Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 122 references

Massive Interacting Binaries Enhance Feedback in Star-Forming Regions

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that feedback from massive interacting binaries, not single stars, can dominate the disruption of star-forming gas, because mass transfer exposes hot stellar cores and raises ionizing output by roughly three orders of…

desk verdict A useful framework paper with a real radiative effect, but the headline attribution to ionizing radiation is not isolated from the mechanical mass-injection channel. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02780 v1 pith:W4U4AP6G submitted 2025-07-03 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Claude Cournoyer-Cloutier , Eric P. Andersson , Sabrina M. Appel , Natalia Lahén , Brooke Polak , Antti Rantala , Silvia Toonen , Alison Sills
show 4 more authors
Steven Rieder Simon Portegies Zwart Mordecai-Mark Mac Low William E. Harris
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords massivestarsinteractingbinariesstellarfeedbackHIIregionsstarclusterformationmasstransfercommonenvelopeionizingradiation
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

Massive stars in young star-forming regions almost always have companions, and when those companions swap mass the stars' envelopes are stripped, exposing hot cores that emit vastly more ionizing radiation. This paper argues that this binary-driven boost, up to about three orders of magnitude in ionizing luminosity, makes interacting binaries a major, previously missing source of feedback in cluster formation. In simulations with binary evolution, H II regions grow larger, the surrounding gas gains more kinetic and thermal energy, and pressures inside the ionized regions rise compared to runs that evolve the same stars as single stars. The authors build a coupled simulation framework that lets binary evolution, stellar dynamics, and magnetohydrodynamics affect each other, and they show that the extra ionizing radiation makes H II regions expand by thermal pressure rather than radiation pressure. If correct, this changes how and when young massive clusters clear out their birth gas and stop forming stars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the treatment of mass transfer and common-envelope ejection in a rapid binary stellar evolution code coupled to collisional stellar dynamics and radiation magnetohydrodynamics. Because mass-transfer events can last less than a century, shorter than the simulation timestep, the scheme detects interactions by comparing each binary's binding energy before and after every stellar-evolution step, and by checking for semi-detached or contact binaries, shrinking semimajor axes, or accreted mass. Mass lost through non-conservative mass transfer is injected as a stellar wind, while systems whose binding energy increased are treated as common-envelope ejections with an energy-formalism ejecta velocity. The physical amplifier is that stripping a star's hydrogen envelope exposes its hot core, raising ionizing luminosity by up to three orders of magnitude, which shifts the H II region expansion from radiation-pressure dominated to thermal-pressure dominated.

