Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

This paper argues that stripped-envelope supernovae are shaped far more by binary companions than by metallicity or stellar winds, with stable mass transfer in binaries the dominant stripping mechanism and common-envelope evolution contribu

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A population synthesis with detailed binary grids shows stripped-envelope supernovae mostly come from primary stars stripped by stable mass transfer, with a flat total rate across metallicity but strong subtype variation.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection First POSYDON-based SESN population synthesis across metallicities; stable binary mass transfer dominates, with the CE<6% headline needing a fiducial qualifier. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2508.21042 v1 pith:24FOFX5Z submitted 2025-08-28 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

The power of binaries on stripped-envelope supernovae across metallicity: uniform progenitor parameter space and persistently low ejecta masses, but subtype diversity

D. Souropanis , E. Zapartas , T. Pessi , M. Briel , M. Renzo , C. P. Guti\'errez , J. J. Andrews , S. Gossage
show 4 more authors
M. U. Kruckow C. Liotine P. M. Srivastava E. Teng
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE
keywords stripped-envelope supernovaebinary population synthesiscommon envelopemetallicity dependenceejecta massessupernova subtypesmass transferstellar evolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 stripped-envelope supernovae—explosions of massive stars that have lost their hydrogen envelopes—are shaped far more by binary companions than by metallicity or stellar winds. Using a binary population synthesis code built on grids of detailed stellar-structure models, the authors evolve 200,000 binary systems at each of six metallicities (0.01 to 2 times solar) and classify their explosions by predicted hydrogen and helium content. They find that the common-envelope channel produces less than 6% of these supernovae, secondary stars produce less than 11%, and the rest come from primary stars stripped through stable Roche-lobe mass transfer. The total stripped-envelope rate relative to hydrogen-rich Type II supernovae stays nearly flat across metallicity, while the subtype mix shifts from Type Ic/Ib at high metallicity toward Type IIb at low metallicity. Predicted ejecta masses remain low and roughly metallicity-independent, in contrast to single-star models, giving observational tests for the binary-dominated picture.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that stable mass transfer in binaries, rather than common-envelope ejection or line-driven winds, is the dominant mechanism producing stripped-envelope supernovae across all metallicities from 0.01 to 2 solar. In the authors' detailed binary grids, unstable mass transfer is rarer than rapid population synthesis codes have assumed, and when it does occur the envelope is usually too tightly bound to be ejected, so common-envelope survivors contribute under 6% of the stripped-envelope population. The majority of progenitors are primary stars that lose their hydrogen envelopes through one or more stable Roche-lobe overflow episodes; a crucial late episode after core

What carries the argument

The load-bearing instrument is a binary population synthesis calculation in which every binary is mapped onto grids of detailed stellar evolution simulations, so mass-transfer rates, envelope binding energies, and final core structures come from stellar-structure models rather than fitting formulas. The central mechanism is the post-core-helium-depletion mass-transfer episode: at low metallicity, partially stripped stars retain enough hydrogen to re-expand and fill their Roche lobe again, stripping the envelope further and erasing metallicity differences in ejecta mass. The common-envelope outcome is governed by the alpha/lambda formalism with envelope binding energies computed from the deta

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that common-envelope evolution contributes less than 6% of stripped-envelope supernovae rests on the model's criteria for when mass transfer turns dynamically unstable and on the assumed common-envelope efficiency; if real envelopes are ejected more easily than the default assumption allows, the common-envelope fraction could climb well above 6%.

What would settle it

Compare the stripped-envelope-to-Type-II ratio and the Type IIb/Type Ib split in a volume-limited, untargeted sample of supernovae with host metallicities spanning 0.1 to 2 solar. If the ratio rises steeply with metallicity, or if ejecta masses of Type Ib/IIb supernovae increase toward metal-poor hosts as single-star models predict, the binary-stable-mass-transfer picture would be falsified. A more targeted test: measure the fraction of stripped-envelope supernovae with surviving binary companions on wide orbits; under the paper's picture most should have such companions, while under single-st

