Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Enhanced Mass Loss of Very Massive Stars: Impact on the Evolution, Binary Processes, and Remnant Mass Spectrum

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Eddington-sensitive winds explain the Tarantula Nebula's most massive stars and reshape black hole mergers.

desk verdict A careful implementation of Sabhahit-style enhanced winds with genuinely new binary-population predictions, but the single-star validation is partly circular because the prescription was calibrated to the same Tarantula stars. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10206 v1 pith:NPD6EDC5 submitted 2025-05-15 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Kendall G. Shepherd , Guglielmo Costa , Cristiano Ugolini , Guglielmo Volpato , Diego Bossini , Cecilia Sgalletta , Francesco Addari , Alessandro Bressan
show 2 more authors
Leo Girardi Mario Spera
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords verymassivestarsstellarmasslossEddingtonparameterblackholeremnantsbinarypopulationsynthesispair-instabilitygapTarantulaNebulaR136
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 argues that the standard wind recipes fail for stars above roughly 100 solar masses and that a new, Eddington-sensitive prescription is needed. It implements the Sabhahit et al. enhanced mass-loss rates, which depend steeply on the Eddington parameter and the luminosity-to-mass ratio, into the PARSEC stellar code and the SEVN binary population synthesis code. With these winds, single-star tracks stay hot and compact and spend about 1.6 Myr in the narrow temperature range of observed Tarantula Nebula very massive stars, and the fitted ages of R136a1, a2, and a3 agree with the cluster age, which standard winds cannot do. In binaries, enhanced winds suppress main-sequence stellar mergers and change the remnant spectrum: black hole binaries that merge within a Hubble time develop more primaries above 30 solar masses and secondaries in the 30-40 solar mass range at LMC metallicity. If correct, the standard wind recipe is insufficient for very massive stars, and high-mass black hole mergers can form at low metallicity without invoking extra dynamical channels.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Sabhahit et al. (2022) enhanced mass-loss prescription in its two variants, $\dot{M}_{\Gamma_e}$ and $\dot{M}_{L/M}$, which scale as $\dot{M} \propto M^{0.78} \Gamma_e^{4.77}$, equivalently $L^{4.77}/M^{3.99}$ with a surface-hydrogen or metallicity factor. The machinery uses a model-independent transition mass-loss rate $\dot{M}_{\rm trans} = f L_{\rm trans}/(v_\infty c)$ with $f = 0.6$, empirically pinned at $\Gamma_{e,\rm trans} = 0.42$ and $\log \dot{M}_{\rm trans} = -5.0$ from the Tarantula Of/WNh stars. The code applies the maximum of the Vink et al. (2001) rate and the new rate, automatically switching at the transition point, and this steep dependence is what keeps tracks hot and compact on the main sequence and drives all downstream binary and remnant differences.