What would settle it

Rerun the cluster simulations with a stellar-evolution subcycle short enough to resolve the sub-century mass-transfer and common-envelope events directly, and check whether the H II region radii, gas energies, and ionizing luminosities still exceed the single-star runs by the same factors; if the boost collapses when events are resolved, the interaction-injection scheme is producing the effect. Alternatively, compare the predicted thousandfold ionizing-luminosity boost against observed ionizing photon rates of a sample of mass-transferring massive binaries.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that feedback from massive interacting binaries couples efficiently with the interstellar medium and is an important source of pre-supernova feedback in cluster-forming regions. Concretely, the claim is that treating stars as binaries, with conservative and non-conservative mass transfer and common-envelope ejection, raises a stellar population's ionizing luminosity by up to three orders of magnitude relative to single-star evolution, because stripped stars expose hot cores and accretors are rejuvenated. As a result, H II regions in the binary runs are larger, the gas gains more kinetic and thermal energy, and the pressure inside the H II regions is higher, with expansion driven by thermal pressure of ionized gas rather than by radiation pressure. The paper further claims that stellar dynamics and the gravitational potential of the background gas alter the orbits of binaries enough to change the timing and efficiency of mass transfer, so that binaries in a cluster do not follow the secular evolution predicted by isolated population-synthesis models.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that short mass-transfer and common-envelope events, some lasting under a century, are faithfully captured by comparing the binary's binding energy before and after each roughly 31-year simulation step, and that the injected ejecta amount and velocity, set by an uncalibrated parameter, are close enough to reality to drive the reported differences.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cluster formation simulations that evolve massive stars as single stars underestimate pre-supernova feedback and therefore predict smaller, cooler H II regions and more bound gas.
  • In regions with massive interacting binaries, H II region expansion is driven by thermal pressure of ionized gas rather than radiation pressure, changing the predicted timescales for gas removal from young massive clusters.
  • Dynamical interactions with other stars and the background gas alter binary orbits enough to change the timing and efficiency of mass transfer, so isolated population-synthesis predictions are not reliable in dense cluster environments.
  • Binary evolution can promote few-body interactions that eject fast-moving binaries from clusters, linking binary feedback to the production of runaway massive stars.
  • The enhanced feedback is strong across background gas densities from disk-like to starburst-like surface densities, making it relevant to young massive clusters from roughly 1e4 to 1e6 solar masses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the ionizing boost is robust, unresolved galaxy-scale and cluster-scale simulations should add a subgrid term mimicking stripped-star radiation even when they cannot resolve binaries, for example by turning a fraction of post-main-sequence O stars into hot stripped stars.
  • An observational test would be to check whether H II regions around young massive clusters show larger ionized radii and thermal-pressure-dominated expansion than single-star population-synthesis models predict, using infrared and radio recombination-line measurements.
  • The simulation setup likely understates the effect because it was designed for Case B mass transfer; dense clusters repeatedly harden binaries and raise eccentricity, so Case A mass transfer should occur in many systems and may boost the feedback further.
  • A computationally cheaper proxy suggested by the paper, injecting post-main-sequence mass loss for half the O stars and evolving them as hot Wolf-Rayet stars, could be tested directly in existing single-star cluster formation codes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a new framework, implemented in the Torch/AMUSE suite, that couples the SeBa binary stellar evolution code to the Flash magnetohydrodynamics code and the PeTar collisional stellar dynamics code, enabling radiative and mechanical feedback from massive interacting binaries to be injected into simulations of star-forming regions. The model accounts for mass transfer, common-envelope ejection, changes in ionizing and FUV luminosity, and modified supernova timing, and it injects non-conservative mass-transfer and common-envelope ejecta into the ISM. The authors demonstrate the framework on isolated binaries undergoing conservative mass transfer, non-conservative mass transfer, and common-envelope ejection, and on 50 kyr simulations of ten massive binaries in turbulent gas at two surface densities. Their central claim is that binary evolution enhances feedback relative to single-star evolution: H II regions are larger, gas kinetic and thermal energies are higher, and thermal pressure dominates over radiation pressure, with the differences attributed to ionizing radiation that increases by up to three orders of magnitude.

