pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.05492 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · gr-qc

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Remnant recoil and host environments of GWTC-4.0 binary black-hole mergers

Joan Llobera-Querol , Eleanor Hamilton , Neha Singh , Marta Colleoni , Felip A. Ramis Vidal , Abbas Askar , Tomasz Bulik , Aleksandra Olejak
show 3 more authors
Sascha Husa Yumeng Xu Jorge Valencia
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE gr-qc
keywords binary black holesgravitational wavesdynamical formationrecoil velocitiesglobular clustersnuclear star clustershierarchical mergersGWTC-4.0
0
0 comments X

The pith

Merger remnants from five recent binary black-hole events are likely ejected from globular clusters, limiting repeated mergers there while leaving nuclear star clusters as viable sites.

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

The paper compares parameter estimates from 87 gravitational-wave binary black-hole events to synthetic populations of field binaries and cluster binaries. Bayes factors that incorporate the local relative abundance of each channel are used to flag which events favor dynamical formation. Recoil velocities are then computed for every event from the IMRPhenomXPNR waveform, which includes higher multipole asymmetries. The resulting kick distributions are compared with escape speeds of globular clusters and nuclear star clusters to assess retention. This matters because retention or ejection directly controls whether black holes can grow through repeated mergers in each environment.

Core claim

We identified five events showing preference for a dynamical origin, including the most massive O4a event GW231123_135430, while excluding the high-spinning O4b event GW241011_233834. Typical recoil velocities of analyzed events are of order a few hundred km/s, with extended high-velocity tails. These kicks suggest that merger remnants are likely ejected from typical globular clusters, while retention in nuclear star clusters remains possible but not guaranteed. Our results disfavour efficient hierarchical growth in globular clusters, whereas nuclear star clusters remain viable environments for repeated mergers.

What carries the argument

Bayes-factor comparison of event posteriors against synthetic field and cluster population models, combined with recoil-velocity posteriors derived from the IMRPhenomXPNR waveform that includes multipole asymmetries.

If this is right

  • Five events, including GW231123_135430, are more consistent with dynamical formation than with isolated-field formation.
  • Merger remnants typically receive kicks of a few hundred km/s that exceed escape velocities of most globular clusters.
  • Nuclear star clusters can retain a non-negligible fraction of remnants, allowing repeated mergers.
  • Efficient hierarchical growth is disfavoured inside globular clusters.
  • The classification and retention results are sensitive to the choice and completeness of the population models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Improved or larger population models could reclassify additional events and alter the inferred retention fractions.
  • If nuclear star clusters prove to retain remnants at higher rates, they become the more plausible sites for building intermediate-mass black holes through successive mergers.
  • Future detectors that deliver higher-precision spins and masses will tighten the Bayes-factor distinctions between channels.
  • The high-velocity tails imply that even dense environments experience occasional ejections, so hierarchical growth is never guaranteed.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis depends on the specific astrophysical population models adopted for field and cluster binaries and on the assumed relative abundances of those channels in the local universe.

