Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Stable mass transfer in close massive binaries can produce merging black holes that match observed gravitational-wave events.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 14:29 UTC pith:4WCGBFZZ

load-bearing objection A solid, genuinely new detailed-evolution study of the stable mass transfer channel; the Case A→Case B shift from accretor structure is likely real, but the 'robust contributor' conclusion outruns the evidence—no rate calculation and a load-bearing efficiency assumption. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.20054 v2 pith:4WCGBFZZ submitted 2025-12-23 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HEgr-qc

Stable mass transfer in massive binaries leading to merging black holes

Xiao-Tian Xu , Norbert Langer , Jakub Klencki , Chen Wang , Xiang-Dong Li This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords stable mass transferbinary black hole mergersgravitational-wave sourcesmassive binary evolutionCase A/Case B mass transferaccretion and rejuvenationblack hole spinsbinary evolution modeling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that the stable mass transfer channel, a particular evolutionary path of close massive binary stars, can produce merging black holes whose masses, mass ratios, and spins match the gravitational-wave events observed so far. Earlier models simplified the mass-receiving star; here both stars are evolved simultaneously from zero-age main sequence to black hole formation, including differential rotation and the chemical imprints of accretion. The key consequence is that the accretor becomes helium-enriched and more compact than a single star of the same mass, so the second mass transfer happens as Case B rather than Case A. That shift yields merger times as short as about nine percent of the Hubble time, mass ratios near 0.7, and effective spins of 0.1 to 0.25, naturally landing in the observed 10 to 25 solar-mass primary black hole range. The authors conclude that this channel is a genuine contributor to the observed population of gravitational-wave sources.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that continuity of the binary evolution matters: computing the full history, rather than restarting from a black hole plus a zero-age main-sequence companion, changes the outcome. Mass accretion onto the secondary during the first mass transfer adds helium-rich material and drives off-centre convection, leaving a rejuvenated star more compact during core hydrogen burning. Consequently, when this star later transfers mass to the newly formed black hole, it does so in Case B (shell-hydrogen burning) rather than Case A (core hydrogen burning). This opens a parameter space where merging binary black holes form with delay times down to about 1.5 billion years, mass ra

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the fully resolved, continuously evolved binary model: both stars are followed simultaneously with internal differential rotation, tidal coupling, mass and angular momentum transfer, and a rotation-limited accretion efficiency of about 90 percent in the closest systems. Its crucial product is the chemical structure of the mass gainer, a helium-enriched envelope with an off-centre convective zone, which makes the accretor more compact than an equal-mass single star. That structural difference converts the reverse mass transfer from Case A to Case B, determines the final orbital period, and sets the black hole spins and mass ratio.

Load-bearing premise

The first mass transfer must be nearly conservative in the closest binaries: if the true accretion efficiency is significantly lower than the roughly 90 percent used here, the secondary never reaches the needed mass, the reverse mass transfer does not occur in tight orbits, and the predicted merging black hole population disappears.

What would settle it

Measure the mass transfer efficiency in tight massive binaries, for example through the masses of black hole plus O-star systems or the growth of accretors in observed Algol-type binaries; if efficiencies are found to be 50 percent or lower, the shortest-merger-time systems would have merger times above the Hubble time and the channel would fail to explain observed events. Alternatively, a population synthesis with accretion efficiency reduced to 50 percent should eliminate the predicted merging black holes in the 10 to 25 solar-mass range.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The stable mass transfer channel is established as a viable isolated-binary route to merging black holes, alongside common-envelope and chemically homogeneous evolution.
  • Predicted merging black holes have second-born components more massive than the first, mass ratios near 0.7, and effective spins 0.1 to 0.25, providing observable fingerprints for identifying this channel in gravitational-wave catalogs.
  • Systems previously thought to merge during a Case A reverse mass transfer instead survive and merge within the Hubble time, expanding the predicted parameter space.
  • Case A to Case A systems, with near-equal masses and effective spins near 0.6, are predicted to have merger times near the Hubble time, making them rare and consistent with the absence of such events in current data.
  • Observed counterparts at every key stage, from massive Algol-type binaries to black hole plus Wolf-Rayet systems, support the reality of the channel.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If this channel is a major contributor, the preference for mass ratios around 0.74 seen in observed merging black holes may be a direct fingerprint of stable mass transfer, and the merger rate of 10 to 25 solar-mass primary black holes may be largely set by this route.
  • Because the effect depends on the accretor's helium-enriched envelope, rapid population-synthesis codes that approximate accretors as single stars likely mis-estimate both merger times and spins for this channel.
  • A testable extension is to measure the masses and spins of observed black hole plus O-star binaries: the models predict a specific companion mass and orbital period at the time of first black hole formation, which could be checked against those systems.
  • At higher metallicity, stronger winds would likely reduce the accretor mass and could close the channel, predicting that stable-mass-transfer mergers should be more common in low-metallicity environments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a grid of 176 MESA binary evolution models that evolve both components simultaneously from the zero-age main sequence until the formation of the second black hole. The grid is fixed to a primary mass of 31.6 Msun, SMC-like metallicity, initial mass ratios qZAMS = 0.7–0.99, and initial orbital periods up to ~4.5 d. The key physical ingredient is the full treatment of the mass-accreting secondary during and after the first mass transfer, including accretion-induced mixing, rejuvenation, and helium enrichment. The authors find that most surviving systems undergo Case A first mass transfer followed by Case B second mass transfer, because the rejuvenated, helium-enriched donor remains compact during core hydrogen burning. These 'Case A–Case B' models produce merging BBHs with merger timescales ~0.09–0.34 of the Hubble time, mass ratios q ≈ 0.7, and effective spins χeff ≈ 0.1–0.25, which the authors compare favorably with GWTC-4 data for black holes in the 10–25 Msun primary mass range. They conclude that the stable mass transfer channel is a 'robust contributor' to the observed gravitational-wave population and that full evolution is essential to capture the reverse mass-transfer phase correctly.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a valuable step forward for the stable mass transfer channel. The paper is the first to follow both stars self-consistently through the entire pre-BBH evolution, including differential rotation, tides, and mass/angular-momentum exchange, without approximating the post-first-mass-transfer star as an unaccreted single star. Demonstrating that the accretor's helium-enriched, rejuvenated structure shifts the second mass transfer from Case A to Case B, opening a new parameter space of short-merger-time BBHs, is an important and physically credible result. The analytic mass-ratio estimate in Supplementary H is transparent and useful, and the paper is honest in listing uncertainties, including mass-transfer efficiency, wind angular-momentum loss, and mass ejection during collapse. However, the paper's conclusion goes beyond what the evidence supports: no rate calculation, population synthesis, or multi-primary-mass grid is presented, so the claim of being a 'robust contributor' to the observed GW population is not quantitatively established. The paper is also open about spin uncertainties that shift predicted values by 20–50% under alternative prescript

