pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.18419 · v1 · pith:XUB6DXMEnew · submitted 2026-06-16 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.HE· astro-ph.SR

The Contribution of Disrupted Dense Star Clusters to Gaia's Compact Object Binaries

Aryanna Schiebelbein-Zwack , Claire S. Ye , Marta Reina-Campos , Aeysha Munawwarah , Kareem El-Badry , Pranav Nagarajan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 23:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords compact object binariesdisrupted star clustersGaia detectionswhite dwarf binariesblack hole binariesneutron star binariesMilky Way field population
0
0 comments X

The pith

Disrupted dense star clusters release roughly 450,000 compact-object binaries into the Milky Way over its history.

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

The paper calculates the total number of binaries containing a white dwarf, black hole or neutron star paired with a luminous companion that have been released into the Milky Way field by the disruption of dense star clusters over cosmic time. It arrives at these totals by linking large-scale predictions of cluster formation to detailed calculations of how binaries harden and clusters dissolve. When the resulting population is passed through a model of Gaia's selection effects, the expected detections remain very low in both DR3 and DR4. The same exercise indicates that the metal-poor neutron-star systems already seen by Gaia are unlikely to have come from this particular channel.

Core claim

By mapping predicted star clusters from cosmological simulations onto high-resolution dynamical models, the work finds that approximately 3×10^5 white dwarfs, 1.5×10^5 black holes, and 1×10^3 neutron stars in binaries with luminous companions are released to the Galaxy from now-disrupted dense star clusters throughout the history of the Milky Way. Synthetic Gaia observations show sparse yields of about 2 white dwarfs at 90 percent credibility in DR3 and about 14 in DR4, with no neutron-star or black-hole detections expected. Black-hole systems are detected even less efficiently than white-dwarf systems because they tend to have lower-mass companions and longer orbital periods.

What carries the argument

The mapping of cosmological predictions of star cluster populations onto high-resolution dynamical models of internal evolution and binary interactions, followed by a pipeline that generates synthetic Gaia observations of the resulting field population.

If this is right

  • Most compact-object binaries released by disrupted clusters lie beyond Gaia's reliable detection horizon even after the search volume expands in later data releases.
  • Black-hole binaries are observed far less often than white-dwarf binaries because they pair with dimmer companions and have longer orbital periods.
  • The metal-poor neutron-star binaries already catalogued by Gaia are inconsistent with an origin in disrupted dense clusters.
  • White-dwarf binaries dominate the predicted released population yet still produce only marginal Gaia yields.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The observed halo neutron-star binaries more likely trace isolated binary evolution, supernova kicks, or the accretion of metal-poor dwarf galaxies.
  • A lower overall cluster disruption rate would reduce the total numbers of released binaries in direct proportion.
  • Surveys that reach fainter magnitudes at larger distances could provide a direct test of the predicted field population.

Load-bearing premise

The cosmological predictions of cluster formation can be accurately mapped onto detailed dynamical models that capture binary hardening and cluster disruption over time.

