Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 66 references

Mass Transfer Physics in Binary Stars and Applications in Gravitational Wave Sources

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Revised mass-transfer stability limits make evolved and massive binary donors more stable than older models, shifting double black hole and double white dwarf formation toward stable non-conservative mass transfer.

desk verdict A useful review of the authors' own qcrit work, but the abstract oversells the stable-mass-transfer channel by glossing over its own thermal-timescale caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17333 v1 pith:WJYB36NA submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

Hongwei Ge , Zhanwen Han This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE PACS 97.80.-d04.30.-w
keywords binarystarevolutionmasstransferstabilitycriticalratioadiabaticlosscommonenvelopedoubleblackholeswhitedwarfsgravitationalwavesources
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 argues that the critical mass ratio separating stable from dynamically unstable mass transfer in binary stars has been systematically misestimated for evolved and massive donor stars. Using realistic stellar models that respond adiabatically to mass loss, the authors find that red giants, asymptotic giant branch stars, and massive stars are more stable donors than older polytropic gas-sphere models suggested, with critical mass ratios that vary with evolutionary state instead of sitting at the traditional 3–4. This reorders how binaries evolve: double stellar-mass black holes can form preferentially through stable, non-conservative mass transfer instead of a common-envelope phase in which the donor engulfs its companion, and the resulting populations match the large mass-ratio mergers seen by gravitational-wave detectors and the observed Galactic double white dwarf merger rate. The paper matters because mass-transfer stability and common-envelope physics are the least constrained inputs in binary population synthesis, and the new thresholds turn them into concrete predictions for merging compact binaries.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the adiabatic mass-radius exponent $\zeta_{\rm ad} = d\ln R/d\ln M$ of the donor star, compared with the logarithmic response of its Roche-lobe radius to mass loss. If the donor's radius expands faster than its Roche lobe after removing mass, the overflow runs away on a dynamical timescale and a common envelope forms; if it stays inside the lobe, mass transfer remains stable. The authors computed $\zeta_{\rm ad}$ with realistic, non-polytropic stellar models that respond adiabatically to mass loss, including the partial-ionization effects that matter in evolved giant envelopes, and tabulated the resulting $q_{\rm crit}$ for donors from the main sequence to the asymptotic giant branch and for massive stars.

What would settle it

A sharp test would be a three-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamic simulation of a red supergiant donor at an initial mass ratio just above the paper's $q_{\rm crit}$ for that evolutionary state: if the binary does not enter dynamical-timescale overflow within a few orbital periods, the adiabatic mass-radius threshold has failed there. An observational counterpart would be a mass-transferring binary with donor-to-accretor ratio above the claimed $q_{\rm crit}$ that provably survives without a common envelope.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a grid of new critical mass ratios $q_{\rm crit}=M_{\rm donor}/M_{\rm accretor}$ for dynamical-timescale mass transfer across essentially the full span of donor star states. For massive main-sequence and Hertzsprung-gap donors, $q_{\rm crit}$ can rise from below 1 to above 20 depending on evolutionary state, far above the traditional constant values of 3–4, so mass transfer in massive binaries is considerably more stable than previously believed. For low- and intermediate-mass red giants and asymptotic giant branch stars, mass transfer is also more stable than polytropic estimates, except that very late asymptotic giant branch stars with $q_{\rm crit}\gtrsim 3$ may lose mass on a thermal timescale through the outer Lagrangian points rather than a prompt dynamical instability. Population synthesis using these thresholds then finds that stable non-conservative mass transfer can dominate the formation of double black holes and explain large mass-ratio systems, and that the first mass transfer phase for double white dwarfs is often stable rather than a common envelope, bringing predicted merger rates and space densities into line with observations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a donor star losing mass extremely rapidly responds adiabatically, so instability is decided by the adiabatic mass-radius exponent alone; if real giants and massive stars relax thermally or respond hydrodynamically in ways the adiabatic model does not capture, the revised $q_{\rm crit}$ grid and all downstream population conclusions would need revision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the revised thresholds are correct, the dominant formation channel for merging double black holes shifts from common-envelope ejection to stable, non-conservative mass transfer during the second mass-transfer phase.
  • The observed population of large mass-ratio double black hole mergers receives a natural explanation without invoking dynamical formation in dense clusters or chemically homogeneous evolution.
  • Most double white dwarfs would form through a first stable Roche-lobe overflow followed by one common-envelope phase, matching the observed double white dwarf space density and merger rate per galaxy.
  • The upper ends of observed mass-ratio distributions in X-ray binaries and cataclysmic variables should trace the newly tabulated $q_{\rm crit}$ curves, providing a direct observational check.
  • The Galactic type Ia supernova rate implied by the double white dwarf channel also comes into agreement with observations, tying the stability thresholds to cosmological distance measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the authors leave implicit is that common-envelope efficiency loses much of its leverage over predicted compact-object merger rates; the uncertain parameters that now dominate are the mass fraction and angular momentum carried away during stable non-conservative transfer.
  • If the adiabatic thresholds hold, many binaries previously destined to merge inside a common envelope should instead survive as wider, long-lived systems; counting such wide double compact objects in future astrometric surveys would test the shift.
  • The same mass-radius-response criterion could be extended to rapidly rotating or magnetized donors, whose adiabatic exponents and Roche-lobe geometry differ, producing subpopulation-dependent $q_{\rm crit}$ values.
  • The adiabatic assumption is most fragile in the partially ionized envelopes of late asymptotic giant branch stars, where thermal relaxation may compete with dynamical response; targeted hydrodynamic simulations there would be the sharpest check.
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 manuscript, a proceedings contribution for IAU Symposium 389, reviews the authors' adiabatic mass-loss model for computing critical mass ratios (qcrit) for dynamical-timescale mass transfer in binary stars, and summarizes claimed applications to gravitational-wave source populations. It argues that mass transfer in red giant, asymptotic giant branch, and massive stars is more stable than earlier polytropic models suggested, and reports that when these updated thresholds are used in population synthesis, non-conservative stable mass transfer may dominate the formation of double black holes and may reconcile observed double white dwarf merger rates. The paper contains no new derivations, data, or error estimates; its content is a summary of prior work by Ge et al. and others.