major comments (4)
  1. [Conclusion; Fig. 2] The central claim of a 'robust contributor to the observed gravitational wave events' is not supported by the evidence as presented. The grid is confined to a single primary mass (M1,ZAMS = 31.6 Msun), a single metallicity (SMC), and a narrow range of qZAMS and Porb. No binary population synthesis or rate calculation is provided, and the Conclusion itself notes that 'Our experiment needs to be repeated at different primary masses.' A grid of one primary mass cannot establish a population-level contribution. I would recommend either adding a rate/population assessment or substantially weakening the conclusion to a proof-of-channel statement.
  2. [Discussion, Model uncertainties; Supplementary H] The first mass-transfer efficiency is load-bearing. The example model has ~90% accretion efficiency, and the text states: 'A decrease of the mass transfer efficiency might raise their merger times to above the Hubble time.' Supplementary H (Eq. 12 and Fig. 19) shows how qBBH varies with ε, but it does not address the orbital widening and merger-time consequences of lower ε. Since efficiency is a subgrid model choice and observational constraints allow values well below 0.9, the claimed short merger times and the Case A–Case B parameter space in Fig. 2 are conditional on a near-conservative first mass transfer. Please add a sensitivity study in ε (including the resulting merger times) or an explicit empirical calibration for this mass/orbital-period range.
  3. [Supplementary C.1, C.2; Table 1] The spin predictions that underpin the comparison with GWTC-4 in Fig. 4 are not robust under the alternative prescriptions considered by the authors. Mass ejection during collapse reduces spins by 20–30% (Sup. C.1), and the 'new' wind angular-momentum-loss scheme reduces Case A–Case B spins by ~30% and the Case A–Case A second-born spin by ~50% (Sup. C.2, Table 1: aspin,2 drops from 0.80 to 0.42). These uncertainties are comparable to the difference between the model bands in Fig. 4. The statement that spins 'naturally fall into the observed regime' needs to be framed with these uncertainties explicitly propagated into the comparison.
  4. [Methods, Binary evolution; Supplementary D.2] The rotation-limited accretion model is a key subgrid prescription that produces the high efficiency in tight orbits. The paper does not provide a detailed budget showing how the 70–90% efficiency arises from the competition between accretion spin-up, tidal spin-down, and wind mass loss. Since a 20–30% change in this efficiency could remove the systems from the merging category, the paper would be substantially strengthened by showing the efficiency as a function of qZAMS and Porb across the grid, and by discussing which physical ingredients control it. This is not a fatal flaw, but it is required to support the robustness claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (6)] Typo: 'aapin,2nd' should be 'a_spin,2nd'.
  2. [Fig. 3] The axis label 'M=14Gyr' is unclear; please label explicitly as τ_M or t_merge = 14 Gyr, and similarly for the colorbar labels in Figs. 2–4 and 14.
  3. [Introduction, third paragraph] 'resolve each of the binary components by two grid points (a core, and an envelope)' should read 'two grid points per component' or 'two zones per star' for clarity.
  4. [Abstract/Introduction] Small grammar issues: 'The vast majority of massive binary systems in the universe is evidently unsuited' — 'systems are'; 'the phase of reverse mass transfer, that allows' — comma before 'that'.
  5. [References] References 10 and 19 are identical (Belczynski et al. 2016), as are 121 and 122 (Sukhbold et al. 2018). Please use unique citations.
  6. [Code and Data Availability] The statement that model data is 'available on request' and MESA inlists only upon acceptance is a reproducibility limitation; making the inlists and relevant model outputs public at submission would be preferable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained and GWTC-4 is used as an external benchmark, not a fitting target.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that detailed full-evolution MESA models, which include accretor structure and rotation, predict merging BBHs with mass ratios and effective spins overlapping GWTC-4 observations. The gravitational-wave catalog is not used to set any model parameter; the grid in q_ZAMS–P_orb,ZAMS and the physics choices are adopted from stellar/binary evolution literature, and the comparison in Fig. 4 is an external benchmark. The key modeling assumption—rotation-limited accretion efficiency yielding nearly conservative first mass transfer—is an input physics choice, not fitted to the GW data; the paper itself acknowledges the associated uncertainty ('A decrease of the mass transfer efficiency might raise their merger times to above the Hubble time'), which is a robustness caveat rather than a circular reduction. The only analytic estimate (Supplementary H) is an explicit compression of the simulation outputs using model-derived f_BH values and mass-transfer efficiencies; it is presented as an explanation of the grid results, not as an independent prediction, so no fitted input is relabeled as a prediction. Self-citations (e.g., refs. 61, 86) provide adopted physical prescriptions and prior model comparisons, but they are not used as the sole justification for the conclusion, nor do they import a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that already contains the claimed result. The conclusion therefore has independent content derived from the new full-evolution computations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on a set of adopted stellar/binary physics parameters (primary mass, mixing coefficients, rotation-limited accretion efficiency, Eddington-limited BH accretion, direct collapse) rather than on data fitted to GW events. No new particles or forces are introduced. The main unquantified freedom is the first mass-transfer efficiency, which the paper itself identifies as the point where a decrease would push merger times beyond Hubble.

