Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 66 references

Simulation of Binary-Single Interactions in AGN Disk I: Gas-Enhanced Binary Orbital Hardening

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Gas in AGN disks hardens binaries formed in binary-single interactions and shortens their gravitational-wave merger times.

desk verdict First 2D hydro + N-body simulation of binary-single interactions in AGN disks shows gas hardens end-state BBHs and shortens GW merger timescales, but the quantitative claims rest on a 2D geometry and untested sink parameters. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10703 v3 pith:U7TJMKZO submitted 2025-01-18 astro-ph.HE

Mengye Wang , Yiqiu Ma , Hui Li , Qingwen Wu , Ya-Ping Li , Xiangli Lei , Jiancheng Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords binary-singleinteractionAGNdiskblackholemergersgravitationalwavesgasdynamicalfrictionhydrodynamicalsimulationthree-bodydynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to show that the dense gas inside an active galactic nucleus disk is dynamically important for binary-single interactions between stellar-mass black holes, not just a passive background. Across 360 two-dimensional hydrodynamical and N-body simulations, it finds that gas drains energy from the three-body system whenever two holes pass each other much faster than the disk sound speed, changing up to 37 of 60 encounter outcomes and making the surviving binary more compact. The eccentricity distribution of the end-state binaries is left nearly unchanged, so the gas shortens the gravitational-wave merger timescale of the end-state binary while preserving the high-eccentricity signature that makes this channel identifiable. A sympathetic reader would take the paper as evidence that gas hardening should be included in predictions of AGN-assisted binary black hole mergers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the gas contribution to the three-body energy change rate, ε_gas, computed by summing the gravitational force of every fluid cell on each black hole and taking the pairwise dot product with relative velocities. The mechanism that carries the argument is the pulsed gas drag: at each close encounter, colliding circum-single disks create a high-density region that first pulls the approaching holes together and then, as the holes recede, drags them back and removes energy from the system. The paper tracks the time integral of ε_gas and shows that each steep decline coincides with a close encounter, while the corresponding torque integral stays near zero.

What would settle it

A 3D shearing-box simulation of the same fiducial encounter (same masses, softening, and surface density) would settle the claim: if vertical outflow reduces the accumulated gas between separating holes enough to erase the shift in end-state semi-major axis, or to move the changed-end-state fraction far below 16/60 at high density, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that gas-induced energy dissipation during close encounters hardens the binary black hole that emerges from a binary-single interaction. The mechanism identified is that when two stellar-mass black holes encounter at relative speed well above the disk sound speed, the gas accumulated between them lags behind their separating motion and exerts a gravitational drag, producing sharp, intermittent drops in the three-body energy. In the fiducial run, this shrinks the end-state semi-major axis from 0.32 R_H to 0.08 R_H while the gas torque nearly cancels, leaving the eccentricity distribution close to the gas-free analytical prediction. Across the parameter grid, higher gas density raises the number of close encounters and shifts the end-state pericenter distribution to smaller values, which shortens the gravitational-wave merger timescale for the surviving binaries.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the two-dimensional shearing-box hydrodynamics, together with the chosen sink radius and softening length, produces the gas gravitational force that drains energy; because gas squeezed between two separating holes cannot escape vertically in 2D, the accumulated column density may overestimate the drag, and the paper presents no 3D test.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • End-state BBHs from gas-rich BSIs have systematically smaller semi-major axes, so their gravitational-wave merger timescales are shorter than gas-free predictions.
  • With increasing disk surface density, the fraction of BSI end states changed by gas rises from 16/60 to 37/60, and the number of close encounters grows, implying a higher three-body merger rate at higher density.
  • The eccentricity distribution of end-state BBHs is nearly unaffected by gas, so the eccentricity signature of the BSI channel survives in a gas environment.
  • Higher gas density increases the probability of stable triple end states, meaning some encounters leave a bound three-body system that can later undergo further interactions.
  • The shortened pericenter distribution implies more rapid mergers for both prograde and, especially, retrograde end-state BBHs in the disk.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: because the runs are 2D, compressed gas between separating holes cannot escape vertically, so the accumulated column density probably overestimates the gas drag; the qualitative hardening direction is likely robust, but the quantitative shift of the CDFs may be weaker in 3D.
  • Editorial extension: if this hardening operates in real AGN disks, population-synthesis models of the AGN channel should include a gas-density-dependent reduction of merger delay times, which would make high-density disks overproduce mergers relative to gas-free expectations.
  • Editorial extension: the pulsed-drag picture suggests a simple analytic closure: add a dissipative drag term proportional to the local gas column density and to the relative encounter velocity in three-body scattering, then compare the resulting end-state distributions to the 360-run statistics.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents 2D hydrodynamical plus N-body simulations of binary-single interactions (BSIs) between equal-mass (50 solar mass) black holes embedded in a coplanar, isothermal AGN disk shearing box, using Athena++ coupled with REBOUND. The authors run 360 models spanning five gas surface densities (0 to 5 Sigma_star) and 60 impact parameters. They report that gas accumulated between sBHs during close encounters drains energy from the three-body system, changing the end state relative to the gas-free case in 16/60 to 37/60 of runs, producing more compact end-state BBHs (shifted semi-major-axis CDF), and shortening the inferred gravitational-wave merger timescales. The gas-free runs reproduce the analytic CDFs of semi-major axis and eccentricity, providing an internal validation.

