Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 106 references

Growing the Intermediate-mass Black Hole in Omega Centauri

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that Omega Centauri's central black hole grew from a small seed to roughly 50,000 solar masses by swallowing stellar-mass black holes, and that the resulting cluster models match the observed surface brightness, velocity…

desk verdict Solid simulation study with a genuinely new loss-cone treatment; the IMBH growth result is plausible but rides on an admittedly rough BH capture prescription that deserves more scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06316 v2 pith:RHANT5Q2 submitted 2025-07-08 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Elena González Prieto , Carl L. Rodriguez , Tomás Cabrera This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords intermediate-massblackholeOmegaCentauriglobularclusterstidaldisruptioneventsgravitationalwavemergerslossconedynamicsMonteCarloN-bodysimulationsfast-movingstars
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 tries to show that a central black hole of roughly 50,000 solar masses in $\Omega$ Centauri could have grown from seeds of only 500 to 5,000 solar masses over 12 billion years. The growth is driven not by shredding stars but by gravitational-wave inspirals of 30 to 40 solar-mass black holes. The models reproduce the cluster's observed surface brightness and velocity dispersion profiles and produce a population of fast-moving stars like those recently seen in the cluster core. If the scenario holds, $\Omega$ Centauri becomes a concrete example of how intermediate-mass black holes can arise from stellar-mass seeds, with measurable consequences for tidal disruption events and future gravitational-wave observatories.

What carries the argument

The central object is the loss cone: the set of orbits whose pericenter distance falls within the tidal or Schwarzschild radius of the central black hole. The paper's key addition is an orbit-resolved random walk, in which each object's velocity vector is diffused over the number of orbits it completes within a Monte Carlo timestep, so that stars and black holes can enter the loss cone on orbital timescales. Binaries that enter the loss cone are integrated as three-body encounters with the black hole, which produces the fast ejected companions and the tightly bound stars that later become tidal disruption events. Compact objects whose gravitational-wave inspiral time is short are assumed to merge with the black hole, using the standard Peters equations for the inspiral timescale.

What would settle it

High-resolution observations of the inner 0.2 arcseconds of $\Omega$ Centauri that find no population of tightly bound fast stars produced by binary disruptions, together with a fully stellar-mass explanation of the central velocity dispersion rise, would contradict the paper's central growth scenario.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting with a Monte Carlo model of a dense, massive stellar system with initial conditions meant to represent $\Omega$ Centauri, and placing a seed black hole of either 500 or 5,000 solar masses at the center, the paper finds that both seeds grow to 47,000 and 51,000 solar masses respectively by the present day. The overwhelming majority of the accreted mass comes from mergers with stellar-mass black holes, with tidal disruption of stars contributing only about 143 solar masses on average. The models also reproduce the cluster's surface brightness and proper-motion velocity dispersion profiles, including the central rise interpreted as evidence for an intermediate-mass black hole, and they naturally generate fast-moving stars through binary disruptions. On this basis, the authors conclude that $\Omega$ Centauri is consistent with hosting an intermediate-mass black hole that grew from a collision-runaway seed through dynamical captures of black holes.

