Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 73 references

Rapid stellar and binary population synthesis with COMPAS: methods paper II

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The COMPAS population synthesis code now resolves the physics that decides which stellar binaries merge, including two-stage common envelopes, tides, rotation, and gravitational-wave inspiral.

desk verdict A genuinely useful, honest code methods paper whose two flagship new physics treatments both rest on an unvalidated convective-envelope mapping that the authors should either validate or clearly flag as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02316 v2 pith:2IMXXISB submitted 2025-06-02 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM

Ilya Mandel , Jeff Riley , Adam Boesky , Adam Brcek , Ryosuke Hirai , Veome Kapil , Mike Y. M. Lau , JD Merritt
show 8 more authors
Nicolás Rodríguez-Segovia Isobel Romero-Shaw Yuzhe Song Simon Stevenson Avi Vajpeyi L. A. C. van Son Alejandro Vigna-Gómez Reinhold Willcox
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM
keywords binarypopulationsynthesisCOMPASstellarevolutioncommonenvelopetidesgravitationalwavessupernovakickswhitedwarfaccretion
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 describes what changed in the COMPAS rapid binary population synthesis code between the first methods paper and version v03.22.01. The authors claim that the code now tracks stellar rotation and angular momentum, applies a wider menu of wind and supernova prescriptions, distinguishes nuclear- from thermal-timescale mass transfer, handles white-dwarf accretion in a regime-by-regime way, and replaces the single-stage common-envelope treatment with a two-stage one. It also adds a realistic tidal prescription and direct gravitational-wave radiation reaction for double white dwarfs. The payoff, if the claim is right, is a rapid code that carries much more of the physics that decides which binaries merge, without giving up the throughput that population studies need.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the convective envelope. COMPAS estimates its mass and binding energy from fits that depend on stellar mass, metallicity, and effective temperature, and estimates its radial extent from $R_{\rm conv,\,env}=\sqrt{M_{\rm conv,\,env}/M_{\rm conv,\,env,\,max}}\,(R_{\rm total}-R_{\rm core})$ (Eq. 1). This quantity feeds the new two-stage common-envelope formalism, in which the outer convective layer is expelled adiabatically and the rest on a thermal timescale, and the new KAPIL2025 tidal prescription, which evolves semi-major axis, eccentricity, and spins through equilibrium and dynamical tides. Gravitational-wave radiation reaction for double white dwarfs is then added through the standard inspiral equations. One improved ingredient — a resolved convective envelope — thus drives the main new binary-interaction physics.

What would settle it

Take a grid of giants and supergiants spanning roughly 2 to 100 solar masses and several metallicities, compute their outer convective zone radius and binding energy with a detailed 1D stellar evolution code, and compare those values with the fits and with Eq. (1) as used by COMPAS; systematic disagreement would propagate directly into every common-envelope and tidal outcome.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that COMPAS v03.22.01 implements substantive physical upgrades relative to the earlier methods paper rather than cosmetic changes. Instead of assuming the entire envelope of a giant becomes convective at a simple evolutionary switch, the code now adopts fits for the mass and binding energy of the convective envelope, and it uses those quantities in a two-stage common-envelope formalism and in a tidal prescription that needs the radial extent of the outer convective zone. Around that core sit updated neutron-star spin and field evolution, new wind mass-loss options, new remnant-mass and natal-kick recipes, detailed white-dwarf accretion regimes, and gravitational-wave inspiral for compact binaries. The paper's message is that these upgrades make rapid population synthesis physically more faithful, so that inferred merger rates and double-compact-object properties rest on better-resolved binary interactions.

