Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Realistic predictions for Gaia black hole discoveries: comparison of isolated binary and dynamical formation models

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 The paper argues that Gaia's black hole discoveries favor dynamical assembly in star clusters over isolated binary evolution, and uses a calibrated forward model to forecast the next two data releases.

desk verdict The most realistic Gaia-BH forecast yet, but the headline DR4/DR5 numbers rest on a one-parameter calibration with more systematic uncertainty than the quoted error bars admit. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03527 v2 pith:BAHWIHCR submitted 2025-02-05 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Pranav Nagarajan , Kareem El-Badry , Chirag Chawla , Ugo Niccolò Di Carlo , Katelyn Breivik , Carl L. Rodriguez , Poojan Agrawal , Vera Delfavero
show 1 more author
Sourav Chatterjee
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords GaiaastrometrydormantblackholesbinaryevolutionstarclusterdynamicspopulationsynthesisastrometricorbitselectionMilkyWayDR4andDR5predictions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks which formation channel makes the black holes that Gaia has found in wide binaries: isolated binary evolution or dynamical assembly inside star clusters. By feeding both simulated populations through a realistic model of Gaia's astrometric orbit selection, it finds that the isolated channel predicts essentially zero DR3 detections while the dynamical channel predicts roughly eight times too many. The paper adopts the dynamical channel as fiducial, rescales it by 1/8, and forecasts about 30 dormant black hole binaries in Gaia DR4 and about 45 in DR5 under simple detectability cuts. The result matters because it ties a specific formation mechanism to a concrete, testable count in upcoming data releases.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the gaiamock forward model of El-Badry et al. (2024), which generates epoch-level mock astrometry from the Gaia scanning law and runs it through the same cascade of astrometric fits that produced the DR3 orbital catalog. This replaces simplified detectability metrics and captures effects such as sources receiving acceleration solutions instead of orbital solutions and the period-dependent quality cuts. The argument's quantitative core is the factor-of-8 calibration: the median dynamical-model prediction of 17 DR3 detections is divided by the observed 2 to rescale the model population, and the same factor is then applied to raw DR4 and DR5 counts.

