

    Alexander, T. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 17, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055306

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055306 2017

  4. [4]

    R., & Nelson, C

    Alves, D. R., & Nelson, C. A. 2000, ApJ, 542, 789, doi: 10.1086/317023

    doi:10.1086/317023 2000

  5. [5]

    B., Chandra, V., Shen, K

    Bauer, E. B., Chandra, V., Shen, K. J., & Hermes, J. J. 2021, ApJL, 923, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac432d

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac432d 2021

  6. [6]

    2007, ApJ, 668, 949, doi: 10.1086/521385

    Besla, G., Kallivayalil, N., Hernquist, L., et al. 2007, ApJ, 668, 949, doi: 10.1086/521385

    doi:10.1086/521385 2007

  7. [7]

    Z., L´ opez-Morales, M., Hunter, I., & Ryans, R

    Bonanos, A. Z., L´ opez-Morales, M., Hunter, I., & Ryans, R. S. I. 2008, ApJL, 675, L77, doi: 10.1086/533531

    work page doi:10.1086/533531 2008

  8. [8]

    2006, A&A, 460, 459, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054132

    Borissova, J., Minniti, D., Rejkuba, M., & Alves, D. 2006, A&A, 460, 459, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054132

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054132 2006

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    W., & Izzard, R

    Boubert, D., Erkal, D., Evans, N. W., & Izzard, R. G. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2151, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx848

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 2930, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2211

    Boubert, D., Erkal, D., & Gualandris, A. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2930, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2211

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Boubert, D., & Evans, N. W. 2016, ApJL, 825, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/825/1/L6

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    Bovy, J. 2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    P., et al

    Boyce, H., L¨ utzgendorf, N., van der Marel, R. P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa830c

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Kenyon, S

    Bromley, B. C., Kenyon, S. J., Brown, W. R., & Geller, M. J. 2009, ApJ, 706, 925, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/925

    2009 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Kenyon, S

    Bromley, B. C., Kenyon, S. J., Geller, M. J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 653, 1194, doi: 10.1086/508419

    2006 doi

  8. [16]

    C., Kenyon, S

    Bromley, B. C., Kenyon, S. J., Geller, M. J., & Brown, W. R. 2012, ApJL, 749, L42, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/749/2/L42

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    Brown, W. R. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 15, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122230

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    R., Anderson, J., Gnedin, O

    Brown, W. R., Anderson, J., Gnedin, O. Y., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/49

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    R., Cohen, J

    Brown, W. R., Cohen, J. G., Geller, M. J., & Kenyon, S. J. 2012a, ApJL, 754, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/754/1/L2 —. 2013, ApJ, 775, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/32

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    R., Geller, M

    Brown, W. R., Geller, M. J., & Kenyon, S. J. 2012b, ApJ, 751, 55, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/55 —. 2014, ApJ, 787, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/89

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    R., Geller, M

    Brown, W. R., Geller, M. J., Kenyon, S. J., & Bromley, B. C. 2009, ApJL, 690, L69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/L69

    2009 doi

  14. [22]

    R., Geller, M

    Brown, W. R., Geller, M. J., Kenyon, S. J., & Kurtz, M. J. 2005, ApJL, 622, L33, doi: 10.1086/429378 —. 2006, ApJ, 647, 303, doi: 10.1086/505165

    2005 doi

  15. [23]

    R., Lattanzi, M

    Brown, W. R., Lattanzi, M. G., Kenyon, S. J., & Geller, M. J. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadb8e Bystr¨ om, A., Koposov, S. E., Lilleengen, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.09149, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.09149

    2018 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    Cabrera, T., & Rodriguez, C. L. 2023, ApJ, 953, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdc22 16

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    P., Conroy, C., et al

    Chandra, V., Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.01676, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.01676

    2024 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    Chomiuk, L., & Povich, M. S. 2011, AJ, 142, 197, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/6/197

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    P., Garavito-Camargo, N., et al