Load-bearing premise

The whole new common-envelope and tidal chain rests on a mapping from a star's temperature and mass to the size and binding energy of its outer convective layer, and the paper does not test that mapping against detailed stellar models.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Common-envelope outcomes will shift because binding energy is now tied to the convective envelope rather than the whole envelope, changing the orbital separations of surviving compact-object binaries.
  • Tides can circularise and synchronise binaries before the compact-object stage, which changes predicted merger times and the eccentricities with which double compact objects merge.
  • Double white dwarfs can be evolved through gravitational-wave-driven inspiral, so the code can directly predict their merger rates and populations.
  • Rotation and angular-momentum tracking modify chemically homogeneous evolution and mass-transfer stability, altering which binaries merge rather than stay bound.
  • New supernova remnant and kick recipes change the masses and velocities of neutron stars and black holes, affecting merger-rate predictions and the Galactic pulsar population.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that the patched convective-envelope onset temperature is a prime calibration target: asteroseismic measurements of convective boundaries in red giants could directly test whether the stitch between detailed stellar models and the code's analytic tracks introduces a systematic bias.
  • The two-stage common-envelope treatment can be tested observationally by comparing its predicted orbital separations for post-common-envelope binaries (such as white dwarf plus main-sequence systems) with those from the single-stage alpha prescription.
  • Because the code still assumes rigid-body rotation, its rotation-dependent outcomes bracket but may not capture differential rotation; coupling a simple surface-rotation prescription would sharpen chemically homogeneous evolution predictions.
  • The new white-dwarf accretion regime maps could be used to compute type Ia supernova delay-time distributions from population synthesis and compare them directly with observed distributions, something the paper does not do.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This methods paper describes the substantive updates to the COMPAS rapid binary population synthesis code between Paper I (v02.21.00) and v03.22.01. The updates cover stellar evolution (convective envelopes, pulsation-driven superwinds, neutron-star spin and magnetic-field evolution, chemically homogeneous evolution), a new wind prescription suite, stellar rotation and angular-momentum tracking, new supernova remnant mass and natal kick prescriptions, revised mass-transfer and white-dwarf accretion treatments, a two-stage common-envelope formalism, a new tidal prescription (KAPIL2025), gravitational-wave radiation reaction for double white dwarfs, and code structure improvements. The paper is primarily a catalogue of implemented options, defaults, and equations, with the full code released publicly and versioned on Zenodo.