Significance. If the central attribution holds, this is a valuable step toward including binary interactions in cluster-formation simulations, which typically adopt single-star feedback recipes. The framework is clearly described, the code is version-tagged and publicly available, and the test suite provides a useful demonstration at both the isolated-binary and cluster level. The radiative enhancement of stripped stars is physically plausible and consistent with population-synthesis expectations, and the conservative-mass-transfer isolated runs provide a clean demonstration that the radiative channel alone can produce larger H II regions. The main weakness is that the cluster-level attribution of the feedback enhancement specifically to ionizing radiation is not cleanly separated from the mechanical injection of mass-transfer and common-envelope ejecta.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.6.3 and Abstract] The claim that the differences 'arise from the ionizing radiation' is not isolated in the cluster simulations. The binary runs in Table 2 inject up to roughly 300 M_sun of non-conservative mass-transfer and common-envelope ejecta through Equations (3) and (7), and the pressure comparison in Equations (13)-(14) shows that thermal pressure dominates but does not identify the source of that thermal pressure; shocked mechanical ejecta can also contribute thermal energy. The isolated conservative-mass-transfer runs in Section 3.2 are a valid radiative-only control, but no equivalent control is presented for the cluster runs. Please add cluster control runs with binary evolution but with mechanical mass-transfer/common-envelope injection disabled, or quantitatively decompose the thermal energy into radiative and mechanical contributions, and adjust the wording of the abstract and Section 5 so that the attribution is not overstated.
  2. [§2.7.3, Eq. (7)] The common-envelope ejecta velocity depends on the uncalibrated parameter vCE=1, and the isolated CE run (CE-LD-B) has no single-star counterpart in Table 1. The runs with the largest excess mass loss also produce the largest H II regions (e.g., C1-LD-B: Delta M = 297 M_sun versus 16.4 M_sun, r_ion = 9.69 pc versus 2.93 pc), so the quantitative contribution of common-envelope mechanical feedback to the reported radii and energies is unknown. A small sensitivity study over vCE (for example vCE = 0.1, 1, and 3) is needed to show that the main conclusions are not controlled by this parameter.
  3. [§2.6, Eq. (1)] The interaction detection scheme does not distinguish Roche-lobe overflow from common-envelope evolution when the binding energy increases, and events with decreased binding energy are always injected as stellar winds (Sections 2.6 and 2.7). Since mass-transfer and common-envelope timescales can be shorter than the 31.25 yr Timestep, the before/after binding-energy comparison may misclassify events and misassign ejecta velocities. The paper acknowledges this as an approximation, but it directly affects the mechanical feedback budget that underpins the attribution issue raised in the first major comment; a justification or calibration of the criterion would strengthen the paper.
  4. [§3.4, Table 1] The common-envelope demonstration would benefit from a single-star control simulation using the same initial stellar masses or with the donor evolved as a single star. Without CE-LD-S, it is difficult to separate the mechanical bubble created by the common-envelope ejecta from the H II region created by the stripped star's enhanced ionizing luminosity (L_ion = 4.66e5 L_sun in Table 1), which weakens the interpretation of the CE gas morphology and the claimed thermal-pressure-driven expansion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 5] The legend label 'nMT-LD-L' in the bottom panel appears to be a typo; it should read 'nMT-LD-S' for consistency with the other runs.
  2. [§4.1] The sentence 'Each simulation contains 10 massive binaries (20 massive stars). and are run for 50 kyr.' contains a sentence fragment and a subject-verb agreement error; it should read 'Each simulation contains 10 massive binaries (20 massive stars) and is run for 50 kyr.'
  3. [§5] The text contains a typo: 'We have futher presented' should be 'We have further presented'.
  4. [§2.7.3, Eq. (7)] The variable v is used both for the ejecta velocity and for the wind velocity in Equation (3); using a distinct symbol such as v_ej would avoid confusion, and the units or dimensionless nature of vCE should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Table 2] The column headers Nstr, Nacc, Na_down, and Na_up are not defined in the table caption; their definitions currently appear only in the text and should be added to the caption or a table note for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the binary-feedback enhancement is an emergent result of a controlled model comparison, not a repackaging of the inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that binary stellar evolution, through mass transfer, increases ionizing luminosity and thereby enlarges HII regions and raises gas thermal and kinetic energy relative to single-star evolution. This is a genuine model comparison: SeBa supplies stellar properties (luminosities, masses, mass-loss rates) under independent binary-evolution prescriptions, and the Torch/Flash simulations then evolve the gas in response. The reported quantities -- r_ion from Equation 8, kinetic and thermal energies from Equations 9-10, and thermal pressure from Equation 13 -- are emergent diagnostics of the hydrodynamics, not identities with the input luminosities or mass-loss rates. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction: the vCE=1 choice is an explicit model assumption, and the interaction-detection criteria in Section 2.6 determine how mass is injected, but they do not by construction set the size or energy of the resulting HII regions. The comparison between B and S runs uses identical initial stellar and gas conditions, so the differences are consequences of the binary-evolution physics rather than of a self-defined quantity. Self-citations appear for initial conditions, binary sampling, and prior Torch implementations, but none is load-bearing for the central feedback claim; SeBa itself is a public rapid binary-evolution code with externally documented prescriptions. The skeptic's concern -- that mechanical mass-transfer/common-envelope injection is not isolated from the radiative channel, so the causal attribution to ionizing radiation alone is not fully demonstrated -- is a numerical-attribution and control-run limitation, not circularity: the result would not be true by definition even if that attribution were wrong. The radiation-pressure comparison uses r_ion in Equation 14, but r_ion is itself measured from the simulation, so the claim that thermal pressure dominates is a diagnostic statement, not a tautology. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The model depends on SeBa's binary evolution prescriptions, the CE energy formalism with alpha=1, and a paper-specific interaction detection heuristic. The only hand-set parameter is vCE=1.

free parameters (1)
  • vCE = 1
    Velocity scaling for common envelope ejecta in Eq. 7; set to 1, uncalibrated, affects mechanical feedback strength.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SeBa's prescriptions for stellar winds, mass transfer, and supernovae are accurate enough for feedback purposes
    Used throughout Sections 2.5, 3, and 4; uncertainties in these prescriptions are not propagated.
  • domain assumption The energy formalism (Eq. 6) with alpha=1 describes common envelope ejection
    Inverted in Eq. 7 to set ejecta velocity; alpha=1 is a common but uncertain choice for massive stars.
  • ad hoc to paper The binding-energy criterion in Section 2.6 correctly identifies all interaction events despite time steps longer than MT/CE timescales
    This approximation is specific to this coupling and may miss or misclassify short-lived interactions.
  • domain assumption Gas remains at solar metallicity with no enrichment from winds or SNe
    Stated in Section 2.2; affects cooling and mass loss rates.
  • domain assumption HII region radius computed from >99% ionized volume assuming spherical symmetry (Eq. 8)
    Used throughout Section 4.6 to compare runs; non-spherical geometry may bias radii.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Massive Interacting Binaries Enhance Feedback in Star-Forming Regions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W4U4AP6G

