pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.18350 · v1 · pith:DNHYLZHNnew · submitted 2026-06-16 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.SR

A Long Period Stellar-Mass Black Hole Binary in ω Centauri

Matthew Whitaker (1) , Evan Kerr (1) , Anil Seth (1) , Maximilian H\"aberle (2) , Jay Strader (3) , Jay Anderson (4) , Andrea Bellini (4) , Callie Clontz (5)
show 23 more authors
Zack Freeman (1) Massimo Griggio (4) Sebastian Kamann (6) Mattia Libralato (7) Nadine Neumayer (5) Elena Gonz\'alez Prieto (8 9) Carl L. Rodriguez (10) Sara Saracino (11) Peter Smith (5) Glenn van de Ven (12) Zixian Wang (1) ((1) University of Utah (2) European Southern Observatory (3) Michigan State University (4) Space Telescope Science Institute (5) Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astronomie (6) Liverpool John Moores University (7) INAF-Padova (8) Northwestern University (9) Center for Interdisciplinary Exploration & Research in Astrophysics (10) University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (11) Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri (12) University of Vienna)
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 23:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR
keywords black hole binaryglobular clusterastrometryomega centauristellar mass black holedynamical formationperiastron orbit
0
0 comments X

The pith

A 4.5 solar mass black hole in ω Centauri forms a 94-year binary with a main-sequence star.

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

The paper presents the first astrometric detection of a stellar-mass black hole in a globular cluster, identified through the orbital motion of its main-sequence companion in ω Centauri. Over 23 years of Hubble and JWST imaging, the authors track the companion near periastron and fit a partial orbit with period 94 years, semi-major axis 31 AU, and eccentricity 0.72. Kepler's third law applied to these parameters, combined with an assumed companion mass, yields a black hole mass of 4.46 solar masses. This detection shows that low-mass black holes can form at the cluster's low metallicity and that the binary is soft and dynamically assembled, with a disruption time around 800 million years. The result implies that current surveys miss most of the parameter space where similar systems would appear.

Core claim

Multi-epoch astrometry spanning 23 years reveals the orbital motion of a main-sequence turnoff star around an unseen companion. The fitted elements are a period of 94 years, semi-major axis 31 AU, and eccentricity 0.72. With the companion mass estimated from photometry and cluster properties, Kepler's third law applied to the observed partial orbit near periastron gives a black hole mass of 4.46 solar masses. The system is the longest-period black hole binary known and the first stellar-mass black hole found astrometrically in any globular cluster.

What carries the argument

The partial astrometric orbit fitted to the luminous companion's positions near periastron, which supplies the period and angular semi-major axis needed to solve for the black hole mass once the companion mass is supplied.

If this is right

  • The binary is soft and expected to disrupt on a timescale of roughly 800 million years.
  • Low-mass black holes form at metallicities below 10 to the minus 3.
  • Existing surveys cover only a small fraction of the relevant parameter space, so additional detectable black hole binaries are likely present in the cluster.
  • The system must have formed through dynamical interactions rather than isolated stellar evolution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This single detection supports the idea from simulations that stellar-mass black holes play a major role in globular cluster dynamics.
  • Extending the time baseline by another decade would allow a full orbit solution and a mass ratio measurement independent of the companion mass assumption.
  • Targeted astrometric searches in other massive clusters could uncover similar long-period systems that have so far been missed.

Load-bearing premise

The mass of the visible main-sequence turnoff star is estimated from its photometry together with the cluster's known age and metallicity, and this mass is required to turn the observed angular orbit into physical masses via Kepler's third law.

