Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A new long gamma-ray burst formation pathway at solar metallicity

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Stable reverse mass transfer can spin up already stripped stars into long gamma-ray burst progenitors at solar metallicity.

desk verdict The new channel is real and worth taking seriously; the 10-20% rate claim is a tuned scenario, not a robust prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09187 v2 pith:FJMHYSYN submitted 2025-02-13 astro-ph.HE

M.M. Briel , T. Fragos , O.S. Salafia , G. Ghirlanda , E. Zapartas , S. Bavera , J. Andrews , S. Gossage
show 6 more authors
K. Kovlakas M.U. Kruckow K.A. Rocha P.M. Srivastava M. Sun Z. Xing
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords longgamma-rayburstscollapsarsbinarystarevolutionstablereversemasstransferstellarrotationmetallicitydependenceblackholeaccretiondiskspopulationsynthesis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Long gamma-ray bursts are usually tied to low-metallicity massive stars, yet 10-20% of bursts at z<2 sit in near-solar or super-solar metallicity hosts. This paper proposes that stable reverse mass transfer in a binary provides the missing high-metallicity channel: after the initially more massive star is stripped by the first mass-transfer phase, the companion evolves and transfers mass back, spinning the stripped star up near critical rotation. The resulting stars retain enough angular momentum at collapse to form a black-hole accretion disk and power a long gamma-ray burst through the collapsar mechanism, and the channel becomes more efficient with increasing metallicity, vanishing below $0.2\,Z_\odot$. Combining the simulated populations with cosmic star formation and metallicity histories, the paper estimates this channel alone can produce about 10-20% of the local LGRB rate density when successful jets require at least $10^{51}$ erg and the disk-to-jet efficiency is $10^{-3}$, though the rate ranges from 1 to 100 $\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ under other assumptions.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is stable reverse mass transfer in a near-equal-mass binary: binaries with initial mass ratio close to unity undergo a first mass-transfer phase from the primary, then the secondary also fills its Roche lobe and transfers mass back onto the now partially stripped primary. If this second phase remains dynamically stable, the primary is spun up toward critical rotation, and the angular momentum is carried into the helium core by efficient internal transport before the star exhausts carbon. Whether the collapse makes a gamma-ray burst is then decided by a shell-by-shell disk-formation criterion: each mass shell whose specific angular momentum exceeds the innermost stable circular orbit of the growing black hole contributes to an accretion disk, and the Blandford-Znajek jet power with an efficiency factor $\eta_\phi$ converts the disk mass into jet energy, which is compared with a universal $10^{51}$ erg breakout threshold.

What would settle it

Run a 3D collapsar simulation of the paper's example solar-metallicity progenitor (about 25.1 and 23.8 solar masses on a 26.8-day orbit) and ask whether a realistic disk-to-jet efficiency actually drives a successful jet through the envelope; if no jet breaks out, the assumed energy threshold is wrong. Observationally, a bias-corrected measurement of the high-metallicity LGRB host fraction at $z<2$ that lies far below 10-20% would undercut the channel's claimed contribution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a second, stable mass-transfer phase from the initially less massive companion onto the already stripped primary ('reverse mass transfer') leaves the primary rapidly rotating at core collapse. In the model, the transferred angular momentum diffuses into the helium core before carbon exhaustion, so when the star collapses a disk of a few tenths to more than a solar mass forms around the newborn black hole; the Blandford-Znajek mechanism then gives an available jet energy of about $2.6\times 10^{54}$ erg for the example solar-metallicity binary, enough for a $\sim 10^{51}$ erg burst after a $10^{-3}$ disk-to-jet efficiency. The channel is restricted to $Z \ge 0.2\,Z_\odot$ and becomes more efficient as metallicity rises, because solar-metallicity winds complete the envelope stripping needed for angular momentum to reach the core, whereas at low metallicity the primary keeps a hydrogen envelope that blocks spin-up and reverse mass transfer is suppressed. This positive metallicity dependence is the opposite of traditional LGRB formation channels and is what lets the channel explain the observed high-metallicity host fraction.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative 10-20% result rests on the assumed mapping from collapsing star to observable burst — a universal jet-breakout energy of $10^{51}$ erg and a disk-to-jet efficiency of $10^{-3}$ — and if the true efficiency differs by an order of magnitude, the channel either overproduces the observed LGRB rate or cannot explain the high-metallicity fraction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A previously unrecognized binary progenitor population for long gamma-ray bursts exists at solar and near-solar metallicity, with the channel becoming more efficient as metallicity increases and disappearing below $0.2\,Z_\odot$.
  • With a $10^{51}$ erg jet-breakout threshold and a disk-to-jet efficiency of $10^{-3}$, the channel alone produces roughly 18% of the local LGRB rate density, matching the observed 10-20% high-metallicity host fraction.
  • The predicted local rate density ranges from about 1 to 100 $\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ depending on the star formation history, metallicity evolution, and assumed criteria for a successful burst, so the channel is a major source of uncertainty in cosmic LGRB rate models.
  • Most disk-forming systems in this channel produce choked rather than successful jets, implying an order-of-magnitude larger population of low-luminosity or jet-less transients in metal-rich galaxies.
  • The progenitors carry a partially stripped companion of roughly 10-50 solar masses at collapse, giving a direct observable signature -- a Wolf-Rayet-like companion -- that distinguishes this channel from single-star LGRB formation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the channel is real, the observed high-metallicity LGRB fraction becomes a probe of jet-launching efficiency: once magnetohydrodynamic simulations fix the disk-to-jet efficiency, the same fraction will pin down how much of the metal-rich burst population this channel must supply.
  • A direct observational test is to search for the predicted stripped companion around nearby LGRBs and Type Ic broad-line supernovae in metal-rich hosts; a roughly 15-solar-mass Wolf-Rayet companion would strongly favour this channel, while secure non-detections would shrink its parameter space.
  • Because the channel vanishes below 0.2 solar metallicity and grows with metallicity, it predicts that the LGRB host metallicity distribution at low redshift should flatten or become bimodal, a signature that redshift-resolved host samples could look for.
  • The abundance of choked jets in this channel implies that relativistic supernovae with radio or X-ray afterglows but no gamma-ray trigger should be more common in metal-rich galaxies, a rate that current synoptic surveys may be able to test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new long gamma-ray burst (LGRB) formation channel in which a stripped primary star in a near-equal-mass binary is spun up by a stable reverse mass transfer phase from its companion, producing a rapidly rotating, stripped star at core collapse. Using the POSYDON population synthesis code with MESA-based grids at eight metallicities, the authors find that this channel is efficient at near-solar metallicities and essentially vanishes below 0.2 Z_sun, giving a positive metallicity dependence that is opposite to traditional LGRB channels. They compute cosmic rates by convolving the binary populations with the IllustrisTNG star formation history and metallicity evolution, and also with two empirical star formation histories. For a disk-to-jet efficiency eta_phi = 10^-3 and a universal 10^51 erg jet breakout threshold, the channel contributes about 18% of the local LGRB rate density inferred by Ghirlanda & Salvaterra (2022), which the authors compare to the observed 10-20% high-metallicity host fraction. The paper also reports that the same rate varies between about 1 and 100 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 depending on the assumed star formation history, metallicity evolution, and energy threshold.

