pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.05308 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

The diverse outcomes of binary white dwarf mergers and connections to Galactic LISA sources

Claire S. Ye, Katelyn Breivik, Kyle Kremer

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 15:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE
keywords white dwarf binariesmerger outcomespopulation synthesisLISAgravitational wavesMilky Waybinary evolutionType Ia supernovae
0
0 comments X

The pith

Public mock catalogs of Milky Way white dwarf mergers connect LISA gravitational wave data to specific binary evolution outcomes.

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

The authors generate suites of mock catalogs for the Milky Way's white dwarf merger history with the COSMIC population synthesis code. These catalogs track how white dwarf masses and chemical compositions determine merger results such as AM CVn binaries, R Coronae Borealis stars, young rapidly spinning white dwarfs, magnetars, and Type Ia supernovae. The work maps how rates of each outcome shift when binary evolution assumptions, including mass transfer stability and common-envelope ejection, are varied. Public release of the catalogs supplies a direct tool for matching LISA-detected close white dwarf binaries to their long-term electromagnetic fates.

Core claim

Using the COSMIC population synthesis code, the authors create suites of mock catalogs representing the white dwarf merger history of the Milky Way. These catalogs summarize expected merger outcomes based on white dwarf masses and compositions and show how rates vary with binary evolution model uncertainties. The catalogs are released publicly to enable connections between LISA gravitational wave science and white dwarf binary astrophysics.

What carries the argument

The COSMIC population synthesis code, which evolves binary systems from initial masses and separations through mass transfer and common-envelope phases to produce predicted merger outcomes and their rates.

If this is right

  • Different white dwarf masses and compositions produce distinct merger products ranging from stable mass-transferring systems to explosive transients.
  • Uncertainties in binary evolution parameters change the relative rates of these outcomes across the Galaxy.
  • LISA observations of close white dwarf binaries can be cross-matched with the catalogs to forecast their future electromagnetic signatures.
  • The public catalogs enable combined gravitational-wave and electromagnetic studies of white dwarf binary populations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Updated catalogs incorporating tighter constraints on common-envelope efficiency could narrow the allowed range of merger rates for each outcome class.
  • The same simulation framework could be extended to predict LISA source counts for other compact-object binaries such as neutron star pairs.
  • Direct counting of observed merger products in the Milky Way would provide an independent check on the binary evolution physics assumed in the models.

Load-bearing premise

The COSMIC code accurately models the uncertain physics of binary white dwarf evolution including mass transfer stability and common-envelope ejection.