Load-bearing premise

The models assume that only 2 percent of the cluster's stars were born in binary systems, and the fast-moving stars plus about half of the tidal disruption events come from those binaries, so a different binary fraction could change the predicted rates by an order of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Intermediate-mass black hole seeds of only hundreds to thousands of solar masses can grow to tens of thousands of solar masses in dense stellar systems, so present-day IMBHs in globular clusters need not have been born massive.
  • The predicted IMBH-BH merger rate of roughly $4\times10^{-8}$ to $8\times10^{-8}$ yr$^{-1}$ implies that Omega Centauri-like clusters could contribute events detectable by future space-based gravitational-wave observatories.
  • The modeled tidal disruption event rate of about $5\times10^{-8}$ yr$^{-1}$ per cluster translates to a per-galaxy rate between $5\times10^{-8}$ and $10^{-6}$ yr$^{-1}$, suggesting that some observed TDEs may be off-nuclear and originate in stripped cluster nuclei.
  • The fast-moving stars produced by binary disruptions are concentrated within the innermost 0.2 arcseconds, making them a directly testable prediction for high-resolution observations of Omega Centauri.
  • The models with a bottom-heavy initial mass function prevent the seed from growing too large, hinting that the IMBH may itself be the product of a runaway collision of massive stars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the assumed 2 percent initial binary fraction is too low, the same mechanism could raise the tidal disruption event rate by an order of magnitude, making off-nuclear TDEs from dense clusters more common than the paper's baseline estimate.
  • The growth channel described here suggests that other massive globular clusters and stripped dwarf nuclei with similar densities could host intermediate-mass black holes grown by the same process, potentially raising the black hole occupation fraction in low-mass stellar systems.
  • The paper's treatment of inspiral assumes Keplerian orbits and does not self-consistently compute gravitational-wave orbital evolution, so the true balance between direct plunges and long inspirals could shift the predicted IMRI rates; resolving this would sharpen the LISA predictions.
  • A direct test would be to search for the predicted tightly bound fast stars in the innermost arcsecond of Omega Centauri with JWST; detecting them would strongly support the binary-disruption origin of the fast-star population.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents Monte Carlo cluster models of Omega Centauri with a central intermediate-mass black hole (IMBH) seed, using the CMC code with new prescriptions for loss-cone dynamics, binary disruptions, tidal disruption events (TDEs), and gravitational-wave inspirals of compact objects. Two best-fit models, starting with seeds of 500 and 5000 M_sun, grow to approximately 47,000 and 51,000 M_sun after 12 Gyr while reproducing the observed surface brightness and proper-motion velocity dispersion profiles (Section 3). The models produce fast-moving stars in the core, a present-day IMBH-BH capture rate of roughly (4-8)e-8 per year, and TDE rates around 5e-8 per year. The authors acknowledge in Section 4.2 that the BH capture rates are rough estimates and in Section 5 that the neglect of an IMBH-BH binary could reduce growth; Appendix A.2 validates the TDE loss-cone treatment against N-body simulations but does not validate the BH capture channel.

Significance. If the growth calculation is robust, the paper would provide a concrete and observationally motivated scenario in which low-mass IMBH seeds, consistent with runaway stellar collisions, grow to tens of thousands of solar masses through mergers with stellar-mass BHs in an Omega Cen-like cluster. This would connect the fast-star evidence of Haberle et al. (2024a) to a specific formation channel and would yield predictions for LISA-band IMRIs and off-nuclear TDE rates. The paper builds on public, well-tested codes (CMC, COSMIC, Fewbody), makes careful comparison to observational selection cuts, and provides a useful N-body benchmark for the TDE rate in Appendix A.2 as well as agreement with theoretical cusp slopes in Appendix A.3. However, the headline growth result depends on a BH capture prescription that the manuscript itself labels as rough and that lacks direct validation, and the fast-star comparison is presented more favorably in the abstract than the overproduction shown in Figure 2.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, §5, Appendix A.2] The claim that the 500-5000 M_sun seeds grow to 47,000-51,000 M_sun rests on a BH capture prescription that the manuscript itself labels as giving only rough estimates and that lacks validation for the BH channel. The growth requires roughly 1,500 captured BHs with mean mass 31 M_sun, yet the capture rate is computed with isolated Keplerian inspiral times from Peters (1964) without resolving GW-driven orbital evolution, and Section 5 acknowledges that an IMBH-stellar-BH binary, which could dynamically eject BHs and reduce growth (Leigh et al. 2014), is neglected. The Appendix A.2 benchmark against Baumgardt et al. (2004) validates only TDE rates in a single-mass, stellar-evolution-free cluster; it does not test BH captures. Since a factor-of-two change in the net capture rate would move the final mass from roughly 50,000 M_sun down to about 25,000-30,000 M_sun and make the outcome seed-dependent, please add a validation or a quantitative bracketing of the unmodeled processes and adjust the abstract if the resulting uncertainty is wide.
  2. [§3.2 and abstract] The models overproduce fast-moving main-sequence stars compared to the seven HST detections (Figure 2), and the manuscript argues that selection effects (e.g., extremely tight orbits and measurement quality) remove the excess, but it does not model those effects. As written, the abstract's statement that the models produce 'a population of fast stars similar to those observed' overstates the agreement. The paper should either apply a mock-observation selection function to the simulated stars and show that the detected count is reproduced, or explicitly present the simulated fast-star population as an upper limit rather than as a matched population.
  3. [§2.1 and §3] The agreement with the surface brightness and velocity dispersion profiles is demonstrated only for two best-fit models selected from a grid of 35 runs, and the text reports that only bottom-heavy IMFs prevent excessive growth. Because the observed profiles were used to select the initial conditions, the match is not an independent test of the IMBH-growth scenario. Please report how the final IMBH mass, BH capture rate, and TDE rate vary across the explored parameter ranges (at least the IMF slope, virial radius, and binary fraction), so that the sensitivity of the headline numbers to the model-selection step is visible and the claim that the two seeds converge to a common final mass is supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2, Eq. (2)] The product 'vR' in the loss-cone angle expression is notationally ambiguous; please define it explicitly as the product of the speed |v| and radius R to avoid confusion with a radial velocity component.
  2. [§4.1 and Figure 4] The text refers to dN/dβ ∝ β^-2, while the figure y-axis is labeled 'Density'; please clarify whether the plotted distribution is dN/dβ and make the axis label consistent with the text.
  3. [Figure 2] The left and right panels have different legend entries; the text says that empty circles denote stars produced by binary disruptions, but the right panel's legend omits this symbol, making it difficult to interpret the magnitude-selected comparison.
  4. [§2] Please verify the reference to 'Equations 5.4 and 5.5 from Peters (1964)'; the standard Peters equations for da/dt and de/dt are numbered differently, and a correct citation would improve reproducibility.
  5. [§1 and §4] The inferred allowed IMBH mass range from Haberle et al. (2024a) is quoted as 8,200-50,000 M_sun, yet the 5000 M_sun seed model reaches 51,000 M_sun; please comment explicitly on whether this is a hard upper limit or a bound with observational uncertainty.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No core circularity; the profile match is partly a best-fit selection, but the IMBH growth and rates are emergent outputs.