free parameters (6)
  • Initial primary mass M1,ZAMS = 31.6 Msun
    Fixed to a mass expected to form a BH (Supp A); all merger predictions are conditional on this choice.
  • Convective overshooting alpha_OV = 0.335
    Adopted from Brott et al. (2011) calibration; sets core sizes and hence BH masses and spins.
  • Mixing-length parameter alpha_MLT = 1.5
    Standard solar-calibrated value; affects envelope structure and radii.
  • Semiconvection efficiency alpha_SC = 1
    Adopted from Langer (1991); affects chemical gradients in accreting stars.
  • Turbulent viscosity/diffusion ratio f_C = 1/30
    Adopted from Heger & Langer (2000); controls rotational mixing and angular momentum transport.
  • Mass transfer efficiency (rotation-limited) = ~0.9 in example model
    Chosen accretor-spin-controlled model; central to making the second star massive enough for the channel.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The entire pre-collapse star collapses directly to a BH at core helium depletion, with no mass ejection or natal kick.
    Methods, 'Black hole formation'; adopted from ref. 105; Supplementary C.1 relaxes only outer-10% ejection. If wrong, spins and orbits change.
  • domain assumption BH accretion is Eddington-limited, with all non-accreted matter expelled from the binary.
    Methods, 'Binary evolution models'; spin and mass-ratio predictions depend on this. Super-Eddington accretion would shift qBBH by 0.1–0.2 (Supp H).
  • domain assumption Both stars are tidally locked at ZAMS; tides and spin-orbit coupling follow Hut (1981).
    Methods, 'Binary evolution models'; initial spins are not observed for these systems.
  • domain assumption The first mass transfer is regulated by critical rotation of the accretor, with non-accreted mass ejected isotropically.
    Methods and Discussion; near-conservative outcome is the main route to the Case A-Case B BBHs.
  • domain assumption Low-metallicity SMC composition is representative of merging-BBH progenitors.
    Methods, adopted from ref. 53; metallicity affects winds, radii, and mass transfer.
  • standard math Peters (1964) / Mandel (2021) formulas describe BBH inspiral from the birth orbit.
    Methods, 'Binary black holes'; standard gravitational-wave merger-time calculation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 32475 in / 12520 out tokens · 121909 ms · 2026-08-03T14:29:56.932729+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The vast majority of massive binary systems in the universe is evidently unsuited to produce merging binary black holes. However, several narrow evolutionary paths of isolated massive binaries towards this goal have recently been identified. Due to the high degree of simplification and assumptions applied in previous modelling of these paths, conclusions remained vague so far. For one of these paths, the stable mass transfer channel, we now construct detailed binary evolution models which include internal differential rotation as well as mass and angular momentum transfer between the stars, all the way from the zero-age main sequence to the formation of the black holes, only skipping the rapid late burning stages. This allows us to follow the mass and chemical structure evolution of the mass accreting component, which turns out to have a key influence on the phase of reverse mass transfer, that allows the obtained black hole spins and mass ratios to naturally fall into the regime observed for the gravitational-wave source in the 10--25$M_\odot$ primary black hole mass range. As for this channel, also a large number of progenitor binaries are known, we conclude that it likely contributes to the observed population of gravitational wave sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.20054 by Chen Wang, Jakub Klencki, Norbert Langer, Xiang-Dong Li, Xiao-Tian Xu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Evolution of stellar structure (Kippenhahn diagrams) in the example model. In each panel, the X-axis shows the time until the first or second BH formation event, and Y-axis represent the internal mass coordinate of the depicted star, from centre (0) to surface (black solid line). Top left: evolution of the initially more massive star from zero age until it forms a BH. Bottom left: evolution of the initiall… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Initial binary parameter space leading to merging BBH. In the depicted initial mass ratio-initial orbital period (qZAMS-log10 Porb,ZAMS) plane, each dot represents one detailed binary evolution models, with the initially more massive star starting with 31.6 M⊙. Red and purple dots correspond to mergers during the first and second mass transfer respectively (bottom hatching). Black dots represent BBHs with … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Predicted BH-MS binaries and comparison with BH-ZAMS models. Location of the models from our grid in the companion mass-orbital period plane at the time of the formation of the first BH (filled circles, where the colour reflects the merger time, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effective spins χeff and mass ratios qBBH of merging binary black holes. The BBHs predicted by our models are indicated by coloured dots, with the colour representing the merger time as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Core carbon mass fraction Xc12,core and carbon core mass MC,core at core helium depletion of the progenitors of the merging BBHs presented in the main text [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effects of