Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 83 references

Stellar ejection velocities from the binary supernova scenario: A comparison across population synthesis codes

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ejected companions from supernova-disrupted binaries leave at close to their pre-supernova orbital speed, not at the speed of the natal kick, and this holds across three population-synthesis codes.

desk verdict Solid code-comparison paper: the KH09 correction and the three identified bugs are real, the cross-code agreement is credible, but the abstract overstates the result by omitting the SN blast-wave impulse. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16161 v2 pith:4ERFTURN submitted 2025-04-22 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.IM

Tom Wagg , David D. Hendriks , Mathieu Renzo , Katelyn Breivik This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.IM
keywords binarysupernovascenariorunawaystarsstellarejectionvelocitiesnatalkickspopulationsynthesispost-supernovaorbitaldynamicsKiel&HurleycorrectionGaiaastrometry
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

This paper establishes that when the first supernova disrupts a massive binary, the surviving companion star is flung away at a speed set almost entirely by its pre-supernova orbital velocity, with the natal kick of the newly formed compact object playing only a minor role. The authors test this across three independent population-synthesis codes that use two different kick algorithms, evolving the same representative binary 50,000 times in each code, and find the ejection velocities are centred on the pre-supernova orbital velocity to within about 5 km/s even though kicks span three orders of magnitude. The result matters because runaway and walkaway stars, now catalogued in large numbers by Gaia, are often interpreted as products of this binary-supernova channel; if this paper is right, their measured speeds report the binary's orbital separation at the moment of explosion, not the kick physics. The paper also corrects a missing term in the Kiel & Hurley (2009) kick prescription that had created an unphysical dependence of ejection velocity on kick magnitude, and documents bugs found in all three codes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the near-instantaneous removal of the primary at core collapse. Because typical natal kicks (hundreds of km/s) are much larger than the binary's orbital speed (roughly 10 km/s here), the compact object leaves the companion's vicinity almost immediately; the companion, no longer held by the centripetal force, coasts away at close to its pre-SN orbital velocity. The two kick algorithms compared—Pfahl et al. (2002), a vector derivation built on the Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector, and Tauris & Takens (1998), a coordinate system aligned with the companion's direction—are shown to be equivalent. The paper's correction to Kiel & Hurley (2009) supplies the missing $V_\infty \sin\nu \sin\gamma$ term in the $z$-components of both final velocities, removing an artificial kick-magnitude dependence.