What would settle it

A direct count, in actual Gaia data releases, of compact-object binaries with luminous companions that either matches or deviates sharply from the predicted yields of roughly 2 white dwarfs in DR3 and 14 in DR4.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.18419 by Aeysha Munawwarah, Aryanna Schiebelbein-Zwack, Claire S. Ye, Kareem El-Badry, Marta Reina-Campos, Pranav Nagarajan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: The lifetime of EMP-Pathfinder disrupted clusters vs. their initial mass. Due to the assumption of a constant initial half-mass radius, these quantities are correlated; more massive clusters tend to have longer lifetimes. Right: Cluster metallicity vs. initial mass, for EMP-Pathfinder clusters that disrupt (blue), as well as globular cluster analogues (orange). In the simulation, ≈ 70% of the cluster… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: The cluster distances from the Sun, for a single realization of the Sun’s position in the Galaxy. The dashed (dotted) line shows generous upper limits on the detection horizon for Gaia DR3 (DR4). Of the disrupted clusters, ≈ 0.6% are within the DR3 limit of 3 kpc and ≈ 70% are within that of DR4 at 10 kpc. Middle: The galactocentric radii of the clusters in the snapshot directly after disruption. Mos… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The spatial locations of the disrupted massive star clusters from EMP-Pathfinder within a simulated Milky Way-like galaxy, directly following their disruption, in cartesian coordinates. The possible locations of the Sun throughout the Galaxy are shown by the orange annulus. We rotate the location of the Solar System around the X-Y plane to account for the stochastic spatial variation of clusters in the Gal… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The property distributions of CO binary systems sampled from CMC for different mappings from EMP-Pathfinder. Blue lines indicate that the CMC/EMP-Pathfinder mapping was done based on mass alone. Pink lines indicate that the mapping additionally accounts for metallicity. The different linestyles represent three different random draws, showing that the results are robust against random noise. The mapping tha… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The properties of COs in binaries with luminous companions released to the Galactic field from disrupted dense clusters. Most of these binaries contain a WD, followed by BHs, while NSs are the least numerous. The WDs have comparatively shorter periods and orbits that are more circular compared to the other COs. The dynamically formed binaries (all NS and BH binaries in this study) extend to low eccentricit… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Property distributions of primordial (solid) and dynamically-assembled (dashed) WD binaries with luminous com￾panions released from disrupted clusters. Light blue indicates all of the samples from the CMC/EMP-Pathfinder model, while dark blue indicates the systems that were ‘observable’ at least once after passing through the Gaia selection function. This shows observations for DR4 over all realizations; t… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Properties of the CMC/EMP-Pathfinder binaries. Blue shading represent WDs, orange represent NSs, and gray represents BHs. The pink stars indicate Gaia detections. We display the WD candidates as selected by Shahaf et al. (2024). Squares indicate detections over all 100 realizations; filled symbols represent DR3 and open symbols represent DR4. Note that this visualization displays a factor of 100 more detec… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows the locations of the model binaries that were detected at least once throughout the 100 realiza￾tions of our simulated observations. Most detectable binaries are located within the Solar neighbourhood, but most clusters dissolved closer to the Galactic cen￾tre, too distant to be within Gaia’s detection horizon in DR3. These binaries are technically within the DR4 horizon. However, the number of addit… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Orbital period distributions of model WD–MS binaries (primordial and dynamically assembled) from dense star clusters at the present day, comparing two binary mass transfer stability criteria. All other initial conditions and bi￾nary evolution physics are identical across simulations. Each distribution is normalized by the total number of WD–MS binaries over two CMC runs with different random seeds. The gre… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the first model of the Milky Way's detectable compact object--luminous star binary population from disrupted dense star clusters. We bridge large-scale cosmological star cluster formation with high-resolution dynamical evolution of compact object binaries by mapping the predicted star clusters from the EMP-Pathfinder simulations to $N$-body Cluster Monte Carlo models. We predict that approximately $3\times10^5$ white dwarfs (WDs), $1.5\times10^5$ black holes (BHs), and $1\times10^3$ neutron stars (NSs) in binaries with luminous companions are released to the Galaxy from now-disrupted dense star clusters throughout the history of the Milky Way. Synthetic observations modeled with the gaiamock pipeline reveal that the modeled Gaia DR3 yields are sparse ($\approx 2$ WDs, 0 NS, 0 BHs at 90% credibility), with the majority lying beyond the detection horizon. Gaia DR4 is expected to increase the observational yield of these systems only marginally, as the benefits of an expanded search volume are largely offset by the diminished astrometric and photometric precision of more distant sources ($\approx 14$ WDs, 0 NS, 0 BHs). While the underlying BH binary population is similar to that of WDs, they are detected far less frequently; they tend to pair with lower-mass, dimmer companions and have less temporal coverage of their long orbital periods. For NSs, we suggest that the observed over-representation of metal-poor, halo systems is inconsistent with an origin in disrupted dense star clusters. Instead, the observed Gaia NS population could reflect the accretion history of metal-poor, dwarf galaxies into the Milky Way, isolated binary star evolution, or supernova physics.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first model bridging EMP-Pathfinder cosmological star cluster catalogs with Cluster Monte Carlo (CMC) N-body simulations to predict the population of compact-object binaries released by disrupted dense clusters over Milky Way history. It reports headline yields of ~3×10^5 WDs, 1.5×10^5 BHs and 1×10^3 NSs in binaries with luminous companions, then uses the gaiamock pipeline to forecast Gaia DR3/DR4 detections (sparse yields of ~2 WDs for DR3 and ~14 for DR4 at 90% credibility, with zero NS/BH detections) and argues that the observed metal-poor NS population is inconsistent with a disrupted-cluster origin.