    Conroy, C., Naidu, R. P., Garavito-Camargo, N., et al. 2021, Nature, 592, 534, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03385-7

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    2005, ApJL, 634, L181, doi: 10.1086/498940

    Reimers, D. 2005, ApJL, 634, L181, doi: 10.1086/498940

    2005 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Chandra, V., et al

    El-Badry, K., Shen, K. J., Chandra, V., et al. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 28, doi: 10.21105/astro.2306.03914

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 2007, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2674

    Antonini, F. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2007, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2674

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Renzo, M., & Rossi, E

    Evans, F. A., Renzo, M., & Rossi, E. M. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 5344, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2334

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    2000, ApJL, 539, L9, doi: 10.1086/312838

    Ferrarese, L., & Merritt, D. 2000, ApJL, 539, L9, doi: 10.1086/312838

    2000 doi

  27. [35]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021,...

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    Garavito-Camargo, N., Besla, G., Laporte, C. F. P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab32eb

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    2000, ApJL, 539, L13, doi: 10.1086/312840

    Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., Bower, G., et al. 2000, ApJL, 539, L13, doi: 10.1086/312840

    2000 doi

  30. [38]

    2015, Science, 347, 1126, doi: 10.1126/science.1259063

    Geier, S., F¨ urst, F., Ziegerer, E., et al. 2015, Science, 347, 1126, doi: 10.1126/science.1259063

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

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

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

    2010 doi

  32. [40]

    M., Salim, S., Weinberg, N

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

    2008 doi

  33. [41]

    K., Odenkirchen, M., & Chiosi, C

    Girardi, L., Grebel, E. K., Odenkirchen, M., & Chiosi, C. 2004, A&A, 422, 205, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040250

    2004 doi

  34. [42]

    E., Strader, J., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., Strader, J., & Ho, L. C. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 257, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    2007, MNRAS, 376, L29, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00280.x G¨ ultekin, K., Richstone, D

    Gualandris, A., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2007, MNRAS, 376, L29, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00280.x G¨ ultekin, K., Richstone, D. O., Gebhardt, K., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 698, 198, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/198

    2007

  36. [44]

    S., & Perets, H

    Hamers, A. S., & Perets, H. B. 2017, ApJ, 846, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7f29

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    2009, AJ, 138, 1243, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/5/1243

    Harris, J., & Zaritsky, D. 2009, AJ, 138, 1243, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/5/1243

    2009 doi

  38. [46]

    2019, ApJ, 873, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05c8

    Hattori, K., Valluri, M., Castro, N., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05c8

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    Hills, J. G. 1988, Nature, 331, 687, doi: 10.1038/331687a0

    1988 doi

  40. [48]

    A., Heber, U., O’Toole, S

    Hirsch, H. A., Heber, U., O’Toole, S. J., & Bresolin, F. 2005, A&A, 444, L61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200500212

    2005 doi

  41. [49]

    2018, A&A, 620, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833874

    Irrgang, A., Kreuzer, S., & Heber, U. 2018, A&A, 620, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833874

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    2009, A&A, 493, 1081, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810106

    Justham, S., Wolf, C., Podsiadlowski, P., & Han, Z. 2009, A&A, 493, 1081, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810106

    2009 doi

  43. [51]

    J., Bromley, B

    Kenyon, S. J., Bromley, B. C., Geller, M. J., & Brown, W. R. 2008, ApJ, 680, 312, doi: 10.1086/587738

    2008 doi

  44. [52]

    A., et al

    Kim, S., Staveley-Smith, L., Dopita, M. A., et al. 1998, ApJ, 503, 674, doi: 10.1086/306030

    1998 doi

  45. [53]

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

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

    2020, A&A, 637, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037747

    Kreuzer, S., Irrgang, A., & Heber, U. 2020, A&A, 637, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037747

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    Leonard, P. J. T. 1991, AJ, 101, 562, doi: 10.1086/115704

    1991 doi

  48. [56]