What would settle it

Population-level test: measure space motions of a clean sample of Gaia runaway B/O stars whose pre-supernova orbits can be reconstructed from their evolutionary state, such as companions of young neutron stars with known radial-velocity history. If the ejection velocities show a tail toward hundreds of km/s, or scale with the natal kick magnitude inferred from the pulsar, the claim fails. A single well-constrained disrupted binary with measured companion speed more than 5 km/s away from its reconstructed pre-SN orbital velocity would also contradict the prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: for a mass-transferring binary that is disrupted at core collapse, the ejection velocity $v_{2,\mathrm{postSN}}$ of the secondary star is narrowly distributed about its pre-SN orbital velocity $v_{2,\mathrm{preSN}} = (m_1/(m_1+m_2))v_{\mathrm{orb}}$, with deviations from the mean within roughly $5\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ despite natal kick magnitudes up to $\sim 1000\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$. The same holds in COSMIC, COMPAS, and binary_c even though the codes disagree on the pre-SN state: the companion masses are roughly $18\,M_\odot$, $28\,M_\odot$, and $29\,M_\odot$ for COMPAS, COSMIC, and binary_c, with pre-SN orbital velocities $14.6\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$, $9.2\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$, and $12.9\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ respectively. The authors explain the small residual scatter through the geometry of the kick: strong kicks remove the compact object almost instantaneously, while weaker in-plane kicks can slightly accelerate or decelerate the companion before the compact object leaves, and perpendicular kicks alter the speed least. The paper further claims that its correction to the Kiel & Hurley (2009) equations—adding the missing $V_\infty$ term to the $z$-components of the final velocities—brings that prescription into agreement with Pfahl et al. (2002) and Tauris & Takens (1998), and that the two algorithms yield identical ejection velocities for identical pre-SN input.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that carries the result is that the supernova blast wave does not directly push the companion, so the companion's final velocity comes only from the sudden loss of the primary's mass and the brief gravitational pull of the fleeing compact object; the paper notes that blast-wave impulse and star-ejecta collisions are effects considered elsewhere but not included in the three codes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Gaia-measured runaway and walkaway speeds become a direct probe of the pre-explosion orbital period, because the ejected companion's velocity is approximately the orbital velocity at disruption.
  • The natal kick distribution shapes runaway populations mainly by deciding which systems are disrupted and which stay bound, not by setting the speed of the ejected companion.
  • Results from rapid population synthesis runs that used the original Kiel & Hurley prescription should be revisited; the corrected equations remove a spurious correlation between ejection velocity and kick magnitude.
  • Because the two independent kick algorithms agree for identical pre-SN inputs, remaining differences between codes in ejection velocities can be attributed to pre-SN evolution rather than to kick implementation.
  • The documented bugs in COSMIC, COMPAS, and binary_c mean published ejection velocities from the affected versions may need to be re-derived.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the claim generalises beyond this one representative binary, runaway-star observations become easier to invert: the kick velocity drops out of the ejection-speed relation, leaving the pre-SN orbital separation and mass ratio as the main unknowns.
  • The same near-instantaneous-removal logic should break down for very tight binaries whose orbital speed is a larger fraction of the kick speed; widening the grid of initial conditions could reveal where the constant-velocity approximation fails.
  • A natural extension, not pursued here, is to run the corrected kick routines over full galactic populations and compare the predicted runaway velocity distribution directly with Gaia tangential velocities as a function of spectral type.
  • Because blast-wave impulse and star-compact-object collisions are excluded from all three codes, the narrow velocity prediction is only established for the wide, post-mass-transfer binaries of this study; hydrodynamical tests would show whether close binaries behave differently.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses three open-source binary population synthesis codes (COSMIC, COMPAS, binary_c) to evolve a representative massive binary (m1=20 Msun, m2=15 Msun, P=100 d, e=0, Z=0.02) 50,000 times with different natal kicks, applying a common kick magnitude distribution and a common remnant mass prescription. It finds that, across the three codes, the ejection velocities of companion stars from binaries disrupted by the first supernova are tightly clustered around the pre-SN orbital velocity of the companion, with a scatter of only a few km/s despite kicks spanning three orders of magnitude. The paper explains the residual dependence of the ejection velocity on kick direction and magnitude, reports and corrects a missing term in the Kiel & Hurley (2009) derivation, and documents bugs found in all three codes. It concludes that the code implementations are consistent and that companion ejection velocities are primarily set by the pre-SN orbital velocity.