Significance. If the mapping and disruption statistics hold, the work supplies a novel, simulation-based estimate of the contribution of dense-cluster disruption to the Galactic compact-object binary population and demonstrates that most such systems lie beyond Gaia’s current horizon. The use of a synthetic observation pipeline (gaiamock) to translate population predictions into observable yields is a clear methodological strength.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (mapping description): the central population numbers are obtained by assigning EMP-Pathfinder cluster masses, radii, metallicities and formation redshifts to CMC initial conditions, evolving the binaries, and summing systems released at disruption. No quantitative validation is supplied (e.g., comparison of disruption timescales, retained binary fractions, or density evolution against direct N-body benchmarks), so any systematic bias in the radius/density assignment or tidal-field representation propagates directly into the reported 3×10^5 / 1.5×10^5 / 1×10^3 counts.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The 90% credibility intervals on the synthetic Gaia yields are stated but the underlying parameter ranges or exclusion rules used to generate them are not summarized, making it difficult to assess robustness.
  2. [Abstract] The statement that Gaia DR4 yields increase only marginally would benefit from an explicit statement of the trade-off between search volume and astrometric precision as a function of distance.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and the opportunity to address concerns regarding the mapping procedure. We respond to the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (mapping description): the central population numbers are obtained by assigning EMP-Pathfinder cluster masses, radii, metallicities and formation redshifts to CMC initial conditions, evolving the binaries, and summing systems released at disruption. No quantitative validation is supplied (e.g., comparison of disruption timescales, retained binary fractions, or density evolution against direct N-body benchmarks), so any systematic bias in the radius/density assignment or tidal-field representation propagates directly into the reported 3×10^5 / 1.5×10^5 / 1×10^3 counts.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract provides no quantitative validation of the mapping. The manuscript (Section 2) details the parameter-matching approach and relies on prior extensive benchmarks of the CMC code against direct N-body simulations for disruption timescales, binary retention, and density evolution in individual clusters. A full end-to-end N-body validation across the cosmological sample is computationally prohibitive. We will revise the abstract to note the dependence on validated CMC models and add a brief methods discussion of mapping approximations and potential systematics. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Direct quantitative validation of disruption timescales, retained binary fractions, and density evolution against direct N-body benchmarks for the full cosmological cluster population, which exceeds available computational resources.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: predictions derive from external simulations and models

full rationale

The paper obtains its headline counts (3e5 WDs, 1.5e5 BHs, 1e3 NSs) by taking cluster catalogs from the external EMP-Pathfinder cosmological simulations, mapping them to initial conditions for separate Cluster Monte Carlo (CMC) N-body runs, evolving the binaries, and summing the released systems upon disruption, then feeding the output into the gaiamock pipeline. No equation or step inside the paper defines a target quantity in terms of itself, fits a parameter to a subset of the Gaia-related data and renames the fit as a prediction, or relies on a self-citation chain for a uniqueness claim. The mapping step is methodological and external; the derivation therefore remains self-contained against independent inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit list of fitted parameters, ad-hoc assumptions, or new entities; standard stellar evolution and N-body dynamics are presupposed but not detailed.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions of stellar evolution, binary dynamics, and cluster disruption in N-body simulations hold for the mapped populations.
    Invoked when bridging EMP-Pathfinder outputs to Cluster Monte Carlo models.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5890 in / 1410 out tokens · 38353 ms · 2026-06-26T23:27:22.628279+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

75 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Ambartsumian, V. A. 1938, TsAGI Uchenye Zapiski, 22, 19 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboratio...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 1938

  2. [2]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 687, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450425

    Balbinot, E., Dodd, E., Matsuno, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450425

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450425 2024

  3. [3]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 949, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2385

    Bashi, D., Belokurov, V., & Hodgkin, S. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 949, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2385

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2385 2024

  4. [4]

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06432.x , archivePrefix =

    Baumgardt, H., & Makino, J. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 227, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06286.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06286.x 2003

  5. [5]

    A., et al

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/521026 2008

  6. [6]

    Vertical waves in the solar neighbourhood in Gaia DR2

    Bennett, M., & Bovy, J. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2813

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2813 2019

  7. [7]

    Bobylev, V. V. 2023, Astronomy Letters, 49, 493, doi: 10.1134/S1063773723090025

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063773723090025 2023

  8. [8]

    Finkbeiner, D. P. 2016, ApJ, 818, 130, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/130

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/2/130 2016

  9. [9]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85 2020

  10. [10]

    Burrows, A., Wang, T., Vartanyan, D., & Coleman, M. S. B. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.12109, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.12109

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.12109 2023

  11. [11]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a5

    Chawla, C., Chatterjee, S., Breivik, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a5 2022

  12. [12]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

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

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

  13. [13]

    E., et al

    Cournoyer-Cloutier, C., Sills, A., Harris, W. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad90b3 Di Carlo, U. N., Agrawal, P., Rodriguez, C. L., & Breivik, K. 2024, ApJ, 965, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f2c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad90b3 2024

