pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.13838 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Evolution of Massive Main-sequence Stars in Rapid Population Synthesis. I. Framework and Implementation

Adam Br\v{c}ek , Ryosuke Hirai , Ilya Mandel , Harmony Lower This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 21:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords evolutionframeworkstarsmassivebinarypopulationrapidsynthesis
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

A new main-sequence evolution framework for massive stars yields more massive helium cores at terminal age and higher black hole masses in population synthesis.

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

The paper develops a framework for tracking main-sequence evolution in massive stars that accounts for how mass loss or gain alters the convective core. Implemented in the COMPAS code for rapid binary population synthesis, it adapts a semianalytical approach to handle arbitrary mass histories, rejuvenation after mass transfer, and main-sequence mergers. This produces more massive helium cores at the end of the main sequence, more compact radii in stripped stars, and systematically larger black hole masses than standard prescriptions. The change matters because main-sequence structure sets the foundation for all later phases, including supernova outcomes and compact-object formation in binaries. A sympathetic reader would see this as a step toward greater physical consistency in large-scale population models.

Core claim

The central claim is that a new main-sequence evolution framework, built on the semianalytical convective-core model of Shikauchi et al., captures the response of the core to arbitrary mass-loss or mass-gain histories including rejuvenation and mergers. When implemented in rapid population synthesis, this framework produces more massive helium cores at terminal-age main sequence, more compact radii in stripped main-sequence stars, and systematically higher black hole masses than commonly used prescriptions, thereby improving the physical consistency of massive-star and binary evolution calculations.

What carries the argument

Semianalytical convective-core mass evolution model extended to arbitrary mass-loss/gain histories, rejuvenation, and main-sequence mergers.

If this is right

  • More massive helium cores at terminal-age main sequence for stars that experience mass loss or gain.
  • More compact radii for stripped main-sequence stars.
  • Systematically higher black hole masses produced in population synthesis runs.
  • Improved physical consistency between main-sequence structure and subsequent binary evolution stages.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Revised black-hole mass distributions in binary population synthesis could alter expected rates and properties of gravitational-wave sources.
  • Older synthesis results based on simpler main-sequence prescriptions may systematically underestimate compact-object masses.
  • Targeted tests against detailed models for specific binary interaction histories could quantify where the new framework diverges most.
  • keywords:[

Load-bearing premise

The semianalytical model of convective-core response remains accurate under arbitrary mass-loss or mass-gain histories that include rejuvenation and mergers.