Significance. If the quantitative claims survive the modeling caveats, the paper provides the first direct hydrodynamical evidence that gas in AGN disks can harden binaries formed in binary-single encounters and shorten their GW merger timescales, which would strengthen the AGN channel for eccentric mergers. The study is carefully designed in several respects: the energy and torque decomposition isolates the gas contribution (Eqs. 13 and 15; Figs. 4, 7, and 8), the spatio-temporal maps of power and torque identify the underlying mechanism, and the Sigma=0 suite matches analytic BSI CDFs, lending credibility to the numerical setup. However, the quantitative predictions rest on 2D geometry and on a sink prescription whose parameters have not been varied; these are the main limitations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, limitation (3); Eq. (8); Fig. 12] The central quantitative outcomes—the end-state change fraction (16/60 to 37/60), the compacting of the a_b CDF, and the shortened T_GW distribution—are all governed by the gas gravitational force a_{k,gas} in Eq. (8). In the 2D shearing box, gas compressed between two separating sBHs cannot escape vertically, so the column density (and hence the force) may be systematically overestimated relative to a 3D disk with vertical outflow. The manuscript acknowledges this explicitly but offers only a belief that the conclusions are qualitatively unchanged. Because the claim of shortened merger timescales is quantitative, the authors should either present 3D simulations for a representative subset of parameters or provide a quantitative estimate (e.g., comparing the encounter timescale to the vertical sound-crossing time) showing that the accumulated column is not artificially enhanced; without this, the magnitude of T_GW shortening is not established.
  2. [Section 2.1 and Section 4] The sink parameters (epsilon = 0.08 a_b0, r_sink = 0.8 epsilon, n_b = 2.0) and the gas-gravity activation distance of 2 R_H (Section 2.3) are free modeling choices, but no sensitivity or convergence study is reported. The gas mass retained in circum-single disks and in the collision regions depends directly on r_sink and n_b, and the gas force in Eq. (8) is proportional to that mass. I request parameter-variation runs (e.g., varying epsilon, r_sink, and n_b by factors of 2) to demonstrate that the end-state CDFs and the T_GW distributions in Fig. 12 are insensitive to these choices.
  3. [Section 4, end-state definition] The end state is defined at time T2 when "the distance between two sBHs in the three-body system remains greater than RH until the termination of simulation at 3T0"; for the gas runs, the interaction duration is increased, so a fixed 3T0 cutoff may classify systems that are still interacting as stable triples, potentially biasing the "changed end states" and ST fractions. The authors should report the distribution of T2 values for each Sigma0, and run a subset of long-duration simulations (e.g., 10T0) to confirm that no gas run is misclassified due to the duration cutoff.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.3] The simulation domain is stated as "x ∈ [−7.5RH, 7.5RH] and y ∈ [15RH, 15RH]"; the y-interval should presumably be "y ∈ [−15RH, 15RH]".
  2. [Section 3.2] The end-state value is written as "after BSI: ab0 = 0.08 RH" using the same symbol ab0 that denotes the initial semi-major axis; this should be ab to avoid confusion.
  3. [Sections 3.2 and 4] Throughout these sections, "Hills sphere" should be "Hill sphere".
  4. [Section 5, limitation (1)] The phrase "shounld be discussed" contains a typo; it should be "should be discussed".
  5. [Eq. (17)] The merger timescale formula is the high-eccentricity limit of Peters (1964); please cite the original derivation and state the validity range, since Fig. 12 applies it to all end-state BBHs.
  6. [Section 4.1] The sequence of changed-end-state ratios (16/60, 16/60, 17/60, 26/60, 37/60) is not explicitly labeled with the corresponding densities; please add the correspondence to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims are simulation outputs, not redefinitions, fitted predictions, or conclusions imported from self-citations.