What would settle it

Direct measurements of mass-loss rates for very massive stars in the Tarantula Nebula, using X-ray, radio, or H-$\alpha$ emission, that do not show the steep $L^{4.77}$ dependence would falsify the prescription. A second test: the two variants diverge in their dependence on surface hydrogen abundance ($\dot{M}_{\Gamma_e}$ falls steeply as $X_s$ decreases while $\dot{M}_{L/M}$ does not), so a sample of WNh stars spanning $X_s$ from about 0.3 to 0.75 would discriminate between them. A third test would be the same comparison at a different metallicity, such as an SMC cluster, where the $Z^{0.5}$ scaling of the recipe can be checked.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that very massive stars near the Eddington limit lose mass at rates far above the standard Vink et al. predictions, and that taking this seriously reproduces observed very massive star properties and changes predicted black hole populations. Using the Sabhahit et al. (2022) prescription, with a transition mass-loss rate calibrated on the Of/WNh stars of the Tarantula Nebula, the authors compute single-star tracks at LMC metallicity and embed them in the SEVN binary code. The Eddington-parameter-sensitive variant ($\dot{M}_{\Gamma_e}$) fits R136a stars with ages of about 1.3 to 1.6 Myr, consistent with independent age estimates, while standard winds fitting the same stars give implausibly young ages below 1 Myr. In binary evolution, the enhanced winds keep stars compact so fewer stars fill their Roche lobes; stellar mergers become rarer and black holes above the lower edge of the pair-instability gap (about 50 solar masses) are suppressed. The most striking population consequence is that among black hole binaries merging within a Hubble time, the enhanced-wind models yield many more primaries above 30 solar masses and secondaries at 30 to 40 solar masses, a range that standard winds at LMC metallicity do not produce, matching gravitational-wave detections of roughly 40-solar-mass secondaries.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Sabhahit et al. enhanced-wind prescription, including the empirically calibrated transition point (Gamma_e,trans = 0.42 and log Mdot_trans = -5.0) and the f = 0.6 correction factor, is a valid transferable description of very massive star mass loss, even though it was fitted to the same Tarantula Nebula Of/WNh stars later used for validation; if those calibration values are unrepresentative, the observational agreement is not independent evidence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • R136a1's zero-age main-sequence mass is capped near 400 solar masses if it formed as a single star, and near 300 solar masses if a binary merger made it, lowering the implied upper end of the initial mass function.
  • Enhanced winds suppress main-sequence stellar mergers, so merger-driven formation of very massive stars is rarer at low metallicity; observed stars like R136a are more likely single-born or formed through stable Roche-lobe overflow pathways.
  • The pair-instability mass gap's lower edge near 50 solar masses acts as a harder ceiling for black hole production when winds are enhanced: stars that would form black holes above 100 solar masses under standard winds instead leave remnants of about 30-50 solar masses or end as pair-instability supernovae.
  • Black hole binaries merging within a Hubble time at LMC metallicity show more primaries above 30 solar masses and secondaries of 30-40 solar masses, so gravitational-wave events with roughly 40-solar-mass secondaries need not require dynamical formation or hierarchical mergers.
  • The $\dot{M}_{\Gamma_e}$ tracks give self-consistent stellar ages for R136 of about 1.3-1.6 Myr, supporting a cluster age near 1-2.5 Myr and resolving the too-young age problem that standard winds produce.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The difference between the two wind variants offers a ready-made observational test: if WNh mass-loss rates track surface helium abundance, $\dot{M}_{\Gamma_e}$ is the better description, and if they do not, $\dot{M}_{L/M}$ is preferred; the paper leaves this distinction to future data.
  • Extending the same recipe to solar metallicity, where the $Z^{0.5}$ scaling makes the enhanced winds even stronger, would likely suppress the massive-black-hole channel entirely at high metallicity, a consequence the LMC-only analysis does not test.
  • The paper's result that single-star and merger origins give similar current masses for R136a implies that current stellar mass alone cannot identify the formation route; post-merger surface composition, such as helium enrichment, could discriminate, but the authors note they cannot yet model it.
  • Because enhanced winds widen orbits and reduce Roche-lobe filling, the merger rate density of very massive binaries should drop; population-synthesis predictions for gravitational-wave event rates would shift accordingly.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper implements two Eddington-parameter-enhanced mass-loss recipes (Mdot_Gamma_e and Mdot_L/M, based on Sabhahit et al. 2022) into the PARSEC v2.0 stellar evolution code, computes single-star tracks for 100-600 Msun at LMC metallicity (Z=0.006), and uses them to interpret the Tarantula Nebula VMS population, in particular the R136a stars. The same tracks are then incorporated into the SEVN binary population synthesis code to study wind accretion, stellar mergers, BH remnant masses, and Hubble-time merging BBH populations. The main claims are (i) only the Mdot_Gamma_e tracks reproduce the R136a stars with ages ~1.3-1.6 Myr, consistent with independent cluster age estimates; (ii) enhanced winds suppress main-sequence mergers and reduce BH masses above the pair-instability gap; (iii) for merging BBHs, enhanced winds produce more primaries above 30 Msun and secondaries in the 30-40 Msun range, a feature absent with standard winds at LMC metallicity.

Significance. If the single-star validation were independent, the paper would provide strong evidence that Eddington-enhanced winds are required for VMS and would have direct implications for the interpretation of R136a and for LIGO/Virgo source modeling. The paper's strengths are the transparent description of the input physics, the use of public codes (PARSEC and SEVN), the inclusion of rotating tracks in an appendix, and the sharply formulated, falsifiable predictions for BH mass distributions and merger properties. However, the main observational support is weakened by the calibration-validation overlap: the transition parameters of the Sabhahit et al. recipe were fitted to the same Tarantula Of/WNh population later used for validation. The binary population synthesis results remain useful as a demonstration of sensitivity to wind physics, but they inherit the same calibration dependence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.4.2 vs Sec. 3.1 (Eqs. 5, A.4, A.5; Table 3)] The transition parameters Gamma_e,trans=0.42 and log Mdot_trans=-5.0 were obtained by Sabhahit et al. (2022) from average L, v_inf, Teff, and Xs of Of/WNh stars in the Tarantula Nebula, and the f=0.6 correction in Eq. (5) is also metallicity-calibrated. The validation in Sec. 3.1 uses the same stars (R136a1-a3 are WNh stars in that cluster) to conclude that only Mdot_Gamma_e reproduces ages ~1.3-1.6 Myr. This is therefore not an independent test of the enhanced-wind recipe: the tracks partly recover the calibration anchor. The paper should either demonstrate out-of-sample performance (e.g., Arches cluster, or a leave-one-out recalibration), test the sensitivity to f, Gamma_e,trans, and v_inf, or explicitly re-frame the single-star match as a consistency check rather than a validation. This point is load-bearing because the abstract and conclusion state that the enhanced tracks 'match observed VMS properties better.'
  2. [Sec. 2.4.2 / Eqs. (8)-(9) vs Sec. 2.4.1] The new recipes Mdot_Gamma_e and Mdot_L/M are defined by the max() switches in Eqs. (8)-(9), which do not include the Sander et al. (2019) Wolf-Rayet mass-loss prescription, whereas the standard recipe Mdot_rdw does. The paper does not state whether the Sander rate is still applied when a star with the new winds becomes a WR (Xs<0.3). If it is not, then the comparison between 'standard' and 'enhanced' winds conflates two effects: the Sabhahit enhancement on the O/WNh phase and the removal of the Sander WR rate in the later phases. This could explain, for example, why the Mdot_Gamma_e 200 Msun track retains a He-rich envelope (Sec. 3.2) while the Mdot_rdw track does not. The authors should clarify this point and, if Sander is not used in the new recipes, justify that choice or recompute the tracks with it included.
  3. [Sec. 3.1 / Table 3] The paper states that only the Mdot_Gamma_e tracks are consistent with the R136 cluster age, but it does not provide a formal model comparison (e.g., posterior probabilities or goodness-of-fit) among the three wind recipes. Given that the best-fit M_ZAMS for R136a1 with Mdot_Gamma_e is 389(+1,-64) Msun, near the upper end of the grid, a quantitative comparison would also clarify how strongly the data prefer Mdot_Gamma_e over the other recipes. The qualitative age argument is reasonable, but a statistical measure would strengthen the central observational claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2.2] The sentence contains a duplicated phrase: 'to estimate to estimate stellar parameters of interest'.
  2. [Sec. 2.5] In the description of the initial binary population, '10 7 binaries' should read '10^7 binaries'.
  3. [Sec. 3.1 and Sec. 5] The conclusion bullet in Sec. 5 refers to 'the new winds, Mdot_Gamma_e and Mdot_rdw'; this should be 'Mdot_Gamma_e and Mdot_L/M'.
  4. [Table 3 and Table B.1] For R136a2 with Mdot_rdw, the fitted current mass (255 Msun) exceeds the ZAMS mass (240 Msun), which is inconsistent with single-star mass loss; please check the value and the fitting output.
  5. [Sec. 3.1] The phrase 'Our results establish a strict upper limit on the possible initial mass for R136a1 since no models with an initial mass below 300 Msun fit the data' is misworded: the stated reasoning gives a lower limit on the initial mass, while the upper limit (about 390-400 Msun) follows from the best-fit mass and its uncertainty; please rephrase for clarity.
  6. [Table C.1] The caption says 'three different rotation rates' but the table lists four columns (ω = 0.0, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Calibration-validation overlap: the Mdote wind switch is fitted to Tarantula Of/WNh stars and then validated on R136a WNh stars in the same cluster, so the central single-star 'better match' is not an independent test.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 2.4.2 (Eq. 5, Eqs. A.4-A.5, switching rules Eqs. 8-9) then Sec. 3.1 (Table 3)]
    "Sabhahit et al. (2022) empirically obtained the transition parameters of the Of /WNh stars in the Tarantula Nebula to be L/L⊙ = 10^6.31, ν∞ = 2550 km/s, log Teff = 4.64, and Xs = 0.62. For the LMC, the location of the increase in mass loss is thus calculated to be Γe,trans = 0.42, and the transition mass loss rate is log ˙Mtrans = -5.0 ... The analysis shows that stellar evolutionary tracks calculated using the ˙Mrdw and ˙ML/M wind prescriptions predict ages for the three stars that are consistently too young."