What would settle it

Direct comparison of predicted terminal-age main-sequence helium core masses and radii from the framework against detailed stellar evolution calculations for the same mass-loss or mass-transfer histories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.13838 by Adam Br\v{c}ek, Harmony Lower, Ilya Mandel, Ryosuke Hirai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows the numerically derived values of δ from nine Mesa models of a 40 M⊙ star undergoing mass gain under different conditions. Despite some scatter, the curves with different onset times and accretion rates all seem to show a universal trend. It is also clear that δ(Mc, Yc) for mass accretors is not well aligned with the fitting function for δ(Mc, Yc) derived in M. Shikauchi et al. (2025) for mass-losing… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Graphical illustration of how the rejuvenation is treated in two cases: when the CNO-processed core mass Mc,CNO remains greater than the convective core mass after accretion (left), and when the convective core mass exceeds Mc,CNO (right). The solid black line represents the helium profile in the star before accretion, with the area underneath it corresponding to the helium mass. The dashed line represents… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Initial core-to-total mass ratio as a function of total stellar mass from Mesa models with varying initial helium abundances. When the total mass is scaled by h(Y ) (see Eq. 22), all points lie on the same curve, described by the fitting function g(M, Y ) (see Eq. 21). This function predicts the initial convective core mass (initial CNO-processed core mass) based on the star’s total mass and initial helium… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hertzsprung-Russell diagram showing stellar tracks for various initial masses at Z = Z⊙ with mass loss via stellar winds from J. Merritt et al. (2025) enabled (left) and mass loss disabled (right). Only the MS and HG evolution is shown. Solid lines show the updated stellar tracks when BRCEK formalism is used, and dashed lines are the default stellar tracks from J. R. Hurley et al. (2000). The luminosity pr… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radial evolution of MS stars (Z = Z⊙) losing mass via stellar winds, shown for the Mesa-based Posydon models (dashed black lines), our modified radius (solid blue), and the original radius prescription from J. R. Hurley et al. (2000) (solid yellow). The ZAMS mass is indicated above each panel. Posydon models are shown up to core-hydrogen exhaustion, with the MS hook omitted. The impact of our modified radi… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The left panel shows the total stellar mass at TAMS MTAMS (solid lines), end of HG evolution MHG,f (dashed), and just before the supernova M<SN (dotted) as a function of the ZAMS mass (Z = Z⊙). The right panel shows the helium core mass at TAMS MHe,TAMS (solid lines) and carbon-oxygen core mass just before the supernova MCO<SN (dotted). The BRCEK framework is shown in blue and the HURLEY prescription in ye… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The left panel shows the carbon-oxygen core mass just before core collapse as a function of the ZAMS mass for three different metallicities, comparing the BRCEK (blue) and HURLEY (yellow) approaches. The right panel shows the corresponding remnant masses, calculated using the remnant mass prescription from C. L. Fryer et al. (2012) and pulsational pair-instability supernova prescription from P. Marchant et… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Helium core mass of the donor star at TAMS after experiencing case A mass transfer (solid lines) and the total mass of the donor at TAMS (dashed lines) for three different MS evolution treatments. Initial separation was varied such that the primary star loses a significant fraction of its mass due to case A mass transfer. Stellar winds were disabled. The total stellar mass of the donor at TAMS is the same … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Detailed evolution of a representative binary system illustrating the effects of the BRCEK framework. The initial primary mass is MZAMS,1 = 101.9 M⊙, secondary mass MZAMS,2 = 37.0 M⊙, the initial separation is ai = 45.2 R⊙, and the metallicity is Z = 0.01. Other options are kept at Compas default. Top left panel shows the stellar type as stars transition through MS, HG, helium main sequence (HeMS), helium … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Animation showing the time evolution of a binary population in the HR diagram. The snapshot is taken at 8.73 Myr. The population was generated using the default Compas configu￾ration at solar metallicity, and stellar winds were disabled. The two panels compare our BRCEK MS evolution framework and the original HURLEY for￾malism. ing of surface abundances for MS stars stripped down to their CNO-processed co… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Stars spend most of their lifetime on the main sequence (MS), where hydrogen burning establishes the internal chemical structure that governs the subsequent evolution. In massive stars, mass loss through winds and binary interactions can significantly modify this structure during the MS. We present a new MS evolution framework suitable for rapid binary population synthesis, implemented in the COMPAS code. Building on the semianalytical model of Shikauchi et al., our framework captures the evolution of the convective core on the MS under arbitrary mass-loss or mass-gain histories, including a treatment for stellar rejuvenation and MS mergers. This new framework yields more massive helium cores at terminal-age MS, more compact radii in stripped MS stars, and systematically higher black hole masses than commonly used prescriptions. By providing a more realistic treatment of MS evolution, this framework improves the physical consistency of massive stars and binary evolution in rapid population synthesis.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a new main-sequence evolution framework for rapid binary population synthesis, implemented in the COMPAS code. Building on the semianalytical convective-core model of Shikauchi et al., the framework handles arbitrary mass-loss and mass-gain histories on the MS, including rejuvenation after accretion and MS mergers. It claims to produce more massive helium cores at terminal-age main sequence, more compact radii in stripped MS stars, and systematically higher black-hole masses than standard prescriptions, thereby improving physical consistency in population synthesis.

Significance. If the underlying semianalytical core-evolution model proves accurate for the relevant mass-transfer sequences, the framework would supply a more physically grounded treatment of MS structure in rapid codes, with direct implications for predicted black-hole mass distributions and binary outcomes. The open implementation in COMPAS constitutes a practical advance for the field.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the headline improvements (more massive He cores at TAMS, compact stripped-MS radii, higher BH masses) are asserted without any quantitative validation plots, error bars, or direct comparisons to detailed codes such as MESA for the exact mass-loss/gain histories that generate those offsets.
  2. [Implementation and results sections] Implementation and results sections: the central claim rests on the accuracy of the Shikauchi et al. semianalytical model for convective-core growth under arbitrary mass-transfer, rejuvenation, and merger histories, yet no section supplies a direct, quantitative benchmark of the resulting core masses against numerical stellar models for those sequences.
minor comments (1)
  1. Notation for the rejuvenation and merger prescriptions could be clarified with explicit equations or a dedicated table of input parameters.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed report. We agree that stronger quantitative validation against detailed stellar models strengthens the central claims. We have revised the manuscript to include direct benchmarks of helium-core masses and radii against MESA for representative mass-loss, accretion, rejuvenation, and merger sequences, with quantitative comparisons and error estimates where appropriate. These additions are placed in a new subsection of the results and referenced from the abstract.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the headline improvements (more massive He cores at TAMS, compact stripped-MS radii, higher BH masses) are asserted without any quantitative validation plots, error bars, or direct comparisons to detailed codes such as MESA for the exact mass-loss/gain histories that generate those offsets.

    Authors: We acknowledge the abstract presents the headline results without direct quantitative support. In the revised manuscript we have added a new figure (Figure X) in the results section that shows helium-core mass at TAMS and stripped-star radii for a grid of mass-loss and accretion histories, with direct MESA comparisons and 1-sigma uncertainties derived from the semianalytical model assumptions. The abstract has been updated to reference this figure explicitly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Implementation and results sections] Implementation and results sections: the central claim rests on the accuracy of the Shikauchi et al. semianalytical model for convective-core growth under arbitrary mass-transfer, rejuvenation, and merger histories, yet no section supplies a direct, quantitative benchmark of the resulting core masses against numerical stellar models for those sequences.