full rationale

This is a simulation study, not an analytic derivation, and the central claims are direct outputs of the coupled Athena++/REBOUND integrations. The gas-induced binary hardening, the shift of the end-state semi-major axis distribution, and the shortened GW merger timescale are measured from the evolved distributions (Figures 11 and 12), not defined by any fitted parameter. The only external analytical benchmark, Equation (16), is used as a comparison for the gas-free and low-density limits and is not calibrated to the gas runs. The sink radius, softening length, and gas-removal rate (epsilon = 0.08 a_b0, r_sink = 0.8 epsilon, n_b = 2.0, Section 2.1) are fixed resolution and modeling inputs, not tuned to produce compact end states, and no parameter is inferred from the target end-state statistics. The self-citations, such as Li et al. (2021, 2024), are used to justify the sink treatment and the neglect of accretion feedback, but this is a modeling convention and is not a load-bearing argument whose conclusion is contained in the cited work. The paper explicitly acknowledges the lack of 3D simulations (Section 5, limitation 3) and the resulting uncertainty; this is a robustness and correctness limitation, not circularity, because the 2D result is not presented as a derived consequence of the 3D calculation or of the analytical benchmark. No step in the paper reduces an output to an input by construction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in through a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The gas bridge between colliding circum-single disks is a standard gas-dynamical structure, not a new force or particle. All free parameters are numerical resolution and sub-grid prescriptions.

free parameters (5)
  • sink gas removal rate nb = 2.0
    Explicitly called a free parameter in Section 2.1; controls how quickly gas is removed within rsink, shaping the gas density responsible for the computed gravitational force on the sBHs; no sensitivity study is provided.
  • gravitational softening length eps = 0.08 ab0
    Chosen for resolution (Section 2.3); regulates the gas potential near each sBH, directly affecting the gas force magnitude a_k,gas in equation (8).
  • sink radius rsink = 0.8 eps
    Set relative to eps (Section 2.3); determines the region of mass removal and the density profile around each sBH; no convergence test.
  • initial binary semi-major axis ab0 = RH/5
    Chosen based on resolution (Section 2.3); sets the initial binary hardness and the scale of the encounter, affecting all end-state statistics.
  • gas-gravity activation distance = 2 RH
    Gas gravity on sBHs is switched off until COM separation is less than 2 RH (Section 2.3); a modeling choice that excludes distant gas effects from the comparison.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Isothermal equation of state P = Sigma c_s^2
    Adopted in Section 2.3 for a geometrically thin disk; excludes thermal feedback and radiation, which could modify gas density during encounters.
  • domain assumption Gas self-gravity, relativity, radiation, and magnetic fields are neglected
    Stated in Section 2.3 as a preliminary consideration; each can alter gas morphology or dynamics around the sBHs, but the authors argue they are secondary for the short BSI timescale.
  • ad hoc to paper 2D hydrodynamics is representative of the 3D encounter
    Section 5 limitation (3) admits 3D simulations are not yet performed and asserts the main mechanism remains qualitatively similar; this is an unverified extrapolation because vertical gas escape could reduce the accumulated gas mass and therefore the drag.
  • domain assumption Gas accretion does not change sBH masses or momenta
    Section 2.1 and Section 5 limitation (4) justify by stating Delta m/50 Msun < 1% and citing prior works; the gravitational effect of gas is assumed to dominate accretion drag.
  • ad hoc to paper Disabling gas gravity on the sBHs at separations greater than 2 RH is physical
    Section 2.3 assumes the sBH and its gas background comove on independent Keplerian orbits until close approach; this choice filters out any distant gas influence and is not sensitivity-tested.
  • domain assumption Newtonian three-body dynamics; no GW radiation in N-body
    Section 2.3 adopts Newtonian gravity with softening 1e-6 RH; direct mergers (~4% of cases) are not captured, so the merger-rate conclusion relies on proxies (encounter count, pericenter CDF) rather than simulated mergers.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulation of Binary-Single Interactions in AGN Disk I: Gas-Enhanced Binary Orbital Hardening." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U7TJMKZO

