Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Mass Transfer in Eccentric Orbits with Self-consistent Stellar Evolution

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Explicitly modeling eccentric Roche-lobe overflow predicts that about one third of star–compact-object binaries remain eccentric after mass transfer, and that even circularized systems differ from instant-circularization predictions.

desk verdict A solid first self-consistent implementation of eccentric mass transfer in MESA; the delta-function-periapse assumption is a real quantitative caveat that shifts the bifurcation boundary but not the qualitative conclusions. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11840 v1 pith:25ZNU3J6 submitted 2024-11-18 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Kyle Akira Rocha , Rachel Hur , Vicky Kalogera , Seth Gossage , Meng Sun , Zoheyr Doctor , Jeff J. Andrews , Simone S. Bavera
show 7 more authors
Max Briel Tassos Fragos Konstantinos Kovlakas Matthias U. Kruckow Devina Misra Zepei Xing Emmanouil Zapartas
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords eccentricmasstransferRoche-lobeoverflowbinarystellarevolutioncompactobjectsorbitaleccentricitypopulationsynthesisX-raybinariesgravitational-wavesources
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

Binary stars that exchange mass through Roche-lobe overflow are normally assumed to circularize instantly, but this paper asks what happens if the orbit is eccentric and the transfer occurs mainly at closest approach. Using secular equations for eccentric mass transfer embedded in a full stellar evolution code, it finds that a large fraction of binaries can stay eccentric after mass transfer, with about one third of an astrophysically sampled population of star-plus-compact-object binaries remaining eccentric. Even binaries that do circularize through eccentric mass transfer end up with donor masses and orbital periods that differ from instant-circularization predictions, and a small fraction switch between stable and unstable mass transfer. These results matter because eccentric mass transfer would change the predicted populations of X-ray binaries, gravitational-wave sources, and high-energy transients.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the secular orbital-evolution equations for $da/dt$ and $de/dt$, derived from a model in which all Roche-lobe overflow occurs as a delta function at periapse. These equations are coupled to a detailed stellar evolution code so that the mass-transfer rate, donor response, tides, winds, magnetic braking, and gravitational-wave losses all feed back into the orbit. The sign of each secular rate depends on the mass ratio $q$: when $q$ drops below about 1 the semi-major axis stops shrinking and starts growing, and when $q$ drops below about 0.76 the eccentricity stops decaying and starts being pumped up. The competition between these thresholds and the time spent transferring mass produces the hook-shaped evolution in the period–eccentricity plane and the empirical bifurcation boundary $e_{\rm crit}(q)$ that separates binaries that circularize from those that remain eccentric.

What would settle it

Simulate a handful of the paper's representative binaries with three-dimensional hydrodynamics that resolve many orbits and measure the orbit-averaged $da/dt$ and $de/dt$; compare with the delta-function predictions, especially for cases near the mass-ratio thresholds $q\simeq 1$ and $q\simeq 0.76$. A systematic difference in eccentricity evolution there would falsify the bifurcation boundary. Observationally, a targeted search for post-mass-transfer binaries with stripped helium donors in eccentric ($e > 0.05$) and wide ($P\sim 10$ to $10^4$ days) orbits could test whether the predicted eccentric population exists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Roche-lobe overflow in eccentric orbits, modeled self-consistently with the star and orbit evolving together, does not universally circularize binaries. The paper implements the analytic secular rates for semi-major axis and eccentricity change under a delta-function mass transfer at periapse into a stellar evolution code and applies it both to a simplified grid and to an astrophysical population of stars with compact-object companions. It finds that about 33% of the population remains eccentric ($e > 0.05$) after mass transfer, and that among black-hole-hosting binaries roughly 64% remain eccentric, while neutron-star-hosting binaries mostly circularize. For binaries that do naturally circularize, the eccentric treatment predicts orbital periods roughly 50 to 100% larger and donor mass differences of order 20% compared to the instant-circularization assumption, with about 5% of these systems showing qualitatively different outcomes such as stable versus unstable mass transfer. The paper concludes that the initial mass ratio and eccentricity separate the two outcomes and provides a fitting function for the boundary.