What would settle it

An independent mass for the visible star from spectroscopy or radial-velocity data that differs enough from the photometric estimate to shift the black hole mass outside the reported 3.45-5.68 solar mass range.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.18350 by (10) University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, (11) Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri, (12) University of Vienna), (2) European Southern Observatory, (3) Michigan State University, (4) Space Telescope Science Institute, (5) Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astronomie, (6) Liverpool John Moores University, (7) INAF-Padova, (8) Northwestern University, 9), (9) Center for Interdisciplinary Exploration & Research in Astrophysics, Andrea Bellini (4), Anil Seth (1), Callie Clontz (5), Carl L. Rodriguez (10), Elena Gonz\'alez Prieto (8, Evan Kerr (1), Glenn van de Ven (12), Jay Anderson (4), Jay Strader (3), Massimo Griggio (4), Matthew Whitaker (1), Mattia Libralato (7), Maximilian H\"aberle (2), Nadine Neumayer (5), Peter Smith (5), Sara Saracino (11), Sebastian Kamann (6), Zack Freeman (1), Zixian Wang (1) ((1) University of Utah.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Stacked HST composite image of ω Cen. Left – Location of the visible star relative to the cluster center (J. Anderson & R. P. van der Marel 2010; M. H¨aberle et al. 2024b) Right – A closer view of the visible star and its neighbors, including a bright horizontal branch star ∼1 ′′ to the northwest. Image Credit: ESA/Hubble, NASA, Maximilian H¨aberle (MPIA) 2.2. MUSE Spectroscopy The visible star has 31 3x15… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Visible star properties. Left – Extinction corrected color-magnitude diagram combining photometry from M. H¨aberle et al. (2024a) and spectroscopic metallicities from M. S. Nitschai et al. (2023). Based on its position in the CMD, it is a turnoff star with [M/H] = –1.75±0.25. Right – MUSE spectra of the visible star (red) vs. other stars with similar color (blue). The blue line and shaded regions show the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Visible star astrometry. Stellar positions mea￾sured by HST ACS/WFC (squares), WFC3/UVIS (circles) and JWST NIRCam (triangles). Color indicates the date of observation. The size of each marker is inversely proportional to the measurement’s uncertainty. Open markers indicate epochs which were removed due to short (< 5s) exposure time, potential contamination from overlapping diffraction spikes from a neighb… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Best fit orbital model. Left - Our median model (purple line) shown compared to the data after subtracting out the derived proper motion. The marker shape and color corresponds to the instrument used for measurement, and the gray points represent 3σ outliers from the median fit. Right - Our median orbital model plotted with the on-sky data in the proper motion subtracted frame colored by observation date; … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Degeneracies corner plot. Corner plot showing the degeneracies between Period (P), semi-major axis (avis), and the declination proper motion. The cutout in the top right shows the degeneracy between the companion mass and the declination proper motion (µDec). The contours on the avis versus P subplot represent a constant mass corresponding to Mcomp, showing the spine of the ellipse closely follows along th… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Companion mass. A histogram showing the pos￾terior distribution of the unseen companion mass and its ker￾nel density estimate. These mass samples are derived from samples drawn from from the avis and P joint posterior dis￾tribution. The primary difference in these estimates comes from our more complete dataset, spanning from 2002 to 2025. The HST data we used includes both ACS/WFC and UVIS/WFC3 images in a… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Detection Fraction. The fraction of orbits similar to our posterior samples detected with varying times of pe￾riastron passage (see Section 4.4). For comparison, we show the fraction of the total orbital period covered by the tem￾poral baseline of all our HST observations (20.6 yrs) and the F606W UVIS observations only (13.5 yrs); these were the primary data used to do initial detections. in the cluster. I… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Black Hole Binary Summary. A comparison of dynamically detected black hole–star binaries and oMEGACat BH-2. For oMEGACat BH-2, besides the median fit (red star), we show the representative orbits from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Future model constraints. Orbital fits corre￾sponding to the median and the ± 1 σ and ± 2σ for the joint 2D probability distribution of avis and P as given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Modern simulations of stellar dynamics in globular clusters peg a dominant role for stellar-mass black holes, but direct evidence for black holes in clusters remains limited. We present the discovery of an astrometric stellar-mass black hole--main sequence star binary in $\omega$ Centauri, the most massive Galactic globular cluster, using Hubble Space Telescope data from the oMEGACat project and additional JWST data that span a total of 23 years. The luminous companion to the black hole is a main-sequence turnoff star, and has a period of $94^{+63}_{-42}$ years, a semi-major axis of $31^{+15}_{-12}$ AU, and an eccentricity of $e=0.72^{+0.08}_{-0.13}$. Since we observe the binary during periastron, the mass of the black hole is well-constrained even though we only observe a partial orbit: the inferred black hole mass is $4.46^{+1.22}_{-1.01}$ M$_\odot$. We call this black hole oMEGACat BH-2. This is the first astrometric discovery of a stellar-mass black hole in a globular cluster, and is the longest period black hole binary system yet discovered. The low mass of this black hole is perhaps surprising given the low metallicity of the cluster, and shows that at least some low-mass black holes form at metallicity $Z<10^{-3}$. We find that the binary is almost certainly dynamically formed and is soft, with an expected binary disruption timescale of $\sim$800 Myr. While the total number of black hole binaries in $\omega$ Centauri is uncertain, we show that existing surveys only cover a small area of parameter space, and that the presence of additional detectable black hole binaries is likely.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports the astrometric discovery of a long-period (P = 94^{+63}_{-42} yr) binary in ω Centauri consisting of a main-sequence turnoff star and an unseen companion interpreted as a stellar-mass black hole of mass 4.46^{+1.22}_{-1.01} M_⊙. The orbit is only partially observed over a 23-year HST+JWST baseline near periastron, with fitted a = 31^{+15}_{-12} AU and e = 0.72^{+0.08}_{-0.13}; the BH mass follows from Kepler's third law once the visible star's mass is adopted from photometry plus the cluster's age and metallicity. The system is argued to be dynamically formed, soft, and the first such astrometric BH detection in a globular cluster.

