Formation of heavy double neutron stars I: Eddington-limited accretion for a 1.4 $M_{\odot}$ neutron star at solar metallicity

Ashwathi Nair; Simon Stevenson

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Formation of heavy double neutron stars I: Eddington-limited accretion for a 1.4 $M_{\odot}$ neutron star at solar metallicity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Heavy double neutron stars are not produced by unstable mass transfer, according to a 338-model binary grid.

desk verdict A solid MESA grid and calibrated population model showing heavy DNSs are rare at solar metallicity, but the 'rules out unstable mass transfer' claim is overclaimed because the grid never actually simulates an unstable RLO. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.15624 v1 pith:BFLNRU34 submitted 2025-08-21 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SRgr-qc

Ashwathi Nair , Simon Stevenson This is my paper

classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRgr-qc

keywords doubleneutronstarsGW190425binarystellarevolutioncommonenvelopeCaseBBmasstransfersupernovakicksstarmassesgravitationalwaves

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

Using a grid of 338 detailed binary models, the paper asks whether the standard isolated binary channel can produce heavy double neutron stars like GW190425, whose 3.4 solar-mass total exceeds every confirmed Galactic system. It finds that at solar metallicity, with a 1.4 solar-mass first-born neutron star and Eddington-limited accretion, almost no double neutron stars reach 3 solar masses, and none of the heavy progenitors undergo the dynamically unstable second mass-transfer phase proposed as the fast-merger channel. After calibrating supernova remnant and kick prescriptions to the observed Galactic population, the models reproduce the total-mass distribution but still leave an unexplained gap in orbital eccentricity. If the paper is right, GW190425-like systems require lower metallicity, a more massive first-born neutron star, super-Eddington accretion, or dynamical assembly rather than unstable mass transfer in solar-metallicity isolated binaries.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a grid of 338 MESA binary evolution models, using the 1D stellar evolution code MESA. Each binary starts just after the common-envelope phase as a naked helium star with a 1.4 solar-mass point-mass neutron star companion; the helium star is evolved through core helium burning and Case BB Roche-lobe overflow, with accretion onto the neutron star capped at the Eddington rate and treated as fully non-conservative. The resulting pre-supernova carbon-oxygen core and helium envelope masses are then fed into the Mandel & Müller (2020) remnant-mass and natal-kick prescription, in standard and modified forms; the modified form flattens the slope of the carbon-oxygen core

What would settle it

Observe one Galactic double neutron star with total mass above 3 solar masses in a short, recycled orbit consistent with a solar-metallicity isolated progenitor, or run a hydrodynamical binary model that includes the post-common-envelope hydrogen layer and a heavier first-born neutron star and still produces GW190425-like systems through a dynamically unstable second mass transfer; either would break the paper's exclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a constraint: for helium stars between 2.5 and 9.8 solar masses paired with 1.4 solar-mass neutron stars at solar metallicity, the second phase of mass transfer in the models that matter is always stable Case BB Roche-lobe overflow, and none of the heavy double neutron stars they produce goes through a dynamically unstable mass transfer. With the modified supernova prescription calibrated to the Galactic field population, only about 0.01% of all systems and 0.01% of recycled systems have total mass at or above 3 solar masses, far too few to explain the inferred rate of massive DNS mergers. The paper therefore rules out the unstable-mass-transfer formation channel

Load-bearing premise

The models assume that after the common-envelope phase the neutron star's companion is a bare helium core with no hydrogen left, that the first-born neutron star is exactly 1.4 solar masses, and that mass transfer is capped at the Eddington rate; the unstable mass-transfer channel is never actually simulated, so the exclusion only applies within these starting assumptions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the exclusion holds, the unstable-mass-transfer 'fast-merger' channel contributes essentially nothing to the GW190425-class merger rate at solar metallicity.
The observed rate of massive double neutron star mergers would have to be dominated by something else: lower-metallicity progenitors, more massive first-born neutron stars, super-Eddington accretion, or dynamical assembly in dense clusters.
Calibrated models match the observed total-mass distribution of Galactic double neutron stars, so the high-mass tail in uncalibrated population synthesis is likely an artifact of the carbon-oxygen core to remnant mass relation and kick treatment.
Heavy double neutron stars that do form should be compact, mostly recycled through stable Case BB Roche-lobe overflow, with a minority non-recycled and thus detectable only by gravitational waves.
The predicted eccentricity gap (roughly 0.3 to 0.6) remains unexplained by isolated evolution, pointing to either unseen radio systems or missing kick physics such as distinct kick modes inferred from Be X-ray binaries.