    Authors: The Shikauchi et al. (2023) model was validated against MESA in the original work for constant-mass and simple mass-loss cases. To address the referee's point for the arbitrary histories relevant to binary evolution, we have added a dedicated validation subsection (Section 3.3) that presents side-by-side comparisons of convective-core mass evolution for (i) steady wind mass loss, (ii) Roche-lobe overflow accretion with rejuvenation, and (iii) MS merger products. For each case we show the time-dependent core mass from our framework versus MESA runs with identical initial conditions and mass-transfer rates, including quantitative metrics (maximum fractional difference < 8 % across the tested range). These benchmarks are now cited from the abstract and implementation sections. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; framework implements external semianalytical model

full rationale

The paper presents a new MS evolution framework implemented in COMPAS that builds directly on the semianalytical convective-core model of Shikauchi et al. The reported outcomes (more massive helium cores at TAMS, compact stripped-MS radii, higher BH masses) are produced by applying this prior external model to arbitrary mass-loss/gain histories, including rejuvenation and mergers. No section shows any quantity being fitted inside the present work and then relabeled as a prediction, nor does any derivation reduce by the paper's own equations to its inputs by construction. The central claims rest on the cited model's validity rather than on self-referential steps, making the derivation self-contained against the external benchmark.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of the Shikauchi et al. semianalytical model for core evolution and on the assumption that its extensions to binary mass transfer and mergers remain valid.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Semianalytical model of Shikauchi et al. accurately describes convective core evolution during main sequence under arbitrary mass-loss or mass-gain histories
    The framework is built directly on this model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5460 in / 1222 out tokens · 37511 ms · 2026-05-16T21:34:54.612530+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

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    J., Bavera, S

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

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.02376 2024

  2. [2]

    J., N., Jacobson-Galán, W., et al

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 2009

  3. [3]

    Crowther, P. A. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 177, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110615

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110615 2007

  4. [4]

    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

  5. [5]

    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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/1/91 2012

  6. [6]

    M., & Davidson, K

    Humphreys, R. M., & Davidson, K. 1994, PASP, 106, 1025, doi: 10.1086/133478

    work page doi:10.1086/133478 1994

  7. [7]

    , eprint =

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

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03426.x 2000

  8. [8]

    Satellite galaxies in the Local Group

    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

  9. [9]

    A., & Aarseth, S

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

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

  10. [10]

    2020, A&A, 637, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937300

    Farmer, R. 2020, A&A, 637, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937300

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937300 2020

  11. [11]

    1987, A&A, 178, 159

    Maeder, A. 1987, A&A, 178, 159

    work page 1987

  12. [12]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.02316, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.02316

    Mandel, I., Riley, J., Boesky, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.02316, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.02316

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.02316 2025

  13. [13]

    2019, ApJ, 882, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3426

    Marchant, P., Renzo, M., Farmer, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3426

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3426 2019

  14. [14]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.17052, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.17052

    Merritt, J., Stevenson, S., Sander, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.17052, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.17052

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.17052 2025

  15. [15]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., Orosz, J. A., et al. 2021, Science, 371, 1046, doi: 10.1126/science.abb3363

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abb3363 2021

  16. [16]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

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

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

  17. [17]

    2011, Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA), ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

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

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

  18. [18]

    Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Giant Planets, Oscillations, Rotation, and Massive Stars

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 15

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

  19. [19]

    Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Binaries, Pulsations, and Explosions

    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

  20. [20]

    Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Convective Boundaries, Element Diffusion, and Massive Star Explosions

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

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

  21. [21]

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

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

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

  22. [22]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 525, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01658.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01658.x 1998

  23. [23]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1291

    Riley, J., Mandel, I., Marchant, P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1291

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1291 2021

  24. [24]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 245, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1732

    Mandel, I. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 245, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1732

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1732 2023

  25. [25]

    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

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1223344 2012

  26. [26]

    Sandage, A. R. 1953, AJ, 58, 61, doi: 10.1086/106822

    work page doi:10.1086/106822 1953

  27. [27]

    2025, ApJ, 984, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc5fa

    Shikauchi, M., Hirai, R., & Mandel, I. 2025, ApJ, 984, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc5fa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc5fa 2025

  28. [28]

    Stevenson, A

    Stevenson, S., Vigna-G´ omez, A., Mandel, I., et al. 2017, Nature Communications, 8, 14906, doi: 10.1038/ncomms14906 Vigna-G´ omez, A., Neijssel, C. J., Stevenson, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 4009, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2463

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms14906 2017

  29. [29]

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

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-094949 2022

  30. [30]

    Nature Astronomy , keywords =

    Wang, C., Langer, N., Schootemeijer, A., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 480, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01597-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01597-5 2022

  31. [31]

    S., Fragos, T., et al

    Xing, Z., Bavera, S. S., Fragos, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347971

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347971 2024