Significance. The underlying program is significant: the revised qcrit thresholds are already used by several independent groups (e.g., Neijssel et al. 2019; Gallegos-Garcia et al. 2021; Marchant et al. 2021; Picco et al. 2024) and have received partial independent confirmation through Temmink et al. (2023) and through comparisons with observed mass-ratio upper limits in cataclysmic variables and X-ray binaries. The manuscript itself is a concise review, and its value lies in summarizing the current state of a research program rather than presenting new results. The central application claims are plausible but depend on a number of assumptions, most notably the treatment of thermal-timescale stability, which are not adequately addressed in the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, last paragraph; Sections 3 and 4] The manuscript states in Section 2 that 'The unstable mass transfer for late RGB/AGB stars with qcrit >~ 3 might be dominated by a thermal timescale (shorter than 100 yrs) process through outer Lagrangian points ... instead of a prompt dynamical timescale case.' Yet the applications in Sections 3 and 4 present population synthesis results (Neijssel et al. 2019; Li et al. 2023; Picco et al. 2024) that use qcrit as a binary switch between common-envelope evolution and stable non-conservative Roche-lobe overflow. For donors that are dynamically stable by the adiabatic criterion but thermally unstable on the 10^2 to 10^4 yr timescale, this switch misclassifies the mass transfer outcome, and the overlap between the q<qcrit stable window and the thermally unstable regime is not quantified. The authors should either specify which of the cited syntheses include a separate thermal-stability check, or moderate the claims that non-conservative stable mass transfer dominates the BBH formation channel and reconciles the DWD merger rate.
  2. [Section 4] The DWD application relies almost exclusively on Li et al. (2023), a population synthesis study by the same group (including H. Ge and Z. Han as co-authors). The paper's phrasing—'Ge et al.'s results support the observational DWDs merger rate distribution'—presents a model-dependent interpretation as a robust confirmation. The manuscript should clarify that the DWD merger-rate match is a prediction of one specific synthesis code with several additional assumptions (e.g., common-envelope efficiency, angular-momentum loss prescriptions) and note whether any independent group has reproduced this result.
  3. [Section 3] The abstract and Section 3 claim that non-conservative stable mass transfer can explain the population of large-mass-ratio double stellar-mass black holes, but the paper provides no quantitative comparison with the observed GWTC-3 mass-ratio distribution or merger-rate measurements; it only cites Picco et al. (2024). If the authors wish to make this a headline claim of the review, they should show a figure or table comparing predicted and observed mass-ratio distributions, or explicitly label the claim as an interpretation from a cited population synthesis study rather than an established result of the present program.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'binary population thesis studies' should be 'binary population synthesis studies,' and 'predicate' should be 'predict.'
  2. [Section 2] The word 'overcom' should be 'overcome,' and the sentence 'For RGB/AGB HG low- and intermediate mass stars' contains a misplaced abbreviation; it should likely read 'For low- and intermediate mass stars in the HG/RGB/AGB phases.'
  3. [Figure 1] Figure 1 is extremely dense and nearly unreadable at print size; splitting it into multiple panels or providing a higher-resolution version would improve clarity.
  4. [Figure 3] The caption refers to 'color lines' but no color legend is provided in the text; please add a legend or describe the line styles.
  5. [References] Several citations are to arXiv preprints (e.g., Ge et al. 2024, Li et al. 2024); if these have been accepted for publication, please update the references accordingly.
  6. [Throughout] The abbreviation 'smBH' is used inconsistently with 'stellar-mass black hole' in full; please define and use abbreviations consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the qcrit thresholds are independently derived and externally benchmarked, and the downstream applications use external population-synthesis codes and observational comparisons.