  1. other [Section 2.1 (Initial Conditions) and Section 3.1 (Surface Brightness and Velocity Dispersion Profiles)]
    "Out of a grid of 35 runs, we present our best-fit models with an initial number of N=1.1 × 10^7 particles, IMBH seeds of 500 M⊙ and 5000 M⊙ ... The models reproduce the observed data quite closely, only predicting a slightly brighter inner core."

    The observed surface brightness and velocity dispersion profiles are presented as reproduced, but the models were specifically selected as the best fit to those same observations from a 35-run grid. The agreement is therefore a consequence of model selection rather than an independent prediction. This is a minor, framing-level circularity: the headline growth to ~47,000–51,000 M⊙ and the merger/TDE rates are not fitted to the fast-star or TDE observations; they emerge from the seed masses, IMF, and loss-cone/BH-capture prescriptions. The quoted BH-capture caveats and the neglected IMBH-BH binary channel weaken robustness but do not make the result equivalent to its inputs.

full rationale

The core derivation is not circular. The IMBH seed mass starts at 500 or 5000 M⊙ and grows to ~47,000–51,000 M⊙ through an explicitly prescribed BH-inspiral/TDE accretion treatment; these final masses and the quoted rates are simulation outputs, not fit parameters. The loss-cone treatment is benchmarked in Appendix A.2 against external direct N-body models (Baumgardt et al. 2004; Umbreit et al. 2012), which provides independent support for the TDE-disruption part of the calculation. Self-citations to CMC (Rodriguez et al. 2022) and to seed-formation runaway-collision papers (González Prieto et al. 2024; Sharma & Rodriguez 2025) are present, but they are not load-bearing for the central growth result: the growth is integrated dynamically in the code rather than imported as an assumption. The paper's own caveats—Keplerian inspiral approximations, unresolved GW orbital evolution, and neglect of an IMBH-BH binary that could eject BHs (Leigh et al. 2014)—are robustness concerns, not circularity, because they affect the accuracy of the emergent rates rather than defining those rates as inputs. The only mild circularity is the validation framing: the models are 'best-fit' to the very SBP/VDP profiles shown as agreement, so that comparison should be read as calibration, not as an independent prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a calibrated simulation with freely chosen initial conditions (seed mass, IMF slope, density profile, binary fraction) and several domain assumptions (spherical symmetry, fixed IMBH, Keplerian inspiral). The paper is transparent about most of these.