@misc{pith2026250702780,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Massive Interacting Binaries Enhance Feedback in Star-Forming Regions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W4U4AP6G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02780}
}
read the original abstract

We present a new framework to incorporate feedback from massive interacting binaries in simulations of star cluster formation. Our new feedback model adds binary stellar evolution to the cluster formation code Torch, and couples it in AMUSE to the pre-existing modules for collisional stellar dynamics, magnetohydrodynamics, and mechanical and radiative feedback. Our model accounts for the effects of mass transfer on the stars' mass loss rates, their radiation spectra, and the timing of core-collapse supernovae. It also injects mass lost through non-conservative mass transfer and common envelope ejection into the interstellar medium. We demonstrate the use of our feedback model through simulations of isolated binaries in a gaseous medium, and of embedded clusters of massive binaries. Feedback from interacting binaries efficiently couples with the surrounding interstellar medium. It increases the size of HII regions, increases the kinetic and thermal energy of the gas, and increases the pressure within HII regions compared to models that use single star stellar evolution. Those differences arise from the ionizing radiation, which increases by three orders of magnitude, resulting in HII regions that expand due to thermal pressure rather than radiation pressure. The effects of stellar dynamics and the gravitational potential of the background gas cause the evolution of individual binaries to deviate from the predictions made by secular evolution, impacting the subsequent feedback from the binary. We conclude that massive interacting binaries are an important source of feedback in cluster-forming regions, and must be considered when studying the emerging timescales of young star clusters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02780 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flowchart showing the order of operations and information passed between the codes handling RMHD (left, Flash), stellar and binary evolution (center, SeBa), and stellar dynamics (right, PeTar), for one Torch time step. The boxes with a white background denote updates from one code to another, while the boxes with a darker background correspond to operations done within one code. and stellar evolution. Torch is desig… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Density (top), temperature (middle) and ioniza￾tion fraction (bottom) in the midplane for the conservative MT simulations, 1 kyr after the mass transfer event. For each panel, the simulations on the left correspond to runs with binary stellar evolution, and those on the right to runs with single star stellar evolution. from the volume of gas with an ionization fraction above 99%; we then assume that the H II region … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ionization fraction (top) and density (bottom) as a function of radial distance to the binary’s center of mass, for the conservative MT simulations in the lower density medium, 0 kyr, 2kyr and 4 kyr after the mass transfer event. Each radial bin is the mass-weighted average of the gas properties at this radial distance from the binary’s center of mass. The blue line corresponds to the simulation with binary stellar … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The left panel shows density slices in the midplane for the non-conservative MT simulations immediately, 2 kyr, and 4 kyr after the mass transfer event. The right panel shows density slices in the midplane for the CE ejection simulation immediately after the envelope i…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ionization fraction (top row) and density (bottom row) as a function of radius for the non-conservative MT (top panel) and CE (bottom panel) simulations, at the same times as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Excess (left) and true (right) ionizing luminosity (top) and cumulative mass loss (bottom) from the 40 sampled clusters run with SeBa’s binary stellar evolution scheme. The excess is calculated compared to the same stars evolved with a single star stellar evolution sch…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Time evolution of the density in the midplane for the C1 simulations, as a function of time. The B simulations shown in the first and third columns use binary stellar evolution while the S simulations shown in the second and fourth column use single star stellar evolut…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Equivalent radius of the ionized region and shocked wind region (for the B runs) as a function of time, for the cluster runs in the lower (top) and higher (bottom) density medium. The runs with binary stellar evolution are plotted in blue while the runs with single st…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Energetics of the gas in the cluster simulations, as a function of time. Each sub-plot corresponds to a pair of simulations with the same stars and background density (labeled in the top right), with the blue lines corresponding to the runs with binary stellar evoluti…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Pressure from radiative feedback as a function of time for the cluster runs. Each column corresponds to a set of stars and each row to a background density. The solid lines denote the thermal pressure from ionized gas (from Equation 13), the dashed-dotted lines denote…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Vanzella, E., et al

