pith. sign in

arxiv: 2405.11028 · v3 · submitted 2024-05-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.SR

Simulations of Interacting Binary Systems -- Pathways to Radio Bright GRB Progenitors

Angel Hernandez , Roseanne M. Cheng , Nicole M. Lloyd-Ronning , Carl E. Fields This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 01:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR
keywords GRB progenitorsbinary stellar evolutionangular momentum transporttidal interactionsMESA simulationsblack hole binariesstellar spingamma-ray bursts
0
0 comments X

The pith

Massive star black hole binaries at comparable mass ratios can be gamma-ray burst progenitors for short and long orbital periods with sufficient spin and negligible mass loss.

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

The paper runs lifetime simulations of 15-25 solar mass stars paired with 10-15 solar mass black holes to track how companion tides and stellar winds change the star's spin angular momentum. By varying orbital periods where tides matter, initial spins, masses, and model choices for accretion and dynamos, the work maps regions where the final spin is high enough to power a GRB jet after core collapse while mass loss stays low. A reader would care because gamma-ray bursts are firmly linked to massive star deaths yet the binary setups that deliver the needed rotation remain unsettled. The simulations single out two period windows where tides win over mass loss, giving a lower bound on final black hole spin for initially non-rotating stars.

Core claim

We find that massive star black hole binaries at comparable mass ratios may be potential GRB progenitors for short orbital periods (∼20 - 5×10² days) and long orbital periods (∼2×10³ - 4×10³ days), where our suite of lifetime simulations reveals a favored parameter space with negligible mass loss and enough spin angular momentum to power a GRB jet. For initially non-rotating stars, this provides a lower limit on final spin above a threshold estimate consistent with forming a post collapse black hole mass of 5-10M⊙ with spin parameter ≥0.5. For initially rapidly rotating stars, tidal interactions may sustain high spin when mass loss is negligible because the binary is not tidally synchronized

What carries the argument

MESA stellar evolution simulations that quantify companion-influenced angular momentum evolution set by tidal torques versus stellar winds.

If this is right

  • Short orbital periods of roughly 20 to 500 days permit tidal spin-up with negligible mass loss.
  • Long orbital periods of roughly 2000 to 4000 days also allow enough spin retention for jet production.
  • Initially non-rotating stars reach a minimum final spin consistent with 5-10 solar mass black holes having spin parameter at least 0.5.
  • Initially rapidly rotating stars can sustain high spin via tides when the binary avoids tidal synchronization and mass loss remains low.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The two period windows may correspond to distinct observable populations of massive star-black hole binaries prior to explosion.
  • Varying mass ratios beyond the comparable range studied here could reveal additional viable channels.
  • This pathway supplies a concrete route by which radio-bright GRBs could arise from binary systems.
  • Adding supernova kicks and common-envelope phases would test whether the binary remains intact through to collapse.

Load-bearing premise

The MESA implementations of tidal torques, late-stage stellar expansion, wind-driven mass loss, and angular momentum transport accurately represent the dominant physical processes for the explored mass ratios and orbital periods without large systematic biases from the chosen accretion or dynamo prescriptions.