free parameters (8)
  • Initial IMBH seed mass = 500 Msun and 5000 Msun
    Chosen from plausible runaway collision range; not fitted to observations. Final IMBH mass depends on seed but both converge to ~47,000-51,000 Msun.
  • Initial number of particles N = 1.1e7
    Varied over 1.0e7 to 1.2e7 in grid; best-fit value used.
  • Virial radius = 5 pc
    Varied 3.5-8 pc; best fit to observed profiles.
  • IMF slope alpha_3 (bottom-heavy) = 2.5
    Varied 2.3-2.7; only bottom-heavy slopes prevent excessive IMBH growth, so this is a selected parameter affecting the central claim.
  • Elson profile gamma = 3
    Varied 3-6; gamma=3 chosen as best fit.
  • Initial binary fraction = 0.02
    Taken from Wragg et al. 2024, but binary disruptions drive fast stars and TDEs; a 10% run changes TDE rate by an order of magnitude, so this input strongly affects predictions.
  • TDE accretion fraction = 0.5
    Assumed 50% mass accretion for tidal disruptions outside Schwarzschild radius; affects IMBH growth from TDEs.
  • Adaptive random walk parameter c_safe = 0.2
    Numerical parameter in loss cone prescription; calibration choice.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Cluster is spherically symmetric with a single epoch of star formation (CMC limitation).
    Omega Cen is likely an accreted dwarf nucleus with multiple populations and rotation, but CMC cannot model these self-consistently. Section 3 acknowledges this over-simplification.
  • domain assumption IMBH is fixed point particle at cluster center.
    Section 2: 'the IMBH is treated as a fixed point particle at the cluster's center'. N-body benchmarks show MBH wandering causes early-time discrepancy (Appendix A.2).
  • domain assumption Orbits for GW inspiral are Keplerian and not self-consistently evolved.
    Section 2 and 5: inspiral time from Peters (1964) assuming Keplerian orbits; changes during inspiral not modeled, so BH capture rates are rough estimates.
  • domain assumption Tidal disruption radius formula assumes non-spinning BH and non-rotating star.
    Equation 1; authors note dependence on stellar structure, spin, and BH spin.
  • domain assumption Loss cone random walk reproduces two-body relaxation (validated against N-body).
    Appendix A.2 comparison to Baumgardt et al. 2004 shows agreement except at early times.
  • ad hoc to paper Elson profile with gamma=3 approximates Omega Cen's initial density distribution.
    Used for best fit; King profiles fail to match VDP (Appendix A.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Growing the Intermediate-mass Black Hole in Omega Centauri." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RHANT5Q2

@misc{pith2026250706316,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Growing the Intermediate-mass Black Hole in Omega Centauri},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RHANT5Q2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06316}
}
abstract

The recent detection of fast-moving stars in the core of Omega Centauri ($\omega$ Cen), the most massive globular cluster (GC) in the Milky Way, has provided strong evidence for the presence of an intermediate-mass black hole (IMBH). As $\omega$ Cen, is likely the accreted nucleus of a dwarf galaxy, this IMBH also represents a unique opportunity to study BH seeding mechanisms and their potential role in the formation of supermassive BHs. We present Monte Carlo $N$-body models of $\omega$ Cen with detailed treatments for the loss cone dynamics involving stars, binaries, and compact objects. Starting with BH seeds of $500-5000 \, M_{\odot}$ (consistent with runaway collisions of massive stars), our cluster models grow IMBHs with masses of $\sim50{,}000 \, M_{\odot}$ after 12 Gyr, while successfully reproducing the present-day surface brightness and velocity dispersion profiles of $\omega$ Cen. We find a population of fast stars similar to those observed in the core of $\omega$ Cen, with the fastest stars originating from binaries that were tidally disrupted by the IMBH. The IMBH growth is primarily driven by mergers with $30-40 \, M_{\odot}$ BHs, suggesting a present-day IMBH-BH merger rate of $\sim(4-8)\times10^{-8}~\rm{yr}^{-1}$ in $\omega$ Cen-like GCs. Our models also predict a similar rate of tidal disruption events ($\sim5\times10^{-8}~\rm{yr}^{-1}$) which, depending on the frequency of $\omega$ Cen-like GCs per galaxy, may represent anywhere from $0.1\%$ to $10\%$ of the observed TDE rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06316 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left panel: V-band surface brightness profile at 12 Gyr. Only stellar objects with masses above 0.559 M⊙ are included, corresponding to B-band instrumental magnitudes brighter than −10, consistent with the quality cuts applied in van der Marel & Anderson (2010). Their data is shown in green diamonds. Round symbols in black are a compilation of ground-based observations from Trager et al. (1995). An extinction factor… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the fast-moving MS stars from our models in black, with colored points indicating those that meet the magnitude cutoffs used in H¨aberle et al. (2024a). Empty circles indicate stars produced by bi￾nary disruptions during interactions with the IMBH. Our models predict a larger number of fast-moving stars than has been detected in HST observations. It is im￾portant to note that observational data were subject to… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The lower panel shows that the vast major￾ity of this growth is from compact object inspirals. On average, the mass accreted from TDEs is ∼ 143 M⊙. 4.1. Tidal Disruption Events There are generally two regimes in which tidal disrup￾tion occurs. When orbital timescales (Torb) are much longer than the local relaxation timescales (Trelax), the loss cone is efficiently refilled with stars, and we refer to this as the “fu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of penetration parameters (β) for TDEs. Here, we consider only TDE events involving single stars where the disruption occurred outside of the Schwarzschild radius. In a dashed line we show the the￾oretical prediction from the full loss cone derived in (e.g…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top panel: Distribution of stellar masses in￾volved in tidal disruption events for two time intervals, shown at 0.5±0.5 Gyr (dashed lines) and 12±0.5 Gyr (shaded). Bot￾tom panel: TDE rate as a function of time. Tidal disrup￾tions of both components of a binary are coun…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top panel: Distribution of BH masses formed from stellar collapse (dashed) and masses of inspiraling BHs (shaded). Bottom panel: BH capture rate as a function of time. 4.2. BH Captures As stated above, the vast majority of BH growth in our ω Cen models is driven by mer…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example random walk trajectories from our loss cone treatment, shown in dimensionless specific energy versus dimensionless specific angular momentum (where Jc is the specific angular momentum of an orbit at a given energy). Red dots indicate tidal disruption events. 10…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: Comparison of tidal disruption rates per crossing time for our MC simulations (black), previous MC results of Umbreit et al. (2012) (blue), and direct N-body model of Baumgardt et al. (2004)(purple). Our models show the average and standard deviation across 5 rea…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The time evolution of the mass density power law indices for the stellar (top panel) and BH (bottom panel) populations, fitted in range [0.001–1] pc. A.3. Formation of cusps Studies of how stellar populations settle around MBHs are crucial to make estimates on the rate…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Proper motion velocity dispersion (left) and V-band surface brightness (right) profiles at 12 Gyr. The Elson profile corresponds to the model presented in the main text with a BH seed of 5000 M⊙, while the King model has identical initial conditions but uses a King pr…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