mass ejection during BH formation on the spin parameters of the BHs. In both panels, blue and orange dots correspond to the predictions without/with mass ejection during BH formation. The upper panel presents the predicted spin parameters, aapin, of the first- and second-born BHs. The lower panel presents the effective spin parameter, χeff, and mass ratios, qBBH, of merging BBHs. C.2 Wind angula… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Kippenhahn diagrams of a 42 M⊙ single star (left) and a 42 M⊙ rejuvenated star evolving in isolation after the formation of the first-born black hole (right). The meaning of lines, colours, and hatching patterns are the same as Supplementary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Chemical abundance at core hydrogen depletion as a function of mass coor￾dinate. The left and right panels correspond to the single star and rejuvenated star models presented in Supplementary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of the Case A-Case B example model. This model has an initial primary mass of 31.6 M⊙, an initial mass ratio of 0.9, and an initial orbital period of 2.1 d. In all pan￾els, the two vertical dashed lines mark the formation time of black holes. The narrow columns provide a zoom-in for the evolution during the second mass transfer. The grey background indicates two mass transfer phases, which are wi… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution of a Case A-Case A system. The depicted model is computed with an initial primary mass of 31.6 M⊙, an initial mass ratio of 0.82, and an initial orbital period of 2.5 d. The lines and colours have the same meaning as Supplementary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p051_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Kippenhahn diagrams of the stellar components of the Case A-Case A model presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p052_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Masses of the BH components in the merging BBHs presented in the main text [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p054_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Spin parameters of the BH components of our merging BBHs. The X-axis is the spin parameter of the first-born BH (aspin: 1st-BH), and Y-axis corresponds to that of the second￾born BH (aspin: 2nd-BH). The red star marks the Case A-Case B example model presented in the main text [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Correlation between the merger timescale τM and effective spin parameter χeff. Blue and orange dots correspond to merging BBHs formed from Case A-Case B and Case A￾Case A systems, respectively. The red star marks the Case A-Case B example model presented in the main text. E Comparison with BH-ZAMS models E.1 Mass transfer stability In the main text [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p056_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison of the second mass transfer of the full-evolution models (orange lines) and the BH-ZAMS models (blue lines) in terms of mass transfer stability. The left column compares a Case A-Case A model, (M1,ZAMS/ M⊙, qZAMS, log Porb,ZAMS/day) = (31.6, 0.8, 0.38), with its BH-ZAMS counterpart, and the right column compares a Case A-Case B model, (M1,ZAMS/ M⊙, qZAMS, log Porb,ZAMS/day) = (31.6, 0.9, 0.33),… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Evolution during the second mass transfer of the Case A-Case B example model (left), the Case A-Case A model (middle), and the BH-ZAMS counterpart model of the Case A-Case A model (right). The text on the top indicates the types of the models and the parameters at ZAMS and at the first BH formation. The panels, from top to bottom, present the evolution of rotational velocity υrot (blue) with critical rota… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Profiles of chemical abundance (upper panel) and specific angular momentum (lower) at core hydrogen depletion of the donors in the models presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p061_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Predicted effective spin χeff and mass ratio qBBH of merging binary black holes formed through isolated binaries. The colorbar corresponds to the ratio of the merger timescale to the Hubble time for merging BBHs formed from the stable mass transfer channel. The black lines are the maximal effective spins achievable through the common envelope evolu￾tion channel (Eqs. (8) and (9), with aspin,1 set to 0 and… view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Estimated mass ratios qBBH of merging BBHs formed through the stable mass transfer channel as a function of the ZAMS mass ratio qZAMS using Eq. (12). Blue and orange lines are the values of qBBH estimated for Case A-Case B and Case A-Case A systems. The solid and dashed lines are computed with mass transfer efficiencies ε = 1 and ε = 0.5. 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 qZAMS 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 qB… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Effects of super-Eddington accretion on the mass ratio qBBH of merging BBH formed through the stable mass transfer channel. Blue and orange lines correspond to Case A-Case B and Case A-Case A binaries with fixed ε = 1. The solid and dashed lines are com￾puted with εBH = 0 and εBH = 0.1. 67 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p067_20.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Mass-Ratio Reversal as an Alternative to Hierarchical Mergers for GW241011