What would settle it

Running the same initial binary parameters at the identified orbital periods in a different stellar evolution code and obtaining final spins well below the 0.5 threshold for 5-10 solar mass black holes would falsify the favored parameter space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2405.11028 by Angel Hernandez, Carl E. Fields, Nicole M. Lloyd-Ronning, Roseanne M. Cheng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Estimate of the stellar spin-up in massive star – black hole binary (MS-BH) systems under a range of initial orbital periods and metallicities for an initially non-rotating MS. We give spin angular momentum or stellar spin-up ∆Jspin in CGS units. We consider the parameter space presented in Tab. 1 for MS of initial masses M∗,i[M⊙] = {15, 25} under a range of metallicities of Z = 10−4 − 10−2 and BH of masse… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: MESA simulation results of the final stellar spin-up in MS-BH systems under a range of initial orbital periods and metallicities for an initially non-rotating MS. We compare parameter studies of a MS with initial mass M∗,i = 25M⊙, while varying the BH mass MBH[M⊙] = {10, 15} in left and right columns, respectively. Initial orbital period torb,i is given in units of days. In the top row, we give the final c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: MESA simulation results of the final stellar spin-up in MS-BH systems under a range of initial orbital periods and metallicities for an initially non-rotating MS. We compare parameter studies of a MS with initial mass M∗,i = 15M⊙, while varying the BH mass MBH[M⊙] = {10, 15} in left and right columns, respectively. Initial orbital period torb,i is given in units of days. In the top row, we give the final c… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Focused study of the impact of stellar metallicity on mass loss and final stellar spin-up of an initially non-rotating MS at stellar termination. We show the evolution of a MS interacting with a 15M⊙ BH at an initial orbital period of twenty-one days. Stellar age is given in units of years. We compare simulation results of a MS of initial mass M∗,i = 25M⊙ with metallicity Z = 10−4 and Z = 10−2 in the left … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Focused study of the impact of initial orbital period on mass loss and final stellar spin-up an initially non-rotating MS at stellar termination. We show the evolution of a MS interacting with a 15M⊙ BH with initial orbital periods at four hundred and nine hundred days in the left and right columns. Stellar age is given in units of years. We compare simulation results of a MS of initial mass M∗,i = 25M⊙ wi… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Impact of stellar metallicity on the radial evolution of an initially non-rotating MS in stellar density and rotation. We compare profiles for a 25 M⊙ star at low metallicity (Z = 10−4 ) in the left panel and high metallicity (Z = 10−2 ) in the right panel at an initial orbital period of twenty-one days with a 15M⊙ BH at three stellar ages as indicated by the legend. Radius is given in units of solar radiu… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Focused study of the impact of initial stellar rotation for binaries that are tidally synchronized. We compare simulation results initialized at three stellar velocities (v0, v1, 0.5v∗) under an estimate of the critical limit of stellar break-up of a MS of initial mass M∗,i = 25M⊙ with metallicity Z = 10−4 and Z = 10−2 in the left and right columns. The mass of the BH is 15M⊙ and stellar age is given in un… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Focused study of the impact of initial stellar rotation for binaries that are not tidally synchronized. We compare simulation results initialized at three stellar velocities (v0, v1, 0.5v∗) under an estimate of the critical limit of stellar break-up of a MS of initial mass M∗,i = 25M⊙. In the left column, we show results at metallicity Z = 10−4 at a forty day initial orbital period. In the right column, we… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Binary interactions with negligible mass loss sustain highly spinning MS above the GRB progenitor threshold limit. We show the final mass loss and spin-up for an initially non-rotating and highly rotating 25 M⊙ MS at a range of stellar metallicities and initial orbital periods with a 15 M⊙ BH. The final total mass loss ∆M is given in units of M∗,i and total spin angular momentum Jspin is given in units of … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Final stage radius and mass of single MS under a range of metallicities. We compare results at the end of stellar evolution for MS initially at M∗,i = 15M⊙ (left column) and 25M⊙ (right column) with metallicities between Z = 10−4 − 10−2 . In the top panels, we give the initial stellar radii R∗,i (black solid line) and the final stellar radii R∗,f (red dashed line), both in units of solar radii. In the bot… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Numerical convergence of stellar spin-up and total mass loss at increasing mass resolution. We compare simulation results for binary models of a 15M⊙ BH and 25M⊙ MS at an initial orbital period of three days at three levels of resolution set in MESA at 1.0e-2 (∆0), 1.0e-3 (∆1), and 1.0e-4 (∆2). In stellar age, given in years, we show convergence in the change in spin angular momentum ∆Jspin, normalized by… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Evolution in model number of stellar spin-up and total mass loss at increasing mass resolution. We compare simulation results for binary models of a 15M⊙ BH and 25M⊙ MS at an initial orbital period of three days at three levels of resolution set in MESA at 1.0e-2 (∆0), 1.0e-3 (∆1), and 1.0e-4 (∆2). In model number, we show comparably smooth changes for each resolution in stellar age, given in years, and t… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Although the association of gamma-ray bursts with massive stellar death is on firm footing, the nature of the progenitor system and the key ingredients required for a massive star to produce a gamma-ray burst remain open questions. Here, we investigate the evolution of a $15-25M_\odot$ massive star with a $10-15 M_\odot$ black hole using the MESA stellar evolution code. We quantify companion-influenced angular momentum evolution over stellar lifetime for orbital periods where tides are significant, varying stellar and black hole masses, initial stellar spin, and accretion and dynamo prescriptions while tracking mass loss and angular momentum. Final spin is set by tidal torques versus stellar winds. For binaries that initially avoid Roche lobe overflow, tides can spin up the star, but late stage expansion can drive tidal stripping; associated mass and angular momentum loss can suppress spin up. We find that massive star black hole binaries at comparable mass ratios may be potential GRB progenitors for short orbital periods ($\sim 20 - 5\times10^2$ days) and long orbital periods ($\sim 2\times10^3 - 4\times10^3$ days), where our suite of lifetime simulations reveals a favored parameter space with negligible mass loss and enough spin angular momentum to power a GRB jet. For initially non-rotating stars, this provides a lower limit on final spin above a threshold estimate consistent with forming a post collapse black hole mass of $5-10M_\odot$ with spin parameter $\geq 0.5$. For initially rapidly rotating stars, tidal interactions may sustain high spin when mass loss is negligible because the binary is not tidally synchronized.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports MESA lifetime integrations of 15-25 M⊙ stars paired with 10-15 M⊙ black holes. It varies initial orbital period, stellar spin, masses, and accretion/dynamo prescriptions while tracking mass loss and angular momentum transport. The central result is that comparable-mass-ratio binaries occupy two orbital-period windows (∼20–500 d and ∼2×10³–4×10³ d) in which tidal spin-up can produce a post-collapse BH with a ≥ 0.5 and negligible mass loss, thereby identifying potential radio-bright GRB progenitors; for initially non-rotating stars the runs supply a lower bound on final spin.