Significance. If the proposed channel is real, it fills a genuine gap: no previous collapsar formation pathway naturally explains LGRBs at solar and super-solar metallicity. The strength of the paper lies in its detailed stellar modeling: the POSYDON/MESA grids, the public code version, the clear grid slices showing where stable reverse mass transfer occurs, and the explicit discussion of how the physical requirements (mass ratio, period, metallicity-dependent winds) shape the channel. The qualitative prediction of a positive metallicity dependence is robust and well motivated. The quantitative rate claim, however, is not robust: the headline 10-20% figure is a narrow scenario rather than a robust prediction, as the paper's own Table 1 shows a two-order-of-magnitude spread across star formation histories, and eta_phi is a scanned parameter rather than a derived quantity. The paper is transparent about many of these uncertainties, which is commendable, but the abstract and conclusions present the 10-20% result with more certainty than the model supports.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Table 1] The central quantitative claim in the abstract and conclusions—that the channel can account for approximately 10-20% of the observed local LGRB rate—is not robust to the assumptions the authors themselves explore. With the same efficiency eta_phi = 10^-3 and the same 10^51 erg threshold, the Madau & Fragos (2017) and Neijssel et al. (2019) star formation histories give z=0 rates of 1.228 and 0.428 Gpc^-3 yr^-1, respectively, which are about 1.5% and 0.5% of the Ghirlanda & Salvaterra (2022) rate of 79 Gpc^-3 yr^-1, not 10-20%. The 10-20% figure is therefore an outcome of one specific combination of IllustrisTNG metallicity evolution and eta_phi = 10^-3, not a general prediction. Since eta_phi is a scanned parameter and the breakout threshold is an assumed proxy, the abstract and conclusions should be reframed to present the 10-20% as a conditional scenario, or the authors should calibrate eta_phi or marginalize over star formation histories and report a credible range.
  2. [§2.2, §3.2] The mapping from collapsing star to observable LGRB rests on a universal jet breakout threshold of 10^51 erg, which the paper justifies only by reference to 'typical breakout energy' and does not connect to the computed density or angular-momentum profiles at collapse. The authors state in §4.3 that they do not evolve the final evolutionary phases and therefore do not have a representative profile at collapse available. This is a load-bearing simplification for the rate claim, because the breakout threshold and the disk-to-jet efficiency eta_phi are degenerate (§4.1), so the success fraction is effectively controlled by two free parameters. The authors should either derive the breakout criterion from the stellar structure (or justify why a universal threshold is adequate) or present the resulting 10-20% as an illustrative scenario rather than a central result.
  3. [§4.4] In §4.4 the authors state that differences between star formation histories in the local Universe (z<2.5) are 'of a factor of 2'. This statement applies to the no-cut rates; after an energy cut the differences become much larger, e.g. at eta_phi = 5 x 10^-4 the IllustrisTNG z=0 rate is 2.01 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 while the Neijssel et al. (2019) rate is 0.172 Gpc^-3 yr^-1, roughly a factor of 12. The main text should explicitly qualify that the factor-of-two statement refers to the maximum potential rate, since the energy cut is a key part of the rate computation and the authors themselves highlight its strong effect.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains many malformed ligatures in the PDF text (e.g., 'su fficient', 'e fficiency', 'di fferent' appear repeatedly). The text should be re-rendered to produce proper 'ff' and 'fi' ligatures.
  2. [§2.2, Eq. (2)-(3)] The BH spin parameter is denoted a in Eq. (2) and a_i in Eq. (3), while the same symbol is used for the spin parameter in the Blandford-Znajek relation. The notation should be defined explicitly in one place to avoid confusion between the spin parameter and the specific angular momentum j.
  3. [Figures 3 and 4] The legend in Figures 3 and 4 is dense and the colored circles indicating disk formation are small; enlarging the markers or splitting into separate panels would improve readability.
  4. [§4.5] The discussion of the Patton & Sukhbold (2020) explodability prescription is interesting but would be more informative with a brief quantitative statement of how many stable reverse-mass-transfer systems are excluded because the primary forms a neutron star rather than a black hole (e.g., by citing a fraction from the population).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The headline 10–20% rate agreement is a tuned scenario: the disk-to-jet efficiency ηφ=10^-3 is selected because it reproduces the requested high-metallicity LGRB fraction, and with the same efficiency alternative star formation histories give only ~1.5% and ~0.5% of the local rate.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2 (rate calculation; Figure 5 and Table 1)]
    "Given that the inferred fraction of high-metallicity host galaxies is 10%-20%, this requires an efficiency that removes 80%-90% of events. The most restrictive efficiency with ηϕ = 5× 10−4 results in a volumetric rate of≃2.01 Gpc−3 yr−1 at z = 0; with a total of ≃15.0 Gpc−3 yr−1 events below z < 2.5. With ηϕ = 10−3, the reverse-mass-transfer channel rate is around 18% of the latest estimate of the observed cosmic LGRB rate. This is remarkably close to the observational fraction of solar and super-solar host galaxies of 10-20 per cent."