Load-bearing premise

The weakest link is the assumption that all mass transfer happens in an instant at closest approach, while real hydrodynamical flows spread mass transfer over a finite fraction of the orbit; if that spread changes the secular rates, the predicted eccentricity evolution and the boundary between circularizing and eccentric outcomes could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • About one third of compact-object–star binaries in the sampled population remain eccentric after mass transfer, a population that cannot form under the standard instant-circularization assumption.
  • Black-hole-hosting binaries, with low initial mass ratios, most often remain eccentric and can end up wider and more eccentric than they started; neutron-star-hosting binaries mostly circularize.
  • Even binaries that circularize naturally through eccentric mass transfer have orbital periods about 50–100% larger and donor masses differing by roughly 20% relative to instant circularization.
  • A small but non-negligible fraction of binaries switch between stable and unstable mass-transfer outcomes, with the eccentric treatment usually predicting stability when instant circularization predicts instability.
  • The initial mass ratio and eccentricity of a binary largely determine which outcome occurs, providing a simple fitting function that population synthesis calculations can use to estimate the impact of eccentric mass transfer.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the delta-function assumption survives hydrodynamical checks, population-synthesis predictions for the Galactic X-ray binary population and for compact-object merger rates would need revision, because a sizable fraction of systems would follow a different orbital path than previously assumed.
  • The predicted population of wide, eccentric post-mass-transfer binaries with stripped helium donors is observationally accessible: Gaia-type astrometry and wide-orbit spectroscopy could test it directly, though selection effects currently make it difficult to detect.
  • Extending the same treatment to mass transfer between two non-degenerate stars would connect to observed eccentric post-mass-transfer systems such as barium stars and blue stragglers, suggesting that the qualitative remain-eccentric outcome may be common beyond compact-object binaries.
  • A hydrodynamically calibrated, finite-width mass-transfer model could be checked against the paper's bifurcation boundary; if the boundary shifts, then even the direction of the current bias (more stable, wider orbits) should be re-examined.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper implements the Sepinsky et al. (2009) secular eccentric mass-transfer (eMT) equations into the MESA stellar evolution code, coupling the orbital semi-major axis and eccentricity evolution with a self-consistent mass-transfer rate calculation. The study first isolates eMT effects in a simplified grid of 20 Msun donors with 10 Msun black-hole companions, then runs a full-physics grid whose initial conditions are drawn from a POSYDON binary population synthesis model of CO-hosting binaries that initiate Roche-lobe overflow in eccentric orbits. The central results are: (i) a significant fraction of binaries, especially low-mass-ratio BH-hosting systems, remain eccentric after mass transfer; (ii) the final outcome (eccentric vs circularized) is separated by a clean bifurcation in the initial mass-ratio--eccentricity plane, summarized by the polynomial fit in Eq. (10); and (iii) even binaries that naturally circularize end with systematically different donor masses and orbital periods than predicted by the standard instant-circularization treatment, with roughly 5% of systems switching between stable and unstable mass-transfer outcomes.