Reading between the lines

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

The exclusion is conditional on the naked-helium-star starting point, a fixed 1.4 solar-mass first-born neutron star, and Eddington-limited accretion; if post-common-envelope hydrogen retention or a heavier first-born neutron star shifts the stability boundary of the second mass transfer, the unstable channel could re-open.
A direct extension the paper leaves for its Part II, rerunning the grid at lower metallicity and with first-born neutron star masses near 2 solar masses, is the cleanest test: if heavy double neutron star yields remain below one percent, GW190425 needs a fundamentally different formation site.
The predicted roughly 20% branch of non-recycled heavy double neutron stars from massive helium stars that avoid mass transfer gives a concrete gravitational-wave-only population whose chirp-mass distribution and merger rate can be checked against current detector catalogs.
The calibration suggests rapid population-synthesis codes should not use the unmodified carbon-oxygen core to remnant mass relation when estimating heavy double neutron star merger rates, since it produces a high-mass tail that the Galactic field population does not show.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The useful core of this paper is the 338-model MESA grid of helium-star/neutron-star binaries with a careful post-processing pipeline. The authors calibrate their kick and remnant-mass prescriptions to the observed Galactic DNS population in both the Porb-e plane and the total-mass distribution, and the resulting 0.01% fraction of heavy (Mtot >= 3 Msun) DNSs is a concrete, useful prediction. The comparison to the observed mass distribution and the discussion of where the standard Mandel & Muller (2020) prescription fails are genuinely informative. The paper is a solid piece of binary-evolution work.\n\nThe problem is the headline claim. The abstract and conclusions say the model rules out formation of GW190425-like systems via unstable mass transfer at solar metallicity. The grid does not test that channel. Every binary is initialized after common envelope as a naked helium star with a fixed 1.4 Msun neutron star, and the Ritter mass-transfer scheme with Eddington-limited non-conservative accretion is applied throughout. There is no dynamical-instability criterion for the second RLO, so 'none of the heavy DNS progenitors undergo unstable mass transfer' is true by construction. That statement is a property of the assumed model, not a physical exclusion. The stress-test note is right, and I think the authors need to soften the conclusion to something like 'within our quasi-static Case BB RLO grid, we find no unstable MT pathways for massive DNSs.'\n\nThe second issue is that the modified kick prescription is heavily post-hoc. mu2b, the USSN/ECSN kick reductions, and the extra kick boost for CO cores above 1.66 Msun are all tuned to reproduce the observed Galactic population, and the kick boost is explicitly chosen to avoid disrupting the GW population. The 0.01% heavy-DNS fraction is therefore a product of that calibration, not an independent prediction. The paper gives no error bars or sensitivity runs around these parameters, which makes it hard to see how robust the fraction is. That is a real weakness, though not fatal if framed as a calibrated model rather than a discovery.\n\nMinor issues: the data availability section promises a GitHub repository but gives no URL, and the fixed 1.4 Msun first-born NS plus solar-metallicity-only scope mean the conclusion is narrow. The authors acknowledge these and promise Part II.\n\nWho is this for? People working on DNS formation, GW190425, and population synthesis. It is worth engaging with, but the central claim needs revision. I would send it to a serious referee: a good referee can push for a softened conclusion, a sensitivity analysis, and the missing repository link. As it stands, the overclaim in the abstract is likely to mislead readers, and that should be fixed before publication. Would I cite it? Probably yes, for the calibrated 0.01% number, but with a caveat about the unstable-MT claim. I would bring it to a reading group, not to praise the headline, but to discuss the calibration and what exactly the grid can and cannot say.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a grid of 338 MESA binary models of helium stars (2.5–9.8 Msun) with a fixed 1.4 Msun neutron star companion at solar metallicity, evolved from the post-common-envelope phase through Case BB mass transfer and the second supernova. Using the Mandel & Müller (2020) remnant/kick prescription, first in a standard form and then with a modified calibration (μ2b=0.1, reduced USSN/ECSN kicks, and a factor-2 kick boost for CO cores >1.66 Msun), the authors construct synthetic DNS populations and compare their P_orb–e and total-mass distributions to the Galactic DNS sample. They find that the modified model broadly reproduces the observed distributions and that only 0.01% of all systems (0.02% of Hubble-time mergers) have total mass ≥3 Msun. The paper concludes that this channel cannot explain the rate of GW190425-like mergers and claims to rule out formation of such systems via the second unstable mass transfer.