    Equation (2) leaves ηϕ unspecified, and Section 3.2 scans five values. The text explicitly uses the observed 10–20% high-metallicity fraction to infer the required efficiency ('this requires an efficiency that removes 80%-90% of events'), then presents ηϕ=10^-3 as giving 18% of the observed rate and 'remarkably close' to 10–20%. The headline agreement is therefore the selection criterion for ηϕ, not a free prediction. Table 1 shows the same ηϕ with the Madau & Fragos (2017) and Neijssel et al. (2019) star formation histories gives 1.228 and 0.428 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 at z=0, about 1.5% and 0.5% of the observed rate, so the 10–20% result is additionally specific to the IllustrisTNG star formation history.

full rationale

The proposed stellar/binary channel itself is derived self-consistently from POSYDON/MESA models: stable reverse mass transfer, stripping, angular momentum retention, and accretion-disk formation are independent physical results from the detailed stellar grids. The collapse and energy calculations use external prescriptions (Batta & Ramirez-Ruiz 2019; Blandford & Znajek 1977), and the self-citations to POSYDON and Bavera et al. (2020) are code or parameter descriptions, not load-bearing uniqueness claims. The only substantial circularity is in the rate normalization: because ηϕ is neither measured nor derived, and because the text calibrates it to the observed 10–20% high-metallicity fraction, the abstract's quantitative '10–20% of the observed local LGRB rate density' claim is an input-based scenario rather than an independent prediction. The paper honestly reports the 1–100 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 range and the degeneracy between ηϕ and the breakout-energy threshold, which mitigates the issue but does not eliminate the circular selection of the headline value.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical particles, forces, or exotic entities are introduced. The channel is a configuration of known binary evolution. The main unmeasured inputs are the jet-energy efficiency and the breakout threshold, both of which are scanned, and the headline 10-20% contribution is obtained only for one combination of these inputs and one star formation history.