     m-*hՐ=M8DeB,߽Xsؐ&I kLE- )ȚՄ\ ;0<H P` L* B )4OK4j–Zm k ?L0S * ) Y Dd g 7 AE J) PE` -Q7ZIdV߮Y E V h E` BmHe dg_0 R@ ˤ,U6 8DS#k IG BiH@7=z\轏. (.V ѓ f&Je`Ƭ

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

    2021

  4. [4]

    Abt , H. A. 1983, , 21, 343, 10.1146/annurev.aa.21.090183.002015

    arXiv 1983

  5. [5]

    2017, , 55, 17, 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055306

    Alexander , T. 2017, , 55, 17, 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055306

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

  6. [6]

    2009, , 697, 1861, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1861

    Alexander , T., & Hopman , C. 2009, , 697, 1861, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1861

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1861 2009

  7. [7]

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

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

  8. [8]

    N., & Wolf , R

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

    doi:10.1086/154711 1976

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    1977, , 216, 883, 10.1086/155534

    ---. 1977, , 216, 883, 10.1086/155534

    1977 doi

  2. [10]

    2016, , 820, 129, 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/129

    Bar-Or , B., & Alexander , T. 2016, , 820, 129, 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/129

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    2017, , 464, 2174, 10.1093/mnras/stw2488

    Baumgardt , H. 2017, , 464, 2174, 10.1093/mnras/stw2488

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    2019 a , , 482, 5138, 10.1093/mnras/sty2997

    Baumgardt , H., Hilker , M., Sollima , A., & Bellini , A. 2019 a , , 482, 5138, 10.1093/mnras/sty2997

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 613, 1133, 10.1086/423298

    Baumgardt, H., Makino, J., & Ebisuzaki, T. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 613, 1133, 10.1086/423298

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    M., et al

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

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

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

    2003

  8. [16]

    P., del Pino , A., et al

    Bianchini , P., van der Marel , R. P., del Pino , A., et al. 2018, , 481, 2125, 10.1093/mnras/sty2365

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    2018, , 479, 2789, 10.1093/mnras/sty1601

    Boubert , D., Guillochon , J., Hawkins , K., et al. 2018, , 479, 2789, 10.1093/mnras/sty1601

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    2020, , 898, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85

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

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    2020, , 890, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6989

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

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    R., Geller , M

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

    2005 doi

  13. [21]

    Chang , J. N. Y., Dai , L., Pfister , H., Kar Chowdhury , R., & Natarajan , P. 2025, , 980, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/adace7

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    C., Dotter , A., et al

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

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    N., Mapelli , M., Pasquato , M., et al

    Di Carlo , U. N., Mapelli , M., Pasquato , M., et al. 2021, , 507, 5132, 10.1093/mnras/stab2390