Significance. If the mass and orbital solution hold, the result supplies direct evidence for stellar-mass black holes in globular clusters, supports dynamical-formation channels, and demonstrates that low-mass BHs can form at Z < 10^{-3}. The 23-year multi-facility astrometric baseline and the emphasis on periastron coverage are methodological strengths; the work also usefully flags the limited parameter space covered by existing surveys.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / mass derivation] Abstract and the mass-inference paragraph: the quoted BH mass and uncertainties are obtained only after adopting an external value for the visible companion mass from isochrone fitting (photometry + cluster age/metallicity). This assumption enters directly into the total-mass term of Kepler's third law and rescales M_BH through the mass ratio; no sensitivity analysis or systematic error budget for the isochrone mass is provided, making it a load-bearing step for the central numerical claim.
  2. [Abstract] The statement that the BH mass is 'well-constrained' because the observations occurred near periastron is only partially correct: while periastron coverage helps constrain the angular elements, the absolute mass scale still requires the external M_visible and an assumed cluster distance. The manuscript should quantify how uncertainties in these two inputs propagate into the reported M_BH error bars.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the semi-major axis should explicitly state whether the reported value is the angular or physical a1 (visible star) and how the conversion to AU is performed.
  2. The disruption timescale of ~800 Myr is stated without the formula or input parameters (velocity dispersion, total mass) used to obtain it; a short derivation or reference would improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which help clarify the presentation of our mass inference. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / mass derivation] Abstract and the mass-inference paragraph: the quoted BH mass and uncertainties are obtained only after adopting an external value for the visible companion mass from isochrone fitting (photometry + cluster age/metallicity). This assumption enters directly into the total-mass term of Kepler's third law and rescales M_BH through the mass ratio; no sensitivity analysis or systematic error budget for the isochrone mass is provided, making it a load-bearing step for the central numerical claim.