full rationale

The paper's central quantity, the dynamical-timescale mass-transfer threshold qcrit, is obtained from an adiabatic mass-loss model using realistic stellar models (Ge et al. 2010a,b, 2015, 2020), not from the gravitational-wave or DWD observations it is later compared with. The text reports external confirmation by Temmink et al. (2023) for low- and intermediate-mass stars, and the BBH application cites independent population-synthesis studies (Neijssel et al. 2019; Picco et al. 2024; etc.) that adopt the thresholds as input and compare with LIGO/Virgo data. The DWD section leans on Li et al. (2023), a same-group population-synthesis study that uses Ge et al.'s thresholds; however, that study is checked against observed DWD space densities and merger rates, so the support is an external-data consistency test rather than an equivalence-by-construction or a fitted-input-renamed-as-prediction. No equation in the paper is defined in terms of the conclusions, and no parameter is fitted to the target data and then called a prediction. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the evidentiary bar can be quoted.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in this proceedings paper. The claims rest on the adiabatic mass-loss approximation, the standard qcrit stability criterion, and the assumptions built into the cited population synthesis codes.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Adiabatic approximation for rapid mass transfer
    Section 2 states that in extremely rapid mass transfer the donor responds by adiabatic expansion; the entire qcrit calculation inherits this assumption.
  • domain assumption Dynamical stability is set by comparing donor mass-radius response with Roche-lobe response
    Standard binary evolution criterion used throughout, referenced to Hjellming & Webbink (1987) and Ge et al. (2010a, 2015, 2020).
  • domain assumption Common-envelope evolution treatment as referenced
    DCO formation channels rely on standard CE prescriptions from Paczynski (1976) and Belczynski et al. (2002).
  • domain assumption Cited population synthesis models are representative
    The paper adopts conclusions from Neijssel et al. (2019), Picco et al. (2024), and Li et al. (2023) without auditing their internal assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mass Transfer Physics in Binary Stars and Applications in Gravitational Wave Sources." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WJYB36NA

@misc{pith2026241117333,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mass Transfer Physics in Binary Stars and Applications in Gravitational Wave Sources},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WJYB36NA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17333}
}
read the original abstract