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Mass-ratio reversal in isolated binaries offers a viable formation path for GW241011-like events under specific stellar-evolution and interaction conditions.

  2. Targeting black holes from metal-poor progenitors with next-generation gravitational-wave detectors

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Introduces a target redshift z_t to isolate metal-poor black hole progenitors and a statistical framework to test merger-rate variations against forecasts from Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer.

  3. Remnant recoil and host environments of GWTC-4.0 binary black-hole mergers

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Five O4 gravitational-wave events prefer dynamical cluster formation; typical recoil kicks eject remnants from globular clusters but allow possible retention in nuclear star clusters, disfavoring efficient hierarchica...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

169 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2508.18080

    The LIGO Scientific Collaborationet al.GWTC-4.0: An Introduction to Version 4.0 of the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2508.18080 (2025). 2508.18080. 20

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaborationet al.GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo- KAGRA Observing Run.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2508.18082 (2025).2508.18082

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    GWTC-4.0: Population Properties of Merging Compact Binaries.arXiv e-prints arXiv:2508.18083 (2025).2508.18083

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration & the KAGRA Collabora- tion. GWTC-4.0: Population Properties of Merging Compact Binaries.arXiv e-prints arXiv:2508.18083 (2025).2508.18083

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    M.et al.Clusters of Primordial Black Holes.European Physical Journal C 79, 246 (2019).1807.06590

    Belotsky, K. M.et al.Clusters of Primordial Black Holes.European Physical Journal C 79, 246 (2019).1807.06590

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    L.et al.Black holes: The next generation—repeated mergers in dense star clusters and their gravitational-wave properties.Phys

    Rodriguez, C. L.et al.Black holes: The next generation—repeated mergers in dense star clusters and their gravitational-wave properties.Phys. Rev. D100, 043027 (2019). 1906.10260

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Samsing, J.et al.AGN as potential factories for eccentric black hole mergers.Nature 603, 237–240 (2022).2010.09765

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    & Lai, D

    Li, R. & Lai, D. Hydrodynamical evolution of black-hole binaries embedded in AGN discs.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.517, 1602–1624 (2022).2202.07633

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Vigna-G ´omez, A.et al.Massive Stellar Triples Leading to Sequential Binary Black Hole Mergers in the Field.Astrophys. J. Lett907, L19 (2021).2010.13669

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    & Lai, D

    Liu, B. & Lai, D. Black Hole and Neutron Star Binary Mergers in Triple Systems: Merger Fraction and Spin-Orbit Misalignment.Astrophys. J.863, 68 (2018).1805.03202

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [11]

    Binary black hole mergers: formation and populations.Frontiers in Astron- omy and Space Sciences7, 38 (2020).2105.12455

    Mapelli, M. Binary black hole mergers: formation and populations.Frontiers in Astron- omy and Space Sciences7, 38 (2020).2105.12455

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [12]

    & Broekgaarden, F

    Mandel, I. & Broekgaarden, F. S. Rates of compact object coalescences.Living Reviews in Relativity25, 1 (2022).2107.14239

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [13]

    Sana, H.et al.Binary Interaction Dominates the Evolution of Massive Stars.Science337, 444 (2012).1207.6397

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  13. [14]

    Gallegos-Garcia, M., Berry, C. P. L., Marchant, P. & Kalogera, V . Binary Black Hole Formation with Detailed Modeling: Stable Mass Transfer Leads to Lower Merger Rates. arXiv e-printsarXiv:2107.05702 (2021).2107.05702

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [15]

    & Spera, M

    Mapelli, M., Giacobbo, N., Ripamonti, E. & Spera, M. The cosmic merger rate of stellar black hole binaries from the Illustris simulation.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.472, 2422– 2435 (2017).1708.05722

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [16]

    U., Tauris, T

    Kruckow, M. U., Tauris, T. M., Langer, N., Kramer, M. & Izzard, R. G. Progenitors of gravitational wave mergers: binary evolution with the stellar grid-based code COMBINE. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.481, 1908–1949 (2018).1801.05433

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1908

  16. [17]

    & Li, X.-D

    Shao, Y . & Li, X.-D. Population Synthesis of Black Hole Binaries with Compact Star Companions.Astrophys. J.920, 81 (2021).2107.03565

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [18]

    S.et al.The formation of merging black holes with masses beyond 30 M ⊙ at solar metallicity.Nature Astronomy7, 1090–1097 (2023).2212.10924

    Bavera, S. S.et al.The formation of merging black holes with masses beyond 30 M ⊙ at solar metallicity.Nature Astronomy7, 1090–1097 (2023).2212.10924

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [19]