Significance. If the results hold, this is the first self-consistent implementation of eccentric RLO mass transfer in a detailed stellar evolution code, and it has direct implications for the interpretation of X-ray binaries, wide BH binaries, and gravitational-wave progenitors. The paper provides a concrete falsifiable prediction (the Eq. (10) bifurcation), a systematic comparison against the standard instant-circularization assumption, and a clear statement of the key assumption (delta-function MT at periapse) on which the results rest. The claimed population-level effect, with about one third of CO-hosting binaries remaining eccentric post-MT, is striking and worth pursuing. However, for the reasons detailed in the major comments, the quantitative headline figures are not yet established to the precision claimed, primarily because the load-bearing delta-function approximation is acknowledged but not tested.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1 and Section 5] The secular orbital evolution equations (3) and (4) assume that all RLO mass transfer occurs as a delta function at periapse. The sign of de/dt in Eq. (4) changes near q ~ 0.76 (Eq. 9), and the balance between circularization and eccentricity pumping for systems near this mass ratio determines the bifurcation boundary in Eq. (10) and hence the 33% eccentric-post-MT fraction. Hydrodynamical simulations (Lajoie & Sills 2011) show that the mass-transfer rate has a finite width (FWHM ~ 0.12 Porb), so contributions from other true anomalies are non-negligible for systems near the transition. The manuscript acknowledges this in Section 5 but does not quantify the impact on the headline numbers. I request a sensitivity test, for example re-evaluating the integrated de/dt for a Gaussian MT window of the hydrodynamically suggested width on a subset of the f-eMT models, to demonstrate that the bifurcation and the one-third fraction are robust.
  2. [Section 2.3.1] The procedure for determining the periapse mass-transfer rate Mdot0 used in Eqs. (3) and (4) is not specified. The text says that the 'eccentric orbit-averaged MT rate' from the MESA binary module is used, but it does not state how the orbit average is converted into the delta-function amplitude Mdot0. Since Eqs. (3) and (4) are linear in Mdot0, any mismatch between the orbit-averaged rate and the periapse-normalized rate would rescale da/dt and de/dt, shifting both the qcrit values and the fitted bifurcation of Eq. (10). Please give the exact conversion formula and verify that the total mass lost per orbital period in the secular equations matches the mass lost in the MESA MT calculation.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eq. (10), and Fig. 6] The polynomial fit for the critical eccentricity is presented as a predictive tool, but it is an unvalidated empirical fit from a single grid: no uncertainties are quoted, no residuals are shown, and the fit is used at the edge of or beyond its stated range (qi in [0, 5.5]). The authors note that high-qi outliers remain eccentric because of winds, indicating that the clean qi-ei separation is not universal. I recommend showing the scatter about the fit with bootstrap or cross-validation uncertainties and stating the expected error when applying Eq. (10) outside the fitted range.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] The sentence 'It is through this lenses that we interpret...' should read 'It is through this lens that we interpret...' (grammatical error).
  2. [Section 2.4] The phrase 'following a flat-in-log distribution in the range [1-0.35] days' is garbled; presumably the range should be [1, 10^3.5] days, matching the previous sentence.
  3. [Section 2.1] 'which is only analytical treatment currently available' should read 'which is the only analytical treatment currently available'.
  4. [Table A1] The row label 'Mixed TFs' should likely read 'Mixed MT'.
  5. [Section 4.1 and Section 5] The 33% eccentric-post-MT fraction is derived from a single POSYDON BPS realization; the paper notes in Section 5 that the division depends strongly on assumed BPS physics, but a quantitative statement of the expected sensitivity (e.g., to natal kick dispersion or supernova remnant model) would help readers gauge the robustness of the population-level claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the orbital-evolution equations are adopted from prior external work, and the headline population outcomes are new integrations of those equations.

full rationale

The load-bearing secular rates da/dt and de/dt (Equations 3 and 4) are explicitly adopted from Sepinsky et al. (2009), with the delta-function-at-periapse assumption stated in Section 2.1. This is an external analytical derivation (with overlapping authorship via co-author V. Kalogera), not a result derived in this paper, and its assumptions do not include the paper's target outcomes. The headline statistics (33% eccentric post-MT, the qi-ei bifurcation) are outputs of integrating those equations together with MESA stellar-structure physics and a POSYDON population sample; they are not restatements of the equations' inputs. Equation 10 is an empirical polynomial fit to simulation outcomes, presented as a fitting function, not as a first-principles prediction. The paper's own Section 5 limitation statement acknowledges that the delta-function approximation could alter the results, citing hydrodynamical FWHM ~0.12 Porb; that is a robustness/correctness risk rather than circularity, because the paper does not use the outcome to justify the assumption. I also note that Equation 10 as printed appears inconsistent with the text's check that ecrit ~ 0.4 at qi = 2, but this is an internal correctness concern, not a circularity. No load-bearing step in the derivation reduces by definition to its own input, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Sepinsky et al. secular equations, the delta function approximation, and the POSYDON population synthesis assumptions. No new entities are introduced, and the only fitted quantity is the empirical bifurcation function.

free parameters (1)
  • Bifurcation fit coefficients ecrit(q) = c0=-0.210, c1=-0.729, c2=-0.1444, c3=-0.0093
    Polynomial fit to simulation outcomes separating eccentric from circularized post-MT populations in the initial q-e plane (Eq. 10). Used to claim initial mass ratio and eccentricity are predictive of outcome.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Delta function mass transfer at periapse
    Secular orbital evolution equations (3)-(4) assume all MT occurs instantaneously at periapse (Sepinsky et al. 2009). Acknowledged as a key assumption in Section 5.
  • domain assumption Secular equations of Sepinsky et al. (2009) correctly describe orbital evolution
    Paper adopts these analytic expressions as the basis for eMT implementation without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption Accretor radius small compared to orbital separation (r_A2/a << 1)
    Assumes compact object accretor point-like, so the impact point term is negligible, implicitly accounting for Phi_P.
  • domain assumption Orbit-averaged MT rate from Ritter/Kolb applies in eccentric orbits
    MT rate is calculated using standard Roche geometry at instantaneous orbital phases, though deviations are noted to be few percent.
  • domain assumption POSYDON BPS model provides representative initial conditions
    Initial binary parameters for f-eMT are drawn from a POSYDON population synthesis with specific assumptions for SN kicks, initial distributions, and common envelope physics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mass Transfer in Eccentric Orbits with Self-consistent Stellar Evolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/25ZNU3J6