    The Mdote prescription enters PARSEC through the max() switches in Eqs. 8-9, which activate the Sabhahit et al. (2022) high-Gamma_e rates precisely at Gamma_e,trans = 0.42 with normalization log Mdot_trans = -5.0. Those two constants are empirical averages over the Of/WNh stars of the Tarantula Nebula. The validation stars R136a1-a3 are WNh stars in the same cluster and populate the same observed Teff band used to define the calibration. The paper's headline single-star result - that Mdote tracks reproduce the R136a properties better than standard winds - is therefore a round-trip through the calibration anchor: the model is rewarded for containing the very stars that set the transition point.

full rationale

The central single-star validation in Sec. 3.1 partially reduces to re-observing the calibration sample: the Mdote transition parameters are derived from average Teff, L, v_inf, and Xs of Tarantula Of/WNh stars, and the stars used to demonstrate the improved match (R136a1-a3) are WNh stars in the same cluster. The resulting HRD/Teff agreement is thus a consistency check rather than a clean out-of-sample prediction. I do not assign a higher score because the ages from the param fitting and the binary/GW outcomes (Secs. 3.4-3.6) are genuinely downstream predictions: they are not fitted to R136 or LVK data, and the SEVN populations respond nontrivially to the changed tracks. Also, Sabhahit et al. (2022) is an external source and not a load-bearing self-citation of the present authors; the PARSEC and SEVN codes are separately documented. The specific defect is the calibration-validation overlap on the same stellar population, with no leave-one-out or independent-cluster check, and no sensitivity scan over f or Gamma_e,trans. Section 4 lists caveats about post-MS winds, rotation, PI-gap edges, and CE physics, but does not flag this overlap. On the 0-10 scale this warrants 6: one headline prediction is partially forced by construction, while the rest of the derivation chain retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison depends on the empirically calibrated Sabhahit enhanced-wind constants and on standard PARSEC and SEVN assumptions. The free parameters that most threaten independence are the transition values fitted to Tarantula Of/WNh stars, followed by the binary and remnant-prescription fiducials. No invented physical entities appear.