free parameters (2)
  • eta_phi (disk-to-jet efficiency) = 10^-3; scanned values 1, 0.1, 10^-2, 10^-3, 5x10^-4
    Efficiency factor for Blandford-Znajek jet power in Eq. (2). The central 10-20% rate claim is achieved at 10^-3; the paper does not derive this value independently.
  • Universal jet breakout energy threshold = 10^51 erg
    Minimum energy for a successful LGRB, used as a selection cut in Section 3.2. It is stated as typical from jet simulations but is not computed from the modeled progenitors.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Efficient internal angular momentum transport via the Spruit-Tayler dynamo and diffusion approximation, as implemented in POSYDON v2 (Section 2.1).
    The retained spin of stripped stars at collapse depends on how strongly core and envelope are coupled. The paper inherits this prescription from prior POSYDON and MESA work.
  • domain assumption OB and Wolf-Rayet wind mass-loss prescriptions (Vink et al. 2001; Nugis & Lamers 2000) and their metallicity scaling (Sections 3.1.3 and 4.5).
    Wind stripping and angular momentum loss set the metallicity dependence of the channel; the paper notes a weaker Z^0.42 scaling would extend the channel to lower metallicities.
  • domain assumption Batta & Ramirez-Ruiz (2019) disk formation criterion: mass shells with specific angular momentum above the ISCO form an accretion disk, assuming prompt collapse and no wind feedback (Section 2.2).
    This determines which progenitors form a disk and the available jet energy budget.
  • domain assumption Patton & Sukhbold (2020) remnant mass prescription determines which primaries collapse to a black hole (Section 4.5).
    Only BH-forming stars are LGRB progenitors in the collapsar scenario; the paper tests Fryer et al. (2012) alternatives and reports minimal differences.
  • domain assumption The IllustrisTNG simulation provides a representative cosmic star formation rate and metallicity evolution history (Section 2.4).
    The absolute rate and its redshift evolution depend strongly on this choice; two empirical alternatives are also used.
  • ad hoc to paper A single universal energy threshold of 10^51 erg is a sufficient proxy for successful jet breakout (Section 3.2).
    The paper explicitly states this is a simplification and that full jet propagation simulations are needed.
  • domain assumption Initial population assumptions: Kroupa IMF from 7 to 120 M_sun, flat mass ratios, flat log-period distributions, and binary fraction 0.7 (Section 2.3).
    Standard population synthesis assumptions that set the normalization of all rates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A new long gamma-ray burst formation pathway at solar metallicity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FJMHYSYN

@misc{pith2026250209187,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A new long gamma-ray burst formation pathway at solar metallicity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FJMHYSYN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09187}
}
abstract

Context. Long gamma-ray bursts (LGRBs) are generally observed in low-metallicity environments. However, 10 to 20 per cent of LGRBs at redshift $z<2$ are associated with near-solar to super-solar metallicity environments, remaining unexplained by traditional LGRB formation pathways that favour low metallicity progenitors. Aims. In this work, we propose a novel formation channel for LGRBs that is dominant at high metallicities. We explore how a stripped primary star in a binary can be spun up by a second, stable reverse-mass-transfer phase, initiated by the companion star. Methods. We use POSYDON, a state-of-the-art population synthesis code that incorporates detailed single- and binary-star mode grids, to investigate the metallicity dependence of the stable reverse-mass-transfer LGRB formation channel. We determine the available energy to power an LGRB from the rotational profile and internal structure of a collapsing star, and investigate how the predicted rate density of the proposed channel changes with different star formation histories and criteria for defining a successful LGRB. Results. Stable reverse mass transfer can produce rapidly rotating, stripped stars at collapse. These stars retain enough angular momentum to account for approximately 10-20% of the observed local LGRB rate density, under a reasonable assumption for the definition of a successful LGRB. However, the local rate density of LGRBs from stable reverse mass transfer can vary significantly, between 1 and 100 Gpc$^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$, due to strong dependencies on cosmic star formation rate and metallicity evolution, as well as the assumed criteria for successful LGRBs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09187 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A typical example of the evolution of a potential LGRB progenitor through the stable reverse-mass-transfer channel. The initial properties of the binary are Z = Z⊙, M1,ZAMS ≈ 25.1 M⊙, q = 0.95, and P ≈ 26.8 days. In all panels, red (blue) solid lines refer to the primary (secondary) star. The columns are split into five different evolutionary phases, focusing on the mass transfer phases. The second and fourth column… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The specific angular momentum distribution of the mass shells of the primary star in the example binary shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Four grid slices at Z⊙ with q = 0.85, 0.90, 0.95, and 0.99. Orange symbols represent systems where only the primary fills its Roche lobe throughout the evolution of the binary model. Green squares indicate systems where also the secondary fills its Roche lobe, but not at the same time as the primary. Purple symbols indicate systems where both stars fill their Roche lobe at the same time. The type of symbol shows the… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Grids slices at q = 0.95 at Z = 10−3 Z⊙, 0.2 Z⊙, and 0.45 Z⊙. The same symbol and colours are used as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The redshift evolution of the stable reverse-mass-transfer LGRB event rate density for the IllustrisTNG metallicity and star formation history. The total potential population is indicated in black, while the dashed red line shows the intrinsic LGRB rate from Ghirlanda …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The cumulative rate density (R[E > Ex]) within z < 2.5 from the IllustrisTNG simulation split up per metallicity with ηϕ = 10−3 . The vertical line indicates a typical breakout energy of 1051 erg. 1054 erg limit with a ηϕ = 1. For the stable reverse-mass-transfer chann…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The total potential stable reverse-mass-transfer LGRB rate den￾sity over cosmic time from the IllustrisTNG simulation, Madau & Fra￾gos (2017) with a log-normal metallicity distribution with σ = 0.5, and Neijssel et al. (2019) with a ln-normal distribution with σ = 0.39…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The number of stable reverse-mass-transfer LGRBs per solar mass star formation (efficiency) as a function of metallicity. These metallicity bias functions are shown for the two Fryer et al. (2012) (rapid in purple; delayed in green) and the Patton & Sukhbold (2020) (or…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Extreme value distribution for gamma-ray-burst prompt data -- How unexpected was the BOAT event?