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    I., Girard , T

    Dinescu , D. I., Girard , T. M., & van Altena , W. F. 1999, , 117, 1792, 10.1086/300807

    1999 doi

  17. [25]

    L., Brandt , W

    Donley , J. L., Brandt , W. N., Eracleous , M., & Boller , T. 2002, , 124, 1308, 10.1086/342280

    2002 doi

  18. [26]

    Elson , R. A. W., Fall , S. M., & Freeman , K. C. 1987, , 323, 54, 10.1086/165807

    1987 doi

  19. [27]

    R., Bellazzini , M., & Pancino , E

    Ferraro , F. R., Bellazzini , M., & Pancino , E. 2002, , 573, L95, 10.1086/342087

    2002 doi

  20. [28]

    C., & Rodgers , A

    Freeman , K. C., & Rodgers , A. W. 1975, , 201, L71, 10.1086/181945

    1975 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Cheung , P., Portegies Zwart , S

    Fregeau , J. M., Cheung , P., Portegies Zwart , S. F., & Rasio , F. A. 2004, , 352, 1, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07914.x

    2004

  22. [30]

    M., & Rasio , F

    Fregeau , J. M., & Rasio , F. A. 2007, , 658, 1047, 10.1086/511809

    2007 doi

  23. [31]

    2006, , 649, 91, 10.1086/506193

    Freitag , M., Amaro-Seoane , P., & Kalogera , V. 2006, , 649, 91, 10.1086/506193

    2006 doi

  24. [32]

    2001, , 375, 711, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010706

    Freitag , M., & Benz , W. 2001, , 375, 711, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010706

    2001 doi

  25. [33]

    M., Rhee , J., Ostheimer , J

    Frinchaboy , P. M., Rhee , J., Ostheimer , J. C., et al. 2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 265, Omega Centauri, A Unique Window into Astrophysics, ed. F. van Leeuwen , J. D. Hughes , & G. Piotto , 143, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0112169

    2002 doi arXiv

  26. [35]

    2008 b , , 676, 944, 10.1086/529008

    ---. 2008 b , , 676, 944, 10.1086/529008

    2008 doi

  27. [36]

    2006, , 368, 221, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10091.x

    Ginsburg , I., & Loeb , A. 2006, , 368, 221, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10091.x

    2006

  28. [37]

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

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

    2021 doi

  29. [38]

    C., Fragione , G., Kremer , K., & Rasio , F

    Gonz \'a lez Prieto , E., Weatherford , N. C., Fragione , G., Kremer , K., & Rasio , F. A. 2024, , 969, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad43d6

    2024 doi

  30. [39]

    Greene , J. E. 2012, Nature Communications, 3, 1304, 10.1038/ncomms2314

    2012 doi

  31. [40]

    A., Freitag , M., & Rasio , F

    G \"u rkan , M. A., Freitag , M., & Rasio , F. A. 2004, , 604, 632, 10.1086/381968

    2004 doi

  32. [41]

    2024 a , , 631, 285, 10.1038/s41586-024-07511-z

    H \"a berle , M., Neumayer , N., Seth , A., et al. 2024 a , , 631, 285, 10.1038/s41586-024-07511-z

    2024 doi

  33. [42]

    2024 b , , 970, 192, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad47f5

    H \"a berle , M., Neumayer , N., Bellini , A., et al. 2024 b , , 970, 192, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad47f5

    2024 doi

  34. [43]

    2025, , 983, 95, 10.3847/1538-4357/adbe67

    H \"a berle , M., Neumayer , N., Clontz , C., et al. 2025, , 983, 95, 10.3847/1538-4357/adbe67

    2025 doi

  35. [44]

    H., Stone , N

    Hannah , C. H., Stone , N. C., Seth , A. C., & van Velzen , S. 2025, , 988, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/addd1b

    2025 doi

  36. [45]

    Harris , W. E. 1996, , 112, 1487, 10.1086/118116

    1996 doi

  37. [46]

    Heggie , D. C. 1975, , 173, 729, 10.1093/mnras/173.3.729

    1975 doi

  38. [47]

    1990, , 356, 359, 10.1086/168845

    Hernquist , L. 1990, , 356, 359, 10.1086/168845

    1990 doi

  39. [48]

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

    1988 doi

  40. [49]

    2005, , 629, 362, 10.1086/431475

    Hopman , C., & Alexander , T. 2005, , 629, 362, 10.1086/431475

    2005 doi

  41. [50]

    2006, , 645, L133, 10.1086/506273

    ---. 2006, , 645, L133, 10.1086/506273

    2006 doi

  42. [51]