What would settle it

Count the astrometric black hole binaries in Gaia DR4 and DR5 and compare the observed numbers and period distribution with the rescaled predictions of $30^{+2}_{-3}$ and $45^{+4}_{-5}$ under simple cuts. If the observed count falls far below 30 in DR4, or if the period distribution shows a marked gap at $10^2$--$10^4$ days, the constant-factor assumption and the dynamical channel's period distribution fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the observed Gaia black hole population rules out the isolated binary evolution model of Chawla et al. (2022) as the dominant channel, while the dynamical formation model of Di Carlo et al. (2024) overproduces DR3 orbital solutions by a factor of about 8 but matches the observed period distribution. Under the assumption that the overproduction factor stays constant because the model's period distribution is realistic, the paper predicts $16^{+2}_{-3}$ BH binaries in DR4 with DR3-like cuts and $30^{+2}_{-3}$ with simpler cuts, rising to $29^{+3}_{-5}$ and $45^{+4}_{-5}$ in DR5. It also asserts that the two channels are distinguishable by orbital period: isolated evolution leaves a gap at the $10^2$--$10^4$ day periods where Gaia is most sensitive, while dynamical assembly fills that range with a roughly log-uniform distribution.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction rests on the assumption that the dynamical model overpredicts Gaia black hole counts by the same factor in future data releases, which holds only if the model's orbital period distribution is realistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the rescaling is right, Gaia DR4 alone should roughly triple the known population of dormant black hole binaries, from 2 to about 30 under simple cuts.
  • The absence of detections from the isolated binary channel implies that the wide systems Gaia finds cannot be explained by non-interacting primordial binaries that skipped common envelope evolution.
  • The two channels predict distinguishable eccentricity distributions: isolated systems are nearly circular, while dynamically assembled systems span all eccentricities.
  • Acceleration solutions and RUWE-based searches will add few or no dormant black holes under current DR3-style cuts, so orbital solutions remain the main discovery channel.
  • About 1 in 10 million Milky Way stars should host a black hole in an au-scale orbit, and roughly 1 in 1000 of those systems should be astrometrically resolved in DR4.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The factor-of-8 rescaling silently absorbs all model uncertainties—binary evolution parameters, cluster mass function, and formation rate—into a single number; future data releases will test whether that constant is physically meaningful or an artifact of missing physics such as the sharp period cutoff at $10^{3.5}$ days.
  • The sharp cutoff in the dynamical period distribution is inherited from the Sana et al. initial period distribution, so the DR5 forecast is likely an underestimate; a dynamical model with longer initial periods would predict a flatter and higher DR5 count.
  • If isolated binaries contributed comparably to the dynamical channel, the observed period distribution would show a deficit near Gaia's sensitive window; the current two-object sample is too small to distinguish, but DR4 counts in the $10^2$--$10^4$ day range will settle the mixture fraction.
  • Spectroscopic follow-up of false positives under the simpler cuts could turn the DR4 astrometric catalog into a clean sample of roughly thirty systems, enough to fit the eccentricity distribution and directly test the exchange-scenario prediction of support at all eccentricities.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper couples the gaiamock forward model of El-Badry et al. (2024) to two synthetic Milky Way BH-luminous companion populations: the isolated binary evolution model of Chawla et al. (2022) and the dynamical cluster-assembly model of Di Carlo et al. (2024). The authors generate epoch astrometry from the Gaia scanning law, apply the DR3 astrometric model cascade and quality cuts, and compare the predicted DR3 yield with the two BH binaries known from DR3. They find that the IBE model predicts zero DR3 detections in 92% of Milky Way realizations, while the dynamical model predicts a median of 17 detections, a factor of about 8 above the observed two. Adopting the dynamical model as fiducial and dividing its raw DR4 and DR5 counts by 8, they forecast 16(+2,-3) BH binaries in DR4 under DR3-like cuts and 30(+2,-3) under simpler cuts, with corresponding DR5 numbers of 29(+3,-5) and 45(+4,-5). The paper also studies acceleration-solution and RUWE searches and concludes that the dynamical channel, after normalization, produces a period distribution consistent with observations so far, while the isolated channel does not.