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, untargeted surveys should see a stripped-envelope-to-Type-II ratio that is nearly flat from 0.01 to 2 solar metallicity, even as the Ib/Ic fractions drop and IIb fractions rise at low metallicity.
  • Ejecta masses of stripped-envelope supernovae should remain low and roughly constant with host metallicity; a clear rise toward metal-poor hosts would favor single-star stripping instead.
  • The progenitor age sequence should reverse at low metallicity: Type IIb from the most massive (shortest-lived) progenitors, Type Ib from lower-mass stars with long lifetimes—a testable environmental signature.
  • Most stripped-envelope progenitors should show signs of stable Roche-lobe mass transfer (e.g., relatively wide surviving binaries or stripped companions) rather than post-common-envelope tight orbits.
  • Observed subtype-rate differences between surveys may be driven largely by the hydrogen-envelope threshold separating Type IIb and Type Ib; predicting the tentative Type I(I)b class as a distinct category would sharpen the test.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the common-envelope contribution is truly below 6%, the common-envelope channel is unlikely to be the main factory of compact-object mergers among stripped stars; stable mass-transfer products may deserve more attention as gravitational-wave progenitors.
  • The paper's flat-rate result assumes a binary fraction of 0.6; if low-metallicity galaxies have close-binary fractions near 0.8, as some recent surveys suggest, the predicted stripped-envelope rate would rise with decreasing metallicity, reversing the headline flatness.
  • The tentative Type I(I)b class is a sharp diagnostic: measuring the true hydrogen threshold in real spectra would let observers choose between the paper's Ib and IIb rate assignments, turning a classification nuisance into a physical measurement.
  • If the late post-helium-depletion mass transfer is as common as the models imply, many stripped progenitors should explode while still Roche-lobe filling, making polarization and early circumstellar interaction signatures more frequent in low-metallicity stripped supernovae.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses POSYDON v2, with its MESA-based single- and binary-star grids, to evolve 2×10^5 systems at six metallicities (0.01–2 Z_sun) and predict which channels produce stripped-envelope supernovae (SESNe). The authors report that stable mass transfer from primary stars dominates, that common-envelope ejection produces <6% of SESNe and secondaries <11%, that the overall SESN/II ratio is nearly metallicity-independent while subtype fractions (Ic/Ib/IIb) depend strongly on Z, that predicted SESN ejecta masses are low and nearly Z-independent, and that the age (progenitor-mass) ordering of subtypes reverses at low Z. The conclusions are supported by a 15-model robustness suite varying α_CE, core-envelope boundary, SN engine, kicks, binary fraction, and interpolation scheme, and by comparisons to environmental and volumetric SN rate data.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a strong quantitative case that binary interactions—specifically stable Roche-lobe overflow rather than common-envelope episodes or single-star winds—are the dominant formation channel of SESNe across metallicity. The predictions are falsifiable: nearly Z-independent ejecta-mass distributions, a subtype-age reversal at Z<0.2 Z_sun, and a near-constant SESN/II ratio. The study is notable for using published, open POSYDON grids (commit 891c5897), for taking classification thresholds from external spectral models rather than fitting, and for an unusually extensive sensitivity analysis. The central caveat is that one headline quantitative claim (CE<6%) is not robust to the paper's own α_CE=5 run, and the subtype-rate comparisons are sensitive to the explosion engine at high Z.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §5.1; §6.2 and Table D2] The abstract and conclusion state that the common-envelope (CE) channel contributes <6% of SESNe. From Table 1, the fiducial solar run indeed has a CE-origin fraction of roughly 2–3% among SESNe. However, in the α_CE=5 robustness run (Table D2), Type Ib increases from 16,295 to 17,694 and Type Ic from 420 to 470, while Type II falls from 58,250 to 54,975. Since α_CE changes only CE survival, the net SESN increase of ~1,474 is CE-origin; adding the ~440 CE-origin SESNe of the fiducial run gives at least ~1,900 of 21,428 SESNe, i.e. ~9%, exceeding 6%. The text does not report the CE fraction for this model, so the headline bound is not robust to one of the paper's own tested parameters. Please report CE-origin fractions for all 15 models and qualify the claim.
  2. [§5.2; §6.2; Table D2] The solar IIb/II ratio changes by a factor of 3.3 across explosion engines: 2467/58250=4.2% (default), 4258/51790=8.2% (S+16), and 8410/60641=13.9% (F+12_delayed). Section 5.2 uses the default value to claim that models underpredict observed IIb/II (~12–16% at high Z) and attributes this offset to wind mass loss; the F+12_delayed run in the paper's own Table D2 removes most of that discrepancy. Since the IIb/II trend is central to the subtype-diversity claim and to the quantitative comparison with observations, the conclusions should be stated as engine-dependent, or the paper should discuss which subtype conclusions survive under all three engines.
  3. [§2 (Mass transfer/Common envelope); §6.2] The CE<6% conclusion rests in part on POSYDON's stability criteria (Mdot>0.1 Msun/yr, L2 overflow, photon-trapping radius). None of the 15 models varies these thresholds; only α_CE and the core-envelope boundary are changed. Given that the criteria determine how many systems enter CE, a test with, e.g., a lower or higher Mdot threshold would quantify the uncertainty in 'unstable MT is less frequent than previously thought' (§5.1). Without such a test, the stability boundary remains an untested, load-bearing assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix C, Figure C1 caption] Typo: 'mettalicity' should be 'metallicity'.
  2. [Table 1] Percentage notation is inconsistent: e.g., '86.9 (3.06 %)' vs '91.97 % (3.29 %)'; the Type Ib 'Merged' row reads '0.06 0.03 %' without units. Please unify formatting.
  3. [§6.2; Table D2] The text says '13 distinct binary population models' but Table D2 lists 15 rows including defaults (six variations at solar plus default, seven at subsolar plus default). Please clarify the count.
  4. [§5.2] Typo: 'This highligts that the adopted hydrogen-envelope mass threshold...' should be 'highlights'.
  5. [Conclusions, item 5] Typo: 'core collpase' should be 'core collapse'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the headline claims are population-synthesis outputs from stated physical assumptions, not quantities fitted to the data they explain.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: initial conditions are taken from external observational distributions (Kroupa IMF, Sana et al. 2013 periods), stellar and binary evolution is computed with the publicly available POSYDON/MESA grids, SN explodability uses external prescriptions (Patton & Sukhbold 2020, Tauris et al. 2015), and SESN classification thresholds are adopted from external spectroscopic studies (Dessart & Hillier 2011, Hachinger et al. 2012, Dessart et al. 2020). The key claims — CE channel <6% of SESNe, secondary channel <11%, stable mass transfer dominant, flat SESN/II ratio, nearly metallicity-independent ejecta masses — are outputs of the population synthesis, not fitted parameters. The CE fraction is explicitly sensitive to the stated alpha_CE=1 assumption and the stability criteria; the paper reports an alpha_CE=5 sensitivity run (Table D2) and discusses the resulting changes. This is an honest robustness check, not a circularity. Citations to POSYDON (Fragos et al. 2023, Andrews et al. 2024) are code references to open, benchmarked infrastructure, not an unverified uniqueness theorem or an ansatz smuggled in to force the conclusion. Observed rates are used only for comparison, not calibration. Therefore the central results do not reduce by construction to their inputs. The moderate score reflects only the natural reliance of the analysis on the authors' own POSYDON code and prior papers, which is not load-bearing circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a suite of modeling choices. Most are explored in the sensitivity study, but the fiducial values anchor the headline numbers: the CE<6% share depends on alpha_CE=1 and on POSYDON's instability criteria; subtype fractions depend on the explodability engine and on the H/He/N classification thresholds; absolute rates depend on the assumed binary fraction. No new physical entities are introduced; the tentative Type I(I)b is a classification bin, not a physical object.