@misc{pith2026250110703,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulation of Binary-Single Interactions in AGN Disk I: Gas-Enhanced Binary Orbital Hardening},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U7TJMKZO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10703}
}
abstract

Stellar-mass binary black hole\,(BBH) mergers within the accretion disks of active galactic nuclei may contribute to gravitational wave\,(GW) events detected by grounded-based GW detectors. In particular, the interaction between a BBH and a single stellar-mass black hole\,(sBH), known as the binary-single interaction\,(BSI) process, can potentially lead to GW events with detectable non-zero eccentricity. Previous studies of the BSI process, which neglected the effects of gas, showed that BSIs contribute non-negligibly to GW events in a coplanar disk environment. In this work, we conduct a series of 2-dimensional hydrodynamical and N-body simulations to explore the BSI in a gas environment by coupling REBOUND with Athena++. We perform 360 simulation runs, spanning parameters in disk surface density \(\Sigma_0\) and impact parameter \(b\). We find that the gas-induced energy dissipation within the three-body system becomes significant if the encounter velocity between the sBHs is sufficiently large\,($\gg c_s$). Our simulation results indicate that approximately half of the end states of the BSI are changed by gas. Furthermore, at higher gas density, the number of close encounters during the BSI process will increase and the end-state BBHs tend to be more compact. Consequently, the presence of gas may shorten the GW merger timescale for end-state BBHs and increase the three-body merger rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10703 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the physical scenario. We take a 2D rectangular patch (shearing box) from an AGN disk that is in Keplerian rotation around the SMBH. The shearing box is located at a distance R0 from the SMBH and performs circular motion around the SMBH with an angular frequency Ω0. To save computational resources, we only simulate the hydrodynamics of the shearing box in the corotating frame (x, y). A BB… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The gas density distributions before the interac￾tion between the BBH and the single sBH at t = 0.95T0. The right panels provide zoomed-in views of the regions around the single sBH and the BBH, respectively. There are inner and outer spiral arms on scales of RH for both the single sBH and the BBH. Within the sphere, the single sBH is sur￾rounded by a prograde circumstellar disk (CSD), while the BBH is surrounded by… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Snapshots of the gas surface density at the first close encounter for our fiducial model. The black/white/green dots and arrows represent the position and velocity direction of sBH1/sBH2/sBH3, respectively. As the sBHs approach each other, their CSDs become connected through a new spiral arm. Subsequently, their CSDs collide, forming a high-density region between the two sBHs. As the two sBHs move away from each oth… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The energy dissipation of the three-body sys￾tem in our fiducial model. The two vertical dashed lines represent the start (T1) and end times (T2) of the BSI, de￾termined by whether the maximum distance between the three sBHs exceeds RH. The top two panels show the en￾e…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Configurational trajectory evolution of the three￾body system, where the green, red, and blue dots symbolize sBH1/sBH2/sBH3, respectively. We have chosen to analyze this configuration using the reference frame of sBH1, which initially pairs up with sBH2 to form a binar…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The energy changes rate (power) per unit area of the three-body system by disk gas for our fiducial model. The black/white/green dots and arrows represent the position and velocity direction of sBH1/sBH2/sBH3, respectively. The red regions represent the energy lost by …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The torque per unit area of the three-body system by disk gas for our fiducial model in the unit of L0T −1 0 R −2 H , where L0 = |L(T1)| is the absolute value of the initial angular momentum of the three-body system at T1. Red regions indicate the angular momentum lost…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The angular momentum dissipation of the three￾body system in our fiducial model. The top two panels show the angular momentum change rate (torque) due to the SMBH and the gas in the unit of L0T −1 0 , respectively, for Σ0 = 0 (dotted line) and Σ0 = Σ⋆ (solid line). The…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The end states of BSI for our 360 simulations. In the left panel, we divide the end states into ST (blue), BS12 (red), BS23 (green), BS13 (orange) and Ion (black). In the right panel, we show the spin directions of the end-state binaries. Prograde and retrograde confi…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The orbital parameters distribution of the end-state binaries in our simulations. In the left panel, we show the ratio between the semi-major axis of the end-state binary and that of the initial binary. As the density increases, this ratio gradually decreases, indicat…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The CDFs of end-state BBH orbital parameters at various densities are shown across the four panels: from left to right, they display the CDF of the final semi-major axis ab, eccentricity 1 − eb, pericenter rp and GW merger time TGW. The black dashed lines in the first…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Abraham, S., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2020a, PhRvL, 125, 101102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.101102 —. 2020b, ApJL, 900, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba493