Significance. The paper is a substantial improvement over previous Gaia BH predictions because it uses an epoch-level forward model of the Gaia astrometric selection function rather than simplified detectability cuts. The use of 100 Milky Way realizations, a FIRE-2-based galaxy model, a 3D dust map, and a pipeline validated against the real DR3 catalog are clear strengths. The qualitative conclusions are robust and valuable: the Chawla et al. (2022) IBE channel alone cannot explain the DR3 BH population, whereas the Di Carlo et al. (2024) dynamical channel produces the right kind of orbital period distribution at the right order of magnitude. However, the headline DR4 and DR5 numbers are obtained by rescaling raw model counts by a single factor fitted to DR3, and the constancy of that factor across data releases is not established. The specific forecasts should therefore be treated as conditional on a sensitivity analysis that the paper does not provide. If that analysis is added, the paper will be a central reference for interpreting future Gaia BH discoveries.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.6, §4.1, §4.3] The DR4/DR5 forecasts are obtained by dividing the raw dynamical-model counts by a factor of 8 calibrated at DR3, and the authors correctly note in §4.1 that this is valid only if the model period distribution is realistic. Section 4.3 and Figure 1 show, however, that the dynamical model has a sharp cutoff at about 10^3.5 days inherited from the Sana et al. (2012) initial period distribution. Since the paper's own DR3 preliminary cut in §2.5 is P_orb < 4000 days, the model is missing systems with 3162 < P_orb < 4000 days that could have been detected in DR3 even though they are absent from the model. The fitted factor of 8 therefore absorbs both the channel's physical overproduction and the artificial truncation of the initial period distribution. There is no reason the resulting normalization should remain constant when the DR4 and DR5 baselines open new period bins at 7000 and 10000 days; the caveat in §3.6 that the DR5 prediction is an underestimate does not address contamination of the DR3 calibration itself. I request a sensitivity test that extends the initial period distribution (or reweights the model population) to quantify how the inferred normalization and the DR4/DR5 predictions change. This is load-bearing for the central quantitative claim, not a cosmetic issue.
  2. [§3.1, §3.6] The calibration uses the observed DR3 count N = 2 as if it were exact. With only two events, the Poisson uncertainty is large: the 68% interval on the mean already spans roughly a factor of 1.5-3, and the 95% interval is wider still. The factor of 8 that is used to rescale the dynamical population therefore carries a substantial statistical uncertainty, yet the reported errors on the DR4 and DR5 predictions (e.g., 30(+2,-3) in §3.6) reflect only the spread across Milky Way realizations. The central quantitative forecast should propagate the calibration uncertainty, and the paper should state how sensitive the predictions are to the assumption that the DR3 census is complete. The qualitative comparison between channels is not affected, but the specific 'realistic predictions' in the title and abstract require this uncertainty to be quantified.
  3. [§4.2] The global rescaling of the intrinsic dynamical population from 155,724 to about 19,466 systems in §4.2 assumes that the overproduction factor of 8 applies uniformly to all orbital periods. This is the same assumption challenged in the first major comment, and it directly affects the derived statement that about 1 in 10^7 Milky Way stars should orbit a BH in an au-scale orbit. If the overproduction is period-dependent, as the Sana et al. (2012) truncation implies, then this number is not well defined. The authors should either present this estimate as a rough order-of-magnitude with an explicit caveat or derive it from the period-dependent calibration requested above.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5] In the conclusions bullet list, 'contain more more massive luminous stars' should read 'contain more massive luminous stars.'
  2. [Figures 6 and 8] Some axis labels in the corner plots appear corrupted in the typeset version (for example, '010□2' in place of powers of ten). These should be regenerated so that the axes are legible.
  3. [Abstract and §3.6] The abstract quotes '~30 BH binaries in DR4,' which is the prediction under the simple cuts of ϖ/σϖ > 5 and a0/σa0 > 5, while the main text also reports 16(+2,-3) under DR3-like cuts. The abstract should specify which detectability cuts are being used, or quote both numbers.
  4. [§4.1] The statement that 'only the simulated eccentricity distribution [is] in tension with observations' would benefit from a specific citation or quantitative comparison to the DR3 catalog, since this is an input to the paper's confidence in the gaiamock pipeline.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

DR4/DR5 forecasts are transparently calibrated to DR3; core model comparison is independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.6, 'Realistic Predictions for DR4 and DR5']
    "If we divide the number of dynamically formed BH-LC systems that are detected in future data releases (see Figure 10 for the raw numbers) by 8, we predict that (assuming the same detectability cuts as DR3) around 16+2−3 Gaia BHs will be discovered in Gaia DR4 and around 29+3−5 Gaia BHs will be discovered in Gaia DR5."

    The factor 8 is not theory-derived; it is the ratio of the model's median DR3 prediction (17) to the observed DR3 count (2) (Section 3.1). The DR4/DR5 forecasts are therefore the raw model counts divided by a parameter fitted to the same phenomenon in an earlier data release. The absolute predicted yields are forced by this calibration; only the model's predicted relative increase from DR3 to DR4/DR5 is independent of the fit. The paper transparently labels these as calibrated predictions and flags the constancy assumption (Section 4.1), which mitigates but does not remove the fact that the headline numbers are a rescaled model rather than an ab initio forecast.