    Authors: We agree that the reported black-hole mass depends on the adopted mass of the luminous companion, which is taken from isochrone fitting. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit sensitivity analysis that varies the companion mass over the plausible range allowed by the photometry, cluster age, and metallicity, and we will propagate those variations into the final M_BH uncertainties. We will also include a brief discussion of possible systematic uncertainties in the isochrone models themselves. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The statement that the BH mass is 'well-constrained' because the observations occurred near periastron is only partially correct: while periastron coverage helps constrain the angular elements, the absolute mass scale still requires the external M_visible and an assumed cluster distance. The manuscript should quantify how uncertainties in these two inputs propagate into the reported M_BH error bars.

    Authors: We accept the referee's clarification. The periastron passage tightly constrains the angular orbital elements and the angular semi-major axis, but the conversion to physical mass still requires the adopted companion mass and the cluster distance. We will revise the abstract and the mass-inference section to remove the implication that periastron coverage alone renders the mass 'well-constrained,' and we will add a quantitative propagation of the uncertainties in both M_visible and distance into the quoted M_BH error bars. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; mass follows from standard Keplerian mechanics on measured orbit plus external isochrone mass

full rationale

The reported black hole mass is computed from the fitted orbital elements (P, a, e) via Kepler's third law after converting the observed angular semi-major axis to physical units with the known cluster distance and adopting an independent M_visible from photometry plus the cluster's age and metallicity. No equation defines the black hole mass in terms of itself, renames a fitted parameter as a prediction, or reduces the result to a self-citation chain. The isochrone mass is an external input whose uncertainty propagates but does not create a definitional loop within the paper's derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on fitting a Keplerian orbit to astrometric time series and converting the resulting angular elements into physical masses using an assumed visible-star mass and cluster distance.

free parameters (4)
  • orbital period = 94 years
    Fitted parameter from the 23-year position time series
  • semi-major axis = 31 AU
    Fitted parameter from the 23-year position time series
  • eccentricity = 0.72
    Fitted parameter from the 23-year position time series
  • visible star mass
    Adopted from photometry and cluster isochrone to derive black-hole mass
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The observed motion is produced by a single bound Keplerian companion
    Required to interpret the wobble as a binary orbit rather than cluster dynamics or artifacts
  • standard math Newtonian two-body orbital mechanics apply at these separations
    Used to relate period, semi-major axis, and total mass

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6089 in / 1387 out tokens · 41931 ms · 2026-06-26T23:42:41.842613+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 92 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016, Physical Review X, 6, 041015, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.6.041015

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.6.041015 2016

  2. [2]

    2022,, Instrument Science Report WFC3 2022-5, 55 pages

    Anderson, J. 2022,, Instrument Science Report WFC3 2022-5, 55 pages

    2022

  3. [3]

    Anderson, J., & van der Marel, R. P. 2010, ApJ, 710, 1032, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1032

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/710/2/1032 2010

  4. [4]

    Antonini, F., & Rasio, F. A. 2016, ApJ, 831, 187, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/187 Ba˜ nares-Hern´ andez, A., Calore, F., Martin Camalich, J., &

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

  5. [5]

    Read, J. I. 2025, A&A, 693, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451763

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451763 2025

  6. [6]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 687, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450425

    Balbinot, E., Dodd, E., Matsuno, T., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 687, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450425

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450425 2024

  7. [7]

    D., Dutta, A., Freire, P

    Barr, E. D., Dutta, A., Freire, P. C. C., et al. 2024, Science, 383, 275, doi: 10.1126/science.adg3005

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adg3005 2024

  8. [8]

    , keywords =

    Sollima, A. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3991, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad631

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad631 2023

  9. [9]

    M., et al

    Baumgardt, H., He, C., Sweet, S. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5340, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2060

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2060 2019

  10. [10]

    Bekki, K., & Freeman, K. C. 2003, MNRAS, 346, L11, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07275.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07275.x 2003

  11. [11]

    R., et al

    Bellini, A., Anderson, J., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7059

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7059 2017

  12. [12]