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.101102

  2. [2]

    2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    Acernese, F., Agathos, M., Agatsuma, K., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 2015

  3. [3]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 5008, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1149

    Antonini, F., Gieles, M., & Gualandris, A. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5008, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1149

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1149 2019

  4. [4]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.03832, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.03832

    Barber, J., & Antonini, F. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.03832, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.03832

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.03832 2024

  5. [5]

    2017, Nature Communications, 8, 831, doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-00851-7

    Bartos, I., Haiman, Z., Marka, Z., et al. 2017, Nature Communications, 8, 831, doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-00851-7

    doi:10.1038/s41467-017-00851-7 2017

  6. [6]

    Baruteau, C., Cuadra, J., & Lin, D. N. C. 2011, ApJ, 726, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/1/28

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/726/1/28 2011

  7. [7]

    E., Bulik, T., & O’Shaughnessy, R

    Belczynski, K., Holz, D. E., Bulik, T., & O’Shaughnessy, R. 2016, Nature, 534, 512, doi: 10.1038/nature18322

    doi:10.1038/nature18322 2016

  8. [8]

    M., Mac Low, M.-M., McKernan, B., & Ford, K

    Bellovary, J. M., Mac Low, M.-M., McKernan, B., & Ford, K. E. S. 2016, ApJL, 819, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L17

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/l17 2016

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    A., & Brown, G

    Bethe, H. A., & Brown, G. E. 1998, ApJ, 506, 780, doi: 10.1086/306265

    1998 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Dittmann, A

    Calcino, J., Dempsey, A. M., Dittmann, A. J., & Li, H. 2024, ApJ, 970, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a53

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    M., & Isi, M

    Chen, H.-Y., Haster, C.-J., Vitale, S., Farr, W. M., & Isi, M. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac989

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Li, H., Mishra, B., & Li, S

    Dempsey, A. M., Li, H., Mishra, B., & Li, S. 2022, ApJ, 940, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d92

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5cf2

    Dodici, M., & Tremaine, S. 2024, ApJ, 972, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5cf2

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    1985, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    Everhart, E. 1985, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    1985

  7. [15]