What would settle it

A mismatch between the fraction of LISA-detected white dwarf binaries that evolve into each predicted outcome class, such as Type Ia supernovae versus stable AM CVn systems, and the distributions in the released catalogs when the same binaries are followed forward.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05308 by Claire S. Ye, Katelyn Breivik, Kyle Kremer.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Summary of outcomes of white dwarf mergers for various component masses, M1 and M2. The solid black lines denote the approximate boundaries between different white dwarf compositions: He (< 0.5 M⊙), CO (0.5 − 1.1 M⊙), and O/Ne (> 1.1 M⊙). The diagonal solid line denotes the Chandrasekhar limit : M1 + M2 = 1.4 M⊙. The two dashed curves mark the boundaries between disk and direct impact accretion (bottom cur… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Secondary (M2) versus primary (M1) masses for all white dwarf mergers occurring throughout the full history of each of our Galactic population models. We mark the same six regions indicated in view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Same as view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Delay time distributions (time from star formation to Roche contact) for all white dwarf pair combinations (columns from left to right) and Galactic model assumptions (rows from top to bottom). For each panel, we separate all white dwarf mergers into five metallicity bins centered on [Fe/H] =[-2.05, -1.56, -1.06, -0.56, -0.07]. cial and q3 models. In the α = 5 variation, the second phase of mass transfer d… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Colored curves show merger time distributions (in units of absolute Cosmic time) for all white dwarf pair combinations (columns) and binary evolution assumptions (rows). The solid gray histogram in each panel shows the distribution of star formation times for each white dwarf merger. In the insets, we zoom in on the most recent 100 Myr of Galactic history. Colored curves in the insets show the number of me… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In the coming decade, the millihertz gravitational wave observatory LISA will provide the best constraints yet on the tens of thousands of close white dwarf binaries in the Milky Way, yielding unprecedented insights into the most abundant class of compact object binaries. Following inspiral via gravitational wave emission, interacting white dwarf binary pairs can lead to a multitude of outcomes, including AM Canum Venaticorum (AM CVn) binaries, R Coronae Borealis stars, young, rapidly-spinning single white dwarfs, (millisecond) magnetars, and a variety of explosive transients, most notably Type Ia supernovae. Current and future electromagnetic observations of these various outcomes coupled with the forthcoming flood of data from LISA place us on the precipice of a significant advance in our understanding of the long-term fate of white dwarf binaries. In this paper, we present a suite of mock catalogs of the Milky Way's white dwarf merger history, created using the population synthesis code $\texttt{COSMIC}$. We summarize the various merger outcomes expected (based upon varying white dwarf masses and chemical compositions) and explore ways the rates of these outcomes may vary with model uncertainties pertaining to binary evolution. We publicly release these merger catalogs as a tool for facilitating connections between gravitational wave science and white dwarf binary astrophysics.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper uses the COSMIC population synthesis code to generate a suite of mock catalogs of Milky Way white dwarf binary merger histories. It summarizes expected merger outcomes (AM CVn binaries, RCB stars, magnetars, SNe Ia and other transients) as a function of white dwarf masses and compositions, explores variations in outcome rates arising from uncertainties in binary evolution parameters, and publicly releases the catalogs to support connections between LISA gravitational-wave observations and white dwarf astrophysics.

Significance. If the underlying COSMIC modeling is reliable, the public catalogs would provide a practical resource for linking future LISA detections of close white dwarf binaries to their electromagnetic outcomes and for testing binary evolution models. The forward-modeling approach and explicit release of the catalogs are clear strengths. However, the absence of any quantitative validation, error budgets, or comparisons to observed populations substantially limits the immediate scientific impact.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3] Section 3 (Merger Outcomes): the manuscript presents predicted fractions and rates for each outcome class but supplies no comparison to observed rates (e.g., Galactic SN Ia rate, AM CVn space density, or RCB star counts) or to results from independent population-synthesis codes; this omission is load-bearing for the claim that the catalogs are ready tools for LISA science.
  2. [Section 4] Section 4 (Model Uncertainties): while common-envelope efficiency and a few other parameters are varied, the paper does not document or test the specific COSMIC prescriptions for mass-transfer stability, common-envelope ejection, and the progenitor-to-WD composition mapping that determine the final merger products; without such tests the explored variations cannot be shown to bracket the true uncertainty.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that catalogs are released but does not specify the total number of realizations, the exact parameter grid, or the data format; adding these details would improve usability.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels in the results figures should explicitly state which binary-evolution parameters are held fixed versus varied in each panel.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed report. We agree that strengthening the documentation of COSMIC prescriptions and providing context for the model predictions relative to observations will improve the manuscript's utility. We respond point-by-point to the major comments below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Section 3] Section 3 (Merger Outcomes): the manuscript presents predicted fractions and rates for each outcome class but supplies no comparison to observed rates (e.g., Galactic SN Ia rate, AM CVn space density, or RCB star counts) or to results from independent population-synthesis codes; this omission is load-bearing for the claim that the catalogs are ready tools for LISA science.

    Authors: We acknowledge that explicit comparisons would help users assess the catalogs for LISA applications. The core purpose of the paper is to generate and publicly release the COSMIC mock catalogs so that the community can perform tailored comparisons incorporating selection effects and specific science cases. To address the concern, we will revise Section 3 to include a short discussion referencing literature values for key rates (e.g., the Milky Way SN Ia rate of approximately 0.003 yr^{-1} and AM CVn space densities from observational surveys) and note that our predicted outcome fractions lie within the broad ranges reported in the literature and other population synthesis studies. We will add a clear caveat that full quantitative validation requires modeling of observational biases and is facilitated by the released catalogs rather than performed here. This addition will support the utility claim without overstepping the paper's scope. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Section 4] Section 4 (Model Uncertainties): while common-envelope efficiency and a few other parameters are varied, the paper does not document or test the specific COSMIC prescriptions for mass-transfer stability, common-envelope ejection, and the progenitor-to-WD composition mapping that determine the final merger products; without such tests the explored variations cannot be shown to bracket the true uncertainty.