    2024, , 527, 1865, 10.1093/mnras/stad3269

    Huang , H.-T., & Lu , W. 2024, , 527, 1865, 10.1093/mnras/stad3269

    2024 doi

  43. [52]

    2004, , 616, L107, 10.1086/426505

    Ideta , M., & Makino , J. 2004, , 616, L107, 10.1086/426505

    2004 doi

  44. [53]

    1983, , 202, 995, 10.1093/mnras/202.4.995

    Jaffe , W. 1983, , 202, 995, 10.1093/mnras/202.4.995

    1983 doi

  45. [54]

    2012, , 538, A19, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116923

    Jalali , B., Baumgardt , H., Kissler-Patig , M., et al. 2012, , 538, A19, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116923

    2012 doi

  46. [55]

    I., & Pilachowski , C

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

    2010 doi

  47. [56]

    J., Rasio , F

    Joshi , K. J., Rasio , F. A., & Portegies Zwart , S. 2000, , 540, 969, 10.1086/309350

    2000 doi

  48. [57]

    2025, , 980, 150, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada8a8

    Kaur , K., Rom , B., & Sari , R. 2025, , 980, 150, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada8a8

    2025 doi

  49. [58]

    2012, , 85, 024037, 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.024037

    Kesden , M. 2012, , 85, 024037, 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.024037

    2012 doi

  50. [59]

    E., Boubert , D., Li , T

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

    2020 doi

  51. [60]

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

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

    2001

  52. [61]

    Kruijssen , J. M. D., & Cooper , A. P. 2012, , 420, 340, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20037.x

    2012

  53. [62]

    2019, , 882, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab379a

    Law-Smith , J., Guillochon , J., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2019, , 882, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab379a

    2019 doi

  54. [63]

    W., Joo , J

    Lee , Y. W., Joo , J. M., Sohn , Y. J., et al. 1999, , 402, 55, 10.1038/46985

    1999 doi

  55. [64]

    Leigh , N. W. C., L \"u tzgendorf , N., Geller , A. M., et al. 2014, , 444, 29, 10.1093/mnras/stu1437

    2014 doi

  56. [65]

    P., & Shapiro , S

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

    1977 doi

  57. [66]

    2024, , 977, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9384

    Limberg , G. 2024, , 977, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9384

    2024 doi

  58. [67]

    2012, , 757, 134, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/134

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

    2012 doi

  59. [68]

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

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

    1999

  60. [69]

    2025, , 694, A272, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452306

    Mancieri , D., Broggi , L., Bonetti , M., & Sesana , A. 2025, , 694, A272, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452306

    2025 doi

  61. [70]

    E., & van der Marel , R

    McLaughlin , D. E., & van der Marel , R. P. 2005, , 161, 304, 10.1086/497429

    2005 doi

  62. [71]

    2019, , 872, 151, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab010f

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

    2019 doi

  63. [72]

    2024, , 527, 2452, 10.1093/mnras/stad3001

    Mummery , A., van Velzen , S., Nathan , E., et al. 2024, , 527, 2452, 10.1093/mnras/stad3001

    2024 doi

  64. [73]

    S., Neumayer , N., H \"a berle , M., et al

    Nitschai , M. S., Neumayer , N., H \"a berle , M., et al. 2024, , 970, 152, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5289

    2024 doi

  65. [74]

    E., Freeman , K

    Norris , J. E., Freeman , K. C., Mayor , M., & Seitzer , P. 1997, , 487, L187, 10.1086/310895

    1997 doi

  66. [75]

    R., Bellazzini , M., Piotto , G., & Zoccali , M

    Pancino , E., Ferraro , F. R., Bellazzini , M., Piotto , G., & Zoccali , M. 2000, , 534, L83, 10.1086/312658

    2000 doi

  67. [76]

    Peters, P. C. 1964, Phys. Rev., 136, B1224, 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224

    1964 doi

  68. [77]

    L., & Colpi , M

    Pfister , H., Volonteri , M., Dai , J. L., & Colpi , M. 2020, , 497, 2276, 10.1093/mnras/staa1962

    2020 doi

  69. [78]

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

    2017 doi

  70. [79]

    Qunbar , I., & Stone , N. C. 2024, , 133, 141401, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.141401

    2024 doi

  71. [80]

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

    1988 doi

  72. [81]

    E., & Comastri , A

    Reines , A. E., & Comastri , A. 2016, , 33, e054, 10.1017/pasa.2016.46

    2016 doi

  73. [82]