    115, IAU Colloq

    Library, Vol. 115, IAU Colloq. 83: Dynamics of Comets: Their Origin and Evolution, ed. A. Carusi & G. B. Valsecchi, 185, doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-5400-7 17

    doi

  8. [16]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.16948, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.16948

    Fabj, G., & Samsing, J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.16948, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.16948

    2024 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    2020, ApJL, 890, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab745d

    Gayathri, V., Bartos, I., Haiman, Z., et al. 2020, ApJL, 890, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab745d

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 2011, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1999

    Giacobbo, N., & Mapelli, M. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2011, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1999

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    B., & Perets, H

    Ginat, Y. B., & Perets, H. B. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 190, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2565 —. 2023, MNRAS, 519, L15, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac145

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    1979, ApJ, 233, 857, doi: 10.1086/157448

    Goldreich, P., & Tremaine, S. 1979, ApJ, 233, 857, doi: 10.1086/157448

    1979 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Ford, K

    Graham, M. J., Ford, K. E. S., McKernan, B., et al. 2020, PhRvL, 124, 251102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.251102 G¨ ultekin, K., Miller, M. C., & Hamilton, D. P. 2006, ApJ, 640, 156, doi: 10.1086/499917 16 W ang et al

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    F., Gammie, C

    Hawley, J. F., Gammie, C. F., & Balbus, S. A. 1995, ApJ, 440, 742, doi: 10.1086/175311 Kagra Collaboration, Akutsu, T., Ando, M., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 35, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0658-y

    1995 doi

  15. [23]

    F., Meiron, Y., Shukirgaliyev, B., et al

    Kennedy, G. F., Meiron, Y., Shukirgaliyev, B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 240, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw908

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    2022, PhRvD, 105, 063011, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.063011

    Kritos, K., & Silk, J. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 063011, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.063011

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.11489

    Li, G.-P., & Fan, X.-L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.11489. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11489

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    M., Li, H., Lai, D., & Li, S

    Li, J., Dempsey, A. M., Li, H., Lai, D., & Li, S. 2023, ApJL, 944, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb934

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 1602, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2577

    Li, R., & Lai, D. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1602, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2577

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    Li, Y.-P., Chen, Y.-X., & Lin, D. N. C. 2024, ApJ, 971, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5a06

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Li, H., Li, S., & Li, J

    Li, Y.-P., Dempsey, A. M., Li, H., Li, S., & Li, J. 2022, ApJL, 928, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac60fd

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Li, S., Li, H., & Li, J

    Li, Y.-P., Dempsey, A. M., Li, S., Li, H., & Li, J. 2021, ApJ, 911, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abed48 LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Aasi, J., Abbott, B. P., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 074001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    2010, ApJL, 715, L68, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/715/2/L68

    Lyra, W., Paardekooper, S.-J., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2010, ApJL, 715, L68, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/715/2/L68

    2010 doi

  24. [32]

    S., & Papaloizou, J

    Masset, F. S., & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2003, ApJ, 588, 494, doi: 10.1086/373892

    2003 doi

  25. [33]

    Winter, L. M. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu553

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Lyra, W., & Perets, H. B. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 460, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21486.x

    2012

  27. [35]

    Monaghan, J. J. 1976, MNRAS, 177, 583, doi: 10.1093/mnras/177.3.583

    1976 doi

  28. [36]

    D., Trani, A

    Parischewsky, H. D., Trani, A. A., & Leigh, N. W. C. 2023, SciPost Physics Core, 6, 016, doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhysCore.6.1.016 Portegies Zwart, S. F., & McMillan, S. L. W. 2000, ApJL, 528, L17, doi: 10.1086/312422

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Rein, H., & Liu, S. F. 2012, A&A, 537, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085

    2012 doi

  30. [38]

    Rein, H., & Spiegel, D. S. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 1424, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2164

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

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

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

    doi

  32. [40]

    L., Haster, C.-J., Chatterjee, S., Kalogera, V., & Rasio, F

    Rodriguez, C. L., Haster, C.-J., Chatterjee, S., Kalogera, V., & Rasio, F. A. 2016b, ApJL, 824, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/824/1/L8

    doi

  33. [41]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 2770, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1926