@misc{pith2026241111840,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mass Transfer in Eccentric Orbits with Self-consistent Stellar Evolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/25ZNU3J6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11840}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate Roche lobe overflow mass transfer (MT) in eccentric binary systems between stars and compact objects (COs), modeling the coupled evolution of both the star and the orbit due to eccentric MT (eMT) in a self-consistent framework. We implement the analytic expressions for secular rates of change of the orbital semi-major axis and eccentricity, assuming a delta function MT at periapse, into the binary stellar evolution code MESA. Two scenarios are examined: (1) a simplified model isolating the effects of eMT on stellar and orbital evolution, and (2) realistic binary configurations that include angular momentum exchange (e.g., tides, mass loss, spin-orbit coupling, and gravitational wave radiation). Unlike the ad hoc approach of instant circularization that is often employed, explicit modeling of eMT reveals a large fraction of binaries can remain eccentric post-MT. Even binaries which naturally circularize during eMT have different properties (donor mass and orbital size) compared to predictions from instant circularization, with some showing fundamentally different evolutionary outcomes (e.g., stable versus unstable MT). We demonstrate that a binary's initial mass ratio and eccentricity are predictive of whether it will remain eccentric or circularize after eMT. These findings underscore the importance of eMT in understanding CO-hosting binary populations, including X-ray binaries, gravitational wave sources, and other high-energy transients.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11840 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Results from our s-eMT binary simulations with 20 M⊙ donors and 10 M⊙ BHs in various orbital configurations in the Porb−e plane, where all orbital evolution is due to the effects of non-conservative eMT (Section 3). The left panel shows the characteristic MT history of our binary simulations (see legend and text), and the right panel shows the time evolution of a subset of models where thick (thin) lines correspond … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time evolution from oRLO of the orbital period (first row), eccentricity (second row), mass ratio (third row), RLO MT rate (fourth row), the periapse separation normalized by the value at oRLO (fifth row), and the donor and CO masses (last row), for a subset of our s-eMT models with a 20 M⊙ donor and 10 M⊙ BH shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. One-dimensional distributions of donor star mass (top left), CO mass (top middle), mass ratio between donor and CO mass (top right), orbital period (bottom left), eccentricity (bottom middle), and periapse distance (bottom right) for initial binary parameters (filled histograms) and final values (empty histograms) from our binary f-eMT MESA simulations, including secular orbital evolution due to eMT, with self-consi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Orbital evolution in the Porb−e plane for bina￾ries (bottom three panels, for three different initial mass ra￾tio ranges) selected by their initial mass ratio qi (top panel), where binaries which circularize or remain eccentric post-MT are shown in blue and orange resp…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: For the eccentric post-MT population (orange data in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Initial conditions for our f-eMT models in initial q − e plane, color-coded by models that either naturally cir￾cularize (blue) or remain eccentric (orange) post-MT as de￾scribed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: For models which naturally circularize in our f-eMT simulations (blue in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Time series evolution of three binaries which have divergent evolution between f-eMT (colored lines) and their equivalent instantly circularized evolution (black) with initial conditions of the original eccentric orbit at the top of each column. Instantly circularized …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Cataclysmic Variables in Triples: Formation Models and New Discoveries

    astro-ph.SR 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Triple-star dynamics are a significant, previously neglected formation channel for cataclysmic variables, including a common-envelope-free route.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023, Physical Review X, 13, 011048, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048 2023

  2. [2]

    J., Taggart, K., & Foley, R

    Andrews, J. J., Taggart, K., & Foley, R. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.00680, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2207.00680

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.00680 2022

  3. [3]

    J., Bavera, S

    Andrews, J. J., Bavera, S. S., Briel, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.02376, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02376

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.02376 2024

  4. [4]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f...

    arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    2023, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 120, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 94-1

    Bahramian, A., & Degenaar, N. 2023, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 120, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 94-1

    doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 2023

  6. [6]

    Bailyn, C. D. 1995, ARA&A, 33, 133, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.001025

    arXiv 1995

  7. [7]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 1184, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad999

    Bashi, D., Mazeh, T., & Faigler, S. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1184, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad999

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad999 2023

  8. [8]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85

    Breivik, K., Coughlin, S., Zevin, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85 2020

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    J., Siess, L., & Deschamps, R

    Davis, P. J., Siess, L., & Deschamps, R. 2013, A&A, 556, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220391 de S´ a, L. M., Bernardo, A., Rocha, L. S., Bachega, R. R. A., & Horvath, J. E. 2024, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2388 D’Orazio, D. J., & Duffell, P. C. 2021, ApJL, 914, L21, doi: 1...

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    2016, ApJ, 825, 70, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/70

    Dosopoulou, F., & Kalogera, V. 2016, ApJ, 825, 70, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/70

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    R., G¨ otberg, Y., Ludwig, B

    Drout, M. R., G¨ otberg, Y., Ludwig, B. A., et al. 2023, Science, 382, 1287, doi: 10.1126/science.ade4970

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368, doi: 10.1086/160960

    1983 doi

  5. [13]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 3602, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2422

    El-Badry, K., Conroy, C., Quataert, E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3602, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2422

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    2023a, MNRAS, 518, 1057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3140

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Quataert, E., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 518, 1057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3140

    doi

  7. [15]

    2023b, MNRAS, 521, 4323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad799

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Cendes, Y., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 521, 4323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad799

    doi

  8. [16]

    J., Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Xiao, L., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.51

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Escorza, A., & De Rosa, R. J. 2023, A&A, 671, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244782

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Antoniou, V., & Dubus, G

    Fornasini, F. M., Antoniou, V., & Dubus, G. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.02645, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.02645

    2023 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    2023, A&A, 671, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245236

    Fortin, F., Garc ´ ıa, F., Simaz Bunzel, A., & Chaty, S. 2023, A&A, 671, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245236

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    J., Bavera, S

    Fragos, T., Andrews, J. J., Bavera, S. S., et al. 2023, ApJS, 264, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac90c1 Gaia Collaboration, Panuzzo, P., Mazeh, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449763

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2610

    Kalogera, V. 2021, ApJ, 922, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2610

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    Rasio, F. A. 2019, ApJ, 872, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0214

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Mathieu, R

    Geller, A. M., Mathieu, R. D., Harris, H. C., & McClure, R. D. 2009, AJ, 137, 3743, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/4/3743

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Mathieu, R

    Geller, A. M., Mathieu, R. D., Latham, D. W., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abdd23

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 2234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2848

    Giacobbo, N., & Mapelli, M. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 2234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2848

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 2959, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2933

    Giacobbo, N., Mapelli, M., & Spera, M. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2959, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2933

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    M., Mathieu, R

    Gosnell, N. M., Mathieu, R. D., Geller, A. M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 163, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/163 G¨ otberg, Y., de Mink, S. E., Groh, J. H., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732274

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    S., & Dosopoulou, F

    Hamers, A. S., & Dosopoulou, F. 2019, ApJ, 872, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab001d

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    2009, ARA&A, 47, 211, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101836

    Heber, U. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 211, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101836

    2009 doi

  22. [31]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.18296, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.18296

    Hu, Z., Zhu, W., Dai, F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.18296, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.18296

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [32]

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

    2007 doi

  24. [33]

    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

  25. [34]

    Hwang, H.-C., Ting, Y.-S., & Zakamska, N. L. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac675

    2022 doi

  26. [35]

    1991, ApJS, 76, 55, doi: 10.1086/191565

    Iben, Icko, J. 1991, ApJS, 76, 55, doi: 10.1086/191565

    1991 doi

  27. [36]

    M., & Rasio, F

    Ivanova, N., Belczynski, K., Fregeau, J. M., & Rasio, F. A. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 572, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08804.x

    2005

  28. [37]

    1990, A&A, 236, 385

    Kolb, U., & Ritter, H. 1990, A&A, 236, 385

    1990

  29. [38]

    2019, NewAR, 86, 101546, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101546

    Kretschmar, P., F¨ urst, F., Sidoli, L., et al. 2019, NewAR, 86, 101546, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101546

    2019

  30. [39]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  31. [40]

    Kuiper, G. P. 1941, ApJ, 93, 133, doi: 10.1086/144252

    1941 doi

  32. [41]

    Lai, D., & Mu˜ noz, D. J. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 517, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052622-022933

    2023 doi

  33. [42]

    2011, ApJ, 726, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/67

    Lajoie, C.-P., & Sills, A. 2011, ApJ, 726, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/67

    2011 doi

  34. [43]

    B., et al

    Lamberts, A., Blunt, S., Littenberg, T. B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5888, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2834

    2019 doi

  35. [44]

    2012, ARA&A, 50, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125534

    Langer, N. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125534

    2012 doi

  36. [45]

    2024, ApJL, 972, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad70ba

    Lazzati, D., Perna, R., Ryu, T., & Breivik, K. 2024, ApJL, 972, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad70ba

    2024 doi

  37. [46]

    D., & Latham, D

    Linck, E., Mathieu, R. D., & Latham, D. W. 2024, AJ, 168, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6b1a

    2024 doi

  38. [47]

    1988, ApJ, 329, 764, doi: 10.1086/166419 18

    Livio, M., & Soker, N. 1988, ApJ, 329, 764, doi: 10.1086/166419 18

    1988 doi

  39. [48]

    Lubow, S. H. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5446, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2636

    2022 doi

  40. [49]

    H., & Shu, F

    Lubow, S. H., & Shu, F. H. 1975, ApJ, 198, 383, doi: 10.1086/153614

    1975 doi

  41. [50]

    2022, ApJ, 937, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8aff

    MacLeod, M., Vick, M., & Loeb, A. 2022, ApJ, 937, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8aff

    2022 doi

  42. [51]

    2024, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, doi: https: //doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-052722-105936

    Marchant, P., & Bodensteiner, J. 2024, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, doi: https: //doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-052722-105936

    2024 doi

  43. [52]

    Marchant, P., Pappas, K. M. W., Gallegos-Garcia, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039992

    2021 doi

  44. [53]

    F., et al

    Marino, A., Di Salvo, T., Gambino, A. F., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, A137, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730464

    2017 doi

  45. [54]

    Mathieu, R. D. 1994, ARA&A, 32, 465, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.32.090194.002341

    1994

  46. [55]

    E., Leiner, E., Mathieu, R

    Milliman, K. E., Leiner, E., Mathieu, R. D., Tofflemire, B. M., & Platais, I. 2016, AJ, 151, 152, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/6/152

    2016 doi

  47. [56]

    E., Mathieu, R

    Milliman, K. E., Mathieu, R. D., Geller, A. M., et al. 2014, AJ, 148, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/2/38

    2014 doi

  48. [57]

    2015, A&A, 584, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527515 Mu˜ noz, D

    Langer, N. 2015, A&A, 584, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527515 Mu˜ noz, D. J., & Lithwick, Y. 2020, ApJ, 905, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc74c

    2015 doi

  49. [58]

    P., & Rasio, F

    Naoz, S., Fragos, T., Geller, A., Stephan, A. P., & Rasio, F. A. 2016, ApJL, 822, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/822/2/L24

    2016 doi

  50. [59]

    2023, A&A, 677, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245728

    Neumann, M., Avakyan, A., Doroshenko, V., & Santangelo, A. 2023, A&A, 677, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245728

    2023 doi

  51. [60]

    D., Wood, P

    Nie, J. D., Wood, P. R., & Nicholls, C. P. 2017, ApJ, 835, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/209

    2017 doi

  52. [61]

    C., Mathieu, R

    Nine, A. C., Mathieu, R. D., Schuler, S. C., & Milliman, K. E. 2024, ApJ, 970, 187, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad534b

    2024 doi

  53. [62]

    2018, A&A, 620, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833816 Paczy´ nski, B

    Oomen, G.-M., Van Winckel, H., Pols, O., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833816 Paczy´ nski, B. 1971, ARA&A, 9, 183, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.09.090171.001151 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2018

  54. [63]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  55. [64]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  56. [65]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    2015 doi

  57. [66]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    2018 doi

  58. [67]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    2019 doi

  59. [68]

    Podsiadlowski, P., Langer, N., Poelarends, A. J. T., et al. 2004, ApJ, 612, 1044, doi: 10.1086/421713

    2004 doi

  60. [69]

    2019, ApJL, 870, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf97b

    Qin, Y., Marchant, P., Fragos, T., Meynet, G., & Kalogera, V. 2019, ApJL, 870, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf97b

    2019 doi

  61. [70]

    V., & Popov, S

    Raguzova, N. V., & Popov, S. B. 2005, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, 24, 151, doi: 10.1080/10556790500497311

    2005 doi

  62. [71]

    A., Tout, C

    Rasio, F. A., Tout, C. A., Lubow, S. H., & Livio, M. 1996, ApJ, 470, 1187, doi: 10.1086/177941

    1996 doi

  63. [72]

    A., Andrews, J

    Rocha, K. A., Andrews, J. J., Berry, C. P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b05

    2022 doi

  64. [73]

    A., Kalogera, V., Doctor, Z., et al

    Rocha, K. A., Kalogera, V., Doctor, Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5955

    2024 doi

  65. [74]

    L., Weatherford, N

    Rodriguez, C. L., Weatherford, N. C., Coughlin, S. C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac2edf

    2022 doi

  66. [75]

    I., & Pols, O

    Saladino, M. I., & Pols, O. R. 2019, A&A, 629, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935625

    2019 doi

  67. [76]

    E., et al

    Sana, H., de Koter, A., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219621

    2013 doi

  68. [77]

    2024, A&A, 681, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348424

    Sciarini, L., Ekstr¨ om, S., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348424

    2024 doi

  69. [78]

    F., Willems, B., & Kalogera, V

    Sepinsky, J. F., Willems, B., & Kalogera, V. 2007a, ApJ, 660, 1624, doi: 10.1086/513736

    doi

  70. [79]

    F., Willems, B., Kalogera, V., & Rasio, F

    Sepinsky, J. F., Willems, B., Kalogera, V., & Rasio, F. A. 2007b, ApJ, 667, 1170, doi: 10.1086/520911 —. 2009, ApJ, 702, 1387, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/1387 —. 2010, ApJ, 724, 546, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/546 Simaz Bunzel, A., Garc ´ ıa, F., Combi, J. A., & Chaty, S. ...

    2009 doi

  71. [80]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 2707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1131

    Siwek, M., Weinberger, R., & Hernquist, L. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 2707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1131

    2023 doi

  72. [81]

    Janka, H. T. 2016, ApJ, 821, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38

    2016 doi

  73. [82]

    2018, ApJ, 858, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9a4

    Sun, M., & Arras, P. 2018, ApJ, 858, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9a4

    2018 doi

  74. [83]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad47c1

    Sun, M., Levina, S., Gossage, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad47c1

    2024 doi

  75. [84]

    Sun, M., & Mathieu, R. D. 2023, ApJ, 944, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acacf7

    2023 doi

  76. [85]

    D., Leiner, E

    Sun, M., Mathieu, R. D., Leiner, E. M., & Townsend, R. H. D. 2021, ApJ, 908, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd402 19

    2021 doi

  77. [86]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.02563, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02563

    Tang, P., Meyer, R., & Eldridge, J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.02563, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02563

    2024 doi

  78. [87]

    M., & van den Heuvel, E

    Tauris, T. M., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 2023, Physics of Binary Star Evolution. From Stars to X-ray Binaries and Gravitational Wave Sources, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.09388

    2023 doi arXiv

  79. [88]

    2020, MESA SDK for Linux, 20.3.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3706650

    Townsend, R. 2020, MESA SDK for Linux, 20.3.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3706650

    2020 doi

  80. [89]

    2024, A&A, 688, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449421 van den Heuvel, E

    Valli, R., Tiede, C., Vigna-G´ omez, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449421 van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 2019, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 346, High-mass X-ray Binaries: Illuminating the Passage from Massive Binaries to Merging Compact Objects, ed. L. M. Oski...

    2024 doi

  81. [90]

    Verbunt, F., & Phinney, E. S. 1995, A&A, 296, 709

    1995

  82. [91]

    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

  83. [92]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10314, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.10314

    Wang, C., & Ryu, T. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10314, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.10314

    2024 doi arXiv

  84. [93]

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

    1984 doi

  85. [94]

    Zahn, J. P. 1977, A&A, 57, 383

    1977

  86. [95]

    2024, ApJL, 970, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad63a8 Zi´ o lkowski, J., & Zdziarski, A

    Zhu, J.-P., Liu, L.-D., Yu, Y.-W., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad63a8 Zi´ o lkowski, J., & Zdziarski, A. A. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1580, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1948 20 APPENDIX A. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL To obtain realistic initial conditions for our eMT simul...

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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