    Authors: We agree that more explicit documentation of the underlying prescriptions is needed. The mass-transfer stability criterion (based on the adiabatic response of the donor star), common-envelope ejection (alpha-lambda formalism with lambda from stellar structure), and progenitor-to-WD composition mapping (using SSE/BSE evolutionary tracks for initial mass and metallicity) are fully specified in the COSMIC reference paper (Breivik et al. 2020). We will add a dedicated subsection to Section 4 that summarizes these prescriptions, including the default parameter choices and equations used in our simulations, with direct references to the COSMIC documentation. We will also clarify that the parameter variations (including common-envelope efficiency) are intended to illustrate sensitivity to major uncertainties rather than to exhaustively bracket every possible variation in binary evolution physics. This revision will make the explored range more transparent without requiring new simulations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward population synthesis from external code inputs

full rationale

The paper performs forward modeling of Milky Way white dwarf merger catalogs using the established COSMIC population synthesis code, varying binary evolution parameters (common-envelope efficiency, mass-transfer stability) to explore outcome distributions (AM CVn, RCB, SNe Ia, etc.). No equations, fitted parameters, or self-referential definitions are present that reduce claimed outputs back to inputs by construction. The catalogs are direct simulation products; model uncertainties are propagated explicitly rather than fitted to match targets. Self-citation to COSMIC (if present) is tool usage, not load-bearing justification of a derived result. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on the COSMIC code's internal modeling of binary evolution, which incorporates numerous uncertain parameters whose values are chosen rather than derived from first principles.

free parameters (1)
  • common-envelope efficiency and other binary-evolution parameters
    These parameters control merger rates and outcome branching ratios and are varied to explore model uncertainties as stated in the abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard stellar and binary evolution prescriptions implemented in the COSMIC population synthesis code are sufficiently accurate for the mass and composition ranges considered.
    The abstract relies on these prescriptions to generate the mock catalogs without providing independent verification.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5537 in / 1403 out tokens · 71685 ms · 2026-05-08T15:33:26.578021+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

141 extracted references · 138 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Living Rev

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

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

  2. [2]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 1079, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu039

    Amaro-Seoane, P. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 1079, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu039

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu039 2014

  3. [3]

    Gladstone, J. C. 2013, ApJ, 766, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/136

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/766/2/136 2013

  4. [4]

    Belczynski, K., Bulik, T., & Ruiter, A. J. 2005, ApJ, 629, 915, doi: 10.1086/431578

    work page doi:10.1086/431578 2005

  5. [5]

    A., et al

    Belczynski, K., Kalogera, V., Rasio, F. A., et al. 2008, ApJS, 174, 223, doi: 10.1086/521026 16

    work page doi:10.1086/521026 2008

  6. [6]

    I - 0.9 and 1.2 solar mass stars

    Benz, W., Bowers, R. L., Cameron, A. G. W., & Press, W. H. . 1990, ApJ, 348, 647, doi: 10.1086/168273

    work page doi:10.1086/168273 1990

  7. [7]

    J., Weinberg, N

    Bildsten, L., Shen, K. J., Weinberg, N. N., & Nelemans, G. 2007, ApJL, 662, L95, doi: 10.1086/519489

    work page doi:10.1086/519489 2007

  8. [8]

    N., Gnedin, O

    Bregman, J. N., Gnedin, O. Y., Seitzer, P. O., & Qu, Z. 2024, ApJL, 968, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad498f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad498f 2024

  9. [9]

    2018, ApJL, 854, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaaa23

    Breivik, K., Kremer, K., Bueno, M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 854, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaaa23