    P., & Shapiro, S

    Lightman, A. P., & Shapiro, S. L. 1977, ApJ, 211, 244, doi: 10.1086/154925

    1977 doi

  49. [57]

    2018, ApJS, 237, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aacb24

    Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2018, ApJS, 237, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aacb24

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    Linial, I., & Metzger, B. D. 2023, ApJ, 957, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf65b

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 6247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2203

    Lu, W., & Quataert, E. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 6247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2203

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    2010, ApJ, 709, 1356, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/1356

    Lu, Y., Zhang, F., & Yu, Q. 2010, ApJ, 709, 1356, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/1356

    2010 doi

  53. [61]

    1998, AJ, 115, 2285, doi: 10.1086/300353

    Magorrian, J., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285, doi: 10.1086/300353

    1998 doi

  54. [62]

    Mahalanobis, P. C. 2018, Sankhya A, 80, 1, doi: 10.1007/s13171-019-00164-5

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    2008, A&A, 482, 883, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078467

    Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 482, 883, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078467

    2008 doi

  56. [64]

    2003, Science, 301, 1508, doi: 10.1126/science.1088529

    Minniti, D., Borissova, J., Rejkuba, M., et al. 2003, Science, 301, 1508, doi: 10.1126/science.1088529

    2003 doi

  57. [65]

    L., Price-Whelan, A

    Nidever, D. L., Price-Whelan, A. M., Choi, Y., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab52fc

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    B., & ˇSubr, L

    Perets, H. B., & ˇSubr, L. 2012, ApJ, 751, 133, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/133

    2012 doi

  59. [67]

    2011, A&A, 535, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117474

    Piffl, T., Williams, M., & Steinmetz, M. 2011, A&A, 535, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117474

    2011 doi

  60. [68]

    Price-Whelan, A. M. 2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 388, doi: 10.21105/joss.00388

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    M., Nidever, D

    Price-Whelan, A. M., Nidever, D. L., Choi, Y., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4bdd 17

    2019 doi

  62. [70]

    F., Heber, U., et al

    Przybilla, N., Nieva, M. F., Heber, U., et al. 2008, A&A, 480, L37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809391

    2008 doi

  63. [71]

    E., et al

    Renzo, M., Zapartas, E., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833297

    2019 doi

  64. [72]

    M., Kobayashi, S., & Sari, R

    Rossi, E. M., Kobayashi, S., & Sari, R. 2014, ApJ, 795, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/125

    2014 doi

  65. [73]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161, doi: 10.1086/145971

    1955 doi

  66. [74]

    Sari, R., Kobayashi, S., & Rossi, E. M. 2010, ApJ, 708, 605, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/605

    2010 doi

  67. [75]

    2006, ApJ, 651, 392, doi: 10.1086/507596 —

    Sesana, A., Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2006, ApJ, 651, 392, doi: 10.1086/507596 —. 2008, ApJ, 686, 432, doi: 10.1086/590651

    2006 doi

  68. [76]

    J., Boubert, D., G¨ ansicke, B

    Shen, K. J., Boubert, D., G¨ ansicke, B. T., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad55b

    2018 doi

  69. [77]

    Tauris, T. M. 2015, MNRAS, 448, L6, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu189 van der Marel, R. P., & Kallivayalil, N. 2014, ApJ, 781, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/121

    2015 doi

  70. [78]

    M., Koposov, S

    Verberne, S., Rossi, E. M., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2747, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1888

    2024 doi

  71. [79]

    2018, NewA, 61, 95, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2017.12.004

    Wang, X., & Loeb, A. 2018, NewA, 61, 95, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2017.12.004

    2018 doi

  72. [80]

    J., Greene, J

    Xiao, T., Barth, A. J., Greene, J. E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/28

    2011 doi

  73. [81]

    A., & Gualandris, A

    Zubovas, K., Wynn, G. A., & Gualandris, A. 2013, ApJ, 771, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/118

    2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.