free parameters (9)
  • Sabhahit transition Gamma_e,trans = 0.42 (LMC)
    Empirically set from Tarantula Nebula Of/WNh stars (Sabhahit et al. 2022); determines where enhanced winds turn on in Eqs. 8-9, so the later match to Tarantula data is partly calibrated.
  • Transition mass-loss rate log Mdot_trans = -5.0 in M_sun/yr
    Empirical from the same Of/WNh sample (Sabhahit et al. 2022); anchors the amplitude of Eq. 5.
  • Transition luminosity L_trans = 10^6.31 L_sun
    Empirical average luminosity of Tarantula Of/WNh stars used to derive Gamma_e,trans.
  • Metallicity correction factor f = 0.6
    Chosen from Vink and Graefener (2012); scales the transition mass-loss rate in Eq. 5 and has no independent derivation in this paper.
  • Transition inputs (v_inf, log Teff, Xs) = v_inf=2550 km/s, log Teff=4.64, Xs=0.62
    Empirical inputs from the same sample that set the starting point of the enhanced wind regime.
  • Common-envelope efficiency alpha_CE = 1
    Fiducial SEVN choice (Iorio et al. 2023); affects merger probability and BH-pair formation channels.
  • Mass-transfer efficiency f_MT = 0.5
    Fiducial SEVN choice; affects how much mass is retained or lost during RLOF and therefore BH masses.
  • Mixing-length and overshoot parameters = alpha_MLT=1.74, lambda_ov=0.5, Lambda_env=0.7 Hp
    Standard PARSEC calibration choices that set stellar radii and core sizes; not target-specific but influence remnant masses.
  • Initial population distribution exponents = Kroupa slope -2.3, q exponent -0.1, period exponent -0.55, eccentricity exponent -0.42
    Adopted Sana et al. (2012) and Kroupa (2001) distributions for the binary synthesis; shape the BH mass histograms, though the wind comparisons share the same draws.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Standard PARSEC stellar structure assumptions (mixing-length theory, Schwarzschild criterion, overshoot) describe VMS interiors.
    Invoked throughout Sec. 2.3; not re-derived here and affects radii, core masses, and remnant predictions.
  • domain assumption The adopted standard wind recipes (Vink 2001, de Jager 1988, Sander 2019 WR, Vink 2011 Eddington enhancement) are representative baselines.
    Used as Mdot_rdw control; any error in the baseline propagates into the comparison and the binary results (Sec. 2.4.1).
  • domain assumption The Sabhahit et al. (2022) enhanced-wind rates, with their empirically calibrated transition, are valid for VMS in the LMC.
    Central input of the paper; the constants come from the same Tarantula sample used for validation, so this assumption is load-bearing and only partially independent.
  • domain assumption The Fryer et al. (2012) delayed supernova model and the Spera and Mapelli (2017) and Mapelli et al. (2020) PPISN/PISN formalism map pre-SN masses to remnant masses correctly.
    Sets the BH mass spectrum and the edges of the pair-instability gap (Sec. 2.5, Fig. 7).
  • domain assumption SEVN fiducial binary physics (CE alpha=1, f_MT=0.5, Hurley et al. 2002 mass-transfer stability with radiative-envelope donors always stable) is appropriate.
    Adopted unchanged across all simulations; the paper itself acknowledges common-envelope and mass-transfer stability as major uncertainties (Sec. 4).
  • domain assumption Non-rotating tracks are representative for the main results; rotation only modifies but does not dominate VMS evolution for MZAMS >= 200 Msun.
    Main tracks are non-rotating (Sec. 2.3); the argument rests on Appendix C and on cited work, not on including rotation in the binary synthesis.
  • domain assumption A single metallicity Z=0.006 represents the LMC environment for both the field and the binary population.
    The paper states results are limited to LMC metallicity (Sec. 4) and no metallicity dependence of the new prescriptions is tested.
  • domain assumption R136a1, R136a2, and R136a3 properties from Brands et al. (2022) are accurate enough to constrain model ages and masses.
    Used as data in the param fit and in the merger selection; if the mass and temperature estimates are biased, the derived limits shift.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhanced Mass Loss of Very Massive Stars: Impact on the Evolution, Binary Processes, and Remnant Mass Spectrum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NPD6EDC5

@misc{pith2026250510206,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhanced Mass Loss of Very Massive Stars: Impact on the Evolution, Binary Processes, and Remnant Mass Spectrum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NPD6EDC5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10206}
}
abstract