    Adamo, A., Bradley, L. D., Vanzella, E., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 513, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07703-7

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07703-7 2024

  2. [2]

    A., Sana, H., Taylor, W., et al

    Almeida, L. A., Sana, H., Taylor, W., et al. 2017, A&A, 598, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629844

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629844 2017

  3. [3]

    R., Vigna-G´ omez, A., et al

    Antoniadis, J., Aguilera-Dena, D. R., Vigna-G´ omez, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142322

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142322 2022

  4. [4]

    Baczynski, C., Glover, S. C. O., & Klessen, R. S. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 380, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1906

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1906 2015

  5. [5]

    T., Longmore, S

    Barnes, A. T., Longmore, S. N., Dale, J. E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4906, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2719

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2719 2020

  6. [6]

    T., Glover, S

    Barnes, A. T., Glover, S. C. O., Kreckel, K., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5362, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2958 26

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2958 2021

  7. [7]

    1986, Nature, 324, 446, doi: 10.1038/324446a0

    Barnes, J., & Hut, P. 1986, Nature, 324, 446, doi: 10.1038/324446a0

    doi:10.1038/324446a0 1986

  8. [8]

    L., et al

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

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

Show all 122 references
  1. [9]

    Bestenlehner, J. M. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3938, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa474

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Gr¨ afener, G., Vink, J

    Bestenlehner, J. M., Gr¨ afener, G., Vink, J. S., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423643 Bj¨ orklund, R., Sundqvist, J. O., Puls, J., & Najarro, F. 2021, A&A, 648, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038384

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    A., de Koter, A., Bestenlehner, J

    Brands, S. A., de Koter, A., Bestenlehner, J. M., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142742

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Umbreit, S., & Rasio, F

    Chatterjee, S., Fregeau, J. M., Umbreit, S., & Rasio, F. A. 2010, ApJ, 719, 915, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/915

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    Chevance, M., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Krumholz, M. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 272, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2938

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    Ritchie, B. W. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4473, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad449

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Wilhelm, M. J. C. 2024a, ApJ, 975, 207, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7f50

    doi

  8. [16]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 4464, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3902

    Cournoyer-Cloutier, C., Tran, A., Lewis, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4464, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3902

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    E., et al

    Cournoyer-Cloutier, C., Sills, A., Harris, W. E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 1338, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad568

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    E., et al

    Cournoyer-Cloutier, C., Sills, A., Harris, W. E., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 977, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad90b3 de Mink, S. E., Pols, O. R., & Hilditch, R. W. 2007, A&A, 467, 1181, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20067007

    2007 doi

  11. [19]

    T., Calzetti, D., et al

    Deshmukh, S., Linden, S. T., Calzetti, D., et al. 2024, ApJL, 974, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7ba9

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    C., et al

    Dubey, A., Antypas, K., Calder, A. C., et al. 2014, The International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications, 28, 225, doi: 10.1177/1094342013505656

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

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

    1983 doi

  14. [22]

    J., & Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., & Stanway, E. R. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-100646

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc315

    Justham, S. 2023, ApJ, 948, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc315

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    C., & Klessen, R

    Federrath, C., Banerjee, R., Clark, P. C., & Klessen, R. S. 2010, ApJ, 713, 269, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/269

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Bavera, S

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

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al

    Fryer, C. L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/91

    2012 doi

  19. [27]

    2000, ApJS, 131, 273, doi: 10.1086/317361

    Fryxell, B., Olson, K., Ricker, P., et al. 2000, ApJS, 131, 273, doi: 10.1086/317361

    2000 doi

  20. [28]

    2007, PASJ, 59, 1095, doi: 10.1093/pasj/59.6.1095

    Fujii, M., Iwasawa, M., Funato, Y., & Makino, J. 2007, PASJ, 59, 1095, doi: 10.1093/pasj/59.6.1095

    2007 doi

  21. [29]

    S., Saitoh, T

    Fujii, M. S., Saitoh, T. R., Hirai, Y., & Wang, L. 2021, PASJ, 73, 1074, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab061

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    S., Saitoh, T

    Fujii, M. S., Saitoh, T. R., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2012, ApJ, 753, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/85

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 1352, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3705 G¨ otberg, Y., de Mink, S

    Geen, S., Bieri, R., Rosdahl, J., & de Koter, A. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 1352, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3705 G¨ otberg, Y., de Mink, S. E., Groh, J. H., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732274 G¨ otberg, Y., de Mink, S. E., McQuinn, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A134...