What would settle it

New population models that reverse the Bayes-factor preference for the five flagged events, or that produce recoil distributions dominated by velocities below typical globular-cluster escape speeds, would falsify the dynamical-origin assignments and the ejection conclusions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05492 by Abbas Askar, Aleksandra Olejak, Eleanor Hamilton, Felip A. Ramis Vidal, Joan Llobera-Querol, Jorge Valencia, Marta Colleoni, Neha Singh, Sascha Husa, Tomasz Bulik, Yumeng Xu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Merger time distribution of field binaries for popula [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Merger time distribution for GC catalogs. Only the bi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Mass distribution of binaries in the Z = 2 · 10−4 clusters. The left panel includes the 4333 binaries in the catalog with that value of Z and the right panel includes only the 460 that are selected. The pruning due to imposing the z ≤ 1.5 redshift cut is significant, specially at higher masses. Generation Z = 2 · 10−4 Z = 2 · 10−3 Z = 2 · 10−2 Inside cluster 55+63 −32 km s−1 51+59 −30 km s−1 57+43 −34 km s… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Population distributions are shown, both as two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Population distribution for the subspace [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: log10 Bc/f for all 87 events and the parameters x = (M, q). Events are sorted in chronological order and split over 3 panels. Pairs of populations with metallicities Z = 2 · 10−4 , Z = 2 · 10−3 , and Z = 2 · 10−2 are indicated by triangle, square and circle markers, respectively. When a Bayes factor is above the threshold in Eq. (14), the corresponding point is colored in red. When a cluster population has… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: log10 Bc/f for all 87 events and the parameters x = (M, χeff). Further details can be found in the caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: log10 Bc/f for all 87 events and the parameters x = (q, χeff). Further details can be found in the caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Population distribution of the medians and 90% symmetric credible intervals of the marginalized 1D distributions, for all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distribution for the recoil velocity of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Kick distributions for all analyzed events. On top of the distribution, the red line indicates the median value of the distribu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Cumulative distribution functions for the kick magni [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Determining the astrophysical origin of binary black holes and whether merger remnants are retained in their birth environments is essential for understanding hierarchical mergers and the growth of intermediate-mass black holes. We identified the gravitational-wave (GW) events most consistent with dynamical formation and assessed whether their merger remnants are retained in globular clusters, nuclear star clusters, or galactic potentials. We considered the 84 events consistent with binary-black-hole (BBH) mergers from the first part of the fourth observing run (O4a) of the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA (LVK) GW detector network, and 3 selected events from the second part (O4b). We compared parameter-estimation posteriors with synthetic population models for field and cluster binaries using Bayes factors, accounting for the relative abundances of these formation channels in the local Universe. We computed recoil-velocity posteriors for all events using the IMRPhenomXPNR waveform model, which incorporates multipole asymmetries. We identified five events showing preference for a dynamical origin, including the most massive O4a event GW231123_135430, while excluding the high-spinning O4b event GW241011_233834. Typical recoil velocities of analyzed events are of order a few hundred km/s, with extended high-velocity tails. These kicks suggest that merger remnants are likely ejected from typical globular clusters, while retention in nuclear star clusters remains possible but not guaranteed. Our results disfavour efficient hierarchical growth in globular clusters, whereas nuclear star clusters remain viable environments for repeated mergers. Although results depend on the adopted astrophysical population models, this analysis highlights the importance of improved and larger population models, as well as higher-quality detections enabled by future developments in GW detectors.

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. This manuscript analyzes 87 binary black hole merger events from GWTC-4.0 (84 from O4a plus 3 selected O4b events). It compares their LVK parameter-estimation posteriors to synthetic field and cluster population models via Bayes factors (incorporating a prior on relative channel abundances in the local Universe) to classify formation channels, identifies five events (including GW231123_135430) with preference for dynamical origin while excluding GW241011_233834, computes recoil-velocity posteriors for all events with the IMRPhenomXPNR waveform model, and concludes that typical kicks of a few hundred km/s eject remnants from typical globular clusters while permitting possible retention in nuclear star clusters, thereby disfavouring efficient hierarchical growth in GCs but leaving NSCs viable.