Significance. The paper is a valuable cross-validation of three widely used population synthesis codes and has already led to concrete, publicly documented bug fixes in each of them. It is reproducible in spirit: the data and code are released on Zenodo and GitHub, the test uses 50,000 kick realizations per code, and the input physics is homogenized as far as is practical. The KH09 correction is practically important for interpreting older COSMIC results, and the geometric explanation in Section 3.3 is clear. If the central claim is accepted after appropriate qualification, it simplifies the interpretation of Gaia-era runaway-star velocities from the binary supernova scenario. The main caveat is that the claim, as written, is broader than the physics actually modeled by the three codes.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §1; §3.2; §5] The central claim that ejection velocities of disrupted companions are narrowly distributed about their pre-SN orbital velocity is stated without the caveat that only instantaneous mass loss plus a natal kick to the compact object is modeled. Section 1 explicitly lists the SN blast-wave impulse on the secondary (Liu et al. 2015; Hirai et al. 2018; Ogata et al. 2021; Wong et al. 2024) and collisions as effects considered in other works, but none of the three codes include those effects. For the particular representative binary the post-mass-transfer separation is large (P ≈ 555–800 d), so ejecta–companion interaction is plausibly negligible for this system; however, the abstract and Section 5 present the narrow distribution as a property of the binary supernova scenario generally. The authors should either qualify the claim to “in the absence of SN ejecta–companion interactions” or quantitatively estimate the blast-wave contribution for the range of post-mass-transfer separations that produce disrupted binaries. As written, the unqualified claim may mislead the interpretation of runaway-star observations.
  2. [§2.2; §3.2; §5] The quantitative support for the population-level claim rests on a single initial binary. The “within ~5 km/s” scatter is measured for one representative system, and the three codes evolve it to a fairly narrow range of pre-SN configurations (v2,preSN between about 9 and 15 km/s). The analytic discussion in §3.3 is general, but the quantitative statement in the abstract is not. To make the central claim robust, the authors should either show that the result holds across a grid of initial masses, periods, and metallicities, especially for systems with smaller post-mass-transfer separations where the compact object remains in the system longer and where blast-wave effects are stronger, or explicitly restrict the claim to the representative system.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption contains a duplicated word: “each main panel shows shows the difference” should read “each main panel shows the difference”.
  2. [§3.3] The sentence “For a compact object that is ahead of the direction of the companion, its will pull the companion towards it” appears to be missing a noun; “its” should be “its gravity” or “it”.
  3. [§3.3] The phrase “These kicks can effect a greater change” should use “affect” rather than “effect”.
  4. [§1; §2.1] There are two distinct 2002 papers by Pfahl et al. in the reference list, but the text cites “Pfahl et al. 2002” without distinguishing which one is intended; the authors should disambiguate these citations.
  5. [§4, Eqs. (3) and (4)] The variables ν and γ in the corrected KH09 equations are not re-defined in the text, so a reader must consult KH09’s Figure 2 to verify the sign convention; a brief sentence defining these angles would make the correction self-contained.
  6. [§5] The exact versions of COSMIC and binary_c used for the simulations are not stated as explicitly as the COMPAS version (v3.01.10); giving the exact version numbers would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is a cross-code comparison using two independent kick algorithms, with no fitted parameter or self-citation chain forcing the result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that ejection velocities of disrupted secondary stars are narrowly distributed about the pre-SN orbital velocity, is not forced by construction. The three codes implement two independent kick algorithms (Pfahl et al. 2002 and Tauris & Takens 1998), and while the authors enforce consistent kick magnitudes and remnant masses to isolate algorithmic differences, they fit no parameter to the ejection velocities. The agreement in Figure 2 is an emergent output of the codes, not an input. The correction to Kiel & Hurley (2009) is derived by restoring a missing V-infinity term in the z-component of the final velocity, and the corrected result is checked against the two other, independent methods, so the correction does not reduce to the paper's anticipated conclusion. Self-citations appear mainly for code papers (COSMIC, binary_c, cogsworth) and software tools, and none carries the load of a uniqueness claim or a forbidden alternative. The noted neglect of SN blast-wave impulse on the companion is a physical assumption and a limitation, but it is not a circular step: the paper's comparison is internal consistency among codes under that shared assumption, not an attempt to derive that assumption from the ejection-velocity result. No step in the derivation chain equates the prediction to its input by definition, and no fitted value is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters were fitted in this paper. The central claim relies on standard population-synthesis assumptions listed above; all are inputs from the literature or domain conventions, not derived here.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Supernova mass loss and natal kick are instantaneous compared to the orbital period.
    All three codes apply the instantaneous SN approximation; the derivation of post-SN velocities in Section 3 and the KH09 correction in Section 4 assume this.
  • domain assumption Post-mass-transfer binaries are circularized at periastron separation.
    Section 3.2 states that any post-mass-transfer system is typically assumed circularized, which sets the orbital velocity via Eqs. (1) and (2) and the geometry used in Figure 3.
  • domain assumption Natal kick magnitudes follow a Maxwellian with sigma = 265 km/s and isotropic directions.
    Sections 2.1 and 2.2 fix this distribution for all codes; it is an input from Hobbs et al. (2005), not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The SN blast wave does not impart significant momentum to the companion star; only gravitational effects and the kick on the compact object matter.
    Section 1 lists blast-wave impulse and collisions as additional effects considered in other works, but they are not included in the three codes; the central claim about ejection velocity depends on their neglect.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stellar ejection velocities from the binary supernova scenario: A comparison across population synthesis codes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4ERFTURN

@misc{pith2026250416161,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stellar ejection velocities from the binary supernova scenario: A comparison across population synthesis codes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4ERFTURN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16161}
}
read the original abstract

The vast majority of binary systems are disrupted at the moment of the first supernova, resulting in an unbound compact object and companion star. These ejected companion stars contribute to the observed population of runaway stars. Therefore, an understanding of their ejection velocities is essential to interpreting observations, particularly in the Gaia era of high-precision astronomy. We present a comparison of the predicted ejection velocities of disrupted binary companions in three different population synthesis codes: COSMIC, COMPAS, and binary_c, which use two independent algorithms for the treatment of natal kicks. We confirm that, despite the codes producing different pre-supernova evolution from the same initial conditions, they each find the ejection velocities of secondary stars from disrupted binaries are narrowly distributed about their pre-supernova orbital velocity. We additionally include a correction to the derivation included in Kiel & Hurley 2009 that brings it into agreement with methods from other works for determining post-supernova binary orbital parameters. During this comparison, we identified and resolved bugs in the kick prescriptions of \textit{all three} codes we considered, highlighting how open-science practices and code comparisons are essential for addressing implementation issues.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    2011, Computing in Science Engineering, 13, 31, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2010.118 Belczy´ nski, K., & Bulik, T