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using generalized extreme value fits to 30-day maxima from Fermi-GBM and BATSE, the fluence and peak flux of GRB 221009A are extreme outliers, with median return periods of about 1000 years and 140 years respectively.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

149 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017 a , ApJ, 848, L13

    2017

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017 b , Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101

    2017

  3. [3]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017 c , ApJ, 848, L12

    2017

  4. [4]

    2020, A&A, 641, A6

    Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    2020

  5. [5]

    J., Bavera, S

    Andrews, J. J., Bavera, S. S., Briel, M., et al. 2025, Submitted to AAS journals [ [arXiv] 2411.02376 ]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    & Ramirez-Ruiz , E

    Batta, A. & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2019 [ [arXiv] 1904.04835 ]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    S., Fragos, T., Qin, Y., et al

    Bavera, S. S., Fragos, T., Qin, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A97

    2020

  8. [8]

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

    Bavera, S. S., Fragos, T., Zapartas, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, L8

    2022

Show all 149 references
  1. [9]

    F., & Krolik, J

    Beckwith, K., Hawley, J. F., & Krolik, J. H. 2009, ApJ, 707, 428

    2009

  2. [10]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 43

    Berger, E. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 43

    2014

  3. [11]

    Blandford, R. D. & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433

    1977

  4. [12]

    & Langer, N

    Braun, H. & Langer, N. 1995, A&A, 297, 483

    1995

  5. [13]

    2011, ApJ, 740, 100

    Bromberg, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 2011, ApJ, 740, 100

    2011

  6. [14]

    2012, ApJ, 749, 110

    Bromberg, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 2012, ApJ, 749, 110

    2012

  7. [15]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 93

    Cantiello, M., Mankovich, C., Bildsten, L., Christensen-Dalsgaard , J., & Paxton, B. 2014, ApJ, 788, 93

    2014

  8. [16]

    2007, A&A, 465, L29

    Cantiello, M., Yoon, S.-C., Langer, N., & Livio, M. 2007, A&A, 465, L29

    2007

  9. [17]

    A., Stanway, E

    Chrimes, A. A., Stanway, E. R., & Eldridge, J. J. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3479

    2020

  10. [18]

    & Lazzati, D

    Corsi, A. & Lazzati, D. 2021, New Astron. Rev., 92, 101614

    2021

  11. [19]

    J., Fox, D

    Cucchiara, A., Levan, A. J., Fox, D. B., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 7

    2011

  12. [20]

    E., Cantiello, M., Langer, N., et al

    de Mink , S. E., Cantiello, M., Langer, N., et al. 2009, A&A, 497, 243

    2009

  13. [21]

    W., Eggenberger, P., & Deheuvels, S

    den Hartogh , J. W., Eggenberger, P., & Deheuvels, S. 2020, A&A, 634, L16

    2020

  14. [22]

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

    Detmers, R. G., Langer, N., Podsiadlowski, Ph ., & Izzard, R. G. 2008, A&A, 484, 831

    2008

  15. [23]

    D., & den Hartogh , J

    Eggenberger, P., Moyano, F. D., & den Hartogh , J. W. 2022, A&A, 664, L16

    2022

  16. [24]

    Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., & Schramm, D. N. 1989, Nat, 340, 126

    1989

  17. [25]

    J., Langer, N., & Tout, C

    Eldridge, J. J., Langer, N., & Tout, C. A. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 3501

    2011

  18. [26]

    2024, A&A, 685, A58

    Ercolino, A., Jin, H., Langer, N., & Dessart, L. 2024, A&A, 685, A58

    2024

  19. [27]

    E., Petermann, I., et al

    Farmer, R., Fields, C. E., Petermann, I., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 22

    2016

  20. [28]

    J., Bavera, S

    Fragos, T., Andrews, J. J., Bavera, S. S., et al. 2023, ApJS, 264, 45

    2023

  21. [29]

    R., Vincenzi, M., et al

    Frohmaier, C., Angus, C. R., Vincenzi, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 5142

    2021

  22. [30]

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

    Fryer, C. L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 91

    2012

  23. [31]

    L., Burns, E., Ho, A

    Fryer, C. L., Burns, E., Ho, A. Y. Q., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 185

    2025

  24. [32]

    Fryer, C. L. & Heger, A. 2005, ApJ, 623, 302

    2005

  25. [33]

    Fryer, C. L. & Woosley, S. E. 1998, ApJ, 502, L9

    1998

  26. [34]

    2014, ApJ, 796, 17

    Fuller, J., Lecoanet, D., Cantiello, M., & Brown, B. 2014, ApJ, 796, 17

    2014

  27. [35]