Significance. If the population-model dependence can be shown to be robust, the work supplies useful observational constraints on BBH formation channels and post-merger retention in different environments, with implications for hierarchical merger scenarios and intermediate-mass black hole growth. The choice of IMRPhenomXPNR for recoil estimates (accounting for multipole asymmetries) is a methodological strength that improves upon simpler kick prescriptions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods section: the synthetic population models for field and cluster binaries (mass/spin distributions and the specific prior or fixed value for their relative abundance ratio) are not described in sufficient detail, nor are robustness checks against variations in these assumptions provided. Because the Bayes factors that classify events as dynamical (e.g., the inclusion of GW231123_135430 and exclusion of GW241011_233834) are sensitive to the high-mass and high-spin tails of the cluster model, as the abstract itself acknowledges, the five-event dynamical sample and all downstream recoil statistics rest on an incompletely specified foundation.
  2. [Results] Results section: the claim that the recoil velocities 'disfavour efficient hierarchical growth in globular clusters' is load-bearing for the central interpretation, yet it is supported only by the statement that typical kicks are 'a few hundred km/s with extended high-velocity tails.' No quantitative comparison to GC escape-velocity distributions or retention fractions is shown, so the strength of the disfavouring cannot be evaluated independently of the model-dependent event selection.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the selection criteria for the three O4b events are not stated, which is needed for context even in the abstract.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions: several panels comparing posteriors or recoil distributions would benefit from explicit listing of the events shown and clarification of line styles or color coding for field versus cluster models.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and rigor of the presentation. We address the two major comments point by point below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional details and quantitative comparisons as suggested.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: the synthetic population models for field and cluster binaries (mass/spin distributions and the specific prior or fixed value for their relative abundance ratio) are not described in sufficient detail, nor are robustness checks against variations in these assumptions provided. Because the Bayes factors that classify events as dynamical (e.g., the inclusion of GW231123_135430 and exclusion of GW241011_233834) are sensitive to the high-mass and high-spin tails of the cluster model, as the abstract itself acknowledges, the five-event dynamical sample and all downstream recoil statistics rest on an incompletely specified foundation.

    Authors: We agree that the Methods section requires a more explicit description of the population models to enable independent evaluation of the Bayes factor results. In the revised manuscript we have expanded the relevant subsection to provide the precise functional forms and parameter values for the mass and spin distributions of both the field and cluster synthetic populations, together with the specific prior (or fixed value) adopted for the relative channel abundance ratio in the local Universe. We have also added a dedicated robustness subsection that varies the high-mass cutoff and the spin distribution tails of the cluster model over ranges consistent with current astrophysical uncertainties and recomputes the Bayes factors for the events in question. These checks show that the dynamical preference for the five events (including GW231123_135430) and the exclusion of GW241011_233834 remain stable, although we retain the caveat already stated in the abstract regarding sensitivity to the high-mass and high-spin tails. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results section: the claim that the recoil velocities 'disfavour efficient hierarchical growth in globular clusters' is load-bearing for the central interpretation, yet it is supported only by the statement that typical kicks are 'a few hundred km/s with extended high-velocity tails.' No quantitative comparison to GC escape-velocity distributions or retention fractions is shown, so the strength of the disfavouring cannot be evaluated independently of the model-dependent event selection.

    Authors: We accept that the interpretation would be strengthened by an explicit quantitative comparison between the recoil-velocity posteriors and the escape-velocity distributions of the relevant environments. Although the original manuscript reports the typical recoil values and the presence of high-velocity tails, it does not include a direct integration against escape-velocity distributions or retention fractions. In the revised Results section we now provide this comparison, using representative escape-velocity ranges drawn from the literature for globular clusters (approximately 10–100 km s⁻¹) and nuclear star clusters (typically several hundred km s⁻¹ or higher). We report the posterior probability of retention (i.e., the fraction of each event’s recoil posterior lying below the escape velocity) for both classes of cluster, thereby quantifying the low retention probability in typical globular clusters and the comparatively higher (though still not guaranteed) retention probability in nuclear star clusters. This addition supplies the independent quantitative support requested while remaining tied to the model-dependent event selection already discussed. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: recoil and channel classification use external waveform model and synthetic populations

full rationale

The derivation computes recoil-velocity posteriors directly from the external IMRPhenomXPNR waveform applied to LVK parameter-estimation posteriors, then obtains formation-channel preferences via Bayes-factor comparison against independent synthetic field and cluster population models whose relative abundances are taken as external inputs. No step equates a claimed prediction to a quantity defined or fitted by the paper itself, no load-bearing self-citation chain appears, and the abstract explicitly flags dependence on the adopted population models rather than smuggling an ansatz or uniqueness theorem. The central claims therefore remain independent of the paper's own fitted quantities and are self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the ledger is necessarily incomplete; the analysis depends on external population-synthesis models whose internal parameters are not extractable here.