The stability criteria of rapid mass transfer and common-envelope evolution are fundamental in binary star evolution. They determine the mass, mass ratio, and orbital distribution of many important systems, such as X-ray binaries, type Ia supernovae, and merging gravitational-wave sources. In the limit of extremely rapid mass transfer, the response of a donor star in an interacting binary becomes asymptotically one of adiabatic expansion. We built the adiabatic mass-loss model and systematically surveyed the thresholds for dynamical timescale mass transfer over the entire span of possible donor star evolutionary states. Many studies indicate that new mass transfer stability thresholds play an essential role in the formation and properties of double compact object populations and the progenitors of SNe Ia and detectable GW sources. For example, our studies show that the mass transfer in the red giant and the asymptotic giant branch stars and the massive stars can be more stable than previously believed. Consequently, detailed binary population synthesis studies, using updated unstable mass transfer criteria, predicate the non-conservative stable mass transfer may dominate the formation channel of double stellar-mass black holes and can explain the population of the large mass ratio double stellar-mass black holes. Using our updated mass transfer thresholds, binary population thesis studies by Li et al. show that Ge et al.'s results support the observational double white dwarfs merger rate distribution per Galaxy and the space density of double white dwarfs in the Galaxy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17333 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Binary star evolution tree from Han et al. (2020). 1975), have yet to be better understood over the last few decades. For example, the merger rate of double compact binaries can vary for orders of magnitudes without the precise con￾straint CEE (Belczynski, Kalogera, & Bulik 2002). The intermediate/old populations of type Ia supernovae arising from the symbiotic channel under a revised mass-transfer prescription can … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Two fundamental questions in binary star evolution modified and adopted from Han (2003). The accretor can be a normal or compact star, and multiple binary mass transfer processes can happen during binary star evolution. ratios qcrit = Mdonor/Maccretor for dynamical timescale mass transfer nicely predict the upper limits of observed mass ratios of cataclysmic variables (Ge et al. 2015), intermediate (Ge et al. 2023) … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The critical mass ratios qcrit of dynamical timescale mass transfer for donor stars with different mass and evolution states (left panel) from Ge et al. (2020) and comparing of a 5 M⊙ star’s qcrit (right panel) between color lines from Ge et al. (2020) and the black line from Temmink et al. (2023). knowledge about single and binary star evolution. However, these observations, in turn, bring single and binary stellar… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: GW sources in many kinds of WD binaries adopted from Li et al. (2024). binary BHs with large mass ratios, consistent with the majority of inferred sources of the third GW transient catalogue. Besides the mass transfer physics, the supernova natal kicks (e.g., Mandel et…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott R., Abbott T

    Abbott B. P., Abbott R., Abbott T. D., Abernathy M. R., Acernese F., Ackley K., Adams C., et al., 2016, PhRvL, 116, 061102. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102 2016

  2. [2]

    D., Abraham S., Acernese F., Ackley K., Adams C., Adhikari R

    Abbott R., Abbott T. D., Abraham S., Acernese F., Ackley K., Adams C., Adhikari R. X., et al., 2020, PhRvL, 125, 101102. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.101102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.101102 2020

  3. [3]

    D., Abraham S., Acernese F., Ackley K., Adams C., Adhikari R

    Abbott R., Abbott T. D., Abraham S., Acernese F., Ackley K., Adams C., Adhikari R. X., et al., 2020, ApJL, 896, L44. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f 2020

  4. [4]

    D., Acernese F., Ackley K., Adams C., Adhikari N., Adhikari R

    Abbott R., Abbott T. D., Acernese F., Ackley K., Adams C., Adhikari N., Adhikari R. X., et al., 2023, PhRvX, 13, 041039. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039 2023

  5. [5]

    M., Arzoumanian Z., Baker P

    Agazie G., Anumarlapudi A., Archibald A. M., Arzoumanian Z., Baker P. T., B \'e csy B., Blecha L., et al., 2023, ApJL, 951, L8. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6 2023

  6. [6]

    doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    Amaro-Seoane P., Andrews J., Arca Sedda M., Askar A., Baghi Q., Balasov R., Bartos I., et al., 2023, LRR, 26, 2. doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y 2023

  7. [7]

    doi:10.1086/340304

    Belczynski K., Kalogera V., Bulik T., 2002, ApJ, 572, 407. doi:10.1086/340304

    doi:10.1086/340304 2002

  8. [8]

    M., Stevance H

    Briel M. M., Stevance H. F., Eldridge J. J., 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5724. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad399

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad399 2023

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    R., Kilic M., Kosakowski A., Andrews J

    Brown W. R., Kilic M., Kosakowski A., Andrews J. J., Heinke C. O., Ag \"u eros M. A., Camilo F., et al., 2020, ApJ, 889, 49. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab63cd

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06449.x

    Chen X., Han Z., 2003, MNRAS, 341, 662. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06449.x

    2003

  3. [11]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13334.x

    Chen X., Han Z., 2008, MNRAS, 387, 1416. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13334.x

    2008

  4. [12]

    M., 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2269

    El-Badry K., Rix H.-W., Heintz T. M., 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2269. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab323

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346844

    EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, Antoniadis J., Arumugam P., Arumugam S., Babak S., Bagchi M., et al., 2023, A&A, 678, A50. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346844

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Gallegos-Garcia M., Berry C. P. L., Marchant P., Kalogera V., 2021, ApJ, 922, 110. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2610