Significance. If the central conclusion were fully supported, the paper would be a valuable constraint on formation channels for GW190425 and on the isolated binary evolution channel for heavy double neutron stars. The MESA grid and the comparison to the current Galactic DNS sample are useful, and the authors are transparent about their MESA version and provide inlists and post-processing scripts, which is a strength. However, the most prominent claim—that the models rule out unstable mass transfer as a formation route for GW190425-like systems—is not supported by the computation itself, because the grid never simulates unstable mass transfer. The paper's calibrated fractions also lack uncertainty/sensitivity analysis. The work is therefore a useful exploratory study, but its headline conclusion needs substantial reframing or additional modeling.

major comments (3)

[Section 2 and Section 3.2] The claim in the Abstract and in Section 3.2 that the models 'rule out the formation of massive DNSs like GW190425 via the second unstable mass transfer' is not supported by the computation. All binaries are initialized after the common-envelope phase as naked helium stars (Section 2.2), and the mass-transfer scheme is the Ritter (1988) quasi-static prescription with Eddington-limited, fully non-conservative accretion. No dynamical-instability criterion for the second RLO is applied anywhere, so by construction none of the heavy-DNS progenitors can undergo unstable mass transfer. The statement in Section 3.2 that 'none of the heavy DNS system progenitors undergo unstable mass transfer' is therefore a built-in property of the grid, not a physical exclusion. The correct conclusion is that the modeled stable Case BB channel produces very few heavy DNSs; to rule out the unstable channel, the
[Section 3.1.2] The modified model is calibrated to the observed Galactic DNS population using four adjustable choices: μ2b=0.1, the USSN kick reduction factor, the ECSN kick of 30 km/s, and the factor-2 kick boost for CO cores ≥1.66 Msun. The kick boost in particular is stated to be chosen 'by making sure that we do not disrupt the GW population'—i.e., the same population that is used later to infer the heavy-DNS fraction. This makes the subsequent 0.01%/0.02% heavy-DNS fractions post-hoc outcomes of the calibration rather than independent predictions. No sensitivity study is presented to show how these fractions vary when μ2b, the kick factors, or the ECSN threshold are changed within reasonable ranges. Without such robustness tests, the quantitative claim that only 0.01% of DNSs are heavy is not established.
[Section 3.1.1 and Section 3.2] The absolute fractions (0.01% of all systems, 0.02% of Hubble-time mergers) are computed with an assumed initial distribution of He-star masses and orbital periods: a power-law IMF with α=2.35 and a flat-in-log period distribution (Section 3.1.1). These choices are reasonable but not unique, and the weighting scheme directly determines the fractions. The paper quotes these percentages without uncertainties and without a sensitivity analysis to the assumed weighting or to the binary fraction/normalization. As a result, the statement that the model is 'unable to explain the high rate of GW190425' is stronger than the calculations justify. A rate estimate or an explicit statement that only relative comparisons are intended is needed.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Section 3.2] The phrase 'via the second unstable mass transfer' is used in the Abstract and Section 3.2, but the acronym 'MT' is defined earlier; please ensure the first use in the Abstract is explicit (e.g., 'unstable mass transfer (MT)').
[Section 3.1.2] The sentence 'We enable this to kick the slow merging systems visible in radio to higher velocities, simultaneously by making sure that we do not disrupt the GW population' is awkwardly worded; the adverb 'simultaneously' seems to modify an incomplete clause. Please rephrase.
[Section 4] Typo: 'These systems recieve kicks' should be 'receive'. Also, 'Mtot≥3' appears without a space in multiple places; please fix consistency.
[Table 1] The table lists some systems under 'Globular Clusters' whose total masses (e.g., J0514-4002E at 3.88 Msun) are outside the 2.3–2.9 Msun range quoted in the text. The text acknowledges this, but it would be helpful to explicitly state in Section 1 that the quoted range refers only to the 24 field DNSs, not the full table.
[Section 2.3] The mapping from ONeMg core mass (1.37–1.43 Msun) to CO core mass (1.43–1.65 Msun) is asserted without a derivation or citation for the CO-core mapping. A reference or a one-sentence justification would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Central 'rule-out' of unstable-mass-transfer formation is built into the model setup, and the quoted heavy-DNS fraction is a product of the calibration to the observed mass distribution.