free parameters (8)
  • Common envelope efficiency alpha_CE = 1 (default; 5 also tested)
    Determines the fraction of orbital energy used to eject the envelope; directly sets CE survival and thus the CE channel fraction (the headline <6% claim).
  • Core-envelope boundary for lambda_CE = X_H < 0.3 (default; 0.1 tested)
    Changes envelope binding energy and CE outcome; alters Type Ib/II ratios modestly.
  • Binary fraction f_bin = 0.6 (default; 0.8 tested)
    Scales all binary-channel rates; a higher low-metallicity binary fraction raises SESN/II ratios notably.
  • Supernova explodability prescription = Patton & Sukhbold 2020 N20 (default); Sukhbold+16 and Fryer+12 delayed tested
    Determines which stripped cores explode; switching prescriptions changes the solar IIb/II ratio from about 4% to 15%.
  • Type IIb/Ib classification H threshold = M_H,ej <= 0.5 Msun (IIb); <= 0.001 Msun (Ib); 0.001-0.033 tentative I(I)b
    Adopted from literature; directly sets subtype fractions, especially at low metallicity.
  • Type Ib/Ic classification He/N thresholds = X(4He) < 0.5 and X(14N) < 1e-4 for Ic
    From Dessart et al. 2020; conservative criterion shifts borderline stars to Ib, affecting Ic rates.
  • Wind mass-loss prescription for partially stripped stars = Nugis & Lamers (2000); weaker Vink (2017) rates not adopted
    Stronger winds favor Ib over IIb at high Z; the paper notes this could overproduce Type Ib.
  • Natal kick dispersion = 265 km/s CCSN, 20 km/s ECSN (default); 61.6 km/s tested
    Affects survival and disruption of binaries involving secondaries; minor effect overall.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption POSYDON v2's detailed MESA grids accurately represent the evolution of all binary systems in the sampled parameter space
    Nearest-neighbor assignment maps each system to the closest grid model; grid fidelity and coverage are assumed (Section 2).
  • domain assumption The adopted explodability model (Patton & Sukhbold 2020 with N20 engine) maps core C/O mass and carbon abundance to SN outcome
    Section 2. The paper's own sensitivity tests show large variations with Sukhbold+16 and Fryer+12 delayed prescriptions.
  • domain assumption Classification via ejecta H, He, N abundances at core carbon depletion maps monotonically to observed SN spectroscopic types
    Section 2.1, based on Dessart & Hillier 2011, Hachinger 2012, and Dessart et al. 2020.
  • domain assumption Binary parameter distributions (Kroupa IMF, Sana+2013 periods, uniform mass ratio) apply at all six metallicities
    Section 2; the paper notes lower-metallicity environments may have higher binary fractions and tests f_bin=0.8.
  • domain assumption Wind prescriptions (Dutch scheme, Vink, Nugis & Lamers, LBV) with their metallicity scalings are valid across 0.01-2 Zsun
    Section 2 and 6.1; high RSG and LBV wind rates remain uncertain.
  • domain assumption Burst star formation (all stars born at once) is representative for computing rate ratios
    Section 2; single-burst SFH assumed for the fiducial population.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The power of binaries on stripped-envelope supernovae across metallicity: uniform progenitor parameter space and persistently low ejecta masses, but subtype diversity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/24FOFX5Z