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaaa23 2018

  10. [10]

    Breivik, K., Mingarelli, C. M. F., & Larson, S. L. 2020a, ApJ, 901, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abab99

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abab99

  11. [11]

    2020 , note =

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85

  12. [12]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9568

    Brooks, J., Schwab, J., Bildsten, L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9568

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9568 2017

  13. [13]

    P., Ferrario, L., Pakmor, R., et al

    Burmester, U. P., Ferrario, L., Pakmor, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 527, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1394

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1394 2023

  14. [14]

    B., Fuller, J., et al

    Caiazzo, I., Burdge, K. B., Fuller, J., et al. 2021, Nature, 595, 39, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03615-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03615-y 2021

  15. [15]

    B., Tremblay, P.-E., et al

    Caiazzo, I., Burdge, K. B., Tremblay, P.-E., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 61, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06171-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06171-9 2023

  16. [16]

    2014, A&A, 566, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323052

    Camacho, J., Torres, S., Garc´ ıa-Berro, E., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323052

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323052 2014

  17. [17]

    J., Marsh, T

    Carter, P. J., Marsh, T. R., Steeghs, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 2143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts485

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts485 2013

  18. [18]

    D., & M´ enard, B

    Cheng, S., Cummings, J. D., & M´ enard, B. 2019, ApJ, 886, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4989

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4989 2019

  19. [19]

    D., M´ enard, B., & Toonen, S

    Cheng, S., Cummings, J. D., M´ enard, B., & Toonen, S. 2020, ApJ, 891, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab733c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab733c 2020

  20. [20]

    Verbunt, F. W. M. 2014, A&A, 563, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322714

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322714 2014

  21. [21]

    Clark, G. W. 1975, ApJL, 199, L143, doi: 10.1086/181869

    work page doi:10.1086/181869 1975

  22. [22]

    Clayton, G. C. 1996, PASP, 108, 225, doi: 10.1086/133715

    work page doi:10.1086/133715 1996

  23. [23]

    2007, ApJ, 662, 1220, doi: 10.1086/518307

    Asplund, M. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1220, doi: 10.1086/518307

    work page doi:10.1086/518307 2007

  24. [24]

    M., Piotto, G., & King, I

    Cool, A. M., Piotto, G., & King, I. R. 1996, ApJ, 468, 655, doi: 10.1086/177723

    work page doi:10.1086/177723 1996

  25. [25]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b9 de Wit, J., Alonso, R., Rackham, B

    Coutu, S., Dufour, P., Bergeron, P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b9 2019

  26. [26]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 14, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1766

    Dan, M., Rosswog, S., Br¨ uggen, M., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 14, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1766

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1766 2014

  27. [27]

    2011, ApJ, 737, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/89 De Marco, O

    Dan, M., Rosswog, S., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2011, ApJ, 737, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/89 De Marco, O. 2009, PASP, 121, 316, doi: 10.1086/597765

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/89 2011

  28. [28]

    D., et al

    Dessart, L., Burrows, A., Ott, C. D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 1063, doi: 10.1086/503626

    work page doi:10.1086/503626 2006

  29. [29]

    R., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A

    Drout, M. R., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/23

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/1/23 2014

  30. [30]

    H., & Clemens, J

    Dunlap, B. H., & Clemens, J. C. 2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 493, 19th European Workshop on White Dwarfs, ed. P. Dufour, P. Bergeron, & G. Fontaine, 547

    2015

  31. [31]

    A., & Hirata, C

    Fang, X., Thompson, T. A., & Hirata, C. M. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 4234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty472

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty472 2018

  32. [32]

    Ferrario, L., de Martino, D., & G¨ ansicke, B. T. 2015, SSRv, 191, 111, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0152-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0152-0 2015

  33. [33]

    K., Hillebrandt, W., et al

    Fink, M., R¨ opke, F. K., Hillebrandt, W., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913892

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913892 2010

  34. [34]

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0214 2019

  35. [35]