Significance. If the described implementation is correct, this is a valuable and timely methods reference for rapid binary population synthesis, consolidating many options that are otherwise scattered across the repository and companion papers. The paper is honest about its assumptions and provides a versioned public code release, which is a genuine strength. However, two of the flagship new physical treatments—the two-stage common-envelope formalism (§7) and the KAPIL2025 tidal prescription (§8)—rest on an unvalidated convective-envelope mapping introduced in §2.1, and several key implementation details are deferred to 'in prep.' papers. These points prevent the paper from being fully self-contained as a methods description and require attention before the central claims can be considered fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (1)] The radial extent of the convective envelope is set by the assumed interpolation R_conv,env = sqrt(M_conv,env/M_conv,env,max)*(R_total - R_core), which is described as 'inspired by Hurley et al. (2000, 2002)' but is not derived or validated. This quantity enters the tidal torque equations Eqs. (7)–(9) through factors of (R*/a) raised to powers 6–8, and it also sets the mass removed in the first stage of the two-stage common-envelope treatment in §7. The paper explicitly notes that 'rapid models for evaluating this are not available,' yet no comparison against MESA models or against the Picker et al. (2024) fits is provided. Because two central new prescriptions depend on this mapping, I ask for a sanity check—for example, a plot of M_conv and R_conv against the Picker et al. (2024) models for representative masses and metallicities—or, failing that, an explicit quantitative statement of the expected systematic uncertainty and its propagation into CE outcomes and tidal circularization timescales.
  2. [§2.1, convective-envelope onset] The decision to replace the Picker et al. (2024) onset-temperature fit, their Eq. (6), with Eq. (6) of Mandel et al. (2024) is motivated by MESA-versus-Hurley effective-temperature offsets, but the resulting M_conv and binding-energy assignments are not validated against either set of stellar models. Since the same M_conv and binding energies feed both the two-stage CE formalism and the KAPIL2025 tides, a systematic bias in the onset temperature would propagate into both. Please show at least a few representative evolutionary tracks comparing the adopted onset assignment and the resulting M_conv with the original Picker et al. fits and with direct stellar-structure calculations.
  3. [§8 and §7] The new KAPIL2025 tidal prescription is presented only through Eqs. (7)–(9) and the statement that Im[k^m_l,n] is 'evaluated based on the stellar type and the companion object'; all details are deferred to Kapil et al. (in prep.). Similarly, the BRCEK main-sequence core-mass prescription (§6) and the new wind suite (§3) are deferred to Merritt et al. (in prep.) and Brček et al. (in prep.), respectively. For a methods paper describing a public code, it is acceptable to cite companion papers for derivations, but the central equations defining the new physics should appear in this paper or be identifiable in the versioned code release with a specific pointer. As written, a reader cannot reproduce or independently check the implementation of these central new features from the paper alone.
  4. [§7, two-stage common envelope] The low-mass extrapolation in the two-stage CE treatment—removing the entire envelope in the first stage for stars below 2 M_sun and linearly interpolating the convective-envelope mass between 2 and 8 M_sun—is an ad hoc assumption that is not justified. Given that low- and intermediate-mass giants are frequent CE donors in population synthesis, the default behavior for these stars can strongly influence post-CE separation and survival statistics. I request either a validation of this extrapolation against detailed models or a sensitivity study showing how the resulting population properties change when the 2–8 M_sun interpolation is replaced by the single-stage CE treatment.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Title/author list] The title and author list contain spacing artifacts ('COMP AS', 'Romero-Sha w', 'A vi V ajpeyi') that should be corrected in the final version.
  2. [§2.4, Eqs. (2)–(3)] Please state the stellar mass range over which the Szécsi et al. (2022) fits in Eqs. (2) and (3) are valid; as written, the polynomial is presented without any validity caveat.
  3. [§5, natal kicks] The default NS natal kick multiplier of 520 km/s is said to be calibrated against single-pulsar velocities, but the relationship between this multiplier and the Mandel & Müller (2020) sigma parameter is not made explicit; clarifying the distributional form would help users understand the default.
  4. [§6, Eq. (4)] In Eq. (4), q is defined as M_accretor/M_donor, which is the inverse of the convention used in many binary-evolution papers; please state the convention explicitly in the text to avoid confusion.
  5. [§6.1, Eqs. (5)–(6)] The notation log(Mdot_H,RG yr/M_sun) is dimensionally confusing; please write the accretion-rate units explicitly as M_sun/yr, e.g., log10(Mdot_H,RG / (M_sun/yr)).
  6. [§10.1] The time-step caps are described as 'approximate and may sometimes be exceeded by small amounts'; please specify whether these are hard or soft caps and what 'small' means quantitatively.
  7. [General] Given the large number of new command-line options, a summary table listing each option, its default value, and the section where it is described would substantially improve the paper's usability as a reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: COMPAS methods paper II is a versioned code description whose new prescriptions are imported from external MESA-based fits and earlier externally calibrated work, and the central claim that v03.22.01 implements these features is publicly checkable against the repository and Zenodo release.