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    S., Webbink R

    Ge H., Hjellming M. S., Webbink R. F., Chen X., Han Z., 2010, ApJ, 717, 724. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/717/2/724

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    F., Chen X., Han Z., 2015, ApJ, 812, 40

    Ge H., Webbink R. F., Chen X., Han Z., 2015, ApJ, 812, 40. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/40

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    F., Chen X., Han Z., 2020, ApJ, 899, 132

    Ge H., Webbink R. F., Chen X., Han Z., 2020, ApJ, 899, 132. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba7b7

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    F., Han Z., 2020, ApJS, 249, 9

    Ge H., Webbink R. F., Han Z., 2020, ApJS, 249, 9. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab98f6

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    F., Han Z., Chen X., 2010, Ap&SS, 329, 243

    Ge H., Webbink R. F., Han Z., Chen X., 2010, Ap&SS, 329, 243. doi:10.1007/s10509-010-0286-1

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Chen X., Sarkar A., Walton D

    Ge H., Tout C. A., Chen X., Sarkar A., Walton D. J., Han Z., 2023, ApJ, 945, 7. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb7e9

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Chen X., Wang S., Xiong J., Zhang L., Liu Q., et al., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2408.16350

    Ge H., Tout C. A., Chen X., Wang S., Xiong J., Zhang L., Liu Q., et al., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2408.16350. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2408.16350

    2024 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Han Z., 2003, ASPC, 289, 413

    2003

  15. [23]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/161

    Han Z.-W., Ge H.-W., Chen X.-F., Chen H.-L., 2020, RAA, 20, 161. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/161

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    S., Webbink R

    Hjellming M. S., Webbink R. F., 1987, ApJ, 318, 794. doi:10.1086/165412

    1987 doi

  17. [25]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2409.19665

    Li E.-K., Liu S., Torres-Orjuela A., Chen X., Inayoshi K., Wang L., Hu Y.-M., et al., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2409.19665. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2409.19665

    2024 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243893

    Li Z., Chen X., Ge H., Chen H.-L., Han Z., 2023, A&A, 669, A82. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243893

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833010

    Liu D., Wang B., Ge H., Chen X., Han Z., 2019, A&A, 622, A35. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833010

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030512

    Meynet G., Maeder A., 2003, A&A, 404, 975. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030512

    2003 doi

  21. [29]

    E., 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2634

    Mandel I., de Mink S. E., 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2634. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw379

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    E., Vigna-G \'o mez A., Chattopadhyay D., 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1380

    Mandel I., M \"u ller B., Riley J., de Mink S. E., Vigna-G \'o mez A., Chattopadhyay D., 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1380. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3390

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty339

    Maoz D., Hallakoun N., Badenes C., 2018, MNRAS, 476, 2584. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty339

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw869

    Mapelli M., 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3432. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw869

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    M., Moriya T

    Marchant P., Langer N., Podsiadlowski P., Tauris T. M., Moriya T. J., 2016, A&A, 588, A50. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628133

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    Marchant P., Pappas K. M. W., Gallegos-Garcia M., Berry C. P. L., Taam R. E., Kalogera V., Podsiadlowski P., 2021, A&A, 650, A107. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039992

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Vigna-G \'o mez A., Stevenson S., Barrett J

    Neijssel C. J., Vigna-G \'o mez A., Stevenson S., Barrett J. W., Gaebel S. M., Broekgaarden F. S., de Mink S. E., et al., 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3740. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2840

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    W., Tremblay P.-E., Klein B

    O'Brien M. W., Tremblay P.-E., Klein B. L., Koester D., Melis C., B \'e dard A., Cukanovaite E., et al., 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8687. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3773

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140520

    Olejak A., Belczynski K., Ivanova N., 2021, A&A, 651, A100. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140520

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450480

    Olejak A., Klencki J., Xu X.-T., Wang C., Belczynski K., Lasota J.-P., 2024, A&A, 689, A305. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450480

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    Paczynski B., 1976, IAUS, 73, 75

    1976

  32. [40]

    F., G \"a nsicke B

    Pala A. F., G \"a nsicke B. T., Breedt E., Knigge C., Hermes J. J., Gentile Fusillo N. P., Hollands M. A., et al., 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3799. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa764

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv619

    Pavlovskii K., Ivanova N., 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4415. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv619

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    X., 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2092

    Pavlovskii K., Ivanova N., Belczynski K., Van K. X., 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2092. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2786