@misc{pith2026250821042,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The power of binaries on stripped-envelope supernovae across metallicity: uniform progenitor parameter space and persistently low ejecta masses, but subtype diversity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/24FOFX5Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21042}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Stripped-envelope supernovae (SESNe) originate from massive stars that lose their envelopes through binary interactions or stellar winds. The connection between SESN subtypes and their progenitors remains poorly understood, as does the influence of initial mass, binarity, explodability, and metallicity on their evolutionary pathways, relative rates, ejecta masses, and progenitor ages. Here, we investigate these properties across a wide metallicity range (0.01-2 $Z_{\odot}$) using POSYDON, a state-of-the-art population synthesis code that incorporates detailed single- and binary-star model grids. We find that the common-envelope channel contributes less than 6% of SESNe, since unstable mass transfer is found less frequent than previously thought and rarely leads to CE survival when envelope binding energies are computed from detailed stellar models. The secondary channel accounts for less than 11%, while the vast majority of SESNe originate from primary stars in binaries undergoing stable mass-transfer episodes. These interactions maintain a largely metallicity-independent SESN parameter space, making the overall SESN rate almost insensitive to metallicity. In contrast, subtype fractions exhibit strong metallicity dependence, though their exact values remain affected by classification thresholds. The age distributions and therefore the progenitor masses of different SESN types also vary significantly with metallicity, revealing metallicity-dependent trends that can be tested observationally. Predicted SESN ejecta masses remain nearly constant across metallicity, in contrast to single-star models, and fall within observed ranges. Future transient surveys, combined with statistical environmental studies that constrain metallicity dependence, will provide decisive tests of these predictions and of the dominant role of binary interactions in shaping SESNe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21042 by C. Liotine, C. P. Guti\'errez, D. Souropanis, E. Teng, E. Zapartas, J. J. Andrews, M. Briel, M. Renzo, M. U. Kruckow, P. M. Srivastava, S. Gossage, T. Pessi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Parameter space for primary progenitors of SN Ic, Ib, I(I)b, IIb and II at solar metallicity. Each panel refers to a different initial mass ratio. See Section 2.1 for SN type classifications and definitions of mass transfer. Here, blue shaded area refer to Type Ib, cyan to Type Ic, yellow to Type IIb, yellow with a blue hatch to Type I(I)b and red to Type II. Each non circular point in the pannels correspo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Three 2D slices summarizing the evolution of systems from POSYDON grids of binary star models consisting of a hydrogen-rich star and a 12 M⊙ (left pannel), 7 M⊙ (midle pannel) BH and a 1.38 M⊙ NS (right pannel) at the onset of Roche lobe overflow. At these panels we oveplot the seconaries that remained bounded following the collapse of the primary star, initiated mass transfer and manage to explode as SNe … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ratio between different SN types, as a function of metallicity (solid and dashed lines refer to this work, while the different colors refer to ratios between different SN types to Type II) orange: IIb/II, blue: Ibc/II and black (Ic+Ib+IIb)/II. SN observations from the literature, which measured the ratio between the numbers of different H poor to H rich SNe, are shown as symbols with different colors and s… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mean values (solid or dashed lines) and standard deviation (shaded areas) of ejecta masses from our fiducial population for Type Ib, IIb and Ic SNe, at different metallicities. For Types Ib and IIb, we consider two alternative assumptions: (i) grouping the tentative I(I)b class with the IIb SNe (green shading and dashed line in the middle panel), and (ii) treating them as part of the Ib SNe (grey shading a… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Median explosion times (solid lines) for different SN types as a function of metallicity, with shaded regions indicating the 25th and 75th percentiles. Each color corresponds to a specific SN type: cyan for Type Ic, blue for Type Ib combined with I(I)b, yellow for Type IIb, and red for Type II. Dashed lines indicate the median explosion times for the combined Type IIb + I(I)b and for Type Ib SNe, shown wit… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The fractions of SESNe subtypes to Type II for our 15 models, see text in subsection 6.2 for the different model assumptions secondaries interacting with a BH is modest, resulting in only a slight increase. We also ran a simulation at 0.1 Z⊙ assuming a binary fraction of 0.8, compared to the default value of 0.6. This adjustment is motivated by recent studies suggesting an intrinsically higher close￾binary… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. A statistical study of the environmental age of core-collapse supernovae based on VLT/MUSE integral-field-unit spectroscopy