free parameters (1)
  • relative abundances of field versus cluster binaries
    Used to weight the Bayes-factor comparison between formation channels.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption IMRPhenomXPNR waveform model accurately incorporates multipole asymmetries for recoil-velocity computation
    Invoked explicitly for computing recoil-velocity posteriors from parameter-estimation samples.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5660 in / 1396 out tokens · 40929 ms · 2026-05-10T19:46:09.901515+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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

129 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Aasi, J. et al. 2015, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 074001

    2015

  2. [2]

    Abac, A. G. et al. 2025d [arXiv:2508.18080]

    work page arXiv

  3. [3]

    Abac, A. G. et al. 2025e [arXiv:2508.18081]

    work page arXiv

  4. [4]

    Abac, A. G. et al. 2025f [arXiv:2508.18083]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [5]

    Abac, A. G. et al. 2025g [arXiv:2508.18082]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [6]

    Abac, A. G. et al. 2025h [arXiv:2508.18079]

    work page arXiv

  7. [7]

    Abbott, R. et al. 2020, Astrophys. J. Lett., 900, L13

    2020

  8. [8]

    Acernese, F. et al. 2015, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 024001

    2015

  9. [9]

    Aghanim, N. et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6, [Erratum: As- tron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    2020

  10. [10]

    Ajith, P. et al. 2011, Phys. Rev. Lett., 106, 241101

    2011

  11. [11]

    Akutsu, T. et al. 2021, PTEP, 2021, 05A101 Álvarez, C. A., Wong, H. W. Y ., Liu, A., & Calderón Bustillo, J. 2024, Astrophys. J., 977, 220

    2021

  12. [12]

    2022, Astrophys

    Anagnostou, O., Trenti, M., & Melatos, A. 2022, Astrophys. J., 941, 4

    2022

  13. [13]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 5008

    Antonini, F., Gieles, M., & Gualandris, A. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5008

    2019

  14. [14]

    & Rasio, F

    Antonini, F. & Rasio, F. A. 2016, Astrophys. J., 831, 187

    2016

  15. [15]

    Antonini, F., Toonen, S., & Hamers, A. S. 2017, Astrophys. J., 841, 77

    2017

  16. [16]

    A., Cutler, C., Sussman, G

    Apostolatos, T. A., Cutler, C., Sussman, G. J., & Thorne, K. S. 1994, Phys. Rev. D, 49, 6274

    1994

  17. [17]

    G., Buonanno, A., Faye, G., & Ochsner, E

    Arun, K. G., Buonanno, A., Faye, G., & Ochsner, E. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 104023, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 84, 049901 (2011)]

    2009

  18. [18]

    Ashton, G. et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 241, 27

    2019

  19. [19]

    F., Mezcua M., 2024, Intermediate-Mass Black Holes in Star Clusters and Dwarf Galaxies ( @eprint arXiv 2311.12118 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.12118

    Askar, A., Baldassare, V . F., & Mezcua, M. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.12118

    work page arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    2017, Mon

    Askar, A., Szkudlarek, M., Gondek-Rosi´nska, D., Giersz, M., & Bulik, T. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 464, L36

    2017

  21. [21]

    2013, Phys

    Baird, E., Fairhurst, S., Hannam, M., & Murphy, P. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 87, 024035

    2013

  22. [22]

    G., Centrella, J., Choi, D.-I., et al

    Baker, J. G., Centrella, J., Choi, D.-I., et al. 2006, Astrophys. J. Lett., 653, L93

    2006

  23. [23]

    Banagiri, S., Thrane, E., & Lasky, P. D. 2025 [arXiv:2509.15646]

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    & Olejak, A

    Banerjee, S. & Olejak, A. 2024 [arXiv:2411.15112]

    work page arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    & Rezzolla, L

    Barausse, E. & Rezzolla, L. 2009, Astrophys. J. Lett., 704, L40

    2009

  26. [26]

    & Lardo, C

    Bastian, N. & Lardo, C. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 83

    2018

  27. [27]

    & Hilker, M

    Baumgardt, H. & Hilker, M. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1520

    2018

  28. [28]

    2020, PASA, 37, e046

    Baumgardt, H., Sollima, A., & Hilker, M. 2020, PASA, 37, e046

    2020

  29. [29]