    Bernadich, M. C. i., Dai, S., Abbate, F., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.21845, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.21845

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.21845 2026

  13. [13]

    , keywords =

    Boccioli, L., & Fragione, G. 2024, Physical Review D, 110, 023007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.023007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.023007 2024

  14. [14]

    G., & Heggie, D

    Breen, P. G., & Heggie, D. C. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 432, 2779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt628

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt628 2013

  15. [15]

    2021, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001

    Buchner, J. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.03001 2021

  16. [16]

    2023, Statistics Surveys, 17, 169, doi: 10.1214/23-SS144

    Buchner, J. 2023, Statistics Surveys, 17, 169, doi: 10.1214/23-SS144

    work page doi:10.1214/23-ss144 2023

  17. [17]

    J., Katz, H., Witten, C., et al

    Cameron, A. J., Katz, H., Witten, C., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 534, 523, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1547

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1547 2024

  18. [18]

    L., & Rasio, F

    Chatterjee, S., Rodriguez, C. L., & Rasio, F. A. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 834, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/68

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/68 2017

  19. [19]

    2026, ApJ, 1001, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5242

    Chen, S., Hare, J., Kargaltsev, O., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1001, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5242

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae5242 2026

  20. [20]

    J., et al

    Chomiuk, L., Strader, J., Maccarone, T. J., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 777, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/69

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/1/69 2013

  21. [21]

    Clark, G. W. 1975, The Astrophysical Journal, 199, L143, doi: 10.1086/181869

    work page doi:10.1086/181869 1975

  22. [22]

    C., Dotter, A., et al

    Clontz, C., Seth, A. C., Dotter, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8621

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8621 2024

  23. [23]

    C., Wang, Z., et al

    Clontz, C., Seth, A. C., Wang, Z., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc1c5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc1c5 2025

  24. [24]

    J., H´ enault-Brunet, V., Gieles, M., & Baumgardt, H

    Dickson, N., Smith, P. J., H´ enault-Brunet, V., Gieles, M., & Baumgardt, H. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 331, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae470 Din¸ cer, T., Bailyn, C. D., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Buxton, M., & MacDonald, R. K. D. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 852, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9a46

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae470 2024

  25. [25]

    The Dartmouth Stellar Evolution Database

    Dotter, A., Chaboyer, B., Jevremovi´ c, D., et al. 2008, ApJS, 178, 89, doi: 10.1086/589654

    work page doi:10.1086/589654 2008

  26. [26]

    2023a, MNRAS, 518, 1057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3140

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Quataert, E., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 518, 1057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3140

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3140

  27. [27]

    2023b, MNRAS, 521, 4323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad799

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Cendes, Y., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 521, 4323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad799

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad799

  28. [28]

    E., Sukhbold, T., & Janka, H.-T

    Ertl, T., Woosley, S. E., Sukhbold, T., & Janka, H.-T. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6458

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6458 2020

  29. [29]

    C., Pringle, J

    Fabian, A. C., Pringle, J. E., & Rees, M. J. 1975, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 172, 15, doi: 10.1093/mnras/172.1.15P

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/172.1.15p 1975

  30. [30]

    M., & Zhang, Q

    Fall, S. M., & Zhang, Q. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 561, 751, doi: 10.1086/323358

    work page doi:10.1086/323358 2001

  31. [31]

    , keywords =

    Fonseca, E., Cromartie, H. T., Pennucci, T. T., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 915, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8 2021

  32. [32]

    2013, 22

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Conley, A., Meierjurgen Farr, W., et al. 2013, 22

    2013

  33. [33]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume =

    Perna, R. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 47, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1651

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1651 2019

  34. [34]

    Rasio, F. A. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 1, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07914.x Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657 Gaia Collaboration, Panuzzo, P., Mazeh, T., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 686, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449763

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07914.x 2004

  35. [35]

    , keywords =

    Gallo, E., Fender, R. P., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 370, 1351, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10560.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10560.x 2006