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    C., Whitmore, B

    Hannon, S., Lee, J. C., Whitmore, B. C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 1294, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac550

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5628

    He, H., Wilson, C., Brunetti, N., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5628

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    Heggie, D. C. 1975, MNRAS, 173, 729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/173.3.729

    1975 doi

  28. [36]

    C., & Rasio, F

    Heggie, D. C., & Rasio, F. A. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 1064, doi: 10.1093/mnras/282.3.1064

    1996 doi

  29. [37]

    Heitsch, F., Mac Low, M.-M., & Klessen, R. S. 2001, ApJ, 547, 280, doi: 10.1086/318335

    2001 doi

  30. [38]

    Hills, J. G. 1975, AJ, 80, 809, doi: 10.1086/111815

    1975 doi

  31. [39]

    Hollenbach, D., & McKee, C. F. 1989, ApJ, 342, 306, doi: 10.1086/167595

    1989 doi

  32. [40]

    S., Pudritz, R

    Howard, C. S., Pudritz, R. E., & Harris, W. E. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 3346, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1363

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

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

    2007 doi

  34. [42]

    R., Pols, O

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

    2000

  35. [43]

    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

  36. [44]

    2013, MNRAS, 429, 1221, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts415

    Hypki, A., & Giersz, M. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1221, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts415

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 2550, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2756

    Iaconi, R., & De Marco, O. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2550, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2756

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    2018, ApJL, 858, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac101

    Ivanova, N. 2018, ApJL, 858, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac101

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    Lombardi, J. C. 2013, Science, 339, 433, doi: 10.1126/science.1225540

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, 2181, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2582

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2181, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2582

    2015 doi

  41. [49]

    2016, PASJ, 68, 54, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw053

    Iwasawa, M., Tanikawa, A., Hosono, N., et al. 2016, PASJ, 68, 54, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw053

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    Joung, M. K. R., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2006, ApJ, 653, 1266, doi: 10.1086/508795 27

    2006 doi

  43. [51]

    1967, ZA, 65, 251 K¨ ortgen, B., Seifried, D., Banerjee, R., V´ azquez-Semadeni, E., & Zamora-Avil´ es, M

    Kippenhahn, R., & Weigert, A. 1967, ZA, 65, 251 K¨ ortgen, B., Seifried, D., Banerjee, R., V´ azquez-Semadeni, E., & Zamora-Avil´ es, M. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3460, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw824

    1967 doi

  44. [52]

    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

  45. [53]

    R., McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 227, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104430

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    2000, ARA&A, 38, 613, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.613 Lah´ en, N., Rantala, A., Naab, T., et al

    Kudritzki, R.-P., & Puls, J. 2000, ARA&A, 38, 613, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.613 Lah´ en, N., Rantala, A., Naab, T., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 2129, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf350

    2000 doi

  47. [55]

    Bryan, G. L. 2024, ApJ, 970, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad47f6

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    C., Kim, J.-G., & Kim, C.-G

    Lancaster, L., Ostriker, E. C., Kim, J.-G., & Kim, C.-G. 2021a, ApJL, 922, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3333

    doi

  49. [57]

    C., Kim, J.-G., & Kim, C.-G

    Lancaster, L., Ostriker, E. C., Kim, J.-G., & Kim, C.-G. 2021b, ApJ, 914, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8ac

    doi

  50. [58]

    2003, ApJS, 146, 417, doi: 10.1086/374373

    Lanz, T., & Hubeny, I. 2003, ApJS, 146, 417, doi: 10.1086/374373

    2003 doi

  51. [59]

    Laplace, E., Schneider, F. R. N., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2025, A&A, 695, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451077

    2025 doi

  52. [60]

    Lau, M. Y. M., Hirai, R., Gonz´ alez-Bol ´ ıvar, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 5462, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac049

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    1970, A&A, 7, 150

    Lauterborn, D. 1970, A&A, 7, 150

    1970

  54. [62]

    E., Valli, R., et al

    Lechien, T., de Mink, S. E., Valli, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.14780, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.14780

    2025 doi arXiv

  55. [63]

    K., Bolatto, A

    Leroy, A. K., Bolatto, A. D., Ostriker, E. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaecd1

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    C., Bolatto, A

    Levy, R. C., Bolatto, A. D., Mayya, D., et al. 2024, ApJL, 973, L55, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7af3