full rationale

The paper's core contribution—applying the gaiamock forward model to two external population synthesis models and comparing DR3 predictions to the two observed dormant BHs—is self-contained and not circular. The factor-of-8 overprediction is an empirical comparison, not a derived result. The DR4/DR5 predictions, however, are calibrated forecasts: the 1/8 scaling is fitted to the DR3 count and then applied to raw future-release counts. This is a mild form of the 'fitted input called prediction' pattern, because the absolute normalization is an input rather than a prediction. The paper is transparent about this (Section 4.1: 'this overestimation factor should only be expected to remain constant in future data releases if the period distribution in the model population is realistic') and the relative scaling between releases retains model-dependent predictive content. The paper's own caveat that the DR5 prediction is probably an underestimate due to the artificial 10^3.5 d period cutoff (Section 3.6) is a correctness risk, not a circularity; the same cutoff may also bias the DR3 calibration, as the skeptic notes, but that is a modeling concern rather than a circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain or uniqueness argument is present; the gaiamock pipeline is a machine-checkable code with external validation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central forecast rests on two external population synthesis models, the gaiamock selection function model, and a calibrated normalization. The free parameters are the 1/8 DR3 calibration factor, the adopted future detectability cuts, and the inherited 100 Myr age cut. The axioms are dominated by inherited domain assumptions: m12i as a Milky Way analog, gaiamock fidelity to the Gaia DR3 cascade, the Sana et al. initial period truncation, completeness of the DR3 census, and the binary evolution recipes of the two population models. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • DR3 calibration factor = 1/8 (approx 17/2)
    Used to rescale dynamical model DR4/DR5 counts; fitted to the ratio of predicted (median 17) to observed (2) DR3 detections. Poisson uncertainty on the observed denominator is not propagated into forecast error bars.
  • Future detectability cuts = parallax significance > 5 and photocenter semi-major axis significance > 5
    Adopted for DR4/DR5 forecasts in addition to DR3 cuts; authors acknowledge these produce false positives removable by spectroscopy. The choice affects predicted counts by a factor of about 2.
  • Minimum binary age cut = 100 Myr
    Inherited from Di Carlo et al. (2024) population; removing the age cut from the Chawla et al. (2022) population changes the median DR4 IBE detection count from 1 to 3, so it affects conclusions about the IBE channel.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption FIRE-2 m12i galaxy is an adequate Milky Way analog for the position, age, and metallicity distribution of BH-LC binaries.
    Used throughout Sections 2.1 and 2.2 to assign Galactocentric positions, ages, and metallicities; authors note the simulated z=0 star formation rate is a few times higher than the observed Milky Way.
  • domain assumption The gaiamock pipeline faithfully reproduces the Gaia DR3 astrometric selection function and solution cascade.
    Central to all detection predictions (Section 2.5); validated in El-Badry et al. (2024) against the real DR3 catalog, but the cascade is simplified and the simulated eccentricity distribution is in tension with observations (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption Binary orbital orientations are random, with cos i uniformly sampled.
    Assigned in Section 2.5 for each mock realization; necessary for computing photocenter motion and detection probability.
  • ad hoc to paper The Sana et al. (2012) initial period distribution with an upper limit of 10^3.5 days governs the dynamical model's progenitor binaries.
    Causes the sharp 10^3.5 day cutoff in the dynamical period distribution that is load-bearing for DR5 counts; the authors call this cutoff likely unrealistic in Sections 3.6 and 4.3.
  • domain assumption The DR3 BH orbital-solution census is complete at N=2.
    Section 3.1: no more DR3 orbital-solution BHs are expected after spectroscopic follow-up; this underpins the factor-of-8 calibration. The supporting evidence is the authors' own follow-up papers.
  • domain assumption The population synthesis recipes of Chawla et al. (2022) and Di Carlo et al. (2024), including common envelope efficiency and natal kick prescriptions, bracket real Milky Way BH-LC formation.
    Differences in common envelope alpha and kick sigma drive the contrast between the two channels (Sections 2.3 and 4.3); the paper does not independently derive these inputs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Realistic predictions for Gaia black hole discoveries: comparison of isolated binary and dynamical formation models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BAHWIHCR

@misc{pith2026250203527,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Realistic predictions for Gaia black hole discoveries: comparison of isolated binary and dynamical formation models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BAHWIHCR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03527}
}
abstract