Significance. If the MESA tidal-torque and angular-momentum-transport implementations prove reliable for the quoted mass ratios and separations, the work supplies concrete, observationally testable orbital-period windows and a parameter survey that quantifies the competition between tidal spin-up and wind-driven angular-momentum loss. The direct numerical outputs from full stellar-structure integrations constitute a strength.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and the suite of lifetime simulations: the identification of the two favored period windows rests entirely on the adopted MESA equilibrium-tide and dynamical-tide prescriptions; no resolution study, code-comparison benchmark, or sensitivity run varying the tidal torque implementation is reported, so the location of the windows can shift by order unity if those prescriptions contain systematic bias for q ∼ 1 systems.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the runs yield “negligible mass loss and enough spin angular momentum” for a ≥ 0.5 is presented without accompanying error budgets or convergence tests on the final spin value; the reader’s assessment correctly notes that this leaves the quantitative support for the claimed threshold at moderate strength.
  3. [Results (implied from abstract description)] The claim that late-stage expansion can drive tidal stripping and suppress spin-up is load-bearing for the distinction between the short- and long-period windows, yet no explicit test of the Spruit–Tayler dynamo or wind-mass-loss scaling against analytic limits or other stellar codes is supplied.
minor comments (1)
  1. Figure captions should explicitly state which accretion and dynamo prescriptions correspond to each curve so that the reader can immediately map the plotted outcomes to the varied free parameters listed in the abstract.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, providing the strongest honest defense of the work while acknowledging limitations where the comments are valid. Revisions have been made to the manuscript to improve transparency and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and the suite of lifetime simulations: the identification of the two favored period windows rests entirely on the adopted MESA equilibrium-tide and dynamical-tide prescriptions; no resolution study, code-comparison benchmark, or sensitivity run varying the tidal torque implementation is reported, so the location of the windows can shift by order unity if those prescriptions contain systematic bias for q ∼ 1 systems.

    Authors: We agree that the precise locations of the orbital-period windows depend on the MESA tidal prescriptions. These are the standard implementations used throughout the binary-evolution literature, but we recognize that systematic uncertainties for q ∼ 1 systems could shift the boundaries by a factor of order unity. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit discussion paragraph citing the relevant literature on tidal-torque uncertainties and noting that the qualitative existence of two distinct windows is robust to moderate variations in the torque strength, while the quantitative edges remain prescription-dependent. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the runs yield “negligible mass loss and enough spin angular momentum” for a ≥ 0.5 is presented without accompanying error budgets or convergence tests on the final spin value; the reader’s assessment correctly notes that this leaves the quantitative support for the claimed threshold at moderate strength.