    Behnel, S., Bradshaw, R., Citro, C., et al. 2011, Computing in Science Engineering, 13, 31, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2010.118 Belczy´ nski, K., & Bulik, T. 1999, A&A, 346, 91, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9901193

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9901193 2011

  3. [3]

    A., et al

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

    doi:10.1086/521026 2008

  4. [4]

    1961, Bull

    Blaauw, A. 1961, Bull. Astron. Inst. Netherlands, 15, 265

    1961

  5. [5]

    1961, Bull

    Boersma, J. 1961, Bull. Astron. Inst. Netherlands, 15, 291

    1961

  6. [6]

    1995, MNRAS, 274, 461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/274.2.461

    Brandt, N., & Podsiadlowski, P. 1995, MNRAS, 274, 461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/274.2.461

    doi:10.1093/mnras/274.2.461 1995

  7. [7]

    C., & Eldridge, J

    Bray, J. C., & Eldridge, J. J. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3747, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1275

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1275 2016

  8. [8]

    Breivik, K., Chatterjee, S., & Larson, S. L. 2017, ApJ, 850, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa97d5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa97d5 2017

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

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

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

    doi

  2. [10]

    S., Berger, E., Stevenson, S., et al

    Broekgaarden, F. S., Berger, E., Stevenson, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5737, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1677

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    1996, Phys

    Burrows, A., & Hayes, J. 1996, Phys. Rev. Lett., 76, 352, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.352

    1996 doi

  4. [12]

    Burrows, A., Wang, T., Vartanyan, D., & Coleman, M. S. B. 2024, ApJ, 963, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2353

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Carretero-Castrillo, M., Rib´ o, M., & Paredes, J. M. 2023, A&A, 679, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346613

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Coleman, M. S. B., & Burrows, A. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 3938, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2573 1https://github.com/COSMIC-PopSynth/COSMIC/pull/678 2https://github.com/TeamCOMPAS/COMPAS/pull/1290 3https://gitlab.com/binary_c/binary_c/-/commit/ fba20687984e9cfb46bc38838d07655bfc99c6e5 4ht...

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    2013, Python and HDF5 (O’Reilly)

    Collette, A. 2013, Python and HDF5 (O’Reilly)

    2013

  8. [16]

    A., et al

    Collette, A., Kluyver, T., Caswell, T. A., et al. 2023, h5py/h5py: 3.8.0, 3.8.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7560547

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 3838, doi: 10.21105/joss.03838

    Compas, T., Riley, J., Agrawal, P., et al. 2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 3838, doi: 10.21105/joss.03838

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, COSMIC-PopSynth/COSMIC: Hot fix for pypi install, v3.4.17, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13854578 da Costa-Luis, C., Larroque, S

    Coughlin, S., Breivik, K., Zevin, M., et al. 2024, COSMIC-PopSynth/COSMIC: Hot fix for pypi install, v3.4.17, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13854578 da Costa-Luis, C., Larroque, S. K., Altendorf, K., et al. 2024, tqdm: A fast, Extensible Progress Bar for Python and CLI, v4.66.5,...

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    B., Benz, W., & Hills, J

    Davies, M. B., Benz, W., & Hills, J. G. 1992, ApJ, 401, 246, doi: 10.1086/172056 De Donder, E., Vanbeveren, D., & van Bever, J. 1997, A&A, 318, 812

    1992 doi

  12. [20]

    J., & Cordes, J

    Dewey, R. J., & Cordes, J. M. 1987, ApJ, 321, 780, doi: 10.1086/165671

    1987 doi

  13. [21]

    2013, ApJ, 779, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/72 Dorigo Jones, J., Oey, M

    Dominik, M., Belczynski, K., Fryer, C., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/72 Dorigo Jones, J., Oey, M. S., Paggeot, K., Castro, N., & Moe, M. 2020, ApJ, 903, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbc6b

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

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

    Eldridge, J. J., Langer, N., & Tout, C. A. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 3501, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18650.x

    2011

  15. [23]

    P., & van den Heuvel, E

    Flannery, B. P., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1975, A&A, 39, 61

    1975

  16. [24]