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    A., Nugent P., Castro P

    Perlmutter S., Aldering G., Goldhaber G., Knop R. A., Nugent P., Castro P. G., Deustua S., et al., 1999, ApJ, 517, 565. doi:10.1086/307221

    1999 doi

  36. [44]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347090

    Picco A., Marchant P., Sana H., Nelemans G., 2024, A&A, 681, A31. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347090

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    F., McMillan S

    Portegies Zwart S. F., McMillan S. L. W., 2000, ApJL, 528, L17. doi:10.1086/312422

    2000 doi

  38. [46]

    M., Torres S., Rodrigo C., Ferrer-Burjachs A., Calcaferro L

    Rebassa-Mansergas A., Solano E., Jim \'e nez-Esteban F. M., Torres S., Rodrigo C., Ferrer-Burjachs A., Calcaferro L. M., et al., 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5201. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2039

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    J., Zic A., Shannon R

    Reardon D. J., Zic A., Shannon R. M., Hobbs G. B., Bailes M., Di Marco V., Kapur A., et al., 2023, ApJL, 951, L6. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    S., Parsons S

    Ren J.-J., Raddi R., Rebassa-Mansergas A., Hernandez M. S., Parsons S. G., Irawati P., Rittipruk P., et al., 2020, ApJ, 905, 38. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc017

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    G., Filippenko A

    Riess A. G., Filippenko A. V., Challis P., Clocchiatti A., Diercks A., Garnavich P. M., Gilliland R. L., et al., 1998, AJ, 116, 1009. doi:10.1086/300499

    1998 doi

  42. [50]

    G., Strolger L.-G., Tonry J., Casertano S., Ferguson H

    Riess A. G., Strolger L.-G., Tonry J., Casertano S., Ferguson H. C., Mobasher B., Challis P., et al., 2004, ApJ, 607, 665. doi:10.1086/383612

    2004 doi

  43. [51]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/37

    Shao Y., Li X.-D., 2014, ApJ, 796, 37. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/37

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac173e

    Shao Y., Li X.-D., 2021, ApJ, 920, 81. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac173e

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    E., Phinney E

    Soberman G. E., Phinney E. S., van den Heuvel E. P. J., 1997, A&A, 327, 620. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9703016

    1997 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    M., van den Heuvel E

    Tauris T. M., van den Heuvel E. P. J., 2006, csxs.book, 39, 623. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0303456

    2006 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    D., Pols O

    Temmink K. D., Pols O. R., Justham S., Istrate A. G., Toonen S., 2023, A&A, 669, A45. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244137

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    L., Schmidt B

    Tonry J. L., Schmidt B. P., Barris B., Candia P., Challis P., Clocchiatti A., Coil A. L., et al., 2003, ApJ, 594, 1. doi:10.1086/376865

    2003 doi

  49. [57]

    van Son L. A. C., de Mink S. E., Callister T., Justham S., Renzo M., Wagg T., Broekgaarden F. S., et al., 2022, ApJ, 931, 17. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac64a3

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    van Son L. A. C., de Mink S. E., Renzo M., Justham S., Zapartas E., Breivik K., Callister T., et al., 2022, ApJ, 940, 184. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b0a

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    F., 1975, PhDT

    Webbink R. F., 1975, PhDT

    1975

  52. [60]

    F., 1985, ibs..book, 39

    Webbink R. F., 1985, ibs..book, 39

    1985

  53. [61]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acffb1

    Willcox R., MacLeod M., Mandel I., Hirai R., 2023, ApJ, 958, 138. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acffb1

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac2cc8

    Willcox R., Mandel I., Thrane E., Deller A., Stevenson S., Vigna-G \'o mez A., 2021, ApJL, 920, L37. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac2cc8

    2021 doi

  55. [63]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5

    Xu H., Chen S., Guo Y., Jiang J., Wang B., Xu J., Xue Z., et al., 2023, RAA, 23, 075024. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5

    2023 doi

  56. [64]

    R., Shahaf S., Mazeh T., Andrae R., 2024, PASP, 136, 084202

    Yamaguchi N., El-Badry K., Rees N. R., Shahaf S., Mazeh T., Andrae R., 2024, PASP, 136, 084202. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ad6809

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad6263

    Zhang L., Ge H., Chen X., Han Z., 2024, ApJS, 274, 11. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad6263

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence '...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.