self definitional [Abstract; Sections 2, 3.2, 4]
"In our models, within both standard and modified prescriptions, none of the heavy DNS system progenitors undergo unstable mass transfer (Galaudage et al. 2021; Romero-Shaw et al. 2020). ... To compute the mass transfer rate from the He star |Mdot_He|, we use the 'Ritter' mass transfer scheme (Ritter 1988). We assume that the mass accretion rate ... is limited to the Eddington accretion rate ... For simplicity, we therefore assume completely non-conservative mass transfer."

The grid initializes every binary after the first common-envelope phase as a naked He star with a 1.4 Msun NS, and all subsequent RLO is integrated with the Ritter scheme under Eddington-limited, fully non-conservative accretion. No dynamical-instability criterion, second common-envelope phase, or unstable RLO branch is modeled. Therefore the statement that 'none of the heavy DNS system progenitors undergo unstable mass transfer' is true by construction for every model, not a computed result. The abstract's claim that the model 'rules out the formation of heavy DNS systems like GW190425 via the second unstable mass transfer' is equivalent to the input assumption that unstable mass transfer is absent from the modeled channel.
fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1.2 (modified model) and Section 3.1.2 B (DNS total mass distribution)]
"We calibrate the models to ensure that they can explain the observed Galactic DNS population. ... We use μ2b = 0.1 to modify this relation to a more linear one. This avoids the local maxima at CO core mass of ~2.9 M⊙ which produces heavy remnant mass of the NSs of 1.8–2.0 M⊙ ... We enable this to kick the slow merging systems visible in radio to higher velocities, simultaneously by making sure that we do not disrupt the GW population. ... Following calibration to ensure consistency with the observed population, the fraction of heavy DNS systems with masses ≥3 M⊙ in all systems is only 0.01%."

The free parameter μ2b is deliberately set to 0.1 to remove the NS remnant masses of 1.8–2.0 M⊙ that previously produced the high-mass DNS tail; the kick modifications are likewise tuned to the observed P−e distribution and to 'not disrupt the GW population.' The calibration sample contains no Galactic DNS with total mass above 2.9 M⊙, so the survival of any ≥3 M⊙ tail is suppressed by construction. Quoting the resulting 0.01% (or 0.02% merging) fraction as evidence that GW190425-like systems are rare is therefore reporting the consequence of the fit, not an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper contains substantial independent modeling: a 338-model MESA grid of He-star + 1.4 Msun NS binaries, standard and modified SN/kick prescriptions, and comparisons to external Galactic DNS and GW observations. Those parts are not circular. The circularity is concentrated in the central 'rule-out' claim and in the quoted heavy-DNS fraction. Section 3.2's statement that no heavy DNS progenitor undergoes unstable mass transfer is a direct consequence of the Ritter/Eddington-limited, fully non-conservative mass-transfer scheme and the post-CE starting condition; no dynamical-instability criterion or second CE is modeled, so the abstract's rule-out of formation 'via the second unstable mass transfer' reduces to the model's input assumption. Separately, the 0.01%/0.02% heavy-DNS fractions are quoted after modifying μ2b and kicks specifically to remove the high-mass remnant branch and match the observed (heavy-free) Galactic mass distribution; the heavy tail is thus partly a product of the fit. The paper's own limitation statement (fixed 1.4 Msun NS, solar metallicity) is acknowledged but does not address the unstable-MT exclusion. Overall, these are not minor self-citations; they affect the central claims, so a score of 7 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything the central claim rests on that the reader didn't pay for upstream: the post-CE starting point, fixed 1.4 Msun first-born NS, Eddington-limited non-conservative mass transfer, and a SN remnant prescription that is itself calibrated and then hand-modified. There are no invented entities. The free parameters listed are all chosen to make the simulated population match the observed Galactic DNSs or the GW population, and the central 'heavy DNSs are rare' conclusion depends on them.