    1998, ApJ, 496, 333, doi: 10.1086/305348

    Fryer, C., Burrows, A., & Benz, W. 1998, ApJ, 496, 333, doi: 10.1086/305348

    1998 doi

  17. [25]

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

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

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    2024, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.14.1, v1.14.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13352243

    Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Haberland, M., et al. 2024, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.14.1, v1.14.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13352243

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    E., & Ostriker, J

    Gunn, J. E., & Ostriker, J. P. 1970, ApJ, 160, 979, doi: 10.1086/150487

    1970 doi

  20. [28]

    Hansen, B. M. S., & Phinney, E. S. 1997, MNRAS, 291, 569, doi: 10.1093/mnras/291.3.569

    1997 doi

  21. [29]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 4642, doi: 10.21105/joss.04642

    Hendriks, D., & Izzard, R. 2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 4642, doi: 10.21105/joss.04642

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    Hills, J. G. 1983, ApJ, 267, 322, doi: 10.1086/160871 8

    1983 doi

  24. [32]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 4544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3007

    Hirai, R., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3007

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    2018, ApJ, 864, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6a0

    Hirai, R., Podsiadlowski, P., & Yamada, S. 2018, ApJ, 864, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6a0

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    R., Lyne, A

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

    2005

  27. [35]

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

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

    R., Pols, O

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

    2000

  29. [37]

    R., Tout, C

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x

    2002

  30. [38]

    Igoshev, A. P. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa958

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    G., Dray, L

    Izzard, R. G., Dray, L. M., Karakas, A. I., Lugaro, M., & Tout, C. A. 2006, A&A, 460, 565, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066129

    2006 doi

  32. [40]

    G., Glebbeek, E., Stancliffe, R

    Izzard, R. G., Glebbeek, E., Stancliffe, R. J., & Pols, O. R. 2009, A&A, 508, 1359, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912827

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    G., & Jermyn, A

    Izzard, R. G., & Jermyn, A. S. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 35, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2899

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    G., Preece, H., Jofre, P., et al

    Izzard, R. G., Preece, H., Jofre, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 2984, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2355

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    G., Tout, C

    Izzard, R. G., Tout, C. A., Karakas, A. I., & Pols, O. R. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 407, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07446.x

    2004

  36. [44]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 1355, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1106 —

    Janka, H.-T. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 1355, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1106 —. 2017, ApJ, 837, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa618e

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    T., & Mueller, E

    Janka, H. T., & Mueller, E. 1994, A&A, 290, 496

    1994

  38. [46]

    1996, ApJ, 471, 352, doi: 10.1086/177974

    Kalogera, V. 1996, ApJ, 471, 352, doi: 10.1086/177974

    1996 doi

  39. [47]

    D., & Hurley, J

    Kiel, P. D., & Hurley, J. R. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 2326, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14711.x

    2009

  40. [48]

    1967, ZAp, 65, 251

    Kippenhahn, R., & Weigert, A. 1967, ZAp, 65, 251

    1967

  41. [49]

    2016, in ELPUB, 87–90

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., P´ erez, F., et al. 2016, in ELPUB, 87–90

    2016

  42. [50]

    C., Lu, W., Piro, A

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

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    M., R¨ opke, F

    Liu, Z.-W., Tauris, T. M., R¨ opke, F. K., et al. 2015, A&A, 584, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526757

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    G., & Lorimer, D

    Lyne, A. G., & Lorimer, D. R. 1994, Nature, 369, 127, doi: 10.1038/369127a0

    1994 doi

  45. [53]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 3214, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3043 O’Connor, E., Bollig, R., Burrows, A., et al

    Mandel, I., & M¨ uller, B. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 3214, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3043 O’Connor, E., Bollig, R., Burrows, A., et al. 2018, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 45, 104001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/aadeae

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 2485, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1439 pandas development team, T

    Ogata, M., Hirai, R., & Hijikawa, K. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 2485, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1439 pandas development team, T. 2024, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, v2.2.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13819579

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    Perez, F., & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53

    2007 doi

  48. [56]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 573, 283, doi: 10.1086/340494

    Pfahl, E., Rappaport, S., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 573, 283, doi: 10.1086/340494

    2002 doi

  49. [57]

    2002, ApJ, 574, 364, doi: 10.1086/340794

    Pfahl, E., Rappaport, S., Podsiadlowski, P., & Spruit, H. 2002, ApJ, 574, 364, doi: 10.1086/340794

    2002 doi

  50. [58]