    E., Bulik, T

    Belczynski, K., Holz, D. E., Bulik, T. & O’Shaughnessy, R. The first gravitational-wave source from the isolated evolution of two stars in the 40-100 solar mass range.Nature 534, 512–515 (2016).1602.04531. 22

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  19. [20]

    & Bodensteiner, J

    Marchant, P. & Bodensteiner, J. The Evolution of Massive Binary Stars.Annu. Rev. As- tron. Astrophys62, 21–61 (2024).2311.01865

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [21]

    Astrophys

    Ivanova, N.et al.Common envelope evolution: where we stand and how we can move forward.Astron. Astrophys. Rev.21, 59 (2013).1209.4302

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [22]

    Ge, H., Webbink, R. F. & Han, Z. The Thermal Equilibrium Mass-loss Model and Its Applications in Binary Evolution.Astrophys. J. Supp.249, 9 (2020).2006.00774

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [23]

    Astrophys.650, A107 (2021).2103

    Marchant, P.et al.The role of mass transfer and common envelope evolution in the formation of merging binary black holes.Astron. Astrophys.650, A107 (2021).2103. 09243

    2021

  23. [24]

    R ¨opke, F. K. & De Marco, O. Simulations of common-envelope evolution in binary stellar systems: physical models and numerical techniques.Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics9, 2 (2023).2212.07308

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [25]

    Lau, M. Y . M., Hirai, R., Price, D. J., Mandel, I. & Bate, M. R. Common envelopes in massive stars: III. The obstructive role of radiation transport in envelope ejection.As- tron. Astrophys.699, A274 (2025).2503.20506

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [26]

    Radiation pressure and equation of state are important in the envelope unbinding process in common envelope evolution.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2510.14173 (2025).2510

    Chen, Z. Radiation pressure and equation of state are important in the envelope unbinding process in common envelope evolution.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2510.14173 (2025).2510. 14173

    arXiv 2025

  26. [27]

    Yoon, S. C. & Langer, N. Evolution of rapidly rotating metal-poor massive stars towards gamma-ray bursts.Astron. Astrophys.443, 643–648 (2005).astro-ph/0508242

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  27. [28]

    Woosley, S. E. & Heger, A. The Progenitor Stars of Gamma-Ray Bursts.Astrophys. J. 637, 914–921 (2006).astro-ph/0508175. 23

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  28. [29]

    Marchant, P., Langer, N., Podsiadlowski, P., Tauris, T. M. & Moriya, T. J. A new route towards merging massive black holes.Astron. Astrophys.588, A50 (2016).1601.03718

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [30]

    Eldridge, J. J. & Stanway, E. R. BPASS predictions for binary black hole mergers. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.462, 3302–3313 (2016).1602.03790

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  30. [31]

    & de Mink, S

    Mandel, I. & de Mink, S. E. Merging binary black holes formed through chemically homogeneous evolution in short-period stellar binaries.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.458, 2634–2647 (2016).1601.00007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [32]

    & Koenigsberger, G

    Hastings, B., Langer, N. & Koenigsberger, G. Internal circulation in tidally locked mas- sive binary stars: Consequences for double black hole formation.Astron. Astrophys.641, A86 (2020).2007.11299

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [33]

    Riley, J.et al.Rapid Stellar and Binary Population Synthesis with COMPAS.Astro- phys. J. Supp.258, 34 (2022).2109.10352

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [34]

    Popa, S. A. & de Mink, S. E. Very Massive, Rapidly Spinning Binary Black Hole Pro- genitors through Chemically Homogeneous Evolution – The Case of GW231123.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2509.00154 (2025).2509.00154

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [35]

    van Son, L. A. C.et al.No Peaks without Valleys: The Stable Mass Transfer Chan- nel for Gravitational-wave Sources in Light of the Neutron Star-Black Hole Mass Gap. Astrophys. J.940, 184 (2022).2209.13609

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [36]

    Astrophys.689, A305 (2024).2404.12426

    Olejak, A.et al.Unequal-mass highly spinning binary black hole mergers in the stable mass transfer formation channel.Astron. Astrophys.689, A305 (2024).2404.12426

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [37]

    & Nelemans, G

    Picco, A., Marchant, P., Sana, H. & Nelemans, G. Forming merging double compact objects with stable mass transfer.Astron. Astrophys.681, A31 (2024).2309.05736. 24

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [38]

    Klencki, J.et al.A fundamental limit to how close binary systems can get via sta- ble mass transfer shapes the properties of binary black hole mergers.arXiv e-prints arXiv:2505.08860 (2025).2505.08860

    arXiv 2025

  38. [39]

    R., Tout, C

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A. & Pols, O. R. Evolution of binary stars and the effect of tides on binary populations.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.329, 897–928 (2002).astro-ph/0201220

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  39. [40]

    Belczynski, K.et al.Compact Object Modeling with the StarTrack Population Synthesis Code.Astrophys. J. Supp.174, 223–260 (2008).astro-ph/0511811

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  40. [41]

    S., Stevenson, S

    Broekgaarden, F. S., Stevenson, S. & Thrane, E. Signatures of Mass Ratio Reversal in Gravitational Waves from Merging Binary Black Holes.Astrophys. J.938, 45 (2022). 2205.01693