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    1987, Comput

    Lohner, R. 1987, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 61, 323, doi: 10.1016/0045-7825(87)90098-3

    1987 doi

  58. [66]

    A., Krumholz, M

    Lopez, L. A., Krumholz, M. R., Bolatto, A. D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/121

    2014 doi

  59. [67]

    E., Bonnell, I

    Lucas, W. E., Bonnell, I. A., & Dale, J. E. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4700, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa451

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    1967, MNRAS, 136, 101, doi: 10.1093/mnras/136.1.101

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1967, MNRAS, 136, 101, doi: 10.1093/mnras/136.1.101

    1967 doi

  61. [69]

    Makino, J., & Aarseth, S. J. 1992, PASJ, 44, 141

    1992

  62. [70]

    2024, ARA&A, 62, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052722-105936

    Marchant, P., & Bodensteiner, J. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052722-105936

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    D., & Jumper, P

    Matzner, C. D., & Jumper, P. H. 2015, ApJ, 815, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/68

    2015 doi

  64. [72]

    H., Federrath, C., & Krumholz, M

    Menon, S. H., Federrath, C., & Krumholz, M. R. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5160, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad856

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    Miyoshi, T., & Kusano, K. 2005, J. Comput. Phys., 208, 315, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2005.02.017

    2005 doi

  66. [74]

    2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

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

    2017 doi

  67. [75]

    2001, A&A, 365, 491, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000147

    Verbunt, F. 2001, A&A, 365, 491, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000147

    2001 doi

  68. [76]

    A., Lepp, S., & Melnick, G

    Neufeld, D. A., Lepp, S., & Melnick, G. J. 1995, ApJS, 100, 132, doi: 10.1086/192211

    1995 doi

  69. [77]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a61

    Nguyen, M., & Sills, A. 2024, ApJ, 969, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a61

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    1990, A&A, 231, 134

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

    1990

  71. [79]

    2025, A&A, 695, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451564

    Nuijten, M., & Nelemans, G. 2025, A&A, 695, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451564

    2025 doi

  72. [80]

    Offner, S. S. R., Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 275, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10066 Paczy´ nski, B. 1971, ARA&A,...

    2023 doi arXiv

  73. [81]

    1976, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Paczynski, B. 1976, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 73, Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems, ed. P. Eggleton, S. Mitton, & J. Whelan, 75

    1976

  74. [82]

    Pavlovskii, K., Ivanova, N., Belczynski, K., & Van, K. X. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2092, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2786

    2017 doi

  75. [83]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  76. [84]

    I., van Elteren, A., de Vries, N., et al

    Pelupessy, F. I., van Elteren, A., de Vries, N., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321252

    2013 doi

  77. [85]

    L., Arce, H

    Plunkett, A. L., Arce, H. G., Corder, S. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 22, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/22

    2015 doi

  78. [86]

    S., et al

    Polak, B., Mac Low, M.-M., Klessen, R. S., et al. 2024a, A&A, 690, A207, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450774

    doi

  79. [87]

    S., et al

    Polak, B., Mac Low, M.-M., Klessen, R. S., et al. 2024b, A&A, 690, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348840 Portegies Zwart, S., & McMillan, S. L. W. 2019, Astrophysical Recipes: The Art of Amuse (Bristol: Institute of Physics Publishing) Portegies Zwart, S., McMillan, S. L. W., ...

    2019 doi

  80. [88]

    2013, Computer Physics Communications, 184, 456, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.09.024 Portegies Zwart, S., McMillan, S., Harfst, S., et al

    Pelupessy, I., & de Vries, N. 2013, Computer Physics Communications, 184, 456, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.09.024 Portegies Zwart, S., McMillan, S., Harfst, S., et al. 2009, NewA, 14, 369, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2008.10.006 Portegies Zwart, S., van Elteren, A., Pelupessy, I., et al...