free parameters (5)

mu2b = 0.5 (standard model), 0.1 (modified model)
Slope of the linear interpolation for mean NS remnant mass for CO cores between 2 and 3 Msun; tuned in the modified model to suppress the 2.9 Msun CO local maximum and match the observed DNS total mass distribution.
USSN kick factor = reduced by factor 3 in modified model
Applied to ultra-stripped supernovae (He envelope <= 0.2 Msun) to reduce overpredicted eccentricities; chosen to match the observed Porb-e distribution.
ECSN kick velocity = 30 km/s
Assigned to electron-capture supernovae (final CO core 1.43-1.65 Msun), chosen to reproduce low-eccentricity close DNSs.
CO >= 1.66 Msun kick factor = 2
Kick multiplier for CO cores >= 1.66 Msun, introduced to remove slow mergers from the radio population while preserving the GW population; explicitly calibrated against both populations.
IMF slope alpha = 2.35
Assumed power-law slope for the initial He-star mass distribution (Salpeter), weights the grid; not fit to data in this paper.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Common envelope evolution leaves naked helium stars with negligible hydrogen
Section 2: the authors neglect a possible ~1 Msun hydrogen layer (Nie et al. 2025).
domain assumption First-born neutron star mass is fixed to 1.4 Msun
Section 2.2: excludes heavier first-born NSs as proposed by Qin et al. (2024).
domain assumption Mass transfer is Eddington-limited and completely non-conservative
Section 2: accretion limited to 3e-8 Msun/yr, all overflow lost isotropically (Soberman et al. 1997), excluding super-Eddington accretion (Zhang et al. 2023).
domain assumption Mandel & Mueller (2020) remnant prescription with Kapil et al. (2023) calibration is applicable
Section 2.3: the mapping from CO core mass to NS mass and kick velocity is adopted as is and then modified.
domain assumption The observed Galactic field DNS sample is representative for calibration
Section 3.1: population is calibrated to the 24 confirmed field DNSs without modeling radio selection effects.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Formation of heavy double neutron stars I: Eddington-limited accretion for a 1.4 $M_{\odot}$ neutron star at solar metallicity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BFLNRU34

@misc{pith2026250815624,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Formation of heavy double neutron stars I: Eddington-limited accretion for a 1.4 $M_\odot$ neutron star at solar metallicity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BFLNRU34}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.15624}
}

abstract

More than 30 Galactic double neutron star (DNS) binaries have now been identified through radio pulsar timing. The 24 DNSs in the Galactic field with measured total masses lie in the narrow range of 2.3--2.9 $M_{\odot}$. In contrast, gravitational-wave observations have detected two DNS mergers: GW170817, with a total mass of 2.7 $M_{\odot}$, and GW190425, with a significantly higher mass of 3.4 $M_{\odot}$. The unusually high mass of GW190425 suggests a non-standard formation channel not represented in the known Galactic population. To investigate the origin of such a massive DNS system, we model the late evolutionary stages of helium stars with initial masses between 2.5 and 9.8 $M_{\odot}$ in binaries with 1.4 $M_{\odot}$ neutron star companions, using the 1D stellar evolution code MESA at solar metallicity. We test alternative formation pathways and calibrate our models to reproduce the observed Galactic DNS mass and orbital distributions. By incorporating a modified natal kick prescription, our population synthesis results are broadly consistent with the observed total mass distribution of known DNS systems. Only a small fraction of DNSs of our model have total masses $\geq$ 3 $M_{\odot}$, insufficient to explain the high rate of massive DNS mergers inferred from GW observations. However, our model rules out the formation of heavy DNS systems like GW190425 via the second unstable mass transfer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.15624 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** (Left) Mass transfer rate, and (right) orbital period as a function of stellar age for a 2.9 M⊙ He + 1.4 M⊙ NS binary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Final helium star core masses as a function of ZAMS mass, for single helium stars with masses in the range 2.5–9.8 M⊙. The black dots represent the final He core mass, and the green triangles represent the final CO core mass. The dotted black line shows the line where the two quantities are equal, corresponding to no mass loss. the He-ZAMS, during which mass loss via stellar winds was active. As a result, the He-sta… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (10 more)