Astrometry from Gaia has enabled discovery of three dormant black holes (BHs) in au-scale binaries. Numerous models have been proposed to explain their formation, including several that have forecasted Gaia detections. However, previous works have used simplified detectability metrics that do not capture key elements of the Gaia astrometric orbit selection function. We apply a realistic forward-model of Gaia astrometric orbit catalogs to BH binary populations generated through (a) isolated binary evolution (IBE) and (b) dynamical formation in star clusters. For both formation channels, we analyze binary populations in a simulated Milky Way-like galaxy with a realistic metallicity-dependent star formation history and 3D dust map. We generate epoch astrometry for each binary from the Gaia scanning law and fit it with the cascade of astrometric models used in Gaia DR3. The IBE model of Chawla et al. (2022) predicts that no BH binaries should have been detected in DR3 and thus significantly underpredicts the formation rate of Gaia BHs. In contrast, the dynamical model of Di Carlo et al. (2024) overpredicts the number of BHs receiving DR3 orbital solutions by a factor of $\sim$8. The two models predict very different orbital period distributions, with the IBE model predicting only binaries that avoided common envelope evolution and have $P_{\text{orb}} \gtrsim 2,000$ d to be detectable, and the dynamical formation model predicting a period distribution that is roughly log-uniform. Adopting the dynamical channel as a fiducial model and rescaling by a factor of 1/8 to match DR3, we predict that $\sim$30 BH binaries will be detected in Gaia DR4, representing $\sim0.1\%$ of Milky Way BHs with luminous companions in au-scale orbits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03527 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of intrinsic physical properties of the isolated binary BH-LC population of Chawla et al. (2022) (blue) and the dynam￾ically assembled BH-LC population of Di Carlo et al. (2024) (orange). The population of binaries formed via IBE features more LCs that are brighter and more massive relative to the population of dynamically assembled binaries. The orbital period distribution of the binaries formed via IBE … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Orbital period versus distance for Galactic populations of BH-LC systems formed via IBE (Chawla et al. 2022, left) and dynamical assembly (Di Carlo et al. 2024, right). Curves of constant angular semi-major axis of the photocenter a0, assuming a typical BH mass of 9 M⊙ and a typical LC mass of 1 M⊙, are plotted as well. We show both the upper detectable limit on orbital period (∼ 4000 days) and the lower detectable … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. DR4 observations of a typical BH-LC system featuring a solar-type star and a 10 M⊙ BH in an orbit with Porb = 1500 days, e = 0.5, and i = 60◦ . Mock observations are generated at three different distances, with the orbital significance and uncertainty-normalized parallax both decreasing as the distance increases. In all cases, the gaiamock pipeline predicts that the binary will receive an orbital solution in DR4. fr… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Median number of detected BH-LC systems in Gaia DR3 across 100 realizations. The error bar signifies the middle 68% of counts. We compare predictions against observations and between both formation channels. Based on the observed number of BH-LC systems in DR3, we find…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Orbital period versus distance for typical realizations of the Milky Way BH-LC population formed via IBE in the model of Chawla et al. (2022). BH-LC systems detected in Gaia DR3, DR4, and DR5 are marked by orange circles in the left, middle, and right panels respective…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Properties of BH-LC systems formed via IBE. The diagonal entries display the marginal distribution of each parameter, while each of the other panels displays a joint distribution. Contours identify regions of high density in each parameter space. To reduce shot noise, …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Predicted spatial distribution of BH-LC populations formed via IBE (Chawla et al. 2022, left panel) and dynamical assembly (Di Carlo et al. 2024, right panel). We show all systems in blue, and the Gaia BHs detected in DR4 (for a typical MW realization) in orange. Becau…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Number of detected BH-LC systems in future Gaia data releases. We report the median number of Gaia BHs detected across 100 realizations, with error bars derived from the 16th and 84th percentiles. We compare predictions against observations and between both formation …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Uncertainty-normalized parallax of the fitted 7-parameter and 9-parameter acceleration solutions as a function of significance of the astrometric solution for dynamically formed BH-LC systems with RUWE > 1.4 in DR4. We overplot the cuts on these quantities that were i…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: RUWE as a function of distance for dynamically formed BH-LC systems in DR4. We denote the systems that receive an astrometric binary solution in orange. We see that the detected systems tend to have small distances and large RUWE values, with most binaries beyond ∼ 5 …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Top Row: Orbital period versus distance (left) and eccentricity (right) for primordial (orange) and exchanged (blue) binaries in the population of BH-LC systems formed in the SCs of Di Carlo et al. (2024). Bottom Row: Same as the top row, but separated based on whethe…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Orbital period versus eccentricity for the populations formed via IBE from Chawla et al. (2022) (left panel) and Di Carlo et al. (2024) (right panel). The IBE population predicted by Di Carlo et al. (2024) lacks long-period binaries that did not interact, due to its i…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., Breivik, K., & Chatterjee, S

