Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
We present a rigorous identification of candidates for dormant black holes (BHs) and neutron stars (NSs) in binaries using summary statistics from Gaia Data Release 3 (DR3), rather than full orbital solutions. Although Gaia astrometric orbits have already revealed a small sample of compact object binaries, many systems remain undetected due to stringent quality cuts imposed on the published orbits. Using a forward-modelling framework that simulates Gaia observables, in particular the re-normalised unit weight error ( ruwe ) and radial velocity (RV) scatter, we infer posterior distributions for companion mass and orbital period via Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling, marginalising over nuisance orbital parameters. We validate our approach by comparing the predicted masses and periods against full orbit solutions from DR3, and by successfully recovering known compact object binaries as promising candidates. The method is best suited for systems with red giant primaries, which have more reliable Gaia RV scatter and a light centroid more likely dominated by one component, compared to main-sequence stars, and they are less likely to be triples with short-period inner binaries, which produce confounding signatures. We applied the method to three million giants and identify 389 systems with best-fit companion masses ≳3 M ⊙ . Recovery simulations suggest our selection method is substantially more sensitive than the DR3 non-single-star catalogue, particularly for binaries with periods below 1 year and above ∼6 years. These candidates represent promising targets for spectroscopic follow-up and Gaia DR4 analysis to confirm the presence of compact objects and build a more complete census of the Galactic BH and NS population. Candidate main-sequence stars with massive companions face a larger set of confounding effects. Therefore, we present an analogous catalogue of 279 additional main-sequence candidates only as an appendix.
Müller-Horn et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: