pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.00231 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Calibrating Eruptive Mass Loss in Red Supergiants with Local Group Data

Shelley J. Cheng , Charlie Conroy , Jared A. Goldberg
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 17:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords red supergiantseruptive mass lossstellar evolutionmetallicitycore-collapse supernovaeLocal GroupMESA models
0
0 comments X

The pith

Calibrated eruptive mass loss in red supergiants prevents stars above 20 solar masses from reaching that phase.

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

The paper adds a super-Eddington eruptive mass-loss term with a free scaling parameter to MESA stellar evolution models and generates tracks at three metallicities. Model luminosity functions are then matched by eye to observed red supergiant populations in the SMC, LMC, and M31 within a fixed temperature-luminosity window. The fits show that the required scaling rises steadily with metallicity. If this scaling is correct, stars born with 20 or more solar masses lose their envelopes before they can become red supergiants. This directly changes which stars can produce core-collapse supernovae and what remnants they leave behind.

Core claim

Models incorporating eruptive mass loss scaled by a metallicity-dependent parameter ξ reproduce the observed luminosity functions of red supergiants when ξ is set near zero in the SMC, 0.1 in the LMC, and 0.35 in M31. With this calibration, stars whose initial masses exceed roughly 20 solar masses shed enough mass that they never enter the red supergiant region of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram.

What carries the argument

The free scaling parameter ξ multiplying a super-Eddington eruptive mass-loss rate in MESA stellar evolution tracks.

Load-bearing premise

By-eye comparison of model luminosity functions to data inside a narrow temperature and luminosity window isolates the eruptive mass-loss scaling without contamination from other uncertainties in the stellar models.

What would settle it

A statistically significant population of red supergiants with initial masses well above 20 solar masses in a metal-rich galaxy such as M31 would falsify the calibrated scaling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.00231 by Charlie Conroy, Jared A. Goldberg, Shelley J. Cheng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Eruptive mass loss rates across the H-R diagram for Z = 0.2 Z⊙. Left: ξ = 0.1. Right: ξ = 0.5. Grey lines show the evolutionary tracks of stars from the beginning of main sequence until the end of the model run. Models were run at every 1 M⊙ increments but only selected models are shown here for clarity. Colored contours show the rate of eruptive mass loss experienced by the star, with legend on the right.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Eruptive mass loss rates across the H-R diagram for Z = 0.4 Z⊙. Left: ξ = 0.1. Right: ξ = 0.5. All axes, labels, and other lines follow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Eruptive mass loss rates across the H-R diagram for Z = 1.0 Z⊙. Left: ξ = 0.1. Right: ξ = 0.5. All axes, labels, and other lines follow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: H-R diagram for Z = 1.0 Z⊙. Left: ξ = 0.0. Right: ξ = 0.35. MESA tracks are in red lines and ArtPop-simulated population generated from the MESA model grid are in black dots. For clarity, only models from 6 − 50 M⊙ are shown. Gaussian noise of 0.1 dex and 0.03 dex were added for log(L/L⊙) and log(Teff /K) respectively to mimic observational scatter. 3.3. Population Synthesis and Mock Observables To connect… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cumulative luminosity functions for each modeled stellar population compared to observations of the SMC (upper left panel, Z = 0.2 Z⊙), LMC (upper right panel, Z = 0.4 Z⊙), and M31 (Z = 1.0 Z⊙, lower panel). Shown are both cumulative luminosity functions from ArtPop population synthesis output (colored lines) and observations (black lines). The thicker colored line (either dashed or solid) indicates the be… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Preferred ξ values based on comparison of ob￾served and modeled RSG luminosity functions (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We calibrate a physically motivated, super-Eddington eruptive mass-loss prescription for red supergiants (RSGs) using Local Group stellar populations. Building on MESA models that add eruptive mass loss with a free scaling parameter $\xi$, we generate stellar evolution tracks and isochrones, and synthesize mock populations at metallicities of $Z/Z_\odot=0.2,\ 0.4$, and $1.0$. We compare model luminosity functions to observations of RSGs in the SMC, LMC, and M31, restricting to $3.5<\log T_{\rm eff}/K<3.75$ and $\log(L/L_\odot)>4.5$. By-eye fits to the observations yield values of $\xi_\mathrm{SMC}=0.0-0.05$, $\xi_\mathrm{LMC}=0.1$, and $\xi_\mathrm{M31}=0.35$, implying a positive, linear trend between the strength of eruptive mass-loss and metallicity. This calibrated eruptive mass loss prevents stars with initial masses $\gtrsim 20~M_\odot$ from evolving to become red supergiants, with implications for the mass spectrum of core-collapse progenitors, compact remnants, early supernova interaction signatures, and the spectral energy distributions of unresolved galaxies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper calibrates a super-Eddington eruptive mass-loss prescription for red supergiants in MESA models by introducing a free scaling parameter ξ. Synthetic luminosity functions are generated at SMC, LMC, and M31 metallicities and compared by eye to observations restricted to 3.5 < log Teff/K < 3.75 and log(L/L⊙) > 4.5. The resulting ξ values (0–0.05, 0.1, 0.35) imply a linear increase with metallicity, from which the authors conclude that eruptive mass loss prevents stars with initial masses ≳20 M⊙ from reaching the RSG phase, with consequences for core-collapse progenitors, compact remnants, and supernova signatures.

Significance. If the calibration is robust, the work supplies a physically motivated explanation for the observed upper luminosity limit of RSGs and carries broad implications for the initial-mass distribution of supernova progenitors, the formation channels of black holes and neutron stars, early-time supernova interaction, and the integrated light of unresolved stellar populations. The reported metallicity trend also yields falsifiable predictions for RSG populations in galaxies of varying Z.

major comments (3)
  1. [model-observation comparison] The ξ values are determined exclusively by visual comparison of synthetic and observed luminosity functions in the narrow window 3.5 < log Teff/K < 3.75 and log(L/L⊙) > 4.5. No quantitative goodness-of-fit statistic (χ², KS, or likelihood) is applied and Poisson errors on the binned counts are not propagated, rendering the calibration and the derived linear ξ–Z relation sensitive to subjective judgment.
  2. [high-mass cutoff discussion] The central claim that initial masses ≳20 M⊙ are prevented from evolving to the RSG phase follows directly from the adopted ξ without marginalization over other MESA parameters (mixing length, overshooting, semiconvection) or independent cross-checks against supernova progenitor statistics or direct mass measurements.
  3. [results and discussion] Because the same observational luminosity functions are used both to tune ξ and to support the metallicity trend and high-mass cutoff, the analysis contains a circularity that is not quantified; a sensitivity test that varies ξ while holding other inputs fixed would be required to demonstrate uniqueness.
minor comments (2)
  1. [methods] The eruptive mass-loss rate scaling with ξ should be given an explicit equation number to facilitate reference in the text.
  2. [figures] Luminosity-function figures would benefit from inclusion of observational error bars or shaded Poisson uncertainty regions to allow visual assessment of fit quality.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed report. We address each major comment below with point-by-point responses. Revisions have been made to incorporate sensitivity tests, expanded uncertainty discussions, and quantitative illustrations where feasible, while preserving the core calibration approach justified by the data characteristics.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The ξ values are determined exclusively by visual comparison of synthetic and observed luminosity functions in the narrow window 3.5 < log Teff/K < 3.75 and log(L/L⊙) > 4.5. No quantitative goodness-of-fit statistic (χ², KS, or likelihood) is applied and Poisson errors on the binned counts are not propagated, rendering the calibration and the derived linear ξ–Z relation sensitive to subjective judgment.

    Authors: We acknowledge the reliance on visual comparison and the absence of formal statistical metrics such as χ² or KS tests. This approach was adopted because the observed samples in the selected Teff and luminosity window are small, with Poisson errors dominating the binned counts; formal fits without full modeling of IMF and SFH uncertainties can be misleading. In the revised manuscript we add a dedicated sensitivity section that varies ξ in 0.05 increments, overlays the resulting luminosity functions on the data with explicit Poisson error bars, and reports the range of ξ that produces acceptable matches. This quantifies the subjective element while retaining the by-eye calibration as the primary method for this initial study. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The central claim that initial masses ≳20 M⊙ are prevented from evolving to the RSG phase follows directly from the adopted ξ without marginalization over other MESA parameters (mixing length, overshooting, semiconvection) or independent cross-checks against supernova progenitor statistics or direct mass measurements.

    Authors: The high-mass cutoff is a direct outcome of the calibrated eruptive mass-loss rates in our standard MESA setup. A full marginalization over mixing length, overshooting, and semiconvection is computationally prohibitive for the multi-metallicity grid and is not performed here. In revision we expand the discussion to include a qualitative assessment of how plausible variations in these parameters (using literature standard values) would shift the cutoff mass by at most ~2–3 M⊙. We also add explicit comparisons to supernova progenitor statistics from pre-explosion imaging and the observed “red supergiant problem,” noting consistency with the absence of high-mass RSG progenitors. revision: partial

  3. Referee: Because the same observational luminosity functions are used both to tune ξ and to support the metallicity trend and high-mass cutoff, the analysis contains a circularity that is not quantified; a sensitivity test that varies ξ while holding other inputs fixed would be required to demonstrate uniqueness.

    Authors: The calibration is performed independently at each metallicity, so the linear ξ–Z trend is an emergent result rather than an imposed assumption. To address the circularity concern we have added a sensitivity test in the revised manuscript: we fix ξ to a single constant value across all three metallicities and demonstrate that no single value simultaneously reproduces the observed luminosity functions in the SMC, LMC, and M31. This shows that metallicity dependence is required by the data. The high-mass cutoff remains robust within the range of ξ values that provide acceptable fits at each metallicity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper calibrates the free scaling parameter ξ for eruptive mass loss by generating MESA tracks and synthetic luminosity functions, then performing by-eye comparison to observed RSG luminosity functions in the SMC, LMC, and M31 within the window 3.5 < log Teff/K < 3.75 and log(L/L⊙) > 4.5. The resulting ξ values (0–0.05, 0.1, 0.35) directly imply the reported linear metallicity trend. Applying these same ξ values in the evolution tracks then yields the model outcome that initial masses ≳20 M⊙ do not reach the RSG phase. This is a straightforward consequence of the stellar-structure calculations with the calibrated parameter, not a redefinition, a fitted quantity renamed as an independent prediction, or a result forced by self-citation. The derivation chain is self-contained: the observational LFs serve as an external benchmark to fix ξ, after which the models produce new statements about progenitor masses and remnant spectra.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on one free scaling parameter xi fitted to data and on the assumption that MESA models with this addition correctly capture RSG populations.

free parameters (1)
  • xi = 0.0-0.05 (SMC), 0.1 (LMC), 0.35 (M31)
    Free scaling parameter for the super-Eddington eruptive mass-loss rate, fitted separately at each metallicity.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption MESA stellar evolution models with the added eruptive mass-loss term accurately reproduce observed RSG luminosity functions when xi is adjusted.
    The paper builds all tracks and isochrones on this framework.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5542 in / 1461 out tokens · 75322 ms · 2026-05-15T17:55:19.480002+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Z., de Wit, S., et al

    Antoniadis, K., Bonanos, A. Z., de Wit, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449383

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449383 2024

  2. [2]

    L., et al

    Banerjee, S., Belczynski, K., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935332

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935332 2020

  3. [3]

    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 —. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2460, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1818

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa255 2020

  4. [4]

    L., et al

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

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

  5. [5]

    S., & Brett, J

    Bessell, M. S., & Brett, J. M. 1988, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 100, 1134, doi: 10.1086/132281

    work page doi:10.1086/132281 1988

  6. [6]

    J., Gal-Yam, A., Yaron, O., et al

    Bruch, R. J., Gal-Yam, A., Yaron, O., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd8be

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd8be 2023

  7. [7]

    I., Abbott, D

    Castor, J. I., Abbott, D. C., & Klein, R. I. 1975, ApJ, 195, 157, doi: 10.1086/153315

    work page doi:10.1086/153315 1975

  8. [8]

    2009, ApJ, 695, 292, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/292

    Ceverino, D., & Klypin, A. 2009, ApJ, 695, 292, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/292

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/695/1/292 2009

  9. [9]

    J., Goldberg, J

    Cheng, S. J., Goldberg, J. A., Cantiello, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 270, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad701e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad701e 2024

  10. [10]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  11. [11]

    Choudhury, S., Subramaniam, A., & Cole, A. A. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1855, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2414

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2414 2016

  12. [12]

    U., & Kim, J

    Chun, S.-H., Yoon, S.-C., Jung, M.-K., Kim, D. U., & Kim, J. 2018, ApJ, 853, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9a37

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9a37 2018

  13. [13]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 712, 833, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/2/833 2010

  14. [14]

    J., Williams, B

    Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., Lang, D., et al. 2012, ApJS, 200, 18, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/200/2/18 de Jager, C., Nieuwenhuijzen, H., & van der Hucht, K. A. 1988, A&AS, 72, 259

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/200/2/18 2012

  15. [15]

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244635 2024

  16. [16]

    O., Debnath, D., et al

    Delbroek, L., Sundqvist, J. O., Debnath, D., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556421

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556421 2025

  17. [17]

    J., Waldman, R., & Livne, E

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Waldman, R., & Livne, E. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1745, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt861

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt861 2013

  18. [18]

    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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/759/1/52 2012

  19. [19]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 Ekstr¨ om, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 Ekstr¨ om, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A146, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117751

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 2016

  20. [20]

    E., & Couch, S

    Fields, C. E., & Couch, S. M. 2021, ApJ, 921, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac24fb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac24fb 2021

  21. [21]

    J., Bavera, S

    Fragos, T., Andrews, J. J., Bavera, S. S., et al. 2023, ApJS, 264, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac90c1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac90c1 2023

  22. [22]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 3248, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv251

    Geen, S., Rosdahl, J., Blaizot, J., Devriendt, J., & Slyz, A. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3248, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv251

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv251 2015

  23. [23]

    E., Pols, O

    Glebbeek, E., Gaburov, E., de Mink, S. E., Pols, O. R., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2009, A&A, 497, 255, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810425

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200810425 2009

  24. [24]

    R., van Loon, J

    Goldman, S. R., van Loon, J. T., Zijlstra, A. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2708 Gonz´ alez-Tor` a, G., Sander, A. A. C., Sundqvist, J. O., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A269, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452241

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2708 2017

  25. [25]

    P., & Danieli, S

    Greco, J. P., & Danieli, S. 2022, ApJ, 941, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75b7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac75b7 2022

  26. [26]

    2009, The Astronomical Journal, 138, 1243, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/5/1243

    Harris, J., & Zaritsky, D. 2009, The Astronomical Journal, 138, 1243, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/5/1243

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/138/5/1243 2009

  27. [27]

    M., Armus, L., & Miley, G

    Heckman, T. M., Armus, L., & Miley, G. K. 1990, ApJS, 74, 833, doi: 10.1086/191522

    work page doi:10.1086/191522 1990

  28. [28]

    M., & Davidson, K

    Humphreys, R. M., & Davidson, K. 1984, Science, 223, 243, doi: 10.1126/science.223.4633.243

    work page doi:10.1126/science.223.4633.243 1984

  29. [29]

    A., & Rogers, F

    Iglesias, C. A., & Rogers, F. J. 1993, ApJ, 412, 752, doi: 10.1086/172958 Jacobson-Gal´ an, W. V., Dessart, L., Davis, K. W., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.02382, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.02382

    work page doi:10.1086/172958 1993

  30. [30]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d 2023

  31. [31]

    2015, ApJ, 813, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/74

    Blaes, O. 2015, ApJ, 813, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/74

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/813/1/74 2015

  32. [32]

    2018, Nature, 561, 498, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0525-0

    Jiang, Y.-F., Cantiello, M., Bildsten, L., et al. 2018, Nature, 561, 498, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0525-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0525-0 2018

  33. [33]

    H., et al

    Johnston, C., Michielsen, M., Anders, E. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2343

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2343 2024

  34. [34]

    S., White, S

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x Calibrating Eruptive Mass Loss in RSGs with Local Group Data11 Lan¸ con, A., Gallagher, J. S., de Grijs, R., et al. 2007, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 241, Stellar Populations as Building Blocks of Galaxies, ed. A. Vazdekis & R. Peletier, 152–155, doi: 10.1017/S1743921307007673

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x 2001

  35. [35]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.14875, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.14875

    Ma, J.-Z., Justham, S., Pakmor, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.14875, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.14875

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.14875 2025

  36. [36]

    Collisions versus stellar winds in the runaway merger scenario: place your bets

    Mapelli, M. 2016, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 87, 567, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1606.03370

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1606.03370 2016

  37. [37]

    F., Levesque, E

    Massey, P., Neugent, K. F., Levesque, E. M., Drout, M. R., & Courteau, S. 2021, AJ, 161, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd01f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd01f 2021

  38. [38]

    Massey, P., & Olsen, K. A. G. 2003, AJ, 126, 2867, doi: 10.1086/379558

    work page doi:10.1086/379558 2003

  39. [39]

    2011, A&A, 526, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201013993

    Mauron, N., & Josselin, E. 2011, A&A, 526, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201013993

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201013993 2011

  40. [40]

    2003, A&A, 404, 975, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030512

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030512 2003

  41. [41]

    2015, A&A, 575, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424671

    Meynet, G., Chomienne, V., Ekstr¨ om, S., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424671

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424671 2015

  42. [42]

    J., & Yoon, S.-C

    Moriya, T. J., & Yoon, S.-C. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5606, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1271

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1271 2022

  43. [43]

    L., & Valenti, S

    Morozova, V., Piro, A. L., & Valenti, S. 2017, ApJ, 838, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6251

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6251 2017

  44. [44]

    F., Massey, P., Georgy, C., et al

    Neugent, K. F., Massey, P., Georgy, C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5ba0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5ba0 2020

  45. [45]

    F., Massey, P., Skiff, B., & Meynet, G

    Neugent, K. F., Massey, P., Skiff, B., & Meynet, G. 2012, ApJ, 749, 177, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/177

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/2/177 2012

  46. [46]

    1990, A&A, 231, 134

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

    work page 1990

  47. [47]

    Nugis, T., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2000, A&A, 360, 227

    work page 2000

  48. [48]

    P., Gayley, K

    Owocki, S. P., Gayley, K. G., & Shaviv, N. J. 2004, ApJ, 616, 525, doi: 10.1086/424910

    work page doi:10.1086/424910 2004

  49. [49]

    J., Mattila, S., et al

    Pastorello, A., Smartt, S. J., Mattila, S., et al. 2007, Nature, 447, 829, doi: 10.1038/nature05825

    work page doi:10.1038/nature05825 2007

  50. [50]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 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

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 2011

  51. [51]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 2013

  52. [52]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 2015

  53. [53]

    B., et al

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 2018

  54. [54]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 2019

  55. [55]

    W., Janot-Pacheco, E., Emilio, M., et al

    Pereira, A. W., Janot-Pacheco, E., Emilio, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346439

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346439 2024

  56. [56]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 4128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2951

    Rahmani, S., Lianou, S., & Barmby, P. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 4128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2951

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2951 2016

  57. [57]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 232, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac307b

    Ren, Y., Jiang, B., Yang, M., Wang, T., & Ren, T. 2021, ApJ, 923, 232, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac307b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac307b 2021

  58. [58]

    D., Shore, S

    Renzo, M., Ott, C. D., Shore, S. N., & de Mink, S. E. 2017, A&A, 603, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730698

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730698 2017

  59. [59]

    C., & Dopita, M

    Russell, S. C., & Dopita, M. A. 1992, ApJ, 384, 508, doi: 10.1086/170893

    work page doi:10.1086/170893 1992

  60. [60]

    E., Caldwell, N., McDowell, J., & Harding, P

    Sanders, N. E., Caldwell, N., McDowell, J., & Harding, P. 2012, ApJ, 758, 133, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/133

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/758/2/133 2012

  61. [61]

    Schlegel, E. M. 1990, MNRAS, 244, 269

    work page 1990

  62. [62]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0e0a

    Shiber, S., Chatzopoulos, E., Munson, B., & Frank, J. 2024, ApJ, 962, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0e0a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0e0a 2024

  63. [63]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025 —

    Smith, N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025 —. 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 375, 20160268, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2016.0268

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025 2014

  64. [64]

    Smith, N., & Owocki, S. P. 2006, ApJL, 645, L45, doi: 10.1086/506523

    work page doi:10.1086/506523 2006

  65. [65]

    P., & Goldberg, J

    Steinwandel, U. P., & Goldberg, J. A. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.11495, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.11495

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.11495 2023

  66. [66]

    J., Genzel, R., & Sternberg, A

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., & Sternberg, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 157, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141034

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141034 2020

  67. [67]

    2019, PhRvD, 99, 041302, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.041302 van Loon, J

    Uchida, H., Shibata, M., Takahashi, K., & Yoshida, T. 2019, PhRvD, 99, 041302, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.041302 van Loon, J. T., Cioni, M. R. L., Zijlstra, A. A., & Loup, C. 2005, A&A, 438, 273, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042555

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.041302 2019

  68. [68]

    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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010127 2001

  69. [69]

    S., Higgins, E

    Vink, J. S., Higgins, E. R., Sander, A. A. C., & Sabhahit, G. N. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 146, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab842

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab842 2021

  70. [70]

    S., & Sabhahit, G

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347801 2023

  71. [71]

    R., Bessell, M

    Wood, P. R., Bessell, M. S., & Fox, M. W. 1983, ApJ, 272, 99, doi: 10.1086/161265

    work page doi:10.1086/161265 1983

  72. [72]

    R., Whiteoak, J

    Wood, P. R., Whiteoak, J. B., Hughes, S. M. G., et al. 1992, ApJ, 397, 552, doi: 10.1086/171812

    work page doi:10.1086/171812 1992

  73. [73]

    Z., Jiang, B.-W., et al

    Yang, M., Bonanos, A. Z., Jiang, B.-W., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937168

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937168 2020

  74. [74]

    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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244770 2023

  75. [75]

    2025, A&A, 697, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452401

    Zapartas, E., de Wit, S., Antoniadis, K., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452401

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452401 2025

  76. [76]

    M., Mapelli, M., Branchesi, M., & Tormen, G

    Ziosi, B. M., Mapelli, M., Branchesi, M., & Tormen, G. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu824

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu824 2014