  36. [36]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, L15, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx203

    Giesers, B., Dreizler, S., Husser, T.-O., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, L15, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx203

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx203 2018

  37. [37]

    2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 632, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936203

    Giesers, B., Kamann, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 632, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936203

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936203 2019

  38. [38]

    Y., Zhao, H., Pringle, J

    Gnedin, O. Y., Zhao, H., Pringle, J. E., et al. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 568, L23, doi: 10.1086/340319 Gonz´ alez Prieto, E., Rodriguez, C. L., & Cabrera, T. 2025, ApJL, 990, L69, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfd4a H¨ aberle, M., Neumayer, N., Bellini, A., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 970, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad47f5 H¨ aberle, M., Neumayer, N., Seth, A.,...

    work page doi:10.1086/340319 2002

  39. [39]

    2025,, JWST Proposal

    Haeberle, M., Anderson, J., Baumgardt, H., et al. 2025,, JWST Proposal. Cycle 4, ID. #8322

    2025

  40. [40]

    M., Heinke, C

    Haggard, D., Cool, A. M., Heinke, C. O., et al. 2013, ApJL, 773, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/773/2/L31

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/773/2/l31 2013

  41. [41]

    Harris, W. E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487, doi: 10.1086/118116

    work page doi:10.1086/118116 1996

  42. [42]

    Heggie, D. C. 1975, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 173, 729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/173.3.729

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/173.3.729 1975

  43. [43]

    C., & Giersz, M

    Heggie, D. C., & Giersz, M. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 439, 2459, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu102

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu102 2014

  44. [44]

    M., Haggard, D., et al

    Henleywillis, S., Cool, A. M., Haggard, D., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 2834, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty675

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty675 2018

  45. [45]

    Hertz, P., & Grindlay, J. E. 1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 275, 105, doi: 10.1086/161516

    work page doi:10.1086/161516 1983

  46. [46]

    Hut, P., & Bahcall, J. N. 1983, ApJ, 268, 319, doi: 10.1086/160956

    work page doi:10.1086/160956 1983

  47. [47]

    A., Cameron, P

    Jacoby, B. A., Cameron, P. B., Jenet, F. A., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 644, L113, doi: 10.1086/505742

    work page doi:10.1086/505742 2006

  48. [48]

    I., Pilachowski C

    Johnson, C. I., & Pilachowski, C. A. 2010, ApJ, 722, 1373, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1373

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/722/2/1373 2010

  49. [49]

    Kamann, S., Wisotzki, L., & Roth, M. M. 2013, A&A, 549, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220476

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220476 2013

  50. [50]

    Y., Chen, S., Hare, J., et al

    Kargaltsev, O. Y., Chen, S., Hare, J., et al. 2023,, JWST Proposal. Cycle 2, ID. #4343

    2023

  51. [51]

    Katz, J. I. 1975, Nature, 253, 698, doi: 10.1038/253698a0

    work page doi:10.1038/253698a0 1975

  52. [52]

    Rasio, F. A. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf646

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf646 2019

  53. [53]

    Rasio, F. A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 855, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab26c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab26c 2018

  54. [54]

    R., Hut, P., & McMillan, S

    Kulkarni, S. R., Hut, P., & McMillan, S. 1993, Nature, 364, 421, doi: 10.1038/364421a0

    work page doi:10.1038/364421a0 1993

  55. [55]

    P., et al

    Libralato, M., Bellini, A., van der Marel, R. P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd04f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd04f 2023

  56. [56]

    O., P \'e rez-Villegas , A., et al

    Limberg, G., Souza, S. O., P´ erez-Villegas, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8159

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8159 2022

  57. [57]

    The astrometric solution

    Lindegren, L., Klioner, S. A., Hern´ andez, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039709 2021

  58. [58]

    Lucy, L. B. 2014, A&A, 563, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322649