    S., Fragos, T., Qin, Y ., et al

    Bavera, S. S., Fragos, T., Qin, Y ., et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 635, A97

    2020

  30. [30]

    Bekenstein, J. D. 1973, Astrophys. J., 183, 657

    1973

  31. [31]

    2020, ApJ, 905, L15

    Belczynski, K. 2020, ApJ, 905, L15

    2020

  32. [32]

    L., et al

    Belczynski, K., Bulik, T., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 1217

    2010

  33. [33]

    2016, A&A, 594, A97

    Belczynski, K., Heger, A., Gladysz, W., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A97

    2016

  34. [34]

    2002, ApJ, 572, 407

    Belczynski, K., Kalogera, V ., & Bulik, T. 2002, ApJ, 572, 407

    2002

  35. [35]

    A., et al

    Belczynski, K., Kalogera, V ., Rasio, F. A., et al. 2008, ApJS, 174, 223

    2008

  36. [36]

    Belczynski, K. et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 636, A104

    2020

  37. [37]

    2021, Phys

    Biscoveanu, S., Isi, M., Varma, V ., & Vitale, S. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 103018

    2021

  38. [38]

    2024, Phys

    Borchers, A., Ohme, F., Mielke, J., & Ghosh, S. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 024037

    2024

  39. [39]

    2025, scri

    Boyle, M., Iozzo, D., Stein, L., et al. 2025, scri

    2025

  40. [40]

    Boyle, L

    Boyle, M., Kidder, L. E., Ossokine, S., & Pfeiffer, H. P. 2014 [arXiv:1409.4431]

    work page arXiv 2014

  41. [41]

    Boyle, M., Owen, R., & Pfeiffer, H. P. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 84, 124011 Article number, page 16 J. Llobera-Querol et al.: Remnant recoil and host environments of GWTC-4.0 binary black-hole mergers

    2011

  42. [42]

    Breivik, K. et al. 2020, Astrophys. J., 898, 71 Brügmann, B., Gonzalez, J. A., Hannam, M., Husa, S., & Sperhake, U. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 124047

    2020

  43. [43]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 167

    Collaboration, A. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167

    2022

  44. [44]

    S., Collaboration, V ., & Collaboration, K

    Collaboration, L. S., Collaboration, V ., & Collaboration, K. 2025, GWTC-4.0: Parameter estimation data release

    2025

  45. [45]

    Colleoni, M., Vidal, F. A. R., García-Quirós, C., Akçay, S., & Bera, S. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 104019

    2025

  46. [46]

    Colloms, S., Berry, C. P. L., Veitch, J., & Zevin, M. 2025, in 24th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation (GR24) and 16th Edoardo Amaldi Conference on Gravitational (Amaldi16) Waves

    2025

  47. [47]

    Doctor, Z., Farr, B., & Holz, D. E. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 914, L18

    2021

  48. [48]

    Estell ´es, A

    El-Badry, K., Quataert, E., Weisz, D. R., Choksi, N., & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4528 Estellés, H., Buonanno, A., Enficiaud, R., Foo, C., & Pompili, L. 2025 [arXiv:2506.19911] Estellés, H., Colleoni, M., García-Quirós, C., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 084040

    work page arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    The steep redshift evolution of the hierarchical binary black hole merger rate may cause the $z$-$\chi_{\rm eff}$ correlation

    Farah, A. M., Vijaykumar, A., & Fishbach, M. 2026 [arXiv:2601.03456]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    & Silk, J

    Fragione, G. & Silk, J. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4591

    2020

  51. [51]

    L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al

    Fryer, C. L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 91

    2012

  52. [52]

    L., Olejak, A., & Belczynski, K

    Fryer, C. L., Olejak, A., & Belczynski, K. 2022, ApJ, 931, 94

    2022

  53. [53]

    Fuller, J. & Ma, L. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 881, L1 García-Quirós, C., Colleoni, M., Husa, S., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 064002

    2019

  54. [54]

    & Berti, E

    Gerosa, D. & Berti, E. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 041301

    2019

  55. [55]