    2013 doi

  81. [89]

    1999, A&A, 348, 117, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9812006 28 Portegies Zwart, S

    Hut, P. 1999, A&A, 348, 117, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9812006 28 Portegies Zwart, S. F., McMillan, S. L. W., & Gieles, M. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 431, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130834 Portegies Zwart, S. F., & Verbunt, F. 1996, A&A, 309, 179

    1999 doi arXiv

  82. [90]

    2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaf064

    Rantala, A., & Naab, T. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaf064

    2025 doi

  83. [91]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 3770, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1413

    Rantala, A., Naab, T., & Lah´ en, N. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3770, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1413

    2024 doi

  84. [92]

    1975, Memoires of the Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 8, 369

    Reimers, D. 1975, Memoires of the Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 8, 369

    1975

  85. [93]

    Ricker, P. M. 2008, ApJS, 176, 293, doi: 10.1086/526425

    2008 doi

  86. [94]

    W., Clark, J

    Ritchie, B. W., Clark, J. S., Negueruela, I., & Najarro, F. 2022, A&A, 660, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142405

    2022 doi

  87. [95]

    L., Weatherford, N

    Rodriguez, C. L., Weatherford, N. C., Coughlin, S. C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac2edf Rodr ´ ıguez-Segovia, N., Ruiter, A. J., & Seitenzahl, I. R. 2025, PASA, 42, e012, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2024.135

    2022 doi

  88. [96]

    Rogers, H., & Pittard, J. M. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 1337, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt255 R¨ opke, F. K., & De Marco, O. 2023, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 9, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41115-023-00017-x

    2013 doi

  89. [97]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444, doi: 10.1126/science.1223344

    2012 doi

  90. [98]

    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

  91. [99]

    H., H´ enault-Brunet, V., et al

    Sana, H., Ram ´ ırez-Agudelo, O. H., H´ enault-Brunet, V., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244677

    2022 doi

  92. [100]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Izzard, R. G., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 117, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/117

    2014 doi

  93. [101]

    Sigurdsson, S., & Phinney, E. S. 1993, ApJ, 415, 631, doi: 10.1086/173190

    1993 doi

  94. [102]

    M., Bryan, G

    Simpson, C. M., Bryan, G. L., Hummels, C., & Ostriker, J. P. 2015, ApJ, 809, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/69

    2015 doi

  95. [103]

    E., Phinney, E

    Soberman, G. E., Phinney, E. S., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1997, A&A, 327, 620, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9703016

    1997 doi arXiv

  96. [104]

    R., & Eldridge, J

    Stanway, E. R., & Eldridge, J. J. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4430, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1185

    2023 doi

  97. [105]

    K., Schruba, A., et al

    Sun, J., Leroy, A. K., Schruba, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac326

    2018 doi

  98. [106]

    2012, A&A, 546, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201218966

    Toonen, S., Nelemans, G., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2012, A&A, 546, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201218966

    2012 doi

  99. [107]

    J., Smith, B

    Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1976, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 73, Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems, ed. P. Eggleton, S. Mitton, & J....

    2011 doi

  100. [108]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb59a

    Vanzella, E., Claeyssens, A., Welch, B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb59a

    2023 doi

  101. [109]

    Vink, J. S. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 203, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-094949

    2022 doi

  102. [110]

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

    Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2000, A&A, 362, 295, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0008183

    2000 doi arXiv

  103. [111]

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

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

    2001 doi

  104. [112]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 2757, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1155

    Walch, S., & Naab, T. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2757, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1155

    2015 doi

  105. [113]

    E., Mac Low, M.-M., McMillan, S

    Wall, J. E., Mac Low, M.-M., McMillan, S. L. W., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc011

    2020 doi

  106. [114]

    E., McMillan, S

    Wall, J. E., McMillan, S. L. W., Mac Low, M.-M., Klessen, R. S., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2019, ApJ, 887, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4db1

    2019 doi

  107. [115]

    2020a, MNRAS, 497, 536, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1915

    Wang, L., Iwasawa, M., Nitadori, K., & Makino, J. 2020a, MNRAS, 497, 536, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1915

    doi

  108. [116]

    2020b, MNRAS, 493, 3398, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa480

    Wang, L., Nitadori, K., & Makino, J. 2020b, MNRAS, 493, 3398, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa480

    doi

  109. [117]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 4070, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv817

    Wang, L., Spurzem, R., Aarseth, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4070, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv817

    2015 doi

  110. [118]

    J., Pittard, J

    Wareing, C. J., Pittard, J. M., & Falle, S. A. E. G. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2283, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1417

    2017 doi

  111. [119]

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

    1984 doi

  112. [120]

    C., & Nordhaus, J

    Wilson, E. C., & Nordhaus, J. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2189, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2300

    2022 doi

  113. [121]

    Woosley, S. E. 2019, ApJ, 878, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b41

    2019 doi

  114. [122]

    E., Izzard, R

    Zapartas, E., de Mink, S. E., Izzard, R. G., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629685

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.