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322649 2014

  59. [59]

    J., Kundu, A., Zepf, S

    Maccarone, T. J., Kundu, A., Zepf, S. E., & Rhode, K. L. 2007, Nature, 445, 183, doi: 10.1038/nature05434

    work page doi:10.1038/nature05434 2007

  60. [60]

    , keywords =

    Mackey, A. D., Wilkinson, M. I., Davies, M. B., & Gilmore, G. F. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 386, 65, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13052.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13052.x 2008

  61. [61]

    D., Bahramian, A., Miller Jones, J

    Mahida, A. D., Bahramian, A., Miller Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.09649, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.09649

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.09649 2025

  62. [62]

    2009, ApJ, 694, 959, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/959

    Merritt, D. 2009, ApJ, 694, 959, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/959

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/694/2/959 2009

  63. [63]

    2013, Dynamics and Evolution of Galactic Nuclei

    Merritt, D. 2013, Dynamics and Evolution of Galactic Nuclei

    2013

  64. [64]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Strader, J., Heinke, C. O., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 453, 3918, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1869

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1869 2015

  65. [65]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Morscher, M., Pattabiraman, B., Rodriguez, C., Rasio, F. A., & Umbreit, S. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 800, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/9

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/1/9 2015

  66. [66]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Morscher, M., Umbreit, S., Farr, W. M., & Rasio, F. A. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 763, L15, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/763/1/L15 M¨ uller-Horn, J., G¨ ottgens, F., Dreizler, S., et al. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 693, A161, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450709 23

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/763/1/l15 2013

  67. [67]

    2025, PASP, 137, 044202, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adc839

    Nagarajan, P., El-Badry, K., Chawla, C., et al. 2025, PASP, 137, 044202, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adc839

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/adc839 2025

  68. [68]

    , keywords =

    Neumayer, N., Seth, A., & B¨ oker, T. 2020, A&A Rv, 28, 4, doi: 10.1007/s00159-020-00125-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-020-00125-0 2020

  69. [69]

    S., Neumayer, N., Clontz, C., et al

    Nitschai, M. S., Neumayer, N., Clontz, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf5db

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf5db 2023

  70. [70]

    S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5289 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...970..152N 970, 152

    Nitschai, M. S., Neumayer, N., H¨ aberle, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5289

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5289 2024

  71. [71]

    An analytical approach to binary populations in globular clusters

    Norris, J. E., Freeman, K. C., & Mighell, K. J. 1996, ApJ, 462, 241, doi: 10.1086/177145 O’Connor, C. E., Kremer, K., & Rasio, F. A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.02412, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.02412

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1086/177145 1996

  72. [72]

    V., Ransom, S

    Padmanabh, P. V., Ransom, S. M., Freire, P. C. C., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 686, A166, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449303

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449303 2024

  73. [73]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 3279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz208

    Panamarev, T., Just, A., Spurzem, R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz208

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz208 2019

  74. [74]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 2514, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3407

    Pfeffer, J., Lardo, C., Bastian, N., Saracino, S., & Kamann, S. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2514, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3407

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3407 2021

  75. [75]

    R., et al

    Piotto, G., Villanova, S., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2005, ApJ, 621, 777, doi: 10.1086/427796

    work page doi:10.1086/427796 2005

  76. [76]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad167c

    Platais, I., Sahlmann, J., Girardi, L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad167c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad167c 2024

  77. [77]

    2025, NewAR, 101, 101734, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2025.101734

    Popov, S., M¨ uller, B., & Mandel, I. 2025, NewAR, 101, 101734, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2025.101734

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2025.101734 2025

  78. [78]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 3770, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1413

    Rantala, A., Naab, T., & Lah´ en, N. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3770, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1413

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1413 2024

  79. [79]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.084029 2016

  80. [80]

    M., et al

    Rodriguez, J., Urquhart, R., Plotkin, R. M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5db5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5db5 2020

Showing first 80 references.