    Authors: The quoted statement is based on the direct outputs of the MESA lifetime integrations. We accept that the manuscript would be strengthened by explicit reporting of numerical convergence and error estimates. The revised version now includes a new subsection in the Methods that documents the convergence criteria applied to the stellar models, reports the range of final spins obtained across the grid for fixed initial conditions, and supplies a simple error budget derived from variations in initial spin and accretion efficiency. This raises the quantitative support for the a ≥ 0.5 threshold from moderate to stronger. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results (implied from abstract description)] The claim that late-stage expansion can drive tidal stripping and suppress spin-up is load-bearing for the distinction between the short- and long-period windows, yet no explicit test of the Spruit–Tayler dynamo or wind-mass-loss scaling against analytic limits or other stellar codes is supplied.

    Authors: The distinction between the two windows emerges directly from the full stellar-structure integrations: in the short-period window tides maintain synchronization until core collapse, while in the long-period window late expansion triggers enhanced wind mass loss that removes angular momentum before collapse. The Spruit–Tayler dynamo and wind scaling are the default MESA implementations, which have been benchmarked against analytic limits and other codes in the cited literature. We have expanded the text to reference those prior validations explicitly and to clarify that the late-stage stripping behavior is a direct consequence of the radius evolution tracked in the simulations rather than an additional assumption. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; outcomes are direct numerical results from parameter-varied simulations.

full rationale

The paper's central results consist of outcomes from lifetime MESA integrations over varied initial masses, periods, spins, and prescriptions for tides, winds, accretion, and dynamos. The identified orbital-period windows and spin thresholds emerge as simulation outputs tracking competition between tidal torques and wind-driven losses; they are not obtained by fitting parameters to a target quantity and then relabeling the fit as a prediction, nor by any self-referential definition or load-bearing self-citation chain. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks such as independent stellar codes or observational constraints.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on the validity of the MESA code for binary tidal and wind physics plus standard assumptions about the spin threshold required for GRB jets; several simulation parameters are explored rather than fitted to a single target.

free parameters (4)
  • initial orbital period
    Explored across ranges to isolate the 20-500 day and 2000-4000 day windows
  • initial stellar spin
    Varied between non-rotating and rapidly rotating cases to bound final spin
  • accretion and dynamo prescriptions
    Varied while tracking mass loss and angular momentum transfer
  • stellar and black hole masses
    Varied in the 15-25 M⊙ and 10-15 M⊙ intervals
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption MESA stellar evolution code accurately models tidal torques, Roche-lobe avoidance, late-stage expansion, and wind-driven angular momentum loss for the explored mass ratios
    Invoked throughout the lifetime integrations
  • domain assumption A post-collapse black hole of 5-10 M⊙ with dimensionless spin ≥0.5 is sufficient to power a GRB jet
    Used to interpret the final-spin lower limits

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5849 in / 1581 out tokens · 34886 ms · 2026-05-24T01:07:41.389788+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

106 extracted references · 106 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    1999, NuPhA, 656, 3, doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00030-5

    Angulo, C., Arnould, M., Rayet, M., et al. 1999, NuPhA, 656, 3, doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00030-5

    work page doi:10.1016/s0375-9474(99)00030-5 1999

  2. [2]

    C., & Mathis, S

    Augustson, K. C., & Mathis, S. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 874, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0b3d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0b3d 2019

  3. [3]

    V., & Komissarov, S

    Barkov, M. V., & Komissarov, S. S. 2008, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 17, 1669, doi: 10.1142/S0218271808013285

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218271808013285 2008

  4. [4]

    S., Fragos, T., Zapartas, E., et al

    Bavera, S. S., Fragos, T., Zapartas, E., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2106.15841. https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.15841

    work page arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Beradze, R., Gogberashvili, M., & Sakharov, A. S. 2020, Physics Letters B, 804, 135402, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135402

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135402 2020

  6. [6]

    D., & Znajek, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

  7. [7]

    S., Kulkarni, S

    Bloom, J. S., Kulkarni, S. R., & Djorgovski, S. G. 2002, AJ, 123, 1111, doi: 10.1086/338893

    work page doi:10.1086/338893 2002

  8. [8]

    R., Saumon, D., & Starrett, C

    Blouin, S., Shaffer, N. R., Saumon, D., & Starrett, C. E. 2020, ApJ, 899, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9e75

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9e75 2020

  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]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, 1532, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu995

    Bromberg, O., Granot, J., Lyubarsky, Y., & Piran, T. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 1532, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu995

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu995 2014

  11. [11]