    Fuller, J. & Ma, L. 2019, ApJ, 881, L1

    2019

  28. [36]

    Fynbo, J. P. U., Watson, D., Th \"o ne, C. C., et al. 2006, Nat, 444, 1047

    2006

  29. [37]

    B., Price, P

    Gal-Yam , A., Fox, D. B., Price, P. A., et al. 2006, Nat, 444, 1053

    2006

  30. [38]

    & Salvaterra, R

    Ghirlanda, G. & Salvaterra, R. 2022, ApJ, 932, 10

    2022

  31. [39]

    J., Stanway, E

    Ghodla, S., Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., & Stevance, H. F. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 860

    2023

  32. [40]

    E., & Groh, J

    G \"o tberg, Y., de Mink, S. E., & Groh, J. H. 2017, A&A, 608, A11

    2017

  33. [41]

    D., Quataert, E., et al

    Gottlieb, O., Metzger, B. D., Quataert, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, L33

    2023

  34. [42]

    D., Goldberg, J

    Gottlieb, O., Renzo, M., Metzger, B. D., Goldberg, J. A., & Cantiello, M. 2024, ApJ, 976, L13

    2024

  35. [43]

    Graham, J. F. & Fruchter, A. S. 2013, ApJ, 774, 119

    2013

  36. [44]

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

    Graham, J. F., Schady, P., & Fruchter, A. S. 2023, ApJ, 954, 13

    2023

  37. [45]

    B., Schady, P., et al

    Greiner, J., Fox, D. B., Schady, P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 76

    2015

  38. [46]

    & Valle, M

    Guetta, D. & Valle, M. D. 2007, ApJ, 657, L73

    2007

  39. [47]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 2128

    Harrison, R., Gottlieb, O., & Nakar, E. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2128

    2018

  40. [48]

    L., Woosley, S

    Heger, A., Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., Langer, N., & Hartmann, D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288

    2003

  41. [49]

    E., & Spruit, H

    Heger, A., Woosley, S. E., & Spruit, H. C. 2005, ApJ, 626, 350

    2005

  42. [50]

    E., Malesani, D., Wiersema, K., et al

    Heintz, K. E., Malesani, D., Wiersema, K., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2738

    2018

  43. [51]

    & Podsiadlowski, P

    Ivanova, N. & Podsiadlowski, P. 2003, in From Twilight To Highlight Physics Of Supernovae , ed. W. Hillebrandt & B. Leibundgut (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer), 19--22

    2003

  44. [52]

    2022, ApJ, 931, L2

    Ivy Wang, X., Zhang, B.-B., & Lei, W.-H. 2022, ApJ, 931, L2

    2022

  45. [53]

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

    Izzard, R. G., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., & Tout, C. A. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 1215

    2004

  46. [54]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 212

    Jacquemin-Ide , J., Gottlieb, O., Lowell, B., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2024, ApJ, 961, 212

    2024

  47. [55]

    D., Salvaterra, R., et al

    Japelj, J., Vergani, S. D., Salvaterra, R., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A129

    2016

  48. [56]

    D., Salvaterra, R., et al

    Japelj, J., Vergani, S. D., Salvaterra, R., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A105

    2018

  49. [57]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15

    2023

  50. [58]

    Kawanaka, N., Piran, T., & Krolik, J. H. 2013, ApJ, 766, 31

    2013

  51. [59]

    Kewley, L. J. & Ellison, S. L. 2008, ApJ, 681, 1183

    2008

  52. [60]

    D., Y \"u ksel, H., Beacom, J

    Kistler, M. D., Y \"u ksel, H., Beacom, J. F., Hopkins, A. M., & Wyithe, J. S. B. 2009, ApJ, 705, L104

    2009

  53. [61]

    2022, A&A, 662, A56

    Klencki, J., Istrate, A., Nelemans, G., & Pols, O. 2022, A&A, 662, A56

    2022

  54. [62]

    & Ritter, H

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

    1990

  55. [63]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    2001

  56. [64]

    Kr \"u hler, T., Malesani, D., Fynbo, J. P. U., et al. 2015, A&A, 581, A125

    2015

  57. [65]

    2021, A&A, 656, A58

    Laplace, E., Justham, S., Renzo, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A58

    2021

  58. [66]

    J., Gompertz, B

    Levan, A. J., Gompertz, B. P., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2024, Nat, 626, 737

    2024

  59. [67]

    M., Berger, E., Kewley, L

    Levesque, E. M., Berger, E., Kewley, L. J., & Bagley, M. M. 2010 a , AJ, 139, 694

    2010

  60. [68]

    M., Kewley, L

    Levesque, E. M., Kewley, L. J., Berger, E., & Zahid, H. J. 2010 b , AJ, 140, 1557

    2010

  61. [69]

    M., Kewley, L

    Levesque, E. M., Kewley, L. J., Graham, J. F., & Fruchter, A. S. 2010 c , ApJ, 712, L26

    2010

  62. [70]

    Liang, E., Zhang, B., Virgili, F., & Dai, Z. G. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1111