Very massive stars (VMS) play a fundamental role in astrophysics due to their winds and supernovae (SN), and their role as massive black hole (BH) progenitors. However, their origin and evolution remain a significant challenge. Recent theoretical work and observations suggest that VMS approaching the Eddington limit may experience mass loss above the standard wind predictions. This study investigates how enhanced winds influence single and binary VMS evolution, observable properties, and resulting BH populations. New stellar wind prescriptions, sensitive to the Eddington parameter ($\Gamma_e$) and the luminosity-to-mass ratio, were implemented into the stellar evolution code PARSEC v2.0. These updated single-star tracks (100 - 600 M$_{\odot}$ at Z=0.006) were used to model the VMS population in the Tarantula Nebula and integrated into the SEVN binary evolution code. The $\Gamma_e$-enhanced single-star tracks match observed VMS properties better than standard models. Explaining the most massive star, R136a1, through a single-star origin suggests a zero-age main sequence (ZAMS) mass limit of $<$ 400 M$_{\odot}$ regardless of the wind recipe used. However, binary stellar mergers also offer a suitable origin for R136a1 and other observed VMS, potentially lowering the upper ZAMS mass limit by ~100 M$_{\odot}$. In binaries, enhanced winds inhibit main-sequence stellar mergers and limit BH production above the pair-instability mass gap's lower edge (~50 M$_{\odot}$). Binary BHs merging in a Hubble time with enhanced winds yield more primary BHs above 30 M$_{\odot}$ and enable secondary BHs between 30-40 solar masses, a range not found with standard stellar winds at LMC metallicity. This study highlights the crucial role that stellar winds and binary interactions play in VMS evolution and offers predictions relevant for interpreting VMS observations and gravitational wave source origins.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10206 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. HRD adapted from Costa et al. (2025) showing stars in the LMC. The green and gray lines are tracks from Costa et al. (2025), for tracks with Z = 0.006 and the standard mass loss rate. Purple and red stars are from Brands et al. (2022) (red stars indicate R136a) and blue and red dots are from Schneider et al. (2018) (red dots are WNh stars). The dashed pink line and dash-dotted black line show the ZAMS and TAMS, resp… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mass loss rates predicted for different prescriptions as a function of the mass and luminosity for two X S H values, indicated in solid black and dashed gray. The circle and cross markers show predictions based on Vink et al. (2001) and Vink et al. (2011), respectively, and the square and triangle refer to predictions from Sabhahit et al. (2022), (i.e., equa￾tions A.4 and A.5 ). Values are computed with a fixed log … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. HRD showing the evolution of stellar tracks computed with the M˙ rdw, M˙ Γe , and M˙ L/M winds, in blue, green, and pink, respectively. Mod￾els are shown with ZAMS masses of 300 M⊙ (top), 200 M⊙ (middle), and 150 M⊙ (bottom). The data symbols and shaded gray area are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the maximum radii reached for the differ￾ent mass loss rates as a function of the initial mass. The stel￾lar tracks with M˙ L/M have the smallest radii, as they lose their outer envelope and large fractions of mass early in the evolution. Consequently, they typic…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Kippenhahn diagrams of the stellar tracks computed with the three mass loss rates with MZAMS = 200 M⊙. The solid blue and green regions show the H and He burning zones, while the purple hatched region shows convective zones. Solid black and navy lines indicate the tota…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Surface abundances of a MZAMS = 200 M⊙ star for three mass loss rates. The blue, green, and pink shaded bars indicate the time of H, He, and C burning, respectively. and spends the last 10% of its MS as a WNh. This star retains more of its envelope during the MS and ea…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Pre-SN mass (markers) and remnant mass (lines) as a function of the ZAMS mass for the three mass loss rates, indicated by the marker style and color. The gray horizontal lines indicate different fates (DBH, PISN, and PPISN) based on the final He core mass. creasing MZA…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The averaged percentage of ZAMS mass accreted onto the pri￾mary (left) and secondary (right) per mass bin. The bins are 10 M⊙ each. The colors are the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: shows the ZAMS mass distributions capable of re￾producing the observed position of R136a1 on the HRD, from single stellar evolution and stellar mergers. Our binary simula￾tions indicate that systems merging to form more massive stars matching R136a’s HRD position origi…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: BH number counts for BHs formed from stellar mergers (left) and non-merging BBHs (right) for the simulations with M˙ rdw (top), M˙ Γe (middle), and M˙ L/M (bottom). The dashed pink lines indicate BH masses from single stellar evolution. 3.6. Remnant mass spectrum Our …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Primary versus secondary BH masses for BBHs that merge in a Hubble time. The contour plot shows the mergers for binaries with MBH,1 ≥ 20 M⊙, while the distributions show the full mass range of primary and secondary BH masses on the top and right. The solid blue, dashe…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Number counts of BHs from the simulations with M˙ rdw (left), M˙ Γe (center), and M˙ L/M (right). The shaded purple shows the result from single stellar evolution. The dashed pink, solid blue, and dash-dotted green lines show results from binary evolution of single BH…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. FROST-CLUSTERS -- II. Massive stars, binaries and triples boost supermassive black hole seed formation in assembling star clusters

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Star clusters that assemble hierarchically with binaries, triples, or very massive stars produce 10^3 to 10^4 M_sun intermediate-mass black holes within 10 Myr, offering a path to supermassive black hole seeds.

  2. A population study on the effect of metallicity on ZAMS to the merger

    astro-ph.HE 2024-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Assigning individual metallicities to ZAMS stars via a mass-redshift-metallicity relation in COSMIC produces first-generation BBH total masses of 8-86 solar masses and BH-NS masses of 6-31 solar masses at z~4, with su...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * 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.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 061102

    2016

  4. [4]

    D., Abraham , S., et al

    Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., Abraham , S., et al. 2020, , 125, 101102

    2020

  5. [5]

    D., Acernese , F., et al

    Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., Acernese , F., et al. 2023, Physical Review X, 13, 041039

    2023

  6. [6]

    D., Acernese , F., et al

    Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., Acernese , F., et al. 2024, , 109, 022001

    2024

  7. [7]

    Bestenlehner , J. M. 2020, , 493, 3938

    2020

  8. [8]

    M., Crowther , P

    Bestenlehner , J. M., Crowther , P. A., Caballero-Nieves , S. M., et al. 2020, , 499, 1918

    2020

Show all 117 references
  1. [9]

    M., Gr \"a fener , G., Vink , J

    Bestenlehner , J. M., Gr \"a fener , G., Vink , J. S., et al. 2014, , 570, A38

    2014

  2. [10]

    O., Singh , S

    Bj \"o rklund , R., Sundqvist , J. O., Singh , S. M., Puls , J., & Najarro , F. 2023, , 676, A109

    2023

  3. [11]

    1958, , 46, 108

    B \" o hm-Vitense , E. 1958, , 46, 108

    1958

  4. [12]

    A., de Koter , A., Bestenlehner , J

    Brands , S. A., de Koter , A., Bestenlehner , J. M., et al. 2022, , 663, A36

    2022

  5. [13]