    Andrews, J. J., Breivik, K., & Chatterjee, S. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 886, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab441f Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab441f 2019

  2. [2]

    M., Schlafly, E

    Bovy, J., Rix, H.-W., Green, G. M., Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2016, ApJ, 818, 130, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/130

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/2/130 2016

  3. [3]

    Breivik, K., Chatterjee, S., & Larson, S. L. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa97d5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa97d5 2017

  4. [4]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85

    Breivik, K., Coughlin, S., Zevin, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85 2020

  5. [5]

    D., Craig, P

    Chakrabarti, S., Simon, J. D., Craig, P. A., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 166, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accf21

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/accf21 2023

  6. [6]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a5

    Chawla, C., Chatterjee, S., Breivik, K., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a5 2022

  7. [7]

    Claeys, J. S. W., Pols, O. R., Izzard, R. G., Vink, J., & Verbunt, F. W. M. 2014, A&A, 563, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322714 Di Carlo, U. N., Agrawal, P., Rodriguez, C. L., & Breivik, K. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 965, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f2c Di Carlo, U. N., Mapelli, M., Giacobbo, N., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 495, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2286

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322714 2014

  8. [8]

    2003, A&A, 409, 205, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031070

    Drimmel, R., Cabrera-Lavers, A., & L´opez-Corredoira, M. 2003, A&A, 409, 205, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031070

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031070 2003

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    2024, New Astronomy Reviews, 98, 101694, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101694

    El-Badry, K. 2024, New Astronomy Reviews, 98, 101694, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101694

    2024

  2. [10]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 100, doi: 10.33232/001c.125461

    El-Badry, K., Lam, C., Holl, B., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 100, doi: 10.33232/001c.125461

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    2023a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 1057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3140

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Quataert, E., et al. 2023a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 1057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3140

    doi

  4. [12]

    2023b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 4323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad799

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Cendes, Y ., et al. 2023b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 4323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad799

    doi

  5. [13]

    W., et al

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Latham, D. W., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 58, doi: 10.33232/001c.121261

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf303

    Antonini, F. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf303

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

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

    Fryer, C. L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/91 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A.,...

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    Generozov, A., & Perets, H. B. 2024, ApJ, 964, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2356

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 2959, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2933

    Giacobbo, N., Mapelli, M., & Spera, M. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2959, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2933

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, L44, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae091

    Gilkis, A., & Mazeh, T. 2024, MNRAS, 535, L44, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae091

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J

    Green, G. M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., & Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 5056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1603

    Hafen, Z., Stern, J., Bullock, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1603

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 674, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243969

    Halbwachs, J.-L., Pourbaix, D., Arenou, F., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 674, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243969

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    R., Lyne, A

    Hobbs, G., Lorimer, D. R., Lyne, A. G., & Kramer, M. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 360, 974, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09087.x

    2005

  15. [23]

    F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇs, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇs, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1690

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    R., Tout, C

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x

    2002

  17. [25]

    2024, A&A, 690, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450531

    Iorio, G., Torniamenti, S., Mapelli, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450531

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 658, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141866

    Janssens, S., Shenar, T., Sana, H., et al. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 658, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141866

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    2024, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2591