    2007

  63. [71]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 82

    Lowell, B., Jacquemin-Ide , J., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Duncan, A. 2024, ApJ, 960, 82

    2024

  64. [72]

    MacFadyen, A. I. & Woosley, S. E. 1999, ApJ, 524, 262

    1999

  65. [73]

    & Fragos, T

    Madau, P. & Fragos, T. 2017, ApJ, 840, 39

    2017

  66. [74]

    1987, A&A, 178, 159

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

    1987

  67. [75]

    & de Mink , S

    Mandel, I. & de Mink , S. E. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2634

    2016

  68. [76]

    2017, A&A, 604, A55

    Marchant, P., Langer, N., Podsiadlowski, P., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, A55

    2017

  69. [77]

    M., & Moriya, T

    Marchant, P., Langer, N., Podsiadlowski, P., Tauris, T. M., & Moriya, T. J. 2016, A&A, 588, A50

    2016

  70. [78]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113

    Marinacci, F., Vogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113

    2018

  71. [79]

    Matzner, C. D. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 575

    2003

  72. [80]

    A., McFadyen, A

    Mazzali, P. A., McFadyen, A. I., Woosley, S. E., Pian, E., & Tanaka, M. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 67

    2014

  73. [81]

    & Trenti, M

    Metha, B. & Trenti, M. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 266

    2020

  74. [82]

    D., Giannios, D., Thompson, T

    Metzger, B. D., Giannios, D., Thompson, T. A., Bucciantini, N., & Quataert, E. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2031

    2011

  75. [83]

    & Maeder, A

    Meynet, G. & Maeder, A. 2007, A&A, 464, L11

    2007

  76. [84]

    J., Xu, D., Stevens, J., et al

    Micha owskI, M. J., Xu, D., Stevens, J., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A169

    2018

  77. [85]

    P., et al

    Modjaz, M., Kewley, L., Kirshner, R. P., et al. 2008, AJ, 135, 1136

    2008

  78. [86]

    Q., Bianco, F

    Modjaz, M., Liu, Y. Q., Bianco, F. B., & Graur, O. 2016, ApJ, 832, 108

    2016

  79. [87]

    R., de Koter , A., Vink, J

    Mokiem, M. R., de Koter , A., Vink, J. S., et al. 2007, A&A, 473, 603

    2007

  80. [88]

    D., Eggenberger, P., Mosser, B., & Spada, F

    Moyano, F. D., Eggenberger, P., Mosser, B., & Spada, F. 2023, A&A, 673, A110

    2023

  81. [89]

    P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al

    Naiman, J. P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1206

    2018

  82. [90]

    & Sari, R

    Nakar, E. & Sari, R. 2012, ApJ, 747, 88

    2012

  83. [91]

    J., Vigna-G \'o mez , A., Stevenson, S., et al

    Neijssel, C. J., Vigna-G \'o mez , A., Stevenson, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3740

    2019

  84. [92]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 624

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624

    2018

  85. [93]

    & Lamers, H

    Nugis, T. & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2000, A&A, 360, 227

    2000

  86. [94]

    T., Vergani, S

    Palmerio, J. T., Vergani, S. D., Salvaterra, R., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A26

    2019

  87. [95]

    Patton, R. A. & Sukhbold, T. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2803

    2020

  88. [96]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    2011

  89. [97]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    2013

  90. [98]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    2015

  91. [99]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34

    2018

  92. [100]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10

    2019

  93. [101]

    A., Tanvir, N

    Perley, D. A., Tanvir, N. R., Hjorth, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 8

    2016

  94. [102]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 648

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 648

    2018

  95. [103]

    2010, MNRAS, 406, 840

    Podsiadlowski, P., Ivanova, N., Justham, S., & Rappaport, S. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 840

    2010

  96. [104]

    2018, A&A, 616, A28

    Qin, Y., Fragos, T., Meynet, G., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A28

    2018

  97. [105]

    2019, ApJ, 870, L18

    Qin, Y., Marchant, P., Fragos, T., Meynet, G., & Kalogera, V. 2019, ApJ, 870, L18

    2019

  98. [106]

    R., Oskinova, L

    Ramachandran, V., Hamann, W. R., Oskinova, L. M., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A104

    2019

  99. [107]

    C., Gompertz, B

    Rastinejad, J. C., Gompertz, B. P., Levan, A. J., et al. 2022, Nat, 612, 223

    2022

  100. [108]

    M., Gallo, E., & Fender, R

    Russell, D. M., Gallo, E., & Fender, R. P. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 405

    2013

  101. [109]

    S., Barbieri, C., Ascenzi, S., & Toffano, M

    Salafia, O. S., Barbieri, C., Ascenzi, S., & Toffano, M. 2020, A&A, 636, A105

    2020

  102. [110]

    D., et al

    Salvaterra, R., Campana, S., Vergani, S. D., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 68

    2012

  103. [111]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 23

    Sarmento, R., Scannapieco, E., & Pan, L. 2017, ApJ, 834, 23

    2017

  104. [112]