full rationale

This paper is a methods and code-description paper rather than a derivation of new physical predictions from first principles. Its central claim is that COMPAS v03.22.01 implements a list of updated prescriptions, and that claim is independently checkable against the public repository and the versioned Zenodo release. The convective-envelope treatment in Section 2.1 imports mass and binding-energy fits from Picker et al. (2024) and an onset-temperature fit from Mandel et al. (2024); although these are self-citations, they are based on external MESA calculations with stated assumptions, and the present paper does not fit any constant to its own output. Equation (1), giving the radial extent of the convective envelope, is explicitly presented as an assumption: the paper states that rapid models for evaluating it are not available and that the form is inspired by Hurley et al. (2000, 2002). That is a transparent modeling choice and a validation gap, but not a circular reduction. The tidal equations (7)-(9) are imported from Zahn (1977), with dissipation terms referenced to Kapil et al. (in prep.), and the two-stage common-envelope treatment implements Hirai & Mandel (2022); neither is derived from the present paper's own outputs. The natal-kick multiplier is calibrated against external pulsar-velocity observations via Kapil et al. (2023), not against quantities predicted in this paper. No step was found in which a prediction reduces by construction to a fitted input, a definition, or a self-citation chain. Extensive self-citation reflects that many COMPAS prescriptions originate in prior team papers, but the load-bearing content remains externally anchored and independently checkable.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim, that COMPAS v03.22.01 includes the described treatments, rests on a large set of modeling assumptions and externally calibrated parameters. The most fragile are the patch between MESA-based convective-envelope fits and Hurley tracks, and the assumed radial extent of convective envelopes; errors here propagate into tides and common-envelope predictions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • luminosity-to-mass threshold for convective envelope ejection = 4.2
    Default trigger for dynamical pulsation ejection, based on unpublished Clayton (2018) thesis work; no error bars given.
  • NS natal kick multiplier = 520 km/s
    Calibrated against single-pulsar velocity observations in Kapil et al. (2023); user-adjustable.
  • BH natal kick multiplier = 200 km/s
    Default from Mandel & Mueller (2020) stochastic remnant and kick recipes.
  • Muller-Mandel sigma kick = 0.3
    Spread of the kick distribution for both NS and BH; default value with no sensitivity analysis.
  • FRYER2022 f_mix and M_crit = 0.5; 5.75 solar masses
    Parameters in Eq. (5) of Fryer et al. (2022), chosen as defaults for the new remnant mass prescription.
  • f_Macleod linear fraction = 0.5
    Specific angular momentum of mass lost from binary, interpolating between isotropic re-emission (0) and L2 loss (1); set for degenerate and non-degenerate accretors.
  • CHE lifetime and luminosity fit coefficients = Polynomial coefficients in Eqs. (2) and (3)
    Empirical fits to Szecsi et al. (2022) models; coefficients are not tabulated in the paper beyond the equations.
  • WD accretion critical-rate polynomial coefficients = Quadratic polynomial coefficients in Eqs. (5) and (6)
    Fits to Table 5 of Nomoto et al. (2007) used to set hydrogen accretion regimes onto white dwarfs.
  • Time step caps = 0.001 mass fraction, 0.1 radius fraction, 0.01 semi-major axis fraction
    Chosen by hand to balance resolution and speed; not data-fitted.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Rigid body rotation is assumed for all stars, corresponding to efficient angular momentum transport.
    Section 4: stellar angular momentum is tracked assuming rigid body rotation.
  • ad hoc to paper Radial extent of the convective envelope follows Eq. (1), inspired by Hurley et al. (2000, 2002).
    Section 2.1: this assumption is needed for tides and two-stage common-envelope evolution; no direct validation is given.
  • ad hoc to paper MESA-based convective-envelope fits (Picker et al. 2024) can be mapped to Hurley et al. (2000) tracks by replacing the onset-temperature fit with Eq. (6) of Mandel et al. (2024).
    Section 2.1: patch to avoid temperature-scale differences; no validation is shown.
  • ad hoc to paper For stars below 2 solar masses the entire envelope is removed in the first common-envelope stage; between 2 and 8 solar masses the convective-envelope mass is linearly interpolated.
    Section 7: Picker et al. (2024) fits apply only above 8 solar masses, so this ad hoc bridging is assumed.
  • domain assumption No mass accretion onto the companion during common-envelope phases by default.
    Section 7: default assumption; user can enable various accretion prescriptions.
  • domain assumption Angular momentum of mass lost through winds or mass transfer is the specific angular momentum of the outermost shell, l = -2/3 R^2 Omega.
    Section 4: standard assumption for the code; described without derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rapid stellar and binary population synthesis with COMPAS: methods paper II." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2IMXXISB