    2012, , 427, 127

    Bressan , A., Marigo , P., Girardi , L., et al. 2012, , 427, 127

    2012

  6. [14]

    G., Chiosi , C., & Bertelli , G

    Bressan , A. G., Chiosi , C., & Bertelli , G. 1981, , 102, 25

    1981

  7. [15]

    M., Stevance, H

    Briel, M. M., Stevance, H. F., & Eldridge, J. J. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 5724

    2023

  8. [16]

    S., Stevenson , S., & Thrane , E

    Broekgaarden , F. S., Stevenson , S., & Thrane , E. 2022, , 938, 45

    2022

  9. [17]

    E., Cantiello , M., et al

    Brott , I., de Mink , S. E., Cantiello , M., et al. 2011, , 530, A115

    2011

  10. [18]

    G., Steffen , M., Freytag , B., & Bonifacio , P

    Caffau , E., Ludwig , H. G., Steffen , M., Freytag , B., & Bonifacio , P. 2011, , 268, 255

    2011

  11. [19]

    P., Mathis , J

    Cassinelli , J. P., Mathis , J. S., & Savage , B. D. 1981, Science, 212, 1497

    1981

  12. [20]

    I., Abbott , D

    Castor , J. I., Abbott , D. C., & Klein , R. I. 1975, , 195, 157

    1975

  13. [21]

    2015, , 452, 1068

    Chen , Y., Bressan , A., Girardi , L., et al. 2015, , 452, 1068

    2015

  14. [22]

    2021, , 507, 4752

    Choudhury , S., de Grijs , R., Bekki , K., et al. 2021, , 507, 4752

    2021

  15. [23]

    Choudhury , S., Subramaniam , A., & Cole , A. A. 2016, , 455, 1855

    2016

  16. [24]

    2022, , 516, 1072

    Costa , G., Ballone , A., Mapelli , M., & Bressan , A. 2022, , 516, 1072

    2022

  17. [25]

    2021, , 501, 4514

    Costa , G., Bressan , A., Mapelli , M., et al. 2021, , 501, 4514

    2021

  18. [26]

    2019 a , , 631, A128

    Costa , G., Girardi , L., Bressan , A., et al. 2019 a , , 631, A128

    2019

  19. [27]

    2019 b , , 485, 4641

    Costa , G., Girardi , L., Bressan , A., et al. 2019 b , , 485, 4641

    2019

  20. [28]

    G., Bressan , A., et al

    Costa , G., Shepherd , K. G., Bressan , A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.12917

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    A., Caballero-Nieves , S

    Crowther , P. A., Caballero-Nieves , S. M., Bostroem , K. A., et al. 2016, , 458, 624

    2016

  22. [30]

    A., Schnurr , O., Hirschi , R., et al

    Crowther , P. A., Schnurr , O., Hirschi , R., et al. 2010, , 408, 731

    2010

  23. [31]

    2006, , 458, 609

    da Silva , L., Girardi , L., Pasquini , L., et al. 2006, , 458, 609

    2006

  24. [32]

    de Jager , C., Nieuwenhuijden , H., & van der Hucht , K. A. 1988, Bulletin d'Information du Centre de Donnees Stellaires, 35, 141

    1988

  25. [33]

    R., & Hubeny , I

    de Koter , A., Heap , S. R., & Hubeny , I. 1998, , 509, 879

    1998

  26. [34]

    & Toonen, S

    Dorozsmai, A. & Toonen, S. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 3706

    2024

  27. [35]

    & Toonen , S

    Dorozsmai , A. & Toonen , S. 2024, , 530, 3706

    2024

  28. [36]

    J., Taylor , W

    Evans , C. J., Taylor , W. D., H \'e nault-Brunet , V., et al. 2011, , 530, A108

    2011

  29. [37]

    T., & Timmes , F

    Farag , E., Renzo , M., Farmer , R., Chidester , M. T., & Timmes , F. X. 2022, , 937, 112

    2022

  30. [38]

    E., Fishbach , M., & Justham , S

    Farmer , R., Renzo , M., de Mink , S. E., Fishbach , M., & Justham , S. 2020, , 902, L36

    2020

  31. [39]

    E., Marchant , P., & Justham , S

    Farmer , R., Renzo , M., de Mink , S. E., Marchant , P., & Justham , S. 2019, , 887, 53

    2019

  32. [40]

    S., et al

    Farrah, D., Petty, S., Croker, K. S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 133

    2023

  33. [41]

    J., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., et al

    Fragos , T., Andrews , J. J., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., et al. 2019, , 883, L45

    2019

  34. [42]

    A., & Rasio , F

    Freitag , M., G \"u rkan , M. A., & Rasio , F. A. 2006, , 368, 141

    2006

  35. [43]

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

    Fryer, C. L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal

    2012

  36. [44]

    2018, , 476, 496

    Fu , X., Bressan , A., Marigo , P., et al. 2018, , 476, 496

    2018

  37. [45]

    Gallagher , J. S. 1989, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 157, IAU Colloq. 113: Physics of Luminous Blue Variables, ed. K. Davidson , A. F. J. Moffat , & H. J. G. L. M. Lamers , 185

    1989

  38. [46]

    2013, , 558, A103

    Georgy , C., Ekstr \"o m , S., Eggenberger , P., et al. 2013, , 558, A103

    2013

  39. [47]