    & Fishbach, M

    Gerosa, D. & Fishbach, M. 2021, Nature Astron., 5, 749

    2021

  56. [56]

    2020, Phys

    Gerosa, D., Vitale, S., & Berti, E. 2020, Phys. Rev. Lett., 125, 101103

    2020

  57. [57]

    2024, Phys

    Ghosh, S., Kolitsidou, P., & Hannam, M. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 024061

    2024

  58. [58]

    Y ., Zhao, H., Pringle, J

    Gnedin, O. Y ., Zhao, H., Pringle, J. E., et al. 2002, ApJ, 568, L23

    2002

  59. [59]

    A., Sperhake, U., Brügmann, B., Hannam, M., & Husa, S

    Gonzalez, J. A., Sperhake, U., Brügmann, B., Hannam, M., & Husa, S. 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett., 98, 091101

    2007

  60. [60]

    2019, A&A Rev., 27, 8

    Gratton, R., Bragaglia, A., Carretta, E., et al. 2019, A&A Rev., 27, 8

    2019

  61. [61]

    Hamers, A. S. & Safarzadeh, M. 2020, Astrophys. J., 898, 99

    2020

  62. [62]

    E., et al

    Hamilton, E., London, L., Thompson, J. E., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 124027

    2021

  63. [63]

    Hamilton, E. et al. 2025 [arXiv:2507.02604]

    work page arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    & Lousto, C

    Healy, J. & Lousto, C. O. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 97, 084002

    2018

  65. [65]

    O., & Zlochower, Y

    Healy, J., Lousto, C. O., & Zlochower, Y . 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 90, 104004

    2014

  66. [66]

    1980, General Relativity and Gravitation: One Hundred Years After the Birth of Albert Einstein

    Held, A., ed. 1980, General Relativity and Gravitation: One Hundred Years After the Birth of Albert Einstein. V olume 2 (Plenum)

    1980

  67. [67]

    2018, Mon

    Hong, J., Vesperini, E., Askar, A., et al. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 480, 5645, [Erratum: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 491, 5793 (2020)]

    2018

  68. [68]

    R., Pols, O

    Hurley, J. R., Pols, O. R., & Tout, C. A. 2000, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 315, 543

    2000

  69. [69]

    R., Tout, C

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 329, 897

    2002

  70. [70]

    E., & Khanna, G

    Islam, T., Field, S. E., & Khanna, G. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 064048

    2023

  71. [71]

    Accurate models for recoil velocity distribution in black hole mergers with comparable to extreme mass-ratios and their astrophysical implications

    Islam, T. & Wadekar, D. 2025 [arXiv:2511.11536]

    work page arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    S., Rui, N

    Kremer, K., Ye, C. S., Rui, N. Z., et al. 2020, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 247, 48

    2020

  73. [73]

    2001, Mon

    Kroupa, P. 2001, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 322, 231

    2001

  74. [74]

    2022, Astron

    Li, G.-P. 2022, Astron. Astrophys., 666, A194

    2022

  75. [75]

    & Fan, X.-L

    Li, G.-P. & Fan, X.-L. 2025a [arXiv:2512.20965]

    work page arXiv

  76. [76]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.08298, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2509.08298

    Li, G.-P. & Fan, X.-L. 2025b [arXiv:2509.08298]

    work page arXiv

  77. [77]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.17551, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2507.17551

    Li, Y .-J., Tang, S.-P., Xue, L.-Q., & Fan, Y .-Z. 2025 [arXiv:2507.17551] LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, & KAGRA Collaboration. 2018, LVK Algorithm Library - LALSuite, Free software (GPL) LIGO Scientific Collaboration, VIRGO Collaboration, K. C. 2025 [arXiv:2509.07348]

    work page arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    & Lai, D

    Liu, B. & Lai, D. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 502, 2049

    2021

  79. [79]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.13820, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2511.13820

    Liu, B. & Lai, D. 2025 [arXiv:2511.13820]

    work page arXiv 2025

  80. [80]

    Lousto, C. O. & Healy, J. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 104039

    2019

Showing first 80 references.