    T., Caputo, D

    Pijloo, J. T., Caputo, D. P., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2914, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21431.x

    2012

  51. [59]

    Podsiadlowski, P., Langer, N., Poelarends, A. J. T., et al. 2004, ApJ, 612, 1044, doi: 10.1086/421713

    2004 doi

  52. [60]

    1967, Boletin de los Observatorios Tonantzintla y Tacubaya, 4, 86

    Poveda, A., Ruiz, J., & Allen, C. 1967, Boletin de los Observatorios Tonantzintla y Tacubaya, 4, 86

    1967

  53. [61]

    M., & Foreman-Mackey, D

    Price-Whelan, A. M., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, doi: 10.21105/joss.00357

    2017 doi

  54. [62]

    E., et al

    Renzo, M., Zapartas, E., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833297

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    H., H´ enault-Brunet, V., et al

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

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    T., & M¨ uller, E

    Scheck, L., Kifonidis, K., Janka, H. T., & M¨ uller, E. 2006, A&A, 457, 963, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064855

    2006 doi

  57. [65]

    Shklovskii, I. S. 1970, Soviet Ast., 13, 562

    1970

  58. [66]

    1978, Ap&SS, 54, 479, doi: 10.1007/BF00639450

    Sutantyo, W. 1978, Ap&SS, 54, 479, doi: 10.1007/BF00639450

    1978 doi

  59. [67]

    Tauris, T. M. 2015, MNRAS, 448, L6, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu189

    2015 doi

  60. [68]

    M., Fender, R

    Tauris, T. M., Fender, R. P., van den Heuvel, E. P. J., Johnston, H. M., & Wu, K. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 1165, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.03068.x

    1999

  61. [69]

    M., & Takens, R

    Tauris, T. M., & Takens, R. J. 1998, A&A, 330, 1047 Team COMPAS: Riley, J., Agrawal, P., Barrett, J. W., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac416c

    1998 doi

  62. [70]

    Toonen, S., Claeys, J. S. W., Mennekens, N., & Ruiter, A. J. 2014, A&A, 562, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321576 van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1969, AJ, 74, 1095, doi: 10.1086/110909 Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace) V...

    2014 doi

  63. [71]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    2025a, The Journal of Open Source Software, 10, 7400, doi: 10.21105/joss.07400

    Wagg, T., Breivik, K., Renzo, M., & Price-Whelan, A. 2025a, The Journal of Open Source Software, 10, 7400, doi: 10.21105/joss.07400

    doi

  65. [73]

    Wagg, T., Breivik, K., Renzo, M., & Price-Whelan, A. M. 2025b, ApJS, 276, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad8b1f

    doi

  66. [74]

    2024, TomWagg/software-citation-station: v1.2, v1.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13225824

    Wagg, T., Broekgaarden, F., & G¨ ultekin, K. 2024, TomWagg/software-citation-station: v1.2, v1.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13225824

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    Wagg, T., & Broekgaarden, F. S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.04405. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04405

    2024

  68. [76]

    S., de Mink, S

    Wagg, T., Broekgaarden, F. S., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8675

    2022 doi

  69. [77]

    J., Renzo, M., et al

    Wagg, T., Dalcanton, J. J., Renzo, M., et al. 2025c, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.17903, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.17903

    doi arXiv

  70. [78]

    Waskom, M. L. 2021, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3021, doi: 10.21105/joss.03021 Wes McKinney. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. St´ efan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2021 doi

  71. [79]

    2000, ApJ, 528, 401, doi: 10.1086/308148

    Wex, N., Kalogera, V., & Kramer, M. 2000, ApJ, 528, 401, doi: 10.1086/308148

    2000 doi

  72. [80]

    Wijers, R. A. M. J., van Paradijs, J., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1992, A&A, 261, 145

    1992

  73. [81]

    Wong, T. L. S., White, C. J., & Bildsten, L. 2024, ApJ, 973, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a11

    2024 doi

  74. [82]

    2012, ApJ, 747, 111, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/111

    Wong, T.-W., Valsecchi, F., Fragos, T., & Kalogera, V. 2012, ApJ, 747, 111, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/111

    2012 doi

  75. [83]

    T., & M¨ uller, E

    Wongwathanarat, A., Janka, H. T., & M¨ uller, E. 2013, A&A, 552, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220636 This paper was built using the Open Journal of As- trophysics LATEX template. The OJA is a journal which provides fast and easy peer review for new papers in the astro-ph se...

    2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.