    astro-ph.SR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Type Ic core-collapse supernovae explode in systematically younger environments than Types II, IIb, and Ib, indicating they arise from more massive progenitors via a distinct channel.

  2. A statistical study of the environmental age of core-collapse supernovae based on VLT/MUSE integral-field-unit spectroscopy

    astro-ph.SR 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0

    Type Ic core-collapse supernovae sit in systematically younger environments than Types II(P), IIb, and Ib, which show no significant age differences among themselves.

  3. Relative frequencies of core-collapse supernovae as a function of metallicity: observations vs theoretical predictions

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Observations show a slight rise in stripped-envelope supernovae relative to hydrogen-rich ones at higher metallicities, with binary-interaction or rotation models able to match the trends though no unique scenario fits best.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

214 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Aguilera-Dena D. R., M \"u ller B., Antoniadis J., Langer N., Dessart L., Vigna-G \'o mez A., Yoon S.-C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243519 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...671A.134A 671, A134

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243519 2023

  2. [2]

    A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...598A..84A 598, A84

    Almeida L. A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...598A..84A 598, A84

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629844 2017

  3. [3]

    P., Covarrubias R

    Anderson J. P., Covarrubias R. A., James P. A., Hamuy M., Habergham S. M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17118.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.407.2660A 407, 2660

    arXiv 2010

  4. [5]

    P., James P

    Anderson J. P., James P. A., Habergham S. M., Galbany L., Kuncarayakti H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2015.19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASA...32...19A 32, e019

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2015.19 2015

  5. [6]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02376 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241102376A p