    M., & Frank, J

    Gokhale, V., Peng, X. M., & Frank, J. 2007, ApJ, 655, 1010, doi: 10.1086/510119

    work page doi:10.1086/510119 2007

  36. [36]

    J., van Roestel, J., & Wong, T

    Green, M. J., van Roestel, J., & Wong, T. L. S. 2025, A&A, 700, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554925

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554925 2025

  37. [37]

    2004, A&A, 413, 257, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031504

    Guerrero, J., Garc´ ıa-Berro, E., & Isern, J. 2004, A&A, 413, 257, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031504

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031504 2004

  38. [38]

    2010, ApJL, 709, L64, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/L64

    Guillochon, J., Dan, M., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Rosswog, S. 2010, ApJL, 709, L64, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/L64

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/l64 2010

  39. [39]

    V., Gr¨ afener, G., Langer, N., et al

    Gvaramadze, V. V., Gr¨ afener, G., Langer, N., et al. 2019, Nature, 569, 684, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1216-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1216-1 2019

  40. [40]

    Han, Z., Podsiadlowski, P., & Eggleton, P. P. 1995, MNRAS, 272, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/272.4.800

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/272.4.800 1995

  41. [41]

    Han, Z., Podsiadlowski, P., Maxted, P. F. L., & Marsh, T. R. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 669, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06451.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06451.x 2003

  42. [42]

    Hansen, B. M. S., Kalirai, J. S., Anderson, J., et al. 2013, Nature, 500, 51, doi: 10.1038/nature12334

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12334 2013

  43. [43]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add32b

    He, W., Zhou, P., Gjergo, E., & Fu, X. 2025, ApJ, 986, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add32b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add32b 2025

  44. [44]

    2016, PASP, 128, 082001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/966/082001

    Heber, U. 2016, PASP, 128, 082001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/966/082001

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/128/966/082001 2016

  45. [45]

    FIRE-2 Simulations: Physics versus Numerics in Galaxy Formation

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1690

    work page Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1690 2018

  46. [46]

    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

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x 2002

  47. [47]

    1990, ApJ, 353, 215, doi: 10.1086/168609

    Iben, Jr., I. 1990, ApJ, 353, 215, doi: 10.1086/168609

    work page doi:10.1086/168609 1990

  48. [48]

    Iben, Jr., I., & Tutukov, A. V. 1984, ApJS, 54, 335, doi: 10.1086/190932 —. 1985, ApJS, 58, 661, doi: 10.1086/191054 —. 1987, ApJ, 313, 727, doi: 10.1086/165011

    work page doi:10.1086/190932 1984

  49. [49]

    V., & Yungelson, L

    Iben, Jr., I., Tutukov, A. V., & Yungelson, L. R. 1997, ApJ, 475, 291, doi: 10.1086/303525

    work page doi:10.1086/303525 1997

  50. [50]

    J., Lucas, P

    Justham, S., Podsiadlowski, P., & Han, Z. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 984, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17497.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17497.x 2011

  51. [51]

    Katz, J. I. 1975, Nature, 253, 698, doi: 10.1038/253698a0

    work page doi:10.1038/253698a0 1975

  52. [52]

    J., Gianninas, A., et al

    Kilic, M., Hermes, J. J., Gianninas, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, L26, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt151 17

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slt151 2014

  53. [53]

    R., Pringle, J

    King, A. R., Pringle, J. E., & Wickramasinghe, D. T. 2001, MNRAS, 320, L45, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04184.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04184.x 2001

  54. [54]

    2022, Nature, 602, 585, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    Kirsten, F., Marcote, B., Nimmo, K., et al. 2022, Nature, 602, 585, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w 2022

  55. [55]

    S., Janka, H.-T., & Hillebrandt, W

    Kitaura, F. S., Janka, H.-T., & Hillebrandt, W. 2006, A&A, 450, 345, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054703

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054703 2006

  56. [56]

    Koester, D., & Kepler, S. O. 2019, A&A, 628, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935946

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935946 2019

  57. [57]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 5936, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac415 Kovács, O