@misc{pith2026250602316,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rapid stellar and binary population synthesis with COMPAS: methods paper II},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2IMXXISB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02316}
}
read the original abstract

The COMPAS public rapid binary population synthesis code has undergone a number of key improvements since the original COMPAS methods paper (Team COMPAS: Riley et al., 2022) was published. These include more sophisticated and robust treatments of binary interactions: mass transfer physics, common-envelope events, tides and gravitational-wave radiation reaction; and updated prescriptions for stellar evolution, winds and supernovae. The code structure and outputs have also been updated, with a focus on improving resolution without sacrificing computational speed. This paper describes the substantive changes in the code between the previous methods paper and COMPAS v03.22.01.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02316 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simplified flowchart illustrating one step of COMPAS binary evolution (cf [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Sipőcz, B

    Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  2. [2]

    R., Davies, B., Smith, N., et al

    Beasor, E. R., Davies, B., Smith, N., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5994, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa255

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa255 2020

  3. [3]

    L., et al

    Belczynski, K., Bulik, T., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 1217, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1217

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/714/2/1217 2010

  4. [4]

    A., et al

    Belczynski, K., Kalogera, V., Rasio, F. A., et al. 2008, ApJSupplement, 174, 223, doi: 10.1086/521026

    doi:10.1086/521026 2008

  5. [5]

    Bestenlehner, J. M. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3938, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa474 Björklund, R., Sundqvist, J. O., Singh, S. M., Puls, J., &

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa474 2020

  6. [6]

    Najarro, F. 2023, A&A, 676, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141948 20 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/ 21 https://docs.h5py.org/en/stable/ 22 http://ipython.org 23 https://jupyter.org/ 24 http://www.matplotlib.org 25 http://www.NumPy.org/ 26 https://www.scipy.org

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141948 2023

  7. [7]

    R., Rossi, L

    Chattopadhyay, D., Stevenson, S., Hurley, J. R., Rossi, L. J., & Flynn, C. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 1587, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa756

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa756 2020

  8. [8]

    2014, A&A, 563, A83

    Claeys, J., Pols, O., Izzard, R., Vink, J., & Verbunt, F. 2014, A&A, 563, A83

    work page 2014

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    2018, PhD thesis, Oxford University, Oxford, UK, doi: 10.5287/ora-7rnndk5k8

    Clayton, M. 2018, PhD thesis, Oxford University, Oxford, UK, doi: 10.5287/ora-7rnndk5k8

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    2013, Python and HDF5 (O’Reilly)

    Collette, A. 2013, Python and HDF5 (O’Reilly)

    2013

  3. [11]

    Darwin, G. H. 1879, Proc. R. Soc. Lond, 29, 168, doi: 10.1098/rspl.1879.0028 de Kool, M. 1990, ApJ, 358, 189, doi: 10.1086/168974

    1990

  4. [12]

    Decin, L., Richards, A. M. S., Marchant, P., & Sana, H. 2024, A&A, 681, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244635

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.22102, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.22102

    Disberg, P., & Mandel, I. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.22102, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.22102

    2025 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    2012, ApJ, 759, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/52

    Dominik, M., Belczynski, K., Fryer, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 759, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/52

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    L., Olejak, A., & Belczynski, K

    Fryer, C. L., Olejak, A., & Belczynski, K. 2022, ApJ, 931, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6ac9

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    2002, GNU scientific library (Network Theory Limited)

    Galassi, M., Davies, J., Theiler, J., et al. 2002, GNU scientific library (Network Theory Limited)

    2002

  9. [17]

    F., Chen, X., & Han, Z

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

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    2014, PhRvL, 113, 151101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.151101 12Team COMPAS

    Hannam, M., Schmidt, P., Bohé, A., et al. 2014, PhRvL, 113, 151101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.151101 12Team COMPAS

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    1997, A&A, 327, 224, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9705097