    & Mapelli , M

    Giacobbo , N. & Mapelli , M. 2018, , 480, 2011

    2018

  40. [48]

    2023, Physical Models for the Astrophysical Population of Black Holes : Application to the Bump in the Mass Distribution of Gravitational Wave Sources

    Golomb, J., Isi, M., & Farr, W. 2023, Physical Models for the Astrophysical Population of Black Holes : Application to the Bump in the Mass Distribution of Gravitational Wave Sources

    2023

  41. [49]

    C., Cuadra , J., Ekstr \"o m , S., et al

    Gormaz-Matamala , A. C., Cuadra , J., Ekstr \"o m , S., et al. 2024, , 687, A290

    2024

  42. [50]

    & Hamann , W

    Gr \"a fener , G. & Hamann , W. R. 2008, , 482, 945

    2008

  43. [51]

    S., de Koter , A., & Langer , N

    Gr \"a fener , G., Vink , J. S., de Koter , A., & Langer , N. 2011, , 535, A56

    2011

  44. [52]

    Heger , A., Langer , N., & Woosley , S. E. 2000, , 528, 368

    2000

  45. [53]

    D., van Son , L

    Hendriks, D. D., van Son , L. A. C., Renzo, M., Izzard, R. G., & Farmer, R. 2023, Pulsational Pair-Instability Supernovae in Gravitational-Wave and Electromagnetic Transients

    2023

  46. [54]

    Humphreys , R. M. & Davidson , K. 1979, , 232, 409

    1979

  47. [55]

    R., Tout , C

    Hurley , J. R., Tout , C. A., & Pols , O. R. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 329, 897

    2002

  48. [56]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 426

    Iorio, G., Mapelli, M., Costa, G., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 426

    2023

  49. [57]

    2023, , 524, 426

    Iorio , G., Mapelli , M., Costa , G., et al. 2023, , 524, 426

    2023

  50. [58]

    2013, , 21, 59

    Ivanova , N., Justham , S., Chen , X., et al. 2013, , 21, 59

    2013

  51. [59]

    2020, Common Envelope Evolution, 2514-3433 (IOP Publishing)

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., & Ricker, P. 2020, Common Envelope Evolution, 2514-3433 (IOP Publishing)

    2020

  52. [60]

    Josiek , J., Ekstr \"o m , S., & Sander , A. A. C. 2024, , 688, A71

    2024

  53. [61]

    Justham , S., Podsiadlowski , P., & Vink , J. S. 2014, , 796, 121

    2014

  54. [62]

    Kobulnicky , H. A. & Fryer , C. L. 2007, , 670, 747

    2007

  55. [63]

    2015, , 573, A71

    K \"o hler , K., Langer , N., de Koter , A., et al. 2015, , 573, A71

    2015

  56. [64]

    2001, , 322, 231

    Kroupa , P. 2001, , 322, 231

    2001

  57. [65]

    G., Hershey , J

    Lattanzi , M. G., Hershey , J. L., Burg , R., et al. 1994, , 427, L21

    1994

  58. [66]

    2017, , 838, 56

    MacLeod , M., Antoni , A., Murguia-Berthier , A., Macias , P., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2017, , 838, 56

    2017

  59. [67]

    2009, Physics, Formation and Evolution of Rotating Stars

    Maeder , A. 2009, Physics, Formation and Evolution of Rotating Stars

    2009

  60. [68]

    2020, , 888, 76

    Mapelli , M., Spera , M., Montanari , E., et al. 2020, , 888, 76

    2020

  61. [69]

    2023, , 679, A137

    Martinet , S., Meynet , G., Ekstr \"o m , S., Georgy , C., & Hirschi , R. 2023, , 679, A137

    2023

  62. [70]

    J., Paumard , T., et al

    Martins , F., Hillier , D. J., Paumard , T., et al. 2008, , 478, 219

    2008

  63. [71]

    D., Hartkopf , W

    Mason , B. D., Hartkopf , W. I., Gies , D. R., Henry , T. J., & Helsel , J. W. 2009, , 137, 3358

    2009

  64. [72]

    & Hunter , D

    Massey , P. & Hunter , D. A. 1998, , 493, 180

    1998

  65. [73]

    M., Dufton , P

    McEvoy , C. M., Dufton , P. L., Evans , C. J., et al. 2015, , 575, A70

    2015

  66. [74]

    & Heger , A

    Menon , A. & Heger , A. 2017, , 469, 4649

    2017

  67. [75]

    T., Costa , G., Girardi , L., et al

    Nguyen , C. T., Costa , G., Girardi , L., et al. 2022, , 665, A126

    2022

  68. [76]

    & Lamers , H

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

    2000

  69. [77]

    2021, , 651, A100

    Olejak , A., Belczynski , K., & Ivanova , N. 2021, , 651, A100

    2021

  70. [78]

    Petrovic , J., Langer , N., & van der Hucht , K. A. 2005, , 435, 1013

    2005

  71. [79]

    C., & Rappaport , S

    Podsiadlowski , P., Joss , P. C., & Rappaport , S. 1990, , 227, L9

    1990

  72. [80]

    Portegies Zwart , S. F. & McMillan , S. L. W. 2002, , 576, 899

    2002

  73. [81]