  14. [14]

    2025, ApJL, 989, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf286

    Disberg, P., & Mandel, I. 2025, ApJL, 989, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf286

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf286 2025

  15. [15]

    2003, A&A, 409, 205, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031070

    Drimmel, R., Cabrera-Lavers, A., & L´ opez-Corredoira, M. 2003, A&A, 409, 205, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031070

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031070 2003

  16. [16]

    1991, A&A, 248, 485

    Duquennoy, A., & Mayor, M. 1991, A&A, 248, 485

    1991

  17. [17]

    Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis , volume =

    El-Badry, K. 2024a, NewAR, 98, 101694, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101694 Luminous CO Binaries from Disrupted Dense Clusters17 —. 2024b, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 38, doi: 10.33232/001c.117652

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2024.101694 2024

  18. [18]

    2024a, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 100, doi: 10.33232/001c.125461 —

    El-Badry, K., Lam, C., Holl, B., et al. 2024a, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 100, doi: 10.33232/001c.125461 —. 2024b, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 100, doi: 10.33232/001c.125461

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.125461

  19. [19]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, L139, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly206

    El-Badry, K., & Rix, H.-W. 2019, MNRAS, 482, L139, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly206

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly206 2019

  20. [20]

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., & Heintz, T. M. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2269, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab323

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab323 2021

  21. [21]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3140

  22. [22]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad799

  23. [23]

    W., et al

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Latham, D. W., et al. 2024c, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 58, doi: 10.33232/001c.121261

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.121261

  24. [24]

    D., Reggiani, H., et al

    El-Badry, K., Simon, J. D., Reggiani, H., et al. 2024d, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 27, doi: 10.33232/001c.116675

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.116675

  25. [25]

    Elmegreen, B. G. 2010, ApJL, 712, L184, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/712/2/L184

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/712/2/l184 2010

  26. [26]

    G., & Hunter, D

    Elmegreen, B. G., & Hunter, D. A. 2010, ApJ, 712, 604, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/604

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/1/604 2010

  27. [27]

    2025, MNRAS, 538, 243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf303

    Fantoccoli, F., Barber, J., Dosopoulou, F., Chattopadhyay, D., & Antonini, F. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf303

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf303 2025

  28. [28]

    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 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657 Gaia Collaboration, Panuz...

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

  29. [29]

    , keywords =

    Gieles, M., Portegies Zwart, S. F., Baumgardt, H., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 793, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10711.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10711.x 2006

  30. [30]

    A 3D Dust Map Based on Gaia, Pan-STARRS 1 and 2MASS

    Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362 2019

  31. [31]

    2023, A&A, 674, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243969

    Halbwachs, J.-L., Pourbaix, D., Arenou, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243969

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243969 2023

  32. [32]

    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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  33. [33]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.09350, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.09350

    Heger, A., M¨ uller, B., & Mandel, I. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.09350, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.09350

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.09350 2023

  34. [34]

    Heggie, D. C. 1975, MNRAS, 173, 729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/173.3.729 H´ enon, M. 1961, Annales d’Astrophysique, 24, 369

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/173.3.729 1975

  35. [35]

    S., & Webbink, R

    Hjellming, M. S., & Webbink, R. F. 1987, ApJ, 318, 794, doi: 10.1086/165412

    work page doi:10.1086/165412 1987

  36. [36]

    , keywords =

    Hobbs, G., Lorimer, D. R., Lyne, A. G., & Kramer, M. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 974, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09087.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09087.x 2005

  37. [37]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  38. [38]

    , eprint =

    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

  39. [39]

    A., & Raymond, S

    Kaib, N. A., & Raymond, S. N. 2014, ApJ, 782, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/60

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/782/2/60 2014

  40. [40]

    , keywords =

    Kiel, P. D., Hurley, J. R., Bailes, M., & Murray, J. R. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 393, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13402.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13402.x 2008

  41. [41]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 3577, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2591

    Kotko, I., Banerjee, S., & Belczynski, K. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 3577, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2591

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2591 2024

  42. [42]

    , keywords =

    Kremer, K., Ye, C. S., Rui, N. Z., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7919

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab7919 2020

  43. [43]

    Results at [formmu2]z=0

    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

  44. [44]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 3008, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21923.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21923.x 2012

  45. [45]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Pelupessy, F. I., Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1927, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20322.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20322.x 2012

  46. [46]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Pelupessy, F. I., Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., Portegies Zwart, S. F., & Icke, V. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1339, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18467.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18467.x 2011