    Korol, V., Hallakoun, N., Toonen, S., & Karnesis, N. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5936, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac415

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac415 2022

  58. [58]

    M., Groot, P

    Korol, V., Rossi, E. M., Groot, P. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1285

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1285 2017

  59. [59]

    , year = 1962, month = nov, volume =

    Kozai, Y. 1962, AJ, 67, 591, doi: 10.1086/108790

    work page doi:10.1086/108790 1962

  60. [60]

    2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 3, Vol

    Kremer, K. 2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 3, Vol. 3, 458–472, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-21439-4.00103-6

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-21439-4.00103-6 2026

  61. [61]

    L., & Kalogera, V

    Kremer, K., Breivik, K., Larson, S. L., & Kalogera, V. 2017, ApJ, 846, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8557

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8557 2017

  62. [62]

    L., & Ransom, S

    Kremer, K., Fuller, J., Piro, A. L., & Ransom, S. M. 2023, MNRAS, 525, L22, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad088

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad088 2023

  63. [63]

    L., & Li, D

    Kremer, K., Piro, A. L., & Li, D. 2021a, ApJL, 917, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac13a0

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac13a0 2041

  64. [64]

    Z., Weatherford, N

    Kremer, K., Rui, N. Z., Weatherford, N. C., et al. 2021b, ApJ, 917, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac06d4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac06d4

  65. [65]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/76

    Kremer, K., Sepinsky, J., & Kalogera, V. 2015, ApJ, 806, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/76

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/76 2015

  66. [66]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    2001

  67. [67]

    B., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2834 2019

  68. [68]

    2011, MNRAS, 418, 467, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19497.x

    Li, W., Chornock, R., Leaman, J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1473, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18162.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18162.x 2011

  69. [69]

    Lidov, M. L. 1962, Planet. Space Sci., 9, 719, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(62)90129-0

    work page doi:10.1016/0032-0633(62)90129-0 1962

  70. [70]

    M., & Postnov, K

    Lipunov, V. M., & Postnov, K. A. 1988, Ap&SS, 145, 1, doi: 10.1007/BF00645692

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00645692 1988

  71. [71]

    Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics , keywords =

    Liu, Z.-W., R¨ opke, F. K., & Han, Z. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 082001, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acd89e

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acd89e 2023

  72. [72]

    1990, ApJL, 354, L53, doi: 10.1086/185721 Lor´ en-Aguilar, P., Isern, J., & Garc´ ıa-Berro, E

    Livne, E. 1990, ApJL, 354, L53, doi: 10.1086/185721 Lor´ en-Aguilar, P., Isern, J., & Garc´ ıa-Berro, E. 2009, A&A, 500, 1193, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811060

    work page doi:10.1086/185721 1990

  73. [73]

    Lorimer, D. R. 2008, Living Reviews in Relativity, 11, 8, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2008-8

    work page doi:10.12942/lrr-2008-8 2008

  74. [74]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 1867, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3500

    Lu, W., Beniamini, P., & Kumar, P. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1867, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3500

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3500 2022

  75. [75]

    2012, PASA, 29, 447, doi: 10.1071/AS11052

    Maoz, D., & Mannucci, F. 2012, PASA, 29, 447, doi: 10.1071/AS11052

    work page doi:10.1071/as11052 2012

  76. [76]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 107, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031

    Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., & Nelemans, G. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031 2014

  77. [77]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07564.x 2004

  78. [78]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2a39

    Strader, J. 2021, ApJ, 923, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2a39

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2a39 2021

  79. [79]

    1980, PASJ, 32, 303, doi: 10.1093/pasj/32.2.303

    Miyaji, S., Nomoto, K., Yokoi, K., & Sugimoto, D. 1980, PASJ, 32, 303, doi: 10.1093/pasj/32.2.303

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/32.2.303 1980

  80. [80]

    Mind your Ps and Qs: the Interrelation between Period (P) and Mass-ratio (Q) Distributions of Binary Stars

    Moe, M., & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    work page Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6 2017

Showing first 80 references.