    Heger, A., Jeannin, L., Langer, N., & Baraffe, I. 1997, A&A, 327, 224, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9705097

    1997 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    D., van Son, L

    Hendriks, D. D., van Son, L. A. C., Renzo, M., Izzard, R. G., & Farmer, R. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4130, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2857

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    2021, PASA, 38, e056, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.53 —

    Hirai, R., & Mandel, I. 2021, PASA, 38, e056, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.53 —. 2022, ApJL, 937, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9519

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    2024, ApJL, 972, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6e77

    Hirai, R., Podsiadlowski, P., Heger, A., & Nagakura, H. 2024, ApJL, 972, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6e77

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    R., Lyne, A

    Hobbs, G., Lorimer, D. R., Lyne, A. G., & Kramer, M. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 974, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09087.x

    2005

  17. [25]

    M., & Davidson, K

    Humphreys, R. M., & Davidson, K. 1979, ApJ, 232, 409, doi: 10.1086/157301

    1979 doi

  18. [26]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  19. [27]

    R., Pols, O

    Hurley, J. R., Pols, O. R., & Tout, C. A. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 543, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03426.x

    2000

  20. [28]

    R., Tout, C

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

    2002

  21. [29]

    2016, PhRvD, 93, 044006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.044006

    Husa, S., Khan, S., Hannam, M., et al. 2016, PhRvD, 93, 044006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.044006

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 5893, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad019

    Kapil, V., Mandel, I., Berti, E., & Müller, B. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5893, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad019

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    2021, A&A, 646, A180, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039224

    Sana, H. 2021, A&A, 646, A180, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039224

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    2016, PhRvD, 93, 044007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.044007

    Khan, S., Husa, S., Hannam, M., et al. 2016, PhRvD, 93, 044007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.044007

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    2016, in ELPUB, 87–90 Krtička, J., & Kubát, J

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., Pérez, F., et al. 2016, in ELPUB, 87–90 Krtička, J., & Kubát, J. 2018, A&A, 612, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731969

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    1998, A&A, 329, 551 LIGO Scientific Collaboration

    Langer, N. 1998, A&A, 329, 551 LIGO Scientific Collaboration. 2018, LIGO Algorithm Library - LALSuite, free software (GPL), doi: 10.7935/GT1W-FZ16

    1998 doi

  27. [35]

    Maltsev, K., Schneider, F. R. N., Mandel, I., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.23856, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.23856

    2025 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 223, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ac2d35

    Mandel, I. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 223, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ac2d35

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.10691, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.10691

    Mandel, I., Hirai, R., & Picker, L. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.10691, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.10691

    2024 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 3214, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3043

    Mandel, I., & Müller, B. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 3214, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3043

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    R., Nelemans, G., & Steeghs, D

    Marsh, T. R., Nelemans, G., & Steeghs, D. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 113, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07564.x

    2004

  32. [40]

    J., Vinciguerra, S., Vigna-Gómez, A., et al

    Neijssel, C. J., Vinciguerra, S., Vigna-Gómez, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abde4a

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    1990, A&A, 231, 134

    Nieuwenhuijzen, H., & de Jager, C. 1990, A&A, 231, 134

    1990

  34. [42]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 663, 1269, doi: 10.1086/518465 Osłowski, S., Bulik, T., Gondek-Rosińska, D., & Belczyński, K

    Nomoto, K., Saio, H., Kato, M., & Hachisu, I. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 663, 1269, doi: 10.1086/518465 Osłowski, S., Bulik, T., Gondek-Rosińska, D., & Belczyński, K. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 461, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18147.x

    2007

  35. [43]

    1991, ApJ, 370, 597, doi: 10.1086/169846 Pérez, F., & Granger, B

    Paczynski, B. 1991, ApJ, 370, 597, doi: 10.1086/169846 Pérez, F., & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53

    1991 doi

  36. [44]

    Peters, P. C. 1964, Physical Review, 136, 1224, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224