    S., Sana, H., & Sander, A

    Shenar, T., Gilkis, A., Vink, J. S., Sana, H., & Sander, A. A. C. 2020, A&A, 634, A79

    2020

  105. [113]

    2017, PASP, 129, 054201

    Shivvers, I., Modjaz, M., Zheng, W., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 054201

    2017

  106. [114]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Soderberg, A. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Nakar, E., et al. 2006, Nat, 442, 1014

    2006

  107. [115]

    F., Meynet, G., Maeder, A., Ekstr \"o m, S., & Eggenberger, P

    Song, H. F., Meynet, G., Maeder, A., Ekstr \"o m, S., & Eggenberger, P. 2016, A&A, 585, A120

    2016

  108. [116]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

    Springel, V. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

    2010

  109. [117]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 676

    Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 676

    2018

  110. [118]

    Spruit, H. C. 2002, A&A, 381, 923

    2002

  111. [119]

    E., & Heger, A

    Sukhbold, T., Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2018, ApJ, 860, 93

    2018

  112. [120]

    2018, A&A, 615, A136

    Tanga, M., Kr \"u hler, T., Schady, P., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A136

    2018

  113. [121]

    C., & Narayan, R

    Tchekhovskoy, A., McKinney, J. C., & Narayan, R. 2012, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 372, 12040

    2012

  114. [122]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2010, ApJ, 711, 50

    2010

  115. [123]

    2025, A&C, 51, 100935

    Teng, E., Demir, U., Doctor, Z., et al. 2025, A&C, 51, 100935

    2025

  116. [124]

    2019, ApJ, 883, 147

    Terreran, G., Margutti, R., Bersier, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 147

    2019

  117. [125]

    1994, MNRAS, 270, 480

    Thompson, C. 1994, MNRAS, 270, 480

    1994

  118. [126]

    A., Chang, P., & Quataert, E

    Thompson, T. A., Chang, P., & Quataert, E. 2004, ApJ, 611, 380

    2004

  119. [127]

    Usov, V. V. 1992, Nat, 357, 472

    1992

  120. [128]

    van den Heuvel , E. P. J. & Yoon, S. C. 2007, Astrophys. Space Sci., 311, 177

    2007

  121. [129]

    D., Palmerio, J., Salvaterra, R., et al

    Vergani, S. D., Palmerio, J., Salvaterra, R., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A120

    2017

  122. [130]

    D., Salvaterra, R., Japelj, J., et al

    Vergani, S. D., Salvaterra, R., Japelj, J., et al. 2015, A&A, 581, A102

    2015

  123. [131]

    Vink, J. S. & De Koter, A. 2005, A&A, 442, 587

    2005

  124. [132]

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

    Vink, J. S., de Koter , A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2001, A&A, 369, 574

    2001

  125. [133]

    Vink, J. S. & Sander, A. A. C. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 2051

    2021

  126. [134]

    J., Liang, E.-W., & Zhang, B

    Virgili, F. J., Liang, E.-W., & Zhang, B. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 91

    2009

  127. [135]

    2007, ApJ, 664, 1026

    Wang, X.-Y., Li, Z., Waxman, E., & M \'e sz \'a ros, P. 2007, ApJ, 664, 1026

    2007

  128. [136]

    Wiersma, R. P. C., Schaye, J., Theuns, T., Dalla Vecchia, C., & Tornatore, L. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 574

    2009

  129. [137]

    Woosley, S. E. 1993, ApJ, 405, 273

    1993

  130. [138]

    Woosley, S. E. & Heger, A. 2006, ApJ, 637, 914

    2006

  131. [139]

    S., Fragos, T., et al

    Xing, Z., Bavera, S. S., Fragos, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A144

    2024

  132. [140]

    Xu, D., Starling, R. L. C., Fynbo, J. P. U., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 971

    2009

  133. [141]

    C., Cantiello, M., & Langer, N

    Yoon, S. C., Cantiello, M., & Langer, N. 2008, 990, 225

    2008

  134. [142]

    Yoon, S. C. & Langer, N. 2005, A&A, 443, 643

    2005

  135. [143]

    2006, A&A, 460, 199

    Yoon, S.-C., Langer, N., & Norman, C. 2006, A&A, 460, 199

    2006

  136. [144]

    E., & Langer, N

    Yoon, S.-C., Woosley, S. E., & Langer, N. 2010, ApJ, 725, 940

    2010

  137. [145]

    D., Beacom, J

    Y \"u ksel, H., Kistler, M. D., Beacom, J. F., & Hopkins, A. M. 2008, ApJ, 683, L5

    2008

  138. [146]

    E., Van Dyk, S

    Zapartas, E., de Mink , S. E., Van Dyk, S. D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 125

    2017

  139. [147]

    2021, ApJ, 921, 2

    Zou, Z.-C., Zhang, B.-B., Huang, Y.-F., & Zhao, X.-H. 2021, ApJ, 921, 2

    2021

  140. [148]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  141. [149]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.