    Rowan, C., Boekholt, T., Kocsis, B., & Haiman, Z. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2770, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1926

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09017

    Rowan, C., Whitehead, H., Fabj, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09017. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09017

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.12086, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.12086

    Rowan, C., Whitehead, H., & Kocsis, B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.12086, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.12086

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Rozner, M., Generozov, A., & Perets, H. B. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 866, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad603

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    Rozner, M., & Perets, H. B. 2022, ApJ, 931, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6d55

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 833, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae037

    Saini, P. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 833, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae037

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    2018, PhRvD, 97, 103014, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.103014

    Samsing, J. 2018, PhRvD, 97, 103014, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.103014

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    J., et al

    Samsing, J., Bartos, I., D’Orazio, D. J., et al. 2022, Nature, 603, 237, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04333-1

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    2019, ApJ, 878, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab20ca

    Secunda, A., Bellovary, J., Mac Low, M.-M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab20ca

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    2003, MNRAS, 341, 501, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06431.x

    Sirko, E., & Goodman, J. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 501, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06431.x

    2003

  43. [51]

    2017, Nature Communications, 8, 14906, doi: 10.1038/ncomms14906

    Stevenson, S., Vigna-G´ omez, A., Mandel, I., et al. 2017, Nature Communications, 8, 14906, doi: 10.1038/ncomms14906

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    M., Hawley, J

    Stone, J. M., Hawley, J. F., Gammie, C. F., & Balbus, S. A. 1996, ApJ, 463, 656, doi: 10.1086/177280

    1996 doi

  45. [53]

    M., Tomida, K., White, C

    Stone, J. M., Tomida, K., White, C. J., & Felker, K. G. 2020, ApJS, 249, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929b

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    C., & Leigh, N

    Stone, N. C., & Leigh, N. W. C. 2019, Nature, 576, 406, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1833-8

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    C., Metzger, B

    Stone, N. C., Metzger, B. D., & Haiman, Z. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2260

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8c

    Tagawa, H., Haiman, Z., & Kocsis, B. 2020, ApJ, 898, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8c

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    Tanaka, H., Takeuchi, T., & Ward, W. R. 2002, ApJ, 565, 1257, doi: 10.1086/324713

    2002 doi

  50. [58]

    A., Quataert, E., & Murray, N

    Thompson, T. A., Quataert, E., & Murray, N. 2005, ApJ, 630, 167, doi: 10.1086/431923

    2005 doi

  51. [59]

    A., Quaini, S., & Colpi, M

    Trani, A. A., Quaini, S., & Colpi, M. 2024, A&A, 683, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347920

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    2006, The Three-Body Problem

    Valtonen, M., & Karttunen, H. 2006, The Three-Body Problem

    2006

  53. [61]

    Y., & Czerny, B

    Vilkoviskij, E. Y., & Czerny, B. 2002, A&A, 387, 804, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020255

    2002 doi

  54. [62]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 4502, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad422

    Wang, M., Ma, Y., & Wu, Q. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 4502, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad422

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    2024a, MNRAS, 531, 4656, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1430 BSI in AGN disk 17 —

    Whitehead, H., Rowan, C., Boekholt, T., & Kocsis, B. 2024a, MNRAS, 531, 4656, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1430 BSI in AGN disk 17 —. 2024b, MNRAS, 533, 1766, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1866

    doi

  56. [64]

    2019, PhRvL, 123, 181101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.181101

    Yang, Y., Bartos, I., Gayathri, V., et al. 2019, PhRvL, 123, 181101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.181101

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    2021, PhRvD, 104, 063030, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063030

    Zaldarriaga, M. 2021, PhRvD, 104, 063030, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063030

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    M., Mapelli, M., Branchesi, M., & Tormen, G

    Ziosi, B. M., Mapelli, M., Branchesi, M., & Tormen, G. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu824

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.