    Andrews J. J., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02376 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241102376A p. arXiv:2411.02376

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.02376 2024

  6. [7]

    Z., de Wit S., Zapartas E., Munoz-Sanchez G., Maravelias G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449383 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...686A..88A 686, A88

    Antoniadis K., Bonanos A. Z., de Wit S., Zapartas E., Munoz-Sanchez G., Maravelias G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449383 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...686A..88A 686, A88

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449383 2024

  7. [8]

    279, Death of Massive Stars: Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursts

    Arcavi I., 2012, in Roming P., Kawai N., Pian E., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 279, Death of Massive Stars: Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursts. pp 34--39 ( @eprint arXiv 1209.5474 ), @doi 10.1017/S1743921312012653

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  8. [9]

    Arcavi I., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/777 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721..777A 721, 777

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/721/1/777 2010

  9. [10]

    Arcavi I., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5be1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837L...2A 837, L2

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa5be1 2017

  10. [11]

    J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..481A 47, 481

    Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..481A 47, 481

    arXiv 2009

  11. [12]

    Bacon R., et al., 2014, The Messenger, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Msngr.157...13B 157, 13

    2014

  12. [13]

    I., Evans C

    Banyard G., Sana H., Mahy L., Bodensteiner J., Villase \ n or J. I., Evans C. J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...658A..69B 658, A69

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141037 2022

  13. [14]

    Barbarino C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...651A..81B 651, A81

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038890 2021

  14. [15]

    S., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-02018-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7.1090B 7, 1090

    Bavera S. S., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-02018-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7.1090B 7, 1090

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02018-5 2023

  15. [16]

    R., Smith N., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6dcf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...933...41B 933, 41

    Beasor E. R., Smith N., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6dcf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...933...41B 933, 41

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6dcf 2022

  16. [17]

    R., Davies B., Smith N., van Loon J

    Beasor E. R., Davies B., Smith N., van Loon J. T., Gehrz R. D., Figer D. F., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1818 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.2460B 524, 2460

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1818 2023

  17. [18]

    C., Sarazin C

    Begelman M. C., Sarazin C. L., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184637 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...302L..59B 302, L59

    doi:10.1086/184637 1986

  18. [19]

    L., Ruiter A., Valsecchi F., Vink J

    Belczynski K., Bulik T., Fryer C. L., Ruiter A., Valsecchi F., Vink J. S., Hurley J. R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1217 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...714.1217B 714, 1217

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/714/2/1217 2010

  19. [20]

    C., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...757...31B 757, 31

    Bersten M. C., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...757...31B 757, 31

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/1/31 2012

  20. [21]

    C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature25151 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.554..497B 554, 497

    Bersten M. C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature25151 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.554..497B 554, 497

    doi:10.1038/nature25151 2018

  21. [22]

    Blaauw A., 1961, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1961BAN....15..265B 15, 265

    1961

  22. [23]

    Bloecker T., 1995, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&A...297..727B 297, 727

    1995

  23. [24]

    Boissier S., Prantzos N., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200811234 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...503..137B 503, 137

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200811234 2009

  24. [25]

    Breivik K., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...898...71B 898, 71

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85 2020

  25. [26]

    M., Eldridge J

    Briel M. M., Eldridge J. J., Stanway E. R., Stevance H. F., Chrimes A. A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.1315B 514, 1315

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1100 2022

  26. [27]

    Bufano F., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu065 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439.1807B 439, 1807

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu065 2014

  27. [28]

    Burrows A., Radice D., Vartanyan D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.3153B 485, 3153

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz543 2019

  28. [29]

    Burrows A., Wang T., Vartanyan D., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/addd04 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...987..164B 987, 164

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addd04 2025

  29. [30]

    Cano Z., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1048 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434.1098C 434, 1098

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1048 2013

  30. [31]

    Cappellaro E., Evans R., Turatto M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9904225 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...351..459C 351, 459

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9904225 1999

  31. [32]

    I., Abbott D

    Castor J. I., Abbott D. C., Klein R. I., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1086/153315 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975ApJ...195..157C 195, 157

    doi:10.1086/153315 1975

  32. [33]