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [42]

    Willcox, R.et al.Good things always come in 3s: trimodality in the binary black- hole chirp-mass distribution supports bimodal black-hole formation.arXiv e-prints arXiv:2510.07573 (2025).2510.07573

    arXiv 2025

  42. [43]

    J.898, 71 (2020).1911.00903

    Breivik, K.et al.COSMIC Variance in Binary Population Synthesis.Astrophys. J.898, 71 (2020).1911.00903

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  43. [44]

    & Li, X.-D

    Shao, Y . & Li, X.-D. Stable Mass Transfer Can Explain Massive Binary Black Hole Mergers with a High-spin Component.Astrophys. J.930, 26 (2022).2203.14529

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [45]

    J.et al.Binary Population and Spectral Synthesis Version 2.1: Construction, Observational Verification, and New Results.Publ

    Eldridge, J. J.et al.Binary Population and Spectral Synthesis Version 2.1: Construction, Observational Verification, and New Results.Publ. Astron. Soc. Aust.34, e058 (2017). 1710.02154. 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [46]

    M., Stevance, H

    Briel, M. M., Stevance, H. F. & Eldridge, J. J. Understanding the high-mass binary black hole population from stable mass transfer and super-Eddington accretion in BPASS. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.520, 5724–5745 (2023).2206.13842

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [47]

    Fragos, T.et al.POSYDON: A General-purpose Population Synthesis Code with Detailed Binary-evolution Simulations.Astrophys. J. Supp.264, 45 (2023).2202.05892

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [48]

    Paxton, B.et al.Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA).Astro- phys. J. Supp.192, 3 (2011).1009.1622

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  48. [49]

    Paxton, B.et al.Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Planets, Oscillations, Rotation, and Massive Stars.Astrophys. J. Supp.208, 4 (2013).1301.0319

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  49. [50]

    Paxton, B.et al.Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Binaries, Pulsations, and Explosions.Astrophys. J. Supp.220, 15 (2015).1506.03146

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  50. [51]

    & Langer, N

    Braun, H. & Langer, N. Effects of accretion onto massive main sequence stars.Astron. As- trophys.297, 483 (1995)

    1995

  51. [52]

    & G ¨otberg, Y

    Renzo, M. & G ¨otberg, Y . Evolution of Accretor Stars in Massive Binaries: Broader Implications from ModelingζOphiuchi.Astrophys. J.923, 277 (2021).2107.10933

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  52. [53]

    Brott, I.et al.Rotating massive main-sequence stars. I. Grids of evolutionary models and isochrones.Astron. Astrophys.530, A115 (2011).1102.0530

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  53. [54]

    & Weigert, A

    Kippenhahn, R. & Weigert, A. Entwicklung in engen Doppelsternsystemen I. Masse- naustausch vor und nach Beendigung des zentralen Wasserstoff-Brennens.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Astrophysik65, 251 (1967)

    1967

  54. [55]

    Astrophys.690, A282 (2024).2404.08612

    Sch ¨urmann, C.et al.Analytic approximations for massive close post-mass transfer binary systems.Astron. Astrophys.690, A282 (2024).2404.08612. 26

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [56]

    S.et al.The impact of mass-transfer physics on the observable properties of field binary black hole populations.Astron

    Bavera, S. S.et al.The impact of mass-transfer physics on the observable properties of field binary black hole populations.Astron. Astrophys.647, A153 (2021).2010.16333

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  56. [57]

    & Belczynski, K

    Olejak, A. & Belczynski, K. The Implications of High Black Hole Spins for the Origin of Binary Black Hole Mergers.Astrophys. J. Lett921, L2 (2021).2109.06872

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  57. [58]

    & Kalogera, V

    Sridhar, O., Ray, A. & Kalogera, V . Characterizing Binary Black Hole Subpopulations in GWTC-4 with Binned Gaussian Processes: On the Origins of the 35M ⊙ Peak.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2511.22093 (2025).2511.22093

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [59]

    Presupernova Evolution of Massive Single and Binary Stars.Annu

    Langer, N. Presupernova Evolution of Massive Single and Binary Stars.Annu. Rev. As- tron. Astrophys50, 107–164 (2012).1206.5443

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  59. [60]

    As- trophys.659, A98 (2022).2111.03329

    Sen, K.et al.Detailed models of interacting short-period massive binary stars.Astron. As- trophys.659, A98 (2022).2111.03329

    arXiv 2022

  60. [61]

    T.et al.Populations of evolved massive binary stars in the Small Magellanic Cloud I: Predictions from detailed evolution models.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2503.23876 (2025)

    Xu, X. T.et al.Populations of evolved massive binary stars in the Small Magellanic Cloud I: Predictions from detailed evolution models.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2503.23876 (2025). 2503.23876

    arXiv 2025

  61. [62]

    Sen, K.et al.Interacting binaries on the Main Sequence as in-situ tracers of mass transfer efficiency and stability.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2511.15347 (2025).2511.15347

    arXiv 2025

  62. [63]

    L.et al.Compact Remnant Mass Function: Dependence on the Explosion Mechanism and Metallicity.Astrophys