    H., Sana , H., de Koter , A., et al

    Ram \' rez-Agudelo , O. H., Sana , H., de Koter , A., et al. 2017, , 600, A81

    2017

  74. [82]

    S., Bossini , D., Miglio , A., et al

    Rodrigues , T. S., Bossini , D., Miglio , A., et al. 2017, , 467, 1433

    2017

  75. [83]

    S., Girardi , L., Miglio , A., et al

    Rodrigues , T. S., Girardi , L., Miglio , A., et al. 2014, , 445, 2758

    2014

  76. [84]

    R \"o pke , F. K. & De Marco , O. 2023, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 9, 2

    2023

  77. [85]

    N., Vink , J

    Sabhahit , G. N., Vink , J. S., Higgins , E. R., & Sander , A. A. C. 2022, , 514, 3736

    2022

  78. [86]

    2017, , 601, A79

    Sab \' n-Sanjuli \'a n , C., Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Herrero , A., et al. 2017, , 601, A79

    2017

  79. [87]

    2014, , 564, A39

    Sab \' n-Sanjuli \'a n , C., Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Herrero , A., et al. 2014, , 564, A39

    2014

  80. [88]

    E., de Koter , A., et al

    Sana , H., de Mink , S. E., de Koter , A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444

    2012

  81. [89]

    E., de Koter , A., et al

    Sana , H., de Mink , S. E., de Koter , A., et al. 2013, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 470, 370 Years of Astronomy in Utrecht, ed. G. Pugliese , A. de Koter , & M. Wijburg , 141

    2013

  82. [90]

    2019, Anchoring mass-loss and metallicity for the WR population in M31 - A prototype study , HST Proposal

    Sander , A., Hainich , R., Hamann , W.-R., et al. 2019, Anchoring mass-loss and metallicity for the WR population in M31 - A prototype study , HST Proposal. Cycle 27, ID. \#15822

    2019

  83. [91]

    D., Fitzpatrick , E

    Savage , B. D., Fitzpatrick , E. L., Cassinelli , J. P., & Ebbets , D. C. 1983, , 273, 597

    1983

  84. [92]

    Schneider , F. R. N., Sana , H., Evans , C. J., et al. 2018, Science, 359, 69

    2018

  85. [93]

    1958, Structure and evolution of the stars

    Schwarzschild , M. 1958, Structure and evolution of the stars

    1958

  86. [94]

    A., et al

    Shenar, T., Sana, H., Crowther, P. A., et al. 2023, Constraints on the multiplicity of the most massive stars known: R136 a1, a2, a3, and c

    2023

  87. [95]

    2014, , 52, 487

    Smith , N. 2014, , 52, 487

    2014

  88. [96]

    & Conti , P

    Smith , N. & Conti , P. S. 2008, , 679, 1467

    2008

  89. [97]

    & Tombleson , R

    Smith , N. & Tombleson , R. 2015, , 447, 598

    2015

  90. [98]

    & Mapelli , M

    Spera , M. & Mapelli , M. 2017, , 470, 4739

    2017

  91. [99]

    & Mapelli, M

    Spera, M. & Mapelli, M. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

    2017

  92. [100]

    2015, , 451, 4086

    Spera , M., Mapelli , M., & Bressan , A. 2015, , 451, 4086

    2015

  93. [101]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 889

    Spera, M., Mapelli, M., Giacobbo, N., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 889

    2019

  94. [102]

    A., & Mencagli , M

    Spera , M., Trani , A. A., & Mencagli , M. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 76

    2022

  95. [103]

    in prep, Astronomy & Astrophysics

    Ugolini, C., Sgalletta, C., Gabrielli, F., et al. in prep, Astronomy & Astrophysics

  96. [104]

    van Son , L. A. C., de Mink , S. E., Renzo, M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 940, 184

    2022

  97. [105]

    & Conti , P

    Vanbeveren , D. & Conti , P. S. 1980, , 88, 230

    1980

  98. [106]

    Vink , J. S. 2015, in Wolf-Rayet Stars, ed. W.-R. Hamann , A. Sander , & H. Todt , 133--138

    2015

  99. [107]

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

    Vink , J. S., de Koter , A., & Lamers , H. J. G. L. M. 2000, , 362, 295

    2000

  100. [108]

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

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

    2001

  101. [109]

    Vink , J. S. & Gr \"a fener , G. 2012, , 751, L34

    2012

  102. [110]

    S., Higgins , E

    Vink , J. S., Higgins , E. R., Sander , A. A. C., & Sabhahit , G. N. 2021, , 504, 146

    2021

  103. [111]

    S., Muijres , L

    Vink , J. S., Muijres , L. E., Anthonisse , B., et al. 2011, , 531, A132

    2011

  104. [112]

    2023, , 944, 40

    Volpato , G., Marigo , P., Costa , G., et al. 2023, , 944, 40

    2023

  105. [113]

    2024, , 961, 89

    Volpato , G., Marigo , P., Costa , G., et al. 2024, , 961, 89

    2024

  106. [114]

    & Baier , G

    Weigelt , G. & Baier , G. 1985, , 150, L18

    1985

  107. [115]

    Woosley , S. E. 2017, , 836, 244

    2017

  108. [116]

    Woosley , S. E. & Heger , A. 2021, , 912, L31

    2021

  109. [117]

    2013, , 433, 1114

    Yusof , N., Hirschi , R., Meynet , G., et al. 2013, , 433, 1114

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.