    L., Hafen , Z., Grudi \'c , M

    Rodriguez , C. L., Hafen , Z., Grudi \'c , M. Y., et al. 2023, , 521, 124, 10.1093/mnras/stad578

    2023 doi

  74. [83]

    L., Weatherford, N

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

    2022 doi

  75. [84]

    2024, , 977, 7, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8b1d

    Rom , B., Linial , I., Kaur , K., & Sari , R. 2024, , 977, 7, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8b1d

    2024 doi

  76. [85]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.13209, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.13209

    Rom , B., & Sari , R. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.13209, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.13209

    2025 doi arXiv

  77. [86]

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

    2009 doi

  78. [87]

    2017, , 95, 083001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.083001

    Servin , J., & Kesden , M. 2017, , 95, 083001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.083001

    2017 doi

  79. [88]

    Sharma , K., & Rodriguez , C. L. 2025, , 983, 162, 10.3847/1538-4357/adbbdf

    2025 doi

  80. [89]

    2013, , 435, 1809, 10.1093/mnras/stt1270

    Stone , N., Sari , R., & Loeb , A. 2013, , 435, 1809, 10.1093/mnras/stt1270

    2013 doi

  81. [90]

    C., K \"u pper , A

    Stone , N. C., K \"u pper , A. H. W., & Ostriker , J. P. 2017, , 467, 4180, 10.1093/mnras/stx097

    2017 doi

  82. [91]

    C., & Metzger , B

    Stone , N. C., & Metzger , B. D. 2016, , 455, 859, 10.1093/mnras/stv2281

    2016 doi

  83. [92]

    E., & Quataert , E

    Strubbe , L. E., & Quataert , E. 2009, , 400, 2070, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15599.x

    2009

  84. [93]

    L., Madau , P., Bortolas , E., et al

    Tang , V. L., Madau , P., Bortolas , E., et al. 2024, , 963, 146, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1dd9

    2024 doi

  85. [94]

    C., King , I

    Trager , S. C., King , I. R., & Djorgovski , S. 1995, , 109, 218, 10.1086/117268

    1995 doi

  86. [95]

    I., & Korchagin , V

    Tsuchiya , T., Dinescu , D. I., & Korchagin , V. I. 2003, , 589, L29, 10.1086/375805

    2003 doi

  87. [96]

    M., Chatterjee , S., & Rasio , F

    Umbreit , S., Fregeau , J. M., Chatterjee , S., & Rasio , F. A. 2012, , 750, 31, 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/31

    2012 doi

  88. [97]

    P., & Anderson , J

    van der Marel , R. P., & Anderson , J. 2010, , 710, 1063, 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1063

    2010 doi

  89. [98]

    S., Reijns , R

    van Leeuwen , F., Le Poole , R. S., Reijns , R. A., Freeman , K. C., & de Zeeuw , P. T. 2000, , 360, 472

    2000

  90. [99]

    E., Stone , N

    van Velzen , S., Anderson , G. E., Stone , N. C., et al. 2016, Science, 351, 62, 10.1126/science.aad1182

    2016 doi

  91. [100]

    2021, , 505, 5978, 10.1093/mnras/stab1475

    Vasiliev , E., & Baumgardt , H. 2021, , 505, 5978, 10.1093/mnras/stab1475

    2021 doi

  92. [101]

    T., Seth , A

    Voggel , K. T., Seth , A. C., Baumgardt , H., et al. 2019, , 871, 159, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf735

    2019 doi

  93. [102]

    2010, , 18, 279, 10.1007/s00159-010-0029-x

    Volonteri , M. 2010, , 18, 279, 10.1007/s00159-010-0029-x

    2010 doi

  94. [103]

    2004, , 600, 149, 10.1086/379767

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

    2004 doi

  95. [104]

    L., van der Marel , R

    Watkins , L. L., van der Marel , R. P., Bellini , A., & Anderson , J. 2015, , 803, 29, 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/29

    2015 doi

  96. [105]

    2024, , 535, 781, 10.1093/mnras/stae2333

    Wragg , F., Kamann , S., Saracino , S., et al. 2024, , 535, 781, 10.1093/mnras/stae2333

    2024 doi

  97. [106]

    2023, , 955, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216

    Yao , Y., Ravi , V., Gezari , S., et al. 2023, , 955, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216

    2023 doi

  98. [107]

    2019, , 482, 4713, 10.1093/mnras/sty1508

    Zocchi , A., Gieles , M., & H \'e nault-Brunet , V. 2019, , 482, 4713, 10.1093/mnras/sty1508

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.