    Fryer, C. L.et al.Compact Remnant Mass Function: Dependence on the Explosion Mechanism and Metallicity.Astrophys. J.749, 91 (2012).1110.1726

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  63. [64]

    Natal kicks of stellar mass black holes by asymmetric mass ejection in fallback supernovae.Mon

    Janka, H.-T. Natal kicks of stellar mass black holes by asymmetric mass ejection in fallback supernovae.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.434, 1355–1361 (2013).1306.0007. 27

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  64. [65]

    & Kalogera, V

    Wong, T.-W., Valsecchi, F., Fragos, T. & Kalogera, V . Understanding Compact Object Formation and Natal Kicks. III. The Case of Cygnus X-1.Astrophys. J.747, 111 (2012). 1107.5585

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  65. [66]

    Estimates of black hole natal kick velocities from observations of low-mass X-ray binaries.Mon

    Mandel, I. Estimates of black hole natal kick velocities from observations of low-mass X-ray binaries.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.456, 578–581 (2016).1510.03871

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  66. [67]

    Vigna-G ´omez, A.et al.Constraints on Neutrino Natal Kicks from Black-Hole Binary VFTS 243.Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 191403 (2024).2310.01509

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  67. [68]

    Astrophys.700, A59 (2025).2504.16669

    Willcox, R.et al.Binarity at LOw Metallicity (BLOeM): Bayesian inference of natal kicks from inert black hole binaries.Astron. Astrophys.700, A59 (2025).2504.16669

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [69]

    Sana, H.et al.A high fraction of close massive binary stars at low metallicity.Nature Astronomy9, 1337–1346 (2025).2509.12488

    arXiv 2025

  69. [70]

    & Marchant, P

    Dsilva, K., Shenar, T., Sana, H. & Marchant, P. A spectroscopic multiplicity survey of Galactic Wolf-Rayet stars. I. The northern WC sequence.Astron. Astrophys.641, A26 (2020).2006.13957

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  70. [71]

    & Marchant, P

    Dsilva, K., Shenar, T., Sana, H. & Marchant, P. A spectroscopic multiplicity survey of Galactic Wolf-Rayet stars. II. The northern WNE sequence.Astron. Astrophys.664, A93 (2022).2204.12518

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  71. [72]

    & Marchant, P

    Dsilva, K., Shenar, T., Sana, H. & Marchant, P. A spectroscopic multiplicity survey of Galactic Wolf-Rayet stars . III. The northern late-type nitrogen-rich sample.Astron. As- trophys.674, A88 (2023).2212.06927

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  72. [73]

    Shenar, T.et al.Wolf-Rayet stars in the Small Magellanic Cloud. II. Analysis of the binaries.Astron. Astrophys.591, A22 (2016).1604.01022. 28

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  73. [74]

    Spectral and orbital analysis of SMC AB 6.As- tron

    Shenar, T.et al.The shortest-period Wolf-Rayet binary in the Small Magellanic Cloud: Part of a high-order multiple system. Spectral and orbital analysis of SMC AB 6.As- tron. Astrophys.616, A103 (2018).1805.00952

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  74. [75]

    & Langer, N

    Schootemeijer, A. & Langer, N. Wolf-Rayet stars in the Small Magellanic Cloud as testbed for massive star evolution.Astron. Astrophys.611, A75 (2018).1709.08727

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  75. [76]

    Astrophys.673, A40 (2023)

    Pauli, D.et al.Spectroscopic and evolutionary analyses of the binary system AzV 14 outline paths toward the WR stage at low metallicity.Astron. Astrophys.673, A40 (2023). 2303.03989

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  76. [77]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A.et al.Cygnus X-1 contains a 21-solar mass black hole—Implications for massive star winds.Science371, 1046–1049 (2021).2102.09091

    arXiv 2021

  77. [78]

    A.et al.A new dynamical model for the black hole binary lmc x-1*.The Astro- physical Journal697, 573 (2009)

    Orosz, J. A.et al.A new dynamical model for the black hole binary lmc x-1*.The Astro- physical Journal697, 573 (2009). URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/ 697/1/573

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/ 2009

  78. [79]

    Astrophys

    Ramachandran, V .et al.Phase-resolved spectroscopic analysis of the eclipsing black hole X-ray binary M33 X-7: System properties, accretion, and evolution.Astron. Astrophys. 667, A77 (2022).2208.07773

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  79. [80]

    A., Mikolajewska, J

    Zdziarski, A. A., Mikolajewska, J. & Belczynski, K. Cyg X-3: a low-mass black hole or a neutron star.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.429, L104–L108 (2013).1208.5455

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  80. [81]

    A.et al.The wolf–rayet+black hole binary ngc 300 x-1: What is the mass of the black hole?The Astrophysical Journal910, 74 (2021)

    Binder, B. A.et al.The wolf–rayet+black hole binary ngc 300 x-1: What is the mass of the black hole?The Astrophysical Journal910, 74 (2021). URLhttps://dx.doi. org/10.3847/1538-4357/abe6a9. 29

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe6a9 2021

Showing first 80 references.