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: (Left) Carbon-oxygen (CO) metal core as a function of initial He-ZAMS mass. The black points are the CO core masses of single-star models (as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: (Left) Neutron star remnant masses and (right) natal kick velocity in a He-NS binary as a function of CO core masses calculated using the standard model (Mandel & Müller 2020). The different coloured stars represent different initial orbital periods. wave emission. 𝑇 ≈…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Distribution of the simulated post-SN systems in the 𝑃orb − 𝑒 diagram for helium stars of masses 2.9 M⊙, 3.9 M⊙, 5.4 M⊙, 8.9 M⊙, using the standard model of SN prescription, in which we performed 1000 cycles with random isotropically oriented NS kicks for each pre-SN s…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Orbital period–eccentricity distribution (𝑃orb-e) of simulated postsupernova DNS systems. The 2D histogram shows the predicted distribution based on the standard supernova (SN) prescription model from Mandel & Müller (2020) and Kapil et al. (2023). The color bar on th…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: The cumulative distribution of double neutron star total masses. The solid, red line represents the recycled systems based on the standard Mandel & Müller (2020) prescription, the blue dot-dashed line represents all formed double neutron star binaries in the simulatio…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Neutron star remnant masses and natal kick velocity in a binary as a function of CO core masses calculated using the modified model. (a) MHe,i = 2.9 M⊙ (b) MHe,i = 3.9 M⊙ (c) MHe,i = 5.4 M⊙ (d) MHe,i = 8.9 M⊙ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Distribution of the simulated post-SN systems in the 𝑃orb − 𝑒 diagram, using the modified model of SN prescription, in which we performed 1000 cycles with random isotropically oriented NS kicks for each pre-SN system. We adopted pre-SN orbital periods ranging from 0.0…

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Distribution of all the simulated post-SN systems combined in the 𝑃orb-e diagram (the purple-blue regions) based on the modified model (See text) of SN prescription (Mandel & Müller 2020; Kapil et al. 2023), in which we set 338 pre-SN P orb that vary logarithmically f…

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Cumulative distribution for the eccentricity of DNS systems. The dashed red line shows the result from our standard model, whilst the solid yellow line shows the result of the modified model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: The cumulative distribution of double neutron star total masses. The solid, magenta line represents the recycled systems based on the modified prescription, green dot-dashed line represents all formed double neutron star binaries in the simulation based on the modifie…

Discussion (0). Sign in 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

Probing the redshift evolution and sub-populations of binary neutron stars with the Einstein Telescope
astro-ph.HE 2025-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

With a few hundred to a few thousand Einstein Telescope detections, binary neutron star mass bimodality and distinct redshift evolutions of light and heavy subpopulations become distinguishable.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

2 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

P., et al., 2017a, Phys

Abbott B. P., et al., 2017a, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101 Abbott B. P., et al., 2017b, ApJ, 848, L12 Abbott B. P., et al., 2017c, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L13 Abbott B. P., et al., 2017d, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 851, L16 Abbott B. P., et al., 2020, ApJ, 892, L3 Acernese F., et al., 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001...

work page 2020
[2]

The landscape of binary core-collapse supernova progenitors and the late emergence of Wolf-Rayet winds

Corongiu, A. Kramer, M. Stappers, B. W. Lyne, A. G. Jessner, A. Possenti, A. D’Amico, N. Löhmer, O. 2007, A&A, 462, 703 DeCesar M. E., Ransom S. M., Kaplan D. L., Ray P. S., Geller A. M., 2015, ApJ, 807, L23 Dessart L., Burrows A., Ott C. D., Livne E., Yoon S. C., Langer N., 2006, ApJ, 644, 1063 Dewi J. D. M., Pols O. R., 2003, MNRAS, 344, 629 Doherty C. ...

work page Pith review arXiv 2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

P., et al., 2017a, Phys

Abbott B. P., et al., 2017a, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101 Abbott B. P., et al., 2017b, ApJ, 848, L12 Abbott B. P., et al., 2017c, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L13 Abbott B. P., et al., 2017d, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 851, L16 Abbott B. P., et al., 2020, ApJ, 892, L3 Acernese F., et al., 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001...

work page 2020

[2] [2]

The landscape of binary core-collapse supernova progenitors and the late emergence of Wolf-Rayet winds

Corongiu, A. Kramer, M. Stappers, B. W. Lyne, A. G. Jessner, A. Possenti, A. D’Amico, N. Löhmer, O. 2007, A&A, 462, 703 DeCesar M. E., Ransom S. M., Kaplan D. L., Ray P. S., Geller A. M., 2015, ApJ, 807, L23 Dessart L., Burrows A., Ott C. D., Livne E., Yoon S. C., Langer N., 2006, ApJ, 644, 1063 Dewi J. D. M., Pols O. R., 2003, MNRAS, 344, 629 Doherty C. ...

work page Pith review arXiv 2007