  47. [47]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Pfeffer, J. L., Crain, R. A., & Bastian, N. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 3134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz968

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz968 2019

  48. [48]

    Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., Gieles, M., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2005, A&A, 429, 173, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041476 Mar´ ın Pina, D., Rastello, S., Gieles, M., et al. 2024a, A&A, 688, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450460 —. 2024b, A&A, 688, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450460

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041476 2005

  49. [49]

    2006, A&A, 453, 635, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053842

    Picaud, S. 2006, A&A, 453, 635, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053842

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053842 2006

  50. [50]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. S. van der Walt & J. Millman, 51–56

    2010

  51. [51]

    Miholics, M., Kruijssen, J. M. D., & Sills, A. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1421, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1312

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1312 2017

  52. [52]

    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

  53. [53]

    T., Morton, T

    Montet, B. T., Morton, T. D., Foreman-Mackey, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/25 18Schiebelbein-Zwack et al

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/1/25 2015

  54. [54]

    Morton, T. D. 2015, isochrones: Stellar model grid package, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1503.010 M¨ uller-Horn, J., Rix, H.-W., El-Badry, K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.05982, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.05982

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.05982 2015

  55. [55]

    2025, PASP, 137, 044202, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adc839

    Nagarajan, P., El-Badry, K., Chawla, C., et al. 2025, PASP, 137, 044202, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adc839

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/adc839 2025

  56. [56]

    1984, ApJ, 277, 791, doi: 10.1086/161749 —

    Nomoto, K. 1984, ApJ, 277, 791, doi: 10.1086/161749 —. 1987, ApJ, 322, 206, doi: 10.1086/165716 O’Doherty, T. N., Bahramian, A., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 2504, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad680

    work page doi:10.1086/161749 1984

  57. [57]

    Pfeffer, J., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Crain, R. A., & Bastian, N. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4309, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3124

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3124 2018

  58. [58]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 740, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2757

    Rastello, S., Iorio, G., Mapelli, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 740, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2757

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2757 2023

  59. [59]

    W., Kruijssen, J

    Reina-Campos, M., Keller, B. W., Kruijssen, J. M. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 3144, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1934

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1934 2022

  60. [60]

    L., Weatherford, N

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac2edf 2022

  61. [61]

    C., Breivik, K., Badenes, C., et al

    Rubio, A. C., Breivik, K., Badenes, C., et al. 2025a, A&A, 704, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555600 —. 2025b, A&A, 704, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555600

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555600

  62. [62]

    doi:10.1126/science.1223344 , eprint =

    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

  63. [63]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 2991, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3290

    Shahaf, S., Bashi, D., Mazeh, T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2991, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3290

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3290 2023

  64. [64]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 3729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae773

    Shahaf, S., Hallakoun, N., Mazeh, T., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae773

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae773 2024

  65. [65]

    D., Bryan, G

    Smith, B. D., Bryan, G. L., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 2217, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3291

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3291 2017

  66. [66]

    Stability Criteria for Mass Transfer in Binary Stellar Evolution

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9703016 1997

  67. [67]

    1940, MNRAS, 100, 396, doi: 10.1093/mnras/100.5.396

    Spitzer, Jr., L. 1940, MNRAS, 100, 396, doi: 10.1093/mnras/100.5.396

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/100.5.396 1940

  68. [68]

    , keywords =

    Springel, V. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x 2010

  69. [69]

    Tanikawa, A., Wang, L., & Fujii, M. S. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 39, doi: 10.33232/001c.117684 The pandas development team. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas:

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.117684 2024

  70. [70]

    Pandas, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3509134

  71. [71]

    2020, ApJS, 246, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab54c4

    Tian, H.-J., El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., & Gould, A. 2020, ApJS, 246, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab54c4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab54c4 2020

  72. [72]

    Trujillo-Gomez, S., Reina-Campos, M., & Kruijssen, J. M. D. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1932 van Son, L. A. C., Roy, S. K., Mandel, I., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada14a

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1932 2019

  73. [73]

    R., et al

    Yamaguchi, N., El-Badry, K., Rees, N. R., et al. 2024, PASP, 136, 084202, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad6809

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ad6809 2024

  74. [74]

    2025a, PASP, 137, 104205, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ae0d30 —

    Yamaguchi, N., El-Badry, K., & Shahaf, S. 2025a, PASP, 137, 104205, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ae0d30 —. 2025b, PASP, 137, 104205, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ae0d30

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ae0d30

  75. [75]

    Rasio, F. A. 2019, ApJ, 877, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b21

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b21 2019