    1964 doi

  37. [45]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a5d

    Picker, L., Hirai, R., & Mandel, I. 2024, ApJ, 969, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a5d

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    Piersanti, L., Tornambé, A., & Yungelson, L. R. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3239, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1885

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    1991, ApJ, 370, 604, doi: 10.1086/169847

    Popham, R., & Narayan, R. 1991, ApJ, 370, 604, doi: 10.1086/169847

    1991 doi

  40. [48]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1291

    Riley, J., Mandel, I., Marchant, P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1291

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 245, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1732

    Mandel, I. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 245, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1732

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    J., Belczynski, K., Sim, S

    Ruiter, A. J., Belczynski, K., Sim, S. A., Seitenzahl, I. R., & Kwiatkowski, D. 2014, MNRAS, 440, L101, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu030

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    N., Vink, J

    Sabhahit, G. N., Vink, J. S., Sander, A. A. C., & Higgins, E. R. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 524, 1529, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1888

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    Sander, A. A. C., Lefever, R. R., Poniatowski, L. G., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245110

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    Sander, A. A. C., & Vink, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 873, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2712

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    P., Hainich, R., et al

    Shenar, T., Sablowski, D. P., Hainich, R., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935684

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    2025, ApJ, 984, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc5fa

    Shikauchi, M., Hirai, R., & Mandel, I. 2025, ApJ, 984, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc5fa

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.11428, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.11428

    Song, Y., Stevenson, S., & Chattopadhyay, D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.11428, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.11428

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    2017, Nat

    Stevenson, S., Vigna-Gómez, A., Mandel, I., et al. 2017, Nat. Commun., 8, 14906, doi: 10.1038/ncomms14906 Szécsi, D., Agrawal, P., Wünsch, R., & Langer, N. 2022, A&A, 658, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141536 Team COMPAS: Riley, J., Agrawal, P., Barrett, J. W., et al. 2022a,...

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    Vink, J. S. 2011, Ap&SS, 336, 163, doi: 10.1007/s10509-011-0636-7 —. 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 375, 20160269, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2016.0269

    2011

  51. [59]

    S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H

    Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2001, A&A, 369, 574, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010127

    2001 doi

  52. [60]

    S., & Sabhahit, G

    Vink, J. S., & Sabhahit, G. N. 2023, A&A, 678, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347801

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    S., & Sander, A

    Vink, J. S., & Sander, A. A. C. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 2051, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab902

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  55. [63]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 1593, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2192

    Wang, B., Podsiadlowski, P., & Han, Z. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1593, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2192

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 480, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01597-5

    Wang, C., Langer, N., Schootemeijer, A., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 480, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01597-5

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    2020, mwaskom/seaborn, Tech

    Waskom, M., & the seaborn development team. 2020, mwaskom/seaborn, Tech. rep., doi: 10.5281/zenodo.592845

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    Webbink, R. F. 1984, ApJ, 277, 355, doi: 10.1086/161701

    1984 doi

  59. [67]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 138, 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

  60. [68]

    2021, ApJL, 920, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2cc8

    Willcox, R., Mandel, I., Thrane, E., et al. 2021, ApJL, 920, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2cc8

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    2010, ApJ, 716, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/114

    Xu, X.-J., & Li, X.-D. 2010, ApJ, 716, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/114

    2010 doi

  62. [70]

    Z., Jiang, B., et al

    Yang, M., Bonanos, A. Z., Jiang, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244770

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    2010, ApJL, 717, L62, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/717/1/L62

    Yoon, S.-C., & Cantiello, M. 2010, ApJL, 717, L62, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/717/1/L62

    2010 doi

  64. [72]

    2006, A&A, 460, 199, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065912

    Yoon, S.-C., Langer, N., & Norman, C. 2006, A&A, 460, 199, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065912

    2006 doi

  65. [73]

    1977, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 57, 383

    Zahn, J.-P. 1977, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 57, 383

    1977

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.