    Chan C., M \"u ller B., Heger A., Pakmor R., Springel V., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa28c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...852L..19C 852, L19

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaa28c 2018

  33. [34]

    Chan C., M \"u ller B., Heger A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1431 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.3751C 495, 3751

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1431 2020

  34. [35]

    J., Goldberg J

    Cheng S. J., Goldberg J. A., Cantiello M., Bauer E. B., Renzo M., Conroy C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad701e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...974..270C 974, 270

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad701e 2024

  35. [36]

    D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..102C 823, 102

    Choi J., Dotter A., Conroy C., Cantiello M., Paxton B., Johnson B. D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..102C 823, 102

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  36. [37]

    De Donder E., Vanbeveren D., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...333..557D 333, 557

    1998

  37. [38]

    arXiv:2410.14778

    De K., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.14778 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241014778D p. arXiv:2410.14778

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.14778 2024

  38. [39]

    Decin L., Richards A. M. S., Marchant P., Sana H., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244635 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...681A..17D 681, A17

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244635 2024

  39. [41]

    Dessart L., Yoon S.-C., Livne E., Waldman R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...612A..61D 612, A61

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732363 2018

  40. [42]

    R., Langer N., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038763 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...642A.106D 642, A106

    Dessart L., Yoon S.-C., Aguilera-Dena D. R., Langer N., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038763 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...642A.106D 642, A106

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038763 2020

  41. [43]

    Dewi J. D. M., Tauris T. M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0007034 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...360.1043D 360, 1043

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0007034 2000

  42. [44]

    A., Kewley L

    Dopita M. A., Kewley L. J., Sutherland R. S., Nicholls D. C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-016-2657-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Ap&SS.361...61D 361, 61

    doi:10.1007/s10509-016-2657-8 2016

  43. [45]

    R., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/97 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...741...97D 741, 97

    Drout M. R., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/97 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...741...97D 741, 97

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/741/2/97 2011

  44. [46]

    R., G \"o tberg Y., Ludwig B

    Drout M. R., G \"o tberg Y., Ludwig B. A., Groh J. H., de Mink S. E., O'Grady A. J. G., Smith N., 2023, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.ade4970 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Sci...382.1287D 382, 1287

    doi:10.1126/science.ade4970 2023

  45. [47]

    E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad284e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964...56D 964, 56

    DuPont M., MacFadyen A., de Mink S. E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad284e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964...56D 964, 56

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad284e 2024

  46. [48]

    R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526192 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...580A..93D 580, A93

    Dunstall P. R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526192 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...580A..93D 580, A93

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526192 2015

  47. [49]

    o hlich C., Hempel M., Perego A., Liebend \

    Ebinger K., Curtis S., Fr \"o hlich C., Hempel M., Perego A., Liebend \"o rfer M., Thielemann F.-K., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae7c9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...870....1E 870, 1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae7c9 2019

  48. [50]

    J., Stanway E

    Eldridge J. J., Stanway E. R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1772 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.3302E 462, 3302

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1772 2016

  49. [51]

    J., Fraser M., Smartt S

    Eldridge J. J., Fraser M., Smartt S. J., Maund J. R., Crockett R. M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1612 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436..774E 436, 774

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1612 2013

  50. [52]

    J., Fraser M., Maund J

    Eldridge J. J., Fraser M., Maund J. R., Smartt S. J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2197 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.2689E 446, 2689

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2197 2015

  51. [53]

    J., Stanway E

    Eldridge J. J., Stanway E. R., Xiao L., McClelland L. A. S., Taylor G., Ng M., Greis S. M. L., Bray J. C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2017.51 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASA...34...58E 34, e058

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.51 2017

  52. [54]

    Ercolino A., Jin H., Langer N., Dessart L., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347646 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...685A..58E 685, A58

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347646 2024

  53. [55]

    T., Woosley S

    Ertl T., Janka H. T., Woosley S. E., Sukhbold T., Ugliano M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818..124E 818, 124

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/2/124 2016

  54. [56]

    E., Sukhbold T., Janka H

    Ertl T., Woosley S. E., Sukhbold T., Janka H. T., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6458 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...890...51E 890, 51

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6458 2020

  55. [57]

    V., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.309 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ARA&A..35..309F 35, 309