    2011, ApJ, 740, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/100

    Bromberg, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 2011, ApJ, 740, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/100

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/740/2/100 2011

  12. [12]

    D., & Murphy, J

    Burrows, A., Dessart, L., Livne, E., Ott, C. D., & Murphy, J. 2007, ApJ, 664, 416, doi: 10.1086/519161 MESA Modeling of Interacting Binaries25

    work page doi:10.1086/519161 2007

  13. [13]

    L., Lloyd-Ronning, N., & Cheng, R

    Cason, A. L., Lloyd-Ronning, N., & Cheng, R. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 192, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad686d

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad686d 2024

  14. [14]

    2007, ApJ, 661, 1094, doi: 10.1086/516819

    Salaris, M. 2007, ApJ, 661, 1094, doi: 10.1086/516819

    work page doi:10.1086/516819 2007

  15. [15]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1862

    Cehula, J., & Pejcha, O. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1862

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1862 2023

  16. [16]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 5764, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad438

    Lloyd-Ronning, N. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5764, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad438

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad438 2023

  17. [17]

    I., Dewitt, H

    Chugunov, A. I., Dewitt, H. E., & Yakovlev, D. G. 2007, PhRvD, 76, 025028, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.025028

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.025028 2007

  18. [18]

    H., Amthor, A

    Cyburt, R. H., Amthor, A. M., Ferguson, R., et al. 2010, ApJS, 189, 240, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/240 de Jager, C., Nieuwenhuijzen, H., & van der Hucht, K. A. 1988, A&AS, 72, 259

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/240 2010

  19. [19]

    A., & Pinsonneault, M

    Denissenkov, P. A., & Pinsonneault, M. 2007, ApJ, 655, 1157, doi: 10.1086/510345

    work page doi:10.1086/510345 2007

  20. [20]

    G., Langer, N., Podsiadlowski, P., & Izzard, R

    Detmers, R. G., Langer, N., Podsiadlowski, P., & Izzard, R. G. 2008, A&A, 484, 831, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809371

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809371 2008

  21. [21]

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

    work page doi:10.1086/160960 1983

  22. [22]

    2015, A&A, 577, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425191

    Falanga, M., Bozzo, E., Lutovinov, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 577, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425191

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425191 2015

  23. [23]

    W., Alexander, D

    Ferguson, J. W., Alexander, D. R., Allard, F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 585, doi: 10.1086/428642

    work page doi:10.1086/428642 2005

  24. [24]

    2012, An Introduction to Celestial Mechanics

    Fitzpatrick, R. 2012, An Introduction to Celestial Mechanics

    work page 2012

  25. [25]

    1968, Zeitschrift für Astrophysik, Vol

    Fricke, K. 1968, Zeitschrift für Astrophysik, Vol. 68, p. 317, 68, 317

    work page 1968

  26. [26]

    S., Thorsett, S

    Fruchter, A. S., Thorsett, S. E., Metzger, M. R., et al. 1999, ApJL, 519, L13, doi: 10.1086/312094

    work page doi:10.1086/312094 1999

  27. [27]

    S., Levan, A

    Fruchter, A. S., Levan, A. J., Strolger, L., et al. 2006, Nature, 441, 463, doi: 10.1038/nature04787

    work page doi:10.1038/nature04787 2006

  28. [28]

    M., Fowler, W

    Fuller, G. M., Fowler, W. A., & Newman, M. J. 1985, ApJ, 293, 1, doi: 10.1086/163208

    work page doi:10.1086/163208 1985

  29. [29]

    L., & Jermyn, A

    Fuller, J., Piro, A. L., & Jermyn, A. S. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3661, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz514

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz514 2019

  30. [30]

    E., Pols, O

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

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

  31. [31]

    1967, ApJ, 150, 571, doi: 10.1086/149360

    Goldreich, P., & Schubert, G. 1967, ApJ, 150, 571, doi: 10.1086/149360

    work page doi:10.1086/149360 1967

  32. [32]

    F., & Fruchter, A

    Graham, J. F., & Fruchter, A. S. 2013, ApJ, 774, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/119 —. 2017, ApJ, 834, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/170

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/774/2/119 2013

  33. [33]

    F., Schady, P., & Fruchter, A

    Graham, J. F., Schady, P., & Fruchter, A. S. 2019, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.02673

    work page arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.16242, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.16242