    Kotko, I., Banerjee, S., & Belczynski, K. 2024, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2591

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  21. [29]

    U., Andrews, J

    Kruckow, M. U., Andrews, J. J., Fragos, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452356 K¨upper, A. H. W., Maschberger, T., Kroupa, P., & Baumgardt, H. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 2300, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19412.x

    2024

  22. [30]

    J., & Lada, E

    Lada, C. J., & Lada, E. A. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 57, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094844

    2003 arXiv

  23. [31]

    2024, ApJL, 975, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8653

    Li, Z., Zhu, C., Lu, X., et al. 2024, ApJL, 975, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8653

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 2422, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2123 Mar´ın Pina, D., Rastello, S., Gieles, M., et al

    Mapelli, M., Giacobbo, N., Ripamonti, E., & Spera, M. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2422, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2123 Mar´ın Pina, D., Rastello, S., Gieles, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450460

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    2012, A&A, 543, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118231

    Marks, M., & Kroupa, P. 2012, A&A, 543, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118231

    2012 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Robin, A

    Marshall, D. J., Robin, A. C., Reyl´e, C., Schultheis, M., & Picaud, S. 2006, A&A, 453, 635, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053842

    2006 doi

  27. [35]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 2611, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1410

    Mashian, N., & Loeb, A. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 2611, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1410

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    Nagarajan, P., El-Badry, K., Triaud, A. H. M. J., et al. 2024, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 136, 014202, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad1ba7

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    2022, Gaia DR3 documentation Chapter 7: Non-single stars, Gaia DR3 documentation, European Space Agency; Gaia Data Processing and Analysis Consortium

    Pourbaix, D., Arenou, F., Gavras, P., et al. 2022, Gaia DR3 documentation Chapter 7: Non-single stars, Gaia DR3 documentation, European Space Agency; Gaia Data Processing and Analysis Consortium

    2022

  30. [38]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 740, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2757

    Rastello, S., Iorio, G., Mapelli, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 740, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2757

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444, doi: 10.1126/science.1223344

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    E., Wetzel, A., Loebman, S., et al

    Sanderson, R. E., Wetzel, A., Loebman, S., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5b9d

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772

    1998 doi

  34. [42]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4816

    Shao, Y ., & Li, X.-D. 2019, ApJ, 885, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4816

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    Shikauchi, M., Kumamoto, J., Tanikawa, A., & Fujii, M. S. 2020, PASJ, 72, 45, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaa030

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 928, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5329

    Shikauchi, M., Tanikawa, A., & Kawanaka, N. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 928, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5329

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    Sigurdsson, S., & Phinney, E. S. 1993, ApJ, 415, 631, doi: 10.1086/173190

    1993 doi

  38. [46]

    Tanikawa, A., Cary, S., Shikauchi, M., Wang, L., & Fujii, M. S. 2024a, MNRAS, 527, 4031, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3294

    doi

  39. [47]

    2023, ApJ, 946, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbf36

    Tanikawa, A., Hattori, K., Kawanaka, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbf36

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    Tanikawa, A., Wang, L., & Fujii, M. S. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.03662, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.03662

    doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 4070, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv817

    Wang, L., Spurzem, R., Aarseth, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4070, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv817

    2015 doi

  42. [50]

    2022, A&A, 665, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243684

    Wang, Y ., Liao, S., Giacobbo, N., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243684

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    R., Hopkins, P

    Wetzel, A. R., Hopkins, P. F., Kim, J.-h., et al. 2016, ApJL, 827, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/L23

    2016 doi

  44. [52]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc699

    Wiktorowicz, G., Lu, Y ., Wyrzykowski, L., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc699

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 930, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2327

    Yalinewich, A., Beniamini, P., Hotokezaka, K., & Zhu, W. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 930, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2327

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    S., Kawanaka, N., Bulik, T., & Piran, T

    Yamaguchi, M. S., Kawanaka, N., Bulik, T., & Piran, T. 2018, ApJ, 861, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac5ec

    2018 doi

Pith tools

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