    Filippenko A. V., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.309 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ARA&A..35..309F 35, 309

    doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.309 1997

  56. [58]

    Folatelli G., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/793/2/L22 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...793L..22F 793, L22

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/793/2/l22 2014

  57. [59]

    C., Kuncarayakti H., Benvenuto O

    Folatelli G., Bersten M. C., Kuncarayakti H., Benvenuto O. G., Maeda K., Nomoto K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/147 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...811..147F 811, 147

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/811/2/147 2015

  58. [60]

    Folatelli G., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/825/2/L22 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...825L..22F 825, L22

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/825/2/l22 2016

  59. [61]

    J., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Meynet G., Kalogera V., Taam R

    Fragos T., Andrews J. J., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Meynet G., Kalogera V., Taam R. E., Zezas A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab40d1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...883L..45F 883, L45

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab40d1 2019

  60. [62]

    Fragos T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac90c1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..264...45F 264, 45

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac90c1 2023

  61. [63]

    Fremling C., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423884 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...565A.114F 565, A114

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423884 2014

  62. [64]

    Fremling C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab218f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...878L...5F 878, L5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab218f 2019

  63. [65]

    L., Belczynski K., Wiktorowicz G., Dominik M., Kalogera V., Holz D

    Fryer C. L., Belczynski K., Wiktorowicz G., Dominik M., Kalogera V., Holz D. E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/91 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...749...91F 749, 91

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/1/91 2012

  64. [66]

    Gal-Yam A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-021-04155-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.601..201G 601, 201

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04155-1 2022

  65. [67]

    Galbany L., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424717 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...572A..38G 572, A38

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424717 2014

  66. [69]

    Galbany L., et al., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201528045 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...591A..48G 591, A48

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201528045

  67. [70]

    R., Kochanek C

    Gerke J. R., Kochanek C. S., Stanek K. Z., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv776 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.3289G 450, 3289

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv776 2015

  68. [71]

    Giacobbo N., Mapelli M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2848 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.2234G 482, 2234

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2848 2019

  69. [72]

    Gilkis A., Arcavi I., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac088 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511..691G 511, 691

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac088 2022

  70. [73]

    Gilkis A., Soker N., Papish O., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...826..178G 826, 178

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/826/2/178 2016

  71. [74]

    S., Eldridge J

    Gilkis A., Vink J. S., Eldridge J. J., Tout C. A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.4451G 486, 4451

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1134 2019

  72. [75]

    Gilkis A., Laplace E., Arcavi I., Shenar T., Schneider F. R. N., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf884 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.540.3094G 540, 3094

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf884 2025

  73. [76]

    R., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1268 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434.3497G 434, 3497

    Glebbeek E., Gaburov E., Portegies Zwart S., Pols O. R., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1268 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434.3497G 434, 3497

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1268 2013

  74. [77]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2708 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465..403G 465, 403

    Goldman S. R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2708 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465..403G 465, 403

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2708 2017

  75. [78]

    E., Groh J

    G \"o tberg Y., de Mink S. E., Groh J. H., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...608A..11G 608, A11

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730472 2017

  76. [79]

    G \"o tberg Y., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace5a3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959..125G 959, 125

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace5a3 2023

  77. [80]

    B., Huang S., Modjaz M., Shivvers I., Filippenko A

    Graur O., Bianco F. B., Huang S., Modjaz M., Shivvers I., Filippenko A. V., Li W., Eldridge J. J., 2017a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5eb8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837..120G 837, 120

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5eb8

  78. [81]

    B., Modjaz M., Shivvers I., Filippenko A

    Graur O., Bianco F. B., Modjaz M., Shivvers I., Filippenko A. V., Li W., Smith N., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5eb7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837..121G 837, 121

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5eb7

  79. [82]

    Groenewegen M. A. T., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118287 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...540A..32G 540, A32

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118287 2012

  80. [83]

    A., Taubenberger S., Hillebrandt W., Nomoto K., Sauer D

    Hachinger S., Mazzali P. A., Taubenberger S., Hillebrandt W., Nomoto K., Sauer D. N., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20464.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.422...70H 422, 70

    arXiv 2012

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.