    Hamidani, H., Ioka, K., Kashiyama, K., & Tanaka, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.16242, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.16242

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.16242 2025

  35. [35]

    Heger, A., Langer, N., & Woosley, S. E. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 528, 368, doi: 10.1086/308158

    work page doi:10.1086/308158 2000

  36. [36]

    E., & Spruit, H

    Heger, A., Woosley, S. E., & Spruit, H. C. 2005, ApJ, 626, 350, doi: 10.1086/429868

    work page doi:10.1086/429868 2005

  37. [37]

    2005, A&A, 443, 581, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053329

    Hirschi, R., Meynet, G., & Maeder, A. 2005, A&A, 443, 581, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053329

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053329 2005

  38. [38]

    Hjorth, J., & Bloom, J. S. 2012, Gamma-ray bursts

    work page 2012

  39. [39]

    2003, Nature, 423, 847, doi: 10.1038/nature01750

    Hjorth, J., Sollerman, J., Møller, P., et al. 2003, Nature, 423, 847, doi: 10.1038/nature01750

    work page doi:10.1038/nature01750 2003

  40. [40]

    P., Papaloizou J

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

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

  41. [41]

    J., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05876.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.336.1371M 336, 1371 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0209105 )

    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

  42. [42]

    W., Twum, A

    Hutchinson-Smith, T., Everson, R. W., Twum, A. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad88f3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad88f3 2024

  43. [43]

    A., & Rogers, F

    Iglesias, C. A., & Rogers, F. J. 1993, ApJ, 412, 752, doi: 10.1086/172958 —. 1996, ApJ, 464, 943, doi: 10.1086/177381

    work page doi:10.1086/172958 1993

  44. [44]

    Irwin, A. W. 2004, The FreeEOS Code for Calculating the Equation of State for Stellar Interiors. http://freeeos.sourceforge.net/

    work page 2004

  45. [45]

    1996, ApJS, 102, 411, doi: 10.1086/192264

    Itoh, N., Hayashi, H., Nishikawa, A., & Kohyama, Y. 1996, ApJS, 102, 411, doi: 10.1086/192264

    work page doi:10.1086/192264 1996

  46. [46]

    G., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Tout, C

    Izzard, R. G., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Tout, C. A. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 348, 1215, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07436.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07436.x 2004

  47. [47]

    James, B., Janiuk, A., & Nouri, F. H. 2022, ApJ, 935, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac81b7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac81b7 2022

  48. [48]

    S., Dittmann, A

    Jermyn, A. S., Dittmann, A. J., Cantiello, M., & Perna, R. 2021a, ApJ, 914, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfb67

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfb67

  49. [49]

    Potekhin, A. Y. 2021b, ApJ, 913, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf48e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf48e

  50. [50]

    S., Bauer, E

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

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

  51. [51]

    L., Rappaport, S., Clark, G

    Kelley, R. L., Rappaport, S., Clark, G. W., & Petro, L. D. 1983, ApJ, 268, 790, doi: 10.1086/161001

    work page doi:10.1086/161001 1983

  52. [52]

    K., Toral, C., et al

    Kenoly, L., Luu, A. K., Toral, C., et al. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 167, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aced00

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/aced00 2023

  53. [53]

    R., & Pringle, J

    King, A. R., & Pringle, J. E. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2107.12384. https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.12384 26Hernandez et al

    work page arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.08860, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.08860

    Klencki, J., Podsiadlowski, P., Langer, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.08860, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.08860

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.08860 2025

  55. [55]

    1990, A&A, 236, 385

    Kolb, U., & Ritter, H. 1990, A&A, 236, 385

    work page 1990

  56. [56]

    G., Pringle J

    Komissarov, S. S., & Barkov, M. V. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1153, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14831.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14831.x 2009

  57. [57]

    C., Lu, W., Piro, A

    Kremer, K., Lombardi, J. C., Lu, W., Piro, A. L., & Rasio, F. A. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac714f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac714f 2022

  58. [58]

    Kumar, P., Narayan, R., & Johnson, J. L. 2008a, Science, 321, 376, doi: 10.1126/science.1159003 —. 2008b, MNRAS, 388, 1729, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13493.x

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1159003 2008

  59. [59]

    2000, Nuclear Physics A, 673, 481, doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(00)00131-7 Le Floc’h, E., Duc, P.-A., Mirabel, I

    Langanke, K., & Martínez-Pinedo, G. 2000, Nuclear Physics A, 673, 481, doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(00)00131-7 Le Floc’h, E., Duc, P.-A., Mirabel, I. F., et al. 2003, A&A, 400, 499, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030001

    work page doi:10.1016/s0375-9474(00)00131-7 2000

  60. [60]

    M., Kewley, L

    Levesque, E. M., Kewley, L. J., Graham, J. F., & Fruchter, A. S. 2010, ApJL, 712, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/712/1/L26

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/712/1/l26 2010

  61. [61]

    1993, ApJ, 410, 328, doi: 10.1086/172750

    Nagase, F. 1993, ApJ, 410, 328, doi: 10.1086/172750

    work page doi:10.1086/172750 1993

  62. [62]

    M., Rappaport, S

    Levine, A. M., Rappaport, S. A., & Zojcheski, G. 2000, ApJ, 541, 194, doi: 10.1086/309398

    work page doi:10.1086/309398 2000

  63. [63]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac54b3

    Lloyd-Ronning, N. 2022, ApJ, 928, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac54b3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac54b3 2022

  64. [64]

    U., Aykutalp, A., Johnson, J., & Ceccobello, C

    Lloyd-Ronning, N., Hurtado, V. U., Aykutalp, A., Johnson, J., & Ceccobello, C. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4371, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1057

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1057 2020

  65. [65]

    M., Fryer, C., Miller, J

    Lloyd-Ronning, N. M., Fryer, C., Miller, J. M., et al. 2019a, MNRAS, 485, 203, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz390

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz390

  66. [66]

    M., & Fryer, C

    Lloyd-Ronning, N. M., & Fryer, C. L. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3413, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx313

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx313 2017

  67. [67]

    M., Gompertz, B., Pe’er, A., Dainotti, M., & Fruchter, A

    Lloyd-Ronning, N. M., Gompertz, B., Pe’er, A., Dainotti, M., & Fruchter, A. 2019b, ApJ, 871, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6ac

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6ac

  68. [68]

    D., Levan, A

    Lyman, J. D., Levan, A. J., Tanvir, N. R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx220

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx220 2017

  69. [69]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 4338, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2009

    Ma, L., & Fuller, J. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4338, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2009

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2009 2019

  70. [70]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 952, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdb74

    Ma, L., & Fuller, J. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 952, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdb74

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdb74 2023

  71. [71]

    I., & Woosley, S

    MacFadyen, A. I., & Woosley, S. E. 1999, ApJ, 524, 262, doi: 10.1086/307790

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/307790 1999

  72. [72]

    I., Woosley, S

    MacFadyen, A. I., Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2001, ApJ, 550, 410, doi: 10.1086/319698

    work page doi:10.1086/319698 2001

  73. [73]

    Mandel, I., & de Mink, S. E. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 2634, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw379

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw379 2016

  74. [74]

    2020, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 7, 38, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2020.00038

    Mapelli, M. 2020, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 7, 38, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2020.00038

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2020.00038 2020

  75. [75]

    2019, Stellar rotation in binary systems, 9793, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5565258

    Marchant, P. 2019, Stellar rotation in binary systems, 9793, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5565258

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.5565258 2019

  76. [76]

    M., & Moriya, T

    Marchant, P., Langer, N., Podsiadlowski, P., Tauris, T. M., & Moriya, T. J. 2016, A & A, 588, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628133

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628133 2016

  77. [77]

    Matzner, C. D. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 575, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06969.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06969.x 2003

  78. [78]

    Mink, S. D. 2019, Massive binaries, 9793, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.2603594 Moreno Méndez, E. 2014, ApJ, 781, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/3 —. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.14765, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2207.14765

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.2603594 2019

  79. [79]

    1994, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 56, 231, doi: 10.1006/adnd.1994.1007

    Oda, T., Hino, M., Muto, K., Takahara, M., & Sato, K. 1994, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 56, 231, doi: 10.1006/adnd.1994.1007

    work page doi:10.1006/adnd.1994.1007 1994

  80. [80]

    The nature of GRB host galaxies from chemical abundances

    Palla, M., Matteucci, F., Calura, F., & Longo, F. 2019, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.01353

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

Showing first 80 references.